cyclicbehaviourofexpandedpolystyrene(eps)sandwich...
TRANSCRIPT
Research ArticleCyclic Behaviour of Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) SandwichReinforced Concrete Walls
Ari Wibowo Indradi Wijatmiko and Christin R Nainggolan
Department of Civil Engineering Faculty of Engineering Brawijaya University Malang 65149 Indonesia
Correspondence should be addressed to Ari Wibowo ariwibowoubacid
Received 31 May 2018 Revised 12 October 2018 Accepted 8 November 2018 Published 26 December 2018
Academic Editor Pietro Russo
Copyright copy 2018 Ari Wibowo et al (is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution Licensewhich permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited
Precast concrete walls become increasingly utilized due to the rapid needs of inexpensive fabricated house especially as traditionalconstruction cost continues to climb and also particularly at damaged area due to natural disasters when the requirement of a lotof fast-constructed and cost-efficient houses are paramount However the performance of precast walls under lateral load such asearthquake or strong wind is still not comprehensively understood due to various types of reinforcements and connectionsAdditionally the massive and solid wall elements also enlarge the building total weight and hence increase the impact ofearthquake significantly(erefore the precast polystyrene-reinforced concrete walls which offer light weight and easy installmentbecame the focus of this investigation (e laboratory test on two reinforced concrete wall specimens using EPS (expandedpolystyrene) panel and wire mesh reinforcement has been conducted Quasi-static load in the form of displacement controlledcyclic tests were undertaken until reaching peak load At each discrete loading step lateral load-deflection behaviour crackpropagation and collapse mechanism were measured which then were compared with theoretical analysis (e findings showedthat precast polystyrene-reinforced concrete walls gave considerable seismic performance for the low-to-moderate seismic regionreaching up to 1 drift at 20 drop of peak load However it might not be sufficient for high seismic regions at which double-panel wall type can be more suitable
1 Introduction
Tall buildings particularly with irregularities are prone tobehave poorly and collapse when subjected to lateral loadssuch as earthquake excitation or strong wind To overcomethis problem shear walls are commonly preferable to in-crease the lateral strength of structures significantly How-ever the added massive and solid shear walls result inincreasing the building weight and consequently the baseshear due to earthquake excitation which might reduce theeffectiveness of the shear wall use in the structures(e effortto reduce the weight of shear walls without losing lateralstrength capacity is necessary
(ere were many studies investigating lightweight con-crete shear walls with various techniques to reduce the ele-ment weight such as using lightweight aggregates applyingporous concrete system or inserting lightweight panel intothe wall Mousavi et al [1] studied the effectiveness of the JKsystem wall composed of EPS concrete (mortar with EPS
beads as fine aggregates) and galvanized steel reinforcementin sustaining lateral load It was observed that JK walls hadhigh ductility capacity but still need further observation forthe application in tall and medium buildings Yizhou [2]investigated that the use of gangue as an aggregate in concreteshear wall provided larger energy dissipation compared withnormal concrete shear wall Furthermore Hejin etal [3]focused on ash ceramsite as alternative for lightweight ag-gregate concrete shear wall which gave similar load-deflectionbehaviour and collapse mechanism to those on normalconcrete ones whereas Chai and Anderson [4] found that theperformance of concrete wall panels using perforated light-weight aggregate in low-rise buildings subjected to lateralforces was generally satisfactory Cavaleri et al [5] in-vestigated pumice stone in comparison with expanded clayand normal stone as aggregates in concrete shear wall whichshowed the benefit of the use pumice stones
On the other side reducing the weight of structuralelements can be achieved using the sandwich system by
HindawiAdvances in Materials Science and EngineeringVolume 2018 Article ID 7214236 9 pageshttpsdoiorg10115520187214236
inserting a lightweight panel inside the concrete element(is panel system is usually applied for insulation purpose aswell (e lightweight wall system investigated in this paperfocused on the use of the EPS panel as a filler and galvanizedwire mesh for reinforcing bar as shown in Figure 1
2 Research Methodology
(e specimens were designed as structural walls composinglow-rise building which were commonly found in house orschool precast buildings (e squat walls are generallydominated with shear behaviour which comparably differsto tall walls commonly found in high-rise building Concretetall walls have been considerably well-researched and well-understood [7ndash10] whereas concrete squat walls have beenincreasingly investigated [11ndash14] However innovationstudies on sandwich squat walls with the EPS panel were justinitially begun Previous experimental studies by Trombettiet al [15] and Ricci et al [16] showed that sandwich squatconcrete walls were comparable to those of regular RC wallsand able to sustain lateral load up to drift higher than 13whereas Palermo and Trombetti [17] comprehensively in-vestigated sandwich walls experimentally and analyticallywith the outcomes showed that properly designed walls canaccomplish high seismic performance requirement sug-gested by the code However the overall performance ofsandwich RC walls with lower steel reinforcement ratios(less than minimum requirements) still needs further in-vestigation and hence became the main focus of this study
(e laboratory tests on two specimens of sandwichreinforced concrete wall RCW4 and RCW8 have been un-dertaken Figure 2 shows the typical property of the walls Allspecimens had a height and width of 90 cm and 60 cm re-spectively (equivalent to aspect ratio of 15) (e RCW4 wallused a 4 cm thick EPS panel compared to the 8 cm EPS panelinstalled in the RCW8 wall (e specimens were reinforcedwith ϕ25ndash75mm wire mesh on each wall side and ϕ30mmsteel wires for connecting both mesh layers (e yield andultimate steel tensile strengths of the wire mesh were 600MPaand 680MPa respectively as shown in Figure 3 A 35mmthick shotcrete was applied on each outer side of walls with theconcrete strength of 15MPa (e walls and the foundationswere connected using ϕ10mm anchor bars spaced at 75mm
Quasi-static cyclic load procedure was applied at the tipof the wall specimens to obtain representative hystereticcurves of lateral load versus displacement (refer Figures 4and 5) as per ASTM E2126 code [18] (e drift-controlledorder was used for the loading test comprised drift in-crements of 0042 until attaining 0167 (representingcracking point) then drift increments of 016 untilreaching drift of 066 (representing yield point) andfollowed by inelastic stage at 066 drift increments (ehysteretic behaviours of walls were maintained using threeloading cycles at each drift ratio
During the testing process at each defined discretedisplacement stages the measurement of LVDTs dialgauges and crack propagation were recorded (e teststopped when the peak lateral strength of the specimenreduced by 20 (lateral load failure)
3 Experimental Test Results
Hysteretic curves of lateral load-drift relationship and thecrack pattern of all wall specimens are presented in Figure 6Both specimens RCW4 and RCW8 had similar peak lateralload of about 25 kN with different behaviour characteristicsRCW4 (EPS panel thickness of 40mm) developed moreclassical flexural mechanism whilst RCW8 (EPS panelthickness of 80mm) was more dominated with yield pen-etration behaviour due to the thinner concrete cover of wallfoundation As shown the specimen RCW4 managed tocomplete all three cycles of quasi-static cyclic load at 10drift and then failed at the first cycle of load at drift of 133whereas specimen RCW8 produced shorter maximum driftcapacity with failure at the first cycle of lateral load at 10drift A comparison of lateral strengths and drifts betweenthe experimental results and the theoretical predictions ispresented in Table 1
(e total lateral deformation consists of flexural shearand yield penetration components that were determinedusing dial gauge and LVDTand dial gauge measurements asshown in Figure 7
(e flexural displacement at the wall top at each i-segment of LVDTwas determined via the following equation(refer Figure 7(a))
Δfli 1113946L
0φ(x)xdx
Lminus Lvi
Lhδf2 minus δf1( 1113857 (1)
whereas the displacement of the elastic region at uppersegment was estimated analytically assuming uncrackedsection properties as follows
Δfl3 φL2
i
3
FL3i
3EcI (2)
where F lateral load Li segment length Ec concreteelastic modulus and I uncracked moment of inertia
(e shear deformation Δsh was predicted using diagonalLVDTs data (refer Figure 7(b)) as follows
Δsh δs1 minus δs2( 1113857
2sec ξ
δs1 minus δs2( 1113857
2
L2v + D2
1113969
Lv (3)
where D wall depth and δsi diagonal LVDTmeasurement
(e yield penetration component was measured using thevertical LVDTat the first level (refer Figure 7(c)) by assuminga rockingmechanismwithin the first section of wall An upperbound of the top displacement of the column can be cal-culated from the product of the slip rotation θslip and thecolumn height assuming rigid body rotation as follows
Δyp θslipLcolumn (4)
where θslip the slip rotation of tensile steel (δslip(dminus c)) asymp β β ((δf2 minus δf1)Lh) and c the neutral axisdepth at the column base interface (δf2(δf1 + δf2))Lh minusd2
(e deformation of walls comprising flexural shear andyield penetration components for RCW4 and RCW8specimens is shown in Figure 8 (e flexural deformationwas the most dominant component of about 75 and 55
2 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
for RCW4 and RCW8 specimens respectively whilst theshear deformation was the least dominant deformationcomponent of below 5 for both specimens RCW4 andRCW8 Interestingly the yield penetration deformation ofRCW8 was about 27 compared to 21 of that of RCW4specimen which can be attributed to the smaller concretecover of sloof foundation on RCW8 and hence smaller bondslip strength between steel bar and concrete at foundation
4 Backbone Curve Models
Two simple models (backbone and simplified) were de-veloped for design purposes or basic assessment of lateralload-displacement capacity of such walls Both models forsandwich concrete walls are developed based on the modelpreviously developed by authors for lightly reinforcedconcrete walls [19]
41 Model 1 Detailed A detailed curve model is developedbased on displacement-based design methodology for pre-dicting the lateral load-drift behaviour (comprising fourstages cracking yield peak and lateral load failure) asshown conceptually in Figure 9
Smooth finish coat
Smooth finish coatElectrowelded
galvanised steel mesh
1 inch thick structural concrete(sprayed in 2 coats)
Expanded polystyreneinsulating core
Figure 1 Typical EPS sandwich concrete wall panel (refer [6])
Mortar
Wiremesh
EPS
5300350 350
350
350
400
110
0
(cm)
6000
Figure 2 Basic properties of wall specimens
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 00025 0005 00075 001
Stre
ss (M
Pa)
Strain (mmmm)
Figure 3 Stress-strain relationship of steel wire
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 3
(a) Point A (cracking) the cracked lateral strength anddrift are calculated as follows
Fcr Mcr
L
ccr McrL
3EcIg
(5)
where the flexural tensile strength ft is taken as 06
fcprime1113969
(b) Point B (yield) the yield drift is calculated using the
effective second moment of area as follows
Fy My
L
cy MyL
3EcIe
(6)
(e Paulay and Priestley [8] model for effective momentof inertia is used as follows
(i) Flexure-dominated walls
Ie 100fy
+Pu
fcprimeAg
⎛⎝ ⎞⎠Ig (7)
(ii) Shear-dominated walls
Iw Ig
12 + C
C 30Ie
L2tD
(8)
where Pu nominal axial load Ag gross crosssection area of walls and t wall thickness
(c) Point C (peak strength) the model was developed byinvestigating the curvature within the plastic hinge regionusing the force equilibrium equation (N Cc + Cs minusT) withthe spalling strain (εcu 0003) used as a limit state forconcrete strain For low-rise buildings the presence ofgravity axial load is reasonably small and hence for sim-plicity the compression steel area is eliminated from theequilibrium equation (e peak flexural lateral load Fu andthe drift at concrete fracture cu can then be obtained asfollows
1415
500
500
123456789
101112131415161718192021222324
992
692
300
030
00
110
00
300
020
00
65001750 1750
10000
116
2
76
18
19 54
810
1213 20
11
2221
24
LVDT-∆controlLVDT-∆totalLVDT-∆totalLVDT-∆flexureLVDT-∆flexureDial gauge-∆flexureDial gauge-∆flexureDial gauge-∆ShearDial gauge-∆ShearDial gauge-∆up liftDial gauge-∆up liftDial gauge-∆base shearDial gauge-∆frame shearHydraulic jack 1Load cell 1ndash5tonLoad cell 2ndash10tonHydraulic jack 2ExtensometerRC wallSloofClampClampClampLoading frame
9
3
2317
Figure 4 Schematic of wall loading test setup
ndash15000ndash10000
ndash5000000
50001000015000
0 10 20 30 40 50
Def
lect
ion
(mm
)
Cycle no
Figure 5 Quasi-static lateral loading history
4 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
Fu Mu
L
cpeak cy + cplmiddotp
(9)
where cplmiddotp (ϕpeak minus ϕy)Lp in which ϕpeak(εcukud)
(0003kud) and ϕy (3cyL) ku ((N + Astfy)085fcprimecdb) c 085minus 0007(fcprime minus 28) Ast tensile steelarea and εsm steel strain-hardening strain
(e plastic hinge length Lp can be estimated using thePaulay and Priestley model [8] as follows
Lp 0054L + 0022 dbfy (10)
(d) Point D (ultimate displacement) lateral load-displacement relationship of squat walls is dominated by
shear behaviour however for lightly reinforced squat walls theflexure behaviour still provides large influence on lateral load-drift behaviour (e failure mechanism which is influenced byshear strength degradation is needed hence the lateral loadfailure models developed for lightly reinforced concrete col-umns and walls [20 21] are modified for this model due to thesimilarity of lateral load-displacement behaviour betweenlightly reinforced concrete walls and columns
Shear strength (Vu) of RC walls consists of concretestrength (Vc) and steel strength (Vs) components as follows
Vu Vc + Vs (11)
In this model the concrete shear strength uses theformula developed based on principal tensile strength byauthors [22] whilst the steel strength proposed by Wesleyand Hashimoto [23] is used as follows
Vc 23Acr
ft( 11138572
+ftP
Acr
1113971
(12)
Vs chρh + cvρv( 1113857fydt (13)
whereAcr 085 ncρst( 1113857
036dt (14)
where d is the effective depth of RC walls which can beassumed as 08D and Ch 1minus cv in which
30
20
10
0
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
ndash10
ndash20
ndash30ndash150 ndash100 ndash050 000
Dri ()050 100 150
(a)
30
20
10
0
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
ndash10
ndash20
ndash30ndash150 ndash100 ndash050 000
Dri ()050 100 150
(b)
Figure 6 Crack patterns at 1 drift and hysteretic curves of all specimens (a) RCW4 (b) RCW8
Table 1 Strength and deformation properties of specimens RCW4and RCW8
Strength (kN) Drift ()Fcr Fy Fu δcr δy δu δlf
RCW4 Exp 28 18 235 017 047 100 133(eo 40 16 23 01 042 075 na
RCW8 Exp 23 20 245 017 055 067 100(eo 43 18 235 01 043 08 na
Note (e theoretical values were taken from moment-curvature analysis(flexural component only)
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 5
cv 1 for alt 05
2(1minus a) for 05lt alt 1
0 for agt 1
(15)
with nc EsEc ρh the transverse reinforcement ratioρv the total longitudinal reinforcement ratio and ρst
the tension reinforcement ratio
As a note for moderate and slender walls (a gt 1 andhence cv 0) the steel strength component (equation (13))can be rewritten as a common shear strength formula
Vs ρhfy dt Avfyd
s (16)
(e ultimate drift can be obtained as follows
L
Lv3
Lv2
Lv1
Lh
Δf l
δf2
δf1β
(a)
D
L
Lv3
Lv2
Lv1
Δsh
δs1
ζ
δs2
Δsh1
(b)
DLH
d1 d2
c
Lv1
d
d
δf1
δslip
δf2
θslip
β
(c)
Figure 7 LVDT measurements for (a) flexure deformation (b) shear deformation and (c) yield penetration deformation
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Displacement (mm)
ShearYield penetration
FlexuralTotal
0102030405060708090
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
FlexuralShearYield penetration
(a)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 2 4 6 8 10
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Displacement (mm)
ShearYield penetration
FlexuralTotal
0102030405060708090
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
FlexuralShearYield penetration
(b)
Figure 8 Variation of displacements due to flexure shear and yield penetration axial load-deformation relationship (left) and ratio of eachdisplacement to total displacement at each loading step (right) (a) RCW4 specimen (b) RCW8 specimen
6 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
cu cy
k(1minus kα)minus 08
Fu
Vu1113890 1113891 (17)
where
k 03e57n
9minus a (18)
where α the drift ductility at the start of shear strengthdecrease
42 Model 2 Simplified (e simplified model is a simpleprocedure for estimating lateral load-drift behaviour oflightly reinforced concrete walls (is model consists oftrilinear stages with each state cracking yield and ultimateas shown in Figure 10
(a) Point A (cracking) the lateral strength at crackingpoint can be predicted by assuming cracking drift ccr
005(b) Point B (yield) the ultimate yield strength is cal-
culated using factored ultimate strength
Fy ϕFu (19)
whereas the corresponding yield drift (cy) is determinedusing the smallest values of the following alternatives
(i) Approximate value of cy 02ndash03(ii) Apply Ieff 05Ig (refer [24])
(c) Point C (ultimate) the ultimate drift (cm) can becalculated as a sum of the yield drift (cy) and the plastic drift(cpl) as follows (refer Figure 11)
cm cy + cpl (20)
(e plastic drift can be estimated by assuming amaximum acceptable strain in the steel bar at singlecrack at the wall base in the order of εs 50 and takinga more conservative approach to Priestley and Paulay[8] strain penetration length of lyp 4400 εy db asymp 15dbHence the following models can be obtained (referFigure 12)
Crack width
Wcr εs middot lyp 005 times 15db 075db (21)
Plastic drift
cpl θpl wcr
D 075
db
D1113888 1113889 (22)
(e lateral load-drift relationship between experimentaldata and proposed models are considerably in goodagreement as shown in Figures 13 and 14 More data arecertainly required to refine the models particularly for thedetailed model since it was developed using a semiempiricalapproach However interestingly the simplified model withthe pure analytical approach showed better prediction due tothe dominant combinations of flexural and yield penetrationbehaviour
Drift ()γy γpeak
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Ieff
D
γu
Fcr
γcr
B
θplp = (φpeak ndash φy)Lp
θplu = (φu ndash φy)Lp
Figure 9 (e backbone curve model of lateral load-drift capacity[20]
Drift ()γy γm
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Fcr
γcr
B
Figure 10 (e simplified model of lateral load-drift capacity
Wcr
D
γpl
Figure 12 Plastic rotation at wall base
Drift ()γy γm
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Ieff
Fcr
γcr
B
γpl = θpl = (φu ndash φy)Lp
Figure 11 Plastic drift of simplified model
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 7
5 Conclusion
Two specimens of light-weight sandwich concrete walls havebeen tested in order to investigate the lateral load-driftbehaviour and collapse mechanism Specimen RCW4 witha thinner EPS panel developed more classic flexural be-haviour with drift capacity maxed at about 13 whilstspecimen RCW8 only managed to reached 10 withdominant yield penetration behaviour due to thinner con-crete cover of sloof foundation However the tests werestopped at 20 drop of peak load instead of further failure ataxial load collapse And hence the results can still beconsidered satisfactory for low-to-moderate seismic regionsbut might not be sufficient for high seismic regions
Two models comprising detailed and simplified ap-proach for predicting the load-displacement behaviour ofsandwich concrete wall subjected to lateral load have beendeveloped (e experimental data and the proposed modelsare in good agreement particularly the simplified model dueto the dominant behaviour of flexural and yield penetration
Data Availability
(e data that support the findings of this study are availablefrom the corresponding author upon reasonable request
Conflicts of Interest
(e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
References
[1] S A Mousavi S M Zahrai and A Bahrami-Rad ldquoQuasi-static cyclic tests on super-lightweight EPS concrete shearwallsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 65 pp 62ndash75 2014
[2] Z Yizhou ldquoMechanical properties of self-combusted ganguereinforced concrete shear walls under low-cyclic loadrdquoJournal of Zhejiang University Engineering Science vol 34no 3 pp 325ndash330 2000
[3] T Hejin Y Qingrong and S Xinya ldquoExperimental study onbBehaviours of reinforced ash ceramsite concrete shearwallsrdquo Journal of Building Structure vol 15 no 4 pp 20ndash301994
[4] Y H Chai and J D Anderson ldquoSeismic response of perfo-rated lightweight Aggregate concrete wall panels for low-risemodular classroomsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 27 no 4pp 593ndash604 2005
[5] L Cavaleri N Miraglia and M Papia ldquoPumice concrete forstructural wall panelsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 25 no 1pp 115ndash125 2003
[6] httpmpanelindonesiacomproductwall-panel[7] T Paulay ldquoEarthquake-resisting shear walls-New Zealand
design trendsrdquo ACI Journal vol 77 no 18 pp 144ndash152 1980[8] T Paulay and M J N Priestley Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings Wiley Interscience Presspublication John Wiley amp Sons inc New York City NYUSA 1992
[9] O Esmaili S Epackachi M Samadzad et al ldquoStudy ofstructural RC shear wall system in a 56-story RC tall buildingrdquoin Proceedings the 14th World Conference on EarthquakeEngineering Beijing China October 2008
[10] A Carpinteri M Corrado G Lacidogna et al ldquoLateral loadeffects on tall shear wall structures of different heightrdquoStructural Engineering and Mechanics vol 41 no 3pp 313ndash337 2012
[11] P A Hidalgo C A Ledezma and R M Jordan ldquoSeismicbBehaviour of squat reinforced concrete shear wallsrdquoEarthquake Spectra vol 18 no 2 pp 287ndash308 2002
[12] T N Salonikios ldquoShear strength and deformation patterns ofRC walls with aspect ratio 10 and 15 designed to Eurocode8rdquo Engineering Structures vol 24 no 1 pp 39ndash49 2002
[13] T N Salonikios ldquoAnalytical prediction of the inelastic re-sponse of RC walls with low aspect ratiordquo ASCE Journal ofStructural Engineering vol 133 no 6 pp 844ndash854 2007
[14] J Carrillo and S M Alcocer ldquoShear strength of reinforcedconcrete walls for seismic design of low-rise housingldquordquo ACIStructural Journal vol 110 no 3 2013
[15] T Trombetti G Gasparini S Silvestri et al ldquoResults ofpseudo-static tests with cyclic horizontal load on cast in situsandwich squat concrete wallsrdquo in Proceedings of Ninth PacificConference on Earthquake Engineering Building anEarthquake-Resilient Society Auckland New Zealand April2011
[16] I Ricci M Palermo G Gasparini S Silvestri andT Trombetti ldquoResults of pseudo-static tests with cyclichorizontal load on cast in situ sandwich squat concrete wallsrdquoEngineering Structures vol 54 pp 131ndash149 2013
[17] M Palermo and T Trombetti ldquoExperimentally-validatedmodelling of thin RC sandwich walls subjected to seismicloadsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 119 pp 95ndash109 2016
ndash30
ndash20
ndash10
0
10
20
30
ndash350 ndash250 ndash150 ndash050 050 150 250 350
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Drift ()
Figure 13 Comparison between experimental data and theoreticalmodels for specimen RCW4
ndash30
ndash20
ndash10
0
10
20
30
ndash350 ndash250 ndash150 ndash050 050 150 250 350
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Drift ()
Figure 14 Comparison between experimental data and theoreticalmodels for specimen RCW8
8 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
[18] ASTM E2126 Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed)Load Test for Shear Resistance of Walls for buildings ASTMInternational West Conshohocken PA USA 2005
[19] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoSeismic per-formance of lightly reinforced structural walls for designpurposesrdquo Magazine of Concrete Research vol 65 no 13pp 809ndash828 2013
[20] J L Wilson A Wibowo N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift behaviourof lightly reinforced concrete columns and structural walls forseismic design applicationsrdquo Australian Journal of StructuralEngineering vol 16 no 1 pp 62ndash74 2015
[21] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift per-formance of lightly reinforced concrete columnsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 59 pp 522ndash535 2014
[22] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift capacity oflightly reinforced concrete columnsrdquo Australian Journal ofStructural Engineering vol 15 no 2 pp 131ndash150 2014
[23] D AWesley and P S Hashimoto ldquoSeismic structural fragilityinvestigation for the zion nuclear power plantrdquo ReportNUREGCR-2320 US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionBethesda MD USA 1981
[24] J W Wallace ldquoModelling issues for tall reinforced concretecore wall buildingsrdquo Ce Structural Design of Tall and SpecialBuildings vol 16 no 5 pp 615ndash632 2007
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 9
CorrosionInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Materials Science and EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Chemistry
Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ScienticaHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Polymer ScienceInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in Condensed Matter Physics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
BiomaterialsHindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
Applied ChemistryJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
NanotechnologyHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
High Energy PhysicsAdvances in
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
TribologyAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ChemistryAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances inPhysical Chemistry
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
BioMed Research InternationalMaterials
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Na
nom
ate
ria
ls
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal ofNanomaterials
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
inserting a lightweight panel inside the concrete element(is panel system is usually applied for insulation purpose aswell (e lightweight wall system investigated in this paperfocused on the use of the EPS panel as a filler and galvanizedwire mesh for reinforcing bar as shown in Figure 1
2 Research Methodology
(e specimens were designed as structural walls composinglow-rise building which were commonly found in house orschool precast buildings (e squat walls are generallydominated with shear behaviour which comparably differsto tall walls commonly found in high-rise building Concretetall walls have been considerably well-researched and well-understood [7ndash10] whereas concrete squat walls have beenincreasingly investigated [11ndash14] However innovationstudies on sandwich squat walls with the EPS panel were justinitially begun Previous experimental studies by Trombettiet al [15] and Ricci et al [16] showed that sandwich squatconcrete walls were comparable to those of regular RC wallsand able to sustain lateral load up to drift higher than 13whereas Palermo and Trombetti [17] comprehensively in-vestigated sandwich walls experimentally and analyticallywith the outcomes showed that properly designed walls canaccomplish high seismic performance requirement sug-gested by the code However the overall performance ofsandwich RC walls with lower steel reinforcement ratios(less than minimum requirements) still needs further in-vestigation and hence became the main focus of this study
(e laboratory tests on two specimens of sandwichreinforced concrete wall RCW4 and RCW8 have been un-dertaken Figure 2 shows the typical property of the walls Allspecimens had a height and width of 90 cm and 60 cm re-spectively (equivalent to aspect ratio of 15) (e RCW4 wallused a 4 cm thick EPS panel compared to the 8 cm EPS panelinstalled in the RCW8 wall (e specimens were reinforcedwith ϕ25ndash75mm wire mesh on each wall side and ϕ30mmsteel wires for connecting both mesh layers (e yield andultimate steel tensile strengths of the wire mesh were 600MPaand 680MPa respectively as shown in Figure 3 A 35mmthick shotcrete was applied on each outer side of walls with theconcrete strength of 15MPa (e walls and the foundationswere connected using ϕ10mm anchor bars spaced at 75mm
Quasi-static cyclic load procedure was applied at the tipof the wall specimens to obtain representative hystereticcurves of lateral load versus displacement (refer Figures 4and 5) as per ASTM E2126 code [18] (e drift-controlledorder was used for the loading test comprised drift in-crements of 0042 until attaining 0167 (representingcracking point) then drift increments of 016 untilreaching drift of 066 (representing yield point) andfollowed by inelastic stage at 066 drift increments (ehysteretic behaviours of walls were maintained using threeloading cycles at each drift ratio
During the testing process at each defined discretedisplacement stages the measurement of LVDTs dialgauges and crack propagation were recorded (e teststopped when the peak lateral strength of the specimenreduced by 20 (lateral load failure)
3 Experimental Test Results
Hysteretic curves of lateral load-drift relationship and thecrack pattern of all wall specimens are presented in Figure 6Both specimens RCW4 and RCW8 had similar peak lateralload of about 25 kN with different behaviour characteristicsRCW4 (EPS panel thickness of 40mm) developed moreclassical flexural mechanism whilst RCW8 (EPS panelthickness of 80mm) was more dominated with yield pen-etration behaviour due to the thinner concrete cover of wallfoundation As shown the specimen RCW4 managed tocomplete all three cycles of quasi-static cyclic load at 10drift and then failed at the first cycle of load at drift of 133whereas specimen RCW8 produced shorter maximum driftcapacity with failure at the first cycle of lateral load at 10drift A comparison of lateral strengths and drifts betweenthe experimental results and the theoretical predictions ispresented in Table 1
(e total lateral deformation consists of flexural shearand yield penetration components that were determinedusing dial gauge and LVDTand dial gauge measurements asshown in Figure 7
(e flexural displacement at the wall top at each i-segment of LVDTwas determined via the following equation(refer Figure 7(a))
Δfli 1113946L
0φ(x)xdx
Lminus Lvi
Lhδf2 minus δf1( 1113857 (1)
whereas the displacement of the elastic region at uppersegment was estimated analytically assuming uncrackedsection properties as follows
Δfl3 φL2
i
3
FL3i
3EcI (2)
where F lateral load Li segment length Ec concreteelastic modulus and I uncracked moment of inertia
(e shear deformation Δsh was predicted using diagonalLVDTs data (refer Figure 7(b)) as follows
Δsh δs1 minus δs2( 1113857
2sec ξ
δs1 minus δs2( 1113857
2
L2v + D2
1113969
Lv (3)
where D wall depth and δsi diagonal LVDTmeasurement
(e yield penetration component was measured using thevertical LVDTat the first level (refer Figure 7(c)) by assuminga rockingmechanismwithin the first section of wall An upperbound of the top displacement of the column can be cal-culated from the product of the slip rotation θslip and thecolumn height assuming rigid body rotation as follows
Δyp θslipLcolumn (4)
where θslip the slip rotation of tensile steel (δslip(dminus c)) asymp β β ((δf2 minus δf1)Lh) and c the neutral axisdepth at the column base interface (δf2(δf1 + δf2))Lh minusd2
(e deformation of walls comprising flexural shear andyield penetration components for RCW4 and RCW8specimens is shown in Figure 8 (e flexural deformationwas the most dominant component of about 75 and 55
2 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
for RCW4 and RCW8 specimens respectively whilst theshear deformation was the least dominant deformationcomponent of below 5 for both specimens RCW4 andRCW8 Interestingly the yield penetration deformation ofRCW8 was about 27 compared to 21 of that of RCW4specimen which can be attributed to the smaller concretecover of sloof foundation on RCW8 and hence smaller bondslip strength between steel bar and concrete at foundation
4 Backbone Curve Models
Two simple models (backbone and simplified) were de-veloped for design purposes or basic assessment of lateralload-displacement capacity of such walls Both models forsandwich concrete walls are developed based on the modelpreviously developed by authors for lightly reinforcedconcrete walls [19]
41 Model 1 Detailed A detailed curve model is developedbased on displacement-based design methodology for pre-dicting the lateral load-drift behaviour (comprising fourstages cracking yield peak and lateral load failure) asshown conceptually in Figure 9
Smooth finish coat
Smooth finish coatElectrowelded
galvanised steel mesh
1 inch thick structural concrete(sprayed in 2 coats)
Expanded polystyreneinsulating core
Figure 1 Typical EPS sandwich concrete wall panel (refer [6])
Mortar
Wiremesh
EPS
5300350 350
350
350
400
110
0
(cm)
6000
Figure 2 Basic properties of wall specimens
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 00025 0005 00075 001
Stre
ss (M
Pa)
Strain (mmmm)
Figure 3 Stress-strain relationship of steel wire
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 3
(a) Point A (cracking) the cracked lateral strength anddrift are calculated as follows
Fcr Mcr
L
ccr McrL
3EcIg
(5)
where the flexural tensile strength ft is taken as 06
fcprime1113969
(b) Point B (yield) the yield drift is calculated using the
effective second moment of area as follows
Fy My
L
cy MyL
3EcIe
(6)
(e Paulay and Priestley [8] model for effective momentof inertia is used as follows
(i) Flexure-dominated walls
Ie 100fy
+Pu
fcprimeAg
⎛⎝ ⎞⎠Ig (7)
(ii) Shear-dominated walls
Iw Ig
12 + C
C 30Ie
L2tD
(8)
where Pu nominal axial load Ag gross crosssection area of walls and t wall thickness
(c) Point C (peak strength) the model was developed byinvestigating the curvature within the plastic hinge regionusing the force equilibrium equation (N Cc + Cs minusT) withthe spalling strain (εcu 0003) used as a limit state forconcrete strain For low-rise buildings the presence ofgravity axial load is reasonably small and hence for sim-plicity the compression steel area is eliminated from theequilibrium equation (e peak flexural lateral load Fu andthe drift at concrete fracture cu can then be obtained asfollows
1415
500
500
123456789
101112131415161718192021222324
992
692
300
030
00
110
00
300
020
00
65001750 1750
10000
116
2
76
18
19 54
810
1213 20
11
2221
24
LVDT-∆controlLVDT-∆totalLVDT-∆totalLVDT-∆flexureLVDT-∆flexureDial gauge-∆flexureDial gauge-∆flexureDial gauge-∆ShearDial gauge-∆ShearDial gauge-∆up liftDial gauge-∆up liftDial gauge-∆base shearDial gauge-∆frame shearHydraulic jack 1Load cell 1ndash5tonLoad cell 2ndash10tonHydraulic jack 2ExtensometerRC wallSloofClampClampClampLoading frame
9
3
2317
Figure 4 Schematic of wall loading test setup
ndash15000ndash10000
ndash5000000
50001000015000
0 10 20 30 40 50
Def
lect
ion
(mm
)
Cycle no
Figure 5 Quasi-static lateral loading history
4 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
Fu Mu
L
cpeak cy + cplmiddotp
(9)
where cplmiddotp (ϕpeak minus ϕy)Lp in which ϕpeak(εcukud)
(0003kud) and ϕy (3cyL) ku ((N + Astfy)085fcprimecdb) c 085minus 0007(fcprime minus 28) Ast tensile steelarea and εsm steel strain-hardening strain
(e plastic hinge length Lp can be estimated using thePaulay and Priestley model [8] as follows
Lp 0054L + 0022 dbfy (10)
(d) Point D (ultimate displacement) lateral load-displacement relationship of squat walls is dominated by
shear behaviour however for lightly reinforced squat walls theflexure behaviour still provides large influence on lateral load-drift behaviour (e failure mechanism which is influenced byshear strength degradation is needed hence the lateral loadfailure models developed for lightly reinforced concrete col-umns and walls [20 21] are modified for this model due to thesimilarity of lateral load-displacement behaviour betweenlightly reinforced concrete walls and columns
Shear strength (Vu) of RC walls consists of concretestrength (Vc) and steel strength (Vs) components as follows
Vu Vc + Vs (11)
In this model the concrete shear strength uses theformula developed based on principal tensile strength byauthors [22] whilst the steel strength proposed by Wesleyand Hashimoto [23] is used as follows
Vc 23Acr
ft( 11138572
+ftP
Acr
1113971
(12)
Vs chρh + cvρv( 1113857fydt (13)
whereAcr 085 ncρst( 1113857
036dt (14)
where d is the effective depth of RC walls which can beassumed as 08D and Ch 1minus cv in which
30
20
10
0
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
ndash10
ndash20
ndash30ndash150 ndash100 ndash050 000
Dri ()050 100 150
(a)
30
20
10
0
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
ndash10
ndash20
ndash30ndash150 ndash100 ndash050 000
Dri ()050 100 150
(b)
Figure 6 Crack patterns at 1 drift and hysteretic curves of all specimens (a) RCW4 (b) RCW8
Table 1 Strength and deformation properties of specimens RCW4and RCW8
Strength (kN) Drift ()Fcr Fy Fu δcr δy δu δlf
RCW4 Exp 28 18 235 017 047 100 133(eo 40 16 23 01 042 075 na
RCW8 Exp 23 20 245 017 055 067 100(eo 43 18 235 01 043 08 na
Note (e theoretical values were taken from moment-curvature analysis(flexural component only)
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 5
cv 1 for alt 05
2(1minus a) for 05lt alt 1
0 for agt 1
(15)
with nc EsEc ρh the transverse reinforcement ratioρv the total longitudinal reinforcement ratio and ρst
the tension reinforcement ratio
As a note for moderate and slender walls (a gt 1 andhence cv 0) the steel strength component (equation (13))can be rewritten as a common shear strength formula
Vs ρhfy dt Avfyd
s (16)
(e ultimate drift can be obtained as follows
L
Lv3
Lv2
Lv1
Lh
Δf l
δf2
δf1β
(a)
D
L
Lv3
Lv2
Lv1
Δsh
δs1
ζ
δs2
Δsh1
(b)
DLH
d1 d2
c
Lv1
d
d
δf1
δslip
δf2
θslip
β
(c)
Figure 7 LVDT measurements for (a) flexure deformation (b) shear deformation and (c) yield penetration deformation
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Displacement (mm)
ShearYield penetration
FlexuralTotal
0102030405060708090
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
FlexuralShearYield penetration
(a)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 2 4 6 8 10
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Displacement (mm)
ShearYield penetration
FlexuralTotal
0102030405060708090
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
FlexuralShearYield penetration
(b)
Figure 8 Variation of displacements due to flexure shear and yield penetration axial load-deformation relationship (left) and ratio of eachdisplacement to total displacement at each loading step (right) (a) RCW4 specimen (b) RCW8 specimen
6 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
cu cy
k(1minus kα)minus 08
Fu
Vu1113890 1113891 (17)
where
k 03e57n
9minus a (18)
where α the drift ductility at the start of shear strengthdecrease
42 Model 2 Simplified (e simplified model is a simpleprocedure for estimating lateral load-drift behaviour oflightly reinforced concrete walls (is model consists oftrilinear stages with each state cracking yield and ultimateas shown in Figure 10
(a) Point A (cracking) the lateral strength at crackingpoint can be predicted by assuming cracking drift ccr
005(b) Point B (yield) the ultimate yield strength is cal-
culated using factored ultimate strength
Fy ϕFu (19)
whereas the corresponding yield drift (cy) is determinedusing the smallest values of the following alternatives
(i) Approximate value of cy 02ndash03(ii) Apply Ieff 05Ig (refer [24])
(c) Point C (ultimate) the ultimate drift (cm) can becalculated as a sum of the yield drift (cy) and the plastic drift(cpl) as follows (refer Figure 11)
cm cy + cpl (20)
(e plastic drift can be estimated by assuming amaximum acceptable strain in the steel bar at singlecrack at the wall base in the order of εs 50 and takinga more conservative approach to Priestley and Paulay[8] strain penetration length of lyp 4400 εy db asymp 15dbHence the following models can be obtained (referFigure 12)
Crack width
Wcr εs middot lyp 005 times 15db 075db (21)
Plastic drift
cpl θpl wcr
D 075
db
D1113888 1113889 (22)
(e lateral load-drift relationship between experimentaldata and proposed models are considerably in goodagreement as shown in Figures 13 and 14 More data arecertainly required to refine the models particularly for thedetailed model since it was developed using a semiempiricalapproach However interestingly the simplified model withthe pure analytical approach showed better prediction due tothe dominant combinations of flexural and yield penetrationbehaviour
Drift ()γy γpeak
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Ieff
D
γu
Fcr
γcr
B
θplp = (φpeak ndash φy)Lp
θplu = (φu ndash φy)Lp
Figure 9 (e backbone curve model of lateral load-drift capacity[20]
Drift ()γy γm
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Fcr
γcr
B
Figure 10 (e simplified model of lateral load-drift capacity
Wcr
D
γpl
Figure 12 Plastic rotation at wall base
Drift ()γy γm
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Ieff
Fcr
γcr
B
γpl = θpl = (φu ndash φy)Lp
Figure 11 Plastic drift of simplified model
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 7
5 Conclusion
Two specimens of light-weight sandwich concrete walls havebeen tested in order to investigate the lateral load-driftbehaviour and collapse mechanism Specimen RCW4 witha thinner EPS panel developed more classic flexural be-haviour with drift capacity maxed at about 13 whilstspecimen RCW8 only managed to reached 10 withdominant yield penetration behaviour due to thinner con-crete cover of sloof foundation However the tests werestopped at 20 drop of peak load instead of further failure ataxial load collapse And hence the results can still beconsidered satisfactory for low-to-moderate seismic regionsbut might not be sufficient for high seismic regions
Two models comprising detailed and simplified ap-proach for predicting the load-displacement behaviour ofsandwich concrete wall subjected to lateral load have beendeveloped (e experimental data and the proposed modelsare in good agreement particularly the simplified model dueto the dominant behaviour of flexural and yield penetration
Data Availability
(e data that support the findings of this study are availablefrom the corresponding author upon reasonable request
Conflicts of Interest
(e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
References
[1] S A Mousavi S M Zahrai and A Bahrami-Rad ldquoQuasi-static cyclic tests on super-lightweight EPS concrete shearwallsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 65 pp 62ndash75 2014
[2] Z Yizhou ldquoMechanical properties of self-combusted ganguereinforced concrete shear walls under low-cyclic loadrdquoJournal of Zhejiang University Engineering Science vol 34no 3 pp 325ndash330 2000
[3] T Hejin Y Qingrong and S Xinya ldquoExperimental study onbBehaviours of reinforced ash ceramsite concrete shearwallsrdquo Journal of Building Structure vol 15 no 4 pp 20ndash301994
[4] Y H Chai and J D Anderson ldquoSeismic response of perfo-rated lightweight Aggregate concrete wall panels for low-risemodular classroomsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 27 no 4pp 593ndash604 2005
[5] L Cavaleri N Miraglia and M Papia ldquoPumice concrete forstructural wall panelsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 25 no 1pp 115ndash125 2003
[6] httpmpanelindonesiacomproductwall-panel[7] T Paulay ldquoEarthquake-resisting shear walls-New Zealand
design trendsrdquo ACI Journal vol 77 no 18 pp 144ndash152 1980[8] T Paulay and M J N Priestley Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings Wiley Interscience Presspublication John Wiley amp Sons inc New York City NYUSA 1992
[9] O Esmaili S Epackachi M Samadzad et al ldquoStudy ofstructural RC shear wall system in a 56-story RC tall buildingrdquoin Proceedings the 14th World Conference on EarthquakeEngineering Beijing China October 2008
[10] A Carpinteri M Corrado G Lacidogna et al ldquoLateral loadeffects on tall shear wall structures of different heightrdquoStructural Engineering and Mechanics vol 41 no 3pp 313ndash337 2012
[11] P A Hidalgo C A Ledezma and R M Jordan ldquoSeismicbBehaviour of squat reinforced concrete shear wallsrdquoEarthquake Spectra vol 18 no 2 pp 287ndash308 2002
[12] T N Salonikios ldquoShear strength and deformation patterns ofRC walls with aspect ratio 10 and 15 designed to Eurocode8rdquo Engineering Structures vol 24 no 1 pp 39ndash49 2002
[13] T N Salonikios ldquoAnalytical prediction of the inelastic re-sponse of RC walls with low aspect ratiordquo ASCE Journal ofStructural Engineering vol 133 no 6 pp 844ndash854 2007
[14] J Carrillo and S M Alcocer ldquoShear strength of reinforcedconcrete walls for seismic design of low-rise housingldquordquo ACIStructural Journal vol 110 no 3 2013
[15] T Trombetti G Gasparini S Silvestri et al ldquoResults ofpseudo-static tests with cyclic horizontal load on cast in situsandwich squat concrete wallsrdquo in Proceedings of Ninth PacificConference on Earthquake Engineering Building anEarthquake-Resilient Society Auckland New Zealand April2011
[16] I Ricci M Palermo G Gasparini S Silvestri andT Trombetti ldquoResults of pseudo-static tests with cyclichorizontal load on cast in situ sandwich squat concrete wallsrdquoEngineering Structures vol 54 pp 131ndash149 2013
[17] M Palermo and T Trombetti ldquoExperimentally-validatedmodelling of thin RC sandwich walls subjected to seismicloadsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 119 pp 95ndash109 2016
ndash30
ndash20
ndash10
0
10
20
30
ndash350 ndash250 ndash150 ndash050 050 150 250 350
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Drift ()
Figure 13 Comparison between experimental data and theoreticalmodels for specimen RCW4
ndash30
ndash20
ndash10
0
10
20
30
ndash350 ndash250 ndash150 ndash050 050 150 250 350
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Drift ()
Figure 14 Comparison between experimental data and theoreticalmodels for specimen RCW8
8 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
[18] ASTM E2126 Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed)Load Test for Shear Resistance of Walls for buildings ASTMInternational West Conshohocken PA USA 2005
[19] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoSeismic per-formance of lightly reinforced structural walls for designpurposesrdquo Magazine of Concrete Research vol 65 no 13pp 809ndash828 2013
[20] J L Wilson A Wibowo N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift behaviourof lightly reinforced concrete columns and structural walls forseismic design applicationsrdquo Australian Journal of StructuralEngineering vol 16 no 1 pp 62ndash74 2015
[21] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift per-formance of lightly reinforced concrete columnsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 59 pp 522ndash535 2014
[22] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift capacity oflightly reinforced concrete columnsrdquo Australian Journal ofStructural Engineering vol 15 no 2 pp 131ndash150 2014
[23] D AWesley and P S Hashimoto ldquoSeismic structural fragilityinvestigation for the zion nuclear power plantrdquo ReportNUREGCR-2320 US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionBethesda MD USA 1981
[24] J W Wallace ldquoModelling issues for tall reinforced concretecore wall buildingsrdquo Ce Structural Design of Tall and SpecialBuildings vol 16 no 5 pp 615ndash632 2007
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 9
CorrosionInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Materials Science and EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Chemistry
Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ScienticaHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Polymer ScienceInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in Condensed Matter Physics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
BiomaterialsHindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
Applied ChemistryJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
NanotechnologyHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
High Energy PhysicsAdvances in
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
TribologyAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ChemistryAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances inPhysical Chemistry
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
BioMed Research InternationalMaterials
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Na
nom
ate
ria
ls
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal ofNanomaterials
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
for RCW4 and RCW8 specimens respectively whilst theshear deformation was the least dominant deformationcomponent of below 5 for both specimens RCW4 andRCW8 Interestingly the yield penetration deformation ofRCW8 was about 27 compared to 21 of that of RCW4specimen which can be attributed to the smaller concretecover of sloof foundation on RCW8 and hence smaller bondslip strength between steel bar and concrete at foundation
4 Backbone Curve Models
Two simple models (backbone and simplified) were de-veloped for design purposes or basic assessment of lateralload-displacement capacity of such walls Both models forsandwich concrete walls are developed based on the modelpreviously developed by authors for lightly reinforcedconcrete walls [19]
41 Model 1 Detailed A detailed curve model is developedbased on displacement-based design methodology for pre-dicting the lateral load-drift behaviour (comprising fourstages cracking yield peak and lateral load failure) asshown conceptually in Figure 9
Smooth finish coat
Smooth finish coatElectrowelded
galvanised steel mesh
1 inch thick structural concrete(sprayed in 2 coats)
Expanded polystyreneinsulating core
Figure 1 Typical EPS sandwich concrete wall panel (refer [6])
Mortar
Wiremesh
EPS
5300350 350
350
350
400
110
0
(cm)
6000
Figure 2 Basic properties of wall specimens
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 00025 0005 00075 001
Stre
ss (M
Pa)
Strain (mmmm)
Figure 3 Stress-strain relationship of steel wire
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 3
(a) Point A (cracking) the cracked lateral strength anddrift are calculated as follows
Fcr Mcr
L
ccr McrL
3EcIg
(5)
where the flexural tensile strength ft is taken as 06
fcprime1113969
(b) Point B (yield) the yield drift is calculated using the
effective second moment of area as follows
Fy My
L
cy MyL
3EcIe
(6)
(e Paulay and Priestley [8] model for effective momentof inertia is used as follows
(i) Flexure-dominated walls
Ie 100fy
+Pu
fcprimeAg
⎛⎝ ⎞⎠Ig (7)
(ii) Shear-dominated walls
Iw Ig
12 + C
C 30Ie
L2tD
(8)
where Pu nominal axial load Ag gross crosssection area of walls and t wall thickness
(c) Point C (peak strength) the model was developed byinvestigating the curvature within the plastic hinge regionusing the force equilibrium equation (N Cc + Cs minusT) withthe spalling strain (εcu 0003) used as a limit state forconcrete strain For low-rise buildings the presence ofgravity axial load is reasonably small and hence for sim-plicity the compression steel area is eliminated from theequilibrium equation (e peak flexural lateral load Fu andthe drift at concrete fracture cu can then be obtained asfollows
1415
500
500
123456789
101112131415161718192021222324
992
692
300
030
00
110
00
300
020
00
65001750 1750
10000
116
2
76
18
19 54
810
1213 20
11
2221
24
LVDT-∆controlLVDT-∆totalLVDT-∆totalLVDT-∆flexureLVDT-∆flexureDial gauge-∆flexureDial gauge-∆flexureDial gauge-∆ShearDial gauge-∆ShearDial gauge-∆up liftDial gauge-∆up liftDial gauge-∆base shearDial gauge-∆frame shearHydraulic jack 1Load cell 1ndash5tonLoad cell 2ndash10tonHydraulic jack 2ExtensometerRC wallSloofClampClampClampLoading frame
9
3
2317
Figure 4 Schematic of wall loading test setup
ndash15000ndash10000
ndash5000000
50001000015000
0 10 20 30 40 50
Def
lect
ion
(mm
)
Cycle no
Figure 5 Quasi-static lateral loading history
4 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
Fu Mu
L
cpeak cy + cplmiddotp
(9)
where cplmiddotp (ϕpeak minus ϕy)Lp in which ϕpeak(εcukud)
(0003kud) and ϕy (3cyL) ku ((N + Astfy)085fcprimecdb) c 085minus 0007(fcprime minus 28) Ast tensile steelarea and εsm steel strain-hardening strain
(e plastic hinge length Lp can be estimated using thePaulay and Priestley model [8] as follows
Lp 0054L + 0022 dbfy (10)
(d) Point D (ultimate displacement) lateral load-displacement relationship of squat walls is dominated by
shear behaviour however for lightly reinforced squat walls theflexure behaviour still provides large influence on lateral load-drift behaviour (e failure mechanism which is influenced byshear strength degradation is needed hence the lateral loadfailure models developed for lightly reinforced concrete col-umns and walls [20 21] are modified for this model due to thesimilarity of lateral load-displacement behaviour betweenlightly reinforced concrete walls and columns
Shear strength (Vu) of RC walls consists of concretestrength (Vc) and steel strength (Vs) components as follows
Vu Vc + Vs (11)
In this model the concrete shear strength uses theformula developed based on principal tensile strength byauthors [22] whilst the steel strength proposed by Wesleyand Hashimoto [23] is used as follows
Vc 23Acr
ft( 11138572
+ftP
Acr
1113971
(12)
Vs chρh + cvρv( 1113857fydt (13)
whereAcr 085 ncρst( 1113857
036dt (14)
where d is the effective depth of RC walls which can beassumed as 08D and Ch 1minus cv in which
30
20
10
0
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
ndash10
ndash20
ndash30ndash150 ndash100 ndash050 000
Dri ()050 100 150
(a)
30
20
10
0
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
ndash10
ndash20
ndash30ndash150 ndash100 ndash050 000
Dri ()050 100 150
(b)
Figure 6 Crack patterns at 1 drift and hysteretic curves of all specimens (a) RCW4 (b) RCW8
Table 1 Strength and deformation properties of specimens RCW4and RCW8
Strength (kN) Drift ()Fcr Fy Fu δcr δy δu δlf
RCW4 Exp 28 18 235 017 047 100 133(eo 40 16 23 01 042 075 na
RCW8 Exp 23 20 245 017 055 067 100(eo 43 18 235 01 043 08 na
Note (e theoretical values were taken from moment-curvature analysis(flexural component only)
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 5
cv 1 for alt 05
2(1minus a) for 05lt alt 1
0 for agt 1
(15)
with nc EsEc ρh the transverse reinforcement ratioρv the total longitudinal reinforcement ratio and ρst
the tension reinforcement ratio
As a note for moderate and slender walls (a gt 1 andhence cv 0) the steel strength component (equation (13))can be rewritten as a common shear strength formula
Vs ρhfy dt Avfyd
s (16)
(e ultimate drift can be obtained as follows
L
Lv3
Lv2
Lv1
Lh
Δf l
δf2
δf1β
(a)
D
L
Lv3
Lv2
Lv1
Δsh
δs1
ζ
δs2
Δsh1
(b)
DLH
d1 d2
c
Lv1
d
d
δf1
δslip
δf2
θslip
β
(c)
Figure 7 LVDT measurements for (a) flexure deformation (b) shear deformation and (c) yield penetration deformation
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Displacement (mm)
ShearYield penetration
FlexuralTotal
0102030405060708090
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
FlexuralShearYield penetration
(a)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 2 4 6 8 10
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Displacement (mm)
ShearYield penetration
FlexuralTotal
0102030405060708090
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
FlexuralShearYield penetration
(b)
Figure 8 Variation of displacements due to flexure shear and yield penetration axial load-deformation relationship (left) and ratio of eachdisplacement to total displacement at each loading step (right) (a) RCW4 specimen (b) RCW8 specimen
6 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
cu cy
k(1minus kα)minus 08
Fu
Vu1113890 1113891 (17)
where
k 03e57n
9minus a (18)
where α the drift ductility at the start of shear strengthdecrease
42 Model 2 Simplified (e simplified model is a simpleprocedure for estimating lateral load-drift behaviour oflightly reinforced concrete walls (is model consists oftrilinear stages with each state cracking yield and ultimateas shown in Figure 10
(a) Point A (cracking) the lateral strength at crackingpoint can be predicted by assuming cracking drift ccr
005(b) Point B (yield) the ultimate yield strength is cal-
culated using factored ultimate strength
Fy ϕFu (19)
whereas the corresponding yield drift (cy) is determinedusing the smallest values of the following alternatives
(i) Approximate value of cy 02ndash03(ii) Apply Ieff 05Ig (refer [24])
(c) Point C (ultimate) the ultimate drift (cm) can becalculated as a sum of the yield drift (cy) and the plastic drift(cpl) as follows (refer Figure 11)
cm cy + cpl (20)
(e plastic drift can be estimated by assuming amaximum acceptable strain in the steel bar at singlecrack at the wall base in the order of εs 50 and takinga more conservative approach to Priestley and Paulay[8] strain penetration length of lyp 4400 εy db asymp 15dbHence the following models can be obtained (referFigure 12)
Crack width
Wcr εs middot lyp 005 times 15db 075db (21)
Plastic drift
cpl θpl wcr
D 075
db
D1113888 1113889 (22)
(e lateral load-drift relationship between experimentaldata and proposed models are considerably in goodagreement as shown in Figures 13 and 14 More data arecertainly required to refine the models particularly for thedetailed model since it was developed using a semiempiricalapproach However interestingly the simplified model withthe pure analytical approach showed better prediction due tothe dominant combinations of flexural and yield penetrationbehaviour
Drift ()γy γpeak
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Ieff
D
γu
Fcr
γcr
B
θplp = (φpeak ndash φy)Lp
θplu = (φu ndash φy)Lp
Figure 9 (e backbone curve model of lateral load-drift capacity[20]
Drift ()γy γm
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Fcr
γcr
B
Figure 10 (e simplified model of lateral load-drift capacity
Wcr
D
γpl
Figure 12 Plastic rotation at wall base
Drift ()γy γm
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Ieff
Fcr
γcr
B
γpl = θpl = (φu ndash φy)Lp
Figure 11 Plastic drift of simplified model
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 7
5 Conclusion
Two specimens of light-weight sandwich concrete walls havebeen tested in order to investigate the lateral load-driftbehaviour and collapse mechanism Specimen RCW4 witha thinner EPS panel developed more classic flexural be-haviour with drift capacity maxed at about 13 whilstspecimen RCW8 only managed to reached 10 withdominant yield penetration behaviour due to thinner con-crete cover of sloof foundation However the tests werestopped at 20 drop of peak load instead of further failure ataxial load collapse And hence the results can still beconsidered satisfactory for low-to-moderate seismic regionsbut might not be sufficient for high seismic regions
Two models comprising detailed and simplified ap-proach for predicting the load-displacement behaviour ofsandwich concrete wall subjected to lateral load have beendeveloped (e experimental data and the proposed modelsare in good agreement particularly the simplified model dueto the dominant behaviour of flexural and yield penetration
Data Availability
(e data that support the findings of this study are availablefrom the corresponding author upon reasonable request
Conflicts of Interest
(e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
References
[1] S A Mousavi S M Zahrai and A Bahrami-Rad ldquoQuasi-static cyclic tests on super-lightweight EPS concrete shearwallsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 65 pp 62ndash75 2014
[2] Z Yizhou ldquoMechanical properties of self-combusted ganguereinforced concrete shear walls under low-cyclic loadrdquoJournal of Zhejiang University Engineering Science vol 34no 3 pp 325ndash330 2000
[3] T Hejin Y Qingrong and S Xinya ldquoExperimental study onbBehaviours of reinforced ash ceramsite concrete shearwallsrdquo Journal of Building Structure vol 15 no 4 pp 20ndash301994
[4] Y H Chai and J D Anderson ldquoSeismic response of perfo-rated lightweight Aggregate concrete wall panels for low-risemodular classroomsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 27 no 4pp 593ndash604 2005
[5] L Cavaleri N Miraglia and M Papia ldquoPumice concrete forstructural wall panelsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 25 no 1pp 115ndash125 2003
[6] httpmpanelindonesiacomproductwall-panel[7] T Paulay ldquoEarthquake-resisting shear walls-New Zealand
design trendsrdquo ACI Journal vol 77 no 18 pp 144ndash152 1980[8] T Paulay and M J N Priestley Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings Wiley Interscience Presspublication John Wiley amp Sons inc New York City NYUSA 1992
[9] O Esmaili S Epackachi M Samadzad et al ldquoStudy ofstructural RC shear wall system in a 56-story RC tall buildingrdquoin Proceedings the 14th World Conference on EarthquakeEngineering Beijing China October 2008
[10] A Carpinteri M Corrado G Lacidogna et al ldquoLateral loadeffects on tall shear wall structures of different heightrdquoStructural Engineering and Mechanics vol 41 no 3pp 313ndash337 2012
[11] P A Hidalgo C A Ledezma and R M Jordan ldquoSeismicbBehaviour of squat reinforced concrete shear wallsrdquoEarthquake Spectra vol 18 no 2 pp 287ndash308 2002
[12] T N Salonikios ldquoShear strength and deformation patterns ofRC walls with aspect ratio 10 and 15 designed to Eurocode8rdquo Engineering Structures vol 24 no 1 pp 39ndash49 2002
[13] T N Salonikios ldquoAnalytical prediction of the inelastic re-sponse of RC walls with low aspect ratiordquo ASCE Journal ofStructural Engineering vol 133 no 6 pp 844ndash854 2007
[14] J Carrillo and S M Alcocer ldquoShear strength of reinforcedconcrete walls for seismic design of low-rise housingldquordquo ACIStructural Journal vol 110 no 3 2013
[15] T Trombetti G Gasparini S Silvestri et al ldquoResults ofpseudo-static tests with cyclic horizontal load on cast in situsandwich squat concrete wallsrdquo in Proceedings of Ninth PacificConference on Earthquake Engineering Building anEarthquake-Resilient Society Auckland New Zealand April2011
[16] I Ricci M Palermo G Gasparini S Silvestri andT Trombetti ldquoResults of pseudo-static tests with cyclichorizontal load on cast in situ sandwich squat concrete wallsrdquoEngineering Structures vol 54 pp 131ndash149 2013
[17] M Palermo and T Trombetti ldquoExperimentally-validatedmodelling of thin RC sandwich walls subjected to seismicloadsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 119 pp 95ndash109 2016
ndash30
ndash20
ndash10
0
10
20
30
ndash350 ndash250 ndash150 ndash050 050 150 250 350
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Drift ()
Figure 13 Comparison between experimental data and theoreticalmodels for specimen RCW4
ndash30
ndash20
ndash10
0
10
20
30
ndash350 ndash250 ndash150 ndash050 050 150 250 350
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Drift ()
Figure 14 Comparison between experimental data and theoreticalmodels for specimen RCW8
8 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
[18] ASTM E2126 Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed)Load Test for Shear Resistance of Walls for buildings ASTMInternational West Conshohocken PA USA 2005
[19] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoSeismic per-formance of lightly reinforced structural walls for designpurposesrdquo Magazine of Concrete Research vol 65 no 13pp 809ndash828 2013
[20] J L Wilson A Wibowo N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift behaviourof lightly reinforced concrete columns and structural walls forseismic design applicationsrdquo Australian Journal of StructuralEngineering vol 16 no 1 pp 62ndash74 2015
[21] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift per-formance of lightly reinforced concrete columnsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 59 pp 522ndash535 2014
[22] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift capacity oflightly reinforced concrete columnsrdquo Australian Journal ofStructural Engineering vol 15 no 2 pp 131ndash150 2014
[23] D AWesley and P S Hashimoto ldquoSeismic structural fragilityinvestigation for the zion nuclear power plantrdquo ReportNUREGCR-2320 US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionBethesda MD USA 1981
[24] J W Wallace ldquoModelling issues for tall reinforced concretecore wall buildingsrdquo Ce Structural Design of Tall and SpecialBuildings vol 16 no 5 pp 615ndash632 2007
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 9
CorrosionInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Materials Science and EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Chemistry
Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ScienticaHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Polymer ScienceInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in Condensed Matter Physics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
BiomaterialsHindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
Applied ChemistryJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
NanotechnologyHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
High Energy PhysicsAdvances in
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
TribologyAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ChemistryAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances inPhysical Chemistry
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
BioMed Research InternationalMaterials
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Na
nom
ate
ria
ls
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal ofNanomaterials
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
(a) Point A (cracking) the cracked lateral strength anddrift are calculated as follows
Fcr Mcr
L
ccr McrL
3EcIg
(5)
where the flexural tensile strength ft is taken as 06
fcprime1113969
(b) Point B (yield) the yield drift is calculated using the
effective second moment of area as follows
Fy My
L
cy MyL
3EcIe
(6)
(e Paulay and Priestley [8] model for effective momentof inertia is used as follows
(i) Flexure-dominated walls
Ie 100fy
+Pu
fcprimeAg
⎛⎝ ⎞⎠Ig (7)
(ii) Shear-dominated walls
Iw Ig
12 + C
C 30Ie
L2tD
(8)
where Pu nominal axial load Ag gross crosssection area of walls and t wall thickness
(c) Point C (peak strength) the model was developed byinvestigating the curvature within the plastic hinge regionusing the force equilibrium equation (N Cc + Cs minusT) withthe spalling strain (εcu 0003) used as a limit state forconcrete strain For low-rise buildings the presence ofgravity axial load is reasonably small and hence for sim-plicity the compression steel area is eliminated from theequilibrium equation (e peak flexural lateral load Fu andthe drift at concrete fracture cu can then be obtained asfollows
1415
500
500
123456789
101112131415161718192021222324
992
692
300
030
00
110
00
300
020
00
65001750 1750
10000
116
2
76
18
19 54
810
1213 20
11
2221
24
LVDT-∆controlLVDT-∆totalLVDT-∆totalLVDT-∆flexureLVDT-∆flexureDial gauge-∆flexureDial gauge-∆flexureDial gauge-∆ShearDial gauge-∆ShearDial gauge-∆up liftDial gauge-∆up liftDial gauge-∆base shearDial gauge-∆frame shearHydraulic jack 1Load cell 1ndash5tonLoad cell 2ndash10tonHydraulic jack 2ExtensometerRC wallSloofClampClampClampLoading frame
9
3
2317
Figure 4 Schematic of wall loading test setup
ndash15000ndash10000
ndash5000000
50001000015000
0 10 20 30 40 50
Def
lect
ion
(mm
)
Cycle no
Figure 5 Quasi-static lateral loading history
4 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
Fu Mu
L
cpeak cy + cplmiddotp
(9)
where cplmiddotp (ϕpeak minus ϕy)Lp in which ϕpeak(εcukud)
(0003kud) and ϕy (3cyL) ku ((N + Astfy)085fcprimecdb) c 085minus 0007(fcprime minus 28) Ast tensile steelarea and εsm steel strain-hardening strain
(e plastic hinge length Lp can be estimated using thePaulay and Priestley model [8] as follows
Lp 0054L + 0022 dbfy (10)
(d) Point D (ultimate displacement) lateral load-displacement relationship of squat walls is dominated by
shear behaviour however for lightly reinforced squat walls theflexure behaviour still provides large influence on lateral load-drift behaviour (e failure mechanism which is influenced byshear strength degradation is needed hence the lateral loadfailure models developed for lightly reinforced concrete col-umns and walls [20 21] are modified for this model due to thesimilarity of lateral load-displacement behaviour betweenlightly reinforced concrete walls and columns
Shear strength (Vu) of RC walls consists of concretestrength (Vc) and steel strength (Vs) components as follows
Vu Vc + Vs (11)
In this model the concrete shear strength uses theformula developed based on principal tensile strength byauthors [22] whilst the steel strength proposed by Wesleyand Hashimoto [23] is used as follows
Vc 23Acr
ft( 11138572
+ftP
Acr
1113971
(12)
Vs chρh + cvρv( 1113857fydt (13)
whereAcr 085 ncρst( 1113857
036dt (14)
where d is the effective depth of RC walls which can beassumed as 08D and Ch 1minus cv in which
30
20
10
0
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
ndash10
ndash20
ndash30ndash150 ndash100 ndash050 000
Dri ()050 100 150
(a)
30
20
10
0
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
ndash10
ndash20
ndash30ndash150 ndash100 ndash050 000
Dri ()050 100 150
(b)
Figure 6 Crack patterns at 1 drift and hysteretic curves of all specimens (a) RCW4 (b) RCW8
Table 1 Strength and deformation properties of specimens RCW4and RCW8
Strength (kN) Drift ()Fcr Fy Fu δcr δy δu δlf
RCW4 Exp 28 18 235 017 047 100 133(eo 40 16 23 01 042 075 na
RCW8 Exp 23 20 245 017 055 067 100(eo 43 18 235 01 043 08 na
Note (e theoretical values were taken from moment-curvature analysis(flexural component only)
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 5
cv 1 for alt 05
2(1minus a) for 05lt alt 1
0 for agt 1
(15)
with nc EsEc ρh the transverse reinforcement ratioρv the total longitudinal reinforcement ratio and ρst
the tension reinforcement ratio
As a note for moderate and slender walls (a gt 1 andhence cv 0) the steel strength component (equation (13))can be rewritten as a common shear strength formula
Vs ρhfy dt Avfyd
s (16)
(e ultimate drift can be obtained as follows
L
Lv3
Lv2
Lv1
Lh
Δf l
δf2
δf1β
(a)
D
L
Lv3
Lv2
Lv1
Δsh
δs1
ζ
δs2
Δsh1
(b)
DLH
d1 d2
c
Lv1
d
d
δf1
δslip
δf2
θslip
β
(c)
Figure 7 LVDT measurements for (a) flexure deformation (b) shear deformation and (c) yield penetration deformation
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Displacement (mm)
ShearYield penetration
FlexuralTotal
0102030405060708090
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
FlexuralShearYield penetration
(a)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 2 4 6 8 10
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Displacement (mm)
ShearYield penetration
FlexuralTotal
0102030405060708090
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
FlexuralShearYield penetration
(b)
Figure 8 Variation of displacements due to flexure shear and yield penetration axial load-deformation relationship (left) and ratio of eachdisplacement to total displacement at each loading step (right) (a) RCW4 specimen (b) RCW8 specimen
6 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
cu cy
k(1minus kα)minus 08
Fu
Vu1113890 1113891 (17)
where
k 03e57n
9minus a (18)
where α the drift ductility at the start of shear strengthdecrease
42 Model 2 Simplified (e simplified model is a simpleprocedure for estimating lateral load-drift behaviour oflightly reinforced concrete walls (is model consists oftrilinear stages with each state cracking yield and ultimateas shown in Figure 10
(a) Point A (cracking) the lateral strength at crackingpoint can be predicted by assuming cracking drift ccr
005(b) Point B (yield) the ultimate yield strength is cal-
culated using factored ultimate strength
Fy ϕFu (19)
whereas the corresponding yield drift (cy) is determinedusing the smallest values of the following alternatives
(i) Approximate value of cy 02ndash03(ii) Apply Ieff 05Ig (refer [24])
(c) Point C (ultimate) the ultimate drift (cm) can becalculated as a sum of the yield drift (cy) and the plastic drift(cpl) as follows (refer Figure 11)
cm cy + cpl (20)
(e plastic drift can be estimated by assuming amaximum acceptable strain in the steel bar at singlecrack at the wall base in the order of εs 50 and takinga more conservative approach to Priestley and Paulay[8] strain penetration length of lyp 4400 εy db asymp 15dbHence the following models can be obtained (referFigure 12)
Crack width
Wcr εs middot lyp 005 times 15db 075db (21)
Plastic drift
cpl θpl wcr
D 075
db
D1113888 1113889 (22)
(e lateral load-drift relationship between experimentaldata and proposed models are considerably in goodagreement as shown in Figures 13 and 14 More data arecertainly required to refine the models particularly for thedetailed model since it was developed using a semiempiricalapproach However interestingly the simplified model withthe pure analytical approach showed better prediction due tothe dominant combinations of flexural and yield penetrationbehaviour
Drift ()γy γpeak
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Ieff
D
γu
Fcr
γcr
B
θplp = (φpeak ndash φy)Lp
θplu = (φu ndash φy)Lp
Figure 9 (e backbone curve model of lateral load-drift capacity[20]
Drift ()γy γm
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Fcr
γcr
B
Figure 10 (e simplified model of lateral load-drift capacity
Wcr
D
γpl
Figure 12 Plastic rotation at wall base
Drift ()γy γm
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Ieff
Fcr
γcr
B
γpl = θpl = (φu ndash φy)Lp
Figure 11 Plastic drift of simplified model
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 7
5 Conclusion
Two specimens of light-weight sandwich concrete walls havebeen tested in order to investigate the lateral load-driftbehaviour and collapse mechanism Specimen RCW4 witha thinner EPS panel developed more classic flexural be-haviour with drift capacity maxed at about 13 whilstspecimen RCW8 only managed to reached 10 withdominant yield penetration behaviour due to thinner con-crete cover of sloof foundation However the tests werestopped at 20 drop of peak load instead of further failure ataxial load collapse And hence the results can still beconsidered satisfactory for low-to-moderate seismic regionsbut might not be sufficient for high seismic regions
Two models comprising detailed and simplified ap-proach for predicting the load-displacement behaviour ofsandwich concrete wall subjected to lateral load have beendeveloped (e experimental data and the proposed modelsare in good agreement particularly the simplified model dueto the dominant behaviour of flexural and yield penetration
Data Availability
(e data that support the findings of this study are availablefrom the corresponding author upon reasonable request
Conflicts of Interest
(e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
References
[1] S A Mousavi S M Zahrai and A Bahrami-Rad ldquoQuasi-static cyclic tests on super-lightweight EPS concrete shearwallsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 65 pp 62ndash75 2014
[2] Z Yizhou ldquoMechanical properties of self-combusted ganguereinforced concrete shear walls under low-cyclic loadrdquoJournal of Zhejiang University Engineering Science vol 34no 3 pp 325ndash330 2000
[3] T Hejin Y Qingrong and S Xinya ldquoExperimental study onbBehaviours of reinforced ash ceramsite concrete shearwallsrdquo Journal of Building Structure vol 15 no 4 pp 20ndash301994
[4] Y H Chai and J D Anderson ldquoSeismic response of perfo-rated lightweight Aggregate concrete wall panels for low-risemodular classroomsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 27 no 4pp 593ndash604 2005
[5] L Cavaleri N Miraglia and M Papia ldquoPumice concrete forstructural wall panelsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 25 no 1pp 115ndash125 2003
[6] httpmpanelindonesiacomproductwall-panel[7] T Paulay ldquoEarthquake-resisting shear walls-New Zealand
design trendsrdquo ACI Journal vol 77 no 18 pp 144ndash152 1980[8] T Paulay and M J N Priestley Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings Wiley Interscience Presspublication John Wiley amp Sons inc New York City NYUSA 1992
[9] O Esmaili S Epackachi M Samadzad et al ldquoStudy ofstructural RC shear wall system in a 56-story RC tall buildingrdquoin Proceedings the 14th World Conference on EarthquakeEngineering Beijing China October 2008
[10] A Carpinteri M Corrado G Lacidogna et al ldquoLateral loadeffects on tall shear wall structures of different heightrdquoStructural Engineering and Mechanics vol 41 no 3pp 313ndash337 2012
[11] P A Hidalgo C A Ledezma and R M Jordan ldquoSeismicbBehaviour of squat reinforced concrete shear wallsrdquoEarthquake Spectra vol 18 no 2 pp 287ndash308 2002
[12] T N Salonikios ldquoShear strength and deformation patterns ofRC walls with aspect ratio 10 and 15 designed to Eurocode8rdquo Engineering Structures vol 24 no 1 pp 39ndash49 2002
[13] T N Salonikios ldquoAnalytical prediction of the inelastic re-sponse of RC walls with low aspect ratiordquo ASCE Journal ofStructural Engineering vol 133 no 6 pp 844ndash854 2007
[14] J Carrillo and S M Alcocer ldquoShear strength of reinforcedconcrete walls for seismic design of low-rise housingldquordquo ACIStructural Journal vol 110 no 3 2013
[15] T Trombetti G Gasparini S Silvestri et al ldquoResults ofpseudo-static tests with cyclic horizontal load on cast in situsandwich squat concrete wallsrdquo in Proceedings of Ninth PacificConference on Earthquake Engineering Building anEarthquake-Resilient Society Auckland New Zealand April2011
[16] I Ricci M Palermo G Gasparini S Silvestri andT Trombetti ldquoResults of pseudo-static tests with cyclichorizontal load on cast in situ sandwich squat concrete wallsrdquoEngineering Structures vol 54 pp 131ndash149 2013
[17] M Palermo and T Trombetti ldquoExperimentally-validatedmodelling of thin RC sandwich walls subjected to seismicloadsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 119 pp 95ndash109 2016
ndash30
ndash20
ndash10
0
10
20
30
ndash350 ndash250 ndash150 ndash050 050 150 250 350
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Drift ()
Figure 13 Comparison between experimental data and theoreticalmodels for specimen RCW4
ndash30
ndash20
ndash10
0
10
20
30
ndash350 ndash250 ndash150 ndash050 050 150 250 350
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Drift ()
Figure 14 Comparison between experimental data and theoreticalmodels for specimen RCW8
8 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
[18] ASTM E2126 Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed)Load Test for Shear Resistance of Walls for buildings ASTMInternational West Conshohocken PA USA 2005
[19] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoSeismic per-formance of lightly reinforced structural walls for designpurposesrdquo Magazine of Concrete Research vol 65 no 13pp 809ndash828 2013
[20] J L Wilson A Wibowo N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift behaviourof lightly reinforced concrete columns and structural walls forseismic design applicationsrdquo Australian Journal of StructuralEngineering vol 16 no 1 pp 62ndash74 2015
[21] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift per-formance of lightly reinforced concrete columnsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 59 pp 522ndash535 2014
[22] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift capacity oflightly reinforced concrete columnsrdquo Australian Journal ofStructural Engineering vol 15 no 2 pp 131ndash150 2014
[23] D AWesley and P S Hashimoto ldquoSeismic structural fragilityinvestigation for the zion nuclear power plantrdquo ReportNUREGCR-2320 US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionBethesda MD USA 1981
[24] J W Wallace ldquoModelling issues for tall reinforced concretecore wall buildingsrdquo Ce Structural Design of Tall and SpecialBuildings vol 16 no 5 pp 615ndash632 2007
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 9
CorrosionInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Materials Science and EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Chemistry
Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ScienticaHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Polymer ScienceInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in Condensed Matter Physics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
BiomaterialsHindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
Applied ChemistryJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
NanotechnologyHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
High Energy PhysicsAdvances in
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
TribologyAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ChemistryAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances inPhysical Chemistry
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
BioMed Research InternationalMaterials
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Na
nom
ate
ria
ls
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal ofNanomaterials
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
Fu Mu
L
cpeak cy + cplmiddotp
(9)
where cplmiddotp (ϕpeak minus ϕy)Lp in which ϕpeak(εcukud)
(0003kud) and ϕy (3cyL) ku ((N + Astfy)085fcprimecdb) c 085minus 0007(fcprime minus 28) Ast tensile steelarea and εsm steel strain-hardening strain
(e plastic hinge length Lp can be estimated using thePaulay and Priestley model [8] as follows
Lp 0054L + 0022 dbfy (10)
(d) Point D (ultimate displacement) lateral load-displacement relationship of squat walls is dominated by
shear behaviour however for lightly reinforced squat walls theflexure behaviour still provides large influence on lateral load-drift behaviour (e failure mechanism which is influenced byshear strength degradation is needed hence the lateral loadfailure models developed for lightly reinforced concrete col-umns and walls [20 21] are modified for this model due to thesimilarity of lateral load-displacement behaviour betweenlightly reinforced concrete walls and columns
Shear strength (Vu) of RC walls consists of concretestrength (Vc) and steel strength (Vs) components as follows
Vu Vc + Vs (11)
In this model the concrete shear strength uses theformula developed based on principal tensile strength byauthors [22] whilst the steel strength proposed by Wesleyand Hashimoto [23] is used as follows
Vc 23Acr
ft( 11138572
+ftP
Acr
1113971
(12)
Vs chρh + cvρv( 1113857fydt (13)
whereAcr 085 ncρst( 1113857
036dt (14)
where d is the effective depth of RC walls which can beassumed as 08D and Ch 1minus cv in which
30
20
10
0
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
ndash10
ndash20
ndash30ndash150 ndash100 ndash050 000
Dri ()050 100 150
(a)
30
20
10
0
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
ndash10
ndash20
ndash30ndash150 ndash100 ndash050 000
Dri ()050 100 150
(b)
Figure 6 Crack patterns at 1 drift and hysteretic curves of all specimens (a) RCW4 (b) RCW8
Table 1 Strength and deformation properties of specimens RCW4and RCW8
Strength (kN) Drift ()Fcr Fy Fu δcr δy δu δlf
RCW4 Exp 28 18 235 017 047 100 133(eo 40 16 23 01 042 075 na
RCW8 Exp 23 20 245 017 055 067 100(eo 43 18 235 01 043 08 na
Note (e theoretical values were taken from moment-curvature analysis(flexural component only)
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 5
cv 1 for alt 05
2(1minus a) for 05lt alt 1
0 for agt 1
(15)
with nc EsEc ρh the transverse reinforcement ratioρv the total longitudinal reinforcement ratio and ρst
the tension reinforcement ratio
As a note for moderate and slender walls (a gt 1 andhence cv 0) the steel strength component (equation (13))can be rewritten as a common shear strength formula
Vs ρhfy dt Avfyd
s (16)
(e ultimate drift can be obtained as follows
L
Lv3
Lv2
Lv1
Lh
Δf l
δf2
δf1β
(a)
D
L
Lv3
Lv2
Lv1
Δsh
δs1
ζ
δs2
Δsh1
(b)
DLH
d1 d2
c
Lv1
d
d
δf1
δslip
δf2
θslip
β
(c)
Figure 7 LVDT measurements for (a) flexure deformation (b) shear deformation and (c) yield penetration deformation
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Displacement (mm)
ShearYield penetration
FlexuralTotal
0102030405060708090
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
FlexuralShearYield penetration
(a)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 2 4 6 8 10
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Displacement (mm)
ShearYield penetration
FlexuralTotal
0102030405060708090
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
FlexuralShearYield penetration
(b)
Figure 8 Variation of displacements due to flexure shear and yield penetration axial load-deformation relationship (left) and ratio of eachdisplacement to total displacement at each loading step (right) (a) RCW4 specimen (b) RCW8 specimen
6 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
cu cy
k(1minus kα)minus 08
Fu
Vu1113890 1113891 (17)
where
k 03e57n
9minus a (18)
where α the drift ductility at the start of shear strengthdecrease
42 Model 2 Simplified (e simplified model is a simpleprocedure for estimating lateral load-drift behaviour oflightly reinforced concrete walls (is model consists oftrilinear stages with each state cracking yield and ultimateas shown in Figure 10
(a) Point A (cracking) the lateral strength at crackingpoint can be predicted by assuming cracking drift ccr
005(b) Point B (yield) the ultimate yield strength is cal-
culated using factored ultimate strength
Fy ϕFu (19)
whereas the corresponding yield drift (cy) is determinedusing the smallest values of the following alternatives
(i) Approximate value of cy 02ndash03(ii) Apply Ieff 05Ig (refer [24])
(c) Point C (ultimate) the ultimate drift (cm) can becalculated as a sum of the yield drift (cy) and the plastic drift(cpl) as follows (refer Figure 11)
cm cy + cpl (20)
(e plastic drift can be estimated by assuming amaximum acceptable strain in the steel bar at singlecrack at the wall base in the order of εs 50 and takinga more conservative approach to Priestley and Paulay[8] strain penetration length of lyp 4400 εy db asymp 15dbHence the following models can be obtained (referFigure 12)
Crack width
Wcr εs middot lyp 005 times 15db 075db (21)
Plastic drift
cpl θpl wcr
D 075
db
D1113888 1113889 (22)
(e lateral load-drift relationship between experimentaldata and proposed models are considerably in goodagreement as shown in Figures 13 and 14 More data arecertainly required to refine the models particularly for thedetailed model since it was developed using a semiempiricalapproach However interestingly the simplified model withthe pure analytical approach showed better prediction due tothe dominant combinations of flexural and yield penetrationbehaviour
Drift ()γy γpeak
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Ieff
D
γu
Fcr
γcr
B
θplp = (φpeak ndash φy)Lp
θplu = (φu ndash φy)Lp
Figure 9 (e backbone curve model of lateral load-drift capacity[20]
Drift ()γy γm
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Fcr
γcr
B
Figure 10 (e simplified model of lateral load-drift capacity
Wcr
D
γpl
Figure 12 Plastic rotation at wall base
Drift ()γy γm
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Ieff
Fcr
γcr
B
γpl = θpl = (φu ndash φy)Lp
Figure 11 Plastic drift of simplified model
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 7
5 Conclusion
Two specimens of light-weight sandwich concrete walls havebeen tested in order to investigate the lateral load-driftbehaviour and collapse mechanism Specimen RCW4 witha thinner EPS panel developed more classic flexural be-haviour with drift capacity maxed at about 13 whilstspecimen RCW8 only managed to reached 10 withdominant yield penetration behaviour due to thinner con-crete cover of sloof foundation However the tests werestopped at 20 drop of peak load instead of further failure ataxial load collapse And hence the results can still beconsidered satisfactory for low-to-moderate seismic regionsbut might not be sufficient for high seismic regions
Two models comprising detailed and simplified ap-proach for predicting the load-displacement behaviour ofsandwich concrete wall subjected to lateral load have beendeveloped (e experimental data and the proposed modelsare in good agreement particularly the simplified model dueto the dominant behaviour of flexural and yield penetration
Data Availability
(e data that support the findings of this study are availablefrom the corresponding author upon reasonable request
Conflicts of Interest
(e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
References
[1] S A Mousavi S M Zahrai and A Bahrami-Rad ldquoQuasi-static cyclic tests on super-lightweight EPS concrete shearwallsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 65 pp 62ndash75 2014
[2] Z Yizhou ldquoMechanical properties of self-combusted ganguereinforced concrete shear walls under low-cyclic loadrdquoJournal of Zhejiang University Engineering Science vol 34no 3 pp 325ndash330 2000
[3] T Hejin Y Qingrong and S Xinya ldquoExperimental study onbBehaviours of reinforced ash ceramsite concrete shearwallsrdquo Journal of Building Structure vol 15 no 4 pp 20ndash301994
[4] Y H Chai and J D Anderson ldquoSeismic response of perfo-rated lightweight Aggregate concrete wall panels for low-risemodular classroomsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 27 no 4pp 593ndash604 2005
[5] L Cavaleri N Miraglia and M Papia ldquoPumice concrete forstructural wall panelsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 25 no 1pp 115ndash125 2003
[6] httpmpanelindonesiacomproductwall-panel[7] T Paulay ldquoEarthquake-resisting shear walls-New Zealand
design trendsrdquo ACI Journal vol 77 no 18 pp 144ndash152 1980[8] T Paulay and M J N Priestley Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings Wiley Interscience Presspublication John Wiley amp Sons inc New York City NYUSA 1992
[9] O Esmaili S Epackachi M Samadzad et al ldquoStudy ofstructural RC shear wall system in a 56-story RC tall buildingrdquoin Proceedings the 14th World Conference on EarthquakeEngineering Beijing China October 2008
[10] A Carpinteri M Corrado G Lacidogna et al ldquoLateral loadeffects on tall shear wall structures of different heightrdquoStructural Engineering and Mechanics vol 41 no 3pp 313ndash337 2012
[11] P A Hidalgo C A Ledezma and R M Jordan ldquoSeismicbBehaviour of squat reinforced concrete shear wallsrdquoEarthquake Spectra vol 18 no 2 pp 287ndash308 2002
[12] T N Salonikios ldquoShear strength and deformation patterns ofRC walls with aspect ratio 10 and 15 designed to Eurocode8rdquo Engineering Structures vol 24 no 1 pp 39ndash49 2002
[13] T N Salonikios ldquoAnalytical prediction of the inelastic re-sponse of RC walls with low aspect ratiordquo ASCE Journal ofStructural Engineering vol 133 no 6 pp 844ndash854 2007
[14] J Carrillo and S M Alcocer ldquoShear strength of reinforcedconcrete walls for seismic design of low-rise housingldquordquo ACIStructural Journal vol 110 no 3 2013
[15] T Trombetti G Gasparini S Silvestri et al ldquoResults ofpseudo-static tests with cyclic horizontal load on cast in situsandwich squat concrete wallsrdquo in Proceedings of Ninth PacificConference on Earthquake Engineering Building anEarthquake-Resilient Society Auckland New Zealand April2011
[16] I Ricci M Palermo G Gasparini S Silvestri andT Trombetti ldquoResults of pseudo-static tests with cyclichorizontal load on cast in situ sandwich squat concrete wallsrdquoEngineering Structures vol 54 pp 131ndash149 2013
[17] M Palermo and T Trombetti ldquoExperimentally-validatedmodelling of thin RC sandwich walls subjected to seismicloadsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 119 pp 95ndash109 2016
ndash30
ndash20
ndash10
0
10
20
30
ndash350 ndash250 ndash150 ndash050 050 150 250 350
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Drift ()
Figure 13 Comparison between experimental data and theoreticalmodels for specimen RCW4
ndash30
ndash20
ndash10
0
10
20
30
ndash350 ndash250 ndash150 ndash050 050 150 250 350
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Drift ()
Figure 14 Comparison between experimental data and theoreticalmodels for specimen RCW8
8 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
[18] ASTM E2126 Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed)Load Test for Shear Resistance of Walls for buildings ASTMInternational West Conshohocken PA USA 2005
[19] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoSeismic per-formance of lightly reinforced structural walls for designpurposesrdquo Magazine of Concrete Research vol 65 no 13pp 809ndash828 2013
[20] J L Wilson A Wibowo N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift behaviourof lightly reinforced concrete columns and structural walls forseismic design applicationsrdquo Australian Journal of StructuralEngineering vol 16 no 1 pp 62ndash74 2015
[21] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift per-formance of lightly reinforced concrete columnsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 59 pp 522ndash535 2014
[22] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift capacity oflightly reinforced concrete columnsrdquo Australian Journal ofStructural Engineering vol 15 no 2 pp 131ndash150 2014
[23] D AWesley and P S Hashimoto ldquoSeismic structural fragilityinvestigation for the zion nuclear power plantrdquo ReportNUREGCR-2320 US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionBethesda MD USA 1981
[24] J W Wallace ldquoModelling issues for tall reinforced concretecore wall buildingsrdquo Ce Structural Design of Tall and SpecialBuildings vol 16 no 5 pp 615ndash632 2007
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 9
CorrosionInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Materials Science and EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Chemistry
Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ScienticaHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Polymer ScienceInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in Condensed Matter Physics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
BiomaterialsHindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
Applied ChemistryJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
NanotechnologyHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
High Energy PhysicsAdvances in
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
TribologyAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ChemistryAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances inPhysical Chemistry
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
BioMed Research InternationalMaterials
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Na
nom
ate
ria
ls
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal ofNanomaterials
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
cv 1 for alt 05
2(1minus a) for 05lt alt 1
0 for agt 1
(15)
with nc EsEc ρh the transverse reinforcement ratioρv the total longitudinal reinforcement ratio and ρst
the tension reinforcement ratio
As a note for moderate and slender walls (a gt 1 andhence cv 0) the steel strength component (equation (13))can be rewritten as a common shear strength formula
Vs ρhfy dt Avfyd
s (16)
(e ultimate drift can be obtained as follows
L
Lv3
Lv2
Lv1
Lh
Δf l
δf2
δf1β
(a)
D
L
Lv3
Lv2
Lv1
Δsh
δs1
ζ
δs2
Δsh1
(b)
DLH
d1 d2
c
Lv1
d
d
δf1
δslip
δf2
θslip
β
(c)
Figure 7 LVDT measurements for (a) flexure deformation (b) shear deformation and (c) yield penetration deformation
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Displacement (mm)
ShearYield penetration
FlexuralTotal
0102030405060708090
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
FlexuralShearYield penetration
(a)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 2 4 6 8 10
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Displacement (mm)
ShearYield penetration
FlexuralTotal
0102030405060708090
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
FlexuralShearYield penetration
(b)
Figure 8 Variation of displacements due to flexure shear and yield penetration axial load-deformation relationship (left) and ratio of eachdisplacement to total displacement at each loading step (right) (a) RCW4 specimen (b) RCW8 specimen
6 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
cu cy
k(1minus kα)minus 08
Fu
Vu1113890 1113891 (17)
where
k 03e57n
9minus a (18)
where α the drift ductility at the start of shear strengthdecrease
42 Model 2 Simplified (e simplified model is a simpleprocedure for estimating lateral load-drift behaviour oflightly reinforced concrete walls (is model consists oftrilinear stages with each state cracking yield and ultimateas shown in Figure 10
(a) Point A (cracking) the lateral strength at crackingpoint can be predicted by assuming cracking drift ccr
005(b) Point B (yield) the ultimate yield strength is cal-
culated using factored ultimate strength
Fy ϕFu (19)
whereas the corresponding yield drift (cy) is determinedusing the smallest values of the following alternatives
(i) Approximate value of cy 02ndash03(ii) Apply Ieff 05Ig (refer [24])
(c) Point C (ultimate) the ultimate drift (cm) can becalculated as a sum of the yield drift (cy) and the plastic drift(cpl) as follows (refer Figure 11)
cm cy + cpl (20)
(e plastic drift can be estimated by assuming amaximum acceptable strain in the steel bar at singlecrack at the wall base in the order of εs 50 and takinga more conservative approach to Priestley and Paulay[8] strain penetration length of lyp 4400 εy db asymp 15dbHence the following models can be obtained (referFigure 12)
Crack width
Wcr εs middot lyp 005 times 15db 075db (21)
Plastic drift
cpl θpl wcr
D 075
db
D1113888 1113889 (22)
(e lateral load-drift relationship between experimentaldata and proposed models are considerably in goodagreement as shown in Figures 13 and 14 More data arecertainly required to refine the models particularly for thedetailed model since it was developed using a semiempiricalapproach However interestingly the simplified model withthe pure analytical approach showed better prediction due tothe dominant combinations of flexural and yield penetrationbehaviour
Drift ()γy γpeak
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Ieff
D
γu
Fcr
γcr
B
θplp = (φpeak ndash φy)Lp
θplu = (φu ndash φy)Lp
Figure 9 (e backbone curve model of lateral load-drift capacity[20]
Drift ()γy γm
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Fcr
γcr
B
Figure 10 (e simplified model of lateral load-drift capacity
Wcr
D
γpl
Figure 12 Plastic rotation at wall base
Drift ()γy γm
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Ieff
Fcr
γcr
B
γpl = θpl = (φu ndash φy)Lp
Figure 11 Plastic drift of simplified model
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 7
5 Conclusion
Two specimens of light-weight sandwich concrete walls havebeen tested in order to investigate the lateral load-driftbehaviour and collapse mechanism Specimen RCW4 witha thinner EPS panel developed more classic flexural be-haviour with drift capacity maxed at about 13 whilstspecimen RCW8 only managed to reached 10 withdominant yield penetration behaviour due to thinner con-crete cover of sloof foundation However the tests werestopped at 20 drop of peak load instead of further failure ataxial load collapse And hence the results can still beconsidered satisfactory for low-to-moderate seismic regionsbut might not be sufficient for high seismic regions
Two models comprising detailed and simplified ap-proach for predicting the load-displacement behaviour ofsandwich concrete wall subjected to lateral load have beendeveloped (e experimental data and the proposed modelsare in good agreement particularly the simplified model dueto the dominant behaviour of flexural and yield penetration
Data Availability
(e data that support the findings of this study are availablefrom the corresponding author upon reasonable request
Conflicts of Interest
(e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
References
[1] S A Mousavi S M Zahrai and A Bahrami-Rad ldquoQuasi-static cyclic tests on super-lightweight EPS concrete shearwallsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 65 pp 62ndash75 2014
[2] Z Yizhou ldquoMechanical properties of self-combusted ganguereinforced concrete shear walls under low-cyclic loadrdquoJournal of Zhejiang University Engineering Science vol 34no 3 pp 325ndash330 2000
[3] T Hejin Y Qingrong and S Xinya ldquoExperimental study onbBehaviours of reinforced ash ceramsite concrete shearwallsrdquo Journal of Building Structure vol 15 no 4 pp 20ndash301994
[4] Y H Chai and J D Anderson ldquoSeismic response of perfo-rated lightweight Aggregate concrete wall panels for low-risemodular classroomsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 27 no 4pp 593ndash604 2005
[5] L Cavaleri N Miraglia and M Papia ldquoPumice concrete forstructural wall panelsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 25 no 1pp 115ndash125 2003
[6] httpmpanelindonesiacomproductwall-panel[7] T Paulay ldquoEarthquake-resisting shear walls-New Zealand
design trendsrdquo ACI Journal vol 77 no 18 pp 144ndash152 1980[8] T Paulay and M J N Priestley Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings Wiley Interscience Presspublication John Wiley amp Sons inc New York City NYUSA 1992
[9] O Esmaili S Epackachi M Samadzad et al ldquoStudy ofstructural RC shear wall system in a 56-story RC tall buildingrdquoin Proceedings the 14th World Conference on EarthquakeEngineering Beijing China October 2008
[10] A Carpinteri M Corrado G Lacidogna et al ldquoLateral loadeffects on tall shear wall structures of different heightrdquoStructural Engineering and Mechanics vol 41 no 3pp 313ndash337 2012
[11] P A Hidalgo C A Ledezma and R M Jordan ldquoSeismicbBehaviour of squat reinforced concrete shear wallsrdquoEarthquake Spectra vol 18 no 2 pp 287ndash308 2002
[12] T N Salonikios ldquoShear strength and deformation patterns ofRC walls with aspect ratio 10 and 15 designed to Eurocode8rdquo Engineering Structures vol 24 no 1 pp 39ndash49 2002
[13] T N Salonikios ldquoAnalytical prediction of the inelastic re-sponse of RC walls with low aspect ratiordquo ASCE Journal ofStructural Engineering vol 133 no 6 pp 844ndash854 2007
[14] J Carrillo and S M Alcocer ldquoShear strength of reinforcedconcrete walls for seismic design of low-rise housingldquordquo ACIStructural Journal vol 110 no 3 2013
[15] T Trombetti G Gasparini S Silvestri et al ldquoResults ofpseudo-static tests with cyclic horizontal load on cast in situsandwich squat concrete wallsrdquo in Proceedings of Ninth PacificConference on Earthquake Engineering Building anEarthquake-Resilient Society Auckland New Zealand April2011
[16] I Ricci M Palermo G Gasparini S Silvestri andT Trombetti ldquoResults of pseudo-static tests with cyclichorizontal load on cast in situ sandwich squat concrete wallsrdquoEngineering Structures vol 54 pp 131ndash149 2013
[17] M Palermo and T Trombetti ldquoExperimentally-validatedmodelling of thin RC sandwich walls subjected to seismicloadsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 119 pp 95ndash109 2016
ndash30
ndash20
ndash10
0
10
20
30
ndash350 ndash250 ndash150 ndash050 050 150 250 350
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Drift ()
Figure 13 Comparison between experimental data and theoreticalmodels for specimen RCW4
ndash30
ndash20
ndash10
0
10
20
30
ndash350 ndash250 ndash150 ndash050 050 150 250 350
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Drift ()
Figure 14 Comparison between experimental data and theoreticalmodels for specimen RCW8
8 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
[18] ASTM E2126 Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed)Load Test for Shear Resistance of Walls for buildings ASTMInternational West Conshohocken PA USA 2005
[19] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoSeismic per-formance of lightly reinforced structural walls for designpurposesrdquo Magazine of Concrete Research vol 65 no 13pp 809ndash828 2013
[20] J L Wilson A Wibowo N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift behaviourof lightly reinforced concrete columns and structural walls forseismic design applicationsrdquo Australian Journal of StructuralEngineering vol 16 no 1 pp 62ndash74 2015
[21] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift per-formance of lightly reinforced concrete columnsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 59 pp 522ndash535 2014
[22] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift capacity oflightly reinforced concrete columnsrdquo Australian Journal ofStructural Engineering vol 15 no 2 pp 131ndash150 2014
[23] D AWesley and P S Hashimoto ldquoSeismic structural fragilityinvestigation for the zion nuclear power plantrdquo ReportNUREGCR-2320 US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionBethesda MD USA 1981
[24] J W Wallace ldquoModelling issues for tall reinforced concretecore wall buildingsrdquo Ce Structural Design of Tall and SpecialBuildings vol 16 no 5 pp 615ndash632 2007
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 9
CorrosionInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Materials Science and EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Chemistry
Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ScienticaHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Polymer ScienceInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in Condensed Matter Physics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
BiomaterialsHindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
Applied ChemistryJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
NanotechnologyHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
High Energy PhysicsAdvances in
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
TribologyAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ChemistryAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances inPhysical Chemistry
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
BioMed Research InternationalMaterials
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Na
nom
ate
ria
ls
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal ofNanomaterials
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
cu cy
k(1minus kα)minus 08
Fu
Vu1113890 1113891 (17)
where
k 03e57n
9minus a (18)
where α the drift ductility at the start of shear strengthdecrease
42 Model 2 Simplified (e simplified model is a simpleprocedure for estimating lateral load-drift behaviour oflightly reinforced concrete walls (is model consists oftrilinear stages with each state cracking yield and ultimateas shown in Figure 10
(a) Point A (cracking) the lateral strength at crackingpoint can be predicted by assuming cracking drift ccr
005(b) Point B (yield) the ultimate yield strength is cal-
culated using factored ultimate strength
Fy ϕFu (19)
whereas the corresponding yield drift (cy) is determinedusing the smallest values of the following alternatives
(i) Approximate value of cy 02ndash03(ii) Apply Ieff 05Ig (refer [24])
(c) Point C (ultimate) the ultimate drift (cm) can becalculated as a sum of the yield drift (cy) and the plastic drift(cpl) as follows (refer Figure 11)
cm cy + cpl (20)
(e plastic drift can be estimated by assuming amaximum acceptable strain in the steel bar at singlecrack at the wall base in the order of εs 50 and takinga more conservative approach to Priestley and Paulay[8] strain penetration length of lyp 4400 εy db asymp 15dbHence the following models can be obtained (referFigure 12)
Crack width
Wcr εs middot lyp 005 times 15db 075db (21)
Plastic drift
cpl θpl wcr
D 075
db
D1113888 1113889 (22)
(e lateral load-drift relationship between experimentaldata and proposed models are considerably in goodagreement as shown in Figures 13 and 14 More data arecertainly required to refine the models particularly for thedetailed model since it was developed using a semiempiricalapproach However interestingly the simplified model withthe pure analytical approach showed better prediction due tothe dominant combinations of flexural and yield penetrationbehaviour
Drift ()γy γpeak
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Ieff
D
γu
Fcr
γcr
B
θplp = (φpeak ndash φy)Lp
θplu = (φu ndash φy)Lp
Figure 9 (e backbone curve model of lateral load-drift capacity[20]
Drift ()γy γm
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Fcr
γcr
B
Figure 10 (e simplified model of lateral load-drift capacity
Wcr
D
γpl
Figure 12 Plastic rotation at wall base
Drift ()γy γm
Fy
Fu
Late
ral s
treng
th
A
C
Ieff
Fcr
γcr
B
γpl = θpl = (φu ndash φy)Lp
Figure 11 Plastic drift of simplified model
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 7
5 Conclusion
Two specimens of light-weight sandwich concrete walls havebeen tested in order to investigate the lateral load-driftbehaviour and collapse mechanism Specimen RCW4 witha thinner EPS panel developed more classic flexural be-haviour with drift capacity maxed at about 13 whilstspecimen RCW8 only managed to reached 10 withdominant yield penetration behaviour due to thinner con-crete cover of sloof foundation However the tests werestopped at 20 drop of peak load instead of further failure ataxial load collapse And hence the results can still beconsidered satisfactory for low-to-moderate seismic regionsbut might not be sufficient for high seismic regions
Two models comprising detailed and simplified ap-proach for predicting the load-displacement behaviour ofsandwich concrete wall subjected to lateral load have beendeveloped (e experimental data and the proposed modelsare in good agreement particularly the simplified model dueto the dominant behaviour of flexural and yield penetration
Data Availability
(e data that support the findings of this study are availablefrom the corresponding author upon reasonable request
Conflicts of Interest
(e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
References
[1] S A Mousavi S M Zahrai and A Bahrami-Rad ldquoQuasi-static cyclic tests on super-lightweight EPS concrete shearwallsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 65 pp 62ndash75 2014
[2] Z Yizhou ldquoMechanical properties of self-combusted ganguereinforced concrete shear walls under low-cyclic loadrdquoJournal of Zhejiang University Engineering Science vol 34no 3 pp 325ndash330 2000
[3] T Hejin Y Qingrong and S Xinya ldquoExperimental study onbBehaviours of reinforced ash ceramsite concrete shearwallsrdquo Journal of Building Structure vol 15 no 4 pp 20ndash301994
[4] Y H Chai and J D Anderson ldquoSeismic response of perfo-rated lightweight Aggregate concrete wall panels for low-risemodular classroomsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 27 no 4pp 593ndash604 2005
[5] L Cavaleri N Miraglia and M Papia ldquoPumice concrete forstructural wall panelsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 25 no 1pp 115ndash125 2003
[6] httpmpanelindonesiacomproductwall-panel[7] T Paulay ldquoEarthquake-resisting shear walls-New Zealand
design trendsrdquo ACI Journal vol 77 no 18 pp 144ndash152 1980[8] T Paulay and M J N Priestley Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings Wiley Interscience Presspublication John Wiley amp Sons inc New York City NYUSA 1992
[9] O Esmaili S Epackachi M Samadzad et al ldquoStudy ofstructural RC shear wall system in a 56-story RC tall buildingrdquoin Proceedings the 14th World Conference on EarthquakeEngineering Beijing China October 2008
[10] A Carpinteri M Corrado G Lacidogna et al ldquoLateral loadeffects on tall shear wall structures of different heightrdquoStructural Engineering and Mechanics vol 41 no 3pp 313ndash337 2012
[11] P A Hidalgo C A Ledezma and R M Jordan ldquoSeismicbBehaviour of squat reinforced concrete shear wallsrdquoEarthquake Spectra vol 18 no 2 pp 287ndash308 2002
[12] T N Salonikios ldquoShear strength and deformation patterns ofRC walls with aspect ratio 10 and 15 designed to Eurocode8rdquo Engineering Structures vol 24 no 1 pp 39ndash49 2002
[13] T N Salonikios ldquoAnalytical prediction of the inelastic re-sponse of RC walls with low aspect ratiordquo ASCE Journal ofStructural Engineering vol 133 no 6 pp 844ndash854 2007
[14] J Carrillo and S M Alcocer ldquoShear strength of reinforcedconcrete walls for seismic design of low-rise housingldquordquo ACIStructural Journal vol 110 no 3 2013
[15] T Trombetti G Gasparini S Silvestri et al ldquoResults ofpseudo-static tests with cyclic horizontal load on cast in situsandwich squat concrete wallsrdquo in Proceedings of Ninth PacificConference on Earthquake Engineering Building anEarthquake-Resilient Society Auckland New Zealand April2011
[16] I Ricci M Palermo G Gasparini S Silvestri andT Trombetti ldquoResults of pseudo-static tests with cyclichorizontal load on cast in situ sandwich squat concrete wallsrdquoEngineering Structures vol 54 pp 131ndash149 2013
[17] M Palermo and T Trombetti ldquoExperimentally-validatedmodelling of thin RC sandwich walls subjected to seismicloadsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 119 pp 95ndash109 2016
ndash30
ndash20
ndash10
0
10
20
30
ndash350 ndash250 ndash150 ndash050 050 150 250 350
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Drift ()
Figure 13 Comparison between experimental data and theoreticalmodels for specimen RCW4
ndash30
ndash20
ndash10
0
10
20
30
ndash350 ndash250 ndash150 ndash050 050 150 250 350
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Drift ()
Figure 14 Comparison between experimental data and theoreticalmodels for specimen RCW8
8 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
[18] ASTM E2126 Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed)Load Test for Shear Resistance of Walls for buildings ASTMInternational West Conshohocken PA USA 2005
[19] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoSeismic per-formance of lightly reinforced structural walls for designpurposesrdquo Magazine of Concrete Research vol 65 no 13pp 809ndash828 2013
[20] J L Wilson A Wibowo N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift behaviourof lightly reinforced concrete columns and structural walls forseismic design applicationsrdquo Australian Journal of StructuralEngineering vol 16 no 1 pp 62ndash74 2015
[21] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift per-formance of lightly reinforced concrete columnsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 59 pp 522ndash535 2014
[22] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift capacity oflightly reinforced concrete columnsrdquo Australian Journal ofStructural Engineering vol 15 no 2 pp 131ndash150 2014
[23] D AWesley and P S Hashimoto ldquoSeismic structural fragilityinvestigation for the zion nuclear power plantrdquo ReportNUREGCR-2320 US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionBethesda MD USA 1981
[24] J W Wallace ldquoModelling issues for tall reinforced concretecore wall buildingsrdquo Ce Structural Design of Tall and SpecialBuildings vol 16 no 5 pp 615ndash632 2007
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 9
CorrosionInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Materials Science and EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Chemistry
Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ScienticaHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Polymer ScienceInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in Condensed Matter Physics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
BiomaterialsHindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
Applied ChemistryJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
NanotechnologyHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
High Energy PhysicsAdvances in
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
TribologyAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ChemistryAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances inPhysical Chemistry
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
BioMed Research InternationalMaterials
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Na
nom
ate
ria
ls
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal ofNanomaterials
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
5 Conclusion
Two specimens of light-weight sandwich concrete walls havebeen tested in order to investigate the lateral load-driftbehaviour and collapse mechanism Specimen RCW4 witha thinner EPS panel developed more classic flexural be-haviour with drift capacity maxed at about 13 whilstspecimen RCW8 only managed to reached 10 withdominant yield penetration behaviour due to thinner con-crete cover of sloof foundation However the tests werestopped at 20 drop of peak load instead of further failure ataxial load collapse And hence the results can still beconsidered satisfactory for low-to-moderate seismic regionsbut might not be sufficient for high seismic regions
Two models comprising detailed and simplified ap-proach for predicting the load-displacement behaviour ofsandwich concrete wall subjected to lateral load have beendeveloped (e experimental data and the proposed modelsare in good agreement particularly the simplified model dueto the dominant behaviour of flexural and yield penetration
Data Availability
(e data that support the findings of this study are availablefrom the corresponding author upon reasonable request
Conflicts of Interest
(e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
References
[1] S A Mousavi S M Zahrai and A Bahrami-Rad ldquoQuasi-static cyclic tests on super-lightweight EPS concrete shearwallsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 65 pp 62ndash75 2014
[2] Z Yizhou ldquoMechanical properties of self-combusted ganguereinforced concrete shear walls under low-cyclic loadrdquoJournal of Zhejiang University Engineering Science vol 34no 3 pp 325ndash330 2000
[3] T Hejin Y Qingrong and S Xinya ldquoExperimental study onbBehaviours of reinforced ash ceramsite concrete shearwallsrdquo Journal of Building Structure vol 15 no 4 pp 20ndash301994
[4] Y H Chai and J D Anderson ldquoSeismic response of perfo-rated lightweight Aggregate concrete wall panels for low-risemodular classroomsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 27 no 4pp 593ndash604 2005
[5] L Cavaleri N Miraglia and M Papia ldquoPumice concrete forstructural wall panelsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 25 no 1pp 115ndash125 2003
[6] httpmpanelindonesiacomproductwall-panel[7] T Paulay ldquoEarthquake-resisting shear walls-New Zealand
design trendsrdquo ACI Journal vol 77 no 18 pp 144ndash152 1980[8] T Paulay and M J N Priestley Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings Wiley Interscience Presspublication John Wiley amp Sons inc New York City NYUSA 1992
[9] O Esmaili S Epackachi M Samadzad et al ldquoStudy ofstructural RC shear wall system in a 56-story RC tall buildingrdquoin Proceedings the 14th World Conference on EarthquakeEngineering Beijing China October 2008
[10] A Carpinteri M Corrado G Lacidogna et al ldquoLateral loadeffects on tall shear wall structures of different heightrdquoStructural Engineering and Mechanics vol 41 no 3pp 313ndash337 2012
[11] P A Hidalgo C A Ledezma and R M Jordan ldquoSeismicbBehaviour of squat reinforced concrete shear wallsrdquoEarthquake Spectra vol 18 no 2 pp 287ndash308 2002
[12] T N Salonikios ldquoShear strength and deformation patterns ofRC walls with aspect ratio 10 and 15 designed to Eurocode8rdquo Engineering Structures vol 24 no 1 pp 39ndash49 2002
[13] T N Salonikios ldquoAnalytical prediction of the inelastic re-sponse of RC walls with low aspect ratiordquo ASCE Journal ofStructural Engineering vol 133 no 6 pp 844ndash854 2007
[14] J Carrillo and S M Alcocer ldquoShear strength of reinforcedconcrete walls for seismic design of low-rise housingldquordquo ACIStructural Journal vol 110 no 3 2013
[15] T Trombetti G Gasparini S Silvestri et al ldquoResults ofpseudo-static tests with cyclic horizontal load on cast in situsandwich squat concrete wallsrdquo in Proceedings of Ninth PacificConference on Earthquake Engineering Building anEarthquake-Resilient Society Auckland New Zealand April2011
[16] I Ricci M Palermo G Gasparini S Silvestri andT Trombetti ldquoResults of pseudo-static tests with cyclichorizontal load on cast in situ sandwich squat concrete wallsrdquoEngineering Structures vol 54 pp 131ndash149 2013
[17] M Palermo and T Trombetti ldquoExperimentally-validatedmodelling of thin RC sandwich walls subjected to seismicloadsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 119 pp 95ndash109 2016
ndash30
ndash20
ndash10
0
10
20
30
ndash350 ndash250 ndash150 ndash050 050 150 250 350
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Drift ()
Figure 13 Comparison between experimental data and theoreticalmodels for specimen RCW4
ndash30
ndash20
ndash10
0
10
20
30
ndash350 ndash250 ndash150 ndash050 050 150 250 350
Late
ral l
oad
(kN
)
Drift ()
Figure 14 Comparison between experimental data and theoreticalmodels for specimen RCW8
8 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
[18] ASTM E2126 Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed)Load Test for Shear Resistance of Walls for buildings ASTMInternational West Conshohocken PA USA 2005
[19] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoSeismic per-formance of lightly reinforced structural walls for designpurposesrdquo Magazine of Concrete Research vol 65 no 13pp 809ndash828 2013
[20] J L Wilson A Wibowo N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift behaviourof lightly reinforced concrete columns and structural walls forseismic design applicationsrdquo Australian Journal of StructuralEngineering vol 16 no 1 pp 62ndash74 2015
[21] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift per-formance of lightly reinforced concrete columnsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 59 pp 522ndash535 2014
[22] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift capacity oflightly reinforced concrete columnsrdquo Australian Journal ofStructural Engineering vol 15 no 2 pp 131ndash150 2014
[23] D AWesley and P S Hashimoto ldquoSeismic structural fragilityinvestigation for the zion nuclear power plantrdquo ReportNUREGCR-2320 US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionBethesda MD USA 1981
[24] J W Wallace ldquoModelling issues for tall reinforced concretecore wall buildingsrdquo Ce Structural Design of Tall and SpecialBuildings vol 16 no 5 pp 615ndash632 2007
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 9
CorrosionInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Materials Science and EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Chemistry
Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ScienticaHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Polymer ScienceInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in Condensed Matter Physics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
BiomaterialsHindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
Applied ChemistryJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
NanotechnologyHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
High Energy PhysicsAdvances in
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
TribologyAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ChemistryAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances inPhysical Chemistry
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
BioMed Research InternationalMaterials
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Na
nom
ate
ria
ls
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal ofNanomaterials
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
[18] ASTM E2126 Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed)Load Test for Shear Resistance of Walls for buildings ASTMInternational West Conshohocken PA USA 2005
[19] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoSeismic per-formance of lightly reinforced structural walls for designpurposesrdquo Magazine of Concrete Research vol 65 no 13pp 809ndash828 2013
[20] J L Wilson A Wibowo N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift behaviourof lightly reinforced concrete columns and structural walls forseismic design applicationsrdquo Australian Journal of StructuralEngineering vol 16 no 1 pp 62ndash74 2015
[21] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift per-formance of lightly reinforced concrete columnsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 59 pp 522ndash535 2014
[22] A Wibowo J L Wilson N T K Lam et al ldquoDrift capacity oflightly reinforced concrete columnsrdquo Australian Journal ofStructural Engineering vol 15 no 2 pp 131ndash150 2014
[23] D AWesley and P S Hashimoto ldquoSeismic structural fragilityinvestigation for the zion nuclear power plantrdquo ReportNUREGCR-2320 US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionBethesda MD USA 1981
[24] J W Wallace ldquoModelling issues for tall reinforced concretecore wall buildingsrdquo Ce Structural Design of Tall and SpecialBuildings vol 16 no 5 pp 615ndash632 2007
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 9
CorrosionInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Materials Science and EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Chemistry
Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ScienticaHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Polymer ScienceInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in Condensed Matter Physics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
BiomaterialsHindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
Applied ChemistryJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
NanotechnologyHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
High Energy PhysicsAdvances in
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
TribologyAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ChemistryAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances inPhysical Chemistry
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
BioMed Research InternationalMaterials
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Na
nom
ate
ria
ls
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal ofNanomaterials
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
CorrosionInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Materials Science and EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Chemistry
Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ScienticaHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Polymer ScienceInternational Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in Condensed Matter Physics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
BiomaterialsHindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
Applied ChemistryJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
NanotechnologyHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
High Energy PhysicsAdvances in
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
TribologyAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
ChemistryAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances inPhysical Chemistry
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
BioMed Research InternationalMaterials
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Na
nom
ate
ria
ls
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Journal ofNanomaterials
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom