ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 105-S24
Seismic Behavior and Ductility of Squat Reinforced
Concrete Shear Walls with Nonseismic Detailing
by J. S. Kuang and Y. B. Ho
Large-scale nonseismically detailed, squat reinforced concrete
shear walls with aspect ratios of 1.0 and 1.5, as practiced in low to
moderate probability of seismic occurrence regions, are tested
under reversed cyclic loading. The seismic behavior and displacement
ductility of the shear walls are investigated. Emphasis of the study
is placed on the inherent displacement ductility of the walls with
nonseismic standard and improved reinforcement details. Experi-
mental results show that the inherent displacement ductility factor
of 2.5 to 3 is commonly achieved with the current nonseismic
design practice and that of 4.5 to 5 with minor modifications in the
reinforcement detailing techniques. It has been shown that an
ordinary squat shear wall with nonseismic design and detailing
may not possess sufficient ductility to respond adequately to an
unexpected moderate earthquake. The proposed reinforcement details,
which include minor modifications to the detailing techniques of
currently practiced nonseismic designs, can effectively lead to a
reasonable improvement of ductile response behavior of the squat
shear walls.
Keywords: ductility; reinforced concrete; seismic behavior; squat shear walls.
INTRODUCTION
During the past three decades, research efforts in earth-
quake engineering concentrated on earthquake disaster
mitigation for regions of high seismicity. It was not until the
earthquake in Newcastle, Australia, in 1991—a moderate
earthquake (M = 5.6) that caused approximately $2.5 billion
in damage1—that attention to the potential hazard in a region
of moderate seismicity was revived. The Newcastle earth-
quake showed that an earthquake with low to medium intensity
can still cause loss of life and economic hardship in a region
of moderate seismicity, where no urban earthquake disaster
management program is in place.
Indeed, an understanding of seismic behavior of reinforced
concrete structures without considering seismic effects in
design and detailing is essential to evaluate the existing
nonseismically designed buildings in regions of low to
moderate seismicity, which could need strengthening or
retrofitting. This may eventually lead to modifying existing
nonseismic design codes for moderately earthquake-resistant
design of buildings without resorting to a full seismic design.
Recent experimental studies on the seismic performance
and inherent ductility of existing columns,2 beam-column
joints,3 structural walls,4 moment-resisting frames,5 and
wall frames6 designed for only gravity and wind loads in the
as-built structures indicated that the nonseismically designed
reinforced concrete structures and structural components are
very marginal or may not withstand moderate seismic
events. In fact, squat reinforced concrete shear walls under
reversed cyclic loading generally possess relatively poor
energy dissipation characteristics, showing pinched hysteresis
loops and experiencing significant stiffness degradation and
possible sudden loss in lateral capacity.7-12 Modifications in
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008
TECHNICAL PAPER
the reinforcement detailing specifications for nonseismic
design should be made to improve the seismic behavior and
enhance the ductility and energy dissipation capacity of
these structures and components.
Few research investigations have been carried out on the
potential seismic damage of nonseismically designed squat
reinforced concrete shear walls in regions where earthquakes
are not considered to be a major problem; hence, studies
from which such structures’ ductility capacity can be
extrapolated are not readily available. In this paper, laboratory
tests of large-scale squat reinforced concrete shear walls
under reversed cyclic loading, which are designed and
detailed without seismic considerations as practiced in low
probability of seismic occurrence regions, are reported.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This study is intended to verify the seismic performance
and available displacement ductility of squat reinforced
concrete shear walls designed and detailed without explicitly
considering seismic design requirements. The results can
directly be used as a meaningful measure of the vulnerability
of nonseismically designed squat shear walls under reversed
cyclic loads, thus providing a basis of proposing design or
strengthening work where appropriate. It is also intended to
show that minor modifications in reinforcement detailing
techniques in squat shear walls may lead to significant
improvement of the seismic performance and enhancement
of the displacement ductility of these walls.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Test specimens
In the experimental program, eight large-scale, squat,
nonseismically detailed, reinforced concrete shear walls with
height-to-width aspect ratios of 1.0 and 1.5 are fabricated and
tested under reversed cyclic loading. The specimens are
divided into two groups: 1) walls with conventional
nonseismic detailing; and 2) walls with improved detailing.
Steel reinforcement is detailed in accordance with the practice
for buildings specified in BS 811013 and IStructE design regu-
lations,14 where only gravity and wind loads are considered.
This steel detailing typifies that of a nonseismic detailing
technique for structural concrete. The variables involved
include the wall-panel aspect ratio, distribution of longitudinal
reinforcement, boundary confinement, and configurations of
transverse steel.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 2, March-April 2008.
MS No. S-2006-481.R2 received December 29, 2006, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2008, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the January-
February 2009 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by September 1, 2008.
225

J. S. Kuang is an Associate Professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology, Hong Kong, China. His research interests include earthquake-resistant
concrete structures and seismic evaluation of concrete buildings.
Y. B. Ho is a PhD candidate at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
His research interests include earthquake engineering and seismic vulnerability
assessment of reinforced concrete tall buildings.
Specimen details and properties are summarized in Table 1.
All specimens had the same rectangular cross section of
1200 x 100 mm (47.24 x 3.94 in.), with wall panel heights of
1200 mm (47.24 in.) and 1800 mm (70.87 in.), corresponding
to the aspect ratios of 1.0 and 1.5, respectively. The concrete
cylinder strengths ranged from 30.4 to 37.7 MPa (4408 to
5467 psi), while the steel yield strength was 520 MPa
(75,420 psi).
In the first column of Table 1, the letters U and C in the
specimen labels stand for the arrangements of uniformly
distributed and concentrated longitudinal reinforcement,
respectively. The number that follows (1.0 or 1.5) represents
the aspect ratio, which is defined as a ratio of height to width
of the wall panels. The letters BC and CT stand for the
boundary confinement and crosstie arrangement in the wall
cross sections, respectively.
Cross section details of the specimens are shown in Fig. 1.
Longitudinal reinforcing bars in all the specimens are fully
anchored in a 500 mm (19.69 in.) deep base girder that was
bolted to the strong laboratory floor. A 300 x 300 mm (11.81 x
11.81 in.) top beam is cast with the wall panel. Details of the
geometry and reinforcement are shown in Fig. 2.
Specimens U1.0 and U1.5 were typically detailed nonseis-
mically. It is seen from Fig. 1(a) and 2(a) that two layers of
longitudinal steel were uniformly placed with a spacing of
180 mm (7.09 in.), whereas the spacing of the transverse
steel was 150 mm (5.91 in.), and two layers of transverse
reinforcement at the same level were fully lapped with U-shaped
bars at the two wall panel boundaries. Specimens C1.0 and
C1.5 were detailed adopting the similar technique to that of
Specimens U1.0 and U1.5. The only difference was made in
the distribution of longitudinal reinforcement where the steel

Fig. 1—Cross section details. (Note: in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

Table 1—Properties of specimens

Longitudinal steel
Concrete Main
Aspect Boundary fc′, ρs, transverse
Specimen ratio confinement MPa (psi) Distribution % steel ρv , %
30.4
U1.0 1.0 No Uniform 0.92 1.05
(4408)
34.9
U1.5 1.5 No Uniform 0.92 1.05
(5060)
35.2
C1.0 1.0 No Concentrated 1.05 1.05
(5104)
34.2
C1.5 1.5 No Concentrated 1.05 1.05
(4959)
31.3
U1.0-BC 1.0 Yes (4539) Uniform 0.92 1.05

33.8
U1.5-BC 1.5 Yes Uniform 0.92 1.05
(4901)
34.1
U1.0-BC2 1.0 Yes (4945) Uniform 0.92 1.05

37.7 Fig. 2—Geometry and reinforcing details. (Note: in mm;

U1.0-CT 1.0 No Uniform 0.92 1.05
(5467) 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

226 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008

bars were concentrated at the boundaries of wall panels,
whereas extra longitudinal reinforcement was added near the
center of the specimens for the purpose of the crack control,
as shown in Fig. 1(b) and 2(b).
In Specimens U1.0-BC and U1.5-BC, minor modifications to
the steel detailing in Specimens U1.0 and U1.5 were made,
where secondary (or confining) stirrups were provided at the
wall boundaries and detailed at the same level of the main
transverse reinforcement, as shown in Fig. 1(c) and 2(c),
creating boundary-confinement zones in the wall panel. The
secondary stirrups of Specimen U1.0-BC2 were placed at levels
between the main transverse reinforcement, as shown in
Fig. 2(d). These secondary stirrups placed between the main
transverse steel in Specimen U1.0-BC2 may have enhanced
the confinement more effectively than those detailed at the
same levels of that in Specimens U1.0-BC and U1.5-BC.
Crossties are commonly used in nonseismic detailing. Few
studies have been conducted, however, on the effects of
crossties as a means of confinement on improving the
ductility of reinforced concrete shear walls. Specimen U1.0-CT
was specially detailed by incorporating crossties, as shown
in Fig. 1(d), for the experimental evaluation in this study.
Instrumentation
The relative horizontal displacement of the top beam with
respect to the base girder was captured by linearly variable
differential transformers (LVDTs). The LVDTs were placed
at a steel platform standing and bolted on the base girder of
each specimen, as shown in Fig. 5(a). The average shear
distortion was evaluated by
d′ ( Δd′ ave )
γ ave = ------------------------
- (2)
h′l′
where d′, h′, l′ are shown in Fig. 5(b), and Δd′ave is the
average differential change of d′.
TEST RESULTS
All specimens failed with longitudinal reinforcement
yielding and concrete crushing at the boundary of the

Test setup and procedure

The test setup is shown in Fig. 3. The specimen was
mounted on the strong floor. Vertical loading was first
applied through the Wiffle tree then the top beam to the wall
panel by two hydraulic jets connected with a pair of loading
frames, which can move horizontally together with the
specimen. Lateral load reversals were then applied to the top
beam by a servo actuator that was supported by the strong Fig. 3—Test setup.
reaction wall in the laboratory.
In the test, both load and displacement controls were
adopted at different loading stages. The load-control method
was used at the early loading stage; one cycle of horizontal
loading up to ±0.5Pi and then ±0.75Pi were applied, where
the load Pi was the reversed applied load at the top of the
specimen when the wall panel reached its ultimate flexural
strength Mu. The value of Mu was determined using the
BS 811013 rectangular stress block for concrete at the ultimate
limit state without considering partial factors of safety. Figure 4
shows a general reversed cyclic load-deflection relationship of
reinforced concrete members under the test. It is well recog-
nized that the yield displacement can be determined by15

Δ1 + Δ2
Δ y = -----------------------
- (1)
2 Fig. 4—Yield displacement.

where Δ1 and Δ2 are the horizontal displacements corre-

sponding to lateral loads of Pi and –Pi, respectively, and the
values can be obtained by linearly extrapolating the straight
line, which represents the stiffness at load levels of ±0.75Pi
to load levels of ±Pi, as shown in Fig. 4.
The arrangement of load-control reversed cyclic loading
was then switched to the displacement control; the test
specimens were then subjected to two complete cycles of
reversed loading gradually to achieve μ = ±1, ±2, ±3…
where the displacement ductility factor was defined as μ = Δ/Δy.
Each test continued until the specimen experienced a significant
loss of capacity, where it was assumed that the failure
occurred when the restoring force dropped to 80% of the
maximum applied lateral load. Fig. 5—LVDT arrangement and shear distortion.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008 227

compressive zone. Table 2 summarizes the failure behavior
and the theoretical and maximum test strengths of the specimens
where the shear capacities Vn are calculated using the softened
strut-and-tie model.16
General behavior
It can be seen from Table 2 that all the experimental failure
loads of specimens Pmax are much lower than the theoretical
shear strengths Vu, showing that the strengths of specimens
are mainly governed by flexure. The crack patterns and
failure modes of all specimens are shown in Fig. 6.
During the test, flexural cracks were observed when the
specimens were loaded to approximately half the calculated
strength ±0.5Pi. Extensive flexural cracks were commonly
Fig. 6—Crack patterns and failure of specimens.
228
developed when the lateral load increased to ±0.75Pi. At
the same time, diagonal shear cracks also appeared, running
at approximately 45 degrees. A fan-shaped compression field
was developed in wall panels within a region with a height-
to-width ratio of 1.0 for both specimens with the aspect ratios
of 1.0 or 1.5, as shown in Fig. 6(a) to (f), where few cracks
were observed in the upper side of the specimens with an
aspect ratio of 1.5.
No observable plastic hinge in the specimens can be found
until failure. The modes of cracks changed from nearly ordinary
horizontal, flexural, or sliding ones near the base to purely
diagonal shear ones near the top of the panels, which agreed
with the fan-shaped compression field. On the other hand,
crack widths were generally small. Flexural crack widths near
the base of the tensile boundary were found to be the largest.
Based on the measurements from LVDTs, the typical
contributions of different deformation modes to the total lateral
deformation of specimens are shown in Fig. 7, where it can
be seen that shear deformation contributes approximately 30 to
60% of the total deformation. The shear deformation goes up
linearly with the total deformation level. A small drop of the
shear curve is observed when the ductility approaches the
ultimate value, thus the failure is not likely to be governed by
shear. The sliding behavior only contributes approximately
5% of the total deformation. Similar to shear deformation,
the sliding deformation tends to decrease with the increase of
the deformation level, thus the failure is not governed by
sliding. It is also seen from Fig. 7 that the sliding deformation
is generally small and may be ignored.
No specimen failed with a sliding mode. Although flexural
cracks join together to form potential sliding planes under
the cyclic load reversals, the crack widths were small enough
to effectively transfer the shear stresses. Measurements from
the LVDTs showed that the sliding displacement does not
exceed 1.5 mm (0.06 in.). In fact, with a practical value of
Fig. 7—Contributions of different deformation modes to
total lateral deformation.
Table 2—Failure behavior and theoretical
and test strengths
Theoretical strength Maximum test
load Pmax,
Specimen Pi , kN (kips) Vu, kN (kips) kN (kips) Failure mode
U1.0 321 (72.16) 737 (165.68) 360 (80.93)
U1.5 246 (55.30) 689 (154.89) 277 (62.27)
C1.0 430 (96.66) 718 (161.41) 455 (102.28) Reinforcement
C1.5 280 (62.94) 681 (153.09) 304 (68.34) yielding and
concrete crushing
U1.0-BC 343 (71.11) 741 (166.58) 415 (93.29) at boundaries of
U1.5-BC 232 (52.15) 684 (153.76) 280 (62.94) wall panels
U1.0-BC2 340 (76.43) 742 (166.80) 368 (82.73)
U1.0-CT 359 (80.70) 763 (171.52) 378 (84.97)
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008
applied axial loading, which was approximately 10 to 30%
of the ultimate axial strength, sliding shear failure was
commonly suppressed.17 Recent research shows that this is
also true for an axial load level as low as 7% of the ultimate
axial strength of the walls.9,11
for Specimen U1.0-BC2, which had a reduced spacing of the
boundary restrain, or for Specimen U1.0-CT, which was
detailed with crossties, the normalized energy dissipation
capacity can be increased to more than three times the
inherent values of the conventional ones.

Hysteretic behavior and capacity of DISCUSSIONS

energy dissipation Longitudinal steel arrangement and
Figure 8 presents the hysteresis loops of test specimens. It boundary confinement
is observed from Fig. 8(a) through (d) that hysteretic loops The overall hysteretic behaviors of the two types of specimens
of the specimens without boundary-confinement zones with uniformly distributed vertical steel and concentrated
(Specimens U1.0 and U1.5 and Specimens C1.0 and C1.5) steel at the boundaries of a wall panel were very similar, as
have a small amount of pinching and relatively rapid drop of shown in Fig. 8(a) to (f). On the other hand, more diagonal
strength after reaching the maximum strength, indicating a shear cracks and a larger portion of shear deformation were
relatively low capability of energy dissipation and a possible observed on the wall panels with the arrangement of concen-
undesirable sudden failure after certain loading cycles. The trated longitudinal reinforcement at the ends of shear walls.
similar cyclic behavior can also be found in hysteretic loops
of the specimens with boundary-confinement zones
(Specimens U1.0-BC and U1.5-BC), as shown in Fig. 8(e)
and (f). It is interesting to point out that with the presence of
boundary-confinement zones detailed with 150 mm (5.91 in.)
spacing secondary stirrups at the same level of the main
transverse reinforcement, no observable improvement in
seismic performance can be found.
In Fig. 8(g), hysteretic loops of Specimen U1.0-BC2,
which was detailed with secondary stirrups placed between
the main transverse reinforcement and of the same amount as
that in Specimen U1.0-BC, show a much wider and thicker
shape, where the larger enclosed area of the loops indicated
much higher energy dissipation capacity, as compared with
that of Specimen U1.0-BC. Moreover, degradation of both
strength and stiffness were also observed as rather gradual and
steady, and the load-displacement performances in positive and
negative cycles were similar. It is indicated that Specimen
U1.0-BC2 possesses relatively desirable seismic behavior.
The use of crossties in Specimen U1.0-CT, whose effect on
the enhancement of squat shear wall ductility was not examined
before, gave unexpectedly high ductile behavior, as shown in
Fig. 8(h). Although the hysteretic loops of Specimen U1.0-CT
showed a thinner and pinched shape, the softening behavior
before the ultimate displacement was not observed.
Values of the energy dissipation were obtained by
measuring the area inside the hysteretic loops before the
failure cycle. The normalized energy dissipated in the load
displacement hysteresis was defined as

μΔ y

En =
∫--------------------
0
P dΔ
- (3) Fig. 8—Hysteretic loops of specimens.
Pi Δy
Table 3—Yield displacement, ductility, and energy
The yield displacement, displacement ductility factor, dissipation capacity
and normalized energy dissipation capacity of the specimens Normalized energy
Yield Displacement
were given in Table 3. It is seen from Table 3 that similar displacement dissipation
ductility
values of energy dissipation capacity of Specimens U1.0 to Specimen Δy , mm (in.) factor μ En Relative value
U1.5-BC were observed, which have different aspect ratios of U1.0 3.8 (0.150) 3.1 10.0 1.67
1.0 and 1.5, respectively. Values of the normalized energy U1.5 5.0 (0.197) 2.8 6.0 1.00
dissipation capacity of the conventionally detailed shear
C1.0 4.8 (0.189) 3.1 7.5 1.25
walls, including Specimens U1.0 and U1.5, C1.0 and C1.5,
C1.5 6.1 (0.240) 2.6 7.9 1.32
and U1.0 and U1.5-BC, follow approximately the same
order relationship with displacement ductility of the corre- U1.0-BC 4.5 (0.177) 3.0 8.3 1.38
sponding specimens, while for Specimens U1.0-BC2 and U1.5-BC 4.8 (0.189) 3.0 7.9 1.32
U1.0-CT, they follow a second-order relationship with the U1.0-BC2 3.7 (0.146) 4.4 19.8 3.30
ductility of the corresponding specimens. It is also seen that U1.0-CT 2.8 (0.110) 5.0 21.7 3.62

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008 229

This is probably caused by the difference between shear and
flexural capacity, together with a more observable shear-
dominated zone. In addition, there are potential damages of
shear walls detailed with concentrated steel at the ends
because the walls may be more vulnerable to shear failure
due to the reduction in the ratio of shear to flexural strengths.
Shear strength from the arching action (longitudinal reinforce-
ment as ties) may not be mobilized in the shear wall, thus the
actual shear strength can further be reduced.
It is seen from Table 3 that the shear walls with boundary-
confinement zones (Specimens U1.0-BC and U1.5-BC) showed
little improvement on energy dissipation capacity than those
without boundary-confinement zones (Specimens U1.0 and
U1.5 and C1.0 and C1.5). This agrees with the observation
from the investigation18 on the level of damaged reinforced
concrete buildings in the city of Vina del Mar due to the
earthquake (M = 7.8) in Chile in 1985, where boundary-
confinement zones were not required in seismic designs.
Secondary stirrups
Both Specimens U1.0-BC and U1.0-BC2 were provided
with the same amount of secondary (confining) stirrups in
the boundary-confinement zones (Fig. 1(c)), but these stirrups
were placed at different locations, as shown in Fig. 2(c) and
(d). It can be seen from Fig. 8(e) and (g) that two specimens
had different seismic behavior and energy dissipation
capacity. Specimen U1.0-BC2 with secondary stirrups at the
level between the main transverse reinforcement performed
much better seismically than Specimen U1.0-BC in which
the secondary stirrups were placed at the same level of the
main transverse steel. The normalized energy dissipation
capacity was more than two times that of Specimen U1.0-BC,
and the corresponding displacement ductility factor reached
4.4, much higher than that of 3.0 for Specimen U1.0-BC. It
is thus indicated that the secondary stirrups that were placed
at levels between the main transverse reinforcement were
very effective in achieving better seismic behavior and
enhancing ductility and energy dissipation capacity.
This can be explained and confirmed from the measurement
of tension strains attained in the boundary-confinement stirrups
of Specimen U1.0-BC, where the maximum strain was found
to be only approximately 0.001, far below the material yield
strain that was equal to 0.0026. It may then be revealed that
the secondary stirrups placed at the same level of the main
transverse reinforcement were very ineffective on providing
boundary confinement to a wall, thus obtaining little
improvement on the seismic performance and ductility capacity.
Other than the confinement effect, the secondary stirrups
placed between the main transverse reinforcement could also
effectively prevent the premature buckling of the longitudinal
reinforcement at wall boundaries. For the specimens without
detailing closely-spaced transverse steel at the boundary
zones, lateral deformation of the longitudinal steel in
compressive boundaries is found to be relatively large.
Premature loss of concrete area, owing to spalling of
concrete before crushing, is observed in these specimens. It
is probably because these longitudinal bars were highly
stressed due to the large lateral deformation, thus pushing the
concrete cover away before attaining the original crushing
strain. It was clearly observed in Specimen U1.0-CT that the
concrete cover spalled off while the concrete inside the rein-
forcement cage was still not completely crushed. It has been
shown19,20 that yield strength can only be sustained in the
post-yielding branch of the stress-strain curve if the spacing
230
of lateral restraint is smaller than 8 to 10 times the bar diameter.
Reducing the stirrup spacing is necessary to control buckling
of vertical steel and spalling of concrete cover together
providing a continuous longitudinal confinement to the
concrete core.
Crossties
Specimen U1.0-CT at failure is shown in Fig. 6(h). From
both the actual measurements of LVDTs and the analytical
calculations, the crushed region of the wall panel is considered
to go beyond the neutral axis depth corresponding to the
maximum test load, which is approximately 12 in. (304.8 mm).
This failure is usually caused by high shear stresses. Therefore,
providing crossties throughout the cross section of the wall
panel helps effectively not only to prevent shear failure at the
central part of the section, but also to enhance confining
stresses of the entire section.
Aspect ratio of wall panel
In the experimental tests, little effect of the aspect ratio on
the failure mode of specimens was observed. It is seen from
Table 2 that the shear-to-flexural strength ratio of shear walls
with an aspect ratio of 1.0 is generally lower than that with
an aspect ratio of 1.5, indicating that the walls with a low
aspect ratio may be more vulnerable to shear failure than those
with a higher aspect ratio. On the other hand, it is seen from
the hysteretic behaviors shown in Fig. 8 that the degradation
of both strength and stiffness for specimens with a lower
aspect ratio tends to be steadier, as compared with that with
a higher aspect ratio.
CONCLUSIONS
The experimental investigation of large-scale, nonseismically
detailed, squat, reinforced concrete shear walls on seismic
behavior and ductility capacity reveals that the inherent
displacement ductility factor of 2.5 to 3 may generally be
achieved for the walls without boundary confinement.
Hence, ordinary squat shear walls designed and detailed
without seismic considerations may not sufficiently satisfy
the ductility demand for shear wall building structures with
limited ductility in a region of moderate seismicity, where a
displacement ductility factor of approximately 3 is recom-
mended by Park.21 Modifications in nonseismic reinforcement
details should be made to improve the seismic performance
and enhance the ductility and energy dissipation capacity of
nonseismically designed, squat, reinforced concrete shear
walls for resisting moderate earthquakes.
The walls with boundary-confinement zones, where the
secondary (confining) stirrups are placed at the same level of
main transverse reinforcement, have shown little improvement
on deformation and energy dissipation capacity than those
without boundary-confinement zones. When the secondary
stirrups are provided in the confinement zones and detailed
at the level between the main transverse reinforcement,
however, the seismic behavior and energy dissipation
capacity of the shear walls will significantly be improved
and the ductility capacity will effectively be enhanced.
The displacement ductility factor of 4.5 to 5 can be
achieved by simply modifying the current nonseismic design
practice of reinforcement details. The modification includes
introducing boundary-confinement zones at the ends of a
wall panel and providing the secondary stirrups between the
main transverse reinforcement in the confinement zone
(such as Specimen U1.0-BC2), and/or detailing crosstie sets
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008
throughout the cross section (such as Specimen U1.0-CT).
The proposed reinforcement details are simple and will not
significantly increase both the construction cost and difficulty
because the techniques are weighted for consistency with the
level of risk and as-practiced detailing techniques in a
moderate seismic region.
REFERENCES
1. Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team, The Newcastle,
Australia Earthquake, Institution of Structural Engineers, UK, 1991.
2. Kuang, J. S., and Wong, H. F., “Improving Ductility of Non-Seismically
Designed RC Columns,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Structures and Buildings, V. 158, No. 1, 2005, pp. 13-20.
3. Kuang, J. S., and Wong, H. F., “Effects of Beam Bar Anchorage on
Beam-Column Joint Behaviour,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Structures and Buildings, V. 159, No. 2, 2006, pp. 115-124.
4. Kuang, J. S., and Ho, Y. B., “Inherent Ductility of Non-Seismically-
Designed and Detailed Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls,” Transactions of
the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, V. 14, No. 1, 2007, pp. 7-12.
5. Kuang, J. S., and Atanda, A. I., “Enhancing Ductility of Non-Seismically
Designed Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings,” Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures and Buildings, V. 158, No. 4,
2005, pp. 253-265.
6. Atanda, A. I., and Kuang, J. S., “Inherent Ductility of Non-Seismically
Designed and Detailed Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall-Frame Buildings,”
Transactions of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, V. 12, No. 3, 2005,
pp. 1-5.
7. Paulay, T.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Synge, A. J., “Ductility in Earth-
quake Resisting Squat Shearwalls,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 79, No. 4,
July-Aug. 1982, pp. 257-269.
8. Pilakoutas, K., and Elnashai, A., “Cyclic Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Cantilever Walls—Part 1: Experimental Results,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 92, No. 3, May-June 1995, pp. 271-281.
9. Salonikios, T. N.; Kappos, A. J.; Tegos, I. A.; and Penelis, G. G.,
“Cyclic Load Behavior of Low-Slenderness Reinforced Concrete Walls:
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008
Design Basis and Test Results,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 4, July-
Aug. 1999, pp. 649-660.
10. Mo, Y. L., and Lee, Y. C., “Experimental Studies on Low-Rise
Structural Walls with Various Sections,” Magazine of Concrete Research,
V. 52, No. 3, 2000, pp. 177-184.
11. Salonikios, T. N., “Shear Strength and Deformation Patterns of R/C
Walls with Aspect Ratio 1.0 and 1.5 Designed to Eurocode 8,” Engineering
Structures, V. 24, No.1, 2002, pp. 39-49.
12. Hidalgo, P. A.; Ledezma, C. A.; and Jordan, R. M., “Seismic Behavior
of Squat Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 18,
No. 2, 2002, pp. 287-308.
13. British Standards Institution, “BS 8110: Structural Use of Concrete—
Part 1: Code of Practice for Design and Construction,” London, UK, 1997.
14. Institution of Structural Engineers, “Standard Method of Detailing
Structural Concrete,” IStructE, London, UK, 1989.
15. Park, R., “Evaluation of Ductility of Structures and Structural
Assemblages from Laboratory Testing,” Bulletin of the New Zealand
National Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 22, No. 3, 1989, pp. 155-166.
16. Hwang, S. J.; Fang, W. H.; Lee, H. J.; and Yu, H. W., “Analytical
Model for Predicting Shear Strength of Squat Walls,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 127, No. 1, 2001, pp. 43-50.
17. Zhang, Y., and Wang, Z., “Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Shear Walls Subjected to High Axial Loading,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 97,
No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2000, pp. 739-750.
18. Wallace, J. W., and Moehle, J. P., “Ductility and Detailing Requirements
of Bearing Wall Buildings,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 118,
No. 6, 1993, pp. 1625-1644.
19. Mau, S. T., “Effect of Tie Spacing on Inelastic Buckling of Reinforcing
Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1990, pp. 671-677.
20. Mander, J. B.; Panthaki, F. D.; and Kasalanati, A., “Low-Cycle
Fatigue Behavior of Reinforcing Steel,” Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, ASCE, V. 6, No. 4, 1994, pp. 453-468.
21. Park, R., “Design Procedures for Achieving Ductile Behaviour of
Reinforced Concrete Buildings,” Proceedings of the International Workshop
on Earthquake Engineering for Regions of Moderate Seismicity, Hong
Kong, China, 1998, pp. 45-50.
231