185

O P T I M U M D E S I G N O F R E I N F O R C E D C O N C R E T E SHEAR

WALLS

D. L. Hutchison* and T. J. Van Geldermalsen*

Presented at the T h i r d S o u t h Pacific Regional Conference o n Earthquake Engineering, Wellington, May 1983.

ABSTRACT The recently p u b l i s h e d N e w Zealand Code of P r a c t i c e for the D e s i g n of C o n c r e t e S t r u c t u r e s (NZS 3 1 0 1 : 1 9 8 2 ) and t h e n e w l y a m e n d e d C o d e of P r a c t i c e for G e n e r a l S t r u c t u r a l D e s i g n and D e s i g n L o a d i n g s f o r Buildings (NZS 4203) permit a variety of possible design approaches for reinforced concrete shear wall structures. A series of w a l l d e s i g n s f o r d i m e n s i o n a l l y s i m i l a r f o u r - s t o r e y a n d e i g h t storey b u i l d i n g s has b e e n carried out and a c o m p a r i s o n of c o n struction cost estimates obtained together with an assessment of the relative design effort required for the different design options.

INTRODUCTION In June 1 980, the "Discussion Group on Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete W a l l s and D i a p h r a g m s " of the N e w Zealand N a t i o n a l Society for E a r t h q u a k e E n g i n e e r ing reported the results of its d e l i b e r a tions in the S o c i e t y ' s q u a r t e r l y B u l l e t i n . The work of this group was subsequently r e f l e c t e d in the N e w Z e a l a n d S t a n d a r d for Design of Reinforced Concrete , published two years later. T w o b r o a d c l a s s e s of s h e a r w a l l s a r e d e fined, namely, "ductile shear w a l l s " and "shear walls of limited ductility". The d i s t i n c t i o n is m a d e o n the b a s i s of o v e r all height to depth ratio, with walls h a v i n g a v a l u e of this ratio of less than 1.0 b e i n g , ^ c l a s s i f i e d a s w a l l s o f limited ductility . Ductile shear walls have a n a s p e c t r a t i o 1.0 o r m o r e , a n d m a y h a v e the form of cantilevers or of "coupled walls". In the l a t t e r c a s e , t w o o r m o r e ductile cantilever walls are connected b y "a n u m b e r o f a p p r o p r i a t e l y reinforced ductile coupling beams that are capable of dissipating a significant proportion of t h e s e i s m i c e n e r g y " The p r o c e d u r e for d e s i g n of w a l l s of l i m i t e d d u c t i l i t y is l e s s c o m p l i c a t e d p a r t i c u larly because explicit capacity design for s h e a r is n o t r e q u i r e d . Instead, the dependable shear strength ( 0 V. ) m u s t be able to resist twice the v a l u e of shear induced by code-prescribed seismic loading together with shear resulting from the, .appropriately factored gravity loading (clause 14.4.2.1 ) . This procedure is u s e d f o r s h e a r w a l l s y s t e m s w h e r e t h e overall height to depth ratio ("aspect r a t i o " ) is s m a l l . H o w e v e r , w a l l s of g r e a ter aspect ratio m a y , at the discretion of the d e s i g n e r , be d e s i g n e d as w a l l s of limited ductility y ( c l a u s e 3.3.6.1 ) w i t h increased loadings (Table 5, item 4) .
( 2

l e n t s t a t i c s e i s m i c load w h i c h is t w o - a n d a-half times as great as for limited d u c tility design. Elastically responding walls are subject neither to requirements for capacity d e s i g n nor to the need for confining reinforcement. There are likely to be attractions for designers to design walls to a higher level of seismic loading and c o r r e s p o n d i n g lesser ductility demand. In s o m e l o w - w a l l situations, shrinkage reinforcement alone may provide sufficient strength to ensure elastic response. Additional vertical reinforcement may enable the reduction, or elimination, of expensive confining ties. The increased s i m p l i c i t y of d e s i g n approach utilising a reduced ductility demand may be sufficient attraction in itself. In this s t u d y , a v a r i e t y of s h e a r walls has been designed for four and eight storey buildings. Both ductile walls and w a l l s of limited d u c t i l i t y h a v e b e e n d e signed , all systems having an overall l e n g t h of 1 0 m e t r e s . The efficiency of each solution is provided in terms of estimated cost and design effort. Table 1 summarises the eight walls.

DESCRIPTION

OF

WALLS

An architectural constraint consisting o f a 10 m e t r e l e n g t h w a s r e t a i n e d f o r a l l walls. The floor area for e a c h building height was chosen such that the full d e p e n d a b l e s t r e n g t h of e a c h w a l l in the b a s e region was mobilised when designed according to references (2) and (3) . As a result, wall thickness varied at the base between wall types but the tributary floor area was kept constant for each building height. The wall outlines are shown in F i g u r e 1. Ministry of Wellington. Works and Development,
1984

The designer may also choose to design walls to respond elastically to earthquake loading through a p p l i c a t i o n of an e q u i v a BULLET1N OF T H E NEW Z E A L A N D N A T I O N A L SOCIETY

FOR E A R T H Q U A K E

E N G I N E E R I N G , V O L . 17, NO. 3, S E P T E M B E R

DIAGONAL.
TGR.EV JL -DINJG

REiNFORCiNG O O
LO

A. B.

DUCTILE LIMITED

CANTILEVER. DUCTILITY

WALL WALL

G. T W I N

CANTILEVER.

WALL

D.

COUPLED

WALL

T700
PL
0
A

DIAGONAL KEJUFORCINJG

B _

A. B.

DUCTILE L1AAITED

CANTILEVER DUCTILITY

WALL

G. T W I N

CANTILEVER

WALL

D-

COUPLED

WALL

WALL

FIG

I.

WALL

CONFIGURATIONS

STUDIED

18?
The b u i l d i n g s were assumed to be situated in seismic zone A, and the risk factor taken as unity. In t h e t h i r d amendment to reference (2) , a m a t e r i a l s factor of 0.8 i s p r o p o s e d f o r r e i n f o r c e d concrete. T h u s t h e s e i s m i c b a s e s h e a r is 2.0Z^2.0 where h w & = C(T) = C(T) S M R 0.8 W
t w

(2) - 0.5h w wall wall /I w <2.0

1.O^Z

= 2.5

is o v e r a l l is o v e r a l l

height length

S W

(1 )

where C (T) has dimensions of gravity a c c e l e r a t i o n a n d is a f u n c t i o n o f first m o d e p e r i o d T. of t h e s t r u c t u r e , a n d W is the seismic weight of the building (usually dead plus o n e - t h i r d of live load) T h r e e t y p e s of w a l l w e r e c o n s i d e r e d w i t h i n t h e 10 m e t r e l e n g t h c o n s t r a i n t , n a m e l y a continuous 5 metre 10 m e t r e walls wall abutting overall ends

T h u s , for the four storey b u i l d i n g an S factor of 1 .8 r e s u l t s and 1 .1 for the eight storey building. An aspect ratio o f l e s s t h a n 1 .0 r e s u l t s i n a v a l u e of Z e q u a l o r g r e a t e r t h a n 2.0 a n d t h i s -implies a shear wall of limited ductility f o r w h i c h a c o n s t a n t v a l u e o f S = 2.0 is to be used. W h e n a n e a r t h q u a k e is r e s i s t e d b y a s i n g l e wall, a 20. percent i n c r e a s e in strength is r e q u i r e d b e c a u s e of t h e r e d u c e d r e dundancy . Hence 1.2Z<2.0 13}

two

with of

a coupled shear wall s i o n 10 m e t r e s .

dimen-

All of the three systems could be made outwardly identical through lining and thus the same architectural finish retained for all.

and both sides are equal at an aspect ratio of 1.67. If o n l y a s i n g l e 10 m e t r e wall resisted earthquake in the case of the four storey building, then 1.2Z = = (2.5 - 0.5(4 x 3.5)/10)

2.16>2 is S-

APPLIED

SEISMIC

LOADS

E q u a t i o n 1 states that the level of s e i s m i c l o a d i n g to b e c o n s i d e r e d for t h e r e i n forced concrete structures depends not only on the building weight but also on t w o o t h e r f a c t o r s , C a n d S. C o e f f i c i e n t C h a s a c o n s t a n t v a l u e o f 0.15 g for b u i l d i n g s in zone A of natural p e r i o d l e s s t h a n 0.45 s e c o n d s , a n d r e d u c e s l i n e a r l y to 0.075 g as the period i n c r e a s e s t o 1 .2 s e c o n d s . For the structures studied, the natural periods for the assumed cracked wall sections were d e t e r m i n e d during the course of computer analysis using the ICES STRUDL package. Hence seismic loadings could be adjusted if necessary and the computer output scaled accordingly. The other variable, the structural type factor S, reflects the amount of d u c t i l i t y r e q u i r e d of the shear w a l l d u r i n g r e s p o n s e to the d e s i g n earthquake and the higher S, the m o r e nearly e l a s t i c or less d u c t i l e the response. The lowest value for S, for frames and some coupled shear w a l l s , is 0.8 while an elastically responding r e i n f o r c e d c o n c r e t e s t r u c t u r e ,1s r e q u i r e d to be d e s i g n e d for an S of 5 . 0 . Values of the S-factor were for the different walls studied 1) 10 M e t r e Walls determined as f o l l o w s :

and the appropriate design approach that of "limited ductility" with an factor of 2.0.

The designs considered here are for the case where more than one 10 m e t r e wall gives seismic r e s i s t a n c e in each d i r e c t i o n Both the four storey and eight storey example buildings can be designed as d u c tile walls in this situation, with Sfactors as derived above from equation 2. H o w e v e r , in order to c o m p a r e design a p p r o a c h e s , both sets of 1 0 m e t r e walls were also designed using the limited duct i l i t y p r o c e d u r e a n d a n S-f a c t o r o f 2 . 0 ,

2)

Twin

5 Metre

Cantilever

Walls

For both buildings, these walls are ductile with an S-factor determined from equation 2 as 1 .1 for the four storey building and 1 .0 for the eight storey building.

3)

Coupled

Walls

In d e t e r m i n i n g the geometry of this system the m a i n constraint imposed was that the overall wall length be 1 0 metres, The size of the o p e n i n g b e n e a t h the c o u p l i n g b e a m w a s s e t a t 2.1 metres high by 1 .7 m e t r e s w i d e so t h a t it c o u l d s e r v e a s a doorway. C 7 The Third Amendment to the Loadings C o d e ' prescribes the S-factor for a coupled shear wall as follows: a) b) c ) A>0.67, then S = S 0.8

According to the Third Amendment to the New Zealand Loadings Code, the structural type factor - S - for a building c o n t a i n ing m o r e than one cantilever shear wall in the principal direction being cons i d e r e d d e p e n d s o n the r a t i o of w a l l h e i g h t to l e n g t h , thus

A<0.33, then 0.33^A<0.67, and ( b ) ,

= 1 .0Z^2 between (a)

interpolate

188

v3

I-

Q
a

Q
-Id _}

O
s (0 ^ U

i
a

5 -> a
p

1
111

UJ

^ .1

i
i j
I

z<
M &

O L i ) ^ u)
>

->
L

& G '~ L i ) 1

<
3 x U)

x < U J ^ ^ i-

a Q

u) u) o

u) 2

' o

2.

<

O L r u) O < C
r r
i

O O u.

< ^

Ll

_)

U)

2 O <
y

M o tu 3 0

C D
LL)

CO
i

{- l l _
u3
ID

LU 2

C O <
2 l

%
to

LO

O a>
CL

< > < < fO o U)

p X

i d

Or ID 0*

^ (J)

IL &

a)

1 1 10 j 1 1L U J O u. > * r > a o O

UJ a

a)

o
2

w h e r e A is t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f t o t a l o v e r t u r ning moment resisted by all beams, and Z is as d e f i n e d p r e v i o u s l y . The larger A, the more slender the walls for constant coupling beam geometry, and the more f r a m e like the r e s p o n s e of the system. A value o f S o f 0.86 w a s d e t e r m i n e d f o r t h e f o u r storey building. A lower S could have been a c h i e v e d by w i d e n i n g the openings. H o w e v e r , if t h e o p e n i n g s w e r e m a d e wide enough to achieve S = 0.80, the s t r u c t u r e would become too flexible and exceed the l i m i t a t i o n s o n interst^orey d r i f t imposed in t h e l o a d i n g s c o d e . In t h e c a s e o f the eight storey structure, an S = 0.80 w a s o b t a i n e d w i t h 2.1 x 1.7 m e t r e o p e n i n g s while still satisfying drift limitations.

region in which plastic hinges may be expected to form under severe seismic loading . For both ductile walls and walls of limited d u c t i l i t y , the end region is generally of h e i g h t e q u a l t o t h e length of the wall or one-sixth o f /its total h e i g h t , w h i c h e v e r is the g r e a t e r (clause 10.5.5.3 and 14.5.2). This distance is to be m e a s u r e d up from the p o i n t of m a x i mum m o m e n t , and t h u s , for the w a l l s cons i d e r e d in t h i s s t u d y , from the l e v e l of the ground floor * The end region for the 10 m e t r e walls, from the above criteria , extended to just under three storey heights above ground. E v e n t h o u g h t h e r e is a b a s e m e n t , t h e " e n d r e g i o n " is c o r r e c t l y m e a s u r e d u p w a r d s f r o m the level~pf the ground floor for the p r e scribed distance. T h i s is t h e level w h e r e m a x i m u m c u r v a t u r e o c c u r s in a c a n t i lever shear wall and hence where the potential for initiation of a plastic hinge exists. However, the plastic hinge may also spread downwards from the ground floor and for this r e a s o n as well as the need to m a i n t a i n the same degree of p r o tection against shear failure as exists immediately above the ground f l o o r , a magnified value of applied shear should be used for design of wall between ground f l o o r and f o u n d a t i o n l e v e l . 4) L i m i t on Total Shear Stress

DETERMINATION 1) Analytical

OF WALL Model

THICKNESS

It w a s a s s u m e d t h a t b o t h b u i l d i n g s contained a basement. In such a s i t u a t i o n , a l a r g e s e i s m i c s h e a r is r e a c t e d at t h e ground floor level through the floor slab which acts as a "transfer diaphragm" and sheds load to the p e r i m e t e r r e t a i n i n g walls. A shear of reversed direction e x i s t s in t h e shear w a l l b e t w e e n b a s e m e n t and ground floor level. The value of this f o r c e m a y b e v e r y h i g h a n d it is v e r y s e n s i t i v e to the m o d e l - in p a r t i c u l a r , to whether the ground floor diaphragm has finite or infinite stiffness and to whether the b a s e is f u l l y f i x e d a g a i n s t , x p t a t i o n , pinned, or modelled on springs . Furt h e r , p a r t i c u l a r l y w h e n t h e w a l l is l o n g e r t h a n t h e i n t e r s t o r e y h e i g h t , i t is i m p o r tant to explicitly model the shear stiffness as w e l l as f l e x u r a l s t i f f n e s s r a t h e r than treat the wall total stiffness as that of an e q u i v a l e n t f l e x u r e - o n l y c a n t i lever . The d i f f e r e n c e is shown for one e x a m p l e i n F i g u r e 5.

2)

Stability

of W a l l

Edge

For walls designed to the "ductile" r e quirements, the thickness of that part of the compression zone within the end region where reinforcement is yielding may not exceed o n e - t e n t h of the d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n e f f e c t i v e l a t e r a l s u p p o r t s (usually the storey height) (clause 10.5.2.1 ) . T h i s a p p l i e s only w h e n the l e n g t h of y i e l d ing zone exceeds twice the wall t h i c k n e s s . On the other hand, the general (nonseismic) limitation in width (1/25 of unsupported distance) applies to walls d e s i g n e d , ^ .using the limited ductility approach (clause 14.3.1 and clause 10.3.2.1). In t h i s s t u d y , the t h i c k n e s s e s w i t h i n end regions were generally determined by the upper limit on v., the total shear s t r e s s , e x c e p t f o r t h e "tour s t o r e y t w i n 5 m e t r e walls. The stability requirement will often be met in practice by adjoining walls or may be achieved by a local thickening at free edges of w a l l s .

It is i m p o r t a n t for t h e d e s i g n e r to a p p r e c i a t e the effect of shear strength/shear stress requirements at the stage of preliminary sizing of wa11s. In order to m i n i m i s e the l i k e l i h o o d of shear f a i l u r e , the seismic code loading must be m a g n i f i e d by a m i n i m u m f a c t o r 2 in the c a s e of w a l l s of l i m i t e d d u c t i l i t y . T h e d e g r e e of m a g n i f i c a t i o n is n o t s p e l l e d o u t f o r d u c t i l e walls, nevertheless "appropriately modified capacity design procedures shall be used to ensure that the ideal shear strength of walls is in excess of the shear force^.when flexural overstrength is r e a c h e d " (clause 3 . 5 . 7 . 3 ) . A multip l i e r , w0 , i s recommended (refer (3) clause 3.%.7.3) for ductile w a l l s , which has a m i n i m u m v a l u e of about 2.1. On the other hand, while ( f o r 30 M P a concrete) the total shear stress can approach 6.0 MPa at any section of w a l l s of limited ductility (refer (3) clause 7.3.14.3), maximum total shear stress permitted in t h e e n d r e g i o n o f d u c t i l e w a l l s is a f u n c tion of structural type factor (S) t h u s :

= (O.30 S + 0 . 1 6 ) / F "
Q

(4)

(refer. ( 3 ) , c l a u s e
O

7.5.5.2)

where 0 the overstrength factor, can only be finally calculated once detailing of flexural steel is c o m p l e t e d (a v a l u e of 1.4 is a r e a s o n a b l e i n i t i a l assumption), and f is the s p e c i f i e d c o m p r e s s i v e strength of t h e c o n c r e t e . The capacity reduction factor 0 may be taken equal to unity when designing a section for shear forces obtained from the o v e r s t r e n g t h of adj acent m e m b e r s or sections . However, when the limited ductility design procedure is followed, the

3) The

End "end

Region region" of a shear wall is the

Design Ductile Limited ductility Ductile Ductile TABLE 1

4 storey and 8 storey building 10 m walls 10 m walls Twin 5 m walls Coupled walls

Summary of Wall Types Designed

Ductile Within End Zone K/u Outside End Zone

Limited Ductility K/v. 2.0 x 2.0

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

1.0 0.67 0.50 0.40 0.33 0.29

2.0 1.75 1.5 1.25 1.0 1.0

4.20 3.67 3.15 2.63 2.10 2,10

5.48 4.91 4.33 3.75 3.18 3.18

0.77 0.75 0.73 0.70 0.66 0.66

6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

0.70 0.61 0.53 0.44 0.35 0.35

0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67

TABLE 2 Comparison of Load/strength with different design approach and wall aspect ratio

TIE SIZE Total Length of Steel per Tie

WALL

Bar Diameter

TOTAL NUMBER OF TIES

Ductile: Single 10 m: 8-storey : 4-storey Limited Ductility: Single 10 m: B-storey : 4-storey Ductile: Twin 5 m: 8-storey : 4-storey Ductile: Coupled

12 mm

1.10m

600

10 mm 10 mm

0.90 m 0.90 m

560 420

16 mm 16 mm

1.85 m 1.25 m

680 400

: 8-storey : 4-storey

12 mm 10 mm 3

1.45 m 1.55 m

154 248

Comparison of Extent of Confining Ties with Different Design Approach

191
usual 0 for shear must be used. as the coupled shear storey building. wall for the eight

The ,recent amendment to the Loadings Code (clause 3.3.6.1) permits slender w a l l s ( t h a t i s , in w h i c h f l e x u r a l e f f e c t s d o m i n a t e due to t h e i r large t o t a l h e i g h t to l e n g t h r a t i o ) to be d e s i g n e d u s i n g the approach for walls of limited ductility, should the d e s i g n e r so c h o o s e . It is t h u s instructive to compare benefits between the t w o a p p r o a c h e s from the p o i n t of v i e w of m i n i m i s i n g w a l l c r o s s - s e c t i o n . Let the base applied seismic shear f o r c e , L = K P , w h e r e P is t h e l o a d a t S = 1 a n d K is t h e m u l t i p l i e r necessary to obtain design applied shear, L at wall base. From the preceding, ductility K while = 2 x S = 4 for ductile
Q

For the design examples, the wall c r o s s section dimensions were not altered above ground floor level. Clearly, there is greater scope for r e d u c t i o n h e r e in the c a s e of a d u c t i l e d e s i g n a p p r o a c h b u t e c o n o m i e s here would be partly o f f s e t by the need for m o r e flexural and shear reinforcement . The Concrete Design Code does not deal with the method of analyses of coupled s h e a r w a l l s , b u t r e f e r s t o r e f e r e n c e (1 ) . A c r u c i a l e q u a t i o n in t h i s r e f e r e n c e inv o l v e s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of seismic m a x i m u m shear force. This is considered to be p r o p o r t i o n a l to the v a l u e of f l e x u r a l overs t r e n g t h at that level (the b a s e o f the walls). The enhancement of flexural strength due to the effect of seismici n d u c e d a x i a l l o a d in a c o m p r e s s i o n wall is c o n s i d e r a b l e c o m p a r e d t o t h e flexural s t r e n g t h of t h e " t e n s i o n " w a l l , a n d h e n c e the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s h e a r s is u n e v e n in t e r m s of

for

wall

of

limited

walls

K = w0 S
= 2.1S.

Let wall length, I , and thickness, be fixed. Hence, c h a n g e in S r e su l s from a c h a n g e in total h e i g h t , h , of wall through equation ( 2 ) . T a b l e 2 o b t a i n s the f a c t o r K/v. for both d e s i g n a p p r o a c h e s and for a range of a s p e c t r a t i o s (h / ) , a s s u m i n g t w o o r m o r e walls make up t h e r e s i s t i n g system. These factors may be regarded as indicating the r e l a t i v e a m o u n t s of w a l l cross-sectional area needed, the higher value implying a greater are^.is required to satisfy code requirements .
w

code
+

1 ,2

where

w 0

= dynamic factor o

shear

magnification factor moment at base of

= overstrength = overstrength w a l l i.

In the case of the "ductile" design approach, the maximum total shear stress (v.) is a l l o w e d to i n c r e a s e substantially o u t s i d e t h e e n d z o n e (up t o n e a r l y t w i c e the value and depending on wall aspect ratio - see Table 2) . The, -.commentary t o the Concrete Design Code recommends t h a t u s e o f a m a g n i f i c a t i o n f a c t o r (w0 ) for a p p l i e d shear be r e t a i n e d o u t s i d e t h e end zone and this has been followed in p r e p a r i n g Table 2. T h e r e is l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n v a l u e s of wall cross-sectional areas required within the end zone for either design a p p r o a c h , but the a d v a n t a g e of a " d u c t i l e " design approach becomes rapidly apparent o u t s i d e of the end zone w i t h increasing aspect ratio. A g r e a t e r rate of r e d u c t i o n of wall area with height is therefore possible for the "ductile" design. In the case of all the four s t o r e y w a l l d e s i g n s , the basement to ground floor wall t h i c k n e s s w a s i n c r e a s e d to 500 mm to accommodate shear strength requirements. A thickness of 600 mm was needed in this area for the 1 0 metre eight storey wall designed to either d e s i g n approach. The a s p e c t r a t i o f o r t h e s e w a l l s i s 2.8 and Table 2 indicates that similar shear area would b e r e q u i r e d in the end r e g i o n for the two approaches. However, a 500 mm t h i c k n e s s at base was sufficient for the more slender twin 5 metre wall as well

A m o r e e v e n d i v i s i o n of s h e a r c a n b e o b tained only by increasing the flexural s t r e n g t h of t h e t e n s i o n w a l l w i t h o u t at t h e s a m e t i m e m a k i n g it s t r o n g e r w h e n in compression. This was thought desirable, and accordingly, longitudinal reinforcement was concentrated in the o u t e r ends of t h e w a l l s e t a s s h o w n i n F i g u r e 3 f o r the four storey building. The effect was to r e d u c e the r a t i o of total s h e a r s t r e s s b e t w e e n t h e t w o w a l l s f r o m 5.7:1 t o 4 . 3 : 1 . The end thickenings were terminated at t h e e x t e n t of t h e end z o n e (third floor level). The a d d i t i o n a l o v e r t u r n i n g e f f e c t in the e i g h t s t o r e y b u i l d i n g is n o t compensated for by a greater gravity load on the w a l l s b e c a u s e m o s t of t h e g r a v i t y l o a d is t a k e n by c o l u m n s . H o w e v e r , all o f t h e seismic l o a d is a s s u m e d t o b e t a k e n b y s h e a r w a l l s and the difference between seismic and g r a v i t y - i n d u c e d axial load increases with the number of s t o r i e s . Hence, a concentration of r e i n f o r c e m e n t at the o u t e r edge would still not result in a significant v a l u e of f l e x u r a l s t r e n g t h of the t e n s i o n w a l l w h e n c o m p a r e d to that of t h e c o m p r e s sion wall.. In addition, Paulay and Williams recommend an even d i s t r i b u t i o n of v e r t i c a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t at the w a l l b a s e to h e l p to p r e v e n t the s i t u a t i o n of a few large cracks arising and forming a p o t e n tial p l a n e of s l i d i n g . T h u s , retaining an cal reinforcement even for pattern of the eight vertistorey

192

to-ooo
DHfG - /23 >.
r

X
S

y~

f.

10m. long cantilever wail designed to ductile provisions of Code!

31

/O-OOO Q20-/OO IE If 3 If 3 If 2 T T T R/O T/e^s -Z40 ./=:

2*000
rC IT 3 If ] M T T T ] '

RIO

D24
B.

-2QO./%

10nr. long cantilever wall designed to limited ductility provisions of Code!

31

D2.0-200

.f.-^

D2 0-200

l -\

D24-/7S

walls.

D24-/7S

Twin 5m. long cantilever

/o-ooo R/O T/es/S mSCO

/-700

4-/EO SOO D20-/75 ./T-

R/Or/zs/25

- ^ h
.

/ 2 - D 2 0

>/~250

D/G -23

0.F.

/2-020

D.

Coupled shear walls.

STOREY

BUILDING - Wall cross sections at ground l e v e l .

193
w a l l set r e s u l t e d in t h e s i t u a t i o n w h e r e nearly 90 percent of the overstrength shear was resisted by the compression wall. A 500 mm thickness at base level was sufficient to keep total shear below the maximum value. s u p p o r t ) w h e n the n e u t r a l a x i s is r e l a tively distant, the "ductile design" approach requires that the thickness of wall with strains greater than 0.0015 not exceed one-tenth of the vertical clear distance between floors (in t h e c a s e of the designed walls, 0.1 x 0 .1 x 3. 3 0 0 m e t r e s = 330 m m ) . No such limitation on t h i c k n e s s is m a d e i n t h e " l i m i t e d d u c t i lity" design approach. In that c a s e , c o n f i n e m e n t r e i n f o r c e m e n t in t h e end region is a l w a y s r e q u i r e d o v e r 20 p e r c e n t o f t h e wall length from either end when the p e r centage of l o n g i t u d i n a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t in this region exceeds about 1 percent. A g r e a t e r quantity of c o n f i n e m e n t r e i n f o r c e ment must be provided here when the e s t i m a t e d c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e s s in t h i s portion o f w a l l l e n g t h e x c e e d s 0.2 0 f , in order to prevent compression failure of the c o n crete.
1

"END R E G I O N S " REINFORCEMENT

AND

CURTAILMENT

OF

FLEXURAL

To prevent the plastic hinges being more e x t e n s i v e , the c o m m e n t a r y section of the Code for D e s i g n of C o n c r e t e Structures recommends that, for ductile cantilever walls, vertical reinforcement be terminated so t h a t "the w a l l s ideal m o m e n t of resistance reduces linearly from the end of the potential plastic hinge zone to the value of the design moment at the top of the structure" (clause 3.5.7.3). ( S e e a l s o r e f e r e n c e (1) p a g e 1 2 1 . )
1

The very similar S factors in the four s t o r e y 10 m e t r e w a l l s ( 1 . 8 a n d 2 . 0 ) r e s u l ted in n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l q u a n t i t i e s of v e r tical reinforcement for these walls. For the 5 m e t r e w a l l s , the governing extent of e n d r e g i o n is 5 m e t r e s f o r b o t h the four and eight storey walls, half that o f t h e 10 m e t r e w a l l s a n d s o c u r t a i l m e n t of v e r t i c a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t can b e g i n e a r lier for the 5 m e t r e w a l l s . For all splices of principal vertical reinforcement in ductile walls, ties spaced at not more than ten times the main bar diameter must surround the splice (clause 10.5.8.2). However, in the end regions of ductile w a l l s , only one-third of the l o n g i t u d i n a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t c a n b e spliced at a particular level (clause 10.5.8.1). Coupled with the requirement (reference (3), clause 10,5.8.2) that "stagger between splices shall be not less than twice the splice length", the situat i o n a r i s e s for a d u c t i l e w a l l in e x c e s s of about 11 metres in length, and req u i r i n g D 2 8 v e r t i c a l b a r s , t h a t t h e r e is nearly a three storey interval between successive splices on a bar. This could impose a considerable demand on the cost of s t e e l f i x i n g . The end r e g i o n of a coupled shear wall would normally be related to the length of o n e of the w a l l s coupled rather than the length of the a s s e m b l a g e . The except i o n is w h e n t h e c o u p l i n g b e a m is so s t i f f that the d e f l e c t e d shape of the a s s e m b l a g e approaches that of a single cantilever wall of overall length equal to that of the assemblage.

In the case of w a l l s of limited d u c t i l i t y , the need for special t r a n s v e r s e r e i n f o r c e m e n t o u t s i d e t h e e n d r e g i o n is c a n c e l l e d provided that the dependable flexural strength o u t s i d e of the end zone is 50 percent greater, than that required by the Loadings Code ( s e e r e f e r e n c e (3) c l a u s e 14.4.2.2). Figure 2 shows the two major options available: Procedure B is more attractive than prolonging the extent of the labourwise costly confining ties. Table 3 indicates that the total weight of confining ties for the eight storey 10 m e t r e w a l l i s r e d u c e d b y a b o u t 5 0 p e r cent when the "limited ductility" design a p p r o a c h is u s e d ( P r o c e d u r e B - s e e F i g u r e 2) instead of the "ductile" approach. On the other hand, no ties w e r e required i n t h e c a s e o f t h e f o u r s t o r e y 10 m e t r e wall designed to the "ductile" p r o v i s i o n s , and thus the m o s t attractive of the two approaches changes with wall height. By far the smallest n u m b e r of t i e s w a s r e quired for the coupled shear w a l l s . Cantilever walls of a lesser number of stories m a y , on the other h a n d , require fewer confining t i e s if d e s i g n e d b y the "ductile" approach. Owing to the s i g n i f i c a n t r e d u c t i o n in b e n d i n g at t h e b a s e of the ductile coupled w a l l s , fewer confining ties were required here than for the pure cantilever walls. The ductile twin 5 metre walls have a lesser total h e i g h t of t i e s , b u t the n u m ber tabulated allows for the four ends of t h e w a l l s e t . A r e d u c t i o n in n u m b e r of t i e s should f a c i litate wall construction and h e n c e , logically, the cost. However, the total w e i g h t of ties is v e r y small c o m p a r e d to the remainder of reinforcing steel and if t h e s a m e u n i t c o s t (dollars/kilogram) for "supply and p l a c e " of ties is used as for the remainder of the r e i n f o r c e m e n t , then the r e d u c t i o n in d i f f i c u l t y of c o n struction will not be completely reflected in the cost d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the d e s i g n approaches. No d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n in unit rate for v a r i ous types of reinforcement was made in the quantity survey for the different w a l l s designed in this study.

CONFINING SION EDGE Transverse

REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS reinforcement

TIES

AND

COMPRES-

is

required

to:

restrain longitudinal compression reinforcement against buckling give protection against failure to compression zones of wall concrete w h e n t h i s z o n e is s u f f i c i e n t l y d e e p . In o r d e r to avoid buckling c o m p r e s s i o n e d g e (no l a t e r a l of the free walls giving

194

IQ-OOO D2Qn r i t : J . ,

2oo

^ at -

J ; l

~~ . . V I D *\ !*S^ \*/ a

L A ^\ A

- - l
F W

. . > 'J . Ill, :

C O

i:
/<9# ^

/O-R/2 D28 - 2 00

//esY-0

(Vert Laps)

.f

10m. long cantilever wall designed to ductile provisions of Code*. *

3

/oooo

2-000
h n im 4 pxrf &Z8-/50
11:

DH20-/50
j

.
s
: : V . ' . : :.':

2000

n rr;:
D2&

&/0 rtes -2SO - /SO >F

/SO

10m. long cantilever wall designed to limited ductility provisions of Code .

( 3)

5-000 D/6~30OF&C

5 OOO D/6-300EC
v

::*'\: r<\ :\: < r \ f y.y. : >\:: . . J : ; j .V t

l/e/6//'es Vtftf
/?/6 -

* 1!

: : t\. q
fU6 f/zs(VzH.Laps) FdC
/oo

/OO .. C Twin 5m. long

028-200 C.

/OO J fO-Rf2r es-!40 D28-200

f

cantilever

walls.

/O-OOO -4-/50 D24-2Z5

. ; . .i :
V.

UOO Opening .F. -,

l i..

D24-22S

E.F.-\

.i s . .i :

t A. J ,
(>W Za/Ds)

o o
R/Z+ics/OO D2<t -200

-4

8/2

/ / e s

7-/? A? / / ^ 5 - A5

D2-4- 200

, Coupled shear walls.

9 8

STOREY

BUILDING - Wall cross sections at ground level.

195
ESTIMATED COSTS OF DIFFERENT cost, WALL DESIGNS that of the latter approach does contain sufficient simplifications to m a k e it worthy of c o n s i d e r a t i o n for d e s i g n of e v e n m o d e r ately slender walls (overall height to length ratio of up to about 3) n o t w i t h standing the additional flexural reinforcem e n t t h a t is t o b e e x p e c t e d . With experience, a designer will not be daunted by either design approach, and he w i l l be w i s e to g i v e f i r s t c o n s i d e r a tion to the "ductile" approach for slender shear walls. A coupled shear wall would normally be designed by the "ductile" approach. However, for this wall type i t is p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t t o d e t e r m i n e e a r l i e s t p o i n t s of c u r t a i l m e n t of f l e x u r a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t , for two r e a s o n s , v i z : - The bending moment diagrams are considerably different between "tension" and "compression" wall because different moments of inertia are used for each wall \
1

Table 4 compares wall foundation.

including

These costs were estimated from detailed drawings by the Quantity Survey of the MWD. In determining the percentage of t o t a l s t r u c t u r a l c o s t , it w a s a s s u m e d t h a t the b u i l d i n g c o n s i s t e d of t w o sets of the 10 m e t r e o v e r a l l w a l l s i n e a c h h o r i z o n t a l direction. The figures for the eight storey building are more than double those of the four storey building. This is b e c a u s e not o n l y is t w i c e t h e a r e a of w a l l required to support e s s e n t i a l l y the same t o t a l f l o o r a r e a w h e n it is c o n t a i n e d in t w i c e the n u m b e r of s t o r i e s , b u t c o n s i d e r a b l y m o r e v e r t i c a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t is n e e d e d . The coupled wall looks economically attractive in both cases. The costs do not m e r e l y r e f l e c t the v o l u m e of concrete used for, in f a c t , the c o u p l e d wall had the second highest quantity of c o n c r e t e , but was the c h e a p e s t in the c a s e of the e i g h t storey building. The u s e of h i g h yield (Grade 380) reinforcement leads to a significant saving although its use should be restricted in the m a i n to areas w h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d u c t i lity d e m a n d o n t h e s t e e l is n o t p o s s i b l e because of the reduced ultimate strain compared to G r a d e 275 r e i n f o r c e m e n t . For example, a saving of 7 percent of the t o t a l w a l l cost is i n v o l v e d for the four storey ductile example when Grade 380 s t e e l is u s e d a s h o r i z o n t a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t . The saving between the options studied is l i t t l e m o r e t h a n 1 p e r c e n t o f t h e t o t a l structural cost. Hence there is n o t a case e s t a b l i s h e d in f a v o u r of a p a r t i c u l a r design from the economic point of view for the structures studied. H o w e v e r , if a s e p a r a t i o n o f n o n - s t r u c t u r a l elements could be avoided by designing one of the s t i f f e r , p o s s i b l y "limited d u c tility" options available, then the saving here would probably more than offset any additional structural cost. In the c a s e of the walls designed, however, interstorey d e f l e c t i o n s were all in excess of 0. 0 0 0 6 x i n t e r s t o r e y h e i g h t , t h e m a x i m u m d e f l e c t i o n a t w h i c h , n o n - s e p a r a t i o n is p e r m i t t e d in t h e c o d e . (A r e v i e w o f d e flections for the 10 m e t r e four storey wall with zero deformation permitted in g r o u n d f l o o r s l a b r e s u l t e d in d e f l e c t i o n s being more than halved. H o w e v e r , the r e duction was insufficient to avoid the need for separations, because of the high forces being resisted by the wall.)

- The flexural strength of the walls varies greatly with height because of the effect of changing a x i a l load w h i c h is transferred in large increments at each floor level from shear in the coupling beams. T h u s , for a g i v e n q u a n tity of v e r t i c a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t , the t e n sion wall gains strength with height and the compression wall becomes weaker. A f u r t h e r d e t r a c t i o n in t h e d e s i g n p r o c e d u r e for d u c t i l e coupled shear w a l l s is t h e c a l c u l a t i o n of t h e overstrength f a c t o r 0 , the e f f o r t for w h i c h is c o n o s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r t h a n in t h e c a s e of a cantilever wall. For the more common low- and moderaterise shear wall structures, the "limited ductility" approach is m o r e attractive. T a b l e 5 shows the r e l a t i v e n u m b e r of c a l culation pages required for the eight storey walls. In the s i t u a t i o n of d e s i g n ing a set of w a l l s , the r e s u l t s of a n a l y sis for the " d u c t i l e " example w e r e scaled d i r e c t l y for the "limited d u c t i l i t y " w a l l . The relative v a l u e for the latter e x a m p l e w o u l d only r i s e to a figure of a b o u t "0.67" (Table 5) had the b e n e f i t of t h e p r e v i o u s analysis not been taken advantage of. Hence, the "limited ductility" approach is a t t r a c t i v e . The procedure for "elastically responding structures" should appeal to designers of l o w - r i s e , low s l e n d e r n e s s r a t i o shear wall structures. However, a considerable i n c r e a s e in t h e q u a n t i t y of v e r t i c a l r e i n forcement may be required. For example, n e a r l y t h r e e t i m e s t h e a m o u n t is r e q u i r e d at the b a s e of the four storey example wall compared to the "ductile" design. Nevertheless, the situation will often arise in p r a c t i c e w h e r e a w a l l such as this may require little more than nominal reinforcement to respond elastically to t h e d e s i g n e a r t h q u a k e , in w h i c h c a s e the "elastically responding" design procedure is t h e m o s t a t t r a c t i v e .

COMPARISON

OF

DESIGN

EFFORT

REQUIRED

At the time of this s t u d y , use of the 1982 "Code of P r a c t i c e , i o r the D e s i g n of C o n crete Structures" is s t i l l in its b e ginnings , and designers will not be familiar with the detail of the document for several months to come. Our experience was that requirements for both the " d u c t i l e " and "limited d u c t i l i t y " design approaches took some effort to assimilate the first time round. However,

0)

O;

o 1 0
cf

o 0

10 A WALL
10

ELEVATIONJ O P

' 1 >' < 111 20 J O 15

E A R

FORCES

C M

NOTE:

7 K E SROUNJD FLOOR: Dl APHRASAA W A S M O D E L L E D iNFJJV/TBLY R ! 6 i D iN A L L C A S E S .

~i 1 1r-

10 ,20

30

40

1 1

60

1 r00 10

50

-t

1 1 r~
10

1 0

1 0

Z0

30

40

50

GO

r~

70

10

i f O

30

40

50

GO

70

B E N D I N G
Av PINNED B A S E

M O M E N T S B. FIXED NOT BASE STIFFNESS MODELLED

( M M a a ) C FIXED BASE SHEAR STIFFNESS MODELLED

H 6 5-

VARIATION

OF

SMEAR

FORCE A N D

BENDING

MOMENT

WITH

COMPUTER

MODELLING

ASSUMPTIONS

197
CONCLUSIONS The study has considered the approaches a v a i l a b l e in t h e r e c e n t l y p u b l i s h e d " C o d e for Design of Concrete Structures" by applying them to a selection of highly stressed walls. Although the difference in cost of the various designs can be quite significant, t h i s is n o t g r e a t w h e n e x p r e s s e d a s a p r o p o r t i o n of total b u i l d i n g structural c o s t . For walls of height to length ratio of up to about 3, a designer will do well to consider the "limited ductility" approach as a first design option, because of the reduced design effort required. 4. Parts 1 and 2.

Kolston D and B W Buchanan. "Diaphragms in Seismic Resistant Buildings." Bulletin, New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering V o l 1 3 , N o 2 , J u n e 1 9 8 0 , p p 1 62-1 7 0 . Gill W D. "Computer Modelling of Shear Walls: Notes for Designers." R e s e a r c h and D e v e l o p m e n t R e p o r t 1982/6. O f f i c e of t h e Chief S t r u c t u r a l Engin e e r , Ministry of W o r k s and D e v e l o p ment, New Zealand. R o b i n s o n , L M. "Shear Walls of L i m i ted Ductility." Bulletin, New Zealand National Society for Earthquake E n g i n e e r i n g Vol 13, No 2, J u n e 1 980, pp 144-161.

5 .

6.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The permission of the Commissioner of W o r k s to p u b l i s h t h i s s t u d y is g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged. The helpful comments of M r G H F McKenzie and Mr G R McKay are appreciated.

Four Storey Building WALL COST Single 10 m Single 10 m Twin 5 m Coupled Building COST Single 10 m Single 10 r n Twin 5 m Coupled TABLE 4 1131,582 $146,431 $145,593 $126,071 COST AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL STRUCTURE 9.0 10.1 10.0 8.7 50,043 54,873 65,200 57,100 COST AS PERCENTAGE! OF TOTAL STRUCTURE: 3.4 3.7 4.4 3.9

GLOSSARY

OF

TERMS reduction factor of a section Ductile: Limited Ductility: Ductile: Ductile: b (g) a funcEight-Storey WALL Ductile: Limited Ductility: Ductile: Ductile:

strength

ideal shear (Newtons) total ^d C(T) shear

strength stress

(MPa)

seismic

design

coefficient

basic seismic coefficient, t i o n o f n a t u r a l p e r i o d (T) structural structural risk factor type factor factor

S M R
W.

material

total reduced gravity load the level of imposed lateral restraint

above ground

Costs of Designed Walls

ratio of overstrength moment of resistance to m o m e n t resulting from code specified loading, where both moments refer to the base section of wall specified concrete dynamic compression strength factor of EIGHT-STOREY WALL DESIGN EFFORT

magnification

REFERENCES 1. P a u l a y , T and R L W i l l i a m s . "The A n a lysis and D e s i g n of and the E v a l u a t i o n of Design Actions for Reinforced Concrete Ductile Shear Wall Structures." Bulletin, New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering Vol 13, No 2, June 1980, pp 1 0 8 - 1 4 3 . S t a n d a r d s A s s o c i a t i o n of N e w Zealand. "Code of P r a c t i c e for G e n e r a l S t r u c tural Design and Design Loadings for Buildings", including Amendments No 1 t o 3. NZS 4203:1976. S t a n d a r d s A s s o c i a t i o n of New Zealand. "Code of Practice for the Design of Concrete Structures." N Z S 31 01 :1 9 8 2 ,

10 m Ductile 10 m Limited Ductility 2 x 5 m Ductile Coupled 0.5

1.0 (0.67) 1.0 1.33

2.

TABLE 5 Relative Design Effort for Eight-Storey Walls

3.