See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322568025

SHEAR-FRICTION STRENGTH OF LOW-RISE WALLS WITH 550 MPA

REINFORCING BARS UNDER CYCLIC LOADING

Article  in  Aci Structural Journal · January 2018

DOI: 10.14359/51700915

CITATION READS

1 117

1 author:

Jang-Woon Baek
Korea Military Academy
11 PUBLICATIONS   21 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nuclear power plant walls with Grade 550 MPa re-bars View project

A hybrid shear connector View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jang-Woon Baek on 18 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 115-S05
Shear-Friction Strength of Low-Rise Walls with 550 MPa
(80 ksi) Reinforcing Bars under Cyclic Loading
by Jang-Woon Baek, Hong-Gun Park, Byung-Soo Lee, and Hyun-Mock Shin
In the thick reinforced concrete walls of nuclear power plants, the
use of high-strength reinforcing bars for shear design is necessary
to enhance constructibility and economy. However, low-rise walls
subjected to cyclic lateral loading are susceptible to sliding failure
at the construction joints. In the present study, low-rise walls were
tested to verify the applicability of 550 MPa (80 ksi) bars to the
shear-friction design. The major test parameters were the grade
of reinforcing bars, wall aspect ratio, reinforcement ratio, and
surface condition of the construction joint. The test results showed
that the specimens were susceptible to sliding failure and the stress
of 550 MPa (80 ksi) shear-friction bars was not reached to the
yield strength. Particularly, the shear-friction strengths under
cyclic loading were smaller than those under monotonic loading
reported in previous studies. The applicability of current design
methods was evaluated for the shear-friction design of walls with
550 MPa (80 ksi) bars.
Keywords: cyclic loading; high-strength reinforcing bars; low-rise shear
walls; nuclear power plant walls; shear-friction strength.
INTRODUCTION
In the construction of nuclear power plants
(NPPs), many large-diameter reinforcing bars are used for
thick reinforced concrete (RC) walls, which can cause bar
congestion. Such bar congestion significantly degrades the
constructability and economy of the structures. Recently,
to reduce the number of reinforcing bars, the use of high-
strength 550 MPa (80 ksi) bars for flexural reinforcement
and shear reinforcement has been studied.1-5 However,
under cyclic loading, squat walls with aspect ratio hw/lw ≤
0.5, which are commonly used for nuclear power plants,
are vulnerable to shear sliding at the construction joint.6,7
Thus, in the design of squat walls, frequently, the number of
vertical reinforcing bars is increased to prevent shear sliding.
Currently, the construction joint interfaces are designed
based on the shear-friction strength specified in Eq. (11-25) of
ACI 3498 (or Eq. (22.9.4.2) of ACI 3189). The shear-friction
strength was developed based on experimental and theo-
retical studies by Birkeland and Birkeland.10 However, the
majority of the specimens were tested using the push-off
test setup, which differs from the actual loading condition of
low-rise walls under earthquake loading in that: 1) flexural
moment as well as shear force is applied to the walls; and
2) repeated cyclic loading degrades the shear-friction resis-
tance of the walls. To address such effects, seismic design
code, Eurocode 8,11 specifies stricter requirements than those
of general design code, Eurocode 2.12 On the other hand, in
ACI 3498 (or ACI 3189), no special design requirements are
specified for cyclic loading.
ACI Structural Journal/January 2018
TECHNICAL PAPER
The effects of flexural moment and cyclic loading on
shear-friction strength have been investigated in previous
studies.13-15 Mattock et al.13 performed a series of push-off
tests for specimens with an interface subjected to flex-
ural moment or axial tension. In the Mattock’s tests, the
yield strength of the reinforcement was 345 to 365 MPa
(50.0 to 52.9 ksi). The test results showed that flexural
moment did not decrease the shear-friction strength. The
reason was reported in the commentaries of ACI 318-14
(R22.9.4.6)9: flexural compression stress increased the shear-
friction strength while flexural tension stress reduced the
shear-friction strength.
Wood14 proposed a lower-bound shear strength using
a shear-friction analogy based on the existing test results
of 143 low-rise wall specimens (yield strength of shear-
friction reinforcement across a shear plane fyv = 280 to
570 MPa [40.6 to 82.7 ksi]) subjected to monotonic, repeated,
and reversed cyclic loads. The proposed lower-bound shear
strength (0.25Av fyv, where Av is area of shear-friction rein-
forcement) is significantly smaller than the shear-friction
strength of ACI 318 and ACI 349 (μAv fyv; the coefficient of
shear-friction μ = 0.6 to 1.4).
Orakcal et al.15 tested wall specimens with an intention-
ally weakened joint at the wall-foundation interface, where
the concrete cross section was reduced and a part of the
vertical reinforcement was discontinued to cause shear-fric-
tion failure (fyv = 352 MPa [51.0 ksi]). They reported that the
nominal shear-friction strength of ACI 318 overestimated the
test strengths (the ratio of the maximum tested strength to
the shear-friction strength predicted by ACI 349 [Eq. (A1)]
Vtest/Vsf = 0.87 to 0.89), and the strength overestimation was
attributed to the effect of cyclic loading. On the other hand,
Bass et al.16 reported that the effect of cyclic loading on
shear-friction strength was negligible (fyv = 420 MPa [60 ksi],
concrete compressive strength fc′ = 18.6 to 34.7 MPa [2.69 to
5.03 ksi]). However, in the test specimens, the shear-friction
bar ratio ρv was relatively small (= 0.21 to 0.31%). Further, the
number of load cycles (only 10 load cycles) was smaller than
that of conventional loading protocol.
Harries et al.17 studied the effect of high-strength rein-
forcement. Push-off tests under monotonic loading
were performed for shear-friction specimens with normal
ACI Structural Journal, V. 115, No. 1, January 2018.
MS No. S-2016-232.R1, doi: 10.14359/51700915, received February 20, 2017, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2018, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
65
(fyv = 424 to 464 MPa [61.5 to 67.3 ksi]) and high (fyv = 868
to 965 MPa [125.9 to 139.9 ksi]) strength bars. The inter-
face between old and new concrete was roughened with an
amplitude of at least 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) according to ACI
3498 or Eurocode 2.12 The test result showed that the high-
strength bars did not increase the shear-friction strength. The
ratio of the maximum tested strength to the shear-friction
strength predicted by the ACI 349 equations (Vtest/Vsf [Eq.
(A1)]) were 1.55 to 2.53 for the specimens with normal-
strength reinforcement, and 0.72 to 1.26 for the specimens
with high-strength reinforcement. However, in all speci-
mens, the stresses in the both normal-strength and high-
strength reinforcing bars did not reach to the yield strength.
The test results indicate that under monotonic loading,
concrete cohesion significantly contributes to the shear-fric-
tion strength of walls.
Kono et al.18 performed push-off tests under reversed
cyclic loading (overall six to eight cycles) to study the effect
of high-strength concrete (44.1 to 112 MPa [6.4 to 16.2 ksi]),
high-strength bars (386 to 999 MPa [56.0 to 144.9 ksi]), and
interface roughness (smooth, roughened, and monolithic
surface). Similar to the study by Harries et al.,17 even in
specimens with normal-strength shear-friction bars (386 to
432 MPa [56.0 to 62.6 ksi]), the stresses did not reach
the yield strength at the measured maximum strength of
the specimens. Vintzeleou and Tassios19 also reported the
strength and stiffness degradation of dowels under cyclic
deformation. Such degradation of maximum strength was
also found under repeated loading (not reversed loading):
Figueira et al.20 reported that the shear-friction strength
decreased under repeated loading.
As such, the existing studies reported that the use of
high-strength reinforcement (fyv = 868 to 999 MPa [125.9 to
144.9 ksi]) did not increase the shear-friction strength
of walls. However, the range of the yield strength is far
beyond the yield strength targeted in the present study,
and the number of shear-friction tests for walls with Grade
550 MPa (80 ksi) reinforcement are limited, particularly for
squat walls (hw/lw ≤ 0.5) with construction joints. Further-
more, the effects of cyclic loading and flexural moment on
shear-friction strength should be meticulously investigated
for the seismic design of squat walls.
In the present study, the effect of high-strength bars on the
shear-friction strength of low-rise walls subjected to cyclic
loading was studied. The test parameters were the bar grades
(Grade 420 and 550 MPa [60 and 80 ksi] bars), aspect ratio
hw/lw (0.5 and 0.33), reinforcement ratio, surface condition
of construction joint, presence of axial compression, and use
of additional shear-friction bars.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
In the thick RC walls with small aspect ratios of NPPs,
shear sliding failure along the construction joints is the
major failure mode under earthquake loading. Thus, for the
use of high-strength bars for NPP walls, it is crucial to verify
the effect of high-strength bars on the shear-friction strength.
The present study experimentally evaluated the validity
of  high-strength bars (Grade 550 MPa [80 ksi]) for shear
66
friction design. Based on the test results, the relevant design
recommendations were provided.
TEST PLAN
Major test parameters and specimen details
In NPP walls, because of the high safety requirements,
the shear reinforcement ratio for the design is close to the
maximum shear reinforcement ratio specified by current
design codes. Thus, most of the specimens tested in the
present study were designed with the permissible maximum
shear reinforcement ratio (refer to Appendix B for the
maximum permissible ratio). Further, in the case of NPP
walls with the permissible maximum shear reinforcement
ratio, uniformly distributed vertical reinforcement, 42 MPa
(6 ksi) compressive strength concrete, a construction joint,
and without axial compression, the nominal shear-friction
strength predicted by the ACI equations becomes smaller
than the nominal flexural strength, approximately when
M/Vlw ≤ 0.75. Thus, to investigate the shear-sliding failure
strength before flexural yielding, aspect ratios of hw/lw ≤ 0.5
(M/Vlw ≤ 0.66) were used for the wall specimens.
Thirteen specimens were prepared for cyclic loading tests.
Figure 1 shows the dimensions and details of the specimens,
and Table 1 presents the design parameters. The dimensions
of walls with hw/lw = 0.5 were 1500 mm (length) x 750 mm
(height) x 200 mm (thickness) (59.10 x 29.55 x 7.88 in.). The
dimensions of walls with hw/lw = 0.33 were 1500 mm (length)
x 500 mm (height) x 200 mm (thickness) (59.10 x 19.70 x
7.88 in.) (Fig. 1 and Table 1). The test parameters were the
grade of reinforcing bars, wall aspect ratio, reinforcement
ratio, surface condition of the construction joint, and addi-
tional details (axial load or additional shear-friction bars).
The names of the specimens indicate the test parameters. The
first letters, H and N, refer to higher-strength deformed bars
(Grade 550 MPa [80 ksi]) and normal-strength deformed bars
(Grade 420 MPa [60 ksi]), respectively (refer to Table 2). The
numbers 0.5 and 0.33 refer to the aspect ratio of the spec-
imens. The second letter indicates the horizontal bar ratio:
M, H, and Q refer to the maximum, half, and quarter of the
permissible reinforcement ratio of horizontal bars, respec-
tively. (Refer to Appendix B for the maximum permissible
reinforcement ratio for horizontal bar). The third letter indi-
cates the surface condition of the construction joint: U, R, and
G refers to untreated surface, roughened surface, and grooved
surface, respectively. The last letter(s) following the dash (-)
indicate the additional details: C for axial compression load
(0.06 to 0.07Acfc′, where Ac is area of wall cross section),
AS for additional short shear-friction bars (bar length =
160 mm [6.30 in.]), and AL for additional long shear-friction
bars (300 mm [11.82 in.]). For example, H0.5MU-C indicates
a specimen with Grade 550 MPa (80 ksi) shear bars, an aspect
ratio of 0.5, maximum shear reinforcement ratio, untreated
surface in the construction joint, and axial compression
loading (0.06 to 0.07Ac fc′).
For Specimen H0.5MU, Grade 550 MPa (80 ksi) rein-
forcing bars and aspect ratio hw/lw = 0.5 were used. For
horizontal and vertical reinforcement, two layers of HD13
bars (actual yield strength fyh and fyv = 667 MPa [96.7 ksi])
were used (Fig. 1(b), Table 2). The horizontal bar ratio ρh
ACI Structural Journal/January 2018
Fig. 1—Dimensions and reinforcement details of test specimens. (Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
was 0.68% (Table 1), which corresponds to the maximum
shear bar ratio specified in ACI 349 (using Vs [Eq. (B3)] =
Vsmax [Eq. (B4)]). The vertical bar ratio ρv was 1.01%. The
nominal flexural strength Vf (that is, horizontal force corre-
sponding to the flexural moment capacity) was designed to
be equal to the nominal shear strength Vn (Eq. (B1) to (B3)).
A construction joint without surface treatment was located
at the interface between the wall and foundation slab. Thus,
the friction coefficient of the nominal shear-friction strength
μ was 0.6 (Eq. (A1)). All the vertical bars were assumed to
contribute to the nominal shear-friction strength Vsf, which
was close to the nominal flexural strength Vf (or the nominal
shear strength Vn) (Vsf/Vf = 0.97).
In Specimens H0.5HU and H0.5QU, to investigate the effect
of the bar ratio, smaller bar ratios were used (Fig. 1(b)): ρh =
0.38%, ρv = 0.60% for H0.5HU and ρh = 0.19%, ρv = 0.43%
for H0.5QU (Table 1). The nominal shear-friction strength
Vsf was smaller than the nominal flexural strength Vf (or the
nominal shear strength Vn) (H0.5HU: Vsf/Vf = 0.82, H0.5QU:
Vsf/Vf = 0.76).
In Specimen H0.5MU-C, the effect of compressive axial
force (0.07Ac fc′) was studied (Fig. 1(b)). As the nominal
ACI Structural Journal/January 2018
flexural strength was increased by the axial force, the
number of flexural bars was decreased when compared to
that of H0.5MU (ρv = 0.68%, ρh = 0.68%). However, the
nominal shear-friction strength Vsf was also increased by the
compression and was close to the nominal flexural strength
Vf (Vsf/Vf = 1.02).
In Specimen H0.5MG-C, to prevent sliding failure, the
wall-foundation interface was intentionally moved approx-
imately 50 mm (1.97 in.) to the inside of the foundation
(Fig. 1(a)). To achieve this purpose, pocket metals were
installed at the wall-foundation interface. After pouring
concrete for the foundation, a groove was formed by the
pocket metals. Thus, the wall-foundation interface in
H0.5MG-C was regarded as a monolithic joint: the friction
coefficient μ = 1.4. Thus, the nominal shear-friction strength
was significantly increased to 2921 kN (657.2 kip), but was
limited to 1919 kN (431.8 kip) (Eq. (A2a), ACI 318) or
1650 kN (371.3 kip) (Eq. (A2b), ACI 349) by the permissible
maximum value specified by ACI 318 or ACI 349 (Vsf/Vf =
1.49 or 1.28), respectively. The other details of H0.5MG-C
were the same as those of H0.5MU-C (Fig. 1(b)).
67
Table 1—Design parameters of test specimens
Additional shear-
Wall
friction reinforcing
aspect
Wall concrete Horizontal reinforcing bar Vertical reinforcing bar bar
ratio
hw/lw fc′, Number and ρhfyh, Number
Specimens (M/Vlw) MPa P, kN Age Vs/Vsmax type ρh, % MPa Number and type ρv, % and type ρsf, % Vsf /Vf
H0.5MU 42.1 0 21 1.04 8-HD13 0.68 4.51 24-HD13 1.01 — — 0.97
H0.5HU 42.1 0 20 0.55 8-HD10 0.38 2.38 12-HD13/4-HD10 0.60 — — 0.82
0.5
H0.5QU 42.1 0 20 0.27 4-HD13 0.19 1.19 8-HD13/4-HD10 0.43 — — 0.76
(0.66)
H0.5MU-C 42.1 882 17 1.04 8-HD13 0.68 4.51 16-HD13 0.68 — — 1.02
H0.5MG-C 38.7 735 51 1.09 8-HD13 0.68 4.51 16-HD13 0.68 — — 1.28
H0.33MU 42.1 0 24 1.03 10-HD10 0.71 4.46 18-HD13 0.76 — — 0.68
H0.33HU 42.1 0 22 0.62 6-HD10 0.43 2.67 12-HD13 0.51 — — 0.64
H0.33MU-AS 42.1 0 27 1.03 10-HD10 0.71 4.46 18-HD13 0.76 16-HD10 0.38 1.00
H0.33HU-AS 0.33 42.1 0 23 0.62 6-HD10 0.43 2.67 12-HD13 0.51 10-HD10 0.24 0.93
H0.33MU-AL (0.50) 45.5 0 21 0.99 10-HD10 0.71 4.46 18-HD13 0.76 16-HD10 0.38 1.00
N0.33MU 44.5 0 19 1.16 8-D13 1.01 5.17 16-D16 1.06 — — 0.67
N0.33MU-AL 44.5 0 19 1.16 8-D13 1.01 5.17 16-D16 1.06 14-D13 0.59 1.07
H0.33MR 44.0 0 20 1.01 10-HD10 0.71 4.46 18-HD13 0.76 — — 1.13

Notes: M/Vlw is shear span ratio; fc′ is compressive strength; P is axial compression; Vs is contribution of shear reinforcement (Eq. (B3)); Vsmax is maximum shear strength contrib-
uted by shear reinforcement in ACI 349 (Eq. (B4)); Vsf is shear-friction strength prediction (Eq. (A1) and Eq. (A2b)); Vf is flexural strength prediction; HD is Grade 550 MPa
(80 ksi) deformed bars; D is Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) deformed bars (refer to Table 2); 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

Table 2—Properties of reinforcement U-type bars were respectively placed at the wall-foundation
interface (Fig. 1(c) and 1(d)). Consequently, the nominal
Type HD10 HD13 D13 D16
shear-friction strength was close to the nominal flex-
Grade 550 MPa (80 ksi) 420 MPa (60 ksi) ural strength (Vsf/Vf = 1.00 for H0.33MU-AS and 0.93 for
9.5 mm 12.7 mm 12.7 mm 15.9 mm H0.33HU-AS).  For the U-type bars, HD10 (yield strength
Bar diameter
(No. 3) (No.4) (No.4) (No.5) of additional shear-friction reinforcement fysf = 625 MPa
Yield strength 625 667 510 470 [90.6  ksi]) was used (Table 2). The U-type shear-friction
fy, MPa (ksi) (90.6) (96.7) (74.0) (68.2) reinforcement was assumed to not contribute to the flexural
Notes: HD is Grade 550 MPa (80 ksi) deformed bars; D is Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi)
strength Vf. The length of the U-type bars from the wall-foun-
deformed bars; 1 mm = 0.0394 in. dation interface to the end of the hook was 160 mm (6.30 in.)
to satisfy the development length of the hook (Fig. 1(c)).
In the case of walls with hw/lw = 0.5, except H0.5HU and In Specimen H0.33MU-AL, the development length of the
H0.5QU, the nominal shear-friction strength Vsf was close U-type bars from the wall-foundation interface to the end
to the nominal flexural strength Vf. On the other hand, in the of the hook was increased to 300 mm (11.82 in.)—approxi-
case of walls with hw/lw = 0.33, the nominal flexural strength mately 30-bar diameter. For the development length of addi-
Vf for a given vertical reinforcing bar area was increased due tional shear-friction reinforcement (straight reinforcing bars
to the smaller wall height. Therefore, the nominal shear-friction without hook), Wasiewicz7 recommended the greater value
strength was smaller than the nominal flexural strength. of 15 bar diameter and wall thickness. The other details of
In Specimen H0.33MU, the ratio of the nominal H0.33MU-AL were the same as those of H0.33MU-AS.
shear-friction strength to the nominal flexural strength was To directly compare the effects of Grade 550 and 420 MPa
significantly small: Vsf/Vf = 0.68. Like H0.5MU, the permis- (80 and 60 ksi) bars, in Specimen N0.33MU, D13 and D16
sible maximum shear bar ratio was used for shear reinforce- bars [Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi)] were used for the horizontal
ment (Table 1, ρh = 0.71%, ρv = 0.76%). For horizontal and bars and vertical bars, respectively (Fig. 1(d), Tables 1 and 2).
vertical reinforcement, HD10 (fyh = 625 MPa [90.6 ksi]) and The horizontal bar ratio was increased to 1.01% as the yield
HD13 (fyv = 667 MPa [96.7 ksi]) were used, respectively. strength of bars was decreased. The effective bar strength
In H0.33HU, to study the effect of bar ratios, the bar ratios ρhfyh = 5.17 MPa (0.75 ksi) was slightly greater than that of
were decreased (ρh = 0.43%, ρv = 0.51%). H0.33MU (ρhfyh = 4.46 MPa [0.65 ksi]). The vertical bar ratio
In Specimens H0.33MU-AS and H0.33HU-AS, addi- was ρv = 1.06%. In N0.33MU-AL, U-type D13 bars (fysf =
tional shear-friction bars were placed at the wall-foundation 510 MPa [74.0 ksi], ρsf = 0.59%) were additionally placed at
interface so that the nominal shear-friction strength Vsf was the wall-foundation interface. Similar to H0.33MU-AL, the
close to the nominal flexural strength Vf. In H0.33MU-AS length of the U-type bars from the wall-foundation interface
and H0.33HU-AS, to increase only the shear-friction to the end of hook was 300 mm (11.82 in.). The other details
strength rather than the flexural strength, eight and five short of N0.33MU-AL were the same as those of N0.33MU.

68 ACI Structural Journal/January 2018

Table 3—Mixture design of concrete
Unit weight, kgf/m3
Maximum
Compressive strength fc′ w/c, % W C FS S FA CA SP Slump, mm aggregate size, mm
42 MPa 33.3 161 340 58 85 749 956 4.1 120 25

Notes: W is water; C is cement; FS is fly ash; S is blast-furnace slag; FA is fine aggregate; CA is coarse aggregate; SP is superplasticizer (high-range water-reducing admixture);
1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 m = 3.281 ft; 1 kgf = 2.204 lbf.

Fig. 3—Lateral loading protocol. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

Fig. 2—Test setup. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.). ment transducers (LVDTs) for the measurement of lateral
displacements, flexural deformations, shear deformations,
In Specimen H0.33MR, to satisfy the “roughened surface”
and sliding at the wall base. Figures 1(a), 1(c), and 1(e) show
specified by ACI 3498 and Eurocode 2,12 the interface
the strain gauges for the reinforcing bars.
was roughened with surface treatment of 6 mm (0.24 in.)
(Fig. 1(d) and (e)). For the roughened surface, the fric-
TEST RESULTS
tion coefficient μ was increased to 1.0. The other details of
Load-displacement relationships
H0.33MR were the same as those of H0.33MU.
Figure 4 shows the lateral load-displacement (lateral drift
In the test specimens, the concrete compressive strength
ratio) relationships of the test specimens. The lateral displace-
was 42.1 to 45.5 MPa (6.10 to 6.60 ksi), except for 38.7 MPa
ment indicates the net displacement (L1-L2 in Fig. 2) excluding
(5.61 ksi) of H0.5MG-C (Table 1). The ages of the concrete
sliding of the wall base (L2 in Fig. 2). Figure 4 also shows
at the time of testing are shown in Table 1. Table 3 presents
the nominal shear strength Vn, nominal flexural strength Vf,
the mixture design of concrete. In the small-scale test spec-
and nominal shear-friction strength Vsf predicted by ACI 349
imens, the wall depth was not sufficiently large to provide
(ACI 318). In the case of H0.33MU-AS, H0.33HU-AS,
good anchorage of the horizontal bars. Thus, 90-degree
H0.33MU-AL, and N0.33MU-AL, the nominal flexural
hooks were used at the ends of the horizontal bars. All the
strength Vf was calculated assuming that the additional
vertical bars and U-type shear-friction bars satisfied the
shear-friction bars do not contribute to the flexural strength.
anchorage length in the foundation slab. The concrete clear
Due to the relatively short length, the flexural contribution of
cover was 20 mm (0.79 in.).
the additional vertical reinforcing bars is limited only to the
wall bottom, and disappears in the area above the wall bottom.
Test procedure and instrumentation
In the calculation of the nominal shear-friction strength,
A cyclic lateral load was applied using the test setup
the limitation of bar yielding strength (420 MPa [60  ksi])
shown in Fig. 2. In the case of H0.5MU-C and H0.5MG-C,
specified in ACI 349 was not used. In all the specimens
an axial compressive load of approximately 0.06 to 0.07Ac fc′
except H0.5MG-C, H0.33MU-AL, and N0.33MU-AL, the
was applied to the top of the wall (882 kN [198.5 kip] in
maximum tested strength Vtest was not reached to the nominal
H0.5MU-C (42.1 MPa [6.10 ksi]), and 735 kN [165.4 kip]
flexural strength Vf. This result indicates that the maximum
in H0.5MG-C (38.1 MPa [5.52 ksi])). The level of the axial
tested strength Vtest was determined by shear sliding failure
compressive force was maintained during cyclic lateral
before flexural yielding (Fig. 4(a) to 4(d), 4(f) to 4(j), and
loading. Generally, the actual level of axial load ratio for
4(m)). On the other hand, in H0.5MG-C showing flexural
NPP walls ranged from 0.05 to 0.20Ac fc′. The axial load
yielding, the test strength was close to the flexural strength
level of 0.06 to 0.07Ac fc′ was determined: 1) to consider
(Fig. 4(e)). In H0.33MU-AL and N0.33MU-AL, with addi-
limitation of the axial load capacity of the testing actuator;
tional shear-friction reinforcing bars of 300 mm (11.82 in.), the
and 2) to compare the test results with the results of previous
test strength was reached to the nominal flexural strength
studies4,21 by maintaining the same axial load ratio.
(Fig. 4(k) and 4(l)). However, it should be noted that the
The lateral loading protocol in Fig. 3 followed the
nominal flexural strength was calculated neglecting the
“Acceptance Criteria for Special Precast Concrete Struc-
contributions of the additional vertical reinforcing bars.
tural Walls.”22 Figure 2 shows the linear variable displace-
Thus, the actual flexural strength could be greater than

ACI Structural Journal/January 2018 69

Fig. 4—Lateral load-displacement relationships of specimens. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)
the nominal flexural strength. The flexural strength Vf was
calculated by sectional analysis considering the effect of
axial load.
In Specimen H0.5MU (Fig. 4(a)) with HD13 bars (fyh and
fyv = 667 MPa [96.7 ksi], ρh = 0.68%, ρv = 1.01%), the peak
strength occurred at the drift ratio of +0.45 and –0.60%. The
maximum tested strength Vtest was +744 and –831 kN (+167.4
and –187.0 kip) in the positive and negative loading directions,
respectively, which was only 65% of the nominal shear-fric-
tion strength predicted by the ACI 349 (or ACI 318) equation;
the nominal shear-friction strength significantly overestimated
the tested strength. This is mainly because the yield strength
of Grade 550 MPa (80 ksi) reinforcement was assumed to be
valid for the nominal shear-friction strength. However, in fact,
in the current ACI 349 (or ACI 318) equation, the design yield
70
strength of shear friction is limited to 420 MPa [60 ksi] (refer
to the section, “Strains of reinforcing bars”).
In H0.5HU and H0.5QU (Fig. 4(b) and 4(c)) with smaller
bar ratios, the maximum tested strength Vtest decreased:
in the case of H0.5HU, +450 and –544 kN (+101.3 and
–122.4 kip) at the drift ratios of +0.35 and –0.60%, and in the
case of H0.5QU, +441 and –406 kN (+99.2 and –91.4 kip)
at the drift ratios of +0.28 and –0.60%. The maximum tested
strength was approximately proportional to the vertical rein-
forcing bar ratio. However, the ratio of the maximum tested
strength to the nominal shear-friction strength by ACI 349
(Vtest/Vsf) was increased to 0.70 and 0.83 in H0.5HU and
H0.5QU, respectively. This result indicates that the nominal
shear-friction strength predicted by ACI 349 and ACI 318
equations is overestimated in the case of higher bar ratios.
ACI Structural Journal/January 2018
Table 4—Summary of test results
Ratio of test strengths
Test results to predictions Estimated bar yield stress
Specimens Vtest,s, kN Vtest,g, kN Vtest, kN Drift ratio at Vtest, % Failure mode Vtest,s/Vsf Vtest,s/Vf fsf [= (Vtest,s – μP)/(μAvall)], MPa
H0.5MU 744 831 787 +0.45/–0.6 0.61 0.59 408
H0.5HU 450 544 497 +0.35/–0.6 0.63 0.52 370
SF
H0.5QU 406 442 423 +0.28/–0.6 0.79 0.60 445
H0.5MU-C 1087 1089 1087 +1.0/–1.0 0.81 0.83 458
H0.5MG-C 1368 1440 1404 +1.0/–1.0 CC+DT 0.83 1.06 —
H0.33MU 575 718 646 +0.35/–0.45 0.63 0.43 420
SF
H0.33HU 309 535 421 +0.45/–0.2 0.51 0.33 339
H0.33MU-AS 1031 1060 1045 +1.0/–0.6 0.77 0.77 502
SW
H0.33HU-AS 709 743 726 +1.0/–0.6 0.81 0.75 497
H0.33MU-AL 1344 1492 1418 +1.25/–1.25 1.00 1.00 655
SF
N0.33MU 969 1040 1004 +0.45/–0.6 1.08 0.72 508
N0.33MU-AL 1321 1531 1426 +1.0/–1.0 SW 0.92 0.99 444
H0.33MR 1132 1351 1242 +1.0/–1.0 SF 0.74 0.84 497

Notes: Vtest,s, Vtest,g, and Vtest are smaller, greater, and average values of measured maximum loads in positive and negative loading directions, respectively; Vsf is shear-friction
strength predictions by ACI 349 (Eq. (A1)); Vf is flexural strength predictions; SF is sliding failure at wall-foundation interface; CC is concrete crushing failure; DT is diagonal
tension failure; SW is sliding failure at midheight of wall; 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

In H0.5MU-C (Fig. 4(d)), subjected to axial compression,
the maximum tested strength Vtest and the corresponding
lateral drift significantly increased: +1088 and –1086 kN
(+244.8 and –244.4 kip) at the drift ratios of +1.0 and
–1.0%, respectively. Assuming that the vertical reinforcing
bar ratio of H0.5MU-C (ρv = 0.68%) was identical to that
of H0.5HU (ρv = 0.60%), the shear-friction coefficient μ
for axial compression can be estimated as approximately
0.67 [= (1087 – 497)kN/882 kN)], which coincides with the
coefficient for the smooth surface (not intentionally rough-
ened) specified in the ACI shear-friction equation (refer to
Appendix A). Nevertheless, the maximum tested strength
was not reached to the shear-friction strength: Vtest/Vsf = 0.81.
In H0.5MG-C (Fig. 4(e)), with a groove construction joint
and axial compression loading, the maximum tested strength
Vtest exceeded the nominal flexural strength Vf: +1368 and
–1440 kN (+307.8 and –324.0 kip) at the drift ratios of +1.0
and –1.0%, showing ductile behavior until the drift ratios of
+2.0 and –2.0%, respectively.
In H0.33MU (Fig. 4(f)) with aspect ratio hw/lw = 0.33 (fyh =
625 MPa [90.6 ksi], ρh = 0.71%, fyv = 667 MPa [96.7 ksi], ρv =
0.76%), the maximum tested strength was smaller than that of
H0.5MU: +574 and –718 kN (+129.2 and –161.6 kip) at the
drift ratios of +0.35 and –0.45%, respectively. In H0.33HU
(Fig. 4(g)), with half of the permissible maximum bar ratio,
the maximum tested strength Vtest decreased: +309 and
–534 kN (+69.5 and –120.2 kip) at the drift ratios of +0.45
and –0.20%, respectively. The ratios of the maximum tested
strength to the nominal shear-friction strength predicted by
ACI 349 equation were Vtest/Vsf = 0.71 and 0.69 in H0.33MU
and H0.33HU, respectively. In H0.33HU, the test strength
(309 kN [69.4 kip]) in the positive direction was excessively
less than the test strength (534 kN [120.1 kip]) in the negative
direction, though the other specimens also showed a similar
trend (refer to Table 4). The excessive difference in the test
strength may be caused by an unexpected loading condition
such as torsion, which occurs under the pull-push lateral
loading. Similar to the specimens with hw/lw = 0.5 (H0.5MU,
H0.5HU, and H0.5QU), the maximum tested strength was
proportional to the vertical reinforcing bar ratio, which indi-
cates that the shear-friction strengths were not affected by the
wall aspect ratios between hw/lw = 0.5 and 0.33.
In N0.33MU (Fig. 4(h)) with D13 and D16 bars (fyh =
510 MPa [74.0 ksi], ρh = 1.01%, fyv = 470 MPa [68.2 ksi],
ρv = 1.06%), unlike the walls with HD10 and HD13 bars,
the maximum tested strength was reached to the nominal
shear-friction strength Vsf: +1039 and –968 kN (+233.8 and
–217.8 kip) at the drift ratios of +0.45 and –0.60%, respec-
tively. After the peak load, as the lateral drift increased, the
load-carrying capacity gradually decreased.
In H0.33MU-AS and H0.33HU-AS (Fig. 4(i) and 4(j))
using HD10 additional shear-friction bars (fysf = 625 MPa
[90.6 ksi], ρsf = 0.38% in H0.33MU-AS, and ρsf = 0.24%
in H0.33HU-AS), the maximum tested strength Vtest and
the corresponding lateral drift increased: in H0.33MU-AS
(maximum shear bar ratio), +1060 and –1031 kN (+238.5
and –232.0 kip) at the drift ratios of +1.0 and –0.60%, and in
H0.33HU-AS (smaller shear bar ratio), +708 and –743 kN
(+159.3 and –167.2 kip) at the drift ratios of +1.0 and –0.60%,
respectively. However, the maximum tested strength did not
reach the nominal shear-friction strength predicted by the
ACI 349 equation: Vtest/Vsf = 0.78 and 0.83 in H0.33MU-AS
and H0.33HU-AS, respectively. On the other hand, in
H0.33MU-AL (fysf = 625 MPa [90.6 ksi], ρsf = 0.38%) and
N0.33MU-AL (fysf = 510 MPa [74.0 ksi], ρsf = 0.59%) with
the longer shear-friction bars (300 mm [11.82 in.]) (Fig. 4(k)
and 4(l)), the maximum tested strength was reached to the
nominal shear-friction strength: for H0.33MU-AL, Vtest/Vsf  =
1.06 (Vtest = +1491 and –1344 kN [+335.5 and –302.4 kip]
at +1.25 and 1.25%, respectively), and for N0.33MU-AL,

ACI Structural Journal/January 2018 71

Fig. 5—Damage modes of specimens at end of test.
Vtest/Vsf = 0.99 (Vtest = +1530 and –1321 kN [+344.3 and
–297.2 kip] at +1.0 and –1.0%, respectively). This result
indicates that the development length of the shear friction
reinforcing bars should be greater than the ordinary devel-
opment length specified by current design codes. This is
because at the bottom of walls subjected to cyclic loading,
wide and severe flexure-shear cracks degrade the bond
strength of the shear friction reinforcing bars. In the present
study, development length of a 30-bar diameter is recom-
mended for the U-type Grade 550 MPa [80 ksi] shear-fric-
tion reinforcement.
In H0.33MR (Fig. 4(m)), with a roughened surface, the
maximum tested strength was +1350 and –1132 kN (+303.8
and –254.7 kip), which was 1.92 times that of H0.33MU
with the smooth surface. Nevertheless, the maximum tested
strength did not reach the nominal shear-friction strength:
Vtest/Vsf = 0.82 (m = 1.0).
Failure modes
Figure 5 shows the damage modes of the specimens at the
end of the tests. Table 4 summarizes the failure modes. In
H0.5MU and H0.5MU-C, although the design shear-friction
strength was the same as the design flexural strength, sliding
failure occurred at the wall-foundation interface (Fig. 5(a), SF
mode). The failure mode was the same as that of H0.5HU,
H0.5QU, H0.33MU (Fig. 5(b)), H0.33HU, and N0.33MU
(Fig. 5(c)), which were intentionally designed for sliding
failure (Table 1). The test results showed that the failure mode
of the specimens was determined by shear sliding before flex-
ural yielding irrespective of the vertical reinforcing bar area,
because the increase of vertical reinforcing bars increased
the flexural capacity as well as shear-friction capacity. In
H0.33MR, with the roughened construction joint (μ = 1.0),
sliding failure occurred at the wall-foundation interface,
although the design shear-friction strength was greater than
the design flexural strength (Vsf /Vf = 1.13, Table 1).
In Specimens H0.33MU-AS, H0.33HU-AS, H0.33MU-AL,
and N0.33MU-AL, despite the use of additional shear-fric-
tion bars, sliding failure occurred. In H0.33MU-AS and
H0.33HU-AS, the sliding failure surface was formed along
the end of the shear-friction bars, which was located at a third
72
of the wall height (167 mm [6.58 in.] from the wall-foundation
interface) (Fig. 5(d), SW mode). Similarly, in N0.33MU-AL,
with additional D13 shear-friction bars of 300 mm (11.82 in.)
anchorage length, the failure surface was formed along three-
fifths of the wall height (Fig. 5(e)¸ SW mode). On the other
hand, in H0.33MU-AL with additional HD10 shear-friction
bars of 300 mm (11.82 in.) anchorage length, the failure
surface occurred at the wall-foundation interface (SF mode).
In H0.5MG-C, with a groove construction joint, sliding
failure did not occur, and a mixed failure mode of shear
and flexure occurred: crushing in the compression zone and
diagonal tension cracking in the tension zone (Fig. 5(f),
CC+DT mode).
Figure 6 shows the crack patterns of H0.33MU,
H0.33MU-AS, and H0.5MG-C, which represent the failure
modes of the wall-foundation interface (SF mode), wall
interface (SW mode), and combined flexure and shear
(CC+DT mode), respectively. In the SF mode specimens
(Fig. 6(a)), at the drift ratio of 0.2%, vertical splitting tensile
cracks occurred at the wall-foundation interface at the ends
of the wall section. Although diagonal cracking occurred in
the web, the number and width of the diagonal cracks did not
increase after 0.6% drift ratio. After the drift ratio of 1.0%,
the extensive vertical splitting tensile cracks led to spalling
of the concrete in the wall ends, and additional vertical split-
ting tensile cracks occurred in the web of the wall. Spalling
of the concrete at the wall-foundation interface became
severe, and ultimately, sliding failure occurred along the
wall-foundation interface (Fig. 5(b)). In H0.5MU, with an
aspect ratio of 0.5, vertical splitting tensile cracks occurred
earlier (0.2% drift ratio) in the web as well as at the ends of
the wall. In H0.5HU, H0.5QU, and H0.33HU, with smaller
bar ratios, sliding failure occurred earlier. The number of
cracks was fewer than that of H0.5MU, H0.33MU, and
N0.33MU, which had greater bar ratios. In H0.33MR, with
the roughened construction joint (μ = 1.0), the failure mode
was the same as that of H0.33MU, except that extensive
diagonal cracking also occurred.
In the SW mode specimens (Fig. 6(b)), diagonal cracking
occurred at the beginning of the test and spread across
the entire wall panel until the failure of the wall. Flexural
ACI Structural Journal/January 2018
Fig. 6—Crack propagations of specimens.
cracking was initiated at the height where the additional
shear-friction bars were terminated (160 mm [6.30 in.] from
the wall-foundation interface in the case of H0.33MU-AS).
As the load increased, the width of the flexural cracks
significantly increased. At the maximum load, a new hori-
zontal crack was formed across the midheight of the wall
and sliding failure occurred along the horizontal crack. In
the case of H0.33MU-AL, like other SW mode specimens,
flexural cracking occurred at the end of the shear-friction
bars. However, sliding occurred at the wall-foundation inter-
face (SF mode).
In the CC+DT mode specimen (Fig. 6(c)), similar to the
SW mode specimens, diagonal cracking gradually propa-
gated across the entire wall panel. As the drift ratio increased,
the width of the diagonal cracks increased, and after flexural
cracking, spalling of concrete and buckling of the vertical
bars occurred at the end of the walls. Ultimately, concrete
crushing and diagonal tensile cracking occurred in the
compression zone and the tension zone (Fig. 5(f)), respec-
tively. Unlike the SF mode specimens, vertical splitting did
not occur during the test.
Strains of reinforcing bars
Figure 7 shows the strain distributions of the vertical bars
along the wall length at 0.5Vtest, 0.75Vtest, and 1.0Vtest, where
Vtest indicates the maximum tested strength. The locations of
the bars and strain gauges are shown in Fig. 7. The strains
that were measured near the failure interface are presented.
In all specimens, the strains of the vertical bars and additional
shear-friction bars were approximately linearly distributed
at 0.5 to 0.75Vtest because of the flexural action (Fig. 7).
At 1.0Vtest in H0.5MU (Fig. 7(a) and 7(b)), the strains of
the vertical bars were still linear, and bar yielding did not
occur. This test result contradicts the assumption that all
ACI Structural Journal/January 2018
shear-friction bars yield as the peak load is attained, similar
to the current ACI 349 provisions for bars with yield strength
up to 420 MPa (60 ksi). In H0.5HU, H0.5QU, H0.5MU-C,
H0.33MU, and H0.33HU, with HD13 and/or HD10 bars
and without additional shear-friction bars, the strains of the
vertical bars were similar to those of H0.5MU.
On the other hand, in N0.33MU (Fig. 7(c) and 7(d)), with
D16 and D13 bars, bar yielding occurred in the web and
compression zone as well as in the tension zone at 1.0Vtest. In
N0.33MU-AL and H0.33MU-AL, with the longer (300 mm
[11.82 in.]) additional shear-friction bars (Fig. 7(e) to 7(h)),
the strains of vertical bars were similar to those of N0.33MU.
Thus, in the cases of N0.33MU-AL and H0.33MU-AL, with
additional shear-friction bars, the assumption of ACI 349
shear-friction method was valid, and the maximum tested
strength was reached to the design shear-friction strength:
Vtest/Vsf = 0.99 and 1.06 in N0.33MU-AL and H0.33MU-AL,
respectively (Table 4). However, in the case of H0.33MU-AS,
with the shorter additional shear-friction bars (160 mm
[6.30 in.]), the maximum tested strength did not reach the
design shear-friction strength despite the use of additional
shear-friction bars: Vtest/Vsf = 0.83. Similar to H0.5MU, the
strains of the vertical bars were linearly distributed, and bar
yielding did not occur in the vertical bars or the additional
bars (Fig. 7(i) and 7(j)).
Figure 8 shows the strain distributions of the horizontal
bars along the wall height (Fig. 1(a)) at 0.5Vtest, 0.75Vtest, and
1.0Vtest. In H0.5MG-C (Fig. 8(a)), without sliding failure, the
strains of the horizontal bars were greater than those of the
specimens with sliding failure (Fig. 8(b) and 8(c)). However,
yielding of the horizontal bars did not occur because of: 1)
the smaller contribution of horizontal bars in the low aspect
ratio (hw/lw = 0.5); and 2) the higher-yield strain (≈0.0033) of
the high-strength bars.
73
Fig. 7—Measured strains of vertical bars and shear-friction bars in specimens. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)
Fig. 8—Measured strains of vertical bars in specimens.
(Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)
In Specimens H0.5MU (Fig. 8(b)), H0.5HU, H0.5QU,
H0.5MU-C, H0.33MU (Fig. 8(c)), and H0.33HU, with
the shear-sliding failure mode, the strain of the horizontal
bars was smaller when the displacement at sliding failure
was greater. This result indicates that the shear force was
limited by the sliding failure at the wall-foundation inter-
face. In H0.33MU-AS, H0.33HU-AS, H0.33MU-AL
(Fig. 8(d)), and N0.33MU-AL, with additional shear-friction
bars, the strain of the horizontal bars was greater than that of
the specimens without additional shear-friction bars.
74
EVALUATION OF DESIGN STRENGTH OF
SHEAR-FRICTION BARS
Figures 9(a) to 9(d) show the ratios of the maximum tested
strengths to the predictions of ACI 349,8 Eurocode 2,12
Eurocode 8,11 and Harries et al.17 (Eq. (A1), (A3), (A4), and
(A5)). The test results included results of a previous study.18
In most existing test specimens,6,15,21,23,24 sliding failure
occurred after flexural yielding. Thus, only the test results by
Kono et al.,18 which showed sliding failure before flexural
yielding, were included. Specimen H0.5MG-C, showing
flexural yielding without sliding, was excluded. In the ACI
349 prediction, the maximum limit of yield strength, fyv ≤
420 MPa (60 ksi), was not used. Figures 9(a) to 9(d) show
that in the majority of the specimens, the peak strength did
not reach the design shear-friction strength due to the effects
of cyclic loading and high strength re-bars.
The bar stress fsf at sliding failure can be estimated by
applying the maximum tested strength Vtest,s to the nominal
shear-friction equation by ACI 349, Vsf: fsf = (Vtest,s – μP)/
(μAvall), where Avall is sum of bar area of vertical bars and
additional shear-friction bars (that is, Avall = Av + Asf), and
P is axial force (positive in compression). The maximum
tested strength is defined as the smaller of the two maximum
strengths in the positive and negative directions, Vtest,s
(Table 4). In the evaluation, Avall were assumed to contribute
to the shear-friction strength. The bar stresses fsf were esti-
mated as 339 to 655 MPa (49.2 to 95.0 ksi) (Table 4), except
H0.5MG-C with flexural yielding. In most of the specimens,
the estimated bar strengths did not reach the yield strength
of 550 MPa (80 ksi).
Figure 10 shows the relationships between the test
strengths Vtest,s and the area of overall vertical bars Avall (in
ACI Structural Journal/January 2018
Fig. 9—Comparison of test shear strengths and predictions of current design codes. (Note: 1 mm2 = 0.0016 in.2)
3. Regardless of the wall aspect ratios, the maximum
tested strength was proportional to the area of overall
vertical bars. This result indicates that the shear-friction
strength was not directly related to the magnitude of flex-
ural moment, as pointed out by Mattock et al.,13 because
flexural moment induces both compression and tension in a
cross-section, which have a positive and negative effect on
the shear-friction resistance, respectively. Thus, the effect of
flexural moment can be neglected.
From the trend line and the test results of Characteristics
1 to 3 listed previously, the shear-friction strength can be
defined as follows. For untreated interface (μ = 0.6)

Vsf2 = 250Avall = μ(420)Avall (μ = 0.6) (SI)

(1a)
Vsf2 = 36Avall = μ(60)Avall (μ = 0.6) (U.S. customary)

Fig. 10—Evaluation of design strength of shear-friction For yield strengths less than 420 MPa (60 ksi), clearly the
bars. (Note: 1 mm2 = 0.0016 in.2; 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 MPa bar stress cannot be greater than the yield strength. Further,
= 0.145 ksi.) the effect of compression force, if any, should be considered.
Thus, the shear-friction strength can be redefined as follows
the case of compression, the effective area = [Avallfyv + P]/
fyv = Avall + P/fyv). In Fig. 10, regardless of the steel grade of
Vsf2 = μ(Avallfyv + P) (fyv ≤ 420 MPa [60 ksi]) (1b)
the bars, the maximum tested strength was approximately
proportional to the bar area. In the case of the axial compres-
Equation (1b) is identical to the current ACI 349 equation.
sion (0.07Acfc′, H0.5MU-C) and surface treatment (μ = 1.0,
Particularly, the yield strength of vertical bars is limited to
H0.33MR), the maximum strength was greater. Exception-
420 MPa (60 ksi), as defined in the shear-friction design of
ally in the case of H0.33MU-AL with HD10 additional
ACI 349. A previous study4 reported that Grade 550 MPa
shear-friction bars of 300 mm (11.82 in.) anchorage length,
(80 ksi) bars are applicable to the flexural strength and shear
the maximum tested strength was significantly greater than
strength of walls. However, the test result in this study indi-
the proportional trend line.
cates that the design yield strength of bars for shear-friction
From the test results of the specimens with untreated
design should be limited to 420 MPa (60 ksi), although
interfaces (Fig. 10), the characteristics of the shear-friction
550 MPa (80 ksi) bars are used for flexural and shear design.
strength under cyclic loading can be summarized as follows:
Figure 9(e) shows the strength ratios of the test specimens
1. In the case of Grade 420 and 550 MPa (60 and 80 ksi)
predicted by Eq. (1), including the test results by Kono et
bars, the shear-friction strength was proportional to the area
al.18 In Fig. 9(e), the shear-friction strength by Eq. (1) safely
of overall vertical bars, showing a trend line with the slope of
predicted the test strength. The exception was H0.5HU and
250 MPa (36.3 ksi), regardless of the yield strength of bars.
H0.33HU, where the strength ratio Vtest,s/Vsf2 was 0.88 and
2. The trend line passes through the origin, which indi-
0.81, respectively. In the specimen, the maximum loads in
cates that the cohesion resistance was negligible due to the
the positive and negative directions significantly differed,
effect of cyclic loading.

ACI Structural Journal/January 2018 75

which indicates that an unexpected loading condition such
as torsion occurred under the pull-push lateral loading.
CONCLUSIONS
To investigate the shear-friction strength of walls with
Grade 550 MPa (80 ksi) bars, five wall specimens with hw/lw
= 0.5 and eight wall specimens with hw/lw = 0.33 were tested
under cyclic lateral loading. In most specimens, surface
treatment in the interface of the construction joint was not
used: μ = 0.6 (ACI 349). The major findings of the present
study are summarized as follows:
1. Sliding failure occurred in all specimens with a construc-
tion joint at the wall-foundation interface. In the speci-
mens with additional shear-friction bars (H0.33MU-AS,
H0.33HU-AS, and N0.33MU-AL), a new horizontal crack
was formed along the end of the additional bars and sliding
failure occurred along the horizontal crack. This result indi-
cates that the major failure mode of low-rise walls with
construction joints is shear sliding failure rather than flexural
yielding mode.
2. On the other hand, H0.5MG-C, which had a groove
construction joint at the interface, showed a typical flex-
ure-shear failure mode without shear sliding.
3. In most of the specimens, the maximum tested strength
was proportional to the vertical reinforcing bar ratios,
regardless of the reinforcement grade and wall aspect ratio
(hw/lw = 0.33 or 0.5). The effect of axial compression on
the shear-friction strength agrees with the prediction of the
ACI 349 shear-friction equation. By roughening the surface
at wall-foundation interface complying with the “rough-
ened surface” specified by ACI 349 and Eurocode 2, the
maximum strength was increased approximately as twice as
that of the specimen with a “smooth surface.”
4. In the specimens with Grade 550 MPa (80 ksi) bars
and sliding failure mode, the maximum tested strength
was smaller than the nominal shear-friction prediction by
ACI 349 (Vtest/Vsf = 0.65 to 0.83; yielding of Grade 550 MPa
[80 ksi] bars was assumed to be valid). On the other hand,
in the specimens with Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) bars, the
maximum tested strength was close to or greater than the
nominal shear-friction prediction by ACI 349 (Vtest/Vsf = 0.99
to 1.06).
5. In the specimens with additional shear-friction bars of
a long anchorage length, the strength ratios were greater
than those using the short anchorage length. The test result
indicates that the development length of the shear friction
reinforcing bars should be greater than the ordinary devel-
opment length specified by current design codes, because
in walls subjected to cyclic loading, wide and severe flex-
ure-shear cracks degrade the bond strength of the shear
friction reinforcing bars. In the present study, development
length of 30-bar diameter is recommended for the U-type
Grade 550 MPa (80 ksi) shear-friction reinforcement.
6. The shear-friction strengths of the test specimens with
a construction joint were proportional to μAvallfs (μ = 0.6,
fs = 420 MPa [60 ksi]), regardless of the yield strength of
bars and wall aspect ratio. The result indicates that: 1) the
design yield stresses of shear-friction bars should be limited
76
to 420 MPa (60 ksi), as specified in ACI 349 (or ACI 318);
2) the effect of flexural moment can be neglected, as pointed
out by Mattock et al.13; and 3) due to the effect of cyclic
loading, the cohesion resistance is negligible.
7. In low-rise walls with construction joints, the safety
margin of shear-friction strength is smaller than that of
flexural strength. Further, the use of additional vertical bars
increases the flexural strength as well as the shear-fric-
tion strength. Thus, the failure mode of shear walls with
construction joints is expected to be determined by shear-
sliding before flexural yielding.
AUTHOR BIOS
Jang-Woon Baek is a Researcher at the Institute of Engineering Research
at Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea. He received his BE, MS,
and PhD from the Department of Architecture & Architectural Engineering
at Seoul National University.
ACI member Hong-Gun Park is a Professor in the Department of Architec-
ture & Architectural Engineering at Seoul National University. He received
his BE and MS in architectural engineering from Seoul National University
and his PhD in civil engineering from the University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX. His research interests include inelastic analysis and the seismic
design of reinforced concrete structures.
Byung-Soo Lee is a Researcher in the Plant Construction & Engineering
Laboratory at Central Research Institute of Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power
Co., Ltd., Gueongju, South Korea. He received his BE in architectural engi-
neering from Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea.
Hyun-Mock Shin is a Professor in the Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering at Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea. He
received his BE and MS in civil engineering from Seoul National Univer-
sity and his PhD in civil engineering from the University of Tokyo, Tokyo,
Japan. His research interests include nonlinear structural analysis and the
seismic design of reinforced concrete structures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. Ltd
(No. L16S140000) and by the Nuclear Power Core Technology Develop-
ment Program of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and
Planning (KETEP), granted financial resource from the Ministry of Trade,
Industry & Energy, Republic of Korea (No. 2014151010169B). The Insti-
tute of Engineering Research at Seoul National University also provided
research facilities for this work.
REFERENCES
1. Cheng, M.-Y.; Hung, S.-C.; Lequesne, R. D.; and Lepage, A., “Earth-
quake-Resistant Squat Walls Reinforced with High-Strength Steel,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 113, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2016, pp. 1065-1076. doi:
10.14359/51688825
2. Kabeyasawa, T., and Hiraishi, H., “Tests and Analyses of High-
Strength Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls in Japan,” High-Strength
Concrete in Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. French and M. Kreger, eds., Amer-
ican Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1998, pp. 281-310.
3. Maier, J., and Thürlimann, B., “Bruchversuche an Stahlbetonscheiben
(in German),” Institut für Baustatik und Konstruktion, Eidgenössische
Technische Hochschule (ETH) Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland, 1985, 130 pp.
4. Park, H. G.; Baek, J. W.; Lee, J. H.; and Shin, H. M., “Cyclic Loading
Tests for Shear Strength of Low-Rise Reinforced Concrete Walls with
Grade 550 MPa Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 112, No. 3, May-June
2015, pp. 299-310. doi: 10.14359/51687406
5. Saito, H.; Kikuchi, R.; Kanechika, M.; and Okamoto, K., “Experi-
mental Study on the Effect of Concrete Strength on Shear Wall Behavior,”
Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Structural Mechanics
in Reactor Technology, V. H08/05, Anaheim, CA, 1989, pp. 227-232.
6. Paulay, T.; Priestley, M.; and Synge, A., “Ductility in Earthquake
Resisting Squat Shearwalls,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 79, No. 4, Apr.
1982, pp. 257-269.
7. Wasiewicz, Z. F., “Sliding Shear in Low Rise Shear Walls under
Lateral Load Reversals,” master’s thesis, University of Ottawa, Ottawa,
ON, Canada, 1988, 127 pp.
ACI Structural Journal/January 2018
 8. ACI Committee 349, “Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-Related d) Concrete anchored to as-rolled structural steel by
Concrete Structures (ACI 349-13) and Commentary,” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2013, 196 pp.
headed studs or by reinforcing bars: μ = 0.7.
9. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural In ACI 318, the permissible maximum shear-friction strength
Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American is specified as follows: for normalweight concrete either placed
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 520 pp.
10. Birkeland, P. W., and Birkeland, H. W., “Connections in Precast
monolithically or placed against hardened concrete with clean
Concrete Construction,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 63, No. 3, Mar. 1966, surface free of laitance and intentionally roughened to a full
pp. 345-368. amplitude of approximately 6 mm (0.25 in.)
11. British Standards Institution, “Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for
Earthquake Resistance,” European Committee for Standardization, Brus-
sels, Belgium, 2003, 229 pp. Vsf,max = min[0.2fc′Acv, (3.3 + 0.08fc′)Acv, 11Acv] (SI) (A2a)
12. British Standards Institution, “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete
Structures – Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Building (EN-1992-1-
1:2004:E),” European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium,
For all other cases
2004, 225 pp.
13. Mattock, A. H.; Johal, L.; and Chow, H. C., “Shear Transfer in Rein- Vsf,max = min[0.2fc′Acv, 5.5Acv] (SI) (A2b)
forced Concrete with Moment or Tension Acting across the Shear Plane,”
PCI Journal, V. 20, No. 4, 1975, pp. 76-93.
14. Wood, S. L., “Shear Strength of Low-Rise Reinforced Concrete where fc′ is cylinder strength of concrete (MPa); and Acv is
Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1990, pp. 99-107. total sectional area of the shear interface (mm2). The yield
15. Orakcal, K.; Massone, L. M.; and Wallace, J. W., “Shear Strength
of Lightly Reinforced Wall Piers and Spandrels,” ACI Structural Journal,
strength of shear-friction bars is limited to 420 MPa (60 ksi)
V. 106, No. 4, July-Aug. 2009, pp. 455-465. in both ACI 3189 and ACI 349.8
16. Bass, R. A.; Carrasquillo, R. L.; and Jirsa, J. O., “Shear Transfer In ACI 349, for conservative design of NPP walls, the
across New and Existing Concrete Interfaces,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 86, No. 4, July-Aug. 1989, pp. 384-394.
permissible maximum shear-friction strength is specified by
17. Harries, K. A.; Zeno, G.; and Shahrooz, B., “Toward an Improved using Eq. (A2b) for all cases.
Understanding of Shear-Friction Behavior,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 109, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2012, pp. 835-844.
18. Kono, S.; Tanaka, H.; and Watanabe, F., “Interface Shear Transfer for
Eurocode 2
High Strength Concrete and High Strength Shear Friction Reinforcement,” In Eurocode 2,12 the shear strength at an interface between
Proceedings of High Performance Materials in Bridges, 2003, pp. 319-328. concrete cast at different times is defined as the sum of
19. Vintzeleou, E., and Tassios, T., “Behavior of Dowels under Cyclic Defor-
mations,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1987, pp. 18-30.
concrete cohesion and friction, as follows
20. Figueira, D.; Sousa, C.; Calçada, R.; and Neves, A. S., “Push-off
Tests in the Study of Cyclic Behavior of Interfaces between Concretes Cast VEC2 = cAcv fct + μf(Avf fyv + P) ≤ 0.5vfc′ (SI) (A3)
at Different Times,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 142,
No. 1, 2016, 04015101. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001364
21. Salonikios, T. N.; Kappos, A. J.; Tegos, I. A.; and Penelis, G. G., where fct is tensile strength of concrete (MPa); v is strength
“Cyclic Load Behavior of Low-slenderness Reinforced Concrete Walls: reduction factor; and c and μf are factors that depend on the
Design Basis and Test Results,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 4,
July-Aug. 1999, pp. 649-661.
roughness of the interface as follows.
22. Hawkins, N. M., and Ghosh, S. K., “Acceptance Criteria for Special a) Indented: A surface with indentations complying with
Precast Concrete Structural Walls Based on Validation Testing,” PCI Fig. 6.9 in Eurocode 2: c = 0.5 and μf = 0.9
Journal, V. 49, No. 5, 2004, pp. 78-92. doi: 10.15554/pcij.09012004.78.92
23. Greifenhagen, C., and Lestuzzi, P., “Static Cyclic Tests on Lightly
b) Rough: A surface with at least 3 mm (0.12 in.)
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls,” Engineering Structures, V. 27, No. 11, roughness at about 40 mm (1.58 in.) spacing, achieved by
2005, pp. 1703-1712. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.06.008 raking, exposing of aggregate or other methods giving an
24. Athanasopoulou, A., and Parra-Montesinos, G., “Experimental Study
on the Seismic Behavior of High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
equivalent behavior: c = 0.40 and μf = 0.7
Low-Rise Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 110, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2013, c) Smooth: A slipformed or extruded surface, or a free
pp. 767-777. surface left without further treatment after vibration: c =
0.20 and μf = 0.6
APPENDIX A: SHEAR-FRICTION STRENGTHS OF d) Very smooth: A surface cast against steel, plastic, or
CURRENT DESIGN CODES specially prepared wooden molds: c = 0.025 to 0.10 and
ACI 349 and ACI 318 μf = 0.5.
In ACI 3498 (or ACI 3189), the shear-friction strength of a Generally, the shear-friction predictions by Eq. (A3) are
construction interface is defined as follows greater than those by Eq. (A1) because of the inclusion of the
concrete cohesion term.
Vsf = μ(Avf fyv + P) (A1)
Eurocode 8
where Avf is area of shear-friction reinforcement across the In Eurocode 8,11 the shear resistance against sliding is
shear plane (mm2); fyv is yield strength of the shear-friction defined as the sum of the dowel resistance of vertical bars
reinforcement (MPa); P is applied axial compression force (Vdd), shear resistance of inclined bars (Vid) (at an angle φ to
(N); and μ is friction coefficient defined as follows. the potential sliding plane—for example, construction joint),
a) Concrete placed monolithically: μ = 1.4 and friction resistance (Vfd)
b) Concrete placed against hardened concrete with surface
intentionally roughened: μ = 1.0 VEC8 = Vdd + Vid + Vfd (A4a)
c) Concrete placed against hardened concrete not
intentionally roughened: μ = 0.6 (
Vdd = min 1.3∑ Asj f c′ f yv , 0.25 f yv ∑ Asj ) (SI) (A4b)

ACI Structural Journal/January 2018 77

 Vid = ∑Asi fyvcosφ (A4c)
Vfd = min(μf[(∑Asj fyv + Ned)ξ + MEd/z], 0.5η fc′ξlwbw) (SI) of the wall (mm); d is distance from the extreme compression
(A4d)
where ∑Asj is the sum of the areas of the vertical bars of
the web and of additional bars arranged in the boundary
elements specifically for resistance against sliding (mm2);
∑Asj is the sum of the areas of all inclined bars in both
directions (mm2); φ is an angle to the potential sliding plane
(rad); μf is concrete-to-concrete friction coefficient under
cyclic actions, which may be assumed equal to 0.6 for
smooth interfaces and to 0.7 for rough interfaces, as defined
in Eurocode 2; Ned and Med are the design axial load (N)
and design flexural moment (N·mm), respectively, obtained
from the analysis for seismic design; ξ is normalized neutral
axis depth; z is length of the internal lever arm (mm); η =
0.6(1 – fc′/250); lw is length of wall (mm); and bw is depth of
wall (mm). In Eurocode 2 and Eurocode 8, the coefficients
of c and μ for concrete monolithically cast are not defined.
Harries’s equation
Harries et al.17 studied the effect of high-strength shear-
friction bars, and proposed a shear-friction strength as follows
VHarries = cAcv fc′ + 0.002AvfEs ≤ 0.20Acvfc′ (SI) (A5)
where α = 0.075, 0.040, and 0 for the interface with
monolithically cast uncracked, cold-jointed, and monolithically
cast precracked conditions, respectively; and Es is elastic
modulus of vertical bars (MPa). In Eq. (A5), the shear-friction
strength is determined by the elastic modulus Es of the shear-
friction bars, regardless of the yield strength.
APPENDIX B: MAXIMUM SHEAR
REINFORCEMENT RATIO
In NPP walls, because of the high safety requirements,
the shear reinforcement ratio for the design is close to the
maximum shear reinforcement ratio specified by current
design codes. Thus, most of the specimens tested in the
present study were designed with the permissible maximum
shear reinforcement ratio.
In ACI 3498 (or ACI 3189), the shear strength of walls is
defined as the sum of the contributions of concrete Vc and
shear reinforcement Vs
Vn = Vc + Vs (SI) (B1)
Vc = 0.17 f c′hd (SI) (B2a)
Vc = 0.27 f c′hd + N u d /4lw (SI) (B2b)
 l (0.1 f c′ + 0.2 N u /(lw h)) 
Vc = 0.05 f c′ + w  hd (SI) (B2c)
 ( M u /Vu − lw /2) 
Vs = As fyhd/s (B3)
78
View publication stats
where fc′ is cylinder compressive strength of concrete
(MPa); lw is overall length of the wall (mm); h is thickness
fiber to the centroid of longitudinal tension reinforcement
(mm) (= 0.8lw in ACI 349); Nu is axial force (positive sign in
compression) [N]; Mu is applied flexural moment (N·mm); Vu
is applied shear force (N); As is area of shear reinforcement
(mm2) within spacing s (mm); and fyh is specified yield strength
of web shear reinforcement (MPa). Vn in Eq. (B1) shall not
exceed the permissible maximum shear strength 0.83√fc′hd
(Vn,max). In ACI 349 (or ACI 318), the concrete shear strength
Vc of walls is determined as the smaller of the values of
Eq. (B2b) and Eq. (B2c) unless Eq. (B2a) is used. Eq. (B2a)
is generally regarded as the basic concrete shear strength of
flexural members including squat walls. Thus, in the present
study, for simplicity, Eq. (B2a) was used for the concrete shear
strength. In this case, the permissible maximum shear strength
of horizontal web reinforcing bars is defined as follows
Vsmax = 0.83 f c′hd − Vc = 0.66 f c′hd (SI) (B4)
On the other hand, in the seismic provision of ACI 349
(ACI 318), the shear strength of walls is specified as follows
Vseis = Acv (α c f c′ + ρh f yh ) (B5)
The first term on the right-hand side indicates Vc, and
the second term indicates Vs. In Eq. (B5), Acv is the total
sectional area, and the coefficient αc is 0.25 (3.0 in U.S.
customary units) for hw/lw ≤ 1.5.
In the seismic provision, the permissible maximum shear
strength is specified as follows
Vseis,max = 0.66 f c′Acv (SI) (B6a)
In the case of walls with a rectangular cross-section, Acv =
hlw and d = 0.8lw (ACI 349 or ACI 318). Thus, the permissible
maximum shear strength of walls with a rectangular cross
section can be refined as follows
Vseis,max = 0.66 f c′Acv = 0.66 f c′hlw = 0.825 f c′hd (SI)
(B6b)
From Eq. (B5) and (B6), the permissible maximum shear
strength of horizontal web reinforcing bars for hw/lw ≤ 1.5 is
defined as follows
Vsmax = (0.66 − 0.25) f c′Acv = 0.5125 f c′hd (SI) (B7)
Comparing Eq. (B4) and Eq. (B7), the greater value
of Vsmax in Eq. (B4) was used for the design of the test
specimens. Substituting Vsmax in Eq. (B4) into Vs in Eq. (B3),
the permissible maximum horizontal reinforcing bar ratio ρh
was calculated. The vertical web reinforcing bar ratio ρv was
determined to be the same as ρh according to the seismic
provisions of ACI 349 (or ACI 318): ρv ≥ ρh unless the aspect
ratio of walls is greater than 2.0.
ACI Structural Journal/January 2018