Design and Analysis of Walls Coupled by Floor Diaphragms: I U S S

I.U.S.S.
Istituto Universitario
Universit degli Studi
di Studi Superiori di Pavia
di Pavia
EUROPEAN SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN

REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK
ROSE SCHOOL
Design and Analysis of Walls Coupled by Floor

Diaphragms
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
By
Katrin Beyer
Supervisors: Prof. M.J. N. PRIESTLEY, Prof. G. M. CALVI, Dr. R. PINHO
October, 2005
The dissertation entitled Design and Analysis of Walls Coupled by Floor

Diaphragms, by Katrin Beyer, has been approved as partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.
M.J.N. Priestley
G.M. Calvi
R. Pinho
ABSTRACT
An eight storey RC coupled wall structure with two walls of different length which are coupled by floor
diaphragms with in-plane stiffness only is designed for a drift limit of 2% using the direct displacement
based design approach. The design is verified by non-linear time history analysis with five artificial
accelerograms which in average match the design spectrum for 5% damping with a spectral displacement
of 0.6m at a corner period of 4s. For the numerical analyses the element program RUAUMOKO [3]
was used. The analysis results agree very well with the design displacement and drift profiles. The structure
is designed and analysed assuming a rigid foundation but the effect of foundation flexibility on the
behaviour of the coupled wall system is also briefly investigated.
Since yield displacement is inversely proportional to the wall length and since the longer wall is also the
stronger one the longer wall will start yielding before the short wall. After onset of yielding in the long
wall the displacement profile of corresponding de-coupled walls will differ. The floor diaphragms
connecting the walls enforce a compatibility condition onto the displacement profiles of the walls and lead
to an increase in base shear demand on the short wall. This was first recognized by Rutenberg and his coworkers who described the mechanism behind the compatibility forces in several papers ([25] to [28]). It is
shown that the coupling effect is largely dependent on the location of the resultant lateral force with
respect to the lower floor diaphragms which transfer the greatest coupling forces. In addition it was found
that coupling can also cause a reduction in dynamic amplification of shear forces and bending moments in
the short wall.
In this study the effect of different modelling assumptions (hysteretic behaviour of walls, flexibility of
floor diaphragms, shear stiffness of walls, modelling of plasticity in structural walls) on the analysis results
(displacement, drift, shear and bending moment demand) is investigated. It is found that common
modelling with rigid floors, unrealistic high shear stiffness of walls and lumped plasticity might
overestimate the base shear demand on the short wall. The greatest effect is attributed to the assumptions
of lumped plasticity which leads to a locking-in of compatibility forces transmitted by the floor
diaphragms. This can be accounted for by using a fibre element model when determining the base shear
forces on the walls by means of a force-controlled pushover analysis as suggested by Rutenberg [28]. In
this case the dynamic amplification factor should be determined according to the Intensity based
method which links the amplification factor to effective period and the displacement ductility rather than
the traditional method which relates the amplification factor solely to the number of storeys and which
tends to underestimate the system shear demand.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To Prof. Priestley, Prof. Calvi and Dr. Pinho I express my grateful thanks for supervising and encouraging
this work. Their helpful comments and suggestions significantly contributed to improve the work and my
understanding of the subject. I would also like to thank Prof. Restrepo who initiated the project during the
course Seismic Design of RC Structures which he taught in September 2004 at the Roseschool.
My thanks also go to my friends with whom I started the Master Program: Christos Baltas, for company
through highs and lows of all courses and the little spare time left, Angelos Floros, for his cheerful
character which guarantees high spirits whenever he is around, and Agustin Castro, whose perfect
German language skills allowed me frequent conversations in the language which remains most familiar to
me. I would like to extend my thanks to all students at the Roseschool for their friendship and company
during my time in Pavia.
Finally, I would like to give thanks to my mum and dad and my sisters, Anne and Judith. Although we
currently spend little more than a few days a year together I am sincerely thankful for their support and
the strength they have given me throughout my studies.
ii
iii
CONTENT
ABSTRACT I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
II
CONTENT
IV
LIST OF FIGURES
VII
LIST OF TABLES
XI
NOTATION
XII
INTRODUCTION
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
DESIGN OF COUPLED WALLS
3.1
DDBD Method for Coupled Walls
3.2
Literature Review on Base Shear Demand of Coupled Walls
10
3.3
Design Shear and Bending Moments of Coupled Walls
15
3.3.1 Different proposals for the dynamic amplification factors and shear force
distribution over height
15
3.3.2 Design base shears when treated as de-coupled walls
18
3.3.3 Design base shears when treated as coupled walls as suggested by Rutenberg
[25]
19
3.4
3.5
4
3.3.4 Summary of Design Shear Forces and Design Moments
21
Flexible Foundation
23
3.4.1 Dimensioning of Foundation
23
3.4.2 Dynamic Properties of Soil Foundation
24
3.4.3 Flexibility of Foundation Structure
26
3.4.4 Foundation Flexibility in DDBD
28
Summary of Chapter 3
29
ANALYSIS OF COUPLED WALL SYSTEMS
30
4.1
30
General Modelling Assumptions
iv
4.2
Description of the Numerical Model of the coupled wall system
31
4.3
Pushover Analysis of De-coupled and Coupled Walls
31
4.3.1 Different Approaches of Pushover Analysis
31
4.3.2 Pushover Analysis of De-coupled Walls
33
4.3.3 Pushover Analysis of Walls coupled with rigid floors
34
Non-linear Time-History Analysis
38
4.4.1 Time-History Inputs
38
4.4.2 Results from Time History Analysis of coupled Walls
39
4.4
4.4.3 Comparison of Time History Results of De-coupled Walls to Coupled Walls 43

4.4.4 Time History Analysis of the Coupled Wall System with flexible foundation 46
4.5
5
49
BASE SHEAR FORCES IN COUPLED WALLS AND THEIR SENSITIVITY TO

MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS
50
5.1
Rigid and Flexible Lateral Connection of Coupled Walls
51
5.1.1 In-plane Flexibility of Slab spanning between the two Walls
51
5.1.2 Pushover Analysis of Walls coupled with flexible floor diaphragm
52
5.1.3 Non-linear time history Analysis of Walls coupled with flexible floor diaphragm56
5.2
Shear Stiffness of Structural Walls
60
5.2.1 Shear Stiffness and Capacity of Wall Sections subjected to high Shear Force
Levels 60
5.2.2 Comparison of Pushover Analyses for different Assumptions on Shear
Stiffness of Wall Sections
64
5.2.3 Comparison of Non-linear time history analysis for different Assumptions on
Shear Stiffness of Wall Sections
70
5.3
5.2.4 Model with Shear Flexibility and Floor Diaphragm Flexibility
73
Lumped Plasticity Model vs. Fibre Element Model
75
5.3.1 Lumped Plasticity Model in Ruaumoko
75
5.3.2 Fibre Element Model
76
5.3.3 Pushover Results for the Fibre Element Model and the Lumped Plasticity
Model 78
5.3.4 Non-linear time-history analysis
82
90
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
92
6.1
Summary of Design
92
6.2
Summary of Sensitivity Studies
93
5.4
6
6.3 Conclusions and Recommendations for Design and Analysis of Walls coupled by
Floor Diaphragms
96
7
REFERENCES
99
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 8-storey coupled wall structure: Elevation and plan view....................................................................3
Figure 3.1 Two storey system of coupled walls: (a) properties and loading, (b) floor forces and deflected
shapes after formation of a plastic hinge at the base of the long wall [28]...............................................11
Figure 3.2 Bi-linear hysteresis rule and modified Takeda hysteresis rule ...........................................................13
Figure 3.3 Cyclic static analysis for rigidly coupled walls which hystretic behaviour is modelled with the
modififed Takeday rule: Base shear, base moment and top displacement (thin lines in base shear plot:
maximum base shear forces predicted by equation (3.21)) .........................................................................14
Figure 3.4 Cyclic static analysis for rigidly coupled walls which hystretic behaviour is modelled with the bilinear rule: Base shear, base moment and top displacement (thin lines in base shear plot: maximum
base shear forces predicted by equation (3.21)) ............................................................................................15
Figure 3.5 Force-controlled pushover analyses with resultant forces at h=5.1m (Intensity based method)
and h=10.5m (Traditional method).................................................................................................................21
Figure 3.6 Design bending moment envelopes ......................................................................................................22
Figure 3.7 Design shear forces when walls are designed as-coupled walls as suggested by Rutenberg
(Coupled) and as de-coupled walls (De-coupled) .................................................................................22
Figure 3.8 Coupled wall structure with flexible foundation .................................................................................23
Figure 3.9 Scheme of analytical model with flexible foundation.........................................................................28
Figure 4.1 Adaptive pushover analysis of single walls: Base shear top displacement and base moment
top Displacement ...............................................................................................................................................33
Figure 4.2 Adaptive pushover analysis of rigidly coupled walls: Base moment top displacement and base
shear top displacement relationship with the instants of formation of a plastic hinge .......................35
Figure 4.3 Adaptive pushover analysis of rigidly coupled walls: Shear forces in walls at formation of plastic
hinge in Wall 1 and Wall 2 ................................................................................................................................35
Figure 4.4 Adaptive pushover analysis for rigidly coupled walls: Floor diaphragm forces at formation of
plastic hinge in Wall 1 and Wall 2....................................................................................................................36
Figure 4.5 Base shear force as a function of the height of the resultant lateral force: absolute and
normalised to the maximum base shear of a de-coupled cantilever wall ..................................................37
Figure 4.6 Sketch of coupled wall system after yielding of long wall with the lateral force resultant at
height h and the largest storey force at the first level...................................................................................38
Figure 4.7 Displacement spectra for 5% damping.................................................................................................39
Figure 4.8 Rigidly coupled walls: Displacement envelope from time history analysis (thin black lines:
results from time history analyses, thick blue line: average of five analyses, thick grey line: design
profile)..................................................................................................................................................................41
vii
Figure 4.9 Rigidly coupled walls: Drift envelope from time history analysis (thin black lines: results from
time history analyses, thick blue line: average of five analyses, thick grey line: maximum design drift)
...............................................................................................................................................................................41
Figure 4.10 Rigidly coupled walls: Shear force and bending moment envelope from time history analysis
(thin black lines: results from time history analyses, thick blue line: average of five analyses, thick red
and green lines: design envelopes according to different methods, thick grey line: flexural capacity
assigned in analysis)............................................................................................................................................42
Figure 4.11 Rigidly coupled walls: Storey Force Envelope from time history analysis (thin black lines:
results from time history analyses, thick blue line: average of five analyses)............................................43
Figure 4.12 Comparison of coupled and de-coupled walls: Average displacement envelopes from time
history analysis ....................................................................................................................................................44
Figure 4.13 Comparison of coupled and de-coupled walls: Average drift envelope from time history
analysis .................................................................................................................................................................44
Figure 4.14 Comparison of coupled and de-coupled walls: Average shear force and bending moment
envelope from time history analysis ................................................................................................................45
Figure 4.15 Rigidly coupled walls with flexible foundation: Displacement envelope from time history
analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses of flexible foundation model, thick green
and blue lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: design displacement profile) ..........47
Figure 4.16 Rigidly coupled walls with flexible foundation: Drift envelope from time history analysis (thin
black lines: results from time history analyses of flexible foundation model, thick green and blue
lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: design displacement profile for flexible
foundation)..........................................................................................................................................................47
Figure 4.17 Rigidly coupled walls with flexible foundation: Shear force and bending moment envelope
from time history analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses of flexible foundation
model, thick blue and green lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey lines: flexural capacity
assigned in analysis)............................................................................................................................................48
Figure 4.18 Rigidly coupled walls with flexible foundation: Storey force envelope from time history
analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses of flexible foundation model, thick lines:
average of results of five analyses)...................................................................................................................48
Figure 5.1 Flexible floor model (finally masses were moved back onto walls) .................................................52
Figure 5.2 Adaptive pushover analysis of flexibly coupled walls: Wall base shear force top displacement
...............................................................................................................................................................................53
Figure 5.3 Adaptive pushover analysis of flexibly coupled walls: System base shear force top
displacement........................................................................................................................................................54
Figure 5.4 Adaptive pushover analysis of flexibly coupled walls: Base moment top displacement ...........54
Figure 5.5 Adaptive pushover analysis of flexibly coupled walls: Storey forces ...............................................55
Figure 5.6 Adaptive pushover analysis of flexibly coupled walls: Displacement and drift profile for top
displacement =0.30m ........................................................................................................................................55
Figure 5.7 Force-controlled pushover analysis of flexibly coupled walls: Wall base shear force top
displacement........................................................................................................................................................56
Figure 5.8 Rigidly and flexibly coupled walls: Displacement envelope from time history analysis (thin black
lines: results from time history analyses with flexible coupling, thick green and blue lines: average of
results of five analyses, thick grey line: design displacement profile) ........................................................58
Figure 5.9 Rigidly and flexibly coupled walls: Drift envelope from time history analysis (thin black lines:
results from time history analyses with flexible coupling, thick green and blue lines: average of results
of five analyses, thick grey line: maximum design drift) ..............................................................................58
viii
Figure 5.10 Rigidly and flexibly coupled walls: Shear force and bending moment envelope from time
history analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses with flexible coupling, thick green
and blue lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: flexural capacity assigned in analysis)
...............................................................................................................................................................................59
Figure 5.11 Rigidly and flexibly coupled walls: Storey force envelope from time history analysis (thin black
lines: results from time history analyses with flexible coupling, thick green and blue lines: average of
results of five analyses)......................................................................................................................................59
Figure 5.12 Variation of shear stiffness with displacement..................................................................................60
Figure 5.13 Schematics of the equivalent truss model using Williot principles ([10] after [11]).....................61
Figure 5.14 Shear stiffness after shear cracking: Dependence of shear stiffness on the angle of the
compression strut towards the wall axis .........................................................................................................62
Figure 5.15 Adaptive pushover analysis of coupled walls with different assumptions about shear stiffness:
Wall base ahear force top displacement......................................................................................................66
System base ahear force top displacement .................................................................................................66
Base moment top displacement of Wall 1 ..................................................................................................67
Storey forces........................................................................................................................................................67
Displacement and drift profile for top displacement =0.30m....................................................................68
Figure 5.20 Force-controlled pushover analysis of coupled walls with different assumptions about shear
stiffness: Wall base ahear force top displacement .....................................................................................70
Figure 5.21 Rigidly coupled walls with different assumptions about shear stiffness: Displacement envelope
from time history analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses with tri-linear shear
model, thick green and blue lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: design
displacement) ......................................................................................................................................................71
Figure 5.22 Rigidly coupled walls with different assumptions about shear stiffness: Drift envelope from
time history analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses with tri-linear shear model,
thick green and blue lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: maximum design drift)
...............................................................................................................................................................................72
Figure 5.23 Rigidly coupled walls with different assumptions about shear stiffness: Shear force and
bending moment envelope from time history analysis (thin black lines: results from time history
analyses with tri-linear shear model, thick green and blue lines: average of results of five analyses,
thick grey line: flexural capacity assigned in analysis)...................................................................................72
Figure 5.24 Rigidly coupled walls with different assumptions about shear stiffness: Storey force envelope
from time history analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses with tri-linear shear
model, thick green and blue lines: average of results of five analyses)......................................................73
Figure 5.25 Force-controlled pushover analysis of coupled walls with shear flexibility and floor diaphragm
flexibility: Wall base shear force top displacement....................................................................................74
Figure 5.26 Non-linear time history analysis of coupled walls with shear flexibility and floor diaphragm
flexibility: Shear force and bending moment envelope from time history analysis (thin black lines:
results from time history analyses with tri-linear shear model and flexible coupling, thick green and
blue lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: flexural capacity assigned in analysis)...74
Figure 5.27 Adaptive pushover analysis of de-coupled walls: Base shear top displacement and base
moment top displacement for fibre and element model (coloured line: fibre model, grey line:
element model) ...................................................................................................................................................77
ix
Figure 5.28 Cyclic displacement-controlled pushover analysis of de-coupled walls: Base shear top
displacement and base moment top displacement for fibre and element model (fibre element
model: coloured line, lumped plasticity model: grey line)............................................................................78
Figure 5.29 Adaptive pushover analysis of coupled walls: Base shear top displacement and base moment
top displacement for fibre and lumped plasticity model (coloured thick lines: fibre model of
coupled walls, coloured thin lines: fibre model of de-coupled walls, grey lines: element model).........80
Figure 5.30 Adaptive pushover analysis of coupled walls: System base shear top displacement for fibre
and lumped plasticity model.............................................................................................................................80
top displacement for fibre element model for de-coupled and rigidly and flexibly coupled walls
(solid thick lines: rigidly coupled walls, dashed thick lines: flexibly coupled walls, solid thin lines: decoupled wall ) ......................................................................................................................................................81
Figure 5.32 Force-controlled pushover analysis of coupled walls for fibre and lumped plasticity model:
Wall base ahear force top displacement......................................................................................................82
Figure 5.33 Time-history analysis of coupled walls subjected to Accelerogram 5: Comparison of top
displacement response of fibre element model and lumped plasticity model with no and 5% effective
damping ...............................................................................................................................................................85
Figure 5.34 Time-history analysis of coupled walls subjected to Accelerogram 5: Comparison of base shear
responses of fibre element model and lumped plasticity model with no and 5% effective damping ..85
Figure 5.35 Time-history analysis of coupled walls subjected to Accelerogram 5: Comparison of base
moment responses of fibre element model and lumped plasticity model with no and 5% effective
damping ...............................................................................................................................................................86
Figure 5.36 Fibre and lumped plasticity model of rigidly coupled walls: Displacement envelope from time
history analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses with fibre model, thick red, green
and blue lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: design displacement) .......................86
Figure 5.37 Fibre and lumped plasticity model of rigidly coupled walls: Drift envelope from time history
analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses with fibre model, thick red, green and
blue lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: maximum design drift) ...........................87
Figure 5.38 Fibre and lumped plasticity model of rigidly coupled walls: Shear force and bending moment
envelope from time history analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses with fibre
model, thick red, green and blue lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: flexural
capacity assigned in analysis) ............................................................................................................................87
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Properties of Wall 1, Wall 2 and coupled wall system ...........................................................................9
Table 3.2 Properties of Wall 1, Wall 2 and coupled wall system, continued .......................................................9
Table 3.3 Design base shear forces for the Traditional Method and the Intensity Based Method when
walls are designed as de-coupled walls............................................................................................................19
walls are designed as-coupled walls as suggested by Rutenberg.................................................................20
Table 4.1 Wall section properties..............................................................................................................................31
Table 4.2 Comparison analysis values of de-coupled walls to design values.....................................................33
Table 4.3 Rigidly coupled walls: Comparison of peak base shear forces of pushover and time-history
analyses.................................................................................................................................................................46
Table 5.1 Rigidly and flexibly coupled walls: Comparison of peak base shear forces of pushover and timehistory analyses ...................................................................................................................................................57
Table 5.2 Shear Stiffness and Capacity of the Structural Walls at different stages...........................................64
Table 5.3 Effect of shear deformation on displacement at top and first level (displacements are at instant
of formation of plastic hinges, i.e for Wall 1 at formation of plastic hinge in Wall 1 and for Wall 2 at
formation of plastic hinge in Wall 2)...............................................................................................................65
Table 5.4 Rigidly coupled walls with different assumptions about shear stiffness: Comparison of peak base
shear forces of pushover and time-history analyses (Pushover results are peak values for top
displacements 0.35m) .....................................................................................................................................71
Table 5.5 Fibre element model: Properties of walls ..............................................................................................76
Table 5.6 Yielding sequence in fibre model of de-coupled walls ........................................................................77
Table 5.7 Yielding sequence in fibre model of coupled walls ..............................................................................79
Table 5.8 Fibre and element model of coupled walls: Comparison of peak base shear forces of pushover
and time-history analyses (Pushover results are peak values for top displacements 0.475m) ...........84
Table 5.9 System base shear demand, dynamic effective height and dynamic amplification factor obtained
from non-linear time-history analysis of different models (average results from set of five
accelerograms) ....................................................................................................................................................91
xi
NOTATION
Ac
Gross concrete section of slab (effective width)
Agross
Gross area of wall
Ai
Energy absorbed per cycle
As
Shear area of wall
As
Reinforcement area
Half width of the foundation (B10m)
Db
Bar diameter of main longitudinal reinforcement
Ec
Concrete elastic modulus
EI1
Cracked wall stiffness
Es
Reinforcement elastic modulus
Fi , j
Lateral force on wall i at storey j
Shear modulus reduced for non-linear behaviour of soil
Gmax
Maximum shear modulus of soil
Md
Design base moment
Mn
Nominal base moment
Axial force on wall section
N base
Axial compression load at base of wall
S d ,
Spectral displacement at corner period for effective damping ratio
Tc
Corner period of displacement spectrum
xii
Teff
Effective period
Vb, s
Design system base shear
Vd
Base shear demand
Vd
Design base shear
Vi
Base shear corresponding to a SDOF system (i.e., Vi = M base / heff )
Vn
Nominal base shear
bw
Wall width
Effective depth of section (=lever arm between compression and tension resultant)
Effective depth of the wall section
fc '
Concrete strength
fy
Reinforcement yield strength
heff
Static effective height (excluding higher mode effects)
heff ,min
Minimum dynamic effective height (including higher mode effects)
hj
Height of storey j
hn
Total height of structure
lp
Plastic hinge length at wall base
lw
Wall length
l w1
Length of Wall 1
l w2
Length of Wall 2
meff
Effective mass
mj
Storey mass
Modular ratio, n = E s / Ec
Post-elastic stiffness ratio of the moment-curvature relationship at the wall base
xiii
rF
Post-elastic stiffness ratio of the base shear effective displacement relationship for wall i
Vertical spacing of horizontal wall reinforcement
vi
Base shear ratio of one wall
d ,i
Design displacement at effective height of wall i
d ,s
Design displacement of the coupled wall system
d ,s
System design displacement at the effective height
eff , y
Yield displacement at the effective height of a wall
i, y
Displacement of a single wall at storey j
j ,d
Design displacement of a wall at storey j
j, y
Yield displacement at storey j of a single wall
s, j
Displacement of coupled wall system at storey j
y ,i
Yield displacement of the de-coupled wall i
y,s
Yield displacement of the coupled wall system
Inclination of compression struts, angle measure towards member axis
Viscous elastic damping ratio of soil
s, y
Yield strain of main longitudinal reinforcement
Overstrength factor
Yield curvature of a single wall
,i
Displacement ductility of wall i
Poissons ratio of soil
Concrete Poissons ratio
Rotation at wall base
xiv
Design drift
Reinforcement ratio
Web reinforcement ratio, v = Av / s v bw
Dynamic amplification factor
eff ,i
Effective damping ratio of wall i
eff , s
Effective damping ratio of the coupled wall system
el ,i
Elastic viscous damping of wall i
hyst ,i
Hysteretic damping of wall i
xv
Chapter 1: Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
In many structures the lateral resistance in one horizontal direction is provided by several members. If
several types of members are used, or members of the same type but with different geometry the
displacement profile of de-coupled members will differ for all or some displacement magnitudes. The
floor diaphragms connecting the members enforce a compatibility condition onto the displacement
profiles of the members. The forces in the floor diaphragms and the resulting shear demand on the
structural members providing lateral load capacity are the main focus of this project.
In this study coupled walls of different lengths are considered only. The structures are reduced to 2D
problems where the wall plane and the direction of excitation lie within one plane. Direct displacement
based design (DDBD) methods are used to design an example of an eight storey coupled wall structure
where two walls of different length are coupled by slab diaphragms which are modelled as elements with
in-plane stiffness only. In the example the foundation is assumed as rigid but the effect of possible
foundation flexibility on the design of the walls is also briefly investigated.
The behaviour of the coupled wall system is studied by means of pushover analyses using the element
program RUAUMOKO [3] which models inelastic member deformation by the lumped plasticity
concept. The pushover analysis results are compared to results from non-linear time history using five
artificial accelerograms which in average match a spectrum based on a design spectrum defined by
Eurocode 8 [4].
After the initial analysis of a coupled wall model which was based on common modelling assumptions the
sensitivity of displacement and force quantities was tested by means of pushover analyses. The parameters
investigated are:
-
Hysteresis rule for structural walls
In-plane flexibility of slab
Shear stiffness of structural walls
Assumption of lumped plasticity
The aim of this project is not to carry out a large parametric study but to investigate consequences of
modelling assumptions on common output quantities of a pushover or non-linear time history analysis.
For this purpose an example of a coupled wall structure is chosen as described in detail in chapter 2. The
design and analysis of the structure are summarised in chapter 3 and 4. The sensitivity of the results to the
aforementioned modelling assumptions is studied in chapter 5. The project concludes with a summary of
the most important findings regarding the design and analysis of structures.
Chapter 2: Structural System
2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
An 8-storey building was chosen as an example which is used throughout this study. The lateral load
bearing capacity of the structure is provided by in total 8 structural walls at the perimeter of the slab. In xdirection 2 long and 2 shorter walls contribute to the capacity of the system; in y-direction the capacity is
provided by 4 walls with identical properties. Out-of plane stiffness of the structural walls and stiffness
provided by non-structural elements or gravity columns is neglected. Only the behaviour when loaded in
the x-direction will be considered in this study. Since the structure is symmetric regarding the x-axis only
half of the floor area with one long and one short wall is considered in the following. The centre lines of
the walls in x-direction are at a distance of 10m. The structure is symmetric regarding the x-axis and only
one long and one short wall will be modelled.
It is assumed that the centre of mass, the centre of stiffness and the centre of strength all coincide with
the geometric centre of the slab. The storey height is 3m, the total floor plan area is 25mx20m=500m, the
contributing horizontal floor mass per storey is estimated as 400t (i.e. 200t between one long and one
short wall).
Figure 2.1 shows a sketch of the coupled wall structure. The structural walls are assumed to have the
following typical material:
-
Concrete: f c ' = 30 MPa; E c = 25.7 GPa, c =0.25
Reinforcement (longitudinal and transverse): f y = 450 MPa; E s = 200GPa
Chapter 2: Structural System
hn
lw1
lw2
y
x
Figure 2.1 8-storey coupled wall structure: Elevation and plan view
columns
carrying gravity
load only
Chapter 3: Design of Coupled Walls
3 DESIGN OF COUPLED WALLS

In this chapter the design of the coupled wall structure is described and the flexibility of an example for a
foundation structure is investigated. For the design of the walls a displacement based design procedure as
described in [18] was adopted. The design procedure is extended to coupled walls as described in [19]. The
underlying assumptions of this method are summarised and discussed in section 3.1.
The design spectrum is also the same as described in [18], i.e. an EUROCODE 8 Spectrum for 0.4g PGA
and soil class B where the limit of the constant velocity range was extended from 2 to 4s. The design
spectrum is plotted in Figure 4.7 (section 4.4.1). For 5% viscous damping the spectral displacement at the
corner period is 0.60m. The walls were designed for a maximum storey drift of 2%. For the analysed
structure the drift limit proved to be more critical than the rotational capacity at the wall bases.
In section 3.2 the effect of coupling of walls of different lengths is described and a brief overview over the
work by Rutenberg and his co-workers on this topic is given. Different methods to derive design base
shear forces for the individual walls are outlined in section 3.3.
3.1
DDBD METHOD FOR COUPLED WALLS
In addition to the design assumptions of a single wall the design of a coupled wall system requires
assumptions about:
-
The displacement profile of the coupled wall system
The effective damping of the coupled wall system
The base moment distribution between the two walls is the designers choice.
The design profile of coupled walls is expected to be a combination of the displacement profile of the decoupled walls. In [19] it is suggested that the displacement profile of the coupled wall system could be
approximated as the profile of the longer wall. The longer wall is likely to be stronger and is hence
expected to control the deformation of the coupled wall system.
Three points should be considered if this recommendation is followed:
-
In many cases the design storey drift rather than the rotational capacity at the wall base will
govern the design. In this case, the design displacement of the single short wall will be smaller
than the design displacement of the single long wall. Assuming the profile of the coupled wall
system is a combination of the profiles of the two single walls approximating the coupled wall
profile by the profile of the long wall will yield in a slightly unconservative design.
If not only two but several walls are coupled together it might not be reasonable to assume that
the longest wall solely controls the displacement.
If the lateral connection between the walls is to a certain degree flexible the profiles of the two
walls will not be exactly the same.
4
A possible approach to account for these points is to weight the profiles of the single walls by the base
shear ratios when computing the system displacement profile:
s , j = vi i , j
(3.1)
s, j
displacement of coupled wall system at storey j
vi
base shear ratio of one wall
i, j
displacement of a single wall at storey j
The profiles of the single walls should have similar effective displacements. The design displacement and
the effective mass of the coupled wall system are then obtained as
d ,s =
m
m
j
2
s, j
s, j
meff =
m
j
s, j
d ,s
d ,s
design displacement of the coupled wall system
mj
storey mass
meff
effective mass of coupled wall system
(3.2)
The yield displacement of the coupled wall system is not directly required for the design. Based on a bilinear approximation of the force-displacement relationship of coupled walls it can be estimated as a
function of the yield displacements yi of the de-coupled walls and the base shear ratios carried by the
walls:
y ,s
v
= i

yi
(3.3)
y,s
yield displacement of the coupled wall system
y ,i
yield displacement of the de-coupled wall i
The system displacement ductility is obtained as usual as the ratio of design displacement and yield
displacement.
The yield displacement of a single wall is based on a linear curvature distribution:
hj
1
2
j , y = y h j 1
2
3hn
j, y
yield displacement at storey j of a single wall
yield curvature of a single wall
hj
height of storey j
hn
total height of structure
(3.4)
The effective height is determined from the design profile. This is different to the estimate of yield
displacement eff , y at the effective height used by Priestley and Amaris in [18]:
1
2
eff , y = y (0.7 hn )
3
(3.5)
Priestley and Amaris already noted that this estimate of yield displacement is unrealistically low and hence
the effective damping, which is a function of the displacement ductility of the wall element, tends to be
overestimated. The yield curvature of the wall sections is estimated as in [18]:
y =
2 sy
(3.6)
lw
sy
yield strain of main longitudinal reinforcement
lw
wall length
The maximum design displacement of a wall on a rigid foundation is determined by the design drift d
[18]:
hj
1
2
j ,d = y h j 1
2
3hn
1
+ d y hn h j p
2
2
j,d
design displacement of a wall at storey j
design drift
lp
plastic hinge length at wall base
(3.7)
The first term represents the deformation of the elastic wall, the second the rotation of a rigid body about
the idealised plastic hinge location at half the plastic hinge length above the wall base.
The effective damping of the coupled wall system is a function of the total energy absorbed during one
cycle and the kinetic energy stored in the system. The effective damping of the system can be expressed in
terms of the effective damping ratios of the walls.
The effective damping ratio eff ,i of a SDOF system is defined as
eff ,i =
Ai
100%
2Vi d ,i
Ai
energy absorbed per cycle
Vi
base shear corresponding to a SDOF system (i.e., Vi = M base / heff )
d ,i
design displacement at effective height of wall i
(3.8)
The effective damping ratio of the coupled wall system eff , s can hence be written as
eff , s =
d ,i
Ai
= eff ,i vi
2Vs d ,s
d ,s
(3.9)
Assuming that the design displacement of a wall is equal to the system design displacement this yield in
the equation given in [19]:
eff , s = vi eff ,i
(3.10)
The effective damping of a structural wall at the design displacement results from two sources: the
elastic viscous damping and the hysteretic damping. The term representing the hysteretic damping in
the following formula is exact for the modified Takeda model with parameters =0.5 and =0.0 (as used
in this study, section 4.2):
1 rF
1
+ rF ,i
eff ,i = el ,i + hyst ,i = * 0.05 + Max 0, 1

,i
eff ,i
effective damping of wall i
el,i
elastic viscous damping of wall i
hyst,i
hysteretic damping of wall i
rF
post-elastic stiffness ratio of the base shear effective displacement

relationship for wall i
,i
displacement ductility of wall i
(3.11)
In [22] Priestley and Grant reason that the elastic viscous damping term is best modelled by tangent
stiffness proportional damping. In most analyses some elastic viscous damping is introduced with the
intention to account for energy dissipation by the following mechanisms:
-
Hysteretic damping when the structural element is still elastic
Foundation damping
Non-structural damping
For all three sources a case for tangent stiffness proportional damping can be made [22]: Hysteretic
damping of structural elements in the inelastic range is modelled by the hysteresis rule and hence no
additional damping should be added during the inelastic response. Foundation damping is proportional to
the load increments induced by the structure onto the soil and therefore diminishes when the system has
passed its yield point. Stiffness and strength of non-structural elements tend to degrade rapidly with
increasing drift demand. Moreover, the contribution of non-structural elements to the overall lateral
strength is small, commonly less than 5%. This does not include masonry infills which should be modelled
by separate elements which account for the stiffness and damping characteristics of masonry infill panels.
DDBD is based on the secant stiffness and not on tangent stiffness. Hence, the elastic damping term
needs to be reduced as proposed by Priestley and Grant [22] to account for the difference in tangent and
secant stiffness at the design point. The reduction factor for the elastic damping term depends on the
displacement ductility and the post-elastic stiffness ratio rF :
= 1 0.095( 1)(1 rF )
(3.12)
The effective period Teff and base shear demand Vd are determined in the established way of the DDBD
approach:
Teff = Tc
d ,s
S d ,
2
Vd = meff d , s
T
eff
Tc
corner period of displacement spectrum
d ,s
system design displacement at effective height
S d ,
spectral displacement at corner period for effective damping ratio
meff
effective mass
(3.13)
The reduction of spectral displacement with effective damping can be calculated using the following
relationship:
S d , = S d ,5%
S d ,5%
2 + eff , s
(3.14)
spectral displacement at corner period for damping ratio of 5%
The base shear is distributed between the walls according to the chosen base shear ratios v1 and v2 and
over the height in proportion to the effective storey mass:
Fi , j = viVd
m j dj
m
j
Fi , j
(3.15)
dj
lateral force on wall i at storey j
For a storey mass of 200t a coupled wall system with walls of different lengths is designed (see section 2).
To meet the design requirement of a maximum drift of 2% the wall lengths have been chosen as 6.0m and
4.0m.
A principal design parameter is the distribution of base shear between the two walls. In this study the
design base shear was distributed between the two walls proportionally to lw 2 as recommended in [15].
Distributing the base shear proportional to the square of the wall lengths yields in similar reinforcement
ratios for the two walls (assuming similar axial load ratios). With wall lengths of 6.0m and 4.0m the base
shear ratios are taken as:
v1 =
v2 =
V1,base
Vs ,base
V2,base
Vs ,base
= 0.7
(3.16)
= 0.3
Table 3.1 Properties of Wall 1, Wall 2 and coupled wall system
bw
lw
hn / l w
Db
lp
heff
y ,eff
d ,eff
[m]
[m]
[-]
[mm]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[-]
[-]
Wall 1
0.20
6.0
4.0
20
1.92
(17.8)
0.089
0.269
3.02
9.78
Wall 2
0.20
4.0
6.0
20
1.52
(17.9)
0.134
0.269
2.02
6.52
17.8
0.099
0.269
2.72
Wall
Coupled Walls
Table 3.2 Properties of Wall 1, Wall 2 and coupled wall system, continued
rF
eff
Teff
Vd / Vb
[-]
[%]
[s]
[-]
Wall 1
0.01
16.3
Wall 2
0.01
12.9
Wall
Coupled
Walls
15.3
2.82
Vd
Md
Vn
Mn
N base
[kN] [kNm]
[kN]
[kNm]
[kN]
0.70
1080 19200
991
17600
900
0.30
462
8210
438
7780
750
1.00
1540 27400
1430
25400
bw
wall width
lw
wall length
Db
bar diameter of main longitudinal reinforcement
curvature ductility
Vd
design base shear (at design, i.e. ultimate displacement)
Vb
design system base shear
Md
design base moment
Vn
nominal base shear (at design, i.e. ultimate displacement)
Mn
nominal base moment
N base
axial compression load at base of wall
For comparison: assuming the long wall imposes the displacement on the short wall would have lead to a
total nominal base shear value of 1500kN compared to 1540kN which resulted from the design above.
This is a difference of 2.6% which can be regarded upon as negligible. Hence, if only two walls are
coupled it does not seem significant if the system displacement is approximated by the displacement of
the long wall or by the weighted sum of the profiles of the two single walls.
9
To simplify the study no section analysis was carried out but the post-yield stiffness ratio r of the
moment curvature relationship was assumed as 0.01. Based on the concepts for a simple cantilever the
post-yield stiffness ratio of the force displacement relationship can be derived:
Elastic Stiffness:
k el =
Vn
Mn
=
y heff eff , y
(3.17)
Post-elastic stiffness:
k pl =
r
dF
d
dM
H eff d
d * r * EI 1
r * EI 1
=
H eff * d * l p * heff l p * heff2
(3.18)
post-elastic stiffness ratio of the moment-curvature relationship at the wall

base
Post-elastic stiffness ratio:
rF =
EI1
k pl
k el
r * EI 1 * y
l p * heff * M n
r *y
l p * heff * y
(3.19)
cracked wall stiffness
For the long wall a post-elastic stiffness ratio rF of 0.035 results from the above equations. For the short
wall the ratio is slightly larger (0.044). Both values lie within the commonly expected range of 0.02-0.05.
The nominal moment was obtained from the design moment based on the curvature ductility and the
post-elastic stiffness ratio of the moment-curvature relationship:
= 1 +
3l p / hn (1 0.5l p / hn )
Mn =
3.2
Md
1 + r ( 1)
(3.20)
(3.21)
LITERATURE REVIEW ON BASE SHEAR DEMAND OF COUPLED WALLS
In 1999 Rutenberg and Leibovich [26] published pushover analysis results of coupled walls with different
length similar to those discussed in section 4.3.3. They noted that coupling of walls of different length will
lead to a redistribution of lateral forces among walls and that the shear forces transmitted through the
floor diaphragms might be quite large [26]. Paulay discusses the pushover analyses presented in this
paper [13] and notes that it is astonishing that immediately after general yielding, when the element with
the greatest resistance lost nearly all its strength, the other elements suddenly develop resistance several
times greater than the strength that has been assigned to them and which they are not expected to be able
to develop [13]. He also states that the unsteady response of the elements immediately after onset of
yielding () is incompatible with reality.
10
Rutenberg and Leibovich [27] derived analytical expressions for coupling forces between two walls of
unequal length where one wall is considerably stiffer than the other and the floor diaphragms are infinitely
rigid. The two storey case is shown in Figure 3.1. The deflected shape of the structure represents the state
after formation of the plastic hinge at the base of the long wall and before formation of the plastic hinge
at the base of the short wall. The storey forces are required to reach compatibility of any additional
displacement of the long and the short wall after formation of the plastic hinge at the base of the long
wall. If the walls would be de-coupled:
-
The long wall would rotate as a rigid body about the plastic hinge at the base.
The elastic deformation of the short wall would continue to increase.
The in-plane rigid floor diaphragms require that the displacements of the long and the short wall at the
storey levels are equal. The resulting storey forces for a point load at the top and infinite rigidity of the
long wall are shown in Figure 3.1. At this stage an increment of H of the external load at the top floor
reduces the shear force at the base of the long wall by 1.5 H and increases the base shear force of the
short wall by 2.5 H . The increase in base shear force in the shorter wall is caused by redistribution of the
moment increase in the lower storey from the long to the short wall after the long wall has yielded [28]. In
the upper storey the long wall is still elastic and is able to carry part of the incremental moment. The
moment transfer in the lower storey is accomplished by means of force couples through the floor
diaphragm [28]. This is the explanation for unsteady response of the base shear forces after formation of
the plastic hinge at the base of the long wall and the increased base shear demand on the short wall as
observed from the pushover analysis.
Figure 3.1 Two storey system of coupled walls: (a) properties and loading, (b) floor forces and deflected
shapes after formation of a plastic hinge at the base of the long wall [28]
Rutenberg suggested a design procedure on the basis of a cyclic static analysis to assess the base shear
demand in structural walls coupled by floor diaphragms. The procedure comprises the following steps:
-
The system base shear demand oVb , s is determined for a substitute structure with the
combined properties of the structural walls (combined stiffness and moment capacities). The
dynamic amplification factor is determined on the properties of this substitute structure.
Vb, s =
heff
M n ,i
heff
effective height as determined in Table 3.1
11
(3.22)
M n,i
-
nominal moment capacity of wall i
From the system base shear demand including dynamic amplification the minimum effective
height heff ,min is determined as
heff ,min =
-
heff
(3.23)
A cyclic static analysis with the resultant force at the height heff ,min is carried out and a maximum
base shear of oVb , s . The base shear demand on the walls obtained from the pushover analysis
are the design shear forces.
Rutenberg [28] also carried out inelastic time-history analyses of a 10-storey building which had been
previously studied by Paulay and Restrepo [15]. The structure comprises four walls of different length.
Rutenberg showed that the formula given in equation (3.24) accurately predicts the maximum base shear
demand on a wall in a coupled system if elastic-plastic material behaviour is assumed.
Rutenberg [28] suggests that it is not necessary to carry out a cyclic static analysis but that the peak base
shear forces can be estimated from a uni-directional pushover analysis (again with the resultant force
Vb, s at the height heff ,min ) as follows:
Vi ,max = 2 Viy Vity

Vi , j
base shear at yield of wall i
Vit , j
base shear at wall i when all walls have yielded
(3.24)
Although Rutenberg [28] did not explicitly state this it is believed that the above formula is based on
elasto-plastic behaviour of the plastic hinge and is not applicable to general hysteresis rules. The modified
Takeda rule with parameters =0.5 and =0.0 seems better suited to describe the behaviour of reinforced
concrete under seismic loading [17]. The two hysteresis rules are plotted in Figure 3.2. Both hysteresis
rules have bi-linear back bone curves but the stiffnesses during the unloading and reloading phases are
different. After yielding of the short wall the reloading stiffness of the long wall will be smaller than its
initial stiffness. Hence, the shear force demand on the long wall is less for the Takeda hysteresis rule than
the bi-linear hysteresis rule. The maximum base shear demand on the short wall is the same for both
hysteresis rule because it might occur in the first loading phase. Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4 show the results
of cyclic static analysis for the modified Takeda hysteresis rule and the bi-linear hysteresis rule respectively.
In the first cycle the walls remains elastic, in the second and third both walls yield at the base. The thin
green and blue lines show the base shear demand for Wall 1 and 2 as predicted by Rutenbergs formula.
Two years before Rutenberg published the design procedure for coupled walls [28] Rutenberg and
Leibovich [27] had carried out pushover analyses of an 8-storey building which had been previously
studied by Priestley and Kowalsky [20]. In the longitudinal direction of the building the stiffness is
provided by three members, one wall of 6m length and two walls of 3m length. Rutenberg and Leibovich
studied the model designing the members for two different strength distributions [27]. In the first model
2
3
the strength was distributed proportionally to lw , in the second model proportionally to lw . For the
model where strength is assigned proportionally to lw 2 the results show that after yielding of the long wall
the long wall looses almost its entire strength and the two short walls carry the entire base shear. The
pushover results for the model where strength is distributed according to lw 3 the base shear-displacement
plot suggests that the long and the short walls yield simultaneously; as a consequence there are no
compatibility forces between the walls and the pushover results are identical to those of de-coupled walls.
12
These results are doubted since independently of the strength distribution the long wall is expected to
yield before the short walls. In his latest paper on this subject, published in 2004, Rutenberg did not
follow up this argumentation [28].
In the conclusions of the latest paper on this topic Rutenberg [28] identifies the following aspects which
might reduce the shear demand on the shorter wall and which were not considered in the two numerical
examples included in the paper:
-
Formation of plastic hinges at other locations than the base
Rotation at foundation level, rocking of the foundation and yield penetration into the foundation
Shear deformation of the walls
Flexibility of floor diaphragms
Spread of plasticity
Hysteresis model
Comparison of results from pushover analyses where formation of plastic hinges at locations other than
the base have been allowed or hindered let Rutenberg conclude that plastic hinges at levels above the base
reduce the base shear demand on the short wall [28]. Rutenberg stated that a brief investigations showed
that shear flexibility of the walls and axial flexibility of the floor diaphragms lower the base shear demand
on the short wall but do not affect the system base shear demand [28]. In chapter 5 the influence of the
factors identified by Rutenberg on the base shear demand of the individual walls is studied. The effect of
the hysteresis rule on the base shear demand of the long wall has been looked at in this section. Adaptive
pushover analyses are used to test the sensitivity of the base shear forces to different modelling
assumptions. Non-linear time history analyses are carried out to check the conclusions drawn from
pushover analysis. The main aim of the sensitivity study is to estimate to which degree the coupling forces
depend on modelling assumptions, i.e. to which degree those forces and the resulting increase in base
shear demand on the short wall can be assumed as real.
Fmax
Fy
Fmax
Fy
rk0
k0
k0
max
max
Fy
Fy
(a) Bi-linear hysteresis rule
rk0
(b) Takeda hysteresis rule with =0.5 and =0.0
Figure 3.2 Bi-linear hysteresis rule and modified Takeda hysteresis rule
13
Figure 3.3 Cyclic static analysis for rigidly coupled walls which hystretic behaviour is modelled with the
modififed Takeday rule: Base shear, base moment and top displacement (thin lines in base shear plot:
maximum base shear forces predicted by equation (3.24))
14
Figure 3.4 Cyclic static analysis for rigidly coupled walls which hystretic behaviour is modelled with the bilinear rule: Base shear, base moment and top displacement (thin lines in base shear plot: maximum base
shear forces predicted by equation (3.24))
3.3
DESIGN SHEAR AND BENDING MOMENTS OF COUPLED WALLS
Two different methods of estimating the base shear demand are considered: In the first approach the
design shears are determined by the method of Priestley and Amaris for single cantilever walls [19]
(section 3.3.2). The second approach to estimate the base shear demand (section 3.3.3) is the procedure
suggested by Rutenberg which was described in section 3.2. Two different empirical equations for
estimating the dynamic amplification factor are presented in section 3.3.1. The different design shear and
bending moment envelopes are summarised in section 3.3.4.
3.3.1
Different proposals for the dynamic amplification factors and shear force distribution over height
When computing the dynamic amplification factor only overstrength due to post-yield stiffness was
considered; other causes of overstrength were. The dynamic amplification factor for design was calculated
in two different ways:
Traditional Method: dynamic amplification factor based on the number of storeys n [14]
15
TM = 0.9 + n / 10 where n6
(3.25)
TM = 1.3 + n / 30 1.8 where n>6
Intensity Based Method: dynamic amplification factor based on effective period and
displacement ductility [21]
IM = 1 +
B(T )
(3.26)
with 0.067 B(T ) = 0.067 + 0.4 * (Teff 0.5) 1.15

The dynamic amplification factor of the intensity based method was derived from case
studies of single cantilevers [21].
The base shear is computed as
Vd = o
Mn
heff
(3.27)
overstrength factor
dynamic amplification factor
heff
static effective height of the system (i.e. not considering higher mode
effects)
Mn
nominal base moment
The base shear was distributed over the height of the wall proportionally to the product of storey mass
and design displacement (in fact only proportionally to design displacement since the storey mass is
constant over the height of the building).
The design bending moment profile is different for the traditional method and the intensity based
method. The traditional method suggests a linear design moment profile over the height of the wall
while the intensity based method proposes a bi-linear moment profile with 75% of the base moment at
midheight (Figure 3.6).
For the eight-storey structure considered in this project the dynamic amplification factor according to the
traditional method is TM =1.70. The dynamic amplification factor of the Intensity based method is
computed on the basis of the effective period and the displacement ductility of the system (Table 3.2)
assuming for the intensity based method an average overstrength factor of o = 1.08:
B(T ) = 0.067 + 0.4 * (2.82 0.5) = 0.995
IM = 1 +
B(T ) = 1 +
2.72
0.995 = 3.50
1.08
The dynamic amplification factor derived according to the intensity based method is hence 3.50.
A further approach for the derivation of the dynamic amplification was suggested by Rutenberg [28]. This
approach however is not based on approximate equations but involves non-linear time-history analysis of
a structural wall. Rutenberg [28] suggested that the amplification factor could be computed by lumping the
properties of the two walls into one super-wall and carrying out non-linear time-history analysis with
16
spectrum compatible records. The properties of the super-wall for the example of the coupled wall
structure considered here are
Table 3.3 Properties of the super-wall combining the stiffnesses and capacities of the two coupled walls
Super-wall
EI
Mn
[kNm]
[kNm]
[-]
3.04*107
25400
0.01
The dynamic amplification factor is then computed by solving equation (3.27) for :
Vmax H eff
(3.28)
M max
Vmax
maximum average base shear of super-wall from time-history analysis

with spectrum compatible records
M max
maximum average base moment of super-wall from time-history

analysis with spectrum compatible records ( M max includes increase in
moment capacity due to post-yield stiffness, i.e. M max = M no )
The analysis was carried out as described in chapter 4. The average of the maximum base shears from the
analyses was 5015 kN, the average of the maximum base moments 27400kNm. The dynamic amplification
factor according to Rutenbergs method was hence
SW =
Vmax H eff
M max
5020 17.8
= 3.26
27400
This is fairly similar to the intensity based dynamic amplification factor. The maximum base shear in the
coupled wall system where the walls are modelled as two walls rather than one super-wall is however
considerably lower. From time-history analysis of the coupled wall system with properties as described in
section 4.4 the system base shear was computed as the sum of the base shear forces of the long and short
wall, i.e. the base shear forces of the long and short wall were added in the time domain. The average of
the maximum system base shear forces of the five time histories analyses was 4070kN, the average
maximum system overturning moment was 26800kNm and the dynamic amplification factor for the
system base shear force hence only
CW =
Vmax H eff
M max
4070 17.8
= 2.70
26800
Four different dynamic amplification factors were derived. The first two, the dynamic amplification
factors according to the traditional method TM and the intensity-based approach IM , were derived
from approximate equations which are suitable for design. The other two were derived from non-linear
THA of a super-wall ( SW ) combining the stiffnesses and capacities of the two coupled walls into one
and from non-linear THA of the actual coupled wall system ( CW ). The latter is the true amplification
factor of the coupled wall system. The resulting dynamic amplification factors are summarized in Table
3.4. The dynamic amplification factor derived from the intensity-based method is very similar to the factor
17
derived from THA of the super-wall showing that the intensity-based method is indeed very suitable
for deriving amplification factors for single walls. For coupled walls the dynamic amplification factors are
smaller than for the equivalent super-wall. The dynamic amplification factor derived according to the
traditional method significantly underestimates the true amplification factor of the coupled wall system
and would hence lead to an unsafe design base shear force of the coupled wall system.
Table 3.4 Dynamic amplification factors for the base shear of the example 8-storey coupled wall system
derived from different approaches
3.3.2
Traditional Method
TM =1.70
Intensity based method
IM =3.50
THA with super-wall
SW =3.26
THA with coupled wall system
CW =2.70
Design base shears when treated as de-coupled walls
In design approaches as suggested by Paulay and Restrepo [15] the coupling effect between walls of
different lengths is not considered when determining the base shear demand on the walls. Once the base
moment is distributed between the coupled walls, the wall determined which controls the displacement
capacity of the system the walls are treated effectively as de-coupled walls. The dynamic amplification
factor is however determined from the system properties, i.e. the traditional approach yields in a dynamic
amplification factor of TM =1.70 and the intensity-based approach in a dynamic amplification factor of
IM =3.50 (see Table 3.4). In the following the design base shears of the two walls are computed as for
de-coupled walls, i.e. as single cantilever walls according to equation (3.27). The resulting dynamic base
shear forces for the two different proposed equations for dynamic amplification factors are summarised in
Table 3.5. The design shear force and bending moment profiles are shown in Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.7.
The differences between the base shear forces yielding from the two approaches reflect the difference of
the two dynamic amplification factors which differed by more than a factor of two.
18
walls are designed as de-coupled walls
Wall 1
3.3.3
Wall 2
Tradit.
Method
Intensity
Based
Method
Tradit.
Method
Intensity
Based
Method
Overstrength Factor o
1.09
1.09
1.06
1.06
Dyn. Ampl. Factor
1.70
3.50
1.70
3.50
Total Factor o
1.85
3.82
1.80
3.82
Design Base Shear
1840kN
3780kN
789kN
1670kN
Design base shears when treated as coupled walls as suggested by Rutenberg [28]
Rutenbergs design base shear forces are based on the base shear demand on a substitute structure with
the combined properties of the walls, i.e. the properties of the entire system. The displacement ductility of
the system is 2.72 (Table 3.1). The dynamic amplification assuming for the intensity based method an
average overstrength factor of o = 1.08 are hence (see Table 3.4):
Traditional method: =1.70
Intensity based method: =3.50
The system base shear is determined from equation (3.22) as 1420kN. Hence, the system base shears
including the dynamic amplification factor and the overstrength factor are
Traditional method: oVb , s =2610kN
Intensity based method: oVb , s =5370kN
The average maximum system base shear obtained from the five time history analyses was 4070kN (see
section 3.3.1). The minimum effective height for the different dynamic amplification factors according to
equation (3.23) are summarized for the different dynamic amplification factors in Table 3.6.
19
Table 3.6 Minimum effective height for the example 8-storey coupled wall system derived from different
approaches
Dynamic
Minimum effective height
Amlification
Factor
Traditional Method
TM =1.70
heff ,min =17.8m/1.70=10.5m
Intensity based method
IM =3.50
heff ,min =17.8m/3.50=5.1m
THA with super-wall
SW =3.26
heff ,min =17.8m/3.26=5.5m
THA with coupled wall system
CW =2.70
heff ,min =17.8m/2.70=6.6m
Force-controlled pushover analysis was carried out with resultant forces at 10.5m and 5.1m height. The
model used for this analysis is the lumped plasticity model described in section 4.2 (rigid floor diaphragms,
rigid foundation, shear area As = 0.8 Agross ). The base shear top displacement relationships are plotted in
Figure 3.5. The top displacement at ultimate displacement is approximately 0.390m. The design base shear
forces for Wall 1 and Wall 2 based on the method suggested by Rutenberg for TM and IM are
summarised in Table 3.5. They are the base shear forces obtained from the pushover analyses when the
system base shears are 2610kN and 5370kN respectively.
walls are designed as coupled walls as suggested by Rutenberg
Wall 1
Design Base Shear
Wall 2
Tradit.
Method
Intensity
Based
Method
Tradit.
Method
Intensity
Based
Method
1610kN
3400kN
1300kN
1970kN
20
Figure 3.5 Force-controlled pushover analyses with resultant forces at h=5.1m (Intensity based method)
and h=10.5m (Traditional method)
3.3.4
Summary of Design Shear Forces and Design Moments
The design bending moment envelopes are different for the traditional method and the intensity based
method. However, they are independent whether the walls are designed as de-coupled or coupled walls.
The design bending moment envelopes are plotted in Figure 3.6.
The shear force envelopes are plotted in Figure 3.7. For each wall there are four envelopes which result
from the combination of traditional and intensity based method and of design as de-coupled walls and
coupled walls. Designing the walls as coupled walls increases the design shear forces for the short wall and
decreases the design shear forces for the long wall with respect to those of de-coupled walls which are
designed as single cantilever walls. The difference between design shear forces for one wall hence amounts
from two different sources:
-
Coupling forces between the long and short wall: Coupling forces were not considered when the
walls were designed as de-coupled, single cantilever walls but they were considered when the
design base shear force was determined by the pushover method proposed by Rutenberg [28] (see
section 3.3). The design shear force envelopes resulting from Rutenbergs design approach were
plotted as dashed lines, the design shear forces envelopes resulting from the design approach
when the walls were considered as de-coupled were plotted as solid lines.
21
Dynamic amplification factor: The dynamic amplification factor determined according to the
traditional approach was TM =1.70 (green lines) while the dynamic amplification factor
according to the intensity based approach was IM =3.50 (red lines).
Figure 3.7 shows that the design shear forces for one wall differ greatly depending on the approach
chosen to derive the base shear forces. The shear force profile over the height was assumed to be the
same for all cases. It is debatable whether this is a sensible choice since the coupling forces certainly alter
the profile of shear force demand on one wall (see section 4.3.3).
Figure 3.6 Design bending moment envelopes according to the traditional and the intensity-based design
approach
Figure 3.7 Design shear forces when walls are designed as-coupled walls as suggested by Rutenberg
(dashed lines) and as de-coupled walls (solid lines)
22
3.4
FLEXIBLE FOUNDATION
In section 3 it was assumed that the foundation is rigid. In this section the effect of an elastic foundation
is investigated. The structure is founded on a stiff basement storey. Approximate calculations have shown
that separate shallow foundations for the walls are not a feasible solution since the required dimensions of
the foundation would be excessive. The coupled wall system is not redesigned but only the effect of
foundation flexibility on the coupled wall system with the properties from section 3.2 is investigated. Two
principal sources of flexibility are considered:
-
soil flexibility
local and global flexibility of caisson: local flexibility is associated with inducing wall base
moments and shears into the caisson walls, global flexibility is associated with flexural, shear and
axial deformation of the caisson as a whole
Figure 3.8 Coupled wall structure with flexible foundation
3.4.1
Dimensioning of Foundation
The size in plan of the foundation is determined by the plan of the building which is 25mx20m (section
2). The height of the foundation storey is taken as 3m. The total weight of the foundation storey is
estimated as 13800kN (=44% of the horizontal mass of the superstructure).
The static capacity of shallow foundations can be estimated within the framework of plasticity theory
where
-
The lower bound estimate is determined by an admissible stress state
The upper bound estimate by an admissible mechanism.
The solutions adopted in Eurocode 8 [4] are mainly based on the upper bound estimate [16]. For shallow
foundations the well-known Terzaghi formula is a realization of an upper bound estimate. Since the
foundation not only has to transmit vertical loads but also horizontal load and moment to the soil Pecker
and Pender [16] propose a yield surface accounting for interaction of forces and moments. They also
23
point out that combinations of actions below or on the surface are however only potentially safe since the
foundation capacity was derived from the upper bound estimate of the plasticity theorem.
The soil for this example is a dense sand of several tens of meters of thickness which is classified as soil
type B according to Eurocode 8 [4]. It is assumed that the shear wave velocity of the soil is 500m/s, the
unit weight 20kN/m and the angle of shearing resistance in terms of effective stresses ' =30o. The
material safety factor M for the angle of shearing resistance is 1.25 [5]. Only accounting for the weight of
the gliding soil body and the overlaying soil mass above the foundation level the ultimate bearing capacity
at foundation level is max / M =3780kPa. Assuming that the horizontal effective mass of the
superstructure is a good approximation for its entire mass the vertical soil stress due to weight of
foundation and superstructure is 90kPa (for a constant stress distribution over the foundation area).
Hence, under static loading the bearing capacity of the foundation system is more than sufficient.
Apart from the vertical load due to weight of foundation and superstructure soil supporting the
foundation has to accommodate horizontal stresses due to horizontal loading and vertical stresses due to
the overturning moment. When computing the overturning moment at foundation level the additional
moment due to the eccentricity of wall base and foundation level has to be accounted for. From the
design values at the wall bases (section 3.2) the horizontal load and overturning moment at the foundation
level are obtained as
V f = 2 (4420 + 1415) = 11670kN

M f = M d , wall + h f V f = 54820 + 35010 = 89830kNm
Assuming rigid behaviour of the foundation the shear stress demand at foundation level is 23.3kPa and
the maximum stresses of a linear stress distribution due to the moment demand max( M ) =43kPa.
Hence, uplift of the foundation is not expected to occur. For an average axial stress of 90kPa the shear
stress capacity of the soil is max / M =42kPa. Hence, all demand values are well below the corresponding
capacity values. Therefore, interaction of N , V and M is not checked and permanent displacements are
not expected.
3.4.2
Dynamic Properties of Soil Foundation
The dynamic properties of soil are best described by its shear modulus G, its Poissons ratio and its
viscous elastic damping ratio . EC 8 [4] proposes to reduce the shear modulus with increasing
acceleration level to account for non-linear soil behaviour. Reduction factors for Gmax are only given for
accelerations smaller than 0.3g while the peak ground acceleration in this design project is 0.4g and the
modification factor has been extrapolated to 0.3. The dynamic properties of the soil are hence:
G = 0.3Gmax = 0.3 v s 2 = 0.3 20 / 9.81 500 2 = 0.3 5.1 10 6 = 1.53 10 5 kPa

v = 0 .3
= 15%
Under dynamic loading the soil will deform and absorb energy. Only the lateral component and the
rocking component of the foundation motion is considered in the following. A schematic drawing of the
model which includes foundation flexibility is shown in Figure 3.9. The spring and dashpot elements act in
horizontal and vertical direction. The soil-structure interaction problem is treated as proposed by Gazetaz
[6] and assumes that there is no interaction with adjacent foundations.
Gazetas derived some approximate formulae for the dynamic stiffness and the radiation dashpot
coefficients. The formulae applied here are derived for arbitrarily shaped partially or fully embedded
24
foundations in a homogenous halfspace. The viscous elastic material damping is added to the radiation
damping.
The static stiffnesses of an embedded foundation are estimated as the static stiffness of a foundation on
the ground surface times a factor accounting for the embedding depth. The surface stiffnesses are
approximated by the theoretical solutions for a square foundation on an elastic halfspace since the
horizontal foundation dimensions are almost equal:
9GB
= 8.1 10 6 kN / m
2
3.6GB 3
=
= 7.9 10 8 kNm / rad
1
K x , surface =
K ry , sufrace
G
shear modulus reduced for non-linear behaviour of soil
half width of the foundation (B10m)
Poissons ratio
(3.29)
It is assumed that there is a good contact between soil and foundation wall from 1m below the ground
surface onwards. Embedding increases the lateral stiffness by a factor of 1.47 and the rotational stiffness
by a factor of 1.30.
The ratio of dynamic to static stiffness of the soil depends on the loading frequency. Direct displacement
based design addresses the maximum displacement demand. The loading is hence characterised by the
effective period of the structure which in a first step is approximated as the effective period of a
system with rigid foundation. The dimensionless loading frequency is defined as
a0 =
(3.30)
cs
frequency of excitation (here: Teff =2.82s =2.23s-1)
length of the foundation perpendicular to the axis of the rocking motion
cs
shear velocity of the soil medium at the surface reduced to account for
non-linearity of the soil
The dimensionless frequency is very low (ao=0.08) and the dynamic stiffness of the foundation can be
approximated by its static stiffness. Foundation flexibility would reduce ao further and the ratio of
dynamic to static stiffness would shift even closer to unity.
As outlined above soil damping is constitute of two kinds: material damping and radiation damping. For
relative large amplitude and long period vibration it is expected that material damping will be the main
contributor to the energy absorbtion by the soil. Nevertheless, radiation damping associated with lateral
and rotational motion is estimated to confirm this assumption.
Embedding a foundation increases the radiation damping due to additional energy loss at the foundation
wall faces [6]. Good contact between soil and wall faces is required. For a foundation system on the
ground surface the radiation damping for rocking motion with long periods is almost zero and the
radiation damping for rocking motion of an embedded foundation results solely from energy loss over the
wall faces. The effect of embedding on radiation damping associated with lateral foundation motion is less
significant. In this study embedding increases the radiation damping coefficient for lateral motion by
25
about 46%. The radiation damping coefficients for lateral and rotational motion for the embedded
foundation are:
C y ,rad = 2.7 10 5 kNs / m

C rot ,rad = 4.0 10 6 kNms / rad
As expected the contribution of radiation damping to the overall damping is negligible. The final damping
coefficients are almost solely governed by the material damping of the soil:
C y = C y ,rad + 2 K y / eff = 1.7 10 6 kNs / m

C rot = C rot ,rad + 2 K rot / eff = 1.1 10 8 kNms / rad
3.4.3
Flexibility of Foundation Structure
The foundation structure is a reinforced concrete caisson which compared to the superstructure - is
relatively stiff. However, there will be some deformation associated with inducing the wall base moments
and shear forces into the caisson. This caisson wall flexibility is modelled by elongating the wall axis to the
midheight of the caisson and assigning to it the elastic properties of the wall base section (Figure 3.9). In
the following the additional displacement and rotation at the wall bases due to deformation of the caisson
walls is estimated. The estimate is only very approximative and shear deformations are not accounted for.
The rotation and displacement at wall base level due to flexural deformation of the caisson walls can be
expressed with the wall base properties:
1
2 L
u = y L2 o 1 +
2
3 heff
1 L
= y L o 1 +
2 heff
flexural overstrength
dynamic amplification factor for shear forces
yield curvature of the wall base
length of the elastic element modelling the caisson wall flexibility (here
estimated as half the caisson height, i.e.1.5m)
heff
effective height of the wall
(3.31)
If the walls would be uncoupled the following additional displacement due to caisson wall flexibility would
be expected:
26
Wall 1
Yield curvature
7.5010-4 M-1
Wall 2
1.1310-3m-1
Overstrength factor
1.09
1.06
Dynamic amplification factor
4.10
3.06
Displ. at wall base u
0.001m
0.002m
Rotation at wall base
1.4410-3
2.0210-3
Add. displ. at effective height
0.026m
0.036m
Additional flexibility will lengthen the period of the elastic structure and reduce the displacement ductility.
Hence, the dynamic amplification factor would change and some iterations are required until the
additional displacement due to flexibility of the caisson walls is found. However, since the expected
additional displacement at the effective height is only about 11% of the initial design displacement
iterations are waived.
The additional displacement of the coupled wall system due to flexibility of the caisson walls when
inducing the wall moments and shears is estimated as the average of the additional displacements of the
uncoupled walls weighted by their shear force ratios. Hence, accounting for caisson wall flexibility is
expected to increase the displacement at the effective height by about 0.030m and the drift by
approximately 0.16%.
An additional source of flexibility results from flexural, shear and axial deformation of the caisson which is
continuously supported by the soil. The stiffness of the caisson in bending is estimated as the uncracked
section stiffness assuming the top and bottom slab of the caisson are mobilized over the entire width of
the caisson. The shear stiffness of the caisson is based on 80% of the gross area. Hence, the bending,
shear and axial stiffness assigned to the foundation beam representing the entire caisson are:
EA =2*1.86108=3.72108kNm2
GA =2*0.60108=1.20108kN
EI =2*2.40108=4.80108kN
Due to the continuous support of the caisson by the soil and the resulting interaction it is difficult to
estimated by means of simple hand calculations how limited caisson stiffness affects the displacement
demand on the superstructure. From the non-linear time history analysis (section 4.4.5) it was concluded
that the effect of the overall caisson flexibility and the soil is negligible compared to the compared to the
local deformation of the caisson walls due to inducing wall moments and shears the.
27
Plastic hinge
at wall base
Elastic foundation
beam
Elastic wall section
Figure 3.9 Scheme of analytical model with flexible foundation
3.4.4
Foundation Flexibility in DDBD
It was outlined in the beginning of section 3.4 that two principal sources of foundation flexibility are
considered:
-
Soil flexibility
Flexibility of the foundation structure
Both sources result in additional elastic deformation, leading to lengthening of the effective period which
can be easily incorporated in the direct displacement based design approach. Soil flexibility is also
associated with additional dissipated energy due to material and radiation damping (section 3.4.2). The
energy dissipated by soil and structure are additive. The approach to incorporate soil flexibility is described
in detail in [19]. Additional deformation due to elastic deformation of the foundation structure increases in
general displacement and drift of the superstructure. The way the additional deformation can be estimated
was shown in section 3.4.3.
In this study the main source of foundation flexibility is associated with local elastic deformation of the
caisson walls due to inducing wall base moments and shears into the caisson. The expected total
displacement at the effective height is 0.30m and the expected maximum drift at the top of the structure
2.16% (section 3.4.3).
The effective period increases from 2.82s to 3.00s. The system displacement ductility reduces from
s =2.72 (rigid foundation, section 3.2) to
s =
0.30
= 2.31
0.03 + 0.10
Due to the smaller displacement ductility the effective damping reduces from 15.3% to 13.8%. The new
base shear demand on the system (not including dynamic amplification) is Vd =1360kN. The new intensity
based dynamic amplification factor for the coupled wall system is 3.55 compared to 3.50. Hence, on the
basis of Rutenbergs design approach for coupled wall systems the new system base shear is 4840kN
compared to 5370kN for a system with rigid foundation. The difference is about 10%.
28
Hence, if the system would be redesigned accounting for the flexibility of the foundation the capacity of
the wall bases could be reduced. It was stated before that in this study the walls are not redesigned but
only reanalysed with the foundation flexibility included in the model. The yield moments at the wall bases
act like a fuse hence the shear force and bending moment demand on the wall structures is expected to
be similar for a rigid and a flexible foundation.
3.5
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 3
In this chapter the design of the coupled wall system according to DDBD was described and different
approaches of determining the base shear demand on the structural walls were discussed. The main points
made were:
-
The design of coupled wall systems using the DDBD method is almost identical to the design of
a single wall. It only requires additional assumptions on the displacement profile and the effective
damping of the coupled wall system.
Determining the base shear demands on the walls calls for particular attention. Rutenberg [28]
explained the mechanism between base shear distribution in coupled walls of different length and
proposed a design method which accounted for the coupling effect. Base shear forces obtained
with this method were computed for two different assumptions for the dynamic amplification
factor and compared to base shear forces which would be obtained if the two walls would be
considered as decoupled. For the long wall the resulting base shear forces differed by a factor of
about 2.3, for the short wall the resulting base shear forces differed even by a factor of 2.5.
The effect of foundation flexibility on the design was studied in section 3.4. Shallow foundation
was not a feasible solution and hence the structure was founded on a fairly rigid caisson. The only
veritable source of additional flexibility for the considered design were local deformation of the
caisson walls were the structural walls connected to the caisson. This causes a lengthening of the
effective period by about 6% and a reduction in system base shear demand by about 10%.
29
Chapter 4: Analysis of Coupled Wall Systems
4 ANALYSIS OF COUPLED WALL SYSTEMS

In this chapter the assumptions behind an element model are described (section 4.1) and a detailed
description of the model is given (section 4.2). The model was analysed using the code Ruaumoko2D
developed by Carr [3]. Pushover analyses of the coupled wall structure are compared to those of the decoupled walls (section 4.3). The chapter concludes with the results obtained from non-linear time-history
analysis of the de-coupled walls and coupled walls with and without foundation flexibility (section 4.4).
4.1
GENERAL MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS
The modelling is based on the modelling of walls described in [1]. In the following the main points are
reiterated:
-
The moment-curvature relationship of the wall sections is approximated by a bi-linear curve. The
hysteresis behaviour of the wall sections is modelled by the modified Takeda-Rule. The section
properties are concentrated at the vertical centreline of the wall.
A rigid foundation is assumed (apart from analysis presented in section 4.4.5)
The lateral forces are only resisted by the two structural walls. Contribution of columns or outof-plane stiffness of capacity of walls perpendicular to the direction of excitation are not
considered.
The floor masses are lumped at the centreline of the walls (see section 5.1).
As a simplification it is assumed that the reinforcement content is constant over the height of the wall.
The variation of axial forces over the wall height causes a reduction in moment capacity from the base to
the top. The moment capacities at the different levels are estimated by linear interpolation of the moment
capacity at the base and the top. The yield curvature is assumed to remain constant over the height of the
wall. Hence, the wall stiffness varies in proportion to the moment capacity.
For the analysis of coupled walls a further assumption for the stiffness of the floor diaphragm is required.
In the analyses of this chapter the floor diaphragms connecting the walls are rigid in plane but flexible outof plane. This is a common assumption in structural analysis. The dimensions of the walls are not
accounted for in the model, i.e. for each storey the nodes on the centre lines of the two walls are
connected by very stiff springs.
Formation of a plastic hinge is allowed for at the bottom end of each wall element. The element program
RUAUMOKO [3] is used for the analysis. This program models inelastic member deformation with the
lumped plasticity approach, i.e. inelastic member properties are modelled by a rotational spring.
30
4.2
DESCRIPTION OF THE NUMERICAL MODEL OF THE COUPLED WALL

SYSTEM
The moment capacities and bending stiffnesses of the eight levels are given in Table 4.1 for the long and
the short wall. The post-elastic stiffness ratio of moment curvature relationship is estimated as 0.01 for all
wall sections. The hysteretic behaviour of the wall sections is modelled using the modified Takeda
hysteresis rule with factors of =0.5 (as recommended in [24]), =0.0 and the Emorich and Schnobrich
unloading rule [3]. The shear stiffness is based on half the gross area and a shear modulus of 10.3GPa. It
is assumed to be constant over the height of the structure.
The total storey mass is 200t (section 3.2). It is lumped at the centrelines of the walls. The mass is split
between the two walls in proportion to their design moment (70%, 30%). This however is irrelevant for
analyses where the walls are rigidly coupled. Only the storey forces in the slab diaphragms are then
effected by the distribution of the mass between the two walls. In conformity with the design assumptions
the foundation is modelled as rigid. Hence, the elements representing the walls are fixed at the ground
level.
Table 4.1 Wall section properties
Level
4.3
4.3.1
Long Wall ( l w =6.0m)
Short Wall ( l w =4.0m)
EI [kNm]
M n [kN]
EI [kNm]
M n [kN]
2.13E+07
16000
6.13E+06
6900
2.16E+07
16200
6.22E+06
7000
2.19E+07
16500
6.31E+06
7100
2.22E+07
16700
6.49E+06
7300
2.26E+07
16900
6.58E+06
7400
2.29E+07
17100
6.67E+06
7500
2.32E+07
17400
6.84E+06
7700
2.35E+07
17600
6.93E+06
7800
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF DE-COUPLED AND COUPLED WALLS

Different Approaches of Pushover Analysis
Pushover procedures were and still are developed as a mean to assess the non-linear behaviour of a
structural system under lateral excitation when the computational effort for a comprehensive non-linear
time-history analysis does not seem justified. Pushover analysis can also be helpful in understanding the
sequence at which the plastic hinges of a mechanism form which often is more difficult to conclude from
the results of a non-linear time-history [1].
Pushover analysis of a structural system is hence usually carried out with the aim to determine
31
the plastic mechanism which is expected to develop.
the local ductility demand on the structural elements.
the overturning moment and base shear capacity of the system.
the contribution of single structural elements, such as a structural wall, to the base shear capacity
of the system.
The early pushover analysis approaches were based on lateral storey loads which were monotonically
increased without changing the proportion of the loads. It was soon recognized that pushover analysis
results gained from analysis with such constant storey load patterns were very sensitive to the assumed
load pattern. Conceptually the limitations of the non-adaptive pushover approach are related to the
inability of the analysis method to account for progressive stiffness degradation, change of modal
characteristics and the period elongation of the structure with increase in lateral displacement [1].
To overcome these problems the adaptive methods were developed which updated the load pattern
after each step of the pushover analysis as a function of the variation of the stiffness distribution in the
structure. Some of the procedures update the load vector not just on the basis of the first modal shape but
allow accounting for several modes. These procedures are called multi-modal. The updating procedure
of the load vector involves in general the following steps ([1],[7]):
-
Modal analysis with the tangent stiffness matrix at each step of the analysis.
Determination of the lateral (incremental) load pattern as a function of the modal participation
factors and spectral amplifications at the frequency of the modes considered. Commonly the
contribution of the modes is combined according to the SRSS or the CQC rule.
Updating of the load vector as incremental updating (only the increase in load is based on the new
stiffness properties) or total updating (the entire load vector is based on the new stiffness
properties).
Application of the load vector which can be either applied as forces or displacements.
Based on these assumptions a number of force and displacement based procedures have been recently
developed. A comprehensive overview over the different approaches is given Antoniou and Pinho
([1],[2]). A backdraw of these methods at the current stage is that their performance varies on the type of
the analysed structure and none approach seems to be universely reliable. Current research aims at
establishing the areas of application of different pushover analyses approaches and at improving the
combination technique to account for the contribution of different modes.
Though great advancements in the development of pushover procedures have been made pushover
analysis remains a static analysis method and hence cannot by its nature represent dynamic effects such as
kinetic and viscous damping, duration effects and cyclic loading. Therefore in this study pushover analysis
is used to study the effect of a number of parameters. The conclusions from the pushover analysis are
then checked by means of non-linear time-history analysis which is regarded upon as the most accurate
mean of assessing the behaviour of a structure on seismic loading. For the analysis considered here the
two simplest approaches of pushover analysis were used:
-
First mode force-controlled adaptive pushover analysis.
Force based pushover analysis with a single point load at the effective height as suggested by
Rutenberg [28].
The first does not account for higher mode effects while the second one attempts to model the system
base shear capacity correctly but due to the unrealistic representation of the lateral inertia force by a point
load cannot yield in realistic force distributions over the height of the structure nor realistic displacement
patterns. The solely which one can address by means of this pushover analysis is the base shear
distribution between the structural elements.
32
4.3.2
Pushover Analysis of De-coupled Walls
For comparison a pushover analysis of the two de-coupled walls was carried out. For the analysis the
adaptive pushover option in the program Ruaumoko was used [3]. All pushover analyses are carried out
starting with a triangular force distribution over the height of the structure.
Figure 4.1 shows base shear and base moment against top displacement for the 6.0m wall (Wall 1) and the
4.0m wall (Wall 2). The graphs also include values from the design process, such as yield displacement,
design displacement and nominal base moment and base shear ( Vn = M n / heff ). The yield displacement
from the pushover analysis is less than the yield displacement calculated in the design process of the walls
(see section 3.2). This is because in the design process the yield displacement was based on a linear
curvature profile which overestimates the curvature of the top storeys of the pushover analysis results.
Table 4.2 Comparison analysis values of de-coupled walls to design values
Wall 1
Wall 2
Design
Analysis
Design
Analysis
Top Displacement at yield
0.144m
0.132m
0.216m
0.199m
Base Shear Force at yield
991kN
954kN
438kN
422kN
17600kNm
17600kNm
7800kN
7800kN
Base Moment at yield
Figure 4.1 Adaptive pushover analysis of single walls: Base shear top displacement and base moment
top Displacement
33
4.3.3
4.3.3.1
Pushover Analysis of Walls coupled with rigid floors

Adaptive Pushover Analysis
For the adaptive pushover analysis of coupled walls the initial force pattern was an inverted triangular load
on both walls with a base shear ratio of the two walls of 0.7:0.3. This ratio corresponds to the ratio of the
design base shear forces of the two walls.
The storey forces and wall shear forces are plotted for two different displacement magnitudes:
Plastic hinge formation in Wall 1 ( top = 0.134m)
Plastic hinge formation in Wall 2 top = 0.156m)
Note that the displacement associated with the formation of the second plastic hinge differs from the
yield displacement of Wall 2 as found by the adaptive pushover analysis of the de-coupled wall
( top =0.199m).
Figure 4.2 shows that the maximum base shear is no longer directly related to the moment capacity and
the effective height of the structure as it was assumed in design. After formation of the first plastic hinge
at the base of Wall 1 the base shear force in Wall 1 is reduced while the base shear force in Wall 2
increases. At the formation of the plastic hinge in Wall 2 the base shear in the shorter Wall 2 is
significantly larger than in the longer Wall 1. At the formation of the third plastic hinge the base shear
force in Wall 1 increases again and the base shear force of Wall 2 reduces.
In Figure 4.3 the floor diaphragm forces are plotted at the instants of formation of plastic hinges in Wall 1
and Wall 2. At the formation of the plastic hinge in Wall 1 the storey forces are comparatively small. They
3
differ from zero because the stiffness of the elastic walls is proportional to lw while the base shear has
been distributed proportionally to lw 2 . After the first wall has yielded additional displacement in Wall 1 is
caused by rotation at the base while Wall 2 still continues to deform elastically. This incompatibility in
displacement profile causes the significant floor diaphragm force at level 1. The floor diaphragm forces at
higher levels are not affected.
The same effect is reflected in the shear forces over the height of the structure (Figure 4.4). The shear
forces in the upper storeys are similarly distributed to shear forces of de-coupled walls while the shear
forces in the lowest storey are significantly distorted by the floor diaphragm force on level 1.
34
Figure 4.2 Adaptive pushover analysis of rigidly coupled walls: Base moment top displacement and base
shear top displacement relationship with the instants of formation of a plastic hinge
Figure 4.3 Adaptive pushover analysis of rigidly coupled walls: Shear forces in walls at formation of plastic
hinge in Wall 1 and Wall 2
35
Figure 4.4 Adaptive pushover analysis for rigidly coupled walls: Floor diaphragm forces at formation of
plastic hinge in Wall 1 and Wall 2
4.3.3.2
Force-controlled Pushover Analysis with resultant forces at different heights
Rutenbergs design procedure for coupled walls [28] is based on pushover analysis with a fixed height of
the lateral force resultant rather than an adaptive pushover analysis where the force increments reflect the
deformation pattern of the structure. A force based pushover analysis with a single force at a specific
height will not yield in a sensible shear envelope over the height of the structure but will only allow to
address the base shear demand. The two pushover analyses presented in section 3.3.3 were carried out
with lateral force resultants at heights of 10.5m and 5.1m which reflected dynamic amplification factors of
1.7 and 3.5 respectively. The forces were applied at the storey level above and below so that the height of
the resultant force was 10.5m and 5.1m respectively. Hence, the shear force demand over the height of the
structure is not correctly reflected in these analyses. The results of theses analyses already indicated that
the coupling effect depends on the height of the resultant lateral force. In this section the effect of the
dynamic amplification, i.e. the effective minimum height of the resultant lateral force, on the base shears is
investigated.
Figure 4.5 shows the base shear top displacement relationship for Wall 1 and Wall 2 for four different
heights of the resultant lateral force. The two medium heights of 5.1m and 10.5m are those derived from
the traditional dynamic amplification factor and the intensity based dynamic amplification factor (section
3.3.3). The height of 6.6m corresponds to the true amplification factor CW which was derived from
time-history analysis of the coupled wall system (section 3.3.3). The remaning two heights (3m and 15m)
were simply added to draw a more complete picture of the influence of the height of the resultant lateral
force on the base shear demand on the two walls. Note that even the largest considered height (15m) is
still smaller than the static effective height of the coupled wall system (17.8m). The top two graphs of
Figure 4.5 show the base shear as an actual force. They show that since the base moment capacity is
constant the base shear capacity increases with reducing height of the lateral force. They also show that
the coupling effect, i.e. the deviation of the base shear top displacement relationship from the bi-linear
relationship of a de-coupled wall, increases with increase in height of the lateral force. This is even more
evident when the base shear is normalised with respect to the maximum base shear of a de-coupled
36
cantilever wall. The corresponding graphs for Wall 1 and Wall 2 are plotted in the second row of Figure
4.5. They show that the maximum base shear of Wall 1 is that of a cantilever wall. The base shear of the
shorter Wall 2 shows that the maximum base shear is greater than the base shear of a de-coupled
cantilever wall. This was already described by Rutenberg (section 3.2) and has been confirmed by the
adaptive pushover analyses results in section 4.3.3.1. It also shows that the coupling effect is the more
dominant the greater the height of the resultant lateral force. This result can be understood from the
sketch in Figure 4.6 which shows the coupled wall system after formation of a plastic hinge at the base of
the long wall. At this stage the coupling forces are mainly transmitted by the lowest floor diaphragm at 3m
height (Figure 4.4). If the resultant lateral force acts at a small height h the coupling force has little
influence on the base shear of the short wall (Wall 2) since the total effective height of the lateral forces
remains close to h . If the lateral force acts at a height significantly above the first floor level the effective
height of the total lateral force is reduced and hence the base shear at onset of yielding in Wall 2 is
increased.
The dynamic amplification factors for the coupled wall system when designed according to Rutenbergs
procedure (section 3.2) were 1.7 according to the traditional method which is based on the number of
storeys and 3.5 according to the intensity based method which links the dynamic amplification factor to
the displacement ductility and the effective period (section 3.3.3). The corresponding effective heights
were 10.5m and 5.1m respectively. The force-controlled pushover analyses showed that a large dynamic
amplification factor increases the dynamic base shear demand and reduces the static coupling effect
between the walls.
Figure 4.5 Base shear force as a function of the height of the resultant lateral force: absolute and
normalised to the maximum base shear of a de-coupled cantilever wall
37
Flat,1
Flat,2
Figure 4.6 Sketch of coupled wall system after yielding of long wall with the lateral force resultant at height
h and the largest storey force at the first level
4.4
NON-LINEAR TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS
Non-linear time history analysis was carried out with five artificial time histories using the computer
program Ruaumoko [3]. The artificial time-histories are described in section 4.4.1. The non-linear time
history analyses were carried out using tangent stiffness Rayleigh damping. The damping coefficients were
based on the 5% tangent stiffness proportional damping in the first and second mode. Since the damping
was formulated as Rayleigh damping which is not only proportional to the stiffness matrix but also to the
invariable mass matrix the damping ratio specified for the two modes is reduced according to the formula
proposed by Priestley [23]:
spec = 5% *
0.75
+1
+ 0.75
displacement ductility of the system
ratio of the frequencies of the two modes ( >1.0)
(4.1)
The periods of mode 1 and 2 are 1.74 and 0.291s respectively. The system displacement ductility had been
estimated as 2.72. The damping ratios specified for the first two modes are hence 2.55%.
4.4.1
Time-History Inputs
The system is subjected to five artificial time-histories which in average match the elastic EUROCODE 8
design Spectrum for 5% damping with maximum ground accelerations of 0.4g. The time-histories were
generated by Priestley and Amaris and were used in their study on cantilever walls [18]. The spectrum has
a spectral displacement S d ,5% =0.6m at the corner period of 4s. The response of higher damped SDOF
system are spectrum compatible if the spectrum is adjusted using the formula
38
S d , = S d ,5%
7
2+
S d ,5%
spectral displacement for 5% damping
equivalent viscous damping
(4.2)
Figure 4.7 Displacement spectra for 5% damping
4.4.2
Results from Time History Analysis of coupled Walls and Comparison to Design Profiles
Figure 4.8 to Figure 4.11 show the comparison between the design and analysis values for rigidly coupled
walls regarding displacement, drift, shear force and bending moment envelopes for Wall 1 and Wall 2. The
storey forces between Wall 1 and Wall 2 are plotted in Figure 4.12.
For the envelope plots of shear forces and bending moments the following colour code is used:
-
The envelopes of the five time-history analysis with thin black lines and the average of the five
time history analysis with a thick blue line. The envelopes are defined as the absolute maximum
occurring during the simulated earthquakes
The design envelopes which are based on the traditional method to estimate the dynamic
amplification factor and to define the moment envelope are plotted with thick green lines.
The design envelopes which are based on the intensity based method to estimate the dynamic
amplification factor and to define the moment envelope are plotted with thick red lines.
39
The shear envelopes which were derived for de-coupled walls are plotted with dashed lines; the
shear envelopes which were derived for coupled walls are plotted with solid lines.
In the model the moment capacity was assumed as linear between base and top and was derived
for a constant reinforcement content but varying axial load.
From the envelope plots the following observations are made:
Displacement Profile: The design displacement profile overestimates the envelope from the time
history analysis by about 5%.
Drift Profile: The maximum drift is slightly less than the design drift.
Shear Force Profile: The plots show the envelopes of the time-history analyses and the design
profiles which are also plotted in Figure 3.7.
Wall 1: Higher mode effects which lead to typical bulges at the top and the base of the
wall are very apparent in the shear force envelope. The design shear force profile based
on the traditional method (see section 3.3.3), both for the design approach for coupled
and de-coupled walls, underestimates the shear force demand at the top and the base of
the wall. The design values resulting from the intensity based method envelope the
shear force demand from the time-history analyses well with the values derived for the
coupled wall system being less conservative than the envelope for the of the de-coupled
wall. Only in the top storey exceeds the averaged analysis value the design value.
However, this is not of concern since minimum reinforcement requirements are likely to
result in greater shear resistance than required by the design envelope.
Wall 2: Higher mode effects are less apparent than for the long wall. However, the shear
force envelope of the short wall shows a sharp increase in base shear demand over the
bottom two storeys. This is due to the compatibility forces which are required directly
after formation of the plastic hinge in the long wall while the short wall itself is still elastic
(see section 4.3.3). As for Wall 1 are the design shear envelopes on the basis of the
traditional dynamic amplification factors not adequate. The design shear forces with the
dynamic amplification factor from the intensity based method envelope the shear forces
obtained from the time history analysis. The envelope for the de-coupled wall seems to
be the best approximation of the time history analysis results. However, this is likely to
be just by chance since the intensity based dynamic amplification factor is larger than the
true amplification factor (see section 3.3.1). Comparison of the pushover analysis results
to the time history analysis results show that also for Wall 2 the design as coupled wall
yields in the best base shear estimate if the dynamic amplification factor is correct (see
section 4.4.4).
Bending Moment Profile: The plots show the envelopes of the time-history analyses and the
design profiles which are also plotted in Figure 3.6.
o
Wall 1: The bending moment envelope shows again the effects of higher modes which
are well captured by the design values of the intensity based method.
Wall 2: The bending moment envelope is almost straight between top and base of the
wall and does not show significant higher mode effects.
Storey Forces: For rigidly coupled walls the floor diaphragm forces on the first floor are very high
(Note that the magnitude of the floor diaphragm forces is dependent on the mass distribution
between the walls. See section 4.2).
40
Figure 4.8 Rigidly coupled walls: Displacement envelope from time history analysis (thin black lines:
results from time history analyses, thick blue line: average of five analyses, thick grey line: design profile)
Figure 4.9 Rigidly coupled walls: Drift envelope from time history analysis (thin black lines: results from
time history analyses, thick blue line: average of five analyses, thick grey line: maximum design drift)
41
Figure 4.10 Rigidly coupled walls: Moment envelopes from time history analysis (thin black lines: results
from time history analyses, thick blue line: average of five analyses) in comparison to design envelopes
from Figure 3.6 (thick green lines: design envelopes according to traditional approach, thick red lines:
design envelopes according to intensity based approach, thick grey lines: yield moment capacity assigned
in analysis)
Figure 4.11 Rigidly coupled walls: Shear force envelopes from time history analysis (thin black lines: results
from time history analyses, thick blue line: average of five analyses) in comparison to design envelopes
from Figure 3.7 (thick green lines: design envelopes with traditional amplification factor, thick red lines:
design envelopes with intensity based amplification factor, solid red and green lines: design as de-coupled
walls, dashed red and green lines: designed as coupled walls)
42
Figure 4.12 Rigidly coupled walls: Storey Force Envelope from time history analysis (thin black lines:
results from time history analyses, thick blue line: average of five analyses)
4.4.3
Comparison of Time History Results of De-coupled Walls to Coupled Walls
To assess the effect of coupling on displacement, drift, shear and moment demand time-history analyses
of the de-coupled walls were carried out and compared to the results of the coupled wall system. For the
analysis of the de-coupled walls the mass was allocated to the walls in proportion to their base moment
capacities (see section 4.2), i.e. the storey mass of the short wall is 60t and the storey mass of the long wall
is 140t. Figure 4.13 to Figure 4.15 show the displacement, drift, shear and bending moment profiles for
the coupled and de-coupled walls.
The displacement and drift profile of the slender Wall 2 exceeds that of the longer Wall 1. The profile of
the coupled wall systems lies in between those of the de-coupled walls but is closer to the profile of the
longer wall. This is in line with the design assumptions made in section 3.1.
The moment and shear profile of the long Wall 1 is little affected by the coupling to the shorter wall. The
moment profile of the shorter de-coupled Wall 2 shows the characteristic kink at midheight which
results from higher mode effects. The profile of the coupled Wall 2 was almost straight between base and
top. Hence, coupling of the two walls reduces the higher mode effects on the short wall. This is also
reflected in the shear profile: The shear demand if the wall is coupled to the long wall is less for all storeys
except the lower two. As pointed out in section 4.4.2 and discussed in detail in the following in section 5
the increased base shear is likely to be due to compatibility forces in the indeterminate system transmitted
by the floor diaphragms.
43
Figure 4.13 Comparison of coupled and de-coupled walls: Average displacement envelopes from time
history analysis
Figure 4.14 Comparison of coupled and de-coupled walls: Average drift envelope from time history analysis
44
Figure 4.15 Comparison of coupled and de-coupled walls: Average shear force and bending moment
envelope from time history analysis
4.4.4
Comparison of Time History Results of Coupled Walls to Pushover Analysis Results
In Table 4.3 the peak base shear forces of pushover and time-history analyses are summarised. The results
of the adaptive pushover analysis were presented in section 4.3.3.1 and the force-controlled pushover
analysis with a single force was discussed in section 4.3.3.2. Only the force-controlled pushover analysis
with the resultant force at h =5.1m and h =6.6m which corresponds to the intensity based dynamic
amplification factor and the true amplification factor are and included in Table 4.3 The comparison of
the base shear forces in Table 4.3 shows that for some pushover analysis approaches there are very
significant differences between the pushover results and the time history analysis results. The difference
between pushover analysis results and time history analysis results in terms of wall base shears are greatest
for the adaptive pushover analysis. Since the adaptive pushover analysis does not account for higher mode
effects the resulting base shear forces are naturally much smaller than those obtained from non-linear time
history analysis of the multi-degree of freedom system. Force-controlled pushover analysis with the force
resultant at h =5.1m correctly predicts that the base shear demand obtained from non-linear time history
will be greater on the longer wall than on the shorter wall while the opposite is obtained for the adaptive
pushover analysis. Reasons for this were outlined in section 4.3.3.2. The base shear forces predicted by the
force-controlled pushover analysis overestimate with h =5.1m the actual average base shear demand on
the walls. This resulted from the fact that the intensity based amplification factor is conservative and
hence the height of the resultant force employed in the pushover analysis is rather low. If the forcecontrolled pushover analysis is carried out with the resultant lateral force at h =6.6m which corresponded
to the true amplification factor of CW =2.70 the force-controlled pushover analysis predicts very well
the actual base shear demand. Hence, if the dynamic amplification is known or can be accurately estimated
the force-controlled pushover analysis as suggested by Rutenberg [28] is well capable of predicting the
base shear demand on the two coupled walls.
45
Table 4.3 Rigidly coupled walls: Comparison of peak base shear forces of pushover and time-history
analyses (percentage in brackets gives difference of pushover results to non-linear THA results)
Wall 1
Wall 2
4.4.5
Adaptive
Pushover Analysis
ForceControlled
Pushover
Analysis with
force at
h =5.1m
ForceControlled
Pushover
Analysis with
force at
h =6.6m
893kN
3450kN
2480kN
(-66%)
(+30%)
(-7%)
1030kN
1990kN
1560kN
(-30%)
(+35%)
(+6%)
Non-linear timehistory Analysis

(average from 5
analyses)
2660kN
1470kN
Time History Analysis of the Coupled Wall System with flexible foundation
Figure 4.16 and Figure 4.17 show the comparison of displacement and drift demand on the walls for a
rigid foundation (section 39) and a flexible foundation. The thick grey lines represent the expected
displacement and drift envelopes respectively as derived in section 3.4.4. The agreement between analysis
and design values is good. Comparison with the results for a rigid foundation show as expected an
increase in displacement and drift demand.
The shear force and bending moment envelopes are plotted in Figure 4.18. Introducing the foundation
flexibility lengthens the effective period of the system. As a consequence the system base shear is expected
to reduce by about 10% (section 3.4.4). This is not reflected in the analysis results: shear force and
bending moment demand are relatively unaffected by the flexibility of the foundation.
The floor diaphragm forces are plotted in Figure 4.19. Introducing the foundation flexibility seems to yield
in a more even floor diaphragm force distribution over the height of the building. The variation between
the results for the five artificial earthquakes however is very significant.
46
Figure 4.16 Rigidly coupled walls with flexible foundation: Displacement envelope from time history
analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses of flexible foundation model, thick green and
blue lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: design displacement profile)
Figure 4.17 Rigidly coupled walls with flexible foundation: Drift envelope from time history analysis (thin
black lines: results from time history analyses of flexible foundation model, thick green and blue lines:
average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: design displacement profile for flexible foundation)
47
Figure 4.18 Rigidly coupled walls with flexible foundation: Shear force and bending moment envelope from
time history analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses of flexible foundation model, thick
blue and green lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey lines: flexural capacity assigned in
analysis)
Figure 4.19 Rigidly coupled walls with flexible foundation: Storey force envelope from time history analysis
(thin black lines: results from time history analyses of flexible foundation model, thick lines: average of
results of five analyses)
48
4.5
-
The coupled wall system was modelled using the lumped plasticity approach (section 4.1 and 4.2).
Plastic hinges were allowed to form at each storey of the walls. The shear stiffness of the walls
was based on 80% of the gross area. The floor diaphragms were modelled as rigid in-plane and
with zero stiffness against out-of-plane deformations. Pushover and non-linear time-history
analyses were carried out using the program Ruaumoko2D [3].
Pushover analyses:
Two different kinds of pushover analyses were carried out: Adaptive pushover analyses
and force based pushover analyses.
Comparison of results from the adaptive pushover analyses (section 4.3.3.1) between
coupled and de-coupled walls showed the coupling effect between the long and the short
wall after formation of a plastic hinge at the base of the long wall. This effect was first
described by Rutenberg (e.g. [28], section 3.2).
Force-controlled pushover analyses (section 4.3.3.2) with a fixed height of the resultant
lateral force showed that the coupling effect decreases with decreasing height of the
resultant force. The small coupling effect at small heights of the external lateral force
resultant was explained with the similar effective height of coupling force and external
lateral force. The base shear at formation of plastic hinges increases with reducing height
of the lateral force due to the decreased lever arm of the lateral force. Rutenbergs design
procedure for coupled walls is based on force-controlled pushover analyses with the
resultant external lateral force at the minimum effective height. The minimum effective
height is the static effective height divided by the dynamic amplification factor.
Non-linear time-history analyses:

o
Time-history analyses were carried out using five artificial time-histories which in average
match the chosen design spectrum.
The average displacements and drift envelopes which were obtained from the non-linear
time history analyses matched the design envelopes well. The time-history results were
about 5% smaller than the design values.
The base shear forces from the non-linear time-history analyses were well approximated
by the design base shear forces which were derived with Rutenbergs design procedure
for coupled walls and the intensity based dynamic amplification factor. Base shear forces
on the basis of the traditional dynamic amplification factor which is related to the
number of storeys considerably underestimated the base shear demand. Base shear forces
which were derived for de-coupled rather than coupled walls underestimated the base
shear demand on the short wall and over estimated the base shear demand on the long
wall.
Moment envelopes of the long wall showed the for higher modes typical kink at
midheight while the moment envelopes of the short wall were almost straight between
base and top indicating that higher mode effects were nearly absent. Comparison with
non-linear time-history results of de-coupled walls confirmed that higher modes in the
short wall were almost eliminated by coupling the short wall to the long wall.
The foundation flexibility resulted mainly from local elastic deformation of the caisson
walls due to inducing wall base moments and shears into the caisson. Modelling the
foundation flexibility lead as expected to larger displacement and drift demand on the
walls. However, the base shear demand on the walls was not reduced as would have been
expected since the effective period was lengthened.
49
Chapter 5: Base Shear Forces in Coupled Walls and their Sensitivity to Modelling Assumptions
5 BASE SHEAR FORCES IN COUPLED WALLS AND THEIR

SENSITIVITY TO MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS
Rutenberg explained the mechanism of coupling of walls of different lengths and the resultant coupling
forces between the walls which can lead to a greater base shear demand on the short wall than if the short
wall would have been decoupled from the long wall (section 3.2). This mechanism was confirmed by
pushover analyses of the coupled wall system which was studied here (section 4.3.3 ). Rutenberg also
suggested a method to determine the base shear demand on walls in coupled wall systems. The adequacy
of this method has been confirmed by non-linear time-history analyses (section 4.4.2).
The model which was used for the pushover analyses and the non-linear time-history analyses was based
on a number of simplifying modelling assumptions. This concerns in particular inelasticity in the structural
wall elements which was modelled by means of the lumped plasticity approach, the floor diaphragms
which were assumed as rigid in-plane and without out-of plane stiffness, and the shear area of the
structural walls which was crudely estimated as 80% of the gross area which is a common assumption
when modelling structural walls. Unlike reaction forces to external loads coupling forces result from the
stiffness distribution within the structural system. Hence, it is expected that the coupling forces are
significantly more sensitive to modelling assumptions than for example the system base shear which
results from equilibrium with the external lateral forces.
The main aim of this section is to determine to which degree the base shear forces in a coupled wall
system are influenced by modelling assumptions. If the difference in base shear force between coupled
walls and de-coupled walls can be largely linked to simplifying modelling assumptions it could be
neglected in design. If the difference is however assessed as a real phenomenon it needs to be
accounted for in design. As Rutenberg suggested the implication for capacity design would be significant
[28].
In this chapter the possible effects of the following factors on displacement and drift profile of the
structure and in particular on coupling force and the base shear demand of the long and the short wall are
investigated:
-
Floor diaphragm flexibility (section 5.1)
Shear stiffness of structural walls (section 5.2)
Modelling of plasticity in structural wall elements (section 5.3)
For each of these factors alternative modelling assumptions to those used in chapter 4 are formulated.
Sensitivity studies were carried out by means of pushover analyses and non-linear time-history analyses.
The pushover analyses were used to investigate the effect of the modelling assumptions on the behaviour
of the coupled wall system to static lateral forces. It was shown in section 4.3.3.2 that higher mode effects
and a subsequent reduction in the minimum effective height of the lateral force resultant reduced
considerably the coupling effect between the long and the short wall. As for the original model adaptive
and force-controlled pushover analyses were performed. The aim of these pushover analyses were:
50
Adaptive pushover analysis: This type of analysis gives an estimate of coupling effects on base
shear forces under a lateral force at the static effective height. It would be representative of
dynamic loading where no higher mode effects are present.
Force-controlled pushover analysis: This analysis yields in an estimate of coupling effects under
dynamic loading including higher mode effects. Since the non-linear time-history analysis results
from the original model indicated that the intensity based dynamic amplification factor was
appropriate while the traditional dynamic amplification factor which is linked to the number of
storeys was considerably too low force-controlled pushover analyses was only carried out with the
force resultant at h =5.1m. This height corresponds to the minimum effective height with an
intensity based dynamic amplification factor of 3.50.
Non-linear time-history analyses were carried out to confirm the pushover results and to investigate the
effect of the modelling assumptions on the dynamic behaviour of the system.
5.1
RIGID AND FLEXIBLE LATERAL CONNECTION OF COUPLED WALLS
5.1.1
In-plane Flexibility of Slab spanning between the two Walls
In the model described in section 4 the connection of the two walls was modelled as rigid. This is an
idealisation since in reality the slab diaphragms will have some in-plane flexibility. The connection of a
slab spanning between the walls has two main sources of flexibility:
-
Flexibility across shear joint between wall and slab
Axial flexibility of slab
The axial flexibility of the slab will be different whether the slab is loaded in tension or in compression.
Based on a very simple truss model for the load transfer in the slab with diagonals at 45 degrees the
effective width of the slab is estimated as the shorter wall length. This is a very crude estimate and is
grounded on the fact that the purpose of the study is to investigate the sensitivity of the results to the
assumption on floor stiffness rather than to derive a realistic model for the deformability of the floor
diaphragms.
The axial stiffness in tension of the beam spanning between the two walls is simply based on the stiffness
of the reinforcement only. The contribution of the concrete to the axial stiffness is neglected:
EAtension = E s As = E s Ac
As
reinforcement area
Ac
gross concrete section of slab (effective width)
reinforcement ratio
(5.1)
In compression the axial beam stiffness is computed as
EAcompr = E c Ac (1 + (n 1))
(5.2)
modular ratio, n = E s / E c
A typical slab depth is 250mm. The concrete properties are taken as Ec =30GPa, f c ' =30MPa and f ct =
3MPa. A reinforcement content of 0.75% is estimated. With these properties the axial stiffness of the slab
diaphragm is
51
In Tension:
EAtension = 200 * 10 6 * 4.0 * 0.25 * 0.0075 = 1.50 * 10 6 kN / m 2
k eff ,t = EAt / d = 1.50 * 10 5 kN / m

In Compression:
EA compr = 30 * 10 6 * 4 . 0 * 0 . 25 * (1 + 0 . 0075 (
200
1)) = 3 . 13 * 10 7 kN / m 2
30
k eff ,c = EAcompr / d = 3.13 *10 6 kN / m
Flexibility across Joint between Wall and Slab

In most cases there will be a construction joint between the wall and the slab. Reinforcement systems
which are placed in the wall from which the reinforcement bars connecting wall and slab are extended are
commonly used. Hence, the slab will be cast against a surface of prefabricated concrete. Shear force across
the joint will be transferred in dowel action and by sliding shear. Some flexibility will be associated with
this shear transfer. The exact stiffness of the shear connection is difficult to determine and is neglected in
the following. Since this source of flexibility is neglected it seems justifiable to use the tension diaphragm
stiffness for both directions. To check the sensitivity to the connection models with respect to the floor
diaphragm stiffness both estimates of stiffness are evaluated. It should be noted that flexibility of this joint
not only affects the stiffness of the connection between the two walls but also leads to a variation of the
storey forces since the mass which is mainly concentrated in the floor slab and the wall do not displace
absolutely in phase (see figure below).
Mass 1
Mass 2
Wall 2
Wall 1
Figure 5.1 Flexible floor model (finally masses were moved back onto walls)
5.1.2
Pushover Analysis of Walls coupled with flexible floor diaphragm
The adaptive and force-controlled pushover analyses in section 4.3.3 were repeated for the model with
floor planes which had a finite in-plane stiffness. The stiffnesses of the floor diaphragms were derived in
section 5.1.1. Flexible floor diaphragms reduced the maximum base shear demand on the short wall
(Figure 5.2). As expected were the results for flexibly coupled walls between those of de-coupled and
rigidly coupled walls. Results of adaptive and force-controlled pushover analyses are discussed separately
in the following.
52
5.1.2.1
Adaptive pushover analysis
The base moment top displacement relationship of the longer Wall 1 is practically independent of the
assumed rigidity of the floor diaphragms (Figure 5.4). The same relationship for Wall 2 shows some but
still insignificant sensitivity to the stiffness of the floor diaphragms.
Figure 5.5 shows the storey forces of rigidly and flexibly coupled walls at the instants of formation of
plastic hinges at the bases of the long and the short walls. The maximum force in the first floor diaphragm
of the flexibly coupled walls is smaller than those of rigidly coupled walls. However, the forces in storeys
above the first floor are greater for flexible coupled walls than rigidly coupled walls. Hence, storey forces
in flexibly coupled walls are more equally distributed over the height of the building than those of rigidly
coupled walls.
The displacement and drift profiles are plotted in Figure 5.6 for 0.30m top displacement; this is about
twice the top displacement at the formation of the plastic hinge at the base of the short wall but still less
than the design displacement (at heff =17.9m : d =0.269m). Plotted are the displacement profiles of the
long wall but the difference between the displacement profile of the short and long wall are small. The
graph shows that the flexibility of the storey diaphragms has almost no influence on the shape of the
displacement and drift profile. The relative displacement between the long and the short wall is maximum
at the first floor level when the plastic hinge at the base of the short wall forms since the stiffness of the
floor diaphragms is the same at all levels and modelled as linearly elastic. For the more flexible connection
the maximum relative displacement is 0.6mm and for the diaphragm which is twenty times stiffer it is
0.02mm. The difference in top displacement does not vary significantly after formation of the first plastic
hinge.
From the pushover analyses of coupled wall systems with floor diaphragms of different rigidities it can be
concluded that assumptions on the axial floor diaphragm stiffness affect the base shear top displacement
relationships and in particular the maximum base shear demand on the short wall. Total base shear,
maximum shear force demand on the long wall, drift and displacement are relatively unaffected by
assumptions on the floor rigidity.
Figure 5.2 Adaptive pushover analysis of flexibly coupled walls: Wall base shear force top displacement
53
Figure 5.3 Adaptive pushover analysis of flexibly coupled walls: System base shear force top displacement
Figure 5.4 Adaptive pushover analysis of flexibly coupled walls: Base moment top displacement
54
Figure 5.5 Adaptive pushover analysis of flexibly coupled walls: Storey forces
Figure 5.6 Adaptive pushover analysis of flexibly coupled walls: Displacement and drift profile for top
displacement =0.30m
55
5.1.2.2
Force-controlled pushover analysis
As it was outlined in the introductory paragraph to this chapter the force-controlled analysis was only
carried out with the resultant force at h =5.1m which corresponds to the a dynamic amplification factor
of 3.50 which was derived with the intensity based method. Only the base shear top displacement
relationships are plotted in the following. Since the lateral forces were applied as two point loads at the
first and second storey the shear force distribution over the height of the structure and hence also the top
displacement is not correctly reflected in this type of analysis (see also section 4.3.3.2). Nevertheless, the
top displacement was plotted on the horizontal axis in Figure 5.7. The force-controlled pushover analysis
confirmed the findings from the adaptive pushover analysis, i.e. that there is little difference between rigid
coupling and flexible coupling based on the compression stiffness of the floor diaphragms. Flexible
coupling based on the tensile stiffness of the floor diaphragms reduces the base shear demand on the
short wall by about 240kN with respect to the maximum base shear force obtained from the original
model with rigid floor diaphragms.
Figure 5.7 Force-controlled pushover analysis of flexibly coupled walls: Wall base shear force top
displacement
5.1.3
Non-linear time history Analysis of Walls coupled with flexible floor diaphragm
To check whether the effect of the rigidity of the coupling manifests itself in the same way in pushover
analyses as in non-linear time history analyses a set of the latter was carried out for the coupled wall
structure with the flexible connection and compared to the results of the rigidly coupled walls (section
4.4.2). The flexible connection was based on the tensile stiffness of the effective slab. The connection was
modelled using an elastic spring with the same stiffness in tension and compression. Time-history analyses
with diaphragm stiffness based on the stiffness of the slab in compression was not carried out since the
pushover results already suggested that there would be little difference to the model with the rigid
diaphragms. Displacement, drift, shear force, bending moment and storey force demand are plotted in
Figure 5.8 to Figure 5.11.
56
Pushover analysis and non-linear time histories analyses results were similarly affected by the rigidity of
coupling. In particular:
Displacement and drift demand were insensitive to the rigidity of coupling.
Bending moment demand on Wall 1 and on Wall 2 were limited by the yield moments at the
wall bases and are hence the similar for pushover analysis and time-history results.
Also insensitive to the rigidity of coupling were the shear force demand on Wall 2. Peak base
shear forces obtained from pushover and non-linear time-history analysis are summarised in
Table 5.1. The stated pushover results are maximum base shear forces for top displacements
smaller than 0.35m which is approximately the peak top displacement obtained from non-linear
time-history analyses.
The maximum base shear force on Wall 2 was reduced by 209kN when the coupling was
modelled as flexible (based on tensile stiffness) rather than rigid. In the force-controlled
pushover analysis which is considered as directly comparable to the dynamic analysis the
corresponding value was 240kN. The fact that the coupling effect was slightly more pronounced
in pushover analysis than in time-history analysis might possibly be linked to the reduction in
amplification which was caused by coupling. It is likely that the reduction in amplification was
more pronounced for rigid coupling than for flexible coupling.
Difference in base shear forces obtained from force-controlled pushover analysis and non-linear
time-history analysis are in the range of 35-40% with the results from the pushover analysis
exceeding the results from the time-history analysis. The percentage of difference is similar to the
one obtained for the rigidly coupled walls (30-35%).
Table 5.1 Rigidly and flexibly coupled walls: Comparison of peak base shear forces of pushover and timehistory analyses (percentage in brackets gives difference of pushover results to non-linear THA results)
Adaptive Pushover
Analysis
Force-Controlled
Pushover Analysis
with force at h =5.1m
932
3680
(-65%)
(+36%)
740
1750
(-41%)
(+39%)
893
3450
(-66%)
(+30%)
1030
1990
(-30%)
(+35%)
Non-linear time-history
Analysis (average)
Flexible Coupl. (tensile stiffn.)

Wall 1
Wall 2
2700
1260
Rigid Coupling
Wall 1
Wall 2
57
2660
1470
Figure 5.8 Rigidly and flexibly coupled walls: Displacement envelope from time history analysis (thin black
lines: results from time history analyses with flexible coupling, thick green and blue lines: average of results
of five analyses, thick grey line: design displacement profile)
Figure 5.9 Rigidly and flexibly coupled walls: Drift envelope from time history analysis (thin black lines:
results from time history analyses with flexible coupling, thick green and blue lines: average of results of
five analyses, thick grey line: maximum design drift)
58
Figure 5.10 Rigidly and flexibly coupled walls: Shear force and bending moment envelope from time history
analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses with flexible coupling, thick green and blue
lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: flexural capacity assigned in analysis)
Figure 5.11 Rigidly and flexibly coupled walls: Storey force envelope from time history analysis (thin black
lines: results from time history analyses with flexible coupling, thick green and blue lines: average of results
of five analyses)
59
5.2
SHEAR STIFFNESS OF STRUCTURAL WALLS
In the previous sets of analyses the shear stiffness of the walls was modelled as linearly elastic. The wall
sections were assigned a shear area corresponding to 80% of the gross area and the shear modulus of the
concrete was set to 10.7GPa. This is a simple model of the shear stiffness of walls which is commonly
used in structural analysis but which does not reflect the actual shear stiffness characteristics of a wall
when subjected to relatively high shear forces.
The shear stiffness of a structural wall depends on the state of shear cracking [11]. At onset of opening of
diagonal shear cracks the shear stiffness of the wall drops significantly. The characteristics of the two
significant phases are discussed in the following (section 5.2.1). In section 5.2.2 the sensitivity of the
pushover analysis results to different assumptions on the wall shear stiffness is investigated.
5.2.1
Shear Stiffness and Capacity of Wall Sections subjected to high Shear Force Levels
The shear force- shear displacement relationship of a wall can be approximated by a bi-linear relationship
as shown in the figure below. The two phases correspond to the states before and after shear cracking.
The state where the wall is uncracked, i.e. where no flexural cracking has occurred, is not considered since
this state is unlikely to affect the overall behaviour of the wall under seismic loading.
It is assumed that there is no interaction between flexural and shear stiffness as it was suggested by Park
and Paulay [11] and Miranda [10]. This assumptions is justifiable since the amount of drop in stiffness
after onset of shear cracking is mainly dependent on the web reinforcement provided [11].
V
Shear Capacity
Shear Cracking
Figure 5.12 Variation of shear stiffness with displacement
5.2.1.1
Shear Stiffness before Shear Cracking Force is reached
Before opening of shear and also flexural cracks the shear force in a structural wall can be transmitted by
the following mechanisms [8]:
Concrete mechanism (includes shear transfer in compression zone, by aggregate interlocking via
cracks and by dowel action of longitudinal reinforcement)
Steel truss mechanism (shear transfer via transverse reinforcement)
Axial load contribution (this is neglected here because the length of the shear span varies
significantly over the range of deflections considered)
Due to the several mechanisms by which shear forces are transferred it is difficult to derive a physical
model which describes the shear stiffness of a flexurally cracked member. Park and Paulay [11] report that
60
the shear stiffness of a diagonally cracked member is approximately 10 to 30% of the shear stiffness of the
uncracked member. In this study the approach suggested in [24] is followed according to which the shear
stiffness after onset of flexural cracking can be estimated as
Ave = Av
5.2.1.2
I eff
I gross
Av
shear area of the wall section, usually taken as 0.8l w bw
I eff
ratio of nominal moment capacity and yield curvature
(5.3)
Shear Stiffness after onset of Shear Cracking
After onset of shear cracking the shear stiffness of the member drops. The cracks widen and mobilise the
web reinforcement while contribution of aggregate interlocking diminishes.
The shear stiffness of the member at this stage can be estimated on the basis of a truss mechanism. The
truss mechanism was introduced by Dilger in 1966 and is also described by Park and Paulay [11]. The
shear stiffness for a member with transverse reinforcement at right angle to the member axis is:
k v = v E s bw d
(sin cos )2
sin 4 + n v
web reinforcement ratio, v = Av / s v bw
sv
vertical spacing of the horizontal web reinforcement
bw
wall width
effective depth of section (=lever arm between compression and tension

resultant)
inclination of compression struts, angle measure towards member axis
modular ratio, n = E s / E c
Figure 5.13 Schematics of the equivalent truss model using Williot principles ([10] after [11])
61
(5.4)
The stiffness above is in units of force per shear distortion per unit height of the wall. To translate the
stiffness in a force per displacement value the stiffness needs to be divided by the shear span. The
dependence of the shear stiffness on the angle of the compression strut is plotted in Figure 5.14.
The angle at which the compression strut will form is dependent on the shear span and also on the
boundary condition at either side of the strut. For the design case described in chapter 3 the angle at
which the shear struts form is estimated as:
tan =
lw
H storey
(5.5)
Figure 5.14 Shear stiffness after shear cracking: Dependence of shear stiffness on the angle of the
compression strut towards the wall axis
5.2.1.3
Estimation of Shear Cracking Force and Shear Capacity
Shear Cracking Force

Source [10] gives an overview over the existing formulae predicting the shear cracking force level of a
reinforced concrete section. From the six formulae presented the ACI web equation was chosen because it
accounts for axial force effects:
N
Vcw = 0.29 f c '+0.3
Agross
bw d 0.41 f c ' bw d (units: MPa, m, MN)
effective depth of the wall section
62
(5.6)
fc '
concrete compressive strength
axial compression force on the wall section
Agross
gross area of the wall section
Shear Capacity
The shear capacity of a wall section is the sum of the shear capacity of the web reinforcement and of the
concrete ([14], p.126):
Vn = Vs + Vc
(5.7)
The contribution of the web reinforcement is taken as
Vs =
Av f y 0.8l w
sv
Av
area of one web reinforcement hoop (=2 bars)
fy
yield stress of web reinforcement
0.8l w
assumed wall height over which the web reinforcement is mobilised
sv
vertical spacing of web reinforcement
(5.8)
Shear strength due to aggregate interlocking is mostly lost at ultimate displacement and the shear capacity
of the concrete results solely from the axial force on the wall section:
Vc = 0.6
Nu
As
Agross
axial force on wall section
Agross
gross wall section
As
shear area of wall section, for rectangular walls commonly taken as
(5.9)
0.8l w bw
5.2.1.4
Shear Stiffness and Capacity for the Walls in the Design Example of Chapter 3
The two walls were designed for the shear force envelope which includes the dynamic amplification factor
of the intensity based method. The design base shear values are 4420kN for Wall 1 and 1420kN for Wall 2
(section 3.2).
To prevent the longitudinal wall reinforcement from buckling the spacing of the web reinforcement has to
be less than six times the diameter of the main longitudinal reinforcement, i.e 6*20mm=120mm. The
required web reinforcement was determined from the formula for shear capacity given in section 5.2.1.3.
63
It was found that for Wall 2 a web reinforcement with two layers of 10mm with 120mm spacing is
adequate. For Wall 1 the spacing was reduced to 80mm so that two legs of web reinforcement would be
sufficient. This web reinforcement yielded also in sufficient confinement of the concrete in the
compression zone.
Table 5.2 Shear Stiffness and Capacity of the Structural Walls at different stages
Wall 1
Wall 2
0.98%
0.65%
Shear Cracking Force
1980 kN
1360 kN
Shear Capacity Force
4740 kN
2260 kN
0.243m (20.3%Agross)
0.161m (20.1%Agross)
8.94*105 kN/m
5.93*105 kN/m
1.59*105 kN/m
1.58*105 kN/m
0.18
0.27
Web reinforcement ratio
Shear Stiffness before Onset of Shear Cracking

Equivalent Shear Area
Shear Stiffness ks1
Shear Stiffness after Onset of Shear Cracking

Shear Stiffness ks2
Ratio ks2/ks1
In the Ruaumoko Model the shear flexibility was accounted for by the in-elastic shear parameters of the
wall sections. In this shear model the in-elastic shear follows the Sina-hysteresis rule [3]. Shear degradation
with increasing ductility demand was not accounted for. Instead the yield shear force V y was set to the
shear capacity derived in section 5.2.1.3 which already neglected the degrading components of the
concrete shear resistance. The crack closing force was set equal to the shear cracking force. The shear
stiffness was assumed as constant over the height of the structure.
5.2.2
Comparison of Pushover Analyses for different Assumptions on Shear Stiffness of Wall Sections
In the following the pushover analysis results of rigidly coupled walls with three different shear stiffness
models for the structural walls:
Original Model: As = 0.8 Agross (this was the assumption used for the analysis in section 4 and
section 5.1)
SINA Model: The tri-linear SINA hysteresis shear model described in section 5.2.1.
No shear flexibility
64
Comparison of shear cracking force and expected base shear demand on short and long wall showed that
the shear force would not greater than the shear cracking force. It is hence not expected that the walls
reach the state beyond shear cracking.
5.2.2.1
Figure 5.15 to Figure 5.19 show the results of the adaptive pushover analysis for the three different shear
models. The influence on the shear flexibility is greatest on the shear force-displacement relationship of a
single wall and the storey forces. The influence is small on the system base shear, the wall moments and
the displacement and drift models. The contribution of the shear deformation to the overall displacement
demand is apparent in all the pushover plots: The shear deformation when the shear area was modelled as
80% of Agross is relatively small. For the tri-linear model in which the shear stiffness was estimated as
proportional to the ratio of effective to gross moment of inertia the shear deformation in the short wall
reaches at the top about 10% of the flexural deformation (Table 5.3). For the long wall the ratio of shear
to flexural deformation is only about half as large. The deformations were computed for the instances of
formation of plastic hinges at the respective walls. As expected the effect of the shear deformation on the
displacement at the first level is larger than at the top of the wall. At the first level the ratio of shear
deformations to flexural deformation is 30 and 40% for Wall 1 and 2 respectively at formation of a plastic
hinge at the base of the wall.
Table 5.3 Effect of shear deformation on displacement at top and first level (displacements are at instant of
formation of plastic hinges, i.e for Wall 1 at formation of plastic hinge in Wall 1 and for Wall 2 at formation
of plastic hinge in Wall 2)
Top Displacement
No shear
deformation
Tri-linear
shear model
[m]
[m]
Wall 1
0.050
Wall 2
0.150
Displacement at Level 1
Shear
deformat. as
% of flexural
deformat.
No shear
deformation
Tri-linear
shear model
[m]
[m]
0.130
~5%
0.003
0.004
~30%
0.160
~10%
0.004
0.006
~40%
65
Shear
deformat. as
% of flexural
deformat.
Wall base ahear force top displacement
System base ahear force top displacement
66
Base moment top displacement of Wall 1
Storey forces
67
Displacement and drift profile for top displacement =0.30m
5.2.2.2
Force-controlled Pushover Analysis
When the lateral force resultant was applied at a height h =5.1m the influence of the shear model for the
structural wall on the base shear demand was relatively small (Figure 5.20). However, the trend from the
force-controlled pushover analysis was opposite to the trend from the adaptive pushover analysis:
Assigning the shear flexibility proportional to the ratio of the effective and gross flexural stiffness I (SINA
rule) increased the base shear demand on Wall 2 rather than decreased it. This is caused by the relative
contribution of shear and flexural flexibility to the total flexibility of the wall. To understand the effect of
shear and flexural flexibility on the behaviour of the coupled wall system the stiffness ratios of the long
and the short wall are considered in the following for the two limit cases where a) only flexural
deformations and no shear deformations and b) where there are no flexural deformations but shear
deformations only.
a) If no shear deformation occurs and the entire deformability of the walls results from their
flexural flexibility the stiffness ratio of the long and the short wall is approximately proportional
to the wall lengths ratio to the power of three:
kWall1 lW 1
=
kWall 2 lW 2
(5.10)
The exact stiffness ratio of reinforced concrete sections of course depends on the reinforcement
content of the two sections which are compared. The yield curvature and hence the yield
displacement is relatively independent of the reinforcement content and axial load ratio but
depends only on the geometry, i.e. the dimensions of the wall section. The yield curvature is
inversely proportional to the wall length (equation 3.6). The capacity of the wall section depends
on the reinforcement content and the square of the lever arm of the internal forces. It is usually
desirable to design sections with similar reinforcement ratios. If the reinforcement ratio of the
68
two sections is approximately the same and the wall widths equal the ratio of moment capacities
of the two sections is hence proportional to the ratio of the square of their wall lengths. The
stiffness ratio of two reinforced concrete sections with equal reinforcement ratio and section
width is hence the same as the stiffness ratio of their gross sections for homogenous material.
b) Shear stiffness is in generally assumed as proportional to the gross area of the section. Hence, if
shear deformation is dominant and flexural deformation negligible the stiffness ratio of two walls
with equal width is proportional to their wall lengths:
kWall 1 lW 1
=
kWall 2 lW 2
(5.11)
Since the flexural stiffness is approximately proportional to lw3 and the shear stiffness to lw the ratio of
total stiffnesses of the long wall to the short wall reduces as the shear flexibility increases. This is observed
when the coupling forces are not very dominant. Introducing additional shear flexibility in the model
hence has the following two effects on the shear force demand of the short wall:
The additional flexibility reduced the coupling forces and therefore the base shear demand on the
short shear wall.
The ratio of the total stiffness of the long wall to the short wall reduces as the shear flexibility
increases. If the coupling forces are disregarded an increase in shear flexibility in the two walls
leads hence to a redistribution of lateral forces from the long to the short wall.
The two described effects are counteracting. Which of the two effects dominates depends on the
significance of the coupling effects on the shear demand of the short wall. In the adaptive pushover
analysis the coupling forces were strong and introducing shear flexibility to the model reduced the shear
force demand on the short wall (Figure 5.15). In the force-controlled pushover analysis the effect of
coupling forces was small and base shear forces were basically distributed in proportion to the wall
stiffnesses (Figure 5.20). This lead in particular before formation of the hinge at the short wall base to
greater shear forces for the models with shear flexibility than for the model with no shear flexibility.
69
Figure 5.20 Force-controlled pushover analysis of coupled walls with different assumptions about shear
stiffness: Wall base ahear force top displacement
5.2.3
Comparison of Non-linear time history analysis for different Assumptions on Shear Stiffness of
Wall Sections
Non-linear time history analysis of the coupled wall model where shear flexibility was accounted for by
the SINA hysteresis rule was carried out and compared to the results from section 4.4.2 where the shear
area was estimated as 80% of the gross area. Displacement, drift, shear force, bending moment and storey
force envelopes are plotted in Figure 5.21 to Figure 5.24. Effect of shear deformation are apparent in the
drift envelope of the SINA model: The drift in the lower storeys where shear forces and hence shear
deformations were large exceeded the maximum drift obtained from analysis of the original model.
The shear force and moment demand profiles for Wall 1 were little affected by the assumption on the
shear stiffness of the walls. Only the base shear demand on Wall 1 was slightly reduced. The bending
moment profile of Wall 2 shows some higher mode effects for the SINA model but almost none for the
original model (section 4.4.2). The base shear demand on Wall 2 was larger for the SINA model than for
the original model. This is likely to be due to the increased stiffness ratio of Wall 2 to Wall 1 (section
5.2.2.2) and to the increased higher mode effects on Wall 2. The storey forces were considerably larger for
the SINA model than for the original model and were also spread over a greater height. In fact, the
maximum storey force was at the second level. Only the envelope of the absolute values is plotted here
but time-history plots showed that the storey forces in the first and third floor were of opposite sign to
storey forces in the second level.
The peak base shear forces from pushover analyses and non-linear time history analysis are compared in
Table 5.4. The force-based pushover analysis well captured the effect of increased base shear force in the
shorter wall when shear flexibility is accounted for. However, the effect of shear flexibility was less
pronounced in case of the force-controlled pushover analysis than of the time-history analysis. This is
likely to be due to the conservative estimate of the amplification factor and a corresponding smaller height
of the lateral resultant force. It was shown in section 4.3.3.2 that the coupling effect reduces with decrease
in height of the resultant lateral force.
70
Table 5.4 Rigidly coupled walls with different assumptions about shear stiffness: Comparison of peak base
shear forces of pushover and time-history analyses (percentage in brackets gives difference of pushover
results to non-linear THA results)
Adaptive Pushover
Analysis
Force-Controlled
Pushover Analysis
860
3320
(-66%)
(+33%)
820
2100
(-54%)
(+18%)
893
3450
(-66%)
(+30%)
1030
1990
(-30%)
(+35%)
Analysis (average)
Tri-linear shear model

Wall 1
Wall 2
2500
1780
As=0.8Agross
Wall 1
Wall 2
2660
1470
Figure 5.21 Rigidly coupled walls with different assumptions about shear stiffness: Displacement envelope
from time history analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses with tri-linear shear model,
thick green and blue lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: design displacement)
71
Figure 5.22 Rigidly coupled walls with different assumptions about shear stiffness: Drift envelope from
time history analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses with tri-linear shear model, thick
green and blue lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: maximum design drift)
Figure 5.23 Rigidly coupled walls with different assumptions about shear stiffness: Shear force and bending
moment envelope from time history analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses with trilinear shear model, thick green and blue lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: flexural
capacity assigned in analysis)
72
Figure 5.24 Rigidly coupled walls with different assumptions about shear stiffness: Storey force envelope
from time history analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses with tri-linear shear model,
thick green and blue lines: average of results of five analyses)
5.2.4
Model with Shear Flexibility and Floor Diaphragm Flexibility
Force-controlled pushover analysis showed that incorporating flexible diaphragms into the coupled wall
structure where shear deformations were modelled with the SINA hysteresis rule (section 5.2.1.4) reduced
the base shear demand on the short wall by about 120kN and increased the base shear demand on the
long wall by the same amount (Figure 5.25). The time-history results showed for the short wall a slightly
greater reduction in base shear demand of 200kN due to flexible coupling than did the force-controlled
pushover analysis. The demand on the long wall was unaffected by this modelling assumption (Figure
5.26). Adding floor flexibility to the original model or the SINA-model had a comparable effect with
respect to the base shear demand on the walls.
73
Figure 5.25 Force-controlled pushover analysis of coupled walls with shear flexibility and floor diaphragm
flexibility: Wall base shear force top displacement
Figure 5.26 Non-linear time history analysis of coupled walls with shear flexibility and floor diaphragm
flexibility: Shear force and bending moment envelope from time history analysis (thin black lines: results
from time history analyses with tri-linear shear model and flexible coupling, thick green and blue lines:
average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: flexural capacity assigned in analysis)
74
5.3
LUMPED PLASTICITY MODEL VS. FIBRE ELEMENT MODEL
Due to the lumped plasticity model the push-over curve of a single wall will be bi-linear rather than a
curve with an elastic branch and a smooth transition from the elastic into the inelastic phase of the
capacity curve. The bi-linear approximation is in general sufficient accurate for seismic design analysis.
However, for the coupled wall system this assumption means that the flexural stiffness of a member only
changes once during an increase in lateral load (pushover analysis). Since compatibility forces can only be
released if the stiffness of the members changes the compatibility forces are locked in until a new plastic
hinge forms. To investigate the effect of distributed plasticity on the shear demand at the wall bases the
previous results from analysis of element models are compared to the analysis results of a fibre element
model which is analysed using the software SeismoStruct [29]. Rather than modelling the structural
element as a stick with section properties concentrated at the centre line of the section a fibre model
represents a section by fibres parallel to the element axis. The section area is split into a finite number of
fibres. The sectional stress-strain state of the elements is obtained through integration of the non-linear
uniaxial stress-strain response of the individual fibres [29]. Spread of inelasticity along the fibres is also
accounted for.
In the fibre model the gradual spreading of inelasticity over the cross section and the element height leads
to a smoother transition between elastic and inelastic element behaviour than the bi-linear approximation
which was adopted with the lumped plasticity model. The smoother transition is believed more realistic
and it is expected that it leads to a reduction of the coupling forces and hence also to a reduction in the
shear force demand on the short wall. A further difference between the fibre and the lumped plasticity
model is the displacement pattern of the inelastic member. The displacement increment of the inelastic
lumped plasticity member is a rigid body rotation about the plastic hinge. In the fibre model plasticity can
also spread gradually along the element as the inelastic deformation increases.
SeismoStruct does not allow for shear flexibility. To compare like with like the structural wall elements in
the lumped plasticity model which was used for comparison were also assigned infinite shear rigidity.
Before comparing the pushover results of the fibre element model and the lumped plasticity model
(section 5.3.3) and the time-history analysis results (section ) the modelling approaches of inelastic
deformation of sections in Ruaumoko and SeismoStruct are described (section 5.3.1 and 5.3.2).
5.3.1
Lumped Plasticity Model in Ruaumoko
Ruaumoko [3] offers a number of different formulations for beam members among which the Giberson
One Component Beam Model is the one commonly used for structural elements where the axial force
does not vary during the loading process. This element formulation was used for all analyses in the
previous sections. In the Giberson One Component Beam Model the plastic hinges are modelled as an
elastic component with an inelastic spring at the end of the plastic hinges. This type of modelling is
commonly referred to as lumped plasticity model. The stiffness of the plastic hinge spring is infinite
when the hinge is in the elastic range. When the hinge is in the inelastic range the spring stiffness is altered
to
k spring =
EI
lp
rM n
1 yl p 1
EI
stiffness of the member in the inelastic range
lp
plastic hinge length
curvature
75
(5.12)
post-elastic stiffness
approximation
ratio
of
the
Mn
nominal moment of the beam element
bi-linear
moment
curvature
The length of the plastic hinge is used to transform the moment-curvature relationship specified in the
beam properties into a moment-rotation relationship. The inelastic and elastic stiffnesses are added
together by adding the flexibilities and inverting the resulting matrix to the final stiffness matrix of the
member.
5.3.2
Fibre Element Model
Both walls were modelled as RC Flexural Wall Sections with 200 fibre elements per section. The
properties of the walls are summarised in Table 5.5.
Table 5.5 Fibre element model: Properties of walls
Long Wall
Short Wall
Length
6.0m
4.0m
Width
0.20m
0.20m
Reinforcement Area
11200mm
7320mm
Reinforcement Ratio
0.94%
0.92%
The two walls were connected by very stiff links. The moment capacity of the walls was checked by means
of a static adaptive pushover analysis of the de-coupled walls. The resulting base moment and base shear
top displacement curves are plotted in Figure 5.27 and compared to the capacity curves of the de-coupled
walls from the lumped plasticity model (no shear deformation). The shear capacity curves of the fibre
element models were slightly lower than the bi-linear approximation used in the RUAUMOKO model
although the base moment capacities matched very well. The difference in match between base shear and
moment indicated that the effective height of the fibre element model is larger than the effective height of
the element model. However, the agreement was sufficient to draw some conclusions on the comparison
of fibre and lumped plasticity models. This was also confirmed by comparison of cyclic displacementcontrolled pushover analysis results. The base moment-top displacement curves are plotted in Figure 5.28.
The agreement between fibre element model (coloured line) and lumped plasticity model (grey line) is
satisfactory.
76
Table 5.6 Yielding sequence in fibre model of de-coupled walls
Base Shear
Top Displacement
[kN]
[m]
Onset of Yielding at Base
655
0.090
Onset of Yielding in 2nd Storey
772
0.114
Onset of Yielding in 3rd Storey
915
0.246
Onset of Concrete Crashing at base of LW
932
0.306
Onset of Yielding at Base
289
0.138
Onset of Yielding in 2nd Storey
331
0.168
Onset of Yielding in 3rd Storey
389
0.264
Onset of Concrete Crashing at base of SW
413
0.462
Long Wall
Short Wall
Figure 5.27 Adaptive pushover analysis of de-coupled walls: Base shear top displacement and base
moment top displacement for fibre and element model (coloured line: fibre model, grey line: element
model)
77
Figure 5.28 Cyclic displacement-controlled pushover analysis of de-coupled walls: Base shear top
displacement and base moment top displacement for fibre and element model (fibre element model:
coloured line, lumped plasticity model: grey line)
5.3.3
5.3.3.1
Pushover Results for the Fibre Element Model and the Lumped Plasticity Model
Figure 5.29 and Figure 5.30 show the base moment and base shear top displacement relationships of the
coupled wall system. Also included are the results of the pushover analysis of the fibre model for the decoupled walls which were previously plotted in Figure 5.27. The fibre analysis results of the coupled walls
are plotted with thick coloured lines, the lumped plasticity analysis results of coupled walls with
suppressed shear deformation with thick grey lines and the fibre analysis results of the de-coupled walls
with thin coloured lines.
At the beginning of the pushover analysis of the fibre model of the coupled walls the base shear top
displacement curves coincide with those of the de-coupled walls. The point where the base shear forces of
the coupled walls start to deviate from that of the de-coupled walls is associated with onset of yielding at
the base of the long wall. At this point the base shear in the long wall drops of while the base shear in the
short wall carries the additional base shear demand. This trend starts to cease at onset of yielding at the
base of the short wall when the base shear force in Wall 1 picks up again. Table 5.7 gives some
characteristic points of the yielding sequence of the fibre model for the coupled walls. The points
correspond to the onset of inelastic deformation of a particular storey. Unlike in the plastic hinge model
there is no clear point of formation of a plastic hinge but inelasticity spreads gradually over the height and
the section depth.
78
Table 5.7 Yielding sequence in fibre model of coupled walls
Total Base Shear
Top Displacement
[kN]
[m]
Onset of Yielding at Base of Long Wall
900
0.09
Onset of Yielding in 2nd Storey of LW
1043
0.11
Onset of Yielding at Base of Short Wall
1101
0.12
Onset of Yielding in 2nd Storey of SW
1277
0.18
Onset of Concrete Crushing at base of LW
1380
0.32
Onset of Concrete Crushing at base of SW
1401
0.40
The effect of coupling two walls of different length on the computed base shear demand seems to be
significantly influenced by assumptions underlying the modelling of plastic hinges (lumped/distributed
plasticity). The main similarities and differences between the base shear curves of the fibre analysis and the
lumped plasticity analysis are:
In both analyses the base shear demand on the short wall in the coupled wall system exceeded the
base shear demand of the de-coupled short wall. However, the magnitude of the base shear
demand on the short wall was very different. The base shear demand predicted with the lumped
plasticity model was significantly larger than the base shear demand resulting from the fibre
element analysis.
The prediction of base shear demand on the long wall is more similar for the two models than
that for the short wall. This is because depending on the ductility demand on the system the
maximum base shear occurs either before the formation of the plastic hinge at the base of the
long wall or at ultimate displacement. At these points the agreement of the two models is better
than for any point in between.
Compatibility forces can only be released if the shape of the displacement pattern changes.
Assuming lumped plasticity model this is only the case at the formation of a third plastic hinge. In
the fibre model where plasticity spreads gradually compatibility forces are smaller but also seem to
be released at a lower rate.
Concrete crushing at the base of the short wall started slightly earlier when the wall was coupled
to a longer wall than when it was de-coupled (at a top displacement of 0.400m compared to
0.432m). This could indicate that the curvature demand on the short wall in a coupled system is
greater than when the wall is de-coupled. Good detailing of the confining reinforcement is
required.
79
top displacement for fibre and lumped plasticity model (coloured thick lines: fibre model of coupled
walls, coloured thin lines: fibre model of de-coupled walls, grey lines: element model)
Figure 5.30 Adaptive pushover analysis of coupled walls: System base shear top displacement for fibre
and lumped plasticity model
The fibre element model was reanalysed with the axial floor diaphragm stiffness reduced to
k =1.5*105kN/m which is the stiffness estimated for the slab in tension (section 5.1.1). The effect of the
reduced rigidity of coupling on the base moment top displacement relationship is negligible (Figure
80
5.31). The stiffness of the links between the two walls has some effect on the base shear top
displacement relationship. However the reduction in base shear demand on the short wall is only about a
quarter of the reduction for element model with lumped plasticity (Figure 5.2).
top displacement for fibre element model for de-coupled and rigidly and flexibly coupled walls (solid thick
lines: rigidly coupled walls, dashed thick lines: flexibly coupled walls, solid thin lines: de-coupled wall )
5.3.3.2
Force-controlled Pushover Analysis
Figure 5.32 shows the comparison of the force-controlled pushover analysis for the fibre and the lumped
plasticity model where shear deformations have been suppressed. The resultant force was as for the
previous force-controlled pushover analyses at h =5.1m. Modelling the wall sections with fibres rather
than elements where inelasticity is lumped smoothes the curves. The difference between the two models is
rather small since coupling effects were not a dominant feature in this type of analysis due to the low
height of the resultant lateral force (see section 4.3.3.2). This distinguishes the force-controlled pushover
results from the adaptive pushover results.
81
Figure 5.32 Force-controlled pushover analysis of coupled walls for fibre and lumped plasticity model: Wall
base ahear force top displacement
5.3.4
Non-linear time-history analysis
The results of the force-controlled pushover analysis suggested that differences in time-history analysis
results between the lumped plasticity model and the fibre element model would be small. Apart from
comparing the average enveloped displacement and force quantities for the set of five accelerograms the
top displacement, base shears and base moments were compared in the time-domain for accelerogram 5.
The time-history curves for the other four accelerograms showed similar agreement for fibre and lumped
plasticity model. The fibre analysis model was analysed without additional viscous. However, since
concrete cracking was modelled explicitly in the fibre model there will be some energy dissipation even
when the structure responds in the elastic range. The lumped plasticity model was analysed for two
assumptions on damping attempting to reflect the analysis conditions for the fibre element model: first the
model was analysed without any additional damping, then the model was re-analysed introducing as in
time-history analyses in previous section Rayleigh damping equivalent to 5% tangent stiffness
proportional damping in the first and second mode at the design point, i.e. the maximum anticipated
displacement. However, energy dissipation due to concrete cracking will only be present in the first few
small cycles. Once the elastic limit of the section is reached energy dissipation due to concrete mechanism
will be negligible. It is hence argued that the lumped plasticity model is most comparable to the fibre
model if also analysed for zero additional viscous damping. For comparison, the analysis results of the
lumped plasticity model for 5% additional damping are also included in the graphs.
Comparison of the top displacements time-histories shows a good agreement between the displacement
obtained from the fibre model and the lumped plasticity model with no additional Rayleigh damping
(Figure 5.33). There was also a fairly good agreement between the base moment histories (Figure 5.35)
while the base shear histories (Figure 5.34) of the fibre model showed significantly greater overlaying
vibrations than those obtained from the lumped plasticity models. The data plotted is based on an output
time interval of 0.02s. For the lumped plasticity models the difference between the peak shear force
obtained for an output interval of 0.02s and 0.001 is less than 2.5%. The difference is greater between the
models for base shear values of Wall 1 than Wall 2.
82
The envelopes of displacement, drift, shear force and bending moment demands for the set of five
accelerograms are plotted in Figure 5.36 to Figure 5.38. The thick lines represent the average of the five
analyses for each of the three models (fibre model, lumped plasticity model with 0 and 5% effective
damping). Note that the storey forces are not included in the plots. In the fibre element model the storey
mass was lumped at a point between the walls and both walls were rigidily linked in horizontal direction to
the storey masses. The masses were not lumped at the centre lines of the walls as was done for the lumped
plasticity models since this lead to strong vibrations of the axial loads in the walls. Due to this modelling
difference the storey forces from fibre and lumped plasticity model cannot be compared. The thin black
lines are the envelopes of for each of the five analyses of the fibre model. The following observations can
be made:
Displacement Profile: The displacement profile of the fibre model almost perfectly coincides
with the design profile. However, the analysis of the fibre model did not include additional
damping. If additional damping would be considered the displacement demand would be slightly
smaller. This is visualised by the results of the lumped plasticity models with 0 and 5% effective
damping which flank the results of the fibre model.
Drift Profile: The average drift profile of the fibre model exceeds the design drift in the top two
storeys. Comparison of the drift profiles of the fibre model and the lumped plasticity models
shows that inelasticity in the fibre model is distributed over the lower three storeys while in the
lumped plasticity model inelasticity is concentrated in the plastic hinge at the base.
Moment Profile: The moment profile of Wall 1 shows smaller moments for the fibre element
model than for the lumped plasticity model in the lower half of the structure. All profiles show
however the characteristics kink at midheight. The moment profile of the shorter Wall 2 is
almost identical for all three models and describes an almost straight line between base and top
indicating the absence of significant higher mode effects.
Shear Profile: The shear profile of the longer Wall 1 of the fibre model is almost identical to the
profile of the lumped plasticity model with no additional damping. The damped lumped plasticity
model lead as expected to smaller shear force demands. The shear profiles for the shorter Wall 2
of the two lumped plasticity models both show the sudden increase of shear force demand from
the second to the lowest storey. As outlined several times before this is due to the compatibility
force transmitted by the lowest floor diaphragm. The shear profile of Wall 2 from the fibre
element model does not show this characteristic. The decrease in shear force is almost linear over
the lower half of the wall. The base shear force from the fibre model is about 300kN smaller
than the base shear force from the lumped plasticity model without damping. For these two
models the base shear demand was almost identical for the long wall. Hence, in the case studied
here, modelling the plasticity in the structural wall members as distributed rather than lumped
lead to a more even shear force demand on the short wall and to a reduction in base shear
demand.
83
Table 5.8 Fibre and element model of coupled walls: Comparison of peak base shear forces of pushover
and time-history analyses (percentage in brackets gives difference of pushover results to non-linear THA
results)
Adaptive Pushover
Analysis
Force-Controlled
Pushover Analysis
950kN
~3900kN
(-73%)
(+10%)
680kN
1900kN
(-53%)
(+29%)
949kN
3470kN
(-71%)
(+7%)
1180kN
2170kN
(-34%)
(+21%)
949kN
3470kN
(-64%)
(+32%)
1180kN
2170kN
(-24%)
(+39%)
Analysis
Fibre Model
Wall 1
Wall 2
3540kN
1470kN
Lumped Plasticity Model (no

additional damping)
Wall 1
Wall 2
3240kN
1790kN
Lumped Plasticity Model (5%

damping, no shear flexibility)
Wall 1
Wall 2
84
2625kN
1560kN
Figure 5.33 Time-history analysis of coupled walls subjected to Accelerogram 5: Comparison of top
displacement response of fibre element model and lumped plasticity model with no and 5% effective
damping
Figure 5.34 Time-history analysis of coupled walls subjected to Accelerogram 5: Comparison of base
moment responses of fibre element model and lumped plasticity model with no and 5% effective damping
85
Figure 5.35 Time-history analysis of coupled walls subjected to Accelerogram 5: Comparison of base shear
responses of fibre element model and lumped plasticity model with no and 5% effective damping
Figure 5.36 Fibre and lumped plasticity model of rigidly coupled walls: Displacement envelope from time
history analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses with fibre model, thick red, green and
blue lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: design displacement)
86
Figure 5.37 Fibre and lumped plasticity model of rigidly coupled walls: Drift envelope from time history
analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses with fibre model, thick red, green and blue
lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: maximum design drift)
Figure 5.38 Fibre and lumped plasticity model of rigidly coupled walls: Shear force and bending moment
envelope from time history analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses with fibre model,
thick red, green and blue lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: flexural capacity assigned
in analysis)
87
5.3.5
Non-linear time-history analysis of a 12-storey building
In section 4.3.3.2 it was shown that the coupling effect between walls of different length is more
important for buildings with more storeys since the height difference between resultant lateral force and
lowest floor diaphragm is greater. For the 8-storey example structure which was considered in the
previous sections the coupling effect under dynamic loading was not very significant (e.g. section 5.3.4)
which was also reflected in the force-based pushover analysis. To complement the 8-storey structure a 12storey structure was analysed for which it was expected that coupling effects would play a more dominant
role under dynamic analysis. Hence, the effect of any modelling assumptions on the base shear demand on
the short wall should be more clearly reflected by the analysis of the 12-storey building than by the
previous analysis of the 8-storey structure.
The 12-storey structure had the same floor layout and storey mass as the 8-storey building (section 2). The
12-storey building was designed according to the same principles as the 8-storey building which were
outlined in section 3.1. The short wall in the 12-storey structure was also 4m long. The longer wall was
two metres longer in the 12-storey building than in the 8-storey building, i.e. its length was 8m instead of
6m. The increase in length was necessary to meet the 2% drift requirement.
Figure 5.39 to Figure 5.41 show the displacement, drift, shear force and bending moment envelopes
obtained for the analysis of the fibre and the lumped plasticity model of the 12-storey structure. The fibre
model was as explained in section 5.3.4 analysed without introducing additional viscous damping. Hence,
the energy absorption results solely from hysteretic damping. The lumped plasticity model was as the 8storey structure analysed with zero and 5% additional effective viscous although it was already argued in
section 5.3.4 that the analysis case with zero additional damping is best comparable to the fibre model.
Table 5.9 shows the comparison of the average base shear forces obtained from the five time-history
analyses for the lumped plasticity model and the fibre model for both the 8-storey structure and the 12storey structure. The lumped plasticity model lead (zero additional damping) lead to a base shear force in
the short wall which was 22% higher than the force obtained from analysis of the fibre model. For the 12storey structure the increase was even 31% confirming the assumption made in the beginning of this
section that the fibre model leads to greater reductions in base shear forces of the short wall when the
coupling effect is important.
Table 5.9 Fibre and element model of coupled walls: Comparison of envelope base shear forces of short
wall (4m long) from non-linear THA results between fibre and lumped plasticity model for 8-storey and 12storey structure (percentage in brackets gives difference of lumped plasticity model analysis results to fibre
model results)
Short Wall in 8-storey structure
Short Wall in 12-storey structure
Lumped plasticity
model (no additional
damping)
Lumped plasticity
model (5% effective
damping)
1790kN
1560kN
(+22%)
(+6%)
2300kN
2030kN
(+31%)
(+22%)
88
Fibre model
1470kN
1670kN
Figure 5.39 Fibre and lumped plasticity model of rigidly 12-storey coupled wall structure: Displacement
envelope from time history analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses with fibre model,
thick red, green and blue lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: design displacement)
Figure 5.40 Fibre and lumped plasticity model of rigidly 12-storey coupled wall structure: Drift envelope
from time history analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses with fibre model, thick red,
green and blue lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: maximum design drift)
89
Figure 5.41 Fibre and lumped plasticity model of rigidly 12-storey coupled wall structure: Shear force and
bending moment envelope from time history analysis (thin black lines: results from time history analyses
with fibre model, thick red, green and blue lines: average of results of five analyses, thick grey line: flexural
capacity assigned in analysis)
5.4
In this chapter the sensitivity of the results from pushover and non-linear time-history analyses to
modelling assumptions of floor diaphragm stiffness, structural wall shear stiffness and distribution of
inelasticity along the member were investigated with respect to the following output quantities:
displacement and drift profiles
base shear demand on single walls
storey forces
It was found that the displacement and drift results from the non-linear time-history analyses were fairly
insensitive to modelling assumptions. The base shear demand on the single short walls showed some
sensitivity while the base shear demand on the long wall was also rather insensitive to the modelling
assumptions. The difference in sensitivity of base shear demand on long and short wall was related to the
fact that the maximum base shear demand on the long wall often occurred at the instant of formation of a
plastic hinge at its wall base, i.e. before significant coupling effects took place, while the maximum base
shear on the short wall occurred at the formation of a plastic hinge at the short walls base. The floor
storey forces exhibited the greatest sensitivity to the modelling assumptions. However, the absolute value
of the storey forces was strongly dependant on assumptions made regarding the distribution of the storey
masses between the walls. Better floor models are required to derive the actual force demand on the floor
diaphragms spanning between the two walls. Storey forces obtained from the models used in this study
can only be regarded upon as relative measures for the influence of modelling assumptions on diaphragm
forces.
90
The adaptive pushover analyses are the best indicator for the relative importance of the different
modelling assumptions on the base shear distribution between the walls and hence also on the floor
diaphragm forces. From these analyses it can be concluded that concentrating the inelastic deformation in
an elastic hinge could have significant influence on the base shear distribution between the walls. Aborting
the assumption of rigid floor diaphragms and introducing assumptions about the shear stiffness of
structural walls with flexural cracks which are believed more realistic than what is commonly assumed has
an effect of similar magnitude on the base shear forces of the walls.
For non-linear time history analysis the coupling effect between the two walls was however smaller than
one would expect from adaptive pushover analysis. This is due to the strong dependence of the coupling
effect on the height of the resultant lateral force (section 4.3.3.2). The difference in height between the
external lateral inertia forces and the internal storey forces causes the characteristic force-displacement
pattern of a pushover analysis (e.g. Figure 4.2). The distribution of the storey forces over the height of the
building was partly dependent on the relative stiffness of walls and diaphragms but in most cases the
coupling forces were transferred by the lower storey diaphragms.
In the force-based pushover analysis the resultant lateral force was fixed at h =5.1m. The actual effective
heights for the different models resulting from the average of the set of five time-history analyses are
summarised in Table 5.10. The system base shear demand is defined as the maximum lateral inertia load
on the structure, the minimum effective height is estimated as ratio of maximum system overturning
moment to system base shear demand, and the amplification factor is the ratio of static effective height
(17.8m, section 3.1) to minimum effective height. The minimum effective heights are about 30% higher
than the assumed 5.1m and the amplification factor is therefore lower than the 3.50 assumed for the
intensity-based design of the coupled walls (section 3.3.4). This explains the main difference between base
shear forces obtained for force-based pushover analyses and non-linear time-history analyses.
Table 5.10 System base shear demand, minimum effective height and dynamic amplification factor
obtained from non-linear time-history analysis of different models (average results from set of five
accelerograms)
Max. System Base Shear
Minimum effective
height
Corresponding Dyn.
Amplification Factor
Rigidly Coupled Walls
3890kN
6.96m
2.56
Flexibly Coupled Walls

(based
on
tensile
stiffness of diaphragms)
3870kN
6.92m
2.57
Tri-linear model
shear
stiffness
structural walls
4060kN
6.60m
2.70
4460kN
6.00m
2.96
for
of
Fibre Element Model

(no additional Rayleigh
damping)
91
Chapter 6: Summary and Conclusions
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In the following the main points regarding design, analysis and modelling sensitivities are reiterated. The
report concludes with recommendations for design and analysis.
6.1
COUPLING FORCES BETWEEN WALLS OF DIFFERENT LENGTHS
Coupling forces are horizontal forces which are transmitted between the walls of different length via floor
diaphragms (Figure 3.1). They are caused by the incompatibility of the displacement profiles once a plastic
hinge has formed at the base of the long wall while the short wall remains still elastic. The plastic hinge at
the base of the long wall always forms before the plastic hinge at the base of the short wall since yield
curvature is inversely proportional to wall length and fairly independent of reinforcement ratio and axial
load ratio. The coupling effect between walls of different lengths was described by Rutenberg and his coworkers in several papers ([25] to [28]). These coupling forces are evident in adaptive pushover analysis
results of the coupled wall system which shows an unsteady base shear top displacement relationship for
the individual walls after formation of the plastic hinge at the long wall base (e.g. Figure 4.2). At this
instant the base shear demand on the long wall drops of rapidly while that of the short wall increases to
values significantly greater than base shear forces encountered when the wall is de-coupled (section 4.3).
Hence, coupling of walls with different lengths leads to an increase in base shear demand on the short wall
while the maximum base shear demand on the long wall commonly slightly decreases. The increased base
shear demand on the short wall is caused by coupling forces transmitted by the floor diaphragms which
cause the displacements of the two walls at storey levels to be equal when the long wall is yielding while
the short one is still elastic. (Section 3.2). An increase in base shear force with respect to the de-coupled
wall is of concern since coupling forces are normally not considered in design. Shear failure however must
be avoided since it is a brittle and often disastrous failure mode.
The coupling forces are compatibility forces and are different to base shear demand required for
equilibrium with forces resulting from acceleration of storey masses in the respect that they are sensitive
to internal stiffness distribution. As a consequence it is expected that coupling forces are sensitive to
modelling assumptions which affect the internal stiffness distribution. Several modelling assumptions were
considered with regard to their effect on the stiffness distribution between coupled walls of different
length and the effect on the base shear demand of the short wall. The primary aim of this study was hence
to assess whether the coupling forces between walls of different lengths are real or whether they are
merely a result of crude modelling assumptions. The sensitivity of the coupling forces (Section 6.3) to
modelling assumptions was studied on an example eight storey coupled wall structure (Section 6.2).
6.2
SUMMARY OF DESIGN
-
An eight storey coupled wall structure was designed for a maximum drift of 2.0% using the direct
displacement based design (DDBD) approach. The two coupled walls were of different length
with a wall length ratio of 1.5. The design was based on realistic assumptions of stiffness, i.e. the
92
yield curvature was assumed to be inversely proportional to the wall length and independent of
the wall strength. (Section 3.2)
6.3
Non-linear time history analysis was carried out to check the appropriateness of the design. In the
coupled wall model used for the analysis the diaphragms were modelled with infinite in-plane
rigidity and zero out of plane stiffness, the shear stiffness of the walls was assumed proportional
to the gross area and inelasticity in the walls was accounted for by the lumped plasticity approach.
The model was analysed using the program Ruaumoko2D [3]. The averaged displacement and
drift demand from the non-linear time history analyses matched the design values very well. The
predicted values exceeded the numerical demand by about 5%. (Section 4.4.2).
The design moment profile from the intensity based method which is bi-linear with 75% M n at
wall mid-height seems suitable to account for higher mode effects which are not covered by the
linear profile of the traditional method. (Section 3.2 and 4.4.2)
The design shear envelopes were computed using two different methods and two different
amplification factors. The two methods differed in the respect whether the walls were considered
as uncoupled walls or as coupled wall system. When the walls were considered as de-coupled
walls during design the amplification factors for the two walls were determined separately. The
design method of the coupled wall system was proposed by Rutenberg [28] who also first
explained the mechanism behind coupling of walls of different lengths ([25] to [28]). In this
method a single amplification factor for the coupled wall system is determined and the
distribution of the base shear forces between the walls is derived from force-based pushover
analysis. The two approaches used for determining the amplification factors were the traditional
method which links the dynamic amplification factor to the number of storeys and the intensity
based method which assumes that the dynamic amplification factor is a function of displacement
ductility and effective period. The dynamic amplification factor for the intensity based method
was about twice as large as the one for the traditional method. Comparison of shear envelopes
from the non-linear time-history analyses to the different design shear envelopes showed that the
design shear envelope according to Rutenbergs method combined with the intensity based
dynamic amplification factor lead to the only safe and consistent design. The margin between
actual demand and design capacity was for both walls about 30% indicating that the intensity
based amplification factor is somewhat conservative.
Foundation flexibility was also briefly investigated. Shallow foundation was not a feasible solution
and hence the structure was founded on a fairly rigid basement storey. Three sources of flexibility
were investigated: soil flexibility, global flexibility of the caisson and local flexibility of the
foundation walls where the moments and shear forces from the wall bases are induced into the
caisson walls. In the system studied here only the latter had an effect on the response of the
coupled wall system, the other two sources of foundation flexibility did not contribute
significantly to the overall deformation. (Section 3.4 and 4.4.5)
SUMMARY OF SENSITIVITY STUDIES
It was also shown that the significance of coupling effects on the base shear demand of the short wall is
dependent on the difference in height between the lowest floor diaphragm which can transmit the
coupling forces and the minimum effective height (i.e. ratio of maximum overturning moment to
maximum system base shear). This was visualised by pushover analyses with lateral forces at different
heights (Figure 4.5). The greater the height of the lateral force, i.e. the greater the difference in height
between the lateral force and the lowest floor diaphragm, the more significant are coupling forces for the
behaviour of the coupled wall system in general and the base shear demand of the short wall in particular.
Whether coupling effects are significant for the coupled wall structure under consideration will effect to
93
which degree the sensitivity results from the analyses presented in this chapter need to be considered
when choosing the analysis model. This is outlined in detail in the next section.
Rutenberg [28] identified the modelling assumptions to which the base shear demand might be sensitive
(Section 3.2):
Rotation at foundation level, rocking of the foundation and yield penetration into the
foundation
Shear deformation of the walls
Flexibility of floor diaphragms
Spread of plasticity
Hysteresis model
The sensitivity of analysis output such as displacement, drift, shear forces and bending moments to most
of these assumptions were investigated in this study. In the following first the characteristics of the
original model are described and then a summary of the sensitivity of the output quantities to modelling
assumptions is given.
Original Model
Pushover and non-linear time history analyses of the coupled wall system were carried out. The
original model of the system was based on the following assumptions (Section 4.1):
o
The model is an element model where section properties are concentrated at the centre
line of the sections.
Floor diaphragms have infinite in-plane rigidity but no resistance to out-of plane
deformations.
Inelastic member deformation is accounted for by the lumped plasticity approach.
The hysteretic behaviour of the structural walls can be described by the modified Takeda
rule.
Non-linear time-history analysis was used to determine envelopes of shear forces, bending
moments, displacements and drifts. The shear envelope of the long wall showed higher mode
effects (amplification of shear force at top and base of wall due to second and higher modes,
Figure 4.11). Signs of higher mode effects were also evident in the moment envelope of the long
wall (kink at midheight). (Section 4.4.2)
The shear and bending moment envelopes of the short wall showed almost no higher modes but
the shear envelope was characterised by a significant increase in shear demand over the lower two
storeys which is caused by the coupling effect described at the beginning of this section.
Sensitivity of Analysis Results to Modelling Assumptions

The factors to which the sensitivity of the response of the coupled wall system was investigated in this
study were listed at the beginning of this section. In general these modelling assumptions have an effect
on
Enforcing displacement compatibility on the two walls
The stiffness ratio of the two walls when loading and de-loading the structure
Higher mode effects of the shorter wall
Distribution of inelasticity over the height of the walls

94
Analyses have shown that these assumptions affect in particular the base shear demand on the shorter wall
and the floor diaphragm forces. Shear force demand on the longer wall, moment, displacement and drift
demands are relatively independent of the modelling assumptions. For the system and seismic input
considered here coupling effects were not a very dominant feature in the dynamic response of the system
since the higher mode effects caused a lateral force resultant at about the height of the second lowest floor
diaphragm. The theoretical potential of the modelling assumptions on the base shear demand was
investigated by adaptive pushover analysis where the resultant lateral force is at about the static effective
height. In the following the effect on the individual assumptions on the analysis of the coupled wall
system are summarised:
Sensitivity to hysteresis rule: Cyclic static analyses of coupled wall systems where the hysteretic
behaviour of the plastic hinges was described by the elasto-plastic rule and the modified Takeda
rule were compared. For elastic plastic behaviour peak shear forces were obtained under reloading
of the structure in the opposite direction (this was previously observed by Rutenberg [28]). For
modified Takeda hysteretic behaviour the maximum shear forces were obtained when the
structure first entered the inelastic range. Rutenbergs approximation for base shear demand [28],
which accounts for increase due to compatibility forces, seems only applicable to elasto-plastic
behaviour (Section 3.2). In general it is recognized that the modified Takeda rule is better suited
to describe the hysteresis of RC walls under cyclic loading.
Sensitivity to Assumptions about Floor Diaphragm Stiffness: An attempt was made to estimate
the effective axial stiffness provided by the floor diaphragms between the two structural walls.
However, a reliable estimate was not found and research in this area might be needed. Analyses
with crude estimates of the floor diaphragm stiffness showed that relaxation of the rigidity of
coupling between the two walls reduces the base shear demand on the short wall. The floor
diaphragm forces of the lower storeys were significantly reduced. As pointed out the floor
diaphragm forces in this study should not be taken as absolute values but as relative indicators
since they are dependent on the assumed distribution of masses between the two walls. In this
study the masses were split in proportion to the base moment capacities of the walls and lumped
at the centre lines of the walls. The rigidity of the coupling had no effect on the displacement,
drift and system base shear demand.
Sensitivity to Assumptions about Shear Stiffness of Structural Walls: In single structural walls
shear deformations are relatively small when compared to flexural deformations and hence in
general little attention is paid to assigning a realistic shear stiffness to wall elements. In coupled
walls with infinitely rigid floor diaphragms the base shear forces in particular in the lowest storey
are very high and shear deformation might contribute significantly to the displacement and drift
demand. Commonly the shear area is estimated as 80% of the gross area. In [24] it is suggested to
estimate the shear area as proportional to the ratio of effective flexural inertia to gross inertia.
This yields in far lower estimates of shear area and the base shear demand on the short wall was
considerably reduced in the adaptive pushover analysis. However in the analysis carried out here
the relief was completely cancelled out in the dynamic analysis where coupling effects were not
very significant due to the low height of the resultant lateral inertia load. Considering the
increased shear flexibility also caused a reduction in the total stiffness ratio of the long wall to the
short wall and as a consequence the short wall attracted a larger proportion of the lateral inertia
forces. In addition higher mode effects lead to an increase in base shear demand. Not affected by
the assumption on shear stiffness were moment and shear envelopes of the long wall. Introducing
additional flexibility by replacing the rigid floor diaphragms with flexible ones did not cause a
significant change in the overall behaviour of the system and hence displacement and drift
demands were only little affected. The additional shear flexibility lead to an increase in drift over
the lower storeys which are however not critical in a structural wall system.
Sensitivity to Modelling of Plastic deformation: Two different approaches of modelling plasticity

were compared: The lumped plasticity approach where inelastic deformation is concentrated in an
idealised plastic hinge modelled by a rotational spring and the fibre element model where
95
inelasticity can spread gradually over the cross section and along the element axis. In lumped
plasticity models there is no transition between elastic and full plastification of a section and
hence the base shear capacity curve is composed of linear branches. This lead to sharper changes
and greater base shear demand on the short wall than for the fibre element model where the base
shear capacity curves of the long and short wall are smooth. It is believed that a main difference
between the two modelling approaches is that in the lumped plasticity model compatibility forces
are locked in and can only be released at the formation of a new plastic hinge while in the fibre
element model the state of inelasticity in the system changes constantly. In the time-history
analyses of the fibre model the base shear force on the short wall was smaller than the base shear
force obtained from the lumped plasticity model and the shear force demand on the lower half of
the short wall had an almost linear profile while the shear force demands on the lower two storeys
of the lumped plasticity models were significantly greater than on higher storeys due to
compatibility forces transmitted by the low level diaphragms. From all the factors investigated this
one seemed to have the greatest effect on the base shear demand on the short wall.
6.4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

OF WALLS COUPLED BY FLOOR DIAPHRAGMS
The possibility was considered that coupling forces might be merely a results of crude modelling
assumptions rather than real physical phenomena which need to be accounted for in design of the walls.
However, this hypothesis could not be confirmed. From the current stage of analysis we hence cannot
exclude that the coupling forces are expected to occur between walls of unequal length and hence need to
be accounted for in design. However, sensitivity analysis showed that coupling effects are typically not as
important as might appear from adaptive pushover analysis because higher mode effects reduce the
coupling effects. One needs to keep in mind that while coupling forces reduce with higher mode effects
the system base shear force however increases. If coupling effects are important common modelling
assumptions tend to overestimate the base shear demand on the short wall. To optimize the modelling
process a refined model is clearly only warranted if coupling effects are dominant. Hence, the
recommendation for modelling of coupled wall structures can be structured by the following four
questions:
How can one check whether coupling effects are expected to be important for the structure under
consideration?
How should coupled wall structures be modelled if coupling effects are not important?
How should coupled wall structures be modelled if coupling effects are important?
How should a model of a coupled wall structure be analysed?
Assessment of significance of coupling effects in a coupled wall structure with walls of different length
The degree of coupling between the walls and its effect on the base shear demand on the short wall will be
significant if higher mode effects are small and if the resultant lateral inertia force acts at a height
considerably above the lower floor diaphragms which tend to transmit the largest part of the coupling
forces. The potential effect of the coupling on the base shear demand can be quickly investigated as
suggested by Rutenberg [28] by a force-controlled pushover analysis of the lumped plasticity model with
the resultant lateral force at the minimum effective height given by equation (3.23)
H eff ,dyn =
H eff , static
96
The dynamic amplification factor should be determined for the system with the intensity based
amplification factor or an equivalent approach; the traditional approach which links to the number of
storeys leads to factors which are too low and should not be applied. As alternative to estimating the
dynamic amplification factor by an empirical formula could be derived from a set of non-linear timehistory analyses of the coupled wall system [28]. The set of accelerograms needs to be large enough to
capture the variability of ground motion.
Whether coupling effects are significant for the structure under consideration can be concluded from the
base shear top displacement relationships of the two coupled walls which are obtained from the forcecontrolled pushover analysis. If the force-displacement relationships are unsteady after the formation of
the plastic hinge at the base of the long wall, i.e. if the base shear force of the short wall sharply increases
while the base shear force of the long wall drops of after formation of the plastic hinge at the base of the
long wall, coupling effects are expected to be significant. If the force-displacement relationships of the
two walls look similar to those of the de-coupled walls coupling effects are expected to be insignificant.
Design and modelling of a coupled wall structure with walls of different length if coupling effects are not
important
Direct displacement based design of coupled walls of different length leaves the moment capacity
distribution between the two walls to the designers choice and allows to control the drift and
displacement demand on the walls effectively.
Common modelling approaches of coupled wall systems which are used in seismic analysis
(element models with lumped plasticity approach where properties are represented at the centre
of the section, rigid floor diaphragms, crude estimates of shear stiffness of structural walls) are
suitable to assess the system base shear demand and the displacement and drift profiles by means
of non-linear time-history analysis with spectrum compatible accelerograms. The hysteretic
behaviour of the structural walls should be described by the modified Takeda rule rather than as
elasto-plastic.
To assess the distribution of the system base shear between the coupled walls realistic
assumptions for the shear stiffness should be used. If the shear stiffness of the walls is
overestimated the shear demand on the short wall might be underestimated.
Design and analysis of a coupled wall structure with walls of different length if coupling effects are
important
As in the case when coupling forces between the walls are not important direct displacement
based design is an effective design tool which allows to control displacements and drifts. To
assess solely the displacement, drift and moment demands a lumped plasticity model with rigid
floor diaphragms is appropriate.
The lumped plasticity model is likely to overestimate the actual floor diaphragm forces and shear
demand on the short wall of the coupled wall system. Hence, the designer has the choice to
design for the conservative estimate of the base shear force derived from the lumped plasticity
model or to refine the model.
If the choice falls on the latter option it is recommended to substitute the lumped plasticity model
by a fibre element model since the distributed plasticity is likely to have the greatest effect on the
degree of coupling.
It should be noted that the models used in this study are not suitable to derive design forces for
the diaphragms connecting the walls. The models would require refinement regarding the transfer
of inertia loads due to mass of the diaphragms into the walls and regarding the stiffness of the
part of the floor diaphragm linking the walls. In particular the shear transfer from the slab into
97
the wall would require consideration. From the floor diaphragm forces derived in this study one
can only conclude that floor diaphragm forces seem to be very sensitive to modelling
assumptions. However, since it is a static indeterminate system the forces in the diaphragm will
reduce as the stiffness of the diaphragms decreases due to cracking or even yielding of the
diaphragm.
The base shear force of each wall should be distributed over the height of the wall in the common
manner, i.e. proportional to product of design displacement and storey mass. Not singling out the
coupling force should account for the fact that the fibre element model lead to a shear force
profile which was closer to linear over the height of the structure than the profile derived from
the lumped plasticity model.
Analysis of a model of a coupled wall structure

Three different analysis methods were investigated. These were
First mode force-controlled adaptive pushover analysis
Force-controlled pushover analysis with a single force at the minimum effective height.
Non-linear time history analysis with a sweep of five spectrum compatible accelerograms.
The methods were compared with respect to the suitability to derive design shear forces for the individual
walls. In the assessment it was assumed that the non-linear time history analysis leads to correct values,
i.e. it was assumed that the error when compared to reality would result from the approximative nature of
the model and is not due to the analysis method. The pushover results were hence assessed by their
similarity to the non-linear time history results. The model of the coupled wall structure was for all
analysis types the same.
The first method (adaptive pushover analysis) is not recommended since higher modes are not considered.
The base shear forces are hence systematically too low. A possibility to overcome this could be to multiply
the base shear forces by the dynamic amplification factor as it is effectively done for de-coupled
walls. This approach would also amplify the part of the base shear forces which is due to the coupling
forces between the walls. It was however shown that coupling forces reduce with and hence this
approach is inconsistent and therefore not recommended.
It has been shown in [28] and here that a force-based pushover analysis with a single lateral force at the
minimum effective height leads to good estimates of the base shear demand on the walls. This analysis
type is hence the recommended method if a pushover analysis is used to determine the base shear demand
on the individual walls. Alternatively, the base shear demand can be derived from non-linear time history
analysis. This might become computationally expensive in particular if a fibre element model is required to
capture the effect of distributed inelasticity on the base shear demands.
98
Chapter 7: References
7 REFERENCES
[1]
Antoniou, S., Pinho, R., Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive pushover forcebased pushover procedures, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 497-522, 2004
[2]
Antoniou, S., Pinho, R., Development and verification of of a displacement-based adaptive pushover
analysis, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 643-661, 2004
[3]
Carr AJ, Ruaumoko 2-Dimenisonal Version, Department of Civil Engineering, University of

Canterbury, New Zealand, 2002
[4]
Eurocode 8, Final Draft of Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance- Part 1:
General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, December 2003
[5]
Eurocode 8, Final Draft of Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance- Part 5:
Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects, October 2002
[6]
Gazetas, G., Foundation Vibrations, Chapter 15 in Foundation Engineering Handbook, Fang, H.Y.
Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 553-593
[7]
Gupta, B., Kunnath, S.K., Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of
structures, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 16, pp. 367-392
[8]
Kowalsky, M.J. and Priestley, M.J.N., Improved Analytical Model for Shear Strength of Circular
Reinforced Concrete Columns in Seismic Regions, ACI Structural Journal, May-June 2000, pp. 388396, Title no. 97-S42
[9]
Lopes, M.S. and Elnashai, A.S., Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Walls subjected to high cyclic
shear, Proceedings of he 9th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Moscow, Vol. 6, pp.
80-86, 1990
[10] Miranda Jenkins, P.A., Displacement Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Columns with limited shear
capacity, MSc Thesis at Rose School, Italy, 2004
[11] Park, R. and Paulay, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1975
[12] Paulay T, Understanding torsional phenomena in ductile systems, Bulletin of the New Zealand
Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 33, No. 4, December 2000, pp. 403-420
[13] Paulay T, A Discussion of the paper What is wrong with the seismic code-design procedure for
asymmetric structures? by Rutenberg A and Leibovich E, 2nd European Workshop on the seismic
behaviour of asymmetric and irregular structures, Istanbul, 1999
[14] Paulay T, Priestley MJN, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, USA, 1992
[15] Paulay, T., Restrepo, J., Displacement and ductility compatibility in buildings with mixed structural
systems, Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 11, p.7-12,
1998
99
Chapter 7: References
[16] Pecker, A., Pender, M.J., Earthquake resistant design of foundations: new constructions, GeoEng
2000, Vol.1, Invited paper, pp./ 313-332, Melbourne 2000
[17] Priestley M.J.N., Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering, Revisited, Mallet Milne Lecture
2003, IUSS Press
[18] Priestley M.J.N., Amaris A.D., Dynamic Amplification of Seismic Moments and Shear Forces in
Cantilever Walls, Research Report No. ROSE-2002/01, IUSS Press, 2002
[19] Priestley M.J.N., Calvi, G.M., Kowalsky, M.J., Draft of Book on Direct Displacement Based Design,
2004
[20] Priestley MJN, Kowalsky MJ, Direct Displacement-based seismic design of concrete buildings,
Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 33, p.421-444, 2000
[21] Priestley MJN, Lecture Notes to Fundamentals of Seismic Design Course at Rose School,
February/March 2004
[22] Priestley, M.J.N., Grant, D.N., Viscous Damping in Seismic Design, submitted for publication to
Journal of Earthquake Enginnering, 2004
[23] Priestley, M.J.N., Note on Damping of MDOF Structures, 2004
[24] Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F. and Calvi G.M., Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, New York,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1992
[25] Rutenberg A, Leibovich E, On the lateral force distribution among structural walls in multi-storey
buildings, unpublished?
[26] Rutenberg A, Leibovich E, What is wrong with the seismic code-design procedure for asymmetric
structures?, 2nd European Workshop on the seismic behaviour of asymmetric and irregular
structures, Istanbul, 1999
[27] Rutenberg, A. and Leibovich, E., The Irregular Post-Yield Behaviour of Regular Multistorey Wall
Structures, Proceedings of the 3rd European Workshop on the Seismic Behaviour of Irregular and
Complex Structures, Florence (Italy), 2002
[28] Rutenberg, A., The seismic shear of ductile cantilever wall systems in multi-storey structures,
Earthquake Engng. and Struct. Dyn., Vol. 33, 881-896 (2004)
[29] SeismoSoft, SeismoStruct A computer program for static and dynamic non-linear analysis of
framed structures [online], Version 3.1.0, available from URL: http:// www.seismosoft.com
100

Design and Analysis of Walls Coupled by Floor Diaphragms: I U S S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design and Analysis of Walls Coupled by Floor Diaphragms: I U S S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I.U.S.S.

di Studi Superiori di Pavia

EUROPEAN SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN

Design and Analysis of Walls Coupled by Floor

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

The dissertation entitled Design and Analysis of Walls Coupled by Floor

DESIGN OF COUPLED WALLS

DDBD Method for Coupled Walls

Literature Review on Base Shear Demand of Coupled Walls

Design Shear and Bending Moments of Coupled Walls

3.3.4 Summary of Design Shear Forces and Design Moments

3.4.1 Dimensioning of Foundation

3.4.2 Dynamic Properties of Soil Foundation

3.4.3 Flexibility of Foundation Structure

3.4.4 Foundation Flexibility in DDBD

ANALYSIS OF COUPLED WALL SYSTEMS

General Modelling Assumptions

Description of the Numerical Model of the coupled wall system

Pushover Analysis of De-coupled and Coupled Walls

4.3.1 Different Approaches of Pushover Analysis

4.3.2 Pushover Analysis of De-coupled Walls

4.3.3 Pushover Analysis of Walls coupled with rigid floors

Non-linear Time-History Analysis

4.4.1 Time-History Inputs

4.4.2 Results from Time History Analysis of coupled Walls

4.4.3 Comparison of Time History Results of De-coupled Walls to Coupled Walls 43

BASE SHEAR FORCES IN COUPLED WALLS AND THEIR SENSITIVITY TO

Rigid and Flexible Lateral Connection of Coupled Walls

5.1.1 In-plane Flexibility of Slab spanning between the two Walls

5.1.2 Pushover Analysis of Walls coupled with flexible floor diaphragm

Shear Stiffness of Structural Walls

5.2.4 Model with Shear Flexibility and Floor Diaphragm Flexibility

Lumped Plasticity Model vs. Fibre Element Model

5.3.1 Lumped Plasticity Model in Ruaumoko

5.3.2 Fibre Element Model

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary of Sensitivity Studies

Gross concrete section of slab (effective width)

Gross area of wall

Energy absorbed per cycle

Shear area of wall

Half width of the foundation (B10m)

Bar diameter of main longitudinal reinforcement

Concrete elastic modulus

Cracked wall stiffness

Reinforcement elastic modulus

Lateral force on wall i at storey j

Shear modulus reduced for non-linear behaviour of soil

Maximum shear modulus of soil

Design base moment

Nominal base moment

Axial force on wall section

Axial compression load at base of wall

Spectral displacement at corner period for effective damping ratio

Corner period of displacement spectrum

Design system base shear

Base shear demand

Design base shear

Base shear corresponding to a SDOF system (i.e., Vi = M base / heff )

Nominal base shear

Effective depth of the wall section

Reinforcement yield strength

Static effective height (excluding higher mode effects)