Slender Walls

EERI/PEER Technical Seminar February 2006
Slender Wall Behavior & Modeling
John Wallace
University of California, Los Angeles
with contributions from

Dr. Kutay Orakcal
Presentation Overview
FEMA 356 Requirements
General requirements
Modeling approaches
Beam-column, fiber, general
Stiffness, strength
Experimental Results
Model Assessment
Rectangular, T-shaped cross sections
FEMA backbone relations
Flexure dominant walls
2
J. Wallace 1
FEMA 356 –
Nonlinear Modeling for Buildings with
Slender RC Walls
FEMA 356 – RC Walls

General Considerations – 6.8.2.1
Represent stiffness, strength, and
deformation capacity
Model all potential failure modes anywhere
along the wall (member) height
Interaction with other structural and
nonstructural elements shall be considered
So, we must consider any and everything
J. Wallace 2
Wall Modeling Approaches

Equivalent beam-column model
hw/lw ≥ 3
Modified equivalent beam-column

Rectangular walls (hw/lw ≤ 2.5)
Flanged walls (hw/lw ≤ 3.5)
Multiple-line-element and Fiber models
Concrete and rebar material models
General wall model
Equivalent Beam-Column Model

Column at
hw/lw ≥ 3: wall
centroid
Wall
Use of equivalent beam-
column permitted
Neutral axis migration not
considered Rigid end
Interaction with in- and out- Beams zones for
of-plane elements not beam
properly considered
Axial load Impacts
Stiffness (EI)
Strength (P-M) Hinges
L- or T-shaped walls
Where to locate the
element? Acolumn = twlw
Elastic centroid?
⎡1 ⎤
I column = α cracking ⎢ twlw3 ⎥
⎣12 ⎦ 6
J. Wallace 3
Modified Beam - Column Model

Rectangular walls (hw/lw ≤ 2.5)
& Flanged walls (hw/lw ≤ 3.5):
Column at
wall
Use of modified Wall centroid
beam-column element
with added shear spring Shear
Beams spring
Nonlinear flexure/shear
are uncoupled using this
approach Hinges
Modified Beam - Column Model

Shear force – deformation properties
Deformation-controlled component
a b-a
IO LS CP
B
1.0 ⎛ Vy ⎞
Δy = ⎜
C ⎜ ( G = 0.4 E ) A ⎟⎟
h
V ⎝ c c ⎠
⎛ 1 ⎞
Vn Gc = Ec ⎜ ⎟ and ν ≈ 0.2
⎝ 1 + 2ν ⎠
D
0.2
E c
A
Δy/h Δ/h
8
J. Wallace 4
Fiber Section Model

Actual cross section
Concrete Fibers
Steel Fibers
Typically use a more refined mesh where yielding is anticipated;

however,
Nonlinear strains tend to concentrate in a single element, thus, typically
use an element length that is approximately equal to the plastic hinge
length (e.g., 0.5lw). Might need to calibrate them first (this is essential).
Calibration of fiber model with test results, or at least a plastic hinge
model, is needed to impose a “reality” check on the element size and
integration points used.
9
Materials Maximum permissible

compressive strain for
Limit state
unconfined concrete
associated
Unconfined Concrete (FEMA 356 S6.4.3.1)
with crack
ε = 0.002 or 0.005 width
Stress (ksi)
⎡ 2ε ⎛ ε ⎞ 2 ⎤
f c = f c' ⎢ c − ⎜ c ⎟ ⎥ < f c'
⎢⎣ ε 0 ⎝ ε 0 ⎠ ⎥⎦
Linear descending branch defined by:
(ε 0 = 0.002; f c' ) and ( ε c 85 = 0.0038; 0.85f c' )
Strain
In the absence of cylinder stress-strain tests, Saatcioglu & Razvi (ASCE, JSE,
1992) recommend relation based on work by Hognestad.
10
J. Wallace 5
Materials
Confined Concrete (FEMA 356 6.4.3.1)
Use appropriate model, e.g.:
Saatcioglu & Razvi (ASCE JSE, 1992, 1995)
Mander (ASCE JSE, 1988)
Modified Kent & Park (ASCE JSE, 1982)
For reference
FEMA 356 Qualifications:
Maximum usable compression strain based on
experimental evidence and consider limitations
posed by hoop fracture and longitudinal bar
buckling.
11
Materials
Steel Material:
Maximum usable strain limits per
FEMA 356 S6.4.3.1
ε = 0.02 ε = 0.05
Stress (ksi)
Strain
12
J. Wallace 6
General Wall Models/FE Models

e.g., RAM-PERFORM:
Flexure - fiber model (2-directions)
Shear - Trilinear backbone relation
Flexibility to model complex wall
geometry
Mesh refinement issues
Flexure/Axial Shear
Concentration of nonlinear
Deformations in one element
13
Stiffness Modeling
FEMA 356 Section 6.8.2.2 – Use Table 6.5
Uncracked: EIeffective = 0.8EIg
Cracked: EIeffective = 0.5EIg
0.75EcIg 0.5EcIg
MOMENT
30 x 2 ft Wall Section
16 - #14 Boundary
#6@12" Web
P=0.30Agf'c
P=0.20Agf'c
1.0, 0.75, 0.5, 0.4EcIg P=0.10Agf'c
CURVATURE
Wallace, et al., 4NCEE, Vol. 2, pp 359-368, 1990. 14
J. Wallace 7
Response Correlation Studies

Ten Story Building in San Jose, California
Instrumented: Base, 6th Floor, and Roof
Moderate Intensity Ground Motions – Loma Prieta
4.53 m (14.88 ft) 5 @ 10.97 m (36 ft)
8.84 m (29 ft)
1.68 m
8.84 m (29 ft) (5.5 ft)
PLAN VIEW: CSMIP BUILDING 57356
15
Response Correlation Studies

Ten Story Building in San Jose, California
Instrumented: Base, 6th Floor, and Roof
Moderate Intensity Ground Motions – Loma Prieta
1.5
Displacement (in.)
Analysis - 0.5Ig
Measured
-1.5
0 10 20 30
Time (sec)
16
J. Wallace 8
Strength Requirements
ACI 318 Provisions
Pn- Mn
For extreme fiber compression strain of εc =0.003.
Vn
ACI 318-99,02,05 Equation 21-7
Vn = Acv ⎡α c f c' + ρt f y ⎤
⎣ ⎦
α c = 3.0 for hw / lw ≤ 1.5 Linear interpolation
allowed for intermediate
α c = 2.0 for hw / lw ≥ 2.0 values
17
Definition of Wall Cross Section

Cross-Section Definition
0.25hw
beff
As' ,bound + As' , flange As
As ,bound + As , flange As'
Flexural strength
Consider all vertical reinforcement within web
and within the effective flange width
Consider the influence of openings on
the strength and detailing requirements
ACI 318-02, 05 Appendix A – Strut & Tie Approach
18
J. Wallace 9
Behavior of Flanged Walls

Flange Compression versus Tension
As
beff beff
As ,bound + As , flange
εt
εt
εc εc
Flange Compression Flange Tension
Low compressive strain Large compressive strain
Large curvature capacity Less curvature capacity
Mn & Vu similar rectangle Mn ⇑ Vu ⇑ 19
RW2 & TW1: ~ ¼ scale tests
Displacement-based design Uncoupled design
Thomsen & Wallace, ASCE JSE, April 2004.

20
J. Wallace 10
Lateral Drift (%)
-2.8 -1.4 0.0 1.4 2.8
80
P = 0.09Agf'c
vu,max = 4.85√f'c
Lateral Load (kips)
40 P = 0.07Agf'c
vu,max = 2.32√f'c
0 Abrupt
RW2
Lateral
Strength loss
-40 Due to
TW1 buckling;
TW1
RW2 Axial load
Maintained
-80
-4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
Top Displacement (in.)
21
RW2 & TW2: ~ ¼ scale tests
Displacement-based design of T-shape
Thomsen & Wallace, ASCE JSE, April 2004.

22
J. Wallace 11
Lateral Drift (%)
-2.8 -1.4 0.0 1.4 2.8
80
P = 0.075Agf'c
Lateral Load (kips)
vu,max = 5.5√f'c
40 P = 0.07Agf'c
vu,max = 2.32√f'c
0
Lateral
RW2 strength loss
due to lateral
-40 Instability due
TW2 to spalling;
RW2 Axial load
TW2
-80 maintained
-4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
23
Model Assessment –
Comparison of Analytical and
Experimental results
24
J. Wallace 12
MVLE (Fiber) Model

5
Rigid Beam
6 4
m
.
.
(1-c)h .
.
h
k1 k2 . . kH . . . . . k n .
2
ch
1
2
3 1 Rigid Beam
RC WALL WALL MODEL
Basic assumptions:
• Plane sections (rigid rotation of top/bottom beams
• Uniaxial material relations (vertical spring elements)
MVLE Model versus Fiber Model:
• Similar to a fiber model except with constant curvature
over the element height (vs linear for fiber model)
Orakcal, Wallace, Conte; ACI SJ, Sept-Oct 2004. 25
Material (Uni-axial) Models

(ε 'c , f 'c)
σy E1= bE0
Compression
r
Stress, σ
E0
O εy
R
O (ε0, 0)
Tension
Not to scale
(ε0+ εt , ft)
Strain, ε Strain, ε
Reinforcing Steel : Concrete :
• Menegotto and Pinto (1973) • Chang and Mander (1994)
• Filippou et al. (1984) ¾ Generalized (can be updated)
¾ Simple but effective ¾ Allows refined calibration
¾ Degradation of ¾ Gap and tension stiffening
cyclic curvature
26
J. Wallace 13
Model Assessment
Approximately 1/4 scale
Aspect ratio = 3
Displacement – based
evaluation for detailing
provided at the wall
boundaries
12 ft tall, 4 ft long, 4
inches thick
#3 vertical steel, 3/16”
hoops/ties
#2 deformed web steel
Constant axial load
Cyclic lateral
displacements applied at
the top of the walls
27
Instrumentation
• Extensive instrumentation provided to measure
wall response at various locations
Wire Potentiometers
Wire Potentiometers
(X configuration)
(horizontal displacement)
Rigid Steel Strain Gage Levels

RW2
Reference
Frame Wire Potentiometers
(vertical displacement)
LVDT's
Concrete Strain Gages
Linear Potentiometers
(Pedestal Movement)
Massone & Wallace; ACI SJ, Jan-Feb 2004. 28
J. Wallace 14
Applied Lateral Displacement

80 2
RW2
40 1
Top Displacement (mm)
0 0
Drift Ratio (%)

-40 -1
Applied displacement -2
-80 Pedestal movement excluded
80 Pedestal movement and
shear deformations excluded 2
40 1
0 0
-40 -1
TW2 -2
-80
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Data Point Number
29
Model Details – RW2

1219 mm
3 @ 51 mm 153 mm 3 @ 191 mm 153 mm 3 @ 51 mm
19 mm 19 mm
8 - #3 bars #2 bars (db=6.35 mm) Hoops (db=4.76 mm)
(db=9.53 mm) @ 191 mm @ 76 mm 19 mm
102 mm 64 mm
19 mm
uniaxial element # : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
m=16
.
.
(1-c)h .
k1 k2 . .
.
kH . . . . . k n .
h
2
ch
1
30
J. Wallace 15
Model Details – TW2

1219 mm
3 @ 51 mm 3 @ 51 mm
153 mm 3 @ 191 mm 153 mm
19 mm 19 mm
19 mm
19 mm
64 mm 12-19
3 @ 51 mm
19 mm 8 - #3 bars 11
(db=9.53 mm)
102 mm 10
+
#2 bars (db=6.35 mm)
@ 191 mm 9
Hoops (db=4.76 mm)
@ 76 mm
8
3 @ 140 mm
#2 bars (db=6.35 mm)
@ 140 mm
7
1219 mm
6
102 mm 2 - #2 bars (db=6.35 mm)
Hoops and cross-ties (db=4.76 mm)

@ 38 mm
5
4
-
3
4 @ 102 mm 2
8 - #3 bars
(db=9.53 mm)
Hoops (db=4.76 mm) uniaxial element # : 1

@ 32 mm
19 mm
102 mm 31
Concrete Model - Unconfined

50
40
Stress (MPa)
30
Test Results
20 1st Story
2nd Story
3rd Story
10 4th Story
Analytical (Unconfined)
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004

Strain
32
J. Wallace 16
Concrete Model - Confined

70
60 TW2 Web
50
RW2
Stress (MPa)
40
30
TW2 Flange
Unconfined Model
20
Mander et al. (1988)
Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992)
10
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

Strain
33
Concrete Model - Tension

2.5
2.5
(εt ,ft )
2 2
r 1.5
Stress (MPa)
1.5 1
0.5
1 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
0.5
Chang and Mander (1994)
Belarbi and Hsu (1994)
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025

Strain
34
J. Wallace 17
Reinforcement Material Model

600
500
Tension
400
#3 (RW2 & TW2 Flange)
300
#3 (TW2 Web)
200 #2 (TW2 Web)
Stress (MPa)
100 700
#2 (RW2 & TW2 Flange)
600
0
500
-100
Compression 400
-200 Test Results
300
#3 #3 rebar
-300 200
#2 #2 rebar
-400 100 4.76 mm wire
-500 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
-600
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03

Strain
35
Model Assessment – RW2

Lateral Flexural Drift (%)
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
200
Pax ≈ 0.07Ag f 'c Test
150 Analysis
Plat , Δtop
Lateral Load, Plat (kN)
100
RW2
50
-50
500
Pax (kN)
-100 400
300
200
-150 100
0
-200
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Top Flexural Displacement, Δtop (mm)

36
J. Wallace 18

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
5
RW2
4
Top
Story Number
Applied Lateral
1 Drift Levels:
1.5%
0.75% 2.0% Test
1.0 % 2.5% Analysis
0
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Lateral Flexural Displacement (mm)
37

0.02
0.01 RW2 (First Story)

Rotation
(rad)
-0.01
0.008 FEMA 356 CP limit
15 Test
Analysis 2.0%
Displacement
10
1.5%
5
(mm)
0
-5
-10
-15
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Data Point
Results based on recommended values for material parameters; however,
results could vary, maybe significantly, for different element lengths and
material parameters (particularly if no strain hardening) 38
J. Wallace 19

0.035
0.03 RW2 Concrete Strain Gage

Boundary Zone LVDT 2.0%
0.025
Analysis
Concrete Strain
0.02 1.5% 1.5%

0.015
1.0% 1.0%
0.01
0.75%
0.005 0.5%
0.25%
0
-0.005
-0.01
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Data Point
Orakcal & Wallace; ACI SJ, in-press for publication in 2006 (see 13WCEE). 39

0.035
0.03 RW2 Concrete Strain Gage

Boundary Zone LVDT 2.0%
0.025
Analysis
Concrete Strain
0.02 1.5% 1.5%

0.015
1.0% 1.0%
0.01
0.75%
0.005 0.5%
0.25%
0
-0.005
-0.01
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Data Point
Orakcal & Wallace; ACI SJ, in-press for publication in 2006 (see 13WCEE). 40
J. Wallace 20
Model Assessment – TW2

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
400 Pax ≈ 0.075Ag f 'c Test C

Plat , Δtop Analysis
Lateral Load, Plat (kN)
300
T
200
TW2
100
0
T
-100
C
Pax (kN)
-200 750
500
-300
250
-400 0
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Top Flexural Displacement, Δtop (mm)

41

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
5
TW2
4
Top
Story Number
T
3
C
C
2
T
Applied Lateral
1 Drift Levels:
1.5%
0.75% 2.0% Test
1.0 % 2.5% Analysis
0
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Lateral Flexural Displacement (mm)
42
J. Wallace 21

Flange Concrete Strain (LVDTs)
0.025
2.5%
TW2
0.02
C
Test
2.0%
0.015 Analysis T
2.5%
0.5% 2.0%
0.01
1.0%
2.0%
0.005 T
εy
2.5%
C
0
-0.005
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600
Distance along Flange from Web (mm)
43
Model Assessment – Stability

Lateral Drift (%)
-2.8 -1.4 0.0 1.4 2.8
80
P = 0.09Agf'c
Lateral Load (kips)
vu,max = 4.85√f'c
40 P = 0.075Agf'c
vu,max = 5.5√f'c
-40
TW1
TW2
-80
-4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
TW1 – Abrupt failure due to buckling

TW2 – Lateral instability due to spalling
and large compression
44
J. Wallace 22
Model Assessment - Stability
Rebar Buckling at Wall Boundary Rebar Fracture Following

Buckling at Wall Boundary
Instabilities, such as rebar buckling and lateral web buckling, and rebar fracture
are typically not considered in models; therefore, engineering judgment is required.
Loss of lateral-load capacity does not necessarily mean loss of axial load capacity 45
FEMA 356 Table 6-18
46
J. Wallace 23
FEMA 356 Table 6-18
47
FEMA 356 – Modeling Parameters

WALL RW2:
As = As' & P = 0.07 Ag f c' & Hoops @ 2" o.c.
2(0.027 in ) = 0.09( s )(hc = 6"+ 3 / 8"+ 3 /16")(5 ksi / 63 ksi)
2
s < 1.2" Non-conforming
WALL TW2: Flange Compression

As = 8 - #3 A s' = 10 - #3 and 4 - #2 f y ≈ 63 ksi & Hoops/Ties @ s=4"
No special detailing required: Conforming
(A − A ) f
s
'
s y +P
=
⎡⎣ −0.42 in 2 ⎤⎦ ( 63 ksi )
+ 0.075(2) = 0.127
twlw f c' 4"(48")( ∼ 6 ksi)
Vu 40 kips
= = 2.7
'
t w lw f c
4"(48") 6000 /1000
48
J. Wallace 24

WALL TW2: Flange Tension
As' = 8 - #3 & 2 - #2 As = 24 - #3 and 8 - #2 & f y ≈ 63 ksi
Hoops/Ties @ s=1.25" (5 legs and 2 legs)
5(0.027 in 2 ) = 0.09( s)(hc = 16"+ 3 / 8"+ 3 /16")(6 ksi / 63 ksi) s < 1.0 "
2(0.027 in ) = 0.09( s )(hc = 2.5"+ 3 / 8"+ 3 /16")(6 ksi / 63 ksi)
2
s < 2.1"
∼ Conforming
(A − A ) f
s
'
s y +P
=
[16(0.11) + 6(0.049)] ( 63 ksi ) + 0.075(2) = 0.26
t l f
w w c
'
4"(48")( ∼ 6 ksi)
Vu 80 kips
= = 5.4
'
t w lw f c
4"(48") 6000 /1000
49

Tables 6-18 (partial):
Model Parameters, Radians

Walls Controlled by Flexure
( As − As ) f y + P Conf.
'
V Plastic Plastic Residual
twlw fc' ' Hinge Hinge Strength
Bound. twlw fc
a b c
TW2
≤ 0.1 Yes ≤3 0.015 0.02 0.75 Flange Comp
≤ 0.1 No ≤3 0.008 0.015 0.60 RW2
TW2
≥ 0.25 Yes ≥6 0.005 0.010 0.30 Flange Tension
≥ 0.25 No ≥6 0.002 0.004 0.20
50
J. Wallace 25
FEMA Backbone Relation – RW2

Mn
Plateral = = 29.4 kips
hw
⎡ ( Plateral hload
3
) ⎤⎥
δy = ⎢
⎢⎣ 3Ec ( 0.5I g ) ⎥⎦
29.4k (150")3
= 4 = 0.41"
3(4000ksi )(18, 432in )
δ a = 0.008(144") = 1.15"
δ b = 0.015(144") = 2.16"
Presidual = 0.6(29.4k ) = 17.6 kips
51
FEMA Backbone Relations – TW2

Flange Compression Flange Tension
M Mn
Plateral = n = 40.2 kips Plateral = = 77.0 kips
hw hw
⎡ ( Plateral hload
3
) ⎤⎥ ⎡ ( Plateral hload
3
) ⎤⎥
δy = ⎢ δy = ⎢
⎢⎣ 3Ec ( 0.5I g ) ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 3Ec ( 0.5 I g ) ⎥⎦
40.2k (150")3 77.0k (150")3
= 4
= 4
3(4400ksi )(40, 700in ) 3(4400ksi )(40, 700in )
= 0.25" = 0.48"
I g = 2.2 ( I g ) y =34.5" I g = 2.2 ( I g ) y =34.5"
4 x 48 4 x 48
δ a = 0.015(144") = 2.16" δ a = 0.005(144") = 0.72"

δ b = 0.020(144") = 2.88" δ b = 0.010(144") = 1.44"
Presidual = 0.75(40.2k ) = 30.2 kips Presidual = 0.30(77.0k ) = 23.1 kips
52
J. Wallace 26
Backbone Curve – RW2

Lateral Drift (%)
-2.8 -1.4 0.0 1.4 2.8
40
P = 0.07Agf'c
Lateral Load (kips)
Lateral Load (kN)

vu,max = 2.2√f'c psi
20 100
FEMA 356 NC/C
0 0
NC C
( M n / hw )( hw )
3
δy =
-20 3Ec I cr
-100
Plat@Mn(εc=0.003)=29.4k
-40
-4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
53
Backbone Curve – TW2

Lateral Drift (%)
-2.8 -1.4 0.0 1.4 2.8
80
P = 0.075Agf'c vu,max = 2.7√f'c psi
Plat@Mn(εc=0.003)=40.2k
Lateral Load (kips)
200
Lateral Load (kN)
40
0 0
( M n / hw )( hw )
3
δy =
-40 3Ec I cr -200
Plat@Mn(εc=0.003)=77.0k
-80 FEMA 356 Conforming -400
vu,max = 5.4√f'c psi
-120
-4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
Top Displacement (in.) 54
J. Wallace 27
Cantilever Wall Tests

Paulay, EERI, 2(4), 1986 [Goodsir, PhD 1985 NZ]
Conforming
h = 3.3 m
P=10%, V=3
= 10.83 ft
Conforming
P=10%, V=6
(3.94”)
WALL Goodsir, 1985:
As = A & P = 0.163 f A g
'
s c
'
& Assume conforming (59”)
PL3 (70k )(130")3 Vu 70k
δy = = = 0.4" (10.0mm) = = 4.6
3Ec 0.5 I g 3(~ 3750ksi )(0.5)(4")(59")3 /12 t wlw f c' (4")(59") 3750 psi
δ a ≈ 0.01(3300mm) = 33mm δ b ≈ 0.015(3300mm) = 50mm
55
Cantilever Wall Tests

Paulay, EERI, 2(4), 1986 [Goodsir, PhD 1985 NZ]
Conforming
h = 3.3 m
P=10%, V=3
= 10.83 ft
Conforming
P=10%, V=6
WALL Goodsir, 1985:

As = As' & P = 0.12 f c' A g & Assume conforming
PL3 (70k )(130")3 Vu 70k
δy = = = 0.4" (10.0mm) = = 4.6
3Ec 0.5 I g 3(~ 3750ksi )(0.5)(4")(59")3 /12 t wlw f c' (4")(59") 3750 psi
δ a ≈ 0.01(3300mm) = 33mm δ b ≈ 0.015(3300mm) = 50mm
56
J. Wallace 28
Summary
FEMA 356 Backbone Curves
In general, quite conservative
This appears to be especially true for cases where
moderate detailing is provided around boundary bars
Possible reformat
Compute neutral axis depth
If s <12db over c/2, then modest ductility
If s < 8db and transverse steel ratio is ~1/2 of ACI 318-05,
then moderate ductility
If s < 8db and transverse steel ratio is > 3/4 of ACI 318-05,
then high ductility
Do not reduce deformation capacity for shear stress below 5
roots f’c
57
Shear Design
Wall shear studies
Aktan & Bertero, ASCE, JSE, Aug. 1985
Paulay, EERI 1996; Wallace, ASCE, JSE, 1994.
Eberhard & Sozen, ASCE JSE, Feb. 1993
Design Recommendations
Based on Mpr at hinge region
Uniform lateral force distribution
⎛ M pr ⎞ Paulay, 1986
Vwall = ωv ⎜ ⎟ Vu ωv = 0.9 + n /10
⎝ Mu ⎠
Vwall = Vlim it + ( Dm = 0.3)(W = weight )( Ae = EPA ) Eberhard, 1993
58
J. Wallace 29
Slender Wall Behavior & Modeling
John Wallace
With contributions from

Dr. Kutay Orakcal
J. Wallace 30

Slender Walls

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Slender Walls

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EERI/PEER Technical Seminar February 2006

Slender Wall Behavior & Modeling

with contributions from

FEMA 356 – RC Walls

 So, we must consider any and everything

Wall Modeling Approaches

Modified equivalent beam-column

Equivalent Beam-Column Model

Modified Beam - Column Model

Modified Beam - Column Model

Fiber Section Model

 Typically use a more refined mesh where yielding is anticipated;

Materials Maximum permissible

General Wall Models/FE Models

Response Correlation Studies

4.53 m (14.88 ft) 5 @ 10.97 m (36 ft)

8.84 m (29 ft)

PLAN VIEW: CSMIP BUILDING 57356

Response Correlation Studies

Definition of Wall Cross Section

Behavior of Flanged Walls

Displacement-based design Uncoupled design

Thomsen & Wallace, ASCE JSE, April 2004.

Thomsen & Wallace, ASCE JSE, April 2004.

MVLE (Fiber) Model

Material (Uni-axial) Models

Rigid Steel Strain Gage Levels

Concrete Strain Gages

Massone & Wallace; ACI SJ, Jan-Feb 2004. 28

Applied Lateral Displacement

Drift Ratio (%)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Model Details – RW2

Model Details – TW2

Hoops and cross-ties (db=4.76 mm)

Hoops (db=4.76 mm) uniaxial element # : 1

Concrete Model - Unconfined

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004

Concrete Model - Confined

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

Concrete Model - Tension

0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025

Reinforcement Material Model

-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03

Model Assessment – RW2

Top Flexural Displacement, Δtop (mm)

Model Assessment – RW2

Model Assessment – RW2

0.01 RW2 (First Story)

Model Assessment – RW2

0.03 RW2 Concrete Strain Gage

0.02 1.5% 1.5%

Model Assessment – RW2

0.03 RW2 Concrete Strain Gage

0.02 1.5% 1.5%

Model Assessment – TW2

400 Pax ≈ 0.075Ag f 'c Test C

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Top Flexural Displacement, Δtop (mm)

Model Assessment – TW2

Model Assessment – TW2

Model Assessment – Stability

TW1 – Abrupt failure due to buckling

Model Assessment - Stability

So, we must consider any and everything

Typically use a more refined mesh where yielding is anticipated;