Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers

ISSN: 0253-3839 (Print) 2158-7299 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcie20

Ductility of reinforced concrete members and

shearwalls

Thomas T. C. Hsu

To cite this article: Thomas T. C. Hsu (1980) Ductility of reinforced concrete members
and shearwalls, Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 3:1, 1-20, DOI:
10.1080/02533839.1980.9676643

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02533839.1980.9676643

Published online: 04 May 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcie20

Download by: [University of California, San Diego] Date: 29 June 2016, At: 12:49
 Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Vol. 3, No. 1, PP. 1-20 (1980) REVIEW ARTICLE

DUCTILITY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE

MEMBERS AND SHEARWALLS
Thomas T. C. Hsu*

Department of Civil Engineering

University of Miami
Coral Gables, Florida, U.S.A.
and
Department of Civil Engineering
National Taiwan University
Taipei, Taiwan 107, R.O.C.

ABSTRACT

A structure must satisfy three requirements, namely, strength,

serviceability and ductility. This article reviews the ductility of reinforced
concrete structures and the ductility requirements for various types of
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016

loadings.
The available ductility of reinforced concrete sections is first
introduced, starting from singly reinforced and doubly reinforced sections to
column sections with and without confinement reinforcement. This is
followed by a study of the ductility of reinforced concrete members and
the available rotations of the plastic hinges.
The ductility requirements for limit design and for seismic design
are reviewed. In limit design, a continuous two-span beam is used to illustrate
the redistribution of moments and the ductility requirement of the section
at interior support. The code allowed moment redistribution is also
discussed.
The ductility requirements of reinforced concrete frames and isolated
shearwalls subjected to earthquake are introduced. Special emphasis is given
to the concept of capacity design, particularly in shear.
Attention is also given to the behavior and design of shearwalls
subjected to earthquake. This treatment includes the new PCA proposals
for the design of boundary elements and for the revision of the maximum
allowable shear stresses.

m m

ffiWJBÉStSitKrSfêtaf+fêfê;" °

m7mw1mmmw-7ûmm^mmmm±mmtimmiE °
*Currently with Department of Civil Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.

-1 -
 J.d.E. Vol. 3, No. 1, (1980)

INTRODUCTION Table 1. Reinforcement limits for flexure

(1977 Code)
A reinforced concrete structure must satisfy
Loadings Max. Reinf. Ratio Min. Reinf. Ratio
three requirements. First, it must be designed for
adequate strength at ultimate load stage. In the Static P=0.75Pb+P'f5/fy P = 200/fy
current ACI Code, this strength requirement is Redistribution
Of Moments P = 0.5 Pb + P' P = 200/fy
usually satisfied using ultimate strength method,
but the old working stress design method can also Seismic P = 0.5 (Pb + P') P = 200/fy
be used to ensure sufficient strength of a structure.
Second, the structure must satisfy serviceability NOTE- balance , „ = _ , K - 0.85fc0, , 87,000
criteria, including cracking, deflection, etc, at service y ' y
load stage. With the 'introduction of ultimate
strength design method and the use of increasingly differential settlement, temperature, shrinkage, etc.
higher strengths of reinforcement and concrete, In the case of redistribution of moments, the code
the methods of checking serviceability criteria have requires a factor of 0.5 for Pį. This 0.5 factor
been codified. Third, a structure must also meet reflects a stronger demand of ductility on the
the requirement of ductility, which is the subject of structures. In the case of seismic design, the 0.5
this article.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016

factor is applied to both the balanced reinforcement

The ductility requirements are quite different
for static loading, for redistribution of moments and
for seismic design. In static loading ductility provides
warning of danger, and absorbs unexpected stresses
not considered in design, such as those caused by
differential settlement, temperature and shrinkage.
The requirement of ductility for the redistribution
of moments in limit design is more demanding. In
a flexural member, the available rotation of a plastic
hinge must be sufficient to accommondate the
rotation required by the distribution of moments.
Methods to calculate the available rotations and the
required rotations have been developed and will be
discussed later. The requirement of ductility for
seismic design is even more stringent. It is required to
dissipate the vibrational energy of a structure
subjected to earthquake. The need to utilize large
ductility in seismic design gives impetus to the inten-
sive study of ductility of reinforced concrete
structures in recent years.
The behavior of flexural reinforced con-
crete members is quite interesting. It behaves
ductilely only within a certain range of reinforce-
ment ratios. Therefore, a minimum and a maximum
reinforcement ratios must be specified to ensure
ductility. Such specifications are provided in the
1977 ACI Building Code (1) for static loading, for
the redistribution of moments and for seismic design.
They are listed in Table 1.
ratio pį and the compression steel ratio P'. This
reflects an even more stringent demand of ductility.
In static loading, a minimum and a maximum
reinforcement ratios are usually sufficient to ensure
ductility. However, these two ratios are far from
sufficient to ensure ductility in the redistribution of
moments and in seismic design. These additional
requirements will be discussed in this article.
DUCTILITY OF CROSS SECTIONS
Singly Reinforced Beams
The ductility of a flexural member is expressed
by the moment vs. curvature relationship. A small
unit length is isolated from a flexural member as
shown in Fig. 1. Under the action of moment M a
curvature <p is produced. This curvature can be
calculated from the strain diagram, if the position of
the neutral axis, represented by k, is known:
CURVATURE
kd dTPkl
N.A.

Table 1 shows that the minimum reinforcement

ratio of 200/fy is identical for all three loading cases.
The minimum ratio ensures sufficient reinforcement Length
to pick up the tensile stresses, abandoned by concrete
when it cracks, so as to avoid a brittle failure. The Fig. 1. Curvature of a unit length of flexural
maximum reinforcement ratios, however, are quite member.
different for the three loading cases. A factor of 0.75
has been applied to the balanced reinforcement
ratio P5 in the case of static loading. The 0.75
factor is deemed sufficient to provide danger warning or [1]
and to take care of the unexpected stresses due to TUT d(l-k)

•2-
 T. T. C. Hsu: Ductility of Reinforced Concrete
k is, of course, a function of the tensile reinforce-
ment ratio. If the percentage of reinforcement p is
greater than the balanced ratio Pį>, concrete will crush
before the yielding of steel. Such behavior is brittle
as shown by the M-0 curve in Fig. 2a. Whereas, if the
percentage of reinforcement p is less than Pį, steel
will yield before the crushing of concrete. The
yielding of steel gives rise to large deformation,
resulting in a ductile behavior. The M-0 curve of such
a beam possesses a long yield plateau as shown in
Fig. 2b.
P>Pb
IDUCT1LE) (BRITTLE)
M CRUSHING OF
CONCRETE
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016
•YIELDING OF STEEL
"CRACKING '•CRACKING
Fig. 2.Moment vs. curvature curves, (a) Over-
reinforced beams (p /* Pb). (b) Under-
reinforced beams (p >P[j).
The M-0 curve of a ductile beam can be
idealized into two straight lines as shown in Fig. 3a.
One straight line starts from the origin and ends at
the yield moment M y (or yield curvature 0y).
Another straight line with a small slope starts from
My and ends at the ultimate moment, M u (or
ultimate curvature 0 U ). Such a M-$ curve has been
used by some investigators (2). However, a further
simplification has commonly been made by assuming
the second straight line to be horizontal (3,4) as
shown in Fig. 3b. The first straight line of this
M-0 curve starts at the origin and ends at a point
with an ordinate M u and a abscissa 0y. The second
straight* line is horizontal at the level M u , starting
IDEALIZED M-0 CURVE
(DUCTILE FAILURE)
M M
0 where j3x is 0.85 for f¿ less than 4000psi and should
U
Fig. 3. Idealized M-0 curve, (a) Sloping-top type,
(bl Flat-top type.
3-
from 4>y and ending at <PU. The second M-0 curve
has been found to be considerably simpler to manage
than the first and is more generally accepted.
Therefore, it will be adopted in this article.
The calculation of the yield moment My and
the yield curvature 0y is illustrated in Fig. 4. It is
assumed that the stress-distribution curve of concrete
is linear in this range. From equilibrium and com-
patibility, one can find the position of the neutral
axis, represented by k, to be:
k = V(pn) 2 - 2 p n - [2]
FIND M y & 0 y
2
k=V(pn) -2Pn-pn
Fig. 4. Stress and strain distributions of a flexural
element at yield load.
where P is the .tensile steel ratio and n is the ratio of
the modulus of elasticity of steel over that of
concrete. Taking the yield stress fy for the steel.
My can be derived from equilibrium and 0y from
strain diagram:
My = A s f y ( l - — - ) d [3]
0y = [4]
Esd(l-k)
The calculation of the ultimate moment M u
and the ultimate curvature 0 U is demonstrated in
Fig. 5. At this ultimate load stage the concrete at the
extreme fibre has reached the ultimate compression
strain and has begun to crush. The ultimate strain
is conservatively specified by ACI Code to be 0.003,
but may be much greater as will be discussed later.
The stress distribution curve of concrete at the ulti-
mate load stage must be taken as a curve. This curve
outlines a compression stress block with a depth of
c. This compression stress block can be replaced by
a rectangular stress block with a depth of a = cßi,
be reduced by 0.05 for each lOOOpsi over 4000psi.
Taking equilibrium of the concrete compression force
and the steel tensile force, the depth of the
 J.C.I.E. Vol. 3, No. 1, (1980)

rectangular stress block can be derived: Doubly Reinforced Beams

Asfy Pfyd The effect of using compression steel is to

a= [5] increase the ductility of cross sections particularly
0.85 f¿b 0.85 f¿ for beams with high percentage of tensile steel.
This effect is clearly demonstrated in Fig. 7 using
Then the ultimate moment M u can be obtained from
equilibrium and the ultimate curvature 0 U from
geometry:
1600 1

Mu = Asfy ( d - — ) [6] P- 375 %

I , 2.5 %

I
8 0 0

I
[7]
1.25% fc' = 4000psi
f y = 40,000ps¡
I
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016

0014 0028
•d
FIND Mu & «u
085 į
Fig. 6. Effect of tension steel on M-0 curve.

a=Asf y /0.85f c b 1600

^ p = 3.75%
t «^--» ^="25% • i i
Mu=Asfy(d-9) í\j=^

1
1^ • 1.25%
¿- C 0.1d
1.1 d
Kb 800 •JfT^~0 P'=125%- As
T P = 2.5%
Fig. 5. Stress and strain distributions of a flexural fe = 4000 psi
element at ultimate load.
fy=40,000ps
0.014 002 B i„ = 000 4
From Eqs. [4] and [7] one can define a
curvature ductility factor Vç as:

e
učid(l-k)Es
[8] Fig. 7. Effect of compression steel on M-0curve.

the same cross section and the same material proper-

PQ is a non-dimensional factor serving as an index
of the ductility of a cross section. Eq. [8] shows that
PC is mainly a function of k and a, both being
determined by the position of the neutral axis.
From Eqs. [2] and [5], it can be seen that k and a
are mainly functions of the percentage of reinforce-
ment.
The effect of the percentage of steel on the M-0
curve is illustrated in Fig. 6 (5). In this figure, the
curvature <p has been non-dimensionalized by
multiplying the effecture depth d to become the
rotation 0d. The moment has also been divided
by bd 2 , resulting in an unit of stress. Fig. 6 gives
three M-</> curves with 1.25%, 2.50% and 3.75% of
steel. It is obvious that the ductility factor of the
cross section with 2.5% steel is only about half of
that with 1.25% steel. The ductility factor of the
cross section with 3.75% is even smaller.
ties as those in Fig. 6. The two M-</> curves of singly
reinforced beams with 2.50% and 3.75% tensile steel
(0% of compression steel) are taken from Fig. 6 for
the purpose of making a comparison. Three M-0
curves of doubly reinforced beams with 1.25% and
2.50% compression steel are included. It can be seen
that the ductility factor increases with the percentage
of compression steel. The doubly reinforced cross
sections with 1.25% compression steel have a
ductility factor about twice of those for singly re-
inforced beams.
The effects of both the tensile steel percentage
and the compression steel percentage are summarized
in Fig. 8. The ductility factor is plotted against the
tensile steel percentage for various percentages of
compression steel. It is obvious that ductility factor
decreases with the increase of tensile steel but
increases with the increase of compression steel.

-4 —
 T. T. C. Hsu: Ductility of Reinforced Concrete

COLUMNS

The effect of axial load on the ductility of

Fig. 8. Ductility factor as a function of tension
and compression steel.
COLUMN SECTION
07h
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016
column cross section is illustrated in Fig. 9. (5) Fig.
9a shows the interaction curve of ultimate moment
and ultimate axial load. The ordinate is expressed
by the nondimensional ratio P/P o , where P o is the
column capacity under concentric load only. For
the abscissa, the moment M is also non-dimension-
alized by the parameter 0.8Sf c bh 2 , where b and
h are the width and depth of a column section.
The interaction curve in Fig. 9a is made up of
two curves, meeting at a point defined as the
balanced point. This point is located roughly at
P/P o =0.3, At this point a column section will fail
when steel yielding and concrete crushing occur
.As
simultaneously. When P/P o is less than the balanced

point, failure will be initiated by the yielding of steel

f¿=3000psi
and is termed tension failure. When P/P o is greater
fy=40,000 psi than the balanced point, failure is due to the crushing
of concrete and is termed compression failure.
The ductility of a column section is shown in
0.1 02 03 04 0 001 002 0.03 Fig. 9b. The non-dimensionalized curvature 0 ¿ is
M * expressed as a function of the axial load ratio P/P o .
When P/Po=0, we have a pure bending member with
0.85 f¿bh
large rotation 0d (or large ductility). When P/P o
Fig. 9. Effect of axial load on ductility of column increases from 0 to the balanced point, <t>¿ reduces
sections. rapidly but the failure is still ductile. When P/P o is
(a) Interaction curve between axial load and
increased beyond the balanced point and into the
bending.
(b) Effect of axial load on rotation.
compression failure zone, the rotation <t>¿ is so small
that the failure becomes brittle.
The ductility factor M^ is plotted in Fig. 10 as
10 a function of the axial load ratio P/P o up to the
balanced point. This curve confirms the fact that
ductility decreases rapidly with increasing axial load.
0y Beyond the balanced points the column section has
5
no ductility to speak of. Since the great majority
of columns lie in the compression failure region, it
can be concluded that most of the column sections
0.10 0.20 0.30 will fail brittlely unless confinement reinforcement
P is provided.
Po
CONFINEMENT REINFORCEMENT
F ig. 10. Ductility factor as a fraction of axial load.
The effect of confinement reinforcement on
EFFECT OF HOOP CONFINEMENT
the ductility of concrete has been studied by Kent
and Park in 1971 (6). They found that the ductility
of concrete increased with the percentage of confine-
4000 - ment hoops. Accordingly, empirical equations for
55 ffc = 4000psi the stress-strain curve of concrete have been
developed. These equations are plotted in Fig. 11
Sh/b"=0 5
2000
/ \ \ NT for various percentages of confinement hoops.
Recent tests'" (7) showed that such curve should be
I ° \025% \ 05%^^
terminated by a limiting concrete strain expressed
I
0010 0.020 c as:
Fig. 11. Effect of confinement reinforcement on e u = 0.003 + (• [9]
the stress-strain curves of concrete.

- 5 -
 J. C.I.E. Vol. 3, No. 1, (1980)
where Ps= volumetric hoop reinforcement ratio and
fy must be in ksi.
The ductility of a column section with confine-
ment reinforcement is illustrated in Fig. 12. For
this column, the axail load is taken as a constant,
P/f¿bh=0.3. The moment-curvature relationship is
roughly linear up to a point where the concrete
crushes in the compression zone outside the confine-
ment hoops. At this point the concrete cover spalls
off, and the moment capacity drops. This drop,
however, bottoms out shortly and the moment
begins to climb again, because sufficient confinement
reinforcement has beeh provided. This strengthening
effect is caused by the increase of strength and
ductility of the concrete within the confinement
hoops. As shown in Fig. 12, this strengthening effect
provides great ductility for a column section.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016
The percentage of confinement reinforcement
to ensure ductility of column sections has been
specified by the ACI Code. For circular columns
with spiral reinforcement, ACI Code Eq. [10.5]
gives the percentage of spiral as:.
P s = 0.45 (- -1). [10a]
Where Ag is the gross area of cross section and A c is
the area within the confinement hoops. For seismic
design Section A.6.5.2 also requires that
0.12- 1L [10b]
fv
Eq. [10b] will govern in the case of large columns
where the ratio of Ag/Ac is close to unity. The code
also specifies a minimum spiral size of No.3 bars
and a maximum spacing of 3 in.
For seismic design of rectangular column
sections the area of each confinement hoop
should satisfy ACI Eq. [A-2] :
A
lhPssh
sh = [11]
where Ps is given by Eq. [10] and Sh and l n are,
respectively, the spacing of the hoop and the length
of the larger leg of the hoop. This amount of
rectangular hoops is supposed to provide the same
lateral pressure within the concrete core as that
provided by spiral reinforcement according to Eqs.
[10 a and b.] Details of derivation have been given
in the ACI Commentary. The ACI code also specifies
a minimum size of rectangular hoops to be No. 3
for No. 10 longitudinal bars or less and No. 4 for
No. 11 longitudinal bars or above. Section A. 6.5.3
also requires a maximum spacing of 4 in.
- 6 -
DUCTILITY OF MEMBERS
Member Deformations
Up to this point we have examined the ductility
of cross sections or, more accurately, the ductility
of small unit lengths of members. We will now
proceed to consider the ductility of a member which
has developed plastic hinges under loads.
A cantilever beam of Z length subjected to a
concentrated load at the free end is shown in Fig. 13.
The concentrated load produces a triangular bending
diagram, where the maximum moment at the fixed
end should be Mu at failure [Fig. 13a]. This
triangular bending moment produces a curvature
diagram shown by the solid curve in Fig. 13b. At
the fixed end the curvature should be 0 U . The large
increase of curvature in the vicinity of the fixed end
indicates that a plastic hinge has formed there.
The curvature diagram can be approximated
by the sum of two diagrams shown by the dotted
lines. The first diagram is triangular, representing the
elastic deformation of the member. The second
diagram with a shape of parallelogram near the fixed
end represents the plastic deformation of the
member. This plastic deformation is concentrated in
a narrow region called the plastic hinge region. The
length of the plastic hinge region is defined as the
plastic length, lp. The curvature within the plastic
length is taken uniformly to be (0U — 0y).
The rotation of the plastic hinge can be
expressed by the area of the parallelogram curvature
diagram:
ep [12]
where 0U = e u ßja (Eq.[7]).The ultimate deflection
at the free end is:
0yZ2
Au = —^-) [13]
plastic
P = 0.055
#4 ties@6*
cover =1.5*
fe=4000 psi
301 f=40000 psi
P/f«;bh=0.3
10 20 30*
0/0 y
Fig. 12. Non-dimensionalized M-0 curve for a
column section with confinement re-
inforcement.
 T. T. C. Hsu: Ductility of Reinforced Concrete

The first term is contributed by the elastic deforma-

tion of the triangular curvature diagram and the MEMBER DEFORMATION
second term by the plastic deformation of the i « PLASTIC HINGE ROTATION
parallelogram curvature diagram. A|
Eqs. [12] and [13] demonstrate that all P
7
deformations of a member can be determined if two 1 where 9 a = - j -
Mu
quantities are known, namely the plastic length lp
and the ultimate strain of concrete e u . Both of these -Hip
quantities must be found from actual testing. 2 3
* y)l p.z-!f,
Äil ^_
t> J i -i- j elastic plastic
Plastic Length lp and Ultimate Concrete Strain e u
The plastic length lp was found from tests
in the following simple manner: A simply supported Fig. 13. Cantiliver member with plastic hinge.
beam is subjected to a concentrated load at midspan. (a) Moment diagram.
Due to symmetry, the midspan section can not (b) Curvature diagram.
rotate and act as a fixed end. Therefore, half a
span can be considered as a cantilever beam loaded Corley
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016

upwards at the free end. This half-span is similar

to the cantilever beam in Fig.[13] and thus Eq.[13] :-T-) H8]
should be applicable. Substituting the measured
midspan deflection of the simply supported beam PSfy
e u = 0.003 + 0.02 — [19]
into Eq. [13], we can solve for the value of lp. 20
As far as the ultimate strain e u is concerned,
it can be measured directly over the length of the Mattock
plastic hinge.
The experimental values of lp and e u have been lp = 0.5d + 0.05Z [20]
proposed by several investigators. The earliest
proposals by Baker (8, 9) are as follows: e u = 0.003 + 0.02 Y + 0.2Ps [21]

Without Ties
Z VA
where b = width of beam cross section.
lp = i—-) d [14]
d Mattock's equations are quite simple to use.
Eqs. [18] to [21] show that l p is roughly equal to
e u = 0.0035 [15]
d for normal size beams and e u varies from about
0.03 to 0.015 depending on the ratio b/Z and the
With Ties
percentage of ties P s . Fig. 14 shows a beam that
lp= 0 . 8 k , k 3 ( y - ) c [16] has been loaded to an ultimate strain e u = 0.01 at the
top fiber. The integrity of the concrete apparently
remained.
e
u= 0.015 [l+150Ps + (0.7-10 P s )—]
c
0.01 [17]

Where d = effective depth of beam

Z = distance from the section of maximum
moment to the section of zero moment.
(Fig. 13)
k, = 0.7 (mild steel); 0.9 (cold form steel)
k2= l+0.5Pu/Po
k 3 = 0.6if<; =5100 psi), 0.9(f¿" = 1700 psi)
c = depth of neutral acis
P s = percentage of ties
Fig. 14. Integrity of concrete at extreme fibre com-
Simpler expressions of lp and e u for beams pressive strain of £ n = 0.01 {midspan region
have been proposed by Corley (10) and Mattock (11) of a simply supported beam loaded at mids-
at Portland Cement Association as follows: pan, courtesy of PCA)

- 7 -
 J.C.I.E. Vol. 3, No. 1, (1980)

LIMIT DESIGN

Ductility Requirement CONVENTION METHOD

Now that we are able to evaluate the ductility
available in a reinforced concrete member, we will
study the ductility requirement of limit design. If
the rotation of a plastic hinge required by limit
design is less than the rotation available for the
member, then the limit design method is successful.
The advantage of limit design method over the
conventional elastic method is two-fold: First, it
reduces the amount of reinforcement so as to achieve
economy. Second, it cuts down the reinforcement Fig. 15. Conventional method to find design mo-
at the joints, so as to reduce the congestion of ments.
reinforcement. (a) Live load on both spans.
(b) Live load on one span.
The application of limit design method will be
illustrated by the design of a two-span continuous
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016

beam shown in Fig. 15. In the conventional elastic MOMENT ENVELOPE

method, the design negative moment of the interior
support is obtained by placing the live load on both LL on either or both spans plus DL
spans as shown in Fig. 15a. On the other hand, the » • » t \ \ \ \
maximum design positive moment of the right \ \
*«. for top reinf.
span is obtained by placing the live load on the right
span only (Fig. 15b). Similar logic applies to the
left span. In this way we generate three sets of f \
moment diagrams, which are plotted together by • > — '
^ '
dotted curves in Fig. 16. The maximum positive Mmo«
and negative moments at each section give rise to the for bottom reinf.
moment envelop shown by the heavy solid curves.
The design of each section is based on this moment Fig. 16. Design moment envelop of a two-span con-
tinuous beam.
envelop.
A beam designed by the moment envelop may MOMENT
be overly conservative, because the moment M REDISTRIBUTION
capacities at the support and at the sections of ELASTIC PHASE /fPHASE
W L =3W D
maximum positive moment cannot be reached simul-
taneously under any type of design loads. In the - , W=WD^WL
=1/8v^r H t n t i t n H
case where uniform dead and live loads are on both
spans, the negative moment of the interior support
(Mi) and the maximum positive moment at 0.3751
from exterior support (M 2 ) are plotted as functions
of load w in Fig. 17. Fig. 17 shows that both Mj
and M 2 first increase linearly in the elastic phase. W M 2 =0.0703Wl 2
However, when the moment at the interior support
reaches the yield moment (taken as M U i according Fig. 17. Redistribution of moments in a two-span
to Fig. 3b) a plastic hinge begins to form. At this continuous beam.
stage of yield load Wy, the sections of maximum
positive moment have not yėt yielded and the reserve
capacity M u 2 can still be utilized. Further increase rotation at the interior support. The calculation
of load beyond wy requires a redistribution of of plastic rotation is shown in Fig. 18. The beam is
moments. This means that the moments at the cut at the center support and the negative plastic
maximum positive moment sections continue to moment M U J is exposed. Under this condition, the
increase, but the negative moment at the interior load will produce two parabolic moment diagrams
support remains constant at M U j. The redistribution in which the moment is designated as M o . We now
of moments allows the load to increase 15% beyond
proceed to place a unit moment at the center support
the yield load in this example (where the live load
which produces a triangular moment diagram. The
is assumed to be three times the dead load).
moment at each section is designated as X ^ Using
For the redistribution of moments, com- the fictitious work method, the required rotation at
patibility condition demands sufficient plastic the center support can be expressed as:

- 8 -
 T. T. C. Hsu: Ductility of Reinforced Concrete

I.UU -
CHECK PLASTIC ROTATION i/d=23
b/d » 1/5
w u (DL+LL) Required rotation
at center support. 60^A\ ^ t - Calculated
' '' ' 0.75- y? available
-l-)i =6io+Mi6ii

P-P1 0.50-
X
ACI 318-63-*1

0.25-

Fig. 18. Analysis of required plastic rotation at

interior support. ACI 3 1 8 - 7 7 - ^ S .
(ACI 318-71) \
0- 1
0 5 10 15 20
PERCENT CHANGE IN MOMENT
[221
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016

Fig. 19. Moment redistribution allowed by ACI

where Code.

where

«ii = ;
II dx P-P'
EI 0.5 [25]

If 0 re q calculated by Eq. [22] is less than the avail-

Eqs. [24] and [25] show that the allowable moment
able rotation ö p calculated from Eq. [12], i.e.
change varies from 10% to 20%. The limitation of
Eq. [25] is stated in Table 1.
[22])<Ôp(Eq. [12]) [23]
SEISMIC DESIGN

then the limit design method is applicable. Ductility Requirement

Code Allowed Moment Redistribution
The ductility of the reinforced concrete me-
mbers is utilized by the ACI code in a more direct,
simple and conservative manner. For a continous
beam, it specifies the maximum percentage of nega-
tive moments at the supports that can be re-
distributed. This maximum percentage change of
moment is, of course, a function of the tension and
compression steel ratios.
Using conservative values of plastic length l p
and ultimate concrete strain e u , continuous beams
with various amounts of tension and compression
steel are analyzed for moment redistribution to find
the maximum percent change of negative moments
at the supports. The calculated values are plotted in
Fig. 19 in terms of a non-dimensionalized net tension
steel percentage, (P - P')/i>b, vs. the percentage
change of moment (12). These calculated curves are
approximate very conservatively by two straight lines
as shown in the figure. These straight lines are
expressed as follows:
P-P'
moment change = ±20 (1 - — = — ) %
The ductility requirements of reinforced
concrete structure subjected to seismic loading are
considerably more complex than those for limit
design. Extensive research is currently being carried
out around the world and much remains to be done.
In this section we will introduce only the basic
concepts concerning the ductility requirements of
seimic design and the behavior of reinforced
structures subjected to reversal cycles of loading,
(simulating earthquakes). We will also relate these
concepts as close to the requirements of current ACI
Building Code as possible.
Loading due to earthquake is quite unique
when compared to other types of loadings, such as
wind. Wind imparts an external force on a structure,
which we can use directly to select sections and to
design the reinforcement. Earthquake, on the other
hand, produces a base acceleration and an inertia
force which increases proportionally with the mass of
the structure. Therefore, if we decide to increase
the severity of earthquake for the design of a
structure, we increase the inertia force which, in turn,
requires a heavier structure. The increase of mass
produces a greater inertia force which demands an
[24] even heavier structure. The vicious cycle often
makes structural design extremely uneconomical for

- 9 -
 J.C.I.E. Vol. 3, No. 1, (1980)

severe earthquake. Consequently, the earthquake
design codes normally do not require a structure to
resist the most severe earthquake load of a particular
location, but requires a structure to resist only a
code required design load of lesser severity. Up
to this design load the structure will behave
essentially elastically and- no structural repairs are
necessary after an earthquake. On the other hand,
if this structure is subjected to an earthquake beyond
the code specified severity, then the structure should
have enough ductility to dissipate the energy. This
structure will require repairs but should not collapse
under the most severe earthquake.
The concept of utilizing the ductility of a struc-
ture to absorb the earthquake energy for an
earthquake with a severity greater than that required
by the code is illustrated in Fig. 20. The vertical axis
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016
the earthquake energy. The deflections at D and E
are designated as the yield deflection Ay and the
ultimate deflection A u , respectively. One can then
define a deflection ductility factor
Au ultimate deflection
MA =
yield deflection
MA is a non-dimensional factor serving as an index
of the ductility of a member to dissipate earthquake
energy.
The factor MA of a member required to absorb
energy is related directly to the reduction factor R.
Assuming an equal energy response (13) we equate
the area under the curve ODE to the area under the
straight line O A. This results in the following

equation

1
R= [26]

The relationship between R and MA is shown in

Table 2.

Table 2. Relationship of R and MA

Q
< R 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
O
E
"A 13.0 3.63 1.89 1.28 1.0

er
LU

It is obvious from this table that the required

/ ductility factor increases very rapidly when the
Ay Au
DEFLECTION
Fig. 20. Elastic and plastic responses of structures.
is the inertia load and the horizontal axis is the
deflection. The straight line OA represents the
elastic response of a certain structure. The load OB
represents the inertia load under the most severe
earthquake. The load OC represents the code
required design load, which is a fraction of the load
OA. This fraction is called the reduction factor
defined as:
reduction factor decreases below 0.4. For this reason
the reduction factor is seldom chosen below 0.4.
Conversely, the lack of ductility in a structure, such
as a shearwall with height to width ratio below 2,
may compel us to choose a reduction factor R close
to unity.
We now proceed to relate the deflection
ductility factor MA of a member to the curvature
ductility factor M¿ of a plastic hinge. Referring to
the cantilever member in Fig. 13, the ultimate deflec-
tion Au of the free end has been given by Eq.[13].
The yield deflection Ay can also be expressed by the
first term in Eq. [13]. Hence

OC DESIGN LOAD
R = Rearranging Eq. [27] gives:
OB SEVEREST INERTIA LOAD

A structure designed by the design load should <Į>u _ +1 [28]

behave along the curve ODE. The length DE
represents the plastic deformation required to absorb

-10-
 T. T. C. Hsu: Ductility of Reinforced Concrete
Eq. [28] shows that M^ is not only a function of MA
but is also strongly affected by the ratio l p /Z. Hence,
is tabulated as a function of pA and lp/Z in
Table 3:
Table 3. ^ Asa Function of MAand Ip/Z
0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
^A\
1 1 1 1 1 1
2 7.8 4.5 2.9 2.3 2.0
3 14.7 8.0 4.7 3.6 3.1
4 21.5 11.5 6.6 4.9 4.1
5 28.4 15.0 8.4 6.2 5.2
Recalling Eq. [20] that lp is roughly equal to the
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016
effective depth d, then the ratio lp/Z should be
roughly equal to the depth/span ratio d/Z, which is
an index of the slenderness of a flexural member.
Table 3 indicates that the required curvature ductility
factor M0 is about the same as the deflection ductility
factor /ÍA for depth/span ratios from 0.4 to 0.5. These
are the depth/span ratios that are commonly
encountered in shearwalls. On the other hand, for
a certain value of MA, the required ^0 increases very
rapidly when the depth/span ratio decreases, par-
ticularly in the range of lp/Z=0.05 to 0.2. This is
the range of depth/span ratio that is commonly used
in flexural beams and slabs.
The discussions above provide only a
preliminary understanding of the ductility require-
ments in seismic design. The actual requirements
are considerably more complex. They involve the
time length of earthquake, the natural frequency
of structure, the deterioration of stiffnesses of
structure under reversal cycles of loading, etc. Much
more research is needed before realistic ductility
requirements can be developed.
Capacity Design Concept
To gain large ductility in the seismic design of
reinforced concrete frame, the ACI philosophy is
to force the flexural plastic hinges to occur in the
beams. To achieve this purpose we must (1) prevent
shear or bond failures in the beams and columns,
which are brittle. (2) prevent the plastic hinges to
happen in the columns where the ductility is small.
To prevent shear and column failures, we must use
the capacity design concept to design the shear
stirrups and the column steel.
The actual flexural capacity of a beam cross
section depends on the actual strength of the
materials and the actual dimensions of that section.
Since these strengths and dimensions vary in a
random statistical manner, the probability of a
flexural capacity should vary in a bell shape fashion
as shown in Fig. 21. The probable average strength
Mo
Md = Dependable strength «Mi 0=0.9
0.5
M¡ = Ideal (design) strength M¡
1 Mp=Probable(average) strength 0PM¡ 0P^1.1
1.9 Mp = Over strength 0OM¡ 0os1.3
2.8
3.7 Fig. 21. Probability curve of moment strengths.
4.6
CAPACITY DESIGN
[EARTHQUAKE]
= 075(UD+1.7L)
MA+ MB . w l
V=
Fig. 22. Capacity design of beam shear.
(a) Plastic hinges of a beam in a frame subject
to sidesway.
(b) Analysis of shear forces.
Mp normally lies in the vicinity of the maximum
probability. The ideal strength M¡, which is assumed
in the design, is usually somewhat less than the
probable average strength M p . If Mį is taken as a base
value, then Mp would be roughly 1.1 Mį.
In static strength design the ACI code defines
a dependable strength Md = 4>M\, where the well-
known 0-factor is taken as 0.9 for flexure. This
0-factor is used in connection with the load factors
to form the total safety margin for a structure. In
the seismic design for shear, however, we must use
a flexural strength greater than the probable average
strength Mp. This over-strength moment is defined
as M o = 90M¡. A 0o-value of 1.3 (5) has been
suggested to account for the statistical variation and
the possibility of the reinforcement stretching into
the strain hardening region. Using this oveT-strength
M o to design shear stirrups we can reduce the chance
of a brittle shear failure to a very small probability.
This approach to seismic design is known as the
capacity design concept.
To further illustrate the capacity design
concept in shear, we isolate a beam and its four
adjoining columns from a frame as shown in Fig. 22a.
Under the lateral seismic loads and the dead and live
- 11 -
 J. d.E. Vol. 3, No. 1, (1980)
load of the beam, two plastic hinges will occur in
the beam. The negative plastic hinge occurs at the
left end A of the beam, and the positive plastic hinge
at point B, which is some distance from the right end.
The member AB is isolated in Fig. 22b. It is
subjected to a negative plastic moment M U A at point
A and a positive plastic moment M u ß at point B, in
addition to the factored dead and live load w u
on the beam. The maximum shear at point A is:
wul
MuA + Muß
V = + A [29]
1
where 1 is the distance between A and B, and X is
equal to unity for interior spans and 1.15 for the
first interior support of exterior span. Using the
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016
capacity design concept the dependable shear
strength, Vd, should be derived from the over-
strength of the plastic moments, i.e.,
wul
- r O
[30]
where 0 = 0.85 for shear. If <P0 is taken as 1.3, then
wul
MUA
Vd= 1.53 + 1.18X
[31]
In view of this capacity design concept one
cannot add flexural steel, increase the strengths of
steel, nor boost up the dimension of a member
without considering their effects on the ductility of
the frame. The old concept of "playing it safe"
by adding steel or substituting a lower grade steel
by a higher grade steel is no longer applicable in
seismic design, because these measures may cause
brittle failures at some undesirable locations.
Furthermore, the material specifications are also
being considered to impose upper limits for all grades
of steel and concrete. The imposition of these upper
limits will strongly affect the choice of the
overstrength factor 0 O .
Seismic Design of Frames
The ductility requirements in the seismic design
of a reinforced concrete frame have been given in
Appendix A of the 1977 ACI Building Code. These
specifications include those for beams, columns
and connections. For example, the primary ductility
specifications for beams in Section A.6.5 are
summarized as follows:
-12-
Tensile Steel:
(1)
200
(2) Pmin = — T "
f
y
Compression Steel:
(1) Mu > 0.5M u (orP'> 0.5 P)
Stirrups:
(1) Use capacity design concept; Eq. [31]
(2) A v — > 0.15As or 0.15As' for a dis-
tance 4d from the column face. The
maximum spacing is d/4.
(3) Minimum of No.3 stirrups at d/2 spacing
throughout.
The seismic specifications for columns should
follow ACI Section A.6. Section A.6.2 states that
"At all beam-column connections, the sum of
moment strengths of columns at factored axial loads
shall be greater than the sum of the moment strengths
of flexural members along each principal plane at
that connection " This is intended to compel the
occurrence of plastic hinges in beams rather than in
columns. Using the capacity design concept, some
investigators feel that the sum of column strengths
should be 30% greater than the sum of the beam
strengths*.
SHEARWALL DESIGN
Shearwalls are often used to strengthen a struc-
ture in resisting lateral loads. Owing to their large
stiffnesses, they are particularly suitable in seismic
design to protect the rest of the structures and the
non-structural elements in buildings. Surveys in
Japan after the 1968 Tokachioki earthquakes have
shown that the severity of damages of buildings
decreases with the increasing ratio of wall area to
floor area (14). Surveys of damages after earthquakes
in American have confirmed the superiority of shear-
walls in the seismic design of buildings (15).
The flexural design of shearwalls is usually
based on a code required equivalent static loading.
The procedures are identical to that of a column
subjected to bending and axial loads. To ensure that
flexural yielding occurs at the base of the wall, an
overstrength moment at the base section should be
used to construct a moment envelop from which the
cut-off points of the flexural reinforcement may be
determined. Similarly, an overstrength factor 0 O (and
*Opinions voiced by Professors Thomas Paulay and V.V.
Bertero at the Shearwall Symposium, Annual Convention of
the American Concrete Institute, March 1979.
 T. T. C. Hsu: Ductility of Reinforced Concrete

sometimes an additional dynamic shear magnifica-

tion factor) should be applied to the code required WALL REINFORCEMENT
shear force.
./Ties or Hoops
/Verticol Web Steel
Flexural Behavior
The basic American philosophy of shearwall
^Horizontal Steel
design is to promote large flexural ductility and
to suppress shear and other types of brittle failures Vertical Flexural
Steel
under reversal cycles of loading. The most effective
measure to achieve this purpose is to concentrate
large percentage of longitudinal reinforcement in the
heavily compressed concrete zone near the edge of
Fig. 23. Bar-bell shape cross section of shearwall.
the shearwalls. These heavily compressed concrete
zone and the longitudinal steel in this zoze should
be confined by lateral hoop reinforcement. These
column-like elements at the edge of a shearwall are
called the boundary elements. This boundary
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016

elements may have the same width as the wall. They

may also be wider than the wall to form a bar-bell
shape as shown in Fig. 23. The advantage of
designing boundary elements will be discussed in
connection with the failure modes of shearwalls.
An extensive test program of 16 large size
shearwalls have been carried out at Portland Cement
Association under the sponsorship of National
Science Foundation, U.S.A. (16, 17) Fig. 24 shows
Fig. 24. Test set-up of an isolated shearwall
a typical isolated shearwall under test. These (courtesy of PCA),
shearwalls are approximately 1/3 scale with a height
of 15 ft., a horizontal width of 6 ft-3 in, and a web
thickness of 4 in. Three types of cross sections have
been investigated, including rectangular, bar-bell
shape and I-shape. All specimens, except one, were
subjected to reversal cyclic loadings.

Four types of flexural failure were observed

in the PCA investigation:
(1) Fracture of tension longitudinal steel (Fig. 25)
The fracture of tension longitudinal steel is the
desired type of failure, because large deflection can
occur under many reverse cycles of loading. Con- Bl 200 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15.2
tinuous load-deflection plots for this specimen is
shown in Fig. 26. This specimen also illustrates the Fig. 25. Failure of Specimen B1 due to fracture of
tension longitudinal bars under reversal
superiority of concentrating large percentage of loading (courtesy of PVA).
longitudinal steel in the boundary elements. When
Lood, kips
a lateral load is applied until the flexural tension steel
stretches beyond the yield point, a residual strain
+ p~
will result upon unloading and tlje cracks will not
close. When a reversa load is applied, the steel that
has been in tension previously is now in compression
without the help of the concrete. In the first cycle
the residual strain could be easily overcome under
higher loads. The crack will close and the concrete
will again pick up the compressive stress. With each
cycle of reversal loading, the residual strain increases 1 in. = 25.4 mm
and the cracks tend to grow. After many cycles of 1 kip= 4.448 KN
reversal loading, the longitudinal steel in the
boundary element will have to carry all the flexural
Fig. 26. Continuous load-deflection plot for speci-
compression forces under very high load. It is at this men B1. (a) Initial cycles.

-13-
 J.C.I.E. Vol. 3, No. 1, (1980)

Lood, kips First bar

-fracture
.IL

I in. * 25.4 mm
I kip»4.448kN
Fig. 27. Buckling of longitudinal * compression bar
Fig. 26. Continuous load-deflection plot for in Specimen B1 (courtesy of PCA).
Specimen B1. (b) Advanced cycle.

stage that the concentration of longitudinal steel

in the boundary elements becomes superior. It
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016

allows the shearwall to develop large ductility under

many cycles of reversal loadings.

(2) Buckling of longitudinal compression steel

(Fig. 27)
Fig. 27 is a close-up of the same specimen
shown in Fig. 25. It shows buckling of longitudinal
bars at the failure of the specimen. Although
buckling of longitudinal bars is not the final cause
of this shearwall failure, it nevertheless precipitates Fig. 28. Failure of Specimen B10 due to crushing of
and contributes to the final tensile fracture of the compression concrete (courtesy of PCA).

longitudinal bars. This type of buckling failure

indicates the need to limit the minimum size and the
maximum spacing of the confining hoop reinforce-
ment in the boundary elements.

(3) Crushing of compression concrete (Fig. 28)

This type of failure is caused by an excessive
amount of longitudinal steel in the boundary
elements. Beams fail by crushing of compression
concrete is known as overreinforced beams and they
possess very little ductility. Overrinforced members
should be avoided by limiting the maximum
percentage of longitudinal steel. This type of failure
also emphasize the need to provide confining hoop Fig. 29. Lateral buckling of a boundary element in
steel so as to increase the ultimate compression strain Specimen R2 (courtesy of PCA).
of concrete.
interesting to summarize these PCA suggestions for
(4) Lateral buckling of boundary elements (Fig.29) the boundary elements within the plastic hinge
The boundary element in the foreground of regions. These provisions are applicable only to
Fig. 29 buckles laterally in the direction perpendi- shearwalls with h w / l w > 2. Typical cross sections
cular to planes of the shearwall. To prevent this type of boundary elements are shown in Fig. 30.
of failure, a minimum width of boundary elements
should be imposed in relation to the unsupported (1) Dimension of boundary elements
length of the boundary element.
1
PCA Proposals for Boundary Elements w
A proposal for the design of shearwalls
subjected to seismic loading has been advanced by
PCA (18). This proposal is being submitted to ACI
Technical Committees for discussion. It would be 12

14-
 T. T. C. Hsu: Ductility of Reinforced Concrete
Af=Aw
—>
Q (3)
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016
(b)
Fig. 3 0 . Arrangement of boundary elements in shear-
walls.
(a) In rectangular shearwalls.
(b) In bar-bell shape shearwalls.
(c) At intersection of shearwalls.
kmJ Į Į ... j
Fig. 31. Arrangement of boundary elements in a
channel-shape and in a tee-shape shearwall.
Fig. 32. Diagonal tension failure of Speciment SW5
(courtesy of PC A).
where lb and b are the depth and width respectively,
of the cross section of a boundary element. l u is
- 15 -
the unsupported length of the boundary element.
(2) Longitudinal steel
A s (boundary elements) > 60% A s (total)
A
(boundary elements) = 0.01 to 0.06
bib
In addition, ACI Section A.8.4. requires that for
small axial load (N u < 0.4 0Pb) and small bending
moment (except fb < 0.15fr).
200
min A s = ( ) hd
f
y
Confinement reinforcement
Design by ACI Section A.6.5.3 (Eqs. [10],
[10a], [10b] and [11])
Maximum spacing = 4 in. or 5db
Length of confinement = l w
(4) Boundary elements should be installed at the
intersection of shearwalls as shown in Fig. 30c. The
area confined by the hoop steel in the flange, Af, is
suggested to equal that in the web, A w . Typical
arrangements of boundary elements in a channel-
shape and in a Tee-shape shearwall are shown in
Fig. 31.
Shear Behavior
Three types of shear failure were observed in
the PCA tests:
(1) Diagonal tension failure (Fig. 32)
Diagonal tension failure is the most common
type of shear failure encountered in flexural
members. A large diagonal crack is developed at
failure. This type of failure usually occurs at low
shear stresses, say, below 3yfT£ . Reinforcement
perpendicular to the axis of the member is very
effective in resisting diagonal tension failure. Design
procedures available in the ACI Code Section 11.10
deal mainly with this type of failure.
(2) Web crushing of concrete (Fig. 33)
Web crushing of concrete happens under
high shear stresses, say, above 7 V"fJ . Since
increasingly larger amount of shear steel is required
to resist increasingly higher shear, it will reach a point
when the web concrete crushes before the yielding
of shear steel. Such failure is brittle and should be
avoided by imposing an upper limit allowed for the
shear stresses. This measure has been adopted by the
ACI code.
(3) Sliding shear failure (Fig. 34)
Sliding shear failure has not been observed in
 J.C.I.E. Vol. 3, No. 1, (1980)

of the aggregate interlocking of the cracks.

Horizontal reinforcement parallel to the plane of
sliding is obviously ineffective to resist this type of
failure. The only effective way appears to be the
installation of two strong boundary elements, which
can provide large dowel resistance. This further
emphasizes the importance of the boundary elements.

B5 1 7 9 20 15 10 5 O 5 10 15 20
Fig. 33. Web crushing failure of Specimen B5
(courtesy of PCA).
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016
Shear Design
Procedures for the shear design of shearwalls
have been specified in the 1977 ACI Building Code
Section 11.10 as follows:
The ultimate shear V u at the critical
section a distance 1^/2 from the base of the
shearwall must be less than the ultimate shear resis-
tance 0(VC + V s ), i.e.

<P (V c + V s ) [32]

(2) The contribution of concrete to shear

resistance, V c , is the lesser of the following two
equations:

Nud
V c = 3.3 y/JT hd + [33]
41
w

lw 0.25^+0.2-^1:
l r, w
0.6 hd
Mu 'W

12 0 12 v„ [34]
Fig. 34. Sliding shear failure of Speciment Cl-1
( courtesy of PCA)
where h = overall thickness of shearwall
d = effective depth of shearwall > 0.8h
EFFECT OF AXIAL STRESS 1w = horizontal length of shear wall
Nu = factored axial load normal to cross
Limit
10 forVj section occurring simultaneously with
^Nu/tD=1OOOpsi Vu
Mu = factored moment at section occurring
simultaneously with V u
Limit
for V c Eq. [34] is derived from flexural-shear cracking,
D 2D 3D while Eq. [33] is from web-shear cracking. These
Mu/Vu equations are very similar to those for prestressed
beams, since the axial load, N u , can be considered
Fig. 35. Effect of axial force on shear resistance of as a prestressed force. In Fig. 35 the non-dimen-
shearwalls. sionalized shear stress Vu/VTJ" has been plotted
as a function of the ratio M u /V u . The contribution
of concrete yj^/^c >s also plotted for three levels
static tests of flexural beams and is unique for beams of axial stress N u /hd=0, 500 psi and lOOOpsi. The
and shearwalls under reversal cycles of loading. It three curves that decrease with M u /V u are derived
normally occurs in rectangular shearwalls with from Eq. [34] and the three horizontal straight lines
moderate amount of shear stresses, say, between comes from Eq. [33]. Notice that a lower limit of
3 \ĮT£ and 7 %JTZ . This failure is the results of shear stress, 2*/T£ , has been allowed.
the interconnecting of two sets of diagnoal cracks (3) The contribution of steel to shear resis-
due to reversal loading and the gradual deterioration tance, V s , is calculated by the well-known truss

-16-
 T. T. C. Hsu: Ductility of Reinforced Concrete

analogy. The curvature ductility factors M^ of the shear-

[35]
where s2 is the spacing of the horizontal shear bars
and should not exceed l w / 5 , 3h or 18 in.
(4) Minimum ratios of web reinforcement
have also been specified for the horizontal shear steel
Ph and the vertical shear steel Pn:
walls are plotted against the shear stress in Fig. 37.
It shows that the ductility factor decreases rapidly
with the increase of shear stress. Fig. 37 also includes
shearwalls that were subjected to axial load. It can
be seen that the ductility of shearwalls increases
with the increase of axial stresses.
A new equation has been proposed tentatively
by PCA for the maximum shear stress V U j i n a x to
replace the old 10\/f¿~ :

Ph = 0.0025 [36] V u ,max~ [39]

1+ (5.5- -6.0- N u v,
A
Pn = 0.0025 g

+ 0.5 (2.5 — ) (Ph-0.0025) [37] < 0.2fc'

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016

where h w / l w is the height to width ratio of the Notice that Eq. [39] is a function of the ductility
shearwall. factor and the axial stress Nu/Ag (in ksi). Nu/Ag
(5) Finally, a maximum shear stress has been should not exceed 0.55 ksi.
specified to prevent web crushing of concrete: Notice also that V U ) m a x is a function of
fc' , not \/f£. To compare with the old \O\/1Į, we
convert Eq. [39] into a function of \fï£ for
[38]
'u,max 4000psi concrete

This upper limit is also indicated in Fig. 35. It has 114

been derived from tests of flexural beams and is
applicable to shearwalls under monotonie loading.
It will be shown below, however, that Eq. [38]
is not applicable to shearwall under reversal cycles
of seismic loading.
The above ACI design procedures for shearwalls
have been checked by the PCA test specimens (19)
as shown in Fig. 36. The specimens included in this
figure have been subjected to reversal cycles of
seismic loading. Fig. 36 shows that the ACI code
procedures are applicable as far as the shear strengths
are concrened. However, most of the shearwalls
that were subjected to large shear stresses failed
in shear with small ductility.
'u,max
1+(5.5-6.0-^ü-
[40]
12.6 y/lf
Using Eq. [40], V u j n a x / V ^ is plotted in Fig. 38
as a function of A<0 for four values of Nu/Ag = 0,
0.2, 0.4 and 0.55 (max). It can be seen that V u<m ax
is considerably less than 10\/l¿" when M^ is large and
Nu/Ag is small.
The shear strength of boundary element should
also be checked. PCA suggests the following pro-

TEST VS CALCULATED STRENGTHS DUCTILITY

12
I
12

8
,, - S M
« 8
OBSERVED.
y ' /
V M A X
•I

' 8VIELD
4 • Flexure
• Sheer 4
0
(3 4 8 12
U 4 8 12
ACI DESIGN, J7Į SHEAR S T R E S S , - / ^

Fig. 36. Comparison of observed shear strengths with Fig. 37. Curvature ductility factors vs. shear stresses
shear strengths calculated by ACI procedures. for PCA test specimens.

-17-
 J.C.I.E. Vol. 3, No. 1, (1980)

cedures(17): COUPLING BEAM

V u b < V c + V s (note 0 = 1 ) '—

1
PLASTIC
u SHEAR SHEAR HINGES
v WALL
1
fT 12
• ' "

10
1

8
COUPLED SHEARWALL
6
ASSUME f¿=¿000psi
A Fig. 40. Coupled shearwall.
V . 1.8/IDDD"

Details
The importance of details in the seismic design
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016

Fig. 38. Shear stresses as a function of curvature
ductility factor and axial stress (modification
of PC A proposal).
of shearwalls cannot be overemphasized (20).
However, we can only briefly mention four details
here. First, the anchorage length of the reinforcing
bars in the base of the shearwall should be sufficient
to develop the ultimate strength of the reinforcing
bars and not the usual yield strength. Second, the
hook of the confinement hoops should be at least
135° and the straight extension portion of the hook
should be at least 10 times the hoop bar diameter.
Third, splices for the longitudinal bars within the
plastic hinge regions should be able to develop the
ultimate strength of the bars. The class C splice of
1.7 times the development length has been
questioned. Suggestions have been made for lapping
bars to be 50 times bar diameter, fourth, if a cons-
truction joint must be located in the plastic hinge
region of the shearwalls, care must be exercised to
avoid a weak horizontal shear plane that will promote
sliding shear failure.

Coupled Shearwalls
A type of shearwalls that is commonly used is
the coupled shearwalls shown in Fig. 40. It consists
of two solid shearwalls connected by coupling beams
at every story. Such shearwalls are suitable for
buildings that have two rows of outside rooms and
an interior corridor at each floor. The two solid
shearwalls serve as the wall for the rooms and the
Fig. 39. Shear design of boundary elements (PCA
coupling beams are above the corridors.
proposal).
Under seismic loading plastic hinges will first
occur at the end of the coupling beams and finally
at the base of the two solid shearwalls. This series
where
of plastic hinges will develop in sequence under
increasing severity of seismic loading. They will,
V„b>M u b /1.51 b (see Fig. 39) therefore, offer many lines of defense against earth-
quake that are very desirable. Furthermore, since
Vc = Sj the locations, of the plastic hinges are known to
occur at the end of the coupling beams, Tepairs
Vs = after earthquake would be very convenient in the
corridors.
~ concrete cover Very few tests of coupled shearwalls have been

-18-
 T. T. C. Hsu: Ductility of Reinforced Concrete
conducted. (21, 22) An extensive program is
currently being carried out at PCA as shown in
Fig. 41. These studies should lead to greater
understanding of the behavior of coupled shearwalls
and to the formation of design procedures in the
future.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016
Fig. 41. Test set-up of a coupled shearwall
(courtesy of PCA).
REFERENCES
1. ACI 318-77, Building Code Requirements for
Reinforced Concrete, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, (1977).
2. Sawyer, H. A., "Design of Concrete Frames
for Two Failure Stages", Flexural Mechanics
of Reinforced Concrete, SP-12, American
Concrete Institute/American Society of Civil
Engineers, Detroit, pp. 405-437,(1965).
3. Mattock, A. H., "Redistribution of Design
Bending Moments in Reinforced Concrete
Continuous Beams", Proceedings, Institute of
Civil Engineerings, London , Vol. 13, pp. 35-
46,(1959).
4. Cohn, M. Z., "Rotational Compatibility in the
Limit Design of Reinforced Concrete Con-
tinuous Beams", Flexural Mechanics of Re-
inforced Concrete, SP–12, American Concrete
Institute/American Society of Civil Engineers,
Detroit, pp. 143-180,(1965).
5. Park, R. and T. Paulay, Reinforced Concrete
Structures, John Wiley and Sons, New York,
(1975).
6. Kent, D. C. and R. Park, "Flexural Members
with Confined Concrete.", Journal of the
Structural Division, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Vol. 97, No. ST 7, pp. 1969-
1990,(1971).
7. Kaar, P. H., A. E. Fiorato, J. E. Carpenter and
W. G. Corley, "Limiting Strains of Concrete
Confined by Rectangular Hoops", PCA Re-
search and Development Bulletin RDO53.01D,
19
Portland Cement Associstion, Skokie, Illinois,
(1978).
8. Baker, A.L., Ultimate Load Theory Applied
to the Design of Reinforced and Prestressed
Concrete Frames, Concrete Publications Ltd.,
London, England, (1956).
9. Baker, A.L.L. and A.M.N. Amarkone,
"Inelastic Hyperstatic Frame Analysis",
Proceedings, International Symposium on the
Flexural Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete,
ACI/ASCE,Miami, pp. 85-142,(1964).
10. Corley, W.G., "Rotational Capacity of Re-
inforced Concrete Beams", Journal of the
Structural Division, Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, Proc.
Paper 4939, Vol. 92, No. ST. 5, pp. 121-146,
(1966).
11. Mattock, A., Discussion of the paper "Rota-
tional Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams"
by W.G. Corley, Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. ST 2, pp. 519-
522, (1967).
12. ACI 318-77, "Commentary on Building Code
Requirements for Reinforced Concrete",
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, (1977).
13. Blume, J.A., N.M. Newmark and L.H. Corning,
Design of Multistory Reinforced Concrete
Buildings for Earthquake Motions, Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, (1961).
14. Shiga, T., "Earthquake Damage and the
Amount of Walls in Reinforced Concrete
Buildings", Proceeding, Sixth World Con-
ference on Earthquake Engineering, New
Delhi, (1977).
15. Fintel, M., "Ductile Shear Walls in Earthquake
Resistant Multi-Story Buildings", Journal of the
American Concrete Institute, Proceedings, Vol.
71, No. 6, p. 296, (1974).
16. Oesterle, R.G., A.E. Fiorato, L.S. Johal,
J.E. Carpenter, H.G. Russell and W.G. Corley,
"Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls—Tests
of Isolated Walls", Report to National Science
Foundation, Portland Cement Association,
Nov., (1976).
17. Oesterle, R.G., H.D. Aristizabal-Ochoa, A.E.
Firoato, H.G. Russell and W.G. Corley,
"Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls - Tests
of Isolated Walls - Phase II", Report to Na-
tional Science Foundation, Portland Cement
Association, April,(1978).
18. Portland Cement Association, "Proposed ACI
318 Specification Provisions A. 10 – Alternate
Design for Earthquake Resistance " J a n . (1979).
19. Fiorato, A.E. and W.G. Corley, "Design
Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Structural
Walls", Shearwall Symposium, Annual Conven-
tion of the American Concrete Institute,
March, (1979).
 J.C.I.E. Vol. 3, No. 1, (1980)
20. Fiorato, A.E., R.G. Oesterle and W.G. Corley,
"Importance of Reinforcement Details in
Earthquake-Resistant Structural Walls", Work-
shop on Earthquake-Resistant Reinforced
Concrete Building Construction, University of
California, Berkeley, pp. 1430-1451, (1977).
21. Paulay, T. and A.R. Santhakumar, "Ductile
Behavior of Coupled Shear Walls", Journal of
the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No.
STl,pp.93-108, (1976).
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 12:49 29 June 2016
20
22. Aristizabal-Ochoa, J.D. and M.A. Sozen,
"Behavior of Ten-Story Reinforced Concrete
Walls Subjected to Earthquake Motions",
Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research
Series No. 431, University of Illinois, Urbana,
Oct., (1976).
Manuscript Received: August 6, 1979;
Revision Received: September 29, 1979;
Accepted: October 1, 1979.