SP

63-10

Strength of Low-Rise Structural Walls

By A. E. Cardenas, H. G. Russell, and W. G. Corley

Synopsis:
The results of an experimental investigation to determine strength of rectangular low-rise
structural walls for buildings are presented in this
report,
Seven large specimens with "height-to-hor izontal-length" ratios of 1.0 were subjected to static
in-plane horizontal loads.
One of the specimens was
subjected to ten cycles of load reversals.
Variables
in the test program were amount and distribution of
vertical and horizontal reinforcement.
The walls did
not have any boundary elements or special hoop reinforcement.
No vertical load was applied.
Results indicate that low-rise rectangular walls
can develop shear stresses on the order of 10 ~ psi
(0.83
MPa), Also,
results indicate that shear
strengths implied by Section 11.10, Special Provisions
for Walls, of the 1977 ACI Building Code provide a
reasonable lower bound capacity, even when load reversals are applied.

Jib

Keywords: building codes; cyclic loads; deformation; earthquake

resistant structures; flexural strength; lateral pressure; loads
(forces); reinforced concrete; reinforcing steels; research; shear
strength; shear stress; shearwalls; static loads; tests; wall~

221

222

Cardenas, Russell, and Corley

Dr. Alex E. Cardenas is Principal of Cardenas &

Bautista, Consulting Engineers, Lima, Peru.
He is a
former Structural Engineer, Structural Development
Department,
Portland
Cement
Association,
Skokie,
Illinois.
He received his Ph.D. in 1968 from University of Illinois.
He is a member of ACI Committee
442, Lateral Forces, and a liaison member of ACI Committee 318, Standard Building Code.
Dr. Henry G. Russell is Director, Structural Development Department, Portland Cement Association, Skokie,
Illinois.
He received his Ph.D. in 1965 from the
University of Sheffield, England.
He is a member of
ACI Committees 223, Expansive Cement Concretes, and
358, Concrete Guideways.
Dr. William G. Corley, FACI, is Divisional Director,
Engineering
Development Division,
Portland Cement
Association, Skokie, Illinois.
Dr. Corley is active
on several ACI technical committees and is a frequent
contributor to ACI publications.

BACKGROUND
A review of theoretical and experimental research
concerning walls as lateral load resisting elements
has been presented previously (1).
It was implied
(1,2) that structural wall systems can be divided
into two major categories.
These are high-rise walls
and low-rise walls.
For high-rise walls, geometric characteristics of
the element and its vertical and horizontal load distributions make flexure the controlling design parameter in most cases.
It has been stated (1) that for
many of these walls, the minimum amount of horizontal
and vertical shear reinforcement, as specified in the
1977 ACI Building Code (3) will be adequate to ensure
development of flexural strength of the wall.
However, the Code provisions are based upon monotonic
loading.
For this reason, their applicability to
earthquake loading conditions has been questioned.
Low-rise walls must have relatively large shear
capacity to enable flexural strength development.
In
this case, amount and relative distribution of the
horizontal and vertical reinforcement are the major
parameters affecti~g strength of the wall.
Other

Low-Rise Structural Walls

223

tests (4) have shown that low-rise walls with boundary

elements can support significant horizontal load even
after the web has been destroyed.
However, load
capacity is considerably reduced after severe damage
to the wall.
Other experimental research on structural walls
(5) has examined the effect of boundary elements,
represented by cross walls or end columns, on the
strength of the wall.
Load-deformation characteristics, under application of cyclic loading to simulate earthquakes have
been determined,
Theoretical analyses
(6,7)
have
been used to evaluate required rotations and ductility
ratios of walls. The analyses have used seismic loads
based on actual earthquake records.
In some cases (7), ductilities of structural wall
systems have been evaluated for combinations of stiffness and strength distributions along the height of
the wall.
OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE
The experimental investigation described in this
paper was intended to obtain basic information on the
strength and deformation of reinforced concrete walls
under slowly-applied lateral forces. Also, the effect
of vertical and horizontal reinforcement in carrying
the shear forces was investigated.
Seven large specimens with a "height-to-horizontal-length" ratio of l. 0 were tested.
LateraL load
was slowly applied at the top of the wall through an
enlarged monolithic section that simulated a floor
slab in an actual building.
The tests were intended to determine the basic
behavior of low-rise rectangular walls. Consequently,
effects of boundary elements were not considered in
this investigation.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
This section describes characteristics of the
specimens, their loading, instrumentation, and test
results.

224

Cardenas, Russell, and Corley

Specimen Characteristics
Overall dimensions for each of the seven specimens
were 75x3x75 in. (l905x76xl905 mm) as shown in Fig. l.
The "height-to-horizontal-length" ratio, of the wall,
was constant at 1.0 for all specimens.
Among the
variables were amount and distribution of vertical
and horizontal reinforcement.
These are listed in
Table l. Specimen SW-13 was also subjected to loadreversals. Applied vertical load was not included in
this investigation.
Vertical
reinforcement was
either
distributed
uniformly over the horizontal wall length or concentrated near the ends, as listed in Table l. All horizontal
and
vertical
reinforcement
consisted
of
straight bars.
Reinforcement details are given in
Fig. 2.
In Specimen SW-7, the ratio of vertical reinforcement, Pn in the interior wall region was approximately 0.01.
There was no vertical reinforcement in
the interior wall portions of Specimens SW-10, SW-11,
and SW-12.
When vertical reinforcement was uniformly
distributed throughout the horizontal length of the
wall, the amount was held constant at Pn = 0.03.
Horizontal
reinforcement,
when
provided,
was
uniformly distributed along the wall height.
The
ratio, Ph varied from 0.0027 to 0.01.
Specimen
SW-10 did not have horizontal or vertical reinforcement in the interior region. This wall was tested to
determine the shear contribution attributed to the
concrete.
Specimens SW-9 and SW-13 had the same reinforcement distribution. However, SW-13 was loaded to evaluate the effect of high shear force reversals on the
strength of the wall. Specimen SW-9 was subjected to
monotonic loading.
Specimen SW-13 was subjected to
ten cycles of reversing load.
Nominal concrete compressive design strength was
6000 psi. (41.4 MPa).
All reinforcement met requirements of ASTM Designation: A615-68, Grade 60 (8).
Loading and Instrumentation
All specimens, except SW-13, were tested in a
manner similar to the high-rise walls reported pre-

Low-Rise Structural Walls

viously (2).
However,
to the low-rise walls.

225

vertical load was not applied

Figure 3 shows the test set-up for Specimen SW-13

under load reversals. The 18-in. (457 mm) thick rigid
concrete block at the base of the wall was post-tensioned to the laboratory test floor (9,10) simulating
a rigid foundation.
Horizontal loads were applied at
the top of the wall by hydraulic rams.
The loading
system was arranged to apply load horizontally.
All specimens were instrumented with electrical
resistance strain gages at critical locations on both
vertical
and
horizontal
reinforcement.
Concrete
strains were measured in three directions with electrical resistance strain gages.
Rotations near the base of the wall were measured
with Linear Variable Differential Transformers (LVDT)
located neaF each end of the cross-section.
The
LVDT's were connected to directly measure angle
changes over a 12-in. (305 mm) gage length.
Load cells were used to monitor loads.
Lateral
deflections of all specimens were measured at 12-in.
(305 mm)
intervals to an accuracy of
0.001 in.
(0.025 mm) (9).
Test Results
Test results and the observed behavior for the
seven specimens are listed in Table 2.
The measured
shear stresses in the table were based on a depth of
0. 8 R. w or greater as determined by strain compatibility and measured material properties.
Figure 4
shows photographs of each wall after testing to
destruction.
In general, the observed behavior o.O:: all walls
followed the same pattern.
After application of a
certain load level, flexural cracking occurred at the
base of the wall starting at the extreme fiber in
tension.
With increasing load, the flexural cracking
continued to spread at a slight inclination towards
the compression zone at the base of the wall. As the
load was increased, diagonal shear cracking occurred.
This diagonal cracking produced a sudden change in
strains in the web reinforcement, especially in the
horizontal reinforcement.
Further increase in load after the appearance of
diagonal cracks caused the cracks to become larger.

226

Cardenas, Russell, and Corley

As listed in Table 2, the observed mode of destruction

depended greatly on the amount of web reinforcement.
Specimens SW-7 and SW-8 contained 0.0027 horizontal web reinforcement near the minimum specified in
the ACI Code (3).
After the formation of diagonal
cracks, the force in the horizontal reinforcement
increased with further widening and propagation of
the inclined crack.
Increased load caused the horizontal web reinforcement to yield.
Further deformation caused a decrease in depth of the compressive
zone of the concrete, thereby resulting in crushing
of the concrete in compression.
A similar mode of destruction was observed for
Specimen SW-10 except that horizontal web reinforcement was not present to restrain the faster growth of
the inclined cracking.
In this case, maximum load
was reached soon after formation of the inclined shear
crack.
It should be noted, however, that the specimen was designed without web reinforcement to evaluate the contribution of concrete alone to the shear
strength of walls as specified in Section 11.10 of
the 1977 ACI Building Code (3).
The minimum amount
of vertical and horizontal reinforcement of 0,0025
should always be provided in shear walls.
Specimens SW-11 and SW-12 showed a mode of
destruction labeled as shear-anchorage in Table 2.
Both specimens had a third of the total vertical reinforcement concentrated near the ends of the cross
section.
When inclined cracks (11) formed in Specimens SW-11 and SW-12, as shown in Fig. 4, the force
in the reinforcement located near the right vertical
edge of the wall became constant along the wall
height.
Inadequate anchorage development length of
the straight vertical reinforcement in the upper part
of the wall apparently precipitated early failure of
the specimen.
A close-up of the anchorage region of
Specimen SW-12 after test is shown in Fig. 5.
Performance of this specimen emphasizes the observation
that anchorage zones are extremely impor.tant in this
type of structural wall.
The third type of behavior, listed in Table 2 as
flexure-shear, was observed in Specimens SW-9 and
SW-13.
Both walls had the same amount of uniformly
distributed vertical reinforcement, 0.03, and the
same amount of horizontal reinforcement 0.01.
The
only difference was in the loading.
Specimen SW-9
was subjected to monotonic load, while SW-13 was subjected to reversed load.

Low-Rise Structural Walls

227

In Specimens SW-9 and SW-13, vertical and hor izontal reinforcement restrained the growth of the
inclined cracks.
For SW-13, cracks were orthogonal
and at about 45 as shown in Fig. 4.
With increased
load, the compressive force transmitted through the
diagonal concrete struts appeared to initiate crushing on a horizontal plane.
Eventually the crushing
propagated to a section near the base of the wall as
shown in Fig. 4.
This tension type of behavior
occurred when most of the vertical reinforcement had
yielded and the specimen had reached its calculated
shear strength.
It should be noted, however, that Specimen SW-13,
subjected to load-reversals, had about 7% less measured horizontal load capacity than SW-9.
This difference can be attributed to a decrease in strength
due to load reversals, the scatter of test results,
or both.
Curves
showing
applied
load
versus
measured
deflection for all specimens without load reversals
are given in Fig. 6. For all specimens, the relationship between load and deflection was approximately
linear until just prior to maximum load.
In all
cases, destruction of the specimen was sudden with
very little flattening of the load-deflection curve.
For Specimen SW-13 subjected to load reversals,
load-deflection loops were obtained for each load
cycle.
By joining the ends of each loop for the
different cycles,
a load-deflection envelope was
obtained. The envelope is shown in Fig. 7. For comparison purposes, the load-deflection curve for Specimen SW-9 is also shown.
It is evident that load
reversals had very little effect on the load-deflection relationship.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER INVESTIGATIONS
The experimental results reported in this paper
were used in the development of section 11.10, Special
Provisions for Walls, of the 1977 ACI Building Code
(3).
At that time, the results included only one
test on walls subjected to reversals of high shear
forces.
However, recent experimental data on walls
tested at the Portland Cement Association under load
reversals (4,5) have been developed.
A comparison of measured strength and calculated
shear strength of structural walls is shown in Fig. 8.
The calculated values were obtained by using Section

228

Cardenas, Russell, and Corley

11.10, Special Provisions for Walls, of the 1977 ACI

Building Code.
The experimental results used for
comparison are those reported by Muto and Kokusho
(12), Ogura, Kokusho and Matsoura (13), Benjamin and
Williams (14,15), Antebi, Utku and Hansen (16), and
Cardenas et al ( 2).
Recent available data include
tests reported by Barda et al (4) and Fiorato et al
(5). A summary of the data is given in Table 3.
In some cases, the maximum capacity of walls was
limited by modes of behavior other than shear.
For
those walls, the measured strength shown in Fig. 8
represents a lower limit for shear strength.
If the
wall strength had been limited by shear, it is likely
that the measured strengths would have been higher.
In Fig. 8, the letter "R" indicates specimens
subjected to load reversals.
The solid and dashed
lines indicate ACI design shear strength values for
strength-reduction factors of ~ = 1.0 and 0.85 respectively. As can be seen, design shear strength implied
by the 1977 ACI Building Code provides a satisfactory
lower
bound value even when reversed loads are
applied.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on these experimental results on shear
.strength of walls subjected to monotonic and reversing
lateral loads, the following can be co.lCluded:
1.

The shear strength provisions for walls contained

in Section 11.10 of the ACI 318-77 (3) provide
designs that assume strength equal to or greater
than those calculated, even for reversals of
loading.

2.

In this investigation, strength of a wall subjected to monotonic loading was on the order of
7% greater than for a similar wall subjected to
reversals of high shear forces.
Other investigations (4) have indicated a decrease of 10% for
low-rise walls under high shear forces.

3.

For walls with height-to-horizontal-length ratios

of 1.0, both vertical and horizontal shear reinforcement, as required for walls in the 1977 ACI
Building Code, are effective in contributing to
the shear strength of walls.
Their relative
effectiveness for different "height-to-horizontallength" ratios was not examined in this work.

Low-Rise Structural Walls

229

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This investigation was carried out at the Structural Laboratory of the Portland Cement Association.
Particular credit is due B. W. Fullhart and B. J.
Doepp for their work in manufacturing and testing the
specimens.
REFERENCES
l.

Cardenas, A.E., Hanson, J .M., Corley, W.G., and

Hognestad,
E.,
"Design Provisions
for
Shear
Walls," Journal of the American Concrete Institue, Proceedings Vol. 70, No. 3, March 1973, pp.
221-230.
Also PCA Research and Development Bulletin RD028.01D.

2.

Cardenas, A.E. and Magura, D.O., "Strength of

High-Rise Shear Walls--Rectangular Cross Sections," Response of Multistory Concrete Structures
to
Lateral
Forces,
SP-36,
American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1973, pp. 119-150.
Also
PCA
Research
and
Development
Bullet in
RD029. 0 lD.

3.

"Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-77) ," American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, 1977, 102 pp.

4.

Barda, F., Hanson, J.M., and Corley, W.G., "Shear

Strength of Low-Rise Walls with Boundary Elements," Reinforced Concrete Structures in Seismic zones SP-53, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit 1977.
Also PCA Research and Development
Bulletin RD043.0lD.

5.

Fiorato, A.E., Oesterle, R.G., and Carpenter,

J.E., "Reversing Load tests of Five Isolated
Structural Walls," Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earthquake Structural Engineering, University of Missouri- Rolla, August
1976, Vol. 1, pp. 437-453.

6.

Derecho, A.T., Freskakis, G.N., and Fintel, M.,

"A Study of the Effect of the Frequency Characteristics of Ground Motions on Nonlinear Structural Response," Proceeding~ of the International
Symposium on Earthquake Structural Engineering,
University of Missouri
Rolla, August 1976,
Vol. 1 pp. 21-36.

230

Cardenas, Russell, and Corley

7.

Esteva, L. and Guerra, O.R., "Equivalent Properties and Ductility Requirements in Seismic Analysis of Nonlinear Systems," Proceedings of Sixth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New
Delhi, India- January, 1977.

8.

Standard Specification for "Deformed and Plain

Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,"
Designation A615-74a, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa., 11 pp.

9.

Hognestad, E., Hanson, N.W., Kriz, L.B., and

Kurvits, O.A., "Facilities and Test Methods of
PCA Structural Laboratory," Journal of The Portland Cement Association, Research and Development Labor a tor 1es, Vol. 1, No. 1, January 1959,
pp. 12-20 and 40-44; Vol. 1, No, 2, May 1959,
pp. 30-37; Vol. 1, No.3, September 1959, pp.
35-41; reprinted jointly as PCA Development Bulletin D33.

10.

Hanson, N.W., Hsu, T.T.C., Kurvits, O.A., and

Mattock, A.H., "Facilities and Test Methods of
PCA Structural Laboratory
Improvements 196065.1," Journal of The Portland Cement Association,
Research and Development Laboratories,
Vol. 3, No. 2, May 1961, pp. 27-31; Vol. 7., No.
1, January 1965, pp. 2-9; and Vol. 7, No. 2, May
1965, pp. 24-38; reprinted jointly as PCA Development Bulletin D91.

11.

ACI-ACSE Committee 326 {426), "Shear and Diagonal

Tension," ACI Journal, Proceedings Vol. 59, No.
1, Jan. 1962, pp. l-30; No. 2, Feb. 1962, pp.
277-334; and No. 3, Mar. 1962, pp. 353-396.

12.

Muto, K. and Kokusho, K., "Experimental Study on

Two-Story Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls," Muto
Laboratory, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan,
Transactions, Architectural Institute of Japan
{Tokyo), Vol. 47, Sept. 1953, 7 pp.
Translated
by T. Akagi, University of Illinois, Urbana~
Illinois, August, 1959.

13.

Ogura, K., Kokusho, K., and Matsoura, N., "Tests

to Failure of Two-Story Rigid Frames with Walls,"
Part 24, Experimental Study No. 6, Japan Society
of Architects Report No. 18, February 1952.
Translated by T. Akagi, University of Illinois,
Urbana, Illinois, August 1959.

231

Low-Rise Structural Walls

14.

Williams, H.A. and Benjamin, J.R., "Investigation of Shear Walls - Part 3 - Experimental and
Mathematical Studies of the Behavior of Plain
and Re1nforced Concrete Walled Bents Under Static
Shear Load1ng," Department of C1vil Engtneering,
Stanford University, Stanford, California, July
1953, 142 pp.

15.

Benjamin, J.R. and Williams, H.A., "Investiga-

tion of Shear Walls - Part 6 - Continued Experimental and Mathematical Studies of Reinforced
Concrete Walled Bents Under Static Shear Loading," Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford, California, August 1954,
59 pp.

16.

Antebi, J. , Utku, s. , and Hansen, R .J. ' "The

ResEonse of Shear Walls to Dynamic Loads, II MIT
Department of Civil and Sanitary Engineering,
1160) , Cambridge, Mass. , August 1960,
(DASA
290 pp.
APPENDIX - NOTATIONS

As

Total area of vertical reinforcement.

Distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension steel (Taken as 0.8 Qw or
greater).

f'c

Compressive
strength
of
standard
(l52x305 mm) concrete cylinders.

fct

Splitting tensile strength of standard 6xl2-in.

(l52x305 mm) concrete cylinders.

fy

Yield strength of reinforcement.

Wall thickness.

Qw

Horizontal length of wall.

vc

Nominal shear stress carried by concrete.

Vs

Nominal shear stress carried by reinforcement.

vu

Nominal total shear stress.

Vu

Nominal shear strength.

6xl2-in.

232

Cardenas, Russell, and Corley

Ratio of horizontal shear reinforcement area to
the gross concrete area of a vertical section
of the wall web.

Pn

Ratio of vertical reinforcement area to the

gross concrete area of a horizontal section of
wall web.

Strength reduction factor;

Table l - Dimensions and Material Properties of Test Specimens

Reinforcement
Concrete
Vertical
Specimen
Designation

llorizontaJ.

Ratio
pn *

Yield
Stress
f
y
psi

Ratio
ph

Yield
Stress
f
y
psi

Camp.
Strength
fI
c
psi

Tensile
Split.
Strength
f
ct
psi

SW-7

0.0230+

65,000

0.0027

60,000

6,240

630

SW-8

0.0300

65,000

0.0027

67,500

6,160

565

SW-9

0.0300

65,000

0. 010 0

60,000

6,240

630

SW-10

0.0165++

65,000

None

None

5,850

565

SW-11

0.0230+

65,000

0.0075

65,000

5,540

535

SW-12

0.0230+

65,000

0.0100

65,000

5,570

530

SW-13

0.0030

65,000

0.0100

66,000

6,300

630

pn

As

where As = total area of vertical reinforcement,

Qw = 75 in. and h = 3 in. Reinforcement

buted uniformly unless noted otherwise.
+ One-third of total vertical reinforcement was
within a distance of ~w/10 from either
cross-section
(Ratio of reinforcement
region was Pn = 0.01.).

was

distri-

concentrated
extremity of
in interior

++ One-half of total vertical reinforcement was concentrated

within a distance of ~w/10 from either extremity of
cross-section.
(Ratio of reinforcement in interior
region was Pn = 0).
Conversion equivalents for
1 psi = 6.895 kPa.

SI

units

are 1 ft

0.305 m;

Table 2 - Test Results

Calculated
Parameters
Specimen
Designation

Flexural Strength
Moment at base, kip-ft

Shear Strength
Measured

Ratio
d/Qw
at
ultimate*

Measured

Calculated*

Measured
Calculated

v +

vu
kips

Calculated**

_u_ _

v_
+_
vs
_c

hd~
psi

.ff'c

Measured
Calculated

Observed Mode
of Destruction

6"
~I

psi

0.74

729

980

0.74

116.7

8.2

5.3

l. 55

Shear

::;a
r;:;

0.65

801

1000

0.79

128.1 I

9.1

5.6

1.63

Shear

(I)

0.65

954

1000

0.95

152.7110.7

10.0

1.07

Flexure-Shear

SW-10

0.94

429

700

0.61

68.7 I

4.3

3.3

l. 30

She<~r

SW-11

0.94

856

1000

0.86

137.0 I

8.7

9.8

0.89

Shear-Anchorage

SW-12

0.94

925

1000

0.93

148.0 I

9.4

10.0

0.94

Shear-Anchorage

SW-13++

0.65

888

1000

0.89

142.11 10.0

10.0

l.OO

Flexure-Shear

swswsw-

* Based on limiting concrete strain of 0.003, strain compatibility and measured material properties.

tl)

"c''
0.
c

et

f'ii"'

** Calculated from 1977 ACI Building Code (3).

+ d taken as 0.8 2w or greater.

++ SW-13 was subjected to 10 cycles of load reversals.

1 kip = 4.445 kN; 1 ft = 0.305 m; ~ psi = 0.0830 ~ MPa.

~
~
~

Table 3 - Summary of Recent Test Results

Reinforcement Percentage
Specimen
No.

f'

Shape*

Boundary

Web
Vertical

pf

Pn

Web
Horizontal
ph

Strength

c
psi

vu

.Jfi
c

Meas~red

ps1

Calcu~ated

ps1

B5-4
B6-4

F
F
F
F
F
F

B7-5

B4-3

B8-5

1.8

0.5

0.5

4200

15.5

6.4

0.5

0.5

2370

15.8

10.0

4.1

0.5

0.5

3920

9.2

4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1

0.5

2760

14.1
15.4

0 .5
0.5
0.5
0.5

4190

8.3

8.9

3080

12.3

9.8

3730

14.8

9.3

4.1

0.25
0.5
0.5

3400

12.1

8.9

3.3

9.5

F1

3.9

0.3

0.7

5580

10.5

7.8

B2

3.7

0.3

0.6

7780

7.2

6.0

....(ll

;,:,

(ll
(ll

!E.

....

Q..

("')

""
tr

Fiorato et al (5)

* F

""
Q..

t'D

Barda et al (4)

Bl-1
B2-l
B3-2

("')
~

= Flange, B = Barbell
psi = 6.895 kPa; Jfl psi
c

0.0830

.Jfic

MPa

"'<

Low-Rise Structural Walls

235

18"
in.= 25.4 mm

Fig. 1--Nominal dimensions of test specimens of test specimens

236

Cardenas, Russell, and Corley

.....

-r-

15-04
@5'

21#5@3-1/2"

,--

'I

15-D4

tj5"

'--

SW-8

SW-7
21#5@ 3-1/2"

--

1941'3
f) 3-3/4"

"' ,,,,
SW-9, SW-13

SW-10
6#6

+II+-

--

14# 3

19#3

@ 5"

@ 3-3/4 "

,,

-SW-11
All bars ore straight.

Fig. 2--Reinforcement details

'I

SW-12
I in.= 25.4 mm

Low-Rise Structural Walls

237

(V)

.......
3

Vl

s::
OJ

r-

OJ
0.
Vl

s....

.e
0.
::l

+'
OJ

Vl

+'
Vl

OJ
II

I
(V)

,,_
LL.

......,

......

l.

... ..;.

...,

~- ,___ ,. ~

. ' ' ,:j

..

n
~

.
/ . .

=~>~r
SW-8

SW-7
Pn =0.023
vu =8.2

Pn =0.0027

Pn=0.030

../fZ psi

""'

Q.
~

:..-~~?

SW-9

p h=OOO
. 27

Pn=0.030

vu=9.1 ~psi

vu

ph=O.OIO

'

=10.7 ~psi

Cll

c'-='

Cll
Cll

~ psi = 0,0830 ~ MPo.

-~

,//</
'-.:"/~

,/
/

"
<.-

,.,.

-. .;..

.:~-;~~-

/
/

,,,..

/'"/

> .

-777~..-7"~...-?"'"~......-......-~

SW-10
Pn=0.017

Ph= 0.0

vu =4.3

-/fC psi

SW-11
Pn=0.023

Ph=0.0075

vu =8.7

Fig. 4--Specimens after testing

v'fC psi

-~.~' ~~/.!

:r

.//J/::
/~/,/:~-1
.

,. .--

L~;,;:;~
SW-12

Pn = 0.023 Ph= 0.010

v'fi psi

'

=
Q.

?.1:

~ .... -~~

_,,

Vu = 9.4

..

::l.
~

"<
SW-13
Pn=0.030

Ph=O.OIO

Yu =10.0 v'fi psi

239

Low-Rise Structural Walls

Fig. 5--Anchorage region of Specimen SW-12 after testing

750
150

Applied
Load,
kN

Applied
Lood,
kips

500
100

250

50

0~----~-----L----~~----L-----~-----+----~o

Measured Deflection

1..

I"= 25.4mm

Fig. 6--Load versus deflection for specimens without load

reversals

240

Cardenas, Russell, and Corley

Deflection, mm
0

5
10
175 r - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - ,
750
150

125

Applied
Load,
100
kips

500

Load,

kN
75

- t - SW-9
- - - SW-13 (Load Reversals)

250

t.__ _ _ _ _ __J__ _ _ _ _ _ _..____,

0.25

0.5

Deflection, in.

Fig. 7--Load versus deflection for Specimens SW-9 and SW-13

241

Low-Rise Structural Walls

20~r-------------.-------------~~
0

Fc psi =0.0830 Fe MPo

"

6.
+

+R

"

+R

..."

"'0
6.
0

10Fc

+ +R
R

6.

0
6

6.

6 xR

rn

6.

6.

+R

xR
to.D.. /

{l

{l

5~

+R o

Measured,
vu, psi.

(cp =10)

0 85

"R" mdicotes load reversals.

/
/

cp=

Test Results
0 Cardenas el. ol. (2)
+ Bordo el al (4)
Fiaralo el. al (5)
"Y Mula, Ogura el. al. (12,13)
6. Benjamin B Williams (14,15)
D Anleb1 el. al (16)

0
Calculated, vu , psi.

Fig. a--Calculated and measured shear strength