ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
TECHNICAL PAPER
Title no. 110-S10
Flexural Drift Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Wall with Limited Confinement
by S. Takahashi, K. Yoshida, T. Ichinose, Y. Sanada, K. Matsumoto, H. Fukuyama, and H. Suwada
The flexural drift capacity of reinforced concrete (RC) walls is discussed in this study based on the test results of 10 specimens. The test parameters were wall length, thickness, detailing, and axial force. The detailing of the ties did not satisfy the ACI 318-08 requirements. Each specimen had a column at one end where an axial force was applied. All specimens failed in flexural compres- sion after yielding of the longitudinal bars. The observed flexural drift capacity was between 0.4 and 1.2%. A set of equations to predict the drift capacity is proposed wherein the hinge zone length is assumed to be 2.5 times that of the wall thickness.
Keywords: boundary element; compressive failure; confinement; drift capacity; plastic hinge; reinforced concrete wall.
INTRODUCTION ACI 318-08 ^{1} requires special detailing for boundary elements of reinforced concrete (RC) walls to prevent flex- ural compressive failure under seismic forces. One of the approaches to the detailing is based on the displacement- based concept. ^{2} If the compressive strain of concrete is expected to be larger than 0.003, the compressive zone is required to be reinforced according to the requirement of the special boundary element for confinement. This requirement is verified by Thomsen and Wallace, ^{3} who tested walls with rectangular- and T-shaped cross sections. The Japanese Code ^{4} prescribes the ductility of RC walls based mainly on the ratio of the neutral axis depth to the wall thickness. This prescription is based on several experimental studies, including those by Tabata et al., ^{5} who tested RC walls with rectangular cross sections and large shear-span ratios. The plastic hinge length L _{p} is important for estimating drift capacity. Researchers have proposed various approaches. In the study by Wallace and Orakcal, ^{2} which was the basis of the seismic requirements of ACI 318-08, ^{1} the plastic hinge length was assumed as one half of the wall length (L _{p} = l _{w} /2). Tabata et al. ^{5} assumed L _{p} = 0.3l _{w} . On the other hand, Kabeyasawa et al. ^{6} idealized the wall, assuming that the strain of each boundary element is uniform within each story; this idealization is almost equivalent to the assumption of L _{p} = h, where h is story height. Orakcal and Wallace ^{7} divided the wall into eight segments in the direc- tion of the height; this idealization is almost equivalent to the assumption of L _{p} = h/8. Paulay and Priestley ^{8} assumed that L _{p} = 0.20l _{w} + 0.044a from the test results of canti- lever walls, where a is shear span length. Takahashi et al. ^{9} showed that the prescription of the Japanese Code ^{4} is implicitly based on the assumption of L _{p} = 2.5t, where t is wall thickness. The objective of this paper is to propose a set of equations to predict the drift capacity of RC walls based on the assump- tion of L _{p} = 2.5t. To verify this assumption, 10 specimens were tested. The detailing of these specimens does not satisfy the seismic requirements of ACI 318-08, ^{1} but such detailing
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013
may be preferred for ease of construction. The test param- eters were wall length, thickness, detailing, and axial force. The details of this experiment are available elsewhere. ^{1}^{0}^{,}^{1}^{1}
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE There are many RC buildings that do not satisfy the requirements of ACI 318-08, ^{1} including those in Chile. Most of the wall damage caused by the 2010 Chile earthquake was related to the configuration and reinforcement detailing of wall boundary elements. ^{1}^{2} The damage indicated that the performance of these walls was brittle, as expected. On the other hand, there may have been many buildings that resisted the earthquake, although they did not satisfy the require- ments of ACI 318-08. ^{1} The ACI 318-08 ^{1} requirements are quite strict about the boundary element; it may be sufficient to ensure large ductility of walls. However, the findings of this research may lead to simpler detailing for walls where a relatively smaller compressive strain is expected. The findings of this research may also be used to evaluate the seismic capacity of buildings with walls that do not satisfy the ACI 318-08 ^{1} requirements.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Specimens Ten RC wall specimens with a boundary column on only one side were prepared to investigate the differences in deformation capacity. Figure 1 shows the cross sections of
the specimens used in this research. Each specimen is named as follows:
1. Perpendicular end wall: The first letter of the speci-
men’s name—“P” or “N”—means with or without a perpen- dicular wall, respectively. For example, Specimen PM5 in
Fig. 1(g) has a perpendicular end wall 130 mm (5.1 in.) long and 60 mm (2.4 in.) thick. All the perpendicular end walls have single-layer reinforcement (D4 at 80 mm [3.15 in.], where D4 is a deformed bar with a nominal diameter of 4 mm [0.16 in.]) and do not have confinement.
2. The ratio of wall panel length to wall thickness (l _{w}_{p} /t):
The second letter of the specimen’s name—“S,” “M,” or “L”—expresses that the l _{w}_{p} /t ratio is 6, 12, or 18, respec-
tively, where the wall panel length l _{w}_{p} is defined, excluding the column. For example, the ratio of Specimen PM5 in Fig. 1(g) is 1200/100 = 12.
3. The ratio of neutral axis depth to wall thickness (c/t):
The vertical arrows in Fig. 1 indicate the location of the
ACI Structural Journal, V. 110, No. 1, January-February 2013. MS No. S-2011-062 received March 2, 2011, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2013, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the November-December 2013 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 2013.
95
Susumu Takahashi is a PhD Student of architectural engineering at Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya, Japan.
Kazuya Yoshida is a Master’s Student of architectural engineering at Nagoya Insti- tute of Technology.
ACI member Toshikatsu Ichinose is a Professor of architectural engineering at Nagoya Institute of Technology.
ACI member Yasushi Sanada is an Associate Professor of architecture and civil engi- neering at Toyohashi University of Technology, Toyohashi, Japan.
Kenki Matsumoto is a Master’s Student of architectural engineering at Nagoya Insti- tute of Technology.
ACI member Hiroshi Fukuyama is a Chief Research Engineer at the Building Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan.
Haruhiko Suwada is a Research Engineer at the Building Research Institute.
neutral axis, whose computation method will be shown in
a later section of the paper. The number of the specimen’s
name expresses the approximate ratio of c/t. For example, the ratio of Specimen PM5 in Fig. 1(g) is 493/100 = 4.9. Although the sections of Specimens NM5 and NM4 are identical, as shown in Fig. 1(a), the locations of the neutral axis are different because of the difference of axial forces, as shown in a later section. 4. With or without crosstie in boundary element:
Figure 2 shows the detail of the boundary elements of the specimens, except Specimens NM5, NM4, and NM2 ′. The horizontal bars have a 135-degree hook, as shown in Fig. 2(a). The cap bars have a 90-degree hook at both ends, as shown in Fig. 2(b), and the cap bars’ vertical spacing
is 35 mm (1.4 in.), as shown in Fig. 2(c). The crossties have
90- and 135-degree hooks, as shown in Fig. 2(b), and are staggered with a spacing of 70 mm (2.8 in.), as shown in Fig. 2(c). The crossties in Specimens NM5 and NM4 are located at a spacing of 35 mm (1.4 in.), as shown in Fig. 3(a).
Specimen NM2 ′ does not have crossties, as shown in Fig. 3(b). The detailing of the wall reinforcement for Specimen NM3 is shown in Fig. 4. The spacings of the horizontal and vertical bars are 35 and 100 mm (1.4 and 4.0 in.), respectively. The reinforcement details of the wall panels of the other speci- mens are the same as those in Fig. 4. Because the wall thick- ness of each specimen is different, the lateral and vertical wall reinforcement ratios vary from 0.54% to 0.84% and from 0.19% to 0.30%, respectively. The lengths of boundary elements (220 mm [8.7 in.] in Fig. 2(a)) are longer than half the length of the neutral axis in most specimens, as specified by the seismic requirements of ACI 318-08. ^{1} In the vertical direction, crossties are provided from the bottom to one-third of the clear height h, as shown in Fig. 4. This value of h/3 is much shorter than the requirement of ACI 318-08. ^{1} The spacing of the crossties (70 mm [2.8 in.] in most specimens) does not satisfy the requirements of ACI 318-08 ^{1} either. The cross-sectional areas of the crossties vary from 15 to 31% of ACI 318-08. ^{1} The clear heights of Specimens NM4 and NM5 are
1000 |
mm (3.3 ft), whereas those of the other specimens are |
1200 |
mm (4.0 ft), as shown in Fig. 4. Eight No. 3 (D10) |
longitudinal bars are provided in the boundary element of all specimens (Fig. 2(a)). Twelve No. 5 (D16) longitudinal bars are provided in the boundary column, except that of Specimen NL2, where eight No. 4 (D13) bars are provided (Fig. 1(e)) so the longitudinal reinforcement ratio (2.5%) is
similar to that of the other specimens. All specimens are designed to fail in flexure; the shear- to-flexural-capacity ratios vary from 1.2 to 2.3, where the flexural and shear capacities are calculated based on the Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) standards ^{1}^{3} and ACI 318-08, ^{1} respectively. The material properties of the steel bars are indicated in Table 1, where f _{y} is the yield strength, f _{u} is the tensile strength, and E _{s} is the elastic modulus. The material properties of concrete are indicated
Fig. 1—Specimen sections. (Note: Dimensions in mm; 1 mm = 0.039 in.; No. 4 is D13; No. 5 is D16.)
96
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013
Fig. 2—Boundary element except for Specimens NM5, NM4, and NM2′ . (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.; No. 3 is D10.)
in Table 2, where f _{c} ′ is the compressive strength, E _{c} is the elastic modulus, and f _{r} is the modulus of rupture.
Test setup Figure 5 shows the test setup. Lateral force was applied by
a hydraulic jack to a stiff loading steel beam fastened to the
specimen. All specimens had stiff RC stubs at both the top and bottom for fixing with the loading frame. No axial force was applied for Specimen NM4. For the other specimens, two vertical hydraulic jacks were force-controlled so the moment around the center of the boundary column is zero, as shown in Fig. 5. The amount of the axial force was approximately 20% of the axial capacity of the boundary column (f _{c} ′ A _{g} ), where A _{g} is the gross cross-sectional area of the column. The applied axial load was approximately 240 kN (54 kips) for Specimen NL2, 400 kN (90 kips) for NM5, and 540 kN (121 kips) for the other specimens. Horizontal load was applied 2425 mm (8.0 ft) above the bottom of the wall panel for NM5 and NM4 (Fig. 5). The height of the horizontal load was 2525 mm (8.3 ft) for the other specimens. The shear- span ratio of NL2 is 2525/2000 = 1.26, which is the smallest. The shear span ratio of NS3 is 2525/1020 = 2.48, which is the largest.
OBSERVED DAMAGE AND DEFLECTION COMPONENT Figure 6 shows the lateral load-drift relationship of Specimen NL2. Lateral drift R is defined as the ratio of measured lateral displacement D to specimen height h. The
displacement was measured at the top of the clear height in all specimens. During the positive loading (column in tension), the maximum strength (530 kN [119 kips]) was observed at
a +1.2% drift level. The strength was 1.1 times the analytical flexural strength. Between the drift levels of +2 and +3%, strength decreased rapidly. During the negative loading direction (column in compression), the maximum strength
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013
Fig. 3—Boundary element of Specimens NM5, NM4, and NM2′.
Fig. 4—Elevation of Specimen NM3. (Note: Dimensions in mm; 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Table 1—Material properties of reinforcing bars
Bar |
f _{y} , MPa |
f _{u} , MPa |
E _{s} , GPa |
|||
D4 |
411 |
(351) ^{*} |
521 |
(544) ^{*} |
173 |
(192) ^{*} |
No. 3 (D10) |
391 |
(376) ^{*} |
469 |
(520) ^{*} |
199 |
(188) ^{*} |
No. 4 (D13) |
367 |
503 |
183 |
|||
No. 5 (D16) |
389 |
(387) ^{*} |
559 |
(563) ^{*} |
180 |
(180) ^{*} |
^{*} Numbers in parentheses indicate material properties for Specimens NM4 and NM5. Notes: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 GPa = 145 ksi.
Table 2—Material properties of concrete
Specimen |
f _{c} ′, MPa |
E _{c} , GPa |
f _{r} , MPa |
NS3 |
|||
NM3 |
38.3 |
28.4 |
2.65 |
NM2 |
|||
NM2′ |
37.8 |
27.8 |
2.45 |
NL2 |
|||
PL6 |
|||
PM5 |
37.6 |
28.6 |
3.07 |
PM3 |
|||
NM5 |
|||
NM4 |
33.4 |
23.9 |
2.55 |
Notes: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 GPa = 145 ksi.
97
Fig. 5—Loading setup.
Fig. 6—Load versus drift of Specimen NL2.
Fig. 7—Specimen NL2 at maximum drift.
(280 kN [63 kips]) was observed at a –1.5% drift level. The strength was 1.2 times the analytical flexural strength. Figure 7 shows Specimen NL2 at the end of the experi- ment at a 5% drift level. The spalling of concrete started at the bottom right corner of the wall panel at a +2% drift level.
98
Fig. 8—Buckling of reinforcement.
Fig. 9—Instrumentation of specimens.
The spalled zone extended toward the column until a +3% drift level. On the other hand, the concrete of the boundary column slightly spalled during the negative loading but not during the positive loading, even at a +5% drift level. Figure 8 shows the buckling of the longitudinal bars (eight No. 3 [D10]) in the boundary element at a 3% drift level. The buckled bars fractured in tension between the drift levels of –2 and –3%. Figure 9 shows the linear variable differential transducer (LVDT) used to evaluate the flexural drifts. ^{7} Figure 10 shows
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013
_{F}_{i}_{g}_{.} _{1}_{0}_{—}_{L}_{o}_{a}_{d} _{v}_{e}_{r}_{s}_{u}_{s} _{fl}_{e}_{x}_{u}_{r}_{a}_{l} _{d}_{r}_{i}_{f}_{t} _{o}_{f} _{S}_{p}_{e}_{c}_{i}_{m}_{e}_{n} _{N}_{L}_{2}_{.}
the load-versus-flexural-drift relationship of Specimen NL2. Flexural drift at 80% of maximum strength V _{m}_{a}_{x} (the black circle in Fig. 10) is defined as flexural drift capacity in this paper. The hysteresis loops are more spindle-shaped than those in Fig. 6. The strength degradation in Fig. 10 is milder than that in Fig. 6, which will be discussed in the following. Figure 11 shows the load-versus-shear-drift relationship of Specimen NL2. Shear drift was obtained by subtracting flexural drift from total drift. Shear drift increased after flex- ural yielding. The black triangles in Fig. 10 and 11 show the load step at the onset of strength degradation. The shear drift just before the strength degradation (1.25%) was larger than the corresponding flexural drift (0.75%). Note that the maximum applied shear force is much smaller than the shear strength computed according to ACI 318-08 ^{1} (the top broken line in Fig. 11). The shear drift did not increase during the degradation. This is the reason why the strength degradation in Fig. 10 is milder than that in Fig. 6. Figure 12 shows the horizontal slip along one of the flexural cracks near the center of the wall when the shear drift was 1.25% or the shear deformation was 15 mm (0.59 in.) (the black triangle in Fig. 11). The observed slip was 8.5 mm (0.33 in.), which was more than one half of the total shear deformation (15 mm [0.59 in.]). The damage and overall behavior of the other specimens were similar to Specimen NL2, except that the slips along the flexural cracks were smaller than those in NL2. To discuss the cause of the slip, the compressive force of concrete C is defined in Eq. (1).
C =+N
_{∑} Af − _{∑} Af
st
y
sc
y
(1)
where N is applied axial load; A _{s}_{t} is the gross sectional area of longitudinal bars in tension; A _{s}_{c} is the gross sectional area of longitudinal bars in compression; and f _{y} is the yield strength of the longitudinal bar. The variable V _{m}_{a}_{x} in the horizontal axis of Fig. 13 indi- cates the maximum applied shear force. The vertical axis of Fig. 13 shows the slip drift angle, which is defined as the sum of the observed slips ( Ss) just before the strength degrada- tion (the black triangle in Fig. 11) divided by the clear height h. Slip was larger in the specimens with larger V _{m}_{a}_{x} /C ratios.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013
Fig. 11—Load versus shear drift (deformation) of Specimen NL2. (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Fig. 12—Slip along flexural crack of Specimen NL2. (Note:
1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Fig. 13—Lateral slip drift Ss/h versus V _{m}_{a}_{x} /C.
Such a correlation is not obtained between the slip and the average shear stress (V _{m}_{a}_{x} /A _{g} , where A _{g} is the gross sectional area of the specimen). Because the slip is not the focus of this study, only flexural drift is discussed in the following. The load-versus-flexural-drift relationships of Specimens NM3 and PM3 are shown in Fig. 14(a) and 15(a) to inves-
99
Fig. 14—Load and strain versus flexural drift of Specimen NM3.
Fig. 15—Load and strain versus flexural drift of Specimen PM3.
tigate the effect of a perpendicular wall on flexural drift capacity. The difference between these two specimens is the existence of a perpendicular wall. The drift capacities of NM3 (0.57%) and PM3 (0.61%) were similar. The compres- sive failure of the perpendicular wall of PM3 occurred before the lateral strength degradation started. Because the perpen- dicular wall is provided with no confinement (Fig. 1), the
100
Fig. 16—Elastic and plastic deformations.
compressive ductility of this wall was very limited at the ulti- mate drift. Therefore, the contribution of the perpendicular wall should be ignored in evaluating the drift capacity. The vertical axes of Fig. 14(b) and 15(b) show the average strain at the compression edge (strain between Points E and F). The plastic hinge lengths of these two specimens, which will be evaluated later as 2.5 times the wall thickness (300 mm [11.81 in.]), are similar to the length between Points E and F (400 mm [1.3 ft]). The strains at the ultimate drifts (the black circles in the figures) were approximately 0.008, which agrees with the ultimate strain of concrete e _{u} computed in the following considering the confinement effect.
FLEXURAL DRIFT CAPACITY Simplification of plastic deformation In this paper, flexural drift capacity is decomposed into elastic and plastic components (R _{u} = R _{y} + R _{p} ), as shown in Fig. 16(a). The curvature at yielding f _{y} is computed based on the yield strain of longitudinal reinforcement (Fig. 16(b)).
f =
^{y}
e
y
d
−
c
(2)
where e _{y} is yield strain of reinforcement; d is effective depth, defined as the distance between the compression edge and the center of the boundary column; and c is the neutral axis depth computed from Eq. (3).
c =
C
0.85 b f t
1
′
c
(3)
where C is the compressive force of concrete computed from Eq. (1); b _{1} is the reduction factor to determine the neutral axis; f _{c} ′ is the compressive strength of concrete; and t is wall thickness. Theoretically, Eq. (3) is effective at the ultimate state and ineffective at yielding; however, this difference may be negligible because the amount of the wall reinforcements is much smaller than that in the boundary column. In this study, linear distribution was used for elastic curva- ture (Fig. 16(a)). Therefore, the elastic drift R _{y} is computed from Eq. (4).
(4)
R
y
=
D
fy
h
h
2
⋅f
y
−
h
2
6
a
=
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013
Fig. 17—Measured strain distribution of Specimen NM4. (Note: NA is neutral axis.)
where D _{f}_{y} is flexural displacement at yielding; a is shear span length; and h is the specimen’s clear height. The ultimate curvature f _{u} is computed based on the ulti- mate strain of concrete (Fig. 16(c)), where e _{u} is the ultimate compressive strain of concrete defined in a later section
f =
u
e
u
c
(5)
The plastic drift is computed using plastic hinge length L _{p} .
R
p
(
= L ⋅ f −f
pu
y
) (6)
Substituting Eq. (2) and (5) into Eq. (6) leads to the equa- tion to compute the plastic drift.
=
L
p
R
e−
pu
c
c
dc
−
e _{}
y
(7)
Figure 17 shows the strain distribution measured using LVDTs in Fig. 9 along the clear height of Specimen NM4 when the lateral force decreased to 80% of the maximum strength. On the compressive side (the right edge), the strain localized between Points E and F, whereas the strain between Points F and G or G and H was quite small. On the tensile side (the left edge), even the strain between Points C and D exceeded the yield strain (0.0029 > e _{y} = 0.002). It is concluded that, for plastic deformation, the compressed area is limited near the bottom of the wall, as indicated by the shaded rectangle (compressed area) in Fig. 17 and 18, whereas the area in tension is trapezoidal. The hatched area in Fig. 18 is assumed as rigid. The strain at the compressed edge in Fig. 18 is assumed to be uniformly e _{p} , which equals the term inside the parentheses of Eq. (7)
e =e −
pu
c
d
−
c
e
y
(8)
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013
Fig. 18—Simplified model for plastic deformation.
Fig. 19—Assumed stress-strain model for concrete of Specimen NS3.
where the second term is the strain caused by the elastic deformation. In this paper, e _{p} is called the plastic component of ultimate strain. Note that the rigid area in Fig. 18 rotates
R =
p
L
p
c
e
p
(9)
around the neutral axis. Therefore, the height of the compressed area in Fig. 18 can be regarded as the plastic hinge length L _{p} . The deformation shown in Fig. 18 agrees with the observed crack patterns and is similar to that proposed by Hiraishi. ^{1}^{4} There are two unknown parameters—L _{p} and e _{p} —in Eq. (9). In the following sections, these parameters are examined using the tested specimens. Specimens tested by Wallace and Orakcal ^{2} and Tabata et al. ^{5} are used because flexural deformations of specimens are reported.
Plastic component of ultimate strain The broken lines in Fig. 19 show the stress-strain relation- ships of confined and unconfined concrete in Specimen NS3 evaluated by the Saatcioglu and Razvi ^{1}^{5} model, which is applicable to rectangular sections. Figure 20(a) shows the boundary element of NS3, where the shaded zone is assumed to be confined. The confining pressure on the shaded zone in the x-direction is computed assuming that
the horizontal bars are 100% effective. The confining
pressure in the y-direction is computed assuming that the
101
Fig. 20—Assumed confined regions. (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Fig. 21—Relationship between R _{p} and l _{w} /c.
crossties are 100% effective, while the cap bars at the wall end with 90-degree hooks are 50% effective because the observed strain of the cap bars was approximately one-half of the yield strain. Figure 20(b) shows the boundary element of Specimen NM2 ′ . Although only cap bars are provided in NM2 ′ , the shaded area is again assumed to be confined. The confining pressure in the y-direction is computed assuming that the cap bars are 50% effective. The solid line in Fig. 19 shows the average stress-strain relationship of the boundary element calculated as the weighted average of confined and unconfined concrete.
s=s ⋅
c
t
c
t
+s ⋅
u
−
tt
c
t
(10)
where s _{c} is the stress of confined concrete; t _{c} is the center-to center distance between the horizontal wall bars (Fig. 20(a)); and s _{u} is the stress of unconfined concrete.
102
The ultimate concrete strain e _{u} is defined as the strain when the average stress of concrete decreases to 80% of the maximum strength. The ultimate strain of Specimen NM2′ without crossties is 0.0066, while the ultimate strains of the other specimens are between 0.0078 and 0.0084. The ulti- mate strains of the specimens of Wallace and Orakcal ^{2} are approximately 0.008, except for Specimen TW2, which had
a strain of 0.0112. Figure 20(c) shows the boundary elements
of Specimens No. 2 and 3 of Tabata et al. ^{5} ; although the
confinement ratio is higher than that of Fig. 20(a), its ulti- mate strain is 0.008 because its concrete strength was high (70 MPa [10.15 ksi]). The strain at the compressive edge when tensile reinforcement bars yield shown in Fig. 16(b) (the second term in Eq. (8)) is approximately 0.001 in most specimens. Therefore, e _{p} in Eq. (8) is approximately 0.008
– 0.001 = 0.007 for all specimens except NM2′ and TW2.
Plastic hinge length As discussed in the Introduction, Wallace and Orakcal ^{2} and Tabata et al. ^{5} assumed that L _{p} is equal to 0.5l _{w} and 0.3l _{w} , respectively, where l _{w} is wall length. If L _{p} is proportional to l _{w} , based on Eq. (9), R _{p} must be proportional to l _{w} /c because e _{p} is similar for most specimens. The relationship between R _{p} and l _{w} /c is examined in Fig. 21. The variable R _{p} is the plastic drift, which is the flexural drift minus the elastic drift R _{y} computed by Eq. (4). The broken line in Fig. 21 is the regression line, which is imposed to pass the origin. The correlation coefficient is 0.70, where the results of Specimens TW2 and NM2 ′ are neglected because the e _{p} values of these specimens are very different from those of the other specimens. The solid lines show the assump- tions of L _{p} = 0.5l _{w} and 0.3l _{w} with e _{p} = 0.007. They do not agree with the regression line. The circles in Fig. 21 show two of the data, which have different trends from the other specimens. Specimen NS3, whose l _{w} /t ratio is the smallest (=8.5), exhibited a drift capacity twice that expected by the regression line. On the other hand, Specimen NL2, whose
l _{w} /t ratio is the largest (=20), exhibited a drift capacity 60%
of that expected by the regression line. Similarly, specimens with small or large l _{w} /t ratios are located above or below the
regression line, respectively. This tendency indicates that hinge length is not simply proportional to wall length. ACI 318-08 ^{1} requires that the special boundary region shall be longer than a/4, where a is shear span length. This requirement implies that L _{p} in Fig. 18 equals a/4. To investi- gate whether the hinge length is related to shear span length a, the relationship between R _{p} and the a/c ratio is shown in Fig. 22. The solid line shows the assumption of L _{p} = a/4 with e _{p} = 0.007, which does not agree with the regression line (the broken line). The correlation coefficient is 0.84 and is better than that in Fig. 21. However, it is noted that the results of Specimens No. 2 and 3 of Reference 5, whose a/t ratios (=50) are much larger than those of the other speci- mens (=18 to 28), are located quite lower than the regression line. This tendency again indicates that hinge length is not simply proportional to shear span length. Markeset and Hillerborg ^{1}^{6} conducted uniaxial compres-
sion tests of plain concrete prisms with various lengths and sectional dimensions. They observed that compressive failure is quite limited within a certain length. They concluded that the failure length was 2.5 times the shorter side length of the compressed section (Fig. 23). In this study, wall thick- ness t is shorter than neutral axis depth c in all specimens. Figure 24 shows the damage of Specimen NS3 at a 2% drift
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013
Fig. 22—Relationship between R _{p} and a/c.
Fig. 23—Compression localization. ^{1}^{6}
level (right after the strength degradation). The damage length seems to be almost 2.5 times the wall thickness. Therefore, 2.5t is used for plastic hinge length L _{p} in this study. It should also be noted that even in Specimen NM2 with the largest thickness (t = 140 mm [5.5 in.]), the damage of concrete was limited within the height of confinement (400 mm [1.3 ft]). Therefore, it is concluded that the height of confinement may be limited to 3t if the expected compressive strain is not greater than 0.008. Figure 25 shows the relation between R _{p} and t/c. The corre- lation coefficient is 0.94 and larger than the correlation coef- ficients in Fig. 21 and 22 (0.70 and 0.84). The broken line in Fig. 25 shows the regression line. The solid line shows R _{p} estimated from L _{p} = 2.5t and e _{p} = 0.007. The solid line reasonably agrees with the regression line, which implies that the assumption of L _{p} = 2.5t is appropriate. Figure 26 compares the observed and estimated flex- ural drift capacities (R _{u} = R _{y} + R _{p} ). All test data except Specimen TW2 are within 30% from the estimated drift capacities. The observed drift of TW2 is much larger than the estimated value. The observed compressive failure zone of TW2 was also much wider than L _{p} = 2.5t. Similar
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013
Fig. 24—Observed failure of Specimen NS3 at 2% drift.
Fig. 25—Relationship between R _{p} and t/c.
Fig. 26—Comparison between estimated and observed flex- ural drift capacities.
103
tendencies are observed for the test results of Paulay and Priestley, ^{8} which are not plotted in Fig. 26 because their flexural drift capacities are not reported. These discrepancies may be attributable to the difference of confinement. Recall that the strain localization depicted in Fig. 23 is observed in plain concrete. In the case of well-confined concrete columns subjected to uniaxial compression, large plastic strain shall be distributed uniformly over its entire length until strength degradation starts ( e _{m}_{a}_{x} in Fig. 19). If the concrete column is long enough, buckling occurs ^{1}^{7} before the strain reaches e _{m}_{a}_{x} . The strain at buckling depends on the length of the column and the tangential stiffness at the strain. ^{1}^{7} The boundary elements of Specimen TW2 and the specimens of Paulay and Priestley ^{8} almost satisfied the requirements of ACI 318-08. ^{1} If such a wall would be subjected to pure bending, uniform curvature corresponding to e _{m}_{a}_{x} or less would be observed in its clear height when out-of-plane buckling would occur. Therefore, for such a wall, e _{u} in Eq. (7) should be replaced with the strain at buckling and L _{p} should be a function of shear span length, which would be much longer than 2.5t. On the other hand, the cross-sectional areas of the hori- zontal bars and the crossties of the specimens tested by the authors are 40% to 52% and 6% to 31% of those required by ACI 318-08, ^{1} respectively. The cross-sectional areas of the confining bars of Specimens No. 2 and 3 tested by Tabata et al. ^{5} and Specimens RW1 and RW2 tested by Wallace and Orakcal ^{2} are 24 to 63% of those required by ACI 318-08. ^{1} It is concluded that L _{p} = 2.5t is valid if the confinement of the boundary element is less than half of that required by the seismic provisions of ACI 318-08. ^{1} Otherwise, the equation tends to underestimate the capacity.
CONCLUSIONS The test results of 10 RC walls are described in this
study. Based on the experimental results and analytical work presented in this paper, the following conclusions are obtained:
1. All tested RC walls with limited confinement in the
boundary element failed in compression after flexural yielding. The observed flexural drift capacity was between 0.4 and 1.2%.
2. Shear drift caused by lateral slip along the flexural crack
may be large if the ratio of the maximum shear force to the
compressive force of concrete is large (Fig. 13).
3. Plastic components of flexural drift can be modeled as
shown in Fig. 18, where the length of the compression zone
L _{p} is 2.5 times the wall thickness (L _{p} = 2.5t) if the depth
of the neutral axis is longer than the wall thickness and the confinement of the boundary element is half of that required by the seismic provisions of ACI 318-08. ^{1}
4. Ultimate flexural drift is defined as the drift when the
lateral force decreases to 80% of maximum lateral strength.
Ultimate flexural drift can be computed as the sum of Eq. (4) and (7), where e _{u} shall be determined as shown in Fig. 19 considering the confinement effect.
104
5. The detailing of the boundary element shown in Fig. 2(c) with the height of the confined area 3t is sufficient to obtain an ultimate strain of e _{u} = 0.008. 6. The effect of a perpendicular wall on ultimate drift is negligible if the wall is not confined.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was financially supported by the Ministry of Land and Trans- portation. The authors thank J. Wallace of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), who independently conceived the idea that hinge length may be proportional to wall thickness, for valuable discussions. Data provided by T. Tabata, H. Nishihara, and H. Suzuki of Ando Corporation are greatly appreciated. The authors also thank H. Sezen of The Ohio State University for critically reading the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.
2. Wallace, J. W., and Orakcal, K., “ACI 318-99 Provisions for Seismic
Design of Structural Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 4, July-Aug. 2002, pp. 499-508.
3. Thomsen, J. H. IV, and Wallace, J. W., “Displacement-Based Design of
Slender Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls—Experimental Verification,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 130, No. 4, 2004, pp. 618-630.
4. “Design Guidelines for High-Rise RC Frame-Wall Structures,”
National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management, Kaibundo,
Tokyo, Japan, 2003, pp. 53-85.
5. Tabata, T.; Nishihara, H.; and Suzuki, H., “Ductility of Reinforced
Concrete Shear Walls without Column Shape,” Proceedings of the Japan
Concrete Institute, V. 25, No. 2, 2003, pp. 625-630. (in Japanese)
6. Kabeyasawa, T.; Shiohara, H.; Otani, S.; and Aoyama, H., “Analysis of
the Full-Scale Seven-Story Reinforced Concrete Test Structure,” Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, V. 37, No. 2, 1983, pp. 431-478.
7. Orakcal, K., and Wallace, J. W., “Flexural Modeling of Reinforced
Concrete Walls—Experimental Verification,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2006, pp. 196-206.
8. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., “Stability of Ductile Structural
Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 4, July-Aug. 1993, pp. 385-392.
9. Takahashi, S.; Yoshida, K.; Ichinose, T.; Sanada, Y.; Matsumoto, K.;
Fukuyama, H.; and Suwada, H., “Flexural Deformation Capacity of RC Shear Walls without Column on Compressive Side,” Journal of Structural
and Construction Engineering: Transactions of AIJ, V. 76, No. 660, 2011, pp. 371-377. (in Japanese)
10. Takahashi, S., “Modeling for RC Shear Walls with or without
Boundary Column,” PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya, Japan, 2011. (in Japanese)
11. Nagoya Institute of Technology, “Flexural Deformation of RC Wall
with One Side Column,” http://kitten.ace.nitech.ac.jp/ichilab/research/flex- uralwall2010. (last accessed Nov. 5, 2012)
12. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, “Executive
Summary on Chile Earthquake Reconnaissance Meeting,” NEHARP
Library, http://www.nehrp.gov/library/ChileMeeting.htm. (last accessed Nov. 5, 2012)
13. Architectural Institute of Japan, “AIJ Standard for Structural Calcu-
lation of Reinforced Concrete Structures,” Maruzen, Tokyo, Japan, 2010,
pp. 484-491.
14. Hiraishi, H., “Evaluation of Shear and Flexural Deformations of
Flexural Type Shear Walls,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 17, No. 2, 1984, pp. 135-144.
15. Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S. R., “Strength and Ductility of Confined
Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 118, No. 6, 1992, pp. 1590-1607.
16. Markeset, G., and Hillerborg, A., “Softening of Concrete in Compres-
sion Localization and Size Effects,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 25, No. 4, 1995, pp. 702-708.
17. Shanley, F. R., “Inelastic Column Theory,” Journal of the Aeronau-
tical Sciences, V. 14, No. 5, 1947, pp. 261-268.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2013
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.