Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract: Reinforced concrete walls with openings are tested in both one-way and
two-way action. The test panels, with a slenderness ratio of 30 or 40, were subjected to
a uniformly distributed axial load with an eccentricity of tw/6. Apart from highlighting
the experimental set-up; typical crack patterns, failure modes, and load-deflection
behaviour are also reported. Utilising these and other published test results, a formula
predicting the ultimate load of walls with openings was derived. A comparative study
of predicted to test results indicates that the new formula is accurate and reliable.
Key words: concrete wall, openings, axial load, code method, slenderness ratio, design equation.
Ultimate Load Formula for Reinforced Concrete Wall Panels with Openings
600 C
L
WWO - 1 WWO - 4
900 900
H G3 Ho
G1 G2
240 240 240 420
600 Lo
C
L
WWO - 2 WWO - 5
Elevatio n
80 80
L
o
240 240 240 240 240 420 240 240
L/2
~
600
C
80 80 L
t
WWO - 3 WWO - 6 G1 G2 G3
80 Cross-section
Figure 2. Details of Saheb and Desayi (1990b) wall panels Figure 3. Geometry of wall openings in elevation and cross-section
(All dimensions in mm) plan (Saheb Desayi 1990b)
Ultimate Load Formula for Reinforced Concrete Wall Panels with Openings
denotes the number of openings; the second digit denotes Reinforcing was also placed diagonally in each
the slenderness ratio with 1 for H/tw = 30 and 2 for 40. corner of the openings to prevent shrinkage cracking.
All wall panels were reinforced with a single F41 This consisted of strips cut from F41 mesh. Three of
mesh, placed centrally within the panel cross-section. these strips were tied in each corner. The length of each
The F41 mesh has a design yield strength of 450 MPa strip was the same as the dimension of the side of the
and the minimum tensile strength was 500 MPa. The opening; 300 mm for the small walls and 400 mm for
reinforcement ratios v and h were 0.0031 for all the larger walls. The fixing and the layout of the corner
panels, satisfying the minimum requirements in the reinforcement are shown in Figure 4.
Australian Standard and the ACI code. The concrete was supplied by the local ready-mix
company. The concrete requirements were a To achieve the hinged support conditions for two-
compressive strength, 32 or 50 MPa, a slump of 80 mm way action, the edges of the panels had to be effectively
and a maximum aggregate size of 10 mm. stiffened so that rotation about the x-axis was prevented
while they were free to rotate about the y-axis. To
3.2. Test Set-Up achieve this, two parallel flanged channel sections
An arrangement of the test set-up is shown in Figure 5. separated by a square hollow section extend along the
The test frame was designed to support three height of both sides of the test panel (see Figure 7).
independent hydraulic jacks each of 80 tonne capacity. Dial gauges were used to measure the lateral
The jacks transmit a uniformly distributed load across deflections of the wall panels during testing. The
the top through a loading beam at an eccentricity of tw/6. positioning of the dial gauges for the wall panels with
The top and bottom hinged support conditions were one opening are indicated in Figure 5 and Figure 8 (a).
each simulated by placing a 23 mm diameter high For the wall panels with one opening, all dial gauges
strength steel rod on a 50 mm thick steel plate of 150 mm were positioned midway between the edges of the panel
width and varying lengths which corresponded to the and the edges of the opening. For the wall panels with
different test panel dimensions. Two 20 mm 20 mm two openings, the top, bottom and side gauges were all
angle sections were clamped to the thick plate by bolts positioned midway between the edges of the panel and
and the 23 mm diameter rod was welded along the length the edges of the opening. The final dial gauge was
of the plate. Details of the simply supported top hinged placed in the very centre of the panel as shown in
edge are shown in Figure 6. Figure 8 (b).
Support channel
(380PFC)
Cylinder mounting Hydraulic jacks
plates (800tonne each)
Upper load beam Concrete panel
(250UC72.9)
Dial gauge 1
Dial gauge 2
y
Lower load beam
(250UC72.9)
150PFC 40*40*5 SHS
x
Dial gauge 3 Dial gauge 4
Figure 5. Test frame arrangement and side supports Figure 7. Top view of side restraint
Eccentricity t/6
Welding 23
ll
150x50 plate
20x20EA
(a) Side view of top hinged edge (b) Details of top hinged edge
Ultimate Load Formula for Reinforced Concrete Wall Panels with Openings
(a) Wall panel with one opening (b) Wall panel with two openings
Figure 10. Crack pattern of TW02 Figure 12. Crack pattern of OW21
Figure 13. Wall Crack pattern of OW12 Figure 16. Crack pattern of TW12
Figure 14. Wall Crack pattern of OW22 Figure 17. Crack pattern of TW21
Figure 15. Crack pattern of TW11 Figure 18. Crack pattern of TW22
Ultimate Load Formula for Reinforced Concrete Wall Panels with Openings
developed in the column sections only, which is logical are shown in Figures 19 to 23. It should be observed that
since this is the area where the cross-section is reduced. the maximum deflections shown were obtained just
For two-way wall panels it is evident, from Figures 15 prior to failure load being reached. Most of the panels
to 18, that cracking is typical and similar to two-way solid tested failed in a brittle mode and the sudden failure of
panels. However the panels with two openings (Figures these panels made it difficult to record deflection
17 and 18) show failure occurs horizontally through the precisely at failure. Thus in these figures, the absolute
middle column element as well as from outer edges, thus maximum failure loads and the corresponding
again illustrating that failure is critical within the column maximum deflections are not shown.
element. Also cracking is also initiated at the corners of Figures 19 and 21 show that the deflections at the wall
the openings. This suggests that the interior corners act as centre are generally proportional to those at the side
stress concentrators and thus initiating failure. points. This indicates that the centre and side points
move in an approximate single curvature manner in the
4.2. Deflection vertical direction, which is typical of one-way behaviour.
Typical load versus lateral deflection relationships for The curves for the one-way action solid panels (see
the wall panels tested in both one and two-way actions Figure 19) show that the walls exhibited ductile failure
300 BT MS TB R L
Load (kN)
S
BT M 100 TB RL
250
BTS
M TB R L OW21 Top
200 S
BTM 80 OW21 R-side
B RL
T OW21 Bottom
150 60 B
TRL OW21 L-side
T OW22 Top
S
BTM 40 B
R
TL R OW22 R-side
100
L
B
R
T B OW22 Bottom
L
B
20 R
T L OW22 L-side
50
0M
S
B
T 0R
L
B
T
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
Figure 19. Load versus lateral deflection curves for wall OW01 Figure 21. Load versus lateral deflection curves for wall OW21
and OW02 and OW22
1200 1100
B T M
BS T M
1100 B S TM 1000 T L TBRL BR
T LT LBR BR
B STM T LB R
1000 900 TL LRBR
B SMT T L RB
B M T
S T L RB
900 B MT S 800 T L RB
B SMT T L RB
B SMT T L RB
800 B SM T T L RB
700 T L RB
B SMT T L RB
Load (kN)
T L RB
Load (kN)
700 B MST T L RB
600 T L RB
600 BM ST T L RB
T L RB
BM ST 500 T L R B TW11 Top
500 B MS T TW01 Top T L R B
TW11 R-side
BMST TW01 Middle 400 T L R B
TW11 Bottom
400 BMS T TW01 Bottom TL RB TW11 L-side
TW01 Side 300 TLRB
300 BMS T T TWO2 Top
T TW12 Top
BST
M TLRB R TW12 R-side
M TW02 Middle 200 B TW12 Bottom
MT
200 S RLB
T
B TW02 Bottom L TW12 L-side
MT 100 R
TLB
100 B S TW02 Side
T
M
S LB
R
T
0M
T
B
S 0 L
B
R
T
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
Figure 20. Load versus lateral deflection curves for wall TW01 Figure 22. Load versus lateral deflection curves for wall TW11
and TW02 and TW12
STB
M TW21 Middle deflection readings were taken midway between the
300 STBM TW21 Bottom
TW21 Side edge of the panel and the edge of the opening. In the
ST
BM T TW22 Top
200 M TW22 Middle case of two-way panels with one opening the maximum
SB
M
T B TW22 Bottom
S TW22 Side deflection would actually occur equally around the very
100
S
B
TM edge of the opening. Generally, the deflections at
S
B
M
T quarter point over the length of the walls at mid-height
0 M
S
B
T were quite similar to top and bottom-points deflections.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Deflection (mm)
This was obvious as the side, top and bottom-quarter
points should have moved, approximately, by the same
Figure 23. Load versus lateral deflection curves for wall TW21
amount due to the curvatures taking place in both the
and TW22
vertical and horizontal directions.
Figures 22 and 23 show that the lateral deflections of
the panel with openings in two-way action are much
behaviour. This was reflected in the continually larger than the lateral deflections of the corresponding
increasing values of the deflections as the test loads walls in one-way action. This is mainly due to the fact
approached failure. The OW01 curves were linear for the that the two-way walls had a much greater failure load
initial loading regimes, and then followed by non-linear than the same wall tested in one-way action. If the
trends with lateral deflections increasing rapidly as lateral deflections of a one-way and two-way wall of the
failure was approached. The linearity of the curves was same model are compared at the same load, the one-way
up to 40 to 50% of the ultimate loads for OW01. Figure wall has a much larger deflection.
19. also shows that the one-way action panels exhibited
a ductile failure type. 4.3. Failure Load
For the two-way solid panel of TW02 (see Figure 20), The ultimate loads and the axial strength ratios,
the curves are generally linear for the initial loading Nu/fcLtw, together with the concrete strengths are
regions, followed by an increasingly non-linear curve as shown in Table 2. for all the test panels.
the lateral deflections increase rapidly, as the loads It is obvious in Table 2 that the failure loads for the
approach failure. The linearity was up to about 70 % of two-way panels are much higher than the corresponding
Ultimate Load Formula for Reinforced Concrete Wall Panels with Openings
one-way specimens with comparative strength increases way action shows inconclusive results on the effect of
ranging from 2.4 to 3.5. The axial strength ratio for axial strength ratio of walls when slenderness ratios are
panels (with or without openings) in one-way action higher than 30. More testing should be undertaken to
tends to decrease with an increased slenderness ratio. clarify this effect.
This is also generally true for two-way panels except for
panel TW12. The axial strength ratios for the two-way 5. PROPOSED ULTIMATE LOAD FORMULA
panels are higher than those for the one-way panels. To develop the new ultimate load formula, Eqn 2 by
This ratio decreases as the opening in the one-way Saheb (1985) was used in conjunction with Eqn 1 by
panels increased from one to two. This effect is not Doh and Fragomeni (2005). That is, the ultimate load
obvious in the two-way panels. capacity is
Further, Table 2 indicates that for the one-way Nuo = (k1 k2)Nu (5)
panels, an increase in the slenderness ratio from 30 to 40
has led to a strength reduction of 8%, 19% and 22% for where Nu may be calculated using Eqn 1 and is as
the panels with 0, 1 and 2 openings respectively. The defined previously in Section 2.1.
higher reduction variation reflects the presence of This equation, however, requires a calibration
openings. To check the accuracy of the current code process to produce new sets of k1 and k2 factors. The
recommendations the panel failure loads in Table 2 are Nuo/Nu ratio is plotted against in Figures 25 and 26 for
plotted in Figure 24, together with the failure lines the one-way and two-way panels respectively. Note that
predicted by the AS3600-01 and ACI318-02 wall design the Nuo and Nu in these plots are the present test values
equations. The conservative nature of the code and those of Saheb (1985). A standard regression
provisions is evident. For example at H/tw = 40, the test analysis yielded k1=1.188 and k2=1.175 for one-way
panels, especially those in two-way action, showed action walls (giving a correlation coefficient of 0.84),
significant load carrying capacities whereas neither the and k1=1.004 and k2=0.933 for two-way action walls
Australian standard nor the American code allows for (giving a correlation coefficient of 0.96).
any strength at this slenderness. It should be noted that
the current AS3600-01 and ACI318-02 equations are 5.1. Comparison of Test Results
applicable to solid walls in one-way action only. This Table 3 gives test panel predicted and test failure loads
may explain the apparent conservative nature of the including the ratio of predicted/test. It shows that the
prediction formulae, and demonstrates the need for a new formula gives conservative predictions with a mean
revamped formula for high strength concrete two-way ratio of 0.92 and a standard deviation of 0.08. This
wall panels, with and without openings. Finally, it indicates the proposed equation gives a good prediction
seems that the presence of openings for walls in two- of panel failure loads.
0.6
y = 1.1879 +1.1752
1
R2 = 0.84
0.95
0.5
0.9 Saheb(1985)
0.85 Current test data
0.4
0.8 Best fit line
N u /f' cLt w
0.75
Nuo/Nu
0.3
0.7
0.65
AS3600-01
0.2 0.6
ACI318-02
One-way (no opening)
One-way (one opening) 0.55
One-way( two openings)
0.1 0.5
Two-way (no opening)
Two-way (one opening)
Two-way (two openings)
0.45
0 0.4
0 10 20 30 40 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
H/t w
Figure 24. Axial strength ratio versus slenderness ratio Figure 25. Experimental Nuo / Nu vs for panels with openings in
(fc = 30 MPa for both code methods) one-way action
One-way action
0.75
Nuo/Nu
Two-way action
0.5
Eqn 5*
Wall Panels Test (kN) Eqn 5* (kN) Test 6. CONCLUSIONS
OW01 253.10 250.54 0.99 An experimental study was undertaken on twelve
OW02 441.45 344.64 0.78 reinforced concrete walls with and without openings in
OW11 309.02 290.30 0.94 one and two-way action. Loaded with an eccentricity of
OW12 294.30 285.97 0.97 tw/6, these half-scale specimens had high slenderness
OW21 185.41 184.38 0.99 ratios between 30 and 40.
OW22 195.71 200.68 1.03
The test results indicate that the axial strength ratio
TW01 735.75 707.70 0.96 gradually decreases with respect to increased
TW02 1177.20 1067.90 0.91 slenderness ratios. The axial strength ratio of two-way
TW11 750.47 676.21 0.90
action panels is generally larger than that of one-way
TW12 1030.05 878.52 0.85
TW21 618.03 471.44 0.76 panels by at least 2.4 to 3.5 times. Finally axial strength
TW22 647.46 612.48 0.95 ratios are noticed to decrease with the number of
Mean 0.92 opening in walls.
Standard deviation 0.08 The Australian Standard (AS3600-2001) and the ACI
*New method which is combination of Eqn 1 and modified k factors.
code (ACI318-2002) wall equations were found to be
inadequate for walls with openings, particularly with
walls of high slenderness. In view of the significant
5.2. Comparison with Sahebs Test Results shortcomings, a more appropriate formula was required
(1985) for such walls.
Saheb (1985) tested a total of 12 wall panels with Incorporating the test results from the present study
openings (six in one-way action and six in two-way and those of Saheb (1985), a new ultimate load formula
action), with various opening configuration as shown in was developed for reinforced concrete walls with and
Figure 2. without openings. Comparisons with the available test
For Sahebs 12 test panels, the predicted (using Eqn 5 results indicate that the new formula is accurate and
and Eqn 2) and test results are presented in Table 4. The slightly conservative.
comparison shows that the new formula is accurate but Despite the conduct of extensive tests on wall panels
slightly conservative with a mean predicted/Test ratio of and derivation of a reliable design formula, the research
0.95 and a standard deviation of 0.07. It is obvious that on high strength concrete wall panels with various
Sahebs approach is highly conservative with a mean openings remains relatively unexplored and needs more
ratio of 0.65 and a standard deviation of 0.23. focused research in the future.
Ultimate Load Formula for Reinforced Concrete Wall Panels with Openings
REFERENCES Pillai, S.U. and Parthasarathy, C.V. (1977). Ultimate strength and
ACI 318 (2002). Building Code Requirements for Reinforced design of concrete walls, Building and Environment, London,
Concrete ACI318-02, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Vol. 12, pp. 2529.
pp. 111. Saheb, S.M. and Desayi, P. (1989). Ultimate strength of RC wall
BS8110-1997 (1997). Structural Use of Concrete, Part 1 Code of panels in one-way in-plane action, Journal of Structural
Practice for Design and Construction, British Standards Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 10, pp. 26172617.
Institution, London, 1997. Saheb, S.M. and Desayi, P. (1990). Ultimate strength of RC wall
Doh, J.H. (2003). Experimental and Theoretical Studies of Normal panels in two-way in-plane action, Journal of Structural
and High Strength Concrete Wall Panels, PhD Thesis, Griffith Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 5, pp.13841402.
University, Australia. Saheb, S.M. and Desayi, P. (1990b). Ultimate strength of RC wall
Doh, J.H. and Fragomeni, S. (2005). Evaluation of experimental panels with openings, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
work on concrete walls in one and two-way action, Australian Vol. 116, No. 6, pp. 15651578.
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 3752. Sanjayan, J.G. and Maheswaran, T. (1999). Load capacity of
Doh, J.H., Fragomeni, S. and Loo, Y.C.(2002). Evaluation of slender high-strength concrete walls with side supports, ACI
experimental behaviour of normal and high strength reinforced Structural Journal, Vol. 96, No. 4, pp. 571576.
concrete walls in two-way action, Proceedings of the 17th Seddon, A.E. (1956). The strength of concrete walls under axial and
Advanced in Mechanics of Structures and Materials, Gold Coast, eccentric loads, Symposium on Strength of Concrete Structures,
Australia, June, pp. 169173. Cement and Concrete Association, May, London.
Fragomeni, S. and Mendis, P.A. (1997a), Design equations for Standard Australia. (2001). Australian standard 3600, Concrete
normal and high strength concrete walls, Concrete in Australia, Structure, Sydney.
Concrete Institute of Australia, North Sydney, Vol. 23, No. 3, Swartz, S.E., Rosebraugh, V.H. and Berman, M.Y. (1974).
pp. 2224. Buckling test of rectangular concrete panels, American
Fragomeni, S. and Mendis, P.A. (1997b). Instability analysis of Concrete Institute Journal, Vol. 71, pp. 3339.
normal- and high- strength reinforced-concrete walls, Journal of Zielinski, Z.A., Troitski, M.S. and Christodoulou, H. (1982). Full-
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 5, pp. 680684. scale bearing strength investigation of thin wall-ribbed reinforced
Fragomeni, S. and Mendis, P.A. (1999). Applicability of current concrete panels, American Concrete Institute Journal, Vol.79,
ACI318 wall design formula for high strength concrete walls, pp. 313321.
Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 103108. Zielinski, Z.A., Troitski, M.S. and El-Chakieh, E. (1983). Bearing
Oberlender, G.D. (1973). Strength Investigation of Reinforced capacity tests on precast concrete thin-wall ribbed panels,
Concrete Load Bearing Wall Panels, PhD thesis, University of Prestressed Concrete Institute Journal, Chicago, Vol. 28, No. 3,
Texas, Arlington. pp. 89103.