FSCE
FSCE
FSCE
net/publication/367327492
CITATIONS READS
5 118
2 authors:
All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Syed on 23 January 2023.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: s54@buffalo.edu
KEYWORDS slender walls, high-strength concrete, rectangular and barbell-shaped walls, cold joints
intensive boundary-element reinforcement with structural pours in the web and boundary elements was examined.
steel led to strengths, stiffness, energy-dissipation charac- Analyses were run under quasi-static monotonic loading
teristics, and failure modes similar to those of conven- of the walls at the component level for different axial
tional walls [14]. Furthermore, the use of concrete-filled loads. Throughout the paper, walls with HSC boundary
steel tubes or carbon fiber-reinforced polymers with elements and NSC webs are termed as HSC walls, and
confined cores for boundary elements resulted in sections benchmark walls with NSC boundary elements and NSC
with enhanced strengths, stiffness, and ductility [15]. The webs are termed as NSC walls.
use of HSC in the upper half and steel fiber-reinforced
high strength concrete in the lower half of slender walls
improved flexural deformation capacity, toughness, and 2 Slender wall specimen and experiment
cracking behavior [16]. The use of HSC in shear walls
and other structural elements may also entail economic The benchmark NSC wall used in this study was wall
benefits [17]. RW1 tested by Thomsen [4]. It was a slender cantilever
Dan et al. [18] conducted experiments on composite wall with a height of 3657 mm, length of 1219 mm, and
steel concrete shear walls with encased profiles, involving thickness of 101 mm, resulting in an aspect ratio of 3. It
different structural steel shapes placed longitudinally. was constructed on a foundation with a depth of 686 mm
Flexure was reported to dominate failure with the speci- and plan dimension of 1930 mm × 406 mm.
mens exhibiting better ductility than their conventional The concrete compressive strengths along the wall
equivalents. Alzeni and Bruneau [19] evaluated the height ranged from 31.6 to 58.3 MPa from the first
seismic performance of concrete-filled sandwich steel through the fourth story. Grade 60 rebars with yield
panel cantilever walls and reported ductile behavior with strength of 414 MPa were used. The longitudinal
controlled strength degradation at high drifts. Ultimate reinforcement ratio for the boundary elements was
failure mode was controlled by fracture of skin plates. calculated as 0.0330 using the cross-sectional area of the
Epackachi et al. [20] tested four steel-plate composite boundary elements. The longitudinal and horizontal
walls with aspect ratio of one. Specimens exhibited reinforcement ratio for the web was 0.0033, with double
flexural failure with crushing of concrete at wall toes and the ratios in the top story. The reinforcement details of
tensile yielding of faceplates. The initial stiffness of the the wall can be found elsewhere [25].
wall was sensitive to its connection to the foundation. The wall was tested under displacement-controlled
Liao et al. [21] conducted a study on shear walls with reversed cyclic loading. The vertical axial load was equal
steel-reinforced concrete (structural steel encased in to 10% of wall’s axial capacity or 400 kN. The wall’s
concrete) boundary elements for different aspect ratios post-yield behavior was dominated by flexure with crack
and axial-load ratios (ALRs), and reported an increase in widening and yielding of longitudinal reinforcement
lateral-load carrying capacity and decrease in ductility contributing toward energy dissipation.
and energy dissipation capacity with increase in axial
load. Furthermore, an improvement in ductility of the
proposed system, when compared to that of conventional 3 Finite-element modeling of RW1
reinforced-concrete boundary elements, was observed.
More information on shear walls and strategies of A numerical model of the wall was made in LS-DYNA
mitigating damage thereof can be found elsewhere [26], a general-purpose FE program. Nonlinear FE
[22–24]. analysis of the wall was validated using test results
Although, the aforementioned studies investigated reported by Thomsen [25]. The components of the FE
hybrid shear walls of various kinds and materials, there model are shown in Fig. 1.
are no studies in the literature that studied strategic
placement of HSC in boundary elements of slender 3.1 Wall web and boundary element concrete
reinforced concrete shear walls. The research performed
in this study fills this knowledge gap, presents the impact The wall body was modeled using eight-node solid
of HSC boundary elements on shear wall strength and elements with single point integration or element
stiffness, and documents implications of using HSC on formulation 1 (ELFORM 1). Winfrith concrete model
boundary element size and reinforcement requirements was used to model concrete. It is a smeared-crack
using analytical means. A conventional prototype wall, concrete model that approximates concrete compression
for which test data were available in the literature, was behavior as elastic-perfectly plastic [27]. Concrete tensile
analyzed using the finite-element (FE) method. Potential stress–strain behavior is approximated as linearly
reductions in the reinforcement area and size of boundary increasing and linearly decreasing for stresses up to and
elements using HSC were investigated. Finally, the beyond tensile strength, respectively. Analysis results
impact of cold joints resulting from dissimilar concrete with an alternative concrete model for modeling wall
Mohammad SYED & Pinar OKUMUS. High-strength concrete shear walls 3
elements can be found in Syed [28]. The input parameters The uniaxial tensile strength was calibrated as 2.2% of
for Winfrith concrete model, used for NSC walls and the compressive strength for NSC using test results and
HSC walls, are tabulated in Table 1. The parameters for this ratio was kept the same for HSC. The aggregate size
the web of the HSC wall for the four stories were kept for NSC was taken as 9.5 mm for all the cases as reported
same as those of the respective stories of the NSC wall. by Thomsen [25], and was kept the same for HSC. The
The compressive strength, tensile strength, and elastic crack-width parameter is the crack width at which crack-
modulus of concrete, for both NSC and HSC, are normal tensile stress decreases to zero and is a function of
significantly affected by curing conditions [29,30]. The the fracture energy. Since there was no experimental data
elastic modulus is also very sensitive to the aggregate on tensile properties of NSC or HSC, fracture energy and
type and content [30]. The properties of HSC show higher crack-width parameter were calculated from empirical
variability to proportions of mixtures and testing when equations of FIB Model Code 2010 for both NSC and
compared to NSC per ACI 363R-10 [6]. HSC [32]. The Poisson’s ratio ranges between 0.20 and
The compressive strength of NSC was per test data 0.28 for concrete compressive strengths in the range of
provided by Thomsen [25] for each story of the wall 55–80 MPa [33] with the former being appropriate for
specimen. The elastic modulus of NSC was calculated as HSC up to strengths of 124 MPa [28]. A Poisson’s ratio
the secant modulus at 45% of compressive strength (0.45 of 0.2 was used for both NSC and HSC.
f’c) from the material-test data by Thomsen [25]. HSC
with a mean cube compressive strength of 148.9 MPa, 3.2 Reinforcing steel
taken from test data provided by Yang and Okumus [31],
was used in the boundary elements of the wall. The reinforcement was modeled as beam elements using
The measured mean elastic modulus of the HSC was the material model “Plastic kinematic or MAT 003”.
57.2 GPa. Strain hardening of reinforcing steel was neglected in this
study. The reinforcement was embedded in concrete
using node-merger technique. The Young’s modulus,
Poisson’s ratio, and yield stress of steel were taken as 2 ×
105 MPa, 0.3 and 414 MPa, respectively.
application point of post-tensioning. The common nodes efficiency and improved performance. In this study, walls
at the loading beam-wall and foundation-wall interfaces with HSC boundary elements and NSC webs are termed
were merged to simulate no-slip condition for both NSC as HSC walls. Monotonic pushover analyses were
and HSC walls. All degrees of freedom on the bottom performed for three ALRs. ALR is the ratio of axial load
surface of the foundation were fixed. Lateral load was applied to the axial capacity of the wall. The axial
applied as a displacement-controlled monotonic push of capacity of the NSC wall was used for reporting ALRs.
89 mm that corresponds to a drift ratio of 2.2%. To ALRs of 10%, 20%, and 25% were considered and results
maintain consistency with the validation specimen, the were compared with the respective cases of the NSC wall.
pushover analyses presented in this study were also Two potential benefits of HSC walls were investigated.
terminated at this drift ratio. 1) Reduction in the boundary element reinforcement
amount. This can aid in preventing reinforcement conges-
3.5 Numerical analysis and validation tion in walls and accelerate construction. 2) Reduction in
the size of boundary elements. Simulations were carried
The backbone curve of the cyclic-test data was compared out to examine the prospective use of rectangular HSC
to the force−displacement curve obtained from the FE walls as replacements of barbell-shaped NSC walls. This
model as shown in Fig. 2. As shown, the FE model can find application in cases where architectural
captured the strength of the wall well. The FE model constraints limit the flexibility of designers to choose wall
overestimated the strength by 7%, which can be expected dimensions. Since HSC is envisioned to be particularly
since the test was performed under cyclic loading as beneficial for walls that carry high axial loads, analyses
opposed to monotonic loading of the FE model. The were completed for varying axial loads. Finally, cold-
secant stiffness values at 0.1% drift, which corresponds to joints, which can result from separate casting of two
the end of first cycle of the test, were compared for the dissimilar concrete types in the web and boundary
FE model and test specimen, as no clear data was elements, were studied and the ensuing changes in strain
available on the initial stiffness of the specimen. The ratio distributions and global force−displacement characteris-
of secant stiffness obtained from FE to testing was 1.41. tics were documented.
Matching the initial stiffness can be challenging, given
that elastic modulus is very sensitive to the curing 4.1 Effect of HSC on load–displacement behavior of wall
conditions [30], concrete may crack before testing due to under varying ALRs
shrinkage, there may be strain penetration into the
foundation, or there may be flexibility in the test setup. The NSC wall, which was used to validate FE analyses
Therefore, the FE model was deemed acceptable in (RW1), had an ALR of 10% (400 kN). To study the
predicting strength and stiffness of the test specimen. change in behavior of walls under higher loads, analyses
Moreover, the backbone curve was obtained from cyclic- were performed for ALRs of 20% and 25%, results of
test data, which is expected to be softer due to damage which are shown in Fig. 3, for both NSC and HSC walls.
accumulation from previous cycles [34].
Increasing the ALR for both NSC wall and HSC wall
from 10% to 20% and 25% increased the peak strength,
although the pre-cracking stiffness did not change. ALR
4 HSC walls
of 25% corresponds to a load that is below the balanced-
failure point on the P-M interaction diagram of both NSC
After validation of the FE model, HSC was strategically
and HSC walls, and hence any increase in the load up to
placed in the wall specimen at boundary elements for cost
the balance-failure point enhances the moment capacity,
and hence the peak-strength.
Introduction of HSC in the boundary elements led to an
increase in the initial stiffness of the walls because of
HSC’s greater elastic modulus compared to NSC. Greater
moment capacity of HSC wall was achieved because of
decrease in the neutral-axis depth and increase in the
moment arm due to HSC. Table 2 summarizes peak
strength and initial stiffness for NSC and HSC walls for
varying ALRs.
The drift ratios at which cover concrete reached its
ultimate strain (expected spalling strain, εcu) and
boundary-element reinforcement yielded were also
obtained for the three ALRs. Compression strain of
Fig. 2 Force−displacement curves from FE model and test data. 0.0035, reported as spalling strain of cover concrete by
Mohammad SYED & Pinar OKUMUS. High-strength concrete shear walls 5
Thomsen [25], was taken as threshold compression strain contours for 20% ALR are shown in Fig. 4 for drift ratios
for spalling for NSC walls. For HSC, the ultimate strain of 0.5% and 2.0%. Strain contours for 1.0% drift ratio for
was taken as 0.0030 per fib Model Code 2010 [32] for all subsequent studies can be found in Ref. [28]. Dotted
mean cube compressive strength of 148 MPa (C120). lines show the edges of the boundary elements. Similar
Drift ratios at which concrete spalled and reinforcement strain distributions were observed for other ALRs, which
yielded are tabulated in Table 3. have been omitted for brevity.
HSC wall experienced spalling of cover concrete at HSC walls exhibited lower strains on the compression
42% to 56% higher drift ratios as compared to NSC wall side than NSC walls (wall is pushed to the right). For
for varying ALR despite its lower ultimate compressive higher drifts (2.0%), high strains were observed in the
strain capacity. Yielding of the boundary-element web for both NSC as well as HSC walls that originate
reinforcement was, however, attained at 7% to 10% near the boundary element-web interface. These strains
smaller drift ratios for both walls. This is attributed to the had inclined orientations and were likely due to more
prominent role of shear at such drift ratios. Increasing the
smaller neutral axis of HSC walls as compared to NSC
axial load on the wall lowered these strains, likely
walls. It can also be observed that as the ALR increased,
because higher axial load aids in improving shear
cover concrete spalled at lower drift ratios for NSC and
performance. Moreover, these high strain regions were
HSC walls, but boundary-element reinforcement yielded not observed in the bending (vertical) strain contours,
at slightly higher drifts. confirming higher shear straining in this region [28]. The
results were similar for other ALRs.
4.2 Effect of HSC on principal strains Principal tensile strain for 20% ALR are shown in
Fig. 5, where dotted lines are the edges of the boundary
The principal compressive and tensile strains were elements. Principal tensile strains were more severe for
obtained for the NSC and HSC walls at drift ratios of HSC wall than that for NSC wall. This is due to the fact
0.5%, 1.0%, and 2.0%. The principal compressive strain that the use of HSC in the boundary elements decreases
the neutral-axis depth leading to higher tensile strains.
The change in principal tensile strains, marked by a slight
streak running along the wall height, coincides with the
border between the web and the boundary elements that
have dissimilar concrete pours. An increase in the axial
load on the walls led to localization of high-strained
regions in the wall (not shown in figures).
Fig. 3 Pushover curves for NSC and HSC wall for different ALRs. The NSC wall used for validation (RW1) had four pairs
Table 2 Peak strength and initial stiffness for NSC and HSC walls
ALR (axial load) NSC wall HSC wall ratio of results of HSC to NSC wall
peak strength initial stiffness peak strength initial stiffness peak strength initial stiffness
(kN) (kN/mm) (kN) (kN/mm)
10% (400 kN) 150.8 94.0 168.1 148.4 1.11 1.57
20% (800 kN) 194.4 95.5 220.6 149.4 1.13 1.56
25% (1000 kN) 212.6 95.7 243.3 149.7 1.14 1.56
Table 3 Drift ratios when concrete spalled and reinforcement yielded for NSC and HSC walls
ALR(axial load) cover-concrete spalling boundary-element reinforcement yielding
NSC wall εcu = 0.0035 (A) HSC wall εcu = 0.0030 (B) B:A NSC wall (C) HSC wall (D) D:C
10% (400 kN) 0.82% 1.28% 1.56 0.55% 0.51% 0.93
20% (800 kN) 0.73% 1.05% 1.43 0.63% 0.57% 0.90
25% (1000 kN) 0.69% 0.98% 1.42 0.66% 0.61% 0.92
6 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
Fig. 4 Principal compressive strains for NSC and HSC wall for ALR = 20% (800 kN): (a) 0.5% drift; (b) 2.0% drift.
Fig. 5 Principal tensile strains for NSC and HSC wall for ALR = 20% (800 kN): (a) 0.5% drift; (b) 2.0% drift.
of φ9.5-mm (#3) longitudinal rebars in each boundary require higher transverse reinforcement to match the
element apart from four pairs of φ6.4-mm (#2) rebars in benefits derived by NSC from confinement [35,36].
the web. Given that the introduction of HSC in the Conversely, some fiber reinforced HSCs have been
boundary element increases the moment capacity of the shown to require less transverse reinforcement as the
wall, it was proposed that this increase in the moment fibers mitigate spalling and buckling of longitudinal bars
capacity could be used to reduce reinforcement area in [37]. Investigating the shear reinforcement requirements
boundary elements. was beyond the scope of this study, but transverse
Simulations were performed for HSC walls with reinforcement should be considered in design according
varying reinforcement areas in the boundary elements. to the design requirements of specific HSCs. The
The diameter of the boundary element rebars was longitudinal reinforcement ratios (ρ1) of the boundary
changed in stages from 9.5 mm (#3) to 6.4 mm (#2), with elements and layouts are shown in Fig. 6 for the NSC and
one pair being replaced at a time. In principle, HSCs HSC walls.
Mohammad SYED & Pinar OKUMUS. High-strength concrete shear walls 7
5.1.1 Lateral load−displacement response reinforcement at drift ratios that were 15% to 32% lower
than those for NSC walls. This can be explained by the
Lateral strengths of the resulting HSC walls with lower smaller depth of neutral axis and smaller reinforcement
longitudinal reinforcement areas were obtained and area of HSC walls when compared to those of NSC walls.
compared with those of the benchmark NSC wall.
Pushover curves for the different longitudinal reinforce-
5.1.2 Principal strains
ment layouts at 20% ALR are shown in Fig. 7. The
results were similar for other ALRs.
The principal strain contours for the “equivalent-strength”
The longitudinal reinforcement ratio was 0.033 for the
HSC walls with lower boundary-element reinforcement
NSC wall. For ALR of 10%, 20%, and 25%, the HSC
wall exhibited the same peak strength as the NSC wall
when longitudinal reinforcement area in the boundary
elements was decreased by 28%, 41%, and 41%,
respectively. Any further reduction in the reinforcement
led to peak strengths, which were lower than those for the
respective NSC cases. Longitudinal reinforcement layout
for HSC walls that led to the same peak strengths as the
respective NSC walls are listed in Table 4.
The drift ratios at which cover-concrete spalling and
boundary-element reinforcement yielding occurred are
tabulated in Table 5 for cases listed in Table 4. The
results show that for NSC and HSC walls with the same
strength, HSC walls exhibited cover-concrete spalling at
drift ratios that were 45% to 73% higher than those for Fig. 7 Pushover curves for NSC and HSC walls with lower
NSC walls. However, HSC walls exhibited yielding of reinforcement (ALR = 20%).
Table 4 Boundary element reinforcement ratio of HSC walls that led to similar strengths as those of NSC walls
ALR (axial load) boundary element reinforcement layout reinforcement ratio of HSC wall percentage of reinforcement reduction
10% (400 kN) 2, 9.6 mm and 2, 6.4 mm pairs 0.024 28%
20% (800 kN) 1, 9.6 mm and 3, 6.4 mm pairs 0.019 41%
25% (1000 kN) 1, 9.6 mm and 3, 6.4 mm pairs 0.019 41%
Table 5 Drift ratios when concrete spalled and reinforcement yielded for NSC and modified HSC walls
ALR (axial load) cover-concrete spalling boundary-element reinforcement yielding
NSC wall εcu = 0.0035 (A) HSC wall εcu = 0.0030 (B) B:A NSC wall (C) HSC wall (D) D:C
10% (400 kN) 0.82% 1.42% 1.73 0.55% 0.47% 0.85
20% (800 kN) 0.73% 1.10% 1.50 0.63% 0.43% 0.68
25% (1000 kN) 0.69% 1.00% 1.45 0.66% 0.46% 0.70
8 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
were obtained and compared with those for NSC walls. principal strain contours, it can be concluded that
The comparison for 20% ALR is shown in Figs. 8 and 9 reinforcement can be reduced by 28% to 41% in walls
for principal compression and tensile strains, respectively. with HSC boundary elements.
At this ALR, the longitudinal reinforcement ratio was
0.019 for HSC walls and 0.033 for NSC walls. 5.2 Reduction in boundary element size
The HSC walls with lower longitudinal reinforcement
areas exhibited lower principal compressive strains and The effect of HSC boundary elements on shear wall
higher principal tensile strains (although less dispersed at shape was examined by comparing rectangular HSC
higher drift ratios) than NSC walls. High-strain regions in walls to barbell-shaped NSC walls. A potential applica-
the web, which probably occur due to greater contribution tion for HSC walls includes structures in which barbell-
of shear at higher drift ratios, were again observed. Based shaped NSC walls are not suitable due to architectural
on the comparison of force−displacement behavior and constraints and rectangular HSC walls can be used as
Fig. 8 Principal compressive strains for NSC (ρ1 = 0.033) and HSC wall (ρ1 = 0.019) for ALR=20% (800 kN): (a) 0.5% drift; (b) 2.0%
drift.
Fig. 9 Principal tensile strains for NSC wall (ρ1 = 0.033) and HSC wall (ρ1 = 0.019) for ALR = 20% (800 kN): (a) 0.5% drift; (b) 2.0%
drift.
Mohammad SYED & Pinar OKUMUS. High-strength concrete shear walls 9
replacements without compromising strength and stiff- barbell-shaped wall at all drift ratios. Similar results were
ness. observed for other ALR cases.
A barbell-shaped NSC wall, similar in dimensions to Principal tensile strains for 20% ALR are shown in
the rectangular walls examined in the previous sections Fig. 13. They were slightly higher for the HSC wall when
with the exception of boundary elements, was considered. compared to those for barbell-shaped NSC wall at low
The barbell shaped NSC wall had a 101-mm thick web drift ratio of 0.5% but comparable at high drift ratios.
and 183-mm thick boundary elements as shown in Based on load-displacement and principal strain results
Fig. 10. The ratio of the boundary-element areas of the obtained from FE analysis, it can be reasonably
barbell-shaped NSC wall to rectangular HSC wall was concluded that HSC rectangular walls can replace NSC
2.25. The layout and amount of reinforcement for the barbell-shaped walls when architectural constraints
barbell-shaped wall were the same as those of the original prevent the use of large-sized boundary elements.
rectangular wall RW1.
Force−displacement curves for 20% ALR are shown in For HSC walls, HSC was only placed in the boundary
Fig. 11. The rectangular HSC wall exhibited stiffness and elements with NSC in the web. Two dissimilar concrete
strength characteristics that were comparable to the pours can result in a cold joint because of imperfect
equivalent barbell-shaped NSC wall. Similar behavior bonding, even though horizontal reinforcement is
was observed for other ALRs, which is tabulated in continuous across the NSC web and HSC boundary
Table 6. elements. A study was conducted to understand the
Overall, the global force−displacement behavior of the interaction between the web and boundary elements along
rectangular HSC wall was similar to that of the barbell- the interface. In this investigation, rectangular wall
shaped NSC wall when the boundary element area of the (RW1) described in Section 2 was analyzed with NSC
NSC wall was 2.25 times that of the HSC wall. Both the web and HSC boundary elements.
higher compressive strength (HSC wall) and larger Friction-based contact was defined along the NSC web
boundary elements (NSC wall) led to a decrease in the and HSC boundary elements for upper-bound and lower-
depth of neutral axis and increase in moment arm and bound values of the coefficient of friction, µ (1.0 and 0.6,
moment capacity. This led to HSC and NSC walls respectively), per Table 22.9.4.2 of ACI 318-19 [38]. The
exhibiting similar strengths and stiffness despite the “Contact-Automatic-Surface-to-Surface” option of LS-
difference in their boundary element dimensions. DYNA, which uses a penalty-based approach to prevent
The drift ratios at which cover-concrete spalling and slave-node penetration through the master surface, was
boundary-element reinforcement yielding occurred are used [26].
tabulated in Table 7, and the values were 28% higher and
4% to 8% lower, respectively, for HSC rectangular walls 6.1 Effect of cold-joints on load−displacement response
when compared to those for NSC barbell-shaped walls.
These changes in drift ratios are considered as small. Analyses were carried out for the three ALRs for the
upper-bound and lower-bound values of the coefficient of
5.2.2 Principal strains friction, and results for 20% ALR are shown in Fig. 14.
Other ALRs yielded similar results and are shown in
Principal compressive strains for drift ratios of 0.5%, Table 8. NSC wall strength and stiffness are also shown
1.0%, and 2.0% were obtained for varying ALRs. The as reference. Inclusion of contact between boundary and
strain contours for 20% ALR (800 kN) for 0.5% and web areas of the wall resulted in a reduction in strength
2.0% drift ratios are shown in Fig. 12 for rectangular and stiffness. Furthermore, the behavior of the HSC walls
HSC wall and barbell-shaped NSC wall. The rectangular for the upper-bound and lower-bound values of the
HSC wall exhibited lower concrete strains than the coefficient of friction was very similar.
The values of the initial stiffness and peak strengths for and with a cold joint, are tabulated in Table 8. It can be
NSC wall and HSC rectangular wall, cast monolithically observed that there is 33% change in the initial stiffness
and 9% to 11% change in peak strength due to the cold
joint. This is attributed to the lack of a full-composite
action between web and boundary elements due to the
occurrence of sliding along the interfaces.
Drift ratios at which the cover-concrete spalled and
boundary-element reinforcement yielded are listed in
Table 9. Cover-concrete spalling and boundary-element
reinforcement yielding were delayed when friction
contact was considered between boundary elements and
web. For example, for the HSC wall with cold joints and
10% ALR, spalling strain in cover concrete of the
boundary elements was reached at a drift ratio of 1.58%.
However, because of the loss of full composite action, the
Fig. 11 Pushover curves for barbell-shaped NSC and web corner, having NSC, reached its spalling strain
rectangular walls (ALR = 20%). earlier at a drift of 1.10%.
Table 6 Strength and stiffness of barbell-shaped NSC and rectangular HSC walls
ALR (axial Load) barbell-shaped NSC wall rectangular HSC wall ratio of results of barbell-NSC to rectangular HSC wall
peak strength initial stiffness peak strength initial stiffness peak strength initial stiffness
(kN) (kN/mm) (kN) (kN/mm)
10% (400 kN) 162.4 23.4 168.1 26.0 0.97 0.90
20% (800 kN) 215.3 23.6 220.6 26.1 0.98 0.90
25% (1000 kN) 238.9 23.6 243.3 26.2 0.98 0.90
Table 7 Drift ratios at which cover concrete spalled and reinforcement yielded for barbell-NSC and HSC walls
ALR (axial load) cover-concrete spalling boundary-element reinforcement yielding
barbell-NSC wall εcu = 0.0035 (A) HSC wall εcu = 0.0030 (B) B:A barbell-NSC wall (C) HSC wall (D) D:C
10% (400 kN) 1.00% 1.28% 1.28 0.53% 0.51% 0.96
20% (800 kN) 0.82% 1.05% 1.28 0.62% 0.57% 0.92
25% (1000 kN) 0.76% 0.98% 1.28 0.64% 0.61% 0.95
Fig. 12 Principal compressive strains for barbell-shaped NSC and HSC walls for ALR = 20% (800 kN): (a) 0.5% drift; (b) 2.0% drift.
Mohammad SYED & Pinar OKUMUS. High-strength concrete shear walls 11
Fig. 13 Principal tensile strains for barbell-shaped NSC and HSC walls for ALR = 20% (800 kN): (a) 0.5% drift; (b) 2.0% drift.
Table 8 Peak strength and initial stiffness for NSC wall and HSC wall with varying web-boundary element interface properties
ALR NSC wall HSC wall
monolithic µ = 1.0 µ = 0.6
peak strength initial stiffness peak initial stiffness peak strength initial stiffness peak strength initial stiffness
(kN) (kN/mm) strength(kN) (kN/mm) (kN) (kN/mm) (kN) (kN/mm)
10% 150.8 16.5 168.1 26.0 153.9 17.6 153.0 17.4
20% 194.4 16.7 220.6 26.1 200.2 17.9 197.0 17.7
25% 212.6 16.8 243.3 26.2 222.0 18.1 216.6 17.9
Table 9 Drift ratios at which concrete spalled and boundary-element reinforcement yielded for HSC wall with and without contact
ALR (axial load) cover-concrete spalling boundary-element reinforcement yielding
HSC wall monolithic (A) HSC wall with cold joint (B) B : A HSC wall monolithic (C) HSC wall with cold joint (D) D:C
10% (400 kN) 1.28% 1.58% 1.23 0.51% 0.66% 1.29
20% (800 kN) 1.05% 1.43% 1.36 0.57% 0.76% 1.33
25% (1000 kN) 0.98% 1.23% 1.26 0.61% 0.82% 1.34
12 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
explains the higher straining along the diagonal and decrease if sufficient means of ensuring shear transfer
corners of the web. between the different parts are not provided. Shear can be
The principal tensile strains are shown in Fig. 16. It can transferred at the interface by methods such as additional
be observed that the webs experienced greater principal shear reinforcement, lateral post-tensioning, or shear
tensile strains when cold-joints were considered. These keys. Ensuring proper shear transfer across the interface
strains decreased as the ALR was increased, and were
is even more important for the flexural design of HSC
particularly localized near the horizontal reinforcement,
walls. If there is sufficient interface shear strength, the
which can be observed as conspicuous streaks of high-
strain lines at nearly regular intervals in the web along the HSC walls can be designed using conventional fiber-
wall height. section analyses. These section level analyses can be used
The results indicated that the potential strength and to determine the required reinforcement and flexural
stiffness enhancement due to HSC boundary elements can capacity of HSC walls.
Fig. 15 Principal compressive strains for HSC wall (monolithic and cold-joint case) for ALR = 20% (800 kN): (a) 0.5% drift; (b) 2.0%
drift.
Fig. 16 Principal tensile strains for HSC wall (monolithic and cold-joint case) for ALR = 20% (800 kN): (a) 0.5% drift; (b) 2.0% drift.
Mohammad SYED & Pinar OKUMUS. High-strength concrete shear walls 13
7 Summary and conclusions rectangular HSC walls were slightly higher than and
comparable to those of barbell-shaped NSC walls at
In this study, the prospective use of HSC in slender RC lower and higher drift ratios, respectively. The HSC wall
walls was presented for improved performance. HSC was experienced spalling at drift ratio that was 28% higher
placed in only the boundary elements of shear walls (high than that for NSC barbell walls. Reinforcement yielding
flexural demand regions) for cost-efficiency. These walls for HSC wall was observed at drift ratios 4% to 8% lower
were termed as HSC walls in this study. than those for NSC wall.
A NSC slender rectangular wall (NSC wall) was 5) Cold joints, which occurred due to dissimilar
modeled using the finite element (FE) method. The FE concrete mixes in the web and boundary elements for
model was validated using test data, and was used to HSC walls, were studied. Friction-based contact was
investigate the behavior of HSC walls. The HSC used in defined at the joint interface, which led to a reduction in
this study had a mean cube compressive strength of 148.9 strength between 9% and 11%, and stiffness loss of 33%
MPa. All analyses were performed for a set of three when compared to monolithic walls. Wall behavior was
ALRs––10% (400 kN), 20% (800 kN), and 25% (1000 not sensitive to the friction coefficient at the cold joint
kN) of the axial compressive strength of NSC wall. The interface. The weakening of composite action between
main conclusions of the study are listed below. web and boundary elements was observed, and this led to
1) The FE model was able to capture the global force- the formation of diagonal “struts” and “ties” within the
displacement behavior of the wall to a reasonably good wall web, with boundary elements acting as vertical
extent. Input parameters that required calibration were the frame elements and foundation and loading beam acting
concrete tensile strength and modulus of elasticity. as horizontal elements.
2) The attainable increase in the peak strength due to 6) It was observed that in order to make full use of the
the replacement of the NSC wall with the HSC wall was possible enhanced strength and stiffness of the HSC wall,
it was essential to ensure that the entire wall system acted
between 11% and 14%, and the increase in stiffness was
as a monolithic unit. This can be realized by providing
56% for the three ALRs. The increase in drift ratios for
additional horizontal reinforcement, shear keys or shear
boundary-element concrete spalling due to HSC boundary
studs along web-boundary element interface, or by using
elements was between 42% and 56%. The yielding drift
lateral post-tensioning.
ratios, however, were lowered by 7% to 10%. The HSC
wall experienced higher tensile strains than the NSC wall. Acknowledgements The financial support extended by the J. N. Tata
For HSC walls, the tradeoff between higher strength, Endowment, India, to the first author during the course of this study is
higher stiffness, delayed spalling and earlier yielding with highly appreciated.
higher tensile strains should be discussed early in the
design process among the potential stakeholders.
3) Whether the longitudinal-reinforcement amount in References
the boundary elements can be reduced by taking
advantage of increased strength of HSC walls was also 1. Alarcon C, Hube M, De la Llera J. Effect of axial loads in the
investigated. For the walls that were investigated, the seismic behavior of reinforced concrete walls with unconfined wall
longitudinal-reinforcement amount could be reduced by boundaries. Engineering Structures, 2014, 73: 13−23
28% to 41% for varying ALRs. Higher ALRs allowed 2. Hube M, Marihuén A, De la Llera J, Stojadinovic B. Seismic
reducing longitudinal reinforcement amounts in HSC behavior of slender reinforced concrete walls. Engineering
boundary elements. The lateral drift ratio at which Structures, 2014, 80: 377−388
boundary-element concrete spalling occurred increased 3. Su R, Wong S. Seismic behaviour of slender reinforced concrete
by 45% to 73% due to HSC. The drift ratio at which shear walls under high axial load ratio. Engineering Structures,
reinforcement yielded was reduced by 15% to 32% due to 2007, 29(8): 1957−1965
HSC. This was due to the reduced reinforcement of the 4. Thomsen J H, Wallace J W. Displacement-based design of slender
HSC wall. reinforced concrete structural walls––Experimental verification.
4) Suitability of using rectangular HSC walls as Journal of Structural Engineering, 2004, 130(4): 618−630
replacements of barbell-shaped NSC walls was assessed. 5. Zhang Y, Wang Z. Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete shear
Rectangular HSC walls exhibited similar strength as walls subjected to high axial loading. ACI Structural Journal, 2000,
barbell-shaped NSC walls when boundary element area 97: 739−750
was 2.25 times that of the rectangular wall. The ratio of 6. ACI 363R-10. Report on High-Strength Concrete. Farmington
peak strengths and stiffness of barbell-shaped NSC walls Hills: American Concrete Institute, 2010
to rectangular HSC walls was 0.98 and 0.90, respectively. 7. ACI 239R-18. Ultra-High-Performance Concrete: An Emerging
Principal compressive strains were less severe for Technology Report. Farmington Hills: American Concrete
rectangular HSC walls when compared to those for the Institute, 2018
barbell-shaped NSC walls. Principal tensile strains of the 8. AASHTO. LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. 9th ed.
14 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Kleiss M C B. Repairable modular structural-architectural shear
Transportation Officials, 2020 walls. In: Structures Congress 2022. Atlanta: ASCE, 2022
9. Graybeal B, Davis M. Cylinder or cube: strength testing of 80 to 24. Birely A C. Seismic performance of slender reinforced concrete
200 MPa (11. 6 to 29 ksi) ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced structural walls. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Washington:
concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 2008, 105: 603 University of Washington, 2012
10. Ragalwar K, Prieto V, Fakhri H, Heard W F, Williams B A, 25. Thomsen J H, Wallace J W. Displacement-Based Design of RC
Ranade R. Systematic development of environmentally sustainable Structural Walls: An Experimental Investigation of Walls with
ultra-high performance concrete. In: HiPerMat-2016. Kasse: Rectangular and T-Shaped Cross-Sections. Report No. CU/CEE-
Concrete Plant International, 2016 95. 1995
11. Richard P, Cheyrezy M. Composition of reactive powder 26. LSTC. LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual Volume I, R 10.0.
concretes. Cement and Concrete Research, 1995, 25(7): Livermore: Ansys, 2017
1501−1511 27. LSTC. LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual Volume II, R 10.0.
12. Williams E, Graham S, Reed P, Rushing T. Laboratory Livermore: Ansys, 2017
Characterization of Cor-Tuf Concrete With and Without Steel 28. Syed M. Flexural behavior of high-strength concrete slender
Fibers. ERDC. GSL Report TR-09-22. 2009 walls–analytical study. Thesis for the Master’s Degree. Buffalo:
13. Yazıcı H. The effect of curing conditions on compressive strength State University of New York at Buffalo, 2019
of ultra high strength concrete with high volume mineral 29. Logan A, Choi W, Mirmiran A, Rizkalla S, Zia P. Short-term
admixtures. Building and Environment, 2007, 42(5): 2083−2089 mechanical properties of high-strength concrete. ACI Materials
14. Cho S H, Tupper B, Cook W D, Mitchell D. Structural steel Journal, 2009, 106: 413
boundary elements for ductile concrete walls. Journal of Structural 30. Myers J J, Carrasquillo R. Production and quality control of high
Engineering, 2004, 130(5): 762−768 performance concrete in Texas bridge structures. Dissertation for
15. Ren F, Chen J, Chen G, Guo Y, Jiang T. Seismic behavior of the Doctoral Degree. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin,
composite shear walls incorporating concrete-filled steel and FRP 1998
tubes as boundary elements. Engineering Structures, 2018, 168: 31. Yang C, Okumus P. Numerical investigation of high-strength steel
405−419 and ultrahigh-performance concrete for ductile rectangular hollow
16. Lu X, Zhang Y, Zhang H, Zhang H, Xiao R. Experimental study columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2021, 147(7):
on seismic performance of steel fiber reinforced high strength 04021096
concrete composite shear walls with different steel fiber volume 32. FIB. Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010. Berlin: Ernst &
fractions. Engineering Structures, 2018, 171: 247−259 Sohn, Wiley, 2010
17. Lloyd N A, Rangan B V. High Strength Concrete: A Review. 33. Perenchio W F, Klieger P. Some physical properties of high-
Perth: School of Civil Engineering, Curtin University of strength concrete. Research and Development Bulletin: Portland
Technology, 1993 Cement Association, 1978
18. Dan D, Fabian A, Stoian V. Theoretical and experimental study on 34. Syed M, Moeini M, Okumus P, Elhami-Khorasani N, Ross B E,
composite steel–concrete shear walls with vertical steel encased Kleiss M C B. Analytical study of tessellated structural-
profiles. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2011, 67(5): architectural reinforced concrete shear walls. Engineering
800−813 Structures, 2021, 244: 112768
19. Alzeni Y, Bruneau M. In-plane cyclic testing of concrete-filled 35. Mei H, Kiousis P D, Ehsani M R, Saadatmanesh H. Confinement
sandwich steel panel walls with and without boundary elements. effects on high-strength concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 2001, 98:
Journal of Structural Engineering, 2017, 143(9): 04017115 548−553
20. Epackachi S, Nguyen N H, Kurt E G, Whittaker A S, Varma A H. 36. Shin H O, Yoon Y S, Cook W D, Mitchell D. effect of
In-plane seismic behavior of rectangular steel-plate composite wall confinement on the axial load response of ultrahigh-strength
piers. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2015, 141(7): 04014176 concrete columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2015, 141(6):
21. Liao F Y, Han L H, Tao Z. Performance of reinforced concrete 04014151
shear walls with steel reinforced concrete boundary columns. 37. Yoo D Y, Yuan T, Yang J M, Yoon Y S. Feasibility of replacing
Engineering Structures, 2012, 44: 186−209 minimum shear reinforcement with steel fibers for sustainable
22. Basereh S, Okumus P, Aaleti S. Reinforced-concrete shear walls high-strength concrete beams. Engineering Structures, 2017, 147:
retrofitted using weakening and self-centering: Numerical 207−222
modeling. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2020, 146(7): 38. ACI 318-19. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
04020122 and Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Structural
23. Syed M, Crocker G F, Elhami-Khorasani N, Okumus P, Ross B E, Concrete. Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute, 2019