ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 117-S15
Deformability and Stiffness Characteristics of Concrete
Shear Walls Reinforced with Glass Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Reinforcing Bars
by Ahmed Hassanein, Nayera Mohamed, Ahmed Sabry Farghaly, and Brahim Benmokrane
The design of lateral-resisting reinforced-concrete elements
requires prediction of the fundamental period and drift, which are
determined using linear elastic dynamic analysis. To estimate the
linear elastic response, the cross section of the structural element
is assumed to have a linear flexural stiffness that accounts for
cracking. This emphasizes the need for a reliable model for the
effective stiffness in both flexure and shear response. In this study,
six reinforced concrete (RC) shear walls reinforced entirely with
glass fiber-reinforced polymers (GFRPs) reinforced bars were
tested under reversed cyclic loading. The wall portion of all the
specimens had the same dimensions: 3500 mm (137.8 in.) in height,
1500 mm (59.1 in.) in length, and 200 mm (7.87 in.) in width. The
test specimens were subjected to a constant axial load of 0.15fc′Ag
and a displacement-controlled lateral-loading history. The experi-
mental results were presented and discussed to introduce the effec-
tive stiffness relationship based on cracking, failure progression,
deformation, and strength degradation. The deformability factor
was estimated using the serviceability and ultimate limit states
based on the allowable deformation limits. A simple trilinear
moment-curvature model was developed to predict the flexural
response of the tested walls. A simple procedure is proposed and
recommended to predict the lateral displacement of the GFRP-re-
inforced shear walls.
Keywords: codes; deformability; design; flexural stiffness; glass fiber-rein-
forced polymer (GFRP) reinforcing bars, lateral displacement; moment-cur-
vature analysis; reinforced concrete; seismic performance; shear walls.
INTRODUCTION
The lateral displacement of reinforced-concrete shear
walls due to lateral loads such as wind or earthquake is
of the utmost significance in structural design. The seis-
mic-design provisions for reinforced concrete shear walls
require estimating the design displacement for assessing the
need for confinement reinforcement in the potential plastic
hinge regions. Appropriately predicting the effective stiff-
ness of shear walls plays a critical role in determining lateral
displacement. Many models and approaches were developed
and adopted by design codes to evaluate the effective stiffness
of shear walls (Branson 1965; Paulay 1986; Priestley and Hart
1989; Smith and Coull 1991; Paulay and Priestley 1992).
The stiffness properties of shear walls can affect the predic-
tion of the fundamental period and displacements. The effec-
tive stiffness depends mainly on the intensity and distribution
of stresses along the wall cross section and the extent of the
flexural and shear cracking. Flexural cracking reduces the
cross-sectional area and moment of inertia, which in turn
results in a reduction of the wall section’s effective flexural
stiffness. A stiffness reduction factor is used in analyzing
ACI Structural Journal/January 2020
TECHNICAL PAPER
reinforced concrete members under lateral loads. In practice,
the values of 0.35 and 0.70 the gross moment of inertia for
cracked and uncracked walls, respectively, have been widely
adopted by many codes and guidelines (ACI 318-14 and
CSA A23.3-14). This simplification, however, may not be
appropriate for shear walls reinforced with GFRP bars as the
reduction factors were proposed for steel-reinforced elements
based on their cracking behavior. In contrast, the cracking
behavior in glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP)-rein-
forced shear walls is more distributed and produces greater
crack widths (Mohamed et al. 2014a; Hassanein et al. 2019),
which interfere with accurately predicting effective stiffness.
Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the stiffness properties
of GFRP-reinforced shear walls based on experimental results
for six full-scale shear walls entirely reinforced with GFRP
bars subjected to reversed cyclic load.
Ductility is a desirable structural property in seismic design
as it allows stress redistribution over the structural element
and warns of impending failure. The design of lateral resisting
steel-reinforced concrete shear walls is tension-controlled, for
which warning of failure by excessive deflection and cracking
may be expected accompanied with substantially minor loss
of load-carrying capacity. This ductile behavior is guaran-
teed by limiting the net tensile strain to 0.004 or more (ACI
318-14). Accordingly, the ductility index is defined as the ratio
of the strain at failure to the strain at yielding, measured at the
outermost layer of reinforcement in the plastic hinge zone. On
the other hand, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars do not
exhibit plastic behavior. Therefore, based on the definition of
the ductility index for steel-reinforced elements, the ductility
index for FRP-reinforced elements would be equal to unity.
Based on the experimental results for laterally loaded FRP-re-
inforced elements, the deflection at failure for both steel- and
FRP-reinforced elements could reach a similar displace-
ment level. Therefore, the term “deformability” rather than
“ductility” was introduced by Jaeger et al. (1997) to evaluate
the deformation capacity of FRP-reinforced beams. Based
on this concept, the deformation capacity of the tested walls
was assessed after redefining the serviceability limit state
proposed by Jaeger et al. (1997) for FRP-reinforced beams
involving the assessment criteria for lateral-resisting systems.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 117, No. 1, January 2020.
MS No. S-2018-547.R1, doi: 10.14359/51718070, received January 8, 2019, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2020, 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 ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
183
Effective stiffness of steel-reinforced shear walls
The moment of inertia of reinforced concrete members
is usually reduced to compute the deflection by consid-
ering the cracking effects on the stiffness of the structural
element (Smith and Coull 1991). The specified reductions
are generally constant over the total height of the member
depending on the type and magnitude of loading as well as
the geometry and reinforcement ratios of the cross section.
The common practice for estimating a reduced moment of
inertia for members does not always guarantee a conserva-
tive prediction of the deflection (Dundar and Kara 2007).
The lateral displacement at any load level (Px) can be calcu-
lated using the elastic-deflection equation as follows
Px hw3
δx = (1)
3Ec I e
where hw is the wall height; Ec is the modulus of elasticity
of concrete; fc′ is the unconfined concrete strength obtained
from cylinder tests; and Ie is the effective moment of inertia
of the cross section after cracking. The effective stiffness (Ie)
is derived to represent a gradual digression from the gross
uncracked moment of inertia (Ig) to the cracked moment of
inertia (Icr). Fenwick and Bull (2000) conducted a parametric
study that considered three main parameters: axial loads,
yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement, and concrete
compressive strength. Based on their investigation, they
proposed Eq. (2) by relating the effective moment of inertia
to the moment of inertia of an uncracked concrete section for
cantilever walls subjected to flexural deformations
 P  160 
I e = 0.267 1 + 4.4 u   0.62 +
f y 
(0.76 + 0.005 fc′) I g (2)
 f ′A
c g 
The ACI 318 (2014) and CSA A23.3 (2014) code provisions
adopted Branson’s equation (1965) for estimating the effective
moment of inertia of steel-reinforced elements as follows
M 
3
  M 3
I e =  cr  I g + 1 −  cr   I cr ≤ I g (3)
 Ma    M a  
where Mcr is the cracking moment; Ma is the applied moment;
Icr is the moment of inertia of the cracked transformed
section; and Ig is the gross moment of inertia. ASCE/SEI
41-13 (2013) recommends a 50% reduction in stiffness for
previously cracked concrete walls (Ie = 0.5Ig). Paulay (1986)
recommends Ie = 0.6Ig for a wall without axial compression
and the following equation for a wall subjected to an axial
compression force P
 P 
I e =  0.6 + Ig ≤ Ig (4)
 f c′Ag 
where Ag is the cross-sectional area of the gross concrete
section. Accordingly, the explanatory notes to the 1994
Canadian Concrete Code (CPCA 1995) recommend Ie =
0.7Ig, regardless of the axial force level, for simplicity.
184
The commentary on the seismic design provisions of NZS
3101.1 (2006) recommends Ie = 0.25Ig for a wall with no
axial compression and Ie = 0.35Ig for a wall with an axial
compression force equal to 10% of fc′Ag. These effective
stiffness values are consistent with the expression proposed
by Priestley and Hart (1989) for concrete masonry walls
 100 P 
Ie =  + Ig ≤ Ig (5)
 fy f c′Ag 
Equation (5) shows that two essential parameters are
considered to reflect the effective stiffness of flexural walls:
the yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcement (fy) and
the axial load (Pu). Paulay and Priestley (1992) recom-
mended that Eq. (5) could be used for steel-reinforced
concrete shear walls and proposed the following expression
(Eq. (6)) to evaluate the effective stiffness of structural walls
with aspect ratios less than 4.0
Ie 30 I
Iw = in which F = 2 e (6)
1.2 + F hwbwlw
where the shear-deformation contribution to effective wall
stiffness is reflected by employing three overall dimensions:
wall height (hw); wall thickness (bw); and wall length (lw).
In conclusion, the main parameters that control the effec-
tive stiffness of shear walls are the axial load, cross-sec-
tional geometry, reinforcing bar yield strength, and concrete
compressive strength (Paulay 1986; Paulay and Priestley
1992; Rahimian 2011).
Effective stiffness of FRP-reinforced elements
FRP bars behave in a linearly elastic fashion up to failure,
so their use in concrete elements requires a comprehensive
model with proper assumptions to predict the moment-cur-
vature response. Because the elastic modulus of GFRP bars
is lower than that of steel bars, the stiffness of GFRP-re-
inforced concrete shear walls abruptly decreases when
the applied moment exceeds the cracking moment (Mcr).
Several studies have proposed expressions for the effective
stiffness of FRP-reinforced concrete beams. Benmokrane
et al. (1996) incorporated two empirical reduction factors
(α, β) in Branson’s equation to account for the difference
in cracking behavior (crack width and spacing) of steel-re-
inforced beams that have fewer cracks than FRP-reinforced
beams, resulting in the following equation
 M  I g   M cr  
3 3
I e =  cr  + 1 −   αI cr ≤ I g (7)
 M a  β   M a  
where α and β were found experimentally to be equal to 0.84
and 7, respectively. Thériault and Benmokrane (1998) modi-
fied Branson’s equation as follows
M 
3
  M 3
I e =  cr  β d I g + 1 −  cr   I cr ≤ I g (8)
 Ma    M a  
ACI Structural Journal/January 2020
Table 1—Details of test specimens
Wall Axial ratio fc′, MPa bw, mm lw, mm lb, mm lweb, mm ρb, % ρweb, % ρh, % ρv, %
GX 0.15 26.1 200 1500 165 1170 1.73 0.55 1.58 4.0
GnoX 0.15 29.5 200 1500 165 1170 1.73 0.55 1.58 4.0
GCi 0.15 29.1 200 1500 190 1120 1.50 0.57 1.58 3.8
GDC1 0.15 28.9 200 1500 275 950 1.81 0.53 1.58 5.8
GDC2 0.15 24.3 200 1500 275 950 1.56 0.53 1.58 5.0
GDC3 0.15 30.4 200 1500 240 1020 1.69 0.53 1.58 5.0

Note: ρb is boundary longitudinal ratio; ρweb is web longitudinal ratio; ρh is horizontal-reinforcement ratio; ρv is boundary volumetric ratio; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi;
1 kN = 0.225 kip.

where βd is a reduction coefficient equal to 0.6. These factors
were attributed to the behavior of FRP-reinforced elements
that exhibited more substantial deformation than that of
steel-reinforced elements and experienced a more signifi-
cant reduction in the compressed concrete section when the
applied moment reached the cracking moment due to the
lower stiffness of the FRP bars.
Bischoff (2005) proposed an alternative section-based
expression for the effective moment of inertia. The proposed
expression by Bischoff (2005) was adopted by ACI
440.1R-15 to include a factor γ accounting for the variation
in stiffness along the length of the member, as follows
I cr
Ie =
M   I 
2
≤ Ig (9)
The proposed equations simulated the effective stiffness of
GFRP-reinforced walls with acceptable accuracy.
SUMMARY OF THE EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
Details of test specimens
Six full-scale GFRP-reinforced midrise shear walls were
built and tested in this study. Each specimen was tested under
the combined action of constant axial load and lateral cyclic-
load reversals. Two parameters were considered and varied in
the specimen design: the configuration of the confined stirrups
or ties in the boundary elements and considering or ignoring
the dowel effect of vertical GFRP bars by adding or removing
the sliding-shear diagonal bars between the wall and the base.
Because of the lower strength and stiffness of FRP bars in the
transverse direction, it is assumed that the dowel-action effect

1 − γ  cr  1 − cr  is ignored due to the lack of research on this aspect. Accord-

 M a   I g 
where γ is dependent on load and boundary conditions and
accounts for the length of the uncracked regions of the
member and the change in stiffness in the cracked regions.
In place of a more comprehensive analysis, as suggested in
Bischoff and Gross (2011), the factor can be taken as follows
M 
γ = 1.72 − 0.72  cr  (10)
 Ma 
This is the result of integrating the curvature over the
length of a simply supported beam with a uniformly distrib-
uted load. According to ACI 440.1R (2015), this approach
provides reasonable estimates of deflection for FRP-rein-
forced concrete beams and one-way slabs.
The expressions proposed for predicting the effective stiff-
ness of steel-reinforced shear walls or FRP-reinforced rect-
angular elements cannot be directly applied to GFRP-rein-
forced shear walls. Therefore, an experimental investigation
should be conducted to establish a suitable expression for
the effective stiffness of such walls.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This study aims to establish consistent and accurate
expressions to predict the effective stiffness of GFRP-rein-
forced shear walls based on the cyclic testing of six full-scale
specimens. The flexural and shear deformation was decou-
pled based on a calculated center of rotation, and the effec-
tive flexural and shear stiffness were predicted accordingly.
ingly, the designed walls were provided with diagonal bars
between the base and walls to control the sliding shear based
on the assumptions developed for steel-reinforced elements in
CSA A23.3 (2014). Therefore, one specimen was not provided
with diagonal bars (wall GnoX) but had identical detailing to
another (wall GX) to investigate the efficiency of the dowel
action of GFRP-bars in controlling sliding shear.
The six fabricated and tested GFRP-reinforced shear
walls were labeled GX, GnoX, GCi, GDC1, GDC2, and
GDC3. In these labels, G stands for GFRP reinforcement; X
and noX indicate the presence or absence of diagonal bars,
respectively; Ci indicates a circular spiral in the boundary
element; DC is double-confined boundary elements; and 1,
2, and 3 for different configurations of confined stirrups in
the boundary element, as shown in Table 1 and Fig. 1.
Wall details
The wall portion of all the specimens had the same dimen-
sions: 3500 mm (137.8 in.) in height, 1500 mm (59.1 in.) in
length, and 200 mm (7.87 in.) in width. The specimens were
subjected to a constant axial load of 0.15fc′Ag and a displace-
ment-controlled lateral-loading history. Figure 1 provides the
concrete dimensions of the wall specimens, the arrangement
of vertical and horizontal reinforcement, and the boundary
element confinement configurations. The vertical reinforce-
ment at each wall consisted of continuous No. 3 GFRP bars
with no splices and extended from the bottom of the base
to the top of the wall (4200 mm [165.4 in.]). The horizontal
reinforcement was U-shaped No. 4 GFRP bars. GFRP spiral
stirrups were used as confinement in the boundary elements

ACI Structural Journal/January 2020 185

Fig. 1—Geometry and reinforcement details of specimens.

Table 2—Mechanical properties of reinforcement

Bar db A Ef ffu ɛf
GFRP No. 3 9.5 71.3 62.5 1346 2.30
GFRP No. 4 12.7 126.7 61.3 1303 2.35

Note: db is bar diameter (mm); A is area (mm2); Ef is modulus of elasticity (GPa); ffu
is tensile strength (MPa); ɛf is tensile strain (%); 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi;
1 kN = 0.225 kip.

and had different shapes: rectangular, square, or circular.

U-shaped ties were also used in wall GDC2. Table 2 gives
the material properties of the reinforcement and Fig. 2 shows
the assembled GFRP-reinforced walls.

Loading history and testing procedures

All specimens were subjected to the same loading history,
as shown in Fig. 3. Figure 4 shows the test setup. The base
of the wall specimen was post-tensioned to the rigid labora-
tory floor. A steel load-transfer beam was attached at the top
of the wall to transfer both the lateral and axial loads to the
specimen. Constant axial loading was applied through two
hydraulic jacks attached to both sides of the wall; this axial
load was maintained constant by monitoring the load level
in the hydraulic jacks and applying or releasing load with a
manual controller during the loading or unloading processes.
A lateral bracing system was used to eliminate out-of-plane Fig. 2—Assembled wall cages.
displacement during the test. the base. Two LVDTs were mounted on the first two cracks
on both sides to measure the crack width.
Instrumentation
Linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
strain gauges (Fig. 3) were selected to monitor applied Lateral load-displacement relationships
loads, wall deformations, and strains in the reinforcing bars. Figure 5 presents the envelopes for lateral load versus
Several strain gauges were attached to the outermost vertical lateral drift. As can be seen, the tested walls evidenced no
bars at six levels over the wall height. Other strain gauges strength degradation between the successive cycles imposed
were attached to the horizontal bars and the stirrups or ties at any drift level. The walls with higher confinement rein-
near the base. Lateral deformations were measured at four forcement ratios achieved a higher level of strength and
height levels above the base (0.50, 1.50, 3.00, and 3.50 m drift ratio due to reaching higher concrete compressive
[19.7, 59.05, 118.1, and 137.8 in.]). The concrete strain was strain. Table 3 summarizes the test results; the first crack
measured with two LVDTs mounted on the wall’s edge near was observed at a similar bending moment level of (Mcr).

186 ACI Structural Journal/January 2020

Fig. 3—Instrumentation and applied loading history.

Fig. 4—Elevation and side view of test setup.

Table 3—Experimental results

Wall Mcr Msplit Mspalling Mu Mu/Mn εcu δu
GX 616 1113 1348 1663 1.01 0.013 3.23
GnoX 686 1103 1264 1743 1.01 0.013 3.32
GCi 634 984 1397 1722 0.97 0.012 2.86
GDC1 655 1204 1526 2426 1.06 0.016 4.46
GDC2 564 1082 1477 2079 1.04 0.015 4.19
GDC3 623 1155 1397 2216 1.01 0.014 4.57
Note: Mcr is moment corresponding to first crack (kN.m); Msplit is moment corre-
sponding to concrete-cover splitting (kN.m); Mspalling is moment corresponding to
concrete-cover spalling (kN.m); Mu is experimentally recorded ultimate moment
(kN.m); Mn is nominal calculated moment (kN.m); εcu is concrete compression strain
Fig. 5—Load-displacement envelope curves. (Note: 1 mm = at failure; δu is drift values corresponding to Mu calculated as lateral displacement to
0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.) wall height (%); 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.

ACI Structural Journal/January 2020 187

Fig. 6—Typical cracking progression over wall height (wall GnoX).
Fig. 7—Failure progression: (a) cover splitting; (b) cover spalling; (c) full cover spalling; and (d) failure.
The initiation of the inelastic deformation corresponds to
the concrete-cover splitting of the wall edge under compres-
sion. This point was observed at a similar level of bending
moment (Msplit) for all tested specimens. The occurrence of
the concrete cover spalling was delayed by the presence of
the diagonal X-bars as the corresponding bending moment,
Mspalling (Table 3), was lower for wall GnoX than the other
walls. As the loading continued, concrete -cover spalling
continued to accumulate with a linear behavior of the enve-
lope curve up to failure (Fig. 5).
Cracking progress and failure mode
The crack progression was similar for all the tested walls
as the behavior was dominated by flexure (Fig. 6). The initial
flexural cracks were observed near the base of the walls on
the tension side, causing a significant reduction in stiffness.
These cracks gradually propagated toward the center of the
wall. More flexural cracks initiated over the height of the
wall during the consecutive load reversals, whereas hori-
zontal cracks propagated diagonally into the web. Eventu-
ally, these cracks formed a diagonal cracking pattern on the
web. It is worth mentioning that the closing of these cracks
during the unloading path helped to realign the wall with
negligible residual displacement during the elastic deforma-
tions. The self-realigning ability is considered an advantage
188
in GFRP-reinforced walls as minimal residual deformations
were recorded up to 2.0% drift. This ability is attributed to
the elastic behavior of the GFRP bars. The length of hori-
zontal cracks originating from the wall edge decreased as the
distance from the wall base increased, whereas the inclina-
tion angle of inclined cracks increased.
Multiple progression events were observed once concrete
plasticity was attained as the concrete compressive strain
reached 3000 µɛ. The events were observed in the following
sequence: vertical cover splitting at the compressed side
started close to the base (Fig. 7(a)). With further applied
load, additional cover-splitting cracks were initiated, leading
to gradual spalling of the concrete cover (Fig. 7(b)). At
2.0% drift, complete spalling of the concrete cover occurred
without degradation of the lateral capacity of the tested walls
(Fig. 7(c)). The failure was due to concrete crushing associ-
ated with the fracture of the longitudinal bars and rupture of
the spiral stirrups at the boundary element (Fig. 7(d)). Figure
8 shows the measured crack width up to the separation of the
concrete cover (almost 2.0% drift). The width of the cracks
at 2.0% drift on walls GX, GnoX, and GCi exceeded 2 mm
(0.00787 in.), while the crack width was approximately 25%
lower in the walls with the higher confinement reinforcement
ratio (GDC1, GDC2, and GDC3). This could be attributed to
ACI Structural Journal/January 2020
Fig. 8—Crack width progression.
the redistribution of cracks over the wall height due to the
restriction provided by the higher confinement level.
DEFORMABILITY CHARACTERISTICS
The flexural design of FRP-reinforced elements is based
on strain compatibility and depends on whether the failure is
governed by rupture of the tensile reinforcement or crushing
of concrete under compression. Although both modes of
failure are accepted, concrete crushing failure is more desir-
able because it is more progressive and produces more
deformability (Nanni 1993). To evaluate the level of plastic
deformation, which is a significant safety consideration in
seismic design, Jaeger et al. (1997) introduced deforma-
bility instead of ductility, which was subsequently adopted
in The Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CAN/CSA
S6-14). The behavior of FRP bars is approximately linear
up to failure with no yield plateau. Therefore, it cannot be
characterized or evaluated with ductility factors (displace-
ment or strain). The deformability factor (J) considers the
capacity and curvature effects at the ultimate and service
states, calculated as follows
M u Φu
J= (11)
M sΦs
where Mu and Φu are the moment and curvature at the ultimate
state, respectively, which can be calculated using plane sectional
analysis; Ms and Φs are the moment and curvature at the service
limit state, respectively, based on the serviceability criteria of
both deflection and crack width (Vijay and GangaRao 2001).
The serviceability limit state of GFRP-reinforced
beams is defined by the compressive strain in the concrete
approaching the end of its linear behavior at εc = 0.001;
this has been adopted in CSA S6-14 (2014). In contrast, the
ACI Structural Journal/January 2020
service limit in lateral-resisting shear walls controlled by
flexure is usually represented by an acceptable plastic-hinge
rotation. This rotation limit 0.005, according to FEMA 273
(1997), allows immediate occupancy of the structure after
an earthquake that produced limited structural damage. The
experimentally attained rotation of 0.005 for the six tested
walls corresponds to a concrete compressive strain ranging
between εc = 0.0035 and 0.004. The ultimate concrete strain
at failure ranged between εc = 0.012 and 0.016 due to the
well-confined boundaries. Based on similar experimental
observations, Mohamed et al. (2015) proposed using a
concrete compressive strain of 0.0035 instead of 0.001 as
a service limit when calculating the deformability factor for
GFRP-reinforced shear walls.
Table 4 presents the calculated deformability-factor
values. It clearly shows the effect of the confinement-rein-
forcement ratio on enhancing the deformation capacity of
the walls. The wall specimens with a higher level of confine-
ment (GDC1, GDC2, and GDC3) developed higher concrete
compression strains, which delayed the failure to higher
levels of moment and curvature, which, in turn, affects the
effective stiffness.
STIFFNESS CHARACTERISTICS
Flexural and shear deformations
To investigate the flexural and shear stiffnesses character-
istics separately, the total lateral displacement was decou-
pled into flexural and shear displacements using the experi-
mentally generated data from the displacement sensors and
internal strain gauges. The total lateral displacement of the
wall is expressed as follows
U t = U f + U s (12)
189
Table 4—Assessment of deformability factor
Wall Mu Φu Ms Φs J
GX 1663 0.0256 911 0.0105 4.45
GnoX 1743 0.0221 976 0.0088 4.48
GCi 1722 0.0233 920 0.0093 4.69
GDC1 2426 0.0317 977 0.0089 8.84
GDC2 2079 0.0301 907 0.0092 7.50
GDC3 2216 0.0310 899 0.0114 6.70

Note: Ms is moment corresponding to serviceability limit (kN.m); Mu is experimentally

recorded ultimate moment (kN.m); Φu is curvature at failure (rad/m); Φs is curva-
ture corresponding to serviceability limit (rad/m); J is deformability factor; 1 mm =
0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.

where Ut is the total top lateral displacement; Uf is the flex-

ural-displacement component; and Us is the shear-displace-
ment component. The contribution of the flexural defor-
mation to the total displacement was calculated with the
following equation
Fig. 9—Calculation of wall curvature, rotation, and center
Uf = αθh (13) of rotation.
where d1′ and d2′ are the deformed length of the diagonal;
where the center of rotation (α) is the measure of the varia-
d is the original diagonal length; and L is the horizontal
tion of the curvature over the panel height (h). According to
distance between the gauges, as shown in Fig. 10(a).
Hiraishi’s definition (1984), α can be estimated based on the
Two X-configurations of LVDTs were used for two
rotation (θ), as it is the ratio of the shaded area to the rect-
segments over the wall height: the first at the height of
angle surrounded by solid lines shown in Fig. 9. The center
1500 mm (59.05 in.) from the base and the second segment
of rotation (α) can be expressed as follows
from 1500 to 3000 mm (59.05 to 118.1 in.) (Fig. 10(b)).
Therefore, the decoupling was divided into two processes:
∫ 0 θ ( y ) dy
h

α= (14)
θh
where θ(y) is the difference in the rotations at the top and bottom
of the panel of height (h) for which the shear deformations have
been determined. The rotation (θ) is estimated as follows
θ = (VL – VR)/L (15)
where VL and VR are the vertical displacements along the
wall edges (measurements of the two vertical LVDTs at both
boundaries); and L is the horizontal distance between the
two vertical LVDTs.
On the other hand, the typical method for estimating the
contribution of the shear deformation to the total displace-
ment for shear walls is to use the X-configuration of LVDTs.
This method has been validated by many researchers
(Mohamed et al. 2014b; Sittipunt et al. 2001; Massone and
Wallace 2004; Thomsen and Wallace 1995; Oesterle et al.
1979). Applying the same concept, the shear deformation
was estimated by the two X-diagonal LVDTs, according to
the geometry illustrated in Fig. 10(a). Because the curva-
ture was not constant over the height, part of the difference
in diagonal lengths is attributed to flexural deformations.
Therefore, Hiraishi (1984) derived the following expression
to estimate the corrected shear deformation (Us corrected)
estimating the deformations for the first segment and esti-
mating the total shear and flexural deformations for the total
height, as indicated in Fig. 10(b). Figure 11 shows the compo-
nents of the lateral displacement. The behavior of the tested
walls followed a similar trend, despite the variation in the
confinement level. In early cycles, the flexural deformations
dominated the displacement as all the specimens exhibited
negligible initial shear deformation. With the initiation of
the first crack, the flexural stiffness significantly decreased,
leading to an increase in flexural deformations, although the
total deformation was controlled by flexural deformation.
When the lateral drift reached 0.8%, plastic flexural defor-
mation initiated, as represented by vertical cover splitting
cracks, leading to the formation of a plastic hinge near the
base. These plastic flexural deformations led to plastic shear
deformations (Mohamed et al. 2014b; Massone and Wallace
2004). From this point on, the ratio between the flexural and
shear deformation seems to have remained constant up to the
achieved ultimate strengths. Table 5 summarizes the flexural
and shear deformation values at the ultimate capacity. The
average flexural contribution in the first segment was 70% of
the total displacement, while, for the total height, the average
flexural contribution was 84% of the total displacement. The
decoupled shear and flexural displacements are used in the
following section to evaluate flexural and shear stiffness.

Shear stiffness
(d1′ − d ) d − (d 2′ − d ) d −
U s corrected = (α − 0.5) θh (16) The contribution of the shear deformation to the total
2L deformation in the tested walls was approximately 20%,

190 ACI Structural Journal/January 2020

Fig. 10—(a) Decoupling of flexural and shear deformations; and (b) X-configuration for deformation calculation.
Fig. 11—Lateral-displacement components. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
which would impact the estimated stiffness. Therefore, a
stiffness model should be developed to assess the order of
the expected shear deformations. Prior to cracking, the shear
deformation is calculated using the elastic shear stiffness for
prismatic elements as follows
Gc Ash
K se = (17)
fhw
where Gc is the concrete shear modulus (= 0.4Ec); f is a
factor accounts for the non-uniform distribution of the shear
stresses and is equal to 1.2 for rectangular cross sections;
and Ash is the effective shear area of an uncracked element,
calculated as follows
5 + 5v
Ash = Ag (18)
6 + 5v
where Ag is the gross sectional area; and ν is Poisson’s ratio.
The normalized shear-stiffness degradation can be
expressed by the ratio of the shear stiffness to the elastic
ACI Structural Journal/January 2020
shear stiffness (Ks/Kse), where the shear stiffness Ks is calcu-
lated at each drift level as the ratio between the lateral applied
load and the shear deformation decoupled from the experi-
mentally measured total displacement. Figure 12 shows the
calculated shear-stiffness ratio for the six walls to the drift
ratio. Interpretation of the curves reflects the strong correla-
tion between the archived drift level and the corresponding
degraded shear stiffness. The variation in the confinement
configuration, however, did not significantly affect the shear
deformation as all the tested walls displayed a similar trend
of shear-stiffness degradation. The relationship between the
shear stiffness ratio and the shear drift was estimated using
regression analysis, as follows
Ks
= 0.001δ −s 0.8 (19)
K se
where the shear (δs) is the ratio between the shear defor-
mation component and the wall height. While Eq. (19) (the
solid line on Fig. 12) gives an accurate prediction of the
191
Table 5—Decoupling of flexural and shear deformations at ultimate moment
First segment (0 to 1500 mm) Second segment (1500 to 3000 mm) Total displacement
Wall α Uf1 Us1 Ut1 Uexp (1500) Uf 2 Us2 Ut2 Ut Uexp (3000) Uft /Ut, %
GX 0.71 26.2 12.1 38.3 41.0 47.3 2.7 50.0 88.3 94.9 83.2
GnoX 0.73 26.6 13.1 39.7 40.9 48.3 3.3 51.6 91.3 97.6 82.0
GCi 0.72 22.2 7.0 29.2 30.6 46.1 3.1 49.2 78.4 83.5 87.1
GDC1 0.68 30.9 14.7 45.5 51.5 65.7 3.5 69.2 114.7 126.9 84.1
GDC2 0.69 29.9 11.9 41.8 47.6 58.8 5.1 63.9 105.7 119.9 83.9
GDC3 0.67 31.0 14.7 45.7 50.6 67.5 4.7 72.2 117.9 128.9 83.5

Note: α is center of rotation; Uf is calculated flexural deformation (mm); Us is calculated shear deformation (mm); Ut is sum of flexural and shear deformation (mm); Uexp is experi-
mentally measured lateral displacement (mm); Ut = Ut1 + Ut2; and Uft = Uf1 + Uf2; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

Fig. 12—Shear drift ratio versus stiffness ratio.

shear-stiffness ratio from 1% drift up to ultimate capacity,
the shear-stiffness ratio at the initial cycles deviated from
Eq. (19). This could be attributed to the fact that the defor-
mation in the early cycles was predominantly flexural.
Based on the acquired curves in Fig. 12, and for a realistic
estimation of the shear deformation, Ks/Kse is recommended
to have a value of 0.07 for cracked-section calculations. It is
worth mentioning that the proposed equation is valid for the
tested specimens with a constant horizontal-reinforcement
ratio. Therefore, an additional experimental investigation is Fig. 13—Cyclic moment-curvature relationship. (Note:
required to incorporate the effect of the horizontal-reinforce- 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)
ment ratio on the equation. the concrete rupture strength (fr), initial cracking occurred,
and the flexural stiffness dropped as the first crack extended
Flexural stiffness and new cracks appeared. The slope of the moment-curva-
Moment-curvature response—The complete flexural ture curve at this stage is controlled by the number of cracks
response of a reinforced concrete cross section is usually over the height of the wall and the cracked moment of inertia.
described by the relationship between the applied moment Further increase of the applied lateral load caused concrete
and the strain profile (curvature), as shown in Fig. 9. The splitting on the compressed side of the boundary element,
curvature at any section over the height can be calculated indicating the beginning of inelastic deformation (that is, elas-
from the measured concrete strain and longitudinal-rein- to-plastic transition moment, Me). At this moment level, the
forcement strain as follows slope of the envelope curve further decreased, maintaining its
linear behavior until reaching the ultimate capacity.
ε f + εc Mohamed et al. (2014c) proposed a bilinear bending
Φ= (20)
d moment-curvature model that idealized the curve into an
elastic response and plastic response. Ibrahim and Adebar
Figure 13 gives the moment-curvature curves of the tested
(2000) put forward a trilinear moment-curvature curve
walls along with the cyclic envelope curve. In general, when
(uncracked, cracked, and plastic) to evaluate the effective
the lateral loading was applied to the GFRP-reinforced spec-
moment of inertia. Based on experimentally generated
imens, the initial response was linear elastic with stiffness
curves, the envelope bending moment-curvature response of
equal to the gross flexural stiffness, until the first crack initi-
GFRP-reinforced walls was found to be mainly trilinear and,
ated at moment level Mcr. As the loading increases beyond
therefore, the three slopes of the curve should be identified

192 ACI Structural Journal/January 2020


Fig. 14—Idealized quarter-cycle envelope moment-curva-
ture curve.
(uncracked, cracked, and inelastic) for an accurate estima-
tion of the effective stiffness, as illustrated in Fig. 14.
Slope of linear elastic response (uncracked stiffness
EcIg)—The initial slope of the moment-curvature curve
represents the uncracked flexural stiffness of the walls (EcIg).
The stiffness at this stage can be estimated by calculating
the gross moment of inertia Ig, and the modulus of elas-
ticity of concrete, taken as 4700√fc′ (MPa) according to ACI
318 (2014) or 4500√fc′ according to CSA A23.3 (2014) for
normal-density concrete having a compressive strength of
less than 40 MPa (5.8 ksi). The initial slope continues with a
linear elastic response until the applied moment exceeds the
cracking moment Mcr (Fig. 14), which causes a reduction
in the stiffness of the second slope. The cracking moment,
which defines the transition from the primary slope (EcIg)
to the second slope (EcIcr), can be calculated considering
the effect of the axial load on delaying the cracking of the
concrete as follows
 P  Ig
M cr =  f r +  (21)
 Ag  yt
where fr is the cracking strength of the concrete and is defined
as 0.62√fc′ (MPa) according to ACI 318 (2014) or 0.6√fc′
(MPa) according to CSA A23.3 (2014); P is the axial compres-
sion force; and yt is the distance from the centroid axis of the
transformed cross section to the extreme fiber in tension.
Slope of second linear segment (cracked stiffness EcIcr)—
The second slope of the moment-curvature curve starts with
the cracking moment (Mcr) with an approximately linear
segment, where the moment of inertia of the cracked section
Icr for a reinforced rectangular member is calculated for a
cracked section using elastic analysis as follows
bd 3 3
I cr = k + n f Af d 2 (1 − k ) (22)
2
3 was adopted in ACI 318-14 and CSA A23.3-14 for steel-re-
( )
2
k = 2ρ f n f + ρ f n f − ρf nf (23)
ACI Structural Journal/January 2020
where b is the width of the rectangular cross section; d is
the distance from extreme compression fiber to the centroid
of the tension reinforcement; nf is the ratio of the modulus
of elasticity of the FRP bars to the modulus of elasticity of
the concrete; Af is the area of the FRP reinforcement on the
tension side of the neutral axis; k is the ratio of the depth of
neutral axis to the depth of the reinforcement; and ρf is the
reinforcement ratio on the tension side to bd.
Slope of third linear segment (inelastic stiffness EcIe)—To
define the transition point from the second slope (EcIcr) to
the third slope (EcIe), a clear definition of the point at which
inelastic deformation initiated must be addressed first. Due
to the absence of yielding phenomena in FRP reinforcement,
Mohamed et al. (2014c) defined the beginning of the inelastic
deformations as the virtual yield point (Φe in Fig. 14). This point
was experimentally observed when vertical cover splitting
cracks appeared in the boundary elements near the base under
compression. Furthermore, the same behavior was observed
in the current study for all the tested walls. At this point, the
average recorded concrete compressive strain εc was 0.003.
Therefore, to obtain the end of the second slope, the curvature
(Φe) at the virtual yield point was estimated as follows
εc
Φe = (24)
c
where εc = 0.003; and c is the depth of the compression zone,
which was estimated using plane sectional analysis for this strain
level assuming that the strain in the concrete and the FRP rein-
forcement was proportional to the distance from the neutral axis.
The effective stiffness of GFRP-reinforced shear walls
represented by the third slope was evaluated. This point
starts at the virtual yield point and continues to the ultimate
moment capacity of the wall. The value of the effective
stiffness was obtained from the experimentally produced
moment-curvature curves of the six GFRP-reinforced tested
walls. The experimental values of the effective moment of
inertia are calculated based on the top lateral displacement
and corresponding load as follows
Pexp hw3
Ie = (25)
3Ec δ exp
where Pexp is the experimental lateral load; and δexp is the decou-
pled flexural component of the experimental lateral top-dis-
placement corresponding to Pexp. The effective moment of
inertia to the gross moment of the inertia ratio Ie/Ig was plotted
for each wall versus the applied moment to the  cracking
moment ratio Ma/Mcr (refer to Fig. 15). The analysis was
conducted to study the effectiveness of the available models
in accurately predicting the effective stiffness. Three models
were mainly developed to provide a smooth transition from
Ig to Ie. Branson (1965) proposed the first model, which
inforced shear walls (Eq. (3)). The second was Branson’s
model modified by Thériault and Benmokrane (1998) for
FRP-reinforced elements (Eq. (8)), while Bischoff (2005)
developed the third model for FRP-reinforced elements,
which was adopted in ACI 440.1R-15 (Eq. (9)).
193
Fig. 15—Effective moment of inertia ratio versus applied-moment ratio.
Figure 15 clearly shows that Eq. (3) (adopted in ACI
318-14 and CSA A23.3-14) overestimates the effective
moment of inertia, which might produce a lower lateral
top-displacement value, as this model is based on the
cracking behavior (crack width and spacing) of conventional
steel-reinforced elements that experience fewer cracks than
FRP-reinforced shear walls (Mohamed et al. 2014a). On the
other hand, Eq. (9) (adopted in ACI 440.1R-15) underesti-
mates the effective moment of inertia, which would cause a
higher estimation of the top lateral displacement. Equation
(8), which is proposed by Thériault and Benmokrane (1998)
with the same reduction coefficient of βd = 0.6, provided an
acceptable prediction of the effective moment of inertia for
all of the tested walls.
VERIFICATION OF PROPOSED EXPRESSIONS
This section provides verification of the applicability
of the proposed analytical expressions in predicting the
moment-curvature behavior according to the prediction of
the lateral displacement of GFRP-reinforced shear walls.
The three slopes of the trilinear curve (uncracked, cracked,
and inelastic) were calculated as proposed in the previous
sections and compared with the experimental results, as
shown in Fig. 16. The analytically produced curves are in
good agreement with the experimental curves at each applied
194
moment up to approximately 85% of the ultimate moment
(Mu). Over 0.85Mu, the differences between the analytical
and test results increase gradually, which could be attributed
to the deterioration in the longitudinal GFRP reinforcement
due to the consecutive tension-compression cycles, which
was not considered in the proposed model.
CONCLUSIONS
This study proposed simple analytical expressions for
predicting the stiffness and total lateral displacement of
GFRP-reinforced shear walls. The predicted stiffness and
displacement were compared with those determined experi-
mentally for six full-scale shear walls with different bound-
ary-element confinement configurations. Based on this
study, the following conclusions could be drawn:
• All of the tested GFRP-reinforced shear walls had
similar cracking progressions regardless of the confine-
ment-reinforcement ratio.
• The experimental results exhibit enhanced deforma-
tion and load capacities for walls with higher confine-
ment-reinforcement ratios in the boundary element.
• The deformability factor computed at a service state
corresponding to a concrete compressive strain of
0.0035 satisfied the stipulated rotation limit.
ACI Structural Journal/January 2020

Fig. 16—Verification of proposed expressions. (Note: 1 mm
= 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)
• The confinement level almost doubled the deformability
of the tested walls.
• The flexural domination of the tested walls, evidenced
as the flexural deformation component, was more than
80% of the total deformation.
• The predicted flexural stiffness of the GFRP-reinforced
shear walls with respect to the applied lateral load was
best correlated by calculating the effective moment of
inertia based on Eq. (8).
• The proposed analytical procedure predicted the flexural
response of the tested walls by producing moment-cur-
vature curves in good agreement with the experimen-
tally produced curves.
AUTHOR BIOS
Ahmed Hassanein is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Civil Engi-
neering at the University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada. He
received his BSc from Assiut University, Asyut, Egypt, and his MSc from
Southeast University, Nanjing, China. His research interests include
seismic analysis of reinforced concrete structures and behavior of concrete
elements reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymers.
Nayera Mohamed is an Assistant Professor at Assiut University. She
received her BSc and MEng from Assiut University and her PhD from the
University of Sherbrooke. Her research interests include seismic analysis
of reinforced-concrete structures and behavior of structural concrete rein-
forced with fiber-reinforced polymers.
Ahmed Sabry Farghaly is a Research Associate in the Department of
Civil Engineering at the University of Sherbrooke. He received his MEng
and PhD from Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan. His research interests
include nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete structures and seismic
behavior of structural concrete reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer.
Brahim Benmokrane, FACI, is a Professor of civil engineering, Tier-1
Canada Research Chair in Advanced Composite Materials for Civil Struc-
ACI Structural Journal/January 2020
tures, and NSERC Research Chair in FRP Reinforcement for Concrete
Infrastructure in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University
of Sherbrooke. He is a member of ACI Committee 440, Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Reinforcement. His research interests include development of
FRP reinforcements for concrete structures and their durability, structural
performance, and field applications.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to express their special thanks and gratitude to the
Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC),
the Canada Research Chair in Advanced FRP Composite Materials for Civil
Structures, the NSERC Research Chair in FRP Reinforcement for Concrete
Infrastructure, the Fonds de la recherche du Québec en nature et tech-
nologies (FRQ-NT), and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI).
The authors would also like to acknowledge the technical staff of the new
structural lab in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of
Sherbrooke.
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, 2014, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 519 pp.
ACI Committee 440, 1R, 2015, “Guide for the Design and Construction
of Concrete Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars (ACI 440.1R-
15),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 88 pp.
ASCE/SEI 41-13, 2013, “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
Buildings,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 518 pp.
Benmokrane, B.; Chaallal, O.; and Masmoudi, R., 1996, “Flexural
Response of Concrete Beams with FRP Reinforcing Bars,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 93, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 46-55.
Bischoff, P. H., 2005, “Re-Evaluation of Deflection Prediction for
Concrete Beams Reinforced with Steel and Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Bars,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 131, No. 5, pp.
752-767. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:5(752)
Bischoff, P. H., and Gross, S. P., 2011, “Equivalent Moment of
Inertia Based on Integration of Curvature,” Journal of Composites for
Construction, ASCE, V. 15, No. 3, pp. 263-273. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943-5614.0000164
Branson, D. E., 1965, “Instantaneous and Time-Dependent Deflections of
Simple and Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beams,” HPR Report No. 7, Part
1, Alabama Highway Department, Bureau of Public Roads, Montgomery, AL.
CAN/CSA A23.3, 2014, “Design of Concrete Structures,” Canadian
Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 297 pp.
CAN/CSA S6-14, 2014, “Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code,”
Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 894 pp.
CPCA, 1995, “Explanatory Notes on CSA Standard A23.3-94,” Concrete
Design Handbook, second edition, Mississauga, ON, Canada.
Dundar, C., and Kara, I. F., 2007, “Three-Dimensional Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete Frames with Cracked Beam and Column Elements,”
Journal of Engineering Structures, V. 29, No. 9, pp. 2262-2273. doi:
10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.11.018
FEMA 273, 1997, “NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation
of Buildings,” Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Fenwick, R., and Bull, D., 2000, “What is the Stiffness of Reinforced
Concrete Walls?” SESOC Journal, V. 13, No. 2, pp. 9-13.
Hassanein, A.; Mohamed, N.; Farghaly, A. S.; and Benmokrane, B.,
2019, “Experimental Investigation: New Ductility-Based Force Modifica-
tion Factor Recommended for Concrete Shear Walls Reinforced with Glass
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 116, No. 1,
Jan., pp. 213-224.
Hiraishi, H., 1984, “Evaluation of Shear and Flexural Deformations of
Flexural Type Shear Walls,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society
for Earthquake Engineering, V. 17, No. 2, pp. 135-144.
Ibrahim, A. M. M., and Adebar, P., 2000, “Effective Flexural Stiffness
of Concrete Walls in High-Rise Buildings,” 2000 ACI Spring Convention,
San Diego, CA, Mar.
Jaeger, L. G.; Mufti, A. A.; and Tadros, G., 1997, “The Concept of the
Overall Performance Factor in Rectangular-Section Reinforced Concrete
Members,” Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Proc.,
3rd Int. Symposium, Engineering Technics, Edinburgh, UK, pp. 551-559.
Massone, L. M., and Wallace, J. W., 2004, “Load-Deformation Responses
of Slender Reinforced Concrete Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 101,
No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 103-113.
Mohamed, N.; Farghaly, A.; and Benmokrane, B., 2015, “Aspects of
Deformability of Concrete Shear Walls Reinforced with Glass Fiber-Rein-
forced Bars,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 19, No. 5,
p. 06014001 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000529
195
 Mohamed, N.; Farghaly, A. S.; Benmokrane, B.; and Neale, K. W.,
2014a, “Experimental Investigation of Concrete Shear Walls Reinforced
with Glass Fiber-Reinforced Bars under Lateral Cyclic Loading,” Journal
of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 18, No. 3, p. A4014001 doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000393
Mohamed, N.; Farghaly, A. S.; Benmokrane, B.; and Neale, K. W.,
2014b, “Flexure and Shear Deformation of GFRP-Reinforced Shear Walls,”
Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 18, No. 2, p. 04013044
doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000444
Mohamed, N.; Farghaly, A. S.; Benmokrane, B.; and Neale, K. W., 2014c,
“Drift Capacity Design of Shear Walls Reinforced with Glass Fiber-Rein-
forced Polymer Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 6, Nov.-Dec.,
pp. 1397-1406. doi: 10.14359/51687099
Nanni, A., 1993, “Flexural Behaviour and Design of RC Members Using
FRP Reinforcement,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 119,
No. 11, pp. 3344-3359. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1993)119:11(3344)
NZS 3101.1, 2006, “Concrete Structures,” Standards New Zealand,
Wellington, New Zealand, 17 pp.
Oesterle, R. G.; Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D.; Fiorato, A. E.; Russell, H. G.;
and Corley, W. G., 1979, “Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls—Test of
Isolated Walls—Phase II,” Report No. ENV77-15333, National Science
Foundation, Arlington, VA, 327 pp.
Paulay, T., 1986, “The Design of Ductile Reinforced Concrete Struc-
tural Walls for Earthquake Resistance,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 2, No. 4,
pp. 783-823. doi: 10.1193/1.1585411
196
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., 1992, Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Priestley, M. J. N., and Hart, G. C., 1989, “Design Recommendations for
the Period of Vibration of Masonry Wall Buildings,” Research Report SSRP
89/05, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 46 pp.
Rahimian, A., 2011, “Lateral Stiffness of Concrete Shear Walls for Tall
Buildings,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 755-765.
Sittipunt, C.; Wood, S. L.; Lukkunaprasit, P.; and Pattararattanakul, P., 2001,
“Cyclic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls with Diagonal Web
Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 554-562.
Smith, B. S., and Coull, A., (1991), “Tall Building Structures: Analysis
and Design,” New York: Wiley.
Thériault, M., and Benmokrane, B., 1998, “Effects of FRP Reinforce-
ment Ratio and Concrete Strength on Flexure Behavior of Concrete
Beams,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 2, No. 1, pp.
7-16. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(1998)2:1(7)
Thomsen IV, J. H., and Wallace, J. W., 1995, “Displacement-Based
Design of RC Structural Walls: Experimental Studies of Walls with
Rectangular and T-Shaped Cross Sections,” Report No. CU/CEE-95/06,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Clarkson University,
Potsdam, NY, 353 pp.
Vijay, P. V., and GangaRao, H. V., 2001, “Bending Behaviour and
Deformability of Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete
Members,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 834-842.
ACI Structural Journal/January 2020