Lightly-Reinforced Wall Segments FEMA PDF

EERI/PEER Technical Seminar February 2006
Lightly-Reinforced Wall Segments
John Wallace
University of California, Los Angeles
with contributions from

Mr. Leonardo Massone & Dr. Kutay Orakcal
Presentation Overview
FEMA 356 Requirements
P-M-V Modeling
Preliminary test results
Axial load issues
J. Wallace 1
Modified Beam - Column Model

Use of modified beam-
column element with
added shear spring for
both horizontal and
vertical wall segments
Spandrels
Fiber model or general
wall model with nonlinear Pier
shear backbone curve
(uncoupled flexure/shear)
Joint
If plastic hinge model
EIeffective might be less than
0.5EIg lightly-reinforced
wall segments
Modeling Approaches
Frame and General Wall Models
J. Wallace 2
P-M (flexural) Strength Provisions

Pn- Mn for c =0.003
Fiber model or general wall model
Actual cross section
Concrete Fibers
Steel Fibers
Typically use a more refined mesh where yielding is anticipated

However, in this case, where nonlinear shear behavior is anticipated,
use enough elements to capture moment gradient.
Nonlinear backbone relations (force displacement) relations are
commonly used to capture the shear behavior.
FEMA Modeling Parameters

FEMA 356 Tables 6-19: Wall segments
Modeling Parameters, Drift % Acceptable Drift %
Performance Level
Immediate Life Collapse
d e c
Occupancy Safety Prevention
0.75 2.0 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.75
d e-d
Vn
IO LS CP
Vr
c
y/h /h
6
J. Wallace 3
Shear Strength Provisions

Vn per ACI 318-99,02,05 Equation 21-7
Vn = Acv c f c' + t f y

c = 3.0 for hw / lw 1.5 Linear
interpolation
allowed for
c = 2.0 for hw / lw 2.0 intermediate
values
If axial load exceeds 0.15Agfc ; then force controlled
need not be taken less than 0.15% (Wood, ACI SJ, 1990)
7
Shear Strength Database

# of Curtains
Researcher Protocol 2 1
Sugano (1973) Monotonic 7 1
Barda Cyclic 6 0
Cardenas Monotonic 0 2
Hidalgo (2002) Cyclic 0 7
Hirosawa (1975) Cyclic 1 0
Aoya Cyclic* 5 0
* One full cycle, then monotonic to failure
tw = 3.15 to 6.3 inches 0.25% 0.67%
f c' = 3.3 ksi, = 1 ksi f y = 64 ksi, = 14 ksi
(7) < 0.12A g f c' , (1)=0.15A g f c' , (1)=0.22A g f c'
8
J. Wallace 4
Shear Strength Expanded Database

need not be taken less
3 than 0.15% (Wood,
1990)
Shear strength is
relatively insensitive to
Vtest / Vn (ACI)
2
the web reinforcement
For relatively thin walls,
1 use of one or two
curtains of web
One Curtain
Two Curtains reinforcement, strength is
0
similar
0 1 2 3 4 Results similar for
( fy)min
monotonic and cyclic
tests
9
Shear Strength Restricted Database

need not be taken less
3 than 0.15% (Wood,
1990)
Shear strength is
relatively insensitive to
Vtest / Vn (ACI)
2
the web reinforcement
For relatively thin walls,
1
use of one or two
curtains of web
One Curtain reinforcement, strength is
similar
Two Curtains
0
Results similar for
0 1 2 3 4
( fy)min monotonic and cyclic
tests
Tests with at least minimum reinforcement
10
J. Wallace 5
FEMA Modeling Parameters

FEMA 356 Tables 6-19: Wall segments
Modeling Parameters, Drift % Acceptable Drift %
Performance Level
Immediate Life Collapse
d e c
Occupancy Safety Prevention
0.75 2.0 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.75
d e-d
Vn
IO LS CP
Vr
c
y/h /h
11
Shear Force-Deformation Behavior

Shear backbone curve
Vy Strength of materials
y =
( G = 0.4 E ) A
h = G =E
c c
Vy =Vn (i.e., no hardening)
1
Gc = Ec = 0.4E c
1 + 2
P / Ag
Vcr = ft 1 + 0.6Vn
f t
ft = ( 4 to 6 ) f c' Sozen & Moehle, 1993 EPRI Report
12
J. Wallace 6
Revised Backbone Relation

Based on prior tests (limited database):
5WCEE, Rome, 1973, pp. 1157-1166
9WCEE, Tokyo, 1988, pp. IV 517-522
Hidalgo et al, 2002, EERI Spectra
Hirosawa, 1975, Japanese Report
d e-d
Vn
Vcr 0.6Vn
Vr
0.4Ec c
/h = 0.004 to 0.005
13
Observations
Limited test data
Stiffness and Deformation capacity
specimens tend to be stiff and strong, test
control is challenging and reported stiffness
and deformation values may be suspect
Residual strength most tests not continued
beyond modest strength degradation (~20%)
One row in FEMA table 6-19
Nominal Strength
Test results indicated nominal strength in the
range of 100 to 200% of the ACI value
14
J. Wallace 7
New Data Since ~1995

Salonikios, Thomas N.; et al. (1999)
11 tests on cantilever walls with axial load of 0.0 and 0.07Agfc
Aspect ratios of 1.0 (1.2m tall) and 1.5 (1.8m tall)
Cross section: 1.2m x 100mm (4 ft x 4)
4 tests with diagonal web bars for sliding Eurocode 8 requires 50%
Reasonably-well detailed (Eurocode 8)
Hidalgo, Pedro A.; Ledezma, Christian A.; Jordan, Rodrigo M., (2002)
26 tests for reverse bending (zero moment at mid-height), no axial load
M/Vl ratios: 1.0(3), 0.69(9), 0.5(7), 0.35(7): 1m x 2m tall; 1.5m x 1.05m tall
Cross section: 80 to 120 mm (3.15 to 4.72) by 1.0m to 1.7m (40 to 67)
Light web reinforcement: 0%, 0.125%, 0.25%, 0.375% (only one)
Greifenhagen, H.; Lestuzzi, P, (2005)
4 tests on cantilever walls with axial load (0.027, 0.027, 0.043, 0.094Agfc)
M/Vl ratio: 0.69
Cross section: 1 m x 100 mm (40 x 4)
Light web reinforcement: 0.3%, 0% (one case with no horizontal web bars)
Massone, Orakcal, Wallace (2005, 2006)
15
Salonikious et al. 1999

Aspect ratio 1.0 tests
Vn = 342 kN per ACI 318
Flexural yielding (Fmax, 1 = 1.5* Fmax, 1.5)
Sliding failure
10mm
10mm (0.0083)
Vmax = 5.23 f c' twlw non-conforming

a = 0.006(1200mm) = 7.2 mm
b = 0.01(1200mm) = 12.0 mm
LSW2: 0.28% H & V and P=0 LSW3: 0.28% H & V and P=0.07Agfc
16
J. Wallace 8
Hidalgo et al. 2002

M/Vlw = 1.0 Specimen #2
Load (kN)
40mm
Displacement (mm)
Vn = 5.74 f c' twlw =57 kips (253 kN)
y = 0.004hw = .004(78.74") = 0.31" (8 mm)
Vcrack = 0.5Vn = 30 kips (133 kN)
d = 0.0075(2000mm) = 15 mm
Vn hw (56.86 kips)(78.74")
y = = = 0.02" (0.5 mm) e = 0.02(2000mm) = 40 mm
GA 0.4(3040 ksi)(186 in 2 )
17
Hidalgo et al. 2002

Load (kN)
30 40
Displacement (mm)
Vn = 4.4 f c' twlw =43 kips (193 kN) f c' = 2.81 ksi
y = 0.004hw = .004(78.74") = 0.31" (8 mm)
d = 0.0075(2000mm) = 15 mm
Vn hw (43 kips)(78.74")
y = = = 0.015" (0.4 mm) e = 0.02(2000mm) = 40 mm
GA 0.4(3020 ksi)(186 in 2 )
18
J. Wallace 9
Hidalgo et al. 2002

Load (kN)
30 35
Displacement (mm)
Vn = 6.6 f c' t wlw =76 kips (337 kN)
y = 0.004hw = .004(70.9") = 0.284" (7.2 mm)
d = 0.0075(1800 mm) = 13.5 mm
Vh (76 kips)(70.9")
y = n w = = 0.0205" (0.52 mm) e = 0.02(1800 mm) = 36 mm
GA 0.4(2720 ksi)(242 in 2 )
19
Greifenhagen & Lestuzzi 2005

M/Vlw = 0.69 Specimen M3
Drift %
P 0.05 Ag fc'
Diagonal tension
Sliding failure
Vn = 7.06 f c' twlw =42.6 kips (189 kN) f c' =2915 psi
y = 0.004hw = .004(565 mm) = 2.26 mm
Vcrack = 0.5Vn = 21.3 kips (95 kN)
Vn hw (42.6 kips)(22.24") d = 0.0075(565 mm) = 4.24 mm
y = = = 0.0069" (0.175 mm)
GA 0.4(3077 ksi)(111.6 in 2 ) e = 0.02(565 mm) = 11.3 mm
20
J. Wallace 10
Greifenhagen & Lestuzzi 2005

M/Vlw = 0.69 Specimen M4
Drift %
P 0.09 Ag f c'
Sliding failure
Vn = 6.7 f c' twlw =44.4 kips (198 kN) f c' =3539 psi
Vcrack = 0.5Vn = 22.2 kips (99 kN) y = 0.004hw = .004(565 mm) = 2.26 mm
Vh (44.4 kips)(22.24") d = 0.0075(565 mm) = 4.24 mm
y = n w = = 0.0065" (0.166 mm)
GA 0.4(3390 ksi)(111.6 in 2 ) e = 0.02(565 mm) = 11.3 mm
21
P-M-V Modeling
Axial load issues
22
J. Wallace 11
Slender Wall Tests - Results

External Instrumentation Internal External
Lateral displacement at
different floor levels
Internal Instrumentation
Shear deformation at
Flexural deformation at
Uncouple deformations
Shear/Flexure
Wall base instrumentation
Assess data reliability
23
Tests Results: Observations

Displ. 1st floor (shear + flexural) [in]
0.8
Consistent and Y = 1.20 * X
repeatable Shear Xoriginal
results 0.4
Top displacement
Small shear 0
contribution,
Shear Xcorrected Flexural displ.
Y = 1.02 * X
about 5%
Y = 0.71 * X
1st Story -0.4

Utot Xcorrected
Displacement Utot Xoriginal
U flex (=0.67)
4-story walls -0.8
30% shear -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8
contribution Displ. 1st floor (lateral) [in]
24
J. Wallace 12
Test Results - Observations

40 40
Lateral Load (kips) P(@V
P(@Vn) = 62)[kips]
n =62 kips P(@V n) =62
P(@Vn) kips
= 62 [kips]
P(@Mn) = 29.4 [kips] P(@Mn) = 29.4 [kips]

P(@Mn) =30 kips P(@Mn) =30 kips
Uf Uf Us
20 20
h
h
1st Floor 1st Floor

2nd Floor 2nd Floor
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0.1 0.2
Flexural displacement [in/in]
flexure/y shear
Shear displacement [in]
Interaction between nonlinear flexure and shear deformations is evident

even for relatively slender walls where Vmax ~ Vn
25
Modeling P-M-V Interaction

N, uy
1. Modified MVLE model to M,
incorporate shear flexure V, ux
interaction
2. Parallel pairs of flexure
and shear fibers are used Strip (i)
h
3. Behavior of each set of ch
springs described by a
constitutive RC rotating-angle
panel model (e.g., MCFT or
RA-STM), that incorporates y - trial
axial-shear interaction
xy - trial
4. Requires additional model
iterations to establish x - unknown
equilibrium condition
26
J. Wallace 13
Local Iteration Scheme

y- trial
1 2
xy- trial
Assigning guess
x - unknown
Iteration
Variable
y sy
1 2 c1 c2
Constitutive
- -
Material
x sx
Models concrete steel
y = cy + y sy iterations
Horizontal
(Transverse) yx x = 0
x
Equilibrium x = cx + x sx
27
Constitutive Panel Element Behavior

Pang and Hsu (1995) Vecchio and Collins (1982)
A2
12 A3 5
Shear Stress (MPa)
Shear Stress (MPa)
A4
B1 4
8 B2 PV6
3 PV11
PV16
2 PV19
4
Test 1 Test
Analysis Analysis
0 0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
Shear Strain Shear Strain
RC Panel Specimens tested

under pure shear
28
J. Wallace 14
Model Assessment RW2

200
Pax 0.07A g f 'c
150
Plat , top
Lateral Load, Plat (kN)
100
RW2
50
-50
Monotonic versus
-100
Cyclic comparison
Test
-150
Analysis
-200
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Top Displacement, top (mm)
Thomsen & Wallace, ASCE JSE, April 2004; Massone et al, 13WCEE & 8NCEE
29
Model Assessment RW2

200
Flexural Deformations 200
Shear Deformations
150 Test 150 Test
Analysis Analysis
Lateral Load (kN)
100 100
(
50 50
0 0
-50 -50
P P Us
-100 -100
Uf
-150 -150
-200 -200
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Lateral Flexural Displacement (mm) Lateral Shear Displacement (mm)
flexural and shear displacements at first story level of RW2

coupled nonlinear flexural and shear deformations
30
J. Wallace 15
Model Assessment
Hirosawa (1975) Hidalgo (2002)
Specimen 74: M/Vlw = 1.0 Specimen 10: M/Vlw = 0.7
1200
200
Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)
800 150
100
M/(Vl) = 1.0 M/(Vl) = 0.69
400
Flexural Analysis 50
Test Test
Coupled Analysis Analysis
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Lateral Displacement (cm) Lateral Displacement (cm)
31
P-M-V Modeling
Axial load issues
32
J. Wallace 16
Research Motivation & Sponsors

Sponsors:
St. Joseph Health System
KPFF Consulting Engineers
In collaboration with:
California Office of Statewide Health
Planning & Development (OSHPD)
St Johns, Santa Monica
Example pushover 33
Test Specimens - Piers

Prototype (Actual Building) Scale Test Specimen
lp = 72
lp = 54
hp = 62.5
hp = 48
v = ~0.25% v = ~0.25%
h = ~0.35% h = 0.35%
tp = 8 tp = 6
34
J. Wallace 17
Test Specimens Piers
Hooks removed
Specimen Geometry (inches) Reinforcement3 P/A gf'c 4 Specimens

ID Height Length Thickness Edge1 Vert. Web2 Horiz. Web2 (kips) (#)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
WP1-1-10 48 54 6 2 - #4 0.26% 0.35% 0.10 2
WP2-1-05 48 54 6 2 - #4 0.26% 0.35% 0.05 2
WP3-1-00 48 54 6 2 - #4 0.26% 0.35% 0.00 2
WH1-1-0 60 60 6 1-#4 1-#5 0.35% 0.26% 0.0 2
WH2-1-0 60 60 6 4 - #5 0.35% 0.26% 0.0 2
35
Prototype Horizontal Wall Segment

ld = 18 lb = 83
hb = 78.5
2 - #6 or 2 - #9 Typical
tb = 8
Weakened plane joint at mid-span: to 2/3 of web bars cut

and grooves introduced on both sides of panel
36
J. Wallace 18
Spandrel Weakened Plane Joint
37
Test Program - Construction
Cast upright, no joints

38
J. Wallace 19
Test Program - Setup

a
1 2
Steel reaction frame
Top beam
top
Reaction block Actuator
F Specimen CL
Reaction block P1 P2
Reaction block Foundation bottom
Strong Floor
Floor anchor rods
Axial Load = P = P1 + P2 (controlled)
Lateral Load = F (controlled for the first two levels)
Lateral Displacement = (top bottom) (controlled after first two levels)
Top Rotation = (1 2)/a =0 (controlled)
39
Test Program - Setup

Out-of-plane support
Reaction Frame
Specimen
Vertical Load
Vertical Load Horizontal Load

40
J. Wallace 20
Test Program Load History

60
40
Load [kips] 20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-20
-40
-60
Load Control cycle
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
Disp
0.5
0
-0.5 6 11 16 21 26 31
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
Displacement Control cycle
41
Test Program - Instrumentation

~ 100 Sensors (load, strain, displacement)
West Face Instrumentation East Face Instrumentation

(flexural deformations) (shear and anchorage deformations)
Pedestal sliding and uplift measured
Variation of measurements used on repeated tests
42
J. Wallace 21
Test Program - Objectives
Backbone Relations
Failure mode
Influence of details
Jamb bars
No hooks
No Hoops/Ties Axial load failure
43
FEMA 356 Section 2.8

Alternative modeling parameters and
acceptance criteria
2.8.1 Experimental setup
2.8.2 Data reduction and reporting
2.8.3 Design parameters and acceptance
criteria
Observations
For the right owner/building, can be
highly productive process
Caveats (uncertainty, surprises, etc)
Satisfaction, but ultimately, its about
44
J. Wallace 22
FEMA 356 Backbone Curves

2.8.3(1.2): Smooth backbone curve shall be drawn
through the intersection of the first cycle curve for
the (i)th deformation step with the second cycle
curve of the (i-1)the deformation step, for all i steps.
Force
Backbone curve
Deformation
FEMA 356 Figure 2-4

45
FEMA 356 2.8.3(1.2) Approach

Resulting backbone curve applying 2.8.3(1.2) was suspect
100
50
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
46
J. Wallace 23
Test-Derived Backbone Curves

Yield Strength degradation
100
Crack
Load
50
Residual
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Displacement
47
Test Photos ~5% Axial Load
Yield level 3 x Yield
Axial collapse 48
J. Wallace 24
Axial Failure
49
Initial Stiffness: Pier test: P=0.05Agfc

~0.6Vn
Pre-cracked response
(0.4E)
Shear Experimental Flexure model/test

Lateral Load
Slip contribution
flex-model
shear-model
total-exp
flex-exp
shear-exp
Lateral Displacement
0.4Ec is reasonable for uncracked shear stiffness
Flexural stiffness appears impacted by slip.
50
J. Wallace 25
Deformations Flexure/Shear
Lateral Load Same Scale
shear-exp
flex-exp shear-envelope
Lateral Displacement
Flexural deformations are essentially elastic, nonlinear shear
51
Test Derived Backbone Relations (Pier)

~150%VnFEMA FEMA 356 Default
Lateral Load
Axial load
collapse
top disp.-exp shear- backbone (+) 2%
shear-envelope shear- backbone (-)
shear-backbone shear- backbone (avg)
Lateral Displacement 1%
Not as stiff in the post-cracked range as FEMA relation
Post-cracked stiffness ~1/10 to 1/20 of the initial stiffness
Peak strength (85 to 175%) of Vn Consistent with prior tests
Less pronounced strength degradation, less residual strength
Deformation capacity > FEMA at initiation of strength degradation
52
J. Wallace 26
P-M-V Modeling
Axial load modeling
53
Axial Capacity Model P Shear Friciton

M
V sh
dc
Vd = dowel force
Atrfst = force in
horizontal steel
Ps = force in vertical Atrfst h
steel Vd
Vsf = force due to sv
Vsf
shear friction
N = normal force N
dc PS
V + N sin = V sf cos + Ast f st tan + nbars , webVd , web + nbars ,boundary V d ,boundary
sv
d
P = N cos + V sf sin c Ps , web + nbars ,boundary Ps ,boundary + nbars , web Ps , web
sh
54
J. Wallace 27
Axial Capacity Model

Axial capacity (Equilibrium and shear friction)
A f h 1 + m tan
Pm = s yt
v
s tan m
Shear friction vs drift at axial failure

m = C1 C2 0
h Axial
Drift at axial failure (column test data)

(1 + C1 tan ) + P (C1 tan )
A f h / sv
=
st yt

L Axial P
C2 + tan
Ast f yt h / sv
55
Shear Friction - Columns

2.5
C1 =2.1445; C2 =25; Vr =0
Flexure test data
2 C1 =1.6; C2 =3.125; Vr =0
Shear test data:
1.5
m

0.5 m = C1 C2 0
h Axial
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Drift Ratio @ Axial Failure
56
J. Wallace 28
Influence of Pier Geometry

Shear crack plane Column

h
l l l
h/l = (=26.6) h/l = 1 (=45) h/l = 2 (=63.4)
Assumed to extend
full pier height,
from corner-to-
corner
57
Axial Capacity Model Wall Piers

0.12
m=2.15-25(/h)
=65
=65 P/P0=0.10 Typical range for
Lightly-reinforced pier
(Astfyth/sv)/P0
=45 P/P0=0.10
0.08
=25 P/P0=0.10
=45
=65 P/P0=0.05
=45 P/P0=0.05
=25 P/P0=0.05
0.04 =25
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Pier Drift Ratio
58
J. Wallace 29
Shear Friction Column Tests

2.5

m = C1 C2 0
2 h Axial
1.5
m
1 C1 =2.1445; C2 =25; Vr =0
Flexure test data
C1 =1.6; C2 =3.125; Vr =0
0.5 Shear test data:
C1 =1.6; C2 =30; Vr =0.01
C1 =1.6; C2 =50; Vr =0.01
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Drift Ratio @ Axial Failure
59
Axial Capacity Model Test Results

0.15
=45 degrees
(Astfyth/sv)/P0=0.025 Vr =0
(Astfyth/sv)/P0=0.025 Vr =0.2Vn
(Astfyth/sv)/P0=0.015 Vr =0.1Vn C1 =1.6 C2=30
0.1 (Astfyth/sv)/P0=0.015 Vr =0.1Vn C1 =1.6 C2=50

(Astfyth/sv)/P0=0.015 Vr =0.1Vn C1 =1.0 C2=25
P/P0
Test Results
0.05
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Pier Drift Ratio
60
J. Wallace 30
Lightly-Reinforced Wall Segments
John Wallace
with contributions from

Mr. Leonardo Massone & Dr. Kutay Orakcal
Additional References
Greifenhagen, H.; Lestuzzi, P, Static cyclic tests on lightly reinforced concrete shear walls, Engineering
Structures, vol. 27, pp. 1703-1712, Sept. 2005
Palermo, D.; Vecchio, F.J. , Compression field modeling of reinforced concrete subjected to reversed loading:
verification, ACI Structural Journal. Vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 155-164. Mar.-Apr. 2004.
Hidalgo, Pedro A.; Ledezma, Christian A.; Jordan, Rodrigo M., Seismic behavior of squat reinforced
concrete shear walls , Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 287-308. May 2002.
Hwang, Shyh-Jiann; et al., Analytical model for predicting shear strength of squat walls, Journal of Structural
Engineering. Vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 43-50. Jan. 2001.
Petrangeli, Marco, Fiber element for cyclic bending and shear of RC structures, II: Verification, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics. Vol. 125, no. 9, pp. 1002-1009., Sept. 1999.
Salonikios, Thomas N.; et al., Cyclic load behavior of low-slenderness reinforced concrete walls:
Design basis and test results, ACI Structural Journal. Vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 649-660. July-Aug. 1999.
Salonikios, Thomas N.; et al., Cyclic load behavior of low-slenderness reinforced concrete walls: Failure Modes,
Strength and Deformation Analysis, and design Implications, ACI Structural Journal. Vol. 97, no. 1 , pp. 132-
142. Jan.-Feb. 2000.
Kappos, A. J.; Salonikios, T. N., Premature sliding shear failure in squat shear walls: fact or myth? Proceedings
of the Second Japan-UK Workshop on Implications of Recent, Earthquakes on Seismic Risk; pp. 169-180. 1998.
Saatcioglu, M.; Wiradinata, S., The effect of aspect ratio on seismic resistance of squat shear walls,
Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering; pp. 7.3/17-23. 1986.
Wiradinata, Sanusi, Behaviour of squat walls subjected to load reversals, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University
of Toronto, 1985. 171 pp.
Paulay, T.; Priestley, M. J. N.; Synge, A. J., Ductility in earthquake resisting squat shearwalls, Journal of
the American Concrete Institute. Vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 257-269. July-Aug. 1982
Lefas, et al., Behavior of RC Structural Walls: Strength, Deformation Characteristics, and Failure
Mechanism, ACI Structural Journal, 87(1), pp. 23 31, Jan Feb 1990.
Saatcioglu, M., Hysteretic Shear Response of Low-Rise Walls, Concrete Shear in Earthquake, Elsevier
Applied Science, New York, New York, pp. 105-114.
Bold, underlined: Test results presented

62
J. Wallace 31

Lightly-Reinforced Wall Segments FEMA PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Lightly-Reinforced Wall Segments FEMA PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

EERI/PEER Technical Seminar February 2006

Lightly-Reinforced Wall Segments

with contributions from

Modified Beam - Column Model

P-M (flexural) Strength Provisions

Typically use a more refined mesh where yielding is anticipated

FEMA Modeling Parameters

0.75 2.0 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.75

Shear Strength Provisions

If axial load exceeds 0.15Agfc ; then force controlled

Shear Strength Database

Shear Strength Expanded Database

Shear Strength Restricted Database

FEMA Modeling Parameters

0.75 2.0 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.75

Shear Force-Deformation Behavior

Revised Backbone Relation

New Data Since ~1995

Salonikious et al. 1999

Vmax = 5.23 f c' twlw non-conforming

Hidalgo et al. 2002

Hidalgo et al. 2002

Hidalgo et al. 2002

Greifenhagen & Lestuzzi 2005

Greifenhagen & Lestuzzi 2005

Slender Wall Tests - Results

Tests Results: Observations

repeatable Shear Xoriginal

1st Story -0.4

Test Results - Observations

P(@Mn) = 29.4 [kips] P(@Mn) = 29.4 [kips]

1st Floor 1st Floor

Interaction between nonlinear flexure and shear deformations is evident

Modeling P-M-V Interaction

Local Iteration Scheme

Constitutive Panel Element Behavior

Shear Stress (MPa)

RC Panel Specimens tested

Model Assessment RW2

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Model Assessment RW2

flexural and shear displacements at first story level of RW2

Lateral Load (kN)

Research Motivation & Sponsors

Test Specimens - Piers

Test Specimens Piers

Specimen Geometry (inches) Reinforcement3 P/A gf'c 4 Specimens

Prototype Horizontal Wall Segment

Weakened plane joint at mid-span: to 2/3 of web bars cut

Spandrel Weakened Plane Joint

Test Program - Construction

Cast upright, no joints

Test Program - Setup

Reaction block Foundation bottom

Test Program - Setup

Vertical Load Horizontal Load

Test Program Load History

Load Control cycle

Displacement Control cycle

Test Program - Instrumentation

West Face Instrumentation East Face Instrumentation

Test Program - Objectives