Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2215–2223

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Review article

Simplified model for damage in squat RC shear walls

Edward D. Thomson a , María E. Perdomo b,∗ , Ricardo Picón b , María E. Marante b , Julio Flórez-López c
a
Structural Engineer, Fluor Canada Ltd, Suite 700, 1075 W Georgia St,Vancouver, Canada
b
Department of Structural Engineering, Lisandro Alvarado University, Barquisimeto, Venezuela
c
Department of Structural Engineering, University of Los Andes, Mérida, Venezuela

article info abstract

Article history: In this paper, a new simplified model for simulating damage of squat RC shear walls under lateral loads is
Received 5 December 2008 proposed. This simplified model is based on damage and fracture mechanics. It describes the reduction in
Received in revised form stiffness and strength due to diagonal cracking, permanent deformations due to yielding of transverse
29 March 2009
reinforcement and sliding across shear cracks. First, the analytical expressions are developed for the
Accepted 28 May 2009
particular case of monotonic loading. A yield function to describe permanent deformations due to yielding
Available online 21 June 2009
of transverse reinforcement is proposed. Then, a crack resistance function, based on the Griffith criterion,
is introduced and experimentally identified. Finally, the necessary analytical expressions are developed
Keywords: for hysteretic behavior. The proposed numerical model is implemented in a commercial finite element
Shear walls program and validated against experimental results. It is shown that the model can predict well the
Reinforced concrete
response of RC shear walls.
Earthquake damage
Fracture mechanics
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Finite elements
Lumped plasticity
Elastoplasticity

Contents

1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2216
2. Model of monotonic behavior ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2216
2.1. Element flexibility matrix ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2216
2.2. Evolution law of the permanent deformations................................................................................................................................................ 2217
2.3. Evolution law of the damage ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2217
2.4. Identification of the crack resistance function ................................................................................................................................................ 2217
2.5. Computation of the model parameters ............................................................................................................................................................ 2218
2.6. Numerical simulation ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2219
3. Model for hysteretic behavior ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2219
3.1. Unilateral behavior ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 2219
3.2. Pinching effects in shear walls .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2220
3.2.1. Sliding function of a shear crack........................................................................................................................................................ 2220
3.2.2. Computation of sliding shear parameters......................................................................................................................................... 2221
4. Numerical implementation and model validation....................................................................................................................................................... 2221
4.1. A finite element for squat RC shear walls ........................................................................................................................................................ 2221
4.2. Numerical simulations ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2222
5. Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2222
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2223
Appendix. Notations ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2223
References....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2223

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +58 251 2529279; fax: +58 251 2592173.
E-mail address: mariaperdomo@ucla.edu.ve (M.E. Perdomo).

0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.05.020
2216 E.D. Thomson et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2215–2223

1. Introduction

Simulation models of shear wall nonlinear behavior can be

classified into three groups: lumped plasticity models, distributed
plasticity models, and multi-layer models.
Lumped plasticity models are easier to implement because
inelastic effects are considered concentrated on nonlinear springs
or plastic hinges of zero length. The nonlinear behavior of these
hinges is described by complicated rules. Most used typical
models are those reported by Riyadh et al. [1] Williams et al. [2],
Reinhorn et al. [3], Bazant and Bhat [4] and Ma et al. [5]. The
weakness of these models results from the difficulty in choosing
appropriate model parameters. These models usually represent
real behavior when applied to laboratory specimens and using
appropriate parameters. However, when they are used to simulate
real structure behavior, many uncertainties in the correct choice of Fig. 1. Generalized stresses.
adequate parameters appear.
Distributed plasticity models are slightly more complicated, as
they take into account the distribution of inelastic effects along
a finite length as described by Kunnath et al. [6]. They are less
popular than the lumped plasticity models, because they have the
same shortcomings of these models with an added uncertainty
when estimating the length along which inelastic effects are
distributed.
Multi-layer models are based mainly on the finite element
method. These models use discretization of elements for structure
representation. Material behavior is represented by constitutive
relations that are usually well known. In general, the results ob-
tained with these models are suitable; however, the computational
cost and the time consumed in the preparation of the necessary in-
put data make these models of limited use when large shear wall
structures are to be modeled. Vulcano [7] analyzes several models
which fall into this last category comparing analytical simulations
with experimental results. Models based on Vulcano’s macroscopic
approach are more effective than those based on a microscopic ap-
Fig. 2. Generalized deformations.
proach. Other authors such as Colotti [8] and Ghobarah [9] report
multi-component models that include some refinements allowing
In this paper, permanent deformation due to flexural effects is
a better representation of the nonlinear behavior, but there is ba-
neglected; only plastic deformations due the shear effects are con-
sically no improvement in computational cost.
sidered. Therefore, a new variable denoted generalized plastic de-
In this paper, a new simplified model for simulating the damage  t
of squat RC shear walls under lateral loads is proposed. This formation matrix is introduced: Φ P = (φsp , φsp , 0), where φsp
simplified model is based on damage and fracture mechanics. It represents the plastic deformations due to the yielding of the trans-
can be classified in the group of lumped plasticity models that verse reinforcement and is represented in Fig. 3. This assumption
describes the reduction in stiffness and strength due to diagonal restricts the use of the model to the case of squat elements.
cracking, permanent deformations due to yielding of transverse Generalized stresses and deformations in an elastoplastic shear
reinforcement and sliding across shear cracks. wall are related by:
This paper is organized as follows; in Section 2 a model of
Φ − Φ p = [Fo ] {M }

(1)
the monotonic behavior of shear walls is proposed; in Section 3
the model is extended to the more general case of walls where [F0 ] is the flexibility matrix in local coordinates whose
subjected to cyclic loading; the numerical implementation of the expression is:
model is briefly described in Section 4 and some simulations of
[F0 ] = Foa + Fof + Fos .
     
experimental tests are presented in order to show the performance (2)
of the model.   h fi
The matrices Foa , Fo and Fos represent the flexibility due to
 

2. Model of monotonic behavior axial forces, flexure effects, and shears respectively. These matrices
have the following expressions:
2.1. Element flexibility matrix
0 0 0
" #
 a l
Consider a shear wall as a deep beam, the damage model of RC Fo = 0 0 0 (3a)
frame members is adapted for members subjected to high shear EA 0 0 1
forces. The model is based on methods of continuum damage
1 −1/2 0
" #
mechanics and fracture mechanics; see Flórez-López [10]. l
−1/2
 f
Fo = 1 0 (3b)
The generalized stresses and deformations matrices of a wall 3EI 0 0 0
member are: {M }t = (Mi , Mj , N ) and {Φ }t = φi , φj , δ respec-

tively. "
1 1 0
#
 s 1
The mechanical interpretation of the components in those Fo = 1 1 0 (3c)
matrices is present in Figs. 1 and 2. GAv l 0 0 0
 E.D. Thomson et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2215–2223 2217

Fig. 3. Plastic rotation in a shear wall.

where E is the modulus of elasticity, A is the total area of cross

section, Av is the effective shear area, I is the moment of inertia, Fig. 4. Physic representation of damage variable by shear.
G the shear modulus and l the length of the member. It can be seen
that for large values of l, the shear term becomes small while the
2.3. Evolution law of the damage
flexure term increases. This is the case for slender members where
shear deflections can be neglected.
The Griffith criterion, which is the basis of Fracture Mechanics,
Another significant inelastic phenomenon is concrete cracking.
states that there may be crack propagation only if the energy
This effect produces a reduction of the element stiffness. The goal
release rate equals the crack resistance of the wall:
of this paper is the inelastic analysis of RC shear walls; therefore the
latter term in expression (2) is modified by introducing the damage
ḋs > 0 only if Gs = R(ds ) (9)
variable (ds ) that can take values between zero and one:
where R = R(ds ) is the crack resistance of the wall that is assumed
1 1 0
" #
1 to be a function of the damage state of the wall.
F (ds ) =
s
0 .
 
1 1 (4)
GAv l(1 − ds ) 0 0 0
The energy release rate of a damaged shear wall can be defined
as:
Physically, the damage variable measures the degree of con-
∂W ∗ V 2l
crete cracking in the wall, i.e. ds = 0 indicates that there is no Gs = − = (10)
concrete cracking, ds = 1 represents a cracked wall that has no ∂ ds 2GAv (1 − ds )2
shear stiffness at all (see Fig. 4). The flexibility matrix of a degrad-
where W ∗ is the complementary strain energy of a damaged wall
able shear wall has the following expressions:
that can be written as: W ∗ = 1/2{M }t [F (ds )]{M }.
[F (ds )] = Foa + Fof + F s (ds ) .
     
(5) As in Fracture Mechanics, the crack resistance function has to
be identified from experimental results, as described in the next
Therefore, the state law of a member with shear deformations, section.
damage and plastic rotations is:
2.4. Identification of the crack resistance function
Φ − Φ p = [F (ds )] {M } .

(6)

The internal variables in the shear wall model as the permanent
deformations (Φ p ) and damage (ds ) are obtained from evolution
laws.
2.2. Evolution law of the permanent deformations
When actions on the member exceed some critical value,
permanent or plastic deformations appear in the member. As
aforementioned only shear plastic effects are considered. In order
to compute the evolution of the plastic rotation, a yield function fy
is introduced:
The model that describes the behavior of a shear wall is com-
posed by the state law (6), the plastic rotation evolution law (8)
with yield function (7), and the Griffith criterion (9). It can be no-
ticed that only the crack resistance term needs experimental iden-
tification. In order to carry out this identification an experimental
program of shear walls was carried out at in Laboratory of Struc-
tural Mechanics at the Lisandro Alvarado University.
The shear walls were designed according to ACI Code 318-05
[11]. A relationship l/d (d is the effective depth) less than 2.5
was used in order to obtain a shear dominant failure mode.
Reinforcement of the specimens where chosen so that damage

 V
 or cracking due to bending are negligible. A RC non-slender
− cs φsp  − Vy

fy =  (7)
1 − ds
where V = (Mi + Mj )/l is the shear force on the member, cs and Vy
are parameters of the model that depend on the properties of the
element. There may be plastic rotation evolution only if the yield
function is equal to zero:
φ̇sp > 0 only if fy = 0. (8)
element with a high percentage of longitudinal reinforcement
and a low concrete resistance allows a further degradation of the
strength and stiffness to achieve shear failure [12]. The geometric
characteristics of shear walls are shown in Table 1. These walls
were tested under cyclic loading and zero axial force, see Fig. 5.
Fig. 6 shows a shear wall built in as a cantilever. The boundary
and kinematic conditions of the test are: Mi = V · l; Mj = 0;
φi = tl where t is the lateral displacement at the top of the wall.
2218 E.D. Thomson et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2215–2223

Table 1
Geometry of shear wall specimens.
Specimen w (mm) e (mm) l (mm) d (mm) l/d ρv (%) ρs (%) fc0 (MPa) Fy (Mpa) Fsu (Mpa)

SW-M01 500 125 600 475 1.26 6.25 0.50 16.7 389.3 630.0
SW-H02 600 100 850 575 1.48 3.29 0.73 16.5 461.0 630.0
SW-H03 585 100 700 560 1.25 0.33 0.26 37.0 607.8 759.7
w = wide of wall
e = thickness of wall
l = length of wall
d = effective depth
ρs = percentage of transverse reinforcement
ρv = percentage of longitudinal reinforcement
fc0 = nominal resistance of concrete
Fy = yield stress of transverse steel
Fsu = ultimate stress of transverse steel

Therefore, after (11)–(12) the following relationship between

shear damage ds and the slope Z is obtained:
1
Z = (13)
l3 l
3EI
+ GAv (1−ds )

Then
!
l 1
ds = 1 − . (14)
GAv 1 l3
Z
− 3EI

It can be noted that this procedure to measure shear damage

is a modification of the stiffness variation method of continuum
damage mechanics, Lemaitre [13].
The energy release rate can be computed from Eq. (10) with
the experimental values of V and ds . Fig. 7 shows the energy
release values for specimen SW-M01. An expression for the crack
resistance function is:
Fig. 5. Shear wall specimen geometry and loading.
ln (1 − ds )
R (ds ) = Gcrs + qs . (15)
The relationship between force and displacement can be obtained (1 − ds )
from the state law (6) and those conditions. Two member dependent parameters are necessary to define the
crack resistance of the wall: Gcrs and qs . A plot of this function with
l3
 
l appropriate values of the parameters can also be seen in Fig. 7.
(t − t p ) = + V (11)
3EI GAv (1 − ds ) A good correlation is observed between the experimental results
p and the proposed crack resistance function. A similar analytical
where, t p = φs .l is the plastic deflection.
expression was proposed by Cipollina et al. [14] for RC frames.
The slope of an elastic unloading in the test (see Fig. 6), denoted
as Z , is:
2.5. Computation of the model parameters
V
Z = . (12) The proposed model has four parameters: Gcrs , qs , cs , Vy ; they
(t − t p )
depend on the cross-section of the wall, the horizontal and

Fig. 6. Representation of the variable Z .

 E.D. Thomson et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2215–2223 2219

Table 2
Computed properties of the Specimen SW-M01.
Specimen Vcr Vp Vu φus
P

SW-M01 34.05 50.75 170.60 0.0066

Vcr = shear force that produces the first diagonal crack (kN)
Vp = shear force that yields the horizontal reinforcement (kN)
Vu = the ultimate shear force resisted by the wall (kN)
φus
P
= the ultimate plastic rotation in a member due to shear

Table 3
Model parameters of the Specimen SW-M01.
Specimen Vy cs Gcrs qs
Fig. 7. Damage variable vs. Energy release rate for shear wall SW-M01.
SW-M01 51.72 61371 3.73 −253.46
Vy = parameter for yield function (kN)
vertical reinforcement, and the material properties. The direct cs = parameter for yield function (kN)
determination of these parameters is not convenient; instead they Gcrs = parameter for crack resistance function (kN mm)
can be computed by the resolution of the following system of qs = parameter for crack resistance function (kN mm)
equations:
2.6. Numerical simulation
V = Vcr implies ds = 0 (16a)
V = Vp implies φsp = 0 (16b) A simulation of the SW-M01 test was carried out. The results
V = Vu implies dV /dds = 0 (16c) of this simulation are shown in Fig. 8(b). As it can be seen,
the proposed model represents adequately the evolution of the
V = Vu implies φ = φ p
s
p
us (16d) damage due to shear and the accumulation of plastic deformations
in the wall. The wall properties used for the simulation are
where, Vcr is the shear that produces the first diagonal crack, Vp
presented in Table 2 and the corresponding model parameters are
is the shear that lead to yielding of transverse reinforcement, Vu
p shown in Table 3.
is the ultimate shear resisted by the wall, and φus is the ultimate
The envelope of the numerical result can be seen, together with
plastic rotation. All these wall properties can be computed from
the experimental results, in Fig. 8(a). It can be observed that the
conventional reinforced concrete theory.
model represents correctly the experimental behavior of the wall.
The cracking shear of a RC member, when the member is sub-
jected to shear and axial loads can be obtained by the expression
of ACI 318-05 [11]: 3. Model for hysteretic behavior

  p 0!
P fc 3.1. Unilateral behavior
Vcr = 1+ 0.8Ag (17)
14Ag 6
During cyclic loadings, two distinctive sets of shear cracks can
where Ag is the total area of the wall cross section, fc0 is the nominal appear in the wall (see Fig. 9). Each set is mainly related to a specific
resistance of the concrete in MPa, and P is the axial load on the wall. direction of the shear load. In continuum damage mechanics,
The shear load that leads to yielding of transverse reinforce- similar phenomena are represented by the introduction of two
ment can be obtained by the expression of ACI 318-05 [11]: damage variables. One of them is related to microcracking density
due to positive stress (positive damage) and the other represents
Av Fy Cot θ
 
damage due to negative stress (negative damage), see [17]. When
Vp = d (18) the shear force changes sign, one set of cracks tends to close and its
s
presence has a reduced effect in the wall behavior while the other
where Av is the transverse reinforcement area of the wall, d is the set of cracks tends to open and became the dominant stiffness
effective depth of the wall, Fy is the yielding stress of transverse reduction phenomenon. This class of behavior is called ‘‘unilateral’’
reinforcement in MPa, s is the separation between stirrups, and θ in the damage mechanics literature.
is the angle between the compression strut and the longitudinal The model described in this paper can include the concept to
axis of the shear wall. unilateral damage as described in Flórez-López [10]. There are now
The ultimate shear can be obtained by the expression proposed two damage variables for shear: d+ −
s and ds , which characterize
in Sezen and Moehle [15]: the state of damage due to positive and negative shear forces,
! respectively (see Fig. 9).
0.5 fc0
p s
Av Fy d P The elasticity law (1) can be generalized as:
Vu = + 1+ 0.8Ag . (19)
l/d 0.5 fc0 Ag
p
s
Φ − Φ P = F (d+
s ) hM i+ + F (d−
s )
    
hM i− (21)
The ultimate plastic rotation for a shear load can be computed by where, {hM i+ } represents the positive part of the elements of
the expression proposed by Park and Paulay [16]: matrix {M} and {hM i− } is the negative part of the elements of {M};
i.e.
(Fsu − Fy )Av
 
1 Es
φ =
P
+ 0.25l (20) hMi i+ = Mi if Mi > 0 and hMi i+ = 0 otherwise
us
Es ts ρs Ec (22a)

where the Fsu is the ultimate stress of the transverse reinforcement hMi i− = Mi if Mi < 0 and hMi i− = 0 otherwise. (22b)
in MPa, Es is the modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement in The flexibility matrices have
 +the  same
 basic  form of Eq. (5)
MPa, Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete in MPa, ρs is the
s and ds : F (ds ) and F (ds ) . It can be noticed
substituting ds by d+ − −
percentage of transverse reinforcement. that for a positive shear force the flexibility terms are increased
2220 E.D. Thomson et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2215–2223

Fig. 8. Shear wall SW-M01 (a) Experimental results (b) Numerical simulation.

only by the damage variable d+ s and negative cracks are assumed

totally closed with no influence at all in the wall behavior.
The evolution of shear damage is described according again to
the Griffith criterion:

s > 0
ḋ+ s = R(ds )
only if G+ +
(23a)

ḋs > 0
−
only if Gs = R(ds ).
− −
(23b)
The plastic evolution law is similar to the one for the model of
monotonic behavior, but the yield function has now two expres- Fig. 9. Representation of positive and negative shear damage.
sions: one for positive actions and another for negative ones.
 
V V
fy = − X − Q; if − α cs φ ≥ 0
p
(1 − d+
s ) (1 − d+
s )(1 − ds )
− s

V
fy = − +X −Q otherwise (24)
(1 − d−
s )

where X is a kinematic hardening term, and Q is an isotropic hard-

ening term, which are defined as follows:

X = 0.60cs φsP (25)

Q = 0.40cs ps + Vy .
The variable ps is the maximum plastic rotation at any given time
of the entire plastic deformation history.
3.2. Pinching effects in shear walls
The so called pinching effect in the hysteretic behavior curves
was observed during the experimental analyses. This phenomenon
is due to some sliding between the cracked surfaces before they
come in full contact [18]. The basis for the modeling of this
phenomenon is explained below.
Consider an interface between two different continuum bodies
as is shown in Fig. 10(a) and let σ and τ be the normal and
shear stresses on the interface. If the surface is characterized by
a Coulomb friction criterion, the relative horizontal displacement
h between the blocks obeys the following law:
ḣ > 0 if |τ | − τs (σ ) = 0

ḣ = 0 if |τ | − τs (σ ) < 0
where the term τs is the slide resistance that depends on the
normal stress. The non-slide domain, for an arbitrary resistance,
is represented in Fig. 10(b). It can be noted that slide occurs when
the shear stress reaches the slide resistance. The latter value is not
constant but depends on the normal stress. For higher values of the
compressive normal stress, higher values of the slide resistance are
obtained. A general presentation of interface behavior can be seen
in plasticity textbooks (see for instance Salençon [19]).
Fig. 10. (a) Interface between two media. (b) Non-slide domain.
(26)
3.2.1. Sliding function of a shear crack
The process of slide across a shear crack can also be explained
in terms of Coulomb friction criterion. Consider a shear crack
in a shear wall which has been formed under positive load.
As the load is reduced to zero, the crack remains open. Once
the load starts to be applied in the negative direction, friction
across the crack is small, but as the crack begins to close, friction
increases gradually, which can be seen as a gradual increase in
the normal stress and consequentially in the slide resistance.
Additionally, if reinforcement yielding has occurred as the crack
opens, it is evident that in order to close the crack completely, the
reinforcement must be yielded in compression. Therefore, there is
an interaction between two phenomena: slide across shear cracks
and yield of the reinforcement. Both phenomena generate plastic
rotations in the wall.
A generalization of the concept of Coulomb friction criterion can
be used to describe the behavior of an inelastic shear wall with
(27) slide. Thus, the following ‘‘slide function’’ is introduced:
fs = |V | − ks . (28)
Expression (28) allows one to define the evolution of plastic rota-
tions as follows: there will be increments of the plastic rotations
due to slide across shear cracks if the shear force reaches the crit-
ical value ks , otherwise these increments are null.
In the case of Coulomb friction criterion, it is accepted that
the slide critical value depends on the normal stresses on the
interface. For slide across shear cracks, it will be assumed that the
 E.D. Thomson et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2215–2223 2221

Fig. 11. Interaction between yield and slide functions. Fig. 12. Effect of γ parameter.

critical value ks corresponds to a hardening function. The analytical

determination of the hardening function is a very complex
problem, therefore the following phenomenological expression is
proposed:
p
ks = Vo esign(V )γ φs . (29)

An exponential function of the plastic rotation has been chosen so

that the typical pinched curves are obtained when slide is present
in the wall. The term Vo will be called ‘‘slide resistance’’ which is
a concept similar to the yield shear force in plasticity, i.e., Vo is
the shear force that produces slide when no plastic rotations have
occurred yet. The computation of the parameters Vo and γ will be Fig. 13. Generalized displacements {q} and internal forces {Q }.
discussed in a following section.
To model sliding shear together with damage due to cracking, and, for negative actions:
a slide function due to sliding shear is proposed, similar to that  
−
proposed by Picón et al. [20] for a similar phenomenon observed 2GAv R(ds )
(1 − d−
s ) ln l·V02
in beams with bond failure. This slide function (fs ) is defined as
follows: γ = q − −
. (33)
2GAv (1−ds )2 R(ds )
  2 l
−(1 − ds )Vy − (1 − α)(1 − ds )cs ps
− −
V
if − α cs φsp ≥ 0 The effect of the γ parameter on the hysteretic curves can be seen
(1 − ds )(1 − ds )
+ −
  in Fig. 12.
 V  p
sign(V )γ φs
then fs =  +  − Vo e

(1 − ds ) 4. Numerical implementation and model validation
 
V p
 − Vo esign(V )γ φs .
 
else fs = 
 (30)
(1 − d− ) 
s 4.1. A finite element for squat RC shear walls

Now, there are two yield functions which interact, one due to
The model can be included in conventional structural analysis
actual yielding of horizontal reinforcement and the other due to
programs as a new finite element. The generalized displacements
sliding shear.
(degrees of freedom) and internal forces of the element are
The function which controls the evolution of plastic deforma- given, respectively, by {q}t = (q1 , q2 , . . . , q6 ) and {Q }t =
tions will be the one with the largest value at any given time as is (Q1 , Q2 , . . . , Q6 ) as indicated in Fig. 13. A finite element is defined
illustrated in Fig. 11. as the set of equations that relate the generalized displacements {q}
This function takes into account the fact that on closure of the with the internal forces {Q }. A finite element for a RC shear wall is
shear cracks, there are two competing effects: friction between composed by the proposed model and two additional equations.
crack faces and compression forces acting on the horizontal rein- The first one is denoted kinematic equation and relates the
forcement. generalized deformations {Φ } with the generalized displacements
{q}. The second one is the element equilibrium equation that
3.2.2. Computation of sliding shear parameters relates the element internal forces {Q } with the generalized
In expressions (29) and (30), two new parameters are intro- stresses {M}.
duced: Vo and γ . Where Vo represents the value of shear force The kinematic equation is
which produces slide across a crack for zero plastic rotation and
γ is a parameter which can be calculated by solving the following {Φ } = [B] {q}
 secα cos α secα cos α 
equations: − 1 − 0
 l l l l
secα cos α secα cos α

s = R(ds ) for positive actions
G+ +

[B] =  
if fy or fs = 0 then (31) − 0 − 1
Gs = R(d−
s ) for negative actions.
−

l l l l
− cos α −secα 0 cos α secα 0
As a result, the following expression is obtained for positive ac- (34)
tions:
  where [B] is called transformation matrix and α is the angle
+
2GAv R(ds ) between the chord of the element and the global axis X (see Fig. 13).
(1 − ds ) ln
+
l·V02 The member equilibrium equation can be expressed as
γ = q + +
(32)
2GAv (1−ds )2 R(ds )
2 l s )Vy − (1 − α)(1 − ds )cs ps
−(1 − d+ +
{Q } = [B]t {M } . (35)
2222 E.D. Thomson et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2215–2223

Fig. 14. Specimen SW-H02 (a) Experimental results (b) Numerical simulation.

Fig. 15. Specimen SW-H03 (a) Experimental results (b) Numerical simulation.

Table 4 Table 5
Computed properties of the specimens SW-H02 and SW-H03. Model parameters of the specimens WW-H02 and SW-H03.
Specimen Vcr Vp Vu φus
P
Specimen Vy cs Gcrs qs Vo

SW-H02 32.50 145.47 193.04 0.0162 SW-H02 189.70 20427 6.99 −668.18 103.52
SW-H03 47.44 74.15 154.84 0.0053 SW-H03 78.53 63076 11.27 −322.18 45.95
Vcr = shear force that produces first diagonal crack (kN) Vy = parameter for yield function (kN)
Vp = shear force that yields horizontal reinforcement (kN) cs = parameter for yield function (kN)
Vu = ultimate shear force resisted by a shear wall (kN) Gcrs = parameter for shear damage function (kN · mm)
φus
P
= ultimate plastic rotation in a member due to shear qs = parameter for shear damage function (kN · mm)
Vo = parameter for shear slide function (kN)

The finite element for squat RC walls was included in the library of
a commercial FE program [21]. The numerical implementation of
the model was carried out in a similar way as is described in [22].
4.2. Numerical simulations
In order to validate the model some additional tests were
carried out. The specimens are similar to the one described
in Section 2. They were called SW-H02 and SW-H03 and its
geometry is presented in Table 1. The specimens were subjected
to cyclic lateral loading of increasing amplitude and zero axial
force. Figs. 14 and 15 show the experimental results and the
numerical simulations of those tests. The shear wall properties
for the simulation are presented in Table 4 and the corresponding
model parameters are shown in Table 5.
It can be noticed that two degrees of pinching can be observed
in these tests. This difference might be related to the percentage
of transversal reinforcement in both specimens (0.73 % for SW-
H02 and 0.26 % for SW-H03). In the model the degree of pinching
is controlled by the parameter Vo in Eq. (30). So far there is no
validated procedure to compute this parameter as a function of the
wall characteristics and this is a limitation of the model.
The envelope of the numerical results can be seen, together
with the experimental results, in Fig. 14(a) and Fig. 15(a). It can
be observed that the model represents correctly the experimental
behavior of squat RC shear walls.
5. Conclusions
A model for the simulation of damage in squat RC shear walls
under cyclic lateral loads has been proposed. It is based on concepts
and methods of damage and fracture mechanics. It allows, at
least in a qualitative manner, a representation of the following
effects: stiffness and strength degradation due, mainly, to diagonal
cracking of the concrete; plastic deformations due to yield of the
horizontal reinforcement; and sliding shear across diagonal cracks
(‘‘pinching effect’’).
A good correlation between experiment and model can be
appreciated. Most parameters of the model can be determined
from conventional reinforced concrete theory.
In its present state, the model does not account for the
combined damage due to shear and bending, as in tall shear walls,
where cracking due to bending may be more significant than
cracking due to shear.
 E.D. Thomson et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2215–2223 2223

Acknowledgements Vy parameter for yield function

w wide of wall
The experimental investigation presented in this paper was W∗ complementary strain energy of a damaged wall
carried out in the Laboratory of Structural Mechanics at the X kinematic hardening term for yield function
Lisandro Alvarado University. The research work was sponsored by Z slope of elastic unloading
FONACIT and CDCHT Lisandro Alvarado University, Venezuela. α parameter of yield function
δ axial elongation of the member cord
t horizontal displacement at top of shear wall
Appendix. Notations
tp plastic horizontal displacement at top of wall
φi , φj total rotation at nodes i and j of member
The following symbols are used in this paper:
φsP plastic rotation in a member due to shear
A total cross section area φus
P
ultimate plastic rotation in a member due to shear
Ag gross area of concrete section γ parameter for shear slide function
Av effective shear area of cross section σ normal stress across an interface
cs parameter for yield function τ shear stress across an interface
d effective depth τs shear slide resistance
ds shear damage variable
d+s shear damage variable for positive actions
d−s shear damage variable for negative actions References
Ec modulus of elasticity of concrete
[1] Riyadh H, Mohamad M, Murat D. Prediction of damage in R/C shear panels
E modulus of elasticity
subjected to reversed cyclic loading. J Earth Eng 2005;9(1):41–66.
Es modulus of elasticity of steel [2] Williams MS, Villernure I, Sexsmith RG. Evaluation of seismic damage indices
fc0 nominal resistance of the concrete for concrete elements loaded in combined shear and flexure. ACI Struct J 1997;
fs shear slide function 94(3):315–22.
[3] Reinhorn AM, Kunnath SK, Mander JB. In: Fafjar P, Krawinkler yH, editors.
Fsu ultimate stress of transverse steel Seismic design of structures for damage control in nonlinear seismic analysis
fy yield function and design of reinforced concrete buildings. London: Elsevier Applied Science;
Fy yield stress of transverse steel 1992. p. 63–76.
[4] Bazant ZD, Bhat PD. Prediction of hysteresis of reinforced concrete members.
[Fo ] flexibility matrix of member J Struct Eng, ASCE 1977;103(1):153–80.
[Foa ] flexibility matrix due to axial forces [5] Ma SM, Bertero VV, Popov EP. Experimental and analytical studies on the
hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete rectangular and T -beams. Report
[Fof ] flexibility matrix due to flexure effects No. EERC 76-2, Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
[Fos ] flexibility matrix due to shear effects of California, 1976.
[F s (ds )]
shear flexibility matrix of a damaged wall [6] Kunnath SK, Reinhorn A, Park YJ. Analytical modeling of inelastic seismic
[F (ds )] flexibility matrix of a damaged wall response of R/C structures. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1990;116(4):996–1017.
[7] Vulcano A. In: Fafjar P, Krawinkler yH, editors. Macroscopic modeling for
G shear modulus nonlinear analysis of rc structural walls in nonlinear seismic analysis and
Gcrs parameter for shear damage function design of reinforced concrete buildings. London: Elsevier Applied Science;
1992. p. 81–202.
Gs energy release rate of damaged shear wall
[8] Colotti V. Shear behavior of RC structural walls. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1993;119(3):
G+s energy release rate of a damaged shear wall for positive 728–46.
actions [9] Ghobarah A, Youssef M. Modelling of reinforced concrete structural walls. Eng
G− energy release rate of a damaged shear wall for negative Struct, Elsevier Science 1999;21(10):912–23.
s [10] Flórez-López J. Simplified model of unilateral damage for RC frames. J Struct
actions Eng, ASCE 1995;121(12):1765–72.
h relative displacement between two blocks of an interface [11] American Concrete Institute (ACI). Building code requirement for structural
ks critical shear force that produces slide concrete. ACI Committee 318, Farmington Hills, Mich, 2005.
[12] Woodward KA, Jirsa JO. Influence of reinforcement on RC short columns
l length of wall resistance. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1984;110(1):90–104.
Mi , Mj flexural moments at nodes i and j of a member [13] Lemaitre J. A course on damage mechanics. Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1992.
hM i+ positive part of the elements of matrix {M} [14] Cipollina A, López-Inojosa A, Flórez-López J. A simplified damage mechanics
approach to nonlinear analysis of frames. Comput Struct 1995;54(6):1113–26.
hM i− negative part of the elements of matrix {M} [15] Sezen H, Moehle J. Shear strength model for lightly reinforced concrete
N axial force in a member columns. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2004;130(11):1692–703.
P axial load [16] Park R, Paulay T. Reinforced concrete structures. New York: John Wiley and
Sons; 1975.
ps maximum plastic rotation achieved [17] Ladeveze P. On an anisotropic damage theory. In: Proc. of the CNRS
qs parameter for shear damage function international colloquium of failure criteria of structural media. France: Villard
Q isotropic hardening term for yield function de Lans; 1983.
ρs percentage of transverse reinforcement [18] Saatcioglu M, Humar JM. Dynamic analysis of buildings for earthquake-
resistant design. J Civ Eng Can 2003;30:338–59.
ρv percentage longitudinal reinforcement [19] Salençon J. Calcul à la rupture et analyse limite. Presses de l’école nationale des
R, R(ds ) crack resistance function ponts et chaussées, Paris, France, 1983.
e thickness of wall [20] Picón-Rodríguez R, Quintero-Febres C, Flórez-López J. Modeling of cyclic bond
deterioration in RC beam-column connections. Struct Eng Mech 2007;26(5):
V shear force in a member 569–89.
Vcr shear force that produces first diagonal crack [21] Abaqus user’s manual – Version 6.2. Pawtucket, RI: Hibbitt, Karlson &
Vo parameter for shear slide function Sorensen, Inc; 2001.
[22] Marante ME, Flórez-López J. Three dimensional analysis of reinforced concrete
Vp shear force that yields horizontal reinforcement frames based on lumped damage mechanics. Int J Solids and Struct 2003;
Vu ultimate shear force resisted by a shear wall 40(19):5109–23.