Study on Interaction between Rocking Wall

System and Surrounding Structure

Qingzhi (Andy) Liu

Advisor: Catherine French
 Outline

• Background

• Research Objectives

• Experimental Program

• Conclusions
Background – Rocking wall and Rocking wall system
• Introduction of Rocking Walls V
 Longitudinal reinforcement is not
integrated with foundation
 Precast wall contact with foundation
 Unbonded strands only yield at large drifts 𝑙𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑
 Concrete spalls in corner
 Limited energy dissipation
• Introduction of Rocking Wall System Concrete spall
 Add external fuses to increase energy 𝑑𝑢𝑝
dissipation capacity
𝑑𝑢𝑝
𝜀𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 =
𝑙𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑
Background – PreWEC system
• Introduction of PreWEC (Precast Wall with End Columns) System

Plan view of a PreWEC System (Sritharan et al. 2007)

O-connector

An alternative configuration (Sritharan et al. 2016)

PreWEC (Precast Wall with End Columns)
Background – Shear wall versus rocking wall system
• PreWEC Test, NCREE Taiwan • T-shape Shear Wall Test, MAST

Less residual
Residual drift

O-connector
for energy
dissipation

PreWEC Test (Aaleti 2009)
• PreWEC system
 Low repair/reconstruction cost
 Small residual drift (self-centering)
 Fast business reoccupation
T-shaped Shear Wall Test (Brueggen 2008)
• Slender RC shear walls
 High repair/reconstruction cost
 Significant residual drift
 Slow business reoccupation
Research objectives
• Rocking wall system exhibit excellent self-centering and minor damage
(Priestley et al. 1999; Restrepo et al. 2007; Sritharan et al. 2011; Smith et al. 2011)
• Studies on rocking wall system interaction with surrounding structure are limited

Self-centering
End column compromised?
O-connector Wall
Floor

Floor damaged?

Interaction between rocking wall system Plastic strain contour in the floor in
and surrounding structure – SAP2000 rocking wall structure – Abaqus
Objective:
 Investigate the interaction between rocking wall system and surrounding structure
Experimental Program – Prototype building
Prototype and Representative Test Specimen
Edge column
 Prototype structure N
PreWEC PreWEC
• 6 story office building
• Lateral resisting system (N-S)
- 3 rocking walls + columns
Floor slab

 Representative Test Specimen

• Test single frame line
• Focus on interaction at first story
• Simulate “missing” stories with
“steel mega beam” providing
representative BCs and restraints
Experimental Program – Design philosophy
Design Philosophy of the Tests – Two Specimens PFS1 and PFS2:
 Use PreWEC systems with the same strength (gravity load in the floor ignored)
 Use different wall-floor connections to maximize/minimize wall-floor interaction
 Compare the performance of the two specimens

End columns
End columns

Pushover curves of the PreWEC

PreWEC in PFS1 PreWEC in PFS2 systems in PFS1 and PFS2
Experimental Program – First specimen PFS1
Key Design Factors of PFS1 - Maximize Interaction Using CIP Construction:
 Use rigid wall-floor connection (realized by CIP unbonded PT floor)
 Transfer gravity load to the wall (bearing wall)
 Use mega beams with shear and moment connections to emulate five floors
 Attach end columns adjacent to the wall to connect O-connectors

WALL

G CIP SLAB
CIP unbonded PT slab

WALL

REBAR STRAND
Component test of
a mega beam
Rebar and strands
Design of specimen PFS1 through the wall
Experimental Program – Second specimen PFS2
Key Design Factors of PFS2 - Minimize Interaction Using Precast Construction:
 Use special wall-floor connections that only transfer horizontal forces
 Transfer gravity load to the two end columns next to wall (non-bearing wall)
 Use mega beams pin-connected at ends to emulate five floors

WALL

Vertical
slot PLANK

G/2 G/2
Precast plank
WALL

FLOOR Victory
connection
Victory connection
Design of specimen PFS2 (Courtesy: BS Italia.inc)
Experimental program – Loading protocol
Loading Protocol of PFS1 and PFS2
 Cyclic pseudo-static loading
 Main control – lateral displacement applied at top block
 Three cycles per drift level – ACI ITG 5.1
Example: Loading protocol for PFS1

5%
4%
2.5% 3%
2%
1.5%

Biaxial loading
(butterfly-shaped)
In-plane loading
Experimental program - Test results of PFS1
PFS1: Test Results
Floor (Bottom)

Edge column
Wall

Floor (Top)
O-connector

Wall
Wall: Minor damage at 5% drift – reusable without repair
Floor: Structural integrity of floor was maintained
• Concrete crushed locally at wall-floor interface
• Floor “self-debonded” from wall corners and damage was not aggravated
• Most cracks in floor closed after testing due to prestressed force in PT strands
(the lightly stressed strands remained elastic throughout the test)
O-connectors: Fracture occurred only after 4% drift - expected
Comment: Fast reoccupation of the building possible with limited repair regions
Experimental program - Test results of PFS2
PFS2: Test Results

Wall Wall
West East

Precast
plank Gravity loaded east end columns at 2%

(Emulate G/2)

Wall: Minor damage at 5% drift

Floor: Little damage at 5% drift (isolated)
O-connectors: Fracture after 4% drift
Comment:
Immediate reoccupation of building possible
Force demand on the west/east end column
 Experimental program – Comparison of PFS1 and PFS2
Overall Behaviors of PFS1 and PFS2
 Maximum Residual Drift in the test
MRDPFS2 = 0.13% < MRDPFS1 = 0.75%
Flag-shaped  Base Moment at 2% design drift
BMPFS1 ≈ 2.4BMPFS2 ≈ 2.5BMPreWEC
 Energy Dissipation EDPFS1 ≈ 3EDPFS2
Very small
residual drift Key Factors Impacting the Behaviors
 Gravity load transfer paths
(different gravity load moment arms)
Hysteretic curves of PFS1 & PFS2 and pushover
curve of the isolated PreWEC system
Primary Contributions to Total Base Moment Resistance at 2% drift (unit: kip-in):
Specimen Gravity load PT force O-ring Floor and edge Total
columns
PFS1 6473 7086 2770 12295 28624
PFS2 745 7338 2689 985 11758
Experimental program – Comparison of PFS1 and PFS2

Wwall/2 Wecol/2 Wecol/2

Force flow in PFS1 using Force flow in PFS2 using vertical
rigid wall-floor connection movement isolation connection
Gravity Load Contribution to Base Moment:
PFS1: MG ≈ G x (Wwall/2) = 6473 kip-in PFS2: MG ≈ 2 x G/2 x (Wecol/2) = 745 kip-in
Experimental program – Comparison of PFS1 and PFS2
Overall Behaviors of PFS1 and PFS2
 Maximum Residual Drift in the test
MRDPFS2 = 0.13% < MRDPFS1 = 0.75%
Flag-shaped  Base Moment at 2% design drift
BMPFS1 ≈ 2.4BMPFS2 ≈ 2.5BMPreWEC
 Energy Dissipation EDPFS1 ≈ 3EDPFS2
Very small
residual drift Key Factors Impacting the Behaviors
 Gravity load transfer paths
(different moment arms of gravity load)
Hysteretic curves of PFS1 & PFS2 and pushover  Constraint of the surrounding structure
curve of the isolated PreWEC system (i.e. floor and edge columns)
Primary Contributions to Total Base Moment Resistance at 2% drift (unit: kip-in):
Specimen Gravity load PT force O-ring Floor and edge Total
columns
PFS1 6473 7086 2770 12295 28624
PFS2 745 7338 2689 985 11758
Experimental program – Comparison of PFS1 and PFS2

Force flow in PFS1 using Force flow in PFS2 using vertical

rigid wall-floor connection movement isolation connection
Floor (Mega Beam) and Edge Columns Contribution to Base Moment:
PFS1: MSLAB ≈ MM + MV + MN = 12295 kip-in PFS2: MSLAB ≈ MN = 985 kip-in
Experimental program – Comparison of PFS1 and PFS2
Summary of the Performance of PFS1 and PFS2
Specimen Strength Energy dissipation Self-centering Damage
PFS1 Large Large Reasonable Moderate
PFS2 Moderate Moderate Excellent Small

CIP floor

Flag-shaped
WALL
Localized damage in the CIP floor in PFS1
Very small
residual drift Wall

Precast
plank
Hysteretic curves of PFS1 & PFS2 and pushover
curve of the isolated PreWEC system Little damage in the precast floor in PFS2
Conclusion
Two rocking-wall assemblages were successfully tested. PFS1 was constructed with
CIP rigid wall-floor connections; PFS2 was constructed with precast members and
vertical isolation wall-floor connections.
Conclusions:
 Both specimens exhibited reasonable self-centering capacity

 Little damage occurred to the wall panels in both specimens. Damage occurred
to the CIP floor at the wall-floor connection in PFS1, but the localized damage
was repairable. Fast reoccupation of the building using rigid wall-floor
connection possible

 Compared to the isolated PreWEC system, the base moment of PFS1 was greatly
increased due to wall-floor interaction; the interaction should be considered
when determining base shear demand to avoid shear sliding of the rocking wall

 The base moment and energy dissipation capacity of PFS2 with vertical isolation
connections was much smaller than those of PFS1. Because little damage
occurred to PFS2, fast reoccupation of the building possible
 Acknowledgement
 Project members:
Catherine French (University of Minnesota, Twin Cities); Sri Sritharan (PI), Maryam
Nazari (Iowa State University); Sriram Aaleti (University of Alabama); Eric
Musselman (Villanova University); Rick Henry, Jonathan Watkins (University of
Auckland, NZ); Suzanne Nakaki (KPFF, San Francisco)
 MAST staff:
Carol Shield, Douglas Ernie, Paul Bergson, Rachel Gaulke, Christopher Bruhn,
Michael Boldischar, Samantha Thomas
 Students:
Tanner Swenson, Brock Hedegaard, Ben Dymond, Sam Konieczny, Mike Larson,
Aaron Fortunato, John Gervais, Anna Flintrop
Thank you!
Design recommendations
Design recommendations for structures using rigid wall-floor connections
 Consider wall-floor interaction in determining base shear demand to avoid
shear sliding of the rocking wall
 Consider moving CIP wall-floor connection towards wall center to reduce
vertical deformation demand on the floor and thus reduce damage
Moment demand at wall-floor connection:
−∆ 𝐸𝐼
𝑀 = 4𝑖𝛼 + 2𝑖𝛽 − 6𝑖 ; ∆= 𝑤𝛼; 𝑖 =
𝐿 𝐿
Move the wall-floor connection
towards the wall center to reduce M:
 Reduce ∆
 Increase 𝐿
 Reduce 𝑖
A simplified 2D analytical model
Design recommendation for structures using vertical isolation connections
 Increase confinement of gravity loaded end columns
Design recommendations
Recommendation of rigid wall-floor connections in CIP construction
 Moving the wall-floor connection towards the wall center would reduce the
deformation demand and reduce the damage

Floor

WALL

Localized damage
@ wall-floor connection

Move the wall-floor connection A simplified 2D analytical model

towards the wall center: Moment demand at wall-floor connection:
 Reduce ∆ −∆
 Increase 𝐿 𝑀 = 4𝑖𝛼 + 2𝑖𝛽 − 6𝑖
𝐿
 Reduce 𝑖 𝐸𝐼
∆= 𝑤𝛼; 𝑖 =
Moment demand would be reduced 𝐿
Design recommendations
Recommendation of end columns when using vertical isolation connection
Observation in the test of PFS2
 Spalling of fiber grout beneath
the east end column
 Shortening of west end column
due to loss of concrete core
Impact of the damage in end columns
 Loss of clamping PT force
West end column at 5%
East end column  End columns pulled up
End column  O-connectors nullified due to loss of
relative vertical deformation
Confinement  Additional out-of-plane
(HSS tube etc.) deformation on the floor
Design recommendations
Fiber grout in
 Increase end column confinement or
the pocket use external confinement
 Use high-strength fiber grout or place
West end column the grout in a pocket of the foundation