SHEAR BEHAVIOR OF RC STRUCTURAL WALLS

By Vincenzo Colotti I
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 05/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

AISTRACT: A shear panel model capable of simulating the nonlinear behavior of

reinforced concrete (RC) panels under membrane-type loading is developed. The
shear panel model is then incorporated into a macroscopicwall-member model and
implemented in a finite element program to analyze RC structural walls. The generic
wall member is idealized as a group of uniaxial elements connected in parallel and
a horizontal spring. The mechanical properties of each constituent element of the
wall-member model are based only on the actual behavior of the materials, without
making any additional empirical assumptions. To check the reliability and the
effectiveness of the wall-member model so derived, a numerical investigation was
carried out by referring to the measured behavior of RC structural walls subjected
to monotonic loading. The comparison between numerical and experimental results
shows that the proposed wall-member model is capable of predicting, with ac-
ceptable accuracy, the measured flexural and shear responses of structural walls as
well as the flexural and shear displacement components. The wall-member model,
in its relative simplicity, can be efficiently incorporated into a practical nonlinear
analysis of RC multistory frame-wall structural systems under monotonic loading.
The possibilityof extending the model to the case of cyclicloading is not investigated
in this study.

INTRODUCTION

A realistic and practical prediction of the inelastic response of reinforced

concrete (RC) frame-wall structures under seismic loads requires analytical
models that are both capable of reproducing the nonlinear response of each
structural c o m p o n e n t with reasonable accuracy and simple enough to allow
economic numerical solutions.
Despite extensive experimental and analytical research on the seismic
behavior of R C wall structures, current analytical models are not capable
of describing their nonlinear seismic response adequately. Several studies
( A k t a n and B e r t e r o 1984; A k t a n and Nelson 1988; B e r t e r o 1984) have
indicated that one of the p r i m a r y reasons for the p o o r correlation b e t w e e n
the predicted and measured responses of such structures is the unsuitable
idealization of wall members.
Various analytical m o d e l s based on different approaches have been pro-
posed to predict the inelastic response of R C structural walls. Even if sig-
nificant advances have been m a d e in the microscopic finite element modeling
of R C (Finite 1982, 1985), the direct application of analytical models derived
from a discretization into small finite elements for the nonlinear analysis of
complete R C frame-wall structures is practically impossible. M a c r o e l e m e n t
models, which tend to simulate the global behavior of the entire large-sized
wall e l e m e n t by means of an analogous structural idealization, would be
suitable for this purpose.
Following this latter approach, m a n y researchers a d o p t e d an equivalent
b e a m (line) element to simulate analytically the behavior of R C structural
walls. H o w e v e r , this one-dimensional idealization has several limitations.
The most important is due to the assumption that rotations occur around
1Researcher, Dept. of Struet., Univ. of Calabria, 87030 Arcavaeata di Rende
(Cosenza), Italy.
Note. Discussion open until August 1, 1993. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be flied with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript
for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on March 11, 1992.
This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 3, March,
1993. 9 ISSN 0733-9445/93/0003-0728/$1.00 + $. 15 per page. Paper No. 3608.

728

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(3): 728-746

 points lying on the centroidal axis of the wall. In this way, the fluctuation
of the wall neutral axis cannot be represented and important features of the
experimentally observed behavior (i.e., rocking of the wall, outriggering
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 05/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

interaction with the frame surrounding the wall), are not adequately taken
into account. Moreover, the failure modes of wall members that can be
simulated are limited.
On the basis of the model originally developed by Kabeyasawa et al.
(1982), in previous research (Colotti and Vulcano 1987; Vulcano et al. 1988)
an effective macroscopic model for wall elements was proposed. This model,
subsequently called multiple vertical-line element (MVLE) model, incor-
porated many important features of the behavior observed during experi-
ments on a full-scale test of a seven-story RC frame-wall structural system
("Tests" 1984).
Using this model a satisfactory correlation between the predicted and
measured flexural response for structural walls was obtained. However, the
measured shear response is not adequately described, particularly for high
shear stresses. Moreover, the shear and flexural displacement components
of the wall are described independently. This is an inherent shortcoming of
the model, since as experimental results have indicated (Vallenas et al.
1979), the behavior of walls is strongly influenced by interaction between
axial force flexure and shear.
To improve the prediction of the overall (shear and flexural) behavior of
RC structural walls, this paper proposes a modified MVLE model that
relates the flexural and shear analytical responses and takes important effects
of the axial flexure and shear interaction into account.
Some numerical tests, conducted with reference to a series of RC struc-
tural walls for which the experimental results are available, show the reli-
ability of the proposed wall model. However, it has some limitations. In
particular, the possibility of local buckling in the longitudinal reinforcement
and the wall buckling is not considered; the fixed-end rotation due the
slippage of the longitudinal reinforcement in the foundation is also not
included.

WALL-MEMBER MODEL
The MVLE model in Fig. l(a) has been proposed (Colotti and Vulcano
1987; Vulcano et al. 1988) to simulate the response of the generic wall
member, which is idealized as a group of uniaxial elements connected in
parallel and a horizontal spring. The flexural response is simulated by the
multi-uniaxial element in parallel model with infinitely rigid beams at the
top and bottom floor levels: the two outside elements represent the axial
stiffnesses K1 and Kz of the boundary columns, while the interior elements,
with axial stiffness 1<23, 9 9 9 K , , represent globally the axial and flexural
stiffnesses of the central panel. The horizontal spring, with stiffness KH and
hysteretic behavior described by the origin-oriented hysteresis model (OOHM)
proposed by the forementioned Kabeyasawa et al. (1982), simulates the
shear response of the wall member. A rigid element of length c h is placed
between the horizontal spring and the lower rigid beam in order to simulate
the deformation of the wall member under different distributions of cur-
vatures. In short, the relative rotation between top and bottom levels is
assumed around the point placed on the central axis of the wall member at
height c h . A suitable value of the dimensionless parameter c can be selected
on the basis of the expected curvature distribution along the interstory
height h.
729

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(3): 728-746

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 05/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

~///////////////~///////'/////////////
/
///////A

h a~

LTk ,K I
~/II//I//////////II//A

k.J6
I ~ 1/2 ") 1/2 ]

/.////////// 9

h C S b)

/////2//,>
FIG. 1, Wall-Member Model: (a) Multi-Vertical Line Element Model; and (b) Two-
Parallel Component Model

The two parallel-component model shown in Fig. l(b) describes the re-
sponse of the generic uniaxial element in Fig. l(a). The two parallel com-
ponents C and S are representative of the mechanical behavior of the con-
crete and the steel, respectively. A suitable choice of the material constitutive
laws allows us to adequately account for many observed phenomena (i.e.,
cracking and strength degradation of the concrete, progressive yielding and
730

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(3): 728-746

 hardening of the steel, confinement effect of the transversal steel, tension
stiffening effect).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 05/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

SHEAR PANEL MODEL

A wall panel, under the combination of applied forces is subjected prev-
alently to in-plane shear and axial stresses (membrane stresses). There are
many difficulties involved in the prediction of the nonlinear load-defor-
mation response of a simple RC panel subjected to membrane stresses, due
to numerous mechanisms that must be taken into account and modeled
properly. Many factors influence the inelastic response of RC panels re-
garding: (1) The materials (nonlinear stress-strain behavior, cracking, ten-
sion stiffening, strain softening, interaction effects between the cracked
concrete and the steel reinforcement, effects of multiaxial stress states); (2)
the structural geometry (i.e., reinforcing pattern, isotropic or anisotropic
reinforcement); and (3) the loading type (i.e., proportional or nonpropor-
tional loading).
Many analytical models have been proposed for predicting the response
of RC panels, generally using complex nonlinear finite element procedures.
Recently, after experiments conducted by Vecchio and Collins (1982) on a
series of RC panels subjected to various combinations of in-plane shear and
normal forces, a new theory capable of accurately predicting the response
of RC membrane elements was developed (Vecchio and Collins 1986). This
theory, known as the modified compression-field theory (MCFT), is for-
mulated considering equilibrium, compatibility, and an appropriate consti-
tutive relation for concrete under biaxial state of stresses. In particular, the
cracked concrete is treated as a new material, with its own stress-strain
characteristics, while the local variation of strains and stresses between
cracks is ignored and the strains and stresses of the element considered in
terms of average values. In this way, many problems such as crack width,
aggregate interlock, and bond slip are overcome.
In this paper, a macroscopic model, capable of describing the shear be-
havior of wall panels on the basis of the forementioned MCFT, is proposed.
Below, the fundamental equations governing the behavior of a simple
membrane element are presented and then extended to wall panels.
Let us consider a RC membrane element containing an orthogonal grid
of reinforcement parallel to the edges, subjected to combined shear and
normal stresses [Fig. 2(a)]. With reference to x-y system, the loads acting
on the element are described by the uniform axial stresses crx and % and
the uniform shear stress ~'xy. The overall deformation of the element is
defined by the three strain components ex, ey, ~.xy [Fig. 2(b)]. To relate the
in-plane stresses o'x, O-y,%y to the in-plane stratus ex, ey, ~y, the following
assumptions are made:
9 Equilibrium, compatibility, and stress-strain relationship are for-
mulated in terms of average stresses and average strains (smeared
crack approach).
9 The concrete and the reinforcement are subjected to the same av-
erage strains (compatibility requirement).
9 The reinforcing bars are evenly distributed within the element.
9 The deformation of the element occurs in such a way that the edges
remain straight and parallel.
9 The steel bars can resist only axial stresses (dowel action is ne-
glected).
731

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(3): 728-746

 l Gy
. '[Tyx
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 05/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

9 x
1
a)

.G1 9 ~1 ~ /

'~7~_..

b) c)
FIG. 2. Membrane Element: (a) Loading; (b) Deformations; and (c) Principal Stresses
and Strains in Concrete

The principal strain axes of the e l e m e n t coincide with the principal

stress axes of the concrete.
The cracks are always n o r m a l to the direction of the principal av-
erage tensile strain and rotate as such direction rotates, assuming
that cracks of one direction close while cracks of another direction
form (rotating s m e a r e d crack approach).

The stresses applied to a m e m b r a n e element must be balanced by the

c o m b i n e d action of steel and concrete. The contribution of the reinforce-
m e n t to the resistance m a y be expressed as pxcrs, and py(rsy in the x- and y-
directions, respectively, where p represents reinforcement ratio and or, axial
stress in the steel. The contribution of the concrete to the resistance in the
x-y system can be expressed in terms of the average principal stresses in the
concrete, (rl and or2 and the orientation angle a [see Fig. 2(c)] by means of

732

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(3): 728-746

 simple equations of transformation (from the Mohr's circle of stresses).
Combining the steel and concrete contributions, the equilibrium conditions
result in:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 05/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ax = ~a sin 2~x + ~2 cos 2e~ + 9.~Ysx 9 ............................. (1)

cry = ch cos2e~ + a2 sin2cx + pycrsy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
'Txy = (0" 1 - - r a cos c~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
As already mentioned, the deformed shape of the element is described
by the three strain components ex, Ey, "Yxyin the x - y system. These strains
may be expressed in terms of the principal strains el, e2 and the inclination
angle a, using the following equations of strain transformation (from the
Mohr's circle of strains):
ex = ~1 sin 2a + e2 cos2c~ ..................................... (4)
% = sa cos 2a + ~2 sin 2oL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
"~lxy : 2(~E1 -- e2)sin ct cos c~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
and to have, moreover

~xy
tan(2a) - ($y _ Ex ) ......................................... (7)

To link average stresses to average strains for the concrete and the re-
inforcement, the following relationships are a s s u m e d

Concrete
To express the behavior of the concrete under plane stress conditions,
an equivalent uniaxial approach is adopted, whereby the effects of biaxial
stresses are represented by an equivalent uniaxial stress-strain relationship
for each of the principal directions. For these relationships, the formulas
proposed by Vecchio and Collins (1986) on the basis of extensive test results
are assumed:

9 Compression

'-=",: ...............................

where
1
13 = -< 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
(0.S- 0.34 84)

9 Tension
or I = Ece, 1 0 -< el -< e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
f.
~1 = (1 + ~ ) el>so, 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)

733

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(3): 728-746

 where o"1, 0 2 and e~, e2 = the tensile and compressive principal
stresses and strains, respectively; f'~ and e0 = the peak stress and
the corresponding strain obtained in a standard concrete cylinder
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 05/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

test under uniaxial compression; f~, ~ = the cracking strength of

concrete under uniaxial tension and the corresponding strain, re-
spectively; and Ec = the elastic modulus of concrete. All stresses
and strains are considered positive when tensile, negative when com-
pressive. For ~o, f~, and E~ are assumed: e0 = - 0 . 0 0 2 ; fc~ = 0.33
: ~ (MPa); Ec = 2f'Jeo.
Eqs. (8) and (9) reflect the strain-softening effect prevalent in cracked
concrete in compression, whereas (11) reflects the tension-stiffening effect
after the cracking. Even if more sophisticated relations have been proposed
to describe the biaxial tension-stiffening effect (Link et al. 1989; Massicotte
et al. 1990; Colotti 1991), for simplicity the relation suggested by Vecchio
and Collins (1986) is adopted.

Steel
To reproduce the response of steel with sufficient accuracy, in place of
the common simple bilinear or trilinear material models, the curvilinear
relationship proposed by Menegotto-Pinto (1973), which describes a tran-
sition curve between two straight asymptotes, is assumed:
(1 - b)~
6- = bg + (1 + ~R)I/R ...................................... (12)

where:
0."s
................................................... (13)
0.so

................................................... (14)
Eso

where 0., and es = the current values of stress and strain; aso and eso = the
stress and strain at the point where the two asymptotes meet; b = the strain-
hardening ratio; and R = a parameter depending on the load history (for
monotonic loading, as in this study, R = 20).
Typical constitutive curves of the concrete and the steel obtained by the
aforementioned equations are shown in Figs. 3(a and b), respectively.
Eqs. (1)-(14) govern the problem of shear behavior of the element. For
solving the problem in terms of ~xy - Yxy response, an iterative procedure
is adopted. As an example, let us consider the situation where the stress
components 0.x and % for a given R C element are known and the corre-
sponding %y - %y relationship is required. The following iteration proce-
dure can be adopted:

1. Select a value of Yxy.

2. Assume a value for ~ and ~1.
3. Find e2, ex, ey from (4)-(7).
4. Find 0.,x, 0.sy, 0.1, 0.2 from (8)-(14).
5. Control equilibrium (1) and (2); if these are satisfied, within a specified
tolerance, proceed to step 6; otherwise, new values for e~ and ~1 are assumed
and steps 3 - 5 are repeated.
734

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(3): 728-746

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 05/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Eq.(lO)
fcr
~o I
/;cr

a)

Eq.(8l ~ .......

~--b
7'

j b)

FIG. 3. Material Constitutive Laws: (a) Concrete (under Biaxial Stress-Strain State);
and (b) Reinforcement

6. Calculate ~xy from (3);

7. Proceed with the next increment of 7xy and repeat steps 1-7.

In this way, by means of a series of solutions for various ~xy values, the
relationship between the variables "rxy and ~/xy can be obtained.
To assess the new value of the iterative variables e1 and ~x at each loop,
the Newton-Raphson iterative process may be used.
735

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(3): 728-746

 To evaluate the shear force versus shear displacement of the panel, if the
applied forces can be considered uniformly distributed, then it is acceptable
to consider the states of stresses and strains calculated for the generic ele-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 05/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ment of the panel as average stresses and strains for the whole panel, and
therefore the overall response can be easily obtained.
In the following, the shear panel model presented is adopted to describe
the response of the horizontal spring in the MVLE modal of Fig. l(a).

ANALYTICALRESULTS
To establish the validity of the RC wall model obtained by incorporating
the shear panel model described previously into the MVLE model, a nu-
merical investigation was carried out, with reference to several isolated RC
structural walls for which the experimental results are available. In partic-
ular, a series of wall specimens tested by Vallenas et al. (1979) and Lefas
et al. (1990) have been considered as test structural walls for the numerical
investigations.
For the numerical analysis a computation procedure similar to that de-
veloped in Vulcano and Bertero (1987) has been adopted. The structural
wall is subdivided into discrete wall members, each idealized by the wall
model shown in Fig. l(a). The analytical response of the wall is evaluated
by an incremental step-by-step procedure. At any load level during the
response, the corresponding state of stress and strain is obtained through
an initial stresslike iterative procedure by updating the iteration matrix
(Zienkiewiez 1977). A computer program implementing such a procedure
was developed to obtain the analytical response of RC structural walls.
However, before analyzing the structural walls, a first analysis was made
to check the reliability of the shear panel model described in the previous
section.

Prediction of RC Shear Panel Behavior

A numerical analysis has been carried out on two of the eight RC framed
shear panels tested by Tomii and Esaki (1984). The specimens selected, D2-
6/2-H and D1.5-6/1.5-L, which have also been studied by Mau and Hsu
(1987), were constituted by a wall panel bounded by a frame consisting of
rigid beams and slender columns (Fig. 4). The specimens were subjected
to a cyclically varying horizontal force and to three constant vertical loads
applied directly over the columns. However, the vertical load can be con-
sidered uniformly distributed through the rigid beams to the wall-column
assembly. Consequently, it can be assumed that the stress strain induced
by the applied loads were uniformly distributed within the panel, and there-
fore the modeling of the panel by one membrane element is acceptable.
Moreover, because of the high stiffness of the beams and the low height-
to-length ratio, the panel is subjected to a very large constraint in the
direction (horizontal) of the beams. In the analytical modeling this inter-
action between panel and beams is simulated assuming a zero horizontal
strain in the panel, as suggested by Mau and Hsu (1987). Further details of
the test specimens are reported in Tomii and Esaki (1984).
In Fig. 5, the analytical and experimental results in terms of shear load
versus shear strain are compared for the two specimens selected. It can be
observed in Fig. 5 that, despite some discrepancies, the proposed shear
panel model describes with reasonable accuracy the experimental results.
The discrepancy in the range of high shear strains may be attributed mainly
736

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(3): 728-746

 ~ 24 kN ~48 kN
~ 24 kN

-..[ I
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 05/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

V
T

I 28O
J.

I a)

9
r- 700 9.L 700 J1

..................... ,.~ .... ..,,. .......... .,~

~ 2.2 kN ,~4.4 kN
~
2.2 kN

----!
V
T
11 28O
_L
.......... 1 b)

I---- 525 •T 525 7

Dimensions in mm
FIG. 4. Geometry and Loading Patterns of Test Panels (Tomii et al. 1984): (a)
Specimen D2-6/2-H; and (b) Specimen D1.5-6/1,5-L

to the fact that the panels are actually subjected to a small number of cyclic
loads, whereas the analytical results are obtained for monotonic loading
and, consequently, the degrading effects due to loading history are not taken
into account.

Prediction of RC Structural-Wall Behavior

As mentioned earlier, a series of verification tests, involving various RC
structural walls, were performed to examine the validity of the proposed
new wall-member model. For this purpose a group of isolated RC structural
737

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(3): 728-746

 250
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 05/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

200

o~ 150

kl_

e~ 100
'/ Specimen D 1I -L
o3

50
I/ -- - - Exper!mental
~ Analytical

I I I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8

Shear Strain %, (X10 -3 )

FIG. 5. Analytical and Experimental Results for Test Panels in Fig. 4

walls (subjected to vertical and lateral loads) for which the experimental
results are available were selected as test structures. The selection of the
test series was made so as to allow the verification of the wall model in
various conditions.
The test walls analyzed were two l/3-scale RC wall specimens tested by
Vallenas et al. (1979), identified as specimens 3 and 5, and two RC wall
specimens tested by Lefas et al. (1990), identified as specimens SW15 and
SW23. Detailed wall cross sections, overall dimensions and loading patterns
of the specimens are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. All the test walls were discretized
in three finite elements and each element was idealized as the wall member
model in Fig. l(a), with six uniaxial elements (n = 6). The stiffness prop-
erties of horizontal and vertical springs of the wall model were based on
the mechanical properties of the materials reported for the test walls in the
aforementioned references.
The forementioned procedure was used to simulate the behavior of the
test specimens. To utilize the wall-member model, it was necessary to eval-
uate certain parameters related to the materials and the geometry. For the
parameter c [see Fig. l(a), assuming that along the height h the expected
curvature distribution is the same as the moment distribution, the following
expression may be derived:
a+2
c - - - . ............................................. (15)
3(a + 1)
where a = ratio of bottom and top moment of the generic wall member.
The parameters defining the material properties used in the analyses are
summarized in Table 1. For the concrete under uniaxial compression, the
738

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(3): 728-746

 L 2134 2134 ---'l

0.644 V~, t 0.644V o.522V~, t 0.522V

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 05/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

~ 434 kN 299 kN~

~299kN
T I~.799V
I v 914

4- 40.I04V
914
,. 1 0.097V

[
I In, 1181

L
[
Dimensions in mm
r////////,#'///,fJ/J'J/,4

FIG. 6. Geometry and Loading Patterns of Test Walls (Vallenas et al. 1979): (a)
Specimen 3; and (b) Specimen 5

185 kN ~343 kN

T1 I
750

l
I--- 750
a)
1300

1
I ] b)
Dimensions in mm
V//////Jz'////////A
I-- 650 ----t

FIG. 7. Geometry and Loading Pattern of Test Walls (Lefas et al. 1990): (a) Spec-
imen SW15; and (b) Specimen SW23

stress-strain relation proposed by Scott et al. (1982) is used. Typical con-

stitutive curves for unconfined and confined concrete are shown in Fig. 8.
To simulate the tension-stiffening effect, for uniaxial loading cases (which
result in orthogonal cracking with respect to the reinforcing direction), as
in the vertical line element of the model of Fig. l(a), a stress-strain rela-
tionship for the concrete in tension, based on the empirical law suggested
by Rizkalla and Hwang (1984), is assumed. Instead, for biaxial stress-strain
states, as in the case of central panel of wall member, the stress-strain
relationship expressed by the (10) and (11) is adopted.
To simulate the shear behavior of each wall member, a single element
for the central panel is used. In this manner the stress state in vertical
739

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(3): 728-746

 TABLE 1. Material Pro lerties of Test Walls
Concrete Reinforcement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 05/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Specimen f'(MPa) k Z (r~o(MPa) Es(MPa) 6(%)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
3 -34.8 1.2 16 444 211,400 0.7
5 - 33.5 1.2 20 482 216,000 0.7
SW15 -36.8 1.1 57 470 210,000 0.5
SW23 -40.6 1.1 90 470 210,000 0.5
Note: f" = compressive cylinder strength; k = maximum stress ratio; Z = strain-
softening slope; cr,o = yield strength; E, = modulus of elasticity; b = strain-hardening
ratio.

17 z
f~ ',', j CONFINED

o.2kfc s II
I I
I I
I I
I| r

FIG. 8, Stress-Strain Relation for Concrete under Uniaxial Compression Adopted

for Model in Fig. l(b)

direction is considered uniform and related to the value of the vertical strain
corresponding to the centroidal axis of the panel. Although this is a rough
approximation, it can be regarded as acceptable for practical results, par-
ticularly in the range of postyield response of the wall, when the location
of the wall neutral axis is close to the compression edge of the wall and the
central panel is almost entirely subjected to tension in the vertical direction.
The effective shear area for calculating the shear force of the wall is taken
as the product of the panel thickness and the horizontal length included
between the geometrical axes of boundary elements.
In Fig. 9 the experimental and analytical results in terms of base shear
versus top horizontal displacement are compared for specimens 3 and 5, In
particular, the flexural response [Fig. 9(a)], the shear response [Fig. 9(b)]
and the overall response [Fig. 9(c)] are shown separately. For the latter,
since in the model the deformation due to the fixed-end rotation is not
accounted for, it has been subtracted from the measured total displacement,
in order to make the experimental and analytical curves comparable. The
740

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(3): 728-746

 1600

2 1200
~ Specimen
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 05/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

800 a)
(f)

[:a 400
I I I Experimental
- - Analytical
i i i i i I I

4O 80 120 160
Displacement 6FLEX ( m m )

1600

1200 -Specimen 3

r -'~- Specimen 5
800 b)
CO

~ 400
_ _ I Experimental
--Analytical
i I i i i f i i

0 40 80 120 160

Displacement ~SHEAR( m m )

1600

~ Specimen 3
1200

~ 800 c)
<u Specimen 5
CO

e~
400
-- -- -- Experimental
Analytical

I I I I I I I 610
0 40 80 120 I
Displacement 6T=SFLEX.+ 8SHEAR(ram)

FIG. 9. Analytical and Experimental Results for Test Walls in Fig. 6: (a) Base
Shear versus Flexural Top Displacement; (b) Base Shear versus Shear Top Dis-
placement; and (c) Base Shear versus Overall Top Displacement

741

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(3): 728-746

 correlation is generally satisfactory enough, with reference to various aspects
of structural behavior (stiffness, ultimate capacity, etc.). As can be seen in
Figs. 9(a and b), the analytical results show almost simultaneous occurrence
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 05/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of shear and flexural yielding. This corresponds to experimental observation

regarding the coupling and the interaction between flexural and shear yield-
ing under high shear conditions.
In Fig. 10 the analytical and experimental shear and flexural displacement
components at the top level are normalized with the respective overall
displacement for both specimens 3 and 5. As can be observed, with respect
to the subdivision of the overall displacement into the two displacement
components (shear and flexural), the analytical and experimental compo-
nents agree well, also in the postyielding range.

/
(ram) -Experimental Specimen3 /
160 Analytical /

120
a)
80

40

40 80 120 160
~SHEAR
+~FLEX.(mm)

(mm) - Experimental Specimen

5/
80- Analytical
/
60 . ~
~SHEAR+ ~FLEX b)

I I I I I I I I

20 40 60 80
8SHEAR+ 8FLEX (mm)
FIG. 10. Comparison of Shear and Flexural Displacement Components for Test
Walls in Fig, 6: (a) Specimen 3; and (b) Specimen 5

742

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(3): 728-746

 400

300 ~ Specimen SWt5

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 05/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

200

g
100
' f E•
V I I I I I
aSy4g,
I I I

4 8 12 16
Overall Top Displacement ~T (ram)

FIG. 11. Analytical and Experimental Results for Test Walls in Fig. 7: Base Shear
versus Overall Top Displacement

In Fig. 11 the experimental and analytical curves in terms of base shear

versus overall top horizontal displacement are compared for specimens SW15
and SW23. In this case also, a good correlation between calculated and
measured results can be observed.
All the results obtained for the test walls analyzed can be considered very
satisfactory and encouraging, since they were obtained on the basis of only
geometric and experimental material properties. For this reason, no para-
metric analysis or adjustments of the principal parameters of the model were
made in order to achieve a better correlation with the experimental results.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, a modified version of the wall model developed in previous
joint studies is presented, which is capable of predicting with acceptable
accuracy the measured flexural and shear responses of RC structural walls
subjected to monotonic loading. In particular, modifications have been in-
troduced in that element constituting the wall model that describes the shear
behavior of the wall member. Unlike the original wall model, this modified
version relates the flexural and shear analytical responses of the wall.
To begin with an analytical model that simulates the shear behavior of
RC panels subjected to combined shear and axial loading is proposed. Such
a model, identified in the text as shear panel model, is based on the modified
compression-field theory developed by Vecchio and Collins (1986) and al-
lows many experimentally observed phenomena to be taken into account:
cracking and biaxial softening of the concrete, yielding and hardening of
the steel, and biaxial tension stiffening. In addition, the change of direction
of cracks, due to change in the direction of principal strains in the concrete,
is described. A procedure for evaluating the shear load versus shear dis-
placement for RC panels subjected to monotonic loads is presented. This
procedure was implemented in a computer program and utilized to carry
out a numerical investigation by assuming as test panels some of the RC
framed wall panels tested by Tomii and Esaki (1984). A satisfactory cor-
relation between the predicted and measured response was obtained.
Then, the shear panel model was incorporated into the aforementioned
743

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(3): 728-746

 wall model, which was implemented in a finite element program for non-
linear analysis of RC structural walls. To check its effectiveness and relia-
bility in simulating the flexural and shear behavior of RC structural walls
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 05/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

by the modified wall model so derived, responses of several walls tested by

Vallenas et al. (1979) and Lefas et al. (1990) are simulated. The numerical
results obtained for the test walls indicate that flexural and shear stiffnesses,
ultimate strength, etc., are predicted with satisfactory accuracy, as well as
the flexural and shear displacement components.
The following conclusions may be drawn on the basis of the results ob-
tained in this study:

9 The modified wall model developed, for its relative simplicity, can
be efficiently incorporated into a practical nonlinear analysis of RC
multistory frame-wall structures.
9 The mechanical properties of each constituent element of the wall
model are based on the actual behavior of the materials, and due
to this there is no need to make additional empirical assumptions.
9 As formulated, the wall model is capable of predicting both flexural
and shear responses in structural walls, so that separated and/or
combined effects of interaction can be evaluated.

Further improvements in the wall model may be obtained by making it

capable of simulating other observed phenomena not considered in this study
(e.g., fixed-end rotation at the wall-foundation interface, rigid-body dis-
placement of the foundation), and by refining the parameters used to de-
scribe the behavior of cracked concrete under biaxial stress states, with
extension to cyclic loading, too.
However, it should be emphasized that, in cases where the structural
behavior is controlled by local effects (e.g., large deformations along isolated
cracks), the wall model based on a macroscopic approach developed in this
study is unsuitable and in such cases more refined models based on the
microscopic approach are preferable.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The study reported herein was supported in part by the Ministero
dell'Universit~ e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica (Italy).

APPENDIX I, REFERENCES
Aktan, A. E., and Bertero, V. V. (1984). "Seismic response of R/C frame-wall
structures." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 110(8), 1803-1821.
Aktan, A. E., and Nelson, G. E. (1988). "Problems in predicting seismic responses
of RC buildings." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 114(9), 2036-2056.
Bertero, V. V. (1984). "State of the art and practice in seismic resistant design of
R/C frame-wall structural systems." Proc. 8th WCEE, S. Francisco, 613-620.
Colotti, V. (1991). "Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete panels." Proc. Gior-
nate AICAP, Italian Association of Reinforced and Prestressed Concr. Struct.,
Spoleto, Italy, 81-96 (in Italian).
Colotti, V., and Vulcano, A. (1987). "Behaviour of RC structural walls subjected
to large cyclic loads." Proc. Giornate AICAP, Italian Association of Reinforced
and Prestressed Concr. Struct., Stresa, Italy, 87-102 (in Italian).
Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete. (1982). ASCE, New York, N.Y.
Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete. (1985). ASCE, New York, N.Y.
Kabeyasawa, T., Shioara, H., Otani, S., and Aoyama, H. (1982). "Analysis of the
744

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(3): 728-746

 full-scale seven-story reinforced concrete test structure: Test PSD3." Proc. 3rd
Joint Technical Coord. Committee Meeting, Tsukuba, Japan.
Lefas, I. D., Kotsovos, M. D., and Ambraseys, N. N. (1990). "Behavior of reinforced
concrete structural walls: Strength, deformation characteristics, and failure mech-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 05/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

anism." A C I Struct. J., 87(1), 23-31.

Link, R. A., Elwi, A. E., and Scanlon, A. (1989). "Biaxial tension stiffening due
to generally oriented reinforcing layers." J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 115(8), 164%
1662.
Massicotte, B., Elwi, A. E., and MacGregor, J. G. (1990). "Tension-stiffening model
for planar reinforced concrete members." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 116(11), 303%
3058.
Mau, S. T., and Hsu, T. T. C. (1987). "Shear behavior of reinforced concrete framed
wall panels with vertical loads." A C I Struct. J., 84(3), 228-234.
Menegotto, M., and Pinto, P. E. (1973). "Method of analysis for cyclically loaded
reinforced concrete plane frames including changes in geometry and nonelastic
behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending." Proc. 1ABSE
Syrup. on Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well-
Defined Repeated Loads, Int. Association of Bridge and Struct. Engrs. (IABSE).
Rizkalla, S. H., and Hwang, L. S. (1984). "Crack prediction for members in uniaxial
tension." A C I J., 81(6), 572-579.
Scott, B. D., Park, R., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1982). "Stress-strain behavior of
concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates." A C I J.,
79(1), 13-27.
"Tests of reinforced concrete structures." (1984). U.S,-Japan Cooperative Res. Pro-
gram, Proc. 8th WCEE., 593-706.
Tomii, M., and Esaki, F. (1984). "Design method of reinforced concrete framed
shear walls to sustain vertical loads after shear failure." Proc. 8th WCEE., S.
Francisco, 581-588.
Vallenas, J. M., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P. (1979). "Hysteretic behavior of
reinforced concrete structural walls." Report No. UCB/EERC-79/20, Univ. of Cal-
ifornia, Berkeley, Calif.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. (1982). "Response of reinforced concrete to in-
plane shear and normal stresses." Publ. No. 82-03, Univ. of Toronto, Toronto,
Canada.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. (1986). "The modified compression-field theory
for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear." A C I J., 83(2), 219-231.
Vulcano, A., and Bertero, V. V. (1987). "Analytical models for predicting the lateral
response of RC shear walls: Evaluation of their reliability." Report No. UCB/
EERC-87/19, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Vulcano, A., Bertero, V. V., and Colotti, V. (1988). "Analytical modeling of R/C
structural walls." Proc. 9th WCEE, Vol. VI, Tokio-Kyoto, Japan, 41-46.
Zienkiewicz, O. C. (1977). The finite element method. McGraw-Hill, London, Eng-
land.

APPENDIX II. NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

a ratio of bottom and top moment;

b = strain-hardening ratio;
C = dimensionless parameter (15);
E~= modulus of elasticity of concrete (initial tangent stiffness);
E~= modulus of elasticity of steel;
f~' = compressive strength of concrete cylinder;
f,'r = concrete cracking stress;
h = interstory height;
K ~ , . . K,, = axial stiffnesses;

745

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(3): 728-746

 KH shear stiffness;
k= maximum stress ratio;
n number of uniaxial elements;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 05/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

R = parameter relative to stress-strain curve of steel;

V= shear force;
Z= strain-softening slope;
angle of inclination of principal stresses/strains in concrete;
~= coefficient for softening effect;
= horizontal displacement;
E0 strain in concrete cylinder at peak stress f ' c ;
strain in concrete at cracking;
EI~ E2 average principal strains in concrete;
Ex~ Ey~ "~lxy strains of membrane element;
px, py = reinforcement ratios in x- and y-directions;
(rs, ~ s = current stress and strain in steel;
(rso, ~so = yield stress and strain in steel;
O'sx ~ I~sy -~- average stresses in x- and y direction reinforcement;
0"170" 2 = average principal stresses in concrete; and
~ , %, Txy= stresses applied to membrane element.

746

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(3): 728-746