ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 95-S19
High-Strength Concrete Structural Walls
by Anshu Gupta and B. Vijaya Rangan
Eight high-strength concrete (HSC) structural walls were tested
under in-plane axial and horizontal loads. The test parameters
included in the study were longitudinal reinforcement ratio, trans-
verse reinforcement ratio, and axial load. The shear strength of
walls is calculated using a stress analysis of the central panel of
the wall. The flexural strength is calculated by the conventional
theory of reinforced concrete sections subjected to combined
bending moment and axial compression. The theoretical predic-
tions are compared with the test results reported herein as well as
those available in the literature. The predicted values show good
correlation with the test strengths. The predictions by the design
provisions given in the current Australian Standard AS 3600 and
the American Concrete Institute Building Code ACI 318 are also
compared with the test results.
Keywords: design; high-strength concrete; shear; shear walls; structural
walls.
INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete structural walls, commonly known as
shear walls, are frequently used in multistory buildings
primarily to resist lateral loads due to wind forces and
seismic effects. A wall panel within a story is subjected to
vertical loads as well as lateral loads transmitted by the
floors. Structural walls are therefore subjected to axial
compression, bending moment, and shear force.
Superior performance of buildings containing structural
walls in resisting earthquakes is well documented.1,2 In
recent years, high-strength concrete with compressive
strengths in the range of 60 to 100 MPa (9 to 14 ksi) have
been successfully used in the columns and core-walls of
multistory buildings. The advantages of structural high-
strength concrete (HSC) walls in resisting wind forces have
been demonstrated by Martin and Peyton.3 The economic
advantage of HSC has been reported.4 However, very little
research has been carried out on the behavior and strength of
HSC structural walls.
Fintel1 expressed the need to develop analytical and exper-
imental information on the strength and behavior of rein-
forced concrete structural walls so that their proportioning
can be brought to the same level of confidence as presently
available for beams and columns. Also, the design procedure
in the current codes is based on data obtained from tests
carried out on low-strength concrete structural walls. The
applicability of these design equations to HSC structural
walls needs examination.
194
TECHNICAL PAPER
The objectives of the research are as follows:
• To develop analytic models to predict the strength of
reinforced concrete structural walls under in-plane
loads. Both flexure and shear modes of failure are to be
considered.
• To test scaled model of HSC structural walls.
• To compare the analytical predictions with test results
reported in this study, as well with those available in the
literature.
• To compare the design equations given in the codes
with the test results.
The scope of the experimental work was limited to tests on
isolated wall specimens. The test specimens were subjected
to constant axial load. The horizontal load was monotoni-
cally increased from zero up to failure value. Other parame-
ters included in the study were vertical load, longitudinal
(vertical) reinforcement, and transverse (horizontal) rein-
forcement. The overall dimensions of the test specimens
were kept constant.
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
Complete details of the experimental work are given else-
where.5 Only salient features are described here.
Test specimens
In all, eight large-scale isolated wall specimens were
tested. The test specimens are identified as S-1, S-2, S-3, S-
4, S-5, S-6, S-7, and S-F. The dimensions of test walls are
given in Fig 1. The test specimens used in the present study
were similar to those tested by other investigators.6,7
The test walls represented approximately one-third scale
models of a prototype structural wall in a multistory building.
The test wall was 75 mm (3 in.) thick with 375 x 100 mm (15 x
4 in.) edge elements. The overall length of the wall was 1000
mm (40 in.) and the height was 1000 mm (40 in.).
The dimensions of the top beam and the bottom (foundation)
beam were selected such that they did not suffer premature
failure and that they were stiffer than the wall. As shown in
ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 2, March-April 1998.
Received May 30, 1996, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copy-
right © 1998, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making
of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion will be published in the January-February 1999 ACI Structural Journal if
received by September 1, 1998.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998

Anshu Gupta obtained his BE and ME degrees from Punjab University, India, and his
PhD from Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia. Dr. Gupta has
more than ten years of experience in structural design. He is currently a senior engi-
neer with a structural engineering firm in Perth, Western Australia.
B. Vijaya Rangan, FACI, is Professor and Head of the School of Civil Engineering,
Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia. Dr. Rangan is co-author
of a textbook on reinforced concrete, widely used in Australia, and has received
ACI’s Raymond C. Reese Structural Research Award. He is a member of several ACI
committees and is also a member of the Concrete Structures Committee of Standards
Australia.
Fig. 1, the top beam was 1300 mm long, 575 mm wide, and
200 mm deep. The bottom (foundation) beam was 1800 mm
(5 in.) long, 575 mm (23 in.) wide, and 400 mm (16 in.) deep.
Commercial ready-mixed concrete with replacement of 5
percent (by weight) cement by silica fume was used. The
nominal 28-day compressive strength of the mix was 70 MPa
(10 ksi). The maximum size of aggregate was 7 mm (0.3 in.) in
order to ensure good compaction of concrete in the test
specimens.
For each test wall, 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in.) cylinders and
150 x 300 mm (6 x 12 in.) cylinders were made. The 100 x
200 mm (4 x 8 in.) cylinders were used to measure the
compressive strength and the 150 x 300 mm (6 x 12 in.)
cylinders were used to determine the splitting tensile strength of
concrete. The compressive strength and the splitting tensile
strength on the day of wall test are given in Table 1.
The reinforcement details of test walls are given in Fig. 2.
The bar marks “a,” “b,” “c,” etc., in Fig. 2 are explained in
Table 2.
The longitudinal (vertical) reinforcement in the wall of test
specimens was selected such that the area of steel was
Fig. 1—Dimensions of test wall
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998
approximately 1.0 percent of the wall cross-section in Spec-
imens S-1, S-2, S-3, S-7, and S-F, and 1.5 percent in Speci-
mens S-4, S-5, and S-6. Except for Specimen S-7, the area of
transverse (horizontal) reinforcement in the wall was
approximately 0.5 percent of the wall cross-section. In Spec-
imen S-7, the area of transverse (horizontal) reinforcement
was approximately l.0 percent of wall cross-section.
Accordingly, the longitudinal (vertical) reinforcement
(symbol “a” in Fig. 2 and Table 2) in Specimens S-1, S-2,
S-3, S-7, and S-F consisted of six hard-drawn wires of
7.1 mm (0.28 in.) diameter at each wall face. In Specimens
S-4, S-5, and S-6, the longitudinal (vertical) reinforcement in
the wall comprised eight hard-drawn wires of 8 mm (0.31
in.) diameter at each wall face.
Except for Specimen S-7, the transverse (horizontal) rein-
forcement in the wall in all specimens was identical and
consisted of ten hard-drawn wires of 5 mm (0.20 in.) diam-
eter at each wall face. In Specimen S-7, ten 7.1 mm (0.28 in.)
diameter hard-drawn wires at each face were used as trans-
verse (horizontal) reinforcement.
The reinforcement in the edge elements, varied (see
Symbols “b” and “c” in Fig. 2 and Table 2). Specimen S-F
was designed to fail in flexure. The edge elements in this
Table 1—Concrete specimens
Specimen S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-F
Compressive strength,
MPa 79.3 65.1 69.0 75.2 73.1 70.5 71.2 60.5
Splitting tensile 7.33 6.13 7.27 7.73 6.57 7.83 6.53 6.00
strengths, MPa
Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi
195
Fig. 2—Reinforcement details of specimens

Table 2—Reinforcement details of test walls

Specimen
Bar mark in
Fig. 2 S-F S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7
6W7.1 6W7.1 6W7.1 6W7.1 8W8 8W8 8W8 6W7.1
“a”
(E.F.) (E.F.) (E.F.) (E.F.) (E.F.) (E.F.) (E.F.) (E.F.)
“b” 4W7.1 4W7.1 4W7.1 4W7.1 4W8 4W8 4W8 4W7.1
4W12.5 and 4W12.5 and
“c” 4W5 4W10 4W12.5 4W12.5 6W12.5 4W12.5
2W10 2W10
“d” 4Y16 4Y16 4Y20 4Y24 4Y16 4Y16 4Y24 4Y20
“e” 4Y16 4Y16 4Y20 4Y24 4Y16 4Y24 4Y24 and 2Y16 4Y20
Note: “a” = longitudinal (vertical) reinforcement in wall at each face
“b”,“c” = longitudinal (vertical) reinforcement in edge element
“d”,“e” = reinforcement in foundation beam

specimen contained four hard-drawn wires of 7.1 mm (0.28 in.)
diameter plus eight hard-drawn wires of 5 mm (0.20 in.)
diameter. The edge elements of other specimens were more
heavily reinforced in order to ensure that the flexure failure
did not precede the shear failure. The longitudinal reinforce-
ment in the edge elements was enclosed by closed ties made
of 6 mm (0.24 in.) diameter plain bars placed at center-to-
center spacing of 100 mm (4 in.). Deformed bars were used
as reinforcement in the top beam and the bottom (foundation)
beam. The details are given in Fig. 2 and Table 2.
All reinforcing bars were provided with adequate anchorage
lengths at their ends. This was achieved by providing cogs at
the ends of the bars. The vertical bars in the wall and in the
edge elements were taken well into the top and bottom
beams. All closed ties terminated with 135-deg hooks. In all
specimens, the clear concrete cover to reinforcement was 12
mm (0.5 in.).
Three samples of each reinforcing bar or wire were tested
in tension. The yield strength (0.2 percent proof stress) and
the ultimate strength of hard-drawn wires W5, W7.1, W8,
W10, and W12.5 are given in Table 3. The reinforcing bars
used in the top and bottom (foundation) beams were 400Y
grade bars with a minimum yield strength of 400 MPa (58 ksi).

196 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998

 Fig. 3—Test setup.

The 6 mm (0.24 in.) round bar used as closed ties was 250R Table 3—Yield and ultimate strength
grade with a minimum yield strength of 250 MPa (36 ksi). of reinforcement
The test wall specimens were cast horizontally in timber Bar mark W5 W7.1 W8 W10 W12.5
molds. The mold was made of 17 mm (0.67 in.) thick Area of cross-section, mm2 19.6 39.6 50.2 78.5 122.5
plywood (formply) which was applied with a few coats of Yield strength, MPa 578.0 545.0 533.2 529.3 531.4
polyurethane sealant to make it water-resistant. Aluminium Ultimate strength, MPa 632.1 592.9 575.1 582.2 590.2
and steel angles were used at the corners to stiffen the mold. Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi ; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
The specimen dimensions achieved were within ±0.5 percent
accuracy. A systematic procedure was followed during
casting of each test specimen.5 Immediately after casting, the the spherical seat, and the load spreader. The jacks were
test specimens and the control cylinders were covered with operated by hydraulic pumps.
polyethylene sheets to prevent any loss of moisture by evap- The vertical load was maintained concentric to the test
oration. The sides of the test specimen and the control cylin- wall at all stages of loading. This was achieved by means of
ders were stripped one day after casting. The test specimen a special assembly attached to the top of the vertical load
and the cylinders were immediately covered with wet cell. The special assembly consisted of a TeflonTM sheet
hessian and polyethylene sheets. The test specimens were sandwiched between two platens. The top platen was fixed
stripped completely off the mold on the fourth day after to the loading rig. The bottom platen was attached to the
casting. The curing of concrete by the wet hessian continued vertical load cell. After each increment of horizontal load,
for seven days. Care was taken to keep the hessian wet the bottom platen and the vertical load assembly became
during these seven days. After seven days of curing, the eccentric to the top platen (and hence to the line of application
specimen and the cylinders were uncovered from the wet of the vertical load). The bottom platen was then manually
hessian and left to air dry until testing. moved until the vertical load was, once again, concentric. The
TeflonTM sheet was well-lubricated to minimize any friction and
Test setup to facilitate the movement of bottom platen.
The wall specimens were tested in a self-straining steel Both vertical and horizontal loads were measured using
test rig that was specially designed and built for the purpose. load cells capable of maintaining linearity up to 1500 kN
A schematic arrangement of the test set-up is given in Fig. 3. (340 kips). The load cells were calibrated before and after
The test set-up included specially built assemblies to hold each test in a test machine. The displacements of test walls
down the test specimen and prevent it from lifting or sliding were measured using Linear Variable Differential Trans-
during load application. The test rig was designed to apply ducers (LVDTs). An independent reference steel frame was
up to 3000 kN (675 kips) vertical load and 2000 kN (450 kips) erected to hold all LVDTs. The top horizontal displacement
horizontal load on the test walls. The loads were applied by at the location of the horizontal load, the uplift of the foun-
hydraulic jacks with a 50 mm (2 in.) maximum ram travel. dation beam, and the horizontal movement of the base of the
The loading assembly comprised of the jack, the load cell, wall were measured by LVDTs. Lateral movement of the

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998 197

foundation beam and the out-of-plane movement of the spec-
imen, if any, were also monitored. The horizontal movement
of the vertical load assembly was monitored by an LVDT. As
mentioned before, this movement was corrected after each
increment of horizontal load so that the vertical load was
concentric to the test wall. The data from the load cells and
LVDTs were captured by a data logger.
Test procedure
The test specimen was placed in the test rig several days
before the day of the test. The specimen was made to butt
against the transverse steel beam in the test rig, which
prevented it from sliding during the test. The specimen was
aligned and leveled by placing a thin layer of rich cement
mortar underneath it. The alignment of the test specimen was
checked using a digital spirit level capable of measuring
slopes up to 0.1 percent.
One or two days after positioning the test specimen, the
vertical load spreader was positioned concentric to the test
specimen. Holes were drilled on the top beam of the test spec-
imen and anchor bolts were use to connect the spreader to the
specimen. The spherical seat supported by four springs was
then placed on the spreader. The test specimen was prevented
from uplift by securing the bottom (foundation) beam to the
test rig. The horizontal load assembly was placed in position
next. Care was taken that the horizontal load assembly was
perpendicular to the vertical axis of the test specimen.
On the day of the test, LVDTs and dial gauges were placed
in their marked positions. The hydraulic pumps were
connected to the loading jacks. The data acquisition system
was connected and the specimen was ready for loading.
The horizontal load was applied at a distance of 1087 mm
(42.8 in.) from wall base. Initially, the test specimen was
“exercised” by applying 5 kN (1.1 kips) horizontal and
vertical loads in order to ensure that all systems were
working. The initial load was then released and zero reading
was taken. The full vertical load was applied in 6 to 8 incre-
ments, and displacements, if any, were measured. The hori-
zontal load was then applied in increments of 50 kN (11.2.
kips) before racking and 25 kN (5.6 kips) after cracking. The
load increments decreased to 10 kN (2.2 kips) when failure
was impending. At each increment of horizontal load, the
load was maintained for two minutes and complete data were
captured by the data acquisition system. The specimen was
checked for cracks, and crack patterns were marked on the
test specimen. The vertical load assembly was moved by
adjusting the special assembly mentioned earlier until the
vertical load was concentric to the test specimen. The out-of-
plane movement of the wall was also monitored. All speci-
mens were loaded to failure. After the test, the test specimen
was photographed. Control cylinders were tested on the day
of test.
Test results
The description of behavior of walls and complete details
of test results are given elsewhere.5 It was observed that the
out-of-plane movement of the specimen and the horizontal,
vertical, and lateral movements of the wall base were negli-
gible at all stages of loading.
198
As expected, Specimens S-1 to S-7 failed in shear and
Specimen S-F failed in flexure. A summary of test results is
given in Table 4. The horizontal load versus drift index of all
specimens are available in Reference 5.
SHEAR STRENGTH OF WALLS
To predict the shear strength of test walls, the Compres-
sion Field Theory due to Vecchio and Collins8 is modified.
The test walls were subjected to vertical and horizontal loads
and comprise the end elements and the central panel. In order
to simplify calculations, the following assumptions are
made:
• The shear force due to the horizontal load is primarily
resisted by the central panel.
• The effect of bending stresses on the shear behavior of
the central panel is negligible.
• The state of stresses in the central panel is uniform.
• The average stresses in the central panel act over an
effective shear area. As an approximation, the effective
shear area is taken as the product of the horizontal
length of the wall between centers of end elements, dw
and the wall thickness, tw. In the absence of end
elements, dw is assumed to be equal to 0.8 Lw, where Lw
is the length of the wall.
The central panel of a structural wall usually is provided
with uniform reinforcement, i.e., bars of the same diameter
at equal spacing in both longitudinal and transverse direc-
tions. A typical element in the cracked central panel may be
visualized as shown in Fig. 4. In Fig. 4, the l-t axes are the
longitudinal and transverse directions of the wall. The model
comprises a concrete strut tied together by reinforcing bars
in the l- and t-directions. The reinforcing bars carry only
axial stresses.
The “stress analysis” of the model can proceed by consid-
ering the equilibrium, the strain compatibility, and the stress-
strain relationships of concrete and steel.
Equilibrium and compatibility
The concrete strut, which is inclined at an angle α to the
longitudinal direction, develops a compressive stress σd
along its axis and a tensile stress of σr perpendicular to that
axis (Fig. 4). Both σd and σr are considered as principal
stresses in the concrete. The principal stresses σd and σr can
be transformed in the longitudinal and transverse directions
along with superposed stresses in reinforcing bars. Using
Mohr’s circle of stresses, for equilibrium, we have
2 2
σ l = σ d cos α + σ r sin α + ρ l f l (1)
2 2
σ t = σ d sin α + σ r cos α + ρ t f t (2)
τ lt = ( σ r – σ d ) sin α cos α (3)
where σl , σt =normal stresses in l and t directions respec-
tively and are positive for tension, σd, σr = principal stresses
in d and r directions respectively (positive for tension), τl t =
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998
average shear stress in l and t co-ordinate system positive as
shown and is due to shear force caused by the horizontal load
acting on the wall, α = angle of inclination of the d-axis to
l-axis, ρl , ρt = average reinforcement ratios in the wall in the
longitudinal and transverse directions, respectively, and fl , ft
= average stresses in reinforcing bars in l and t directions
respectively. Also ρl = Al /twLw and ρt = At /twHw, where Al
is the area of longitudinal steel in the wall on both faces in
length Lw, and At is the area of transverse steel in the wall on
both faces in height Hw.
It is assumed that the directions of the principal strains
coincide with the directions of principal stresses. This means
the d-r co-ordinate system also indicates the directions of
principal strains. The average strains in l and t directions can
be related to principal strains by Mohr’s circle of strains as
follows:
Fig. 4—Typical element in crack central panel of a wall.
2 2
ε l = ε d cos α + ε r sin α (4)
Table 4—Summary of test results
2 2
ε t = ε d sin α + ε r cos α (5) Horizontal load, kN
Specimen Axial At flexural At diagonal
γ lt = 2 ( ε r – ε d ) sin α cos α (6) no. thrust, kN cracking cracking At failure
S-1 0.0 140.0 195.0 427.8
where εl , εt = average strains in the element in l -t directions S-2 610.0 296.0 396.0 719.6
respectively (positive for tension), εd, εr = average principal S-3 1230.0 360.0 500.0 850.7
strains in the element in d-r directions respectively (positive S-4 0.0 160.0 240.0 600.0
for tension), and γl t = average shear strain in the element in S-5 610.0 386.0 470.0 790.2
l -t coordinate system. S-6 1230.0 450.0 650.0 970.0
S-7 610.0 430.0 560.0 800.0
Stress-strain relationships of concrete and steel S-F 310.0 150.7 199.8 486..6
Softened concrete in compression—The concrete strut is Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN.
subjected to compressive-tensile stresses. It is well known
that the compressive behavior of the concrete in the strut is
not the same as that of a concrete cylinder in uniaxial
fc ′
compression. Due to the presence of a tensile strain in the k = 0.67 + -----
- when εd > εco , fc' = compressive cylinder
perpendicular direction and due to cracking, the concrete in 62
the strut undergoes a strength gradation in compression. To strength of concrete, and K 3 = 0.6 + 10
------ ≤ 0.85 .
reflect this behavior, the strut concrete is designated by the fc ′
term “softened concrete in compression.”
Recently, Collins et al.9 have proposed a stress-strain relation The peak compressive stress fp is expressed as β fc', where
for (unsoftened) concrete compression. This relation which β is called a “softening factor.” In the present study, the
applies to concretes with compressive strengths up to 100 MPa value of β is taken as given by Vecchio10 as
(14 ksi) is adopted here. For softened concrete in the diagonal
1
strut, the stress-strain relationship is expressed as β = -------------------------------- ≤ 1.0 (7b)
ε
0.85 – 0.27 -----r
εd
ε
σ d = f p K 3 ⎛ ------d-⎞ ------------------------------------------
n (7a)
⎝ε ⎠
co
ε nk Concrete in tension—The principal stress σr is related to
n – 1 + ⎛ ------d-⎞ the principal strain εr by the following expressions:
⎝ε ⎠
co

σr = Ec εr when 0 ≤ ε r ≤ ε ct (8a)
where

fc ′ n ( ε ut – ε r )
ε co = ----- ------------ , E c = 3320 f c ′ + 6900 MPa , σ r = f ct′ ----------------------- when ε ct ≤ ε r ≤ ε ut (8b)
Ec n – 1 ( ε ut – ε ct )

fc ′ σr = 0 when ε r > ε ut (8c)

-,
n = 0.8 + ----- and k = 1.0 when εd ≤ εco
17
In Eq. (8), fct' is the tensile strength of concrete in MPa and
or is taken as equal to 0.4 f c ′ , as given by the Australian

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998 199

Standard AS 3600.11 Note that εct = fct' /Ec . Also εut is the
ultimate tensile strain beyond which the tensile stress is zero.
In the present study, the value of εut is assumed to be equal
to the yield strain of steel reinforcement. For a steel bar with
a yield strength of 400 MPa (58 ksi), the yield strain is equal
to 0.002. It is believed that there is negligible tensile stress in
concrete when the strain reaches magnitudes in the order of
0.002 or more.
Reinforcing steel—The stress-strain relation of rein-
forcing steel is assumed to be elastic-perfectly plastic.
Therefore,
fl = Es εl when 0 < ε l < ε y
fl = fy when ε l ≥ ε y
ft = Es εt when 0 < ε t < ε y
ft = fy when ε t ≥ ε y
where Εs is the modulus of elasticity and fy is the yield
strength of reinforcing bars.
Solution
The stress analysis of the model involves thirteen
unknowns, viz. σl , σt, σd, σr, τl t, εl , εt, εd, εr, γl t, α, fl , and
ft. There are ten equations given by the equilibrium, the
strain compatibility, and the stress-strain relationships of
concrete and steel, i.e., Eq. (1) to (10). For a given wall the
vertical compressive force N is known. Assuming that the
force N produces a uniform compressive stress on the wall
cross-section, the intensity of this stress in the central panel
in the l -direction is equal to N/Ag where Ag is the gross
concrete area of the cross-section of the wall. Therefore,
N using the theory presented above. The flexural strength of
σ l = ------
Ag
For each load stage, the strain εd can be specified. This
condition and Eq. (11) provide two additional equations.
Still one more equation is required to complete analysis.
There are two possibilities. One possibility is to assume
that the wall is infinitely restrained from movement in the
transverse direction and therefore the strain εt = 0. Such a
restraint may be provided by the foundation beam in a test
specimen shown in Fig. 2. Based on this assumption, Hsu
and Mo12 predicted the shear behavior of low-rise shear
walls. Although these researchers found reasonably good
agreement between test and predicted shear strengths, there
were significant movements of test specimens in the trans-
verse direction and the measured values of εt were far from
zero. Therefore, it appears that the assumption εt = 0 cannot
be applied to all values of height-to-length ratio of walls.
Nevertheless, this assumption may yield an upper bound
solution to the shear strength of walls.
Another possibility is to assume that the wall is free to
move in the transverse direction to such an extent that no
resultant stress develops in that direction, i.e., σt = 0, but
200
εt ≠ 0. This assumption may provide a lower bound solution
to the shear strength of walls.
The actual shear strength of test specimens lies between
these two bounds. For instance, in the case of test specimen
S-5 reported in the present study, the assumption σt = 0
yielded a calculated shear strength of 411.8 kN, whereas the
assumption εt = 0 produced a calculated shear strength of
1239.8 kN. The measured shear strength of 790.2 kN is in
fact in-between these two calculated values.
The crack patterns and failure modes of test specimens
reported in this study as well as in the literature showed that
the average strut angle α may be closely approximated by the
(9a) following expression:
dw
(9b) tan α = ------
- (12)
Hw
(10a)
where dw is the effective horizontal length of the wall as
defined earlier and Hw is the height of the wall.
(10b) Eq. (12) provides the last condition required to complete
the analysis. However, certain limits may be necessary on
the value of α calculated by Eq. (12). The limits correspond
to the values of α obtained for the two bounds mentioned
above. Accordingly, the angle α given by Eq. (12) is not
taken larger than the value calculated for the condition when
the transverse strain εt = 0. Also, α is not taken smaller than
the value obtained for the condition when the transverse
stress σt = 0.
The analysis yielded the shear strength of test walls. The
calculations were performed using a desk-top computer.5
COMPARISON OF TEST AND PREDICTED
FAILURE LOADS
In addition to the walls reported in this paper, the details
of test specimens available in the literature6,7,13-18 were
collected. The shear strength of test walls were calculated
(11)
walls was calculated using the conventional analysis of a
reinforced concrete section subjected to axial compression
and uniaxial bending moment.19 The smaller of the calcu-
lated values is taken as the predicted strength. The results are
presented in Table 5. In all, there are 69 test results. The
mean of test/calculated horizontal loads at failure is 1.08
with a standard deviation of 0.175.
All walls tested by Lefas13 are predicted to have failed in
flexure. The test/predicted mean value of failure loads is
1.30 with a standard deviation of 0.091. The test failure loads
are greater than predicted capacities in all cases. From the
test observations reported by the investigator, it was not
possible to establish the exact reason for the conservative
nature of the predicted values.
For the walls tested by Oesterle et al.,14 the mean value of
test/predicted failure loads is 1.22 with a standard deviation
of 0.035. The predicted failure loads are smaller than
observed test values in all cases. Four out of five specimens
are predicted to have failed in flexural mode.
Of the specimens tested by Maier and Thürlimann6 Speci-
mens S4, S9, and S10 were rectangular in cross-section.
Specimen S10 was provided with nonuniform longitudinal
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998
Table 5—Correlation of test and predicted strengths
Predicted shear Predicted flexural Predicted failure Ultimate load (test),
Source Specimen no. capacity, kN capacity, kN mode kN Test/Calc.
SW11 383.9 214.8 Flexure 260.0 1.21
SW12 432.6 263.7 Flexure 340.0 1.29
SW13 385.9 261.4 Flexure 330.0 1.26
SW14 329.0 208.4 Flexure 265.0 1.27
SW15 369.5 245.7 Flexure 320.0 1.30
SW16 473.5 290.2 Flexure 355.0 1.22
13 SW17 365.8 212.8 Flexure 247.0 1.16
Lefas
SW21 201.9 91.2 Flexure 127.0 1.39
SW22 222.7 112.2 Flexure 150.0 1.34
SW23 230.4 120.3 Flexure 180.0 1.50
SW24 209.9 92.9 Flexure 120.0 1.29
SW25 225.6 117.4 Flexure 150.0 1.28
SW26 119.3 86.7 Flexure 123.0 1.42
B5 675.5 595.6 Flexure 761.3 1.28
B6 685.3 713.9 Shear 824.4 1.20
14 B7 880.2 807.2 Flexure 979.6 1.21
Oesterle
B8 1277.9 789.0 Flexure 976.9 1.24
F2 854.3 745.8 Flexure 886.7 1.19
S1 850.1 649.0 Flexure 680.0 1.05
S2 1109.7 929.0 Flexure 928.0 1.00
S3 1008.9 1155.6 Shear 977.0 0.97
S4 643.0 320.1 Flexure 392.0 1.22
6 S5 853.3 643.0 Flexure 701.0 1.09
Maier
S6 753.5 568.8 Flexure 667.0 1.17
S7 1087.6 906.6 Flexure 836.0 0.92
S9 — 309.8 — 342.0 1.10
S10 729.0 590.2 Flexure 670.0 1.14
SW7 966.0 621.6 Flexure 518.7 0.83
SW8 1052.2 635.1 Flexure 569.3 0.90
Cardenas15 SW9 1060.5 636.1 Flexure 678.7 1.07
SW-11 — 638.9 — 608.9 0.95
SW-12 — 639.0 — 657.8 1.03
W1 891.2 519.2 Flexure 575.0 1.11
Wiradinata16
W2 879.0 905.3 Shear 680.0 0.77
B11 1132.8 1481.2 Shear 1217.3 1.07
B21 901.4 3801.9 Shear 977.6 1.08
B32 1300.8 2272.5 Shear 1107.2 0.85
Barda17
B64 965.3 2571.6 Shear 875.6 0.91
B75 1249.1 5274.7 Shear 1138.6 0.91
B85 814.7 1346.7 Shear 884.8 1.09

reinforcement, i.e., more reinforcement was provided on
tensile side of the wall. This specimen was analyzed for
shear strength assuming that all longitudinal reinforcement
was distributed uniformly in the wall. Specimen S9 did not
contain any transverse reinforcement. The shear strength of
this specimen was therefore not calculated. Only for Spec-
imen S3, the predicted mode of failure is shear. The mean of
test/predicted failure loads of all specimens is 1.07 with a
standard deviation of 0.099.
For the walls tested by Cardenas et al.15 mean of test/
predicted failure loads is 0.96 with a standard deviation of
0.095. All these specimens are predicted to have failed in
flexure mode. In Specimens SW-11 and SW-12 there was no
longitudinal reinforcement in central wall portion and all the

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998 201

Table 5—Correlation of test and predicted strengths (cont.)
Predicted shear Predicted flexural Predicted failure Ultimate load (test),
Source Specimen no. capacity, kN capacity, kN mode kN Test/Calc.
NW-1 1096.1 822.8 Flexure 1062.0 1.29
NW-2 1657.3 1190.6 Flexure 1468.0 1.23
NW-3 707.3 693.2 Flexure 714.0 1.03
NW04 780.5 830.3 Shear 784.0 1.00
NW-5 847.9 838.8 Flexure 900.0 1.07
NW-6 883.7 927.9 Shear 1056.0 1.19
W08 1735.1 1516.2 Flexure 1670.0 1.10
W12 2192.3 1708.9 Flexure 1719.0 1.01
N1 1460.0 1796.0 Shear 1100.0 0.75
N2 1535.4 1863.0 Shear 1254.0 0.82
18 N3 1568.5 1883.1 Shear 1378.0 0.88
Kabeyasawa
N4 2225.9 2203.5 Flexure 1696.0 0.77
N5 964.1 1338.3 Shear 1158.0 1.20
N6 1619.1 1920.5 Shear 1411.0 0.87
N7 1611.9 1906.1 Shear 1498.0 0.93
N8 1715.5 1966.9 Shear 1639.0 0.96
W35X 1438.7 1161.9 Flexure 1049.0 0.90
W35H 1479.0 1174.3 Flexure 1054.0 0.90
W30H 1429.8 1149.5 Flexure 958.0 0.83
P35H 1334.6 1110.9 Flexure 1020.0 0.92
MW35H 1378.0 1133.9 Flexure 1011.0 0.89
S-1 349.7 483.0 Shear 427.8 1.22
S-2 603.1 881.6 Shear 719.6 1.19
S-3 903.3 1239.0 Shear 850.7 0.94
S-4 521.2 712.4 Shear 600.0 1.15
Present study
S-5 795.9 1106.1 Shear 790.2 0.99
S-6 1010.1 1427.0 Shear 970.0 0.96
S-7 624.0 888.5 Shear 800.0 1.28
S-F 528.0 392.3 Flexure 486.6 1.24

longitudinal reinforcement was provided within a distance of
10 percent of length of wall from either end. The shear
strength of these specimens was therefore not calculated.
For Specimen W1 tested by Wiradinata and Saaticioglou,16
the test/predicted value of the failure load is 1.11. For the
other specimen the predicted mode of failure is shear, and the
observed failure load is significantly smaller than the
predicted ultimate load. It has been reported that this spec-
imen failed prematurely due to excessive sliding of wall rela-
tive to stiff foundation.
All the six specimens tested by Barda et al.17 are predicted
to have failed in shear mode. The mean of test/predicted
failure loads is 0.99 with a standard deviation of 0.107.
For the 21 high-strength concrete walls reported by
Kabeyasawa et al.,18 the mean of test/predicted failure loads
is 0.98 with a standard deviation of 0.154. Specimens NW-1
through NW-6 were designed to fail in flexure. The
predicted mode of failure is flexure except for Specimens
NW-4 and NW-6. For these specimens the difference in
predicted shear and flexural capacities is small. The
predicted flexural strength is lower than the test value for
these six specimens. Specimens W08 and W12 are predicted
to fail in flexure. These specimens were subjected to anti-
symmetric loading and failed in shear. The predicted and test
failure loads agree well. Specimens N1 through N8 were
designed to fail in shear. The predicted mode of failure of
these specimens is shear except for Specimen N4. The
correlation of test and predicted failure loads for Specimen
N4 is not good. Specimen N4 was made of concrete with
compressive strength of 103.4 MPa (15 ksi) whereas all other
specimens of the series were made from 70 MPa (19 ksi)
concrete. This specimen was also subjected to axial stress of
more than 14 MPa (2030 psi) whereas other specimens were
subjected to 8.5 MPa (1233 psi) axial stress. Whether these
factors influenced the test behavior of this specimen is not
clear from the test observations reported in the study. For
Specimen N5 the Test/Predicted value of the failure loads is
1.20. For Specimen N5 the height-to-length ratio was 1.76
whereas for other specimens the ratio was 1.18. The five
Specimens M35X through MW35H were designed to fail in

202 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998

flexure. The predicted mode of failure agreed with the test
observation.
In the present study, Specimens S-1 through S-7 were
designed to fail in shear and Specimen S-F was designed to
fail in flexure. The predicted modes of failure are in agree-
ment with the test observations. The mean value of test/
predicted failure loads of eight test specimens is 1.12 with a
standard deviation of 0.137.
Test failure loads were also compared with the predictions
by the Australian Standard AS 36001 and the ACI 318
Code.20 Complete details are given elsewhere.5 The calcula-
tion of flexural strength by both codes is identical, but the
shear strength calculations are different. In the Australian
Standard, the effect of axial load on shear strength of walls
is not considered. Otherwise, the strength equations in both
codes are similar. The mean of test/calculated failure loads
by AS 3600 is 1.39 and by ACI 318 is 1.32, with standard
deviations of 0.33 and 0.25, respectively.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The paper presented the analytical and experimental
studies on the strength of reinforced concrete structural walls
subjected to combined in-plane compressive axial load and
lateral load. A theory was developed to evaluate the shear
capacity of a reinforced concrete structural wall based on the
stress analysis of the central panel of the wall. The flexural
strength of structural walls was calculated using the conven-
tional flexure theory of reinforced concrete sections
subjected to axial compression and bending moment. The
experimental component of the research involved testing of
eight isolated high-strength concrete (HSC) reinforced struc-
tural walls loaded to failure under in-plane constant axial
load and increasing horizontal loads. In addition, test results
from the literature were also studied. The design provisions
given in the Australian Standard AS 360011 and the ACI
Building Code 31820 were examined.
The ultimate loads and failure modes predicted by the
analytical work presented in the paper have shown good
correlation with test results obtained in this study as well as
those of 61 other walls available in the literature. The mean
of test/calculated horizontal loads at failure is 1.08 with a
standard deviation of 0.175. The mean of test/calculated
ultimate loads by the Australian Standard AS 3600 is 1.39
with a standard deviation of 0.33. These values by the ACI 318
are 1.32 and 0.25, respectively.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The experimental work was financed by Australian Research Council
Grants. The concrete and the reinforcement required for the project were
donated by CSR Readymix and Smorgon ARC, respectively. The first
author was recipient of an Australian Postgraduate Award. These generous
contributions and the assistance provided by the laboratory staff during
experimentation are gratefully acknowledged.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998
REFERENCES
1. Fintel, M., “Shearwalls—An Answer for Seismic Resistance?”
Concrete International, V. 13, No. 7, July 1991, pp. 48-53.
2. Saatcioclu, M., and Bruneau, M., “Performance of Structures during
the 1992 Erzincan Earthquake,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
V. 20, 1993, pp. 305-325.
3. Martin, O., and Peyton, J. J., “Wind Design of Four Buildings up to 306 m
Tall,” RCD6, Concrete Publishing Company Pty. Ltd., Mar. 1989, 10 pp.
4. Lloyd, N. A., and Rangan, B. V., “High Strength Concrete: A
Review,” Research Report No. 1/93, School of Civil Engineering, Curtin
University of Technology, Perth, 1993, 199 pp.
5. Gupta, A., and Rangan, B. V., “Studies on Reinforced Concrete Struc-
tural Walls,” Research Report No. 2/96, School of Civil Engineering,
Curtin University of Technology, Perth, May 1996, 165 pp.
6. Maier, J., and Thülimann, B., “Bruchversuche an Stahlbetonscheiben,”
Institute fur Baustatik und Konstruktion ETH, Zurich, 1985, 130 pp.
7. Oesterle, R. O.; Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D.; Horato, A. E. Russell, H. O.;
and Corley, W. O, “Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls—Tests of
Isolated Walls—Phase 2,” PCA Construction Technology Laboratories/
National Science Foundation, Washington D.C., Oct. 1979, 327 pp.
8. Vecchio, F., and Collins, M. P., “The Modified-Field Compression
Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, 1986, pp. 219-231.
9. Collins, M. P.; Mitchell, D.; and MacGregor, J. G., “Structural Design
Considerations for High-Strength Concrete,” Concrete International, V. 15,
No. 5, May 1993, pp. 27-34.
10. Vecchio, F. J., “Finite Element Modelling of Concrete Expansion and
Confinement,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 118, No. 9,
1992, pp. 2390-2406.
11. “Australian Standard for Concrete Structures, AS3600-1994,” Stan-
dards Australia, North Sydney, 1988, 156 pp.
12. Hsu, T. T. C., and Mo, Y. L., “Softening of Concrete in Low-Rise-
Shearwalls,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1985, pp.
883-889.
13. Lefas, I. D., “Behaviour of RC Walls and its Implication for Ultimate
Limit State Design,” PhD thesis, Imperial College, University of London,
1988, 330 pp.
14. Oesterle, R. G.; Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D.; Sihu, K. N.; and Corley, W. O.,
“Web Crushing of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls,” ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 81, No. 3, May-June 1984, pp. 231-241.
15. Cardenas, A. S.; Russell, H. O.; and Corley, W. O., “Strength of
Low-Rise Structural Walls,” Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to
Wind and Earthquake Forces, SP-63, American Concrete Institute, Farm-
ington Hills, MI, 1980, pp. 221-241.
16. Wiradinata, S., and Saaticioglou, M., “Tests on Squat Shear Walls
under Lateral Load Reversals,” Proceedings 3rd U.S. National Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Charleston, V. 2, 1986, pp. 1395-1406.
17. Barda, F.; Hanson, J. M.; and Corley, W. O., “Shear Strength of
Low-Rise Walls with Boundary Elements,” Reinforced Concrete Struc-
tures in Seismic Zones, SP-53, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 1977, pp. 149-202.
18. Kabeyasawa, T.; Kuramoto, H.; and Matsumoto, K., “Tests and
Analyses of High Strength Shear Walls,” Proceedings of the First Meeting
of the Multilateral Project on the Use of High Strength Concrete, Kyoto,
Japan, 1993, pp. 1-26.
19. Warner, R. F.; Rangan, B. V.; and Hall, A. S., Reinforced Concrete,
3rd Edition, Longman Cheshire Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, 1989, 553 pp.
20. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (318R-95),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1995, 369 pp.
203