Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 19

Seismic Design of Lightly

Reinforced Precast Concrete
Rectangular Wall Panels
Francisco J. Crisafulli, Ph.D. Lightly reinforced precast concrete panels can
Professor be used advantageously to provide lateral force
Facultad de Ingeniería
Universidad Nacional de Cuyo
resistance in low-rise buildings. The abundance
Mendoza, Argentina of wall panels in certain buildings means that
wall panels that are lightly reinforced can provide
sufficient lateral force resistance if designed for
nominally elastic or limited ductility response. In
these systems, the ductility demand in the critical
regions of the walls is expected to be low and, as
a result, the detailing of the critical regions can
be eased without having any detrimental effect
on the overall seismic performance. This paper
José I. Restrepo, Ph.D. presents theoretical and practical aspects relevant
Associate Professor
Department of Structural Engineering to the seismic design and behavior of precast
University of California, San Diego concrete rectangular walls that are jointed at the
La Jolla, California
foundation. Particular emphasis is given to the
stiffness, useable lateral displacement ductility and
the shear transfer in the connection. Experimental
results of a test on a single wall unit are also
discussed in the paper. A numerical design
example is included to show the application of the
proposed system.

Robert Park, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor

Department of Civil Engineering ince the early 1960s, there has been a worldwide
University of Canterbury increase in the use of precast concrete for structural
Christchurch, New Zealand components in buildings. This has come about be-
cause the incorporation of precast concrete components
has the advantages of high quality control, reduction of site
formwork and labor, increased speed of construction, and
overall economy.


for grouted bars in sleeves or ducts. or poured from the wall-foundation not for the design of precast concrete 1 and 2. and gap is dry-packed and then the ducts ing codes in many countries have. have an inside diameter that is typi- sive use of precast components has such as slabs and foundations. the exten. the wall panels are connected to ease the erection of the walls. A mini- lateral force resisting system. They is normally left between the end of the July-August 2002 105 . to be anchored plus a void of 1 to 2 quake performance of reinforced con. (25 to 50 mm).(a) Reinforcing cage and ducting (b) Wall panel before erection (c) Protruding bars used in wall panel connection (d) Erection of panel Fig. Once The ducts are purposely made larger mum distance of at least 3 in. with cally equal to the diameter of the bar been limited because of the poor earth. the been aggravated by the fact that build. Example of precast concrete walls connected through grouted ducting. many years. In this system. which are either pumped cast-in-place concrete structures but uses the connection shown in Figs. contained comprehensive A precast concrete system that Shrinkage-compensating cement- provisions for the seismic design of is commonly used in New Zealand based grouts. bars protruding from the foundation pumped in to ensure it flows in one di- Precast concrete walls that cantilever are grouted into galvanized corrugated rection to avoid the entrapment of air. alternatively. This situation has brackets. within cast-in-place joining strips. at the upper end of each duct. to the adjacent structural elements. The grout is structures. in. from the foundation can be used in the steel ducts embedded in the wall units Air is expelled through vents placed at construction of low-rise commercial a distance at least equal to the devel. jointed connections comprising vari.2 are grouted. (75 mm) erected. the vertical gap. several locations on the gap as well as and industrial buildings as part of the opment length. ous combinations of concrete inserts.1. In some seismic regions. 1. lapped reinforcement splices single operation or. The ducts and the crete structures incorporating precast bolted or welded steel plates or angle wall-foundation gap are grouted in a concrete elements. are normally used.

tems. response modification factor. minimum provisions control the in cast-in-place concrete walls is to tem is to be recommended for use in amount of longitudinal wall reinforce. Design provisions specifically writ. loading in a strong earthquake. might not that are less than the minimum rec- the interface shear transfer conditions.Fig. explicitly addressed during the design hinge regions. necessarily be sufficiently strong and ommended for cast-in place concrete The force transfer between the wall ductile. the wall. if ence on the system’s overall seismic also control the design of the walls any. the bending This distance is in recognition that were derived from an elastic response moment is very small since it depends water bleeding in the upper end of the spectrum without being reduced by a mainly on the axial force present in duct can lower the mechanical proper. the design pro. during the seismic de. it can be found that. ensure a moment capacity greater than practice. For example. the these two potential disadvantages are reinforcement at the potential plastic use of such a criterion seems inappro. sponse of these walls are the very structural walls. the panel and the foundation is achieved could be hidden in a structural com. could be designed as “if jointed” with beam are roughened and cleaned with and where a rigorous capacity design longitudinal reinforcement amounts an oil-free air pressure gun to improve procedure is not performed. This is because the weak link wall construction. It can also be found that priate for the type of precast system process to ensure they have no influ- minimum design provisions would described above (see Fig. it must be demonstrated that ment and the detailing of the transverse the cracking moment. Nonetheless. Little. 106 PCI JOURNAL . the A building in which the walls are Precast concrete walls of this type base of the wall and the foundation detailed with the minimum provisions. Prior to grouting. vertical bar and the end of the duct. Wall panel-to-foundation connection detail. walls are expected to develop a single through non-contact lap bar splices ponent or in a connection that is not crack at the wall-foundation connec- from the grouted bars and bars that are specifically detailed for ductility. ties of the grout. If such a sys- walls. 2). thus. ten for cast-in-place concrete walls The potential disadvantages that sign of low-rise buildings in which the could be of questionable use when could affect the overall seismic re- lateral force resistance is provided by using some precast concrete wall sys. Frequently. tion when subjected to in-plane lateral cast with the wall unit. even if the lateral forces considered the connection and. In such designs. 2. tension can be transferred across response. small plastic hinge length and the ten- when following the recommendations vision for establishing the minimum dency for sliding shear to occur once for the design of cast-in-place concrete amount of longitudinal reinforcement the connection opens up.

resistance if the principles of capacity behavior. The article focuses on the spread of the plastic hinge into the transfer mechanisms. ensuring that July-August 2002 107 . This paper discusses the theoretical the base of the walls often require the The present work has been carried aspects required for the seismic design splicing of longitudinal reinforcement out on specimens subjected to reversed of lightly reinforced precast concrete at the critical region where plastic cyclic shear and constant axial force. a full-scale precast concrete wall unit. transfer across joints is fairly exten- crete wall systems and connections sive.7 sirable mode of failure. However. Fig. The precast concrete walls described crete wall construction.5 and incorporated in the axial load and shear. hinges would normally be expected but without overturning moment. This tion and that are suitable for provid. and overall lateral A review of the literature indicates building codes. of wall panels subjected to seismic ac- response is due to the opening of a gap Monolithic emulation can be tions. constraining the plas. design for combined flexure- LITERATURE REVIEW in the 1960s4. to occur. force-lateral displacement response. The achieved in systems whose walls are cyclic bending moments exceeding the paper also reviews the results obtained embedded in a grouted recess in the yield rotation are applied at the con- from a cyclic reversed loading test on foundation. 3. the design of cantilever wall panels that wall panel. Experimental ing satisfactory in-plane lateral force that can truly emulate monolithic work investigating the effects the cy. In precast con. particularly when the reversed at the wall-foundation connection. with numerous results available General Design Criteria used in construction. clic loading has on the shear transfer design are used to preclude any unde- This is because the connections at mechanisms is more limited.6. tion. walls that are jointed at the founda. boundary conditions of these tests do remain uncracked and whose nonlin. THEORETICAL proposed design system. on tests on specimens tested mono. thus. ticity to develop only at the wall-foun. on shear transfer across the connec- A numerical design example is pro. not represent very well the conditions ear lateral force lateral displacement dation connection. Splicing of the longitudinal loading condition is useful as it identi- ing earthquake resistance in low-rise reinforcement generally precludes the fies the main components of the shear buildings. The design for shear transfer across CONSIDERATIONS the connection is often done following Presented herein are general design the shear-friction concepts proposed criteria.3 Most other systems rely nection. tonically under combined shear and in this paper are suitable for furnish- ularly difficult to develop systems axial load conditions. but little emphasis is given to the vided to show the application of the effect caused by the opening there. Axial compression- longitudinal reinforcement ratio interaction diagram for inducing flexural cracking in rectangular walls. it is partic. that there is limited knowledge about Experimental work on the shear the seismic response of precast con.

in. do not have to be sat. for a given axial stress and a given concrete cylinder compressive strength at which a rectangular wall panel cracks computed using the above values. cracking moment of the wall section. the nection. the shear system is that tensile stresses cannot panel should be designed to remain force resisted at the connection. els are advisable. sile strength of 87 ksi (600 MPa) for Grade 60 reinforcement. therefore. the development of the flexural over. the wall panels should be designed to the relatively high strain demands that remain uncracked during erection and are expected to arise in the longitudi- all other loading conditions. nal bars crossing the wall-foundation Design for Shear This behavior is desirable because connection in a strong earthquake. Ductile reinforcement. the bar diameter should not be too large to avoid splitting of the wall panel nonlinear behavior results chiefly from theory can be used to determine the and yet not too small to limit the yield the opening of the wall-foundation con. with longitudinal reinforcing steel ra. the building code re. connecting the wall pan- foundation. the flexural over.8 gitudinal bars crossing the connection The former two mechanisms can be Design for Combined and that provided in the wall panel is assumed to carry the entire shear force. the connection. the connection. erably with a tensile strain at the ul. This is because an increase in axial com- Fig. depth-to-wall length ratios at the ulti. in place of where Vd and Vf are the components of which may often control the design a statistical sample. nection is expected to occur. this system is often initiated by frac. percent. Fig. it is apparent that an in- crease in axial compressive stress re- duces the maximum value of ρt. strength.9. In mate limit state are typically less than the shear force resisted across the con- terms of capacity design. therefore. develop between the cementitious uncracked at all stages of loading. pref. For these reasons. the shear force carried by dowel action of a wall panel. to bar diameter. Vn = Vd + Vf (1) quirements for minimum flexural rein.2 fc′ psi (0.6 fc′ MPa) and a strength reduc. and Another feature of this precast con.08. isfied there. the wall additive and independent. t w . Flexure-Axial Load less than that required by the building If these mechanisms are assumed to be A main feature of this precast wall code for cast-in-place walls. crete system is that the neutral axis walls. Most of cracking behavior of the panels. which is greater than the cracking mechanisms at moment increase. 3 shows the maximum longitudinal reinforcement ratios. Shear pression increases the moment capac- resisting ity. The critical region for shear in this of (a) serviceability requirements. Given the shallowness of the nection is transferred by friction be- condition implies that the walls should neutral axis depths. It is suggested here that. wall’s lateral deformation capacity. amount of longitudinal reinforcement strain penetration and. where an opening of the con- sociated with the brittle flexural post. precast system is at the base of the (b) potential structural problems as. ρt. respectively. the latter 0. can be expressed as: interfaces at the connection region. flexural failure in tween the wall panel and the founda- be able to develop the flexural over. In Fig. strength at the connection region be and friction. joint between a Limitations to the longitudinal bar wall panel and diameter. compressed concrete. tion and. by dowel strength while preventing cracking in turing of the longitudinal reinforce. Conventional flexural evaluated assuming an ultimate ten. When detailing the wall panels required. ing in the longitudinal bars crossing If the reinforcement ratio of the lon. forcement and reinforcement spacing. On the one hand. tion factor for bending φ = 0. db. a modulus of rupture of concrete equal to 7. 4. A small component of shear failure at the wall-foundation tion rather than by crushing of the the shear force is transferred by kink- connection. cluding at the stage associated with and. the ratio of wall tios less than those required to resist the timate tensile strength of at least 12 thickness. d b . 3. action in the reinforcing bars crossing the wall panel and preventing a sliding ment at the wall-foundation connec. It is worth noting that the peak value 108 PCI JOURNAL . is required to accommodate should be such that 9 ≤ tw /db ≤ 15. to a lesser extent. Vn.

Eq. (3): where eo is the axial load eccentricity de- A close inspection of Eqs. This force wall corresponding to the development is mathematically expressed as: of the flexural overstrength. the case when µ history. the lack of compres. It should be noted. 4). Thus: component of the axial forces that the length of the wall. This coefficient is given by: obtained as the height of the resul- tant base shear force obtained from the  (1 + ξ )  2e   sin κ   Vf = µf Cc = µf (N + Σ Asi fsi) (3) static lateral force procedure. (2) and fined as eo = Mo/N. It is well known that compressive ξ = –1 and ξ = 1. V n. (3) reveals that the wall longitudinal Vn = µf [(1 + ξ )ωoTy + N ] + Coefficient µ f′ relates the shear force transferred by the friction and dowel ac- reinforcement in compression. For low-rise buildings The shear force carried by the fric. respectively. When κ = 0. where µ f′ is an equivalent friction coef- up to three stories. is vative expression proposed for deter- located at the wall panel edge.11 heff Eqs. (9) can be simplified by consider- these values are found for cases of concrete members to increase the duc. for the wall de. axial solved for Vn. Thus: mining the coefficient ξ is: ξ = 1 – 2g (6) In some cases.5 ≤ g ≤ 0. faces. has a detrimental effect on both where coefficient ξ is the ratio between the friction and sliding shear resist. taken equal to 1 in capacity de- Vd = Σ Asi fsi sinκi (2) Vo = Mo (4b) signed structures. ing that the kink angle of the reinforce- little practical application. reinforcing bars are An upper bound equation for the placed so that 0. develop once sliding shear occurs be. Further. whereas ξ = 1 when the bars sive reinforcement has little effect on can be rewritten as: are placed at the center of the wall.8 However. transferred by friction since no sliding the extreme fiber in compression to ticularly pronounced during reversed shear occurs between the jointing sur- that of the bars grouped close to the cyclic loading. Coefficient ment in these walls is expected to be tility capacity. For symmetrically reinforced depending upon the location of the walls subjected to reversed cyclic f′ → ∞ and κ = 0 is found in slender walls bars in the wall and the lateral load whose response is dominated by flexure loading beyond the elastic limit. If a flexural dominated response is to ing mechanisms since these mecha. the nominal shear resistance nisms do not reach their peak values where ωo is the overstrength factor. fsi and κi are the area. 4). is: where φs is the strength reduction factor for shear. of the groups of bars as a proportion of picted in Fig. with µ f ≤ µ ′f ≤ ∞ (9) Cc is the compressive force carried by the concrete and N is the concentric forcement is grouped towards the wall axial force. where  (1 + ξ )  2e  κ  µ ′f = 1 +  o − 1 1 + µ f bending moment at the development g is the distance between the centroids  2  lw  µ f   of overstrength. The shear force at the base of the φsVn ≤ Vo (7) tween the jointing surfaces. at the wall-foundation connection for walls in which the connection rein. Ty = Ast fy /2 is the yield force of the greater than the shear force acting at the The shear force carried by dowel reinforcing bars with area Ast /2 located connection at the development of over- action. (1 + ξ )ωoTy sinκ (5) ing from combined bending and axial tion mechanisms as a proportion of the applied axial load.  2  lw  µ f   where µf is the coefficient of friction. load. In practice. (4) and (5) can be combined and where Asi. at the connection should be equal to or simultaneously. This effect is par. 4 is obtained assuming the wall length (see Fig. heff can be directly tion mechanism is: ficient. wall ends. be ensured. which is taken positive in ends can be obtained from Eqs. Mo. the re. Vo. A conser. (9) reinforced walls. ex- history. (1) to compression. where heff is the height measured from Note that stress fsi is defined positive Vn = µf′N (8) the base of the wall to the resultant in tension. that at peak loading. lateral force. the flexural and rotational capacities. Vd. Coefficient ξ is sensitive to the lo- inforcement in “compression” in these cation of the bars and to the loading no longitudinal reinforcement crosses walls could be nominally in tension the connection. N of Vn does not result from the sum of Mo ≅  ω o Ty + lw (4a)  2 the peak values of each of the resist. with µ f ≤ µ ′f ≤ ∞ (10) the resultant compressive force.95. Thus. in lightly ξ = –1 when the bars are placed at the small for which sinκ = κ. Unfortunately. and lw is strength. The case when µ f′ = µf and κ = 0 extreme fiber in tension (see Fig. is equal to the horizontal toward one end of the wall. reinforcement is placed in reinforced Eq. Cc. and the shear force is transferred irre- treme values for this coefficient are spectively from the axial load level. is found only in rocking walls in which however. particularly in stout July-August 2002 109 . This expression takes the stress and kink angle with respect to form: the vertical axis of bar i. µ ′f = 1 +  o − 1 1 + µ f The nominal shear resistance. result. the entire shear force is the force in the bars grouped close to ing mechanisms.

5. The rotational N story building will result in kinemati. Mn. cal- with 0 ≤ κ ≤ 0. the following expression is analytical model. gross section properties. the design engineer is re- quired to build a suitable mathematical (17) model by modeling the walls with ap. The stiffness K θ of this spring is The shear force. To encompass the complete range Fig. Mn. which the wall gross section area. Second. ∆y. Proposed of walls. ductility in each wall. sliding results in pinching of The walls can be represented with the concrete elastic modulus. displacement at peak loading.2 radians (11) culated at the height of the resultant where the rotational wall-founda. corresponding to lowing recommendation is made for given by: the nominal moment is given by: the kinking angle κ: Mn 1 V= (16) Kθ = (12) heff 1  2eo  1 1 κ=  − 1 radians + 3  lw  Kj Kf and the yield displacement. Ec is First. Kf. For this (13)  c w w   eff    evaluation. The beam ele. ment idealizes the wall panel itself. and the Displacement Response foundation rotational stiffness. Eq. large This element can be modeled using in lightly reinforced walls can be ap- magnitude sliding shear displacements elastic theory based on the wall’s proximately calculated as: in walls of different lengths in a multi. 2 Mj km A f l f (17) tions for this precast system should be Kj = and K f =  4 Mn heff  3  lw    2 performed in accordance with local θj 12  1 +  ∆ y = θ j + θ f + E A l 2  4 h   heff seismic design provisions. where db is the have two major drawbacks: ing code. and most importantly. patibility. the nominal moment. the development of the nominal mo. rotation occurs solely due to the compressive strains that de- velop in the concrete. V. whichever is greater. However. The useable (14) tion of the shear force is transferred by displacement ductility could be used dowel action. diameter of the connecting bar. The fixed-end rotation is caused mainly by strain penetration of the tensile reinforcement anchored in the wall panel and in the foundation. the fol. (7) can only be satisfied if termining the useable displacement jlw Es 3Ec Aw sliding shear is permitted so that a frac. respectively. 5. where θj is the fixed-end rotation at propriate stiffness values and by de. 110 PCI JOURNAL . at the base of the wall. Kj.2 In rocking walls. Af and lf are the area and length of the rectangular foundation supporting the wall. Eq. it should be to estimate the response modification noted that sliding shear displacements factor required by the relevant build. proposed for θj: 20 db f y 16 N θj = or θ j = walls. and Aw is the hysteretic response if it takes place the model illustrated in Fig. volving equilibrium and strain com- the surfaces enter in contact. lateral force is: Overall Lateral Force-Lateral tion connection stiffness. Note that the ex- pression developed for Kf assumes that the foundation and the soil underneath are permanently in contact. ment. or in grinding if it occurs after and a rotational spring. Mn ≅  Ty + lw (15) cal incompatibility. are  4 Mn heff  3  l  2    1 +  w   heff given by: ∆ y = θ j + θ f + Response Within the Elastic Limit  Ec Aw lw2  4  heff      — The evaluation of the seismic ac. km is the soil subgrade reaction modulus. spring accounts for flexibility result. ing from the opening at the connection  2 To maintain sliding displacements to as well as from the rotation due to the within a small component of the lateral soil. before the jointing surfaces enter in combines a prismatic beam element In place of a rational approach in- contact.

derived similarly to Eq. whereas N/(Aw f c′) — 0 0. a response that does loaded beyond this point is well de- not leave residual displacements.95 heff /lw — 1 4 opening of the joint and by the founda- hG /heff — 1 /2 2 /3 tion flexibility.12 cycle will occur when N/(Aw ρt fy) < flexural overstrength and calculated The foundation rotation θf for use in 0. Fig. is at. respectively. July-August 2002 111 . (17) if sliding Upon the development of the nomi.04 the third term accounts for elastic flex. hysteresis occurs The second phase develops upon where mainly from yielding at the wall-foun.24 percent cracked wall panel. up to large tensile strains and back∆oto= θ j + θ f + o which is described in Fig. Ec Aw lw2  4  heff      sponse of these walls is characterized diately before fracturing of the bars. bw /db — 9 16 The first and second terms in Eq. The the fixed-end and foundation rotations. fracturing of the reinforcing bars. The re.62 ure and shear deformations in the un. At the point imme. In the first phase. ∆o. dation connection. respectively.    heff ∆o = θ oj + θ of + 1 + mainly due to cyclic loading. Lateral force-lateral displacement response of a lightly reinforced precast concrete wall. (17) considers the three main contribu. bent back and forth and axially strained  4 Mo heff  3  lw    2  o 1 +  heff eral displacement monotonic response.22 1. the reinforcing nection are neglected: Mn θf = (18) bars in the wall-foundation connec- Kf tion undergo strains well into the work  4 Mo heff  3  lw    2 hardening region. 6. tors to the lateral displacement in a Limits cantilever wall loaded with a single Variable Units Minimum Maximum lateral force applied at a height heff. 6. are given by: sponse. these  Ec Aw lw2  4  heff      Response Beyond the Elastic Limit bars fracture after being repeatedly (19) — These walls have a lateral force-lat. (17) f c′ psi (MPa) 2900 (20) 5800 (40) account for the rotation caused by g — 0. A self-centering re.5.5 0.77. Parameters varied in the random simulation. that is. (17) is given by: of residual displacements. nearly zero strain. rigid body. ωo — 1.77. (19) by two distinct phases: the wall attains its peak overstrength. but this will occur at the expense at the effective wall height heff can be Eq. The latter term can be derived using first principles of mechanics while also The lateral displacement. response of the wall when laterally θjoand θfo. scribed by the response of a rocking tained when the ratio N/(Aw ρt fy) ≥ 0. ρt — 0 0. shear displacements across the con- nal flexural strength. cor- assuming that the concrete elastic to A large level of energy dissipation per responding to the development of the shear moduli ratio Ec /Gc = 2. Table 1. At some point.

from the peak lateral force. Providing that adequate detailing is provided at the base of these walls. Fig. (a) Assuming infinitely rigid foundation Eq. µ∆u. (21b) indicates that the contribution of the wall’s longi- tudinal reinforcement towards lateral force resistance is small and fracturing of these bars only results in a small decrease in the capacity of the wall. in which εsu * is the effective ultimate The ultimate lateral displacement. µ∆p. θ oj = and θ of = (1 + g)lw / 2 Kf ultimate tensile strain obtained from a This concept is mathematically ex- (20) monotonic tensile test is recommended pressed as: for εsu * for use in design. can be ob- ing bars.8 Mo  ∆u = hG 2 N  when ωo ρt f y < 0.25  hG ∆o  N 1 − 2 h l  Aw  eff w  (21b) where hG is the distance from the base of the wall to the resultant gravity load. µ∆. µ∆ the lesser of µ∆u or µ∆p (22a) tensile strain. Useable displacement ductility as a function of the wall aspect ratio. a value of one-half of the tained for these walls as: 112 PCI JOURNAL . ∆u = ∆o when ωo ρt f y ≥ 0. Eq. is defined as the lesser of the (b) Accounting for foundation flexibility ultimate displacement ductility. where loading results in a reduction of the cent decrease in lateral force resistance ultimate tensile strain for the reinforc. arbitrarily defined here as the dis- In recognition that cyclic reversed placement associated with a 20 per. Thus. In contrast. 7. corresponding to the lateral displace- ment associated with the performance 12 db ε su * Mo level under consideration. ∆u. the response of such walls is dominated by rocking. (21a) indicates that a large de- crease in lateral load capacity occurs following the rupture of the wall’s lon- gitudinal reinforcement. the rocking re- sponse could be advantageously used in design. The useable displacement duc- tility. Useable Displacement Ductility — The concept of useable displacement ductility is introduced in this paper to relate the response of the precast con- crete system to a given performance level. or the displacement ductility ratio.25  hG ∆o  N 1 − 2 h l  Aw  eff w  (21a) or heff  lw − 0.

(21a). Af /Aw = 5. cedure described above. The values of µ∆ obtained from the is low in the majority of cases. those used in the design of ductile under reverse cyclic loading. to ensure displacement ductility de. lustrates the overall dimensions of the whose response is controlled by the ever. and gives the shown in Fig. generation of variables was performed which is used to define ductility [see Larger response modification fac- using equal probability with values Eqs. ∆u ∆p µ ∆u = and µ ∆p = (22b) ∆y ∆y and where ∆p = Θ heff (22c) in which Θ is the drift ratio corre- sponding to the performance level under consideration. pendent from the wall aspect ratio and of this paper. respectively. Only those re. ∆y and ∆u. for the same wall generally results in ultimate moments the foundation flexibility. 7. 8. Eq. A random variable simulation was performed to illustrate the useable ductility concept in this type of pre- cast concrete wall system. whereas the results obtained tion with low response modification test arrangement and material proper- considering foundation flexibility are factors to ensure nominally elastic or ties of the specimens. 7(a). general and lateral force-displacement For those walls on rigid foundations. How. the useable foundation system to ensure a suitable panels and that satisfied Eq. 7(b). the system’s useable displacement mands that are compatible with the ductility is highly dependent on the useable displacement ductilities de- wall aspect ratio and on the controlling picted in Fig. Moreover. 9 depicts the rein- fracture of the longitudinal reinforce. walls whose ultimate displacement this particular case and the design of a sults that resulted in uncracked wall is defined by Eq.02.5. (17) and (21). Two cases were investigated. The dation flexibility has on the useable traction of this system is the ease and parameters. concrete jointed wall system should be an example of the jointed system in a walls whose response is dominated by designed for lateral forces larger than two-story building was built and tested rocking. General dimensions and reinforcing details for test unit. Eq. General Description of the mode of failure. The re. trolled by rocking. hence. This recommendation implies that Test Unit ment ductility decreases significantly buildings incorporating this precast A full-scale test unit representing with the wall aspect ratio. The flexibility simplicity in the reinforcing detailing. aspect ratios of heff /lw ≤ 3. have a greater use. whereas the other case accounted for ment. The increase in the yield displacement. are listed in Table 1. as no confinement of the concrete or The drift ratio chosen for the evalu. limited ductility response and. aspect ratio. A comparison of Figs. The evaluation of forced with Grade 60 ksi (414 MPa) It is interesting to note that in those the response modification factors for bars and that µf = 0. Fig. In this sec. in buildings incorporating this system forcing details at the bottom corners of July-August 2002 113 . responses. scription of the test unit. 8 il- able displacement ductility than walls lateral force resisting systems. Since simulation are plotted against the wall it is generally difficult in practice to aspect ratio heff /lw in Fig. 7(a) and 7(b) gitudinal reinforcement using the pro- (13) with lf /lw = 1. rocking response are outside the scope selected. describes the Fig. able displacement ductility due to the special transverse reinforcement is re- ation of Eq. (21a).7. (21b). that is Kf = ∞. The yield and ultimate displacements.5 and clearly illustrates the effect that foun. of the foundation decreases the use. 7(b). attain rigid foundation conditions. The useable displace. (16) and (22b)]. which varied in the study. it is EXPERIMENTAL WORK sults obtained for the case of walls recommended herein that this precast This section provides a general de- on a rigid foundation are shown in concrete system be used in conjunc. The main at- with km = 255 kip/ft3 (40 MN/m3). Fig. that can be satisfied with nominal lon- ond case. the abundance of walls present test unit and Fig. This effect is tors could be used for this system within the limits listed in Table 1 and particularly pronounced in walls with when the response of the walls is con- assuming the connection was rein. The first case considered fixed-end foundation conditions. displacement ductility. were obtained by evalu- ating Eqs. (7) were displacement ductility is fairly inde. (22c) was Θ = 0. Kf was calculated from Eq. quired in the wall panels.

wire at a 6 in.8 mm) in diameter and provided a pair corresponding to the (430 MPa). Subsequently. (6. The top face of the reinforced con. 0. which were used to the wall panels. Vertical vided by two 0. (100 mm) diameter cylinders. which is mit the connection of the wall and the to the resultant lateral force applied at well below that required for cast-in.9 MPa) at 28 days. Material Properties The compressive strength of the concrete.3 mm) diameter pull alternatively depending on the wall-foundation connection was pro.6 in. (5 mm) steel shims were placed on the base.067 percent. self-weight of the wall panel of 7. controlled hydraulic actuators acting area Ab = 0. (12 mm) (4. (650 mm) high. In order to ensure a uniform thick- ness of the gap between the panels and the base. (12 mm) diam. the wall panel was rein.6 MPa) at 28 days. Then.6 in.8 forced with a central layer of welded crete foundation beam was roughened kips (34. reinforcing bars were located at each The axial load acting at the ground where two layers of welded wire mesh side of the corrugated ducts. frame are illustrated in Fig. At the bottom edge an effective height of heff = 13 ft 1 in. place wall construction. level connection was only due to the were used. The grout pumped into the corrugated steel ducts had a compres- sive strength of 8350 psi (57. (16 mm) diameter In addition. a sample of this material was 114 PCI JOURNAL .5 in. direction of the applied force. the wall panel was lifted with a crane and located on the rein- forced concrete base. Connection detail between wall and foundation.31 sq in. was 2450 psi (16. Even though the axial load in the actual precast concrete wall panels is expected to be higher. 9. Test Arrangement The general details of the loading Fig. How- Fig. 0. The connection at the wire mesh. foundation beam. (201 mm2) and eter of the wall panel. Corrugated steel at the top of the panel.5 in. (150 mm) high x 4 in.1 m) from its base due tion was ρt = 0. this case represents an unfavorable condi- tion for the connection because the shear strength of the panel is a func- tion of the axial load. two 0. 10. at the bottom of the wall panel to per. 2 in. and the sur- face was covered with dry pack mor- tar. (50. Test arrangement. Lat- eral forces were applied using two hy- draulic actuators.10 Except for of the wall panel. ever. 25.4 ksi ducts.25 in. wall at 7 ft (2. forces were also applied with servo- reinforcing bars with a nominal bar eter bars were provided at the perim. These actuators a nominal yield strength of 62.6 kN).2 in. The bottom face of the wall panel was mechanically roughened before erecting the unit. the region around the corrugated ducts. It was not possible to make speci- mens for compression tests with the dry pack mortar because this material had a very low water content. 11).55 m) (see Fig. 0. (150 mm) spacing. by forming criss-cross grooves when the concrete was in a semi-hardened state.9. measured using 6 in. were placed overturning moment in the prototype The reinforcing ratio at the connec. each corrugated duct was gravity filled with non-shrinkage grout through a small tube located at the bottom. 10.

foundation specifications provided by the manu. the cracks plotted in Fig. the load-displacement wall panel and intersected the crack exhibited nonlinear inelastic behavior. mainly due to the gradual opening at pinching. The first cycles. The wire mesh and the 0. As explained before. bar that was subjected to tension. hydration of the cement caused by the test. 12. test. x 1.18 percent. The main reason for this differ- low amount of water used for mixing. General Response Measurements taken from the strain Horizontal cracks extending from Lateral Force-Displacement gauges indicated that the connecting the extreme fiber in tension toward the Response bar yielded in tension during the ap- center of the wall appeared in the wall. the experimental and theoretical post- elastic response. nection were clearly visible. (12 mm) trimming bars and The theoretical response obtained mm long) were cut and tested in com. The test was ended after the definition of yield displacement. sured initial stiffness of the test unit The poor strength of the dry pack ing displacement ductility. third cycle.63 in. taken from the unit after the test was resisted by the bar by dowel action. as a result of sliding shear occurring at wall along the line of the reinforcing symmetrical response of the unit. Loading simulation in test unit. At the end of the ratio of heff /lw = 1. respectively. This This behavior was probably due to The reloading branch of the hystere- crack developed due to the shear force errors in the measurement of the very sis loops clearly exhibited two different July-August 2002 115 . 12. The test continued by 0 is also plotted in Fig. sliding displacements in the con. MPa). the positive direction were larger than capacity. at the ally increased in the following cycles crack developed at the left edge of the same force level. the entire connection was the connection.3 kips (81. plication of 18. (17) to (19) with θf = θfo = pression.6 in crushing. of the mesh surrounding the connecting from Eqs. In the second cycle.13. Fig. This pinching effect gradu- As the test continued. The mea- strength of 835 psi (5. no cracking or any other damage that there is good agreement between had been observed in the precast wall. resulting in a compressive reinforcement. but the hysteretic loops still As a result.47 in. the wall-foundation connection. The displacements in showed reasonable energy dissipation crossed by a single crack. Such ence was the flexibility of the founda- which was prepared according to the displacements caused grinding of the tion. In the initial cycles beyond propagated beyond the center of the theoretically in the “elastic range. in. which led to an un. long (16 mm square x 32 of 0. square crack did not widen due to the presence symmetrical sliding of the wall panel. Note. Small prisms 0. was significantly lower than indicated mortar could have been due to the poor In the cycles near the end of the theoretically. (16 mm) diameter bars used in the the application of 24 cycles up to a which is particularly important in this ground level connection had a yield displacement ductility of 7 and a drift unit because of the small wall aspect strength of 65 and 66 ksi (458 and 467 ratio of 0. 11. response showed some indications of developed in the previous semi-cycle. a small vertical those in the negative direction.8 MPa). The lateral force versus displace. dry-pack mortar bedding and resulted flexibility has a very large effect on facturer. applying successive cycles of increas. The small lateral displacements and to un- finished.26 in.” the elastic limit.3 kN) in the foundation connection during the first ment response of the wall unit is forward (positive) direction during the cycle. however.

Sliding shear at the wall-founda. nificant influence on the response of Moreover. of the dry-pack mortar bedding. eral force resistance in high seismic lateral force can be divided into four ues. the following conclusions can usually more significant between the The coefficient of friction. respec. When the direc- tion of the applied displacement was reversed. shear and flexural de. the clamping action was evaluated regions. (14) and (20). of earthquake-induced structural dam- foundation. at large strains. Measurement of the local strains in the connecting 0. The analysis of the experimental re. Elongation of the reinforcing bars oping in the reinforcing bars when the at the wall-foundation connection that at the wall-foundation connec. mained in the tensile domain due to the inability of the axial compression force to push them back to zero strain. inforced. 12. In order to calculate these val. Sliding shear are less than those required for cast-in- tion. Analysis of the data showed that when sliding displacements had resulted in a kinking angle κ = 10 de- grees (0. the wall Analytical calculations indicate that. 2 These two observations friction mechanism of shear transfer. 2 1. These effects were in the cycles near the end of the test. pared to that of the ground level con. which indicates that. suggest that the contribution to shear construction with an abundant number 3. A jointed precast concrete wall The horizontal displacement mea. as a result of the degradation of were used to derive the rotations in The repetition of cycles to equal dis. nection. The system is very lightly re- components related to: taking into account the stresses devel. the strains decreased but re- Fig. The system is 2. up and N/(Aw ρt fy) for this unit was only 0. system can be designed to provide lat- sured at the point of application of the tively. When reloading started. µf. resistance from dowel action could be of walls. diameters. (16 mm) diameter low resistance and reduced stiffness. peak load was applied. and then de- creased rapidly towards the ends. nism degraded as a result of grinding age in the wall panels themselves. at the be drawn: first and second cycle of the series.71. 0. Strain measurements taken along the panel slid several millimeters with very by comparison. placement ductilities was accompanied base interface. thus.18.70. as bond stresses develop.7 to 0.17 radians). the frictional mechanism at the panel. Lateral force-lateral displacement response. to two coupled precast walls. respectively. Sliding shear had a sig- by a decrease in the lateral strength.6 in. at the connection and decrease. The analysis of the results shows showed that.51. system are the ease of the reinforcing 4. downwards. Eqs. and 3 was 0. (0. The main attractions of this tion connection.2 parts. the unit and accounted for more than CONCLUSIONS ited stiffness degradation in the re. Flexural and shear deformations less than 1/127 in. (16 mm) diam- eter bars indicated that plastic strains concentrated at the level of the wall- foundation connection. connecting 0. especially much shorter length. upon unloading. formations in the walls are small due bars indicate that peak strains develop This behavior was expected as the ratio to the large stiffness of the wall com.2 mm) which intended for use in low-rise building in the precast walls. This conclusion was experi. of about 12 bar ing surfaces contacted and enabled the when large displacements were im. ling mode of deformation. which resulted in the accumulation of small particles resulting in a rolling mech- anism. the friction coef- ficient had decreased from the initial average value of 0.2 The maximum tensile strains for each cycle obviously occurred in correspondence with the application of the maximum lateral displacements.2 bar is attained. ignored. Rigid body movements origi.6 in. gation. with longitudinal steel ratios 1. panel-base interface from Cycles 1. somewhat linearly over 20 bar diam- the axial force was unable to yield the mentally verified in a similar test on eters when the yield strength of the bars back to zero strain and. displacements in these cycles were place wall construction. the large An increase in both stiffness and that sliding shear became the control. details in the wall panels and the lack nated by sliding or rotation of the sults indicates that the friction mecha.2 Measurements also close the gap in the connection. 50 percent of the lateral displacement Based on the results of this investi- loading branches. the hysteresis loop exhib. 116 PCI JOURNAL . posed. strain concentration occurred over a strength was observed once the joint.69 and 0.

A. Anderson. F. Mast. the tensile factors to ensure limited ductility sys. tem response. Second Edition. B. I.. 1993/96) pp. Wiley & Sons. els Under Cyclic Shear Loading. J. R. of Concrete Structures and Part 2: Commentary on the Design 3.. In order to keep the displacement spread through the wall panel. with a horizontal construction joint at the development length. the connection region and is unable to is minimized and cracking in the wall 5. V. Sci- mate tensile strain. lateral dis. J.. 5. tem. and Park. particularly when low aspect ratio because the plasticity concentrates at suring sliding shear in the connection walls are used. and constructive comments. December 1999. A full-scale wall unit was built position. Energy dissipation shown that the foundation flexibility beam connection is less than the crack- results from yielding of the reinforcing has a large effect in the useable ductil. M. ity. ence and Technology.” Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engi- neers. New Zealand. of Canterbury. T. R. is REFERENCES gratefully acknowledged for granting the funding from the Place Concrete. It is flexural strength at the wall-foundation dation connection. S. tural Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (ACI 318R- 4. that is.” Progressive Architecture. MI. 94. 172-179.” Shear in Reinforced port of a Study Group of the New Zealand Concrete Society Concrete. “Auxiliary Reinforcement in Concrete Connec- The authors would like to express their appreciation to the tions. Centre for Advanced Engineering. and to the the design ensures that the ultimate system from opening of the wall-foun. pp.” American Concrete Institute. Guidelines for the Use of Precast Concrete in Buildings. New York. In this system. “Composite Designs in Precast and Cast-in- 95).. F. when displacement response results in this placement and ductility. Inc. shear transfer at the connection. 1996.” Journal of Structural Engineering. Part 1: The Design Christchurch. Rizkalla. Holden.” Research Report 96-11. July-August 2002 117 . Soudki. the vertical bars strain at the ultimate tensile strength.. Resistance of Structures: The Design and Construction of Tilt- 8. R. V. New Zealand. 1485-1504. Experimental work was conducted grouted into the precast concrete wall. 599-616. American Society 10. J. The design with ductility demands compatible with the this system requires the use of ductile useable displacement ductility.. Christchurch. New Zealand. H. and Paulay. New Zealand.. 1974. Crisafulli. NY.. West. R.. protruding from the foundation are should not be less than 12 percent to 6. reasonably low response modification The Foundation for Research. in press... 6. avoid premature bar fracture at the to assess the response of such a sys- The precast wall units are lowered into wall-foundation connection. Re- tion Joints in Cast-in-Place Concrete. that made this research program possible. “Earthquake 3. Walls. and Phillips.. panels is avoided. “Horizontal Construc- 1. 9. John Up Reinforced Concrete Buildings. No. Farmington Hills. Park. and Blackett. pp. The theoretical aspects relevant and tested under reversed cyclic load- truding from the foundation beam are to the seismic design and behavior ing. Restrepo. May-June 1996. V.. “Seismic of Concrete Structures. Performance of Precast Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Wellington. Public Good Science Fund (Contract UOC 306. Restrepo.. 2. Standards Association of New Zealand. forces should be determined using ACKNOWLEDGMENT gion.. In particular. ACI Special Publication SP-42. 1995. 64-80. “Horizontal Connections for Precast Concrete Shear Wall Pan- 144 pp. J. It is recommended that the ulti. University 7. emphasis is given to the evaluation the base of the wall can be designed 3. Hills. S. Journal of the Structural Division. ST6. June PCI JOURNAL reviewers for their most helpful suggestions 1968. A. Park. R.” PCI JOURNAL. 4. J. A nonlinear lateral force-lateral of the system’s stiffness. lateral reinforcement in the connection re. ensuring that the bars pro. B... ing moment of the wall panel. pp. The test was conclusive in show- anchored into galvanized corrugated of this precast concrete system are ing that precast concrete wall panels steel ducts a distance at least equal to described in the paper. Paulay. 2. Farmington and the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering. NZS 3101.. I. K. 2. 1975. ACI Committee 318. H. T. Department of Civil Engineering. Reinforced Concrete Structures. J. and Mander. MI. September 1960. for limited ductility response. “Building Code Requirements for Struc- of Civil Engineers. This is bars crossing the connection while en. 41. University of Canterbury. Concrete Structures Standard. T.

Englewood Cliffs. heff Cc = compressive force carried by concrete ∆o = lateral displacement at development of flexural db = reinforcing bar diameter overstrength eo = axial load eccentricity defined as Mo/N ∆p = lateral displacement at effective height. Paulay.. tw = wall thickness 12. Prentice-Hall Inc. John Wiley & Sons. and Priestley. Mechanics of Materials. J. Second Ty = yield force of group of bars Edition. Popov.. Vn = nominal shear strength Af = foundation area Vo = shear force in wall corresponding to development Asi = area of reinforcing bars of flexural overstrength at connection Ast = total area of reinforcement wf = foundation width Aw = gross cross-sectional area of wall ∆ = wall lateral displacement at effective height. NY. heff fsi = steel stress ε*su = effective ultimate tensile strain fy = yield strength of reinforcing steel θf = foundation rotation at development of nominal g = distance between centroids of groups of bars as a strength proportion of wall length θj = fixed-end rotation at wall-foundation connection at Gc = concrete shear modulus development of nominal strength h = overall wall height θfo = foundation rotation at development of overstrength heff = height from wall base to resultant of horizontal θjo = fixed-end rotation at wall-foundation connection at seismic force development of overstrength hG = height from wall base to centroid of gravity force Θ = drift ratio km = soil subgrade reaction modulus κ = kink angle Kf = foundation rotational stiffness µf = friction coefficient Kj = wall-foundation connection rotational stiffness µ′f = equivalent friction coefficient Kθ = rotational stiffness µ∆ = useable displacement ductility lf = foundation length µ∆p = displacement ductility corresponding to given drift lw = wall length ratio Θ Mo = flexural overstrength 118 PCI JOURNAL .. E. NJ. New York. corre- Ec = concrete elastic modulus sponding to performance limit Es = steel elastic modulus ∆u = ultimate lateral displacement at effective height. 1992.. T. Mr = moment capacity of rigid rocking block forced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. N = concentric axial load Inc. APPENDIX A — NOTATION 1995. Seismic Design of Rein. M.. N. heff. heff f c′ = concrete cylinder compressive strength ∆y = wall yield displacement at effective height. Mn = nominal flexural strength 11. 1978.

8 ⇒ Drift controlled (B6a) Vn  (1 + ξ )  2eo   sin κ   Mo = 1 +  − 1 1 +  µ f (B2) N  2  lw   µ f   Mr ≤ 0.25 (21b)  hG ∆o  N The moment capacity of a rigid block rocking about its 1 − 2 h l  Aw  eff w  edge.8. (5): If all the longitudinal bars are conservatively assumed to fracture simultaneously. Hence: (B1): Mr > 0. Failure is considered to occur when the ratio Mr/Mo ≤ f  0. (4) and substituting in Eq. is given by: l h  M r = N  w − G ∆o  (B4) From Fig.8.8 ⇒ Strength controlled (B6b) Mo But: Vn Substituting Eqs. (B4) and (B5) in Eq. Mr. the walls will display a rocking mode of response. this mode. for which appropriate measures should be taken in design to ensure suitable behavior under Now solving ωoTy from Eq. the moment capacity at the base of Vn  ω o Ty   sin κ  the wall will suddenly decrease from the peak moment Mo = µ f 1 + (1 + ξ )  1 + µ  (B1) N  N   to Mr. APPENDIX B — DERIVATION OF EQUATIONS (9) AND (21) µ∆u = displacement ductility capacity If the P-Delta effect is accounted for. If this ratio is greater than 0.8 (B7) ω ο ρt fy 1 + Hence: Ν  2 hG ∆o  Αw 1 − h l   eff w   (1 + ξ )  2eo  sin κ   µ ′f = 1 +  − 1 1 + µ f (9)  2  lw  µ f   Therefore: ωo ρt f y Equation (21) < 0. 6: 2 heff  July-August 2002 119 . (B6a) yields: = µ ′f (B3) N 1 > 0. the moment Mo of a ρt = reinforcement ratio rigid reinforced concrete rectangular wall can be defined as: φ = strength reduction factor for flexure φs = strength reduction factor for shear lw ωo = overstrength factor Mo = Mr + ω o ρt f y bw (B5) 2 Equation (9) From Eq.

which is within the rec- 19 ft 8 in. (6. (1692 mm2 ) and for Wall 2 in Fig. hG Nlw APPENDIX C — DESIGN EXAMPLE N∆u 2 = − 0. (6. ommended limits of 9 ≤ tw /db ≤ 15.35 ft (5. C1 incorporates ten long precast concrete walls as the Ast ≥ 0.5 kips (91. vertical and lateral force resisting system in both the long Therefore. wall thickness-to-bar diameter is tw/db = 13. use three #6 bars for Wall 1 (Ast = 2. the walls are 8 in. is V/W = 0. (440 mm2). heff It is required to design the connection of Walls 1 and 2 if fy = 60 ksi (414 MPa).7 for Walls 1 and 2. calculated But: using a response modification factor R = 2. Note that the building are 10 in. 120 PCI JOURNAL . The three-story residential building with plan view shown For Wall 1.68 sq in.7. (15) so that φMn ≥ M. hence: earthquake loading. C1. The wall-foundation connection and the ducts will be grouted with a high strength shrinkage Mo Vo = (B9) compensating grout for which a friction coefficient µf = 0.9D ± E are summarized in Table C1. The walls in the long direction of the and two #6 bars for Wall 2 (Ast = 0. For simplic.9 and fy = 60 ksi (414 MPa) and solving for Ty: The example presented in this appendix describes the use For Wall 1. (B9) in Eq. hG  2 N  The area of longitudinal reinforcement at the wall-founda- tion connection can be found from Eq. Ty ≥ 78.7 kips (350 kN) and for Wall 2.55 and heff = 19. only the design of the walls will be performed for the load combination 0. (B8) and solving for ∆u: Design of Longitudinal Reinforcement The design forces for Walls 1 and 2 for the load combina- heff  lw 0. Ty ≥ of the design method discussed in this paper. (254 mm) thick x 19 ft 8 in.1 kN) ity. Fig. Using φ = 0.8Vo (B8) heff 2 heff The building is located in a region of high seismic risk for which the base shear to seismic weight ratio.0 m) long. where D and E are the dead and But Ty = Ast fy / 2. Ast ≥ 2.64 sq in. Typical plan view of building of design example.88 sq in.0 m) long. respectively. (203 mm) thick x 10. 20.9D ± E.).9 m).5. Substituting Eq.8 Mo  ∆u = − (21b) tion 0.) and short directions.3 and tw/db = In the short direction.62 sq in.

It from Eq. For Wall 2. Mo. ξ = 0.2 = 58.7 uncracked at the development of the flexural overstrength. from Eq.45.67 Try g = 0. µ′f.45 x 2. C2. 2 124 552 2408 3267 231 1028 The longitudinal reinforcement ratio at the connection for Wall 1 is: ρt = Ast/Aw = 2.5/(19 + 8/12) – 1]/3 = 0. (10): can be deduced from this plot that a concrete strength with f c′  (1 + 0)  2 x 29. Hence.2 radians. (4a): Mo = [1.60 For Wall 1: The overstrength moment. Location of ducts and connecting bars in Walls 1 and 2. is found from Eq. is determined Fig.2 psi (0. κ = 0. Design forces for Walls 1 and 2 for load combination 0. N Wall No.5. Vn.0 m). Determine the concrete cylinder strength to ensure 1 124 552 2408 3267 115 510 the walls remain uncracked. κ. is = 3389 kip-ft (4596 kN-m) Fig. Check the shear transfer at the connection. Now. 3 plots the (N/Aw and ρt) points for Walls 1 and 2. July-August 2002 121 . whichever is less. (11): N/Aw = 127 x 103/[10 x (19 x 12 + 8)] κ = [2 x 29.2   − 1 1 + = 4350 psi (30 MPa) ensures that the wall panels will remain µ ′f = 1 +  x 0.7   2. V Moment. MPa). M Axial force.41 MPa) radians. Hence.Explicit Capacity Design Checks Table C1. The axial stress is: The kink angle. ρt = 0.11 percent ft (9. kips kN kip-ft KN-m kips kN 1. = 1.  2  19 + 8 / 12   0. Shear.64 x 60/2 + 115/2] x (19 + 8/12) The nominal shear force resisted by connection.9D ± E. (6). is found from Eq.64/[10 x (19 x 12 + 8)] The axial load eccentricity is eo = Mo/N = 3389/115 = 29.5 = 0. Assume that the overstrength factor for the reinforcing bars is ωo = 1.667 radians or κ = 0. the equivalent friction coefficient.046 percent and N/Aw = 97.5  0.8 psi (0.

60 x 115 = 184 kips (819 kN) Now. the shear force at the develop- ment of overstrength. C2. is calculated from Eq. (4b): Vo = 3389/19. the same procedure yields for g = 0.72. The position of the ducts in the wall and of the grouted bars is shown in Fig. µ′f = 0. For Wall 2. φsVn = 167 kips (743 kN) and Vo = 156 kips (694 kN). (7) with φs = 1: φsVn > Vo is satisfactory. φsVn > Vo is satisfactory. Vo.found from Eq.915. Hence. (8): Vn = 1. 122 PCI JOURNAL .35 = 175 kips (778 kN) Now from Eq.