Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 323338

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Theoretical and experimental study on precast reinforced concrete wall

panels subjected to shear force
C. Todut , D. Dan, V. Stoian
Department of Civil Engineering, Politehnica University of Timisoara, 2 T. Lalescu, Timisoara 300223, Romania

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 8 April 2014
Revised 8 September 2014
Accepted 9 September 2014
Available online 28 September 2014
Keywords:
Precast
Reinforced concrete
Wall
Experimental test
Seismic behaviour
Shear failure
Deformation capacity
Strength estimation
Energy dissipation

a b s t r a c t
The paper presents the results of the rst part of an experimental program developed to study the seismic
performance of precast reinforced concrete wall panels with and without openings. The specimen characteristics and reinforcement conguration were taken from a typical Romanian project used widely
since 1981 and scaled 1:1.2 due to the constraints imposed by the laboratory facilities. This type of precast wall panels was used mostly for residential buildings with multiple ats built from 1981 to 1989. The
performance and failure mode of all of the panels tested revealed a shear type of failure that is inuenced
by the opening type, and critical areas and lack of reinforcement were observed in certain regions. A
numerical analysis was performed to create a model that could predict the behaviour of the precast reinforced concrete shear walls of different parameters. The performed experimental tests stopped when the
panels lost 20% of their load bearing capacity to be further repaired, strengthened post-damage and subsequently tested again. The precast reinforced concrete walls investigated in this study meet the requirements of Eurocode 8 for walls designed to DCM (medium ductility) as large, lightly reinforced walls.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
A structural system composed of precast reinforced concrete
shear walls can provide a good seismic performance of buildings.
Because of both the 50 years of existence and the actual comfort
requirements of buildings, the use of such a structural system
requires upgrading. Because a signicant number of buildings
use such a system built in Romania and Eastern Europe, research
studies on this type of structural system is strongly encouraged
and required to evaluate the seismic performance, to investigate
the cut-out effects produced in structural walls due to architectural
changes in buildings and nally to improve the ductile behaviour
of the walls and provide solutions for improved seismic performance of buildings. The design of the shear walls for buildings
placed in seismic regions was made according to the design code
of concrete structures, as well as by the design guidelines of buildings for earthquake resistance. Pavese and Bournas [1] investigated
experimentally the behaviour of prefabricated reinforced concrete
sandwich panels (RCSPs) under simulated seismic loading, with
the tests being performed on single full-scale panels with or without openings. These researchers concluded that the presence of the
openings on panels substantially reduced their lateral resistance
Corresponding author. Tel.: +40 256403950; fax: +40 256403958.
E-mail address: carla.todut@student.upt.ro (C. Todut).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.09.019
0141-0296/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

and stiffness. In the presence of openings, the cumulative dissipated energy was lower than for those panels without openings,
while substantial increases in the deformation capacity was
recorded. Jiang and Kurama [2] performed an analytical investigation on the lateral load behaviour and retrot of medium-rise RC
shear walls. Among the conclusions, the researchers stated that
providing connement for walls that initially did not have concrete
connement in combination with the added transverse web reinforcement can result in a much higher lateral displacement capacity. Fragomeni et al. [3] tested forty-seven reinforced concrete
walls with various opening congurations, with the tests being
performed in both one-way and two-way action. The results of
the tests indicated that the failure loads of two-way panels with
openings were approximately two to four times those of similar
one-way panels with openings. Wang et al. [4] performed two
experimental tests of three-storied reinforced concrete structural
walls having large openings. The results of the strength, stiffness,
lateral loaddrift angle relationship indicate that the proposed
macro-model was more adequate. Orakcal et al. [5] conducted an
experimental program to assess the shear strength requirements
for lightly reinforced wall piers and spandrels used in mid-1900s
building construction. Antoniades et al. [6] performed cyclic tests
on seismically damaged low-slenderness reinforced concrete walls
strengthened using Fibre-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement. The
testing of a pilot specimen that was only repaired in a conventional

324

C. Todut et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 323338

Nomenclature
PRCWP

precast reinforced concrete wall panel

aspect ratio
hw
wall height
lw
wall length
DCM
medium ductility class
7,8,10,11,12 number of specimens
E1
narrow door opening
E3
wide door opening
L1
narrow window opening
L1/L3
narrow window opening enlarged to a wide window
opening
T
unstrengthened
As
cross sectional area of reinforcement
Ac
cross sectional area of concrete
fcm,cube
mean concrete cubic strength
fck
characteristic cylinder strength of concrete
fcm
mean value of concrete cylinder compressive strength
fy
yield strength of reinforcement
fu
ultimate strength of reinforcement
Es
modulus of elasticity of steel reinforcement
M
bending resisting moment
V
lateral load
Vexp
experimental shear force
Vth
theoretical shear force
N
axial load
Nc
constant axial force
Nv
variable axial force

as

way revealed that strength was almost fully restored, but the stiffness and energy dissipation capacity were not restored. Li and Lim
[7] investigated the results of an experimental study on the seismic
performance of axially loaded reinforced concrete walls with
boundary elements conned by limited transverse reinforcement.
The results indicated the increased drift capacities of the strengthened walls. Greifenhagen and Lestuzzi [8] analysed four specimens
with a focus on the shear dominated response of walls that are not
designed for earthquake resistance. Compared to other tests from
the literature for squat walls, the drift capacity depends on the
axial force ratio, vertical reinforcement arrangement, and the
degree of restraining at the top of the wall. Dazio et al. [9] performed quasi-static cyclic tests on six reinforced concrete (RC)
walls and investigated the effect of different vertical reinforcement
contents and different reinforcement ductility properties on the
deformation behaviour of slender RC walls. The specimens exhibited a reduced deformation capacity of RC structural walls with
low longitudinal reinforcement content. Thomson et al. [10] developed a simplied model for simulating the damage of squat RC
shear walls under lateral loads based on damage and fracture
mechanics, describing the reduction in stiffness and strength due
to diagonal cracking, permanent deformations due to yielding of
transverse reinforcement and sliding across shear cracks. Li and
Chen [11] performed an analytical approach to determine the stiffness of six RC shear walls with irregular openings and validated the
approach by comparing theoretical and experimental results. Simple equations were proposed to assess the initial stiffness of RC
structural walls with irregular openings based on parametric case
studies. Gebreyohaness et al. [12] developed a model to study
the behaviour of non-ductile reinforced concrete walls subjected
to earthquake-induced lateral forces. Dan et al. [13] performed a
theoretical study and experimental tests on composite steelconcrete shear walls with steel encased proles. The results indicated
a more ductile behaviour in terms of displacement ductility than

P
D
G

l
Dy
Du
CED

e
Ksec,Ri

Knn
Ktt
ft
c

u
z
bw
x
dN
d1,2

HP
LP

pressure transducer
displacement transducer
strain gauge
displacement ductility coefcient
drift at yielding
drift at failure
cumulative dissipated energy
strain
secant stiffness corresponding to the di displacement
amplitude (Ri drift ratio) on the monotonic loaddisplacement envelope
normal stiffness
tangential stiffness
tensile strength
cohesion
friction coefcient
lever arm of internal forces
width of the cross section
neutral axis depth
distance between the axial force position and the centroid of the compressed reinforcement
distance between the reinforcement centroid position
and the tensioned/compressed bre of the section (on
x-axis)
height of the wall pier
length of the wall pier

for the common reinforced concrete walls. Mosoarca [14] conducted a theoretical and experimental study on three types of
walls with and without openings, investigating the failure mechanisms and explaining their failure modes based on the latest
recordings of seismic wave characteristics. The behaviour of squat
reinforced concrete structural walls is known to be controlled by
shear, and their typical failure modes were also investigated by
Paulay et al. [15], Snchez-Alejandre and Alcocer [16] and others.
Reported failure modes of squat walls are associated with inclined
web cracking, sliding along the wall base and crushing of web concrete [16]. In addition to these failure modes, walls with openings
also develop concrete crushing in the corners of the opening. The
shear strength assessment of lightly reinforced wall pier and spandrels using code provisions was also evaluated by Orakcal et al. [5]
according to ACI 318-05 [17] and FEMA 356 [18].
To investigate the behaviour of precast reinforced concrete
walls, a theoretical and experimental program was developed in
the Civil Engineering Department at the Politehnica University of
Timisoara, Romania. In Eurocode 8, Part 1 [20], section 5, the walls
with an aspect ratio (as = hw/lw) of less than 1.5 are designated as
large lightly reinforced walls, which should be designed to DCM
(medium ductility). For this type of structural wall, the precast
reinforced concrete wall panel (PRCWP) notation will be used in
the following. In this paper, ve specimens with openings, known
as precast reinforced concrete wall panels, PRCWP (78 and
1012), are proposed and tested. This phase of the experimental
research program continued the previous phase, where six specimens, known as PRCWP (16), were investigated and presented
by Demeter [19]. All of the specimens were designed with an initial
opening. Specimen PRCWP 10 simulates an opening enlargement
to investigate the cut-out effect. The variation of the wall parameters, such as concrete compressive strength, reinforcement ratio
and opening type, allowed for the identication of the relevant failure modes and consideration of the shear strength and ultimate

325

C. Todut et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 323338

drift. All the specimens, PRCWP (78 and 1012), were rst tested
in the unstrengthened condition and subsequently were repaired
using high strength mortar, rehabilitated or retrotted, and then
tested again. The PRCWP (9) is not presented in the current paper
because the specimen was tested in the prior-to-damage strengthened condition. The rehabilitation strategies in the current experimental program were externally bonded carbon bre reinforced
polymer reinforcement (EB-CFRP), near surface mounted carbon
bre reinforced polymer reinforcement (NSM-CFRP), textile
reinforced mortar (TRM) using a carbon bre (CF) grid and textile
reinforced mortar using a glass bre (GF) grid. The results
presented below refer only to unstrengthened specimens as the
reference specimens for the subsequent studies.
2. Experimental specimens and test setup
The part of the experimental program presented in this study
consists of ve 1:1.2 scaled elements of PRCWP (78 and 1012),
designed and casted according to a Romanian Project Type
770-81 [21,22]. The specimen outlines and reinforcement details
are presented in Fig. 1. For specimens PRCWP (7-E1-T) and
(12-E1-T), both having a narrow door opening (E1) and tested
unstrengthened (T), the web-panel reinforcement consisted of horizontal rebars, vertical continuity bars, welded wire mesh in the
right pier, a spatial reinforcement cage on the entire height of

the left pier, a spatial reinforcement cage in the coupling beam,

vertical bars in the coupling beam, spatial reinforcement cage at
the top right corner of the door opening, and two inclined bars at
the top corners of the opening. Reinforcement of the PRCWP
(8-E3-T) specimen having a large door opening (E3) contains
horizontal rebars, vertical continuity bars, a spatial reinforcement
cage on the entire height of the left and right piers, a spatial
reinforcement cage in the coupling beam, vertical bars in the
coupling beam, and two inclined bars at the top corners of the
opening. In the case of the PRCWP (11-L1-T) specimen with a small
window opening, the reinforcement consists of horizontal bars,
vertical continuity bars, welded wire mesh in the left and right
piers, a spatial reinforcement cage in the coupling beam, four
inclined bars at the corners of the opening, a vertical bar each side
of the opening on its height, and a wire mesh in the parapet. The
PRCWP (10-L1/L3) specimen has the reinforcement corresponding
to the narrow window specimen (11-L1-T), but reduced according
to the wider window opening dimensions.
The specimens were manufactured at the constructional site,
starting with assemblage of the timber formwork and shaping of
the steel bars. The concrete was cast in the horizontal position
and vibrated in the formwork, as shown in Fig. 2 [23]. After a
few days of curing, the timber formwork was removed, wing reinforcement cages were mounted in the wing formwork and the
wings were poured. The web-to-wing connection was realised

414, S355

410, S355

200

750

10

14

14

10

66,S355
14, S355

10, S355

hoops 6, S255

66,S355

14, S355

100

0
0-S
49
10
0x

10, S355

4/10

0x100
-S490

PRCWP
(11-L1-T)

8, S355
90 10
S4
S355
50x1
0
5

10
S355
/1

200

2 14
Hoops
8/85
16
2 14

8
S355

410, S355

750

500

[mm]

4/100 PIER 2

1-1
100

PIER 1 4/100

8/165, S255

200

1500
3150

10

2150

10, S355

14, S355

4
/10
0x
10
0-S
49
0

0 10
49 S355
0-S
15
x
0
/15
8

500

[mm]
WING
300

8, S355
10, S355

2 14
Hoops
8/85
16
2 14

10, S255
8
S355

16, S355

16, S355

14, S355

8/85, S255

4/100
x100-S
490

2150

1
PRCWP
(10-L1/L3-T)

14 6

8/85, S255

10, S255
8
S355

10 6 14

8/165, S255

8/85, S255

200

PIER 2

14, S355

4/100 14

66

/10

10

1-1

66

500

14

PIER 1

1750
3150

200

1500
3150

1-1

PIER 1 4/100

10

14

Fig. 1. The schematics and reinforcement details of the specimens.

100

10 6 14

414, S355

PIER 2

PRCWP
(8-E3-T)

500

14, S355

WEB

1-1

66

200

[mm]
2 14
Hoops
8/85
16
2 14

100

WING
300

PIER 1

10, S355

16, S355
200

1500
3150

WING
300

750

410, S355

hoops 6, S255

414, S355
2150

/10
4

14
S355

500

8/85, S255

10

10
S355

0x

PRCWP
(7-E1-T)
(12-E1-T)

8
S355

0-

S4
90

8/165, S255

8/85
S255

8/85, S255

200

[mm]

8, S355
26
S355

WING
300

16, S355

14, S355

hoops 6, S255

10
S355

410
S355

34, S490

8/85, S255

2150

10, S255
8/165, S255

66,S355

414, S355

10, S255
8/85
S255

10

PIER 2

4/100
14

10

2 14
Hoops
8/85
16
2 14

326

C. Todut et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 323338

Fig. 2. Manufacturing process aspects for PRCWP (7-E1-T).

through anchoring the horizontal U10 mm rebars into the conned

core of the ange. The wings were composed of a short in-plane
connection zone and a ange perpendicular to the wall plane.
The ange dimensions were 300 mm in width and 100 mm in
thickness. The anges of the end-wings were reinforced by spatial
cages made of four U14 mm longitudinal rebars and a set of
U8 mm plain transverse hoops at 85 mm centres and a U16 mm
vertical continuity bar. The completed specimens were stacked at
the constructional site and then transported to the laboratory,
where they were placed in horizontal position one over the other.
2.1. Material properties
The materials used for specimens were concrete and rebars. The
material tests were performed on both materials. From each concrete batch, three 150-mm edged cube samples were taken. The
results of the compression tests obtained on the cube samples
are presented in Table 1. The results obtained indicate a different
class of concrete for the specimens. The concrete classes differ from
the intended class of C16/20, but this was a compromise to be
accepted, which turned into a variation parameter for the further
tests because such differences occur frequently in constructional
processes. The samples of steel rebars were collected of each reinforcement type, namely, smooth (OB37) and ribbed (PC52) hotrolled bars and cold-drawn ribbed welded fabric (STPB), and of
each diameter used in the experimental program. The tensile tests
were performed using the Universal Testing Machine of the Steel
Structures Laboratory, Politehnica University of Timisoara. The
steel reinforcement properties obtained experimentally are presented in Table 2.

reused for all the tests performed. The connection between the
beams and the precast reinforced concrete walls was assured using
high-strength mortar.
The testing procedure consists of quasi-static reversed cyclic
horizontal loads performed on 1:1.2 scaled Precast Reinforced Concrete Wall Panels. The specimens were laterally loaded, reversed
cyclic displacement controlled using two horizontal hydraulic
cylinders acting on the ends of the loading beam. Because the
height of the wall is 2150 mm, 21.5 mm corresponds to a 1% drift
ratio. The displacement control was set to a drift ratio of 0.1%,
namely 2.15 mm. Two cycles per drift were performed. In addition
to the horizontal loading, vertical loads were applied using two
hydraulic cylinders. These axial loads were composed of a constant
part, which was used to simulate the gravity loading condition at
the base of the wall specimen, and an alternating part, which
was used for restraining the rocking rotation of the elements.
The value of the constant axial load was calculated while taking
into account the concrete strength and the compressed area of
each specimen. Due to the differences in the concrete properties,
a value of 0.051 for the normalised axial load was considered.
The alternating axial loads were imposed by applying incremental
force of 100 kN each time the specimen lifted 1 mm. The behaviour
of the specimens during the experimental tests was monitored by
the pressure transducers (P), displacement transducers (D) and
strain gauges placed onto the reinforcement bars (G). The cracking
pattern on the front face of the wall at each cycle peak was
observed and marked. The instrumentation of the tested elements
is presented in Fig. 4. The displacement transducer position was
the same for all of the specimens.

3. Experimental results
2.2. Testing methodology and test set-up
3.1. Forcedrift ratio response and observations
The test set-up is comprised of two reaction beams, four vertical
steel reaction frames, anchoring channels, two lateral steel reaction frames and the hydraulic equipment. A general view of the
test set-up is presented in Fig. 3. The wall specimens were set
between two reinforced steel concrete composite beams, a loading
beam serving as a load conveyor at the top of the specimen and a
base beam serving as the foundation. Those two beams were

The behaviour of the tested wall panels is shown in Fig. 5 as

loaddrift ratio hysteresis loops. The basic results of the tested
specimens are presented in Table 3. Examination of the specimens
during the experimental test revealed a signicant number of
cracks in all the regions of the panel, a number of inclined cracks
in the piers, concrete crushing and reinforcement yielding.

Table 1
Properties of the concrete in the web panel.
Element

No. of samples

fcm,cube (N/mm2)

fck (N/mm2)

Class of concrete

PRCWP
PRCWP
PRCWP
PRCWP
PRCWP

3
3
3
3
3

45.48
17.48
27.26
27.26
44.74

30.17
12.28
18.78
18.78
29.73

C
C
C
C
C

(7-E1-T)
(8-E3-T)
(10-L1/L3-T)
(11-L1-T)
(12-E1-T)

30/37
12/15
16/20
16/20
25/30

327

C. Todut et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 323338

Table 2
Material properties of the steel reinforcement.
fy (N/mm2)

fu (N/mm2)

fu/fy

Es (N/mm2)

6
8

400
425

550
507

1.38
1.19

207
205

S355

8
10
14
16

424
450
395
385

553
564
584
613

1.30
1.25
1.48
1.59

208
210
206
210

S490

618

667

1.08

208

Rebar type

Grade

OB37

S255

PC52

STPB

U (mm)

1350

450

450
TEST SET-UP

1-1

CUT-OUT OPENING
N1

N2

N
+2870

400

FIXED EDGE
WALL PANEL

-V

+V
WING ELEMENT
LATERAL LOAD

LA

2150

AC

RF

RE
L

(L

400

LA

AM

TE

FR

RA

T.

RF

AC

(L

RE

Length units: mm

T.

RA

FR

AXIAL LOAD

TE

AM

VERT. REACT. FRAME (VRF)

SIMPLY SUPPORTED EDGE

1910

1080

280

1000

1250

1000

280

1080

1910

9790

Fig. 3. Test set-up general view.

The specimens having large opening dimensions, PRCWP

(8-E3-T) and PRCWP (10-L1/L3-T), exhibited a signicant reduction
in lateral resistance and stiffness.
The failure details of the tested specimens are presented in
Fig. 6 [2325]. During the experimental test, specimen PRCWP
(7-E1-T) exhibited cracks in the spandrel, piers, wing, corners of
the opening and cast-in-place mortar. The rst diagonal crack
appeared in the right pier at the following conditions: 0.5% drift
ratio, rst cycle, and loaded from the left. At the same drift level
loaded from the right, the G2 strain gauge recorded the yielding
of reinforcement. Concrete crushing occurred at the bottom right
corner of the wall panel, the top right corner of the opening and
the cast-in-place mortar at the bottom right corner of the opening.
The vertical rebars of the welded wire mesh along the diagonal
crack in the right pier deformed exhibited a dowel effect, while
the horizontal rebars of the welded wire mesh along the diagonal
crack in the right pier was observed to be torn at a 0.8% drift ratio,
resulting in sudden failure of the specimen.
The element PRCWP (8-E3-T) developed cracks in the spandrel,
piers, wings, corners of the opening, and bottom right corner
region of the panel. The rst diagonal crack appeared in the right
pier under the following conditions: 0.5% drift ratio, rst cycle,
and loaded from the right. A horizontal crack in the left pier
appeared due to sliding shear, while in the right pier, a vertical
crack between the panel and the wing occurred, followed by concrete crushing. Concrete crushing was also observed in the top corners of the opening and the cast-in-place mortar, while the vertical
reinforcement of the spatial cage in the right pier bent. Failure of
the specimen occurred at 1.1% drift ratio, with a 20% decrease in
the load bearing capacity.
The specimen PRCWP (10-L1/L3-T) developed cracks in the
spandrel, piers, wings, corners of the opening, bottom right corner

of the panel, cast-in-place mortar and most of the parapet. The rst
diagonal crack appeared in the left pier under the conditions of
0.2% drift ratio, rst cycle, and loaded from the right; the rst diagonal crack appeared in the right pier under the conditions of 0.3%
drift ratio, rst cycle, and loaded from the right. Concrete crushing
was observed in the left corners of the opening. Failure of the
specimen was attained at a 0.65% drift ratio.
The element PRCWP (11-L1-T) developed cracks in the spandrel,
piers, parapet, wings, corners of the opening and cast-in-place
mortar. The rst diagonal crack appeared in the right pier under
the following conditions: 0.3% drift ratio, rst cycle, and loaded
from the right. Concrete crushing occurred in the bottom left corner of the opening, the parapet, and the right wing. At 0.4% drift
level loaded from the left, the G5 strain gauge indicated yielding
of the reinforcement, followed by the same yielding at G3 and
G6. Failure of the specimen was recorded at a 0.7% drift ratio.
The specimen PRCWP (12-E1-T) developed cracks in the spandrel, piers, wings, corners of the opening and cast-in-place mortar.
The rst diagonal crack appeared in the right pier under the following conditions: 0.2% drift ratio, rst cycle, and loaded from the left.
Concrete crushing occurred in the top right corner of the opening
and the cast-in-place mortar at the bottom corners of the opening.
At 0.3% drift level loaded from the right, the G2 strain gauge indicated yielding. Failure of the specimen was attained at a 0.68% drift
ratio.
3.2. Energy dissipation
The dissipated energy (E) in each cycle was evaluated from the
horizontal load (P) versus lateral displacement (D) hysteretic
curves using the area bounded by hysteretic loop of that cycle,
based on the procedure presented in [19]. In the current paper,

328

C. Todut et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 323338

INSTRUMENTATION

D3

D3

D12

D11
D1

D1

G8
G9

D4

D4

G6

D7

D8

G7

PRCWP
(7-E1-T)
G5

D1

D9

0
D2

D2

G1

G4
G3

Displacement transducer

G2

Strain gauge

G5

G6
G6

G7

G5

G8

PRCWP
(10-L1/L3-T)

G4

PRCWP
(8-E3-T)
G4

G9

G3

G3
G2

G7

G1

G2

G1

G8

G3
G1

G2

PRCWP
(11-L1-T)

G6

G4

G4

G5

PRCWP
(12-E1-T)

G5

G3
G1

G2
Fig. 4. Instrumentation layout of the specimens.

the cumulative energy dissipation was obtained by the continuous

integration of the loaddrift hysteretic response using the iterative
equation:

CEDj CEDj1 dj  dj1  V j =2 V j1 =2

where CED is the cumulative energy dissipated; j is a point on the
loaddisplacement curve; in other words, j denotes a data line in
the response data le; and dj and Vj are the corresponding drift
and lateral load values, respectively.
A comparison between the cumulative dissipated energy (CED)
per half-cycle versus the drift ratio within each test performed is
presented in Fig. 7, and the calculated average (among two cycles)
cumulative energy dissipation is presented in Table 4. It can be
concluded that the lowest contribution in energy dissipation

belongs to the specimens having large opening dimensions,

namely PRCWP (8-E3-T) and PRCWP (10-L1/L3-T); such panels
develop an increased deformation capacity with respect to the
panels with smaller opening dimensions, PRCWP (7-E1-T),
(11-L1-T) and (12-E1-T). This conclusion was also supported by
the results of other researchers, such as [1].
3.3. Ductility coefcient
Evaluation of the ductility of an element remains conventional
because the relation between strength and deformation may not
have a well-dened yield point. Various estimations of the yield
displacement have been performed, e.g., Park (1988), Priestley
(2000), and Salonikios et al. (2000) in Carrillo et al. (2014) [26].

329

C. Todut et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 323338

PRCWP (7-E1-T)

1000
800

PRCWP (8-E3-T)

800

600

600

400

400

200
-1

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0

-200

PRCWP (10-L1/L3-T)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

-1.2

-1

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0

-200
-400

-600

-600

-800

-800

-1000

-1000
PRCWP (11-L1-T)

1000

[kN]

800

800

600

600

400

400

200
-1

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

[kN]

200

[%]

0
-1.2

[%]

-400

1000

[kN]

200

[%]

0
-1.2

1000

[kN]

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0

-200

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

-1.2

-1

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0

-200

-400

-400

-600

-600

-800

-800

-1000

-1000
PRCWP (12-E1-T)

1000

[%]

0
0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

[kN]

800
600
400
200
-1.2

-1

0
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
-200

[%]
0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

-400
-600
-800
-1000
Fig. 5. Loaddrift ratio hysteresis loops.

Table 3
Basic results of the tested specimens.
Specimen notation

PRCWP
PRCWP
PRCWP
PRCWP
PRCWP

(7-E1-T)
(8-E3-T)
(10-L1/L3-T)
(11-L1-T)
(12-E1-T)

Peak force (kN)

Drift at yielding (%)

Drift at peak force (%)

Drift at failure (%)

l = Du/Dy

858
207.5
323
550.5
763.5

723
247.5
344
793.5
656

0.59
0.60
0.38
0.37
0.35

0.48
0.78
0.37
0.37
0.49

0.70
0.78
0.57
0.68
0.48

0.70
1.00
0.60
0.60
0.70

0.73
1.17
0.59
0.73
0.70

0.79
1.08
0.65
0.65
0.76

1.24
1.94
1.53
1.95
2.01

1.66
1.39
1.77
1.78
1.55

In this paper, the ductility of the wall specimens was evaluated

using the l0.85 method, which denes the ductility (l = Du/Dy)
as the ratio between the ultimate displacement (Du the corresponding drift ratio when the horizontal load value falls to 80%
of the maximum horizontal force) to the displacement corresponding to 0.85 of the maximum load on the ascending branch of the

Average l0.85

1.45
1.67
1.65
1.87
1.78

monotonic envelope (Dy the drift ratio at yielding). The ductility

coefcient l0.85 for the tested specimens is presented in Fig. 8.
Taking into account only the PRCWP (812) specimens, it can be
concluded that a wall specimen having a wide door opening,
PRCWP (8-E3-T), developed a lower ductility compared to a wall
having a narrow door opening, PRCWP (12-E1-T); in addition, a

330

C. Todut et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 323338

PRCWP (7-E1-T)

PRCWP (8-E3-T)

PRCWP (10-L1/L3-T)

PRCWP (7-E1-T)

PRCWP (7-E1-T)

PRCWP (8-E3-T)

PRCWP (8-E3-T)

PRCWP (10-L1/L3-T)

PRCWP (10-L1/L3-T)

PRCWP (11-L1-T)

PRCWP (11-L1-T)

PRCWP (11-L1-T)

PRCWP (12-E1-T)

PRCWP (12-E1-T)

PRCWP (12-E1-T)

Fig. 6. Failure details of the specimens.

wall specimen having a wide window opening, PRCWP (10-L1/L3-T),

developed a lower ductility compared to a wall having a narrow
window opening, PRCWP (11-L1-T). PRCWP (7-E1-T) was excluded
from this comparison because it exhibited brittle failure due to
reinforcement tearing and concrete crushing.

the case of PRCWP (7-E1-T): tearing of the horizontal rebars of

the mesh (strain gauges were not mounted onto the welded wire
mesh), deforming of the vertical rebars of the mesh, and formation
of a necking phenomenon in some horizontal reinforcing bars (see
Fig. 6); all of these factors together with concrete crushing led to a
sudden failure of the PRCWP (7-E1-T) specimen with an uncontrolled reduction in the load bearing capacity of 74%.

3.4. Strain analysis

During the experimental tests, strain was measured on the vertical, horizontal and inclined reinforcing bars. Fig. 9 shows the steel
strain e () versus drift ratio for the current tested specimens. The
positions of the strain gauges are shown in Fig. 4. Yielding of the
reinforcement was attained for almost all the wall panels studied
in the critical regions of the specimens, i.e., the top corners of the
openings and parapet. Strain was not achieved in the case of
PRCWP (8-E3-T). The following behaviour was observed only in

3.5. Stiffness degradation

As dened in the literature, the stiffness (K) is the rigidity of an
element, i.e., the extent to which it resists deformation in response
to an applied load. According to the stiffness versus drift-ratio
diagram (Fig. 10), walls with large opening dimensions
(PRCWP 8-E3-T, 10-L1/L3-T) induce higher reductions in the initial
stiffness of the walls compared to walls with smaller opening

331

C. Todut et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 323338

60

60

PRCWP (8-E3-T)

50
40

ED C1-

ED C1+

ED C2-

ED C2+

Energy dissipated (kNm)

Energy dissipated (kNm)

PRCWP (7-E1-T)

30
20
10
0

50
40

ED C1-

ED C1+

ED C2-

ED C2+

30
20
10
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.1

1.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

60

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

0.8

0.9

1.1

60

PRCWP (10-L1/L3-T)

PRCWP (11-L1-T)

50
40

ED C1-

ED C1+

ED C2-

ED C2+

Energy dissipated (kNm)

Energy dissipated (kNm)

0.5

drift ratio (%)

drift ratio (%)

30
20
10

50
40

ED C1-

ED C1+

ED C2-

ED C2+

30
20
10
0

0
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.1

1.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

drift ratio (%)

0.5

0.6

0.7

drift ratio (%)

60

Energy dissipated (kNm)

PRCWP (12-E1-T)
50
40

ED C1-

ED C1+

ED C2-

ED C2+

30
20
10
0
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

drift ratio (%)

Fig. 7. The cumulative energy dissipation of the specimens.

Table 4
Energy dissipation values.
Element

PRCWP
PRCWP
PRCWP
PRCWP
PRCWP

PRCWP
PRCWP
PRCWP
PRCWP
PRCWP

(7-E1-T)
(8-E3-T)
(10-L1/L3-T)
(11-L1-T)
(12-E1-T)

(7-E1-T)
(8-E3-T)
(10-L1/L3-T)
(11-L1-T)
(12-E1-T)

normalized ductility coefficient

Cumulative dissipated energy, CED (kN m)

Drift
0.10%

Drift
0.20%

Drift
0.30%

Drift
0.40%

Drift
0.50%

Drift
0.60%

1.13
0.09
0.36
0.87
0.75

3.07
0.45
1.40
3.03
2.49

6.65
1.11
3.40
6.88
6.10

11.54
2.13
6.29
12.88
11.61

18.42
3.50
10.15
21.72
19.86

27.76
5.44
15.66
33.46
30.70

0.70%

0.80%

0.90%

1.00%

1.10%

40.29
7.82
19.58
46.11
40.70

53.94
10.70

14.93

19.62

24.33

1.00

1.00
0.80

0.89

0.88

8-E3-T

10-L1/L3-T

0.95

0.78

0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
7-E1-T

11-L1-T

12-E1-T

Fig. 8. The normalised ductility coefcient for the tested specimens.

332

C. Todut et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 323338

Strain gauge G7

3.5
strain
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-1.1 -0.9 -0.7 -0.5 -0.3 -0.5
-0.1 0.1 0.3
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
Strain gauge G6

-1.1

-0.9

-0.7

-0.5

Strain gauge G2

-1.1

-0.9

-0.7

-0.5

Strain gauge G5

PRCWP (7-E1-T)

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.1

[%]

PRCWP (10-L1/L3-T)
3.5
strain

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.3 -0.5
-0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1
-1
-1.5
[%]
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5

3.5
strain
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.3 -0.5
-0.1 0.1 0.3
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5

0.7

0.9

Strain gauge G3

1- .1

-0.9

-0.7

-0.5

3.5
strain
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.3 -0.5
-0.1 0.1 0.3
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5

Strain gauge G3

PRCWP (12-E1-T)

0.5

PRCWP (10-L1/L3-T)
3.5
strain

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-1.1 -0.9 -0.7 -0.5 -0.3 -0.5
-0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1
-1
-1.5
[%]
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5

1.1

[%]

3
strain
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-1.1 -0.9 -0.7 -0.5 -0.3 -0.5
-0.1 0.1 0.3
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3

PRCWP (11-L1-T)

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.1

[%]

PRCWP (12-E1-T)

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.1

[%]

Fig. 9. Steel strain (e) versus drift ratio of the specimens.

opening (PRCWP 7-E1-T) was 1:4.75, while the ratio between

a wall with an initially small window opening enlarged to a large
window opening (PRCWP 10-L1/L3-T) and a wall having a small
window opening (PRCWP 11-L1-T) was 1:2. The concrete
compressive strength, the amount of initial reinforcement and
the value of constant axial load imposed in each case should not
be neglected to ensure an accurate comparison of walls of different
characteristics.

Secant stffness K sec,Ri [kN/mm]

STIFFNESS DEGRADATION
120
7-E1-T
100

8-E3-T
10-L1/L3-T

80

11-L1-T
60

12-E1-T

40

4. Theoretical and numerical study on the shear resistance of

the specimens

20
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Drift ratio [%]

4.1. Evaluation of the shear strength using design code provisions and
plastic mechanism model

Fig. 10. The stiffness versus drift ratio diagram of the specimens.

dimensions (PRCWP 7-E1-T, 11-L1-T, 12-E1-T). For example, the

ratio between the measured initial stiffness of a wall having a large
door opening (PRCWP 8-E3-T) and a wall having a narrow door

The shear resistance of the members was evaluated according

to Eurocode 2 [27], section 6, and are presented in Table 5. According to the obtained results, the evaluated shear response was limited by the yielding of the shear reinforcement. The experimental
values obtained are signicantly higher than those evaluated using

333

C. Todut et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 323338

Table 5
Shear resistance of the members evaluated using design code expressions.
Element

Reinforcement
Asw (mm2)
s (mm)
z (mm)
fy (N/mm2)
h ()

acw
bw (mm)

m1
fcm (N/mm2)
VR,s (kN)
VR,s (pier 1 + 2)
VR,max (kN)
VR,max (pier 1 + 2)
0.4VR,max (1 + 2)
Vexp,max (kN)

PRCWP (7-E1-T)

PRCWP (10-L1/L3-T)

PRCWP (11-L1-T)

Pier 1

Pier 2

Pier 1

Pier 2

Pier 1

Pier 2

Pier 1

Pier 2

/10
78.5
530
560
450
45
1
100
0.53
38
37.32
307.77
563.92
1866.36
746.55
858

/10, /4
78.5; 12.6
530; 100
1360
450; 618
36
1
100
0.53
38
270.45

/10, /4
78.5; 12.6
530; 100
560
450; 618
30
1
100
0.55
28
140.17
292.40
373.50
730.89
292.36
344

/10, /4
78.5; 12.6
530; 100
560
450; 618
28
1
100
0.55
28
152.23

/10, /4
78.5; 12.6
530; 100
560
450; 618
34
1
100
0.55
28
120.02
380.84
399.63
1406.07
562.43
793.5

/10, /4
78.5; 12.6
530; 100
1360
450; 618
37
1
100
0.55
28
260.82

/10
78.5
530
560
450
33
1
100
0.53
38
57.48
338.15
515.23
1802.37
720.95
763.5

/10, /4
78.5; 12.6
530; 100
1360
450; 618
35
1
100
0.53
38
280.67

1302.44

357.40

formulas from EC2 [27]. For the studied elements the code could be
considered too conservative, probably due to the other effects not
covered by the design formulas such as: the dowel effect, the redistribution of stresses, and rotation capacity. According to Biskinis
et al. [28], the shear force which can be sustained by the concrete
member, limited by crushing of the compression struts is overestimated in some cases, and for walls designed for high ductility class,
VRd,max should be taken as 0.4 of the value determined in other
regions than the critical base one. Although the Eurocode does
not provide a reduction factor for DCM walls, most probably due
to the limited number of experimental tests performed on this
type, the reduction factor 0.4 seems to be appropriate also for
DCM walls. The overestimation of the shear force which can be
sustained by the concrete member and the 0.4 reduction factor
was mentioned and discussed also in Postelnicu et al. [29].
Due to the fact that the PRCWP (8-E3-T) specimen has a wide
door opening, under external loads, it behaves like a frame. Taking
into account the failure mechanism, where four plastic hinges
appeared, on the top and bottom of the piers, the corresponding
horizontal load could be computed using the scheme presented
in Fig. 11.

PRCWP (12-E1-T)

1006.44

4.2. Numerical analysis for the prediction of the shear response

The modelling approach used in this study integrates the material characteristics and the behavioural response features (e.g.,
occurrence of the rst diagonal crack, failure details, and nonlinear
shear behaviour) for a reliable prediction of the precast reinforced
concrete wall response. Fig. 12 shows the stressstrain law and
failure criterion for the reinforcement and concrete used calculated
using ATENA 2D, the software used for analysis. A bilinear stress
strain law for elasticperfectly plastic was used to model the reinforcement. The material model SBETA was used for concrete, which
includes the following effects of the concrete behaviour: nonlinear
behaviour in compression (including hardening and softening),
fracture of concrete in tension (based on the nonlinear fracture
mechanics), biaxial strength failure criterion, reduction of compressive strength after cracking, tension stiffening effect, and
reduction of the shear stiffness after cracking (variable shear retention); in addition, two crack models were used: xed crack direction and rotated crack direction. The formulas used for
determining the material parameters for the SBETA constitutive
model of concrete are taken from the Eurocode 2 [27]. In both
the numerical analysis and the design process, the bond between
steel and concrete was assumed as a full connection. Interfacial
failure and slip phenomena were considered in the model by creating an interface (cast-in-place mortar) for bonding the concrete
panel and the lower beam. For this concreteconcrete interface, a
2D interface material model was used with the properties shown
in Table 6, where the initial elastic normal and shear stiffness were
calculated according to Atena Program Documentation Part 1

M As1  f y1  z Nc  dN 47 kN m
V th 4  M=Hw Nv  dN d2 177 kN < 207:5 kN
As it can be observed, the evaluation based on the plastic mechanism model can predict the shear resistance of shear walls with
wide openings.

N
V

As2

As1

Ac

bw

HP

dN
y
M

1287.14

d1

x
Fig. 11. Plastic mechanism considerations.

LP - x
z
LP

d2
x
d2

334

C. Todut et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 323338

Stress-Strain Law

Stress-Strain Law

Biaxial Failure Law

E
-y

2
Ec

y
4

- y

Biaxial Failure Law

f t 2
fc

ef
ft

ft

ef

fc

fc

Fig. 12. Stressstrain and failure laws for materials.

Table 6
Material properties of concreteconcrete interface (10 cm surface contact).
Element

Normal stiffness, Knn (MN/m3)

Tangential stiffness, Ktt (MN/m3)

Tensile strength, ft (MPa)

Cohesion, c (MPa)

Friction coefcient, / ()

7-E1-T
8-E3-T
10-L1/L3-T
11-L1-T
12-E1-T

1.82  105
1.37  105
1.56  105
1.56  105
1.81  105

1.52  105
1.14  105
1.30  105
1.30  105
1.51  105

0
0
0
0
0

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9

(Theory) [30], while the cohesion and friction coefcient were calculated according to the Model Code 2010 [31]. Taking into
account the recommendation of Atena software [32] and its users,
the used meshes for modelling wall panels are in relation with the
thickness of each element (wing, web panel, beams) and are close
to the standard ones, having the element size of 0.10 m for the
panel and reaction beams, and 0.05 m for the wings. Quadrilateral
nite element type, like CCIsoQuad were used in the upper beam
and steel loading plates, and CCQ10SBeta for the web panel, wings
and lower beam, also as recommended in [32]. The lower beam is
xed in both the horizontal and vertical directions.

PRCWP
(7-E1-T)
(12-E1-T)

Loading is applied by prescribing horizontal displacement close

to the middle height of the left edge of the loading beam (as in the
experimental test) in constant increments of 0.2 mm. The analysis
is performed by simulating loading acting from the left side to the
right. The NewtonRaphson solution method was used according
to the process in the ATENA Engineering Example Manual for Shear
Wall with Opening [32]. In addition to the horizontal loading, constant axial loads were applied (having the same value as in the
experimental test), and a variable axial load was applied by imposing additional load in each step performed by the analysis. The
overall response (drift and reaction force) was recorded using

PRCWP (8-E3-T)

PRCWP (10-L1/L3-T)

PRCWP
(11-L1-T)

Fig. 13. The layout and meshes of the numerical specimens.

335

C. Todut et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 323338

two monitoring points one located in the vicinity of the loading

point for the reaction force, and the other located in the middle of
the upper edge of the panel for horizontal displacement. The continuity reinforcement bars of the panel were welded in the experimental test to the continuity bars from the bottom beam, while in
the model, the welding was neglected, and continuous reinforcement bars were assumed to connect the foundation beam to the
panel. A high reinforcing ratio was used for the two reaction beams
in the model to increase their stiffness and to direct the main
response under loads to the wall panel. In the experimental test,
the beams were made of lateral steel proles and a reinforced concrete T section. Fig. 13 represents a general view of the mesh for
the modelled precast reinforced concrete specimens analysed.

Table 7
Comparison of the analytical and experimental results.
Maximum
lateral load
imposed (kN)

Drift level corresponding to

the maximum lateral load
imposed (%)

PRCWP (7-E1-T)
Experimental d = 0.50%
Atena model
d = 0.14%

802.5
620.3

0.70
0.86

PRCWP (8-E3-T)
Experimental d = 0.50%
Atena model
d = 0.21%

213.6
205.3

0.89
1.19

PRCWP (10-L1/L3-T)
Experimental d = 0.20%
Atena model
d = 0.07%

314.8
332.1

0.50
0.78

PRCWP (11-L1-T)
Experimental d = 0.30%
Atena model
d = 0.11%

719.5
510.2

0.50
0.55

PRCWP (12-E1-T)
Experimental d = 0.20%
Atena model
d = 0.15%

656
606.4

0.70
0.66

Element

4.3. Results of the numerical analysis

Post-processing of the analytical results revealed that the
numerical analysis can predict well the behaviour of the experimental specimens, except for drift at which the rst inclined cracks
appear. Table 7 summarises a comparison of the results from the

900

First
inclined
crack

900
LOAD VS DRIFT RATIO ENVELOPE

LOAD VS DRIFT RATIO ENVELOPE

750

Lateral load [kN]

Lateral load [kN]

750
600
450
300
Experimental PRCWP (7-E1-T)

150

Experimental PRCWP (8-E3-T)

600
Atena model PRCWP (8-E3-T)
450
300
150

Atena model PRCWP (7-E1-T)

0

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

0.2

0.4

0.6

Drift ratio [%]

1.2

1.4

1.6

900

900
LOAD VS DRIFT RATIO ENVELOPE

LOAD VS DRIFT RATIO ENVELOPE

750

Lateral load [kN]

750
Experimental PRCWP (10-L1/L3-T)
600
Atena model PRCWP (10-L1/L3-T)
450
300

600
450
300
Experimental PRCWP (11-L1-T)

150

150

Atena model PRCWP (11-L1-T)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

0.2

0.4

0.6

Drift ratio [%]

LOAD VS DRIFT RATIO ENVELOPE

750
600
450
300
Experimental PRCWP (12-E1-T)
150
Atena model PRCWP (12-E1-T)
0
0

0.8

Drift ratio [%]

900

Lateral load [kN]

Lateral load [kN]

0.8

Drift ratio [%]

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

Drift ratio [%]

Fig. 14. Experimental versus numerical loaddrift ratio curves.

1.6

1.2

1.4

1.6

336

C. Todut et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 323338

Fig. 15. Experimental versus numerical failure details.

numerical analysis versus the experimental tests in terms of the

rst diagonal crack appearance, the maximum lateral load imposed
and the drift level corresponding to the maximum lateral load
imposed. Fig. 14 represents the analytical and experimental
loaddrift ratio response of the specimens. The shapes of the

experimental curves are similar with those of the numerical model.

The experimental specimens exhibit a brittle failure after the peak.
Cracking under the left-side loading was similar with that reported
in the experiment (Fig. 15). The ultimate compressive strain state
in the specimen attained is also presented in Fig. 15 (pictures on

C. Todut et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 323338

the right side). The results obtained and presented in this paper
indicate that the numerical model is an efcient instrument for
analysing the behaviour of precast reinforced concrete panels of
different characteristics.
5. Conclusions
This paper describes the experimental test results obtained on
ve Precast Reinforced Concrete Wall Panels and presents the
behaviour of the tested elements as a function of different parameters. The following conclusions can be drawn within the limitations of the current research:
all the panels tested herein revealed extensive cracking, reinforcement yielding and concrete crushing;
the shear force which can be sustained by the yielding shear
reinforcement evaluated according to EC2 expression is too conservative compared to the obtained experimental values;
the results of this study conrm that the shear force which can
be sustained by the concrete member, limited by crushing of
the compressed struts is overestimated using the formula from
EC2. According to the experimental values obtained, the 0.4
reduction factor proposed by Biskinis et al. [28] seems to be
more appropriate in order to predict the shear strength of the
DCM walls, too. Further experimental test have to be performed
in order to conrm or calibrate the reduction factor;
reinforced concrete panels with small openings, PRCWP
(7-E1-T, 11-L1-T, 12-E1-T), dissipate more energy compared
to the specimens with large opening dimensions, PRCWP
(8-E3-T, 10-L1/L3-T), whose the deformation capacity is higher;
according to the l0.85 method, the ductility of the specimens
having large openings was inferior to those having smaller
openings, i.e., PRCWP (8-E3-T) compared to PRCWP (12-E1-T)
and PRCWP (10-L1/L3-T) compared to PRCWP (11-L1-T);
horizontal reinforcement yielding was recorded in the top corners of the openings, the piers and the parapet. The failure
mechanism of the specimens consists in crushing of concrete
in compression and yielding of reinforcements in tension. Using
a simplied model based on plastic mechanism, the shear
strength could be easily estimated for panels with wide
openings;
large openings in the panels of PRCWP (8-E3-T, 10-L1/L3-T)
resulted in a signicant reduction in the lateral resistance and
stiffness compared to the specimens having smaller openings,
namely PRCWP (7-E1-T, 11-L1-T, 12-E1-T);
the numerical analysis performed and presented in this paper
produced similar results compared to the experimental results
of the specimens investigated, i.e., the nite element model
was demonstrated to accurately predict the behaviour of the
precast reinforced concrete shear walls. The peak lateral load
and displacements from the numerical analysis and experimental tests are in good agreement.
Further studies related to the strengthening of the tested elements using FRP are in progress. The studies aim to establish the
most convenient solutions of strengthening to ensure the stiffness,
the ductility and energy dissipation of PRCWP affected by seismic
action. The experimental results presented in this paper provide a
basis for the development of an experimental program on precast
panels externally strengthened with CFRP.
Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges the following research grant for the
support of this study: 1. Grant No. 3-002/2011, INSPIRE

337

Integrated Strategies and Policy Instruments for Retrotting buildings to reduce primary energy use and GHG emissions, Project type
PN II ERA NET, nanced by the Executive Agency for Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation Funding (UEFISCDI),
Romania. 2. Strategic Grant POSDRU/159/1.5/S/137070 (2014) of
the Ministry of National Education, Romania, co-nanced by the
European Social Fund Investing in People, within the Sectoral
Operational Programme Human Resources Development 2007
2013.

References
[1] Pavese Alberto, Bournas Dionysios A. Experimental assessment of the seismic
performance of a prefabricated concrete structural wall system. Eng Struct
2011;33:204962.
[2] Jiang Hua, Kurama Yahya C. An analytical investigation on the seismic retrot
of older medium-rise reinforced concrete shear walls under lateral loads. Eng
Struct 2013;46:45970.
[3] Fragomeni S, Doh JH, Lee DJ. Behavior of axially loaded concrete wall panels
with openings: an experimental study. Adv Struct Eng 2012;15(8):134558.
[4] Wang Ji-yang, Sakashita Masanobu, Kono Susumu, Tanaka Hitoshi, Lou Wenjuan. Behavior of reinforced concrete structural walls with various opening
locations: experiments and macro model. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A (Appl Phys
Eng) 2010;11(3):20211.
[5] Orakcal Kutay, Massone Leonardo M, Wallace John W. Shear strength of lightly
reinforced wall piers and spandrels. ACI Struct J 2009;JulyAugust:45565.
[6] Antoniades Konstantinos K, Salonikios Thomas N, Kappos Andreas J. Cyclic
tests on seismically damaged reinforced concrete walls strengthened using
ber-reinforced polymer reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2003;JulyAugust:
5108.
[7] Li Bing, Lim Chee Leong. Tests on seismically damaged reinforced concrete
structural walls repaired using ber-reinforced polymers. J Compos Constr
ASCE 2010;September/October:597608.
[8] Greifenhagen Christian, Lestuzzi Pierino. Static cyclic tests on lightly
reinforced concrete shear walls. Eng Struct 2005;27:170312.
[9] Dazio Alessandro, Beyer Katrin, Bachmann Hugo. Quasi-static cyclic tests and
plastic hinge analysis of RC structural walls. Eng Struct 2009;31:155671.
[10] Thomson Edward D, Perdomo Mara E, Picn Ricardo, Marante Mara E, FlrezLpez Julio. Simplied model for damage in squat RC shear walls. Eng Struct
2009;31:221523.
[11] Li Bing, Chen Qin. Initial stiffness of reinforced concrete structural walls with
irregular openings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2010;39:397417 [Published online
10.08.09 in Wiley InterScience].
[12] Gebreyohaness AS, Clifton GC, Butterworth JW. Finite element modeling of
non-ductile RC walls. 15 WCEE Lisboa; 2012.
[13] Dan D, Fabian A, Stoian V. Theoretical and experimental study on composite
steelconcrete shear walls with vertical steel encased proles. J Constr Steel
Res 2011;67:80013.
[14] Mosoarca M. Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete shear walls with regular
and staggered openings after the strong earthquakes between 2009 and 2011.
Eng Fail Anal 2013;34:53765.
[15] Paulay T, Priestley MJN, Synge AJ. Ductility in earthquake resisting squat shear
walls. ACI J 1982;79(4):25769.
[16] Snchez-Alejandre Alfredo, Alcocer Sergio M. Shear strength of squat
reinforced concrete walls subjected to earthquake loading trends and
models. Eng Struct 2010;32:246676.
[17] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI
318-05) and commentary (318R-05). Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete
Institute; 2005. 430 pp.
[18] FEMA 356. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2000
[section 6.8.1.1].
[19] Demeter I. Seismic retrot of precast RC walls by externally bonded CFRP
composites. PhD thesis. Politehnica University of Timisoara; 2011.
[20] EN 1998-1. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance.
[21] IPCT: Cladiri de locuit P+4 din panourimari. Proiect 770-81, vol. C: Elemente
prefabricate, Bucuresti, Romania; 1982. IPCT: precast reinforced concrete large
panel buildings P+4. Project type 770-81, vol. C: Precast elements, Bucharest,
Romania; 1982.
[22] IPCT: Cladiri de locuit P+4 din panourimari. Proiect 770-81, vol. D: Elemente
prefabricate Armari, Bucuresti, Romania; 1982. IPCT: precast reinforced
concrete large panel buildings P+4. Project type 770-81, vol. D: precast
elements reinforcing, Bucharest, Romania; 1982.
[23] Structural retrot of precast reinforced concrete large wall panels affected by
change of use Todut C. inspire report no. 4. Strategies for structural and
thermal rehabilitation of buildings made of large precast reinforced concrete
panels in order to reduce the primary energy consumption and the greenhouse
gas emissions InSPIRe, Timisoara; 2012.
[24] Todut C, Stoian V, Demeter I, Nagy-Gyrgy T, Ungureanu V. Seismic
performance of a precast RC wall panel retrotted using CFRP composites.
In: Proceedings of the 12th international scientic conference on planning,
design, construction and building renewal, Novi Sad, Serbia; 2012. p. 31926.

338

C. Todut et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 323338

[25] Todut C, Stoian V, Demeter I, Fou M. Seismic strengthening of a precast

reinforced concrete wall panel using textile reinforced mortar. In: Proceedings
of the international conference on earthquake engineering, Skopje, Republic of
Macedonia; 2013 [paper 323].
[26] Carrillo Julian, Gonzalez Giovanni, Rubiano Astrid. Displacement ductility for
seismic design of RC walls for low-rise housing. Lat Am J Solids Struct
2014;11:72537.
[27] EN 1992-1-1. Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures. Part 11, general rules
and rules for buildings.
[28] Biskinis Dionysis, Roupakias George, Fardis Michael. Degradation of shear
strength of reinforced concrete members with inelastic cyclic displacements.
ACI Struct J 2004:77381 [title no. 101-S76].

[29] Damian I, Morariu E, Buzaianu B, Postelnicu T, Zamrescu D. In: Postelnicu T,

editor. Proiectarea structurilor de beton armat in zone seismice (Design of
reinforced concrete structures placed in seismic areas in
Romanian). Bucharest: MarLink; 2012.
[30] Cervenka J, Jendele L. ATENA program documentation. Part 1: theory. Section
2.6; 2011.
[31] b Bulletin 56: Model Code 2010. First complete draft vol. 2. Published by
the International Federation for Structural Concrete (b); 2010. p. 41.
[32] Cervenka J, Jendele L. ATENA program documentation. Part 31: example
manual. Section 2.10; 2010.