SEISMIC BEHAVIOR, EVALUATION, AND

RETROFIT OF EXISTING REINFORCED

CONCRETE STRUCTURAL WALLS
A Ph.D. Research Proposal
by
Hua Jiang

Advisor: Dr. Kurama

Department of Civil Engineering and Geological Sciences

University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Indiana
August 22, 2003
Seismic Performance of Older RC Buildings
Significant Risk to Public Safety and Economy
 Research Objectives

• To analytically evaluate the seismic behavior

of older RC walls
• To investigate the need, feasibility, limitations,
and effects of available retrofit measures
• To develop design recommendations and
guidelines for seismic retrofit applications
 Outline of Presentation

• Design and behavior of RC structural walls

• Prototype structures
• Analytical modeling of RC walls
• Preliminary analysis and retrofit of prototype walls
• Preliminary conclusions and remaining tasks
Seismic Provisions for RC Walls in ACI 318

Edition Significant changes

1963 No seismic provisions for RC walls

1971 Seismic provisions for wall detailing

Seismic provisions for detailing of wall reinforcement

1977

1983 Seismic provisions for shear design of RC walls

Improved seismic provisions for detailing of wall
1989
reinforcement
More detailed seismic provisions on wall detailing
1999
and detailing of wall reinforcement
Wall Critical Details

one curtain of light distributed

reinforcement

no boundary element
 Wall Classification
Lw
Paulay and Priestley (1992):
•Slender walls: aspect ratio > 4.0
•Intermediate walls:
2.0 <= aspect ratio <= 4.0
Hw
•Squat walls: aspect ratio <2.0

Walls Behavior:
• Slender walls: flexure-dominated
• Intermediate walls: difficult to identify
Aspect ratio
= Hw/Lw • Squat walls: shear-dominated
 Failure Modes of RC Walls

• Flexure-dominated failure:
Axial-flexural concrete crushing
Longitudinal steel bar fracture
Steel bar buckling
Steel bar pull-out
• Shear-dominated failure:
Web concrete crushing
Diagonal tension failure
Sliding shear
Experimental Evaluation of RC Walls
Oesterle et al.
(1976, 1979)

[ ]
Portland
Cement
Association
Wall aspect
ratio = 2.4
Flexure-Dominated Failure

Axial-flexural
concrete crushing

Oesterle et al.
(1979)
 Flexure-Dominated Failure

Steel bar buckling

Oesterle et al. (1976)
Shear-Dominated Failure

Web concrete crushing

Oesterle et al. (1979)

 Outline of Presentation

• Design and behavior of RC structural walls

• Prototype structures
• Analytical modeling of RC walls
• Preliminary analysis and retrofit of prototype walls
• Preliminary conclusions and remaining tasks
 Prototype Structures
RC bearing wall hotel building
 Elevation

column
12ft X 10 = 120ft

slab

foundation

25ft X 8 = 200ft

Longitudinal direction
 Elevation
slab

column

12ft X 10 = 120ft

wall

25ft X 2 +8 ft = 58ft

Transverse direction
 Major Design References

• Building Code Requirements for RC, ACI 318-63

• Recommended Lateral Force Requirements by
SEAOC (1959)
• Design of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Buildings
for Earthquake Motions by Blume et al. (1961)
• Suggestions from two senior practicing engineers:
James O. Malley and Loring A. Wyllie (Degenkolb
Engineers)
 Design Variables for Prototype Walls
• Amount of flexural reinforcement in the
column regions
• Amount of confining reinforcement in the
column regions
• Shape of wall cross-section:
Barbell-shape, rectangular-shape

Six prototype walls:

BCDF, BCRF, BUDF, BURF, RUDF, RURF.
 Barbell-Shaped Prototype Wall BCDF
14”X14” Wall Aspect
thickness ratio ~
= 4.5
= 6”
16”X16”
7” 10X144”
= 1440” 9#14S, 1#4
18”X18”
#4@8” #4@8”
8”

CL
10” 20”
9”
20”X20”
CL
10”
140” 20”

300” Section at base

Elevation
 Variation of Wall Flexural Reinforcement
9#14S, 1#4 20” 9#7 20”

20” 20”

#4@8” #4@8”
140” 140”

#4@8” #4@8”

CL CL CL CL

10” 10”
Wall BCDF Wall BCRF
Variation of Wall Confining Reinforcement
9#14S, 1#4 20” 9#7 20”

20” 20”

#4@8” #4@8”
140” 140”

#4@8” #4@8”

CL CL CL CL

10” 10”
Wall BUDF Wall BURF
 Variation of Wall Cross-Section

4#14S, 4#11 8#5

160” 160”
#4@8” #4@8”

#4@8” #4@8”

CL CL CL CL

10” 10”
Wall RUDF Wall RURF
 Outline of Presentation

• Design and behavior of RC structural walls

• Prototype structures
• Analytical modeling of RC walls
• Preliminary analysis and retrofit of prototype walls
• Preliminary conclusions and remaining tasks
 Analytical Models for RC Walls

• Fiber element wall models (DRAIN-2DX)

• Finite element wall models (FINITE)

Fiber Beam-Column Element in DRAIN-2DX
 Fiber Element Wall Models
fiber node
1st story 2nd story 3rd story 4th story element segment division point
y

concrete Barbell shape

crushing
Rectangular shape
length,
Lcr

base
Wall Cross-Section Discretization
 Fiber Stress-Strain Relationships

stress-strain relationship
stress-strain for for
relationship C-type concrete
S-type fiber
steel fiber
 Model Verification
PCA wall specimen B4 [Oesterle et al. (1976, 1979)]

Measured behavior Predicted behavior

 Model Verification
PCA wall specimen B3 [Oesterle et al. (1976, 1979)]

Measured behavior Predicted behavior

 Proposed Model Modifications

• Modeling of bar buckling

• Modeling of bar fracture

• Modeling of nonlinear shear behavior

Proposed Steel Fiber
 Modeling of Nonlinear Shear Behavior
shear stress, τ
τfail
shear force
distribution
τy of axial-flexural stresses
Ginel=αGel Gde

fiber τde
distribution
Gel of shear stresses
γ GelA
y γ
fail
γ
de
shear force shear strain, γ
shear stress, τ
shear deformation

slice shear
sheardeformation
strain, γ
 Finite Element Wall Models (FINITE)
P P P P
Displacement control
at corner node

Steel elements
Nodes Sittipunt and
Wood
(1993, 1995)

Concrete element
 Characteristics of FINITE Models
• Nonlinear material model for concrete
– Normal stress function (eight parameters)
• Crack closing and crack reopening
• Compression softening
• Degradation of concrete properties under cyclic loading
– Shear stress function (nine parameters)
• Aggregate interlock
• Dowel action
• Strength reduction under cyclic loads
• Nonlinear material model for steel
– Strain hardening
– Baushinger effects
 Measured Behavior versus FINITE Model
PCA wall specimen B1 [Oesterle et al. (1976, 1979)]

Bar buckling

Measured behavior Calculated behavior

 Comparison of Failure Modes

Wall Observed behavior Calculated behavior (FINITE)

R1 Bar buckling in 2nd cycle to +3 in.; Bar buckling in 2nd cycle to +3 in.;
bars fracture in 2nd cycle to 4 in. four additional bars buckled later

R4 Concrete in boundary element Concrete in boundary element

crushing during cycles to +3 in. crushing during cycles to ±4 in.

B4 Bar fracture at displacement of Bar fracture at displacement of

8.5 in. 7.8 in.

B5 Web crushing during cycle to +3 Web crushing during cycle to ±3

in. in.
 Evaluation of FINITE Wall Models

• A large number of material parameters need to

be adjusted for each group of test

• Nonlinear dynamic analyses have not been

conducted
 Outline of Presentation

• Design and behavior of RC structural walls

• Prototype structures
• Analytical modeling of RC walls
• Preliminary analysis and retrofit of prototype walls
• Preliminary conclusions and remaining tasks
 Preliminary Analysis Results
800 800
Base shear (kips)

Base shear (kips)

400 400

Wall BCDF Wall BUDF

0 0
0 0.03 0.06 0 0.005 0.01
Roof drift Roof drift
800 800
Base shear (kips)

Base shear (kips)

Wall BCRF Wall BURF
400 + 400

0 0
0 0.03 0.06 0 0.005 0.01
Roof drift Roof drift
 Preliminary Analysis Results
800 800
Wall RUDF Wall RURF

Base shear (kips)

Base shear (kips)

400 400

0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0 0.005 0.01
Roof drift Roof drift
Base shear—roof drift curve from DRAIN2DX
Cross section cracking at base
First flexural bar in boundary column yielding in tension
Last flexural bar in boundary column yielding in tension
First flexural bar in wall web yielding in tension
Last flexural bar in wall web yielding in tension
+ First flexural bar in boundary column fracturing
Wall web concrete crushing at base
Wall web concrete crushing at midheight of first story
Boundary column crushing at base
 Retrofit Objectives [FEMA-356 (ASCE 2000)]

Target Building Performance Levels

Increasing Performance

Collapse Basic Safety

Prevention Objective

Basic Safety
Life Safety
Objective

Immediate
Occupancy

Operational

50% in 50 years 20% in 50 years 10% in 50 years 2% in 50 years

Earthquake Hazard Level

Increasing Hazard
 Retrofit Methods for Existing RC Walls

• Addition of Wall Boundary Elements

• Addition of Confinement Jackets at Wall Boundaries

• Reduction of Flexural Strength

• Increasing Shear Strength

• Coupling of Walls as a Retrofit Method

 Preliminary Analysis Results
800

Wall BUDF
Wall BCDF

Wall RUDF
Base shear (kips)

Wall BURF
Wall BCRF
400

Wall RURF

0
0 0.03 0.06
Roof drift
 Retrofit Measures of Prototype Walls

• Walls BCDF and BCRF:

No need for retrofit to achieve Basic Safety Objective

• Walls BUDF and RUDF:

Addition of confinement jackets needed for increasing
lateral deformation capacity to achieve Basic Safety
Objective

• Walls BURF and RURF

Addition of confinement jackets needed to achieve
Limited Objectives; further retrofit for Basic Safety
Objective
 Outline of Presentation

• Design and behavior of RC structural walls

• Prototype structures
• Analytical modeling of RC walls
• Preliminary analyses and retrofit of prototype walls
• Preliminary conclusions and remaining tasks
 Summary and Preliminary Conclusions

• A literature review on the seismic behavior, design,

evaluation, and retrofit of existing RC walls
• Prototype structures for the research project
• Effectiveness and limitations of current analytical
models

• Proposed modifications on the current wall models

• Potential seismic retrofit measures for the prototype

walls
 Remaining Tasks
•Improve the current analytical wall models

•Complete the design of the prototype walls

• Conduct nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic
analyses
• Evaluate the need, effectiveness, and limitations
of different retrofit measures
• Develop performance-based design
recommendations and guidelines for seismic
retrofit application
 Schedule for Remaining Tasks
Month
Task
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Improve analytical models X X X

Complete design of
X X
prototype walls

Conduct nonlinear analyses X X X

Evaluate retrofit measures X X X

Develop retrofit guidelines X X

 Acknowledgement

• Research Advisor:
Dr. Yahya C. Kurama
• Examination Board:
Dr. Tracy Correa
Dr. Lynn Salvati
Dr. David J. Kirkner
• Practicing Engineers:
James O. Malley
Loring A. Wyllie
Thank you.

Questions?