Errata Revised August 2023

Technical Blog
July 2022

The ACI Alternative Method for Out-of-Plane Slender Wall Analysis: What is the
Impact of a High Yield Strength / Reduced Reinforcement Area Substitution?

Ww = 30 psf
(OUT-OF-PLANE WIND)

The image above shows a typical reinforced concrete tilt-up wall panel configured with
two loading dock doors and supporting long-span roof framing. The wall is to be analyzed
Page 1
and designed per ACI 318-19 Section 11.8 “Alternative Method for Out-of-Plane Slender
Wall Analysis”. In carrying out the analysis, we will explore the impact of a downstream
substitution of “equivalent capacity” vertical reinforcement, characterized by higher
yield strength but a proportionally smaller steel area.

I. DESIGN PARAMETERS

• Panel thickness = 9.5 inches

• Structural thickness, h = 8.75 inches (9.5” minus 0.75” architectural reveal
feature)
• Two mats of reinforcement, one each face
• Clear cover to vertical reinforcing wires = 1.0”, each face
• 28-day compressive strength of concrete = 4 ksi (𝛽1 = 0.85)
• Steel reinforcement yield strength = 60 ksi
• Concrete unit weight = 150 pcf
• Unbraced length of design strip, 𝑙 c = 33.67 ft = 404 inches
• Width of design strip, 𝑙𝑤 = 2.25 ft = 27 inches
• Joist end reactions are applied at a 3-inch horizontal eccentricity from the
vertical centerline of wall thickness

II. LOAD DISTRIBUTION TO UNIT STRIP

Total joist dead load = (5)(2.23 kips) = 11.2 kips

Total distribution width = 25’-0”
Joist dead load distribution = 11.2 kips / 25’ = 0.448 kip/ft
Joist dead load to design strip = (0.448 kip/ft)(2.25’ + 8.0’/2) = 2.8 kips

Total joist live load = (5)(2.70 kips) = 13.5 kips

Total distribution width = 25’-0”
Joist live load distribution = 13.5 kips / 25’ = 0.540 kip/ft
Joist live load to design strip = (0.540 kip/ft)(2.25’ + 8.0’/2) = 3.4 kips

Total wall dead load, taken at “midheight” of design strip unbraced length:
(0.150 pcf)(9.5”/12)(33.67’/2 + 0.67’)(25’) = 52 kips
Wall dead load to design strip = 52 kips / 25’ x (2.25’ + 8.0’/2) = 13 kips

STRENGTH CHECK – STEPS III THROUGH VI

III. APPLIED LOADING

All relevant code-prescribed load combinations should be checked in the design of

tilt-up wall panels. For this example, it has been determined that the governing
strength level load combination is 1.2D + 1.0W + 1.0L + 0.5Lr. This combination
simplifies to 1.2D + 1.0W + 0.5Lr since there is no floor live load supported by
the wall panel.

Load combination for strength check: 1.2D + 1.0W + 0.5Lr

Portion of axial load applied with a horizontal eccentricity:
Pua = 1.2(2.8 kips) + 0.5(3.4 kips) = 5.1 kips

Page 2
 Total axial load at midheight:
Pum = 5.1 kips + 1.2(13 kips) = 20.7 kips

Out-of-plane wind on design strip and supported tributary width:

wu = 1.0(30 psf)(2.25’ + 8’/2) = 0.188 kip/ft

Moment at mid-height of design strip due to factored lateral and eccentric vertical
loads, not including P-∆ effects:

𝑤𝑢 𝑙𝑐 2 𝑃𝑢𝑎 𝑒𝑐𝑐
𝑀𝑢𝑎 = +
8 2

(0.188)(33.67)2 (5.1)(3"/12)
𝑀𝑢𝑎 = + = 27.3 𝑘𝑖𝑝 − 𝑓𝑡
8 2

IV.TRIAL REINFORCEMENT AND INITIAL CHECKS

Assume a vertical steel reinforcement area A s = 1.25 in2.

Check #1: Minimum vertical reinforcement (ACI 318-19 Table 11.6.1)

𝐴𝑠 1.25
𝜌𝑙 = = = 0.0049 > 0.0010 𝐴𝐶𝐼 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚
𝑏𝑡 27" × 9.5"

Check #2: ACI Prescriptive spacing

Number of wires Approximate center-to-center spacing*

5 5.25”
6 4.2”
7 3.5”
*Assumes 3” distance to wire centerline, each edge of design strip.

Maximum spacing (ACI 318-19 Section 11.7.2.2) lesser of (5)(h=8.75”) = 43.75 and 18”.
All options listed satisfy the requirement.

Minimum spacing (ACI 318-19 Section 25.2.3) shall be the greatest of 1.5”, 1.5db,
and (4/3)dagg. By inspection, even if 7 wires are used, minimum spacing requirement
is easily satisfied.

Check #3: Maximum axial stress at midheight, ACI 318-19 Section 11.8.1.1(d)

𝑃𝑢𝑚 20.7 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠

= = 0.088 𝑘𝑠𝑖 < 0.06𝑓′𝑐 = 0.24 𝑘𝑠𝑖 ∴ 𝑂𝐾!
𝐴𝑔 8.75" × 27"

Check #4: confirm tension-controlled behavior for out-of-plane moment effect, ACI
318-19 Section 11.8.1.1(b)

Assume maximum wire size = 5/8” diameter, therefore d = 8.75” – 1” – 0.625”/2 = 7.44”

Effective area of longitudinal reinforcement, Ase,w (ACI 318-19 Section R11.8.3.1):

𝑃𝑢𝑚 ℎ/2 20.7 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 8.75"/2
𝐴𝑠𝑒,𝑤 = 𝐴𝑠 + ( ) = 1.25 + ( ) = 1.45 𝑖𝑛2
𝑓𝑦 𝑑 60 𝑘𝑠𝑖 7.44"
Page 3
 𝐴𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑦 1.45 𝑖𝑛2 × 60 𝑘𝑠𝑖
𝑎= = = 0.948"
0.85𝑓 ′ 𝑐 𝑏 . 85 × 4 𝑘𝑠𝑖 × 27"

𝑐 = 𝑎⁄𝛽1 = 1.115"
0.003𝛽1 𝑑 . 003 × 0.85 × 7.44"
𝜀𝑠 = − 0.003 = − 0.003 = 0.017 𝑖𝑛/𝑖𝑛 ≫ 𝜀𝑡𝑦 + 0.003 = 0.0051 𝑖𝑛/𝑖𝑛
𝑎 0.948
∴ 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑠 𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑. 𝜑 = 0.90.

V.CHECK DESIGN MOMENT STRENGTH (φMn) ≥ CRACKING MOMENT (Mcr) AS REQUIRED BY

ACI 318.19 SECTION 11.8.1.1(C)

𝑎 0.948"
𝜑𝑀𝑛 = 𝜑𝐴𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑦 (𝑑 − ) = 0.9 × 1.45 𝑖𝑛2 × 60 𝑘𝑠𝑖 × (7.44" − ) = 45.5 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡
2 2

27" × 8.75"3
𝑓𝑟 𝐼𝑔 7.5√4,000 × 12
𝑀𝑐𝑟 = = = 163.43 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑖𝑛 = 13.62 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡
ℎ/2 8.75"/2

∴ 𝜑𝑀𝑛 > 𝑀𝑐𝑟

VI.CHECK DESIGN MOMENT STRENGTH (φMn) ≥ MAXIMUM FACTORED MOMENT (Mu) AS REQUIRED BY
ACI 318.19 SECTION 11.5.1.1(b)

𝜑𝑀𝑛 = 45.5 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

Mu by direct calculation using ACI 318-19 Section 11.8.3.1(b):

𝑀𝑢𝑎
𝑀𝑢 =
5𝑃𝑢 𝑙𝑐 2
(1 − )
0.75 × 48𝐸𝑐 𝐼𝑐𝑟

Mua = 27.3 kip-ft from Step III.

Pu = Pum = 20.7 kips from Step III.

𝑙 c = 33.67 ft = 404 inches from Step I.

𝐸𝑐 = 57,000 × √𝑓′𝑐 = 3,605 𝑘𝑠𝑖 per ACI 318-19 Section 19.2.2.1(b)

𝐸𝑠 𝑙𝑤 𝑐 3 29,000 27 × 1.1153
𝐼𝑐𝑟 = (𝐴𝑠𝑒,𝑤 )(𝑑 − 𝑐)2 + = × 1.45 × (7.44 − 1.115)2 +
𝐸𝑐 3 3,605 3

𝐼𝑐𝑟 = 479.1 𝑖𝑛4

∴ 𝑀𝑢 = 37.5 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡

STRENGTH CHECK RESULTS

𝜑𝑀𝑛 = 45.5 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 > 𝑀𝑢 = 37.5 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡

Page 4
 SERVICE DEFLECTION CHECK
STEPS VII THROUGH VIII

VII. APPLIED LOADING

Per discussion in ACI 318-19 Section R11.8.4.1, we will use the service-level load
combination D + 0.5L + Wa for calculating service level lateral deflection. The
equation manifests as follows since (a) there is no floor live load supported by the
wall panel and (b) we utilize the 10-year mean return interval wind speed for the
purposes of determining deflection limits defined in the International Building Code
(IBC):

Load combination for service deflection check: 1.0D + 0.42Wa

Portion of axial load applied with a horizontal eccentricity:

Pa = 1.0(2.8 kips) = 2.8 kips

Total axial load at midheight:

Ps = 2.8 kips + 1.0(13 kips) = 15.8 kips

Out-of-plane wind on design strip and supported tributary width:

wu = 0.42(30 psf)(2.25’ + 8’/2) = 0.079 kip/ft

Moment at mid-height of design strip due to service-level lateral and eccentric

vertical loads, not including P-∆ effects:

𝑤𝑠 𝑙𝑐 2 𝑃𝑎 𝑒𝑐𝑐
𝑀𝑠𝑎 = +
8 2

(0.079)(33.67)2 (2.8)(3"/12)
𝑀𝑠𝑎 = + = 11.54 𝑘𝑖𝑝 − 𝑓𝑡
8 2

Keep in mind that per ACI 318-19 Section 11.8.4.2, the maximum moment Ma at midheight
of wall due to service lateral and eccentric vertical loads, including P s∆s effects,
is:

𝑀𝑎 = 𝑀𝑠𝑎 + 𝑃𝑠 ∆𝑠

VIII. ITERATION OF DEFLECTION

We now refer to ACI 318-19 Table 11.8.4.1 for the applicable calculation of the out-
of-plane deflection due to service loads, ∆s.

→ Is Ma ≤ (2/3)Mcr?

To answer this question, as a starting trial value we will assume that the
previously calculated value of Msa is representative of the Ma value. With that in
mind:

𝑀𝑎,𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 = 11.54 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 > 2⁄3 × 13.62 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 = 9.08 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡

Page 5
 (𝑀𝑎 − (2/3)𝑀𝑐𝑟 )
∴ 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝 ∆𝑠 = (2/3)∆𝑐𝑟 + × (∆𝑛 − (2/3∆𝑐𝑟 ))
(𝑀𝑛 − (2/3)𝑀𝑐𝑟 )

5𝑀𝑐𝑟 𝑙𝑐 2 5 × 13.62 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 × 12 × 404"2

∆𝑐𝑟 = = = 0.511"
48𝐸𝑐 𝐼𝑔 48 × 3,605 × 1⁄12 × 27" × 8.75"3

Msa and ∆cr are constants. But we also need Mn and Icr - both of which are required
for the ∆n calculation - and both of which are strength level attributes. As such,
for each service load combination we are checking (only one in this example), the
“corresponding” strength load combination must be used to get a portion of the
information necessary for calculation of service load deflection.

The strength load combination that corresponds to the service load combination we
are checking in this example is as follows:

Corresponding Strength Load

Service Load Combination Basic Form
Combination Basic Form
1.0D + 0.5L + Wa (R11.8.4.1) 1.2D + 1.0L + 1.0W (5.3.1d)

Calculate Mn and Icr.

𝑃𝑢 ℎ/2 1.2 × (2.8 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 + 13 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠) 8.75"/2

𝐴𝑠𝑒 = 𝐴𝑠 + ( ) = 1.25 + ( )( ) = 1.436 𝑖𝑛2
𝑓𝑦 𝑑 60 𝑘𝑠𝑖 7.44"

𝐴𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑦 1.436 𝑖𝑛2 × 60 𝑘𝑠𝑖

𝑎= = = 0.939"
0.85𝑓 ′ 𝑐 𝑏 . 85 × 4 𝑘𝑠𝑖 × 27"

𝑐 = 𝑎 ⁄𝛽1 = 1.105"

𝑎 0.939"
𝑀𝑛 = 𝐴𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑦 (𝑑 − ) = 1.436 𝑖𝑛2 × 60 𝑘𝑠𝑖 × (7.44" − ) = 50 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡
2 2

𝐸𝑠 2
𝑙𝑤 𝑐 3 29,000 2
27 × 1.1053
𝐼𝑐𝑟 = (𝐴𝑠𝑒 )(𝑑 − 𝑐 ) + = × 1.436 × (7.44 − 1.105) +
𝐸𝑐 3 3,605 3

𝐼𝑐𝑟 = 475.5 𝑖𝑛4

5𝑀𝑛 𝑙𝑐 2 5 × 50 × 12 × 4042
∆𝑛 = = = 5.95"
48𝐸𝑐 𝐼𝑐𝑟 48 × 3605 × 475.5

Iteration #1
(𝑀𝑎 − (2/3)𝑀𝑐𝑟 )
∆𝑠 = (2/3)∆𝑐𝑟 + × (∆𝑛 − (2/3∆𝑐𝑟 ))
(𝑀𝑛 − (2/3)𝑀𝑐𝑟 )
(𝟏𝟏. 𝟓𝟒 − (2/3)13.62)
∆𝑠 = (2/3)(0.511) + × (5.95 − (2/3 × 0.511)) = 0.678"
(50 − (2/3)13.62)
0.678"
𝑀𝑎 = 𝑀𝑠𝑎 + 𝑃𝑠 ∆𝑠 → 11.54 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 + 15.8 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 × = 𝟏𝟐. 𝟒𝟑 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡
12
𝟏𝟏. 𝟓𝟒 ≠ 𝟏𝟐. 𝟒𝟑 ∴ 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑑.

𝟏𝟐. 𝟒𝟑 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 ↓

Page 6
 Iteration #2
(𝟏𝟐. 𝟒𝟑 − (2⁄3) 13.62)
∆𝑠 = (2/3)(0.511) + × (5.95 − (2/3 × 0.511)) = 0.800"
(50 − (2⁄3)13.62)

0.800"
𝑀𝑎 = 𝑀𝑠𝑎 + 𝑃𝑠 ∆𝑠 → 11.54 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 + 15.8 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 × = 𝟏𝟐. 𝟓𝟗 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡
12

𝟏𝟐. 𝟒𝟑 ≠ 𝟏𝟐. 𝟓𝟗 ∴ 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑑.

𝟏𝟐. 𝟓𝟗 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 ↓

Iteration #3
(𝟏𝟐. 𝟓𝟗 − (2⁄3)13.62)
∆𝑠 = (2/3)(0.511) + × (5.95 − (2/3 × 0.511)) = 0.822"
(50 − (2⁄3)13.62)
0.822"
𝑀𝑎 = 𝑀𝑠𝑎 + 𝑃𝑠 ∆𝑠 → 11.54 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 + 15.8 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 × = 𝟏𝟐. 𝟔𝟐 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡
12

𝟏𝟐. 𝟓𝟗 ≈ 𝟏𝟐. 𝟔𝟐 ∴ 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑑.

SERVICE LEVEL RESULTS

𝑀𝑎 = 12.62 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 > 9.08 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 ∴ 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑂𝐾
∆𝑠 = 0.822" < lc ⁄150 =2.69" per ACI 318-19 Section 11.8.1.1(e) ∴ 𝑂𝐾

IX. SELECT VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT

We have confirmed that both strength and deflection are satisfactory. The following
reinforcement options, then, are acceptable:

REINFORCEMENT OPTIONS (ANALYZED AT 60 KSI YIELD STRENGTH)

Number of wires Wire Size to provide As = 1.25 in2

5 D25.0

6 D20.9

7 D17.9

Now let’s assume that a “value-add” alternative is proposed wherein the originally
specified 60 ksi reinforcement is to be replaced with 80 ksi wires, but with the
cross-sectional area of steel reduced proportionally.

(𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑦 ) = (𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑦 )𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡

𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙

(1.25 × 60)𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 = (𝐴𝑠 × 80)𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡

𝐴𝑠,𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 0.938 𝑖𝑛2 → 𝑠𝑜 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒 (5) 𝐷18.8 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑢 𝑜𝑓 (5) 𝐷25.0.

How does this impact the original design?

Page 7
III. APPLIED LOADING
<UNCHANGED>
Pua = 1.2(2.8 kips) + 0.5(3.4 kips) = 5.1 kips

Pum = 5.1 kips + 1.2(13 kips) = 20.7 kips

wu = 1.0(20 psf)(2.25’ + 8’/2) = 0.125 kip/ft

(0.125)(33.67)2 (5.1)(3"/12)
𝑀𝑢𝑎 = + = 18.36 𝑘𝑖𝑝 − 𝑓𝑡
8 2

IV. TRIAL REINFORCEMENT AND INITIAL CHECKS

Assume a vertical steel reinforcement area A s = 0.938 in2.

Check #1: Minimum vertical reinforcement (ACI 318-19 Table 11.6.1)

𝐴𝑠 0.938
𝜌𝑙 = = = 0.0037 > 0.0010 𝐴𝐶𝐼 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚
𝑏𝑡 27" × 9.5"
Check #2: ACI Prescriptive spacing

<UNCHANGED>

𝑂𝐾!

Check #3: Maximum axial stress at midheight, ACI 318-19 Section 11.8.1.1(d)

<UNCHANGED>

𝑂𝐾!

Check #4: confirm tension-controlled behavior for out-of-plane moment effect, ACI
318-19 Section 11.8.1.1(b)

Maintain use of d = 7.44”.

Effective area of longitudinal reinforcement, A se,w (ACI 318-19 Section R11.8.3.1):

𝑃𝑢𝑚 ℎ/2 20.7 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 8.75"/2

𝐴𝑠𝑒,𝑤 = 𝐴𝑠 + ( ) = .938 + ( ) = 1.09 𝑖𝑛2
𝑓𝑦 𝑑 80 𝑘𝑠𝑖 7.44"

𝐴𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑦 1.09 𝑖𝑛2 × 80 𝑘𝑠𝑖

𝑎= = = 0.949"
0.85𝑓 ′ 𝑐 𝑏 . 85 × 4 𝑘𝑠𝑖 × 27"

𝑐 = 𝑎 ⁄𝛽1 = 1.116"
0.003𝛽1 𝑑 . 003 × 0.85 × 7.44"
𝜀𝑠 = − 0.003 = − 0.003 = 0.017 𝑖𝑛/𝑖𝑛 ≫ 𝜀𝑡𝑦 + 0.003 = 0.0051 𝑖𝑛/𝑖𝑛
𝑎 0.949
∴ 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑠 𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑. 𝜑 = 0.90.

Page 8
 V. CHECK DESIGN MOMENT STRENGTH (φMn) ≥ CRACKING MOMENT (Mcr) AS REQUIRED BY
ACI 318.19 SECTION 11.8.1.1(C)
𝑎 0.949"
𝜑𝑀𝑛 = 𝜑𝐴𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑦 (𝑑 − ) = 0.9 × 1.09 𝑖𝑛2 × 80 𝑘𝑠𝑖 × (7.44" − ) = 45.6 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡
2 2
Note that the design moment strength is unchanged (slight rounding disparity not
withstanding). This only makes sense as the tensile force product Asfy is unchanged.
𝑀𝑐𝑟 = 13.62 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 <UNCHANGED>
∴ 𝜑𝑀𝑛 > 𝑀𝑐𝑟

VI. CHECK DESIGN MOMENT STRENGTH (φMn) ≥ MAXIMUM FACTORED MOMENT (Mu) AS REQUIRED BY
ACI 318.19 SECTION 11.5.1.1(b)

𝜑𝑀𝑛 = 45.6 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

Mu by direct calculation using ACI 318-19 Section 11.8.3.1(b):

𝑀𝑢𝑎
𝑀𝑢 =
5𝑃𝑢 𝑙𝑐 2
(1 − )
0.75 × 48𝐸𝑐 𝐼𝑐𝑟

Mua = 27.3 kip-ft from Step III. <UNCHANGED>

Pu = Pum = 20.7 kips from Step III. <UNCHANGED>

𝑙 c = 33.67 ft = 404 inches from Step I. <UNCHANGED>

𝐸𝑐 = 57,000 × √𝑓′𝑐 = 3,605 𝑘𝑠𝑖 per ACI 318-19 Section 19.2.2.1(b) <UNCHANGED>

𝐸𝑠 𝑙𝑤 𝑐 3 29,000 27 × 1.1163
𝐼𝑐𝑟 = (𝐴𝑠𝑒,𝑤 )(𝑑 − 𝑐 )2 + = × 1.09 × (7.44 − 1.116)2 +
𝐸𝑐 3 3,605 3
𝐼𝑐𝑟 = 363.2 𝑖𝑛4 ← 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒓𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏.

∴ 𝑀𝑢 = 42.5 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡

Notice the increase in the flexural demand. This is because, despite utilizing an
“equal strength” of reinforcement, the reduced cross-sectional area of reinforcing
steel reduces the cracked section moment of inertia. A reduced moment of inertia
corresponds to an increase in the out-of-plane deflection of the wall, which in turn
results in an increase in the P-∆ effect that serves to magnify the flexural demand.
The demand-to-capacity ratio of the design strip is still satisfactory in this
example, but the increase in demand (roughly 13%) is not negligible and must always
be checked in a scenario where an “equal strength” alternative consisting of a lesser
steel area is being considered for use.

STRENGTH CHECK RESULTS

𝜑𝑀𝑛 = 45.6 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 > 𝑀𝑢 = 42.5 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡

Page 9
VII.APPLIED LOADING

<UNCHANGED>

Portion of axial load applied with a horizontal eccentricity:

Pa = 1.0(2.8 kips) = 2.8 kips

Total axial load at midheight:

Ps = 2.8 kips + 1.0(13 kips) = 15.8 kips

Out-of-plane wind on design strip and supported tributary width:

wu = 0.42(30 psf)(2.25’ + 8’/2) = 0.079 kip/ft

Moment at mid-height of design strip due to service-level lateral and eccentric

vertical loads, not including P-∆ effects:

(0.079)(33.67)2 (2.8)(3"/12)
𝑀𝑠𝑎 = + = 11.54 𝑘𝑖𝑝 − 𝑓𝑡
8 2

𝑀𝑎 = 𝑀𝑠𝑎 + 𝑃𝑠 ∆𝑠

VIII. ITERATION OF DEFLECTION

We now refer to ACI 318-19 Table 11.8.4.1 for the applicable calculation of the out-
of-plane deflection due to service loads, ∆s.

→ Is Ma ≤ (2/3)Mcr?

To answer this question, as a starting trial value we will assume that the
previously calculated value of Msa is representative of the Ma value. With that in
mind:

𝑀𝑎,𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 = 11.54 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 > 2⁄3 × 13.62 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 = 9.08 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 <UNCHANGED>

(𝑀𝑎 − (2/3)𝑀𝑐𝑟 )
∴ 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝 ∆𝑠 = (2/3)∆𝑐𝑟 + × (∆𝑛 − (2/3∆𝑐𝑟 ))
(𝑀𝑛 − (2/3)𝑀𝑐𝑟 )

∆𝑐𝑟 = 0.511" <UNCHANGED>

Calculate Mn and Icr.

𝑃𝑢 ℎ/2 1.2 × (2.8 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 + 13 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠) 8.75"/2

𝐴𝑠𝑒 = 𝐴𝑠 + ( ) = 0.938 + ( )( ) = 1.077 𝑖𝑛2
𝑓𝑦 𝑑 80 𝑘𝑠𝑖 7.44"

𝐴𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑦 1.077 𝑖𝑛2 × 80 𝑘𝑠𝑖

𝑎= = = 0.939"
0.85𝑓 ′ 𝑐 𝑏 . 85 × 4 𝑘𝑠𝑖 × 27"

Page 10
 𝑐 = 𝑎 ⁄𝛽1 = 1.105"

𝑎 0.939"
𝑀𝑛 = 𝐴𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑦 (𝑑 − ) = 1.077 𝑖𝑛2 × 80 𝑘𝑠𝑖 × (7.44" − ) = 50 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡
2 2

Note that Mn is unchanged.

𝐸𝑠 2
𝑙𝑤 𝑐 3 29,000 2
27 × 1.1053
𝐼𝑐𝑟 = ( )( )
𝐴𝑠𝑒 𝑑 − 𝑐 + = ( )
× 1.077 × 7.44 − 1.105 +
𝐸𝑐 3 3,605 3

𝐼𝑐𝑟 = 359.8 𝑖𝑛4 ← 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒓𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏.

5𝑀𝑛 𝑙𝑐 2 5 × 50 × 12 × 4042
∆𝑛 = = = 7.86"
48𝐸𝑐 𝐼𝑐𝑟 48 × 3605 × 359.8

Iteration #1

(𝑀𝑎 − (2/3)𝑀𝑐𝑟 )
∆𝑠 = (2/3)∆𝑐𝑟 + × (∆𝑛 − (2/3∆𝑐𝑟 ))
(𝑀𝑛 − (2/3)𝑀𝑐𝑟 )

(𝟏𝟏. 𝟓𝟒 − (2⁄3)13.62)
∆𝑠 = (2/3)(0.511) + × (7.86 − (2/3 × 0.511)) = 0.793"
(50 − (2⁄3)13.62)
0.793"
𝑀𝑎 = 𝑀𝑠𝑎 + 𝑃𝑠 ∆𝑠 → 11.54 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 + 15.8 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 × = 𝟏𝟐. 𝟓𝟖 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡
12

𝟏𝟏. 𝟓𝟒 ≠ 𝟏𝟐. 𝟓𝟖 ∴ 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑑.

𝟏𝟐. 𝟓𝟖 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 ↓

Iteration #2

(𝟏𝟐. 𝟓𝟖 − (2⁄3)13.62)
∆𝑠 = (2/3)(0.511) + × (7.86 − (2/3 × 0.511)) = 0.984"
(50 − (2⁄3)13.62)

0.984"
𝑀𝑎 = 𝑀𝑠𝑎 + 𝑃𝑠 ∆𝑠 → 11.54 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 + 15.8 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 × = 𝟏𝟐. 𝟖𝟒 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡
12

𝟏𝟐. 𝟓𝟖 ≠ 𝟏𝟐. 𝟖𝟒 ∴ 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑑.

𝟏𝟐. 𝟖𝟒 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 ↓

Iteration #3

(𝟏𝟐. 𝟖𝟒 − (2⁄3)13.62)
∆𝑠 = (2/3)(0.511) + × (7.86 − (2/3 × 0.511)) = 1.032"
(50 − (2⁄3)13.62)
1.032"
𝑀𝑎 = 𝑀𝑠𝑎 + 𝑃𝑠 ∆𝑠 → 11.54 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 + 15.8 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 × = 𝟏𝟐. 𝟗𝟎 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡
12

𝟏𝟐. 𝟖𝟒 ≠ 𝟏𝟐. 𝟗𝟎 ∴ 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑑.

𝟏𝟐. 𝟗𝟎 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 ↓

Page 11
Iteration #4

(𝟏𝟐. 𝟗𝟎 − (2⁄3)13.62)
∆𝑠 = (2/3)(0.511) + × (7.86 − (2/3 × 0.511)) = 1.043"
(50 − (2⁄3)13.62)
1.043"
𝑀𝑎 = 𝑀𝑠𝑎 + 𝑃𝑠 ∆𝑠 → 11.54 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 + 15.8 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 × = 𝟏𝟐. 𝟗𝟏 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡
12

𝟏𝟐. 𝟗𝟎 ≈ 𝟏𝟐. 𝟗𝟏 ∴ 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑑.

SERVICE LEVEL RESULTS

𝑀𝑎 = 12.91 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 > 9.08 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑡 ∴ 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑂𝐾
∆𝑠 = 1.043" < lc ⁄150 =2.69" per ACI 318-19 Section 11.8.1.1(e) ∴ 𝑂𝐾

While the resulting service-level deflection still falls within the acceptable range
per ACI, it is noteworthy that it has increased approximately 27% simply as a
consequence of utilizing a lesser area of higher yield strength reinforcement.

It is important to point out that this behavior is not unique to welded wire
reinforcement. It is applicable to all mild steel reinforcement – including rebar – as
it is based on a characteristic stiffness derived from the composite interaction of
hardened concrete and the cross-sectional area of tensile steel embedded therein.

Due to the prevalence of 80 ksi WWR in the marketplace and its natural fit for use as
reinforcement in tilt-up wall panels, designs should be based on the use of 80 ksi
material from the start of the project, with cross-sectional steel areas established to
satisfy strength and serviceability requirements. This effectively precludes any
potential deflection and/or demand compatibility issues that might arise downstream in
the event that a substitution is considered.

EXAMPLE SUMMARY

ATTRIBUTE ORIGINAL DESIGN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN

Steel Yield Strength 60 ksi 80 ksi
Steel Area in Analysis 1.25 in2 0.938 in2

Asfy 75 kips 75 kips

Reinforcement Selected (5) D25.0 (5) D18.8

φMn 45.5 kip-ft 45.6 kip-ft

Mu (w/ P-∆ effect) 37.5 kip-ft 42.5 kip-ft (13% increase)

Strength Utilization Ratio 0.824 < 1.0 OK 0.932 < 1.0 OK

Icr 475.5 in4 359.8 in4 (24% decrease)

∆s 0.822” 1.043” (27% increase)

% of “Allowable” Deflection 31% 39%

For more information on WWR, refer to www.wirereinforcementinstitute.org.

Page 12