Issue 78

S. A. Mustafa et alii, Fracture and Structural Integrity, 78 (2026) 298-314; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.78.18

Specimen Fy (kN)

Δ y (mm) Fpeak (kN)

Δ peak (mm)

Fu (kN)

Δ u (mm)

μΔ

δ u

C.S.W S.W.I1 S.W.I2 S.W.I3

193.13

17.76 22.12 22.21 19.51

236.38

30.86 30.45 30.31 30.62

194.12

36.08

2.08 1.88 1.84 1.96

0.024 0.028 0.027

44.93 84.85 129.2

62.57

42.59 89.36

41.8

105.08 149.28

40.97 38.08

118.01 0.025 Table 4: Yield, peak, and ultimate response parameters, displacement ductility, and drift ratios of shear wall specimens. Global hysteretic behavior The global hysteretic responses of the tested shear wall specimens are shown in Fig. 11, presenting the lateral force-top displacement relationships obtained from cyclic loading. All specimens exhibited stable, nearly linear behavior during the initial loading cycles, followed by gradual widening of hysteresis loops with increased displacement amplitudes. Strength degradation became evident after reaching peak lateral resistance in all specimens, as listed in Tab. 4. It should be noted that the displacement corresponding to peak lateral resistance was similar for all specimens because the tests were conducted under the same displacement-controlled loading protocol. Consequently, peak loads were generally attained within a comparable displacement range, while the embedment length primarily influenced the magnitude of the peak load, stiffness degradation, and failure mechanism rather than the displacement level at which peak resistance occurred. Similar early elastic behavior and post-peak hysteretic trends have been reported by Greifenhagen and Lestuzzi [22] and Krolicki et al. [23].

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 11: Lateral load-displacement hysteresis response for shear wall specimens : (a) C.S.W, (b) S.W.I 1 (Embedded length 10 ϕ ) , (c) S.W.I 2 (Embedded length 15 ϕ ), (d) S.W.I 3 (Embedded length 20 ϕ )

308