Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
BEHAVIOUR CONSIDERING
MOMENT-SHEAR INTERACTION
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements
for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering
by
Supervisors:
Prof. Timothy Sullivan
Dr. David Ruggiero
February, 2016
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Concrete shear walls are widely used as the main structural system to provide seismic resistance in
buildings of all height ranges. Within this context, for years there have been several research efforts and
experimental campaigns in order to characterize the mechanical behaviour of shear walls under in plane
lateral loads. As a result of these efforts, several analysis tools and design methods have been developed
to provide practicing engineers with a basis for the dimensioning and detailing of this type of structural
element.
In the case of shear walls with low aspect ratios, the behaviour is complex and is not easily determined
by the usual elastic mechanics body of knowledge. In this case, there is a great variation of the stress
and deformation fields across the section and height of the elements, and interactions between flexure,
axial and shear components become more important. Therefore, current analysis tools are overly
complex and design methods usually rely on empirical solutions with great limitations on their
applicability.
The following report provides a summary of key aspects in the behaviour of these types of elements,
demonstrated in experimental testing, and attempts to provide a simplified solution to model the
behaviour of low aspect shear walls considering flexural and shear interactions by the use of: curvature
analysis, strain penetration, tension shift and a simplified version of compression field theory.
In order to validate the proposed method, 32 shear walls with different aspect, axial load and
reinforcement ratios are modelled and their predicted behaviour is evaluated with experimental results
obtained from a public database from the University of Patras. Overall the method provides a good fit
with the observed backbone curves of the analysed tests and a very good prediction of the walls strength
and displacement capacity.
Furthermore, a Displacement Based Methodology is implemented for a low aspect ratio wall, and
evaluated with time history analysis of 10 ground motions using the VecTor2 software, in order to
determine if the current body of knowledge developed for the design and assessment of concrete walls
provides adequate performance predictions. In general, the results indicate that the application of the
existing Displacement Based methodology did not prove to be very effective to predict the behaviour of
Abstract
structural systems based on low aspect ratio shear walls, but several factors were identified that should
be addressed in further investigations to better evaluate the methodology.
Keywords: concrete wall; moment-shear interaction; compression field theory; tension shift; strain
penetration; displacement based design, displacement reduction factor.
ii
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank my thesis supervisors Tim Sullivan and David Ruggiero for all their guidance and great input
during the development of the current thesis, as well as professors: Cino Viaggiani, Michael P. Collins,
Andr Filiatrault and Richard E. Klingner for restoring my passion for Structural Engineering during
the course of the Master Program.
All this experience wouldnt have been as rewarding without the help and support from all my amazing
friends who I met during the course of this 18 months. Special thanks to all of you all over the world.
iii
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. x
LIST OF SYMBOLS ............................................................................................................................ xii
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Modelling Limitations for Low Aspect Ratio Shear Walls ....................................................... 1
1.2 Observed Behaviour of Low Aspect Ratio Shear Walls ............................................................ 4
1.3 Existing tools for Low Aspect Ratio Walls Analysis and Design ............................................. 6
1.4 Objectives and Scope ................................................................................................................. 9
1.4.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 9
1.4.2 Scope ................................................................................................................................ 9
2 PROPOSED MODELLING METHOD ............................................................................................ 1
2.1 Displacement Components ........................................................................................................ 1
2.1.1 Section curvature due to flexure ...................................................................................... 1
2.1.2 Base rotation due to strain penetration ............................................................................. 3
2.1.3 Shear deformations .......................................................................................................... 5
2.1.4 Tension shift effect .......................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Tools to account for displacement components ......................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Section curvature due to flexure ...................................................................................... 9
2.2.2 Base rotation due to strain penetration ........................................................................... 10
2.2.3 Shear deformations ........................................................................................................ 11
2.2.4 Tension shift effect ........................................................................................................ 17
iv
Index
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1.Disturbed regions in a) slender walls, and b) low aspect ratio walls ........................2
Figure 1.2.Examples of strut and tie models for strength design of a) corbel element in
column, and b) low aspect ratio walls .................................................................................2
Figure 1.3.Components of deformation in a shear wall element ................................................3
Figure 1.4.a) Diagonal tension failure in shear wall, b) inclusion of horizontal reinforcement
to avoid failure ....................................................................................................................4
Figure 1.5.Diagonal compression failure of shear wall ..............................................................5
Figure 1.6.Shear sliding failure of shear wall .............................................................................5
Figure 1.7.Combined flexural-shear failure mechanism of shear wall .......................................6
Figure 1.8.Finite element modelling of test shear wall using VecTor2 software .......................7
Figure 1.9.Empirical backbone curve properties as described by the ASCE 41-06 ...................8
Figure 2.1.a) Undeformed beam segment and b) effects of pure moment on segment ..............2
Figure 2.2.Calculation of curvature profile using equilibrium and section analysis ..................3
Figure 2.3.Strain penetration of rigid wall element on deformable foundation..........................4
Figure 2.4.Idealization of strain penetration as a base rotation for displacement calculation ....5
Figure 2.5.Summary of MCFT formulation for calculation of shear resistance and
deformation
Figure 2.6.Example of shear deformations due to increased vertical strain under constant
shear ....................................................................................................................................7
Figure 2.7.Tension shift effect on shear wall ..............................................................................8
Figure 2.8.Effect of tension shift on curvature analysis of shear walls ......................................8
Figure 2.9.Curvature simplification for calculation of flexural displacements ........................10
Figure 2.10.Calculation of displacement due to strain penetration rotation at the base ...........11
vi
Index
Index
Figure 3.15. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen LSW1
...........................................................................................................................................40
Figure 3.16. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen LSW2
...........................................................................................................................................41
Figure 3.17. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen LSW3
...........................................................................................................................................41
Figure 3.18. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen MSW1
...........................................................................................................................................42
Figure 3.19. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen MSW2
...........................................................................................................................................42
Figure 3.20. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen MSW3
...........................................................................................................................................43
Figure 3.21. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW11
...........................................................................................................................................43
Figure 3.22. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW12
...........................................................................................................................................44
Figure 3.23. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW13
...........................................................................................................................................44
Figure 3.24. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW14
...........................................................................................................................................45
Figure 3.25. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW15
...........................................................................................................................................45
Figure 3.26. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW16
...........................................................................................................................................46
Figure 3.27. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW17
...........................................................................................................................................46
Figure 3.28. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW21
...........................................................................................................................................47
Figure 3.29. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW22
...........................................................................................................................................47
Figure 3.30. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW23
...........................................................................................................................................48
viii
Index
Figure 3.31. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW24
...........................................................................................................................................48
Figure 3.32. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW25
...........................................................................................................................................49
Figure 3.33. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW26
...........................................................................................................................................49
Figure 4.1. Schematic representation of the Displacement Reduction Factor proposed by
Penucci et al (2011) ..........................................................................................................55
Figure 4.2. Schematic representation of the structures bilinear backbone behaviour and
effective properties at the target displacement..................................................................55
Figure 4.3. Schematic representation of the scaling procedure to perform in each earthquake
record to be used for time history analyses .......................................................................56
Figure 4.4. Properties defined for the test system based on WSH6, dimensions in mm. .........57
Figure 4.5. a) Finite element model of test system using VecTor2, b) Comparison of backbone
behaviour predictions using proposed methodology and FEM ........................................58
Figure 4.6. Schematic representation of key values obtained from the bilinear approximation
of the predicted backbone curve. ......................................................................................59
Figure 4.7. Earthquake records selected to perform time history analyses ..............................60
Figure 4.8. Displacement spectra for each scaled earthquake record .......................................62
Figure 4.9. Relative displacement at the top of the test system during time history analysis for
each earthquake record .....................................................................................................63
Figure 4.9. Maximum displacement at the top of the test system for each ground motion ......64
Figure A.1. Material definition in the VecTor2 Model ........................................................... A2
Figure A.2. Material model settings for VecTor2 Model ........................................................ A3
Figure A.3. Auxiliary model settings for VecTor2 Model ...................................................... A3
ix
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3.1. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Dazio, Beyer and Bachman
(2009) ................................................................................................................................24
Table 3.2. Material properties of walls from Dazio, Beyer and Bachman (2009) ....................25
Table 3.3. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Dazio, Beyer and Bachman (2009).................25
Table 3.4. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Oesterle et al (1976) ...........26
Table 3.5. Material properties of walls from Oesterle et al (1976)...........................................26
Table 3.6. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Oesterle et al (1976) .......................................26
Table 3.7. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Thomsen and Wallace (1995)
...........................................................................................................................................27
Table 3.8. Material properties of walls from Thomsen and Wallace (1995) ............................27
Table 3.9. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Thomsen and Wallace (1995) .........................27
Table 3.10. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Deng, Liang and Yang
(2008) ................................................................................................................................28
Table 3.11. Material properties of walls from Deng, Liang and Yang (2008) .........................28
Table 3.12. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Deng, Liang and Yang (2008) ......................28
Table 3.13. Geometric properties and axial loading of wall from Ghorbani-Renani et al (2009)
...........................................................................................................................................28
Table 3.14. Material properties of wall from Ghorbani-Renani et al (2009) ............................29
Table 3.15. Reinforcement ratios of wall from Ghorbani-Renani et al (2009).........................29
Table 3.16. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Tran and Wallace (2012) .29
Table 3.17. Material properties of walls from Tran and Wallace (2012) .................................30
Table 3.18. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Tran and Wallace (2012) ..............................30
Table 3.19. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Salonikios et al (1999) .....30
x
Index
xi
Index
LIST OF SYMBOLS
= Curvature
= Longitudinal strain
= Displacement
fc
fcr
v
sp
sh
lsh
he
= Elastic length
fy
fu
sxe
lw
bw
xavg
ln
COV
xii
Chapter 1. Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
The use of shear walls with low aspect ratios is very common within low rise buildings, yet
there is not a wealth of information regarding how to properly determine the structural
behaviour of these elements in terms of displacement capacity and expected performance.
Reinforced concrete walls with slender aspect ratios are usually well characterized by the use
of conventional beam theory approaches, given that for the most part, the structural actions take
place in undisturbed regions, and current design approaches ensure that the elements have an
adequate reinforcement distribution which suppress brittle shear failure; the overall behaviour
is therefore controlled by flexure, and shear deformations can usually be neglected.
In the case of low aspect ratio walls, most of the structural actions occur within a disturbed
deformation field for which beam theory does not apply, and the shear deformation components
become considerable and therefore should be accounted for.
The following chapter focuses on the known limitations for quantifying and predicting the
behaviour of low aspect ratio shear walls, as well as the observed failure modes presented in
experimental testing and the current available tools for analysis and design of these type of
elements.
1.1
Conventional analysis of structural elements is based on the assumptions of classic beam theory
in which the sections of the elements are expected to remain plane during all stages of
deformation. This assumption is normally considered as accurate in regions which are
undisturbed by either supports or load application, and therefore is mostly applicable to slender
elements in which most of the structural actions take place out of these areas. The definition of
disturbed and undisturbed areas is exemplified in Figure 1.1.
Chapter 1. Introduction
(a)
(b)
Figure 1.1.Disturbed regions in a) slender walls, and b) low aspect ratio walls
Given that disturbed areas form part of all structural elements, in normal engineering practice,
these regions are only accounted for in terms of strength by the use of lower bound solutions
like strut and tie models as shown in Figure 1.2, which provide a conservative estimate of a
fields resistance and are typically designed to remain elastic throughout the expected load
cycles.
(a)
(b)
Figure 1.2.Examples of strut and tie models for strength design of a) corbel element in column, and b) low
aspect ratio walls
Chapter 1. Introduction
In the case of low aspect ratio walls, most (if not all) of the element section is within a disturbed
region, and since for earthquake design it is sometimes required that elements dissipate energy
by developing nonlinear behaviour, the calculation of conservative estimates of resistance is
not sufficient, as further information about the ultimate displacements and energy dissipation
capabilities is often required.
In addition to these deformation considerations, it is a commonly known fact that flexure and
shear mechanisms occur simultaneously in most structural members since actually, the presence
of shear is an equilibrium requirement when moments along an element are not constant.
Nonetheless, both mechanisms are usually studied separately and, given that for typical slender
elements the shear component is very small in comparison with the effects of flexure, the
contradictions that occur between shear distortion and the plane sections assumption are always
neglected.
It is logical to expect that for a low aspect ratio element, since the often neglected shear
component has a greater impact on the behaviour, there exists a strong interaction between both
mechanisms which make it impossible to accurately predict the members behaviour without
accounting for both components simultaneously, as shown in Figure 1.3.
Chapter 1. Introduction
The overall behaviour of low aspect ratio walls has been studied experimentally on several
occasions and four main failure modes have been identified as responsible for the loss of
capacity: diagonal tension, diagonal compression, shear sliding and flexural-shear.
Diagonal tension failure occurs when not enough horizontal reinforcement is provided in the
web and the forces applied at the top of the wall generate a corner-to-corner crack which severs
the load path to the base and causes a complete loss of resistance and stiffness. This type of
failure, shown schematically in Figure 1.4, is easily avoided by the use of horizontal
reinforcement which provides more resistance in tension than that which would be developed
by the wall yielding in flexure. Currently the minimum requirements of reinforcement ratios
for concrete walls included in design codes are sufficient to prevent this brittle failure for
earthquake resisting structures.
(a)
(b)
Figure 1.4.a) Diagonal tension failure in shear wall, b) inclusion of horizontal reinforcement to avoid
failure
Diagonal compression failure occurs when a combination of large amounts of vertical and
horizontal reinforcement have been provided with insufficient concrete strength or
confinement. In this case the horizontal reinforcement avoids the diagonal tension failure, but
high amounts of vertical steel generate a high shear demand to be resisted by the section before
yielding can develop and the diagonal compression struts required for equilibrium can crush
causing failure of the system as shown schematically in Figure 1.5.
This failure can occur as indicated above, before the yielding of the vertical steel in flexure,
which results in an undesirable brittle failure, or it can occur after a few loading cycles in which
Chapter 1. Introduction
the development of several diagonal cracks in both directions cause the concrete to soften and
fail at a lower resistance than specified by cylinder testing.
A shear sliding failure occurs when an adequately reinforced wall is imposed to several cycles
of loading in both directions which causes the horizontal cracks generated by flexural yielding
at the base to propagate through the overall section, causing the vertical steel to yield in dowel
action, concentrating all the displacement in this sliding plane as shown in Figure 1.6.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Shear sliding failures are known for reducing the potential wall resistance and stiffness,
therefore reducing the energy dissipation capability of the system. Because of this, diagonal
reinforcement is usually recommended when this mode is to be controlled. However, since
shear sliding does not affect the walls capacity to sustain axial loading, it can be seen as a
benign failure mode which will act as an isolation mechanism for the wall under seismic
loading.
When a shear wall fails after the yielding of the vertical reinforcement in flexure, avoiding the
previously discussed failure modes, it can present a combined failure mode composed of
flexural and shear actions. In this case the behaviour previous to failure is governed by flexural
action, generating flexure cracking patterns, which extend into shear cracks as shown in Figure
1.7. Further straining in the section reduces the shear resistance of the wall below the resistance
required to maintain the flexural yielding and the failure is then caused by a shear mechanism.
In the case of adequately reinforced low aspect ratio walls, this mixed failure mechanism is the
most common and typically allows for some energy dissipation through the flexural yielding
action before the shear failure occurs.
1.3 Existing tools for Low Aspect Ratio Walls Analysis and Design
In terms of analysis, several options are available which can accurately model even the cyclic
behaviour of low aspect ratio walls, most of them in the form of complex nonlinear finite
element models, like the VecTor2 software (Vecchio 1989, and Vecchio 1990) shown in Figure
1.8.
Chapter 1. Introduction
In these cases the disturbed zones are not a problem since the FEM formulation is independent
of plane sections assumptions, and the deformation compatibility is enforced at the element
nodes. The complexity in the material behaviour and the interactions between flexure and shear
can be incorporated in the constitutive relationships and several studies have validated their
results experimentally.
Figure 1.8.Finite element modelling of test shear wall using VecTor2 software
The problem with these solutions is the great human and computational effort that is required
to properly input the model properties, calculation time and processing of results. This limits
the use of these programs only for special cases or academic purposes, making their use in
common engineering practice unfeasible.
In terms of design, most codes of practice include provisions for determining the resistance of
these elements including walls with low aspect ratios. For example the ACI 318-11 code
includes provisions for structures in both non-seismic and seismic zones, and provides the
following aspects:
Diagonal compression failures are prevented by limiting the maximum shear stress in
the section to 0.66 fc
Chapter 1. Introduction
Shear reinforcement yielding values to use for calculations are limited to 420 MPa.
As expected, this type of simplified approach including empirical solutions is used in multiple
codes and other available literature. It is attractive in its simplicity, but provides results which
have little physical significance and no information regarding the walls stiffness is considered,
as well as displacement capacity and expected ductility under ultimate load states.
When displacements are to be considered, other tools are available in the form of empirical
backbone curve calculations like the one proposed in the ASCE 41-06, shown in Figure 1.9. In
this case, a standard backbone shape is defined and rules are stated for calculating each of the
points in the curve. The initial stiffness is determined by using recommendations of percentages
of the gross section (50% of the gross inertia for flexural and 40% of the area for shear in the
case of cracked walls), the resistance values for points B and C are taken as the same and
calculated as the walls capacity using for example the ACI empirical equations, the residual
resistance is recommended as a 10% of the ultimate capacity, and each of the drifts are fixed to
values of 0.75% at C and 2.0% at E.
As can be seen, the existing tools for the analysis and design of low aspect ratio walls are either
very complex and time consuming finite element formulations, or overly simplistic empirical
definitions and equations with limited applicability.
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.4
1.4.1
Objectives
Study the behaviour of shear walls with low aspect ratio under lateral in plane load and
determine the current available tools for their analysis and design.
Determine a methodology for calculating wall strength and displacement capacities for
use in displacement-based design/assessment procedures.
Evaluate the use of existing displacement-based formulations for low aspect ratio shear
walls comparing predictions with time-history record results.
1.4.2
Scope
Since slender shear walls have already been approached by several studies, the current
study is limited to shear walls with aspect ratio under 3.0.
In this initial stage of study, the evaluation is limited to walls with conventional
properties; that is, concrete strengths between 20 MPa and 75 MPa, only orthogonal
rebar reinforcement, and no previous retrofitting or loading histories.
This study focuses on the performance of walls where enough minimum reinforcement
is provided in order to allow the overall wall behaviour to be controlled by flexural
modes; any undesired failure modes like diagonal tension are discussed but not
considered.
Displacement Components
In order to produce a predictive model to assess the full force-displacement curve of a wall, the
displacement is divided in to several components which have been studied in the past, and are
known to take place simultaneously in the structural element.
Each one of these components is considered as required in order to correctly model the full
displacement behaviour, and they will be explained in detail:
Shear deformations
(a)
(b)
Figure 2.1.a) Undeformed beam segment and b) effects of pure moment on segment
Since in the case of a shear wall, the theoretical moment diagram varies along the height of a
beam, the section will have different values of curvature, going from a maximum value at the
base to zero curvature at the top of the wall where the moment is null. Additionally, the inelastic
behaviour of reinforced concrete elements causes a non-linear distribution of curvatures along
the height which can be determined using the full moment curvature information from the
section analysis as shown in Figure 2.2.
If the entire curvature distribution profile is determined along the full height of the wall, each
of the differential deformations can be accounted for in order to calculate the displacement of
the structural element along a span due to flexure actions.
Special care must be taken with this displacement component since it is based around the
assumption of plane sections remaining plane, which is strictly used within undisturbed regions
of the structural element, and therefore its application to low aspect ratio shear walls is
debatable. As will be discussed in following sections of this report, several factors affecting this
assumption will be accounted for, and the proposed modelling will be evaluated with
experimental data to assure its applicability.
This effect can be understood easily by considering the theoretically rigid wall element shown
in Figure 2.3, which is mounted on a deformable base into which its vertical reinforcement is
embedded. From the tension side, the reinforcement will exhibit a partial pullout of the bars at
the base, which can be calculated if the bars strain profile is known below the base. From the
compression side the concrete of the foundation will deform in much less magnitude than the
extension of the bars from the tension side and can be considered negligible.
In terms of shear strength and deformations in reinforced concrete, one of the leading theories
for modelling its effects is the Modified Compression Field Theory (Vecchio and Collins 1986),
in which reinforced concrete is treated as a new uniform material with smeared reinforcement;
equilibrium and compatibility are formulated in terms of average stress and strain components,
and the stress-strain relationships of concrete vary, becoming softer and weaker as the principal
tensile strains increase. The governing equations of this theory are summarized in Figure 2.5.
As expected, even though the formulation is based on simple concepts of equilibrium and
compatibility, the complexity of the changing stress-strain relationships causes the MCFT to
5
require complicated calculations, some of which involve iterative procedures which are not
straight forward.
Figure 2.5.Summary of MCFT formulation for calculation of shear resistance and deformation
(Bentz et al 2006)
In general terms, the MCFT indicates that the overall shear deformation of a concrete panel
loaded with both axial and shear stresses will vary depending not only on the magnitude of the
shear, but also on the maximum principal tensile strain present in the element. In the case of an
element like a shear wall loaded at the top, even though the shear stress theoretically remains
constant along the whole height of the element, the varying moment will generate different
average vertical strains along the height and therefore the shear response will vary in terms of
resistance and deformability.
Therefore, it is expected that shear deformations will vary as the vertical strains along the height
of the wall, being larger closer to the base, and much smaller at the top, as shown in Figure 2.6.
Figure 2.6.Example of shear deformations due to increased vertical strain under constant shear
Again, special care must be taken with this component, since its development was made
considering that there is no effect of clamping forces, which occur in disturbed regions close to
the support restrictions. Additionally, a simplified version of MCFT will be used in the
following sections, which neglects some key aspects of the complete formulation, which will
induce a source of error in the calculations.
This phenomena is known as tension shift, and it has been discussed in classic concrete
literature as early as 1974 (Park and Paulay, 1974). In this case, the phenomenon is considered
in terms of its effects on the overall resistance of the section and in the adequate procurement
of reinforcement curtailing, but little consideration is made in terms of its effects on the total
displacement of a structural element.
As can be seen on Figure 2.7, the tension required at section B-B to equilibrate the system is
coming from the effects of the moment at the base, and therefore plane sections remain plane
will not apply and the deformations in this segment between both sections cannot be calculated
by simple curvature analysis.
In this case, the segment which is affected by tension shift can be idealized as a truss shown in
Figure 2.8, with the displacement controlled by the strain in the tension elements, which will
depend on the moment requirements of the base, and the total length of the segment being
defined by the angle of the compression strut. The sections above the affected segment will
continue to behave in normal flexure, with the curvature of each section determined by its
corresponding moment requirement.
2.2
In the current section, each of the displacement components which have been detailed
previously will be analysed, and a method will be determined to quantify each of their
contributions to the total displacement of a low aspect ratio shear wall.
=
(1)
Additionally, the generalized moment-area theorems indicate that the transverse deflection of a
point in a beam with respect to the tangent of another point is given by the integral of the
curvatures multiplied by the distance, which can also be simplified to the area of the curvature
diagram multiplied by the relative distance from the point where the distance is calculated to
the centroid of the area.
/ =
=
(2)
These theorems are valid even if inelastic curvatures are involved and therefore they can be
used to calculate the deflection of a cantilever beam or wall element, considering that the
tangential distance of the free end with respect to the fixed base of the element represents the
deflection due to flexural actions.
In the case of a shear wall, the moment-curvature diagram can be calculated considering the
section properties, and simplified into a bilinear approximation. Also, considering equilibrium,
the moment diagram can be known for any value of shear being applied at the top of the element,
and therefore a simplified bilinear curvature diagram can be determined and decomposed in
order to calculate the deflection at the top of the wall with a straightforward computation of
areas and centroids as shown in Figure 2-9.
From Figure 2-9, and using the concepts of moment-area theorem, the displacement at the top
of the wall can be determined as follows.
For
Mb My
=
(3)
9
For
My< Mb Mu
=
(4)
As mentioned in previous sections, the effect of the deformability of the foundation and the
anchorage of the vertical steel can be idealized as a rigid body rotation at the base of the wall
element. For this, a method for calculating this rotation must be defined in a way that an accurate
contribution of displacement can be allocated to strain penetration for any value of applied
shear.
In the context of the calculation of ultimate displacements of concrete elements, Priestley et al
2007, uses the definition of a strain penetration length in which the portion of the foundation
being affected is idealized as an extension of the wall element, over which the curvature may
be considered as constant and equal to the base curvature.
The following equation is indicated to calculate this penetration length, where fye is the yield
strength in MPa and dbl is the diameter of the longitudinal steel.
10
(5)
In this reference, this distance is used to increase the length of an idealized plastic hinge, used
mainly for the calculation of ultimate displacements, nevertheless the basis of the penetration
length can be used for load conditions other than ultimate given that it is dependant of the base
curvature which is directly related to the magnitude of the applied shear force.
As mentioned in the previous section, a curvature distribution is a change in rotation along a
length, and the value of total rotation can be found by integrating the curvatures in the required
length. Since the formulation assumes constant curvatures in the penetration length, the
idealized base rotation can be then calculated as the base curvature multiplied by the strain
penetration length, and the corresponding displacement at the top of the wall can be determined
as indicated in Figure 2-10.
In terms of the accounting for shear deformations in shear walls, given the large variation of
stresses in every point of the element, the implementation of a full Modified Compression Field
Theory approach would involve a division of the wall in multiple segments, in both the vertical
and horizontal directions, and solving all 15 equations shown in Figure 2-5 for each individual
segment, and each load condition.
11
This full approach will not only result in a great computational effort, but also would result in
a finite element type solution, which has already been implemented by multiple programs,
providing adequate results, but at the expense of becoming unfeasible for regular use.
A simplified approach based on the MCFT has been preliminarily proposed by Professor Evan
Bentz of the University of Toronto, and implemented by Yuk Yeung 2008, in which a cut down
version of a shear-strain relationship based on the formulation used by the Canadian Standards
Association code is adopted.
In this approach, a multi-linear relationship of shear-strain is defined by calculating discretized
points in the curve, using the concepts of the MCFT for a range of reinforced concrete
properties. The shape of the relationship is shown in Figure 2.11, and the corresponding
equations for calculating each point are provided as follows.
Strength Equations
,-. = '-. /1 1
,( =
23 4'-.
0.4
1300
(6)
(7)
Strain Equations
12
C-. =
C( = 0.6 10 1.6 23 F
,-.
0.5 4-
800
H ;< 0.29 1 80 23
500 83)
CI = C(
C. = 2 C( J if t < CSA minimum transverse reinforcement
(8)
(9)
(10)
13
Figure 2.12.Schematic variation of shear stress-strain relationship with increasing longitudinal strain
For the case of a shear wall, the longitudinal strain can be easily determined at the centre of the
cross section for every point calculated in the moment-curvature diagram obtained from the
section analysis. Furthermore it is standard practice to assume a uniform shear stress
distribution in the sections of cracked concrete within the internal flexural lever arm of the
section. These concepts, in combination with equilibrium, can provide a pair of shear and
longitudinal strains that can be determined for any lateral load applied at the top of the element.
Once this stress-strain pair is obtained it can be used to calculate the strain deformation and
remaining resistance of the shear mechanism at any height in the wall, as shown schematically
in Figure 2.13.
14
Figure 2.13.Schematic procedure for calculation of shear strain at a point, using simplified MCFT
According to the experimental observations made by Beyer et al 2008, the shear deformations
in walls with moderate aspect ratios behave in a similar manner as the flexural deformations,
since they seem to increase rapidly and concentrate in the flexural plastic hinge region when
the section enters the non-linear range, making the contributions of the shear strains in the
elastic portion of the wall nearly negligible in comparison to the shear deformation provided
within the plastic hinge.
In the perspective of the shear behaviour described by the previous equations, this effect is
attributed to the rapid increase of longitudinal strains generated from the flexural yielding of
the section at the base, which causes a softening of the shear strain components. Furthermore,
the theory behind MCFT indicates that the shear resisting mechanism acts as a truss, where an
inclined compression strut transfers the shear force with help from the horizontal and vertical
steel to provide equilibrium.
Building on these ideas, it is considered both conceptually adequate and accurate to simplify
the analysis to the shear strain and resistance characteristics calculated at the base of the wall
in the geometric centre of the section, and apply the calculated shear strain to a length of wall
determined by the truss mechanism as shown in Figure 2.14, with the inclination of the strut
calculated as permitted in the CSA code using equation 12.
K = 29 7000 23 L 75
(12)
15
Since the strut angle is measured with respect to the longitudinal axis of the wall, higher angle
values will result in a lower length of the wall to which the strains are applied.
Since the angle value is only dependant on the longitudinal strain, at the beginning of the
loading a relatively large portion of the wall will be affected by low shear strains; as the
horizontal force increases, the applied length will reduce and the shear strain will increase,
leading to an overall increase of the shear displacements, as shown schematically in Figure
2.15.
This is in agreement with the experimental observations mentioned, and as will be presented in
further sections, provides adequately accurate results.
16
Figure 2.15.Schematic application of shear displacement procedure for two levels of lateral load
stresses is reached, and before this point the curvature analysis will remain unaffected as
previously mentioned; however, a method must be defined to determine how to consider this
effect during multiple stages of loading.
Given this situation, a different approach will be used to account for this effect in the present
investigation. A new method will be developed using the concepts and tools described for the
MCFT simplification in order to define the loading intensity required to propagate the diagonal
cracks, as well as their angle and the length where the curvatures from the flexure contribution
must be modified.
It is clear from experimental observations that the cracking which leads to the occurrence of the
tension shift effect initiates as a horizontal flexural crack which then curves to align with the
direction of the struts from the shear resisting mechanism. Therefore, it is expected that both
the flexural and shear stresses must have enough intensity for the flexural cracks to have
reached a certain height in the element, and to propagate diagonally as shear cracks. Also, since
the cracks align with the shear diagonal compressive struts, it is expected that the length over
which the tension shift has an effect on the curvatures can be calculated using the value of the
shear angle calculated at the point where a given stress intensity has been reached.
As far as the length in which the tension shift will take effect, once a proper force intensity is
defined which triggers the phenomena, the strut angle can be easily determined using the
simplified MCFT equations and the length can be calculated geometrically.
Given that the triggering of the tension shift effect depends on the propagation of both flexural
and shear cracks, which constitutes the interaction of both very complex patterns, it is normal
to expect that multiple parameters will be involved to properly predict the point at which the
phenomena will become important enough to degenerate the normal plane sections flexural
18
effects. Some of these parameters will involve steel distribution, size and configuration of
boundary elements in the wall, aggregate size and a complex analysis of strain distributions, all
of which are not expressly accounted for in the simplified solutions being proposed in the
current project.
Therefore, for lack of a better solution, it is proposed to arbitrarily define a level of force
intensity where the tension shift effect will be considered and applied to the analysis. In this
case, since the shear stress value is dependant of the applied force which at the same time can
be related to also the flexural contribution, it is decided that when the average shear stress
applied at the section reaches a 50% of the shear yielding stress vy, then the cracks will have
propagated enough to cause the tension shift to take effect, as shown schematically in Figure
2.17.
Additionally, since the increasing longitudinal strain produces changes in the shear stress-strain
relationship, is important to notice that the value of vy is a dynamic value and therefore the shear
intensity check to determine if the tension shift will take effect must be performed for the
calculated value of vy at every point of the analysis.
19
As far as the actual effect of the tension shift on the curvatures of the wall, since below the
diagonal crack the tension of the reinforcement will remain constant and equal to that required
by equilibrium at the base of the wall, and given that the tension component has a much bigger
effect that the compression in the calculation of the curvature of the section, it is considered
adequate to apply a constant curvature in the entire affected length, equal to the curvature
determined at the base from the flexural analysis, as shown in Figure 2.18.
It is important to mention that given the simplified nature of the methods applied in the
methodology indicated previously, the results obtained by arbitrarily defining the same stress
intensity to all cases are less than ideal. Nevertheless, it maintains the simplicity desired and,
as will be demonstrated in the following sections, it provides predictions which agree in an
adequate manner with experimental results.
20
v > vy
v > 0.5 vy
21
d.5 Determine the shear distortion from the shear stressstrain curve, if vy v , then take distortion as ultimate
d.6 Add all components for total displacements
e. Repeat steps c and d increasing the moment value until
failure is detected.
22
Selected Tests
As previously mentioned, a sample of 32 test have been selected from the 350 samples available
in the public database of the University of Patras (www.dap.series.upatras.gr). The tests have
been selected for meeting the parameters detailed in the scope as follows:
Height to width aspect relationships within the 1.0 3.0 ratio range.
All specimens have been tested as cantilever walls, with their bases fixed in a foundation, and
a loading beam in the free end of the element, and all the reported measurements are from the
total shear force applied at the top, with respect to the relative displacement of the free end of
the wall to the foundation; any rigid body displacements from slipping of the foundation have
been subtracted from the records. A basic schematic of the test setup and cross section
measurements is shown in Figure 3-1.
A summary of the selected tests, including the base reference as well as all mechanical and
geometrical properties is presented in the following sections.
23
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.1.a) Schematic test setup and, b) general cross section properties
From the six tested walls, only four were selected for the purpose of the present investigation,
since two of the walls presented an unexpected failure, in one case due to cyclic degradation of
the longitudinal reinforcement, and in the other case due to out of plane displacements.
The properties of each of the selected walls are given in Table 3.1 to Table 3.3.
Table 3.1. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Dazio, Beyer and Bachman (2009)
No.
WALL
HeightLength
Ratio
1
2
3
4
WSH3
WSH4
WSH5
WSH6
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
Dimensions
Axial load
N (kN)
682.1
699.4
1470.7
1477.4
Ratio (%)
5.8
5.7
12.8
10.8
Height
Length
Thickness
H (mm)
4560.0
4560.0
4560.0
4560.0
lw (mm)
2000.0
2000.0
2000.0
2000.0
bw (mm)
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
24
Table 3.2. Material properties of walls from Dazio, Beyer and Bachman (2009)
Material properties
No.
WALL
Concrete
1
2
3
4
WSH3
WSH4
WSH5
WSH6
fc (MPa)
39.2
40.9
38.3
45.6
Vertical steel
fy (MPa)
601.0
576.0
583.7
576.0
fu (MPa)
725.5
674.9
700.2
674.9
Horizontal steel
fy (MPa)
489.0
518.9
518.9
518.9
fu (MPa)
552.2
558.7
558.7
558.7
Table 3.3. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Dazio, Beyer and Bachman (2009)
No.
WALL
1
2
3
4
WSH3
WSH4
WSH5
WSH6
Boundary
vertical
vb (%)
0.188
0.188
0.101
0.226
Reinforcement ratios
Boundary
Vertical
horizontal
hb (%)
v (%)
0.503
0.536
0.251
0.536
0.369
0.269
0.754
0.536
Horizontal
h (%)
0.251
0.251
0.251
0.251
25
Table 3.4. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Oesterle et al (1976)
No.
5
6
HeightLength
Ratio
WALL
R1
R2
2.4
2.4
Dimensions
Axial load
N (kN)
34.8
36.1
Ratio (%)
0.4
0.4
Height
Length
Thickness
H (mm)
4572.0
4572.0
lw (mm)
1905.0
1905.0
bw (mm)
101.6
101.6
Material properties
No.
5
6
WALL
Concrete
R1
R2
fc (MPa)
44.75
46.4
Vertical steel
fy (MPa)
511.6
450.2
Horizontal steel
fu (MPa)
765.3
708.1
fy (MPa)
522
535.1
fu (MPa)
699.8
690.9
WALL
5
6
R1
R2
Boundary
vertical
Boundary
horizontal
Vertical
Horizontal
vb (%)
hb (%)
v (%)
h (%)
0.146
0.327
0.372
1.834
0.272
0.272
0.307
0.307
26
Table 3.7. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Thomsen and Wallace (1995)
No.
WALL
7
8
RW1
RW2
HeightLength
Ratio
3.0
3.0
Dimensions
Axial load
N (kN)
392.9
295.9
Ratio (%)
10.0
7.0
Height
Length
Thickness
H (mm)
3658.0
3658.0
lw (mm)
1219.0
1219.0
bw (mm)
102.0
102.0
Table 3.8. Material properties of walls from Thomsen and Wallace (1995)
Material properties
No.
7
8
WALL
Concrete
RW1
RW2
fc (MPa)
31.6
34.0
Vertical steel
fy (MPa)
414.0
414.0
fu (MPa)
590.0
590.0
Horizontal steel
fy (MPa)
414.0
414.0
fu (MPa)
600.0
600.0
Table 3.9. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Thomsen and Wallace (1995)
Reinforcement ratios
No.
7
8
3.1.4
WALL
RW1
RW2
Boundary
vertical
Boundary
horizontal
Vertical
Horizontal
vb (%)
hb (%)
v (%)
h (%)
0.459
0.459
0.456
0.684
0.330
0.330
0.325
0.325
27
Table 3.10. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Deng, Liang and Yang (2008)
No.
9
10
WALL
HeightLength
Ratio
HPCW01
HPCW02
2.1
2.1
Dimensions
Axial load
N (kN)
1004.0
1004.0
Ratio (%)
16.3
13.6
Height
Length
Thickness
H (mm)
2100.0
2100.0
lw (mm)
1000.0
1000.0
bw (mm)
100.0
100.0
Table 3.11. Material properties of walls from Deng, Liang and Yang (2008)
Material properties
No.
9
10
WALL
Concrete
HPCW01
HPCW02
fc (MPa)
61.4
73.6
Vertical steel
fy (MPa)
436.0
436.0
fu (MPa)
636.6
636.6
Horizontal steel
fy (MPa)
361.6
361.6
fu (MPa)
506.3
506.3
Table 3.12. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Deng, Liang and Yang (2008)
No.
WALL
9
10
HPCW01
HPCW02
Boundary
vertical
vb (%)
0.638
0.505
Reinforcement ratios
Boundary
Vertical
horizontal
hb (%)
v (%)
0.419
0.251
0.654
0.251
Horizontal
h (%)
0.664
0.664
Table 3.13. Geometric properties and axial loading of wall from Ghorbani-Renani et al (2009)
28
No.
11
WALL
Dimensions
HeightLength
Ratio
A2C
Axial load
N (kN)
0.0
2.1
Ratio (%)
0.0
Height
Length
Thickness
H (mm)
2700.0
lw (mm)
1300.0
bw (mm)
200.0
Material properties
No.
WALL
Concrete
11
A2C
fc (MPa)
30.0
Vertical steel
fy (MPa)
413.0
fu (MPa)
552.0
Horizontal steel
fy (MPa)
413.0
fu (MPa)
552.0
No.
WALL
11
A2C
Boundary
vertical
vb (%)
0.755
Reinforcement ratios
Boundary
Vertical
horizontal
hb (%)
v (%)
1.003
1.270
Horizontal
h (%)
0.670
Table 3.16. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Tran and Wallace (2012)
29
Dimensions
No.
12
13
HeightLength
Ratio
WALL
RW-A20-P10-S63
RW-A15-P10-S78
2.0
1.5
Axial load
N (kN)
878.4
1024.8
Ratio
(%)
10.0
10.0
Height
Length
Thickness
H (mm)
2440.0
1830.0
lw (mm)
1220.0
1220.0
bw (mm)
150.0
150.0
Table 3.17. Material properties of walls from Tran and Wallace (2012)
Material properties
No.
WALL
Concrete
12
13
RW-A20-P10-S63
RW-A15-P10-S78
fc (MPa)
48.0
56.0
Vertical steel
fy (MPa)
475.0
475.0
fu (MPa)
635.0
635.0
Horizontal steel
fy (MPa)
440.0
440.0
fu (MPa)
635.0
635.0
Table 3.18. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Tran and Wallace (2012)
3.1.7
No.
WALL
12
13
RW-A20-P10-S63
RW-A15-P10-S78
Boundary
vertical
vb (%)
1.246
1.151
Reinforcement ratios
Boundary
Vertical
horizontal
hb (%)
v (%)
0.845
0.625
0.845
0.748
Horizontal
h (%)
0.625
0.748
Salonikioset al (1999)
Table 3.19. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Salonikios et al (1999)
30
No.
14
15
16
17
18
19
WALL
Dimensions
HeightLength
Ratio
LSW1
LSW2
LSW3
MSW1
MSW2
MSW3
Axial load
N (kN)
0.0
0.0
201.6
0.0
0.0
206.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
Ratio (%)
0.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
Height
Length
Thickness
H (mm)
1320.0
1320.0
1320.0
1920.0
1920.0
1920.0
lw (mm)
1200.0
1200.0
1200.0
1200.0
1200.0
1200.0
bw (mm)
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Material properties
No.
WALL
Concrete
14
15
16
17
18
19
LSW1
LSW2
LSW3
MSW1
MSW2
MSW3
fc (MPa)
24.0
24.0
24.0
26.1
26.2
24.6
Vertical steel
fy (MPa)
585.0
585.0
585.0
585.0
585.0
585.0
fu (MPa)
678.0
678.0
678.0
678.0
678.0
678.0
Horizontal steel
fy (MPa)
575.0
575.0
575.0
575.0
575.0
575.0
fu (MPa)
658.0
658.0
658.0
658.0
658.0
658.0
No.
WALL
14
15
16
17
18
19
LSW1
LSW2
LSW3
MSW1
MSW2
MSW3
Boundary
vertical
vb (%)
0.335
0.251
0.251
0.335
0.251
0.251
Reinforcement ratios
Boundary
Vertical
horizontal
hb (%)
v (%)
1.026
0.174
1.026
0.168
1.026
0.168
0.660
0.174
0.660
0.168
0.660
0.168
Horizontal
h (%)
0.277
0.277
0.277
0.277
0.277
0.277
31
3.1.8
Table 3.22. Geometric properties and axial loading of walls from Lefas, Kotsovos and Ambraseys (1990)
No.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
WALL
SW11
SW12
SW13
SW14
SW15
SW16
SW17
SW21
SW22
SW23
SW24
SW25
SW26
HeightLength
Ratio
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
Dimensions
Axial load
N (kN)
0.0
251.3
369.8
0.0
198.4
482.8
0.0
0.0
189.7
356.1
0.0
333.2
0.0
Ratio (%)
0.0
10.0
20.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
Height
Length
Thickness
H (mm)
825.0
825.0
825.0
825.0
825.0
825.0
825.0
1375.0
1375.0
1375.0
1375.0
1375.0
1375.0
lw (mm)
750.0
750.0
750.0
750.0
750.0
750.0
750.0
650.0
650.0
650.0
650.0
650.0
650.0
bw (mm)
70.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
32
Table 3.23. Material properties of walls from Lefas, Kotsovos and Ambraseys (1990)
Material properties
No.
WALL
Concrete
SW11
SW12
SW13
SW14
SW15
SW16
SW17
SW21
SW22
SW23
SW24
SW25
SW26
fc (MPa)
46.6
47.9
35.2
36.6
37.8
46.0
42.6
37.3
44.9
42.1
42.6
39.4
25.5
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Vertical steel
fy (MPa)
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
470.0
fu (MPa)
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
565.0
Horizontal steel
fy (MPa)
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
520.0
fu (MPa)
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
610.0
Table 3.24. Reinforcement ratios of walls from Lefas, Kotsovos and Ambraseys (1990)
No.
WALL
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
SW11
SW12
SW13
SW14
SW15
SW16
SW17
SW21
SW22
SW23
SW24
SW25
SW26
Boundary
vertical
vb (%)
0.574
0.574
0.574
0.574
0.574
0.574
0.574
0.714
0.714
0.714
0.714
0.714
0.714
Reinforcement ratios
Boundary
Vertical
horizontal
hb (%)
v (%)
0.898
3.820
0.898
2.445
0.898
2.445
0.898
2.445
0.898
2.445
0.898
2.445
0.898
2.445
0.672
2.508
0.672
2.508
0.672
2.508
0.672
2.508
0.672
2.508
0.672
2.508
Horizontal
h (%)
1.096
1.096
1.096
1.096
1.096
1.096
1.096
0.821
0.821
0.821
0.821
0.821
0.821
33
3.2
Evaluation of Results
The proposed method for modelling the behaviour of low aspect ratio shear walls is
implemented to each of the experimental tests described in the previous section, the results are
compared with the positive backbone curves of each of the tests, and the results are summarized
in terms of ultimate resistance and displacement capacity.
3.2.1 Dazio, Beyer and Bachman (2009)
The comparative results between the modelling behaviour and observed experimental response
are shown in Figure 3.2 to Figure 3.5.
500.00
450.00
400.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Dazio
Specimen
WSH3
H/lw
2.28
Resistance
Prediction
425.9
Experimental
445.0
Ultimate Displacement
Prediction
89.4
Experimental
91.9
350.00
300.00
Prediction
250.00
Experimental
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
100.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.2. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen WSH3
500.00
450.00
400.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Dazio
Specimen
WSH4
H/lw
2.28
Resistance
Prediction
411.8
Experimental
441.0
Displacement
Prediction
84.1
Experimental
72.0
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
Prediction
150.00
Experimental
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
100.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.3. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen WSH4
34
500.00
450.00
400.00
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
Prediction
150.00
Experimental
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Dazio
Specimen
WSH5
H/lw
2.28
Resistance
Proposal
385.1
Experimental
435.8
Displacement
Proposal
94.1
Experimental
70.7
kN
kN
mm
mm
100.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.4. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen WSH5
700.00
600.00
500.00
400.00
300.00
Prediction
200.00
Experimental
100.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Dazio
Specimen
WSH6
H/lw
2.28
Resistance
Prediction
591.4
Experimental
586.5
Displacement
Prediction
91.9
Experimental
94.7
kN
kN
mm
mm
100.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.5. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen WSH6
35
140.00
120.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Oesterle
Specimen
R1
H/lw
2.4
Resistance
Prediction
120.6
Experimental
111.3
Displacement
Prediction
134.0
Experimental
128.4
100.00
80.00
60.00
Prediction
40.00
Experimental
20.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
150.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.6. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen R1
250.00
200.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Oesterle
Specimen
R2
H/lw
2.4
Resistance
Prediction
204.1
Experimental
222.3
Displacement
Prediction
102.5
Experimental
128.2
150.00
Prediction
100.00
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
150.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.7. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen R2
36
160.00
140.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Thomsen
Specimen
RW1
H/lw
3
Resistance
Prediction
144.2
Experimental
141.1
Displacement
Prediction
76.2
Experimental
79.6
120.00
100.00
80.00
Prediction
60.00
Experimental
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
100.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.8. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen RW1
180.00
160.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Thomsen
Specimen
RW2
H/lw
3
Resistance
Prediction
149.2
Experimental
160.3
Displacement
Prediction
81.5
Experimental
85.5
140.00
120.00
100.00
Prediction
80.00
Experimental
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
100.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.9. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen RW2
37
400.00
350.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Deng
Specimen
HPCW01
H/lw
2.1
Resistance
Prediction
328.8
Experimental
334.4
Displacement
Prediction
29.8
Experimental
42.3
300.00
250.00
200.00
Prediction
150.00
Experimental
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
50.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.10. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen HPCW01
400.00
350.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Deng
Specimen
HPCW02
H/lw
2.1
Resistance
Prediction
331.0
Experimental
335.0
Displacement
Prediction
51.5
Experimental
52.9
300.00
250.00
200.00
Prediction
150.00
Experimental
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
60.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.11. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen HPCW02
38
3.2.5
Ghorbani-Renani et al (2009)
The comparative results between the modelling behaviour and observed experimental response
are shown in Figure 3.12.
450.00
400.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Ghorbani
Specimen
A2C
H/lw
2.08
Resistance
Prediction
423.0
Experimental
424.7
Displacement
Prediction
69.7
Experimental
81.4
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
Prediction
150.00
Experimental
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
100.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.12. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen A2C
3.2.6
The comparative results between the modelling behaviour and observed experimental response
are shown in Figure 3.13 and Figure 3.14.
800.00
700.00
600.00
500.00
400.00
Prediction
300.00
Experimental
200.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Tran
Specimen
RW-A20-P10-S63
H/lw
2
Resistance
Prediction
694.7
kN
Experimental
739.6
kN
Displacement
Prediction
52.6
mm
Experimental
74.1
mm
80.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.13. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen RW-A20-P10-S63
39
1000.00
900.00
800.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Tran
Specimen
RW-A15-P10-S78
H/lw
1.5
Resistance
Prediction
938.3
kN
Experimental
866.1
kN
Displacement
Prediction
37.9
mm
Experimental
49.6
mm
700.00
600.00
500.00
Prediction
400.00
Experimental
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.14. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen RW-A15-P10-S78
300.00
250.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Salonikios
Specimen
LSW1
H/lw
1
Resistance
Prediction
250.6
Experimental
264.2
Displacement
Prediction
12.2
Experimental
10.2
200.00
150.00
Prediction
100.00
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
15.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.15. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen LSW1
40
250.00
200.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Salonikios
Specimen
LSW2
H/lw
1.0
Resistance
Prediction
208.0
Experimental
191.7
Displacement
Prediction
13.8
Experimental
10.8
150.00
100.00
Prediction
50.00
0.00
0.00
Experimental
5.00
10.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
15.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.16. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen LSW2
300.00
250.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Salonikios
Specimen
LSW3
H/lw
1.0
Resistance
Prediction
279.6
Experimental
268.0
Displacement
Prediction
13.0
Experimental
15.5
200.00
150.00
Prediction
100.00
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
30.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.17. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen LSW3
41
250.00
200.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Salonikios
Specimen
MSW1
H/lw
1.5
Resistance
Prediction
171.9
Experimental
193.0
Displacement
Prediction
28.9
Experimental
27.0
150.00
100.00
Prediction
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
40.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.18. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen MSW1
160.00
140.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Salonikios
Specimen
MSW2
H/lw
1.5
Resistance
Prediction
140.7
Experimental
124.0
Displacement
Prediction
27.2
Experimental
35.0
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
Prediction
40.00
Experimental
20.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
40.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.19. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen MSW2
42
200.00
180.00
160.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Salonikios
Specimen
MSW3
H/lw
1.5
Resistance
Prediction
191.3
Experimental
176.9
Displacement
Prediction
29.6
Experimental
26.2
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
Prediction
40.00
Experimental
20.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
30.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.20. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen MSW3
300.00
250.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW11
H/lw
1.07
Resistance
Prediction
237.4
Experimental
254.5
Displacement
Prediction
10.4
Experimental
9.2
200.00
150.00
Prediction
100.00
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
15.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.21. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW11
43
350.00
300.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW12
H/lw
1.07
Resistance
Prediction
301.4
Experimental
330.5
Displacement
Prediction
12.0
Experimental
9.6
250.00
200.00
150.00
Prediction
100.00
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
15.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.22. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW12
400.00
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
150.00
Prediction
100.00
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW13
H/lw
1.07
Resistance
Prediction
311.8
Experimental
334.6
Displacement
Prediction
11.5
Experimental
9.8
kN
kN
mm
mm
15.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.23. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW13
44
300.00
250.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW14
H/lw
1.07
Resistance
Prediction
231.4
Experimental
267.1
Displacement
Prediction
10.9
Experimental
12.1
200.00
150.00
Prediction
100.00
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
15.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.24. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW14
350.00
300.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW15
H/lw
1.07
Resistance
Prediction
278.6
Experimental
315.2
Displacement
Prediction
7.3
Experimental
8.5
250.00
200.00
150.00
Prediction
100.00
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
10.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.25. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW15
45
400.00
350.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW16
H/lw
1.07
Resistance
Prediction
349.4
Experimental
355.4
Displacement
Prediction
10.3
Experimental
6.4
300.00
250.00
200.00
Prediction
150.00
Experimental
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
15.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.26. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW16
300.00
250.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW17
H/lw
1.07
Resistance
Prediction
230.0
Experimental
248.6
Displacement
Prediction
8.5
Experimental
10.6
200.00
150.00
Prediction
100.00
Experimental
50.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
12.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.27. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW17
46
140.00
120.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW21
H/lw
2.12
Resistance
Prediction
100.0
Experimental
128.4
Displacement
Prediction
24.8
Experimental
21.7
100.00
80.00
60.00
Prediction
40.00
Experimental
20.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
30.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.28. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW21
160.00
140.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW22
H/lw
2.12
Resistance
Prediction
126.1
Experimental
151.1
Displacement
Prediction
13.8
Experimental
16.1
120.00
100.00
80.00
Prediction
60.00
Experimental
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
20.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.29. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW22
47
200.00
180.00
160.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW23
H/lw
2.12
Resistance
Prediction
142.4
Experimental
180.8
Displacement
Prediction
12.1
Experimental
13.8
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
Prediction
60.00
Experimental
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
15.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.30. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW23
140.00
120.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW24
H/lw
2.12
Resistance
Prediction
101.6
Experimental
121.1
Displacement
Prediction
23.8
Experimental
19.2
100.00
80.00
60.00
Prediction
40.00
Experimental
20.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
30.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.31. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW24
48
160.00
140.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW25
H/lw
2.12
Resistance
Prediction
138.7
Experimental
149.9
Displacement
Prediction
12.3
Experimental
9.7
120.00
100.00
80.00
Prediction
60.00
Experimental
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
15.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.32. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW25
140.00
120.00
SUMMARY
Reference
Lefas
Specimen
SW26
H/lw
2.12
Resistance
Prediction
95.9
Experimental
124.5
Displacement
Prediction
24.7
Experimental
22.0
100.00
80.00
60.00
Prediction
40.00
Experimental
20.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
kN
kN
mm
mm
40.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.33. Result comparison for predicted versus experimental results for specimen SW26
49
3.3
Result Summary
In order to evaluate the accuracy of the predictions made by the proposed methodology, the
results of predicted resistance and displacement capacity are compared statistically with the
experimental results. For this purpose, the results are normalized, finding the ratio of prediction
over experimental results.
Additionally, in order to compare the proposed methodology with current standardized
provisions, the resistance is also calculated using the equations provided in the ACI 318-11, as
presented in the section 1.3 of the present thesis; however, when the empirical equations for
shear strength provided in the ACI determine higher strength values than those possible by the
flexural yielding of the base, then the ACI prediction value is set to be the one obtained by the
maximum possible from the moment-curvature analysis. Both the ACI predictions and those
obtained by the proposed method are evaluated against the experimental values and their results
are demonstrated in Table 3.25.
In the case of the ultimate displacement predictions, the only comparative base is the
experimental data, since there is no standardized provisions to determine this value. The results
are presented in Table 3.26.
The statistical values chosen to describe the accuracy and variability of the proposed modelling
method are the average, the standard deviation of the logarithms of the data, and the coefficient
of variation of the results. These parameters have been calculated for each sample, and are
presented in Table 3.27.
As can be seen in these results, in terms of resistance, the proposed modelling provides better
correlation with the experimental results than the ACI predictions, with an average prediction
of 0.94, a standard deviation of the logarithms of 0.10, and a coefficient of variation of 0.10;
these lead to the conclusion that there is an acceptable dispersion of the results.
In terms of the displacement capacity, the proposed modelling provides predictions which have
an average of 1.02, but an increased standard deviation of the logarithms of 0.20, and a
coefficient of variation of 0.21; this represents a greater dispersion than the resistance
predictions, but these values are still acceptable within the context of ultimate displacement
predictions for these type of structural elements.
It is important to comment that these statistical values represent a point of reference, to evaluate
the accuracy of the modelling method with the existing experimental results, but they do not
consider the inherent dispersion which exists in the testing itself, which would be determined,
for example, by performing several tests of identical specimens, and recording the natural
dispersion of the failure.
50
No.
WALL
HeightLength
Ratio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
WSH3
WSH4
WSH5
WSH6
R1
R2
RW1
RW2
HPCW01
HPCW02
A2C
RW-A20-P10-S63
RW-A15-P10-S78
LSW1
LSW2
LSW3
MSW1
MSW2
MSW3
SW11
SW12
SW13
SW14
SW15
SW16
SW17
SW21
SW22
SW23
SW24
SW25
SW26
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
3.0
3.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
Experimental
445.0
441.0
435.8
586.5
111.3
222.3
141.1
160.3
334.4
335.0
424.7
739.6
866.1
264.2
191.7
268.0
193.0
124.0
176.9
254.5
330.5
334.6
267.1
315.2
355.4
248.6
128.4
151.1
180.8
121.1
149.9
124.5
Resistance (kN)
ACI Provisions
Prediction
Ratio
429.6
0.97
413.6
0.94
405.9
0.93
592.1
1.01
120.7
1.08
232.7
1.05
148.2
1.05
154.4
0.96
328.8
0.98
331.0
0.99
480.4
1.13
614.6
0.83
811.4
0.94
268.0
1.01
216.2
1.13
287.8
1.07
185.3
0.96
144.1
1.16
191.8
1.08
240.4
0.94
255.2
0.77
222.1
0.66
226.2
0.85
229.4
0.73
250.7
0.71
146.9
0.59
100.1
0.78
126.1
0.83
142.4
0.79
101.8
0.84
138.7
0.93
91.1
0.73
Proposal
Prediction
Ratio
425.9
0.96
411.8
0.93
385.1
0.88
591.4
1.01
120.6
1.08
204.1
0.92
144.2
1.02
149.2
0.93
328.8
0.98
331.0
0.99
423.0
1.00
694.7
0.94
938.3
1.08
250.6
0.95
208.0
1.09
279.6
1.04
171.9
0.89
140.7
1.13
142.4
0.81
237.4
0.93
301.4
0.91
311.8
0.93
231.4
0.87
278.6
0.88
349.4
0.98
230.0
0.93
100.0
0.78
126.1
0.83
142.4
0.79
101.6
0.84
138.7
0.93
95.9
0.77
51
Table 3.26. Summary of evaluation of ultimate displacement predictions with experimental results
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
WALL
WSH3
WSH4
WSH5
WSH6
R1
R2
RW1
RW2
HPCW01
HPCW02
A2C
RW-A20-P10-S63
RW-A15-P10-S78
LSW1
LSW2
LSW3
MSW1
MSW2
MSW3
SW11
SW12
SW13
SW14
SW15
SW16
SW17
SW21
SW22
SW23
SW24
SW25
SW26
HeightLength
Ratio
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
3.0
3.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
Deformation (mm)
Experimental
91.9
72.0
70.7
94.7
128.4
128.2
79.6
85.5
42.3
52.9
81.4
74.1
49.6
10.2
10.8
15.5
27.0
35.0
26.2
9.2
9.6
9.8
12.1
8.5
6.4
10.6
21.7
16.1
13.8
19.2
9.7
22.0
Proposal
89.4
84.1
94.1
91.9
134.0
102.5
76.2
81.5
29.8
51.5
69.7
52.6
37.9
12.2
13.8
13.0
28.9
27.2
29.6
10.4
12.0
11.5
10.9
7.3
10.3
8.5
24.8
13.8
12.1
23.8
12.3
24.7
Ratio
0.97
1.17
1.33
0.97
1.04
0.80
0.96
0.95
0.70
0.97
0.86
0.71
0.76
1.20
1.28
0.84
1.07
0.78
1.13
1.12
1.25
1.17
0.90
0.86
1.62
0.80
1.14
0.86
0.88
1.24
1.27
1.12
52
Parameter
Resistance
ACI Prediction Proposal
Deformation
Proposal
Average (xavg)
0.92
0.94
1.02
0.17
0.16
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.21
53
Evaluation Procedure
54
Figure 4.1. Schematic representation of the Displacement Reduction Factor proposed by Penucci et al
(2011)
In the case of the current investigation, a process is determined based on these previously
mentioned concepts, to evaluate the use of the Displacement Reduction Factor formulations
with low period structures such as low aspect ratio shear wall structural systems.
Initially, a full scale single degree of freedom shear wall structure is defined, based on one of
the experimental tests which were evaluated in previous sections. To improve the likeliness of
obtaining suitable results, the wall which will be chosen to model the full scale structure will
be one where the proposed modelling method obtained good results, and which presented a
well-defined hysteretic behaviour in the experimental test.
Once this structure is defined and its properties for backbone behaviour are modelled, a bilinear
approximation will be made, a desired target displacement will be defined, and its effective
properties will be calculated at the target point, as is schematically shown in Figure 2.2.
M<N. =
<N.
(
P) = 2Q/
R)
S<N.
Figure 4.2. Schematic representation of the structures bilinear backbone behaviour and effective
properties at the target displacement
55
Using the equations recommended by the Penucci et al (2011) reference, the Displacement
Reduction Factor can be calculated considering the expected ductility at the target
displacement. For the purpose of this investigation, it is considered that the hysteretic rule which
is most suitable for the type of structures being modelled is the Takeda Thin rule, for which the
DRF is calculated as follows.
Q M<N.
T= /
8.94 M<N. 1 5.8
13
Once the reduction factor is calculated, the elastic response at the target displacement can be
easily determined by the relationship shown in Figure 2.1.
In order to obtain this elastic response from a given earthquake record, spectrum analysis is
performed in order to determine the scaling factor which must be applied to all acceleration
values in the record to increase or reduce the event to obtain the desired response in the
structural system. This process is performed with the displacement spectrum, calculated using
the typical value of 5% viscous damping, as shown in Figure 4.3.
It is worth noting that the scaling procedure does not take in to account the shape of the
displacement spectre being scaled, which can affect results as Penucci et al (2011) reports
different scattering in the inelastic displacement predictions for different types of earthquake
records.
Figure 4.3. Schematic representation of the scaling procedure to perform in each earthquake record to be
used for time history analyses
Once each earthquake record has been scaled, the proposed wall system is modelled using the
nonlinear finite element software VecTor2 and its response is evaluated using time-history
analysis with every record. The maximum displacement demonstrated by the system will be
recorded for each ground motion and compared with the desired target displacement defined
initially.
56
Figure 4.4. Properties defined for the test system based on WSH6, dimensions in mm.
It is important to notice that the axial load present in the test system (4420 kN) differs from the
equivalent seismic mass chosen to calculate the dynamic properties of the system. This situation
is defined in this way in order to maintain the level of axial load present in the WSH6 specimen
of approximately 10% of the gross area resistance, and at the same time obtain an adequate
effective dynamic period at the target displacement. Even though this may seem counter
intuitive, it is a normal situation in real structural systems in which the seismic mass presents a
different plan distribution than the gravitational loads.
Once the test system is defined, it is modelled using both the proposed methodology presented
in previous sections, and the nonlinear finite element software VecTor2. In the case of the finite
element model, all the reinforcement is included in the elements as smeared reinforcement, with
the exception of the longitudinal reinforcement in the boundary elements for which the rebars
are included as line elements.
57
As for the constitutive relationships used for the finite element model, the basic recommended
settings included in the program are chosen. The foundation and the loading beam are included
in the model in order to capture the effect of strain penetration at the base. The model can be
seen in Figure 4.5 (a) and detailed information about the model settings and material definitions
is included in Appendix A.
A pushover analysis is performed using the finite element model and compared with the results
obtained from the proposed simplified modelling described in previous sections. As is shown
in Figure 4.5 (b), both predictions provide similar results, with the FEM prediction displaying
a slightly stiffer and stronger behaviour.
The prediction results obtained from the proposed simplified modelling are used to determine
the bilinear simplification of the backbone curve, required to perform the calculations of the
evaluation procedure described previously.
2000.00
1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
Prediction
800.00
VecTor2
600.00
Bilinear
400.00
200.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
Displacement (mm)
(b)
(a)
Figure 4.5. a) Finite element model of test system using VecTor2, b) Comparison of backbone behaviour
predictions using proposed methodology and FEM
Once the bilinear approximation is obtained, the target displacement is calculated as 67% of the
predicted ultimate displacement. This value is considered as appropriate so that the test system
will exhibit nonlinear behaviour but avoid failure when submitted to the time history records.
Therefore, since the prediction indicates an ultimate displacement capacity of approximately
58
159 mm, then the target displacement is defined as 106 mm. This value, as well as others
required for further calculations are shown in Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.6. Schematic representation of key values obtained from the bilinear approximation of the
predicted backbone curve.
Once these values are determined, the expected ductility and effective period at the target
displacement are calculated as follows.
M<N. =
<N.
= 3.92
(
P) = 2Q/
R)
= 1.7 8UV
S)
With the use of equation 13, the Displacement Reduction Factor is calculated as follows.
T= /
Q M<N.
= 0.65
8.94 M<N. 1 5.8
Therefore the equivalent elastic spectral displacement at the target period is determined as
follows.
)+,X<N. =
<N.
= 163.3 RR
T
As it was detailed in the previous section, using these values, each of the earthquake records
will be scaled in order to obtain the calculated elastic displacement at the effective period for
the target point.
59
4.2.2
In order to evaluate the ability of the Displacement Reduction Factor methodology of predicting
the inelastic behaviour of the test system, a group of 10 earthquake records are used to perform
nonlinear time history analyses on the test system with VecTor2.
In this case, the selected ground motions correspond to natural records which present a corner
period of 4 seconds, measured at a soil type C sites. Each of the records is shown in Figure 4.7,
and each of their key parameters is shown in Table 4.1.
60
Parameter
CC1
CC2
CC3
CC4
CC5
CC6
CC7
CC8
CC9
CC10
0.29
645.6
643.9
22.10
0.60
809.9
275.1
31.93
0.90
698.1
257.4
12.57
As expected, each record will produce a different theoretical elastic displacement at the target
period of the test system, and therefore they must be scaled in order to adjust the response to
obtain the desired target displacement of 163.3mm which was calculated for the test system in
the previous section.
For this purpose, the theoretical maximum displacement response is calculated for each
earthquake record at the effective target period of 1.7 seconds calculated previously, using the
displacement spectrum for each record for 5% viscous damping. Once each displacement value
is obtained, a scale factor is calculated and further applied to the entire record. The Table 4.2
shows the displacement values calculated for each unscaled record, and the scale factor for each
ground motion.
Table 4.2. Maximum displacement and scale factors calculated
for each record for a period of 1.7 seconds
EQ Record
CC1
CC2
CC3
CC4
CC5
CC6
CC7
CC8
CC9
CC10
Displacement
(mm)
312.6
414.1
313.2
272.5
154.0
353.0
182.6
463.7
265.2
261.3
Scale Factor
0.52
0.39
0.52
0.60
1.06
0.46
0.89
0.35
0.62
0.62
Once the scale factor is determined and applied for each ground motion, each displacement
spectrum is recalculated in order to verify that the target displacement is being obtained for all
records. All displacement spectra can be seen in Figure 4.8, showing the target displacement
obtained for all records at a period of 1.7 seconds.
61
It is worth noting that there is a large scatter in the spectral displacement demands after the
target period, which can affect the results for test systems which display an effective period
larger than the desired target period defined.
4.3 Results
As mentioned previously, each of the scaled records is used to perform a time history
verification of the use of Displacement Reduction Factors to predict the behaviour of the
defined test system. For this purpose, the system is modelled using the nonlinear finite element
software VecTor2.
Is important to note that, since VecTor2 models several mechanical sources of hysteretic
damping such as concrete cracking, concrete softening and steel yielding, each time history
model is configured to include an additional viscous damping of only 1%, with the intention
that the implicit hysteretic damping plus the additional elastic viscous damping resembles the
5% damping used during the spectral analysis of the earthquake records.
The full displacement history for each earthquake record is shown in Figure 4.9, measured at
the top of the wall and relative to the displacement of the ground. A summary of the maximum
displacement exhibited by the test system for each ground motion is shown in Table 4.3 and
Figure 4.10 in comparison to the expected target displacement.
62
Figure 4.9. Relative displacement at the top of the test system during time history analysis for each
earthquake record
63
Table 4.3. Maximum displacement at the top of the test system for each ground motion
Record
Maximum
displacement (mm)
Record
Maximum
displacement (mm)
CC1
CC2
CC3
CC4
CC5
83.2
126.5
66.3
82.6
73.3
CC6
CC7
CC8
CC9
CC10
25.4
131.8
64.6
53.7
138.8
Figure 4.10. Maximum displacement at the top of the test system for each ground motion
As can be seen from the results of the time history analyses, the maximum displacement
presented by the test system vary widely among all ground records, with a slight tendency of
being below the desired target displacement of 106 mm defined.
The results present an average maximum displacement of 84.6 mm which represents 79.8% of
the target, and a coefficient of variation of 0.44, leading to the impression that the use of
Displacement Reduction Factors as presented in the Penucci et al (2011) reference may not be
suitable for accurate predictions of the performance of structural systems based on low aspect
ratio walls.
It is worth noting that these results are in agreement with the ones presented in the Penucci et
al (2011) reference, as the proposed methodology presented the highest scattering when the
64
Displacement Reduction Factors were evaluated with natural earthquake records with a corner
period of 4 seconds, similar to the ones used in this investigation; this leads to the conclusion
that spectral shape has a very high influence on the inelastic displacement response.
A possible solution to this problem is indicated in the Penucci et al (2011) reference, making
the inelastic displacement response a function of the elastic spectral demand between the initial
and effective period instead of only dependant of the effective stiffness alone, but this
implementation is outside of the scope of this investigation. It is recommended that future
research endeavours include the use of a larger set of ground motions to better capture the
effectiveness of the methodology.
A direct comparison between the coefficient of variance presented in this investigation and the
one reported in the Penucci et al (2011) reference is not considered representative since the
reference evaluated the Displacement Reduction Factor found at the actual effective period
presented by the test systems for each time-history, while the current research evaluates the
ultimate displacement results based on the desired target period alone.
Furthermore, the differences between the predictions and the results can also be attributed to
the following factors:
The test system properties were calculated using the backbone prediction obtained by
the simplified approach proposed in previous sections, while the actual VecTor2 model
presented a stiffer and stronger behaviour as seen in Figure 4.5.b
The 1% additional viscous damping included in the model may be overdamping the
results and therefore producing smaller displacements than that predicted by the use of
the Displacement Reduction Factors.
The choice of the Takeda Thin hysteresis rule to calculate the predictions may not
accurately represent the actual hysteresis for this type of structure. Further research
should seek to better characterize the shape of the hysteresis loop for low aspect ratio
shear walls.
65
Chapter 5: Summary
5 SUMMARY
5.1
In terms of behaviour, the failure modes of low aspect ratio shear walls are well studied and,
from the review of the experimental tests conducted in this research, it is determined that current
minimum reinforcement requirements are efficient in preventing diagonal tension failures, and
the maximum shear limits required by current codes are adequate in preventing diagonal
compression failures for walls with aspect ratios greater than 2.0.
In terms of energy dissipation, all of the tested walls with aspect ratio higher than 2.0 exhibit
some ductility before failure was reached. It is not yet clear which hysteretic law dominates the
cyclic behaviour of this type of element.
From the revision of the theories involved in this research, it is clear that there is a heavy
interaction between the flexural and shear effects, which causes a combined failure in this type
of wall element; for the most part, in the case of adequately reinforced walls, the overall
behaviour is dominated by flexure, and the failure is generated by the degradation of the shear
resistance due to the straining in the elements.
Current design approaches are implemented through the use of empirical equations for
determining resistance, and if displacement capacity is required, several intricate finite element
tools are readily available; however, they are complex and time consuming.
5.2
A method has been proposed to model the backbone curve of laterally loaded shear walls which
involves the interactions present between axial, flexural and shear effects by the use of simple
theories and engineering principles.
The total displacement at the top of the wall was divided in three components, namely: a) base
rotation due to strain penetration, b) shear deformations and, c) flexure curvatures which can
be affected by tension shift.
66
Chapter 5: Summary
The method proved to have a simple implementation through the determination of momentcurvature curves, and a step-by-step consideration of each displacement component through all
load stages with the use of spreadsheets. Failure of the element is determined by either reaching
the ultimate curvature in flexure, or by exceeding the shear capacity which varies depending on
the longitudinal straining of the structural element.
Results obtained by the proposed method prove to have a good fit with experimental results,
and a statistical analysis of a sample of 32 tests shown an average prediction ratio of 0.94, with
a coefficient of variation of 0.10 for resistance predictions, and an average of 1.02 with
coefficient of variation of 0.21 for ultimate displacement predictions.
The predictions obtained by this method could be improved by defining a more rational
approach to determine the occurrence of the tension shift effect, but given the number of
parameters that are involved in this phenomena, this refinement was not considered in the
present study.
The predictions obtained by the use of empirical equations found in the ACI 318-11 provisions
were also evaluated and demonstrated an average prediction ratio of 0.92, with a coefficient of
variation of 0.16 for resistance predictions.
5.3
A procedure was developed to evaluate the use of Displacement-Based concepts to predict the
maximum displacement of structural systems based on low aspect ratio walls, through the use
of Displacement Reduction Factors.
A test system was defined and its behaviour modelled with the use of the simplified method
described in this research. Furthermore, the test system was modelled and evaluated through
the use of nonlinear finite element modelling and time history evaluation with 10 ground
motions which were scaled to theoretically generate a maximum displacement in the system
which would match a defined target.
The results present an average maximum displacement of 78.9% the desired target, and a
coefficient variance of 0.44; which is in agreement with the results obtained in the Penucci et
al (2011) reference where the evaluation of the Displacement Reduction Factors provided a
large scatter with ground motions similar to the ones used in this investigation.
It is recommended that future research considers a larger set of ground motions and test systems,
as well as account for spectral shape in the calculation of the Displacement Reduction Factors
in order to better capture the efficiency of the methodology.
Additionally, several analysis assumptions and decisions may have contributed to the
inconsistency between predictions and results; for example: the use of the simplified model to
determine the backbone properties of the test system, the choice of hysteretic rule employed in
67
Chapter 5: Summary
calculations, and the value of additional viscous damping introduced in the time history models
which may have overdamped the analyses.
68
Chapter 6: Conclusions
6 CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are derived from the present research:
Four main failure modes are observed for the loss of stiffness and resistance of shear
walls with low aspect ratios: diagonal tension, diagonal compression, shear sliding, or
a combined flexural-shear failure; from which the latter is preferred since it provides
more predictable behaviour and some energy dissipation before failure.
The provisions of current design codes are efficient in avoiding diagonal tension and
diagonal compression brittle failures, as well as providing adequate resistance
predictions through empirical equations.
The overall behaviour of adequately reinforced low aspect ratio shear walls is dominated
by flexure, with the failure being caused by the degeneration of shear resistance
mechanisms due to straining of the wall.
The overall behaviour of low aspect ratio shear walls can be predicted accurately with
the use of simple equations and engineering principles which consider the interactions
between flexural and shear mechanisms.
The method proposed to model the backbone curves of this type of elements present
very good results when compared with available experimental testing, thereby providing
a simple tool to assess the resistance and ultimate capacity of shear walls.
The use of Displacement Based concepts with Displacement Reduction Factors based
on expected ductility did not prove to be very effective to predict the behaviour of
structural systems based on low aspect ratio shear walls, but several factors were
identified that could have affected the results such as: not accounting for spectral shape
in the calculation of predictions, the choice of the backbone curve for the calculation of
predictions, the selected additional damping in the model and the choice of hysteretic
rule.
69
References
7 REFERENCES
Journal References
Paulay, T., Priestley, M.J.N., Synge, A. J. [1982] Ductility in Earthquake Resisting Squat Shear Walls,
ACI Journal, July-August, 79-26, pp. 257-269.
Palermo, D., Vecchio, F. D. [2003] Compression Field Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Subjected
to Reverse Loading: Formulation, ACI Journal, September-October, 100-S64, pp. 616-625.
Palermo, D., Vecchio, F. D. [2004] Compression Field Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Subjected
to Reverse Loading: Validation, ACI Journal, March-April, 101-S15, pp. 155-164.
Vecchio, F. D., Collins, M. P. [1986] The Modified Compression Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete
Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI Journal, March-April, 83-22, pp. 219-231.
Bentz, E. C., Vecchio, F. D., Collins, M. P. [2006] Simplified Modified Compression Field Theory for
Calculating Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Elements, ACI Journal, July-August, 103-S65,
pp. 614-624.
Grammatikou, S., Biskinis, D., Fardis, M. N. [2015] Strength, deformation capacity and failure modes
of RC walls under cyclic loading, Unpublished Research Paper, Bull Earthquake Engineering.
Vecchio, F. D. [1989] Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Membranes, ACI
Journal, January-February, 86-S4, pp. 26-35.
Vecchio, F. D. [1990] Reinforced Concrete Membrane Element Formulations, Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol 116, No. 3, pp. 730-750.
Pennucci, D., Sullivan, T.J., Calvi, G.M. [2011] Displacement Reduction Factors for the Design of
Medium and Long Period Structures, Journal of Structural Engineering, 15:S1, pp. 1-29.
70
References
Gulec, C., Whittaker, A. S. [2009] Performance Based Assessment and Design of Squat Reinforced
Concrete Shear Walls, Technical Report, MCEER-09-0010, University at Buffalo, State University
of New York, United States
Yuk Yeung, L. S. [2008] A New Finite Element for Reinforced Concrete Beam Analysis Including
Shear, Individual Study, Graduate Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Canada.
American Concrete Institute [2008] Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 3182011) and Commentary, United States.
Program References
Wong, P.S., Vecchio, F.J., Trommels, H. [2002] VecTor2 and Formworks Users Manual, University
of Toronto, Canada.
Book References
Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M., Kowalsky, M.J. [2007] Displacement-Based Seismic Design of
Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Park, R., Paulay, T. [1974] Reinforced Concrete Structures, Wiley and Sons, Christchurch, New
Zealand.
Dazio, A., Beyer, K., and Bachmann, H., [2009]. Quasi-Static Cyclic Tests and Plastic Hinge Analysis
of RC Structural Walls, Engineering Structures, 31, pp. 1556-1571.
Oesterle, R.G., Fiorato, A.E., Johal, L.S., Carpenter, J.E., Russel, J.E., Russel, H.G., Corley, W.G.,
[1976]. Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls-Tests of Isolated Walls, Report to National Science
Foundation (RANN), Grant No. GI.-43880, November 1976.
Thomsen, J., Wallace, J., [1995]. Displacement based-Design of Reinforced Concrete Structural walls.
An experimental Investigation of Walls with Rectengular and T-shaped Cross-Sections, Report No.
CU/CEE-95-06, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Clarkson University, June
1995.
Deng, M., Liang, X., Yang, K., [2008]. Experimental Study on Seismic Behavior of High Performance
Concrete Shear Wall with New Strategy of Transverse Confining Stirrups, The 14th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China.
71
References
Ghorbani-Renani, I., Velev, N., Tremblay, D., Palermo, D., Massicote, B., Leger, P., [2009]. Modeling
and Testing Influence of Scaling Effects on Inelastic Response of Shear Walls, ACI Structural
Journal/May-June 2009, 358-367.
Tran, T.A, Wallace, J.W., (2012). Experimental Study of Nonlinear Flexural and Shear Deformation
of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls, 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Lisbon.
Salonikios, T.N., Kappos, A.J., Tegos, I.A., and Penelis, G.G., (1999). Cyclic Load Behavior of LowSlenderness Reinforced Concrete Walls: Design Basis and Test Results, ACI Structural Journal,
96(4), 649-660.
Lefas, I., Kotsovos, M., Ambraseys, N., (1990). Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls:
Strength, Deformation Characteristics, and Failure Mechanism, ACI Structural Journal, Title no.87S3, January-February 1990, 23-31.
72
Appendix A
A1
Appendix A
MATERIAL DEFINITION
f'c
(MPa)
45
45
100
Material
1
2
3
f't
(MPa)
2.21
2.21
3.30
Ec
(MPa)
29171
29171
40100
Thickness
(mm)
260
260
400
Aggregate sz.
(mm)
20
20
20
Material
1
2
Type
Horizontal
Longitudinal
Horizontal
Out-of-plane
Horizontal
Longitudinal
Out-of-plane
Percentage
(%)
0.26
0.45
0.75
0.75
4
4
4
Diameter
(mm)
8
10
8
8
12
12
12
Fy
(MPa)
520
585
520
520
520
520
520
Fu
(MPa)
560
715
560
560
560
560
560
Es
(MPa)
200000
200000
200000
200000
200000
200000
200000
A2
Appendix A
Area
(mm2)
Diameter
(mm)
Fy
(MPa)
Fu
(MPa)
Es
(MPa)
600
20
570
675
200000
ANALYSIS SETTINGS
A3