Rillej: Portlan'D Cement Association

PORTLAN'D CEMENT rillEJ ASSOCIATION
Research and Development

Construction Technology Laboratories
'l PB271 ·467

. 11111111111111111"111111111111111 III
'------~----------/
EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT STRUCTURAL WALLS -

TESTS OF ISOLATED WALLS
REPRODUCED BY
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
u. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
SPRINGFIELD. VA. 22161
-BI;;A..·~I::O:-::G:-::R:-·:-:P:-:H:7.I:-:C:-:D:-":""=·T":"·-"'T";"
11-.':::'R-ep;"o-r-t7':N-O.----------.....,r"":2:"'".--..--:..'---~3p---R-e-c-I'p-l·e-n-~t'-A-C--·--N-....--
D, .. .. .. '''';'_ 7c,e~slon j'J' L_,
SHEET NSF/RA-76081S ~ '/ ~~/
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls- Tests of Isolated November 1976
6.
Walls; Appendix A - Experimental Program; Ap~endix B-
'T' '" cd· 'R '" ., " 1+. .,
7. Author(s)R. G. Oesterle, A. E. Fiorato, L. S. JohaL, J. E. Carpenter 8. Petforming Organization Rept.
H. G. Russell and w.e. Corley No·peA RID Ser.157J
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Wotk Unit No.
Portland Cement Association
Old Orchard Road, II. Contract/Grant No.
Skokie, Ill. 60076 NSF - RANN GI-43880
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period
Coyered '
National Scie nce Foundation
Re search Applied to National Needs final report (1974-197l
Washington, D. C. 20550 14.
15. Supplementary Note s

This is part of a se rie s of reports; the reports on the Analytical Investigation of thi~
~ ... ,...;",,.,~ n,; 11 l-.~ F,.,.,.t},"""''n'"'\;nrr "'h,.,,,~ ......... ;d_ T"I 1 Q77
16. Abstracts
The behavior of structural walls for use in earthquake resistant buildings
is being studied experimentally. Isolated reinforced concrete walls are being sub-
jected to reversing, in plane, lateral loads. The overall objective is to develop de-
signs to insure adequate inelastic performance. This report describes the test
program and the results from the first nine wall tests. Variables included shape of
the wall cros s section, amount of flexural reinforcement, and the use of confined
boundary e leme nts. One wall was subjected to rn.onotonic loads and one wall was
repaired and retested. Results show the behavior of the wall is governed by the
level of shear stress. However, significant inelastic performance was obtained in a
wall subjected to a shear stress of $. 8}f1. The use of stiff confined boundary ele-
ments significantly increased inelastic p~rformance of the walls.
17. Key Words and Document Ana,lysis 17c Descriptors ductility

conc rete s t ruc t ures
earthquake resistant structures damping capacity
walls
tests
bend properties
shear properties
yield strength
ultimate strength
plastic deformation
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
structural walls
shear walls
concrete (reinforced)
building s
17c.COSATI Field/Group 1313, 2012

18. Availability Statement No restriction on distribution. 19 . SecurJry
. Cl ass (Th'IS 21 . 'N 0.0 f Pages
\ hvr-.,..R....:e~iLr~1\~rrJ(t:~·lL.A:~~p,...._+~---:::~L::..z~/L----J
Available from Nation~l Technical Informati0t}, 2n • Security Class (This 22
Service, Springfield, Va.22161 A-II .- PaguNcLAsSIFIED l'i)i/~c~1 "_ All
ITlJ-lI"'t ell
1
FORM NTI5-35 tREV. '0'731 ENDORSED BY ANSI AND UNESCO, THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
PCA RID Sere 1571
Report to
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
(RANN)
Grant No. GI-43880

By: R. G. Oesterle, A. E. Fiorato, L. S. Johal,

J. E. Carpenter, H. G. Russell and W. G. Corley
Date: November 1976
Submitted by
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY LABORATORIES
PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION
Old Orchard Road
Skokie, Illinois 60076
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
INTRODUCTION 1
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE 3
OUTLINE OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM 4
OBSERVED BEHAVIOR 9
Introduction 9
General Observations 9
Walls Subjected to Low Nominal Shear Stress 13
Walls Subjected to High Nominal Shear Stress 16
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS 20
Load-Top Deflection Relationship 20
Moment-Rotation Relationship 20
Shear-Distortion Relationship 24
Shear-Construction Joint Slip Relationship 27
Ductility 30
Energy Dissipation 32
Repaired Specimen 35
Free Vibration Tests 35
CONCLUSIONS 37
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 40
REFERENCES 41
NOTATION 43
-i- a./
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No.
APPENDIX A - EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM A-I

Test Specimens A-I
Lateral Load Test Setup A-26
Free Vibration Test Methods A-37
APPENDIX B - TEST RESULTS B-1
Introduction B-1
Data Presentation and Analysis B-1
Specimen Rl B-16
Specimen R2 B-41
Specimen Bl B-67
Specimen B3 B-93
Specimen B4 B-119
Specimen B2 B-138
Specimen B5 B-164
Specimen B5R B-189
Specimen Fl B-205
Free Vibration Tests B-232
-ii-
by
R. G. Oesterle, A. E. Fiorato, L. S. Johal, J. E. Carpenter
H. G. Russell and W. G. Corley*
INTRODUCTION
It has been observed in recent earthquakes that struc-
tural walls used as lateral bracing in multistory buildings
can significantly enhance performance under seismic loading. (1)
However, there is a lack of information on the strength and
deformation capabilities of structural wall systems. To
help provide some of the needed data, the Portland Cement
Association is conducting a combined experimental and
analytical investigation to develop design criteria for
reinforced concrete structural walls in earthquake resistant
buildings. The primary purpose of this investigation is to
determine the ductility, energy dissipation and strength of
the walls.
As part of this experimental program, reversing loads
are being applied to isolated walls. Currently, tests of
nine wall specimens have been completed. This report
presents the results of these nine tests. Observed behavior
of the isolated walls is described and a summary of the test
results is presented. Conclusions, from the tests are given.
*RespectivelYI Structural Engineer, Senior Structural

Engineer, Associate Structural Engineer, Former Principal
Structural Engineer and Manager, Structural Development
Section; Director, Engineering Development Department,
Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois.
-1-
A detailed description of the experimental program is
included in Appendix A. Detailed descriptions of each test
and the resulting data are included in Appendix B.
Further conclusions concerning strength and deformation
characteristics, and ductility and energy dissipation
capacities will be reported in future papers. (2,3)
-2-
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
The objectives of the experimental investigation are:
1. To determine load-deformation characteristics for
a wide range of configurations of wall specimens.
This information is being used in the inelastic

dynamic analyses. (4)
2. To determine ductilities and energy dissipation
capacities of walls subjected to reversing loads.
3. To determine flexural and shear strengths of walls
subjected to reversing loads, and to compare these
strengths with the strengths under monotonic
loading.
4. To determine means of increasing the energy dis-
sipation capacity of walls where required.
5. To develop design procedures to insure adequate
strength and energy dissipation capacity in
reinforced concrete structural walls used in
earthquake resistant buildings.
-3-
OUTLINE OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
To attain the objectives, an experimental program was
developed to investigate the behavior of large isolated
reinforced concrete walls. Appendix A contains a detailed
description of the experimental program. Only a brief
description of the program is given here.
The isolated walls represent an element of a structural
wall system. Test specimens are approximately 1/3-scale
representations of full-size walls, although no specific
prototype walls were modeled. Controlled variables included
in the first nine tests were the shape of the wall cross
section, the amount of main flexural reinforcement and the
amount of hoop reinforcement around the main flexural rein-
forcement. In addition, one wall was subjected to monotonic
loading and one wall was repaired and retested. Table 1
provides a summary of test specimen details.
Dimensions of the test specim~ns are shown in Flg. 1.
Flanged, barbell, and rectangular cross sections have been
investigated. Nominal cross sectional dimensions of these
sections are shown in Fig. 2.
In proportioning the walls, the design moment was
calculated following procedures in the ACI Building Code. (5)
Strain hardening of the steel was neglected. Horizontal
shear reinforcement was provided so that the calculated
design moment would be developed. Shear reinforcement was
provided to satisfy the ACI Building Code. (5) Design yield
stress of the steel was 60 ksi (414 MPa) and design concrete
strength was 6000 psi (41.4 MPa).
-4-
T"'DLE 1 - SUMMARY m·~ TEST SPF.CIMF.NS
""he~e :
Spec lmen I Shape ~ f = ratio of m.:lln f1exucal cCl.nforcement

area to gross concrete acea of boundary
- element.
Rl 1. 47 O. )l 0.25
= rat to of horl.zontal shear ceinforccment
R2 4.00 O. )l 0.25 2.07 Ph
area to gross conc["~te aced of a vcctlcoLal
III 1. 11 O. )l 0.29 -- seclion of wall wcb.
0) ..........
---- 1.11 0.31 0.29 1. 28
I)n ~ ratio of vertical web reInforcement area
04 (li Lll 0.31 0.29 1. 28 to gross conccete area of a horizonu:l1 15'-0"
0.6] 0.29
sectIon of wall \oIeb.
02 ..........
---- 3.67
OS .......... 3.67 0,6) 0.29 1. )5 Ps = I:"atlo of effective volume of confinement
OSR (2) 0,6) 0.29 1. ]5 reinforcement to the volume of coco. in(5)
.......... J. 67
accordance with Eg. A.4 of /'ICI 318-7l.
t'l ),89 O. Jl 0, )0
H
(1) Monot.onic loadIng
(2) RepaIred specimen
2'-0·
1'-0· • 0.305 m
I· • 25.4 mm
FHJ. 1 Homin,)l [hmensions of Test SpeCImen
wiLh flectangular Cross Section
I
\Jl 4"
4" -1 f-
I
"4 I
I
6mm
~I l . I/~" CL
" ~ S} m Abl
", 6mm
75" 75" 75"
"I
1'*
"I
~
"
12
'I"
6mm
4" --j t-
(0) Flanged (b) Barbell (c) Reclangula'
rlq. Nominal Cross-SectIonal Otfficnsions of Test .specImens 1'lg. ) Cross SectIon of Specimen BJ
The test specimens were constructed in six vertical
lifts. Figure 3 shows the reinforcing details used in one
of the walls. Specimens B3, R2, B4, and B5 were constructed
with confinement reinforcement in the lower 6 ft (1.83 m) of
the boundary elements. For rectangular sections, the
"boundary element" was taken to extend 7.5 in. (190 rom) from
each end of the wall.
Specimen B5R was a retest of Specimen B5. Following
the test of B5, damaged web concrete was removed up to a
height of about 9 ft (2.74 m). New web concrete was cast in
three lifts. The colurnnswere repaired with a surface
coating of neat cement paste.
The apparatus for testing the walls is shown in Fig. 4.
Each specimen was loaded as a vertical cantilever with
forces applied through the top slab. The test specimens
were loaded in a series of increments. Each increment
consist.ed of three complete reversed cycles. About three
increments of force were applied prior to initial yielding.
Subsequent to initial yielding, loading was controlled by
deflections in 1 in. (25 rom) increments.
Free vibration tests were conducted at selected stages
as the number and magnitude of loading increments applied to
the specimen increased. These tests were carried out to
determine the frequency and damping characteristics of the
walls.
-6-
Fig. 4 Test Specimen and Test Apparatus
-7-
Controlled variables included in a second series of
tests presently being carried out are concrete strength,
axial load and the amount of horizontal shear reinforcement.
A description of these tests is not included in this report.
-8-
\
OBSERVED BEHAVIOR
Introduction
In general, the performance of the specimens can be
divided into two types of behavior with some general obser-
vations common to both. The two types of behavior were
distinguished by the magnitude of applied shear stresses.
General Observations
As shown in Table 2, the maximum observed load in all
specimens subjected to reversing loads exceeded the ACT
design strength for either flexure or shear. However,
observed strengths were ~omewhat lower than the flexural
strengths calculated using measured material properties
including strain hardening in the reinforcement. With the
exception of monotonically loaded Specimen B4, the maximum
observed load for each specimen varied from 77% to 91% of
the calculated flexural strengths.
Table 3 shows a summary of deformation results for the
nine test specimens. The following definitions are used in
Table 3.
A loading increment consists of three complete reversed
cycles at a specific maximum load or top deflection.
A stable loading increment is an increment in which the
specimen sustained at least 80% of the previous maximum
observed load in all three cycles.
A stable cycle is a cycle within a stable loading
increment.
-9-
TADLE 2' SPECIMEN STRENGTHS
Confined ACI Design First Yield Load Maximum Load Failure

Specimen Boundary Flexure Shear Calculated (3 Observed Obs. Calculated (3) Observed Obs. Obs. Mode
Element kips ~(1) kips kips kips ~c Calc kips kips Calc ACI (4) (5)
c .ff'--c JEc .ffi-c Jfi.-c
Rl No 18 0.9 82(2) 4.2 17.7 0.9 20.1 1.0 1.14 29.1 1.5 26.6 1.4 0.91 1. 48 F
R2 Yes 35 1.8 82(2) 4.2 32.4 1.6 37 .0 1.9 1.14 57.3 2.9 48.7 2.5 0.85 1. 39 F
Bl No 46 2.2 82(2) 3.9 40.2 1.9 45.1 2.1 1.12 72.1 3.4 61.0 2.9 0.85 1.33 F
1
I B3 Yes 46 2.3 82(2) 4.1 39.9 2.0 45.2 2.3 1.13 73.4 3 .7 62.0 3.1 0.84 1.35 F
f-'
o B4 Yes 46 2.4 82 (2) 4.2 40.3 2.1 45.3 2.3 1.12 74.3 3.8 75.3 3.9 1.01 1. 64 F
I
B2 No 129 6.1 127 6.0 110.8 5.2 119.8 5.7 1. 08 170.9 8.1 152.8 7.2 0.89 1.18 WC
B5 Yes 12~ 6.6 127 6.5 118.4 6.1 112.3 5.8 0.95 213.7 11.0 171. 3 8.8 0.80 1. 33 WC
B5R Yes 129 6.8 127 6.7 118.4 6.3 -- -- -- 213.7 11.5 167.8 8.9 0.79 1. 30 WC
Fl No 145 8.1 140 7.8 144.2 8.0 150.6 8.4 1.04 242.6 13.5 187.9 10.5 0.77 1. 30 WC
(1) Shear stress v =_ V (psi)

O.8~ b~fT
w c
(2 ) Shear reinforcement governed by maximum bar spacing
(3) From analysis based on strain compatibility using measured material properties
including strain hardening of reinforcement
(4 ) ACI taken as the lower of flexure or shear design strength
(5) F = Flexure, WC = Web Crushing
(6) 1 kip = 4.448 kN, 1.0~ (psi) = 0.08304Jl' (MPa)
c c
TABLE 3 DEFORMATION RESULTS
Last Stable Top Deflection ~o. of Stable Rotation, e~l Max. Observed . Max. Observed Max. Slip
iSpecimen Top Deflection At Full Yield Inelastic At Full Yield Rotatl.on (2) Shear Di~tort. (2) At CJl (2)
(3)
Increment (in.) (in. ) Cycles (rad. ) ei 1had .) y 3' (rad.) (in. )
Rl ± 3 +0.53 12 0.00302 -0.01860 -0.00971 -0.164
R2 ± 4 +0.85 12 0.00457 -0.01981 -0.01969 -0.304
Bl t 4 '.
+0.70 12 0.00420 -0.02323 -0.01782 -0.197
B3 . ± 7 +0.70 21 0.00401 +0.02762 -0.04811 +0.100(7)

84 (5) +12.5 +0.80 0.00465 +0.06295 +0.03396" +0.145
--
82 ± 4 +1.00 9 0.00517 -0.01610 -0.02242 +0.170
B5 ± 4 +1.10 9 0.00645 -0.01708 -0.01842 +0.110
B5R ± 5 +2.50 ( 6) 9 0.01187(6) +0.02038 -0.02369 +0.192

I
I-' Fl ± 2 +1.00 6 0.00339 -0.00932 -0.00800 -0.103
I-'
I
(1) 03 = Rotation of the horizontal section approximately 74 in. (1.88 m)

above the base block
(2) Maximum measured during the last stable deflection increment
(3) Y3 = Average shear distortion in a zone from the base to a level

. approximately 74 in. (1.88 m) above the base block
(4) CJl = Construction joint at the base of the wall
(5) Monotonic test
(6) Measured yield deformation at yield load level in test 85
(7) Gage failed in cycle 31 at +5 in. increment
(8) 1 in. = 25.4 rom

An inelastic cycle is a complete reversed load cycle in
which both the load and the top deflection exceeded the
first yield level.
First yield level is the first load and deflection at
which a yield strain was measured in the boundary element
tensile reinforcement.
Full yield level is the load and deflection at which
all of the main tensile reinforcement in the boundary
element yielded.
As shown in Table 3, all specimens exhibited subs tan-
tial inelastic deformation capabilities, even those designed
without any special details for reversed loading. The
minimum number of stable inelastic cycles was 6 for Specimen
Fl. The
, maximum nominal shear stress in Fl was 10.SJf'c
(0.87~f~, MPa). The maximum number of stable inelastic
cycles was 21 for Specimen B3 with a maximum nominal shear
stress of 3.l~ (0.26~, MPa).
Yielding of both horizontal and vertical steel occurred
up to the 6-ft (1.83 m) level in all specimens. In most
specimens yielding of the vertical steel extended to the 9-
ft (2.74 m) level. However, primary damage in the specimens
was limited to the lower 3 ft (0.91 m).
In all specimens, II p inching ll of the load-deformation
loops and shear stiffness degradation was noticeably greater
in the lower 3 ft region.
As the specimens were cycled at later load increments,
the stiffness of the wall continually degraded until a large
-12-
load reduction occurred. The final failure always occurred
at or below the 3 ft (0.91 m) level. The observed behavior
varied according to the magnitude of applied shear stress as
discussed below.
Walls Subjected to Low Nominal Shear Stress
As shown in Table 2, four specimens were sUbjected to
maximum nominal shear stresses at or below 3.l~f' (0.26~fT,

c c
MPa). Their behavior is distinguished from that of walls
subjected to high nominal shear stress by the crack pattern
and a flexural failure mode.
For walls with low nominal shear stress, cracks started
as horizontal flexural cracks in the boundary element,
usually at level where horizontal reinforcement was located.
Closely spaced confinement hoops caused these cracks to be
finely distributed. The hori~ontal cracks progressed into
coarsely distributed inclined cracks in the web. The cracks
crossed the web until they intercepted a crack from the
previous loading in the opposite direction. By the time the
yield increment was reached the cracks had segmented the web
into large pieces with several predominantly horizontal
cracks completely traversing the lower 3 ft (0.91 m) of the
wall. These cracks sliced the lower wall region into
several horizontal layers as illustrated in Fig. 5. Because
the loading was always applied in the same direction first,
the cracks were usually somewhat more angular and jagged on
the right side of the wall.
-13-
CJ3
CJ2
CJI
Fig. 5 Crack Pattern in Lower Portion of Specimen B3
CJ3
CJ2
CJI
Fig. 6 Crack Pattern in Lower Portion of Spe~imen B5
-14-
Due to the horizontal nature of the cracks very little
truss action developed. Only a small amount of horizontal
steel crossed the cracks where they were inclined. There-
fore, after yield, shear was predominantly transferred by
interface shear and dowel action in the boundary elements.
A shear stiffness reduction occurred as the number of
applied inelastic cycles increased. However, at low shear
stresses, this mode of shear transfer was adequate to main-
tain the strength of the wall until the test was terminated
by fracture of the main flexural reinforcement.
In Specimens Rl, Bl, and B3, the loss of strength was
due to damage to the boundary elements by alternate tensile
yielding and compressive buckling of the main tensile
reinforcement. This steel buckling was accompanied by loss
of concrete not contained by the reinforcement. Buckling of
the vertical steel was followed, after several cycles, by
bar fracture. One or two bars fractured at a time. A load
reduction accompanied each fracture.
The confinement hoops at 1-1/3 in. (33.9 rom) on center
in Specimen B3 did not significantly increase the strength
or the maximum rotation as compared to Bl. However, the
hoops maintained the integrity of the boundary elements by
delaying bar buckling and containing the concrete core.
Although a large number of inelastic cycles were sustained,
bar buckling did occur.
In Specimen R2, the first load reduction was associated
with a large out of plane displacement of the compression
-15-
zone. Initially, no lateral support of the wall was provided.
As inelastic cycles were applied, a continually increasing
out of plane displacement of the compression zone was
observed. The test was stopped after 10 inelastic cycles
and lateral support was added 3 ft (0.91 m) above the base.
The test was then continued. During the 14th inelastic
cycle, a large out of plane displacement of the compression
zone was observed within the lower 3 ft,of the wall.
Shortly after this cycle, flexural reinforcement fractured
near the base of the wall.
The out of plane displacement of the compression zone
was ca~sed by alternate tensile yielding of the flexural
reinforcement. As the specimen was loaded beyond yield in
one direc~ion and then unloaded, permanent deformations
remained in the tension steel. As the load was reversed,
the compression zone was supported across numerous cracks
only by the steel. This steel had sustained several pre-
vious inelastic strain reversals. Therefore, the section
stiffness of the compression zone for axial load was
decreased considerably and an out of plane displacement
resulted. The fact that lateral support was not present
during a major portion of the test probably led to premature
strength loss in Specimen R2.
Walls Subjected to High Nominal Shear Stress
As shown in Table 2, four specimens were subjected to
maximum nominal shear stresses greater than 7.0~f' (0.58

c
~, MPa). The crack pattern that developed in these
-16-
specimens is illustrated in Fig. 6. Closely spaced flexural
cracks were first observed in the boundary elements. When
they reached the web, the cracks became inclined with a
steeper angle than those in the specimens with low shear
stress. The direction of these cracks was not altered by
cracks caused by forces from t~e opposite direction. The
inclined cracks crisscrossed the web forming relatively
symmetrical compression strut systems for each direction of
loading. Each compression strut was segmented into paral-
lelogram shaped pieces of concrete. The crack pattern along
any horizontal plane was sawtooth shaped.
The angle of the inclined cracks was affected by the
stiffness of the boundary element. A flexible boundary
element in Specimen FI caused the crack pattern to converge
toward a small area in the web near the base of the wall.
After a loading increment in which yielding of the
flexural steel occurred, upon reversing the load, the shear
was initially resisted by 'dowel action in the boundary
elements. However, as the web cracks closed, the compres-
sion struts aided in resisting shear. This truss action
provided a stiffer system than that in the specimens with
low nominal shear stress.
As can be seen in Table 3, after approximately the same
number of inelastic cycles, the maximum shear distortion in
B2 and BS was of the same order of magnitude as those in R2
and BI. However, the nominal shear stresses were approxi-
mately 3 times higher in B2 and BS.
-17-
As the specimens were repeatedly cycled in the
inelastic range, the surfaces of the concrete segments .in
the struts were subjected to abrasion. Loss of concrete
caused by abrasion increased shear deformations and reduced
the compressive strength of the struts.
In all four specimens, web crushing occurred at the end
of the test. The web crushing was associated with deterio-
ration of the struts along cracks transverse to the thrust
line of the strut. Loss of load capacity at web crushing
was sudden.
In Specimen B2, without confinement, the boundary
elements deteriorated prior to web crushing. Several bars
buckled and concrete was lost from the core of the columns
as loads were cycled. In the last load cycle, the boundary
elements in B2 were about to shear through near the base
when the web crushing occurred.
In Specimen B5, confinement hoops prevented bar buck-
ling and loss of material from the boundary elements. They
also reinforced the boundary elements for shear. Confine-
ment allowed Specimen B5 to sustain 1 more inelastic cycle
at a higher deflection increment than Specimen B2. There-
fore, the maximum measured load was higher in B5. However,
through the first 9 inelastic cycles, the load-deformation
characteristics in B2 and B5 were very similar. The maximum
rotation in B5 was slightly higher and the shear distortion
and construction joint slip slightly lower. Specimen B5 was
repairable simply by replacing the damaged web concrete.
-18-
The maximum shear stress sustained in these four walls
indicates that the concrete contributed to the shear strength.
Even assuming the horizontal reinforcement stressed to an
ultimate 100 ksi, the concrete contribution was at least
from 0.5~fl to 1.3~fr (0.04~fT to O.ll~f', MPa). A more

c c c c
reasonable estimate, based on reinforcement stresses of
75 ksi, would be that the concrete contribution varied from
2~f; to 3~f; (0.17~f; to 0.25~f;, MPa).
-19-
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
Load-Top Deflection Relationships
Load versus deflection envelopes for all specimens are
shown in Fig. 7. The deflection is that at the top of the
specimen. The envelope for each curve was obtained by
passing lines through the peak points of each new maximum
loading cycle.
Moment-Rotation Relationships
Moment versus rotation envelopes for all specimens are
shown in Fig. 8.
As observed by other investigators, (6,7,8) alternate
tensile yielding of the reinforcing steel causes a "growth"
in the hinging region. As a specimen was loaded beyond
yield in one direction and then unloaded, permanent deforma-
tions remained in the tension steel. As the specimen was
loaded in the opposite direction, prior to crack closure,
only the reinforcement was effective in resisting moment.
This steel section had a lower stiffness than the combined
concrete-steel section. As the cracks closed the stiffness
increased. This accounts for "pinching" observed in the
moment-rotation loops. ,An example of "pinched" loops is
shown in Fig. 9.
After several load reversals, the cracks in the compres-
sion side appeared to stay open. They were, in fact, closed
near the outer compression face and were riding on the
debris in the cracks.
-20-
./"
V
0.8Jwh~ V
(M Po) 0.8l 0.8 Jwh#/fI to
I
I ./ ~~ ~85R
(ps I)
8
0,6r
1 //~ 182
6
I
0.4
I
~4
0.2 ~ ]f~~ ~BI~B3
R2
I
. . RI
N
I-' -8 -6 -4 -2 2 4\ 6 8 10 12
I I R2l RI Top Def!., In,
nIt: ...
- 0.2 I- 83
-4
-0.4
-6 SPECIMEN RI R2 BI B3 B4 B2 B5 B5R FI
-0,6 TOTAL
INELASTIC 13 15 14 22 - 9 10 9' 6
-8 CYCLES
x- MOJamum meosured In lost

-0.8 sloble deflection Increment
~IO
hsted In Tobie 3.
-20 -15 . -10 -5 5 10 15 20 '25 30

Top Defl.. em.
Fig. 7 Load versus Top Deflection Envelopes
•
Moment FI
at base I
Kip in. 30000 85R
20000
84
10000 83
I
N
N 0.02
I
RI 0.02 0.04 0.06

81 ~ R2
-.." Rotation 8 3 , Rod .
B3~X ~ 10000
81
'/.. - Maximum measured in last

stable deflection increment
85R" listed in Table 3
Kip = 4 .4 4 8 kN
B5/1L; 10000 in. = 25.4 mm
85
Fig. 8 Moment versus Rotation Envelopes

Moment
at Base t 34
Kip-in. . -':[1
10000
!II
I I
. I
5000
~- M--·:~
2.56' ~I
I
N
w· -0.006 0.004 0.008
I
Rotation,
. 6 1 t Red.
-5000
-10000
34 31
Fig. 9 Example of "pinching" in Moment-Rotation Loops

As shown in Fig. 8, the envelopes for the cyclically
loaded Specimens Bl and B3 exhibit a lower rate of "strain
hardening" than the monotonically loaded Specimen B4.
Increased "growth" with increased inelastic deflections
partially accounts for the reduced rate of "strain hardening".
The growth permitted increasing amounts of rotation to occur
before the cracks closed. With the cracks open, the section
was less stiff than the combined steel-concrete section.
Therefore, higher rotations were attained without appreciable
increase in load. The rate of "strain hardening" is also
affected by:
1. Loss of compression material from abrasion and
crushing.
2. The effect of load reversal on the stress-strain
relationship of the steel.
A comparison of the envelopes for Specimens B3 and B4
in Fig. 8 indicates maximum rotations are less when reversed
loads are applied. Similar comparisons are presented with
the data for each specimen in Appendix B. A calculated
value for the maximum monotonic rotation is used.
As shown by the 'test results in Appendix B, the mono-
tonic moment-rotation relationship is not "the" envelope for
cyclic moment-rotation relationships. It is an upper limit.
Shear~Distortion Relationship
Load versus shear distortion envelopes for all specimens
are shown in Fig. 10. The envelopes indicate that a shear
"yielding" occurred in each specimen during the same load
-24-
II
" Shear 10
p~.
Stress J
8
~
~-
'" 74 6
1.1 I
I • I
82
l-, I '
4
I
N
U1
I 84 83
RI
-0.06 83 -0.04 R2 -0.02 ~I _ 0.02 0.04
~ \ B~ ~ . ~--: Shear Distortion Y JRad.

3
. ""CSI
82
x - Maximum measured in last

-8 stable deflection increment
listed in Table 3
-10 /.0 ~ (psi) = 0.083 ~ (MPa)
Fig. 10 Shear-Distortion Envelopes

stages that flexural yielding occurred. Shear "yielding" is
defined as a large increase in shear distortion correspond-
ing to a small increase in load. This shear "yielding" was
observed in all the specimens including the specimens over-
reinforced for shear and the monotonically loaded Specimen
B4. Yielding of the horizontal reinforcement did not
necessarily coincide with "yielding" observed in the shear-
distortion data.
Shear "yielding" could be partially attributed to loss
of aggregate interlock and a reduction in the dowel stiff-
ness of the tension boundary element as the cracks widened.
However, this "yielding" was also partially caused by large
horizontal strains accompanying the large vertical strains
from flexural yielding across inclined cracks. A component
of the rotation across inclined cracks was contained in the
measured shear distortions.
In addition to the "yielding" described above, a
reduction of shear stiffness occurred in the specimens
subjected to cyclic loading. This has also been observed by

other investigators. (5,6,7) It was attributed to alternate
tensile yielding of the reinforcing steel. As the specimen
was loaded beyond yield in one direction and then unloaded,
permanent deformations remained in the tension steel. As
the specimen was loaded in the opposite direction the shear
was transferred predominantly by dowel action prior to crack
closure. This dowel action had a relatively low stiffness.
As the cracks closed, interface shear transfer plus some
-26-
truss action increased the shear stiffness. The load then
increased with significantly less shear deformation. This
resulted in "pinching" of the sheat-distortion loops as
shown in Fig. 11.
As a wall was repeatedly cycled in the inelastic range,
abrasion due to the interface shear transfer occurred in the
hinging region cracks. At increasingly larger deflection
increments, plastic deformations remaining in the steel
after peak loads were larger. Therefore, increased shear
distortions occurred with just dowel action transferring the
shear before the cracks closed. As a result, increasingly
larger shear deformations occurred in each new cycle.
Shear-Construction Joint Slip Relationship
Load versus base construction joint slip envelopes for
all specimens are shown in Fig. 12. As seen in this figure,
the slip at the base construction joint was approximately
the same order of magnitude for all specimens. However, for
equivalent applied shear stress and number of inelastic
cycles, the rectangular specimens exhibited significantly
more slip than the other cross sections. This slip did not
affect the final failure mode for the rectangular specimens.
The performance of two specimens was affected bi the
behavior of construction joints. In the test of Specimen
BS, deterioration of a portion of the joint at the 3-ft
level caused by improper construction methods may have
precipitated early web crushing. In the test of Specimen
BSR, ~ sliding-crushing failure in the joint at the 3-ft
-27-
II Load,
P '-1:' I II i
I .Kips
60
13-
40
40
~- -~®
38.4"
CD
T
I
IV
00
I
-0.08 0.08
Shear Distortions,
y" Rod.
-20
40
_1~':O
22 -60
Fig. 11 Example of "pinching" in Shear-Distortion Loops

Shear 10
Stress,
.A; 8 1 Ir-- '85 85R
I
I
6
I
---'lo. 82
-CJI
4~V ,83'x-
-+-
\84
2-1f-- -,
lR2 81
I
I\J
~ -0.4 -0.3 -~2 -0.1 -I. 0.1 0.2
I
R2 81 RI 't(,. 1
-2 Slip at CJ I, in.
83
-- -4
* Gage failed in cycle 31
-6 x - Maximum measured in last
stable deflection increment
FI -8 I isted in Table 3
1.0 ~ (psi) =0.083~ (MPa)

I in, =25.4 mm
Fig. 12 Load versus Base,Construction Joint Slip Envelopes

level was the final failure mode. This ~ailure was probably
precipitated by the reduced dowel action resistance of the
boundary elements across this joint. Dowel action of the
columns in BSR was reduced by large cracks resulting from
the large number of inelastic cycles sustained through the
BS and BSR tests.
The data presented for each specimen in Appendix B
~howed that slip at the base construction joint remained a
relatively constant percentage of the shear deflections in
the lower 3-ft (0.91 m) zone. This percentage was, higher in
the rectangular shaped specimens and lower in the barbell
shaped specimens. The barbell shape with confinement hoops
in the boundary elements exhibited the least slip as a
portion of the total deformation.
Ductility
The ductility of a structure is commonly used as a
measure of its inelastic deformation capacity. Ductility is
often defined as the ratio of a specified deformation at a
particular load to that at yield. The use of ductility
ratios in seismic design implies certain limitations that

are discussed by Paulay and Uzumeri. (9)
Figure 13 shows the cumulative top deflection ductility

ratio(lO,ll) versus load for'each specimen. The full yield
deflection was used to calculate the ductilities. From the
inset in Fig. 13, it is apparent that the ductility ratio is
very sensitive to the definition of the yield deflection.

I I I I j I I I j I I .900
200 L
180 800
lli
-u,.-
llr
J 700
85
140
600
82
Load 120 IFI
'FI \185 Load
500
I
w
( kips)
t 82 (kN)
r-'
I 100
400
80
300
60
200
40
83 53
100
20 81
F
a
-300 -200 -100 a 100 200 300
Negative Laad Positive Load
Cumulative Ductility
Fig. 13 Load versus Cumulative Top Displacement Ductility
Comparison of Specimens Bl and B3 in Fig. 13 shows a
beneficial effects of confinement reinforcement on the top
deflection ductility for walls that failed in the flexural
mode. However, a comparison of moment-rotation envelopes in
Fig. 8 shows that confinement reinforcement had little
effect on rotational ductility for Specimens Bl and B3.
For walls that failed in shear, B2 and B5, no increase
in ductility as a result of confinement hoops was observed.
Figure 13 indicates the larger top deflection ductil-
ities obtained for all walls subjected to low shear.
However, even the walls subjected to high shear exhibited
significant ductility capacities. In any case, the duc-
tility must be evaluated in terms of what is required as
well as what can be attained.
Energy Dissipation
The energy dissipation capacity of a structure may also
be used to evaluate the inelastic performance under reversing
loads. The optimum performance would be a maximum amount of
energy absorbed with a corres~onding minimum amount of
deformation. The load-deformation loops should be as open
or as full as possible. A measure of the energy dissipation
capacity should not only relate the amount of energy absorbed
to the amount of energy input, it should relate the energy
absorbed to the level of deformations.
Figures 14 and 15 present the energy dissipation data
for each of the specimens. In these figures, the cumulative
energy absorbed is presented as a percentage of cumulative
-32-
140
63
120
R2
(R' BI
B5R
100
Cum AI %
Cum A2
------
80
t
w
w
I
60
40
LINEAR ENERGY ENERGY
CAPACITY ABSORBED
20
o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1000
CUMULATIVE LINEAR ENERGY CAPACITY (A2 ) IN IN.-;KIPS
Fig. 14 Absorbed Energy versus Cumulative Linear Energy Capacity.

200
160
160
140
RI a,
A2 BI
~
I
w
tl:>o
1 CUM. A, %
CUM. A2
20
o 20 40 60 60 100 120 140 160 160 200 220 240 260 260 300
+ CUMULATIVE DuCTILITY
Fig. 15 Absorbed Energy versus Cumulative Top Displacement Ductility

linear energy capacity. (12) This is defined in the insets
in Fig. 14. This relationship includes a measure of the
stiffness of the specimens.
Figure 14 shows the cumulative percentage of absorbed
energy related to the cumulative linear energy capacity.
The walls subjected to low shear absorbed a larger per-
centage of the cumulative linear energy capacity than did
the walls subjected to high shear. This is expected due to
the lower yield loads and deformations in the specimens
subjected to a low nominal shear stress.
Figure 15 shows the cumulative percentage of absorbed
energy related to the cumulative top displacement ductility.
The difference between the low and high shear specimens is
not as obvious as in Fig. 14 and this difference may not be
significant. As with ductility, the energy dissipation
capacity must be evaluated in terms of what is required as
well as what can be attained.
Repaired Specimen
The reparied specimen strength and deformation capabil-
ities in the inelastic range were similar to the original
specimen.
Free Vibration Tests
The following observations are made on the results of
the free vibration tests.
1. Frequency measured prior to the application of
lateral load ranged from 64% to 82% of the
-35-
frequency calculated based on uncracked section
properties.
2. The measured frequency decreased by an average
factor of 2.2 from the inital tests to the tests
carried out after application of lateral lo~d
cycles near the flexural yield load. For the same
conditions, the average damping coefficient
changed from 3.4% to 8.5% of critical.
3. In general smaller amplitude hammer tests gave
higher frequencies and lower damping coefficients
than "initial displacement-sudden release" tests.
-36-
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are based on the results of
the experimental program.
1. Structural walls designed according to the 1971
ACI Building code(5) without special details for
seismic load will attain the ACI flexure and shear
design strengths~ Also, they possess significant
inelastic deformation capacity when subjected to
reversing loads.
2. For walls subjected to low shear stresses (v

max
<
3.0JTl).
c
2.1 Flexural bar buckling and loss of compression
concrete are the limiting factors in the
inelastic performance. However, a significant
number of inelastic cycles can be sustained
prior to occurrence of bar buckling.
2.2 Large out of plane displacement of the com-
pression zone may limit inelastic performance
of rectangular shaped walls.
2.3 Construction joints will perform adequately
if made following minimum standard practice
of roughening and cleaning the surface to
remove 1aitance and loose par~ic1es. The
amount of shear displacement that occurs
across cracks at construction joint locations
is not any larger than that which occurs
across cracks at other locations.
-37-
3. For walls subjected to high shear stresses (v
max
>
7.Jr ) .
c
3.1 Web shear distress is the limiting factor in
the inelastic performance. However, even in
a wall stressed to 8.8.Jf~, a significant
number of inelastic cycles can be sustained
prior to loss of strength.
3.2 A construction joint made using minimum
standard practice and located at the base of
the wall does not influence the strength of
the specimen. The presence ofa straight,
horizontal construction joint within the
hinging region of a wall subjected to high
shear stresses may limit the inelastic
performance.
4. The use of .stiff boundary elements increases the
inelastic performance of structural walls.
Boundary elements behave as large dowels decreas-
ing shear distortions and construction joint slip.
5. The use of confinement reinforcement in the
boundary elements within the hinging region of a
structural wall significantly increases the
inelastic performance.
5.1 Confinement hoops maintain the integrity of
the boundary elements by delaying bar buck-
ling and containing or confining the concrete
core.
-38-
5.2 Confinement hoops increase the stiffness of
the boundary element against slip across
construction joints.
5.3 Confinement reinforcement limits the extent
of damage to the boundary elements. There-
fore, the wall is easier to repair.
5.4 Confinement reinforcement increases the shear
capacity of the boundary elements.
5.5 High concrete compressive strains may be
generated in the boundary elements of a
structural wall with a high percentage of
flexural steel. Confinement steel provided

in accordance with the 1971 ACI(5) or 1976(13)
UBC Building Code was adequate to maintain
the compressive strength of the boundary
elements of the specimens tested.
5.6 Designing confinement reinforcement based on
a criteria to increase the useable concrete
strain may not be necessary for a wall with
a low percentage of flexural steel. Design
criteria should also be based on spacing to
prevent or delay inelastic bar buckling and
to contain the concrete core.
6. Displacements due to shear distortions are a
significant portion of the total lateral inelastic
displacements in structural walls subjected to
reversed loads.
-39-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This investigation was carried out in the Structural
Development Section of the Portland Cement Association.
Fabrication and testing of the specimens were performed by
the Technical Staff of this Section under the direction of
B. W. Fullhart, Laboratory Foreman. The specimen construc-
tion and instrumentation was the responsibility of Senior
Technicians, R. K. Richter and W. Hummerich Jr., respec-
tively.
The work formed part of a combined experimental and
analytical investigation sponsored in part by the National
Science Foundation through Grant No. GI-43880. M. Fintel,
Director, Engineering Services Department was overall
Project Investigator.
-40-
REFERENCES
1. F intel, M., II Ductile Shear Walls in Earthquake Resistant

Multistory Buildings," ACI Journal, Proceedings, Vol.
71, No.6, June 1974, pp. 296-305.
2. Fiorato, A.E.; Oesterle, R.G. and Corley, W.G., "Earth-

quake Resistant Structural Walls - Strength and Defor-
mation Characteristics of Isolated Walls," To be
Published.
3. Fiorato, A.E.; Oesterle, R.G. and Corley, W.G., "Earth-

quake Resistant Structural Walls - Ductility of Isolated
Walls," To be pUblished.
4. Fintel, M., etal, "Structural Walls in Earthquake_

Resistant Structures - Dynamic Analysis of Isolated
Structural Walls," PCA Report to NSF-RANN, December
1976.
5. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements For Rein-

forced Concrete, ACI Standard 318-71, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, 1971 78 pp.
6. Brown, R.H. and Jirsa, J.O., "Shear Transfer of Rein-

forced Concrete Beams Under Reversed Loading," Shear
in Reinforced Concrete, Vol. 1, Publication SP-42,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1974, pp. 347-
357.
7. Paulay, T. and Binney, J.R., "Diagonally Reinforced

Coupling Beams of Shear Walls," Shear in Reinforced
Concrete, Vol. 2, Publication SP-42, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, 1974, pp. 579-598.
8. Bertero, V.V.; Popov, E.P. and Wang T.Y., "Hysteretic

Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members with
Special Web Reinforcement," EERC Report No. 74-9,
University of California, Berkeley, August 1974, 126
pp.
9. Paulay, T. and Uzumeri, M., "A Critical Review of the

Seismic Design Provisions for Ductile Shear Walls of
the Canadian Code and Commentary," Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, Vol. 2, No.4, 1975, pp. 592-601.
10. Hanson, N.W. and Conner, H.W., "Seismic Resistance of

Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints," Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, ST5, October 1967,
pp. 533-560.
11. Paulay, T. and Santhakumar, A.R., "Ductile Behavior of

Coupled Shear Walls," Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, Vol. 102, STl, January 1976, pp. 93~108.
-41-
12. Freeman, S.A., "Testing Wall Panels for Earthquake
Response," ASCE/FMD Specialty Conference, Dynamic
Response of Structures, UCLA, Los Angeles, March 1976,
pp. 342-351.
13. International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform

Building Code, 1976 Edition, Whittier, California,
1976, pp. 2626.
14. ACI Committee 315, Manual of Standard Practice For

Detailing Reinforced Concrete Structures, ACI Standard
315-74, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1974, 167
pp.
15. ACI Committee 301, Specifications for Structural Con-

crete for Buildings, ACI Standard 301-72, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1972, 36 pp.
16. Ghosh, S.K., "A Computer Program for the Analysis of

Slender Structural Wall Sections Under Monotonic
Loading," Supplement No.2 of PCA Interim Report to
NSF-RANN, August 1975, 99 pp.
17. Kent, D.C. and Park, R., "Flexural Members with Con-
fined Concrete," Proc. of ASCE, Journal of Structural
Division, ST7, July 1971, pp. 1969-1990.
18. Corley, W.G., "Rotational Capacity of Reinforced Con-

crete Beams," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE,
Vol. 92, ST5, October 1966, pp. 121-146.
19. Kaar, P.H.; Fiorato, A.E.; Carpenter, J.E. and.Corley,

W.G., "Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls - Concrete
Confined by Rectangular Hoops," PCA Report to NSF-RANN,
December 1976.
20. Bachmann, H., "Influence of Shear and Bond on Rotational

Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams," Publications,
International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering, Vol. 30, Part II, Zurich, 1970, pp. 11-28.
21. Park, R. and Paulay, T., "Reinforced Concrete Struc-

tures," John Wiley and Sones, Inc., New York, 1975, pp.
307-309.
22. Mattock, A.H., Discussion of "Rotational Capacity of

Reinforced Concrete Beams," by W.G. Corley, Proc. of
ASCE, Journal of Structural Division, Vol. 93, ST2,
April 1967, pp. 519-522.
-42-
NOTATION
Ash = Area of transverse hoop bar (one leg)
E
c
= Modulus of elasticity of concrete
.f~ = Compressive strength of standard 6x12-in. (152x305 rom)
concrete cylinders
f
r
= Modulus of rupture of concrete
f
y
= Yield strength of reinforcement
f
su
= Tensile strength of reinforcement
h = Wall thickness
Q
h
= Maximum unsupported length of rectangular hoop
Q
w
= Horizontal length of wall
sh = Center-to-center spacing of hoops
V = Shear force
V
v = Nominal shear stress = 0.8Q h
w
v
max
= Maximum nominal shear stress
~CJl = Slip at the base construction joint
~Yl = Shear deflection at the 3-ft level
Yl = Average shear distortion in Zone 1, from 0 to 3-ft
(0.91 m) level
Y2 = Average shear distortion in Zone 2, from 3-ft to 6-ft
(0.91 m to 1.83 m) level
Y3 = Average shear distortion in Zone 3, from 0 to 6-ft
(1.83 m) level
E
C
= Strain in concrete at the outer compression faces at
the base of the wall
E
U
= Ultimate compressive strain for concrete
-43-
8
1
= Rotation of the horizontal section approximately 3 in.
(76.2 rom) above the base block
82 = Rotation of the horizontal section approximately 38 in.
(0.97 m) above the base block
8
3
= Rotation of the horizontal section approximately 74 in.
(1.88 m) above the base block
Pf = Ratio of main flexural reinforcement area to the gross
concrete area of the boundary element. For
rectangular sections, the boundary element was taken
to extend 0.1 £ from each end of the wall

w
Ph = Ratio of horizontal shear reinforcement area to the
gross concrete area of a vertical section of the wall
web
Pn = Ratio of'vertical reinforcement area to the gross con-
crete area of a horizontal section of the wall web
Ps = Ratio of effective volume of confinement reinforcement

2A
sh
to total volume of core = Q hSh
-44-
APPENDIX A - EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Test Specimens
Detailed descriptions of the geometry and design of the
nine specimens are given in this section. In addition,
material properties and construction procedures are described.
Description
The overall dimensions of the test specimens are shown
in Fig. A-I and A-2. Height of the wall, from the top of
the base block to the center of the top slab, is 15 ft
(4.57 m). The horizontal length of the wall is 6 ft 3 in.
(1.91 m) and its web thickness is 4 in. (102 rom) .
Three different wall cross-sections have been tested.
These are flanged, barbell.and rectangular sections. The
nomirial cross-sectional dimensions of the three sections are
shown in Fig. A-2.
The 2x4xlO-ft base block shown in Fig. A-I was used to
secure the specimens to the laboratory floor during testing.
The slab on top of the wall, also shown in Fig. A-I was used
to transfer loads to the test specimen. Both the base block
and the top slab were designed to ensure that no premature
termination of the test would occur because of the failure
of the loading or supporting elements.
Design
Vertical Reinforcement. The first step in the design
of the test specimens was to select a nominal percentage of
A-I
36" :::;!t·:~:t . .. -.•. :,.? ......
.;. "';'::'.,4
~
~ ~~.
1
."
I -1:r- 7~" ~~
I a) flanged Seclian
:l- :~ .. ,._. ,
15' -0"
'~El}"" [8 ...L
~
§_,~:········~T··
I
IV
I b I Barbell Section
2' -0"
J. . ". ,.;:.-. .•. • i . :.' .~. 'A:'"

I
4" 1r o· 75"
(C I Reclangular Soclia"
Fig. A-I Nominal Dimensions of Test Specimens Fig. A-2 Nominal Cross-Sectional
Dimensions of Test Specimens
(1 in.=25.4mm)
(1 in.=25.4 mm )
main flexural reinforcement. This was either 1% or 4% based
on the area of the boundary element. For rectangular
sections, the "boundary element" was taken to extend 7.5 in.
(191 rom) from each end of the wall. The percentages of
flexural reinforcement were chosen to give section moment
capacities corresponding to both low and high nominal shear
stresses.
Nominal verti~al web reinforcement provided in the
walls was 0.25% of the gross concrete area of the horizontal
wall section. This is the minimum amount permitted by the
1971 ACI Building Code. (5) Once the nominal vertical rein-
forcement percentages were selected, bar sizes and locations
were determined based on modeling and construction require-
ments.
The moment capacity of the section was calculated
according to Section 10.2 of the 1971 ACI Building Code. (5)
Design yield stress of the steel was taken as 60,000 psi
(414 MPa) and design concrete strength was taken as 6000
psi (41.4 MPa). Strain hardening,of the steel, according to
ACI Code assumptions, was neglected in calculating the
moment capacity.
The vertical reinforcement was continuous from the base
block to the bottom of the top slab. The vertical bars were
lap spliced with the top slab bars in the top 32 in. (0.81 m)
of the wall.
Horizontal Reinforcement. Horizontal shear reinforce-
ment was designed to develop the calculated ACI moment
capacity. The shear design was made according to Section
A-3
11.16 of the 1971 ACI Building Code. (5) However, ACI
minimum reinforcement requirements governed in the low
moment'capacity specimens.
The horizontal reinforcement was placed at a constant
spacing over the height of the wall.
Boundary Element Horizontal Reinforcement. Two designs
were used for horizontal steel in the boundary elements.
The first design, used for unconfined specimens, provided
ordinary column ties designed as lateral reinforcement
according to Section 7.12 of the 1971 ACI Building Code. (5)
The second design, used for confined specimens, pro-
vided rectangular hoop and supplementary crosstie reinforce-
ment in accordance with Section A.6.4 of the 1971 ACI
Building Code. This confinement was placed at a spacing of
1.33 in. (34 mm) over the first 6 ft (1.S3 m) of the wall.
Ordinary column ties were used over the remaining height of
the wall.
Details of Reinforcement. Reinforcing steel details
for the nine specimens are shown in Fig. A-3 through Fig.
A-16. All reinforcing steel was detailed and fabricated

according to standard practice. (5,14)
Anchorage for the horizontal steel was provided by
embedment in the boundary elements plus a standard 90 0 hook
around the outer main flexural steel. Additional anchorage
was provided for the horizontal steel in Specimen B5 by
using one 135 0 hook and one 90 0 hook as shown in Fig. A-S.
The hooks were alternated end for end.
A-4
/
~ I. 6mm @ 9" EF .1 l+-tl- I in. = 25.4 mm

I
LIT H==:l 'a>
Sym. About
It.
rtl
'" p (
I C.J.
I- I-- 112" CL
1--6 mm
(
P
-.-~ ----I--------I~~ J C.J. 6 mm-
p (
:J::' I C.J.
J
U1
-I--I~_--I L '
03
J'"rr
1~-
I
I C.J. NI
~I
, I IIIJ ~1 ~ J -=1
C.J. 15/16"-@i_ ,5/16"
2-116"
'-T "
l\l
IdtJ--·:r tJt]~ tt.
(a) Elevation (b) Cross Section
Fig. A-3 Reinforcement for Specimen Rl

I. 6 mm ® 9" EF .1 I in. = 25.4 mm
~ ~
I :1 'a>
I
N Sym. About
.....
It
I -- C.J.
p ,
, ,
q- w I
.... H 1-0-112 " CL
@
'"'!:' I
l- lL
---- ------ . -- - --w C.J. I L--6mm
....
0 Q)
p ,I
@
6 1-
I ·w
E
E '"
w
:J:'
I ~
0'1 -- - ~
-- -=l=-- C,J.
T
-,.., P , I-
....
,.., N 'w
~ I"'l
N
~ ~
@ Q)
~ .'- --
----- - --g C.J.
0
I
6 mm L.I-r
I-I-
E -<~ ~
E
I w ·w '",
N
I"'l
-", .::!:
r'l
~ ! N
'=1'"
. C.J.
II '~ '.,. I~I~ I~I~

i '
I N
2-1/8"
~. ., .".-.-, -.-.
L·~ ~.~
t.
i!
Fig A-4 Reinforcement for Specimen R2

#4 I \. 6 mm , 9" EF .\
I in. = 25.4 mm
-CD
I I
I ~ Sym.About
N
I"l
- - C.J.
I"l
'"
--- ------- - - - - - -- --- - -LL C.J.
-CD
W
@ CD
I @ 'D
...,
"'
..
:t:' E
I I"l
-J E
a
-- --- - '" C.J.
"<0
I"l
-_. - -_.. _-- f-- ----.---- - ---- --- - C.J.
I <",
I"l
I
C.J.
['U_' . .
N 'q
N
L. •.....-.--r-rr-. . - . ~ .
~
t. ,)
Fig. A-S Reinforcement for Specimen Bl

I in. = 25.4 mm
~~ 19"EF .1 ~
I 4" I
~ Sym. Aboul
I
l-
6mm
I~I - -- C.J.
5/B" CL
C.J.
6mm
:x:-
I
00 C.J.
'-
""'
In"e
<t
C.J. • ~
00
6mm
- -
C.J.
.. _-
1"1-_._-_._~ -~t
l-

Fig. A-6 Reinforcement for Specimens B3 and B4
I in. = 25.4 mm
~~~~~ ~~
I-~-f~-=r--
-00
I
I 4" I
r-::----1 Sym Aboul
'",.., "1 Ii.
II I
I C.J.
1---6 mm
-.0
,..,
! 5/S" CL
+--------+---HI----II-- ..... I C.J.
CD w
'<t
@
@] <0
,..,
6mm--..
,I,
..
~
~ E
I ,.., E !
~ a .0
I C.J
pi
I
<0 J I I '- '{
,.., -::: J
r:::r lUi y I-i- I
"."CLo i ',..,
- I
p- L -- - j
I C.J.
J II '<t
"\
to
.,.., f-"V -,..,
~I
b b I.
-t="'<S' . -f'I" ~~
JD'~ I
CJ
Jill ··lli.J,,, JI ,. -
..i~LI
L~ .t TItlrtt
~ ~L~
It.
Fig. A-7 Reinforcement for Specimen B2

#6 6 mm (Q 9" EF ! in. = 25.4 mm
~ '(Xl
I I
- I
N 4"
'"
m Sym.obOUI
I It;.
C.J.
.
( Xl
pl f--6mm o 0
I
@ .<D
'"
.'!' '" f-- 5/B" CL
'"0 ~ o 0
--- ...w C.J.
"<I"
, 6 mm, ollernote
@ <D
I loeolion of 90·
;l:I '" ondl~
- E ends. o 0
I E
...... 10 , i<l
r--- ~
~ r---
o ~ C.J. D l 1- u
ur-:- fJ \. f-'~
1/2" CL- ' - i<J
, , 10 1- h
., p Alternate loeolions
'":::, '".... iD !'> ! V N of 90· and 135·
N N
'" - (
'" \. hook ends. Turn 90"
6mm_ I~ fJ
@ I:V'"~ leg 0 minimum 45·
'"
I=- h ------
n tl r 10 horizontal.
-g ---
0
C.J.
.&:
6mm
E ",,13" I
I E
'10 I
~ 13" ""I
'",
'" '" -c=:r
1 b) CROSS SECTION AT LEVEL OF 6 mm C) CROSS SECTION AT LEVEL
C.J. HORIZONTAL BARS BETwEEN 6 mm HORIZONTAL BARS.
1 q.:::,
N
'"
..:... - , ..
i
a) Elevation
Fig. A-8 Reinforcement for Specimens B5 and B5R

#4 !I I 6mm \a) 9" EF I~ I in. :0 25.4 mm
I 'j
I .
fN
r<l
I C,J.
wr<l
I 4' I
- .---_.-- ----_.~--
...w - - -I - C.J.
'-w ("""' -- - ····1
N
::::,
I r<l -w J
r<l
@
- 5/8" CL
~
I E
t-' --._--- E
w C.J.
/-' 6mm-
.~
-w I"-
..,
r<l
--6mm
~. ~------- - - C.J_
I
I
I w
r<l
'.""""'i- 11J.-... .-,.. ,.
~'---.1 I H"
.. , C.J,
1-3/4.CL-~~=.- JCl~ ~L
-:g: r-- 28 .q (Ol 2.'/2"1.-1/2 [f
r<l -v
L·~~ ................. . -'

-.1-. --.l J ~ N
l. ---- _._--~--_._---------------
36"
-1
----
or.
Fig. A-9 Reinforcement for Specimen FI

Fig. A-IO Reinforcing for Specimen RI
Fig. A-II Reinforcing for Specimen BI
A-12
Fig. A-12 Reinforcing for Specimen B3
A-13
~:- 82 I
..~ ~.JiiJIIf
I
A-14
Fig. A-16 Reinforcing for Specimen FI
A-lS
Confinement reinforcement was detailed according to
Section A.6.4.3 of the 1971 ACI Building Code(S) for
Specimens R2, B3 and B4. A ten bar diameter extension was
used on all confinement steel hooks. Each end of the
supplementary cross ties had a 'semicircular hook.
This hoop and crosstie arrangement was found to be
difficult to assemble. Each hoop and crosstie set had to be
pre-assembled and then slipped over the vertical boundary
element steel from the top of the specimen.
To eliminate this assembly problem the supplementary

0
crossties for Specimen BS were detailed with one 135 hook
0
and one 90 hook as shown in Fig. A-S. This arrangement
permitted placement of crossties after the hoop was in place
around the vertical steel. Also, supplementary crossties
parallel to the plane of the web were not provided at levels
where the horizontal web steel tied into the columns. The
unsupported length of the hoop used in the calculations for
the volumetric ratio was the length from the perpendicular
leg of the hoop to a point one-half way between the supple~
mentary crossties.
Material Properties
Concrete. A concrete mix using a maximum aggregate
size of 3/S'in. (9.5 rom) was selected for the walls. Type I
cement, sand, and coarse aggregate were combined to provide
concrete with a slump of 3 ~ 1/2 in. (76.2 ~ 12.7 rom).
Aggregate gradation curves for ,the sand and coarse aggregate
are given in Fig. A-17.
A-16
Sieve No,
100 r-'='y-::--,--"'-T"------"-r----.--'T---rr---+--........:;..---4----.-.-:i---,
Sand
f
80 I
Coarse Aggregate I
I
Percent
I
Passing, 60
I
By I
Weighl I
I
I
40 I
I
,/
,/ ""
20 ,/
,/
,/
,/
ODS
"
O~--'-----;:;~-=----L.--:::-:d-'=-==--7I-?------L----ll------lI.---....L--l
IQO
Sieve Opening, mm
Fig. A-17 Aggregate Gradation Curve
7000
6000
40
5000
30
Siress,
Stress,
MPa,
psi
3000 20
2000
10
1000
Slrain, millionths
''-.
Fig. A-IS Stress versus Strain Relationship

For Concrete
A-17
Physical properties of the concrete used in each
specimen are given in Table A-l. Compressive strength and
modulus of elasticity of the concrete were determined from
compressive tests on 6x12-in. (lS2x30S mm) cylinders. The
modulus of rupture was determined from tests on 6x6x30-in.
(lS2xlS2x762 mm) beams. A representative stress-strain
relationship for the concrete is shown in Fig. A-1S.
Reinforcement. In the specimens, No.3, No.4 and
No. 6 bars conforming to ASTM Designation A61S Grade 60 were
used as reinforcement. Deformed 6 mm hot rolled bars with
properties similar to Grade 60 were also used. Deformed
wire, size D-3, was used to represent smaller bar sizes.
This wire was heat-treated to obtain stress-strain charac-
teristics similar to those of Grade 60 bars.
The physical properties of the reinforcement used in
the test specimens are summarized in Table A-2. Represen-
tative stress-strain relationships for the reinforcement are
shown in Fig. A-19.
Construction
Test specimens were constructed in the vertical posi-
tion. Figure A-20 shows Specimen Bl during construction.
The formwork system shown in Fig. A-21 was designed to
facilitate construction. Stationary formwork served to
maintain the vertical position of the specimen. Each wall
was cast in six lifts as shown in Fig. A-22.
At the start of construction, a heavy reinforcing cage
for the base block was constructed. This cage was placed on
A-1S
TABLE A-I CONCRETE PROPERTIES FOR TEST SPECIMENS (1)
Compressive Modulus of Modulus of

Age Strength Rupture Elasticity
At Test f' f E
r c 6
Specimen (days) (PSif(2) (psi) (psi x 10 )
Rl 48 6490 655 4.03

R2 54 6735 650 3.89
Bl 55 7685 730 4.08
B3 54 6860 635 3.96
B4 68 6530 -680 4.10
B2 47 7775 710 4.20
B5 52 6570 625 3.97
B5R(3) 36 6205 525 4.01
Fl 68 5575 635 3.69
(1) Average properties for lower 6 ft (1.83 m) of wall

(2) 1000 psi = 1.0 ksi = 6.895 MPa
(3) Average properties for replaced web concrete
A-19
TABLE A-2 REINFORCING BAR PROPERTIES FOR TEST SPECIMENS
Specimen
Size Properties
R1 R2 B1 B3 B4 B2 B5 F1
f (ksi) 66.0 70.4 68.7 69.0 73.8 67.1 69.2 69.7

y
f (ksi) 72.0 76.2 75.1 76.8 78.8 74.4 75.4 76.6
su
03*
6
E (psi x 10 ) 30.6 28.3 33.0 32.5 28.4 33.8 31. 2 32.8
s
E1ong. (%) 5.9 11.1 11. 0 8.9 10.8 9.4 10.1 10.3
f (ksi) 75.7 77.6 75.5 69.4 73.2 77.2 72.8 76.2

Y
f (ksi) 101. 5 100.2 100.8 95.5 98.8 101. 6 97.4 102.2
su
6l1Wl**
E (psi x 10 6 ) 31.4 32.6 32.5 30.4 31.9 32.1 31. 4 31.3
s
E1ong. (%) 12.2 12.4 10.7 11.7 12.6 10.2 12.1 10.4
f
y
(ksi) 74.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
No. 3
f su (ksi) 111.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Es
6
(psi x 10 ) 27.8 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
E1ong. (%) 9.8 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
f
Y
(ksi) -- 65.3 65.2 63.5 65.3 -- -- 64.5
f
su
(ksi) -- 102.7 102.7 101.0 102.5 -- -- 102.6
-- I 28.1
No. 4
E
s
(psi x 10 )
6
-- 26.9 28.3 25.9 27.5 --
E1ong. (% ) -- 12.3 11. 7 10.9 i1. 8 -- -- 11.5
f
y
(ksi)
-
-- -- -- -- -- 59.5 64.4 --
No. 6
f
su
(ksi) -- -- -- -- -- 100.8 106.4 --
E
s
(psi x 10 )
6
-- -- -- -- -- 30.2 29.5 --
E1ong. (% ) -- -- -- -- -- 13.3 13.2 --
*A = 0.03 sq. in. db = 0.195 in.
**A = 0.05 sq. in. db = 0.25 in.
1000 psi = 1.0 ksi = 6.895 MPa.
A-20
100....--------.--------.--------
1
'600
Stress,
80 /03
-
ksi
"No.6 400
Stress,
MPo.
200
20
a 5000 10000 15000

Strain, millionths
Fig. A-19 Stress Versus Strain Relationship

for Reinforcement
~I
Fig. A-20 Specimen Bl During Construction
A-2l
Il:::;<·~tifZ7L
_ _ Stationary
D' Formwork
','
."
Wall Specimen
, Spine Slab
','
:;.
;.i:a
./
:t>'
.
O'
I Removable _ ...
IV
IV Formwork
>:.
;.
:.:"
"
~
...'
:?
, .
., .
.-
fst Uft
Hinged Base
"1:¥'{J:j~DJf~{
" .. '0 ",;';';'
''';''''':''~'7:;7':~]
Jack ".<>\..;"'~k..<.;:,.
~~~ds·:t4t&t'9N@'.
*'-
Fig. A-21 Formwork System for Casting Fig. A-22 Lift Designations for Casting
Test Specimens Test Specimens
the level base platform of the formwork. The vertical wall
reinforcement was then placed in the base cage and supported
against the stationary formwork. After the vertical rein-
forcement was secured, the base block was cast. This
casting was designated Lift 1.
Following casting of the base block, the construction
joint was prepared and the horizontal reinforcement for Lift
2 was placed. Then the removable formwork for Lift 2 was
set, and Lift 2 was cast. Subsequent wall lifts were con-
structed in the same manner. The wall lifts were 36 in.
(0.91 m) in height.
construction joints between lifts were made following
,standard practice. (15) The surface of the concrete was
roughened with a cold chisel, and cleaned of laitance and
loose particles prior to placing adjoining concrete. The
construction joints are designated CJl through CJ5 as shown
in Fig. A-22.
The sixth lift was cast in two segments. First, the
wall segment was cast in the morning, then the slab segment
was cast in the afternoon. The delay between segments was
to avoid problems caused by plastic skrinkage.
Approximately two days after casting the sixth lift,
the removable formwork was stripped. Following this opera-
tion, a special lifting rig was placed on the specimen.
This rig allowed the specimen to be lifted through rods
attached to the base block. Prior to lifting, the base
platform of the formwork was rotated to tilt the specimen
away from the stationary formworki thus essentially stripping
A-23
the specimen from the stationary form. The specimen could
then be lifted away from the stationary formwork and placed
in position on the test floor.
Repaired Specimen
As shown in Fig. A-23, the web of Specimen B5 was
considerably damaged after completion of testing. However,
the columns were in very good condition. The outer shell
had spalled off the lower 3 to 6 in. (76.2 to 152.4 rom) of
the compression face of the columns, but the confined cores
were intact. The maximum measured crack widths in the
columns during testing were 0.075 in. (1.91 rom) on the
tension side and 0.023 in. (0.58 rom) on the compression side
at peak lateral load. After completion of the test, the
average increase in vertical length of the lower 3 ft of
wall was 0.49 in. (12.5 rom). The average increase in
vertical length of the second 3 ft (0.91 m) of wall was
0.42 in. (10. 7 rom). No reinforcing steel had fractured or
buckled. It was decided that this specimen could be
repaired and retested.
Repair procedures were chosen to provide the simplest
and least expensive repair that would restore reasonable
strength and ductility to the wall.
As shown in Fig. A-24, the web concrete was removed up
to the 8 ft 6 in. (2.6 m) level. The reinforcing steel was
left intact. No new steel was added. The columns were
rubbed with a soap stone to remove loose particles.· The web
to base block and web to column joint surfaces were
roughened to remove any loose material.
A-24
.'
I~'l""
f ':.. ::~:' ,
I j A/.' .' .
,'I",!, ~
.>:-------~'
•. 1l"~'
,
I J
'1---
Fig. A-23 Specimen B5 After Fig. A-24 Specimen B5R With

Lateral Load Test Web Concrete Removed
Fig. A-25 Formwork for New Web Concrete
A-25
New web concrete was cast in 3 ft (0.91 m) lifts. The
formwork for the web is shown in Fig. A-2S. The last
several inches near the top joint were hand packed with a
stiff mix from one side of the wall. After the forms were
stripped, this joint was hand rubbed with a sand-cement
mortar.
Although tapping with a hammer indicated that the shell
of the columns was loose in several areas, this concrete was
not removed. Only the areas shown in Fig. A~26 and Fig. A-27
at the base of the column where the outer shell had crushed
were repaired. These areas were roughened to remove loose

.-
particles and then a stiff sand-cement mortar was hand
packed into place. The remaining areas of the columns were
given a cosmetic repair by hand rubbing a neat cement paste
over the surface of the cracks.

-
Figure A-28 shows the Specimen BSR after completion of
the repairs.
Lateral Load Test Setup
Loading System
The apparatus for testing the walls is shown in Fig.
A-29. A'photograph of test set up is shown in Fig. A-30.
Each test specimen was post-tensioned to the floor
using eight 1-3/8 in. (34.9 rom) diameter Stressteel bars.
Loads were applied to the specimen as a vertical canti-
lever with concentrated forces at the top. Hydraulic rams
on each side of the specimen alternately applied force to
first one side then the other side of the top slab. Reactions
A-26
Fig. A-26 Base of Left Column Fig. A-27 Base of Left Column
Prior to Repairs After Repairs
Fig. A-28 Specimen B5R After Completion

of Repairs
A-27
/..- Aemo1e Support Column Load Transfer Block
___ Load Cell Tie Rods"'!'.. Hydrculic Ram --_~ . . "
---;;---fB:;-'-"'-;;-'-'--~=~~. ~
----~--
L....,r+t----...,+-1---
Reference
Plane
Displacement
Gages
Specimen
Displacement
Gages
Reference Plane Tesl Floor.-// Infdled Reoclion Frome J

Fig. A-29 Test Apparatus
Fig. A-30 Isolated Wall Testing Arrangement
A-28
from the applied loads were transferred to the test floor
through a large infilled reaction frame. This load transfer
occurred directly when the rams closest to the reaction
frame were activated, and indirectly through the remote
support column and tie rods, when the rams farthest from the
reaction frame were activated. A system of one or two rams
on each side of the specimen was used depending on the
anticipated capacity of each specimen. The hydraulic rams
have a capacity of 200 kips (890 kN) and a stroke of 36 in.

/
(0.91 m). At each end of the ram, a clevis bracket and pin
arrangement formed a link assembly.
Instrumentation
Loads. During each test, the applied lateral load was
measured and recorded by two methods. In the first method,
a load cell was attached to one end of each ram. The load
cell readings were recorded as discrete points at each load
stage during testing. In the second method, pressure cells
were attached to the two hydraulic pressure lines for each
set of rams. A continuous plot of the pressure cell read-
ings versus the top wall deflection was made during testing.
External Instrumentation. A system of external gages
as shown in Fig. A-3l was attached to each specimen.
These gages were mounted on independent reference
planes on each side of the specimen. They were used to
determine deflections, rotations, shear distortions, and
reference plane movement. In addition, 3 dial gages were
mounted on the specimen to determine slip at construction
joints. A-29
-,.:".,:":::": :-,::;,.:-:,,;.
Reference
Plon~
Reference
Plane
Displacement
Gages
~
I
LV
o
t:i;!f::\WX%\~f~~~t}tcf2Wii·~ij:?J):\W:t;;~;~'::iW;){j' !;:;\@§:iK'Mi'\1:{ 0m};M~e?;)Y~/i·>:{:;?

Reference Plane Test Floor/
Fig. A-3l External Gages

All horizontal and vertical displacement measurements
were made using linear potentiometers and direct current
differential transducers (DCDT's). These gages have
resolutions from 0.001 in. to 0.003 in. (0.025 rom to
0.076 rom).
measured at seven levels as shown on Fig. A-3l. Gages 7 and
8 measured horizontal movement of the base block. Gages 22,
23, and 9 through 15 measured horizontal movement of the
wall. For the lower three levels, measurements were made at
each end of the wall.
Rotations. Rotations were measured at four levels on
the specimen. The first was the rotation of the top of the
base block. This rotation was obtained using triangulation
calculations from the output of Gages 7 and 16, and Gages 8
and 17.
Rotations in the lower 6 ft (1.83 m) of the wall were
obtained by measuring vertical displacements along each end
of the wall. Three sets of measurements were made. The
first set was made using Gages 5 and 6 between the top of
the base block and the bottom of the wall over a nominal
gage length of 3 in. (76.2 rom). The other two sets of
measurements were made over nominal gage lengths of 36 in.
(0.91 m) using Gages 1 and 2, and Gages 3 and 4. An
independent check on the output of Gages 1, 2, 3 and 4 was
obtained using triangulation calculations from the output of
Gages 9 and 18, 10 and 19, 11 and 20, and Gages 12 and 21.
A-3l
Movement of the reference planes was monitored using
Gages 24 and 25 as shown in Fig. A-31. Gage 24 measured the
relative horizontal movement be.tween the tops of the
reference planes.
Shear Distortions. An indication of shear distortions
was obtained over two zones in the lower 6 ft (1.83 m) of
the wall. The first zone was from the top of the base block
to the 3 ft (0.91 m) level. The second zone was from the
3 ft level to the 6 ft level.
The horizontal and vertical movement of Points A
through·F in Fig. A-32 were determined from the displacement
gages previously described. From this data, the changes in
length of the diagonals d through d were calculated.

l 4
It can be seen in Fig. A-33a that the length of the
diagonals does not change in an element subjected to pure
flexure. Also, as shown in Fig. A-33b, the length change of
diagonals is equal and in the same direction for each
diagonal in vertical or lateral expansion. For shear
distortions, however, the change in length of the diagonals
is in opposite directions. As shown in Fig. A-34, their
change in length can be related to shear distortions by:
= (A-I)
Shear distortions calculated as described above cannot
be considered exact values in a reinforced concrete element.
Because of cracking, plane sections not remaining plane, and
the existence of a moment gradient across the element, these
shear distortions can only be considered as approximate

values.
A-32
a
A d=d'
v
E. .... .J't
F
CJ.3 ......... .......
" ....... / .... 36" a) Flelture
......... >,<d4
C. ..... ......... """d 3 ' ........., aD
CJ.2 ......... .......
......... , ;,...--""'"
......... >,~d2
A_ ............
....... \ dl , ....... loeB
CJ.I ,-'-
b) Expansion
Fig. A-32 Points Measured for Fig. A-33 Length of Diagonal

Shear Distortions in Element
y =~
R h
8 r d r - 82 d2
YAvg. = 2h.l
I. .1
Fig. A-34 Calculation of Shear Distortions
A-33
As can be seen in Fig. A-32, the shear distortions
measured in the lower 3 ft (0.91 m) zone include the slip at
construction joints CJl and CJ2. The shear distortions in
the upper 3 ft zone include the slip at construction joint
CJ3.
~lip_a! ~o~str~cti~n_J~i~t~. Dial gages 31, 32 and 33

as shown in Fig. A-31 were used to measure relative slip at
construction joints CJ1, CJ2 and CJ3. These gages have a
sensitivity of 0.001 in. (.025 nun).
Crack Widths. Crack widths were measured during
testing across selected cracks in the lower 6 ft (1.83 m) of
the web and boundary elements~ These measurements were
obtained using a hand microscope containing a scale with
gradations of 0.001 in. (0.025 rom).
Internal Instrumentation. Strain gages were placed on
both vertical and horizontal reinforcement. The basic
strain gage layout is shown in Figs. A-35 and A-36. In
addition, strains were measured on several of the hoops and
supplementary crossties of the confinement reinforcement of
Specimens B3, B4 and B5.
Recording Equipment. Output from load cells, potentio-
meters, DCDT's and strain gages was recorded as discrete
points at each load stage using a VIDAR Digital Data Aquisition
System.
Raw test data for Specimens Rl, R2, Bl, B2, B3 and Fl
was stored on printed and punched paper tape. The data was
transferred from punched paper tape to disc storage to
A-34
,HI f1l'
If
I in. = 25.4 mm.
rf
It
19 ~ _ <t> . .
: -~
I I ~ ""
I
0 ~W+-+--~ I
~
(0) Specimen FI
=
w
I")
Gaged Vertical Bar
@ I--l-lI-P--I----I--~.-I---_i ~ I ~ t· Gaged Horizontal Bar
'-
=
~ Horizontal Bar w
I I")
w Strain Gage _______
Ul (b) Specimen BI • B3 8 B4
® ~
~
eX)
»-1 ". - I ~ -lI-HI-Ii t

-
eX)
@Ve,tioa' • -1"-+-11 (~ 1 <P • --, <j>

Sf ..;" Gag.
G) Ba, ~I t"H1 _ I 1"1 . ~"'_ ~._ ~. -~=;;
- - -
~. ~ - <l> i-"'--
I i I
®~---
8 _: : .;=
m
(c) Specimen B2 8 B5
~·=lt"'~k-
rtf u8- -~ -=.-:----<? 1 :_~-usr=y:
WllllilJ'L-
( d) Specimen R I 8 R2
Fig. A-35 Strain Gage Locations in Fig. A-36 Strain Gage Locations In
Elevation of Test Specimens Cross Section of Test
Specimens
facilitate reduction using a Meta 4 Digital Computer.
Reduced data was then transferred to magnetic tape cassette
storage for analysis using an HP9830 calculator.
Raw test data for Specimens B4, B5 and B5R was stored
on printed tape and transferred from the VIDAR directly into
an HP9830 calculator for immediate reduction. Reduced data
was then stored on magnetic tape cassettes for later analysis.
Data from the construction joint slip gages and crack
width measurements were hand recorded.
Photographic Equipment. A complete photographic record
was kept for each test. Color slides and black and white
photographs were taken at selected load stages throughout
the testing. In addition, three time-lapse movie cameras
running at one frame per second recorded each cycle of
loading.
Test Procedures
Loading. A loading increment consists of three complete,
reversed cycles at a specific maximum load or deflection.
The second and third cycles were used as a measure of
stability of the specimen performance within a loading
increment.
The specimens were initially loaded in equally increasing
force increments. The increments were determined by dividing
the calculated yield load by three or four so that the first
increment was below the cracking load. After the first
cracking increment was applied, a reduced load increment
A-36
equal to the pre-cracking load was applied again. The force
increments were then increased until the yield level was
reached.
Subsequent to yielding, loading was controlled by
increasing deflection increments. The deflection was con-
trolled by manually closing a value in the hydraulic pres-
sure line when the desired deflection was reached. Within
the post yield loading sequence, a reduced load increment
was applied. Deflection increments were increased until
extensive damage was produced and the load capacity was con-
siderably reduced.
Data Recording. Each point at which a VIDAR reading
was taken is termed a load stage. Several load stages were
used in the first cycle of each load increment. A sufficient
number were used in the first cycle to reasonably define the
load versus displacement loops with discrete points. In the
second and third cycles of each increment, load stages occur
only at the zero and peak loading points.
Free Vibration Test Methods
Free vibration tests were conducted at selected stages
as the number and magnituqe of the reversed lateral load
cycles applied to the specimen were increased. These tests
were carried out to determine the frequency and damping
characteristics of the specimens.
Tests were performed using two methods. In the first,
specimens were tested using an "initial displacement-sudden
release" method. The force used to displace the wall was
lower than the calculated cracking load. In the second,
A-37
small amplitude tests were performed using the impact force
of an 8 lb. (3.63 kg) hammer to initiate vibrations. Plots
of displacement of the top of the wall versus time were used
to compute the natural frequency and logarithmic decrement.
The damping coefficient was calculated from the logarithmic
decrement.
A-38
APPENDIX B - TEST RESULTS
Introduction
In this section the methods used for analysis and
presentation of the data from the tests are described in
general. The results from each lateral load test are then
presented in detail. The specimen behavior during testing
is described and the resulting data is presented and
discussed. The results of the free vibration tests are not
presented separately for each specimen but are summarized at
the end of this appendix.
Data Presentation and Analysis
Loading History
Loads and deflections applied to'"each specimen are
plotted versus cycle number. First yield and full yield
loads and deflections are indicated on these figures.
First yield load is defined as the first load at which
a yield strain was measured in the boundary element tensile
reinforcement. It was determined by monitoring specific
strain gages during loading.
Full yield load is defined as the load at which all of
the main tensile reinforcement in the boundary element had
yielded. It was determined from interpolation between
measured strains at load stages before and after full yield.
In the specimen loading history, an inelastic cycle is
defined as a complete reversed load cycle during which both
the load and deflection exceeded the first yield level.
B-1
Load-Deflection Relationships
Two continuous load-deflection figures are presented
for each test. The first figure shows the initial cycles
with first cracking indicated. The second figure shows the
cycles for the entire test. Included in these figures are
indications of yield loads and failure modes. This is the
only figure for each specimen that includes all loading
cycles for the specimen. Other load-deformation type
figures show only the first cycle of each loading increment.
These cycles are numbered on the figures.
Moment-Rotation Relationships
Reversing Load. The reversing moment-rotation data are
shown for each specimen at three levels. These are the base.
level, the 3-ft (0.91 m) level ~nd the 6-ft (1.83 m) level.
The fixed body rotation at the top of the base block is
subtracted out of the data used for these figures. However,
rotations due to slip of the flexural steel anchored within
the base block are included in the rotations. The moment
plotted in all cases is the moment at the base level.
Monotonic Load. One of the objectives of the experi-
mental program was to compare the behavior of specimens
subjected to reversing load with the behavior under monotonic
loading. To partially accomplish this, Specimen B4 was
constructed similar to Specimen B3 and tested with monotonic
loading. Specimen B4 was also similar to Specimen Bl, with
the exception that Bl did not have confinement reinforcement
B-2
in the boundary elements. Therefore, the results for
Specimen B4 are included on all plots for Specimens Bl and
B3.
Since cost and time prohibited a monotonic test for
each of the other types of specimens, a calculated moment-
rotation relationship was used to extend the reversed
loading versus monotonic loading comparison to other
specimens.
To obtain the calculated moment-rotation relationship,
a computer analysis of each cross section was performed to
obtain a moment-curvature relationship. (16) Analysis of
sections was based on satisfying applicable conditions of
equilibrium and strain compatibility. A linear distribution
of strain over the section was assumed. Measured material
properties were used. The analysis considered complete
stress-strain relationships for concrete and steel, including
strain hardening of the reinforcement and the effect of
confinement in the concrete compression block. The Kent and
Park(17) relationship was used for the confined concrete
stress-strain relationship.
The maximum calculated curvature was determined by
either concrete crushing or reinforcing steel fracture. For
unconfined concrete, the limiting concrete strain, g , at

u
the compression face was taken as g
u
= 0.004. For confined
concrete, the limiting strain for the compression face was

determined from an expression developed by W. G. Corley. (18,19)
eu = O. 00 3 + t~: y) 2 (B-1 )
B-3
where: p
s
= the volumetric ratio of confinement reinforcement
f
y
= the yield stress of confinement reinforcement
in ksi.
Fracture of the reinforcing steel was assumed to occur at a
strain equivalent to the measured elongation from reinforce-
ment tension tests.
In reinforced concrete flexural members, inelastic
curvature spreads over a hinge length, Q • Therefore, the

p
theoretical curvature d~s~ribution corresponding to the
actual moment distribution is not accurate. An effective
curvature distribution must be determined. Rotations at a
specific level can then be calculated by integrating the
effective curvature dist~ibution over·the length involved.
Two different methods were used to determine an effec-
tive curvature distribution. One method shown in Fig. B-1
was used to include the effect of diagonal shear cracking on
the spread of the hinging region. It was used for specimens
Bl, B2, B3, B4, B5 and Fl. A hinge length, Q , was deter-
p
mined visually from the crack pattern of each specimen.
This was the height at which the steepest diagonal crack
extending from the base compression zone intercepted the
centroid of the tension boundary element as shown in
Fig. B-1. Based on equilibrium of the forces in the hinge

region, Bachmann(20,21) presented a relationship for deter-
mining force in the tensile reinforcement. Using this
relationship, the effective moment for flexural steel
tension is:
B-4
Actual Bending
Moment Diagram
Effective
Moment--"'" Actual
Curvature
Effective
Curvature
Fig. B-1 Curvature Distribution for Specimens

With Inclined Cracking
Actual Bending
Moment Diagram
p
Effective
Curvature
Actual
Curvature
Z=
180"
My
Fig. B-2 Curvature Distribution for Specimens

With Predominantly Flexural Cracking
B-5
For 0 < X < Q
P
M (B-2 )
x
For Q <X < 180 in.

p
M
x = MQp - P(x - Q
p) (B-3)
Where: M
B = Moment at the base
M
x
= Effective moment at a distance X from the base
= Effective moment at Q
p
from the base
= M
B
- 2d
P = Total lateral load
= Vs /P
V
s
= Lateral load taken by stirrups across a
45 degree crack.
The calculated curvature related to this effective moment
distribution was used to calculate rotations at each level.
A second method was used for specimens with predominately
flexural cracking. This was used for specimens Rl and R2.
A hinge length Q was determined from Mattock's(22) equation:

p
Q
P
= 0.5d + 0.05Z (B-4 )
Where: d = effective depth
Z = distance along the span from section of maximum
moment to adjacent section of zero moment.
After the yield moment was reached at the base, the effective
curvature distribution shown in Fig. B-2 was used to calculate
rotations.
B-6
The rotation, calculations described above were per-
formed only to obtain an estimate of monotonic rotation
behavior. In both methods, no attempt was made to include
the effects of bond slip and variation of steel strain
between cracks. In the method used for diagonally cracked
specimens, only the tensile strains are directly related to
the effective moment distribution and plane sections do not
remain plane. The calculated curvature is only approxi-
mately related to the effective moment at a section. There-
fore, the calculated monotonic rotations should only be
considered approximate values. However, the calculated
monotonic strengths should be accurate estimates.
The calculated monotonic rotations for Specimen B4 are
compared with the measured rotations in Fig. B-3.
The calculated maximum strength of 74.3 kips (330.5 kN)
is in very close agreement with the measured, strength of
75.3 kips (334.9 kN).
The calculated rotation at the base level is consider-
ably lower than the measured. This is as expected since a
major portion of the measured rotation at the base is due to
the steel strain within the base block. This would be true
in all test specimens. Therefore, no further attempt was
made to compare calculated and measured rotations at the
base level.
Calculated rotations at the 3-ft (0.91 m) and 6-ft
(1.83 m) level overestimate the measured rotations. This is
the direction of error to be expected considering the assump-
tions made in the calculations. However, the calculated
B-7
__--~15~_~-~-~~----------
--- ..
Moment
19 '
, , ,,,,.,,J
at Bose,
Kip-in.
--- Ec ' 0,0054 < Eu
CalculQred
MOf"lQIOnic
002 004 006
a) At 6 ft. Level Rotation.

El • Rod,
3
15
--- -~-- ----------
Moment ~---~9'--
o~ Bos8.
, , ,,,,,,,,J
Kip~in.
Ec • 0.0054 < Eu
5000
Colculared
Monotordc
001 002 QOJ 0,04 005

Rotation,
b) At 3 ft. Level e 2 • Rod,
15
19
Momsnr
at Bo •• ,
Kip .. in.
10000
~r
FroclurI!'
Ec ':lQ,0054< Eu
111.=0.305 m
'I'II :I I in.= 25.4 mm
I ' I I kip= 4.448 kN
/ J
----- Calculated
~cnolonic
0002 0006 OCIO
c) At Base Level Rotation,

e,. nod,
Fig. B-3 Moment at the Base Versus

Rotation for Specimen B4
B-8
maximum rotation is in reasonable agreement with measured at
both the 3-ft and 6-ft levels. Therefore, the plots of
calculated monotonic rotation at these two levels were
superimposed on measured reversed load rotation plots for
each specimen.
It should be noted that these calculated rotations are
not intended to be an estimate of rotations in specimens
under reversed loading. They are intended to be an estimate
of rotations under monotonic loading. They are shown on the
figures to demonstrate the effects of reversed loading on
strength, ductility and rotation.
Shear Distortion Relationships
Shear distortion plots are shown for each specimen over
three zones as indicated in Fig. B-4. Zone 1 is from the
top of the base block to the 3-ft level. Zone 2 is from the
3-ft level to the 6-ft level. The shear distortions in
these two zones were calculated from measured deformations
as previously described in the section on instrumentation.
In order to present the average shear distortion over
what is considered the hinging region, a third zone is
defined. Zone 3 is from the top of the base block to the
6-ft level. Using the notation defined in Fig. B-4 the
average shear distortion in Zone 3 was calculated from the
distortions in Zones 1 and 2 by:
(B-5 )
B-9
• , .--)
J
I
I
,
r
I
,I
I
I
I
I
,,I r
J
)
I .L,
-,! + /
y,"
2 A
,- - I I
Zone 2
Zone 3
/ ./ 'Y3
,/ y'"
I ~ II Zone I
Fig. B-4 Location of Shear Distortion

Measurements
B-10
Slip at Construction Joints
Load versus slip plots are shown for each specimen at
Construction Joints CJl, CJ2, and CJ3. The base construc-
tion joint data is an accurate representation of slip at the
base joint, CJ1. However, the measurements at CJ2 and CJ3
were often influenced by diagonal cracks passing between the
gage brackets and, therefore, are not always an accurate
representation of construction joint slip. Also, due to
extensive cracking, dial gages often fell off or were
removed from the specimen prior to the end of the test. The
cycle after which no slip data were obtained is noted on
the figures.
Deflections
The total deflection of the specimen at the 3-ft (0.93 m),
6-ft (1.83 m) and top levels were separated into deflections
due to base rotation, flexural rotation and shear distortion.
This data is presented in two types of figures.
The first type of figure shows the separate components
of deflection versus the total deflection at the three
levels. The ordinate is the deflection in inches. The
abscissa is the displacement ductility ratio using the
measured deflection at the full yield load as the yield
deflection. The deflections are shown for the maximum
positive load in the first cycle of each loading increment.
Both axes of these plots are proportioned so that a 45
degree line represents the total measured deflection.
B-ll
The second type of figure shows the deflected shape of
the wall at maximum positive and negative loads in various
cycles. One plot shows the total deflected shape from
measurements at five levels on the specimen. Two other
plots show the deflected shape due to flexural and shear
deformations.
Each set of figures includes the deflected shape in the
first cycle and the third cycle of a loading increment in
the latter stages of the test. This demonstrates the sta-
bility of the deflected shape within the loading increment.
Also included is the deflected shape immediately before and
after significant strength deterioration.
For both types of figures the flexural and shear
deflections were calculated from the measured rotations and
distortions.
The flexural deflections were calculated assuming the
measured rotations over a gage length to be concentrated at
the center of that gage length. For the top deflection, the
wall between the 6-ft (1.83 m) level and the top was con-
sidered rigid. Therefore, using the notation defined in
Fig. B-5:
(B-6)
~F6
(B-7)
+ (8 3 -
B-12
~ Ft.
180"
,,
Fig. B-5 Flexural Deformations
=~=?
~St
I
-,
36" I
+
I
I I
I 6 S6
I I
Y2/
180" I Y2
2/ 2
+
h2
V
/4-
Y2 /
/
/
hi / /
/
Fig. B-6 Shear Deformations
B-13
~
Ft
= 8
1 (
180
_
h2l') + (8
2
- 8 ) [ 180
1 -(h l :2)J
+
+ (8 3 - 8 2 ) [180 - (h l + h 2 + :3)J (B-8)
The shear deflections at the 3-ft and 6-ft (0.91 m and
1.83 m) levels were calculated as described under instrumen-
tation. In calculating the shear deflection at the top of
the wall, the shear strain was assumed to be zero at a
distance of 36 in. (0.91 m) (- d/2) from the top. There
would actually be some elastic shear deformation in this top
segment, however, the magnitude is insignificant. An average
shear distortion of Y /2 was assumed over the distance from

2
the 6-ft level up to 36 in. from the top of the wall.
Therefore, using the notation defined in Fig. B-6:
~S3 = Yl h l (B-9 )
~S6 = Ylh l + y 2 h 2 (B-10)

Y2
~St = Ylh l + y 2 h 2 + r{180 - (h
l + h 2 + 36)) (B-ll)
!
The calculated flexural and shear deflections at the
3-ft and 6-ft levels are as accurate as the measured data.
The deflection components calculated for the top of the wall
are considered approximate values and are presented as
extrapolated data.
Base Slip Versus Shear Distortions
In the deflection component analysis described above,
no attempt was made to separate the construction joint slip
from the shear deflections because of the previously indi-
cated limitation of the slip data. Ho~ever, since the base
B-14
joint slip data is considered accurate, it was separated
from the shear deflection at the 3-ft level. For each
specimen, the base slip is shown on two figures as a per-
centage of the total shear deflection at the 3-ft (0.91 m)
level. The data is presented at the maximum positive and
negative loads in the first cycle of each loading increment.
Reinforcement Strains
Several types of figures showing reinforcing steel
strain data are presented for each specimen.
The first type shows the cyclic load versus strain
relationships for two vertical bars in the boundary element
and for two horizontal bars in the web. The other types of
figures show the strain gradient over the height of the wall
and across horizontal sections at several locations for both
vertical and horizontal reinforcement.
The strain gages used on the reinforcing steel usually
lost bond with the steel between a strain of 0.015 and 0.030.
Therefore, on the majority of figures, the strain scale was
limited to 0.0125. A dashed arrow and cycle number indicate
when a strain gage stopped functioning or the gage reading
went off the scale.
B-15
Specimen Rl
Test Description
Specimen Rl was a rectangular shaped wall with 1.47%
vertical reinforcement concentrated within a distance of 7.5
in. (190.5 mm) from each end. The boundary element had
ordinary column ties throughout the height of the specimen.
The test consisted of 30-1/2 loading cycles as seen in
Fig. B-7. Figures B-8 and B-9 show the complete load versus
top deflection relationship.
Flexural cracking was first observed in Cycle 4 at a
load of 12 kips (53.4 kN). First yielding occurred in cycle
10 at a load of 20.1 kips (89.4 kN). The maximum measured
crack width at this stage was 0.018 in. (0.46 mm).
Minor spalling and flaking along cracks were first
observed at Cycle 14.
The maximum measured load, +26.6 kips (118 '.3 kN),
occurred in Cycle 16 at a +2.0 in. (50.8 rom) deflection.
This load corresponded to a nominal shear stress, v

max
=
.j- -
1•4 f ~ (0. 12 .jf ~, MP a) • The maximum measured crack width at
this stage was 0.20 in. (5.1 mm). Cracks in the compression
side of the wall remained open with a width of approximately
0.02 in. (0.51 rom).
The cracking pattern in the lower 6 ft (1.83 m) of the
wall is shown in Figs. B-10 and B-ll. The photographs were
taken in Cycle 19 at a top deflections of +3 in. (76.2 rom)
and -3 in., respectively. The cracks started in a horizontal
B-16
40 50
Cycle No.
c====±:I=t=jFFI=t=f:f:FJ::t==¥=====F:::ir:;sf~Yield = 19 A ki ps
-201' Full Yield = 19.9 kips
-30
a) Load History
I in. = 25.4 mm
I kip = 4.448 kN
Def I., in.

8 ..
6
28
4 25
19
16 / Fu II Yield = 0.53 in.
2
13 ~ [" First Yield = 0.43 in.
10 II I I I I
o
10 lJ 30--:rr- 40 50
- 2-
-4
11" \ \.2: ",t
I \ ~I Cycle No.
F Y;eld 0.43 in
0
Full Yield = 0.51 in.
I
-6
-8
b) Deflection History
Fig. B-7 Loading History for Specimen Rl
B-17
40 Load, kips
+6
30
lr -L -
13
+P. . .,:-
f r
I J 20
I I
I Crockin~
l ]
PI
I
I--'
00 -1.0 -0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0
Deflecllon, In.
Crocking
-20 I in. = 25.4 mm

I I<ip = 4.448 kN
13
-30
-40
Ftg. B-8 Continuous Load-Deflection Plot

for Initial Cycles for Specimen RI
;/
40 Lood, kips
. ~
30
16 19
l r_ t
Full yield
Flrsl Yield
+p.-nr f I
I I 'f.'Jr/~~ ~ //1 Y----l
29
I I
to
,
t-' 5
1.0
Defleclion, in.
I in. = 25.4 mm
I kip = 4.448 kN
-30
Firsl Bor Froclure
-40
Fig. B-9 Continuous Load-Deflection Plot for Specimen Rl

· .If .11 'I,J... I 11l1I}
201510505 101520
';to z
I I
Fig. B-IO Cracking Pattern at +3 in. Deflection

for Specimen RI
Fig. B-II cracking Pattern at -3 in. Deflection

for Specimen RI
B-20
direction as flexural cracks. They then inclined until they
intercepted cracks from the opposite direction. The lower
3 ft (0.91 m) of wall was completely traversed by several
predominately horizontal cracks. Significant spalling and
sliding along the horizontal crack at the 3-ft level was
noted in Cycle 19.
First buckling of the main flexural reinforcement was
observed in Cycle 20, the second cycle at +3 in. deflection.
The outer two bars in the compression end of the wall
buckled at a location 15 in. (381 mrn) above the base. A
crack width of 0.05 in. (1.27 rom) had previously been measured
when this end was in compression. Subsequent to buckling of
the first two bars, ten additional bars buckled during the
test.
First bar fracture occurred in Cycle 26. The fractured
bars were the two that had buckled first. Six and one-half
~
cycles were applied between first buckling and fracture.
Subsequent ~o the first two bar fractures, nine additional
bars fractured during the test. Each bar fracture was
associated with a drop in the load resisted by the specimen.
During the latter load increments, concrete in the
compression zone was segmented into large pieces. However,
since the wall was lightly reinforced in flexure, the con-
crete did not crush.
The specimen sustained at least 80% of the maximum
measured load through 13 complete inelastic cycles. The
last inelastic loading increment in which the load was
sustained at or above 80% of the maximum for all 3 cycles
B-21
was at +3 in. (+76.2 rom). A photograph of the wall after
the test is shown in Fig. B-12.
Discussion of Results
Moment-Rotation. Moment rotation data for Specimen Rl
is shown in Fig. B-13. The maximum measured moment was 91%
of the calculated monotonic maximum. The relationship
between the calculated and measured rotation at the 3-ft
(0.91 m) level is very similar to that at the 6-ft (1.83 m)
level. This indicates that the shape of the assumed effective
curvature distribution was accurate.
The maximum measured loads in each cycle reached a peak

~
in Cycle 16 and then leveled off exhibiting no "strain
hardening" as the rotations increased.
The loops at all three levels exhibited some pinching.
The base level loops exhibited the most pinching. It should
be noted that there is a discontinuity at the end of each
loop on the negative side. This results from plotting only
every third loop.
Shear-Distortion. The shear-distortion loops for

)
Specimen Rl are shown in Fig. B-14. Although the wall was
considerably over-reinforced for shear, the specimen ex-
hibited shear "yielding" during approximately the same load
cycles in which flexural yielding occurred.
After shear "yield" the loops exhibit pinching due to a
low shear stiffness over an increasingly wider range of
deflection in the center region of the loops. Pinching was
B-22
\'!+-+
,I '1"" I. \ -,---t-----jji---
--T~--r---j-----.-I- - + - - - - .
iii
f---_+--_------i- -- ------t----t----------+---
,"
I I
.IIUi
,/::sq ;,:Itt: ;:;:,.;.ww ;; M ;;;,;;;s; W
5101520
Fig. B-12 Specimen R1 at End of Test
B-23
Mornenl
at 8ose,
I<'ip-in.
16
19 .-
25 _ - - - - - - - - " ' \
26
4000 Ec ' E.,'0004
-0.06 -004 004

Rotarian,
8 3 , Rod.
Colculoled
28 Monotonic
-4000
25 19
a) At 6 ft. Level
---_ ....
--~:~EU,ooo~j
Mamen! 16 19
01 Bose,
Kip-in.
4000
,,,I I -r
! If /
orL-!¥-
382~·
r
._-L~
-r
'-V"
Sa
-0.03
Rotation
8 2 , Rod.
I
0.04
CalculQI~d
Monoronic
-4000
25 19
b) At 3 ft. Level
Moment
01 Bass,
5
Kip-I'I"\.
4000
RoI01ion,
8, • Rod.
I rl.=0.305 m
19
I in.' 25.4 mm
I kip' 4.448 kN
c) At Base Level
Fig. B-13 Moment at Base versus Rotation

for Specimen Rl
B-24
load, 30 T
Kqa
---1.,f--""
cv-L-
74.5-
-0.015
Shear o,stor flons,
0015
)'3' Rod
-30
a) In Base to.6 ft- Level
-30
b) In 3 ft to 6 ft Level
--l~"SI
.
"
0.02
Shear DI~lorflons,
r" Rod
If1.=O.305m
I in. =25.4 mm
Ikip=4.448 k~J
c) In Base to 3 ft Level
Fig. B-14 Load versus Shear Distortion for

Specimen Rl
B-25
most evident in Zone 1. The maximum shear distortions in
each new increment increased at an approximately constant
rate. The magnitude of distortions in Zone 2 were approxi-
mately 70% of those in Zone 1. In both zones, the specimen
was somewhat stiffer for positive direction loading. This
difference can be related to the slip allowed by the crack
pattern.
Slip at Construction Joints. The slip at construction
joints for Specimen Rl are shown in Fig. B-15. The slip at
CJl and CJ2 exhibited a "yielding" similar to shear "yielding"
at later load increments than flexural yielding occurred.
No significant slip ,was measured at CJ3.
The slip at CJl is shown as a percentage of the total
shear deflections in Zone 1 in Fig. B-16. Specimen Rl
exhibited a larger percentage of slip at CJl than did the
other eight specimens tested.
Deflections. The deflection components and deflected
shapes for Rl are shown in Figs. B-17 and B-18~ These
figures show that flexural deflections predominated. This
is expected for a specimen subjected to low nominal shear
stresses. However, shear deflections were a measurable
portion of the total and were becoming an increasing portion
in the latter load increments. The total deflected shape
was nearly a straight line as can be seen in Fig. B-18.
The deflected shapes at Cycles 16 and 18 show only a slight
shear degradation within the 2-in. (50.8 rom) increment.
B-26
-002 001 0.02
SliP,
CJ3. 'no
a) At 6 ft. Level
_ .. -
- 3&"
r CJ3 -015 0.15
Slop.
-+-CJ2 cn, in.
3&"
-LCJI 28
I I
b) At 3 ft. Level
1& 19 25
28
0.10 020
SliP.
7~iI Ii"
CJl, III
28
j
13 -20
-30
111. 0.305 m
0
I in. 0 25.4 mm
c) At Base Level Ikip 0 4A48 kN
Fig. B-15 Load versus Slip at Construction Joints

for Specimen Rl
B-27
I in. = 25.4 mm
60
25
19__- - - -
20
0.5 1.0
Shear Deflection, ~y,(in.)
a) At Maximum Positive Loads
6C J I
01
--1/0
6YI
100
60
_--_--'--'6
19
4
20
-1.0 -0.5
She ar De fie c t ion, t. y, (i n.)
b) At Maximum Negative Loads
Fig. B-16 Slip at Base Construction Joint versus

Shear Deflection in Zone 1 for Specimen Rl
B-28
40
Shear
3.0
Deflection .0.,
in.
2 a
Fle:cure
10
°0~;""'--=::'====4~====;6:====8;:==FBas.
a) At Top of Wall Displacement Ductility Ratio. t:J./6. y ROlation
(!>y ,053 In.1
2.0
15
DeflectIon
In 6, j
1.0
0.5
~;""'--=-~=-;4===;6;===~8
00 =~=;'';:0==+80S.
b) At 6 ft. Level DIsplacement Ouc.tillt~ Retia, .6 10.'1 IRolation
(6 y '0 /7 1n.1
10
(175
CeflE:clion c., Shear

in
050
-----------
025
/'"
- - - CALCULATED fRO:,1
MEASURED DEFCMATION 13/~, / ' - - -
,j Flell,re
---- EXTRAPOLATED 0
- - MEASURED TOTAL 10 /
4 '
Ilo,=254mm 1
I fl.. 0305 m °0:r--~2~-~==6~=~8:=="';IO;===;''::'2~==:':i='
80se
Olsplo:lcemenl Duelil,l., ROlic. 6/tJ Potation
r
c) At 3 ft. Level lto y '007 In)
Fig. B-17 Component of Deflection for Specimen Rl
B-29
Haigh'
26 2- It
~o 18 y l5 10 10 18)/16 ,
25
, ,,
I I
\ \ I I
\ \ I I I
\
\
\
\
I
I , I
,
I
I ,
I
\ \ 12 I I
, , ,,,
\ \ I J I I
\ \ I I I
\ \ I
\ \ I I
, I
, ,,, , ,
\ \ 9 I I
\ \ I I
\ \ I I
\
\
\
\
I I
I [ I ,
\ \6 II 1/
a) Flexural \\ VII
-4 -3 -2 -I
J 0 2 3
Def!ectlon, in.
4
H~iQh t
, 19 16 ft. 1(8
20~2~~IIO:I:IO(, ~25
I I II IJ I
I I [I IJ ,
I I II IJ I
I I 12 I IJ I
I I ,. IJ ,
I I II II I
, I I! 11 I
I I II II I
I 191 II I
I I II II I
I I I II I
I I I n I
\ \6U/ \ \III i
b) Shear
-4----3---....2---~, -
'f_....-----. 0 2 3
Oerlection, in.
4
26
- - - CALCULATED FROM 25
MEASURED DEFORMATION
--- - EXTRAPOLATED
MEASUR£D TOTAL
I in. = 25.4 mrr.

J ft.: 0.305 m
B. F. - BAR FRACTURE CYCLE 26

AFTER 1st B.F.
CYCLE 25 PRIOR - - - - - ' O ! \
TO 1st. B. F.
c) Total -4 -3 -2 -, 2 4
Deflection, in.
Fig. B-18 Deflected Shape for Specimen Rl
B-30
Reinforcement Strains. Figures B-19 through B-2?
show reinforcement strains in the specimen at several
stages.
Figure B-20 shows that yielding of the vertical bars
was limited to the lower 6-ft (1.83 m) region. Figure B-22
shows that the left compression element started to grow in
Cycle 13.
Figure B-23 through B-2? show that, even though the
specimen was considerably over-deiigned for shear and the
maximum measured load corresponded to only 1.4 ~f'

c
(0.12 ~f', MPa), horizontal bars yielded in the lower 6-ft
c
region during Cycle 16.
B-31
Load, :30
Kips
Gage VARI
-20000 -10000 20000

S~rc:", Milltonlns
13
-:30
Load, JO
Kips 16
1:3
20
Gage VHRI
10
-20000 -10000 20000
-10
-20
13
I ,:p = 4.448 kN
-:30
Fig. B-19 Measured Strains at Vertical Reinforcement

at Base of Specimen Rl
B-32
VC?---....
r----.----...:--,...-....
l' •
111.=0.305 m
Gage VHR i VHP 12

Go~. VAR; VA?
25
/6
10000
~_..l.::..-,+_~::-;+;~__
E,
~ 10000
Strain, Millionths
a) Average of VHP & VHR b) Average of VAP & VAR
H!HJht,
It
15
Go~. VFP 12 Gag. VC?

12
- - __).16
I~CCO
r...:.._....L-J~::IO_ _=~
50CO
__-..__--;-;:;:t::::;-_--I
10COO .
Stroln, Millionths Srrelln, Millionth,
c) Strain Gage VFP d) Strain Gage VCP

Fig. B-20 Vertical Reinforcement Strains at
Maximum Loads for Specimen Rl
B-33
E D
t t I
10000
Stroln,
Millionths
5000
,...16 ,...13 25
10
4
H G F E l D
Gage Locot'on
-2500 a) At 6 ft. Level
111 0 0.305 m
100GO
Stroln,
Millionths
5300
C B A
F E t D
Gage Locot,on
-2500 b) At 3 ft. Level
10000
StrOln,
Millionths
\ 16
\
\
\
5000 \
H G F E t D
-2500
c) At Base Level
Fig. B-2l Vertical Reinforcement Strains at

Maximum Positive Loads for Specimen Rl
B-34
E o 8 A
L-'
t
I
b
I tF
100J0
Strol""
Millionths
500'J
25
15
~ :::=======~1310
~;::;Gf::=~F~_~~=~7=:==--~:--7---;:
4
1
E t D C 9 A
Goge Locollon
-2500
a) At 6 ft. Level
15
10000
Strain, 111.=0.305 rn
Millionths
5000
f, :;p"-:::::::::==
..., 13
10
4
C 9 A
Gage LO:::Ofion
/13
I
I
1000J
Stroln,
Millionths
5000
---------4 10
F E l CJ. C 8 A
Gage Locot:o:"
-2500
c) At Base Level

Maximum Negative Loads for Specimen Rl
B-35
Lood, 30
Kips
10
13
16
-
20
Goge HE3
10
1
1
-8000 -4000 4000 8000
Ey
Stroin, Millionth.
-10
~
-20 10
13
-30
H EJ
,f
~
'~
G))---
I in_ = 25.4 mm
@-------
'm- I I -I
I kip = 4.448 kN '"' I I '-
IWII\ '\..
HE2
Lood, 30
Kips
20
Goge HE2
10
I
-8000 -4000 Ey 4000 8000
Stroin, Millionths
-10
28
-20
-30
Fig. B-23 Measured Strains on Horizontal Reinforcement

for Specimen Rl
B-36
, ~ d1
~.L~-==--~z~
11 II 'Q"'. 1"I"Qhl, H',,~"I. ""Qhl, H"ll"'.

" " " 15 " ,s "
tIl
'J .1:' Goqe HH
"j
,? GO{j' HF
"''",I GO'\l1 HE
'0 Goo_ He l:' GO'll' HA
I
W
-.J
'JI oil Q
.'.~, -
"
,a,'}··
:.:.,~~~,.:-t--i-~---- ~'G ,-
'. 'u_' f ~ 'J'_(,,-, '_,'J'JU -:'1,'1) IQ (, ',~CO I[)(_Y ~.l :"'.J-' J,'"U ·,I,.....y)
"~ I. 4,10 4,'0, (,
" 1],16
Slr.,n. MTlhO"':'o' 51'01110. MI"'on'h. 5"0111_ a/h'lIal'llhl 5"01", "'11110111111 'iilflm' ....,lhenlhl
Fig. B-24 Horizontal Reinforcement Strains at

Maximum Positive Loads for Specimen Rl III ,0.305",
H_~ _~ ,~. ~.
~·s-" "==9=-==---- ~ 3]=
,.. ~,qtll. UIIQhl. rlllllhl.

HI.Qhl. He'lI hl •
" 15 " I'J " j'J "1 15 "
GO'll tiH (lOQI Hf GO'll HE Go", He (jogl H'-

12 :2 <2 I
tt:1
I
W
00 9 :I 9
,. "
'II 16~ "
,.
':' ,;;
o--I----~I '
-;" 0(' 4.IO~r;---·~J~/) -;'" '.'(J 'I) l, ~"iCU) ·2·....0.-) ')()j) IU'J~'G '2~OO 1:, ~()X) -<,'...01 1 41.1Q, t, cCX'U
1-'.'6 'iIlO',\. ~"l'OIl':-" SHOIII. ,.... 1/'0.. :11.
'r Sl.O,....... lhO .. lhl SlfO .... ~'ll'onlhl 13.'6 SI.D.... M,II,onU.,
Fig. B-25 Horizontal Reinforcement Strain

at
Maximum Negative Loads for Specimen Rl " .. ·0.305 m
1000Cl
Stroln,
Mdl10nths
5000
4,10,13,16.25
H F E C A
Goge location
I fl.=0.305 m
iOCOO
5:,oin,
Milliontns
5OJO
("4,10,13,16,25
H F E C A
Gage loco lion
10000
Strain,
Millionths
16
5000
125
\
\
\
~
H C /\
-2500
c) At 3 ft. Level
Fig. B-26 Horizontal Reinforcement Strains in Web

at Maximum Positive Loads for Specimen Rl
B-39
10000
Strain,
Millionths
4,10,13,16,25
F [ C A
Gage Lcr:crlon
-2500
a) At 9 ft. Level
I f1.= 0.305 m
10COO
Strain,
~Adllonlhs
5000
25 4,13
H F 10 C A
Gage lo.:atlon
10000
Strain,
Mdllonlhs
50'JO
25/
I \ 25
I \
I \
~ 10,13 \
H F E C
·2500 c) At 3 ft. Level
Fig. B-2? Horizontal Reinforcement Strains in Web

at Maximum Negative Loads for Specimen Rl
B-40
Specimen R2
Test Description
Specimen R2 was a rectangular shaped wall with 4.0%
vertical reinforcement concentrated within a distan~e of
7.5 in. (190.5 rom) from each end. The boundary element had
confinement reinforcement in the lower 6 ft (1.83 m) of the
boundary elements.
The test consisted of 39 loading cycl~s as shown in
Fig. B-28. The complete load versus top deflection relation-
ship for the R2 test is shown in Figs. B-29 and B-30.
The first significant flexural cracking occurred in
Cycle 4 at a load of 15 kips (66.7 kN). First yielding
occurred in Cycle 19 at a load of 37.0 kips (164.6 kN). The
maximum measured crack widths at this stage were 0.012 in.
(0.30 rom) in the tension boundary element and 0.019 in.

-
(0.48 rom) in a diagonal web crack. Minor spalling and
flaking were first noted along horizontal web crack in the
lower 3 ft (0.91 m) in Cycle 19.
The cracking pattern in the lower 6 ft (1.83 m) of the
wall is shown in Figs. B-31 and B-32. These photographs
were taken during Cycle 25 at a top deflection of +3 in.
(76.2 rom) and -3 in., respectively. As these figures show,
the flexural cracking in the end regions was very finely
distributed due to the close spacing of confinement steel.
These flexural cracks progressed into coarsely distributed
diagonal and horizontal cracks in the web. The cracks from
B-41
Load, kips
50 22 25 31 34
19 Full Yield = 41 ,8 kip's
40
First Yield:; 3 7.0 kips
30
20
10
~ ~
o
y~ I 20
,
30 ~40 5o
I
-10 Cycle No.
-20
First Yield:; 30 .9 kips
-30
-40 Fu II Yield:; 39. 7 kips

-50
a) Load History
I in. = 25.4 mm
I kip:: 4.448 kN
Defl. in.
8
37
6
34
4 3\
2
i9
22
25
r;. Full Yield :; 0.85 in.
(First Yiel d = 0,60 in.
o . AAll • I'Il'f /I
10vvvvvvv ZO rll 30
40lJ; a
5 e No.
i
Cyel
-2
[First Yield :; 0.56 in.
-4 Full Yield = 0,82 in.
-6
-8
Fig. B-28 Loading History for Specimen R2
B-42
150 Loao, kips
19
140
+t::.
lr 30
'P._I,)=-; =-2?
,, {
I J 20
,I
Crockin~
C=~
OJ -1.0 -08 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0

I
of:> Defleclion, in.
w
._- 20 , in. = 25.4 mm

I kip = 4.448 kN
-30
-40
19
-50
Fig. B-29 Continuous Load-Deflection Plot for

Initial Cycles for Specimen R2
34 ----- BowlOQ 01 compression zone
50 Lood, kips.
noted alter cycle 27.
~BUCklinQ wilhin 3 II. SIO(y

height noled durinQ cycle 35.
full Yield
+0 -- r FirSI Bar Fracture

first Yield
ir
+p._ I
I
'n-;J I
, I
I II
r l
tJ:l
I
*'" -7 6 1
*'"
Deflection, In.
I in. = 25.4 mm
I kip = 4.448 kN
-30
flrsl Yield
-40
full YIeld
-50
34 31
Fig. B-30 Continuous Load-Deflection Plot for Specimen R2

'.1,.: I I I 1""1 • • I
~
I r
R2 In ~,~,~ 0 5 10 15 20
Fig. B-31 Cracking Pattern at +3 in. Deflection

for Specimen R2
i, i
- - -1 - -+--<-
I I
___ :-_1--
l'
I
-1
, \ ,J--
- _:t '------+-' -----~i-+·--·'\_____""-T--3 --~--
I - i I I /~i-
___ -'I' _ - l-------L- --:--
i
~ ~ _L.~ __ ~.<-.;- -_.~,.".-",
-j --- .-
1--~ :---l,-1~~t I
~ J __~j_l.-I __ • • ~
I~ l~rlll"l I I I '
R2 148 20 15 10 5 - 0 5 10 15 20
Fig. B-32 Cracking Pattern at -3 in. Deflection

for Specimen R2
B-45
the opposite directions of loading intercept each other.
These cracks segmented the web into large pieces. Several
horizontal cracks completely traversed the width of the
wall. The horizontal cracks formed at the levels of the
horizontal steel in the web which was at 8 in. (203.2 rom) on
center.
In the first 3 in. deflection Cycle 25, it was noted
that the cracks in. the compression zone remained open
0.003 in. (0.076 rom). First indication of crushing of the
outer shell at the base of the wall had bee~ noted in Cycle
22. A significant increase in spalling and flaking along
the horizontal cracks was observed during the 3 in. deflection
cycles.
During Cycle 28, a 1 in. (25.4 rom) deflection cycle,
bowing of the compression end was observed. The compression
boundary element was 0.25 in. (6.4 rom) out of plane at a
point 3 ft 6 in. (1.1 m) above the base. Although this
bowing progressed further with each cycle the load carrying
capacity of the wall remained stable. After Cycle 32, the
compression end of the wall was 3 in. (76.2 rom) out of plane
at a point 3 ft-6 in. above the base. Fig. B-33 shows the
specimen after Cycle 32.
The test was stopped after Cycle 32 and lateral bracing
was added to the test set-up. An omni-direction ball caster
was placed against the face of the each boundary element at
a level 3 ft 6 in. above the base. This simulated lateral
support at approximately the first story height.
B-46
Fig. B-33 Lateral Displacement of Compression Zone
After 4 in. Deflection for Specimen R2
-.-----r-- __--.
Fig. B-34 Specimen R2 at End of Test
B-47
The test was continued with the third 4 in. (101.6 rom)
deflection Cycle 33. Considerable grinding and spalling
along web cracks· occurred during the 4-in. deflection
cycles. Also, the end hooks of several horizontal bars
started to open during the 4-in. cycles.
The maximum measured load, -48.8 kips (216.6 kN),
occurred in Cycle 34 at a -5 in. deflection. This load
corresponded to a nominal shear stress, v = 2.5~fI

max c
(0.21~, MPa). The maximum measured crack widths at this
c
stage were 0.023 in. (0.58 mm) in the tension boundary
element and 0.125 in. (3.18 rom) in a diagonal crack in the
web.
In Cy~le 35, a large out of plane displacement of the
compression zone within the lower 3 ft 6 in. height was
observed and the load carrying capacity of the wall decreased.
The maximum negative load in the third cycle of the 5 in.
(127.0 mrn) deflection increment was 79% of the maximum in
the first cycle.
Several bars fractured in Cycle 37 and out of plane
displacement of the compression zones progressed further.
Considerable crushing and loss of concrete occurred in
subsequent cycles and the load carrying capacity continued
to decrease.
measured load through 14 complete inelastic cycles. The
B-48
was at +4 in. (+101.6 rom). A photograph of the wall after
testing is shown in Fig. B-34.
The fact that lateral support at the first story level
was not present during the major portion of the test probably
precipitated an early failure. The reverse curvature out of
plane of the boundary element just above the base during the
bowing in the 3-in. and 4-in. cycles contributed to premature
out of plane displacement within the 3 ft 6 in. height. This
out of plane movement may also have contributed to fracture
of bars at the base.
Moment-Rotation. The moment rotation data for Specimen
R2 is shown in Fig. B-35. The measured maximum moment was
85% of the calculated monotonic maximum. The relationship
between the calculated and measured rotations at the 3-ft
(0.91 m) level is very similar to that relationship at the
6-ft (1.83 m) level. This indicates the shape of the assumed
effective curvature distribution was accurate.
The maximum measured loads in each new increment exhibit
only slight "strain hardening" as the rotations increase.
An envelope through the measured peaks appeared to approach

I
a maximum lower than the maximum calculated for monotonic

loading.
The rotation loops at the base level exhibited consid-
erable pinching after Cycle 19. Pinching is only slightly
evident in the latter loops at the 3-ft level. No indica-
tion of pinching is evident in the stable loops at the 6-ft

level.
B-49
Moment 3/_- _--' - - - --'- -_.- - - - - - . - - ]
at B050e,
Kip-in 34
Bar Fracture
Ec '00089< Eu
37
-0 0~3;-------::::;~::;t.T;r,t/"J7':i7~;------;;0;;;.0;;;:4-----n;:O.o6
Rotation,
a3 • Rod.
Calculated
Monotonic
-10000
a) At 6 ft. Level
Moment
or Sase,
2S 31 -------·---·---·-------·7--·
Kip-in, ~ ,34 Bar Fracture
7500 Ec '00084 < Eu
-Q03
Rorotion,
a2 • Rod.
CQlclJlo~ed
Monotonic
-10000
b) At 3 ft. Level
Moment
Cit Bose,
Kip-in. 22 25
7500
II lI GOQo Foiled
I
:;
in Cycle 26
I I
I I
I I. I -Q003 0.002 0003
I
0--:!,. ~ Rolation,
.-
I .~
-,~ 8 , Rod .
1
234"
0"
22
111.=0.305 m
-10000
I in. = 25.4 mm
Ikip=4.448 kN
c) At Base Level

for Specimen R2
B-50
Shear-Distortion. The shear distortion loops for R2
are shown in Fig. B-36. Although the wall was considerably
over-reinforced for shear, the specimen exhibited shear
"yielding" during approximately the same load cycles in
which flexural yielding occurred.
After shear "yielding" the loops exhibited pinching
over an increasingly wide range of deflection. The pinching
was more evident in Zone 1. The new maximum shear distortion
in each increment became larger at an increasing rate. The
magnitude of distortion in Zone 2 was approximately 50% of
that in Zone 1.
joints in R2 is shown in Fig. B-3? The slip at CJl and CJ2
exhibited a "yielding" similar to shear "yielding" at a

-
later load increment than flexural yielding occurred at the
corresponding levels. The slip stiffness for CJl and CJ2
was larger for positive load. The slip at CJ3 was negligible.
The slip at CJl is shown as a percentage of the total
shear deflections in Zone 1 in Fig. B-38. With the exception
of Rl, Specimen R2 exhibited a larger percentage of slip in
the negative direction than did the other test specimens.
Deflection. The deflection components and deflected
shapes for Specimen R2 are shown in Figs. B-39 and B-40.
As in Specimen Rl, these figures show that flexure was the
larger component of top deflection. However, shear deflec-
tions were a significant portion of the total and a somewhat
larger portion than in Rl. The shear deflections were
B-51
Lood,
Kips.
I
I
I
I
arJ-- I
---0 003
,r-!3. 0
l0 ".
Shear Dlsiorflons,
1'3' Rod.
-40
a) In Base to 6 ft Level
-Q C:'" 0.03
37
0.04
Shear DI~tortions,
)'" Rod.
37
111.=0.305 m
I in.= 25.4 mm
c) In Base to 3 ft Level I kip=4.448 kN
Fig. B-36 Load versus Shear Distortion

for Specimen R2
B-52
31 34
- r CJ3 -0.01 0.03 0.04

36" Slip.
-f-CJ2 CJ3.,"
3'6"
~CJI
L-.__ -.J
a) At 6 ft. Level
Lood.
Kips 34
40
-0.3
-0.4 0.3
SliP.
CJ 2, In.
-20
-40
b) At 3 ft. Level
37
-040 0.10
Slip,
CJ \. In
37
111.=0.305 m
I in.= 25.4 mm
I kip=4.448 kN
c) At Base Level
Fig. B-37 Load versus Slip at Construction Joint

For Specimen R2
B-53
6CJI, %
6Yl
100 I in. = 25.4 mm
60
20
34 37
0.5 1.5
Shear Deflection, 6"'(1 (in.)
6CJI, %
I::.YI
100
\
,
60
10
31
34
22 20
-1.5 -0.5
Shear Deflection, 6"'(1 (in.)
Fig. B-38 Slip at Base Construction Joints versus

Shear Deflection in Zone 1 for Specimen R2
B-54
().O
4.0
.Jeflel;110n C:l.,
,no
2.0
o0~=----~2----4----~6<:::::==::tBOS'
Relation
a) At Top of Wall DisplacemenT
(~1
Oucfilily Ratio, t::./C-'j
"O.BS.n.!
].0
2.0
Deflection ~.
in.
1.0
°o~--~-----~-""""-=::.=..==r:
2 4 6 8 .Bos.
b) At 6 ft. Level Displacement Ouclihly
(~1' 0.32
RatIO, ,w,1L:..'J
,n.)
:Rotahon
1.50
3/!
//' i
1.00
// I
iSheor
Deflection 0.,
in.
----- ---
0.50
- - - CALCULATD FROM
MEASURED DEFOMATION
EXTRAPOLJ.T"D
MEASURED TOTAL
I.n = 25.q 1":";."':"1 6 8 10 ,80se
I fl." 0305 m
Disp!acemenf OucHli')' Ratio. c /"-y iRolotion
I ~1" 0.13 'nJ
c) At 3 ft. Level
Fig. B-39 Component of Deflection for Specimen R2
B-55
Helg~ I
II. 3&
34 25
I
I
\I
II
27
' 1'5
I
19
I
I
27
/I
/I
25
/
V34
\ \I I I /I (
\ II I I /I I
I \I I I /I I
I II 112 I /I I
I II I I 1/ I
I II I I /I I
\ II I I 1/ I
I II I I /I I
,,
I ~ 9 I 0 I
\ ~ I I I
I \ I I I
I \ I I , I
I \ I I I I
\\il//
a) Flexural
-5 -4 -3 -2 -I
,
\\ Ii/II
0 2
Detleclion, in.
3 4
,
5
Heig~1
25 II. 25
34 27 ( 19 19 \ 27 34 36
I I 'II II J I
I II I I II I I
I II' I " I I
I II I I II I I
I II I I " I I.
I \I 12 I II I I
I II I I II I I
I II I I II I I
1 II I I " 1 I
I II I I II I I
I II 9 I " I'
I '" I II II
I "I I " I I
\ 1\ I I II I I
\ I' I I" I I
\ \illl II
b) Shear
-5 -4 -3 -2
'it ·1 0 2
Deflection. in.
3 4 5
34
- - - CALCULATED FROM
- - - - EXTRAPOLATED
- ~i;EASURED TOTtlL
I in.: 25.4 mm
1ft. ~ 0.305 m
CYCLE 36, AFTER

BUCKLING
CYCLE 34, PRIOR
c) Total TO BUCKLING
-5 -4 -3 -2 -I 0 2 3 4 5
D~'lectlonl rn.
Fig. B-40 Deflected Shape for Specimen R2
B-56
becoming an increasing portion of the total in the latter
load increments, especially in the lower 3 ft (0.91 m).
This latter shear deflection was such that the total deflected
shape was similar to the deflected shape of a frame. This
is shown in Fig. B-40. The deflected shapes at Cycle 25 and
27 showed a small amount of shear degradation within the
3- in. (76.2 rom) increment.
Reinforcement Strains. Figures B-4l through B-49 show
reinforcement strains in the specimen at several stages.
Figure B-42 shows that yielding of the vertical bars
extended up to the 9-ft (2.74 m) level in Cycle 31. Figure
B-44 shows that the left compression element started to grow
in Cycle 19.
Figures B-45 through B-49 show that, even though the
specimen was over-reinforced for shear, considerable yielding
occurred in the horizontal bars in the lower 9 ft of wall.
Even the, gages near the ends of the horizontal bars, HH and
HA, indicated strains at or near yield. This indicates that
the end hooks on the horizontal bars were necessary. The
strains approached zero at the l2-ft (3.66 rn) level.
B-57
Lood, 22 50
Kips
/9
13
C;oge VARI
20000
-20000 -10000
Million!hs
22
-50
VHRI'
?f '-VARI
Lood, !:O 2S
Kips 22
Goge VHRI
-20000 -10000 20000

Mi llion~hs
I kip = 4.448 kN
-50
Fig. B-4l Measured Strains at Vertical Reinforcement

at Base of Specimen R2
B-58
>~V':'P
VAR _ I fl.' 0.305 m
Heir;hl l Hell~"r.
r, It
I:: 5
VHR + VHP VAR+VAP

12 \ Go;. :2 Go;,
\
2 2
\
9
~I\
j:1
g.
~:
"1\
I'
\ li\
n1\
o II
II
,~I
3 \\ 3 )\
\
I4 13 I\1 1
14
I 1
I
\i
E1 5::G 10000 €y 5::JC0 100SO
Strain, Milllonlhs ~1roint Millionths
a) Average of VHP & VHR b) Average VAP & VAR
HllIiQnl. HeiQt'll.
IS
It.
15
".
!2 Go;. VFP Go;. vep
-_-_-.;: .19
13 13
II
10000 f1 5000 100:)0
Strain, MIllionths Strain. Millionths.
c) Strain Gage VFP d) Strain Gage VCP

Maximum Loads for Specimen R2
B-59
o c
~
f
ICCCO
Strain,
Millionths
-19
13....
, /1 ...... 4
B :..
G F E t D C
Gogo Location
-2500 a) 'At 6 ft. Level
Ift=030Sm
IOXO
StrOIn,
Millionths
5:00
E .. '
\'
Gage Location
·2500 b) At 3 ft. Level
10::00
Siraln,
Millionths
5000
_ _ _ _ _ _13 _
=====:: 4 : ,el
H G E t D
\
c) At Base Level \25

Maximum Positive Loads for Specimen R2
B-60
H G F E D C 8 A
,
Fi - ,!
t-i+=
I
~ p
t
ICXDO
31
Stroin ,
Mliilonlh,
5000
-2500
a) At 6 ft. Level
\ ft.=O.305 m
10000
Slroin,
Millionths
5:xxJ
19
25\ /25 13
G F 4
I
E t D C B A
Gage Location
-2500
b) At 3 ft. Level
ICDYJ
Strom,
Millionths
Gage VFI
5QOJ No! Functlon:ng
/19
I
I
- - - - --~---------- 13
-- ---~-_ _ 4
tH~;G~_-':--:::::::::'::"::=~EP~t::=;D::=====~c==~E:=7A I
Ga~!!' locarlor:
-2500
c) At Base Level

Maximum Negative Loads for Specimen R2
B-6l
Load, 5
Kips
30
Gage HE3
10
-8000 -4000 4000 8000
-10 Strain, Millionths
-30
-50
I in. = 25.4 mm
I kip = 4.448 kN
Load, 50
Kips
30
Gage HE2
10
.........- - + - - - - : t - - - -__---+t-/'i:tf---+--tl---.,----t-,- - - ,
-8000 -4000 I 4000 8000
Ey
-10 Strain, Millionlhs

for Spec.imen R2
B-62
_--'?c~-----~ d2 c~.~
~==-===="==' : ~~
H"'Qhl. Hlla hl , HtfVhl • NII/gttf. Hr'{jhl.

II
"J " " " \', "
tl:l
,;' GOQ' HH H'
"[
I? Gll'i!' He '2 I
"I Go"" He
"
Gov' HA
r
0'1 ': ~.'"
w 91 \\I 9
.,
cOl
,e, L
iI,\\':
---~4
-,.
4"~Y)~f""_~~,~_~ __~__ ''-::'~''''
-,,-,,-, :".:'l') EJ' '-,OOJ lfo..ll) -;.>,-"y> 'J<"Y)'l -:"_,OJ
-'I.'3.1~ (--~f~ ---. -(!':,oO') ~'JI))
(, ::;1,al~~)~llllla"UIi Slroln, ""110111"1 , ~llUh•• Iwlllllllnih. '. SIIoln, "",lIIonlhl
$1'Oln, "'"10"'111 "

Maximum Positive Loads for Specimen R2 10 .. 0.305 m
:t:2J;;~::~~i!-~=~~-~~.~~:~i~,t;~2;1=
H"9 hl • H,t,l'II. HoC'Qhl. HllIQhl.

""''lI hI • If If
" 6 I'.J " I'") "
'"
GoU' HH (,og_ HF (jog, HP,

'e
txJ ",. "'
I "\
0"\ "I:
]\
-- - ~~4
""" "I 1\.,.
~
OJ,
'-~!I"
~ (JI
T~-- . ~-
r ".I~.19~; ---~.;))
_.".f"_1 :>)
-.J ~'( -~:,('·o E)' ~,~~.)) 'O<XXJ -:"J~J E, _':..Cll)) -;"'.lfA) IE, ~C.O) _2'.':.))
Sl,oi~ ....."honfn. SrrQ'IA, 1W,II,onlh, S'/ClIJI, .u,U,,,"'h, SI'o''',MiIlJonltll Shoin, Mlillonll'l'

Maximum Negative Loads for Specimen R2 "'.'0.305 m
10000
S1rain.
M.llion'hs
5000
·2500 a) At 9 ft. Level
1[1.=0.305 m
IOXD
Strain,
Millionths
. 50:0
H F E c A
Gage Loc:orion
-2500
b) At 6 ft. Level
10000
Srrain,
Mlillonr"s
5000 34\
134 \
I \
~d'===:::;;~~=---_:::::-----"_- 34
31
25
H F E C A
Gage LCCC1!lon
-2500 c) At 3 ft. Level

at Maximum Positive Loads for Specimen R2
B-65
10000
Stroln,
Mdllonrns
34 25 19
H F C A
Gage Locallon
-2500
a) At 9 ft. Level
I fl.=0.305 m
!~YX/J
Strain,
M,II,anths
31
5000
25
H F E C A
Gage l..Dco~lon
IC'JOO
Strain,
Millionrhs
5000 • 34
,/
~\
25 " 34
~4 ~ =
H F E C A
Gage Locatton

at Maximum Negative Loads for Specimen R2
B-66
Specimen Bl
Test Description
Specimen Bl had column boundary elements with 1.11%
vertical reinforcement in each column. Ordinary column ties
at 8 in. (203.2 rom) on center were used throughout the
height of the boundary element.
The test consisted of 36 loading cycles as seen in Fig.
B-50. Figures B-51 and B-52 show the complete load versus
top deflection relationship for Specimen Bl. Initial flexural
cracking was observed in Cycle 4 at a load of 26 kips
(115.7 kN). First yielding occurred in Cycle 10 at a load
of 45.1 kips (200.6 kN). The maximum measured crack widths
at this stage were 0.009 in. (0.23 rom) in the -tension column
and 0.014 in. (0.36 mm) across a diagonal cracks in the web.
The crack pattern that developed started with horizontal
flexural cracks in the columns that progressed into diagonal
shear cracks in the web. The angle of the diagonal cracks
was steeper than the cracking in the rectangular section
specimens. However, web cracks were intercepted by cracks
from the opposite direction loading. The specimen was
eventually traversed across the entire width by several
predominantly straight horizontal cracks. The crack pattern
is shown in Figs. B-53 and B-54 at + 3 in. (76.2 mm) and
-3 in. deflections, respectively.
Minor spalling and flaking along the web cracks was
first noted in Cycle 14. There was a significant increase
B-67
Load. kips 19 22 28
60 13 31 34 Full Yield' = 51.0 kips
~-----+"---+-+++++--J.-H-H-:-t------
40 First Yield" 45.1 kips
20
o-l+J.t~I-++H~~+l+HI.H+t+l+HI+t++*H+lI-H#+-I+H~++ItHI+H+H+Hfl.lt_------t
10
, 20 0 40
Cycle No.
50
-20
- 40 ~ l....:--+++_-+-H-+-I-I-_-I-t-+-++ ..:...F.;.;ir-=s..:...t....;Y..;,.ie,ld = 45.0

Full Yield" 45.0
-60
a) Load History
1 in. " 25.4 mm

I kip = 4.448 kN
Defl., in.
8
34
6
31
28
4
22
2 13
19 r;- Full Yield =0.7 in.
First Yield" O. 56 in.
o
o
,
fI fI 1\ 1\ ~
iOv", v 20 40= 5o
~
VT ~
Cyc Ie No.
-2
-4
-6
I First Yield = O. 49 in.
Full Yield = 0.5 3 in.
-8
Fig. B-SO Loading History for Specimen Bl
B-68
80 Load, kips
• 6
60
lr 13
+p.-n I I
r
I I 40
I I
Crockinll
I I
ttl
I
0' 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5
\0 Deflection, in.
_~Crackinil
-40
I in. = 25.4 mm
I kip =4.448 kN .
13 -60
-60

Initial Cycles for Specimen Bl
60 Lood. kipS
,{'; Firsl bor Iraclure

26
60 / 31
lr r-_
,~-
I Full Yield
I ?
I I FirSI Yield
I I
I
I 1
to -6 6
I
-...J Deflection, in.
o
ond Full Yield

I in. = 25.4 mm
-60 I kip=4.448kN
31 26 22
-60
Fig. B-52 Continuous Load-Deflection Plot for Specimen Bl

-------'------------"-------6-------
I,
.
I
~

For Specimen Bl
."
--'T--~
'I
81130'
I
;
- '-'-"---+---+
,., I,'""t I I I
20 15 10 50 5 10 15 20

for Specimen Bl
B-71
in this spalling and flaking in Cycle 19. During Cycle 19,
it was first noted that cracks app~ared to remain open in
the compression column approximately 0.005 in. (0.13 rom).
Also, it was first noted in Cycle 19 that the boundary
elements had a slight reverse curvature occurring in the
lower 3 ft (0.91 m) of height.
It should be noted that the crack at the base joint
always remained open a considerably greater width in the
center region of the web than in the end boundary elements.
This was a typical behavior observed in all specimens.
First indication of crushing of the concrete at the
base of the wall occurred in Cycle 22, the first 3 in.
deflection cycle. Also, during Cycle 22, the first flexural
bar buckling occurred. A corner bar near the outer face of
a boundary element bowed out between ties near the base. In
subsequent cycles, 13 other bars bUCkled, some at two or
three levels. A photograph of some of the buckled bars is
shown in Fig. B-55.
After first buckling of flexural bars, the boundary
elements started to deteriorate. The outer shell spalled
off and small pieces of concrete would fallout of the core
when the element was in tension. However, the load carrying
capacity did not reduce during several additional cycles.
The maximum load measured, 61.0 kips (271.3 kN), occurred in
Cycle 28 at a -4-in. (101.6 rom) deflection. This load
corresponded to a nominal shear stress. v

max = 2.9~
c
(0.24~f', MPa). The end hooks of the horizontal steel
c
started to open during Cycle 28.
B-72
Fig. B-55 Buckling of Reinforcing Bars for Specimen B1
Fig. B-56 Specimen B1 at End of Test
B-73
First bar fracture occurred in Cycle 31. The bar that
had buckled first was the first to fracture after sustaining
8-1/2 cycles. Subsequently, 3 other bars fractured, how-
ever, the load carrying capacity remained above 80% of
maximum until the negative half of Cycle 33, the last 5-in.
(127.0 rom) deflection cycle. The load at this stage was 70%
of the maximum load.
The boundary element deteriorated significantly in. the
latter cycles of the test with large pieces of concrete
falling out when the element was in tension. Finally the
concrete in one of the columns was completely lost and the
web of the wall was crushed by compressive forces which
could not be carried by the column.
measured load capacity through 14 inelastic cycles. The
was at +4 in. (101.6 rnro) A photograph of the wall after

testing is shown in Fig. B-56.
Moment-Rotation. Moment rotation data for Specimen Bl
is shown in Fig. B-57. The measured maximum moment was 85%
of the calculated monotonic maximum. The relationship
between the calculated monotic and measured rotations at the
3-ft (0.91 m) level is similar to that relationship at the
B-74
Moment
01 Base,
t.ip-in,
10000
I
J
Gog.. Foiled
I I in Cycle 33
I
I I
I
~-~-.-=It::.~
74."-
.-'- -0.03 004
6 .. Rotafion,
8 3 , Rod.
Calculated
Mono·onlC
Specimen 84 Tes!
a) At 6 ft. Level
)9
tl
~-~-~
- -~:--l - ___ - _
~om9nt
or 9an,
Kip-In.
(~-
;13,
/
~--i8
I.
10000 0, I L
' ~c' Eu ·0.004
GQ9t-s Foiled
in C,cle 33
-003 004
Rotation.
B?. Rod.
Col:utoted
MonO'(lnic
Specimen 84 Tesr
-10000
b) At 3 ft. Level
Moment
01 80S',
I<i!:'-in
10000
Gagas Foiled
in Cycle 32
-0006 O.OOB
RotOlIO".
0, • Rod.
-5000
Ilt.=O.305rn
-10000 lin.=25.4 mm
31 Iki;l=4,448 kN
c) At Base Level

for Specimen B1
B-75
6-ft (1.83 m) level. This indicates the shape of the
assumed effective curvature distribution was accurate.
Cycle 28 for Specimen Bl and Load Stage 11 for Specimen
B4 correspond to a top def lection of 4 in. (101.6 rom). As
seen in Fig. B-57, the rotations in Bl are very close to the
rotations in B4 at this stage. However, the load is signi-
ficantly different.
The maximum measured loads in each new cycle reach a
peak level in Cycle· 19 and exhibited no "strain hardening"
as the rotations increase.
The loops at all three levels exhibited some pinching.
The base level rotation exhibited the most pinching.
Shear-Distortion. The shear distortion loops for
Specimen Bl are shown in Fig. B-58. As in the rectangular
specimen, with over-reinforcement for shear, the specimen
exhibited shear "yielding" during approximately the same
load cycles in which flexural yielding occurred.
The pinching in the loops was more evident in Zone 1.
The maximum shear distortions in each new increment became
larger at a slightly increasing rate. The magnitudes of
distortion in Zones 1 and 2 were approximately equal at each
load increment. The specimen was slightly stiffer for
positive loading.
As shown in Fig. B-58, the maximum shear distortion in
Cycle 28 was only slightly larger then that in B4 at Load
Stage 11. This indicated only negligible shear degradation
had occurred due to reversed loads at this stage.
B-76
I~ ''¥-----"--J
28 L84
:ll
--11--""
.' Goqes relied
in Cycle :"3
cv--L-
14 :.-
-0 04 004
SI\aar Disla, flon'S,
)'3' Rod
-60
a·) In Base to 6 ft Level
r~---~-,---_
1V'22-28 )
• 84-
31
-H-"" Gage! Fallea

in eyel" 33
~-~6
25" -a 04 -002 0.02 O.O~
crry-- Shear Disiortions.

)'2' Red
·40
-60
~I_"'---,-
Load,
Kips
50 l~28 L 94
31
40
. -
-!r-"" Gages Faded
in Cycle 33
-0.08 -004 0.04 O.OR

Sneo-( Uisrorirons.
Y. ,ROd
I fl.=0.305 m
I in. = 25 4 In m
c) In Base to 3 ft Level Ikip=4 '148 kN

for Specimen B1
B-77
joints in Bl is shown in Fig. B-59. The slip at CJl
exhibited a "yield" ·at the load increment after the incre-
ment in which flexural yielding occurred at the base. The
maximum slip in Bl during Cycle 28 was more than twice the
slip at Load Stage 11. This is one source for the difference
in total shear distortions between Bl and B4.
The slip in CJl is shown as a percentage of the total
shear deflections in Zone 1 in Fig. B-60. After yield, the
slip remained a relatively constant at 20% to 25% of the
total shear deflection in Zone 1. It will be shown later
that the slip at CJl in Specimen B4 is only about 10% of the
total in Zone 1.
The measured slip at CJ2 is erratic and was probably
influenced by a diagonal crack. The slip measured at CJ3
was considerably less than the slip at CJ3 in Specimen B4.
shapes are shown in Figs. B-61 and B-62. As in the rectan-
gular specimens, these figures show that although flexure
was the larger component of top deflection, shear was
becoming an increasingly major portion of the total in the
latter load increments. A comparison of the deflection
components for Specimen Bl and R2 indicates that although
the shear stress was somewhat higher in Bl, the shear
deflections were a smaller portion of the total at equal
displacement ductilities.
B-78
20
002 0.06 010
- 20
-60
a) At 6 ft. Level
60
..---- 1'\ _ _ ---::-""""'::::>'-84
~CJ3 -002 0.04

35"
SliP,
---t-CJ2 CJ2, In
1
'3 0"
-LCJI
I 1
31
b) At 3 ft. Level
II '--'-..;::-£14
y --
/
, 31
Gage Foded
In Cycle 32
-20
-40
111.=0.305 m
lin.=25.4 mm
I kip='1.'1/iB ki'J
c) At Base Level

for Specimen Bl
B-79
·6CJ I 0/
- , /0
f. Y.
100 I in. = 25.4 mm
60
20 22 28 :31
0.5 1.0
Shear Deflection, 6 y, (inJ
.a) At Maximum Positive Loads
100
60
31 28
22 13
19 20
-1.0 -0.5
Shear Deflection, A Y. (in.)

Shear Deflection in Zone 1 for Specimen Bl
B-80
60 ~>---,...
,
,
/
/ Sneer
28/
,1/" ;'
~.O
Defleclion .0,
22,/ ",.;
in, ,I' ","
2.0
,
>:::::>-/
,
Flexure
',3,>"
10,........
O~--------------""=--+
o 4 6 8 8 18os.
a) At Top of Wall Displocemenl Dwc111i1~ Ratio, ~ /~y Rolclion
(c>,' 0 70 in.)
25
I
l
Deflection t:.,
2V: Shear
'n, I5
Flexure
o
o 2 ~ 6 8 lose
IRototion
b) At 6 ft. Level Disl:lJac:emenl Ductility Ratio, L:../t::. y
(C>y' 0,28 in I
i,25
3'
Shear
,75
Oeflec 41on ~.
in.
- - - CALCUU,TED FRO:~
"'~EASuRED ,DEFCMATION ,25
lelure
EXTRA"OLA,ED
MEASURED TOTAL
lin" 25111 mm
I rr '0.305 m 2 ~ 6 8 10 i8o..
Displacement DIJc111ily Ratio, i::./C.'J IRotation
("y'O,12In)
c) At 3 ft. Level
Fig. B-61 Compenent of Deflection for Specimen B1
B-81
Heig~t
It, 22
31
\
22 , f4 13 15
I
/3
I
24'1 ,31 I
31
\ 1\ I J I I I
\ II I
, I I I I
,,
\ II I I I I
\ 1\ I I I I
\ II 112 I I I
\ 1\ I I I I I
\ II I J II I
\ II I I II I
\ II I I II I
\ II 19 I II I
\ \I I I I / I
\ II I I /I I
\ II I I /I I
\ II I I /I I
\\\Iii \ \ III III
a) Flexural \Wff
\IIU
-5 ·4 -3 -2 -, ! 0 2 3 4 5
Defleclion, in,
Heighl
It. 24
31 24 22 13 1322( 3/31
I r I I j I
I
I
"
II
II
I
I
I
I
II I I
II I I
I
I
II
/I
,
I I
I
II
II
II
II
I II 12 I II II
I II I I Ii I I
I II I I II II
I II I I If II
I I II II
I
I "
II 9
I
I
I
II
If
II
I r
I
I
I
""
II
I I
I I
II
II
II
II
I I r If II
"
\ .~ \IfF I. IH" II
b) Shear \ \~HI \ IJ '"
-5 -4 -3 -2 -I
J 0 2 3 4 5
DcUpclion, in.
Height
fl,
IS
--- - EXTRAPOLATED
MEASURED TOTAL
I in.: 25.4 mm
I ft.: 0.305 m
B. F. - BAR FRACTURE AFTER 1st. 8. F

PRIOR TO 1st. B_ F.
c) Total
-S -4 -3 -2 -I 0 :3 4 5
Defledion. in.
Fig. B-62 Deflected Shape for Specimen Bl
B-82
As can be seen in Fig. B-62, the total deflected shape
was nearly a straight line. The deflected shapes at Cycle
22 and 24 show a small shear degradation within the 3-in.
(76.2 rom) increment.
Reinforcement Strains. Figures B-63 through B-71 show
reinforcement strains in the specimen at various stages.
Figure B-63 indicates the columns started to grow after
Cycle 10.
Figure B-64 indicates that yielding of the vertical
bars ex"tended up to the 9-ft (2.74 m) level in Cycle 22.
Figures B-65 and B-66 show that the strains in the web
vertical bars were somewhat larger than the strains in the
tension column at the base level. This corresponds with the
observation that the base crack was always wider in the
center region. This is due to the low percentage of vertical
steel in the web. Also, the reversal of the strain gradient
in the compression column during the latter load stages can
be seen at the 3-ft(0. 91 m) and 6-ft (1. 83 m) levels in
Figs. B-65 and B-66.
Figures B-67 through B-71 show that, even though the
specimen was over-reinforced for shear, considerable yielding
occurred in the horizontal bars in the lower 9 ft (2.74 m)
of wall. Also, gages near the ends of the bars, HH and HA,
show strains at approximately 50% of yield indicating the"
end hooks were necessary. The strains approached zero at
the 12-ft (3.66 m) level.
B-83
Load,
Kips
!9
Gage VATI
-20000 -10000
Strain I Millionths
Load,
Kips 19 22
60
Gage VHTI
-20000 -IO'JOO 25000

Strcin, Miliionrns
I kip: 4.448 kN
Fig. B-63 Measured Strains on Vertical Reinforcement

at Base of Specimen Bl
B-84
111. 0.305 m
0
:5
Goge VHI'; VHT Gage VAP'VAT

12 --2-
9 9
6 -.
28 6
28
_
--.
22
10
5000 10000' 5000 10000

Siraln, MlllionHu Strain, Milllonlhs
a) Average of VHP & VAT b) Average of VAP & VAT
He''iI nf ,
15.
'I
Gago VFR Gage VCR

12
9 9
6 6 -.
22
3 ~-- ..
13
5000 ::000
Stroln. Millionths
c) Strain Gage VFR d) Strain Gage VCR

Maximum Loads for Specimen B1
,..
8-85
B A
I()J(X)
5 frain,
Moilionths
5000
- B 28
H G F E t ::; Gage Locollon

A
1 22
I ft. =0.305 m
\
o:::co \
\
Stroln,
MIII,onlhs
5C;X:O
Ey
H G F 8 10,13
Gage Location
ICOXl ~// 13
Srrcln,
Mdllonl~s
50:::0 1
13
\
\ ,
'------
~
Ey 10
4
I
H G F E t D C 8
Gage Location
-2500
c) At Base Level
Fig. B-65 vertical Reinforcement Strains at

Maximum Positive Loads for Specimen Bl
B-86
- c=:;
28
ICCOO
Strain,
Millionths
r---22
5000
._----13
~.._,:::::~----IO
¥b~~~F--:::::"?==+~~~:::""_-+--+--~~
C 8 A
Gage Locallon
·2'200 a) At 6 ft. Level
111.=0.305 m
ICXXlO
Strain,
Millionths 13
5000
........ 10
--..... 4
tb_";:""~,....fi=::::""---=t=:="F==;::::::::'-----+--t--_-+1
C 8 A
Gage Localion
13 ~
122 \
''----13
!CQ)J
SIroin,
Millionths /
II"
.....---------..---!O
_----------- 4
G F" E t) C B A
GiJg~ Location
c) At Base Level

Maximum Negative Loads for Specimen Bl
B-87
Laad,
Kips
28
Gage HE 3
-8000 -4000 8000

Strain, Millionths
,I H
Gl
®
I I ! 0
I in. = 25.4 mm
I kip = 4.448 kN 8
I
I, II I I
1 -
f I 1
Ii'I 1\ ]1 11'-'
"'HE2
Load,
Kips 19 28
60 13
40
Gage HE 2
20
-8000 -4000 4000 8000

Strain, Millionths
Fig. B~67 Measured Strains on Horizontal Reinforcement

for Specimen Bl
B-88
.,.,
H'~. ,_"\ '\ ~'_ ,_"

.. .. -_-.-.J;o;=..l. .~_ "_0 ,.1-;:.. .
-- ~"~--"'-~~~~----"'--- - -
- - _. - -
H."~hl_ Hllllil hl , "'·'01\.1, Hl1a hl • H~".. h1.

I,
I':; " '5 I~ "r ~ OJ
"
"1
OJ GOIiI' Hti II (;0", HF GOOI HE Galli He (iQ", HA

" .. "
I .
00
\0
9
,.
"1
>a
2.
20
,21
>8
_ -J~,- ,-, 4,'0,13

" '·eeoCl . .?'~t~.:" 'jrJOO IQCIIX) -?~ ~)OCXJ IV<XlO ·?')OJ 5(0) '4.IC,13 ('t r,ff.$)
-2'j')()
'. SlrOI~. ",1I11ionll>. " SI.oln, M,IlIol'lh, 'r SI'Urn, MIIIIOAIIlI
'. Strohl..M,llIonll'll ::;1'0'0, Mdllo,,'h,

Maximum Positive Loads for Specimen Bl
lit 'O,JO~ m
- - - _._ .q) .-li .... _...... - __
H.~~~:L.-
~_ :...A
- - -- - -- -
_.
7.
n
Z8
~- - -;~~ Z8
7
1/
;11 ,."
'I,.. ~,L'-
[- - -----~
- --~ .----~ ,. I, • r~
['--= - - --~ ----.
,. 1~t+---'---~-
\'0,1] I
_.".r,,' 1..:-1 i'l,' ~ ty '.').J) _;","" 'JCJ\.J..) II.)'.'.") -;"-('r) ',O()rJ .,X,II-) -:"'I'J() I, ',0)) -;"/1) (, '_,(")..1
5"G"", Mdl'onllli
'r SI~oIA. MllhO'lIIl,
'r SHoll'l, MlllloJ"l'" !ior~orA, MIIIIGAln, :11,0)11, MilliDnU"
'\

Maximum Negative Loads for Specimen Bl I ".~O.305 m
: I
...0--r--
I
Strain,
Millionths
50::0
28
10
H F 4 E C A
Goge Locollon
-2500 ·a) At 9 ft. Level
111.°0.305 m
Strain,
Millionths
(4,10,13,22,28
H F E C A
Goge Locot,on
ICOCO
StraHl.,
Millionths
28
500J
--?_----.. . . .22
10
4 E '- i\
Gage Locatio"

at Maximum Positive Loads for Specimen Bl
B-91
H'S~.F) E,'} C\~~_'
.~.A
: -.- .. I ~=;,:,;;=:l=;::=:=;~;:===::;:;=:=;:;::=;:;l:!~ ~
I
Strain,
Millionths
28
22
4,10,13
H F E C .\
Goge locol,on
-2500
a) At 9 ft. Level
111.=0.305 m
Slroin,
Mil Iionths
H F E A
Gage LOCOllOrl
IOXO
Slrain,
Millionths
5000 28
H F E
Gaga LocatlQ'"'I
Fig. B-7l Horizontal Reinforcement Strains in Web

at Maximum Negative Loads for Specimen Bl
B-92
Specimen B3
Test description
Specimen B3 was similar to Specimen Bl with 1.11%
vertical reinforcement in each column. However, B3 had
boundary elements.
The test consisted of 42 loading cycles as seen in Fig.
B-72. The complete load versus top deflection relationship
for the B3 test is shown in Figs. B-73 and B-74.
Initial flexural cracking was observed in Cycle 4 at a
load of 28.0 kips (124.5 kN). First yielding occurred in
Cycle 10 at a load of 45.2 kips (201.0 kN). The maximum
measured crack widths at this stage were 0.012 in. CO.30 nun)
in the tension column and 0.025 in. (0.54 rom) across a
diagonal crack in the web.
The crack pattern that developed was very similar to
the crack pattern in Bl. The crack pattern at +3 in. (76.2 rom)
and -3 in. deflection is shown in Figs. B-75 and B-76,
respectively.
The behavior of Specimen B3 was very similar to the
behavior of Bl through the first 21 cycles. However, where
as flexural buckling of vertical bars occurred in Cycle 22
for Bl, no significant distress was observed in the boundary
elements of B3 until Cycle 38. Significant crushing and
grinding progressively deteriorated the web concrete after
Cycle 28. However, the confinement hoops in the columns
B-93
Load, kips 28 31 34 37
60 19 22
13
t- -hr;-_-t-+++++-_-H+J-H~I_J_I_I_h_---F..:.u.:...II~Y
i eId :: 51. 5, kips
40 First Yield:: 45.2 kips
20
10 20 30 50
-20
41 Cycle No.
- 40 t- ~++++--J-HH-1~--+++~++~+_1~--....:...F~ir..:..:st
Yi el d :: 43.7 kips
Full Yield:: 47.0 kip'S

-60
a) Load History
I in. :: 25.4 mm
, I kip:: 4.448 kN
Def I., in.

40
8
37
34
6 I
31
28
4
22
19 r;FUIi Yi eld :: 0.70 in.
2 First Yi eld :: 0.55 in.
13
AAf\ f\ A II
o 10 v ltV \I
o
~ C~
I 20 30 40
Jf cle No.
-2
-4
II I '--First Yi eld :: 0.49 in.
Full Yie Id:: 0.64 in.
-6
-8
Fig. B-72 Loading History for Specimen B3
B-94
60 Load, kips
. ~
60 13
+I!-
lr-- t-'.
I r
I J
40
I I
I CrackinQ
l 1
-1.0 . -0.6 -0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0

o::J Deflection, In.
I
~
Ul
-20
/- ---+-- Crackin9
-40
I in. = 25.4 mm
13
-60 I kip =4.448 kN
-80

Initial Cycles for Specimen B3
60 Load, kip a
FItSI Bar Fracture
>6
60
lr Full Yield
>p.-n I I
r Fltst Y,eld
! I
ttl
I
w
0'1
G 1 ;
-i
~I
;:;~F0'~~~'_=5~ Deflection, in.
~
~~~
-40
FirSI Yield
Full Yield I in. = 25.4 mm
I kip=4.448kN
-60
34 31 26
-60
Fig. B-74 Continuous Load-Deflection Plot for Specimen B3

,-+-----'----&
-+---+---1-+-_~ __
~ _+_~~~ J-
_ '

for Specimen B3
---&-- ------i-i".
I I
101520

for Specimen B3
B-97
contained the boundary element concrete and helped to prevent
bar buckling. The maximum load measured, 62.0 kips, (275.8 kN),
occurred in Cycle 34 at a +6 in. deflection. This load
corresponded to a nominal shear stress, v max = 3.1/f~
(0.26~, MPa). The maximum measured crack widths at this
stage were 0.125 in. (3.18 rom) in the column and 0.170 in.
(4.32 rom) across a diagonal crack in the web. The specimen
maintained a nearly constant load capacity through to Cycle
39.
In Cycles 25 through 27, a 1 in. (25.4 rom) deflection
loading increment, a considerably different stiffness of the
wall was observed for the two loading directions. This can
be attributed to the crack pattern. As shown in Figs. B-75
and B-76, when the wall is loaded in the negative direction
there are several straight horizontal cracks (in the com-
pression side) for the wall to slip across. However, when
loaded in the positive direction the crack pattern in the
compression side is crisscrossed. Therefore, the specimen
is stiffer in this direction.
In Cycle 38, the compression boundary element appeared
to shear through, although the load capacity remained rela-
tively constant. The specimen is shown at this stage in
Fig. B-77.
In Cycle 39, a vertical bar fractured at the base while
loading the specimen to +7-in. (177.8 rom) deflection. The
·fractured bar still had concrete cover and no evidence of
previous distress, such as buckling, was present. While
B-98
Fig. B-77 Specimen B3 Prior to Bar Fracture
B-99
loading the specimen in Cycle 39 to -7-in. deflection, a bar
in the opposite column fractured. This bar was visible and
it was evident that the bar had previously buckled between
the confinement hoops. The load capacity at this stage was
85% of the measured maximum. In subsequent cycles, buckling
was noted in 7 main flexural bars and 5 of these fractured
1/2 to 1-1/2 cycles after buckling. The buckling of these
bars was associated with a shear displacement of the compres-
sion columns.
All of the small vertical bars in the web buckled in
Cycles 39 and 40, but only one fractured.
The specimen sustained its load carrying capacity
through 21 inelastic cycles. The last inelastic loading
increment in which the load was sustained at or above 80% of
the maximum for all 3 cycles was at ~7 in. A photograph of
the wall after testing is shown in Fig. B-78.
Moment-Rotation. Moment rotation data for Specimen B3
of the calculated monotonic maximum. The maximum rotations
during Cycle 37 in B3 was approximately 1.4 times that
during Cycle 28 in Bl at the 3-ft (0.91 m) level and 1.25
times that in Bl, Cycle 28, at the 6-ft (1.83 m) level.
The relationship between the calculated monotonic and
measured rotations at the 3-ft level differs only slightly
from that relationship at the 6-ft.- level. The difference
B-lOO
........-22 a
r~ -~----:::::-.::::----7
_.-J!-~__ -------
'-37'
-J
... 19 ... Bar rroct:Jr!
o Ec' 0.0045 < Cu
I
I
I
~-4'=1""-,",,,,-,ii-' ~
'f- -0.03 004 0.06
74 ~.
e,. R~ra'ion •
6 3 , Rod.
Calculared
Monotonic
Specimen 84 Tesl
3 31
a) At 6 ft. Level
Ro~ar on,
6 Z ' Rod.
Co!c.uloted
Monofonic
S;ec;irJ'en 84 Tesl
31
b) At 3 ft. Level
Gages FailEi'd
;n Cycle 35
- 0.C05 0004 0.008

Ror~n,)n.
9 1 ' Red.
Ift.=O.305m
I in. = 25.4 mm
34 31 Ikip=<!,448 kN
c) At Base Level

for Specimen B3
8-101
indicates that a slightly larger portion of the assumed
curvature distribution should have been concentrated in the
lower 3-ft of wall.
Cycle 28 in B3 and Load Stage 11 in B4 correspond to a
4-in. (101.6 rom) top deflection. Cycle 37 in B3 and Load
Stage 14 in B4 correspond to a 7 in. (177.8 rom) top
deflection. As shown in Fig. B-79, the maximum rotations in
B3 at the 4-in. deflection were only slightly less than the
rotation in B4 . . However, at the 7-in. deflection the dif-
ference between B3 and B4 had increased significantly. The
rate of increase of maximum rotation in new load increments
reduced after Cycle 28. This indicated that shear degradation
was occurring.
The maximum measured loads in each new increment ex-
hibit some "strain hardening" as the rotations increase.
However, an envelope through the measured peaks approached
a maximum lower than the maximum for monotonic loading.
The rotation loops at the base level exhibited consid-
erable pinching after Cycle 19. Pinching was only slightly
evident in Cycles 34 and 37 at the 3-ft and 6-ft levels.
Shear-Distortion. Shear distortion loops for Specimen
B3 are shown in Fig. B-80. As in the previously described
tests of specimens over-reinforced for shear, B3 exhibited
shear "yielding" during the same load cycles in which
flexural yielding occurred.
The pinching in the loops was more evident in Zone 1.
The new maximum shear distortions in Zone 1 in each new
B-102
Lood,
Kips
40
-11-0"
.,
,,
,,
I
---0 -006 006
,-!lul'"
I 0 Shear Dlstorfton'S,
)"3' Rod.
40
a) In Base to 6 f-t Level
Lood,
K,ps €o
40
-jf- 0SZ
PI
~ -+T--11----H--0
iL,
-004 004
: -?b-'@
®-r--
I J2' Rod
40
Load,
Kips
·10
Shear Dlstorf.ons,
rio Rod
40
111.=0.305 m
lin.=25,4 rnm
c) In Base to 3 ft Level I ki[l=4.'1 4El kN

for Specimen B3
B-103
increment became larger at an increasing rate. The magnitude
of distortions in Zones 1 and 2 were approximately equal. in
Cycle 28. ,However, by Cycle 37, the distortions in Zone 1
were twice the distortions in Zone 2.
The distortions during Cycle 28 were only slightly
larger than the distortions at Load Stage 11 in B4. However,
the distortions in Zone 1 during Cycle 37 were more than
twice the distortions at Load Stage 14 in B4. This indicated
considerable shear degradation in the lower 3 ft (0.91 m) of
wall due to reversed loading after Cycle 28.
joints in B3 is shown in Fig. B-8l. The slip at CJl ex-
hibited "yield" similar to shear "yielding" at a load incre-
ment slightly later than that in which flexural yielding
occurred. The gage at CJl failed in Cycle 31. Up to this
cycle the slip in B3 was less than that measured in Bl and
more than that measured in B4 at equivalent top deflections.
The slip in CJl is shown as a percentage of the total
shear deflection in Zone 1 in Fig. B-82. After yield, the
slip remained a relatively constant 10 to 15% of the total.
This is significantly smaller than the percentage in Speci-
men Bl and slightly higher than that in Specimen B4.
The measured slip at CJ2 and CJ3 was small compared to
that in B4.
Deflections. Deflection components and deflected
shapes are shown in Figs. B-83 and B-84. These figures show
that prior to Cycle 31 the deflection components and deflected
B-104
Lood, 22.28 31 ........ ·~·-l----r
K,ps 60 19, / (;...---- 84
3
Gage Failed
,n Cycle 32
-004 002 006 010

Slip,
CJ3, ,n.
31 28 '19
'\ -60
22
a) 'At 6 ft. Level

Load,
K'ps 60
~ ---~
L 84
110 ~I
40
Gage FOiled 20
,n Cycle 32
- 36"
r CJ3 -002 0.02 004
Slip,
- +CJ2 CJ2. In,
-20
36"
--L-CJI
I I -40
-60
b) At 3 ft. Level
II _~- ____
load,
Kips 60
31
)(
Y i84-
, 19 22 28
40
GOQ9 Folled
,n Cycle 31
-0.20 -010 0.10

Slip,
CJI, ill.
-40
-60 Ifl =0.305 m

I in. =25.4 mm
c) At Base Level I kip= 4.448 kN
Fig. B-8l Load Versus Slip at Construction Joints

for Specimen B3
B-105
6. CJI 0/
6. I /0
'(I
100
I in. = 25.4 mm
60
4
20 22 28
13 19
10
0.5 1.0
Shear Deflection, 6. '(I (in.)
100
60
20
28 22 19 (0
3L'_-----:~--~-.--;..;~-~
-1.0 -0.5
Shea r Deflection I ~ 11 (in.)

Shear Deflection in Zone 1 for Specimen B3
B-106
8
De~lecflon .0.,
<I
o
o 2 4 6 8 Sase
Rotation
a) At Top of Wall
Di:.plccemenl Cuctility
It. y ' 0.70 in.)
Rotlo,
40
;/
/ /
3.0 ~
Deflection 6,
in,
2.0
I 2~
/
Sheor
,0 h ~------
19//
/'", Flexure
13/
o;c:...---~------_-:..._-+-
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 180..
Displacement Ductility Rauo, .0. 16.'( Rototicn
b) At 6 ft. Level l"y'O 301n)
2.5
1.5
Sh£or
Ce1:~l;llon 0..
ie
- - - C:'LCULATED F.. C~"

MEASURED CEFC~:,ATION
EXTiiAPOLATED
MEASURED TOTAL
I in = 25 4 fr.m
0.5
-- Flexure
I fl.' 0.305 m 4 8 12 16 Bo!.e

Displacement Duclilily Rctio, ~ lAy Rototlon
16 y ' 0.12 in )
c) At 3 ft. Level
Fig. B-83 Component of Deflection for Specimen B3
B-107
Height
31 fI 31
4~ 37133 22 13 13 22 33/373 0
I I II I I I I 1/ 1/
I I 1\ \ I / 1/ 1/
I I II I I I 1/ 1/
I \ \\ \ I / II II
I I \\ \ I I II 1/
I I \I \ 12 I II 1/
I I II \ I II/II
II II \ I I II 1/
II II \
\ \
\1\\1
~\ , I
I
9
[ II "
, 11 II
f If II
II \\ \ I II/II
II n I I I U II
\I ~ I I I a /I
\ I" I 1101/
1i/ff \\\\ 1/11/

a) Flexural
-8 -6 -4 -2
J 0 2 4 6 8
Deflection, in,
Heigh'
fI.
33 22 22 33
40 37 \ 31 \ 13 13) 31 i 37
\ I I I I I II , 40
I
\
I
I
1
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
I ,
I
\ I I I
I II I I
I I "II I I
I II I I
I I II 112 I II I I
\ I II I I I II J I
I \ II I II II I I
I \ II I II II I I
I I II I II II I I
\ I II 19 I /I I I
\ I II I II II I I
\ I II I II /I 1 I
I I II I II II I I
\ \ 1\ 1111 II I I
b) Shear
\\ ~ \6~ /11//
\ \ \\ III /I I I
-8 -6 -4
Y
-2 0 2 4
Derlection, In.
6 8
Height
fl. 33
--- - EXTRAPOLATED
MEASURED TOTAL
I in. = 25.4 mm
1ft.: 0.305 m
CYCLE 40, AFTER

B.F. - BAR FRACTURE SEVERAL B. F.
CYCLE 37, PRIOR

TO 1st. B, F.
c) Total
-8 -6 -4 -2 o 2 4 6 '8
Deflection. in.
Fig. B-B4 Deflected Shape for Specimen B3
B-10B
shapes in B3 were very similar to those in Bl. After cycle
31 shear deflections increased. At the latter load incre-
ments the total deflected shape of the wall was similar to
the deflected shape of a frame.
The deflected shapes at Cycle 31 and 33 showed an
approximate 20% increase in shear deflection at the top of
the wall within the 5-in. increment. The deflected shapes
at Cycles 37 and 40 show the stiffness degradation due to
several bar fractures. It is interesting to note that
fracture of the vertical steel affected the shear deflec-
tions more than it did the flexural deflections.
Reinforcement Strains. Figures B-85 through B-93 show
reinforcement strains in the specimen at various stages.
Since the majority of the vertical strain gages were
either not functioning or off scale after Cycle 28, The
strain gage figures are very similar to the strain gage
figures for Specimen Bl.
The horizontal gages functioned for a few more cycles
than did the vertical gages. Therefore, Figs. B-89 through
B-93 show more extensive yielding in the horizontal web bars
than do Figs. B-67 through B-71 for Specimen Bl. The hori-
zontal strains approach zero at the l2-ft level.
B-109
Gage vATI
-20000 -10000
LeDe,
K,ps
60
f
13
o I __
40
t-
Goge VHT:
II
20
//
(I
-20000 -10000 I'JOCO 2J<'00
StrJin, Millionlhs
I ~I;:l = 4.448 k:-.J

at Base of Specimen B3
B-110
Ift.=O.305m
,.
Heig'" ,
Ga~e VHP ~ VHT

'] Gage ~
12 \
\
9
6
2S
5000 !Oooo 50X> 100X>

Siroin, Millionths Strain, Millionln!o
a) Average of VHP & VHIT b) Average of VAP & VAT
Height,
ft.
i5 15
Gage VFR 12
----+--~~--">--...::=~--+-_._--+---<
5000 10000 -2500 ~
1
. 50C0 10000
SlrOln, Millionlhs Strain. Milllonlr'lS

B-lll
Stroln. 28
Millionths
-2500
a) At 6 ft. Level
,
,
'22
, I It.=0,305 rn
10::00
Strain.
Millionths
5000
Ey
)l 10
4
~
22
I
H G F E t D c a A
Goge Locotron
-2500
b) At 3 ft. Level
_22
r
ICOOO :
13
22
Strain,
Millionths
•
5000
I
Ey I
4
H G F
-2500 C) At Base Level

Maximum Positive Loads for Specimen B3
B-112'
H G B A
F E
Strain,
MillIonths
5000
I~
10
H
G C 8 A
Gage Loc.otion
I fl.=0.305 m
10000
Strain.
,
Millionths
5000 28
22
'-
I 13
~=---_/
C B A
Gage Locotion
-2500
b) At 3 ft. Level
,StraIn,
Millionths
13
I
5000
10
E t D C 3 A
Gage Location
-2500 c) At Base Level

Maximum Negative Loads for Specimen B3
B-113
Loed,
Kips
Gege HE3
- 8oo::;:o::;-------:4:-;o:;;o:::o:---...:::..,~~.lft--fT'...;;;;~==~~---....:.....--.
Slrein, Miilient~s
0) "
®
! r[i I II II
I
-
I in. = 25.4 mm ~
-&
lid I Ii I -
I kip = 4.448 kN
TI lUll \ i '-.HE2
11'-
Leed,
Kips
60 22
3
Gege HE2
- 80';:;'OO;:;--........----:4;:O~O::::0:-----~*;----+--4-0+-0-0-----8---<OOO
Ey
Strein, Millienl~s
-20
-40
19 22
-60

for Specimen B3
B-114
•q=-".
"tpF' ~.- .c=- ~---.
. [l~C~A -: - __ _ :
.w.. r-'="----=----- .-- -.
Ht.qr-l. H' ..~hI. He""!',,, H·l(lM. Ih"JhI,
" ,.
I".:. "
,1 "
GIlQe HH 1(' ~ _3_",- GOQo ttF GQ4' He 1:-' GOIII HA

'2
t:Jj
I
...... .,
...... ."
V1
c,
~ __3~
~~
J;'..
_", ~ il
-~~ , I.
--,--------- ,..---' --
,'../.'.' ·;.o·.)~CJ ':.JoX) l-)Coo ."")0 ',O,xl IUo..x> ,;>~(:('l til' ~(.:u
~
. -- :,·cc '<UJ ~Oi~e
" ~'r<"n. Mdl,or'llh, 5Iro,", M,llIoo'I'>1 " '1'0'0. "",llIonlh, " 5/«J.lI, ""Hliafllh. 5lrolo_ ,,",11,,"'11'"

Maximum Positive Load for Specimen B3 Ift,';,Q.30'.Jm
H~",, __ :,L.__ .cUe.:c-
-' A
. . -- ~-~-'=='==-. ~ ~
.- -- - . "
H~'Qhl, HI,,~M. HI.,IIl, He"i1 h l. H·'liIt>I.

,.
"0
" t'j " i'5
" IS "
Gall' H~ GOIII Hf CiOIJI HE GOQ' He

tJ:l '2 12 '2 ,2 G0'ill HA
I
I-'
I-'
0'\ 9 9
r, 6
"
,.
1'1.11 ."
v \ __ ~_
;',. I
--~---+-----+-- t--~.-
~- - 1 I lff~~'u '_,(J)Q - 2 r Q)
. '",,"-) '\'~";J .:",'.1J ,LXX) -('~(\q 'JW) :':',00 i, ~/[Ot)
~1 $~'Ol". o.l", In'h' " SilO,.. , ...,,(I,onll'l, Ii. , SIIG,n. t,l,lhonTtl. " 51ro.I'I, M,lllonlhl Sl'Q'R. hII,lt,')"'_h,

Maximum Negative Loads for Specimen B3 II. -0.305 m
"a: 1
E\
i= ~
C\
t
e' ,
€fJ
100Xl
StrclIn, 31
Millionths
5000 34
\\
\
<y 2
H F E C to.
Goge LocoJflon
a) At 9 ft. Level
I ft.=O.305 m
100Xl
Stroln.
Millionlhs
5000
F E C to.
Goge Locot.on
b) At 6 ft. Level
Strcln,
Millionths
5000
22
10
'3
.,.318
H F E 31 C A
-2500
----,8 Gage LOCO~lon
c) At 3 ft. Level

at Maximum Positive Loads for Specimen B3
B-117
10CXXi
Strain,
Mill,onlhs
5CX::O
H F E C A
Gage Location
a) At 9 ft. Level
Ifl.=O.305m
IOXO
SlrOln,
Million.hs
5000
~y
H F E C ~
Goge LOCOllon
b) At 6 ft. Level
10000
Strain. .. 28
MillIonths
5Q(X)
/
, . 31
H F C A
Gage Location
c) At 3 ft. ,Level

at Maximum Negative Loads for Specimen B3
B-118
Specimen B4
Test Description
Specimen B4 was similar to Specimen B3 with 1.11%
vertical reinforcement in each column and confinement in the
lower 6 ft (1.83 m) of the column. B4 was loaded monotoni-
cally for comparison with B3.
The test consisted of 20 load stages as shown in Fig.
B-94. First cracking was observed between Load Stages 3 and
4 at a load of 26 kips (115.6 kN). First yielding occurred
at Load Stage 7 at a load of 45.3 kips (201.5 kN). The
maximum measured crack widths at this stage were 0.010 in.
(0.25 rom) in the tension column and 0.020 in. (0.51 rom)
across a diagonal crack in the web.
The crack pattern that developed in the lower 6 ft is
shown in Figs. B-95 through B-98. Figure B-95 shows the
crack pattern at 3 in. (76.2 rom) top deflection. Figure
B-96 shows the specimen at 8 in. (203.2 rom) top deflection
when the load was near the maximum. Figure B-97 shows the
specimen at 12 in. (304.8 rom) in. top deflection just before
the end of the test. Figure B-98 shows the specimen just
after the end of the test.
Slight crushing in the outer shell of the compression
face was first noted at Load Stage 9. This crushing pro-
gressively increased throughout the test.
After Load Stage 10, one diagonal crack started to
predominate. As seen in Fig. B-96, this crack extended from
B-119
·
Lead, kips 80 1
70 10
+6
60t 8
lr Full Yield .----
50
Fi"l Yield >--
I I
+p.-nr : I
I
C,acking I in. mm
= 25.4
-1 20 t kip = 4.448 kN
, \20
,I "
I 10
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -I o 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
tJj
I Defleclion, in.
I-' -10
IV
o
- 20
-30
-40
-50
.. Numbers ondicale load slage
lor monolonic lesl.
-60.
-70
-80
Fig. B-94 Continuous Load-Deflection Plot for Specimen B4

.. u . . i
•
I
j
! .
4- .
"~t~r
._.-c-".:'....
' --t- ····f·--····
I
~'!
,8410
,~
20 15 10 5 0
1""1' I I
10 15 20

for Specimen B4
& ··6
I
I
; --.., ,
...... ~.-,. ~,:----:"- ~ -,_.__ !_~, ...

for Specimen B4
B-12l
6-
\"-
3 -.-
I I
10 15 20
Fig. B-97 Specimen B4 Prior to End of Test
; - - Ii --
3--
- - ---j.. _-- _......:..-
B-122
· \ column approximately
the base compression column to the tens10n
2 ft 6 in. (0.76 m) above the base.
The maximum load measured, 75.3 kips (334.9 kN), oc-
curred at a top deflection of 8.5 in. (215.9 rom). This load
correspond to a nominal shear stress, v

max
= 3.9/f~ (0.32/f~, MFa),
between Load Stages 15 and 16. At this point one of the
smaller diameter vertical bars in the web region fractured.
The measured crack widths at this stage in the column ranged
from 0.075 to 0.125 in. (1.90 to 3.18 rom). The measured
width across the large diagonal crack was 0.44 in. (11.2 rom)
other measured web crack widths ranged from 0.07 to 0.10 in.
(1.78 to 2.54 rom).
Between Load Stages 16 to 19, 4 more small diameter
vertical bars in the web fractured. A small decrease in
load was associated with each of these bar fractures. At
Load Stage 19, the width across the large diagonal crack was
1.0 in. (25.4 m).
Between load stages 19 and 20 at a top deflection 12.5
in. (317.5 rom), all 8 tension column bars and 4 additional
vertical web bars fractured simultaneously. The 8 column
bars fractured at a level where the large diagonal crack
intercepted the tension column 2 ft 6 in. above the base.
The load reduction was very sudden and nearly complete.
Since very little load capacity remained in the wall
for loads in the positive direction, the wall was loading in
the negative direction. The wall reached a maximum load of
72.5 kips (322.5 kN) at -5.3 in. (134.6 rom) top deflection
B-123
before a sudden failure occurred when all the remaining bars
fractured.
Moment-Rotation. Moment rotation data for Specimen B4
is shown in Fig. B-99. As described previously in the data
analysis and presentation section, the, calculated maximum
strength agreed closely with the measured. The calculated
rotation at the base level differed considerably from the
measured due to strains in the steel anchored in the base
block. However, the calculated maximum rotations at the
3-ft and 6-ft (0.91 m and 1.83 m) levels are in reasonable
agreement with the measured.
Shear-Distortion. The shear-distortion data for B4 are
shown in Fig. B-IOO. As in the previously described tests,
shear "yielding" occurred at the same load stage in which
flexural yield occurred. The distortions in Zone 1 were
approximately equal to those in Zone 2. The distortions
increased at an approximately constant rate with each new
1 in. deflection increment.
Slip at Construction Joints The slip at construction
joints in B4 is shown in Fig. B-IOI. The slip at CJl ex-
hibited a "yielding 11 similar to shear "yielding" at the same
stage that flexural yield occurred. Slip at CJ2 "yielded"
one load stage after flexural yield. Slip at CJ3 "yielded"
one load stage before flexural yield.
B-124
15
Mament
--- .-- --- -----------
19 '
01 Bose.
Kjp~in.
,-
." ,."."J
Ec • 0.0034 < Eu
Calculated
Monolonie
0.02 0.04 006

Rotation,
a) At 6 ft. Level 8 3 , ROd.
15
--- - ---------
Moment
01 8ase,
Kip-in.
II
I il T
/
/ II j
,,
ey-L I
JB.J"
r '- i.-"~
Calculated
Monoronic
001 002 003 004 005

Rolotion.
b) At 3 ft. Level 6 2 ' Rod.
15
19
Moment
a' 80se,
Kip_in.
10000 Fra:tur!
..... Ec ' 0.0054 < Eu
! I! r I
I
I ft.~O.305 m
I in.~ 25.4 mm
,I II :
I
I
Ikip=4.448 kN
,
0--:!,-
256
.I .... V~ I - - - Calcufated
Monotonic
0002 0006 0010

Rotation.
6,. Rod.
c) At Base Level
Fig. B-99 Moment at Base Level versus Rotation

for Specimen B4
B-125
15
I~~---' __-
LoOd,
Kips
60
-J 1--""
"
40
20
002 004
SheClr QiS1CrhQn'S,
a) In Base to 6 ft Level '3' Rod.
15
I
Lood,
Kips
60
40
~-++-tl-+
~6·
cT,-t-----r-...J....,
20
0.02 0.04
SMear Distortions,
b) In 3 ft to 6 ft Level )'2' Rod.
Lood,
KIps
60
40
111.'0.305 m
I in,: 25.4 mm
Ikip'4.448 kN
20
002 00'4
Shear Distortions,
c) In Base to 3 ft Level YII Rod
Fig. B-100 Load versus Shear Distortions for

Specimen B4
B-126
__----7 '6
load,
Kq:lS
EO
20
0,04 OCB
SlIp.
CJ3,10
a) At 6 ft. Level
16
17
load,
10 19
Kips
60
I
I
40
..
- - . - - CJ3
.'-
"~
-l--CJ2
I 3'6"
....L-CJI
20
I I
0010 0020 0030

Slip,
CJ2', In.
b) At 3 ft. Level
15
LOGO,
Kq)5
60
111,=0,305 m
lin.=25.4 mm
I klp= 4.~4S k~J
20
005 010
c) At Base Level
Fig. B-IOI Load versus Slip at Construction Joints

for Specimen 84 .
B-127
As shown in Fig. B-I02, the slip at CJl was a relatively
constant 8 to 10% of the total shear deflection in the lower
3 ft of the wall.
shapes are shown in Figs. B-I03 and B-I04. While flexural
deflections predominated, shear deflections were approxi-
mately 30% of the total top deflection. The relationship
between shear and flexural deflections remained constant
through the test.
Reinforcement Strains. Figures B-lOS through B-IlO
show reinforcement strains in the specimen at various load
stages. The strain gradient figures for B4 appear similar
to those for Bl and B3. Figure B-I07 shows that the neutral
axis at the base moved toward the compression face until
Load Stage 10. The neutral axis then moved away from the
compression face until the end of the test. Figures B-l09
and B-IlO show that yielding occurred in the vertical and
horizontal bars up to the 9-ft (2.74 m) level.
B-128
lldl,%
Ay'
/00
in. :: 25.4 mm
60
J4
20
'L.. .-Ja~
\
19
0.5 1.0
Shear Deflection, !J.YI (in.)

B-129
I~
/
/ Sheo.r
JO ~/ /
/ /
Deflect ion ~.
I,';;: ,,/
in,
~ ,,/
~/ //
// Flexure
10#"
"/
/."
sV
:J :c...f' " ~_+
o 4 8 12 16 So,e
Displacement Ductility Rotlo; tJ./t:J. y ROlction
a) At Top of Wall l~y·O.SO ,nl
5.0
18
/
/
/ Shear
Deflec!,on
in.
~;,J
~,
l'
7 //
2.0
1;( , /
1~,0/- / Flellure
~'
8 '
~ ,
Y
Q
0 <1 8 12 16
ISO' .
b) A 6 ft. Level Di:.plceement OuctilH)' Ratio, ~/~y Rolatlon
(~y'033,n)
2.5
~
IS
Deflec t ion
'5
~I
~ Shear
in.
/.
/
;)/. /
/
::15 10# /// Flexure
_0- CALCULATED FROM ;'/

MEASURED CE;:O~\~~TION
EXTRAPOLATED
MEASURED TOT;'L
::IJe: ~~====...:;... _ _+
4 a 12 16 sass
1m; 25.4 mm
III • D 305 rn
Displacement Ductilily
l':'y'O 14 ,n)
Ratio, t::./C:J. y IRotarion
c) At 3 ft. Level
. B-130
He <;~I
It.
15j t~a /2 ,,14 1)6 / )9

I I I I I /
I I I I I /
I I I I I /
12 I I I I I ,-
I I I I I /
II I I I /
II I I I /
I: I I I /
9 II I I I /
Iii '"
II I /
,,1// ( / / /
/ /
6/111/
:r
11/ /
a) Flexural
o 2 4 6 a !O 12
Deflection, in.
Heigt>l
II a :4
5/ 12 ; 16 19
15~, I I J I
II J I I I
,II I I I
I I I
I'I
II I I I
12~'II I
I
I
I , I
I I I
f
1/
9t:'I
I I
I I
I I
,
I
I
I r )
II I I I
I I r r
I I I I
6/1///
3 IfII
/I %/
!II
b) Shear
0
0 2 4 6 B 10 ,2
De1lec1lon, in.
Helghl
It.
15 5 a 12 ,9
- -- CALCULATED FROM I
MEt.SURED DEFORM~.TION /
--- - EXTRAPOLATED
12
I
/
MC:ASURED TOTAL
I
I in. = 25.4 mm
I ft.: 0.305 m 9
I
c) Total
6)
I
~I
10 12
Oefrec~ion, In.
Fig. B-104 Deflected Shape for Specimen B4
B-131
Load.
Kips
9
60
8
Gage VATI 5,6 40
20
20
...- ---- 2_1_ _ -------0--+---.+ 0

- 20000 -10000 t 0
y
Strain, Millionths
Load,
Ki~. ---
60
40 Goge VHTI
20 I kip = 4.448 kN
°+--1-------
0
...,0-0-0--------2-00
10
....0 -0-----<
ty
Slroin I MdliQntns

B-132
I ft.'O.305 m
VHP. VHT
12 Gaoe
2
6 ---12...
357
5COO 10000
Slraln. f,r1llllonths
a) Average of VHP & VHT
I? Go;o VFR
---_12
50!):) '1:)'::·::0
Slrain, MdllonlM
b) Strain Gage VFR

B-133
B A
12
ICCCO
StraIn.
Millionths
50:0
A
G F E t D c [)
Goge Locelion
I fl.=0,305 m
IO:::CO \10
\
\
Strain,
MillIonlhs
5CXXl
Ey
G F E l D'
Location
10"-------
ICXXXl B
Strain,
Millionrhs
50:0
5
3 A
~~::
H G F E l D
·50J0
~
::
~ ,16
I 17
\
\ 19
c) At Base Level

B-134
Load,
Kips
9
60
40
Gage HE3
20
-8000 -4000 o 4000 8000

Strain, Millionths
(i;;----
I in. = 25.4 mm (1);----
I kip = 4.448 kN
Lood,
Kips
60
40
Gage HE2
20
20
)
21
-8000 -4000 o 4000 8000
Stro in, Mi II ianlhs
Fig. B-I08 Measured Strains on Horizontal Reinforcement

/
for Specimen B4
B-135
H·'II t1I • HI·V ht , H,lghl, H"'iI hl •
H"'QIII.
h
I', , " " 15 " Ie, "
, [ ,l
tIl :;. t (,.1111' HH Gagt HF Go". 11£ 12 GOIII He 12 GIIV' HI\,
12 I '2
I
l--'
w
0'\ '~j
'J
'.
~--~ ~-_
~ I.
II.\
--Ie;
\'\-"'''11 -
II r !'-.o•. HF'
• I' r No' F"n"'O'II"'Il
"
." .-16
,.,; ~~ <!~'1T -" Ii I (_...,. .,17
12~)<~ 12 /8
'O~
-- I· . ift
·"iO'·:, 50}:) ·;>5('(' 5000 -25()() ~(OJ 101)0:.) -5000 ',000 <:J(Jl.Xl
·2'3CO
'r S'''~ln. l,I,lI,onl:''II " Strll,n. NllhOfllt.1 'r "'0"'. "i1hll'nJnt
'I Blloin, "1I11.on'''. '. SlroIR. MIII,onlhl

Maximum Loads for Specimen B4 111.'0.305 m
E.
Strain,
MlIlionrhs
H, F 5 E ::: A
Gcge Location
a) At 9 ft. Level
I ft.= 0,305 m
1‫סס‬oo
Strcln.
MillIonths
5CCO
10
H F E ::: A
Goge Location
b) At 6 ft. Level
o::::co
Strain,
Mliliontn~
50c0
Gogo HF 3
Not Func' ioning---, 12
I _ ,...--14
Ey
-~- 10
~---
:::.::--- - 5,7,8
H F E C A
Ga~e Location
C) At 3 ft. Level
Fig. B-IIO Horizontal Reinforcement Strains in Web

at Maximum Loads for Specimen B4
B-137
Specimen B2
Test Description
Specimen B2 had column boundary elements with 3.67%
vertical reinforcement in each column. Ordinary column ties
at 8 in. on center were used throughout the height of the
boundary elements.
The test consisted of 30-1/2 loading cycles as shown in
Fig. a-Ill. The complete load versus top deflection relation-
ship for Specimen B2 is shown in Figs. B-112 and B-113.
The first significant cracking was observed in Cycle 4
at a load of 30 kips (133.4 kN). First yielding occurred in
measured crack widths at this stage were 0.005 in. (0.13 rom)
The crack pattern that developed started with horizontal
cracks in the columns that progressed into diagonal shear
cracks in the web. The angle of the diagonal cracks was
steeper than those in the lighter reinforced barbell section.
Also, the diagonal cracks were not affected by cracks from
the opposite direction of loading. The diagonal cracks
crisscrossed the web forming compression strut systems for
each direction of loading. Each compression strut was
segmented by cracks from the opposite direction loading and
the specimen was completely traversed by numerous cracks.
However, the crack pattern across horizontal planes was
B-138
Load, kips
150 19 22 25 28
Full Yield = 12 8.0 kips
First Yield = II 9.7 kips

100
50
o ~~ I'~ ~A
II III/ 10 20 30
j
40 5a
Cycle No.
-50
-100
I Full Y i eId = 117. I kips
Firs! Yield = II 8.6 kips
-150
.
a) Load History.
I in. = 25.4 mm
I kip = 4.448 kN
Defl., in. 31
S
6
28
4
25
2
19
22
r; Full Yield = 1.0 in.
First Yield = 0.84 in.
o •••
v y y
AuAAAuA
10vvvvvvv 20 30
T 40= 5o
"
Cycle No. .
-2
. First Yiclll = 0.7 8 in.
Fu /I Y i eI d = 0.81 in.
-4
-6
-8
Fig. B-lll Loading History for Specimen B2
B-139
160 Lo.::';. kips
, C> 13
!120
lr
+p.-n t
/ r
I + 80
I I
I
I I
I I
ttl -1.0 -0.6 -0.6 -0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0
I
...... Deflection, in.
ol:>.
o
C rac kin 9
-60
in. = 25.4 mm
-120
13
I(ip'" 4.448 kN
-160
Fig. B-ll2 Continuous Load-Deflection Plot for

Initial Cycles for Specimen B2
160 Lead, kips 25
+6
Full Yield
FIISI Yield
lr
"P._I,)=:-:: ::i!r
I
I I
I I
r l
-6 5 6
IJ:l Deflection, in.
I
I-'
ol::>
I-'
I in. = 25.4 mm
I kip = 4.448 kN
-160
Fig. B-113 Continuous Load-Deflection Plot

for Specimen B2
sawtooth shaped. The crack pattern is shown in Figs. B-114
and B-115 at +3-in. (76.2 rom) and -3-in. deflections,
respectively.
First indication of spalling and flaking along the
diagonal cracks was noted in Cycle 14. During Cycle 19 it
was noted that the cracks in compression columns appeared
to remain open approximately 0.003 in. (0.08 m). First
indication of crushing concrete at the outer compression
face occurred in Cycle 22.
The maximum measured load, 152.8 kips (703.7 kN),
occurred in Cycle 25 at a -4-in. (101.6 rom) deflection.
This load corresponded to a nominal shear stress, v

max
=
7.2~f~ (0.60~f~, MPa). Crushing at the base of the columns
increased significantly and first indication of a reverse
curvature in the lower 3 ft (0.91 m) of the columns was
noted in Cycle 25.
During Cycle 26, two bars buckled in the lower 1 ft
(0.30 m) of the compression column under positive load. In
subsequent cycles, 10 more bars buckled so that the outer
six bars in each column buckled. Also considerable spalling
and flaking occurred in the web during Cycles 25 through 2~.
However, the load capacity J did not decrease at this stage.
In Cycle 28, while loading the specimen to a -5-in.
(127.0 rom) deflection, a sudden web failure occurred. The
highest compression strut that intercepted the base of the
column crushed and slipped along an existing crack at a
point 2 ft 1 in. (0.63 m) above the base. The load from
B-142
i
-i--+~-r .~.+--'--+_.-6-
I r' r I !
-·t-l--l--f~-r---·
! 1· I '1 I
.~~ , --r-I·-1~-
I I -+._1
.!.
!---;
I I I
10 15 20

for Specimen B2

for Specimen B2
B-143
this strut was transferred to higher and lower struts. The
additional load in the higher struts immediately sheared the
compression column 1 ft (0.30 m) above the base. With all
the load now in the lower struts, all of these struts then
sheared through simultaneously along a horizontal plane I ft
2 in. (0.36 m) above the base. As the load capacity was
dropping the specimen was "caught" by closing the deflection
control valve in the hydraulic system. The measured load at
this stage had decreased to 59% of the maximum measured
load. Figures B-116 and B-117 show the specimen immediately
prior to and after web crushing.
measured load capacity through 9 inelastic cycles. The last
inelastic loading increment in which the load was sustained
at or above 80% of the maximum for all 3 cycles was at +4
in. (101.6 rom).
Moment-Rotation. The moment-rotation data for B2 is
shown in Fig. B-118. The measured maximum moment was 89% of

the calculated monotonic maximum.
The relationship between ~he calculated monotonic and
measured rotations at the 3-ft (0.91 m), level differed
slightly from that relationship at the 6-ft (1.83 m) level.
The difference indicates that the actual curvature had a
larger portion concentrated in the lower 3 ft of wall than

assumed.
B-144
Fig. B-116 Specimen B2 Prior to Web Crushing
l i - i !
-~"-l---~-----~ -
! I I
I I" "
! "
Fig. B-117 Specimen B2 After Web Crushing
B-145
Moment
of Basel
Kip·;n.
20000
I ?
I I
! I
I
~-+.f~-~-~ -0.02 0.02 004
700- l-
e" Rototion.
8 3 • Rod.
r~-+_-,
Calculoled
Monoronic
25
-30000
a) At 6 ft. Level
at . 8o~e.
Mamenl
KIp-ln.
20000
!
10000
-0.0;'::2~ ..:::.:::r---:::;-4-L7:'-1I--f7'7C-:;.,.-L-----::-=-----;;-::
002 003
Rola1ion,
8z . Rod.
Calculated
Monotonic
-30000 '
b) At 3 ft. Level
Moment 25
ct Bose,
Kip.jn.
II
~I=!=!~f
,
I !I f
J
-0006 0004 0004 0006
ROIOlioo,
9t , Rod.
e,.
-20000
I fl.= 0.305 m
25
-3‫סס‬OO
lin.=25.4 mm
1klp= 4.448 kN
c) At Base Level

for Specimen B2
B-146
The measured rotation at the 3 and 6-ft (0.91 and
1.83 m) levels in B2 was approximately 75% of the measured
rotation in B1 during the 4-in. (101.6 m) top deflection
increment.
The maximum measured loads in each new increment exhibit
"strain hardening" as the rotations increase.
The rotation loops at the base level exhibited con-
siderable pinching after Cycle 19. Pinching is not evident
in the other two levels until cycle 28.
Shear-Distortion. The shear-distortion loops for B2
are shown in Fig. B-119. As in the other specimens, shear
"yielding" occurred during the same cycle in which flexural
yielding occurred.
It should be noted that while the maximum load cor-
responded to a shear stress of 7.2/f~ (0.60/f~, MPa), the
design shear stress was 6.0/f~ (0.50/f~, MFa). This design
allowed 21fT (0.171fT, MPa) in the concrete with the steel

c c
taking 4.0/f~ (0.33/f~, MPa) at 60 ksi. Even assuming the
horizontal steel at an ultimate stress of 100 ksi, the steel
shear capacity would only have been 6.7/f~ (0.04/f~, MPa).
This indicated that the concrete contribution must have been
at least O.5/f~ (0.04/f~, MPa) shear stress at maximum load.
Pinching in the loops was more evident in Zone 1. The
new maximum shear distortions in each new increment became
larger at an increasing rate. The magnitude of distortions
in Zone 1 and 2 were approximately equal and the plots are
relatively symmetrical.
B-147
Load,
K,ps 150
28
-,1-""
"
,,
I
I :.1:
(D-L. t --CD -004 0.03
~~"®
Distortions,
13' Rod.
-150
Lood,
K,ps 150
28
100
.0.030---'-":-~---::::;"""''::::'''?''"~~1IlI--f_~~~'''''''=::''''_----0~030
Sl'lear DistortIons.
'2' Rod.
-100
-150
Load.
Kips :50
-0045 -0030
)'" Rod.
-150
I fl.=0.305 m
I In,= 25.4 mm
c) In Base to 3 ft Level I kip = 4 .448 kN

for Specimen B2
B-148
joints in B2 is shown in Fig. B-120. The slip at CJl
exhibited "yielding" similar to shear "yielding ll during the
same cycle in which flexural yielding occurred. As shown in
Fig. B-121, the slip in CJl was a relatively constant 15% to
20% of the total shear deflection in the lower 3 ft (0.91 m).
The slip plots for CJ2 and CJ3 are unsymmetrical and
the measured slip was probably affected by diagonal cracking.
shapes are shown in Figs. B-122 and B-123. These figures
show that shear deflections were a larger percentage of the
total than they were in the previously described specimens
with low nominal shear stress.
The deflected shapes for Cycles 22 and 24 show an
average 20% increase in shear deflection at the top of the
wall within the 3-in. (76.2 mm) increment.
Reinforcement Strains. Figures B-124 through B-132
show reinforcement strains in the specimen at various
stages.
Figure B-124 shows that the specimen started to grow
after Cycle 19. Figure B-125 shows that yielding of the
vertical bars occurred up to the 9-ft (2.74 m) level in
Cycle 28. Figure B-126 shows the reversed strain gradient
in the compression column in Cycle 28.
Figures B-128 through B-132 show the strain gradients
in the horizontal bars. Although the figures show con-
siderable yielding up to the 9-ft (2.74 m) level, the plots
B-149
Loco,
KIps 150
26
100
50
-0.05 010
-010
Sli P.
C J 3. ,no
26 -150 25
a) At 6 ft. Level
KIps 150
CO" ~
100 ,
Gage Foiled
In Cycle 27
f-I----- -:CJ3 -0 20 -0.10 010

36'1 SI,p.
f - l - - - - f- -.-l-CJ2 CJ2. ,no
-50
3'6"
·-LCJI
I I -100
25 2?
-150
b) At 3 ft. Level
Load.
K,p. 150
28
100
-0 20 020
SliP.
CJI,II'I.
-150
111.=0.305 r.:
I in.= 25.4 rnm
c) At Base Level I kip= 4.4 4 8 kN

for Specimen B2
B-150
6 CJ I 0/
fj, I /0
y,
100
I in. = 25.4 mm
60
10
20 19 22 25 28
0.5 1.0
Shear Deflection I 6 y. (in.)
a) At Maximum Positive Load
100
60
28 25 20
22
-1.0 -0.5 10
Shear Deflection) lJ. '(I (in.)
b) At Maximum Negative Load
Fig; B-121 Slip at Base Construction Join versus

B-151
6.0 26,
,
I
/
/
/ Shear
25/
40 /
/
.-c
QerJeciion 6,
,no 22/
<
#
19
2.0
FluUfe
2 4 5 9050
Disploc~men1 Ductilll)'
a) At Top of Wall ("y' 1.0 in)
Rafio, OIt::.
'1
Aotation
].5
2.5
Deflection A.
in.
1.5
4 6
b) At 6 ft. Level DIsplacement DuC.tility Retio, .0./6.'1
'.o.y~O,44 in.)
20
Def:etllon .t.. 1
in. Shear
1.0
.._----t-
- - - CALCULATED FRO'.'
MEASURED DEFO'~ATIOi'l
EXTRAPOLATED
MEASURED TOT~L
oJ,!2::::--==-=========F
02468
I in.; 254 mm
1 (I.' 0305 m Displacement Ductilit~ Ratio. t!l,lA y
("y' 0.20 inl
c) At 3 ft. Level
B-152
Helgo'
22 IT
28~(24 13
I I
13 24 22
II I
28
\\1 I I II I
\\\ I I /I I
1\\ I I /I I
\\1 I I /I I
\\I 12 I /I I
11\ I I II I
III I I 11 I
\II I I IJ I
III I I II I
IU 9 J /I I
IU
\I
I I
I J
1/
D ,I
"1\
I I
II ,• I
I
\6~1 /
\\ 1/ f
.~
a) Flexural
-5 -4 '3 -2 -I 0 2 3 4 5
Deflection. in.
Height
28
\
28
I
24
II
22 13 13
I
" I
2224
II
28
I
I
I
\
I
I "
\I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II I
\
I
\
I
I
I
"II
II
I
12 I
I
I J
II
II I
I
I
\ \ 1\ I I J I I
\ I II I I II I
\ \ II I I II I
I \ II I I II I
\
\
I
I
,
II
II
9
I
I
I
II
I I , I
\ 1\ I I II I
\
\
I
I
II
II
I I
I I
II
II ,
I
'~\6\~p / \\ \\ III II /
b) Shear
-5 -4 -3 -2 -I
jV 0 2 3 4 5
Deflection. in.
He1go'
fI
28 13 28
- - - CALCULATED FROM 15
\
---- EXTRAPOLATED
--- MEASURED TOTAL 12
I in. = 25.4 mm
Ift.=O.30Sm
W.C.-WEB CRUSHING
AFTER W. C.
PRIOR TO w. C.
c) Total
-5 -4 -3 -2 -I 0 2 .3 4 5
DeflectIon, Ir'!.
Fig. B-123 Deflected Shape for specimen B2
B-153
Load,
Kips
150 22
Gage VATI
-20000 -10000 25000

Strain, Millionths
22
Load,
Kips 150 22
Gage VHTI
,-20000 -10000 20000
/9
-150 22 I kip = 4.448 k N

B-154
V~P~jJ£~~(~.~VF~R~~~~;~CR~"\~l=
.._: ~ ~_VAO I fl.=0.305 m
~,:' ~
VHT I I : I " V:..T
He(g~,T.
15 15 "
Gage VHP; VHT

12 12
9 9
6 6
J J
II 19
19 I :~ !O 13
50c0 10OCO 50c0 10000

Stroln, Millton.ths Strain. Milllonti'u.
a) Average of VHP & VAT b) Average of VAP & VAT
Heighl, Height.
fl. II.
15 15
12 Gage VFR 12 Gage VCR

9
28
6
22
J -.
19
13
5000 10000 5 X·) 10000

Strc'n, Milllonpr.'S

B-155
H G B A
le-1t4"=t-:=~l~~,=J~.".~!,-<,'-.
tf::iF ~
IOXO
Strain,
MillIonths.
G F Etc 8 A
Gogo Location
~22
\
, I fl.=0.305 m
ICOCO
Strain,
Millionths
j
,:22 \1
5000
Ey
H G F
J
E
\
--
\22
\
--=
A
C 8
Gogo LocatIOn
Strain,
Millionths
5000
13
10
Ey - =---..::::::/:r-=--:..;4'-------.::~-- __
===-=::
H G F
I
-2500
c) At Base Level

B-156
IOXO
Strcin,
Millionths
5000 22
---::::~;;;::;;~~===~19
_____-1013
I I h ~
D C 8 A
Gage Location
-2500
a) At 6 ft. Level

B-157
Load,
Kips
Gage HE 3
-8000 -4000 4000 8000

Strain, Millionths
I in. = 25.4 mm
I kip = 4.448 kN
Load,
Kips 150
Gage HE2
-8000 -4000 8000

Strain, Millionths
-50
-100
-150 22

for Specimen B2
B-158
-~ .. ~ ::f-~
, .
_~~;...;...~~=r.'
- ..::
U'··m -:.d- ~)- d---l~I"
lit,.,..,. 1-1"'11,,1. ,°"".1 111 , ti''';h1, 11"0"',

I,
" 1'.1
" " ,', "
Goo. HH c.oq. HF" (j0ll' H[ ., (,oq. He Ciao. HA

" I:'
OJ
J
......
Vl
'-D
II 4
' Lf\
~.
t" )
L ----------- I\~:,·
." )"I ~ __ I=.....~:,"·?IJ , I
'
_~]L~_. .
~.IJ"")() .;.." .
...::., "", '0 '13 f '-,(..<.'0
-?':l'JO (w 'J''}.'V I'X~)<) -('':.£:O oouo '~'..A.)I)
I~;~l~__ ~__
l r :...~ I . ' I
5"01". y"I.'fl'l\l r SlIollI, M,IIIOIlII'l1 5-.0,n, MllhOllll\, (, ~ltal'~::~N~I'Qnt'" Sual". ,.illlon''''

Maximum Positive Loads for Specimen B2 III !O.jO~ m
H1If-b _~~- : c.
-1~,qM. HI,~I'\I. H~".. ",. Ii" ..hl. H ....hl.
" " " :5 " "

"J
uOQI HH GO"1Il HF .2 Go ... He G,Joe H,I.

tIl '2 '2 I?
I
......
0'\
____2~a ')
o
-1.11).1)
.- .'
:~.~-_:.:..- - .·I~
"-"~I---~ - - -....I~1 nL+ ~ ---1'-------.--

'J
, '1 ~J
7'AYl "J"):.' ;-"(Aj 'J'»,. I').,,,, --;,"yl) ~.I _.'( ,
SI.O,", ,,",,1I101'1It11 SI,g!", Mlll,onthl I ,
<,
" ~"g,~:..)';~:,,",,~. " :;;1,g!",1ol11l1q",lhl '''0»11'1, MIII'O"IM

111'0,305 m
111.=0.305 m
Stroln,
Millionths
. 5COO
,
\22
\
H F E C A
Gage LocatIon
b) At 6 ft. Level
Stroln l
Millionths
5000
22
13
19
H E 4 10 C A
Gage Location
-2500 c) At 3 ft. Leve 1

B-161
Strain,
Mdlionths
sooo
H F E C t-,
Gage Loco tion
a) At 9 ft. Level
I rt~O.305 m
1000J
Strain,
Mliilonlhs
5000
,,,;
~'"
H F E C A
Goge Location
b) At 6 ft. Level
10000
Strain,
Mdilonths
5:JJO
H F E C A
Goge Locollon
c) At 3 ft. Level

B-162
are not significantly different from the equivalent plots
for previously described specimens with low nominal shear
stress.
B-163
Specimen B5
Test Description
Specimen B5 was similar to Specimen B2 with 3.67%
vertical reinforcement in each column. However, B5 had
boundary columns.
The test consisted of 30 loading cycles as shown in
Fig. B-133. The complete load versus top deflection rela-
tionship for Specimen B5 is shown in Figs. B-134 and B-135.
The first significant cracking was observed in cycle 4
at a load of 30 kips (133.4 kN). First yielding occurred in
measured crack widths at this stage were 0.007 in. (0.18 rom)
,
The crack pattern that developed was very similar to
the crack pattern in B2. The crack pattern at +3-in. (76.2 rom)
and -3-in. deflection is shown in Figs. B-136 and B-137.
The behavior of Specimen B5 differred from the behavior
of B2 after the first yield cycles in that the measured load
in Specimen B5 was significantly higher than the load in B2
for equal top deflections. This difference can be attributed
to the flexural steel yield stresses. The yield stress was
59.5 ksi in B2 and 64.4 ksi in B5.
First indication of spalling and flaking along diagonal
cracks occurred in Cycle 16. First indication of crushing
B-164
Load, kips
19 22 25 28
150 1-- ++-t-+++-H-H+- F_u_"_Y_ie_ld_= 138.0 kips
100 First Yield: 112.3 kips
50
0
10 20 30 40 50
i
Cycle No.
-50
-100 First Yield = 113.0 kips

t=::=====:ti±=tt~:t:t:i:I:t=========
Full Yield = 120.5 kips
-150
a) Load History
I in. = 25.4 mm
I kip = 4.448 kN
Def I., in.

8
6
28
25
4
22
19 r;FUll Yield= 1.1 in.
2 rFirst Yield = 0.84 in.
o ... ud ~ ~ A AA
-2
y v
lOY VVVYVY 20
n
30
\
t: 40 _ _
C,cle No.
5o

-4
Full Yield = 0.74 i n.
-6
-
-8
'b) Deflection History
Fig. B-133 Loading History for Specimen B5
B-165
ro L,". 'l,.
"6 13
TP. l r
t"o
-nr +80
CraCking
lJj
I
I
-1.0
JJ -0.6 -0.6 0.4 0.6
~
Deflection, in.
0"\
0"\
-80
I in. = 25.4 mm
I kip = 4.448 kN
-120
13
-160
Fig. B-134 Continuous Load-Deflection Plot

for Initial Cycles for Specimen BS
28
Full Yiel,d
-<6
120
lr Fir~1 Yield
~ ~- I
.'7-::- :2p
J
J I
I I
II
ttl I ]
I
I-'
0'1
--.J -5 -4 4 5
Deflection, In,
I in. = 25.4 mm
I kip = 4.448 kN
First Yield
-120
Full Yield
-160
Web CrushinQ
Fig. B-l35 Continuous Load-Deflection Plot for Specimen B5

_L _ _ I_
--r--- - ~,.I --~-_~I-

--1- --J-
I
-1'---
. I Iii
----r-I--+------ t-~r-:i
~i ! ,I~!,,,,,
5 0
85 120 20 15 10 ------=---=:.-:
Fig. B-136 Cracking Pattern at +3 In. Deflection

for Specimen B5

for Specimen B5
B-168
of the outer compression face was noted in Cycle 19. It was
noted that the compression column cracks appeared to remain
open approximately 0.005 in. (0.13 mm) in Cycle 22.
During Cycle 22, significant spalling and crushing
along the right half of the construction joint at the 3-ft

/
(0.91 m) level was observed. The joint deterioration was
caused by previous cracking in the outer surface of the web
below the joint. The previous cracking was due to damage to
the edge of the joint when it was roughened with a chisel
during the specimen construction.
The joint progressively deteriorated during each load
cycle. The deterioration was probably amplified by a scale
effect in the model wall. A full size wall would not have
been damaged as extensively by this improper joint prepara-
tion. As shown in Fig. B-138, the deteriorated portion of
the joint intersected the two steepest compression struts
extending from the base for negative direction loading. The
load from these struts had to be taken by higher and lower
struts which increased the rate of deterioration of the web.
However, the load capacity continued to increase in each new
loading increment.
A noticeable reverse curvature developed in the lower
3 ft 8 in. (1.12 m) of both columns during Cycle 25.
The maximum load measured, 171.3 kips (761.9 kN),
occurred in Cycle 28 at a -5-in. (127.0 mm) deflection.
This load corresponds to a nominal shear stress, v

max
=
8.8 ~ (0.73 ~, MPa). As the specimen was being loaded
to a -5-in. deflection in Cycle 29, several compression
B-169
Fig. B-138 Deterioration of Construction Joint
at the 3 ft. Level for Specimen BS
• ,--t '~ '-f'~' /~<i~~+!', ,-, -

, /
----~-,+---,.- ,--, ---
~' l
Fig B-139 Specimen B5 After Web Crushing
B-170
struts crushed simultaneously. The crushing occurred in the
struts immediately above the struts that were intercepted by
the deteriorated construction joint. This construction
joint probably precipitated an early web crushing in the
specimen. Figure B-139 shows the specimen immediately after
the web crushing.
As the web crushing occurred, the specimen was "caught"
by closing the deflection control valve in the hydraulic
system. The measured load at this stage had decreased to
76% of the maximum measured load. The specimen was loaded
with one more 5-in. (127.0 rom) deflection and the load
capacity reduced to 63% of the maximum measured load.
was at +4 in. (101.6 mm).
Although the first 6 ft (1.83 m) of the web was con-
siderably damaged after the test, the columns were in good
condition. The close confinement hoops had prevented bar
buckling and maintained the shear integrity of the columns.
It was decided that this specimen could be repaired and
retested.
Moment-Rotation. Moment-rotation data for Specimen B5
of the calculated monotonic maximum.
B-171
2e~-------~- ~----- ------]
Momenr
at 8ose, -29 Eo' Eu ' 0.0074
Kip- in.
-002 0.02 O.O~
Rotation,
e~. Rod.
CCllculcted
Monotonic
-30000
a) At 6 ft. Level
Moment
at Base,
Kip-in.
B-172
The moment-rotation data for B5 was very similar to
that for B2 through Cycle 25. The magnitudes of rotation
are nearly equal for equal top deflection. The ratio of the
maximum measured loads in Cycle 25 for B2 and B5 is equal to
the ratio of the yield stresses for the reinforcing steel
used in each. The relationships between the measured and
the calculated monotonic at both the 3-ft (0.91 m) and the
6-ft (1.83 m) levels in B5 were very similar to those rela-
tionships in B2. The difference between B2 and B5 was that
the confinement maintained the integrity of the columns
through Cycle 28 allowing the load to increase to 171.3 kips

,
(761.9 kN), which was 12% higher than the maximum load in B2.
Shear-Distortions. The shear distortion loops for B5
are shown in Fig. B-141. This data for B5 is similar to the
shear-distortion data for B2 with the exception that the
distortions in B5 were approximately 15% less than those in
B2 for equal top deflections.
There is no indication of increased distortions caused
by the previously described deterioration of CJ2. The
deterioration was first noted visually in Cycle 22.
The maximum measured load in B5 corresponded to a shear
stress of 8.8~f~ (0.73~f~, MPa). With a shear reinforcement
design similar to that of B2, assuming an ultimate stress of
100 ksi in the horizontal steel, the steel shear capacity
would only be 7.5~ (0.62~~, MPa). This indicated that

c c
the concrete contribution must have been at least 1.3~f'
c
(O.ll~, MPa) shear stress at maximum load.
c
B-173
Load,
26
Kips 150
---j f--""
"
oo? 004
Shear DisTortIons,
-100
-150
26
Load,
26
Kips 150
-003 002 0.03
Qh--- Sheaf DIS! ortlons,
I 72' Ro d
-100
-150
26
Load,
Kips 150 6
--n-""
-0030 0030
)'" Rod
-150
26 111.°0.305 m
lin.=25.4 mm
c) In Base to 3 ft Level I kip= 4.448 kN

for Specimen B5
B-174
joints in B5 is shown in Fig. B-142. The slip at CJl is
similar to that in B2 except that the magnitude in B5 is
approximately 30% lower than that in B2 for equal top
deflections. As shown in Fig. B-143, the slip at CJl was a
relatively constant 15% of the total shear deflection in the
lower 3 ft (0.91 m) This is a slightly lower percentage
than that in B2.
The gage at CJ2 failed after the first half of Cycle 22.
The data exhibited a "yielding" for positive load in Cycle 22.
However, there was no further data to quantify the visually
observed deterioration of CJ2 after Cycle 22.
The slip at CJ3 was probably affected by diagonal
cracking.
show that deflections. in B5 were very similar to deflections
in B2 with the following exceptions. The shear deflections
are slightly smaller in B5. Also, the average increase in
shear deflection between Cycle 22 and 24 was 15% as compared
to 20% in B2.
Reinforcement Strains. Figures B-146 through B-154
show reinforcement strains in the specimen at various
stages. These figures are very similar to the equivalent
figures for Specimen B2 with the following exception. The
gages on the ends of the horizontal bar in B5 indicated a
lower stress level near the end hooks than in B2.
B-175
Load,
KIps
25
22 150
100
Gage Failed 4
in Clcte 25 50
-0.10 0.05 0.10

51 ip,
-50 cn, ,n
-100.
-150
a) At 6 ft. Level
Loa~,
KIps 150
22
1::""""::" )
100
Gage Failed
,n Cycle 22
f-._-f- ---r- CJ3 -0.10 ·005 0.10

36" Slip.
I--f-----!- ---t-CJ2
-50 ' CJ2, in
36"
---L-CJI
I I -100
-150 19
b) At 3 ft. Level
-02 02
I fl.=0.305 m
I in.= 25.4 mm
I Kip= 4 .448 kN
c) At Base Level

for Specimen B5
B-176
in. = 25.4 mm
60
20 4 22 25 28
13 19
0.5 /.0
Shear Deflection, A y, (in.)
100
60
28 25 22 19 13 4
20
-1.0 -0.5
Shear Deflection, Ay, (in.)

Shear Deflection in Zone 1 for Specimen BS
B-177
60
-10
Deflection O.
in,
2.0
Flexure
o Je:._ _--=====.:==::::::;:
a) At Top of Wall o Displacement
3
DUCTility Rallo, .C:a I~'f
5 i~~;~lion
U. y =1.1 ;n.)
3.5
~.5
25/
, /'
/ r
I
DefleClion 6,
,no
, Shear
1.5 22'/
~ ....-------+-
.----
19'
0.5
;}
1:3'// Flexure
o~:'-_=<=======::;::j=
o 2 4 5 8ase
Rotation
Oisplacemel'll DuctiJitt Relio. ~j(j.y
b) A 6 ft. Level 16y = 0.57 in)
2.0
Deflection t:..,
in. 1.0
- - - CALCULATED F~OM
MEASURED D=:FCMATION
- - - - EXTRAPOLATED
o
MEASURED TOTAL
o 2 4 6
Displacement Ductility Rolic, ':;'/6.'1
lin, = 25.4 mm 16y - 0.26 in)
111.- 0.:305 m
c) At 3 ft. Level
B-178
Hei~nr
22 ft
28 29 \ (24
I I I
13
I
13
I
24 22
II /8
I I
II I I II I
I I II I I 1/ I
\, \\ I
I
I
/I
1/
I
I
I I II I
I I II 12 I 1/ I
I I II I I 11 I
I I II I I II I
I I II I 1 /I I
\\ \\
II ~
I
9 , ,
I U I
U I
II ~ I I I
II , I I I I
II , I I I I
III II I I
~6~1/
\\"1
a) Flexural
-5 -<: -3 -2 -I
! 0 2 3 4
Deflec lion .. in.
,
5
Helghl
It.
29 28 24 22 13 1322 24 28
I I II I I II I
I I \I I
I
I
\
I
\I
\I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
" I
I
I
\
I
I
\
\I
\I 12
I I
I
II
II , I
\ I \I I I II I
I I II 1 I II I
\ I \I I I II I
I \ II I I II I
I I \I 9 I II I
\ I II I I II I
I I II I I II I
\ I II I I II I
I I II I I II I
b) Shear
"\ \6\ Iff/
\ \ II WII /
-5 -4 -3 -2 -I
~, 0 2 3 4 5
Deflection, in.
--- - EXTRAPOLATED
MEASURED TOTAL
I in.: 25.4 mm
I fl.= 0.305 m
W. C.- WEB CRUSHING

CYCLE 29
AFTER W. C.
CYCLE 28
c) Total PRIOR TO W. C.
-5 -4 -3 -2 -I 0 2 3 4 5
Oeflec 'ion, in.
Fig. B-145 Deflected Shape for Specimen B5
B-179
Gage VATI
-20000
Slrcin. Milliontl'1s
Load,
Kips
150
Gage VHTI
,
-20000 -10000 20000
S~rain. Milliot"ths
-.50
-100
I kip = 4448 kN

at Base of Specimen BS
B-180
VH?__... I ~ .. (VFR VCR" ., :' VI.P
~
·_L~0_-::::l=1==:==.~\f:·_-:.t
~I '.- ~ I fl.=0.305 m
VHT ,. . . , ..... VAT
, H~ig h ~ I Heignt.
II. II.
15 15
VAP. VAT
12 Go;!
2
6 5
3 3
--.
19
:0 13 4 10 13
5000 10000 5000 10000

Strain, Millionths Srrain. Mllhonlt'ts
a) Average of VHP & VHT b) Average of VAP & VAT
\5 15
12 12 GOQO VCR
6 6
3
_____ 2 8
3
L_" 19
'3
10000 5000
Strain, Millionths Strain, Millionths.
c) StraiD Gage VFR d) Strain Gage VCR

B-18l
B A
~
, D
I
,/28
I
10000 .____'
StraIn,
Millionths
5000
,,
128
, ,
Ey I
I
4
G F E l D
Gage Location
-2500
a) At 6 ft. Level
/22
10000
Stroln,
I
--,---'
' 19
1
/
,
/
I fl.=0.305 m
Millionths
5€JOO 19
,,
I
,
22
C 3 A
G F E t D
Gage Location
-2500
b) At 3 ft. Level
10eoO
"",/19
"'"
Strain,
Millionths
-2500
c) At Base Level

B-182
28\
\
\'---28
10000
SrrOln,
MIllionths
5000
G F E to D
-2500
a) At 6 ft. Level
I It,:0.305 m
19
1
ICXXXl ,128 I 19
,, ~
,22
~troi",
,,
I
Millionths
5000
19
,I IJ
E~ ,
I
10
4
H E D C B A
Gage Loco/Ion
-2500
b) At 3 ft. Level
10000
Stroln,
Millionths
----"-~"
5000
~ -.. " 10
"--_ _- 4
2 I
G F E t D C 8 A
Gage Location
-2500
c) At Base Level
Fig. B-149 Vertical Reinforcment Strains at

Maximum N~gative Loads for Specimen B5
B-183
Loa~,
Kips
150
100
Gage HE3
50
-8000 -4000 4000 8000

Stroin. Millionths
-50
-/00
-150
I in. = 25.4 mm
I kip = 4.448 kN
Lood, 28
Kips 2225
150
Goge HE2
100 j
50
!
-6000 -4000 4000 BOOO

Strain, Millionlhs

for Specimen B5
B-184
".2. oE)Q 'd-&
1111l1hl. HI,gh!. Hllgh', Halllhl, HIlghl.
''0 " I'j " 15 " " 15 "

'"
,e GOlll HH I? Gagl He GOt;l1 HA
'? '?
ttl
I
I-'
00
U1 ~~28
"
G
__ ... 20
,,"
/22
-19 loh i", E 1''''1'3

- ;'~A.")t~1 '":-'")()C -25~O -2~.co ,..,00 -2~CO .,COO
r '0000 '000 '000 10000
" ::i·/o,r,M,llionlh, =
Slloln, ""lIIion'''' Sha,n. Mi'lloll'''' " 51'O'Il.III'II,on'hl SUaln, Wlilianlhi
" "
Fig. B-1Sl Horizontal Reinforcement Strains at

Maximum Positive Loads for Specimen BS 111,·0,305 m
H~ _ _[ ) _.c~
- ~- ~ Q Q _ .... - ~
11f I 9"', Hfl~"f, H.irp.l. HIlIIM, H'IQhl,
" I', " 15 " 15

." 15 "
GOII' HH 12 12 12 GOOI HA
tJj -c- .-
I
I-'
00 y
y 9
0'1
,II
I /I I ,,, 6
___ 'l0
fill
. J~~
1/,. "
I
~~~~
~e;L_---;'J'~-~---
CO,IJ,I9 ~r -2'JOO 10,13,28 E, 50C)]
?~,')" ':>XC -;"'..JOO 5000 0000 2COO 'r ocoo 10000
SlrO'f\,~M'lI'olllh' 'J Sl~o"
•• p,r,.IIIOf'llh, Stroln,to'IOIllolllh, SlrOll", .....IlIonlh.

Maximum Negative Loads for Specimen B5 111.'0.305 m
10000
5 Tram I
Mill,onlh.
5000
E C A
Gage Location
a) At 9 ft. Level
111.=0.305 m
1‫סס‬oo
Stro1n,
Millionths
22
5000
/9 13
H C A
Gage Loco lion
b) At 6 ft. Level
1‫סס‬oo
StraIn,
Millionths
5000
28
22
19
FEe 4,10,13 A
Gage Locollon
C) At 3 ft. Level

B-187
~ 28 .
10000 \
\
\
\
St,o,n,
Millionths
E C A
Gage Locorion
a) At 9 ft. Level
111.=0.305 m
10000
Strain,
Millionths
22
28
13 ~
\
'0 \
4 \
F E C A
Gage Locallon
b) At 6 ft. Level
,ccoo
Strain,
Mliliontns
5000
28
13
H F E A
Gage locoJtlon
c) At 3 ft. Level

B-188
Specimen B5R
Test Description
Specimen BSR was a repair of BS as described in the
experimental program section. The lateral load test for BSR
was conducted similar to the test of Specimen BS. The only
exception was that since nearly all strain gages were inopera-
tive at the end of the BS test, no steel strains were moni-
tored or recorded during the BSR test.
Fig. B-lS5. The complete load versus top deflection relation-
ship for the test is shown in Figs. B-lS6 and B-lS7. Since
the reinforcing steel had already yielded in the test of BS,
the yield loads for BSR were defined as those loads measured
for BS. The yield deflections were then taken as the deflec-
tions occurring in BSR when these yield loads were first
reached.
First significant cracking in the web occurred in
Cycle 4 at a load of approximately 30 kips (133.4 kN). The
first yield load level was reached in Cycle 13. The maximum
measured crack width in the web at this stage was 0.025 in.
(0.64 rom) The corresponding deflections indicated that the
lateral top displacement stiffness of BSR was about half
that of BS at the yield level. The crack pattern that
developed was similar to that in B2 and BS with the following
exception. Several diagonal cracks that intersected the
construction joint at the 3-ft (0.91 m) level turned and
B-189
22 25 28
19 I Full Yield = 138 kips"*
First Yield = 112.3 kips*
j,
20 30 40 50
Cycle No.
t======:±±:::==ttttitt::t:f::f======F:::i::rS::I=Y::i::e::ld= 113.0 kips *

Full Yield = 120.5 kips *
*" Yield loads observed

during 85 test.
a) Load History
I in. = 25.4 mm
Defl., in. I kip = 4.448 kN
8 .
28
6
25
22
4
19 Full Yield = 2.5in.
2
First Yield = 1.55 i n.
o AA~AAAAJAA AU II
VYVvvvVVIO\ vn 20 30 40 5o
-2 T(. C~Cle No.
-4
-6
" First YIeld = I. 38 i n.
Full Yield = 1.5 in.
-8
Fig. B-155 Loading History for Specimen BSR
B-190
160 Lo:lod kips
·0
+120
lr
I r 10
i I lao
·p.-n
I I
to
Jd t·
I I I
r-' -1.0 -0.8 02 0.4 06 0.8 1.0
U>
Dellectloo. 10.
r-'
-40
~r
I-aD
I in. = 25.4 mm
10
I kip = 4.448 kN
-120
-160
Fig. 8-156. Continuous Load-Deflection Plot for

Initial Cycles for Specimen B5R
28
160 Lood kips
A
Full Yield
TO
A
lr Fir$l Yield
+p.~
I ?
I I
,I ,I
tl1
I
I
t-' r---- I
~
N
I t I , I
-7 -6 -5
I~. I ~ ~h~~I ~-""
~2 ~~ ';> -I 0 3 4 5 6 7
Dellecllon, in.
I in. = 25.4 mm
1 kip = 4.448 kN
-80
.. Yield 10005 obse"rve 0

First Yield" Ouring 85 tesl.
-120
Full YielO"
-160
Fig. B-157
Continuous Load-Deflection Plot for Specimen B5R
progressed horizontally along the joint for several inches,
then inclined down and continued diagonally toward the base.
The angle of these cracks was slightly steeper and focused
toward a lower point than the cracks in B5. Figures B-158
and B-159 show the crack pattern at +5-in. (127.0 rom) and
-5-in. deflection, respectively.
Crushing of the repair patches at the base of the outer
column faces was noted in Cycle 13. The first indication of
spalling and flaking along diagonal web cracks occurred in
Cycle 16. The neat cement paste which had been rubbed over
column cracks started spalling and flaking in Cycle 19. The
spalling and crushing in the web and columns had increased
significantly by Cycle 24.
A significant increase in the reverse curvature in the
columns was noted in Cycle 25. The'columns appeared to be
kinking at the 3-ft level. Also, in Cycle 25 it was noted
that the offsets in the diagopal cracks at the 3-ft level
construction joint had combined to form a complete straight
horizontal crack across the entire section.
As ,the concrete was spalling and grinding in Cycles 16
through 28 the maximum measured load in each new increment
continued to increase. The maximum measured load, 167.8 kips
(746.8 kN)" occurred in Cycle 28 at a +.6-in. (152.4 rom)
deflection. This load was 98% of the maximum measured load
in the test of B5. It corresponds to a nominal shear
stress, v
max
= 8.9.JI'
c
(0.74-.1£',. MPa).
c
B-193
6
1
851m
1-'-'
20 15 10
1""1'
5 0

for Specimen B5R
6 .-- 6
t··········__· . ------i- .
r
I
..I..,
} - 1 I'I/!'!
~~.
II' * I I
201510505101520

for Specimen B5R
B-194
As the specimen was being loaded to -6-in. (152.4 nun)
deflection in Cycle 28, all of the compression struts
crossing the 3-ft (0.91 m) level construction joint failed
progressively starting near the right side. Each strut
failed in a combined sliding crushing mode. Figures B-160
and B-16l show the specimen immediately prior to and after
the web failure.
The specimen was "caught" as the load reduced by
closing the deflection control valve. The load had decreased
to 77% of the previous maximum measured load.
was at +5 in. (127.0 rom) .
Moment-Rotation. The moment-rotation data for B5R is
shown in Fig. B-162. The measured maximum moment was 79% o£
the calculated monotonic maximum for Specimen B5 and 98% of
the maximum measured load in B5.
A comparison of moment-rotation data for B5R and B5
indicates that, "for positive direction loading the stiffness
of B5R was considerably lower than that of B5 in the initial
cycles. However, the difference became small during the
latter load increments. It should be pointed out that equal
cycle numbers in B5 and B5R do not correspond to the same
B-195
Fig. B-160 Specimen B5R Prior to Web Crushing
~_'L+I
~ t --t------
.. I-
L
Fig. B-161 Specimen B5R After Web Crushing
B-l'96
------- -------7 :
MClToe1'11
01 6a~~9 ~.EJ.OOOH...J
,(.;1-ln
Jl
I !I /
r
I
I
I i I
-I r,-: -C.02 002 004
Rotot:on I
6 , Rod,
I '-I/~ I 3
Coleulored
Wanelon:c
~or 85
-30000
25
a) At 6 ft. Level
_._-------\
Momer.1
-'- _.-
or Bose. Eo' Eu ·00074 1
Kip-In
2CooO
-'I
I !! -/I
,: II"I
I
I
-0,02 0.02 003
ReloHon.
6 • Rod.
2
r I "- v~ I
Calculaled
Monotonic
Fer 85
b) At 3 ft. Level
"I.orrenl T
or.8o,se, I
Krl'-In. I
20000+
I
f
I
I
I
,I -0006 00C5
-300CO
25
I !I.' 0,305 -n
lin.'25.4 r.",m
c) At Base Level I ki;J,C,.448 kN

for Specimen B5R
B-197
top deflection. Cycle 25 in B5R and Cycle 28 in B5 correspond
to the 5-in. (127.0 rom) deflection increment.
For negative direction loading the stiffness in B5R was
very similar to that in B5. The initial stiffness was
somewhat lower. However, after Cycle 19, an envelope
through the peak points of the negative halfs of the loops
for B5R was nearly identical to a similar envelope for B5.
Also, there was noticeably less pinching in the negative
half of the loops in B5R compared to those in B5.
Shear-Distortion. The shear distortion loops for B5R
are shown in Fig. B-163. A comparison of shear-distortion
data for B5R and B5 shows that the initial stiffness in B5R
was considerably lower. In the latter inelastic cycles, the
shear distortions in B5R were considerably lower than those
in B5 for equal top deflections. However, the shear distor-
tions in BSR and BS were approximately equal for equal cycle
numbers. There was, however,. noticeably less pinching in
the shear-distortion loops for B5R as compared to those for
BS.
joints in BSR is shown in Fig. B-164. A comparison of the
slip data for'BSR and B5 shows that, in the inelastic cycles,
the slip at CJl in B5R is considerably greater than that in
B5. This is true whether the comparison was made by equal
top deflection or equal cycle numbers. Also, there was
noticeably less pinching in the B5R loops as compared to
that in BS. As shown in Fig. B-16S, the slip at CJl was an
B-198
~ 0
III I
i '1' 0'
I
or-L
, --++-['
I ,. I
ill'&>'
1
--0 -00", 003
7~'·
T~-
, I r~
/
29
29
-H-~sz
p--- II J:)
:
orL --J-" ~ :~(j) oC:3---=:-~---;;:>",,9~~r-;......,L,.Y::"""~----~

~7'1
-0
t "'0' 002 003
®-r-j-! --0 Shear O,stOrlll')1'l5,
Yz,ROd
I!~
,3 j- -'00
28 -ISO
r
/
/
-0 ~:-!--;----O~()'-3-=-0---=,.....~;::;::::;L--;>fH.,4~,..L--="......L_-<
0030
Sl"'eor ClslorllOI"l',
(, 1-" ,,'"
I 1!.=0.305 m
I ,n.= 25.4 mm
c) In Base to 3 ft Level
I kip =4 .448 ".~

for Specimen B5R
B-199
26
-0 '0 ·005 0[0

SliP.
CJ 3, ,n
a) At 6 ft. Level
lead,
K,p, 150
---,-CJ:l -020 0'5

36" Slip.
- -+CJ2 en. on
~s"
-LCJI
I I
.:~--_.
b) At 3 ft. Level
loa~.
KIp, 150
100
.I.
-0.20 /
Slip,
CJI, in
/
2
111.=0.305 r-l
I in.= 254 rnm

c) At Base Level I kip=4,448 ,,~l

for Specimen B5R
B-200
6CJI, %
t:. YI
100 I in. =25.4 mm
60
22 25 2B
20
v---._13 ~1~
0.5 1.0
Shear Deflection, t:. YI (in.)
100
60
28 25 22 I 20
,~--~~-.-------=-_--!.:19:- --!.13:L-_~
-1.0 0.5
Shear Deflection,6 YI(in.)

Shear Deflection in Zone 1 for Specimen B5R
B-20l
approximately constant 20% of the total shear deflection in
the lower 3 ft (0.91 m).
The data at CJ2 for B5R indicated considerable slip
occurring after Cycle 19. This corresponded with the cracking
and joint deterioration noted visually during the test.
show that deflections in B5R were similar to deflections in
B5.
The average increase in shear deflection between Cycle
22 and 24 was 10% in B5R as compared to 15% in B5.
B-202
7.0
50 Shear
Def!t~~tion ~.
,n
3.0
F I ex ure
10
oJe::======::::::::=:=t
O.s 1.5 2 2.5 80 so
a) At Top of Wall Displacement Ouctill'l)' Ratio, .o./ti y Rotation
2.5 in.)
(6 y '
35
2.5
Oe~lectlon ,0"
iii.
1.5
0.5
b) At 6 ft. Level
2.0
/~
Deflec1ion .0., /
,no 2:~//
10 ~ Shear
22 ,
h
19,# ._---+
- - - CALCULATED F~.OM I~ff ...----
W.EASU~EO DEFC~/,C.710~'"
EXTPAPOLATEO 0104 :::::,,=/==-========::::::;==::t:FI.,ur.
:<:'
~EAS~REO TOTAL
11n.= 25.4 mm
o 2 3 4 80se
Displccemenl Ductility Relio, 06/6.'1 RQlolion
Itt· 0 305 m
(6 y ' 0.47/n.)
c) At 3 ft. Level
Fig. B-166 Component of Deflection for Specimen BSR
B-203
Hel~hr
28,22 II
\~\~24 'f,11 I: 24/;122/8
\ \l
\ \, I
I I
I
If
"f I
\ \\ 1 J If I
\ \\ ~2 J If I
\ \\ I I 11 f
\11 I I 11 f
I \I I , 1/ f
H\ I I i /
III 9 I I I
11\ 1 I I f
\\1 , I , f
III I I , f
III I I , f
\6\/f
~\UII
a) Flexural
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -I
! 0 2 3 4
Deflection,
5
in.
6
He'9 hl
24 ft. 22
20, 2\8
I
I
I
I
\ ,22 13
IIII
II
13 \ 24
1,
I
I' I
I
II
II
II
,,
,
28
\ \, :, :'1 i Ii :'
\
\
\
I
U
II
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
,
I I II I I " ,
I I 11 , 'II J
b) Shear
\\\\liJJ \ \ ~ 1111/ I
-~6--":"5---4--":"3--':"""2
y-------. -, 0 2 3 4 5
OerJection. in.
6
28
--- - EXTRAPOLATED
MEASURED TOTAL
I in. = 25.4 mm
I ft.: 0.305 m
w. C. - WEB CRUSHING
AFTER W. C.
PRIOR TO W.C.----...J
c) Total -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -, ° 2 3 4 5 6
Deflection, in.
Fig. B-167 Deflected Shape for Specimen B5R
B-204
Sepcimen Fl
b Test Description
Specimen Fl had a flanged cross-section with 3.89%
reinforcement in each flange. The flange was considered the
boundary element and detailed as a compression column. The
lateral tie arrangement was not designed as or intended to
be confinement reinforcement. However, due to the close
spacing of both the vertical and horizontal bars, considerable
confinement or, at least containment of the concrete was
provided by this tie arrangement.
Fig. B-168. The complete load versus top deflection rela-
tionship for Fl is shown in Figs. B-169 and B-170.
First significant cracking was observed in Cycle 4 at a
load of 39 kips (173.5 kN). First yielding occurred in
measured crack width in the web at this stage was 0.018 in.
(0.46 rom) •
The crack pattern that developed in the lower 6 ft
(1.83 m) was similar to the patterns in B2, B5 and B5R with
the following exception. The focal point of the "fan"
pattern was slightly lower in Fl. Also, the cracks in Fl
converged closer together in the 4-in. (101.6 rom) web near
the base than did the cracks in the barbell sections. The
crack pattern is shown in Figs._ B-171 and B-172 at +3-in.
(76.2 rom) and -3-in. deflection, respectively.
B-205
22
19
13 Full Yield = 150.6 kips .
.I------~-r---+JI+j~----------=F~ir-st:-7:"Yield = 150.6 kips
20 ~V 30 40 50
Cycle No.
F i rsl Yield = 151.2 kips

+-------1-ll--++++----------;F=-u"7I';""'~Yi e Id = 151. 2 ki ps
a) Load History
I in. = 25.4 mm
I kip = 4.448 kN
Defl., in.
22
8
4 /9
13 .f:FUII Yield = 1.0 in.

2
I First Yield = 1.0 in.
HAl TI AU ,I,
o a A A
vvy
10V VV VVVV 20 30 40 5o
-2
-4
" \:: Cycle No
Full Yield = 0.96 i n.
-6
-8
Fig. B-168 Loading History for Specimen FI
B-206
200 Load, klp$
+6 13
150
"11_
+p.-n I I
r
I I 100
I J
CroCking
I I
txl
I -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.6 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0
N
o Deflection, in.
-...J
-50
Crackin\l
-100
in. = 25.4 mm
kip =4.4481tN
-150
13
-200

Initial Cycles for Specimen Fl
200 . Load, kips 22
'6
First "nd Full Yield
-d!
lr "
~-
co ::i!p
I
I I
I I
I J
tl1 ~ I I .
/~ 4 5
I
N I '~ , _:Z!iIIll:..~ I /' , 0.""""_,,
o
00
I in. = 25.4 mm
First and Full Yield I kip = 4.448 kN
-150
-200
Fig. B-170 Continuous Load-Deflection Plot for Specimen·FI

6-
I
3- -.-----:,_~_1..... - t--
I '
I
I' .(
I~ - -_
>~, -':A-"~ .-- '- . --~.~~-

n 120
for Specimen £'1
6
. $--'
l ,
i-- ..-.. ' -. -- - .,-_., -.. -
i .------~
. r -... -t·- . - -:-, .... --
L -- 3
.! .
\
t ,--
"
r
+ "', ~
.!

for Specimen F 1
B-2D9
Spalling and flaking along the construction joints and
diagonal cracks in the lower 3 ft (0.91 m) were noted in
Cycle 20, the second 2-in. (50.8 rom) deflection cycle. Also
in Cycle 20, horizontal movement of the web caused a bowing
of the flanges in a horizontal plane from 1 to 2 ft (0.30 to
0.61 m) above the base. This bowing caused the vertical
cracking in the outer faces of the flange shown in Fig.
B-173.
Specimen, Fl was the first specimen tested in the experi-
mental program. The original load history included increasing
the deflection increments by 2 in. (50.8 rom) in each new
increment. Therefore, after the +2 in. loading increment,
the specimen was loaded to 4 in. (101.6 rom).
The maximum load measured, 187.9 kips (835.8 kN),
occurred in Cycle 22 at a +4-in. deflection. This corre-
sponds to a nominal shear stress, v = 10.5 J fl (0.87J~, MPa).

max c c
The maximum measured crack width in the web at this stage
was 0.125 in. (3.18 rom).
While loading the specimen to a -4-in. deflection, the
steepest diagonal strut that intercepted the base crushed
and slipped along a crack from the opposite direction
loading at a point 1 ft (0.30 m) above the base. The flange
hinged to allow this slip. This immediately transferred
additional load to lower struts. These struts then simul-
taneously slipped and crushed along a horizontal plane 1 ft
above the base. The wall immediately before and after web
crushing is shown in Figs. B-172 and B-174.
B-2l0
Fig. B-173 Cracking Pattern in Flange
of Specimen Fl
I
~-, ,
..
. / ~ '..
,::~~
I~ "'''i '
~_:""_:';'-'-.>'";< .~
n-129 ._-
Fig. B-174 Specimen Fl After Web Crushing
B-2ll
measured load capacity through 6 inelastic cycles. The last
inelastic load increment in which the load was sustained at
or above 80% of the maximum for all 3 cycles was at +2 in.
Within the final 4-in. deflection cycle the specimen
sustained the load through the +3-in. and -3-in. deflections.
It is suspected that the specimen would have maintained the
load capacity through a +3-in. deflection increment.
Moment-Rotation. The moment-rotation data for Fl is
shown in Fig. B-175. The measured maximum moment was 77% of
the calculated monotonic.
The relationship between the calculated monotonic and
measured rotations at the 3-ft (0.91 m) level differs
slightly from that relationship at the 6-ft (1.83 m) level.
The difference indicates that a larger portion than the
assumed effective distribution of curvature should have been
concentrated in the lower 3 ft of the wall.
The maximum measured loads in Cycles 13, 19 and 22
exhibit "strain hardening" after yield.
The rotation data for Cycle 22 at the base level
exhibits pinching while ~he data at the 3-ft and 6-ft levels
do not.
Shear-distortion. The shear distortion loops for Fl
are shown in Fig. B-~76. As in the other specimens, shear
B-2l2
22,,'
.',..----------.----z---------
MOm8r'lf
at 8o'Se,
Kip-in.
'1 . Eo' (;u • 0.00'\
JI ":(J
i )! I
I
I
- i
I , '
I
r:-:. 0,02 005
-002
73.5~
Rotarian.
6 3 , Rod.
r '-- l./M
Calculared
Monotonic
22 19.
a) At 6 ft. Level
./
'i2 ·,-----------z---------
Moment Eo' (;u' 0004
0'Kip-in.
Bose,
I. ,.
/ II'I
I -002 0.02 0.04
Rora,ion,
a2 • Rod.
Cofculo!ed
Monotonic
'b) At 3 ft. Level
Mom.n.
at Base,
Kip-in.
I 13
22
2‫סס‬oo
II
i i! l J "ooo!
I !:1/ /! I
- 0.005
~, 1 "
,~
0004
Rotation I
0.005
n 'k..
I
all
01 • Rod.
I fl,·0.305 m
I in,' 25.4 mm
22
I kip: 4.448 kN
C) At Base Level
Fig. B-l75 Moment at Base versus Rotation

for Specimen FI
B-2I3
22
Lo.d,
K,p. 150
100
---j f-0s>
"
-0.03 -002 -0.01 0.02

n.s"
T,---~
-100
-150
22
a) In Base to 6 ft LEVEL
22
:"0 ad ,
.K,ps 150
100
-0.015 0.0:5.
Shear Ois,lorlions,
12' Rod.
-100
'-ISO
22
-006 002 000

Shear OI'S~orhons,
"11' Red
'100
-150
111.=0,305 rn
c) In Base to 3 ft Level I in,= 25.4 mm
Ikip='1.448 kN

for Specimen Fl
B-214
"yielding" occurred during the same cycle in which flexural
yielding occurred.
The maximum measured load in Fl corresponded to a shear
stress of 10.5~ (0.87/f~, MFa). - With a shear reinforce-
ment design similar to B2, assuming an ultimate stress of
100 ksi in the horizontal steel, the steel shear capacity
would be only 9.71fT (0.801fT, MFa). This indicates that

c c
the concrete contribution must have been at least 0.81fT
c
(0.07/f~, MPa) shear at maximum load.
The pinching of the loops was more evident in Zone 1.
Slip at Construction joints. The slip at construction
joints in Fl is shown in Fig. B-177. The slip at CJl ex-
hibited a "yielding" during the same cycle in which flexural
yielding occurred. As shown in Fig. B-178, the slip at CJl
is between 15% and 25% of the total shear deflection in the
lower 3 ft (0.91 m). This percentage was increasing with
the numbers of inelastic cycles.
The slip at CJ2 was somewhat erratic and probably was
affected by diagonal cracks. The slip at CJ3 was negligible.
shapes are shown in B-179 and B-180. These figures show
that shear deflections were approximately the same perc en-
tage of the total as they were in B2 and B5 at equivalent
displacement ductilities. The deflected shapes for Cycles 19
and 21 showed a small increase in shear deflections during
the 2-in. (50.8 rom) increment.
B-215
-0004 -0002 0,002 0.004
SI,p,
CJ 3, In.
a) At 6 ft. Level
22
I
I
-C,02
-.-CJ3 -o,o~ 006
36" Slip,
-+-CJ2 CJ2, In
36"
-l.- CJI
r
b) At 3 ft. Level
Load,
i9 22
,- I<q;lS 150
I
I
I
100
I
I
-0 30
020
Slip.
CJI, .n
111.=0,305 m
I in.= 25.4 mm
Ikip=4.448kN
c) At Base Level

for Specimen Fl
B-2l6
l1CJI,%
611
100
I in. = 25.4 mm
60
22
20 19
13
0.5 1.0
Shear Deflection, fj, '(I (in,)
100
60
22
19
20
-1.0 -0.5
Shear Deflection, A 11 (in.)

Shear Deflection in Zone 1 for Specimen Fl
B-2l7
,,
,-
30 , ,,
Deflec"Ci c..
20 ,
.- .-
. ,,/
10
I""'U"
--+
a) At Top of Wall C,solo::ement Cuttdlfy
{6 y " I a In)
::;:J~ 0, t:./A'I
.
f'"
RO~Crlon
20
22
1.5
/
/
/' Sheer
Jeflec'tO:1 6, , I
,r
'0 / '
10
/ .- /
'3P -
I
05
·F'!e~ure
4;/ / / I
c r
0 2 3 4 eo,.
b) At 6 ft. Level C,splaceme" DJct1hty ;::I'1JO. l!J./lJ
t I1Cl:]I,cn
(t~"0381")
0,
I
I
075
OelleCllc.r. O.
in.
OSQ
- - - CAlCULA7£O F'lOM
M£AS~R£O D£FC~,~:'7IC.~
---- EXTRJ.PC:..ATED
MEASl.RE:D TOTAL
Iln.~ 25.4 mm :) 4
I fl 'O~05 m '.:'ls~la::e'Tle'11 !)UC'III'y Rello, ~ /::'1
i6f =016 In J
c) At 3 ft. Level
Fig. B-l79 Component of Deflection for Specimen FI
B-2I8
H~lgnT,
II.
22 19,21 13 13 21.·S 22
\ II 115 I u I
\ U I I U I
\ U I I H I
\ \ I I U I
\ \ \ I I I
\
\
\
, 12
I
I
I I
I
I
I
\
\
\
,,
\
I
I
I
I ,I
I
I
\
\ I
I
I
I I
9
J
,
\
\ ,
I I I
\
I I I
\, I I I I
I
I
\ I I 1/ I
~\JI/ \1011
a) Flexural
-4 -3 -2 -I
J 0 2 3
Dellecliol\, in
4
Helghl,
II.
22 22 2,13 13 13 IS.21 22
I I u 115 II I
I
\
1
I
U I
I I
1/
II ,
I
I I a I II J
I
I
\
I
I
I
!
II
U I
I
12 "
1/
II
I
I
I
II I
,1
"""
I I
I I U I
I I II I J
I
,
I U 9
II , " , I
I
I
I
I
I n
~
I
1
11
"" 1 I
I I U I 1/ I
b) Shear
\ \\i If/
"- \ \\\j.I" I
-4 -3 -2
~ -I 0 2 3
,
'I
Deflecllon. in.
22 22 22
- - - CALCULATED FRO~
--- - EXTRAPOLATED
- MEASURED TOTAL
I in. = 25.4 mm
I ft. = 0.305 m
W.C.-WEB CRUSHING
AFTER W.C.--~
PRIOR TO
c) Total -4 -3 -2 -I o 2 3 4
lJ~fl-eClion. i~
Fig. B-l80 Deflected Shape for Specimen Fl
B-219
Reinforcement Strains. Figures B-18l through B-191
show reinforcement strains in the specimen at various stages~
Figure B-18l shows that the flanges started growing
between Cycles 13 and 22. Figure B-182 shows that yielding
in the vertical bars had extended to the 6-ft (1.83 m) level
in Cycle 22.
Figures B-186 and B-187 show that horizontal bar strains
did not significantly exceed the yield strain until Cycle 22.
In Cycle 22, the strains only reach high levels in the 3-ft
(0.91 m) region.
Figures B-190 and B-19l show that prior to yielding,
the vertical bar str~ins in the tension flanges exhibited no
evidence of shear lag across the flange.
B-220
22
150
Gogo VATI
50
25
- 20000 -10000
Sircin, Milliontt1s
22
~
HI
I
i··
I.. "'-.
VJTI I:: VAT I
II, •
2J
22 •
19
Load,
Kips 150
100
Gogo VJTI
50
- 20000 -10000 15OCO 25000
-50
-100
-150 Ikip = 4.448 kN
19
Fig. B-18l Measured Strain on Vertical Reinforcement

at Base of Specimen Fl
B-22l
I rl.=0.305 m
Heigl'll,
It
15
VAT+v8S
GOQB
12 Go •• 12 2
9 9
6 6
] 3
4 10,
5000 1:):':0 :;000 100:)']

€y
Sirein, Mlilionlh, Strain. Miliionll'ls
a) Average of Gage VJ'T & VIS b) Average of Gage VAT & VBS
Heigh', Heigh'.
fI. fl
15 15
Gag. VGS 12 Gog. 'lOS

12
~
9
6 6
--:.-....- --22
'13 19
]
/ / ----~19
'\
-.__ - ----. _--.I.-r Gage 'IDS 2
Not Funelionlng
/, ,r- Gog.
I J
---
VGS 2
/I~':II Not Fune.rioninq
\ ----_10
13
Ey
I
I
,
5000 :O'J~.o
"
I
"
€y
'\
50JO I
1010:; ---
Slrein, Millionll'lS Strain. MIllionths
c) Strains Gage VGS d) Strains Gage VDS

Maximum Loads for Specimen Fl
B-222
J i 81'.
,..:...:.
~<t ~z
II H G E D C
....
~ ~
..:",,:..
: i
I~
j , ~ .
.,
I
8·
'j
t.
..,.,
'ts
10000'
U
~
I I
E, .
,
Strain.
Mill,ontns
5000
Ey
0 SA
C
Gage Loca~lon
-25Xl
a) At 6 ft. Level
111.=0.305 m
10000
Strain.
Milliontn.
5000
'.
\ SA
G F l E C
Gage Loco ~Ion
10000
5:roln,
Millionths
J I H G F t E D
-2500
c) At Base Level

Maximum Positive Loads for Specimen Fl
B-223
.tJs,£
·,
·,
~J,
: •I H G c .,
I
I:
"i
.~.;.; ,.f,
'f-G
II
I
••
M
t t I;
10000
Strain.
Millionths
5000
'i H
G F l E D ~ 6':-
Gage L:l:'O!,o .,
111.=0.305 m
19
,0Q00 1 22
I
Vr----
I
I
StrQln,
Millionths
\'9
,
1'3\\
\
\
-13
-----=--,04
I
F t E D C SA
Goge LocotlOn
-2500
b) At 3 ft. Level
IOOCO
SrrQin,
Millionths
5000
10
4
I
F t E C SA
Gage Locet'on
-2500 c) At Base Level

Maximum Negative Loads for Specimen Fl
B-224
22
Lood,
Kips
150
100
Gage HE3
50
-8000 -4000
Strain, Million1hs
-50
22 --~
I in. = 25.4 mm
I kip = 4.448 kN
22
Gage HE2
50
- 80...o-0---+-----4-o+-o-o---+---~ftF;t;f+--t---:4-=0':0=0---+---____eo'oo
Strain, Millionlhs
-50
-100
-150
Fig. B-l85 Measured Strains on Horizontal Reinforcement

for Specimen FI
B-225
m
oiL 0 A'I
Ij~E) ) (.1:
"':c-,J
I, ~-"'-,-" ~~i;
III
H ",J,
lJ
HII,.I'lI. H..iql'll. HIIQhI. ~"'QhI. H'"01'll.
" ['j " " " "

"
GOOf" HJ GO/ll HG Cog. HE GO,I HO GOOI HA

tl1 ,"
] 1;-'
'I \ I? I
I
N It
N
"~rfI
Cl"I
1.\
J \'~
~
!~----:~t::
", 'ii, -10
... 22 II
.r ...... ~4
I\. 'I,,,
~!-~..-
'i yo, <:~00 fy 51)00 -2500 10000 ?'Jr_,(, " 5,")';01 lOOY") .2~ I{~:J !J, SOY) .
'r 5"0 fl. MlilIonll'l1 51-0In. '-Idlionlnl
'r SI.oin. Millio"ln, Sllq'n, MillIon/hi Shain, h4illlanll'll

J 11.,0.305 m
Maximum Positive Loads for Specimen Fl
~~ G t ')
I I '----", v " iTIr
·1 i
!
Hlfi~1Il1 HBIQhl. Helgh.I, HaJghl, HIUQ"I,

II II. II II
1'-, I~ ,e ,r, I')
Go~. HJ l:~ Go~. HO 12 GO;I HE GUI ttA
tJ:l
I
!'J
!'J .)
-J
22
"
"::'.
I.
r :,')r)fl '."'IIJ ;'r,ly:", l, ')(_1) -y I(~ -<",(y)
'" .--
(, 'it>(_J f, ',(KII) IU')OO (, ·,(.I.')
5'<0111, Mllllll"I~. 5Irel". Milllonlhi SI'ol". "',IIIonlhl 51'0111, Milllo"lhl 5"01,,.Mllllonlh,

Maximum Negative Loads for Specimen Fl II. '0.305 m
G,
I
,, .
'
,
I'
~~
. ..
: ,
Stroln,
Millionths
5000
10
4
J G E J A
Goge Location
·2500 a) At 9 ft. Level
111.=0.305 m
Strcln,
Millionths
50::::0
13
J G E A
Goge LocatIon
10000
Stroln.
Millionths
5000
G E J "-
Gags Locctlon
c) At 3 ft. Level

at Maximum Positive Loads from Specimen Fl
B-228
L ') , ') ,n
B)-~t~:;~'"~ . ~~r-~tr
I,
1:i
..
G:<'
10000 , ,
Sirain,
Millionths
5000
J G E ~ A
Goge Locolion
a) At 9 ft. Level
I ft.=O.305 m
10000
S troln,
Millionths
~ooo
J G E D A
Gage Location
b) At 6 ft. Level
lor.:oo
\
,
\22
SlrOln,
Millionths
5000
19
10,
4
G E D A
Gage LOCOl'Ci
C) At 3 ft. Level

at Maximum Negative Loads for Specimen Fl
B-229
U ,,
: ~IT
P :<
T
Itl
~~.!,~,~1~:' ,,
U "
20000 W ~
Stroln,
Mililont~s
22
1‫סס‬oo
19
(13
'~4
p R S,T U W
Goge Locol,on
a) At 6 ft. Level
------
111.=0.305 m
2‫סס‬oo , 22
Sticln,
Mililonlhs
-------
19
10000
-"""i
p R S,T U W
Goge LocotJon
1 b) At 3 ft. Level
20000 22'-", 22
Strorn,
Millionths
------19
10000
13
,10
-<;
·-1
p R S,T U W
Goge Lo::::otlon
c) At Base Level
Fig. B-190 Vertical Reinforcement Strains in Flange

at Maximum positive Loads for Specimen Fl
B-230
p-~ ~.
[1 IJ
;.~ -;t'~ ~l ~~~~.~~~!.~~ll
~
u-H
• l
20COO w-~
Strain,
Millionths
10OCO
w u T,S R p
GOQe Loco tion
J 11=0.305 m
2COJJ
_ _ _ _ _- - - - - 22
Strain,
Millionths
10000
------------- • 19
u ~S R P
Goge Locahon
b) At 3 ft. Level
2‫סס‬oo
22
Stroln,
Millionths
______~----------19
10000
_'3
~4
-I
w u T,S P
Gage l~ .:otlon
-5000
c) At Base Level
Fig. B-191 Vertical Reinforcement Strains in Flange

at Maximum Negative Loads for Specimen FI
B-231
Free Vibration Test Results
The results of the tests are presented in Table B-l~
Frequency measured prior to the application of lateral load
ranged from 64% to 82% of the frequency calculated based on
uncracked section properties. The differences are attributed
to the existence of micro-cracks caused by shrinkage and
handling.
The measured frequency decreased by an average factor
of 2.2 from the initial tests to the tests carried out after
application of lateral load cycles near yield. For the same
conditions, the average damping coefficient changed from
3.4% to 8.5% of critical.
"Initial displacement-~udden release" tests on specimens
that previously had been cycled well beyond yield indicated
that the frequency.decreased considerably after yielding.
However, the damping did not change significantly. Hammer
impact tests for the same conditiions for Specimen B5 indi-
cated that the damping decreased significantly. In general,
smaller amplitude hammer tests gave higher frequencies and
lower damping coefficients than "initial displacement-sudden
release" tests. This can be attributed to the differences
in crack closure resulting from the magnitude of the initial
displacement.
B-232
TABLE B-1 FREE VIBRATION TEST RESULTS
Loadfna Hf story Excitation Calculated Measured Measured

!Specfmen Prior No. Prior Initial Frequency Frequency Damping
of Load umax Pf Ampli tude (Hertz) (Hertz) % of
Cycl es Py (fn. ) Crftica1
t:.
v
R1 0
6 0.5
- 0.36
0.36
0.026
0.095
26.6
-
21.8
10.5
3.4
6.7
a - 0.17 0.045 27.8 17.8 5.5

R2 15 1.0 0.17 0.121 - 8.8 6.8
a - 0.17 0.016 38.9 30.0 2.2

--
Bl 12 1.0 0.17 0.098 11.1 8.5
24 5.6 0.17 0.6Bl 3.9 9.1
a
12 1.0
- 0.17
0.17
0.015
0.106
38.0
-
29.7
10.9
2.7
9.6
B3 24 5.8 0.17 0.598 - 4.3 8.1
36 11.2 H. I. T. (1) - 5.2 g.o
B4(2)
0
0
-- H. I. T.
0.13
(1)
O.OIB
38.7
3B.7
29.4
29.4
2.B
2.4
0 - 0.20 0.023 3B.7 28.8 2.7
B2
a
15 1.0
- 0.07
0.07
0.014
0.065
40.9
-
29.4
13.0
3.6
10.0
24 3.7 0.07 0.350 - 3.9 14.5
a
a
-- H. I. T.
0.07
0.004
0.026
41.0
41.0
30.6
29.5
2.9
4.0
6 0.4 H.I.T. 0.004 - 20.4 9.2
&~
6 0.4 0.07 0.062 - 15.2 9.Li
---
15 1.1 H. 1. T. 0.004 18.2 11.2
15 1.1 0.1l7 0.090 12.0 12.0
24 3.6 H. I. T. 0.004 11.8 3.2
24 3.6 0.05 0.290 - 6.4 14.5
a -- H.I.T. 0.005 - 16.0 3.1

--
a 0.07 0.075 13.3 4.0
B5R(3) 6 0.4 H. I. T. 0.005 13.2 4.0
6 0.4 0.07 0.110 - 10.8 5.7
--
15 1.1 H. I. T. 0.007 11.9 3.6
15 1.1 0.07 0.151 8.3 n.o
F1 a - 0.05 0.017 45.6 33.8 2.0

12 0.7 0.05 0.054 - 13.0 9.8
WHERE: ~ax Maximum deflection of top of wall during prior lateral

load cycles.
6y Deflection of top of wall at which first yielding of
main flexural steel was observed during lateral load
tests.
Pf Load applied at top of wall to initiate vibrations
Py = Load applied at top of wall corresponding to 6y '
H.I.T. = Hammer Impact Test
1 in. 25.4 mm
NOTES: (1) Initial amplitude not measured.
(2) Specfmen B4 tested with monotonic lateral load.
(3) Specimen B5R was a repair of Specimen as. Yielding
in B5R was assumed to occur at the same load, Py • for 65.
B-233

Rillej: Portlan'D Cement Association

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rillej: Portlan'D Cement Association

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PORTLAN'D CEMENT rillEJ ASSOCIATION

Research and Development

'l PB271 ·467

EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT STRUCTURAL WALLS -

15. Supplementary Note s

17. Key Words and Document Ana,lysis 17c Descriptors ductility

17c.COSATI Field/Group 1313, 2012

EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT STRUCTURAL WALLS -

By: R. G. Oesterle, A. E. Fiorato, L. S. Johal,

Date: November 1976

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE 3

OUTLINE OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM 4

Walls Subjected to Low Nominal Shear Stress 13

Walls Subjected to High Nominal Shear Stress 16

SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS 20

Load-Top Deflection Relationship 20

Shear-Construction Joint Slip Relationship 27

Free Vibration Tests 35

APPENDIX A - EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM A-I

Free Vibration Test Methods A-37

APPENDIX B - TEST RESULTS B-1

Specimen B5R B-189

Free Vibration Tests B-232

TESTS OF ISOLATED WALLS

R. G. Oesterle, A. E. Fiorato, L. S. Johal, J. E. Carpenter

H. G. Russell and W. G. Corley*

It has been observed in recent earthquakes that struc-

tural walls used as lateral bracing in multistory buildings

can significantly enhance performance under seismic loading. (1)

However, there is a lack of information on the strength and

deformation capabilities of structural wall systems. To

help provide some of the needed data, the Portland Cement

Association is conducting a combined experimental and

analytical investigation to develop design criteria for

reinforced concrete structural walls in earthquake resistant

buildings. The primary purpose of this investigation is to

determine the ductility, energy dissipation and strength of

As part of this experimental program, reversing loads

are being applied to isolated walls. Currently, tests of

nine wall specimens have been completed. This report

presents the results of these nine tests. Observed behavior

of the isolated walls is described and a summary of the test

results is presented. Conclusions, from the tests are given.

*RespectivelYI Structural Engineer, Senior Structural

included in Appendix A. Detailed descriptions of each test

and the resulting data are included in Appendix B.

Further conclusions concerning strength and deformation

characteristics, and ductility and energy dissipation

capacities will be reported in future papers. (2,3)

The objectives of the experimental investigation are:

1. To determine load-deformation characteristics for

a wide range of configurations of wall specimens.

This information is being used in the inelastic

2. To determine ductilities and energy dissipation

capacities of walls subjected to reversing loads.

3. To determine flexural and shear strengths of walls

subjected to reversing loads, and to compare these

strengths with the strengths under monotonic

4. To determine means of increasing the energy dis-

sipation capacity of walls where required.

5. To develop design procedures to insure adequate

strength and energy dissipation capacity in

reinforced concrete structural walls used in