You are on page 1of 16

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 87-512

Shear Strength of Low-Rise Reinforced Concrete Walls

by Sharon L. Wood

Results of 143 tests of low-rise reinforced concrete walls subjected to viewed to identify the sensitivity of the measured shear
lateral loads were reviewed to evaluate the current design provisions strength to experimental parameters, such as the load-
for nominal shear strength. Procedures defined in Appendix A of
ACI 318-83 were found to underestimate the strength of lightly rein-
ing history and the amount of web reinforcement.
forced walls and tended to overestimate the strength of walls with
more than 1.5 times the minimum web reinforcement ratio. A rea-
sonable lower bound to the shear strength of low-rise walls with min- MODELS FOR SHEAR IN REINFORCED
imum web reinforcement was found to be 6Jf; (Jf; 12 MPa). The CONCRETE MEMBERS
shear strength of the walls was observed to increase with an increase The truss analogy was developed around the turn of
in the amount of vertical reinforcement in the web and boundary ele- the century6·7 as a means of relating the applied shear to
ments. A shear friction model was used to evaluate the shear strength the tensile stresses in the web reinforcement of a rein-
provided by the vertical reinforcement.
forced concrete beam. The beam is idealized as a truss,
as shown in Fig. 1. The bottom chord of the truss is
Keywords: friction; lateral pressure; models; reinforced concrete; shear strength;
shear stress; structural design; tests; walls; web reinforcement.
formed by the longitudinal reinforcement, the top
chord by the concrete in the compression zone, the ten-
sion web members by the stirrups, and the compression
The nominal shear strength of reinforced concrete
web members by concrete in the web of the beam. The
walls designed to resist seismic loads is defined in cur-
angle between the longitudinal axis and the compres-
rent design provisions 1 to be essentially the same as the
sion struts is typically assumed to be 45 deg. If the web
nominal shear strength of reinforced concrete beams
reinforcement is vertical, the relationship between the
that are designed to resist gravity loads. Two quantities
average shear stress in the beam v and the tensile stress
are used to define the nominal shear strength of both
in the web reinforcement fv may be written as
types of members, one attributed to the contribution of
the web reinforcement and the other to the contribu-
tion of the concrete. This procedure has been defined as v = rfv {1)
the modified truss analogy. 2
The applicability of the modified truss analogy for where r is the web reinforcement ratio. However, lab-
low-rise structural walls subjected to earthquake-in- oratory tests indicated that the stresses developed in the
duced loads has been questioned in discussions of the transverse reinforcement were less than those calcu-
ACI Building Code 3•5 and is evaluated in this paper. lated using Eq. (1). 8 Two possible sources of this dis-
The results of 143 laboratory tests of one- and two- crepancy were identified: 8 (1) the uncracked concrete in
story reinforced concrete walls subjected to lateral loads the compression zone at the top of the beam carries a
were considered. portion of the vertical shear, and (2) the assumption of
45 deg as the direction of the diagonal compression
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE struts in the web is incorrect. Richart8 investigated the
Reinforced concrete walls are frequently used as the influence of varying the angle of inclination of the di-
primary component of the lateral load-resisting system agonal compression struts but found that the measured
in buildings located in regions of high seismic risk. The tensile stresses in the web reinforcement were more
current design provisions for shear strength of struc-
tural walls, however, are based on analytical methods ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. I, January-February 1990.
that were developed to represent the shear strength of Received Aug. 17, 1988, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright © 1990, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
beams subjected to monotonically increasing load. The the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright propri-
etors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the November-December 1990
results of 143 laboratory tests of low-rise walls are re- ACI Structural Journal if received by July I, 1990.

ACt Structural Journal I January-February 1990 99


ACI member Sharon L. Wood is an assistant professor of civil engineering at
inforcement ratio for the vertical web reinforcement
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research and teaching in- and J;, is the yield stress of the vertical web reinforce:
terests are the behavior of reinforced concrete structures subjected to earth- ment.
quake-induced loads.
The ratio of the nominal shear strength calculated
using Eq. (5) to the measured shear strength of beams
closely approximated by assuming that a portion of the has been observed to vary with the web reinforcement
shear was carried by the concrete ratio. The shear strength of beams with low web rein-
forcement ratios is underestimated by Eq. (5).12 Failure
v = c + rfv (2) of the concrete in the compression zone before yielding
of the web reinforcement has been observed in beams
The value of C is dependent on the quality of the con- with high web reinforcement ratios. 9 An upper bound
crete and the amount of web reinforcement. 8 The mod- of 8Jf:(2J1: /3 MPa) for the shear stress attributable
ified truss analogy takes the form of Eq. (2). to web reinforcement is used in ACI 318-83 to avoid
Although the modified truss analogy was found to be modes of failure governed by the compressive strength
appropriate for calculating reinforcement stresses at of the concrete. 2•11 An alternate approach was adopted
working loads, the shear strength of the beams was ob- in the CEB model code 13 where the shear strength at-
served to be more closely approximated by other rela- tributed to the concrete decreases as the amount of web
tionships. The complex function proposed by Slater, reinforcement increases.
The nominal shear strength of walls presented in Ap-
Lord, and Zipprodt9
pendix A of ACI 318-83 is closely related to the nomi-
nal shear strength of beams defined in Eq. (5)
v = (0.005 + r) fv (3)

provided a better estimate of the measured reinforce- (6)


ment stresses near the ultimate load than those calcu-
lated using Eq. (2). where ac varies linearly from 3.0 (\1.1 MPa) for walls
Clark 10 proposed the following relationship to deter- with an aspect ratio hwlfw less than 1.5, to 2.0 (1/6
mine the shear strength of reinforced concrete beams MPa) for walls with an aspect ratio greater than 2.0. If
ac is set at the lower bound of 2.0, Eq. (6) is identical
d
to Eq. (5). The nominal shear strength of walls may not
v = 7000p + (0.12f:)- + 2500..[i- (4) exceed 8Jf:(2Jf: /3 MPa). 1
a The web reinforcement ratio in Eq. (5) refers to the
amount of vertical web reinforcement in a beam. Simi-
where p is the longitudinal reinforcement ratio, dis the
larly, the web reinforcement ratio in Eq. (6) refers to
effective depth of the beam, and a is the shear span.
the amount of horizontal web reinforcement in a wall
Although Eq. (4) was not believed to be appropriate for
Ph· The shear strength of short walls has been observed
all beams, 10 the results of Clark's investigation indi-
to be related to the amount of vertical, rather than
cated that the shear strength of reinforced concrete
horizontal, web reinforcement. The requirements given
members is not linearly related to the amount of web
in Appendix A of ACI 318-83 state that the vertical web
reinforcement.
reinforcement ratio Pv may not be less than the hori-
During the development of strength design criteria
zontal web reinforcement ratio Ph in walls with aspect
for reinforced concrete, an expression similar to Eq. (2)
ratios less than 2.0. 1 Therefore, the web reinforcement
was adopted to determine the nominal shear capacity of
ratio in Eq. (6) Pn was interpreted to be the minimum
beams. 11 The simplest expression given in ACI 318-83 1
web reinforcement ratio for the short walls considered
for calculating the nominal shear strength of beams
in this study.
subjected to flexure and shear is
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TEST
( J1: 16 + Pnh MPa) (5) SPECIMENS
The population of test specimens considered in this
where v. is the nominal unit shear strength, Pn is there- study had four common characteristics: (a) the speci-

p
Compression Strut Compression Chord
(Concrete)

V Chord
Tension Tie
(Vertical Web Reinforcement) v
Fig. 1- Truss model for a reinforced concrete beam
100 ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990
120r-------~------~------~
(/) (/)
z zw
w
::t ::t
(J 80 (J
w 80
w
a.
(/)
a.
(/)

LL.. LL..
0 0
0::
w 40 0::
w 40
Ill Ill
::t ::t
::::> ::::>
z z
Barbell Flanged Rectangular Monotonic Alternating Repeated

(a) SECTION SHAPE (b) LOADING SCHEME

(/) : IZ:I ONE-STORY WALL (/)


z
w
.................. : - TWO-STORY WALL zw
::t 60 ::t 60
(J (J
w w
a.
(/)
a.
(/)

LL..
40 LL..
40
0 0
0:: 0::
w 20 w 20
Ill Ill
::t ~
::::> ::::>
z z
0
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
(c) (d)
M
WEB THICKNESS, in.
Vf-w
Fig. 2-Characteristics of population of low-rise walls (1 in. = 25.4 mm)

mens were isolated walls; (b) the lateral load was ap- 1.0 for more than 75 percent of the test specimens [Fig.
plied statically in the plane of the wall; (c) the walls 2(d)]. Axial load, in addition to the self-weight of the
were reported to have failed in shear; and (d) horizon- walls, was applied to 18 specimens with the average ax-
tal and vertical reinforcement was distributed uni- ial stress PIA varying from 7 to 18 percent off:. The
formly throughout the web. Sixty-four walls consid- average axial stress was less than 0.5 percent off: in
ered in this study are documented in a compilation of the remaining 125 specimens.
data from tests performed in Japan. 14 Walls tested in Concrete compressive strengths ranged from 1990 to
Canada, 15 Japan, 16 •17 New Zealand, 18 and the United 7070 psi (13.7 to 48.7 MPa). Approximately one-third
States 19-28 were also considered.* of the specimens [Fig. 3(a)] were constructed from con-
The cross sections of all walls were symmetric. crete with a compressive strength less than 3000 psi
Flanged, barbell, and rectangular cross sections were (20_7 MPa)- The yield stress of the distributed web re-
tested [Fig. 2(a)]. Three loading schemes were used inforcement [Fig. 3(b)] varied between 39.3 and 82.9 ksi
[Fig. 2(b)]: (a) monotonic-the specimen was subjected (280 to 570 MPa). Horizontal web reinforcement ratios
to a monotonically increasing load; (b) repeated-the ranged from 0.07 to 1.9 percent [Fig. 4(a)], and the
specimen was loaded in one direction, unloaded, and vertical web reinforcement ratios ranged from 0.07 to
reloaded in the same direction; and (c) alternating-the 2.9 percent [Fig. 4(b)]. Horizontal and vertical web re-
specimen was subjected to load reversals. Sixteen of the inforcement ratios differed by less than 10 percent in 90
specimens had two stories. percent of the walls. The vertical web reinforcement
Web thicknesses ranged from 0.4 to 6.3 in. (1.0 to was continuous along the height of the wall. Specimens
16.0 em). More than 75 percent of the walls [Fig. 2(c)] with dowels into the foundation were not considered in
had web thicknesses between 1.0 and 4.0 in. (2.5 to 10.0 this study.
em). The shear span ratio M/Vfw was between 0.5 and Longitudinal reinforcement ratios in the boundary
elements varied from 0 to 8.9 percent [Fig. 4(c)]. Spec-
*The physical characteristics and measured capacities of the 143 test speci- imens with boundary reinforcement ratios equal to zero
mens are summarized in three appendixes that because of space limitations are
not presented here but will be kept permanently on file at ACI headquarters
were rectangular walls with uniformly distributed ver-
where photocopies will be available at cost of reproduction and handling. tical web reinforcement along the entire length of the
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990 101
(/) (/)
z zw
w
~ ~

8
a..
40 8a.. 40
(/) (/)

1.&.. 1.&..
0 0
Q:: 20 Q:: 20
w w
m m
~ ~
:::> :::>
z z

2000 40 50 60 70 80 90
(a) f~, psi (b)

Fig. 3-Material properties: (a) compressive strength of concrete; (b) yield stress of vertical web reinforcement (1 psi
= 6895 Pa; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa)

(/) (/)
z z
w w
:::E :::E
sa.. 40 (3
w
a..
(/)
(/)

1.&.. 1.&..
0 0
Q::
w
20 0::::
w
m m
~ :::E
::::> ::::>
z z
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
(a) (c)
ph. % Pbe' %
Fig. 4(c)-Reinforcement ratios in web and boundary
elements
(/)
z mum lateral load Vmax divided by A"" where A"' is the
w
~ effective area of the concrete section (t x fw).
sa.. 40 The maximum average shear stress is plotted against
the product of the minimum web reinforcement ratio
(/)

1.&.. and the yield stress of the web reinforcement in Fig. 5.


0 All walls were able to resist an average shear stress of
Q::
w
20 300 psi (2.1 MPa). The data are characterized by a large
m amount of scatter; however, a trend of increasing max-
~
::::> imum average shear stress with increasing Pn ,[y may be
z observed.
0.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 The size of the test specimens did not appear to in-
(b)
p,% fluence the shear strength [Fig. 5(b)]. The loading
v scheme was not observed to h~1ve a significant influ-
ence on the shear strength of the specimens [Fig. 5(c)];
Fig. 4(a) and (b)-Reinforcement ratios in web and
boundary elements however, the lower bound to the strength of walls sub-
jected to alternating loads was slightly less than the
wall. Approximately 90 percent of the walls had longi- lower bound to the strength of walls subjected to mon-
tudinal reinforcement ratios between 1 and 6 percent in otonic loading.
the boundary elements. The line Vmax = Pnh is also shown in Fig. 5(c). The
data indicate that the rate of increase of the measured
MEASURED STRENGTH OF WALLS shear strength with Pn ,[y is less than 1.0. Therefore, the
All strength calculations are based on the maximum rate of increase of shear strength attributable to the
average shear stress resisted by each wall Vmax• The web reinforcement in low-rise walls appears to be over-
maximum average shear stress is defined as the maxi- estimated by the modified truss analogy [Eq. (6)].
102 ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990
1600 1600
+

I
+
.o
REF. 19
REF. 10
rv*REF.
REF. 6
17
J** REF. 13
c REF. 32
I VIEB 'THICKNESS
t < 1.0 ln. 1.0 ' t < 3.0 ln. t ~ J.O n.
0 REF. 5 x REF. 21,24 REF. 26 I + I • I c I
1200 1200

'e0..n
+
+ +
• ·en +
+ 0..
:to+ t.
800 800 + •
x + +
xc
>
0
E +
:;: +
.+
... +
+
>E .
t
+
~ ++
400 400

0 o~~~2~0~0--~-4~0~0--~-6~0~0--~--80~0--~-1-00~0
400 600
(a) Pnfy. psi (b) Pnfy. psi

Fig. 5(a)- Variation of maximum average shear stress + LOADING 50-fEt.IE


with amount of web reinforcement (1 psi = 6895 Pa) Monotonic Repeated Altemot~o

.. I o I + I
1200
Values of maximum average shear stress ranged from t
5.6.JJ[ to 23.6.JJ[ (0.47.Jl[ to 1.97.Jl[ MPa) (Fig. 6). ·en
0..
The data indicate that a reasonable lower bound to the 800
x0
observed unit shear strength of the walls is 6.JJ[ (.J.1[12 E
> +
MPa). The lower bound to the observed strength did
not appear to be related to the amount of web rein- 400
forcement. The two walls that failed in shear before at-
taining a unit shear strength of 6.JJ[ were subjected to
monotonically increasing loads. 0 o~~--2-o~o--~-4-o~o--~-6-o~o--~--8o~o--~-1-oo~o

(c) Pnfy. psi


COMPARISON WITH DESIGN PROVISIONS
The ratio of the maximum average shear stress to the Fig. 5(b) and (c)- Variation of maximum average shear
nominal unit shear strength defined by Eq. (6) is plot- stress with amount of web reinforcement (1 psi = 6895
ted as a function of Pnh in Fig. 7. The value of Ole was Pa)
assumed to be 2.0 for all walls to obtain a lower bound
to the nominal unit shear strength (cf> = 1.0) calculated
using the provisions of ACI 318-83. The data indicate
20
that the expression (2.JJ[ + p./y) provides a conserva-
tive estimate of the shear strength for 97 percent of the

87 walls with p./y less than 300 psi (2.1 MPa) and pro-
>~ 11:<.2 15 • ••• ... • ••• • •
., .
.
vides an unconservative estimate of the shear strength ? : · . :: •• • I
for 54 percent of the 56 walls with Pnh greater than 300
psi (2.1 MPa). The trends observed in the data from
10 • •;:. ~4
:"e • ... .... .
• I
• J
• .. •
•"' I •

low-rise walls agree with those from tests of beams: the 5
----:~~--:~~~-----------------------
modified truss analogy does not provide a consistent
factor of safety for all web reinforcement ratios.
The ordinates of the data presented in Fig. 7 were not
limited to be less than 8.JJ[ (2.JJ[ /3 MPa) and there-
fore are not representative of current design provi-
sions. The nominal shear strength of 75 percent of the Fig. 6/ Variation of the ratio of measured shear
strength to square root of concrete compressive
walls with Pnh greater than 300 psi (2.1 MPa) was lim- strength with the amount of web reinforcement (1 psi
ited by 8.JJ[ (2.JJ[I3 MPa) following the procedures = 6895 Pa, .J'f; psi = .J'i;l12 MPa)
specified in Appendix A of ACI 318-83.
The ratio of maximum average shear stress to the of the shear strength of walls with as little as 1.5 times
limiting nominal shear strength vm•.Jv. is plotted versus the minimum web reinforcement ratio of 0.25 percent.
p./y in Fig. 8. The ratio was between 1.0 and 2.0 for 66 If the upper limit to the nominal unit shear stress is
percent of the walls considered. In approximately 9 increased to lO.JJ[, which is permitted in individual
percent of the walls considered, the maximum average piers, 1 and Ole is allowed to vary from 2.0 to 3.0, the
shear stress was less than the nominal shear stress. The maximum average shear stress was overestimated in
nominal unit shear strength was determined using Eq. more than 18 percent of the test specimens.
(6) in half of these walls. The nominal unit shear stress The measured strengths of the low-rise walls consid-
calculated using the provisions in Appendix A of ACI ered in this study were not well represented by the
318-83 was observed to be an unconservative estimate nominal unit shear strengths calculated using the pro-
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990 103
4.0 1600

~.

. ... . : .
.......•
3.0 1200

-
>-
.• ·' • •
..·.• . ... ·..
c: 'iii

..
Q.
X
a. I•
~ +
>~
2.0
•••
• •lol • •
6.. • E
x0 BOO

. • .•. . • • .
..
• • • .. I• •,
N

1.0
•... .r.. I". J •
1
.c
------- -.-.- -~"i.- o-- i]:T- -.--:-- ;·-'!------
>

400 ...
t·•!.llf•, . ...
~- • .A• •
••••

200 400 600 BOO 1000 0


0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Pn fy. psi Avt fy
---p::;;-. psi

Fig. 7- Variation of the ratio of measured shear


strength to shear strength calculated using the modified Fig. 9- Variation of the maximum average shear stress
truss analogy with the amount of web reinforcement (I with the amount of vertical reinforcement (1 psi =
psi = 6895 Pa, 2..ffc psi = ..ffc/6 MPa) 6895 Pa)
1.5 r----r----.--~----.--.-----.---~----..

. .... : . .. .
••
3.0 1.0
·'.·..: .:
.••.·...• -:•
"•/Ill
.• f. . •'
'••• . ••. .
-~···

1.0
0

~..
lol
•t
... _ .
0

I
0

0
o
I
•••
,.
I
I
I

- - - - - - - ........- - ....- -.- _ ........ - - · - - . - - - - - - - - - - - -


0.5

.. . . .
.. ..• . .
. l ·~·-:·.
.\ .•..
., : «·.·
• •
,__ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -a..- - - - •

0.0 ._____,__ _,__~---''----'---'---..__-:-'-_ _.____J


0 '0 o~-_.._--:1-::-oo=-'o:---..__-::-2o::-:o-'-o----''--3::-:0-o-'-o_ ___._4_0__joo
0 200 400 600 BOO 1 000
Avf fy psi
Pnfy. psi ---p::;;-.

Fig. 8- Variation of the ratio of measured shear Fig. 10- Variation of the ratio of measured shear
strength to nominal shear strength with the amount of strength to shear strength calculated using the shear
web reinforcement (I psi = 6895 Pa) friction analogy with the amount of vertical reinforce-
ment (I psi = 6895 Pa)

visions in Appendix A of ACI 318-83. Assigning a the walls failed by sliding along a horizontal crack at
nominal unit shear strength of 6.Jl: (.JJ:12 MPa) to all the base. The shear friction analogy31 •32 may be used to
walls with minimum distributed web reinforcement ra- calculate the shear strength for this failure condition.
tios (Fig. 6) is a simple alternative to the modified truss The nominal shear strength vnsf is expressed as I
analogy for the design of low-rise walls.
The large variation in the ratio vmw!.Jl: indicates that V = p,Avfh (7)
additional parameters influence the strength of the nsf Acv
walls. One possible explanation for the increased
strength of some walls is discussed in the following sec- where p, is a coefficient related to friction and Av1 is the
tion. area of steel crossing the shear plane. The value of p,
was assumed to be 1.0 for all the walls. Different sizes
SHEAR FRICTION MODEL and grades of reinforcing bars were used in the bound-
Experimental investigations of deep beams have been ary elements and web of the walls; therefore, Av1J;, was
interpreted to suggest that the shear strength is related evaluated as
to the amount of horizontal reinforcement (longitudi-
nal and web), provided that a minimum amount of (8)
vertical web reinforcement is available. 29 •30 Based on
these observations, the shear strength of low-rise walls where A,be is the area of longitudinal steel in one
may be related to the total amount of vertical rein- boundary element; J;,be is the yield stress of the steel in
forcement. the boundary element; A,.., is the area of vertical rein-
An estimate of the shear strength provided by the forcement in the web; and hv is the yield stress of the
vertical reinforcement was obtained by assuming that vertical reinforcement in the web.
104 ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990
Consistently with the results from the deep beam 1.0 for all but two walls. The ratio was between 1.0 and
tests, the maximum average shear stress in the walls was 2.0 for 83 percent of the walls considered.
observed to increase with an increase in the amount of Comparisons of the maximum average shear stress
vertical reinforcement (Fig. 9). The ratio VmaJv"sf is with the nominal shear strength calculated using the
plotted versus Av1f/ Acv in Fig. 10. The nominal shear ACI provisions 1 and Eq. (9) are shown in the histo-
stress attributed to shear friction overestimated the grams in Fig. 12. The nominal shear capacity defined in
maximum average shear stress in all but 10 walls; how- Eq. (9) provides a better representation of the shear
ever, a good estimate of the lower bound to the maxi- strength of the test specimens. Eq. (9) provides a con-
mum average shear stress was provided by vnj4. The servative estimate of the nominal shear strength that
presence of inclined cracks in the wall and the applied may be used to proportion low-rise walls to resist lat-
bending moments are the likely reasons for the overes- eral loads.
timation of shear strength using the shear friction anal-
ogy. SUMMARY
An investigation of 143 low-rise walls indicated that
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN PROVISIONS Eq. (6) from Appendix A of ACI 318-83 underesti-
The data plotted in Fig. 6 and 10 indicate that two mates the nominal shear strength of lightly reinforced
simple equations may be used during design to estimate walls and may overestimate the nominal shear strength
the shear strength of low-rise walls. The lower bound to of walls with more than 1.5 times the minimum web re-
the strength of all walls considered was well repre- inforcement ratio of 0.25 percent.
sented by 6.Jl[ (.JJ[12 MPa), as shown in Fig. 6. The A reasonable lower bound to the average shear stress
limit of 6.JJ[ (.JJ[ 12 MPa) was independent of the resisted by test specimens with distributed web rein-
amount of web reinforcement and the type of loading.
The strength of walls with large amounts of vertical
reinforcement appeared to be bounded by Vn/4 (Fig.
10). Therefore, the nominal shear strength of low-rise
3.0
walls may be approximated by

::, . .J
0 0 •
a .
XI "'2" ·~=·
Vn Eq. (9) = 6.JJ[ (.JJ[ 12 MPa) E 2.0

.. ...
> >
••:· ~· •• :• •
the nominal capacity may be (9)
1.0
~.
----: ~
; • ll
;-:. ... . =• .
: .. • I

~-.--- _._ .. _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. - - - - - -

mcrease Avfh
d to - -
4Acv
but shall not exceed 10.JJ[ (5.JJ[ 16 MPa) 0.0 '--~---'--~~-~-~-~~---'-----'
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pnfy. psi
The nominal shear strength calculated using Eq. (9)
provided a conservative estimate of the maximum av- Fig. 11- Variation of the ratio of measured shear
erage shear stress for the entire range of reinforcement strength to shear strength calculated using Eq. (9) with
ratios (Fig. 11). The ratio VmaJv. Eq. <9> was greater than the amount of web reinforcement (1 psi = 6895 Pa)

en en
z z
w
~
40 w
~
40
C3 C3
w w
en 30
0..
en 30
0..

LL LL
0 20 0 20
a:: a::
w
w
~ 10 ~ 10
::J ::J
z z
0 1.--1.--L.-1
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Vmax Vmax
---
vn veq.9

Fig. 12-Comparison of the measured shear strength with the nominal shear strength3 and the shear strength calcu-
lated using Eq. (9)
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990 105
forcement in orthogonal directions was 6J.l[ (J.l[ 12 REFERENCES
MPa). The maximum average shear stress tended to in- I. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Rein-
crease with an increase in the amount of vertical rein- forced Concrete (ACI 318-83)," American Concrete Institute, De-
troit, 1983, Ill pp.
forcement (longitudinal reinforcement in the boundary 2. ACI-ASCE Committee 426, "The Shear Strength of Reinforced
elements and vertical web reinforcement). The increase Concrete Members," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 99, ST6, June 1973, pp.
in shear strength attributable to vertical reinforcement 1091-1187, and V. 100, ST8, Aug. 1974, pp. 1543-1591.
was approximated usi~ a shear friction model. An up- 3. Allen, C. Michael, Discussion of "ACI Committee 318 Re-
per limit of lOJ.l[ (5../f: /3 MPa) for the nominal shear port," Concrete International: Design & Construction, V. 5, No.6,
June 1983, p. 62.
strength was also established. 4. Paulay, T., "Critique of the Special Provisions for Seismic De-
sign of the Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (ACI 318-83)," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No.2, Mar.-Apr.
The work described in the paper was performed in conjunction with 1986, pp. 274-283.
a cooperative research project sponsored by the National Science 5. Wyllie, Loring A., Jr., Discussion of "ACI Committee 318 Re-
Foundation to investigate the performance of reinforced concrete port," Concrete International: Design & Construction, V. 5, No. 6,
buildings during the 1985 Chilean earthquake. The comments of re- June 1983, p. 76.
searchers associated with the project (J. P. Moehle, associate profes- 6. Morsch, E., "Versuche uber Schubspannungen in Betoneisen-
sor of civil engineering at the University of California at Berkeley; R. tragern," Beton und Eisen (Berlin), V. 2, No.4, Oct. 1903, pp. 269-
Riddell, professor of civil engineering at the Pontificia Universidad 274. (in German)
Cat61ica de Chile; M. A. Sozen, professor of civil engineering at the 7. Ritter, W., "Die Bauweise Hennebique," Schweizerische Bauz-
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; and J. K. Wight, pro- eitung (Zurich), V. 33, No.7, Feb. 1899, pp. 59-61.
fessor of civil engineering at the University of Michigan) are greatly 8. Richart, F. E., "An Investigation of Web Stresses in Reinforced
appreciated. Concrete Beams," Bulletin No. 166, University of Illinois Engineer-
ing Experiment Station, Urbana, June 1927, 103 pp.
9. Slater, W. A.; Lord, A. R.; and Zipprodt, R. R., "Shear Tests
NOTATION
of Reinforced Concrete Beams," Technologic Papers, U.S. Bureau of
A cross-sectional area of wall Standards, Washington, D.C., No. 314, Apr. 1926, pp. 387-495.
a shear span 10. Clark, Arthur P., "Diagonal Tension in Reinforced Concrete
A~ effective area of the concrete section (t x t.) Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 48, No. 2, Oct. 1951, pp.
A,,. area of longitudinal reinforcement in boundary element 145-156.
A,~ area of vertical distributed web reinforcement in wall l I. ACI-ASCE Committee 326, "Shear and Diagonal Tension,"
A,1 area of shear friction reinforcement (total area of vertical ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 59, No. l, Jan. 1962, pp. l-30; V. 59,
reinforcement in wall) No.2, Feb. 1962, pp. 277-334; and V. 59, No. 3, Mar. 1%2, pp. 353-
b1 width of the flange 396.
C variable that represents the shear stress carried by the con- 12. Haddadin, Munther J.; Hong, Sheu-Tien; and Mattock, Alan
crete, defined in Eq. (2) H., "Stirrup Effectiveness in Reinforced Concrete Beams with Axial
d effective depth of member Force," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 97, ST9, Sept. 1971, pp. 2277-2297.
f: concrete compressive strength in psi 13. CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures, 3rd Edition,
f, stress in web reinforcement Comite Euro-International du Seton/Federation Internationale de Ia
J, yield stress of reinforcement Pnkontrainte, Paris, 1978, 348 pp.
!,,. yield stress of longitudinal steel in the boundary elements 14. Hirosawa, M., "Past Experimental Results on Reinforced
J,. yield stress of horizontal web reinforcement Concrete Shear Walls and Analysis on Them," Kenchiku Kenkyu
!,, yield stress of vertical web reinforcement Shiryo, No. 6, Building Research Institute, Ministry of Construction,
h1 depth of the flange Tokyo, Mar. 1975, 277 pp. (in Japanese)
h. height of the wall 15. Wiradinata, S., and Saatcioglu, M., "Tests of Squat Shear
t. total length of wall Wall under Lateral Load Reversals," Proceedings, 3rd U.S. National
M applied moment Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Charleston, 1986, V. 2, pp.
P axialload 1395-1406.
p longitudinal reinforcement ratio 16. Kabeyasawa, T., and Somaki, T., "Reinforcement Details for
r web reinforcement ratio Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls with Thick Panel," Transactions,
t web thickness Japan Concrete Institute, Tokyo, V. 7, 1985, pp. 317-324.
V applied shear 17. Ogata, K., and Kabeyasawa, T., "Experimental Study on the
v average shear stress VIA~ Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls Under the
vm.. maximum lateral force resisted by wall Loading of Different Moment-to-Shear Ratios," Transactions, Ja-
v_ maximum average shear stress Vm..IA~ pan Concrete Institute, Tokyo, V. 6, 1984, pp. 717-724.
v, nominal shear stress strength of wall, defined in Appendix A 18. Paulay, T.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Synge, A. J., "Ductility in
of ACI 318-83' Earthquake Resisting Squat Shearwalls," ACI JOURNAL, Proceed-
v.Eq.(o) = nominal shear strength of wall, defined in Eq. (9) ings V. 79, No.4, July-Aug. 1982, pp. 257-269.
v,., nominal shear strength of wall attributable to shear friction, 19. Antebi, J.; Utku, S.; and Hansen, R. J., "Response of Shear
defined in ACI 318-83' Walls to Dynamic Loads," Department of Civil and Sanitary Engi-
a, coefficient defining the relative contribution of concrete neering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Aug.
strength to wall strength' 1960, 177 pp.
¢J strength reduction factor' 20. Barda, Felix; Hanson, John M.; and Corley, W. Gene, "Shear
p coefficient of friction Strength of Low-Rise Walls with Boundary Elements," Reinforced
p,. reinforcement ratio of longitudinal reinforcement in bound- Concrete Structures in Seismic Zones, SP-53, American Concrete In-
ary element stitute, Detroit, 1977, pp. 149-202.
p. reinforcement ratio of distributed horizontal web reinforce- 21. Benjamin, J. R., and Williams, H. A., "Investigation of Shear
ment in wall Walls, Part 3-Experimental and Mathematical Studies of the Be-
p, reinforcement ratio of distributed web reinforcement' havior of Plain and Reinforced Concrete Walled Bents under Static
p, reinforcement ratio of distributed vertical web reinforce- Shear Loading," Technical Report No. 1, Part 3, Department of Civil
ment in wall Engineering, Stanford University, July 1, 1953, 63 pp.
106 ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990
22. Benjamin, J. R., and Williams, H. A., "Investigation of Shear 27. Galletly, G. D., "Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Walls, Part 9-Continued Experimental and Mathematical Studies of Under Static Load," Department of Civil and Sanitary Engineering,
Reinforced Concrete Walled Bents under Static Shear Loading," Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Aug. 1952, 123
Technical Report No. 7, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford pp.
University, Sept. 1, 1955, 98 pp. 28. Williams, H. A., and Benjamin, J. R., "Investigation of Shear
23. Benjamin, J. R., and Williams, H. A., "Investigation of Shear Walls, Part 6-Continued Experimental and Mathematical Studies of
Walls, Part 12-Studies of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls Assem- Reinforced Concrete Walled Bents under Static Shear Loading,"
blies," Technical Report No. 10, Department of Civil Engineering, Technical Report No. 4, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford
Stanford University, Dec. 1956, 221 pp. University, Aug. 1, 1954, 59 pp.
24. Benjamin, Jack R., and Williams, Harry A., "The Behavior of 29. de Pavia, H. A. Rawdon, and Siess, Chester P., "Strength and
One-Story Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls," Proceedings, ASCE, Behavior of Deep Beams in Shear," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 91, STS,
V. 83, ST3, May 1957, pp. 1254-1- 1254-49. Oct. 1%5, pp. 19-42.
25. Benjamin, J. R.; Williams, H. A.; and Erickson, J. A., "In- 30. Smith, K. N., and Vantsiotis, A. S., "Shear Strength of Deep
vestigation of Shear Walls, Part 11-Continued Studies of Com- Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 79, No. 3, May-June 1982,
bined Normal and Shear Wall Bents and Resistance of Brick Filler pp. 201-213.
Walls with Openings," Technical Report No. 9, Department of Civil 31. Hofbeck, J. F.; Ibrahim, I. 0.; and Mattock, Alan H., "Shear
Engineering, Stanford University, Dec. 1956, 43 pp. Transfer in Reinforced Concrete," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 66,
26. Cardenas, A. E.; Russell, H. G.; and Corley, W. G., "Strength No.2, Feb. 1969, pp. 119-128.
of Low-Rise Structural Walls," Reinforced Concrete Structures Sub- 32. Mast, Robert F., "Auxiliary Reinforcement in Concrete Con-
jected to Wind and Earthquake Forces, SP-63, American Concrete nections," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 94, ST6, June 1968, pp. 1485-
Institute, Detroit, 1980, pp. 221-241. 1504.

ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990 107