Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00314

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Case study

Study on shear capacity of ultra-high performance concrete

squat shear walls
Xiaolong Tonga,*, Zhi Fangb,*, Xiao Luoc , Lan Gonga
a
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Hunan Institute of Science and Technology, Yueyang 414000, China
b
College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
c
China Architecture Design & Research Group, Beijing 100044, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) is a new building material with great application
Received 11 May 2019 prospects in the engineering field. The material’s advantages include high strength and
Received in revised form 14 November 2019 good durability, which can reduce the cross-sectional area of members and the weight of
Accepted 14 November 2019
the structure. In order to study the shear capacity of a UHPC squat shear wall, a low-cycle
repeated load test was carried out on a specimen with a height-to-width ratio of 1.0. Shear
Keywords: failure of the specimen occurred, and the cracks were widely distributed. A large cracking
Ultra high performance concrete
load and bearing capacity were achieved, and the specimen's deformation performance
Shear wall
Shear failure
met the current code’s requirements. Based on the test results, formulas for calculating the
Shear capacity cracking load and shear bearing capacity are proposed for a UHPC shear wall with an
inclined section. A comparison of the calculated and measured results indicates that the
proposed formulas reflect the test results well, enabling their use in engineering
applications.
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) is considered the most innovative cement-based engineering material of the
past 30 years. UHPC has advantages such as high strength, high toughness, and excellent durability. With the same bearing
capacity, the size of a UHPC structure falls between that of an ordinary concrete structure and a steel structure, and is close to
that of the steel structure. UHPC utilizes fine aggregate, and the material’s tensile and strain reinforcement behavior is
realized by close adhesion of strong steel fiber and its gel. The ultimate pressure strain varies from 0.0040
0.0052 depending
on the amount of steel fiber [1], the creep is small (only about 1/10 of that of ordinary concrete) under long-term loading, and
little shrinkage occurs during thermal curing conditions [2]. For the past twenty years, UHPC has earned increasing interest
in many countries and regions, with applications ranging from building components, bridges, architectural features, repair
and rehabilitation, windmill towers and utility towers, to oil and gas industry applications, off-shore structures, hydraulic
structures, and overlay materials [3]. In all applications, however, there are no shear wall structural components, mainly due
to the relative lag in relevant basic research.
So far, many studies have been carried out on UHPC beams, columns, beam-column joints, bridge piers [4–7], but there
are few studies on UHPC shear walls. Tong et al. [8] designed a 222.7 m UHPC super high-rise building, which was a tube-in-
tube structure. Compliance with existing codes was achieved, the dead weights of UHPC frame columns and shear walls were

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: txlpaper@outlook.com (X. Tong), fangzhi@hnu.edu.cn (Z. Fang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2019.e00314
2214-5095/© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
2 X. Tong et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00314

reduced by 54 % and 50 %, respectively, compared with that of ordinary concrete, and the geometric size of the UHPC shear
walls was designed by stiffness and stability. Lechner et al. [9] described current theoretical and experimental investigations
of the load-bearing and buckling behavior of normal strength and UHPC slender wall panels performed at the chair of
concrete and masonry structures. The height-to-thickness ratios of the 8 specimens ranged from 20
40, and the height-to-
width ratio was 3 for all specimens. An engineering model was derived for determining critical loads of the slender walls.
Chung-Chan et al. [10] investigated the seismic behavior of a novel ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete
(UHPFRC) squat shear wall reinforced with high-strength steel rebar. Four squat shear wall specimens were tested under
lateral cyclic loading. However, no specimen was subjected to a vertical load. Shear failure occurred in three specimens,
while one experienced slip failure. The results revealed that the presence of steel fibers enhanced the strength, confinement,
and ability to control crack-width of squat UHPFRC shear walls. Li yizhou et al. [11] carried out a low-cycle repeated load test
on two UHPC shear walls. The height-to-width ratio of the two specimens was 3.0, and the axial compression ratio was 0.1
and 0.3, respectively. The influence of axial compression ratio on the seismic performance of the specimens was mainly
studied. Bending failure occurred in both specimens. The specimens with small axial compression ratio had better energy
dissipation capacity, deformation capacity and ductility, but the bearing capacity and stiffness are relatively poor. Due to the
lack of research, China's first ultra high performance concrete structure technical code (DBJ 43/T 325–2017 Technical
Specification for Reactive Podwer Concrete Structures) [1] for the shear capacity of shear walls did not give a formula.
Reinforced concrete squat shear walls are widely used in the low portion of large area structures because of their high
lateral stiffness. To ensure the safety of the structure, its bearing capacity must be calculated. Applying UHPC to the shear
wall structure may reduce the thickness of the shear wall section due to its advantageous material properties. This study
investigated the shear bearing capacity of a UHPC squat shear wall by conducting a low-cycle repeated load test on a shear
wall with a height-to-width ratio of 1.0, and proposed a calculation method for its bearing capacity. This work provides a
reference for UHPC squat shear wall applications in the engineering field, and it also provides support for the calculation of
shear capacity in the Chinese code for Technical Specification for Reactive Podwer Concrete Structures (DBJ 43/T 325–2017).

Fig. 1. Specimen design details (units: mm).

 X. Tong et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00314 3

2. Experimental study

To assess the shear capacity of UHPC squat shear walls, we designed a shear wall with a height-to-width ratio of 1.0 and
carried out vertical load and low-cycle repeated load tests on the wall. The specimen thickness was only 80 mm, while the
axial compression ratio of the specimen was 0.11. For convenience in practical engineering use, the UHPC was naturally
cured.

2.1. Test introduction

As shown in Fig. 1, the designed specimen had a height-to-width ratio of 1.0, with a wall height of 1.0 m, a section size of
bw  hw = 80 mm  1000 mm, and boundary elements set within a 0.2hw range at both ends of the section. The longitudinal
bars of the boundary element were of type HRB400, while the other bars were of type HRB335. Each boundary element was
longitudinally reinforced with 6D12 (six bars, diameter of 12 mm), and the reinforcement ratio was 4.24 %. The stirrup of
each boundary element was D8@100 (diameter of 8 mm, vertical spacing of 100 mm), and the stirrup ratio was 2.51 %. The
wall implemented double rows of vertically and horizontally distributed bars, with 8 mm diameter and spacing of 100 mm,
resulting in a reinforcement rate of 1.26 %. A reinforced concrete loading beam was set at the top of the wall, with a size of
200 mm  200 mm  1200 mm, while a rigid foundation beam was set at the bottom of the wall with a
400 mm  400 mm  1800 mm size. Both the loading beam and the foundation beam were made of C55 concrete. An

Fig. 2. Prismatic compression failure.

4 X. Tong et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00314

additional reinforcement net was set at the end of the loading beam, and the horizontal load action point was 100 mm away
from the top of the wall. The specimen was named UHPCSW1.0.

2.2. Sample preparation

The components of the UHPC included cement, silica fume, quartz sand, and a water reducing agent. The mixing ratio of
the UHPC was correspondingly 1:0.25:1.4:0.072, in which the cement was 42.5 ordinary Portland cement, the quartz sand
particle size was 0.4
0.6 mm, and the selected water reducing agent was a soluble resin type superplasticizer with water
reduction rate above 25 % and solid content of 35 %. The water to binder ratio was 0.2 in the UHPC. The straight steel fibers
accounted for 2 % of the volume fraction of the UHPC. The tensile strength of each straight steel fiber was greater than
2000 MPa, with length of 12  1 mm, diameter of 0.16  0.005 mm, and a copper-coated surface.

2.3. Mechanical properties of materials

The test blocks used to measure the mechanical properties of the UHPC were all tested after 28 days of natural curing.
According to the provisions of Reactive Powder Concrete (GB/T 31387- 2015) [12], the UHPC axial compressive strength was
measured using a prism of 100 mm  100 mm  400 mm, and the prismatic compression test was carried out on a 500 t
pressure testing machine. The failure mode of prismatic specimen was shown in Fig. 2. The UHPC tensile strength was
determined by a splitting strength test using a test cube sized 100 mm  100 mm  100 mm. After a main crack appeared in
the cube-shaped test block between the loading pads, the tensile effect of the steel fiber across the crack continued to
increase the load until the steel fiber was pulled out or broken, as shown in Fig. 3. The measured axial compressive strength
of the three prisms were 90, 90, and 92 MPa, respectively. The measured tensile strength values of the three cubes were 9, 10,
and 9 MPa, respectively. The value of axial compressive strength, fc, and tensile strength, ft, were taken as the average value
for the three prisms and three cubes, respectively. The results are shown in Table 1. The cubic compressive strength of the
UHPC, fcu, was calculated as fc/0.7, in accordance with the Chinese Code for Technical Specification for Reactive Powder
Concrete Structures (DBJ 43/T 325–2017) [1].
The tensile properties of the steel rebars, which were obtained directly using tensile tests, are shown in Table 2. These
represent the average values obtained after three standard rebar tensile tests with each type of steel rebar.

2.4. Test equipment and method

The vertical axial force was provided by the electrical hollow hydraulic jack. The specimen was preloaded before the
formal loading, wherein a 400 kN vertical axial force was applied to the specimen to eliminate the void and inelastic
deformation between devices. When officially loaded, it was loaded to the predetermined axial pressure of 800 kN 3 times
and remained unchanged. After the vertical axial force loading, a horizontal load was applied by an electro-hydraulic servo
actuator. The horizontal loading point was located at the center of the loading beam, at the top of the wall. The loading device
is shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 5 shows the history of cycle lateral loading. The cyclic loading history was based on the document
Specification of testing methods for earthquake resistant building (JGJ 101-1996) [13]. The loading program was dominated by
elastic stage forces, and by drifts in the elastic-plastic stage. During the elastic stage, the lateral load was controlled by the

Fig. 3. Failure mode of splitting strength test block.

 X. Tong et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00314 5

Table 1
Mechanical properties of UHPC.

UHPC age Axial compressive strength, fc (MPa) Cubic compressive strength, fcu (MPa) Tensile strength, ft (MPa)
28 days 90 129 9

Table 2
Mechanical properties of reinforcement materials.

Type Diameter (mm) Yield strength (MPa) Ultimate strength (MPa)

HRB335 8 454 578
HRB400 12 460 581
20 498 626

Fig. 4. Test setup.

Fig. 5. Cyclic lateral loading history.

force loading pattern, with 50 kN increments used for each loading step, including three cycles, until the longitudinal bar’s
yield. In the elastic-plastic stage, the lateral load was changed by applying the displacement loading pattern, with the yield
displacement used as the increment for each loading step, including three cycles, until failure or a drop to less than 85 % of
the maximum load test.
6 X. Tong et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00314

Fig. 6. Displacement meter layout.

In order to monitor the deformation of the specimen, displacement meters were arranged on the specimen’s surface, as
shown in Fig. 6. The displacement meter located at the center of the loading beam on top of the shear wall was used to
measure lateral displacement. Two displacement meters placed along 45-degree diagonals in the lower part of the wall were
used to measure the shear deformation of the wall. The horizontal slip of the rigid foundation beam was monitored by a
displacement meter at the center of the beam.
Additionally measured in this test were the horizontal load values and displacements at all horizontal loading point
levels, the strains of the longitudinal and distributed bars at the wall root, the strains of the stirrups, the surface strains of the
concrete at the wall root, and the crack distribution.

2.5. Test process

When the load was 500 kN and the displacement was 5.8 mm, the first inclined crack began to appear. Subsequently, the
displacement loading pattern was applied. At 0.53 % drift, under a horizontal load of 744 kN, four bending shear cracks appeared
in the lower right corner of the wall, as shown in Fig. 7a. During the 1 st cycle to 1.09 % drift, the local concrete drum
phenomenon appeared in the middle part of the wall surface, as shown in Fig. 7b, and two vertical cracks appeared in the right
root, as shown in Fig. 7c. The 2nd cycle to 1.09 % drift was accompanied by the sound of steel fibers cracking, while the concrete
at the edge of the right side appeared partially crushed, and the horizontal crack of the wall root penetrated along the section
height, as shown in Fig. 7d. At 1.13 % drift, the load reached its peak of 772 kN. At 1.25 % drift, the horizontal load remained at
770 kN and could not be increased. Meanwhile, the load-displacement curve suddenly dropped and the specimen was damaged,
leading to an apparent reduction in wall stiffness and a 50 % decrease in load. The concrete at the base of the left side of the shear
wall was crushed and drummed, as shown in Fig. 7e. The main crack was concentrated in the lower half of the wall, as shown in
Fig. 7f. The final failure mode of the specimen did not appear as cross-over cracks, as is common in ordinary concrete shear walls
[14] and high performance concrete shear walls [15] with shear-to-span ratios of 1.0. Presumably, under low-cycle repeated
loading, the high strength and high toughness of UHPC materials weaken the shear failure degree of the specimen.

2.6. Test results

2.6.1. Load displacement analysis

Fig. 8 presents the load versus displacement curve of the specimen. Before specimen cracking, the wall was in an elastic state, and
the loading and unloading sections of the curve recombined into a straight line. Before the cracking load reached the yield load, the
stiffness of the shear wall began to decrease, and the hysteretic curve began to tilt toward the displacement axis. The area surrounded
by the hysteretic loop was small, as was the residual deformation. After the wall yielded, the area of the hysteresis loop increased.
When the ultimate load was reached, the hysteresis loop was full and the residual deformation large. It can be seen in Fig. 8 that the
maximum force of 773 kN was reached at 12.42 mm displacement. The total hysteresis dissipation was 27,402 kN mm.
Table 3 shows the measured values of cracking load, Fcr, peak load, F0, and ultimate load, Fu, corresponding to the measured
displacements, Dcr, D0, and Du. The ultimate load and deformation are defined as the corresponding load and deformation when
the peak load drops to 85 %, according to the Specification of testing methods for earthquake resistant building (JGJ 101–1996) [13].

2.6.2. Shear displacement analysis

The shear displacement component at the top of the shear wall specimen was calculated by taking the positive peak point
of each loading cycle as the representative point and using the measurement results of the cross-mounted displacement
 X. Tong et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00314 7

Fig. 7. Damage patterns of the specimen.

meters, according to the method in Reference [16]. The relationship between the shear displacement and the horizontal
displacement at the top is shown in Fig. 9. As indicated in the figure, the shear displacement component increases with
increasing the horizontal displacement. When the specimen is destroyed, the shear displacement component accounts for
62 % of the specimen’s top horizontal displacement.

2.6.3. Deformation ability analysis

Code for seismic design of buildings (GB 50011-2010) [17] measures the deformation ability of a structure through its story
drift rotation, u. The definition of u is given as follows:

u ¼ D=H ð1Þ

where D is story drift and H is floor height. In this study, D and H are the displacements at the horizontal loading point and
the wall height, respectively. Code for seismic design of buildings (GB 50011-2010) stipulates that the elastic story drift rotation
8 X. Tong et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00314

Fig. 8. Experimental hysteretic curves.

Table 3
Experimental results of force and displacement.

Fcr (kN) Dcr (mm) F0 (kN) D0 (mm) Fu (kN) Du (mm)

500 5.8 773 12.42 770 13.7

Fig. 9. The shear displacement component at the top of the specimen.

and the elastic-plastic drift ratio of the shear wall structure shall not exceed the limiting values of 1/1000 and 1/120,
respectively [17].
The elastic and elastic-plastic story drift rotations of the specimen are 1/172 and 1/73, respectively, which are far greater
than the limiting value. This demonstrates the superior performance of the UHPC shear wall.
 X. Tong et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00314 9

3. Calculation and analysis of cracking load

Under the application of axial force, N, and horizontal force, F, the shear wall will produce a shear oblique crack when the main
tensile stress of the wall reaches the UHPC’s’ initial crack strength. Fig. 10 presents the inclined section’s cracking load diagram.
The maximum shear stress, t max, can be represented as follows, based on our mechanical knowledge:
F cr
t max ¼ 1:5 ð2Þ
bw hw0
When the shear wall cracks, the main tensile stress in the UHPC equals the UHPC’s initial crack strength, ft0, as follows:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sn s 2n
f t0 ¼  þ þ t 2max ð3Þ
2 4
where s n is the vertical compressive stress, calculated as s n = N/bwhw0. The relationship between ft0 and the tensile strength
of UHPC, ft, is as follows [1]:
f t0 ¼ f t =ð1 þ af lf Þ ð4Þ

where αf is the influence coefficient of steel fiber on tensile strength, which can be 0.15 [1], and lf is a characteristic
parameter of steel fiber content, described by lf = rflf/df, where rf is the volumetric percentage of the steel fiber, lf is the
equivalent length of the steel fiber, and df is the equivalent diameter of the steel fiber.
The cracking load, Fcr, can be obtained by combining Eqs. (2) and (3):
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
N
F cr ¼ 0:67f t0 bw hw0 1 þ ð5Þ
bw hw0 f t0

Eq. (5) was used to calculate the cracking load of the inclined section of the specimen, and the result was compared with the
measured value, as shown in Table 4. The two values are close; the calculated value is 1.12 times the measured value.

4. Calculation and analysis of shear bearing capacity

The shear capacity of ordinary concrete shear walls, according to the Code for design of concrete structures (GB50010-2010)
[18] and ACI 318 [19], is considered to be provided by concrete and horizontal steel bars. The shear action of horizontal rebars,
Vs, can be expressed as follows [18,19]:
Asv
V s ¼ f yv hw0 ð6Þ
s

Fig. 10. Inclined section cracking load analysis diagram.

10 X. Tong et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00314

Table 4
Comparison of calculated and measured results of cracking load.

Calculated value (kN) Measured value (kN) Calculated value / Measured value
559.25 500.00 1.12

Table 5
Comparison of calculated and measured results of bearing capacity.

Specimen Calculated value (kN) Measured value (kN) Calculated value / Measured value
UHPCSW1.0 777.86 773 1.01
UHPC-HS-0.5 [10] 1233.49 1347.46 0.92
UHPC-HS-0.83 [10] 2066.48 2088.31 0.99
UHFRPC-HS-0.83 [10] 2462.69 2637.15 0.93

where fyv is the tensile strength value of horizontally distributed steel bars, Asv is the cross-sectional area of the horizontally
distributed reinforcing bars arranged in the same section, and s is the vertical spacing of the horizontally distributed bars.
After a shear oblique crack appears in the shear wall, the concrete is relieved of its tensile load carrying capacity, and the
internal force of the section is redistributed. Therefore, it is assumed that the shear force experienced by the concrete is equal
to the cracking load, Fcr. The shear capacity of the UHPC shear wall is composed of two parts: the shear force endured by the
concrete and that withstood by the horizontal rebars. The shear capacity V is calculated by the following formula:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
N Asv
V ¼ 0:67f t0 bw hw0 1 þ þ f yv h0 ð7Þ
bw hw0 f t0 s

It is worth noting that the shear capacity of a shear wall under repeated loading is reduced by 20 % compared with
monotonic loading [18], so Eq. (7) is suitable for the calculation of the shear capacity of UHPC shear walls for non-seismic
design. For the shear capacity, Ve, of a shear wall under seismic action, the calculation formula is as follows:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
N Asv
V e ¼ 0:54f t0 bw hw0 1 þ þ 0:8f yv h0 ð8Þ
bw hw0 f t0 s

This formula was used to calculate the shear capacity of UHPCSW1.0 as well as the specimen enduring shear failure in
Reference [10]. The calculation results are shown in Table 5. The calculated values of the four specimens agree well with the
measured values. Therefore, the shear capacity of a UHPC shear wall can be calculated according to the above formula in
engineering field application.

5. Conclusion

Through low-cycle repeated failure testing of a UHPC squat shear wall and the application of reasonable assumptions and
simplifications, the calculation formula for the shear capacity of the UHPC shear wall is proposed. The following conclusions
are drawn:

(1) The number of cracks in the specimen was large, and the specimen did not show a typical x-shaped crack. The cracking
load was 65 % of the peak load, and the UHPC shear wall demonstrated a high anti-crack performance and ultimate
bearing capacity. The deformation performance of the specimen meets the requirements of the current code.
(2) The formula for calculating the cracking load of a UHPC shear wall with an inclined section was derived, and the cracking
load of the specimen was calculated. Compared with the measured results, the accuracy of the formula is high, and can be
used to calculate the cracking load of the oblique section of a UHPC shear wall.
(3) The formula for calculating the bearing capacity of a UHPC shear wall oblique section is proposed, and the bearing
capacity of the specimen is calculated. The formula demonstrates high precision when compared with the measured
results, enabling its use for calculating the shear capacity of UHPC shear walls.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest to this work.
We declare that we do not have any commercial or associative interest that represents a conflict of interest in connection
with the work submitted.
 X. Tong et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00314 11

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51708209) and Hunan Provincial
Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 2019JJ50209)

References

[1] Hunan Provincial Department of housing and urban rural development, DBJ 43/T 325-2017 Technical Specification for Reactive Podwer Concrete
Structures, China Architecture & Building Press, Beijing, 2018.
[2] P. Richard, M. Cheyrezy, Composition of reactive powder concretes, Cement Concr. Res. 25 (7) (1995) 1501–1511.
[3] N.M. Azmee, N. Shafiq, Ultra-high performance concrete: from fundamental to applications, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 9 (12) (2018), doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e00197.
[4] J. Xia, K.R. Mackie, M.A. Saleem, et al., Shear failure analysis on ultra-high performance concrete beams reinforced with high strength steel, Eng. Struct.
33 (11) (2011) 3597–3609.
[5] Ju Yanzhong, Wang Dehong, Bai Junfeng, Seismic performance of reactive powder concrete columns, J. Harbin Inst. Technol. 45 (8) (2013) 111–116.
[6] S.A. Nurjannah, B. Budiono, I. Imran, et al., The hysteretic behavior of partially pre-stressed beam-column joint sub-assemblages made of reactive
powder concrete, J. Eng. Technol. Sci. 48 (5) (2016) 550–570.
[7] C. Yang, P. Okumus, Ultrahigh-performance concrete for posttensioned precast bridge piers for seismic resilience, J. Struct. Eng. 143 (12) (2017) pp.
04017161.
[8] Tong Xiaolong, Fang Zhi, Study on seismic performance of super high- rise structure with reactive powder concrete, Build. Struct. 46 (3) (2016) 6–11.
[9] Thomas Lechner, Oliver Fischer, Load bearing behavior and stability of slender wall panels made of normal strength and ultra-highperformance
concrete, BETON-UND STAHLBETONBAU 110 (5) (2015) 328–339.
[10] Chung-Chan Hung, Honghao Li, Hong-Chi Chen, High-strength steel reinforced squat UHPFRC shear walls: cyclic behavior and design implications,
Eng. Struct. 141 (11) (2017) 59–74.
[11] Li yizhou, Study on Seismic Behavior of Hybrid Reinforced Ultra-high Performance Concrete Shear Walls, Hunan university, Changsha, 2019.
[12] Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China, GB/T 31387-2015 Reactive Powder Concrete, Standards Press of China, Beijing, 2015.
[13] Ministry of construction of the People’s Republic of China, JGJ 101-1996 Specification of Testing Methods for Earthquake Resistant Building, China
Architecture & Building Press, Beijing, 1996.
[14] Zhang Hongmei, Study on the Performance-based Seismic Design Method for Shear wa11 Structures, Tongji university, Shanghai, 2007.
[15] Zhang Zhan, Zhou Kerong, Experimental study on seismic behavior of high-performance concrete shear walls with various aspect ratios, Struct. Eng. 20
(2) (2004) 62–68.
[16] Y.J. Wu, Experimental Study on Seismic and Shear Performance of Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall With I-Section, Chongqing university, Chongqing,
2004.
[17] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, GB 50011-2010 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings, China
Architecture & Building Press, Beijing, 2010.
[18] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, GB50010-2010 Code for Design of Concrete Structures, China
Architecture & Building Press, Beijing, 2011.
[19] ACI Committee 318, ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (318-14) ACI-318, Farmington Hills, Michigan, (2014) .