Slender Wall Behavior & Modeling

John Wallace
University of California, Los Angeles
with contributions from Dr. Kutay Orakcal University of California, Los Angeles

Presentation Overview
FEMA 356 Requirements
! !

General requirements Modeling approaches

"

Beam-column, fiber, general

Stiffness, strength

Experimental Results
!

Model Assessment
"

Rectangular, T-shaped cross sections

FEMA backbone relations

"

Flexure dominant walls

2

FEMA 356 Nonlinear Modeling for Buildings with Slender RC Walls

FEMA 356 RC Walls

General Considerations 6.8.2.1
!

Represent stiffness, strength, and deformation capacity Model all potential failure modes anywhere along the wall (member) height Interaction with other structural and nonstructural elements shall be considered So, we must consider any and everything
4

Wall Modeling Approaches

Equivalent beam-column model ! hw/lw ! 3 Modified equivalent beam-column
! !

Rectangular walls (hw/lw " 2.5) Flanged walls (hw/lw " 3.5) Concrete and rebar material models

Multiple-line-element and Fiber models

!

General wall model

5

Equivalent Beam-Column Model

hw/lw ! 3:
! !

Use of equivalent beamcolumn permitted Neutral axis migration not considered Interaction with in- and outof-plane elements not properly considered Axial load Impacts
" Stiffness (EI) " Strength (P-M)

Wall

Column at wall centroid

Beams

Rigid end zones for beam

L- or T-shaped walls
" Where to locate the

Hinges

element? " Elastic centroid?

Acolumn $ twlw I column % 1 3& $ # cracking ' twlw ( )12 *

6

Modified Beam - Column Model

Rectangular walls (hw/lw " 2.5) & Flanged walls (hw/lw " 3.5):
Use of modified beam-column element with added shear spring
Wall

Column at wall centroid

Beams

Shear spring

Nonlinear flexure/shear are uncoupled using this approach Hinges

7

Modified Beam - Column Model

Shear force deformation properties
Deformation-controlled component

a 1.0
B

b-a LS
C

IO

CP
/ 0 Vy +y $ 1 h 1 , G $ 0.4 E - A 2 2 c 3 c 4 / 1 0 Gc $ Ec 1 2 and . 5 0.2 3 1 6 2. 4

V Vn
0.2
A

D E

c
8

+y/h

+/h

Fiber Section Model

Actual cross section

Concrete Fibers

Steel Fibers Typically use a more refined mesh where yielding is anticipated; however, Nonlinear strains tend to concentrate in a single element, thus, typically use an element length that is approximately equal to the plastic hinge length (e.g., 0.5lw). Might need to calibrate them first (this is essential). Calibration of fiber model with test results, or at least a plastic hinge model, is needed to impose a reality check on the element size and integration points used. 9

! !

Materials
Unconfined Concrete

Maximum permissible compressive strain for unconfined concrete (FEMA 356 S6.4.3.1) 7 = 0.002 or 0.005

Limit state associated with crack width

Stress (ksi)

% 27 / 7 02 & f c $ f c' ' c 8 1 c 2 ( 9 f c' 7 7 ' ) 0 3 04 ( * Linear descending branch defined by:

,7

$ 0.002; f c' - and , 7 c 85 $ 0.0038; 0.85f c' -

Strain
In the absence of cylinder stress-strain tests, Saatcioglu & Razvi (ASCE, JSE, 1992) recommend relation based on work by Hognestad. 10

Materials
Confined Concrete (FEMA 356 6.4.3.1)
!

Use appropriate model, e.g.:

" Saatcioglu & Razvi (ASCE JSE, 1992, 1995) " Mander (ASCE JSE, 1988) " Modified Kent & Park (ASCE JSE, 1982)
!

For reference

FEMA 356 Qualifications:

" Maximum usable compression strain based on experimental evidence and consider limitations posed by hoop fracture and longitudinal bar buckling.
11

Materials
Steel Material:
Maximum usable strain limits per FEMA 356 S6.4.3.1 7 = 0.02 7 = 0.05

Stress (ksi)

Strain
12

General Wall Models/FE Models

e.g., RAM-PERFORM:
! ! !

Flexure - fiber model (2-directions) Shear - Trilinear backbone relation Flexibility to model complex wall geometry Mesh refinement issues

Flexure/Axial

Shear

Concentration of nonlinear Deformations in one element 13

Stiffness Modeling
FEMA 356 Section 6.8.2.2 Use Table 6.5
! !

Uncracked: EIeffective = 0.8EIg Cracked: EIeffective = 0.5EIg

0.75EcIg 0.5EcIg

MOMENT

30 x 2 ft Wall Section 16 - #14 Boundary #6@12" Web

P=0.30Agf'c P=0.20Agf'c P=0.10Agf'c

1.0, 0.75, 0.5, 0.4EcIg

CURVATURE Wallace, et al., 4NCEE, Vol. 2, pp 359-368, 1990.

14

Response Correlation Studies

! ! !

Ten Story Building in San Jose, California Instrumented: Base, 6th Floor, and Roof Moderate Intensity Ground Motions Loma Prieta
4.53 m (14.88 ft) 5 @ 10.97 m (36 ft)

8.84 m (29 ft)

1.68 m 8.84 m (29 ft) (5.5 ft)

PLAN VIEW: CSMIP BUILDING 57356

15

Response Correlation Studies

! ! !

Ten Story Building in San Jose, California Instrumented: Base, 6th Floor, and Roof Moderate Intensity Ground Motions Loma Prieta
Analysis - 0.5Ig Measured

Displacement (in.)

1.5 0 -1.5 0 10 Time (sec) 20

30
16

Strength Requirements
ACI 318 Provisions
!

Pn- Mn
" For extreme fiber compression strain of 7c =0.003.

Vn
" ACI 318-99,02,05 Equation 21-7

Vn $ Acv %# c f c' 6 :t f y & ) * # c $ 3.0 for hw / lw " 1.5

# c $ 2.0 for hw / lw ! 2.0

Linear interpolation allowed for intermediate values

17

Definition of Wall Cross Section

Cross-Section Definition beff
0.25hw
As' ,bound 6 As' , flange As As'

Flexural strength
!

As ,bound 6 As , flange

Consider all vertical reinforcement within web and within the effective flange width

Consider the influence of openings on the strength and detailing requirements

!

ACI 318-02, 05 Appendix A Strut & Tie Approach

18

Behavior of Flanged Walls

Flange Compression versus Tension beff
As

beff

7t 7c
Flange Compression Low compressive strain Large curvature capacity Mn & Vu similar rectangle

As ,bound 6 As , flange

7t
Flange Tension Large compressive strain Less curvature capacity M n ; Vu ;

7c

19

Experimental Results
RW2 & TW1: ~ ! scale tests

Displacement-based design Thomsen & Wallace, ASCE JSE, April 2004.

Uncoupled design 20

Experimental Results
80 -2.8 -1.4

Lateral Drift (%)

0.0

1.4

2.8

Lateral Load (kips)

P = 0.09Agf'c vu,max = 4.85<f'c P = 0.07Agf'c vu,max = 2.32<f'c

40

RW2

-40
TW1

TW1 RW2
0.0 2.0 4.0

-80 -4.0

Abrupt Lateral Strength loss Due to buckling; Axial load Maintained

Top Displacement (in.)

-2.0

21

Experimental Results
RW2 & TW2: ~ ! scale tests
Displacement-based design of T-shape

Thomsen & Wallace, ASCE JSE, April 2004.

22

Experimental Results
80 -2.8 -1.4

Lateral Drift (%)

0.0

1.4

2.8

Lateral Load (kips)

P = 0.075Agf'c vu,max = 5.5<f'c P = 0.07Agf'c vu,max = 2.32<f'c

40

0
RW2

-40
TW2

TW2 RW2

-80

Lateral strength loss due to lateral Instability due to spalling; Axial load maintained

-4.0

Top Displacement (in.)

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0
23

Model Assessment Comparison of Analytical and Experimental results

24

MVLE (Fiber) Model

5 6 4 Rigid Beam

m
(1-c)h h k1 k2 . . kH . . . . . k n ch 2 3 1

. . . . .

2 1

Rigid Beam

RC WALL

WALL MODEL

Basic assumptions:
Plane sections (rigid rotation of top/bottom beams

Uniaxial material relations (vertical spring elements) MVLE Model versus Fiber Model: Similar to a fiber model except with constant curvature over the element height (vs linear for fiber model)
Orakcal, Wallace, Conte; ACI SJ, Sept-Oct 2004. 25

Material (Uni-axial) Models

>y
E1= bE0

(7 = ' =f ' ) c, c

Stress, >

r
E0

Compression

7y
O

(70, 0) (70+ 7t , ft)

Tension Not to scale

Strain, 7

Strain, 7

Reinforcing Steel : Menegotto and Pinto (1973) Filippou et al. (1984)

# Simple but effective # Degradation of cyclic curvature

Concrete : Chang and Mander (1994)

# Generalized (can be updated) # Allows refined calibration # Gap and tension stiffening
26

Model Assessment
$ Approximately 1/4 scale $ Aspect ratio = 3 $ Displacement based
evaluation for detailing provided at the wall boundaries 12 ft tall, 4 ft long, 4 inches thick #3 vertical steel, 3/16 hoops/ties #2 deformed web steel Constant axial load Cyclic lateral displacements applied at the top of the walls
27

$ $ $ $ $

Instrumentation
Extensive instrumentation provided to measure
wall response at various locations
Wire Potentiometers (horizontal displacement) Wire Potentiometers (X configuration)

RW2

Rigid Reference Frame

Steel Strain Gage Levels Wire Potentiometers (vertical displacement) LVDT's Concrete Strain Gages

Linear Potentiometers (Pedestal Movement)

Massone & Wallace; ACI SJ, Jan-Feb 2004.

28

Applied Lateral Displacement

80 40

RW2

2 1 0
Applied displacement Pedestal movement excluded Pedestal movement and shear deformations excluded

Top Displacement (mm)

0 -40 -80 80 40 0 -40 -80 0

-2 2 1 0

TW2
100 200

-1 -2

Data Point Number

300

400

500

600

700

800

Drift Ratio (%)

-1

29

Model Details RW2

1219 mm
19 mm 3 @ 51 mm 153 mm 8 - #3 bars (db=9.53 mm) 102 mm 3 @ 191 mm #2 bars (db=6.35 mm) @ 191 mm 153 mm 3 @ 51 mm 19 mm 19 mm 64 mm 19 mm Hoops (db=4.76 mm) @ 76 mm

uniaxial element # :

m=16

(1-c)h h k1 k2 . . kH . . . . . k n ch

. . . . .

2 1

30

Model Details TW2

1219 mm
19 mm 19 mm 19 mm 64 mm 3 @ 51 mm 102 mm 19 mm 8 - #3 bars (db=9.53 mm) #2 bars (db=6.35 mm) @ 191 mm Hoops (db=4.76 mm) @ 76 mm 3 @ 140 mm #2 bars (db=6.35 mm) @ 140 mm 3 @ 51 mm 153 mm 3 @ 191 mm 3 @ 51 mm 153 mm 19 mm

12-19 11 10 9 8 7 6
2 - #2 bars (db=6.35 mm)

1219 mm
102 mm

Hoops and cross-ties (db=4.76 mm) @ 38 mm 4 @ 102 mm 8 - #3 bars (db=9.53 mm) Hoops (db=4.76 mm) @ 32 mm 19 mm 102 mm

5 4 3 2

31

uniaxial element # :

Concrete Model - Unconfined

50 40

Stress (MPa)

30

Test Results
20 1st Story 2nd Story 3rd Story 4th Story

10

Analytical (Unconfined)
0 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004

Strain

32

Concrete Model - Confined

70 60 50 TW2 Web

Stress (MPa)

RW2

40 30 20 10 0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 TW2 Flange Unconfined Model Mander et al. (1988) Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992)

Strain

33

Concrete Model - Tension

2.5 2

(7t ,ft )

2.5 2

r
Stress (MPa)
1.5

1.5 1 0.5

0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03

0.5

Chang and Mander (1994) Belarbi and Hsu (1994)

0 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025

Strain

34

Reinforcement Material Model

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400 -500 -600 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 Compression #3 #2 Tension #3 (RW2 & TW2 Flange) #3 (TW2 Web) #2 (TW2 Web) #2 (RW2 & TW2 Flange)

Stress (MPa)

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

Test Results
#3 rebar #2 rebar 4.76 mm wire

0.01

0.02

0.03

Strain

35

Model Assessment RW2

Lateral Flexural Drift (%)
-2 200 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Lateral Load, Plat (kN)

150 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -80

Pax 5 0.07Ag=f 'c Plat , +top

Test Analysis

RW2

500 400 300 200 100 0

-60

-40

-20

Pax (kN)

20

40

60

80

Top Flexural Displacement, +top (mm)

36

Model Assessment RW2

Lateral Flexural Drift (%)
-2 5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

RW2
4 Top

Story Number

3 2 1 0 -80 Applied Lateral Drift Levels: 0.75% 1.0 % -60 -40

1.5% 2.0% 2.5% -20 0 20 40

Test Analysis
60 80

Lateral Flexural Displacement (mm)

37

Model Assessment RW2

0.02

Rotation (rad)

0.01 0 -0.01 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15

RW2

(First Story)

Displacement (mm)

Test Analysis

0.008 FEMA 356 CP limit 1.5% 2.0%

Data Point Results based on recommended values for material parameters; however, results could vary, maybe significantly, for different element lengths and material parameters (particularly if no strain hardening)

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

38

Model Assessment RW2

0.035 0.03

Concrete Strain

0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 -0.005 -0.01

RW2 Boundary Zone

Concrete Strain Gage LVDT 2.0% Analysis

1.5% 1.0% 1.0% 1.5%

0.75% 0.25% 0.5%

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Data Point
Orakcal & Wallace; ACI SJ, in-press for publication in 2006 (see 13WCEE). 39

Model Assessment RW2

0.035 0.03

Concrete Strain

0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 -0.005 -0.01

RW2 Boundary Zone

Concrete Strain Gage LVDT 2.0% Analysis

1.5% 1.0% 1.0% 1.5%

0.75% 0.25% 0.5%

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Data Point
Orakcal & Wallace; ACI SJ, in-press for publication in 2006 (see 13WCEE). 40

Model Assessment TW2

Lateral Flexural Drift (%)
-2 400 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Pax 5 0.075Ag=f 'c Plat , +top

Lateral Load, Plat (kN)

300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400 -80 -60 T

Test C Analysis

TW2

Pax (kN)
-40 -20 0

750 500 250 0

20

40

60

80

Top Flexural Displacement, +top (mm)

41

Model Assessment TW2

Lateral Flexural Drift (%)
-2 5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

TW2
4 Top

Story Number

3 2 1 0 -80

T C C Applied Lateral Drift Levels: 0.75% 1.0 % -60 -40 T 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% -20 0 20 40

Test Analysis
60 80

Lateral Flexural Displacement (mm)

42

Model Assessment TW2

Flange Concrete Strain (LVDTs)
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 -0.005 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600

TW2
Test Analysis
0.5% 1.0% 2.0% 2.5%

2.5%
C

2.0% 2.5% 2.0%

T C

7y

Distance along Flange from Web (mm)

43

Model Assessment Stability

80 -2.8 -1.4

Lateral Drift (%)

0.0

1.4

2.8

Lateral Load (kips)

40

P = 0.09Agf'c vu,max = 4.85<f'c P = 0.075Agf'c vu,max = 5.5<f'c

-40

TW1 TW2
-4.0

-80

Top Displacement (in.)

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

TW1 Abrupt failure due to buckling TW2 Lateral instability due to spalling and large compression 44

Model Assessment - Stability

Rebar Buckling at Wall Boundary

Rebar Fracture Following Buckling at Wall Boundary

Instabilities, such as rebar buckling and lateral web buckling, and rebar fracture are typically not considered in models; therefore, engineering judgment is required. Loss of lateral-load capacity does not necessarily mean loss of axial load capacity 45

FEMA 356 Table 6-18

46

FEMA 356 Table 6-18

47

FEMA 356 Modeling Parameters

WALL RW2: As $ As' s 9 1.2" & P $ 0.07 Ag f c' Non-conforming & Hoops @ 2" o.c. 2(0.027 in 2 ) $ 0.09( s )(hc $ 6"6 3 / 8"6 3 /16")(5 ksi / 63 ksi)

WALL TW2: Flange Compression As $ 8 - #3

' $ 10 - #3 and 4 - #2 As

f y 5 63 ksi & Hoops/Ties @ s=4"

No special detailing required: Conforming

,A 8 A - f
s ' s

y 6P

twlw f c' Vu twlw f c' $

2 % & , 63 ksi 8 0.42 in ) * $ 6 0.075(2) $ 0.127 4"(48")( ! 6 ksi)

40 kips $ 2.7 4"(48") 6000 /1000

48

FEMA 356 Modeling Parameters

WALL TW2: Flange Tension As' $ 8 - #3 & 2 - #2 A s $ 24 - #3 and 8 - #2 & f y 5 63 ksi s 9 1.0 " s 9 2.1" Hoops/Ties @ s=1.25" (5 legs and 2 legs) 5(0.027 in 2 ) $ 0.09( s )(hc $ 16"6 3 / 8"6 3 /16")(6 ksi / 63 ksi) 2(0.027 in 2 ) $ 0.09( s )(hc $ 2.5"6 3 / 8"6 3 /16")(6 ksi / 63 ksi) ! Conforming

,A 8 A - f
s ' s

6P

twlw f c' Vu twlw f c' $

16(0.11) 6 6(0.049) @ , 63 ksi ? $ 6 0.075(2) $ 0.26 4"(48")( ! 6 ksi)

80 kips $ 5.4 4"(48") 6000 /1000

49

FEMA 356 Modeling Parameters

Tables 6-18 (partial):
Walls Controlled by Flexure Model Parameters, Radians Plastic Hinge a 0.015 0.008 0.005 0.002 Plastic Hinge b 0.02 0.015 0.010 0.004 Residual Strength c 0.75 0.60 0.30 0.20
TW2 Flange Comp RW2 TW2 Flange Tension

( As 8 As ) f y 6 P Conf. V ' twlw fc' Bound. twlw fc

" 0.1 " 0.1 ! 0.25 ! 0.25 Yes No Yes No "3 "3 !6 !6

'

50

FEMA Backbone Relation RW2

Plateral
3 % , Plateral hload & ( Ay $ ' ' ) 3Ec , 0.5 I g - ( * 29.4k (150")3 $ $ 0.41" ksi in 4 3(4000 )(18, 432 ) A a $ 0.008(144") $ 1.15"

Mn $ $ 29.4 kips hw

A b $ 0.015(144") $ 2.16"
Presidual $ 0.6(29.4k ) $ 17.6 kips
51

FEMA Backbone Relations TW2

Flange Compression
Plateral
3 % , Plateral hload & ( Ay $ ' ' ) 3Ec , 0.5I g - ( * 40.2k (150")3 $ ksi in 4 3(4400 )(40, 700 ) $ 0.25"

M $ n $ 40.2 kips hw

Flange Tension
Plateral $

3 % , Plateral hload & ( Ay $ ' ' ) 3Ec , 0.5 I g - ( * 77.0k (150")3 $ ksi in 4 3(4400 )(40, 700 ) $ 0.48"

Mn $ 77.0 kips hw

I g $ 2.2 , I g -

4 x 48

y =34.5"

I g $ 2.2 , I g -

4 x 48

y =34.5"

A a $ 0.015(144") $ 2.16" A b $ 0.020(144") $ 2.88"

Presidual $ 0.75(40.2k ) $ 30.2 kips

A a $ 0.005(144") $ 0.72" A b $ 0.010(144") $ 1.44"

Presidual $ 0.30(77.0k ) $ 23.1 kips
52

Backbone Curve RW2

Lateral Drift (%)
40 -2.8 -1.4 0.0 1.4 2.8
P = 0.07Agf'c vu,max = 2.2<f'c psi
FEMA 356 NC/C

Lateral Load (kips)

20

100

0
Ay $

NC C 3 , M n / hw -, hw -

-20

3Ec I cr

-100

Plat@Mn(7c=0.003)=29.4k

-40 -4.0

Top Displacement (in.)

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0
53

Lateral Load (kN)

Backbone Curve TW2

80 -2.8 -1.4 0.0
P = 0.075Agf'c

Lateral Drift (%)

1.4 2.8 200 0
M n / hw -, hw , Ay $ 3Ec I cr
3

Lateral Load (kips)

40 0 -40 -80
vu,max = 5.4<f'c psi

-200 -400

Plat@Mn(7c=0.003)=77.0k
FEMA 356 Conforming

-120 -4.0

Top Displacement (in.)

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0
54

Lateral Load (kN)

vu,max = 2.7<f'c psi Plat@Mn(7c=0.003)=40.2k

Cantilever Wall Tests

Paulay, EERI, 2(4), 1986 [Goodsir, PhD 1985 NZ]

h = 3.3 m = 10.83 ft

Conforming P=10%, V=3 Conforming P=10%, V=6

WALL Goodsir, 1985: As $ As' & P $ 0.163 f c' A g & Assume conforming
3

(3.94) (59)
Vu twlw f c' $ 70k $ 4.6 (4")(59") 3750 psi

Ay $

(70k )(130") PL $ $ 0.4" (10.0mm) 3Ec 0.5 I g 3(~ 3750ksi )(0.5)(4")(59")3 /12

A a 5 0.01(3300mm) $ 33mm

A b 5 0.015(3300mm) $ 50mm

55

Cantilever Wall Tests

Paulay, EERI, 2(4), 1986 [Goodsir, PhD 1985 NZ]

h = 3.3 m = 10.83 ft

Conforming P=10%, V=3 Conforming P=10%, V=6

WALL Goodsir, 1985: As $ As' & P $ 0.12 f c' A g & Assume conforming Vu twlw f c' $ 70k $ 4.6 (4")(59") 3750 psi (70k )(130")3 PL3 Ay $ $ $ 0.4" (10.0mm) 3Ec 0.5 I g 3(~ 3750ksi )(0.5)(4")(59")3 /12

A a 5 0.01(3300mm) $ 33mm

A b 5 0.015(3300mm) $ 50mm

56

Summary
FEMA 356 Backbone Curves
! !

In general, quite conservative This appears to be especially true for cases where moderate detailing is provided around boundary bars Possible reformat
" Compute neutral axis depth " If s <12db over c/2, then modest ductility " If s < 8db and transverse steel ratio is ~1/2 of ACI 318-05,

then moderate ductility " If s < 8db and transverse steel ratio is > 3/4 of ACI 318-05, then high ductility " Do not reduce deformation capacity for shear stress below 5 roots fc
57

Shear Design
Wall shear studies
! ! !

Aktan & Bertero, ASCE, JSE, Aug. 1985 Paulay, EERI 1996; Wallace, ASCE, JSE, 1994. Eberhard & Sozen, ASCE JSE, Feb. 1993 Based on Mpr at hinge region Uniform lateral force distribution
Paulay, 1986 Eberhard, 1993 58

Design Recommendations
! !

Vwall Vwall

/ M pr 0 $ Bv 1 2 Vu Bv $ 0.9 6 n /10 3 Mu 4 $ Vlim it 6 , Dm $ 0.3-,W $ weight -, Ae $ EPA -

Slender Wall Behavior & Modeling

John Wallace
University of California, Los Angeles
With contributions from Dr. Kutay Orakcal University of California, Los Angeles