The 1st International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering Structures and Construction Materials

Shear Strength of Normal to High Strength Concrete Walls

J. Chandra and S. Teng

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Abstract: This paper presents an analytical study on the behavior of normal to high strength concrete walls. Experimental
data of concrete walls were collected from available literatures and several building code provisions were evaluated by
comparing nominal wall strengths calculated using code formulas with experimental wall strengths. Moreover, behavior of
concrete walls as influenced by various parameters was investigated by plotting the normalized experimental wall strengths
and average shear stresses against shear span ratio, axial load ratio, web reinforcement ratio, and concrete strength. The
analysis results show that most code formulas underestimate wall shear strengths. It is shown that longitudinal web
reinforcement also has contribution to the shear strength of concrete walls even though it is not accounted in code formulas.
Furthermore, the accuracy of code formulas is also affected by variation in concrete strength. For example, the ACI code
considerably underestimates the shear strength of high strength concrete walls due to its limitation on maximum wall shear
stress which is quite conservative for high strength concrete walls. Thus, a modification of ACI code formula is proposed to
enhance its accuracy. The results show that the modified formula yields better predictions of both normal and high strength
concrete wall shear strengths.

Keywords: Shear strength, concrete walls, building code formulas.

1 INTRODUCTION 2 CONCRETE WALL EXPERIMENTS

Concrete structural walls have been used widely in As mentioned before, previous experiments on
many structures since they provide good resistance to concrete walls reported by researchers from different
lateral loadings (Fintel 1991). This study presents an countries were studied (Cardenas and Magura 1972;
analytical review on the behavior of concrete walls Cardenas et al. 1980; Chiou et al. 2003; Corley et al.
having compressive strength varying from normal 1981; Deng et al. 2008; Farvashany et al. 2008; Gupta
strength to high strength in excess of 100 MPa. Data and Rangan 1998; Kabeyasawa and Hiraishi 1998;
from past experiments on concrete walls from Lefas et al. 1990; Salonikios et al. 1999; Wood 1991;
different countries were collected and studied. Yan et al. 2008; Yun et al. 2004; Zhang and Wang
2000). There were a total of 139 specimens studied.
Data from these experiments were used to calculate
nominal wall strengths using several building code Data from these experiments were collected in terms
formulas, such as those formulas recommended by the of concrete compressive strength (f’ c ); shear span
American Concrete Institute (ACI 318 2011), ratio (M/[VL w ] where M is the applied bending
Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ 1994), and moment in wall, V is the applied shear force in wall,
Eurocode (EC8 2004). Subsequently, the nominal wall and L w is the wall length); axial load ratio (P/[f’ c A g ]
strengths calculated using code formulas were where P is the applied axial load in wall, and A g is the
compared with experimental wall strengths. Hence, gross cross sectional area of the wall); longitudinal
the accuracy of these building code provisions in l f yl
determining the nominal wall strengths could then be t f yt l t are longitudinal and
evaluated. In addition, to investigate further the transverse web reinforcement ratios of wall, f yl and f yt
behavior of concrete walls as influenced by various are the yield strengths of longitudinal and transverse
parameters, normalized experimental wall strengths web reinforcements); maximum wall strength (in-
and normalized average shear stresses were plotted plane lateral load applied) obtained from experiment
against shear span ratio, axial load ratio, longitudinal (V exp ); and average shear stress in wall (V exp /[A w c ]
and transverse web reinforcement ratios, and concrete where A w is the area of wall web). These data
strength. The results from this analytical study will be frequency distributions based on several parameters
used as a basis for further experimental study on are presented in Figure 1.
concrete walls as well as further development of
analytical model for predicting wall shear strengths.

138 Yogyakarta, September 11 - 13, 2012

 The 1st International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering Structures and Construction Materials

2.50-3.00 0.30-0.40
2.00-2.50 0.20-0.30
M/[VLw]

P/[f'cAg]
1.50-2.00 0.15-0.20
1.00-1.50 0.10-0.15
0.50-1.00 0.05-0.10
0.00-0.50 0.00-0.05

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of Specimens Number of Specimens

12.0-15.0 12.0-15.0

t fyt (MPa)
9.0-12.0 9.0-12.0
l fyl (MPa)

6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0
3.0-6.0 3.0-6.0
0.0-3.0 0.0-3.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of Specimens Number of Specimens

120-150 1.20-1.60
c]

90-120 0.80-1.20
f'c (MPa)

0.60-0.80
Vexp/[Aw

60-90
0.40-0.60
30-60 0.20-0.40
0-30 0.00-0.20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of Specimens Number of Specimens

Figure 1. Data frequency distributions based on several parameters.

3 ANALYTICAL STUDY = + (1)

The nominal wall strengths were then calculated where V n is nominal wall shear strength (N); A cv is
according to the methods of ACI 318 (2011), AIJ gross area of concrete section bounded by web
(1994), and EC8 (2004). The flexural strength of the thickness and length of section in the direction of
walls was calculated based on flexural theory for shear force considered (mm2); c is coefficient
members subjected to bending moment and axial load defining the relative contribution of concrete strength
as suggested by Paulay and Priestley (1992) whereas to nominal wall shear strength, which may be taken as
the shear strength was calculated using formulas given 0.25 for H w /L w H w /L w
in the building codes. The smaller value of the linearly between 0.25 and 0.17 for H w /L w between 1.5
flexural strength and the shear strength was then taken and 2.0, where H w /L w is the height to length ratio of
as the nominal wall strength. Shear strength formulas the wall; is modification factor reflecting the
according to building codes mentioned above are reduced mechanical properties of lightweight
given as follows. concrete, all relative to normal weight concrete of the
same compressive strength.
3.1 ACI 318 (Chapter 21)
According to ACI 318 chapter 21 (2011), the nominal Furthermore, ACI 318 also limits the maximum shear
shear strength of special structural walls can be stress for walls to 0.83 c .
calculated as follow:

Yogyakarta, September 11 - 13, 2012 139

 The 1st International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering Structures and Construction Materials

3.2 AIJ f’ c (MPa); z can be taken as 0.8 L w s can be

AIJ guidelines (1994) provide the following equations taken as 1.0; M is applied bending moment in wall; V
to calculate the nominal shear strength of structural is applied shear force in wall.
walls based on plastic theory combining arch and truss
shear resistance mechanisms: 4 ANALYSIS RESULTS
The analysis results are presented in terms of
= cot + 0.5 tan (1 ) (2) experimental wall strengths, V exp , normalized by
nominal wall strengths calculated from building code
tan = ( / )2 + 1 / (3) formulas, V n . This is done with purpose of evaluating
= (1 + cot 2 ) ( ) 1
(4) building code provisions. Furthermore, average shear
stresses (shear force divided by wall web area, A w )
= 0.7 ( /2000) (5) normalized by the square root of concrete strength are
plotted against key parameters such as shear span
where V n is nominal wall shear strength (N); t w is ratio, axial load ratio, longitudinal and transverse web
thickness of wall (mm); st can be taken as 1.0. reinforcement contributions, and concrete strength.
This is done to see the relationship between
3.3 EC8 normalized wall strengths and these parameters. The
The nominal shear strength of structural walls is taken analysis results can be seen in Figures 2 and 3.
as the minimum shear strength between diagonal
As observed from Figure 2, ACI code and Eurocode
tension failure of the web and diagonal compression
generally underestimate the wall strengths. It is
failure of the web according to EC8 (2004). The
understood that most building codes tend to give
formulas are given as follows.
lower predictions of actual strength so that the design
3.3.1 Diagonal compression failure formulas are safe enough to be used for practical
design. Thus, even though in average the Japanese
= 1 (cot + tan ) 1
(6)
code is the most accurate one with average ratio of
where V n is nominal wall shear strength (N), which V exp /V n closest to 1.00 and has the lowest covariance,
for the critical region, it may be taken as 40% of the it may not provide safe design for some cases since it
cw is coefficient taking account of
may overestimate the wall strengths. On the other
the state of the stress in the compression chord, which hand, Eurocode is the most conservative one with
may be taken as 1.0 for non-prestressed structures, [1 average ratio V exp /V n of 1.47 and covariance of 0.33.
+ P/(f’ c A g )] for 0 < P/(f’ c A g
Moreover, from Figure 2, it can be seen that for walls
P/(f’ c A g – P/(f’ c A g )] for 0.5 <
with high shear span ratio (i.e. flexure behavior
P/(f’ c A g ) < 1.0; b is width of web cross section (mm),
dominates), the building code predictions are quite
z is inner lever arm, for a member with constant depth,
accurate with ratio of V exp /V n closer to 1.00. It means
corresponding to the bending moment in the element
that the flexure strength of walls can be well predicted
under consideration, which may be taken equal to 0.8
using flexural theory for members subjected to axial
Lw 1 is strength reduction factor for concrete
force and bending moment. On the other hand, for
cracked in shear, which can be taken as 0.6 (1.0 –
walls with low shear span ratio (i.e. shear behavior
f’ c s s can be taken as 1.0.
dominates), ACI code and Eurocode underestimate
3.3.2 Diagonal tension failure the wall strengths while the opposite is true for AIJ.
This implies that building code formulas are not
If M/(VL w )
accurate enough to predict the wall shear strengths.
= (100 )1/3 + + cot (7)
, 1
Furthermore, from Figure 2, it can be observed that
If M/(VL w ) < 2.0: the accuracy of building code predictions is also
affected by variation in concrete strength. ACI code
= , (100 )1/3 + 1 + 0.75 / (8) and Eurocode considerably underestimate the wall
strengths for walls with higher concrete compressive
where V n is nominal wall shear strength (N); b is strength (>60 MPa) while AIJ slightly overestimates
width of web cross section (mm); d is effective depth the wall strengths. Further investigation shows that in
of cross section (mm); C Rd,c c, most cases, this happens for walls with low shear span
c is taken as 1.0 for nominal strength without ratio (i.e. shear behavior dominates). Hence, it can be
reduction factor for material; k can be taken as 1 + concluded that building code formulas are less
d k1 cp is equal to P/A g < 0.2 accurate in predicting the shear strength of high

140 Yogyakarta, September 11 - 13, 2012

 The 1st International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering Structures and Construction Materials

strength concrete walls than that of normal strength means that flexure behavior is more dominant for
concrete walls. walls with high shear span ratio while shear behavior
is more dominant for walls with low shear span ratio.
Figure 3 shows the behavior of concrete walls with The figure also shows that the normalized average
varying parameters such as shear span ratio, axial load shear stresses increase with increment in axial load
ratio, web reinforcement contributions, and concrete ratio. This implies that walls subjected to higher axial
strength. As can be seen, the normalized average shear load have higher shear strength.
stresses decrease as shear span ratio increases. This

ACI ACI AVG : 1.27 ACI ACI

COV : 0.29
3.00 3.00

2.00 2.00

Vexp/Vn
Vexp/Vn

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 0 30 60 90 120 150

Shear Span Ratio (M/[VLw]) f'c (MPa)

AIJ AIJ AVG : 1.01 AIJ AIJ

COV : 0.19
3.00 3.00

2.00 2.00
Vexp/Vn
Vexp/Vn

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 0 30 60 90 120 150

Shear Span Ratio (M/[VLw]) f'c (MPa)

EC EC AVG : 1.47 EC EC
COV : 0.33
3.00 3.00

2.00 2.00
Vexp/Vn
Vexp/Vn

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 0 30 60 90 120 150

Shear Span Ratio (M/[VLw]) f'c (MPa)

Figure 2. Normalized experimental wall strengths over nominal wall strengths plotted against shear span ratio and concrete
strength.

Yogyakarta, September 11 - 13, 2012 141

 The 1st International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering Structures and Construction Materials

1.60 1.60
1.40 1.40
1.20 1.20

c]
c]

1.00 1.00
0.80 0.80

Vexp/[Aw
Vexp/[Aw

0.60 0.60
0.40 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

Shear Span Ratio (M/[VLw]) Axial Load Ratio (P/[f'cAg])

1.60 1.60
1.40 1.40
1.20 1.20
c]
c]

1.00 Vexp/[Aw 1.00

Vexp/[Aw

0.80 0.80
0.60 0.60
0.40 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 0 30 60 90 120 150

f'c (MPa)

Figure 3. Normalized average shear stresses plotted against several parameters.

For web reinforcement contributions ( l f yl t f yt ), Figure 3, for normal strength concrete walls with
it can be seen from Figure 3 that the normalized compressive strength up to 60 MPa, most of
average shear stresses increase with the increment of specimens have average shear stresses less than
longitudinal and transverse web reinforcement 0.83 c which fall below ACI code limit. On the
contributions. This implies that both longitudinal and other hand, for high strength concrete walls with
transverse web reinforcement have contributions to compressive strength above 60 MPa, many specimens
the wall shear strengths. However, this phenomenon is have average shear stresses more than 0.83 c which
not taken into account in building code formulas for exceed the limit given by ACI code. As a result, ACI
calculating wall shear strengths. The code formulas code may underestimate the shear strength of high
only take into account the contribution from strength concrete walls by assigning the same limit as
transverse web reinforcement while neglecting the in the case of normal strength concrete walls.
longitudinal web reinforcement contribution. Thus, it
may result in underestimation of wall shear strengths Therefore, in this study, the issues of longitudinal web
for some building codes. reinforcement contribution and maximum shear stress
limit for high strength concrete walls are addressed. A
For concrete strength, Figure 3 shows that the modification of ACI 318 formula is proposed and
normalized average shear stresses increase with presented in the subsequent section.
increment in concrete strength. It implies that walls
with higher concrete compressive strength can resist 5 PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF ACI 318
higher level of shear stress. Nevertheless, building FORMULA
code provisions do not differentiate between normal In this section, a simple modification of ACI 318
strength concrete walls and high strength concrete formula is proposed to address the issues mentioned
walls. For example, in ACI code, the limit of previously. It is therefore expected that the modified
maximum shear stress for walls is 0.83 c regardless
of concrete strength. Based on data as presented in

142 Yogyakarta, September 11 - 13, 2012

 The 1st International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering Structures and Construction Materials

formula can yield better predictions of concrete wall more than 60 MPa is taken as 1.25 c . The complete
shear strengths. The modification is described below. modified formulas are presented as follows.

As in the case of original ACI 318 formula, in the The nominal wall shear strength (V n ) can be
proposed formula, the nominal wall shear strength calculated as:
(V n ) is the sum of concrete contribution (V c ) and steel
reinforcement contribution (V s ) as shown in equation = + (9)
(9). The concrete contribution, V c , is calculated using
the formulas given in ACI 318 chapter 11 (2011). The concrete contribution (V c ) shall be taken the
These formulas are given in equations (10) and (11). lesser of:

Moreover, for steel contribution (V s ), the contribution 1 = 0.27 + /(4 ) (10)

of the longitudinal web reinforcement is added.
Nevertheless, this addition should not be straight 0.1 +0.2
= 0.05 + (11)
forward assuming both longitudinal and transverse 2
2
web reinforcements are fully effective in contributing
to wall shear strength. Based on previous concrete The steel reinforcement contribution (V s ) shall be
wall experiments which studied the effectiveness of taken as:
longitudinal and transverse web reinforcements to the
wall shear strength (Barda et al. 1977; Cardenas et al. = sin + cos (12)
1980), it is concluded that the effectiveness of web
reinforcements depends on the shear span ratio of tan = (13)
walls. For walls with shear span ratio of 1.00, both
longitudinal and transverse web reinforcements are In any cases, V n shall not be taken greater than:
effective in contributing to wall shear strength
(Cardenas et al. 1980). For walls with shear span ratio , = 0.83 ; for f’ c (14)
less than or equal to 0.50, longitudinal web
reinforcement is more effective than transverse web , = 1.25 ; for f’ c > 60 MPa (15)
reinforcement in contributing to wall shear strength
(Barda et al. 1977). As shear span ratio increases, where
longitudinal web reinforcement becomes less mechanical properties of lightweight concrete, all
effective. In other words, longitudinal web relative to normal weight concrete of the same
reinforcement contribution to wall shear strength is compressive strength; h is the thickness of wall; d is
more dominant than that of transverse web the effective depth of wall; L w is the wall length; P is
reinforcement for walls with shear span ratio less than the applied axial force in wall; M is the applied
1.00 whereas the opposite is true for walls with shear bending moment in wall; V is the applied shear force
span ratio more than 1.00. Thus, in this study, the in wall; A sl and A st are the total area of longitudinal
effectiveness of web reinforcement contributions is and transverse web reinforcements, respectively. In
presented as a function of wall shear span ratio. The case of (M/V – L w /2) is negative, equation (11) shall
formulas for calculating overall steel web not apply.
reinforcement contributions to wall shear strength are
presented in equations (12) and (13). The normalized experimental wall strengths to
nominal wall strengths (V exp /V n ) for modified ACI
Addressing the issue of maximum shear stress limit 318 formula (ACI*) are presented in Figure 4.
for high strength concrete walls with compressive Furthermore, comparison of statistical parameters of
strength more than 60 MPa, in this study the limit is V exp /V n such as minimum value, maximum value,
taken as 1.25 c instead of 0.83 c . This number is mean value, standard deviation, and covariance
originated from the upper bound value (mean value between building code formulas and the modified ACI
plus standard deviation) of normalized average shear 318 formula is presented on Table 1.
stresses of high strength concrete wall specimens
studied previously (Chandra et al. 2011). In this case, From Figure 4, it can be concluded that the modified
the mean value of average shear stresses is 0.91 with ACI 318 formula can yield better predictions of
standard deviation of 0.32. The upper bound value is concrete wall strengths as compared to the original
then 0.91+0.32 = 1.23 which is rounded becomes ACI 318 formula. While the original ACI 318 formula
1.25. Thus, the maximum shear stress limit for high underestimates wall strengths for those failing in shear
strength concrete walls with compressive strength (low shear span ratio), the modified formula can
predict the wall shear strengths as accurate as the

Yogyakarta, September 11 - 13, 2012 143

 The 1st International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering Structures and Construction Materials

flexure strengths. The trend line of the modified conservative predictions. Furthermore, the proposed
formula is nearly flat regardless variation in shear formula also has the least scattered data with
span ratio and the predictions are less scattered as covariance of 0.16 which is the lowest among other
compared to predictions from the original ACI 318 building code predictions.
formula. Moreover, while the original ACI 318
formula considerably underestimates the shear Table 1. Comparison of statistical parameters of normalized
strengths of high strength concrete walls, the modified experimental wall strengths over nominal wall strengths
formula is able to predict them more accurately. Statistical V exp /V n
Hence, the trend line of the modified formula is also Parameters ACI AIJ EC ACI*
flat regardless variation in concrete strength and the Minimum Value 0.80 0.54 0.74 0.68
predictions are less scattered as compared to Maximum Value 2.68 1.72 3.00 1.72
predictions from the original formula. However, in Mean Value 1.27 1.01 1.47 1.08
some cases, the predictions from the modified formula Standard Deviation 0.36 0.19 0.48 0.17
may be less conservative than those of the original Covariance 0.29 0.19 0.33 0.16
formula.
6 CONCLUSIONS

ACI* ACI*
This study presents an analytical review on the
behavior of concrete walls having compressive
3.00 strength ranging from normal strength to high strength
in excess of 100 MPa. Several conclusions are drawn
2.00 as follows.
Vexp/Vn

Most building code formulas underestimate the wall

1.00 shear strengths while they can predict relatively
accurate for the flexure strengths. The
0.00 underestimation can be caused by a few inaccuracies
in the shear strength formulas, but two factors are
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
especially important. One is the neglected
Shear Span Ratio (M/[VLw]) contribution of longitudinal web reinforcement to wall
shear strength. Another one is the limitation on the
maximum shear strength values, which seems to be
ACI* ACI* quite conservative for high strength concrete walls.
3.00 A simple modification of ACI 318 formula is
proposed to address these issues and the analysis
2.00 results show that the modified formula can yield better
Vexp/Vn

predictions of concrete wall shear strengths.

1.00
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors appreciate very much the research
0.00
funding provided by the National Research
0 30 60 90 120 150 Foundation of Singapore (NRF) under the CRP
f'c (MPa) funded Project “Underwater Infrastructure and
Underwater City of the Future”. The funding enables
the authors to make real progress in this research
Figure 4. Normalized experimental wall strengths over work.
nominal wall strengths of the modified ACI 318 formula
(ACI*) plotted against shear span ratio and concrete
strength. REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318 (2011), Building Code
From Table 1, it can be concluded that predictions Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318M-11)
from the modified ACI 318 formula are close enough and Commentary (Farmington Hills, MI: American
to the actual wall strengths with average ratio V exp /V n Concrete Institute) 503.
of 1.08. Even though AIJ predictions are the closest to
the actual wall strengths with average ratio V exp /V n of Architectural Institute of Japan (1994), AIJ Structural
1.01, the modified ACI 318 formula offers more Design Guidelines for Reinforced Concrete Buildings

144 Yogyakarta, September 11 - 13, 2012

 The 1st International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering Structures and Construction Materials

based on Ultimate Strength Concept (in English) Walls in Japan', ACI Special Publication, 176, 281-
(Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ)). 310.

Barda, Felix, Hanson, John M., and Corley, W. Gene Lefas, I. D., Kotsovos, M. D., and Ambraseys, N. N.
(1977), 'Shear Strength of Low-Rise Walls with (1990), 'Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structural
Boundary Elements', ACI Special Publication, 53, Walls: Strength, Deformation Characteristics, and
149-202. Failure Mechanism', ACI Structural Journal, 87 (1),
23-31.
Cardenas, A.E. and Magura, D.D. (1972), 'Strength of
High-Rise Shear Walls - Rectangular Cross Section', Paulay, T. and Priestley, M.J.N. (1992), Seismic
ACI Special Publication, 36, 119-50. Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) 744.
Cardenas, A.E., Russell, H.G., and Corley, W.G.
(1980), 'Strength of Low-Rise Structural Walls', ACI Salonikios, T. N., et al. (1999), 'Cyclic load behavior
Special Publication, 63, 221-42. of low-slenderness reinforced concrete walls: Design
basis and test results', ACI Structural Journal, 96 (4),
Chandra, Jimmy, Liu, Yu, and Teng, Susanto (2011), 649-60.
'Analytical Study on High Strength Concrete Shear
Walls', 36th Conference on Our World in Concrete Wood, Sharon L. (1991), 'Observed Behavior of
and Structures (Singapore), 221-30. Slender Reinforced Concrete Walls Subjected to
Cyclic Loading', ACI Special Publication, 127, 453-
Chiou, Y. J., et al. (2003), 'Experimental and 78.
Analytical Studies on Large-Scale Reinforced
Concrete Framed Shear Walls', ACI Special Yan, S., Zhang, L. F., and Zhang, Y. G. (2008),
Publication, 211, 201-22. 'Seismic performances of high-strength concrete shear
walls reinforced with high-strength Rebars', 11th
Comite Europeen de Normalisation (2004), Eurocode International Conference on Engineering, Science,
8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance Construction, and Operations in Challenging
Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Environments (323; California: ASCE).
Buildings (EN 1998-1) (Brussels: Comite Europeen de
Normalisation (CEN)). Yun, H.-D., Choi, C.-S., and Lee, L.-H. (2004),
'Behaviour of high-strength concrete flexural walls',
Corley, W. G., Fiorato, A. E., and Oesterle, R. G. Structures and Buildings, 157 (SB2), 137-48.
(1981), 'Structural Walls', ACI Special Publication,
72, 77-132. Zhang, Y. F. and Wang, Z. H. (2000), 'Seismic
behavior of reinforced concrete shear walls subjected
Deng, Mingke, Liang, Xingwen, and Yang, Kejia to high axial loading', ACI Structural Journal, 97 (5),
(2008), 'Experimental Study on Seismic Behavior of 739-50.
High Performance Concrete Shear Wall with New
Strategy of Transverse Confining Stirrups', The 14th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
(Beijing).

Farvashany, F. E., Foster, S. J., and Rangan, B. V.

(2008), 'Strength and deformation of high-strength
concrete shearwalls', ACI Structural Journal, 105 (1),
21-29.

Fintel, Mark (1991), 'Shearwalls - an answer for

seismic resistance?', Concrete International, 13 (7),
48-53.

Gupta, A. and Rangan, B. V. (1998), 'High-Strength

Concrete (HSC) structural walls', ACI Structural
Journal, 95 (2), 194-204.

Kabeyasawa, T. and Hiraishi, H. (1998), 'Tests and

Analyses of High-Strength Reinforced Concrete Shear

Yogyakarta, September 11 - 13, 2012 145