ACI ITG-5.

1-07

Acceptance Criteria for Special

Unbonded Post-Tensioned
Precast Structural Walls Based on
Validation Testing and Commentary

An ACI Standard

Reported by ACI Innovation Task Group 5

 First printing
March 2008
®
American Concrete Institute
Advancing concrete knowledge

Acceptance Criteria for Special Unbonded Post-Tensioned Precast Structural Walls

Based on Validation Testing and Commentary

Copyright by the American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI. All rights reserved. This material
may not be reproduced or copied, in whole or part, in any printed, mechanical, electronic, film, or other
distribution and storage media, without the written consent of ACI.

The technical committees responsible for ACI committee reports and standards strive to avoid ambiguities,
omissions, and errors in these documents. In spite of these efforts, the users of ACI documents occasionally
find information or requirements that may be subject to more than one interpretation or may be
incomplete or incorrect. Users who have suggestions for the improvement of ACI documents are
requested to contact ACI. Proper use of this document includes periodically checking for errata at
www.concrete.org/committees/errata.asp for the most up-to-date revisions.

ACI committee documents are intended for the use of individuals who are competent to evaluate the
significance and limitations of its content and recommendations and who will accept responsibility for the
application of the material it contains. Individuals who use this publication in any way assume all risk and
accept total responsibility for the application and use of this information.

All information in this publication is provided “as is” without warranty of any kind, either express or implied,
including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or
non-infringement.

ACI and its members disclaim liability for damages of any kind, including any special, indirect, incidental,
or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result
from the use of this publication.

It is the responsibility of the user of this document to establish health and safety practices appropriate to
the specific circumstances involved with its use. ACI does not make any representations with regard to
health and safety issues and the use of this document. The user must determine the applicability of all
regulatory limitations before applying the document and must comply with all applicable laws and regulations,
including but not limited to, United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) health
and safety standards.

Order information: ACI documents are available in print, by download, on CD-ROM, through electronic
subscription, or reprint and may be obtained by contacting ACI.

Most ACI standards and committee reports are gathered together in the annually revised ACI Manual of
Concrete Practice (MCP).

American Concrete Institute

38800 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331
U.S.A.
Phone: 248-848-3700
Fax: 248-848-3701
www.concrete.org
ISBN 978-0-87031-270-0
 ACI ITG-5.1-07

Acceptance Criteria for Special Unbonded

Post-Tensioned Precast Structural Walls
Based on Validation Testing and Commentary
An ACI Standard
Reported by ACI Innovation Task Group 5

Charles W. Dolan
Chair

Attila B. Beres Vilas S. Mujumdar Carol K. Shield

Ned M. Cleland Suzanne Dow Nakaki John W. Wallace
Neil M. Hawkins Stephen P. Pessiki Loring A. Wyllie, Jr.
Ronald Klemencic

Consulting member
S. K. Ghosh

This document applies to structures in regions of high seismic risk or to
structures assigned to high seismic performance or design categories. It
defines the minimum experimental evidence that can be deemed to satisfy
the use of unbonded post-tensioned precast structural walls (shear walls)
for bearing wall and building frame special reinforced concrete shear wall
systems, as defined in ASCE/SEI 7-05, when those walls do not fully satisfy
the intent of the prescriptive requirements of Chapter 21 of ACI 318-05.
This document includes mandatory Acceptance Criteria and nonmandatory
Commentary, and has been written in such a form that its requirements can
be coordinated directly with the requirements for special precast structural
walls in 21.8 of ACI 318-05. Among the subjects covered are requirements
for the procedures that shall be used to design unbonded post-tensioned
precast test modules and their configurations, as well as requirements for
testing, reporting, and assessing satisfactory performance of the test modules.
The references of the Commentary provide documentary evidence,
additional to the references of Chapter 21 of ACI 318R-05, that support the
acceptance criteria. Consistent with the approach of ACI 318, no comparison
is made, either in the body of the Acceptance Criteria or Commentary, of
research results for precast test modules satisfying ACI 318 with those for
modules that, although not satisfying ACI 318, do satisfy the Acceptance
Criteria. Such comparisons, both experimental and analytical, are available in
the Commentary references.
In this document, consistent with the format of ACI 318-05, the word
“Section” is not included before a reference to a section of ACI 318-05. To
more clearly designate a section in this document, however, the word
“Section” is used before any reference to a section of this document.
The section numbering for the Commentary is the same as that for the
Standard, with numbers preceded by an “R” and the text in italics to distin-
guish them from the corresponding section numbers of the Standard.
Keywords: acceptance criteria; coupling element; drift; drift angle;
energy dissipation; lateral resistance; post-tensioning; precast concrete;
prestressed concrete; seismic design; shear wall; structural wall; test
module; toughness.
CONTENTS
Chapter 1—Introduction and scope, p. ITG-5.1-2
Chapter 2—Notation and definitions, p. ITG-5.1-5
Chapter 3—Design procedure, p. ITG-5.1-8
Chapter 4—Test modules, p. ITG-5.1-9

Chapter 5—Test method, p. ITG-5.1-12

ACI Committee Reports, Guides, Manuals, Standard
Practices, and Commentaries are intended for guidance in
planning, designing, executing, and inspecting construction.
This document is intended for the use of individuals who are
competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of its
content and recommendations and who will accept
responsibility for the application of the material it contains.
The American Concrete Institute disclaims any and all
responsibility for the stated principles. The Institute shall not
be liable for any loss or damage arising therefrom.
Reference to this document shall not be made in contract
documents. If items found in this document are desired by the
Architect/Engineer to be a part of the contract documents, they
shall be restated in mandatory language for incorporation by
the Architect/Engineer.
Chapter 6—Test report, p. ITG-5.1-15
Chapter 7—Test module acceptance criteria,
p. ITG-5.1-16
Chapter 8—Referenced standards, p. ITG-5.1-18
ACI ITG-5.1-07 was adopted October 24, 2007 and published March 2008.
Copyright © 2008, American Concrete Institute.
All rights reserved including rights of reproduction and use in any form or by any
means, including the making of copies by any photo process, or by electronic or
mechanical device, printed, written, or oral, or recording for sound or visual reproduction
or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system or device, unless permission in writing
is obtained from the copyright proprietors.

ITG-5.1-1
ITG-5.1-2
CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE
1.1—Introduction
For seismic design, 21.2.1.5 of ACI 318 specifies that “a
reinforced concrete structural system not satisfying the
requirements of this chapter (Chapter 21) shall be permitted
if it is demonstrated by experimental evidence and analysis
that the proposed system has strength and toughness equal to
or exceeding those provided by a comparable monolithic
reinforced concrete structure satisfying this chapter.” This
document defines the minimum experimental evidence
required to validate the use of special unbonded post-
tensioned precast structural wall systems in regions of high
seismic risk or for structures assigned to high seismic
performance or design categories when those systems do not
satisfy fully the prescriptive requirements of Chapter 21 of
ACI 318. The provisions of this document are intended to
supplement the provisions of Chapter 21 of ACI 318 and not
to supplant them.
Consistent with the 21.2.1.5 requirement of ACI 318, this
document specifies that, before the validation testing
mandated by the document is undertaken, a design procedure
shall have been developed for prototype unbonded post-
tensioned precast structural walls having the generic form
for which acceptance is sought. Further, the same design
procedure shall be used to proportion the test modules. The
document also requires that the prototype buildings that
contain the unbonded post-tensioned precast structural walls
have proportions that are essentially regular in the vertical
direction, having no significant physical discontinuities in
plan, in vertical configuration, or in their lateral-force-resisting
systems.
This document is intended for walls that might, for
example, involve the use of precast elements, precast/
prestressed elements, post-tensioned reinforcement or combi-
nations of those elements and reinforcement. Comprehensive
prescriptive requirements for unbonded post-tensioned
precast structural walls constructed with such elements are
not included in ACI 318.
1.2—Scope and general requirements
R1.2—Scope and general requirements
While only ACI Committee 318 can specify the requirements
necessary for unbonded post-tensioned precast walls to meet
the provisions of 21.2.1.5 of ACI 318, 1.4 of ACI 318 permits
the building official to accept precast wall systems, other
than those explicitly covered by Chapter 21 of ACI 318,
provided specific tests, load factors, deflection limits,
construction procedures, and other pertinent requirements
have been established for acceptance of such systems
consistent with the intent of the Code. This document
provides a framework that establishes the specific tests, load
factors, deflection limits, and other pertinent requirements
appropriate for acceptance for regions of high seismic risk
or for structures assigned to high seismic performance or
design categories of unbonded post-tensioned precast wall
systems, including unbonded post-tensioned precast coupled
ACI STANDARD
wall systems, not satisfying all the prescriptive requirements
of Chapter 21 of ACI 318.
This document assumes that the unbonded post-tensioned
precast wall system to be tested has details that differ from
those prescribed by 21.7 of ACI 318 for conventional
monolithic reinforced concrete construction. Such walls
may, for example, involve the use of precast elements,
precast prestressed elements, post-tensioned reinforcement,
or combinations of those elements and reinforcement. Life
safety and toughness are theoretically enhanced by mild
steel reinforcement grouted across the wall to foundation
interface. The presence of mild steel reinforcement,
however, makes erection more difficult, and may inhibit the
self-centering action provided by unbonded post-tensioning
crossing the same interface. For an uncoupled wall, mild
steel reinforcement, or some other form of energy-dissipating
base connection, is necessary to meet the relative energy
dissipation requirements of this document. For coupled
walls, however, energy-dissipating coupling elements can be
used along the vertical boundaries between walls so that
only unbonded post-tensioning tendons need to cross the
wall to foundation interface. Life safety for coupled walls is
then more critically dependent on the unbonded post-
tensioning not fracturing under the seismic event. In that
case, careful attention should be paid to corrosion protection of
the tendon and to stress increases in the tendon during the
seismic event.
For monolithic reinforced concrete walls, a fundamental
design concept underlying the Chapter 21 provisions of ACI
318 is that walls with hw /lw exceeding 1.0 should be
proportioned so that their inelastic response is dominated by
flexural action on a critical section located near the base of
the wall. That same basic fundamental concept is retained in
this document. The limiting hw /lw value, however, is reduced
to 0.5. The basis for that lower limit is discussed in R1.2.2.
Tests on modules, as envisioned in this document, cannot
be extrapolated with confidence to the performance of
panelized walls of proportions differing from those tested for
the development of Chapter 21 of ACI 318 if the shear-slip
displacement pattern or excessive joint opening pattern of
Fig. R2.3 is significant in the response developed in the test
on the module.
Two other fundamental requirements of Chapter 21 of ACI
318 are for closely spaced ties around heavily strained
boundary element reinforcement and the provision of
minimum amounts of uniformly distributed horizontal and
vertical reinforcement in the web of the wall. Ties around
boundary element reinforcement to inhibit its buckling in
compression are required where the strain in the extreme
compression fiber exceeds 0.003 and spalling of the cover
concrete may occur. Those ties then provide confinement
that maintains the integrity of the boundary element and
permits the confined concrete to develop increasing
compressive forces with increasing lateral displacements in
spite of the loss of the concrete cover. Minimum amounts of
uniformly distributed horizontal and vertical reinforcement
over the height and length of the wall are required to restrain
the opening of inclined cracks and allow the development of
 SPECIAL UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED PRECAST STRUCTURAL WALLS
the minimum acceptable drift angle capacities specified in
Section 5.4. Deviations from those tie and distributed
reinforcement requirements are possible only if a theory is
developed that can substantiate reasons for such deviations
and that theory is tested as part of the validation testing.
1.2.1 This document defines minimum acceptance criteria
for unbonded post-tensioned precast structural walls,
including coupled unbonded post-tensioned precast structural
walls, designed for regions of high seismic risk or for structures
assigned to high seismic performance or design categories,
where acceptance is based on experimental evidence and
analysis.
R1.2.1 This document is not intended for use directly with
existing construction or for use with walls that are designed
to conform to all the requirements of 21.7 of ACI 318. The
criteria of this document are at least as stringent as those for
walls designed to the minimum requirements of 21.7 of ACI
318. Some walls designed to 21.7, and having low height-
length ratios, may not meet the minimum acceptable drift
angle capacity of Eq. (5-1) because their behavior may be
governed almost entirely by shear deformations (Hidalgo et
al. 2002). The height-length ratio of 0.5 is the least value for
which Eq. (5-1) is applicable.
1.2.2 This document is applicable to unbonded post-
tensioned precast structural walls, coupled or uncoupled,
with height-to-length ratios, hw /lw , equal to or greater than
0.5. This document is applicable to either prequalifying
unbonded post-tensioned precast structural walls for a
specific structure or prequalifying an unbonded post-
tensioned precast wall type for construction in general. This
document applies to walls that are effectively continuous
from the base of the structure to top of wall and are designed
to have a single critical section for flexure and axial loads.
R1.2.2 The use of this document is limited to walls with
hw /lw values of 0.5 or greater primarily for two reasons.
First, for rectangular walls, elastic cracked section flexural
deformations start to exceed elastic cracked section shear
deformations once the hw /lw value exceeds 0.5. Second,
experimental evidence shows that postpeak load drift values
for walls with hw / lw values less than 0.5 are unreliable
unless the walls contain considerably more horizontal and
vertical reinforcement than the 0.25% minimum required by
21.7.2.1 in ACI 318 (Hidalgo et al. 2002). Further, for
precast walls with grouted joints between panels, the likelihood
of sliding increases as the hw /lw value decreases and the
presence of post-tensioning becomes increasingly essential
in ensuring nonsliding behavior. For walls with hw /lw
values of 0.5 or greater, postpeak load drifts are about 0.5%
regardless of the hw /lw value of the wall (Hidalgo et al.
2002). From Eq. (5-1), it follows that for walls with hw /lw
values of 0.5, only about 0.4% drift angle is contributed by
the prepeak load response. If the postpeak load drift is
unreliable, the drift capacity becomes unreliable for hw /lw
values less than 0.5. Limiting the use of this document to
walls with hw /lw values of 0.5 and greater does not imply
that the behavior of walls with hw /lw values less than 0.5 is
ITG-5.1-3
unreliable. Rather, the behavior of such walls can be very
reliable if shear stresses are low and the wall is not required
to deform to displacements greater than the displacement
associated with the peak load capacity of the wall.
The wall heights to which this document can be applied
are not limited because a practical limit will be effectively
imposed by the combination of testing facility restrictions on
height and the minimum specimen scale limits imposed in
this document. Further, for heights greater than about 100 ft
and the customary hw /lw ratios for precast panels, the
design displacements result in stress level changes in the
prestressing steel that are difficult to accommodate while
still maintaining the desirable self-centering characteristic
of an unbonded post-tensioned wall. For coupled walls, the
situation becomes even more severe because the
prestressing steel stress changes are even greater for the
trailing wall than would be the case for an uncoupled wall of
the same height (Thomas and Sritharan 2004).
Consistent with the concepts of 21.7.6.2 of ACI 318,
procedures are based on the assumption that inelastic
response of the wall is dominated by flexure at a single critical
jointed section that is a potential yielding section. The wall
should be proportioned so that the critical section occurs
where intended. For walls with openings, the influence of an
opening or openings on flexural and shear strengths should
be considered, and a load path around the opening or openings
should be verified. The presence of the opening or openings
should be verified to not affect the location of the critical
jointed section that is the potential yielding section.
1.2.3 The walls of the prototype structure shall be
permitted to be several panels long and several panels high,
to be constructed from subpanels, and to be either coupled or
uncoupled. Coupling elements shall be permitted to be
devices or beams connecting adjacent vertical boundaries of
the unbonded post-tensioned precast walls.
R1.2.3 For uncoupled walls, relative energy dissipation
ratios increase as the drift angle increases (Kurama 2002).
Tests on slender monolithic walls have shown relative
energy dissipation ratios, derived from rotations at the base
of the wall, of approximately 40 to 45% at large drifts (Ali
and Wight 1990). The same result has been reported even
where there has been a significant opening in the web of the
wall on the compression side (Taylor et al. 1998). Kurama
(2002) computed relative energy dissipation ratios at a
0.020 radians drift angle for uncoupled walls with height-
length ratios of 4. Ratios were 30, 18, 12, and 6% for mono-
lithic reinforced concrete, hybrid reinforced/post-tensioned
prestressed concrete with equal flexural strengths provided
by the prestressed and deformed bar reinforcement, hybrid
reinforced/post-tensioned prestressed concrete with 25% of
the flexural strength provided by deformed bar reinforcement
and 75% by the prestressed reinforcement, and post-
tensioned prestressed concrete special structural walls,
respectively. Thus, for slender precast uncoupled walls of
emulative or nonemulative design, it should be anticipated
that at least 27% of the flexural capacity at the base of the
wall should be provided by deformed bar reinforcement if
ITG-5.1-4 ACI STANDARD
the requirement of a relative energy dissipation ratio of 1/8
is to be achieved. If more than approximately 40% of the
flexural capacity at the base of the wall is provided by
deformed bar reinforcement (Kurama 2002), however, then
the self-centering capability of the wall following a major
event is lost, and that is one of the benefits gained with the
use of post-tensioning. For squat walls with height-length
ratios between 0.35 and 0.69, the relative energy dissipation
has been reported (Hildalgo et al. 2002) as remaining constant
at 23% for drifts between that for first diagonal cracking and
that for a postpeak capacity of 80% of the peak capacity. Thus,
regardless of whether the behavior of a wall is controlled by
shear or flexural deformations, a minimum relative energy
dissipation ratio of 1/8 is a realistic requirement.
For an unbonded post-tensioned wall, it is difficult to
separate the strength provided by the post-tensioning from
the strength provided by the deformed bar reinforcement and
the strength provided by axial load because both the post-
tensioning and axial load move the neutral axis toward the
center of the wall and increase the moment strength. If self-
centering is a goal, it is recommended that the engineer
developing the system calculate independently the deformed
bar reinforcement requirements because the values of the
previous paragraph provide guidance only.
For coupled wall systems, theoretical studies (Stanton and
Nakaki 2002) and tests (Priestley et al. 1999) have
demonstrated that the 1/8 relative energy dissipation ratio
can be achieved by using central post-tensioning only in the
walls and appropriate energy-dissipating coupling devices
connecting adjacent vertical wall boundaries.
1.2.4 Unbonded post-tensioned precast structural walls
shall be deemed to have a strength and toughness that is
adequate to comply with 21.2.1.5 of ACI 318, and the
corresponding unbonded post-tensioned precast structural
walls of the prototype structure shall be deemed acceptable
when all of the conditions in Sections 1.2.4.1 through 1.2.4.5
are satisfied.
1.2.4.1 The prototype structure satisfies all applicable
requirements of this document and of ACI 318 except 21.7.
R1.2.4.1 The precast walls should meet the strength,
minimum reinforcement, and detailing requirements of
Chapters 11 and 14 of ACI 318 as well as the structural
integrity requirements of Chapter 16. The structural
integrity provisions of Chapter 16 require a minimum of
two ties per panel with a nominal strength of not less than
10,000 lb per tie. Thus, at least two tendons per wall, or
one tendon and one grouted in-place deformed steel tie
bar, are required.
By not requiring the walls to meet 21.7 of ACI 318, the
specific triggers of 21.7.6 of ACI 318 concerning the need
for boundary elements in special structural walls are
rescinded. This does not mean, however, that boundary
elements or confinement reinforcement in wall boundaries
will not be required. The need for such elements and reinforce-
ment for jointed walls should be explored using displacement-
based concepts consistent with the concepts of 21.7.6.2 for
monolithic walls.
1.2.4.2 Tests on wall modules satisfy the conditions in
Chapters 3 and 7.
1.2.4.3 The prototype structure is designed using the
design procedure substantiated by the testing program.
1.2.4.4 The prototype structure is:
(1) Analyzed using stiffness properties consistent with
those validated as prescribed in Section 5.10;
(2) Demonstrated through analysis to have design
displacements for all walls equal to or less than two thirds of
the displacement associated with the drift angles to which
the appropriate modules have been tested in accordance with
Section 5.4; and
(3) Shown to have factored engineering design values for
all walls less than the nominal engineering design values
used for the test modules in accordance with Section 4.2.
R1.2.4.4 Both IBC 2003 and NFPA 5000 contain allowable
story drift limits. In IBC 2003, allowable story drifts Δa are
specified in Table 1617.3, and likely values are discussed in
the Commentary of Section 5.4 of this document. The limiting
initial drift angle consistent with Δa equals Δa /φCdhw ,
where φ is the strength reduction factor appropriate to the
condition, flexure or shear, that controls the design of the
test module. For example, for Δa/hw equal to 0.015, the
required deflection amplification factor Cd of 5, and φ equal
to 0.9, the limiting initial drift angle, corresponding to B in
Fig. R7.1, is 0.0033. The use of a φ value is necessary
because the allowable story drifts of the IBC are for the
design seismic load effect E, while the limiting initial drift
angle is at the nominal strength En , which should be greater
than E/φ. The load-deformation relationship of a wall
becomes significantly nonlinear before the applied load
reaches Ent. While the load at which that nonlinearity
becomes marked depends on the structural characteristics of
the wall, the response of most walls remains linear up to
approximately 75% of Ent (Kurama et al. 1999).
1.2.4.5 The structure as a whole, based on the results of
the tests of Section 1.2.4.2 and analysis, is demonstrated to
have the required global toughness.
R1.2.4.5 The criteria of Chapter 7 are for the test
module. In contrast, the criterion of Section 1.2.4.5 is for the
structural system as a whole, and can be satisfied only by the
details used for the design and analysis of the building as a
whole. The criterion adopted herein is similar to that
described in the last paragraph of R21.2.1 of ACI 318. The
intent is that test results and analyses demonstrate that the
structure, after cycling three times through both positive and
negative values of the minimum acceptable limiting drift
angle capacity specified in Section 5.4 of this document, is
still capable of supporting the gravity load specified as
acting on the structure during the earthquake.
 SPECIAL UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED PRECAST STRUCTURAL WALLS
CHAPTER 2—NOTATION AND DEFINITIONS
2.1—Notation
Only symbols additional to those in ACI 318 are defined.
The terms in this list are used in the Acceptance Criteria and
in the Commentary.
Emax = maximum measured lateral resistance of test
module determined from test results, lb. See
Section 7.1.1
En = nominal lateral resistance of test module calcu-
lated using the defined design procedure and
specified geometric properties of test members,
specified yield strength of reinforcement, speci-
fied compressive strength of concrete, a strain
compatibility analysis or deformation compati-
bility analysis, and a strength reduction factor φ
of 1.0, lb
Ent = nominal lateral resistance of test module
calculated using the defined design procedure and
measured geometric properties of test members,
the measured yield strengths of reinforcement,
compressive strengths of concrete, and strengths
of coupling elements, obtained by testing per
Sections 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8, and a strength reduction
factor φ of 1.0, lb
Epr = probable lateral resistance of test module at peak
load, calculated using the defined design proce-
dure and the measured geometric properties of
the test members, measured stress-strain properties
of reinforcement and concrete, a strain compati-
bility analysis or deformation compatibility
analysis, and a strength reduction factor φ of 1.0, lb
In ACI 318, hw is defined as “height of entire wall from
base to top or height of segment of wall considered.” In this
document, hw is defined as height of test module from the top
of the foundation to the point of application of the load. Also,
in ACI 318, lw is defined as “length of entire wall or length
of segment of wall considered in direction of shear force.” In
this document, for coupled walls, lw is the length of one of the
wall segments that is coupled in the direction of shear force.
R2.1—Notation
The terms in this list are used in the Commentary, but not
in the Acceptance Criteria.
Ad = area of hysteresis loop
Cd = deflection amplification factor. See ASCE/
SEI 7-05, Section 12, Seismic Design
Requirements
E1,E2 = peak positive and negative lateral resistances
for increasing and decreasing drift angle,
respectively, for third cycle of loading
sequence, lb
EQ = horizontal force applied to test module and
representing earthquake load
f1 = live load factor defined in required global
toughness in Section R2.2
ITG-5.1-5
Ks ,Ks′ = initial stiffness values for increasing and
decreasing drift angle, respectively, as
defined in Section 5.10
R = response modification coefficient. See ASCE/
SEI 7-05, Section 12, Seismic Design
Requirements
βh = relative energy dissipation ratio
Δ = lateral displacement, in. See Fig. R2.1, R2.2,
and R2.3
Δa = allowable story drift, in. See Table 12.2-1 of
ASCE/SEI 7-05
θL = drift angle, radians
θL1,θL2 = measured drift angles at peak lateral resis-
tance for increasing and decreasing drift
angle, respectively, for third cycle of loading
sequence, radians
′ ,θL2
θL1 ′ = measured drift angles for zero lateral load
for unloading at stiffness value of Ks, Ks′
from peak positive and negative lateral resis-
tance, respectively, for third cycle of loading
sequence, radians. See Fig. R2.4
2.2—Definitions
The following definitions, in addition to those in 21.1 of
ACI 318, shall apply:
coupling elements—devices or beams connecting adjacent
vertical boundaries of precast structural walls and used to
provide stiffness and energy dissipation for the connected
assembly greater than the sum of those provided by the
connected walls acting as separate units.
drift—the lateral displacement at the top of the module or
the prototype structure.
drift angle—the lateral displacement at the top of the test
module or prototype structure divided by the height of the
module or structure.
factored engineering design value—factored value of an
engineering design characteristic such as shear stress, axial
stress, moment-to-shear ratio, for a given wall in the prototype
structure.
nominal engineering design value—maximum
permitted value of an engineering design characteristic
defining a limit state mechanism such as shear, flexure, axial
load, or any combination thereof, assumed in the design
procedure to control the behavior of the prototype structure
and the test module.
prototype structure—the unbonded post-tensioned
precast concrete wall structure for which acceptance is
sought.
relative energy dissipation ratio—ratio of measured
energy dissipated by the test module during reversing cyclic
displacements between given measured drift angles to the
maximum theoretical energy that can be dissipated for the
same drift angles. The quantity is expressed as the ratio of
the area of the hysteresis loop for that cycle to the area of the
circumscribing parallelograms defined by the initial stiffness
values during the first cycle to Ent and the peak resistances
during the cycle for which the relative energy dissipation
ratio is calculated. See Section 7.1.4.
ITG-5.1-6 ACI STANDARD
Fig. R2.1—Definition of drift angle θL .
Fig. R2.2—Typical wall deformation components.
required global toughness—the ability of the entire
lateral-force-resisting system of the prototype structure to
maintain structural integrity and continue to carry the
required gravity load at the maximum lateral displacements
anticipated for the ground motions of the maximum
considered earthquake.
test module—laboratory specimen representing an
unbonded post-tensioned precast structural wall of the proto-
type structure. See Chapter 4.
R2.2—Definitions
The terms in this list are used in the Commentary, but not
in the Acceptance Criteria.
emulative—detailing that results in designs intended to
respond to design displacements in the same manner as
monolithic construction.
leading wall—the end wall, where the lateral loading
causes maximum compressive forces, for a wall group
coupled in-plane.
nonemulative—jointed construction and detailing that
results in designs that are not intended to respond to design
displacements in the same manner as monolithic construction.
self-centering—action by which a wall returns to its original
undeformed position following deformations to values as
large as the design displacement.
trailing wall—the end wall, where the lateral loading
causes minimum compressive forces, for a wall group
coupled in-plane.
The following is Commentary on definitions used in the
Acceptance Criteria.
coupling elements—coupling elements are discrete
connections provided at specific intervals along the vertical
boundaries of adjacent structural walls. Coupled structural
walls are stiffer and stronger than the same walls acting
independently. For cast-in-place construction, effective
coupling elements are typically coupling beams having
small span-depth ratios. The inelastic behavior of such
beams is normally controlled by their shear strength. For
precast construction, effective coupling elements can be
precast beams connected to the adjacent structural walls by
post-tensioning, ductile mechanical devices, or grouted-in-
place reinforcing bars (PCI Ad Hoc Committee on Precast
Walls 1997). The resultant coupled construction can be
either emulative of cast-in-place construction or nonemulative
(jointed). The coupling elements can also be steel beams or
composite steel and concrete beams connected to adjacent
walls by means similar to those used for precast concrete
construction (Kurama et al. 2004). For precast construction,
however, coupling beams can also be omitted and mechanical
devices used to connect directly the vertical boundaries of
adjacent structural walls (PCI Ad Hoc Committee on Precast
Walls 1997; Schultz and Magana 1996).
drift angle—the definition of the drift angle θL , is illustrated
in Fig. R2.1 for a three-panel wall module. The position of
the module at the start of testing, with only its self-weight
acting, is indicated by broken lines, and the deformed position
of the module is indicated by solid lines. The module is set on
a horizontal foundation support that is centered at A. The
module is acted on by a lateral force EQ applied at the top
of the wall. The self-weight of the wall is distributed
uniformly to the foundation support. Under lateral loading,
however, self-weight and any axial gravity load acting at the
top of the wall cause overturning moments on the wall that
are additional to the overturning moment EQhw and can
increase deformations. The chord AB of the centroidal axis
of the wall is the vertical reference line for drift measurements.
For acceptance testing, a lateral force EQ is applied to the
wall through a pin at B. Depending on the geometric and
reinforcement characteristics of the module, that force can
result in the module taking up any one, or a combination, of
the deformed shapes indicated by solid lines in Fig. R2.1,
R2.2, and R2.3. In those figures, deformations and gap
openings are grossly exaggerated to show clearly the
 SPECIAL UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED PRECAST STRUCTURAL WALLS
behavior being represented. Figure R2.2 illustrates several
possible components of the displacement Δ for a wall that is
effectively solid, whereas Fig. R2.3 illustrates two undesirable
components of the displacement Δ. Regardless of the mode
of deformation of the wall, the lateral force causes the wall
at B to displace horizontally by an amount Δ. The drift angle
is the angular rotation of the wall chord with respect to the
vertical and for the setup shown equals Δ/hw , where hw is
the wall height and is equal to the distance between the
foundation support at A and the load point at B.
The moment-shear ratio that exists at the base of the wall
in the test module should be representative of that acting on
the base of the wall in the actual structure. That moment-
shear ratio is an engineering design criterion. There is no
requirement, however, that the test module duplicate the full
height of the wall in the prototype building.
Fig. R2.3—Undesirable deformations along horizontal joints.
Fig. R2.4—Relative energy dissipation ratio.
ITG-5.1-7
relative energy dissipation ratio—this concept is illus-
trated in Fig. R2.4 for the third loading cycle to the drift
angle required by Eq. (5-1) of Section 5.4. For Fig. R2.4, it
is assumed that the test module has exhibited different initial
stiffness values, Ks and Ks′ , for positive and negative lateral
forces, and that the peak lateral resistances for the third
cycle for the positive and negative loading directions, E1 and
E2, also differ. The area of the hysteresis loop for the third
cycle Ad is hatched. The circumscribing figure consists of
two parallelograms, ABCD and DFGA. The slopes of the
lines AB and DC are the same as the initial stiffness Ks for
positive displacements, and the slopes of the lines DF and
GA are the same as the initial stiffness Ks′ for negative
displacements. The relative energy dissipation ratio concept
is similar to the equivalent viscous damping concept used in
Section 17 of ASCE/SEI 7-05 for required tests of seismic
isolation systems.
For a given cycle, the relative energy dissipation ratio βh
is the area Ad inside the lateral force-drift angle loop for the
module, divided by the area of the effective circumscribing
parallelograms ABCD and DFGA. The areas of the parallelo-
grams equal the sum of the absolute values of the lateral
force strengths, E1 and E2, at the drift angles θL1 and θL2
multiplied by the sum of the absolute values for the drift
angles θL1′ and θL1 ′ .
required global toughness—the requirements of 21.2.1.5
of ACI 318 concerning toughness cover both the energy
dissipation of the wall system that, for monolithic construc-
tion, is affected primarily by local plastic hinging behavior
and the toughness of the prototype structure as a whole. In
this document, the former is termed “energy-dissipation
toughness,” and the latter is termed “required global
ITG-5.1-8 ACI STANDARD
toughness.” The required global toughness is a condition
that does not apply to the walls alone and it can be satisfied
only though analysis of the performance of the prototype
structure as a whole when the walls perform to the criteria
specified in this document.
The required gravity load for global toughness evaluations is
the value given by ACI 318 provisions. For conformity with
9.2.1 of ACI 318, UBC 1997, IBC 2003, and NFPA 5000, the
required gravity load is 1.2D + f1L, where the seismic force
is additive to gravity forces, and 0.9D where the seismic
force counteracts gravity forces. The factor f1 is equal to 0.5
in all cases except for garages, areas occupied as places of
public assembly, and all areas where the live load is greater
than 100 lb/ft2 for which cases f1 is equal to 1.0.
CHAPTER 3—DESIGN PROCEDURE
3.1
The design procedures used to proportion the test modules
shall define the mechanisms by which the system resists
gravity and earthquake effects.
R3.1
For a generic precast wall system to be accepted based on
this document, a design procedure should be developed
before validation testing. The design procedure should be
based on a consideration of material properties and force
transfer mechanisms, and its development will usually
require preliminary, and possibly extensive, physical testing
that is not part of the validation testing. Derivation of a
method to calculate the stiffness of the walls, including those
of the test modules, would be one outcome of the preliminary
development program. Other outcomes should include
methods for calculating En , Ent , and Epr .
This requirement for the development of a design proce-
dure before the validation testing is consistent with experi-
ence from the development of the special hybrid moment
frame system that is the subject of ACI T1.1 and T1.2. The
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
carried out the basic development program for the innovative
hybrid frame system. With financial help from a contractor,
multiple small-scale hybrid frame subassemblages, designed
to differing nominal engineering design values, were tested
to failure along with similar specimens of monolithic
construction, and a design procedure for hybrid frames
developed from that information. To be able to use the hybrid
frame concept in practice, ACI T1.1 was written to define the
conditions under which the same R and Cd factors could be
used for special hybrid frames as those used for monolithic
special moment frames designed to Chapter 21 of ACI 318.
The contractor then used that hybrid frame system for a
39-story condominium building in San Francisco. To validate
that the performance of that building would be satisfactory,
subassemblages that were half-scale models of typical interior,
exterior, and corner column connections were tested in
accordance with the requirements of ACI T1.1. The foregoing
represents the use of ACI T1.1 for prequalifying hybrid
frames for a specific structure. Then, following the development
of ACI T1.1 and using the results of the half-scale tests, the
NIST developmental tests, and other relevant data, ACI T1.2
was written and defined an industry standard for the design
of one particular type of special hybrid moment frame. While
ACI T1.1 can be used to validate the performance of special
hybrid moment frames with a wide variety of design details,
ACI T1.2 covers design requirements for moment frames
with central unbonded post-tensioning and equal top and
bottom special energy dissipation reinforcement only. With
the existence of ACI T1.2, ACI T1.1 provided the basis for
prequalifying one generic type of special hybrid moment
frame for construction in general.
The development and validation of design procedures for
unbonded post-tensioned special precast walls have
followed the same pattern as that for special hybrid moment
frames. As part of the Precast Seismic Structural Systems
(PRESSS) program, sponsored jointly by the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and the Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute (PCI), design concepts for unbonded post-
tensioned precast walls and developmental testing were
conducted by a consortium of universities and design
professionals. Those concepts were tested out in the five-
story PRESSS building (Priestley et al. 1999); subsequently,
guidelines for the design of unbonded post-tensioned precast
walls were developed (Stanton and Nakaki 2002). The
relation between those guidelines and the behavior of the
walls in the PRESSS building has also been evaluated
(Thomas and Sritharan 2004). Thus, a design procedure for
one type of unbonded post-tensioned precast wall exists and
the procedure has essentially been validated through the
PRESSS building test. Based on that and other supporting
information, this consensus document defines acceptance
criteria for unbonded post-tensioned precast walls in
general. It is intended that a subsequent document define an
industry standard for the design of the type of precast wall
used in the PRESSS building.
3.2
Before testing, design procedures shall be developed for
the prototype structure and its walls. The procedures shall
account for effects of material nonlinearity, including
cracking, deformations of members and connections, and
reversed cyclic loading. The design procedures shall include
the procedures specified in Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.4 and
shall be applicable to all unbonded post-tensioned precast
structural walls, coupled and uncoupled, of the prototype
structure.
R3.2
The test program specified in this document is intended to
verify an existing design procedure for unbonded post-
tensioned precast structural walls for a specific structure or
for prequalifying a generic type of unbonded post-tensioned
precast wall system for construction in general. The test
program is not for the purpose of creating basic information
on the strength and deformation properties of such systems
for design purposes. Thus, during the validation testing, the
test modules should not fail before reaching the minimum
 SPECIAL UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED PRECAST STRUCTURAL WALLS
acceptable drift angle capacity specified in Section 5.4. That
result is in contrast to what is usually necessary during
testing in the development phase for a new or revised design
procedure where specimens with widely varying character-
istics are tested to failure.
Special wall systems are likely to undergo inelastic
responses during an event similar to the anticipated maximum
considered earthquake ground motion (ASCE/SEI 7-05). The
design procedure should consider wall configuration,
equilibrium of forces, compatibility of deformations,
magnitudes of the lateral drifts, reversed cyclic displacements,
the relative values of each nominal engineering design value
(for example, shear, axial load, and moment-shear ratio),
the possibility of excessive opening of horizontal joints
between panels and between panels and the foundation, and
the possibility of shear-slip along such joints. The procedure
should also use appropriate constitutive laws for materials
that include considerations of effects of cracking, loading
reversals, and inelasticity. The development of appropriate
multiplication factors to be applied to specified material
strengths as a consequence of inelasticity and loading reversals
is particularly important. To account for strain-hardening
effects, multiplication factors should be applied to the
specified yield strengths for reinforcing steels in the walls,
and for reinforcing steel, metals, and other materials used
for connecting elements between walls. To account for
confinement effects in the compression zones of the toes of the
walls, factors should be applied to the specified compressive
strength of the concrete in that zone.
The stiffness of the structural walls is important for
calculating the fundamental period of the prototype structure.
The procedure used to determine the stiffness of the walls
should be verified from the validation test results as
described in Section 5.10.
3.2.1 Procedures shall be specified for calculating the
stiffness of the unbonded post-tensioned precast structural
walls, and of coupled structural walls, that are applicable to all
the unbonded post-tensioned walls of the prototype structure.
3.2.2 Procedures shall be specified for calculating the
lateral strength of the unbonded post-tensioned precast struc-
tural walls, and of coupled structural walls, applicable to all
unbonded post-tensioned precast walls of the prototype
structure.
3.2.3 Procedures shall be specified for designing and
detailing the unbonded post-tensioned precast structural
walls to achieve without failure the minimum acceptable
drift capacity specified for equivalence in Section 1.2.4.4,
Item (2). The procedures shall cover wall shear strength,
sliding shear strength, boundary tie spacing to prevent bar
buckling, concrete confinement, limiting reinforcement
strains in tension and compression, limiting strains for
coupling device materials, wall web reinforcement details to
prevent vertical splitting in the inelastic range of behavior,
and any other actions or elements of the wall system that can
affect the drift capacity or strength.
ITG-5.1-9
3.2.4 Procedures shall be specified to ensure that undesirable
mechanisms of response will not occur. These include a
story mechanism due to local buckling of the reinforcement,
splice failure, excessive opening of joints between panels
and between panels and foundation, excessive shear slip
along joints, shear failure of panels, misalignment between
panels or between panels and foundations due to panel
twisting, or local or global instability of the wall.
3.3
The design procedures shall be used to design the test
modules, and shall be documented in the test report.
R3.3
The justification for the small number of test modules
specified in Chapter 4 is that a previously developed design
procedure is being validated by the test results. Thus, the test
modules for the experimental program should be designed
using the procedure intended for the prototype wall system,
and values for stiffness and strength should be predicted for
the test modules before the validation testing is started. In
practice, most building designers produce designs with more
robust sections and more reinforcement than required for
the design forces and code requirements. Test specimens,
however, should be representative of walls that have properties
closest to those satisfying exactly the nominal engineering
design values rather than specimens with more robust
sections and reinforcement because the authority having
jurisdiction is likely to limit the allowable maximum stresses
to those achieved in the testing.
Because the strength and stiffness of coupled walls depend
on the degree of coupling between walls, the procedure also
should define how to calculate the degree of coupling.
CHAPTER 4—TEST MODULES
4.1
No fewer than two modules shall be tested.
4.2
At least one module shall be tested for each critical
combination of nominal engineering design values for each
characteristic configuration of unbonded post-tensioned
precast structural walls, including intersecting precast structural
walls or coupled precast structural walls. Where all the
unbonded post-tensioned precast walls of the structure have
the same configuration and the same nominal engineering
design value, no fewer than two modules shall be tested.
Where intersecting unbonded post-tensioned precast wall
systems are to be used, the response for the two orthogonal
directions shall be tested unless analyses and other test
results can be used to show that testing in two directions is
not required. Such analyses shall consider seismic response
for both diagonal directions and not the 100-0 or 100-30
percentage force distribution that is permitted for design by
documents such as ASCE/SEI 7.
ITG-5.1-10 ACI STANDARD
(a)
(b)
R4.1—Coupled wall test module: (a) with coupling beams;
and (b) with vertical mechanical couplers.
R4.2
One module should be tested for each nominal engineering
design value, such as shear, axial load, or moment-shear
ratio, for each characteristic configuration of walls. Thus, in
accordance with Section 4.2, if the test on the module results
in a maximum shear stress of 3 f c′ , then the maximum
shear stress that can be used in the prototype is that same
value. Each characteristic in-plane configuration of walls,
or coupled walls, in the prototype structure should also be
tested. Thus, as a minimum for one-way structural walls, two
modules with the configuration shown in Fig. R2.1, and, for
one-way coupled walls, two modules with the configuration
shown in either Fig. R4.1(a) or (b), should be tested. In
Fig. R4.1, deformations and gap openings are deliberately
exaggerated to clearly show the behavior being represented.
In addition, if intersecting wall systems are to be used, then
the response of the wall systems for the two orthogonal
directions should be evaluated and tested. If it can be shown
that the behavior of the wall in one direction has already
been addressed with another test configuration, then testing
in both directions may not be necessary. For two-way wall
systems and coupled wall-frame systems, testing of configu-
rations other than those shown in Fig. R2.1 and R4.1 may be
appropriate when it is difficult to realistically model the
likely dominant earthquake deformations using orthogonal
direction testing only.
This provision should not be interpreted as implying that
only two tests will need to be made to qualify a generic
system. During the development of the proposed system, it is
likely that several more tests will have been made, resulting
in progressive refinements of the mathematical model used
to describe the likely performance of the generic structural
wall system and its construction details. Consequently, only
one test of each module type for each nominal engineering
design value, at a specified minimum scale and subjected to
specific loading actions, may be required to validate the
system. As stated in Section 7.1, however, if any one of those
modules for the generic wall system fails to pass the validation
testing required by this document, the generic wall system has
failed the validation testing. Further, as stated in Section 7.2, if
any module fails to pass the validation testing, the reason for
that failure should be determined through analysis and, if
necessary, through additional developmental testing. The
design procedure should be revised and used for the design
of a full set of new modules before any further validation testing
is undertaken. Every module in the new set of tests should
not fail before achieving the minimum acceptable drift
angle capacity specified in Section 5.4.
In most prototype structures, a slab is usually attached to
the wall and, as demonstrated by the results of the PRESSS
building test (Priestley et al. 1999), the manner in which the
slab is connected to the wall should be carefully considered.
The connection should be adequate to allow the development
of drifts equal to those anticipated in this document. In
conformity with common practice for the subassemblage tests
used to develop the provisions of Chapter 21 of ACI 318,
however, there is no requirement for a slab to be attached to
the wall of the test module. The effect of the presence of the
slab should be examined in the development program that
precedes the validation testing.
4.3
Where the design requires the use of coupling elements in
the form of devices or beams connecting the adjacent
boundaries of the unbonded post-tensioned precast walls, those
elements shall be included as part of the test module. Coupling
devices shall be of the same type, material, and manufacture
as the devices used for the prototype structure.
4.4
Modules shall have a scale large enough to represent the
complexities and behavior of the real materials and of the
load transfer mechanisms in the prototype walls and their
coupling elements, if any. Validation program modules shall
be full scale unless the validation testing has been preceded
by an analytical and experimental development program
involving tests on multiple modules of not less than 1/10
scale. If that development program criterion is satisfied, the
validation program modules shall have a scale not less than
one third. Similitude principles shall be used to design the
 SPECIAL UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED PRECAST STRUCTURAL WALLS
test modules and interpret results from less than full-scale
tests. Regardless of the scale used for the modules for the
validation tests, connecting elements for coupled walls shall
be demonstrated to have the strength, ductility, and energy-
dissipation toughness required for the full-scale prototype
structure, either by the testing of those elements at half scale
or larger in the prior development program or by testing
them at full scale as part of the validation program.
R4.4
Test modules need not be as large as the corresponding
walls in the prototype structure. The scale of the test
modules, however, should be large enough to capture all the
complexities associated with the materials of the prototype
wall, its geometry and reinforcing details, load transfer
mechanisms, and joint locations. For modules that involve
the use of precast elements, for example, scale effects for
load transfer through mechanical connections should be of
particular concern (Schultz and Magana 1996). The issue of
the scale necessary to capture fully the effects of details on
the behavior of the prototype should be examined in the
development program that precedes the validation testing
(ACI T1.1). Information on similitude principles, applicable
to the testing of concrete models, is provided in ACI
Committee 444 (1979).
4.5
The geometry, reinforcing details, fabrication procedures,
and material properties of the walls, connections, and
coupling elements shall be representative of those to be used
in the prototype structure.
Where special corrosion protection measures are specified
for the tendons, the same corrosion protection measures shall
be applied to the tendons of the test modules. Connecting
devices and couplers shall be commercially available
devices and not units made specifically for the test program
unless commercial devices are not available. In that case, the
same material and fabrication procedures shall be used for
the devices of the test modules and the prototype.
R4.5
It is expected that for a given generic unbonded post-
tensioned precast wall structure, such as a centrally post-
tensioned wall constructed using multiple precast or precast
pretensioned concrete wall panels, validation testing
programs will initially use specific values for the specified
strength of the concrete and reinforcement in the walls, the
layout of the connections between panels, the location of the
post-tensioning, the location of the panel joints, and the
design stresses in the wall. Pending the development of an
industry standard for the design of such walls similar to the
standard for special hybrid moment frames (ACI T1.2),
specified concrete strengths, connection layouts, post-
tensioning amounts and locations, and details used for such
walls will need to be limited to the values and layouts used
in the validation testing programs.
For unbonded post-tensioned walls, special corrosion
prevention measures are desirable for the tendons where
ITG-5.1-11
they cross the wall to the foundation interface if there is any
likelihood of moisture accumulating in that region. In
addition, to ensure that failure does not occur in the end
anchors for the post-tensioning tendons, it is desirable that
a portion of the tendon that includes the anchorage should
be sealed to obviate tendon anchor failure and allow the
criterion of Section 7.1.2 to be met.
4.6
Walls shall be at least two panels high unless the prototype
structure is one for which a single panel is to be used for the
full height of the wall. The number of panels used shall be
the number needed to validate the nominal engineering
design values for the prototype structure at the horizontal
connection between the wall and the foundation, the horizontal
connection between the lowermost panel in the wall and the
panel immediately above that panel, and the horizontal
connection between the top panel of the prototype structure
and the panel below it.
R4.6
For walls constructed using precast or precast/
prestressed panels and designed using nonemulative
methods, the response under lateral load can change signif-
icantly with joint opening (Fig. R2.2(d) and R2.3(a)). The
number of panels used to construct a wall and the number of
subpanels used to construct a panel depend on wall height
and design philosophy. If, in the prototype structure, there is
a possibility of horizontal joint opening under lateral
loading at a location other than the base of the wall, then the
consequences of that possibility should be considered in the
development and validation test programs. Joint openings at
locations other than the base can be minimized through the
use of capacity design procedures (Paulay and Priestley
1992). For simple, regular low-rise structures, testing of
two-panel high modules is adequate. For more complex and
higher-rise structures, however, modules more than two
panels high or additional tests may be necessary to appro-
priately bound the range of moment-shear values expected.
Where coupled walls are used in the prototype structure,
particular attention should be given during the development
phase as to how to represent gravity load effects in the test
modules and how that representation may affect the number
of panels needed in the test module.
4.7
Where unbonded post-tensioned precast walls are to be
used to support axial loads due to gravity exceeding
0.05Ag fc′ , the test modules shall be subject to an axial load
stress representative of that anticipated in the prototype
structure for the duration of lateral loading. The axial load
level used shall be consistent with the nominal engineering
design values used for the test module, and the effects of
both minimum and maximum axial load shall be considered.
An axial load shall not be used to justify acceptable test
performance if analysis shows that axial load is not always
present in the prototype structure.
ITG-5.1-12 ACI STANDARD
R4.7
The significance of the magnitude of the gravity load that
acts simultaneously with the lateral load should be addressed
during the validation testing if the development program
suggests that effect is significant. ASCE/SEI 7-05 distinguishes
between structural walls in building frame systems and
structural walls in bearing wall systems. Because walls in the
former are subject to less axial load than in the latter, the
walls are assumed capable of undergoing larger inelastic
displacements without significant loss in lateral load-carrying
capacity than walls in a bearing wall system. In ASCE/SEI 7-05,
a bearing wall system is defined as a structural system
providing support for all or major portions of the vertical
loads, and a bearing wall is defined as any wall that supports
more than 200 pounds per linear foot of vertical load in
addition to its own weight.
Where the modules contain coupled walls, detailed
consideration should be given to the issue of gravity loads on
the walls because, for the leading wall, gravity load will add
to the axial compression in the wall resulting from coupling,
while for the trailing wall, the gravity load will reduce the
tension in the wall resulting from coupling.
4.8
The geometry, reinforcement, and details used to connect
the unbonded post-tensioned precast walls to the foundation
shall replicate those to be used in the prototype structure.
R4.8
Details of the connection of walls to the foundation are
critical, particularly for nonemulative wall designs. The
deformations that occur at the base of the wall due to plastic
hinging or extension of the reinforcing bars and post-
tensioning steel crossing the wall to foundation interface
(Fig. R2.2(d)) are in part determined by details of the
anchorage and the bonding of those reinforcements on either
side of the interface. Where grout is used to bed panels on the
foundation and between panels, the characteristics of that
grout in terms of materials, strength, and thickness can have
a large effect on wall performance. The typical grout pad
with a thickness of 1 in. or less can be expected to provide a
coefficient of friction of about 0.6 under reversed loadings
(Hutchinson et al. 1991; Soudki et al. 1995a,b; Soudki et al.
1996). Pads with greater thickness and without fiber reinforce-
ment exhibit lesser coefficients of friction. Adequate frictional
resistance is essential to preventing undesirable shear-slip
deformations of the type shown in Fig. R2.3(b). Fiber
reinforcement is essential to preventing breakup of the
grout and maintenance of the 0.6 coefficient of friction.
4.9
Foundations used to support the test modules shall have
geometric characteristics, and shall be reinforced and
supported, so that the foundations do not fail during the tests
and so that deformations and cracking of the foundations do
not affect the performance of the test modules through peak
displacements equal to or exceeding the minimum acceptable
drift angles specified in Section 5.4. Where the walls of a
coupled wall system are supported on separated foundations,
allowance shall be made for the effects of that separation in
the test setup.
R4.9
The geometry of the foundation need not duplicate that
used in the prototype structure. While the issue of foundation
flexibility does not need to be addressed in the testing
program, its consequences need to be determined for the
design of the prototype building.
CHAPTER 5—TEST METHOD
The test sequence is expressed in terms of drift angle, and
the initial angle is related to the likely range of linear elastic
response for the module. That approach, rather than testing
at specific drift angles of 0.005, 0.010, etc. radians, is specified
because for modules involving prestressed concrete, the
likely range of elastic behavior varies with the prestress
level (Stanton and Nakaki 2002; Kurama et al. 1999).
An example of the test sequence specified in Sections 5.2
through 5.5 is illustrated in Fig. R5.1. The sequence is
intended to ensure that displacements are increased gradually
in steps that are neither too large nor too small. If steps are
too large, the drift angle capacity of the system may not be
determined with sufficient accuracy. If the steps are too
small, the system may be unrealistically softened by loading
repetitions, resulting in an artificially low maximum lateral
resistance and an artificially high maximum drift angle.
Also, when steps are too small, the rate of change of energy
stored in the system may be too small compared with the
change occurring during a major event. Results, using such
small steps, can mask undesirable brittle failure modes that
might occur in the inelastic response range during a major
event. Significant diagonal cracking is to be expected in the
inelastic range in the webs of walls unless low design shear
stresses are used for those walls. Further, and in particular
in walls with low aspect ratios, the pattern of increasing
drifts used in the test sequence can markedly affect diagonal
crack response in the postpeak load range of behavior
(Hidalgo et al. 2002).
The drift angle demand on a building in a major event is not
a single quantity, but depends on how that event shakes the
structure. For a near-field event, a single pulse may determine
the maximum drift angle demand, in which case a single large
drift demand cycle for the test module would give the best
estimation of the drift angle capacity. More often, however,
many small cycles precede the main shock, and that is the
scenario represented by the specified loading. In addition, test
results have generally shown that strength degradation occurs
more rapidly for repeated cycles than for one large pulse
(Sezen and Moehle 2002; Melek et al. 2003).
There is no requirement for an axial load to be applied to
the wall simultaneously with the application of the lateral
displacements. In many cases, it will be conservative not to
apply axial load because, in general, the shear capacity of
the wall and the resistance to slip at the base of the wall
increase as the axial load on the wall increases. As the
 SPECIAL UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED PRECAST STRUCTURAL WALLS
Fig. R5.1—Example of specified test sequence.
height of the wall increases and the drift angle demand used
in the design of the wall increases, however, the likelihood of
extreme fiber crushing in compression at or before the
maximum drift angle demand is reached increases, and the
importance of the level of axial load increases. The significance
of the level of axial loading should be examined during the
development phase.
5.1
Test modules shall be subjected to a sequence of displace-
ment-controlled cycles to predetermined drift angles as
defined in Sections 5.2 through 5.5. The displacement
history applied to the test module shall allow the recording
of the important features associated with drift angles as
defined in Sections 5.9, 5.10, and 6.2.6 through 6.2.9. If the
module consists of coupled walls, approximately equal drift
angles (within 5% of each other) shall be applied to the top
of each wall and at each floor level. Where an axial load is
applied to the test module simultaneously with the lateral
displacements, that axial load shall be applied before the
lateral displacements and kept approximately constant
(within 5%) throughout the lateral load sequence.
R5.1
For uncoupled walls, applying lateral displacements at
the top of the wall only is generally adequate provided that
the joints between panels do not open. For coupled walls,
however, where there are changes in wall properties, axial
loads, coupling element stiffness or strength down the height
of the wall, or the coupled walls are on separated founda-
tions, approximately equal displacements should be applied
to each wall at each floor level.
5.2
Three fully reversed cycles shall be applied at each drift
angle. The actuator stroke shall be sufficient to achieve drift
angles of ±0.04 radians.
ITG-5.1-13
5.3
The maximum load for the first three cycles shall not
exceed 0.6Ent. Drift angle values for the subsequent three
cycles to a new maximum drift angle shall be to values not
less than 5/4 times, and not more than 3/2 times, the previous
maximum drift angle. For initial and subsequent drift angles
to loads less than 0.6Ent , however, it shall be permitted to
use subsequent drift angles not more than 2.5 times the
previous angle.
5.4
Testing shall be continued to failure of the module or until
the drift angle, in percent, exceeds the following value
0.90 ≤ 0.8[hw /lw] + 0.5 ≤ 3.0 (5-1)
where hw = height of wall for prototype structure, in.; and
lw = length of wall in direction of shear force, in.
R5.4
For a structure subject to the design seismic shear force,
building codes such as UBC 1997, IBC 2003, and NFPA
5000, and recommended provisions such as ASCE/SEI 7-05
and FEMA 356, specify a maximum allowable drift. Structures
designed to meet that drift limit, however, may experience
greater drifts during an earthquake equal to the design basis
earthquake, and are likely to experience greater drifts during
an earthquake equal to the maximum credible earthquake. In
addition to the characteristics of the ground motion, actual
drifts will depend on the strength of the structure, its initial
elastic stiffness, and the ductility expected for the given
lateral-load-resisting system. Specification of suitable
limiting drifts for the test modules requires interpretation
and allowance for uncertainties in the assumed ground
motions and structural properties.
In IBC 2003, the design seismic shear force applied at the
base of a building is related directly to its weight and the
design elastic response acceleration, and inversely to a
response modification factor R. The R factor increases with
the expected ductility of the lateral-force-resisting system of
the building. Special structural walls that satisfy the require-
ments of 21.2 and 21.7 of ACI 318 are assigned an R value
of 6 when used in a building frame system, and a value of 5
when used in a bearing wall system. They are also assigned
limiting story drift angle demands that are dependent on the
hazard to which the building is exposed. When the design
seismic shear force is applied to a building, the building
experiences nonlinear behavior, and the resultant computed
drifts (the design story drifts) should be less than a specified
allowable drift. Additional guidance is given in FEMA 356,
where the deformations for rectangular walls with height-
length ratios greater than 2.5 and flanged wall sections with
height-length ratios greater than 3.5 are to be assumed to be
controlled by flexural actions. When structural walls are
part of a building representing a substantial hazard to
human life in the event of a failure, the allowable story drift
angle demand for shear-controlled walls is 0.0075 radians,
and for flexure-controlled walls, it is a function of the plastic
ITG-5.1-14 ACI STANDARD
hinge rotation at the base of the wall. For flexure-controlled
walls, values range up to a maximum of about 0.02 radians
for walls with confined boundary elements with low reinforce-
ment ratios and walls with shear stresses less than 3 f c′ .
To compensate for the use of the R value, 1617.4.6 of IBC
2003 requires that the drift determined by an elastic analysis
for the code-prescribed seismic forces be multiplied by a
deflection amplification factor Cd to determine the design
story drift, and the design story drift should be less than the
allowable limiting story drift angle. In building frame
systems, structural walls satisfying the requirements of 21.7
of ACI 318 are assigned a Cd value of 5. Research (Uang
and Maarouf 1993a,b), however, has found that design story
drift angles determined in the foregoing manner may be too
low. Drift angles of six times IBC-calculated values, rather
than five, are more representative of the upper bounds to
expected drift angles. The value of 6 is also in agreement
with the finding that the drift angle of an inelastic structure
is approximately the same as that of an elastic structure with
the same initial period. For flexure-controlled walls, the
value of 6/5 times the present IBC limits on calculated drift
angle demand would lead to a limit on real drift angle
demands of up to 0.024 radians.
Duffy et al. (1993) reviewed experimental data for shear
walls to define postpeak behavior and limiting drift angle
capacities for monolithic walls with height-length (aspect)
ratios between 0.25 and 3.5. Seo et al. (1998) re-analyzed
the data of Duffy et al. (1993) together with data from tests
conducted subsequent to the analysis of Duffy et al. (1993).
Duffy et al. (1993) established that for walls with aspect
ratios between 0.25 and 1.1 and web reinforcement satisfying
ACI 318-05 requirements, there was a significant range of
behavior for which drift angle capacities were still reliable
in the postpeak response region. Typically the postpeak drift
increased by 0.005 radians for a 20% degradation in
capacity under cyclic loading. For greater values of
degradation, drifts were less reliable. That finding has also
been confirmed through tests conducted by Hidalgo et al.
(2002) on walls with effective height-length ratios ranging
between 0.35 and 1.0. Values of the drift angle of the walls
at inclined cracking and at peak load capacity varied little
with web reinforcement. By contrast, drifts in the postpeak
range were reliable to a capacity equal to 80% of the peak
capacity and were 0.005 radians greater than the drifts at
peak load capacity, provided the walls contained horizontal
and vertical web reinforcement equal to 0.25%.
From an analysis of the available test data and from
theoretical considerations for a wall rotating about a plastic
hinge at its base, Seo et al. (1998) concluded that the limiting
drift angle at peak capacity increased almost linearly with
the height-length ratio of the wall. When the additional post-
peak load drift angle capacity for walls with adequate web
reinforcement was added to the drift angle at peak capacity,
then the total available drift angle capacity in percent was
given by
1.0 ≤ 0.67[hw/lw] + 0.5 ≤ 3.0
where hw is the height of the wall, and lw is the length of the
wall. The data from the tests of Hidalgo et al. (2002) suggest
that, while that form of the formula is correct, the lower limit
on drift can be decreased to 0.8, as specified in these
provisions, provided the use of that formula is limited to
walls with height-length ratios equal to or greater than 0.5.
For wall height-length ratios less than 0.5, the behavior is
controlled by shear deformations, even for the elastic range
of behavior (Fig. R2.2(c)), and Eq. (5-1) should not be used.
The upper value of 0.030 radians for the drift angle, as
recommended by Seo et al. (1998), is optimistic because
their findings were based on data for walls with height-
length ratios equal to or less than 3.5. Subsequent tests (Ali
and Wight 1990; Taylor et al. 1998) have shown that the
upper drift angle limit of 0.0025 radians for height-length
ratios equal to or greater than 3.0, as specified in Eq. (5-1),
is a more realistic limit. To ensure that the performance of
unbonded post-tensioned precast walls is conceptually at
least equal to the performance of monolithic walls designed
to the minimum requirements of ACI 318, the minimum
acceptable drift angle capacities, as defined by the foregoing
for cast-in-place monolithic walls, were increased by 12.5%
for hw /lw values of 0.5, and by 20% to a maximum value of
3% for the upper minimum acceptable drift angle capacities.
That approach is reasonable because unbonded post-
tensioned precast walls have shorter plastic hinging lengths
(Thomas and Sritharan 2004) associated with the toe of the
wall than do monolithic walls.
To assess the reserve capacity of walls, testing should be
continued to displacements greater than those given by
Eq. (5-1) so that the mode of failure of the wall, or the drifts
at which there is a substantial loss in lateral capacity and
axial load capacity, can be established. It is possible that
unanticipated and undesirable modes of failure may occur at
drifts only slightly larger than those given by Eq. (5-1).
While testing to displacements greater than those given by
Eq. (5-1) is highly desirable, it may not be possible for at
least two reasons: 1) some walls may exhibit drifts that
exceed testing capabilities without loss in strength; and 2) a
reduction in axial load capacity may not become evident
during the lateral load test.
5.5
For coupled walls, hw /lw in Eq. (5-1) shall be taken as the
smallest value of hw /lw for any of the individual walls
coupled.
R5.5
The design capacity for coupled wall systems should be
developed by the drift angle corresponding to that for the
coupled wall with the least hw /lw value. For both cast-in-
place and precast coupled walls, the strength and deforma-
tion capacity of the coupling elements often determines the
drift capacity. Again, it is highly desirable that testing be
continued to the drift angle given by Eq. (5-1) for the wall
with the greatest hw /lw and beyond that value to wall failure
to assess the reserve capacity of the coupled wall system. For
 SPECIAL UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED PRECAST STRUCTURAL WALLS
coupled walls, the hw and lw values are defined as shown in
Fig. R4.1(a).
5.6
Measured yield strength of steel reinforcement shall be
obtained by testing coupons taken from the same reinforcement
heat as used in the test module. Two tests, conforming to the
ASTM specifications cited in 3.5 of ACI 318, shall be made
for each reinforcement type and size.
5.7
Measured compressive strength of concrete shall be
determined by testing of 4 x 8 in. or 6 x 12 in. concrete cylinders
cured under the same conditions as the test module and
tested in accordance with ASTM C39/C39M at the time of
testing of the module. Testing shall conform to the applicable
requirements of 5.6.1 through 5.6.4 of ACI 318. Where the
average compressive strength of the concrete, as measured in
the tests, is 90% or less of the specified concrete compressive
strength, the test modules shall be discarded and new modules
constructed unless the use of that reduced concrete strength is
acceptable to the licensed design professional responsible
for the prototype structure.
5.8
Where strength and deformation capacities of coupling
elements do not depend on reinforcement tested as required
in Section 5.6, the effective yield strength and deformation
capacity of coupling elements shall be obtained by testing
independent of the module testing.
R5.8
Proprietary coupling elements are available that involve
materials for which ASTM specifications are not cited in 3.5
of ACI 318, or for which there are no directly applicable
ASTM specifications.
5.9
Data shall be recorded from all tests such that a quantitative
interpretation can be made of the performance of the
modules. A continuous record shall be made of test module
drift angle versus applied lateral force, and photographs shall
be taken that show the condition of the test module at the
peak displacement and after each key testing cycle. Sufficient
instrumentation shall be provided to allow validation of any
critical parameters for the design procedure such as joint
displacements and plastic hinge lengths. Any deformations
associated with the test setup, and particularly those associated
with foundation rotation, shall be monitored and accounted for
in the evaluation of the test data. The forces in the unbonded
tendons during the testing shall be continuously recorded for
each wall of the test module. Tendon forces shall be monitored
adjacent to the anchorage below the bottom of the wall.
R5.9
In many cases, data additional to the minimum specified in
Section 5.9 may be useful to confirm both design assumptions
and satisfactory strength and toughness. Such data include
relative displacements, rotations, curvatures, and strains.
ITG-5.1-15
5.10
The stiffness of the test module shall be calculated based
on the envelope to the measured load-drift angle response for
the test cycles with maximum loads between 0.6Ent and
0.9Ent. The stiffness shall be expressed as the slope for the
line joining the origin of the measured response to the drift
angle for the envelope at 0.75Ent.
CHAPTER 6—TEST REPORT
The test report should be sufficiently complete and self-
contained for a qualified expert to be satisfied that the tests
have been designed and carried out in accordance with these
criteria, and that the results satisfy the intent of this document.
Sections 6.2.1 through 6.2.12 state the minimum evidence to
be contained within the test report.
6.1
Testing shall be performed by an independent testing
agency with demonstrated ability to carry out the required
tests. The testing agency shall perform its work under the
supervision of a licensed design professional experienced in
seismic structural design. The work necessary to develop the
validation test program for a given prototype structure shall
be the responsibility of a licensed design professional.
R6.1
In accordance with the intent of the requirements of 1.3.5
and 1.4 of ACI 318, testing should be carried out by a
recognized independent testing agency, and the testing and
reporting should be supervised by a licensed design
professional familiar with the proposed design procedure
and experienced in testing and seismic structural design.
Where the validation testing is to be done for a specific
building in a specific jurisdiction, the authority having
jurisdiction should be informed of the proposed validation
testing before it is conducted; that authority may require
additional tests and inspection.
6.2
For an independent evaluation of all test procedures,
design assumptions, and the performance of the test
modules, as a minimum, all of the information required by
Sections 6.2.1 through 6.2.12 shall be provided.
6.2.1 A description shall be provided of the design procedure
and theory used for the design of the prototype structure and
the prediction of the test module strength, specifically the
test module nominal lateral resistances, En and Ent, and the
test module probable lateral resistance Epr. A description
shall be provided regarding the basis for selecting the scale
of the test modules and the scale of the coupling element
tests where those elements are tested independent of the wall
modules.
6.2.2 Details shall be provided of test module design and
construction, including fully dimensioned engineering
drawings that show all components of the test specimen.
ITG-5.1-16 ACI STANDARD
6.2.3 Details shall be provided of specified material properties
used for design, and measured material properties obtained
by testing in accordance with Sections 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8.
6.2.4 A description shall be provided of the test setup,
including fully dimensioned diagrams and photographs.
6.2.5 A description shall be provided of the instrumentation
used, including instrument type and model, location, calibration
date, and purpose.
6.2.6 A description and graphical presentation shall be
provided of applied drift angle sequence.
6.2.7 A description shall be provided of observed
performance, including photographic documentation, of the
condition of each test module at key drift angles including,
as applicable, the angles corresponding to first flexural
cracking or joint opening, first shear cracking, and first
crushing of the concrete for both positive and negative
loading directions, and any other significant damage events
that occur. Photos shall be taken at peak drifts and at zero
load following the completion of the three cycles for each
peak drift angle.
6.2.8 A graphical presentation shall be provided of: 1) the
lateral force versus drift angle response; and 2) the drift
profile over the height of the wall at the peak drift angles for
loads greater than 0.6Ent. As a minimum, drifts shall be
measured at each floor level, and at the level of connections
between panels and subpanels within each wall.
6.2.9 A graphical presentation shall be provided of relative
energy dissipation ratio versus drift angle.
6.2.10 Calculations shall be provided of the stiffness for
each test module determined in accordance with Section
5.10. The ability of the design procedure to accurately
predict the measured stiffness shall be assessed. The design
procedure shall be used to predict the envelope of the peak
load-peak drift angle relationship for each sequence of three
load cycles up to the maximum drift angle applied in the test
and a comparison made as to how accurately that procedure
is able to predict the relationship measured in the test.
6.2.11 The test date, report date, name of testing agency,
report author(s), supervising licensed design professional,
and test sponsor shall be provided.
6.2.12 An appendix to the test report shall include a copy
of the relevant structural calculations for the prototype
design and the translation of the forces and displacements
determined in those calculations to the forces and
displacements applied to the test modules.
CHAPTER 7—TEST MODULE
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
The requirements of this chapter apply to each module of
the test program and not to an average of the results of the
program. Figure R7.1 illustrates the primary intent of this
clause for Sections 7.1.3 and 7.1.4, Items (1) and (2).
7.1
The test module shall be deemed to have performed satisfac-
torily when all of the criteria of Sections 7.1.1 through 7.1.4
are met independently for both increasing and decreasing
directions of drift angle.
7.1.1 Peak lateral strength Emax is at least 0.9Epr and not
greater than 1.2Epr .
R7.1.1 Where nominal strengths for opposite displacement
directions differ, as is likely for C-, L- or T- shaped walls, the
criterion of Section 7.1.1 applies separately to each direction.
7.1.2 At a displacement one half the displacement
corresponding to the angle specified in Eq. (5-1), the force
in any vertical unbonded tendon does not exceed 0.90 times
the measured yield strength of the prestressing steel of that
tendon at 1% elongation.
R7.1.2 Walls increasingly lose their self-centering capa-
bilities as yielding of the prestressing steel progresses. The
limitation of the stress in the prestressing steel to 0.9fpy at
one-half the minimum acceptable drift capacity particularly
affects the design of coupled walls. The value for the initial
prestress force should be chosen based on conditions for the
leading wall. The stress level in the trailing wall should then
be shown to be less than 0.9 times the yield stress at the
specified displacement (Thomas and Sritharan 2004). The
terminology of leading and trailing wall is used herein,
rather than the traditional terminology of compression and
tension wall, because for vertically coupled unbonded post-
tensioned precast walls, one viable structural scheme is
three or four in-line vertically coupled walls. In such cases,
only one wall may be in compression while all the remaining
walls are in tension. The use of the leading and trailing wall
terminology allows a more precise indication of which wall
should be used to determine initial prestress force requirements
and for which wall the prestressing steel stress at the specified
displacement should be checked.
7.1.3 In cycling through to the drift angle of Eq. (5-1),
rupture of reinforcement or coupling elements, or other
significant strength degradation, shall not occur. Further, for
both increasing and decreasing drift angles, for any sequence
of three cycles to a peak drift angle greater than that for
Emax , the peak lateral load for any of those cycles shall not
be less than 0.8Emax for the same loading direction.
R7.1.3 At high cyclic-drift angles, strength degradation is
inevitable. To limit the level of degradation so that drift
demands do not exceed anticipated levels, a maximum
strength degradation of 0.2Emax is specified. Where
strengths differ for opposite displacement directions, this
 SPECIAL UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED PRECAST STRUCTURAL WALLS ITG-5.1-17

Fig. R7.1—Quantities used in evaluating acceptance.

requirement applies independently to each direction. Section

3.2.3 provides a partial, but not necessarily complete, list of
possible sources of strength degradation.

7.1.4 For cycling at the given drift angle equal to or greater

than that of Eq. (5-1), the parameters describing the third
complete cycle shall have satisfied the following:
(1) The relative energy dissipation ratio shall be not less
than 1/8;
(2) The secant stiffness between drift angles of –1/10 and
+1/10 of the maximum applied drift angle shall be not less
than 0.10 times the stiffness for the initial drift angle deter-
mined in accordance with Section 5.10; and
(3) The maximum relative displacement between the base
of a wall and the adjacent foundation (shear-slip) and the
maximum relative displacement along horizontal joints Fig. R7.2—Unacceptable hysteretic behavior.
between precast panels over the height of the wall shall not
exceed 0.06 in.
R7.1.4
hysteresis loop would be that shown in Fig. R7.2, where the
(1) If the relative energy dissipation ratio is less than 1/8, stiffness values around zero drift are unacceptably small for
there may be inadequate damping for the building as a both positive and negative loading; and
whole. Oscillations may continue for some time after an
(3) For cyclic loading, the aggregate interlock capacity
earthquake that produce low-cycle fatigue effects, and
displacements may become excessive; along a horizontal joint starts decreasing once the maximum
relative slip between the two faces on either side of the joint
(2) If the stiffness becomes too small around zero drift, the
structure will be prone to large displacements for small exceeds approximately 0.06 in. (Abdel-Maksoud et al. 2001).
lateral force changes following a major earthquake. A Because the cover concrete in the toe of the wall is likely to
hysteresis loop for the third cycle between peak drift angles be spalling when that level of slip is reached, instrumentation
of 1/10 times the limiting drift angle given by Eq. (5-1), that to measure such slip at that location should be positioned
has the form shown in Fig. R7.1, is acceptable. At zero drift, within the calculated neutral axis depth at the maximum
the stiffness values for positive and negative loading are drift, but clear of the toe of the wall. For unbonded post-
approximately 11% of the initial stiffness values. Those tensioned precast walls without roughened joint surfaces,
values satisfy Section 7.1.4. An unacceptable form for the scale effects are controlled by the size of the aggregate
ITG-5.1-18 ACI STANDARD

used in the joint grout. Because the grouts used for the joints R8.1—Referenced standards and reports
of the walls of the prototype building and those used for the American Concrete Institute
joints of the modules are likely to have the same maximum 318-05 Building Code Requirements for Structural
aggregate size, the limiting slip for a one-third scale test Concrete
module is also likely to be the limiting slip for the prototype T1.1 Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on
walls. Structural Testing
With the maximum relative slip on horizontal joints limited T1.2 Special Hybrid Moment Frames Composed of
to 0.06 in. during testing and the stress in the prestressing Discretely Jointed Precast and Post-Tensioned
steel limited to 0.9 times its yield stress at one half or more Concrete Members
of the displacement specified in Eq. (5-1), joint openings
after testing is complete are unlikely to exceed 0.03 in., American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
provided that an appropriate initial prestress level is used ASCE/SEI 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
for the unbonded tendons. Other Structures

7.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency

If any test module fails to pass the validation testing FEMA 356 NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Reha-
required by this document for any test direction, then the bilitation of Buildings, Chapter 6: Concrete
wall system is considered to have failed the validation
testing. Before any further validation testing can be under- International Code Council
taken, the reason for the failure of any test module shall be IBC 2003 International Building Code 2003
determined through analysis and, if necessary, additional UBC 1997 Uniform Building Code 1997
developmental testing shall be performed. A revised design
procedure shall be developed, that revised procedure used National Fire Protection Association
for the design of a full set of new modules conforming to the NFPA 5000 Building Construction and Safety Code
requirements of Chapter 4, and all the new modules shall be
tested for acceptability in accordance with the requirements
The above references can be obtained from:
of this document.
American Concrete Institute
CHAPTER 8—REFERENCED STANDARDS
American Concrete Institute PO Box 9094
318-05 Building Code Requirements for Structural Farmington Hills, MI 48333-9094
Concrete www.concrete.org

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) American Society of Civil Engineers

ASCE/SEI 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and 1801 Alexander Bell Drive
Other Structures Reston, VA 20191-4400
www.asce.org
ASTM International
C39/C39M-05 Standard Test Method for Compressive Federal Emergency Management Agency
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens PO Box 2012
Jessup, MD 20794-2012
The above documents can be purchased from the www.fema.gov
following organizations:
International Code Council
American Concrete Institute 500 New Jersey Avenue, NW, 6th Floor
PO Box 9094 Washington, DC 20001-2070
Farmington Hills, MI 48333-9094 www.iccsafe.org
www.concrete.org
National Fire Protection Association
American Society of Civil Engineers 1 Batterymarch Park
1801 Alexander Bell Drive Quincy, MA 02169-7471
Reston, VA 20191-4400 www.nfpa.org
www.asce.org
R8.2—Cited references
ASTM International Abdel-Maksoud, M. G.; Hawkins, N. M.; and Barenberg,
100 Barr Harbor Drive E. J., 2001, “Relationship Between Joint Performance and
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 Geometrical and Mechanical Properties of Concrete Joints
www.astm.org Subjected to Cyclic Shear,” Final Report No. 11, FAA
 SPECIAL UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED PRECAST STRUCTURAL WALLS
Center of Excellence for Airport Technology, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Mar., 433 pp.
ACI Committee 440, 1979, “Models of Concrete Struc-
tures—State of the Art,” Concrete International, V. 1, No. 1,
Jan., pp. 77-95.
Ali, A., and Wight, J. K., 1990, “Reinforced Concrete
Structural Walls with Staggered Opening Configurations
Under Reversed Cyclic Loading,” Report No. UMCE 90-05,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI, Apr.
Duffy, T. A.; Goldman, A.; and Farrar, C. R., 1993, “Shear
Wall Ultimate Drift Limits,” Report NUREG/CR-6104,
LA-12649-MS, U.S. Nuclear Regularity Commission.
Hidalgo, P. A.; Ledezma, C. A.; and Jordan, R. A., 2002,
“Seismic Behavior of Squat Reinforced Concrete Shear
Walls,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 18, No. 2, May, pp. 287-308.
Hutchinson, R. L.; Rizkalla, S. H.; Lau, M.; and Heuvel, M.,
1991, “Horizontal Post-Tensioned Connections for Precast
Concrete Bearing Shear Walls,” PCI Journal, V. 36, No. 3,
Nov.-Dec., pp. 64-76.
Kurama, Y. C., 2002, “Hybrid Post-Tensioned Precast
Concrete Walls for Use in Seismic Regions,” PCI Journal,
V. 47, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 36-59.
Kurama, Y. C.; Pessiki, S.; Sause, R.; and Lu, L.-W.,
1999, “Seismic Behavior and Design of Unbonded Post-
Tensioned Precast Concrete Walls,” PCI Journal, V. 44, No. 3,
May-June, pp. 72-89.
Kurama, Y. C.; Weldon, B; and Shen, Q., 2004, “Experi-
mental Evaluation of Unbonded Post-Tensioned Hybrid
Coupled Wall Subassemblages,” Proceedings, 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC,
Canada.
Melek, M.; Wallace, J. W.; and Conte, J. P., 2003, “Exper-
imental Assessment of Columns with Short Lap Splices
Subjected to Cyclic Loads,” PEER Report No. 2003/04,
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley,
CA, Apr., 176 pp.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., 1992, “Philosophy of
Capacity Design,” Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete
and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York, pp. 38-46.
PCI Ad Hoc Committee on Precast Walls, 1997, “Design
for Lateral Force Resistance with Precast Concrete Shear
Walls,” PCI Journal, V. 42, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 44-65.
Priestley, M. J. N.; Sritharan, S.; Conley, J.; and
Pampanin, S., 1999, “Preliminary Results and Conclusions
ITG-5.1-19
from the PRESSS Five-Story Precast Concrete Test
Building,” PCI Journal, V. 44, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 42-67.
Schultz, A. E., and Magana, R. A., 1996, “Seismic
Behavior of Connections in Precast Concrete Walls,” Mete A.
Sozen Symposium, SP-162, J. K. Wight and M. E. Kreger,
eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
pp. 273-311.
Seo, S-Y.; Lee, L.-H.; and Hawkins, N. M., 1998, “The
Limiting Drift and Energy Dissipation Ratio for Shear Walls
Based on Structural Testing,” Journal of the Korean
Concrete Institute, V. 10, No. 6, Dec., pp. 335-343.
Sezen, H., and Moehle, J. P., 2002, “Seismic Behavior of
Shear-Critical Reinforced Concrete Building Columns,”
Proceedings of Seventh U.S. National Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering, Boston, MA, EERI, Oakland, CA.
Soudki, K. A.; Rizkalla, S. H.; and LeBlanc, B., 1995a,
“Horizontal Connections for Precast Concrete Shear Walls
Subjected to Cyclic Deformations Part 1: Mild Steel Connec-
tions,” PCI Journal, V. 40, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 78-96.
Soudki, K. A.; Rizkalla, S. H.; and Daikiw, R. W., 1995b,
“Horizontal Connections for Precast Concrete Shear Walls
Subjected to Cyclic Deformations Part 2: Prestressed
Concrete,” PCI Journal, V. 40, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 82-96.
Soudki, K. A.; West, J. S.; Rizkalla, S. H.; and Blackett,
B., 1996, “Horizontal Connections for Precast Concrete
Shear Wall Panels Under Cyclic Shear Loading,” PCI
Journal, V. 41, No. 3, May-June, pp. 64-80.
Stanton, J. F., and Nakaki, S. D., 2002, “Design Guidelines
for Precast Concrete Seismic Structural Systems—Unbonded
Post-Tensioned Split Walls” PRESSS Report No. 01/03-09,
UW Report SM 02-02, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA, Feb., pp. 3-1 to 3-19.
Taylor, C. P.; Cote, P. E.; and Wallace, J. W., 1998, “Design
of Slender Reinforced Concrete Walls with Openings,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 420-433.
Thomas, D. J., and Sritharan, S., 2004, “An Evaluation of
Seismic Design Guidelines Proposed for Precast Jointed
Wall Systems,” ISU-ERI-Ames Report ERI-04643,
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental
Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, June.
Uang, C.-M., and Maarouf, A., 1993a, “Seismic Displace-
ment Amplification Factor in Uniform Building Code,”
SEAONC Research Bulletin Board BB93-3, June, pp. B1-B2.
Uang, C.-M., and Maarouf, A., 1993b, “Displacement
Amplification Factor for Seismic Design Provisions,”
Proceedings Structures Congress, V. 1, ASCE, Irvine, CA,
pp. 211-216.
 ®
American Concrete Institute
Advancing concrete knowledge

As ACI begins its second century of advancing concrete knowledge, its original chartered purpose
remains “to provide a comradeship in finding the best ways to do concrete work of all kinds and in
spreading knowledge.” In keeping with this purpose, ACI supports the following activities:

· Technical committees that produce consensus reports, guides, specifications, and codes.

· Spring and fall conventions to facilitate the work of its committees.

· Educational seminars that disseminate reliable information on concrete.

· Certification programs for personnel employed within the concrete industry.

· Student programs such as scholarships, internships, and competitions.

· Sponsoring and co-sponsoring international conferences and symposia.

· Formal coordination with several international concrete related societies.

· Periodicals: the ACI Structural Journal and the ACI Materials Journal, and Concrete International.

Benefits of membership include a subscription to Concrete International and to an ACI Journal. ACI
members receive discounts of up to 40% on all ACI products and services, including documents, seminars
and convention registration fees.

As a member of ACI, you join thousands of practitioners and professionals worldwide who share a
commitment to maintain the highest industry standards for concrete technology, construction, and
practices. In addition, ACI chapters provide opportunities for interaction of professionals and practitioners
at a local level.

American Concrete Institute

38800 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331
U.S.A.
Phone: 248-848-3700
Fax: 248-848-3701
www.concrete.org
Acceptance Criteria for Special Unbonded Post-Tensioned Precast
Structural Walls Based on Validation Testing and Commentary

The AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE

was founded in 1904 as a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to public
service and representing the user interest in the field of concrete. ACI gathers and
distributes information on the improvement of design, construction and
maintenance of concrete products and structures. The work of ACI is conducted by
individual ACI members and through volunteer committees composed of both
members and non-members.

The committees, as well as ACI as a whole, operate under a consensus format,

which assures all participants the right to have their views considered. Committee
activities include the development of building codes and specifications; analysis of
research and development results; presentation of construction and repair
techniques; and education.

Individuals interested in the activities of ACI are encouraged to become a member.

There are no educational or employment requirements. ACI’s membership is
composed of engineers, architects, scientists, contractors, educators, and
representatives from a variety of companies and organizations.

Members are encouraged to participate in committee activities that relate to their

specific areas of interest. For more information, contact ACI.

www.concrete.org

®
American Concrete Institute
Advancing concrete knowledge