Analysis of a Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall

M.Sc Thesis

Bjrk Hauksdttir s053069

Instructors

Bjarni Bessason Per Golterman February 2007

)>IJH=?J
In June 2000 two major earthquakes with moment magnitude 6.6 occurred, after 88 years of rest, in the central part of the South Iceland Seismic Zone (SIZS). Earthquakes in this region have several times since the settlement of Iceland caused collapse of the majority of houses and number of casualties. It has been estimated that no more than one fourth of the strain energy in the SIZS was released in the two June 2000 earthquakes resulting in that large earthquakes may occur in the zone during the next few decades. The main objective of the research work presented in this thesis is to study the nonlinear behavior of a reinforced concrete shear wall with dierent reinforcement arrangements in an idealized three story building located in the SISZ subjected to a step-wise increasing lateral earthquake load. Four dierent reinforcement arrangements of the shear wall are considered. Firstly, a reinforcement in which the design is based on the Stringer method. Secondly, a reinforcement in which the design is based on linear elastic nite element method analysis using general purpose FE-program (SAP2000). Thirdly, a reinforcement again based on linear elastic FEM but here using a building specialized FE-program (ETABS), which has a special post-processor to present section forces. Fourthly, a reinforcement based on minimum reinforcement requirements from Eurocode 2. The nonlinear behavior of the four dierent reinforced shear walls is then tested by non-linear pushover analysis using the general purpose FE-program ANSYS. An attempt is made to evaluate crack width calculations as a function of load to reect the damage. The study show that dierent reinforcement layouts aect the response of the wall and the dierence in crack width is mainly due to the boundary reinforcement. The crack widths calculated by using the information from ANSYS seem to be promising and useful when designing and analysing structures in seismic zones.

Symbols
Q D q W
Pi ui

x y xy ftx fty fY Asx Asy c

dV

t F

fyd As,t Ac,needed fcd

As,c As ft u fc c1 cu SE

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Set of generalized stresses Distribution strains work per unit volume strains distribution stress distribution indeterminate factor external forces displacements volume element stresses in x direction (horizontal) stresses in y direction (vertical) strains Tensile strength of reinforcement in x direction (horizontal) Tensile strength of reinforcement in y direction (vertical) Yield strength of reinforcement Tensile reinforcement area in x direction (horizontal) Tensile reinforcement area in y direction (vertical) concretes strength eectiveness factor thickness calculated compression/tension force Design yield point of steel Reinforcement area for tension stringer Needed concrete area to take up compression Design concrete strength Total force that concrete can uptake Reinforcement area for compression stringer Reinforcement are for rectangle mesh area Tensile strength of steel maximum strain in steel compressive strength of concrete concrete strain at peak stress ultimate strain in concrete structural displacement ductility strength to resist earthquake-induced force
EEE

)>IJH=?J
wk srm sm s sr 1 2 k1 k2

tw ts c g tg Ec T1 Fb Sd Ac ag q Fi

H W L h

mi,j zi,j fct f1 f2 a h Ec t c Tc Es

T S

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

the design crack width the average nal crack spacing the mean strain allowing under the relevant load coecient relating the average crack width to the design value the stress in the tension reinforcement at cracked section the stress in the tension reinforcement at the rst crack Coecient which takes account of the bond properties Coecient which takes account of the loading bar size Coecient which takes account of the bond properties Coecient which takes account of the form of the strain distribution height of the analyzed building width of the analyzed building Length of the analyzed shear wall story height the shear wall thickness the slab/roof thickness density of concrete density of glass thickness of double glass Young's modulus for concrete the fundamental period of vibration the seismic base shear force Design spectrum total aective area of shear wall ground acceleration behavior factor horizontal forces acting on the shear wall vibrating period soil factor storey masses heights of the masses tensile strength of concrete Ultimate compressive strength for state of biaxial compression Ultimate compressive strength for state of uniaxial compression ultimate biaxial compressive strength secant modulus of elasticity shear coecient for open crack shear coecient for closed crack multiplier for amount of tensile stress relaxation modulus of elasticity for steel

EL

Contents
Abstract Symbols Contents List of Figures List of Tables Preface i iii v vii ix xi

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Analysis Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Linear Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Plastic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.1 The Lower Bound Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Design Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Disks with Orthogonal Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Stringer Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Finite Element Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 Basic Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Nonlinear Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.1 Concrete and Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.2 Reinforced Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.3 Mathematical Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.3.1 Elastic Based Model - Before Yielding Point . . . . . . . 2.5.3.2 Elastic-Strain Hardening Plastic Model - After Yielding Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.3.3 The Shape of an Initial Yield Surface . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.3.4 The evolution of Subsequent Loading Surface . . . . . . . 2.5.3.5 The Flow Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.4 Finite Element Modeling of Cracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

1 Introduction 2 Theory

1 5

1 3

5 5 5 6 8 9 9 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 17 17 18 19 19 19

Contents
2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.3 Ductility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods to Calculate Cracks . . . . . . . 2.8.1 Calculation of design crack widths Shear Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 The Mass of the Building . . . . Pushover Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.0.1 Lateral Force Patterns . 3.2.0.2 Capacity Curve . . . . Load - Lateral Force Method of Analysis 3.3.1 Can the Lateral Force Method be 3.3.2 The Design Response Spectra . . 3.3.3 Vertical Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 21 22 22 23

3 The Building and the Load

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . used? . . . . . . . .

25

25 26 28 28 28 29 29 30 33

4 Reinforcement Design
4.1 4.2

4.3

The Stringer Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 The Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Calculation of Shear Stresses and Stringer Linear Elastic FE-analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Modeling in SAP2000 and ETABS . . . . 4.2.2 ETABS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 SAP2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minimum Reinforcement according to EC2 . . . 4.3.1 Vertical Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Horizontal Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35

35 35 37 43 43 44 48 53 53 53 55 55 56 60 61 63 68

5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

Calculation Process in ANSYS . . . . . . Element Type - Reinforced Concrete Solid Material Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analytical Nonlinear Model . . . . . . . . Analytical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1 Cracks and Reinforcement Yielding 5.5.2 Calculations of Crack width . . . .

55

6 Summary and Conclusion Appendices A MATLAB script for Design Response spectra B Calculations for Stringer method C Modeling in ETABS References

75 77 77 79 95 103

vi

List of Figures
1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 Iceland lies on the Mid Atlantic Ridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Damage because of the earthquakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uniaxial stress-strain relation for rigid-plastic material [18] . . . . . . . . Maximum work hypothesis [18] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Disk element with stress in the concrete [18] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Disk divided into nodes, stringer and mesh rectangle areas [13] . . . . . . Stress-strain diagram for concrete [9] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical stress-strain diagram of reinforcing steel [9] . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical load-displacement relationship for reinforced concrete element [21] Biaxial strength Envelope for Plain Concrete [19] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Triaxial strength surface in principal stress space [19] . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical load-displacement relationship for reinforced concrete element [21] Loading surfaces of concrete in biaxial stress plane for a work-hardeningplasticity model [4] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kinematic hardening rule [1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship between strength and ductility [21] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Shear Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structural wall [21] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plan View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Shear Wall Dimensions . . . . . . . . The Longitudinal Wall Dimensions . . . . Horizontal ground acceleration for Iceland Horizontal design spectrum . . . . . . . . Forces applied on the shear wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 6 7 9 11 13 13 14 15 16 16 18 19 21 23 24 25 26 27 30 32 34 36 36 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 44 45

The wall divided into nodes, stringers and areas . . . The forces acting on the wall for Stringer Method . . Sign of the shear stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horizontal Stringer Forces for stringerline 1 to 3 . . Horizontal Stringer Forces for stringerline 4 to 6 . . Horizontal Stringer Forces for stringeline 7 to 10 . . Vertical Stringer Forces for stringerline 11 to 14 . . . Vertical Stringer Forces for stringerline 15 to 18 . . . Reinforcement of the wall based on Stringer method Shell Element [26] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deformations of a shell element in ETABS [8] . . . . Pier and spandrel forces in ETABS . . . . . . . . . .

LEE

Contents
4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27 C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5 C.6 C.7 C.8 Pier labeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moment, M3, in spandrels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moment, M3, in piers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reinforcement of the wall based on analysis in ETABS . . . . . . . . . The basic types of shell stresses [22] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Normal stresses, x , from the SAP2000 analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Normal stresses, y , from the SAP2000 analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shear stresses, xy , from analysis in SAP2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reinforcement arrangement of the wall based on analysis in SAP2000 Minimum reinforcement according to EC2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 46 46 47 48 49 49 50 52 53 56 57 57 59 60 61 62 62 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 67 69 69 70 71 71 72 72 73 73 74 74

SOLID65 element in ANSYS [1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bilinear Hardening Concrete Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Normal distribution of compressive strength results [20] . . . . . . . . . . Steel Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Modeling of the wall in Ansys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Element numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Load deection curves for dierent analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ductility curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ductility curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracking signs in ANSYS, NL=1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) for in the wall designed with Stringer method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) in the wall designed from ETABS Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) in the wall designed from SAP2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) in the wall with minimum reinforcement, EC2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steel stresses in element no 787 above middle window . . . . . . . . . . . Steel stresses in element no 670 below middle window . . . . . . . . . . . Computed crack width in element 787 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Computed crack width in element 670 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design crack width in element 1026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks at middle window for Stringer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks width for Stringer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks at middle window for ETABS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks width for ETABS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks at middle window for SAP2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks width for SAP2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks at middle window for EC2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks width for EC2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spandrel labeling . . . . . . . . Axial forces in spandrels, P . . Shear forces in spandrels, V2 . Moment forces in spandrels, M3 Pier labeling . . . . . . . . . . Axial forces in Piers, P . . . . . Shear forces in piers, V2 . . . . Moment forces in piers, M3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 95 . 96 . 96 . 97 . 99 . 99 . 100 . 100

LEEE

List of Tables
3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 The buildings parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parameters for design response spectra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parameters for type 1 design response spectrum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shear stresses in the rectangular mesh areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Material properties of concrete in SAP2000 and ETABS . . . . . . . Wall in SAP2000 and ETABS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average stresses and computed reinforcement from SAP2000 analysis Input parameters for Willam and Warnke model . Material parameters used the concrete . . . . . . . Parameters for material number two, the steel . . . Main characteristics of the FEM model in ANSYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 31 32 39 44 44 51 58 59 59 60

C.1 Spandrel forces and reinforcement calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 C.2 Pier forces and reinforcement calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

EN

2HAB=?A

This work is presented for the fulllment of the requirements of the Master of Science at the Department of Civil Engineering at the Technical University of Denmark. The work was done at the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Iceland where the author nished his B.Sc degree.

Acknowledgements
The University of Iceland Research Fund provided a nancial support which I am very grateful for. I am grateful to my supervisor professor Bjarni Bessason at the University of Iceland for his guidance, ideas and encouragement during my thesis work. I would also like to thank associate professor Per Golterman at the Technical University of Denmark for his comments, support and giving me the opportunity to do my studies in Iceland. Finally I want to thank Helga Bjrk Magnsdttir M.Sc for reading and correcting the project. Reykjavik, February 2007 Bjrk Hauksdttir, s053069

NE

+D=FJAH 
Introduction

1.1

Background

Iceland lies on the Mid Atlantic Ridge and is being split by the divergent plate boundary between the North American Plate and the Eurasian Plate, causing earthquakes and eruptions. In South Iceland the plate boundary is shifted towards east and oshore north of Iceland is shifted back west, see Figure 1.1. At these two locations there are conservative plate boundaries and we have the two main seismic zones in Iceland, i.e. the Tjrnes Fracture Zone (TFZ) and the South Iceland Seismic Zone (SISZ). The most destructive earthquakes in the history of Iceland have occurred in these two zones.

Figure 1.1: Iceland lies on the Mid Atlantic Ridge

The SIZS is in the middle of the South Iceland lowland, the largest agricultural region in Iceland. In the region there are small villages and number of a farms. Most of the houses there are one or two story buildings and before the year 2000 only very few buildings (<10) were higher. The population in the year 2000 was around 16000.

+D=FJAH 

Introduction

In June 2000 two major earthquakes with moment magnitude 6.6 occurred, after 88 years of rest, in the central part of the SIZS. Earthquakes in this region have several times since the settlement of Iceland caused considerable damage and collapse of houses as well ad number of casualties. Despite intensive surface ssuring caused by the two June 2000 earthquakes and recorded accelerations reaching 0.8g, the earthquakes caused no structural collapse (see Figure 1.2). However lot of houses were damaged and at least 35 houses were estimated unrepairable. Most of the damaged houses were one story concrete shear walls, which only had reinforcement around the windows and doors openings. [23] [24]

Figure 1.2: Damage because of the earthquakes

It has been estimated that no more than one fourth of the strain energy in the SIZS was released in the two June 2000 earthquakes. Large earthquakes may occur in the zone during the next few decades and with possibility of an earthquake, of comparable size to the earthquakes in the year 2000. [24] With more dense population in South Iceland there is growing demand for higher houses. Number of three story and four story buildings have been built after 2000 and more are on the schedule. In the past elastic design has mainly been used in seismic design of concrete structures but in recent years the understanding of the plastic theory and its application to reinforced concrete structures has greatly increased and it has been shown that the plastic theory is very successful to explain experimental observations of reinforced concrete. In 1979 the stringer method was developed by M.P. Nielsen for reinforced concrete walls. This method optimizes reinforcement for a given load using the lower bound theorem of plasticity theory. In the year 1999 the Stringer Method was introduced in the Danish Concrete Norm, DS411. Elastic analysis can give a good indication of the elastic capacity of structures but it can not predict failure mechanisms and account for redistribution of force during progressive yielding. Nonlinear analysis gives a good demonstration on how the building really works and it helps the engineer to get a better understanding on how the structure will behave when subjected to earthquakes, where it is assumed that the elastic capacity of the structure will be exceeded. One way of doing nonlinear analysis is to use static pushover analysis taking into account nonlinear behavior of the concrete and reinforcement.

Objective

Section 1.2

Doing experiments on a reinforced concrete element shows of course the real life response of the element under load but it can be extremely costly and time consuming. The use of nite element analysis has increased due to progressing knowledge and capabilities of computer software. So now it is possible to analyze concrete and understand the response of a concrete element. Over the past twenty years the static pushover procedure has been presented and nonlinear software tools been developed for seismic design of concrete structures by several authors and standards, see for instance Chopra [5], Fajfar [11], Priesley [21], EC8 [10] and ATC-40 [2].

1.2

Objective

The main objective of the research work presented in this thesis is to study the nonlinear behavior of a reinforced concrete shear wall with dierent reinforcement arrangements in an idealized three story building located in the South Iceland Seismic Zone subjected to a step-wise increasing lateral design earthquake load. Four dierent reinforcement arrangements of the shear wall are considered. Firstly, a reinforcement in which the design is based on the Stringer method. Secondly, a reinforcement in which the design is based on linear elastic nite element method analysis using general purpose FE-program (SAP2000). Thirdly, a reinforcement again based on linear elastic FEM but here using a building specialized FE-program (ETABS). Fourthly, a reinforcement based on minimum reinforcement requirements from Eurocode 2. The nonlinear behavior of the four dierent reinforced shear walls is then tested by nonlinear pushover analysis using the general purpose FE-program ANSYS. An attempt is made to evaluate crack width calculations as a function of load to reect damage. The main chapters are as follows:
Second chapter :

The basic theory for the research work is presented. The dierence between linear elastic and plastic analysis is outlined and the fundamentals of the lower bound theorem followed by explanation of the Stringer method. The basic concepts of a nite element analysis is listed. The basic nonlinear behavior of concrete and reinforcement is presented and also the importance of ductility and crack control. The mathematical models used in ANSYS for concrete, steel, yield criteria, failure criteria, ow rule and hardening theory are presented. Finally a method to calculate crack width from Eurocode 2 is described. The idealized building is described in details and its mass calculated. The applied lateral design earthquake load is calculated based on the lateral force method from Eurocode 8 and the static pushover analysis is presented.
Third chapter: Fourth chapter :

The reinforcement design is made for the shear wall. First with the Stringer method, secondly with a general FE-program, thirdly with a building specialized FE-program and fourthly with minimum reinforcement from Eurocode 2. The four designed walls are analyzed in the FE-program ANSYS. The calculation process is described, the element type and material properties for the matheFifth chapter:

+D=FJAH 

Introduction

matical models explained and dened. The analysis is carried out statically with nonlinear pushover analysis. The results are shown by capacity curves, where it is possible to see initiations of cracks, yielding of reinforcement, ductility, crack distribution and crack widths. The results are compared between the four walls. 5ENJD ?D=FJAH : Summary, conclusion, recommendations and further work.

"

+D=FJAH

Theory
2.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews the theory used in this thesis. It starts by describing two of the analysis methods used, linear and plastic analysis, following by showing how to calculate the needed reinforcement from the analysis results by using the lower bound theorem. The basic mechanical properties of concrete and steel are claried and the mathematical models that are used to model them in nonlinear analysis are illustrated. It is explained how cracks are modeled in a nite element programs and how they aect a concrete structure.

2.2

Analysis Methods

When designing walls and plates loaded in their own plane three methods in determining internal stresses, moments and forces may be used: 1. Methods based on linear analysis 2. Methods based on plastic analysis 3. Methods based on non-linear material behavior In this project linear and plastic analysis will be used for the design of the reinforcement. Two nite element programs are used to do linear analysis and calculations by hand are made to do plastic analysis to nd stresses and internal forces in the concrete. The lower bound theorem is then used for the reinforcement design. Nonlinear analysis is made to look at the seismic response of the designed walls. [9]
2.2.1 Linear Analysis

In the nite element programs a linear analysis is performed for each static load case that is dened and it involves the solution of the system of linear equations represented by the equations and is solved in a single step: where K is the stiness matrix, r is the vector of applied loads and u is the vector of resulting displacements.

Ku=r

(2.2.1)

+D=FJAH

Theory

This is a simple mathematical approximation to simplify real time problems. Resulting in small deections and rotations, stresses are proportional to strain and material is elastic. [8] [22]
2.2.2 Plastic Analysis

The Plasticity theory in its simplest form deals with materials that can deform plastically under constant load when the load has reached a suciently high value. Materials with such ability are called perfectly plastic materials. The denition of a perfectly plastic material or rigid-plastic material is that no deformations occur in the material until the stresses reach the yield point and when that happens arbitrary large deformations can occur without any changes in the stresses. In the uniaxial case this corresponds to the stress-strain curve in Figure 2.1. This material does not exist in reality but it is possible to use this model when the plastic strains are much larger than the elastic strains.

Figure 2.1: Uniaxial stress-strain relation for rigid-plastic material [18]

The idealization that no deformations occur below yield point implies that the stress eld cannot be determined when it is below that point. At this point the body is said to be subject to collapse by yielding and the load is the collapse load or the load-carrying capacity of the body. The theory of collapse by yielding is termed limit analysis. For arbitrary stress elds the yield point is assumed to be determined by a yield condition: f (Q1 , Q2 , ..., Qn ) = 0 (2.2.2) where Q is set of generalized stresses and it is assumed that if f < 0 the stresses can be sustained by the material and therefore give no strains and f > 0 can not occur. The amount of work that must be performed to deform a rigid-plastic body to cause plastic deformations (strains) is
D=
V

(Q1 q1 + ...)dV =
V

W dV

(2.2.3)

Analysis Methods

Section 2.2

where D denotes the dissipation, W the work per unit volume and q the strains. For all the stress combinations satisfying 2.2.2 the stress eld rendering the greatest possible work should be found, which is the greatest possible resistance against deformation. W can be described as: W = (2.2.4) where is assumed to be given strain represented in the same coordinate system as f and = (Q1 , Q2 , ..., Qn ) determined so that W becomes as large as possible, subject to the condition: f () = 0 (2.2.5) The following three assumptions are made on the yield surface. Firstly it is dierentiable without plane surfaces or apexes, secondly it is convex and thirdly it is assumed to be a closed surface containing the point (Q1 , ...) = (0, ...), see Figure 2.2

Figure 2.2: Maximum work hypothesis [18]

If the variation of the work, W, is required to be zero when the stress eld is varied from that which is sought then:
W = Q1 q1 + ... = 0

(2.2.6) (2.2.7) (2.2.8)

The stress eld Q1 + Q1 , ... also satises f = 0 so

f Q1 + ... = 0 Q1

Since 2.2.6 and 2.2.7 apply to any variation Q1 , ..., W is only stationary when
qi = f , Qi i = 1, 2, ...n

where is an indeterminate factor. Here it has been shown when W is stationary must be normal to the yield surface and therefore eq. 2.2.8 is called normality conditions. When f < 0 for stresses within the yield f surface Q , ... is an outward directed normal. Now 2.2.4 is assumed to be nonnegative becomes bigger or equal to zero and thus becomes an outward-directed normal to the yield surface. Under given assumptions uniquely determines a point = (Q1 , ...) on the yield surface, that is, the point were is normal to the yield surface. The normality condition leads to
1

+D=FJAH

Theory

a maximum value, another arbitrary stress eld on the yield surface can be considered = (Q , Q , ...) = ( + ) = (Q1 + Q1 , ...). If were the stress eld corresponding 1 2 to the given strain vector , the work would be
W = Q q1 + ... = (Q1 + Q1 )q1 + ... = + 1

(2.2.9)

Since the yield surface is convex will be negative and thus

W W

(2.2.10)

or the work is at maximum if the stress eld = + is entirely within the yield surface, the following applies W > W (2.2.11) [18]

2.2.2.1 The Lower Bound Theorem

The lower bound theorem is based on the fact that if a stress distribution can be found within stresses at the yield surface caused by load of a certain magnitude, and satisfying the boundary conditions for the load then the load will not be able to cause a collapse of the body. For the external load statically admissible stress distribution can be found and is written as = (Q1 , Q2 , ...) which in the body or part of the body corresponds to stresses on the yield surface, which have corresponding strains = (q1 , q2 , ...) in accordance with a displacement eld that is geometrically possible in the body. Thus the principle of virtual work is:
Pi ui =
V

dV

(2.2.12)

where Pi and ui are the external forces and corresponding displacements and dV is the volume element. According to the assumption a safe statically admissible stress distribution can be found, written as = (Q , Q , ...) and 1 2
P i ui =
V

dV

(2.2.13)

where ui and is the same as above and Pi and Q are static quantities in the principle i of virtual work. According to 2.2.11
<

(2.2.14)

If the external load is determined by > 0 there is a way that the individual loading components are proportional to the loading is proportional and the theorem can be used to nd values of the load that are lower than the collapse load corresponding to = p . For all loads where a safe and statically admissible stress distribution can be found:
< p

(2.2.15)

[18]

&

Design Methods

Section 2.3

2.3

Methods based on the lower method have been developed for concrete structures and the most obvious application consists of using the method in the design of reinforcement. Here two design methods based on the lower bound theorem will be represented.
2.3.1

Design Methods

Given the stresses, , and , in a disk, see Figure 2.3.

x y xy

Disks with Orthogonal Reinforcement

Figure 2.3: Disk element with stress in the concrete [18]

By using the given stresses the reinforcement strength needed in the x and y direction to carry them in the concrete can be calculated as f and f . It is assumed that the concrete can carry negative principal stresses in both x and y directions. At points where one or both principal stresses are tensile stresses, reinforcement is added. The following set of formulas are used to determine the minimum reinforcement: For Case 1: | | (2.3.1) A f f = = + | | (2.3.2) t A f = + | | (2.3.3) f = t = 2| | (2.3.4) Case2:
tx ty x y x xy tx sx Y x xy ty sy Y y xy c xy

If

<0

, reinforcement is required for

x < |xy |

2 x y xy

+D=FJAH
And the reinforcement is determined by

Theory

Asx = 0 fty =
2 xy Asy fY = y + t |x | xy 2 c = |x |[1 + ( ) ] x

For y x Case 1:
y fty ftx c

Case2:

|xy | Asy fY = = y + |xy | t Asx fY = x + |xy | = t = 2|xy | y < |xy |

(2.3.5) (2.3.6) (2.3.7) (2.3.8)

If x < 0, reinforcement is required for

2 x x xy

And the reinforcement is determined by

Asy = 0 ftx =
2 xy Asx fY = y + t |y | xy 2 c = |y |[1 + ( ) ] y

where: x is the stresses in x direction. y is the stresses in y direction. xy is the strain. ftx is the reinforcement strength in x direction. fty is the reinforcement strength in y direction. fY is the reinforcement yield strength. Asx is the reinforcement area in x direction. Asy is the reinforcement area in y direction. J is the thickness of the disk. [18]


Design Methods
2.3.2 Stringer Method

Section 2.3

The Stringer Method is a lower bound method, that is the load carrying capacity, that is found with the method is equal or less than the actual load capacity. The Stringer Method can be used on all materials, where the theory of plasticity is a useful material description. The method has been used for many years on steel structures and is starting to gain ground for concrete structures. It starts by looking at the wall as a disk in a coordinate system with the x as a horizontal axis and y as a vertical axis. The disk is divided into stringers parallel with the x and y axes and the nodes where the stingers cross each other are given numbers. Between their stringers, areas are formed called mesh rectangles and are given names. Figure 2.4 shows a disk which has been divided into nodes, stingers and mesh rectangle areas. One stringer goes from node to node, but a whole line of segment going from edge to edge is called stringer line and consists of more than one stringers.

Figure 2.4: Disk divided into nodes, stringer and mesh rectangle areas [13]
When the stinger system has been made for the wall and forces been applied to it the shear stresses and stringer forces can be calculated by equilibrium equations. The main idea is that the loads and reactions are calculated as concentrated forces in the nodes, or as shear stresses along the stringers. The stringers take on the axial stresses and can both be pressure- or tension stringers and the mesh rectangles take up the shear stresses, and is constant for each rectangle which means, that the force in the surrounding stringers vary linearly between the nodes. It is best to calculate rst the shear stress in the mesh areas and thereafter the forces in the stringers. The tension stringers need reinforcement to take up the tension force and the reinforcement area is calculated as:
As,t = F fyd

(2.3.9)

where F is the calculated tension force in the stringer and fyd is the design yield point of the steel. If the calculated forces in the stringers are in compression the forces can be taken up by the concrete supplemented with reinforcement. The calculations are based on the plasticity theory and therefore the stress in the concrete can not be higher than the plastic strength of the concrete, fcd = 0.5 25. The stringers width is usually not bigger than 20% of the

11

+D=FJAH
calculated as:

Theory

total mesh rectangle area length/width [7]. The needed concrete area in the stringer is

Ac,needed =
design concrete strength. So the concrete can take up total force of:

F fcd
is the eciency factor and

(2.3.10)

where F is the compression force in the stringer,

fcd

is the

C = Ac fcd
where

(2.3.11)

Ac

is

The needed reinforcement is:

0.2 height of mesh rectangle wall width As,c = F C fyd

(2.3.12)

In the rectangle mesh areas the reinforcement is placed orthogonal and parallel with the coordinate system or parallel with the stringers and the needed reinforcement and is calculated as:

As =
where b is the width of the wall. [18] [13]

max b fyd

(2.3.13)

2.4

Finite Element Analysis

In this project three computer programs are used, SAP2000, ETABS and ANSYS, all based on nite element analysis. In recent years, the use of nite element modeling as a design tool has grown rapidly. Here the whole content of the nite element method or its equations will not be detailed. Only the basic part that is important for this project.

2.4.1

Basic Concepts

The nite element method (FEM) also called nite element analysis (FEA) is a numerical procedure that can be used to obtain solutions to a variety of problems in engineering such as stress analysis, heat transfer and uid ow. Using programs based on FEA is very powerful and impressive engineering tools. The method is based on that a continuous system with innite number of degrees of freedom (DOF) is characterized as a nite discrete multidegree-of-freedom system, so that FEM models possessing tens of thousands of DOF are not uncommon. Several methods exist for FEA but the basic steps involved in any FEA consist of the following:

X X X

Create and discretize the solution domain into nite elements; that is subdivide the problem into nodes and elements. Assume a shape function to represent the physical behavior of an element; that is, a continuous function is assumed to represent the approximate solution of an element. Develop equations for an element.

Nonlinear Analysis
X X X

Section 2.5

[6]

Assemble the elements to present the entire problem. Construct the global stiness matrix. Apply boundary conditions, and loading. Solve a set of linear or nonlinear algebraic equations simultaneously to obtain nodal results, such as displacement values at dierent nodes.

2.5

Nonlinear Analysis

In recent years nonlinear nite element models have been used to utilize the behavior of reinforced concrete. Many models have been proposed to describe this nonlinear behavior of a reinforced concrete by using nonlinear nite element analysis. Here the mathematical models used in ANSYS will be described.
2.5.1

Figure 2.5 shows a compressive stress-strain diagram for concrete in uniaxial compression. fc is the peak stress, c1 is the strain at peak stress and cu is the ultimate strain.

Concrete and Steel

Figure 2.5: Stress-strain diagram for concrete [9]

Figure 2.6 shows a stress-strain diagram of reinforcing steel where ft is the tensile strength, fy the yield stress and u the maximum elongation at maximum load

Figure 2.6: Typical stress-strain diagram of reinforcing steel [9] 13

+D=FJAH

Theory

For higher grades of steel or steel strengths the tensile and yield strength gets higher.

2.5.2 Reinforced Concrete The characteristic stages of reinforced concrete can be illustrated by Figure 2.7 which shows a typical load-displacement relationship. This nonlinear relationship can be divided into three intervals:
I II III

The uncracked elastic stage Crack propagation The plastic stage

The last two stages or the nonlinear response is caused by cracking in the concrete and plasticity in the reinforcement and of compression in the concrete. Other time-independent nonlinearities are from the nonlinear action of the individual constituents of reinforced concrete, e.g., bond slip between steel and concrete, aggregate interlock of cracked concrete and dowel action of reinforced concrete. Creep, shrinkage and temperature changes, which are all time-dependent eects also contribute to the nonlinear response. [21]

Figure 2.7:

Typical load-displacement relationship for reinforced concrete element [21]

2.5.3 Mathematical Modeling The strength of concrete under multiaxial stresses is a function of the state of stress and can not be predicted by limitations of simple tensile, compressive and shearing stresses independently of each other. That is the strength of concrete elements can only be properly determined by considering the interaction of the various components of the state of stress. When the state of stress or strain reaches critical value, the concrete can start failing by fracturing. The fracture of concrete can occur in two dierent forms. One is by cracking, under tensile type of stress states, and the other by crushing under compressive types of stress states. The tensile weakness of concrete is a major factor contributing to
14

Nonlinear Analysis
the nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete element.

Section 2.5

The tensile weakness of concrete resulting in cracking is a major factor contributing to the nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete. Kupfer obtained a tensile strength of concrete under biaxial stress states and his data provides a good denition of the basic tensile strength of concrete under tension-tension or tension-compression biaxial stress elds and can be seen in Figure 2.8

Figure 2.8: Biaxial strength Envelope for Plain Concrete [19]

Willam and Warnke (1975) developed a widely used model for triaxial failure surface for plain concrete. The failure surface is shown in Figure 2.9 where it is plotted in the coordinate system

1 , 2

and

3 .

It is an three-dimensional stress space and is separated as an axis of revolution. The mathematical

into hydrostatic and deviatoric sections. The hydrostatic section forms a meridianal plane which contains the equisectrix

1 = 2 = 3

model expresses the failure surface in terms of average or hydrostatic stress, in volume), the average shear stress, a and the angle as:

(change

and the failure surface is dened

1 a 1 a + =1 z fcu r() fcu

where z is the apex of the surface and concrete.

(2.5.1)

fcu

is the uniaxial compressive strength of the

The parameters that form the failure surface, z and r are identied from the uniaxial compressive strength, biaxial compressive strength and the uniaxial tension strength along with two points of high triaxial compression. So this representation requires ve data points and the model is called the ve parameter model of Willam and Warnke. [4] [19]

15

+D=FJAH

Theory

Figure 2.9: Triaxial strength surface in principal stress space [19]

Figure 2.10 shows a typical uniaxial stress-strain curve for plain concrete up to tensile and compressive failure. For tensile failure, the behavior is essentially linearly elastic up to the failure load, the maximum stresses coincide with the maximum strains, and no plastic strains occur at the failure moment. For compressive failure, the material initially exhibits almost linear behavior up to the proportional limit at point A. Point A is the yielding point and before the stresses in the concrete reach that point the concrete is said to be recoverable and can be treated within the framework of elasticity theory. After point A only the portion e can be recovered from the total deformation and the concrete is progressively weakened by internal microcracking up to the end of the perfectly plastic ow region CD at point D. The nonlinear deformation are basically plastic and it is clear that the phenomenon in the region AC and in the region CD correspond exactly to the behavior of a work hardening elastoplastic and elastic perfectly plastic solid, respectively. As can seen from Figure 2.10 the total strain in a plastic material can be considered as the sum of the reversible elastic strain e and the permanent plastic strain p . A material is called perfectly plastic or work-hardening according as it does or does not admit changes of permanent strain under constant stress. [21]

Figure 2.10: Typical load-displacement relationship for reinforced concrete element [21] 16

Nonlinear Analysis
2.5.3.1 Elastic Based Model - Before Yielding Point

Section 2.5

Many elasticity based models have been developed to represent the behavior of concrete and the eld of elasticity-based models are quite broad. They can be broken down into subcategories based on the state of stress that is modeled (uniaxial, biaxial or triaxial) and the form of constitutive relations (incremental or total stress-strain models). The subject in this project, the shear wall, is under biaxial loading where plane stresses can be found. For biaxial models the the most widely used representation is the isotropic total stress-strain models. Kupfer and Gerstle devised a isotropic stress strain model for concrete under biaxial loading based on a monotonic tests of concrete under biaxial stress and is expressed in the following form:
1 x E y = (1 2 ) xy 0
where E is the modulus of elasticity and

1 0

0 0
(1) e

x x x

(2.5.2)

is the poisson ratio. [19]

2.5.3.2

Elastic-Strain Hardening Plastic Model - After Yielding Point

The response of the concrete after the yield point A in Figure 2.10 which is the irrecoverable part, or the elastic-plastic response, is described by the theory of plasticity. In general models based on the plasticity describe concrete as an elastic-perfectly plastic material, or to account for the hardening behavior up to the ultimate strength, as an elastic-plastic-hardening material. Here the elastic strain hardening plastic model will be described, which is an approach where an initial yield surface is dened as the limiting surface for elastic behavior and is located at a certain distance from the fracture (failure) surface. Figure 2.11 shows the loading surface of concrete in a biaxial stress plane for a work-hardening-plasticity model and shows the projections of the projection of the tow limiting surfaces. When the state of stress lies within the initial yield surface the material behavior is said to be in elastic range and linear-elastic equations can be applied. When the stresses in the material go above the elastic limit surface (the yield line) a new yield surface called the loading surface is developed and it replaces the initial yield surface. Unloading and reloading of the material within this subsequent loading surface results in elastic behavior and no additional irrecoverable deformation will occur until this new surface is reached. If further discontinuity is continued beyond this surface a nal collapse of the concrete cracking or crushing occurs, depending on the nature of the stress state.

%

+D=FJAH

Theory

Figure 2.11: Loading surfaces of concrete in biaxial stress plane for a

work-hardening-plasticity model [4] The formulation of the constitutive relations for a strain-hardening plastic material is based on three fundamental assumptions: 1. The shape of an initial yield surface 2. The evolution of subsequent loading surface (or hardening rule) 3. The formulation of an appropriate ow rule. [4] [19]

2.5.3.3 The Shape of an Initial Yield Surface

There exists a loading function f which depends upon the state of stress and strain and the history of loading. In other words, at each stage of a plastic deformation or unloading, there is some function of stress f (ij ) such that no additional plastic deformations take place when f is smaller than some number k and plastic ow of a work-hardening material occurs when f exceeds k. That is f is dependent of state of stress, the plastic strains and the hardening parameter: f = f (ij , p , k) (2.5.3) ij So dierent material states can be dened:
X f =0 X f <0

represents yield states. elastic behavior occurs.

[4]

18

Nonlinear Analysis
2.5.3.4 The evolution of Subsequent Loading Surface

Section 2.5

The hardening rule denes the motion of the subsequent yield surface during plastic loading. Three types of hardening rules are frequently used in strain-hardening plasticity models and they are isotropic, kinematic and mixed. In the nonlinear analysis in this project the kinematic hardening rule is used. It assumes that during plastic ow the loading surface translates as a rigid body in the stress space, maintaining the size and shape of the initial yield surface. The model is illustrated schematically in Figure 2.12.

Figure 2.12: Kinematic hardening rule [1]

2.5.3.5 The Flow Rule

The necessary connection between the loading function, f, and the stress-strain relation for a work-hardening material will be made by means of ow rule. When the current yield surface f is reached, the material is in a state of plastic pow upon further loading. Introducing the concept of a plastic potential function g(ij , ij , k) in analogy with idealuid-ow problems, the ow rule is dened as:
dp = d ij g ij

(2.5.4)

The ow rule is associated if the plastic potential surface has the same shape as the yield condition p p
f (ij , ij , k) = g(ij , ij , k) dp = d ij f ij

then

(2.5.5)

This relation is called the associated ow rule because it is connected with the loading surface. [4]
2.5.4 Finite Element Modeling of Cracks

Many models have been developed to represent cracking during nite element analysis of a reinforced concrete member. Two main approaches are common for a representative analysis, the discrete crack and smeared crack approach and the use of joint or interface elements. The discrete crack approach requires monitoring the response and modifying the topology of the nite element mesh corresponding to the current crack congurations at each state of loading. Discrete crack models explicitly represent crack as a separation of nodes and

19

+D=FJAH

Theory

the node is redened as two nodes. Having many cracks leads to many degrees of freedom and the mesh topology of the problem may have to be changed signicantly to cope with new crack patterns. Therefore the discrete crack approach may not be the best choice for problems with many cracks, like in reinforced concrete elements. These problems can mostly be avoided in the smeared crack approach, which models cracks and joints in an average sense by appropriately modifying material properties at the integration points of regular nite elements. The formation of a crack involves no remeshing or new degrees of freedom. However they have limited ability to model sharp discontinuities and represent the topology or material behavior in the vicinity of the crack. The smeared crack approach works best when cracks to be modeled are themselves smeared out, as in reinforced concrete applications. [16]

2.6

Ductility

To minimize major damage and to ensure the survival of buildings with moderate resistance with respect to lateral force, structures must be capable of sustaining a high proportion of their initial strength when a major earthquake imposes large deformations. These deformations may be well beyond the elastic limit. This ability of the structure or its components, or of the materials used to oer resistance in the inelastic domain of response, is described by the general term ductility. It includes the ability to sustain large deformations, and a capacity to absorb energy by hysteric behavior. The ductility is dened as the ratio of the total imposed displacements to that at the onset of yield

at any instant

y . = >1 y
(2.6.1)

The ductility, is:

, of a structure, that is the ductility developed when failure is imminent u y

u =
The displacements

(2.6.2)

and

may represent strain, curvature, rotation or deection,

where the deection is the most convenient quantity to evaluate either the ductility imposed on a structure by earthquake

m or the structures's capacity to develop ductility u .

Ductility is the structural property that will need to be relied on in most buildings if satisfactory behavior under damage control and survival limit state is to be achieved. An important consideration in the determination of the required seismic resistance will be that the estimated maximum ductility demand during shaking does not exceed the ductility potential

u .

It is possible to satisfy the performance criteria of the damage

control and survival limit state by one of the three distinct design approaches, related to the level of ductility permitted of the structure. An illustration of these three approaches are shown in Figure 2.13 where the strength forces and structural displacements are related to each other.

SE ,

required to resist earthquake-induced

at the development at dierent levels of strength

Cracks

Section 2.7

Figure 2.13: Relationship between strength and ductility [21] a Elastic response. Because of their great importance, certain buildings will deed to possess adequate strength to ensure that they remain essentially elastic. Other structures, perhaps of lesser importance, may nevertheless possess a level of inherent strength such that elastic response is assured. The idealized response of such structure is shown in Figure 2.13 by the bilinear strength-displacement path OAA . The maximum displacement me is very close to the displacement of the ideal elastic structure. b Ductile response. Most ordinary buildings are designed to resist lateral seismic force which are smaller than those that would be developed in an elastically responding structure as Figure 2.13 shows, that inelastic deformation and hence ductility will be required of the structure. These structures can be divided into two groups. 1. Fully ductile structures ; These are designed to possess the maximum ductility potential than can reasonably be achieved at carefully identied and detailed inelastic regions. The idealized bilinear response of this type of structure is shown in Figure 2.13 by the path OCC 2. Structures with Restricted Ductility ; Certain structures inherently possess signicant strength with respect to lateral forces as a consequence, for example, of the presence of large areas of structural walls.

Figure 2.13 shows approximate values of ductility factors which may be used as guides for the limit of the categories discussed. Although displacement ductilities in excess of 8 can be developed in some well-detailed reinforced concrete structures, the associated maximum displacements mf are likely to be beyond limits set by other design criteria, such as structural stability. Elastically responding structures, implying no or negligible ductility demands, represent the other limit. [21]

2.7

Cracks

Cracking should be limited to a level that will not impair the proper functioning of the structure or cause its appearance to be unacceptable, it is also important from the
21

+D=FJAH
aesthetic view to control the cracking.

Theory

Concrete cracks early in its loading history. Most cracks are results from the following actions. 1. Volumetric change caused by plastic shrinkage or expensive chemical reactions within hardened concrete,creep and thermal stresses. 2. Stress because of bending, shear or other moments caused by transverse loads. 3. Direct stress due to applied loads or reactions or internal stresses due to continuity, reversible fatigue load, long-term deection, environmental eects or dierential movements in structural system. While the net results of these three actions cause the formation of cracks, the mechanism of their development cannot be considered identical. Volumetric change cause internal micro-cracking, which may develop into full cracking. This project deals with formations of cracks from the second and the third action where external loads results in direct and bending stresses causing exural, bond and diagonal tension cracks. As the tensile stress in the concrete exceeds its tensile strength, internal micro-cracks form. These cracks develop into macro-cracks propagating to the external ber zone of the element. The maximum crack width that a structural element should be permitted to develop depends on the particular function of the element and the environmental condition to which the structure is liable to be subjected. Icelandic houses are usually in exposure class 2b (according to EC2) meaning that the environment is humid and frost occurs and for corrosion protection to the reinforcement, the limitation of the maximum design crack width is about 0.3 mm [9][17]

2.8

Methods to Calculate Cracks

The design provision at the ultimate limit states may lead to excessive stresses in the concrete and the reinforcing steel. These stresses may, as consequence, adversely aect the appearance and performance in service conditions and the durability of concrete structures.

2.8.1

Calculation of design crack widths

wk = srm sm

The design crack width may be obtained from EC2:4.4.2.4 from the relation: (2.8.1)

where: wk is the design crack width. srm is the average nal crack spacing. sm is the mean strain allowed under the relevant combination of loads for the eects of tension stiening, shrinkage, etc. is a coecient relating the average crack width to the design value and here it may be

Shear Wall
taken as 1.3 or 1.7.

Section 2.9

sm

may be calculated from the relation:

sm =
where:

sr 2 s (1 1 2 ( ) ) Es s

(2.8.2)

s is the stress in the tension reinforcement calculated on the basis of a cracked section. sr is the stress in the tension reinforcement calculated in the basis of a cracked section
under the loading conditions causing the rst cracking.

is a coecient which takes account of the bond properties of the bars, 1 for high bond

bars and 0.5 for plain bars.

2 is a coecient which takes account of the duration of the loading or of repeated loading,
1 for a single short term loading and 0.5 for a sustained load or for many cycles of repeated loading. The average nal crack spacing for members subjected dominantly to exure or tension can be calculated with the equation:

srm = 50 + 0.25k1 k2 /pr

where:

(2.8.3)

is the bar size in mm. Where mixture of bar sizes is used in section, an average bar size is a coecient which takes account of the bond properties of the bars; is a coecient which takes account of the form of the strain distribution. [9]

may be used.

k1 k2

2.9

Shear Wall

Shear walls are commonly put into multi-storey buildings because of their good performance under lateral loads like earthquake forces because they provide lateral stability and they act as vertical cantilevers in resisting the horizontal forces. The shear wall that is considered in this project if shown in Figure 2.14. It is a three story wall with one door on the ground oor and 8 windows.

Figure 2.14: The Shear Wall 23

+D=FJAH

Theory

Stiness, strength and ductility are the basic criteria that the structure should satisfy and shear walls provide a nearly optimum means of achieving those objectives. Buildings having shear walls are stier than framed structures resulting in reduced deformations under earthquake load. The necessary strength to avoid damage in the structure can be achieved by properly detailed longitudinal and transverse reinforcement and providing that special detailing measures are adopted, dependable ductile response can be achieved under major earthquakes. Structural walls usually have openings, in this project the openings are that big that they can not be neglected in the design computations because they aect the shear and exural strength of the wall. Walls of the type shown in Figure 2.15, and of the same type as the wall analyzed here, are characterized by a small height-to-length ratio, hw /lw . The potential exural strength of such walls may be very large in comparison with lateral forces. Because of the small height, relatively large shearing forces must be generated

Figure 2.15: Structural wall [21]

To accommodate large seismically induced deformations, most structures need to be ductile. Thus in the design of structures for ductile, it is preferable to consider forces generated by earthquake-induced displacements rather than traditional loads. [21]

24

+D=FJAH !

The Building and the Load

In this chapter the analyzed building is described, the total mass calculated and the applied load from an earthquake on the building is calculated. The house is a three story oce building, it does not exist in reality and it is assumed that it is placed on the South part of Iceland.

3.1

The Building

Drawings of the building is shown in gures 3.1 and 3.2. The building is a RC structure with windows all of the same size and it is assumed that the roof is monotonic made of concrete. Figure 3.2 shows the geometry of the wall analyzed, it has eight windows and one door. Openings are 23% of the area and height versus length (H/L) ratio is 0.78. The concrete strength is C30/35 and the wall thickness is 200 mm. The dimensions and parameters of the building can be seen in gures 3.1 and 3.2 and Table 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Plan View 25

+D=FJAH !

The Building and the Load

Figure 3.2: The Shear Wall Dimensions

The following parameters are given regarding the structure:

Table 3.1: The buildings parameters Building height H=9.0 Building width W=20 Building depth (shear wall) L=11.5 Story height h=3.0 Wall thickness tw =200 Floor slab/roof thickness ts =200 Density of concrete c =2500 Density of glass c =2600 Thickness of double glass tg =0.008 Young's modulus for concrete Ec = 3.4 1010 Dead and live loading on each story q = 5000 Concrete strength C30 Reinforcement strength 500 MPa
3.1.1 The Mass of the Building

[m] [m] [m] [m] [mm] [mm] [kg/m3 ] [kg/m3 ] [m] [N/m2 ] [N/m2 ]

Even thought that in this project only one wall of the building is analyzed the weight of the whole building has to be calculated to be able to calculate the total earthquake force applied on the wall. Figure 3.3 shows the dimensions of the longitudinal wall.

26

The Building

Section 3.2

Figure 3.3: The Longitudinal Wall Dimensions

The mass of the total building is:
T he shear wall : Longitudinal wall : Roof and slabs : 2 0.2 9 11.5 = 41.4 m3 2 0.2 9 20 = 72 m3 3 0.2 11.5 20 = 138 m3 = = = 2 8 0.2 2.5 1.2 = 9.6 m3 2 15 0.2 2.5 1.25 = 18 m3 2 0.2 1 2.2 = 0.88 m3

Openings:
Shear wall windows : Shear wall door : Longitudinal wall windows :

Total volume of concrete The total mass of the concrete:

41.4 + 72 + 138 9.6 0.88 18 = 223 m3 223m3 2500kg/m3 = 557300kg

Mass of the glass:

(2 (1 2.2 + (8 + 15) 2.5 1.2) 0.008 = 1.14m3 1.14m3 2600kg/m3 = 2962kg

The total mass of the building

557300 + 2962 = 560261kg

Mass for each story: m1 =150877 kg m2 =186754 kg m3 =186754 kg

27

+D=FJAH !
3.2

The Building and the Load

Pushover Analysis

Pushover analysis is non-linear static approach carried out under constant gravity loads and by subjecting monotonically increasing lateral forces. The forces are applied at the location of the masses in the structural model, representing the inertial forces which would be experienced by the structure when subjected to ground shaking. Three basic methods are used in seismic analysis to estimate the response of the building and the internal forces. 1. Methods that are based on equivalent lateral force. 2. Methods based on multi modal response analysis. 3. Methods based on non-linear time history analysis. The rst method uses a static force which is distributed on the building according to specic rules listed in EC8. This method is good for simple regular buildings and could therefore be applied for the three story shear wall.

3.2.0.1 Lateral Force Patterns

The selection of an appropriate lateral load distribution is important within the pushover analysis. In EC8 the non-linear static procedure requires at least two force distributions, a uniform and modal pattern. The uniform pattern is with lateral forces that are proportional to masses and the modal pattern varies with change in deected shape as it yields or more precise from EC8:4.3.3.4.2.2, pushover analysis should be performed using both of the following lateral load patterns: 1. A "uniform" pattern, based on lateral forces that are proportional to mass regardless of elevation (unform response acceleration); 2. A "modal" pattern, which depends on the type of linear analysis applicable to the particular structure. Because the building satises the condition for the application of lateral force analysis method, an 'inverted triangular' unidirectional force pattern, similar to the one used in that method is used. The most unfavorable result of the pushover analysis using the two standard lateral force patterns should be adopted. Moreover, unless there is perfect symmetry with respect to an axis orthogonal to that of the seismic action components considered, each lateral force pattern should be applied in both the positive and the negative direction, and the result used should be the most unfavorable one from the two analyses. In this thesis only the second load pattern is used in the static pushover analysis.

3.2.0.2 Capacity Curve

The key outcome of the pushover analysis is the 'capacity curve', i.e. the relation between the base shear force, Fb , and the representative lateral displacement of the structure, dn . That displacement is often taken at a certain node n of the structural model, termed the control node. The control node is normally at the roof level. [10] [12]
&

Load - Lateral Force Method of Analysis

Section 3.3

3.3

Load - Lateral Force Method of Analysis

In the lateral force method a linear static analysis of the structure is performed under a set of lateral forces applied separately in two orthogonal horizontal directions, x and y. The intent is to simulate through these forces the peak inertia load induced by the horizontal component of the seismic action in the two directions, x and y. Owing to the familiarity and experience of structural engineers with elastic analysis for static loads (due to gravity, wind or other static actions), this method has long been - and still is the workhorse for practical seismic design.

3.3.1

Can the Lateral Force Method be used?

According to EC8:4.3.3.2.1(1)P the lateral force method can be applied to buildings whose response is not signicantly aected by contributions from modes of vibration higher than the fundamental mode in each principal direction. The fundamental period of vibration, than:

T1 ,

in the two main directions should be smaller

T1

4 Tc 2.0s

= 4 0.4 = 1.6s,

(3.3.1)

Where Tc = 0 is found in EC8, Table 3.2, and the building shall meet the criteria for regularity in elevation, given in EC8: 4.2.3.3. According to EC8: 4.3.3.2.2 the seismic base shear force,

Fb

for the horizontal direction (3.3.2)

Fb = Sd (T1 ) m
where

Sd (T1 ) is the ordinate of the design spectrum at period T1 . (See EC8: 3.2.2.5) m is the total mass of the building, computed in accordance with EC8:3.2.4(2)
is the correction factor, here

= 0.85

if

stories.

T1 2Tc

and the building has more than two

T1
where wall.

can be approximated:

Ct =

0.075 - for a concrete shear wall and Ac

T1 = Ct H 3/4 Ac

(3.3.3) is the total eective area of the shear

Ac

is given by the equation:

Ac =
Where

[Ai (0.2 + (lwi /H))2 ]

(3.3.4)

Ai is the eective cross sectional area of the shear wall i in the rst storey of the 2 building in m .

lwi is the length of the shear wall i in the rst storey in the direction parallel to the applied forces, in m,.
H is the height of the building, in m, from the foundation or the top of the rigid basement and lwi /H should not exceed 0.9.

'

+D=FJAH !

The Building and the Load

It is assumed that the building has two opposite shear walls.

Ai = 11.5m 0.2m = 2.3m2 2 From 3.3.4 Ac = 2 (2.3 (0.2 +0.9 )) = 2.323 Then Ct can be calculated: 0.075 = 0.049 Ct = 2.323
Finally the rst period is calculated from 3.3.3

T1 = 0.049 93/4 = 0.256

See if it ts the requirements from 3.3.1

T1 = 0, 256s
[10]

4 Tc 2.0s

= 4 0.4 = 1.6s,

Therefore the lateral force method of analysis can be used.

3.3.2
needed.

The Design Response Spectra

To calculate the seismic base shear force the shape of the design response spectra is The building is placed on the South Iceland Seismic Zone (SISZ). The horizontal ground acceleration for Iceland according to the Icelandic National Annex FS ENV 1998-1-1:1994 can be seen in Figure 3.4. The ground acceleration is 0.4g.

Figure 3.4: Horizontal ground acceleration for Iceland

Usually houses in Iceland are built on solid rock or ground type A. The importance class is set to III, which is for ordinary buildings not belonging to the other three importance classes, see EC8: Table 4.3. The following parameters (in Table 3.2) are used to

30

Load - Lateral Force Method of Analysis

calculate the shape of the design response spectra:

Section 3.3

Ground type Importance class Ground acceleration Behavior factor

Table 3.2: Parameters for design response spectra

ag = 0.4g q = q0 kw 1.5

A III 1 = 1 (the important factor)

According to EC8:5.2.2.2 q0 is the basic value dependent on the type of the structural system and on its regularity in elevation. The building has Ductility Class Medium (DCM) so q0 = 3

kw =

(1 + 0 ) 1but not less than 0.5 3 hwi 29 = 0.78 = 2 11.5 lwi

0 =

The behavior factor can then be calculated

q = 3 0.59 = 1.78
From EC8 3.2.2.5 the horizontal design response spectrum, Sd (T ), is dened by the following expression:

2 T 2.5 2 0 T TB : Sd (T ) = ag S [ + )] ( 3 TB q 3 TB T TC : Sd (T ) = ag S TC T TD : Sd (T ) = 2.5 q

ag S 2.5 [ TC ] q T aq

TD T : Sd (T ) =

ag S 2.5 [ TC TD ] q T2 aq

T is the vibration period of a linear single-degree-of-freedom system. The design ground acceleration according to EC8.3.2.1(3)is:

ag = I agR = 1 0.4 9.81 = 4.12m/s2

(3.3.5)

TB , TC are the limits of the constant spectral acceleration branch and TD is the value
dening the beginning of the constant displacement response range of the spectrum. S is the soil factor. The damping correction factor is , with reference value = 1 for 5% viscous damping. The following values in Table 3.3 are dened and describe the recommended type 1 design response spectrum for type A ground, see EC 8: Table 3.2

31

+D=FJAH !

The Building and the Load

Table 3.3: Parameters for type 1 design response spectrum.

S=1 TB (S) = 0.15 TC (S) = 0.4 TD (S) = 2.0

The horizontal design spectrum is evaluated in MATLAB and the script can be seen in appendix A and the shape of the design response spectrum in Figure 3.5.
The response spectrum for = 0.05 1.5

1
g dh

S /a

0.5

0.5

1.5

2 T

2.5

3.5

Figure 3.5: Horizontal design spectrum

From Figure 3.5 it can be seen that for T1 = 0.256
Sd (T1 ) = 1.068 Sd (T1 ) = 1.404 0.4 9.81 1 = 5.5m/s2 ag

Use EC8:4.3.3.2.3 to distribute the horizontal seismic forces: According to 4.3.3.2.3(3) the fundamental mode shape is approximated by horizontal displacements increasing linearly along the height, the horizontal forces, Fi , should be taken as being given by: z i mi Fi = Fb (3.3.6) where mi , mj are the storey masses. zi , zj are the heights of the masses, mi , mj , above the level of application of the seismic action. The mass is computed in accordance with EC8:3.2.4(2)
mi = Gk,j + E,i Qk,i zj mj

(3.3.7)

32

Load - Lateral Force Method of Analysis

Section 3.3

where E,i is the combination coecient for variable action E and is computed from the following expression E,i = 2i , here = 0.5 and 2i = 0.3 Here live load is set to 2kN/m2 on each story.
m1 m2 m3 = = = 150877kg 186754 + 244195kg 2000 20 11.5 3000 10 11.5 + 0.3 0.5 = 244195kg 9.81 9.81 3kN/m2

(oce building) and dead load (furniture etc.) to

Total mass, m=639268 kg So from eq. 3.3.2 the seismic base shear force is:
Fb = 5.5 636683 0.85 = 2989kN zj mj = 9 150877 + 6 244195 + 3 244195 = 3555648kg

Which gives:
F1 F2 F3 = 2989 9 150877 = 1141kN 3555648 6 243150 = 2989 = 1226kN 3555648 3 243150 = 2989 = 613kN 3555648

The loads F1 , F2 and F3 are divided on two shear walls (i.e. one in each end of the building) and the load acting on shear wall to be analysed is therefore:
F1 F2 F3 = = = 570kN 613kN 307kN

3.3.3

Vertical Load

Safety factor for permanent action is 1.35 and 1.5 for variable action:
1.35

Weight from the roof:

1 3 1 3

Weight from the oor with live and dead load:

45kN/m + 1.35 3

20m 0.2m 25kN/m3 = 45kN/m 20 + 1.35 2

1 3

Weight from the shear wall:

20m = 92kN/m

1.35 3m 0.2m 11.525kN/m3 = 0.81kN/m

Load on top: 45kN/m Load on second oor: 138kN/m

!!

+D=FJAH !
Load on rst oor: 138kN/m

The Building and the Load

The load applied on the shear wall can be seen in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6: Forces applied on the shear wall

34

+D=FJAH "

Reinforcement Design
4.1 The Stringer Method
The Stringer method is explained in section 2.3.2. It starts by dividing the wall into stingers, nodes and rectangle mesh areas. The nodes are given numbers from 1 to 86 and the areas are marked from x1 to x18 . When marking the areas the thought was due to symmetry of the wall that some of the mesh rectangles are assumed to have the same shear stress. There are eighteen unknown values so eighteen equations have to be created to be able to nd the shear stress in each mesh rectangle. Here the line containing node one to eight is called stringer line 1, node 9 to 16 stringer line 2 and etc. This conguration can be seen in Figure 4.1
4.1.1 The Load

In chapter 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 the load acting on the shear wall was calculated. For the wall to be in equilibrium, moments from the forces are calculated and loads put on the wall to balance it. That is for the three calculated horizontal loads acting on the building, forces are acting upon the wall so the set of the loads acting on the wall is zero. The moment acting on the building from the calculated horizontal loads:
570kN 9m + 613kN 6m + 307kN 3m = 9729kN m

Forces acting against the horizontal loads are applied at the vertical stringer lines and are calculated as:
9729 = 2 P (5.75 + 2.252 1.252 4.752 + + ) P = 449kN 5.75 5.75 5.75

449

4.75 5.75 2.25 449 5.75 1.25 449 5.75

= = =

370kN 175kN 98kN

The applied forces for the calculations in the stringer method are shown in Figure 4.2.
!#

+D=FJAH "

Reinforcement Design

Figure 4.1: The wall divided into nodes, stringers and areas

Figure 4.2: The forces acting on the wall for Stringer Method

36

The Stringer Method

4.1.2 Calculation of Shear Stresses and Stringer Forces

Section 4.1

There are 10 horizontal equilibriums and 8 vertical equilibriums to nd the shear stress in each mesh rectangle, x1 to x18 . The equations are created by taking horizontal and vertical sections through the wall. The eighteen equilibrium equations are:

(4 x1 1000mm + 3 x2 2500mm) 200mm = 570000N (4 x3 1000mm) 200mm = 570000N

! " # $ % & '    ! " # $ % &

(4 x4 1000mm + 3 x5 2500mm) 200mm = 570000N (4 x6 1000mm + 3 x7 2500mm) 200mm = 1183000N 4 x8 1000mm 200mm = 1183000N (4 x9 1000mm + 3 x10 2500mm) 200mm = 1183000N (4 x11 1000mm + 3 x12 2500mm) 200mm = 1490000N (2 x13 1000mm + x16 1750mmx18 1650mm) 200mm = 1490000N (2 x14 1000mm + 2 x15 2500mm + x17 1750mmx18 1650mm) 200mm = 1490000N (x1 700mm + x3 1200mm + x4 1100mm + x6 700mm + x8 1200mm+ x9 1100mm + x11 700mm + x13 1200mm + x14 1100mm) 200mm = 449000N (x2 700mm + x5 1100mm + x7 700mm + x10 1100mm + x12 700mm+ x15 1100mm) 200mm = 819000 (x1 700mm + x3 1200mm + x4 1100mm + x6 700mm + x8 1200mm+ x9 1100mm + x11 700mm + x13 1200mm + x14 1100mm) 200mm = 994000N (x2 700mm + x5 1100mm + x7 700mm + x10 1100mm + x12 700mm+ x15 1100mm) 200mm = 1092000N (x1 700mm + x3 1200mm + x4 1100mm + x6 700mm + x8 1200mm+ x9 1100mm + x11 700mm + x16 1200mm + x17 1100mm) 200mm = 994000N (x2 700mm + x5 1100mm + x7 700mm + x10 1100mm + x12 700mm+ x16 1200mm + x17 1100mm) 200mm = 819000 (x2 700mm + x5 1100mm + x7 700mm + x10 1100mm + x12 700mm) 200mm = 819000N (x2 700mm + x5 1100mm + x7 700mm + x10 1100mm + x12 700mm+ x18 1200mm + x18 1100mm) 200mm = 819000N (x1 700mm + x3 1200mm + x4 1100mm + x6 700mm + x8 1200mm+ x9 1100mm + x11 700mm + x18 2300mm) 200mm = 449000N

!%

+D=FJAH "

Reinforcement Design

Matlab is used to solve these equations and are put into the matrices A and b as seen below:
A=200*[4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 4*1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0 4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4*1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2*1000 0 0 1750 0 1750; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2*1000 2*2500 0 1750 1750; 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 0 0 0; 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 0 0; 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 0 0 0; 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 0 0; 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 0 0 0 1200 1100 0; 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 0 1200 1100 0; 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 2300; 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 2300];

b= [-570000; -570000 -570000 -1183000 -1183000 -1183000 -1490000 -1490000 -1490000 -449000 -819000 -994000 -1092000 -994000 -819000 -819000 -819000 -449000];

Unfortunately the matrices do not have a unique solution. But one of the solutions can be found by using the MATLAB function x = pinv(A) b to solve x to x , the pinv function is an expensive way to calculate the inverse of matrix. The results are shown in Table 4.1, the shear stresses for the rst nine mesh rectangles are acceptable and their
1 18

!&

The Stringer Method

Section 4.1

errors are about 1% or less. For the calculated shear stresses from x10 to x18 the error is highest for x10 or 64% and around 10 to 20% for the other values. Despite for these high errors, these results were used to calculate the stringer forces in the stingers and the reinforcement. The calculated shear stresses in each mesh rectangle can be seen in Table 4.1 along with their errors. The sign of the shear stresses can be seen in Figure 4.3.

Table 4.1: Shear stresses in the rectangular mesh areas

Area name

x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x9 x10 x11 x12 x13 x14 x15 x16 x17 x18

Shear stress [MPa] 0.1349 -0.4542 -0.7198 0.3022 -0.5447 -0.0348 -0.7724 -1.4860 0.1325 -0.8629 -0.1197 -0.9317 -1.8138 0.6172 -1.7271 -1.8881 0.2641 -0.2613

Error [%] 0.59 1.0 0.93 0.29 0.49 0.45 0.23 1.2 1.1 64 21 26 9.2 16 22 25 11 25

Figure 4.3: Sign of the shear stresses

Now all the shear stresses in the mesh areas have been calculated and the next step is to calculate the forces in the horizontal stringer lines from one to ten and in the vertical stringer lines numbered from 11 to 18. The forces and the required reinforcement is calculated by the method and equations shown in section 2.3.2. The calculations were made in MATLAB and, the script can be seen in Appendix B The reinforcement arrangement can be seen in Figure 4.9. The calculated forces in each stringer line can be seen in the graphs shown in gures 4.4 to 4.8, where negative values are in pressure and positive values in tension. Stringer line 1 is the at the top of the wall (at roof level) were the force 570 kN is applied at the end, like as seen for stringer line 1 in Figure 4.4 the force starts at 570 kN at node 1 and decreases to zero at node 8. The whole stringer is in compression but the force is too big for the concrete alone to uptake it so reinforcement is added. Due to symmetry and to have the

39

+D=FJAH "

Reinforcement Design

reinforcement simplest as possible the reinforcement is the same for the whole stringer line and is put as 4k16. No force is acting on stringer line 2 and therefore the force is zero at node 9 and 16, the force shifts between tension and compression along the stringer line. The predominant force is used to calculate the needed reinforcement and again because of symmetry and making the reinforcement simple the same reinforcement is put in the whole stringer line. The same approach is made for stinger lines 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10.
Horizontal stringer forces 200 0 200 400 600 1 2 3 4 5 stringerline no 1 6 7 8

200 Stringerforce [kN] 100 0 100 200 9 10 11 12 13 stringerline no 2 14 15 16

400 200 0 200 400 17 18 19 20 21 stringerline no 3 22 23 24

Figure 4.4: Horizontal Stringer Forces for stringerline 1 to 3

The force 613 kN is applied at the end of stringer line 4 and the whole stringer line is in compression as seen in Figure 4.5. The force decreases along the line ending as zero ate node 32. Reinforcement is needed to take up the maximum compression force and is calculated to be 4k16 and again due to simplicity and symmetry the same reinforcement is put in the whole stringer line.
Horizontal stringer forces 0 200 400 600 800 25 400 Stringerforce [kN] 200 0 200 400 33 400 200 0 200 400 41 42 43 44 45 stringerline no 6 46 47 48 34 35 36 37 stringerline no 5 38 39 40 26 27 28 29 stringerline no 4 30 31 32

Figure 4.5: Horizontal Stringer Forces for stringerline 4 to 6 40

The Stringer Method

Section 4.1

The force 307 kN is applied at the end of the stringer line 7 and the concrete is able to take up the whole force so no reinforcement is needed.
Horizontal stringer forces 0 200 400 49 Stringerforce [kN] 500 0 500 57 1000 500 0 500 67 1000 0 1000 2000 77 78 79 80 81 82 stringerline no 10 83 84 85 86 68 69 70 71 72 stringerline no 9 73 74 75 76

50

51

52 53 stringerline no 7

54

55

56

58

59

60

61 62 stringerline no 8

63

64

65

66

Figure 4.6: Horizontal Stringer Forces for stringeline 7 to 10

There are eight vertical stringer lines numbered from 11 to 18. The maximum calculated reinforcement is similar in all the vertical stringer lines and the same reinforcement, 4k20, is put in all of them.
Vertical stringer forces 2

10

11

12

17

18

19

20

25 stringerline no 11 stringerline no 12

26 stringerline no 13

27 stringerline no 14 0 500 1000

28

33

34

35

36

41

42

43

44

49

50

51

52

57

58

59

60

67

68

69

70

77 1000

1000

78 500 0 500 Stringerforce [kN]

80

500

500

Figure 4.7: Vertical Stringer Forces for stringerline 11 to 14 41

+D=FJAH "
5

Reinforcement Design
Vertical stringer forces 6 7 8

13

14

15

16

21

22

23

24

29 stringerline no 15 stringerline no 16

30 stringerline no 17

31

32

37

38

39

stringerline no 18 500 0

40

45

46

47

48

53

54

55

56

61

62

65

66

71

72

75

76

81 1000

500

82 1000 500 0 Stringerforce [kN]

85 1000

86

500

500

Figure 4.8: Vertical Stringer Forces for stringerline 15 to 18

Figure 4.9: Reinforcement of the wall based on Stringer method 42

Linear Elastic FE-analysis

Section 4.2

4.2

Linear Elastic FE-analysis

Two of the required reinforcement arrangements are designed based on linear elastic analysis in two FE-programs. One with SAP2000 which is a general purpose FE-program and one with ETABS which is a building specialized FE-program and has a special postprocessor to present section forces in the model.
4.2.1 Modeling in SAP2000 and ETABS

The modeling process in both of the programs is very similar and in this section the process is described and description of the material properties listed. 1. The structure is divided into distinct appropriate elements. In both SAP2000 and ETABS the shell element is used. The shell element combines membrane and platebending behavior, as shown in Figure 4.10. It has six degrees of freedoms in each corner point (only one shown on the gure). It is a simple quadrilateral shell element which has a 24x24 stiness matrix which is transformed to the global XYZ system.

Figure 4.10: Shell Element [26]

2. Grid lines are made for the x,y and z coordinates and the wall is drawn from scratch. 3. Boundary conditions are assigned to the nodes (joints) where it is required. Boundary conditions are assigned at the bottom of the wall (at ground level) where restraints should be against all movements to imitate the behavior of a shear wall. Here only one wall is modeled so restraints are also put against movements perpendicular to the wall. 4. The material properties are dened such as mass, weight, modulus of elasticity, poisson's ratio, strength characteristics etc. The material properties used in the models are shown in Table 4.2.

43

+D=FJAH "

Reinforcement Design

Table 4.2: Material properties of concrete in SAP2000 and ETABS

Material name Type of material Mass per unit volume Modulus of Elasticity Poisson's ratio Concrete strength

C30 Isotropic 2.5 kN/m 32 kN/mm 0.2 30 Mpa

3

5. The geometric properties of the elements are dened such as dimensions for the wall section. 6. Elements are assigned to element type, see Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Wall in SAP2000 and ETABS

Section name Material Thickness Type

w200 C30 200mm Shell

7. Loads are assigned to the joints as they will be applied in the real structure. 8. The model should be ready to be analyzed and forces, stresses and displacements can be looked at.
4.2.2

In ETABS single walls are modeled as a pier/spandrel system, that is the wall is divided into vertical piers and horizontal spandrels. This is a powerful mechanism to obtain design moments, shear forces and normal forces across a wall sections. Appropriate meshing and labeling is the key to proper modeling and design. Loads are only transferred to the wall at the corner points of the area objects that make up the wall. Generally the membrane or shell type element should be used to model walls. Here the shell type is used. There are three types of deformation that a single shell element can experience, are axial deformation, shear deformation and bending deformation, see Figure 4.11.

ETABS

Figure 4.11: Deformations of a shell element in ETABS [8]

Wall pier forces are output at the top and bottom of wall pier elements and wall spandrel forces are output at the left and right ends of wall spandrel element, see Figure 4.12.
44

Linear Elastic FE-analysis

Section 4.2

Figure 4.12: Pier and spandrel forces in ETABS

At the upper level of this model, Pier P1 is dened to extend all the way across the wall above the openings. Pier P2 makes up the wall pier to the left of the top window, pier P4 and P5 occur between the windows and pier P6 is at the right of the top windows. Pier P7 is dened to extend all the way across the wall below the openings. A similar labeling of piers occurs at the lower two levels given names from P8 to P18. The pier labeling can be seen in Figure C.5.

Figure 4.13: Pier labeling

Spandrel labels are assigned in similar way to vertical area objects (walls). The pier and spandrel labels must be assigned to elements before the output forces can be given. Figures of the labeling can be seen in appendix C. The whole wall is meshed into 200 250 rectangles.

45

+D=FJAH "

Reinforcement Design

Figures 4.14 and 4.15 show as an example the moment for all the piers and spandrels which is the most predominant value for the reinforcement around the openings. The values can be seen in Table C.1 and C.2 in Appendix C.

Figure 4.14: Moment, M3, in spandrels

Figure 4.15: Moment, M3, in piers 46

Linear Elastic FE-analysis

Section 4.2

The reinforcement has to be calculated for all the three forces. ETABS is able to give the pier and spandrel forces in tables and the calculations are made in EXCEL and can be seen in appendix C. The calculated reinforcement arrangement from analyzing in ETABS is shown in Figure 4.16.

Figure 4.16: Reinforcement of the wall based on analysis in ETABS

47

+D=FJAH "
4.2.3
X X X X

Reinforcement Design

SAP2000

The shell element stresses computed in SAP2000 or are shown in Figure 4.17 and are: In-plane direct stresses: S11 (= x ) and S22 (= y ). In-plane shear stress: S12 (= xy ) Transverse shear stresses: S13 (= xz ) and S23 (= yz ) Transverse direct stress: S33 (= z )

Here we are interested in the in plane stresses, S11, S22 and S12 or x , y and xy and they are assumed to be constant through the element thickness.

Figure 4.17: The basic types of shell stresses [22]

The result from the SAP2000 analysis is shown in Figures 4.18 to 4.20 based on the loads in Figure 3.6. For x in Figure 4.18 the stresses vary from -10 to 6.5 MPa and for y from -15 to 4.5 MPa where negative values are compression stresses. It is assumed that the concrete can take up negative stresses and reinforcement is needed to take up the tension stresses. As seen from the gures the most critical tresses in x and y direction are around the openings and extra reinforcement is therefore needed there. In order to compute a representative stresses for the reinforcement design around the openings the element stresses from the FE-analysis were averaged around the openings. Three values were taken perpendicular from the window for both stresses in the x and y direction in 0.25 increments perpendicular or over a 0.5 m strip. In similar way the average value for the stresses in the wall were taken one meter in both directions, or 5 values with 0.25 increments. The average values are used to calculate the necessary reinforcement by using the lower bound method described in section 2.3.1. The average values and the calculated reinforcement can be seen in Table 4.4

48

Linear Elastic FE-analysis

Section 4.2

Figure 4.18: Normal stresses, x , from the SAP2000 analysis

Figure 4.19: Normal stresses, y , from the SAP2000 analysis

49

+D=FJAH "

Reinforcement Design

Figure 4.20 shows the shear stresses in the wall and in the same way as for the stresses an average value is found to calculate the necessary reinforcement in the wall.

Figure 4.20: Shear stresses, xy , from analysis in SAP2000

50

Linear Elastic FE-analysis

Section 4.2

Table 4.4: Average stresses and computed reinforcement from SAP2000 Reinforcement around openings
Top left window, above/left Top left window, below/right Top middle window, above/left Top middle window, below/right Top right window, above/left Top right window, below/right Middle left window, above/left Middle left window, below/right Middle middle window, above/left Middle middle window, below/right Middle right window, above/left Middle right window, below/right Bottom left window, above/left Bottom left window, below/right Bottom middle window, above/left Bottom middle window, below/right Door, above Door, sides analysis
x
[M P a ]

y
[M P a]

xy (x )

xy (y )
[M P a ]

Asx
[mm ]

Asy
[mm ]

1.53 1.48 2.38 3.03 2.00 2.53 2.77 2.58 3.40 3.32 2.85 3.75 3.27 1.60 3.26 3.41 1.77
x

0.30 1.67 0.87 1.64 0.36 1.17 0.93 0.00 1.65 1.93 1.27 0.00 1.00 0.69 0.00 1.25

Reinforcement mesh

1.30
y
[M P a]

0.15 0.25 0.31 0.85 0.24 0.68 0.67 0.93 0.98 1.15 0.71 0.37 0.68 0.52 0.36 1.05 1.14 0.60 0.60 1.28 1.75 1.20 0.34 1.25 1.43 0.88 1.02 2.40 3.10 1.38 1.30 2.36 2.42 1.43

[M P a]

0.25 0.88 0.35 1.11 0.69 0.86 0.79 1.58 1.31 1.88 1.15 1.04 0.89 1.15 0.75 1.76

0.50 xy (x ) xy (y )
[M P a ]

154 159 247 356 206 295 316 322 403 411 327 379 363 195 332 410 267 678 138 431 471 391 78 287 328 202 281 552 713 318 321 543 672 329
m

51 234 111 252 96 186 158 145 272 350 222 96 174 169 69 276

Asx
[ mm

Asy
] [ mm

166
m

Top reinforcement Above top windows between top and middle windows between middle and bottom windows below bottom windows Top windows 1 Top windows 2 Top windows 3 Top windows 4 Middle windows 1 Middle windows 2 Middle windows 3 Middle windows 4 Bottom windows 1 Bottom windows 2 Bottom windows 3 Bottom windows 4

[M P a ]

2.35 0.00 0.60 0.30 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.50 0.00

[M P a]

0.00 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50

0.60 0.60 1.28 1.75 1.20 0.34 1.25 1.43 0.88 1.02 2.40 3.10 1.38 1.30 2.36 2.42 1.43

138 138 363 471 368 78 287 328 202 235 552 713 318 528 543 557 444

51

+D=FJAH "

Reinforcement Design

Figure 4.21: Reinforcement arrangement of the wall based on analysis in SAP2000

52

Minimum Reinforcement according to EC2

4.3
4.3.1

Section 4.3

Minimum Reinforcement according to EC2

Vertical Reinforcement

1. According to EC2 the area of reinforcement should be between |0.004|Ac and |0.04|Ac where Ac is the corresponding concrete section area. 2. In general, half of this reinforcement should be located at each face. 3. The distance between two adjacent vertical bars shall not exceed |twice| the wall thickness or |300mm| whichever is lesser. Based on this it is decided to have the vertical reinforcement 0.04 Ac or 2k10c200

4.3.2

Horizontal Reinforcement

1. Horizontal reinforcement running parallel to the faces of the wall (and to the free edges) should be provided and arranged at each surface between the vertical reinforcement and the nearest surface. It should not be less than 50% of the vertical reinforcement. 2. The spacing between two adjacent horizontal bars should not be greater than 300mm. 3. The diameter should not be less than one quarter of that of the vertical bars. Based on this it is decided to have the horizontal reinforcement is half of the vertical and is put as k10c200 It is decided to put 2k16 around all the openings. The reinforcement layout can be seen in Figure 4.22.

Figure 4.22: Minimum reinforcement according to EC2 53

+D=FJAH #

Nonlinear Pushover Analysis

5.1 Calculation Process in ANSYS
The basic steps in the ANSYS analysis consists of three phases: preprocessing phase, solution phase and postprocessing phase: 1. Preprocessing phase: Here the solution domain is created and discretized into nite elements: That is the model of the problem (in this case the shear wall) is created graphically and subdivided into nodes and elements. Boundary conditions, initial conditions and loads are applied to the model. 2. Solution phase: Here ANSYS solves the dened numerical problem to obtain nodal results, such as displacement and stress values at dierent nodes. 3. Postprocessing Phase: Here the important information is obtained and results are evaluated. The model can be created by using command prompt line input or the Graphical User Interface (GUI). For this model the GUI was utilized to create the model. In this chapter the three story shear wall is analysed nonlinearly. Four dierent reinforcement layouts calculated from SAP2000, ETABS, the Stringer method and minimum reinforcement according to EC2 are used. The load is applied on all the three stories, incrementally, or pushover analysis. The results are presented in a force deformation curve or a capacity curve. There the ductility behavior can be detected, i.e. concrete cracking or crushing and rebar yielding.

5.2

Element Type - Reinforced Concrete Solid

The SOLID65 element is used to model the concrete in this model. The SOLID65 is used for 3-D modeling of solids and it allows the presence of four dierent materials within each element; one matrix material and maximum of three independent reinforcing materials. The reinforcement is dened as the rebar volume divided by the total element volume. The orientation of the rebars are dened by two angles (0 or 90) from the element coordinate system. In a concrete application the solid capability of the element is used to model the concrete and the rebars capability is used for modeling reinforcement behavior. The element is dened by eight nodes having three degrees of freedom at each node: translation in the nodal x, y and z directions.

55

+D=FJAH #

Nonlinear Pushover Analysis

The most important aspect of this element is the treatment of nonlinear material properties. The concrete is capable of cracking in tension (in three orthogonal directions), crushing in compression, plastic deformation, and creep. The rebars are capable of tension and compression, but not shear. They are also capable of plastic deformation and creep. The geometry, node locations and the coordinate system for the element is shown in Figure 5.1 The reinforcement is modeled as real constants assuming a smeared model. For each reinforcement real constant values are needed for the material number, volume ratio and orientation angle. The material number refers to the type of material used for the reinforcement, the volume ratio is the ratio of steel to concrete element and the orientation angle refers to to the orientation of the reinforcement in the smeared model.

Figure 5.1: SOLID65 element in ANSYS [1]

The following assumptions and restrictions are made in the SOLID65 model: 1. Cracking is permitted in three orthogonal directions at each integration point. 2. If cracking occurs at an integration point, the cracking is modeled through an adjustment of material properties which eectively treats the cracking as a 'smeared band' of cracks, rather than discrete cracks. 3. The concrete material is assumed to be initially isotropic. 4. Whenever the reinforcement capability of the element is used, the reinforcement is assumed to be 'smeared' throughout the element. That is it it assumed that the reinforcement is uniformly spread throughout the concrete element. 5. In addition to cracking and crushing, the concrete may also undergo plasticity, with the Drucker-Prager failure surface being most commonly used. In this case, the plasticity is done before the cracking and crushing checks.

[1]

5.3

Material Properties

In the year 2001 Thordur Sigfusson [3] calibrated a FE-model in ANSYS to simulate laboratory tests of reinforced concrete elements. Sigfusson used his model both to simulate laboratory tests of simply supported beam with vertical point load and shear wall

56

Material Properties

Section 5.3

subjected to lateral force. The comparison between the test results and the model results were quite satisfactory. The modal parameters from Sigfusson [3] thesis are used in the ANSYS model of the shear wall in this thesis. The concrete is modeled as Material Model Number 1 in the Solid65 element. The element requires linear isotropic and bilinear kinematic hardening properties to model the concrete properly. When the state of stress in the model lies within the initial yield surface the concrete is assumed to be linear and the linear-elastic equations can be applied. When the stresses reach the yield point the biaxial-hardening model takes in, as described in section 2.5.3. Figure 5.2 shows the bilinear hardening model of the concrete.

Figure 5.2: Bilinear Hardening Concrete Model

Where:

fc is the uniaxial ultimate compression strength of the concrete. 0.8 fc is the uniaxial yield strength of the concrete. Ec is the modulus of elasticity. EcT is the secant modulus of plasticity. ft is the uniaxial tensile strength. Tc is the multiplier for amount of tensile stress relaxation. ut is the ultimate strain for concrete.

The concrete used is C30, with fck function, see Figure 5.3.

compressive strength and is dened as the

= 30M P a, the fck value is a characteristic cylinder 5% fractile value of the probability density

Figure 5.3: Normal distribution of compressive strength results [20]

The standard deviation is estimated as 5-8

N/mm2

so the mean compressive strength

57

+D=FJAH #

Nonlinear Pushover Analysis

for C30 concrete is roughly estimated to be:

fcm = 30 + (5 8) = 35 to 38 M P a
It is decided to use the lower limit,

fc =35MPa fck
and is estimated as:

The tensile strength is derived from the compression strength,

fct = 0.3 fck = 0.3 302/3 = 2.9M P a

2/3

(5.3.1)

According to EC2 the modulus of elasticity of concrete depends not only on the strength class of the concrete but also on the actual properties of the aggregates used:

Ec = 9.5 (fck + 8)1/3 = 9.5 (30 + 8)1/3 = 31656M P a

(5.3.2)

The ultimate strain for concrete is 0.0035 indicating the crushing strain.

The bilinear kinematic material uses the von Mises failure criterion along with the Willam and Warnke model to dene the failure of the concrete, the Willam and Warnke model [4] is a ve parameter model and as explained in section 2.5.3 it needs a total of ve input strength parameters to dene the failure, the parameters are listed in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1:
Description

Input parameters for Willam and Warnke model Label

Ultimate uniaxial tensile strength: Ultimate uniaxial compressive strength: Ultimate biaxial compressive strength: Ultimate compressive strength for a state of biaxial compression superimposed on hydrostatic stress state: Ultimate compressive strength for a state of uniaxial compression superimposed on hydrostatic stress state:

ft fc a h f1 f2

fcb f1 f2

= = =

1.2 fc

1.725 fc

1.45 fc

The parameters needed to dene the material properties of the concrete are listed in Table 5.3. The typical shear transfer coecient is dened from zero to one, with zero representing a smooth crack (complete loss of shear transfer) and one representing a rough crack (no loss of shear transfer).

58

Material Properties

Section 5.3

Nr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Parameter Secant Modulus of elasticity [E ] Uniaxial ultimate compression strength [f ] Uniaxial tensile strength [f ] Secant modulus of plasticity [E ] Uniaxial yield strength for concrete Ultimate strain for concrete Shear transfer coecient for an open crack [ ] Shear transfer coecient for a closed crack [ ] Multiplier for amount of tensile stress relaxation [T ] Poisson's ratio for concrete, elastic and cracked [ ] Weight of concrete
c c t t c c y

Table 5.2: Material parameters used the concrete

0.8 fc = 29M P a 3.5/pm 0.1

C30 concrete 31656 MPa 35 MPa 2.9 MPa 2 MPa 1.0 0.6 0.2

24kN/m3

The reinforcement is modeled as Material Model Number 2 in the Solid65 element. The reinforcement used is f = 500M P a steel, that is the yield strength is 500MPa. The reinforcement material model is shown in Figure 5.4 and the parameters are shown in Table 5.3.

Figure 5.4: Steel Model Table 5.3: Parameters for material number two, the steel

Nr 1 2 3 4 5 6

Parameter reinforcement Poisson's ratio for steel 0.3 Modulus of elasticity for steel [E ] 210000 MPa Modulus of plasticity for steel [E ] 1.035 MPa Yield point of steel [f ] 500 MPa Ultimate strain for steel [ ] 15 Weight of steel 77kN/m
s p y u 3

59

+D=FJAH #
5.4

Nonlinear Pushover Analysis

Analytical Nonlinear Model

The shear wall is modeled as a volume. All the nodes at the ground level are xed and the displacement into the wall is prevented. To obtain good results from the Solid65 element it is important to mesh the model properly. The analytical model of the meshed wall with its boundaries and applied loads is shown in Figure 5.5.

Figure 5.5: Modeling of the wall in Ansys

Table 5.4 shows the main characteristics of the nite element model used in ANSYS.

Table 5.4: Main characteristics of the FEM model in ANSYS Nr Finite element model ANSYS shear wall model 1 Dimension of model 3D 2 Total number of concrete elements 1492 3 Total number of reinforcement elements 1492 4 Cracking and crushing of elements YES 5 Yielding of concrete and reinforcement YES 6 Bond slip between steel and concrete NO 7 Load step size 0.01 8 Iteration technique Newton-Rapson 9 Convergence criteria Displacement norm, = 0.005 60

Analytical Results

Section 5.5

Figure 5.6: Element numbers

5.5

Analytical Results

In the pushover analysis of the shear wall the lateral load was increased step-wise from zero to twice as large as the calculated one to see how the wall behaves if the lateral load exceeds the calculated design earthquake load, see section 3.3.2. For the double load the wall designed from SAP2000 reached numerical "failure" before the analyze was nished and therefore only one and a half of the calculated load was applied on that wall. Figure 5.7 shows the load-deection curve or the capacity curve for the analysed walls. The force is normalized where one is the calculated design earthquake load. At the design earthquake load the ultimate top displacement is approximately 5.2 mm for the wall with minimum reinforcement according to EC2, 4.7 mm for the wall designed from SAP2000, 4.1 mm for the wall designed from ETABS the minimum displacement, 3.8 mm, is for the wall designed according to the Stringer method.

61

+D=FJAH #
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 Normalized Load 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0

Nonlinear Pushover Analysis

Elastic EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs

3 deflection [mm]

Figure 5.7: Load deection curves for dierent analysis

In Figure 5.8 the displacement has been normalized in the form of displacement ductility. The yield deection is about 1 for all of the walls, see Figure 5.7, so the displacement ductility has the same value as the displacement for each wall.
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 Normalized Load 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 Displacement ductility 5 6 EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs

Figure 5.8: Ductility curves

62

Analytical Results

Section 5.5

When the force exceeds the design earthquake load and the normalized load is 1.2 the ductility reaches 8 and there the structural stability is treated by buckling, brittle failure as seen in Figure 2.13
1.2

1 Normalized Load

0.8

0.6

0.4

EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs

0.2

3 4 5 Displacement ductility

Figure 5.9: Ductility curves

Figures 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9 show that for increased reinforcement in the wall the wall resistance increases. The wall that was designed with the Stringer method had the highest amount of reinforcement and the wall with the minimum reinforcement according to EC2 the lowest. The element behaves in a linear elastic manner until either of the specied tensile or compressive strengths are exceeded. Cracking or crushing of an element is initiated once one of the element principal stresses, exceeds the tensile or compressive strength of the concrete and the element thus becomes nonlinear. In Figure 5.7 it can be seen that all the graphs are linear until the normalized load is about 0.4 to 0.5 or when less than 50% of the applied design earthquake load is reached. Therefore the assumption can be made that the concrete starts to crack at that point.
5.5.1 Cracks and Reinforcement Yielding

The cracking patterns in the wall can be obtained by using the Crack/Crushing plot option in ANSYS. The concrete crack/crush plots were examined to see the dierent types of cracking that occur within the concrete. Two types of concrete failure occur, compression failure (crushing) and tension cracks. The compression failure is shown as circles and tension cracks as lines that form diagonally up the wall towards the loading that is applied. The two signs of the concrete failure in ANSYS are shown in Figure 5.10. There it can be seen that the concrete crushes (circles) at the ground level and tension cracks are around and between the openings.
63

+D=FJAH #

Nonlinear Pushover Analysis

Figure 5.10: Cracking signs in ANSYS, NL=1

Figures 5.11 to 5.13 show the cracking in the shear wall for all the four dierent reinforcement layouts. The crack pattern is very similar in all of the walls. The most critical area is around the middle opening of the second oor, hereafter called the middle opening. The rst tension cracking occurs in same elements for all of the walls. The elements are numbered 778 and 670 and are located at the left upper corner and bottom right corner of the middle wall, see Figure 5.6. The concrete crushes at the ground level of the wall.

Figure 5.11: Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) for in the wall designed with Stringer method 64

Analytical Results

Section 5.5

Figure 5.12: Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) in the wall designed from ETABS

Figure 5.13: Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) in the wall designed from SAP2000 65

+D=FJAH #

Nonlinear Pushover Analysis

Figure 5.14: Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) in the wall with minimum reinforcement, EC2
With increased load the tensile stresses get bigger than the tensile strength in the concrete and its cracks and the tensile force is taken care of by the reinforcement. Therefore it is interesting to see how the steel stress changes in the elements when the load is increased. First the steel stress in element 787 is examined for all the walls. Element 787 is located at the top left corner of the middle opening, see Figure 5.6. For the walls designed from the FE-analysis in ETABS and with the Stringer method, 4k16 is placed around the opening while 2k16 is used when the design is based on the other two. Figure 5.15 shows the steel stresses versus normalized load for the vertical reinforcement in element 787. The stresses in the reinforcement start to increase when around 40% of the design earthquake load is reached for all the designed reinforcement layouts. It can be seen that the steel stresses in SAP2000 and EC2 increase faster than the other two. Despite this less than 50% of the reinforcement strength is reached at the design earthquake load for the 2k16 reinforcements.

66

Analytical Results

Section 5.5

550 500 450 400 Steel stress [MPa] 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.5 1 Load [kN] 1.5 2 EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs

Figure 5.15: Steel stresses in element no 787 above middle window

In Figure 5.16 the horizontal steel stress in element at the bottom right corner of the middle window is examined, or element 670 (see Figure 5.6), is shown. The reinforcement is the same as in element 787. The results are similar to the 787 element and the stresses in the steel starts to increase when the normalized load is around 0.4. Except for the steel in the SAP2000 layout, there the concrete does not start to crack until around 70% of the design earthquake load is reached and then the stresses increase rapidly. The stresses in this reinforcement do not reach as high as in element 787.

550 500 450 400 Steel stress [MPa] 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.5 1 Load [kN] 1.5 2 EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs

Figure 5.16: Steel stresses in element no 670 below middle window 67

+D=FJAH #
5.5.2

Nonlinear Pushover Analysis

Calculations of Crack width

The crush/crack plots of the walls show that the crack pattern in the walls are very similar at the design earthquake load. A gure of a crack does not tell all about the real damage of the structures unless the widths of the cracks are known. An attempt was made to calculate the width of the cracks by using information about the steel stresses from the ANSYS analysis and see if there is any dierence between them in the four analysed walls. In section 2.8.1 a method to calculate crack width based on EC2 was shown. The crack width can be found by the relation: wk = srm sm (5.5.1) srm is the average nal crack spacing. sm is the mean strain. = 1.3, the width of the wall is less than 300 mm. sm may be calculated from the relation:
sm = sr 2 s (1 1 2 ( ) ) Es s

(5.5.2) step.

s is the stress in the reinforcement and can be taken from ANSYS for each time sr the stress in the tension when the rst crack occurs, taken from ANSYS. 1 = 1, high bond bars. 2 = 0.5, earth quake load.

k1 = 0.8 k2 = 0.5

The average nal crack spacing for members subjected dominantly to exure or tension can be calculated from the equation: srm = 50 + 0.25k1 k2 /pr (5.5.3) is the bar size in mm in the element. The calculations were made in MATLAB and the crack width plotted as function of the normalized load. In section 2.7 it was explained according to EC2 that the crack width should not exceed 0.3 mm to prevent corrosion of the reinforcement, which happens if the crack starts to leak. From experience of Icelandic houses a crack need to be repaired if its width is between 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm, but that is usually only necessary to improve the visual or a aesthetic view of the wall. Nevertheless the damaging impact on the concrete from each crack has to be evaluated individually. Crack 0.3 mm wide is visible at distance of about 2.0 m and it usually does not start to leak. For a crack of this size a light repair is usually enough where and surface treatment is enough were monosilan, siloxan or similar material is applied on the concrete surface to conceal the projection of cracks. If the crack reaches 0.5 mm or more the damage starts to get more serious and more costly to repair. The concrete might start to leak and epoxy injection is necessary. The main purpose with the repair is to prevent leaking, restore the original strength and stiness. First element 787 is examined, see Figure 5.17 where the crack width is shown as function of the applied load. It can be seen that when the design earthquake load is

$&

Analytical Results

Section 5.5

reached the crack width for the wall designed from ETABS and Stringer method with 4k16 in the element is under 0.3 mm but the crack width in the wall designed from SAP2000 and minimum EC2 reinforcement with 2k16 is around 0.6 to 0.7 mm. The results are very similar for element 670 as seen in Figure 5.18.

1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 Design crack width [mm] 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.5 1 Normalized Load 1.5 2 EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs

Figure 5.17: Computed crack width in element 787

1.5 1.3 1.2 Design crack width [mm] 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.5 1 Normalized Load 1.5 2

EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs

Figure 5.18: Computed crack width in element 670

From gures 5.17 and 5.18 it is obvious that the reinforcement has great inuence on the crack width. The crack widt is smaller for higher reinforcement degree, i.e. 4k16 than the lower degree 2k16. Therefore it is also interesting to look at an element were the reinforcement area is the same for all of the four walls. Element 1026 is examined 1026 which is between the windows on the third and the second oor, see Figure 5.6.

69

+D=FJAH #

Nonlinear Pushover Analysis

The element is reinforced with k10c200. Even though the reinforcement is the same in all of the walls the results are similar as for the other two elements. At design earthquake load the crack width is around 0.3 mm for the walls designed from ETABS and Stringer method and is between 0.8 to 0.9 mm for the other two.
1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 Design crack width [mm] 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.5 1 Normalized Load 1.5 2 EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs

Figure 5.19: Design crack width in element 1026

70

Analytical Results

Section 5.5

Next a look will be taken into the crack growth, it starts in element 670 at the right bottom corner of the middle window and goes down to element 441. The crack growth in all the walls for the same elements are examined. It starts by looking at the wall designed with the Stringer method. A close up gure of the elements can be seen in Figure 5.20.

Figure 5.20: Cracks at middle window for Stringer

The concrete starts to crack in element 670 when the normalized load is 0.4 of the design load, in element 625 at 0.52 and the the last crack formed before the design earthquake load is reached is in element 441 when the normalized load is 0.9, but the crack opening is really small in the beginning and does not start to open until the normalized load is around 1.5. In element 670 the reinforcement is 4k16 and 2k10c200 in the other ve elements. The crack pattern can be seen in Figure 5.21, at design earthquake load the crack width is well below 0.3 mm at all places.
0.5

0.4 Design crack width [mm] el. 670 el. 625 el. 579 el. 533 el. 487

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 0 0.5 1 Normalized Load 1.5 2

Figure 5.21: Cracks width for Stringer

71

+D=FJAH #

Nonlinear Pushover Analysis

Now the same elements in the model designed with the FE-analysis in ETABS are examined. The close up view of the cracks and can be seen in Figure 5.23. When the gure is compared with Figure 5.20 it can be seen that the crack pattern is very similar. The reinforcement in element 670 is 4k16 and k10c200 in the other ve.

Figure 5.22: Cracks at middle window for ETABS

The concrete starts to crack in element 670 when 40% of the design earthquake load is reached. Cracks in the other elements start to develop shortly after the rst crack and the crack width grows rapidly in elements 625 to 487, where the reinforcement is twice as low as in the elements for Stringer method. Despite this the crack width is under 0.3 mm for all of the elements at the design earthquake load.
0.7

0.6 el. 670 el. 625 el. 579 el. 533 el. 487

Design crack width [mm]

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 0 0.5 1 Normalized Load 1.5 2

Figure 5.23: Cracks width for ETABS

72

Analytical Results

Section 5.5

The crack pattern for the same element in the wall designed from the analysis in SAP2000 is quite dierent from the other two previously mentioned. The crack seems to have eects on the element on the left side of elements 670 to 441, see Figure 5.24.

Figure 5.24: Cracks at middle window for SAP2000

As seen in Figure 5.25 the crack width in element 670 reaches around 0.6 to 0.7 mm at the design earthquake load but the crack width in the other two elements does not get so high. It would have been of more interest to look at the cracks in the other elements.
1.2 1.1 1 0.9 Design crack width [mm] 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.5 Normalized Load 1 1.5 el. 670 el. 625 el. 579

Figure 5.25: Cracks width for SAP2000

73

+D=FJAH #

Nonlinear Pushover Analysis

Finally the same elements for the wall designed with minimum reinforcement according to EC2 are examined with 2k16 around the openings. It can be seen that there are slightly more cracks seen on Figure 5.26 than in Figure 5.20 and 5.22.

Figure 5.26: Cracks at middle window for EC2

Cracking in element 670 starts when the normalized load is about 0.4 and the cracking in the other element follows quickly after and the growth of the crack width is fast. At the design earthquake load the width for elements 670, 625 and 579 has reached 0.3 mm, see Figure 5.27. At the design earthquake load the assumption can be made that a crack of length 75 cm and width of 0.3 mm or higher has been formed in the concrete below the opening because of the design earthquake load.
1.3 1.2 1.1 1 Design crack width [mm] 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.5 1 Normalized Load 1.5 2 el. 670 el. 625 el. 579 el. 533 el. 487 el. 441

Figure 5.27: Cracks width for EC2

74

+D=FJAH $

Summary and Conclusion

In the thesis a nonlinear pushover analysis of idealized three story concrete shear wall building with dierent seismic reinforcement design was presented. The building was assumed to be located in the South Iceland Seismic Zone where the characteristic peak ground acceleration is 0.4g. This reects a design earthquake with 475 year return period. In the thesis only one wall of the building was studied. The design earthquake load was dened by the lateral force method from Eurocode 8. Three methods were used for the seismic design of the reinforcement in the shear wall. First, the Stringer method which is a lower bound method. Second, a design based on linear elastic FE-analysis using the general purpose FE-program SAP2000. Third, a design based again on linear elastic FE-analysis but now using the building specialized FE-program, ETABS. For comparison reinforcement based on the minimum requirement according to EC2 was also studied. The reinforcement from the Stinger Method and the one based on the ETABS analysis gave very similar reinforcement layouts. These methods gave more boundary reinforcement, i.e. reinforcement around openings than the other two methods. A nonlinear nite element model was created in ANSYS for the four reinforcement layouts to carry out a pushover analysis of the dierent shear wall design. The lateral load was stepwise increased from zero to twice the design earthquake load. With the model it was possible to get information about deformations, initial cracks, tensile cracks, crushing, steel stresses and plastic deformations. However, the model gave no information about crack widths which are crucial in order to estimate damage. For that reason an attempt was made to evaluate crack widths as a function of load with method from Eurocode 2. In this method the steel stresses is the most important factor and it is important that the stresses in the reinforcement does not get too high. When the response results of the dierent walls were compared it turned out that the reinforcement layouts calculated from the Stringer Method and ETABS analysis gave very similar results. On the other hand the reinforcement layouts from SAP2000 and the minimum reinforcement according to EC2 were similar. The design based on ETABS and the Stringer method gave better results, i.e. less crack widths and overall less damage for the same load level. The results clearly indicate that dierent reinforcement layouts aect the response of the wall. At the most critical points in the wall the two layouts from ETABS and Stringer method were under acceptable crack widths, 0,3 mm, when subjected to design earthquake load, while the minimum reinforcement according to EC2

%#

+D=FJAH $

Summary and Conclusion

and the layout from SAP2000 gave far higher crack widths, or up to 0.9 mm. The dierence in crack width is mainly due to the boundary reinforcement. It should be underlined that the technique used to average the stresses from the linear elastic FE-analysis with SAP2000 in the boundary areas of the wall greatly aects the amount of boundary reinforcement. In this thesis the FE-stresses were averaged over 0.5 m wide strip which seems to be to wide strip. This is something that should be studied in more details. The crack widths calculated by using the information from ANSYS seem to be promising and useful when designing and analysing structures in seismic zones. However, the results from the nonlinear static procedure must be taken with caution, and the results need to be veried by experimental data. In this thesis only one shear wall was studied and only one material set, i.e. concrete and steel type. In the future more types of shear walls and material sets could be studied as well as laboratory tests to backup the numerical results. Finally, it could be very informative and valuable to back calculate reported damage during the South Iceland earthquakes of June 2000 in order to learn from them.

%$

Appendix A

MATLAB script for Design Response spectra

%---------------------------------------------------------------function Sdh = hordesignSd(ag,T,TB,TC,TD,nu,q,beta,S) %---------------------------------------------------------------% INPUT: % ag: Design acceleration % T: Vibration period of a linear % single-degre-of-freedom system. % TB, TC: The limits of the constant spectral % acceleration branch % TD: The value defining the beginning of the % constant displacement response range of % the spectrum. % nu: Damping correction factor % q: Behaviour factor % beta: Lower bound factor % S: Soil factor % % OUTPUT: Sd : the horizontal design response spectrum %---------------------------------------------------------------% Respons calculation, Sdh if T>=0 & T<=TB Sdh = ag*S*(2/3+(T/TB)*(2.5/q-2/3)); elseif T>TB & T<=TC Sdh = ag*S*2.5/q; elseif T>TC & T<=TD Sdh = max(ag*S*(2.5/q)*(TC/T), beta*ag); else Sdh = max(ag*S*2.5/q*(TC*TD/T^2), beta*ag); end %=================================================================== % Structural response %--------------------------------------------------------------clear all close all format short g format compact

%%

Appendix A

MATLAB script for Design Response spectra

% Parameters gamma1 = 1; % important class II EC8 Table 4.3 g=9.81; ag = 0.4*g*gamma1; % design ground acceleration avg = 0.9*ag; % vertical design ground acceleration q = 2.34; % the behaviour factor S = 1; % soil factor, EC8 table 3.2 Type D beta = 0.2; % lower bound factor for design spectrum zeta = 0.05; % assumend damping ratio of building eta = max(sqrt(10/(5+zeta*100)),0.55) % correction factor for damping % ------------ Respons spectrum -----------------------------------% Values from EC8 table 3.2 TBh = 0.15; % limits of the constant spectral % acceleration branch TCh = 0.40; % limits of the constant spectral % acceleration branch TDh = 2.00; % value defining the beginning of % the constant displacement response of % the spectrum n=0.01; T=0:n:4; % time step for spectrum % Evaluation spectra for T = [0;4]

% Horizontal design response spectrum Sdh = zeros(1,size(T,1)); for i = 1:size(T,2) Sdh(i) = hordesignSd(ag,T(i),TBh,TCh,TDh,eta,q,beta,S); end % ------------Plot of respons spetrum ------------------------------figure(1) A=[Sdh/ag]; plot(T,A) axis([0 4 0 1.3]) legend('Horizontal design') title(['The response spectrum for \zeta = ', num2str(zeta)]); xlabel('T') ylabel('{S_{dh}/a_g}') hold off print -dmeta response.eps % dump encapsulated EMF file

%&

Appendix B

Calculations for Stringer method

close all clear all format short A=200*[4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 4*1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0 4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4*1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2*1000 0 0 1750 0 1750; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2*1000 2*2500 0 1750 1750; 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 0 0 0; 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 0 0; 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 0 0 0; 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 0 0; 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 0 0 0 1200 1100 0; 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 0 1200 1100 0; 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 2300; 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 2300]; b= [-570000; -570000 -570000 -1183000 -1183000 -1183000 -1490000 -1490000 -1490000 -449000 -819000 -994000 -1092000 -994000 -819000

%'

Appendix B
-819000 -819000 -449000];

Calculations for Stringer method

x=pinv(A)*b bnalgun =A*x; skekkja1=(bnalgun./b-1)*100 %------------------------------------------------------------------------%Horizontal stringerforces %------------------------------------------------------------------------%PLOTS %plot settings set(0,'DefaultAxesFontName','Times') set(0,'DefaultAxesFontAngle','Normal') set(0,'DefaultAxesFontSize',10) set(0,'DefaultTextFontName','Times') set(0,'DefaultTextFontAngle','Oblique') set(0,'DefaultTextFontSize',10) t=200; F1x=-570000; F2x=F1x-1000*x(1)*t; F3x=F2x-2500*x(2)*t; F4x=F3x-1000*x(1)*t; F5x=F4x-2500*x(2)*t; F6x=F5x-1000*x(1)*t; F7x=F6x-2500*x(2)*t; F8x=F7x-1000*x(1)*t; figure(1) subplot(3,1,1) plot([1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8],[F1x F2x F3x F4x F5x F6x F7x F8x]/1000) xlabel('stringerline no 1') grid on title('Horizontal stringer forces') F9x=0; F10x=1000*t*(x(1)-x(3)); F11x=F10x+x(2)*2500*t; F12x=F11x+t*1000*(x(1)-x(3)); F13x=F12x+x(2)*2500*t; F14x=F13x+(x(1)-x(3))*1000*t; F15x=F14x+x(2)*2500*t; F16x=F15x+(x(1)-x(3))*1000*200; subplot(3,1,2) plot([9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16],[F9x F10x F11x F12x F13x F14x F15x F16x]/1000) Ylabel('Stringerforce [kN]') xlabel('stringerline no 2') grid on F17x=0; F18x=(x(3)-x(4))*1000*t; F19x=F18x-x(5)*2500*t; F20x=F19x+(x(3)-x(4))*1000*t; F21x=F20x-x(5)*2500*t; F22x=F21x+(x(3)-x(4))*1000*t; F23x=F22x-x(5)*2500*t; F24x=F23x+(x(3)-x(4))*1000*t; subplot(3,1,3) plot([17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24],[F17x F18x F19x F20x

&

Section B.0
F21x F22x F23x F24x]/1000) xlabel('stringerline no 3') grid on print -dwinc horstringforce1.eps figure(2) F25x=-613000; F26x=F25x+1000*(x(4)-x(6))*t; F27x=F26x+2500*(x(5)-x(7))*t; F28x=F27x+1000*(x(4)-x(6))*t; F29x=F28x+2500*(x(5)-x(7))*t; F30x=F29x+1000*(x(4)-x(6))*t; F31x=F30x+2500*(x(5)-x(7))*t; F32x=F31x+1000*(x(4)-x(6))*t; subplot(3,1,1) plot([25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32],[F25x F26x F27x F28x F29x F30x F31x F32x]/1000) xlabel('stringerline no 4') title('Horizontal stringer forces') grid on F33x=0; F34x=(x(6)-x(8))*1000*t; F35x=F34x+x(7)*2500*t; F36x=F35x+(x(6)-x(8))*1000*t; F37x=F36x+x(7)*2500*t; F38x=F37x+(x(6)-x(8))*1000*t; F39x=F38x+x(7)*2500*t; F40x=F39x+(x(6)-x(8))*1000*t; subplot(3,1,2) plot([33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40],[F33x F34x F35x F36x F37x F38x F39x F40x]/1000) Ylabel('Stringerforce [kN]') xlabel('stringerline no 5') grid on F41x=0; F42x=(x(8)-x(9))*1000*t; F43x=F42x-x(10)*2500*t; F44x=F43x+(x(8)-x(9))*1000*t; F45x=F44x-x(10)*2500*t; F46x=F45x+(x(8)-x(9))*1000*t; F47x=F46x-x(10)*2500*t; F48x=F47x+(x(8)-x(9))*1000*t; subplot(3,1,3) plot([41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48],[F41x F42x F43x F44x F45x F46x F47x F48x]/1000) xlabel('stringerline no 6') grid on print -dwinc horstringforce2.eps figure(3) F49x=-307000; F50x= F49x+1000*(x(9)-x(11))*t; F51x=F50x+2500*(x(10)-x(12))*t; F52x=F51x+1000*(x(9)-x(11))*t; F53x=F52x+2500*(x(10)-x(12))*t; F54x=F53x+1000*(x(9)-x(11))*t; F55x=F54x+2500*(x(10)-x(12))*t; F56x=F55x+1000*(x(9)-x(11))*t; subplot(4,1,1) plot([49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56],[F49x F50x F51x F52x F53x F54x F55x F56x]/1000) title('Horizontal stringer forces') xlabel('stringerline

&

Appendix B
no 7') grid on

Calculations for Stringer method

F57x=0; F58x=(x(11)-x(13))*1000*t; F59x=F58x+x(12)*2500*t; F60x=F59x+(x(11)-x(13))*1000*t; F61x=F60x+x(12)*2500*t; F62x=F61x+(x(11)-x(16))*1000*t; F63x=F62x+(x(12)-x(16))*750*t; F64x=F63x+x(12)*1000*t; F65x=F64x+(x(12)-x(16))*750*t; F66x=F65x+(x(11)-x(18))*1000*t; subplot(4,1,2) plot([57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66],[F57x F58x F59x F60x F61x F62x F63x F64x F65x F66x]/1000) Ylabel('Stringerforce [kN]') xlabel('stringerline no 8') grid on F67x=0; F68x=(x(13)-x(14))*1000*t; F69x=F68x-x(15)*2500*t; F70x=F69x+(x(13)-x(14))*1000*t; F71x=F70x-x(15)*2500*t; F72x=F71x+(x(16)-x(17))*1000*t; F73x=F72x+(x(16)-x(17))*750*t; F74x=F73x; F75x=F74x+(x(18)-x(18))*750*t; F76x=F75x+(x(18)-x(18))*1000*t; subplot(4,1,3) plot([67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76],[F67x F68x F69x F70x F71x F72x F73x F74x F75x F76x]/1000) xlabel('stringerline no 9') grid on F77x=0; F78x=x(14)*1000*t; F79x=F78x+x(15)*2500*t; F80x=F79x+x(14)*1000*t; F81x=F80x+x(15)*2500*t; F82x=F81x+x(17)*1000*t; F83x=F82x+x(17)*750*t; F84x=F83x; F85x=F84x+x(18)*750*t; F86x=F85x+x(18)*1000*t; subplot(4,1,4) plot([77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86],[F77x F78x F79x F80x F81x F82x F83x F84x F85x F86x]/1000) xlabel('stringerline no 10') grid on print -dwinc horstringforce3.eps %------------------------------------------------------------------------%Vertical stringerforces %------------------------------------------------------------------------F77y=449000; F67y=F77y+x(14)*1100*t; F57y=F67y+x(13)*1200*t; F49y=F57y+x(11)*700*t; F41y=F49y+x(9)*1100*t; F33y=F41y+x(8)*1200*t; F25y=F33y+x(6)*700*t; F17y=F25y+x(4)*1100*t; F9y=F17y+x(3)*1200*t; F1y=F9y+x(1)*1000*t;

figure(4) set(gca,'YDir','reverse') subplot(1,4,1) plot([F77y F67y F57y F49y F41y F33y F25y F17y F9y F1y]/1000, [77 67 57 49 41 33 25 17 9 1]) set(gca,'YDir','reverse') set(gca,'ytick',[1 9 17 25 33 41 49 57 67

&

Section B.0
77]) axis([-1000 1000 1 77]) ylabel('stringerline no 11') grid on F78y=370000; F68y=F78y+(x(15)-x(14))*1100*t; F58y=F68y-x(13)*1200*t; F50y=F58y+(x(12)-x(11))*700*t; F42y=F50y+(x(10)-x(9))*1100*t; F34y=F42y-x(8)*1200*t; F26y=F34y+(x(7)-x(6))*700*t; F18y=F26y+(x(5)-x(4))*1100*t; F10y=F18y-x(3)*1200*t; F2y=F10y+(x(1)-x(2))*1200*t;

subplot(1,4,2) plot([F2y F10y F18y F26y F34y F42y F50y F58y F68y F78y]/1000, [2 10 18 26 34 42 50 58 68 78]) set(gca,'YDir','reverse') set(gca,'ytick',[2 10 18 26 34 42 50 58 68 78]) axis([-500 600 2 78]) title('Vertical stringer forces') ylabel('stringerline no 12') xlabel('Stringerforce [kN]') grid on F79y=175000; F69y=F79y+(x(14)-x(15))*1100*t; F59y=F69y+x(13)*1200*t; F51y=F59y+(x(11)-x(12))*700*t; F43y=F51y+(x(9)-x(10))*1100*t; F35y=F43y+x(8)*1200*t; F27y=F35y+(x(6)-x(7))*700*t; F19y=F27y+(x(4)-x(5))*1100*t; F11y=F19y+x(3)*1200*t; F3y=F11y+(x(1)-x(2))*700*t; subplot(1,4,3) plot([F3y F11y F19y F27y F35y F43y F51y F59y F69y F79y]/1000, [3 11 19 27 35 43 51 59 69 79]) set(gca,'YDir','reverse') set(gca,'ytick',[3 11 19 27 35 43 51 59 69 79]) axis([0 1200 3 78]) ylabel('stringerline no 13') grid on F80y=98000; F70y=F80y+(x(15)-x(14))*1100*t; F60y=F70y-x(13)*1200*t; F52y=F60y+(x(12)-x(11))*700*t; F44y=F52y+(x(10)-x(9))*1100*t; F36y=F44y-x(8)*1200*t; F28y=F36y+(x(7)-x(6))*700*t; F20y=F28y+(x(5)-x(4))*1100*t; F12y=F28y-x(3)*1200*t; F4y=F12y+(x(2)-x(1))*700*t; subplot(1,4,4) plot([F4y F12y F20y F28y F36y F44y F52y F60y F70y F80y]/1000,[4 12 20 28 36 44 52 60 70 80]) set(gca,'YDir','reverse') set(gca,'ytick',[4 12 20 28 36 44 52 60 70 80]) axis([-700 500 4 80]) ylabel('stringerline no 14') grid on print -dwinc verstringforce1.eps F81y=-98000; F71y=F81y+(x(15)-x(15))*1100*t; F61y=F71y+x(16)*1200*t; F53y=F61y+(x(11)-x(12))*700*t; F45y=F53y+(x(9)-x(10))*1100*t; F37y=F45y+x(8)*1200*t; F29y=F37y+(x(6)-x(7))*700*t; F21y=F29y+(x(4)-x(5))*1100*t; F13y=F21y+x(3)*1200*t; F5y=F13y+(x(1)-x(2))*700*t;

&!

Appendix B

Calculations for Stringer method

figure(5) subplot(1,4,1) plot([F5y F13y F21y F29y F37y F45y F53y F61y F71y F81y]/1000,[5 13 21 29 37 45 53 61 71 81]) set(gca,'YDir','reverse') set(gca,'ytick',[5 13 21 29 37 45 53 61 71 81]) axis([-1000 0 5 81]) ylabel('stringerline no 15') grid on F82y=-175000; F72y=F82y+(x(17)-x(17))*1100*t; F62y=F72y+(x(16)-x(16))*1200*t; F54y=F62y+(x(12)-x(11))*700*t; F46y=F54y+(x(10)-x(9))*1100*t; F38y=F46y-x(8)*1200*t; F30y=F38y+(x(7)-x(6))*700*t; F22y=F30y+(x(5)-x(4))*1100*t; F14y=F22y-x(3)*1200*t; F6y=F14y+(x(2)-x(1))*700*t; subplot(1,4,2) plot([F6y F14y F22y F30y F38y F46y F54y F62y F72y F82y]/1000,[6 14 22 30 38 46 54 62 72 82]) set(gca,'YDir','reverse') set(gca,'ytick',[6 14 22 30 38 46 54 62 72 82]) axis([-1000 0 6 82]) title('Vertical stringer forces') ylabel('stringerline no 16') xlabel('Stringerforce [kN]') grid on F85y=-370000; F75y=F85y+(x(18)-x(18))*1100*t; F65y=F75y F55y=F65y+(x(11)-x(12))*700*t; F47y=F55y+(x(9)-x(10))*1100*t; F39y=F47y+x(8)*1200*t; F31y=F39y+(x(6)-x(7))*700*t; F23y=F31y+(x(4)-x(5))*1100*t; F15y=F23y+x(3)*1200*t; F7y=F15y+(x(1)-x(2))*700*t; subplot(1,4,3) plot([F7y F15y F23y F31y F39y F47y F55y F65y F75y F85y]/1000,[7 15 23 31 39 47 55 65 75 85]) set(gca,'YDir','reverse') set(gca,'ytick',[7 15 23 31 39 47 55 65 75 85]) axis([-1000 0 7 85]) ylabel('stringerline no 17') grid on F86y=-449000; F76y=F86y-x(18)*1100*t; F66y=F76y-x(18)*1200*t; F56y=F66y-x(11)*700*t; F48y=F56y-x(9)*1100*t; F40y=F48y-x(8)*1200*t; F32y=F40y-x(6)*700*t; F24y=F32y-x(4)*1100*t; F16y=F24y-x(3)*1200*t; F8y=F16y-x(1)*700*t; subplot(1,4,4) plot([F8y F16y F24y F32y F40y F48y F56y F66y F76y F86y]/1000,[8 16 24 32 40 48 56 66 76 86]) set(gca,'YDir','reverse') set(gca,'ytick',[8 16 24 32 40 48 56 66 76 86]) axis([-700 500 8 86]) ylabel('stringerline no 18') grid on

&"

Section B.0
print -dwinc verstringforce2.eps %------------------------------------------------------------------------%Reinforcement %------------------------------------------------------------------------fcd=20 %MPa fyd=435 %MPa %------------------------------------------------------------------------%Reinforcement horizontal %------------------------------------------------------------------------%STRINGER 1 %Tension reinforcement Fhor1=[F1x F2x F3x F4x F5x F6x F7x F8x]/1000; %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C1=0.2*800*t*0.5*fcd*0.001; for i=1:length(Fhor1); if Fhor1(i)>0 ; Axten1(i)=Fhor1(i)*1000/fyd; else Axten1(i)=0; end end Axten1 %Compression reinforcement Fcom1=Fhor1+C1; for j=1:length(Fcom1) if Fcom1(j)<0; Axcom1(j)=(Fcom1(j))*1000/fyd; else Axcom1(j)=0; end end Axcom1 %STRINGER 2 %Tension reinforcement Fhor2=[F9x F10x F11x F12x F13x F14x F15x F16x]/1000; %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C2=0.2*800*t*0.5*fcd*0.001; for i=1:length(Fhor2); if Fhor2(i)>0 ; Axten2(i)=Fhor2(i)*1000/fyd; else Axten2(i)=0; end end Axten2 %Compression reinforcement Fcom2=Fhor2+C2; for j=1:length(Fcom2) if Fcom2(j)<0; Axcom2(j)=(F1com(j))*1000/fyd; else Axcom2(j)=0; end end

&#

Appendix B
Axcom2

Calculations for Stringer method

%STRINGER 3 %Tension reinforcement Fhor3=[F17x F18x F19x F20x F21x F22x F23x F24x]/1000; %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C3=0.2*1100*t*0.5*fcd*0.001; for i=1:length(Fhor3); if Fhor3(i)>0 ; Axten3(i)=Fhor3(i)*1000/fyd; else Axten3(i)=0; end end Axten3 %Compression reinforcement Fcom3=Fhor3+C3; for j=1:length(Fcom3) if Fcom3(j)<0; Axcom3(j)=(Fcom3(j))*1000/fyd; else Axcom3(j)=0; end end Axcom3 %STRINGER 4 %Tension reinforcement Fhor4=[F25x F26x F27x F28x F29x F30x F31x F32x]/1000; %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C4=0.2*800*t*0.5*fcd*0.001; for i=1:length(Fhor4); if Fhor4(i)>0 ; Axten4(i)=Fhor4(i)*1000/fyd; else Axten4(i)=0; end end Axten4 %Compression reinforcement Fcom4=Fhor4+C4; for j=1:length(Fcom4) if Fcom4(j)<0; Axcom4(j)=(Fcom4(j))*1000/fyd; else Axcom4(j)=0; end end Axcom4 %STRINGER 5 %Tension reinforcement Fhor5=[F33x F34x F35x F36x F37x F38x F39x F40x]/1000; %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C5=0.2*800*t*0.5*fcd*0.001; for i=1:length(Fhor5); if Fhor5(i)>0 ;

&$

Section B.0
Axten5(i)=Fhor5(i)*1000/fyd; else Axten5(i)=0; end end Axten5 %Compression reinforcement Fcom5=Fhor5+C5; for j=1:length(Fcom4) if Fcom5(j)<0; Axcom5(j)=(Fcom5(j))*1000/fyd; else Axcom5(j)=0; end end Axcom5 %STRINGER 6 %Tension reinforcement Fhor6=[F41x F42x F43x F44x F45x F46x F47x F48x]/1000; %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C6=0.2*1100*t*0.5*fcd*0.001; for i=1:length(Fhor6); if Fhor6(i)>0 ; Axten6(i)=Fhor6(i)*1000/fyd; else Axten6(i)=0; end end Axten6 %Compression reinforcement Fcom6=Fhor6+C6; for j=1:length(Fcom6) if Fcom6(j)<0; Axcom6(j)=(Fcom6(j))*1000/fyd; else Axcom6(j)=0; end end Axcom6 %STRINGER 7 %Tension reinforcement Fhor7=[F49x F50x F51x F52x F53x F54x F55x F56x]/1000; %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C7=0.2*800*t*0.5*fcd*0.001; for i=1:length(Fhor7); if Fhor7(i)>0 ; Axten7(i)=Fhor7(i)*1000/fyd; else Axten7(i)=0; end end Axten7 %Compression reinforcement Fcom7=Fhor7+C7; for j=1:length(Fcom7) if Fcom7(j)<0; Axcom7(j)=(Fcom7(j))*1000/fyd;

&%

Appendix B
Axcom7

Calculations for Stringer method

else Axcom7(j)=0; end end

%STRINGER 8 %Tension reinforcement Fhor8=[F57x F58x F59x F60x F61x F62x F63x F64x F65x F66x]/1000; %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C8=0.2*800*t*0.5*fcd*0.001; for i=1:length(Fhor8); if Fhor8(i)>0 ; Axten8(i)=Fhor8(i)*1000/fyd; else Axten8(i)=0; end end Axten8 %Compression reinforcement Fcom8=Fhor8+C8; for j=1:length(Fcom8) if Fcom8(j)<0; Axcom8(j)=(Fcom8(j))*1000/fyd; else Axcom8(j)=0; end end Axcom8 %STRINGER 9 %Tension reinforcement Fhor9=[F67x F68x F69x F70x F71x F72x F73x F74x F75x F76x]/1000; %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C9=0.2*1100*t*0.5*fcd*0.001; for i=1:length(Fhor9); if Fhor9(i)>0 ; Axten9(i)=Fhor9(i)*1000/fyd; else Axten9(i)=0; end end Axten9 %Compression reinforcement Fcom9=Fhor9+C9; for j=1:length(Fcom9) if Fcom9(j)<0; Axcom9(j)=(Fcom9(j))*1000/fyd; else Axcom9(j)=0; end end Axcom9 %STRINGER 10 %Tension reinforcement Fhor10=[F77x F78x F79x F80x F81x F82x F83x F84x F85x F86x]/1000;

&&

Section B.0
%The concrete can take up compressionforce: C10=0.2*1100*t*0.5*fcd*0.001; for i=1:length(Fhor10); if Fhor10(i)>0 ; Axten10(i)=Fhor10(i)*1000/fyd; else Axten10(i)=0; end end Axten10 %Compression reinforcement Fcom10=Fhor10+C10; for j=1:length(Fcom10) if Fcom10(j)<0; Axcom10(j)=(Fcom10(j))*1000/fyd; else Axcom10(j)=0; end end Axcom10 %------------------------------------------------------------------------%Vertical reinforcement %------------------------------------------------------------------------%STRINGER 11 %Tension reinforcement Fver1=[F1y F9y F17y F25y F33y F41y F49y F57y F67y F77y]/1000; %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C1y=0.2*1000*t*0.5*fcd*0.001; %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver1); if Fver1(i)>0 ; Ayten1(i)=Fver1(i)*1000/fyd; else Ayten1(i)=0; end end Ayten1 %Compression reinforcement Fcom1y=Fver1+C1y; for j=1:length(Fcom1y) if Fcom1y(j)<0; Aycom1(j)=(Fcom1y(j))*1000/fyd; else Aycom1(j)=0; end end Aycom1 %STRINGER 12 %Tension reinforcement Fver2=[F2y F10y F18y F26y F34y F42y F50y F58y F68y F78y]/1000; %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C2y=0.2*1000*t*0.5*fcd*0.001;

&'

Appendix B

Calculations for Stringer method

%Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver2); if Fver2(i)>0 ; Ayten2(i)=Fver2(i)*1000/fyd; else Ayten2(i)=0; end end Ayten2 %Compression reinforcement Fcom2y=Fver2+C2y; for j=1:length(Fcom2y) if Fcom2y(j)<0; Aycom2(j)=(Fcom2y(j))*1000/fyd; else Aycom2(j)=0; end end Aycom2 %STRINGER 12 %Tension reinforcement Fver3=[F3y F11y F19y F27y F35y F43y F51y F59y F69y F79y]/1000; %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C3y=0.2*1000*t*0.5*fcd*0.001; %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver3); if Fver3(i)>0 ; Ayten3(i)=Fver3(i)*1000/fyd; else Ayten3(i)=0; end end Ayten3 %Compression reinforcement Fcom3y=Fver3+C3y; for j=1:length(Fcom3y) if Fcom3y(j)<0; Aycom3(j)=(Fcom3y(j))*1000/fyd; else Aycom3(j)=0; end end Aycom3 %STRINGER 14 %Tension reinforcement Fver4=[F4y F12y F20y F28y F36y F44y F52y F60y F70y F80y]/1000; %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C4y=0.2*1000*t*0.5*fcd*0.001; %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver4); if Fver4(i)>0 ; Ayten4(i)=Fver4(i)*1000/fyd;

'

Section B.0
else Ayten4(i)=0; end end Ayten4 %Compression reinforcement Fcom4y=Fver4+C4y; for j=1:length(Fcom4y) if Fcom4y(j)<0; Aycom4(j)=(Fcom4y(j))*1000/fyd; else Aycom4(j)=0; end end Aycom4 %STRINGER 15 %Tension reinforcement Fver5=[F5y F13y F21y F29y F37y F45y F53y F61y F71y F81y]/1000; %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C5y=0.2*1000*t*0.5*fcd*0.001; %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver5); if Fver5(i)>0 ; Ayten5(i)=Fver5(i)*1000/fyd; else Ayten5(i)=0; end end Ayten5 %Compression reinforcement Fcom5y=Fver5+C5y; for j=1:length(Fcom5y) if Fcom5y(j)<0; Aycom5(j)=(Fcom5y(j))*1000/fyd; else Aycom5(j)=0; end end Aycom5 %STRINGER 16 %Tension reinforcement Fver6=[F6y F14y F22y F30y F38y F46y F54y F62y F72y F82y]/1000; %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C6y=0.2*1000*t*0.5*fcd*0.001; %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver6); if Fver6(i)>0 ; Ayten6(i)=Fver6(i)*1000/fyd; else Ayten6(i)=0; end end Ayten6

'

Appendix B

Calculations for Stringer method

%Compression reinforcement Fcom6y=Fver6+C6y; for j=1:length(Fcom6y) if Fcom6y(j)<0; Aycom6(j)=(Fcom6y(j))*1000/fyd; else Aycom6(j)=0; end end Aycom6 %STRINGER 17 %Tension reinforcement Fver7=[F7y F15y F23y F31y F39y F47y F55y F65y F75y F85y]/1000; %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C7y=0.2*1000*t*0.5*fcd*0.001; %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver7); if Fver7(i)>0 ; Ayten7(i)=Fver7(i)*1000/fyd; else Ayten7(i)=0; end end Ayten7 %Compression reinforcement Fcom7y=Fver7+C7y; for j=1:length(Fcom7y) if Fcom7y(j)<0; Aycom7(j)=(Fcom7y(j))*1000/fyd; else Aycom7(j)=0; end end Aycom7 %STRINGER 18 %Tension reinforcement Fver8=[F8y F16y F24y F32y F40y F48y F56y F66y F76y F86y]/1000; %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C8y=0.2*1000*t*0.5*fcd*0.001; %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver8); if Fver8(i)>0 ; Ayten8(i)=Fver8(i)*1000/fyd; else Ayten8(i)=0; end end Ayten8 %Compression reinforcement

'

Section B.0
Fcom8y=Fver8+C8y; for j=1:length(Fcom8y) if Fcom8y(j)<0; Aycom8(j)=(Fcom8y(j))*1000/fyd; else Aycom8(j)=0; end end Aycom8 %------------------------------------------------------------------------%Shear reinforcement %------------------------------------------------------------------------Ashear1=x(1)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear2=x(2)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear3=x(3)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear4=x(4)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear5=x(5)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear6=x(6)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear7=x(7)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear8=x(8)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear9=x(9)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear10=x(10)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear11=x(11)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear12=x(12)*700/fyd*1000 Ashear13=x(13)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear14=x(14)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear15=x(15)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear16=x(16)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear17=x(17)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear18a=x(18)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear18b=x(18)*200/fyd*1000

'!

Appendix C

Modeling in ETABS

Figure C.1: Spandrel labeling 95

Appendix C

Modeling in ETABS

Figure C.2: Axial forces in spandrels, P

Figure C.3: Shear forces in spandrels, V2 96

Section C.0

Figure C.4: Moment forces in spandrels, M3

97

Appendix C
Spandrel S1 S1 S2 S2 S3 S3 S4 S4 S5 S5 S6 S6 S7 S7 S8 S8 S9 S9 S9 S9 S10 S10 S10 S11 S11 S11 S12 S12 S13 S13 S14 S14 S15 S15 S16 S16 S17 S17 S18 S18 S19 S19 S19 S19 S20 S20 S20 S20 S21 S21 S21 S21 S22 S22 S22 S22 S23 S23 S24 S24 S25 S25 S26 S26 S27 S27 S28 S28 S29 S29 S30 S30 S30 S30 S31 S31 S31 S31 S32 S32 S32 S32 S33 S33 S34 S34 S35 S35 S36 S36 S37 S37 S38 S38 Loc Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Left Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right P [kN] P [kN/m] V2 [kN]

Modeling in ETABS
V2 [kN/m] M3 [kNm] Height [m] Width [m] Force M3 [kN] 6 38 59 -99 -52 51 83 -130 -75 30 55 -108 -60 -6 1 -7 30 -21 10 -15 35 -17 14 29 12 -2 1 96 148 -144 -58 118 205 -277 -149 56 118 -201 -107 -2 5 -24 2 -14 48 -40 17 -27 67 -35 21 -30 43 -6 14 -4 4 124 194 -190 -87 125 220 -265 -142 22 126 -181 -132 -4 6 -27 3 -16 50 -28 12 -27 57 -24 20 -3 4 -24 4 22 73 -48 -24 16 103 -100 -33 -28 Reinforc. for M3 [mm2 ] 15 86 135 -228 -119 116 192 -299 -172 68 126 -249 -138 -14 3 -16 70 -49 23 -35 79 -39 33 66 26 -5 3 222 339 -330 -133 270 472 -638 -342 129 271 -463 -247 -4 11 -54 5 -32 110 -92 40 -61 154 -80 47 -69 99 -14 32 -10 9 285 446 -438 -199 287 506 -608 -326 51 291 -415 -304 -10 14 -61 6 -37 116 -65 28 -63 131 -54 47 -7 10 -55 10 51 167 -110 -55 38 237 -230 -75 -65 Reinforc. for V [mm2 /m] 18 -31 16 141 25 -120 36 161 23 -136 8 161 90 -50 40 61 255 205 119 163 267 184 144 199 115 44 -58 -107 30 179 56 -96 100 249 113 -211 23 205 125 -118 117 179 41 142 473 393 210 306 598 411 240 364 328 147 135 84 -55 -69 65 214 73 -123 102 251 175 226 229 -8 -144 -71 147 210 51 181 469 307 152 323 251 134 130 40 49 90 -15 188 173 52 -25 385 311 186 371 232 Reinforc. for P [mm2 /m] 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 5 120 196 0 0 37 6 0 0 64 63 0 0 36 117 0 101 12 0 23 36 0 0 49 51 0 21 149 156 0 40 18 11 97 0 0 0 119 104 0 0 60 130 0 0 0 113 14 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 224 157 19 10 100 0 0 0 53 52 0 0 103 153 3 2 0 3 0 0 138 29 0 0 534 407 0

Table C.1: Spandrel forces and reinforcement calculations

-11 -25 -9 -113 -49 -10 28 -77 2 37 60 -68 -3 11 3 -35 -62 34 33 -63 -77 19 61 -68 53 6 -8 18 28 -84 -25 38 40 -72 16 117 122 -15 31 14 6 50 -8 -66 -92 62 54 -108 -145 31 68 -117 -107 -15 59 7 -2 16 -1 -57 -16 -44 -132 -188 -141 -131 -234 175 123 15 5 52 -8 -72 -107 28 27 -109 -132 54 80 1 2 -60 1 -80 -147 66 14 -116 -211 256 195 -45 -16 -35 -12 -162 -70 -14 39 -110 2 52 85 -97 -4 16 2 -30 -51 28 28 -52 -64 16 51 -56 44 5 -4 10 16 -47 -14 21 22 -40 9 65 68 -9 17 8 5 42 -6 -55 -76 52 45 -90 -121 26 57 -98 -89 -12 49 6 -1 9 -1 -32 -9 -24 -73 -105 -78 -73 -130 97 68 8 4 44 -7 -60 -89 23 23 -90 -110 45 67 1 1 -26 1 -73 -134 60 12 -106 -192 232 177 -41 6 -9 12 107 8 -37 28 123 7 -41 6 122 27 -15 21 32 133 107 62 85 139 96 75 104 60 23 -46 -84 59 350 44 -75 197 488 88 -165 45 401 98 -92 61 94 22 74 247 205 110 160 312 214 125 190 171 77 71 44 -43 -54 128 420 57 -97 200 492 137 177 449 -16 -113 -56 77 110 27 94 245 160 80 169 229 122 119 36 85 157 -7 90 206 62 -12 184 372 223 178 111 8 -14 7 61 11 -52 16 70 10 -59 4 70 39 -22 18 26 111 89 52 71 116 80 63 87 50 19 -25 -47 13 78 25 -42 44 108 49 -92 10 89 55 -51 51 78 18 62 206 171 91 133 260 179 104 158 143 64 59 37 -24 -30 28 93 32 -54 45 109 76 98 100 -4 -63 -31 64 92 22 79 204 133 66 141 109 58 57 17 21 39 -7 82 75 23 -11 167 135 81 161 101 5 26 41 -70 -36 35 58 -91 -52 21 38 -76 -42 -4 2 -8 36 -26 12 -18 41 -20 17 34 14 -3 3 174 266 -259 -104 212 370 -499 -267 101 212 -362 -193 -3 6 -28 3 -17 57 -48 21 -32 80 -42 25 -36 52 -7 17 -5 7 224 349 -343 -156 225 396 -476 -255 40 228 -325 -238 -8 7 -32 3 -20 60 -34 14 -33 69 -28 24 -3 10 -55 5 24 80 -53 -26 18 114 -110 -36 -31 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.3 2.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1 2.5 2.5 1 1 2.5 2.5 1 1 2.5 2.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.5 2.5 1 1 2.5 2.5 1 1 2.5 2.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.5 2.5 1 1 2.5 2.5 1 1 2.5 2.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1 1 2.5 2.5 1 1 2.5 2.5 1 1

98

Section C.0

Figure C.5: Pier labeling

Figure C.6: Axial forces in Piers, P 99

Appendix C

Modeling in ETABS

Figure C.7: Shear forces in piers, V2

Figure C.8: Moment forces in piers, M3 100

Section C.0

Pier P1 P1 P2 P2 P3 P3 P4 P4 P5 P5 P6 P6 P7 P7 P8 P8 P9 P9 P10 P10 P11 P11 P12 P12 P13 P13 P14 P14 P15 P15 P16 P16 P17 P17 P18 P18

P [kN] -517 -517 -41 -41 -132 -132 -169 -169 -175 -175 -517 -517 -2105 -2105 -144 -144 -448 -448 -774 -774 -739 -739 -2105 -2105 -3692 -3692 -178 -178 -829 -829 -1073 -1073 -2080 -2080 -1612 -1612

P [kN/m] -45 -45 -41 -41 -132 -132 -169 -169 -175 -175 -45 -45 -183 -183 -144 -144 -448 -448 -774 -774 -739 -739 -183 -183 -321 -321 -178 -178 -829 -829 -613 -613 -238 -238 -921 -921

Table C.2: Pier forces and reinforcement calculations

V2 [kN] 570 570 49 49 199 199 195 195 126 126 570 570 1183 1183 140 140 386 386 452 452 204 204 1183 1183 1490 1490 171 171 343 343 639 639 1153 1153 338 338 V2 [kN/m] 71 71 41 41 166 166 162 162 105 105 45 45 147 147 117 117 322 322 377 377 170 170 94 94 185 185 142 142 286 286 304 304 120 120 175 175 M3 kNm] 74 491 -8 53 -101 145 -101 140 -70 87 1196 1784 2011 2957 -75 93 -228 236 -253 290 -181 65 4378 5561 5787 6880 -55 154 -185 236 -474 309 3453 4654 -160 606 width [m] 11.5 11.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 1 1 1 1 1.75 1.75 8.75 8.75 1.75 1.75 Height h[m] 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Force from M3 6 43 -8 53 -101 145 -101 140 -70 87 104 155 175 257 -75 93 -228 236 -253 290 -181 65 381 484 503 598 -55 154 -185 236 -271 176 395 532 -91 346

Reinf. for M3 15 98 -18 123 -233 334 -233 322 -160 200 239 357 402 591 -173 214 -524 542 -581 667 -415 149 875 1112 1157 1375 -127 354 -426 542 -622 406 907 1223 -210 796

Reinf. for V2 163 163 95 95 381 381 374 374 242 242 104 104 338 338 269 269 740 740 866 866 391 391 215 215 426 426 327 327 658 658 699 699 275 275 403 403

101

References
[1] ANSYS, version 10.0,

User and Theoretical Manual

, ANSYS, Inc., Southpointe,

Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, USA [2] ATC,

The Seismic Evaluation and Retrot of Concrete Buildings

, Applied Technol-

ogy Council, ATC-40 Report, Redwood City, California, USA, 1996 [3] Bessason, Bjarni & Sigfsson, Thordur

[4] Chen, W.F, USA, 1982

Capacity and earthquake response analysis of RC-shear walls Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete
, Nordic concrete research, vol. 27:1-14, Oslo, Norway, 2001

, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,

[5] Chopra, Anil K.,

Engineering

Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis
, John Wiley

, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA, 2001

[6] Cook, Robert D.,

& Sons, Inc., New York, USA, 2002 [7] DS411,

[8]

Norm for betonkonstruktioner, eng. Code of Practice for the Structural use of Concrete ETABS, Concrete Shear Wall Design Manual, Version 8
(in Danish), Dansk Standard, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999 , CSI, Computer & Structures, Inc., Berkeley, USA, 2002

[9]

Eurocode 2, Design of Concrete Structures. EN1992-1-1

Standardization, Brussels, 2004 Commitee for Standardization, Brussels, 2003

, European Commitee for

[10]

Eurocode 8, Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. EN1998-1-1

quake Spectra, 16, p. 573-593, 2000

, European

[11] Fajfar, P.,

A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design Designers' Guide to EN 1998-1 and EN 1998-5

, Earth-

[12] Gulvanessian, Haig, London, UK, 2005

, Thomas Telford,

[13] Jensen, Bjarne Chr.,

Betonkonstruktioener efter DS411, 2. udgave

(in Danish), In-

genirenbger, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2003 [14] Jnsson, Kristjn,

MATLAB, forritunarml fyrir vsindalega treikninga

(in ice-

landic), tgfuflagi Slemba, Reykjavk, Iceland, 2004 [15] Moaveni, Saeed,

Finite Element Analysis, Theory and Applications with ANSYS

Person Educations, Inc., New Jersey, USA, 2003

!

References
[16] Nanakorn, P. and Soparat, P.,

Finite Element Analysis of Cracking Localization: The Smeared Crack Approach with a Mixed Formulation, Thammasat International
Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 28-39, 2000.

[17] Nawy, Edward G and Scanlon, Andrew

Designing Concrete Structures for Serviceabilty and safety, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, USA, 1992 Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity, Second Edition, CRC Press, Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete, American Society

[18] Nielsen, M.P., USA, 1999

[19] Nilson, Arthur H,

of Civil Engineers, New York, USA, 1982 [20] O'Brien, Eugene J & Dixon, Andrew S,

Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Design, The Complete Process, Longman, Edinburgh, UK, 1999 Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, USA, 1992

[21] Pauley, Priestley,

[22]

SAP2000, Analsysis Reference Manual, Version 8, CSI, Computer & Structures, Inc.,
Berkeley, USA, 2002

[23] Sigbjrnsson,

QUAKES

2000:

Ragnar

Damage

SOUTH and

ICELAND Strong-Motion

EARTHRecordings,

http://www.eaee.boun.edu.tr/bulletins/v20/v20web/iceland.htm, [24] Stefansson, Ragnar, Gudmundsson, Gunnar B. & Halldorsson, Pall,

The South Iceland earthquakes 2000 a challenge for earthquake prediction research, Reykjavk,
2003, http://www.vedur.is/utgafa/greinargerdir/2003/03017.pdf

[25]

Teknisk Stbi, 18. udgave (in Danish), Ingenirenbger, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2002 Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures, A physical Approach with Empahsis on Earthquake Engineering, CSI, Computer &
Structures, Inc., Berkeley, USA, 2002

[26] Wilson, Edward L,

"