Study on Interaction between

Rocking Wall System and

Surrounding Structure
Qingzhi (Andy) Liu
Advisor: Catherine French
 Outline

Background

Research Objectives

Experimental Program

Conclusions
Background Rocking wall and Rocking wall
system
Introduction of Rocking Walls
V
Longitudinal reinforcement is not
integrated with foundation
Precast wall contact with
foundation
Unbonded strands only yield at
Limited energy dissipation
large drifts
Concrete spalls
Introduction in corner
of Rocking Wall System
Concrete spall
Add external fuses to increase
energy dissipation capacity

Background PreWEC system
Introduction of PreWEC (Precast Wall with End Columns) System

Plan view of a PreWEC System (Sritharan

O-
et al. 2007)
connector

An alternative configuration (Sritharan et

PreWEC (Precast Wall with End
al. 2016)
Columns)
Background Shear wall versus rocking wall
system
PreWEC Test, NCREE Taiwan T-shape Shear Wall Test, MAST

Less
Residual drift
residual

O-connector
for energy
dissipation

PreWEC Test (Aaleti T-shaped Shear Wall Test (Brueggen

2009) 2008)
Slender RC shear walls
PreWEC system
Low repair/reconstruction cost High repair/reconstruction
Small residual drift (self- cost
Significant residual
centering)
Fast business reoccupation drift
Slow business reoccupation
Research objectives
Rocking wall system exhibit excellent self-centering and minor
damage
(Priestley
Studies on et rocking
al. 1999;wall
Restrepo et al.
system 2007; Sritharan
interaction et al. 2011; Smith et
with surrounding
al. 2011)
structure are limited
Self-centering
End compromised?
column Wa
O-
connecto
Flo ll
r or

Floor
damaged?

Interaction between rocking wall Plastic strain contour in the floor

system and surrounding structure in rocking wall structure Abaqus
SAP2000
Objectiv
e: Investigate the interaction between rocking wall system and

surrounding structure
Experimental Program Prototype
building
Prototype and Representative Test
Specimen
Edge column
Prototype structure N
PreWEC PreWEC
6 story office building
Lateral resisting system
(N-S)
- 3 rocking walls + Floor slab

columns

Representative Test
Specimen
Test single frame line
Focus on interaction at first
Simulate
story missing stories
with steel mega beam
providing representative
BCs and restraints
Experimental Program Design philosophy
Design Philosophy of the Tests Two Specimens
PFS1
Useand PFS2:
PreWEC systems with the same strength (gravity load in the
floor ignored)
Use different wall-floor connections to maximize/minimize wall-floor
interaction
Compare the performance of the two specimens

End columns

End columns

Pushover curves of the

PreWEC in PFS1 PreWEC in PFS2 PreWEC
Experimental Program First specimen
PFS1
Key Design Factors of PFS1 - Maximize Interaction
Using
Use CIP
rigidConstruction:
wall-floor connection (realized by CIP unbonded
PT floor) gravity load to the wall (bearing wall)
Transfer
Use mega beams with shear and moment connections to emulate
five
Attachfloors
end columns adjacent to the wall to connect O-connectors

WALL

G CIP
SLAB PT
CIP unbonded
slab
WALL

REBARSTRAN
Component test
D
of a mega beam
Rebar and
Design of specimen PFS1 strands
Experimental Program Second
specimen PFS2
Key Design Factors of PFS2 - Minimize Interaction Using
Precast
Construction:
Use special wall-floor connections that only transfer horizontal
forces
Transfer gravity load to the two end columns next to wall (non-
Use mega
bearing beams pin-connected at ends to emulate five floors
wall)

WALL

Vertic
al slot PLAN
K
G/2 G/2
Precast plank
WALL

FLOOR Victory
connectio
n
Victory connection
Design of specimen PFS2 (Courtesy: BS Italia.inc)
Experimental program Loading protocol
Loading Protocol of PFS1 and PFS2
Cyclic pseudo-static loading
Main control lateral displacement applied at top block
Three cycles per drift level ACI ITG 5.1
Example: Loading protocol
for PFS1
5%
4%
2.5% 3%
2%
1.5%

Biaxial
loading
In-plane (butterfly-
loading shaped)
Experimental program - Test results of PFS1
PFS1: Test Results
Floor
(Bottom)
Edge
Wall column

Floor (Top)
O-
connecto
r
Wall
Wall: Minor damage at 5% drift reusable without
repair Structural integrity of floor was maintained
Floor:
Concrete crushed locally at wall-floor interface
Floor self-debonded from wall corners and damage was not
aggravated
Most cracks in floor closed after testing due to prestressed
force in PT strands
O-connectors: Fracture occurred only after 4% drift -
(the lightly
expected
Comment: stressed strands
Fast reoccupation remained
of the building elastic
possiblethroughout the
with limited
Experimental program - Test results of PFS2
PFS2: Test Results

Wall Wal
l West East

Preca
st Gravity loaded east end
plank
columns at 2%

(Emulate G/2)

Wall: Minor damage at

5% driftLittle damage at 5% drift
Floor:
(isolated)
O-connectors: Fracture after
4% drift
Comment:
Immediate reoccupation of building
possible Force demand on the west/east
 Experimental program Comparison of PFS1 and PFS2

Overall Behaviors of PFS1

and PFS2 Residual Drift in the test
Maximum
MRDPFS2 = 0.13% < MRDPFS1 = 0.75%
Flag- Base Moment at 2% design drift
shaped BMPFS1 2.4BMPFS2 2.5BMPreWEC
Energy Dissipation EDPFS1 3EDPFS2
Very small
residual drift Key Factors Impacting the
Behaviors
Gravity load transfer paths
(different gravity load moment arms)
Hysteretic curves of PFS1 & PFS2 and
pushover curve of the isolated PreWEC
system
Primary Contributions to Total Base Moment Resistance at
2% drift (unit:
Specimen kip-in):
Gravity load PT force O-ring Floor and edge Total
columns
PFS1 6473 7086 2770 12295 28624
PFS2 745 7338 2689 985 11758
Experimental program Comparison of PFS1 and PFS2

Wwall/2 Wecol/2 Wecol/2

Force flow in PFS1 using
rigid wall-floor connection
Gravity Load Contribution to
Base Moment:
PFS1: MG G x (Wwall/2) =
Force flow in PFS2 using vertical
movement isolation connection
PFS2: MG 2 x G/2 x (Wecol/2) =
 Experimental program Comparison of PFS1 and PFS2

Overall Behaviors of PFS1

and PFS2 Residual Drift in the test
Maximum
MRDPFS2 = 0.13% < MRDPFS1 = 0.75%
Flag- Base Moment at 2% design drift
shaped BMPFS1 2.4BMPFS2 2.5BMPreWEC
Energy Dissipation EDPFS1 3EDPFS2
Very small
residual drift Key Factors Impacting the
Behaviors
Gravity load transfer paths
(different moment arms of gravity load)
Hysteretic curves of PFS1 & PFS2 and Constraint of the surrounding structure
pushover curve of the isolated PreWEC (i.e. floor and edge columns)
system
Primary Contributions to Total Base Moment Resistance at
2% drift (unit:
Specimen kip-in):
Gravity load PT force O-ring Floor and edge Total
columns
PFS1 6473 7086 2770 12295 28624
PFS2 745 7338 2689 985 11758
Experimental program Comparison of PFS1 and PFS2

Force flow in PFS1 using Force flow in PFS2 using vertical

rigid wall-floor connection movement isolation connection
Floor (Mega Beam) and Edge Columns
Contribution to Base Moment:
PFS1: MSLAB MM + MV + MN = PFS2: MSLAB MN = 985
Experimental program Comparison of PFS1 and PFS2
Summary of the Performance of PFS1 and PFS2
Specimen Strength Energy dissipation Self-centering Damage
PFS1 Large Large Reasonable Moderate
PFS2 Moderate Moderate Excellent Small

CIP
floor

Flag-
WALL
shaped
Localized damage in the CIP floor
Very small in PFS1
Wall
residual drift
Preca
st
plank
Hysteretic curves of PFS1 & PFS2 and
pushover curve of the isolated PreWEC Little damage in the precast floor in
system PFS2
Conclusion
Two rocking-wall assemblages were successfully tested. PFS1 was
constructed with CIP rigid wall-floor connections; PFS2 was
constructed with precast members and vertical isolation wall-floor
connections.
Conclusion
s:
Both specimens exhibited reasonable self-centering capacity

Little damage occurred to the wall panels in both specimens.

Damage occurred to the CIP floor at the wall-floor connection in
PFS1, but the localized damage was repairable. Fast
reoccupation of the building using rigid wall-floor connection
possible

Compared to the isolated PreWEC system, the base moment of

PFS1 was greatly increased due to wall-floor interaction; the
interaction should be considered when determining base shear
demand to avoid shear sliding of the rocking wall

The base moment and energy dissipation capacity of PFS2 with

 Acknowledgement
Project members:
Catherine French (University of Minnesota, Twin Cities); Sri
Sritharan (PI), Maryam Nazari (Iowa State University); Sriram Aaleti
(University of Alabama); Eric Musselman (Villanova University);
Rick Henry, Jonathan Watkins (University of Auckland, NZ);
Suzanne Nakaki (KPFF, San Francisco)
MAST staff:
Carol Shield, Douglas Ernie, Paul Bergson, Rachel Gaulke,
Christopher Bruhn, Michael Boldischar, Samantha Thomas
Students:
Tanner Swenson, Brock Hedegaard, Ben Dymond, Sam
Konieczny, Mike Larson,
Aaron Fortunato, John Gervais, Anna Flintrop
Thank you!
Design recommendations
Design recommendations for structures using rigid wall-
floor connections
Consider wall-floor interaction in determining base shear
demand to avoid shear sliding of the rocking wall
Consider moving CIP wall-floor connection towards wall center to
reduce vertical deformation demand on the floor and thus
reduce damage Moment demand at wall-floor
connection:

Move the wall-floor

connection
towards the wall center to
reduce M:
Reduce
A simplified 2D analytical model Increase
Design recommendation for structures Reduce
using vertical
isolation
Increaseconnections
confinement of gravity loaded end columns
Design recommendations
Recommendation of rigid wall-floor connections in CIP
construction
Moving the wall-floor connection towards the wall center would
reduce the deformation demand and reduce the damage

Floor

WALL

Localized damage
@ wall-floor connection
Move the wall-floor A simplified 2D analytical model
connection Moment demand at wall-floor
towards the wall connection:

center:
Reduce
Increase
Moment demand would be
Reduce
reduced
Design recommendations
Recommendation of end columns when using vertical isolation
connection Observation in the test
of
PFS2
Spalling of fiber grout
beneath the east end
column
Shortening of west end
column
Impact of due
the to loss of in end
damage
concrete core
columns
Loss of clamping PT force
West end column at
End columns pulled up
East end column
5% column
End O-connectors nullified due to
loss of relative vertical
Confinement deformation
(HSS tube Additional out-of-plane
etc.)
deformation
Design on the floor
recommendations
Increase end column
Fiber grout in
the pocket confinement or use external
confinement
West end column Use high-strength fiber grout or