Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Reinforced concrete shear walls are the most common lateral-force- different aspect ratios and one steel-reinforced shear wall
resisting system in reinforced concrete structures. Recent exper- under combined reversed lateral and axial loading. The
imental studies have proven the applicability of using glass GFRP-reinforced shear walls evidenced good performance
fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcement in lateral-resisting in resisting lateral loads associated with adequate strength
concrete structural systems (shear walls and columns). In this
and deformation capacity compared to the steel-reinforced
study, five concrete shear walls reinforced with GFRP bars and
shear wall. The elastic behavior of the GFRP reinforcement
spirals were tested under reversed cyclic quasi-static loading and
constant axial load. The main difference between the walls was kept the hysteresis-envelope tips ascending until failure
the GFRP reinforcement configuration in the boundary elements. with no strength degradation and with an acceptable level
Two shear walls included boundaries reinforced with square GFRP of energy dissipation. Mohamed et al. (2014b) proposed a
spirals, while the third shear wall had boundaries reinforced with deformation capacity model based on the test specimens
circular GFRP spirals. The remaining two shear walls had higher with a minimum level of confinement.
confinement of boundary elements consisting of square GFRP spiral Confinement level is a key parameter that affects defor-
embedded inside rectangular GFRP spiral in one and rectangular mation capacity, as confining the concrete at the boundary
GFRP spiral with two GFRP ties in the other. The main objectives of a shear wall with transverse reinforcement would signifi-
were to assess the impact of increasing the confinement level in the cantly increase the compressive strain at which the concrete
boundaries and the effect on inelastic deformation capacity. The
fails (Wallace and Moehle 1992). In the case of GFRP-
walls with higher confinement clearly achieved higher drift ratios
reinforced shear walls, concrete crushing at the base of the
and strength. The envelope curves were bilinearly idealized. The
elastic-plastic transition point and the maximum deformation limit wall should control the strength, inelastic deformation, and
were identified based on the seismic performance of the test spec- energy dissipation due to the elastic behavior of the GFRP
imens. The recorded inelastic rotation capacity of the test walls bars. In other words, the concrete is the source of deforma-
achieved the required level for lateral-resisting systems. Moreover, bility (Mohamed et al. 2014b) and, therefore, increasing the
the ductility-based force modification factor was assessed and a new level of confined concrete at the boundary of the shear wall
value of 2.4 was suggested for implementation in FRP design codes. would delay the concrete’s compression failure and thus
enhance the shear wall’s deformability. Therefore, this study
Keywords: deformation; force modification factor; glass fiber-reinforced
addressed the effect of the confinement level. In this study,
polymer; seismic; shear wall.
five full-scale GFRP-reinforced shear walls were tested
under quasi-static cyclic loading with different levels of
INTRODUCTION
confinement to assess the effect of confinement on the calcu-
Glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcing bars
lated strength and drift capacity. Increasing the confinement
are finding greater acceptance as a construction material in
level of GFRP-reinforced shear walls might lead to modi-
reinforced concrete (RC) structural elements (ACI 440.1R-
fications to the suggested design equations of deformation
15). Numerous research studies have proven that lateral-cy-
capacity and the deformation-demand model proposed by
clic-resisting concrete elements reinforced with GFRP bars
Mohamed et al. (2014b).
exhibit acceptable levels of strength, stiffness, and energy
Moreover, in its provisions for designing shear wall lateral-
dissipation in addition to corrosion resistance (Sharbatdar
resisting elements, the National Building Code of Canada
and Saatcioglu 2009; Mady et al. 2011; Mohamed et al.
(NBCC 2015) adopts a force modification factor for each
2014a,b; Tavassoli et al. 2015).
seismic-force-resisting system (SFRS) to determine the
Observations from earthquakes have indicated that
design lateral force. This force modification factor is deter-
well-designed RC shear walls can be used effectively as a
mined by the equal-displacement approach for the ductili-
primary lateral-load-resisting system in response to both
ty-related force modification factor (Rd) and a statistical
wind and earthquake loading (Fintel 1995). In compar-
approach to evaluate the overstrength-related force modi-
ison to other lateral-resisting systems, RC shear walls have
proven to provide excellent, cost-effective, lateral resis- ACI Structural Journal, V. 116, No. 1, January 2019.
MS No. S-2017-483, doi: 10.14359/51710867, was received December 24, 2017,
tance (Cardenas et al. 1973; Fintel 1995). A recent experi- and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2019, American
mental study conducted by Mohamed et al. (2014a) involved Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless
permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including
three concrete shear walls reinforced with GFRP bars with 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.
of reinforcement details and wall thickness complied with Table 2—Mechanical properties of reinforcement
CSA S806-12, ACI 440.1R-15, CSA A23.3-14, and ACI
Bar db A Ef ffu εf
318-14, where applicable. The shear-wall specimens had
two boundary elements at both sides with different lengths GFRP #3 9.5 71.3 62.5 1346 2.30
and reinforcement ratios. Plane sectional analysis was used GFRP #4 12.7 126.7 61.3 1303 2.35
to calculate the flexural strength. Shear-wall specimens were
Notes: db is bar diameter (mm); A is area (mm2); Ef is modulus of elasticity (GPa);
designed with an adequate amount of distributed and concen- ffu is tensile strength (MPa); and εf is tensile strain (%). 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 mm2 =
trated reinforcement to ensure flexural domination and to 0.00155 in.2; 1 MPa = 145 psi.
prevent shear and sliding-shear failures. Sufficient shear rein-
forcement was provided according to CSA S806-12 and CSA
A23.3-14. Sliding-shear resistance was calculated according
to CSA A23.3-14. Detailed design equations and procedures
can be found in Mohamed et al. (2014a). Ignoring the dowel
action of the longitudinal FRP reinforcement (ACI 440.1R-
15) resulted in one additional layer of diagonal No. 3 GFRP
bars in two directions across the potential sliding planes at
an angle of 45 degrees and spaced at 100 mm (4 in.) in GX.
This additional sliding-shear reinforcement was not used in
GnoX. The footings were heavily reinforced with steel bars
to avoid any influence on wall deformations during the tests.
The footings were used to attach the specimens to the rigid
lab floor and served as an anchorage length for all vertical
bars, as no lap splices were used. Fig. 2—Boundary, horizontal, and vertical reinforcement.
Generally, GX, GnoX, and GCi had the minimum confine-
ment specified in design codes (CSA S806-12, ACI 440.1R-
15) of one spiral in each boundary. GDC1 and GDC2 had
higher confinement of boundary elements, consisting of
square spiral embedded inside rectangular spiral in GDC1
and rectangular spiral with two ties in GDC2 (Fig. 1).
Materials
The specimens were divided into three areas: two boundary
elements on each end and web in the middle. The vertical web
reinforcement consisted of two vertical layers of No. 3 sand-
coated GFRP bars spaced at 120 mm (4.72 in.) extending
with no lap splice into the footing to the full depth of
700 mm (27.6 in.). The horizontal reinforcement consisted of
two layers of No. 4 GFRP bars spaced at 80 mm (3.15 in.).
The clear concrete cover was 25 mm (1 in.) in all cases. The
tensile properties of the GFRP reinforcing bars, presented in
Table 2, were obtained from tensile tests according to ASTM
D7205. Figure 2 shows the vertical, horizontal, tie, and spiral
reinforcement and a typical assembled cage. All the shear
walls were cast with ready mixed normalweight concrete with
a target compressive strength (fc′) of 30 MPa (4.35 ksi).
Notes: εcu is concrete compression strain at failure; Vexp is experimental ultimate load (kN); Vper is predicted ultimate load based on plan sectional analysis (kN); Δu is displacement
corresponding to ultimate load (mm); “Drift” is drift values corresponding to ultimate load (Δu/lw); V1st crk is load at first crack (kN); Vsplit is load at concrete cover splitting (kN); and
Vspalling is load at concrete cover spalling (kN). 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.
from the neutral axis; 2) perfect bond was assumed between to a lateral load of 176, 196, 181, 187, and 161 kN (39.6,
the GFRP bars and concrete; and 3) the experimentally 44.1, 40.7, 42, and 36.2 kip) for GX, GnoX, GCi, GDC1,
measured concrete compression strain at ultimate strength and GDC2, respectively. Cracks were propagated both in the
was used for the calculations. The agreement between web and along the wall height, nearly reaching half the wall
predicted and experimental values confirms the applica- height at a concrete compression strain ranging between
bility of using plane section analysis to predict the flexural 3000 and 3500 με. Cover splitting started to visually appear
strength of FRP-reinforced shear walls. on the boundary element side at cycles +35 to +40 mm (1.4
to 1.6 in.), corresponding to a lateral load of 304, 345, 315,
Hysteretic response 327, and 317 kN (68.3, 77.6, 70.8, 73.5, and 71.3 kip) for
Figure 7 shows the load-displacement hysteretic responses GX, GnoX, GCi, GDC1, and GDC2, respectively. Spalling
for the test specimens. In general, all specimens reached their of the concrete cover was not observed at that point, but
ultimate predicted strength with pinched hysteretic loops wall stiffness was significantly reduced due to the initiation
with no strength decay up to failure. The reloading branches of inelastic compression deformation in the concrete in the
followed a loading path like the previous cycle path, but at a boundaries. Gradual spalling of concrete cover was associ-
lower loading stiffness, resulting in lower peak strength. An ated with the progress of flexural-shear cracks along the wall
initial linear branch corresponding to the uncracked condi- height, which continue to propagate near failure. GDC1 and
tion of the wall was evident. The first crack was formed at the GDC2 attained a higher displacement level of 4.46% and
lateral displacement of +8.00 mm (0.31 in.), corresponding 4.19% drift, respectively, due to the higher level of confine-
∆ ed ∆ id
θd = + (7)
hw (hw − 0.5λ p )
tion proposed by Mohamed et al. (2014b) can be modified (Eq. (9)) at the 2.5% drift limit and at failure. As listed in
and expressed as follows Table 5, the calculated rotational capacities of all the shear
walls exceeded the rotational demand values. Moreover,
ε cu lw 0.006 hw they also achieved the desired rotation capacity of 2.5% set
θc = − 0.009 + (14)
2c lw by NBCC (2015) and ASCE/SEI 41 (2013).