Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Analysis of A Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall PDF
Analysis of A Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall PDF
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 nonlin-
ear 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 rein-
forcement 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
iii
Abstract
iv
Contents
Abstract i
Symbols iii
Contents v
List of Figures vii
List of Tables ix
Preface xi
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Theory 5
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Analysis Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1 Linear Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2 Plastic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.2.1 The Lower Bound Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Design Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.1 Disks with Orthogonal Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.2 Stringer Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4 Finite Element Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.1 Basic Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5 Nonlinear Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5.1 Concrete and Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5.2 Reinforced Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5.3 Mathematical Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5.3.1 Elastic Based Model - Before Yielding Point . . . . . . . 17
2.5.3.2 Elastic-Strain Hardening Plastic Model - After Yielding
Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.5.3.3 The Shape of an Initial Yield Surface . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.5.3.4 The evolution of Subsequent Loading Surface . . . . . . . 19
2.5.3.5 The Flow Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.5.4 Finite Element Modeling of Cracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
v
Contents
2.6 Ductility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.7 Cracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.8 Methods to Calculate Cracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.8.1 Calculation of design crack widths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.9 Shear Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4 Reinforcement Design 35
4.1 The Stringer Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.1.1 The Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.1.2 Calculation of Shear Stresses and Stringer Forces . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.2 Linear Elastic FE-analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.2.1 Modeling in SAP2000 and ETABS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.2.2 ETABS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.2.3 SAP2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.3 Minimum Reinforcement according to EC2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.3.1 Vertical Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.3.2 Horizontal Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
vi
List of Figures
vii
Contents
viii
List of Tables
ix
Preface
This work is presented for the fulllment of the requirements of the Master of Sci-
ence at the Department of Civil Engineering at the Technical University of Denmark.
The work was done at the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Iceland where the
author nished his B.Sc degree.
Acknowledgements
The University of Iceland Research Fund provided a nancial support which I am very
grateful for.
I am grateful to my supervisor professor Bjarni Bessason at the University of Iceland
for his guidance, ideas and encouragement during my thesis work. I would also like to
thank associate professor Per Golterman at the Technical University of Denmark for his
comments, support and giving me the opportunity to do my studies in Iceland. Finally I
want to thank Helga Björk Magnúsdóttir M.Sc for reading and correcting the project.
xi
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
Iceland lies on the Mid Atlantic Ridge and is being split by the divergent plate bound-
ary between the North American Plate and the Eurasian Plate, causing earthquakes and
eruptions. In South Iceland the plate boundary is shifted towards east and oshore north
of Iceland is shifted back west, see Figure 1.1. At these two locations there are conserva-
tive plate boundaries and we have the two main seismic zones in Iceland, i.e. the Tjörnes
Fracture Zone (TFZ) and the South Iceland Seismic Zone (SISZ). The most destructive
earthquakes in the history of Iceland have occurred in these two zones.
The SIZS is in the middle of the South Iceland lowland, the largest agricultural re-
gion in Iceland. In the region there are small villages and number of a farms. Most of
the houses there are one or two story buildings and before the year 2000 only very few
buildings (<10) were higher. The population in the year 2000 was around 16000.
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
In June 2000 two major earthquakes with moment magnitude 6.6 occurred, after 88
years of rest, 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. Despite intensive surface ssuring caused by the two
June 2000 earthquakes and recorded accelerations reaching 0.8g, the earthquakes caused
no structural collapse (see Figure 1.2). However lot of houses were damaged and at least 35
houses were estimated unrepairable. Most of the damaged houses were one story concrete
shear walls, which only had reinforcement around the windows and doors openings. [23]
[24]
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. Large earthquakes may occur in the zone
during the next few decades and with possibility of an earthquake, of comparable size to
the earthquakes in the year 2000. [24]
With more dense population in South Iceland there is growing demand for higher
houses. Number of three story and four story buildings have been built after 2000 and
more are on the schedule.
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 rein-
forced concrete structures has greatly increased and it has been shown that the plastic
theory is very successful to explain experimental observations of reinforced concrete. In
1979 the stringer method was developed by M.P. Nielsen for reinforced concrete walls.
This method optimizes reinforcement for a given load using the lower bound theorem of
plasticity theory. In the year 1999 the Stringer Method was introduced in the Danish
Concrete Norm, DS411.
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 progres-
sive yielding. 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, where it is assumed that the elastic capacity of the
structure will be exceeded. One way of doing nonlinear analysis is to use static pushover
analysis taking into account nonlinear behavior of the concrete and reinforcement.
2
Objective Section 1.2
Doing experiments on a reinforced concrete element shows of course the real life re-
sponse of the element under load but it can be extremely costly and time consuming. The
use of nite element analysis has increased due to progressing knowledge and capabilities
of computer software. So now it is possible to analyze concrete and understand the re-
sponse of a concrete element.
Over the past twenty years the static pushover procedure has been presented and non-
linear software tools been developed for seismic design of concrete structures by several
authors and standards, see for instance Chopra [5], Fajfar [11], Priesley [21], EC8 [10] and
ATC-40 [2].
1.2 Objective
The main objective of the research work presented in this thesis is to study the nonlin-
ear 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.
Four dierent reinforcement arrangements of the shear wall are considered. Firstly, a rein-
forcement 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). Fourthly, a reinforce-
ment 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 damage.
The main chapters are as follows:
Second chapter : The basic theory for the research work is presented. The dierence be-
tween linear elastic and plastic analysis is outlined and the fundamentals of the lower
bound theorem followed by explanation of the Stringer method. The basic concepts of a
nite element analysis is listed. The basic nonlinear behavior of concrete and reinforce-
ment is presented and also the importance of ductility and crack control. The mathemat-
ical models used in ANSYS for concrete, steel, yield criteria, failure criteria, ow rule and
hardening theory are presented. Finally a method to calculate crack width from Eurocode
2 is described.
Third chapter: The idealized building is described in details and its mass calculated. The
applied lateral design earthquake load is calculated based on the lateral force method
from Eurocode 8 and the static pushover analysis is presented.
Fourth chapter : The reinforcement design is made for the shear wall. First with the
Stringer method, secondly with a general FE-program, thirdly with a building specialized
FE-program and fourthly with minimum reinforcement from Eurocode 2.
Fifth chapter: The four designed walls are analyzed in the FE-program ANSYS. The
calculation process is described, the element type and material properties for the mathe-
3
Chapter 1 Introduction
matical models explained and dened. The analysis is carried out statically with nonlinear
pushover analysis. The results are shown by capacity curves, where it is possible to see ini-
tiations of cracks, yielding of reinforcement, ductility, crack distribution and crack widths.
The results are compared between the four walls.
4
Chapter 2
Theory
2.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews the theory used in this thesis. It starts by describing two of the
analysis methods used, linear and plastic analysis, following by showing how to calculate
the needed reinforcement from the analysis results by using the lower bound theorem.
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. It is explained
how cracks are modeled in a nite element programs and how they aect a concrete
structure.
In this project linear and plastic analysis will be used for the design of the reinforcement.
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. The lower
bound theorem is then used for the reinforcement design. Nonlinear analysis is made to
look at the seismic response of the designed walls. [9]
Ku=r (2.2.1)
where K is the stiness matrix, r is the vector of applied loads and u is the vector of
resulting displacements.
5
Chapter 2 Theory
The idealization that no deformations occur below yield point implies that the stress
eld cannot be determined when it is below that point. 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. The theory of collapse by yielding is termed limit analysis.
For arbitrary stress elds the yield point is assumed to be determined by a yield
condition:
f (Q1 , Q2 , ..., Qn ) = 0 (2.2.2)
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.
The amount of work that must be performed to deform a rigid-plastic body to cause
plastic deformations (strains) is
Z Z
D= (Q1 q1 + ...)dV = W dV (2.2.3)
V V
6
Analysis Methods Section 2.2
where D denotes the dissipation, W the work per unit volume and q the strains.
For all the stress combinations satisfying 2.2.2 the stress eld rendering the greatest pos-
sible work should be found, which is the greatest possible resistance against deformation.
W can be described as:
W = σ̄ · ²̄ (2.2.4)
where ²̄ is assumed to be given strain represented in the same coordinate system as f and
σ̄ = (Q1 , Q2 , ..., Qn ) determined so that W becomes as large as possible, subject to the
condition:
¯ =0
f (σ) (2.2.5)
The following three assumptions are made on the yield surface. Firstly it is dierentiable
without plane surfaces or apexes, secondly it is convex and thirdly it is assumed to be a
closed surface containing the point (Q1 , ...) = (0, ...), see Figure 2.2
If the variation of the work, W, is required to be zero when the stress eld is varied
from that which is sought then:
7
Chapter 2 Theory
a maximum value, another arbitrary stress eld on the yield surface can be considered
σ̄ 0 = (Q01 , Q02 , ...) = (σ̄ + ∆σ̄) = (Q1 + ∆Q1 , ...). If σ̄ 0 were the stress eld corresponding
to the given strain vector ²̄, the work would be
Since the yield surface is convex ∆σ̄ · ²̄ will be negative and thus
W ≥ W0 (2.2.10)
or the work is at maximum if the stress eld σ̄ 0 = σ̄ + ∆σ is entirely within the yield
surface, the following applies
W > W0 (2.2.11)
[18]
For the external load statically admissible stress distribution can be found and is
written as σ̄ = (Q1 , Q2 , ...) which in the body or part of the body corresponds to stresses
on the yield surface, which have corresponding strains ε̄ = (q1 , q2 , ...) in accordance with a
displacement eld that is geometrically possible in the body. Thus the principle of virtual
work is: Z
X
Pi ui = σ̄ ε̄dV (2.2.12)
V
where Pi and ui are the external forces and corresponding displacements and dV is the
volume element.
According to the assumption a safe statically admissible stress distribution can be found,
written as σ̄ 0 = (Q01 , Q02 , ...) and
X Z
Pi ui = σ̄ 0 ε̄dV (2.2.13)
V
where ui and ε̄ is the same as above and Pi and Q0i are static quantities in the principle
of virtual work. According to 2.2.11
σ̄ 0 · ²̄ < σ̄ · ²̄ (2.2.14)
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 .
For all loads where a safe and statically admissible stress distribution can be found:
µ < µp (2.2.15)
[18]
8
Design Methods Section 2.3
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 . It is assumed that the
concrete can carry negative principal stresses in both x and y directions. At points where
one or both principal stresses are tensile stresses, reinforcement is added.
The following set of formulas are used to determine the minimum reinforcement:
For σx ≤ σy
Case 1:
σx ≥ −|τxy | (2.3.1)
Asx fY
ftx = = σx + |τxy | (2.3.2)
t
Asy fY
fty = = σy + |τxy | (2.3.3)
t
σc = 2|τxy | (2.3.4)
Case2:
σx < −|τxy |
9
Chapter 2 Theory
Asx = 0
2
Asy fY τxy
fty = = σy +
t |σx |
τxy 2
σc = |σx |[1 + ( ) ]
σx
For σy ≤ σx
Case 1:
σy ≥ −|τxy | (2.3.5)
Asy fY
fty = = σy + |τxy | (2.3.6)
t
Asx fY
ftx = = σx + |τxy | (2.3.7)
t
σc = 2|τxy | (2.3.8)
Case2:
σy < −|τxy |
Asy = 0
2
Asx fY τxy
ftx = = σy +
t |σy |
τxy 2
σc = |σy |[1 + ( ) ]
σy
where:
σx is the stresses in x direction.
σy is the stresses in y direction.
τxy is the strain.
ftx is the reinforcement strength in x direction.
fty is the reinforcement strength in y direction.
fY is the reinforcement yield strength.
Asx is the reinforcement area in x direction.
Asy is the reinforcement area in y direction.
t is the thickness of the disk.
[18]
10
Design Methods Section 2.3
Figure 2.4: 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. The main
idea is that the loads and reactions are calculated as concentrated forces in the nodes, or
as shear stresses along the stringers. The stringers take on the axial stresses and can both
be pressure- or tension stringers and the mesh rectangles take up the shear stresses, and
is constant for each rectangle which means, that the force in the surrounding stringers
vary linearly between the nodes.
It is best to calculate rst the shear stress in the mesh areas and thereafter the forces in
the stringers. The tension stringers need reinforcement to take up the tension force and
the reinforcement area is calculated as:
F
As,t = (2.3.9)
fyd
where F is the calculated tension force in the stringer and fyd is the design yield point of
the steel.
If the calculated forces in the stringers are in compression the forces can be taken up by the
concrete supplemented with reinforcement. 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, νfcd = 0.5 · 25. The stringers width is usually not bigger than 20% of the
11
Chapter 2 Theory
total mesh rectangle area length/width [7]. The needed concrete area in the stringer is
calculated as:
F
Ac,needed = (2.3.10)
νfcd
where F is the compression force in the stringer, ν is the eciency factor and fcd is the
design concrete strength.
So the concrete can take up total force of:
C = Ac · ν · fcd (2.3.11)
τmax · b
As = (2.3.13)
fyd
where b is the width of the wall.
[18] [13]
Create and discretize the solution domain into nite elements; that is subdivide the
problem into nodes and elements.
Assume a shape function to represent the physical behavior of an element; that is, a
continuous function is assumed to represent the approximate solution of an element.
12
Nonlinear Analysis Section 2.5
Assemble the elements to present the entire problem. Construct the global stiness
matrix.
Apply boundary conditions, and loading.
Solve a set of linear or nonlinear algebraic equations simultaneously to obtain nodal
results, such as displacement values at dierent nodes.
[6]
Figure 2.6 shows a stress-strain diagram of reinforcing steel where ft is the tensile
strength, fy the yield stress and ²u the maximum elongation at maximum load
13
Chapter 2 Theory
For higher grades of steel or steel strengths the tensile and yield strength gets higher.
14
Nonlinear Analysis Section 2.5
Willam and Warnke (1975) developed a widely used model for triaxial failure surface
for plain concrete. The failure surface is shown in Figure 2.9 where it is plotted in the
coordinate system σ1 , σ2 and σ3 . It is an three-dimensional stress space and is separated
into hydrostatic and deviatoric sections. The hydrostatic section forms a meridianal plane
which contains the equisectrix σ1 = σ2 = σ3 as an axis of revolution. The mathematical
model expresses the failure surface in terms of average or hydrostatic stress, σa (change
in volume), the average shear stress, τa and the angle θ and the failure surface is dened
as:
1 σa 1 τa
+ =1 (2.5.1)
z fcu r(θ) fcu
where z is the apex of the surface and fcu is the uniaxial compressive strength of the
concrete.
The parameters that form the failure surface, z and r are identied from the uniaxial
compressive strength, biaxial compressive strength and the uniaxial tension strength along
with two points of high triaxial compression. So this representation requires ve data
points and the model is called the ve parameter model of Willam and Warnke. [4] [19]
15
Chapter 2 Theory
Figure 2.10 shows a typical uniaxial stress-strain curve for plain concrete up to tensile
and compressive failure. For tensile failure, the behavior is essentially linearly elastic up
to the failure load, the maximum stresses coincide with the maximum strains, and no
plastic strains occur at the failure moment. For compressive failure, the material initially
exhibits almost linear behavior up to the proportional limit at point A. 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. After point
A only the portion εe can be recovered from the total deformation ² and the concrete is
progressively weakened by internal microcracking up to the end of the perfectly plastic
ow region CD at point D. 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, respectively.
As can seen from Figure 2.10 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 . A material
is called perfectly plastic or work-hardening according as it does or does not admit changes
of permanent strain under constant stress. [21]
16
Nonlinear Analysis Section 2.5
Many elasticity based models have been developed to represent the behavior of con-
crete and the eld of elasticity-based models are quite broad. They can be broken down
into subcategories based on the state of stress that is modeled (uniaxial, biaxial or tri-
axial) and the form of constitutive relations (incremental or total stress-strain models).
The subject in this project, the shear wall, is under biaxial loading where plane stresses
can be found. For biaxial models the the most widely used representation is the isotropic
total stress-strain models. 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:
σx 1 ν 0 εx
σy = E ν εx
1 0 (2.5.2)
(1 − ν 2 ) (1−ν)
τxy 0 0 e
εx
The response of the concrete after the yield point A in Figure 2.10 which is the ir-
recoverable part, or the elastic-plastic response, is described by the theory of plasticity.
In general models based on the plasticity describe concrete as an elastic-perfectly plastic
material, or to account for the hardening behavior up to the ultimate strength, as an
elastic-plastic-hardening material. Here the elastic strain hardening plastic model will be
described, 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. Figure 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. 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. 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.
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. If further discontinuity is continued beyond this surface a nal collapse
of the concrete cracking or crushing occurs, depending on the nature of the stress state.
17
Chapter 2 Theory
[4] [19]
[4]
18
Nonlinear Analysis Section 2.5
then
δf
d²pij = dλ (2.5.5)
δσij
This relation is called the associated ow rule because it is connected with the loading
surface.
[4]
19
Chapter 2 Theory
the node is redened as two nodes. 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. Therefore the discrete crack approach may not be the best choice
for problems with many cracks, like in reinforced concrete elements. These problems
can mostly be avoided in the smeared crack approach, which models cracks and joints
in an average sense by appropriately modifying material properties at the integration
points of regular nite elements. The formation of a crack involves no remeshing or new
degrees of freedom. However they have limited ability to model sharp discontinuities and
represent the topology or material behavior in the vicinity of the crack. The smeared
crack approach works best when cracks to be modeled are themselves smeared out, as in
reinforced concrete applications. [16]
2.6 Ductility
To minimize major damage and to ensure the survival of buildings with moderate
resistance with respect to lateral force, structures must be capable of sustaining a high
proportion of their initial strength when a major earthquake imposes large deformations.
These deformations may be well beyond the elastic limit. This ability of the structure
or its components, or of the materials used to oer resistance in the inelastic domain of
response, is described by the general term ductility. It includes the ability to sustain large
deformations, and a capacity to absorb energy by hysteric behavior.
The ductility is dened as the ratio of the total imposed displacements ∆ at any instant
to that at the onset of yield ∆y .
∆
µ= >1 (2.6.1)
∆y
The ductility, µ, of a structure, that is the ductility developed when failure is imminent
is:
∆u
µu = (2.6.2)
∆y
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.
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 . It is possible to satisfy the performance criteria of the damage
control and survival limit state by one of the three distinct design approaches, related to
the level of ductility permitted of the structure. An illustration of these three approaches
are shown in Figure 2.13 where the strength SE , required to resist earthquake-induced
forces and structural displacements ∆ at the development at dierent levels of strength
are related to each other.
20
Cracks Section 2.7
a Elastic response. Because of their great importance, certain buildings will deed to
possess adequate strength to ensure that they remain essentially elastic. Other struc-
tures, perhaps of lesser importance, may nevertheless possess a level of inherent
strength such that elastic response is assured. The idealized response of such struc-
ture is shown in Figure 2.13 by the bilinear strength-displacement path OAA0 . The
maximum displacement ∆me is very close to the displacement of the ideal elastic
structure.
b Ductile response. Most ordinary buildings are designed to resist lateral seismic force
which are smaller than those that would be developed in an elastically responding
structure as Figure 2.13 shows, that inelastic deformation and hence ductility will
be required of the structure. These structures can be divided into two groups.
1. Fully ductile structures ; These are designed to possess the maximum ductility
potential than can reasonably be achieved at carefully identied and detailed
inelastic regions. The idealized bilinear response of this type of structure is
shown in Figure 2.13 by the path OCC 0
2. Structures with Restricted Ductility ; Certain structures inherently possess sig-
nicant strength with respect to lateral forces as a consequence, for example,
of the presence of large areas of structural walls.
Figure 2.13 shows approximate values of ductility factors which may be used as guides
for the limit of the categories discussed. Although displacement ductilities in excess of
8 can be developed in some well-detailed reinforced concrete structures, the associated
maximum displacements ∆mf are likely to be beyond limits set by other design criteria,
such as structural stability. Elastically responding structures, implying no or negligible
ductility demands, represent the other limit.
[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, it is also important from the
21
Chapter 2 Theory
Concrete cracks early in its loading history. Most cracks are results from the following
actions.
1. Volumetric change caused by plastic shrinkage or expensive chemical reactions
within hardened concrete,creep and thermal stresses.
2. Stress because of bending, shear or other moments caused by transverse loads.
3. Direct stress due to applied loads or reactions or internal stresses due to continuity,
reversible fatigue load, long-term deection, environmental eects or dierential
movements in structural system.
While the net results of these three actions cause the formation of cracks, the mechanism
of their development cannot be considered identical. Volumetric change cause internal
micro-cracking, which may develop into full cracking. 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, bond and diagonal tension cracks. As the tensile stress
in the concrete exceeds its tensile strength, internal micro-cracks form. These cracks de-
velop into macro-cracks propagating to the external ber zone of the element.
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. 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, the limitation of the maximum design crack
width is about 0.3 mm
[9][17]
where:
wk is the design crack width.
srm is the average nal crack spacing.
εsm is the mean strain allowed under the relevant combination of loads for the eects of
tension stiening, shrinkage, etc.
β is a coecient relating the average crack width to the design value and here it may be
22
Shear Wall Section 2.9
[9]
23
Chapter 2 Theory
Stiness, strength and ductility are the basic criteria that the structure should satisfy
and shear walls provide a nearly optimum means of achieving those objectives. Buildings
having shear walls are stier than framed structures resulting in reduced deformations
under earthquake load. 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.
Structural walls usually have openings, 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.
Walls of the type shown in Figure 2.15, and of the same type as the wall analyzed
here, are characterized by a small height-to-length ratio, hw /lw . The potential exural
strength of such walls may be very large in comparison with lateral forces. Because of the
small height, relatively large shearing forces must be generated
24
Chapter 3
In this chapter the analyzed building is described, the total mass calculated and the
applied load from an earthquake on the building is calculated. The house is a three story
oce building, it does not exist in reality and it is assumed that it is placed on the South
part of Iceland.
25
Chapter 3 The Building and the Load
26
The Building Section 3.2
27
Chapter 3 The Building and the Load
The rst method uses a static force which is distributed on the building according to
specic rules listed in EC8. This method is good for simple regular buildings and could
therefore be applied for the three story shear wall.
1. A "uniform" pattern, based on lateral forces that are proportional to mass regardless
of elevation (unform response acceleration);
2. A "modal" pattern, which depends on the type of linear analysis applicable to the
particular structure. Because the building satises the condition for the application
of lateral force analysis method, an 'inverted triangular' unidirectional force pattern,
similar to the one used in that method is used.
The most unfavorable result of the pushover analysis using the two standard lateral force
patterns should be adopted. Moreover, unless there is perfect symmetry with respect to
an axis orthogonal to that of the seismic action components considered, each lateral force
pattern should be applied in both the positive and the negative direction, and the result
used should be the most unfavorable one from the two analyses.
In this thesis only the second load pattern is used in the static pushover analysis.
28
Load - Lateral Force Method of Analysis Section 3.3
According to EC8: 4.3.3.2.2 the seismic base shear force, Fb for the horizontal direction
Fb = Sd (T1 ) · m · λ (3.3.2)
where
Sd (T1 ) is the ordinate of the design spectrum at period T1 . (See EC8: 3.2.2.5)
m is the total mass of the building, computed in accordance with EC8:3.2.4(2)
λ is the correction factor, here λ = 0.85 if T1 ≤ 2Tc and the building has more than two
stories.
T1 can be approximated:
T1 = Ct · H 3/4 (3.3.3)
where Ct = 0.075
√
Ac
- for a concrete shear wall and Ac is the total eective area of the shear
wall.
Ac is given by the equation:
X
Ac = [Ai · (0.2 + (lwi /H))2 ] (3.3.4)
Where Ai is the eective cross sectional area of the shear wall i in the rst storey of the
building in m2 .
lwi is the length of the shear wall i in the rst storey in the direction parallel to the
applied forces, in m,.
H is the height of the building, in m, from the foundation or the top of the rigid basement
and lwi /H should not exceed 0.9.
29
Chapter 3 The Building and the Load
Usually houses in Iceland are built on solid rock or ground type A. The importance
class is set to III, which is for ordinary buildings not belonging to the other three im-
portance classes, see EC8: Table 4.3. The following parameters (in Table 3.2) are used to
30
Load - Lateral Force Method of Analysis Section 3.3
According to EC8:5.2.2.2 q0 is the basic value dependent on the type of the structural
system and on its regularity in elevation. The building has Ductility Class Medium (DCM)
so q0 = 3
(1 + α0 )
kw = ≤ 1but not less than 0.5
3
P
hwi 2·9
α0 = P = = 0.78
lwi 2 · 11.5
The behavior factor can then be calculated
q = 3 · 0.59 = 1.78
From EC8 3.2.2.5 the horizontal design response spectrum, Sd (T ), is dened by the
following expression:
2 T 2.5 2
0 ≤ T ≤ TB : Sd (T ) = ag · S · [ + ·( − )]
3 TB q 3
2.5
TB ≤ T ≤ TC : Sd (T ) = ag · S ·
q
½ TC
ag · S · 2.5
q ·[ T ]
TC ≤ T ≤ TD : Sd (T ) =
≥ β · aq
½ TC TD
ag · S · 2.5
q · [ T2 ]
TD ≤ T : Sd (T ) =
≥ β · aq
T is the vibration period of a linear single-degree-of-freedom system. The design
ground acceleration according to EC8.3.2.1(3)is:
TB , 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.
S is the soil factor.
The damping correction factor is η , with reference value η = 1 for 5% viscous damping.
The following values in Table 3.3 are dened and describe the recommended type 1 design
response spectrum for type A ground, see EC 8: Table 3.2
31
Chapter 3 The Building and the Load
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 3.5.
1
g
S /a
dh
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T
Sd (T1 )
= 1.068 ⇒ Sd (T1 ) = 1.404 · 0.4 · 9.81 · 1 = 5.5m/s2
ag
Use EC8:4.3.3.2.3 to distribute the horizontal seismic forces:
According to 4.3.3.2.3(3) the fundamental mode shape is approximated by horizontal
displacements increasing linearly along the height, the horizontal forces, Fi , should be
taken as being given by:
z i · mi
Fi = Fb · P (3.3.6)
zj · mj
where
mi , mj are the storey masses.
zi , zj are the heights of the masses, mi , mj , above the level of application of the seismic
action.
The mass is computed in accordance with EC8:3.2.4(2)
X
mi = ΣGk,j ” + ” ΨE,i · Qk,i (3.3.7)
32
Load - Lateral Force Method of Analysis Section 3.3
where
ΨE,i is the combination coecient for variable action i and is computed from the follow-
ing expression ΨE,i = ϕ · Ψ2i , here ϕ = 0.5 and Ψ2i = 0.3
Here live load is set to 3kN/m2 (oce building) and dead load (furniture etc.) to
2kN/m2 on each story.
m1 = 150877kg
2000 · 20 · 11.5 ·3000 · 10 · 11.5
m2 = 186754 + + 0.3 · 0.5 = 244195kg
9.81 9.81
m3 = 244195kg
Which gives:
9 · 150877
F1 = 2989 · = 1141kN
3555648
6 · 243150
F2 = 2989 · = 1226kN
3555648
3 · 243150
F3 = 2989 · = 613kN
3555648
The loads F1 , F2 and F3 are divided on two shear walls (i.e. one in each end of the
building) and the load acting on shear wall to be analysed is therefore:
F1 = 570kN
F2 = 613kN
F3 = 307kN
33
Chapter 3 The Building and the Load
The load applied on the shear wall can be seen in Figure 3.6.
34
Chapter 4
Reinforcement Design
Forces acting against the horizontal loads are applied at the vertical stringer lines and
are calculated as:
4.75
449 · = 370kN
5.75
2.25
449 · = 175kN
5.75
1.25
449 · = 98kN
5.75
The applied forces for the calculations in the stringer method are shown in Figure 4.2.
35
Chapter 4 Reinforcement Design
Figure 4.1: The wall divided into nodes, stringers and areas
Figure 4.2: The forces acting on the wall for Stringer Method
36
The Stringer Method Section 4.1
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.
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 cal-
culated 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
Chapter 4 Reinforcement Design
reinforcement simplest as possible the reinforcement is the same for the whole stringer
line and is put as 4k16. 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 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. The same approach is made for stinger lines 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10.
−200
−400
−600
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
stringerline no 1
200
Stringerforce [kN]
100
−100
−200
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
stringerline no 2
400
200
−200
−400
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
stringerline no 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 4.5. The force decreases along the line ending as zero
ate node 32. 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.
−200
−400
−600
−800
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
stringerline no 4
400
Stringerforce [kN]
200
−200
−400
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
stringerline no 5
400
200
−200
−400
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
stringerline no 6
40
The Stringer Method Section 4.1
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.
−200
−400
49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
stringerline no 7
Stringerforce [kN]
500
−500
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
stringerline no 8
1000
500
0
−500
67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
stringerline no 9
1000
0
−1000
−2000
77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86
stringerline no 10
There are eight vertical stringer lines numbered from 11 to 18. The maximum calcu-
lated reinforcement is similar in all the vertical stringer lines and the same reinforcement,
4k20, is put in all of them.
9 10 11 12
17 18 19 20
25 26 27 28
stringerline no 11
stringerline no 12
stringerline no 13
stringerline no 14
33 34 35 36
41 42 43 44
49 50 51 52
57 58 59 60
67 68 69 70
77 78 80
−1000 0 1000 −500 0 500 0 500 1000 −500 0 500
Stringerforce [kN]
41
Chapter 4 Reinforcement Design
13 14 15 16
21 22 23 24
stringerline no 15 29 30 31 32
stringerline no 16
stringerline no 17
stringerline no 18
37 38 39 40
45 46 47 48
55 56
53 54
61 62 65 66
71 72 75 76
81 82 85 86
−1000 −500 0 −1000 −500 0 −1000 −500 0 −500 0 500
Stringerforce [kN]
42
Linear Elastic FE-analysis Section 4.2
1. The structure is divided into distinct appropriate elements. In both SAP2000 and
ETABS the shell element is used. The shell element combines membrane and plate-
bending behavior, as shown in Figure 4.10. It has six degrees of freedoms in each
corner point (only one shown on the gure). It is a simple quadrilateral shell element
which has a 24x24 stiness matrix which is transformed to the global XYZ system.
2. Grid lines are made for the x,y and z coordinates and the wall is drawn from scratch.
3. Boundary conditions are assigned to the nodes (joints) where it is required. Bound-
ary conditions are assigned at the bottom of the wall (at ground level) where re-
straints should be against all movements to imitate the behavior of a shear wall. Here
only one wall is modeled so restraints are also put against movements perpendicular
to the wall.
4. The material properties are dened such as mass, weight, modulus of elasticity,
poisson's ratio, strength characteristics etc. The material properties used in the
models are shown in Table 4.2.
43
Chapter 4 Reinforcement Design
5. The geometric properties of the elements are dened such as dimensions for the wall
section.
6. Elements are assigned to element type, see Table 4.3.
7. Loads are assigned to the joints as they will be applied in the real structure.
8. The model should be ready to be analyzed and forces, stresses and displacements
can be looked at.
4.2.2 ETABS
In ETABS single walls are modeled as a pier/spandrel system, that is the wall is
divided into vertical piers and horizontal spandrels. This is a powerful mechanism to
obtain design moments, shear forces and normal forces across a wall sections. Appropriate
meshing and labeling is the key to proper modeling and design. Loads are only transferred
to the wall at the corner points of the area objects that make up the wall. Generally the
membrane or shell type element should be used to model walls. Here the shell type is
used. There are three types of deformation that a single shell element can experience, are
axial deformation, shear deformation and bending deformation, see Figure 4.11.
Wall pier forces are output at the top and bottom of wall pier elements and wall span-
drel forces are output at the left and right ends of wall spandrel element, see Figure 4.12.
44
Linear Elastic FE-analysis Section 4.2
At the upper level of this model, Pier P1 is dened to extend all the way across the
wall above the openings. Pier P2 makes up the wall pier to the left of the top window,
pier P4 and P5 occur between the windows and pier P6 is at the right of the top windows.
Pier P7 is dened to extend all the way across the wall below the openings. A similar
labeling of piers occurs at the lower two levels given names from P8 to P18. The pier
labeling can be seen in Figure C.5.
Spandrel labels are assigned in similar way to vertical area objects (walls).
The pier and spandrel labels must be assigned to elements before the output forces can
be given. Figures of the labeling can be seen in appendix C.
The whole wall is meshed into 200 ∗ 250 rectangles.
45
Chapter 4 Reinforcement Design
Figures 4.14 and 4.15 show as an example the moment for all the piers and spandrels
which is the most predominant value for the reinforcement around the openings. The
values can be seen in Table C.1 and C.2 in Appendix C.
46
Linear Elastic FE-analysis Section 4.2
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. The calculated reinforcement arrangement from analyzing in ETABS
is shown in Figure 4.16.
47
Chapter 4 Reinforcement Design
4.2.3 SAP2000
The shell element stresses computed in SAP2000 or are shown in Figure 4.17 and are:
Here we are interested in the in plane stresses, S11, S22 and S12 or σx , σy and τxy and
they are assumed to be constant through the element thickness.
The result from the SAP2000 analysis is shown in Figures 4.18 to 4.20 based on the
loads in Figure 3.6. For σx in Figure 4.18 the stresses vary from -10 to 6.5 MPa and for
σy from -15 to 4.5 MPa where negative values are compression stresses. It is assumed
that the concrete can take up negative stresses and reinforcement is needed to take up
the tension stresses. 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. 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. Three values
were taken perpendicular from the window for both stresses in the x and y direction in
0.25 increments perpendicular or over a 0.5 m strip. In similar way the average value for
the stresses in the wall were taken one meter in both directions, or 5 values with 0.25
increments. The average values are used to calculate the necessary reinforcement by using
the lower bound method described in section 2.3.1. The average values and the calculated
reinforcement can be seen in Table 4.4
48
Linear Elastic FE-analysis Section 4.2
49
Chapter 4 Reinforcement Design
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.
50
Linear Elastic FE-analysis Section 4.2
51
Chapter 4 Reinforcement Design
52
Minimum Reinforcement according to EC2 Section 4.3
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.
The reinforcement layout can be seen in Figure 4.22.
53
Chapter 5
55
Chapter 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis
The most important aspect of this element is the treatment of nonlinear material prop-
erties. The concrete is capable of cracking in tension (in three orthogonal directions),
crushing in compression, plastic deformation, and creep. The rebars are capable of ten-
sion and compression, but not shear. They are also capable of plastic deformation and
creep. The geometry, node locations and the coordinate system for the element is shown
in Figure 5.1
The reinforcement is modeled as real constants assuming a smeared model. For each re-
inforcement real constant values are needed for the material number, volume ratio and
orientation angle. The material number refers to the type of material used for the rein-
forcement, 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.
The following assumptions and restrictions are made in the SOLID65 model:
1. Cracking is permitted in three orthogonal directions at each integration point.
2. If cracking occurs at an integration point, the cracking is modeled through an ad-
justment of material properties which eectively treats the cracking as a 'smeared
band' of cracks, rather than discrete cracks.
3. The concrete material is assumed to be initially isotropic.
4. Whenever the reinforcement capability of the element is used, the reinforcement is
assumed to be 'smeared' throughout the element. That is it it assumed that the
reinforcement is uniformly spread throughout the concrete element.
5. In addition to cracking and crushing, the concrete may also undergo plasticity, with
the Drucker-Prager failure surface being most commonly used. In this case, the
plasticity is done before the cracking and crushing checks.
[1]
56
Material Properties Section 5.3
subjected to lateral force. 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.
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. 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. When
the stresses reach the yield point the biaxial-hardening model takes in, as described in
section 2.5.3. Figure 5.2 shows the bilinear hardening model of the concrete.
Where:
fc is the uniaxial ultimate compression strength of the concrete.
0.8 · fc is the uniaxial yield strength of the concrete.
Ec is the modulus of elasticity.
EcT is the secant modulus of plasticity.
ft is the uniaxial tensile strength.
Tc is the multiplier for amount of tensile stress relaxation.
εut is the ultimate strain for concrete.
The concrete used is C30, with fck = 30M P a, the fck value is a characteristic cylinder
compressive strength and is dened as the 5% fractile value of the probability density
function, see Figure 5.3.
The standard deviation is estimated as 5-8 N/mm2 so the mean compressive strength
57
Chapter 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis
fcm = 30 + (5 − 8) = 35 to 38 M P a
2/3
fct = 0.3 · fck = 0.3 · 302/3 = 2.9M P a (5.3.1)
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:
The ultimate strain for concrete is 0.0035 indicating the crushing strain.
The bilinear kinematic material uses the von Mises failure criterion along with the
Willam and Warnke model to dene the failure of the concrete, the Willam and Warnke
model [4] is a ve parameter model and as explained in section 2.5.3 it needs a total of
ve input strength parameters to dene the failure, the parameters are listed in Table 5.1.
fcb = 1.2 · fc
f1 = 1.45 · fc
f2 = 1.725 · fc
The parameters needed to dene the material properties of the concrete are listed in
Table 5.3. The typical shear transfer coecient is dened from zero to one, with zero
representing a smooth crack (complete loss of shear transfer) and one representing a
rough crack (no loss of shear transfer).
58
Material Properties Section 5.3
59
Chapter 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis
The shear wall is modeled as a volume. All the nodes at the ground level are xed
and the displacement into the wall is prevented. To obtain good results from the Solid65
element it is important to mesh the model properly. The analytical model of the meshed
wall with its boundaries and applied loads is shown in Figure 5.5.
Table 5.4 shows the main characteristics of the nite element model used in ANSYS.
60
Analytical Results Section 5.5
Figure 5.7 shows the load-deection curve or the capacity curve for the analysed walls.
The force is normalized where one is the calculated design earthquake load. At the design
earthquake load the ultimate top displacement is approximately 5.2 mm for the wall with
minimum reinforcement according to EC2, 4.7 mm for the wall designed from SAP2000,
4.1 mm for the wall designed from ETABS the minimum displacement, 3.8 mm, is for the
wall designed according to the Stringer method.
61
Chapter 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis
0.9
0.8
0.7
Elastic
Normalized Load
0.6 EC2
stringer
0.5 sap2000
Etabs
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
deflection [mm]
In Figure 5.8 the displacement has been normalized in the form of displacement ductil-
ity. The yield deection is about 1 for all of the walls, see Figure 5.7, so the displacement
ductility has the same value as the displacement for each wall.
0.9
0.8
EC2
0.7
stringer
Normalized Load
sap2000
0.6
Etabs
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement ductility
62
Analytical Results Section 5.5
When the force exceeds the design earthquake load and the normalized load is 1.2 the
ductility reaches 8 and there the structural stability is treated by buckling, brittle failure
as seen in Figure 2.13
1.2
1
Normalized Load
0.8
0.6 EC2
stringer
sap2000
0.4 Etabs
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement ductility
Figures 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9 show that for increased reinforcement in the wall the wall re-
sistance increases. 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 element behaves in a linear elastic manner until either of the specied tensile or
compressive strengths are exceeded. Cracking or crushing of an element is initiated once
one of the element principal stresses, exceeds the tensile or compressive strength of the
concrete and the element thus becomes nonlinear. In Figure 5.7 it can be seen that all
the graphs are linear until the normalized load is about 0.4 to 0.5 or when less than 50%
of the applied design earthquake load is reached. Therefore the assumption can be made
that the concrete starts to crack at that point.
63
Chapter 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis
Figures 5.11 to 5.13 show the cracking in the shear wall for all the four dierent
reinforcement layouts. The crack pattern is very similar in all of the walls. The most
critical area is around the middle opening of the second oor, hereafter called the middle
opening. The rst tension cracking occurs in same elements for all of the walls. The
elements are numbered 778 and 670 and are located at the left upper corner and bottom
right corner of the middle wall, see Figure 5.6. The concrete crushes at the ground level
of the wall.
64
Analytical Results Section 5.5
65
Chapter 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis
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. Therefore
it is interesting to see how the steel stress changes in the elements when the load is
increased. First the steel stress in element 787 is examined for all the walls. Element 787 is
located at the top left corner of the middle opening, see Figure 5.6. For the walls designed
from the FE-analysis in ETABS and with the Stringer method, 4k16 is placed around
the opening while 2k16 is used when the design is based on the other two. Figure 5.15
shows the steel stresses versus normalized load for the vertical reinforcement in element
787. The stresses in the reinforcement start to increase when around 40% of the design
earthquake load is reached for all the designed reinforcement layouts. It can be seen that
the steel stresses in SAP2000 and EC2 increase faster than the other two. Despite this
less than 50% of the reinforcement strength is reached at the design earthquake load for
the 2k16 reinforcements.
66
Analytical Results Section 5.5
550
500
450 EC2
stringer
400 sap2000
Etabs
Steel stress [MPa]
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Load [kN]
In Figure 5.16 the horizontal steel stress in element at the bottom right corner of the
middle window is examined, or element 670 (see Figure 5.6), is shown. The reinforcement
is the same as in element 787. The results are similar to the 787 element and the stresses
in the steel starts to increase when the normalized load is around 0.4. Except for the steel
in the SAP2000 layout, there the concrete does not start to crack until around 70% of
the design earthquake load is reached and then the stresses increase rapidly. The stresses
in this reinforcement do not reach as high as in element 787.
550
500
450
400 EC2
stringer
Steel stress [MPa]
350 sap2000
Etabs
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Load [kN]
67
Chapter 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis
The calculations were made in MATLAB and the crack width plotted as function of
the normalized load.
In section 2.7 it was explained according to EC2 that the crack width should not
exceed 0.3 mm to prevent corrosion of the reinforcement, which happens if the crack
starts to leak. From experience of Icelandic houses a crack need to be repaired if its width
is between 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm, but that is usually only necessary to improve the visual
or a aesthetic view of the wall. Nevertheless the damaging impact on the concrete from
each crack has to be evaluated individually. Crack 0.3 mm wide is visible at distance of
about 2.0 m and it usually does not start to leak. For a crack of this size a light repair is
usually enough where and surface treatment is enough were monosilan, siloxan or similar
material is applied on the concrete surface to conceal the projection of cracks. If the crack
reaches 0.5 mm or more the damage starts to get more serious and more costly to repair.
The concrete might start to leak and epoxy injection is necessary. The main purpose with
the repair is to prevent leaking, restore the original strength and stiness.
First element 787 is examined, see Figure 5.17 where the crack width is shown as
function of the applied load. It can be seen that when the design earthquake load is
68
Analytical Results Section 5.5
reached the crack width for the wall designed from ETABS and Stringer method with
4k16 in the element is under 0.3 mm but the crack width in the wall designed from
SAP2000 and minimum EC2 reinforcement with 2k16 is around 0.6 to 0.7 mm.
The results are very similar for element 670 as seen in Figure 5.18.
1.5
1.4
1.3
EC2
1.2 stringer
1.1 sap2000
Design crack width [mm]
Etabs
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Normalized Load
1.5
1.3
EC2
1.2 stringer
1.1 sap2000
Design crack width [mm]
Etabs
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Normalized Load
From gures 5.17 and 5.18 it is obvious that the reinforcement has great inuence
on the crack width. The crack widt is smaller for higher reinforcement degree, i.e. 4k16
than the lower degree 2k16. Therefore it is also interesting to look at an element were
the reinforcement area is the same for all of the four walls. Element 1026 is examined
1026 which is between the windows on the third and the second oor, see Figure 5.6.
69
Chapter 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis
The element is reinforced with k10c200. Even though the reinforcement is the same in all
of the walls the results are similar as for the other two elements. At design earthquake
load the crack width is around 0.3 mm for the walls designed from ETABS and Stringer
method and is between 0.8 to 0.9 mm for the other two.
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1 EC2
stringer
1
Design crack width [mm]
sap2000
0.9 Etabs
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Normalized Load
70
Analytical Results Section 5.5
Next a look will be taken into the crack growth, it starts in element 670 at the right
bottom corner of the middle window and goes down to element 441. The crack growth in
all the walls for the same elements are examined. It starts by looking at the wall designed
with the Stringer method. A close up gure of the elements can be seen in Figure 5.20.
The concrete starts to crack in element 670 when the normalized load is 0.4 of the
design load, in element 625 at 0.52 and the the last crack formed before the design
earthquake load is reached is in element 441 when the normalized load is 0.9, but the crack
opening is really small in the beginning and does not start to open until the normalized
load is around 1.5. In element 670 the reinforcement is 4k16 and 2k10c200 in the other
ve elements. The crack pattern can be seen in Figure 5.21, at design earthquake load
the crack width is well below 0.3 mm at all places.
0.5
0.4
el. 670
el. 625
Design crack width [mm]
el. 579
0.3 el. 533
el. 487
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Normalized Load
71
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 5.23. When the
gure is compared with Figure 5.20 it can be seen that the crack pattern is very similar.
The reinforcement in element 670 is 4k16 and k10c200 in the other ve.
The concrete starts to crack in element 670 when 40% of the design earthquake load
is reached. Cracks in the other elements start to develop shortly after the rst crack and
the crack width grows rapidly in elements 625 to 487, where the reinforcement is twice
as low as in the elements for Stringer method. Despite this the crack width is under 0.3
mm for all of the elements at the design earthquake load.
0.7
0.6
el. 670
el. 625
0.5
Design crack width [mm]
el. 579
el. 533
0.4 el. 487
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Normalized Load
72
Analytical Results Section 5.5
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. The crack seems to
have eects on the element on the left side of elements 670 to 441, see Figure 5.24.
As seen in Figure 5.25 the crack width in element 670 reaches around 0.6 to 0.7 mm
at the design earthquake load but the crack width in the other two elements does not get
so high. It would have been of more interest to look at the cracks in the other elements.
1.2
1.1
1 el. 670
el. 625
0.9
el. 579
Design crack width [mm]
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Normalized Load
73
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. It can be seen that there are slightly
more cracks seen on Figure 5.26 than in Figure 5.20 and 5.22.
Cracking in element 670 starts when the normalized load is about 0.4 and the cracking
in the other element follows quickly after and the growth of the crack width is fast. At
the design earthquake load the width for elements 670, 625 and 579 has reached 0.3 mm,
see Figure 5.27. At the design earthquake load the assumption can be made that a crack
of length 75 cm and width of 0.3 mm or higher has been formed in the concrete below
the opening because of the design earthquake load.
1.3
1.2
1.1 el. 670
el. 625
1 el. 579
el. 533
Design crack width [mm]
0.9
el. 487
0.8 el. 441
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Normalized Load
74
Chapter 6
In the thesis a nonlinear pushover analysis of idealized three story concrete shear wall
building with dierent seismic reinforcement design was presented. The building was as-
sumed to be located in the South Iceland Seismic Zone where the characteristic peak
ground acceleration is 0.4g. This reects a design earthquake with 475 year return period.
In the thesis only one wall of the building was studied. The design earthquake load was
dened by the lateral force method from Eurocode 8.
Three methods were used for the seismic design of the reinforcement in the shear
wall. First, the Stringer method which is a lower bound method. Second, a design based
on linear elastic FE-analysis using the general purpose FE-program SAP2000. Third, a
design based again on linear elastic FE-analysis but now using the building specialized
FE-program, ETABS. For comparison reinforcement based on the minimum requirement
according to EC2 was also studied. The reinforcement from the Stinger Method and the
one based on the ETABS analysis gave very similar reinforcement layouts. These methods
gave more boundary reinforcement, i.e. reinforcement around openings than the other two
methods.
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. The lateral load
was stepwise increased from zero to twice the design earthquake load. With the model it
was possible to get information about deformations, initial cracks, tensile cracks, crushing,
steel stresses and plastic deformations. However, the model gave no information about
crack widths which are crucial in order to estimate damage. For that reason an attempt
was made to evaluate crack widths as a function of load with method from Eurocode 2.
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.
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. On the other hand the reinforcement layouts from SAP2000 and the
minimum reinforcement according to EC2 were similar. The design based on ETABS and
the Stringer method gave better results, i.e. less crack widths and overall less damage
for the same load level. The results clearly indicate that dierent reinforcement layouts
aect the response of the wall. At the most critical points in the wall the two layouts
from ETABS and Stringer method were under acceptable crack widths, 0,3 mm, when
subjected to design earthquake load, while the minimum reinforcement according to EC2
75
Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusion
and the layout from SAP2000 gave far higher crack widths, or up to 0.9 mm. The dier-
ence in crack width is mainly due to the boundary reinforcement. 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 rein-
forcement. In this thesis the FE-stresses were averaged over 0.5 m wide strip which seems
to be to wide strip. This is something that should be studied in more details.
The crack widths calculated by using the information from ANSYS seem to be promis-
ing and useful when designing and analysing structures in seismic zones. However, the
results from the nonlinear static procedure must be taken with caution, and the results
need to be veried by experimental data.
In this thesis only one shear wall was studied and only one material set, i.e. concrete
and steel type. In the future more types of shear walls and material sets could be studied
as well as laboratory tests to backup the numerical results. Finally, 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
Appendix A
%----------------------------------------------------------------
function Sdh = hordesignSd(ag,T,TB,TC,TD,nu,q,beta,S)
%----------------------------------------------------------------
% INPUT:
% ag: Design acceleration
% T: Vibration period of a linear
% single-degre-of-freedom system.
% TB, TC: The limits of the constant spectral
% acceleration branch
% TD: The value defining the beginning of the
% constant displacement response range of
% the spectrum.
% nu: Damping correction factor
% q: Behaviour factor
% beta: Lower bound factor
% S: Soil factor
%
% OUTPUT: Sd : the horizontal design response spectrum
%----------------------------------------------------------------
%===================================================================
% Structural response
%---------------------------------------------------------------
77
Appendix A MATLAB script for Design Response spectra
% Parameters
gamma1 = 1; % important class II EC8 Table 4.3
g=9.81;
ag = 0.4*g*gamma1; % design ground acceleration
avg = 0.9*ag; % vertical design ground acceleration
q = 2.34; % the behaviour factor
S = 1; % soil factor, EC8 table 3.2 Type D
beta = 0.2; % lower bound factor for design spectrum
zeta = 0.05; % assumend damping ratio of building
eta = max(sqrt(10/(5+zeta*100)),0.55) % correction factor for damping
axis([0 4 0 1.3])
78
Appendix B
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
79
Appendix B Calculations for Stringer method
-819000
-819000
-449000];
x=pinv(A)*b
bnalgun =A*x;
skekkja1=(bnalgun./b-1)*100
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------
%Horizontal stringerforces
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------
%PLOTS
%plot settings
set(0,'DefaultAxesFontName','Times')
set(0,'DefaultAxesFontAngle','Normal')
set(0,'DefaultAxesFontSize',10) set(0,'DefaultTextFontName','Times')
set(0,'DefaultTextFontAngle','Oblique')
set(0,'DefaultTextFontSize',10)
t=200;
80
Section B.0
figure(2)
F25x=-613000; F26x=F25x+1000*(x(4)-x(6))*t;
F27x=F26x+2500*(x(5)-x(7))*t; F28x=F27x+1000*(x(4)-x(6))*t;
F29x=F28x+2500*(x(5)-x(7))*t; F30x=F29x+1000*(x(4)-x(6))*t;
F31x=F30x+2500*(x(5)-x(7))*t; F32x=F31x+1000*(x(4)-x(6))*t;
subplot(3,1,1)
subplot(4,1,1)
81
Appendix B Calculations for Stringer method
no 7') grid on
figure(4)
82
Section B.0
grid on
subplot(1,4,2) plot([F2y F10y F18y F26y F34y F42y F50y F58y F68y
F78y]/1000, [2 10 18 26 34 42 50 58 68 78])
set(gca,'YDir','reverse') set(gca,'ytick',[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
subplot(1,4,3) plot([F3y F11y F19y F27y F35y F43y F51y F59y F69y
F79y]/1000, [3 11 19 27 35 43 51 59 69 79])
set(gca,'YDir','reverse') set(gca,'ytick',[3 11 19 27 35 43 51 59 69
79]) axis([0 1200 3 78]) ylabel('stringerline no 13') grid on
subplot(1,4,4) plot([F4y F12y F20y F28y F36y F44y F52y F60y F70y
F80y]/1000,[4 12 20 28 36 44 52 60 70 80]) set(gca,'YDir','reverse')
set(gca,'ytick',[4 12 20 28 36 44 52 60 70 80]) axis([-700 500 4
80]) ylabel('stringerline no 14') grid on print -dwinc
verstringforce1.eps
83
Appendix B Calculations for Stringer method
figure(5) subplot(1,4,1)
plot([F5y F13y F21y F29y F37y F45y F53y F61y F71y F81y]/1000,[5 13
21 29 37 45 53 61 71 81]) set(gca,'YDir','reverse')
set(gca,'ytick',[5 13 21 29 37 45 53 61 71 81]) axis([-1000 0 5 81])
ylabel('stringerline no 15')
grid on
F82y=-175000; F72y=F82y+(x(17)-x(17))*1100*t;
F62y=F72y+(x(16)-x(16))*1200*t; F54y=F62y+(x(12)-x(11))*700*t;
F46y=F54y+(x(10)-x(9))*1100*t; F38y=F46y-x(8)*1200*t;
F30y=F38y+(x(7)-x(6))*700*t; F22y=F30y+(x(5)-x(4))*1100*t;
F14y=F22y-x(3)*1200*t; F6y=F14y+(x(2)-x(1))*700*t;
subplot(1,4,2) plot([F6y F14y F22y F30y F38y F46y F54y F62y F72y
F82y]/1000,[6 14 22 30 38 46 54 62 72 82]) set(gca,'YDir','reverse')
set(gca,'ytick',[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
subplot(1,4,3) plot([F7y F15y F23y F31y F39y F47y F55y F65y F75y
F85y]/1000,[7 15 23 31 39 47 55 65 75 85]) set(gca,'YDir','reverse')
set(gca,'ytick',[7 15 23 31 39 47 55 65 75 85]) axis([-1000 0 7 85])
ylabel('stringerline no 17') grid on
subplot(1,4,4) plot([F8y F16y F24y F32y F40y F48y F56y F66y F76y
F86y]/1000,[8 16 24 32 40 48 56 66 76 86]) set(gca,'YDir','reverse')
set(gca,'ytick',[8 16 24 32 40 48 56 66 76 86]) axis([-700 500 8
86]) ylabel('stringerline no 18')
grid on
84
Section B.0
%STRINGER 1
%Tension reinforcement
Fhor1=[F1x F2x F3x F4x F5x F6x F7x F8x]/1000;
Axten1
%Compression reinforcement
Axcom1
%STRINGER 2
%Tension reinforcement
Fhor2=[F9x F10x F11x F12x F13x F14x F15x F16x]/1000;
Axten2
%Compression reinforcement
85
Appendix B Calculations for Stringer method
Axcom2
%STRINGER 3
%Tension reinforcement
Fhor3=[F17x F18x F19x F20x F21x F22x F23x F24x]/1000;
Axten3
%Compression reinforcement
Axcom3
%STRINGER 4
%Tension reinforcement
Fhor4=[F25x F26x F27x F28x F29x F30x F31x F32x]/1000;
Axten4
%Compression reinforcement
Axcom4
%STRINGER 5
%Tension reinforcement
Fhor5=[F33x F34x F35x F36x F37x F38x F39x F40x]/1000;
86
Section B.0
Axten5(i)=Fhor5(i)*1000/fyd;
else Axten5(i)=0; end end
Axten5
%Compression reinforcement
Axcom5
%STRINGER 6
%Tension reinforcement
Fhor6=[F41x F42x F43x F44x F45x F46x F47x F48x]/1000;
Axten6
%Compression reinforcement
Axcom6
%STRINGER 7
%Tension reinforcement
Fhor7=[F49x F50x F51x F52x F53x F54x F55x F56x]/1000;
Axten7
%Compression reinforcement
87
Appendix B Calculations for Stringer method
Axcom7
%STRINGER 8
%Tension reinforcement
Fhor8=[F57x F58x F59x F60x F61x F62x F63x F64x F65x F66x]/1000;
Axten8
%Compression reinforcement
Axcom8
%STRINGER 9
%Tension reinforcement
Fhor9=[F67x F68x F69x F70x F71x F72x F73x F74x F75x F76x]/1000;
Axten9
%Compression reinforcement
Axcom9
%STRINGER 10
%Tension reinforcement
Fhor10=[F77x F78x F79x F80x F81x F82x F83x F84x F85x F86x]/1000;
88
Section B.0
Axten10
%Compression reinforcement
Axcom10
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------
%Vertical reinforcement
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------
%STRINGER 11
%Tension reinforcement
Fver1=[F1y F9y F17y F25y F33y F41y F49y F57y F67y F77y]/1000;
%Tension reinforcement
for i=1:length(Fver1); if Fver1(i)>0 ;
Ayten1(i)=Fver1(i)*1000/fyd;
else Ayten1(i)=0; end end
Ayten1
%Compression reinforcement
Aycom1
%STRINGER 12
%Tension reinforcement
Fver2=[F2y F10y F18y F26y F34y F42y F50y F58y F68y F78y]/1000;
89
Appendix B Calculations for Stringer method
%Tension reinforcement
for i=1:length(Fver2); if Fver2(i)>0 ;
Ayten2(i)=Fver2(i)*1000/fyd;
else Ayten2(i)=0; end end
Ayten2
%Compression reinforcement
Aycom2
%STRINGER 12
%Tension reinforcement
Fver3=[F3y F11y F19y F27y F35y F43y F51y F59y F69y F79y]/1000;
%Tension reinforcement
for i=1:length(Fver3); if Fver3(i)>0 ;
Ayten3(i)=Fver3(i)*1000/fyd;
else Ayten3(i)=0; end end
Ayten3
%Compression reinforcement
Aycom3
%STRINGER 14
%Tension reinforcement
Fver4=[F4y F12y F20y F28y F36y F44y F52y F60y F70y F80y]/1000;
%Tension reinforcement
for i=1:length(Fver4); if Fver4(i)>0 ;
Ayten4(i)=Fver4(i)*1000/fyd;
90
Section B.0
Ayten4
%Compression reinforcement
Aycom4
%STRINGER 15
%Tension reinforcement
Fver5=[F5y F13y F21y F29y F37y F45y F53y F61y F71y F81y]/1000;
%Tension reinforcement
for i=1:length(Fver5); if Fver5(i)>0 ;
Ayten5(i)=Fver5(i)*1000/fyd;
else Ayten5(i)=0; end end
Ayten5
%Compression reinforcement
Aycom5
%STRINGER 16
%Tension reinforcement
Fver6=[F6y F14y F22y F30y F38y F46y F54y F62y F72y F82y]/1000;
%Tension reinforcement
for i=1:length(Fver6); if Fver6(i)>0 ;
Ayten6(i)=Fver6(i)*1000/fyd;
else Ayten6(i)=0; end end
Ayten6
91
Appendix B Calculations for Stringer method
%Compression reinforcement
Aycom6
%STRINGER 17
%Tension reinforcement
Fver7=[F7y F15y F23y F31y F39y F47y F55y F65y F75y F85y]/1000;
%Tension reinforcement
for i=1:length(Fver7); if Fver7(i)>0 ;
Ayten7(i)=Fver7(i)*1000/fyd;
else Ayten7(i)=0; end end
Ayten7
%Compression reinforcement
Aycom7
%STRINGER 18
%Tension reinforcement
Fver8=[F8y F16y F24y F32y F40y F48y F56y F66y F76y F86y]/1000;
%Tension reinforcement
for i=1:length(Fver8); if Fver8(i)>0 ;
Ayten8(i)=Fver8(i)*1000/fyd;
else Ayten8(i)=0; end end
Ayten8
%Compression reinforcement
92
Section B.0
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
Appendix C
Modeling in ETABS
95
Appendix C Modeling in ETABS
96
Section C.0
97
Appendix C Modeling in ETABS
98
Section C.0
99
Appendix C Modeling in ETABS
100
Section C.0
101
References
[1] ANSYS, version 10.0, User and Theoretical Manual, ANSYS, Inc., Southpointe,
Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, USA
[2] ATC, The Seismic Evaluation and Retrot of Concrete Buildings, Applied Technol-
ogy Council, ATC-40 Report, Redwood City, California, USA, 1996
[3] Bessason, Bjarni & Sigfússon, Thordur Capacity and earthquake response analysis of
RC-shear walls, Nordic concrete research, vol. 27:1-14, Oslo, Norway, 2001
[4] Chen, W.F, Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
USA, 1982
[5] Chopra, Anil K., Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake
Engineering, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA, 2001
[6] Cook, Robert D., Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis, John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., New York, USA, 2002
[7] DS411, Norm for betonkonstruktioner, eng. Code of Practice for the Structural use
of Concrete (in Danish), Dansk Standard, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999
[8] ETABS, Concrete Shear Wall Design Manual, Version 8, CSI, Computer & Struc-
tures, Inc., Berkeley, USA, 2002
[11] Fajfar, P., A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design, Earth-
quake Spectra, 16, p. 573-593, 2000
[12] Gulvanessian, Haig, Designers' Guide to EN 1998-1 and EN 1998-5, Thomas Telford,
London, UK, 2005
[13] Jensen, Bjarne Chr., Betonkonstruktioener efter DS411, 2. udgave (in Danish), In-
geniørenbøger, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2003
[14] Jónsson, Kristján, MATLAB, forritunarmál fyrir vísindalega útreikninga (in ice-
landic), Útgáfufélagið Slemba, Reykjavík, Iceland, 2004
[15] Moaveni, Saeed, Finite Element Analysis, Theory and Applications with ANSYS,
Person Educations, Inc., New Jersey, USA, 2003
103
References
[16] Nanakorn, P. and Soparat, P., Finite Element Analysis of Cracking Localization:
The Smeared Crack Approach with a Mixed Formulation, Thammasat International
Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 28-39, 2000.
[17] Nawy, Edward G and Scanlon, Andrew Designing Concrete Structures for Service-
abilty and safety, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, USA, 1992
[18] Nielsen, M.P., Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity, Second Edition, CRC Press,
USA, 1999
[19] Nilson, Arthur H, Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete, American Society
of Civil Engineers, New York, USA, 1982
[20] O'Brien, Eugene J & Dixon, Andrew S, Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Design,
The Complete Process, Longman, Edinburgh, UK, 1999
[21] Pauley, Priestley, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, USA, 1992
[22] SAP2000, Analsysis Reference Manual, Version 8, CSI, Computer & Structures, Inc.,
Berkeley, USA, 2002
[24] Stefansson, Ragnar, Gudmundsson, Gunnar B. & Halldorsson, Pall, The South Ice-
land earthquakes 2000 a challenge for earthquake prediction research, Reykjavík,
2003, http://www.vedur.is/utgafa/greinargerdir/2003/03017.pdf
[25] Teknisk Ståbi, 18. udgave (in Danish), Ingeniørenbøger, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2002
[26] Wilson, Edward L, Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures,
A physical Approach with Empahsis on Earthquake Engineering, CSI, Computer &
Structures, Inc., Berkeley, USA, 2002
104