Professional Documents
Culture Documents
John Wallace
University of California, Los Angeles
with contributions from Dr. Kutay Orakcal University of California, Los Angeles
Presentation Overview
FEMA 356 Requirements
! !
Stiffness, strength
Experimental Results
!
Model Assessment
"
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
Rectangular walls (hw/lw " 2.5) Flanged walls (hw/lw " 3.5) Concrete and rebar material models
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
Beams
L- or T-shaped walls
" Where to locate the
Hinges
Beams
Shear spring
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
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
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
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)
!
For reference
Materials
Steel Material:
Maximum usable strain limits per FEMA 356 S6.4.3.1 7 = 0.02 7 = 0.05
Stress (ksi)
Strain
12
Flexure - fiber model (2-directions) Shear - Trilinear backbone relation Flexibility to model complex wall geometry Mesh refinement issues
Flexure/Axial
Shear
Stiffness Modeling
FEMA 356 Section 6.8.2.2 Use Table 6.5
! !
MOMENT
14
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)
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.)
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
17
Flexural strength
!
As ,bound 6 As , flange
Consider all vertical reinforcement within web and within the effective flange width
18
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
Uncoupled design 20
Experimental Results
80 -2.8 -1.4
1.4
2.8
40
RW2
-40
TW1
TW1 RW2
0.0 2.0 4.0
-80 -4.0
-2.0
21
Experimental Results
RW2 & TW2: ~ ! scale tests
Displacement-based design of T-shape
22
Experimental Results
80 -2.8 -1.4
1.4
2.8
40
0
RW2
-40
TW2
TW2 RW2
-80
Lateral strength loss due to lateral Instability due to spalling; Axial load maintained
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
23
24
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
(7 = ' =f ' ) c, c
Stress, >
r
E0
Compression
7y
O
Strain, 7
Strain, 7
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
Steel Strain Gage Levels Wire Potentiometers (vertical displacement) LVDT's Concrete Strain Gages
28
RW2
2 1 0
Applied displacement Pedestal movement excluded Pedestal movement and shear deformations excluded
-2 2 1 0
TW2
100 200
-1 -2
300
400
500
600
700
800
-1
29
uniaxial element # :
m=16
(1-c)h h k1 k2 . . kH . . . . . k n ch
. . . . .
2 1
30
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 # :
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
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
(7t ,ft )
2.5 2
r
Stress (MPa)
1.5
1.5 1 0.5
0.5
Strain
34
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
Test Analysis
RW2
-60
-40
-20
Pax (kN)
20
40
60
80
36
RW2
4 Top
Story Number
Test Analysis
60 80
37
Rotation (rad)
RW2
(First Story)
Displacement (mm)
Test Analysis
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
Concrete Strain
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
Concrete Strain
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
Test C Analysis
TW2
Pax (kN)
-40 -20 0
20
40
60
80
41
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
42
TW2
Test Analysis
0.5% 1.0% 2.0% 2.5%
2.5%
C
T C
7y
1.4
2.8
40
-40
TW1 TW2
-4.0
-80
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
TW1 Abrupt failure due to buckling TW2 Lateral instability due to spalling and large compression 44
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
46
47
,A 8 A - f
s ' s
y 6P
,A 8 A - f
s ' s
6P
'
50
Mn $ $ 29.4 kips hw
A b $ 0.015(144") $ 2.16"
Presidual $ 0.6(29.4k ) $ 17.6 kips
51
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"
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
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
53
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
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
54
h = 3.3 m = 10.83 ft
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
h = 3.3 m = 10.83 ft
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
John Wallace
University of California, Los Angeles
With contributions from Dr. Kutay Orakcal University of California, Los Angeles