Discussions and Closures

consistent with expectation based on distribution of

Closure to “Cyclic Response of Reinforced
reinforcement.
Concrete Walls with Different Anchorage 3. Regarding the confinement conditions of the lap-splice region,
Details: Experimental Investigation” by the details of the confinement and the lap-splice lengths of the
Sriram Aaleti, Beth L. Brueggen, wall were provided in Figs. 1(a and c) of the original paper,
Benton Johnson, Catherine E. French, respectively.
and Sri Sritharan 4. The authors agree that, the selection of load protocol should
maximize the information that can be learned from the tests.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000732 The wall reinforcement was not symmetrical. One end of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de los Andes on 10/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

wall had a larger area of reinforcement to simulate the effect

Sriram Aaleti, A.M.ASCE 1; Beth L. Brueggen, M.ASCE 2; of a T-flanged wall (significantly increased compression
Benton Johnson 3; Catherine E. French, M.ASCE 4; capacity and tension capacity in the end of the wall that
and Sri Sritharan, M.ASCE 5 simulated the flange). As described in the paper, the applied
1 loading history was nominally identical in each of tests;
Assistant Professor, 2037 C, South Engineering Research Center, Dept. of
Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Alabama,
however, as the tests progressed and the wall specimens
AL 35487. approached failure in one loading direction, additional cycles
2
Associate III, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., 6363 N. State were applied with increasing displacement in the direction of
Highway 161, Suite 550, Irving, TX 75038. the remaining capacity. This modification to the loading
3 protocol was implemented to investigate the behavior
Structural Engineer, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP, Ste 1000, 224 S.
Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60604-2526. of the wall to larger drifts in the direction of remaining
4
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Minnesota, 500 Pillsbury capacity.
Dr. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 (corresponding author). E-mail: 5. The authors disagree with the reason provided by the discus-
cfrench@umn.edu sers for the higher values predicted by BIAX (Wallace 1992).
5
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, As mentioned by the discusser, ignoring the double reinforce-
Iowa State Univ., 394 Town Engineering, Ames, IA 55011.
ment in the splice region of reinforced concrete wall with
lapped splice (RWS) will not cause BIAX to predict higher
stiffness. In fact, ignoring the splices should under predict
The authors appreciate the interest in the paper and agree that the
the capacity. BIAX predicted high stiffness compared with
topic of splices at the wall-to-foundation interface is one of great
the experimental results attributable to ignoring the shear de-
importance that has not been studied much in the past. The authors
formations and strain penetration.
of the original paper are grateful for the opportunity to discuss some
6. The authors have done posttest investigation of the concrete
of the issues raised by the discussers:
walls to assess the condition of the boundary element reinfor-
1. The authors agree that careful consideration should be given to
cement, confinement hoops, and shear reinforcement. The
the test setup and loading protocol. As described in the original
details of this investigation are provided in Johnson (2010).
paper, the lateral loading was distributed across the side faces
7. With regards to lateral wall instability, the authors suggested
of the wall, by means of an actuator attached to steel channels
the possible contributing factors based on the test observa-
clamped to the side faces of the wall specimen. This setup was
tions and research completed by others [e.g., Goodsir et al.
intended to simulate the lateral load transfer into the wall
(1983), Paulay and Priestley (1993), Chai and Elayer (1999),
through a floor diaphragm. The discussers noted that pictures
and those reported in the discussion]. The topic is of complex
showing the out-of-plane bracing with steel rollers details were
nature, and the cause of instability could not be isolated
not provided in the original paper; this was attributable to the
without performing a more detailed investigation. In light
chosen setup meeting the expectation and the limited space
of the recent earthquake damage to concrete walls, it has
available to showcase the outcomes of the research. These
become clear that the use of heavy longitudinal reinforce-
details can be found in Johnson (2010)—a thesis referenced
ment in the boundary elements and the lightly reinforced
in the original paper for more in depth details, which can
web regions have also been instrumental for the development
be accessed by public through the Network for Earthquake
of large web shear cracks and buckling of walls, especially in
Engineering Simulation project warehouse (www.nees.org/
the boundary element regions (Sritharan et al. 2014). Though
warehouse).
in compliance with design practice, buckling of walls and
2. The authors acknowledge the discussers’ point that vertical
distribution of cracks in reinforced concrete wall with no
loads have an influence on the deformation and ductility of
splice (RWN) and reinforced concrete wall with mechanical
walls. However, with input from the designer, the authors felt
coupler (RWC) were influenced by the lightly reinforced
that the sliding shear failure at the wall base was important to
web regions between the boundary elements.
be investigated. Hence, as mentioned in the original paper, the
zero axial load condition provided a reasonably conservative
scenario for the investigation of lateral slip near the base and
sufficiently represented nonbearing walls. Contrary to the References
statement in the discussion, nonbearing walls by definition Chai, Y. H., and Elayer, T. D. (1999). “Lateral stability of reinforced
do not sustain any vertical load besides their own weight. concrete columns under axial reversed cyclic tension and compression.”
Furthermore, in addition to the locations noted in the ACI Struct. J., 96(5), 780–789.
discussion, cracks causing sliding formed near the wall-to- Goodsir, W. J., Paulay, T., and Carr, A. J. (1983). “A study of the inelastic
foundation interfaces. Formation of all sliding cracks was seismic response of reinforced concrete coupled frame-shear

© ASCE 07014004-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2014, 140(9): 07014004

 wall structures.” Bull. N. Z. Natl. Soc. Earthquake Eng., 16(3),
185–200.
Johnson, B. (2010). “Anchorage detailing effects on lateral deformation
components of R/C shear walls.” M.S. thesis, Univ. of Minnesota,
〈https://nees.org/resources/234〉 (Feb. 2, 2014).
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1993). “Stability of ductile structural
walls.” ACI Struct. J., 90(4), 385–394.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad de los Andes on 10/03/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Sritharan, S., Beyer, K., Henry, R. S., Chai, Y. H., Kowalsky, M., and Bull,
D. (2014). “Understanding poor seismic performance of concrete walls
and design implications.” Earthquake Spectra, 30(1), 307–334.
Wallace, J. W. (1992). “BIAX: Revision 1—computer program for the
analysis of reinforced concrete and reinforced masonry sections.”
Rep. CU/CEE-92/4, Structural Engineering, Mechanics, and Materials,
Clarkson Univ., Potsdam, NY.

© ASCE 07014004-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2014, 140(9): 07014004