Estimation of Shear Strength of Structural Shear Walls

Wael Kassem1 and Ahmed Elsheikh2

Abstract: An analysis method for predicting the shear strength and behavior of structural shear walls under both monotonic and cyclic
loading is presented in this paper. The proposed analysis method is based on the softened truss model theory and utilizes a newly proposed
cracking angle of the concrete strut. The cracking angle is developed using a regression analysis of the reported shear capacity values of
100 experimental shear walls. The analysis pays particular attention to parameters expected to influence the walls’ shear capacity including
the geometric properties, reinforcement ratios, internal stresses, and concrete strength. The proposed method has been used to predict the
shear capacity of the tested walls, and their deformation behavior both pre- and postcracking, and the results compared well with the
experimental data. The proposed strut cracking angle also matched well the cracking patterns obtained experimentally.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲ST.1943-541X.0000218
CE Database subject headings: Reinforced concrete; Shear strength; Shear walls; Cracking.
Author keywords: Concrete; Reinforced; Shear strength; Shear walls.

Introduction
Shear walls have been widely used to ensure the lateral stability
of tall buildings, providing adequate structural performance at a
reasonable cost 共Fintel 1991, 1995兲. Shear walls are employed in
both low-rise buildings 共with wall height-to-width ratios below 2兲
and higher structures, where the predominant actions include both
shear and flexure 共Paulay and Priestley 1992; Gulec et al. 2008;
Paulay et al. 1982兲. While the walls’ flexural resistance is now
well understood 共Warner et al. 1989兲, the American Concrete In-
stitute 共ACI兲 318-05 method on the shear design of walls still
relies on empirical expressions derived from experimental testing
of deep beams 共Hwang et al. 2001兲. For this reason, better analy-
sis methods that can accurately predict the shear strength of shear
walls are needed 共Farvashany et al. 2008兲.
Various models have been proposed to estimate the shear ca-
pacity of shear walls including those based on the softened truss
model initially developed by Mau and Hsu 共1987兲 and latter
modified by Gupta 共1996兲, and the softened strut-and-tie model
proposed by Hwang et al. 共2001兲. Although the softened strut-
and-tie model is reported to reasonably predict the shear strength,
shear transmission mechanism and shear failure behavior of squat
shear walls 共Yu and Hwang 2005兲, the model cannot predict wall
deformation. This feature is addressed in the softened truss
model, which provides a more complete evaluation of shear wall
strength and behavior 共Mansour et al. 2004兲. However, the strut
cracking angle used in the softened truss calculations is not based
on experimental or analytical evidence, and its estimation requires
cycles of trial and error 共Gupta 1996兲, which make the analysis
tedious and unsuitable for practical design.
1
Lecturer, Div. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of El-Minia, El-Minia
6111, Egypt 共corresponding author兲.
2
Senior Lecturer, Div. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Dundee, Dundee
DD1 4HN, U.K.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 18, 2008; approved
on March 9, 2010; published online on March 12, 2010. Discussion pe-
riod open until March 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, Vol. 136, No. 10, October 1, 2010. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/
2010/10-1215–1224/$25.00.
The softened truss model further limits the value of the crack-
ing angle between upper and lower bounds in what is termed the
fixed angle solution. Earlier assessment of this technique reported
a number of drawbacks including an unreasonable clamping
stress and inaccurate predictions of failure mode 共Yu and Hwang
2005兲. With the fixed angle solution, the concrete softening fea-
ture does not have an impact on the prediction of shear strength of
walls with low steel reinforcement content or with height-to-
width ratio below 0.5 共Yu and Hwang 2005兲. Addressing these
shortfalls would be expected to improve the method’s estimates
and widen its range of application.
This paper proposes a new strut cracking angle based on re-
gression analysis of the reported shear capacity values of 100
shear walls subjected to both monotonic and cyclic loading. The
analysis pays particular attention to parameters expected to influ-
ence the walls’ shear capacity including the geometric properties,
reinforcement ratios, internal stresses, and concrete strength.
Softened Truss Model
The softened truss model is based on the Compression Field
Theory proposed by Vecchio and Collins in 1986 共Vecchio and
Collins 1986兲, according to which the web of the shear wall may
be visualized as an assembly of smaller reinforced concrete ele-
ments. Typical walls consist of two end elements simulating col-
umns or cross walls and a central panel. The isolated web
element, A, shown in Fig. 1, is under lateral shear force, V, and
has reinforcement in the longitudinal, L, and transverse, t, direc-
tions with an assumed smeared crack type. The longitudinal and
transverse directions coincide with the wall’s vertical and hori-
zontal directions, respectively.
The element stresses are analyzed by the principle of stress
transformation. The three effective stress components including
normal stresses, ␴L, ␴t, and shear stress, ␶Lt, are shown in their
positive directions in Fig. 1共b兲. After cracking, the concrete is
split into a series of diagonal struts making an angle ␣ to the
longitudinal direction. The diagonal struts and the longitudinal
and transverse rebars form a truss that is expected to resist the
applied shear and normal loads. Under loading, the strut develops

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010 / 1215

Downloaded 30 Dec 2011 to 14.139.97.78. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 L

Longitudinal direction (L)

L
V
2 36 .56
t d r t


t

Typical element A
Lt
Hw L

(b) Applied stresses on element A

Reinforcement
Grid Transverse direction (t)
f
L L

Strong rigid foundation

d r
d

Boundary Element
Lf d Co r
tw tf nc
re  ft
te t
Lw r st d
ru
t

d d
r

(a)View of a shear wall (c) Concrete struts within element A

Fig. 1. Schematic view of a low-rise shear wall with an isolated wall element

compressive stress, ␴d, along its axis and tensile stress, ␴r, per-
pendicular to that axis 关Fig. 1共c兲兴. Since the concrete strut is as-
sumed free of shear 共Gupta and Rangan 1998兲, ␴d and ␴r are
considered the concrete principal stresses. The principal stresses
␴d and ␴r can then be replaced by components in the longitudinal
and transverse directions to coincide with the stresses in the re-
bars. Analysis of the element A can proceed by considering the
equilibrium, strain compatibility, and stress-strain relationships of
concrete and steel.
V = ␶Lttwdw 共4兲
where tw = web thickness and dw = horizontal length of the wall
between the centers of boundary elements. In the absence of
boundary elements, dw is assumed to be equal to 0.8 Lw, where Lw
is the length of the wall 关refer to Fig. 1共a兲兴. Similar to stresses, the
transformation of strains into the L and t directions results in the
following compatibility equations 共Hsu 1993兲:
␧L = ␧d cos2 ␣ + ␧r sin2 ␣ 共5兲

␧t = ␧d sin2 ␣ + ␧r cos2 ␣ 共6兲

Equilibrium and Compatibility

Equilibrium of Wall Element A 关Fig. 1共c兲兴 in directions L and t
results in the following equations. It is assumed that the rebars
can only resist axial stresses and therefore any dowel action is
ignored 共Hsu 1993兲
␴L = ␴d cos2 ␣ + ␴r sin2 ␣ + ␳L f L
␴t = ␴d sin2 ␣ + ␴r cos2 ␣ + ␳t f t
␥Lt = 2共␧r-␧d兲cos ␣ sin ␣ 共7兲
where ␧L, ␧t, ␧d, and ␧r = average normal strains in L, t, d, and r
directions, respectively, and ␥Lt = average shear strain in the L-t
coordinate system. By assuming that the boundary elements resist
the flexural stresses and the effect of the flexural stresses on the
共1兲 web shear behavior is ignored, the deflection of the shear wall
top, ⌬, can be calculated from the shear strain using the following
共2兲 relationship 共Gupta 1996兲:

⌬ = ␥LtHw 共8兲
␶Lt = 共-␴d+␴r兲cos ␣ sin ␣ 共3兲
where Hw = wall height 关refer to Fig. 1共a兲兴.
In Eqs. 共1兲–共3兲, f L, f t = average stresses in rebars in L and t direc-
tions, respectively, and ␳L, ␳t = corresponding average reinforce-
ment ratios. By assuming a uniform state of stress in the wall’s Constitutive Models for Concrete
web, the relationship between the shear force, V, and the average
shear stress in the horizontal plane, ␶Lt, can be expressed as fol- Due to the presence of lateral tensile strain in the inclined con-
lows 共Gupta 1996兲: crete struts, the compression behavior is assumed to follow the

1216 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010

Downloaded 30 Dec 2011 to 14.139.97.78. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Table 1. Coefficients of Determination 共r2兲 of the Association between
the Cracking Angle, ␣, and Parameters Related to Concrete Strength,
Longitudinal Stresses, Geometric Dimensions, and Reinforcement Ratios
Coefficients of Coefficients of
determination, determination,
共r2兲 for walls under 共r2兲 for walls under
Parameter lateral and axial loading lateral loading only
f c⬘ 0.09 0.61
冑 f c⬘ 0.12 0.61
N/A 0.46 —a
N / 共f c⬘ⴱA兲 0.01 —a
N / 共冑 f c⬘ⴱA兲 0.56 —a
dw / Hw b 0.75 0.16
Lw / Hw 0.72 0.19
␳L f yL / ␳t f yt 0.32 0.39
冑 f c⬘ + ␳t f yt 0.73 0.65
1 + 共␳t f yt / f c⬘兲 0.03 0.01

冉 冊 Hw
dw
共N/A冑 f c⬘兲0.1
0.87c —a

冑 f c⬘ + 共␳L / f yL / 共␳t / f yt兲0.1兲 0.10 0.91d

a
Values are not applicable.
b
Fixed angle solution 共Gupta and Rangan 1998兲.
c
Value for parameter X1 in Fig. 3共a兲.
d
Value for parameter X2 in Fig. 3共b兲.

stress-strain relationships for softened concrete as given by Zhang

and Hsu 共1998兲 and expressed as

␴d = − ␨f ⬘c 2 冋 冉 冊 冉 冊册 − ␧d
␨␧0
−
− ␧d
␨␧0
2
for − ␧d ⱕ ␨␧0 共9a兲

␴d = − ␨f ⬘c 1 −冋 冉 冊册 − ␧d/␨␧0 − 1
2/␨ − 1
2
for − ␧d ⬎ ␨␧0 共9b兲

where f ⬘c = compressive cylinder strength of concrete in MPa; ␧0

= strain at peak stress of a standard concrete cylinder, taken as Fig. 2. Correlation between the cracking angle, ␣, and the parameter
␧0 = 0.002 共Hsu 1993兲; and ␧d = average normal strain in d direc- used in the previous study 共Gupta and Rangan 1998兲
tion and ␨ the softening coefficient defined as 共Yu and Hwang
2005兲
5.8 1 0.9 f s = E s␧ s for 0 ⬍ ␧s ⬍ ␧y 共11a兲
␨=
冑 f ⬘c 冑1 + 400␧r ⱕ 冑1 + 400␧r 共9c兲

Under tension, the relationship between the principal stress, ␴r, fs = fy for ␧s ⱖ ␧y 共11b兲
and the principal strain, ␧r, is 共Gupta and Rangan 1998兲 where f s and ␧s = average stress and strain of steel rebars, respec-
␴ r = E c␧ r for 0 ⱕ ␧r ⱕ ␧ct 共10a兲 tively. They become f L, ␧L and f t, ␧t when applied to longitudinal
and transverse steel, respectively. f y and ␧y are the yield stress and
共␧ut − ␧r兲 strain of steel rebars, and Es the modulus of elasticity of steel
␴r = f ⬘ct for ␧ct ⱕ ␧r ⱕ ␧ut 共10b兲 rebars.
共␧ut − ␧ct兲

␴r = 0 for ␧r ⬎ ␧ut 共10c兲

where f ⬘ct = tensile strength of concrete in MPa, taken equal to
0.4冑 f ⬘c , ␧ct = f ⬘ct / Ec, and ␧ut = ultimate tensile strain, taken as 0.002,
beyond which the tensile stress becomes zero 共Gupta 1996兲.
Constitutive Models for Steel Rebars
The stress-strain behavior of reinforcing steel is assumed to be
elastic perfectly plastic. Therefore
Solution Algorithm
The analysis of the softened truss model for shear strength pre-
diction involves 16 unknowns: V, ␴L, ␴t, ␶Lt, ␴d, ␴r, f L, f t, ␣, ␨ , ⌬,
␧r, ␧d, ␧L, ␧t, and ␥Lt. Thirteen equations have already been de-
scribed including eight equilibrium and compatibility equations,
and five related to the constitutive laws of materials. The indeter-
minacy degree can be reduced by specifying strain, ␧d, for each
load stage, and calculating the longitudinal stress, ␴L, from the
applied vertical load, N, and the wall cross-sectional area, A

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010 / 1217

Downloaded 30 Dec 2011 to 14.139.97.78. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

Fig. 3. Correlation between the cracking angle, ␣, and two
wall parameters, x1 = 共Hw / dw兲共N / A冑 f ⬘c 兲0.1 and x2 = 冑 f ⬘c + 共␳L / f yL兲 /
共␳t / f yt兲0.1
␴L = N/A
In order to provide the remaining required condition to make the
analysis possible, Gupta 共1996兲 proposed that if the wall was
infinitely restrained from movement in the transverse direction,
strain ␧t would be 0, giving the upper bound solution for the
cracking angle, ␣. On the other hand if the wall was assumed to
be free to move in the transverse direction, stress ␴t would be 0,
giving the lower bound solution. Gupta 共1996兲 proposed that the
value of the cracking angle be limited between the upper and
lower bound solutions, and calculated according to the following
expression which gave the fixed angle solution
␣ = tan−1共dw/Hw兲
where Hw = wall height. The fixed angle solution ignores the ef-
fects of applied loads, concrete strength and reinforcement ratios.
Earlier assessment of the solution concluded that it led to inaccu-
rate predictions of failure mode and unreasonably high estimates
of clamping stresses 共Yu and Hwang 2005兲. This solution hence
represents a weak point in an otherwise sound analysis method
for shear walls, and it anticipated that if a more realistic value of
1218 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010
Downloaded 30 Dec 2011 to 14.139.97.78. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
the strut cracking angle, ␣, could be developed, the overall accu-
racy of the softened strut model would be improved.
Regression Analysis of Experimental Data
The results of tests involving 100 shear wall specimens were
reviewed and categorized 共69 walls with flanges, 31 rectangular
walls兲. The failure load results of the selected shear wall speci-
mens were gathered from Hirosawa 共1975兲, Barda et al. 共1977兲,
Cardenas et al. 共1980兲, Oesterle et al. 共1984兲, Maier and Thurlia-
mann 共1985兲, Lefas et al. 共1990兲, Kabeasawa et al. 共1993兲, Mo
共1993兲, Gupta 共1996兲, and Dabbagh 共2005兲. All the specimens
were one-story isolated concrete walls, symmetrically reinforced
with horizontal and vertical steel rebars without any diagonal re-
inforcement. The selected walls in the study cover both walls
subjected to both axial and lateral loads 共68 walls兲 and walls
subjected to only lateral loading 共32 walls兲. The walls were tested
using either monotonically increasing load in one direction until
failure 共54 walls兲 or cyclically loaded in the plane of the wall
until failure 共46 walls兲.
The extracted data was used in a regression analysis to deter-
mine a suitable value of the cracking angle, ␣. The study was
based on expected statistical association between the cracking
angle and with a number of parameters thought likely to influence
its value, including geometric dimensions, reinforcement ratios,
concrete strength, and applied axial stresses. For each wall speci-
men, the value of the cracking angle that provided a match be-
tween the analytical and experimental shear strengths was
recorded and assessed against the crack propagation maps, in
cases where the maps were available, to ensure compatibility with
the experimental results.
In order to arrive at generic values of the cracking angle suit-
able for future shear wall design, the statistical association be-
tween the cracking angle values and several parameters related to
concrete strength, f ⬘c , longitudinal stresses, N / A, geometric di-
mensions, A, dw, Hw, Lw, and reinforcement ratios, ␳L, ␳t, was
assessed. Some of the results are shown in Table 1 and Fig. 2.
The results show that the association between ␣ and dw / Hw
assumed in the fixed angle solution is strong 共r2 = 0.75兲 for walls
under combined lateral and axial loading but not for walls under
lateral loads only, where r2 reduces to 0.16 关see Fig. 2共a and b兲兴.
共12兲 For the first group of walls, a stronger association 共r2 = 0.87兲 was
found when the axial stresses, N / A, and the concrete strength, f ⬘c ,
were also considered 关see Fig. 3共a兲兴. Including the parameter N / A
was only possible for walls under combined axial and lateral
loading. On the other hand, considering the effect of the concrete
strength, f ⬘c , and the reinforcement ratios, ␳L, ␳t, resulted in strong
association 共r2 = 0.91兲 with the cracking angle, ␣, for walls sub-
jected to lateral loads only 关Fig. 3共b兲兴. These results led to the
following two equations giving the values of the cracking angle,
␣, in degrees for the two types of shear walls considered, respec-
tively.
For walls subjected to lateral loading and axial forces
共13兲
␣ = 57.16x21 − 117.6x1 + 87.10 共14兲
where x1 = 共Hw / dw兲共N / A冑 f ⬘c 兲0.1
For walls subjected to lateral loading only
␣ = − 7.339x22 − 65.74x2 − 87.67 共15兲
where x2 = 冑 f ⬘c + 共␳l / f yl兲 / 共␳t / f yt兲0.1.
Table 2. Comparison of Theoretical and Experimental Shear Strengths
Vtest / Vcalc.
Hw ⫻ Lw ⫻ t Lf ⫻ tf f c⬘ ␳l f yl ␳t f yt N Vtest Fixed
Specimen 共cm兲 共cm兲 共MPa兲 共%兲 共MPa兲 共%兲 共MPa兲 共KN兲 共KN兲 angle Proposed ACI
共1兲 共2兲 共3兲 共4兲 共5兲 共6兲 共7兲 共8兲 共9兲 共10兲 共11兲 共12兲 共13兲
共a兲 Oesterle et al. 共1984兲
a
B5 457⫻ 190.5⫻ 10.2 30.5⫻ 31 45.30 1.37 444.4 0.63 444.4 0 761.3 1.28b 1.28b 1.34
B6a 457⫻ 190.5⫻ 10.2 30.5⫻ 31 21.8 1.37 440.9 0.63 440.9 929 824.4 1.15b 1.15b 1.35
B7a 457⫻ 190.5⫻ 10.2 30.5⫻ 31 49.4 1.37 458.2 0.63 458.2 1,192 979.6 1.21b 1.21b 1.42
B8a 457⫻ 190.5⫻ 10.2 30.5⫻ 31 42.0 1.37 447.8 1.38 447.8 1,192 976.9 1.24b 1.24b 1.22b
F2a 457⫻ 190.5⫻ 10.2 91⫻ 10.2 45.6 1.25 430.6 0.63 430.6 1,186 886.7 1.19c 1.36b 1.35
共b兲 Maier and Thurliamann 共1985兲
S1 120⫻ 118⫻ 10 40⫻ 10 36.9 1.16 574.0 1.03 574.0 433.0 680.0 1.05b 1.05b 1.06b
S2 120⫻ 118⫻ 10 40⫻ 10 35.4 1.16 574.0 1.03 574.0 1,653.0 928.0 1.00b 1.00b 1.03b
S3 120⫻ 118⫻ 10 40⫻ 10 36.7 2.46 530.0 1.03 574.0 424.0 977.0 0.96d 0.96 1.08
s4 120⫻ 118⫻ 10 10⫻ 23.6 32.9 1.05 574.0 1.03 574.0 262.0 392.0 1.22b 1.22b 1.19b
S5a 120⫻ 118⫻ 10 40⫻ 10 37.3 1.16 574.0 1.03 574.0 416.0 701.0 1.09b 1.09b 1.10b
S6 120⫻ 118⫻ 10 40⫻ 10 35.6 1.13 479.0 0.57 537.0 416.0 667.0 1.17b 1.17b 1.18b
S7a 120⫻ 118⫻ 10 40⫻ 10 34.1 1.13 555.0 1.01 555.0 1,657.0 836.0 0.92b 0.92b 0.95b
S9a 120⫻ 118⫻ 10 10⫻ 11.8 29.2 0.98 560 0 0 260 342 1.10b 1.10b 1.71
S10 120⫻ 118⫻ 10 10⫻ 17.9 31.0 2.00 496.0 0.98 496.0 262.0 670.0 1.14b 1.14b 1.18b
共c兲 Kabeasawa et al. 共1993兲

NW-1 300⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 93.6 0.84 1,187 0.53 1001 1,764 1,468.0 1.29b 1.29b 1.25b
NW-2 200⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 55.5 0.65 848 0.25 1001 1,764 714.0 1.23b 1.23b 1.43
NW-3 300⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 54.6 0.88 593 0.25 753 1,372 784.0 1.03b 1.03b 1.50
NW-4 300⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 60.3 1.07 593 0.49 753 1,568 900.0 1.01d 1.01 1.24
NW-5 300⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 65.2 1.15 1187 0.49 753 1,372 1,056.0 1.20d 1.13 1.40
NW-6 300⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 103.3 0.84 1,187 0.53 753 1,568 1,670.0 1.24d 1.24 1.40b
W08 200⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 137.5 0.84 848 0.53 1079 1,764 1,719.0 1.17d 1.29 1.24b
W12 200⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 70.8 1.42 848 0.35 1079 2,313 1,254.0 1.03d 1.14 1.51
N1 200⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 65.1 1.34 339 0.21 792 1,568 1100 0.84d 0.93 1.59
N2 200⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 71.8 1.54 565 0.53 792 1,568 1,378.0 0.93d 1.02 1.38
N3 200⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 103.4 1.54 848 0.53 792 1,568 1,696.0 1.00d 1.10 1.35
N4 200⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 76.7 1.54 848 0.49 792 2,617 1,158.0 0.96d 1.09 1.47
N5 300⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 74.1 1.69 1,187 0.72 792 1,568 1,411.0 1.23d 1.23 0.81
N6 200⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 71.5 1.84 1,158 0.92 792 1,568 1,498.0 1.00d 1.10 1.09
N7 200⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 76.1 2.17 1,469 1.34 792 1,568 1,639.0 1.05d 1.16 0.92
N8 200⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 62.6 1.00 2,147 0.74 810 1,568 1,049.0 1.10d 1.21 0.95
W35Xa 200⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 60.8 1.00 1,187 0.74 810 1,764 1,054.0 0.90b 0.93 0.95b
W35Ha 200⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 57.7 1.00 1,187 0.74 810 1,921 958.0 0.90b 0.92 0.89b
W30Ha 200⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 62.2 1.00 1,187 0.74 810 1,862 1,020.0 0.83b 0.86 0.96b
P35Ha 200⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 59.7 1.00 1,187 0.74 810 1,470 1,011.0 0.92b 0.93 0.94b
MW35Ha 200⫻ 170⫻ 8 20⫻ 20 93.6 0.84 1,187 0.53 810 1,666 1,468.0 0.89b 0.92 1.25b
共d兲 Lefas et al. 共1990兲
SW11 75⫻ 75⫻ 7 — 44.5 2.49 470.0 1.10 520.0 0.0 260.00 1.21b 1.21b 1.18b
SW12 75⫻ 75⫻ 7 — 45.6 2.49 470.0 1.10 520.0 230.0 340.00 1.29b 1.29b 1.24b
SW13 75⫻ 75⫻ 7 — 34.5 2.49 470.0 1.10 520.0 355.0 330.00 1.26b 1.26b 1.22b
SW14 75⫻ 75⫻ 7 — 35.8 2.49 470.0 1.10 520.0 0.00 265.00 1.27b 1.27b 1.24b
SW15 75⫻ 75⫻ 7 — 36.8 2.49 470.0 1.10 520.0 185.0 320.00 1.30b 1.30b 1.27b
SW16 75⫻ 75⫻ 7 — 43.9 2.49 470.0 1.10 520.0 460.0 355.00 1.22b 1.22b 1.16b
SW17 75⫻ 75⫻ 7 — 41.1 2.49 470.0 0.37 520.0 0.00 247.00 1.16b 1.16b 1.76
SW21 130⫻ 65⫻ 6.5 — 36.4 2.62 470.0 0.80 520.0 0.00 127.00 1.39b 1.39b 1.36b
SW22 130⫻ 65⫻ 6.5 — 43.0 2.62 470.0 0.80 520.0 182.0 150.00 1.34b 1.34b 1.29b
SW24 130⫻ 65⫻ 6.5 — 41.1 2.62 470.0 0.80 520.0 0.00 120.00 1.29b 1.29b 1.26b
SW25 130⫻ 65⫻ 6.5 — 38.3 2.62 470.0 0.80 520.0 32.5 150.00 1.28b 1.28b 1.22b
SW26 130⫻ 65⫻ 6.5 — 25.6 2.62 470.0 0.40 520.0 0.00 123.00 1.42b 1.42b 1.4b

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010 / 1219

Downloaded 30 Dec 2011 to 14.139.97.78. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Table 2. 共Continued.兲
Vtest / Vcalc.
Hw ⫻ Lw ⫻ t Lf ⫻ tf f c⬘ ␳l f yl ␳t f yt N Vtest Fixed
Specimen 共cm兲 共cm兲 共MPa兲 共%兲 共MPa兲 共%兲 共MPa兲 共KN兲 共KN兲 angle Proposed ACI
共1兲 共2兲 共3兲 共4兲 共5兲 共6兲 共7兲 共8兲 共9兲 共10兲 共11兲 共12兲 共13兲
共e兲 Yoshizaki 共1973兲 as reported by Hirosawa 共1975兲
a
165-1-56-2 86⫻ 80⫻ 6 — 23.50 0.22 433 0.23 433 0.00 102.00 2.92c 1.12b 1.12b
166-1-56-8a 86⫻ 80⫻ 6 — 23.50 0.73 433 0.82 433 0.00 147.00 1.48c 1.08b 1.08b
167-1-88-4a 86⫻ 80⫻ 6 — 23.50 0.44 433 0.41 433 0.00 135.00 2.11c 0.81 0.94
168-1-88-8a 86⫻ 80⫻ 6 — 23.50 0.73 433 0.82 433 0.00 159.00 1.61c 0.88b 0.88b
169-1-88-12a 86⫻ 80⫻ 6 — 23.50 1.17 433 1.17 433 0.00 175.00 1.16c 0.71 0.90
170-2/3-36-2a 86⫻ 120⫻ 6 — 24.50 0.24 433 0.23 433 0.00 160.00 2.39c 1.04b 1.04b
171-2/3-36-8a 86⫻ 120⫻ 6 — 24.50 0.78 433 0.82 433 0.00 235.00 1.08 0.94b 0.94b
172-2/3-52-4a 86⫻ 120⫻ 6 — 24.50 0.44 433 0.41 433 0.00 220.00 1.79 0.90 1.01
173-2/3-52-8a 86⫻ 120⫻ 6 — 24.50 0.78 433 0.82 433 0.00 260.00 1.20 0.78 0.88
174-2/3-52-12a 86⫻ 120⫻ 6 — 24.50 1.17 433 1.17 433 0.00 275.00 0.84 0.74b 0.93
175-1/2-27-2a 86⫻ 120⫻ 6 — 25.50 0.22 433 0.23 433 0.00 199.00 3.25 0.91b 0.91b
176-1/2-27-8a 86⫻ 120⫻ 6 — 25.50 0.8 433 0.82 433 0.00 322.00 1.45 0.97 0.81b
178-1/2-42-8a 86⫻ 120⫻ 6 — 25.50 0.8 433 0.82 433 0.00 382.00 1.71 1.15 0.95
179-1/2-42-12a 86⫻ 120⫻ 6 — 25.50 1.17 433 1.17 433 0.00 422.00 1.30 1.08 1.05
共f兲 Gupta 共1996兲
S-2 100⫻ 100⫻ 75 37.5⫻ 10 65.1 1.06 545 0.52 578 610 719.6 1.19d 1.15 1.47
S-3 100⫻ 100⫻ 75 37.5⫻ 10 69 1.06 545 0.52 578 1230 850.7 1.09d 1.00 1.34
S-5 100⫻ 100⫻ 75 37.5⫻ 10 73.1 1.61 533.2 0.52 578 610 790.2 1.02d 0.99 1.58
S-6 100⫻ 100⫻ 75 37.5⫻ 10 70.5 1.61 533.2 0.52 578 1,230 970 1.15d 1.06 1.53
S-7 100⫻ 100⫻ 75 37.5⫻ 10 71.2 1.06 545 1.06 545 610 800 1.32d 1.28 1.17
S-F 100⫻ 100⫻ 75 37.5⫻ 10 60.5 1.06 545 0.52 578 310 486.6 1.24b 1.24b 1.26b
共g兲 Mo 共1993兲
HN4-1a 65⫻ 86⫻ 7 17⫻ 8 32.2 0.72 302 0.81 302 13.6 205 1.33d 1.02 0.99b
HN4-2a 65⫻ 86⫻ 7 17⫻ 8 32.2 0.72 302 0.81 302 13.6 247 1.60d 1.23 1.2b
HN4-3a 65⫻ 86⫻ 7 17⫻ 8 32.1 0.72 302 0.81 302 13.5 202 1.31d 1.01 0.98b
HN6-1a 65⫻ 86⫻ 7 17⫻ 8 29.5 0.72 443 0.81 302 12.4 255 1.16d 0.89 1.11
HM4-1a 65⫻ 86⫻ 7 17⫻ 8 37.5 0.72 302 0.81 302 13.5 223 1.45d 1.10 1.07b
HM4-2a 65⫻ 86⫻ 7 17⫻ 8 37.5 0.72 302 0.81 302 13.5 231 1.50d 1.14 1.11b
HM4-3a 65⫻ 86⫻ 7 17⫻ 8 39.9 0.72 302 0.81 302 12.0 250 1.63d 1.23 1.2b
LN4-1a 65⫻ 86⫻ 7 17⫻ 8 18 0.58 302 0.81 302 13.0 193 1.53d 1.21 1.03b
LN4-2a 65⫻ 86⫻ 7 17⫻ 8 18 0.58 302 0.81 302 13.0 217 1.72d 1.36 1.15b
LN4-3a 65⫻ 86⫻ 7 17⫻ 8 29.7 0.58 302 0.81 302 12.5 203 1.62d 1.24 1.06b
LN6-1a 65⫻ 86⫻ 7 17⫻ 8 30.7 0.58 443 0.81 302 12.9 246 1.38d 1.06 1.06
LN6-2a 65⫻ 86⫻ 7 17⫻ 8 30.2 0.58 443 0.81 302 12.7 200 1.12d 0.86 0.87
LN6-3a 65⫻ 86⫻ 7 17⫻ 8 30.2 0.58 443 0.81 302 12.7 210 1.17d 0.90 0.91
LM6-1a 65⫻ 86⫻ 7 17⫻ 8 39.3 0.58 443 0.81 302 11.8 219 1.23d 0.93 0.9
LM6-2a 65⫻ 86⫻ 7 17⫻ 8 37 0.58 443 0.81 302 13.4 205 1.14d 0.87 0.86
LM6-3a 65⫻ 86⫻ 7 17⫻ 8 34.5 0.58 443 0.81 302 12.5 210 1.17d 0.89 0.89
LM4-3a 65⫻ 86⫻ 7 17⫻ 8 66 0.58 302 0.81 302 11.9 227 1.83d 1.34 1.16b
共h兲 Barda et al. 共1977兲
B1-1 95.5⫻ 190.5⫻ 10.2 61⫻ 10.2 29.00 0.73 543.00 0.44 496.10 0.00 1,217.30 0.96d 1.18 1.82
B2-1 95.5⫻ 190.5⫻ 10.2 61⫻ 10.2 16.40 1.26 552.00 0.44 499.60 0.00 977.60 1.07d 1.14 1.62
B3-2a 95.5⫻ 190.5⫻ 10.2 61⫻ 10.2 27.00 0.97 545.10 0.44 513.40 0.00 1,107.20 0.87d 0.94 1.65
B6-4a 95.5⫻ 190.5⫻ 10.2 61⫻ 10.2 21.30 0.75 496.80 0.44 496.80 0.00 875.60 0.88d 0.87 1.39
B7-5a 47.5⫻ 190.5⫻ 10.2 61⫻ 10.2 25.70 0.96 531.30 0.41 501.60 0.00 1,138.60 1.03d 0.97 1.80
B8-5a 190.5⫻ 190.5⫻ 10.2 61⫻ 10.2 23.50 0.96 527.90 0.48 496.10 0.00 884.80 1.00d 0.79 1.36
共i兲 Cardenas et al. 共1980兲
SW7 190.5⫻ 190.5⫻ 7.6 — 43.10 0.02 448.50 0.00 414.0 0.00 518.7 0.83b 1.23 1.71
SW8 190.5⫻ 190.5⫻ 7.6 — 42.50 0.03 448.50 0.00 465.8 0.00 569.3 0.90b 1.25 1.04

1220 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010

Downloaded 30 Dec 2011 to 14.139.97.78. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Table 2. 共Continued.兲
Vtest / Vcalc.
Hw ⫻ Lw ⫻ t Lf ⫻ tf f c⬘ ␳l f yl ␳t f yt N Vtest Fixed
Specimen 共cm兲 共cm兲 共MPa兲 共%兲 共MPa兲 共%兲 共MPa兲 共KN兲 共KN兲 angle Proposed ACI
共1兲 共2兲 共3兲 共4兲 共5兲 共6兲 共7兲 共8兲 共9兲 共10兲 共11兲 共12兲 共13兲
SW9 190.5⫻ 190.5⫻ 7.6 — 43.1 2.87 448.5 1.00 414.0 0.00 678.7 1.07b 1.07b 1.04
SW-11 190.5⫻ 190.5⫻ 7.6 — 38.2 1.64 448.5 0.75 448.5 0.00 608.9 0.95b 0.95b 1.36b
SW-12 190.5⫻ 190.5⫻ 7.6 — 38.4 1.64 448.5 1.00 448.5 0.00 657.8 1.03b 1.03b 1.46b
共j兲 Dabbagh 共2005兲
a
SW1 100⫻ 100⫻ 75 37.5⫻ 10 86 2.52 536.0 0.45 536.0 1,200 992.0 0.95d 1.02 1.89
SW2a 100⫻ 100⫻ 75 37.5⫻ 10 86 3.22 498.0 1.34 498.0 1,200 1,190.0 1.10d 1.17 1.53
SW3a 100⫻ 100⫻ 75 37.5⫻ 10 96 2.82 498.0 0.75 536.0 1,200 1,107.0 1.00d 1.07 1.76
SW5a 100⫻ 100⫻ 75 37.5⫻ 10 83 3.22 498.0 0.45 536.0 1,200 1,134.0 1.06d 1.12 2.17
SW6a 100⫻ 100⫻ 75 37.5⫻ 10 83 2.95 498.0 0.94 498.0 1,200 1,141.0 1.08d 1.15 1.74
Number of samples 100
Average strength ratio 1.24 1.09 1.23
SD 0.38 0.16 0.28
COV 0.14 0.03 0.08
a
Cyclic loading.
b
Predicted as failing in flexure.
c
Lower bound solution.
d
Fixed solution.

In Eqs. 共14兲 and 共15兲, Hw and dw are in mm; N is in kN; A, the
cross-sectional area is in mm2; and f ⬘c , f yL, and f yt are in MPa.
Verification of Proposed Cracking Angle
A method of analysis based on the softened truss model and in-
corporating the proposed cracking angle was used to predict the
behavior and failure loads of the 100 shear walls for which the
experimental results are available in the literature. The analysis
was used to predict the load-deflection behavior, the cracking
angle and the shear capacity of each wall.
proposed solution and the American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲
共2005兲 method using box and whisker plots, which present the
lower quartile 共Q1兲, median 共Q2兲, upper quartile 共Q3兲, and ex-
treme values. The chart shows outliers using asterisk and circle
markers, while the whiskers extend only as far as the furthest
point within 1.5 interquartile ranges below the first quartile or
above the third quartile. The asterix markers show outliers within
3 interquartile ranges below the first quartile or above the third
quartile, and the circles show outliers beyond 3 interquartile
ranges of the first and third quartiles.
Load-Deflection Behavior

Shear Capacity The majority of cases demonstrated reasonable match between

The shear capacity predictions of the new method were compared
to the experimental failure loads for the 100 test specimens and
listed in Table 2. The details of the walls are listed in Columns 1
to 10 in Table 2 while Columns 11 to 13 present the ratio of the
experimental to analytical results 共Vtest / Vanalysis兲 according to the
fixed angle solution, proposed solution and the American Con-
crete Institute 共ACI兲 共2005兲 method, respectively. The average
ratio of experimental to analytical 共Vtest / Vanalysis兲 results was 1.09
with a coefficient of variation 共COV兲 of 0.03 and a SD of 0.16
关see Fig. 4共a兲兴. This exercise was repeated with the softened truss
model incorporating the cracking angle values proposed by Gupta
and Rangan 共1998兲 关Eq. 共13兲兴, and the average, COV, and SD
values were 1.24, 0.14, 0.38, respectively 关see Fig. 4共b兲兴. Using
the shear capacity predictions made by the American Concrete
Institute 共ACI兲 共2005兲, which were included for the sake of com-
pleteness, the average, COV and SD values obtained were 1.23,
0.08, 0.28 关see Fig. 4共c兲兴. The low average Vtest / Vanalysis ratio
achieved with the proposed method is promising and indicated the
effectiveness of the proposed method. Fig. 5 introduces the dis-
tributions of the ratios of the predicted shear strength to experi-
mental strength as obtained using the fixed angle solution, the
the recorded and predicted load-deflection behaviors based on the
proposed cracking angle. Typical examples are presented in Fig. 6
including Wall B1-1 tested by Barda et al. 共1977兲 and Wall S-5
tested by Gupta 共1996兲. Flanged Specimen S-5 was tested under
combined lateral and axial loading while specimen B1-1 was sub-
jected to lateral loading only. The figure, which shows the lateral
deflection at the top of the two walls, depicts that the proposed
analysis method can reasonably trace the nonlinear behavior of
shear walls up to the point of failure.
Cracking Angle Values
As a further assessment of the proposed cracking angle equations,
their predictions of the values of ␣ were calculated for all test
specimens and the values were compared to those reported in the
literature. This exercise was limited to the walls for which the
cracking pattern was reported. Two typical samples including
Wall B3-2 tested by Barda et al. 共1977兲 and Wall S-3 tested by
Gupta 共1996兲 are selected and the cracking pattern is shown in
Fig. 7. The figure also represents the directions of the main cracks
according to experimental results, fixed angle solution, and new

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010 / 1221

Downloaded 30 Dec 2011 to 14.139.97.78. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
fixed angle Current study ACI (2005)
solution

Fig. 5. Distribution of ratio of predicted shear strengths to measured

peak shear strengths for the selected walls

Fig. 4. Ratios between experimental failure loads, Vtest, and maxi-

mum capacity predictions, Vanalysis, made by: 共a兲 the proposed
method; 共b兲 the softened strut model incorporating the cracking angle
proposed by Gupta 共1996兲; and 共c兲 the American Concrete Institute
共ACI兲 共2005兲 method

proposed cracking angle. It can be seen that the new proposed

cracking angle matched well with the experimental cracking map
indicating the effectiveness of the proposed solution.

Conclusions
An analysis method based on the softened truss model theory and Fig. 6. Load-deflection behavior of two shear wall specimens as
a proposed strut cracking angle is developed to theoretically pre- obtained experimentally and predicted using the new method

1222 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010

Downloaded 30 Dec 2011 to 14.139.97.78. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

(a) wall B3-2 tested by Barda et al. (1977)
Fig. 7. Comparison between the cracking angles for two shear walls as found experimentally and predicted using the new method and the fixed
angle solution
dict the shear capacity of structural shear walls. The proposed
cracking angle was based on a regression analysis involving the
experimental results of 100 shear wall specimens to determine a
suitable value of the strut cracking angle.
According to the results obtained from comparing the experi-
mental shear capacity of 100 shear walls available in the literature
with the proposed method, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
1. The softened truss model with the newly proposed cracking
angle can predict the shear capacity of shear walls more ac-
curately than the fixed angle solution proposed by Gupta and
Rangan 共1998兲 and the American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲
共2005兲 method. The proposed method achieved a lower ratio
of experimental to analytical 共Vtest / Vanalysis兲 results 共1.09兲 and
a lower COV 共0.03兲 compared with the fixed angle solution
共1.24, 0.14兲 and the ACI-2005 method 共1.23, 0.08兲.
2. The recently developed strut cracking angle can be used to
predict the load-deformation behavior of structural shear
walls subjected to either combined axial and lateral loads or
only lateral loading, and tested using either monotonically
increasing lateral load or cyclically loaded in the plane of the
wall until failure.
3. The proposed method can be used to predict the direction of
the main cracks depending on the geometrical and reinforce-
ment properties of the walls.
Acknowledgments
The Egyptian Ministry of Higher Education and the Egyptian
Cultural Bureau in London are gratefully acknowledged for their
sponsorship of this research.
References
American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲. 共2005兲. “Building code requirements
for structural concrete.” (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-
05), Farmington Hills, MI.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010 / 1223
Downloaded 30 Dec 2011 to 14.139.97.78. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
fixed angle solution
test
new method
(b) wall S-3 tested by Gupta
(1996)
Barda, F., Hanson, J. M., and Corley, W. G. 共1977兲. “Shear strength of
low-rise walls with boundary elements.” Reinforced concrete struc-
tures in seismic zones, publication SP-53, American Concrete Insti-
tute, Detroit, 149–202.
Cardenas, A. E., Russell, H. G., and Corley, W. G. 共1980兲. “Strength of
low-rise structural walls, reinforced concrete structures subjected to
wind and earthquake forces.” Reinforced concrete structures subjected
to wind and earthquakes forces, publication SP-63, American Con-
crete Institute, Detroit, 221–241.
Dabbagh, H. 共2005兲. “Strength and ductility of high-strength concrete
shear walls under reversed cyclic loading.” Ph.D. thesis, The Univ. of
New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Farvashany, F. E., Foster, F. J., and Rangan, B. V. 共2008兲. “Strength and
deformation of high-strength concrete shearwalls.” ACI Struct. J.,
105共1兲, 21–29.
Fintel, M. 共1991兲. “Shearwalls—An answer for seismic resistance?”
Concr. Int., 13共7兲, 48–53.
Fintel, M. 共1995兲. “Performance of buildings with shear walls in earth-
quakes of the last thirty years.” PCI J., 40共3兲, 62–80.
Gulec, C. K., Whittaker, A. S., and Stojadinovic, B. 共2008兲. “Shear
strength of squat rectangular reinforced concrete walls.” ACI Struct.
J., 105共4兲, 488–497.
Gupta, A. 共1996兲. “Behaviour of high strength concrete structural walls.”
Ph.D. thesis, Curtin Univ. of Technology, Perth, Australia.
Gupta, A., and Rangan, B. V. 共1998兲. “High-strength concrete 共HSC兲
structural walls.” ACI Struct. J., 95共2兲, 194–205.
Hirosawa, M. 共1975兲. “Past experimental results on reinforced concrete
shear walls and analysis on them.” Kenchiku Kenkyu Shiryo, No. 6,
Build. Res. Inst., Ministry of Construction, Tokyo, 277 共in Japanese兲.
Hsu, T. T. C. 共1993兲. “Unified theory of reinforced concrete.” New direc-
tions in civil engineering, CRC, Boca Raton, FL, London.
Hwang, S. J., Fang, W. H., Lee, H. J., and Yu, H. W. 共2001兲. “Analytical
model for predicting shear strength of squat walls.” J. Struct. Eng.,
127共1兲, 43–50.
Kabeasawa, T., Kuramoto, H., and Matsumoto, K. 共1993兲. “Tests and
analyses of high strength shear walls.” Proc., 1st Meeting of the Mul-
tilateral Project on the Use of High Strength Concrete, Kyoto, Japan,
1–26.
Lefas, L. D., Kotsovos, M. D., and Ambraseys, N. N. 共1990兲. “Behaviour
of reinforced concrete structural walls: Strength, deformation charac-
teristics, and failure mechanism.” ACI Struct. J., 87共1兲, 23–31.
Maier, J., and Thurliamann, B. 共1985兲. “Bruchversuche an Satahlbeton-
scheiben 关Fracture tests on reinforced concrete plates兴.” Institut fur
Baustatik und Konstruktion ETH, Zurich, Switzerland, 130 共in Ger-
man兲.
Mansour, M. Y., Dicleli, M., and Lee, J. Y. 共2004兲. “Nonlinear analysis of
R/C low-rise shear walls.” Adv. Struct. Eng., 7共4兲, 345–361.
Mau, S. T., and Hsu, T. C. 共1987兲. “Shear behaviour of reinforced con-
crete framed wall panels with vertical loads.” ACI Struct. J., 84共3兲,
228–234.
Mo, Y. L. 共1993兲. “Dynamic tests on reinforced concrete shearwalls.”
National Science Council Project Rep. No. NSC81-0410-E006-521,
July, Taiwan 共in Chinese兲.
Oesterle, R. G., Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D., Shiu, K. N., and Corley, W. G.
共1984兲. “Web crushing of reinforced concrete structural walls.” ACI
J., 81共3兲, 231–241.
1224 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010
Downloaded 30 Dec 2011 to 14.139.97.78. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N. 共1992兲. Seismic design of reinforced
concrete and masonry buildings, Wiley, New York.
Paulay, T., Priestley, M. J. N., and Synge, A. J. 共1982兲. “Ductility in
earthquake resisting squat shearwalls.” ACI J., 79, 257–269.
Vecchio, F., and Collins, M. P. 共1986兲. “The modified-field compression
theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear.” ACI J.,
83共2兲, 219–231.
Warner, R. F., Rangan, B. V., and Hall, A. S. 共1989兲. Reinforced concrete,
Longman Cheshire Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, Australia.
Yu, H. W., and Hwang, S. J. 共2005兲. “Evaluation of softened truss model
for strength prediction of reinforced concrete squat walls.” J. Eng.
Mech., 131共8兲, 839–846.
Zhang, L.-X. B., and Hsu, T. T. C. 共1998兲. “Behavior and analysis of 100
MPa concrete membrane elements.” J. Struct. Eng., 124共1兲, 24–34.