Building and Environment, Vol. 12, 25-29. Pergamon Press 1977.

Printed in Great Britain

Ultimate Strength and Design of Concrete Walls

S. U N N I K R I S H N A P I L L A I * C. V. P A R T H A S A R A T H Y t
Methods for predicting the ultimate strength of concrete bearing walls are briefly reviewed and compared. Theoretical ultimate strength based on four different methods are compared with test results of 18 large scale concrete bearing wall models. The models tested covered five height/thickness ratios and three reinforcement ratios. _It is shown that all the four methods lead to very conservative predictions of the ultimate strength. For concrete bearing walls, nominally reinforced and carrying reasonably concentric loading, an empirical designformula is proposed which leads to less conservative designs compared with the other design methods.

NOMENCLATURE b
e

2. ANALYTICAL RESULTS Ultimate strengths are calculated by column theory as well as empirical formula, both based on the A C I Code[l], and by the Yokel method[4]. In the column theory itself, two sets of results are obtained depending on whether the gross or effective flexural stiffness of the section is used in the computations.
2.1 A C ! methods

EI E~ A" h I, K M
Mr#d

M, 1,, P
t O ~

width of wall eccentricity of loading on wall flexural stiffness of wall cross section modulus of elasticity for concrete taken as 15,100 ~/f~' kg/cm ~ (57,000 ~/fJ psi) average compressive cylinder strength of concrete height of wall moment of inertia of gross concrete section about centroidal axis, neglecting the reinforcement a factor defined by equation (6) moment capacity of a cross section moment capacity, allowing for slenderness effects ultimate bending moment due to load eccentricity ultimate axial load on wall reinforcement ratio overall thickness of wall a measure of the magnitude of maximum wall deflection capacity reduction factor, taken as unity. 1. I N T R O D U C T I O N

The theoretical non-dimensionalised interaction diagram for a wall section under combined flexure and axial load is shown by the full curve in Fig. 1. This curve is developed in accordance with section 10.3 of
0.9

El ffiEclg/2.5

0.80.7_~
T H O U G H reinforced concrete load bearing walls are being increasingly used in industrialised building systems, investigations on their strength and behaviour have been relatively few. There are, in general, two methods accepted for the design of concrete walls[l]. The first method consists of treating the wall as a column and applying the column design procedure. The second method uses empirical design formulae, applicable for walls satisfying certain specific conditions. Meinheit[2] and Yokel and Somes[3] have compared theoretical results by these two methods and highlighted the inconsistency between them. Yokel[4] has also presented a method for predicting the strength of plain concrete walls. In this paper, the results of tests on 18 large scale wall models, with different height to thickness (h/t) ratios and different reinforcement ratios are compared with theoretical predictions. *Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Calicut Regional Engineering College, Kerala, India. tFormerly Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Calicut Regional Engineering College, presently Assistant Divisional Engineer, Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., Bhilai, India. 25

~~.~1

=Ec Ig

~=o.4 - 25

\
X "

o/ i i
3--0 /
I

0.21--"

o,oz 0.04 0.06 o.o8 O.lO 0.i2

M/f~ bt a Fig. 1. Interaction diagram for wall. reference [1], for a reinforcement ratio p = 0.0015, a concrete compressive strength f ' - - - - 2 2 5 k g / c m 2 (3643 psi), steel yield strength of 2790 kg/cm 2 (39,860 psi) and for a section with all the reinforcement placed at mid-thickness. In all the computations, the

26

S. Unnikrishna Pillai and C. V. Parthasarathy

tion are shown by the dashed lines in Fig. 1 and the corresponding variation of strength with h/t ratio is also shown in Fig. 2. F o r reinforced concrete walls conforming to certain limitations and loaded within the middle third of its thickness, an empirical design formula is recommended by ACI Code[l] of the form:

value of the capacity reduction factor ~bhas been taken as unity. The broken lines in Fig. 1 marked h/t = 5, 10, 15 etc., indicating the reduced interaction curves allowing for slenderness effects, are for a wall pinned at top and bottom and bending in symmetrical single curvature. The reduced moment capacity allowing for slenderness is given by[l ]:

M'ea= M I 1

Qz2 EI)/h 2

P" l

(1)

f~ bt

40"t

"

(2)

where M is the section capacity, P, the axial load, EI the flexural stiffness of the section and h the height of the pinned-end wall. The reduced interaction curves, with the value of E1 taken as EcIg/2.5 as specified in section 10.11 of reference [1], for various values of height/thickness (h/t) ratios are shown by the solid lines in Fig. 1. Here Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete and Ig the moment of inertia of gross concrete section. Walls in which the resultant of the loads falls within the middle third of its thickness may be considered as reasonably concentrically loaded. The radial line marked e/t = 1/6 is the locus of all axial loads applied at an eccentricity of t/6. The points where this line intersects the reduced curves represent the theoretical ultimate loads at Kern eccentricity for the respective values of hit. F o r this limiting eccentricity e -- t]6 the variation of the ultimate load with the h/t ratio is shown nondimensionally in Fig. 2.
0.9

This empirical equation is also shown in Fig. 2 for comparison. 2.2 Theoretical strength by Yokel's analysis A method for predicting the load capacity of members with no tensile strength has been presented by Yokel[4]. The method takes into account the variation in effective section due to tensile cracking and assumes a linear stress-strain relation in compression. Both strength and stability criteria of failure have been considered. Based on this analysis, the ultimate load considering stability for a wall loaded at an eccentricity of t/6 is:

nZ Ec Ig
P. = 0.285 ~

h2

(3)

which can be non-dimensionalised as:

f/bt
0.8-0 A A

\ 12f']

"

(4)

D o

0.7-A 0.6-B ~ 0

0.3[~--Columntheory

~#'~\\

F o r a direct application of Yokel's analysis for compression failure of concrete bearing walls, the failure strength of concrete under a triangular stress distribution is required. F r o m Fig. 2, the ultimate strength of a zero length column under axial load at eccentricity e = t/6 is seen to be given by P,/(f~bt) = 0'573. If a triangular stress distribution is assumed corresponding to this loading, the maximum compressive strength is twice the average stress, that is 1.146f'. Taking this as the failure strength of concrete under a triangular stress distribution, Yokel's analysis yields for compression failure: P, 1.146
- -

-:;i2'm.,=0
....... Eq. (71
5

f'bt
o A-series ]
:

(5a)

o, F
|
0

and
I

I0

15

C- series J [ [__ I
20 25

30

35

1.146 \ 12f~ ] ~ where

(5b)

h/l"

Fig. 2. Comparison of theoretical and experimental load capacities of wall. During testing of wall models loaded at Kern eccentricity, little tensile cracking was noticed up to very nearly the ultimate load. Further, the ultimate loads predicted by the column theory with E1 taken as Eclg/2.5 were found to be excessively conservative for large h/t ratios. Hence it appears reasonable to assume that for walls loaded within the Kern of the section, the value of EI may be taken as the full gross stiffness EcI o. The reduced interaction curves with this assump-

(6)
and ~ is a measure of the magnitude of the maximum deflection lying between 0.625 and 1.00. F o r any assumed value of ~ between these limits, the nondimensional ultimate load P,/(fc bt) at compression failure and the corresponding hit ratio can be computed from equations (5) and (6). The theoretical variation of ultimate strength with hit based on this method is also shown in Fig. 2.

Ultimate Strength and Design of Concrete Walls

3. EXPERIMENTAL WORK
Top crossheod /

27 ~ ....... ~
I I
, //

%-~
" I

I n o r d e r t o c o m p a r e t h e theoretical u l t i m a t e s t r e n g t h s c o m p u t e d b y t h e various m e t h o d s detailed a b o v e w i t h t h e actual s t r e n g t h a n d p e r f o r m a n c e o f c o n c r e t e b e a r i n g walls, a test p r o g r a m m e was u n d e r t a k e n in w h i c h 18 wall m o d e l s g r o u p e d into t h r e e series were tested. F i v e hit ratios, v a r y i n g f r o m 5 to 30 were selected in e a c h o f t h e t h r e e series. T h e five m o d e l s in t h e A-series were p r o v i d e d w i t h t h e m i n i m u m r e i n f o r c e m e n t s specified for walls[l]. T h e B-series m o d e l s h a d twice as m u c h steel as t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g m o d e l in A-series a n d t h e C-series m o d e l s were n o t reinforced. T h e r e i n f o r c e m e n t , w h e n p r o v i d e d , was p l a c e d i n a single layer a t midthickness. T h e c o n c r e t e u s e d for t h e walls h a d compressive s t r e n g t h s v a r y i n g f r o m 159 to 3 1 6 k g / c m 2 (2270--4515 psi). T h e r e i n f o r c i n g steel h a d yield strengths r a n g i n g f r o m 2380 to 3540 k g / c m 2 (34,000-50,570 psi). C o m p l e t e details o f all t h e test specimens are given in T a b l e 1. T h e m o d e l s were tested u n d e r p i n n e d - e n d c o n d i t i o n at b o t h ends w i t h a line l o a d applied at a n eccentricity o f t/6 as s h o w n in Fig. 3. T h e fixtures at e a c h e n d con-

/i
"

/"
i ~ ~

f
Roller
r=
I

..-"
Bearing plate B o t t o m cross head

~:"
I //

~~

Fig. 3. Loading set up for wall models.

Table 1. Test specimen data and results Average Average cylinder yield strength Area of of horizontal strength of steel concrete steel (kgf/cm 2) (kgf/cm 2) (cm 2) 1-20 1.39 1-76 2.39 1.54 0'80 2"40 2"88 3.60 4.80 3.20 1"60 ------2790 2380 2380 3540 3540 3540 2380 2380 2380 3540 3540 3540 ------255 255 212 159 212 159 248 248 317 232 232 159 316 210 245 245 229 172

Height Thickness Designation of wall of wall of test h t specimen (cm) (cm) A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 120 120 120 120 80 40 120 120 120 120 80 40 120 120 120 120 80 40 4"0 4'8 6'0 8'0 8"0 8"0 4"0 4"8 6-0 8"0 8'0 8"0 4.0 4"8 6"0 8"0 8.0 8-0

Width of wall b (cm) 40 50 55 70 70 70 40 50 56 70 70 70 40 50 56 70 70 70

Ratio

hit
30 25 20 15 10 5 30 25 20 15 10 5 30 25 20 15 10 5

Area of vertical steel (cm 2) 0"25 0"36 0"504 0"84 0-84 0'84 0'48 0.72 1.01 1.68 1.68 1"68 -------

Failure load Pu (tonnes) 23.4 37.4 39.0 40.0* 95-0 66'0 28.8 41.0 62.8 90"0 99"0 57"0 28.2 35.0 50'0 80.5 80.0 75.0

Actual ratio

(e,/f~'bt)
0.573 0"611 0"558 -0-800 0.740 0"726 0"689 0.591 0.693 0"762 0'639 0"558 0'693 0.608 0"587 0.624 0.779

(1 cm = 0"39 in., 1 cm 2 = 0"155 in. 2, 1 kgf/cm 2 = 14.22 psi, 1 tonne = 2.205 kips). *Premature failure under one bearing plate.

sisted o f a b e a r i n g p l a t e a n d a split roller o v e r the full l e n g t h o f t h e wall, t h e roller centerline b e i n g at t h e r e q u i r e d eccentricity. T h e lateral deflection a t critical points, t h e axial s h o r t e n i n g , a n d t h e axial a n d lateral surface strains o n b o t h faces at critical p o i n t s were m e a s u r e d for e a c h stage o f loading. T h e p a t t e r n o f cracks, if any, were also observed. All t h e m o d e l s were l o a d e d to failure. Details o f i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n a n d testing are given elsewhere[5]. Fig. 4 shows m o d e l B1 u n d e r test.

4. D I S C U S S I O N

OF TEST RESULTS

T h e v a r i a t i o n o f u l t i m a t e s t r e n g t h o f c o n c r e t e walls w i t h hit ratios, c o m p u t e d b y f o u r different m e t h o d s , are c o m p a r e d in Fig. 2. T h e results o f tests o n t h e 18 wall m o d e l s are given in T a b l e 1 a n d also p l o t t e d in Fig. 2. T h e m o d e l s with low hit ratios generally failed b y c r a c k i n g a n d splitting n e a r o n e or b o t h o f t h e e n d plates. T h e slight discontinuity due to t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f vertical r e i n f o r c i n g b a r s n e a r t h e two ends m a y h a v e

28

S. Unnikrishna Pillai and C. V. Parthasarathy

Fig. 4. Wall model B1 under test.

initiated this failure. The models with hit ratio in excess of 20 failed at mid-depth after the formation of a horizontal tensile crack on the tension face of the wall. Comparing the test results of models from the three series having the same hit ratios, it is seen that the influence of the steel ratios on the ultimate strength is negligible. The predicted ultimate strength based on all the four methods are seen to be very conservative. The method based on column theory with flexural stiffness E1 taken as equal to gross stiffness Eclg is the least conservative and is in close agreement with Yokel's analysis for small hit ratios. Chen and Atsuta[6] have found that the small tensile strength and ductility of plain concrete have a significant effect on the strength of walls. The neglect of these effects in the theory may explain the large conservatism of all the four methods. Equation (2) which is presently being used for empirical design of concrete bearing walls is seen to be unduly conservative. A relation which closely approximates the results of the column theory with E1 = Eclg and is less conservative than all the other methods is given by:

5. C O N C L U S I O N S F o r reinforced concrete bearing walls with all the reinforcement placed in one layer at mid-thickness and carrying reasonably concentric loading, the present design procedures based on column theory as well as empirical design formula are very conservative. F o r such walls, the steel ratio has little influence on the ultimate strength. F o r walls with hit ratio less than 30, the column theory leads to better results if the stiffness E1 is taken as the gross uncracked stiffness Eclg of the section. F o r walls meeting the requirements for empirical design, a satisfactory and less conservative design formula is given by equation (7). It may however be noted here that the effects of sustained loading have not been considered in this study.

f" bt

(7)

Equation (7) is shown by the dotted line in Fig. 2.

Acknowledgements---The authors thank Prof. K. M. Bahauddin, Principal, Calicut Regional Engineering College, for the facilities provided for undertaking this study. The assistance of Mr. George Mathew, Graduate Student and the staff of the Structures Laboratory in the conduct of the tests is gratefully acknowledged.

Ultimate Strength and Design o f Concrete Walls REFERENCES 1. ACI Committee 318, Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 318-371). Am. Concr. Inst. 78 (1971). 2. D. F. Meinheit, Discussion on proposed revision of ACI 318-363: Building code requirements for reinforced concrete. J. Am. Concr. Inst. 67, 710 (1970). 3. F . Y . Yokel & N. F. Somes, Discussion on proposed revision of ACI 318-363 : Building code requirements for reinforced concrete. J. Am. Concr. Inst. 67, 723 (1970). 4. F . Y . Yokel, Stability and load capacity of members with no tensile strength, J. Struct. Div. Am. Soc. cir. Engrs 97, 1913 (1971). 5. C. V. Parthasarathy, Ultimate strength of reinforced concrete bearing walls, M.Sc. Thesis, Calicut University (1973). 6. W. F. Chen & T. Atsuta, Strength of eccentrically loaded walls. Int. J. Solids Struct. 9, 1283 (1973).

29