Seismic Performance of Lightly Reinforced Structural Walls For Design Purposes

Magazine of Concrete Research
Volume 65 Issue 13
Seismic performance of lightly reinforced
structural walls for design purposes
Wibowo, Wilson, Lam and Gad
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2013, 65(13), 809828

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/macr.13.00021
Paper 1300021
Received 13/01/2013; revised 19/03/2013; accepted 22/03/2013
Published online ahead of print 30/05/2013
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved
Seismic performance of lightly

reinforced structural walls for
design purposes
Ari Wibowo
Nelson T. K. Lam
Research Fellow, Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Sciences,

Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia
Associate Professor, Department of Infrastructure Engineering, University

of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
John L. Wilson
Emad F. Gad
Professor, Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Sciences, Swinburne

University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia
Professor, Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Sciences, Swinburne

University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia
Lightly reinforced concrete walls are commonly found in low-to-moderate seismic regions such as Australia. While
many theoretical analyses on lateral loaddisplacement of structural walls have been proposed and widely used, not
many have been developed for lightly reinforced concrete walls. The lateral loaddisplacement behaviour and failure
mechanism of lightly reinforced structural walls differ to those of heavily reinforced concrete walls, particularly in
terms of tension stiffening effects, possible failure mechanisms and drift capacities. An analytical study on lightly
reinforced rectangular concrete walls is presented in this paper. A parametric study was conducted to provide initial
insight into the effect of four design parameters (aspect ratio, axial load ratio, transverse reinforcement ratio and
longitudinal reinforcement ratio) on the ultimate displacement capacity of reinforced concrete walls. Two analytical
models were developed to predict the lateral loaddisplacement behaviour of lightly reinforced walls consisting of a
detailed wall model and a simplified wall model that provides a quick and conservative estimate for initial design
checking purposes using displacement-based principles. Both models are shown to provide good agreement with
experimental results in the literature.
Introduction
A number of research studies and analytical models investigating
the behaviour of well-detailed reinforced concrete (RC) wall
structures have been undertaken for high-seismicity regions.
Buildings supported by lightly reinforced structural walls
(rv 0.22.0%) investigated in this study represent the great
majority of building stock in low-to-moderate seismic regions
such as Australia in both commercial and high-density residential
sectors and buildings occupied by organisations with a postdisaster function such as hospitals and emergency services. In
general, designers have a very good understanding of the strength
characteristic of wall elements but have very little understanding
of the corresponding drift behaviour, which is essential for
assessing the earthquake performance of wall structures and is
the focus of this paper.
Well-detailed RC walls subjected to lateral load are commonly
believed to behave in a ductile manner with a high ultimate drift
capacity compared with lightly reinforced concrete walls. Structural walls with minimum reinforcement requirements are considered to have very limited ductility and lateral displacement
capacity. The displacement capacity values stipulated in design
guidelines such as FEMA 356 (FEMA, 2000) for lightly
reinforced walls are much lower than for beams and columns due
to the high compressive and tensile strains expected to be
developed at the wall extremities, particularly for non-symmetric

wall sections. Experimental tests conducted by Greifenhagen and
Lestuzzi (2005) showed that lightly reinforced concrete walls
provide flexure-dominant behaviour and significant drift capacity.
Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the behaviour of lightly
reinforced rectangular concrete walls subjected to lateral load and
to develop analytical models to estimate the lateral load
displacement relationship of such walls. The resulting capacity
curves could be used in conjunction with the capacity spectrum
method (ATC, 1996) to assist designers in assessing the seismic
performance of low and medium-rise buildings (i.e. first mode
dominant response), particularly for regions of lower seismicity
where lightly reinforced concrete walls are common.
A literature review on the seismic performance of lightly
reinforced rectangular concrete walls was undertaken and is
described in the nest section where the effects of four design
parameters (axial load ratio, aspect ratio, transverse reinforcement
ratio and longitudinal reinforcement ratio) are presented. The
following section introduces the conceptual development of two
analytical lateral loaddrift models comprising a detailed wall
model and a simplified wall model, which are then described
comprehensively. The proposed models are then compared to
experimental test results from a test database comprising squat to
slender concrete walls with aspect ratio 0.5 < a < 4.0, axial load
809

Volume 65 Issue 13

ratios 0.02 , n , 0.50 and walls with gross vertical reinforcement ratio 0.2% < rv < 2.0%.
of compressive strains and decrease of ultimate curvature capacity.
Parameters influencing wall behaviour
Furthermore, Su and Wong (2007) showed that the rate of shear

strength degradation of the walls increased with increasing axial
load ratio, which is very similar to other research outcomes on
lightly reinforced concrete columns (Wibowo, 2012).
Parameters influencing the drift behaviour of RC walls have been

investigated by the authors and collaborators (Altheeb et al.,
2012), comprising axial load ratio (n), aspect ratio (a), transverse
reinforcement ratio (rh ) and longitudinal reinforcement ratio (rv ),
as shown in Figure 1. The nominated design parameter is the
only variable in each graph, all other design parameters being
constant. The trends for each of the four design parameters are
now summarised.
Aspect ratio (a)
The influence of the aspect ratio (ratio of wall height to length)
of RC walls on the lateral loaddisplacement behaviour and
failure modes can generally be observed by investigating the
flexural-to-shear strength ratio (FSSR M/LV). Generally, moderate (1 , a , 2) and slender RC walls (a > 2.0) possess a low
FSSR and tend to develop flexure-dominant action characterised
by a concentration of inelastic behaviour at the wall base (Chiou
et al., 2003; Lestuzzi and Bachmann, 2007; Wood, 1989). In
contrast, well-reinforced squat walls (a < 1.0) generally develop
an in-plane strut-and-tie mechanism to resist lateral forces in
which the failure mode is mainly dominated by a shear mechanism characterised by diagonal crack patterns (Li and Xiang,
2011).
The influence of the aspect ratio on the ultimate drift capacity of
RC walls based on experimental testing is plotted in Figure 1(a)
and shows some interesting trends.
The drift capacity tended to increase with increasing aspect
ratio for slender RC walls (Hines et al., 2002).
j The drift capacity was not well correlated with the aspect
ratio for short and moderate RC walls (a , 2) (Kuang and
Ho, 2007; Lefas et al., 1990; Liang et al., 2010).
j Squat RC walls do not necessarily develop shear-dominant
behaviour, particularly if the walls are lightly reinforced.
Kuang and Ho (2007) tested six squat walls with aspect ratios
of 1.0 and 1.5 that failed in flexure despite a shear deflection
component of about 2050% of the total deflection. The
reason for this behaviour is the inherent shear strength of
concrete compared with the lateral force that could be
developed in lightly reinforced and lightly loaded squat walls.
j
Axial load ratio (n)

The axial load ratio has a significant effect on the ultimate drift
capacity of RC walls as shown in Figure 1(b). Most of the tests
(Dazio et al., 2009; Greifenhagen and Lestuzzi, 2005; Lefas et
al., 1990; Su and Wong, 2007) indicate that walls with a low
axial load ratio exhibit ductile flexural failure, while walls with a
higher axial load ratio demonstrate more brittle compressive
failure due to the increase of neutral depth and hence the increase
810
Transverse reinforcement ratio (rrh )

The effect of the transverse reinforcement ratio on the ultimate
drift capacity of RC walls is shown in Figure 1(c) with three
different locations investigated: web region (dashed lines), boundary elements (dotted lines) and total area (solid lines). The
ultimate drift of RC walls increases with increasing total
transverse reinforcement ratio (as shown by solid lines), with a
much more significant effect in the boundary elements (dotted
lines) compared to the web regions (dashed lines).
The effect of effective confinement has been investigated by Su
and Wong (2007) and Thomsen and Wallace (2004). Su and
Wong (2007) demonstrated that an increase of the web transverse
reinforcement ratio (using bundled bars to increase the ratio while
maintaining a similar space between stirrups) from rh 0.54%
(specimen W2) to rh 1.08% (specimen W3) did not alter the
ultimate drift capacity. The effective confinement was largely
dependent on the arrangement of transverse reinforcement, with
the evenly separated and more closely spaced stirrups along the
wall height providing higher confinement compared with bundled
stirrups with a wide spacing but the same transverse steel ratio.
Furthermore, Thomsen and Wallace (2004) tested two rectangular
walls (RW1 and RW2) with identical configurations except for a
different transverse reinforcement ratio at the boundary. Both
specimens showed very similar behaviour, except that RW2 (with
rh 1.0%) was able to maintain complete cycles up to drift of
2.2% while RW1 (with rh 0.7%) only managed to have a single
cycle at 1.9% drift due to buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement. As expected, this demonstrated that the closer spacing of
the hoops delayed the onset of buckling of the longitudinal
reinforcement.
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio (rrv )
The effect of the longitudinal reinforcement distribution along the
walls length is analysed in Figure 1(d). Cardenas and Magura
(1975) observed that the walls with concentrated longitudinal
reinforcement steel at the boundary edges have a higher ultimate
curvature compared with the walls with uniformly distributed
longitudinal reinforcement steel. The experimental results confirmed that concentrating the longitudinal reinforcement at the
boundary increases the ultimate drift, as shown in Figure 1(d).
However, a test study conducted by Kuang and Ho (2007) showed
that walls with longitudinal steel concentrated at the boundaries
have more diagonal shear cracks, more pinched hysteretic behaviour and less strain-hardening effect and hence are less likely to
perform well compared to walls with uniformly distributed longitudinal reinforcement steel.

Volume 65 Issue 13

UD10UD15
(Kuang and Ho, 2007)
UC10UC15
SW11SW21
(Lefas et al., 1990)
SW12SW22
SW13SW23
CW5, CW3, CW1
(Liang et al., 2010)
CW6, CW4, CW2
(Liang et al., 2010)
2A, 1A
(Hines et al., 2002)
2B, 1B
(Hines et al., 2002)
45
40
Drift: %
35
30
25
20
15
10
05
0
0
2
3
Aspect ratio
(a)
40
30
Drift: %
20
10
05
0
CW3, CW4 (Liang et al., 2010) a 15
40

SW6, SW4 (Pilakoutas and Elnashai, 1995)
M2, M1 (Greifenhagen and Lestuzzi, 2005)
30
RW1, RW2 (Thomsen and Wallace, 2004)

B1B3 (Oesterle et al., 1979)
25
20
WR0, WR20, WR10 (Oh et al., 2002)

WSH4, WSH3 (Dazio et al., 2009)
SW2, SW3 (Zhang et al., 2009)
B8, B9 (Oesterle et al., 1979)
1A, 1B (Hines et al., 2002)
0
0 05 10 15 20 25 30
Transverse reinforcement ratio: %
(c)
2A, 2B (Hines et al., 2002)
14
40
12
35
30
08
UD10, UC10
UD15, UC15
SW3SW6
(Cardenas and Magura, 1975)
SW4, SW5
0
2
4
6
8
10
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio at wall edges: %
(d)
Drift: %
10
06
45
05
02
02 03 04 05
Axial load ratio: %
(b)
10
04
01
50
15
Drift: %
25
15
35
06
WPS5WPS7
(Gebreyohaness et al., 2011)
WPS6WPS8
SW11, SW12, SW13
SW21, SW22, SW23
WSH3WSH6
(Dazio et al., 2009)
M1, M4, M3 (Greifenhagen
and Lestuzzi, 2005)
W1, W2
(Su and Wong, 2007)
B5, B6
(Oesterle et al., 1979)
MSW2, MSW3
(Salonikios et al., 1999)
35
Drift: %
50
25
20
15
10
05
0
WPS5, WPS6
WPS7, WPS8
SW1, SW2, SW6, SW3
WSH2, WSH3
(Dazio et al., 2009)
SW5, SW6
(Pilakoutas and Elnashai, 1995)
SW4, SW7
(Pilakoutas and Elnashai, 1995)
B10, B7
(Oesterle et al., 1979)
SW215-2, SW13-3
(Cao et al., 2009)
0
1
2
3
4
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio: %
(e)
Figure 1. Detailed comparison of the effect of parameters on

ultimate drift capacity (based on a study undertaken by Altheeb
et al., 2012)
The effect of the overall longitudinal reinforcement ratio on the

ultimate drift capacity of RC walls is shown in Figure 1(e), with
mixed results observed. No significant changes on the ultimate
drifts were apparent for the specimens tested by Gebreyohaness
et al. (2011) and Cardenas and Magura (1975) despite the
increase of longitudinal reinforcement ratio, while more significant effects on ultimate drifts were observed by Dazio et al.
(2009), Pilakoutas and Elnashai (1995a, 1995b), Oesterle et al.
(1979) and Cao et al. (2009). This mixed result is expected since
walls are generally under-reinforced, resulting in tension failure
811

Volume 65 Issue 13

unless heavily loaded axially such that compression failure

results. In addition, very lightly reinforced walls with an ultimate
moment capacity less than the cracking moment capacity result
in the formation of one crack only with all the inelastic behaviour
concentrated at the cracked section, and development of a rocking
action.
compared with the concrete shear strength) with relatively high

ductility and drift (Greifenhagen and Lestuzzi, 2005). Therefore,
the lateral loaddrift relationships for both the detailed wall model
and the simplified wall model were developed based on flexuredominant behaviour.
Summary
The overall trends of the different parameters on the ultimate drift
capacity are mixed, indicating that the four parameters have some
interdependence particularly the aspect ratio and the longitudinal steel ratio. However, it was observed that the ultimate
drift capacity increased with decreasing axial load ratio, increasing transverse steel ratio and increasing aspect ratio for slender
walls.
The flexural displacement of cantilever RC walls can be

commonly analysed the same way as cantilever columns, where
the total flexural displacement is calculated as the sum of the
elastic displacement based on the momentcurvature relationship
and the inelastic displacement based on the plastic hinge mechanism (Park and Paulay, 1975)
fl fe fp
1:
Conceptual outline of theoretical models

Several models for predicting the lateral loaddisplacement
relationship of RC walls have been proposed by many researchers. These range from simple bilinear models (Huang et al.,
2011; Paulay, 2001; Wallace, 2007), simplified hysteretic models
(Hidalgo et al., 2002), hysteretic models based on spring
elements (Ghobarah and Youssef, 1999; Orakcal et al., 2004) to
more complex finite-element models (Belmouden and Lestuzzi,
2007; Jalali and Dashti, 2010).
Detailed wall model
In this study, two models consisting of a detailed wall model and

a simplified wall model were developed to estimate the lateral
loaddrift relationship for lightly reinforced rectangular concrete
walls. In particular, the focus was to estimate the ultimate drift
capacity of lightly reinforced rectangular walls for use in a
displacement-based checking procedure in regions of low to
moderate seismicity.
Point A (cracking strength)

The cracked lateral strength (Fcr ) and corresponding drift limit
(cr ) are calculated from
The detailed wall model (outlined in the next section) was

developed to provide a more comprehensive estimate of the
lateral loaddisplacement behaviour of walls using a simple
flexure-dominant approach and comprising four stages:
cracking, yield, peak and ultimate. Walls are classified based
on aspect ratio and axial load ratio.
j The simplified wall model was developed to provide a quick
and conservative estimate for initial design checking purposes
and comprised three stages: cracking, yield and ultimate.
A model developed for lightly reinforced concrete columns

(Wibowo, 2012; Wibowo et al., 2013) was modified to create the
detailed wall model due to the similar behaviour of the column
and rectangular wall specimens with both being dominated by
flexural action. As noted earlier, the detailed wall model comprises four stages (cracking, yield, peak and ultimate displacement), as shown conceptually in Figure 2.
2a:
F cr
M cr
Hw
cr
M cr H w
3Ec I g
2b:
where Mcr is the bending moment to initiate cracking of the

concrete based on a flexural tensile strength ft (taken as
C
The displacement at the top of cantilever walls consists of four

components: flexural displacement (fl ), yield penetration displacement (yp ), shear displacement (sh ) and sliding displacement between the wall and the foundation (sl ). For a typical wall
design, it can be reasonably assumed that the sliding displacement
is sufficiently small to neglect, while the yield penetration displacement can be implicitly accommodated in the flexural displacement
using a suitable plastic hinge length. The shear displacement for
slender walls can be conservatively omitted in the analysis since
the flexural component is dominant. Similarly, lightly reinforced
squat walls tend to fail in flexure (i.e. low moment capacity
812
Lateral strength
Fu
Fy
B
pl,p (peak y )Lp
Ieff
Fcr
pl,u (u y )Lp
A
cr
peak
Drift: %
Figure 2. Detailed wall model for lateral loaddrift behaviour

Volume 65 Issue 13
0:6( f c9 )1=2 consistent with AS3600 (Standards Australia, 2001)),

Hw is the height of the wall (which is subject to a point force at
the top), Ec is Youngs modulus of concrete and Ig is the gross
second moment of inertia of the wall cross-section.
Point B (yield strength)
The yield point is estimated using classic yield moment strength
(My ) calculation and an effective stiffness ratio (Ieff /Ig ). A wide
range of models available for estimating the effective moment of
inertia of RC walls is listed in Table 1. The detailed wall model
uses the Paulay and Priestley (1992) effective moment of inertia
formula, despite the model not considering the tension stiffening
effect. The tension stiffening effect is largely dependent on the
longitudinal reinforcement ratio and is more significant on lightly
reinforced members than more heavily reinforced sections. However, for members subjected to axial load such as columns and
walls, the axial load ratio provides a more significant effect on
the stiffness and the ultimate drift capacity rather than the
longitudinal reinforcement ratio as previously discussed. Moreover, the effect of tension stiffening decreases rapidly under
cyclic loading (Park and Paulay, 1975). Consequently, the Paulay
and Priestley (1992) formula was selected as follows.
For flexure-dominated walls
I eff
3:
!
100
Pu
Ig
fy
f c9 Ag

6:
M yH w
3Ec I eff
Point C (peak strength)

The peak strength point is estimated using classic ultimate
moment strength (Mu ) calculations and flexural displacement
calculation as described conceptually in an earlier section. The
available plastic hinge length formulae are presented in Table 2.
Most of the formulae were developed for general structural
systems, except for the formula proposed by Priestley et al.
(2007), which was developed especially for structural wall
buildings and therefore was used in the detailed wall model.
The model was developed by investigating curvature within the
plastic hinge region using the force equilibrium equation
(N Cc + Cs T) with a nominal cu 0.003 spalling strain
used as a limit state for concrete strain.
For simplicity, by eliminating either the compression steel area
for the case of a low axial load ratio (tension control) or
eliminating the tension steel area for the case of a high axial load
ratio (compression control), the peak flexural lateral load Fu and
the drift at concrete fracture u can be obtained using classic RC
principles as follows
7:
Fu
Mu
Hw
For shear-dominated walls
4a:
I eff
[(100= f y ) (Pu = f c9 Ag )]I g
1: 2 C
8:
peak y pl:p
where
9:
pl:p (peak y )Lp
where Pu is the nominal axial load, fy is the yield strength of

vertical reinforcement, f c9 is the cylinder compressive strength of
concrete, Ag is the gross cross-sectional area of the wall, Hw is
the wall height, Lw is wall length and tw is wall thickness.
10a:
peak
The yield strength (Fy ) and corresponding drift limit (y ) are

hence calculated as
10b:
y
11:
N Ast f y
ku :
for a low axial load ratio
0 85 f c9 d tw
4b:
5:
30[(100= f y ) (Pu = f c9 Ag )]I g
Fy
H 2w tw Lw
My
Hw
cu
0:003
kud
kud
3y
Hw
813

Volume 65 Issue 13

Design parameters affecting effective inertia moment

Paulay and Priestley (1992)
100
Pu
Flexure-dominated walls Ie
Ig
f c9 Ag
fy
Pu nominal axial load
Ag gross cross-section area of walls
Ie
30I e
Shear-dominated walls I w :
,C 2
12C
L tD
Fenwick and Bull (2000)

Pu
190
0:76 0:005 f c9 I g
Ie 0:267 1 4:4
0:62
fy
f c9 Ag
Fenwick et al. (2001)
For grade 500 reinforcement
Ie (0:21 P= f c9 Ag )I g (including creep and shrinkage)
Ie (0:31 P= f c9 Ag )I g (neglecting creep and shrinkage)
For grade 300 reinforcement
Ie (0:26 1:2P= f c9 Ag )Ig (including creep and shrinkage)
Ie (0:44 1:2P= f c9 Ag )Ig (neglecting creep and shrinkage)
ASCE (2006)
Ie 0.8Ig (uncracked)
Ie 0.5Ig (cracked)
ACI (2008)
Ie 0.7Ig (uncracked)
Ie 0.35Ig (cracked)
SNZ (1995)
At ultimate limit state
Ie 0.45Ig (axial load ratio n 0.2)
Ie 0.25Ig (n 0)
Ie 0.15Ig (n 0.1)
At serviceability limit state
For 1.25
Ie Ig
For 3.00
Ie 0.70Ig (n 0.2)
Ie 0.50Ig (n 0)
Ie 0.40Ig (n 0.1)
For 6.00
Ie 0.45Ig (n 0.2)
Ie 0.25Ig (n 0)
Ie 0.15Ig (n 0.1)
Li and Xiang (2011) (model intended for squat structural walls)
!

2
100
P
L
L
u
0:53 0:37 0:31 2 Ig
Ie 0:19
fy
D
f c9 Ag
D
Yield strength of main rebars

Axial load ratio
Wall height
Wall thickness
Wall length
Axial load ratio
Concrete strength
Axial load ratio
Creep and shrinkage
Fixed modifier
Fixed modifier
Axial load ratio
Axial load ratio

Expected inelastic ductility demand

Axial load ratio
Aspect ratio
Adebar et al. (2007)

P
Ig < 1:0I g
0 :6
f c9 Ag

P
Lower bound I e 0:2 2:5
I g < 0:7Ig
f c9 Ag
Upper bound Ie
Table 1. Effective moment of inertia models for RC walls
814
Axial load ratio

Volume 65 Issue 13

Model
Equation
ACI-ASCE (1968)
Paulay and Priestley
(1992)
Lp 0.4Lw + 0.1Hw
Taken as the larger of
Lp 0.2Lw + 0.03Hw
Lp 0.054Hw + 0.022db fy
Lp kHe + 0.1Lw + 0.022fy db , k 0.2( fu /fy 1) < 0.08
Lp 0.054Hw + 0.022fy db > 0.044 fy db
Lp 0.427d + 0.077(Hw )1=2 /d
Priestley et al. (2007)

Priestley et al. (1996)
Sasani and Der
Kiureghian (2001)
Panagiotakos and
Fardis (2001)
Lp 0.12Hw + 0.014db fy
for cyclic loading
Lp 0.18Hw + 0.021db fy
for monotonic loading
d effective depth of RC walls

Hw shear span of RC walls
db diameter of longitudinal reinforcement steel
fy yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement steel
Pn
Pn
He effective height, taken as
i1 (mi el,i Hi )=
i1 (mi el,i )
Table 2. Plastic hinge length models for RC walls
12:
N Asc f y
ku :
for a high axial load ratio
0 85 f c9 d tw
peak is the curvature of wall when peak resistance is reached, y

is the yield curvature of the wall, Lp is the plastic hinge length,
Ast is the tensile steel area, Asc is the compressive steel area, d is
the effective depth of the RC wall (which can be assumed as
0.8Lw ), ku d is the depth to neutral axis of the RC wall and
0:85 0:007( f c9 28), with limits of 0.650.85.
15:
For walls with a low axial load ratio where tension steel failure is
the limiting criteria
16:
The plastic hinge length Lp is estimated using the Priestley et al.

(2007) formula
17:
13:
pl:u (u y )Lp
u
su
(1 k u )d
N Ast f su
ku :
0 85 f c9 d tw
Lp cH e 0:1Lw 0:022 f y d b
where c 0.2( fu /fy 1) < 0.08, He is the effective height of

wall, Lw is the wall length, fu is the ultimate strength of steel and
db is the diameter of vertical reinforcing bars.
Point D (ultimate displacement)
The ultimate drift limit (u ) is estimated according to whether the
aspect ratio is greater or less than one.
where su and fsu are the ultimate steel strain and stress, respectively.
For walls with a high axial load ratio where compression concrete
crushing failure is the limiting criteria
ccu
kud
18:
u
19:
N Asc f y
ku :
0 85 f c9 d tw
Moderate and slender walls (a . 1)

Using the same principle as that at peak strength stage (point C),
the ultimate drift can be estimated as follows
14:
u y pl:u
815

Volume 65 Issue 13
20:
ccu 0:004 1:4rh sm

f yh
f c9
where
:
Acr 0:85(nc rst )0 36 dtw
ch 1 cv
8
1
for a , 0:5
>
>
<
cv 2(1 a) for 0:5 , a , 1
>
>
:
0
for a . 1
where ccu is the ultimate confined concrete strain, sm is the steel
strain-hardening strain, fyh is the confinement steel yield strength
and rh is the volumetric confinement steel ratio.
24:
The rate of wall shear strength degradation increases with

increasing axial load ratio.
j Experimental wall tests conducted by Beyer et al. (2008) and
Vallenas et al. (1979) showed that the shear strains are
concentrated in the plastic zones, particularly in cracked
areas, and hence large tensile longitudinal steel strain
occurred. This mechanism is similar to that of lightly
reinforced concrete columns (Wibowo, 2012) in which a large
portion of the shear deformations was concentrated in the
plastic hinge region.
j
A summary of the methodology for assessing the ultimate drift

capacity is provided in the following text and the reader is
referred to Wibowo (2012) for further details. The shear strength
(Vu ) of RC walls consists of concrete strength (Vc ) and steel
strength (Vs ) components
21:
Vu Vc Vs
The concrete shear strength in this model uses the formulae

developed based on the principal tensile strength (Wibowo,
2012), while the steel shear strength component proposed by
Wesley and Hashimoto (1981) is used as follows
22:

1=2
2
f t9 P
V c Acr ( f t9 )2
3
Acr
where nc Es /Ec , rh is the transverse reinforcement area ratio,

rv is the total longitudinal reinforcement area ratio and rst is the
tension longitudinal reinforcement area ratio.
The ultimate wall drift can be obtained using the formula
developed by Wibowo (2012) for lightly reinforced columns

y
Fu
:
(1 k) 0 8
u
k
Vu
25:
where
:
26:
0:3e5 7n
9a
and is the drift ductility when the shear strength commences to

decline and is taken as a/n for squat walls (a < 1).
Simplified wall model

The simplified model aims to provide a simple and conservative
procedure for estimating the lateral loaddrift behaviour of
lightly reinforced rectangular concrete walls. The method comprises three stages cracking strength, yield strength and peak
strength, as shown in Figure 3. The approach is considered
reasonable for walls with an axial load ratio n , 0.2.
Fu
Lateral strength
Lightly reinforced squat walls (a < 1)

The shear strength degradation mechanism developed for lightly
reinforced concrete columns (Wibowo, 2012) was modified for
lightly reinforced squat walls to calculate the ultimate drift.
Lightly reinforced squat concrete walls and columns have a
number of similarities, including the following.
Fy
Fcr
A
cr
m
Drift: %
23:
816
V s (ch rh cv rv ) f y dtw
Figure 3. Simplified wall model for lateral loaddrift behaviour

Volume 65 Issue 13

Point A (cracking strength)

The cracked lateral strength and drift are directly calculated using
the concrete modulus gross section properties and cracking
strength (see Equation 2) and should result in a cracking drift cr
of the order of 0.050.10%.
Point B (yield strength)
The yield strength is estimated using classic yield moment
calculations or approximated by the factored ultimate strength
(assume 0.8 for n , 0.2)
27:
Fy Fu
Yield curvature approach

The yield drift can be calculated using the approximate yield
condition shown in Figure 4, which is a reasonable representation
for walls with a low axial load ratio (n , 0.2). By substituting the
approximate yield curvature (y 2y /Lw ) into the elastic yield
drift (y /Hw (y Hw )/3), the yield drift can be estimated as
a function of the aspect ratio (a) as follows
2 Hw 2
y y
y a
3 Lw
3
Stiffness ratio Ieff / Ig
y
y
Lw
Figure 4. Yield curvature of RC wall
For typical walls, this will result in a yield drift y in the order
of 0.30.5% (i.e. fy 400 MPa, a 24).
The yield drift is calculated using one of two methods yield

curvature or effective stiffness. The effective stiffness approach is
recommended in particular for lightly reinforced concrete squat
walls and walls where the cracking moment and ultimate moment
strength are similar, such that distributed cracks up the height of
the wall are unlikely to form.
28:
Effective stiffness approach

A wide range of effective stiffness models is available in the
literature (see Table 1). The stiffness ratio Ieff /Ig is plotted in
Figure 5 using these models for a rectangular wall with different
axial load ratios. It is observed that the effective stiffness ranges
between 0.2Ig and 0.8Ig : For the simplified wall model, a value of
Ieff 0.5Ig is considered conservative and reasonable for estimating the yield drift and is supported by Wallace (2007) for axial
load ratios up to n 0.20.
Point C (ultimate strength)
The ultimate strength Fu is estimated to be equal to the normal
design strength Fu multiplied by an overstrength factor that
accounts for strain-hardening and system effects. A default value
of 1.3 is recommended in the absence of more specific
information for lightly reinforced walls, hence 1.3 3
0.8 1.04 according to seismic design codes such as AS1170.4
(Standards Australia, 2007).
09
Paulay and Priestley (1992)
08
Fenwick and Bull (2000)
07
Fenwick et al. (2001), including creep and shrinkage
06
Fenwick et al. (2001), neglecting creep and shrinkage
05
ASCE (2006)
04
ACI (2008)
03
SNZ (1995) u 30
02
SNZ (1995) u 60
01
Adebar et al. (2007), upper bound
0
0
005
010
015
Axial load ratio n: %
020
025
Adebar et al. (2007), lower bound
Figure 5. Comparison of the stiffness ratio of RC walls using

different models
817

Volume 65 Issue 13

Fu Fu
29:
The ultimate drift (m ) is estimated as the sum of the yield drift

(y ) and the plastic drift (pl ) (see Figure 6)
30:
m y pl
The plastic drift is calculated one of two ways, depending on

whether the cracking moment strength (Mcr ) exceeds the ultimate
moment capacity of the wall (Mu ).
Mcr . Mu
If Mcr . Mu , then only one crack is likely to form at the base of
the wall and all inelastic action will be concentrated at this
location, greatly reducing the effective plastic hinge length. The
plastic drift can be estimated by assuming a maximum acceptable
local peak strain in the reinforcement at a single crack at the wall
base of the order of s 5.0% for ductile reinforcement (2.5%
for low ductile steel), and taking a slightly more conservative
approach than the Priestley and Paulay (2002) strain penetration
length of lyp 4400y db either side of the crack, producing an
effective plastic hinge length of Lp 15db : The resulting crack
width Wcr and crack rotation, which is directly correlated with the
plastic drift pl , are shown in Figure 7 and are given by
31:
W cr es Lp 0:05915d b 0:75d b
32:
pl pl
W cr
db
0:75
Lw
Lw
Mcr , Mu
If Mcr , Mu , multiple flexural cracks will develop up the height
of the wall and an effective plastic hinge will develop at the base.
The plastic hinge lengths presented in Table 2 range between
0.5Lw and 1.0Lw and, in this simplified wall, a conservative value
of Lp 0.5Lw is assumed. The ultimate curvature is calculated
assuming concrete crushing (cu 0.4%) and an average ultimate
steel strain of 2.0% for ductile reinforcement (1.0% for low
ductile steel) in the plastic hinge region occurs simultaneously, as
shown in Figure 8.
The plastic drift pl is estimated as
33:
pl (pl y )Lp
where the plastic curvature pl can be estimated as 0.024/Lw : It

can be estimated that pl will be of the order of 1.0%, assuming a
plastic hinge length Lp 0.5Lw and y 2y /Lw :
Experimental test results

C
Lateral strength
Fu
Fy
Ieff
Fcr
pl pl (u y )Lp
A
cr
The proposed models were compared with results from the

literature, which included 14 rectangular RC walls from four
studies (Dazio et al., 2009; Greifenhagen and Lestuzzi, 2005; Su
and Wong, 2007; Thomsen and Wallace, 2004). The database of
wall specimens is summarised in Table 3 with the following
range of properties
aspect ratio 0.5 < a < 4.0
j axial load ratio 0.02 < n < 0.50
j longitudinal reinforcement ratio 0.2% < rv < 2.0%
j transverse reinforcement ratio 0.0% < rh < 1.0%.
j
m
Drift: %
Figure 6. Simplified wall model for lateral loaddrift behaviour
The models proposed in this paper are intended to predict the

lateral loaddrift behaviour of rectangular RC walls and hence
other cross-sectional shapes (e.g. H-shape, T-shape, core walls)
cu 04%
Wcr
u
pl
su 2%
Lw
Figure 7. Plastic rotation at RC wall base
818
Lw
Figure 8. Ultimate curvature of RC wall

Volume 65 Issue 13

Wall
Greifenhagen and Lestuzzi (2005) M1

M2
M3
M4
Dazio et al. (2009)
WSH1a
WSH2
WSH3
WSH4
WSH5
WSH6
Thomsen and Wallace (2004)
RW1
RW2
Su and Wong (2007)
W1
W2
a
0.56
0.56
0.63
0.63
2.28
2.28
2.28
2.28
2.28
2.26
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.13
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.25
0.50
Hw :
mm
565
565
565
565
4560
4560
4560
4560
4560
4520
3658
3658
1600
1600
Lw :
mm
1000
1000
900
900
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
1219
1219
400
400
tw :
mm
100
100
80
80
150
150
150
150
150
150
102
102
80
80
rv :
%
0.34
0.34
0.39
0.39
0.54
0.54
0.82
0.82
0.39
0.82
0.17
0.17
1.96
1.96
rh :
%
0.31
0.00
0.26
0.26
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.47
0.70
0.52
0.54
Drift: %
Yield
Ultimate
0.11
0.23
0.12
0.11
0.18
0.17
0.25
0.25
0.14
0.22
0.77
0.74
0.72
0.61
3.19
2.65
1.42
1.95
1.04a
1.38
2.03
1.35
1.36
2.07
1.91
2.17
2.69
1.42
Non-ductile reinforcement used in this test
Table 3. Wall properties of previous experimental work
have not been included. The specimens in the database were

selected to represent three categories squat walls (a < 1),
moderate walls (1 , a , 2) and slender walls (a > 2). The
database consisted mostly of lightly reinforced concrete walls
with rv , 1.0%, although some RC walls with a combination of
moderate longitudinal reinforcement and high axial load ratio (Su
and Wong, 2007) were included to check the capability of the
proposed models. A brief summary of results from each of the
experimental studies is now given.
Experimental test database
Greifenhagen and Lestuzzi (2005)
Greifenhagen and Lestuzzi (2005) tested four squat RC walls
with aspect ratios of a 0.56 (specimens M1 and M2) and
a 0.63 (specimens M3 and M4) (Table 3). All specimens were
lightly reinforced with a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of
rv 0.34% and a transverse reinforcement ratio of rh 0.3%
(except specimen M2, which had no transverse reinforcement), as
shown in Figure 9. The axial load ratios varied between the
specimens with values of n 0.023 (M1 and M2), n 0.05 (M4)
and n 0.10 (M3).
Overall, the yield drifts for these squat walls were low with
values in the range 0.110.23% and ultimate drifts in the range
of 1.43.2%, with the lower values corresponding to the larger
axial load ratios.
Dazio et al. (2009)
Six lightly reinforced moderate RC walls were tested by Dazio et
al. (2009) with identical aspect ratios (a 2.28) and transverse
reinforcement ratios (rh 0.25%) for all specimens (Table 3).
The specimens differed in their axial load ratio (n 0.050.13)

and the layout, ductility and quantity of the longitudinal reinforcement as shown in Figure 10. All specimens had ductile
reinforcement except specimen WSH1. Specimen WSH1
(n 0.05, rv 0.54%) had very low ductile steel (almost no
strain-hardening and ultimate strain capacities of 4.6% and 2.3%
for 10 mm and 6 mm bar diameters, respectively); hence, poor
ductility behaviour was expected. Specimen WSH2 (n 0.06,
rv 0.54%) had a very similar configuration to WSH1 but with
normal ductile steel reinforcement (ultimate strain capacities of
7.7% and 5.8% for 10 mm and 6 mm bar diameters, respectively).
Specimens WSH3 and WSH4 had an axial load ratio n 0.06
and almost twice the longitudinal reinforcement (rv 0.82%) of
WSH1, but specimen WSH4 was designed without proper
confinement reinforcement in the boundary edges. Finally, two
specimens (WSH5 and WSH6) had double the axial load ratios to
that of WSH1 (n 0.13 and 0.11, respectively), while the
longitudinal reinforcement ratio of WSH5 (rv 0.39%) was half
that of WSH6 (rv 0.82%).
Overall, the yield drifts for these moderate walls were low with
values in the range 0.140.25%, while the ultimate drifts were
reasonable and in the range 1.02.0%. The lowest drift of 1.0%
corresponded to specimen WSH1 with the low ductile reinforcement, as expected.
Thomsen and Wallace (2004)
Experimental tests on two slender rectangular walls (RW1 and
RW2) with an aspect ratio a 3.0 were conducted by Thomsen
and Wallace (Table 3). Both specimens had identical axial load
ratios (n 0.10) and very low longitudinal reinforcement ratios
819

Volume 65 Issue 13

Elevation
A
B
Section AA
Section BB
12
45
160
200
C
6
160
45
12
15 100
A
B
6
Section CC
5 190
(a)
Elevation
D
E
Section DD
61
4 122
61
12
12
15 100
D
E
6
Section FF
4 219
(b)
Figure 9. Reinforcement layout of wall specimens (a) M1 and M2

and (b) M3 and M4 (Greifenhagen and Lestuzzi, 2005)
(dimensions in mm)
820
Section EE

Volume 65 Issue 13

WSH1
WSH2
6 @ 75
35 @ 75
6 @ 150
6 @ 75
6 @ 75
35 @ 75
610
610
6 @ 150
6 @ 150
6 @ 75
42 @ 75
246
610
150
246
42 @ 75
150
610
6 @ 150
25 75 75 125 125 125 125 125 125 150 125 125 125 125 125 125 75 75 25
2000
25 75 75 125 125 125 125 125 125 150 125 125 125 125 125 125 75 75 25
2000
WSH3
WSH4
6 @ 75
42 @ 75
6 @ 150
6 @ 150
6 @ 75
6 @ 150
42 @ 75
228
6 @ 150
6 @ 150
612
612
228
612
150
150
612
6 @ 150
30 100100 125 125 125 125 125 145 145 125 125 125 125 125 100100 30
2000
30 100100 125 125 125 125 125 145 145 125 125 125 125 125 100100 30
2000
WSH5
WSH6
42 @ 50
42 @ 50
6 @ 150
206
42 @ 50
6 @ 50
42 @ 50
42 @ 50
68
612
6 @ 150
6 @ 150
228
6 @ 50
42 @ 50
612
150
150
68
6 @ 150
30 100100 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 100100 30
2000
30 100100 125 125 125 125 125 145 145 125 125 125 125 125 100100 30
2000
Figure 10. Reinforcement layout of wall specimens WSH1WSH6

(Dazio et al., 2009) (dimensions in mm)
(rv 0.17%), while the transverse reinforcement ratio of RW1

(rh 0.47%) was smaller than that of RW2 (rh 0.70%), as
shown in Figure 11.
The yield drifts for these slender walls were relatively large with
values of the order of 0.75%, while the ultimate drifts were
reasonable and in the range of 1.92.2%. Interestingly, with such
low reinforcement ratios and corresponding ultimate moment
capacity, the flexural behaviour was dominated by a single crack
at the base of the wall.
Su and Wong (2007)
Su and Wong (2007) tested three slender RC walls subjected to
high axial load ratios. All specimens were designed with
identical aspect ratios of a 4.0 and large longitudinal reinforcement ratios of rv 1.96%, while the axial load ratio and the
transverse reinforcement ratio were varied. Specimen W1 was
designed with the smallest axial load ratio of n 0.25, which
was half that of specimens W2 and W3 (n 0.50). Specimens
W2 and W3 differed only in the transverse reinforcement ratios
(rh 0.54% and rh 1.08%, respectively) with the higher
transverse reinforcement ratio of W3 achieved using bundled
bars rather than spreading the spacing evenly along the specimen
height. Only specimens W1 and W2 are included in Table 3 and
Figure 12 since the lateral loaddrift behaviour of wall W3 was
similar to W2.
Overall, the yield drifts for these slender, heavily loaded and
heavily reinforced walls were relatively large with values in the
range 0.60.7%; the ultimate drifts were reasonable, in the range
1.42.7%. The lowest drift of 1.4% corresponded to specimen
W2 with the high axial load ratio of n 0.50.
Comparison between experimental results and proposed
model
The experimental test data are compared with the proposed
models using test results from Greifenhagen and Lestuzzi (2005),
Dazio et al. (2009), Thomsen and Wallace (2004) and Su and
Wong (2007) in Figures 1316, respectively. The following points
may be noted.
j
Good agreement was found between the squat wall test data
(a < 1.0) of Greifenhagen and Lestuzzi (2005) and the
predicted results, as shown in Figure 13. This confirms that
821

Volume 65 Issue 13

4
#2 bars at 75 in.
O.C. both directions
Hoop and cross-ties

3/16 at 3 in. O.C.
Hoop and cross-ties

3/16 at 2 in. O.C.
48
3@2
3@2
#3 bars
typ.
#3 bars
typ.
075
075
075
25
075
25
Detail A
Detail A
RW1
RW2
Detail A
Figure 11. Reinforcement layouts of wall specimens RW1 and

RW2 (Thomsen and Wallace, 2004) (dimensions in inches,
1 inch 25.4 mm)
650
S3
18
S2
S1
80
18
S4
50
50
50
65
400
1640
Description (X RY: X, number of bars;

R, mild steel round bar; Y, bar diameter)
S1
8R8
S2
8R6
S3*
25R33, 60 c/c
S4*
150R33, 60 c/c
500
1515
11
2250
Figure 12. Details of wall specimens W1 and W2 (Su and Wong,

2007) (dimensions in mm)
822
Cover 10 mm
*This configuration applies to units W1 and
W2. For unit W3, S3 and S4 become
50R33, 60 c/c amd 300R33, 60 c/c,
respectively
Lateral force: kN

Volume 65 Issue 13

250
250
200
200
150
150
Specimen M1
100
Experimental result
50
Experimental result
50
Detailed wall model
0
0
Lateral force: kN
Specimen M1
100
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
250
250
200
200
150
150
Specimen M2
100
10
15
20
35
0
0
Lateral force: kN
30
Experimental result
50
Detailed wall model
05
10
15
20
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
25
30
Experimental result
Detailed wall model
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
Specimen M3
Lateral force: kN
25
Specimen M2
100
Experimental result
50
05
35
15
20
140
140
120
120
100
100
25
30
35
Specimen M3
Experimental result
0
160
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
80
Specimen M4
60
10
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
160
80
05
Specimen M4
60
40
Experimental result
40
Experimental result
20
Detailed wall model
20
0
0
05
10
15
20
Drift: %
25
30
35
05
10
15
20
Drift: %
25
30
35
Figure 13. Lateral loaddrift behaviour: comparison between

theoretical models (left, detailed wall model; right, simplified wall
model) and experimental data of Greifenhagen and Lestuzzi
(2005)
the lightly reinforced concrete squat walls were flexuredominant despite the low aspect ratio. The simplified model
tended to underestimate the ultimate drift capacities, but
provides a useful quick lower bound estimate for designers.
Both the detailed wall model and simplified wall model are
generally in good agreement with the moderate wall
specimens (a 2.0) of Dazio et al. (2009), as shown in
Figure 14. It should be noted that the low ductile steel
823
Lateral force: kN
Specimen WSH1
Detailed wall model
Experimental result
Lateral force: kN
10
15
20
25
30

Experimental result
05
10
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
15
20
25
10
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
15
20
25
05
10
20
25
30
05
10
15
20
25
10
15
20
25
10
10
700
600
600
500
500
15
20
25
05
10
15
20
25
Detailed wall model

Experimental result
05
10
15
20
Drift: %
25
Specimen WSH6
300
Specimen WSH6

Experimental result
200
Detailed wall model

Experimental result
200

Experimental result
100
30
30
400
300
25
30
Specimen WSH5
Specimen WSH5
15
20
Drift: %
30

Experimental result
700
100
0
0
05
05
Specimen WSH3
30
400
Experimental result
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Experimental result
05
Detailed wall model
30
Specimen WSH4
Specimen WSH2
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Detailed wall model

Experimental result
0
30
15
Specimen WSH3
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Detailed wall model

Experimental result
05

Experimental result
0
30
Specimen WSH4
Specimen WSH1
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Specimen WSH2
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
05
10
15
20
Drift: %
Figure 14. Lateral loaddrift behaviour: comparison between theoretical models (left, detailed wall model;
right, simplified wall model) and experimental data of Dazio et al. (2009)
25
30
05
10
15
20
Drift: %
25
30

Lateral force: kN
05
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
Lateral force: kN
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Volume 65 Issue 13
824
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Lateral force: kN

Volume 65 Issue 13

160
160
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
40
Specimen RW1
Experimental result
40
Specimen RW1
Experimental result
20
Detailed wall model
20
60
Lateral force: kN
05
10
15
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
25
Experimental result
Detailed wall model
05
10
15
Drift: %
20
05
10
15
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Specimen RW2
25
Specimen RW2
Experimental result
0
25
20
05
10
15
Drift: %
20
25
Lateral force: kN

model) and experimental data of Thomsen and Wallace (2004)
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
Specimen W1
30
Specimen W1
20
Detailed wall model
20
10
Experimental result
10
Experimental result
Lateral force: kN
05
10
15
20
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
25
30
Specimen W2
Experimental result
Detailed wall model
05
10
15
Drift: %
20
25
35
30
05
10
15
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
20
25
30
Specimen W2
Experimental result
05
10
15
Drift: %
20
25
30

model) and experimental data of Su and Wong (2007)
825

Volume 65 Issue 13

properties were used in the detailed and simplified wall

models.
j Both wall models are in good agreement with the test results
for slender walls (a 3.0) with very light longitudinal
reinforcement ratio (Thomsen and Wallace, 2004) and slender
walls (a 4.0) with heavier longitudinal reinforcement ratio
and higher axial load ratio (Su and Wong, 2007). This
demonstrates that the models are capable of predicting the
lateral loaddisplacement behaviour of slender walls with an
extended range of longitudinal reinforcement ratio
(rv . 2.0%) and axial load ratio (n . 0.20).
The yield drifts for all walls varied widely between 0.1 and 0.7%.
The ultimate drifts were reasonable, in the range 1.33.2%,
except specimen WSH1 where the low ductile longitudinal
reinforcement resulted in a maximum drift of 1.0%.
Overall, the detailed wall model prediction of the lateral load

drift behaviour shows good agreement with the experimental
results. The simplified wall model provides a more conservative
approach in estimating the drift capacity of walls, which can be
very useful for an initial design check. It should also be noted
that the simplified wall model is more suitable for moderate and
slender walls rather than squat walls since it tends to underestimate the ultimate drift of RC walls with aspect ratios less
than 1.0.
Overall, the detailed wall model provided good correlation with

the experimental results, while the simplified wall model provided
a conservative and quick guide for the initial checking of wall
drift capacities, particularly for walls with an axial load ratio
n , 0.20. The simplified wall model is considered a very useful
tool for initially assessing the seismic performance of buildings
in regions of lower seismicity, using the capacity spectrum
method and displacement principles.
Acknowledgement
Financial support in the form of the ARC discovery grant
Displacement controlled behaviour of non-ductile structural
walls in regions of lower seismicity (DP1096753) is acknowledged.
REFERENCES
ACI (American Concrete Institute) (2008) ACI 318-2008:
Interestingly, the yield drifts for all walls varied widely between
0.1 and 0.7%, and the ultimate drifts were reasonable and in the
range 1.33.2%, except specimen WSH1 where the low ductile
longitudinal reinforcement resulted in a maximum drift of 1.0%.
Conclusions
In general, designers have a very good understanding of the
strength characteristic of wall elements but have very little
understanding of the corresponding drift behaviour, which is
essential for assessing the earthquake performance of wall
structures.
A literature study was undertaken to investigate parameters
affecting the lateral loaddisplacement behaviour of RC rectangular walls, particularly lightly reinforced RC walls. Four parameters were investigated aspect ratio, axial load ratio,
transverse reinforcement ratio and longitudinal reinforcement
ratio. The overall trends of the different parameters on the
ultimate drift capacity are mixed, indicating that these parameters
have some interdependence (particularly the aspect ratio and the
longitudinal steel ratio). However, it was observed that the
ultimate drift capacity increased with decreasing axial load ratio,
increasing transverse steel ratio and increasing aspect ratio for
slender walls.
Two models a detailed wall model and a simplified wall model
were developed to predict the lateral loaddisplacement
relationship of RC rectangular walls. Both models were compared
with experimental results in the literature, consisting of 14
rectangular RC walls from four studies with aspect ratio
0.5 < a < 4.0, axial load ratio 0.02 < n < 0.50, longitudinal reinforcement ratio 0.2% < rv < 2.0% and transverse reinforcement
ratio 0.0% < rh < 1.0%.
826
Building code requirements for structural concrete and

commentary. ACI, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
ACI-ASCE (ACI-ASCE Committee 428) (1968) Progress report on
code clauses for limit design. ACI Journal 65(9): 713715.
Adebar P, Ibrahim A and Bryson M (2007) Test of high-rise core
wall: effective stiffness for seismic analysis. ACI Structural
Journal 104(5): 549559.
Altheeb A, Albidah A, Lam NTK and Wilson JL (2012) Seismic
Drift Capacity of Lightly Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls.
Research Report, Department of Infrastructure Engineering,
School of Engineering, University of Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia.
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) (2006) ASCE
41-2006: Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. ASCE,
Reston, VA, USA.
ATC (Applied Technology Council) (1996) ATC40: Seismic
evaluation and retrofitting of concrete buildings. ATC,
Redwood City, CA, USA.
Belmouden Y and Lestuzzi P (2007) Analytical model for
predicting nonlinear reversed cyclic behaviour of reinforced
concrete structural walls. Engineering Structures 29(7):
12631276.
Beyer K, Dazio A and Priestley MJN (2008) Quasi-static cyclic
tests of two U-shaped reinforced concrete walls. Journal of
Earthquake Engineering 12(7): 10231053.
Cao W, Xu T, Liu Q, Zhang J and Zhang Y (2009) Experimental
study on seismic performance of high-rise recycled aggregate
concrete shear wall. World Earthquake Engineering 25(2):
1823.
Cardenas A and Magura D (1975) Strength of High-Rise Shear
Walls: Rectangular Cross Section, Portland Cement
Association, Skokie, IL, USA, RD029.01D. Reprinted from
Response of Multistory Concrete Structures to Lateral Forces.

Volume 65 Issue 13

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA,

SP92, pp. 119150.
Chiou YJ, Mo YL, Hsiao FP, Liou YW and Sheu MS (2003)
Experimental and analytical studies on large-scale reinforced
concrete framed shear walls. ACI Structural Journal 211(2):
201222.
Dazio A, Beyer K and Bachmann H (2009) Quasi-static cyclic
tests and plastic hinge analysis of RC structural walls.
Engineering Structures 31(7): 15561571.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) (2000) FEMA
356: Prestandard and commentary for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA, Washington, DC, USA.
Fenwick RC and Bull D (2000) What is the stiffness of reinforced
concrete walls? SESOC Journal 13(2): 2332.
Fenwick RC, Hunt R and Bull D (2001) Stiffness of structural
walls for seismic design. SESOC Journal 14(2): 2234.
Gebreyohaness A, Clifton C and Butterworth J (2011) Behaviour
of inadequately detailed reinforced concrete walls.
Proceedings of Australian Earthquake Engineering Society
2011 Conference, Barossa Valley, SA, Australia, Paper
No. 23.
Ghobarah A and Youssef M (1999) Modelling of reinforced
concrete structural walls. Engineering Structures 21(10):
912923.
Greifenhagen C and Lestuzzi P (2005) Static cyclic tests on
lightly reinforced concrete shear walls. Engineering
Structures 27(11): 17031712.
Hidalgo PA, Jordan RM and Martinez MP (2002) An analytical
model to predict the inelastic seismic behaviour of shear-wall,
reinforced concrete structures. Engineering Structures 24:
8589.
Hines E, Seible F and Priestley M (2002) Seismic Performance of
Hollow Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Piers with Highly
Confined Boundary Elements. Phase I: Flexural Tests. Phase
II: Shear Tests. Department of Civil Engineering, University
of California, San Diego, CA, USA, Report SSRP-99/15.
Huang CL, Li YF, Lin CT and Hsu TH (2011) Analytical and
pushover analysis for predicting nonlinear force-displacement
relationship of slender walls. Journal of the Chinese Institute
of Engineers 34(3): 415428.
Jalali A and Dashti F (2010) Nonlinear behavior of reinforced
concrete shear walls using macroscopic and microscopic
models. Engineering Structures 32(9): 29592968.
Kuang J and Ho Y (2007) Inherent ductility of non-seismically
designed and detailed reinforced concrete shear walls. Hong
Kong Institution of Engineers Transactions 14(1): 712.
Lefas I, Kotsovos M and Ambraseys N (1990) Behavior of
reinforced concrete structural walls: strength, deformation
characteristics, and failure mechanism. ACI Structural
Journal 87(1): 2331.
Lestuzzi P and Bachmann H (2007) Displacement ductility and
energy assessment from shaking table tests on RC structural
walls. Engineering Structures 29(8): 17081721.
Li B and Xiang W (2011) Effective stiffness of squat structural
walls. Journal of Structural Engineering 137(12): 14701479.
Liang X, Yang P, Cul X, Deng M and Zhang X (2010)
Experimental studies on seismic behavior of high strength

concrete shear wall with boundary columns. Journal of
Building Structures 31(1): 2332.
Oesterle RG, Aristizabal-Ochoa JD, Fiorato AE, Russell HG and
Corley WG (1979) Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls
Tests of Isolated Walls Phase II. PCA Construction
Technology Laboratories, Skokie, IL, USA, Report to
National Science Foundation.
Oh YH, Han SW and Lee LH (2002) Effect of boundary element
details on the seismic deformation capacity of structural
walls. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 31(8):
583602.
Orakcal K, Wallace JW and Conte JP (2004) Nonlinear modelling
and analysis of slender reinforced concrete walls. ACI
Structural Journal 101(5): 688699.
Panagiotakos TB and Fardis MN (2001) Deformations of
reinforced concrete members at yielding and ultimate. ACI
Structural Journal 98(2): 135148.
Park R and Paulay T (1975) Reinforced Concrete Structures.
Wiley, New York, NY, USA.
Paulay T (2001) Seismic response of structural walls: recent
developments. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 28(6):
922937.
Paulay T and Priestley M (1992) Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Structures. Wiley, New York, NY,
USA.
Pilakoutas K and Elnashai A (1995a) Cyclic behavior of
reinforced concrete cantilever walls. Part I: experimental
results. ACI Materials Journal 92(3): 271281.
Pilakoutas K and Elnashai A (1995b) Cyclic behavior of
reinforced concrete cantilever walls. Part II: discussions and
theoretical comparisons. ACI Structural Journal 92(4): 425
434.
Priestley NJM and Paulay T (2002) What is the stiffness of
concrete walls? Discussion of the paper by R. Fenwick and D.
Bull. SESOC Journal 15(1): 3034.
Priestley MJN, Seible F and Calvi GM (1996) Seismic Design and
Retrofit of Bridges. Wiley, New York, NY, USA.
Priestley MJN, Calvi GM and Kowalsky MJ (2007) DisplacementBased Seismic Design of Structures. IUSS Press, Pavia,
Italy.
Salonikios TN, Kappo AJ, Teogs IA and Penelis GG (1999) Cyclic
load behaviour of low-slenderness reinforced concrete walls:
design basis and test results. ACI Structural Journal 97(1):
132141.
Sasani M and Der Kiureghian A (2001) Seismic fragility of RC
structural walls: displacement approach. Journal of Structural
Engineering ASCE 127(2): 219228.
SNZ (Standards New Zealand) (1995) NZS 3101-1995: Concrete
structures standard, Part 1 and 2. SNZ, Wellington, New
Zealand.
Standards Australia (2001) AS3600-2001: Concrete structures.
Standards Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Standards Australia (2007) AS 1170.4-2007: Structural design
827

Volume 65 Issue 13

actions. Part 4: Earthquake actions in Australia. Standards

Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Su RKL and Wong SM (2007) Seismic behaviour of slender
reinforced concrete shear walls under high axial load ratio.
Engineering Structures 29: 19571965.
Thomsen JH and Wallace JW (2004) Displacement based design
of slender reinforced concrete structural walls experimental
verification. Journal of Structural Engineering 130(4): 618
630.
Vallenas JM, Bertero VV and Popov EP (1979) Hysteretic
Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls.
University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. Report UBC/
EERC-79/20.
Wallace JW (2007) Modelling issues for tall reinforced concrete
core wall buildings. The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings 16(5): 615632.
Wesley DA and Hashimoto PS (1981) Seismic Structural Fragility
Investigation for the Zion Nuclear Power Plant. US Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Bethesda, MD, USA, Report
NUREG/CR-2320.
Wibowo A (2012) Seismic Performance of Insitu and Precast Soft
Storey Buildings. PhD thesis, Swinburne University of
Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Wibowo A, Wilson JL, Lam NTK and Gad EF (2013) Drift capacity
of lightly reinforced columns. Australian Journal of
Structural Engineering, in press.
Wood S (1989) Minimum tensile reinforcement requirements in
walls. ACI Structural Journal 86(5): 582591.
Zhang H, Lu X and Wu X (2009) Cyclic loading experiment and
numerical simulation of RC walls. In World Congress on
Computer Science and Information Engineering, vol. 2, pp.
642647.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please submit up to 500 words to

the editor at www.editorialmanager.com/macr by 1
January 2014. Your contribution will be forwarded to the
author(s) for a reply and, if considered appropriate by
the editorial panel, will be published as a discussion in a
future issue of the journal.
828

Seismic Performance of Lightly Reinforced Structural Walls For Design Purposes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Performance of Lightly Reinforced Structural Walls For Design Purposes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Magazine of Concrete Research

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2013, 65(13), 809828