The 2003 Edition of the NEHRP Provisions permits, with validation testing, theuse of structural (shear) walls of jointed construction in regions of high seismicrisk. Acceptance criteria for such validation testing, accompanied bybackground and commentary, are presented in this article. Lastly, the futuredirection of non-emulative design of precast concrete walls is discussed.

In the July-August 2003 issue of the PCI JOURNAL,1 theauthors discussed PCI’s strategy for codification ofPRESSS structural systems with emphasis on the strategy

for non-emulative design of special precast concrete shearwalls. Such shear walls were used in one direction of thePRESSS five-story building tested at the University of Cali-fornia at San Diego.2

Code provisions for non-emulative design of special pre-cast concrete shear walls have been lacking for many years.However, a recent PCI-initiated proposal is now included inthe 2003 edition of the NEHRP Recommended Provisionsfor Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Struc-tures,3 as noted in the last issue of the PCI JOURNAL.4 The2003 NEHRP Provisions and Commentary have been for-warded by the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) tothe Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) andthose documents are now in the public domain.

The 2003 NEHRP Provisions and Commentary are avail-able for viewing and downloading on the BSSC website

Acceptance Criteria for SpecialPrecast Concrete Structural Walls

Based on Validation Testing

78 PCI JOURNAL

S.K. Ghosh, Ph.D., FPCIPresident

S.K. Ghosh Associates, Inc.Palatine, Illinois

Neil M. Hawkins, Ph.D.Professor EmeritusDepartment of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Illinois atUrbana-ChampaignUrbana, Illinois

(www.bssconline.org). It is understood as of this writing,that for budgetary reasons, the Provisions and Commentarywill not be made available in printed form. A CD version isexpected to be available in the near-term future.

Some background information on the codification of non-emulative precast wall systems must first be provided.

BACKGROUNDFor regions of high seismicity, Section 21.2.1.5 of ACI

318-025 permits the use of structural systems that do notmeet the relevant prescriptive requirements of Chapter 21 ifcertain “experimental evidence and analysis” are provided.ACI Standard T1.1-01,6 “Acceptance Criteria for MomentFrames Based on Structural Testing,” defines the minimumevidence required when attempting to validate the use ofstrong column-weak beam moment frames in accordancewith that section.

ACI T1.1-01 should be used when attempting to validate

September-October 2004 79

the wide variety of frames possible by using precast ele-ments, precast prestressed elements, precast elements post-tensioned together, and combinations of such elements. Anycombination of these elements can result in deformation,strength, energy absorption, and ductility characteristics dif-ferent from those for monolithic reinforced concrete con-struction.

Before acceptance testing, ACI T1.1-01 requires that a de-sign procedure be developed for prototype moment frameshaving the generic form for which acceptance is sought andthat the design procedure be used to proportion the test mod-ules. Provisional Standard ACI T1.2-037 defines the designprocedure to be used for one specific type of moment frame(the so-called hybrid frame, in which features of post-ten-sioned and precast concrete construction are combined) thatdoes not satisfy the requirements of Chapter 21 of ACI 318-02, but that can be validated for use in regions of high seis-micity under ACI T1.1-01.

Special moment frames constructed using precast concreteand not emulating special moment frames of cast-in-placeconcrete are specifically permitted by ACI 318-02, providedthey satisfy the requirements of ACI T1.1-01.

At a meeting of the PRESSS Advisory Group on May 30,2001, it was decided to pursue the codification process fortwo additional structural systems selected out of the five thatwere used in the PRESSS five-story building test: the Pre-tensioned Precast Frame System and the Precast Shear WallSystem.

The pretensioned precast frame system has been the sub-ject of a recent article.8 The precast shear wall system is dis-cussed in the remainder of this article.

EVOLUTIONA proposed Provisional Standard and Commentary titled

“Acceptance Criteria for Special Structural Walls Based onValidation Testing” was developed by Neil M. Hawkins andS.K. Ghosh in early 2003.9 This document proposes the min-imum experimental evidence that can be deemed adequate toattempt to validate, in regions of high seismic risk or instructures assigned to high seismic performance or designcategories, the use of structural walls (shear walls), includ-ing coupled walls, for Bearing Wall and Building FrameSystems (Section 9 of ASCE 7-02), not fully satisfying theprescriptive requirements of Chapter 21 of ACI 318-02.

The document consists of both a Provisional Standard anda Commentary that is not part of the Provisional Standard.The document has been written in such a form that its vari-ous parts can be adopted directly into Sections 21.0, 21.1,and 21.2.1 of ACI 318-02 and the corresponding sections ofACI 318R-02. Among the subjects covered are requirementsfor procedures that must be used to design test modules;configurations for these modules; test methods; test reports;and determination of satisfactory performance.

Input on the above document was received at a PCI Re-view Group meeting at PCI Headquarters on January 31,2003. A modified version, dated February 3, 2003, whichaccommodated the Review Group input, was presented at ameeting of BSSC Technical Subcommittee 4 on Concrete

(TS4) in Portland, Oregon, on February 8, 2003. A letterballot of the Technical Subcommittee was subsequentlyconducted. Further modifications were made in response toseveral valuable comments from Joe Maffei, a member ofTS4.

The modified document was then balloted by the BSSCProvisions Update Committee (PUC) prior to their meetingin San Diego on June 15-17, 2003; the proposal drew a largenumber of negative votes. Considerable effort was spent torespond to every negative comment that was submitted. Fur-ther significant adjustments were made to the proposal at thePUC meeting.

With the modifications, the PCI-initiated proposal to per-mit non-emulative design of special precast concrete shearwalls, using a modified version of “Acceptance Criteria forSpecial Structural Walls Based on Validation Testing,” wasapproved by the PUC for inclusion in the 2003 edition of theNEHRP Provisions. Some relatively minor additional ad-justments were made as a result of comments received froma letter ballot of the member organizations (including PCI)of BSSC.

The adjusted version now appears in the 2003 NEHRPProvisions. The extensive commentary that was included inReference 9 is now part of the 2003 NEHRP ProvisionsCommentary. One result of all the input has been that thescope of the Acceptance Criteria and Commentary is nowlimited to special precast wall systems, to the exclusion ofspecial cast-in-place walls.

The Acceptance Criteria and Commentary are intendedfor walls that might, for example, involve the use of precastconcrete elements, precast/prestressed elements, post-ten-sioned reinforcement, or combinations of these elements andreinforcement. Comprehensive prescriptive requirements forspecial precast shear walls constructed with such elementsare not included in ACI 318-02.

ACCEPTANCE CRITERIASection 21.8 of ACI 318-02, regarding special structural

walls constructed using precast concrete, requires:21.8.1 – Special structural walls constructed using pre-

cast concrete shall satisfy all requirements of Section 21.7for cast-in-place special structural walls in addition to Sec-tions 21.13.2 and 21.13.3.

The NEHRP Provisions permits non-emulative wallsby introducing a Section 9.2.2.4 in Chapter 9 – ConcreteStructure Design Requirements, as follows:

9.2.2.4 Special structural walls constructed using precastconcrete. Add a new Section 21.8.2 to ACI 318-02 as fol-lows:

“21.8.2 – Wall systems not meeting the requirements ofSection 21.8.1 shall be permitted if substantiating experi-mental evidence and analysis meets the requirements of Sec-tion 9.6.”

The new Section 9.6 reads as follows:

9.6 - ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR SPECIAL PRE-CAST STRUCTURAL WALLS BASED ON VALIDA-TION TESTING

80 PCI JOURNAL

9.6.1 – Notation:

Symbols additional to those in Chapter 21 of ACI 318 aredefined as:

Emax = maximum lateral resistance of test module deter-mined from test results (forces or moments)

En = nominal lateral resistance of test module calcu-lated using specified geometric properties of testmembers, specified yield strength of reinforce-ment, specified compressive strength of concrete,a strain compatibility analysis or deformationcompatibility analysis for flexural strength and astrength reduction factor φ of 1.0

Ent = Calculated lateral resistance of test module usingthe actual geometric properties of test members,the actual strengths of reinforcement, concrete,and coupling devices, obtained by testing perSections 9.6.7.7, 9.6.7.8, and 9.6.7.9; and astrength reduction factor φ of 1.0

θ = drift ratioβ = relative energy dissipation ratio

9.6.2 Definitions:Definitions additional to those in Chapter 21 of ACI 318

are defined.9.6.2.1 – Coupling Elements – Devices or beams con-

necting adjacent vertical boundaries of structural walls andused to provide stiffness and energy dissipation for the con-nected assembly greater than the sum of those provided bythe connected walls acting as separate units.

9.6.2.2 – Drift ratio – Total lateral deformation of the testmodule divided by the height of the test module.

9.6.2.3 – Global toughness – The ability of the entire lat-eral force-resisting system of the prototype structure tomaintain structural integrity and continue to carry the re-quired gravity load at the maximum lateral displacementsanticipated for the ground motions of the maximum consid-ered earthquake.

9.6.2.4 – Prototype structure – The concrete wall struc-ture for which acceptance is sought.

9.6.2.5 – Relative energy dissipation ratio - Ratio of ac-tual to ideal energy dissipated by test module during re-versed cyclic response between given drift ratio limits, ex-pressed as the ratio of the area of the hysteresis loop forthat cycle to the area of the circumscribing parallelogramsdefined by the initial stiffnesses during the first cycle andthe peak resistances during the cycle for which the relativeenergy dissipation ratio is calculated (see Section 9.6.9.1.3).

9.6.2.6 – Test module - Laboratory specimen represent-ing the critical walls of the prototype structure (see Section9.6.5).

9.6.3 – Scope and General Requirements:9.6.3.1 – These provisions define minimum acceptance

criteria for new precast structural walls, including coupledprecast structural walls, designed for regions of high seis-mic risk or for structures assigned to high seismic perfor-mance or design categories, where acceptance is based onexperimental evidence and mathematical analysis.

9.6.3.2 – These provisions are applicable to precast struc-tural walls, coupled or uncoupled, with height-to-length ra-tios, hw/lw, equal to or greater than 0.5. These provisionsare applicable for either prequalifying precast structuralwalls for a specific structure or prequalifying a new precastwall type for construction in general.

9.6.3.3 – Precast structural walls shall be deemed to havea response that is at least equivalent to the response ofmonolithic structural walls designed in accordance withSections 21.2 and 21.7 of ACI 318, and the correspondingstructural walls of the prototype structure shall be deemedacceptable, when all of the conditions in Sections 9.6.3.3.1through 9.6.3.3.5 are satisfied:

9.6.3.3.1 – The prototype structure satisfies all applicablerequirements of these provisions and of ACI 318, exceptSection 21.7.

9.6.3.3.2 – Tests on wall modules satisfy the conditions inSections 9.6.4 and 9.6.9.

9.6.3.3.3 – The prototype structure is designed using thedesign procedure substantiated by the testing program.

9.6.3.3.4 – The prototype structure is designed and ana-lyzed using effective initial properties consistent with thosedetermined in accordance with Section 9.6.7.11, and theprototype structure meets the drift limits of these provisions.

9.6.3.3.5 – The structure as a whole, based on the resultsof the tests of Section 9.6.3.3.2 and analysis, is demon-strated to have adequate global toughness (the ability to re-tain its structural integrity and support its specified gravityloads) through peak displacements equal to or exceedingthe story-drift ratios specified in Sections 9.6.7.4, 9.6.7.5 or9.6.7.6, as appropriate.

9.6.4 – Design Procedure:9.6.4.1 – Prior to testing, a design procedure shall be de-

veloped for the prototype structure and its walls. This pro-cedure shall account for effects of material nonlinearity, in-cluding cracking, deformations of members andconnections, and reversed cyclic loading. The design proce-dure shall include the procedures specified in Sections9.6.4.1.1 through 9.6.4.1.4, and shall be applicable to allprecast structural walls, coupled and uncoupled, of the pro-totype structure.

9.6.4.1.1 – Procedures shall be specified for calculatingthe effective initial stiffness of the precast structural walls,and of coupled structural walls, that are applicable to allthe walls of the prototype structure.

9.6.4.1.2 – Procedures shall be specified for calculatingthe lateral strength of the precast structural walls, and ofcoupled structural walls, applicable to all precast walls ofthe prototype structure.

9.6.4.1.3 – Procedures shall be specified for designingand detailing the precast structural walls so that they haveadequate ductility capacity. These procedures shall coverwall shear strength, sliding shear strength, boundary tiespacing to prevent bar buckling, concrete confinement, rein-forcement strain, and any other actions or elements of thewall system that can affect ductility capacity.

9.6.4.1.4 – Procedures shall be specified for determiningthat an undesirable mechanism of nonlinear response, such

September-October 2004 81

as a story mechanism due to local buckling of the reinforce-ment or splice failure, or overall instability of the wall, doesnot occur.

9.6.4.2 – The design procedure shall be used to design thetest modules and shall be documented in the test report.

9.6.4.3 – The design procedure used to proportion the testspecimens shall define the mechanism by which the systemresists gravity and earthquake effects, and shall establishacceptance values for sustaining this mechanism. Portionsof the mechanism that deviate from code requirements shallbe contained in the test specimens and shall be tested to de-termine acceptance values.

9.6.5 – Test Modules:9.6.5.1 – At least two modules shall be tested. At least one

module shall be tested for each limiting engineering designcriterion (shear, axial load and flexure) for each character-istic configuration of precast structural walls, including in-tersecting structural walls or coupled structural walls. If allthe precast walls of the structure have the same configura-tion and the same limiting engineering design criterion,then two modules shall be tested. Where intersecting precastwall systems are to be used, the response for the two orthog-onal directions shall be tested.

9.6.5.2 – Where the design requires the use of couplingelements, those elements shall be included as part of the testmodule.

9.6.5.3 – Modules shall have a scale large enough to rep-resent the complexities and behavior of the real materialsand of the load transfer mechanisms in the prototype wallsand their coupling elements, if any. Modules shall be of ascale not less than one half and shall be full-scale modulesif the validation testing has not been preceded by an exten-sive analytical and experimental development program inwhich critical details of connections are tested at full scale.

9.6.5.4 – The geometry, reinforcing details, and materialsproperties of the walls, connections, and coupling elementsshall be representative of those to be used in the prototypestructure.

9.6.5.5 – Walls shall be at least two panels high unless theprototype structure is one for which a single panel is to beused for the full height of the wall.

9.6.5.6 – Where precast walls are to be used for bearingwall structures, as defined in ASCE/SEI 7-02,1.0 the testmodules shall be subject during lateral loading to an axialload stress representative of that anticipated at the base ofthe wall in the prototype structure.

9.6.5.7 – The geometry, reinforcement, and details used toconnect the precast walls to the foundation shall replicatethose to be used in the prototype structure.

9.6.5.8 – Foundations used to support the test modulesshall have geometric characteristics, and shall be rein-forced and supported, so that their deformations and crack-ing do not affect the performance of the modules in a waythat would be different than in the prototype structure.

9.6.6 – Testing Agency:Testing shall be carried out by an independent testing

agency approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. Thetesting agency shall perform its work under the supervision

of a registered design professional experienced in seismicstructural design.

9.6.7 – Test Method:9.6.7.1 – Test modules shall be subjected to a sequence of

displacement-controlled cycles representative of the driftsexpected under earthquake motions for the prototype struc-ture. If the module consists of coupled walls, approximatelyequal drifts (within 5 percent of each other) shall be appliedto the top of each wall and at each floor level. Cycles shallbe to predetermined drift ratios as defined in Sections9.6.7.2 through 9.6.7.6.

9.6.7.2 – Three fully reversed cycles shall be applied ateach drift ratio.

9.6.7.3 – The initial drift ratio shall be within the essen-tially linear elastic response range for the module (see Sec-tion 9.6.7.11). Subsequent drift ratios shall be to values notless than 5/4 times, and not more than 3/2 times, the previ-ous drift ratio.

9.6.7.4 – For uncoupled walls, testing shall continue withgradually increasing drift ratios until the drift ratio in per-cent equals or exceeds the larger of: (a) 1.5 times the driftratio corresponding to the design displacement; or (b) thefollowing value:

0.80 ≤ 0.67 (hw/lw) + 0.5 ≤ 2.5 (9.6.1)

where hw = height of entire wall for prototype structure, in.lw = length of entire wall in direction of shear force, in.9.6.7.5 – For coupled walls, hw/lw in Eq. (9.6.1) shall be

taken as the smallest value of hw/lw for any individual wallof the prototype structure.

9.6.7.6 – Validation by testing to limiting drift ratios lessthan those given by Eq. (9.6.1) shall be acceptable providedtesting is conducted in accordance with this document todrift ratios equal to or exceeding those determined for theresponse to a suite of nonlinear time history analyses con-ducted in accordance with Section 9.5.8 of ASCE/SEI 7-021.0

for maximum considered ground motions. 9.6.7.7 – Actual yield strength of steel reinforcement shall

be obtained by testing coupons taken from the same rein-forcement batch as used in the test module. Two tests, con-forming to the ASTM specifications cited in Section 3.5 ofACI 318, shall be made for each reinforcement type andsize.

9.6.7.8 – Actual compressive strength of concrete shall bedetermined by testing of concrete cylinders cured under thesame conditions as the test module and tested at the time oftesting the module. Testing shall conform to the applicablerequirements of Sections 5.6.1 through 5.6.4 of ACI 318.

9.6.7.9 – Where strength and deformation capacity ofcoupling devices does not depend on reinforcement tested asrequired in Section 9.6.7.7, the effective yield strength anddeformation capacity of coupling devices shall be obtainedby testing independent of the module testing.

9.6.7.10 – Data shall be recorded from all tests such thata quantitative interpretation can be made of the perfor-mance of the modules. A continuous record shall be made of

82 PCI JOURNAL

the test module drift ratio versus applied lateral force, andphotographs shall be taken that show the condition of thetest module at the peak displacement and after each keytesting cycle.

9.6.7.11 – The effective initial stiffness of the test moduleshall be calculated based on test cycles to a force between0.6Ent and 0.9Ent, and using the deformation at the strengthof 0.75Ent to establish the stiffness.

9.6.8. Test Report:9.6.8.1 – The test report shall contain sufficient evidence

for an independent evaluation of all test procedures, designassumptions, and the performance of the test modules. As aminimum, all of the information required by Sections9.6.8.1.1 through 9.6.8.1.11 shall be provided.

9.6.8.1.1 – A description shall be provided of the designprocedure and theory used to predict test module strength,specifically the test module nominal lateral resistance, En,and the test module actual lateral resistance, Ent.

9.6.8.1.2 – Details shall be provided of test module designand construction, including fully dimensioned engineeringdrawings that show all components of the test specimen.

9.6.8.1.3 – Details shall be provided of specified materialproperties used for design, and actual material propertiesobtained by testing in accordance with Section 9.6.7.7.

9.6.8.1.4 – A description shall be provided of test setup,including fully dimensioned diagrams and photographs.

9.6.8.1.5 – A description shall be provided of instrumen-tation, its locations, and its purpose.

9.6.8.1.6 – A description and graphical presentation shallbe provided of applied drift ratio sequence.

9.6.8.1.7 – A description shall be provided of observedperformance, including photographic documentation, of thecondition of each test module at key drift ratios including(as applicable) the ratios corresponding to first flexuralcracking or joint opening, first shear cracking, first crush-ing of the concrete for both positive and negative loadingdirections, and any other significant damage events thatoccur. Photos shall be taken at peak drifts and after the re-lease of load.

9.6.8.1.8 – A graphical presentation shall be provided ofthe lateral force versus drift ratio response.

9.6.8.1.9 – A graphical presentation shall be provided ofrelative energy dissipation ratio versus drift ratio.

9.6.8.1.10 – A calculation shall be provided of effectiveinitial stiffness for each test module, as observed in the testand as determined in accordance with Section 9.6.7.11, anda comparison made as to how accurately the design proce-dure has been able to predict the measured stiffness. The de-sign procedure shall be used to predict the overall struc-tural response and a comparison made as to how accuratelythis procedure has been able to predict the measured re-sponse.

9.6.8.1.11 – The test date, report date, name of testingagency, report author(s), supervising registered design pro-fessional, and test sponsor shall be provided.

9.6.9 Test Module Acceptance Criteria:9.6.9.1 – The test module shall be deemed to have per-

formed satisfactorily when all of the criteria for Sections

9.6.9.1.1 through 9.6.9.1.3 are met for both directions of in-plane response. If any test module fails to pass the valida-tion testing required by these provisions for any test direc-tion, then the wall system has failed the validation testing.

9.6.9.1.1 – Peak lateral strength obtained shall be at least0.9Ent and not greater than 1.2 Ent.

9.6.9.1.2 – In cycling up to the drift level given by Sec-tions 9.6.7.4 through 9.6.7.6, fracture of reinforcement orcoupling elements, or other significant strength degrada-tion, shall not occur. For a given direction, peak lateralstrength during any cycle of testing to increasing displace-ment shall not be less than 0.8 times Emax for that direction.

9.6.9.1.3 – For cycling at the given drift level for whichacceptance is sought in accordance with Sections 9.6.7.4,9.6.7.5 or 9.6.7.6, as applicable, the parameters describingthe third complete cycle shall have satisfied the following:

1. The relative energy dissipation ratio shall have beennot less than 1/8; and

2. The secant stiffness between drift ratios of –1/10 and+1/10 of the maximum applied drift shall have been not lessthan 0.10 times the stiffness for the initial drift ratio speci-fied in Section 9.6.7.3.

9.6.10 – Reference:1.0. ASCE/SEI, ASCE/SEI Minimum Design Loads for

Buildings and Other Structures – Earthquake Loads,ASCE/SEI 7-02, American Society of Civil Engi-neers/Structural Engineering Institute, Reston, VA,2002.

COMMENTARY9.6.1. – Notation:Symbols additional to those in Chapter 21 of ACI 318 are

defined: Ah = area of hysteresis loop E1, E2 = peak lateral resistance for positive and negative

loading, respectively, for third cycle of loadingsequence

f1 = live load factor defined in Section 9.6.2.6hw = height of column of test module, in. or mmK, K′ = initial stiffness for positive and negative load-

ing, respectively, for first cycleθ1, θ2 = drift ratios at peak lateral resistance for positive

and negative loading, respectively, for thirdcycle of loading sequence

θ1′, θ2′ = drift ratios for zero lateral load for unloading atstiffnesses K, K′ from peak positive and negativelateral resistance, respectively, for third cycle ofloading sequence (Fig. C9.6.2.5)

∆ = lateral displacement, in. or mm (see Figs.C9.6.2.2.1, C9.6.2.2.2 and C9.6.2.2.3)

∆a = allowable story drift, in. or mm (see Table9.5.2.8 of SEI/ASCE 7-02)

9.6.2 – Definitions:9.6.2.1 – Coupling elements – Coupling elements are

connections provided at specific intervals along the verticalboundaries of adjacent structural walls. Coupled structuralwalls are stiffer and stronger than the same walls acting in-

September-October 2004 83

dependently. For cast-in-place construction, effective cou-pling elements are typically coupling beams having smallspan-to-depth ratios. The inelastic behavior of such beamsis normally controlled by their shear strength.

For precast construction, effective coupling elements canbe precast beams connected to the adjacent structural wallseither by post-tensioning, ductile mechanical devices, orgrouted-in-place reinforcing bars.2 The resultant coupledconstruction can be either emulative of cast-in-place con-struction or non-emulative (jointed). However, for precastconstruction, coupling beams can also be omitted and me-chanical devices used to connect directly the vertical bound-aries of adjacent structural walls.2,3

9.6.2.2 – Drift ratio – The definition of the drift ratio for athree-panel wall module, θ, is illustrated in Fig. C9.6.2.2.1.The position of the module at the start of testing, with onlyits self-weight acting, is indicated by broken lines. The mod-ule is set on a horizontal foundation support that is centeredat A and is acted on by a lateral force, H, applied at the topof the wall. The self-weight of the wall is distributed uni-formly to the foundation support.

However, under lateral loading, this self-weight and anyaxial gravity load acting at the top of the wall cause over-turning moments on the wall that are additional to the over-turning moment, Hhw, and can affect deformations. The

Fig. C9.6.2.2.2.Typical walldeformationcomponents.

Fig. C9.6.2.2.1.Definition ofdrift ratio θ.

chord, AB, of the centroidal axis of the wall is the verticalreference line for drift measurements.

For acceptance testing, a lateral force, H, is applied to thewall through the pin at B. Depending on the geometric andreinforcement characteristics of the module, this force canresult in the module taking up any one, or a combination, ofthe deformed shapes indicated by solid lines in Figs.C9.6.2.2.1, C9.6.2.2.2 and C9.6.2.2.3. Figure C9.6.2.2.2 il-

84 PCI JOURNAL

lustrates several possible components of the displacement,∆, for a wall that is effectively solid, while Fig. C9.6.2.2.3 il-lustrates two possibly undesirable components of the dis-placement ∆.

Regardless of the mode of deformation of the wall, the lat-eral force causes the wall at B to displace horizontally by anamount ∆. The drift ratio is the angular rotation of the wallchord with respect to the vertical, and for the setup shown,equals ∆ / hw, where hw is the wall height and is equal to thedistance between the foundation support at A and the loadpoint at B.

Where prestressing steel is used in wall members, thestress, fps, in the reinforcement at the nominal and the prob-able lateral resistance shall be calculated in accordancewith Section 18.7 of ACI 318.

9.6.2.3 – Global toughness – These provisions describeacceptance criteria for special precast structural wallsbased on validation testing. The requirements of Section21.2.1.5 of ACI 318 concerning toughness cover both the en-ergy dissipation of the wall system which, for monolithicconstruction, is affected primarily by local plastic hingingbehavior and the toughness of the prototype structure as awhole. The latter is termed “global toughness” in these pro-visions and is a condition that does not apply to the wallsalone. That global toughness requirement can be satisfiedonly though analysis of the performance of the prototypestructure as a whole when the walls perform to the criteriaspecified in these provisions.

The required gravity load for global toughness evaluationsis the value given by these provisions. For conformity withSection 9.2.1 of ACI 318, UBC 1997,7 IBC 200311 and NFPA500012 the required gravity load is 1.2D + f1L, where theseismic force is additive to gravity forces and 0.9D, wherethe seismic force counteracts gravity forces. D is the effect ofdead loads, L is the effect of live loads, and f1 is a factorequal to 0.5 except for parking structures, areas occupied asplaces of public assembly, and all areas where the live loadis greater than 100 psf (4.79 kN/m2), where f1 equals 1.0.

9.6.2.5 – Relative energy dissipation ratio – This conceptis illustrated in Fig. C9.6.2.5 for the third loading cycle tothe limiting drift ratio required by Sections 9.6.7.4, 9.6.7.5or 9.6.7.6, as appropriate. For Fig. C9.6.2.5, it is assumedthat the test module has exhibited different initial stiffnesses,K and K′, for positive and negative lateral forces and thatthe peak lateral resistances for the third cycle for the posi-tive and negative loading directions, E1 and E2, also differ.

The area of the hysteresis loop in Fig. C9.6.2.5 for thethird cycle, Ah, is shown with cross-hatched lines. The cir-cumscribing figure consists of two parallelograms, ABCDand DFGA. The slopes of the lines AB and DC are the sameas the initial stiffness, K, for positive loading, and the slopesof the lines DF and GA are the same as the initial stiffness,K′, for negative loading. The relative energy dissipationratio concept is similar to the equivalent viscous dampingconcept used in Section 13.9.3 of the 2000 NEHRP Provi-sions and Commentary1 for required tests of seismic isola-tion systems.

For a given cycle, the relative energy dissipation ratio, β,is the area, Ah, inside the lateral force-drift ratio loop forthe module, divided by the area of the effective circumscrib-ing parallelograms ABCD and DFGA. The areas of the par-allelograms equal the sum of the absolute values of the lat-eral force strengths, E1 and E2, at the drift ratios θ1 and θ2

multiplied by the sum of the absolute values for the drift ra-tios θ1′ and θ2′.

9.6.3. – Scope and General Requirements: While only ACI Committee 318 can determine the require-

ments necessary for precast walls to meet the provisions ofSection 21.2.1.5 of ACI 318, Section 1.4 of ACI 318 alreadypermits the building official to accept wall systems, otherthan those explicitly covered by Chapter 21 of ACI 318, pro-vided specific tests, load factors, deflection limits, construc-tion procedures and other pertinent requirements have beenestablished for acceptance of such systems consistent withthe intent of the code. The purpose of these provisions is toprovide a framework that establishes the specific tests, load

Fig. C9.6.2.2.3.Undesirable

deformations alonghorizontal joints: (a) excessive gapopening betweenpanels; (b) shear

slip.

September-October 2004 85

factors, deflection limits and other pertinent requirementsappropriate for acceptance, for regions of high seismic riskor for structures assigned to high seismic performance ordesign categories, of precast wall systems, including cou-pled wall systems, not satisfying all the requirements ofChapter 21 of ACI 318. For regions of moderate seismicrisk or for structures assigned to intermediate seismic per-formance or design categories, less stringent provisionsthan those specified here are appropriate.

These provisions assume that the precast wall system tobe tested has details differing from those prescribed by Sec-tion 21.7 of ACI 318 for conventional monolithic reinforcedconcrete construction. Such walls may, for example, involvethe use of precast elements, precast prestressed elements,post-tensioned reinforcement, or combinations of those ele-ments and reinforcement.

For monolithic reinforced concrete walls, a fundamentaldesign requirement of Chapter 21 of ACI 318 is that wallswith hw/lw exceeding1.0 be proportioned so that their inelas-tic response is dominated by flexural action on a criticalsection located near the base of the wall. That fundamentalrequirement is retained in these provisions. The reason isthat tests on modules, as envisioned in these provisions, can-not be extrapolated with confidence to the performance ofpanelized walls of proportions differing from those tested forthe development of Chapter 21 of ACI 318 if the shear-slipdisplacement pattern of Fig. C9.6.2.2.3, or the shear defor-mation response of Fig. C9.6.2.2.2, governs the response de-veloped in the test on the module. Two other fundamentalrequirements of Chapter 21 of ACI 318 are for ties aroundheavily strained boundary element reinforcement and theprovision of minimum amounts of uniformly distributed hor-izontal and vertical reinforcement in the web of the wall.Ties around boundary element reinforcement to inhibit its

buckling in compression are re-quired where the strain in the ex-treme compression fiber is ex-pected to exceed some criticalvalue. Minimum amounts of uni-formly distributed horizontal andvertical reinforcement over theheight and length of the wall arerequired to restrain the opening ofinclined cracks and allow the de-velopment of the drift ratios speci-fied in Sections 9.6.7.4, 9.6.7.5and 9.6.7.6. Deviations from thosetie and distributed reinforcementrequirements are possible only ifa theory is developed that cansubstantiate reasons for such de-viations and that theory is testedas part of the validation testing.

9.6.3.1 – These provisions arenot intended for use with existingconstruction or for use with wallsthat are designed to conform to allthe requirements of Section 21.7 ofACI 318. The criteria of these pro-

visions are more stringent than those for walls designed toSection 21.7 of ACI 318. Some walls designed to Section21.7, and having low height-to-length ratios, may not meetthe drift ratio limits of Eq. 9.6.1 because their behavior maybe governed by shear deformations.13 The height-to-lengthratio of 0.5 is the least value for which Eq. 9.6.1 is applica-ble.

9.6.3.3 - For acceptance, the results of the tests on eachmodule must satisfy the acceptance criteria of Section 9.6.9.In particular, the relative energy dissipation ratio calculatedfrom the measured results for the third cycle between thespecified limiting drift ratios must equal or exceed 1/8. Foruncoupled walls, relative energy dissipation ratios increaseas the drift ratio increases.4 Tests on slender monolithicwalls have shown relative energy dissipation ratios, derivedfrom rotations at the base of the wall, of about 40 to 45 per-cent at large drifts.5 The same result has been reported evenwhere there has been a significant opening in the web of thewall on the compression side.6 For 0.020 drift ratios andwalls with height-to-length ratios of 4, relative energy dissi-pation ratios have been computed4 as 30, 18, 12, and 6 per-cent, for monolithic reinforced concrete, hybridreinforced/post-tensioned prestressed concrete with equalflexural strengths provided by the prestressed and deformedbar reinforcement, hybrid reinforced/post-tensioned pre-stressed concrete with 25 percent of the flexural strengthprovided by deformed bar reinforcement and 75 percent bythe prestressed reinforcement, and post-tensioned pre-stressed concrete special structural walls, respectively.Thus, for slender precast uncoupled walls of emulative ornon-emulative design, it is to be anticipated that at least 35percent of the flexural capacity at the base of the wall needsto be provided by deformed bar reinforcement if the require-ment of a relative energy dissipation ratio of 1/8 is to be

Fig. C9.6.2.5. Relative energy dissipation ratio.

86 PCI JOURNAL

achieved. However, if more than about 40 percent of theflexural capacity at the base of the wall is provided by de-formed bar reinforcement, then the self-centering capabilityof the wall following a major event is lost and that is one ofthe prime advantages gained with the use of post-tensioning.For squat walls with height-to-length ratios between 0.35and 0.69, the relative energy dissipation has been reported13

as remaining constant at 23 percent for drifts between thatfor first diagonal cracking and that for a post-peak capacityof 80 percent of the peak capacity. Thus, regardless ofwhether the behavior of a wall is controlled by shear or flex-ural deformations, a minimum relative energy dissipationratio of 1/8 is a realistic requirement.

For coupled wall systems, theoreti-cal studies14 and tests9 have demon-strated that the 1/8 relative energydissipation ratio can be achieved byusing central post-tensioning only inthe walls and appropriate energy dis-sipating coupling devices connectingadjacent vertical wall boundaries.

9.6.3.3.4 - The SEI/ASCE 7-02 al-lowable story drift limits are the basisfor the drift limits of IBC 2003 andNFPA 5000. Allowable story drifts,∆a, are specified in Table 1617.3 ofIBC 2003 and likely values are dis-cussed in the Commentary to Section9.6.7.4. The limiting initial drift ratioconsistent with ∆a equals ∆a/ΦCdhw,where Φ is the strength reduction fac-tor appropriate to the condition, flex-ure or shear, that controls the designof the test module. For example, for∆a/hw equal to 0.015, the required de-flection amplification factor Cd of 5,and Φ equal to 0.9, the limiting initialdrift ratio, corresponding to B in Fig.C9.6.9.1, is 0.0033. The use of a Φvalue is necessary because the allow-able story drifts of the IBC are for thedesign seismic load effect, E, while thelimiting initial drift ratio is at thenominal strength, En, which must begreater than E/Φ. The load-deforma-tion relationship of a wall becomessignificantly nonlinear before the ap-plied load reaches Ent. While the loadat which that nonlinearity becomesmarked depends on the structuralcharacteristics of the wall, the re-sponse of most walls remains linearup to about 75 percent of Ent.

9.6.3.3.5 - The criteria of Section9.6.9 are for the test module. In con-trast, the criterion of Section 9.6.3.3.5is for the structural system as a whole,and can be satisfied only by the phi-losophy used for the design and analy-

sis of the building as a whole. The criterion adopted here issimilar to that described in the last paragraph of R21.2.1 ofACI 318 and the intent is that test results and analysesdemonstrate that the structure, after cycling three timesthrough both positive and negative values of the limitingdrift ratio specified in Sections 9.6.7.4, 9.6.7.5 or 9.6.7.6, asappropriate, is still capable of supporting the gravity loadspecified as acting on it during the earthquake.

9.6.4 - Design Procedure:9.6.4.1 - The test program specified in these provisions is

intended to verify an existing design procedure for precaststructural walls for a specific structure or for prequalifyinga generic type of special precast wall system for construc-

Fig. C9.6.5.1(a). Coupled wall test module.

Fig. C9.6.5.1(b). Coupled wall test module with vertical mechanical couplers.

September-October 2004 87

tion in general. The test program is not for the purpose ofcreating basic information on the strength and deformationproperties of such systems for design purposes. Thus, thetest modules should not fail during the validation testing, aresult that is the opposite of what is usually necessary dur-ing testing in the development phase for a new or reviseddesign procedure. For a generic precast wall system to beaccepted based on these provisions, a rational design proce-dure is to have been developed prior to this validation test-ing. The design procedure is to be based on a rational con-sideration of material properties and force transfermechanisms, and its development will usually require pre-liminary and possibly extensive physical testing that is notpart of the validation testing. Because special wall systemsare likely to respond inelastically during design-levelground shaking, the design procedure must consider wallconfiguration, equilibrium of forces, compatibility of defor-mations, the magnitudes of the lateral drifts, reversed cyclicdisplacements, the relative values of each limiting engineer-ing design criteria (shear, flexure and axial load) and useappropriate constitutive laws for materials that include con-siderations of effects of cracking, loading reversals and in-elasticity.

The effective initial stiffness of the structural walls is im-portant for calculating the fundamental period of the proto-type structure. The procedure used to determine the effectiveinitial stiffness of the walls is to be verified from the valida-tion test results as described in Section 9.6.7.11.

Provisions 9.6.4.1.1 through 9.6.4.1.3 state the minimumprocedures to be specified in the design procedure prior tothe start of testing. The Authority Having Jurisdiction mayrequire that more details be provided in the design proce-dure than those of Sections 9.6.4.1.1 through 9.6.4.1.3 priorto the start of testing.

9.6.4.2 - The justification for the small number of testmodules, specified in Section 9.6.5.1 is that a previously de-veloped rational design procedure is being validated by thetest results. Thus, the test modules for the experimental pro-gram must be designed using the procedure intended for theprototype wall system and strengths must be predicted forthe test modules before the validation testing is started.

9.6.5 - Test Modules:9.6.5.1 – One module must be tested for each limiting en-

gineering design criterion, such as shear, or axial load andflexure, for each characteristic configuration of walls. Thus,in accordance with Section 9.6.4.3, if the test on the moduleresults in a maximum shear stress of 3 , then the maxi-mum shear stress that can be used in the prototype is thatsame value. Each characteristic in-plane configuration ofwalls, or coupled walls, in the prototype structure must alsobe tested. Thus, as a minimum for one-way structural walls,two modules with the configuration shown in Fig. C9.6.2.2.1must be tested, and for one-way coupled walls, two moduleswith the configuration shown in either Fig. C9.6.5.1(a) or inFig. C9.6.5.1(b) must be tested. In addition, if intersectingwall systems are to be used, then the response of the wallsystems for the two orthogonal directions needs to be tested.For two-way wall systems and coupled wall-frame systems,testing of configurations other than those shown in Figs.

′fc

C9.6.2.2.1 and C9.6.5.1 may be appropriate when it is diffi-cult to realistically model the likely dominant earthquakedeformations using orthogonal direction testing only.

This provision should not be interpreted as implying thatonly two tests will need to be made to qualify a generic sys-tem. During the development of that system, it is likely thatseveral more tests will have been made, resulting in pro-gressive refinements of the mathematical model used to de-scribe the likely performance of the generic structural wallsystem and its construction details. Consequently, only onetest of each module type for each limiting engineering de-sign condition, at a specified minimum scale and subjectedto specific loading actions, may be required to validate thesystem. Further, as stated in Section 9.6.9.1, if any one ofthose modules for the generic wall system fails to pass thevalidation testing required by these provisions, then thegeneric wall system has failed the validation testing.

In most prototype structures, a slab is usually attached tothe wall and, as demonstrated by the results of the PRESSSbuilding test,9 the manner in which the slab is connected tothe wall needs to be carefully considered. The connectionneeds to be adequate to allow the development of story driftsequal to those anticipated in these provisions. However, inconformity with common practice for the sub-assemblagetests used to develop the provisions of Chapter 21 of ACI318, there is no requirement for a slab to be attached to thewall of the test module. The effect of the presence of the slabshould be examined in the development program that pre-cedes the validation testing.

9.6.5.3 - Test modules need not be as large as the corre-sponding walls in the prototype structure. The scale of thetest modules, however, must be large enough to capture allthe complexities associated with the materials of the proto-type wall, its geometry and reinforcing details, load transfermechanisms, and joint locations. For modules involving theuse of precast elements, for example, scale effects for loadtransfer through mechanical connections should be of par-ticular concern.3 The issue of the scale necessary to capturefully the effects of details on the behavior of the prototypeshould be examined in the development program that pre-cedes the validation testing.15

9.6.5.4 - It is to be expected that for a given generic precastwall structure, such as an unbonded centrally post-tensionedwall constructed using multiple precast or precast preten-sioned concrete wall panels, validation testing programs willinitially use specific values for the specified strength of theconcrete and reinforcement in the walls, the layout of theconnections between panels, the location of the post-tension-ing, the location of the panel joints, and the design stresses inthe wall. Pending the development of an industry standard forthe design of such walls, similar to the standard for specialhybrid moment frames,16 specified concrete strengths, con-nection layouts, post-tensioning amounts and locations, etc.,used for such walls will need to be limited to the values andlayouts used in the validation testing programs.

9.6.5.5 – For walls constructed using precast orprecast/prestressed panels and designed using non-emulativemethods, the response under lateral load can change signifi-cantly with the joint opening [Fig. C9.6.2.2.2(d) and Fig.

88 PCI JOURNAL

C9.6.2.2.3(a)]. The number of panels used to construct awall depends on wall height and design philosophy. If, in theprototype structure, there is a possibility of horizontal jointopening under lateral loading at a location other than thebase of the wall, then the consequences of that possibilityneed to be considered in the development and validation testprograms. Joint opening at locations other than the base canbe prevented through the use of capacity design procedures.

9.6.5.6 - The significance of the magnitude of the gravityload that acts simultaneously with the lateral load needs tobe addressed during the validation testing if the develop-ment program suggests that effect is significant.

9.6.5.7 – Details of the connection of walls to the founda-tion are critical, particularly for non-emulative wall de-signs. The deformations that occur at the base of the walldue to plastic hinging or extension of the reinforcing bars orpost-tensioning steel crossing the wall to foundation inter-face [Fig. C9.6.2.2.2(d)] are in part determined by details ofthe anchorage and the bonding of those reinforcements oneither side of the interface. Grout will be normally used tobed panels on the foundation and the characteristics of thatgrout in terms of materials, strength and thickness can havea large effect on wall performance. The typical grout padwith a thickness of 1 in. (25 mm) or less can be expected toprovide a coefficient of friction of about 0.6 under reversedloadings.17,18 Pads with greater thickness and without fiberreinforcement exhibit lesser coefficients of friction. Ade-quate frictional resistance is essential to preventing undesir-able shear-slip deformations of the type shown in Fig.C9.6.2.2.3(b).

9.6.5.8 - The geometry of the foundations need not dupli-cate that used in the prototype structure. However, the geo-metric characteristics of the foundations (width, depth andlength) need to be large enough that they do not influencethe behavior of the test module.

9.6.6 - Testing agency:In accordance with the spirit of the requirements of Sec-

tions 1.3.5 and 1.4 of ACI 318, it isimportant that testing be carried outby a recognized independent testingagency, approved by the AuthorityHaving Jurisdiction and that the test-ing and reporting be supervised by aregistered design professional famil-iar with the proposed design proce-dure and experienced in testing andseismic structural design.

9.6.7 - Test Method:The test sequence is expressed in

terms of drift ratio, and the initialratio is related to the likely range oflinear elastic response for the module.That approach, rather than testing atspecific drift ratios of 0.005, 0.010,etc., is specified because, for modulesinvolving prestressed concrete, thelikely range of elastic behavior varieswith the prestress level.14,15

An example of the test sequencespecified in Sections 9.6.7.2 through 9.6.7.6 is illustrated inFig. C9.6.7. The sequence is intended to ensure that dis-placements are increased gradually in steps that are neithertoo large nor too small. If the steps are too large, the driftcapacity of the system may not be determined with sufficientaccuracy. If the steps are too small, the system may be unre-alistically softened by loading repetitions, resulting in artifi-cially low maximum lateral resistances and artificially highmaximum drifts. Also, when the steps are too small, the rateof change of energy stored in the system may be too smallcompared with the change occurring during a major event.Results, using such small steps, can mask undesirable brittlefailure modes that might occur in the inelastic responserange during a major event. Because significant diagonalcracking is to be expected in the inelastic range in the webof walls, and in particular in squat walls, the pattern of in-creasing drifts used in the test sequence can markedly affectdiagonal crack response in the post-peak range ofbehavior.13

The drift capacity of a building in a major event is not asingle quantity, but depends on how that event shakes thestructure. In the forward near field, a single pulse may de-termine the maximum drift demand, in which case a singlelarge drift demand cycle for the test module would give thebest estimation of the drift capacity. More often, however,many small cycles precede the main shock and that is thescenario represented by the specified loading.

There is no requirement for an axial load to be applied tothe wall simultaneously with the application of the lateraldisplacements. In many cases, it will be conservative not toapply an axial load because, in general, the shear capacityof the wall and the resistance to slip at the base of the wallincrease as the axial load on the wall increases. However,as the height of the wall increases and the limiting drift uti-lized in the design of the wall increases, the likelihood of ex-treme fiber crushing in compression at maximum drift in-creases, and the importance of the level of axial load

Fig. C9.6.7. Example of specified test sequence.

September-October 2004 89

increases. The significance of the level of axial loadingshould be examined during the development phase.

9.6.7.4 - For the response of a structure to the designseismic shear force, current building codes such as UBC-97,7 IBC 200311 or NFPA 5000,12 or recommended provi-sions such as NEHRP-2000,1 SEI/ASCE 7-022.0 and FEMA27319 specify a maximum allowable drift. However, struc-tures designed to meet that drift limit may experiencegreater drifts during an earthquake equal to the designbasis earthquake and are likely to experience greater driftsduring an earthquake equal to the maximum credible earth-quake. In addition to the characteristics of the ground mo-tion, actual drifts will depend on the strength of the struc-ture, its initial elastic stiffness, and the ductility expected forthe given lateral load resisting system. Specification of suit-able limiting drifts for the test modules requires interpreta-tion and allowance for uncertainties in the assumed groundmotions and structural properties.

In IBC 2003, the design seismic shear force applied at thebase of a building is related directly to its weight and thedesign elastic response acceleration, and inversely to a re-sponse modification factor, R. That R factor increases withthe expected ductility of the lateral force resisting system ofthe building. Special structural walls satisfying the require-ments of Sections 21.2 and 21.7 are assigned an R value of 6when used in a building frame system and a value of 5 whenused in a bearing wall system. They are also assigned al-lowable story drift ratios that are dependent on the hazardto which the building is exposed. When the design seismicshear force is applied to a building, the building respondsinelastically and the resultant computed drifts (the designstory drifts) must be less than a specified allowable drift.Additional guidance is given in FEMA 356,19 where the de-formations for rectangular walls with height-to-length ra-tios greater than 2.5, and flanged wall sections with height-to-length ratios greater than 3.5, are to be assumed to becontrolled by flexural actions. When structural walls arepart of a building representing a substantial hazard tohuman life in the event of a failure, the allowable story driftratio for shear controlled walls is 0.0075 and for flexurecontrolled walls is a function of the plastic hinge rotation atthe base of the wall. For flexure controlled walls, valuesrange up to a maximum of about 0.02 for walls with con-fined boundary elements with low reinforcement ratios andshear stress less than 3 .

To compensate for the use of the R value, IBC 1617.4.6requires that the drift determined by an elastic analysis forthe code-prescribed seismic forces be multiplied by a deflec-tion amplification factor, Cd, to determine the design storydrift and that the design story drift must be less than the al-lowable story drift. In building frame systems, structuralwalls satisfying the requirements of Section 21.7 of ACI318, are assigned a Cd value of 5. However, research8 hasfound that design story drift ratios determined in the forego-ing manner may be too low. Drift ratios of six times IBC-calculated values (rather than five) are more representativeof the upper bounds to expected drift ratios. The value of sixis also in agreement with the finding that the drift ratio ofan inelastic structure is approximately the same as that of

an elastic structure with the same initial period. For flexurecontrolled walls, the value of 6/5 times the present IBC lim-its on the calculated drift ratio, would lead to a limit on realdrift ratios of up to 0.024.

Duffy et al.20 reviewed experimental data for shear wallsto define post-peak behavior and limiting drift ratios forwalls with height-to-length ratios between 0.25 and 3.5. Seoet al.10 re-analyzed the data of Duffy et al. together withdata from tests conducted subsequent to the analysis ofDuffy et al. Duffy et al. established that for squat walls withweb reinforcement satisfying ACI 318-02 requirements andheight-to-length ratios between 0.25 and 1.1, there was asignificant range of behavior for which drifts were still reli-able in the post-peak response region. Typically, the post-peak drift increased by 0.005 for a 20 percent degradationin capacity under cyclic loading. For greater values ofdegradation, drifts were less reliable. That finding has alsobeen confirmed through tests conducted by Hidalgo et al.13

on squat walls with effective height-to-length ratios rangingbetween 0.35 and 1.0. Values of the drift ratio of the wallsat inclined cracking and at peak capacity varied little withweb reinforcement. By contrast, drifts in the post-peakrange were reliable to a capacity equal to 80 percent of thepeak capacity and were 0.005 greater than the drifts at peakcapacity provided the walls contained horizontal and verti-cal web reinforcement equal to 0.25 percent.

From an analysis of the available test data, and from the-oretical considerations for a wall rotating flexurally about aplastic hinge at its base, Seo et al.10 concluded that the limit-ing drift at peak capacity increased almost linearly with theheight-to-length ratio of the wall. When the additional postpeak drift capacity for walls with adequate web reinforce-ment was added to the drift at peak capacity, then the totalavailable drift capacity in percent was given by the follow-ing equation:

1.0 ≤ 0.67(hw/lw) + 0.5 ≤ 3.0

where hw is the height of the wall, and lw is the length of thewall. The data from the tests of Hidalgo et al.13 suggest thatwhile that formula is correct for squat walls the lower limiton drift can be decreased to 0.8 as specified in these provi-sions and that the use of that formula should be limited towalls with height-to-length ratios equal to or greater than0.5. For wall height-to-length ratios less than 0.5 the behav-ior is controlled principally by shear deformations [Fig.C9.6.2.2.2(c)] and Eq. 9.6.1 should not be used. The uppervalue of 0.030 for the drift ratio was somewhat optimisticbecause the data were for walls with height-to-length ratiosequal to or less than 3.5 and subsequent tests5,6 have shownthat the upper limit of 2.5, as specified in Eq. 9.6.1, is amore realistic limit.

9.6.7.5 – The design capacity for coupled wall systemsmust be developed by the drift ratio corresponding to thatfor the wall with the least hw/lw value. However, it is desir-able that testing be continued to the drift given by Eq. 9.6.1for the wall with the greatest hw/lw ratio in order to assessthe reserve capacity of the coupled wall system.

9.6.7.6 – The drift limits of Eq. 9.6.1 are representative of

′fc

90 PCI JOURNAL

the maximum that can be achieved by walls designed to ACI318. The use of smaller drift limits is appropriate if the de-signer wishes to use performance measures less than themaximum permitted by ACI 318. Examples are the use of re-duced shear stresses so that the likelihood of diagonalcracking of the wall is minimized or reduced compressivestresses in the boundary elements of the wall so that the riskof crushing is reduced. Nonlinear time history analyses forthe response to a suite of maximum considered earthquake(MCE) ground motions, rather than 1.5 times a suite of thecorresponding design basis earthquake (DBE) ground mo-tions, is required because the drifts for the response to theMCE motion can be significantly larger than 1.5 times the

drifts for the response to the DBE mo-tions.

9.6.7.10 - In many cases, data addi-tional to the minimum specified inSection 9.6.7.7 may be useful to con-firm both design assumptions and sat-isfactory response. Such data includerelative displacements, rotations, cur-vatures, and strains.

9.6.8 - Test Report:The test report must be sufficiently

complete and self-contained for aqualified expert to be satisfied that thetests have been designed and carriedout in accordance with these criteria,and that the results satisfy the intent ofthese provisions. Provisions 9.6.8.1.1through 9.6.8.1.11 state the minimumevidence to be contained within thetest report. The Authority Having Ju-risdiction or the registered design pro-fessional supervising the testing mayrequire that additional test informa-tion be reported.

9.6.9 – Test module acceptance cri-teria:

The requirements of this clauseapply to each module of the test pro-gram and not to an average of the re-sults of the program. Fig. C9.6.9.1 il-lustrates the intent of this clause.

9.6.9.1.1 - Where nominal strengthsfor opposite loading directions differ,as is likely for C-, L- or T-shapedwalls, the criterion of Section 9.6.9.1.1applies separately to each direction.

9.6.9.1.2 - At high cyclic-drift ra-tios, strength degradation is in-evitable. To limit the level of degrada-tion so that drift ratio demands do notexceed anticipated levels, a maximumstrength degradation of 0.20Emax isspecified. Where strengths differ foropposite loading directions, this re-quirement applies independently toeach direction.

9.6.9.1.3 – (1) If the relative energy dissipation ratio isless than 1/8, there may be inadequate damping for thebuilding as a whole. Oscillations may continue for sometime after an earthquake, producing low-cycle fatigue ef-fects, and displacements may become excessive.

9.6.9.1.3 – (2) If the stiffness becomes too small aroundzero drift ratio, the structure will be prone to large displace-ments for small lateral force changes following a majorearthquake. A hysteresis loop for the third cycle betweenpeak drift ratios of 1/10 times the limiting drift ratio givenby Eq. 9.6.1, that has the form shown in Fig. C9.6.9.1, is ac-ceptable. At zero drift ratio, the stiffnesses for positive andnegative loading are about 11 percent of the initial stiff-

Fig. C9.6.9.1. Quantities used in evaluating acceptance criteria.

Fig. C9.6.9.1.3. Unacceptable hysteretic behavior.

September-October 2004 91

nesses. Those values satisfy Section 9.6.9.1.3. An unaccept-able hysteresis loop form would be that shown in Fig.C9.6.9.1.3 where the stiffness around zero drift ratio is un-acceptably small for both positive and negative loading.

9.6.10 - References

1. “NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regu-lations for New Buildings and Other Structures, Part 1 -Provisions, 2000 Edition,” Federal Emergency Manage-ment Agency, FEMA 368, Washington, DC, March 2001,374 pp. and Part 2 - Commentary, FEMA 369, March 2001,444 pp.

2. PCI Ad Hoc Committee on Precast Walls, “Design forLateral Force Resistance with Precast Concrete ShearWalls,” PCI JOURNAL, V. 42, No. 2, March-April 1997,pp. 44-65.

3. Schultz, A. E., and Magana, R. A., “Seismic Behavior ofConnections in Precast Concrete Walls,” Paper No. SP 162-12, Mete A. Sozen Symposium, ACI SP 162, American Con-crete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1996, pp. 273-311.

4. Kurama, Y. C., “Hybrid Post-Tensioned Precast Con-crete Walls for Use in Seismic Regions,” PCI JOURNAL, V.47, No. 5, September-October 2002, pp. 36-59.

5. Ali, A., and Wight, J. K., “Reinforced Concrete Struc-tural Walls with Staggered Opening Configurations UnderReversed Cyclic Loading,” Report No. UMCE 90-05, De-partment of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, AnnArbor, MI, April 1990.

6. Taylor, C. P., Cote, P. E., and Wallace, J. W., “ Designof Slender Reinforced Concrete Walls with Openings,” ACIStructural Journal, V. 95, No. 4, July-August 1998, pp. 420-433.

7. International Conference of Building Officials, “Uni-form Building Code: V. 2, Structural Engineering DesignProvisions,” Whittier, CA, May 1997.

8. Uang, C-M., and Maarouf, A., “Seismic DisplacementAmplification Factor in Uniform Building Code,” SEAONCResearch Bulletin Board, BB93-3, June 1993, pp. B1-B2,and “Displacement Amplification Factor for Seismic DesignProvisions,” Proceedings Structures Congress, ASCE, V. 1,Irvine, CA, 1993, pp.211-216.

9. Priestley, M. J. N., Sritharan, S., Conley, J., and Pam-panin, S., “Preliminary Results and Conclusions From thePRESSS Five-Story Precast Concrete Test Building,” PCIJOURNAL, V. 44, No. 6, November-December 1999, pp. 42-67.

10. Seo, S-Y., Lee, L-H., and Hawkins, N. M., “The Limit-ing Drift and Energy Dissipation Ratio for Shear WallsBased on Structural Testing,” Journal of the Korean Con-crete Institute, V. 10, No. 6, December 1998, pp. 335-343.

11. 2003 International Building Code, International CodeCouncil, Falls Church, VA.

12. NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code,2003 Edition. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy,MA.

13. Hidalgo, P. A., Ledezma, C. A., and Jordan, R. A.,“Seismic Behavior of Squat Reinforced Concrete ShearWalls,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 18, No. 2, May 2002, pp.287-308.

14. Stanton, J. F., and Nakaki, S. D., “Design Guidelinesfor Precast Concrete Seismic Structural Systems – Un-bonded Post-Tensioned Split Walls,” PRESSS Report No.01/03-09, UW Report SM 02-02, Department of Civil Engi-neering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, February2002 p. 3-1 -19.

15. ACI Innovation Task Group I and Collaborators, “Ac-ceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on StructuralTesting (T1.1-01) and Commentary (T1.1R-01),” AmericanConcrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2001, 10 pp.

16. ACI Innovation Task Group I and Collaborators,“Special Hybrid Moment Frames Composed of DiscretelyJointed Precast and Post-Tensioned Concrete Members(ACI T1.2-XX) and Commentary (ACI T1.2R-XX),” ACIStructural Journal, V. 98, No. 5, September-October 2001,pp. 771-784.

17. Hutchinson, R.L., Rizkalla, S.H., Lau, M., and Heuvel,M. “Horizontal Post-Tensioned Connections for PrecastConcrete Bearing Shear Walls,” PCI JOURNAL, V. 36, No.3, November-December 1991, p. 64-76.

18. Pekau, O. A., and Hum, L., “Seismic Response ofFriction Jointed Precast Panel Shear Walls,” PCI JOUR-NAL, V. 36, No. 2, March-April 1991, pp. 56-71.

19. “NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation ofBuildings, Chapter 6: Concrete,” Federal Emergency Man-agement Agency, FEMA 356, and Commentary FEMA 357,October, 2000.

20. Duffy, T. A., Goldman, A., and Farrar, C. R., “ShearWall Ultimate Drift Limits,” Report NUREG/CR-6104, LA-12649-MS, U.S. Nuclear Regularity Commission, 1993.

FUTURE COURSEThe NEHRP provision permitting the use of non-emula-

tive precast concrete walls, including the acceptance criteriabased on validation testing, was proposed for inclusion inASCE 7-05,10 which will form the basis of the seismic de-sign provisions of the 2006 International Building Code(IBC). The ASCE 7 Seismic Task Committee determinedthat while it was entirely consistent with BSSC’s role to in-clude Acceptance Criteria for Special Precast StructuralWalls in the NEHRP Provisions, major modifications toACI 318, such as the Acceptance Criteria, should not appearin ASCE 7; they should instead be processed by ACI Com-mittee 318.

PCI realized that if the path that led to the inclusion ofnon-emulative special moment frames in ACI 318-02 wereto be followed, an Innovation Task Group (ITG) would haveto be formed within ACI to develop a provisional standardsimilar to ACI T1.1-01 for precast shear wall systems. Suchan ITG (ITG 5) has in fact been formed at the request ofPCI. The scope has narrowed further as a result of delibera-tions that have taken place so far within the ITG. The spe-cific technology for which that ITG is developing docu-ments is the use of unbonded post-tensioned special precastconcrete structural walls that are connected along their verti-cal edges with energy dissipating mechanical couplers.

To introduce the technology, the ITG envisages that, simi-lar to the process used for ITG 1, two standards will need to

92 PCI JOURNAL

be developed. One would be on “Acceptance Criteria forSpecial Unbonded Post-Tensioned Structural Walls Basedon Validation Testing.” That standard would detail the ex-perimental evidence and analysis required (ACI 318-02 Sec-tion 21.2.1.5) to allow the use of special structural walls notsatisfying the prescriptive requirements of Section 21.7 ofACI 318-02. The second standard would detail design re-quirements for “Unbonded Post-Tensioned Special PrecastStructural Walls,” and would cover both isolated walls andwalls connected along their vertical boundaries with energydissipating mechanical couplers. Those walls would differfrom the emulative walls specified in Section 21.8 of ACI318-02.

If all goes well, a provisional standard similar to T1.1-01may be approved by the Standards Board of ACI by the fallof 2005 (this is the most optimistic scenario). If that tran-spires, it should be possible to have provisions included inACI 318-08, which would permit non-emulative design ofspecial precast shear walls using the provisional standard.If ACI 318-08 is missed, which can happen relatively eas-ily, the provisions should make it into ACI 318-11. ACI318-08 will be the reference document for the 2009 IBCand ACI 318-11 will be the reference document for the2012 IBC.

Meanwhile, an enterprising developer who is prepared toget validation testing done, as required by the above accep-tance criteria, may seek building department approval of in-dividual projects, citing the NEHRP provision, under Sec-tion 104.11of the 2003 IBC, which states:

104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods ofconstruction and equipment. The Provisions of this codeare not intended to prevent the installation of any materialor to prohibit any design or method of construction notspecifically prescribed by this code, provided that any suchalternative has been approved. An alternative material, de-sign or method of construction shall be approved where thebuilding official finds that the proposed design is satisfac-tory and complies with the intent of the provisions of thiscode, and that the material, method, or work offered is, for

the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that pre-scribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fireresistance, durability and safety.

REFERENCES1. Ghosh, S. K., and Hawkins, N. M., “Codification of PRESSS

Structural Systems,” PCI JOURNAL, V. 48, No. 4, July-Au-gust 2003, pp.140-143.

2. Nakaki, S. D., Stanton, J. F., and Sritharan, S., “An Overviewof the PRESSS Five-Story Precast Test Building,” PCI JOUR-NAL, V. 44, No. 2, March-April 1999, pp. 26-39, and “ThePRESSS Five-Story Precast Concrete Test Building, Univer-sity of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California,” PCIJOURNAL, V. 46, No. 5, September-October 2001, pp. 20-26.

3. BSSC, NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Pro-gram) Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seis-mic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures,Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC, 2000,2003.

4. Ghosh, S. K., “Update on the NEHRP Provisions: The Re-source Document for Seismic Design,” PCI JOURNAL, V. 49,No. 3, May-June 2004, pp. 96-102.

5. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Struc-tural Concrete (ACI 318-02),” American Concrete Institute,Farmington Hills, MI, 2002.

6. ACI Innovation Task Group 1 and Collaborators, “AcceptanceCriteria for Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing(T1.1-01) and Commentary (T1.1R-01),” American ConcreteInstitute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2001.

7. ACI Innovation Task Group 1 and Collaborators, “Special Hy-brid Moment Frames Composed of Discretely Jointed Precastand Post-Tensioned Concrete Members,” ACI Proposed Stan-dard T1.2-03 and Commentary ACI T1.2R-03, American Con-crete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2003.

8. Hawkins, N. M., and Ghosh, S. K., “Requirements for the Useof PRESSS Moment-Resisting Frame Systems,” PCI JOUR-NAL, V. 49, No. 2, March-April 2004, pp. 98-103.

9. Hawkins, N. M., and Ghosh, S. K., Acceptance Criteria forSpecial Structural Walls Based on Validation Testing, Pro-posed Provisional Standard and Commentary, S. K. Ghosh As-sociates Inc., Northbrook, IL, 2003.