See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227628963

Effect of boundary element details on the

seismic deformation capacity of structural
walls
Article in Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics August 2002
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.177

CITATIONS

READS

29

225

3 authors, including:
Young-Hun Oh

Sang Whan Han

Konyang University

Hanyang University

24 PUBLICATIONS 115 CITATIONS

108 PUBLICATIONS 571 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Young-Hun Oh on 09 January 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602 (DOI: 10.1002/eqe.177)

E
ect of boundary element details on the seismic deformation

capacity of structural walls
Young-Hun Oh1; ; , Sang Whan Han2 and Li-Hyung Lee2
1 Advanced

Structure Research Station (STRESS); Hanyang University; Seoul 133-791; Korea

of Architectural Engineering; Hanyang University; Seoul 133-791; Korea

2 Department

SUMMARY
The objective of this study is to investigate the e
ect of boundary element details of structural walls
on their deformation capacities. Structural walls considered in this study have di
erent sectional shapes
and=or transverse reinforcement content at the boundaries of the walls (called boundary element details
hereafter). Four full-scale wall specimens (3000mm (hw ) 1500mm (lw ) 200mm (T)) were fabricated
and tested. Three specimens are rectangular in section and the other specimen has a barbell-shaped crosssection (a wall with boundary columns). The rectangular wall specimens are reinforced according to the
common practice used for reinforced concrete residence buildings in Korea and Chile. In this study, the
primary variable for these rectangular specimens is the content of transverse reinforcement to conne the
boundary elements of a wall. The barbell-shaped specimen was designed in compliance with ACI 31895. The response of the barbell-shaped specimen is compared with those of other rectangular specimens.
The e
ective aspect ratio of the specimens is set to two in this study. Based on the experimental results,
it is found that the deformation capacities of walls, which are represented by displacement ductility,
drift ratio and energy dissipation capacities, are a
ected by the boundary element details. Copyright ?
2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS:

structural walls; wall details; transverse reinforcement; open hoops; ductility; drift ratio;
energy dissipation

INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete structural walls are commonly used as lateral force-resisting elements
in multi-storey building construction because the sti
ness of the structural wall gives good
protection against the damage of non-structural elements and the contents of a building. If
reinforced concrete structural walls are properly designed and detailed, these walls can also

Correspondence to: Young-Hun Oh, Advanced Structure Research Station (STRESS), 3rd Floor HIT Building,
Hanyang University, #17 Haengdang-dong, Sungdong-ku, Seoul 133-791, South Korea.
E-mail: youngoh@popsmail.com
Contract=grant sponsor: Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF); Contract=grant sponsor: MAE Centre.

Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 21 August 2001

Revised 22 November 2001
Accepted 4 January 2002

1584

Y.-H. OH, S. W. HAN AND L.-H. LEE

behave as ductile exural members like beams and columns in moment frames. To achieve
this goal, the designer should provide adequate strength and ductility by ensuring that lateral
instability does not occur, fracture or buckling of longitudinal reinforcement is prevented, the
compressed concrete in potential plastic hinge regions is well conned, and shear failure is
also suppressed [1]. Many valuable experimental tests for walls with di
erent details have been
carried out by the Portland Cement Association [26] and also by several researchers [79].
According to the post-earthquake survey [10] of the Chile earthquake which occurred on
3 March 1985, most of the 415 modern reinforced concrete buildings in the city of Vina del
Mar behaved satisfactorily with little or no apparent damage while only six buildings su
ered
substantial structural damage. The investigated buildings ranged in height from 5 to 23 stories,
and also had numerous structural bearing walls as the lateral load resisting system. Although
detailing requirements for the Chilean bearing wall system are less stringent than those of the
United States, most buildings with wall systems exhibited satisfactory performances during the
1985 Chile earthquake. This suggests that bearing walls with limited detailing may provide
an e
ective construction system for earthquake resistance.
Wallace and Moehle [11] reported that the primary variables a
ecting wall details were the
ratio of the wall cross-sectional area to the oor-plan area, the wall aspect ratio and conguration, the wall axial load, and the wall reinforcement ratios. Therefore, wall details should be
related directly to the building conguration. Thus, changes in building conguration lead to
changes in required boundary element details. Meanwhile, multi-storey apartment buildings, as
shown in Figure 1, have widely been constructed with structural bearing walls in the moderate
to high seismic regions [12], such as Korea and Chile. However, there are some di
erences
in the detailing for structural walls among these two countries, as well as the United States.
The cross-section of the walls used in the United States is barbell shaped in most cases, while
the rectangular cross-section is common in Chilean and Korean construction. Moreover, the
requirements for transverse reinforcement at the boundary elements are quite di
erent among
them. Nevertheless, research results are insucient for the understanding of the boundary

Figure 1. Typical oor plan of the prototype residential building (unit = mm).
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602

SEISMIC DEFORMATION CAPACITY OF STRUCTURAL WALLS

1585

detail e
ect on the wall response, especially for the bearing wall system with a large amount
of wall cross-sectional area to oor-plan area.
The objective of this study is to investigate the e
ect of boundary element details of a
wall on its behaviour. This study considers the wall boundary element details consisting of
open hoops and cross ties as transverse reinforcement. Four full-scale specimens, which have
di
erent details and=or congurations, were constructed and tested.

DISPLACEMENT DEMAND AND DETAILS FOR STRUCTURAL WALLS

If the exural behaviour of structural walls governs the lateral load response, the fundamental
period of a building with structural walls can be approximated by the idealization of an equivalent cantilever [13]. Wallace and Moehle [11] proposed the following equation to estimate
the fundamental period of vibration for structural wall buildings where the structural walls
have uniform cross-sections and support regularly distributed gravity loads.


whs
hw
(1)
T = 6:2 n
lw
gEc

where hw is the height of wall, lw the length of wall, n the number of stories, w the unit
oor weight including tributary wall weight, hs the mean storey height, g the acceleration of
gravity, Ec the concrete modulus of elasticity, and
the ratio of wall area to oor plan area
in the direction of period computation.
Based on this formulation, the fundamental period of structural wall buildings can be expressed in terms of the wall aspect ratio, number of stories, and ratio of wall area to oor
plan area. The displacement demand for a structural wall building during a major earthquake
can be evaluated using the generalized response spectra, such as those presented in UBC-94
[14]. The maximum roof displacement (Sd ) of a structural wall building can be estimated as
follows:
Sd =

1:25ZSTcr g
42

(2)

where S is the soil factor, Z is the zone factor, and Tcr is the 2T ( 2 is used assuming
that cracked sti
ness properties equal half the gross section properties).
The displacement response as represented by Equation (2) is based on the single-degree-offreedom oscillator. Thus, these values can conservatively be multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to
estimate the maximum displacement at the roof level of an equivalent multi-degree-of-freedom
system [11]. Assuming typical values of w = 8:4 kN=m2 , hs = 2:7 m, Ec = 24100 MPa, Z = 0:4
and S = 1:2 (for rm soil sites) in Equations (1) and (2), the mean drift ratio (u =hw ) can be
expressed as follows [11]:


1 hw 1
u
(3)
=
hw 4450 lw

where u is mean drift,
is ratio of wall area to oor plan area, hw is height of wall, lw is
length of wall.
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602

1586

Y.-H. OH, S. W. HAN AND L.-H. LEE

Figure 2. Calculated displacement demand for structural wall buildings.

The mean drift ratios for various aspect ratios of a wall are plotted as a function of the wall
area to oor plan area (
) in Figure 2. The displacement demand is sensitive to the amount of
wall area; the sensitivity of displacement demand to wall areas increases with lower amounts
of wall areas to oor area, and drift is nearly independent of wall area for higher amounts
of wall area to oor plan area. For U.S. buildings, the ratio of wall to oor area is typically
on the order of 0.51% [11]. Meanwhile, typical Chilean and Korean residence buildings rely
almost exclusively on structural bearing walls for lateral load resistance where ratios of wall
to oor area of 24% are common, resulting in relatively sti
buildings. The displacement
demand for typical U.S. construction exceeded 1% of drift ratio for all walls with aspect ratios
3 (see Figure 2). The displacement demand for Chilean and Korean buildings was 1:2%
of the drift ratio for walls with aspect ratios of up to 7. The maximum drift demand in a
structural wall building subjected to severe earthquakes may range from 1.01.5% of drift ratio
in Chilean and Korean buildings to 1.52.0% of drift ratio in U.S. buildings [15]. Therefore, it
is necessary to evaluate the deformation capacities of structural walls with di
erent boundary
details and ratios of wall to oor area.
Inelastic energy dissipation is normally concentrated in critical regions at the base of walls.
Critical regions of structural walls should be proportioned and detailed to sustain repeated
cycles of inelastic deformation without signicant degradation in shear strength [16]. According to U.S. codes (ACI [17] and ICBO [14]), conned boundary elements are required in
structural walls whenever the calculated compressive stress of the wall exceeds 0:2fc
under
the factored loading. The boundary elements must be capable of resisting gravity loads and
overturning moments induced from earthquake without the contribution of the wall web. Those
boundary elements are essentially column elements placed inside the compression region of
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602

SEISMIC DEFORMATION CAPACITY OF STRUCTURAL WALLS

1587

a wall and have transverse reinforcement at least equal to that required in column critical
regions. The connement at the wall boundary must be continued over the height of the wall
until the extreme ber stress is 0:15fc
.
However, some investigators [8; 10] have reported that although the seismic code requirements in Chile are similar to those used for high seismic regions in the United States, detailing
requirements in Chilean structural wall buildings are less stringent. The major di
erences between Chilean construction and United States construction are an extensive use of structural
walls in building conguration and an absence of transverse reinforcement in boundary elements.
It is common that the longitudinal reinforcement is concentrated at the edge. Wall web
reinforcement required by United States, Chilean and Korean practices is similar; United
States and Korean codes require a minimum of 0.25% horizontal and vertical reinforcement,
and the Chilean practice requires a 0.2% of web reinforcement.
In this study, transverse reinforcement details at the boundary elements were basically proportioned to satisfy the requirements of the transverse reinforcement for a column, except for
the specimen representing Chilean practices. Although transverse reinforcement at a boundary
element consisted of both open hoops and cross tie, the spacing was determined so that it did
not exceed 16 longitudinal bar diameters (16df ), 48 times transverse reinforcement diameter
(48dt ), or the least dimension of the boundary element. Open hoops were fabricated to accommodate the development length 20 times the transverse reinforcement diameter (20dt ).
Cross ties having 135 and 90 hooks at the ends were prepared to have the development
length of at least 6 times greater the transverse reinforcement diameter (6dt ).

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Details of structural wall specimens
The prototype structure shown in Figure 1 is a 15-storey reinforced concrete bearing wall
residence building located in Korea. It was designed using the Building Code for Reinforced
Concrete Structures [18] and the Standard Design Loads for Building Construction [19] with
a seismic force reduction factor R of 3.5. Although some parameters for calculating seismic
design force in Korean seismic provision would slightly di
er from UBC-94 and ATC 3-06
[20], the seismic design force for the structural bearing system of Korean buildings range
between those of UBC-94 and ATC 3-06 when applied to the same building located in a
moderate seismic region. The requirements for designing structural elements including walls
are similar to ACI 318-95. Actual aspect ratios of structural walls in the proto-type building
range from 4.5 for transverse direction to 7.0 for longitudinal direction, but moment-to-shear
depth ratios (Mu =Vu d), which were calculated for major walls in both directions using linear
static and dynamic analyses using three-dimensional modelling of the proto-type building,
range from 1.5 to 3.5. It is assumed that the di
erence between physical and calculated
aspect ratios resulted from higher mode vibration characteristics of the proto-type building.
Thus, aspect ratios of wall specimens in the overall experimental program cover from 1 to 3.
However, this paper reports only the results for the case of aspect ratio of 2. More information
is given in Reference [21].
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602

1588

Y.-H. OH, S. W. HAN AND L.-H. LEE

Four full-scale wall specimens were made. All four specimens had the same overall dimensions with heights of 3000 mm, and widths of 1500 mm. The thickness of the three
rectangular specimens was 200 mm. However, the barbell-shaped specimen (WB) had a wall
web with a thickness of 125 mm and the boundary columns at its edges had a cross-section
of 240 mm 240 mm. The dimensions and reinforcement details of each specimen are shown
in Table I and Figure 3. The WR-20 specimen was considered the representative specimen
for reproducing the common practices used in Korean construction, whose boundary elements
were conned with D10 (As = 71mm2 ) open hoops and cross ties spaced at 200mm, as shown
in Figure 4. The WR-10 specimen had the same dimensions and reinforcement details except
for the opened hoops and cross ties at the boundary elements spaced at 100mm. This specimen
was made for investigating the e
ect of the spacing of the open hoops and cross ties at the
boundary element on overall behaviour. The WR-0 specimen had no transverse reinforcement
at the boundary elements. Consequently, its details are similar to that of Chilean construction
practice. The WB specimen, with barbell-shaped cross-section, was prepared to compare the
results with those of rectangular walls.
Material properties
Ready mixed concrete with 19 mm maximum aggregate was used. The average concrete
compressive strength for each specimen was in the range of 29.431:8 MPa at 28 days
and 32.936:2 MPa at the test date. The average reinforcement strengths were fy = 342 MPa
(fu = 445MPa) for D10 reinforcing bar, and fy = 449MPa (fu = 617MPa) for D13 reinforcing
bar. More information for the reinforcement and concrete used in this study are presented in
Reference [21].
Test setup and procedure
The specimens were bolted to the strong oor and tested in a vertical position. For ensuring
out-of-plane stability, two steel frames were placed perpendicular to the specimen. Figure
5 shows a sketch of the test setup that can vary moment to shear ratio (Mu =Vu d). This is
feasible when two vertical actuators are controlled to give axial force to produce additional
moment in addition to vertical axial force. However, since the ratio of moment to shear
in this study was set to 2, it did not require the additional moment by the two vertical
actuators.
The instrumentation included load cells to measure forces, electrical resistance strain gauges
to measure strains, and linear variable di
erential transducers (LVDTs) to measure exure and
slippage deformations for each specimen. Load cells, electrical resistance strain gauges and
LVDTs readings were continually recorded by a data acquisition system.
A vertical load of 0:1fc
Ag was applied to the specimens at the beginning of each test
and maintained throughout the test. This level of vertical load may represent the action of
dead load in the proto-type building. The amount of axial load was well below the calculated
balance axial load for the wall specimens.
Cyclic lateral load was applied to the load transfer assembly on the top of the specimen
through a hydraulic actuator attached to the reaction wall, which operated in a displacementcontrolled manner. The top displacements were cycled three times at the increasing levels of
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602

Copyright

? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2.0

WB
0.10

0.10

0.10

27.6

27.6

27.6

27.6

(4)

v (%)

(5)

s (%)

None

8-D10 (0.99) D10@400 (0.28) D10@320 (0.36) D10@150 (0.94)

4-D13 (1.27) D10@250 (0.28) D10@220 (0.32)

4-D13 (1.27) D10@250 (0.28) D10@220 (0.32) D10@100 (1.97)

4-D13 (1.27) D10@250 (0.28) D10@220 (0.32) D10@200 (0.99)

(3)

h (%)

(2)

b (%)

Note: (1) Design compressive strength of concrete.

(2) The ratio of boundary longitudinal reinforcement to boundary element area.
(3) The ratio of web horizontal reinforcement to vertical cross-section.
(4) The ratio of web vertical reinforcement to horizontal cross-section.
(5) The volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement at the boundary element.

2.0

WR-0

2.0

WR-10

0.10

Aspect Axial stress

(1)
ratio
(N=Ag fc
) fc
(MPa)

2.0

Cross section and

detailing type

WR-20

Specimen

Table I. Dimension and reinforcement details for specimens (length unit = mm).

SEISMIC DEFORMATION CAPACITY OF STRUCTURAL WALLS

1589

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602

1590

Y.-H. OH, S. W. HAN AND L.-H. LEE

Figure 3. Elevations and cross-sections of the specimens.

Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602

SEISMIC DEFORMATION CAPACITY OF STRUCTURAL WALLS

1591

Figure 4. Reinforcement details for the boundary element of the structural walls.

drift ratios (top displacement divided by height), as shown in Figure 6. The drift ratios were
1
1
1
1
1
1
600
, 400
, 300
, 200
, 150
, 100
, 751 , 501 , and 331 .
RESPONSES OF STRUCTURAL WALL SPECIMENS
The main results of the tests for the four specimens are given in Table II and Figures 7 and
8. A summary of experimental results of the four specimens is presented in the following
sections.
Cracks and failure modes
When the lateral load of 129.4215:6 kN was applied, which was developed at the drift ratio
of 1=6001=400 (0.170.25%), initial exural cracks of specimens occurred in the lower part
of the tensile zone. After that, a large number of the exural cracks occurred at the drift ratio
of 1=300 (0.33%), and these cracks progressed into exural-shear cracks on the drift ratio
of 1=200 (0.5%). As the drift ratio increased, new cracks occurred in the upper parts of all
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602

1592

Y.-H. OH, S. W. HAN AND L.-H. LEE

Figure 5. Test set-up.

Figure 6. Applied displacement history.

specimens, except the WR-0 specimen. In the WR-0 specimen, more new cracks were not
observed, but existing cracks were opened widely in the large inelastic deformation range.
Consequently, the damage was concentrated in the lower part of the specimen.
Although the WR-20, WR-10, and WB specimens generally behaved in a exural manner
by means of yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement and suppressing of a premature shear
failure, these specimens failed nally by buckling of longitudinal reinforcement and concrete
crushing of the compression zone at the boundary elements after the drift ratio of 1=50 (2%).
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602

Copyright

Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative

WR-20

? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

34.2
(29.4)
36.2
(30.3)
32.9
(29.9)
33.7
(31.8)

186.2
198.0
150.9
215.6
167.6
129.4
208.7
197.0

(2)

Vcr (kN)

(1)

fc;test(28) (MPa)

(3)

348.9
332.2
312.6
317.5
306.7
316.5
289.1
301.8

Vy (kN)

(4)

386.1
442.9
369.5
425.3
363.6
424.3
296.0
351.8

Vmax(test) (kN)

(5)

337.1

378.3

378.3

378.3

Vmax(cal) (kN)
1.02
1.18
0.98
1.13
0.96
1.12
0.88
1.04

12.4
9.2
9.3
9.4
13.9
10.8
11.0
10.1

(7)

y (mm)

(6)
Vmax(test)
Vmax(cal:)

(8)

80.9
53.4
85.9
84.5
64.4
42.2
84.7
54.4

max (mm)

6.5
5.8
9.2
8.9
4.6
3.9
7.7
5.4



(9)

(10)

2.7
1.8
2.9
2.8
2.2
1.4
2.8
1.8

u (%)

Note: (1) Concrete compressive strength at test (and at 28th day).

(2) Observed shear force at rst cracking.
(3) Observed strength when all boundary longitudinal reinforcements yield.
(4) Maximum observed strength during the test.
(5) Maximum strength calculated as a minimum value between nominal shear strength by ACI 318-95 and shear force corresponding to maximum exural
strength obtained from sectional analysis.
(6) The ratio of maximum observed shear strength to maximum calculated strength.
(7) Displacement when all boundary longitudinal reinforcement yield.
(8) Displacement corresponding to 80% of maximum strength.
(9) Displacement ductility calculated from dividing the maximum displacement by the yield displacement.
(10) Drift ratio calculated from dividing the maximum displacement by wall height.

WB

WR-0

WR-10

Loading
direction

Specimen

Table II. Observed strengths and deformability of wall specimens.

SEISMIC DEFORMATION CAPACITY OF STRUCTURAL WALLS

1593

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602

1594

Y.-H. OH, S. W. HAN AND L.-H. LEE

Figure 7. Damage patterns at the end of tests: (a) WR-20 specimen, (b) WR-10
specimen, (c) WR-0 specimen, (d) WB specimen.
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602

SEISMIC DEFORMATION CAPACITY OF STRUCTURAL WALLS

1595

Figure 8. Load versus displacement relationships: (a) WR-20 specimen, (b) WR-10
specimen, (c) WR-0 specimen, (d) WB specimen.

The crack propagation and nal failure mode are shown in Figure 7. In this gure, cracks
are marked as dotted lines in the grid line representing the spacing of the reinforcement, and
hatched areas represent the splitting region of concrete.
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602

1596

Y.-H. OH, S. W. HAN AND L.-H. LEE

Figure 8. (Continued).

Load vs. deformation characteristics

All four specimens experienced yielding at the drift ratio of 1=2501=300. The WR-20, WR-10,
and WB specimens showed gradually increasing lateral load-carrying capacity up to the drift
ratio of 1=55 (1.8%). At this deformation level, these specimens exhibited their maximum
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602

SEISMIC DEFORMATION CAPACITY OF STRUCTURAL WALLS

1597

strength and maintained ductile behaviour without any loss of lateral load-carrying capacity
until the drift ratio of 1=40 (2.5%). On the other hand, the WR-0 specimen showed maximum
strength at the drift ratio of about 1=100 (1%), and failed by the spalling of compression
concrete of the boundary elements in the rst positive loading stage at the drift ratio of
1=50 (2%). Therefore, the WR-0 specimen may be considered to have a relatively restricted
deformation capacity; the drift ratios for positive and negative loading direction were calculated
as 1=50 (2%) and 1=70 (1.43%), respectively. The plots of load vs deformation are shown in
Figure 8.
Table II shows the strength and deformation characteristics for each specimen. The maximum displacement was determined as the displacement corresponding to 80% of maximum
strength, and the yield displacement was dened as the displacement when all longitudinal
reinforcements at the boundary element yield. The ductility ratio is computed as the maximum displacement divided by the yield displacement. Therefore, the deformation capacities
are evaluated by means of the ductility ratio and the drift ratio. In Table II, calculate maximum strengths (Vmax(cal) ) were determined as the minimum value between nominal shear
strength by ACI 318-95 and shear force corresponding to maximum exural strength obtained
from sectional analysis. Flexural strengths were calculated by assuming a linear strain distribution across the section and a peak compressive strain of 0.003 in the concrete. Strain
hardening of the longitudinal reinforcement was considered. Because the distribution of the
lateral forces over the height of the wall is unique, the shear force at the base corresponding
to the maximum exural strength could be calculated. For all specimens, maximum strengths
were governed by shear force corresponding to maximum exural strength obtained from
sectional analysis. Also, these values correspond well with maximum strength observed from
each specimen (see Table II).

COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE OF WALL SPECIMENS

The standard specimen, WR-20, showed that the ductility ratio is 6.5 and the drift ratio is 2.7%
of wall height under positive loading, and 5.8 and 1.8% under negative loading, respectively.
Specimen WR-10 displayed the better ductile behaviour, it had ductility ratios of 9.2 and 8.9,
and drift ratios of 2.9% and 2.8% for each loading direction. Meanwhile, specimen WR-0,
which has no special consideration for transverse reinforcement at the boundary elements,
displayed a relatively inferior behaviour: ductility ratios of 4.6 and 3.9, and drift ratios of 2.2
and 1.4%. The barbell-shaped specimen, WB, had ductility ratios of 7.7 and 5.4, and drift
ratios of 2.8 and 1.8%.
It is observed that specimen WR-20 displays nearly the same deformation capacities compared to those of the barbell-shaped WB specimen. On the other hand, the response between
specimens WR-10 and WR-0 with the rectangular cross-section might display more sensitive
results depending on the content of connement reinforcement at the boundary elements. As
shown in Figures 912, specimen WR-10 displays the most ductile response among all specimens, and specimen WR-0 is considered to be more susceptible to failure. In these gures,
each parameter for evaluating the structural performance is compared with the volumetric ratio
of the transverse reinforcement.
However, it is considered that the specimen WR-0, having details like those of Chilean
construction, can accommodate the roof drift demand of 1.2%, as shown in Figure 2, and
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602

1598

Y.-H. OH, S. W. HAN AND L.-H. LEE

Figure 9. Comparison of average shear stress at the maximum observed strength.

Figure 10. Comparison of drift ratios of wall specimens.

the other specimens might have deformation capacity of more than 1.5% of drift ratio. The
ductility ratios for all specimens exceed 3.0.
Figure 12 shows the energy dissipation capacity for each specimen, which is calculated
from the inner area of loaddisplacement curve to construct complete hysteresis loops prior
to failure and also normalized by the product of yield strength and yield displacement. The
energy dissipation capacities of the specimens give almost a similar trend until the 21st cycle
(drift ratio of 501 ). The rate of increase in energy dissipation increases with increasing top drift
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602

SEISMIC DEFORMATION CAPACITY OF STRUCTURAL WALLS

1599

Figure 11. Comparison of displacement ductility ratios of wall specimens.

Figure 12. Comparison of normalized energy dissipation capacities.

1
ratios. After the drift ratio of 50
, specimen WR-10, with more dense transverse reinforcement
at the boundary elements, displays a large increase in energy, as shown in Figure 12. Also,
WR-20, which served as a standard specimen, displays an almost equal energy dissipation
capacity compared with the barbell-shaped section, specimen WB.
Figure 13 indicates two deformation components attributed from exure and shear at three
typical loading cycles, where exural deformations were calculated from LVDT data, and shear
deformations were determined by means of subtracting exure and slippage deformation from

Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602

1600

Y.-H. OH, S. W. HAN AND L.-H. LEE

Figure 13. Comparison of deformation due to exure and shear for test specimens.

total deformation. As the content of transverse reinforcement for walls with rectangular section
is larger, the fraction of exural component in the total deformation becomes greater. It is
considered that the content of transverse reinforcement for rectangular specimens could play
an important role in ductile hysteretic response. Also, specimen WB, with the barbell-shaped
cross-section, displays superior exural response, especially compared with WR-0 specimen.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The transverse reinforcement at the boundary elements of structural walls, which is
satised with the code requirements of minimum transverse reinforcement for the tied
column, might be considered as an e
ective measure for conning the concrete so that
the concrete of the boundary element can resist the compressive force from dead load
and overturning moment during an earthquake excitation.
(2) Without consideration of the economic detailing, the transverse reinforcement (open
hoops and cross ties) at the boundary elements of a wall could conne the concrete
in the compression zone. Also, seismic performance such as drift, ductility and energy dissipation capacity can be enhanced by increasing the amount of the transverse
reinforcement at the boundary elements of a wall.
(3) The WR-20 and WB specimens, which were prepared to investigate structural performance according to the sectional shapes of the walls, displayed nearly equal results in
terms of ductility ratio, drift ratio, and energy dissipation capacity.
(4) Walls like specimen WR-0 can be used for Chilean buildings with ratio of wall area to
oor area of 24% because displacement demand of wall with the aspect ratio of 7 is
1:2% and specimen WR-0, which represented the aspect ratio of 47 in proto-type
building, showed deformation capacity more than 1.2%.
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602

SEISMIC DEFORMATION CAPACITY OF STRUCTURAL WALLS

1601

(5) It is considered that the transverse reinforcement, in the form of open hoops and
cross ties, provides connement to the core concrete in the boundary elements of the
structural walls. It is expected that such boundary element details can give a feasible
solution to e
ectively conne the boundary elements of rectangular walls, which are
widely used for constructing residence buildings in some countries because of their
economic advantage.

NOMENCLATURE
lw
n
w
hs
hw
g
Ec


Sd
S
Z
Tcr
u
df
dt

s

length of wall
number of stories
unit oor weight including tributary wall weight
mean storey height
height of wall
acceleration of gravity
concrete modulus of elasticity
ratio of wall area to oor plan area in a direction
spectral displacement
soil factor
seismicity zone factor
fundamental period assuming cracked section properties
mean drift
diameter of longitudinal reinforcement at the boundary of wall
diameter of transverse reinforcement at the boundary of wall
volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement (total volume of transverse reinforcement obtained by multiplying the steel area by centre to centre bar
length, divided by concrete volume, obtained by multiplying the core area
measured out-to-out of perimeter hoop by tie spacing).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research reported in this paper was supported by the advanced STructural RESearch Station
(STRESS) of Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) at Hanyang University. Additional
support was provided by the MAE centre at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The comments
by Professor D. A. Foutch are greatly appreciated.

REFERENCES
1. Paulay T. The design of ductile reinforced concrete shear walls for earthquake resistance. Earthquake Spectra,
EERI 1986; 4:783823.
2. Cardenas AE, Hanson JM, Corley WG, Hognestad E. Design provision for shear walls. ACI Structural Journal,
ACI 1973; 5:221230.
3. Morgan BJ, Hiraishi H, Corley WG. U.S.Japan quasi static test of isolated wall planar reinforced concrete
structure. Report to National Science Foundation, Construction Technology Laboratories, Portland Cement
Association, Skokie, IL, 1986.
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602

1602

Y.-H. OH, S. W. HAN AND L.-H. LEE

4. Oesterle RG, Fiorato AE, Johal LS, Carpenter JE, Russell HG, Corley WG. Earthquake resistant structural
wallstests of isolated walls. Report to National Science Foundation, Construction Technology Laboratories,
Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1976.
5. Oesterle RG, Aristizabal-Ochoa JD, Fiorato AE, Russell HG, Corley WG. Earthquake resistant structural walls
phase II. Report to National Science Foundation, Construction Technology Laboratories, Portland Cement
Association, Skokie, IL, 1979.
6. Oesterle RG, Fiorato AE, Corley WG. Reinforcement detail for earthquake-resistant structural walls. Concrete
International, ACI 1980; 2(12):5566.
7. Vallenas JM, Bertero VV, Popov EP. Hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete structural walls. UCB=EERC79=20, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1979.
8. Ali A, Wight JK. RC structural walls with staggered door openings. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE
1991; 5:1514 1531.
9. Tomsen IV JH, Wallace JW. Displacement-based design of RC structural walls: an experimental investigation
of walls with rectangular and T-shaped cross-sections. Report No. CU=CEE-95=06, Clarkson University,
Potsdam, NY, 1995.
10. Wood SL, Wight JK, Moehle JP. The 1985 Chile Earthquake Observations on Earthquake-resistant
Construction in Vina del Mar. Structural Research Series No. 532, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1987.
11. Wallace JW, Moehle, JP. Ductility and detailing requirements of bearing wall buildings. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 1992; 6:16251644.
12. Lee L-H, Chang K-K, Chun Y-S. Experimental formula for the fundamental period of RC buildings with
shear-wall dominant systems. The Structural Design of Tall Buildings 2000; 9:295307.
13. Sozen MA. Earthquake response of buildings with robust walls. Proceedings of Fifth Chilean Conference on
Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, 1989.
14. International Conference of Building Ocials (ICBO). Uniform Building Code. Whittier, CA, 1994.
15. Oh Young-Hun, Han Sang-Whan, Lee Li-Hyung. Displacement demand and required connement region for
bearing wall system subjected to severe earthquake actions. Journal of AIK, Architectural Institute of Korea
2001; 10:8186 (in Korean).
16. Seo Soo-Yeon, Lee Li-Hyung, Hawkins NM. The limiting drift and energy dissipation ratio for shear walls
based on structural testing. Journal of Korea Concrete Institute, KCI 1998; 6:335343.
17. American Concrete Institute (ACI). Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete and Commentary,
ACI 318-95, Farmington, MI, 1995.
18. Ministry of Construction. Building Code for Reinforced Concrete Structures, Seoul, Korea, 1994.
19. Ministry of Construction. Standard Design Loads for Building Construction, Seoul, Korea, 1992.
20. ATC 3-06. Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings. Applied Technology
Council, Palo Alto, CA, 1978.
21. Oh Young-Hun. Evaluation of the response modication factor for shear walls in apartment buildings. Ph.D.
Thesis, Hanyang University 1998; 1289 (in Korean).
22. Wallace JW. New methodology for seismic design of RC shear walls. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE
1992; 3:863884.

Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

View publication stats

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:15831602