Seismic behaviour of structural walls with specific details

© All Rights Reserved

1 views

Seismic behaviour of structural walls with specific details

© All Rights Reserved

- Syllabus- Strength of Materials
- Seismic Analysis of Earthquake Resistant Multi Bay Multi Storeyed 3D - RC Frame
- Advanced Seismic Assessment Guidelines
- Seismic Performance of Cable-stayed Bridges
- 1.2 Strength of Materials
- PATRAM2013-Linnemann-Et-Al-paper Methodological Aspects for Numerical Analysis of Lid Systems for SNF and HLW Transport Packages
- Ibc Seismic Load Calculation
- Seismic Irs
- Spandrel Strength ES Incl Figures Online
- Finite element simulation and experimental study on mechanical behavior of 3D woven glass ﬁber composite sandwich panels
- DS_EN 1520 DK NA_2011 E - Prefabricated Reinforced Components of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete Wirh Open Structure
- Scada Pro_4_example_non_linear_EN.pdf
- Part-2-EN
- 215 Connection Capacity Between Micro Piles and Concrete Foot
- IRC 22-6-1986 Composite Road Bridges
- Ultimate Moment Capacity of RC Beams
- 2008 Latbsdc Criteria
- PRO FEM
- Flexabrasion of Hair
- Simulation for the Collapse of WTC After Aeroplane Impact

You are on page 1of 13

5, October, 333345

specific details

S. W. Han! , Y.-H. Oh{ and L.-H. Lee!

Hanyang University

Bearing wall systems have been commonly used for low to mid-rise buildings particularly in low to moderate

seismic zones. This study investigates the seismic performance of bearing walls with rectangular sectional shape

and specific details of reinforcements. Such details have been developed for 10- to 15-storey apartment buildings in

Korea, and used most commonly in apartment building construction. To investigate seismic behaviour of such walls,

experimental tests were carried out. Structural behaviour is expressed in terms of ductility, deformation, and

strength capacities. For this purpose, three full-scale test specimens were constructed having different shear-span

ratios (2 and 3). The test results of this study are compared with those of other researchers. By this comparison,

seismic performance of the walls with specific details is discussed. Also this study compares the response

modification factor (R) for the bearing wall systems in different seismic design provisions.

Vcr

Notation

A, A a , Av

Acv

Ag

C, Cs

db

f 9c

fy

I

lw

M

R, Rw

S

T

zone factor

gross area of concrete section bounded by

web thickness and length of section in the

direction of shear force considered

gross area of a section

seismic coefficient

diameter of a reinforcement

concrete compressive strength

reinforcement yield stress

importance factor

length of entire wall or of segment of wall

considered in the direction of shear force

magnitude of an earthquake

response modification factor (strength

reduction factor)

soil factor

fundamental period

Seoul 133-791, Korea.

{ Advanced Structure Research Station (STRESS), Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, Korea.

(MCR 971) Paper received 14 September 2001; last revised 27 March

2002; accepted 22 April 2002

Vmax

Vy

max

y

u

"

(experimental)

maximum shear force

shear force corresponding to yielding

maximum displacement

yield displacement

maximum drift ratio

ductility ratio

Introduction

Structural walls have been commonly used for resisting the lateral forces induced by winds and earthquakes

because of their efficiency in resistance. Many low to

mid-rise RC buildings have either interior or exterior

walls. These walls are placed to resist lateral and gravity forces. This type of wall system is very common in

low to moderate seismic regions, which is classified as

bearing wall system.

This system has been most commonly used for constructing mid-rise (1015 storeys) apartment buildings

in Korea, which is classified as a low and moderate

seismic zone according to the Korean Seismic Design

1

Provisions. Since this system is used for residence

buildings, a rectangular sectional shape is preferred for

providing better interior space. Also, to secure the

seismic resistance of walls in mid-rise apartment build333

0024-9831 # 2002 Thomas Telford Ltd

Han et al.

In current seismic design provisions, the lateral force

demand by earthquakes is represented by seismic design base shear. In general, the formula for calculating

design base shear is expressed as the following equation

V

Cs W

R

(1)

denote seismic coefficient, response modification factor

and weight, respectively. Seismic coefficient Cs is the

Linear Elastic Design Response Spectrum (LEDRS) of

design earthquake with mean return period of 475

years. Thus, in equation (1), the numerator (Cs times

W ) is the seismic force demand of an elastic system.

Since the design earthquake is a rare event, current

seismic design provisions introduce the R factor in

order to allow the structures to behave in the inelastic

range against design level earthquake. Consequently,

Cs =R can be referred to as Inelastic Design Response

Spectrum (IDRS). If structures are designed using the

334

behave elastically during design level earthquake

ground motions.

The R factor is related to reserve strength, ductility,

8,9

and viscous damping. The response modification fac9

tor may be calculated as the product of three factors

R R" 3 Rs 3 R#

(2)

period-dependent ductility factor, and R# is a damping

factor. Fig. 1 shows the relationship between LEDRS

and IDRS. Also this figure shows IDRSs for ultimate

strength and working strength levels. According to the

814

investigations by many researchers

there are several

weaknesses in R factor used in current seismic design

9

provisions. Detail discussion can be found in ATC 19.

However, this study does not attempt to solve the

weaknesses in R factor. This is beyond the scope of this

study. Instead, this study compares design base shear

forces for bearing wall systems in UBC (1994), ATC

7

1

3-06, and KSDP.

in different provisions

The design base shear formula has been developed

based on either a working stress or ultimate strength

basis. For example, the design base shear in UBC

(1994) is on a working stress basis, but both NEHRP

15

7

Provisions and ATC 3-06 have an ultimate strength

design base shear.

KSDP was established in 1988 and revised in 2000.

The design base shear in this provision is working

stress level. Table 1 shows the design base shear for7

1

mulas in UBC, ATC 3-06 and KSDP. Assigned values

for R factor in these provisions are also shown in Table

2.

Figure 2 is the plot for comparison of design base

shears in ATC 3-06, UBC and KSDP. The R factor in

this plot is the value for bearing wall system with

reinforced concrete shear walls. For this comparison,

the zone factor, importance factor, and soil factor are

set to be 012 (A = 012, Z = 012, A a = Av = 012), 10

have been provided.

This study investigates the structural behaviour of

walls with a rectangular sectional shape and special

reinforcement details. For this purpose, three full-scale

wall test specimens, which have different shear-span

ratios of 2 and 3, were made. Since the size of the

laboratory is limited, the size of all specimens was the

same, but a special setting was made to simulate the

different shear-span ratios. In this study, strength, deformation and ductility capacities are estimated based

on experimental results. The capacities of each specimen are compared with the results of other re26

searchers

and the drift limit in seismic design

provisions (UBC, ATC3-06). Based on this comparison,

the performance of walls with specific details is discussed.

Also, this study compares the R factor of bearing

wall systems in three different seismic design provi7

sions such as UBC (1994), ATC 3-06, and Korean

1

Seismic Design Provisions (KSDP). KSDP has been

developed based on UBC and ATC 3-06. Thus, in

calculation of design base shear according to KSDP, R

factor is included in the formula for calculating design

base shear. The major role of R factor is to reduce the

elastic design base shear whereby structures can behave

in the inelastic range during design level earthquake

ground motions (mean return period of 475 years). R

factors are assigned according to material and structural

systems. Based on the comparison of R factors in three

different provisions and the investigation of structural

behaviours of the tested walls, the R factor for the walls

with specific details is discussed.

1

LEDRS (Cs)

IDRS (Cs/R)

IDRSw (Cs/Rw)

Period: s

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

Table 1. Comparisons of base shear formulation in each seismic provision

Korea Seismic Design

Provisions (2000)

Design base shear

V=

C=

Notation

AIC

W

R

UBC (1994)

V=

S

pffiffiffi , 175

1:2 T

C=

ZIC

W

Rw

1:25

2

T3

V = Cs W

, 275

Cs =

1:2 Av S

2

RT 3

2:5 A a

R

A: zone factor

Z: zone factor

I: importance factor

I: importance factor

S: soil factor

S: soil factor

S: soil factor

Working stress

design

Working stress

design

Ultimate strength

design

Design method to

be considered

Av , Aa : zone factor

Structural systems

Earthquake resisting

systems

R

(ATC, 1978)

R

(ICBO, 1994)

R

(Korea, 1988)

Reinforced concrete

shear walls

45

Reinforced masonry

shear walls

35

Partially reinforced

masonry shear walls

125

Reinforced concrete

shear walls having

boundary elements

like tied columns

35

Reinforced concrete

shear walls

55

Frame system

0.08

0.07

Korea 2000 (R ! 3)

0.06

ATC 3-06 (R ! 4.5)

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0

0 .0

0.5

1.0

1 .5

2.0

2.5

3 .0

Period: s

assigned value for the Seoul area in Korea. These

figures show that design base shear in KSPD is larger

than that in UBC (1994) throughout the whole period

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

R

(Korea, 2000)

that of ATC 3-06 when the fundamental period becomes either less than 02 s or larger than 07 s.

By simply comparing design base shear for the

bearing wall system, it is concluded that the design

based shear used in KSDP is the highest. If it is

assumed that the values for design base shear in ATC

3-06 and UBC are reasonable, the R factor in KSPD

needs to be calibrated to reduce the design base

shear. This study assumes that R factors provided in

ATC 3-06 and UBC are accurate. Thus, R factor is

calibrated to make the design base shear in KSDP

similar to that in UBC (1994). However, in calibrating R factor, both structural details and structural

performance are important since R factor is related

to those. Details of walls and experimental tests for

investigating their structural performance are explained in the following section.

335

Han et al.

Requirements for the design of structural walls are

introduced in chapter 11 (shear and torsion), chapter 14

(walls), and chapter 21 (special provisions for seismic

15

design) in ACI 318. The design code of Korean Concrete Institute (2000, referred to as KCI hereafter) has

been basically developed based on ACI 318 (Building

Code and Commentary, 1995 and 1999).

According to ACI 318, structural walls are classified

as ordinary and special reinforcement concrete structural walls. Ordinary reinforced concrete structural walls

must satisfy the requirements from chapter 1 to 18 in

ACI 318 and special reinforcement concrete structural

walls must satisfy the requirements of chapter 21 (216)

in ACI 318 in addition to the requirements for ordinary

reinforcement concrete structural walls. In the case of

special reinforced concrete structural wall design,

boundary element or details of a wall should satisfy the

requirements in chapter 21 (21663).

Details of structural walls commonly used for bearing wall systems in Korea are quite different from those

used in the USA. Fig. 3 shows wall details commonly

used in Korean construction practice for mid-rise residence buildings. The sectional shape is rectangular

rather than barbell shape with boundary elements. A

rectangular shape provides more usable interior space.

Flexural reinforcement is concentrated at the wall

boundary (the end region with 10% of wall length, l w )

as shown in Fig. 3.

U-type transverse reinforcements and tie bars are

placed. The spacing of U-type transverse reinforcements and tie bars is determined from the code requirement for column in KCI and ACI 318. Tie spacing in

columns should not determine more than the minimum

value among: (a) 16 longitudinal bar diameters; (b) 48

tie diameters; and (c) least dimension of a column. In

case of walls considered in this study, the minimum

dimension requirement governs. The wall thickness

commonly used in Korea is 200 mm so that the thickness can easily place the longitudinal and transverse

reinforcements at the ends of a wall. U-type transverse

reinforcements are extended into the wall web with the

length of 20d b (d b : diameter of reinforcement). This is

also determined based on the development length in

KCI. The ends of ties are anchored by a 908 or 1358

bend around a bar (see Fig. 3). This study investigates

the structural behaviours of these walls, which are

represented in terms of strength, ductility and deformation capacities.

In this section, researches related to structural walls

16

are introduced. Cardenas and Magura tested rectangular shape walls with different arrangements of longitudinal reinforcement. According to their study,

336

shear walls are enhanced when vertical reinforcement

is concentrated at the end of a wall. Thus, walls having

uniformly distributed longitudinal reinforcement have

less deformation capacity. This is an important conclusion, since deformation capacity has an influence on

determining the R factor (see R" in equation (2)).

Experimental tests by PCA researchers were carried out

for walls having various section-shapes (rectangular,

2

barbell, flanged) and different failure modes. Test results showed that all specimens have displacement ductilities larger than 30 and have drift ratios larger than

15%.

17

Wallace and Moehle

investigated the level of

damaged buildings in the city of Vina del Mar due to

Chiles earthquake (M = 78) occurring in 1985. They

reported that in the city of Vina del Mar there were

about 400 modern reinforced concrete buildings, which

contained numerous shear walls and had been designed

for lateral forces comparable to those used in regions

of high seismicity in the USA. Seismic design provisions in Chile do not require boundary element like in

the USA. Also, reinforcement details, according to their

paper, are less stringent than those commonly used in

the USA. However, they reported that these walls performed well with little or no apparent damage in the

majority of buildings during the earthquake.

Figures 4 and 5 show drift and ductility capacities

versus maximum observed shear stress of various walls

2,46,1820

tested by many researchers.

Detailed information for each specimen in this figure is in Table 3. The

test parameters of these structural walls were sectional

shapes (rectangular, barbell, and flange shape), details

of reinforcement distribution (concentrated or uniform

distribution of longitudinal vertical reinforcement, and

distribution of horizontal reinforcement), shear span

ratio, existence of boundary element, ratio of axial load,

etc.

It is considered that deformation and ductility capacities of walls depend on the level of maximum shear

stress and/or failure mode because the level of maximum shear stress is related to the failure mode of

structural walls. Figure 4 shows that all specimens have

a drift capacity of over 15% except for one specimen

governed by shear.

A drift ratio of 15% is the allowable limit value

8

against a design earthquake in seismic provisions.

Thus, it is judged that most structural walls have satisfactory deformation capacities irrespective of the test

variables.

When maximum shear stress is lower than 01 MPa,

all specimens have a ductility capacity larger than 30

(see Fig. 5). It is prescribed in the UBC (1994) provisions that the R factor for a shear wall system is 80

(see Table 2). Expected maximum displacements according to the 1994 UBC can be calculated by multiplying the design displacement by 3=8 Rw . This

implicitly indicates that the displacement ductility caMagazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

700

40

100

350

7-D25

500

D13@150

7-D25

40

500

7-D25

7-D25

125

25@500

30

100

D13

D10

D10@250

2000

D13

D10@200

200

250

D10@250

70@500

250

250

125

D13

7-D25

100

7- D25

D13@150

D13@150

500

7- D25

100

500

7-D25

700

ELEVATION

SECTION

50

50

30

D10@200

200

D10@200

D10@250

200

150

4-D13

D10@220

1500

150

(unit ! mm)

50

220

300

300

50

130

D10@250

800

300

300

D10 D10@200

D10@200 50

200

D10@200

4-D13

200

150

30

100 100 50

200

(b) WF2 specimen

SECTION A-A

capacity of 15% and displacement ductility ratio of 3

can be treated as the limit values of deformation and

ductility capacities, which structural tests shall verify.

According to Figs 4 and 5, most walls have satisfactory

capacities in ductility and deformation.

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

In Fig. 4, the scattering of drift capacities of structural walls is large with respect to maximum shear stress.

It is worthwhile noting that there is a relationship

between maximum shear stress and drift capacity.

Ductility capacity decreases as maximum shear

stress increases. As maximum shear stress increases,

337

Han et al.

7

Monotonic loading

Northwestern (flexure failure)

Michigan (flexure failure)

Clarkson (flexure failure)

This Study (flexure failure)

PCA (shear failure)

Northwestern (shear failure)

Berkeley (shear failure)

Michigan (shear failure)

Clarkson (shear failure)

5

4

Monotonic loading

3

2

1

0

0.00

Flexure failure

drift ratio ! 1.5%

0.05

Shear failure

drift ratio ! 1%

Flexure-shear failure:

drift ratio ! 1.5%

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

16

Northwestern (flexure failure)

Michigan (flexure failure)

Clarkson (flexure failure)

This Study (flexure failure)

PCA (shear failure)

Northwestern (shear failure)

Berkeley (shear failure)

Michigan (shear failure)

Clarkson (shear failure)

Monotonic loading

14

12

10

8

Monotonic loading

6

4

2

Flexure failure:

! "80 Vmax # 10

Flexureshear failure

!2

0

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

Shear failure

!2

0.20

0.25

0.30

members. From Figs 4 and 5, the relationship between

maximum shear stress and ductility, deformation capacities can be derived as follows

338

$u

1:5%

Hw

if

$u

1:0%

Hw

if

Vmax

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi , 0:2MPa

f 9c A cv

(3a)

Vmax

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi $ 0:2MPa

f 9c A cv

(3b)

Vmax

"$ 10 # 80 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

f 9c A cv

"$ 2:0

if

if

Vmax

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi , 0:1MPa

f 9c A cv

(4a)

Vmax

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi $ 0:1MPa

f 9c A cv

(4b)

rather than an entire structural system.

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

Specimen

Sectional

shape

Loadinga

H wb

Lw

Dimension

Length

(cm)

Boundary

(cm)

(cm)

Thickness

(cm)

Reinforcmentc

P

A g f 9c

r be

(%)

rv

(%)

rh

(%)

rs

(%)

Ref.

No.

(%)

f 9c e

Vmax

pffiffiffiffiffi

f 9c A cv

$yf

$u g

(MPa)

(MPa)

(cm)

(cm)

"$ h

$u

Hw

Failure

mode

(%)

Rectangular

IC

1905

191

102

102

24

147

025

031

04

11

447

003

135

1031

766

226

Flexure

PCA-R2

Rectangular

IC

1905

191

102

102

24

400

025

031

207

04

11

464

005

216

1334

618

292

Flexure

PCA-R3

Rectangular

MC

1905

381

102

102

24

600

022

042

133

70

21

244

019

343

762

222

167

Shear

PCA-R4

Rectangular

IC

1905

279

102

102

24

350

028

031

107

75

21

227

010

224

762

341

167

Flexure

PCA-B1

Barbell

IC

1905

305

305

102

24

111

029

031

03

11

530

006

178

1323

744

289

Flexure

PCA-B2

Barbell

IC

1905

305

305

102

24

367

029

063

03

11

536

015

254

1039

409

227

Shear

PCA-B3

Barbell

IC

1905

305

305

102

24

111

029

031

128

03

11

473

007

178

1796

1010

393

Flexure

PCA-B4

Barbell

1905

305

305

102

24

111

029

031

128

03

11

450

008

203

3175

1563

694

Flexure

PCA-B5

Barbell

IC

1905

305

305

102

24

367

029

063

135

03

11

453

018

279

1267

454

277

Shear

PCA-B6

Barbell

IC

1905

305

305

102

24

367

029

063

081

141

11

218

029

333

782

235

171

Shear

PCA-B7

Barbell

IC

1905

305

305

102

24

367

029

063

135

79

11

493

023

351

1321

377

289

Shear

PCA-B8

Barbell

IC

1905

305

305

102

24

367

029

138

135

93

11

420

024

312

1306

418

286

Shear

PCA-B9

Barbell

MC

1905

305

305

102

24

367

029

063

135

89

11

441

024

345

1379

399

302

Shear

PCA-B10

Barbell

MC

1905

305

305

102

24

197

029

063

135

86

11

456

017

297

1267

426

277

Shear

PCA-F1

Flanged

IC

1905

102

914

102

24

389

030

071

04

11

385

022

254

505

199

111

Shear

PCA-F2

Flanged

IC

1905

102

914

102

24

435

031

063

143

76

11

455

021

287

1016

354

222

Shear

PCA-CI-1

Rectangular

MC

1905

318

102

102

288

240

028

042

107

10

27

233

011

368

1270

345

231

Shear

PCA-USJP

Rectangular

IC

1575

142

57

57

278

126

037

037

075

49

20

317

007

114

660

578

151

Flexure

UCB-SW1

Barbell

MC

2388

254

254

102

128

352

083

083

142

79

32

345

024

178

1067

600

350

Shear

UCB-SW2

Barbell

IC

2388

254

254

102

128

352

083

083

142

76

32

356

024

178

508

286

167

Shear

UCB-SW3

Barbell

2388

254

254

102

128

352

083

083

139

78

30

348

024

198

1727

872

567

Shear

339

(continued overleaf )

PCA-R1

Specimen

Sectional

shape

Loadinga

H wb

Lw

Dimension

Length

(cm)

Boundary

(cm)

(cm)

Thickness

(cm)

Reinforcmentc

P

A g f 9c

r be

(%)

rv

(%)

rh

(%)

rs

(%)

(%)

Ref.

No.

f 9c e

Vmax

pffiffiffiffiffi

f 9c A cv

$yf

$u g

(MPa)

(MPa)

(cm)

(cm)

"$ h

$u

Hw

Failure

mode

(%)

UCB-SW4

Barbell

IC

2388

254

254

102

128

352

083

083

139

75

30

359

022

193

686

355

225

Shear

UCB-SW5

Rectangular

2413

279

279

102

128

634

063

063

179

73

30

334

020

147

737

500

242

Shear

UCB-SW6

Rectangular

IC

2413

279

279

102

128

634

063

063

179

70

30

345

019

163

711

438

233

Shear

NWU-B11

Barbell

MC

1905

305

305

102

24

367

029

063

135

03

21

537

016

292

1270

435

278

Shear

NWU-B12

Barbell

MC

1905

305

305

102

24

367

029

063

135

04

21

417

020

290

1016

351

222

Shear

NWU-F3

Flanged

IC

1905

102

914

102

24

229

025

031

085

59

21

279

013

221

1016

460

222

Shear

UM-W1

Barbell

IC

1220

127

127

76

29

300

030

030

040

80

345

008

265

1041

393

294

Flexure

UM-W3

Barbell

IC

1220

127

127

76

29

300

030

030

040

80

345

010

271

531

196

150

Shear

CU-RW2

Rectangular

IC

1220

190

102

102

313

289

033

033

158

70

28

437

008

229

838

366

219

Flexure

CU-RW3Od

Rectangular

IC

1220

190

102

102

313

289

033

033

205

100

28

310

010

286

826

289

216

Shear

Notes:

MC = cyclic loading with different displacement amplitude

M = monotonic loading

b

Aspect ratio where Hw = wall height from the base to applied load line, Lw = wall length

c

r be = the ratio of boundary longitudinal reinforcement to boundary element area

r v = the ratio of web horizontal reinforcement to vertical cross section

r h = the ratio of web vertical reinforcement to horizontal cross section

r s = the volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement at the boundary element

d

Specimen with opening

e

actual concrete compressive strength obtained at testing

f

displacement when all boundary longitudinal reinforcement yield

g

displacement corresponding to 80 percent of maximum strength

h

displacement ductility ratio calculated from dividing the maximum displacement by the yield displacement.

Han et al.

340

Table 3. (continued)

details

In order to investigate the structural behaviour of a

wall with specific details (rectangular in sectional

shape and specific arrangement of reinforcements),

three full-scale test specimens were made. Variables for

these specimens were shear-span ratio (2 and 3). Table

4 shows sectional shape and reinforcement details.

Also, Fig. 3 shows model dimension. Since the size of

the laboratory is limited both specimens were made the

same size, but a special setting was made for simulating a shear-span ratio. As shown in Figs 6 and 7, this is

feasible when two vertical actuators are controlled to

give axial force to produce additional moment in addition to vertical axial force. If the ratio of moment to

shear is 2, it did not require the additional moment by

the two vertical actuators.

The specimens were cast monolithically in the

horizontal direction. The maximum size of aggregate

in the concrete mix was 19 mm. At least 3 cylinder

tests were carried out at 3, 7, 28 days, and testing

day. Average concrete compressive strengths for specimens W2, WF2 and W3 obtained before the test

were 342, 345 and 369 MPa, respectively. Reinforcement was deformed bars with three different diameters: 10 mm (D10), 13 mm (D13) and 25 mm

(D25). Table 5 shows the measured material properties of the reinforcement.

Figure 6 shows the experiment test setup and Fig.

7 shows the displacement history and loading

scheme. Incremental pseudo static cyclic loads controlled by deformation were applied to each specimen. To keep a constant shear span ratio, the forces

produced by three actuators were calculated at each

loading step as shown in Figure 7. Axial loads due

the test.

Figure 8 shows the hysteretic behaviour of each

specimen. The important values of these figures are

shown in the box in Fig. 8. According to Fig. 8, every

specimen has a deformation capacity larger than 15%

and has a displacement ductility ratio larger than 30.

Displacement and ductility capacity are measured when

the applied load is reduced by 20% of maximum

strength. Yield displacements were measured when all

longitudinal bars at the end (10% of l w ) have yielded.

Also, in Figs 4 and 5, the deformation capacities and

displacement ductility ratios of the specimens are

plotted with those of other experimental results shown

in Table 3.

Shear span

ratio

(M=VD)

Axial load

(N =A g f 9c )

f9c a

(MPa)

fy b

(MPa)

rb c

(%)

r hd

(%)

rv e

(%)

rs f

(%)

W2

20

010

276

3571

4-D13

(127)

D10

@250

(028)

D10

@220

(032)

D10

@200

(099)

WF2

20

010

276

3571

4-D13

(127)

D10

@250

(028)

D10

@220

(032)

D10

@200

(099)

W3

30

010

276

3571

4-D13

(127)

D10

@250

(028)

D10

@220

(032)

D10

@200

(099)

Specimen

Notes:

Section shape

Design strength of reinforcement

c

Ratio of boundary longitudinal reinforcement to boundary element area

d

Ratio of web horizontal reinforcement to vertical cross section

e

Ratio of web vertical reinforcement to horizontal cross section

f

Volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement at the boundary element

b

341

Han et al.

0.03

! 1/50

0.02

0.01

! 1/150 ! 1/100

M

VH # PL

P

!

!2#3

VD

VD

V

! 1/75

N

2

0.00

V

H

"0.01

"0.02

"0.03

N

2

12

15

18

21

24

27

"P

D

L

Loading scheme to vary M/VM

Cycle number

Rebar

no.

D10

Nominal

area

(mm2 )

Yield

strength

(N=mm2 )

Yield

strain

(3 10#6 )

Elastic

modulus

(N=mm2 )

Ultimate

strength

(N=mm2 )

Elongation

(%)

713

335

2004

183 3 105

443

176

D13

1267

395

2206

182 3 10

601

144

D25

5067

400

2035

217 3 105

610

150

the test specimen. Specimen W2 has more shear cracks

than specimen W3. At the final stage both specimens

lost their strength due to the crushing of concrete in

lower end part of the wall.

From Figs 4 and 5, the walls with specific details

(rectangular in sectional shape and specific reinforcement arrangements) have satisfactory displacement and

ductility capacities compared to the walls tested by

other researchers. This may be due to the fact that

satisfactory capacities of tested walls were obtained

due to the arrangement of longitudinal bars (concentration at the ends of a wall) and lateral reinforcement (U

stirrup and tie reinforcement). This investigation is very

21

similar to the study by Cardenas and Magura. Building using the walls considered in this study can have an

R factor equivalent to those used in UBC or ATC 3-06

even if those details are somewhat different. Such a

conclusion requires the assumption that the R factor

used in UBC and ATC 3-06 is appropriate for wall

systems.

Deformation capacities are important even to structures located in low to moderate seismic zones since

rare seismic events should be considered in design.

Also, the observed maximum strength of both walls is

higher than the calculated strength, as shown in Table

6. In Table 6, calculated maximum strengths (Vmax(cal) )

were determined as the minimum value between nominal shear strength by ACI 318-95 and shear strength

corresponding to maximum flexural strength obtained

from sectional analysis. Flexural strengths were calculated by assuming a linear strain distribution across

342

the concrete. Strain hardening of the longitudinal reinforcement and actual material strengths were considered. For all specimens, maximum strengths were

governed by shear strength corresponding to maximum

flexural strength obtained from sectional analysis.

Also, these values correspond well with maximum

shear strength observed from the test of each specimen.

Conclusions

This study investigates the seismic behaviour of

structural walls with specific details and rectangular

sections. This experimental study was carried out for

this purpose. Three full-scale wall test specimens were

made. The conclusions obtained from this study are as

follows.

(a) All specimens have ductility and deformation capacities greater than 30 and 15% of height, respectively. Thus, the walls considered in this study have

satisfactory deformation and ductility capacities.

(b) The maximum observed strength of each specimen

was well estimated by the calculated maximum

strength which was determined by comparing the

nominal shear strength by ACI 318 and the shear

strength corresponding to maximum flexural

strength obtained from sectional analysis.

(c) The design base shear for bearing walls in KSDP

is higher than that of ATC 3-06 in the period range

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

Lateral load: kN

500

400

Vcr: 186.2 kN

y: 12.4 mm

300

Vy: 348.9 kN

max: 80.9 mm

200

Vn: 448.9 kN

: 6.5

Vmax: 386.1 kN

u: 2.7%

100

! 1.5%

! 2.0%

Vy

Vcr

"100

Vcr: "197.9 kN

y: "9.2 mm

"200

Vy: "332.2 kN

max: "53.4 mm

"300

Vn: "448.9 kN

: 5.8

"400

"500

"100

"80

"60

"40

"20

0

20

Top displacement: mm

40

60

80

100

(a)

500

400

300

Lateral load: kN

200

100

! 2.0%

! 1.5%

Vcr : 268.5 kN

y: 5.6 mm

Vy: 355.7 kN

max: 55.9 mm

Vy

Vn: 437.1 kN

: 9.98

Vcr

Vmax: 444.6 kN

u: 1.86%

max

"100

"200

Vcr: "252.8 kN

y: "9.6 mm

"300

Vy: "467.5 kN

max: "49.7 mm

"400

Vn: "515.5 kN

: 5.18

"500

"600

"100

"80

"60

"40

"20

0

20

Top displacement: mm

40

60

80

100

(b)

400

Vcr : 94.1 kN

y: 9.8 mm

Vy: 191.1 kN

max: 59.6 mm

200

Vn: 449.5 kN

: 6.1

100

Vmax: 311.6 kN

u: 2.0%

Lateral load: kN

300

Vy

Vcr

max

y

"100

"200

"300

"400

"100

! 2.0%

! 1.5%

Vcr: "107.8 kN

y: "8.9 mm

Vy: "172.5 kN

max: "59.3 mm

Vn: "449.5 kN

: 6.7

"80

"60

"40

"20

0

20

Top displacement: mm

40

60

80

100

(c)

Fig. 8. Hysteresis loops for (a) W2, (b) WF2 and (c) W3 specimens

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

343

Han et al.

Lateral load: kN

500

400

Vcr: 186.2 kN

y: 12.4 mm

300

Vy: 348.9 kN

max: 80.9 mm

200

Vn: 448.9 kN

: 6.5

Vmax: 386.1 kN

u: 2.7%

100

! 1.5%

! 2.0%

Vy

Vcr

"100

Vcr: "197.9 kN

y: "9.2 mm

"200

Vy: "332.2 kN

max: "53.4 mm

"300

Vn: "448.9 kN

: 5.8

"400

"500

"100

"80

"60

"40

"20

0

20

Top displacement: mm

40

60

80

100

(a)

500

400

300

Lateral load: kN

200

100

! 2.0%

! 1.5%

Vcr : 268.5 kN

y: 5.6 mm

Vy: 355.7 kN

max: 55.9 mm

Vy

Vn: 437.1 kN

: 9.98

Vcr

Vmax: 444.6 kN

u: 1.86%

max

"100

"200

Vcr: "252.8 kN

y: "9.6 mm

"300

Vy: "467.5 kN

max: "49.7 mm

"400

Vn: "515.5 kN

: 5.18

"500

"600

"100

"80

"60

"40

"20

0

20

Top displacement: mm

40

60

80

100

(b)

Fig. 9. Crack pattern at the loading stage, specimens: (a) W2 and (b) WF2

higher than UBC in the whole range of period. It is

noted that design base shear in Korean Seismic

Design Provisions (KSDP) and UBC are working

stress level whereas that in ATC 3-06 is strength

level.

(d ) Since the elastic design shear forces in UBC and

KSDP are almost identical, it is concluded that

KSDP assigned a lower value of R factor for bearing wall systems, which causes a higher value of

design base shear. Considering the performance of

the test walls it is conservative to assign a lower

344

the value assigned for R factor in UBC is appropriate the R factor used in KSDP needs to be

calibrated.

Acknowledgements

The support of the advanced Structural Research

Station (STRESS) of the Korean Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) at Hanyang University is

greatly acknowledged.

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

Table 6. Observed strengths and deformability of wall specimens

Specimen

Loading

direction

fc,test(28) a

(MPa)

Vcr b

(kN)

Vy c

(kN)

Vmax(test) d

(kN)

Vmax(cal) e

(kN)

Vmax( test) f

Vmax(cal:)

$yg

(mm)

$max h

(mm)

"$ i

u j

(%)

W2

positive

342

(294)

1862

3489

3861

3783

102

124

809

65

27

1980

3322

4429

118

92

534

58

18

2685

3557

4466

5018

089

56

559

100

19

2528

4675

5733

5449

105

96

497

52

17

941

1911

3116

2528

123

98

596

61

20

1078

1725

3214

127

89

593

67

20

negative

WF2

positive

345

(286)

negative

W3

positive

negative

Notes:

369

(298)

Observed shear strength at first cracking

c

Observed shear strength when all boundary longitudinal reinforcement yield

d

Maximum observed shear strength during the test

e

Maximum strength calculated as a minimum value between nominal shear strength by ACI 318-95 and shear strength corresponding to

maximum flexural strength obtained from sectional analysis

f

The ratio of maximum observed shear strength to maximum calculated strength

g

Displacement when all boundary longitudinal reinforcement yield

h

Displacement corresponding to 80 percent of maximum strength

i

Displacement ductility calculated from dividing the maximum displacement by the yield displacement

j

drift ratio calculated from dividing the maximum displacement by wall height

b

References

1. KOREA CONCRETE INSTITUTE (KCI). Korean Concrete Design

Code (KCDC), Seoul, Korea, 2000.

2. CORLEY W. G., FIORATO A. E. and OESTERLE R. G. Structural

Walls, ACI SP 72-4, ACI, Detroit, Michigan, 1981, pp. 77131.

3. OESTERLE R. G., FIORATO A. E. and CORLEY W. G. Reinforcement details for earthquake-resistance structural walls. Concrete

International, 1980, 2, No. 12, 5566.

4. VALLENAS J. M., BERTERO V. V. and POPOV E. P. Hysteretic

behavior of reinforced concrete structural walls. Report UCB/

EERC-79/20, UC at Berkeley, CA, 1979, 234 pp.

5. ALI A. and WIGHT J. K. RC structural walls with staggered door

openings. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1991, 5,

15141531.

6. TOMSEN IV J. H. and WALLACE J. W. Displacement-based design

of RC structural walls: an experimental investigation of walls

with rectangular and t-shaped cross-sections. Report No. CU/

CEE-95/06, Clarkson Univ., Potsdam, New York, 1995.

7. APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL (ATC). Tentative provisions for

the development of seismic regulations for buildings, ATC Report

3-06 (ATC 3-06), Palo Alto, California, 1978.

8. APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL (ATC). A critical review of

current approaches to earthquake-resistant design. ATC Report-34

(ATC 34), Redwood City, California 1995.

9. APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL (ATC). Structural response

modification factors, ATC Report ATC-19 (ATC 19), Redwood

City, California, 1995.

10. UANG C. M. and BERTERO V. V. Earthquake simulation tests and

associated studies of a 03 scale model of a six story concentrically braced steel structure, EERC. UCB/EERC Report-86/10,

UC at Berkeley, CA, 1986.

11. FOUTCH D. A. et al. Seismic testing of full scale steel buildingpart I. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1987, 113, No.

11, 21112129.

12. HAN S. W., OH Y.-H. and LEE L.-H. Investigation on the structural performance of the slender structural walls with different de-

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Mechanics (ASEM99), 1999, Seoul, Korea.

HAN S. W. and WEN Y. K. Methods of reliability-based seismic

design-I, equivalent nonlinear systems. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1997, 123, No. 3, 256263.

HAN S. W., LEE L.-H. and OH Y.-H. Determination of ductility

factor considering different hysteretic models. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 1999, 28, 957977.

BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY COUNCIL (BSSC). NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings

1994 Edition FEMA 222A, FEMA 223A, Washington DC 1995.

CARDENAS A. E., HANSON J. M., CORLEY W. G. and HOGNESTAD

E. Design provisions for shear walls. PCA Research and Development Bulletin, Skokie, IL, 1972, pp. 111.

WALLACE J. W. and MOEHLE J. P. Ductility and Detailing Requirements of Bearing Wall Building, Journal of the Structural

Engineering, ASCE, 1992, 118, No.6, pp. 16251644.

MORGAN B. J., HIRAISHI H. and CORLEY W. G. US-Japan quasi

static test of isolated wall planar reinforced concrete structure.

PCA Report, Construction Technology Division, Skokie, IL,

1986, 111 pp.

OESTERLE R. G. Inelastic analysis for in-plane strength of reinforced concrete shear walls. PhD thesis, Northwestern University,

Evanston, IL, 1986, 332 pp.

WANG T. Y., BERTERO V. V. and POPOV E. P. Hysteretic behavior

of reinforced concrete structural walls. Report UCB/EERC-75/23,

UC at Berkeley, CA, 1975, 367 pp.

CARDENAS A. E. and MAGURA D. D. Strength of high-rise shear

walls rectangular cross section, PCA Research and Development Bulletin, Skokie, IL, 1972, pp. 125.

AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE (ACI). Building Code and

Commentary, ACI 318-95 & 99, Farmington, Michigan, 1995,

1999.

1 April 2003

345

- Syllabus- Strength of MaterialsUploaded byAli Saleh
- Seismic Analysis of Earthquake Resistant Multi Bay Multi Storeyed 3D - RC FrameUploaded byAromoc Ranoj
- Advanced Seismic Assessment GuidelinesUploaded byLau Paupério
- Seismic Performance of Cable-stayed BridgesUploaded byahm2011
- 1.2 Strength of MaterialsUploaded byAtul Pandey
- PATRAM2013-Linnemann-Et-Al-paper Methodological Aspects for Numerical Analysis of Lid Systems for SNF and HLW Transport PackagesUploaded byhamadani
- Ibc Seismic Load CalculationUploaded bystaad.pro_smart
- Seismic IrsUploaded byPrashant Mali
- Spandrel Strength ES Incl Figures OnlineUploaded bys_murugan02
- Finite element simulation and experimental study on mechanical behavior of 3D woven glass ﬁber composite sandwich panelsUploaded byHoria Petrescu
- DS_EN 1520 DK NA_2011 E - Prefabricated Reinforced Components of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete Wirh Open StructureUploaded byp_meulendijks108
- Scada Pro_4_example_non_linear_EN.pdfUploaded byrelu59
- Part-2-ENUploaded byTATATAHER
- 215 Connection Capacity Between Micro Piles and Concrete FootUploaded byGreg Moormann
- IRC 22-6-1986 Composite Road BridgesUploaded byKarki2
- Ultimate Moment Capacity of RC BeamsUploaded byAshok Kumar
- 2008 Latbsdc CriteriaUploaded byRyan Sanchez
- PRO FEMUploaded byShravan Kumar
- Flexabrasion of HairUploaded byilu_007_in6535
- Simulation for the Collapse of WTC After Aeroplane ImpactUploaded bypelados
- Ductile Fracture Prediction for Welded Steel ConnectionsUploaded byfarhan danish
- (L)Parametric Study on the Shear Strength of Concrete Deep Beam Using ANSYSUploaded byAnonymous pQxhCM5I
- Softening Effects on the Seismic Response of Non Ductile Concrete FramesUploaded byVictor Vargas
- Chapter 2 Introduction to MaterialsUploaded byDDVAN
- CiTG-Afstud Bndl 201206 WEBUploaded bymontihamid
- Www.sciencedirect.com.Ezproxy.library.ubc.CA Science MiamiImageURL Cid=271087& User=1022551& Pii=S0141029601001353&Uploaded byAnant Parghi
- PUSHOVER ANALYSIS FOR REINFOREMENT MULTISTORY BUILDINGSUploaded byElias Rojano
- radgate-2016Uploaded bySouhail Zraoura
- 4Uploaded bykrishnanunni
- Chapter3_a.ppt (1).pptxUploaded byYuanjing Xu

- 2013-05_Structural Systems DesignUploaded byBoreir
- Review of Conventional Seismic Design Intro to Performance-Based DesignUploaded bymamandawe
- THE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF AND THE EVALUATION OF DESIGN ACTIONS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE DUCTILE SHEAR WALL STRUCTURESUploaded bymamandawe
- Peer Atc 72 1 ReportUploaded byFelipe Cantillano
- Project HighUploaded byChitLay
- Wallace-Slender Walls FINAL V5 Present HandoutUploaded byChristian Alcedo Santi
- C StrucAnalysis Wong Jan17 1Uploaded byHattori Hanzo
- Deflection and Partial Strengthening of a Structural Weak Point in RC Shear WallUploaded bymamandawe
- _Alex_E._Cardenas_1973 16-25-18-848.pdfUploaded bymamandawe
- Saman Abdullah-Thesis-2013 FINAL COPYUploaded bymamandawe
- Morley 3rd Ed Apple ChapterUploaded bymamandawe
- EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF NON-PLANAR WALL-TO-BEAM CONNECTIONS UNDER CYCLIC LOADINGUploaded bymamandawe
- Cardenas Et Al 1980Uploaded bymamandawe
- Theoretical Evaluation of Non-Planar Wall-to-Beam Connections under Cyclic Loading by S. Abdullah and D. NaishUploaded bymamandawe
- Behavior of Pile Foundations in Laterally Spreading Ground During Centrifuge TestsUploaded bymamandawe
- WebPEER 2014 16Uploaded bymamandawe
- Buried Concrete Basement Wall Design 2013-04Uploaded byDaniyal Ahmad
- 100 of the Worlds Tallest BuildingsUploaded bymariusfar1
- Magnitude IntensityUploaded bymamandawe
- Iraqi Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (1987)_3Uploaded bymamandawe
- Geotechnical ReportUploaded bymamandawe
- E702.1 Allowable Stress Design of RC Masonry Shear Wall 2006-03-29Uploaded bymamandawe
- Analysis of Thick Circular PlatesUploaded bymamandawe
- OpenSees UniaxialMaterial Arguments -- Steel02 - OpenSeesWikiUploaded bymamandawe
- 13 Bolted ConnectionsUploaded bymamandawe
- Structural Steel Instructors ManualUploaded bymamandawe
- Lecture 17Uploaded bySabareesh Kumar
- Materi Beton ACIUploaded byDwie Oktaviana
- Eng.hoseini OpenseesUploaded byfoufou2003

- neotectonica.pdfUploaded byJorge Vasconcelos Netto
- Basic Concept of Base Isolation System for BuildingsUploaded byDawit Solomon
- New Seismic Stabilization Technology for Retrofit and New STRUCTUREUploaded byMac
- Micropile Presentation.pdfUploaded bygizmopowa
- Finite Element Analysis of Flush End Plate Moment Connections Under Cyclic LoadingUploaded bylaw116
- Unit 2 Junior Class PreparationUploaded byelcorreodelamiss
- Standart i Zim iUploaded byArmando Durbaku
- Seismic Cone Penetrometer TestingUploaded byszarnani
- IBC 2006 and ASCE 7-05.xlsUploaded byNguyen Duc Cuong
- Time Travel Secret 1985Uploaded byTeslamem
- Dilatancy (Granular Material)Uploaded byAnkush Jain
- biosphereUploaded byapi-239931530
- Sample Assignment on Tourist Destination - Assignment Prime AustraliaUploaded byAssignment Prime
- ICG-PTWS-XXIV_3Uploaded bynajill10
- Soil Mechanics Module, CED 201Uploaded byBernard Palmer
- Seismic Response of High Rise Building with Ground Soft StoreyUploaded byGRD Journals
- 1kmk_2_01_03_96.ru.en (1)Uploaded bybladeyus1
- seismicanalysisofmulti-storeyreinforcedconcretebuildingsframe-140225074155-phpapp02.docxUploaded byRico Padilla
- Robyn Tallis - Planet Builders 1 - Mountain of Stolen DreamsUploaded byCristian Rodriguez
- Business Continuity Planning and Disaster RecoveryUploaded byratish.pillai
- Our Changing EarthUploaded byMohamed Mahmoud Mobarak
- BridgeUploaded byinsane88
- causes of failures of earth dam.docxUploaded bydevendar
- Explosions UnderwaterUploaded byHoa Pham Van
- Earthquake a Sudden and Violent Shaking of the GroundUploaded byGino R. Monteloyola
- Micropile Design and Construction - FHWA05Uploaded byviraj
- 18107-35065-1-SMUploaded byvicho ramadhan
- MassWastingUploaded bydchana
- USACE - !Two-mode Approximate and Computer Solution MethodsUploaded byMihai Soplica Pancu
- Study of Constitutive Models for Soils Under Cyclic LoadingUploaded byjimmy Andres