72 views

Uploaded by Wael Kassem

SDRFWESRFWERWE

- 68
- Protecting Concrete Structures From Earthquakes Using Seismic Isolation
- 1-s2.0-S1877705813003779-main.pdf
- Civil_Reinforced Concrete Structures
- budz
- Sherman Notes.pdf
- Beam Design Sheet
- Assignment 1
- Ch 8.4
- 7 Abaqus Conv Guidelines
- sm20
- Strength of Materials
- Production 3 4 Sem
- 2008 Aurelio Muttoni
- New analytical calculation models for compressive arch action in reinforced concrete structures
- RCC95 Continuous Beams (Tables).xls
- gurson
- Thesis End-plate Connection
- TCC12 Bending and Axial Force.xls
- Machine Design - Introduction

You are on page 1of 10

TESTS ON REINFORCED CONCRETE LOW-RISE SHEAR WALLS UNDER STATIC CYCLIC LOADING

Marc BOUCHON1, Nebojsa ORBOVIC2, Bernard FOURE3

SUMMARY

The test program consisted of mechanical tests performed on reinforced concrete walls subjected to alternating shear loads. The aim of the program was to define crack geometry. Tests were carried out on 3 reinforced concrete walls with low slenderness ratios and varying percentages of steel. Each wall was subjected to a sequence of three increasing loads. One of the three walls was loaded to failure. The main results of the program were measurements of displacement as a function of horizontal force, cracking states during the loading cycle, and deformation of rebars. The measurements obtained were used to define a relationship between crack geometry and diagonal elongation, and to verify the suitability of the formula given in the CEB-FIP-1978 model code as a means of assessing crack spacing and opening.

INTRODUCTION

The French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) conducts expert appraisal assignments and research in the nuclear safety fields and provides technical support for the French Nuclear Safety Authority. In this field, earthquakes are one of the key external events to be considered when assessing the behavior of civil engineering structures. French nuclear facilities are mostly built using low-rise reinforced concrete walls. Requirements relating to the behavior of nuclear buildings demand more than simple structural stability and can also apply to the degree of leaktightness of civil structural elements, in particular those forming the outer shell of the buildings. Within this context, IRSN launched a test program on three low-rise reinforced concrete walls, focusing on the study of crack geometry (length, width, and spacing) as a

1

Senior Engineer, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sret Nuclaire (IRSN) B.P.17 92262 FONTENAY AUX ROSES CEDEX FRANCE IRSN 2 Senior Engineer, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sret Nuclaire (IRSN) B.P.17 92262 FONTENAY AUX ROSES CEDEX FRANCE IRSN 3 Consulting Engineer, 15 Chemin des Beauvilliers 78380 BOUGIVAL FRANCE

function of alternating loads applied to represent the effects of the horizontal components of an earthquake. The mechanical tests performed at the CEBTP (French Building and Public Works Test Center) were coupled with measurements of air flow rates at low pressure through cracked walls performed by IRSN.

TESTS SPECIMENS

The three test specimens were similar to those used in earlier studies (Four and Bouchon, 1989), consisting of a reinforced concrete wall, 0.10 m thick, 1.50 m long, and 0.75 m high (see Figure 1). The wall was framed by 0.20 m x 0.18 m beams and columns. The dimensions of the beams used to secure the wall to the test setup were as follows: 0.29 m x 0.18 m for the top beam, and 0.34 m x 0.18 m for the bottom beam. Column dimensions were chosen to balance the bending loads so that the wall was subjected to predominantly shear forces, and 0/20 mm aggregate concrete was used, with no downscaling, in an attempt to reproduce the same irregular profile in cracks along their length and through the wall thickness. The average mechanical characteristics of the concrete (4 measurements for fcj, 3 for ftj and 1 pour Eij) obtained from tests performed on test specimens, are shown in Table 1.

Age (days) 69 71 77

Table 1

As the test structures were not very thick, reinforcement consisted of a single layer of deformed rebars at mid thickness (0.10 m 0.10 m mesh). The same arrangement was adopted for all three test structures, but using varying percentages of rebars, as follows: 6 bars (0.3%) for wall no. 1, 8 bars (0.5%) for wall no. 2, and 10 bars (0.8%) for wall no. 3. Tensile strength tests on the test specimens yielded the results shown in Table 2.

Steel (mm) 6 8 10 12

(*)

(**)

(***)

fr fe

1.04 1.03 1.06 1.05

r 3 (10 ) 22 25 20 20

(****) (****)

Table 2 ((*)Ultimate elastic deformation (a=Ea.) at 0.85 fe approx. (**)0.2% offset yield strength (***) Deformation at a=fe : 3 (****) e2=2.10 +fe/Ea Highly scattered values

The columns are reinforced with 4 12 deformed rebars confined by 3 mm dia. hoops 0.10 m apart.

Figure 2

Detail A (horizontal section) (3) 8 horizontal bars spacing 100 mm (4) 7 hoops spacing 100 mm (1) 2 x 2 bars

Detail B (vertical section) (2) 15 vertical bars spacing 100 (3) 8 bars spacing 100 mm

A constant vertical force yields a mean compression stress of 1 MPa in the wall. An alternating horizontal force was applied in the mean plane of the walls, at three increasing values F1, F2 and F3. This force was related to the measurement of the horizontal displacement, which was held constant at each load level during the measurements. These were performed for each load level in positions +Fi and -Fi and for the unloaded wall. The first level F1 was chosen to be slightly above the value at which shear cracks appear in the wall (flexural cracks appear in the posts at an earlier stage). The last plateau F3 was close to the ultimate load (approximately 0.85 Fu). Load F2 was close to the mean value between F1 and F3. Only the third wall was loaded beyond the F3 level to ultimate state. Wall ultimate state occurred for the negative value of load Fu = 853 kN, corresponding to a shear stress of 5.68 MPa. The lowest value (760 kN) obtained in the positive direction was probably underestimated owing to the momentary loss of relation. For each test structure, the horizontal force values considered during the tests are shown in Table 3, along with the corresponding shear stresses.

Specimen Plateau F1 F1 (KN) Test No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 304 304 304 (MPa) 2.0 2.0 2.0 Plateau F2 F2 (KN) Test 400 450 490 (MPa) 2.7 3.0 3.3 Plateau F3 F3 (KN) Test 550 645 687 (MPa 3.7 4.3 4.6 ultimate Fu Fu (KN) Test

(*) (*)

(MPa

+760/853

5.06/5.68

Table 3

For each horizontal force level, the variables measured were as follows: horizontal force, horizontal displacement at the top, vertical displacement at both ends, variations in diagonal lengths, crack width (using an optical crack measuring device) at the intersecting points of a grid plotted on the wall (0.10 m x 0.10 m grid to match the reinforcement grid) and rebar deformation (particularly on wall no. 3, which was loaded to failure). Cracks were plotted as loading progressed and photographed during the test phases. Crack width was measured to the nearest 0.02 mm. Below this value, cracks were considered as hair cracks with a theoretical width of 0.01 mm.

Crack density Crack density was characterized by the total length of the cracks observed on one side of the wall, reduced to the unit area. Three categories of cracks were analyzed: "open" cracks due to the effect of negative forceFi, closed cracks that existed under the force +Fi and all cracks together. The following results were obtained (see Table 4).

Test No. 1

Load plateau -F1 -F2 -F3 -F1 -F2 -F3 -F1 -F2 -F3

No. 2

0.5%

No. 3

0.8%

Mean shear (Mpa) 2.0 2.7 3.7 2.0 3.0 4.3 2.0 3.3 4.6

Crack density (length in m/area in m) 2.3 4.2 9.6 0.8 5.3 12.4 2.7 9.4 16.8

Table 4

Even when reduced to the same shearing level, crack density values increased with the percentage of rebars, or in other words, they increase as average crack spacing decreased.

Crack width under load For all cracks, width distribution was characterized by the values given in Table 5.

Test No. 1 Level -F1 -F2 -F3 -F1 -F2 -F3 F1 -F2 -F3 Number of measurements 26 44 101 14 52 128 35 109 187 minimum 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 Widths (mm) average 0.045 0.088 0.157 0.024 0.101 0.126 0.057 0.163 0.110 maximum 0.19 0.35 0.60 0.12 0.34 0.62 0.20 0.35 0.60

No. 2

No. 3

Table 5

Owing to the accumulation of very low values, opening distribution was not Gaussian. Load F3, even saw the appearance of two-peak histograms, no doubt corresponding to the "open" and "closed" crack categories.

Residual width of cracks after loading

A factor of 0.4 was applied to crack widths determined under load to obtain a good approximation of residual widths after rather high loading, but with no notable yielding in rebars (see Table 6).

Test

Plateau

opening ( Fi = 0) opening ( Fi )

0.62 0.65 0.39 0.58 0.14 0.44 0.61 0.25 0.14 0.42 0.60 0.35 0.32

No. 1

No. 2

No. 3

General

F1 F2 F3 F1 F2 F3 F1 F2 F3 average F1 F2 F3

Table 6

Predicting crack spacing and width Based on the analytical formulas of the CEB-FIP 1978 model code, which appear more reliable than those of the 1980 model code, average crack spacing can be determined as follows: sm =2 c+ s +k1k2 4bh ; 10 k1 = 0.4 (deformed rebars) k2 = 0.1875 (intermediate values between 0.25 for pure tension and 0.125 for simple bending).

( )

Test Cover c (mm) Spacing s (mm) Effective thickness b (mm) Effective width h (mm) Average spacing sm (mm) calculated Average spacing sm (mm) observed

Table 7

Agreement with the test was average, given that the cracks were shear and not tensile or flexural cracks. The 1990 model code gives the following formula for calculating spacing for two orthogonal layers of rebars following directions x (horizontal) and y (vertical), and where is the angle of the cracks with respect to y: s'm=( cos/smx +sin/smy)-1 This common value ensures compatibility with the crack width values estimated along the x and y axes. The average rebar elongation is computed as follows:

sm =

s ,max

Es

1 2

sc s ,max

> 0.4

s ,max

Es

; deformed rebars: 1 = 1

No actual load repetition: 2 = 1. Stress in rebar just after the first cracks open: sc The main application difficulty was in assessing stresses s,max and sc due to shear in a lowrise RC wall. These values could be determined from the measurements carried out for test no. 3 using gauges bonded to the rebars. It was deduced from the values that the sc/s,max ratio (first crack stress/maximum stress) was approximately 0.35 on average, and that s,max was approximately 320 Mpa on average for horizontal rebars and 300 Mpa for vertical rebars. 3 According to the CEB-FIP 1978 formula, this gives sm= 1.4x10 for horizontal bars and 3 1.3x10 for vertical bars. Average crack width is calculated by: wm =sm sm For cracks slanting with respect to the orthogonal rebars, this would give: wmx= (s'm/ cos ) smx wmy= (s'm/ sin ) smy wm=1/2 (wmx cos + w my sin) = 1/2 (smx + smy) s'm A more or less equivalent result can be obtained by directly calculating: w'mx =smx smx and w'my =smy smy wm=1/2 (w'mx cos + w'my sin)

The experimental value of 130 mm obtained for the spacing of the main cracks in test no. 3 was taken and converted into spacing along the x and y axes as a function of the average angle = 51.5 smx = lf/cos 210 mm, smy = lf/sin 165 mm whence: w'mx 0.29 mm, w'my 0.21 mm, wm=1/2 (w'mx cos + w'my sin) 0.17 mm This value is higher than the average measured value of 0.11 mm. This could be due to the fact that deformation measurements, which are located around the central part of the wall, overestimate the value of s,max valid on average for the whole wall.

CONCLUSION This test program provided data for estimating crack geometry in low-rise RC walls subjected to alternating shear loads. The main conclusions are as follows: - crack density increases with the percentage of rebars, i.e. when average crack spacing and width decrease, - residual crack width after unloading is on average about 40% of the width under load, - the formulas for predicting crack width, which were initially valid for flexural cracks in beams, are not entirely satisfactory for shear cracks in low-rise RC walls w. Further studies will be required on this subject. In addition, it should be borne in mind that the mechanical tests were coupled with air flow rate measurements for various pressure values.

REFERENCES

1. Bouchon M. and Four B. Essai de voiles en bton arm percs d'une ouverture, soumis des cisaillements alterns dans leur plan- AFPS 2nd national symposium, April, Vol. II, CM 29-39; 2. Lafolie F., Bouchon M., Four B. and al.- Behavior of reinforced concrete walls subjected to alternating dynamic loads- 10th WCEE, July 1992, Madrid, Spain ; 3. Four B., Durand J-P, Essais de voiles en bton arm, CEBTP nR112-6-231.

- 68Uploaded byreloaded63
- Protecting Concrete Structures From Earthquakes Using Seismic IsolationUploaded bycisco
- 1-s2.0-S1877705813003779-main.pdfUploaded byAkhilesh B.M
- Civil_Reinforced Concrete StructuresUploaded byPreetha Sreekumar
- budzUploaded byamay77
- Sherman Notes.pdfUploaded byAbdul Hamid Bhatti
- Beam Design SheetUploaded byRavi Sharma Bhandari
- Assignment 1Uploaded byAnil Sah
- Ch 8.4Uploaded byRammiris Man
- 7 Abaqus Conv GuidelinesUploaded byEngKamal Moh
- sm20Uploaded bypaul sanchez
- Strength of MaterialsUploaded byJJ Arandia
- Production 3 4 SemUploaded bydevarajs2010
- 2008 Aurelio MuttoniUploaded bySonja Pavic
- New analytical calculation models for compressive arch action in reinforced concrete structuresUploaded bykashif2298
- RCC95 Continuous Beams (Tables).xlsUploaded byAhsan Sattar
- gursonUploaded bym.farouk1100
- Thesis End-plate ConnectionUploaded byRoth Chanraksmey
- TCC12 Bending and Axial Force.xlsUploaded byhala_azhari
- Machine Design - IntroductionUploaded byluffydmon
- ram structural system tutorial ä·â.pdfUploaded byPushpakaran Pillai
- Beam Design125Uploaded bydhruvgoku
- Shear Capacity of Prestressed Hollow Core Slabs in Slim Floor ConstructionsUploaded bySulaiman Mohsin AbdulAziz
- 024_7013am0710_191_200Uploaded byKy Visoth Sambath
- Floor Slab BS Std.Uploaded byMelissa Crystal Sammy
- lecture25.pptUploaded byRobert Andy Wood
- Design of roadsUploaded byhemant kumar
- 10703-R1 rev AUploaded byGP
- 53celp0hvtvn89hmf88jhhcdm5_คู่มือการออกแบบโครงสร้างสะพานพิเศษ(2)part2Uploaded byCao Tú Hoàng
- Chapter 1 Strut and Tie Model_2015Uploaded byAnonymous FqoeISz

- CH11 CompositesUploaded byWael Kassem
- CH08 MasonryUploaded byWael Kassem
- Data StreamUploaded byWael Kassem
- 117Uploaded byWael Kassem
- Standards ytuyUploaded byWael Kassem
- 578 Joshua s Tyau 2009 FsfUploaded byWael Kassem
- WarningSDASDUploaded byWael Kassem
- conference precesingsUploaded byWael Kassem
- 4 Prestressed Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected to TorsiónUploaded byWael Kassem
- a05v5n5Uploaded byWael Kassem
- 107-s34Uploaded byWael Kassem
- Web View AbleUploaded byWael Kassem
- Chapter5 Strength of materialsUploaded byWael Kassem
- ATENA TroubleshootingUploaded byWael Kassem
- وحدة العلوم والتقنية - عمادة البحث العل..Uploaded byWael Kassem
- guidelines4preschool_2.pdfUploaded byWael Kassem
- RefWorks Quick Start GuideUploaded byheyuu2
- RefWorks Quick Start GuideUploaded byheyuu2
- Lecture2.1-4Uploaded byWael Kassem
- Design and Analysis of Complex D-Regions in Reinforced Concrete StructuresUploaded byWael Kassem
- Lecture 6(matlab)Uploaded byVipin Nair
- Park Strut and Tie m 2007Uploaded byWael Kassem
- WarningSDASDUploaded byWael Kassem
- Matamoros Design of Simply supported beams 2003Uploaded byWael Kassem
- 20220Uploaded byWael Kassem
- DSFSDFSDFUploaded byWael Kassem
- Week 4 2Uploaded byWael Kassem
- Strut and Tie CalculationUploaded bygmazzucco
- 140107170042_140114_tews_158_stumpedUploaded byWael Kassem

- Mechanical Characterization and Constitutive Parameter Identification of Anisotropic Tubular Materials for Hydroforming ApplicationsUploaded byraju
- Curvature Ductility of Reinforced Concrete BeamUploaded byLopau Animasreb
- Hilti Fastening Technology Manual - IntroductionUploaded byPeter
- 1 Characterization of Cast Iron Using Ultrasonic TestingUploaded byspawnmeaddow
- Yield Tensile Strength DuctilityUploaded byridminj
- Mechanical testing.docxUploaded bygosaye desalegn
- docslide.us_callister-concept-check-answers.docUploaded byJayant Chaudhari
- FLYASH BRICKS.pptUploaded bybhaskar_jd
- A Reassessment of the Analysis Provisions for Bond and Anchorage Length of Deformed Reinforcing Bars in TensionUploaded byBONFRING
- GEASUploaded byRafael Mappala Dagasao
- Fatigue 2013 Doc QuickstartUploaded byDasaka Brahmendra
- BEHAVIOUR OF BUILT – UP COLD FORMED STEEL SECTIONSUploaded byijaert
- Conference on Structural Marvels - Reflections at Keppel Bay 07Sept10Uploaded byTan Yi Liang
- NISTNCSTAR1-3DDraftUploaded byZenghu Han
- IJEART021003Uploaded byerpublication
- Tire_a_partUploaded byJosin Jose
- Papers Cimentaciones ProfundasUploaded byjimmy Andres
- AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING.pdfUploaded byrajinder_hpiph
- Plasticity and Metal Forming-piUploaded byselva_raj215414
- Press Tool operation and functionsUploaded byjagan
- A Simple Quantitative Method for Identification of Failure Due to Fatigue DamageUploaded byMohammed Alhorani
- Forming (NPTEL Web Course)Uploaded byabhisheks5987
- Needle Free Injection SystemsUploaded bykandulasatish
- Suggesting a Simple Design Method for Cold Recycled Asphalt Mixes With Asphalt EmulsionUploaded byRakesh
- Stress Analysis Pressure VesselsUploaded byflorin
- Hearn EJ Mechanics of MaterialsUploaded byIsmail Bello
- IS CODEUploaded byraghu_chandra_3
- Iecep-geas.docxUploaded byweng
- 2A281_8PCEE_KabeyasawaUploaded bySajjad Fayyazi
- Csi Rug c Net Engineering ScienceUploaded byKoushik Mandal