Analysis of a Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall

M.Sc Thesis

Björk Hauksdóttir s053069

Instructors

Bjarni Bessason Per Golterman February 2007

)>IJH=?J
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 nonlinear 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 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), 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.

E

Symbols
Q D q W
ǫ ¯ σ ¯ λ Pi ui

σx σy τxy ftx fty fY Asx Asy σc ν

dV

t F

fyd As,t Ac,needed fcd

C

As,c As ft ǫu fc ǫc1 ǫcu ∆ µ SE

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Set of generalized stresses Distribution strains work per unit volume strains distribution stress distribution indeterminate factor external forces displacements volume element stresses in x direction (horizontal) stresses in y direction (vertical) strains Tensile strength of reinforcement in x direction (horizontal) Tensile strength of reinforcement in y direction (vertical) Yield strength of reinforcement Tensile reinforcement area in x direction (horizontal) Tensile reinforcement area in y direction (vertical) concretes strength eectiveness factor thickness calculated compression/tension force Design yield point of steel Reinforcement area for tension stringer Needed concrete area to take up compression Design concrete strength Total force that concrete can uptake Reinforcement area for compression stringer Reinforcement are for rectangle mesh area Tensile strength of steel maximum strain in steel compressive strength of concrete concrete strain at peak stress ultimate strain in concrete structural displacement ductility strength to resist earthquake-induced force
EEE

)>IJH=?J
wk srm εsm β σs σsr β1 β2 φ k1 k2

tw ts ρc ρg tg Ec T1 Fb Sd Ac ag q Fi

H W L h

mi,j zi,j fct f1 f2 a σh Ec βt βc Tc Es

T S

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

the design crack width the average nal crack spacing the mean strain allowing under the relevant load coecient relating the average crack width to the design value the stress in the tension reinforcement at cracked section the stress in the tension reinforcement at the rst crack Coecient which takes account of the bond properties Coecient which takes account of the loading bar size Coecient which takes account of the bond properties Coecient which takes account of the form of the strain distribution height of the analyzed building width of the analyzed building Length of the analyzed shear wall story height the shear wall thickness the slab/roof thickness density of concrete density of glass thickness of double glass Young's modulus for concrete the fundamental period of vibration the seismic base shear force Design spectrum total aective area of shear wall ground acceleration behavior factor horizontal forces acting on the shear wall vibrating period soil factor storey masses heights of the masses tensile strength of concrete Ultimate compressive strength for state of biaxial compression Ultimate compressive strength for state of uniaxial compression ultimate biaxial compressive strength secant modulus of elasticity shear coecient for open crack shear coecient for closed crack multiplier for amount of tensile stress relaxation modulus of elasticity for steel

EL

. . . xi 1 Introduction 2 Theory 1 5 1 3 5 5 5 6 8 9 9 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 17 17 18 19 19 19 v . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . .2. . .4 Finite Element Analysis . . . . .1 Introduction . . .1 Linear Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . 2. . . . . . . .2 Plastic Analysis .5. . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Nonlinear Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Objective . . .3. . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . .4. . 2. . . . . . . .2 Analysis Methods . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . 2. . .5. .1 Disks with Orthogonal Reinforcement .2 Elastic-Strain Hardening Plastic Model . . . . . . . .5 The Flow Rule . . . .4 Finite Element Modeling of Cracks . . . . . . . . . .1 Elastic Based Model . .Before Yielding Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . .2 Reinforced Concrete . . . . . .5. . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . 1.1 Concrete and Steel . . . . 2. . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. .1 Basic Concepts . . . . . . .After Yielding Point . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . 2. . . 2. .4 The evolution of Subsequent Loading Surface . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . .2 Stringer Method . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . .3 The Shape of an Initial Yield Surface . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . .3 Design Methods .3. . . . . . . . . . . .1 The Lower Bound Theorem . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . .3 Mathematical Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Contents Abstract Symbols Contents List of Figures List of Tables Preface i iii v vii ix xi Acknowledgements .1 Background . 2. . . . . . . . . 2. . .

.1 3. . . 3. . Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . The Building . .3 Ductility . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 The Load . . . . . . . . . 25 25 26 28 28 28 29 29 30 33 4 Reinforcement Design 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . .1 The Mass of the Building . . . . . .1 4. . .2 Calculation of Shear Stresses and Stringer Linear Elastic FE-analysis . . . . . . Element Type .7 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . used? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . .1 Modeling in SAP2000 and ETABS . Cracks . . . .9 3. . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Cracks and Reinforcement Yielding 5. . . .8 2.1 5. . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. 4. . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . Analytical Nonlinear Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Calculation Process in ANSYS . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 3. . . . . . . . . .2. . . . 3.2 Calculations of Crack width . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Calculation of design crack widths Shear Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 35 35 37 43 43 44 48 53 53 53 55 55 56 60 61 63 68 5 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 2. . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 The Stringer Method . . . . .8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . .2 Capacity Curve .0. .2. 55 6 Summary and Conclusion Appendices A MATLAB script for Design Response spectra B Calculations for Stringer method C Modeling in ETABS References 75 77 77 79 95 103 vi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 5. . . . . . 20 21 22 22 23 3 The Building and the Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 5. . . . Methods to Calculate Cracks . . . . .Reinforced Concrete Solid Material Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . .0. .3 Vertical Load . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . 4. . Analytical Results . . . . 4. . . . .2 The Design Response Spectra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . .1 Vertical Reinforcement . . .3.2 ETABS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . Minimum Reinforcement according to EC2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . .1 Can the Lateral Force Method be 3. . . . . . . . . . .3 SAP2000 . . .2 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . .1 Lateral Force Patterns . Pushover Analysis . . . . . . . .Contents 2. . . . .Lateral Force Method of Analysis 3.2 Horizontal Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . Uniaxial stress-strain relation for rigid-plastic material [18] . . . . . . . . .2 4. . stringer and mesh rectangle areas [13] . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horizontal ground acceleration for Iceland Horizontal design spectrum . . . . .3 2. . .6 2. . . . . . . . . . .14 2. . . . . . . . . . . . Stress-strain diagram for concrete [9] . . . . Damage because of the earthquakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horizontal Stringer Forces for stringerline 1 to 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structural wall [21] .10 2. . .10 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 3. . . . .8 4. . . . . . . . . . Kinematic hardening rule [1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 4. . . . . . . .7 2. .5 4. . .6 4. . . . . . . . . . Typical stress-strain diagram of reinforcing steel [9] . . . . . . . . . .15 3. . . . .9 2. . . . .12 2. . . . Reinforcement of the wall based on Stringer method Shell Element [26] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vertical Stringer Forces for stringerline 15 to 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forces applied on the shear wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximum work hypothesis [18] .11 4. . . . . . . . . . . Deformations of a shell element in ETABS [8] . . Disk element with stress in the concrete [18] . . . . . . .1 3. . . . . . The forces acting on the wall for Stringer Method . . . . . stringers and areas . . . . . . Relationship between strength and ductility [21] . . . . . . . . . Plan View . . . Horizontal Stringer Forces for stringeline 7 to 10 .1 2. . . . . . . . .12 Iceland lies on the Mid Atlantic Ridge . .7 4. .3 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical load-displacement relationship for reinforced concrete element [21] Biaxial strength Envelope for Plain Concrete [19] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horizontal Stringer Forces for stringerline 4 to 6 . . . . . Disk divided into nodes. . . . . . . . Triaxial strength surface in principal stress space [19] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Shear Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sign of the shear stresses . . .8 2. . . . . . .4 2. . . . . . . . . . . .11 2. . . The Longitudinal Wall Dimensions . . . . . . . . . .4 4.4 3. . . . . . . .5 2. . . . . . .3 3. .List of Figures 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 4. .2 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vertical Stringer Forces for stringerline 11 to 14 . . . . The Shear Wall Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . LEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 6 7 9 11 13 13 14 15 16 16 18 19 21 23 24 25 26 27 30 32 34 36 36 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 44 45 The wall divided into nodes. . . . .5 3. . . . . . . . . . . Pier and spandrel forces in ETABS . . Typical load-displacement relationship for reinforced concrete element [21] Loading surfaces of concrete in biaxial stress plane for a work-hardeningplasticity model [4] . . . . . . . . . . . .2 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) in the wall with minimum reinforcement. . . . . . .1 C. . . . . . . . Shear forces in piers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P . . . .7 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Load deection curves for dierent analysis . . . .7 C. . . . . . . . . . Axial forces in Piers. . . . . . . . The basic types of shell stresses [22] . . . . . . . Design crack width in element 1026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 C. . Cracks width for ETABS . . . . . . . . . Cracks width for EC2 . . . .8 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shear stresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 . . . .16 5. Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) for in the wall designed with Stringer method . . . . . in spandrels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 5. . . . . .18 4. . . .18 5. . . . Normal stresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Pier labeling . . . . from the SAP2000 analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks at middle window for EC2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Modeling of the wall in Ansys . . . . . . .5 C. .15 4.1 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 LEEE . . . .14 5. . . . . Computed crack width in element 670 .3 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . Steel stresses in element no 670 below middle window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ductility curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . τxy . . . . .21 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Contents 4. . . . .2 5. . 99 . . . . . . . . . . . .5 5. . . . . M3 . . V2 . . . .13 4.12 5. . . . . . Cracks width for SAP2000 . . . . Element numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) in the wall designed from ETABS Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) in the wall designed from SAP2000 . . . . . P .11 5. . . . . . . .2 C. . .6 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 5. Reinforcement of the wall based on analysis in ETABS . . . .17 4. . . . . . . Shear forces in spandrels. .26 5. . . .6 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 46 46 47 48 49 49 50 52 53 56 57 57 59 60 61 62 62 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 67 69 69 70 71 71 72 72 73 73 74 74 SOLID65 element in ANSYS [1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 4. . . . . . . . Moment. . 95 . . σx .13 5. . . . . . M3 Pier labeling . . Moment. σy . . . . . . . . .4 5. Reinforcement arrangement of the wall based on analysis in SAP2000 Minimum reinforcement according to EC2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moment forces in spandrels. . . . . . . . . . .4 C.22 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 . . . . . . . . . Cracking signs in ANSYS. . . M3. Cracks width for Stringer . . . . M3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 5. . . . Cracks at middle window for SAP2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 4. . . . from the SAP2000 analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 5. . . Cracks at middle window for Stringer . . . . . . . .22 5. . .19 4. . . . . 99 . . . . . . Spandrel labeling .23 5. . . 96 . .20 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracks at middle window for ETABS . . . . Axial forces in spandrels. . Moment forces in piers. . . . . Bilinear Hardening Concrete Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ductility curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . Normal distribution of compressive strength results [20] . . . . . . . . . . Steel Model . Computed crack width in element 787 . . . . NL=1 . .19 5. . . in piers . . . . . . . . V2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 4. . . . . EC2 . . . Normal stresses. . . from analysis in SAP2000 . . . . . . . . . . . .17 5. Steel stresses in element no 787 above middle window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 4. .15 5. . . . . . . . . . .27 C. .

. . .1 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 5. . . . . . . . . .3 4.1 3. . . . . . . . . . . . Wall in SAP2000 and ETABS . . . . . . . . . . .4 5. . . Parameters for material number two. . . Material properties of concrete in SAP2000 and ETABS . . . . . . . .2 Pier forces and reinforcement calculations . . . . . 26 31 32 39 44 44 51 58 59 59 60 C. the steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .List of Tables 3. . . . . . . Material parameters used the concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parameters for type 1 design response spectrum. . . . . . . . . . Parameters for design response spectra . . . . .2 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average stresses and computed reinforcement from SAP2000 analysis Input parameters for Willam and Warnke model . . . .1 Spandrel forces and reinforcement calculations . . . . . .1 4. . . . .3 4. . . . . . . . 98 C. . . . . . . . . . Main characteristics of the FEM model in ANSYS . . . . . . . . . .4 The buildings parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shear stresses in the rectangular mesh areas . . . . . .2 5. . . . . . . . . .2 3. . . . . . . . . . 101 EN .

.

I am grateful to my supervisor professor Bjarni Bessason at the University of Iceland for his guidance.Sc for reading and correcting the project. Acknowledgements The University of Iceland Research Fund provided a nancial support which I am very grateful for.Sc degree. support and giving me the opportunity to do my studies in Iceland. February 2007 Björk Hauksdóttir. s053069 NE . Finally I want to thank Helga Björk Magnúsdóttir M. Reykjavik. ideas and encouragement during my thesis work. The work was done at the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Iceland where the author nished his B.2HAB=?A This work is presented for the fulllment of the requirements of the Master of Science at the Department of Civil Engineering at the Technical University of Denmark. I would also like to thank associate professor Per Golterman at the Technical University of Denmark for his comments.

.

1. The most destructive earthquakes in the history of Iceland have occurred in these two zones. the largest agricultural region in Iceland. The population in the year 2000 was around 16000.e. 1 . i. causing earthquakes and eruptions. Most of the houses there are one or two story buildings and before the year 2000 only very few buildings (<10) were higher.+D=FJAH  Introduction 1. the Tjörnes Fracture Zone (TFZ) and the South Iceland Seismic Zone (SISZ).1: Iceland lies on the Mid Atlantic Ridge The SIZS is in the middle of the South Iceland lowland. Figure 1. At these two locations there are conservative plate boundaries and we have the two main seismic zones in Iceland. see Figure 1. In the region there are small villages and number of a farms. In South Iceland the plate boundary is shifted towards east and oshore north of Iceland is shifted back west.1 Background Iceland lies on the Mid Atlantic Ridge and is being split by the divergent plate boundary between the North American Plate and the Eurasian Plate.

after 88 years of rest. [23] [24] Figure 1. 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 progressive yielding.P. Nielsen for reinforced concrete walls.6 occurred. which only had reinforcement around the windows and doors openings. Despite intensive surface ssuring caused by the two June 2000 earthquakes and recorded accelerations reaching 0. In the year 1999 the Stringer Method was introduced in the Danish Concrete Norm. Large earthquakes may occur in the zone during the next few decades and with possibility of an earthquake. One way of doing nonlinear analysis is to use static pushover analysis taking into account nonlinear behavior of the concrete and reinforcement. where it is assumed that the elastic capacity of the structure will be exceeded. Number of three story and four story buildings have been built after 2000 and more are on the schedule. [24] With more dense population in South Iceland there is growing demand for higher houses.+D=FJAH  Introduction In June 2000 two major earthquakes with moment magnitude 6. 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. 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. This method optimizes reinforcement for a given load using the lower bound theorem of plasticity theory. in the central part of the SIZS. 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 reinforced concrete structures has greatly increased and it has been shown that the plastic theory is very successful to explain experimental observations of reinforced concrete.2). of comparable size to the earthquakes in the year 2000. the earthquakes caused no structural collapse (see Figure 1.2: Damage because of the earthquakes 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. 2 . Most of the damaged houses were one story concrete shear walls. DS411. However lot of houses were damaged and at least 35 houses were estimated unrepairable.8g. In 1979 the stringer method was developed by M.

The basic concepts of a nite element analysis is listed. Priesley [21]. So now it is possible to analyze concrete and understand the response of a concrete element. The calculation process is described. secondly with a general FE-program. The mathematical models used in ANSYS for concrete.2 Doing experiments on a reinforced concrete element shows of course the real life response of the element under load but it can be extremely costly and time consuming. a reinforcement in which the design is based on the Stringer method. EC8 [10] and ATC-40 [2]. An attempt is made to evaluate crack width calculations as a function of load to reect damage. Over the past twenty years the static pushover procedure has been presented and nonlinear software tools been developed for seismic design of concrete structures by several authors and standards. Thirdly. 1. The dierence between linear elastic and plastic analysis is outlined and the fundamentals of the lower bound theorem followed by explanation of the Stringer method. The main chapters are as follows: Second chapter : The basic theory for the research work is presented. the element type and material properties for the matheFifth chapter: ! . The applied lateral design earthquake load is calculated based on the lateral force method from Eurocode 8 and the static pushover analysis is presented. yield criteria. a reinforcement in which the design is based on linear elastic nite element method analysis using general purpose FE-program (SAP2000). The nonlinear behavior of the four dierent reinforced shear walls is then tested by nonlinear pushover analysis using the general purpose FE-program ANSYS. thirdly with a building specialized FE-program and fourthly with minimum reinforcement from Eurocode 2. a reinforcement again based on linear elastic FEM but here using a building specialized FE-program (ETABS). The four designed walls are analyzed in the FE-program ANSYS.2 Objective The main objective of the research work presented in this thesis is to study the nonlinear 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. The use of nite element analysis has increased due to progressing knowledge and capabilities of computer software. failure criteria. steel.Objective Section 1. First with the Stringer method. The idealized building is described in details and its mass calculated. Fajfar [11]. Four dierent reinforcement arrangements of the shear wall are considered. Secondly. a reinforcement based on minimum reinforcement requirements from Eurocode 2. Firstly. Fourthly. The basic nonlinear behavior of concrete and reinforcement is presented and also the importance of ductility and crack control. Finally a method to calculate crack width from Eurocode 2 is described. ow rule and hardening theory are presented. Third chapter: Fourth chapter : The reinforcement design is made for the shear wall. see for instance Chopra [5].

crack distribution and crack widths. conclusion. ductility. yielding of reinforcement. where it is possible to see initiations of cracks. 5ENJD ?D=FJAH : Summary. The results are shown by capacity curves. The results are compared between the four walls. recommendations and further work.+D=FJAH  Introduction matical models explained and dened. " . The analysis is carried out statically with nonlinear pushover analysis.

2.1 Introduction This chapter reviews the theory used in this thesis. 2. Ku=r (2. It is explained how cracks are modeled in a nite element programs and how they aect a concrete structure. Methods based on linear analysis 2. It starts by describing two of the analysis methods used. 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. Methods based on non-linear material behavior In this project linear and plastic analysis will be used for the design of the reinforcement. [9] 2. Methods based on plastic analysis 3. r is the vector of applied loads and u is the vector of resulting displacements. Nonlinear analysis is made to look at the seismic response of the designed walls. following by showing how to calculate the needed reinforcement from the analysis results by using the lower bound theorem. linear and plastic analysis.+D=FJAH Theory 2. The lower bound theorem is then used for the reinforcement design.1 Linear Analysis In the nite element programs a linear analysis is performed for each static load case that is dened and it involves the solution of the system of linear equations represented by the equations and is solved in a single step: where K is the stiness matrix. moments and forces may be used: 1.1) 5 . 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.2.2 Analysis Methods When designing walls and plates loaded in their own plane three methods in determining internal stresses.

For arbitrary stress elds the yield point is assumed to be determined by a yield condition: f (Q1 . The denition of a perfectly plastic material or rigid-plastic material is that no deformations occur in the material until the stresses reach the yield point and when that happens arbitrary large deformations can occur without any changes in the stresses. [8] [22] 2. This material does not exist in reality but it is possible to use this model when the plastic strains are much larger than the elastic strains. stresses are proportional to strain and material is elastic.2.1. Figure 2. Materials with such ability are called perfectly plastic materials.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.. Resulting in small deections and rotations.2. In the uniaxial case this corresponds to the stress-strain curve in Figure 2. The amount of work that must be performed to deform a rigid-plastic body to cause plastic deformations (strains) is D= V (Q1 q1 + .... Q2 .1: Uniaxial stress-strain relation for rigid-plastic material [18] 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.3) 6 .+D=FJAH Theory This is a simple mathematical approximation to simplify real time problems.2.. Qn ) = 0 (2.2 Plastic Analysis The Plasticity theory in its simplest form deals with materials that can deform plastically under constant load when the load has reached a suciently high value. The theory of collapse by yielding is termed limit analysis. .)dV = V W dV (2.

2 the stress eld rendering the greatest possible work should be found. = 0 δQ1 Since 2.n where λ is an indeterminate factor...2. Firstly it is dierentiable without plane surfaces or apexes.2. W.2. . ¯ ¯ that is. which is the greatest possible resistance against deformation. is required to be zero when the stress eld is varied from that which is sought then: δW = δQ1 q1 + ....2. .2. . Here it has been shown when W is stationary ǫ must be normal to the yield surface and ¯ therefore eq. .8 is called normality conditions.) = (0.6 and 2..2. W is only stationary when qi = λ δf .4) where ǫ is assumed to be given strain represented in the same coordinate system as f and ¯ σ = (Q1 . W can be described as: W =σ·ǫ ¯ ¯ (2. Q2 .. The normality condition leads to ¯ 1 7 .. Qn ) determined so that W becomes as large as possible. = 0 (2. . Now 2. see Figure 2.Analysis Methods Section 2. also satises f = 0 so δf δQ1 + .. For all the stress combinations satisfying 2.6) (2...2: Maximum work hypothesis [18] If the variation of the work. the point were ǫ is normal to the yield surface. subject to the ¯ condition: ¯ f (σ) = 0 (2. δQi i = 1.2. . is an outward directed normal.... .2.2..).. secondly it is convex and thirdly it is assumed to be a closed surface containing the point (Q1 .) on the yield surface. When f < 0 for stresses within the yield δf surface δQ .. Under given assumptions ǫ uniquely determines a point σ = (Q1 .2 where D denotes the dissipation.5) The following three assumptions are made on the yield surface... 2..8) The stress eld Q1 + δQ1 .. .2. W the work per unit volume and q the strains.2 Figure 2. 2..7) (2.7 apply to any variation δQ1 .4 is assumed to be nonnegative λ becomes bigger or equal to zero and thus ǫ becomes an outward-directed normal to the ¯ yield surface.

Thus the principle of virtual work is: Pi ui = V σ εdV ¯¯ (2... Q2 .11) [18] 2. and satisfying the boundary conditions for the load then the load will not be able to cause a collapse of the body. another arbitrary stress eld on the yield surface can be considered σ ′ = (Q′ . = (Q1 + ∆Q1 )q1 + ..2..2..2..2. . which have corresponding strains ε = (q1 .2. .+D=FJAH Theory a maximum value. ¯ written as σ ′ = (Q′ .11 σ′ · ǫ < σ · ǫ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ (2. ... = σ · ǫ + ∆¯ · ǫ ¯ ¯ σ ¯ 1 (2. For all loads where a safe and statically admissible stress distribution can be found: µ < µp (2.2..9) Since the yield surface is convex ∆¯ · ǫ will be negative and thus σ ¯ W ≥ W′ (2. q2 .) = (¯ + ∆¯ ) = (Q1 + ∆Q1 . .) which in the body or part of the body corresponds to stresses ¯ on the yield surface.13) where ui and ε is the same as above and Pi and Q′ are static quantities in the principle ¯ i of virtual work. According to 2. the work would be ¯ W ′ = Q′ q1 + .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 .) and 1 2 P i ui = V ¯¯ σ ′ εdV (2..) in accordance with a ¯ displacement eld that is geometrically possible in the body. the following applies W > W′ (2.15) [18] & .2.)..2. Q′ . For the external load statically admissible stress distribution can be found and is written as σ = (Q1 . According to the assumption a safe statically admissible stress distribution can be found..10) or the work is at maximum if the stress eld σ ′ = σ + ∆σ is entirely within the yield ¯ ¯ surface.12) where Pi and ui are the external forces and corresponding displacements and dV is the volume element.1 The Lower Bound Theorem The lower bound theorem is based on the fact that if a stress distribution can be found within stresses at the yield surface caused by load of a certain magnitude. Q′ .. If σ ′ were the stress eld corresponding ¯ σ σ ¯ 1 2 to the given strain vector ǫ.

σ . It is assumed that the concrete can carry negative principal stresses in both x and y directions.Design Methods Section 2. At points where one or both principal stresses are tensile stresses.2) t A f = σ + |τ | (2.3.1) A f f = = σ + |τ | (2. in a disk. reinforcement is required for σx < −|τxy | 2 σx σy ≤ τxy 9 . reinforcement is added.3 Methods based on the lower method have been developed for concrete structures and the most obvious application consists of using the method in the design of reinforcement. x y xy Disks with Orthogonal Reinforcement Figure 2.3 2. see Figure 2.3. 2.3.3) f = t σ = 2|τ | (2.3.3.4) Case2: tx ty x y x xy tx sx Y x xy ty sy Y y xy c xy If σ y <0 . The following set of formulas are used to determine the minimum reinforcement: For σ ≤ σ Case 1: σ ≥ −|τ | (2. Here two design methods based on the lower bound theorem will be represented.3: Disk element with stress in the concrete [18] 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 f and f . σ and τ .3.1 Design Methods Given the stresses.

τxy is the strain.5) (2.7) (2.+D=FJAH And the reinforcement is determined by Theory Asx = 0 fty = 2 τxy Asy fY = σy + t |σx | τxy 2 σc = |σx |[1 + ( ) ] σx For σy ≤ σx Case 1: σy fty ftx σc Case2: −|τxy | Asy fY = = σy + |τxy | t Asx fY = σx + |τxy | = t = 2|τxy | σy < −|τxy | ≥ (2. fty is the reinforcement strength in y direction.3. J is the thickness of the disk. reinforcement is required for 2 σx σx ≤ τxy And the reinforcement is determined by Asy = 0 ftx = 2 τxy Asx fY = σy + t |σy | τxy 2 σc = |σy |[1 + ( ) ] σy where: σx is the stresses in x direction. Asx is the reinforcement area in x direction. fY is the reinforcement yield strength. [18]  . σy is the stresses in y direction.8) If σx < 0.3. ftx is the reinforcement strength in x direction.3.3. Asy is the reinforcement area in y direction.6) (2.

3. νfcd = 0.3. The stringers take on the axial stresses and can both be pressure. that the force in the surrounding stringers vary linearly between the nodes.9) where F is the calculated tension force in the stringer and fyd is the design yield point of the steel. areas are formed called mesh rectangles and are given names. If the calculated forces in the stringers are in compression the forces can be taken up by the concrete supplemented with reinforcement. The method has been used for many years on steel structures and is starting to gain ground for concrete structures. Figure 2. where the theory of plasticity is a useful material description. that is found with the method is equal or less than the actual load capacity. The Stringer Method can be used on all materials. The stringers width is usually not bigger than 20% of the 11 . and is constant for each rectangle which means. It starts by looking at the wall as a disk in a coordinate system with the x as a horizontal axis and y as a vertical axis. Figure 2. The tension stringers need reinforcement to take up the tension force and the reinforcement area is calculated as: As.Design Methods 2.2 Stringer Method Section 2. that is the load carrying capacity. 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.t = F fyd (2.4: Disk divided into nodes. stingers and mesh rectangle areas. It is best to calculate rst the shear stress in the mesh areas and thereafter the forces in the stringers.3 The Stringer Method is a lower bound method. The disk is divided into stringers parallel with the x and y axes and the nodes where the stingers cross each other are given numbers. The main idea is that the loads and reactions are calculated as concentrated forces in the nodes. or as shear stresses along the stringers. 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.or tension stringers and the mesh rectangles take up the shear stresses. One stringer goes from node to node.4 shows a disk which has been divided into nodes.5 · 25. Between their stringers. but a whole line of segment going from edge to edge is called stringer line and consists of more than one stringers.

3. Several methods exist for FEA but the basic steps involved in any FEA consist of the following: X X X Create and discretize the solution domain into nite elements. So the concrete can take up total force of: F νfcd ν is the eciency factor and (2.11) Ac is The needed reinforcement is: 0. heat transfer and uid ow.10) where F is the compression force in the stringer. ETABS and ANSYS.12) In the rectangle mesh areas the reinforcement is placed orthogonal and parallel with the coordinate system or parallel with the stringers and the needed reinforcement and is calculated as: As = where b is the width of the wall. Here the whole content of the nite element method or its equations will not be detailed. Develop equations for an element.4. so that FEM models possessing tens of thousands of DOF are not uncommon. SAP2000. Only the basic part that is important for this project.3.3. a continuous function is assumed to represent the approximate solution of an element.2 · ′ height of mesh rectangle′ ·′ wall width′ As. that is subdivide the problem into nodes and elements. Using programs based on FEA is very powerful and impressive engineering tools. In recent years.  . the use of nite element modeling as a design tool has grown rapidly.13) 2.needed = design concrete strength.1 Basic Concepts The nite element method (FEM) also called nite element analysis (FEA) is a numerical procedure that can be used to obtain solutions to a variety of problems in engineering such as stress analysis. The needed concrete area in the stringer is Ac.3.+D=FJAH calculated as: Theory total mesh rectangle area length/width [7].c = F −C fyd (2. The method is based on that a continuous system with innite number of degrees of freedom (DOF) is characterized as a nite discrete multidegree-of-freedom system. Assume a shape function to represent the physical behavior of an element. [18] [13] τmax · b fyd (2. all based on nite element analysis.4 Finite Element Analysis In this project three computer programs are used. 2. fcd is the C = Ac · ν · fcd where (2. that is.

Many models have been proposed to describe this nonlinear behavior of a reinforced concrete by using nonlinear nite element analysis.Nonlinear Analysis X X X Section 2. fy the yield stress and ǫu the maximum elongation at maximum load Figure 2.5 [6] Assemble the elements to present the entire problem.5 Nonlinear Analysis In recent years nonlinear nite element models have been used to utilize the behavior of reinforced concrete.5: Stress-strain diagram for concrete [9] Figure 2. Construct the global stiness matrix. and loading. 2. Here the mathematical models used in ANSYS will be described.5. such as displacement values at dierent nodes. Solve a set of linear or nonlinear algebraic equations simultaneously to obtain nodal results. Concrete and Steel Figure 2.5 shows a compressive stress-strain diagram for concrete in uniaxial compression. 2.6: Typical stress-strain diagram of reinforcing steel [9] 13 . Apply boundary conditions.1 Figure 2. εc1 is the strain at peak stress and εcu is the ultimate strain.6 shows a stress-strain diagram of reinforcing steel where ft is the tensile strength. fc is the peak stress.

g. One is by cracking. That is the strength of concrete elements can only be properly determined by considering the interaction of the various components of the state of stress. When the state of stress or strain reaches critical value. This nonlinear relationship can be divided into three intervals: I II III The uncracked elastic stage Crack propagation The plastic stage The last two stages or the nonlinear response is caused by cracking in the concrete and plasticity in the reinforcement and of compression in the concrete. aggregate interlock of cracked concrete and dowel action of reinforced concrete. Other time-independent nonlinearities are from the nonlinear action of the individual constituents of reinforced concrete. under tensile type of stress states.5. shrinkage and temperature changes. [21] Figure 2. which are all time-dependent eects also contribute to the nonlinear response.3 Mathematical Modeling The strength of concrete under multiaxial stresses is a function of the state of stress and can not be predicted by limitations of simple tensile. 2.7: Typical load-displacement relationship for reinforced concrete element [21] 2. e. and the other by crushing under compressive types of stress states.. The tensile weakness of concrete is a major factor contributing to 14 .7 which shows a typical load-displacement relationship.+D=FJAH Theory For higher grades of steel or steel strengths the tensile and yield strength gets higher. bond slip between steel and concrete. the concrete can start failing by fracturing.2 Reinforced Concrete The characteristic stages of reinforced concrete can be illustrated by Figure 2. The fracture of concrete can occur in two dierent forms. Creep.5. compressive and shearing stresses independently of each other.

in volume). [4] [19] 15 .5. The hydrostatic section forms a meridianal plane which contains the equisectrix σ1 = σ2 = σ3 model expresses the failure surface in terms of average or hydrostatic stress.8 Figure 2.5 The tensile weakness of concrete resulting in cracking is a major factor contributing to the nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete. (2. Kupfer obtained a tensile strength of concrete under biaxial stress states and his data provides a good denition of the basic tensile strength of concrete under tension-tension or tension-compression biaxial stress elds and can be seen in Figure 2. The mathematical into hydrostatic and deviatoric sections. So this representation requires ve data points and the model is called the ve parameter model of Willam and Warnke. The failure surface is shown in Figure 2. σ2 and σ3 . biaxial compressive strength and the uniaxial tension strength along with two points of high triaxial compression. Section 2. z and r are identied from the uniaxial compressive strength. the average shear stress.1) fcu is the uniaxial compressive strength of the The parameters that form the failure surface.8: Biaxial strength Envelope for Plain Concrete [19] Willam and Warnke (1975) developed a widely used model for triaxial failure surface for plain concrete. It is an three-dimensional stress space and is separated as an axis of revolution. τa and the angle as: σa (change θ and the failure surface is dened 1 τa 1 σa + =1 z fcu r(θ) fcu where z is the apex of the surface and concrete.9 where it is plotted in the coordinate system σ 1 .Nonlinear Analysis the nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete element.

As can seen from Figure 2. [21] Figure 2.+D=FJAH Theory Figure 2.10: Typical load-displacement relationship for reinforced concrete element [21] 16 .10 shows a typical uniaxial stress-strain curve for plain concrete up to tensile and compressive failure. After point A only the portion εe can be recovered from the total deformation ǫ and the concrete is progressively weakened by internal microcracking up to the end of the perfectly plastic ow region CD at point D. and no plastic strains occur at the failure moment.9: Triaxial strength surface in principal stress space [19] Figure 2. For tensile failure. the maximum stresses coincide with the maximum strains.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 . For compressive failure. the behavior is essentially linearly elastic up to the failure load. 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. A material is called perfectly plastic or work-hardening according as it does or does not admit changes of permanent strain under constant stress. 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.

Figure 2.5.3. Here the elastic strain hardening plastic model will be described.After Yielding Point The response of the concrete after the yield point A in Figure 2. If further discontinuity is continued beyond this surface a nal collapse of the concrete cracking or crushing occurs.Before Yielding Point Section 2.2 Elastic-Strain Hardening Plastic Model . as an elastic-plastic-hardening material. or the elastic-plastic response. 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. They can be broken down into subcategories based on the state of stress that is modeled (uniaxial. For biaxial models the the most widely used representation is the isotropic total stress-strain models. is described by the theory of plasticity.5. or to account for the hardening behavior up to the ultimate strength.2) ν is the poisson ratio. depending on the nature of the stress state.10 which is the irrecoverable part. [19] 2. 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:   1 σx E  ν  σy  = (1 − ν 2 ) τxy 0  where E is the modulus of elasticity and ν 1 0 0 0 (1−ν) e  εx   εx  εx  (2. the shear wall. The subject in this project.5.1 Elastic Based Model . In general models based on the plasticity describe concrete as an elastic-perfectly plastic material. 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.5 Many elasticity based models have been developed to represent the behavior of concrete and the eld of elasticity-based models are quite broad. 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.3. % .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. is under biaxial loading where plane stresses can be found. 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. biaxial or triaxial) and the form of constitutive relations (incremental or total stress-strain models).Nonlinear Analysis 2.

[4] [19] 2. there is some function of stress f (σij ) such that no additional plastic deformations take place when f is smaller than some number k and plastic ow of a work-hardening material occurs when f exceeds k. k) (2.+D=FJAH Theory Figure 2.5. The shape of an initial yield surface 2. the plastic strains and the hardening parameter: f = f (σij .11: Loading surfaces of concrete in biaxial stress plane for a work-hardening-plasticity model [4] The formulation of the constitutive relations for a strain-hardening plastic material is based on three fundamental assumptions: 1.3 The Shape of an Initial Yield Surface There exists a loading function f which depends upon the state of stress and strain and the history of loading.3) ij So dierent material states can be dened: X f =0 X f <0 represents yield states. elastic behavior occurs. That is f is dependent of state of stress. In other words. ǫp . The formulation of an appropriate ow rule.5. at each stage of a plastic deformation or unloading. [4] 18 . The evolution of subsequent loading surface (or hardening rule) 3.3.

[4] 2. k) dǫp = dλ ij δf δσij then (2.5. and the stress-strain relation for a work-hardening material will be made by means of ow rule.5.5 The hardening rule denes the motion of the subsequent yield surface during plastic loading. the material is in a state of plastic pow upon further loading.5 The Flow Rule The necessary connection between the loading function.3.5. The model is illustrated schematically in Figure 2. Three types of hardening rules are frequently used in strain-hardening plasticity models and they are isotropic. When the current yield surface f is reached. Discrete crack models explicitly represent crack as a separation of nodes and 19 .4) The ow rule is associated if the plastic potential surface has the same shape as the yield condition p p f (σij . k) in analogy with idealuid-ow problems. ǫij . maintaining the size and shape of the initial yield surface. Introducing the concept of a plastic potential function g(σij . the ow rule is dened as: dǫp = dλ ij δg δσij (2. f.Nonlinear Analysis 2.3. Figure 2. ǫij .5.12: Kinematic hardening rule [1] 2. The discrete crack approach requires monitoring the response and modifying the topology of the nite element mesh corresponding to the current crack congurations at each state of loading. Two main approaches are common for a representative analysis.5. It assumes that during plastic ow the loading surface translates as a rigid body in the stress space. kinematic and mixed.5) This relation is called the associated ow rule because it is connected with the loading surface.12. the discrete crack and smeared crack approach and the use of joint or interface elements. k) = g(σij . In the nonlinear analysis in this project the kinematic hardening rule is used.4 The evolution of Subsequent Loading Surface Section 2.4 Finite Element Modeling of Cracks Many models have been developed to represent cracking during nite element analysis of a reinforced concrete member. ǫij .

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. The ductility is dened as the ratio of the total imposed displacements to that at the onset of yield ∆ at any instant ∆y . [16] 2. as in reinforced concrete applications. and a capacity to absorb energy by hysteric behavior. related to the level of ductility permitted of the structure. of a structure.6 Ductility To minimize major damage and to ensure the survival of buildings with moderate resistance with respect to lateral force. which models cracks and joints in an average sense by appropriately modifying material properties at the integration points of regular nite elements. is described by the general term ductility. curvature.+D=FJAH Theory the node is redened as two nodes. These problems can mostly be avoided in the smeared crack approach. 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. or of the materials used to oer resistance in the inelastic domain of response.2) ∆u and ∆y may represent strain. The formation of a crack involves no remeshing or new degrees of freedom.1) The ductility. rotation or deection. It is possible to satisfy the performance criteria of the damage control and survival limit state by one of the three distinct design approaches.6. It includes the ability to sustain large deformations. is: µ. 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 . This ability of the structure or its components. that is the ductility developed when failure is imminent ∆u ∆y µu = The displacements (2. However they have limited ability to model sharp discontinuities and represent the topology or material behavior in the vicinity of the crack. Therefore the discrete crack approach may not be the best choice for problems with many cracks. like in reinforced concrete elements. where the deection is the most convenient quantity to evaluate either the ductility imposed on a structure by earthquake µm or the structures's capacity to develop ductility µu . SE . These deformations may be well beyond the elastic limit.6. required to resist earthquake-induced ∆ at the development at dierent levels of strength  .13 where the strength forces and structural displacements are related to each other. µ= ∆ >1 ∆y (2. An illustration of these three approaches are shown in Figure 2. structures must be capable of sustaining a high proportion of their initial strength when a major earthquake imposes large deformations. The smeared crack approach works best when cracks to be modeled are themselves smeared out.

1. Certain structures inherently possess signicant strength with respect to lateral forces as a consequence. certain buildings will deed to possess adequate strength to ensure that they remain essentially elastic. Elastically responding structures.13 shows. Figure 2.Cracks Section 2. Because of their great importance. Fully ductile structures .7 Figure 2. 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. The idealized bilinear response of this type of structure is shown in Figure 2. b Ductile response.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. perhaps of lesser importance. it is also important from the 21 . of the presence of large areas of structural walls. The idealized response of such structure is shown in Figure 2. These structures can be divided into two groups.13 by the path OCC ′ 2. such as structural stability. 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. may nevertheless possess a level of inherent strength such that elastic response is assured.13: Relationship between strength and ductility [21] a Elastic response. The maximum displacement ∆me is very close to the displacement of the ideal elastic structure. These are designed to possess the maximum ductility potential than can reasonably be achieved at carefully identied and detailed inelastic regions. Structures with Restricted Ductility . for example. implying no or negligible ductility demands. [21] 2.13 by the bilinear strength-displacement path OAA′ . that inelastic deformation and hence ductility will be required of the structure. Other structures.13 shows approximate values of ductility factors which may be used as guides for the limit of the categories discussed. represent the other limit.

4. Most cracks are results from the following actions. These stresses may. Theory Concrete cracks early in its loading history. While the net results of these three actions cause the formation of cracks. As the tensile stress in the concrete exceeds its tensile strength. 2. 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. etc.8. srm is the average nal crack spacing.creep and thermal stresses. shrinkage.1) where: wk is the design crack width.2. bond and diagonal tension cracks. Volumetric change caused by plastic shrinkage or expensive chemical reactions within hardened concrete.8. long-term deection. 3. as consequence. Direct stress due to applied loads or reactions or internal stresses due to continuity.1 Calculation of design crack widths wk = β · srm · εsm The design crack width may be obtained from EC2:4.+D=FJAH aesthetic view to control the cracking. adversely aect the appearance and performance in service conditions and the durability of concrete structures.3 mm [9][17] 2. Volumetric change cause internal micro-cracking.8 Methods to Calculate Cracks The design provision at the ultimate limit states may lead to excessive stresses in the concrete and the reinforcing steel. environmental eects or dierential movements in structural system. shear or other moments caused by transverse loads. the mechanism of their development cannot be considered identical. These cracks develop into macro-cracks propagating to the external ber zone of the element. β is a coecient relating the average crack width to the design value and here it may be . 2. which may develop into full cracking. Stress because of bending. reversible fatigue load. 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 0.4 from the relation: (2. εsm is the mean strain allowed under the relevant combination of loads for the eects of tension stiening. 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. internal micro-cracks form. 1.

σsr is the stress in the tension reinforcement calculated in the basis of a cracked section under the loading conditions causing the rst cracking.5 for a sustained load or for many cycles of repeated loading. The average nal crack spacing for members subjected dominantly to exure or tension can be calculated with the equation: srm = 50 + 0.5 for plain bars. Where mixture of bar sizes is used in section.Shear Wall taken as 1. 1 for high bond bars and 0.25k1 k2 φ/pr where: (2. k1 k2 2.8.14: The Shear Wall 23 .9 ǫsm may be calculated from the relation: ǫsm = where: σsr 2 σs (1 − β1 β2 ( ) ) Es σs (2. The shear wall that is considered in this project if shown in Figure 2.14. β2 is a coecient which takes account of the duration of the loading or of repeated loading. an average bar size is a coecient which takes account of the bond properties of the bars. Section 2. It is a three story wall with one door on the ground oor and 8 windows. [9] may be used.8.7.3) φ is the bar size in mm.9 Shear Wall Shear walls are commonly put into multi-storey buildings because of their good performance under lateral loads like earthquake forces because they provide lateral stability and they act as vertical cantilevers in resisting the horizontal forces. Figure 2.2) σs is the stress in the tension reinforcement calculated on the basis of a cracked section. β1 is a coecient which takes account of the bond properties of the bars. 1 for a single short term loading and 0. is a coecient which takes account of the form of the strain distribution.3 or 1.

most structures need to be ductile.15: Structural wall [21] To accommodate large seismically induced deformations. 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. hw /lw . Walls of the type shown in Figure 2. [21] 24 . dependable ductile response can be achieved under major earthquakes. The potential exural strength of such walls may be very large in comparison with lateral forces. Because of the small height. Structural walls usually have openings. it is preferable to consider forces generated by earthquake-induced displacements rather than traditional loads.15. Thus in the design of structures for ductile. are characterized by a small height-to-length ratio. strength and ductility are the basic criteria that the structure should satisfy and shear walls provide a nearly optimum means of achieving those objectives.+D=FJAH Theory Stiness. Buildings having shear walls are stier than framed structures resulting in reduced deformations under earthquake load. and of the same type as the wall analyzed here. 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. relatively large shearing forces must be generated Figure 2.

1: Plan View 25 . The house is a three story oce building.2 shows the geometry of the wall analyzed. The building is a RC structure with windows all of the same size and it is assumed that the roof is monotonic made of concrete.+D=FJAH ! The Building and the Load In this chapter the analyzed building is described. 3.2 and Table 3. Figure 3. The concrete strength is C30/35 and the wall thickness is 200 mm. Openings are 23% of the area and height versus length (H/L) ratio is 0. Figure 3. The dimensions and parameters of the building can be seen in gures 3.1. the total mass calculated and the applied load from an earthquake on the building is calculated.1 and 3. it does not exist in reality and it is assumed that it is placed on the South part of Iceland.78. it has eight windows and one door.2.1 The Building Drawings of the building is shown in gures 3.1 and 3.

3 shows the dimensions of the longitudinal wall.+D=FJAH ! The Building and the Load Figure 3.1 The Mass of the Building [m] [m] [m] [m] [mm] [mm] [kg/m3 ] [kg/m3 ] [m] [N/m2 ] [N/m2 ] Even thought that in this project only one wall of the building is analyzed the weight of the whole building has to be calculated to be able to calculate the total earthquake force applied on the wall.0 Building width W=20 Building depth (shear wall) L=11.008 Young's modulus for concrete Ec = 3.1.1: The buildings parameters Building height H=9. Figure 3. 26 .2: The Shear Wall Dimensions The following parameters are given regarding the structure: Table 3.0 Wall thickness tw =200 Floor slab/roof thickness ts =200 Density of concrete ρc =2500 Density of glass ρc =2600 Thickness of double glass tg =0.5 Story height h=3.4 · 1010 Dead and live loading on each story q = 5000 Concrete strength C30 Reinforcement strength 500 MPa 3.

4 m3 2 · 0.4 + 72 + 138 − 9.14m3 · 2600kg/m3 = 2962kg The total mass of the building 557300 + 2962 = 560261kg Mass for each story: m1 =150877 kg m2 =186754 kg m3 =186754 kg 27 .2 = 0.6 − 0.88 − 18 = 223 m3 223m3 · 2500kg/m3 = 557300kg Mass of the glass: (2 · (1 · 2.5 · 20 = 138 m3 = = = 2 · 8 · 0.2 · 9 · 11.6 m3 2 · 15 · 0.2 Figure 3.008 = 1.88 m3 Openings: Shear wall windows : Shear wall door : Longitudinal wall windows : Total volume of concrete The total mass of the concrete: ⇒ 41.The Building Section 3.5 · 1.2 · 1 · 2.2 · 2.2 + (8 + 15) · 2.5 · 1.5 = 41.2 = 9.25 = 18 m3 2 · 0.2 · 9 · 20 = 72 m3 3 · 0.2) · 0.2 · 2.14m3 ⇒ 1.5 · 1.2 · 11.3: The Longitudinal Wall Dimensions The mass of the total building is: T he shear wall : Longitudinal wall : Roof and slabs : 2 · 0.

3. unless there is perfect symmetry with respect to an axis orthogonal to that of the seismic action components considered. A "modal" pattern. i.3. an 'inverted triangular' unidirectional force pattern. which depends on the type of linear analysis applicable to the particular structure. The forces are applied at the location of the masses in the structural model. Methods based on non-linear time history analysis.2. Because the building satises the condition for the application of lateral force analysis method. termed the control node.2.4.2 The Building and the Load Pushover Analysis Pushover analysis is non-linear static approach carried out under constant gravity loads and by subjecting monotonically increasing lateral forces.2. That displacement is often taken at a certain node n of the structural model.2 Capacity Curve The key outcome of the pushover analysis is the 'capacity curve'.3. Three basic methods are used in seismic analysis to estimate the response of the building and the internal forces. the relation between the base shear force. The control node is normally at the roof level. each lateral force pattern should be applied in both the positive and the negative direction. 1. and the result used should be the most unfavorable one from the two analyses.0. 2.0. The rst method uses a static force which is distributed on the building according to specic rules listed in EC8. A "uniform" pattern.2. based on lateral forces that are proportional to mass regardless of elevation (unform response acceleration). The uniform pattern is with lateral forces that are proportional to masses and the modal pattern varies with change in deected shape as it yields or more precise from EC8:4. Moreover. dn .1 Lateral Force Patterns The selection of an appropriate lateral load distribution is important within the pushover analysis. This method is good for simple regular buildings and could therefore be applied for the three story shear wall. 2. a uniform and modal pattern. 3. Methods based on multi modal response analysis. similar to the one used in that method is used. [10] [12] & . pushover analysis should be performed using both of the following lateral load patterns: 1. representing the inertial forces which would be experienced by the structure when subjected to ground shaking.+D=FJAH ! 3. Methods that are based on equivalent lateral force. Fb . In EC8 the non-linear static procedure requires at least two force distributions.e. and the representative lateral displacement of the structure. The most unfavorable result of the pushover analysis using the two standard lateral force patterns should be adopted. 3. In this thesis only the second load pattern is used in the static pushover analysis.

3.for a concrete shear wall and Ac T1 = Ct · H 3/4 Ac (3. (See EC8: 3. Fb for the horizontal direction (3.Lateral Force Method of Analysis In the lateral force method a linear static analysis of the structure is performed under a set of lateral forces applied separately in two orthogonal horizontal directions. ' .Load .3.3.85 if stories.3.2.2.2 + (lwi /H))2 ] (3.Lateral Force Method of Analysis Section 3. The intent is to simulate through these forces the peak inertia load induced by the horizontal component of the seismic action in the two directions.1 Can the Lateral Force Method be used? According to EC8:4.4 = 1.and still is the workhorse for practical seismic design.1) Where Tc = 0 is found in EC8. x and y.3. in m..3.2. given in EC8: 4.2) Fb = Sd (T1 ) · m · λ where Sd (T1 ) is the ordinate of the design spectrum at period T1 . x and y.1(1)P the lateral force method can be applied to buildings whose response is not signicantly aected by contributions from modes of vibration higher than the fundamental mode in each principal direction. this method has long been . can be approximated: Ct = 0. and the building shall meet the criteria for regularity in elevation. lwi is the length of the shear wall i in the rst storey in the direction parallel to the applied forces. T1 ≤ 2Tc and the building has more than two T1 where wall. 3.2.4) Ai is the eective cross sectional area of the shear wall i in the rst storey of the 2 building in m .3.0s = 4 · 0.4(2) λ is the correction factor. computed in accordance with EC8:3. wind or other static actions).2.3.3) is the total eective area of the shear Ac is given by the equation: Ac = Where [Ai · (0.3.5) m is the total mass of the building.2.9. According to EC8: 4. from the foundation or the top of the rigid basement and lwi /H should not exceed 0.2 the seismic base shear force. The fundamental period of vibration.3 Load .2. (3. in the two main directions should be smaller T1 ≤ 4 · Tc 2. Table 3.075 √ . in m.3. here λ = 0.6s. Owing to the familiarity and experience of structural engineers with elastic analysis for static loads (due to gravity. H is the height of the building.3. than: T1 .3 3.

2 · +0.3 · (0. Ai = 11.2 needed. The horizontal ground acceleration for Iceland according to the Icelandic National Annex FS ENV 1998-1-1:1994 can be seen in Figure 3.4: Horizontal ground acceleration for Iceland Usually houses in Iceland are built on solid rock or ground type A. see EC8: Table 4. 256s ≤ [10] 4 · Tc 2. Therefore the lateral force method of analysis can be used.3 T1 = 0.3.9 )) = 2.3.256 See if it ts the requirements from 3.3. The following parameters (in Table 3.2) are used to 30 . The importance class is set to III. 3.6s.4g.4 Ac = 2 · (2.3. The Design Response Spectra To calculate the seismic base shear force the shape of the design response spectra is The building is placed on the South Iceland Seismic Zone (SISZ).0s = 4 · 0.3m2 2 From 3.049 Ct = √ 2.5m · 0. Figure 3.2m = 2.4 = 1. which is for ordinary buildings not belonging to the other three importance classes.+D=FJAH ! The Building and the Load It is assumed that the building has two opposite shear walls.1 T1 = 0.323 Then Ct can be calculated: 0.075 = 0.4.3.049 · 93/4 = 0. The ground acceleration is 0.323 Finally the rst period is calculated from 3.

81 = 4.2.3 are dened and describe the recommended type 1 design response spectrum for type A ground.2.4 · 9.Load .Lateral Force Method of Analysis calculate the shape of the design response spectra: Section 3.3 Ground type Importance class Ground acceleration Behavior factor Table 3.5 lwi α0 = The behavior factor can then be calculated q = 3 · 0. The design ground acceleration according to EC8.5 · [ TC TD ] q T2 ≥ β · aq T is the vibration period of a linear single-degree-of-freedom system.2 q0 is the basic value dependent on the type of the structural system and on its regularity in elevation. is dened by the following expression: 2 T 2.1(3)is: ag = γI · agR = 1 · 0.2. The following values in Table 3.59 = 1. S is the soil factor.78 = 2 · 11. 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.2 31 . Sd (T ). see EC 8: Table 3.5 2 0 ≤ T ≤ TB : Sd (T ) = ag · S · [ + − )] ·( 3 TB q 3 TB ≤ T ≤ TC : Sd (T ) = ag · S · TC ≤ T ≤ TD : Sd (T ) = 2.12m/s2 (3.2.5) TB .2: Parameters for design response spectra ag = 0. The damping correction factor is η .5 the horizontal design response spectrum.3.5 3 hwi 2·9 = 0.5 q ag · S · 2.78 From EC8 3. with reference value η = 1 for 5% viscous damping.5 · [ TC ] q T ≥ β · aq TD ≤ T : Sd (T ) = ag · S · 2.3.4g q = q0 kw ≥ 1.2. The building has Ductility Class Medium (DCM) so q0 = 3 kw = (1 + α0 ) ≤ 1but not less than 0.5 A III → γ1 = 1 (the important factor) According to EC8:5.

j ” + ” ΨE.068 ⇒ Sd (T1 ) = 1.5 it can be seen that for T1 = 0.2.5m/s2 ag Use EC8:4. The mass is computed in accordance with EC8:3. the horizontal forces.3. mj are the storey masses.404 · 0. zj are the heights of the masses.2.3. The response spectrum for ζ = 0.3 to distribute the horizontal seismic forces: According to 4.0 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. mi .3: Parameters for type 1 design response spectrum.i zj · mj (3.i · Qk. zi .3. Fi .2.05 1.5.5 0 0 0.256 Sd (T1 ) = 1.4(2) mi = ΣGk.3. should be taken as being given by: z i · mi Fi = Fb · (3.+D=FJAH ! The Building and the Load Table 3.6) where mi .5: Horizontal design spectrum From Figure 3.5 4 Figure 3.81 · 1 = 5.5 2 T 2.15 TC (S) = 0.4 · 9. mj .7) 32 .3(3) the fundamental mode shape is approximated by horizontal displacements increasing linearly along the height. S=1 TB (S) = 0.5 1 1.3.5 1 g dh S /a 0.3.5 3 3.4 TD (S) = 2. above the level of application of the seismic action.

3.i = ϕ · Ψ2i . one in each end of the building) and the load acting on shear wall to be analysed is therefore: F1 F2 F3 = = = 570kN 613kN 307kN 3.35 and 1.2 the seismic base shear force is: Fb = 5.5 and Ψ2i = 0.3 where ΨE.81 3kN/m2 (oce building) and dead load (furniture etc.i is the combination coecient for variable action E and is computed from the following expression ΨE.5 = 244195kg 9. m=639268 kg So from eq.3 · 0.Lateral Force Method of Analysis Section 3.) to Total mass.5 ·3000 · 10 · 11.Load . here ϕ = 0.35 · 3m · 0.3.525kN/m3 = 0.2m · 11.85 = 2989kN zj · mj = 9 · 150877 + 6 · 244195 + 3 · 244195 = 3555648kg Which gives: F1 F2 F3 = 2989 · 9 · 150877 = 1141kN 3555648 6 · 243150 = 2989 · = 1226kN 3555648 3 · 243150 = 2989 · = 613kN 3555648 The loads F1 .35 · Weight from the roof: 1 3 1 3 Weight from the oor with live and dead load: 45kN/m + 1.35 · 3 · · 20m · 0.3 Vertical Load Safety factor for permanent action is 1.81 9. m1 m2 m3 = = = 150877kg 186754 + 244195kg 2000 · 20 · 11. F2 and F3 are divided on two shear walls (i.35 · 2 · 1 3 Weight from the shear wall: · 20m = 92kN/m 1. 3.5 · 636683 · 0.3 Here live load is set to 2kN/m2 on each story.5 + 0.5 for variable action: 1.2m · 25kN/m3 = 45kN/m · 20 + 1.81kN/m Load on top: 45kN/m Load on second oor: 138kN/m !! .e.

Figure 3.6: Forces applied on the shear wall 34 .+D=FJAH ! Load on rst oor: 138kN/m The Building and the Load The load applied on the shear wall can be seen in Figure 3.6.

forces are acting upon the wall so the set of the loads acting on the wall is zero.75 5.3 the load acting on the shear wall was calculated.1. !# . Here the line containing node one to eight is called stringer line 1. This conguration can be seen in Figure 4. It starts by dividing the wall into stingers.75 449 · 4.1 4. moments from the forces are calculated and loads put on the wall to balance it. That is for the three calculated horizontal loads acting on the building.25 449 · 5.75 = = = 370kN 175kN 98kN The applied forces for the calculations in the stringer method are shown in Figure 4.+D=FJAH " Reinforcement Design 4. node 9 to 16 stringer line 2 and etc. There are eighteen unknown values so eighteen equations have to be created to be able to nd the shear stress in each mesh rectangle.252 4.75 5. The moment acting on the building from the calculated horizontal loads: 570kN · 9m + 613kN · 6m + 307kN · 3m = 9729kN m Forces acting against the horizontal loads are applied at the vertical stringer lines and are calculated as: 9729 = 2 · P · (5.75 2.75 + 2.3.2.1 The Stringer Method The Stringer method is explained in section 2.2. When marking the areas the thought was due to symmetry of the wall that some of the mesh rectangles are assumed to have the same shear stress.75 1.2 and 3.252 1. nodes and rectangle mesh areas.25 449 · 5.1 The Load In chapter 3.752 + + ) ⇒ P = 449kN 5.3.75 5. The nodes are given numbers from 1 to 86 and the areas are marked from x1 to x18 .3. For the wall to be in equilibrium.

+D=FJAH " Reinforcement Design Figure 4.1: The wall divided into nodes.2: The forces acting on the wall for Stringer Method 36 . stringers and areas Figure 4.

The Stringer Method
4.1.2 Calculation of Shear Stresses and Stringer Forces

Section 4.1

There are 10 horizontal equilibriums and 8 vertical equilibriums to nd the shear stress in each mesh rectangle, x1 to x18 . The equations are created by taking horizontal and vertical sections through the wall. The eighteen equilibrium equations are: 

(4 · x1 · 1000mm + 3 · x2 · 2500mm) · 200mm = −570000N (4 · x3 · 1000mm) · 200mm = −570000N

! " # $ % & '    ! " # $ % &

(4 · x4 · 1000mm + 3 · x5 · 2500mm) · 200mm = −570000N (4 · x6 · 1000mm + 3 · x7 · 2500mm) · 200mm = −1183000N 4 · x8 · 1000mm · 200mm = −1183000N (4 · x9 · 1000mm + 3 · x10 · 2500mm) · 200mm = −1183000N (4 · x11 · 1000mm + 3 · x12 · 2500mm) · 200mm = −1490000N (2 · x13 · 1000mm + x16 · 1750mmx18 · 1650mm) · 200mm = −1490000N (2 · x14 · 1000mm + 2 · x15 · 2500mm + x17 · 1750mmx18 · 1650mm) · 200mm = −1490000N (x1 · 700mm + x3 · 1200mm + x4 · 1100mm + x6 · 700mm + x8 · 1200mm+ x9 · 1100mm + x11 · 700mm + x13 · 1200mm + x14 · 1100mm) · 200mm = −449000N (x2 · 700mm + x5 · 1100mm + x7 · 700mm + x10 · 1100mm + x12 · 700mm+ x15 · 1100mm) · 200mm = −819000 (x1 · 700mm + x3 · 1200mm + x4 · 1100mm + x6 · 700mm + x8 · 1200mm+ x9 · 1100mm + x11 · 700mm + x13 · 1200mm + x14 · 1100mm) · 200mm = −994000N (x2 · 700mm + x5 · 1100mm + x7 · 700mm + x10 · 1100mm + x12 · 700mm+ x15 · 1100mm) · 200mm = −1092000N (x1 · 700mm + x3 · 1200mm + x4 · 1100mm + x6 · 700mm + x8 · 1200mm+ x9 · 1100mm + x11 · 700mm + x16 · 1200mm + x17 · 1100mm) · 200mm = −994000N (x2 · 700mm + x5 · 1100mm + x7 · 700mm + x10 · 1100mm + x12 · 700mm+ x16 · 1200mm + x17 · 1100mm) · 200mm = −819000 (x2 · 700mm + x5 · 1100mm + x7 · 700mm + x10 · 1100mm + x12 · 700mm) · 200mm = −819000N (x2 · 700mm + x5 · 1100mm + x7 · 700mm + x10 · 1100mm + x12 · 700mm+ x18 · 1200mm + x18 · 1100mm) · 200mm = −819000N (x1 · 700mm + x3 · 1200mm + x4 · 1100mm + x6 · 700mm + x8 · 1200mm+ x9 · 1100mm + x11 · 700mm + x18 · 2300mm) · 200mm = −449000N

!%

+D=FJAH "

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 x to x , 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
1 18

!&

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.

Table 4.1: Shear stresses in the rectangular mesh areas
Area name

x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x9 x10 x11 x12 x13 x14 x15 x16 x17 x18

Shear stress [MPa] 0.1349 -0.4542 -0.7198 0.3022 -0.5447 -0.0348 -0.7724 -1.4860 0.1325 -0.8629 -0.1197 -0.9317 -1.8138 0.6172 -1.7271 -1.8881 0.2641 -0.2613

Error [%] 0.59 1.0 0.93 0.29 0.49 0.45 0.23 1.2 1.1 64 21 26 9.2 16 22 25 11 25

Figure 4.3: Sign of the shear stresses
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 calculated 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

9 and 10.+D=FJAH " Reinforcement Design reinforcement simplest as possible the reinforcement is the same for the whole stringer line and is put as 4k16. The same approach is made for stinger lines 3.5: Horizontal Stringer Forces for stringerline 4 to 6 40 . No force is acting on stringer line 2 and therefore the force is zero at node 9 and 16. 6.5. 5. 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. 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. The force decreases along the line ending as zero ate node 32. the force shifts between tension and compression along the stringer line. 8.4: Horizontal Stringer Forces for stringerline 1 to 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. Horizontal stringer forces 200 0 −200 −400 −600 1 2 3 4 5 stringerline no 1 6 7 8 200 Stringerforce [kN] 100 0 −100 −200 9 10 11 12 13 stringerline no 2 14 15 16 400 200 0 −200 −400 17 18 19 20 21 stringerline no 3 22 23 24 Figure 4. Horizontal stringer forces 0 −200 −400 −600 −800 25 400 Stringerforce [kN] 200 0 −200 −400 33 400 200 0 −200 −400 41 42 43 44 45 stringerline no 6 46 47 48 34 35 36 37 stringerline no 5 38 39 40 26 27 28 29 stringerline no 4 30 31 32 Figure 4.

Horizontal stringer forces 0 −200 −400 49 Stringerforce [kN] 500 0 −500 57 1000 500 0 −500 67 1000 0 −1000 −2000 77 78 79 80 81 82 stringerline no 10 83 84 85 86 68 69 70 71 72 stringerline no 9 73 74 75 76 50 51 52 53 stringerline no 7 54 55 56 58 59 60 61 62 stringerline no 8 63 64 65 66 Figure 4.The Stringer Method Section 4. is put in all of them. The maximum calculated reinforcement is similar in all the vertical stringer lines and the same reinforcement.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.7: Vertical Stringer Forces for stringerline 11 to 14 41 . Vertical stringer forces 2 1 3 4 9 10 11 12 17 18 19 20 25 stringerline no 11 stringerline no 12 26 stringerline no 13 27 stringerline no 14 0 500 1000 28 33 34 35 36 41 42 43 44 49 50 51 52 57 58 59 60 67 68 69 70 77 −1000 0 1000 78 −500 0 500 Stringerforce [kN] 80 −500 0 500 Figure 4. 4k20.6: Horizontal Stringer Forces for stringeline 7 to 10 There are eight vertical stringer lines numbered from 11 to 18.

9: Reinforcement of the wall based on Stringer method 42 .+D=FJAH " 5 Reinforcement Design Vertical stringer forces 6 7 8 13 14 15 16 21 22 23 24 29 stringerline no 15 stringerline no 16 30 stringerline no 17 31 32 37 38 39 stringerline no 18 −500 0 40 45 46 47 48 53 54 55 56 61 62 65 66 71 72 75 76 81 −1000 −500 0 82 −1000 −500 0 Stringerforce [kN] 85 −1000 86 −500 0 500 Figure 4.8: Vertical Stringer Forces for stringerline 15 to 18 Figure 4.

One with SAP2000 which is a general purpose FE-program and one with ETABS which is a building specialized FE-program and has a special postprocessor to present section forces in the model. poisson's ratio. Figure 4.Linear Elastic FE-analysis Section 4. The material properties used in the models are shown in Table 4.2. In both SAP2000 and ETABS the shell element is used.y and z coordinates and the wall is drawn from scratch. It has six degrees of freedoms in each corner point (only one shown on the gure). 3. The shell element combines membrane and platebending behavior.10. The structure is divided into distinct appropriate elements. Grid lines are made for the x.2.2 Linear Elastic FE-analysis Two of the required reinforcement arrangements are designed based on linear elastic analysis in two FE-programs.10: Shell Element [26] 2. Here only one wall is modeled so restraints are also put against movements perpendicular to the wall. Boundary conditions are assigned to the nodes (joints) where it is required. strength characteristics etc. It is a simple quadrilateral shell element which has a 24x24 stiness matrix which is transformed to the global XYZ system. 43 .2 4. 1.1 Modeling in SAP2000 and ETABS The modeling process in both of the programs is very similar and in this section the process is described and description of the material properties listed. as shown in Figure 4. weight. 4. The material properties are dened such as mass. Boundary conditions are assigned at the bottom of the wall (at ground level) where restraints should be against all movements to imitate the behavior of a shear wall. 4. modulus of elasticity.

11: Deformations of a shell element in ETABS [8] Wall pier forces are output at the top and bottom of wall pier elements and wall spandrel forces are output at the left and right ends of wall spandrel element. Elements are assigned to element type. Here the shell type is used. Table 4. Appropriate meshing and labeling is the key to proper modeling and design. 4. Loads are only transferred to the wall at the corner points of the area objects that make up the wall.+D=FJAH " Reinforcement Design Table 4. 44 .12.5 kN/m 32 kN/mm 0. Generally the membrane or shell type element should be used to model walls. Loads are assigned to the joints as they will be applied in the real structure. ETABS Figure 4. that is the wall is divided into vertical piers and horizontal spandrels. see Figure 4. see Table 4.2: Material properties of concrete in SAP2000 and ETABS Material name Type of material Mass per unit volume Modulus of Elasticity Poisson's ratio Concrete strength C30 Isotropic 2. stresses and displacements can be looked at. are axial deformation.2 30 Mpa 3 2 5. The geometric properties of the elements are dened such as dimensions for the wall section. There are three types of deformation that a single shell element can experience. shear forces and normal forces across a wall sections.3: Wall in SAP2000 and ETABS Section name Material Thickness Type w200 C30 200mm Shell 7. shear deformation and bending deformation.3.2. The model should be ready to be analyzed and forces. 6.2 In ETABS single walls are modeled as a pier/spandrel system. This is a powerful mechanism to obtain design moments. see Figure 4. 8.11.

The pier labeling can be seen in Figure C. 45 .5.13: Pier labeling Spandrel labels are assigned in similar way to vertical area objects (walls). Figure 4.12: Pier and spandrel forces in ETABS At the upper level of this model. A similar labeling of piers occurs at the lower two levels given names from P8 to P18. 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.Linear Elastic FE-analysis Section 4. Pier P1 is dened to extend all the way across the wall above the openings. The whole wall is meshed into 200 ∗ 250 rectangles. Pier P7 is dened to extend all the way across the wall below the openings. Figures of the labeling can be seen in appendix C. The pier and spandrel labels must be assigned to elements before the output forces can be given.2 Figure 4.

M3. in spandrels Figure 4. in piers 46 .15: Moment.14 and 4. The values can be seen in Table C. Figure 4. M3.1 and C.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.2 in Appendix C.14: Moment.+D=FJAH " Reinforcement Design Figures 4.

Linear Elastic FE-analysis Section 4. Figure 4.16. The calculated reinforcement arrangement from analyzing in ETABS is shown in Figure 4. 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.16: Reinforcement of the wall based on analysis in ETABS 47 .2 The reinforcement has to be calculated for all the three forces.

Three values were taken perpendicular from the window for both stresses in the x and y direction in 0.25 increments.18 the stresses vary from -10 to 6. The average values are used to calculate the necessary reinforcement by using the lower bound method described in section 2.20 based on the loads in Figure 3. It is assumed that the concrete can take up negative stresses and reinforcement is needed to take up the tension stresses.2. or 5 values with 0. The average values and the calculated reinforcement can be seen in Table 4.18 to 4. S22 and S12 or σx .17: The basic types of shell stresses [22] The result from the SAP2000 analysis is shown in Figures 4. S11. σy and τxy and they are assumed to be constant through the element thickness. 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.1. Figure 4.25 increments perpendicular or over a 0. 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.17 and are: In-plane direct stresses: S11 (= σx ) and S22 (= σy ). For σx in Figure 4.5 MPa and for σy from -15 to 4.3 X X X X Reinforcement Design SAP2000 The shell element stresses computed in SAP2000 or are shown in Figure 4.4 48 . In-plane shear stress: S12 (= τxy ) Transverse shear stresses: S13 (= τxz ) and S23 (= τyz ) Transverse direct stress: S33 (= τz ) Here we are interested in the in plane stresses.5 MPa where negative values are compression stresses.3.+D=FJAH " 4.6.5 m strip. In similar way the average value for the stresses in the wall were taken one meter in both directions.

from the SAP2000 analysis Figure 4.2 Figure 4. σy .Linear Elastic FE-analysis Section 4.19: Normal stresses. from the SAP2000 analysis 49 .18: Normal stresses. σx .

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. τxy .20: Shear stresses.+D=FJAH " Reinforcement Design Figure 4. from analysis in SAP2000 50 . Figure 4.

below/right Middle middle window.58 1.30 2.00 0.4: Average stresses and computed reinforcement from SAP2000 Reinforcement around openings Top left window.87 1.43 0.50 0.41 1.00 1.00 0. above/left Middle right window.86 0.93 0. below/right Middle left window. above/left Middle middle window.15 0. below/right Top right window.43 0.88 0.60 0.67 0.26 3.50 0.15 1. below/right Middle right window.32 2.75 1.98 1. below/right Top middle window.27 1.75 3.00 0.93 0. below/right Bottom left window.38 3.00 0. above/left Top left window.75 1.85 0.52 0.00 0.10 1.42 1.79 1. above/left Top right window. sides analysis σx [M P a ] σy [M P a] τxy (σx ) τxy (σy ) [M P a ] Asx [mm ] Asy [mm ] 1.00 0.00 0.68 0.85 3.27 0.20 0.53 1.00 0.00 1.60 0.05 1.48 2.00 0. above/left Bottom middle window.00 0. below/right Door.36 2.68 0.04 0.36 1.40 3.58 3.00 0.00 0.76 0.25 1.31 0.42 1.24 0.20 0. above/left Middle left window.75 1.77 2.25 0.93 1.10 0.43 [M P a] 0.60 1.71 0.00 [M P a] 2 2 0.00 0.36 2.03 2. below/right Bottom middle window.53 2.15 0.14 0.10 1.37 0.00 0.00 1.50 τxy (σx ) τxy (σy ) [M P a ] 154 159 247 356 206 295 316 322 403 411 327 379 363 195 332 410 267 678 138 431 471 391 78 287 328 202 281 552 713 318 321 543 672 329 m 2 51 234 111 252 96 186 158 145 272 350 222 96 174 169 69 276 2 Asx [ mm Asy ] [ mm 166 m Top reinforcement Above top windows between top and middle windows between middle and bottom windows below bottom windows Top windows 1 Top windows 2 Top windows 3 Top windows 4 Middle windows 1 Middle windows 2 Middle windows 3 Middle windows 4 Bottom windows 1 Bottom windows 2 Bottom windows 3 Bottom windows 4 [M P a ] 2.30 0.30 0.60 0.31 1.65 1.25 0.40 3. above/left Top middle window.30 1.00 0.36 1.00 2.77 σx 0.28 1.00 0.34 1. above Door.88 1.20 0.Linear Elastic FE-analysis Section 4.69 0.50 0.64 0.40 3.89 1.00 0.40 0.69 0.88 1.25 Reinforcement mesh 1.00 0. above/left Bottom left window.35 1.15 0.2 Table 4.60 1.02 2.30 σy [M P a] 0.00 0.38 1.60 3.35 0.00 0.34 1.25 1.11 0.00 1.28 1.30 2.88 1.02 2.17 0.67 0.00 0.38 1.43 138 138 363 471 368 78 287 328 202 235 552 713 318 528 543 557 444 ] 51 .30 0.

21: Reinforcement arrangement of the wall based on analysis in SAP2000 52 .+D=FJAH " Reinforcement Design Figure 4.

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 distance between two adjacent vertical bars shall not exceed |twice| the wall thickness or |300mm| whichever is lesser. Based on this it is decided to have the vertical reinforcement 0.22. In general. Figure 4. half of this reinforcement should be located at each face.04|Ac where Ac is the corresponding concrete section area.2 Horizontal Reinforcement 1. The spacing between two adjacent horizontal bars should not be greater than 300mm. The reinforcement layout can be seen in Figure 4.3.3. Horizontal reinforcement running parallel to the faces of the wall (and to the free edges) should be provided and arranged at each surface between the vertical reinforcement and the nearest surface.3 Minimum Reinforcement according to EC2 Vertical Reinforcement 1.04 · Ac or 2k10c200 4.3 4. 3.22: Minimum reinforcement according to EC2 53 . 3. 2. The diameter should not be less than one quarter of that of the vertical bars.Minimum Reinforcement according to EC2 4.004|Ac and |0. It should not be less than 50% of the vertical reinforcement. According to EC2 the area of reinforcement should be between |0.1 Section 4. 2.

.

3. The SOLID65 is used for 3-D modeling of solids and it allows the presence of four dierent materials within each element. For this model the GUI was utilized to create the model. or pushover analysis. i. 5. concrete cracking or crushing and rebar yielding. The model can be created by using command prompt line input or the Graphical User Interface (GUI). solution phase and postprocessing phase: 1. The load is applied on all the three stories. Postprocessing Phase: Here the important information is obtained and results are evaluated.Reinforced Concrete Solid The SOLID65 element is used to model the concrete in this model. Solution phase: Here ANSYS solves the dened numerical problem to obtain nodal results. There the ductility behavior can be detected.+D=FJAH # Nonlinear Pushover Analysis 5. incrementally. 2. Preprocessing phase: Here the solution domain is created and discretized into nite elements: That is the model of the problem (in this case the shear wall) is created graphically and subdivided into nodes and elements. In a concrete application the solid capability of the element is used to model the concrete and the rebars capability is used for modeling reinforcement behavior.1 Calculation Process in ANSYS The basic steps in the ANSYS analysis consists of three phases: preprocessing phase. the Stringer method and minimum reinforcement according to EC2 are used. ETABS. one matrix material and maximum of three independent reinforcing materials. y and z directions. The orientation of the rebars are dened by two angles (0° or 90°) from the element coordinate system. such as displacement and stress values at dierent nodes. The results are presented in a force deformation curve or a capacity curve. initial conditions and loads are applied to the model. 55 . The element is dened by eight nodes having three degrees of freedom at each node: translation in the nodal x. In this chapter the three story shear wall is analysed nonlinearly.2 Element Type . Boundary conditions. The reinforcement is dened as the rebar volume divided by the total element volume.e. Four dierent reinforcement layouts calculated from SAP2000.

Figure 5. 2. crushing in compression. The geometry. 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. In addition to cracking and crushing. the plasticity is done before the cracking and crushing checks. If cracking occurs at an integration point. The concrete material is assumed to be initially isotropic. Whenever the reinforcement capability of the element is used.3 Material Properties In the year 2001 Thordur Sigfusson [3] calibrated a FE-model in ANSYS to simulate laboratory tests of reinforced concrete elements. Sigfusson used his model both to simulate laboratory tests of simply supported beam with vertical point load and shear wall 56 . They are also capable of plastic deformation and creep. For each reinforcement real constant values are needed for the material number. and creep. the concrete may also undergo plasticity. the cracking is modeled through an adjustment of material properties which eectively treats the cracking as a 'smeared band' of cracks. node locations and the coordinate system for the element is shown in Figure 5. 3. but not shear.+D=FJAH # Nonlinear Pushover Analysis The most important aspect of this element is the treatment of nonlinear material properties. The material number refers to the type of material used for the reinforcement. Cracking is permitted in three orthogonal directions at each integration point.1: SOLID65 element in ANSYS [1] The following assumptions and restrictions are made in the SOLID65 model: 1. In this case. 5. The rebars are capable of tension and compression. volume ratio and orientation angle.1 The reinforcement is modeled as real constants assuming a smeared model. with the Drucker-Prager failure surface being most commonly used. 4. plastic deformation. rather than discrete cracks. The concrete is capable of cracking in tension (in three orthogonal directions). That is it it assumed that the reinforcement is uniformly spread throughout the concrete element. the reinforcement is assumed to be 'smeared' throughout the element. [1] 5.

2 shows the bilinear hardening model of the concrete. Figure 5. EcT is the secant modulus of plasticity. 0.3. as described in section 2. Figure 5.3: Normal distribution of compressive strength results [20] The standard deviation is estimated as 5-8 N/mm2 so the mean compressive strength 57 . Tc is the multiplier for amount of tensile stress relaxation. compressive strength and is dened as the = 30M P a. εut is the ultimate strain for concrete.3 subjected to lateral force.2: Bilinear Hardening Concrete Model Where: fc is the uniaxial ultimate compression strength of the concrete. with fck function.Material Properties Section 5.3. Ec is the modulus of elasticity. see Figure 5. ft is the uniaxial tensile strength.5. The concrete is modeled as Material Model Number 1 in the Solid65 element. 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. The concrete used is C30. The comparison between the test results and the model results were quite satisfactory.8 · fc is the uniaxial yield strength of the concrete. The modal parameters from Sigfusson [3] thesis are used in the ANSYS model of the shear wall in this thesis. The element requires linear isotropic and bilinear kinematic hardening properties to model the concrete properly. When the stresses reach the yield point the biaxial-hardening model takes in. the fck value is a characteristic cylinder 5% fractile value of the probability density Figure 5.

3.45 · fc The parameters needed to dene the material properties of the concrete are listed in Table 5.5 · (fck + 8)1/3 = 9.+D=FJAH # Nonlinear Pushover Analysis for C30 concrete is roughly estimated to be: fcm = 30 + (5 − 8) = 35 to 38 M P a It is decided to use the lower limit.2 · fc 1.3 · fck = 0. with zero representing a smooth crack (complete loss of shear transfer) and one representing a rough crack (no loss of shear transfer).3. fct = 0.5 · (30 + 8)1/3 = 31656M P a (5. The typical shear transfer coecient is dened from zero to one. 58 .0035 indicating the crushing strain.725 · fc 1.9M P a 2/3 (5.3.1: Description Input parameters for Willam and Warnke model Label Ultimate uniaxial tensile strength: Ultimate uniaxial compressive strength: Ultimate biaxial compressive strength: Ultimate compressive strength for a state of biaxial compression superimposed on hydrostatic stress state: Ultimate compressive strength for a state of uniaxial compression superimposed on hydrostatic stress state: ft fc a σh f1 f2 fcb f1 f2 = = = 1. Table 5.3 it needs a total of ve input strength parameters to dene the failure.2) The ultimate strain for concrete is 0. the parameters are listed in Table 5. the Willam and Warnke model [4] is a ve parameter model and as explained in section 2. The bilinear kinematic material uses the von Mises failure criterion along with the Willam and Warnke model to dene the failure of the concrete.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: Ec = 9.5.3 · 302/3 = 2.1. fc =35MPa fck and is estimated as: The tensile strength is derived from the compression strength.

that is the yield strength is 500MPa. The reinforcement material model is shown in Figure 5.3.1 C30 concrete 31656 MPa 35 MPa 2.3: Parameters for material number two.9 MPa 2 MPa 1.3 Nr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Parameter Secant Modulus of elasticity [E ] Uniaxial ultimate compression strength [f ] Uniaxial tensile strength [f ] Secant modulus of plasticity [E ] Uniaxial yield strength for concrete Ultimate strain for concrete Shear transfer coecient for an open crack [β ] Shear transfer coecient for a closed crack [β ] Multiplier for amount of tensile stress relaxation [T ] Poisson's ratio for concrete.4: Steel Model Table 5.0 0. elastic and cracked [ν ] Weight of concrete c c t Γ t c c y Table 5. the steel Nr 1 2 3 4 5 6 Parameter reinforcement Poisson's ratio for steel 0.8 · fc = 29M P a 3.5/pm 0.3 Modulus of elasticity for steel [E ] 210000 MPa Modulus of plasticity for steel [E ] 1.Material Properties Section 5. Figure 5.4 and the parameters are shown in Table 5. The reinforcement used is f = 500M P a steel.035 MPa Yield point of steel [f ] 500 MPa Ultimate strain for steel [ǫ ] 15± Weight of steel 77kN/m s p y u 3 59 .6 0.2 24kN/m3 The reinforcement is modeled as Material Model Number 2 in the Solid65 element.2: Material parameters used the concrete 0.

4 shows the main characteristics of the nite element model used in ANSYS.5. Table 5. To obtain good results from the Solid65 element it is important to mesh the model properly. Figure 5. γ = 0.005 60 .5: Modeling of the wall in Ansys Table 5.01 8 Iteration technique Newton-Rapson 9 Convergence criteria Displacement norm.4: Main characteristics of the FEM model in ANSYS Nr Finite element model ANSYS shear wall model 1 Dimension of model 3D 2 Total number of concrete elements 1492 3 Total number of reinforcement elements 1492 4 Cracking and crushing of elements YES 5 Yielding of concrete and reinforcement YES 6 Bond slip between steel and concrete NO 7 Load step size 0. All the nodes at the ground level are xed and the displacement into the wall is prevented.+D=FJAH # 5. The analytical model of the meshed wall with its boundaries and applied loads is shown in Figure 5.4 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis Analytical Nonlinear Model The shear wall is modeled as a volume.

6: Element numbers 5. is for the wall designed according to the Stringer method. Figure 5.2 mm for the wall with minimum reinforcement according to EC2. 61 .5 Analytical Results In the pushover analysis of the shear wall the lateral load was increased step-wise from zero to twice as large as the calculated one to see how the wall behaves if the lateral load exceeds the calculated design earthquake load.7 shows the load-deection curve or the capacity curve for the analysed walls.2.8 mm.Analytical Results Section 5. 4.5 Figure 5. The force is normalized where one is the calculated design earthquake load. 4. 3. see section 3. For the double load the wall designed from SAP2000 reached numerical "failure" before the analyze was nished and therefore only one and a half of the calculated load was applied on that wall. At the design earthquake load the ultimate top displacement is approximately 5.3.7 mm for the wall designed from SAP2000.1 mm for the wall designed from ETABS the minimum displacement.

5 0.7.3 0.+D=FJAH # 1 0.8 0.7 Normalized Load 0.4 0.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 Displacement ductility 5 6 EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs Figure 5.2 0.8 the displacement has been normalized in the form of displacement ductility.6 0.1 0 0 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis Elastic EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs 1 2 3 deflection [mm] 4 5 6 Figure 5.7: Load deection curves for dierent analysis In Figure 5.9 0.2 0.5 0. 1 0.7 Normalized Load 0.3 0.8 0.9 0.8: Ductility curves 62 .4 0. The yield deection is about 1 for all of the walls. so the displacement ductility has the same value as the displacement for each wall.6 0. see Figure 5.

7.13 1. 63 .8 0. In Figure 5.9 show that for increased reinforcement in the wall the wall resistance increases.9: Ductility curves Figures 5.2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Displacement ductility 6 7 8 Figure 5. compression failure (crushing) and tension cracks.7 it can be seen that all the graphs are linear until the normalized load is about 0.6 0. There it can be seen that the concrete crushes (circles) at the ground level and tension cracks are around and between the openings.2 1 Normalized Load 0. The compression failure is shown as circles and tension cracks as lines that form diagonally up the wall towards the loading that is applied.5 When the force exceeds the design earthquake load and the normalized load is 1.4 EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs 0. 5. The two signs of the concrete failure in ANSYS are shown in Figure 5. The element behaves in a linear elastic manner until either of the specied tensile or compressive strengths are exceeded. exceeds the tensile or compressive strength of the concrete and the element thus becomes nonlinear. 5.5.4 to 0. Therefore the assumption can be made that the concrete starts to crack at that point.5 or when less than 50% of the applied design earthquake load is reached.2 the ductility reaches 8 and there the structural stability is treated by buckling. The concrete crack/crush plots were examined to see the dierent types of cracking that occur within the concrete.8 and 5.Analytical Results Section 5.10. 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.1 Cracks and Reinforcement Yielding The cracking patterns in the wall can be obtained by using the Crack/Crushing plot option in ANSYS. brittle failure as seen in Figure 2. Cracking or crushing of an element is initiated once one of the element principal stresses. Two types of concrete failure occur.

The crack pattern is very similar in all of the walls. The rst tension cracking occurs in same elements for all of the walls.10: Cracking signs in ANSYS. The elements are numbered 778 and 670 and are located at the left upper corner and bottom right corner of the middle wall.13 show the cracking in the shear wall for all the four dierent reinforcement layouts. NL=1 Figures 5.+D=FJAH # Nonlinear Pushover Analysis Figure 5.6.11 to 5. The concrete crushes at the ground level of the wall. Figure 5. hereafter called the middle opening. The most critical area is around the middle opening of the second oor. see Figure 5.11: Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) for in the wall designed with Stringer method 64 .

Analytical Results Section 5.12: Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) in the wall designed from ETABS Figure 5.13: Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) in the wall designed from SAP2000 65 .5 Figure 5.

Therefore it is interesting to see how the steel stress changes in the elements when the load is increased. The stresses in the reinforcement start to increase when around 40% of the design earthquake load is reached for all the designed reinforcement layouts. Figure 5.6. For the walls designed from the FE-analysis in ETABS and with the Stringer method. Element 787 is located at the top left corner of the middle opening. 4k16 is placed around the opening while 2k16 is used when the design is based on the other two.14: Cracks at design earthquake load (N L = 1) in the wall with minimum reinforcement. It can be seen that the steel stresses in SAP2000 and EC2 increase faster than the other two. First the steel stress in element 787 is examined for all the walls. see Figure 5.+D=FJAH # Nonlinear Pushover Analysis Figure 5. 66 . EC2 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. Despite this less than 50% of the reinforcement strength is reached at the design earthquake load for the 2k16 reinforcements.15 shows the steel stresses versus normalized load for the vertical reinforcement in element 787.

The stresses in this reinforcement do not reach as high as in element 787.4. 550 500 450 400 Steel stress [MPa] 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.5 1 Load [kN] 1.16 the horizontal steel stress in element at the bottom right corner of the middle window is examined.5 2 EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs Figure 5.5 2 EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs Figure 5. 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 results are similar to the 787 element and the stresses in the steel starts to increase when the normalized load is around 0.5 550 500 450 400 Steel stress [MPa] 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.15: Steel stresses in element no 787 above middle window In Figure 5.6).5 1 Load [kN] 1. Except for the steel in the SAP2000 layout. The reinforcement is the same as in element 787.16: Steel stresses in element no 670 below middle window 67 . is shown.Analytical Results Section 5. or element 670 (see Figure 5.

but that is usually only necessary to improve the visual or a aesthetic view of the wall.5 mm or more the damage starts to get more serious and more costly to repair. A gure of a crack does not tell all about the real damage of the structures unless the widths of the cracks are known.1) srm is the average nal crack spacing.7 it was explained according to EC2 that the crack width should not exceed 0.5. β1 = 1. restore the original strength and stiness. The main purpose with the repair is to prevent leaking. From experience of Icelandic houses a crack need to be repaired if its width is between 0.2) step.17 where the crack width is shown as function of the applied load.5.3 mm and 0. the width of the wall is less than 300 mm.5 The average nal crack spacing for members subjected dominantly to exure or tension can be calculated from the equation: srm = 50 + 0.2 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis Calculations of Crack width The crush/crack plots of the walls show that the crack pattern in the walls are very similar at the design earthquake load. σs is the stress in the reinforcement and can be taken from ANSYS for each time σsr the stress in the tension when the rst crack occurs.5. ǫsm may be calculated from the relation: ǫsm = σsr 2 σs (1 − β1 β2 ( ) ) Es σs (5. An attempt was made to calculate the width of the cracks by using information about the steel stresses from the ANSYS analysis and see if there is any dierence between them in the four analysed walls. First element 787 is examined. Crack 0. β2 = 0.0 m and it usually does not start to leak.8. β = 1. siloxan or similar material is applied on the concrete surface to conceal the projection of cracks. which happens if the crack starts to leak. see Figure 5. It can be seen that when the design earthquake load is $& . The concrete might start to leak and epoxy injection is necessary. The calculations were made in MATLAB and the crack width plotted as function of the normalized load. εsm is the mean strain.3) φ is the bar size in mm in the element. taken from ANSYS.8 k2 = 0.1 a method to calculate crack width based on EC2 was shown.5. earth quake load. For a crack of this size a light repair is usually enough where and surface treatment is enough were monosilan.5. If the crack reaches 0.5 mm. The crack width can be found by the relation: wk = β · srm · εsm (5.3. In section 2. high bond bars. k1 = 0.+D=FJAH # 5. In section 2. Nevertheless the damaging impact on the concrete from each crack has to be evaluated individually.3 mm to prevent corrosion of the reinforcement.25k1 k2 φ/pr (5.3 mm wide is visible at distance of about 2.

9 0.4 0. i.5 2 EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs Figure 5.6.5 reached the crack width for the wall designed from ETABS and Stringer method with 4k16 in the element is under 0. 4k16 than the lower degree 2k16.9 0.18 it is obvious that the reinforcement has great inuence on the crack width. see Figure 5.1 1 0.3 1. Therefore it is also interesting to look at an element were the reinforcement area is the same for all of the four walls.3 1.1 0 0 0.5 1. The results are very similar for element 670 as seen in Figure 5.3 0. 1.8 0.4 1.e.6 to 0.18.7 0.3 mm but the crack width in the wall designed from SAP2000 and minimum EC2 reinforcement with 2k16 is around 0.2 0. Element 1026 is examined 1026 which is between the windows on the third and the second oor.Analytical Results Section 5.2 0.6 0.18: Computed crack width in element 670 From gures 5.5 1. The crack widt is smaller for higher reinforcement degree.8 0.5 2 EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs Figure 5.2 Design crack width [mm] 1.5 0.17: Computed crack width in element 787 1.2 Design crack width [mm] 1.1 0 0 0.17 and 5.5 1 Normalized Load 1.1 1 0.5 1 Normalized Load 1.7 0.6 0.3 0.4 0. 69 .5 0.7 mm.

9 0. 1.4 1.7 0.5 1 Normalized Load 1.6 0.5 0. At design earthquake load the crack width is around 0.19: Design crack width in element 1026 70 .3 mm for the walls designed from ETABS and Stringer method and is between 0.1 0 0 0.1 Design crack width [mm] 1 0.3 0.8 to 0. Even though the reinforcement is the same in all of the walls the results are similar as for the other two elements.5 2 EC2 stringer sap2000 Etabs Figure 5.4 0.9 mm for the other two.2 1.3 1.+D=FJAH # Nonlinear Pushover Analysis The element is reinforced with k10c200.8 0.2 0.

it starts in element 670 at the right bottom corner of the middle window and goes down to element 441. 625 el.Analytical Results Section 5.2 0.1 0 0 0.3 0.5 1 Normalized Load 1. 487 0. 533 el. A close up gure of the elements can be seen in Figure 5. In element 670 the reinforcement is 4k16 and 2k10c200 in the other ve elements. at design earthquake load the crack width is well below 0.21: Cracks width for Stringer 71 .5 2 Figure 5. It starts by looking at the wall designed with the Stringer method.4 Design crack width [mm] el.21. 579 el.5 0.20: Cracks at middle window for Stringer The concrete starts to crack in element 670 when the normalized load is 0.4 of the design load. Figure 5.5 Next a look will be taken into the crack growth. but the crack opening is really small in the beginning and does not start to open until the normalized load is around 1.5. 670 el.9. The crack pattern can be seen in Figure 5.52 and the the last crack formed before the design earthquake load is reached is in element 441 when the normalized load is 0.20. in element 625 at 0. 0. The crack growth in all the walls for the same elements are examined.3 mm at all places.

0. 625 el. 487 Design crack width [mm] 0.23: Cracks width for ETABS 72 .20 it can be seen that the crack pattern is very similar.5 2 Figure 5.5 1 Normalized Load 1. Figure 5. 533 el. When the gure is compared with Figure 5. The close up view of the cracks and can be seen in Figure 5. Despite this the crack width is under 0.5 0.+D=FJAH # Nonlinear Pushover Analysis Now the same elements in the model designed with the FE-analysis in ETABS are examined. 579 el.23.1 0 0 0. 670 el.2 0.6 el.4 0. 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.3 mm for all of the elements at the design earthquake load.22: Cracks at middle window for ETABS The concrete starts to crack in element 670 when 40% of the design earthquake load is reached.3 0.7 0. The reinforcement in element 670 is 4k16 and k10c200 in the other ve.

579 Figure 5. It would have been of more interest to look at the cracks in the other elements.6 0.7 mm at the design earthquake load but the crack width in the other two elements does not get so high.2 0.25: Cracks width for SAP2000 73 .4 0.1 0 0 0. Figure 5.7 0.1 1 0.Analytical Results Section 5.5 el.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. 670 el.3 0. 625 el.5 Normalized Load 1 1.25 the crack width in element 670 reaches around 0.24: Cracks at middle window for SAP2000 As seen in Figure 5.9 Design crack width [mm] 0.24.2 1.8 0.6 to 0. 1. The crack seems to have eects on the element on the left side of elements 670 to 441.5 0. see Figure 5.

20 and 5. 625 and 579 has reached 0.5 1 Normalized Load 1.2 0. 487 el.1 1 Design crack width [mm] 0.22.1 0 0 0.3 1.2 1.6 0.8 0.5 0. At the design earthquake load the assumption can be made that a crack of length 75 cm and width of 0.+D=FJAH # Nonlinear Pushover Analysis Finally the same elements for the wall designed with minimum reinforcement according to EC2 are examined with 2k16 around the openings. 625 el. It can be seen that there are slightly more cracks seen on Figure 5.26 than in Figure 5. see Figure 5. At the design earthquake load the width for elements 670.27. 533 el. 579 el.9 0.3 mm or higher has been formed in the concrete below the opening because of the design earthquake load. 1.3 mm.7 0.5 2 el.4 0. 670 el.4 and the cracking in the other element follows quickly after and the growth of the crack width is fast.26: Cracks at middle window for EC2 Cracking in element 670 starts when the normalized load is about 0. Figure 5.27: Cracks width for EC2 74 .3 0. 441 Figure 5.

In the thesis only one wall of the building was studied. less crack widths and overall less damage for the same load level. Three methods were used for the seismic design of the reinforcement in the shear wall. crushing. This reects a design earthquake with 475 year return period. However. 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. Third.e. 0.+D=FJAH $ Summary and Conclusion In the thesis a nonlinear pushover analysis of idealized three story concrete shear wall building with dierent seismic reinforcement design was presented. For that reason an attempt was made to evaluate crack widths as a function of load with method from Eurocode 2.e. 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. The results clearly indicate that dierent reinforcement layouts aect the response of the wall. i. On the other hand the reinforcement layouts from SAP2000 and the minimum reinforcement according to EC2 were similar. The reinforcement from the Stinger Method and the one based on the ETABS analysis gave very similar reinforcement layouts. a design based on linear elastic FE-analysis using the general purpose FE-program SAP2000. With the model it was possible to get information about deformations. The lateral load was stepwise increased from zero to twice the design earthquake load. At the most critical points in the wall the two layouts from ETABS and Stringer method were under acceptable crack widths. steel stresses and plastic deformations. the Stringer method which is a lower bound method. Second. For comparison reinforcement based on the minimum requirement according to EC2 was also studied. The building was assumed to be located in the South Iceland Seismic Zone where the characteristic peak ground acceleration is 0. i. when subjected to design earthquake load. First. reinforcement around openings than the other two methods. The design based on ETABS and the Stringer method gave better results. the model gave no information about crack widths which are crucial in order to estimate damage. These methods gave more boundary reinforcement.4g.3 mm. initial cracks. tensile cracks. 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. ETABS. while the minimum reinforcement according to EC2 %# . The design earthquake load was dened by the lateral force method from Eurocode 8. a design based again on linear elastic FE-analysis but now using the building specialized FE-program.

This is something that should be studied in more details.e. In this thesis only one shear wall was studied and only one material set. and the results need to be veried by experimental data. In this thesis the FE-stresses were averaged over 0.9 mm. The crack widths calculated by using the information from ANSYS seem to be promising and useful when designing and analysing structures in seismic zones.+D=FJAH $ Summary and Conclusion and the layout from SAP2000 gave far higher crack widths. concrete and steel type. the results from the nonlinear static procedure must be taken with caution. Finally. i. However. In the future more types of shear walls and material sets could be studied as well as laboratory tests to backup the numerical results. The dierence 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 reinforcement.5 m wide strip which seems to be to wide strip. 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. or up to 0.

5/q)*(TC/T).TC.Appendix A MATLAB script for Design Response spectra %---------------------------------------------------------------function Sdh = hordesignSd(ag. beta*ag).5/q*(TC*TD/T^2).5/q-2/3)). % nu: Damping correction factor % q: Behaviour factor % beta: Lower bound factor % S: Soil factor % % OUTPUT: Sd : the horizontal design response spectrum %---------------------------------------------------------------% Respons calculation.T. % TB.nu.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.5/q. beta*ag). Sdh if T>=0 & T<=TB Sdh = ag*S*(2/3+(T/TB)*(2. else Sdh = max(ag*S*2. elseif T>TC & T<=TD Sdh = max(ag*S*(2.beta.S) %---------------------------------------------------------------% INPUT: % ag: Design acceleration % T: Vibration period of a linear % single-degre-of-freedom system.TD. elseif T>TB & T<=TC Sdh = ag*S*2. end %=================================================================== % Structural response %--------------------------------------------------------------clear all close all format short g format compact %% .q.

for i = 1:size(T.Respons spectrum -----------------------------------% Values from EC8 table 3.TCh.eps % dump encapsulated EMF file %& .2 Type D beta = 0.2 TBh = 0. ag = 0.S).4] % Horizontal design response spectrum Sdh = zeros(1.size(T.4*g*gamma1.2.81.A) axis([0 4 0 1.00.9*ag.40. % important class II EC8 Table 4. T=0:n:4. % design ground acceleration avg = 0.1)). end % ------------Plot of respons spetrum ------------------------------figure(1) A=[Sdh/ag]. % lower bound factor for design spectrum zeta = 0.2) Sdh(i) = hordesignSd(ag.55) % correction factor for damping % -----------.Appendix A MATLAB script for Design Response spectra % Parameters gamma1 = 1.T(i).3 g=9. % value defining the beginning of % the constant displacement response of % the spectrum n=0.eta.q. % limits of the constant spectral % acceleration branch TCh = 0. num2str(zeta)]).beta. plot(T.TBh.0. EC8 table 3. % limits of the constant spectral % acceleration branch TDh = 2. % soil factor. xlabel('T') ylabel('{S_{dh}/a_g}') hold off print -dmeta response. % time step for spectrum % Evaluation spectra for T = [0.34.01. % assumend damping ratio of building eta = max(sqrt(10/(5+zeta*100)).05.15. % the behaviour factor S = 1. % vertical design ground acceleration q = 2.3]) legend('Horizontal design') title(['The response spectrum for \zeta = '.TDh.

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 0 0 2*1000 0 0 1750 0 1750. -570000 -570000 -1183000 -1183000 -1183000 -1490000 -1490000 -1490000 -449000 -819000 -994000 -1092000 -994000 -819000 %' . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2*1000 2*2500 0 1750 1750. 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 0 1200 1100 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 0 0 0 0 0 4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0.Appendix B Calculations for Stringer method close all clear all format short A=200*[4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 1200 1100 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 2300]. 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 0 4*1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 0 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. 0 0 0 0 0 4*1000 3*2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. b= [-570000. 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 1100 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 2300.

figure(1) subplot(3.10) set(0. F18x=(x(3)-x(4))*1000*t. F16x=F15x+(x(1)-x(3))*1000*200.'DefaultTextFontAngle'.1) plot([1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8]. F7x=F6x-2500*x(2)*t. F19x=F18x-x(5)*2500*t. subplot(3.[F1x F2x F3x F4x F5x F6x F7x F8x]/1000) xlabel('stringerline no 1') grid on title('Horizontal stringer forces') F9x=0.'DefaultAxesFontSize'.'Oblique') set(0.[F17x F18x F19x F20x & . F13x=F12x+x(2)*2500*t.'DefaultAxesFontAngle'.'DefaultAxesFontName'.3) plot([17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24]. F1x=-570000./b-1)*100 %------------------------------------------------------------------------%Horizontal stringerforces %------------------------------------------------------------------------%PLOTS %plot settings set(0.1.'Times') set(0. subplot(3.1. F8x=F7x-1000*x(1)*t. skekkja1=(bnalgun.10) t=200. F20x=F19x+(x(3)-x(4))*1000*t. F14x=F13x+(x(1)-x(3))*1000*t.1.Appendix B -819000 -819000 -449000].'DefaultTextFontName'. F6x=F5x-1000*x(1)*t. F22x=F21x+(x(3)-x(4))*1000*t. F4x=F3x-1000*x(1)*t.'DefaultTextFontSize'.[F9x F10x F11x F12x F13x F14x F15x F16x]/1000) Ylabel('Stringerforce [kN]') xlabel('stringerline no 2') grid on F17x=0.2) plot([9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16].'Times') set(0. F11x=F10x+x(2)*2500*t. F2x=F1x-1000*x(1)*t. F12x=F11x+t*1000*(x(1)-x(3)). F5x=F4x-2500*x(2)*t. F21x=F20x-x(5)*2500*t. Calculations for Stringer method x=pinv(A)*b bnalgun =A*x. F15x=F14x+x(2)*2500*t. F23x=F22x-x(5)*2500*t. F3x=F2x-2500*x(2)*t.'Normal') set(0. F24x=F23x+(x(3)-x(4))*1000*t. F10x=1000*t*(x(1)-x(3)).

F37x=F36x+x(7)*2500*t. F50x= F49x+1000*(x(9)-x(11))*t.1) plot([25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32].Section B. subplot(4. F38x=F37x+(x(6)-x(8))*1000*t. F39x=F38x+x(7)*2500*t. F53x=F52x+2500*(x(10)-x(12))*t. F44x=F43x+(x(8)-x(9))*1000*t.3) plot([41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48]. subplot(3.1. F27x=F26x+2500*(x(5)-x(7))*t.eps figure(2) F25x=-613000. F46x=F45x+(x(8)-x(9))*1000*t. F35x=F34x+x(7)*2500*t.1. F42x=(x(8)-x(9))*1000*t.[F25x F26x F27x F28x F29x F30x F31x F32x]/1000) xlabel('stringerline no 4') title('Horizontal stringer forces') grid on F33x=0.1) plot([49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56].[F49x F50x F51x F52x F53x F54x F55x F56x]/1000) title('Horizontal stringer forces') xlabel('stringerline & .0 F21x F22x F23x F24x]/1000) xlabel('stringerline no 3') grid on print -dwinc horstringforce1. F51x=F50x+2500*(x(10)-x(12))*t. F43x=F42x-x(10)*2500*t. F56x=F55x+1000*(x(9)-x(11))*t. F40x=F39x+(x(6)-x(8))*1000*t. F52x=F51x+1000*(x(9)-x(11))*t.[F33x F34x F35x F36x F37x F38x F39x F40x]/1000) Ylabel('Stringerforce [kN]') xlabel('stringerline no 5') grid on F41x=0. F31x=F30x+2500*(x(5)-x(7))*t. F32x=F31x+1000*(x(4)-x(6))*t. F55x=F54x+2500*(x(10)-x(12))*t. F30x=F29x+1000*(x(4)-x(6))*t. F47x=F46x-x(10)*2500*t. F34x=(x(6)-x(8))*1000*t.[F41x F42x F43x F44x F45x F46x F47x F48x]/1000) xlabel('stringerline no 6') grid on print -dwinc horstringforce2. F54x=F53x+1000*(x(9)-x(11))*t. F28x=F27x+1000*(x(4)-x(6))*t.1. F48x=F47x+(x(8)-x(9))*1000*t. F36x=F35x+(x(6)-x(8))*1000*t. subplot(3.1. subplot(3. F45x=F44x-x(10)*2500*t. F29x=F28x+2500*(x(5)-x(7))*t.2) plot([33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40]. F26x=F25x+1000*(x(4)-x(6))*t.eps figure(3) F49x=-307000.

1. F78x=x(14)*1000*t. F74x=F73x.[F67x F68x F69x F70x F71x F72x F73x F74x F75x F76x]/1000) xlabel('stringerline no 9') grid on F77x=0. F68x=(x(13)-x(14))*1000*t. F83x=F82x+x(17)*750*t.3) plot([67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76]. F73x=F72x+(x(16)-x(17))*750*t.[F77x F78x F79x F80x F81x F82x F83x F84x F85x F86x]/1000) xlabel('stringerline no 10') grid on print -dwinc horstringforce3.[1 9 17 25 33 41 49 57 67 & . F59x=F58x+x(12)*2500*t. F85x=F84x+x(18)*750*t. F33y=F41y+x(8)*1200*t.eps %------------------------------------------------------------------------%Vertical stringerforces %------------------------------------------------------------------------F77y=449000.1. F76x=F75x+(x(18)-x(18))*1000*t. subplot(4. F1y=F9y+x(1)*1000*t.'YDir'. F82x=F81x+x(17)*1000*t. F79x=F78x+x(15)*2500*t.'ytick'.4) plot([77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86]. F60x=F59x+(x(11)-x(13))*1000*t. F63x=F62x+(x(12)-x(16))*750*t. F58x=(x(11)-x(13))*1000*t.'reverse') subplot(1. F61x=F60x+x(12)*2500*t. F71x=F70x-x(15)*2500*t. F49y=F57y+x(11)*700*t.4. F62x=F61x+(x(11)-x(16))*1000*t. subplot(4. F84x=F83x. figure(4) set(gca. F66x=F65x+(x(11)-x(18))*1000*t.2) plot([57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66]. F67y=F77y+x(14)*1100*t. F65x=F64x+(x(12)-x(16))*750*t. F57y=F67y+x(13)*1200*t. F72x=F71x+(x(16)-x(17))*1000*t. F25y=F33y+x(6)*700*t. subplot(4.'YDir'.1. F86x=F85x+x(18)*1000*t. F80x=F79x+x(14)*1000*t. F81x=F80x+x(15)*2500*t. F9y=F17y+x(3)*1200*t. F64x=F63x+x(12)*1000*t. [77 67 57 49 41 33 25 17 9 1]) set(gca.[F57x F58x F59x F60x F61x F62x F63x F64x F65x F66x]/1000) Ylabel('Stringerforce [kN]') xlabel('stringerline no 8') grid on F67x=0. F75x=F74x+(x(18)-x(18))*750*t. F70x=F69x+(x(13)-x(14))*1000*t.'reverse') set(gca.Appendix B no 7') grid on Calculations for Stringer method F57x=0. F69x=F68x-x(15)*2500*t.1) plot([F77y F67y F57y F49y F41y F33y F25y F17y F9y F1y]/1000. F41y=F49y+x(9)*1100*t. F17y=F25y+x(4)*1100*t.

F5y=F13y+(x(1)-x(2))*700*t.'reverse') set(gca.4. F45y=F53y+(x(9)-x(10))*1100*t. F18y=F26y+(x(5)-x(4))*1100*t. F12y=F28y-x(3)*1200*t. F50y=F58y+(x(12)-x(11))*700*t. subplot(1.3) plot([F3y F11y F19y F27y F35y F43y F51y F59y F69y F79y]/1000. F60y=F70y-x(13)*1200*t. F13y=F21y+x(3)*1200*t. F21y=F29y+(x(4)-x(5))*1100*t.'reverse') set(gca. F27y=F35y+(x(6)-x(7))*700*t. F34y=F42y-x(8)*1200*t.[4 12 20 28 36 44 52 60 70 80]) set(gca. F61y=F71y+x(16)*1200*t. F52y=F60y+(x(12)-x(11))*700*t. F10y=F18y-x(3)*1200*t. [3 11 19 27 35 43 51 59 69 79]) set(gca.'YDir'.4) plot([F4y F12y F20y F28y F36y F44y F52y F60y F70y F80y]/1000. F35y=F43y+x(8)*1200*t.'YDir'. subplot(1. F69y=F79y+(x(14)-x(15))*1100*t.4.'ytick'. subplot(1. [2 10 18 26 34 42 50 58 68 78]) set(gca.Section B.eps F81y=-98000. F36y=F44y-x(8)*1200*t.[4 12 20 28 36 44 52 60 70 80]) axis([-700 500 4 80]) ylabel('stringerline no 14') grid on print -dwinc verstringforce1. &! . F37y=F45y+x(8)*1200*t. F3y=F11y+(x(1)-x(2))*700*t. F53y=F61y+(x(11)-x(12))*700*t. F29y=F37y+(x(6)-x(7))*700*t.'reverse') set(gca. F19y=F27y+(x(4)-x(5))*1100*t. F68y=F78y+(x(15)-x(14))*1100*t. F58y=F68y-x(13)*1200*t. F2y=F10y+(x(1)-x(2))*1200*t. F43y=F51y+(x(9)-x(10))*1100*t.'ytick'. F20y=F28y+(x(5)-x(4))*1100*t.0 77]) axis([-1000 1000 1 77]) ylabel('stringerline no 11') grid on F78y=370000.4. F28y=F36y+(x(7)-x(6))*700*t. F51y=F59y+(x(11)-x(12))*700*t.[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 F79y=175000.2) plot([F2y F10y F18y F26y F34y F42y F50y F58y F68y F78y]/1000. F26y=F34y+(x(7)-x(6))*700*t.[3 11 19 27 35 43 51 59 69 79]) axis([0 1200 3 78]) ylabel('stringerline no 13') grid on F80y=98000. F59y=F69y+x(13)*1200*t. F11y=F19y+x(3)*1200*t. F42y=F50y+(x(10)-x(9))*1100*t. F70y=F80y+(x(15)-x(14))*1100*t.'YDir'.'ytick'. F4y=F12y+(x(2)-x(1))*700*t. F71y=F81y+(x(15)-x(15))*1100*t. F44y=F52y+(x(10)-x(9))*1100*t.

F7y=F15y+(x(1)-x(2))*700*t. F76y=F86y-x(18)*1100*t. subplot(1.4) plot([F8y F16y F24y F32y F40y F48y F56y F66y F76y F86y]/1000. F8y=F16y-x(1)*700*t.'reverse') set(gca.2) plot([F6y F14y F22y F30y F38y F46y F54y F62y F72y F82y]/1000.[8 16 24 32 40 48 56 66 76 86]) set(gca. subplot(1. subplot(1. F22y=F30y+(x(5)-x(4))*1100*t. F15y=F23y+x(3)*1200*t.4.'ytick'. F38y=F46y-x(8)*1200*t. F56y=F66y-x(11)*700*t.[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.'YDir'.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. F24y=F32y-x(4)*1100*t.[6 14 22 30 38 46 54 62 72 82]) set(gca.'YDir'.'YDir'. F16y=F24y-x(3)*1200*t. F65y=F75y F55y=F65y+(x(11)-x(12))*700*t. F40y=F48y-x(8)*1200*t. F30y=F38y+(x(7)-x(6))*700*t.[7 15 23 31 39 47 55 65 75 85]) axis([-1000 0 7 85]) ylabel('stringerline no 17') grid on F86y=-449000.'reverse') set(gca. F14y=F22y-x(3)*1200*t. F66y=F76y-x(18)*1200*t. F75y=F85y+(x(18)-x(18))*1100*t.[7 15 23 31 39 47 55 65 75 85]) set(gca.'ytick'.[8 16 24 32 40 48 56 66 76 86]) axis([-700 500 8 86]) ylabel('stringerline no 18') grid on &" . F6y=F14y+(x(2)-x(1))*700*t. F47y=F55y+(x(9)-x(10))*1100*t. F62y=F72y+(x(16)-x(16))*1200*t.4. F31y=F39y+(x(6)-x(7))*700*t.'ytick'. F32y=F40y-x(6)*700*t.'YDir'. F48y=F56y-x(9)*1100*t.'reverse') set(gca.[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 F85y=-370000. F39y=F47y+x(8)*1200*t.Appendix B Calculations for Stringer method figure(5) subplot(1.3) plot([F7y F15y F23y F31y F39y F47y F55y F65y F75y F85y]/1000. F54y=F62y+(x(12)-x(11))*700*t.4.'ytick'. F23y=F31y+(x(4)-x(5))*1100*t. F46y=F54y+(x(10)-x(9))*1100*t.4.'reverse') set(gca.

else Axten2(i)=0. end end Axcom1 %STRINGER 2 %Tension reinforcement Fhor2=[F9x F10x F11x F12x F13x F14x F15x F16x]/1000.eps %------------------------------------------------------------------------%Reinforcement %------------------------------------------------------------------------fcd=20 %MPa fyd=435 %MPa %------------------------------------------------------------------------%Reinforcement horizontal %------------------------------------------------------------------------%STRINGER 1 %Tension reinforcement Fhor1=[F1x F2x F3x F4x F5x F6x F7x F8x]/1000. for i=1:length(Fhor2). %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C2=0. for i=1:length(Fhor1). end end &# . Axten1(i)=Fhor1(i)*1000/fyd. Axcom2(j)=(F1com(j))*1000/fyd. else Axten1(i)=0. if Fhor2(i)>0 .0 print -dwinc verstringforce2. Axcom1(j)=(Fcom1(j))*1000/fyd.001. else Axcom1(j)=0.Section B. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C1=0. Axten2(i)=Fhor2(i)*1000/fyd. end end Axten2 %Compression reinforcement Fcom2=Fhor2+C2.5*fcd*0. else Axcom2(j)=0. end end Axten1 %Compression reinforcement Fcom1=Fhor1+C1.5*fcd*0.001. if Fhor1(i)>0 . for j=1:length(Fcom2) if Fcom2(j)<0.2*800*t*0.2*800*t*0. for j=1:length(Fcom1) if Fcom1(j)<0.

if Fhor5(i)>0 . %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C5=0. Axten3(i)=Fhor3(i)*1000/fyd. if Fhor4(i)>0 . else Axcom4(j)=0.Appendix B Axcom2 Calculations for Stringer method %STRINGER 3 %Tension reinforcement Fhor3=[F17x F18x F19x F20x F21x F22x F23x F24x]/1000. Axten4(i)=Fhor4(i)*1000/fyd. end end Axcom3 %STRINGER 4 %Tension reinforcement Fhor4=[F25x F26x F27x F28x F29x F30x F31x F32x]/1000. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C4=0. Axcom4(j)=(Fcom4(j))*1000/fyd. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C3=0.2*800*t*0.5*fcd*0. for i=1:length(Fhor4). if Fhor3(i)>0 .5*fcd*0.001. else Axcom3(j)=0. Axcom3(j)=(Fcom3(j))*1000/fyd.2*800*t*0.2*1100*t*0. for j=1:length(Fcom4) if Fcom4(j)<0. for i=1:length(Fhor5). else Axten4(i)=0. end end Axten3 %Compression reinforcement Fcom3=Fhor3+C3. &$ .001. end end Axcom4 %STRINGER 5 %Tension reinforcement Fhor5=[F33x F34x F35x F36x F37x F38x F39x F40x]/1000. else Axten3(i)=0.001. end end Axten4 %Compression reinforcement Fcom4=Fhor4+C4. for j=1:length(Fcom3) if Fcom3(j)<0. for i=1:length(Fhor3).5*fcd*0.

Axten6(i)=Fhor6(i)*1000/fyd.2*800*t*0. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C7=0.001. &% . for j=1:length(Fcom4) if Fcom5(j)<0. else Axcom6(j)=0.Section B. for j=1:length(Fcom6) if Fcom6(j)<0. end end Axcom6 %STRINGER 7 %Tension reinforcement Fhor7=[F49x F50x F51x F52x F53x F54x F55x F56x]/1000. end end Axcom5 %STRINGER 6 %Tension reinforcement Fhor6=[F41x F42x F43x F44x F45x F46x F47x F48x]/1000. if Fhor6(i)>0 .2*1100*t*0. if Fhor7(i)>0 .5*fcd*0. for i=1:length(Fhor7).001. else Axten7(i)=0. end end Axten5 %Compression reinforcement Fcom5=Fhor5+C5. end end Axten6 %Compression reinforcement Fcom6=Fhor6+C6. Axten7(i)=Fhor7(i)*1000/fyd. for i=1:length(Fhor6). else Axten6(i)=0.5*fcd*0. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C6=0. end end Axten7 %Compression reinforcement Fcom7=Fhor7+C7. for j=1:length(Fcom7) if Fcom7(j)<0. else Axten5(i)=0. Axcom7(j)=(Fcom7(j))*1000/fyd. Axcom5(j)=(Fcom5(j))*1000/fyd. else Axcom5(j)=0.0 Axten5(i)=Fhor5(i)*1000/fyd. Axcom6(j)=(Fcom6(j))*1000/fyd.

else Axcom8(j)=0. end end Axten9 %Compression reinforcement Fcom9=Fhor9+C9. end end Axten8 %Compression reinforcement Fcom8=Fhor8+C8. end end Axcom9 %STRINGER 10 %Tension reinforcement Fhor10=[F77x F78x F79x F80x F81x F82x F83x F84x F85x F86x]/1000. end end Axcom8 %STRINGER 9 %Tension reinforcement Fhor9=[F67x F68x F69x F70x F71x F72x F73x F74x F75x F76x]/1000.001. if Fhor8(i)>0 . Axcom8(j)=(Fcom8(j))*1000/fyd. end end %STRINGER 8 %Tension reinforcement Fhor8=[F57x F58x F59x F60x F61x F62x F63x F64x F65x F66x]/1000. && . Axcom9(j)=(Fcom9(j))*1000/fyd. for i=1:length(Fhor9).5*fcd*0. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C8=0.2*800*t*0.2*1100*t*0. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C9=0. else Axcom9(j)=0.001. else Axten9(i)=0. else Axten8(i)=0.Appendix B Axcom7 Calculations for Stringer method else Axcom7(j)=0. for j=1:length(Fcom9) if Fcom9(j)<0. if Fhor9(i)>0 .5*fcd*0. for j=1:length(Fcom8) if Fcom8(j)<0. Axten8(i)=Fhor8(i)*1000/fyd. Axten9(i)=Fhor9(i)*1000/fyd. for i=1:length(Fhor8).

if Fver1(i)>0 .2*1000*t*0. for i=1:length(Fhor10). end end Axten10 %Compression reinforcement Fcom10=Fhor10+C10. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C2y=0. Axcom10(j)=(Fcom10(j))*1000/fyd. for j=1:length(Fcom10) if Fcom10(j)<0. end end Aycom1 %STRINGER 12 %Tension reinforcement Fver2=[F2y F10y F18y F26y F34y F42y F50y F58y F68y F78y]/1000.001.5*fcd*0. for j=1:length(Fcom1y) if Fcom1y(j)<0.001. %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver1).001. end end Axcom10 %------------------------------------------------------------------------%Vertical reinforcement %------------------------------------------------------------------------%STRINGER 11 %Tension reinforcement Fver1=[F1y F9y F17y F25y F33y F41y F49y F57y F67y F77y]/1000.2*1000*t*0.2*1100*t*0. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C1y=0.5*fcd*0. else Aycom1(j)=0. else Axcom10(j)=0. else Axten10(i)=0.0 %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C10=0. end end Ayten1 %Compression reinforcement Fcom1y=Fver1+C1y. Ayten1(i)=Fver1(i)*1000/fyd. Axten10(i)=Fhor10(i)*1000/fyd. if Fhor10(i)>0 . Aycom1(j)=(Fcom1y(j))*1000/fyd.Section B. else Ayten1(i)=0. &' .5*fcd*0.

if Fver2(i)>0 . Ayten2(i)=Fver2(i)*1000/fyd.001. else Ayten2(i)=0.001.2*1000*t*0. Ayten4(i)=Fver4(i)*1000/fyd.5*fcd*0. for j=1:length(Fcom2y) if Fcom2y(j)<0. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C3y=0. else Aycom3(j)=0. %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver4). else Ayten3(i)=0. Ayten3(i)=Fver3(i)*1000/fyd. ' . %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver3). for j=1:length(Fcom3y) if Fcom3y(j)<0.2*1000*t*0. else Aycom2(j)=0.Appendix B Calculations for Stringer method %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver2). %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C4y=0.5*fcd*0. end end Aycom3 %STRINGER 14 %Tension reinforcement Fver4=[F4y F12y F20y F28y F36y F44y F52y F60y F70y F80y]/1000. Aycom2(j)=(Fcom2y(j))*1000/fyd. if Fver4(i)>0 . Aycom3(j)=(Fcom3y(j))*1000/fyd. end end Ayten2 %Compression reinforcement Fcom2y=Fver2+C2y. end end Ayten3 %Compression reinforcement Fcom3y=Fver3+C3y. end end Aycom2 %STRINGER 12 %Tension reinforcement Fver3=[F3y F11y F19y F27y F35y F43y F51y F59y F69y F79y]/1000. if Fver3(i)>0 .

end end Aycom4 %STRINGER 15 %Tension reinforcement Fver5=[F5y F13y F21y F29y F37y F45y F53y F61y F71y F81y]/1000.5*fcd*0. end end Ayten6 ' .001. end end Ayten5 %Compression reinforcement Fcom5y=Fver5+C5y. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C5y=0. else Ayten6(i)=0.5*fcd*0.001. end end Ayten4 %Compression reinforcement Fcom4y=Fver4+C4y. for j=1:length(Fcom4y) if Fcom4y(j)<0. if Fver6(i)>0 . %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C6y=0. else Ayten5(i)=0. end end Aycom5 %STRINGER 16 %Tension reinforcement Fver6=[F6y F14y F22y F30y F38y F46y F54y F62y F72y F82y]/1000.2*1000*t*0.0 else Ayten4(i)=0. Aycom4(j)=(Fcom4y(j))*1000/fyd. Ayten6(i)=Fver6(i)*1000/fyd.2*1000*t*0. if Fver5(i)>0 . else Aycom4(j)=0. %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver5). Ayten5(i)=Fver5(i)*1000/fyd. for j=1:length(Fcom5y) if Fcom5y(j)<0. Aycom5(j)=(Fcom5y(j))*1000/fyd. else Aycom5(j)=0.Section B. %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver6).

2*1000*t*0. Ayten7(i)=Fver7(i)*1000/fyd.001. Ayten8(i)=Fver8(i)*1000/fyd. else Ayten7(i)=0. end end Aycom7 %STRINGER 18 %Tension reinforcement Fver8=[F8y F16y F24y F32y F40y F48y F56y F66y F76y F86y]/1000. end end Aycom6 %STRINGER 17 %Tension reinforcement Fver7=[F7y F15y F23y F31y F39y F47y F55y F65y F75y F85y]/1000. if Fver8(i)>0 . %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver8). for j=1:length(Fcom6y) if Fcom6y(j)<0.001. if Fver7(i)>0 . end end Ayten8 %Compression reinforcement ' . for j=1:length(Fcom7y) if Fcom7y(j)<0. Aycom7(j)=(Fcom7y(j))*1000/fyd. else Aycom7(j)=0. end end Ayten7 %Compression reinforcement Fcom7y=Fver7+C7y. %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C7y=0.Appendix B Calculations for Stringer method %Compression reinforcement Fcom6y=Fver6+C6y. %Tension reinforcement for i=1:length(Fver7). %The concrete can take up compressionforce: C8y=0.5*fcd*0. Aycom6(j)=(Fcom6y(j))*1000/fyd. else Aycom6(j)=0. else Ayten8(i)=0.2*1000*t*0.5*fcd*0.

Section B. end end 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 '! . Aycom8(j)=(Fcom8y(j))*1000/fyd.0 Fcom8y=Fver8+C8y. else Aycom8(j)=0. for j=1:length(Fcom8y) if Fcom8y(j)<0.

.

1: Spandrel labeling 95 .Appendix C Modeling in ETABS Figure C.

2: Axial forces in spandrels.Appendix C Modeling in ETABS Figure C. V2 96 .3: Shear forces in spandrels. P Figure C.

0 Figure C.4: Moment forces in spandrels. M3 97 .Section C.

8 1.8 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.8 1. for P [mm2 /m] 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 5 120 196 0 0 37 6 0 0 64 63 0 0 36 117 0 101 12 0 23 36 0 0 49 51 0 21 149 156 0 40 18 11 97 0 0 0 119 104 0 0 60 130 0 0 0 113 14 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 224 157 19 10 100 0 0 0 53 52 0 0 103 153 3 2 0 3 0 0 138 29 0 0 534 407 0 Table C.5 2.8 1.3 2.2 1.2 1.7 0.8 1.5 1 1 2.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.8 1.5 2.1 1.2 1.5 2.2 1.75 1.7 0.7 0.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 1 1 2.7 0.2 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.5 2.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.7 0.8 1.7 0.3 1.5 1 1 98 .2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.1 1 1 2.2 1.2 1.8 1.75 1.7 0.1 1.5 1 1 2.5 1 1 2.2 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.75 1.7 0.5 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.5 1 1 2.7 1.8 1. for M3 [mm2 ] 15 86 135 -228 -119 116 192 -299 -172 68 126 -249 -138 -14 3 -16 70 -49 23 -35 79 -39 33 66 26 -5 3 222 339 -330 -133 270 472 -638 -342 129 271 -463 -247 -4 11 -54 5 -32 110 -92 40 -61 154 -80 47 -69 99 -14 32 -10 9 285 446 -438 -199 287 506 -608 -326 51 291 -415 -304 -10 14 -61 6 -37 116 -65 28 -63 131 -54 47 -7 10 -55 10 51 167 -110 -55 38 237 -230 -75 -65 Reinforc.8 1.2 1.75 1 1 2.8 1.2 1.5 2.2 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.2 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.1 1.2 1. for V [mm2 /m] 18 -31 16 141 25 -120 36 161 23 -136 8 161 90 -50 40 61 255 205 119 163 267 184 144 199 115 44 -58 -107 30 179 56 -96 100 249 113 -211 23 205 125 -118 117 179 41 142 473 393 210 306 598 411 240 364 328 147 135 84 -55 -69 65 214 73 -123 102 251 175 226 229 -8 -144 -71 147 210 51 181 469 307 152 323 251 134 130 40 49 90 -15 188 173 52 -25 385 311 186 371 232 Reinforc.1 1.2 1.7 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.7 0.1 1.5 2.75 1.1: Spandrel forces and reinforcement calculations -11 -25 -9 -113 -49 -10 28 -77 2 37 60 -68 -3 11 3 -35 -62 34 33 -63 -77 19 61 -68 53 6 -8 18 28 -84 -25 38 40 -72 16 117 122 -15 31 14 6 50 -8 -66 -92 62 54 -108 -145 31 68 -117 -107 -15 59 7 -2 16 -1 -57 -16 -44 -132 -188 -141 -131 -234 175 123 15 5 52 -8 -72 -107 28 27 -109 -132 54 80 1 2 -60 1 -80 -147 66 14 -116 -211 256 195 -45 -16 -35 -12 -162 -70 -14 39 -110 2 52 85 -97 -4 16 2 -30 -51 28 28 -52 -64 16 51 -56 44 5 -4 10 16 -47 -14 21 22 -40 9 65 68 -9 17 8 5 42 -6 -55 -76 52 45 -90 -121 26 57 -98 -89 -12 49 6 -1 9 -1 -32 -9 -24 -73 -105 -78 -73 -130 97 68 8 4 44 -7 -60 -89 23 23 -90 -110 45 67 1 1 -26 1 -73 -134 60 12 -106 -192 232 177 -41 6 -9 12 107 8 -37 28 123 7 -41 6 122 27 -15 21 32 133 107 62 85 139 96 75 104 60 23 -46 -84 59 350 44 -75 197 488 88 -165 45 401 98 -92 61 94 22 74 247 205 110 160 312 214 125 190 171 77 71 44 -43 -54 128 420 57 -97 200 492 137 177 449 -16 -113 -56 77 110 27 94 245 160 80 169 229 122 119 36 85 157 -7 90 206 62 -12 184 372 223 178 111 8 -14 7 61 11 -52 16 70 10 -59 4 70 39 -22 18 26 111 89 52 71 116 80 63 87 50 19 -25 -47 13 78 25 -42 44 108 49 -92 10 89 55 -51 51 78 18 62 206 171 91 133 260 179 104 158 143 64 59 37 -24 -30 28 93 32 -54 45 109 76 98 100 -4 -63 -31 64 92 22 79 204 133 66 141 109 58 57 17 21 39 -7 82 75 23 -11 167 135 81 161 101 5 26 41 -70 -36 35 58 -91 -52 21 38 -76 -42 -4 2 -8 36 -26 12 -18 41 -20 17 34 14 -3 3 174 266 -259 -104 212 370 -499 -267 101 212 -362 -193 -3 6 -28 3 -17 57 -48 21 -32 80 -42 25 -36 52 -7 17 -5 7 224 349 -343 -156 225 396 -476 -255 40 228 -325 -238 -8 7 -32 3 -20 60 -34 14 -33 69 -28 24 -3 10 -55 5 24 80 -53 -26 18 114 -110 -36 -31 0.Appendix C Spandrel S1 S1 S2 S2 S3 S3 S4 S4 S5 S5 S6 S6 S7 S7 S8 S8 S9 S9 S9 S9 S10 S10 S10 S11 S11 S11 S12 S12 S13 S13 S14 S14 S15 S15 S16 S16 S17 S17 S18 S18 S19 S19 S19 S19 S20 S20 S20 S20 S21 S21 S21 S21 S22 S22 S22 S22 S23 S23 S24 S24 S25 S25 S26 S26 S27 S27 S28 S28 S29 S29 S30 S30 S30 S30 S31 S31 S31 S31 S32 S32 S32 S32 S33 S33 S34 S34 S35 S35 S36 S36 S37 S37 S38 S38 Loc Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Left Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right P [kN] P [kN/m] V2 [kN] Modeling in ETABS V2 [kN/m] M3 [kNm] Height [m] Width [m] Force M3 [kN] 6 38 59 -99 -52 51 83 -130 -75 30 55 -108 -60 -6 1 -7 30 -21 10 -15 35 -17 14 29 12 -2 1 96 148 -144 -58 118 205 -277 -149 56 118 -201 -107 -2 5 -24 2 -14 48 -40 17 -27 67 -35 21 -30 43 -6 14 -4 4 124 194 -190 -87 125 220 -265 -142 22 126 -181 -132 -4 6 -27 3 -16 50 -28 12 -27 57 -24 20 -3 4 -24 4 22 73 -48 -24 16 103 -100 -33 -28 Reinforc.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.5 2.5 1 1 2.75 1.5 1 1 2.2 1.8 1.7 0.2 1.8 1.1 1.2 2.7 0.5 2.2 1.5 2.2 1.7 0.1 1.

P 99 .Section C.0 Figure C.6: Axial forces in Piers.5: Pier labeling Figure C.

7: Shear forces in piers.Appendix C Modeling in ETABS Figure C. V2 Figure C.8: Moment forces in piers. M3 100 .

1 1.Section C.5 11.1 0.2 1.7 0.5 11.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 11.2 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11.2 1.1 1.7 1.7 0.2: Pier forces and reinforcement calculations V2 [kN] 570 570 49 49 199 199 195 195 126 126 570 570 1183 1183 140 140 386 386 452 452 204 204 1183 1183 1490 1490 171 171 343 343 639 639 1153 1153 338 338 V2 [kN/m] 71 71 41 41 166 166 162 162 105 105 45 45 147 147 117 117 322 322 377 377 170 170 94 94 185 185 142 142 286 286 304 304 120 120 175 175 M3 kNm] 74 491 -8 53 -101 145 -101 140 -70 87 1196 1784 2011 2957 -75 93 -228 236 -253 290 -181 65 4378 5561 5787 6880 -55 154 -185 236 -474 309 3453 4654 -160 606 width [m] 11.2 1.5 11.75 1.2 1.2 1.5 11.2 1. for M3 15 98 -18 123 -233 334 -233 322 -160 200 239 357 402 591 -173 214 -524 542 -581 667 -415 149 875 1112 1157 1375 -127 354 -426 542 -622 406 907 1223 -210 796 Reinf.5 11.7 1.5 1 1 1 1 1.75 Height h[m] 0.2 1.75 1.2 1.1 0.1 1.75 8.2 1. for V2 163 163 95 95 381 381 374 374 242 242 104 104 338 338 269 269 740 740 866 866 391 391 215 215 426 426 327 327 658 658 699 699 275 275 403 403 101 .7 0.1 1.1 1.75 8.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11.1 Force from M3 6 43 -8 53 -101 145 -101 140 -70 87 104 155 175 257 -75 93 -228 236 -253 290 -181 65 381 484 503 598 -55 154 -185 236 -271 176 395 532 -91 346 Reinf.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 11.7 1.0 Pier P1 P1 P2 P2 P3 P3 P4 P4 P5 P5 P6 P6 P7 P7 P8 P8 P9 P9 P10 P10 P11 P11 P12 P12 P13 P13 P14 P14 P15 P15 P16 P16 P17 P17 P18 P18 P [kN] -517 -517 -41 -41 -132 -132 -169 -169 -175 -175 -517 -517 -2105 -2105 -144 -144 -448 -448 -774 -774 -739 -739 -2105 -2105 -3692 -3692 -178 -178 -829 -829 -1073 -1073 -2080 -2080 -1612 -1612 P [kN/m] -45 -45 -41 -41 -132 -132 -169 -169 -175 -175 -45 -45 -183 -183 -144 -144 -448 -448 -774 -774 -739 -739 -183 -183 -321 -321 -178 -178 -829 -829 -613 -613 -238 -238 -921 -921 Table C.75 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.

.

F.References [1] ANSYS. forritunarmál fyrir vísindalega útreikninga (in ice- landic). Earth- [12] Gulvanessian. European Commitee for [10] Eurocode 8. Kristján. Reykjavík.. Copenhagen. Applied Technol- ogy Council. Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. USA. Inc. [5] Chopra. USA [2] ATC. P. [8] Norm for betonkonstruktioner. Denmark. vol. & Sons. In- geniørenbøger. User and Theoretical Manual . Nordic concrete research. Engineering Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis . 2004 Commitee for Standardization. 2001 . Prentice Hall. ANSYS. Inc. Haig. USA. Brussels. 2005 .. John Wiley & Sons. New Jersey. European [11] Fajfar. Version 8 (in Danish). Bjarne Chr. Útgáfufélagið Slemba. Inc... Person Educations. New York. Design of Concrete Structures. Inc. Pennsylvania. Betonkonstruktioener efter DS411. Code of Practice for the Structural use of Concrete ETABS... Norway. London.. UK. New Jersey. New York. Copenhagen.. Canonsburg. 16. Computer & Structures. Concrete Shear Wall Design Manual. 2003 ! . 1982 Capacity and earthquake response analysis of RC-shear walls Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete . Berkeley. EN1998-1-1 quake Spectra. Brussels. USA. 2000 . [13] Jensen. 2002 [9] Eurocode 2. W. USA. Saeed. USA. 2. Southpointe. ATC-40 Report. Bjarni & Sigfússon. 2003 [14] Jónsson. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design Designers' Guide to EN 1998-1 and EN 1998-5 . California. 2002 [7] DS411. The Seismic Evaluation and Retrot of Concrete Buildings . Redwood City. 573-593.0. udgave (in Danish). CSI. 2003 . 2001 [6] Cook. Thomas Telford. Anil K. Finite Element Analysis. John Wiley . Oslo.. Thordur [4] Chen. EN1992-1-1 Standardization. 1999 . Inc. version 10. p. Dansk Standard. eng. Denmark. Robert D. Theory and Applications with ANSYS . MATLAB. Iceland. 2004 [15] Moaveni. 1996 [3] Bessason. 27:1-14. USA.

Reykjavík. No. P. 2003. USA. 2002 [23] Sigbjörnsson. Denmark.. Ingeniørenbøger. Priestley. New York. Ragnar.P. USA. CRC Press. Detroit. Vol.htm. 1999 Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. 5.. 2000.vedur. USA. & Halldorsson. Second Edition. A physical Approach with Empahsis on Earthquake Engineering. Andrew S. Gunnar B. Gudmundsson. UK. Longman. New York. The South Iceland earthquakes 2000 a challenge for earthquake prediction research. Andrew Designing Concrete Structures for Serviceabilty and safety. American Concrete Institute. USA. Computer & Structures. Edward G and Scanlon. American Society [18] Nielsen. [24] Stefansson. Inc. Analsysis Reference Manual. Berkeley. 1992 Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity. P. 28-39.is/utgafa/greinargerdir/2003/03017. " . QUAKES 2000: Ragnar Damage SOUTH and ICELAND Strong-Motion EARTHRecordings.. Pall. Edward L.. M. Copenhagen. and Soparat. 2002 [26] Wilson. Eugene J & Dixon. udgave (in Danish). 3.. [17] Nawy. CSI. 1999 [19] Nilson. http://www. 2002 Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures. [22] SAP2000. pp. 1992 [21] Pauley. Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete. Inc. Berkeley. USA. John Wiley & Sons. Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Design. CSI. Edinburgh.eaee. Computer & Structures. of Civil Engineers. Finite Element Analysis of Cracking Localization: The Smeared Crack Approach with a Mixed Formulation. 1982 [20] O'Brien. http://www.References [16] Nanakorn.pdf [25] Teknisk Ståbi. Inc. Thammasat International Journal of Science and Technology. 18.boun. The Complete Process. Version 8.edu. Arthur H. USA.tr/bulletins/v20/v20web/iceland.