ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title No. 116-S46

Peak Strength of Shear-Critical Reinforced Concrete Walls

by Bismarck N. Luna and Andrew S. Whittaker

Twelve low-aspect-ratio rectangular reinforced concrete (RC)

walls were built and tested under reversed cyclic loading at the
University at Buffalo. One of the objectives of the research project
was to develop improved predictive equations for the peak shear
strength of low-aspect-ratio RC walls, suitable for inclusion in
design standards such as ACI 318 and ACI 349. Information on
load paths gathered from patterns of concrete cracking, strains on
reinforcement, and strain fields enabled the development of new
predictive equations for peak shear strength.

Keywords: load paths; peak shear strength; reinforced concrete; shear walls.

INTRODUCTION
Low-aspect-ratio reinforced concrete (RC) shear walls
(height-to-length ratio of 2 and less) are widely used in low-
and medium-rise buildings and in safety-related nuclear struc-
tures to resist lateral wind and seismic loadings. Code-based
design and seismic performance (risk) assessment require the
hysteretic response and peak shear strength to be accurately
characterized. Equations are available in the literature and in
standards of practice to predict the nominal shear strength of
low-aspect-ratio RC walls, but these equations are inaccurate
and insufficiently parameterized (refer to Gulec et al. [2008]
and Del Carpio Ramos et al. [2012] for details).
The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) funded a
research project on low-aspect-ratio shear walls of conven-
tional and composite construction to improve the profes-
sion’s understanding of their cyclic inelastic response.
Sixteen rectangular (or planar), low-aspect-ratio concrete Fig. 1—Photographs of SW8 and SW11 during testing.
shear walls were built and tested at the University at Buffalo PEAK STRENGTH OF SHEAR-CRITICAL RC
(UB): 12 conventionally reinforced concrete walls (Luna WALLS
et al. 2015, 2018) and four steel-plate concrete composite The data collected from the 12 RC walls tested at UB
walls (Epackachi et al. 2015). Two RC shear walls were built enabled the tracking of load paths from the point of force
and tested using hybrid simulation at the University of Cali- application to the foundation. Luna et al. (2018) describes
fornia, Berkeley (Whyte and Stojadinovic 2013). the experimental program in significant detail and only
The transducers used in the UB experiments on RC walls information relevant to calculations of peak shear strength
helped identify the flow of forces through the walls and thus is included herein. The 12 shear walls were identified as
determine contributions to peak shear strength. The identifica- SW1 through SW12. Figure 1 presents photographs of SW8
tion of load paths enabled the development of new predictive and SW11 during testing; the light-emitting diodes (LEDs)
equations for peak strength of rectangular, shear-critical RC that were part of the non-contact coordinate measurement
walls, without and with boundary elements contained within the system can be seen on the surface of the walls. The peak
web of the wall. Much additional information is documented in shear strength and corresponding average shear stress in
Luna (2015), Luna et al. (2018), and Rivera et al. (2018). the first and third quadrants of loading of the 12 UB walls
are reported in Table 1. Figure 2 presents the nominal shear
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Data obtained from tests of 12 low-aspect-ratio rectan-
ACI Structural Journal, V. 116, No. 2, March 2019.
gular RC walls, without and with boundary elements, were MS No. S-2018-145, doi: 10.14359/51712280, was received April 26, 2018, and
used to develop predictive equations for peak strength of reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2019, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
shear-critical walls, suitable for inclusion, after simplifica- obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
tion in design standards such as ACI 318 and ACI 349. is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.

ACI Structural Journal/March 2019 257

Table 1—Peak shear strength lated from non-contact coordinate measuring LEDs, and
First quadrant Third quadrant Average
cracking patterns were used to develop free-body diagrams
of different segments of the walls and to estimate the magni-
Peak Average Peak Average
tude of the forces in reinforcement and the strains in concrete.
force, shear stress force shear stress Peak force,
Wall kip (× √fc′) (kip) (× √fc′) kip
MOEHLE’S EQUATION FOR PEAK SHEAR
SW1 253 4.4 249 4.3 251
STRENGTH
SW2 563 7.0 490 6.1 526 Moehle (2015) presents an expression to estimate the peak
SW3 468 5.5 381 4.5 423 shear strength of a low-aspect-ratio RC wall. The derivation
SW4 226 3.6 216 3.5 221 assumes an idealized pattern of cracking and the free-body
diagrams of Fig. 3. The equation for peak shear strength is
SW5 726 11.5 547 8.7 633
SW6 571 9.6 411 6.9 491 1
Vn = ( N u + ρl f y Acv ) (1)
SW7 318 5.4 277 4.7 297 tan θ
SW8 623 11.0 546 9.6 584
SW9 622 9.9 633 10.1 627
where Vn is the peak shear strength; Nu is the total axial
load; ρl is the vertical reinforcement ratio; Acv is the gross
SW10 495 7.6 528 8.1 512
cross-sectional area of the wall; and θ is the angle of the crack
SW11 424 6.2 408 6.0 416 with respect to the horizontal. The stress in the horizontal
SW12 365 5.4 416 6.1 391 and vertical reinforcement at peak strength is assumed to be
the yield value fy. Horizontal reinforcement stressed to fy is
Note: 1 kip = 4.45 kN.
assumed in the derivation, although Eq. (1) does not include
it explicitly. Moehle recognized the role of distributed hori-
zontal reinforcement for equilibrium of segment c-d-e in
Fig. 3(c) and in transferring lateral forces from this segment
to the remainder of the wall. This equation is suitable for
walls with a very low aspect ratio. Additional analysis of the
Moehle derivation is provided in Luna et al. (2018).
The Moehle equation provides insight into load paths
in low-aspect-ratio walls at peak lateral strength. Here-
after, the derivation is extended to accommodate all shear-
critical, rectangular walls, without and with boundary
elements contained within the web of the wall, made possible
by analysis of cracking patterns, strain gauge data, and strain
fields derived from LED ata, all obtained from the testing of
12 RC shear walls at UB.

PEAK SHEAR STRENGTH OF SHEAR-CRITICAL

Fig. 2—Measured and predicted peak shear strength of 12
UB walls (Luna et al. 2015). (Note: 1 kip = 4.45 kN.)
strength of the 12 walls calculated using equations from
Chapters 11 and 18 of ACI 318-14, Barda et al. (1977),
Wood (1990), Gulec and Whittaker (2011), and the measured
peak shear strength from Luna et al. (2015). (The measured
peak strength reported in the figure is the greater of the peak
strengths in the first and third quadrants.) Luna et al. (2015)
described the accuracy of these predictive equations and that
discussion is not repeated herein. As noted in Luna et al.
(2015): 1) there is a significant scatter in the predictions of
peak shear strength; and 2) none of the equations are partic-
ularly suitable for either design or performance assessment.
Data from the tests of these 12 RC walls, as described in
Chapters 3 and 4 of Luna et al. (2018), were used to derive
predictive equations for peak strength of shear-critical RC
walls without and with boundary elements. Data from strain
gauges, strain distributions on the faces of the walls calcu-
WALLS
Fringes of shear strain and patterns of cracking at
peak strength
Figure 4 presents fringes of shear strain and patterns of
cracking in SW8 and SW11 at peak strength, which are
representative of fringes and patterns of walls without and
with boundary elements, respectively. The fringes of shear
strain and patterns of cracking in all 12 walls are presented
in Chapter 4 of Luna et al. (2018).
Walls without boundary elements
Figure 5(a) identifies three segments of the walls without
boundary elements with significantly different strains at
peak strength and the corresponding idealized patterns of
cracking and forces. The shear strains at peak shear strength
in Segment B are substantially greater than those in Segments
A and C. The toe of the wall shown in the bottom left corner
of Segment A (open red circle) can resist compression and
shearing forces because the inclined cracks do not propagate
to the corner. The distance from the bottom end of the wall
to the bottom of the diagonal crack in Segment A is denoted

258 ACI Structural Journal/March 2019

Fig. 3—Idealized forces on a low-aspect-ratio RC wall (Moehle [2015], reproduced with permission from McGraw-Hill
Education).
Fig. 4—Shear strain fields at peak strength.
c. The patterns of concrete cracking at peak shear strength
in SW3 and SW8 are shown in Fig. 6, with length c high-
lighted with an open red circle. Segment B is divided into
three representative concrete compression struts (or simply
struts) in Fig. 5(a). (The number can be less or more than
3.) Variables p and v represent the axial load per unit length
and shear force per unit length at the centerline of horizontal
loading, respectively. No axial load was applied to the 12
walls tested at UB and their self-weight is insignificant for
the purpose of calculations of shear strength. Cracks are
assumed to propagate at a constant angle θ with respect to
the horizontal. Variables hw and lw are the height (distance
between foundation and centerline of loading) and length of
the wall, respectively.
Information from Sections 4.5, 4.6, and 6.5 of Luna et al.
(2018) are summarized here because they are used to formu-
late an equation for the peak shear strength of walls without
boundary elements.
1. The idealized cracking pattern presented in Fig. 5(a)
is applicable for walls SW2 through SW10. The cracking
patterns observed on SW1, SW11, and SW12 were different
from that shown in Fig. 5(a). Cracks in SW1 were due to both
shear and flexure, and the cracks in the boundary elements of
walls SW11 and SW12 were horizontal.
2. All vertical reinforcement yielded in tension (over the
height of the wall) for walls SW2 through SW7 (walls with
vertical reinforcement ratio of 1% and less). Many vertical
bars in walls SW8 through SW10 (walls with vertical rein-
forcement ratio of 1.5%) did not yield in tension. (The
strains in the horizontal and vertical reinforcement of the 12
UB walls are presented in Chapter 4 of Luna et al. [2018]).
ACI Structural Journal/March 2019
3. The strain in the horizontal reinforcement of Walls SW2
through SW10 was greatest in the midsection of the walls
and relatively small at the ends. The strains in Segments A
of SW2 through SW10, as calculated using LED data, were
relatively small.
The free-body diagram of Segment B of the wall is shown
in Fig. 7. Actions Fv and Fh are the total forces carried by
the vertical and horizontal reinforcement, respectively, that
cross a diagonal crack. Action Fs is the force associated
with aggregate interlock. Variable x is the horizontal projec-
tion of the width of the strut. Summing moments about the
mid-bottom of a strut
hw h
vxhw = Fy + px w − Fs ( x sin θ) (2)
tan θ tan θ
where Fy is the axial force in the vertical reinforcement
over distance x. The strains in the vertical reinforcement in
segment B of SW2 through SW7 at peak shear strength were
between 6 millistrain (≃εy) and 20 millistrain (≃10εy), where
εy is the yield strain. For walls SW8, SW9, and SW10, the
corresponding strains were between one millistrain (≃0.5εy)
and six millistrain (≃3εy). The force in the vertical reinforce-
ment, Fy, shown in Fig. 7(b) is
Fy = ρltwxfy (3)
where ρl is the vertical reinforcement ratio; tw is the thickness
of the wall; and fy is the stress in the vertical reinforcement,
and equal to: a) the average of the measured yield strength
fy and measured ultimate strength fu of the reinforcement to
259
Fig. 5—Different sections and idealized cracking pattern of low-aspect-ratio rectangular RC wall.

Fig. 6—Cracking patterns at peak strength (Luna et al. 2018).

account for cyclic hardening of the vertical reinforcement in
Walls SW2 through SW7; and b) the measured yield strength
fy for Walls SW8, SW9, and SW10.
For Walls SW2 through SW10, the strains in the horizontal
reinforcement are the greatest in the midsection (midlength)
of the wall and small at the ends. Based on the gauge data
at peak strength, 0.25εy is a conservative (low) estimate of
the strain in the horizontal reinforcement at the boundaries
of Segments A and B, and of Segments B and C. The net
effect of the forces in the horizontal reinforcement on the
two inclined boundaries of Segment B, on the moment at the
mid-bottom of a strut is assumed to be negligible. Assuming
a uniform distribution of applied shear along the horizontal
projection of Segment B, and using Eq. (3) for Fy, the shear
resistance of Segment B can be estimated as
 h   h  h
v  lw − w − c hw = ρl tw f y  lw − w − c w + ...
 tan θ   tan θ  tan θ
(4)
 h  h  h  in the vertical direction and ignoring the vertical component
... + p  lw − w − c w − Fs  lw − w − c sin θ
 tan θ  tan θ  tan θ 
Force Fs is associated with aggregate interlock (or friction
forces). There is considerable uncertainty in the magnitude of
this force (Gulec and Whittaker 2009). Moehle (2015) conser-
vatively assumed that the normal and shear stresses along a
diagonal crack were resisted only by the reinforcement, and
that assumption is adopted herein because it was not possible
to assess the width of the cracks away from the surfaces of the
tested walls. Accordingly, the term that includes Fs in Eq. (5)
is set equal to zero. Equation (5) can be rewritten as
 h  1
Vnb = (ρl tw f y + p )  lw − w − c (6)
 tan θ  tan θ
Segments A and C contribute to the peak shear resistance of
low-aspect-ratio walls. Consider first Fig. 8(a) that presents a
free-body diagram of Segment A. Actions Fcy and Fcx are the
normal and shear forces acting at the bottom of segment A.
The other variables were defined previously. Summing forces
of aggregate interlock for the reason given previously

 h 
The total lateral resistance provided by Segment B of the Fcy = Fv + p  w + c (7)
wall, Vnb, is given by  tan θ 

 h   h  1 where Fv is equal to
Vnb = v  lw − w − c = ρl tw f y  lw − w − c + ...
 tan θ   tan θ  tan θ
(5)  h 
 h  1  h  sin θ Fv = ρl tw  w  f y (8)
... + p  lw − w − c − Fs  lw − w − c  tan θ 
 tan θ  tan θ  tan θ  hw

260 ACI Structural Journal/March 2019

Fig. 7—Free-body diagram of Segment B of wall without boundary elements.

where f y is set equal to the average of measured yield

and ultimate strength of the reinforcement for walls SW2
through SW7. The strains in the vertical reinforcement at
the boundary of segments A and C of walls SW8, SW9, and
SW10 ranged between 0.1 and 1.0 millistrain, and so f y is
set equal to 0.25fy in Eq. (8) for these walls. Denoting fc as the
axial stress in the concrete at the bottom of segment A, Fcy is

Fcy = fcctw (9)

and using Eq. (7), (8), and (9), c can be written as

 h 
(ρl tw f y + p )  w 
 tan θ 
c= (10)
f c tw − p Fig. 8—Free-body diagram of Segments A and C of wall
without boundary elements.
Equation (13) can be simplified by setting θ equal to 40
Shear force Fcx can be estimated by multiplying Fcy by a degrees, which is likely appropriate for walls with aspect
coefficient of friction μ. If Vna is the contribution to the shear ratios between 0.25 and 0.75 and low axial compres-
resistance of segment A sive stresses. (The average crack angle for all the walls is
discussed in Chapter 4 of Luna et al. [2018].)
  h  
Vna = Fcx = µFcy = µ (ρl tw f y + p )  w  + pc  (11)
  tan θ   Vn = µ (ρl tw f y + p )(1.2hw ) + pc 
(14)
+ 1.2(ρl tw f y + p )(lw − 1.2hw − c) + 0.25ρt hw tw f y
Consider now Fig. 8(b) that presents a free-body diagram
of segment C. The sum of forces in the horizontal rein-
To judge the accuracy of this equation for the shear-crit-
forcement in segment C at peak strength, which is equal to
ical walls SW2 through SW10, p is set to zero and Eq. (14)
the shear resistance of the segment, Vnc, can be estimated
can be further simplified to
using strain gauge data from the horizontal reinforcement.
A conservative (low) estimate of the strain in the horizontal
hw
reinforcement at the boundary of segments B and C (and A Vn = 1.2µρl Acv fy
and B) is 0.25fy. Accordingly, Vnc can be taken as lw
(15)
 h c h
Vnc = ρthwtw(0.25fy) (12) + 1.2ρl Acv f y 1 − 1.2 w −  + 0.25ρt Acv w f y
 lw lw  lw
The total lateral resistance (peak shear strength) of a wall
where Acv is the gross cross-sectional area of the wall. To esti-
without boundary elements, Vn, is the sum of Vna, Vnb, and Vnc
mate the length c, a value of 0.8fc′ is assumed: less than the
measured uniaxial compressive strength because there was no
  h   evidence of spalling of concrete at the compression toes of
Vn = µ (ρl tw f y + p )  w  + pc 
  tan θ   walls at peak shear strength. The values of c calculated using
(13)
 hw  1 Eq. (10) are listed in the second column of Table 2.
+ (ρl tw f y + p )  lw − −c + 0.25ρt hwtw f y
 tan θ  tan θ
ACI Structural Journal/March 2019 261
Table 2—Compressive stress on struts in Segment B and shear strength of Walls SW2 through SW10
Wall c, in. fc, ksi fc/fc′ Vna, kip Vnb, kip Vnc, kip Vn, kip Vn/Vpeak
SW2 10.4 1.82 0.26 234 228 82 544 1.03
SW3 6.2 1.22 0.16 157 173 55 384 0.91
SW4 6.4 0.67 0.16 87 95 29 211 0.95
SW5 12 2.05 0.48 166 477 55 698 1.10
SW6 9.1 1.37 0.36 111 335 37 484 0.98
SW7 4.5 0.67 0.18 55 178 18 251 0.84
SW8 7 2.43 0.69 78 338 131 547 0.94
SW9 5.7 2.43 0.57 78 351 58 487 0.78
SW10 5.3 2.43 0.53 78 354 29 461 0.9
Average 0.94

Notes: 1 kip = 4.45 kN; 1 ksi = 6.9 MPa; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

The shear force transfer across the wall-to-foundation
interface in segment A will be limited by: a) principal tensile
strength of concrete; and b) shear friction. To calculate
capacity based on a), the concrete is assumed not to be rein-
forced, to have a tensile strength of 0.15fc′, and loaded in
uniaxial plane stress: a normal stress corresponding to Fcy
and a shear stress. If the normal stress is 0.8fc′ and the corre-
sponding shear stress is 0.4fc′, the corresponding principal
stresses are 0.96fc′ (compression) and –0.16fc′ (tension): the
ratio of shear stress to normal stress is 0.5.
Shear-friction calculations can be informed by the studies
of Mattock (1976, 1977), which form the basis of the provi-
sions in ACI 318. Test series B of Mattock (1976) shows
that for normal stress between 226 and 1576 psi (1.56 and
10.87 MPa), the ultimate shear stress ranges between 487
and 1700 psi (3.36 and 11.72 MPa), with the ratio of shear
stress to normal stress of between 2.15 and 1.07 (greater than
1.0). Test series M of Mattock (1977) shows that the average
ratio of measured cyclic to monotonic shears strengths was
0.90. Note that the incremented cyclic loading for test series
M was applied for more than 45 cycles—many more cycles
than that expected in design basis earthquake shaking and
imposed in the tested walls. A substantial reduction in the
number of reversed cycles to failure would increase the ratio
from the average of 0.90 to close to 1.0 (that is, the mono-
tonic shear strength).
Accordingly, a coefficient of friction μ equal to 0.5 is
assumed here for the calculation of Vna, which caps the shear
stress at 0.4fc′ and satisfies both the aforementioned prin-
cipal tensile stress-based calculation and is substantially
less that the shear-friction strength supported by Mattock’s
monotonic and cyclic tests. (Note the maximum value of the
normal stress [product of the reinforcement ratio and yield
strength] of 1576 psi [10.87 MPa] in the 1976 monotonic
tests was equal to approximately 0.25fc′ and smaller than the
normal stress assumed here of 0.8fc′.)
The first, second, and third terms of Eq. (15) correspond
to Vna, Vnb, and Vnc, respectively. The calculated values of the
three terms in Eq. (15) and the predicted peak shear strength for
walls SW2 through SW10 are listed in Table 2. A coefficient of
friction μ equal to 0.5 is assumed—less than the value of 1.0
given in ACI 318-14 for a concrete-to-concrete interface but
reasonable given that the toes of the walls had experienced
tensile and compressive loadings prior to the cycle to peak
strength. The ratio of the predicted peak shear strength to
measured peak shear strength (listed in the last column of
Table 2) of Walls SW2 through SW10 range between 0.78
(SW9) and 1.1 (SW5), with an average of 0.94. Excluding
the walls that failed in diagonal compression, SW8 and SW9,
the average is 0.96. The contributions of the horizontal rein-
forcement, Vnc, to the peak strength of the walls is relatively
small, which supports the findings of Luna et al. (2015) and
observations by Barda et al. (1977), Gulec and Whittaker
(2011), and Moehle (2015).
Although the contribution of the horizontal reinforce-
ment to the peak shear strength of a low-rise wall is rela-
tively small, a sufficient amount of horizontal reinforcement
is needed to transfer the lateral load from the centerline of
loading of the wall to the different segments of the wall and
to confine the concrete in the compression struts, where
confinement here relates to maintaining the integrity of the
compression struts (refer to Section 23.5 of ACI 318-14). A
portion of the lateral load in segment A (refer to Fig. 8(a))
is transmitted to Segments B and C by the horizontal rein-
forcement. Lateral force in Segment C is transferred to the
foundation via compression struts that form in in Segment C
(refer to Fig. 8(b)).
It is common practice to assume that walls are uniformly
loaded in shear. On the basis of θ equal to 40 degrees,
Segments A (and C) and B should resist 39% and 61% of the
total lateral force, respectively, for an aspect ratio of 0.33,
where the percentage assigned to Segment A (and C) is given
by the ratio of the projected horizontal length of the crack,
hw/tanθ, to the length of the wall, lw. For an aspect ratio of
0.54, Segments A (and C) and B should resist 64% and 36%
of the total lateral force, respectively. On the basis of the
values of Vna, Vnb, and Vnc in Table 2, Segments A (and C)
and B resist approximately 30% and 70% of the total lateral
force, respectively, for the walls with an aspect ratio of 0.33
(SW5, SW6, and SW7). For walls with aspect ratio of 0.54
(SW2, SW3, SW4), Segments A (and C) and B resist approx-
imately 60% and 40% of the total lateral force, respectively.
(Walls SW8 and SW9 failed in diagonal compression and so
are excluded from this discussion.) These results indicate the

262 ACI Structural Journal/March 2019

loading plates distributed shear uniformly over the length of
the tested walls, which would suggest that floor diaphragms
in buildings should be reinforced for this purpose.
The shear resistance of the wall provided by Segment
B will be limited by the compressive strength of its struts.
Consider again the free-body diagram of Segment B
presented in Fig. 7. Assuming the force in the horizontal
reinforcement on the two inclined boundaries of a strut are not
significantly different, the compressive force at the bottom of a
strut, Fc, can be estimated by summing horizontal forces along
the horizontal projection of Segment B. That is
vx = Fccosθ (16)
If fc is the compressive stress in a strut, Fc can be expressed as
Fc = fc(xsinθ)tw (17)
Considering all the struts in Segment B of the wall, the
lateral force in Segment B, Vnb, can be expressed in terms
of fc as
 h 
Vnb = f c sin θ cos θtw  lw − w − c (18)
 tan θ 
Using Eq. (6) and (18), an approximate value of the
compressive stress of the struts in Segment B, fc, can be
calculated as
 h 
f c sin θ cos θtw  lw − w − c
 tan θ 
(19)
 h  1
= (ρl tw f y + p )  lw − w − c
 tan θ  tan θ
Using a value of 40 degrees for θ and simplifying,
Eq. (19) becomes
 p
f c = 2.4  ρl f y +  (20)
 tw 
For Walls SW2 through SW10, Eq. (20) can be written as
f c = 2.4ρl f y (21)
Values of fc for Walls SW2 through SW10 per Eq. (21)
are listed in third column of Table 2. The ratios of fc to fc′
are listed in the fourth column of Table 2. For Walls SW2
through SW7, walls with vertical reinforcement ratio of
1% and less, the ratio of fc to fc′ ranged between 0.16 (SW3
and SW4) and 0.48 (SW5). For Walls SW8, SW9, and
SW10 (walls with vertical reinforcement ratio of 1.5%),
the ratios are 0.69, 0.57, and 0.53, respectively. Walls that
are heavily reinforced—assumed here to be a few multiples
of the minimum reinforcement ratio specified in ACI 318
(= 0.0025 for Grade 60 reinforcing bar)—may fail in diag-
onal compression (excessive axial stress in the diagonal
struts that transfer horizontal shearing force to the founda-
ACI Structural Journal/March 2019
tion). Based on the values of the ratio of fc to fc′ for walls
SW8 and SW9 that failed in diagonal compression, it is
reasonable to limit fc to 0.5fc′. Compression struts also form
in segment C. Assuming an axial stress in these struts of
0.5fc′, the diagonal compression strength of the wall can be
estimated as
Vn = fcsinθcosθtwlw (22)
For a strut angle of 40 degrees with respect to the hori-
zontal, Eq. (22) corresponds to a horizontal shearing stress
of 0.25fc′, which in turn maps to 15.8√fc′ for concrete with
a uniaxial compressive strength of 4000 psi (27.59 MPa).
Given that the maximum average shear stress at peak
strength for SW8 and SW9 ranged between 10√fc′ and 11√fc′
(refer to Table 1), it is reasonable to increase the ACI 318-14
limit on nominal shear stress to 10√fc′.
The nominal shear strength of a rectangular, low aspect
ratio RC wall without boundary elements can be estimated as
hw
Vn = 0.6 (ρl Acv f y + plw ) + 0.5 pc + ...
lw
 h c
...1.2(ρl Acv f y + plw ) 1 − 1.2 w −  + ... (23)
 lw lw 
hw
...0.25ρt Acv f y ≤ 10 f c′Acv
lw
or
 h c
Vn = 1.2(ρl Acv f y + plw ) 1 − 0.7 w − 
 lw lw 
(24)
h
+ 0.25ρt w Acv f y + 0.5 pc ≤ 10 f c′Acv
lw
where all terms have been defined previously—θ = 40
degrees and μ = 0.5. In Eq. (24), f y is set equal to 1.25fy,
which requires that the vertical reinforcing bars be devel-
oped for this stress or greater (perhaps 1.5fy based on the test
data) at the upper ends of the compression struts.
Walls with boundary elements
Walls SW11 and SW12 included boundary elements
contained within the web. The reinforcement in the
boundary elements changed the orientation of the diagonal
cracks to horizontal at the web-boundary element junctions.
The fringes of shear strain and pattern of cracking at peak
strength in SW11 are shown in Fig. 4(b). The segments of
SW11 and SW12 with significantly different strains at peak
strength, the idealized pattern of cracking and corresponding
forces are identified in Fig. 5(b), where lbe is the length of
each boundary element (equal to 16 in. [406 mm] for SW11
and SW12), lweb is the length of the web of the wall between
the two boundary elements, and ρbe is the boundary element
reinforcement ratio defined as the area of vertical reinforce-
ment (As,be) in one boundary element divided by the area of
that boundary element (lbe × tw), and all other variables were
defined previously. Herein, Eq. (13) is extended to accom-
263
modate boundary elements, each of which is assumed to be
loaded by an axial force P.
The free-body diagram of Segment A of the wall with
boundary elements is shown in Fig. 9(a). The shearing force
at the bottom of Segment A, Vna,be, is calculated similarly
to Eq. (11). The distance c is set equal to the length of the
boundary element, lbe, based on the patterns of cracking
observed in the tests of SW11 and SW12. The normal force
Fcy in Eq. (11) will increase by an amount equal to the
concentrated load on the boundary element P. The strains in
the vertical reinforcement in the webs of SW11 and SW12
were mostly between 1 and 6 millistrain and so the stress in Fig. 9—Free-body diagram of Segments A and B of wall
this reinforcing bar is assumed to be fy. The shear force Vna,be with boundary elements.
can be written as
Vn ,be = 0.6hw (ρl tw f y + p ) + 1.7( plbe + P )
  h   + 1.2(ρl tw f y + p )(lw − 1.2hw − 2lbe ) (29)
Vna ,be = µ (ρl tw f y + p )  w  + plbe + P  (25)
  tan θ   + 1.2(ρbe As ,be f y ) + 0.25ρt hw tw f y

Similar to Eq. (12), the contribution of the horizontal rein-

For Walls SW11 and SW12 for which p and P are zero,
forcement to the lateral resistance of the wall with boundary
Eq. (28) can be further simplified to
elements, Vnc,be, is given by

Vnc,be = ρthwtw(0.25fy) (26) Vn ,be = 0.6ρl tw hw f y

+ 1.2ρl tw f y (lw − 1.2hw − 2lbe ) (30)
where all variables have been defined previously. + 1.2ρbe lbe tw f y + 0.25ρt hwtw f y
The free body diagram of Segment B is presented in
Fig. 9(b). Following the formulation for Eq. (6), the total
lateral resistance provided by Segment B for the walls with In Eq. (30), the first term on the right side corresponds to
boundary elements, Vnb,be, is Vna,be, the sum of the second and third terms correspond to
Vnb,be, and the fourth term corresponds to Vnc,be. The calcu-
 h  1 lated values of Vna,be, Vnb,be, and Vnc,be, and the predicted peak
Vnb ,be = (ρl tw f y + p )  lw − w − 2lbe  shear strength for Walls SW11 and SW12 are listed in Table
 tan θ  tan θ
(27) 3. Similar to the walls without boundary elements, the contri-
1 1
+ (ρbe tw f y + p )(lbe ) +P bution of the horizontal reinforcement to peak strength, Vnc,be,
tan θ tan θ is small. The average of the ratios of the predicted peak shear
strength to the measured peak shear strength (listed in the last
where the axial force on the right boundary element is column of Table 3) for SW11 and SW12 is 1.01. The strengths
assigned to Segment B, identically to the boundary element of SW11 and SW12 associated with a diagonal compression
vertical reinforcement. The strains in the vertical reinforce- failure is 679 kip (3020 kN) for both, and greater than those
ment of the boundary elements of SW11 and SW12 ranged associated with a diagonal tension failure.
between 2 and 20 millistrain and the stress in this vertical The nominal shear strength of a rectangular, low-
reinforcement is taken as f y (that is, the average of the yield aspect-ratio RC wall with boundary elements contained within
and ultimate strengths) to account for cyclic strain hardening. the web of the wall can be estimated by simplifying Eq. (28) as
The diagonal tension shear strength of a wall with
boundary elements, Vn,be, is the sum of Vna,be, Vnb,be, and Vnc,be Vn ,be = 1.2(ρl tw f y + p )(lw − 0.7 hw − 2lbe ) + 1.7( plbe + P)
(31)
  h   + 1.2ρbe As ,be f y + 0.25ρt hwtw f y ≤ 10 f c′Acv
Vn ,be = µ (ρl tw f y + p )  w  + plbe + P 
  tan θ   or
 h  1
+ (ρl tw f y + p )  lw − w − 2lbe 
 tan θ  tan θ  h l 
Vn ,be = 1.2(ρl Acv f y + p ) 1 − 0.7 w − 2 be  + 1.7( plbe + P)
1 1  lw lw 
+ (ρbe tw f y + p )(lbe ) +P + ρt hw tw (0.25 f y ) (32)
tan θ tan θ h
+ 1.2ρbe As ,be f y + 0.25ρt Acv w f y ≤ 10 f c′Acv
(28) lw
where all terms have been defined previously—θ = 40
Setting θ = 40 degrees, μ = 0.5, and simplifying, Eq. (28) degrees and μ = 0.5. In Eq. (32), f y is set equal to 1.25fy,
becomes which requires that the vertical reinforcing bars be developed

264 ACI Structural Journal/March 2019

Table 3—Shear strength of Walls SW11 and SW12
Wall Vna,be, kip Vnb,be, kip Vnc,be, kip Vn,be, kip Vn,be/Vpeak
SW11 140 238 58 436 1.05
SW12 69 281 29 379 0.97
Average 1.01

Note: 1 kip = 4.45 kN.

Table 4—Predicted peak shear strength of

rectangular walls without boundary elements
Researcher Wall Vpeak, kip Vn (Eq. (36)), kip Vn/Vpeak
SW-8 128.1 127.6 1.00
Cardenas
SW-13 142.1 135.7 0.95
M1 45.5 47.3 1.04
Greifenhagen
M2 45.7 44.3 0.97
SWN-1D 67.2 69.2 1.03
SWN-5D 55.1 52.7 0.96
SW-5 54.4 63.4 1.17
SW9 55.8 56.2 1.01
Sheu SW11 49.8 56.2 1.13
SW12 55.8 57.2 1.03
SW13 54.7 54.6 1.00
Fig. 10—Free-body diagram for modified Gulec and Whit-
SW17 40.5 42.0 1.04 taker (2011) equation for peak strength.
SW19 35.2 37.4 1.06
Luna made clear that the free-body diagram assumed by
SW2 526.0 438.0 0.83 Gulec applies best to walls without boundary elements.
SW3 423.0 349.9 0.83 The orientation of the cracks in the webs of the walls with
SW4 221.0 215.8 0.98 boundary elements changed from diagonal to horizontal at
the junctions of web and the boundary elements: challenging
SW5 633.0 592.5 0.94
the assumed free-body diagram used for the derivation.
Luna SW6 491.0 442.0 0.90 The free-body diagram of Gulec was therefore modified
SW7 297.0 297.3 1.00 based on the pattern of cracking pattern observed from the
SW8 584.0 568.6 0.97 tests of Luna’s walls. The modified free-body diagram is
shown in Fig. 10(a). Summing moments at Point A
SW9 627.0 541.8 0.86
SW10 512.0 530.2 1.04 l 
 h 
Average 1.00
P  a1 − w  + Fvwt (a2 ) + Fvwc (a3 ) + Fhw  w  + Fcy (a4 )
 2  2
V=
Note: 1 kip = 4.45 kN. hw

for this stress or greater at the upper ends of the boundary
elements.
AN EMPIRICAL EQUATION FOR PEAK LATERAL
STRENGTH OF SHEAR-CRITICAL WALLS
WITHOUT BOUNDARY ELEMENTS
Equations (24) and (32), which estimate the peak lateral
strength of a rectangular shear critical wall, without and with
boundary elements, respectively, would have to be simpli-
fied for inclusion in a design standard. Gulec and Whittaker
(2011) developed a simple empirical equation for peak shear
strength using nonlinear regression analysis of data from
tests of 74 rectangular shear-critical walls (with and without
boundary elements) conducted by others. The patterns of
cracking at peak lateral strength in the 12 walls tested by
(33)
where Fvwt and Fvwc are the forces in the vertical reinforce-
ment in tension and compression, respectively; and Fcy is the
vertical component of the force in the concrete in compres-
sion. The areas of vertical reinforcement in compression at
the base of the walls at peak lateral strength in SW2 through
SW10 were small and the corresponding vertical forces Fvwc
can be set to 0. Forces Fvwt can then be replaced by Fvw,
which acts at a distance a5 from point A (refer to Fig. 10(b)).
Assuming strain hardening in some of the vertical reinforce-
ment in tension, force Fvw can be approximated as the product
of the total area of vertical reinforcement and its yield stress.
Force Fhw can also be approximated using the total horizontal
reinforcement area and yield stress of the horizontal reinforce-
ment. Equation (33) can then be written as

ACI Structural Journal/March 2019 265

 h   l 
Fcy (a3 ) + Fvw (a5 ) + Fhw  w  + P  a1 − w 
 2  2
Vn = (34)
hw
The functional form of a modified equation for the peak
lateral strength of a rectangular shear-critical wall without
boundary elements, based on the equilibrium expression in
Eq. (34), can be expressed as
β1 f c′Aeff + β 2 Fvw + β3 Fhw + β 4 P
Vn =
(hw /lw )β5
where the concrete contribution is expressed in terms of √fc′.
Regression analysis was performed using MATLAB
R2012b (MathWorks, Inc. 2012) to determine the values of
the coefficients in Eq. (35). The nonlinear solver fmincon in
MATLAB R2012b, a function that uses Sequential Quadratic
Programming to find the minimum of a constrained nonlinear
function with multiple variables, was used. Thirteen rectan-
gular walls without boundary elements were chosen from
the database assembled by Gulec and Whittaker (2011): two
from Cardenas, two from Greifenhagen, and nine from Sheu.
Nine of Luna’s walls, SW2 through SW10, were included
in the regression analysis, where their peak lateral strengths
were taken as the average of the measured peak strengths
in the first and third quadrants of loading. The coefficients
determined from the regression analysis using the 22 walls
without boundary elements are provided in Eq. (36)
1.11 f c′Aeff + 0.25 Fvw + 0.08 Fhw + 0.21P
Vn =
(hw /lw )0.81
The predicted peak shear strength of the 22 walls using
Eq. (36) is shown in Table 4. The ratios of the predicted
to experimental peak strength, shown in the last column
of Table 4, had a mean value of 1.0 (the input constraint)
and a coefficient of variation of 0.08. The small value of
the coefficient on the horizontal reinforcement indicates,
as others have also made clear, that the contribution of the
horizontal reinforcement to the peak shear strength is small,
although this reinforcement is needed for the reasons given
previously. Equation (36) can therefore be generalized and
simplified as follows
1.1 f c′Aeff + 0.25 Fvw + 0.2 P
Vn =
(hw /lw )0.8
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
New equations for the peak lateral strength of shear-
critical RC walls, without and with boundary elements,
have been derived on the basis of internal-force-resisting
mechanisms calculated from measured strains and defor-
mations, and patterns of concrete cracking observed during
reversed cyclic testing of 12 large-size rectangular RC walls
with aspect ratios of 0.33, 0.54, and 0.94. These equations,
266
after simplification, could be used for design and seismic
performance assessment of buildings constructed with low-
aspect-ratio RC walls. The empirical equation of Gulec and
Whittaker (2011) for peak lateral strength of low-aspect-ratio
walls without boundary elements was updated using data
collected from the testing of the 12 large-size walls.
AUTHOR BIOS
ACI member Bismarck N. Luna is a Senior Development Specialist at
Linde, plc. He received his BS from University of the Philippines, the Phil-
ippines; his MS degree from Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN; and his
PhD degree from the University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY. His research inter-
(35) ests include earthquake engineering and reinforced concrete structures.
Andrew S. Whittaker, FACI, is a SUNY Distinguished Professor in the
Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering at the
University at Buffalo. He received his BS from the University of Melbourne,
Melbourne, Australia, and his MS and PhD from the University of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, in 1977, 1985, and 1988, respectively.
He is a member of ACI Committee 349, Concrete Nuclear Structures.
His research interests include earthquake and blast engineering, and
performance-based seismic design and assessment.
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, 2014, “Building Code Requirements for Struc-
tural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 520 pp.
Barda, F.; Hanson, J. M.; and Corley, W. G., 1977, “Shear Strength of
Low-Rise Walls with Boundary Elements,” Reinforced Concrete Structures
in Seismic Zones, SP-53, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, pp. 149-202.
Del Carpio Ramos, M.; Whittaker, A. S.; and Gulec, C. K., 2012, “Predic-
tive Equations for the Peak Shear Strength of Low-Aspect Ratio Rein-
forced Concrete Walls,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, V. 16, No. 2,
pp. 159-187. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2011.613529
Epackachi, S.; Nguyen, N. H.; Kurt, E. G.; Whittaker, A. S.; and Varma,
A. H., 2015, “In-Plane Seismic Behavior of Rectangular Steel-Plate
Composite Wall Piers,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 141,
No. 7, p. 04014176 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001148
(36) Gulec, C. K., and Whittaker, A. S., 2009, “Performance-Based Assess-
ment and Design of Squat Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls,” Technical
Report MCEER-09-0010, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 326 pp.
Gulec, C. K., and Whittaker, A. S., 2011, “Empirical Equations for Peak
Shear Strength of Low Aspect Ratio Reinforced Concrete Walls,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 80-89.
Gulec, C. K.; Whittaker, A. S.; and Stojadinovic, B., 2008, “Shear
Strength of Squat Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Walls,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 105, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 488-497.
Luna, B. N., 2015, “Seismic Response of Low Aspect Ratio Reinforced
Concrete Walls for Buildings and Safety-Related Nuclear Application,”
PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 435 pp.
Luna, B. N.; Rivera, J. P.; Epackachi, S.; and Whittaker, A. S., 2018,
“Seismic Response of Low Aspect Ratio Reinforced Concrete Walls,” Tech-
nical Report MCEER-18-0002, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 456 pp.
Luna, B. N.; Rivera, J. P.; and Whittaker, A. S., 2015, “Seismic Behavior
of Low Aspect Ratio Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 112, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 593-603. doi: 10.14359/51687709
MathWorks, Inc., 2012, “MATLAB R2012b,” Natick, MA.
Mattock, A. H., 1976, “Shear Transfer under Monotonic Loading, across
an Interface between Concretes Cast at Different Times, Final Report, Part
1,” Report No. SM 76-3, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 67 pp.
(37)
Mattock, A. H., 1977, “Shear Transfer under Monotonic Loading, across
an Interface between Concretes Cast at Different Times, Final Report, Part
2,” Report No. SM 77-1, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 101 pp.
Moehle, J., 2015, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings,
McGraw-Hill Education, New York, 760 pp.
Rivera, J. P.; Luna, B. N.; and Whittaker, A. S., 2018, “Seismic Damage
Assessment of Low Aspect Ratio Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls,” Tech-
nical Report MCEER-18-0003, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 306 pp.
Whyte, C. A., and Stojadinovic, B., 2013, “Hybrid Simulation of the
Seismic Response of Squat Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls,” PEER
Report 2013/02, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 227 pp.
Wood, S. L., 1990, “Shear Strength of Low-Rise Reinforced Concrete
Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 99-107.
ACI Structural Journal/March 2019