You are on page 1of 118

Analysis of a Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall

M.Sc Thesis

Björk Hauksdóttir s053069

Instructors
Bjarni Bessason Per Golterman

February 2007

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

i

Symbols

Q D q W ¯ σ ¯ λ Pi ui dV σx σy τxy ftx fty fY Asx Asy σc ν t F fyd As,t Ac,needed fcd C As,c As ft
u

fc
c1 cu

∆ µ SE

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

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

iii

Abstract
wk srm εsm β σs σsr β1 β2 φ k1 k2 H W L h tw ts ρc ρg tg Ec T1 Fb Sd Ac ag q Fi T S mi,j zi,j fct f1 f2 a σh Ec βt βc Tc Es
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = the design crack width the average nal crack spacing the mean strain allowing under the relevant load coecient relating the average crack width to the design value the stress in the tension reinforcement at cracked section the stress in the tension reinforcement at the rst crack Coecient which takes account of the bond properties Coecient which takes account of the loading bar size Coecient which takes account of the bond properties Coecient which takes account of the form of the strain distribution height of the analyzed building width of the analyzed building Length of the analyzed shear wall story height the shear wall thickness the slab/roof thickness density of concrete density of glass thickness of double glass Young's modulus for concrete the fundamental period of vibration the seismic base shear force Design spectrum total aective area of shear wall ground acceleration behavior factor horizontal forces acting on the shear wall vibrating period soil factor storey masses heights of the masses tensile strength of concrete Ultimate compressive strength for state of biaxial compression Ultimate compressive strength for state of uniaxial compression ultimate biaxial compressive strength secant modulus of elasticity shear coecient for open crack shear coecient for closed crack multiplier for amount of tensile stress relaxation modulus of elasticity for steel

iv

. 2.3. .3.3 2. . .3 Mathematical Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . .1 Concrete and Steel . . . . . .2 Elastic-Strain Hardening Plastic Model . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . 2. . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . .4 The evolution of Subsequent Loading Surface . . . . . . . . . . .5. i iii v vii ix xi xi 1 Introduction 1 1 3 2 Theory 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 2. . . . . Nonlinear Analysis . Finite Element Analysis . .5.5. . . .1 Basic Concepts . . . . . .1 Disks with Orthogonal Reinforcement . . . . .After Yielding Point . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . 2. . . . . .1 Linear Analysis . . . . . . . 2. . . . .2 Stringer Method . . . .2 2.5.1 2. . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 The Lower Bound Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Reinforced Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . .5 5 5 5 6 8 9 9 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 17 17 18 19 19 19 5 v . . . 2.3. . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . 2. . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Elastic Based Model . . . . . . . .2. . . . .Before Yielding Point . . . . . .3. . . . . . . Design Methods . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . .3. 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . .2 Background . . . . . . . . .5 The Flow Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis Methods . . . . . . . . . 2. .Contents Abstract Symbols Contents List of Figures List of Tables Preface Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Plastic Analysis .2. . . . .4 Finite Element Modeling of Cracks . . . . . . . Objective . . .3 The Shape of an Initial Yield Surface . . .

. . . . . . . .5. . . 20 21 22 22 23 3 The Building and the Load . . . . .5. . . . . . .5 55 6 Summary and Conclusion Appendices A MATLAB script for Design Response spectra B Calculations for Stringer method C Modeling in ETABS References 75 77 77 79 95 103 vi . . .2. 3. . . . . . .2 Calculation of Shear Stresses and Stringer Linear Elastic FE-analysis .3 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . Calculation Process in ANSYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . 5. . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Capacity Curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Modeling in SAP2000 and ETABS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . .2 5. . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Load . . . . . . . .3. . Pushover Analysis . . . . 4. . . . . 35 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis 5. . . . . . . . .1 Vertical Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Horizontal Reinforcement . . . . . . Analytical Nonlinear Model . . . . . . . . . . .1 Lateral Force Patterns .7 2. . . . . . . . . . . .9 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Can the Lateral Force Method be 3. . . . . . . The Building . . . . . . . . .8 2. . . . . .1 The Mass of the Building . . . .1 Calculation of design crack widths Shear Wall . . . . . .2 4. . . . . . .3 Vertical Load . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . Methods to Calculate Cracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks . . . .3 The Stringer Method .1 3. .3. . . . .2 3. . . . .1. . . . . . .2 Calculations of Crack width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . .4 5. . .1 Cracks and Reinforcement Yielding 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 ETABS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 SAP2000 . 3. . . . . . . Element Type . . . . . . . . . . . .8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 2. 3. . . . 4. . . . .1 5. . . . . . . . . . . .2 The Design Response Spectra . . . . . . . Minimum Reinforcement according to EC2 . . . . . . . 4.0. . . . . . . . . . . . used? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. .Reinforced Concrete Solid Material Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analytical Results . . . . .1 The Load . . . . . . . .1. . . . . .Lateral Force Method of Analysis 3. . . . . .3. . 25 25 26 28 28 28 29 29 30 33 35 35 37 43 43 44 48 53 53 53 55 55 56 60 61 63 68 4 Reinforcement Design 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Ductility . .Contents 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deformations of a shell element in ETABS [8] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stress-strain diagram for concrete [9] . . . . . The forces acting on the wall for Stringer Method . . .8 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . vii . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forces applied on the shear wall . . . . . . . .15 3.12 Iceland lies on the Mid Atlantic Ridge . . . .13 2. . . . Pier and spandrel forces in ETABS . . . . . . . . .1 2. . . . . . . Horizontal ground acceleration for Iceland Horizontal design spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uniaxial stress-strain relation for rigid-plastic material [18] .3 3. . . . . . . .10 4. . . . Damage because of the earthquakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vertical Stringer Forces for stringerline 11 to 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .List of Figures 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Triaxial strength surface in principal stress space [19] . . . . . . . . . . . .7 4.1 1.1 3. . .7 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . Vertical Stringer Forces for stringerline 15 to 18 . . . . . . . . . .4 2. . . . . . . . . . . Maximum work hypothesis [18] . . . . . . The Shear Wall Dimensions . . .8 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kinematic hardening rule [1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . stringer and mesh rectangle areas [13] . . . . . . 1 2 6 7 9 11 13 13 14 15 16 16 18 19 21 23 24 25 26 27 30 32 34 36 36 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 44 45 The wall divided into nodes. . . .14 2. . . . . . .11 4. . .5 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 2. Sign of the shear stresses . . . . . . . . . . . Disk element with stress in the concrete [18] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Longitudinal Wall Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . Disk divided into nodes. . . . . . . . . . . Reinforcement of the wall based on Stringer method Shell Element [26] . . . . . . . . Relationship between strength and ductility [21] . . . . . . . . .4 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horizontal Stringer Forces for stringerline 1 to 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . stringers and areas .12 2. . . . . . . . . . . Typical load-displacement relationship for reinforced concrete element [21] Biaxial strength Envelope for Plain Concrete [19] . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 2.9 4. Typical load-displacement relationship for reinforced concrete element [21] Loading surfaces of concrete in biaxial stress plane for a work-hardeningplasticity model [4] . .1 4. . Horizontal Stringer Forces for stringerline 4 to 6 . . Structural wall [21] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 3. . . . . .6 2. . . .4 4. . .3 2.2 4. . . . . . .3 4. . . . . . . The Shear Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horizontal Stringer Forces for stringeline 7 to 10 . Typical stress-strain diagram of reinforcing steel [9] . . . . . .11 2. . . . Plan View . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 2.2 3. . . . . . . . . . . .6 4. . . . . . .2 2. . .

. . . . . . . .17 4. . . . . . . . . . Spandrel labeling . . . . . . . EC2 . . . . . . Cracks at middle window for EC2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 5. . . . . . . . . . . .23 5. . . .5 5. . . . . . τxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Contents 4. . . . . . . . . Cracks at middle window for SAP2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 5. . . . . . Cracks width for ETABS . . .21 5. . 96 . .24 5. . . . . . . . Cracking signs in ANSYS. . . . . . Shear forces in piers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 5. . . .19 4.3 5. . . . M3. . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks at middle window for ETABS .2 C. . Normal stresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 C. . . . . . . . .12 5. Steel stresses in element no 670 below middle window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 5. . . . . . . . .25 5. . . . . . .13 4. . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) in the wall with minimum reinforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks width for SAP2000 . . . . . . . . . . Shear forces in spandrels. .6 5. . . . . . . . . . . V2 . P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steel stresses in element no 787 above middle window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 5. . . . . . . M3 . .22 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 5.2 5. . . . . . . .6 C. .22 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Axial forces in spandrels. . . . . in spandrels .9 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3. . . . . . . . . . . . Moment. . . . . . . . . . . Cracks at middle window for Stringer . 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Modeling of the wall in Ansys . . . . . from the SAP2000 analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 C. . . . . . . . . .1 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steel Model . . . . . Ductility curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 5. . . 95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Load deection curves for dierent analysis . . . . . . 45 46 46 47 48 49 49 50 52 53 56 57 57 59 60 61 62 62 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 67 69 69 70 71 71 72 72 73 73 74 74 SOLID65 element in ANSYS [1] . . . . . . . .5 C. . . . . .16 5. Normal stresses. . . . . Reinforcement arrangement of the wall based on analysis in SAP2000 Minimum reinforcement according to EC2 . . from analysis in SAP2000 . .4 C. . . . . Axial forces in Piers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shear stresses. . . . . . .15 4. . . . . . . . . . . .20 4. . . . . Computed crack width in element 787 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reinforcement of the wall based on analysis in ETABS . . . . . . .26 5. . . . . . . .16 4. .8 Pier labeling . . . . . . . . . . . Element numbers . . . . 99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 5. . . P . . . . 99 . . . . . Normal distribution of compressive strength results [20] . . . . . Ductility curves . . . . . . . . . from the SAP2000 analysis . . The basic types of shell stresses [22] . . . . . σy . . . . . . . . . .14 4. Moment. . . . . . Bilinear Hardening Concrete Model . . . . . . . . Moment forces in piers. . Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) in the wall designed from ETABS Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) in the wall designed from SAP2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . σx . . . . . . . . . . . . . Computed crack width in element 670 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 5. . . . . . . Moment forces in spandrels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks width for EC2 . . . . . .1 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design crack width in element 1026 . . . . . . . . . . .21 4. 96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 viii . . . . . . . . . NL=1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M3 Pier labeling . . . . . . . in piers . . . Cracks width for Stringer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 . . . .18 4.4 5. . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) for in the wall designed with Stringer method . . . .

. . . . 98 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Material properties of concrete in SAP2000 and ETABS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 5. the steel . . . . Parameters for material number two. . . Parameters for type 1 design response spectrum. . . . . . . . . . . . . Average stresses and computed reinforcement from SAP2000 analysis Input parameters for Willam and Warnke model . 26 31 32 39 44 44 51 58 59 59 60 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 4. . . .1 5. . .1 Spandrel forces and reinforcement calculations . .1 3. . . . . . Shear stresses in the rectangular mesh areas . . . 101 ix . . . . . . Wall in SAP2000 and ETABS . . . . . . . .3 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 4. . .1 4. . . . .3 5. . . .2 3. . . . . . . . .List of Tables 3. . . . . . . . . . Parameters for design response spectra . . . Material parameters used the concrete . . . . . . Main characteristics of the FEM model in ANSYS . . . . .4 The buildings parameters .2 Pier forces and reinforcement calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

I would also like to thank associate professor Per Golterman at the Technical University of Denmark for his comments. February 2007 Björk Hauksdóttir. I am grateful to my supervisor professor Bjarni Bessason at the University of Iceland for his guidance. ideas and encouragement during my thesis work. Reykjavik. support and giving me the opportunity to do my studies in Iceland. The work was done at the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Iceland where the author nished his B.Preface This work is presented for the fulllment of the requirements of the Master of Science at the Department of Civil Engineering at the Technical University of Denmark. s053069 xi .Sc degree. Acknowledgements The University of Iceland Research Fund provided a nancial support which I am very grateful for. Finally I want to thank Helga Björk Magnúsdóttir M.Sc for reading and correcting the project.

.

causing earthquakes and eruptions.1: Iceland lies on the Mid Atlantic Ridge The SIZS is in the middle of the South Iceland lowland. Most of the houses there are one or two story buildings and before the year 2000 only very few buildings (<10) were higher.e. 1 . see Figure 1. the largest agricultural region in Iceland. The population in the year 2000 was around 16000.1 Background Iceland lies on the Mid Atlantic Ridge and is being split by the divergent plate boundary between the North American Plate and the Eurasian Plate. In the region there are small villages and number of a farms. In South Iceland the plate boundary is shifted towards east and oshore north of Iceland is shifted back west. The most destructive earthquakes in the history of Iceland have occurred in these two zones. Figure 1. At these two locations there are conservative plate boundaries and we have the two main seismic zones in Iceland.Chapter 1 Introduction 1. i. the Tjörnes Fracture Zone (TFZ) and the South Iceland Seismic Zone (SISZ).1.

Elastic analysis can give a good indication of the elastic capacity of structures but it can not predict failure mechanisms and account for redistribution of force during progressive yielding. Large earthquakes may occur in the zone during the next few decades and with possibility of an earthquake. This method optimizes reinforcement for a given load using the lower bound theorem of plasticity theory. Number of three story and four story buildings have been built after 2000 and more are on the schedule. Most of the damaged houses were one story concrete shear walls.2). Nonlinear analysis gives a good demonstration on how the building really works and it helps the engineer to get a better understanding on how the structure will behave when subjected to earthquakes. DS411.P. In the year 1999 the Stringer Method was introduced in the Danish Concrete Norm. [23] [24] Figure 1. 2 .6 occurred. which only had reinforcement around the windows and doors openings. However lot of houses were damaged and at least 35 houses were estimated unrepairable.Chapter 1 Introduction In June 2000 two major earthquakes with moment magnitude 6. in the central part of the SIZS. Earthquakes in this region have several times since the settlement of Iceland caused considerable damage and collapse of houses as well ad number of casualties. where it is assumed that the elastic capacity of the structure will be exceeded. In the past elastic design has mainly been used in seismic design of concrete structures but in recent years the understanding of the plastic theory and its application to reinforced concrete structures has greatly increased and it has been shown that the plastic theory is very successful to explain experimental observations of reinforced concrete.2: Damage because of the earthquakes It has been estimated that no more than one fourth of the strain energy in the SIZS was released in the two June 2000 earthquakes. Despite intensive surface ssuring caused by the two June 2000 earthquakes and recorded accelerations reaching 0. [24] With more dense population in South Iceland there is growing demand for higher houses. One way of doing nonlinear analysis is to use static pushover analysis taking into account nonlinear behavior of the concrete and reinforcement.8g. after 88 years of rest. Nielsen for reinforced concrete walls. of comparable size to the earthquakes in the year 2000. the earthquakes caused no structural collapse (see Figure 1. In 1979 the stringer method was developed by M.

An attempt is made to evaluate crack width calculations as a function of load to reect damage. the element type and material properties for the mathe- 3 . Third chapter: The idealized building is described in details and its mass calculated. a reinforcement in which the design is based on the Stringer method.2 Doing experiments on a reinforced concrete element shows of course the real life response of the element under load but it can be extremely costly and time consuming. Fourth chapter : The reinforcement design is made for the shear wall. Firstly.Objective Section 1. The calculation process is described.2 Objective The main objective of the research work presented in this thesis is to study the nonlinear behavior of a reinforced concrete shear wall with dierent reinforcement arrangements in an idealized three story building located in the South Iceland Seismic Zone subjected to a step-wise increasing lateral design earthquake load. The basic nonlinear behavior of concrete and reinforcement is presented and also the importance of ductility and crack control. yield criteria. ow rule and hardening theory are presented. steel. The use of nite element analysis has increased due to progressing knowledge and capabilities of computer software. a reinforcement in which the design is based on linear elastic nite element method analysis using general purpose FE-program (SAP2000). Four dierent reinforcement arrangements of the shear wall are considered. Over the past twenty years the static pushover procedure has been presented and nonlinear software tools been developed for seismic design of concrete structures by several authors and standards. Secondly. The nonlinear behavior of the four dierent reinforced shear walls is then tested by nonlinear pushover analysis using the general purpose FE-program ANSYS. Finally a method to calculate crack width from Eurocode 2 is described. secondly with a general FE-program. failure criteria. The main chapters are as follows: Second chapter : The basic theory for the research work is presented. The dierence between linear elastic and plastic analysis is outlined and the fundamentals of the lower bound theorem followed by explanation of the Stringer method. 1. Priesley [21]. The basic concepts of a nite element analysis is listed. So now it is possible to analyze concrete and understand the response of a concrete element. see for instance Chopra [5]. The applied lateral design earthquake load is calculated based on the lateral force method from Eurocode 8 and the static pushover analysis is presented. Thirdly. EC8 [10] and ATC-40 [2]. Fourthly. Fifth chapter: The four designed walls are analyzed in the FE-program ANSYS. a reinforcement based on minimum reinforcement requirements from Eurocode 2. First with the Stringer method. thirdly with a building specialized FE-program and fourthly with minimum reinforcement from Eurocode 2. a reinforcement again based on linear elastic FEM but here using a building specialized FE-program (ETABS). The mathematical models used in ANSYS for concrete. Fajfar [11].

Chapter 1 Introduction matical models explained and dened. 4 . The analysis is carried out statically with nonlinear pushover analysis. Sixth chapter : Summary. The results are compared between the four walls. yielding of reinforcement. ductility. conclusion. crack distribution and crack widths. recommendations and further work. The results are shown by capacity curves. where it is possible to see initiations of cracks.

5 . moments and forces may be used: 1.1 Introduction This chapter reviews the theory used in this thesis. Methods based on non-linear material behavior In this project linear and plastic analysis will be used for the design of the reinforcement.2 Analysis Methods When designing walls and plates loaded in their own plane three methods in determining internal stresses. The lower bound theorem is then used for the reinforcement design.1 Linear Analysis In the nite element programs a linear analysis is performed for each static load case that is dened and it involves the solution of the system of linear equations represented by the equations and is solved in a single step: Ku=r (2. [9] 2. r is the vector of applied loads and u is the vector of resulting displacements.Chapter 2 Theory 2. It is explained how cracks are modeled in a nite element programs and how they aect a concrete structure. following by showing how to calculate the needed reinforcement from the analysis results by using the lower bound theorem. linear and plastic analysis. Nonlinear analysis is made to look at the seismic response of the designed walls. Methods based on plastic analysis 3. It starts by describing two of the analysis methods used. Two nite element programs are used to do linear analysis and calculations by hand are made to do plastic analysis to nd stresses and internal forces in the concrete.1) where K is the stiness matrix. The basic mechanical properties of concrete and steel are claried and the mathematical models that are used to model them in nonlinear analysis are illustrated. Methods based on linear analysis 2.2.2. 2.

. Materials with such ability are called perfectly plastic materials..1. This material does not exist in reality but it is possible to use this model when the plastic strains are much larger than the elastic strains.)dV = V W dV (2. The denition of a perfectly plastic material or rigid-plastic material is that no deformations occur in the material until the stresses reach the yield point and when that happens arbitrary large deformations can occur without any changes in the stresses.. Resulting in small deections and rotations. Figure 2. Qn ) = 0 (2.Chapter 2 Theory This is a simple mathematical approximation to simplify real time problems..3) 6 . The amount of work that must be performed to deform a rigid-plastic body to cause plastic deformations (strains) is D= V (Q1 q1 + .2) where Q is set of generalized stresses and it is assumed that if f < 0 the stresses can be sustained by the material and therefore give no strains and f > 0 can not occur. . For arbitrary stress elds the yield point is assumed to be determined by a yield condition: f (Q1 .2 Plastic Analysis The Plasticity theory in its simplest form deals with materials that can deform plastically under constant load when the load has reached a suciently high value.2. Q2 .2. In the uniaxial case this corresponds to the stress-strain curve in Figure 2. stresses are proportional to strain and material is elastic. [8] [22] 2. The theory of collapse by yielding is termed limit analysis. At this point the body is said to be subject to collapse by yielding and the load is the collapse load or the load-carrying capacity of the body.1: Uniaxial stress-strain relation for rigid-plastic material [18] The idealization that no deformations occur below yield point implies that the stress eld cannot be determined when it is below that point..2.

).2 the stress eld rendering the greatest possible work should be found..) on the yield surface.. ... = 0 The stress eld Q1 + δQ1 . see Figure 2. When f < 0 for stresses within the yield δf surface δQ1 .2. Under given assumptions ¯ uniquely determines a point σ = (Q1 ..Analysis Methods Section 2..2. Here it has been shown when W is stationary ¯ must be normal to the yield surface and therefore eq.. The normality condition leads to 7 . Q2 ..2.2 where D denotes the dissipation. 2.. .4 is assumed to be nonnegative λ becomes bigger or equal to zero and thus ¯ becomes an outward-directed normal to the yield surface..7) qi = λ δf . .2. also satises f = 0 so (2. W. is an outward directed normal. . .2 Figure 2. Qn ) determined so that W becomes as large as possible. W can be described as: W =σ·¯ ¯ (2... 2. Now 2..2.8) where λ is an indeterminate factor. subject to the ¯ condition: ¯ f (σ) = 0 (2.n (2.8 is called normality conditions.6 and 2.. is required to be zero when the stress eld is varied from that which is sought then: δW = δQ1 q1 + . .2. Firstly it is dierentiable without plane surfaces or apexes. which is the greatest possible resistance against deformation. δQi i = 1... W is only stationary when (2.6) δf δQ1 + ... ¯ that is..) = (0.. secondly it is convex and thirdly it is assumed to be a closed surface containing the point (Q1 .2. = 0 δQ1 Since 2. For all the stress combinations satisfying 2. . . W the work per unit volume and q the strains.4) where ¯ is assumed to be given strain represented in the same coordinate system as f and σ = (Q1 . the point were ¯ is normal to the yield surface.2.5) The following three assumptions are made on the yield surface.2.2.7 apply to any variation δQ1 .2: Maximum work hypothesis [18] If the variation of the work...

12) where Pi and ui are the external forces and corresponding displacements and dV is the volume element... Thus the principle of virtual work is: Pi ui = V σ εdV ¯¯ (2.Chapter 2 Theory a maximum value.) = (¯ + ∆¯ ) = (Q1 + ∆Q1 ..2.2.) and Pi ui = V ¯¯ σ εdV (2.2. and satisfying the boundary conditions for the load then the load will not be able to cause a collapse of the body. . According to the assumption a safe statically admissible stress distribution can be found. = (Q1 + ∆Q1 )q1 + . Q2 ...10) or the work is at maximum if the stress eld σ = σ + ∆σ is entirely within the yield ¯ ¯ surface. q2 .15) 8 .2.2.. According to 2. the work would be W = Q1 q1 + .2. which have corresponding strains ε = (q1 . Q2 . .. For the external load statically admissible stress distribution can be found and is written as σ = (Q1 .) which in the body or part of the body corresponds to stresses ¯ on the yield surface.11) [18] 2..13) where ui and ε is the same as above and Pi and Qi are static quantities in the principle ¯ of virtual work. If σ were the stress eld corresponding ¯ σ σ ¯ to the given strain vector ¯. another arbitrary stress eld on the yield surface can be considered σ = (Q1 . ¯ written as σ = (Q1 ..2. For all loads where a safe and statically admissible stress distribution can be found: µ < µp [18] (2. . .9) W ≥W (2. .11 σ · ¯< σ · ¯ ¯ ¯ (2. Q2 .2.2.1 The Lower Bound Theorem The lower bound theorem is based on the fact that if a stress distribution can be found within stresses at the yield surface caused by load of a certain magnitude. the following applies W >W (2.2... = σ · ¯ + ∆¯ · ¯ ¯ σ Since the yield surface is convex ∆¯ · ¯ will be negative and thus σ (2.)...14) If the external load is determined by µ > 0 there is a way that the individual loading components are proportional to µ the loading is proportional and the theorem can be used to nd values of the load that are lower than the collapse load corresponding to µ = µp ..) in accordance with a ¯ displacement eld that is geometrically possible in the body.

Design Methods Section 2. reinforcement is added. The following set of formulas are used to determine the minimum reinforcement: For σx ≤ σy Case 1: σx ftx fty σc Case2: ≥ = = = −|τxy | Asx fY = σx + |τxy | t Asy fY = σy + |τxy | t 2|τxy | σx < −|τxy | (2. σx .3: Disk element with stress in the concrete [18] By using the given stresses the reinforcement strength needed in the x and y direction to carry them in the concrete can be calculated as ftx and fty .3.3) (2.3. in a disk.3.3 2.3 Design Methods Methods based on the lower method have been developed for concrete structures and the most obvious application consists of using the method in the design of reinforcement.3. 2. reinforcement is required for 2 σx σy ≤ τxy 9 .3. At points where one or both principal stresses are tensile stresses.1 Disks with Orthogonal Reinforcement Given the stresses. Figure 2. Here two design methods based on the lower bound theorem will be represented. It is assumed that the concrete can carry negative principal stresses in both x and y directions.1) (2.2) (2.4) If σy < 0. σy and τxy . see Figure 2.3.

reinforcement is required for 2 σx σx ≤ τxy And the reinforcement is determined by Asy = 0 ftx = 2 τxy Asx fY = σy + t |σy | τxy 2 σc = |σy |[1 + ( ) ] σy where: σx is the stresses in x direction. [18] 10 . fY is the reinforcement yield strength.8) If σx < 0. t is the thickness of the disk.Chapter 2 Theory And the reinforcement is determined by Asx = 0 fty = 2 τxy Asy fY = σy + t |σx | τxy 2 σc = |σx |[1 + ( ) ] σx For σy ≤ σx Case 1: σy fty ftx σc Case2: ≥ = = = −|τxy | Asy fY = σy + |τxy | t Asx fY = σx + |τxy | t 2|τxy | σy < −|τxy | (2. Asy is the reinforcement area in y direction. σy is the stresses in y direction.3. ftx is the reinforcement strength in x direction. τxy is the strain.3. Asx is the reinforcement area in x direction. fty is the reinforcement strength in y direction.6) (2.3.3.7) (2.5) (2.

or as shear stresses along the stringers. where the theory of plasticity is a useful material description. The method has been used for many years on steel structures and is starting to gain ground for concrete structures.3. stingers and mesh rectangle areas.or tension stringers and the mesh rectangles take up the shear stresses. areas are formed called mesh rectangles and are given names.9) where F is the calculated tension force in the stringer and fyd is the design yield point of the steel. The calculations are based on the plasticity theory and therefore the stress in the concrete can not be higher than the plastic strength of the concrete. that is the load carrying capacity. The main idea is that the loads and reactions are calculated as concentrated forces in the nodes. The stringers width is usually not bigger than 20% of the 11 .4: Disk divided into nodes. stringer and mesh rectangle areas [13] When the stinger system has been made for the wall and forces been applied to it the shear stresses and stringer forces can be calculated by equilibrium equations.Design Methods Section 2. The disk is divided into stringers parallel with the x and y axes and the nodes where the stingers cross each other are given numbers. and is constant for each rectangle which means. Figure 2. One stringer goes from node to node. but a whole line of segment going from edge to edge is called stringer line and consists of more than one stringers.5 · 25. that is found with the method is equal or less than the actual load capacity. The tension stringers need reinforcement to take up the tension force and the reinforcement area is calculated as: As. Between their stringers.t = F fyd (2.4 shows a disk which has been divided into nodes.2 Stringer Method The Stringer Method is a lower bound method. The Stringer Method can be used on all materials.3. It starts by looking at the wall as a disk in a coordinate system with the x as a horizontal axis and y as a vertical axis. νfcd = 0. The stringers take on the axial stresses and can both be pressure. Figure 2. It is best to calculate rst the shear stress in the mesh areas and thereafter the forces in the stringers. that the force in the surrounding stringers vary linearly between the nodes.3 2. If the calculated forces in the stringers are in compression the forces can be taken up by the concrete supplemented with reinforcement.

3. The needed concrete area in the stringer is calculated as: F (2.11) (2. Only the basic part that is important for this project. ETABS and ANSYS. all based on nite element analysis. ˆ Assume a shape function to represent the physical behavior of an element.needed = νfcd where F is the compression force in the stringer. 12 . the use of nite element modeling as a design tool has grown rapidly.3.3. Using programs based on FEA is very powerful and impressive engineering tools.3. Several methods exist for FEA but the basic steps involved in any FEA consist of the following: ˆ Create and discretize the solution domain into nite elements.4.2 · height of mesh rectangle · wall width The needed reinforcement is: F −C As.1 Basic Concepts The nite element method (FEM) also called nite element analysis (FEA) is a numerical procedure that can be used to obtain solutions to a variety of problems in engineering such as stress analysis. In recent years. that is.4 Finite Element Analysis In this project three computer programs are used. heat transfer and uid ow. So the concrete can take up total force of: C = Ac · ν · fcd where Ac is 0.c = fyd (2. Here the whole content of the nite element method or its equations will not be detailed. that is subdivide the problem into nodes and elements. ν is the eciency factor and fcd is the design concrete strength.13) 2. 2. so that FEM models possessing tens of thousands of DOF are not uncommon.12) In the rectangle mesh areas the reinforcement is placed orthogonal and parallel with the coordinate system or parallel with the stringers and the needed reinforcement and is calculated as: As = where b is the width of the wall. a continuous function is assumed to represent the approximate solution of an element. SAP2000.10) Ac. The method is based on that a continuous system with innite number of degrees of freedom (DOF) is characterized as a nite discrete multidegree-of-freedom system.Chapter 2 Theory total mesh rectangle area length/width [7]. [18] [13] τmax · b fyd (2. ˆ Develop equations for an element.

5: Stress-strain diagram for concrete [9] Figure 2. such as displacement values at dierent nodes.5 shows a compressive stress-strain diagram for concrete in uniaxial compression. Figure 2. [6] 2.5. Many models have been proposed to describe this nonlinear behavior of a reinforced concrete by using nonlinear nite element analysis.5 Nonlinear Analysis In recent years nonlinear nite element models have been used to utilize the behavior of reinforced concrete. Here the mathematical models used in ANSYS will be described. ˆ Solve a set of linear or nonlinear algebraic equations simultaneously to obtain nodal results. and loading. 2. Construct the global stiness matrix.Nonlinear Analysis Section 2.6: Typical stress-strain diagram of reinforcing steel [9] 13 .6 shows a stress-strain diagram of reinforcing steel where ft is the tensile strength. ˆ Apply boundary conditions. fc is the peak stress. fy the yield stress and u the maximum elongation at maximum load Figure 2.5 ˆ Assemble the elements to present the entire problem. εc1 is the strain at peak stress and εcu is the ultimate strain.1 Concrete and Steel Figure 2.

Creep.5. shrinkage and temperature changes. 2.3 Mathematical Modeling The strength of concrete under multiaxial stresses is a function of the state of stress and can not be predicted by limitations of simple tensile. e.7: Typical load-displacement relationship for reinforced concrete element [21] 2. under tensile type of stress states.2 Reinforced Concrete The characteristic stages of reinforced concrete can be illustrated by Figure 2. That is the strength of concrete elements can only be properly determined by considering the interaction of the various components of the state of stress.7 which shows a typical load-displacement relationship. This nonlinear relationship can be divided into three intervals: I The uncracked elastic stage II Crack propagation III The plastic stage The last two stages or the nonlinear response is caused by cracking in the concrete and plasticity in the reinforcement and of compression in the concrete. which are all time-dependent eects also contribute to the nonlinear response.g. When the state of stress or strain reaches critical value. compressive and shearing stresses independently of each other. [21] Figure 2. the concrete can start failing by fracturing. Other time-independent nonlinearities are from the nonlinear action of the individual constituents of reinforced concrete. aggregate interlock of cracked concrete and dowel action of reinforced concrete. The tensile weakness of concrete is a major factor contributing to 14 . One is by cracking. The fracture of concrete can occur in two dierent forms. and the other by crushing under compressive types of stress states. bond slip between steel and concrete..Chapter 2 Theory For higher grades of steel or steel strengths the tensile and yield strength gets higher.5.

The tensile weakness of concrete resulting in cracking is a major factor contributing to the nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete. The mathematical model expresses the failure surface in terms of average or hydrostatic stress. The hydrostatic section forms a meridianal plane which contains the equisectrix σ1 = σ2 = σ3 as an axis of revolution.5 the nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete element. τa and the angle θ and the failure surface is dened as: 1 σa 1 τa + =1 z fcu r(θ) fcu (2. The failure surface is shown in Figure 2.8: Biaxial strength Envelope for Plain Concrete [19] Willam and Warnke (1975) developed a widely used model for triaxial failure surface for plain concrete. Kupfer obtained a tensile strength of concrete under biaxial stress states and his data provides a good denition of the basic tensile strength of concrete under tension-tension or tension-compression biaxial stress elds and can be seen in Figure 2. σ2 and σ3 . z and r are identied from the uniaxial compressive strength. It is an three-dimensional stress space and is separated into hydrostatic and deviatoric sections. biaxial compressive strength and the uniaxial tension strength along with two points of high triaxial compression. The parameters that form the failure surface.1) where z is the apex of the surface and fcu is the uniaxial compressive strength of the concrete.9 where it is plotted in the coordinate system σ1 . σa (change in volume).8 Figure 2.5. [4] [19] 15 . the average shear stress. So this representation requires ve data points and the model is called the ve parameter model of Willam and Warnke.Nonlinear Analysis Section 2.

Chapter 2 Theory Figure 2. the material initially exhibits almost linear behavior up to the proportional limit at point A. After point A only the portion εe can be recovered from the total deformation and the concrete is progressively weakened by internal microcracking up to the end of the perfectly plastic ow region CD at point D. respectively. For compressive failure. A material is called perfectly plastic or work-hardening according as it does or does not admit changes of permanent strain under constant stress. For tensile failure. As can seen from Figure 2. and no plastic strains occur at the failure moment.10 the total strain ε in a plastic material can be considered as the sum of the reversible elastic strain εe and the permanent plastic strain εp . the behavior is essentially linearly elastic up to the failure load.9: Triaxial strength surface in principal stress space [19] Figure 2. The nonlinear deformation are basically plastic and it is clear that the phenomenon in the region AC and in the region CD correspond exactly to the behavior of a work hardening elastoplastic and elastic perfectly plastic solid. [21] Figure 2.10 shows a typical uniaxial stress-strain curve for plain concrete up to tensile and compressive failure.10: Typical load-displacement relationship for reinforced concrete element [21] 16 . the maximum stresses coincide with the maximum strains. Point A is the yielding point and before the stresses in the concrete reach that point the concrete is said to be recoverable and can be treated within the framework of elasticity theory.

depending on the nature of the stress state.3. is described by the theory of plasticity.5 2.Nonlinear Analysis Section 2.11 shows the loading surface of concrete in a biaxial stress plane for a work-hardening-plasticity model and shows the projections of the projection of the tow limiting surfaces. Here the elastic strain hardening plastic model will be described.5. They can be broken down into subcategories based on the state of stress that is modeled (uniaxial. The subject in this project. Figure 2. Unloading and reloading of the material within this subsequent loading surface results in elastic behavior and no additional irrecoverable deformation will occur until this new surface is reached. Kupfer and Gerstle devised a isotropic stress strain model for concrete under biaxial loading based on a monotonic tests of concrete under biaxial stress and is expressed in the following form:    1 σx E  σy  =  ν (1 − ν 2 ) τxy 0 ν 1 0 0 0 (1−ν) e   εx   εx  εx (2.10 which is the irrecoverable part.1 Elastic Based Model .5. If further discontinuity is continued beyond this surface a nal collapse of the concrete cracking or crushing occurs.After Yielding Point The response of the concrete after the yield point A in Figure 2. or to account for the hardening behavior up to the ultimate strength. When the state of stress lies within the initial yield surface the material behavior is said to be in elastic range and linear-elastic equations can be applied.Before Yielding Point Many elasticity based models have been developed to represent the behavior of concrete and the eld of elasticity-based models are quite broad.5. the shear wall. When the stresses in the material go above the elastic limit surface (the yield line) a new yield surface called the loading surface is developed and it replaces the initial yield surface. [19] 2. biaxial or triaxial) and the form of constitutive relations (incremental or total stress-strain models).2) where E is the modulus of elasticity and ν is the poisson ratio. or the elastic-plastic response. which is an approach where an initial yield surface is dened as the limiting surface for elastic behavior and is located at a certain distance from the fracture (failure) surface. as an elastic-plastic-hardening material.2 Elastic-Strain Hardening Plastic Model .3. In general models based on the plasticity describe concrete as an elastic-perfectly plastic material. is under biaxial loading where plane stresses can be found. 17 . For biaxial models the the most widely used representation is the isotropic total stress-strain models.

p . The shape of an initial yield surface 2.5.3 The Shape of an Initial Yield Surface There exists a loading function f which depends upon the state of stress and strain and the history of loading. [4] [19] 2.11: Loading surfaces of concrete in biaxial stress plane for a work-hardening-plasticity model [4] The formulation of the constitutive relations for a strain-hardening plastic material is based on three fundamental assumptions: 1.3. In other words.3) ij So dierent material states can be dened: ˆ f = 0 represents yield states. The evolution of subsequent loading surface (or hardening rule) 3. [4] 18 . there is some function of stress f (σij ) such that no additional plastic deformations take place when f is smaller than some number k and plastic ow of a work-hardening material occurs when f exceeds k.Chapter 2 Theory Figure 2.5. k) (2. ˆ f < 0 elastic behavior occurs. That is f is dependent of state of stress. at each stage of a plastic deformation or unloading. the plastic strains and the hardening parameter: f = f (σij . The formulation of an appropriate ow rule.

Nonlinear Analysis Section 2.5. k) ij ij then p ij d = dλ δf δσij (2. kinematic and mixed.3. p . It assumes that during plastic ow the loading surface translates as a rigid body in the stress space. the material is in a state of plastic ow upon further loading. In the nonlinear analysis in this project the kinematic hardening rule is used. Discrete crack models explicitly represent crack as a separation of nodes and 19 .5. the ow rule is dened as: d p ij = dλ δg δσij (2. p . Figure 2.3. k) in analogy with idealij uid-ow problems.4) The ow rule is associated if the plastic potential surface has the same shape as the yield condition f (σij . p .5.5 The Flow Rule The necessary connection between the loading function. The model is illustrated schematically in Figure 2.5.4 The evolution of Subsequent Loading Surface The hardening rule denes the motion of the subsequent yield surface during plastic loading.5 2.12: Kinematic hardening rule [1] 2.4 Finite Element Modeling of Cracks Many models have been developed to represent cracking during nite element analysis of a reinforced concrete member. maintaining the size and shape of the initial yield surface.12. Introducing the concept of a plastic potential function g(σij . Two main approaches are common for a representative analysis. Three types of hardening rules are frequently used in strain-hardening plasticity models and they are isotropic. the discrete crack and smeared crack approach and the use of joint or interface elements. k) = g(σij . f. [4] 2.5) This relation is called the associated ow rule because it is connected with the loading surface. The discrete crack approach requires monitoring the response and modifying the topology of the nite element mesh corresponding to the current crack congurations at each state of loading. and the stress-strain relation for a work-hardening material will be made by means of ow rule. When the current yield surface f is reached.5.

6. of a structure.2) The displacements ∆u and ∆y may represent strain. An important consideration in the determination of the required seismic resistance will be that the estimated maximum ductility demand during shaking does not exceed the ductility potential µu . This ability of the structure or its components.Chapter 2 Theory the node is redened as two nodes. that is the ductility developed when failure is imminent µu = ∆u ∆y (2. It includes the ability to sustain large deformations. related to the level of ductility permitted of the structure. Ductility is the structural property that will need to be relied on in most buildings if satisfactory behavior under damage control and survival limit state is to be achieved. Having many cracks leads to many degrees of freedom and the mesh topology of the problem may have to be changed signicantly to cope with new crack patterns. as in reinforced concrete applications. µ= ∆ >1 ∆y (2. 20 . and a capacity to absorb energy by hysteric behavior. like in reinforced concrete elements. The smeared crack approach works best when cracks to be modeled are themselves smeared out.1) is: The ductility. µ. These deformations may be well beyond the elastic limit. which models cracks and joints in an average sense by appropriately modifying material properties at the integration points of regular nite elements. structures must be capable of sustaining a high proportion of their initial strength when a major earthquake imposes large deformations. It is possible to satisfy the performance criteria of the damage control and survival limit state by one of the three distinct design approaches. rotation or deection. is described by the general term ductility.6 Ductility To minimize major damage and to ensure the survival of buildings with moderate resistance with respect to lateral force.13 where the strength SE . Therefore the discrete crack approach may not be the best choice for problems with many cracks. The ductility is dened as the ratio of the total imposed displacements ∆ at any instant to that at the onset of yield ∆y . These problems can mostly be avoided in the smeared crack approach. However they have limited ability to model sharp discontinuities and represent the topology or material behavior in the vicinity of the crack. or of the materials used to oer resistance in the inelastic domain of response. An illustration of these three approaches are shown in Figure 2. curvature. [16] 2.6. required to resist earthquake-induced forces and structural displacements ∆ at the development at dierent levels of strength are related to each other. where the deection is the most convenient quantity to evaluate either the ductility imposed on a structure by earthquake µm or the structures's capacity to develop ductility µu . The formation of a crack involves no remeshing or new degrees of freedom.

Figure 2. The idealized bilinear response of this type of structure is shown in Figure 2.13 by the path OCC 2. Most ordinary buildings are designed to resist lateral seismic force 1. [21] 2.7 Cracks Cracking should be limited to a level that will not impair the proper functioning of the structure or cause its appearance to be unacceptable. for example. the associated maximum displacements ∆mf are likely to be beyond limits set by other design criteria. b Ductile response.13 shows approximate values of ductility factors which may be used as guides for the limit of the categories discussed. Fully ductile structures . that inelastic deformation and hence ductility will be required of the structure. represent the other limit. The idealized response of such structure is shown in Figure 2. The maximum displacement ∆me is very close to the displacement of the ideal elastic structure.13 shows. Certain structures inherently possess signicant strength with respect to lateral forces as a consequence. may nevertheless possess a level of inherent strength such that elastic response is assured. certain buildings will deed to possess adequate strength to ensure that they remain essentially elastic. These are designed to possess the maximum ductility potential than can reasonably be achieved at carefully identied and detailed inelastic regions. Other structures.Cracks Section 2. such as structural stability. implying no or negligible ductility demands. Structures with Restricted Ductility .13 by the bilinear strength-displacement path OAA . Because of their great importance.7 Figure 2. Although displacement ductilities in excess of 8 can be developed in some well-detailed reinforced concrete structures. which are smaller than those that would be developed in an elastically responding structure as Figure 2. perhaps of lesser importance. of the presence of large areas of structural walls. These structures can be divided into two groups. it is also important from the 21 . Elastically responding structures.13: Relationship between strength and ductility [21] a Elastic response.

Concrete cracks early in its loading history.8.2. 2. These cracks develop into macro-cracks propagating to the external ber zone of the element.3 mm [9][17] 2. etc.4 from the relation: wk = β · srm · εsm (2. Icelandic houses are usually in exposure class 2b (according to EC2) meaning that the environment is humid and frost occurs and for corrosion protection to the reinforcement.creep and thermal stresses. 1. 3. εsm is the mean strain allowed under the relevant combination of loads for the eects of tension stiening. the limitation of the maximum design crack width is about 0. as consequence. shrinkage. Volumetric change caused by plastic shrinkage or expensive chemical reactions within hardened concrete. 2. internal micro-cracks form.8 Methods to Calculate Cracks The design provision at the ultimate limit states may lead to excessive stresses in the concrete and the reinforcing steel. Most cracks are results from the following actions. the mechanism of their development cannot be considered identical. Stress because of bending.Chapter 2 Theory aesthetic view to control the cracking. environmental eects or dierential movements in structural system. which may develop into full cracking. Direct stress due to applied loads or reactions or internal stresses due to continuity.8. reversible fatigue load. Volumetric change cause internal micro-cracking. bond and diagonal tension cracks. This project deals with formations of cracks from the second and the third action where external loads results in direct and bending stresses causing exural. As the tensile stress in the concrete exceeds its tensile strength. adversely aect the appearance and performance in service conditions and the durability of concrete structures.1 Calculation of design crack widths The design crack width may be obtained from EC2:4.4.1) where: wk is the design crack width. These stresses may. srm is the average nal crack spacing. β is a coecient relating the average crack width to the design value and here it may be 22 . While the net results of these three actions cause the formation of cracks. long-term deection. shear or other moments caused by transverse loads. The maximum crack width that a structural element should be permitted to develop depends on the particular function of the element and the environmental condition to which the structure is liable to be subjected.

5 for a sustained load or for many cycles of repeated loading. σsr is the stress in the tension reinforcement calculated in the basis of a cracked section under the loading conditions causing the rst cracking. [9] 2. Figure 2.3) where: φ is the bar size in mm. It is a three story wall with one door on the ground oor and 8 windows. β2 is a coecient which takes account of the duration of the loading or of repeated loading.2) where: σs is the stress in the tension reinforcement calculated on the basis of a cracked section. 1 for high bond bars and 0. The average nal crack spacing for members subjected dominantly to exure or tension can be calculated with the equation: srm = 50 + 0. an average bar size may be used. Where mixture of bar sizes is used in section. k1 is a coecient which takes account of the bond properties of the bars.9 taken as 1.7.14.9 Shear Wall Shear walls are commonly put into multi-storey buildings because of their good performance under lateral loads like earthquake forces because they provide lateral stability and they act as vertical cantilevers in resisting the horizontal forces.14: The Shear Wall 23 .25k1 k2 φ/pr (2. 1 for a single short term loading and 0.Shear Wall Section 2.3 or 1.5 for plain bars.8. k2 is a coecient which takes account of the form of the strain distribution. The shear wall that is considered in this project if shown in Figure 2. sm may be calculated from the relation: sm = σs σsr 2 (1 − β1 β2 ( ) ) Es σs (2. β1 is a coecient which takes account of the bond properties of the bars.8.

Buildings having shear walls are stier than framed structures resulting in reduced deformations under earthquake load. Thus in the design of structures for ductile. it is preferable to consider forces generated by earthquake-induced displacements rather than traditional loads.15: Structural wall [21] To accommodate large seismically induced deformations.Chapter 2 Theory Stiness. The potential exural strength of such walls may be very large in comparison with lateral forces. Walls of the type shown in Figure 2. Structural walls usually have openings. most structures need to be ductile. and of the same type as the wall analyzed here. strength and ductility are the basic criteria that the structure should satisfy and shear walls provide a nearly optimum means of achieving those objectives. [21] 24 .15. relatively large shearing forces must be generated Figure 2. The necessary strength to avoid damage in the structure can be achieved by properly detailed longitudinal and transverse reinforcement and providing that special detailing measures are adopted. dependable ductile response can be achieved under major earthquakes. Because of the small height. hw /lw . in this project the openings are that big that they can not be neglected in the design computations because they aect the shear and exural strength of the wall. are characterized by a small height-to-length ratio.

it does not exist in reality and it is assumed that it is placed on the South part of Iceland. The concrete strength is C30/35 and the wall thickness is 200 mm. Figure 3.1 The Building Drawings of the building is shown in gures 3.2 and Table 3.2. Openings are 23% of the area and height versus length (H/L) ratio is 0.Chapter 3 The Building and the Load In this chapter the analyzed building is described. The house is a three story oce building.1.1: Plan View 25 . it has eight windows and one door. The dimensions and parameters of the building can be seen in gures 3.1 and 3.1 and 3. the total mass calculated and the applied load from an earthquake on the building is calculated. 3. The building is a RC structure with windows all of the same size and it is assumed that the roof is monotonic made of concrete.78.2 shows the geometry of the wall analyzed. Figure 3.

2: The Shear Wall Dimensions The following parameters are given regarding the structure: Table 3.5 Story height h=3.1.Chapter 3 The Building and the Load Figure 3. Figure 3.0 Building width W=20 Building depth (shear wall) L=11.4 · 1010 Dead and live loading on each story q = 5000 Concrete strength C30 Reinforcement strength 500 MPa [m] [m] [m] [m] [mm] [mm] [kg/m3 ] [kg/m3 ] [m] [N/m2 ] [N/m2 ] 3.008 Young's modulus for concrete Ec = 3.1: The buildings parameters Building height H=9. 26 .1 The Mass of the Building Even thought that in this project only one wall of the building is analyzed the weight of the whole building has to be calculated to be able to calculate the total earthquake force applied on the wall.0 Wall thickness tw =200 Floor slab/roof thickness ts =200 Density of concrete ρc =2500 Density of glass ρc =2600 Thickness of double glass tg =0.3 shows the dimensions of the longitudinal wall.

2 Figure 3.008 = 1.88 − 18 = 223 m3 The total mass of the concrete: 223m3 · 2500kg/m3 = 557300kg Mass of the glass: (2 · (1 · 2.The Building Section 3.4 m3 2 · 0.2 = 0.88 m3 Longitudinal wall windows : = 2 · 15 · 0.2 · 9 · 11.2 · 11.5 · 20 = 138 m3 Shear wall windows : = 2 · 8 · 0.6 − 0.2 + (8 + 15) · 2.5 = 41.3: The Longitudinal Wall Dimensions The mass of the total building is: T he shear wall Longitudinal wall Roof and slabs Openings: : : : 2 · 0.2 · 9 · 20 = 72 m3 3 · 0.5 · 1.14m3 · 2600kg/m3 = 2962kg The total mass of the building 557300 + 2962 = 560261kg Mass for each story: m1 =150877 kg m2 =186754 kg m3 =186754 kg 27 .5 · 1.25 = 18 m3 Total volume of concrete ⇒ 41.4 + 72 + 138 − 9.5 · 1.2 · 2.2 · 2.2 · 1 · 2.2) · 0.2 = 9.14m3 ⇒ 1.6 m3 Shear wall door : = 2 · 0.

Methods that are based on equivalent lateral force. In EC8 the non-linear static procedure requires at least two force distributions. A "uniform" pattern.2 Capacity Curve The key outcome of the pushover analysis is the 'capacity curve'. a uniform and modal pattern. and the representative lateral displacement of the structure.2. termed the control node. i. The forces are applied at the location of the masses in the structural model. unless there is perfect symmetry with respect to an axis orthogonal to that of the seismic action components considered.0. the relation between the base shear force. [10] [12] 28 . Because the building satises the condition for the application of lateral force analysis method. 2. Methods based on multi modal response analysis. In this thesis only the second load pattern is used in the static pushover analysis.3. which depends on the type of linear analysis applicable to the particular structure.3. Three basic methods are used in seismic analysis to estimate the response of the building and the internal forces. Methods based on non-linear time history analysis. 1.4. The control node is normally at the roof level. 3. 3.0. This method is good for simple regular buildings and could therefore be applied for the three story shear wall. pushover analysis should be performed using both of the following lateral load patterns: 1.2.2. That displacement is often taken at a certain node n of the structural model. similar to the one used in that method is used. 2.Chapter 3 The Building and the Load 3.e. A "modal" pattern. Moreover. Fb . The uniform pattern is with lateral forces that are proportional to masses and the modal pattern varies with change in deected shape as it yields or more precise from EC8:4. 3. an 'inverted triangular' unidirectional force pattern.2 Pushover Analysis Pushover analysis is non-linear static approach carried out under constant gravity loads and by subjecting monotonically increasing lateral forces. The rst method uses a static force which is distributed on the building according to specic rules listed in EC8. based on lateral forces that are proportional to mass regardless of elevation (unform response acceleration). each lateral force pattern should be applied in both the positive and the negative direction.1 Lateral Force Patterns The selection of an appropriate lateral load distribution is important within the pushover analysis.2. representing the inertial forces which would be experienced by the structure when subjected to ground shaking. and the result used should be the most unfavorable one from the two analyses. The most unfavorable result of the pushover analysis using the two standard lateral force patterns should be adopted. dn .

lwi is the length of the shear wall i in the rst storey in the direction parallel to the applied forces.and still is the workhorse for practical seismic design.3. The fundamental period of vibration.Lateral Force Method of Analysis In the lateral force method a linear static analysis of the structure is performed under a set of lateral forces applied separately in two orthogonal horizontal directions. (3.1) Where Tc = 0 is found in EC8. x and y. Owing to the familiarity and experience of structural engineers with elastic analysis for static loads (due to gravity.2.4 = 1.3.for a concrete shear wall and Ac is the total eective area of the shear Ac wall.3.3 Load .3) √ where Ct = 0.4) Where Ai is the eective cross sectional area of the shear wall i in the rst storey of the building in m2 . x and y.2) where Sd (T1 ) is the ordinate of the design spectrum at period T1 . in the two main directions should be smaller than: T1 ≤ 4 · Tc 2. from the foundation or the top of the rigid basement and lwi /H should not exceed 0. T1 .5) m is the total mass of the building. wind or other static actions). T1 can be approximated: T1 = Ct · H 3/4 (3.3. The intent is to simulate through these forces the peak inertia load induced by the horizontal component of the seismic action in the two directions.3.2 the seismic base shear force. Table 3. and the building shall meet the criteria for regularity in elevation.0s = 4 · 0.3.. 29 .2.2.3.2.2 + (lwi /H))2 ] (3.9.3. Fb for the horizontal direction Fb = Sd (T1 ) · m · λ (3.3 3.2. computed in accordance with EC8:3.075 .2. in m. here λ = 0. (See EC8: 3.3.1(1)P the lateral force method can be applied to buildings whose response is not signicantly aected by contributions from modes of vibration higher than the fundamental mode in each principal direction.6s.1 Can the Lateral Force Method be used? According to EC8:4. in m.Lateral Force Method of Analysis Section 3.2. this method has long been .Load .4(2) λ is the correction factor. H is the height of the building.85 if T1 ≤ 2Tc and the building has more than two stories. 3.3. Ac is given by the equation: Ac = [Ai · (0.3. given in EC8: 4. According to EC8: 4.

4.4 = 1. Therefore the lateral force method of analysis can be used.323 Finally the rst period is calculated from 3.2) are used to 30 .Chapter 3 The Building and the Load It is assumed that the building has two opposite shear walls.256 See if it ts the requirements from 3.4: Horizontal ground acceleration for Iceland Usually houses in Iceland are built on solid rock or ground type A.3.2m = 2.049 · 93/4 = 0. see EC8: Table 4. [10] 3. The ground acceleration is 0.3 T1 = 0.323 Then Ct can be calculated: 0. The following parameters (in Table 3. Ai = 11. The horizontal ground acceleration for Iceland according to the Icelandic National Annex FS ENV 1998-1-1:1994 can be seen in Figure 3.049 2.3.2 · +0.92 )) = 2. 256s ≤ 4 · Tc 2.3. which is for ordinary buildings not belonging to the other three importance classes. The importance class is set to III.3 · (0. Figure 3.4g.0s = 4 · 0. The building is placed on the South Iceland Seismic Zone (SISZ).3.3m2 From 3.5m · 0.075 Ct = √ = 0.3.2 The Design Response Spectra To calculate the seismic base shear force the shape of the design response spectra is needed.6s.4 Ac = 2 · (2.1 T1 = 0.

12m/s2 (3.78 lwi 2 · 11.5 · [ TC TD ] q T2 ≥ β · aq T is the vibration period of a linear single-degree-of-freedom system.2 q0 is the basic value dependent on the type of the structural system and on its regularity in elevation.5 3 α0 = hwi 2·9 = = 0.3 calculate the shape of the design response spectra: Table 3. see EC 8: Table 3.5 q ag · S · 2.2. The damping correction factor is η . S is the soil factor. is dened by the following expression: 2 T 2.5) TB . Sd (T ). The following values in Table 3.81 = 4.2: Parameters for design response spectra Ground type A Importance class III → γ1 = 1 (the important factor) Ground acceleration ag = 0.4 · 9. The building has Ductility Class Medium (DCM) so q0 = 3 (1 + α0 ) kw = ≤ 1but not less than 0.4g Behavior factor q = q0 kw ≥ 1.5 · [ TC ] q T ≥ β · aq TD ≤ T : Sd (T ) = ag · S · 2.2.2.3.5 The behavior factor can then be calculated q = 3 · 0.2 31 .5 2 0 ≤ T ≤ TB : Sd (T ) = ag · S · [ + ·( − )] 3 TB q 3 TB ≤ T ≤ TC : Sd (T ) = ag · S · TC ≤ T ≤ TD : Sd (T ) = 2.2.Load .5 According to EC8:5.2. The design ground acceleration according to EC8.78 From EC8 3.5 the horizontal design response spectrum.3.1(3)is: ag = γI · agR = 1 · 0.3 are dened and describe the recommended type 1 design response spectrum for type A ground. TC are the limits of the constant spectral acceleration branch and TD is the value dening the beginning of the constant displacement response range of the spectrum.Lateral Force Method of Analysis Section 3.59 = 1. with reference value η = 1 for 5% viscous damping.

i · Qk.2.2.3. S=1 TB (S) = 0.068 ⇒ Sd (T1 ) = 1.0 The horizontal design spectrum is evaluated in MATLAB and the script can be seen in appendix A and the shape of the design response spectrum in Figure 3.15 TC (S) = 0.5 4 Figure 3.5 0 0 0.3. The mass is computed in accordance with EC8:3.4(2) mi = ΣGk. mi . zj are the heights of the masses.6) Fi = Fb · zj · mj where mi . Fi . zi .7) 32 .3.5m/s2 ag Use EC8:4.j ” + ” ΨE.5.5 1 1.5 it can be seen that for T1 = 0.3. should be taken as being given by: z i · mi (3.3 to distribute the horizontal seismic forces: According to 4.5 2 T 2.3(3) the fundamental mode shape is approximated by horizontal displacements increasing linearly along the height.404 · 0.3.3.4 TD (S) = 2.256 Sd (T1 ) = 1. The response spectrum for ζ = 0. mj are the storey masses. mj .2.5 1 g dh S /a 0.Chapter 3 The Building and the Load Table 3.3: Parameters for type 1 design response spectrum.4 · 9. the horizontal forces.05 1.81 · 1 = 5.5 3 3.5: Horizontal design spectrum From Figure 3.i (3. above the level of application of the seismic action.

) to 2kN/m2 on each story.5 for variable action: Weight from the roof: 1.2m · 11.525kN/m3 = 0.2m · 25kN/m3 = 45kN/m 3 Weight from the oor with live and dead load: 45kN/m + 1. F2 and F3 are divided on two shear walls (i. m1 m2 m3 = = = 150877kg 186754 + 244195kg ·3000 · 10 · 11.i = ϕ · Ψ2i .3 Here live load is set to 3kN/m2 (oce building) and dead load (furniture etc. one in each end of the building) and the load acting on shear wall to be analysed is therefore: F1 F2 F3 = = = 570kN 613kN 307kN 3.3 · 0. m=639268 kg So from eq. 3.35 · 3m · 0. here ϕ = 0.e.81kN/m Load on top: 45kN/m Load on second oor: 138kN/m 33 .5 and Ψ2i = 0.81 Total mass.35 · 1 · 20m · 0.3 where ΨE.3.3.Lateral Force Method of Analysis Section 3.81 9.35 and 1.2 the seismic base shear force is: Fb = 5.3 Vertical Load Safety factor for permanent action is 1.85 = 2989kN zj · mj = 9 · 150877 + 6 · 244195 + 3 · 244195 = 3555648kg Which gives: F1 F2 F3 9 · 150877 = 1141kN 3555648 6 · 243150 = 2989 · = 1226kN 3555648 3 · 243150 = 613kN = 2989 · 3555648 = 2989 · The loads F1 .35 · 2 · 1 · 20m = 92kN/m 3 3 Weight from the shear wall: 1.Load .5 = 244195kg 9.5 + 0.i is the combination coecient for variable action i and is computed from the following expression ΨE.35 · 3 · 1 · 20 + 1.5 · 636683 · 0.5 2000 · 20 · 11.

6: Forces applied on the shear wall 34 .6. Figure 3.Chapter 3 The Building and the Load Load on rst oor: 138kN/m The load applied on the shear wall can be seen in Figure 3.

75 + 2.1 4. The nodes are given numbers from 1 to 86 and the areas are marked from x1 to x18 . The moment acting on the building from the calculated horizontal loads: 570kN · 9m + 613kN · 6m + 307kN · 3m = 9729kN m Forces acting against the horizontal loads are applied at the vertical stringer lines and are calculated as: 9729 = 2 · P · (5.1.2.75 2. It starts by dividing the wall into stingers.252 4. There are eighteen unknown values so eighteen equations have to be created to be able to nd the shear stress in each mesh rectangle.252 1.3.75 449 · = 370kN = 175kN = 98kN The applied forces for the calculations in the stringer method are shown in Figure 4.2 and 3.75 5.752 + + ) ⇒ P = 449kN 5.1 The Load In chapter 3.75 5.2.3. node 9 to 16 stringer line 2 and etc.3. nodes and rectangle mesh areas. moments from the forces are calculated and loads put on the wall to balance it.75 4. For the wall to be in equilibrium.75 1. 35 . forces are acting upon the wall so the set of the loads acting on the wall is zero.3 the load acting on the shear wall was calculated. This conguration can be seen in Figure 4.1 The Stringer Method The Stringer method is explained in section 2.25 449 · 5. That is for the three calculated horizontal loads acting on the building. Here the line containing node one to eight is called stringer line 1.25 449 · 5. When marking the areas the thought was due to symmetry of the wall that some of the mesh rectangles are assumed to have the same shear stress.Chapter 4 Reinforcement Design 4.75 5.

2: The forces acting on the wall for Stringer Method 36 .1: The wall divided into nodes.Chapter 4 Reinforcement Design Figure 4. stringers and areas Figure 4.

The Stringer Method

Section 4.1

4.1.2 Calculation of Shear Stresses and Stringer Forces
There are 10 horizontal equilibriums and 8 vertical equilibriums to nd the shear stress in each mesh rectangle, x1 to x18 . The equations are created by taking horizontal and vertical sections through the wall. The eighteen equilibrium equations are:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
(4 · x1 · 1000mm + 3 · x2 · 2500mm) · 200mm = −570000N (4 · x3 · 1000mm) · 200mm = −570000N (4 · x4 · 1000mm + 3 · x5 · 2500mm) · 200mm = −570000N (4 · x6 · 1000mm + 3 · x7 · 2500mm) · 200mm = −1183000N 4 · x8 · 1000mm · 200mm = −1183000N (4 · x9 · 1000mm + 3 · x10 · 2500mm) · 200mm = −1183000N (4 · x11 · 1000mm + 3 · x12 · 2500mm) · 200mm = −1490000N (2 · x13 · 1000mm + x16 · 1750mmx18 · 1650mm) · 200mm = −1490000N (2 · x14 · 1000mm + 2 · x15 · 2500mm + x17 · 1750mmx18 · 1650mm) · 200mm = −1490000N (x1 · 700mm + x3 · 1200mm + x4 · 1100mm + x6 · 700mm + x8 · 1200mm+ x9 · 1100mm + x11 · 700mm + x13 · 1200mm + x14 · 1100mm) · 200mm = −449000N (x2 · 700mm + x5 · 1100mm + x7 · 700mm + x10 · 1100mm + x12 · 700mm+ x15 · 1100mm) · 200mm = −819000 (x1 · 700mm + x3 · 1200mm + x4 · 1100mm + x6 · 700mm + x8 · 1200mm+ x9 · 1100mm + x11 · 700mm + x13 · 1200mm + x14 · 1100mm) · 200mm = −994000N (x2 · 700mm + x5 · 1100mm + x7 · 700mm + x10 · 1100mm + x12 · 700mm+ x15 · 1100mm) · 200mm = −1092000N (x1 · 700mm + x3 · 1200mm + x4 · 1100mm + x6 · 700mm + x8 · 1200mm+ x9 · 1100mm + x11 · 700mm + x16 · 1200mm + x17 · 1100mm) · 200mm = −994000N (x2 · 700mm + x5 · 1100mm + x7 · 700mm + x10 · 1100mm + x12 · 700mm+ x16 · 1200mm + x17 · 1100mm) · 200mm = −819000 (x2 · 700mm + x5 · 1100mm + x7 · 700mm + x10 · 1100mm + x12 · 700mm) · 200mm = −819000N (x2 · 700mm + x5 · 1100mm + x7 · 700mm + x10 · 1100mm + x12 · 700mm+ x18 · 1200mm + x18 · 1100mm) · 200mm = −819000N (x1 · 700mm + x3 · 1200mm + x4 · 1100mm + x6 · 700mm + x8 · 1200mm+ x9 · 1100mm + x11 · 700mm + x18 · 2300mm) · 200mm = −449000N

37

Chapter 4

Reinforcement Design

Matlab is used to solve these equations and are put into the matrices A and b as seen below:

A=200*[4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 4*1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0 4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4*1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2*1000 0 0 1750 0 1750; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2*1000 2*2500 0 1750 1750; 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 0 0 0; 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 0 0; 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 0 0 0; 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 0 0; 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 0 0 0 1200 1100 0; 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 0 1200 1100 0; 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 2300; 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 2300];

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

Unfortunately the matrices do not have a unique solution. But one of the solutions can be found by using the MATLAB function x = pinv(A) ∗ b to solve x1 to x18 , the pinv function is an expensive way to calculate the inverse of matrix. The results are shown in Table 4.1, the shear stresses for the rst nine mesh rectangles are acceptable and their

38

The Stringer Method

Section 4.1

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

Table 4.1: Shear stresses in the rectangular mesh areas
Area name x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x9 x10 x11 x12 x13 x14 x15 x16 x17 x18 Shear stress [MPa] 0.1349 -0.4542 -0.7198 0.3022 -0.5447 -0.0348 -0.7724 -1.4860 0.1325 -0.8629 -0.1197 -0.9317 -1.8138 0.6172 -1.7271 -1.8881 0.2641 -0.2613 Error [%] 0.59 1.0 0.93 0.29 0.49 0.45 0.23 1.2 1.1 64 21 26 9.2 16 22 25 11 25

Figure 4.3: Sign of the shear stresses
Now all the shear stresses in the mesh areas have been calculated and the next step is to calculate the forces in the horizontal stringer lines from one to ten and in the vertical stringer lines numbered from 11 to 18. The forces and the required reinforcement is calculated by the method and equations shown in section 2.3.2. The calculations were made in MATLAB and, the script can be seen in Appendix B The reinforcement arrangement can be seen in Figure 4.9. The calculated forces in each stringer line can be seen in the graphs shown in gures 4.4 to 4.8, where negative values are in pressure and positive values in tension. Stringer line 1 is the at the top of the wall (at roof level) were the force 570 kN is applied at the end, like as seen for stringer line 1 in Figure 4.4 the force starts at 570 kN at node 1 and decreases to zero at node 8. The whole stringer is in compression but the force is too big for the concrete alone to uptake it so reinforcement is added. Due to symmetry and to have the

39

No force is acting on stringer line 2 and therefore the force is zero at node 9 and 16. the force shifts between tension and compression along the stringer line. The force decreases along the line ending as zero ate node 32.Chapter 4 Reinforcement Design reinforcement simplest as possible the reinforcement is the same for the whole stringer line and is put as 4k16.5. The predominant force is used to calculate the needed reinforcement and again because of symmetry and making the reinforcement simple the same reinforcement is put in the whole stringer line. 5. Horizontal stringer forces 200 0 −200 −400 −600 1 2 3 4 5 stringerline no 1 6 7 8 200 Stringerforce [kN] 100 0 −100 −200 9 10 11 12 13 stringerline no 2 14 15 16 400 200 0 −200 −400 17 18 19 20 21 stringerline no 3 22 23 24 Figure 4. 8. The same approach is made for stinger lines 3.4: Horizontal Stringer Forces for stringerline 1 to 3 The force 613 kN is applied at the end of stringer line 4 and the whole stringer line is in compression as seen in Figure 4. 9 and 10.5: Horizontal Stringer Forces for stringerline 4 to 6 40 . Horizontal stringer forces 0 −200 −400 −600 −800 25 400 Stringerforce [kN] 200 0 −200 −400 33 400 200 0 −200 −400 41 42 43 44 45 stringerline no 6 46 47 48 34 35 36 37 stringerline no 5 38 39 40 26 27 28 29 stringerline no 4 30 31 32 Figure 4. Reinforcement is needed to take up the maximum compression force and is calculated to be 4k16 and again due to simplicity and symmetry the same reinforcement is put in the whole stringer line. 6.

7: Vertical Stringer Forces for stringerline 11 to 14 41 . 1 Vertical stringer forces 2 3 4 9 10 11 12 17 18 19 20 25 stringerline no 11 stringerline no 12 26 stringerline no 13 27 stringerline no 14 0 500 1000 28 33 34 35 36 41 42 43 44 49 50 51 52 57 58 59 60 67 68 69 70 77 −1000 0 1000 78 −500 0 500 Stringerforce [kN] 80 −500 0 500 Figure 4. is put in all of them.The Stringer Method Section 4.6: Horizontal Stringer Forces for stringeline 7 to 10 There are eight vertical stringer lines numbered from 11 to 18. 4k20. The maximum calculated reinforcement is similar in all the vertical stringer lines and the same reinforcement.1 The force 307 kN is applied at the end of the stringer line 7 and the concrete is able to take up the whole force so no reinforcement is needed. Horizontal stringer forces 0 −200 −400 49 Stringerforce [kN] 500 0 −500 57 1000 500 0 −500 67 1000 0 −1000 −2000 77 78 79 80 81 82 stringerline no 10 83 84 85 86 68 69 70 71 72 stringerline no 9 73 74 75 76 50 51 52 53 stringerline no 7 54 55 56 58 59 60 61 62 stringerline no 8 63 64 65 66 Figure 4.

Chapter 4 Reinforcement Design 5 Vertical stringer forces 6 7 8 13 14 15 16 21 22 23 24 29 stringerline no 15 stringerline no 16 30 stringerline no 17 31 32 37 38 39 stringerline no 18 −500 0 40 45 46 47 48 53 54 55 56 61 62 65 66 71 72 75 76 81 −1000 −500 0 82 −1000 −500 0 Stringerforce [kN] 85 −1000 86 −500 0 500 Figure 4.8: Vertical Stringer Forces for stringerline 15 to 18 Figure 4.9: Reinforcement of the wall based on Stringer method 42 .

Boundary conditions are assigned to the nodes (joints) where it is required.2 4. as shown in Figure 4. The material properties used in the models are shown in Table 4. It is a simple quadrilateral shell element which has a 24x24 stiness matrix which is transformed to the global XYZ system. 43 .2. The shell element combines membrane and platebending behavior. Boundary conditions are assigned at the bottom of the wall (at ground level) where restraints should be against all movements to imitate the behavior of a shear wall. In both SAP2000 and ETABS the shell element is used. 4.10. 4. It has six degrees of freedoms in each corner point (only one shown on the gure).2 Linear Elastic FE-analysis Two of the required reinforcement arrangements are designed based on linear elastic analysis in two FE-programs. Grid lines are made for the x.2.y and z coordinates and the wall is drawn from scratch.Linear Elastic FE-analysis Section 4. modulus of elasticity. poisson's ratio. One with SAP2000 which is a general purpose FE-program and one with ETABS which is a building specialized FE-program and has a special postprocessor to present section forces in the model. strength characteristics etc. 3. The material properties are dened such as mass.1 Modeling in SAP2000 and ETABS The modeling process in both of the programs is very similar and in this section the process is described and description of the material properties listed. Here only one wall is modeled so restraints are also put against movements perpendicular to the wall. The structure is divided into distinct appropriate elements. 1. weight.10: Shell Element [26] 2. Figure 4.

Table 4. shear deformation and bending deformation. Figure 4. The geometric properties of the elements are dened such as dimensions for the wall section.2. 4.3: Wall in SAP2000 and ETABS Section name Material Thickness Type w200 C30 200mm Shell 7. 44 . The model should be ready to be analyzed and forces. see Table 4. 6. Here the shell type is used.5 kN/m3 32 kN/mm2 0. are axial deformation. shear forces and normal forces across a wall sections.12. Loads are only transferred to the wall at the corner points of the area objects that make up the wall. that is the wall is divided into vertical piers and horizontal spandrels.2 ETABS In ETABS single walls are modeled as a pier/spandrel system.11. Generally the membrane or shell type element should be used to model walls.2: Material properties of concrete in SAP2000 and ETABS Material name Type of material Mass per unit volume Modulus of Elasticity Poisson's ratio Concrete strength C30 Isotropic 2. Elements are assigned to element type. 8. see Figure 4. There are three types of deformation that a single shell element can experience.11: Deformations of a shell element in ETABS [8] Wall pier forces are output at the top and bottom of wall pier elements and wall spandrel forces are output at the left and right ends of wall spandrel element. This is a powerful mechanism to obtain design moments. Loads are assigned to the joints as they will be applied in the real structure. see Figure 4.3. stresses and displacements can be looked at.Chapter 4 Reinforcement Design Table 4.2 30 Mpa 5. Appropriate meshing and labeling is the key to proper modeling and design.

45 . The pier labeling can be seen in Figure C. The whole wall is meshed into 200 ∗ 250 rectangles.13: Pier labeling Spandrel labels are assigned in similar way to vertical area objects (walls). A similar labeling of piers occurs at the lower two levels given names from P8 to P18. Figure 4. Figures of the labeling can be seen in appendix C. Pier P1 is dened to extend all the way across the wall above the openings.2 Figure 4. Pier P7 is dened to extend all the way across the wall below the openings.5.12: Pier and spandrel forces in ETABS At the upper level of this model.Linear Elastic FE-analysis Section 4. Pier P2 makes up the wall pier to the left of the top window. The pier and spandrel labels must be assigned to elements before the output forces can be given. pier P4 and P5 occur between the windows and pier P6 is at the right of the top windows.

Figure 4.15: Moment. M3. in spandrels Figure 4.14: Moment.15 show as an example the moment for all the piers and spandrels which is the most predominant value for the reinforcement around the openings.14 and 4.Chapter 4 Reinforcement Design Figures 4.1 and C. in piers 46 . The values can be seen in Table C.2 in Appendix C. M3.

2 The reinforcement has to be calculated for all the three forces. ETABS is able to give the pier and spandrel forces in tables and the calculations are made in EXCEL and can be seen in appendix C. Figure 4.16: Reinforcement of the wall based on analysis in ETABS 47 .Linear Elastic FE-analysis Section 4.16. The calculated reinforcement arrangement from analyzing in ETABS is shown in Figure 4.

In order to compute a representative stresses for the reinforcement design around the openings the element stresses from the FE-analysis were averaged around the openings.18 to 4.5 MPa where negative values are compression stresses. In similar way the average value for the stresses in the wall were taken one meter in both directions.2. The average values are used to calculate the necessary reinforcement by using the lower bound method described in section 2.1.4 48 . As seen from the gures the most critical tresses in x and y direction are around the openings and extra reinforcement is therefore needed there.5 m strip. ˆ In-plane shear stress: S12 (= τxy ) ˆ Transverse shear stresses: S13 (= τxz ) and S23 (= τyz ) ˆ Transverse direct stress: S33 (= τz ) Here we are interested in the in plane stresses.5 MPa and for σy from -15 to 4.18 the stresses vary from -10 to 6. Three values were taken perpendicular from the window for both stresses in the x and y direction in 0. It is assumed that the concrete can take up negative stresses and reinforcement is needed to take up the tension stresses.25 increments perpendicular or over a 0.3 SAP2000 The shell element stresses computed in SAP2000 or are shown in Figure 4. S22 and S12 or σx . The average values and the calculated reinforcement can be seen in Table 4.17: The basic types of shell stresses [22] The result from the SAP2000 analysis is shown in Figures 4.Chapter 4 Reinforcement Design 4. S11. For σx in Figure 4.25 increments.3.20 based on the loads in Figure 3.6. or 5 values with 0.17 and are: ˆ In-plane direct stresses: S11 (= σx ) and S22 (= σy ). σy and τxy and they are assumed to be constant through the element thickness. Figure 4.

19: Normal stresses.2 Figure 4. from the SAP2000 analysis 49 . from the SAP2000 analysis Figure 4. σy .18: Normal stresses.Linear Elastic FE-analysis Section 4. σx .

from analysis in SAP2000 50 .Chapter 4 Reinforcement Design Figure 4. τxy . Figure 4.20 shows the shear stresses in the wall and in the same way as for the stresses an average value is found to calculate the necessary reinforcement in the wall.20: Shear stresses.

77 2.42 1.20 0.24 0.27 1.75 1.50 τxy (σy ) [M P a] 154 159 247 356 206 295 316 322 403 411 327 379 363 195 332 410 267 51 234 111 252 96 186 158 145 272 350 222 96 174 169 69 276 166 Asy 138 138 363 471 368 78 287 328 202 235 552 713 318 528 543 557 444 [ mm ] m 2 Reinforcement mesh σx [M P a] τxy (σx ) [M P a ] Asx 678 138 431 471 391 78 287 328 202 281 552 713 318 321 543 672 329 [ mm ] m 2 Top reinforcement Above top windows between top and middle windows between middle and bottom windows below bottom windows Top windows 1 Top windows 2 Top windows 3 Top windows 4 Middle windows 1 Middle windows 2 Middle windows 3 Middle windows 4 Bottom windows 1 Bottom windows 2 Bottom windows 3 Bottom windows 4 2. below/right Middle left window.43 0.04 0.50 0.40 3.15 0. above/left Top left window.00 0.03 2.35 1.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0. above/left Middle left window.02 2.71 0.60 0.88 1.75 1.4: Average stresses and computed reinforcement from SAP2000 Reinforcement around openings Top left window.27 0.50 0.15 0.25 1.75 3.85 3.69 0.00 0.11 0.34 1.77 0. below/right Door.76 0. above/left Middle middle window.31 1.00 1.75 1.00 0.26 3.67 0.02 2.00 0.50 0.86 0.20 0.88 1.52 0.00 0.58 1.35 0.69 0.60 1.60 1.28 1.58 3. below/right Top right window.31 0.Linear Elastic FE-analysis Section 4.00 0.98 1.00 1. above/left Bottom left window.43 51 .36 1.36 2.38 1.25 0.00 1.67 0.38 1.00 0.34 1.93 0.53 1. below/right Bottom middle window.05 1.00 0.32 2. above/left Middle right window.40 0.00 0.93 0.30 2. below/right Top middle window.40 3.68 0.64 0. below/right Middle middle window.00 1.00 0.2 Table 4.00 0.10 1. above/left Top right window.28 1.00 0.25 1.41 1.42 1.00 2.87 1. below/right Middle right window.25 1. above Door.40 3.43 0.38 3.15 0.48 2. above/left Bottom middle window.60 0.10 1.68 0.00 0.00 0. sides analysis σx [M P a] σy [M P a ] τxy (σx ) [M P a ] τxy (σy ) [M P a] Asx [mm2 ] Asy [mm2 ] 1.10 0.79 1.43 0.15 1.00 0.30 2.20 0.89 1.88 0.60 0.17 0.00 0.60 3.53 2.93 1.88 1.30 0. above/left Top middle window.30 0.30 σy [M P a ] 0.25 0. below/right Bottom left window.36 2.30 1.36 1.00 0.14 0.00 0.65 1.30 0.37 0.

21: Reinforcement arrangement of the wall based on analysis in SAP2000 52 .Chapter 4 Reinforcement Design Figure 4.

The distance between two adjacent vertical bars shall not exceed |twice| the wall thickness or |300mm| whichever is lesser. half of this reinforcement should be located at each face. Based on this it is decided to have the vertical reinforcement 0.22.004|Ac and |0. It should not be less than 50% of the vertical reinforcement. The spacing between two adjacent horizontal bars should not be greater than 300mm.22: Minimum reinforcement according to EC2 53 . 3.3. Figure 4. The diameter should not be less than one quarter of that of the vertical bars.04 · Ac or 2k10c200 4. Horizontal reinforcement running parallel to the faces of the wall (and to the free edges) should be provided and arranged at each surface between the vertical reinforcement and the nearest surface.3 Minimum Reinforcement according to EC2 4.1 Vertical Reinforcement 1. 2. Based on this it is decided to have the horizontal reinforcement is half of the vertical and is put as k10c200 It is decided to put 2k16 around all the openings. In general.2 Horizontal Reinforcement 1.3 4. 2. According to EC2 the area of reinforcement should be between |0. 3.04|Ac where Ac is the corresponding concrete section area.Minimum Reinforcement according to EC2 Section 4. The reinforcement layout can be seen in Figure 4.3.

.

ETABS. Boundary conditions. one matrix material and maximum of three independent reinforcing materials. The reinforcement is dened as the rebar volume divided by the total element volume. In this chapter the three story shear wall is analysed nonlinearly.Reinforced Concrete Solid The SOLID65 element is used to model the concrete in this model. concrete cracking or crushing and rebar yielding. solution phase and postprocessing phase: 1. Four dierent reinforcement layouts calculated from SAP2000. 55 . The element is dened by eight nodes having three degrees of freedom at each node: translation in the nodal x. The results are presented in a force deformation curve or a capacity curve.2 Element Type . the Stringer method and minimum reinforcement according to EC2 are used. The orientation of the rebars are dened by two angles (0° or 90°) from the element coordinate system. 3. incrementally. Solution phase: Here ANSYS solves the dened numerical problem to obtain nodal results. y and z directions. or pushover analysis. In a concrete application the solid capability of the element is used to model the concrete and the rebars capability is used for modeling reinforcement behavior. The SOLID65 is used for 3-D modeling of solids and it allows the presence of four dierent materials within each element.Chapter 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis 5.1 Calculation Process in ANSYS The basic steps in the ANSYS analysis consists of three phases: preprocessing phase. The load is applied on all the three stories. Postprocessing Phase: Here the important information is obtained and results are evaluated. 5. i. For this model the GUI was utilized to create the model. such as displacement and stress values at dierent nodes. 2. The model can be created by using command prompt line input or the Graphical User Interface (GUI).e. Preprocessing phase: Here the solution domain is created and discretized into nite elements: That is the model of the problem (in this case the shear wall) is created graphically and subdivided into nodes and elements. initial conditions and loads are applied to the model. There the ductility behavior can be detected.

For each reinforcement real constant values are needed for the material number. The material number refers to the type of material used for the reinforcement. the concrete may also undergo plasticity. They are also capable of plastic deformation and creep.3 Material Properties In the year 2001 Thordur Sigfusson [3] calibrated a FE-model in ANSYS to simulate laboratory tests of reinforced concrete elements. the cracking is modeled through an adjustment of material properties which eectively treats the cracking as a 'smeared band' of cracks. The concrete material is assumed to be initially isotropic. The geometry. In addition to cracking and crushing. The rebars are capable of tension and compression. In this case. The concrete is capable of cracking in tension (in three orthogonal directions). and creep.1 The reinforcement is modeled as real constants assuming a smeared model. Figure 5. node locations and the coordinate system for the element is shown in Figure 5. Cracking is permitted in three orthogonal directions at each integration point.Chapter 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis The most important aspect of this element is the treatment of nonlinear material properties. the volume ratio is the ratio of steel to concrete element and the orientation angle refers to to the orientation of the reinforcement in the smeared model. Whenever the reinforcement capability of the element is used. the plasticity is done before the cracking and crushing checks. but not shear. rather than discrete cracks. [1] 5. the reinforcement is assumed to be 'smeared' throughout the element. Sigfusson used his model both to simulate laboratory tests of simply supported beam with vertical point load and shear wall 56 . with the Drucker-Prager failure surface being most commonly used. 2. If cracking occurs at an integration point. That is it it assumed that the reinforcement is uniformly spread throughout the concrete element. volume ratio and orientation angle. 3. plastic deformation. 5.1: SOLID65 element in ANSYS [1] The following assumptions and restrictions are made in the SOLID65 model: 1. 4. crushing in compression.

Tc is the multiplier for amount of tensile stress relaxation. Figure 5.3.Material Properties Section 5. εut is the ultimate strain for concrete.3. with fck = 30M P a. Ec is the modulus of elasticity.5. The concrete is modeled as Material Model Number 1 in the Solid65 element. The element requires linear isotropic and bilinear kinematic hardening properties to model the concrete properly. The comparison between the test results and the model results were quite satisfactory. The modal parameters from Sigfusson [3] thesis are used in the ANSYS model of the shear wall in this thesis. ft is the uniaxial tensile strength. see Figure 5. The concrete used is C30. Figure 5.3: Normal distribution of compressive strength results [20] The standard deviation is estimated as 5-8 N/mm2 so the mean compressive strength 57 .3 subjected to lateral force. When the stresses reach the yield point the biaxial-hardening model takes in. the fck value is a characteristic cylinder compressive strength and is dened as the 5% fractile value of the probability density function. When the state of stress in the model lies within the initial yield surface the concrete is assumed to be linear and the linear-elastic equations can be applied. EcT is the secant modulus of plasticity.8 · fc is the uniaxial yield strength of the concrete.2 shows the bilinear hardening model of the concrete. as described in section 2. 0.2: Bilinear Hardening Concrete Model Where: fc is the uniaxial ultimate compression strength of the concrete. Figure 5.

725 · fc The parameters needed to dene the material properties of the concrete are listed in Table 5.3 · fck = 0.3 it needs a total of ve input strength parameters to dene the failure.9M P a 2/3 (5. fc =35MPa The tensile strength is derived from the compression strength. 58 . the parameters are listed in Table 5.2) The ultimate strain for concrete is 0. The typical shear transfer coecient is dened from zero to one.1.Chapter 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis for C30 concrete is roughly estimated to be: fcm = 30 + (5 − 8) = 35 to 38 M P a It is decided to use the lower limit.5. Description Ultimate uniaxial tensile strength: Ultimate uniaxial compressive strength: Ultimate biaxial compressive strength: Ultimate compressive strength for a state of biaxial compression superimposed on hydrostatic stress state: Ultimate compressive strength for a state of uniaxial compression superimposed on hydrostatic stress state: Table 5. The bilinear kinematic material uses the von Mises failure criterion along with the Willam and Warnke model to dene the failure of the concrete.1: Input parameters for Willam and Warnke model Label ft fc a σh f1 f2 fcb f1 f2 = = = 1. with zero representing a smooth crack (complete loss of shear transfer) and one representing a rough crack (no loss of shear transfer).5 · (fck + 8)1/3 = 9.3 · 302/3 = 2.3. the Willam and Warnke model [4] is a ve parameter model and as explained in section 2.45 · fc 1.3.1) According to EC2 the modulus of elasticity of concrete depends not only on the strength class of the concrete but also on the actual properties of the aggregates used: Ec = 9.5 · (30 + 8)1/3 = 31656M P a (5.2 · fc 1.3. fck and is estimated as: fct = 0.0035 indicating the crushing strain.

the steel Nr 1 2 3 4 5 6 Parameter Poisson's ratio for steel Modulus of elasticity for steel [Es ] Modulus of plasticity for steel [Ep ] Yield point of steel [fy ] Ultimate strain for steel [ u ] Weight of steel reinforcement 0.8 · fc = 29M P a 3.3.Material Properties Section 5. The reinforcement used is fy = 500M P a steel. elastic and cracked [ν ] Weight of concrete Table 5.3: Parameters for material number two.2: Material parameters used the concrete C30 concrete 31656 MPa 35 MPa 2.4: Steel Model Table 5.035 MPa 500 MPa 15± 77kN/m3 59 . Figure 5.4 and the parameters are shown in Table 5.0 0. The reinforcement material model is shown in Figure 5.3 210000 MPa 1.2 24kN/m3 The reinforcement is modeled as Material Model Number 2 in the Solid65 element.1 1.9 MPa 2 MPa 0.3 Nr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Parameter Secant Modulus of elasticity [Ec ] Uniaxial ultimate compression strength [fc ] Uniaxial tensile strength [ft ] Secant modulus of plasticity [EΓ ] Uniaxial yield strength for concrete Ultimate strain for concrete Shear transfer coecient for an open crack [βt ] Shear transfer coecient for a closed crack [βc ] Multiplier for amount of tensile stress relaxation [Tc ] Poisson's ratio for concrete.5/pm 0. that is the yield strength is 500MPa.6 0.

4 Analytical Nonlinear Model The shear wall is modeled as a volume.5.01 Newton-Rapson Displacement norm. Nr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Finite element model Dimension of model Total number of concrete elements Total number of reinforcement elements Cracking and crushing of elements Yielding of concrete and reinforcement Bond slip between steel and concrete Load step size Iteration technique Convergence criteria Table 5. All the nodes at the ground level are xed and the displacement into the wall is prevented.Chapter 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis 5. The analytical model of the meshed wall with its boundaries and applied loads is shown in Figure 5. Figure 5.4: Main characteristics of the FEM model in ANSYS ANSYS shear wall model 3D 1492 1492 YES YES NO 0.4 shows the main characteristics of the nite element model used in ANSYS.005 60 . γ = 0. To obtain good results from the Solid65 element it is important to mesh the model properly.5: Modeling of the wall in Ansys Table 5.

3.5 Figure 5. For the double load the wall designed from SAP2000 reached numerical "failure" before the analyze was nished and therefore only one and a half of the calculated load was applied on that wall.5 Analytical Results In the pushover analysis of the shear wall the lateral load was increased step-wise from zero to twice as large as the calculated one to see how the wall behaves if the lateral load exceeds the calculated design earthquake load.Analytical Results Section 5.6: Element numbers 5.7 mm for the wall designed from SAP2000. see section 3.2 mm for the wall with minimum reinforcement according to EC2.1 mm for the wall designed from ETABS the minimum displacement.3.2. 4. 61 . Figure 5. The force is normalized where one is the calculated design earthquake load. At the design earthquake load the ultimate top displacement is approximately 5. is for the wall designed according to the Stringer method.7 shows the load-deection curve or the capacity curve for the analysed walls.8 mm. 4.

7 Normalized Load 0.9 0.8 0.7 Normalized Load 0.7.3 0.2 0. so the displacement ductility has the same value as the displacement for each wall. see Figure 5.7: Load deection curves for dierent analysis In Figure 5.Chapter 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis 1 0.9 0.8 the displacement has been normalized in the form of displacement ductility.3 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.1 0 0 1 2 3 deflection [mm] 4 5 6 Elastic EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs Figure 5.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 Displacement ductility 5 6 EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs Figure 5.5 0. 1 0.4 0.6 0.2 0. The yield deection is about 1 for all of the walls.5 0.8: Ductility curves 62 .

10. compression failure (crushing) and tension cracks.2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Displacement ductility 6 7 8 Figure 5.6 0. The wall that was designed with the Stringer method had the highest amount of reinforcement and the wall with the minimum reinforcement according to EC2 the lowest. The concrete crack/crush plots were examined to see the dierent types of cracking that occur within the concrete.5. exceeds the tensile or compressive strength of the concrete and the element thus becomes nonlinear.9 show that for increased reinforcement in the wall the wall resistance increases.Analytical Results Section 5.1 Cracks and Reinforcement Yielding The cracking patterns in the wall can be obtained by using the Crack/Crushing plot option in ANSYS. There it can be seen that the concrete crushes (circles) at the ground level and tension cracks are around and between the openings. 63 . Cracking or crushing of an element is initiated once one of the element principal stresses. The element behaves in a linear elastic manner until either of the specied tensile or compressive strengths are exceeded.2 the ductility reaches 8 and there the structural stability is treated by buckling.2 1 Normalized Load 0.4 EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs 0.8 0. 5. The compression failure is shown as circles and tension cracks as lines that form diagonally up the wall towards the loading that is applied. Two types of concrete failure occur.9: Ductility curves Figures 5.13 1. brittle failure as seen in Figure 2.7.5 When the force exceeds the design earthquake load and the normalized load is 1. The two signs of the concrete failure in ANSYS are shown in Figure 5. In Figure 5.5 or when less than 50% of the applied design earthquake load is reached. 5.4 to 0.8 and 5. Therefore the assumption can be made that the concrete starts to crack at that point.7 it can be seen that all the graphs are linear until the normalized load is about 0.

Figure 5. The elements are numbered 778 and 670 and are located at the left upper corner and bottom right corner of the middle wall. The crack pattern is very similar in all of the walls.10: Cracking signs in ANSYS. NL=1 Figures 5.11: Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) for in the wall designed with Stringer method 64 . The concrete crushes at the ground level of the wall.11 to 5. The rst tension cracking occurs in same elements for all of the walls.13 show the cracking in the shear wall for all the four dierent reinforcement layouts. hereafter called the middle opening.6.Chapter 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis Figure 5. see Figure 5. The most critical area is around the middle opening of the second oor.

5 Figure 5.12: Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) in the wall designed from ETABS Figure 5.Analytical Results Section 5.13: Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) in the wall designed from SAP2000 65 .

15 shows the steel stresses versus normalized load for the vertical reinforcement in element 787. see Figure 5.14: Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) in the wall with minimum reinforcement. It can be seen that the steel stresses in SAP2000 and EC2 increase faster than the other two. 4k16 is placed around the opening while 2k16 is used when the design is based on the other two. EC2 With increased load the tensile stresses get bigger than the tensile strength in the concrete and its cracks and the tensile force is taken care of by the reinforcement.6. Figure 5. Therefore it is interesting to see how the steel stress changes in the elements when the load is increased. 66 . Element 787 is located at the top left corner of the middle opening.Chapter 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis Figure 5. Despite this less than 50% of the reinforcement strength is reached at the design earthquake load for the 2k16 reinforcements. For the walls designed from the FE-analysis in ETABS and with the Stringer method. The stresses in the reinforcement start to increase when around 40% of the design earthquake load is reached for all the designed reinforcement layouts. First the steel stress in element 787 is examined for all the walls.

5 550 500 450 400 Steel stress [MPa] 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.5 1 Load [kN] 1.16 the horizontal steel stress in element at the bottom right corner of the middle window is examined.15: Steel stresses in element no 787 above middle window In Figure 5.Analytical Results Section 5. 550 500 450 400 Steel stress [MPa] 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0. is shown.6).4. there the concrete does not start to crack until around 70% of the design earthquake load is reached and then the stresses increase rapidly.16: Steel stresses in element no 670 below middle window 67 . or element 670 (see Figure 5. The stresses in this reinforcement do not reach as high as in element 787.5 2 EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs Figure 5. Except for the steel in the SAP2000 layout.5 1 Load [kN] 1. The results are similar to the 787 element and the stresses in the steel starts to increase when the normalized load is around 0. The reinforcement is the same as in element 787.5 2 EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs Figure 5.

sm may be calculated from the relation: sm (5.5.8. the width of the wall is less than 300 mm. earth quake load. The concrete might start to leak and epoxy injection is necessary. taken from ANSYS.5. siloxan or similar material is applied on the concrete surface to conceal the projection of cracks. but that is usually only necessary to improve the visual or a aesthetic view of the wall.1) = σs σsr 2 (1 − β1 β2 ( ) ) Es σs (5. β2 = 0.2 Calculations of Crack width The crush/crack plots of the walls show that the crack pattern in the walls are very similar at the design earthquake load. σsr the stress in the tension when the rst crack occurs.3 mm and 0.7 it was explained according to EC2 that the crack width should not exceed 0.25k1 k2 φ/pr φ is the bar size in mm in the element.0 m and it usually does not start to leak. In section 2. εsm is the mean strain. β1 = 1.17 where the crack width is shown as function of the applied load. From experience of Icelandic houses a crack need to be repaired if its width is between 0.3) 68 .5.5. If the crack reaches 0. k1 = 0.3. It can be seen that when the design earthquake load is (5. The crack width can be found by the relation: wk = β · srm · εsm srm is the average nal crack spacing.5 mm or more the damage starts to get more serious and more costly to repair.2) σs is the stress in the reinforcement and can be taken from ANSYS for each time step.5 mm. Crack 0.3 mm wide is visible at distance of about 2.3 mm to prevent corrosion of the reinforcement. restore the original strength and stiness. An attempt was made to calculate the width of the cracks by using information about the steel stresses from the ANSYS analysis and see if there is any dierence between them in the four analysed walls. For a crack of this size a light repair is usually enough where and surface treatment is enough were monosilan. β = 1. which happens if the crack starts to leak.1 a method to calculate crack width based on EC2 was shown.5. high bond bars. A gure of a crack does not tell all about the real damage of the structures unless the widths of the cracks are known. see Figure 5.8 k2 = 0. In section 2. The main purpose with the repair is to prevent leaking.5 The calculations were made in MATLAB and the crack width plotted as function of the normalized load. Nevertheless the damaging impact on the concrete from each crack has to be evaluated individually.Chapter 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis 5. First element 787 is examined. The average nal crack spacing for members subjected dominantly to exure or tension can be calculated from the equation: srm = 50 + 0.

1 0 0 0. 1.18: Computed crack width in element 670 From gures 5.3 mm but the crack width in the wall designed from SAP2000 and minimum EC2 reinforcement with 2k16 is around 0.7 0.2 0.17: Computed crack width in element 787 1.7 mm.1 0 0 0.1 1 0.2 Design crack width [mm] 1.9 0.5 0. 69 . The results are very similar for element 670 as seen in Figure 5.18 it is obvious that the reinforcement has great inuence on the crack width.5 reached the crack width for the wall designed from ETABS and Stringer method with 4k16 in the element is under 0.6 0.8 0.6. i.9 0.5 1 Normalized Load 1.4 0.3 0.2 0.18.5 1.5 2 EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs Figure 5.5 0. Therefore it is also interesting to look at an element were the reinforcement area is the same for all of the four walls.5 1 Normalized Load 1.1 1 0. 4k16 than the lower degree 2k16.5 1.3 1. The crack widt is smaller for higher reinforcement degree.e.7 0.17 and 5.6 to 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.5 2 EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs Figure 5.2 Design crack width [mm] 1. see Figure 5. Element 1026 is examined 1026 which is between the windows on the third and the second oor.Analytical Results Section 5.4 1.3 1.

6 0.4 1.8 to 0.5 1 Normalized Load 1.2 1.3 mm for the walls designed from ETABS and Stringer method and is between 0.3 1.1 Design crack width [mm] 1 0.7 0.3 0.9 mm for the other two. 1.19: Design crack width in element 1026 70 . At design earthquake load the crack width is around 0.Chapter 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis The element is reinforced with k10c200.5 0.9 0.4 0. Even though the reinforcement is the same in all of the walls the results are similar as for the other two elements.8 0.5 2 EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs Figure 5.2 0.1 0 0 0.

21: Cracks width for Stringer 71 .3 mm at all places.4 Design crack width [mm] el. A close up gure of the elements can be seen in Figure 5. 625 el. 487 0.1 0 0 0.5 1 Normalized Load 1.5 0.2 0. The crack growth in all the walls for the same elements are examined.9. 670 el. at design earthquake load the crack width is well below 0. Figure 5.20: Cracks at middle window for Stringer The concrete starts to crack in element 670 when the normalized load is 0. but the crack opening is really small in the beginning and does not start to open until the normalized load is around 1. The crack pattern can be seen in Figure 5.20. it starts in element 670 at the right bottom corner of the middle window and goes down to element 441.4 of the design load. 0. 533 el.52 and the the last crack formed before the design earthquake load is reached is in element 441 when the normalized load is 0. 579 el.Analytical Results Section 5.5. in element 625 at 0.3 0.5 2 Figure 5. In element 670 the reinforcement is 4k16 and 2k10c200 in the other ve elements. It starts by looking at the wall designed with the Stringer method.21.5 Next a look will be taken into the crack growth.

5 2 Figure 5.2 0. where the reinforcement is twice as low as in the elements for Stringer method.4 0.23: Cracks width for ETABS 72 . 625 el.20 it can be seen that the crack pattern is very similar.5 1 Normalized Load 1. 0. Figure 5.1 0 0 0.Chapter 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis Now the same elements in the model designed with the FE-analysis in ETABS are examined. The close up view of the cracks and can be seen in Figure 5. The reinforcement in element 670 is 4k16 and k10c200 in the other ve.3 mm for all of the elements at the design earthquake load.6 el.22: Cracks at middle window for ETABS The concrete starts to crack in element 670 when 40% of the design earthquake load is reached. 579 el. Despite this the crack width is under 0. 670 el. 533 el. Cracks in the other elements start to develop shortly after the rst crack and the crack width grows rapidly in elements 625 to 487. When the gure is compared with Figure 5.3 0.5 0.23. 487 Design crack width [mm] 0.7 0.

3 0.Analytical Results Section 5.7 mm at the design earthquake load but the crack width in the other two elements does not get so high.5 Normalized Load 1 1.25 the crack width in element 670 reaches around 0.6 to 0.24: Cracks at middle window for SAP2000 As seen in Figure 5.4 0. The crack seems to have eects on the element on the left side of elements 670 to 441. Figure 5. see Figure 5.25: Cracks width for SAP2000 73 .5 el.2 1. It would have been of more interest to look at the cracks in the other elements. 670 el.2 0.5 0.1 1 0.5 The crack pattern for the same element in the wall designed from the analysis in SAP2000 is quite dierent from the other two previously mentioned. 579 Figure 5.8 0.24. 1. 625 el.1 0 0 0.6 0.7 0.9 Design crack width [mm] 0.

see Figure 5.2 0. 625 and 579 has reached 0.22.3 mm or higher has been formed in the concrete below the opening because of the design earthquake load.5 1 Normalized Load 1.4 and the cracking in the other element follows quickly after and the growth of the crack width is fast.20 and 5. 441 Figure 5.26 than in Figure 5.9 0.27: Cracks width for EC2 74 . It can be seen that there are slightly more cracks seen on Figure 5. 1.6 0.4 0.27. 487 el. 533 el. At the design earthquake load the width for elements 670. At the design earthquake load the assumption can be made that a crack of length 75 cm and width of 0.3 0.5 2 el.26: Cracks at middle window for EC2 Cracking in element 670 starts when the normalized load is about 0. 579 el.5 0.3 mm. 625 el.Chapter 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis Finally the same elements for the wall designed with minimum reinforcement according to EC2 are examined with 2k16 around the openings.8 0.2 1.1 1 Design crack width [mm] 0.7 0. Figure 5. 670 el.3 1.1 0 0 0.

The design based on ETABS and the Stringer method gave better results. Second. Three methods were used for the seismic design of the reinforcement in the shear wall. while the minimum reinforcement according to EC2 75 . A nonlinear nite element model was created in ANSYS for the four reinforcement layouts to carry out a pushover analysis of the dierent shear wall design. steel stresses and plastic deformations. the model gave no information about crack widths which are crucial in order to estimate damage. 0. First.e. reinforcement around openings than the other two methods. The lateral load was stepwise increased from zero to twice the design earthquake load.e.4g. Third. For that reason an attempt was made to evaluate crack widths as a function of load with method from Eurocode 2. In the thesis only one wall of the building was studied. In this method the steel stresses is the most important factor and it is important that the stresses in the reinforcement does not get too high. The design earthquake load was dened by the lateral force method from Eurocode 8. crushing. On the other hand the reinforcement layouts from SAP2000 and the minimum reinforcement according to EC2 were similar. a design based again on linear elastic FE-analysis but now using the building specialized FE-program. less crack widths and overall less damage for the same load level. ETABS. However.3 mm. The reinforcement from the Stinger Method and the one based on the ETABS analysis gave very similar reinforcement layouts. This reects a design earthquake with 475 year return period. These methods gave more boundary reinforcement. i. initial cracks. For comparison reinforcement based on the minimum requirement according to EC2 was also studied. a design based on linear elastic FE-analysis using the general purpose FE-program SAP2000. when subjected to design earthquake load. the Stringer method which is a lower bound method. The building was assumed to be located in the South Iceland Seismic Zone where the characteristic peak ground acceleration is 0. i. tensile cracks. At the most critical points in the wall the two layouts from ETABS and Stringer method were under acceptable crack widths. The results clearly indicate that dierent reinforcement layouts aect the response of the wall. When the response results of the dierent walls were compared it turned out that the reinforcement layouts calculated from the Stringer Method and ETABS analysis gave very similar results. With the model it was possible to get information about deformations.Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusion In the thesis a nonlinear pushover analysis of idealized three story concrete shear wall building with dierent seismic reinforcement design was presented.

The crack widths calculated by using the information from ANSYS seem to be promising and useful when designing and analysing structures in seismic zones. The dierence in crack width is mainly due to the boundary reinforcement. However. i.9 mm. In this thesis the FE-stresses were averaged over 0.e.5 m wide strip which seems to be to wide strip. In this thesis only one shear wall was studied and only one material set. In the future more types of shear walls and material sets could be studied as well as laboratory tests to backup the numerical results. concrete and steel type.Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusion and the layout from SAP2000 gave far higher crack widths. Finally. the results from the nonlinear static procedure must be taken with caution. and the results need to be veried by experimental data. It should be underlined that the technique used to average the stresses from the linear elastic FE-analysis with SAP2000 in the boundary areas of the wall greatly aects the amount of boundary reinforcement. This is something that should be studied in more details. or up to 0. it could be very informative and valuable to back calculate reported damage during the South Iceland earthquakes of June 2000 in order to learn from them. 76 .

TC: The limits of the constant spectral % acceleration branch % TD: The value defining the beginning of the % constant displacement response range of % the spectrum. elseif T>TC & T<=TD Sdh = max(ag*S*(2. end %=================================================================== % Structural response %--------------------------------------------------------------clear all close all format short g format compact 77 .5/q-2/3)). % nu: Damping correction factor % q: Behaviour factor % beta: Lower bound factor % S: Soil factor % % OUTPUT: Sd : the horizontal design response spectrum %---------------------------------------------------------------% Respons calculation.TD. beta*ag). % TB.beta. beta*ag).5/q*(TC*TD/T^2).S) %---------------------------------------------------------------% INPUT: % ag: Design acceleration % T: Vibration period of a linear % single-degre-of-freedom system.q. elseif T>TB & T<=TC Sdh = ag*S*2.5/q. else Sdh = max(ag*S*2.5/q)*(TC/T).TC. Sdh if T>=0 & T<=TB Sdh = ag*S*(2/3+(T/TB)*(2.Appendix A MATLAB script for Design Response spectra %---------------------------------------------------------------function Sdh = hordesignSd(ag.nu.T.TB.

% assumend damping ratio of building eta = max(sqrt(10/(5+zeta*100)).TBh. % vertical design ground acceleration q = 2.3 g=9.01.TCh.4*g*gamma1.15.size(T. xlabel('T') ylabel('{S_{dh}/a_g}') hold off print -dmeta response.05.2 TBh = 0. % value defining the beginning of % the constant displacement response of % the spectrum n=0.Respons spectrum -----------------------------------% Values from EC8 table 3.TDh.T(i).3]) legend('Horizontal design') title(['The response spectrum for \zeta = '.81. plot(T. % lower bound factor for design spectrum zeta = 0. % limits of the constant spectral % acceleration branch TDh = 2. num2str(zeta)]). % time step for spectrum % Evaluation spectra for T = [0. % limits of the constant spectral % acceleration branch TCh = 0. % important class II EC8 Table 4.beta.eps % dump encapsulated EMF file 78 .9*ag.Appendix A MATLAB script for Design Response spectra % Parameters gamma1 = 1.1)). EC8 table 3.0.2.q.2 Type D beta = 0.00. end % ------------Plot of respons spetrum ------------------------------figure(1) A=[Sdh/ag]. ag = 0. for i = 1:size(T. % design ground acceleration avg = 0.4] % Horizontal design response spectrum Sdh = zeros(1.2) Sdh(i) = hordesignSd(ag. % soil factor.S).40.eta.34.A) axis([0 4 0 1. % the behaviour factor S = 1.55) % correction factor for damping % -----------. T=0:n:4.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0. 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 0 0 0 1200 1100 0. 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 2300]. 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 0 0. 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 0 1200 1100 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2*1000 0 0 1750 0 1750. -570000 -570000 -1183000 -1183000 -1183000 -1490000 -1490000 -1490000 -449000 -819000 -994000 -1092000 -994000 -819000 79 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4*1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 2300. b= [-570000. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2*1000 2*2500 0 1750 1750. 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 4*1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.Appendix B Calculations for Stringer method close all clear all format short A=200*[4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 0 0 0. 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 0 0. 0 0 0 4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.

F20x=F19x+(x(3)-x(4))*1000*t.1. F19x=F18x-x(5)*2500*t. subplot(3.[F1x F2x F3x F4x F5x F6x F7x F8x]/1000) xlabel('stringerline no 1') grid on title('Horizontal stringer forces') F9x=0.'DefaultTextFontName'. F12x=F11x+t*1000*(x(1)-x(3)).[F9x F10x F11x F12x F13x F14x F15x F16x]/1000) Ylabel('Stringerforce [kN]') xlabel('stringerline no 2') grid on F17x=0.'Times') set(0. F7x=F6x-2500*x(2)*t. F3x=F2x-2500*x(2)*t. subplot(3.'Times') set(0. F1x=-570000. figure(1) subplot(3. F18x=(x(3)-x(4))*1000*t. F23x=F22x-x(5)*2500*t. F4x=F3x-1000*x(1)*t. F13x=F12x+x(2)*2500*t. F24x=F23x+(x(3)-x(4))*1000*t.10) t=200. F10x=1000*t*(x(1)-x(3)).1. F16x=F15x+(x(1)-x(3))*1000*200. F21x=F20x-x(5)*2500*t.'Normal') set(0.'Oblique') set(0.10) set(0.'DefaultTextFontSize'. F22x=F21x+(x(3)-x(4))*1000*t. F6x=F5x-1000*x(1)*t. F11x=F10x+x(2)*2500*t./b-1)*100 %------------------------------------------------------------------------%Horizontal stringerforces %------------------------------------------------------------------------%PLOTS %plot settings set(0. F5x=F4x-2500*x(2)*t. skekkja1=(bnalgun. F2x=F1x-1000*x(1)*t. F8x=F7x-1000*x(1)*t.1) plot([1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8].'DefaultTextFontAngle'.2) plot([9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16].Appendix B Calculations for Stringer method -819000 -819000 -449000]. F14x=F13x+(x(1)-x(3))*1000*t. x=pinv(A)*b bnalgun =A*x. F15x=F14x+x(2)*2500*t.1.[F17x F18x F19x F20x 80 .'DefaultAxesFontName'.'DefaultAxesFontSize'.'DefaultAxesFontAngle'.3) plot([17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24].

F55x=F54x+2500*(x(10)-x(12))*t. F31x=F30x+2500*(x(5)-x(7))*t. F30x=F29x+1000*(x(4)-x(6))*t.0 F21x F22x F23x F24x]/1000) xlabel('stringerline no 3') grid on print -dwinc horstringforce1. F44x=F43x+(x(8)-x(9))*1000*t.1.2) plot([33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40].[F49x F50x F51x F52x F53x F54x F55x F56x]/1000) title('Horizontal stringer forces') xlabel('stringerline 81 . subplot(3. F38x=F37x+(x(6)-x(8))*1000*t. F28x=F27x+1000*(x(4)-x(6))*t. F42x=(x(8)-x(9))*1000*t. F37x=F36x+x(7)*2500*t. F43x=F42x-x(10)*2500*t. F36x=F35x+(x(6)-x(8))*1000*t. F51x=F50x+2500*(x(10)-x(12))*t. F39x=F38x+x(7)*2500*t.eps figure(3) F49x=-307000.1. subplot(3. F40x=F39x+(x(6)-x(8))*1000*t. F32x=F31x+1000*(x(4)-x(6))*t. F52x=F51x+1000*(x(9)-x(11))*t.Section B.1.[F41x F42x F43x F44x F45x F46x F47x F48x]/1000) xlabel('stringerline no 6') grid on print -dwinc horstringforce2.1) plot([25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32]. F26x=F25x+1000*(x(4)-x(6))*t.1) plot([49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56]. subplot(3. subplot(4. F48x=F47x+(x(8)-x(9))*1000*t. F45x=F44x-x(10)*2500*t. F53x=F52x+2500*(x(10)-x(12))*t.[F33x F34x F35x F36x F37x F38x F39x F40x]/1000) Ylabel('Stringerforce [kN]') xlabel('stringerline no 5') grid on F41x=0.[F25x F26x F27x F28x F29x F30x F31x F32x]/1000) xlabel('stringerline no 4') title('Horizontal stringer forces') grid on F33x=0. F27x=F26x+2500*(x(5)-x(7))*t. F47x=F46x-x(10)*2500*t. F34x=(x(6)-x(8))*1000*t. F46x=F45x+(x(8)-x(9))*1000*t. F54x=F53x+1000*(x(9)-x(11))*t. F35x=F34x+x(7)*2500*t. F50x= F49x+1000*(x(9)-x(11))*t.1. F56x=F55x+1000*(x(9)-x(11))*t.eps figure(2) F25x=-613000.3) plot([41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48]. F29x=F28x+2500*(x(5)-x(7))*t.

4) plot([77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86]. F75x=F74x+(x(18)-x(18))*750*t.eps %------------------------------------------------------------------------%Vertical stringerforces %------------------------------------------------------------------------F77y=449000. F9y=F17y+x(3)*1200*t. F84x=F83x. subplot(4. F86x=F85x+x(18)*1000*t. F81x=F80x+x(15)*2500*t. F73x=F72x+(x(16)-x(17))*750*t.'ytick'.[F57x F58x F59x F60x F61x F62x F63x F64x F65x F66x]/1000) Ylabel('Stringerforce [kN]') xlabel('stringerline no 8') grid on F67x=0. F33y=F41y+x(8)*1200*t. subplot(4. F57y=F67y+x(13)*1200*t. F71x=F70x-x(15)*2500*t. F69x=F68x-x(15)*2500*t. F78x=x(14)*1000*t. F82x=F81x+x(17)*1000*t. F64x=F63x+x(12)*1000*t. subplot(4. F49y=F57y+x(11)*700*t. F41y=F49y+x(9)*1100*t.'reverse') subplot(1. F83x=F82x+x(17)*750*t. F62x=F61x+(x(11)-x(16))*1000*t. F72x=F71x+(x(16)-x(17))*1000*t. F25y=F33y+x(6)*700*t. F61x=F60x+x(12)*2500*t. F70x=F69x+(x(13)-x(14))*1000*t.1.1. F79x=F78x+x(15)*2500*t. figure(4) set(gca.[1 9 17 25 33 41 49 57 67 82 . F76x=F75x+(x(18)-x(18))*1000*t. F17y=F25y+x(4)*1100*t. F80x=F79x+x(14)*1000*t.'YDir'. F63x=F62x+(x(12)-x(16))*750*t.4. F66x=F65x+(x(11)-x(18))*1000*t.[F77x F78x F79x F80x F81x F82x F83x F84x F85x F86x]/1000) xlabel('stringerline no 10') grid on print -dwinc horstringforce3. F60x=F59x+(x(11)-x(13))*1000*t. F58x=(x(11)-x(13))*1000*t.'reverse') set(gca.'YDir'. F59x=F58x+x(12)*2500*t. F67y=F77y+x(14)*1100*t. F68x=(x(13)-x(14))*1000*t.[F67x F68x F69x F70x F71x F72x F73x F74x F75x F76x]/1000) xlabel('stringerline no 9') grid on F77x=0. F65x=F64x+(x(12)-x(16))*750*t. [77 67 57 49 41 33 25 17 9 1]) set(gca. F1y=F9y+x(1)*1000*t.Appendix B Calculations for Stringer method no 7') grid on F57x=0. F85x=F84x+x(18)*750*t.3) plot([67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76].1.1) plot([F77y F67y F57y F49y F41y F33y F25y F17y F9y F1y]/1000.2) plot([57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66]. F74x=F73x.

Section B. F18y=F26y+(x(5)-x(4))*1100*t. F13y=F21y+x(3)*1200*t.'YDir'.[2 10 18 26 34 42 50 58 68 78]) axis([-500 600 2 78]) title('Vertical stringer forces') ylabel('stringerline no 12') xlabel('Stringerforce [kN]') grid on F79y=175000.3) plot([F3y F11y F19y F27y F35y F43y F51y F59y F69y F79y]/1000. F37y=F45y+x(8)*1200*t.'reverse') set(gca. F50y=F58y+(x(12)-x(11))*700*t. subplot(1.2) plot([F2y F10y F18y F26y F34y F42y F50y F58y F68y F78y]/1000. F71y=F81y+(x(15)-x(15))*1100*t. F53y=F61y+(x(11)-x(12))*700*t.4. F69y=F79y+(x(14)-x(15))*1100*t.4) plot([F4y F12y F20y F28y F36y F44y F52y F60y F70y F80y]/1000. F60y=F70y-x(13)*1200*t.'ytick'. F10y=F18y-x(3)*1200*t. F42y=F50y+(x(10)-x(9))*1100*t. [3 11 19 27 35 43 51 59 69 79]) set(gca. F51y=F59y+(x(11)-x(12))*700*t. F45y=F53y+(x(9)-x(10))*1100*t.[4 12 20 28 36 44 52 60 70 80]) set(gca. F59y=F69y+x(13)*1200*t. 83 . F29y=F37y+(x(6)-x(7))*700*t. F3y=F11y+(x(1)-x(2))*700*t. F34y=F42y-x(8)*1200*t. F70y=F80y+(x(15)-x(14))*1100*t.'YDir'. F27y=F35y+(x(6)-x(7))*700*t. F61y=F71y+x(16)*1200*t. F4y=F12y+(x(2)-x(1))*700*t. F52y=F60y+(x(12)-x(11))*700*t.4. F2y=F10y+(x(1)-x(2))*1200*t. subplot(1.4.'reverse') set(gca. F58y=F68y-x(13)*1200*t.'YDir'.0 77]) axis([-1000 1000 1 77]) ylabel('stringerline no 11') grid on F78y=370000.[4 12 20 28 36 44 52 60 70 80]) axis([-700 500 4 80]) ylabel('stringerline no 14') grid on print -dwinc verstringforce1. F44y=F52y+(x(10)-x(9))*1100*t. F20y=F28y+(x(5)-x(4))*1100*t. F68y=F78y+(x(15)-x(14))*1100*t. F26y=F34y+(x(7)-x(6))*700*t.'reverse') set(gca.'ytick'. F12y=F28y-x(3)*1200*t. F35y=F43y+x(8)*1200*t. F36y=F44y-x(8)*1200*t. [2 10 18 26 34 42 50 58 68 78]) set(gca. F28y=F36y+(x(7)-x(6))*700*t. F5y=F13y+(x(1)-x(2))*700*t. F19y=F27y+(x(4)-x(5))*1100*t.'ytick'. subplot(1. F21y=F29y+(x(4)-x(5))*1100*t.[3 11 19 27 35 43 51 59 69 79]) axis([0 1200 3 78]) ylabel('stringerline no 13') grid on F80y=98000. F43y=F51y+(x(9)-x(10))*1100*t. F11y=F19y+x(3)*1200*t.eps F81y=-98000.

'reverse') set(gca.[8 16 24 32 40 48 56 66 76 86]) set(gca. F6y=F14y+(x(2)-x(1))*700*t.[6 14 22 30 38 46 54 62 72 82]) set(gca. F7y=F15y+(x(1)-x(2))*700*t.[5 13 21 29 37 45 53 61 71 81]) set(gca. F40y=F48y-x(8)*1200*t.'reverse') set(gca. F16y=F24y-x(3)*1200*t. F47y=F55y+(x(9)-x(10))*1100*t.'YDir'. F8y=F16y-x(1)*700*t.4.3) plot([F7y F15y F23y F31y F39y F47y F55y F65y F75y F85y]/1000.'reverse') set(gca.4. F22y=F30y+(x(5)-x(4))*1100*t. F24y=F32y-x(4)*1100*t. F15y=F23y+x(3)*1200*t.'ytick'. F76y=F86y-x(18)*1100*t. subplot(1.'ytick'. F56y=F66y-x(11)*700*t. F65y=F75y F55y=F65y+(x(11)-x(12))*700*t. F46y=F54y+(x(10)-x(9))*1100*t. F14y=F22y-x(3)*1200*t. subplot(1.'reverse') set(gca.[6 14 22 30 38 46 54 62 72 82]) axis([-1000 0 6 82]) title('Vertical stringer forces') ylabel('stringerline no 16') xlabel('Stringerforce [kN]') grid on F85y=-370000. F54y=F62y+(x(12)-x(11))*700*t. F32y=F40y-x(6)*700*t.'YDir'. F72y=F82y+(x(17)-x(17))*1100*t. F31y=F39y+(x(6)-x(7))*700*t. F30y=F38y+(x(7)-x(6))*700*t.4) plot([F8y F16y F24y F32y F40y F48y F56y F66y F76y F86y]/1000. F23y=F31y+(x(4)-x(5))*1100*t.[8 16 24 32 40 48 56 66 76 86]) axis([-700 500 8 86]) ylabel('stringerline no 18') grid on 84 .1) plot([F5y F13y F21y F29y F37y F45y F53y F61y F71y F81y]/1000.Appendix B Calculations for Stringer method figure(5) subplot(1.'YDir'.'YDir'.'ytick'.[7 15 23 31 39 47 55 65 75 85]) axis([-1000 0 7 85]) ylabel('stringerline no 17') grid on F86y=-449000. F48y=F56y-x(9)*1100*t.'ytick'.2) plot([F6y F14y F22y F30y F38y F46y F54y F62y F72y F82y]/1000.[7 15 23 31 39 47 55 65 75 85]) set(gca. F66y=F76y-x(18)*1200*t.[5 13 21 29 37 45 53 61 71 81]) axis([-1000 0 5 81]) ylabel('stringerline no 15') grid on F82y=-175000. F38y=F46y-x(8)*1200*t.4. F75y=F85y+(x(18)-x(18))*1100*t.4. F39y=F47y+x(8)*1200*t. subplot(1. F62y=F72y+(x(16)-x(16))*1200*t.

end end Axten2 %Compression reinforcement Fcom2=Fhor2+C2.2*800*t*0.Section B.2*800*t*0.001.001. Axten2(i)=Fhor2(i)*1000/fyd.5*fcd*0.eps %------------------------------------------------------------------------%Reinforcement %------------------------------------------------------------------------fcd=20 %MPa fyd=435 %MPa %------------------------------------------------------------------------%Reinforcement horizontal %------------------------------------------------------------------------%STRINGER 1 %Tension reinforcement Fhor1=[F1x F2x F3x F4x F5x F6x F7x F8x]/1000. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C2=0. for j=1:length(Fcom2) if Fcom2(j)<0. end end 85 . end end Axcom1 %STRINGER 2 %Tension reinforcement Fhor2=[F9x F10x F11x F12x F13x F14x F15x F16x]/1000. if Fhor2(i)>0 .0 print -dwinc verstringforce2. Axcom2(j)=(F1com(j))*1000/fyd. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C1=0. else Axten1(i)=0. end end Axten1 %Compression reinforcement Fcom1=Fhor1+C1. for i=1:length(Fhor1). for i=1:length(Fhor2). else Axcom2(j)=0. for j=1:length(Fcom1) if Fcom1(j)<0.5*fcd*0. if Fhor1(i)>0 . else Axten2(i)=0. Axten1(i)=Fhor1(i)*1000/fyd. Axcom1(j)=(Fcom1(j))*1000/fyd. else Axcom1(j)=0.

end end Axten4 %Compression reinforcement Fcom4=Fhor4+C4.5*fcd*0. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C4=0.5*fcd*0.001.001. else Axcom3(j)=0. end end Axcom4 %STRINGER 5 %Tension reinforcement Fhor5=[F33x F34x F35x F36x F37x F38x F39x F40x]/1000. else Axcom4(j)=0. end end Axten3 %Compression reinforcement Fcom3=Fhor3+C3. if Fhor5(i)>0 . for j=1:length(Fcom3) if Fcom3(j)<0.5*fcd*0. Axten4(i)=Fhor4(i)*1000/fyd. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C3=0. 86 .2*1100*t*0. if Fhor4(i)>0 . else Axten3(i)=0. for j=1:length(Fcom4) if Fcom4(j)<0.2*800*t*0. if Fhor3(i)>0 . else Axten4(i)=0. end end Axcom3 %STRINGER 4 %Tension reinforcement Fhor4=[F25x F26x F27x F28x F29x F30x F31x F32x]/1000.Appendix B Calculations for Stringer method Axcom2 %STRINGER 3 %Tension reinforcement Fhor3=[F17x F18x F19x F20x F21x F22x F23x F24x]/1000. Axten3(i)=Fhor3(i)*1000/fyd. for i=1:length(Fhor5). for i=1:length(Fhor4).2*800*t*0. for i=1:length(Fhor3). %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C5=0.001. Axcom3(j)=(Fcom3(j))*1000/fyd. Axcom4(j)=(Fcom4(j))*1000/fyd.

end end Axten5 %Compression reinforcement Fcom5=Fhor5+C5. for j=1:length(Fcom4) if Fcom5(j)<0. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C7=0. Axcom6(j)=(Fcom6(j))*1000/fyd. end end Axten7 %Compression reinforcement Fcom7=Fhor7+C7. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C6=0. 87 .0 Axten5(i)=Fhor5(i)*1000/fyd. Axcom7(j)=(Fcom7(j))*1000/fyd. Axten7(i)=Fhor7(i)*1000/fyd. if Fhor6(i)>0 . else Axcom5(j)=0. else Axten7(i)=0. else Axcom6(j)=0. end end Axcom5 %STRINGER 6 %Tension reinforcement Fhor6=[F41x F42x F43x F44x F45x F46x F47x F48x]/1000.5*fcd*0.2*1100*t*0. for i=1:length(Fhor7). else Axten6(i)=0. for j=1:length(Fcom7) if Fcom7(j)<0. for j=1:length(Fcom6) if Fcom6(j)<0. else Axten5(i)=0. Axcom5(j)=(Fcom5(j))*1000/fyd. Axten6(i)=Fhor6(i)*1000/fyd. for i=1:length(Fhor6).Section B. end end Axten6 %Compression reinforcement Fcom6=Fhor6+C6.2*800*t*0. if Fhor7(i)>0 . end end Axcom6 %STRINGER 7 %Tension reinforcement Fhor7=[F49x F50x F51x F52x F53x F54x F55x F56x]/1000.001.001.5*fcd*0.

Appendix B Calculations for Stringer method else Axcom7(j)=0. if Fhor9(i)>0 . end end Axcom8 %STRINGER 9 %Tension reinforcement Fhor9=[F67x F68x F69x F70x F71x F72x F73x F74x F75x F76x]/1000. end end Axcom7 %STRINGER 8 %Tension reinforcement Fhor8=[F57x F58x F59x F60x F61x F62x F63x F64x F65x F66x]/1000. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C8=0. for i=1:length(Fhor8). else Axcom8(j)=0. Axten8(i)=Fhor8(i)*1000/fyd. else Axcom9(j)=0.5*fcd*0.2*800*t*0. Axten9(i)=Fhor9(i)*1000/fyd.001. Axcom8(j)=(Fcom8(j))*1000/fyd. Axcom9(j)=(Fcom9(j))*1000/fyd. for j=1:length(Fcom8) if Fcom8(j)<0. else Axten8(i)=0. if Fhor8(i)>0 . end end Axten9 %Compression reinforcement Fcom9=Fhor9+C9. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C9=0.001.5*fcd*0. end end Axcom9 %STRINGER 10 %Tension reinforcement Fhor10=[F77x F78x F79x F80x F81x F82x F83x F84x F85x F86x]/1000. 88 . else Axten9(i)=0. for j=1:length(Fcom9) if Fcom9(j)<0. for i=1:length(Fhor9).2*1100*t*0. end end Axten8 %Compression reinforcement Fcom8=Fhor8+C8.

%The concrete can take up compressionforce: C2y=0.5*fcd*0. Axcom10(j)=(Fcom10(j))*1000/fyd.5*fcd*0.001. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C1y=0. for j=1:length(Fcom1y) if Fcom1y(j)<0.2*1000*t*0.2*1100*t*0. for j=1:length(Fcom10) if Fcom10(j)<0. end end Axcom10 %------------------------------------------------------------------------%Vertical reinforcement %------------------------------------------------------------------------%STRINGER 11 %Tension reinforcement Fver1=[F1y F9y F17y F25y F33y F41y F49y F57y F67y F77y]/1000. else Axcom10(j)=0. for i=1:length(Fhor10).Section B.0 %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C10=0. if Fver1(i)>0 . end end Ayten1 %Compression reinforcement Fcom1y=Fver1+C1y. Aycom1(j)=(Fcom1y(j))*1000/fyd. else Axten10(i)=0.001. end end Axten10 %Compression reinforcement Fcom10=Fhor10+C10.001. %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver1). else Aycom1(j)=0. Axten10(i)=Fhor10(i)*1000/fyd. 89 . Ayten1(i)=Fver1(i)*1000/fyd.2*1000*t*0. if Fhor10(i)>0 . else Ayten1(i)=0.5*fcd*0. end end Aycom1 %STRINGER 12 %Tension reinforcement Fver2=[F2y F10y F18y F26y F34y F42y F50y F58y F68y F78y]/1000.

for j=1:length(Fcom3y) if Fcom3y(j)<0. end end Ayten2 %Compression reinforcement Fcom2y=Fver2+C2y. %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver4). end end Aycom2 %STRINGER 12 %Tension reinforcement Fver3=[F3y F11y F19y F27y F35y F43y F51y F59y F69y F79y]/1000. else Ayten3(i)=0.5*fcd*0.2*1000*t*0. %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver3). Ayten3(i)=Fver3(i)*1000/fyd.001. else Aycom3(j)=0.Appendix B Calculations for Stringer method %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver2). Ayten2(i)=Fver2(i)*1000/fyd. if Fver4(i)>0 .2*1000*t*0.5*fcd*0.001. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C4y=0. if Fver2(i)>0 . Aycom2(j)=(Fcom2y(j))*1000/fyd. Ayten4(i)=Fver4(i)*1000/fyd. 90 . for j=1:length(Fcom2y) if Fcom2y(j)<0. if Fver3(i)>0 . else Aycom2(j)=0. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C3y=0. else Ayten2(i)=0. Aycom3(j)=(Fcom3y(j))*1000/fyd. end end Ayten3 %Compression reinforcement Fcom3y=Fver3+C3y. end end Aycom3 %STRINGER 14 %Tension reinforcement Fver4=[F4y F12y F20y F28y F36y F44y F52y F60y F70y F80y]/1000.

2*1000*t*0. end end Aycom4 %STRINGER 15 %Tension reinforcement Fver5=[F5y F13y F21y F29y F37y F45y F53y F61y F71y F81y]/1000.001. Aycom4(j)=(Fcom4y(j))*1000/fyd. else Aycom4(j)=0.2*1000*t*0.Section B. %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver5). %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver6). else Ayten6(i)=0. end end Ayten6 91 . else Ayten5(i)=0. else Aycom5(j)=0. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C6y=0.0 else Ayten4(i)=0. end end Ayten4 %Compression reinforcement Fcom4y=Fver4+C4y.001. for j=1:length(Fcom5y) if Fcom5y(j)<0. if Fver5(i)>0 . Ayten5(i)=Fver5(i)*1000/fyd. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C5y=0.5*fcd*0. end end Aycom5 %STRINGER 16 %Tension reinforcement Fver6=[F6y F14y F22y F30y F38y F46y F54y F62y F72y F82y]/1000. if Fver6(i)>0 . end end Ayten5 %Compression reinforcement Fcom5y=Fver5+C5y.5*fcd*0. Ayten6(i)=Fver6(i)*1000/fyd. Aycom5(j)=(Fcom5y(j))*1000/fyd. for j=1:length(Fcom4y) if Fcom4y(j)<0.

Aycom6(j)=(Fcom6y(j))*1000/fyd.001. else Aycom7(j)=0. for j=1:length(Fcom6y) if Fcom6y(j)<0. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C7y=0. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C8y=0. end end Aycom6 %STRINGER 17 %Tension reinforcement Fver7=[F7y F15y F23y F31y F39y F47y F55y F65y F75y F85y]/1000.2*1000*t*0. else Ayten8(i)=0. %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver7). Aycom7(j)=(Fcom7y(j))*1000/fyd. Ayten7(i)=Fver7(i)*1000/fyd. end end Ayten8 %Compression reinforcement 92 .001. for j=1:length(Fcom7y) if Fcom7y(j)<0. Ayten8(i)=Fver8(i)*1000/fyd. else Aycom6(j)=0. %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver8). if Fver7(i)>0 . if Fver8(i)>0 .5*fcd*0.5*fcd*0. end end Aycom7 %STRINGER 18 %Tension reinforcement Fver8=[F8y F16y F24y F32y F40y F48y F56y F66y F76y F86y]/1000.2*1000*t*0. end end Ayten7 %Compression reinforcement Fcom7y=Fver7+C7y.Appendix B Calculations for Stringer method %Compression reinforcement Fcom6y=Fver6+C6y. else Ayten7(i)=0.

end end Aycom8 %------------------------------------------------------------------------%Shear reinforcement %------------------------------------------------------------------------Ashear1=x(1)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear2=x(2)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear3=x(3)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear4=x(4)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear5=x(5)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear6=x(6)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear7=x(7)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear8=x(8)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear9=x(9)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear10=x(10)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear11=x(11)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear12=x(12)*700/fyd*1000 Ashear13=x(13)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear14=x(14)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear15=x(15)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear16=x(16)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear17=x(17)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear18a=x(18)*200/fyd*1000 Ashear18b=x(18)*200/fyd*1000 93 . Aycom8(j)=(Fcom8y(j))*1000/fyd. for j=1:length(Fcom8y) if Fcom8y(j)<0.Section B.0 Fcom8y=Fver8+C8y. else Aycom8(j)=0.

.

1: Spandrel labeling 95 .Appendix C Modeling in ETABS Figure C.

Appendix C Modeling in ETABS Figure C. P Figure C. V2 96 .2: Axial forces in spandrels.3: Shear forces in spandrels.

4: Moment forces in spandrels. M3 97 .Section C.0 Figure C.

7 0.8 1. for V [mm2 /m] 18 -31 16 141 25 -120 36 161 23 -136 8 161 90 -50 40 61 255 205 119 163 267 184 144 199 115 44 -58 -107 30 179 56 -96 100 249 113 -211 23 205 125 -118 117 179 41 142 473 393 210 306 598 411 240 364 328 147 135 84 -55 -69 65 214 73 -123 102 251 175 226 229 -8 -144 -71 147 210 51 181 469 307 152 323 251 134 130 40 49 90 -15 188 173 52 -25 385 311 186 371 232 Reinforc.2 1.8 1.7 0.1 Width [m] -11 -25 -9 -113 -49 -10 28 -77 2 37 60 -68 -3 11 3 -35 -62 34 33 -63 -77 19 61 -68 53 6 -8 18 28 -84 -25 38 40 -72 16 117 122 -15 31 14 6 50 -8 -66 -92 62 54 -108 -145 31 68 -117 -107 -15 59 7 -2 16 -1 -57 -16 -44 -132 -188 -141 -131 -234 175 123 15 5 52 -8 -72 -107 28 27 -109 -132 54 80 1 2 -60 1 -80 -147 66 14 -116 -211 256 195 -45 -16 -35 -12 -162 -70 -14 39 -110 2 52 85 -97 -4 16 2 -30 -51 28 28 -52 -64 16 51 -56 44 5 -4 10 16 -47 -14 21 22 -40 9 65 68 -9 17 8 5 42 -6 -55 -76 52 45 -90 -121 26 57 -98 -89 -12 49 6 -1 9 -1 -32 -9 -24 -73 -105 -78 -73 -130 97 68 8 4 44 -7 -60 -89 23 23 -90 -110 45 67 1 1 -26 1 -73 -134 60 12 -106 -192 232 177 -41 6 -9 12 107 8 -37 28 123 7 -41 6 122 27 -15 21 32 133 107 62 85 139 96 75 104 60 23 -46 -84 59 350 44 -75 197 488 88 -165 45 401 98 -92 61 94 22 74 247 205 110 160 312 214 125 190 171 77 71 44 -43 -54 128 420 57 -97 200 492 137 177 449 -16 -113 -56 77 110 27 94 245 160 80 169 229 122 119 36 85 157 -7 90 206 62 -12 184 372 223 178 111 1 1 2.8 1.8 1.2 1.3 2.7 0.5 2.5 1 1 2.2 1.5 2.8 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.5 2.2 1.7 0.2 1.2 1.8 1.5 2.5 2.8 1.8 1.2 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.7 0.Appendix C Modeling in ETABS Spandrel S1 S1 S2 S2 S3 S3 S4 S4 S5 S5 S6 S6 S7 S7 S8 S8 S9 S9 S9 S9 S10 S10 S10 S11 S11 S11 S12 S12 S13 S13 S14 S14 S15 S15 S16 S16 S17 S17 S18 S18 S19 S19 S19 S19 S20 S20 S20 S20 S21 S21 S21 S21 S22 S22 S22 S22 S23 S23 S24 S24 S25 S25 S26 S26 S27 S27 S28 S28 S29 S29 S30 S30 S30 S30 S31 S31 S31 S31 S32 S32 S32 S32 S33 S33 S34 S34 S35 S35 S36 S36 S37 S37 S38 S38 Loc Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Left Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Table C.8 1.7 0.2 1.2 1.2 1.8 1. for P [mm2 /m] 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 5 120 196 0 0 37 6 0 0 64 63 0 0 36 117 0 101 12 0 23 36 0 0 49 51 0 21 149 156 0 40 18 11 97 0 0 0 119 104 0 0 60 130 0 0 0 113 14 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 224 157 19 10 100 0 0 0 53 52 0 0 103 153 3 2 0 3 0 0 138 29 0 0 534 407 0 98 .8 1.2 1.2 1.75 1.5 1 1 2.75 1 1 2.2 1.2 1.5 2.7 0.7 0.5 1 1 2.2 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.75 1.75 1.2 1. for M3 [mm2 ] 15 86 135 -228 -119 116 192 -299 -172 68 126 -249 -138 -14 3 -16 70 -49 23 -35 79 -39 33 66 26 -5 3 222 339 -330 -133 270 472 -638 -342 129 271 -463 -247 -4 11 -54 5 -32 110 -92 40 -61 154 -80 47 -69 99 -14 32 -10 9 285 446 -438 -199 287 506 -608 -326 51 291 -415 -304 -10 14 -61 6 -37 116 -65 28 -63 131 -54 47 -7 10 -55 10 51 167 -110 -55 38 237 -230 -75 -65 Reinforc.7 0.3 1.2 1.75 1.8 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 2.8 1.5 1 1 2.8 1.2 1.2 1.7 0.2 1.1 1.8 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 1 1 2.8 1.2 2.8 1.5 2.5 1 1 2.7 0.2 1.7 0.75 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.8 1.1: Spandrel forces and reinforcement calculations P [kN] P [kN/m] V2 [kN] V2 [kN/m] 8 -14 7 61 11 -52 16 70 10 -59 4 70 39 -22 18 26 111 89 52 71 116 80 63 87 50 19 -25 -47 13 78 25 -42 44 108 49 -92 10 89 55 -51 51 78 18 62 206 171 91 133 260 179 104 158 143 64 59 37 -24 -30 28 93 32 -54 45 109 76 98 100 -4 -63 -31 64 92 22 79 204 133 66 141 109 58 57 17 21 39 -7 82 75 23 -11 167 135 81 161 101 M3 [kNm] 5 26 41 -70 -36 35 58 -91 -52 21 38 -76 -42 -4 2 -8 36 -26 12 -18 41 -20 17 34 14 -3 3 174 266 -259 -104 212 370 -499 -267 101 212 -362 -193 -3 6 -28 3 -17 57 -48 21 -32 80 -42 25 -36 52 -7 17 -5 7 224 349 -343 -156 225 396 -476 -255 40 228 -325 -238 -8 7 -32 3 -20 60 -34 14 -33 69 -28 24 -3 10 -55 5 24 80 -53 -26 18 114 -110 -36 -31 Height [m] 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.5 2.8 1.5 1 1 2.5 1 1 Force M3 [kN] 6 38 59 -99 -52 51 83 -130 -75 30 55 -108 -60 -6 1 -7 30 -21 10 -15 35 -17 14 29 12 -2 1 96 148 -144 -58 118 205 -277 -149 56 118 -201 -107 -2 5 -24 2 -14 48 -40 17 -27 67 -35 21 -30 43 -6 14 -4 4 124 194 -190 -87 125 220 -265 -142 22 126 -181 -132 -4 6 -27 3 -16 50 -28 12 -27 57 -24 20 -3 4 -24 4 22 73 -48 -24 16 103 -100 -33 -28 Reinforc.7 1.1 1.5 2.2 1.8 1.5 2.8 1.8 1.2 1.7 0.2 1.

Section C.0 Figure C.5: Pier labeling Figure C.6: Axial forces in Piers. P 99 .

Appendix C Modeling in ETABS Figure C. V2 Figure C. M3 100 .8: Moment forces in piers.7: Shear forces in piers.

2 1.5 1 1 1 1 1.2 1.5 11.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.Section C.5 11.7 1.2 1.75 1.7 1.2 1.1 1.5 11.2 1.75 Height h[m] 0.5 11.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.7 0.7 0. for V2 163 163 95 95 381 381 374 374 242 242 104 104 338 338 269 269 740 740 866 866 391 391 215 215 426 426 327 327 658 658 699 699 275 275 403 403 101 .1 Force from M3 6 43 -8 53 -101 145 -101 140 -70 87 104 155 175 257 -75 93 -228 236 -253 290 -181 65 381 484 503 598 -55 154 -185 236 -271 176 395 532 -91 346 Reinf.2 1.2: Pier forces and reinforcement calculations V2 [kN] 570 570 49 49 199 199 195 195 126 126 570 570 1183 1183 140 140 386 386 452 452 204 204 1183 1183 1490 1490 171 171 343 343 639 639 1153 1153 338 338 V2 [kN/m] 71 71 41 41 166 166 162 162 105 105 45 45 147 147 117 117 322 322 377 377 170 170 94 94 185 185 142 142 286 286 304 304 120 120 175 175 M3 kNm] 74 491 -8 53 -101 145 -101 140 -70 87 1196 1784 2011 2957 -75 93 -228 236 -253 290 -181 65 4378 5561 5787 6880 -55 154 -185 236 -474 309 3453 4654 -160 606 width [m] 11.7 1.2 1.75 8.2 1. for M3 15 98 -18 123 -233 334 -233 322 -160 200 239 357 402 591 -173 214 -524 542 -581 667 -415 149 875 1112 1157 1375 -127 354 -426 542 -622 406 907 1223 -210 796 Reinf.1 1.0 Pier P1 P1 P2 P2 P3 P3 P4 P4 P5 P5 P6 P6 P7 P7 P8 P8 P9 P9 P10 P10 P11 P11 P12 P12 P13 P13 P14 P14 P15 P15 P16 P16 P17 P17 P18 P18 P [kN] -517 -517 -41 -41 -132 -132 -169 -169 -175 -175 -517 -517 -2105 -2105 -144 -144 -448 -448 -774 -774 -739 -739 -2105 -2105 -3692 -3692 -178 -178 -829 -829 -1073 -1073 -2080 -2080 -1612 -1612 P [kN/m] -45 -45 -41 -41 -132 -132 -169 -169 -175 -175 -45 -45 -183 -183 -144 -144 -448 -448 -774 -774 -739 -739 -183 -183 -321 -321 -178 -178 -829 -829 -613 -613 -238 -238 -921 -921 Table C.75 8.5 11.2 1.5 11.2 1.75 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11.7 0.5 11.1 1.75 1.

.

Version 8.F. 27:1-14. USA. Robert D. 2003 [11] Fajfar.0. California. vol. Copenhagen. 2003 [14] Jónsson. Iceland. Ingeniørenbøger. London. Inc. Earthquake Spectra. Denmark. 1982 [5] Chopra. 2004 [15] Moaveni. Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete.. Inc.. Bjarni & Sigfússon. Prentice Hall. Inc. Copenhagen. W. Thomas Telford. Betonkonstruktioener efter DS411. p. John Wiley & Sons.. User and Theoretical Manual. Designers' Guide to EN 1998-1 and EN 1998-5. Anil K. New York. Code of Practice for the Structural use of Concrete (in Danish). 2. 2003 103 . 2005 [13] Jensen. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. forritunarmál fyrir vísindalega útreikninga (in icelandic). Berkeley. USA. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Design of Concrete Structures. Reykjavík. The Seismic Evaluation and Retrot of Concrete Buildings.. 1996 [3] Bessason. Norway. 16. version 10. 573-593. MATLAB. Kristján. eng. Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. Redwood City. Computer & Structures. Concrete Shear Wall Design Manual. New Jersey. ATC-40 Report. P. Thordur Capacity and earthquake response analysis of RC-shear walls. Nordic concrete research. udgave (in Danish). Inc. Brussels. CSI. Theory and Applications with ANSYS. USA. John Wiley & Sons. Southpointe... Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis. UK. ANSYS. 1999 [8] ETABS. USA. EN1998-1-1.References [1] ANSYS. Útgáfufélagið Slemba. Oslo.. European Commitee for Standardization.. USA [2] ATC. Canonsburg. Person Educations. New York. 2002 [9] Eurocode 2. 2002 [7] DS411. Applied Technology Council. Pennsylvania. Saeed. EN1992-1-1.. USA. Brussels. USA. 2000 [12] Gulvanessian. 2001 [4] Chen. 2001 [6] Cook. Denmark. Dansk Standard. Norm for betonkonstruktioner. Haig. Finite Element Analysis. Inc. 2004 [10] Eurocode 8. European Commitee for Standardization. New Jersey. Bjarne Chr.

2002 104 .boun. Computer & Structures.htm. Berkeley. Inc.eaee. Eugene J & Dixon. A physical Approach with Empahsis on Earthquake Engineering. 1992 [22] SAP2000. 1982 [20] O'Brien. Vol. USA. Gudmundsson. The Complete Process. Edward L.. & Halldorsson. Edward G and Scanlon. No. Version 8. 2002 [26] Wilson. Denmark. Ragnar SOUTH ICELAND QUAKES 2000: Damage and Strong-Motion http://www. Inc.is/utgafa/greinargerdir/2003/03017. American Society of Civil Engineers. Ingeniørenbøger. Berkeley. [24] Stefansson. Inc. USA. Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures.. CSI. and Soparat. http://www. USA. Pall. Priestley.. New York. 2002 [23] Sigbjörnsson. CSI. EARTHRecordings. Andrew Designing Concrete Structures for Serviceabilty and safety. 5. pp. UK. 18.edu. John Wiley & Sons.tr/bulletins/v20/v20web/iceland. Computer & Structures. M. Finite Element Analysis of Cracking Localization: The Smeared Crack Approach with a Mixed Formulation. USA. Arthur H..References [16] Nanakorn. Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity. Ragnar.. udgave (in Danish). Detroit. Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Design. Thammasat International Journal of Science and Technology. Copenhagen. Second Edition.P. 2000. CRC Press. 1999 [21] Pauley.vedur. 3. 2003. American Concrete Institute. P. [17] Nawy. Analsysis Reference Manual. The South Iceland earthquakes 2000 a challenge for earthquake prediction research. 28-39. New York. USA. 1999 [19] Nilson. Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete. Edinburgh. Andrew S. Reykjavík. Longman. P. 1992 [18] Nielsen. USA. Gunnar B. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings.pdf [25] Teknisk Ståbi.