Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109410

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

An experimental investigation into the impacts of eccentric openings on the T

in-plane behavior of squat RC shear walls
⁎
Seyed Armin Hosseinia, , Ali Kheyroddina, Mohammad Mastalib
a
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran
b
Fiber and Particle Engineering, University of Oulu, Pentti Kaiteran katu 1, 90014 Oulu, Finland

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Changing the use of an existing building may require removing some portions of its structural members, such as
Reinforced concrete introducing door and window openings in the existing shear walls. Imposing these changes affects the structural
Shear walls performance of reinforced concrete (RC) shear walls, depending on the size and position of the openings. This
Cyclic loading study investigated the structural performance of three RC shear walls containing cut-out openings, with a special
Eccentric opening
focus on increasing the opening eccentricity. Moreover, one reference RC shear wall (without any opening) was
In-plane behavior
Existing buildings
used to compare the impacts of the openings and their eccentricities. RC shear walls were loaded under reversed
Damage evolution cyclic loading conditions, and the impacts of the eccentric openings on the load carrying capacity, stiffness, and
energy dissipation were studied. The results showed that the creation of openings and imposing eccentricity
significantly affect the failure modes in RC shear walls. It was also revealed that RC shear walls with openings
immediately entered to softening behavior at the final stage of loading. The eccentric openings in squat RC shear
walls increased the ductility of the RC shear walls. Moreover, it was noticed that the creation of openings greatly
reduced cumulative energy dissipation.

1. Introduction horizontal web reinforcement ratio does not have a significant effect on
peak load. However, the horizontal reinforcement ratio affects the drift
In structurally designing buildings, especially in highly seismic re- capacity of the walls. Wang et al. [4,5] evaluated the shear behavior
gions, providing lateral loading capacity is one of the most critical and the effect of different aspect ratios of eccentric openings on the
factors that should be taken into account. Structural walls can provide resistance of three storied RC shear walls under the influence of cyclic
sufficient loading capacity and stiffness in a building [1]. Yet despite loading. The results showed the behavior of the shear walls with ec-
the critical roles these structural members have, in some cases, open- centric openings could be different in push and pull loading directions.
ings with non-structural objectives, for instance architectural needs, Also, the effect of the opening locations and the opening shapes in the
may be generated in these members. These openings are often a weak structural performance of the RC shear walls must be taken into ac-
point in structural performance. Building design codes impose some count. Zhang et al. [6] investigated the performance of load-transfer
restrictions and provisions on creating these openings in concrete paths and stress redistribution of low-rise RC shear walls with openings
structural walls. For example, American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318- under a constant vertical load and a monotonic incremental lateral
2019 [2] for a reinforced concrete (RC) structural wall has re- load. Their results echoed that the identification of the load-transfer
commended that the steel bar reinforcements that are cut off to create paths in the design of special structural members is important; the re-
openings should be terminated with seismic hooks, or as another sults of both the elastic-stress design method and elastic-plastic stress
method, they can be capped by using U-shaped bars. In recent years, design method could have ideal conformity with laboratory specimens.
numerous studies have been conducted on RC shear walls and the re- Massone et al. [7] investigated the effect of central openings at the base
quirements for openings in these members. Peng et al. [3] investigated of four slender RC shear walls, and the opening dimensions were the
the seismic performance of squat concrete walls. The results indicated only difference in these specimens. The results indicated that there is no
that the vertical web reinforcement ratio plays an important role in the significant difference in load carrying capacity; however, reduction in
structural performance of RC shear walls, so that considering the ver- ductility and displacement was observed. The height of the opening was
tical web reinforcement ratio constant as well as changing in the also less influential than the width concerning the displacement.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.A. Hosseini), [email protected] (A. Kheyroddin), Mohammad.mastali@oulu.fi (M. Mastali).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109410
Received 5 April 2019; Received in revised form 30 June 2019; Accepted 15 July 2019
0141-0296/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.A. Hosseini, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109410

Studies have confirmed the effect of cut-out openings in the axial load Table 1
bearing capacity of RC walls [8,9]. Namely, Popescu et al. [9] revealed Mechanical characteristics of the used steel bars.
that a decrease of 25% and 50% in the wall cross-section by cut-out Type Yielding stress Fy Ultimate stress Fu Elongation (%) Elastic modulus
opening reduced the loading capacity of the walls by 36% and 50%, (MPa) (MPa) (GPa)
respectively. Extensive research has been done on the effect of the axial
D20 446 598 22.70 195
load ratio (ALR) on the seismic behavior of RC shear walls [10–18]. The
D12 410 633 22.30 190
findings show that the ALR can have a considerable impact on the D8 497 616 19.25 182
failure mechanism and deformability of these structural members. By D6.5 235 353 21.30 201
increasing the ALR, the curvature capacity and the performance level
decrease, and the walls are more prone to a sudden transition to out-of-
plane compressive failure mode. In addition, an increase in the ALR has 2.2. Design and preparation of RC shear walls
a significant effect on reducing energy dissipation and strength. In other
words, walls with high ALR show strain-softening behavior, whereas In this study, regarding the laboratory limitations, all specimens
walls with low ALR show strain-hardening behavior. Strain-softening were scaled based on 3:4. The influences of scaling were considered in
behavior should be avoided in design because it would result in low all of the process of this research, including designing, preparation, and
displacement capacity and the localization of inelastic curvatures. loading. Therefore, for applying the scale impacts, the Buckingham
Therefore, a reasonable design is to keep the axial load as low as pos- theory and dimensional analysis were used [49].
sible or below the balanced point in the interaction between the Fig. 1 depicts the designed RC shear walls and reinforcement details
bending moment and axial force (P-M) diagram. In this direction, some according to ACI 318-2014 [50]. The cross-section of the walls with a
building codes imposed limitations on ALR [19–21]. constant thickness was rectangular; the total length (Lw) and height
A wide range of investigations have been carried done concerning (hw) of the walls were 1600 mm and 1550 mm, respectively. The
the performance of lightly reinforced, unreinforced, and strengthened thickness (bw) was equal to 150 mm. The height of the applied lateral
RC and masonry walls on different scales [16,22–46]. Nearly all prior load point from the wall base was 1435 mm. In designing the RC shear
research on the effects of openings in RC walls has concentrated on the walls, the reinforcement ratios of boundary element (ρb) , wall web
design aspects of walls, especially appropriate and conventional re- vertical (ρV ) , and horizontal (ρh ) were considered 1.40%, 0.27% and
inforcement detailing around the edges of the openings. In contrast, the 0.34%, respectively. A similar arrangement of the steel bars was used to
experimental research investigated here addresses the evaluation of the design all of the RC shear walls, and the only difference was related to
in-plane behavior of walls with openings introduced in structures that the eccentric opening.
have already been built. This is a predicament that often occurs in re- The cut-out openings with constant dimensions and geometry were
furbished structures in which there is limited scope to appropriately created with a width of 500 mm and a height of 1000 mm. In the RC
detail the surrounding of the openings. The main aim of this study was shear walls with openings, the eccentricity of the opening centerline to
to assess the seismic performance of these eccentric cut-out openings the wall centerline along the horizontal direction in the RC shear walls
and to identify their various effects on the failure modes as well as on of RCSW2, RCSW3, and RCSW4 were 0.00%, 6.25%, and 12.50%, re-
the shear strength of squat RC shear walls and wall piers subjected to spectively. The size of eccentricity and opening dimensions used was
cyclic loads. Therefore, this study examines an obvious research gap. based on reaching the aspect ratios of the wall and wall pier (see Fig. 2).
The main focus of this research was on eccentric openings in RC walls
that have already been built. Consequently, this should be noted that by
2. Experimental program details removing a segment of the wall web, new structural members will be
formed unintentionally, such as walls, wall piers, and link beams, and
The experiments consisted of four squat RC shear walls with a each mentioned structural member has its own particular structural
rectangular cross-section and under in-plane reversed cyclic loading. provisions. For instance, according to recommendation of ACI 318-
One wall is the reference RC shear wall, whereas the other three are the 2014, the requirements of the vertical wall segments in the range of
ones with cut-out openings. The geometries and their details of the wall piers are closer to columns in special moment frames than shear
prepared RC shear walls, the mechanical properties of the used mate- walls. Fig. 2 plots governing design provisions for vertical wall seg-
rials, the configuration of the test equipment, and the loading history ments in the form of a diagram that imagines vertical wall segments
are described below. after the creation of opening in an individual wall. The whole process of
preparation, equipment configuration, and testing of specimens was
carried out in the structural laboratory of Semnan University. After
2.1. Mechanical characteristics of materials casting, all of the specimens were kept at ambient conditions with a
temperature of around 26 °C and a relative humidity of 40%. After one
In order to construct the RC shear walls, normal ready-mixed con- day, the specimens were demolded and sealed with plastic bags. During
crete with a water to cement ratio of 0.43 was used to achieve a the process of casting, there was no opening in the specimens, and after
compressive strength around 30 MPa. The maximum aggregate size was 35 days from the time of casting, the wall webs were cut to create
13 mm with respect to the spacing between the steel bars and the di- openings using a concrete saw.
mensions of the mold. In order to determine the compressive strength of
concrete, six cylinders with a dimension of 150 mm (dia- 2.3. Test setup and instrumentation
meter) × 300 mm (height) were used and loaded under the compres-
sive load with speed of 1.8 mm/min. The compressive strength after Fig. 3 illustrates the adopted test setup to impose the reversed cyclic
7 days and 28 days was around 25 MPa (average of 24.8, 25.1, and loadings. The specimens were connected to the strong floor by using
25.7 MPa) and 31 MPa (average of 30.8, 31.2, and 31.5 MPa), respec- some pre-stressed shafts. To minimize unintentional in-plane slip, the
tively. Moreover, four types of steel bars were used to reinforce the RC foundations of the RC shear walls were restricted at both ends along the
shear walls: D6.5, D8, D12, and D20. Table 1 lists the mechanical loading direction. Also, to ensure that there were no out-of-plane dis-
characteristics of the steel bars used. These values were obtained by placements, the lateral sliding supports were placed on both lateral
experimental testing of five steel bars for each bar size according to the sides of the shear walls along the wall web. This bracing system only
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A370 re- restrained the shear walls in the case of displacement perpendicular to
commendation [47] and the ASTM A675 recommendation [48]. the wall web. The specimens were tested under the lateral reversed

2
S.A. Hosseini, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109410

Fig. 1. Designed RC shear walls and the arrangements of steel bar reinforcements (dimension in mm).

3
S.A. Hosseini, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109410

the height of the wall from the base; the loading speed was 60 mm/min
(according to ASTM E2126-11 [54]). At each level of displacement, two
similar cycles were submitted, which applied the drift ratios with the
patterns of 1/2000 ( ± 0.05%), 1/1000 ( ± 0.10%), 1/600 ( ± 0.17%),
1/400 ( ± 0.25%), 1/300 ( ± 0.33%), 1/200 ( ± 0.50%), 1/150
( ± 0.67%), 1/100 ( ± 1.00%), 1/75 ( ± 1.34%), 1/50 ( ± 2.00%), 1/
33 ( ± 3.00%), 1/25 ( ± 4.00%), and 1/22 ( ± 4.50%) (see Fig. 4)
[55].

3. Experimental observations and results

The influences of eccentric opening on the in-plane behavior of RC

shear walls were investigated and interpreted in terms of damage se-
quences, force-displacement responses, stiffness variation, energy dis-
sipation, equivalent viscous damping ratio, and ductility index.
Fig. 2. Impacts of eccentric openings on the dimensional ranges of vertical wall
segments.
3.1. Damage sequences and crack patterns

cyclic loading, which was applied by using a hydraulic actuator and a 3.1.1. Reference specimen RCSW1
load cell with a load capacity of ± 1000 kN. The shear force at the base Figs. 5 and 6 show the hysteric responses and crack patterns of the
of walls was measured by using a load cell installed between the RC shear walls under cyclic loadings, respectively. The first flexural
loading plate and the hydraulic actuator. No axial load was applied to cracks were formed at a 0.17% drift, equivalent to a load of 140 kN
the top level of the shear walls, and the specimens were only under (Point A in Fig. 5a), in the boundary elements and near the foundation
their own weight. In the lateral force resisting system of buildings, the of the wall (see Fig. 6a). By increasing the drift to 0.33%, equivalent to
gravitational axial force on shear walls can be altered by seismic action. a load of 188 kN, more flexural cracks were propagated to the middle of
Yet there is also a direct relationship between the axial compressive the wall height. At a drift of 0.50%, equivalent to a load of 214 kN,
force and the shear strength of the walls. Accordingly, the ACI 318 shear cracks were also observed at the surface of the wall web. Indeed,
provisions to appraise the shear strength capacity of walls ignore the diagonal cracks began in the middle of the wall height and ended at the
impact of the axial compressive forces on increasing the shear strength middle of the specimen length at the bottom level. The maximum load
capacity, which is the reason why the laboratory specimens were de- carrying capacity was recorded at a drift of 2.00% and at the load of
signed with no axial load. Also, based on the definition of ACI 318-2014 504 kN (Point B in Fig. 5a). Finally, at a 4.00% drift (equivalent to load
(hw/Lw < 2) [50] and American Society of Civil Engineers/Seismic of 424 kN (Point C in Fig. 5a)) and corresponding to a 15% drop in peak
Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI) 41-17 (hw/ load, due to crushing at the web toe, the specimen rotated around its
Lw < 1.5) [20], the present specimens were considered as squat shear web toe (along the wall foundation), as shown in Fig. 6c. The failure
walls (hw/Lw ≈ 1). Due to low ductility demand and high inherent mechanism in RCSW1 was mainly due to diagonal compression failure,
strength, shear yielding generally dominates in squat shear walls. which comes from using sufficient reinforcement in the horizontal and
Therefore, the axial force can have an adverse effect on the perfor- vertical directions. Under reversed cyclic loading, failure can progress
mance of the low-rise walls, but it should be noted that low axial load from one compression strut to another, leading to the crushing of the
levels are common for low-rise shear walls in practice [1,24,25,51–53]. concrete across the entire wall length [56].
In total, eleven linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) In the specimen RCSW1, the shape of the mean cracks in the
were used to record displacements at different positions. Two hor- boundary regions was almost horizontal. By expanding these cracks
izontal LVDTs with a stroke of 100 mm were placed to determine the along the length of the specimen, the cracks tended to a 45° angle on
displacements at both loading points. In addition, six LVDTs were in- the wall web. The length of the horizontal part of the mean cracks in the
stalled along the boundary element’s centerlines, along the loading middle half of the wall was longer. The spacing of the mean cracks in
direction on the foundation surface, and along the diagonal direction of the lower half of the wall height was in the range of 40–105 mm with a
the specimen to measure the flexural displacements, the sliding at the crack width of ≈ 8 mm, and the upper half of the wall height was in the
base of RC shear walls, and the shear displacements, respectively. It is range of 100–180 mm with a crack width of ≈ 6 mm.
worth mentioning that to ensure the performance of the bracing sys-
tems, three LVDTs were also located along the foundation centerline in 3.1.2. Specimen RCSW2 (with a cut-out eccentric opening of 0.00%)
the loading direction (one LVDT) and on the top beam perpendicular to As indicated in Fig. 6d, the first cracks were formed in the 0.10%
the wall plane (two LVDTs) to record the in-plane slip and the unin- drift and at the load of 49 kN in the upper corners of the opening (Point
tentional out-of-plane displacements, respectively. A in Fig. 5b); in a 0.17% drift, equivalent to a load of 81 kN, the flexural
Furthermore, to measure the strain of the steel bars, a total of 14 cracks were noticed in the boundary elements near the foundation. For
strain gauges (TML YEFLA-5) were attached on the bars before the a 0.50% drift, equivalent to a load of 204 kN, cracks were formed at the
casting of the walls. Fig. 1 shows the arrangement of the strain gauges top beam along the crack on the upper corners of the opening as well as
(SG) on the steel bars. A preliminary analysis was carried out in soft- from the junction of the wall to the foundation in the interior boundary
ware SAP2000 to determine the critical points in terms of strain values, area.
and, then, regarding these data, the positions of strain gauges were At a drift ratio of 1.00%, equivalent to a load of 251 kN, two shear
defined. cracks were formed in the link beam. The maximum load capacity was
recorded at a drift ratio of 2.00%, equivalent to a load of 281 kN (Point
2.4. Reversed cyclic loading pattern B in Fig. 5b). At this level of displacement, as shown in Fig. 6e, concrete
crushing, especially in the upper corners of the opening, was observed.
All specimens were tested based on the displacement control under At a drift ratio equivalent to 3.00%, the specimen loading capacity
26 unidirectional-reversed cyclic lateral loadings at the horizontal di- degraded abruptly: in the first cycle, the maximum load reached
rection and at the top of the wall. The drift ratio at the top of the wall 274 kN, and it decreased in both push and pull loading directions to
was defined as a factor of displacement at the loading point divided by 168.5 and 231 kN, respectively, in the second cycle. At this stage,

4
S.A. Hosseini, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109410

Fig. 3. Configuration of the installed instruments on the shear walls: (a) the schematic illustration of test setup details and (b) the actual shape in the laboratory.

spalling was noticed in both piers of the specimen near the foundation. 3.1.3. Specimen RCSW3 (with a cut-out eccentric opening of 6.25%)
In addition, cracks with a crack width of 4 mm were localized in the In this specimen, the first cracks were formed at a drift ratio of
right pier and in the junction of the wall to the foundation; furthermore, 0.10% and a load of 58 kN (point A in Fig. 5c) from the upper corners of
uplifting was observed from the foundation surface (see Fig. 6f). opening (see Fig. 6g); then, at a drift ratio of 0.17%, equivalent to a
As the loading process continued, the sliding shear failure was load of 88 kN, flexural cracks were observed in the left and right
monitored in the left pier (see Fig. 6f). This kind of failure comes from boundary element regions slightly above the surface of the foundation.
the inability of the flexural crack interface to transfer shear forces when Cracks in the right corner of the opening were propagated near to the
the flexural crack was fully extended at the cross-section of the pier's top beam.
base [1,57,58]. The RCSW2 loading capacity in the second cycle (at At a drift ratio of 0.67%, equivalent to a load of 213 kN, some cracks
3.00% drift) reached 60% of the peak load, and the specimen com- were observed at the junction of the piers and foundation. At a drift
pletely collapsed (Point C in Fig. 5b). After a sudden drop in load ca- ratio of 1.00%, equivalent to loads of 250 kN and 231.5 kN in push and
pacity of the specimen, the loading process continued, and the load pull loading directions, respectively, the first diagonal and flexural
carrying capacity reached 40% of the peak load at a drift of 4.00%. cracks were formed in the link beam and the right-hand side of the
opening in the boundary area, respectively. At a drift ratio of 2.00%,
equivalent to loads of 306.5 kN and 237.5 kN in push and pull loading

5
S.A. Hosseini, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109410

carrying capacity reached an average of 146 kN. In the RCSW3, due to

significant damage in the link beam, the coupling of the left and right
piers was reduced, and, finally, crushing at base of the piers was ob-
served by increasing the rotation at the top of the piers (see Fig. 6i).
The peak load was achieved at a 2.00% drift, equivalent to a load of
306.5 kN in the push loading direction, and at a 1.34% drift, equivalent
to a load of 242.5 kN in the pull loading direction (Point B in Fig. 5c). At
a 2.00% drift, the first significant drop in load was measured in the
second cycle, and this drop was approximately 24% of the peak load.

3.1.4. Specimen RCSW4 (with a cut-out eccentric opening of 12.50%)

In the specimen RCSW4, which is different from specimens RCSW2
and RCSW3, the first cracks were formed at a drift of 0.10%, equivalent
to a load of ≈ 79 kN, from the upper corners of the opening and around
the boundary elements near the foundation (see Fig. 6j).
Up to a 1.00% drift, equivalent to a load 226.5 kN and 241 kN in
push and pull loading directions, respectively, diagonal cracks on the
Fig. 4. Imposed cyclic displacement patterns to the RC shear walls. left pier propagated throughout the cross-section, particularly near the
foundation. As shown in Fig. 6k, due to a higher drift than 3.00%
(equivalent to loads of 298.5 kN and 254 kN in push and pull loading
directions, respectively, the damages were exacerbated and the crack in
directions, respectively (Point B in Fig. 5d)), the failure point rapidly
the right corner of the opening became localized with a width ≈
formed in the specimen RCSW4, since in the second cycle of a 3.00%
12 mm. It should be noted that in the second cycle, at a 2.00% drift, the
drift, a 15% and 40% reduction in load carrying capacity was observed
maximum loads were measured at 230 kN and 187.5 kN in push and
in push and pull loading directions, respectively (Point C in Fig. 5d). In
pull loading directions, respectively (see Fig. 6h).
the direction of the pulling on the left side of the left pier, at the
At a 3.00% drift, equivalent to a load of 246.0 kN for pushing and a
junction of the foundation, the severe crushing of concrete was de-
load of 193.0 kN for pulling (Point C in Fig. 5c), the sliding shear failure
tected. Then, a shear crack with a width of ≈ 17 mm formed. In the
occurred in the link beam. In areas near the pier’s corners and the
direction of pushing, due to the diagonal compression struts, the cracks
connecting point of the boundary elements to the foundation, the
were localized at the right corner of the specimen.
crushing and spalling of concrete were observed, and the diagonal
In the specimen RCSW4, the failure mechanism was the diagonal
cracks on the link beam surface completely opened with a crack width
tension failure. First, the left pier and then the right pier failed. As
≈ 7 mm. In the second cycle, at a 3.00% drift of the specimen, load
shown in Fig. 6l, due to the formation of the plastic hinge, the left pier

Fig. 5. Applied load-drift ratio: (a) RCSW1; (b) RCSW2; (c) RCSW3; and (d) RCSW4.

6
S.A. Hosseini, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109410

Fig. 6. Propagation of cracks at different drift ratios.

7
S.A. Hosseini, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109410

deviated from its axis. In the right pier, X-shaped cracks were propa- eccentric openings had no significant effect on the maximum load
gated by a maximum crack width of ≈ 6 mm, and sliding along these carrying capacity of RC shear walls with openings.
crack interfaces appeared. In the upper corners of the opening, major In geometrically asymmetric specimens, the asymmetry of envelope
spalling of concrete concentrated on the right corner at the junction of and hysteresis curves, especially at peak load, were clearly evident. The
the link beam and right pier. Furthermore, no significant diagonal differences of peak load in pull and push loading directions in speci-
cracks were observed at the surface of the link beam in this specimen. mens RCSW1, RCSW2, RCSW3, and RCSW4 were equal to 0.3%, 1.1%,
According to the dimensional range and damage concentration in 29.9%, and 14.9%, respectively. In general, in the case of the asym-
Figs. 2 and 6, respectively, the damage in both upper corners of the metric specimens, the peak load at pushing direction was more than the
opening was almost symmetric in the specimen RCSW2. In the speci- pulling direction. Regarding the crack propagation patterns indicated in
mens RCSW3 and RCSW4, most of the damages at the connection point Fig. 6d–l, it can be postulated that according to the location of the
of the link beam to the vertical wall segments were concentrated at the eccentric opening in the pushing direction, the diagonal compression
vertical wall segment, which was in the range of the walls. strut can be formed better than for the pulling direction (Table 1). Si-
Significant differences were observed in the comparison between milar observations were found in other research [4,5].
the behavior of the walls purposefully fabricated with openings After reaching the peak load in specimens with openings (RCSW2,
[4,5,24,52,59] and the walls fabricated as solid that then had cut-out RCSW3, and RCSW4), the RC shear walls entered abruptly to the soft-
openings created (as presented in this paper). These main differences ening behavior, whereas in the reference specimen, the degradation
could be due to differences in the reinforcement ratios and reinforce- rate was slower. Lower stiffness, asymmetric geometry, and different
ment arrangements in the shear walls so that higher reinforcement failure modes can justify this immediate softening behavior.
ratios and different reinforcement arrangements in designing should be In an overall view of the strains, it can be observed that major yield
considered as purposefully fabricated with openings. The reinforcement strains were concentrated at the boundary elements as well as around
ratios or reinforcement arrangements would not be changed by the cut- the opening area before the sixteenth cycle (1.00% drift). With an in-
out openings of shear walls after construction; therefore, these shear crease in the opening eccentricity, the amount of strain in the first
walls may need to be strengthened. By considering the differences in horizontal steel bar reinforcement at the top of the left pier (SG5) de-
the reinforcement ratios of shear walls, it is expected to have different creased. As listed in Table 2, the maximum strains at peak load were
structural performances in load-displacement responses, failure modes, recorded in the boundary elements from SG1 and SG4 in specimens
number of cracks, and hysteresis responses. For instance, comparisons RCSW1 and RCSW2. However, in specimen RCSW2, the strain around
between the tested walls in this paper and the literature [4,31,49,54] the opening was relatively high (≥4100 µε). In specimen RCSW3, the
show that the number of cracks forming around the opening area in the maximum strain at peak load was reported for SG4 and SG10, although
walls constructed and then had cut-out openings created (especially in the measured strains in SG1, SG3, SG11, and SG7 were relatively high
specimens RCSW2 and RCSW3) was less than walls purposefully fab- (≥4300 µε). For specimen RCSW4, the maximum strain at the peak
ricated with openings. In other words, the local reinforcement ratio at load occurred in SG3 and SG4. The strains in SG1, SG2, SG9, and SG10
the opening edges was likely to be low where the solid wall was per- (≥4500 µε) were similar to SG3 and SG4.
forated. As a result, the few cracks led to a localized yielding and a
concentration of damage. 3.3. Contribution of different deformation modes

3.2. Hysteretic response In Fig. 8, the components of the deformation are depicted in the
hysteresis curves. In total, the top lateral displacement of the specimens
Fig. 7 shows the envelope curves of the tested specimens. Table 2 can be categorized as sum of the flexural deformation, the shear de-
highlights the results of each specimen as extracted from the hysteresis formation, and the sliding deformation. Shear and flexural deformation
curves. According to the results, the first crack in RCSW1 occurred at a were determined by the shear distortions in panel and rotations around
higher load and drift level than the other walls. In the specimens with the specimen base, respectively. The sliding shear component of the
openings, the drift level at the first crack was approximately equal to wall’s lateral displacement was also measured using the horizontal
0.10%, whereas the load level at the first crack increased with the LVDTs installed at the wall foundation interface. It should be noted that
widening of the eccentric opening. The cracking load compared to the all deformation components continued until there was no longer any
reference specimen in RCSW2, RCSW3, and RCSW4 was reduced to possibility of damage to the LVDTs.
35%, 41.5%, and 56%, respectively. In the case of the flexural deformation, the specimen RCSW2 had
In Fig. 7, the results generally show that the creation of openings in the highest deformation; the deformation was about twice the reference
RC shear walls degrades the structural performance (an average of 45% specimen flexural deformation. As the eccentricity of the opening in-
reduction in the maximum load carrying capacity). In conclusion, creased, the flexural deformations had similar deformation as registered
in the reference specimen, especially for the pushing direction. The
flexural deformation for the pushing direction increased by 63% and
16%, respectively in the specimens RCSW3 and RCSW4 compared to
specimen RCSW1 (see Fig. 8a).
In the case of shear deformation, the specimens RCSW1 and RCSW2
had the highest and lowest degree of deformation, respectively (see
Fig. 8b). Similar to the flexural deformation, with an increase in the
eccentric opening, the amount of the shear deformation was closer to
the reference RC shear wall. The average of shear deformation for both
loading directions in specimens RCSW2, RCSW3, and RCSW4 decreased
by 35%, 21%, and 5%, respectively.
The lowest amount of deformation due to sliding was observed in
specimens RCSW1 and RCSW4. By increasing the level of displacement
in higher cycles in specimens with eccentric openings, the hysteresis
loops became larger, and, finally, in the last cycle, a brittle slid oc-
curred. The rate of sliding deflection in the specimens RCSW2 and
Fig. 7. Load-drift ratio responses for the RC shear walls. RCSW3 was approximately threefold, and it was about twofold in the

8
S.A. Hosseini, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109410

Table 2
Summary of the highlighted results extracted from the hysteresis curves.
Specimen ID First cracking Peak load (kN) Drift ratio corresponding to peak load Drop in peak load compared to reference Maximum strain at peak load
(%) (%)

Load (kN) Drift (%) Push Pull Push Pull Push Pull SG ID strain (με)

Push Pull Push Pull

RCSW1 140 0.17 504.0 502.5 2.00 2.00 – – SG1 SG4 4225 4312
RCSW2 49 0.10 278.0 281.0 2.00 2.00 46.43 44.08 SG1 SG4 5921 5759
RCSW3 58 0.10 306.5 242.5 2.00 1.34 39.20 51.74 SG10 SG4 4741 5447
RCSW4 79 0.10 298.5 254.0 3.00 3.00 40.77 49.45 SG3 SG4 5412 5152

specimen RCSW4 compared to the reference specimen (see Fig. 8c). integration of the imposed damages. At each level of displacement, the
specimen RCSW1 proved to have a higher stiffness compared to the
specimens with openings. As listed in Table 3, among the specimens
3.4. Wall stiffness variations with openings, the specimen RCSW4 showed the highest and the lowest
stiffness in push and pull loading directions, respectively. According to
Fig. 9 shows the stiffness variations of the shear walls based on the the definition of ACI 318-14 [50], the creation of openings affects the
secant stiffness (K = Vp/Δp, where Vp and Δp are lateral force and dis- dimensional range of the wall pier as well as the wall in RC shear walls.
placement at peak load for each drift level, respectively). Additionally, As shown in Fig. 2, both left and right piers in shear walls RCSW1 and
Table 3 lists the details of stiffness in the first cycle and after the initial RCSW2 could be categorized as a wall dimensional limit, whereas the
crack formation (equivalent to a drift ratio of 0.17%). As expected, left and right piers in shear walls RCSW3 and RCSW4 could be classified
increasing displacement led to a reduction in the stiffness due to the

Fig. 8. Displacement components: (a) flexural displacement: (b) shear displacement; and (c) sliding displacement.

9
S.A. Hosseini, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109410

Fig. 9. Effects of openings and eccentric openings on the stiffness variations of Fig. 11. Equivalent viscous damping ratio.
the RC shear walls.

Table 3
Secant stiffness milestones.
Specimen ID Secant stiffness at first cycle Secant stiffness corresponding to the
(kN/mm) first cracking (kN/mm)

Push Pull Push Pull

RCSW1 90.24 91.31 57.92 58.15

RCSW2 36.09 38.98 31.58 32.11
RCSW3 37.65 47.53 30.05 38.41
RCSW4 86.82 32.77 38.98 29.70

Fig. 12. Definition of the bilinear method to envelope the curve.

as a wall pier and a wall, respectively. This finding was justified by the
location of the opening in relation to the loading direction. By placing
the opening in the flexural tension zone of the wall section, the struts
were more ideally formed, and the transmitting flows of the internal
compression loads were more similar to the reference specimen RCSW1.

3.5. Energy dissipation capacity

Energy dissipation was derived from the area enclosed in each loop
from the hysteresis curve. According to the results shown in Fig. 10, the
specimen RCSW1 had the highest amount of cumulative energy dis-
sipation (122190 kN mm). The energy dissipation changes were rela-
tively close in the specimens with opening (with a maximum difference
of 9.3%). In general, there was not a significant difference in the energy
levels of the specimens up to the fifteenth cycle. As the results show,
among the specimens with opening, the specimen RCSW4, with the
maximum opening eccentricity, had the highest amount of energy
dissipation (45472 kN mm). This amount reached 30.1%, 28.7%, and
37.2% of the energy dissipation in the reference specimens for RCSW2,
RCSW3, and RCSW4, respectively.

3.6. The equivalent viscous damping ratio

In line with the term of energy dissipation, another index called the
equivalent viscous damping ratio can be defined by Eq. (1) [60]. In this
equation, AE+ and AE− are the elastic energy based on the maximum
displacement at cycle n for push and pull loading directions, respec-
tively. And En is the energy dissipated at cycle n.
Fig. 10. Energy variations: (a) cumulative energy dissipation and (b) energy
En
dissipation. ξi =
π (AE− + AE+ ) (1)

Fig. 11 indicates the equivalent viscous damping ratio based on the

10
S.A. Hosseini, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109410

Fig. 13. Ductility of the present specimens: (a) bilinearisation of the experimental curves and (b) comparison of ductility indices for tested specimens.

drift changes. At the beginning of loading (up to 0.50% of a drift), the For the present specimens, ductility is calculated using bilinear ap-
variations in the viscous damping ratios of the specimens were similar proximation. In the bilinear curve method, the ductility index is cal-
and changed in the range of 0.05 to 0.15. Above a 1.00% drift ratio, the culated using the bilinearisation of the envelope curve, which results
reference RC shear wall had the highest equivalent viscous damping from the applied load for different drift ratios. In this method, the ul-
ratio at each level of displacement. The creation of openings reduced timate displacement and first yield points are equivalent to a dis-
the equivalent viscous damping ratio, although the higher amount of placement at 0.85 of peak load and 0.75 of peak load, respectively (see
eccentricity in an opening increased this ratio at higher drift ratios Fig. 12) [61]. Fig. 13a represents the ductility index in the present
(higher than 1.5%). specimens. Comparing the results shows that specimens with cut-out
openings had higher ductility and that increasing the eccentric opening
reduced ductility (see Fig. 13b).
3.7. Ductility
Δu
μ=
Ductility expresses the deformation capacity of the structural Δy (2)
members in the inelastic range [61]. The ductility index is equal to the
ratio of ultimate displacement to the yielding displacement (Eq. (2)). Among the specimens with cut-out openings, the behavior of both

11
S.A. Hosseini, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109410

left and right piers tended to some extent towards the dimensional It is worth stating that the walls with openings (after fabrication)
range of the slender walls due to the presence of the openings. need to be strengthened. However, it is necessary to clarify the failure
Additionally, considering the non-ideal coupling conditions of the two modes and assess the imposed damages to the walls before repairing the
piers to each other, at higher levels of displacement, the integrated walls with the available strengthening techniques. This work presents
performance of these piers will be gradually reduced. the differences in the failure modes and evaluates the imposed damages
The specimens were quite similar in terms of design and construc- to the structural performances of walls with openings. Therefore, to
tion plan, but in specimens with opening, in addition to the fact that the achieve the proposed aims, failure modes, propagation of cracks pat-
wall web was cut off in different locations, the arrangement of the re- tern, force-displacement responses, etc., provide insight into evaluating
inforcement around the opening was also different. These conditions the retrofitting tasks of existing buildings as well as upgrading en-
led to an almost unpredictable structural performance, including the gineering judgments in this field. In addition, this research can be used
ductility indices in these specimens. as a benchmark for future research, such as retrofitting methods after
creating cut-out openings in RC shear walls or assessing other dimen-
4. Conclusions sional ranges of the walls in terms of experimental and numerical stu-
dies, including finite element modeling and some analytical approaches
In this paper, an experimental study was conducted to investigate (strut-and-tie model, etc.).
the structural performances of the squat RC shear walls with cut-out
openings and the effect of eccentric openings on their structural per- Acknowledgment
formance. For this purpose, four 3:4 scale specimens of RC shear walls
with rectangular cross-section were constructed and tested under re- This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
versed cyclic loading, including one wall as a reference specimen agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The pre-
without an opening and three specimens created by cutting out part of sented experimental work was carried out in the structural laboratory
the wall web in different locations. According to the obtained results, of Semnan University in Iran. The authors would also like to ac-
the following outcomes are highlighted: knowledge the assistance of head of laboratory Dr. Mohammad Iman
Khodakarami, laboratory specialist Eng. Mohammad Bakhshai, and la-
• In general, with creation of the cut-out opening in specimens, an boratory technician Eng. Alireza Sattarifard.
average of a ≈ 45% decrease in lateral loading capacity was mea-
sured. By creating the eccentric opening, differences in the load References
capacity occurred under both push and pull loading directions.
These differences at peak load in reference specimen and RCSW2 [1] Moehle J. Seismic design of reinforced concrete buildings. McGraw-Hill Education;
(without eccentricity) were less than 2%; in specimen RCSW3 (with 2015.
[2] ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-
6.25% eccentricity) and RCSW4 (with 12.50% eccentricity), they 19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19). Farmington Hills, Michigan: American
were 21% and 15%, respectively. Additionally, in specimens with Concrete Institute; 2019. doi: http://doi.org/10.14359/51716937.
eccentric opening, the shear strength in the push loading direction [3] Peng Y, Wu H, Structures YZ-E. U. Strength and drift capacity of squat recycled
concrete shear walls under cyclic loading. Eng Struct 2015;2015(100):356–68.
(from the opening side) was larger than the reverse loading direc- https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2015.06.025.
tion because the opening location affected the formation of concrete [4] Wang J, Sakashita M, Kono S, Tanaka H. Shear behaviour of reinforced concrete
strut to transfer shear forces to the base of the walls. structural walls with eccentric openings under cyclic loading: experimental study.

• In the reference specimen, the diagonal compression failure oc- Struct Des Tall Spec Build 2012;21:669–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.639.
[5] Wang J, Sakashita M, Kono S, Tanaka H, Lou W. Behavior of reinforced concrete
curred due to the sufficiency of horizontal and vertical reinforce- structural walls with various opening locations: experiments and macro model. J
ments. After cutting out part of the wall web, the failure mode Zhejiang Univ Sci A 2010;11:202–11. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.A0900400.
[6] Zhang H, Liu X, Yi W. Experimental investigation on stress redistribution and load-
completely changed to sliding shear failure and diagonal tension
transfer paths of shear walls with openings. J Struct Eng 2018;144:4018149.
failure. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002110.
• In specimens with cut-out opening, the plastic hinge did not form in [7] Massone LM, Muñoz G, Rojas F. Experimental and numerical cyclic response of RC
walls with openings. Eng Struct 2019;178:318–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
an ideal arrangement. Yet the plastic hinge should be initially
ENGSTRUCT.2018.10.038.
formed in the link beam and then in the piers, or it formed in both [8] Sabau C, Popescu C, Bagge N, Sas G, Blanksvärd T, Täljsten B. Local and global
piers like in specimen RCSW4. behavior of walls with cut-out openings in multi-story reinforced concrete build-

• The cumulative energy dissipation in the reference specimen was ings. Eng Struct 2019;187:57–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2019.02.
046.
about three times higher than the specimens with cut-out opening. [9] Popescu C, Sas G, Sabău C, Blanksvärd T. Effect of cut-out openings on the axial
Among the specimens with openings, the specimen RCSW4, with a strength of concrete walls. J Struct Eng 2016;142:4016100. https://doi.org/10.
maximum eccentric opening, dissipated more energy. 1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001558.

• Despite the abrupt entrance of the softening behavior at the final

[10] Su RKL, Wong SM. Seismic behaviour of slender reinforced concrete shear walls
under high axial load ratio. Eng Struct 2007;29:1957–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/
stage of loading in the RC shear walls with opening, the ductility J.ENGSTRUCT.2006.10.020.
index in these specimens was close to or higher than the reference [11] Jiang H, Wang B, Lu X. Experimental study on damage behavior of reinforced
concrete shear walls subjected to cyclic loads. J Earthq Eng 2013;17:958–71.
specimen. The reference specimen at each level of displacement
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.791895.
indicated the highest degree of stiffness. By increasing the eccentric [12] Alarcon C, Hube MA, de la Llera JC. Effect of axial loads in the seismic behavior of
openings to 0.00%, 6.25%, and 12.5%, the average stiffness in the reinforced concrete walls with unconfined wall boundaries. Eng Struct
2014;73:13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2014.04.047.
first cycle achieved 41.35%, 46.92%, and 65.87% of the reference
[13] Zhang Y, Wang Z. Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete shear walls subjected to
specimen stiffness, respectively. The reference specimen was more high axial loading. ACI Struct J 2000;97:739–50. https://doi.org/10.14359/8809.
symmetric in stiffness variations compared to other specimens in [14] Dashti F, Dhakal RP, Pampanin S. Validation of a numerical model for prediction of
both loading directions. In contrast, as the eccentricity of the out-of-plane instability in ductile structural walls under concentric in-plane cyclic
loading. J Struct Eng 2018;144:04018039. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.
openings increased, asymmetry in the stiffness variations was ob- 1943-541X.0002013.
served. [15] Dashti F, Dhakal RP, Pampanin S. Numerical modeling of rectangular reinforced

• Since the change of the opening in the RC shear walls affected the concrete structural walls. J Struct Eng 2017;143:04017031. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001729.
dimensional ranges of the vertical wall segment and, subsequently, [16] Wallace JW, Elwood KJ, Massone LM. Investigation of the axial load capacity for
the structural performance of the RC shear walls, the reported lightly reinforced wall piers. J Struct Eng 2008;134:1548–57. https://doi.org/10.
conclusions could be generalized based on the geometric de- 1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008) 134:9(1548).
[17] Elwood KJ, Moehle JP. Axial capacity model for shear-damaged columns. ACI
pendency of these walls.

12
S.A. Hosseini, et al. Engineering Structures 197 (2019) 109410

Struct J 2005;102:578–87. https://doi.org/10.14359/14562. seismic response of lightly reinforced, low-aspect ratio reinforced concrete shear
[18] Epackachi S, Sharma N, Whittaker A, Hamburger RO, Hortacsu A. A cyclic back- walls. Eng Struct 2018;168:589–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.
bone curve for shear-critical reinforced concrete walls. J Struct Eng 2018.04.025.
2019;145:04019006. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002277. [40] Pecce M, Ceroni F, Bibbò FA, De Angelis A. Behaviour of RC buildings with large
[19] International Conference of Building Officials. 1997 uniform building code. lightly reinforced walls along the perimeter. Eng Struct 2014;73:39–53. https://doi.
International Conference of Building Officials; 1997. org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2014.04.038.
[20] American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of [41] Hoult R, Goldsworthy H, Lumantarna E. Plastic hinge length for lightly reinforced
Existing Buildings. United States: ASCE/SEI; 2017. doi: http://doi.org/10.1061/ rectangular concrete walls. J Earthq Eng 2017:1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/
9780784414859. 13632469.2017.1286619.
[21] Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance-Part 1: general rules, [42] Darbhanzi A, Marefat MS, Khanmohammadi M. Investigation of in-plane seismic
seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels (prEN 1998-1:2004); 2004. n.d. retrofit of unreinforced masonry walls by means of vertical steel ties. Constr Build
[22] Yuniarsyah E, Kono S, Tani M, Taleb R, Watanabe H, Obara T, et al. Experimental Mater 2014;52:122–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2013.11.020.
study of lightly reinforced concrete walls upgraded with various schemes under [43] Li B, Pan Z, Xiang W. Experimental evaluation of seismic performance of squat RC
seismic loading. Eng Struct 2017;138:131–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. structural walls with limited ductility reinforcing details. J Earthq Eng
ENGSTRUCT.2017.02.005. 2015;19:313–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2014.962669.
[23] Dhanasekar M, Thamboo JA, Nazir S. On the in-plane shear response of the high [44] Greifenhagen C, Lestuzzi P. Static cyclic tests on lightly reinforced concrete shear
bond strength concrete masonry walls. Mater Struct 2017;50:214. https://doi.org/ walls. Eng Struct 2005;27:1703–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2005.
10.1617/s11527-017-1078-7. 06.008.
[24] Li B, Pan Z, Zhao Y. Seismic behaviour of lightly reinforced concrete structural walls [45] Dhanasekar M, Haider W. Effect of spacing of reinforcement on the behaviour of
with openings. Mag Concr Res 2015;67:843–54. https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.14. partially grouted masonry shear walls. Adv Struct Eng 2011;14:281–93. https://doi.
00428. org/10.1260/1369-4332.14.2.281.
[25] Hidalgo PA, Ledezma CA, Jordan RM. Seismic behavior of squat reinforced concrete [46] Haider W, Dhanasekar M. Experimental study of monotonically loaded wide spaced
shear walls. Earthq Spectra 2002;18:287–308. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1490353. reinforced masonry shear walls. Aust J Struct Eng 2004;5:101–18. https://doi.org/
[26] Seif ElDin HM, Ashour A, Galal K. Seismic performance parameters of fully grouted 10.1080/13287982.2004.11464931.
reinforced masonry squat shear walls. Eng Struct 2019;187:518–27. https://doi. [47] ASTM Standard-A370. Standard test methods and definitions for mechanical testing
org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2019.02.069. of steel products. ASTM Int 2010:1–49. doi: http://doi.org/10.1520/A0370-16.2.
[27] Seif ElDin HM, Aly N, Galal K. In-plane shear strength equation for fully grouted [48] ASTM Standard-A675. Standard Specification for Steel Bars, Carbon, Hot-Wrought,
reinforced masonry shear walls. Eng Struct 2019;190:319–32. https://doi.org/10. Special Quality, Mechanical Properties. ASTM Int 1999;01:5–7. doi: http://doi.org/
1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2019.03.079. 10.1520/A0921.
[28] Seif ElDin HM, Galal K. Effect of reinforcement anchorage end detail and spacing on [49] Noor FA, Boswell LF. Small scale modelling of concrete structures. Elsevier Applied
seismic performance of masonry shear walls. Eng Struct 2018;157:268–79. https:// Science; 1992.
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.11.073. [50] ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-
[29] Kingsley G, Shing PB, Gangel T. NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 9: 14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14). 2014. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/0262-
Seismic Design of Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls | NIST. Grant/Contract 5075(85)90032-6.
Reports – 14-917-31 2014. [51] Li B, Qian K, Tran CTN. Retrofitting earthquake-damaged RC structural walls with
[30] Wood SL. Minimum tensile reinforcement requirements in walls. ACI Struct J openings by externally bonded FRP strips and sheets. J Compos Constr
1989;86:582–91. https://doi.org/10.14359/2668. 2013;17:259–70. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000336.
[31] Wibowo A, Wilson JL, Lam NTK, Gad EF. Seismic performance of lightly reinforced [52] Ou Y-C, Hoang L, Roh H. Cyclic behavior of squat reinforced concrete walls with
structural walls for design purposes. Mag Concr Res 2013;65:809–28. https://doi. openings typical of exterior walls of row houses in Taiwan. Eng Struct
org/10.1680/macr.13.00021. 2019;195:231–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2019.05.097.
[32] Dhanasekar M, Haider W. Explicit finite element analysis of lightly reinforced [53] Luna BN, Rivera JP, Whittaker AS. Seismic Behavior of Low-Aspect-Ratio
masonry shear walls. Comput Struct 2008;86:15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls. ACI Struct J 2015;112:593–604. https://doi.org/
COMPSTRUC.2007.06.006. 10.14359/51687709.
[33] Wilson JL, Wibowo A, Lam NTK, Gad EF. Drift behaviour of lightly reinforced [54] ASTM E2126-11(2018). Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed) Load Test for
concrete columns and structural walls for seismic design applications. Aust J Struct Shear Resistance of Walls. ASTM E2126 – 11 2018. doi: http://doi.org/10.1520/
Eng 2015;16:62–74. https://doi.org/10.7158/S14-002.2015.16.1. E2126-11.2.
[34] Hwang J-S, Tsai C-H, Wang S-J, Huang Y-N. Experimental study of RC building [55] ACI Committee 374.2R. Guide for testing reinforced concrete structural elements
structures with supplemental viscous dampers and lightly reinforced walls. Eng under slowly applied simulated seismic loads. American Concrete Institute; 2013.
Struct 2006;28:1816–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2006.03.012. [56] Barda F, Hanson JM, Corley WG. Shear strength of low-rise walls with boundary
[35] Mojiri S, El-Dakhakhni WW, Tait MJ. Shake Table Seismic Performance Assessment elements. Spec Publ 1977;53:149–202. https://doi.org/10.14359/17697.
of Lightly Reinforced Concrete Block Shear Walls. J Struct Eng 2015;141:4014105. [57] Salonikios TN. Analytical prediction of the inelastic response of RC walls with low
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001034. aspect ratio. J Struct Eng 2007;133:844–54. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
[36] Mojiri S, Tait MJ, El-Dakhakhni WW. Seismic response analysis of lightly reinforced 9445(2007) 133:6(844).
concrete block masonry shear walls based on shake table tests. J Struct Eng [58] Paulay T, Priestley MJN, Synge AJ. Ductility in earthquake resisting squat shear-
2014;140:4014057. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000967. walls. ACI J Proc 1982;79:257–69. https://doi.org/10.14359/10903.
[37] Orakcal K, Massone LM, Wallace JW. Shear strength of lightly reinforced wall piers [59] Mosoarca M. Failure analysis of RC shear walls with staggered openings under
and spandrels. ACI Struct J 2009;106:455–65. https://doi.org/10.14359/56611. seismic loads. Eng Fail Anal 2014;41:48–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
[38] Yuniarsyah E, Kono S, Tani M, Taleb R, Sugimoto K, Mukai T. Damage evaluation of ENGFAILANAL.2013.07.037.
lightly reinforced concrete walls in moment resisting frames under seismic loading. [60] Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Hoboken,
Eng Struct 2017;132:349–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2016.11. NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1996.
047. [61] Paulay T, Priestly MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry build-
[39] Epackachi S, Whittaker AS. A validated numerical model for predicting the in-plane ings. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1992.

13