Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
Slender reinforced concrete (RC) walls, which are
designed to have a larger shear resistance than flexural
resistance, and whose behavior is therefore controlled by
flexure rather than shear, behave in a ductile flexural mode
when loaded beyond the elastic limit. The inelastic seismic
behavior of such walls can be analyzed using advanced
models that account for the biaxial in-plane stress state in the
RC elements, such as the modified compression field theory
by Vecchio and Collins,1 on which the Response-20002 and
VecTor23 programs are based. Other advanced modeling
approaches that have been developed to analyze the inelastic
response of RC members are based on macroelements, such
as the PERFORM4 program, in which different layers of the
macroelements are assigned a specific load-carrying
mechanism, such as axial forces and bending moments or
shear forces. In engineering practice, however, slender walls
are still often modeled with beam elements. The formulation
of the most common types of nonlinear beam elements (that
is, displacement-based5 or force-based inelastic beam
elements6) focuses on modeling the flexural rather than the
shear response of the member. As a result, relative elaborate
techniques are available for modeling the inelastic flexural
response, such as models with inelastic beam elements with
fiber sections. Compared to the options that are available to
engineers when modeling the flexural response of RC
members, the variety of approaches for modeling the shear
response is relatively sparse. In most structural engineering
programs, the shear stiffness of beam elements that develop
a flexural mechanism is assigned a constant value that
cannot be updated during the loading process. This modeling
approach has been supported by the misconception that
because the shear reinforcement is not supposed to yield and
the compression strut is not supposed to crushthe shear
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011
167
(1a)
d
s = ------ ( 2 1 )
2b
(1b)
Table 1Cross sections of isolated cantilever walls tested under quasi-static cyclic loading that were
included in this study (all dimensions in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
( z ) dz
0
= --------------------- ( h sh )h sh
(3)
169
Fig. 5Shear displacement-shear force hysteresis for Ushaped wall TUA7 for cycles parallel to web and restrained
wall head rotation. Plot includes shear displacements
according to Eq. (1a) and (2).
force-deformation hysteresis.25 To give an idea of the
difference between the two methods of evaluating the shear
displacements that were discussed in the previous section,
results for both methodsEq. (1(a)) and (2))are included
in Fig. 5. For the results presented herein, the difference in
peak shear displacements is between 5 and 12%. Massone and
Wallace,19 however, reported differences as large as 31% for
the two methods of evaluating the shear deformations. The
obtained difference depends on the curvature profile over the
height of the shear panel, the magnitude of the factor, and
the ratio of shear-to-flexural deformations of the shear panel.
Variation of s /f ratio with ductility demand
The shear strain distribution (Fig. 4) and the hysteresis
curve (Fig. 5) suggest that the magnitude of the shear
deformations does not only depend on the shear force but also
depends on the inelastic flexural deformations. Experimental
evidence for the continuous growth of the shear deformations
with top displacements when the wall is loaded in the inelastic
range was presented in the 1970s by Wang et al.,26 Vallenas et
al.,20 and Oesterle et al.8,9 Vallenas et al.,20 for example,
observed that yielding of the shear and flexural mechanism
simultaneously occurs, and that even if the shear stresses were
constant over the height of the wall, shear yielding is only
observed in regions where the flexural mechanism yields.
Vallenas et al.20 also stated that for the monotonic loading, the
shear deformations were almost a constant factor of the
flexural deformations, whereas for specimens subjected to
cyclic loading, the ratio of shear-to-flexural deformations
increases with the number of load reversals and intensity of
the deformation. Vallenas et al.s20 findings are revisited in
the following section using the results from different series of
quasi-static cyclic wall tests as evidence.
The considered test series are the following: 1) Phases I and II
of the PCA tests conducted by Oesterle et al.8,9; 2) the tests
conducted by Dazio et al.11 on rectangular walls; 3) the tests on
walls with highly confined boundary elements conducted by
Hines et al.12,13; and 4) the aforementioned tests on U-shaped
walls conducted by Beyer et al.7 The cross sections, aspect ratios,
and axial load ratios of these walls are given in Table 1. For the
walls tested by Dazio et al.11 and Beyer et al.,7 the experimental
measurements were available in electronic format and the shear
deformations were evaluated according to the method
developed by Hiraishi10 (Eq. (2)). For the tests conducted
171
Fig. 6Variation of s/f ratios with top drift for cantilever RC walls tested under quasi-static cyclic loading.
by Oesterle et al.8,9 and Hines et al.,12,13 the data were only
available in the form of plots presented in the test reports,
where the shear deformations had been evaluated
according to Eq. (1(b)); this, of course, impairs the quality
of the available results. The shear displacements reported
in these test reports, however, are considered of sufficient
accuracy for the following discussion.
Unlike Vallenas et al.,20 Dazio11 found that the ratio of shearto-flexural displacements of the six capacity-designed RC walls
with rectangular sections that were tested under quasi-static
cyclic loading11 remained approximately constant for the peak
displacements of all cycles in the inelastic range; this is shown
in Fig. 6(c). The ratios of shear-to-flexural displacements for the
six walls vary between approximately 0.05 and 0.13. The walls
tested by Dazio et al.11 were all capacity-designed; therefore,
their behavior was always controlled by flexure. To illustrate
the difference for walls with shear-controlled behavior, the
walls of Phase I of the PCA test series are discussed in the
following. In this test series, Oesterle et al.8 tested seven walls
with different cross sections under unidirectional cyclic loading.
No axial load was applied during these tests. Figure 6(a) shows
the ratio of shear-to-flexural displacements as a function of the
top drift. The s/f ratios in Fig. 6(a) are plotted for inelastic
cycles onlysmall amplitude cycles at the beginning of the test
and cycles at the end of the test when either bar fracture or web
crushing had occurred and the capacity of the wall had
significantly decreased are omitted. In the following, the
variation of the s/f ratios for top displacements corresponding
to a drift ratio of top 1% is discussed. For these walls, a drift
ratio of top 1% corresponds to a displacement ductility
between = 1.6 and 3.6, according to the yield displacements
determined by Oesterle et al.8; hence, for top 1%, all walls are
undergoing inelastic deformations. Figure 6(a) shows that for
Walls R1 and B1, the s/f ratio is approximately constant over
the entire ductility range. For the other four walls (Walls R2,
B2, B3, and B5; Wall F1 is excluded because only two data
172
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
where the quantities m and are the axial strain at the center
of the wall sections and the curvature, respectively, and are
derived from the moment-curvature analysis. In this study,
m and were evaluated for the walls described in Table 1
for a maximum steel strain of 1.5%. The ratio m-, however,
remains typically quite stable along the inelastic branch of
the moment-curvature relationship. For the U-shaped walls,
moment-curvature analyses were carried out in the five
different directions of loading that were applied during
testing. For each direction of loading, the m- ratios
corresponding to the three wall sections of the U-shaped
wall (web and two flanges) were determined by extracting
the axial strain at the center of the wall section and dividing
it by the curvature component associated with the in-plane
bending moment of this wall. For a given ratio m- (that is,
for a given ratio of the compression zone c to the wall length
lw; refer to Fig. 7(c)), Eq. (7) yields that s/f is proportional
to lw/Hn. Equation (7) is therefore mainly a geometric
relationship. It also accounts, however, for the fact that for
the same wall subjected to different loading conditions, the
m- ratio might be different, as it was observed for U-shaped
walls under bidirectional loading.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011
(8)
(9)
REFERENCES
1. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., The Modified Compression-Field Theory
for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
2. Bentz, E., Response-2000, Shell-2000, Triax-2000, Membrane-2000 User
Manual, University of Toronto, ON, Canada, 2001, 85 pp.
3. Wong, P. S., and Vecchio, F. J., VecTor2 and Formworks Users Manual,
University of Toronto, ON, Canada, 2002, 213 pp.
4. CSI, PERFORM 3Dv4Nonlinear Analysis and Performance
Assessment for 3D Structures, Computer and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, CA,
2006, 328 pp.
5. Bathe, K.-J., Finite Element Procedures, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ, 1996, 1037 pp.
6. Taucer, F. F.; Spacone, E.; and Filippou, F. C., A Fiber Beam-Column
Element for Seismic Response Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures,
Report No. UCB/EERC-91-17, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley,
CA, 1991, 139 pp.
7. Beyer, K.; Dazio, A.; and Priestley, M. J. N., Quasi-Static Cyclic Tests of
Two U-Shaped Reinforced Concrete Walls, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, V. 12, No. 7, 2008, pp. 1023-1053.
8. Oesterle, R. G.; Fiorato, A. E.; Johal, L. S.; Carpenter, J. E.; Russell, H. G.;
and Corley, W. G., Earthquake Resistant Structural WallsTests of Isolated
Walls, Report to National Science Foundation, PCA Construction Technology
Laboratories, Skokie, IL, 1976, 317 pp.
9. Oesterle, R. G.; Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D.; Fiorato, A. E.; Russell, H. G.;
and Corley, W. G., Earthquake Resistant Structural WallsTests of Isolated
WallsPhase II, Report to National Science Foundation, PCA Construction
Technology Laboratories, Skokie, IL, 1979, 332 pp.
10. Hiraishi, H., Evaluation of Shear and Flexural Deformations of Flexural
Type Shear Walls, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering, V. 17, No. 2, 1984, pp. 135-144.
11. Dazio, A.; Wenk, T.; and Bachmann, H., Versuche an
Stahlbetontragwnden unter Zyklisch-Statischer Einwirkung (Quasi-Static
Cyclic Tests on RC Structural Walls), Report No. 239, ETH, Zurich,
Switzerland, 1999, 160 pp.
12. Hines, E. M.; Seible, F.; and Priestley, M. J. N., Cyclic Tests of Structural
Walls with Highly-Confined Boundary Elements, Report No. SSRP-99/15,
University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, Aug. 1999, 266 pp.
13. Hines, E. M.; Dazio, A.; and Seible, F., Seismic Performance of Hollow
Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Piers with Highly-Confined Boundary
Elements Phase III: Web Crushing Tests, Report No. SSRP-2001/27, University
of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, June 2002, 239 pp.
14. Thomson IV, J. H., and Wallace, J. W., Displacement-Based Design of
RC Structural Walls: An Experimental Investigation of Walls with
Rectangular and T-Shaped Cross Sections, Report No. CU/CEE-95/06,
Clarkson University, New York, 1995, 373 pp.
15. Pgon, P.; Plumier, C.; Pinto, A.; Molina, J.; Gonzalez, P.; Colombo, A.;
Tognoli, P.; Hubert, O.; and Tirelli, D., U-Shaped Walls: Description of the
Experimental Set-Up, TMR-ICONS-TOPIC5, JRC Special Publication No.
I.00.141, JRC Ispra, Italy, 2000, 40 pp.
16. Pgon, P.; Plumier, C.; Pinto, A.; Molina, J.; Gonzalez, P.; Tognoli, P.; and
Hubert, O., U-Shaped Walls: Quasi-Static Test in the X and Y DirectionsTest
Report, TMR-ICONS-TOPIC5, JRC Ispra, Italy, 2000, 25 pp.
17. Pgon, P.; Plumier, C.; Pinto, A.; Molina, J.; Gonzalez, P.; Tognoli, P.; and
Hubert, O., U-Shaped Walls: Quasi-Static Test in the Y DirectionTest
Report, TMR-ICONS-TOPIC5, JRC Ispra, Italy, 2000, 19 pp.
18. Pgon, P.; Plumier, C.; Pinto, A.; Molina, J.; Gonzalez, P.; Tognoli, P.; and
Hubert, O., U-Shaped Walls: Quasi-Static Test in the X DirectionTest
Report, TMR-ICONS-TOPIC5, JRC Ispra, Italy, 2000, 25 pp.
19. Massone, L. M., and Wallace, J. W., Load-Deformation Response of
Slender Reinforced Concrete Walls, ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 1, Jan.Feb. 2004, pp. 103-113.
20. Vallenas, J. M.; Bertero, V. V.; and Popov, E. P., Hysteretic Behaviour
of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls, Report No. UBC/EERC-79/20,
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1979, 234 pp.
21. Oesterle, R. G.; Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D.; Shiu, K. N.; and Corley, W. G.,
Web Crushing of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls, ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 81, No. 3, May-June 1984, pp. 231-241.
22. FEMA 356, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, DC, 2000, 518 pp.
177