ACI JOURNA' Be Ne aaa Title no. 82-83 Softening of Concrete in Low-Rise Shearwalls a : es >: by Thomas T. C. Hsu and Y. L. Mo ‘Based on equilibrium and compatiblity conditions, as well as a new stress-strain relationship Jor softened concrete, a truss model theory is derived to predict the strength and behavior of low-rise reinforced conerete shearwails. The theoretical prediction was compared (0 the tests of twenty-four shearwalls and was found to be applicable throughout the loading history. ‘Keywords: beams (supports); compressive strength; computer programs; defor ration; failure mechanisms; relaforced concrete: ecnforsing ices; she properties; shear sireagth shearwalls strains sreagih; scresss;stressteain ‘elatioaships; structural analysis Reinforced concrete walls are frequently used to pro- vide lateral stiffness for buildings and to keep lateral drift within reasonable limits by resisting horizontal forces in the plan of the wall." Such walls are used in a variety of buildings and can be divided into two groups: (1) the high-rise shearwalls and (2) the low-rise shearwalls. The high-rise shearwall is governed by flex- ural behavior (like a cantilever beam) and is readily predictable. In contrast, the low-rise shearwall is gov- erned mainly by shear behavior which is much more difficult to treat. Although several experimental studies have been performed on low-rise shearwalls, no satis- factory theoretical method is yet available to predict the behavior of such walls. This paper shows that the truss model theory which incorporated the softening of concrete can correctly predict the behavior of low-rise walls with boundary elements. When compared to the test results of twenty- four low-rise walls available in the literature,*” the pro- posed theory can predict not only the shear strength but also the shear distortion, the steel strains, and the con- crete strains throughout the loading history. In con- trast, if the stress-strain curve of nonsoftened concrete was assumed for the diagonal concrete struts, the truss model theory considerably overestimates the shear strength, the deflection at failure, and particularly the strains of reinforcement in the walls. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Research reported in this paper shows that the soft- ening of diagonal concrete struts in low-rise shearwalls should be taken into account in predicting the walll be- ACI JOURNAL / November-December 1985 tKgecote rocorat SS" 4 « TATTTTTTT TTT UTD (a) GENERAL VIEW (©) SECTIONI-I Fig. 1—Equilibrium of shearwall havior. The theory presented allows a structural engi- neer to correctly evaluate the response of low-rise rein- forced concrete shearwalls, TRUSS MODEL THEORY Equilibrium conditions For low-rise shearwalls, three equilibrium equations can be derived from the truss model theory. Fig. 1(a) shows a low-rise structural wall subjected to a horizon- tal force V at the top of the wall. The average shear stress 7 on the horizontal cross section I-] is defined as re a where d is the effective depth, which is defined as the distance between the centroids of the longitudinal bars in the two flanges, and b is the width of the web. Dec. 21, 1984, and reviewed under Insitute publication pote. 1 as, Arvrican Concrete Insitute. All ght reserved shading ‘he'making of copls nies permission is obtained trom the copyraht propre {tors Pertinent dscuson wi be pubished inthe September Osobet 1986 ACL Sourivat if ecevedby Tune 1, 16 883Thomas T. C. Hsu, FACI, & Professor and Chairman of the Department of Cin Engineering tthe Univesity of Houston. Dr. Hsu 8 the autor of mans technical publications and was corecipion of ACI's Wason Med! for Mate nals Research in 1968. He is a member of ACI Committes 215, Fatigue of Concrete, 388, Concrete Guideways: and of ACLASCE of Commiees 348, Concrete Bridge Design, and 448, Shear and Torsion. ACI membor ¥. L. Mo isa structural designer for Sargent & Lundy Engineers Chicago, Ht. His industrial ond consulting experience ieludes seismic analsis (and computer-aided design of metal and concrete structures. Before joining Sargent & Lund, Dr. Mo was a research associate in the Civil Engincering De ‘partment atthe University of Houston, there he oso taught advanced con crete design. Dr. Mo is a graduate of the University of Hannover, W. Ger ‘many. His research otitis are in the area of nonlineer analysis as well a Shear ond torsion of reinforced and presiressed concrete structures When a cracked wall element A is isolated, as shown in Fig. 1(b), the shear flow rb on the horizontal face can be resolved into two components. One component is directed along the longitudinal direction and the other along the diagonal concrete struts inclined at an angle « to the longitudinal axis. The component rhcota along the longitudinal direction will be resisted by the longitudinal steel, giving AL bd rete @) where A, is the total area of longitudinal bars that are within the shear field ABCD of the cross section* [see Fig. 1(0)], and f; is the stress in the longitudinal bars due to shear. The other component along the concrete struts is a,bcosa,, where o, is the stress on the cross section of the diagonal concrete struts and is, therefore, acting on a length cosa. From the geometry of the force triangle we obtain 7 = a, sina cosa @ Eq. (2) and (3) are the two basic equilibrium equa- tions required for the analysis of low-rise shearwalls To determine the force in the lateral steel, a third equi- librium equation can be derived from the equilibrium of forces on the vertical face of element A. This third equation, however, is not necessary for low-rise shear walls because the rigid foundation restrains the shear- wall from expanding in the horizontal (or lateral) di- rection and thus limits the strains in the lateral steel to a negligible magnitude. The lateral strains are even smaller when stiff boundary elements are provided These observations have been clearly revealed in the tests of low-rise shearwalls found in the literature.** The limit of the height-to-length ratio, below which the lateral strain can be neglected, will be discussed in the section concerning the applicability of the theory. Substituting Eq. (3) into Eq. (2) gives Af costa = Oo) bdo, Eq. (3) will be used later to calculate the shear stress 7, while Eq. (4) will be used to check the angle a. Both of these equations are functions of a, 884 Compatibility conditions The two basic compatibility equations relating the shear distortion in the walll + to the strains in the rein- forcement and concrete ¢,, ¢, and ¢, have been derived previously? we = + &) cota a) vk = (@ + 6) tana (Sb) where ¢; is the tensile strain in longitudinal bars, ¢, the tensile strain in lateral bars, e, the compressive strain in the diagonal concrete struts, and a the angle of incli- nation of the concrete struts to the longitudinal axis. For low-rise shearwalls, e, can be taken as zero in Eq. (5b), giving 3 = tana © Equating Eq. (5a) to Eq. (6) results in 6 = (tama = 1) & O) Eq. (7) gives the strain in the longitudinal steel as a function of ¢, Stress-strain curves of softened and nonsoftened concrete Two types of stress-strain curves will be employed in the diagonal concrete struts to predict the behavior of Jow-rise shearwalls subjected to horizontal load: (1) the CEB-FIP stress-strain curve for nonsoftened concrete and (2) the Vecchio-Collins stress-strain curve for soft- ened concrete. 1. In the CEB-FIP stress-strain curve for nonsoft- ened concrete, the curve is based on the standard cyl- inder tests. For simplicity the parabola-rectangle curve specified by the CEP-FIP model code" is used (see Fig. 2). ‘The stress in the diagonal concrete struts o, is ex- pressed as follows When ¢, < ¢, tt |a(2) = (3) ® where ¢,is the strain in the diagonal concrete struts; €,, the strain at maximum compressive stress, usually taken as 0.002; and f/ the maximum compressive stress of the standard concrete cylinder. When e > 6 og = fi co) TRamier, J. A., “Unified Design Procedute for Shear and/or Torsion in Reinforced Partially Presresed and Fully Prestressed Concrete Members,” presented athe ACI Annusi Convention, Phocai, Mar. 8, 184, ACI JOURNAL | November-December 1985In other words, the coefficient for the softening effect of nonsoftened concrete is, » (10) 2. In the Vecchio-Collins stress-strain curve for soft- ened concrete, the curve proposed" for the softened diagonal concrete struts is shown in Fig. 3. For the as- cending portion of the curve, i.e., ¢ < ¢/, the equa- Gl where d is the coefficient for the softening effect (1/A is defined as the softening coefficient), oe = fe For the descending portion of the curve, i.e., ey > ¢/h, the equation is Li [ ( ‘ ‘] a= &\i- 12 n ie, — & ) where ¢, = ¢,/d. In Reference 11 this coefficient 4 was suggested to be (a3) @ where ¢; is the strain in the longitudinal bars, and ¢, the strain in the transverse bars. Again, for low-rise shear- walls, ¢, in Eq. (13) can be taken as zero. Neglecting the small effect of the constant 0.3 in Eq. (13) and substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. (13), d can be ex- pressed in a very simple form A= a4) Solutions The relationships among the set of seven quantities (7, a € A, 04.7 and ¢,) can be obtained by assuming the value of one quantity, ¢,, and then solving the six equations derived previously from equilibrium, com- patibility, and stress-strain relationships [Eq. (3), (4), ©), (7), (14), and (11) or (12)}. For nonsoftened con- crete, Eq. (11), (12), and (14) should be replaced with Eq. (8), (9), and (10), respectively. A trial-and-error method can be used as follows: 1, Select ¢, and assume a. 2. Calculate \ from Eq. (14). 3. Calculate ¢, from Eq. (7). 4, Calculate o, from Eq. (11) or (12) 5. Check a by Ea. (4). 6a. If the calculated value for a is not sufficiently close to the value assumed, repeat Steps 1 through 5. 6b. If the calculated value for a is sufficiently close to the value assumed, proceed to calculate + and y from Eq. (3) and (6), respectively. This will provide one set of the seven quantities. 7. Select other values of , and repeat Steps 1 through 6 for each e, value. This will provide a number of sets ACI JOURNAL / November-December 1985 “ END Fig. 4—Flow chart of solution procedure computer program. The test results at maximum shear strength are given in Appendix A of Reference 13. COMPARISON OF THEORY WITH TESTS Effect of stress-strain relationship of concrete The effect of the stress-strain relationship of con- crete will be studied in terms of the shear stress versus deflection curves as well as the longitudinal steel strain versus deflection curves. Shear stress-deflection curves—The shear stress ver- sus deflection curves for all the specimens available in References 4 through 7 are given in Appendix B of Ref- erence 13. Two specimens are chosen for discussion: Specimen BI-1 tested at PCA and Specimen 4BII-1 tested at Stanford University. The shear stress-deflec- tion curves for these two specimens are plotted in Fig. 5 and 6. Each figure includes one experimental curve 886 ete “a 1600 “ “£ / SPECIMEN 81-1 | 1400 A BARDA, HANSON & ; CORLEY (1976) 4 in, 6671 in, hy=375 in] Ay=220 in, f= 78.8 kst ed) 200 ps 1000 - SHEAR STRESS + (psi) 2 8 8 i onsen 400 ee TEST -0-0-0- THEORY (SOFTENED ‘CONCRETE -OnA-O~ THEORY (WON-SOFTENED CONCRETE, 02 DEFLECTION 8 (in.) Fig. 5—Shear stress-deflection curves of Wall BI-1 (1 in, = 2.54 cm, 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa, and I psi = 6.895 PA) and two theoretical curves computed from the two stress-strain relationships of concrete discussed previ- ously. Examination of the two theoretical curves re- veals the following observations: 1. The curve using the CEB-FIP stress-strain rela- tionship for nonsoftened concrete (Fig. 2) is repre- sented by a dotted curve with the calculated points in- dicated by hollow triangles. Fig. 5 and 6 show that the predicted maximum shear strength is considerably higher than the test value. The shear stress-deflection curve does not have a descending branch as indicated by the test, and the deflection at a concrete strain of ¢, = 0,003 (last point of curve) is much greater than the experimental deflection at maximum shear strength. 2. The curve using the Vecchio-Collins stress-strain relationship for softened concrete (Fig. 3) is repre- sented by a solid curve with the calculated points indi- cated by hollow circles. The theoretical shear stress-de- flection curves are very close to the corresponding test curves in all aspects: (1) the predicted maximum shear strengths are only 6.1 and 5.9 percent less than the test values for Specimens B1-1 and 4BII-I, respectively; (2) cach shear stress-deflection curve exhibits a descending branch; (3) the deflections at maximum shear strengths ACI JOURNAL | November-December 1985are very close to the test values; and (4) after cracking, the ascending portion of the theoretical shear stress-de- flection curves are reasonably close to the test curves. Longitudinal steel strain-deflection curves—The lon- aitudinal steel strain-deflection curves for Wall BI-I are plotted in Fig. 7, Each point on the experimental curve in Fig. 7 is computed from the average strains of four ‘measured points equally spaced along the length of the web at the midheight of the shearwall. No strain me surements were made beyond the maximum load. In Fig. 7, the dotted curve is calculated using the CEB-FIP stress-strain relationship for nonsoftened concrete. This longitudinal steel strain-deflection curve shows that the predicted steel strains considerably over- estimate the experimental values. The solid curve with hollow circles, which is based on the Vecchio-Collins ee soo} - | // BENJAMIN & WILLIAMS (1957) a v's 2920 ps. o 600 fe d 200 0-0-0 THEORY (SOFTENED | | we-or-e THEORY ConcreTe) Leancama” * Wow'sorteneo concrete | ae ae a 0 008 0.10 O18 020 028 03 DEFLECTION 8 (in) Fig. 6—Shear stress-deflection curves of Wall 4BII-1 Table 1—Comparison of experimental and theoretic stress-strain relationship for softened concrete, com- pares very well with the experimental curve. In conclusion, the softening effect of diagonal con- crete struts must be considered. Therefore, only the ‘Vecchio-Collins stress-strain relationship is employed in the following analysis of shear strength. Shear strength The experimental shear strengths of twenty-four low- rise shearwalls found in References 4 through 7 are compared to their theoretical values in Table 1 using the softening coefficient of Eq. (14). Of all these speci- mens, {wo are ineligible for comparison because of the following reasons: 10.9 j ert P| | —etest x 8.0 & 7 4 | +o mHeony (SorTeNED 2 SSB, / | S| -o--a-tueony Won a = ol SOROY / ¢ 60 CONCRETE)” 4 g 1 Ye z | fo | E 407 ax 1 3 a CRACKING 4/ a Pep 2 2ot | a & le \] ! ° a | 001 02 03 04 05 DEFLECTION 8 (in.) Fig. 7—Steel strain versus deflection curves of Wall B1-1 al results at ultimate load Source Sree Hewenet wy ot “HE Bente "UES “URI aetna aniston on Sets Ie Kamp averase 1.027 Wore: 1 pei= 6.695 KPA and 1 in. = 2.54 em. ‘ACI JOURNAL / November-December 1985 887e258 SF ‘ (24-2: No Horizontal Stee! re ary BEA No Lonptcina! Steet v 20 ao-2 ast 5 1.0 & os 3 tw i. . . . 4 3 %5 0 o8 10 15 20 25 s Horizontal Reinforcement Strain €, (10°) Fig. 8—Comparison of longitudinal and horizontal ‘steel strains 1, Lack of longitudinal web reinforcement in Speci- men BS-4: The theory is based on a truss model which is assumed to consist of longitudinal steel in the shear field subjected to tension and diagonal concrete struts, subjected to compression, The truss model theory is in- valid when there is no longitudinal reinforcement in the web. 2. Premature foundation failure in Specimen C-2: ‘The theory assumes that the maximum shear strength is, calculated based on the failure of the wall. When the foundation yielded before the failure of the wall, the experimental maximum shear stress is expected to be Jess than the calculated value. After excluding those two specimens, the average Tae! Taoae Value for all twenty-two walls is 1.027, and the standard deviation is 14.7 percent. The calculated shear stress is often somewhat less than the experimen- tal values for static tests while the reverse is generally true for cyclic tests because walls subjected to load re- versals have slightly lesser shear strengths than similar walls subjected to loading in one direction only. This phenomenon was clearly shown in the PCA tests.*? The theoretical and experimental deflections at max- imum shear strengths are given in Table 1 for the fif- teen walls in the PCA and Stanford tests. For the walls, subjected to monotonic loads, the comparison should be considered good. For the walls subjected to cyclic reversal loads, the experimental deflections are ex- pected to be greater than the theoretical values because of the additional deformation produced by the cyclic loads. No data were recorded for the MIT tests, how- ever, because the descending portions of the shear stress, versus deflection curves were not reported. Applicability of theory Height-to-length ratio—The truss model proposed in this paper accounts for the shear deformation only. Therefore, the theory is applicable only to low-rise shearwalls in which the shear deformation predomi- 888 nates, For medium- and high-rise shearwalls in which the flexural deformation predominates, the theory is obviously inapplicable. Hence, a maximum height-to- length ratio must be determined to limit the validity of the theory. The strain measurements of the longitudinal and lat- eral steel of the PCA shearwalls are given in Fig. 8 When the height-to-length ratio is 0.5, as in Walls BI-1, B2-1, and B3-2, the lateral strains are several times smaller than the longitudinal strains. When the ratio of height-to-length is equal to one, as in Wall B8-S, the horizontal steels approach the same magnitude of strains in the longitudinal steel only at high levels of load. The assumption of zero lateral strain will result in less softening effect so that the calculated maximum. shear stress will be somewhat greater than the experi- mental value. To insure the validity of the assumption, it is proposed that the theory be limited to a height-to- length ratio of one. Reinforcement ratios—Table | includes the ratios of longitudinal and lateral steel, o; and p,, respectively, in the wall for all test specimens. The truss model theory can be seen as valid within a wide range of steel ratio p, from 0.25 to 2.95 percent. The lower limit of 0.25 per- cent has been specified in the ACI Code."* Concrete strengths—Table | shows that the com- pressive strength of concrete f{ varies from 2370 to 5200 psi (16.3 to 35.9 MPa). The f: reported in the PCA tests was measured from 6 x 12 in. (15 x 30 em) standard cylinders, while those in the Stanford and MIT investigations were measured from 4 x 8 in. (10 x 20 cm) and 3 x 6 in (7.5 x 15 em) cylinders, respec- tively. No adjustments were made to consider the size effect because the thicknesses of the shearwalls (1% to 2 in, [4.4 to 5.0 cm}) in the latter two investigations were less than half of those (4 in. [10 cm]) in the for- mer investigations. Boundary elements—In the design of shearwalls the boundary elements are reinforced to resist the applied bending moment, while the webs are designed to resist the applied shear force. The size and shape of the boundary elements do not have a significant influence on the shear behavior, as long as they are sufficient to carry the required bending moment. Table | reveals that the boundary elements for the three groups of tests have very different shapes, con- crete areas, and steel percentages. The PCA specimens have very slender boundary elements of 4 x 20 in. (10 x 50 cm) cross sections, while the Stanford and MIT specimens have relatively bulky sections of 4 x 5 in. (10 x 12.5 cm) and 4 x 4 in. (10 x 10 cm), respectively. The ratio of the transformed area of the boundary element to the transformed wall area varies from 0.18 to 0.76. The proposed theory, therefore, should be applicable to shearwalls with the boundary elements varying within a wide range of sizes and proportions. CONCLUSIONS 1. A truss model theory considering the softening of concrete has been presented for low-rise reinforced ACI JOURNAL / November-December 1985concrete shearwalls with boundary elements. The the- ory can predict not only the shear strength but also the shear distortion, the steel strains, and the concrete strains. The theoretical predictions were checked by twenty-four reinforced concrete test walls available in literature and were found to be reasonable throughout the loading history. 2. The effect of the concrete stress-strain curves on the behavior of the reinforced concrete walls was stud- ied. It was shown that the truss model theory becomes very poor when the stress-strain curve for nonsoftened concrete is assumed. NOTATION {otal area of longitudinal steel within the shear field ABCD ‘web width of an section wall effective depth for shear force in an I-section wall, defined as, the distance between, the centroids of the two flanges cylinder compression strength of concrete siress in longitudinal stel yield stress in longitudinal steel, height of a wall horizontal length of a wall spacing of provided bars horizontal shear force ‘nominal shear Force angle of inclination of the diagonal compression struts to the Tongitudinal axis shear distortion deflection at the top of a shearwall deflection at the top of a shearwall at maximum load strain at maximum stress of nonsoftened concrete, taken as 0.002 concrete strain in the diagonal concrete struts = strain in logitudinal steel 6, = strain at maximum stress of softened concrete take as ¢x/ strain in horizontal stet yield strain in the longitudinal reinforcing bars coefficient for softening effect (1/) is defined as the softening coefficient) a, = ratio of longitudinal stee in the web of the shearwall 8, = ratio of lateral stee in the web of the shearwall = compressive stress in the diagonal concrete struts ACI JOURNAL / November-December 1985, 1 = shear stress 1 = nominal shear strength Ty ™ cracking shear strength REFERENCES 1. Park, Robert, and Paulay, Thomas, Reinforced Concrete Siruc- tres, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975, pp. 610-662. 2. Paulay, T., "Design Aspects of Shear Walls for Seismic Areas,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering (Ottawa), V. 2, No. 3, 197 pp. 321-344, 3. Hsu, T. T. C., “Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Members and ‘Shear Walls,” Journal, Chinese Institute of Engineers (Taiwan), V. 3, No. 1, 1980, pp. 1-20 4. Barda, F., “Shear Strength of Low-Rise Walls With Boundary Elements,” PRD thesis, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, 1972, 265 pp. 5, Barda, Felix; Hanson, John M.; and Corley, W. Gene, “Shear Strength of Low-Rise Walls With Boundary Elements,” Research and Development Bulletin No. RDO43D, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, 1976, 20 pp. 6. Galletly, G. D., “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls Under Static Load,”” Department of Civil and Sanitary Engineering, Massachusetts Insitute of Technology, Cambridge, Aug. 1952, 123 Po, 7. Benjamin, J. R., and Willams, H. A., “The Behavior of One- ‘Story Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls,” Proceedings, ASCE, V. 83, ‘ST3, May 1957, p. 1254. 8. Hsu, Thomas T. C., Torsion of Reinforced Concrete, Van Nos- trand Reinhold Co., New York, 1984, $44 pp. 9. Hsu, Thomas T. C., and Mo, Y. L., "Softening of Concrete in Torsional Members—Theory and Tests,"” ACI JouRNAL, Proceed ings V. #2, No. 3, May-June 1985, pp. 290-303 10. CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures, 3rd Edition, Comité Euro-International du Béton/Fédération Internationale de la Précontrainte, Paris, 1978, 348 pp. 11, Veechio, F., and Collins, M. P., “Sress-Strain Characteristics of Reinforced Concrete in Pure Shear," Final Report, LABSE Col- loguium on Advanced Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete (Delft, 1981), Imernational Association for Bridge and Steuetural Engineer- ing, Zarich, pp. 211-225 12, Veeckio, F., and Collins, M. P., “The Response of Reinforced Concrete to In-Plane Shear and Normal Stresses,” Publication No. 82.03, Depariment of Civil Engineering, University of Torento, Mar 1982, 332 pp. 13, Hsu, T. T, C,, and Mo, ¥. L., “Softening of Concrete in Low- Rise Shear Walls,” Research Report No, UHCE 84-8, Department of Givil Engineering, University of Houston, Nov. 1984, 107 pp. 14, ACI Commitee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Rein- forced Concrete (ACI 318-83),"" American Concrete Institute, De- troit, 1983, 111 pp. 889