Wallace-Slender Walls FINAL V5 Present Handout

Slender Wall Behavior & Modeling
John Wallace
University of California, Los Angeles
with contributions from
Dr. Kutay Orakcal
Presentation Overview
FEMA 356 Requirements
General requirements
Modeling approaches
!
!
"
Beam-column, fiber, general
Stiffness, strength
Experimental Results
Model Assessment
"
Rectangular, T-shaped cross sections
FEMA backbone relations
"
Flexure dominant walls

2
FEMA 356
Nonlinear Modeling for Buildings with
Slender RC Walls
FEMA 356 RC Walls

General Considerations 6.8.2.1
!
Represent stiffness, strength, and

deformation capacity
Model all potential failure modes anywhere
along the wall (member) height
Interaction with other structural and
nonstructural elements shall be considered
So, we must consider any and everything
4
Wall Modeling Approaches

Equivalent beam-column model
! hw/lw ! 3
Modified equivalent beam-column
!
!
Rectangular walls (hw/lw " 2.5)

Flanged walls (hw/lw " 3.5)
Multiple-line-element and Fiber models

!
Concrete and rebar material models
General wall model

5
Equivalent Beam-Column Model

hw/lw ! 3:
!
Use of equivalent beamcolumn permitted

Neutral axis migration not
considered
Interaction with in- and outof-plane elements not
properly considered
Axial load Impacts
" Stiffness (EI)
" Strength (P-M)
L- or T-shaped walls
" Where to locate the
element?
" Elastic centroid?
Column at
wall
centroid
Wall
Beams
Rigid end
zones for
beam
Hinges
Acolumn $ twlw
I column
% 1 3&
$ # cracking ' twlw (
)12
*
Modified Beam - Column Model

Rectangular walls (hw/lw " 2.5)
& Flanged walls (hw/lw " 3.5):
Use of modified
beam-column element
with added shear spring
Wall
Beams
Column at
wall
centroid
Shear
spring
Nonlinear flexure/shear
are uncoupled using this
approach
Hinges
7
Modified Beam - Column Model

Shear force deformation properties
Deformation-controlled component
a
B
1.0
IO
b-a
LS
CP
C
V
Vn
/
0
Vy
+y $ 1
h
1 , G $ 0.4 E - A 22
c
3 c
4
/ 1 0
Gc $ Ec 1
2 and . 5 0.2
3 1 6 2. 4
0.2
+y/h
+/h
c
8
Fiber Section Model

Actual cross section
Concrete Fibers
Steel Fibers
!
!
Typically use a more refined mesh where yielding is anticipated;

however,
Nonlinear strains tend to concentrate in a single element, thus, typically
use an element length that is approximately equal to the plastic hinge
length (e.g., 0.5lw). Might need to calibrate them first (this is essential).
Calibration of fiber model with test results, or at least a plastic hinge
model, is needed to impose a reality check on the element size and
integration points used.
9
Materials
Maximum permissible
compressive strain for
unconfined concrete
(FEMA 356 S6.4.3.1)
Unconfined Concrete
Stress (ksi)
7 = 0.002 or 0.005
Limit state
associated
with crack
width
% 27 / 7 02 &
f c $ f c' ' c 8 1 c 2 ( 9 f c'
') 7 0 3 7 0 4 (*
Linear descending branch defined by:
,7
$ 0.002; f c' - and , 7 c 85 $ 0.0038; 0.85f c' -
Strain
In the absence of cylinder stress-strain tests, Saatcioglu & Razvi (ASCE, JSE,
1992) recommend relation based on work by Hognestad.
10
Materials
Confined Concrete (FEMA 356 6.4.3.1)
!
Use appropriate model, e.g.:

" Saatcioglu & Razvi (ASCE JSE, 1992, 1995)
" Mander (ASCE JSE, 1988)
" Modified Kent & Park (ASCE JSE, 1982)
!
For reference
FEMA 356 Qualifications:

" Maximum usable compression strain based on
experimental evidence and consider limitations
posed by hoop fracture and longitudinal bar
buckling.
11
Materials
Steel Material:
Maximum usable strain limits per
FEMA 356 S6.4.3.1
7 = 0.05
Stress (ksi)
7 = 0.02
Strain
12
General Wall Models/FE Models

e.g., RAM-PERFORM:
!
!
!
Flexure - fiber model (2-directions)

Shear - Trilinear backbone relation
Flexibility to model complex wall
geometry
Mesh refinement issues
Flexure/Axial
Shear
Concentration of nonlinear
Deformations in one element
13
Stiffness Modeling
FEMA 356 Section 6.8.2.2 Use Table 6.5
!
Uncracked: EIeffective = 0.8EIg
Cracked: EIeffective = 0.5EIg
MOMENT
0.75EcIg 0.5EcIg
30 x 2 ft Wall Section
16 - #14 Boundary
#6@12" Web
1.0, 0.75, 0.5, 0.4EcIg
P=0.30Agf'c
P=0.20Agf'c
P=0.10Agf'c
CURVATURE
Wallace, et al., 4NCEE, Vol. 2, pp 359-368, 1990.
14
Response Correlation Studies

!
!
!
Ten Story Building in San Jose, California

Instrumented: Base, 6th Floor, and Roof
Moderate Intensity Ground Motions Loma Prieta
4.53 m (14.88 ft)
5 @ 10.97 m (36 ft)
8.84 m (29 ft)
1.68 m
8.84 m (29 ft) (5.5 ft)
PLAN VIEW: CSMIP BUILDING 57356

15
Response Correlation Studies

!
!
Displacement (in.)
Ten Story Building in San Jose, California

Instrumented: Base, 6th Floor, and Roof
Moderate Intensity Ground Motions Loma Prieta
1.5
Analysis - 0.5Ig
Measured
0
-1.5
0
10
Time (sec)
20
30
16
Strength Requirements
ACI 318 Provisions
!
Pn- Mn
" For extreme fiber compression strain of 7c =0.003.
Vn
" ACI 318-99,02,05 Equation 21-7
Vn $ Acv %# c f c' 6 :t f y &

)
*
# c $ 3.0 for hw / lw " 1.5
# c $ 2.0 for hw / lw ! 2.0
Linear interpolation
allowed for intermediate
values
17
Definition of Wall Cross Section

Cross-Section Definition
beff
Flexural strength
!
0.25hw
As' ,bound 6 As' , flange
As
As ,bound 6 As , flange
As'
Consider all vertical reinforcement within web

and within the effective flange width
Consider the influence of openings on

the strength and detailing requirements
!
ACI 318-02, 05 Appendix A Strut & Tie Approach
18
Behavior of Flanged Walls

Flange Compression versus Tension
beff
As
beff
7t
7c
Flange Compression
Low compressive strain
Large curvature capacity
Mn & Vu similar rectangle
As ,bound 6 As , flange
7t
7c
Flange Tension
Large compressive strain
Less curvature capacity
M n ; Vu ;
19
RW2 & TW1: ~ scale tests
Displacement-based design
Thomsen & Wallace, ASCE JSE, April 2004.
Uncoupled design
20
Lateral Load (kips)
80
40
Lateral Drift (%)
-2.8
-1.4
0.0
1.4
2.8
P = 0.09Agf'c
vu,max = 4.85<f'c
P = 0.07Agf'c
vu,max = 2.32<f'c
Abrupt
Lateral
Strength loss
Due to
buckling;
Axial load
Maintained
RW2
-40
TW1
RW2
TW1
-80
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
Top Displacement (in.)
4.0
21
RW2 & TW2: ~ scale tests
Displacement-based design of T-shape
Thomsen & Wallace, ASCE JSE, April 2004.
22
Lateral Load (kips)
80
40
-2.8
Lateral Drift (%)
-1.4
0.0
1.4
2.8
P = 0.075Agf'c
vu,max = 5.5<f'c
P = 0.07Agf'c
vu,max = 2.32<f'c
Lateral
strength loss
due to lateral
Instability due
to spalling;
Axial load
maintained
RW2
-40
-80
TW2
RW2
TW2
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
23
Model Assessment
Comparison of Analytical and
Experimental results
24
MVLE (Fiber) Model

5
6
Rigid Beam
.
.
.
.
.
(1-c)h
h
k1 k2 . .
kH . . . . . k n
ch
1
2
3
Rigid Beam
RC WALL
WALL MODEL
Basic assumptions:
Plane sections (rigid rotation of top/bottom beams
Uniaxial material relations (vertical spring elements)

MVLE Model versus Fiber Model:
Similar to a fiber model except with constant curvature
over the element height (vs linear for fiber model)
Orakcal, Wallace, Conte; ACI SJ, Sept-Oct 2004.
25
Material (Uni-axial) Models

Stress, >
>y
(7= 'c , =f 'c)
E1= bE0
Compression
E0
O
7y
O
(70, 0)
(70+ 7t , ft)
Strain, 7
Reinforcing Steel :
Menegotto and Pinto (1973)
Filippou et al. (1984)
# Simple but effective
# Degradation of
cyclic curvature
Tension
Not to scale
Strain, 7
Concrete :
Chang and Mander (1994)
# Generalized (can be updated)
# Allows refined calibration
# Gap and tension stiffening
26
Model Assessment
$ Approximately 1/4 scale
$ Aspect ratio = 3
$ Displacement based
$
$
$
$
$
evaluation for detailing

provided at the wall
boundaries
12 ft tall, 4 ft long, 4
inches thick
#3 vertical steel, 3/16
hoops/ties
#2 deformed web steel
Constant axial load
Cyclic lateral
displacements applied at
the top of the walls
27
Instrumentation
Extensive instrumentation provided to measure
wall response at various locations
Wire Potentiometers
(horizontal displacement)
RW2
Wire Potentiometers
(X configuration)
Steel Strain Gage Levels
Rigid
Reference
Frame
Wire Potentiometers
(vertical displacement)
LVDT's
Concrete Strain Gages
Linear Potentiometers
(Pedestal Movement)
Massone & Wallace; ACI SJ, Jan-Feb 2004.
28
Applied Lateral Displacement

80
40
1
0
-1
-40
Applied displacement
Pedestal movement excluded
Pedestal movement and
shear deformations excluded
-80
80
-2
2
40
-40
-1
TW2
-80
0
100
Drift Ratio (%)
Top Displacement (mm)
RW2
-2
200
300
400
500
Data Point Number
600
700
800
29
Model Details RW2

1219 mm
3 @ 191 mm
3 @ 51 mm 153 mm
19 mm
8 - #3 bars
(db=9.53 mm)
153 mm
#2 bars (db=6.35 mm)

@ 191 mm
3 @ 51 mm
Hoops (db=4.76 mm)

@ 76 mm
19 mm
19 mm
64 mm
102 mm
19 mm
uniaxial element # :
m=16
(1-c)h
h
k1 k2 . .
kH . . . . . k n
ch
.
.
.
.
.
2
1
30
Model Details TW2

1219 mm
19 mm
19 mm
3 @ 51 mm
153 mm
3 @ 191 mm
3 @ 51 mm
153 mm
19 mm
19 mm
64 mm
3 @ 51 mm
102 mm
19 mm
12-19
8 - #3 bars
(db=9.53 mm)
11
10

@ 191 mm
Hoops (db=4.76 mm)

@ 76 mm
3 @ 140 mm

@ 140 mm
1219 mm
102 mm
6
2 - #2 bars (db=6.35 mm)
5
4
3
Hoops and cross-ties (db=4.76 mm)

@ 38 mm
4 @ 102 mm
8 - #3 bars
(db=9.53 mm)
Hoops (db=4.76 mm)
@ 32 mm
uniaxial element # :
19 mm
102 mm
31
Concrete Model - Unconfined

50
Stress (MPa)
40
30
Test Results
1st Story
2nd Story
3rd Story
4th Story
20
10
Analytical (Unconfined)
0
0
0.001
0.002
Strain
0.003
0.004
32
Concrete Model - Confined

70
60
TW2 Web
Stress (MPa)
50
RW2
40
30
TW2 Flange
Unconfined Model
Mander et al. (1988)
Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992)
20
10
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
Strain
0.02
0.025
33
Concrete Model - Tension

2.5
2.5
(7t ,ft )
Stress (MPa)
1.5
1
1.5
0.5
0
0.5
0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Chang and Mander (1994)

Belarbi and Hsu (1994)
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
Strain
34
Reinforcement Material Model

600
500
400
Tension
#3 (RW2 & TW2 Flange)
#3 (TW2 Web)
#2 (TW2 Web)
#2 (RW2 & TW2 Flange)
Stress (MPa)
300
200
100
700
600
0
-100
-200
500
400
Compression
#3
#2
-300
Test Results
300
#3 rebar
#2 rebar
4.76 mm wire
200
-400
100
-500
0
0
-600
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0.01
0.02
0.03
Strain
35
Model Assessment RW2

Lateral Flexural Drift (%)
-2
-1
-0.5
Pax 5 0.07Ag=f 'c
150
Plat , +top
100
0.5
1.5
Test
Analysis
RW2
50
0
-50
Pax (kN)
Lateral Load, Plat (kN)
200
-1.5
-100
-150
500
400
300
200
100
0
-200
-80
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
Top Flexural Displacement, +top (mm)
80
36

-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
1.5
RW2
Story Number
4
Top
3
2
1
Applied Lateral
Drift Levels:
0.75%
1.0 %
0
-80
-60
-40
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
-20
Test
Analysis
0
20
40
60
Lateral Flexural Displacement (mm)
80
37
Displacement
(mm)
Rotation
(rad)
0.02
RW2
0.01
(First Story)
0
-0.01
0.008 FEMA 356 CP limit
Test
Analysis
15
10
5
2.0%
1.5%
0
-5
-10
-15
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Data Point
Results based on recommended values for material parameters; however,
results could vary, maybe significantly, for different element lengths and
material parameters (particularly if no strain hardening)
38

0.035
Concrete Strain
0.03
0.025
RW2
Boundary Zone
Concrete Strain Gage

LVDT
2.0%
Analysis
0.02
1.5%
1.5%
0.015
1.0%
0.01
0.005
1.0%
0.75%
0.25%
0.5%
0
-0.005
-0.01
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Data Point
Orakcal & Wallace; ACI SJ, in-press for publication in 2006 (see 13WCEE).
39

0.035
Concrete Strain
0.03
0.025
RW2
Boundary Zone
Concrete Strain Gage

LVDT
2.0%
Analysis
0.02
1.5%
1.5%
0.015
1.0%
0.01
0.005
1.0%
0.75%
0.25%
0.5%
0
-0.005
-0.01
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Data Point
Orakcal & Wallace; ACI SJ, in-press for publication in 2006 (see 13WCEE).
40
Model Assessment TW2

-2
-1.5
-0.5
0.5
Pax 5 0.075Ag=f 'c
400
Plat , +top
300
200
1.5
Test
C
Analysis
TW2
100
0
T
-100
-200
Pax (kN)
Lateral Load, Plat (kN)
-1
-300
-400
-80
-60
-40
-20
750
500
250
0
20
40
60
Top Flexural Displacement, +top (mm)
80
41

-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
1.5
TW2
Story Number
4
Top
T
C
C
2
1
Applied Lateral
Drift Levels:
0.75%
1.0 %
0
-80
-60
-40
T
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
-20
Test
Analysis
0
20
40
60
Lateral Flexural Displacement (mm)
80
42
Flange Concrete Strain (LVDTs)

0.025
0.02
2.5%
TW2
Test
Analysis
0.015
0.5%
1.0%
2.0%
2.5%
0.01
0.005
2.0%
2.5%
2.0%
7y
C
0
-0.005
-600
-400
-200
200
400
600
Distance along Flange from Web (mm)

43
Model Assessment Stability

Lateral Load (kips)
80
40
-2.8
Lateral Drift (%)
-1.4
0.0
1.4
2.8
P = 0.09Agf'c
vu,max = 4.85<f'c
P = 0.075Agf'c
vu,max = 5.5<f'c
-40
TW1
TW2
-80
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
TW1 Abrupt failure due to buckling

TW2 Lateral instability due to spalling
and large compression
44
Model Assessment - Stability
Rebar Buckling at Wall Boundary
Rebar Fracture Following

Buckling at Wall Boundary
Instabilities, such as rebar buckling and lateral web buckling, and rebar fracture
are typically not considered in models; therefore, engineering judgment is required.
Loss of lateral-load capacity does not necessarily mean loss of axial load capacity 45
FEMA 356 Table 6-18
46
FEMA 356 Table 6-18
47
FEMA 356 Modeling Parameters

WALL RW2:
As $ As'
& P $ 0.07 Ag f c'
& Hoops @ 2" o.c.
2(0.027 in 2 ) $ 0.09( s )(hc $ 6"6 3 / 8"6 3 /16")(5 ksi / 63 ksi)

s 9 1.2"
Non-conforming
WALL TW2: Flange Compression

As $ 8 - #3
A s' $ 10 - #3 and 4 - #2
f y 5 63 ksi & Hoops/Ties @ s=4"
No special detailing required: Conforming
,A 8 A - f
s
'
s
twlw f c'
Vu
twlw f c'
y 6P
%) 80.42 in 2 *& , 63 ksi $

6 0.075(2) $ 0.127
4"(48")( ! 6 ksi)
40 kips
$ 2.7
4"(48") 6000 /1000
48

WALL TW2: Flange Tension
As' $ 8 - #3 & 2 - #2
A s $ 24 - #3 and 8 - #2 & f y 5 63 ksi
Hoops/Ties @ s=1.25" (5 legs and 2 legs)

5(0.027 in 2 ) $ 0.09( s )(hc $ 16"6 3 / 8"6 3 /16")(6 ksi / 63 ksi)
2(0.027 in 2 ) $ 0.09( s )(hc $ 2.5"6 3 / 8"6 3 /16")(6 ksi / 63 ksi)
s 9 1.0 "
s 9 2.1"
! Conforming
,A 8 A - f
s
'
s
twlw f c'
Vu
t w lw
6P
16(0.11) 6 6(0.049) @ , 63 ksi ?

$
6 0.075(2) $ 0.26
4"(48")( ! 6 ksi)
80 kips
$
$ 5.4
'
f c 4"(48") 6000 /1000
49

Tables 6-18 (partial):
Walls Controlled by Flexure
'
( As 8 As ) f y 6 P Conf.
V
'
twlw fc'
Bound. twlw fc
Model Parameters, Radians

Plastic
Hinge
Plastic
Hinge
Residual
Strength
" 0.1
Yes
"3
0.015
0.02
0.75
" 0.1
No
"3
0.008
0.015
0.60
! 0.25
Yes
!6
0.005
0.010
0.30
! 0.25
No
!6
0.002
0.004
0.20
TW2
Flange Comp
RW2
TW2
Flange Tension
50
FEMA Backbone Relation RW2

Plateral
Mn
$
$ 29.4 kips
hw
3
% , Plateral hload
&
(
Ay $ '
') 3Ec , 0.5 I g - (*
29.4k (150")3
$
$ 0.41"
ksi
in 4
3(4000 )(18, 432 )
A a $ 0.008(144") $ 1.15"
A b $ 0.015(144") $ 2.16"
Presidual $ 0.6(29.4k ) $ 17.6 kips
51
FEMA Backbone Relations TW2

Flange Compression
Plateral
Mn
$
$ 40.2 kips
hw
3
% , Plateral hload
&
(
Ay $ '
') 3Ec , 0.5I g - (*
40.2k (150")3
$
ksi
in 4
3(4400 )(40, 700 )
$ 0.25"
I g $ 2.2 , I g -
4 x 48
y =34.5"
Flange Tension
Plateral
Mn
$
$ 77.0 kips
hw
3
% , Plateral hload
&
(
Ay $ '
') 3Ec , 0.5 I g - (*
77.0k (150")3
$
4
3(4400ksi )(40, 700in )
$ 0.48"
I g $ 2.2 , I g -
4 x 48
y =34.5"
A a $ 0.015(144") $ 2.16"
A b $ 0.020(144") $ 2.88"
A a $ 0.005(144") $ 0.72"
A b $ 0.010(144") $ 1.44"
Presidual $ 0.75(40.2k ) $ 30.2 kips
Presidual $ 0.30(77.0k ) $ 23.1 kips

52
Backbone Curve RW2

Lateral Drift (%)
20
-1.4
0.0
1.4
2.8
P = 0.07Agf'c
vu,max = 2.2<f'c psi
100
FEMA 356 NC/C
0
Ay $
-20
NC C
3
, M n / hw -, hw -
3Ec I cr
-100
Plat@Mn(7c=0.003)=29.4k
Lateral Load (kN)
Lateral Load (kips)
40
-2.8
-40
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
53
Backbone Curve TW2
Lateral Drift (%)
-1.4
Lateral Load (kips)
P = 0.075Agf'c
40
0.0
1.4
2.8

Plat@Mn(7c=0.003)=40.2k
200
, M n / hw -, hw Ay $
-40
3Ec I cr
-200
Plat@Mn(7c=0.003)=77.0k
-80
FEMA 356 Conforming

-400
Lateral Load (kN)
80
-2.8
-120
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
54
Cantilever Wall Tests
Paulay, EERI, 2(4), 1986 [Goodsir, PhD 1985 NZ]
Conforming
P=10%, V=3
h = 3.3 m
= 10.83 ft
Conforming
P=10%, V=6
(3.94)
WALL Goodsir, 1985:

As $ As' & P $ 0.163 f c' A g
Ay $
& Assume conforming

3
(70k )(130")
PL
$
$ 0.4" (10.0mm)
3Ec 0.5 I g 3(~ 3750ksi )(0.5)(4")(59")3 /12
A a 5 0.01(3300mm) $ 33mm
A b 5 0.015(3300mm) $ 50mm
(59)
Vu
twlw f c'
70k
$ 4.6
(4")(59") 3750 psi
55
Cantilever Wall Tests
Paulay, EERI, 2(4), 1986 [Goodsir, PhD 1985 NZ]
Conforming
P=10%, V=3
h = 3.3 m
= 10.83 ft
Conforming
P=10%, V=6
WALL Goodsir, 1985:

As $ As' & P $ 0.12 f c' A g
Ay $
& Assume conforming
(70k )(130")3
PL3
$
$ 0.4" (10.0mm)
3Ec 0.5 I g 3(~ 3750ksi )(0.5)(4")(59")3 /12
A a 5 0.01(3300mm) $ 33mm
A b 5 0.015(3300mm) $ 50mm
Vu
twlw f c'
70k
$ 4.6
(4")(59") 3750 psi
56
Summary
FEMA 356 Backbone Curves
!
!
In general, quite conservative

This appears to be especially true for cases where
moderate detailing is provided around boundary bars
Possible reformat
" Compute neutral axis depth
" If s <12db over c/2, then modest ductility
" If s < 8db and transverse steel ratio is ~1/2 of ACI 318-05,
then moderate ductility

" If s < 8db and transverse steel ratio is > 3/4 of ACI 318-05,
then high ductility
" Do not reduce deformation capacity for shear stress below 5
roots fc
57
Shear Design
Wall shear studies
!
!
!
Aktan & Bertero, ASCE, JSE, Aug. 1985

Paulay, EERI 1996; Wallace, ASCE, JSE, 1994.
Eberhard & Sozen, ASCE JSE, Feb. 1993
Design Recommendations
!
!
Vwall
Vwall
Based on Mpr at hinge region

Uniform lateral force distribution
/ M pr 0
$ Bv 1
2 Vu Bv $ 0.9 6 n /10
3 Mu 4
$ Vlim it 6 , Dm $ 0.3-,W $ weight -, Ae $ EPA -
Paulay, 1986
Eberhard, 1993
58
Slender Wall Behavior & Modeling
John Wallace
With contributions from
Dr. Kutay Orakcal

Wallace-Slender Walls FINAL V5 Present Handout

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wallace-Slender Walls FINAL V5 Present Handout

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Slender Wall Behavior & Modeling

Beam-column, fiber, general

Rectangular, T-shaped cross sections

FEMA backbone relations

Flexure dominant walls

FEMA 356 RC Walls

Represent stiffness, strength, and

Wall Modeling Approaches

Rectangular walls (hw/lw " 2.5)

Multiple-line-element and Fiber models

Concrete and rebar material models

General wall model

Equivalent Beam-Column Model

Use of equivalent beamcolumn permitted

Modified Beam - Column Model

Modified Beam - Column Model

Fiber Section Model

Typically use a more refined mesh where yielding is anticipated;

$ 0.002; f c' - and , 7 c 85 $ 0.0038; 0.85f c' -

Use appropriate model, e.g.:

FEMA 356 Qualifications:

General Wall Models/FE Models

Flexure - fiber model (2-directions)

Uncracked: EIeffective = 0.8EIg

Cracked: EIeffective = 0.5EIg

1.0, 0.75, 0.5, 0.4EcIg

Response Correlation Studies

Ten Story Building in San Jose, California

5 @ 10.97 m (36 ft)

8.84 m (29 ft)

PLAN VIEW: CSMIP BUILDING 57356

Response Correlation Studies

Ten Story Building in San Jose, California

Vn $ Acv %# c f c' 6 :t f y &

# c $ 2.0 for hw / lw ! 2.0

Definition of Wall Cross Section

Consider all vertical reinforcement within web

Consider the influence of openings on

ACI 318-02, 05 Appendix A Strut & Tie Approach

Behavior of Flanged Walls

Lateral Load (kips)

Lateral Drift (%)

Top Displacement (in.)

Thomsen & Wallace, ASCE JSE, April 2004.

Lateral Load (kips)

Lateral Drift (%)

Top Displacement (in.)

MVLE (Fiber) Model

Uniaxial material relations (vertical spring elements)

Material (Uni-axial) Models

(7= 'c , =f 'c)

evaluation for detailing

Steel Strain Gage Levels

Massone & Wallace; ACI SJ, Jan-Feb 2004.

Applied Lateral Displacement

Drift Ratio (%)

Top Displacement (mm)

Data Point Number

Model Details RW2

#2 bars (db=6.35 mm)

Hoops (db=4.76 mm)

Model Details TW2

#2 bars (db=6.35 mm)

Hoops (db=4.76 mm)