SP-311—08

Panel Zones in Structural Walls

Enrique Villalobos, Santiago Pujol, and Jack P. Moehle

Synopsis: A wall panel zone is a region in which forces from connecting wall segments are resolved. Four different
types of wall panel zones are described. Among these, the case of a wall panel located under an aligned stack of
openings in a coupled wall is examined closely. Instances in which such panel zones failed during past earthquakes
are presented. Laboratory tests and analytical studies are used to define wall panel zone force demands and capacities.
It is shown that simple mechanics and existing design expressions can be used to design wall panel zones against shear
failure.

Keywords: panel zone, structural wall, shear, earthquake

8.1
Enrique Villalobos et al.

Enrique Villalobos is a Graduate Engineer at Walter P Moore, Houston, TX. He received his Licentiate from the
University of Costa Rica, San Pedro, and his M.Sc. and Ph.D. in civil engineering from Purdue University, IN. His
main research interests include earthquake engineering and seismic vulnerability of existing structures.

ACI Fellow Santiago Pujol is an Associate Professor at the Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, IN.
He is a member of ACI committees 133, 314, 318R, and 445. His research interests include earthquake engineering,
seismic vulnerability of existing structures, displacement-based seismic design, instrumentation and testing of
structures, response of structures to impulsive loads, and monitoring, repair and strengthening of structures.

ACI Fellow Jack P. Moehle is the T.Y. and Margaret Lin Professor of Engineering at the University of California,
Berkeley, CA. He is the chair of the American Concrete Institute Building Code Committee ACI 318. His research
interests include design and analysis of structural systems, with an emphasis on earthquake engineering, reinforced
concrete construction, new and existing buildings and infrastructure, and development of professional design
guidance.

INTRODUCTION

Reinforced concrete structural walls in buildings commonly are composed of interconnecting vertical and horizontal
wall segments (ACI 318). When a wall building is subjected to lateral forces, the connections between these wall
segments, and between wall segments and structural diaphragms, can be regions of high force transfer and,
consequently, high internal stress. The conditions are analogous to those that occur in beam-column joints of moment-
resisting frames. To differentiate them from beam-column joints, however, in this paper we refer to these regions in
structural walls as panel zones.

Figure 1 illustrates four examples of panel zones. Figure 1a illustrates a slender wall supported by a wider basement
wall, for which the volume of concrete common to the two walls (the panel zone) acts as a large joint in which the
forces from the adjacent wall segments are resolved. Figure 1b illustrates a panel zone formed by interaction between
a structural wall and an outrigger. Figure 1c identifies a panel zone beneath a vertical stack of openings in a coupled
wall. Figure 1d illustrates a wall extending into subterranean levels, where overturning moment is resolved mainly
by a horizontal force couple from at-grade and below-grade diaphragms, creating another panel zone example.

This paper focuses on the type of panel zone illustrated in Figure 1c. Panel zones of this type have sustained severe
damage in past earthquakes. Laboratory tests provide additional evidence of the vulnerability, as well as data by which
to test simple models for panel zone strength. The paper concludes with recommendations for design and detailing of
wall panel zones.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

Structural walls with panel zones are widely used in building construction. Past earthquakes demonstrate that these
panel zones can be vulnerable to severe damage. Although the problem was identified by Naeim et al. (1990), wall
panel zones are not addressed by current design codes in the United States and few practicing engineers seem aware
of the problem and its solution. Examples of past damage are reviewed. Relevant test data are analyzed and a set of
recommendations for design and evaluation are presented.

DAMAGE IN PAST EARTHQUAKES

Figure 2 presents the damage map for a wall in a building shaken by the 1989 Loma Prieta, CA earthquake (Hardisty,
2015). The wall comprises two cantilevers, coupled by post-tensioned floor slabs, and supported by a solid podium
wall. A panel zone is located immediately beneath the stack of openings. As shown, the panel zone was heavily
damaged during this moderate earthquake, with complete loss of concrete in portions of the panel.

Figure 3 zooms in on the damaged panel zones of six additional walls. Of the seven walls identified in Figures 2 and
3, three of the walls (BG1, BG2, TU) were located in instrumented buildings. TU refers to the (two nominally
identical) walls along axis C in the building structure described by Wang et al. (2014). Wall AR is the wall along axis
8 in the building described by Song et al. (2012). Other details are reported by ATC (2014). Table 1 presents properties

8.2
 Panel Zones in Structural Walls

of the various walls, including two test walls that will be described in a subsequent section of this paper. The various
parameters are defined in Figure 4 and the notation section.

Wall boundary reinforcement was anchored in various ways. Figure 4 illustrates the reinforcement of walls BG1 and
BG2, in which boundary element longitudinal reinforcement is discontinued a distance ℓ below the lowest opening.
Walls W2D, TM, CM, MS, and TU had similarly discontinued boundary element reinforcement. In walls AR and
W2C, the boundary reinforcement was anchored in the foundation. In wall AR, it was lap spliced at grade level.

One or more of the authors personally witnessed each of these walls. We defined a subjective damage rating to the
wall panel zones based on the available evidence and our collective experience in earthquake reconnaissance and
laboratory testing. With a scale from 0 to 3, qualitative descriptions of the damage ratings are:

Damage rating Description

0 No damage

1 Inclined cracks

2 Inclined cracks and delamination

Concrete disintegration allowing the observer

3
to see through the wall

The last column of Table 1 lists the damage ratings assigned to each wall panel zone.

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE DAMAGE

To gain a preliminary and qualitative sense of the cause of the observed damage to panel zones, consider the partial
free-body diagram of Figure 5, which is extracted from the wall shown in Figure 4. Other actions that are excluded
from the free-body diagram include self-weight, normal forces within the panel zone, and forces from the slabs acting
as diaphragms connected to the wall. These diaphragms can act as chords helping stabilize the panel zone. Chord
forces can help reduce the shear in the panel zone. Nevertheless, they are ignored here for simplicity. Unlike the wall
in Figure 4, however, a portion of the boundary element reinforcement flanking the openings is extended deeper into
the podium wall rather than all being terminated at one point. The free-body diagram has height equal to the story
height hs. This height is selected because it is the typical height that an engineer would use to define shear in a wall
segment. The wall segment is split vertically along the panel zone to expose the panel zone shear Vu. Flexural tension
and compression resultants at the boundary zones and shear forces around the perimeter are shown. Normal force
distributed along the length of the wall, for example, along lines ab and cd, are assumed to cancel, and are not shown.
Other actions that are excluded from the free-body diagram include self-weight, normal forces due to tension in
horizontally distributed reinforcement within the panel zone, and forces from the slabs acting as diaphragms connected
to the wall. Moment equilibrium of segment abcd about point a requires
, ℓ
(1)
ℓ
1
2ℓ
in which , that is, the fraction of T2 that is developed within height hs.

Villalobos (2014) presents an alternative formulation of panel zone shear based on an alternative free-body diagram
whose boundaries follow the apparent failure surface of the wall after failure of the panel zone. The results of that
alternative formulation are similar to those produced by Eq. (1) and are not shown here.

A common if questionable approach in design is to extend the bars resisting force T2 a length equal to the development
length into the panel zone, and then terminate all the bars. This can result in a very large panel zone shear. As an
example, consider a boundary element that has thickness bw = 24 in. (600 mm) with 12 No. 11 (36 mm) bars. If the

8.3
Enrique Villalobos et al.

bars are extended ℓ , psi (ℓ , MPa), in accordance with ACI 318, and develop stress 1.25fy,
′ ′

then according to Eq. (1) the panel zone shear stress acting over a height equal to the development length would be
13.5 ′ , psi (1.1 ′ , MPa). Stress of this intensity is likely to lead to extensive cracking if not failure
of a nominally reinforced panel zone.

If the bars extend deeper into the podium wall, perhaps being anchored into the foundation, then the shear in the panel
zone would be reduced somewhat because the extended bars would provide an alternative load path to carry the
boundary element force deeper into the podium wall. Nonetheless, large force transfer is still likely to occur within
the development length of the bars and still may produce damaging panel zone shear. To better understand this
condition, two walls were tested in a laboratory, as described next.

LABORATORY TESTS

To gain insight on the mechanics of panel zone failure, two wall models (W2D, W2C) were tested. Their proportions
were chosen to resemble proportions of other walls in Table 1. Figure 6 through Figure 9 illustrate the test specimen
details. As shown, wall W2D had boundary element reinforcement that was discontinued just below the stack of
openings, while wall W2C had boundary element reinforcement continuous to the base of the wall. Table 2 lists
material properties.

Each wall model was tested sideways and was supported near its ends by rollers. A concentrated load was applied off-
center as shown in Figure 6. The distance from the applied load to the closest opening was selected to ensure that
longitudinal reinforcement near the opening would yield before yielding occurred at the loading point. The
concentrated load was meant to represent the interaction of the wall with a diaphragm or a foundation. Applying a
distributed load instead of a concentrated load was considered, but that option was ruled out as an unnecessary
complication considering the test objectives. A stiff steel link connected one wall leg to the other through steel pins
along a line above the north support Figure 6. To couple the wall legs, ten hot-rolled steel plates measuring 2.5 x 0.75
in. (63.5 x 19 mm) in cross section were embedded in each test specimen spanning from one leg to the other. Other
details are available at nees.org/warehouse/project/1050.

The model walls were tested slowly, with each loading to a peak displacement taking five to eight hours. Load was
applied in the downward direction first. After it was judged that each specimen had reached its full strength in that
loading direction, the specimen was rotated 180 deg. about its longitudinal axis and reloaded to failure. No additional
cycles were applied. Figure 10 shows measured north reaction – deformation relations. The north reaction was
calculated from statics and from measurements of the applied load. The reported deformation is the vertical distance
from the north support to a tangent at the load point, divided by the horizontal distance between those points. The
tangent at the load point was determined from measurements of the deflection and rotation of the section under the
load point.

Specimen W2D (discontinuous reinforcement) failed by inclined compression failure in the panel zone (Figure 11
and Figure 12). This failure was initiated by inclined cracks originating as splitting cracks along the longitudinal
reinforcement flanking the panel zone. Failure of the panel zone resulted in loss of anchorage of boundary
reinforcement. After pullout, the wall leg in compression was kept in place by the coupling plates, and most of the
remaining capacity to resist lateral loads was provided by the wall leg in tension (lower wall leg in Figure 6).

In specimen W2C, inclined cracks also formed in the panel zone as projections of splitting cracks caused by large
bond stresses on the longitudinal reinforcement flanking the panel zone (Figure 11). In the wall leg in compression,
yielding and compression damage occurred closer to the load point, while the leg in tension yielded at its base (i.e., at
the end of the stack of openings). Because the reinforcement extended beyond the loading point, anchorage of bars
flanking the panel zone was sufficient and the specimen was able to form a complete flexural mechanism with hinges
in both wall legs. Failure occurred suddenly, and was caused by crushing of the concrete in compression near the
loading point.

8.4
 Panel Zones in Structural Walls

It is interesting to note that the panel zone in specimen W2C (with continuous boundary element reinforcement)
sustained severe shear distress similar to the distress observed in specimen W2D. Several factors caused the distress
(Villalobos, 2014), the main factor being that tension reinforcement in the wall leg in compression unloaded in the
immediate vicinity of the “lowest” opening producing high bond stresses that caused splitting cracks. Anchorage could
be provided deeper within the wall, but only at the expense of more splitting cracks and shear deformation in the panel
zone.

Extending the reinforcement all the way to the foundation provided an alternative load path, but this load path was
only exercised after the panel zone had sustained severe shear damage. For specimen W2C with all of the
reinforcement continuous to the foundation, the test data suggest that approximately 20 percent of the boundary
element reinforcement tensile force was developed within the panel zone, that is, the value of  in Eq. (1) was
approximately 0.2.

PANEL ZONE SHEAR IN THE SURVEYED WALLS

Equation (1) was used to calculate for the walls identified in Table 1. To obtain a consistent measure of the damage
potential for each wall, the tension force in the boundary element was taken equal to , all of the tension
force was assumed to be developed in the panel zone (that is, 1.0), and the force was assumed to produce a
uniform shear stress vu over panel zone cross-sectional area bwℓd. For walls with all bars terminated a short distance
below the stack of openings, ℓd was taken equal to the provided development length. Otherwise, ℓd was taken as the
longer of (a) the story height and (b) development length calculated as ℓ psi (ℓ MPa).
′ ′

Values of vu calculated in this manner range from 2.0 to 31 ′ psi (0.17 and 2.6 ′ MPa).

Some of the walls identified in Table 1 were instrumented in the field or in the laboratory to enable improved estimates
of the tensile forces T2 and, consequently, the panel zone shear stress vu (Villalobos, 2014). For walls BG1 and BG2,
the improved estimates of wall shear stress are 7.8 and 13 ′ psi (0.65 and 1.1 ′ MPa), respectively. For test

walls W2D and W2C, the improved estimates of wall shear stress are 6.8 and 3.9 ′ psi (0.57 and 0.33 ′ MPa),
respectively. Note that these improved estimates are considerably smaller than the maximum potential forces
identified in the preceding paragraph. A plausible explanation is that failure of the panel zone limited the actual panel
zone shear stresses to values smaller than the values that could be developed by the available boundary element
reinforcement.

WALL PANEL ZONE STRENGTH

Shear resistance in a panel zone can be idealized in different ways. One idealization is that chords along the panel
zone boundary deliver uniform shear around the perimeter of the panel zone (Figure 13a). According to this
idealization, the panel zone is subjected to uniform shear stress. An alternative idealization is that shear is resisted by
a diagonal strut along the direction of principal compressive stress in the panel zone (Figure 13b). According to this
idealization, the chords deliver forces to the nodal zones. In either idealization, vertical and horizontal chords are
required to equilibrate the internal actions of the panel zone. Although both mechanisms can be used for design, the
following paragraphs consider only the resistance mechanism shown in Figure 13a because experimental data about
it are more readily available as described next.

Special laboratory testing devices have been developed to impose uniform shear and normal forces around the
perimeter of isolated reinforced concrete panels representative of panel zones (Figure 14 depicts a test panel in one
of these devices). More than 100 panel tests have been reported (Bentz et al., 2006). An important outcome has been
the development of numerical models for the stress-strain response of membrane elements subjected to axial and shear
stresses. Two such models are the Modified Compression Field Theory (Vecchio and Collins, 1986) and the Softened
Truss Model (Hsu, 1988). These models are capable of simulating the nonlinear stress-strain response of biaxially
loaded membranes, and are therefore useful for modeling load-deformation behavior of panel zones. Our main focus
here, however, is to identify a simple model for estimating the strength of a panel zone.

8.5
Enrique Villalobos et al.

In a membrane test, a series of cracks typically form consistent with the orientation of the stress field. These cracks
can be considered to divide the panel into a series of diagonal compression struts located between and running parallel
to the cracks. In a heavily reinforced panel, failure of the membrane can occur by crushing of the inclined struts before
the panel reinforcement yields. Under such conditions, Bentz et al. (2006) report that the unit shear strength can be
taken conservatively as 0.25 ′ . For failures occurring below this stress level, it is reasonable to assume that the
panel reinforcement reaches the yield stress (Bentz et al., 2006).

To establish equilibrium equations, a free-body diagram is cut around the boundaries and along an inclined crack of a
test panel (abc in Figure 14 and Figure 15). Horizontal stress ft is taken equal to zero, consistent with the typical
stress condition of a structural wall. To further simplify the equilibrium statement, it is assumed that the crack surface
along ac is free of shear and normal stresses. With these assumptions, the requirements for force equilibrium in the t
and ℓ directions result in Eq. (2) and Eq. (3), respectively.
tan 0 (2)
tan ℓ ℓ ℓ 0 (3)

These expressions can be solved for . Defining this shear stress as the nominal shear stress capacity , and including
the limit of 0.25 ′ , results in the nominal strength equation
0.25 ′ (4)
ℓ ℓ ℓ

This expression is similar to the one proposed by Nielsen (1999) for plane-stress structural elements (which he referred
to as “reinforced disks”). Note that axial stress fℓ is taken as positive in compression, in which case it is identified as
having the same effect as an equivalent stress provided by additional vertical reinforcement. This effect was identified
previously by Mau and Hsu (1987). Eq. (4) ignores the fraction of shear strength attributed to concrete (resulting in
zero nominal capacity for panels without transverse reinforcement).

The results of Eq. (4) are compared with measured strengths in Figure 16. Measured data include the 73 monotonic
tests reported in Bentz et al. (2006) having distributed reinforcement in both horizontal and vertical directions. Data
from tests without transverse reinforcement are not included in Figure 16. Measured data also include seven cyclic
tests reported by Stevens et al. (1991) and Mansour and Hsu (2005). The calculated and measured strengths compare
favorably: the mean ratio of calculated to measured strength is 1.02, and the coefficient of variation COV is 0.25.
Among the 80 test panels considered, only four had axial stresses fℓ. Two had compressive axial stress ℓ ′ ⁄3

and two had tensile axial stress ℓ ′ ⁄6 and ′ ⁄15.

ℓ

Good correlation between measured and calculated panel shear strength (mean ratio of calculated to measured strength
= 1.02, COV = 0.27, Figure 17) is also obtained using the same upper bound of 0.25 ′ and the expression prescribed
by ACI 318 (2014) to calculate the nominal shear strength of structural walls with small aspect ratios, expressed by
Eq. (5).
′
3 ′ min , ℓ ℓ 0.25 (psi)
(5)
′
0.25 ′ min , ℓ ℓ 0.25 (MPa)

Eq. (4) follows from statics and plasticity theory. Eq. (5), on the other hand, is empirical, and was not calibrated for
panels. Nevertheless, both equations produce results of similar quality within the ranges of the data considered
[concrete strength from 2 to 15 ksi (15 to 105 MPa), reinforcement yield stresses from 34 to 99 ksi (240 to 680 MPa),
and reinforcement ratios from 0.2 to 6%). The advantage of Eq. (5) is that it is familiar to many designers.

Table 1 summarizes values of vu calculated by Eq. (1), vn calculated by Eq. (4), and ratios ⁄ . One wall had
⁄ 1 along with Damage Rating of 1. All of the other walls had ⁄ 1 along with Damage Rating of 2 or
3.

The extensive damage experienced by some of the panel zones identified in Table 1 is noteworthy. To reduce damage
levels in panel zones, it seems prudent to either limit the shear stresses in panel zones or else provide confining

8.6
 Panel Zones in Structural Walls

transverse reinforcement. Unfortunately, the available information is insufficient to quantify either the limiting stress
or the details of the confinement. Until better information is available, the writers recommend that transverse
reinforcement satisfying requirements for boundary elements of special structural walls be provided in panel zones
wherever the panel zone shear 10 ′ , psi ( 0.83 ′ , MPa).

Eq. (4) and Eq. (5) provide a fairly accurate estimate of panel zone shear strength for walls subjected to monotonic
loading, with Eq. (4) providing a better match for lightly reinforced panels. Nevertheless, data for panel zones
subjected to stress reversals are scarce, especially for panels with high reinforcement ratios. It seems plausible that the
upper bound on the shear strength would be reduced from 0.25 ′ under reversed cyclic loading conditions.

DESIGN RECOMMENDATION

The findings of this study suggest the following design recommendations applicable to wall panel zones above or
below a stack of openings.

1. Panel zones should be designed to satisfy Eq. (6).

(6)

where Vu = design panel zone shear,  = strength reduction factor for shear = 0.75, and Vn is nominal shear
strength.

2. Design panel zone shear is defined by Eq. (7).

(7)

where As = area of tension longitudinal boundary-element reinforcement flanking a stack of openings and
anchored in the panel zone, and fs = design stress in that reinforcement. For buildings assigned to Seismic
Design Categories D, E, or F, consistent with ACI 318, fs should not be taken less than 1.25fy.

3. Nominal shear strength of a panel zone can be defined by Eq. (8).

′
3 ′ min , ℓ ℓ 0.25 , psi
(8)
′
0.25 ′ min , ℓ ℓ 0.25 , MPa

where ′ = specified concrete compressive strength, and ℓ = ratios of distributed transverse and
longitudinal reinforcement in the panel zone, ℓ and = yield stress of distributed longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement in the panel zone, bw = thickness of the panel zone, and hw = designer-defined height
of the panel zone. In general, hw should be selected to satisfy the design requirement expressed by Eq. (6),
but hw should be larger than the story height hs. Making hw larger than hs ensures that floor diaphragms above
and below the pane zone can act as the chords shown in Figure 13. Providing the panel zone with sufficient
strength to develop the full tensile force in the boundary reinforcement flanking the openings does not prevent
cracking caused by shear deformations near the lowest opening (as in test W2C).

4. Boundary element reinforcement flanking a stack of openings should extend a distance hw into the panel zone
but not less than the required development length ℓd.

5. Where the design panel zone shear force exceeds 10 ′ , psi ( 0.83 ′ , MPa), the
panel zone should be confined by transverse reinforcement as required in confined boundary elements of
special structural walls.

8.7
Enrique Villalobos et al.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies wall panel zones as regions of structural walls that transfer relatively large shear forces and that,
consequently, may be susceptible to shear distress. The example of panel zones beneath a stack of openings in coupled
walls is emphasized. Laboratory and field data demonstrate the vulnerability of the panel zone. Laboratory test data
on membrane elements are used to develop numerical models for panel zone strength. The following conclusions are
made based on the study.

1. Panel zones under and above stacks of openings can sustain damaging forces under earthquake loading.

2. Panel zone shear demand is approximately equal to the tensile force developed in the boundary element
longitudinal reinforcement flanking the stack of openings.

3. Panel zone shear strength can be calculated by either Eq. (4) or (5).

4. A design procedure is proposed that is intended to provide adequate strength and toughness to wall panel
zones.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The experiments were conducted at Bowen Laboratory, Purdue University. The help with construction and testing
offered by Nathan Boltz, Ejike Akobundu Ken-Opurum, Lucas Laughery, Yulin Liu, and Ying Wang is gratefully
acknowledged. The assistance Mr. Harry Tidrick and Mr. Kevin Brower to set up the tests was indispensable. Mr.
John Nicholas Hardisty conducted detailed nonlinear dynamic analyses of cases BG1 and BG2 to estimate panel zone
force demands.

8.8
 Panel Zones in Structural Walls

NOTATION

: Area of tension longitudinal boundary-element reinforcement flanking a stack of openings and

anchored in the panel zone
ℓ: Area of reinforcement per spacing in the panel zone
Ast: Area of reinforcement per spacing ℓ in the panel zone
: Wall web thickness
C: Compressive force in wall due to moment and axial force
′: Concrete cylinder compressive strength
ℓ: Axial (longitudinal) stress in panel zone (taken as positive in compression)
: Maximum stress in longitudinal boundary reinforcement (flanking panel zone) in tension
ft: Axial (transverse) stress in panel zone (taken as positive in compression)
: Yield stress of longitudinal reinforcement in boundary element
ℓ: Yield stress of longitudinal reinforcement in panel zone
: Yield stress of transverse reinforcement in panel zone
: Story height
: Height of panel zone
ℓ : Development length of bars measured below lowest opening (taken as actual length for terminated
bars, or the bigger of the story height and , for bars that extend full depth)
′

ℓ : Length of opening (or hallway)

ℓ : Length of wall leg (measured parallel to wall shear)
ℓ: Longitudinal spacing of distributed reinforcement in the panel zone
: Transverse spacing of distributed reinforcement in the panel zone
T: Tensile force in wall due to moment and axial force
: Total tensile force in boundary reinforcement flanking panel zone
: Shear stress in panel zone
: Nominal shear stress capacity of panel zone
: Shear force in panel zone
: Nominal shear stress in panel zone = ⁄ ℓ
Vwall: Shear force in wall
: Fraction of force developed in wall panel zone
θ: Angle of inclination with respect to a horizontal line of inclined compression struts in wall panel
: Transverse reinforcement ratio in panel zone
ℓ: Longitudinal reinforcement ratio in panel zone

8.9
Enrique Villalobos et al.

REFERENCES

1. ACI 318 (2014). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Michigan.
2. Ali, A., Wight, J. (1991). “RC Structural Walls with Staggered Door Openings,” ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 5.
3. Applied Technology Council (2014). “Analysis of Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings in the
2010 Chile Earthquake, Including Effects of Non-Seismic-Force-Resisting Building Structural Elements,”
Report, in print.
4. Bentz, E.C., F.J. Vecchio, and M.P. Collins (2006). “Simplified Modified Compression Field Theory for
Calculating Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Elements,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 4, pp. 614-
624.
5. Hardisty J.N. (2015, February 22). “Seismic Performance of a Structural Wall Building with Geometric and
Reinforcement Discontinuities,” Retrieved from https://datacenterhub.org/publications/1
6. Hsu, T.T.C (1988). “Softened Truss Model Theory for Shear and Torsion,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 6,
pp. 624-635.
7. Instituto de Investigaciones y Ensayo de Materiales (IDIEM) (2010). “Peritaje Estructural Edificio Alto Río,
Ciudad de Concepción: Descripción de Caída y Factores Asociados al Colapso”, Report No 644.424-00, Centro
de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación de Estructuras y Materiales, Universidad de Chile, Santiago.
8. Mansour, M., and T.C. Hsu (2005). “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Elements under Cyclic Shear. I:
Experiments,” ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 131, No. 1, pp. 44-53.
9. Mau, S.T., and T.T.C. Hsu (1987). “Shear Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Framed Wall Panels with Vertical
Loads,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 3, pp. 228-234.
10. Naeim, F., Schindler, B., Martin, J.A., Lynch, S. (1990). “Hidden Zones of High Stress in Seismic Response of
Structural Walls,” Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Proceedings of 59th Annual
Convention, Lake Tahoe, CA, September 25 - 28, 1990.
11. Nielsen, M. P., (1999). Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity, CRC Press.
12. Oesterle, R. G., J.D. Aristizabal, A.E. Fiorato, H.G. Russell, and W.G. Corley (1979). “Earthquake Resistant
Structural Walls - Tests of Isolated Walls - Phase II,” Report to the National Science Foundation, Construction
Technology Laboratories, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, 335 p.
13. Song, C., S. Pujol, and A. Lepage (2012). “The Collapse of the Alto Río Building during the 27 February 2010
Maule, Chile, Earthquake.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 28, No. S1, pp. S301-S334.
14. Stevens, N.J., S.M. Uzumeri, and M.P. Collins (1991). “Reinforced Concrete Subjected to Reversed Cyclic Shear
– Experiments and Constitutive Model,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 2, pp. 135-146.
15. Vecchio, F.J., and M.P. Collins (1986). “The Modified Compression Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete
Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 83, No. 2, pp. 219-231.
16. Villalobos, E. (2014). “Seismic Response of Structural Walls with Reinforcement and Geometric
Discontinuities,” Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
17. Wang, Y., S. Pujol, H. Al-Washali, K. Suzuki, M. Maeda, S. Takahashi, and T. Ichinose (2015). “On the Seismic
Response of the Building of the Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture at Tohoku University,”
Earthquake Spectra, DOI 10.1193/053013EQS139M.
18. Wood, S., Wight, J., Moehle, J. (1987). “The 1985 Chile Earthquake: Observations on Earthquake Resistant
Construction in Vina del Mar,” Structural Research Series No. 532, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

8.10
 Panel Zones in Structural Walls

TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1 – Properties and damage ratings of wall panel zones.

Case lh lw bw ld As l t fy fy l fyt f'c vu (Eq.1) vn (Eq.4) vu/vn Damage

Rating
[in.] [in.] [in.] [in.] [in2] [%] [%] [ksi] [ksi] [ksi] [ksi] [√f'c psi] [√f'c psi]

Surveyed Walls Nominal Properties

AR* 47 213 7.9 120 8.3 0.25 0.25 70 70 70 5.7 8.1 2.3 3.5 Unknown
TM 38 346 7.9 49 2.4 0.52 0.52 70 70 70 4.4 6.5 5.5 1.2 3
CM 74 225 7.9 63 15.2 0.31 0.31 70 70 70 5.1 30 3.0 9.9 3
MS 39 217 9.8 59 9.5 0.42 0.42 70 70 70 5.2 16 4.1 3.9 3
BG1 94 335 24 108 84 0.42 0.56 70 70 70 6.9 27 4.1 6.7 2
BG2 94 335 24 108 84 0.28 0.42 70 70 70 5.4 31 3.3 9.5 3
TU 77 136 12 19 0.6 0.44 0.44 34 34 34 2 2.0 3.3 0.6 1
Test Walls Measured Properties
W2D 8 32 6 30 3.5 0.46 0.28 74 71 57 5.6 19 3.1 6.3 3
W2C* 8 32 6 48 3.5 0.46 0.28 74 71 57 5.4 12 3.1 3.9 2

Notes: all quantities in bold font are assumptions.

*Wall with bars anchored away from panel zone. For such walls, ld is taken as the longer of (a) the story height and (b) development length calculated as
ℓ , .
′

1 psi = 1 MPa/145
1 in. = 25.4 mm

8.11
Enrique Villalobos et al.

Table 2 – Material properties (mean values from three test coupons tested in approximately 2 to 5 minutes each).

Material Stress
Property
[ksi] ([MPa)]
No. 6 (19) long. bars Measured yield stress of #6 (19 mm) longitudinal bars: 74 (510)
Measured ultimate stress of #6 (19 mm) longitudinal bars: 116 (800)
No. 3 (9.5) long. bars Measured yield stress of #3 (9.5 mm) longitudinal bars (Determined by 0.2% offset
71 (490)
method):
Measured ultimate stress of #3 (9.5 mm) longitudinal bars: 108 (745)
¼-in. (6.4) transverse bars Measured yield stress of 1/4-in. (6.4 mm) diameter plain transverse bars: 57 (393)
Measured ultimate stress of 1/4-in. (6.4 mm) diameter plain transverse bars: 68 (469)
Coupling plates Yield stress of coupling steel plates reported in mill certificate: 47 (324)
Ultimate stress of coupling steel plates reported in mill certificate: 72 (496)
Concrete Measured concrete compressive strength from compression tests of 6 by 12 in. (152 by 5.6 (39) W2D
305 mm) cylinders at the time of testing: 5.4 (37) W2C

8.12
 Panel Zones in Structural Walls

Figure 1 – Examples of panel zones in structural walls.

Figure 2 – Wall BG2, crack map (Hardisty, 2015) (Piles not shown).

8.13
Enrique Villalobos et al.

(a) BG1 (b) MS

(c) TM (d) AR

(e) CM (f) TU
Figure 3 – Observed damage. (d) based on reconstruction from collapse debris (IDIEM, 2010).

8.14
 Panel Zones in Structural Walls

Figure 4 – Definition of terms on a wall elevation.

8.15
Enrique Villalobos et al.

Figure 5 – Partial free-body diagram extracted from Figure 4. Note: Concentrated and distributed normal
forces acting along wall lengths ab, bc, and cd are not shown for simplicity.

8.16
 Panel Zones in Structural Walls

Load Point

Thickness = 6” Link

6’

8”

4’ 10@15”
1.5’ 12’ 17’ 1.5’
Support Support

Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm, 1 ft = 305 mm.

a) Dimensions

b) Photograph

Figure 6 – Test setup (Villalobos, 2014).

8.17
Enrique Villalobos et al.

3/16” spiral @ 1” – 6.75” O.D.

4 1/4” cross ties @ 3” – 2.5’ 2 #3 U ties

2.5”XXS
2 1/4” ties @ 4” – 13’ 2 1/4” ties @ 6” – 18.5’

D C A

Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm, 1 ft = 305 mm.

Figure 7 – Reinforcement layout, specimen W2D (Villalobos, 2014).

8.18
 Panel Zones in Structural Walls

3/16” spiral @ 1” – 6.75” O.D.

4 1/4” cross ties @ 3” – 2.5’ 2 #3 U ties

2.5”XXS
2 1/4” ties @ 4” – 13’ 2 1/4” ties @ 6” – 18.5’

B A
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm, 1 ft = 305 mm.

Figure 8 – Reinforcement layout, specimen W2C (Villalobos, 2014).

8.19
Enrique Villalobos et al.

Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm, 1 ft = 305 mm.

Figure 9 – Cross sections of specimens W2D and W2C (Villalobos, 2014).

8.20
 Panel Zones in Structural Walls

Figure 10 – Measured north reaction-drift ratio curves (Villalobos, 2014).

8.21
Enrique Villalobos et al.

Specimen W2D Specimen W2C

Crack Pattern Crack Pattern

(Drift ratio) (Drift ratio)

↓ Load Point ↓ Load Point

16% 11%
(0.08%) (0.06%)

23% 21%
(0.13%) (0.15%)

47% 52%
(0.28%) (0.54%)

78% 82%
(0.56%) (1.26%)

100% 100%
(1.21%) (2.40%)

Figure 11 – Crack pattern observed during first loading sequence (Villalobos, 2014).

8.22
 Panel Zones in Structural Walls

Figure 12 – Photograph of wall W2D (rotated 90 deg) near the end of the test (Villalobos, 2014).

chords
strut

Chords and shear panel(s) Strut‐and‐tie

a) b)

Figure 13 – Concepts for internal force resistance.

8.23
Enrique Villalobos et al.

Figure 14 – Shear panel idealization and test specimen (Photograph courtesy of Michael Collins)
(the idealized panel shown has unit cross-sectional areas in both principal directions; in this case forces
and stresses are equal in magnitude).

Figure 15 – Free-body diagram of a portion of a shear panel (the idealized panel shown has unit cross-
sectional areas in both principal directions; in this case forces and stresses are equal in magnitude).

8.24
 Panel Zones in Structural Walls

0 1 2 3 4 5
35 5
Eq. 5

Measured Shear Stress Capacity, MPa

Measured Shear Stress Capacity, ksi
30
4
25

3
20

15
2

10
cyclic
1
5 monotonic

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Calculated Shear Stress Capacity, MPa

Figure 16 – Measured and calculated strengths for membranes subjected to shear with or without axial stress
(Eq. (4)).

Figure 17 – Measured and calculated strengths for membranes subjected to shear with or without axial stress
(Eq. (5)).

8.25
Enrique Villalobos et al.

8.26