SIMULATING SEISMIC STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE OF REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALL BUILDINGS: AN INITIAL PILOT STUDY TO IDENTIFY MODELING AND

EXPERIMENTAL DATA NEEDS

Curt B. Haselton Assistant Professor, California State University, Chico Chico, California, USA John Wallace Professor, University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, California, USA Abstract This paper presents an initial pilot study for collapse assessment of a 12-story reinforced concrete shear wall core building. When attempting to directly model structural collapse of reinforced concrete shear wall buildings, there are still significant issues to overcome, so this paper focuses on identifying important questions with respect to analytical modeling approaches and the data needed to support future development and validation. Available data for calibrating the flexural and shear responses of the analytical models are summarized, followed by a discussion of data needs. This preliminary collapse assessment of the 12-story shear wall building suggests that current United States code-conforming shear wall buildings may be susceptible to shear failure, and may also be susceptible to flexural damage, and possibly failure, in the upper stories of the building where the confinement reinforcing is discontinued. These failures are typically assumed to produce collapse; however, the lack of data makes this a subjective assessment. 1 Introduction An attempt at directly simulating the collapse of a shear wall building is presented to document remaining research gaps and needs for both structural modeling and for supporting experimental data. This paper starts with an overview of the 12-story case-study building, explains the structural modeling approaches used to model flexural and shear behavior in the walls, presents sample predicted collapse modes, and then summarizes the modeling and experimental data needs that were identified in the case-study. 2 Overview of 12-Story Case-Study Building Figures 1 and 2 summarize the design of the 12-story case-study building that is used for illustration in this paper. This building was designed by a practicing engineer (Hooper 2005) to be a special reinforced concrete shear wall building according to ACI 318 (ACI 2005) for a high-seismic site of California (seismic design category D, site class D, SM1 = 0.9g) according to ASCE/SEI 7 (2005). 3 Structural Modeling for Directly Simulating Collapse The structural modeling platform used for this pilot study is OpenSees (OpenSees 2009) and a twodimensional model is created to model the building in the North-South direction. 3.1 The Distinction Between Local Failures and Global Collapse. When attempting to model structural collapse, care must be taken to not equate local damage with global collapse. Such an approach can add a great deal of conservatism in the collapse assessment process. Provided that forces can redistribute to other components in the building, local damage will not result in global collapse. Figure 3 shows a building damaged in the February 27, 2010 Chile earthquake where extensive local damage exists; however, no collapse was observed. In Figure 3(b), collapse did not occur despite extensive damage to the five walls shown at the ground level. Similar observations have been noted in other earthquakes (Wallace et al. 2008).

Figure 1. Plan view of 12-story special core wall building.

Figure 2. Cross-sectional views of I-shaped portion of wall section for a) stories 1-4, and b) stories 5-12. There is a substantial decrease in the confining reinforcement between stories four and five. When modeling structural collapse, the goal is to model the deterioration of each structural component and to capture the redistribution of forces throughout the structural system as various components fail. If this was exhaustively done, the structural model would be able to directly indicate collapse when the building becomes dynamically unstable (as compared with the conservative approach of defining collapse as the failure of the first component in the system). With this said, the state of the art of collapse modeling is still far from this goal, given that our models would likely predict collapse for the buildings noted in Figure 3.

(a) Concepcin (b) Via del Mar (c) Coronel Figure 3 Shear wall buildings damaged in the February 27, 2010 Chile Earthquake 3.2 Overview of Structural Modeling Approach. There are a variety of approaches used to model shear wall structures, though the approaches are typically not specifically aimed at directly simulating structural collapse. Figure 4 shows a common fiber-type model of a shear wall, which is often also referred to as a multiple-vertical-line-element model. At each story level, this model includes multiple vertical fibers which include a mixture of concrete and reinforcing steel material, as well as a horizontal shear spring to model the possible shear distortion of the story. The horizontal dashed lines indicate the possible use of integration points over the height of each story. Additionally, a rotational spring is included at the base of the wall to account for the additional deformation caused by the inelastic rebar strains in the footing (Massone et al. 2009). 3.3 Modeling Flexural Behavior. The flexural behavior is modeled using the vertical fibers which represent the axial stress-strain behavior of that portion of the wall, and aggregately model the flexural behavior of the wall. These vertical fibers can be modeled in several ways (with or without integration points, using force interpolation or displacement interpolation, etc.). For collapse simulation, the model must be able to deteriorate (i.e. strain soften), which is difficult for models that include integration points for force or displacement interpolation because (a) significant variation in the results (e.g. axial strains) can be produced depending on the mesh and the number of points used and (b) these types of models typically have numerical difficulties when the components strain-soften. Therefore, we suggest use of models where the extent of yielding (plastic hinge length) can be controlled directly by the analyst rather than by the use of integration points. The modeling approaches to simulate the flexural pre-collapse response of the wall are well-developed, and are documented in the recent ATC-76 publication (e.g. NIST 2010; Orakcal, Massone, and Wallace 2006; Orakcal, Wallace, and Conte 2004; etc.). However, modeling the behavior which precipitates collapse (rebar buckling and fracture, loss of confinement, etc.) is not well-developed due to the lack of experimental data upon which to base model development. There are currently several inconsistent approaches to quantifying the flexural deformation capacity of a shear wall; two possible

Zero Length

Figure 4. Overview of shear wall structural model. The model is composed of multiple vertical fibers at each story, one shear spring at each story, and a rotational spring at the base to account for inelastic strains in the rebar within the footing.

approaches are shown in Table 1. The first approach is to estimate the axial strain capacity of the vertical fibers (e.g. Scott et al. 1982), and the second approach is to use empirical relationships to estimate the plastic rotation capacity of the wall over the plastic hinge length. In Table 1, the axial strain capacities are converted to approximate plastic rotation capacities to allow direct comparison between the two approaches. The comparison shows that the strain capacity approach is very sensitive (judged to be too sensitive) to changes in confining reinforcement (between stories four and five) and the plastic rotation capacity approach is not highly sensitive (judged to be too insensitive) to changes in confining reinforcement. The true behavior is likely between these two extremes, so both are presented to bracket the behavior. Note that, in more recent work (NIST 2010), it is proposed that the axial strain capacity in the confined regions should be 0.05 rather than the value of 0.035 based on Scott et al. (1982). In addition to the need for more reliable information regarding flexural deformation capacity (i.e. the deformation up to failure associated with rebar buckling, etc.), information is also needed to model the post-failure behavior of the wall (i.e. the slope of the negative stiffness after failure initiates). Typically, the shear wall is assumed to fail abruptly once it has reached the damage state associated with collapse; however, this approach tends to be conservative and could be substantially improved if experimental data were available to investigate the behavior of shear walls subjected to large deformations and significant lateral strength degradation. Table 1. Flexural deformation capacities predicted based on experimental work of Scott, Park, and Priestly (1982) and work by Fardis (2003).
Scott, Park, and Preistly (1982) Plastic curvature Strain at stirrup (rad/inch) Predicted Assume fracture (in/in), corresponding to story plastic derived from Scott, strirrup fracture plastic hinge Park, and Preistly strain, from rotation length (1982) experimental moment-curvature capacity (inches)** data* analysis at (radians)** expected axial load 0.0350 0.0350 0.0350 0.0350 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 3.0E-04 2.9E-04 2.4E-04 2.3E-04 4.8E-05 4.7E-05 4.6E-05 4.5E-05 4.5E-05 4.4E-05 4.3E-05 4.2E-05 168 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 0.051 0.037 0.030 0.029 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005 Fardis (2003)

Story

Plastic rotation capacity predicted by Fardis (radians)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

0.032 0.020 0.020 0.019 0.018 0.017 0.017 0.016 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.015

* The strain capacities in the upper stories were judjementally reduced by 15% to account for ties not being closed. ** The PH length assumed to be story height, consistent with (Fischniger, Isakovic, and Kante 2002) and FEMA 356.

3.4 Modeling Shear Behavior. Figure 5 shows the monotonic behavior of the model used for the wall shear behavior.

Shear Force Vcap Vy

Vcr

cr y = 0.0015

cap

zero

Shear Strain

Figure 5. Monotonic shear force-deflection behavior. Wall shear strength decreases as the wall becomes more flexurally damaged, as shown in Figure 6 (replicated from ATC-76), though this interaction between shear and flexural behaviors is not captured in the current model approach utilized in this study. To quantify the wall shear strength, Figure 6 shows an approximate trend-line through the presented data, and recent work by Biskinis and Fardis (2004) has extended this concept and created a parametric equation to predict the shear strength as a function of flexural ductility. The relationship from Biskinis and Fardis is used for this case-study example, and the shear strengths were computed based on an assumed flexural ductility of 20% of the ductility capacity, based on the typical flexural damage predicted at the base of the wall prior to the onset of shear failure. The maximum shear strength (Vcap) is taken to be 3% larger than the yield force (ATC-76; NIST 2010). The parameters associated with cracking and the yield deformation are well-developed and are documented in the recent ATC-76 report (NIST 2010).

Figure 6. Test data illustrating degradation of shear strength with flexural damage (from NIST 2010).

The shear deformation capacities (cap and zero) are based on a limited literature review, mostly containing shear wall panels with aspect ratio near 1:1 (Hidalgo et al. 2002; Vallenas, Bertero, and Popov 1979; Matsumori et al. 2005; Chen et al. 2005; Chiou et al. 2006; Sanada and Kabeyasawa 2006). The deformation capacities found from these test data are shown in Figure 7, with rough trendlines to relate the deformation capacity to the amount of horizontal reinforcement. This literature review is limited, just for purposes of this pilot study, and should be extended to include the additional data that are available in the literature.
0.020 0.018 0.016 0.014 0.012

(a)

cap

0.010 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.000 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Horizontal Reinforcement Ratio (%)

0.050 0.045 0.040 0.035 0.030

(b)

zero

0.025 0.020 0.015 0.010 0.005 0.000 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Horizontal Reinforcement Ratio (%)

Figure 7. Shear deformation capacities for shear wall modeling. The cyclic behavior of the shear panel should exhibit a pinched response, and should likely also include strength deterioration with continued inelastic cycles of loading. These behaviors have not yet been carefully calibrated; this should be done once more data are collected. 3.5 Modeling Flexural-Shear Interaction Behavior. The shear wall model used in this pilot study does not capture the interaction between flexure and shear behaviors; this is a substantial limitation and a needed improvement in the modeling approach. Massone, Orakcal and Wallace (2009, 2006) have developed a shear wall model that is capable of simulating the coupled shear-flexure response, but this model needs to be extended to simulate the coupled shear-flexure response under cyclic loading.
6

3.6 Modeling Coupling Beams. The modeling of coupling beams was not included in this pilot study, since the building was modeled in only the North-South direction. Even so, modeling coupling beams is an important aspect of modeling collapse of any realistic shear wall building. 3.7 Modeling Slabs and Slab-Wall Connections. This simple pilot study also did not include modeling of the slab system. For purposes of predicting collapse, the primary concern is the possibility of failure at the slab-wall connection resulting in the slab disconnecting from the wall, loosing ability to carry gravity loads, and collapsing vertically. Although damage to slab-wall connections has been observed following earthquakes (e.g., Wallace and Moehle, 1989), the authors are not aware of cases where damage at the slab-wall interface of conventionally reinforced slabs (with modern detailing) has resulted in collapse. However, in recent years, the use of slip-forming for core walls has resulted in the use of alternative connections, which could possibly be more prone to collapse. Even so, these new connections still have been shown in one experimental study to maintain gravity loads to lateral drift ratios of at least 5% (Klemencic et al. 2008). 3.8 Accounting for Non-Simulated Failure Modes. Even when shear wall models are improved and come closer to being able to directly simulate structural collapse, there will still be collapse mechanisms that the models will not be able to directly capture. For such collapse mechanisms, the structural response results should be checked in a post-processing mode to evaluate if such non-simulated collapse mechanisms may have occurred. One such non-simulated collapse mode is axial failure following shear failure, resulting in vertical collapse of the wall. Wallace et al. (2008) have developed a method to estimate the lateral deformation at axial collapse for lightly reinforced wall piers, but more experimental data would be useful to verify/refine this method. 4 Sample Collapse Assessment Results for Case-Study Building Figures 8 and 9 show the collapse mechanisms for the case-study building, using incremental dynamic analysis (Vamvatsikos and Cornell 2002) with a set of 78 far-field ground motions (Haselton and Deierlein 2007). At each story level, the figures indicate flexural damage with circles and indicate shear damage with rectangles. Figure 8 shows the predicted collapse mechanisms when the flexural deformation capacities are calibrated based on the work by Fardis et al. (2003). This shows that nearly all collapses are caused by shear failure at the base of the wall, and in the majority of simulations, there is also substantial flexural damage in the 5th story of the building. Only 2% of the ground motions caused collapse associated with flexural hinging at the base of the wall. Figure 9 shows the predicted collapse mechanisms when the flexural deformation capacities are calibrated based on the work by Scott et al. (1982), and shows the possibility of collapse caused by flexural failure at the 5th story of the building. As previously mentioned, reality is likely somewhere between the two sets of behavior shown in Figures 8 and 9. 5 Summary of Structural Modeling Needs and Experimental Data Needs The purpose of this paper was to discuss an attempt at directly simulating the collapse of a shear wall building and, in doing so, to document the remaining research gaps and needs for both structural modeling and for supporting experimental data. This section summarizes these primary remaining needs. 5.1 Overall Modeling of Coupled Shear-Flexure Behavior. The shear strength of a wall degrades as flexural damage progresses, and this behavior needs to be captured directly in the analytical model. Massone, Orakcal and Wallace (2009, 2006) have developed a shear wall model that is capable of simulating the coupled shear-flexure response, but this model needs to be extended to simulate the coupled shear-flexure responses under cyclic loading. This extended model could also include the

improvements to the flexural and shear modeling that are discussed in the remainder of the section. The extension of this model is a critical need to enable modeling the collapse behavior of shear wall buildings.

76% of collapses (shear failure, substantial flexural damage in upper story)

22% of collapses 2% of collapses (shear failure, (flexural failure at base) minimal/moderate flexural damage in upper story)

Figure 8. Predicted collapse mechanisms of 12-story special core wall building, when the flexural deformation capacity is calibrated based on Fardis et al. (2003).

50% of collapses (shear failure)

48% of collapses (flexural failure in upper story)

2% of collapses (flexural failure at base)

Figure 9. Predicted collapse mechanisms of 12-story special core wall building, when the flexural deformation capacity is calibrated based on Scott et al. (1982). 5.2 Flexural Behavior. Models for the pre-failure flexural behavior of shear walls are relatively welldeveloped (e.g. concrete material models, etc.). However, methods for predicting the deformation capacity to the onset of failure (e.g. the strain or plastic rotation at the onset of rebar buckling, crushing of boundary element and loss of confinement, etc.) and modeling the post-failure behavior (i.e. the deformation between the onset of failure and the point of zero wall resistance) are virtually non-existent. Some data and methods exist (some of which were summarized in this paper), but the predictions are inconsistent. This is an area where experimental work is needed to generate the data needed to better understand the deformation capacity of shear walls, the behavior of the walls as lateral strength degradation occurs, and the ability of the walls to sustain gravity loads at high levels of deformation. 5.3 Shear Behavior. The results of the pilot study suggest that shear failure (initiating after some flexural damage) is the predominant failure mode for modern special reinforced concrete core wall buildings, so accurately modeling this behavior is critical.

Some shear strength and deformation capacity data were presented in this paper, but the literature review was limited due to the purpose of this pilot study. The literature review should be extended to locate relevant data, although the extent of available tests that include monitoring of deformations during lateral strength degradation for walls subjected to axial loads is likely not significant. However, this review is important to help identify gaps and to better identify research needs. Once the full review is completed, then it will be clearer whether additional data are needed to model the wall shear behavior. Using the full set of collected data, predictive equations should be created to estimate the deformation capacities based on all of the key wall design parameters (i.e. more than just horizontal reinforcement ratio). Such predictive equations should provide information for both the median deformation capacity and the uncertainty in the prediction. Additionally, the cyclic behavior of the shear panel should also be calibrated based on the data (e.g. pinching behavior, strength deterioration behavior, etc.). Using the full set of collected data, the current methods for predicting the shear strength (as a function of flexural ductility demand) could also be more fully evaluated. Update predictive equations could also be created to predict the shear strength (both median and uncertainty). 5.4 Coupling Beams. Test data exist for coupling beams tested to large displacements, and such data should be use to calibrate component models for coupling beams. More data would be useful, but should not be prioritized above the other primary needs discussed previously. Such calibrated coupling beam models could then be used to study the impact of coupling beams on core walls subjected to dynamic loading and would provide important information for improving collapse predictions. 5.5 Loading Protocols for Testing. When additional experimental testing is completed, it should be continued to large deformation levels, to clearly show the deformation at the onset of lateral strength degradation as well as the ability of the element or system to sustain gravity loads at deformations approaching zero lateral load strength (near zero residual strength). Additionally, it is desirable that multiple loading protocols be used to support development of the models (see FEMA 440A 2009; section 5.3.2). 6 Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of collaborators, including, but not limited to, John Hooper (who designed the case-study structure), Charlie Kircher, Greg Deierlein, Jiro Takagi, and Abbie Liel. This work was supported by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) through the FEMA P-695 (ATC-63) project and the ATC-76 project, which were funded by FEMA and NIST, respectively. The authors are solely responsible for the accuracy of statements or interpretations contained in this publication, and no warranty is offered with regard to the results, findings and recommendations herein, either by FEMA, NIST, or ATC (its directors, members, or employees). These organizations and individuals do not assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any of the information, product or processes included in this publication. 7 References
American Concrete Institute. (2005). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05), Farmington Hills, MI. American Society of Civil Engineers. (2005). ASCE7-05: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Reston, VA. Biskinis, D.E., G.K. Roupakias and M.N. Fardis (2004). Degradation of Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members with Inelastic Cyclic Displacements, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 101, No. 6, November 2004, pp. 773-783. Chen. S, T. Matsui, T. Matsumori and T. Kabeyasawa (2005), Collapse Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structure Under Earthquakes, US-Japan DaiDaiToku/NEES Workshop on Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete

Structures, Berkeley, California, July 7-8, 2005. Chiou, Y.J., F.P. Hsiao, C.C. Huang, and Y.W. Liou (2006), Structural Behavior of reinforced Concrete Framed Walls, 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (100th Anniversary Earthquake Conference), San Francisco, Ca., April 18-22, 2006, 10 pp. Fardis, M. N. and Biskinis, D.E. (2003). Deformation Capacity of RC Members, as Controlled by Flexure or Shear, Otani Symposium, 2003, pp. 511-530. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2009). Recommended Methodology for Quantification of Building System Performance and Response Parameters, FEMA P695A, Prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Prepared by the Applied Technology Council (Project ATC-63), Redwood City, CA. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2009). Effects of Strength and Stiffness Degradation of Seismic Response, FEMA P440A, Prepared by the Applied Technology Council (Project ATC-62), Redwood City, CA. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000). FEMA 356: Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Report No. FEMA 356, Prepared by Applied Technology Council, Prepared for Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. Fischinger, M, T. Isakovic, and P. Kante (2004). Seismic Vulnerability of Lightly Reinforced Walls, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-6, 2004, Paper No. 468. Haselton, C.B. and G.G. Deierlein (2007). Assessing Seismic Collapse Safety of Modern Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings, PEER Report 2007/08, Pacific Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California. Hidalgo, P.A., C.A. Ledezma, and R.M. Jordan (2002). Seismic Behavior of Squat Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 287-308. Hooper, J. (2005). Personal communication regarding the design of the 12-story case-study shear wall core building. Massone, L.M., K. Orakcal and J.W. Wallace (2009). Modeling of Squat Structural Walls Controlled by Shear, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 106, No. 5, September-October 2009. Klemencic, R., J.A. Fry, G. Hurtado, and J.P. Moehle (2006). Performance of Post-Tensioned Slab-Core Wall Connections, PTI Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, December 2006. Matsumori, T., J. Kim and T. Kabeyasawa (2005), Shaking Table Test of a One-Third-Scale Model of a Six-Story Wall-Frame R/C Structure, US-Japan DaiDaiToku/NEES Workshop on Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Berkeley, California, July 7-8, 2005. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2010). Evaluation of the FEMA P695 Methodology for Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, Prepared for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Prepared by the Applied Technology Council (Project ATC-76), Redwood City, CA. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) (2009). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, http://opensees.berkeley.edu/ (last accessed 2009). Orakcal, K, L.M. Massone, and J.W. Wallace (2006). Analytical Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Walls for Predicting Flexural and Coupled Shear-Flexural Responses, PEER Report 2006/07, Pacific Engineering Res. Center, University of California, Berkeley, Ca. Orakcal, K, J.W. Wallace and J.P. Conte (2004). Flexural Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Walls Model Attributes, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 101, No. 5, September-October 2004. Sanada, Y. and T. Kabeyasawa (2006), Local Force Characteristics of Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall, 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (100th Anniversary Earthquake Conference), San Francisco, Ca., April 18-22, 2006, 10 pp. Scott, B. D., Park R., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1982). Stress-Strain Behavior of Concrete Confined by Overlapping Hoops and Low and High Strain Rates, ACI Journal, January-February 1982, No. 1, pp. 13-27. Vallenas, J.M., V.V Bertero and E.P. Popov (1979). Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls, UCB/EERC Report 79/20, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Ca. Vamvatsikos, D. and C. Allin Cornell (2002). Incremental Dynamic Analysis, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, Issue 3, pp. 491-514. Wallace, J.W., K.J. Elwood, and L.M. Massone (2008). Investigation of the Axial Load Capacity for Lightly Reinforced Wall Piers, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 9, September 2008, pp. 15481557. Wallace, J.W. and J.P. Moehle (1989). The 1985 Chile earthquake: an evaluation of structural requirements for bearing wall buildings, UCB/EERC Report 89/05, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Ca.

10