ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 87-512
Shear Strength of Low-Rise Reinforced Concrete Walls
by Sharon L. Wood
Results of 143 tests of low-rise reinforced concrete walls subjected to
lateral loads were reviewed to evaluate the current design provisions
for nominal shear strength. Procedures defined in Appendix A of
ACI 318-83 were found to underestimate the strength of lightly rein-
forced walls and tended to overestimate the strength of walls with
more than 1.5 times the minimum web reinforcement ratio. A rea-
sonable lower bound to the shear strength of low-rise walls with min-
imum web reinforcement was found to be 6Jf; (Jf; 12 MPa). The
shear strength of the walls was observed to increase with an increase
in the amount of vertical reinforcement in the web and boundary ele-
ments. A shear friction model was used to evaluate the shear strength
provided by the vertical reinforcement.
Keywords: friction; lateral pressure; models; reinforced concrete; shear strength;
shear stress; structural design; tests; walls; web reinforcement.
The nominal shear strength of reinforced concrete
walls designed to resist seismic loads is defined in cur-
rent design provisions 1 to be essentially the same as the
nominal shear strength of reinforced concrete beams
that are designed to resist gravity loads. Two quantities
are used to define the nominal shear strength of both
types of members, one attributed to the contribution of
the web reinforcement and the other to the contribu-
tion of the concrete. This procedure has been defined as
the modified truss analogy. 2
The applicability of the modified truss analogy for
low-rise structural walls subjected to earthquake-in-
duced loads has been questioned in discussions of the
ACI Building Code 3•5 and is evaluated in this paper.
The results of 143 laboratory tests of one- and two-
story reinforced concrete walls subjected to lateral loads
were considered.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Reinforced concrete walls are frequently used as the
primary component of the lateral load-resisting system
in buildings located in regions of high seismic risk. The
current design provisions for shear strength of struc-
tural walls, however, are based on analytical methods
that were developed to represent the shear strength of
beams subjected to monotonically increasing load. The
results of 143 laboratory tests of low-rise walls are re-
ACt Structural Journal I January-February 1990
TECHNICAL PAPER
viewed to identify the sensitivity of the measured shear
strength to experimental parameters, such as the load-
ing history and the amount of web reinforcement.
MODELS FOR SHEAR IN REINFORCED
CONCRETE MEMBERS
The truss analogy was developed around the turn of
the century6·7 as a means of relating the applied shear to
the tensile stresses in the web reinforcement of a rein-
forced concrete beam. The beam is idealized as a truss,
as shown in Fig. 1. The bottom chord of the truss is
formed by the longitudinal reinforcement, the top
chord by the concrete in the compression zone, the ten-
sion web members by the stirrups, and the compression
web members by concrete in the web of the beam. The
angle between the longitudinal axis and the compres-
sion struts is typically assumed to be 45 deg. If the web
reinforcement is vertical, the relationship between the
average shear stress in the beam v and the tensile stress
in the web reinforcement fv may be written as
v = rfv {1)
where r is the web reinforcement ratio. However, lab-
oratory tests indicated that the stresses developed in the
transverse reinforcement were less than those calcu-
lated using Eq. (1). 8 Two possible sources of this dis-
crepancy were identified: 8 (1) the uncracked concrete in
the compression zone at the top of the beam carries a
portion of the vertical shear, and (2) the assumption of
45 deg as the direction of the diagonal compression
struts in the web is incorrect. Richart8 investigated the
influence of varying the angle of inclination of the di-
agonal compression struts but found that the measured
tensile stresses in the web reinforcement were more
ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. I, January-February 1990.
Received Aug. 17, 1988, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright © 1990, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright propri-
etors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the November-December 1990
ACI Structural Journal if received by July I, 1990.
99
ACI member Sharon L. Wood is an assistant professor of civil engineering at
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research and teaching in-
terests are the behavior of reinforced concrete structures subjected to earth-
quake-induced loads.
closely approximated by assuming that a portion of the
shear was carried by the concrete
v = c + rfv
The value of C is dependent on the quality of the con-
crete and the amount of web reinforcement. 8 The mod-
ified truss analogy takes the form of Eq. (2).
Although the modified truss analogy was found to be
appropriate for calculating reinforcement stresses at
working loads, the shear strength of the beams was ob-
served to be more closely approximated by other rela-
tionships. The complex function proposed by Slater,
Lord, and Zipprodt9
v = (0.005 + r) fv
provided a better estimate of the measured reinforce-
ment stresses near the ultimate load than those calcu-
lated using Eq. (2).
Clark 10 proposed the following relationship to deter-
mine the shear strength of reinforced concrete beams
d
v = 7000p + (0.12f:)- + 2500..[i-
a The web reinforcement ratio in Eq. (5) refers to the
where p is the longitudinal reinforcement ratio, dis the
effective depth of the beam, and a is the shear span.
Although Eq. (4) was not believed to be appropriate for
all beams, 10 the results of Clark's investigation indi-
cated that the shear strength of reinforced concrete
members is not linearly related to the amount of web
reinforcement.
During the development of strength design criteria
for reinforced concrete, an expression similar to Eq. (2)
was adopted to determine the nominal shear capacity of
beams. 11 The simplest expression given in ACI 318-83 1
for calculating the nominal shear strength of beams
subjected to flexure and shear is
( J1: 16 + Pnh MPa)
where v. is the nominal unit shear strength, Pn is there-
Compression Strut
(Concrete)
V Chord
Tension Tie
(Vertical Web Reinforcement)
Fig. 1- Truss model for a reinforced concrete beam
100
inforcement ratio for the vertical web reinforcement
and J;, is the yield stress of the vertical web reinforce:
ment.
The ratio of the nominal shear strength calculated
using Eq. (5) to the measured shear strength of beams
has been observed to vary with the web reinforcement
ratio. The shear strength of beams with low web rein-
forcement ratios is underestimated by Eq. (5).12 Failure
(2) of the concrete in the compression zone before yielding
of the web reinforcement has been observed in beams
with high web reinforcement ratios. 9 An upper bound
of 8Jf:(2J1: /3 MPa) for the shear stress attributable
to web reinforcement is used in ACI 318-83 to avoid
modes of failure governed by the compressive strength
of the concrete. 2•11 An alternate approach was adopted
in the CEB model code 13 where the shear strength at-
tributed to the concrete decreases as the amount of web
reinforcement increases.
The nominal shear strength of walls presented in Ap-
pendix A of ACI 318-83 is closely related to the nomi-
nal shear strength of beams defined in Eq. (5)
(3)
(6)
where ac varies linearly from 3.0 (\1.1 MPa) for walls
with an aspect ratio hwlfw less than 1.5, to 2.0 (1/6
MPa) for walls with an aspect ratio greater than 2.0. If
ac is set at the lower bound of 2.0, Eq. (6) is identical
to Eq. (5). The nominal shear strength of walls may not
(4) exceed 8Jf:(2Jf: /3 MPa). 1
amount of vertical web reinforcement in a beam. Simi-
larly, the web reinforcement ratio in Eq. (6) refers to
the amount of horizontal web reinforcement in a wall
Ph· The shear strength of short walls has been observed
to be related to the amount of vertical, rather than
horizontal, web reinforcement. The requirements given
in Appendix A of ACI 318-83 state that the vertical web
reinforcement ratio Pv may not be less than the hori-
zontal web reinforcement ratio Ph in walls with aspect
ratios less than 2.0. 1 Therefore, the web reinforcement
ratio in Eq. (6) Pn was interpreted to be the minimum
web reinforcement ratio for the short walls considered
in this study.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TEST
(5) SPECIMENS
The population of test specimens considered in this
study had four common characteristics: (a) the speci-
p
Compression Chord
v
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990
 120r-------~------~------~
(/) (/)
z zw
w
::t ::t
(J 80 (J
w 80
w
a.
(/)
a.
(/)

LL.. LL..
0 0
0::
w 40 0::
w 40
Ill Ill
::t ::t
::::> ::::>
z z
Barbell Flanged Rectangular Monotonic Alternating Repeated

(a) SECTION SHAPE (b) LOADING SCHEME

(/) : IZ:I ONE-STORY WALL (/)

z
w
.................. : - TWO-STORY WALL zw
::t 60 ::t 60
(J (J
w w
a.
(/)
a.
(/)

LL..
40 LL..
40
0 0
0:: 0::
w 20 w 20
Ill Ill
::t ~
::::> ::::>
z z
0
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
(c) (d)
M
WEB THICKNESS, in.
Vf-w
Fig. 2-Characteristics of population of low-rise walls (1 in. = 25.4 mm)

mens were isolated walls; (b) the lateral load was ap-
plied statically in the plane of the wall; (c) the walls
were reported to have failed in shear; and (d) horizon-
tal and vertical reinforcement was distributed uni-
formly throughout the web. Sixty-four walls consid-
ered in this study are documented in a compilation of
data from tests performed in Japan. 14 Walls tested in
Canada, 15 Japan, 16 •17 New Zealand, 18 and the United
States 19-28 were also considered.*
The cross sections of all walls were symmetric.
Flanged, barbell, and rectangular cross sections were
tested [Fig. 2(a)]. Three loading schemes were used
[Fig. 2(b)]: (a) monotonic-the specimen was subjected
to a monotonically increasing load; (b) repeated-the
specimen was loaded in one direction, unloaded, and
reloaded in the same direction; and (c) alternating-the
specimen was subjected to load reversals. Sixteen of the
specimens had two stories.
Web thicknesses ranged from 0.4 to 6.3 in. (1.0 to
16.0 em). More than 75 percent of the walls [Fig. 2(c)]
had web thicknesses between 1.0 and 4.0 in. (2.5 to 10.0
em). The shear span ratio M/Vfw was between 0.5 and
*The physical characteristics and measured capacities of the 143 test speci-
mens are summarized in three appendixes that because of space limitations are
not presented here but will be kept permanently on file at ACI headquarters
where photocopies will be available at cost of reproduction and handling.
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990
1.0 for more than 75 percent of the test specimens [Fig.
2(d)]. Axial load, in addition to the self-weight of the
walls, was applied to 18 specimens with the average ax-
ial stress PIA varying from 7 to 18 percent off:. The
average axial stress was less than 0.5 percent off: in
the remaining 125 specimens.
Concrete compressive strengths ranged from 1990 to
7070 psi (13.7 to 48.7 MPa). Approximately one-third
of the specimens [Fig. 3(a)] were constructed from con-
crete with a compressive strength less than 3000 psi
(20_7 MPa)- The yield stress of the distributed web re-
inforcement [Fig. 3(b)] varied between 39.3 and 82.9 ksi
(280 to 570 MPa). Horizontal web reinforcement ratios
ranged from 0.07 to 1.9 percent [Fig. 4(a)], and the
vertical web reinforcement ratios ranged from 0.07 to
2.9 percent [Fig. 4(b)]. Horizontal and vertical web re-
inforcement ratios differed by less than 10 percent in 90
percent of the walls. The vertical web reinforcement
was continuous along the height of the wall. Specimens
with dowels into the foundation were not considered in
this study.
Longitudinal reinforcement ratios in the boundary
elements varied from 0 to 8.9 percent [Fig. 4(c)]. Spec-
imens with boundary reinforcement ratios equal to zero
were rectangular walls with uniformly distributed ver-
tical web reinforcement along the entire length of the
101
(/) (/)
z zw
w
~ ~

8
a..
40 8a.. 40
(/) (/)

1.&.. 1.&..
0 0
Q:: 20 Q:: 20
w w
m m
~ ~
:::> :::>
z z

2000 40 50 60 70 80 90
(a) f~, psi (b)

Fig. 3-Material properties: (a) compressive strength of concrete; (b) yield stress of vertical web reinforcement (1 psi
= 6895 Pa; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa)

(/) (/)
z z
w w
:::E :::E
sa.. 40 (3
w
a..
(/)
(/)

1.&.. 1.&..
0 0
Q::
w
20 0::::
w
m m
~ :::E
::::> ::::>
z z
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
(a) (c)
ph. % Pbe' %
Fig. 4(c)-Reinforcement ratios in web and boundary
elements
(/)
z mum lateral load Vmax divided by A"" where A"' is the
w
~ effective area of the concrete section (t x fw).
sa.. 40 The maximum average shear stress is plotted against
the product of the minimum web reinforcement ratio
(/)

1.&.. and the yield stress of the web reinforcement in Fig. 5.

0 All walls were able to resist an average shear stress of
Q::
w
20 300 psi (2.1 MPa). The data are characterized by a large
m amount of scatter; however, a trend of increasing max-
~
::::> imum average shear stress with increasing Pn ,[y may be
z observed.
0.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 The size of the test specimens did not appear to in-
(b)
p,% fluence the shear strength [Fig. 5(b)]. The loading
v scheme was not observed to h~1ve a significant influ-
ence on the shear strength of the specimens [Fig. 5(c)];
Fig. 4(a) and (b)-Reinforcement ratios in web and
boundary elements however, the lower bound to the strength of walls sub-
jected to alternating loads was slightly less than the
wall. Approximately 90 percent of the walls had longi- lower bound to the strength of walls subjected to mon-
tudinal reinforcement ratios between 1 and 6 percent in otonic loading.
the boundary elements. The line Vmax = Pnh is also shown in Fig. 5(c). The
data indicate that the rate of increase of the measured
MEASURED STRENGTH OF WALLS shear strength with Pn ,[y is less than 1.0. Therefore, the
All strength calculations are based on the maximum rate of increase of shear strength attributable to the
average shear stress resisted by each wall Vmax• The web reinforcement in low-rise walls appears to be over-
maximum average shear stress is defined as the maxi- estimated by the modified truss analogy [Eq. (6)].
102 ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990
 1600 1600
+

I
+
.o
REF. 19
REF. 10
rv*REF.
REF. 6
17
J** REF. 13
c REF. 32
I VIEB 'THICKNESS
t < 1.0 ln. 1.0 ' t < 3.0 ln. t ~ J.O n.
0 REF. 5 x REF. 21,24 REF. 26 I + I • I c I
1200 1200

'e0..n
+
+ +
• ·en +
+ 0..
:to+ t.
800 800 + •
x + +
xc
>
0
E +
:;: +
.+
... +
+
>E .
t
+
~ ++
400 400

0 o~~~2~0~0--~-4~0~0--~-6~0~0--~--80~0--~-1-00~0
400 600
(a) Pnfy. psi (b) Pnfy. psi

Fig. 5(a)- Variation of maximum average shear stress + LOADING 50-fEt.IE

with amount of web reinforcement (1 psi = 6895 Pa) Monotonic Repeated Altemot~o

.. I o I + I
1200
Values of maximum average shear stress ranged from t
5.6.JJ[ to 23.6.JJ[ (0.47.Jl[ to 1.97.Jl[ MPa) (Fig. 6). ·en
0..
The data indicate that a reasonable lower bound to the 800
x0
observed unit shear strength of the walls is 6.JJ[ (.J.1[12 E
> +
MPa). The lower bound to the observed strength did
not appear to be related to the amount of web rein- 400
forcement. The two walls that failed in shear before at-
taining a unit shear strength of 6.JJ[ were subjected to
monotonically increasing loads. 0 o~~--2-o~o--~-4-o~o--~-6-o~o--~--8o~o--~-1-oo~o

(c) Pnfy. psi

COMPARISON WITH DESIGN PROVISIONS
The ratio of the maximum average shear stress to the Fig. 5(b) and (c)- Variation of maximum average shear
nominal unit shear strength defined by Eq. (6) is plot- stress with amount of web reinforcement (1 psi = 6895
ted as a function of Pnh in Fig. 7. The value of Ole was Pa)
assumed to be 2.0 for all walls to obtain a lower bound
to the nominal unit shear strength (cf> = 1.0) calculated
using the provisions of ACI 318-83. The data indicate
20
that the expression (2.JJ[ + p./y) provides a conserva-
tive estimate of the shear strength for 97 percent of the
•
87 walls with p./y less than 300 psi (2.1 MPa) and pro-
>~ 11:<.2 15 • ••• ... • ••• • •
., .
.
vides an unconservative estimate of the shear strength ? : · . :: •• • I
for 54 percent of the 56 walls with Pnh greater than 300
psi (2.1 MPa). The trends observed in the data from
10 • •;:. ~4
:"e • ... .... .
• I
• J
• .. •
•"' I •
•
low-rise walls agree with those from tests of beams: the 5
----:~~--:~~~-----------------------
modified truss analogy does not provide a consistent
factor of safety for all web reinforcement ratios.
The ordinates of the data presented in Fig. 7 were not
limited to be less than 8.JJ[ (2.JJ[ /3 MPa) and there-
fore are not representative of current design provi-
sions. The nominal shear strength of 75 percent of the Fig. 6/ Variation of the ratio of measured shear
strength to square root of concrete compressive
walls with Pnh greater than 300 psi (2.1 MPa) was lim- strength with the amount of web reinforcement (1 psi
ited by 8.JJ[ (2.JJ[I3 MPa) following the procedures = 6895 Pa, .J'f; psi = .J'i;l12 MPa)
specified in Appendix A of ACI 318-83.
The ratio of maximum average shear stress to the of the shear strength of walls with as little as 1.5 times
limiting nominal shear strength vm•.Jv. is plotted versus the minimum web reinforcement ratio of 0.25 percent.
p./y in Fig. 8. The ratio was between 1.0 and 2.0 for 66 If the upper limit to the nominal unit shear stress is
percent of the walls considered. In approximately 9 increased to lO.JJ[, which is permitted in individual
percent of the walls considered, the maximum average piers, 1 and Ole is allowed to vary from 2.0 to 3.0, the
shear stress was less than the nominal shear stress. The maximum average shear stress was overestimated in
nominal unit shear strength was determined using Eq. more than 18 percent of the test specimens.
(6) in half of these walls. The nominal unit shear stress The measured strengths of the low-rise walls consid-
calculated using the provisions in Appendix A of ACI ered in this study were not well represented by the
318-83 was observed to be an unconservative estimate nominal unit shear strengths calculated using the pro-
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990 103
 4.0 1600

~.

. ... . : .
.......•
3.0 1200

-
>-
.• ·' • •
..·.• . ... ·..
c: 'iii

..
Q.
X
a. I•
~ +
>~
2.0
•••
• •lol • •
6.. • E
x0 BOO

. • .•. . • • .
..
• • • .. I• •,
N

1.0
•... .r.. I". J •
1
.c
------- -.-.- -~"i.- o-- i]:T- -.--:-- ;·-'!------
>

400 ...
t·•!.llf•, . ...
~- • .A• •
••••

200 400 600 BOO 1000 0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Pn fy. psi Avt fy
---p::;;-. psi

Fig. 7- Variation of the ratio of measured shear

strength to shear strength calculated using the modified Fig. 9- Variation of the maximum average shear stress
truss analogy with the amount of web reinforcement (I with the amount of vertical reinforcement (1 psi =
psi = 6895 Pa, 2..ffc psi = ..ffc/6 MPa) 6895 Pa)
1.5 r----r----.--~----.--.-----.---~----..

. .... : . .. .
••
3.0 1.0
·'.·..: .:
.••.·...• -:•
"•/Ill
.• f. . •'
'••• . ••. .
-~···

1.0
0
•
~..
lol
•t
... _ .
0

I
0
•
0
o
I
•••
,.
I
I
I
•

- - - - - - - ........- - ....- -.- _ ........ - - · - - . - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.5

.. . . .
.. ..• . .
. l ·~·-:·.
.\ .•..
., : «·.·
• •
,__ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -a..- - - - •

0.0 ._____,__ _,__~---''----'---'---..__-:-'-_ _.____J

0 '0 o~-_.._--:1-::-oo=-'o:---..__-::-2o::-:o-'-o----''--3::-:0-o-'-o_ ___._4_0__joo
0 200 400 600 BOO 1 000
Avf fy psi
Pnfy. psi ---p::;;-.

Fig. 8- Variation of the ratio of measured shear Fig. 10- Variation of the ratio of measured shear
strength to nominal shear strength with the amount of strength to shear strength calculated using the shear
web reinforcement (I psi = 6895 Pa) friction analogy with the amount of vertical reinforce-
ment (I psi = 6895 Pa)

visions in Appendix A of ACI 318-83. Assigning a
nominal unit shear strength of 6.Jl: (.JJ:12 MPa) to all
walls with minimum distributed web reinforcement ra-
tios (Fig. 6) is a simple alternative to the modified truss
analogy for the design of low-rise walls.
The large variation in the ratio vmw!.Jl: indicates that
additional parameters influence the strength of the
walls. One possible explanation for the increased
strength of some walls is discussed in the following sec-
tion.
SHEAR FRICTION MODEL
Experimental investigations of deep beams have been
interpreted to suggest that the shear strength is related
to the amount of horizontal reinforcement (longitudi-
nal and web), provided that a minimum amount of
vertical web reinforcement is available. 29 •30 Based on
these observations, the shear strength of low-rise walls
may be related to the total amount of vertical rein-
forcement.
An estimate of the shear strength provided by the
vertical reinforcement was obtained by assuming that
104
the walls failed by sliding along a horizontal crack at
the base. The shear friction analogy31 •32 may be used to
calculate the shear strength for this failure condition.
The nominal shear strength vnsf is expressed as I
V = p,Avfh (7)
nsf Acv
where p, is a coefficient related to friction and Av1 is the
area of steel crossing the shear plane. The value of p,
was assumed to be 1.0 for all the walls. Different sizes
and grades of reinforcing bars were used in the bound-
ary elements and web of the walls; therefore, Av1J;, was
evaluated as
(8)
where A,be is the area of longitudinal steel in one
boundary element; J;,be is the yield stress of the steel in
the boundary element; A,.., is the area of vertical rein-
forcement in the web; and hv is the yield stress of the
vertical reinforcement in the web.
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990
 Consistently with the results from the deep beam
tests, the maximum average shear stress in the walls was
observed to increase with an increase in the amount of
vertical reinforcement (Fig. 9). The ratio VmaJv"sf is
plotted versus Av1f/ Acv in Fig. 10. The nominal shear
stress attributed to shear friction overestimated the
maximum average shear stress in all but 10 walls; how-
ever, a good estimate of the lower bound to the maxi-
mum average shear stress was provided by vnj4. The
presence of inclined cracks in the wall and the applied
bending moments are the likely reasons for the overes-
timation of shear strength using the shear friction anal-
ogy.
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN PROVISIONS
The data plotted in Fig. 6 and 10 indicate that two
simple equations may be used during design to estimate
the shear strength of low-rise walls. The lower bound to
the strength of all walls considered was well repre-
sented by 6.Jl[ (.JJ[12 MPa), as shown in Fig. 6. The
limit of 6.JJ[ (.JJ[ 12 MPa) was independent of the
amount of web reinforcement and the type of loading.
The strength of walls with large amounts of vertical
reinforcement appeared to be bounded by Vn/4 (Fig.
10). Therefore, the nominal shear strength of low-rise
walls may be approximated by
1.0 for all but two walls. The ratio was between 1.0 and
2.0 for 83 percent of the walls considered.
Comparisons of the maximum average shear stress
with the nominal shear strength calculated using the
ACI provisions 1 and Eq. (9) are shown in the histo-
grams in Fig. 12. The nominal shear capacity defined in
Eq. (9) provides a better representation of the shear
strength of the test specimens. Eq. (9) provides a con-
servative estimate of the nominal shear strength that
may be used to proportion low-rise walls to resist lat-
eral loads.
SUMMARY
An investigation of 143 low-rise walls indicated that
Eq. (6) from Appendix A of ACI 318-83 underesti-
mates the nominal shear strength of lightly reinforced
walls and may overestimate the nominal shear strength
of walls with more than 1.5 times the minimum web re-
inforcement ratio of 0.25 percent.
A reasonable lower bound to the average shear stress
resisted by test specimens with distributed web rein-
3.0

::, . .J
0 0 •
a .
XI "'2" ·~=·
Vn Eq. (9) = 6.JJ[ (.JJ[ 12 MPa) E 2.0

.. ...
> >
••:· ~· •• :• •
the nominal capacity may be (9)
1.0
~.
----: ~
; • ll
;-:. ... . =• .
: .. • I

~-.--- _._ .. _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. - - - - - -
•
mcrease Avfh
d to - -
4Acv
but shall not exceed 10.JJ[ (5.JJ[ 16 MPa) 0.0 '--~---'--~~-~-~-~~---'-----'
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pnfy. psi
The nominal shear strength calculated using Eq. (9)
provided a conservative estimate of the maximum av- Fig. 11- Variation of the ratio of measured shear
erage shear stress for the entire range of reinforcement strength to shear strength calculated using Eq. (9) with
ratios (Fig. 11). The ratio VmaJv. Eq. <9> was greater than the amount of web reinforcement (1 psi = 6895 Pa)

en en
z z
w
~
40 w
~
40
C3 C3
w w
en 30
0..
en 30
0..

LL LL
0 20 0 20
a:: a::
w
w
~ 10 ~ 10
::J ::J
z z
0 1.--1.--L.-1
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Vmax Vmax
---
vn veq.9

Fig. 12-Comparison of the measured shear strength with the nominal shear strength3 and the shear strength calcu-
lated using Eq. (9)
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990 105
forcement in orthogonal directions was 6J.l[ (J.l[ 12 REFERENCES
MPa). The maximum average shear stress tended to in- I. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Rein-
crease with an increase in the amount of vertical rein- forced Concrete (ACI 318-83)," American Concrete Institute, De-
troit, 1983, Ill pp.
forcement (longitudinal reinforcement in the boundary 2. ACI-ASCE Committee 426, "The Shear Strength of Reinforced
elements and vertical web reinforcement). The increase Concrete Members," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 99, ST6, June 1973, pp.
in shear strength attributable to vertical reinforcement 1091-1187, and V. 100, ST8, Aug. 1974, pp. 1543-1591.
was approximated usi~ a shear friction model. An up- 3. Allen, C. Michael, Discussion of "ACI Committee 318 Re-
per limit of lOJ.l[ (5../f: /3 MPa) for the nominal shear port," Concrete International: Design & Construction, V. 5, No.6,
June 1983, p. 62.
strength was also established. 4. Paulay, T., "Critique of the Special Provisions for Seismic De-
sign of the Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (ACI 318-83)," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No.2, Mar.-Apr.
The work described in the paper was performed in conjunction with 1986, pp. 274-283.
a cooperative research project sponsored by the National Science 5. Wyllie, Loring A., Jr., Discussion of "ACI Committee 318 Re-
Foundation to investigate the performance of reinforced concrete port," Concrete International: Design & Construction, V. 5, No. 6,
buildings during the 1985 Chilean earthquake. The comments of re- June 1983, p. 76.
searchers associated with the project (J. P. Moehle, associate profes- 6. Morsch, E., "Versuche uber Schubspannungen in Betoneisen-
sor of civil engineering at the University of California at Berkeley; R. tragern," Beton und Eisen (Berlin), V. 2, No.4, Oct. 1903, pp. 269-
Riddell, professor of civil engineering at the Pontificia Universidad 274. (in German)
Cat61ica de Chile; M. A. Sozen, professor of civil engineering at the 7. Ritter, W., "Die Bauweise Hennebique," Schweizerische Bauz-
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; and J. K. Wight, pro- eitung (Zurich), V. 33, No.7, Feb. 1899, pp. 59-61.
fessor of civil engineering at the University of Michigan) are greatly 8. Richart, F. E., "An Investigation of Web Stresses in Reinforced
appreciated. Concrete Beams," Bulletin No. 166, University of Illinois Engineer-
ing Experiment Station, Urbana, June 1927, 103 pp.
9. Slater, W. A.; Lord, A. R.; and Zipprodt, R. R., "Shear Tests
NOTATION
of Reinforced Concrete Beams," Technologic Papers, U.S. Bureau of
A cross-sectional area of wall Standards, Washington, D.C., No. 314, Apr. 1926, pp. 387-495.
a shear span 10. Clark, Arthur P., "Diagonal Tension in Reinforced Concrete
A~ effective area of the concrete section (t x t.) Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 48, No. 2, Oct. 1951, pp.
A,,. area of longitudinal reinforcement in boundary element 145-156.
A,~ area of vertical distributed web reinforcement in wall l I. ACI-ASCE Committee 326, "Shear and Diagonal Tension,"
A,1 area of shear friction reinforcement (total area of vertical ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 59, No. l, Jan. 1962, pp. l-30; V. 59,
reinforcement in wall) No.2, Feb. 1962, pp. 277-334; and V. 59, No. 3, Mar. 1%2, pp. 353-
b1 width of the flange 396.
C variable that represents the shear stress carried by the con- 12. Haddadin, Munther J.; Hong, Sheu-Tien; and Mattock, Alan
crete, defined in Eq. (2) H., "Stirrup Effectiveness in Reinforced Concrete Beams with Axial
d effective depth of member Force," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 97, ST9, Sept. 1971, pp. 2277-2297.
f: concrete compressive strength in psi 13. CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures, 3rd Edition,
f, stress in web reinforcement Comite Euro-International du Seton/Federation Internationale de Ia
J, yield stress of reinforcement Pnkontrainte, Paris, 1978, 348 pp.
!,,. yield stress of longitudinal steel in the boundary elements 14. Hirosawa, M., "Past Experimental Results on Reinforced
J,. yield stress of horizontal web reinforcement Concrete Shear Walls and Analysis on Them," Kenchiku Kenkyu
!,, yield stress of vertical web reinforcement Shiryo, No. 6, Building Research Institute, Ministry of Construction,
h1 depth of the flange Tokyo, Mar. 1975, 277 pp. (in Japanese)
h. height of the wall 15. Wiradinata, S., and Saatcioglu, M., "Tests of Squat Shear
t. total length of wall Wall under Lateral Load Reversals," Proceedings, 3rd U.S. National
M applied moment Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Charleston, 1986, V. 2, pp.
P axialload 1395-1406.
p longitudinal reinforcement ratio 16. Kabeyasawa, T., and Somaki, T., "Reinforcement Details for
r web reinforcement ratio Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls with Thick Panel," Transactions,
t web thickness Japan Concrete Institute, Tokyo, V. 7, 1985, pp. 317-324.
V applied shear 17. Ogata, K., and Kabeyasawa, T., "Experimental Study on the
v average shear stress VIA~ Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls Under the
vm.. maximum lateral force resisted by wall Loading of Different Moment-to-Shear Ratios," Transactions, Ja-
v_ maximum average shear stress Vm..IA~ pan Concrete Institute, Tokyo, V. 6, 1984, pp. 717-724.
v, nominal shear stress strength of wall, defined in Appendix A 18. Paulay, T.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Synge, A. J., "Ductility in
of ACI 318-83' Earthquake Resisting Squat Shearwalls," ACI JOURNAL, Proceed-
v.Eq.(o) = nominal shear strength of wall, defined in Eq. (9) ings V. 79, No.4, July-Aug. 1982, pp. 257-269.
v,., nominal shear strength of wall attributable to shear friction, 19. Antebi, J.; Utku, S.; and Hansen, R. J., "Response of Shear
defined in ACI 318-83' Walls to Dynamic Loads," Department of Civil and Sanitary Engi-
a, coefficient defining the relative contribution of concrete neering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Aug.
strength to wall strength' 1960, 177 pp.
¢J strength reduction factor' 20. Barda, Felix; Hanson, John M.; and Corley, W. Gene, "Shear
p coefficient of friction Strength of Low-Rise Walls with Boundary Elements," Reinforced
p,. reinforcement ratio of longitudinal reinforcement in bound- Concrete Structures in Seismic Zones, SP-53, American Concrete In-
ary element stitute, Detroit, 1977, pp. 149-202.
p. reinforcement ratio of distributed horizontal web reinforce- 21. Benjamin, J. R., and Williams, H. A., "Investigation of Shear
ment in wall Walls, Part 3-Experimental and Mathematical Studies of the Be-
p, reinforcement ratio of distributed web reinforcement' havior of Plain and Reinforced Concrete Walled Bents under Static
p, reinforcement ratio of distributed vertical web reinforce- Shear Loading," Technical Report No. 1, Part 3, Department of Civil
ment in wall Engineering, Stanford University, July 1, 1953, 63 pp.
106 ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990
 22. Benjamin, J. R., and Williams, H. A., "Investigation of Shear
Walls, Part 9-Continued Experimental and Mathematical Studies of
Reinforced Concrete Walled Bents under Static Shear Loading,"
Technical Report No. 7, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford
University, Sept. 1, 1955, 98 pp.
23. Benjamin, J. R., and Williams, H. A., "Investigation of Shear
Walls, Part 12-Studies of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls Assem-
blies," Technical Report No. 10, Department of Civil Engineering,
Stanford University, Dec. 1956, 221 pp.
24. Benjamin, Jack R., and Williams, Harry A., "The Behavior of
One-Story Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls," Proceedings, ASCE,
V. 83, ST3, May 1957, pp. 1254-1- 1254-49.
25. Benjamin, J. R.; Williams, H. A.; and Erickson, J. A., "In-
vestigation of Shear Walls, Part 11-Continued Studies of Com-
bined Normal and Shear Wall Bents and Resistance of Brick Filler
Walls with Openings," Technical Report No. 9, Department of Civil
Engineering, Stanford University, Dec. 1956, 43 pp.
26. Cardenas, A. E.; Russell, H. G.; and Corley, W. G., "Strength
of Low-Rise Structural Walls," Reinforced Concrete Structures Sub-
jected to Wind and Earthquake Forces, SP-63, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, 1980, pp. 221-241.
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1990
27. Galletly, G. D., "Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Under Static Load," Department of Civil and Sanitary Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Aug. 1952, 123
pp.
28. Williams, H. A., and Benjamin, J. R., "Investigation of Shear
Walls, Part 6-Continued Experimental and Mathematical Studies of
Reinforced Concrete Walled Bents under Static Shear Loading,"
Technical Report No. 4, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford
University, Aug. 1, 1954, 59 pp.
29. de Pavia, H. A. Rawdon, and Siess, Chester P., "Strength and
Behavior of Deep Beams in Shear," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 91, STS,
Oct. 1%5, pp. 19-42.
30. Smith, K. N., and Vantsiotis, A. S., "Shear Strength of Deep
Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 79, No. 3, May-June 1982,
pp. 201-213.
31. Hofbeck, J. F.; Ibrahim, I. 0.; and Mattock, Alan H., "Shear
Transfer in Reinforced Concrete," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 66,
No.2, Feb. 1969, pp. 119-128.
32. Mast, Robert F., "Auxiliary Reinforcement in Concrete Con-
nections," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 94, ST6, June 1968, pp. 1485-
1504.
107