You are on page 1of 19

Seismic Design of Lightly

Reinforced Precast Concrete


Rectangular Wall Panels
Francisco J. Crisafulli, Ph.D. Lightly reinforced precast concrete panels can
Professor be used advantageously to provide lateral force
Facultad de Ingeniera
Universidad Nacional de Cuyo
resistance in low-rise buildings. The abundance
Mendoza, Argentina of wall panels in certain buildings means that
wall panels that are lightly reinforced can provide
sufficient lateral force resistance if designed for
nominally elastic or limited ductility response. In
these systems, the ductility demand in the critical
regions of the walls is expected to be low and, as
a result, the detailing of the critical regions can
be eased without having any detrimental effect
on the overall seismic performance. This paper
Jos I. Restrepo, Ph.D. presents theoretical and practical aspects relevant
Associate Professor
Department of Structural Engineering to the seismic design and behavior of precast
University of California, San Diego concrete rectangular walls that are jointed at the
La Jolla, California
foundation. Particular emphasis is given to the
stiffness, useable lateral displacement ductility and
the shear transfer in the connection. Experimental
results of a test on a single wall unit are also
discussed in the paper. A numerical design
example is included to show the application of the
proposed system.

Robert Park, Ph.D.


Emeritus Professor

S
Department of Civil Engineering ince the early 1960s, there has been a worldwide
University of Canterbury increase in the use of precast concrete for structural
Christchurch, New Zealand components in buildings. This has come about be-
cause the incorporation of precast concrete components
has the advantages of high quality control, reduction of site
formwork and labor, increased speed of construction, and
overall economy.

104 PCI JOURNAL


(a) Reinforcing cage and ducting (b) Wall panel before erection

(c) Protruding bars used in wall panel connection (d) Erection of panel

Fig. 1. Example of precast concrete walls connected through grouted ducting.

In some seismic regions, the exten- to the adjacent structural elements, have an inside diameter that is typi-
sive use of precast components has such as slabs and foundations, with cally equal to the diameter of the bar
been limited because of the poor earth- jointed connections comprising vari- to be anchored plus a void of 1 to 2
quake performance of reinforced con- ous combinations of concrete inserts, in. (25 to 50 mm). The ducts and the
crete structures incorporating precast bolted or welded steel plates or angle wall-foundation gap are grouted in a
concrete elements. This situation has brackets, lapped reinforcement splices single operation or, alternatively, the
been aggravated by the fact that build- within cast-in-place joining strips, and gap is dry-packed and then the ducts
ing codes in many countries have, for grouted bars in sleeves or ducts.1,2 are grouted.
many years, contained comprehensive A precast concrete system that Shrinkage-compensating cement-
provisions for the seismic design of is commonly used in New Zealand based grouts, which are either pumped
cast-in-place concrete structures but uses the connection shown in Figs. or poured from the wall-foundation
not for the design of precast concrete 1 and 2. In this system, the vertical gap, are normally used. The grout is
structures. bars protruding from the foundation pumped in to ensure it flows in one di-
Precast concrete walls that cantilever are grouted into galvanized corrugated rection to avoid the entrapment of air.
from the foundation can be used in the steel ducts embedded in the wall units Air is expelled through vents placed at
construction of low-rise commercial a distance at least equal to the devel- several locations on the gap as well as
and industrial buildings as part of the opment length. at the upper end of each duct. A mini-
lateral force resisting system. Once The ducts are purposely made larger mum distance of at least 3 in. (75 mm)
erected, the wall panels are connected to ease the erection of the walls. They is normally left between the end of the

July-August 2002 105


Fig. 2. Wall panel-to-foundation connection detail.

vertical bar and the end of the duct. even if the lateral forces considered the connection and, thus, the bending
This distance is in recognition that were derived from an elastic response moment is very small since it depends
water bleeding in the upper end of the spectrum without being reduced by a mainly on the axial force present in
duct can lower the mechanical proper- response modification factor. the wall.
ties of the grout. Prior to grouting, the A building in which the walls are Precast concrete walls of this type
base of the wall and the foundation detailed with the minimum provisions, could be designed as if jointed with
beam are roughened and cleaned with and where a rigorous capacity design longitudinal reinforcement amounts
an oil-free air pressure gun to improve procedure is not performed, might not that are less than the minimum rec-
the interface shear transfer conditions. necessarily be sufficiently strong and ommended for cast-in place concrete
The force transfer between the wall ductile. This is because the weak link wall construction. In such designs, the
panel and the foundation is achieved could be hidden in a structural com- walls are expected to develop a single
through non-contact lap bar splices ponent or in a connection that is not crack at the wall-foundation connec-
from the grouted bars and bars that are specifically detailed for ductility. tion when subjected to in-plane lateral
cast with the wall unit. Design provisions specifically writ- loading in a strong earthquake.
Frequently, during the seismic de- ten for cast-in-place concrete walls The potential disadvantages that
sign of low-rise buildings in which the could be of questionable use when could affect the overall seismic re-
lateral force resistance is provided by using some precast concrete wall sys- sponse of these walls are the very
structural walls, it can be found that, tems. For example, the design pro- small plastic hinge length and the ten-
when following the recommendations vision for establishing the minimum dency for sliding shear to occur once
for the design of cast-in-place concrete amount of longitudinal reinforcement the connection opens up. If such a sys-
walls, minimum provisions control the in cast-in-place concrete walls is to tem is to be recommended for use in
amount of longitudinal wall reinforce- ensure a moment capacity greater than practice, it must be demonstrated that
ment and the detailing of the transverse the cracking moment. Nonetheless, the these two potential disadvantages are
reinforcement at the potential plastic use of such a criterion seems inappro- explicitly addressed during the design
hinge regions. It can also be found that priate for the type of precast system process to ensure they have no influ-
minimum design provisions would described above (see Fig. 2). Little, if ence on the systems overall seismic
also control the design of the walls any, tension can be transferred across response.

106 PCI JOURNAL


Fig. 3. Axial
compression-
longitudinal
reinforcement
ratio interaction
diagram for
inducing flexural
cracking in
rectangular
walls.

This paper discusses the theoretical the base of the walls often require the The present work has been carried
aspects required for the seismic design splicing of longitudinal reinforcement out on specimens subjected to reversed
of lightly reinforced precast concrete at the critical region where plastic cyclic shear and constant axial force,
walls that are jointed at the founda- hinges would normally be expected but without overturning moment. This
tion and that are suitable for provid- to occur. Splicing of the longitudinal loading condition is useful as it identi-
ing earthquake resistance in low-rise reinforcement generally precludes the fies the main components of the shear
buildings. The article focuses on the spread of the plastic hinge into the transfer mechanisms. However, the
design of cantilever wall panels that wall panel, thus, constraining the plas- boundary conditions of these tests do
remain uncracked and whose nonlin- ticity to develop only at the wall-foun- not represent very well the conditions
ear lateral force lateral displacement dation connection. of wall panels subjected to seismic ac-
response is due to the opening of a gap Monolithic emulation can be tions, particularly when the reversed
at the wall-foundation connection. The achieved in systems whose walls are cyclic bending moments exceeding the
paper also reviews the results obtained embedded in a grouted recess in the yield rotation are applied at the con-
from a cyclic reversed loading test on foundation.3 Most other systems rely nection.
a full-scale precast concrete wall unit. on shear transfer across the connec-
A numerical design example is pro- tion, but little emphasis is given to the
vided to show the application of the effect caused by the opening there. THEORETICAL
proposed design system. The design for shear transfer across CONSIDERATIONS
the connection is often done following Presented herein are general design
the shear-friction concepts proposed criteria, design for combined flexure-
LITERATURE REVIEW in the 1960s4,5 and incorporated in the axial load and shear, and overall lateral
A review of the literature indicates building codes. force-lateral displacement response.
that there is limited knowledge about Experimental work on the shear
the seismic response of precast con- transfer across joints is fairly exten-
crete wall systems and connections sive, with numerous results available General Design Criteria
used in construction. In precast con- on tests on specimens tested mono- The precast concrete walls described
crete wall construction, it is partic- tonically under combined shear and in this paper are suitable for furnish-
ularly difficult to develop systems axial load conditions. Experimental ing satisfactory in-plane lateral force
that can truly emulate monolithic work investigating the effects the cy- resistance if the principles of capacity
behavior. clic loading has on the shear transfer design are used to preclude any unde-
This is because the connections at mechanisms is more limited.6,7 sirable mode of failure, ensuring that

July-August 2002 107


sile strength of 87 ksi (600 MPa) for
Grade 60 reinforcement, a modulus of
rupture of concrete equal to 7.2 fc
psi (0.6 fc MPa) and a strength
reduc- tion factor for bending
= 0.9. Fig. 3 shows the maximum
longitudinal reinforcement ratios, t,
for a given axial stress and a given
concrete cylinder compressive
strength at which a rectangular wall
panel cracks computed using the
above values.
In Fig. 3, it is apparent that an in-
crease in axial compressive stress re-
duces the maximum value of t. This
is because an increase in axial com-
Fig. 4. Shear pression increases the moment capac-
resisting ity, which is greater than the cracking
mechanisms at moment increase.
joint between a Limitations to the longitudinal bar
wall panel and diameter, db, connecting the wall pan-
foundation. els are advisable. On the one hand, the
bar diameter should not be too large
to avoid splitting of the wall panel
nonlinear behavior results chiefly from theory can be used to determine the and yet not too small to limit the yield
the opening of the wall-foundation con- amount of longitudinal reinforcement strain penetration and, therefore, the
nection. When detailing the wall panels required. Ductile reinforcement, pref- walls lateral deformation capacity.
with longitudinal reinforcing steel ra- erably with a tensile strain at the ul- For these reasons, the ratio of wall
tios less than those required to resist the timate tensile strength of at least 12 thickness, t w , to bar diameter, d b ,
cracking moment of the wall section, percent, is required to accommodate should be such that 9 tw /db 15.
the wall panels should be designed to the relatively high strain demands that
remain uncracked during erection and are expected to arise in the longitudi-
all other loading conditions. nal bars crossing the wall-foundation Design for Shear
This behavior is desirable because connection in a strong earthquake. The critical region for shear in this
of (a) serviceability requirements, and Another feature of this precast con- precast system is at the base of the
(b) potential structural problems as- crete system is that the neutral axis walls, where an opening of the con-
sociated with the brittle flexural post- depth-to-wall length ratios at the ulti- nection is expected to occur. Most of
cracking behavior of the panels. In mate limit state are typically less than the shear force resisted across the con-
terms of capacity design, the latter 0.08. Given the shallowness of the nection is transferred by friction be-
condition implies that the walls should neutral axis depths, flexural failure in tween the wall panel and the founda-
be able to develop the flexural over- this system is often initiated by frac- tion and, to a lesser extent, by dowel
strength while preventing cracking in turing of the longitudinal reinforce- action in the reinforcing bars crossing
the wall panel and preventing a sliding ment at the wall-foundation connec- the connection. A small component of
shear failure at the wall-foundation tion rather than by crushing of the the shear force is transferred by kink-
connection. compressed concrete. ing in the longitudinal bars crossing
If the reinforcement ratio of the lon- the connection.8
gitudinal bars crossing the connection The former two mechanisms can be
Design for Combined and that provided in the wall panel is assumed to carry the entire shear force.
Flexure-Axial Load less than that required by the building If these mechanisms are assumed to be
A main feature of this precast wall code for cast-in-place walls, the wall additive and independent, the shear
system is that tensile stresses cannot panel should be designed to remain force resisted at the connection, Vn,
develop between the cementitious uncracked at all stages of loading, in- can be expressed as:
interfaces at the connection region, cluding at the stage associated with
and, therefore, the building code re- the development of the flexural over- Vn = Vd + Vf (1)
quirements for minimum flexural rein- strength.
forcement and reinforcement spacing, It is suggested here that, in place of where Vd and Vf are the components of
which may often control the design a statistical sample, the flexural over- the shear force carried by dowel action
of a wall panel, do not have to be sat- strength at the connection region be and friction, respectively.
isfied there. Conventional flexural evaluated assuming an ultimate ten- It is worth noting that the peak value

108 PCI JOURNAL


N
of Vn does not result from the sum of Mo o Ty + lw (4a)
2
the peak values of each of the resist- If a flexural dominated response is to
ing mechanisms since these mecha- be ensured, the nominal shear resistance
nisms do not reach their peak values where o is the overstrength factor, at the connection should be equal to or
simultaneously. Ty = Ast fy /2 is the yield force of the greater than the shear force acting at the
The shear force carried by dowel reinforcing bars with area Ast /2 located connection at the development of over-
action, Vd, is equal to the horizontal toward one end of the wall, and lw is strength. Thus:
component of the axial forces that the length of the wall.
develop once sliding shear occurs be- The shear force at the base of the sVn Vo (7)
tween the jointing surfaces. This force wall corresponding to the development
is mathematically expressed as: of the flexural overstrength, Vo, is: where s is the strength reduction factor
for shear, taken equal to 1 in capacity de-
Vd = Asi fsi sini (2) Vo =
Mo
(4b) signed structures.11
heff Eqs. (4) and (5) can be combined and
where Asi, fsi and i are the area, axial solved for Vn. This expression takes the
stress and kink angle with respect to form:
the vertical axis of bar i, respectively. where heff is the height measured from
Note that stress fsi is defined positive Vn = fN (8)
the base of the wall to the resultant
in tension. lateral force. For low-rise buildings
The shear force carried by the fric- where f is an equivalent friction coef-
up to three stories, heff can be directly
tion mechanism is: ficient. This coefficient is given by:
obtained as the height of the resul-
tant base shear force obtained from the
(1 + ) 2e sin
Vf = f Cc = f (N + Asi fsi) (3) static lateral force procedure. f = 1 +
o
1 1 + f
The nominal shear resistance, V n, 2 lw f
where f is the coefficient of friction, at the wall-foundation connection for
walls in which the connection rein- with f f (9)
Cc is the compressive force carried by
the concrete and N is the concentric forcement is grouped towards the wall
axial force, which is taken positive in ends can be obtained from Eqs. (1) to
compression. (3): where eo is the axial load eccentricity de-
A close inspection of Eqs. (2) and fined as eo = Mo/N.
(3) reveals that the wall longitudinal Vn = f [(1 + )oTy + N ] + Coefficient f relates the shear force
transferred by the friction and dowel ac-
reinforcement in compression, result- (1 + )oTy sin (5)
ing from combined bending and axial tion mechanisms as a proportion of the
applied axial load.
load, has a detrimental effect on both where coefficient is the ratio between
the friction and sliding shear resist- When = 0, the entire shear force is
the force in the bars grouped close to
ing mechanisms. This effect is par- transferred by friction since no sliding
the extreme fiber in compression to
ticularly pronounced during reversed shear occurs between the jointing sur-
that of the bars grouped close to the
cyclic loading. It should be noted, faces. The case when f = f and = 0
extreme fiber in tension (see Fig. 4).
is found only in rocking walls in which
however, that at peak loading, the re- Coefficient is sensitive to the lo-
inforcement in compression in these cation of the bars and to the loading no longitudinal reinforcement crosses
walls could be nominally in tension the connection. Further, the case when
history. For symmetrically reinforced
depending upon the location of the walls subjected to reversed cyclic f and = 0 is found in slender walls

bars in the wall and the lateral load whose response is dominated by flexure
loading beyond the elastic limit, ex-
history. and the shear force is transferred irre-
treme values for this coefficient are
spectively from the axial load level.
It is well known that compressive = 1 and = 1. Unfortunately,
reinforcement is placed in reinforced Eq. (9) can be simplified by consider-
these values are found for cases of
concrete members to increase the duc- ing that the kink angle of the reinforce-
little practical application. Coefficient
ment in these walls is expected to be
tility capacity.8 However, in lightly = 1 when the bars are placed at the
small for which sin = . Thus, Eq. (9)
reinforced walls, the lack of compres- wall ends, whereas = 1 when the bars
sive reinforcement has little effect on can be rewritten as:
are placed at the center of the wall.
the flexural and rotational capacities. In practice, reinforcing bars are
An upper bound equation for the placed so that 0.5 g 0.95, where (1 + ) 2e
f = 1 +
o
1 1 + f
bending moment at the development g is the distance between the centroids 2 lw f
of overstrength, Mo, for the wall de- of the groups of bars as a proportion of
picted in Fig. 4 is obtained assuming the wall length (see Fig. 4). A conser- with f f (10)
the resultant compressive force, Cc, is vative expression proposed for deter-
located at the wall panel edge. Thus: mining the coefficient is:
= 1 2g (6) In some cases, particularly in stout

July-August 2002 109


ment, Mn, at the base of the wall, km
is the soil subgrade reaction modulus,
Af and lf are the area and length of the
rectangular foundation supporting the
wall, respectively. Note that the ex-
pression developed for Kf assumes that
the foundation and the soil underneath
are permanently in contact.
The fixed-end rotation is caused
mainly by strain penetration of the
tensile reinforcement anchored in the
wall panel and in the foundation.2 In
rocking walls, rotation occurs solely
due to the compressive strains that de-
velop in the concrete.
To encompass the complete range
Fig. 5. Proposed of walls, the following expression is
analytical model. proposed for j:

20 db f y 16 N
j = or j =
walls, Eq. (7) can only be satisfied if termining the useable displacement jlw Es 3Ec Aw
sliding shear is permitted so that a frac- ductility in each wall. The useable (14)
tion of the shear force is transferred by displacement ductility could be used
dowel action. However, it should be to estimate the response modification
noted that sliding shear displacements factor required by the relevant build- whichever is greater, where db is the
have two major drawbacks: ing code. diameter of the connecting bar, Ec is
First, sliding results in pinching of The walls can be represented with the concrete elastic modulus, and Aw is
the hysteretic response if it takes place the model illustrated in Fig. 5, which the wall gross section area.
before the jointing surfaces enter in combines a prismatic beam element In place of a rational approach in-
contact, or in grinding if it occurs after and a rotational spring. The beam ele- volving equilibrium and strain com-
the surfaces enter in contact. ment idealizes the wall panel itself. patibility, the nominal moment, Mn,
Second, and most importantly, large This element can be modeled using in lightly reinforced walls can be ap-
magnitude sliding shear displacements elastic theory based on the walls proximately calculated as:
in walls of different lengths in a multi- gross section properties. The rotational
N
story building will result in kinemati- spring accounts for flexibility result- Mn Ty + lw (15)
cal incompatibility. ing from the opening at the connection 2
To maintain sliding displacements to as well as from the rotation due to the
within a small component of the lateral soil.
displacement at peak loading, the fol- The stiffness K of this spring is The shear force, V, corresponding to
lowing recommendation is made for given by: the nominal moment is given by:
the kinking angle : Mn
1 V= (16)
K = (12) heff
1 2eo 1 1
= 1 radians +
3 lw Kj Kf
and the yield displacement, y, cal-
with 0 0.2 radians (11) culated at the height of the resultant
where the rotational wall-founda- lateral force is:
Overall Lateral Force-Lateral tion connection stiffness, Kj, and the
Displacement Response foundation rotational stiffness, Kf, are 4 Mn heff 3 l 2
1 + w heff
given by: y = j + f +
Response Within the Elastic Limit Ec Aw lw2 4 heff

The evaluation of the seismic ac- 2
Mj km A f l f (17)
tions for this precast system should be Kj = and K f = 4 Mn heff 3 lw
2
performed in accordance with local j 12 1 +
y = j + f +
E A l 2
4 h heff
seismic design provisions. For this (13) c w w
eff

evaluation, the design engineer is re-
quired to build a suitable mathematical (17)
model by modeling the walls with ap- where j is the fixed-end rotation at
propriate stiffness values and by de- the development of the nominal mo- Eq.

110 PCI JOURNAL


Fig. 6. Lateral
force-lateral
displacement
response
of a lightly
reinforced
precast concrete
wall.

(17) considers the three main contribu- Table 1. Parameters varied in the random simulation.
tors to the lateral displacement in a Limits
cantilever wall loaded with a single Variable Units Minimum Maximum
lateral force applied at a height heff. bw /db 9 16
The first and second terms in Eq. (17) f c psi (MPa) 2900 (20) 5800 (40)
account for the rotation caused by g 0.5 0.95
heff /lw 1 4
opening of the joint and by the founda-
hG /heff 1
/2 2
/3
tion flexibility, respectively, whereas N/(Aw f c) 0 0.04
the third term accounts for elastic flex- o 1.22 1.62
ure and shear deformations in the un- t 0 0.24 percent
cracked wall panel.
The latter term can be derived using
first principles of mechanics while also The lateral displacement, o, cor-
assuming that the concrete elastic to A large level of energy dissipation per responding to the development of the
shear moduli ratio Ec /Gc = 2.5.12 cycle will occur when N/(Aw t fy) < flexural overstrength and calculated
The foundation rotation f for use in 0.77, but this will occur at the expense at the effective wall height heff can be
Eq. (17) is given by: of residual displacements. derived similarly to Eq. (17) if sliding
Upon the development of the nomi- shear displacements across the con-
nal flexural strength, the reinforcing nection are neglected:
Mn
f = (18) bars in the wall-foundation connec-
Kf tion undergo strains well into the work 4 Mo heff 3 lw
2

hardening region. At some point, heff


o = oj + of + 1 +
mainly due to cyclic loading, these Ec Aw lw2 4 heff

Response Beyond the Elastic Limit bars fracture after being repeatedly
(19)
These walls have a lateral force-lat- bent back and forth and axially strained
4 Mo heff 3 lw
2
o 1 + heff
eral displacement monotonic response, up to large tensile strains and backoto= j + f +
o

which is described in Fig. 6. The re- nearly zero strain. At the point imme- Ec Aw lw2 4 heff

sponse of these walls is characterized diately before fracturing of the bars,
(19)
by two distinct phases: the wall attains its peak overstrength.
In the first phase, hysteresis occurs The second phase develops upon
where
mainly from yielding at the wall-foun- fracturing of the reinforcing bars. The
the fixed-end and foundation rotations,
dation connection. A self-centering re- response of the wall when laterally
joand fo, respectively, are given by:
sponse, that is, a response that does loaded beyond this point is well de-
not leave residual displacements, is at- scribed by the response of a rocking
tained when the ratio N/(Aw t fy) 0.77. rigid body.

July-August 2002 111


u = o when
o t f y
0.25
hG o N
1 2 h l Aw
eff w

(21a)
or
heff lw 0.8 Mo
u =
hG 2 N
when
o t f y
< 0.25
hG o N
1 2 h l Aw
eff w

(21b)

where hG is the distance from the base


of the wall to the resultant gravity load.
(a) Assuming infinitely rigid foundation
Eq. (21a) indicates that a large de-
crease in lateral load capacity occurs
following the rupture of the walls lon-
gitudinal reinforcement.
In contrast, Eq. (21b) indicates that
the contribution of the walls longi-
tudinal reinforcement towards lateral
force resistance is small and fracturing
of these bars only results in a small
decrease in the capacity of the wall.
Thus, the response of such walls is
dominated by rocking. Providing that
adequate detailing is provided at the
base of these walls, the rocking re-
sponse could be advantageously used
in design.
Useable Displacement Ductility
The concept of useable displacement
ductility is introduced in this paper to
relate the response of the precast con-
crete system to a given performance
level. The useable displacement duc-
tility, , is defined as the lesser of the
(b) Accounting for foundation flexibility ultimate displacement ductility, u, or
the displacement ductility ratio, p,
Fig. 7. Useable displacement ductility as a function of the wall aspect ratio. corresponding to the lateral displace-
ment associated with the performance
12 db su
*
Mo level under consideration.
oj = and of =
(1 + g)lw / 2 Kf ultimate tensile strain obtained from a This concept is mathematically ex-
(20) monotonic tensile test is recommended pressed as:
for su
*
for use in design.
in which su *
is the effective ultimate The ultimate lateral displacement, the lesser of u or p (22a)
tensile strain. u, arbitrarily defined here as the dis-
In recognition that cyclic reversed placement associated with a 20 per- where
loading results in a reduction of the cent decrease in lateral force resistance
ultimate tensile strain for the reinforc- from the peak lateral force, can be ob-
ing bars, a value of one-half of the tained for these walls as:

112 PCI JOURNAL


u p
u = and p = (22b)
y y

and where

p = heff (22c)

in which is the drift ratio corre-


sponding to the performance level
under consideration.
A random variable simulation was
performed to illustrate the useable
ductility concept in this type of pre-
cast concrete wall system. The yield
and ultimate displacements, y and u,
respectively, were obtained by evalu-
ating Eqs. (17) and (21). Two cases
were investigated. Fig. 8. General dimensions and reinforcing details for test unit.
The first case considered fixed-end
foundation conditions, that is Kf = ,
whereas the other case accounted for ment, Eq. (21a), for the same wall generally results in ultimate moments
the foundation flexibility. In this sec- aspect ratio. that can be satisfied with nominal lon-
ond case, Kf was calculated from Eq. A comparison of Figs. 7(a) and 7(b) gitudinal reinforcement using the pro-
(13) with lf /lw = 1.5, Af /Aw = 5.5 and clearly illustrates the effect that foun- cedure described above. The main at-
with km = 255 kip/ft3 (40 MN/m3). The dation flexibility has on the useable traction of this system is the ease and
parameters, which varied in the study, displacement ductility. The flexibility simplicity in the reinforcing detailing,
are listed in Table 1. of the foundation decreases the use- as no confinement of the concrete or
The drift ratio chosen for the evalu- able displacement ductility due to the special transverse reinforcement is re-
ation of Eq. (22c) was = 0.02. The increase in the yield displacement, quired in the wall panels.
generation of variables was performed which is used to define ductility [see Larger response modification fac-
using equal probability with values Eqs. (16) and (22b)]. This effect is tors could be used for this system
within the limits listed in Table 1 and particularly pronounced in walls with when the response of the walls is con-
assuming the connection was rein- aspect ratios of heff /lw 3. trolled by rocking. The evaluation of
forced with Grade 60 ksi (414 MPa) It is interesting to note that in those the response modification factors for
bars and that f = 0.7. Only those re- walls whose ultimate displacement this particular case and the design of a
sults that resulted in uncracked wall is defined by Eq. (21a), the useable foundation system to ensure a suitable
panels and that satisfied Eq. (7) were displacement ductility is fairly inde- rocking response are outside the scope
selected. pendent from the wall aspect ratio and of this paper.
The values of obtained from the is low in the majority of cases. Since
simulation are plotted against the wall it is generally difficult in practice to
aspect ratio heff /lw in Fig. 7. The re- attain rigid foundation conditions, it is EXPERIMENTAL WORK
sults obtained for the case of walls recommended herein that this precast This section provides a general de-
on a rigid foundation are shown in concrete system be used in conjunc- scription of the test unit, describes the
Fig. 7(a), whereas the results obtained tion with low response modification test arrangement and material proper-
considering foundation flexibility are factors to ensure nominally elastic or ties of the specimens, and gives the
shown in Fig. 7(b). limited ductility response and, hence, general and lateral force-displacement
For those walls on rigid foundations, to ensure displacement ductility de- responses.
the systems useable displacement mands that are compatible with the
ductility is highly dependent on the useable displacement ductilities de-
wall aspect ratio and on the controlling picted in Fig. 7(b). General Description of the
mode of failure. The useable displace- This recommendation implies that Test Unit
ment ductility decreases significantly buildings incorporating this precast A full-scale test unit representing
with the wall aspect ratio. Moreover, concrete jointed wall system should be an example of the jointed system in a
walls whose response is dominated by designed for lateral forces larger than two-story building was built and tested
rocking, Eq. (21b), have a greater use- those used in the design of ductile under reverse cyclic loading. Fig. 8 il-
able displacement ductility than walls lateral force resisting systems. How- lustrates the overall dimensions of the
whose response is controlled by the ever, the abundance of walls present test unit and Fig. 9 depicts the rein-
fracture of the longitudinal reinforce- in buildings incorporating this system forcing details at the bottom corners of

July-August 2002 113


by forming criss-cross grooves when
the concrete was in a semi-hardened
state. The bottom face of the wall
panel was mechanically roughened
before erecting the unit.
In order to ensure a uniform thick-
ness of the gap between the panels and
the base, 0.2 in. (5 mm) steel shims
were placed on the base, and the sur-
face was covered with dry pack mor-
tar. Then, the wall panel was lifted
with a crane and located on the rein-
forced concrete base. Subsequently,
each corrugated duct was gravity filled
with non-shrinkage grout through a
small tube located at the bottom.

Test Arrangement
The general details of the loading
Fig. 9. Connection detail between wall and foundation. frame are illustrated in Fig. 10. Lat-
eral forces were applied using two hy-
draulic actuators, which were used to
the wall panels. The connection at the wire mesh, 0.25 in. (6.3 mm) diameter pull alternatively depending on the
wall-foundation connection was pro- wire at a 6 in. (150 mm) spacing. direction of the applied force. Vertical
vided by two 0.6 in. (16 mm) diameter In addition, 0.5 in. (12 mm) diam- forces were also applied with servo-
reinforcing bars with a nominal bar eter bars were provided at the perim- controlled hydraulic actuators acting
area Ab = 0.31 sq in. (201 mm2) and eter of the wall panel. Corrugated steel at the top of the panel. These actuators
a nominal yield strength of 62.4 ksi ducts, 2 in. (50.8 mm) in diameter and provided a pair corresponding to the
(430 MPa). 25.6 in. (650 mm) high, were placed overturning moment in the prototype
The reinforcing ratio at the connec- at the bottom of the wall panel to per- wall at 7 ft (2.1 m) from its base due
tion was t = 0.067 percent, which is mit the connection of the wall and the to the resultant lateral force applied at
well below that required for cast-in- foundation beam. At the bottom edge an effective height of heff = 13 ft 1 in.
place wall construction.9,10 Except for of the wall panel, two 0.5 in. (12 mm) (4.55 m) (see Fig. 11).
the region around the corrugated ducts, reinforcing bars were located at each The axial load acting at the ground
where two layers of welded wire mesh side of the corrugated ducts. level connection was only due to the
were used, the wall panel was rein- The top face of the reinforced con- self-weight of the wall panel of 7.8
forced with a central layer of welded crete foundation beam was roughened kips (34.6 kN). Even though the axial
load in the actual precast concrete wall
panels is expected to be higher, this
case represents an unfavorable condi-
tion for the connection because the
shear strength of the panel is a func-
tion of the axial load.

Material Properties
The compressive strength of the
concrete, measured using 6 in. (150
mm) high x 4 in. (100 mm) diameter
cylinders, was 2450 psi (16.9 MPa)
at 28 days. The grout pumped into the
corrugated steel ducts had a compres-
sive strength of 8350 psi (57.6 MPa)
at 28 days.
It was not possible to make speci-
mens for compression tests with the
dry pack mortar because this material
had a very low water content. How-
Fig. 10. Test arrangement. ever, a sample of this material was

114 PCI JOURNAL


Fig. 11. Loading
simulation in
test unit.

taken from the unit after the test was resisted by the bar by dowel action. The small lateral displacements and to un-
finished. Small prisms 0.63 in. square crack did not widen due to the presence symmetrical sliding of the wall panel.
x 1.26 in. long (16 mm square x 32 of 0.47 in. (12 mm) trimming bars and The theoretical response obtained
mm long) were cut and tested in com- of the mesh surrounding the connecting from Eqs. (17) to (19) with f = fo =
pression, resulting in a compressive reinforcement. The test continued by 0 is also plotted in Fig. 12. The mea-
strength of 835 psi (5.8 MPa). applying successive cycles of increas- sured initial stiffness of the test unit
The poor strength of the dry pack ing displacement ductility. was significantly lower than indicated
mortar could have been due to the poor In the cycles near the end of the theoretically.
hydration of the cement caused by the test, sliding displacements in the con- The main reason for this differ-
low amount of water used for mixing, nection were clearly visible. Such ence was the flexibility of the founda-
which was prepared according to the displacements caused grinding of the tion. As explained before, foundation
specifications provided by the manu- dry-pack mortar bedding and resulted flexibility has a very large effect on
facturer. The wire mesh and the 0.6 in crushing. The test was ended after the definition of yield displacement,
in. (16 mm) diameter bars used in the the application of 24 cycles up to a which is particularly important in this
ground level connection had a yield displacement ductility of 7 and a drift unit because of the small wall aspect
strength of 65 and 66 ksi (458 and 467 ratio of 0.18 percent. At the end of the ratio of heff /lw = 1.13. Note, however,
MPa), respectively. test, no cracking or any other damage that there is good agreement between
had been observed in the precast wall. the experimental and theoretical post-
elastic response.
General Response Measurements taken from the strain
Horizontal cracks extending from Lateral Force-Displacement gauges indicated that the connecting
the extreme fiber in tension toward the Response bar yielded in tension during the ap-
center of the wall appeared in the wall- The lateral force versus displace- plication of 18.3 kips (81.3 kN) in the
foundation connection during the first ment response of the wall unit is forward (positive) direction during the
cycle. In the second cycle, the cracks plotted in Fig. 12. The first cycles, third cycle. In the initial cycles beyond
propagated beyond the center of the theoretically in the elastic range, the elastic limit, the load-displacement
wall panel and intersected the crack exhibited nonlinear inelastic behavior, response showed some indications of
developed in the previous semi-cycle. mainly due to the gradual opening at pinching, but the hysteretic loops still
As a result, the entire connection was the connection. The displacements in showed reasonable energy dissipation
crossed by a single crack. the positive direction were larger than capacity. This pinching effect gradu-
As the test continued, a small vertical those in the negative direction, at the ally increased in the following cycles
crack developed at the left edge of the same force level, which led to an un- as a result of sliding shear occurring at
wall along the line of the reinforcing symmetrical response of the unit. the wall-foundation connection.
bar that was subjected to tension. This This behavior was probably due to The reloading branch of the hystere-
crack developed due to the shear force errors in the measurement of the very sis loops clearly exhibited two different

July-August 2002 115


of the dry-pack mortar bedding, which
resulted in the accumulation of small
particles resulting in a rolling mech-
anism. Analysis of the data showed
that when sliding displacements had
resulted in a kinking angle = 10 de-
grees (0.17 radians), the friction coef-
ficient had decreased from the initial
average value of 0.7 to 0.51.
Measurement of the local strains in
the connecting 0.6 in. (16 mm) diam-
eter bars indicated that plastic strains
concentrated at the level of the wall-
foundation connection, and then de-
creased rapidly towards the ends.2 The
maximum tensile strains for each cycle
obviously occurred in correspondence
with the application of the maximum
lateral displacements. When the direc-
tion of the applied displacement was
reversed, the strains decreased but re-
Fig. 12. Lateral force-lateral displacement response.
mained in the tensile domain due to the
inability of the axial compression force
to push them back to zero strain.2
parts. When reloading started, the wall Analytical calculations indicate that, Strain measurements taken along the
panel slid several millimeters with very by comparison, shear and flexural de- connecting 0.6 in. (16 mm) diameter
low resistance and reduced stiffness. formations in the walls are small due bars indicate that peak strains develop
This behavior was expected as the ratio to the large stiffness of the wall com- at the connection and decrease, up and
N/(Aw t fy) for this unit was only 0.18, pared to that of the ground level con- downwards, as bond stresses develop,
which indicates that, upon unloading, nection. This conclusion was experi- somewhat linearly over 20 bar diam-
the axial force was unable to yield the mentally verified in a similar test on eters when the yield strength of the
bars back to zero strain and, thus, to two coupled precast walls.2 bar is attained.2 Measurements also
close the gap in the connection. The analysis of the results shows showed that, at large strains, the large
An increase in both stiffness and that sliding shear became the control- strain concentration occurred over a
strength was observed once the joint- ling mode of deformation, especially much shorter length, of about 12 bar
ing surfaces contacted and enabled the when large displacements were im- diameters. 2 These two observations
friction mechanism of shear transfer. posed, as a result of the degradation of were used to derive the rotations in
The repetition of cycles to equal dis- the frictional mechanism at the panel- Eqs. (14) and (20), respectively.
placement ductilities was accompanied base interface. Sliding shear had a sig-
by a decrease in the lateral strength. nificant influence on the response of
Moreover, the hysteresis loop exhib- the unit and accounted for more than CONCLUSIONS
ited stiffness degradation in the re- 50 percent of the lateral displacement Based on the results of this investi-
loading branches. These effects were in the cycles near the end of the test. gation, the following conclusions can
usually more significant between the The coefficient of friction, f, at the be drawn:
first and second cycle of the series. panel-base interface from Cycles 1, 2 1. A jointed precast concrete wall
The horizontal displacement mea- and 3 was 0.70, 0.69 and 0.71, respec- system can be designed to provide lat-
sured at the point of application of the tively. In order to calculate these val- eral force resistance in high seismic
lateral force can be divided into four ues, the clamping action was evaluated regions. The system is very lightly re-
components related to: taking into account the stresses devel- inforced, with longitudinal steel ratios
1. Elongation of the reinforcing bars oping in the reinforcing bars when the at the wall-foundation connection that
at the wall-foundation connec- peak load was applied. Sliding shear are less than those required for cast-in-
tion. displacements in these cycles were place wall construction. The system is
2. Flexural and shear deformations less than 1/127 in. (0.2 mm) which intended for use in low-rise building
in the precast walls. suggest that the contribution to shear construction with an abundant number
3. Sliding shear at the wall-founda- resistance from dowel action could be of walls. The main attractions of this
tion connection. ignored. system are the ease of the reinforcing
4. Rigid body movements origi- The analysis of the experimental re- details in the wall panels and the lack
nated by sliding or rotation of the sults indicates that the friction mecha- of earthquake-induced structural dam-
foundation. nism degraded as a result of grinding age in the wall panels themselves.

116 PCI JOURNAL


2. In this system, the vertical bars strain at the ultimate tensile strength, tem response.
protruding from the foundation are should not be less than 12 percent to 6. Experimental work was conducted
grouted into the precast concrete wall. avoid premature bar fracture at the to assess the response of such a sys-
The precast wall units are lowered into wall-foundation connection. tem. A full-scale wall unit was built
position, ensuring that the bars pro- 4. The theoretical aspects relevant and tested under reversed cyclic load-
truding from the foundation beam are to the seismic design and behavior ing. The test was conclusive in show-
anchored into galvanized corrugated of this precast concrete system are ing that precast concrete wall panels
steel ducts a distance at least equal to described in the paper. In particular, with a horizontal construction joint at
the development length. emphasis is given to the evaluation the base of the wall can be designed
3. A nonlinear lateral force-lateral of the systems stiffness, lateral dis- for limited ductility response, when
displacement response results in this placement and ductility, and to the the design ensures that the ultimate
system from opening of the wall-foun- shear transfer at the connection. It is flexural strength at the wall-foundation
dation connection. Energy dissipation shown that the foundation flexibility beam connection is less than the crack-
results from yielding of the reinforcing has a large effect in the useable ductil- ing moment of the wall panel. This is
bars crossing the connection while en- ity, particularly when low aspect ratio because the plasticity concentrates at
suring sliding shear in the connection walls are used. the connection region and is unable to
is minimized and cracking in the wall 5. In order to keep the displacement spread through the wall panel.
panels is avoided. The design with ductility demands compatible with the
this system requires the use of ductile useable displacement ductility, lateral
reinforcement in the connection re- forces should be determined using ACKNOWLEDGMENT
gion. It is recommended that the ulti- reasonably low response modification The Foundation for Research, Sci-
mate tensile strain, that is, the tensile factors to ensure limited ductility sys- ence and Technology, New Zealand, is

REFERENCES
gratefully acknowledged for granting the funding from the Place Concrete, Progressive Architecture, September 1960,
Public Good Science Fund (Contract UOC 306, 1993/96) pp. 172-179.
that made this research program possible. 5. Mast, R. F., Auxiliary Reinforcement in Concrete Connec-
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the tions, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, Journal of the Structural Division, V. 94, ST6, June
PCI JOURNAL reviewers for their most helpful suggestions
1968, pp. 1485-1504.
and constructive comments.
6. Paulay, T., Park, R., and Phillips, M. H., Horizontal Construc-
1. Guidelines for the Use of Precast Concrete in Buildings, Re-
tion Joints in Cast-in-Place Concrete, Shear in Reinforced
port of a Study Group of the New Zealand Concrete Society
Concrete, ACI Special Publication SP-42, V. 2, Farmington
and the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering,
Hills, MI, 1974, pp. 599-616.
Second Edition, Centre for Advanced Engineering, University
7. Soudki, K. A., West, J. S., Rizkalla, S. H., and Blackett, B.,
of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, December 1999,
Horizontal Connections for Precast Concrete Shear Wall Pan-
144 pp.
els Under Cyclic Shear Loading, PCI JOURNAL, V. 41, No.
2. Restrepo, J. I., Crisafulli, F. J., and Park, R., Earthquake
3, May-June 1996, pp. 64-80.
Resistance of Structures: The Design and Construction of Tilt-
8. Park, R., and Paulay, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, John
Up Reinforced Concrete Buildings, Research Report 96-11,
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1975.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury,
9. NZS 3101, Concrete Structures Standard, Part 1: The Design
Christchurch, New Zealand, 1996.
of Concrete Structures and Part 2: Commentary on the Design
3. Holden, T. J., Restrepo, J. I., and Mander, J. B., Seismic
of Concrete Structures, Standards Association of New Zealand,
Performance of Precast Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete
Wellington, New Zealand, 1995.
Walls, Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society
10. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Struc-
of Civil Engineers, in press.
tural Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (ACI 318R-
4. Anderson, A. R., Composite Designs in Precast and Cast-in-
95), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,

July-August 2002 117


APPENDIX A NOTATION
1995. Mn = nominal flexural strength
11. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Rein- Mr = moment capacity of rigid rocking block
forced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, N = concentric axial load
Inc., New York, NY, 1992. tw = wall thickness
12. Popov, E., Mechanics of Materials, Prentice-Hall Inc., Second
Ty = yield force of group of bars
Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1978.
Vn = nominal shear strength
Af = foundation area
Vo = shear force in wall corresponding to development
Asi = area of reinforcing bars
of flexural overstrength at connection
Ast = total area of reinforcement
wf = foundation width
Aw = gross cross-sectional area of wall
= wall lateral displacement at effective height, heff
Cc = compressive force carried by concrete
o = lateral displacement at development of flexural
db = reinforcing bar diameter
overstrength
eo = axial load eccentricity defined as Mo/N
p = lateral displacement at effective height, heff, corre-
Ec = concrete elastic modulus
sponding to performance limit
Es = steel elastic modulus
u = ultimate lateral displacement at effective height, heff
f c = concrete cylinder compressive strength
y = wall yield displacement at effective height, heff
fsi = steel stress
*su = effective ultimate tensile strain
fy = yield strength of reinforcing steel
f = foundation rotation at development of nominal
g = distance between centroids of groups of bars as a
strength
proportion of wall length
j = fixed-end rotation at wall-foundation connection at
Gc = concrete shear modulus
development of nominal strength
h = overall wall height
fo = foundation rotation at development of overstrength
heff = height from wall base to resultant of horizontal
jo = fixed-end rotation at wall-foundation connection at
seismic force
development of overstrength
hG = height from wall base to centroid of gravity force
= drift ratio
km = soil subgrade reaction modulus
= kink angle
Kf = foundation rotational stiffness
f = friction coefficient
Kj = wall-foundation connection rotational stiffness
f = equivalent friction coefficient
K = rotational stiffness
= useable displacement ductility
lf = foundation length
p = displacement ductility corresponding to given drift
lw = wall length
ratio
Mo = flexural overstrength

118 PCI JOURNAL


APPENDIX B DERIVATION OF EQUATIONS (9) AND (21)
u = displacement ductility capacity If the P-Delta effect is accounted for, the moment Mo of a
t = reinforcement ratio rigid reinforced concrete rectangular wall can be defined as:
= strength reduction factor for flexure
s = strength reduction factor for shear
lw
o = overstrength factor Mo = Mr + o t f y bw (B5)
2
Equation (9)
From Eq. (5): If all the longitudinal bars are conservatively assumed to
fracture simultaneously, the moment capacity at the base of
Vn o Ty sin the wall will suddenly decrease from the peak moment Mo
= f 1 + (1 + ) 1 + (B1)
N N to Mr. Failure is considered to occur when the ratio Mr/Mo
f
0.8. If this ratio is greater than 0.8, the walls will display a
rocking mode of response, for which appropriate measures
should be taken in design to ensure suitable behavior under
Now solving oTy from Eq. (4) and substituting in Eq. this mode. Hence:
(B1):
Mr
> 0.8 Drift controlled (B6a)
Vn (1 + ) 2eo sin Mo
= 1 + 1 1 + f (B2)
N 2 lw f
Mr
0.8 Strength controlled (B6b)
Mo
But:

Vn Substituting Eqs. (B4) and (B5) in Eq. (B6a) yields:


= f (B3)
N
1
> 0.8 (B7)
t fy
1 +
Hence: 2 hG o
w 1 h l
eff w
(1 + ) 2eo sin
f = 1 + 1 1 + f (9)
2 lw f
Therefore:

o t f y
Equation (21) < 0.25 (21b)
hG o N
The moment capacity of a rigid block rocking about its 1 2 h l Aw
eff w
edge, Mr, is given by:

l h
M r = N w G o (B4) From Fig. 6:
2 heff

July-August 2002 119


hG Nlw APPENDIX C DESIGN EXAMPLE
Nu 2
= 0.8Vo (B8)
heff 2 heff
The building is located in a region of high seismic risk
for which the base shear to seismic weight ratio, calculated
But: using a response modification factor R = 2.5, is V/W = 0.55
and heff = 19.35 ft (5.9 m). The wall-foundation connection
and the ducts will be grouted with a high strength shrinkage
Mo
Vo = (B9) compensating grout for which a friction coefficient f = 0.7.
heff It is required to design the connection of Walls 1 and 2 if
fy = 60 ksi (414 MPa).

Substituting Eq. (B9) in Eq. (B8) and solving for u:


Design of Longitudinal Reinforcement
The design forces for Walls 1 and 2 for the load combina-
heff lw 0.8 Mo
u = (21b) tion 0.9D E are summarized in Table C1.
hG 2 N The area of longitudinal reinforcement at the wall-founda-
tion connection can be found from Eq. (15) so that Mn M.
Using = 0.9 and fy = 60 ksi (414 MPa) and solving for Ty:
The example presented in this appendix describes the use For Wall 1, Ty 78.7 kips (350 kN) and for Wall 2, Ty
of the design method discussed in this paper. For simplic- 20.5 kips (91.1 kN)
ity, only the design of the walls will be performed for the
load combination 0.9D E, where D and E are the dead and But Ty = Ast fy / 2, hence:
earthquake loading.
The three-story residential building with plan view shown For Wall 1, Ast 2.62 sq in. (1692 mm2 ) and for Wall 2
in Fig. C1 incorporates ten long precast concrete walls as the Ast 0.68 sq in. (440 mm2).
vertical and lateral force resisting system in both the long Therefore, use three #6 bars for Wall 1 (Ast = 2.64 sq in.)
and short directions. The walls in the long direction of the and two #6 bars for Wall 2 (Ast = 0.88 sq in.). Note that the
building are 10 in. (254 mm) thick x 19 ft 8 in. (6.0 m) long. wall thickness-to-bar diameter is tw/db = 13.3 and tw/db =
In the short direction, the walls are 8 in. (203 mm) thick x 10.7 for Walls 1 and 2, respectively, which is within the rec-
19 ft 8 in. (6.0 m) long. ommended limits of 9 tw /db 15.

Fig. C1. Typical


plan view of
building of
design example.

120 PCI JOURNAL


Explicit Capacity Design Checks Table C1. Design forces for Walls 1 and 2 for load
combination 0.9D E.
Assume that the overstrength factor for the reinforcing
bars is o = 1.45. Shear, V Moment, M Axial force, N
Wall No. kips kN kip-ft KN-m kips kN
1. Determine the concrete cylinder strength to ensure 1 124 552 2408 3267 115 510
the walls remain uncracked. 2 124 552 2408 3267 231 1028
The longitudinal reinforcement ratio at the connection for
Wall 1 is:
t = Ast/Aw = 2.64/[10 x (19 x 12 + 8)] The axial load eccentricity is eo = Mo/N = 3389/115 = 29.5
= 0.11 percent ft (9.0 m).
The axial stress is: The kink angle, , is found from Eq. (11):
N/Aw = 127 x 103/[10 x (19 x 12 + 8)] = [2 x 29.5/(19 + 8/12) 1]/3 = 0.667 radians or = 0.2
= 58.8 psi (0.41 MPa) radians, whichever is less. Hence, = 0.2 radians.
For Wall 2, t = 0.046 percent and N/Aw = 97.2 psi (0.67 Try g = 0.5. Hence, from Eq. (6), = 0.
MPa). Now, the equivalent friction coefficient, f, is determined
Fig. 3 plots the (N/Aw and t) points for Walls 1 and 2. It from Eq. (10):
can be deduced from this plot that a concrete strength with f c
(1 + 0) 2 x 29.5 0.2
1 1 +
= 4350 psi (30 MPa) ensures that the wall panels will remain
f = 1 + x 0.7
uncracked at the development of the flexural overstrength. 2 19 + 8 / 12 0.7
2. Check the shear transfer at the connection. = 1.60
For Wall 1:
The overstrength moment, Mo, is found from Eq. (4a):
Mo = [1.45 x 2.64 x 60/2 + 115/2] x (19 + 8/12) The nominal shear force resisted by connection, Vn, is
= 3389 kip-ft (4596 kN-m)

Fig. C2. Location of ducts and


connecting bars in Walls 1 and 2.

July-August 2002 121


found from Eq. (8):
Vn = 1.60 x 115 = 184 kips (819 kN)
Now, the shear force at the develop-
ment of overstrength, Vo, is calculated
from Eq. (4b):
Vo = 3389/19.35 = 175 kips (778
kN)
Now from Eq. (7) with s = 1:
sVn > Vo is satisfactory.
For Wall 2, the same procedure
yields for g = 0.915.
f = 0.72, sVn = 167 kips (743 kN)
and Vo = 156 kips (694 kN).
Hence, sVn > Vo is satisfactory.
The position of the ducts in the wall
and of the grouted bars is shown in
Fig. C2.

122 PCI JOURNAL