Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; all rights reserved. pted November 5, 2012; 943-541X,0000770 Journal of Structural posted ahead of p lbmitted Febru int Novem An analytical study on the plastic hinge length of structural walls ilker Kazaz* Abstract This study was organized to derive an analytical expression for the estimation of plastic hinge length for cantilever structural walls using the results of comprehensive nonlinear finite element analyses. For that purpose a parametric study was conducted, The variation of plastic zone length at the base of the cantilever shear wall models was determined on the basis of analysis results that depend on several parameters, such as the wall length, wall height, axial load ratio, the ratios of wall boundary element and web horizontal reinforcement. In the light of the parametric investigation a plastic hinge length expression was proposed depending on wall length, axial load ratio, wall horizontal web reinforcement ratio and shear-span-to-wall- length-ratio. Existing plastic hinge length prediction formulations were also compared with the plastic hinge length obtained from finite element analyses. Finally the accuracy and reliability of proposed plastic hinge length equation was verified by using the available shear wall test results, Keywords: Plastic hinge analysis, plastic zone, plastic hinge length, cantilever structural walls, plastic rotation Introduction Although advanced analysis tools and procedures are currently available to determine the seismic response of RC structural walls, the plastic hinge method and analysis derived from it are still used extensively in displacement based seismic design and performance assessment procedures'to estimate the inelastic displacement demand and capacity (Sozen 1989; Wallace and Moehle 1992; Priestley et al. 2007). The method is especially appealing for structural wall buildings, because it is simple and it is possible to idealize a wall member inside the building as isolated cantilever, as displayed in Figure 1(a). In the plastic hinge analysis the tip displacement of a cantilever is obtained as the sum of its yield displacement, A,, and plastic displacement component, Ay. While the yield displacement is calculated by double integrating the curvature distribution along the cantilever, plastic displacement component is calculated * Atatirk University, Department of Civil Engineering, 25240 Erzurum, Turkey. 1 012 by the American Soc Sopyright 2 ty of Civil Engineers J. Struct. Eng.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; all rights reserved. Journal of Struct posted ahead of print Nover 2012: 1061/(ASCE)s November 5, 2012; 541X,0000770 lbmitted Febru > ' by multiplying the height (#) of the cantilever by the plastic rotation, @, at the base as expressed in Eq. (1). oH? 3 +(4,-% )L,(H-0.5L,) a The term, (gi-@)Lp, in Eq. (1) refers to the plastic rotation d, and is based on the assumption that the plastic curvature is lumped in the center of the equivalent plastic hinge length, Ly. The terms @ and 4, represent the total and yield curvature at the base section of the shear wall, respectively. The actual physical length over which the plasticity spreads is larger and referred as plastic zone, Ly. It is assumed that inelastic curvatures vary linearly in walls over the plastic zone. Since the plastic hinge analysis is based on the condition that 6,=Ly-4 as illustrated in Figure 1(a), the plastic hinge length can be written as Lp = 0.5Lp: Various expressions were proposed for the calculation of plastic hinge length. For reinforced concrete components, equivalent plastic-hinge length can be simply assumed as equal to one-half the member depth, Lp ~ 0.5L, where Ly is the wall length (Park and Paulay 1975). ASCE 41 (2007) states that for analytical models of shear walls and wall segments, the value of L, shall be set equal to 0.5 times the flexural depth df the element, but less than one story height for shear walls and less than 50% of the element length for wall segments. The flexural depth is recommended to be.0.8L in Eurocode 8 (2005). The expression proposed for the plastic hinge length in Eurocode 8 reads as yf, (MPa) 2) where L, is the’shear.span (moment-shear ratio, M/V), dy, is the (mean) diameter of the tension reinforcement, f; and/f.’ are the yield stress of the longitudinal reinforcement and conefete compressive strength, respectively. The plastic hinge length that yields accurate plastic rotation can be easily determined from experimental data, Mattock (1967) and Priestley et al. (1996) proposed similar expressions {0 estimate the plastic-hinge length based on the reinforced concrete member properties. The expression is in the form L, =aL+ pD+Ef,d, @) where L is member length between two joints (shear span in case of shear walls, L,), D is member depth (on cross section), d> is the bar diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement, 0.5 and €=0to calculate the plastic hinge length of beams based on Mattock’s work. According to Priestley respectively. In this equation, the coefficients were derived as a= 0. 2 Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil En: J. Struct. Eng.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; all rights reserved. pted November 5, 2012; 943-541X,0000770 Journal of Structural posted ahead of p lbmitted Februa int Novem et al. (1996), the coefficients for shear walls are a = 0.08, 6 = 0 and ¢ = 0.022, and the equation reads as L)=0.08L,+0.022 fy ds. Based on a research specifically applicable to walls (Paulay and Priestley 1992), the equivalent plastic-hinge length, Zp, can be set at 0.2 times the wall length, L,, plus 0.07 times ‘the moment-to-shear ratio (also known as shear span, L,), M/V, which is L, = 0.2L, +0.071M/V) (4) In a very recent study based on the results of nonlinear finite element-analysis an expression was proposed for Ly as a function of wall length, moment-shear ratio and axial compression (Bohl and Adebar 2011) as np = (0.2L, sonst 1-152, <0su, () AS, where P is the axial force on the section and 4,, is the wall area. There may be found several other expressions proposed for the calculation of plastic hinge length, however all these definitions require extensive experimental _yerification which is not available comprehensively at the moment, since the experimenters focused more on load-deformation characteristics than the local response parameters, The absence of complete experimental data due to limitations in the experimental measurements and setups, and accuracy problems in section-based moment-curvature analysis procedures in predicting reinforced concrete response under varying stress. conditions, legitimized this study to investigate the distribution of strains and curvatures-along the height of the wall at the base. A well calibrated finite element modeling tool was utilized to investigate the plastic hinge analysis method and its components, such as the plastic hinge length, plastic curvature and rotation, flexural and shear displacements for shear walls. A parametric study taking into account the wall length (Z,,) and height (H,), so as the wall aspect ratio (H,/L,), axial load level (P/4,f’) and the amount of boundary element longitudinal reinforcement (p») was conducted to determine the plastic hinge length (Z,). Accurate plastic hinge length (L,) prediction equation that can be used in the plastic hinge analysis of cantilever walls were determined on the basis of analysis results. Description of the Analytical Framework Finite Element Model With reference to Figure 1(a), a cantilever wall with a point load applied at the top deemed to be appropriate for the analysis purposes. As seen in Figure 1(b) a prototype hybrid cantilever wall model, which was composed of solid and beam elements, was developed in 3 012 by the American Soc Sopyright 2 J. Struct. Eng.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; all rights reserved. pted November 5, 2012; 943-541X,0000770 Journal of Structural posted ahead of p lbmitted Februa int Novem the finite element code ANSYS (2007) to reduce the computation time, The static analyses of finite element models were performed under monotonically increasing lateral point load (V) and constant axial load (P) applied at the top of the cantilever as illustrated in Figure 1(b). It is known that higher mode effects play a significant role on the dynamic response of tall cantilevers. One way of including higher mode effects in a static analysis is to employ ible distribution of appropriate load pattem (rectangular, parabolic etc.) that mimics the poss lateral forces in the system. The cantilever model with a point load applied at the top over the effective height can be well interpreted as representative of different loading schemes in that sense. Preliminary static analyses of cantilever walls under uniform and triangular load pattems displayed that even when cracking extend up to mid-height-of the wall, significant steel yielding extends over only lower one or two stories (Kazaz 2010; Bohl and Adebar 2011). This is also what is intended in design. The upper Stories ean be effectively treated as a cracked beam. As shown in the model in Figure 1(b), the. first two stories of the cantilever wall were discretized with nonlinear solid continuum elements (SOLID6S) whereas the upper stories were modeled with the element BEAMI88 based on, Timoshenko beam theory and taking into account the shear deformations. The incompatibility between the nodal degree of freedoms of beam and solid elements was overcome by providing the transition with constraint element MPC184 by utilizing the rigid beam, option. To define the behavior of beam elements generalized nonlinear section properties were used. The load-deformation behavior of beam elements was assigned in the form of bilinear force-distortion angle (F-7) and moment-curvature (M-9) relation”for shear and bending behaviors, respectively. The initial flexural rigidity was taken as 0.5#/y according to ASCE/SEI 41 (2007) since this value closely approximates the effective linear stiffness drawn to the yield point (see Figure 7(b)). Geometric nonlinearity (large deflection effects) was included in the analyses. ‘When a concrete panel is reinforced by a dense reinforcing mesh and the change of internal forces from one bar to the next is small, the net effect may be considered as “smeared”. Since this modeling technique was found to be effective for monotonic loading conditions (Kazaz 2010 and 2011), in the solid part of the model the reinforcement was assumed to be smeared in the solid element volume. Each color in Figure 1(b) reflects regions with different amounts of reinforcement. The different color regions at the edges are confined boundaries that are 0.2L, long. The amount of longitudinal reinforcement in the boundaries and horizontal reinforcement in the web was kept as a variable in the parametric study. As it will be discussed later, the amount of confinement reinforcement was kept constant as 8 mm 4 012 by the American Soc Sopyright 2 J. Struct. Eng.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; all rights reserved. pted November 5, 2012; 943-541X,0000770 Journal of Structural posted ahead of p lbmitted Febru int Novem diameter bars at 100 mm spacing in the boundary elements for all models. The 1.5 m wide flanges at each story level were included in the model to take into account the effect of slabs on the shear flow between the stories along the wall (Vallenas et al. 1979). For realistic modeling of fixity of the wall base and allowing penetration of strains into the foundation, a support beam modeling the foundation was included in the numerical model Material models For the modeling of concrete material the five-parameter Willam-Watnke (1975) criterion was used with the solid element in ANSYS. This model defines a 3-dimensional failure surface, where linear elastic stress-strain relationship is assumed until crushing. When used without a plasticity law it underestimates the deformation capacity of concrete because it neglects the nonlinearity in the ascending branch and the post-crushing strength of conerete in compression. So, in ANSYS the multilinear isotropic work hardening plasticity (MISO) was combined with the tensile failure criteria of Willam-Wamnke model. In this combined material model, the plasticity check is done before the cracking and crushing chécks, MISO is similar to von Mises yield criterion except that a multilinear curve is used ifistead of a bilinear curve as shown in Figure 2(b). Yielding or cracking of any material point within the element is evaluated on the basis of principal stresses as shown in Figure 2(a). If the wall response is simplified to a plane stress condition as displayed in Figure 2(¢), in the quadrants for tension- tension and tension-compression the Willam-Warnke model prevails until cracking of conerete takes place. Upon racking a plane of weakness will form, orthogonal to the crack direction, which redués the principal stress in this direction to zero as the solution converges. Following the stress relaxation due to cracking in the tension-compression quadrant both models will"interact. By disabling the crushing option in Willam-Warnke model, in the compression-compression quadrant pure multi-surface plastic behavior is enabled. The failure (yield)/Stress value ineach surface is input through the multilinear stress-strain curve displayed in Figure 2(b) The stress-strain felation of concrete in tension is presented in Figure 2(d), where f; is the uniaxial tensile cracking strength and £, is the modulus of elasticity. After cracking, a certain amount of stress relaxation can be included in the element stress formulation with the constant T. taken as 0.6, the default value in our case. R; is the secant slope defined as shown. It diminishes to zero as the solution converges. For all the walls analyzed in the current study, characteristic concrete compressive strength (f2') was taken constant as 25 MPa, Elastic modulus of concrete was taken as 25,000 5 012 by the American Soc Sopyright 2 ty of Civil Engineers J. Struct. Eng.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; all rights reserved. pted November 5, 2012; 943-541X,0000770 Journal of Structural posted ahead of p lbmitted Febru int Novem MPa. The stress-strain curve of the confined conerete at the boundary elements of walls was calculated according to Saatcioghu and Razvi (1992) model. The stress-strain curve of confined conerete was input to the ANSYS program as five-segment multi-linear curve as displayed in Figure 3(a). The curve presented in Figure 3(a) is for exemplification purposes; in the wall models these curves varies depending on the dimensions of the boundary element and detailing of longitudinal reinforcement ruled by design requirements. The web concrete was modeled as unconfined. In nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete, a shear transfer coefficient must be assumed. For closed cracks (f,), the coefficient is assumed to be 0.8, while for‘open cracks () it should be in the suggested range of 0.05 to 0.5, rather than 0.0, to prevent numerical difficulties. In this study, a value of 0.05 was used, which restilted in acceptably accurate predictions (Kazaz 2010). Uniaxial behavior of longitudinal and transverse steels Was modeled with a bilinear isotropic hardening using von Mises yield criterion a8 shown in Figure 3(b). Elastic modulus of steel was taken as 200,000 MPa. The yield, stress and the tangent modulus at strain hardening were taken as 420 MPa and 1,500 MPa, respectively. For walls with moderate amounts of boundary longitudinal reinforcement, ties are required to inhibit buckling. Cyclic load reversals may lead to buckling of boundary longitudinal reinforcement even in cases where the demand on the boundary of the wall does not require special boundary elements. Additionally, the confined concrete models are applicable only if premature buckling of longitudinal reinforcement is prevented. Buckling model proposed by Dhakal and Mackawa (2002) that assumes a relationship between the average stress and average straifi of reinforcing bars including the effect of buckling was used to model the behavior of longitudinal steel under compression, It was proposed that the average compressive strésé-strain relationship including the softening in the post-buckling range can be completely described in terms of the product of square root of yield strength (f;) and the slendemess ratio, s/d,, of the reinforcing bar, where s is the unconfined length of the longitudinal reinforcement between two transverse reinforcements and dy is the diameter of the longitudinal bars. Typical curves modified under such conditions are displayed in Figure 3(b). After establishing the zones and the respective material properties, adjusting the properties of the model such as the mesh density and the element characteristics are also important aspects of the nonlinear finite element analysis procedure. The SOLID6S element has been vested with several features to increase the accuracy of the calculations and 6 012 by the American Soc Sopyright 2 ty of Civil Engineers J. Struct. Eng.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; all rights reserved. pted November 5, 2012; 943-541X,0000770 Journal of Structural posted ahead of p lbmitted Febru int Novem overcome restrictions due to element behavior. The multilinear plasticity model with strain- softening as plotted in Figures 2(b) and 3(a) was used in the calculations, When the softening property in the post-peak response is used in constitutive models, the finite element solutions are known to have spurious sensitivity to the mesh size and have difficulty in converging since low order elements such as the one used here was utilized in the finite element analysis Since the global behavior is affected by local response in the compression zone of the web wall, mesh density in the localized damage region significantly affects the accuracy of the results. 12, 16 and 20 rectangular elements were used along the length of the wall for wall lengths of 3 m, 5 m and 8 m, respectively. It can be recommended that selecting 14-16 rectangular elements in average and aiming for an element aspect ratio close to 1 yields reliable results in the finite element analysis of shear walls, Results of one of the several examples of validation, of the nonlinear finite element analysis procedure described above are presented in Figures 4 and 5 (Kazaz 2010). The wall specimen (RW2) with rectangular cross section tested by Thomsen and Wallace (1995) was analyzed. The wall was 3.66 m tall and 102 mm thick, Wall length was 1.22 m, Well-detailed boundary elements in 153 mm length (0.125L,) were provided at the edges of the wall over the bottom 1.22 m of the wall (see Figure 4(b)). The volumetric. ratio of the longitudinal reinforcement in the boundary element was approximately ,-0.033. Vertical web reinforcement amounts to p,;-0.00325. The average compressive strength of concrete at the time of testing was measured to be 42.8 MPa. The longitudinal bars were of Grade 60 (f, = 414 MPa) and the ultimate steel strain at mipture from material tests was obtained as 0.08 for #3 rebar used as longitudinal reinforcement at the boundary elements. The specimen was loaded cyclically by hydraulic actuators-at the top. An axial load level of approximately 0.0754,f.' was maintained throughout the duration of the test. Full and reduced finite element models of the specimen were discretized as shown in Figure 4(b) and (c). As seen in Figure 4(4), significant yielding was observed at the first story of the wall when the scale of the test setup was considered. Figure 5(a) displays the strain profile calculated over 229 mm gage length at the base of the wall specimen. There is a good agreement between the experimental and calculated results. Calculated monotonic and cyclic force-displacement curves also agree quite well with experimental hysteresis curves as shown in Figure 5(b). The profile of the strain distribution calculated along the length of wall not only matches with the measured response, but also mimics the nonlinear trend in the profile along the section and captures the localization of the compressive strains at the compression edge. This phenomenon, ignored by conventional section based moment curvature analysis, is critically important for shear walls 7 012 by the American Soc Sopyright 2 ty of Civil Engineers J. Struct. Eng.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; all rights reserved. Journal of Struct posted ahead of print Nover November 5, 2012; 541X,0000770 in the determination of the actual damage in the plastic zone. This exercise shows that the local response of structural walls at the base can be determined satisfactorily with the adopted nonlinear static finite element analyses procedure. A detailed explanation of modeling approach, finite elements, calibration of material models and further response prediction examples of reinforced concrete shear walls can be found in Kazaz. (2010 and 2011). Modeling parameters Several parameters govern the design and behavior of shear walls. These parameters also affect the spread of plasticity along the wall. The primary variables of the parametric study were selected as wall length (L,), wall effective height (ii) or shear'span (L,—M/V), axial load ratio (P/Ay/:’), longitudinal steel ratio (p,) at the boundary elements adjusting the strength of the walls and wall web horizontal reinforcement ratio (p4)y-as described below. Wall length (Ly): Walls of 3, 5 and 8 m in length were used in the analyses Effective height (hes). Effective heights of 5, 6, 9, 15 and'24 m were analyzed. Effective height and shear span coincide in this study, since a cantilever with a point load at the tip was applied. A constant inter-story height of 3:m was accounted for each’ stricture. Each pair of wall length and effective wall height corresponds to different, shear-span-to-wall-length-ratios (M/V)/Ly = heg/ Ly) which are 0.75,1.125, 1.2, 1.8, 1.875, 2, 3.0, 4.8, 5.0 and 8.0, Wall axial load ratio (P/Agf2)> The axial load ratios-used in the parametric study were 0.02, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15 and 0.25 based on the assumption that each wall resist 1~1.25% axial load ratio per story. Wall boundary element longitudinal. reinforcement ratio (p,): ‘The flexural wall reinforcement ratio, defined as the ratio of total longitudinal steel area (4,) in the boundary clement to the area of boundary region (dys) was taken as 0.005, 0.01, 0.02 and 0.04. By changing the amount of flexural reinforcement, the strength of the wall was adjusted. Concrete strength:As ‘stated previously, for all walls analyzed in the current study characteristic concrete compressive strength (f:!) was taken as 25 MPa. Design requirements Wall models were designed according to the Turkish Seismic Code (TSC 2007) requirements. Wall boundary elements were assumed to extend over a region of 0.2Ly at the edges. Wall thickness was assumed to be 4,=250 mm for all wall models. For any given combination of the above parameters the wall yield moment (M,) was calculated. In the following step using the specified shear-span length (L,), the design shear force was 8 Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers J. Struct. Eng.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; all rights reserved. pted November 5, 2012; 943-541X,0000770 Journal of Structural posted ahead of p lbmitted Februa int Novem calculated (Vs=M,/L,). The ratio of the horizontal and vertical web reinforcement was assumed to be nominally 0.0025 in all models. If the factored shear force (V.=AV) exceeded the shear safety limit calculated with Vi=4,(0.65/uctPryfud) according to TSC (2007), where faa is design tensile strength of conorete and fy is design yield strength of steel, the required amount of web horizontal reinforcement was recalculated employing the same equation. Since the codes (ACI 318 and TSC) specify that the amount of vertical reinforcement (p,,) should el ratio of web not be less than the horizontal reinforcement (p) in the web, the same reinforcement was used for the vertical one. The design shear force was factored only for flexural over-strength (2=1.2). The amplification in the base shear due to higher mode effects was disregarded, TSC (2007) and ACI 318 (2011) calculate the amount of transverse reinforcement that is required at the wall boundaries with similar expressions. The expression in TSC is given as Agi=0.05sbf/fyoe, Where s is the spacing of transverse reinforcement, b, is the width of confined core and fine is the yield strength of transverse feinforcement. The same equation with a multiplier of 0.09 is given in ACI 318. Since the ACI-318 confinement provisions are found to be too restrictive, the committee to develop, recommended revisions to the ASCE/SEI 41 concrete provisions proposed a revision for the definition of confined boundary given in ACI 318 (Elwood et al, 2007). According to this proposal, if the amount of transverse reinforcement in the boundary element of a/shear wall member exceeds 75 percent of that is required in ACT'318 and spacing of transverse reinforcement does not exceed 8d, member is interpreted -as Conforming for the purpose of evaluating the behavior of walls. This ensures high ductility, In the proposed changes it is also permitted to take modeling parameters and acceptance criteria as 80% of confined values where boundary elements have at least 50% of the requirements given in ACI 318, and spacing of transverse reinforcement does not exceed &dy. Otherwise, boundary elements must be considered as unconfined. Selecting 8 mm bars (4,4-2x50 mm?) and taking 6.-200 mm, fe! =25 MPa and fina=420 MPa, s come out to/be168 mm and 93 mm according to TSC-2007 and ACI 318, respectively. So the provided level of confinement (8 mm diameter bars and 100 mm spacing) is adequate to classify models as well confined according to TSC-2007 and adequately confined according to ACI 318, Obviously confinement should be considered among the variables of the parametric study, but this would have significantly increased the number of parameters sets to be analyzed. For this reason this study was limited to appropriately confined members. 9 012 by the American Soc Sopyright 2 J. Struct. Eng.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; all rights reserved. pted November 5, 2012; 943-541X,0000770 Journal of Structural posted ahead of p lbmitted Febru int Novem Results of Analyses Assessment of Spread of Plasticity: Plastic Zone Length, Lp Two different methods were adopted to evaluate the length of the plastic zone, Zp, at the base region of cantilever walls. In the first method the tensile strain profile along the edge reinforcement was used to determine the yielding region. At the limiting tensile reinforcement strain of & = 0.06, the tensile strain profiles along the two-story high region at the base are plotted in Figure 6 for different walls lengths. A limiting value is selected. for easy comparison of the curvature and steel strain profiles among each other. Besides, Priestley et al. (2007) suggested that the maximum permissible tension strain for moment-curvature analysis should be based on a steel tension strain limit of ¢ = 0.6éy, where &, =0.1 is the strain at maximum stress of the reinforcing steel found from monotonic testing, in order to account for cyclic loading, bar buckling, bond-slip between the reinforcing steel and concrete at the critical section and tension-shitt effects. It is seen in Figure 6 that the plasticity spreads over a much larger region along the height of wall as the length of the wall increases and the wall becomes more susceptible to shear effects leading to diagonal-cracking; the size of the damaged zone increases as opposed to concentrated flexural cracking at the base of a slender wall, The kink that can be clearly observed in the 0.2h, level onthe average tensile strain profile locates the section of maximum flexural deformation onthe wall. In the second method curvature profiles, computed from element strains calculated at the two wall ends, at the samé'height and in the same tow as displayed in Figure 7(a), were used to determine the spread of plasticity along the wall, Vertical strains at the compression and tension boundary ends of the wall were evaluated. These edge strains pair- e in a row were used to calculate the curvature distribution [¢-(«,-e.)/Ly] along the height of the wall as displayed in Figure 7(a). The limiting yield curvature defined by the empirical expression by Priestley et al. (2007) in Eq, (6) was used to determine the extent of yielding along the wall. Paulay and Priestley (1992) and Priestley et al. (2007) defined an equivalent yield curvature obtained from bilinearization of the moment-curvature curve. The bilinear curve is obtained by drawing the first line from origin to the point on the curve where the reinforcement yields for the first time extending up to the nominal yield moment as shown in Figure 7(b). The nominal yield moment is defined as the moment where the extreme fiber strain in compression reaches 0.004 or extreme strain in tension reaches 0.015, whichever occurs first. The nominal moment closely approximates the yield moment, The second line connects the 10 012 by the American Soc Sopyright 2 ty of Civil Engineers J. Struct. Eng.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; all rights reserved. pted November 5, 2012; 943-541X,0000770 Journal of Structural posted ahead of p lbmitted Febru int Novem first line at the top to the ultimate point on the moment-curvature curve, Based on this procedure the equivalent yield curvature is defined as, 6 gaa © where 6; is the yield strain of the reinforcement. The calculated curvature profiles are plotted in Figure 8. Again the limiting tensile strain of 0.06 was used. Parallel to observations in the tensile strain profiles, it is seen that damage extends over a much larger region in walls with greater section lengths. While the plastic zone was constrained in the first story in 3 m wide walls, it spreads over 2 stories height in 5 and 8 m wide walls as shown in Figute 6 and 8. In order to evaluate the difference between the two plastic zone‘ length derivations, an error measure defined as the difference of two plastic zone lengths (Lp./*lp.2) obtained for the same model from tensile strain (Ly.1) and curvature profiles (Lp:2) divided by the plastic zone length obtained from curvature profile [(Lpe1-Lp-2)/Lpz2] was calculated and their mean and standard deviations was determined for each of the three wall lengths, The mean of (Lpes- Lye2)ilps2 ratio for wall lengths of 3 m, 5 m and 8m was calculated as 0.15, 0.21 and 0.18, respectively. The standard deviation of the error measure for each wall was calculated as 40.13, 0.11 and 0.13, respectively. Same comparison was also performed on experimental data presented by Dazio et al. (2009) since very detailed measurement of steel tensile strains ‘were available in that study. For similar comparison on siewall specimens from that study, it was found that tensile strain profile yields Ly. that is 21% longer than the one from curvature profile with a standard deviation of 40.15. So, it Gan be concluded that the plastic zone length calculated using texsile steel strains was 20% larger than that calculated using the curvature profiles. In view of the preceding discussion, this study uses the plastic zone length that was calculated onthe curvature profile. The calculated plastic hinge length Zp, at the ultimate response point, normalized with respect to wall length, is plotted against different wall design parameters in Figure 9, According to this figure, it was found that the first group of parameters that significantly affects the spread of plasticity includes the wall length (Ly), the shear-span-to-wall-length ratio (M/V/L,), the wall shear stress normalized with respect to square root of concrete compressive strength (1-Vmas/4y'Vfz) and the wall web reinforcement vel of axial load ratio (p,:). In a secondary level spread of plasticity was influenced by the (PIA.f) on the wall. The axial load level had a slight reducing effect on the spread of plasticity along the wall, No apparent effect of the amount of boundary element longitudinal reinforcement (p:) was observed on the plastic zone length as seen in Figure 9(d). As shown MW 012 by the American Soc Sopyright 2 ty of Civil Engineers J. Struct. Eng.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; all rights reserved. pted November 5, 2012; 943-541X,0000770 Journal of Structural posted ahead of p lbmitted Februa int Novem in Figure 9(a), even if Zp. was normalized with respect to wall length, there still exists a relation between the dimensionless plastic zone length Lys/L and Ly. This indicates that the relation between the Lp. and Ly is nonlinear. Figure 9(e) shows that the spread of plasticity along the wall decreases as the shear stress carried by the member increases Rotation and curvature in the plastic zone Although Ly. was identified above, we need curvature and rotation to establishva relation for Lp. The sketch in Figure 10 illustrates the calculation of the base section curvature (9) and rotation (4). The rotation 6, which was assumed to represent the rotation of the base section, was calculated just above the plastic zone length by using the vertical, displacements calculated at tensile and compressive edges in the same row as (A, =-A)/Lq. The ultimate base rotation capacity of wall specimens with respect to the normalized shear force is plotted in Figure 1 1(a). The base curvature was calculated in two different ways in order to ensure the accuracy in the calculation of this parameter, since all the performance criteria and assessment procedures for reinforced concrete members depends on it. The curvature gs) was obtained by using the moment-area theorem. Since the Fotation above the plastic zone (4,) can be obtained by integrating the curvature profile along the plastic zone length (Z,.), g») was obtained as 26biLps by assuming a linear curvature distribution, As displayed in Figure 10, the curvature ghz was obtained by fitting a best line to the calculated curvature profile along the lower half of the plastic zone length, The intercept of the best fit Tine at the base level was adopted as $2. The comparison of the curvatures derived with these two different schemes is displayed in Figure 11(c). The two curvature caletilation methods have yielded very similar results. The base curvatures used in this study were'those calculated by best line fit method, i. gs = gs2. The ultimate curvature capacity of the wall specimens is plotted in Figure 11(b). Determination of Plastic Hinge Length, Lp Since the plastic hinge analysis is based on the condition that @=Ly-dp as illustrated in Figure 1(a), the plastic hinge length is obtained as Lp = 0.5Lp. in the light of above discussion (@ = 8, + 0.5Lp.-9s). Hines et al. (2004) and Dazio et al. (2009) reached a similar expression that reads as a where Z,, characterizes the contribution of strain penetration to the top displacement. Although the purpose of modeling the foundation beam displayed in Figure 1(b) was to include strain penetration effects , no yielding of tensile reinforcement into the foundation 12 012 by the American Soc Sopyright 2 J. Struct. Eng.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; all rights reserved. pted November 5, 2012; 943-541X,0000770 Journal of Structural posted ahead of p lbmitted Febru int Novem beam was observed. This can be attributed to the heavy reinforcement used in the foundation, Results by Bohl and Adebar (2010) also indicate to similar situation. So the plastic hinge and zone lengths derived in this study do not account for any strain penetration contribution into the footing. Hines et al. (2004) had also stated that strain penetration had more pronounced effect on the elastic displacements than on plastic displacement, because the strain penetration gave rise to a greater portion of the total displacement prior to yield. The relation between the plastic zone length and the normalized shear stress was displayed in Figure 9(). The validity of relation given in Eq. (7) for the'caleulation of the plastic hinge length was verified by using Eq. (1). All the components of Eq. (1), are available from FEM analysis to calculate the plastic hinge length. The plastic hinge length calculated in two different ways and normalized with respect to plastic zone lengtlvis plotted as a function of normalized shear in Figure 12(a). Lp obtained by substituting required values in Eq. (1) resulted in an average value of L, = 0.43Zp. as plotted in Figure*12(a). It can be assumed that the plastic hinge length can be taken as the 40%~50% of the length of the region where plasticity spreads over the member. The plastic hinge length obtained by rearranging Eq. (1) was normalized with respect to the wall length and plotted in Figure 12(b) as a function of normalized shear stress. The data reveals that plastic hinge length is not a constant fraction of wall length as assumed by many codes and reported by other research (such as Lp = 0.5L). An improved expression to calculate the plastié hinge length was derived by regression analysis by using the variables of the parametric study. The plastic hinge length was found to be sensitive to the wall length (L.,) and effective height (shear span, L, = M/V), axial load ratio (P/Agfe) and amount of horizontal web reinforcement (p,,). Multiple regression technique was adopted in deriving the expression, Multiple regression allows the simultaneous testing and modeling of multiple independent variables. The exponential model given in Eq. (8) was selected t0'define the plastic hinge length expression. Although the following model is not linear combinations of the x's, multiple regression can be still used, if the variables are transformed by taking the logarithm of both sides as given in Eq. (8b). y= exp(fbo + Bixi + Boxs + Baxs +e) (8a) Log(y) = Bo + Bixrt Baxr + Baxs + & (8b) First a regression was performed with one independent variable, and then it was tested whether a second independent variable is related to the residuals from this regression, It was continued with a third variable, etc. When a residual plot revealed a data set to be nonlinear, transformation was applied on the variable to achieve linearity. After the coefficients, fy, 81, 1B 012 by the American Soc Sopyright 2 ty of Civil Engineers J. Struct. Eng.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; all rights reserved. November 5, 2012; 541X,0000770 Journal of Struct posted ahead of print Nover Ae, ete., were determined, Eq. (8a) was written in the form of y=exp(Bix:)exp(S2x2)exp(Bsxs), and it was observed that each exponential term can be represented with a simple linear function as ax; +h). Finally, the proposed equation for plastic hinge length is given as (9) in which Lp, Ly and M/V are in meters. Using the curvature profiles in Figure 8, the following equation for Lp. was obtained in the same way from regression analysis: (10) which also justifies the condition that the L)~0.5L,. when compared to Eq. (9). Deriving the plastic hinge length in a form similar to Eq. (4) leads to: L, =0.143L, +0.072(M/V) (aly The plastic hinge length predictions using the €quations derived in this study and taken from other studies are compared with finite element analysis results in Figure 13. It is seen in Figure 13(a) that the best predictions were obtained by Eq, (9) proposed in this study. If the typical story height is assumed to be 3m, Figute 13(a) tells us that the plastic hinge length is bounded within a story height for low-to’ medium height walls and it is concluded on the premise declared by Eq. (8) that plastification spreads over a two-story height at the base. It should be noted that plastic-hinge length equations given in Eqs. (2) to (5) and Eq. (9) were derived from either measured experimental data or calculated analytical data at failure (ultimate) of the member. Therefore, it i8 likely that the plastic-hinge length calculated with these equations would be larger than a-more reasonable estimate of plastic-hinge length at intermediate damage states (Berry and Eberhard 2003). Consequently, the plastic rotations calculated at intermediate damage states overestimate the true values. Figure 14 displays the variation of mean values of plastic hinge lengths classified for wall length with respect to increasing drift ratio. FoF low to medium length walls (Ly <5 m) the plastic hinge length at intermediate levels of damage is smaller than the plastic hinge length calculated at failure. Plastic hinge length remains nearly constant for 8 m walls during the course of inelastic action, At the initial parts of the graphs the plastic hinge length values are larger than the intermediate range values, which can be attributed to inconsistency in the application of formulation given in Eq, (1) in this region due to deformation behavior after flexural yielding when hinge is not fully developed. The line fit equations given in the figure can be used to 14 Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers J. Struct. Eng.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; all rights reserved. pted November 5, 2012; 943-541X,0000770 Journal of Structural posted ahead of p lbmitted Februa int Novem scale the plastic hinge length calculated with Eq. (9) for intermediate range of drift ratios. Standard deviations are plotted as error bars around the mean plastic hinge length values as 1 Loa for each graph. Verification of Proposed Relations using Experimental Data In order to verify the accuracy of the analytically derived Ly expression, a database composed of shear wall test results was compiled. The database is composed of 24 small-to- large scale shear wall tests; 21 specimens were tested under static cyclic loading of either increasing or variable displacement amplitude. The important properties and a summary of primary test results are presented in Table 1. It must be pointed out that although there are several experimental studies on shear walls, only a few of them report the plastic zone length Lye data, The calculated plastic zone lengths using Eq. (10) aré tabulated in 18" column of Table 1. Figure 15 compares the available experimental and caleulated L,- values. Statistical information displaying the degree of correlation between the measured and predicted values is also given on the same figure. Comparison of Lye values instead of L,, was due to the fact that it was the plastic zone length, either derived. trom the distribution of measured tensile steel strain at the edges or section curvature, that was reported from the experiments. As previously asserted, the plastic zone length obtained from the tensile’strain profile is 20% larger than the one obtained using curvature profile. So, for experimental plastic region length based on tensile steel strain measurements, Eq. (10) was increased by 20%, Conclusions ‘An improved expression forthe calculation plastic hinge length of structural walls has been proposed here. The model depends on the wall length, the axial load ratio, the wall horizontal web reinforcement ratio and the shear-span-to-wall-length-ratio. The proposed plastic hinge length has’been found to constitute 40-50% of the length of the plastic zone, ie. of the region where yielding takes place. Accuracy of the existing plastic hinge length formulations was also evaluated. It has been shown that the equation proposed in this study is ‘more accurate than the relations proposed in other studies. It has been found that widely used assumption that plastic hinge length is half the wall length, L,=0.5Z,, underestimates the plastic hinge length as the wall length increase and shear effects become more pronounced. The parameter used to determine the length of plastic zone over the wall affects the computed value. It was found that the plastic zone length calculated from the tensile strain profile is 20% larger than the one calculated using curvature profile, The equations proposed 15 012 by the American Soc Sopyright 2 J. Struct. Eng.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; all rights reserved. pted November 5, 2012; 943-541X,0000770 Journal of Structural posted ahead of p lbmitted Febru int Novem to estimate the plastic lengths are for the ultimate damage state. It was shown that at intermediate damage states smaller values of plastic-hinge length should be used in order to employ plastic hinge analysis method safely in displacement calculation of cantilever systems. As future work, the analyses carried out in this study must be enriched to cover walls with various levels of confinement at the wall boundaries, since the ductile response of structural walls depends on the level of confinement. Nevertheless, this study improves the current state of knowledge on the plastic hinge analysis of structural walls. REFERENCES ACI 318 (2011). “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete atid Commentary”, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, Adebar, P., Ibrahim, A.M.M., and Bryson, M. (2007). “Test of a High-Rise Core Wall: Effective Stiffness for Seismic Analysis.” ACI Structural Journal, 104(5), 549-559 ANSYS R11.0. Swanson Analyses System. 2007. ASCE/SEI 41 (2007). “Seismic rehabilitation, of existing buildings.” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia. Berry, M,, and Eberhard, M. (2003). “Performance Models. for. Flexural Damage in Reinforced Concrete Columns.”, PEER Report 2003/18, University of California, Berkeley. Bohl, A. and Adebar, P. (2011). “Plastic Hinge Lengths in High-tise Concrete Shear Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, 1082), 148-157, Dazio A., Beyer K. and Bachmann H- (2009). “Quasi-static-eyclic tests and plastic hinge analysis of RC structural walls”, Engineering Structures, 31(7), 1556-1571. Dhakal R.P. and Maekawa K. (2002). “Modeling for postyield buckling of reinforcement.” ASCE. Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(9), 1139-1147. Elwood, K.J., Matamoros, A.B., Wallace, I.W., Lehman, D.E., Heintz, J.A., Mitchell, A.D., Moore, M.A, Valley,MCT., Lowes, L.N;, Comartiny'C.D. and Moeble J.P. (2007). “Update to ASCE/SEI 41 Concrete Provisions”, Earthquake Spectra, 23(3), 493-523. Eurocode,8 (2005). “Design of Striictures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings.” BS EN 1998-3, Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium. Hines EM, Restrepo IJ. and Seible F. (2004), “Force-displacement characterization of well-confined bridge piers.” ACI Structural Journal, 101(4), 537-548. Kazaz, 1. (2010)-""Dynamic characteristics and performance assessment of reinforced concrete structural walls.” Ph.D. thesis, Civil Engineering Dept., Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. ftip-/etd lib. metu.edu.tr/upload/3/12611712/index.pdf Kazaz I. (2011). “Finite element analysis of shear-critical reinforced concrete walls.” Computers and Conerete, An International Journal, 8(2), 143-162 Mattock, A.H. (1967). Discussion of “Rotational Capacity of Reinforced Conerete Beams,” by W.G. Corley, ASCE Journal of Structural Division, 93(ST2), 519-522. Oesterle, R.G., Fiorato, AE., Johal, L.S., Carpenter, E., Russell, H.G., and Corley, W.G. (1976). “Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls - Tests of Isolated Walls, Report to National Science Foundation.” Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, 315 pp. 16 012 by the American Soc Sopyright 2 ty of Civil Engineers J. Struct. Eng.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; all rights reserved. pted November 5, 2012; 943-541X,0000770 Journal of Structural posted ahead of p lbmitted Febru int Novem Oesterle, R.G., Aristizabal-Ochoa, J.D., Fiorato, AE., Russell, H.G., and Corley, W.G. (1979). “Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls - Tests of Isolated Walls-Phase I, Report to National Science Foundation.”, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, 336 pp. Park R. and Paulay T. (1975). “Reinforced concrete structures.”, New York: Wiley. Paulay T. and Priestley M.J.N. (1992). “Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings.” New York: J. Wiley. Priestley, M.IN., Seible, F., and Calvi, G.M. (1996). “Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges.” John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 686 pp. Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M., and Kowalsky, MJ. (2007). “Displacement-based seismic design of structures.” [USS Press, Pavia, Italy. Saatcioglu M. and Razvi S.R. (1992). “Strength and ductility of confined coneret®” ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 118(6), 1590-1607. Sozen M.A. (1989). “Earthquake response of buildings with robust walls.” Fifth Chilean Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, Thomsen J.H. and Wallace J.W. (1995). “Displacement-based design of reinforeed concrete structural walls: an experimental investigation of walls with rectangular and T-shaped cross-sections.” CU/CEE- 95/06, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, N.Y. TSC (2007). “Turkish Seismic Design Code for Buildings.” Ministry of Public Works and Resettlement, Ankara, Turkey. Vallenas, M.V., Bertero, V.V., and Popov, E.P. (1979). “Hystetetic behavior of reinforced concrete structural walls.” EERC Report 79/20, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley. Wallace J.W. and Moehle J.P. (1992). “Ductility and detailing’ requirements of bearing wall buildings.” ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 118(6), 1625-1644, Wang, T.T., Bertero, V.V., Popov, E.P, (1975). “Hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete framed walls.” EERC Report 75/23, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of California, Berkeley, Willam, K.J. and Warnke, E.D. (975):“Constitutive model for the triaxial behavior of concrete”, Intl. Assoc. Bridge Struct. Eng. Proc., 19; 174-203. 7 012 by the American Soc Sopyright 2 ty of Civil Engineers J. Struct. Eng.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; all rights reserved. pted November 5, 2012; 943-541X,0000770 Journal of Structural posted ahead of p lbmitted Febru int Novem List of Figures Figure 1. a) Theoretical and b) Finite element model of cantilever walls. Figure 2. Modeling of concrete behavior under compression a) in Principal stress space, b) in the form of uniaxial stress strain curve as input to the program, c) as multiple biaxial failure surfaces, d) Tensile behavior of concrete in tension. Figure 3. a) Typical concrete uniaxial compressive stress-strain curves, b) Steel material base curve and modified curves for different diameter rebars including the effect of buckling, Figure 4, Finite element model of the shear wall tested by Thomsen and Wallace (1995). Figure 5. a) Variation of strain profile over 229 mm gage length along the web in the horizontal direction, b) Calculated and measured force-displacement response of the wall tested by Thomsen and Wallace (1995), Figure 6.Tensile strain profiles along the tensile edge of the walls, (h,=Story height taken as 3 m, y is the distance from the base of the wall along the height) Figure 7. a) Picture depicted from the analysis phase to illustrate the distribution of vertical strains and calculation of curvature row wise, b) Equivalent bilinearization of moment curvature curve and determination of yield curvature as desctibed by Priestley et al. (2007), figure displays the initial portion of the moment-curvature relation, Figure 8. Curvature profiles along the height of the walls (/t,~story height taken as 3 m, y is the distance from the’base of the wall along the height), Figure 9. Variation of plastic zone length normalized with respect to wall length with wall parameters! a) Wall length, b) Axial load ratio, c) Shear-span-to-wall-length ratio, d) Volumitric ratio of the boundary élement longitudinal reinforcement, e) Volumetric ratio of the web horizontal reinforcement, f) Wall shear stress normalized with respect to concrete strength, Figure 10, Schematic descriptions of base curvature and rotation calculation in finite element analysis. Figure 11. ) Ultimate base rotation, b) Ultimate base curvature, plotted as a function of normalized shear force, ¢) Comparison of results of two base curvature derivation schemes described in Figure 10. 18 012 by the American Soc Sopyright 2 ty of Civil Engineers J. Struct. Eng.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; all rights reserved. epted November 5, 2012: 1943-541X,0000770 Journal of Structural Engineering. Submitted February 18, 2012; posted ahead of print November 7, 2012. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)s igure 12, Plastic hinge length calculated as a function of a) plastic zone length, b) wall length. Figure 13. Comparison of plastic hinge lengths calculated from finite element analysis with the prediction equations. Figure 14. Variation of average normalized plastic hinge length and its standard deviation with drift ratio. Figure 15, Comparison of measured and predicted plastic zone lengths. 19 Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers. J. Struct. Eng.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. ural of Structural Engineering. Submitted February 18, 2012; accep TABLES, 1d November 5, 1d ahead of print November 7, 2012. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X,0000770 2012: Table 1. Test parameters and measured deformations at yield and ultimate of wall specimens. o]@ Lolo fol@)?] © ]R [eolenfea 2] cm [van [ao ]an oe) No | specimen shape] Load | eau | SPE | eH | Bh | BB Z| loa [AevZl | 0 | ocd em] cer] tem | Ze | 04 | (99 | 29 [ ca‘ ton 6 | 69 | pean |e [ a [or [im [rwal a7 [24 [ia7[oas|osr | wa | a7 [ oo [220 [a8 [205 2 Penne [Rie or ios [wos | as7 | 2a [amo oss ost [ow | oa | ore [am [205 [206 reasi™ | [1 or [im fuoa] as [2a [rs foas]osrfos | ss | 019 [2s9|206 [207 SLE SR RT TY TE SSS SPrcass [8 [acon fier [aoa | as7 [2a [i foe fos [os [473 [oar [sos [213 [200 &[reasse[-8 [Mf or fier [roz| as 34 fi fone oni [os as | 025 [sve] 275 [206 7 [rcaas |B | ie or pros [wa] as7_| 24 [sa foao[osr fos | as | ose par [i [199 SE A RT DE TE 9 Prcas® [ 6 [ae [or fies [aoa | as7 [24 [307 fo29foss | x9 [a3 [om [amv [20 [ias Tw rcawe |B | ie for fier ina] as7 [2a [sar pozo pose pes | a2 | 077 [aes [amo [ios Tr] reasy [BME [or [ior]r2} 4s7_[ 2a [sar] ozo] oss] aa] sat | 07s [san]aa0 [ier i [pease |B | Me for fio [ina] as7 [2a [is7fozo [oss Pas | ase | oss far [as [iss i] reare |-F | 1c [ox [ioral 4st [aa [sae] oso]om [oa | aes [one [ii pier pis TH [ueeswe[ a _|-M_ [ar [2 [ioa| soe [r2s]sszfoas[oas [ra [348 | 07 [sor[ 2 [aoe is [uceswar[ sic [01 [259 [102] sos [128 [552] oss] oss[ ts | 350 [069 [22s] 2 [ao To [uceSws| RM [ox [oer [roa] soo [ize [eae] ons] oss] rs | sa [ona [aan] ce [he Tr fuceswer[ ex ic [ox [oer [roa] so [re [634] oss] oes] 7 [34s [000 [2s] ta [iat Te cuawe |e [ie [on [az [oa] 382 [5.3 [299 [oss[oss[ 7 [a7 [025 [219 [09 [he Te [ws [eae [oo an0 [a5 225 [132[ 030[ 025[ 37 | 40s [ 019 [iz9] 14 [he ao [wsis™ |e [1c [os] 200 [as zas [134 fase [oas [sa [ 392 | 02 [aoe] 17 [0s aE ware [RP ie four fae rs aae[isa[ose[oas[s7 | a9 [oas [ise a [re 2 wsas_[-e[ ic [oo [200 [as aas]oar [oar [oas [ina | ses | 028 [rat | 14 [105 2 [ wens [x [ie fo.os [200 [1s a2s[1ss[oss[o2s ros | 50 | 029 [aor[ ts [158 ae wre [ic [or [ies fat “ran [owe foas fos wo 3s [on aoa pts [2s Refe "Deseret al (1976), “Oestere ot al (1979), Wang et al (1975), ‘Vallnas et al (1979), "Thomsen and Wallace (1995), "Dazio et al. 09), "Adebat eal. (2007). Pp the ratio of boundary longitudinal reinforcement to boundary element area a= the rato of web horizontal reinforcement to vertical cross section n= the ratio of web vertical reinforcement to horizontal cross section Section Shape: R = Rectangular, B = Barbell, F = Flanged ‘Loading: M= Monotonic loading, IC = cyelic loading with incremental disp variable displacement amplitude lacement amplitude, MC 20 Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers J. Struct. Eng. syelic loading withFigure 1 Journal of Structural Engineering. Submit posted ahead of print November 7, 201 1d February 18, 2012; accepted November 5, 2012; doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X,0000770 a) 4 P ») ‘Theoretical curvature distribution { Vi Flanges accountng for the elfect of ibs on shear flow ‘Actual curvature BEAM 188 distribution ‘Confined boundary elements Idealized curvature distribution MPC 184 Compression zone 4 A= 0+ 6, shrug a a.5t-| sehr iempotoe 1p-05hye] soupas scuning Strain oneuation Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers J, Struct, Eng.Figure 2 Tights reserved. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; Journal of Structural Engineering. Submitted February 18, 2012; accepted November 5, 2012; posted ahead of print November 7, 2012. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X,0000770 a) Principal stress space (Triaxial) _b) Uniaxial stress-strain curve _¢) Biaxial stress state Jé: Compressive strength 4 Combined yield {fs Tensile strength surface Subsequent yield surfaces Initial yietd surface Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers J, Struct, Eng.Figure 3 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal usc a) Concrete stress (MPa) ahead f print Novem 600 Uriel tension 500 $ 200 Unconfined g conerete F200 4g 4887 = Stirrup spacing, 8y 4,6 Segmented curve a, am Ce, My input to the program 00 J s= 100 “m o ° 0.00 0.01 092 003 004 0.05 0.05 000 002 004 008 008 010 Strain ») Strain Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers J, Struct, Eng. o12Figure 4 Journal of Structural Engineering. Submitted February 18, 2012; accey posted ahead of print November 7, 2012. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X,0000770 LA) “ 9 ann \ Faoment cura ~-ovesea Shear Distortion 3.66 m Tights reserved. 000648) 008623) 029549} 032409] a) Rectangular wall b)FullFEMmodel —c) Reduced FEMmodel_—_d) Vertical strains at ultimate Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; Copyright 2012 by the Americé Society of Civil Engineers J, Struct, Eng.Figure 5 Journal of Structural Engineering. Submitted February 18, 2012; accepted November 5, 2012; posted ahead of print November 7, 2012. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X,0000770 oot a Test 1% drift e cos eo rest 2% at FEM ait z owe eFeM 2% att |Z 2 Son: 3 3 34 = ° 5 0 8 — Experiment Cyetic —Cateatates Cyete | —catestates Monotonic Horizontal Top Displacement (mm) Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers J, Struct, Eng.Figure 6 i iccepted November 5, 2012: 900770 bmitted Februa 7, 2012, doi:10. Journal of S posted ab ‘uctural Engineering, o12345670123456701234567 Tensile strain (%) Tensile strain (%) Tensile strain (%) Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by U Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers J, Struct, Eng.Figure 7 Journal of Structural Engineering. Submitted February 18, 2012; accepted November 5, 2012; posted ahead of print November 7, 2012. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X,0000770 20000 28) Depiction of the distribution of vertcal strains from an analyes stop Teta ») Bilinear curve lta Yad 4 “Sten the ene eagreion Fst yield < gether 0004 rete eson ‘un reaches 001 forte ir ie, In ioral tele sn gover Tights reserved. Moment ann) 3 (ay 4 ete ps whe Efectveracked jody emt renfeenet ‘oles OSE, ys ob tne oo Wooo 0m aoa —=«swaae cos ‘Curvature (1/m) Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers J, Struct, Eng.Figure 8 ahead of print Novem! 009 001 002 0030.00 001 0.02 0.03000 901 002 0.03 Curvature (Lim) Curvature (I/m) Curvature (lim) Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal usc Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers J, Struct, Eng.Figure 9 ahead of print Novem! a R010 B) SPA S-08 R=030 gil =-0.0571, +102 © ily 03 141NMIVIE, 40:51 01235 465 6 (wy it, 23456789 L,) 18 14 12 10 os ~ os 04 02 oo [ASCE 41 flexure mit 0 1 2 3 4 50.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 092000 04 08 12 16 pA) Par v Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal usc Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers J, Struct, Eng.Figure 10 Tights reserved. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; Journal of Structural Engineering. Submitted February 18, 2012; ac septed November 5, 2012; posted ahead of print November 7, 2012. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X,0000770 Method 1: Curvature profile * Best line fit i el TG = x=cyt de Base rotation: x a) re Method 2: ‘ Assuming linear curvature distribution and using moment area theorem (6, is known) 26, L dn = Tt was found that #4) = gh2 Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers J, Struct, Eng.Figure 14 z L & g 2 i 4 4 : i 5 a z i g i i : : i Journal of Structural Engineering. Submit posted ahead of print November 7, 201 1d February 18, 2012; doi:10.1061/(ASC iccepted November 5, 2012: )ST.1943-541X,0000770 5 8) Rotation 0.05 5004 £003 ~ coe f oor 0.00 Or0% ) Curvature oy ©) Curvature comparison 00 04 08 12 Vou tela Copyright 18 00 04 08 12 168 000 a1 2 by the American Society of Civil Engineers J, Struct, Eng. 002 003 0.04 61 (him)Figure 12 ahead of print Novem! 10 08 0.94 Calculated using O/h/L;. oe 05 o7 oa 06 . = os = 03 Sos + oa 02 02 oa 1) Calculated using Eq. (1) 09 0.0 00 02 o4 08 o8 10 00 02 04 08 08 10 12 14 16 a) Vou telat b) Val tba Ko Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal usc Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers J, Struct, Eng.Figure 13 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal usc £, (au) Eq (4) Journal of Structural Engineering. Submitted Februa ahead of print November 7, 4 4 4 2) This study, Eq.) 1 Burocode 8, Ba. 2) ©) Priestley et al, 1996 og 3 Faq. (3) a es a3 a? 2 © | maeeggliin.. | E . é oa é 1 4 4 - 0 a ° o 7 2 8 4 09 * 2 8 4 0 4 2 39 4 ease) Uprene() pres ™ 4 4 4 a) Paataye Priest, 1992 ©) Bol & Adee, 2011 1) This study, Ea. (11) Ea.) moony 5 [ee Eq) a3 Z a Le ‘ 2 ee . 2 onl 1 % i]s ° o ° ° 2 3 4 0 + 2 8 4 0 1 2 3 4 prac) pyar) ena Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers J, Struct, Eng.Figure 14 Lytt, Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal usc ahead of print Novem! 08 07 ty R'=0.917 06 0s 4 03 1,1 Lg 2.00DR § 0.266 RO. 02 4.43208 +0,323 0.00 001 0.02003 0,04 00S 0.065, Drift Ratio (DR) Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers J, Struct, Eng. 0.07Figure 15 Journal of Structural Engineering. Submitted February 18, 2012; accepted November 5, 2012; posted ahead of print November 7, 2012. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X,0000770 30 25 20 & ° 15 Tights reserved. 19 Lye (m) - Predicted cov=57% 05 00 09 05 19 18 20 25 30 4,2 (m) -Experiment Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PARANA on 07/21/13. Copyright ASCE, For personal use only; Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers J, Struct, Eng.