RC Shear Wall Behaviour Modelling Considering Shear-Moment Interactions

MODELLING RC WALL
BEHAVIOUR CONSIDERING
MOMENT-SHEAR INTERACTION
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements
for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering
by
Andrs Abarca Jimnez
Supervisors:
Prof. Timothy Sullivan
Dr. David Ruggiero
February, 2016
Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia
The dissertation entitled Modelling RC Wall Behaviour Considering Moment-Shear

Interaction, by Andrs Abarca Jimnez, has been approved in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.
Prof. Timothy Sullivan
Dr. David Ruggiero
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Concrete shear walls are widely used as the main structural system to provide seismic resistance in
buildings of all height ranges. Within this context, for years there have been several research efforts and
experimental campaigns in order to characterize the mechanical behaviour of shear walls under in plane
lateral loads. As a result of these efforts, several analysis tools and design methods have been developed
to provide practicing engineers with a basis for the dimensioning and detailing of this type of structural
element.
In the case of shear walls with low aspect ratios, the behaviour is complex and is not easily determined
by the usual elastic mechanics body of knowledge. In this case, there is a great variation of the stress
and deformation fields across the section and height of the elements, and interactions between flexure,
axial and shear components become more important. Therefore, current analysis tools are overly
complex and design methods usually rely on empirical solutions with great limitations on their
applicability.
The following report provides a summary of key aspects in the behaviour of these types of elements,
demonstrated in experimental testing, and attempts to provide a simplified solution to model the
behaviour of low aspect shear walls considering flexural and shear interactions by the use of: curvature
analysis, strain penetration, tension shift and a simplified version of compression field theory.
In order to validate the proposed method, 32 shear walls with different aspect, axial load and
reinforcement ratios are modelled and their predicted behaviour is evaluated with experimental results
obtained from a public database from the University of Patras. Overall the method provides a good fit
with the observed backbone curves of the analysed tests and a very good prediction of the walls strength
and displacement capacity.
Furthermore, a Displacement Based Methodology is implemented for a low aspect ratio wall, and
evaluated with time history analysis of 10 ground motions using the VecTor2 software, in order to
determine if the current body of knowledge developed for the design and assessment of concrete walls
provides adequate performance predictions. In general, the results indicate that the application of the
existing Displacement Based methodology did not prove to be very effective to predict the behaviour of
Abstract
structural systems based on low aspect ratio shear walls, but several factors were identified that should
be addressed in further investigations to better evaluate the methodology.
Keywords: concrete wall; moment-shear interaction; compression field theory; tension shift; strain
penetration; displacement based design, displacement reduction factor.
ii
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank my thesis supervisors Tim Sullivan and David Ruggiero for all their guidance and great input
during the development of the current thesis, as well as professors: Cino Viaggiani, Michael P. Collins,
Andr Filiatrault and Richard E. Klingner for restoring my passion for Structural Engineering during
the course of the Master Program.
All this experience wouldnt have been as rewarding without the help and support from all my amazing
friends who I met during the course of this 18 months. Special thanks to all of you all over the world.
iii
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. x
LIST OF SYMBOLS ............................................................................................................................ xii
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Modelling Limitations for Low Aspect Ratio Shear Walls ....................................................... 1
1.2 Observed Behaviour of Low Aspect Ratio Shear Walls ............................................................ 4
1.3 Existing tools for Low Aspect Ratio Walls Analysis and Design ............................................. 6
1.4 Objectives and Scope ................................................................................................................. 9
1.4.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 9
1.4.2 Scope ................................................................................................................................ 9
2 PROPOSED MODELLING METHOD ............................................................................................ 1
2.1 Displacement Components ........................................................................................................ 1
2.1.1 Section curvature due to flexure ...................................................................................... 1
2.1.2 Base rotation due to strain penetration ............................................................................. 3
2.1.3 Shear deformations .......................................................................................................... 5
2.1.4 Tension shift effect .......................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Tools to account for displacement components ......................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Section curvature due to flexure ...................................................................................... 9
2.2.2 Base rotation due to strain penetration ........................................................................... 10
2.2.3 Shear deformations ........................................................................................................ 11
2.2.4 Tension shift effect ........................................................................................................ 17
iv
Index
2.3 Modelling Summary ................................................................................................................ 21

3 EVALUATION WITH EXISTING DATABASE .......................................................................... 23
3.1 Selected Tests........................................................................................................................... 23
3.1.1 Dazio, Beyer and Bachman (2009) ................................................................................ 24
3.1.2 Oesterle et al (1976) ....................................................................................................... 25
3.1.3 Thomsen and Wallace (1995) ........................................................................................ 26
3.1.4 Deng, Liang and Yang (2008)........................................................................................ 27
3.1.5 Ghorbani-Renani et al (2009) ........................................................................................ 28
3.1.6 Tran and Wallace (2012) ............................................................................................... 29
3.1.7 Salonikioset al (1999) .................................................................................................... 30
3.1.8 Lefas, Kotsovos and Ambraseys (1990) ........................................................................ 32
3.2 Evaluation of Results ............................................................................................................... 34
3.2.1 Dazio, Beyer and Bachman (2009) ................................................................................ 34
3.2.2 Oesterle et al (1976) ....................................................................................................... 36
3.2.3 Thomsen and Wallace (1995) ........................................................................................ 37
3.2.4 Deng, Liang and Yang (2008)........................................................................................ 38
3.2.5 Ghorbani-Renani et al (2009) ........................................................................................ 39
3.2.6 Tran and Wallace (2012) ............................................................................................... 39
3.2.7 Salonikios et al (1999) ................................................................................................... 40
3.2.8 Lefas, Kotsovos and Ambraseys (1990) ........................................................................ 43
3.3 Result Summary ....................................................................................................................... 50
4 IMPLEMENTATION OF DISPLACEMENT BASED METHODOLOGY .................................. 54
4.1 Evaluation Procedure ............................................................................................................... 54
4.2 Description of Test Structure and Earthquake Records ........................................................... 57
4.2.1 Test Structure Configuration .......................................................................................... 57
4.2.2 Selected Ground Motions .............................................................................................. 60
4.3 Results ...................................................................................................................................... 62
5 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 66
5.1 Low Aspect Ratio Shear Wall Behaviour ................................................................................ 66
5.2 Proposed Method for Low Aspect Ratio Wall Evaluation....................................................... 66
5.3 Displacement-Based Evaluation of Low Aspect Ratio Walls.................................................. 67
6 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 69
7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 70
APPENDIX A: VecTor2 Model Definitions ....................................................................................... A1
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1.Disturbed regions in a) slender walls, and b) low aspect ratio walls ........................2
Figure 1.2.Examples of strut and tie models for strength design of a) corbel element in
column, and b) low aspect ratio walls .................................................................................2
Figure 1.3.Components of deformation in a shear wall element ................................................3
Figure 1.4.a) Diagonal tension failure in shear wall, b) inclusion of horizontal reinforcement
to avoid failure ....................................................................................................................4
Figure 1.5.Diagonal compression failure of shear wall ..............................................................5
Figure 1.6.Shear sliding failure of shear wall .............................................................................5
Figure 1.7.Combined flexural-shear failure mechanism of shear wall .......................................6
Figure 1.8.Finite element modelling of test shear wall using VecTor2 software .......................7
Figure 1.9.Empirical backbone curve properties as described by the ASCE 41-06 ...................8
Figure 2.1.a) Undeformed beam segment and b) effects of pure moment on segment ..............2
Figure 2.2.Calculation of curvature profile using equilibrium and section analysis ..................3
Figure 2.3.Strain penetration of rigid wall element on deformable foundation..........................4
Figure 2.4.Idealization of strain penetration as a base rotation for displacement calculation ....5
Figure 2.5.Summary of MCFT formulation for calculation of shear resistance and
deformation
(Bentz et al 2006) ................................................................................6
Figure 2.6.Example of shear deformations due to increased vertical strain under constant
shear ....................................................................................................................................7
Figure 2.7.Tension shift effect on shear wall ..............................................................................8
Figure 2.8.Effect of tension shift on curvature analysis of shear walls ......................................8
Figure 2.9.Curvature simplification for calculation of flexural displacements ........................10
Figure 2.10.Calculation of displacement due to strain penetration rotation at the base ...........11
vi
Index
Figure 2.11.Simplified shear stress-strain relationship .............................................................12

Figure 2.12.Schematic variation of shear stress-strain relationship with increasing longitudinal
strain ..................................................................................................................................14
Figure 2.13.Schematic procedure for calculation of shear strain at a point, using simplified
MCFT................................................................................................................................15
Figure 2.14.Schematic procedure for calculation of shear displacement .................................16
Figure 2.15.Schematic application of shear displacement procedure for two levels of lateral
load ....................................................................................................................................17
Figure 2.16.Modification of curvature diagram mentioned by Park and Paulay, 1974 ............18
Figure 2.17.Evaluation of tension shift occurrence for two load cases ....................................19
Figure 2.18.Effect of tension shift on curvature analysis .........................................................20
Figure 3.1.a) Schematic test setup and, b) general cross section properties .............................24
Figure 3.2. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen WSH3
...........................................................................................................................................34
...........................................................................................................................................34
...........................................................................................................................................35
...........................................................................................................................................35
Figure 3.6. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen R1 .....36
Figure 3.7. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen R2 .....36
Figure 3.8. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen RW1 .37
Figure 3.9. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen RW2 .37
Figure 3.10. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen
HPCW01 ...........................................................................................................................38
Figure 3.11. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen
HPCW02 ...........................................................................................................................38
Figure 3.12. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen A2C 39
Figure 3.13. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen RWA20-P10-S63.....................................................................................................................39
Figure 3.14. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen RWA15-P10-S78.....................................................................................................................40
vii
Index
Figure 3.15. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen LSW1
...........................................................................................................................................40
...........................................................................................................................................41
...........................................................................................................................................41
Figure 3.18. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen MSW1
...........................................................................................................................................42
...........................................................................................................................................42
...........................................................................................................................................43
Figure 3.21. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW11
...........................................................................................................................................43
...........................................................................................................................................44
...........................................................................................................................................44
...........................................................................................................................................45
...........................................................................................................................................45
...........................................................................................................................................46
...........................................................................................................................................46
...........................................................................................................................................47
...........................................................................................................................................47
...........................................................................................................................................48
viii
Index
...........................................................................................................................................48
...........................................................................................................................................49
...........................................................................................................................................49
Figure 4.1. Schematic representation of the Displacement Reduction Factor proposed by
Penucci et al (2011) ..........................................................................................................55
Figure 4.2. Schematic representation of the structures bilinear backbone behaviour and
effective properties at the target displacement..................................................................55
Figure 4.3. Schematic representation of the scaling procedure to perform in each earthquake
record to be used for time history analyses .......................................................................56
Figure 4.4. Properties defined for the test system based on WSH6, dimensions in mm. .........57
Figure 4.5. a) Finite element model of test system using VecTor2, b) Comparison of backbone
behaviour predictions using proposed methodology and FEM ........................................58
Figure 4.6. Schematic representation of key values obtained from the bilinear approximation
of the predicted backbone curve. ......................................................................................59
Figure 4.7. Earthquake records selected to perform time history analyses ..............................60
Figure 4.8. Displacement spectra for each scaled earthquake record .......................................62
Figure 4.9. Relative displacement at the top of the test system during time history analysis for
each earthquake record .....................................................................................................63
Figure 4.9. Maximum displacement at the top of the test system for each ground motion ......64
Figure A.1. Material definition in the VecTor2 Model ........................................................... A2
Figure A.2. Material model settings for VecTor2 Model ........................................................ A3
Figure A.3. Auxiliary model settings for VecTor2 Model ...................................................... A3
ix
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3.1. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Dazio, Beyer and Bachman
(2009) ................................................................................................................................24
Table 3.2. Material properties of walls from Dazio, Beyer and Bachman (2009) ....................25
Table 3.3. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Dazio, Beyer and Bachman (2009).................25
Table 3.4. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Oesterle et al (1976) ...........26
Table 3.5. Material properties of walls from Oesterle et al (1976)...........................................26
Table 3.6. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Oesterle et al (1976) .......................................26
Table 3.7. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Thomsen and Wallace (1995)
...........................................................................................................................................27
Table 3.8. Material properties of walls from Thomsen and Wallace (1995) ............................27
Table 3.9. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Thomsen and Wallace (1995) .........................27
Table 3.10. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Deng, Liang and Yang
(2008) ................................................................................................................................28
Table 3.11. Material properties of walls from Deng, Liang and Yang (2008) .........................28
Table 3.12. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Deng, Liang and Yang (2008) ......................28
Table 3.13. Geometric properties and axial loading of wall from Ghorbani-Renani et al (2009)
...........................................................................................................................................28
Table 3.14. Material properties of wall from Ghorbani-Renani et al (2009) ............................29
Table 3.15. Reinforcement ratios of wall from Ghorbani-Renani et al (2009).........................29
Table 3.16. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Tran and Wallace (2012) .29
Table 3.17. Material properties of walls from Tran and Wallace (2012) .................................30
Table 3.18. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Tran and Wallace (2012) ..............................30
Table 3.19. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Salonikios et al (1999) .....30
x
Index
Table 3.20. Material properties of walls from Salonikios et al (1999) .....................................31

Table 3.21. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Salonikios et al (1999) ..................................31
Table 3.22. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Lefas, Kotsovos and
Ambraseys (1990) .............................................................................................................32
Table 3.23. Material properties of walls from Lefas, Kotsovos and Ambraseys (1990) ..........33
Table 3.24. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Lefas, Kotsovos and Ambraseys (1990) .......33
Table 3.25. Summary of evaluation of resistance predictions with experimental results.........51
Table 3.26. Summary of evaluation of ultimate displacement predictions with experimental
results ................................................................................................................................52
Table 3.27. Summary of statistical parameters determined from the results ............................53
Table 4.1. Summary of key parameters for each earthquake record ........................................61
Table 4.2. Maximum displacement and scale factors calculated ..............................................61
Table 4.3. Maximum displacement at the top of the test system for each ground motion .......64
Table A.1. Concrete properties of VecTor2 Model ................................................................. A2
Table A.2. Smeared reinforcement properties of concrete ...................................................... A2
Table A.3. Linear reinforcement properties ............................................................................. A3
xi
Index
LIST OF SYMBOLS
= Curvature
= Longitudinal strain
= Strain in the centre of the longitudinal (vertical) axis of a wall

= Shear strain
= Displacement
fc
= Concrete compressive strength
fcr
v
= Concrete cracking stress

= Shear stress
sp
= Base rotation angle due to strain penetration
sh
= Strut angle in shear actions
lsh
= Length of wall affected by shear deformations

= Centroid distance
he
= Elastic length
fy
= Yield strength of steel
fu
= Ultimate strength of steel

= Reinforcement ratio
sxe
= Effective crack spacing
lw
bw
= Horizontal length of a wall

= Thickness of a wall
xavg
ln
COV
= Average of a statistical sample

= Standard deviation of lognormal distribution of a statistical sample
= Coefficient of variation of a statistical sample
xii
Chapter 1. Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
The use of shear walls with low aspect ratios is very common within low rise buildings, yet
there is not a wealth of information regarding how to properly determine the structural
behaviour of these elements in terms of displacement capacity and expected performance.
Reinforced concrete walls with slender aspect ratios are usually well characterized by the use
of conventional beam theory approaches, given that for the most part, the structural actions take
place in undisturbed regions, and current design approaches ensure that the elements have an
adequate reinforcement distribution which suppress brittle shear failure; the overall behaviour
is therefore controlled by flexure, and shear deformations can usually be neglected.
In the case of low aspect ratio walls, most of the structural actions occur within a disturbed
deformation field for which beam theory does not apply, and the shear deformation components
become considerable and therefore should be accounted for.
The following chapter focuses on the known limitations for quantifying and predicting the
behaviour of low aspect ratio shear walls, as well as the observed failure modes presented in
experimental testing and the current available tools for analysis and design of these type of
elements.
1.1
Modelling Limitations for Low Aspect Ratio Shear Walls
Conventional analysis of structural elements is based on the assumptions of classic beam theory
in which the sections of the elements are expected to remain plane during all stages of
deformation. This assumption is normally considered as accurate in regions which are
undisturbed by either supports or load application, and therefore is mostly applicable to slender
elements in which most of the structural actions take place out of these areas. The definition of
disturbed and undisturbed areas is exemplified in Figure 1.1.
(a)
(b)
Figure 1.1.Disturbed regions in a) slender walls, and b) low aspect ratio walls
Given that disturbed areas form part of all structural elements, in normal engineering practice,
these regions are only accounted for in terms of strength by the use of lower bound solutions
like strut and tie models as shown in Figure 1.2, which provide a conservative estimate of a
fields resistance and are typically designed to remain elastic throughout the expected load
cycles.
(a)
(b)
Figure 1.2.Examples of strut and tie models for strength design of a) corbel element in column, and b) low
aspect ratio walls
In the case of low aspect ratio walls, most (if not all) of the element section is within a disturbed
region, and since for earthquake design it is sometimes required that elements dissipate energy
by developing nonlinear behaviour, the calculation of conservative estimates of resistance is
not sufficient, as further information about the ultimate displacements and energy dissipation
capabilities is often required.
In addition to these deformation considerations, it is a commonly known fact that flexure and
shear mechanisms occur simultaneously in most structural members since actually, the presence
of shear is an equilibrium requirement when moments along an element are not constant.
Nonetheless, both mechanisms are usually studied separately and, given that for typical slender
elements the shear component is very small in comparison with the effects of flexure, the
contradictions that occur between shear distortion and the plane sections assumption are always
neglected.
It is logical to expect that for a low aspect ratio element, since the often neglected shear
component has a greater impact on the behaviour, there exists a strong interaction between both
mechanisms which make it impossible to accurately predict the members behaviour without
accounting for both components simultaneously, as shown in Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.3.Components of deformation in a shear wall element
1.2 Observed Behaviour of Low Aspect Ratio Shear Walls
The overall behaviour of low aspect ratio walls has been studied experimentally on several
occasions and four main failure modes have been identified as responsible for the loss of
capacity: diagonal tension, diagonal compression, shear sliding and flexural-shear.
Diagonal tension failure occurs when not enough horizontal reinforcement is provided in the
web and the forces applied at the top of the wall generate a corner-to-corner crack which severs
the load path to the base and causes a complete loss of resistance and stiffness. This type of
failure, shown schematically in Figure 1.4, is easily avoided by the use of horizontal
reinforcement which provides more resistance in tension than that which would be developed
by the wall yielding in flexure. Currently the minimum requirements of reinforcement ratios
for concrete walls included in design codes are sufficient to prevent this brittle failure for
earthquake resisting structures.
(a)
(b)
Figure 1.4.a) Diagonal tension failure in shear wall, b) inclusion of horizontal reinforcement to avoid
failure
Diagonal compression failure occurs when a combination of large amounts of vertical and
horizontal reinforcement have been provided with insufficient concrete strength or
confinement. In this case the horizontal reinforcement avoids the diagonal tension failure, but
high amounts of vertical steel generate a high shear demand to be resisted by the section before
yielding can develop and the diagonal compression struts required for equilibrium can crush
causing failure of the system as shown schematically in Figure 1.5.
This failure can occur as indicated above, before the yielding of the vertical steel in flexure,
which results in an undesirable brittle failure, or it can occur after a few loading cycles in which
the development of several diagonal cracks in both directions cause the concrete to soften and
fail at a lower resistance than specified by cylinder testing.
Figure 1.5.Diagonal compression failure of shear wall
A shear sliding failure occurs when an adequately reinforced wall is imposed to several cycles
of loading in both directions which causes the horizontal cracks generated by flexural yielding
at the base to propagate through the overall section, causing the vertical steel to yield in dowel
action, concentrating all the displacement in this sliding plane as shown in Figure 1.6.
Figure 1.6.Shear sliding failure of shear wall
Shear sliding failures are known for reducing the potential wall resistance and stiffness,
therefore reducing the energy dissipation capability of the system. Because of this, diagonal
reinforcement is usually recommended when this mode is to be controlled. However, since
shear sliding does not affect the walls capacity to sustain axial loading, it can be seen as a
benign failure mode which will act as an isolation mechanism for the wall under seismic
loading.
When a shear wall fails after the yielding of the vertical reinforcement in flexure, avoiding the
previously discussed failure modes, it can present a combined failure mode composed of
flexural and shear actions. In this case the behaviour previous to failure is governed by flexural
action, generating flexure cracking patterns, which extend into shear cracks as shown in Figure
1.7. Further straining in the section reduces the shear resistance of the wall below the resistance
required to maintain the flexural yielding and the failure is then caused by a shear mechanism.
Figure 1.7.Combined flexural-shear failure mechanism of shear wall
In the case of adequately reinforced low aspect ratio walls, this mixed failure mechanism is the
most common and typically allows for some energy dissipation through the flexural yielding
action before the shear failure occurs.
1.3 Existing tools for Low Aspect Ratio Walls Analysis and Design
In terms of analysis, several options are available which can accurately model even the cyclic
behaviour of low aspect ratio walls, most of them in the form of complex nonlinear finite
element models, like the VecTor2 software (Vecchio 1989, and Vecchio 1990) shown in Figure
1.8.
In these cases the disturbed zones are not a problem since the FEM formulation is independent
of plane sections assumptions, and the deformation compatibility is enforced at the element
nodes. The complexity in the material behaviour and the interactions between flexure and shear
can be incorporated in the constitutive relationships and several studies have validated their
results experimentally.
Figure 1.8.Finite element modelling of test shear wall using VecTor2 software
The problem with these solutions is the great human and computational effort that is required
to properly input the model properties, calculation time and processing of results. This limits
the use of these programs only for special cases or academic purposes, making their use in
common engineering practice unfeasible.
In terms of design, most codes of practice include provisions for determining the resistance of
these elements including walls with low aspect ratios. For example the ACI 318-11 code
includes provisions for structures in both non-seismic and seismic zones, and provides the
following aspects:
Diagonal tension failures are avoided by requesting a minimum shear reinforcement of

0.25% of the wall gross section
Diagonal compression failures are prevented by limiting the maximum shear stress in
the section to 0.66 fc
Horizontal reinforcement is calculated assuming a modified truss analogy with diagonal

elements at 45 degrees, which results in a very simple equation.
Concrete contribution is included with the use of an empirical coefficient c which

varies depending on the walls aspect ratio with values from 0.17 to 0.25, favouring low
aspect ratio walls with higher resistance contributions.
Shear reinforcement yielding values to use for calculations are limited to 420 MPa.
As expected, this type of simplified approach including empirical solutions is used in multiple
codes and other available literature. It is attractive in its simplicity, but provides results which
have little physical significance and no information regarding the walls stiffness is considered,
as well as displacement capacity and expected ductility under ultimate load states.
When displacements are to be considered, other tools are available in the form of empirical
backbone curve calculations like the one proposed in the ASCE 41-06, shown in Figure 1.9. In
this case, a standard backbone shape is defined and rules are stated for calculating each of the
points in the curve. The initial stiffness is determined by using recommendations of percentages
of the gross section (50% of the gross inertia for flexural and 40% of the area for shear in the
case of cracked walls), the resistance values for points B and C are taken as the same and
calculated as the walls capacity using for example the ACI empirical equations, the residual
resistance is recommended as a 10% of the ultimate capacity, and each of the drifts are fixed to
values of 0.75% at C and 2.0% at E.
Figure 1.9.Empirical backbone curve properties as described by the ASCE 41-06
As can be seen, the existing tools for the analysis and design of low aspect ratio walls are either
very complex and time consuming finite element formulations, or overly simplistic empirical
definitions and equations with limited applicability.
1.4
Objectives and Scope
1.4.1
Objectives
Study the behaviour of shear walls with low aspect ratio under lateral in plane load and
determine the current available tools for their analysis and design.
Determine a methodology for calculating wall strength and displacement capacities for
use in displacement-based design/assessment procedures.
Evaluate the proposed methodology with available experimental testing results to

determine its reliability and result scatter.
Evaluate the use of existing displacement-based formulations for low aspect ratio shear
walls comparing predictions with time-history record results.
1.4.2
Scope
Since slender shear walls have already been approached by several studies, the current
study is limited to shear walls with aspect ratio under 3.0.
In this initial stage of study, the evaluation is limited to walls with conventional
properties; that is, concrete strengths between 20 MPa and 75 MPa, only orthogonal
rebar reinforcement, and no previous retrofitting or loading histories.
The experimental validation is limited to the existing public databases; no additional

experimental testing is considered.
This study focuses on the performance of walls where enough minimum reinforcement
is provided in order to allow the overall wall behaviour to be controlled by flexural
modes; any undesired failure modes like diagonal tension are discussed but not
considered.
Chapter 2. Proposed Modelling Method
2 PROPOSED MODELLING METHOD

Considering the behaviour presented by shear walls with low aspect ratio, a simple method will
be proposed to model the entire force-displacement backbone curve. This will be achieved by
dividing the displacement into several components, and using both simple theorems and recent
shear-flexure interaction considerations to account for each of the displacement contributions
through all loading stages until failure.
2.1
Displacement Components
In order to produce a predictive model to assess the full force-displacement curve of a wall, the
displacement is divided in to several components which have been studied in the past, and are
known to take place simultaneously in the structural element.
Each one of these components is considered as required in order to correctly model the full
displacement behaviour, and they will be explained in detail:
Section curvature due to flexure
Base rotation due to strain penetration
Shear deformations
Tension shift effect
2.1.1 Section curvature due to flexure

The most classical deformation component is the one from the effects of flexure in a beam,
which considers the deformation of the sections taking place along a span assuming that plane
sections remain plane.
In this case, for every section within the span, the corresponding curvature is determined
considering the effect of bending around a neutral axis as shown in Figure 2.1. The properties
of the section are processed to determine the change in curvature for different magnitudes of
moment, leading to the calculation of a full moment curvature curve.
1
(a)
(b)
Figure 2.1.a) Undeformed beam segment and b) effects of pure moment on segment
Since in the case of a shear wall, the theoretical moment diagram varies along the height of a
beam, the section will have different values of curvature, going from a maximum value at the
base to zero curvature at the top of the wall where the moment is null. Additionally, the inelastic
behaviour of reinforced concrete elements causes a non-linear distribution of curvatures along
the height which can be determined using the full moment curvature information from the
section analysis as shown in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2.Calculation of curvature profile using equilibrium and section analysis
If the entire curvature distribution profile is determined along the full height of the wall, each
of the differential deformations can be accounted for in order to calculate the displacement of
the structural element along a span due to flexure actions.
Special care must be taken with this displacement component since it is based around the
assumption of plane sections remaining plane, which is strictly used within undisturbed regions
of the structural element, and therefore its application to low aspect ratio shear walls is
debatable. As will be discussed in following sections of this report, several factors affecting this
assumption will be accounted for, and the proposed modelling will be evaluated with
experimental data to assure its applicability.
2.1.2 Base rotation due to strain penetration

Not all of the total displacement in a shear wall element occurs within the actual element. Given
that the wall is mounted on a foundation which is also deformable, additional straining takes
place that comes from the development of the vertical reinforcement inside the base from the
tension side, and the compression strains of the concrete which also dissipate gradually in the
foundation and not immediately at the wall-base interface.
This effect can be understood easily by considering the theoretically rigid wall element shown
in Figure 2.3, which is mounted on a deformable base into which its vertical reinforcement is
embedded. From the tension side, the reinforcement will exhibit a partial pullout of the bars at
the base, which can be calculated if the bars strain profile is known below the base. From the
compression side the concrete of the foundation will deform in much less magnitude than the
extension of the bars from the tension side and can be considered negligible.
Figure 2.3.Strain penetration of rigid wall element on deformable foundation
This phenomena is known as strain penetration, and in terms of displacement it can be

represented by a rigid body rotation which occurs at the wall base, and therefore, considering
small displacements, once the rotation angle has been estimated, the displacement at the top of
the wall is determined by a very simple calculation as shown in Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4.Idealization of strain penetration as a base rotation for displacement calculation
2.1.3 Shear deformations

Since in the usual case of slender elements, the shear deformation components account for a
very small percentage of the total displacement, they are only seldom considered and not a great
amount of research has been made in terms of the displacements generated by shear stresses in
concrete elements. In the case of elements with relatively low aspect ratios, experimental
studies conducted by Beyer et al (2008) have determined the shear component to be accountable
for up to 80% of the total displacement, and therefore this effect must be considered in this
present study.
In terms of shear strength and deformations in reinforced concrete, one of the leading theories
for modelling its effects is the Modified Compression Field Theory (Vecchio and Collins 1986),
in which reinforced concrete is treated as a new uniform material with smeared reinforcement;
equilibrium and compatibility are formulated in terms of average stress and strain components,
and the stress-strain relationships of concrete vary, becoming softer and weaker as the principal
tensile strains increase. The governing equations of this theory are summarized in Figure 2.5.
As expected, even though the formulation is based on simple concepts of equilibrium and
compatibility, the complexity of the changing stress-strain relationships causes the MCFT to
5
require complicated calculations, some of which involve iterative procedures which are not
straight forward.
Figure 2.5.Summary of MCFT formulation for calculation of shear resistance and deformation
(Bentz et al 2006)
In general terms, the MCFT indicates that the overall shear deformation of a concrete panel
loaded with both axial and shear stresses will vary depending not only on the magnitude of the
shear, but also on the maximum principal tensile strain present in the element. In the case of an
element like a shear wall loaded at the top, even though the shear stress theoretically remains
constant along the whole height of the element, the varying moment will generate different
average vertical strains along the height and therefore the shear response will vary in terms of
resistance and deformability.
Therefore, it is expected that shear deformations will vary as the vertical strains along the height
of the wall, being larger closer to the base, and much smaller at the top, as shown in Figure 2.6.
Figure 2.6.Example of shear deformations due to increased vertical strain under constant shear
Again, special care must be taken with this component, since its development was made
considering that there is no effect of clamping forces, which occur in disturbed regions close to
the support restrictions. Additionally, a simplified version of MCFT will be used in the
following sections, which neglects some key aspects of the complete formulation, which will
induce a source of error in the calculations.
2.1.4 Tension shift effect

When a reinforced concrete element is subjected to both flexural and shear stresses, the
influence of the shear will induce a change in the cracking pattern, causing the flexural cracks
to incline from the horizontal plane and propagate crossing multiple sections of the element.
This crack generates a discontinuity in which, to maintain equilibrium, the tension required to
balance the compression in a section is shifted to another segment, further away from the actual
section being analysed.
This phenomena is known as tension shift, and it has been discussed in classic concrete
literature as early as 1974 (Park and Paulay, 1974). In this case, the phenomenon is considered
in terms of its effects on the overall resistance of the section and in the adequate procurement
of reinforcement curtailing, but little consideration is made in terms of its effects on the total
displacement of a structural element.
As can be seen on Figure 2.7, the tension required at section B-B to equilibrate the system is
coming from the effects of the moment at the base, and therefore plane sections remain plane
will not apply and the deformations in this segment between both sections cannot be calculated
by simple curvature analysis.
Figure 2.7.Tension shift effect on shear wall
In this case, the segment which is affected by tension shift can be idealized as a truss shown in
Figure 2.8, with the displacement controlled by the strain in the tension elements, which will
depend on the moment requirements of the base, and the total length of the segment being
defined by the angle of the compression strut. The sections above the affected segment will
continue to behave in normal flexure, with the curvature of each section determined by its
corresponding moment requirement.
Figure 2.8.Effect of tension shift on curvature analysis of shear walls
2.2
Tools to account for displacement components
In the current section, each of the displacement components which have been detailed
previously will be analysed, and a method will be determined to quantify each of their
contributions to the total displacement of a low aspect ratio shear wall.
2.2.1 Section curvature due to flexure

The deformations generated by flexure effects can be calculated using simple curvature analysis
and considering the kinematic restrictions imposed by the support conditions. Since the
curvature is defined as the rotation per unit length, the integration of the curvature diagram
along a section of the element will provide the change in rotation angle within that section.
=
(1)
Additionally, the generalized moment-area theorems indicate that the transverse deflection of a
point in a beam with respect to the tangent of another point is given by the integral of the
curvatures multiplied by the distance, which can also be simplified to the area of the curvature
diagram multiplied by the relative distance from the point where the distance is calculated to
the centroid of the area.
/ =

=
(2)
These theorems are valid even if inelastic curvatures are involved and therefore they can be
used to calculate the deflection of a cantilever beam or wall element, considering that the
tangential distance of the free end with respect to the fixed base of the element represents the
deflection due to flexural actions.
In the case of a shear wall, the moment-curvature diagram can be calculated considering the
section properties, and simplified into a bilinear approximation. Also, considering equilibrium,
the moment diagram can be known for any value of shear being applied at the top of the element,
and therefore a simplified bilinear curvature diagram can be determined and decomposed in
order to calculate the deflection at the top of the wall with a straightforward computation of
areas and centroids as shown in Figure 2-9.
From Figure 2-9, and using the concepts of moment-area theorem, the displacement at the top
of the wall can be determined as follows.
For
Mb My
=

(3)
9
For
My< Mb Mu
=

(4)
Figure 2.9.Curvature simplification for calculation of flexural displacements
2.2.2 Base rotation due to strain penetration
As mentioned in previous sections, the effect of the deformability of the foundation and the
anchorage of the vertical steel can be idealized as a rigid body rotation at the base of the wall
element. For this, a method for calculating this rotation must be defined in a way that an accurate
contribution of displacement can be allocated to strain penetration for any value of applied
shear.
In the context of the calculation of ultimate displacements of concrete elements, Priestley et al
2007, uses the definition of a strain penetration length in which the portion of the foundation
being affected is idealized as an extension of the wall element, over which the curvature may
be considered as constant and equal to the base curvature.
The following equation is indicated to calculate this penetration length, where fye is the yield
strength in MPa and dbl is the diameter of the longitudinal steel.
10
!"# = 0.022 '() *+
(5)
In this reference, this distance is used to increase the length of an idealized plastic hinge, used
mainly for the calculation of ultimate displacements, nevertheless the basis of the penetration
length can be used for load conditions other than ultimate given that it is dependant of the base
curvature which is directly related to the magnitude of the applied shear force.
As mentioned in the previous section, a curvature distribution is a change in rotation along a
length, and the value of total rotation can be found by integrating the curvatures in the required
length. Since the formulation assumes constant curvatures in the penetration length, the
idealized base rotation can be then calculated as the base curvature multiplied by the strain
penetration length, and the corresponding displacement at the top of the wall can be determined
as indicated in Figure 2-10.
Figure 2.10.Calculation of displacement due to strain penetration rotation at the base
2.2.3 Shear deformations
In terms of the accounting for shear deformations in shear walls, given the large variation of
stresses in every point of the element, the implementation of a full Modified Compression Field
Theory approach would involve a division of the wall in multiple segments, in both the vertical
and horizontal directions, and solving all 15 equations shown in Figure 2-5 for each individual
segment, and each load condition.
11
This full approach will not only result in a great computational effort, but also would result in
a finite element type solution, which has already been implemented by multiple programs,
providing adequate results, but at the expense of becoming unfeasible for regular use.
A simplified approach based on the MCFT has been preliminarily proposed by Professor Evan
Bentz of the University of Toronto, and implemented by Yuk Yeung 2008, in which a cut down
version of a shear-strain relationship based on the formulation used by the Canadian Standards
Association code is adopted.
In this approach, a multi-linear relationship of shear-strain is defined by calculating discretized
points in the curve, using the concepts of the MCFT for a range of reinforced concrete
properties. The shape of the relationship is shown in Figure 2.11, and the corresponding
equations for calculating each point are provided as follows.
Figure 2.11.Simplified shear stress-strain relationship
Strength Equations
,-. = '-. /1 1
,( =
23 4'-.
0.4
1300
9' : ;< '( cot29 700023

1 1500 23 1000 83) -
(6)
(7)
Strain Equations
12
C-. =
C( = 0.6 10 1.6 23 F
,-.
0.5 4-
800
H ;< 0.29 1 80 23
500 83)
CI = C(
C. = 2 C( J if t < CSA minimum transverse reinforcement
(8)
(9)
(10)
CI = 12.7 10 + 2 23 0.32 ;<

J if t > CSA minimum transverse reinforcement (11)
C. = CI
Where:
fcr = cracking strength of concrete in MPa
x= longitudinal strain at mid-depth of the element
Ec = uncracked modulus of concrete in MPa
t= amount of transverse reinforcement
fy = yield strength of transverse reinforcement
sxe = effective crack spacing, taken as 300mm if t > CSA minimum
Using these relationships, and assuming that all the wall mechanical properties and
reinforcement ratios are known, a very straightforward calculation of the shear strain for a point
can be performed for a specific state of shear stress and applied longitudinal strain.
It is important to note that the application of these equations implies that the shear stress-strain
relationships vary mainly depending on the longitudinal strain considered, providing an active
relation which reduces the shear resistance and stiffness of an element with respect to its strain
state which is in turn caused by the flexural component. This can be also visualized as if the
stress-strain properties of a concrete element are a surface, with decreasing values of resistance
and available deformability as the tensile strain increases as shown in Figure 2.12.
13
Figure 2.12.Schematic variation of shear stress-strain relationship with increasing longitudinal strain
For the case of a shear wall, the longitudinal strain can be easily determined at the centre of the
cross section for every point calculated in the moment-curvature diagram obtained from the
section analysis. Furthermore it is standard practice to assume a uniform shear stress
distribution in the sections of cracked concrete within the internal flexural lever arm of the
section. These concepts, in combination with equilibrium, can provide a pair of shear and
longitudinal strains that can be determined for any lateral load applied at the top of the element.
Once this stress-strain pair is obtained it can be used to calculate the strain deformation and
remaining resistance of the shear mechanism at any height in the wall, as shown schematically
in Figure 2.13.
14
Figure 2.13.Schematic procedure for calculation of shear strain at a point, using simplified MCFT
According to the experimental observations made by Beyer et al 2008, the shear deformations
in walls with moderate aspect ratios behave in a similar manner as the flexural deformations,
since they seem to increase rapidly and concentrate in the flexural plastic hinge region when
the section enters the non-linear range, making the contributions of the shear strains in the
elastic portion of the wall nearly negligible in comparison to the shear deformation provided
within the plastic hinge.
In the perspective of the shear behaviour described by the previous equations, this effect is
attributed to the rapid increase of longitudinal strains generated from the flexural yielding of
the section at the base, which causes a softening of the shear strain components. Furthermore,
the theory behind MCFT indicates that the shear resisting mechanism acts as a truss, where an
inclined compression strut transfers the shear force with help from the horizontal and vertical
steel to provide equilibrium.
Building on these ideas, it is considered both conceptually adequate and accurate to simplify
the analysis to the shear strain and resistance characteristics calculated at the base of the wall
in the geometric centre of the section, and apply the calculated shear strain to a length of wall
determined by the truss mechanism as shown in Figure 2.14, with the inclination of the strut
calculated as permitted in the CSA code using equation 12.
K = 29 7000 23 L 75
(12)
15
Figure 2.14.Schematic procedure for calculation of shear displacement
Since the strut angle is measured with respect to the longitudinal axis of the wall, higher angle
values will result in a lower length of the wall to which the strains are applied.
Since the angle value is only dependant on the longitudinal strain, at the beginning of the
loading a relatively large portion of the wall will be affected by low shear strains; as the
horizontal force increases, the applied length will reduce and the shear strain will increase,
leading to an overall increase of the shear displacements, as shown schematically in Figure
2.15.
This is in agreement with the experimental observations mentioned, and as will be presented in
further sections, provides adequately accurate results.
16
Figure 2.15.Schematic application of shear displacement procedure for two levels of lateral load
2.2.4 Tension shift effect

As mentioned in previous sections, the occurrence and propagation of diagonal cracks in
structural elements generates a degradation of the plane sections assumption in a portion of the
length of the element, therefore creating an interaction between the flexural and shear actions.
Some references (Park and Paulay, 1974) comment on the possibility of accounting this effect
by shifting the curvature diagram in a specific length above the plastic hinge as shown in
Figure2.16, in order to increase the overall displacement, but this is mentioned only in terms of
the calculation of ultimate displacement, and is not meant to be used for any loading case other
than ultimate. As expected, the tension shift will not take effect until a certain intensity of
17
stresses is reached, and before this point the curvature analysis will remain unaffected as
previously mentioned; however, a method must be defined to determine how to consider this
effect during multiple stages of loading.
Figure 2.16.Modification of curvature diagram mentioned by Park and Paulay, 1974
Given this situation, a different approach will be used to account for this effect in the present
investigation. A new method will be developed using the concepts and tools described for the
MCFT simplification in order to define the loading intensity required to propagate the diagonal
cracks, as well as their angle and the length where the curvatures from the flexure contribution
must be modified.
It is clear from experimental observations that the cracking which leads to the occurrence of the
tension shift effect initiates as a horizontal flexural crack which then curves to align with the
direction of the struts from the shear resisting mechanism. Therefore, it is expected that both
the flexural and shear stresses must have enough intensity for the flexural cracks to have
reached a certain height in the element, and to propagate diagonally as shear cracks. Also, since
the cracks align with the shear diagonal compressive struts, it is expected that the length over
which the tension shift has an effect on the curvatures can be calculated using the value of the
shear angle calculated at the point where a given stress intensity has been reached.
As far as the length in which the tension shift will take effect, once a proper force intensity is
defined which triggers the phenomena, the strut angle can be easily determined using the
simplified MCFT equations and the length can be calculated geometrically.
Given that the triggering of the tension shift effect depends on the propagation of both flexural
and shear cracks, which constitutes the interaction of both very complex patterns, it is normal
to expect that multiple parameters will be involved to properly predict the point at which the
phenomena will become important enough to degenerate the normal plane sections flexural
18
effects. Some of these parameters will involve steel distribution, size and configuration of
boundary elements in the wall, aggregate size and a complex analysis of strain distributions, all
of which are not expressly accounted for in the simplified solutions being proposed in the
current project.
Therefore, for lack of a better solution, it is proposed to arbitrarily define a level of force
intensity where the tension shift effect will be considered and applied to the analysis. In this
case, since the shear stress value is dependant of the applied force which at the same time can
be related to also the flexural contribution, it is decided that when the average shear stress
applied at the section reaches a 50% of the shear yielding stress vy, then the cracks will have
propagated enough to cause the tension shift to take effect, as shown schematically in Figure
2.17.
Additionally, since the increasing longitudinal strain produces changes in the shear stress-strain
relationship, is important to notice that the value of vy is a dynamic value and therefore the shear
intensity check to determine if the tension shift will take effect must be performed for the
calculated value of vy at every point of the analysis.
Figure 2.17.Evaluation of tension shift occurrence for two load cases
19
As far as the actual effect of the tension shift on the curvatures of the wall, since below the
diagonal crack the tension of the reinforcement will remain constant and equal to that required
by equilibrium at the base of the wall, and given that the tension component has a much bigger
effect that the compression in the calculation of the curvature of the section, it is considered
adequate to apply a constant curvature in the entire affected length, equal to the curvature
determined at the base from the flexural analysis, as shown in Figure 2.18.
Figure 2.18.Effect of tension shift on curvature analysis
It is important to mention that given the simplified nature of the methods applied in the
methodology indicated previously, the results obtained by arbitrarily defining the same stress
intensity to all cases are less than ideal. Nevertheless, it maintains the simplicity desired and,
as will be demonstrated in the following sections, it provides predictions which agree in an
adequate manner with experimental results.
20
2.3 Modelling Summary

Given a wall with known properties of axial load, material properties and reinforcement layout:
a. Determine the sections moment-curvature diagram for the corresponding axial load,
recording longitudinal strain at mid-depth until failure.
b. Determine a bilinear approximation, defining yielding

and ultimate points.
c. For each set of moment, curvature and longitudinal
strain:
c.1 Calculate by equilibrium the lateral force that would
cause the selected moment at the base of the wall
c.2 Determine the uniform shear stress in the section
c.3 Using the simplified equations of MCFT, determine
the shear stress-strain curve and the value of strut angle
c.4 Examine if failure has been attained, if
v > vy
d. For each point, calculate the displacement at the top of

the wall:
d.1 Evaluate if tension shift has occurred, if
v > 0.5 vy
d.2 Determine the corresponding curvature profile

d.3 Calculate flexure displacements using moment-area
d.4 Calculate base rotation due to strain penetration, and
corresponding displacement
21
d.5 Determine the shear distortion from the shear stressstrain curve, if vy v , then take distortion as ultimate
d.6 Add all components for total displacements
e. Repeat steps c and d increasing the moment value until
failure is detected.
22
Chapter 3: Evaluation with Existing Database
3 EVALUATION WITH EXISTING DATABASE

In order to evaluate the proposed modelling method for the force-displacement of laterally
loaded shear walls, an experimental sample of 32 tests has been selected from the public
database of the University of Patras Greece, and each of the observed experimental backbone
curves are compared with the results obtained analytically from the modelling method. As
comparison parameters, the ultimate resistance load and ultimate displacement are recorded for
each test. The results are presented in the following sections.
3.1
Selected Tests
As previously mentioned, a sample of 32 test have been selected from the 350 samples available
in the public database of the University of Patras (www.dap.series.upatras.gr). The tests have
been selected for meeting the parameters detailed in the scope as follows:
Conventional reinforcement properties, with orthogonally placed vertical and horizontal

rebar reinforcement.
No retrofitting techniques implemented, as well as no previous load history applied.
Concrete cylinder compression resistances within the 20 MPa 75 MPa range.
Height to width aspect relationships within the 1.0 3.0 ratio range.
Rectangular walls, without flanged or barbell sections.
All specimens have been tested as cantilever walls, with their bases fixed in a foundation, and
a loading beam in the free end of the element, and all the reported measurements are from the
total shear force applied at the top, with respect to the relative displacement of the free end of
the wall to the foundation; any rigid body displacements from slipping of the foundation have
been subtracted from the records. A basic schematic of the test setup and cross section
measurements is shown in Figure 3-1.
A summary of the selected tests, including the base reference as well as all mechanical and
geometrical properties is presented in the following sections.
23
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.1.a) Schematic test setup and, b) general cross section properties
3.1.1 Dazio, Beyer and Bachman (2009)

Experimental program performed at the Institute of Structural Engineering at ETH Zurich,
entitled Quasi-static cyclic tests and plastic hinge analysis of RC structural walls, where six
large scale rectangular walls were tested under cyclic lateral load, exploring the deformation
behaviour of different reinforcement ratios and ductility properties of the reinforcement.
From the six tested walls, only four were selected for the purpose of the present investigation,
since two of the walls presented an unexpected failure, in one case due to cyclic degradation of
the longitudinal reinforcement, and in the other case due to out of plane displacements.
The properties of each of the selected walls are given in Table 3.1 to Table 3.3.
Table 3.1. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Dazio, Beyer and Bachman (2009)
No.
WALL
HeightLength
Ratio
1
2
3
4
WSH3
WSH4
WSH5
WSH6
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
Dimensions
Axial load
N (kN)
682.1
699.4
1470.7
1477.4
Ratio (%)
5.8
5.7
12.8
10.8
Height
Length
Thickness
H (mm)
4560.0
4560.0
4560.0
4560.0
lw (mm)
2000.0
2000.0
2000.0
2000.0
bw (mm)
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
24
Table 3.2. Material properties of walls from Dazio, Beyer and Bachman (2009)
Material properties
No.
WALL
Concrete
1
2
3
4
WSH3
WSH4
WSH5
WSH6
fc (MPa)
39.2
40.9
38.3
45.6
Vertical steel
fy (MPa)
601.0
576.0
583.7
576.0
fu (MPa)
725.5
674.9
700.2
674.9
Horizontal steel
fy (MPa)
489.0
518.9
518.9
518.9
fu (MPa)
552.2
558.7
558.7
558.7
Table 3.3. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Dazio, Beyer and Bachman (2009)
No.
WALL
1
2
3
4
WSH3
WSH4
WSH5
WSH6
Boundary
vertical
vb (%)
0.188
0.188
0.101
0.226
Reinforcement ratios
Boundary
Vertical
horizontal
hb (%)
v (%)
0.503
0.536
0.251
0.536
0.369
0.269
0.754
0.536
Horizontal
h (%)
0.251
0.251
0.251
0.251
3.1.2 Oesterle et al (1976)

Experimental program performed by the Portland Cement Association, entitled Earthquake
Resistant Structural Walls Tests of Isolated Walls, where nine large scale rectangular walls
were tested under cyclic lateral load, as a part of an investigation to determine the resistance,
deformation and energy dissipation capabilities of concrete walls.
From the nine tested walls, only two were selected for the purpose of the present investigation,
since all the rest have non rectangular cross sections, which are not within the scope.
25
Table 3.4. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Oesterle et al (1976)
No.
5
6
HeightLength
Ratio
WALL
R1
R2
2.4
2.4
Dimensions
Axial load
N (kN)
34.8
36.1
Ratio (%)
0.4
0.4
Height
Length
Thickness
H (mm)
4572.0
4572.0
lw (mm)
1905.0
1905.0
bw (mm)
101.6
101.6
Table 3.5. Material properties of walls from Oesterle et al (1976)
Material properties
No.
5
6
WALL
Concrete
R1
R2
fc (MPa)
44.75
46.4
Vertical steel
fy (MPa)
511.6
450.2
Horizontal steel
fu (MPa)
765.3
708.1
fy (MPa)
522
535.1
fu (MPa)
699.8
690.9
Table 3.6. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Oesterle et al (1976)

No.
WALL
5
6
R1
R2
Boundary
vertical
Boundary
horizontal
Vertical
Horizontal
vb (%)
hb (%)
v (%)
h (%)
0.146
0.327
0.372
1.834
0.272
0.272
0.307
0.307
3.1.3 Thomsen and Wallace (1995)

Experimental program performed by the Clarkson University, entitled Displacement basedDesign of Reinforced Concrete Structural walls. An experimental Investigation of Walls with
Rectangular and T-shaped Cross-Sections, where four reduced scale walls where tested under
cyclic lateral load, as a part of an investigation to assess the ability of using a displacementbased approach for designing of structural walls with symmetrical and unsymmetrical cross
sections.
From the four tested walls, only two were selected for the purpose of the present investigation,
since all the rest have unsymmetrical cross sections, which are not within the scope.
The properties of each of the selected walls are given in Table 3.7to Table 3.9.
26
Table 3.7. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Thomsen and Wallace (1995)
No.
WALL
7
8
RW1
RW2
HeightLength
Ratio
3.0
3.0
Dimensions
Axial load
N (kN)
392.9
295.9
Ratio (%)
10.0
7.0
Height
Length
Thickness
H (mm)
3658.0
3658.0
lw (mm)
1219.0
1219.0
bw (mm)
102.0
102.0
Table 3.8. Material properties of walls from Thomsen and Wallace (1995)
Material properties
No.
7
8
WALL
Concrete
RW1
RW2
fc (MPa)
31.6
34.0
Vertical steel
fy (MPa)
414.0
414.0
fu (MPa)
590.0
590.0
Horizontal steel
fy (MPa)
414.0
414.0
fu (MPa)
600.0
600.0
Table 3.9. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Thomsen and Wallace (1995)
No.
7
8
3.1.4
WALL
RW1
RW2
Boundary
vertical
Boundary
horizontal
Vertical
Horizontal
vb (%)
hb (%)
v (%)
h (%)
0.459
0.459
0.456
0.684
0.330
0.330
0.325
0.325
Deng, Liang and Yang (2008)
Experimental program performed by the Xian University of Architecture and Technology,

entitled Experimental Study on Seismic Behavior of High Performance Concrete Shear Wall
with New Strategy of Transverse Confining Stirrups, where four full scale walls were tested
under cyclic lateral load, as a part of an investigation to assess the performance of using
piecewise confining stirrups in the boundary elements of shear walls.
From the four tested walls, only two were selected for the purpose of the present investigation,
since some of the information regarding axial loading and material resistance was inconsistent
or missing from two of the specimens.
27
Table 3.10. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Deng, Liang and Yang (2008)
No.
9
10
WALL
HeightLength
Ratio
HPCW01
HPCW02
2.1
2.1
Dimensions
Axial load
N (kN)
1004.0
1004.0
Ratio (%)
16.3
13.6
Height
Length
Thickness
H (mm)
2100.0
2100.0
lw (mm)
1000.0
1000.0
bw (mm)
100.0
100.0
Table 3.11. Material properties of walls from Deng, Liang and Yang (2008)
Material properties
No.
9
10
WALL
Concrete
HPCW01
HPCW02
fc (MPa)
61.4
73.6
Vertical steel
fy (MPa)
436.0
436.0
fu (MPa)
636.6
636.6
Horizontal steel
fy (MPa)
361.6
361.6
fu (MPa)
506.3
506.3
Table 3.12. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Deng, Liang and Yang (2008)
No.
WALL
9
10
HPCW01
HPCW02
Boundary
vertical
vb (%)
0.638
0.505
Boundary
Vertical
horizontal
hb (%)
v (%)
0.419
0.251
0.654
0.251
Horizontal
h (%)
0.664
0.664
3.1.5 Ghorbani-Renani et al (2009)

Experimental program performed by the Polytechnique Montral, entitled Modeling and
Testing Influence of Scaling Effects on Inelastic Response of Shear Walls, where two full scale
and two reduced scaled walls were tested under monotonic and cyclic lateral load, as a part of
an investigation to assess the effects of scaling in shear wall testing and modeling.
From the four tested walls, only one was selected for the purpose of the present investigation,
since the reduced scaled specimens were considered too small to be representative.
The properties of the selected wall are given in Table 3.13 to Table 3.15.
Table 3.13. Geometric properties and axial loading of wall from Ghorbani-Renani et al (2009)
28
No.
11
WALL
Dimensions
HeightLength
Ratio
A2C
Axial load
N (kN)
0.0
2.1
Ratio (%)
0.0
Height
Length
Thickness
H (mm)
2700.0
lw (mm)
1300.0
bw (mm)
200.0
Table 3.14. Material properties of wall from Ghorbani-Renani et al (2009)
Material properties
No.
WALL
Concrete
11
A2C
fc (MPa)
30.0
Vertical steel
fy (MPa)
413.0
fu (MPa)
552.0
Horizontal steel
fy (MPa)
413.0
fu (MPa)
552.0
Table 3.15. Reinforcement ratios of wall from Ghorbani-Renani et al (2009)
No.
WALL
11
A2C
Boundary
vertical
vb (%)
0.755
Boundary
Vertical
horizontal
hb (%)
v (%)
1.003
1.270
Horizontal
h (%)
0.670
3.1.6 Tran and Wallace (2012)

Experimental program performed by the University of California, Los Angeles, entitled
Experimental Study of Nonlinear Flexural and Shear Deformation of Reinforced Concrete
Structural Walls, where five full scale walls were tested under cyclic lateral load, as a part of
an investigation to gain insight in to the non-linear cyclic response of moderate aspect ratio
shear walls.
From the five tested walls, only two were selected for the purpose of the present investigation,
since they were the only ones with the full information in the database.
Table 3.16. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Tran and Wallace (2012)
29
Dimensions
No.
12
13
HeightLength
Ratio
WALL
RW-A20-P10-S63
RW-A15-P10-S78
2.0
1.5
Axial load
N (kN)
878.4
1024.8
Ratio
(%)
10.0
10.0
Height
Length
Thickness
H (mm)
2440.0
1830.0
lw (mm)
1220.0
1220.0
bw (mm)
150.0
150.0
Table 3.17. Material properties of walls from Tran and Wallace (2012)
Material properties
No.
WALL
Concrete
12
13
RW-A20-P10-S63
RW-A15-P10-S78
fc (MPa)
48.0
56.0
Vertical steel
fy (MPa)
475.0
475.0
fu (MPa)
635.0
635.0
Horizontal steel
fy (MPa)
440.0
440.0
fu (MPa)
635.0
635.0
Table 3.18. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Tran and Wallace (2012)
3.1.7
No.
WALL
12
13
RW-A20-P10-S63
RW-A15-P10-S78
Boundary
vertical
vb (%)
1.246
1.151
Boundary
Vertical
horizontal
hb (%)
v (%)
0.845
0.625
0.845
0.748
Horizontal
h (%)
0.625
0.748
Salonikioset al (1999)
Experimental program performed by the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, entitled Cyclic

Load Behavior of Low-Slenderness Reinforced Concrete Walls: Design Basis and Test
Results, where 11 full scale walls were tested under cyclic lateral load, as a part of an
investigation to assess the validity of current design provisions for shear walls with low aspect
ratios.
From the 11 tested walls, only six were selected for the purpose of the present investigation,
since all the rest used diagonal web reinforcement which is not within the scope.
The properties of each of the selected walls are demonstrated in Table 3.19 to Table 3.21.
Table 3.19. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Salonikios et al (1999)
30
No.
14
15
16
17
18
19
WALL
Dimensions
HeightLength
Ratio
LSW1
LSW2
LSW3
MSW1
MSW2
MSW3
Axial load
N (kN)
0.0
0.0
201.6
0.0
0.0
206.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
Ratio (%)
0.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
Height
Length
Thickness
H (mm)
1320.0
1320.0
1320.0
1920.0
1920.0
1920.0
lw (mm)
1200.0
1200.0
1200.0
1200.0
1200.0
1200.0
bw (mm)
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Table 3.20. Material properties of walls from Salonikios et al (1999)
Material properties
No.
WALL
Concrete
14
15
16
17
18
19
LSW1
LSW2
LSW3
MSW1
MSW2
MSW3
fc (MPa)
24.0
24.0
24.0
26.1
26.2
24.6
Vertical steel
fy (MPa)
585.0
585.0
585.0
585.0
585.0
585.0
fu (MPa)
678.0
678.0
678.0
678.0
678.0
678.0
Horizontal steel
fy (MPa)
575.0
575.0
575.0
575.0
575.0
575.0
fu (MPa)
658.0
658.0
658.0
658.0
658.0
658.0
Table 3.21. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Salonikios et al (1999)
No.
WALL
14
15
16
17
18
19
LSW1
LSW2
LSW3
MSW1
MSW2
MSW3
Boundary
vertical
vb (%)
0.335
0.251
0.251
0.335
0.251
0.251
Boundary
Vertical
horizontal
hb (%)
v (%)
1.026
0.174
1.026
0.168
1.026
0.168
0.660
0.174
0.660
0.168
0.660
0.168
Horizontal
h (%)
0.277
0.277
0.277
0.277
0.277
0.277
31
3.1.8
Lefas, Kotsovos and Ambraseys (1990)
Experimental program performed by the Imperial College of Science, Technology and

Medicine in London, entitled Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls: Strength,
Deformation Characteristics, and Failure Mechanism, where 13 full scale walls were tested
under monotonic lateral load, as a part of an investigation to assess the influence of
reinforcement ratios, axial load, aspect ratio and concrete strength on the overall response of
shear walls.
The properties of each of the selected walls are given in Table 3.22 to Table 3.24
Table 3.22. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Lefas, Kotsovos and Ambraseys (1990)
No.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
WALL
SW11
SW12
SW13
SW14
SW15
SW16
SW17
SW21
SW22
SW23
SW24
SW25
SW26
HeightLength
Ratio
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
Dimensions
Axial load
N (kN)
0.0
251.3
369.8
0.0
198.4
482.8
0.0
0.0
189.7
356.1
0.0
333.2
0.0
Ratio (%)
0.0
10.0
20.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
Height
Length
Thickness
H (mm)
825.0
825.0
825.0
825.0
825.0
825.0
825.0
1375.0
1375.0
1375.0
1375.0
1375.0
1375.0
lw (mm)
750.0
750.0
750.0
750.0
750.0
750.0
750.0
650.0
650.0
650.0
650.0
650.0
650.0
bw (mm)
70.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
32
Table 3.23. Material properties of walls from Lefas, Kotsovos and Ambraseys (1990)
Material properties
No.
WALL
Concrete
SW11
SW12
SW13
SW14
SW15
SW16
SW17
SW21
SW22
SW23
SW24
SW25
SW26
fc (MPa)
46.6
47.9
35.2
36.6
37.8
46.0
42.6
37.3
44.9
42.1
42.6
39.4
25.5
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Vertical steel
fy (MPa)
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
fu (MPa)
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
Horizontal steel
fy (MPa)
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
fu (MPa)
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
Table 3.24. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Lefas, Kotsovos and Ambraseys (1990)
No.
WALL
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
SW11
SW12
SW13
SW14
SW15
SW16
SW17
SW21
SW22
SW23
SW24
SW25
SW26
Boundary
vertical
vb (%)
0.574
0.574
0.574
0.574
0.574
0.574
0.574
0.714
0.714
0.714
0.714
0.714
0.714
Boundary
Vertical
horizontal
hb (%)
v (%)
0.898
3.820
0.898
2.445
0.898
2.445
0.898
2.445
0.898
2.445
0.898
2.445
0.898
2.445
0.672
2.508
0.672
2.508
0.672
2.508
0.672
2.508
0.672
2.508
0.672
2.508
Horizontal
h (%)
1.096
1.096
1.096
1.096
1.096
1.096
1.096
0.821
0.821
0.821
0.821
0.821
0.821
33
3.2
Evaluation of Results
The proposed method for modelling the behaviour of low aspect ratio shear walls is
implemented to each of the experimental tests described in the previous section, the results are
compared with the positive backbone curves of each of the tests, and the results are summarized
in terms of ultimate resistance and displacement capacity.
3.2.1 Dazio, Beyer and Bachman (2009)
The comparative results between the modelling behaviour and observed experimental response
are shown in Figure 3.2 to Figure 3.5.
500.00
450.00
400.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Dazio
Specimen
WSH3
H/lw
2.28
Resistance
Prediction
425.9
Experimental
445.0
Ultimate Displacement
Prediction
89.4
Experimental
91.9
Base shear (kN)
350.00
300.00
Prediction
250.00
Experimental
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
100.00
Displacement (mm)
500.00
450.00
400.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Dazio
Specimen
WSH4
H/lw
2.28
Resistance
Prediction
411.8
Experimental
441.0
Displacement
Prediction
84.1
Experimental
72.0
Base shear (kN)
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
Prediction
150.00
Experimental
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
100.00
Displacement (mm)
34
500.00
450.00
400.00
Base shear (kN)
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
Prediction
150.00
Experimental
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Dazio
Specimen
WSH5
H/lw
2.28
Resistance
Proposal
385.1
Experimental
435.8
Displacement
Proposal
94.1
Experimental
70.7
kN
kN
mm
mm
100.00
Displacement (mm)
700.00
600.00
Base shear (kN)
500.00
400.00
300.00
Prediction
200.00
Experimental
100.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Dazio
Specimen
WSH6
H/lw
2.28
Resistance
Prediction
591.4
Experimental
586.5
Displacement
Prediction
91.9
Experimental
94.7
kN
kN
mm
mm
100.00
Displacement (mm)
35
3.2.2 Oesterle et al (1976)

are shown in Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.7.
140.00
120.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Oesterle
Specimen
R1
H/lw
2.4
Resistance
Prediction
120.6
Experimental
111.3
Displacement
Prediction
134.0
Experimental
128.4
Base shear (kN)
100.00
80.00
60.00
Prediction
40.00
Experimental
20.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
150.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.6. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen R1
250.00
Base shear (kN)
200.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Oesterle
Specimen
R2
H/lw
2.4
Resistance
Prediction
204.1
Experimental
222.3
Displacement
Prediction
102.5
Experimental
128.2
150.00
Prediction
100.00
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
150.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.7. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen R2
36
3.2.3 Thomsen and Wallace (1995)

160.00
140.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Thomsen
Specimen
RW1
H/lw
3
Resistance
Prediction
144.2
Experimental
141.1
Displacement
Prediction
76.2
Experimental
79.6
Base shear (kN)
120.00
100.00
80.00
Prediction
60.00
Experimental
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
100.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.8. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen RW1
180.00
160.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Thomsen
Specimen
RW2
H/lw
3
Resistance
Prediction
149.2
Experimental
160.3
Displacement
Prediction
81.5
Experimental
85.5
Base shear (kN)
140.00
120.00
100.00
Prediction
80.00
Experimental
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
100.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.9. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen RW2
37
3.2.4 Deng, Liang and Yang (2008)

400.00
350.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Deng
Specimen
HPCW01
H/lw
2.1
Resistance
Prediction
328.8
Experimental
334.4
Displacement
Prediction
29.8
Experimental
42.3
Base shear (kN)
300.00
250.00
200.00
Prediction
150.00
Experimental
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
50.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.10. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen HPCW01
400.00
350.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Deng
Specimen
HPCW02
H/lw
2.1
Resistance
Prediction
331.0
Experimental
335.0
Displacement
Prediction
51.5
Experimental
52.9
Base shear (kN)
300.00
250.00
200.00
Prediction
150.00
Experimental
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
60.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.11. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen HPCW02
38
3.2.5
Ghorbani-Renani et al (2009)
are shown in Figure 3.12.
450.00
400.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Ghorbani
Specimen
A2C
H/lw
2.08
Resistance
Prediction
423.0
Experimental
424.7
Displacement
Prediction
69.7
Experimental
81.4
Base shear (kN)
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
Prediction
150.00
Experimental
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
100.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.12. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen A2C
3.2.6
Tran and Wallace (2012)
800.00
700.00
Base shear (kN)
600.00
500.00
400.00
Prediction
300.00
Experimental
200.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Tran
Specimen
RW-A20-P10-S63
H/lw
2
Resistance
Prediction
694.7
kN
Experimental
739.6
kN
Displacement
Prediction
52.6
mm
Experimental
74.1
mm
80.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.13. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen RW-A20-P10-S63
39
1000.00
900.00
800.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Tran
Specimen
RW-A15-P10-S78
H/lw
1.5
Resistance
Prediction
938.3
kN
Experimental
866.1
kN
Displacement
Prediction
37.9
mm
Experimental
49.6
mm
Base shear (kN)
700.00
600.00
500.00
Prediction
400.00
Experimental
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.14. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen RW-A15-P10-S78
3.2.7 Salonikios et al (1999)

300.00
Base shear (kN)
250.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Salonikios
Specimen
LSW1
H/lw
1
Resistance
Prediction
250.6
Experimental
264.2
Displacement
Prediction
12.2
Experimental
10.2
200.00
150.00
Prediction
100.00
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
15.00
Displacement (mm)
40
250.00
Base shear (kN)
200.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Salonikios
Specimen
LSW2
H/lw
1.0
Resistance
Prediction
208.0
Experimental
191.7
Displacement
Prediction
13.8
Experimental
10.8
150.00
100.00
Prediction
50.00
0.00
0.00
Experimental
5.00
10.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
15.00
Displacement (mm)
300.00
Base shear (kN)
250.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Salonikios
Specimen
LSW3
H/lw
1.0
Resistance
Prediction
279.6
Experimental
268.0
Displacement
Prediction
13.0
Experimental
15.5
200.00
150.00
Prediction
100.00
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
30.00
Displacement (mm)
41
250.00
Base shear (kN)
200.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Salonikios
Specimen
MSW1
H/lw
1.5
Resistance
Prediction
171.9
Experimental
193.0
Displacement
Prediction
28.9
Experimental
27.0
150.00
100.00
Prediction
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
40.00
Displacement (mm)
160.00
140.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Salonikios
Specimen
MSW2
H/lw
1.5
Resistance
Prediction
140.7
Experimental
124.0
Displacement
Prediction
27.2
Experimental
35.0
Base shear (kN)
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
Prediction
40.00
Experimental
20.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
40.00
Displacement (mm)
42
200.00
180.00
160.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Salonikios
Specimen
MSW3
H/lw
1.5
Resistance
Prediction
191.3
Experimental
176.9
Displacement
Prediction
29.6
Experimental
26.2
Base shear (kN)
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
Prediction
40.00
Experimental
20.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
30.00
Displacement (mm)
3.2.8 Lefas, Kotsovos and Ambraseys (1990)

300.00
Base shear (kN)
250.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW11
H/lw
1.07
Resistance
Prediction
237.4
Experimental
254.5
Displacement
Prediction
10.4
Experimental
9.2
200.00
150.00
Prediction
100.00
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
15.00
Displacement (mm)
43
350.00
300.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW12
H/lw
1.07
Resistance
Prediction
301.4
Experimental
330.5
Displacement
Prediction
12.0
Experimental
9.6
Base shear (kN)
250.00
200.00
150.00
Prediction
100.00
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
15.00
Displacement (mm)
400.00
350.00
Base shear (kN)
300.00
250.00
200.00
150.00
Prediction
100.00
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW13
H/lw
1.07
Resistance
Prediction
311.8
Experimental
334.6
Displacement
Prediction
11.5
Experimental
9.8
kN
kN
mm
mm
15.00
Displacement (mm)
44
300.00
Base shear (kN)
250.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW14
H/lw
1.07
Resistance
Prediction
231.4
Experimental
267.1
Displacement
Prediction
10.9
Experimental
12.1
200.00
150.00
Prediction
100.00
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
15.00
Displacement (mm)
350.00
300.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW15
H/lw
1.07
Resistance
Prediction
278.6
Experimental
315.2
Displacement
Prediction
7.3
Experimental
8.5
Base shear (kN)
250.00
200.00
150.00
Prediction
100.00
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
10.00
Displacement (mm)
45
400.00
350.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW16
H/lw
1.07
Resistance
Prediction
349.4
Experimental
355.4
Displacement
Prediction
10.3
Experimental
6.4
Base shear (kN)
300.00
250.00
200.00
Prediction
150.00
Experimental
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
15.00
Displacement (mm)
300.00
Base shear (kN)
250.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW17
H/lw
1.07
Resistance
Prediction
230.0
Experimental
248.6
Displacement
Prediction
8.5
Experimental
10.6
200.00
150.00
Prediction
100.00
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
12.00
Displacement (mm)
46
140.00
120.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW21
H/lw
2.12
Resistance
Prediction
100.0
Experimental
128.4
Displacement
Prediction
24.8
Experimental
21.7
Base shear (kN)
100.00
80.00
60.00
Prediction
40.00
Experimental
20.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
30.00
Displacement (mm)
160.00
140.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW22
H/lw
2.12
Resistance
Prediction
126.1
Experimental
151.1
Displacement
Prediction
13.8
Experimental
16.1
Base shear (kN)
120.00
100.00
80.00
Prediction
60.00
Experimental
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
20.00
Displacement (mm)
47
200.00
180.00
160.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW23
H/lw
2.12
Resistance
Prediction
142.4
Experimental
180.8
Displacement
Prediction
12.1
Experimental
13.8
Base shear (kN)
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
Prediction
60.00
Experimental
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
15.00
Displacement (mm)
140.00
120.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW24
H/lw
2.12
Resistance
Prediction
101.6
Experimental
121.1
Displacement
Prediction
23.8
Experimental
19.2
Base shear (kN)
100.00
80.00
60.00
Prediction
40.00
Experimental
20.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
30.00
Displacement (mm)
48
160.00
140.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW25
H/lw
2.12
Resistance
Prediction
138.7
Experimental
149.9
Displacement
Prediction
12.3
Experimental
9.7
Base shear (kN)
120.00
100.00
80.00
Prediction
60.00
Experimental
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
15.00
Displacement (mm)
140.00
120.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW26
H/lw
2.12
Resistance
Prediction
95.9
Experimental
124.5
Displacement
Prediction
24.7
Experimental
22.0
Base shear (kN)
100.00
80.00
60.00
Prediction
40.00
Experimental
20.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
40.00
Displacement (mm)
49
3.3
Result Summary
In order to evaluate the accuracy of the predictions made by the proposed methodology, the
results of predicted resistance and displacement capacity are compared statistically with the
experimental results. For this purpose, the results are normalized, finding the ratio of prediction
over experimental results.
Additionally, in order to compare the proposed methodology with current standardized
provisions, the resistance is also calculated using the equations provided in the ACI 318-11, as
presented in the section 1.3 of the present thesis; however, when the empirical equations for
shear strength provided in the ACI determine higher strength values than those possible by the
flexural yielding of the base, then the ACI prediction value is set to be the one obtained by the
maximum possible from the moment-curvature analysis. Both the ACI predictions and those
obtained by the proposed method are evaluated against the experimental values and their results
are demonstrated in Table 3.25.
In the case of the ultimate displacement predictions, the only comparative base is the
experimental data, since there is no standardized provisions to determine this value. The results
are presented in Table 3.26.
The statistical values chosen to describe the accuracy and variability of the proposed modelling
method are the average, the standard deviation of the logarithms of the data, and the coefficient
of variation of the results. These parameters have been calculated for each sample, and are
presented in Table 3.27.
As can be seen in these results, in terms of resistance, the proposed modelling provides better
correlation with the experimental results than the ACI predictions, with an average prediction
of 0.94, a standard deviation of the logarithms of 0.10, and a coefficient of variation of 0.10;
these lead to the conclusion that there is an acceptable dispersion of the results.
In terms of the displacement capacity, the proposed modelling provides predictions which have
an average of 1.02, but an increased standard deviation of the logarithms of 0.20, and a
coefficient of variation of 0.21; this represents a greater dispersion than the resistance
predictions, but these values are still acceptable within the context of ultimate displacement
predictions for these type of structural elements.
It is important to comment that these statistical values represent a point of reference, to evaluate
the accuracy of the modelling method with the existing experimental results, but they do not
consider the inherent dispersion which exists in the testing itself, which would be determined,
for example, by performing several tests of identical specimens, and recording the natural
dispersion of the failure.
50
Table 3.25. Summary of evaluation of resistance predictions with experimental results
No.
WALL
HeightLength
Ratio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
WSH3
WSH4
WSH5
WSH6
R1
R2
RW1
RW2
HPCW01
HPCW02
A2C
RW-A20-P10-S63
RW-A15-P10-S78
LSW1
LSW2
LSW3
MSW1
MSW2
MSW3
SW11
SW12
SW13
SW14
SW15
SW16
SW17
SW21
SW22
SW23
SW24
SW25
SW26
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
3.0
3.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
Experimental
445.0
441.0
435.8
586.5
111.3
222.3
141.1
160.3
334.4
335.0
424.7
739.6
866.1
264.2
191.7
268.0
193.0
124.0
176.9
254.5
330.5
334.6
267.1
315.2
355.4
248.6
128.4
151.1
180.8
121.1
149.9
124.5
Resistance (kN)
ACI Provisions
Prediction
Ratio
429.6
0.97
413.6
0.94
405.9
0.93
592.1
1.01
120.7
1.08
232.7
1.05
148.2
1.05
154.4
0.96
328.8
0.98
331.0
0.99
480.4
1.13
614.6
0.83
811.4
0.94
268.0
1.01
216.2
1.13
287.8
1.07
185.3
0.96
144.1
1.16
191.8
1.08
240.4
0.94
255.2
0.77
222.1
0.66
226.2
0.85
229.4
0.73
250.7
0.71
146.9
0.59
100.1
0.78
126.1
0.83
142.4
0.79
101.8
0.84
138.7
0.93
91.1
0.73
Proposal
Prediction
Ratio
425.9
0.96
411.8
0.93
385.1
0.88
591.4
1.01
120.6
1.08
204.1
0.92
144.2
1.02
149.2
0.93
328.8
0.98
331.0
0.99
423.0
1.00
694.7
0.94
938.3
1.08
250.6
0.95
208.0
1.09
279.6
1.04
171.9
0.89
140.7
1.13
142.4
0.81
237.4
0.93
301.4
0.91
311.8
0.93
231.4
0.87
278.6
0.88
349.4
0.98
230.0
0.93
100.0
0.78
126.1
0.83
142.4
0.79
101.6
0.84
138.7
0.93
95.9
0.77
51
Table 3.26. Summary of evaluation of ultimate displacement predictions with experimental results
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
WALL
WSH3
WSH4
WSH5
WSH6
R1
R2
RW1
RW2
HPCW01
HPCW02
A2C
RW-A20-P10-S63
RW-A15-P10-S78
LSW1
LSW2
LSW3
MSW1
MSW2
MSW3
SW11
SW12
SW13
SW14
SW15
SW16
SW17
SW21
SW22
SW23
SW24
SW25
SW26
HeightLength
Ratio
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
3.0
3.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
Deformation (mm)
Experimental
91.9
72.0
70.7
94.7
128.4
128.2
79.6
85.5
42.3
52.9
81.4
74.1
49.6
10.2
10.8
15.5
27.0
35.0
26.2
9.2
9.6
9.8
12.1
8.5
6.4
10.6
21.7
16.1
13.8
19.2
9.7
22.0
Proposal
89.4
84.1
94.1
91.9
134.0
102.5
76.2
81.5
29.8
51.5
69.7
52.6
37.9
12.2
13.8
13.0
28.9
27.2
29.6
10.4
12.0
11.5
10.9
7.3
10.3
8.5
24.8
13.8
12.1
23.8
12.3
24.7
Ratio
0.97
1.17
1.33
0.97
1.04
0.80
0.96
0.95
0.70
0.97
0.86
0.71
0.76
1.20
1.28
0.84
1.07
0.78
1.13
1.12
1.25
1.17
0.90
0.86
1.62
0.80
1.14
0.86
0.88
1.24
1.27
1.12
52
Table 3.27. Summary of statistical parameters determined from the results
Parameter
Resistance
ACI Prediction Proposal
Deformation
Proposal
Average (xavg)
0.92
0.94
1.02
Standard deviation of lognormal distribution (ln)

Coefficient of Variation (COV)
0.17
0.16
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.21
53
Chapter 4: Displacement Based Methodology Implementation
4 IMPLEMENTATION OF DISPLACEMENT BASED

METHODOLOGY
The current chapter will deal with the evaluation of current procedures for predicting the
displacement response of structural systems based on low aspect ratio shear walls, using
concepts of displacement-based procedures.
An evaluation procedure will be detailed considering the theoretical body of knowledge
developed for concrete structures by Pennucci et al (2011), in combination with the predicted
backbone behaviour developed in previous chapters, in order to predict the ultimate inelastic
displacement of a wall structure under specific earthquake excitations, and evaluate these
predictions with results obtained with the use of non-linear FEM time history analyses.
4.1
Evaluation Procedure
The research performed by Pennucci et al (2011) develops a theoretical body of knowledge

which proposes the use of Direct Displacement-Based Design concepts with the newly
developed Displacement Reduction Factors in order to account the inelastic behaviour of
concrete structures without explicitly accounting for equivalent viscous damping calculations.
Under this scope, given a structural system with a defined target performance characterized by
a desired maximum displacement, the Displacement Reduction Factor represents the
relationship between the inelastic and the elastic response of a structural system for a given
seismic demand, considering the effective stiffness of the evaluated system, as shown in Figure
4.1.
The determination of the Displacement Reduction Factor has been calibrated though a very
extensive parametric study for long period structures, and is dependant only on the inelastic
ductility of the system at the target displacement and its expected hysteretic behaviour.
54
Figure 4.1. Schematic representation of the Displacement Reduction Factor proposed by Penucci et al
(2011)
In the case of the current investigation, a process is determined based on these previously
mentioned concepts, to evaluate the use of the Displacement Reduction Factor formulations
with low period structures such as low aspect ratio shear wall structural systems.
Initially, a full scale single degree of freedom shear wall structure is defined, based on one of
the experimental tests which were evaluated in previous sections. To improve the likeliness of
obtaining suitable results, the wall which will be chosen to model the full scale structure will
be one where the proposed modelling method obtained good results, and which presented a
well-defined hysteretic behaviour in the experimental test.
Once this structure is defined and its properties for backbone behaviour are modelled, a bilinear
approximation will be made, a desired target displacement will be defined, and its effective
properties will be calculated at the target point, as is schematically shown in Figure 2.2.
M<N. =
<N.
(
P) = 2Q/
R)
S<N.
Figure 4.2. Schematic representation of the structures bilinear backbone behaviour and effective
properties at the target displacement
55
Using the equations recommended by the Penucci et al (2011) reference, the Displacement
Reduction Factor can be calculated considering the expected ductility at the target
displacement. For the purpose of this investigation, it is considered that the hysteretic rule which
is most suitable for the type of structures being modelled is the Takeda Thin rule, for which the
DRF is calculated as follows.
Q M<N.
T= /
8.94 M<N. 1 5.8
13
Once the reduction factor is calculated, the elastic response at the target displacement can be
easily determined by the relationship shown in Figure 2.1.
In order to obtain this elastic response from a given earthquake record, spectrum analysis is
performed in order to determine the scaling factor which must be applied to all acceleration
values in the record to increase or reduce the event to obtain the desired response in the
structural system. This process is performed with the displacement spectrum, calculated using
the typical value of 5% viscous damping, as shown in Figure 4.3.
It is worth noting that the scaling procedure does not take in to account the shape of the
displacement spectre being scaled, which can affect results as Penucci et al (2011) reports
different scattering in the inelastic displacement predictions for different types of earthquake
records.
Figure 4.3. Schematic representation of the scaling procedure to perform in each earthquake record to be
used for time history analyses
Once each earthquake record has been scaled, the proposed wall system is modelled using the
nonlinear finite element software VecTor2 and its response is evaluated using time-history
analysis with every record. The maximum displacement demonstrated by the system will be
recorded for each ground motion and compared with the desired target displacement defined
initially.
56
4.2 Description of Test Structure and Earthquake Records

4.2.1 Test Structure Configuration
As mentioned in the previous section, an idealized full scale test structure is defined based on
the configuration of one of the walls from the experimental database. In this case, the test wall
WSH6 from the Dazio, Beyer and Bachman (2009) reference is chosen, since the predicted
backbone curve tightly fits the observed experimental curve as shown in Figure 3.5, and the
results from the prediction show only a 1% variation in the prediction of strength and a 3% in
the prediction of ultimate displacement.
The mass to be used in the determination of seismic properties of the test structure is defined to
obtain an effective period which is adequate for the range of periods in which the proposed
methodology will have a better chance to produce suitable results. The final dimensions and
steel ratio quantities are shown in Figure 4.4.
Figure 4.4. Properties defined for the test system based on WSH6, dimensions in mm.
It is important to notice that the axial load present in the test system (4420 kN) differs from the
equivalent seismic mass chosen to calculate the dynamic properties of the system. This situation
is defined in this way in order to maintain the level of axial load present in the WSH6 specimen
of approximately 10% of the gross area resistance, and at the same time obtain an adequate
effective dynamic period at the target displacement. Even though this may seem counter
intuitive, it is a normal situation in real structural systems in which the seismic mass presents a
different plan distribution than the gravitational loads.
Once the test system is defined, it is modelled using both the proposed methodology presented
in previous sections, and the nonlinear finite element software VecTor2. In the case of the finite
element model, all the reinforcement is included in the elements as smeared reinforcement, with
the exception of the longitudinal reinforcement in the boundary elements for which the rebars
are included as line elements.
57
As for the constitutive relationships used for the finite element model, the basic recommended
settings included in the program are chosen. The foundation and the loading beam are included
in the model in order to capture the effect of strain penetration at the base. The model can be
seen in Figure 4.5 (a) and detailed information about the model settings and material definitions
is included in Appendix A.
A pushover analysis is performed using the finite element model and compared with the results
obtained from the proposed simplified modelling described in previous sections. As is shown
in Figure 4.5 (b), both predictions provide similar results, with the FEM prediction displaying
a slightly stiffer and stronger behaviour.
The prediction results obtained from the proposed simplified modelling are used to determine
the bilinear simplification of the backbone curve, required to perform the calculations of the
evaluation procedure described previously.
2000.00
1800.00
1600.00
Base shear (kN)
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
Prediction
800.00
VecTor2
600.00
Bilinear
400.00
200.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
Displacement (mm)
(b)
(a)
Figure 4.5. a) Finite element model of test system using VecTor2, b) Comparison of backbone behaviour
predictions using proposed methodology and FEM
Once the bilinear approximation is obtained, the target displacement is calculated as 67% of the
predicted ultimate displacement. This value is considered as appropriate so that the test system
will exhibit nonlinear behaviour but avoid failure when submitted to the time history records.
Therefore, since the prediction indicates an ultimate displacement capacity of approximately
58
159 mm, then the target displacement is defined as 106 mm. This value, as well as others
required for further calculations are shown in Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.6. Schematic representation of key values obtained from the bilinear approximation of the
predicted backbone curve.
Once these values are determined, the expected ductility and effective period at the target
displacement are calculated as follows.
M<N. =
<N.
= 3.92
(
P) = 2Q/
R)
= 1.7 8UV
S)
With the use of equation 13, the Displacement Reduction Factor is calculated as follows.
T= /
Q M<N.
= 0.65
8.94 M<N. 1 5.8
Therefore the equivalent elastic spectral displacement at the target period is determined as
follows.
)+,X<N. =
<N.
= 163.3 RR
T
As it was detailed in the previous section, using these values, each of the earthquake records
will be scaled in order to obtain the calculated elastic displacement at the effective period for
the target point.
59
4.2.2
Selected Ground Motions
In order to evaluate the ability of the Displacement Reduction Factor methodology of predicting
the inelastic behaviour of the test system, a group of 10 earthquake records are used to perform
nonlinear time history analyses on the test system with VecTor2.
In this case, the selected ground motions correspond to natural records which present a corner
period of 4 seconds, measured at a soil type C sites. Each of the records is shown in Figure 4.7,
and each of their key parameters is shown in Table 4.1.
Figure 4.7. Earthquake records selected to perform time history analyses
60
Table 4.1. Summary of key parameters for each earthquake record
Parameter
CC1
CC2
CC3
CC4
CC5
CC6
CC7
CC8
CC9
CC10
Max Accel. (g)

Max Vel. (mm/sec)
Max Disp. (mm)
Signif. Durat. (sec)
0.29
645.6
643.9
22.10
0.60
809.9
275.1
31.93
0.32 0.40 0.32 0.22 0.33 0.56 0.38

555.8 517.6 381.3 593.3 541.2 529.0 525.8
419.9 467.9 302.7 280.2 365.4 299.0 312.5
24.66 27.64 21.47 70.60 33.96 50.32 34.42
0.90
698.1
257.4
12.57
As expected, each record will produce a different theoretical elastic displacement at the target
period of the test system, and therefore they must be scaled in order to adjust the response to
obtain the desired target displacement of 163.3mm which was calculated for the test system in
the previous section.
For this purpose, the theoretical maximum displacement response is calculated for each
earthquake record at the effective target period of 1.7 seconds calculated previously, using the
displacement spectrum for each record for 5% viscous damping. Once each displacement value
is obtained, a scale factor is calculated and further applied to the entire record. The Table 4.2
shows the displacement values calculated for each unscaled record, and the scale factor for each
ground motion.
Table 4.2. Maximum displacement and scale factors calculated
for each record for a period of 1.7 seconds
EQ Record
CC1
CC2
CC3
CC4
CC5
CC6
CC7
CC8
CC9
CC10
Displacement
(mm)
312.6
414.1
313.2
272.5
154.0
353.0
182.6
463.7
265.2
261.3
Scale Factor
0.52
0.39
0.52
0.60
1.06
0.46
0.89
0.35
0.62
0.62
Once the scale factor is determined and applied for each ground motion, each displacement
spectrum is recalculated in order to verify that the target displacement is being obtained for all
records. All displacement spectra can be seen in Figure 4.8, showing the target displacement
obtained for all records at a period of 1.7 seconds.
61
It is worth noting that there is a large scatter in the spectral displacement demands after the
target period, which can affect the results for test systems which display an effective period
larger than the desired target period defined.
Figure 4.8. Displacement spectra for each scaled earthquake record
4.3 Results
As mentioned previously, each of the scaled records is used to perform a time history
verification of the use of Displacement Reduction Factors to predict the behaviour of the
defined test system. For this purpose, the system is modelled using the nonlinear finite element
software VecTor2.
Is important to note that, since VecTor2 models several mechanical sources of hysteretic
damping such as concrete cracking, concrete softening and steel yielding, each time history
model is configured to include an additional viscous damping of only 1%, with the intention
that the implicit hysteretic damping plus the additional elastic viscous damping resembles the
5% damping used during the spectral analysis of the earthquake records.
The full displacement history for each earthquake record is shown in Figure 4.9, measured at
the top of the wall and relative to the displacement of the ground. A summary of the maximum
displacement exhibited by the test system for each ground motion is shown in Table 4.3 and
Figure 4.10 in comparison to the expected target displacement.
62
Figure 4.9. Relative displacement at the top of the test system during time history analysis for each
earthquake record
63
Table 4.3. Maximum displacement at the top of the test system for each ground motion
Record
Maximum
displacement (mm)
Record
Maximum
displacement (mm)
CC1
CC2
CC3
CC4
CC5
83.2
126.5
66.3
82.6
73.3
CC6
CC7
CC8
CC9
CC10
25.4
131.8
64.6
53.7
138.8
Figure 4.10. Maximum displacement at the top of the test system for each ground motion
As can be seen from the results of the time history analyses, the maximum displacement
presented by the test system vary widely among all ground records, with a slight tendency of
being below the desired target displacement of 106 mm defined.
The results present an average maximum displacement of 84.6 mm which represents 79.8% of
the target, and a coefficient of variation of 0.44, leading to the impression that the use of
Displacement Reduction Factors as presented in the Penucci et al (2011) reference may not be
suitable for accurate predictions of the performance of structural systems based on low aspect
ratio walls.
It is worth noting that these results are in agreement with the ones presented in the Penucci et
al (2011) reference, as the proposed methodology presented the highest scattering when the
64
Displacement Reduction Factors were evaluated with natural earthquake records with a corner
period of 4 seconds, similar to the ones used in this investigation; this leads to the conclusion
that spectral shape has a very high influence on the inelastic displacement response.
A possible solution to this problem is indicated in the Penucci et al (2011) reference, making
the inelastic displacement response a function of the elastic spectral demand between the initial
and effective period instead of only dependant of the effective stiffness alone, but this
implementation is outside of the scope of this investigation. It is recommended that future
research endeavours include the use of a larger set of ground motions to better capture the
effectiveness of the methodology.
A direct comparison between the coefficient of variance presented in this investigation and the
one reported in the Penucci et al (2011) reference is not considered representative since the
reference evaluated the Displacement Reduction Factor found at the actual effective period
presented by the test systems for each time-history, while the current research evaluates the
ultimate displacement results based on the desired target period alone.
Furthermore, the differences between the predictions and the results can also be attributed to
the following factors:
The test system properties were calculated using the backbone prediction obtained by
the simplified approach proposed in previous sections, while the actual VecTor2 model
presented a stiffer and stronger behaviour as seen in Figure 4.5.b
The 1% additional viscous damping included in the model may be overdamping the
results and therefore producing smaller displacements than that predicted by the use of
the Displacement Reduction Factors.
The choice of the Takeda Thin hysteresis rule to calculate the predictions may not
accurately represent the actual hysteresis for this type of structure. Further research
should seek to better characterize the shape of the hysteresis loop for low aspect ratio
shear walls.
65
Chapter 5: Summary
5 SUMMARY
5.1
Low Aspect Ratio Shear Wall Behaviour
In terms of behaviour, the failure modes of low aspect ratio shear walls are well studied and,
from the review of the experimental tests conducted in this research, it is determined that current
minimum reinforcement requirements are efficient in preventing diagonal tension failures, and
the maximum shear limits required by current codes are adequate in preventing diagonal
compression failures for walls with aspect ratios greater than 2.0.
In terms of energy dissipation, all of the tested walls with aspect ratio higher than 2.0 exhibit
some ductility before failure was reached. It is not yet clear which hysteretic law dominates the
cyclic behaviour of this type of element.
From the revision of the theories involved in this research, it is clear that there is a heavy
interaction between the flexural and shear effects, which causes a combined failure in this type
of wall element; for the most part, in the case of adequately reinforced walls, the overall
behaviour is dominated by flexure, and the failure is generated by the degradation of the shear
resistance due to the straining in the elements.
Current design approaches are implemented through the use of empirical equations for
determining resistance, and if displacement capacity is required, several intricate finite element
tools are readily available; however, they are complex and time consuming.
5.2
Proposed Method for Low Aspect Ratio Wall Evaluation
A method has been proposed to model the backbone curve of laterally loaded shear walls which
involves the interactions present between axial, flexural and shear effects by the use of simple
theories and engineering principles.
The total displacement at the top of the wall was divided in three components, namely: a) base
rotation due to strain penetration, b) shear deformations and, c) flexure curvatures which can
be affected by tension shift.
66
Chapter 5: Summary
The method proved to have a simple implementation through the determination of momentcurvature curves, and a step-by-step consideration of each displacement component through all
load stages with the use of spreadsheets. Failure of the element is determined by either reaching
the ultimate curvature in flexure, or by exceeding the shear capacity which varies depending on
the longitudinal straining of the structural element.
Results obtained by the proposed method prove to have a good fit with experimental results,
and a statistical analysis of a sample of 32 tests shown an average prediction ratio of 0.94, with
a coefficient of variation of 0.10 for resistance predictions, and an average of 1.02 with
coefficient of variation of 0.21 for ultimate displacement predictions.
The predictions obtained by this method could be improved by defining a more rational
approach to determine the occurrence of the tension shift effect, but given the number of
parameters that are involved in this phenomena, this refinement was not considered in the
present study.
The predictions obtained by the use of empirical equations found in the ACI 318-11 provisions
were also evaluated and demonstrated an average prediction ratio of 0.92, with a coefficient of
variation of 0.16 for resistance predictions.
5.3
Displacement-Based Evaluation of Low Aspect Ratio Walls
A procedure was developed to evaluate the use of Displacement-Based concepts to predict the
maximum displacement of structural systems based on low aspect ratio walls, through the use
of Displacement Reduction Factors.
A test system was defined and its behaviour modelled with the use of the simplified method
described in this research. Furthermore, the test system was modelled and evaluated through
the use of nonlinear finite element modelling and time history evaluation with 10 ground
motions which were scaled to theoretically generate a maximum displacement in the system
which would match a defined target.
The results present an average maximum displacement of 78.9% the desired target, and a
coefficient variance of 0.44; which is in agreement with the results obtained in the Penucci et
al (2011) reference where the evaluation of the Displacement Reduction Factors provided a
large scatter with ground motions similar to the ones used in this investigation.
It is recommended that future research considers a larger set of ground motions and test systems,
as well as account for spectral shape in the calculation of the Displacement Reduction Factors
in order to better capture the efficiency of the methodology.
Additionally, several analysis assumptions and decisions may have contributed to the
inconsistency between predictions and results; for example: the use of the simplified model to
determine the backbone properties of the test system, the choice of hysteretic rule employed in
67
Chapter 5: Summary
calculations, and the value of additional viscous damping introduced in the time history models
which may have overdamped the analyses.
68
Chapter 6: Conclusions
6 CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are derived from the present research:
Four main failure modes are observed for the loss of stiffness and resistance of shear
walls with low aspect ratios: diagonal tension, diagonal compression, shear sliding, or
a combined flexural-shear failure; from which the latter is preferred since it provides
more predictable behaviour and some energy dissipation before failure.
The provisions of current design codes are efficient in avoiding diagonal tension and
diagonal compression brittle failures, as well as providing adequate resistance
predictions through empirical equations.
The overall behaviour of adequately reinforced low aspect ratio shear walls is dominated
by flexure, with the failure being caused by the degeneration of shear resistance
mechanisms due to straining of the wall.
The overall behaviour of low aspect ratio shear walls can be predicted accurately with
the use of simple equations and engineering principles which consider the interactions
between flexural and shear mechanisms.
The method proposed to model the backbone curves of this type of elements present
very good results when compared with available experimental testing, thereby providing
a simple tool to assess the resistance and ultimate capacity of shear walls.
Further enhancements can be made in the determination of tension shift occurrence

which would improve the predictions made by the proposed method.
The use of Displacement Based concepts with Displacement Reduction Factors based
on expected ductility did not prove to be very effective to predict the behaviour of
structural systems based on low aspect ratio shear walls, but several factors were
identified that could have affected the results such as: not accounting for spectral shape
in the calculation of predictions, the choice of the backbone curve for the calculation of
predictions, the selected additional damping in the model and the choice of hysteretic
rule.
69
References
7 REFERENCES
Journal References
Paulay, T., Priestley, M.J.N., Synge, A. J. [1982] Ductility in Earthquake Resisting Squat Shear Walls,
ACI Journal, July-August, 79-26, pp. 257-269.
Palermo, D., Vecchio, F. D. [2003] Compression Field Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Subjected
to Reverse Loading: Formulation, ACI Journal, September-October, 100-S64, pp. 616-625.
Palermo, D., Vecchio, F. D. [2004] Compression Field Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Subjected
to Reverse Loading: Validation, ACI Journal, March-April, 101-S15, pp. 155-164.
Vecchio, F. D., Collins, M. P. [1986] The Modified Compression Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete
Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI Journal, March-April, 83-22, pp. 219-231.
Bentz, E. C., Vecchio, F. D., Collins, M. P. [2006] Simplified Modified Compression Field Theory for
Calculating Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Elements, ACI Journal, July-August, 103-S65,
pp. 614-624.
Grammatikou, S., Biskinis, D., Fardis, M. N. [2015] Strength, deformation capacity and failure modes
of RC walls under cyclic loading, Unpublished Research Paper, Bull Earthquake Engineering.
Vecchio, F. D. [1989] Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Membranes, ACI
Journal, January-February, 86-S4, pp. 26-35.
Vecchio, F. D. [1990] Reinforced Concrete Membrane Element Formulations, Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol 116, No. 3, pp. 730-750.
Pennucci, D., Sullivan, T.J., Calvi, G.M. [2011] Displacement Reduction Factors for the Design of
Medium and Long Period Structures, Journal of Structural Engineering, 15:S1, pp. 1-29.
Technical Report References
70
References
Gulec, C., Whittaker, A. S. [2009] Performance Based Assessment and Design of Squat Reinforced
Concrete Shear Walls, Technical Report, MCEER-09-0010, University at Buffalo, State University
of New York, United States
Dissertation / Individual Study / Thesis References
Yuk Yeung, L. S. [2008] A New Finite Element for Reinforced Concrete Beam Analysis Including
Shear, Individual Study, Graduate Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Canada.
Technical Code References
American Concrete Institute [2008] Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 3182011) and Commentary, United States.
Program References
Wong, P.S., Vecchio, F.J., Trommels, H. [2002] VecTor2 and Formworks Users Manual, University
of Toronto, Canada.
Book References
Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M., Kowalsky, M.J. [2007] Displacement-Based Seismic Design of
Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Park, R., Paulay, T. [1974] Reinforced Concrete Structures, Wiley and Sons, Christchurch, New
Zealand.
Experimental Testing References
Dazio, A., Beyer, K., and Bachmann, H., [2009]. Quasi-Static Cyclic Tests and Plastic Hinge Analysis
of RC Structural Walls, Engineering Structures, 31, pp. 1556-1571.
Oesterle, R.G., Fiorato, A.E., Johal, L.S., Carpenter, J.E., Russel, J.E., Russel, H.G., Corley, W.G.,
[1976]. Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls-Tests of Isolated Walls, Report to National Science
Foundation (RANN), Grant No. GI.-43880, November 1976.
Thomsen, J., Wallace, J., [1995]. Displacement based-Design of Reinforced Concrete Structural walls.
An experimental Investigation of Walls with Rectengular and T-shaped Cross-Sections, Report No.
CU/CEE-95-06, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Clarkson University, June
1995.
Deng, M., Liang, X., Yang, K., [2008]. Experimental Study on Seismic Behavior of High Performance
Concrete Shear Wall with New Strategy of Transverse Confining Stirrups, The 14th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China.
71
References
Ghorbani-Renani, I., Velev, N., Tremblay, D., Palermo, D., Massicote, B., Leger, P., [2009]. Modeling
and Testing Influence of Scaling Effects on Inelastic Response of Shear Walls, ACI Structural
Journal/May-June 2009, 358-367.
Tran, T.A, Wallace, J.W., (2012). Experimental Study of Nonlinear Flexural and Shear Deformation
of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls, 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Lisbon.
Salonikios, T.N., Kappos, A.J., Tegos, I.A., and Penelis, G.G., (1999). Cyclic Load Behavior of LowSlenderness Reinforced Concrete Walls: Design Basis and Test Results, ACI Structural Journal,
96(4), 649-660.
Lefas, I., Kotsovos, M., Ambraseys, N., (1990). Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls:
Strength, Deformation Characteristics, and Failure Mechanism, ACI Structural Journal, Title no.87S3, January-February 1990, 23-31.
72
Appendix A
APPENDIX A: VecTor2 Model Definitions
A1
Appendix A
MATERIAL DEFINITION
Figure A.1. Material definition in the VecTor2 Model
Table A.1. Concrete properties of VecTor2 Model
f'c
(MPa)
45
45
100
Material
1
2
3
f't
(MPa)
2.21
2.21
3.30
Ec
(MPa)
29171
29171
40100
Thickness
(mm)
260
260
400
Aggregate sz.
(mm)
20
20
20
Table A.2. Smeared reinforcement properties of concrete
Material
1
2
Type
Horizontal
Longitudinal
Horizontal
Out-of-plane
Horizontal
Longitudinal
Out-of-plane
Percentage
(%)
0.26
0.45
0.75
0.75
4
4
4
Diameter
(mm)
8
10
8
8
12
12
12
Fy
(MPa)
520
585
520
520
520
520
520
Fu
(MPa)
560
715
560
560
560
560
560
Es
(MPa)
200000
200000
200000
200000
200000
200000
200000
A2
Appendix A
Table A.3. Linear reinforcement properties
Area
(mm2)
Diameter
(mm)
Fy
(MPa)
Fu
(MPa)
Es
(MPa)
600
20
570
675
200000
ANALYSIS SETTINGS
Figure A.2. Material model settings for VecTor2 Model
Figure A.3. Auxiliary model settings for VecTor2 Model
A3

RC Shear Wall Behaviour Modelling Considering Shear-Moment Interactions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RC Shear Wall Behaviour Modelling Considering Shear-Moment Interactions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MODELLING RC WALL

Andrs Abarca Jimnez

Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia

The dissertation entitled Modelling RC Wall Behaviour Considering Moment-Shear

Prof. Timothy Sullivan

Dr. David Ruggiero

2.3 Modelling Summary ................................................................................................................ 21

(Bentz et al 2006) ................................................................................6

Figure 2.11.Simplified shear stress-strain relationship .............................................................12

Table 3.20. Material properties of walls from Salonikios et al (1999) .....................................31

= Strain in the centre of the longitudinal (vertical) axis of a wall

= Concrete compressive strength

= Concrete cracking stress

= Base rotation angle due to strain penetration

= Strut angle in shear actions

= Length of wall affected by shear deformations

= Yield strength of steel

= Ultimate strength of steel

= Effective crack spacing

= Horizontal length of a wall

= Average of a statistical sample

Modelling Limitations for Low Aspect Ratio Shear Walls

Figure 1.3.Components of deformation in a shear wall element

1.2 Observed Behaviour of Low Aspect Ratio Shear Walls

Figure 1.5.Diagonal compression failure of shear wall

Figure 1.6.Shear sliding failure of shear wall

Figure 1.7.Combined flexural-shear failure mechanism of shear wall

Diagonal tension failures are avoided by requesting a minimum shear reinforcement of

Horizontal reinforcement is calculated assuming a modified truss analogy with diagonal

Concrete contribution is included with the use of an empirical coefficient c which

Figure 1.9.Empirical backbone curve properties as described by the ASCE 41-06

Objectives and Scope

Evaluate the proposed methodology with available experimental testing results to

The experimental validation is limited to the existing public databases; no additional

Chapter 2. Proposed Modelling Method

2 PROPOSED MODELLING METHOD

Section curvature due to flexure

Base rotation due to strain penetration

Tension shift effect

2.1.1 Section curvature due to flexure

Chapter 2. Proposed Modelling Method

Chapter 2. Proposed Modelling Method

Figure 2.2.Calculation of curvature profile using equilibrium and section analysis

2.1.2 Base rotation due to strain penetration

Chapter 2. Proposed Modelling Method

Figure 2.3.Strain penetration of rigid wall element on deformable foundation

This phenomena is known as strain penetration, and in terms of displacement it can be

Chapter 2. Proposed Modelling Method

Figure 2.4.Idealization of strain penetration as a base rotation for displacement calculation

2.1.3 Shear deformations

Chapter 2. Proposed Modelling Method

Chapter 2. Proposed Modelling Method

2.1.4 Tension shift effect

Chapter 2. Proposed Modelling Method

Figure 2.7.Tension shift effect on shear wall

Figure 2.8.Effect of tension shift on curvature analysis of shear walls

Chapter 2. Proposed Modelling Method

Tools to account for displacement components

2.2.1 Section curvature due to flexure

Chapter 2. Proposed Modelling Method

    

Figure 2.9.Curvature simplification for calculation of flexural displacements

2.2.2 Base rotation due to strain penetration

Chapter 2. Proposed Modelling Method

9' : ;< '( cot29 700023

CI = 12.7 10 + 2 23 0.32 ;<