ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 87-S3
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls: Strength,
Deformation Characteristics, and Failure Mechanism
loannis D. Lefas, Michael D. Kotsovos, and Nicholas N. Ambraseys
Thirteen large-scale wall models were tested under the combined ac-
tion of a constant axial and a horizontal load monotonically increas-
ing to failure. The aim of the tests has been to investigate the effect
of parameters such as the height-to-width ratio, the axial load, the
concrete strength, and the amount of web horizontal reinforcement
on wall behavior. The results obtained have helped to identify the
causes of wall failure and have demonstrated that the concepts un-
derlying current ACI Building Code provisions for the design of walls
are in conflict with the observed structural behavior. It has been
found that shear resistance is associated with triaxial compressive
stress conditions that develop in the compressive zone of the section
at the base of the wall rather than the strength of the tensile zone of
this section.
Keywords: axial loads; deformation; failure mechanisms; flexural strength;
reinforced concrete; shear strength; stresses; structural design; walls; web rein-
forcement.
Reinforced concrete structural walls are widely con-
sidered to provide an efficient bracing system and to
offer great potential for both lateral load resistance and
drift control. However, current design methods for
walls 1• 3 are based on a) theoretical concepts and as-
sumptions which, in many cases, are incompatible with
fundamental concrete properties, and b) empirical
expressions derived originally for beams by using test
results usually exhibiting a broad scatter. Clearly, de-
sign procedures based on a fundamental understanding
of wall behavior would be preferable to the present
methods.
The behavior of walls under different loading histo-
ries has been extensively studied by experiment. 4 "9
However, uncertainties related to the causes of the de-
pendence of the observed behavior on parameters such
as the web reinforcement, cross-sectional shape, axial
compression, etc., still remain. For example, the extent
of the role of horizontal and vertical reinforcement in
safeguarding against shear is still vague, whereas it is
not clear why walls with a barbell or flanged section
exhibit a shear resistance significantly higher than that
of a rectangular section with the same amount and de-
tailing of web reinforcement. Experimental evidence is
also inconclusive regarding the effect of the axial
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990
TECHNICAL PAPER
compression on the strength and deformational re-
sponse of the wall.
While current design is based on uniaxial stress-strain
material characteristics, recent work has shown that the
actual ultimate limit state behavior of a reinforced con-
crete (RC) structural element can only be explained by
considering the multiaxial stress conditions that are al-
ways present in a structure. 10 It has also been recently
found that wall shear capacity as predicted by the truss
analogy concept often considerably overestimates that
established by experiment. 11 • 12 In fact, it was analyti-
cally demonstrated that wall resistance is associated
with the strength of the concrete in the compressive
zone in the region where the maximum bending mo-
ment develops and not, as widely believed, in the ten-
sile zone of this region.
To this end, this paper is intended to a) verify exper-
imentally the validity of the previously mentioned ana-
lytical findings for the case of RC walls, and b) provide
answers to some of the uncertainties related to wall
behavior.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The work forms part of a comprehensive investiga-
tion of the causes of failure of reinforced concrete
structural walls. It aims primarily at identifying con-
cepts that could form a sound theoretical basis for the
development of simple and rational design procedures.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The experimental work described in the following in-
volves the testing of 13 structural walls with constant
thickness b and a height-to-width ratio hi 1 varying be-
tween 1 and 2. Such walls are considered to represent
ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. I, January-February 1990.
Received July 26, 1988, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright © 1990, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright propri-
etors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the November-December 1990
ACI Structural Journal if received by July I, 1990.
23
ACI member Joannis D. Lefas is a research assistant in the Department of Civil
Table 2 - Concrete mix proportions by weight
Engineering, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, Proportions
England. He graduated from the National Technical University of Athens and by weight 45 MPa mix 30 MPa mix*
obtained his MSc and PhD degrees from Imperial College, London. He is cur- 10-mm aggregate 3.15 3.60
rently carrying out postdoctoral research on the nonlinear modeling of rein-
forced concrete structures subjected to cyclic loading. His research interests also Coarse sand 2.00 2.30
cover a wide range of topics related to structural and earthquake engineering.
Fine sand 0.89 1.03
Michael D. Kotsovos is a lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering, Im- Cement 1.00 1.00
perial College of Science and Technology, London, England. His research ac-
tivities cover a wide range of topics related to concrete structures and technol- Free water 0.68 0.78
ogy such as fracture mechanics, constitutive relationships, finite element anal- *Spec1men SW26.
ysis, model testing, and design procedures. I mm ; 0.0394 in; I MPa = 145 psi.

Nichollls N. Ambraseys is Professor and Head of the Engineering Seismology mm wide x 1300 mm high x 65 mm thick. In all cases,
and Earthquake Engineering Section, Department of Civil Engineering, Impe- the walls were monolithically connected to an upper
rial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, England. His main and a lower beam. The upper beam (1150 mm long x
research interests are in dam design and engineering seismology.
150 mm deep x 200 mm thick) functioned as both the
element through which axial and horizontal loads were
Table 1 - Properties of reinforcement bars applied to the walls and as a cage for the anchorage of
Yield strength Ultimate strength the vertical bars. The lower beam (1150 mm long x 300
Type f,, MPa /,.,MPa mm deep x 200 mm thick) was utilized to clamp down
8 mm high-tensile bar 470 565 the specimens to the laboratory floor, simulating a rigid
6.25 mm high-tensile bar 520 610 foundation.
4 mm mild-steel bar 420 490 Fig. 1 shows the nominal dimensions of test speci-
I mm ; 0.0394 in.; I MPa ; 145 psi. mens together with the arrangement of vertical and
horizontal reinforcement. The vertical and horizontal
the critical story element of a structural wall system reinforcement comprised high-tensile deformed steel
with a rectangular cross section. Attention was focused bars of 8 and 6.25 mm diameter, respectively. Addi-
into a) the manner in which the compressive forces are tional horizontal reinforcement in the form of stirrups
transmitted to the supports, and b) the effect of verti- confined the wall edges. Mild steel bars of 4 mm di-
cal force on the strength, stiffness, and deformation ameter were used for this purpose. Yield .fsY and ulti-
characteristics of walls subjected to monotonically in- mate fsu strength characteristics of the steel bars used
creasing horizontal load up to incipient failure. are summarized in Table 1.
Full details of the concrete mixes used for the walls
Wall details are given in Table 2, whereas the cube strength feu at the
Two types of walls were tested in the program; Type day of testing is given in Table 3.
I (h/1 = 1), which were 750 mm wide x 750 mm high x Table 3 also includes the percentages of reinforce-
70 mm thick,* and Type II (hi 1 = 2), which were 650 ment used for each of the specimens. Vertical rein-
forcement was designed in compliance with the recom-
*I mm = 0.0394 in. mendations of the ACI Building Code 1 for a given

60
H
r. I
I
Ins
lf-++-IH-H-+-++H-1 I"

.
L_lf-++-I~~H-++~1~
. L __j
-
-

I I
I ......... .I
L. 6570 55
t---+--+--1 L.
~

IEJ :::·:E:JI I"

!&t].::: :g;:;l J65
All dimensions in mm

Ia I
lbl

Fig. 1 - Geometry and reinforcement details: (a) Type I and (b) Type II wall spec-
imens (1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
24 ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990
Table 3 - Experimental data and principal results of walls tested in the program
Reinforcement Shear stress
percentage Axial load Horizontal loading level ratios
Actual Normalized Initiation of Initiation of First yield
Cube flexural inclined of tension
strength cracking cracking reinforcement Ultimate
F,
v = - Fn, o, Fn, o, Fn, o, o, Vult v..,,,
p,.., p...,, Pflex• p, JM F, -y,
blf:' kN mm percent kN mm percent 'Y· 'Y· Fn, 'Y·
percent .jJ[ .jJ[
Specimen percent percent percent percent MPa kN kN mm percent kN mm
at 250kN
SWI1 1.10 2.40 3.10 1.20 52.3 0 0.0 35 0.34 0.046 100 1.77 0.232 170 3.59 0.468 260 8.25 1.074 0.743 0.112
at 335kN
SW12 1.10 2.40 3.10 1.20 53.6 230 0.1 45 0.26 0.036 130 1.24 0.167 210 2.90 0.392 340 8.86 1.178 0.959 0.142

-
!
SW13
SW14
1.10
1.10
2.40
2.40
3.10
3.10
1.20
1.20
40.6
42.1
355
0
0.2
0.0
50 0.37 0.051 !50 1.45 0.188 250 3.82 0.496
35 0.34 0.045 100 1.82 0.242 170 3.90 0.511
330
265
8.88
11.21
1.159 1.070 0.182
1.465 0.841 0.140
at 315kN
SW15 1.10 2.40 3.10 1.20 43.3 185 0.1 45 0.27 0.036 130 1.28 0.169 210 2.89 0.381 320 8.05 1.054 1.005 0.166
SW16 1.10 2.40 3.10 1.20 51.7 460 0.2 80 0.40 0.052 210 1.45 0.188 270 2.50 0.339 355 5.78 0.775 1.019 0.154
SW17 0.37 2.40 3.10 1.20 48.3 0 0.0 25 0.38 0.053 90 2.09 0.288 145 3.90 0.540 247 10.75 1.440 0.734 0.114
SW21 0.80 2.50 3.30 0.90 42.8 0 0.0 10 0.32 0.024 80 5.81 0.446 80 5.81 0.446 127 20.61 1.594 0.498 0.083
SW22 0.80 2.50 3.30 0.90 50.6 182 0.1 14 0.39 0.028 110 4.91 0.395 110 4.91 0.375 !50 15.30 1.183 0.541 (').083

= SW23 0.80 2.50 3.30 0.90 47.8 343 0.2 20 0.52 0.041 120 5.20 0.402 120 5.20 0.402 180 13.19 1.024 0.669 0.105

! SW24 0.80 2.50 3.30 0.90 48.3 0 0.0 10 0.29 0.021 80 6.23 0.483 80 6.23 0.483 120 18.13 1.412 0.443 0.069
SW25 0.80 2.50 3.30 0.90 45.0 325 0.2 25 0.60 0.046 130 5.87 0.450 130 5.87 0.450 150* 9.47 0.724 0.574 0.093
SW26 0.40 2.50 3.30 0.90 30.1 0 0.0 10 0.39 O.D28 68 551 0.423 68 5.51 0.423 123 20.94 1.620 0.575 0.114
Note: P.ftu = ratio of mam flexural remforcement to gross concrete area of edge element; p,, = ratiO of honzontal remforcement to gross concrete area of vertical
section or wall web; p,, = ratio of vertical web reinforcement to gross concrete area of horizontal section of wall web; p, = ratio of effective volume of confinement
reinforcement to the volume of the core.
*Premature failure.
I mm = 0.0394 in.; I kN = 0.225 kip; I MPa = 145 psi.

combination of axial force and bending moment at the

fr
base of the wall. Except for Walls SW17 and SW26,
horizontal reinforcement was also designed in compli-
Steel Box Girder
J(.
ance with the recommendations of the ACI Building
'Jt
lsotJock
. .
Code to safeguard against shear failure. In an attempt -- ------ --1-/1-
to test the validity of current shear design provisions, --- ----- ~O~ck sot~ . r---r
~

the horizontal reinforcement for Walls SW 17 and Steel

SW26 was significantly less than that specified by the

Rear::! ion
Frome
Specimen . Blocks .
Concrete Reaction

code; in all other respects the wall reinforcement was

similar to that of the other Type I and II walls, JD lm . .
respectively. ll II '1
Ia I

Testing procedure and loading sequence

Each wall was subjected to a combination of axial
SECTION

~ ~ H=8
and horizontal loading using the testing rig shown in
Fig. 2. A constant axial load was first applied through
~ ~ 8 8

a spreader beam at the centers of the edge members of
the walls.
Three levels of constant axial load were adopted in
the testing program; they corresponded to 0.0, 0.1, and
0.2 of the uniaxial compressive strength of the wall
cross section that is equal to 0.85/cubl. These load lev-
els might be considered representative of the amount of
axial load at the base of the wall of a single story, a
medium-height, and a high-rise building, respectively.
After the total constant axial force was applied, the
specimen was incrementally loaded with horizontal load
at a rate of 0.04 kN/sec. At each load increment, the
load was maintained constant for at least 2 min to
monitor load and deformation response of the wall,
mark the cracks, and take photographs of the crack
pattern. Pressure transducers in the hydraulic supply
line of the rams provided the means of accurate mea-
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990
lbl
Fig. 2 - Schematic representation of the test rig: (a)
elevation and (b) plan view (1 t = 2.242 kips)
surement of the applied load. Deformation response
was monitored by linear variable displacement trans-
ducers (L VDTs) calibrated before each test. Seven
LVDTs positioned at selected wall elevations measured
the in-plane and out-of-plane horizontal displacements.
Three additional LVDTs were used to monitor vertical
displacements. Two of them were used to measure con-
traction and extension of the wall edge members at the
top of the wall, with the third engaged in monitoring
any rotation of the lower foundation beam. Strain
gages were employed to measure steel strains of the
longitudinal reinforcing bars at the four corners of the
wall edges and near the foundation beam.
25
Table 4 - Code predicted and measured values Horizontal Load FH IKNJ
of ultimate horizontal load for walls tested in the
program 200

ACI 318-83 180 _...-·

/
Shear strength 160 /'
/

Flexural strength Upper

Specimen J./Jw V, + V, v, limit Experiment 140
;.-;:--------
I • -·

,//
SWll 213.6/249.2 387.9 300.3 290.7 260 !/ Specimen Normaliz•d
~=-
120

:),'
// Axial Force
SW12 262.0/293.8 446.8 300.3 295.5 340 100 'i
SW13 268.4/297.7 466.7 300.3 257.8 330
-'r
.'}
:.r/
'//
---SW21 0.0
eo
,r:r '/'//
. ---------SW22 0.1
SW14 208.7/243.3 379.1 300.3 261.5 265
60 /,
1 '// ./
- - - - - - SW2J 0.2
SW15 245.2/279.0 426.3 300.3 264.4 320 .y / -----SW24 0.0

SW16 287.2/315.9 502.8 300.3 289.2 355

40 j / -·-·-·-•-- SW25 0.2
I -~
SW17 99.7 279.2 247.2 20 ? -·----- -SW26 0.0
211.7/246.9 183.8
SW21 92.3/107.5 218.4 175.8 211.6 127 24

SW22 110.7/124.5 232.5 175.8 230.0 !50 Horizontal Displacement (mm)

SW23 121.3/134.3 252.7 175.8 223.4 180
SW24 92.0/107.2 221.0 175.8 224.8 120 Fig. 4 - Horizontal load versus top horizontal dis-
SW25 118.3/130.9 249.2 175.8 217.0 150 placement curves for all Type II walls (1 kN = 0.225
kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
SW26 84.9/99.0 123.6 87.9 177.4 123
All values are in kN; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.
Hon:ronlol Load F 11 (KNI

Horizontal Load F H (KNJ

400

.... ---- Sptclmtn

--SW\1
NormoliZ•d
Axial For~•
0.0
-------- SW\2 0.1
- - - - - SW\3 0.2
----SW\~ 0.0
Specimen Normalized -·- ----SW\5 0.1
Axial Force -----SW\6 0.2
-·-·-·-SW\1 0.0

---SW11 0.0
-------- SW12 0.1 Vtrtico1 Oisploctmtnl (mml

----- SW1J 0.2

----SW14 0.0
Fig. 5 - Horizontal load versus top vertical displace-
-·-·---·--- SW15 0.1 ment curves for all Type I walls: (a) extension and (b)
-·-·-·-·- SW16 0.2 contraction (1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
-·-·-·-SW17 0.0

ized v = F/(b10.85fcu) axial load applied to the spec-

Horizontal Displacement {mml
Fig. 3 - Horizontal load versus top horizontal dis-
placement curves for all Type I walls (I kN = 0.225
kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
The measured values of the applied loads, displace-
ments, and strains were recorded by a computer logger.
On the range of voltages employed, the resolution was
0.01 mV and the accuracy was ±0.0138 percent, while
the measuring speed was just over 10 channels per sec.
TEST RESULTS
The main results of the tests together with informa-
tion necessary for their interpretation are given in Ta-
bles 3 and 4 and Fig. 3 through 14. Fig. 3 through 6
present, in the form of horizontal load versus displace-
ment curves, the top horizontal and top vertical dis-
placements of all walls tested in the program. Table 3
contains information on the actual Fv and the normal-
26
imens as well as information on the horizontal load FH,
the top horizontal displacement 5, and the drift index
(i.e., the ratio of top horizontal displacement to wall
height) 'Y of the specimens at the load levels corre-
sponding to:
a. Initiation of flexural cracking
b. Initiation of inclined cracking
c. First yield of the tensile reinforcement
d. Ultimate limit state
The table also includes values of ultimate boundary
shear stress vuu normalized with respect to J: and .JJ[,
where!; is equal to 0.85fcu· Shear stress is defined as the
ratio of the horizontal load to the gross horizontal
cross-sectional area of the wall. Fig. 7 and 8 show the
pattern of variation of secant stiffness with increasing
horizontal load for Type I and II walls, respectively,
while Fig. 9 illustrates typical variations of tensile (pos-
itive) and compressive (negative) steel strains with in-
creasing horizontal load for both types of wall.
Significant stages of cracking process and behavior
up to incipient failure, exhibited by Type I and II walls,
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990
 Horizontal load FH IKNI
l Speelman Normalized
~ 70 & Axial Force

.
m
z
~
...
. •
-------------
... i i Calculated
.
0
21

22
23
0,0

0.1
0,2

_....;.:::.:.::·- Specimen Normalized

Axial Force ~50 • I
" 0.0

--SW21 0,0 •. " 0.2

o.o
---------SW22
- - - - - - SW2J
0,1
0,2
"
-----SW2' 0.0
_,_._,_.__ SW25 0.2 JO .........
-·-·-·-·-SW26 0,0 • I
·.I
20 - I
···•• :··-!..1 J.l•• ' . ...
Vertical Ditplacemenl lmml
. . . . . . . . ! : .t. •• t •.. ..
10
··'· "''; .i.i -;~. . . .
Fig. 6 - Horizontal load versus top vertical displace- ~IMPal
ment curves for all Type II walls: (a) extension and (b) '---~~~~~~~-----~--~~--~·
20 LO 60 10 100 120 160 110 FH IKNI

contraction (1 kN = 0.225 kip,·J mm = 0.0394 in.)

Fig. 8 - Variation of secant stiffness with horizontal
i 350
load expressed in terms of both force and stress units
~
Specimen Normalized for Type II walls (1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394
in.,· 1 MPa = 145 psi)
Axial Force
ill:z 300
Calculated
. 11 0.0

!
i 2SO
."
0 12 0.1

0.2
Horizontal
Load FH IKNI
Horizonlol
Load F H IKNI

1? ."
I

I
15

16
0.0

0,1

0.2
280

... (ol
100
lbl

160

0 17 0.0 200 140 · - . , ,---

120
\ I
1&0 ! I
I I
100 120
v=O.O

SWI7
Gauge
100

. i I
i
\I
v=0.1

SW22
•• --I
GO
_,
so
SHEAR
.. ---2
---- 3
-·-·- 4
••
20
--- 2
-·-·-4
Gauge

'---~-~~2.~S~-~-~5.0~~-~-~!S~ST~SS IMPal
-t0o•too::"o~-':'::,o:!::ooo~zo:::too;;::-o-:,""o oo -~~•""••,..--i--1"'-o""'oo~to"'oo""o""'•""oooo
so 100 1SO 200 250 300 350 400 FH IKNI

microslrains micros trains

Fig. 7- Variation of secant stiffness with horizontal

load expressed in terms of both force and stress units
for Type I walls (1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 Horizontal Horizontal
in.,· 1 MPa = 145 psi) Load FH IKNI Load FH IKNI

lBO 180
are shown in Fig. 10 and 11. Representative modes of \ I lei ldl
•••
failure of Type I and Type II walls under different ax-
ial load conditions are shown in Fig. 12 and 13, and
160

140
'.1
'I
I
I
h/1=2
,. h/1=2

120
I
120 .,-·
Table 4 summarizes ACI Building Code predictions for !DO I 100 I
/

I V'=0.2 yaQ.O
wall strength and compares them with the experimen- •• t SW23 •• SW26
•• l
tally established load-carrying capacity of the walls. Fi- ••
nally, a schematic representation of the mechanism that •• I --t
----3
Gauge
•• --1
Gauge

20
---2
leads to the observed mode of failure is given in Fig. -·-·- 4
20
-·-·-4
-1°o·:!:oo7o ......;.-"'-,••""••~2•""••""•-:,""oooo
D
14. -10000 I DODO ZOOOO 30000

micros trains microslroins

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Fig. 9 - Variation of average strain of the longitudinal
Before discussing the main results of the investiga- reinforcement with varying horizontal load for speci-
tion, it is interesting to note that the out-of-plane dis- mens: (a) SW17, (b) SW22, (c) SW23, and (d) SW 26 (1
placements and the base rotation values recorded dur- kN = 0.225 kip.)
ing testing were negligible. Such results are considered
to indicate that the walls were essentially subjected to carrying capacity of each type of the walls tested is
the intended boundary conditions, i.e., in-plane actions similar. Table 3 also indicates that the horizontal load
at the top and nearly fully restrained displacements at sustained by the Type I walls with " equal to 0.1 and
the bottom. 0.2 was higher than that of the walls subjected to hori-
zontal load only by about 25 and 30 percent, respec-
Strength and deformation characteristics tively. A similar, but more pronounced, increase in
Table 3 and Fig. 3 and 4 indicate that, for the same strength characterized the slender (Type II) walls sub-
level of normalized vertical load "• the horizontalload- jected to combined axial and horizontal loading. The
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990 27
 55kN IOOkN 200kN
Fig. IO- Significant stages of cracking process exhibited by Type I walls (Specimen SW I-4) (I kN = 0.225 kip)

Fig. II - Significant stages of cracking process exhibited by Type II walls (I kN

= 0.225 kip)

lower strength exhibited by Wall SW25 was due to the
unintended eccentricity of the vertical and horizontal
loads that occurred when the spherical seating used to
transfer the axial loading on the wall unexpectedly
moved during testing.
As information included in Table 4 indicates, speci-
mens with higher uniaxial compressive concrete
strength exhibited similar horizontal load-carrying ca-
pacity, if subjected to the same level of normalized ax-
ial load. Differences in concrete strength as high as 35
percent (see Specimen SW26 versus Specimen SW24)
resulted in almost negligible variation in wall strength.
Such small differences in strength might indicate that
strength and deformational characteristics of the walls
are not significantly affected by the variability of the
concrete strength.
It may also be noted in Table 3 that, for the same
level of normalized axial load, the values of the ulti-
mate boundary shear stress normalized with respect to
28
either f: or ./1[ exhibit a variability significantly larger
than that of the test results. Since these normalizing
factors provide a measure of the uniaxial strength of
concrete in compression and tension, respectively, such
variability may be considered to indicate that uniaxial
stress conditions cannot adequately describe the ulti-
mate stress conditions within the failure zones of the
specimens.
The deformational response of the walls was found
to be distinctly nonlinear in all cases (see Fig. 3 and 4).
Axial load appears not only to increase the lateral stiff-
ness, but also to reduce the recorded values of horizon-
tal displacement at the ultimate state. The rate of re-
duction in displacement with increasing axial load for
Type II walls was higher than that for Type I walls. Al-
though the recorded values of top horizontal displace-
ment differed significantly between Type I and Type II
walls, the difference in the corresponding drift indexes
at the ultimate load level was small (see Table 3).
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990
 Fig. 5 and 6 indicate that, as expected, the axial
compressive load affects the vertical displacement of
the wall edges. It is clear that the elongation of the ten-
-~'!*,:)?;a~~==~}~'::,?:,,
' - . trast with what would normally be expected, Specimens
sile edge of the wall becomes smaller as the axial load
increases, while the reverse is true for the shortening of
the compressive edge of the wall. Such behavior im-
plies that the higher the axial load, the larger the depth
of the wall neutral axis prior to failure.
It is interesting to note in Fig. 3 and 4 that, in con-
SW17 and SW26, respectively, exhibited strength and
deformation characteristics similar to those of the Type
I and II specimens (which were subjected to horizontal
load only) in spite of the fact that the former speci-

·,

:>W 12 ··~

·.
(v = [) 1

Fig. 12 - Typical mode of failure of Type I walls Fig. 13 - Typical mode of failure of Type II walls
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990 29

Fig. 14 - Schematic representation of failure mecha-
nism of the walls
mens contained almost half the amount of horizontal
reinforcement contained in the latter. The reason for
such behavior is discussed in detail later.
Stiffness and strain measurements
For both types of wall tested, the level of axial force
was found to significantly affect secant stiffness as in-
dicated in Fig. 7 and 8. However, the variation of se-
cant stiffness values with increasing normalized axial
load is less pronounced for Type II walls. With the ex-
ception of Specimen SW13, Type I walls exhibited an
enhancement in stiffness of approximately 65 and 100
percent at almost all intermediate levels of horizontal
loading when " increased from 0 to 0.1 and 0.2, respec-
tively. The higher deformability exhibited by Specimen
SW13 is attributed to the damage suffered by the lower
foundation beam during the clamping procedure. In
contrast to this behavior, the stiffness of Type II walls
only slightly increased with the normalized axial load "
increasing from 0.1 to 0.2. However, for both "= 0.1
and "= 0.2, the stiffness values were approximately 70
percent higher than those for the specimens subjected
to horizontal load only.
Furthermore, in all cases the secant stiffness corre-
sponding to ultimate strength was approximately equal
to between 20 and 30 percent, the stiffness correspond-
ing to the uncracked phase of the wall. Calculated val-
ues of secant stiffness for the uncracked wall phase are
also included in Fig. 7 and 8. They were obtained by
using the current one-dimensional idealization of wall
elements adopted by most codes. The figures indicate a
poor correlation between calculated and experimental
values, the correlation being poorer for Type I walls.
Apparently, the idealization is not valid for the case of
reinforced concrete walls.
The strain gage readings indicated that, except for
Wall SW25, the vertical reinforcement in all other cases
exhibited considerable post-yield deformations prior to
failure. It is interesting to note in Fig. 9(a) that Speci-
men SW17, which contained only 60 percent of the
horizontal reinforcement recommended by the ACI
Building Code, also exhibited ductile behavior. An in-
crease in the normalized axial load from 0.0 to 0.2 did
not alter the maximum compressive strain of the rein-
forcement while it led to a drop of the maximum re-
30
corded tensile steel strain, as Fig. 9(b), 9(c), and 9(d) il-
lustrate for typical cases of Type II walls. It is also
worth noting that the values of the neutral axis depth
calculated by using strain measurements are in compli-
ance with the values calculated by using the measured
crack depth.
Fracture processes and failure modes
Flexural cracks initially appeared near the bottom
third of the tensile edge of Type I walls, after the ap-
plication of 15 percent of the ultimate horizontal load
(see Fig. 10). The first inclined crack appeared as the
level of applied horizontal load reached 40 percent of
its ultimate value; at this stage, flexural cracking had
already spread at a slight inclination within the wall
web. Further loading caused new flexural and inclined
cracks to develop and to almost reach the wall com-
pressive edge. Beyond a load level of 80 percent of the
failure load, the crack pattern underwent insignificant
changes up to the stage when progressive splitting of
the concrete cover of the compressive edge and near-
vertical propagation of the inclined crack in the com-
pressive zone were noted. As Fig. 12 shows, vertical
cracking eventually caused failure of the compressive
zone, and this led to a drop of the horizontal load-car-
rying capacity of the specimens. The presence of axial
load resulted in a wider crushing band due to the larger
depth of neutral axis but web cracking was less exten-
sive.
For Type II walls, much the same cracking pattern
was observed (see Fig. 11). The only noticeable differ-
ences include fewer inclined cracks occurring at a later
load stage, the absence of cracking at the top third of
the wall for high levels of applied axial load, and the
fact that the near-vertical crack, which eventually led to
the wall failure, formed between the deepest flexural
cracks (see Fig. 13).
It is interesting to note that one load stage prior to
failure the width of the major flexural cracks became
considerable. In fact, the average crack width reached
0.8 and 1.2 mm for Type I and II walls, respectively.
Such crack widths should have resulted to insignifi-
cant, if any, shear resistance of the concrete region be-
low the neutral axis due to aggregate interlock.
Causes of wall resistance and failure mechanism
As Table 4 indicates, the observed maximum hori-
zontal load sustained by the walls tested exceeded, by a
significant margin, the lower of the values of horizon-
tal load corresponding to either flexural capacity or
shear strength, as defined by the ACI Building Code
(assuming a capacity reduction factor q, = 1.0). It
should be noted that even the utilization of the strain-
hardening characteristics for the steel resulted in a con-
servative estimate of the flexural strength while the ACI
expressions for shear predicted that Specimens SW13,
SW15, and SW16 should have failed in shear due to
crushing of the inclined concrete struts assumed by the
truss model.
On the other hand, although ACI predicted that the
horizontal load corresponding to flexural capacity was
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990
significantly lower than that corresponding to shear
strength, Specimen SW26 reached its shear capacity and
failed in a ductile flexural manner [see Fig. 9(d)]. Spec-
imen SW17 also failed in a ductile manner in spite of
the fact that it contained about half the horizontal web
reinforcement specified by ACI to safeguard against
shear failure. Such behavior indicates that, in contrast
to what is widely believed, the horizontal web rein-
forcement does not have a significant effect on shear
capacity, and certainly that effect cannot be described
by the truss analogy concept.
Fig. 12 and 13 indicate that collapse of the specimens
occurred due to failure of the compressive zone. The
presence of axial load only delayed the occurrence of
such a failure, and thus further increased the wall ca-
pacity. In all walls at their ultimate limit state, the
deepest of either the inclined (for Type I walls) or flex-
ural (for Type II walls) cracks reduced the depth of the
compressive zone to a small value. In spite of its small
depth, the compressive zone appears to be the main
contributor to shear resistance since, as discussed ear-
lier, neither the horizontal web reinforcement nor ag-
gregate interlock were found to significantly affect the
maximum load-carrying capacity of the walls tested.
The high shear resistance of the compressive zone has
been attributed to the development of triaxial compres-
sive stress conditions in regions subjected to critical
combinations of axial compressive and shear forces. 13
Triaxial compressive stresses have been found to de-
velop in such regions due to the volume dilation that
characterizes concrete when stressed in compression
above a critical level. Volume dilation may be re-
strained either by concrete in adjacent regions, for the
case of plain concrete, or mainly by confining rein-
forcement, such as that used in the edges of the walls
tested. Failure under such compressive stress condi-
tions is characterized by cracking in the direction of the
maximum principal compressive stress, and this ex-
plains the near-vertical splitting of the compressive zone
of the wall indicated in Fig. 12 and 13.
Fig. 14 illustrates schematically the mechanism pro-
viding shear resistance to the lower part of the com-
pressive zone of the wall. A part of the horizontal
component of the triaxial compressive state of stress
counteracts the tensile forces that develop in the pres-
ence of high shear forces. As a result, the compressive
force within the compressive zone needs not to be sig-
nificantly inclined to balance the boundary shear force.
CONCLUSIONS
1. For all cases investigated, it was found that while
axial compression reduces both vertical and horizontal
displacement, it also causes an increase in horizontal
load-carrying capacity and secant stiffness characteris-
tics; this observed increase becomes more pronounced
with increasing height-to-width ratio.
2. In contrast to what is widely believed, the hori-
zontal web reinforcement does not appear to have a
significant effect on shear capacity. Certainly, since the
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990
reduction of the web horizontal reinforcement to al-
most half the value specified by building codes does not
affect the failure load, this effect is not accounted for
by the truss analogy concept.
3. The strength and deformational response of the
walls were found to be independent of the uniaxial
concrete strength characteristics within a range of 30 to
SS MPa.
4. Failure of the walls occurred due to nearly vertical
splitting of the compressive zone in the region of the tip
of the inclined (Type I) or the deepest flexural (Type II)
crack, followed by splitting of the whole compressive
zone. The failure region was more extensive with de-
creasing height-to-width ratio and increasing axial load.
S. Shear resistance appears to be associated with the
development of triaxial compressive stress conditions
within the compressive zone near the base of the wall
where the flexural moment attains its maximum value.
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Rein-
forced Concrete (ACI 318-83)," American Concrete Institute, De-
troit, 1983, 111 pp.
2. "Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regula-
tions for Buildings," ATC Publication No. ATC 3-06/NSF Publica-
tion No. 18-8/NBS Special Publication No. 510, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1978, 505 pp.
3. Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building
Officials, Whittier, 1982, 817 pp.
4. Barda, Felix; Hanson, John M.; and Corley, W. Gene, "Shear
Strength of Low-Rise Walls with Boundary Elements," Reinforced
Concrete Structures in Seismic Zones, SP-53, American Concrete In-
stitute, Detroit, 1977, pp. 149-202.
5. Cardenas, Alex E., and Magura, Donald D., "Strength of High-
Rise Shear Walls-Rectangular Cross Section," Response of Multi-
story Concrete Structures to Lateral Forces, SP-36, American Con-
crete Institute, Detroit, 1973, pp. 119-131.
6. Cardenas, A. E.; Russell, H. G.; and Corley, W. G., "Strength
of Low-Rise Structural Walls," Reinforced Concrete Structures Sub-
jected to Wind and Earthquake Forces, SP-63, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, 1980, pp. 221-241.
7. Maier, J., and Thiirlimann, B., "Bruchversuche an Stahlbeton-
scheiben," Institut fiir Baustatic und Konstruction, Eifgenossishe
Technische Hochschule, Ziirich, 1985, 130 pp.
8. Oesterle, R. G.; Fiorato, A. E.; Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D.; and
Corley, W. G., "Hysteretic Response of Reinforced Concrete Struc-
tural Walls," Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Wind and
Earthquake Forces, SP-63, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
1980, pp. 243-273.
9. Aktan, Ahmet E., and Bertero, Vitelmo V., "RC Structural
Walls: Seismic Design for Shear," Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, ASCE, V. 111, No.8, Aug. 1985, pp. 1775-1791.
10. Kotsovos, Michael D., "Consideration of Triaxial Stress Con-
ditions in Design: A Necessity," ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No.
3, May-June 1987 pp. 266-273.
11. Lefas, I. D., and Kotsovos, M. D., "Behaviour of Reinforced
Concrete Walls: A New Interpretation," Proceedings, IABSE Collo-
quium on Computational Mechanics of Concrete Structures-Ad-
vances and Applications, Delft, 1987, pp. 455-462.
12. Lefas, I. D., "Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Walls and Its
Implication for Ultimate Limit State Design," PhD Thesis, Imperial
College, University of London, 1988, 330 pp.
13. Kotsovos, Michael D., "Compressive Force Patch Concept:
Basis for Reinforced Concrete Ultimate Limit State Design," ACI
Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1988, pp. 68-75.
31