ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title No. 117-S73

Cyclic Response of Reinforced Concrete Squat Walls to

Boundary Element Arrangement
by Min-Yuan Cheng, Yen Chou, and Leonardus S. B. Wibowo

An experimental program consisting of four specimens was

conducted to evaluate effects of different arrangements of
boundary elements on cyclic responses of reinforced concrete (RC)
squat walls with a shear span-to-length ratio hw/lw of 1.0. Three test
specimens were designed to have shear stress demand associated
with the development of probable flexural strength approaching
( )
10 f ' (psi) 0.83 f ' [ MPa ] . One specimen used high-strength concrete
c c
and steel; shear stress demand in this specimen was slightly reduced
due to the use of high-strength concrete. Test results showed that
peak strengths of all test specimens can be satisfactorily predicted
by nominal flexural strength. Deformation capacity increased more
effectively in specimens using barbell-shaped boundary elements.
For the two specimens having barbell-shaped special boundary
elements and equivalent steel force, Specimen BB_H using high-
strength steel with tested yield stress exceeding 120 ksi (827 MPa)
and high-strength concrete with cylinder strength of approximately
12 ksi (83 MPa) exhibited larger deformation capacity than that of
Specimen BB.

Keywords: boundary element; high strength; low rise; wall.

INTRODUCTION
Reinforcement detailing in the wall boundary regions is
recognized as one of the key factors impacting the seismic
behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) structural walls
(Oesterle et al. 1980; Wallace et al. 2012; Escolano-Margarit
et al. 2012). In ACI 318-14 (ACI Committee 318 2014),
detailing requirements in the wall boundary regions, also
known as special boundary elements, intend to enhance
deformation capacity of the wall—that is, sustain the
wall design strength to larger deformation. Although code
provisions for specimen boundary elements are developed
primarily based on assumptions that are more suitable to
slender walls (Wallace 1995; Wallace and Orakcal 2002),
similar detailing requirements are also applicable to low-rise
or squat walls, which typically refer to walls with shear span-
to-length ratio, hw/lw less than 2.0. Researches to investigate
the effectiveness of special boundary element on cyclic
behavior of RC squat or low-rise wall are relatively limited.
Kuang and Ho (2008) reported test results of eight RC
squat walls with hw/lw of either 1.5 or 1.0 and showed
that providing confinement with proper spacing in the
wall boundary regions had led to an increase in specimen
deformation capacity. In that paper, however, a specimen
using uniformly distributed reinforcement and crossties
throughout the wall panel exhibited deformation capacity
comparable to the specimen with confinement in the wall
boundary regions.
Fig. 1—Specimen H60 (Cheng et al. 2016).
Test results from Taleb et al. (2014) also indicated that
specimen deformation capacity increased as the spacing
of the confinement in the wall boundary regions decreased
(amount increased as a result), or when crossties were
provided for the intermediate longitudinal bars in the wall
boundary regions. However, deformation capacity of the
specimen (Specimen MC) with extended confined area in
the wall boundary regions was slightly smaller compared to
that of the specimen (Specimen SC) with equivalent volu-
metric ratio of confinement but with both confined area and
spacing reduced by half.
Based on test results of 12 walls with hw/lw ranging
between 0.33 and 0.94, Luna et al. (2015) concluded that
boundary elements consisting of concentrated longitudinal
ACI Structural Journal, V. 117, No. 4, July 2020.
MS No. S-2018-213, doi: 10.14359/51725754, received June 5, 2019, and reviewed
under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2020, American Concrete Institute.
All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is 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 is received within
four months of the paper’s print publication.

ACI Structural Journal/July 2020 15

Fig. 2—Specimen reinforcement layout.
and closely spaced transverse reinforcement helped the
specimen sustained post-peak strength to larger deforma-
tion. However, some specimens with distributed vertical
and horizontal reinforcement (for example, Specimens SW3
and SW4) exhibited deformation capacities comparable to
or even better than the specimens with boundary elements.
In summary, experimental evidences mostly agree that
providing confinement with proper spacing in the wall
boundary regions positively enhances deformation capacity
of RC squat walls. However, some tests showed this rela-
tionship was not that significant. This discrepancy may be
attributed to multiple test parameters included in each test
program. To further understand the influences of special
boundary elements on cyclic behavior of RC squat walls,
a test program consisting of four specimens subjected to
lateral displacement reversal was conducted. Test parameters
investigated in this study include: 1) dimension and arrange-
ment of the boundary element; and 2) material strength on
cyclic behaviors of RC squat walls. The boundary element in
this study refers to concentrated longitudinal reinforcement
16
confined by code-compliant transverse reinforcement and is
not necessarily located at the wall ends.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
RC structural wall is a cost-effective lateral force-resisting
system. A well-designed structural wall is expected to sustain
the design force when subjected to large inelastic deforma-
tion induced by an earthquake. Due to the strength criteria as
per ACI 318-14, special boundary elements are nearly inev-
itable in RC squat walls. Thus, it is worth exploring whether
some modifications of the boundary element may lead to
better behavior of the wall. Test results from this research are
expected to be useful for practical design and development
of future building codes.
TEST SPECIMENS
Specimen design
Test specimens were designed in reference to Specimen
H60 (Fig. 1) tested by Cheng et al. (2016). Reinforcement
layouts and geometries of test specimens in this study are
ACI Structural Journal/July 2020
Table 1—Specimen design parameters
Specified material properties
Boundary element Boundary element
vertical reinforcement fy, confinement fy, Web reinforcement Concrete fc′, VMpr/Acv√fc′,
Specimen hw/lw ksi (MPa) ksi (MPa) fy, ksi (MPa) ksi (MPa) psi (MPa) Vn1/Vmpr Vn2/Vmpr
EB 1.0 60 (414) 60 (414) 60 (414) 6 (41) 9.32 (0.78) 1.00 1.15
3B 1.0 60 (414) 60 (414) 60 (414) 6 (41) 9.63 (0.80) 0.97 1.14
BB 1.0 60 (414) 60 (414) 60 (414) 6 (41) 9.61 (0.80) 0.97 1.09
BB_H 1.0 115 (793) 115 (793) 115 (793) 10 (69) 7.44 (0.62) 1.04 1.08
H60 (Cheng et al. 2016) 1.0 60 (414) 60 (414) 60 (414) 6 (41) 9.37 (0.78) 1.01 1.14

Fig. 3—Test setup.

illustrated in Fig. 2. Some key design parameters of all test
specimens including those of Specimen H60 are summarized
in Table 1. Specimens EB and 3B had rectangular wall cross
sections, while Specimens BB and BB_H had barbell-shaped
wall cross sections. The wall length lw, web thickness bw, and
shear span hw for all test specimens were 80 in. (2000 mm),
8 in. (200 mm), and 80 in. (2000 mm), respectively. Note
that the height of the concrete base block and wall clear
span in Specimen BB_H (tested first) were slightly different
from the rest of the specimens due to adjustments made to
align the application of lateral load with the midheight of the
top concrete block. This adjustment was believed to have
negligible effects on specimen behavior because specimen
strength and deformation appeared to be both controlled by

ACI Structural Journal/July 2020 17

Fig. 4—Loading history.
mechanisms concentrated within a limited height along the
wall base, as indicated later in the test results.
As can be seen in Fig. 2, Specimen EB featured extended
boundary elements at the wall ends. Specimen 3B had three
boundary elements: two at the wall ends and one in the
middle of the wall. In Specimens BB and BB_H, the widths
of boundary elements were enlarged at the wall ends. Please
note that the overall cross section area of the boundary
elements in all specimens tested in this study was nominally
identical and 1.5 times larger than that of Specimen H60
(Cheng et al. 2016).
With the exception of Specimen BB_H, the other three
specimens were designed to have shear stress demand deter-
mined by VMpr/Acv approaching 10√fc′ (psi) (0.83√fc′ [MPa]),
where VMpr was the probable flexural strength of the wall Mpr
divided by hw, and Acv was the product of lw and bw. Grade
60 (414 MPa) steel and concrete with specified strength of
6 ksi (41 MPa) were used in the design of these three speci-
mens. Specimen BB_H, using high-strength steel with spec-
ified yield stress of 115 ksi (793 MPa), was designed to have
the same overall steel area force—that is, steel area times
the specified yield stress—as Specimen BB. However, shear
stress demand in Specimen BB_H was reduced to approxi-
mately 7.44√fc′ (psi) (0.62√fc′ [MPa]) due to the use of high-
strength concrete with specified strength of 10 ksi (69 MPa).
The probable flexural strength Mpr is determined based on
specified concrete strength, and 1.25 and 1.20 (Wibowo et
al. 2017) times the specified steel yield strength for Grade
60 and Grade 115 steel, respectively.

Vn1 = Acv(3 f '

c + ρtfy) ≤ 10 f '
c Acv (psi)
(1)
Vn1 = Acv(0.25 f '
c + ρtfy) ≤ 0.83 f '
c Acv (MPa)
Fig. 5—Instrumentation. (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
required spacing controlled by one-third of the wall thick-
ness and required area, as per ACI 318-14 (ACI Committee
Vn2 = 0.6Avffy ≤ min(0.2fc′Acv, 800Acv) (psi) (2) 318 2014).

Vn2 = 0.6Avffy ≤ min(0.2fc′Acv, 5.5Acv) (MPa) Experimental setup and instrumentations

Horizontal web reinforcement was provided such that the
shear capacities per Eq. (1) and (2), based on ACI 318-14
(ACI Committee 318 2014), are approximately equal to
the shear demand; that is, Vn1 and Vn2 ≅ VMpr. All speci-
mens used No. 3 (D10) confinement reinforcement spaced
at 2.5 in. (65 mm) in the boundary elements to satisfy the
Specimen test setup is illustrated in Fig. 3. The concrete
base block was fixed on the strong floor through the use
of eight 2.7 in. (69 mm) high-strength steel rods. Lateral
displacement reversals were applied to the top concrete
block using at least three 220 kip (100 tonf) actuators. Two
steel transfer beams were connected to the north and south
sides of top concrete block using series of high-strength steel

18 ACI Structural Journal/July 2020

Table 2—Material properties
Boundary element vertical Concrete strength
reinforcement Boundary element confinement Web reinforcement fc′, ksi (MPa)
fy, ksi fy, ksi fy, ksi
Specimen Size (MPa) εsu, % Size (MPa) εsu, % Size (MPa) εsu, % Base block Wall
No. 7 64.7 No. 3 66.2 No. 4 63.9 6.48
EB 15.9 17.1 17.3 7.18 (49.5)
(22 mm) (446) (10 mm) (456) (13 mm) (441) (44.7)
No. 7 64.7 No. 3 66.2 No. 4 63.9 7.12
3B 15.9 17.1 17.3 7.52 (51.8)
(22 mm) (446) (10 mm) (456) (13 mm) (441) (49.1)
No. 7 64.7 No. 3 66.2 No. 4 63.9 7.32
BB 15.9 17.1 17.3 7.03 (48.4)
(22 mm) (446) (10 mm) (456) (13 mm) (441) (50.5)
No. 5 128 No. 3 132 No. 4 128 8.28* 11.4† 12.3
BB_H 10.0 9.3 9.1
(16 mm) (883) (10 mm) (908) (13 mm) (883) (57.1) (78.6) (85.0)
H60 No. 7 65.0 No. 3 66.0 No. 4 69 6.40
14.0 12.0 12.0 6.00 (41.4)
(Cheng et al. 2016) (22 mm) (450) (10 mm) (453) (13 mm) (475) (44.1)
*
Bottom part of concrete base block; height of bottom part is 14.4 in. (360 mm).
†
Top part of concrete base block; height of top part is 14.4 in. (360 mm).

Fig. 6—Specimens test photo.

rods to improve the distribution of lateral force along the
wall. As can be seen from Fig. 3, this setup imposed in-plane
single-curvature deformation to the test specimens with
negligible axial force. History of the lateral displacement
reversals is illustrated in Fig. 4, in which drift, referred to
as target drift, is defined as the lateral displacement of the
actuators divided by the shear span hw, measured from center
of the load application to the base of the wall.
Deformation of the specimens was recorded with linear
variable differential transformers (LVDTs) and an optical
system that tracked the movements of multiple points using
“markers” attached to those points. The locations of LVDTs
and markers are schematically presented in Fig. 5. Markers
were laid out on the specimen with a typical 12 in. (300
mm) grid pattern. Some markers were fixed to the concrete
base block to record the lateral movement and rotation of
the concrete base block. Steel strains were measured using
strain gauges at several locations.
TEST RESULTS
Materials
The key material test results are summarized in Table 2.
Each specimen was constructed with two concrete place-
ments. The first placement was for the base block, while
the second was for the wall segment and the top block. The
reported fc′ was the average strength determined from at least
three 4 x 8 in. (100 x 200 mm) concrete cylinders tested on
the same day as the specimen. Steel properties were deter-
mined as per ASTM A370 (2017), using three of at least 8 in.
(200 mm) long coupons that were randomly selected at the
site. Steel strain was measured by the optical system with a
gauge length of 8 in. (200 mm). The rupture strain, εsu, was
defined by the point corresponding to 10% force drop from
the peak, or from the actual rupture point if 10% force drop
was not available (ASTM A370 2017)

ACI Structural Journal/July 2020 19

Fig. 7—Specimen hysteretic responses.
Fig. 8—Determination of adjusted drift.
Specimen responses
For all test specimens, both horizontal and vertical
cracks developed during the first cycle of 0.25% target
drift. However, the number of cracks in Specimen BB_H
was apparently fewer than the rest of the test specimens.
At this target drift level, cracks in Specimen BB_H were
only observed within two-thirds of hw from the wall base,
as compared to other specimens where cracks were distrib-
uted over the full height. From 0.25 to 1.50% target drift,
20
new cracks developed, while widths of the existing cracks
continued to grow wider for all test specimens. All test spec-
imens achieved peak lateral load at the first cycle of 1.50%
target drift.
For Specimens EB, 3B, and BB, small pieces of concrete
cover began to spall off at corners of the wall during the first
cycle of 1.50% target drift. During the repeated cycles of
1.50% target drift, corner concrete for the three specimens
continued to deteriorate, accompanied by visible sliding
along the wall base. Specimen BB_H, on the other hand,
appeared to be largely intact after completion of 1.50%
target drift cycles.
During 2.00% target drift cycles, concrete continued to
deteriorate at the wall ends within the length of boundary
elements in Specimen EB. For Specimen 3B, spalling of
concrete cover was observed at base of the middle boundary
element in the first cycle of 2.00% target drift and damage
started to grow horizontally along the wall base, but was
more severe within the three boundary elements during the
repeated cycles.
For Specimen BB, damage extended horizontally along
the wall base during the 2.00% target drift cycles. For Spec-
imen BB_H, a few inclined cracks opened wider and some
concrete pieces were pushed off at the corners after comple-
tion of 2.00% target drift cycles. The described behavior
may be seen in photos in Fig. 6(a) taken at the peak of
second cycle of 2.00% target drift. It was not until 3.00%
target drift cycles when apparent damage was observed in
Specimen BB_H, including several small pieces of concrete
cover spalled off from the web and damage increased at the
ACI Structural Journal/July 2020
Table 3—Summary of test results
Loading Vpeak, Vpeak/Acv√fc′, psi
Specimen direction kip (kN) (MPa) dpeak, % du, % Vpeak/Vmn* Vpeak/Vmpr† Vpeak/Vn1‡ Vpeak/Vn2‡
East 419 (1860) 8.40 (0.70) 1.45 1.83 1.03 0.90 0.85 0.73
EB
West 398 (1770) 7.97 (0.66) 1.49 1.49 0.98 0.86 0.83 0.69
East 437 (1950) 8.36 (0.69) 1.47 1.92 1.03 0.90 0.87 0.76
3B
West 372 (1660) 7.11 (0.59) 1.50 2.01 0.88 0.77 0.77 0.83
East 436 (1940) 8.23 (0.68) 1.47 2.50 1.04 0.91 0.87 0.78
BB
West 403 (1800) 7.61 (0.63) 1.51 2.01 0.96 0.84 0.83 0.72
East 438 (1950) 6.37 (0.53) 1.44 3.00 0.99 0.92 0.80 0.76
BB_H
West 431 (1920) 6.27 (0.52) 0.88 2.84 0.97 0.91 0.81 0.75

H60 East 443 (1970) 8.88 (0.74) 0.66 1.59 1.08 0.88 0.84 0.78
(Cheng et al. 2016) West 374 (1665) 7.56 (0.63) 0.80 1.64 0.91 0.74 0.71 0.66
*
Vmn is determined using tested material properties.
†
Vmpr is determined using concrete cylinder strength and 1.25 specified yield strength for Grade 60 steel and 1.20 specified yield strength for USD785 steel.
‡
Vn1 and Vn2 are determined based on tested material strength.

Fig. 9—Percentage of deformation components.

wall base. For all test specimens, sliding along the wall base
was very obvious at later stages of the tests. Final states of
the four specimens are presented in Fig. 6(b).
Hysteretic responses of each specimen, plotted as normal-
ized shear stress versus drift ratio, are presented in Fig. 7, in
which normalized shear stress is determined as the lateral
force from the actuators divided by the specimen web
cross section area Acv and square root of the wall cylinder
strength √fc′. The drift ratios in Fig. 7 have been adjusted
by subtracting the lateral movement and rotation of the
concrete base block from the LVDT readings at the center of
the lateral load, as shown in Fig. 8. Unless specified as target
drift, the reported drift hereafter refers to the adjusted drift.
Numerical values of some key test results are summarized in
Table 3. The peak drift, dpeak refers to the drift corresponding
to the peak strength, Vpeak. The ultimate drift capacity, du,
was determined as the drift when one of the following two
criteria was first met: 1) the drift where the load dropped
by 20% from the peak on the envelope curve; or 2) the drift
where the load dropped by more than 20% in the repeated
cycles and the load in the first cycle of the next drift level
was lower than the load in the third cycle of this drift level.

ACI Structural Journal/July 2020 21

Test results of Specimen H60 from Cheng et al. (2016) are
summarized in Table 3 as well for comparison.
Strength
Based on results from Fig. 7, where lateral force is sustained
with a short plateau and Vpeak/Vmn ratio in Table 3, specimen
Fig. 10—Normalized shear stress versus deformation
capacity.
Fig. 11—Reinforcement strain.
22
peak strengths appear to be limited by yielding of longitu-
dinal reinforcement and can be satisfactorily predicted by
Vmn, which represents the shear strength associated with
the development of nominal flexural strength at the  wall
base; that is, Vmn = Mn/hw. The nominal flexural strength Mn
was determined per ACI 318-14 based on tested material
properties, in which code-specified equivalent stress block
and elastic-plastic stress-strain relationship were used for
concrete compressive strength and steel tensile/compressive
strength, respectively. Yielding of vertical reinforcement in
tension was observed at several locations from strain gauge
readings that will be discussed later.
Deformation
To further evaluate specimen behavior in addition to
visual observation during the test, specimen overall defor-
mation was separated into four components using the marker
readings. The four components considered were sliding,
strain penetration, shear deformation, and flexural deforma-
tion. Sliding and strain penetration, which were referring to
rotation and lateral slip at the base of the wall, respectively,
were calculated as the relative rotation and horizontal slip
between the first- and second-row markers (Fig. 5). Flexural
deformation was calculated as the relative rotation between
the second- and seventh-row markers (Fig. 5), and the
ACI Structural Journal/July 2020
remainder of the drift between the second- and seventh-row
markers was attributed to shear deformation. The percentage
of each deformation component at peaks of first drift cycles
versus specimen drift is presented in Fig. 9.
The trends in Fig. 9(a) and 9(b) indicate that Specimens EB,
3B, and BB appeared to exhibit a slightly larger percentage of
flexural deformation but lower percentage of shear deforma-
tion compared to that of Specimen H60. This suggested that
with a similar shear stress demand, the enlarged boundary
elements at the wall ends or additional boundary element in
the middle increased the shear stiffness relatively more than
the flexural stiffness. Specimen BB_H using high-strength
materials showed a larger percentage of shear deformation
compared to Specimen BB, which may be attributed to the
50% lower web reinforcement ratio (ρt) compared to that in
Specimen BB.
At a similar drift level, based on vertical strain recorded
by markers along the wall base, tensile strain demand of
the outmost vertical reinforcement was reduced when more
vertical reinforcement was concentrated at the wall ends,
and thus Specimen H60 exhibited smaller strain penetra-
tion compared to that of Specimens EB and 3B as shown
in Fig. 9(c). Strain penetration in Specimen BB was higher
than that in Specimen H60, which was likely due to the use
of barbell-shape boundary element that reduced the length
of compression zone and led to larger steel tensile strain
demand at the wall end.
Among the four specimens (EB, 3B, BB, and H60) with
similar shear stress demand, as can be seen in Fig. 9(d),
percentage of sliding was reduced more apparently in
Specimen 3B where the overall vertical reinforcement was
slightly increased with an additional boundary element in
the middle. Specimen BB_H, using high-strength materials,
compared to Specimen BB, showed smaller percentage of
sliding. High-strength steel with larger yield strain tended to
delay the increase of sliding deformation.
Previous research indicated that specimen deformation
capacity decreased as the normalized shear stress demand
increased (Athanasopoulou and Parra-Montesinos 2013;
Cheng et al. 2016). In Fig. 10, the ultimate deformation
capacity du and normalized peak shear stress of each test
specimen is presented, along with results of Specimen H60
from the previous research (Cheng et al. 2016). As can be
seen, the extended in-plane boundary elements at ends of
the wall and additional boundary element in the middle of
the wall led to a slight increase of du. However, this increase
appeared to be not significant considering that shear stress
demand was slightly reduced in Specimens EB and 3B
compared to that of Specimen H60. Specimen deforma-
tion increased more effectively in Specimen BB using
barbell-shaped boundary elements. The use of high-strength
concrete in Specimen BB_H reduced the normalized peak
shear stress and showed the largest deformation capacity
among all tested specimens.
Reinforcement strain
Strain gauge readings indicated that tensile strain of
vertical reinforcement in the boundary elements exceeded
yield strain at several locations up to approximately
ACI Structural Journal/July 2020
midheight of the wall. For example, readings of the strain
gauges on the innermost vertical reinforcement in the
boundary element at the wall ends versus drift ratio for all
test specimens are presented in Fig. 11. Tensile yield strain,
presented as a horizontal dashed line in Fig. 11, was deter-
mined as the tested yield stress (Table 2) divided by the
nominal modulus of elasticity of 29,000 ksi (200,000 MPa).
Some strain gauges on the web reinforcement (both vertical
and horizontal) also recorded steel tensile strain exceeding
yield strain in the middle of the wall in all test specimens,
including Specimen BB_H using high-strength steel.
CONCLUSIONS
A test program consisting of four RC squat wall speci-
mens with hw/lw of 1.0 was conducted. All test specimens
were designed to have boundary elements with overall cross
section area that was 1.5 times larger than that of Spec-
imen H60 tested previously by Cheng et al. (2016). Based
on test results, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. Peak strengths of all test specimens appeared to be
limited by yielding of longitudinal reinforcement and can
be satisfactorily predicted by Vmn, the shear strength asso-
ciated with the development of nominal flexural strength at
the wall base.
2. Deformation capacity increased more effectively in
specimens with barbell-shaped boundary elements at ends of
the wall, and further increased when high-strength concrete,
which led to reduced shear stress demand, was used.
The aforementioned conclusions are based on limited test
results. Future researches are needed to verify those findings
with other design parameters—for example, specimen size
(size effect) and specimen slenderness ratio.
AUTHOR BIOS
ACI member Min-Yuan Cheng is an Associate Professor of Civil and
Construction Engineering at National Taiwan University of Science and
Technology, Taipei, Taiwan. He is a member of ACI Committees 335,
Composite and Hybrid Structures; 352, Joints and Connections in
Monolithic Concrete Structures; and ACI Subcommittee 318-J, Joints
and Connections.
Yen Chou is a MS Student in Civil and Construction Engineering Depart-
ment at National Taiwan University of Science and Technology. He
received his BS in civil engineering from National Chung Hsing University,
Taichung, Taiwan.
ACI member Leonardus S. B. Wibowo is a Lecturer of civil engineering
at Universitas Widya Kartika, Surabaya, Indonesia. He received his BS in
civil engineering from Universitas Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia; his MS
in civil engineering from Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya,
Indonesia; and his PhD in civil and construction engineering from National
Taiwan University of Science and Technology.
NOTATION
Acv = gross area of concrete bounded by lw and bw
Avf = total area of vertical reinforcement crossing wall base
bw = thickness of wall web
dpeak = specimen drift ratio at peak load
du = specimen drift ratio at which lateral force dropped 20% below
peak, derived from force-displacement envelope
fc′ = concrete compressive strength
fy = reinforcement yield stress
hw = shear span measured from center of actuator force to top face of
concrete base block
lw = length of wall
Mn = nominal flexural strength
Mpr = probable flexural strength
23
VMpr = shear associated with development of probable flexural strength
at wall base
Vmn = shear associated with development of nominal flexural strength
at wall base
Vn1 = nominal web shear strength, as per Chapter 18 of ACI 318-14
Vn2 = nominal shear-friction strength, as per Chapter 22 of ACI 318-14
Vpeak = maximum shear force measured during the test
Δb = lateral movement of concrete base block
Δt = lateral movement of top concrete block
εu = steel rupture strain
εy = steel yield strain
ρt = web reinforcement ratio
θb = rotation of concrete base block
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, 2014, “Building Code Requirements for Struc-
tural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318 R-14),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 519 pp.
ASTM A370-17, 2017, “Standard Test Methods and Definitions for
Mechanical Testing of Steel Products,” ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, 49 pp.
Athanasopoulou, A., and Parra-Montesinos, G. J., 2013, “Experi-
mental Study on the Seismic Behavior of High-Performance Fiber-Rein-
forced Concrete Low-Rise Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 110, No. 5,
Sept.-Oct., pp. 767-778.
Cheng, M.-Y.; Hung, S.-H.; Lequesne, R. D.; and Lepage, A., 2016,
“Earthquake-Resistant Squat Walls Reinforced with High Strength Steel,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 113, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 1065-1076. doi:
10.14359/51688825
24
Escolano-Margarit, D.; Klenke, A.; Pujol, S.; and Benavent-Climent, A.,
2012, “Failure Mechanism of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls with
and without Confinement,” 15 World Conference on Earthquake Engi-
neering, Sept., Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 1-10.
Kuang, J. S., and Ho, Y. B., 2008, “Seismic Behavior and Ductility of
Squat Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls with Nonseismic Detailing,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 225-231.
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. 593-604. doi: 10.14359/51687709
Oesterle, R. B.; Fiorato, A. E.; and Corley, W. G., 1980, “Reinforcement
Details for Earthquake-Resistant Structural Walls,” Concrete International,
V. 2, No. 12, Dec., pp. 55-56.
Taleb, R.; Kono, S.; Tani, M.; and Sakashita, M., 2014, “Effect of End
Region Confinement on Seismic Performance of RC Cantilever Walls,”
Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, July, 11 pp.
Wallace, J. W., 1995, “Seismic Design of RC Structural Walls. Part I:
New Code Format,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 121,
No. 1, Jan., pp. 75-87. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1995)121:1(75)
Wallace, J. W.; Massone, L. M.; Bonelli, P.; Dragovich, J.; Lagos, R.;
Lüders, C.; and Moehle, J., 2012, “Damage and Implications for Seismic
Design of RC Structural Wall Buildings,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 28, No. 1,
June, pp. 281-299. doi: 10.1193/1.4000047
Wallace, J. W., and Orakcal, K., 2002, “ACI 318-99 Provisions for
Seismic Design of Structural Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 4,
July-Aug., pp. 499-508.
Wibowo, L. S. B.; Cheng, M.-Y.; Huang, F.-C.; and Tai, T.-Y., 2017,
“Effectiveness of High-Strength Hoops in High-Strength Flexural
Members,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 114, No. 4, Jul.-Aug., pp. 887-897.
ACI Structural Journal/July 2020