Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

16 tayangan

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Shear Wall Design Guide
- Civil Paper 1
- Pushover Analysis Final
- Basics of Nonlinear Pushover Analysis
- COMPOSITE-BEAMS-AND-SLABS1.docx
- 2016Chap31F 33
- 4b. Nonlinear Structural Analysis for Seismic Design_Spring 2018
- PushOver Building
- openi ngs
- A Modal Pushover Analysis Procedure to Estimate Seismic Demands f
- NS21-1steel
- Concrete Under5
- High-Rise
- 0802 Slides
- Chapter 3 - Material Property Characterization of Ultra-High Performance Concrete, August 2006 - FHWA-HRT-06-103
- An Efficient Approach for Pushover Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry (Urm) Structures
- Pushover Analysis Explained-Rahul
- Seismic Analysis
- 2 Way Slab Design
- 38961

Anda di halaman 1dari 213

hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of:

Master of Science

in:

University of Cincinnati

It is entitled:

Performace-Based Design of a 15-story

Dr. Bahram M. Shahrooz Chair: _______________________________ Dr. T. Michael Baseheart _______________________________ Dr. Gian A. Rassati _______________________________

_______________________________ _______________________________

Performance Based Design of a 15 Story Reinforced Concrete Coupled Core Wall Structure

By Gang Xuan Bachelor of Science, Tongji University, China, 1999 Master of Science, Tongji University, China, 2002 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering College of Engineering University of Cincinnati Nov 2005

Dr. Bahram M. Shahrooz Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Director of Thesis

Dr. T. Michael Baseheart Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Thesis Committee Member

Dr. Gian A. Rassati Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Thesis Committee Member

Abstract

The reinforced concrete coupled core wall (CCW) structures have been widely used in the medium to high-rise buildings due to their advantages both in the architectural and structural aspects. The structures not only accommodate the versatile architectural needs, but provide large lateral load resistance to withstand earthquake and wind. The design of CCWs is typically based on the traditional strength-based method, which is the basis of current codes. However, the resulting extremely high shear stresses in coupling beams have been a long-lasting difficulty associated with the use of strength-based methods for seismic design of CCWs. The performance-based design (PBD) method, as a solution to the aforementioned problem, has been recently proposed in an attempt to capture the expected behavior of CCW buildings subjected to ground motions, while producing safe and constructible buildings. In this thesis, a 15-story reinforced CCW office building was initially designed by using the strength-based design method. The resulting high shear stresses in beams exceed the code limits, and no suitable design could be found unless unrealistic measures such as artificial reduction of beam stiffness are used to lower the demands. Subsequently, the PBD method was applied as an alternative to the same building. The coupling beams and wall piers were designed with acceptable internal forces below the code limits. As necessary, the design provisions form NEHRP 2000, ACI 318-02, and FEMA 356 were used. An analytical model was developed to generate the force-deformation characteristics of diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams. This model was

calibrated based on experimental data from previous studies on coupling beams. Using this model and prior experience with modeling of wall piers, a detailed analytical model of the 15-story prototype was conducted. The applicability and validity of the PBD method used in this study were demonstrated through nonlinear static and dynamic analyses of the prototype structure.

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to show my thankfulness and appreciations to my supervisor, Dr. Bahram M. Shahrooz, for more than two years advising and tutoring. His valuable comments and stimulating suggestions always help me keep on the right track and proceed to the finale of the research program. Furthermore, his devotion to research and great responsibility for high quality work have placed deep influences on me to understand the ethics and principles of a good engineer, which will surely benefit my future work. Again, I would thank him for all the time and efforts he provided in advising, discussing, and revising my research work. Secondly, I would like to thank Dr. Baseheart and Dr. Rassati. As the thesis committee members, they put valuable time in reviewing my thesis and providing helpful comments. I would also thank Dr. Patrick Fortney for his great supports to my research work. He is a wonderful colleague and always ready to provide me a discussion whenever I met a problem in the research work. Finally, I would like to give my sincere and special thankfulness to my parents and sister for their long time and constant supports, understanding, and cares.

Table of Contents

List of Tables.................................................................................................................v List of Figures .............................................................................................................vii Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................1 1.1 Notations .........................................................................................................1 1.2 Reinforced Concrete Coupled Core Wall System...........................................1 1.3 Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Beam ..........................................................2 1.4 Strength-Based Design and Performance-Based Design Methodologies .......3 1.5 Scope of Thesis ...............................................................................................5 Chapter 2 Preliminary Design......................................................................................9 2.1 Notations .........................................................................................................9 2.2 Objective ........................................................................................................11 2.3 Design Preparation.........................................................................................11 2.4 Loads and Analytical Model ..........................................................................12 2.4.1 Gravity Loads.......................................................................................12 2.4.2 Seismic Loads ......................................................................................13 2.4.2.1 Design Response Spectrum........................................................13 2.4.2.2 ELF Method ...............................................................................13 2.4.3 Mathematical Model ............................................................................15 2.5 Comparison of Four Prototype Models..........................................................16 Chapter 3 Design of Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams ...................24

i

3.1 Notations ........................................................................................................24 3.2 Introduction....................................................................................................27 3.3 Traditional Strength-Based Design ................................................................27 3.4 Traditional Strength-Based Design Result Review........................................30 3.5 Introduction of Performance-Based Design Method .....................................33 3.5.1 Performance-Based Design Concept ...................................................33 3.5.2 Changes of Design Requirements Using PBD Method .......................35 3.5.3 Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beam Design by PBD Method ..................................................................................................36 Chapter 4 Design of Wall Piers...................................................................................47 4.1 Notations ........................................................................................................47 4.2 Introduction....................................................................................................50 4.3 Simplified Method for Wall Pier Analyses ....................................................51 4.3.1 X Direction Analyses ...........................................................................52 4.3.2 Y Direction Analyses ...........................................................................54 4.4 Load Combinations........................................................................................55 4.5 Wall Pier Design ............................................................................................60 Chapter 5 Studies of Behaviors of Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams..........................................................................................................71 5.1 Notations ........................................................................................................71 5.2 Objective ........................................................................................................73

ii

5.3 Test Data ........................................................................................................73 5.4 Evaluation of Theoretical Models..................................................................74 5.4.1 Paulays Model.....................................................................................74 5.4.2 Hindis Model ......................................................................................76 5.5 FEMA 356......................................................................................................78 5.6 Statistical Analyses and Evaluation of Methods ............................................78 5.6.1 Yield Strength.......................................................................................79 5.6.2 Ultimate Strength .................................................................................79 5.6.3 Yield Chord Rotation ...........................................................................80 5.6.4 Ultimate Chord Rotation......................................................................81 5.7 Modified Model .............................................................................................81 Chapter 6 Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analyses ....................................................94 6.1 Notations ........................................................................................................94 6.2 Objective ........................................................................................................95 6.3 Pushover (Static Nonlinear) Analysis ............................................................95 6.3.1 Introduction..........................................................................................95 6.3.2 Computer Model ..................................................................................95 6.3.2.1 Geometry and Mass Configuration............................................95 6.3.2.2 Coupling Beam Member Properties...........................................96 6.3.2.3 Wall Member Properties ............................................................97 6.3.2.4 Applied Lateral Loads................................................................98

iii

6.3.3 Results and Discussions.......................................................................99 6.4 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis .......................................................................102 6.4.1 Computer Model ............................................................................... 102 6.4.2 Results and Discussions.................................................................... 103 Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research........................132 7.1 Summary ......................................................................................................132 7.2 Conclusions..................................................................................................133 7.3 Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................135 Reference ..................................................................................................................137 Appendix A Preliminary Design Calculations ..........................................................A-1 Appendix B Beam Design Calculations ...................................................................B-1 Appendix C Wall Design Calculations .....................................................................C-1 Appendix D Calculated Wall Pier Parameters from XTRACT for RUAUMOKO Modeling ..............................................................................................D-1

iv

List of Tables

Table2.1 Design of a Typical Interior Column............................................................19 Table2.2 Design Spectrum Defined by NEHRP .........................................................19 Table2.3 Performance Comparison of Four Prototype Structures ..............................20 Table 3.1 Mass Participation of the First Two Modes in the Coupled Direction........38 Table 3.2 Base Shear Amplification Factor ................................................................38 Table 3.3.1 Beam Shears of Mode 1 after Amplifications ..........................................39 Table 3.3.2 Beam Shears of Mode 2 after Amplifications ..........................................39 Table 3.4 SRSS of Beam Shear Forces and Related Shear Stresses ...........................40 Table 4.1.1 Lateral Load Effects and Effective Moments in the X Direction ............61 Table 4.1.2 X Direction Lateral Load Effect Distribution between Wall Piers ..........61 Table 4.2 X Direction Torsion Analysis......................................................................62 Table 4.3 Y Direction Lateral Load Effect Distribution between Wall Piers..............62 Table 4.4 Y Direction Torsion Analysis ......................................................................63 Table 4.5.1 Design Demands for Biaxial Bending Design with 1.0X+0.3Y Combination...................................................................................................63 Table 4.5.2 Design Demands for Biaxial Bending Design with 0.3X+1.0Y Combination......................................................................................................64 Table 4.6.1 Design Demands for Shear Design with 1.0X+0.3Y Combination .........64 Table 4.6.2 Design Demands for Shear Design with 0.3X+1.0Y Combination .........65 Table 5.1 Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Beam Test Database ...............................84

v

Table 5.2 Strengths and Deformations Calculated According to Paulays Model ......85 Table 5.3 Strengths and Deformations Calculated According to Hindis Model........86 Table 5.4 Strengths and Deformations Calculated According to FEMA 356 Method ................................................................................................................88 Table 5.5 Evaluation of All Models ............................................................................89 Table 5.6 Strengths and Deformations Calculated According to Modified Model.....91 Table 6.1 Beam Member Properties..........................................................................106 Table 6.2 Values of Four Control Points for Quadratic Beam-Column Elements ....106 Table 6.3 Wall Member Properties............................................................................106 Table 6.4 Strength Degradation Factors....................................................................107 Table 6.5 Maximum Chord Rotations under Five Selected Ground Motions ..........107

vi

List of Figures

Fig.1.1 Lateral Load Resisting Mechanism of a Coupled Core Wall System .............7 Fig.1.2 Flow Chart of a Conceptual Framework for the Performance-Based Design (Bertero, 1997).....................................................................................8 Fig.2.1 Elevation View of the 15-story Coupled Core Wall Building ........................21 Fig.2.2 Column Tributary Area and X Y Coordinate System .....................................21 Fig.2.3 Planar View of Prototype I .............................................................................22 Fig.2.4 Planar View of Prototype II ............................................................................22 Fig.2.5 Planar View of Prototype III...........................................................................23 Fig.2.6 Planar View of Prototype IV ..........................................................................23 Fig.3.1 Labels of Wall Piers Used in the Redundancy Factor Calculation.................41 Fig.3.2 Deformation Relationship between Coupling Beam and Wall Piers..............41 Fig.3.3 Tri-Stage Mechanism of CCWs in PBD.........................................................42 Fig.3.4 Comparison of Design Demands on CCW Elements between Strength-Based Method and Performance-Based Method .......................................................42 Fig.3.5 Assignment of Coupling Beam Design Shear Stresses ..................................43 Fig.3.6.1 Section Details of Beam Group I.................................................................44 Fig.3.6.2 Section Details of Beam Group II ...............................................................45 Fig.3.6.3 Section Details of Beam Group III ..............................................................46 Fig.4.1.1 X Direction Lateral Load Analysis..............................................................66

vii

Fig.4.1.2 X Torsion Analysis ......................................................................................66 Fig.4.2.1 Y Direction Lateral Load Analysis ..............................................................67 Fig.4.2.2 Y Torsion Analysis.......................................................................................67 Fig.4.3.1 Section Details of Wall Group I...................................................................68 Fig.4.3.2 Section Details of Wall Group II .................................................................69 Fig.4.3.3 Section Details of Wall Group III................................................................70 Fig.5.1 Force Equilibrium of Paulays Model ............................................................92 Fig.5.2 Coupling Beam Vertical Deformation of Paulays Model..............................92 Fig.5.3 Force Equilibrium of Hindis Truss Model.....................................................93 Fig.5.4 Shear-Chord Rotation Relationship Defined by FEMA 356 ..........................93 Fig.5.5 Shear-Chord Rotation Relationship Defined by Modified Model..................93 Fig.6.1 Nonlinear Analyses Model ...........................................................................108 Fig.6.2 Axial Load-Moment Interaction Diagram for Quadratic Beam-column Element .............................................................................................................. 109 Fig.6.3 Pushover Analysis Result .............................................................................110 Fig.6.4 Beam Vertical Deformation Caused by Rigid Link Rotations......................111 Fig.6.5 Chord Rotation Distributions at LS and CP States .......................................111 Fig.6.6 Modified Takeda Hysteresis Model..............................................................112 Fig.6.7 Strength Degradation Model Used in RUAUMOKO...................................112 Fig. 6.8 Selected Earthquake Ground Motions.........................................................113 Fig. 6.9 Acceleration Response Spectra of Earthquake Records Induced by 5

viii

Selected Ground Motions ...............................................................................114 Fig.6.10 Roof Displacement History ........................................................................115 Fig.6.11 Story Drift Envelope...................................................................................116 Fig.6.12 Member Responses under El Centro Ground Motion ................................117 Fig.6.13 Member Responses under Simulated LS Ground Motion..........................120 Fig.6.14 Member Responses under Simulated CP Ground Motion..........................123 Fig.6.15 Member Responses under Northridge Pacoima Ground Motion ...............126 Fig.6.16 Member Responses under Northridge Slymar Ground Motion..................129

ix

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Notations: M otm --Total overturning moment caused by lateral loads

T L --Moment due to the coupling effect; T is equal to the axial force at the base of

tension wall pier; L is the coupling arm, the distance between the centroids of two wall piers.

1.2 Reinforced Concrete Coupled Core Wall System The reinforced concrete coupled core wall (CCW) systems have been widely used in mid to high-rise buildings due to the architectural and structural advantages. The concrete cores in the middle of the structures accommodate elevator shafts, stairwells and service ducts to meet versatile architectural requirements. Additionally, the use of flat slab floors in CCW systems provides more architectural efficiency by reducing story heights. Most of all, CCW systems are very effective in resisting lateral loads in earthquakes and hurricanes. The effectiveness of the systems is demonstrated by the way they withstand the lateral loads: the structural lateral load resisting capacities are not increased through enlarging the member sizes, but through introducing the frame action. As Fig. 1.1 shows, two cantilever wall piers are connected by the coupling beams in between. Due to the frame action of the system, a tension force and a compression force are produced in the left and right wall piers, respectively. The magnitudes of the tension and compression are identical, either of which is equal to the sum of all coupling beam shear forces. The total overturning moment from the lateral loads ( M otm ) is resisted not only by the wall piers

( M 1 and M 2 ), but also by the coupling effect ( T L ) due to the frame action. Hence, the frame action greatly decreases the internal forces on wall piers and then reduces the deformation of the building. The degree of the frame action is expressed by a term known as the degree of coupling (DOC), which is defined as the ratio of T L to M otm . DOC equal to 0 means that no frame action exists and the system behaves as two isolated cantilever walls. On the other hand, DOC equal to 1 represents that two walls act in the way as a single solid wall. The national building code of Canada (NBCC) quantifies DOC to indicate the effectiveness of CCW systems. The buildings with DOC less than 66% are classified as partially coupled walls and those with DOC greater than 66% are considered as effectively coupled walls.

1.3 Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Beam The use of diagonally reinforced concrete beams instead of conventional concrete beam is recommended by ACI 318-02 when the ratio of the beam span to depth is less than 4. The preference of diagonally reinforced concrete beams is based on their good performance in terms of ductility and strength under cyclic loads. Experiments have illustrated the following disadvantages of conventional concrete beams with small span-to-depth ratio under seismic loads (Park and Paulay, 1975). (1) The compression stress of concrete is not reduced by placing compression reinforcement and correspondingly the increase of ductility of the beam should not be expected. The reason is that the diagonal cracks of the beam under reverse loads cause a radical redistribution of the tensile forces and tensile stress exists where conventional flexure theory indicates that compression stresses should be present. Therefore, the compression

reinforcement actually carries the tension forces instead of resisting the compression as expected. (2) The insufficiency of shear capacities of the interfaces between the beams and wall piers results in the direct sliding shear failure. Considering the flexure reinforcement dowel action can only transmit small amount of shear forces from the beams to wall piers, the bulk of the beam shear must be transferred across the concrete compression zones into the wall piers. However, the compression concrete zones have little shear-transferring ability because they have already been cracked during the preceding load cycles. (3) The stiffness of the conventional coupling beams with sufficient web reinforcement after the onset of diagonal cracking is reduced to 1/5 of the stiffness before crack. For the conventional beams without sufficient web reinforcement, the stiffness degradation is greater. The drastic loss of stiffness considerably reduces the frame action and increases the deformation of the buildings. In contrast to the conventionally reinforced concrete beams, diagonally reinforced concrete beams have superior cyclic responses even under high intensity alternating loads (Park and Paulay, 1975). Experiments show that the hysteretic loop for a diagonally reinforced concrete beam exhibits small stiffness degradation. Also, the beam displays little strength reduction with the cumulative ductility. Due to its good seismic performance, the diagonally reinforced concrete beams are employed in the design of the building presented in this research.

1.4 Strength-Based Design and Performance-Based Design Methodologies The strength-based design method requires that each individual member in the system has sufficient capacities to resist the forces induced by predetermined loads. The

strength-based design method is the basis of current building codes. ASCE 7-02 and IBC2003 codes provide the guidelines for determining the design loads and analytical methods. ACI 318-02 and AISC-99 codes are the design specifications for the concrete and steel members, respectively. The application of the strength-based design method to the design of CCW systems causes a problem: the design shear stresses in the coupling beams exceed the codedefined (ACI 318-02) limit (Harries et al., 2004). The high shear stresses are attributed to the assumption that the wall piers and beams yield simultaneously at the code specified base shear. However, the 1964 Alaska earthquake indicates that all or most coupling beams yielded before the strength of the coupled walls was attained. Theoretical studies also verify that the critical coupling beams yield before the required ductility of the systems is achieved (Park and Paulay, 1975). Recently, researchers (Harries et al., 2004) have proposed a performance-based design (PBD) method as an alternative of the strength-based design method in CCW design. Concisely, the PBD method is defined as Design and Engineering of buildings for targeted performance objectives (Bertero, 1997). The selection of the performance objectives involves several factors as the following. Firstly, the selection is made by the owner in consultation with the designers, based on the owners expectations, economic analysis, and the accepted risks. Secondly, the selected performance needs to meet the structural actual seismic behavior. Thirdly, the performance objectives need to be determined for different earthquake hazard levels. The multi-level design methodology has been advocated (Bertero, 1997) to replace the current code one-level design

methodology because the multi-level method improves the design safety, reliability, and also optimizes the design procedures to reduce the cost. A complete set of design steps using PBD method is illustrated in Fig. 1.2. Especially, the following steps can be specified (Harries et al. 2004) for seismic design of CCWs: (1) Define the desired performance objectives; (2) Design coupling beams; (3) Design wall piers; (4) Develop nonlinear force-deformation relationship for beams and wall piers; and (5) Conduct nonlinear static and dynamic analyses to check the design results.

1.5 Scope of Thesis A 15-story reinforced concrete coupled core wall building was initially designed by using the traditional strength-based method. The difficulty of the traditional method meeting the design shear limit in current building codes was encountered. Subsequently, the PBD method was used as an alternative to the same building. The performance of the building, designed by following PBD method, was evaluated by nonlinear static and dynamic analyses. Before the nonlinear analyses, an analytical model for establishing the nonlinear behavior of diagonally reinforced concrete beams was developed and verified through the use of experimental data available in literature. The thesis is organized in seven chapters. Chapter 1 briefly presents the current state of knowledge about coupled core wall systems. Chapter 2 shows the preliminary design of the 15-story building to determine its specific structural layouts. Chapter 3 provides the design procedures of the diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams with the strength-based method and performance-based method. Chapter 4 presents the

calculations for the wall piers by using the performance-based method. Chapter 5 shows the development of a theoretical model to characterize the nonlinear behaviors of diagonally reinforced concrete beams. Chapter 6 presents the nonlinear analyses of the designed coupled core wall system. Chapter 7 provides the conclusions and the suggestions for the future research.

L V1 T M1 V2 T C M2

Fig. 1.1 Lateral Load Resisting Mechanism of a Coupled Core Wall System

Check Suitability of site Yes Discuss with client the performance levels and select the minimum performance design objectives Yes Conduct conceptual overall design, selecting configuration, structural layout, structural system, structural material and nonstructural components

No

Yes Numerical preliminary design to comply simultaneously with at least two limit states

No

Acceptability checks of preliminary design using static, dynamic linear and nonlinear analysis methods

Yes Final design and detailing using available experimental data and presenting material codes and regulations

No

Acceptability checks of final design using static, dynamic linear and nonlinear analysis methods and experimental data

Fig 1.2 Flow Chart of a Conceptual Framework for Performance-Based Design (Bertero, 1997)

8

2.1 Notations: Ax : Torsion amplification factor C s : Seismic response coefficient in the ELF method

E : Elastic modulus

Fa : Site coefficient

f c' : Concrete compression strength

f y : Steel yield strength

Fv : Site coefficient

g : Gravity acceleration

M ta : Accidental torsion

R : Response modification factor

S Ms : Adjusted maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration at short period

1 second period

period T0 : Period parameter used to determine the design response spectrum, equals to 0.2 S D1 / S Ds

Vb : Design base shear from the ELF method

: Strength reduction factor

10

2.2 Objective The detailed layouts of a 15-story reinforced concrete coupled core wall office building are presented specified in this chapter. The layouts to be configured include the following: (i) story and building total height; (ii) locations of the perimeter columns, wall piers, and coupling beams; (iii) dimensions of walls, beams, columns, and floor slabs. The initial layout was based on a previous similar research focused on a 10-story reinforced concrete core wall structure (Harries et al., 2004). The results of the preliminary design were evaluated by two criteria from current building codes. The first is that the maximum story drift should not be more than 2% as required by NEHRP 2000. The second is that the degree of coupling (DOC) should be greater than 66%, which is the minimum value defined by NBCC 1995 for effectively coupled systems.

2.3 Design Preparation The structure (see Fig. 2.1) is a 15-story reinforced concrete coupled core wall office building assumed to be located in San Francisco, CA in class C site. Stories 2 through 15 each are 9 feet and 2 inches high and the ground story is 12 feet and 2 inches high. The total building height, therefore, is 140 feet and 6 inches. Post-tensioned reinforced concrete slabs, 8 inches thick and 100100 square feet large, are used in every floor of the building. The building has two load resisting systems: (a) columns uniformly distributed around the floors (see Fig. 2.2) and (b) a coupled core wall in the middle of the building. The core wall consists of two C shaped wall piers, which are connected by two coupling beams located at the ends of wall flanges. Considering the lateral stiffness of the central

11

core is much larger than that of the columns, it is assumed that the concrete core carries all of the lateral loads and resists the gravity loads in conjunction with the perimeter columns. The design of a typical interior column is shown in Table 2.1. The gravity load within its tributary area is used. Also for simplicity, it is assumed that all other columns in a floor have the same dimensions as interior columns.

2.4 Loads and Analytical Model 2.4.1 Gravity Loads Section 5.3 of NEHRP states that the gravity loads in the seismic design should cover the total dead loads and applicable portion of other loads listed in the following. (i) 25 percent of floor live load shall be applicable in areas used for storage. The selected building is for office usage; hence, this item is not included. (ii) Partition load should not be less than 10 psf. The minimum partition load of 10 psf is taken into account in the calculations. (iii) Operation equipment load. A 5 psf mechanical device load is included. (iv) Snow load. It is not included in the design because of the location of the building. Other than these code-defined gravity loads, a cladding load of 15 psf on each side of the building surfaces is included. The dead loads include the self-weight of the building, i.e., the weights of the post-tensioned floor slab, wall piers, link beams, and columns. In the analytical model, the gravity loads from columns and walls are concentrated at the center of mass of each floor. The floor heights above and below are used to calculate the floor mass. Accordingly, the gravity loads assigned to the top and ground floor will be less and more, respectively, than typical floors in the middle of the building.

12

2.4.2 Seismic Load 2.4.2.1 Design Response Spectrum NEHRP describes the earthquake motion with the following two factors. S s is the maximum ground motion at short period and S1 is that at 1 second. In San Francisco, S s and S1 are taken as 1.5g and 0.65g, respectively. The values of S s and S1 should be modified to include the influence from specific site conditions by using factors Fa and Fv . S Ms ( S s Fa ) and S M 1 ( S Ms Fv ) are the results after the site effect adjustment to represent the structural acceleration response at the short period and the period of 1 second, respectively. These values are based on the exceedance probability of 2 percent in 50 years, which is defined as the collapse prevention (CP) level earthquake by NEHRP. Hence, the calculated values need to be multiplied by 2/3 to generate the design response spectrum. The design response spectrum in NEHRP is based on the exceedance probability of 10 percent in 50 years, which is defined as life safety (LS) level earthquake. Additionally, two period values, T0 and Ts , are used to separate the spectrum into three parts, which are short period section, peak value section, and long period section, respectively. Table 2.2 shows the shape and the calculations of the design response spectrum.

2.4.2.2 Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) Method The structure is classified into seismic design category D by its specific site condition. Based on the seismic design category and structural symmetrical configuration, the equivalent lateral force (ELF) method may be used to calculate the

13

lateral seismic loads on the prototype. The basic idea of ELF is to calculate the maximum seismic response ( C s ) of the building from the design response spectrum (see Table 2.2). The code defined base shear ( Vb ) is determined as the product of C s with the building total weight ( W ). The base shear ( Vb ) is distributed to various floors based on the weight and height of each floor. The following parameters are required for the ELF method. The response modification factor ( R ) was selected as 6 in accordance with the structure type specified in NEHRP Table 5.2.2. The occupancy important factor ( I ) was taken as 1 (see NEHRP Table 1.4) considering the structure is an ordinary office building. The accidental torsion ( M ta ) corresponding to the lateral loads in each main direction should be included in the calculations, as the required by Section 5.4.4.2 of NEHRP. The inclusion of the accidental torsion for a symmetric building is to account for some factors that have not been explicitly considered in NEHRP, such as the rotational component of ground motion, unforeseeable differences between computed and actual values of stiffness, etc. The magnitude of the accidental torsion at one level is equal to the lateral force at that level multiplied by 5 percent of the building dimension perpendicular to the direction of the applied lateral load. Furthermore, Section 5.4.4.3 of NEHRP states that for structures in the seismic design category D, the accidental torsion at each level needs to be scaled up by a torsion amplification factor ( Ax ), defined as the following. Ax =(

(2.1)

14

max is the maximum displacement occurred at the corner of the building and avg is the

average displacement at the center of building. The average value of Ax in all levels representing the average torsion influence was used in the calculation (Brienen, 2002).

2.4.3 Mathematical Model ETABS (CSI Berkeley, 1997) was employed to conduct the elastic analyses. The following types of elements were used to represent the different structural members of the building. (a) The columns were modeled by column elements. The elements have been formulated to include the effect of axial, shear, bending, and torsional deformations. Considering that the columns in the building are assumed to carry the vertical loads only without any lateral resistance, the column elements in the model are pinned both at the top and bottom. (b) The post-tensioned concrete slabs in the building are modeled as rigid diaphragms, which have infinite in-plane stiffness. (c) The flanges and webs of the C shaped walls are represented by ETABS panel elements. Each panel element has been formulated as a membrane member with iso-parametric properties. The panels are continuous from level to level and fixed at the base of the building. ETABS automatically assembles three adjacent panels together to form the C shaped wall, which is considered as one unit in the analyses. (d) The coupling beams are represented by the beam elements, which have been formulated to include the effect of axial, shear, bending, and torsional deformations. The beam elements are rigidly connected to the wall panels. ACI 318-02 was used to determine the stiffness of various components. Per Section 10.11.1 of ACI, the member stiffness should account for the presence of axial

15

loads, cracks along the length of the member, and duration of the loads. Also, the following values are suggested by ACI for typical reinforced concrete structural members. For a cracked wall, the stiffness is taken as 0.35 E I g ; and for an un-cracked wall, it is taken as 0.70 E I g . Usually, the wall piers in the ground story suffer more damage, and as a result the stiffness is less than that in other stories. Hence, in the analyses, the stiffness for the ground story wall piers was taken as 0.35 E I g , and the stiffness for the walls in other stories was assumed to be 0.70 E I g . Moreover, per ACI, 0.35 E I g was used as the effective stiffness for coupling beams. Note that other equations are available to establish stiffness of diagonally reinforced coupling beams (Paulay, 1992). For consistency, ACI recommendations were used both for the walls and coupling beams. The distribution of mass is described in Section 2.4.1. This ETABS model also includes the P - effect in the force and deformation analyses. The concrete used is normal weight concrete with compression strength ( f c' ) of 6 ksi, and the reinforcement is Grade 60 with yield strength ( f y ) of 60 ksi.

2.5 Comparison of Four Prototype Models The computer model described in the previous section was used to evaluate four structures shown in Figures 2.3 to 2.6. These analyses were conducted to finalize the layouts of the prototype structure. The accepted prototype must be proportioned such that two criteria are satisfied. One is the maximum story drift of the building should be within the 2% limit defined by NEHRP. The other is that the degree of coupling (DOC) should be greater than 66 percent, as NBCC states. Table 2.3 provides a brief review of the

16

configurations and performance of these 4 models. The evolution of these 4 models is detailed in the following. Prototype I (see Fig. 2.3) was directly extracted from a 10-story building investigated in a previous study (Harries et al., 2004). The flange wall is 9 feet long and 20 inches thick, and the web wall is 18 feet long and 16 inches thick. The coupling beams connecting the two wall piers are 6 feet long with a section of 20 in24 in. The building is symmetrical about the X and Y axes. For simplicity, it is assumed that the wall dimensions remain the same over the total height of the building. The calculations of loads, internal forces and deformations of this prototype are listed in Tables A.1.1 to A.1.5 in Appendix A. The results show that the maximum story drift in the X direction is 3.93% and 4.28% in the Y direction, which exceed the 2% limit. Hence, the prototype is unacceptable. The DOC of the building is 79.7%, which satisfies the 66% minimum DOC requirement. The flange walls in Prototype II (see Fig. 2.4) were changed from 9 feet to 10 feet, and the web walls were changed from 18 feet to 20 feet. The thickness of the flanges and webs was changed from 16 inches to 20 inches. The beam dimensions remain the same as Prototype I. The purpose of the changes is to increase the structural stiffness and correspondingly reduce the maximum story drift to meet the 2% limit. The calculations shown in Tables A.2.1 to A.2.5 indicate that the maximum story drift in the X direction is 2.81% and 2.95% in the Y direction. The results also show that the DOC is 75.5%. Hence, Prototype II also does not meet the 2% story drift limit. The difference between Prototype III (see Fig. 2.5) and II is that the web walls were changed from 20 feet to 22 feet long. All other dimensions were kept the same. The

17

maximum X story drift is 2.62% and the Y story drift is 2.41% (see Tables A.3.1 to A.3.5). The structure has a DOC of 75.5%. Prototype III still does not meet the 2% deformation limit. The differences between Prototype IV (see Fig. 2.6) and Prototype III are that the length of the web walls was extended from 22 feet to 25 feet, and the dimensions of coupling beams were enlarged from 20in 24in to 20in 30in. The enlargement of the beam sections can keep the relative stiffness between the wall and the beam in order to maintain the degree of coupling, and provide more construction space to avoid congestion problems. The calculations of the maximum displacements and degree of coupling shown in Tables A.4.1 to A.4.5 (see Appendix A) indicate that Prototype IV meets both design criteria. This structure has a maximum story drift of 1.97% and 1.73% in the X and Y direction, respectively. The DOC of the structure is 79.7%. Prototype IV is selected for all the subsequent analyses and discussions.

18

Dead Loads (psf) 8 in Slab Partitions Devices Total Live Loads (psf) For Office Loads Combination 1.2Dead Load+1.6Live Load (psf) Tributary Area (ft ) Total Design Load on One Story (kips) Total Design Load of 15 Storys (kips) Required Area of the Column (in2) Assuming fc'=6 ksi =0.7 Square Root of the Required Area (in) Actual Size of the Square Column (in)

2

Item Ss S1 Fa Fv SMs SM1 SDs SD1 T0 Ts Value 1.5g 0.65g 1 1.3 1.5g 0.845g 1.0g 0.563g 0.113 0.563 Comments Directly from maps of NEHRP Directly from maps of NEHRP Determined by Table 4.1.2.4a of NEHRP Determined by Table 4.1.2.4b of NEHRP SMs=SsxFa SM1=S1xFv SDs=2/3xSMs SD1=2/3xSM1 T0=0.2SD1/SDS Ts=SD1/SDS

1.200 Sa(g) 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.400 0.200 0.000 0 T0 Ts 1 2 3 4 T (s) 5 Sa=SD1/T

19

Prototype Description The layouts of this model (see Fig.2.3) are from a previous 10-story CCW building design. The flange wall in the X direction is 9 feet long and 20 inches thick. The web wall in the Y direction is 18 feet long and 16 inches thick. The coupling beam is 6 feet long with a 20in24in section. The difference between this model (see Fig. 2.4) and Prototype I is that the flange wall in the X direction is increased from 9 feet to 10 feet, and the web wall in the Y direction is from 18 feet to 20 feet. Each wall thickness is also increased from 18 inches to 20 inches. The difference between this model (see Fig. 2.5) and Prototype II is the web wall in the Y direction is increased from 20 feet to 22 feet. The difference of this model (see Fig. 2.6) and Prototype III is that the web wall in the Y direction is lengthened from 22 feet to 25 feet, and the beam is enlarged from 20 in 24 in to 20in30in. Max X Story Drift Max Y Story Drift DOC Comments The maximum X and Y story drift are both over 2% limit. The maximum X and Y story drift are both over 2% limit. The maximum X and Y story drift are both over 2% limit. This model meets the 2% deformation limit and 66% DOC limit.

3.93%

4.28%

79.7%

II

2.81%

2.95%

75.5%

III

2.62%

2.41%

75.5%

IV

1.97%

1.73%

79.7%

20

14 stories at 9'-2"

Fig. 2.1 Elevation View of the 15-story Coupled Core Wall Building

20'

12'-2"

20'

20'

20'

tributary area:20X20 ft 2 of a typical interior column 20' 20' 20' 20' 20'

20'

21

16"

Y

18'

20"

9'

6'

9'

20"

Y

20'

20"

10'

6'

10'

22

20"

Y

22'

20"

10'

6'

10'

20"

Y

25'

20"

10'

6'

10'

23

3.1 Notations

A : Floor area

Axavg : Average of Ax of all floors

c1 , c2 : Distances from the wall neutral axis to the edge of tension wall pier or

compression wall pier, respectively (see Fig. 3.2)

D : Dead load

E : Structural response from seismic loads

f c' : Concrete compression strength

he : Effective building height, measured from the building base to the resultant force position of the first mode in the coupled direction l w : Length of a rectangular wall pier M taxm : Accidental torsion associated with Fxm

S Ds : Design spectral response acceleration at short period

24

Vbf : Beam shear due to Fxm

Vby : Shear at the base when the link beams yield

V xm : Base Shear of Mode m in the coupled direction Vt : SRSS of base shear forces of all modes under consideration

Vwy : Shear at the base when the wall piers yield

Vu : Ultimate base shear corresponding to structural ultimate displacement or ultimate limit state

W xm : Effective weight of Mode m in the coupled direction

max : Maximum ratio of the shear on one single element to the story shear

AB : Vertical displacement different between point A and B (see Fig. 3.2)

by : Vertical displacement between two ends of a link beam

: Strength reduction factor

by : Link beam yield chord rotation

25

wy : Wall pier yield rotation

: Redundancy factor

LS (life safety) and CP (collapse prevention) level seismic loads: the LS level earthquake loads represent the seismic loads with 10 percent exceedance in 50 years, and NEHRP design spectrum is generated correspondingly to the LS level ground motion. The CP level earthquake loads represent the loads with 2 percent of exceedance in 50 years. The CP level seismic loads are much more intensive than the LS level loads. The acceleration spectrum of CP level in NEHRP is 1.5 times that of LS level.

26

3.2 Introduction At the beginning of this chapter, the traditional strength-based design was carried out by following NEHRP provisions. However, it is concluded that diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams cannot be designed because the shear stresses in coupling beams exceed the ACI defined limit. After investigating plausible reasons for the large shear stresses, the performance-based design (PBD) methodology is introduced. The PBD method recognizes the expected seismic behavior of a CCW building by proposing a tristage failure mechanism. As a result, the shear forces in beams were regenerated to an accepted level. Finally, the coupling beams were detailed by following the requirements in Chapter 21 of ACI 318-02.

3.3 Traditional Strength-Based Design The modal response spectrum analysis (MRSA) method was selected to replace the equivalent lateral force (ELF) method to calculate the lateral seismic loads and related structural responses. The MRSA method allows the inclusion of higher modes of structures in addition to the fundamental mode. Therefore more precise results are possible. Per Section 5.5.2 of NEHRP, the MRSA method should include sufficient modes to obtain the total modal mass participation of at least 90 percent. According to the results listed in Table 3.1, the first two modes in the coupled direction, which respectively correspond to the first and fifth mode of the structure, have provided 91 percent of mass participation, and should be sufficient for the required analyses. Two types of seismic loads, the lateral loads ( Fxm ) and the accidental torsion ( M taxm ), are included in the modal analysis. The inclusion of M taxm is required by

27

NEHRP 5.4.4.2 to cover unforeseeable issues, which are not explicitly defined in the code. Calculations of Fxm and M taxm are summarized in Tables B.1.1 and B.1.2 in Appendix B. A 3-dimensional ETABS computer model, which includes two transverse and one torsional degrees of freedom, was developed to calculate structural elastic seismic responses. Per NEHRP, the results from ETABS elastic analyses still need to be magnified by four different factors to obtain the design shear demands for coupling beams. The first magnification factor is the torsion amplification factor ( Ax ). The equation defining Ax is provided in Section 2.4.2.2. The factor has been introduced by NEHRP as an attempt to account for the structural torsional dynamic instability. The shear forces from ETABS due to the accidental torsion ( M taxm ) were magnified by Axavg before being combined with the shear forces induced by the lateral loads ( Fxm ). The calculations of Axavg for the first two modes in the coupled direction are provided in Tables B.2.1 and B.2.2, respectively. The second factor to be considered is the redundancy factor ( ) which is defined by NEHRP as an index to increase the design reliability. Per Section 5.2.7 of NEHRP, the response of the structure due to seismic loads ( E ) is defined as the following.

E = Q E 0.2 S Ds D

(3.1)

Q E is the responses due to horizontal seismic loads, which includes the effects from

horizontal lateral forces ( Fxm ) and associated torsion ( M taxm ). The item of 0.2 S Ds D represents the effect of the vertical ground motion component, which is not considered in the beam shear analyses. Hence, following Equation 3.1 the sum of beam shear forces

28

due to Fxm and M taxm were magnified by the redundancy factor ( ). For wall piers, the factor ( ) is calculated as the following.

=2-

20

max A

(3.2)

A is the total area of the floor, which is equal to 100100 ft2. is the ratio of the shear

in a single element (torsional shear included) to the story shear. The subscript of max of

means that the maximum from all the elements should be taken. Additionally, per

Section 5.2.4.2 of NEHRP, the calculated needs to be multiplied by 10/ l w . Note that the value of 10/ l w should not be greater than 1.0 per NEHRP. Walls in the C shaped section are classified into two groups (see Fig. 3.1). The walls in the X direction are labeled as P101, P102, P201, and P202 in Group I. The walls in the Y direction are labeled as P103 and P203 in Group II. Due to the symmetry of the building, the wall piers in the same group resist the shear forces equally. Therefore, the elements in the same group produce identical values. The max used in the magnification is the greatest from these two groups among all stories in the building. Table B.3.1 and B.3.2 illustrate the details of the calculations of max and . The third scaling factor for the beam shear forces is strength reduction factor ( ). Per Section 9.3.4 (c) of ACI, is taken as 0.85 for the design of coupling beams. The last magnification factor is the base shear amplification factor ( Cb ). Section 5.5.7 of NEHRP states if the SRSS of the base shear forces of all the modes considered ( Vt ) is less than 85% of the base shear from the ELF method ( Vb ), all the seismic

29

responses of the structure should be scaled up by multiplying with the factor of Cb . Cb is defined by Equation 3.3 and its value is listed in Table 3.2. Cb =0.85 Vb / Vt The applications of the aforementioned factors for the first two modes in the coupled direction are listed respectively in Tables 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. Subsequently, the SRSS of beam shears in these two modes were generated as the design demands. Table 3.4 lists the resulting shear and shear stresses along the building stories (in psi and in terms of (3.3)

f c' ).

3.4 Traditional Strength-Based Design Result Review Section 21.7.7.4 of ACI 318-02 specifies 10 f c' as the beam maximum nominal shear stress. By referring to Table 3.4, the maximum coupling beam shear stress is 13.8

f c' occurring in level 4. Furthermore, the shear stresses from level 1 to 10 all

exceed the ACI defined maximum shear limit. Based on the code design requirement, these coupling beams can not be designed due to the large shear stresses. The practical construction conditions place another limit on the shear stress in coupling beams. The shear stress equal to 6 f c' has been recommended as the upper limit in design in order to avoid congestion problems in diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams (Harries, 2003). The congestion likely happens at two locations. The first location is the middle span, where the reinforcement in two diagonal directions meets together. The second location is the intersections between the coupling beams and wall piers, where the beam reinforcing bars interface with the wall reinforcement. A series of

30

coupling beam design studies have been conducted (Fortney, 2005) to investigate the congestion problem. These design cases have proved that a coupling beam with a shear stress close to 6 10

f c' is very difficult or impractical to be designed. Hence, the value of 6 f c' is taken

as the maximum shear stress in this study. The shear stresses of the beams except that in the top level exceed 6

coupling beams can not be designed in view of the high shear stresses. The large shear stresses in coupling beams are due to an implausible assumption used in the traditional strength-based design. It has been assumed that the wall piers and coupling beams yield simultaneously at the code-defined base shear level. However, the deformation relationship between the wall piers and coupling beams (Paulay, 2002) proves that this assumption is not correct. As Figure 3.2 shows, the vertical difference between points A and B ( AB ) due to the wall rotation (It is assumed that the two wall piers have the same rotations.) can be calculated from the following equation.

AB = w c1 + w ( Dw - c2 )= w ( Dw + c1 - c2 )

If the distance c1 is equal to c2 , Equation 3.4 can be rewritten as:

(3.4)

AB = w Dw

(3.5)

The vertical deformation ( AB ) can also be expressed using the chord rotation of the coupling beam ( b ) as the following.

AB = b s

(3.6)

31

The results from Equations 3.5 and 3.6 should be equal. Hence, the following equation is obtained.

b / w = Dw / s

(3.7)

Equation 3.7 indicates that the ratio of beam chord rotation to wall pier rotation is always equal to the ratio of the wall length to beam span. In the selected prototype, Dw is equal to 10 feet and s is taken as 6 feet. Substituting these values into Equation 3.7, the following result is obtained.

b =10/6 w =1.67 w

(3.8)

Paulay suggested the following equation for calculating the yield rotation of wall pier ( wy ) (Paulay, 2002).

wy = wy he /2

(3.9)

In the prototype structure, he is 108 feet provided by ETABS analyses. wy is assumed to be 1.55 y / Dw (Paulay, 2002). The steel yield strain ( y ) is approximately 0.002. By substituting all these parameters into Equation 3.9, the following result is calculated.

wy =1.550.002/10108/2=0.0167 rad

(3.10)

At the time when the wall pier yields, the corresponding coupling beam chord rotation can be computed by substituting wy into Equation 3.8.

b =1.670.0167=0.0280 rad

(3.11)

Paulay also recommended the following equation for computing the yield chord rotation of coupling beam ( by ) (Paulay, 2002).

(3.12)

32

d b is 1.41 inches assuming that No. 11 bars are used, and the inclination of the diagonal bars ( ) is roughly taken as tan 1 (beam height/its length)=tan 1 (30/72)=22.6 . After substituting these values into Equation 3.12, by is calculated from Equation 3.13.

(3.13)

By comparing the results of Equations 3.13 and 3.11, the ductility factor ( b ), is calculated with Equation 3.14.

b = b / by =0.028/0.0036=7.8

(3.14)

The ductility factor indicates that the beam chord rotation when the wall yields is 7.8 times its yield chord rotation. It is impossible for the coupling beams to remain elastic until the wall piers yield. The traditional strength-based design assumption of enforcing elastic behavior of coupling beams prior to yielding of the wall piers generates unrealistically high shear stresses in the coupling beams. As a matter of fact, the coupling beams in CCW systems yield much earlier than wall piers do. The early yielding of the beams helps transfer more loads to the wall piers which in turn reduces the beam shear stress dramatically.

3.5 Introduction of Performance-Based Design Method 3.5.1 Performance-Based Design Concept The traditional strength-based design method does not accurately address the real seismic performance of CCW systems. As an alternative approach, a performance-based design (PBD) method has been proposed (Harries et al., 2004) in an attempt to capture the expected seismic behavior of CCW buildings.

33

The PBD method divides the seismic behavior of a CCW system into three stages in terms of yielding sequence of the members. Figure 3.3 provides a schematic view of this tri-stage yielding mechanism. The first stage is the elastic stage, in which all the structural members (beams and wall piers) are elastic. The second stage is the transition stage, in which the beams begin to yield and the wall piers still stay elastic. The final stage is the yield stage, in which wall piers yield and beams may reach their ultimate deformation capacities. Note that at this stage the wall piers have not reached their ultimate capacity and can continue to provide resistance. The structure reaches the ultimate displacement after the plastic hinges are formed at the base of the building, and a collapse mechanism is developed. The following performance requirements for CCW systems under seismic loads are proposed to meet the tri-stage mechanism. These requirements are for the structural behaviors at the life safety (LS) and collapse prevention (CP) limit states (Refer to Section 3.1 for explanations of LS and CP limit states.). (1) Under the life safety (LS) level earthquake loads, the beams are allowed to yield but the wall piers are required to remain elastic. The maximum building story drift should be less than NEHRP-defined 2% limit. (2) Under the collapse prevention (CP) level earthquake loads, the wall piers are permitted to yield, and the beams may reach their ultimate deformation capacities. The aforementioned performance criteria coincide with the definitions of structural performance at the LS and CP levels in FEMA 356. Section 1.5.1.3 of FEMA 356 states that at the LS level earthquake, the structural components can be damaged but the structure shall still maintain a margin against onset of partial or total collapse.

34

Correspondingly, in the proposed LS level performance, the beams are damaged but the wall piers still remain essentially elastic to prevent the total collapse of the building. Additionally, according to Section 1.5.1.5 of FEMA 356 the structure under the CP level earthquake loads needs to continue to support gravity loads but retains no margin against collapse. In the proposed CP level performance, the beams and walls are allowed to yield or enter into the ultimate limit state, and the collapse mechanism is allowed to occur when plastic hinges formed at the building base.

3.5.2 Changes of Design Requirements Using PBD Method The aforementioned expected seismic response of CCW systems is different from that based on the strength-based design method. The PBD method changes the design demands for the coupling beams and wall piers. Figure 3.4 compares the design demands between the strength-based method and the PBD method. The strength-based design method requires the beams and walls yield at the code-defined base shear level. Therefore,

Vby and Vwy are rather close to the value of Vb , as illustrated in Figure 3.4.a. Note that

Vu is not required to be checked because the ductility requirements and detailing measurements for structural members in the current building codes are assumed to guarantee Vu to be developed. In PBD method, it is acceptable that beams yield before the code-defined base shear ( Vb ) is reached. The value of Vby in the figure is below the value of Vb . This means that the design forces in the beams are reduced because of the early yielding of the coupling beams. On the other hand, more loads are transferred from the beams to wall piers due to the beam yielding and therefore the PBD method increases the design forces

35

of wall piers. In Figure 3.4, the value of Vwy is above the value of Vb . The value of Vu is related to the onset of collapse mechanism due to plastic hinges at the building base or when the inter-story drift for any floor reaches 2.5% of the story height, which ever occurs first.

3.5.3 Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beam Design by PBD Method This section presents a group of steps to calculate the design shear stresses of beams. Two criteria are adopted in these steps. The first criterion is that the maximum shear stress shall not exceed 6

criterion is that the parabolic distribution of coupling beam shear stresses from the strength-based analysis shall still be reasonably retained, and different shear stresses are assigned to the beams in different groups. The objective of allocating different shear stresses is to make the beams yield approximately at the same time. The specific descriptions of these steps are as follow. The beams are classified into three groups based on their shear stresses from strength-based analysis as discussed in Section 3.4. In this project, beams from level 2 to level 7 are classified as Group I. Beams in level 1 and from level 8 to 10 are grouped together as Group II. The remaining beams from level 11 to level 15 are grouped as Group III. After grouping the beams, the average shear stress in each group is calculated. Groups I, II, and III have an average shear stress of 13.1 10.9

f c' ,

f c' , and 7.2 f c' , respectively. The average shear stress of Group I is decreased f c' to 6 f c' . The required reduction is 7.1 f c' . Similarly, the other two f c' . Finally, the minimum coupling beam steel ratio is

36

from 13.1

reviewed. ACI 21.4.3.1 defines the minimum steel ratio to be 1 percent, which results in a shear stress of 2.1

f c' . With the exception of Group III, for which the reduced shear

stress drops below ACI minimum requirement, the reduced shear stresses for Group I and II are acceptable. As shown in Fig. 3.5, the final shear stresses for Group I, II, and III are 6

The design of the diagonally reinforced concrete beam is carried out by following

the requirements in Chapter 21 of ACI 318-02. The details of the resulting coupling beams are shown in Figs. 3.6.1, 3.6.2 and 3.6.3. These coupling beams have the same configurations with slight difference in the amount of provided diagonal reinforcement. The beams in Group I have 12 No. 10 bars in the diagonal cores. The beams in Group II have 12 No. 9 bars, and beams in Group III have 12 No. 7 bars. Tables B.4.1, B.4.2, and B.4.3 in Appendix B provide design details for the coupling beams in Groups I, II, and III, respectively.

37

Table 3.1 Mass Participation of the First Two Modes in the Coupled Direction

Mode 1 Mode Mass W xm (kips) 17039 22987 74% Mode 2 3869 22987 17% 91% Total

Building Actual Mass

Mode 1 Vxm (kips) Vt SRSS of both Vxm (kips) 0.85Vb from ELF (kips) Cb =0.85Vb/Vt 1110 Mode 2 645 1284 2227 1.73

38

Vbf Vbt (Vbf+AxavgVbt) (Vbf+AxavgVbt) (Vbf+AxavgVbt)/ Cb(Vbf+AxavgVbt)/ (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) 15 53.6 13.3 67.1 99.0 116.4 202.0 14 63.0 14.8 78.1 115.2 135.6 235.1 13 76.7 16.2 93.3 137.6 161.9 280.7 12 92.9 17.8 111.1 163.8 192.8 334.3 11 109.9 19.5 129.8 191.4 225.2 390.5 10 126.6 21.1 148.1 218.4 256.9 445.6 9 142.1 22.5 165.0 243.4 286.3 496.6 8 155.8 23.7 180.0 265.4 312.3 541.6 7 167.2 24.6 192.2 283.5 333.6 578.5 6 175.8 25.0 201.2 296.7 349.1 605.5 5 180.8 24.8 206.0 303.9 357.5 620.0 4 181.2 24.0 205.7 303.3 356.8 618.9 3 175.6 22.4 198.4 292.7 344.3 597.2 2 161.7 19.8 182.0 268.3 315.7 547.5 1 135.8 16.1 152.2 224.5 264.1 458.1 Notation: (1) Vbf is calculated by ETABS. (2) Vbt is calculated by ETABS. (3) Refer to Table B.2.1 for Axavg. (4) Refer to Table B.3.1 for . (5) is 0.85, defined by ACI 318-02. (6) Refer to Table 3.2 for Cb. Story

(Vbf+AxavgVbt) (Vbf+AxavgVbt) (Vbf+AxavgVbt)/ Cb(Vbf+AxavgVbt)/ (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) 15 -38.54 -5.98 -47.0 -66.1 -77.8 -134.9 14 -44.23 -6.65 -53.7 -75.5 -88.8 -154.0 13 -50.01 -7.00 -60.0 -84.3 -99.2 -172.0 12 -53.40 -7.03 -63.4 -89.1 -104.8 -181.8 11 -52.64 -6.65 -62.1 -87.3 -102.7 -178.1 10 -46.96 -5.79 -55.2 -77.6 -91.3 -158.3 9 -36.44 -4.49 -42.8 -60.2 -70.8 -122.8 8 -21.74 -2.81 -25.7 -36.2 -42.6 -73.8 7 -4.08 -0.89 -5.3 -7.5 -8.8 -15.3 6 14.98 1.11 16.6 23.3 27.4 47.5 5 33.58 3.00 37.8 53.2 62.6 108.5 4 49.70 4.58 56.2 79.0 93.0 161.2 3 61.18 5.66 69.2 97.3 114.5 198.5 2 65.67 6.06 74.3 104.4 122.8 213.1 1 60.42 -1.88 57.7 81.2 95.5 165.6 Notation: (1) Vbf is calculated by ETABS. (2) Vbt is calculated by ETABS. (3) Refer to Table B.2.2 for Axavg. (4) Refer to Table B.3.2 for . (5) is 0.85, defined by ACI 318-02. (6) Refer to Table 3.2 for Cb. Story Vbf (kips) Vbt (kips)

39

Table 3.4 SRSS of Beam Shear Forces and Related Shear Stresses

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Shear from Mode 1 Shear from Mode 2 Shear by SRSS (kips) (kips) (kips) 202.0 -134.9 242.9 235.1 -154.0 281.1 280.7 -172.0 329.2 334.3 -181.8 380.6 390.5 -178.1 429.2 445.6 -158.3 472.9 496.6 -122.8 511.6 541.6 -73.8 546.6 578.5 -15.3 578.7 605.5 47.5 607.3 620.0 108.5 629.5 618.9 161.2 639.5 597.2 198.5 629.3 547.5 213.1 587.5 458.1 165.6 487.1 Shear Stress over root fc' (psi) 404.8 5.2 468.4 6.0 548.7 7.1 634.3 8.2 715.3 9.2 788.1 10.2 852.7 11.0 911.0 11.8 964.5 12.5 1012.2 13.1 1049.1 13.5 1065.9 13.8 1048.8 13.5 979.2 12.6 811.8 10.5

40

Y P102 P202

P103

Fig. 3.1 Labels of Wall Piers Used in the Redundancy Factor Calculation

c1

c2

w

A

Dw

s D

Dw

Fig. 3.2 Deformation Relationship between Coupling Beam and Wall Piers

41

(3)Yield Stage

Vu Vb V wy V by

Vu Vb

V wy

V by

Fig. 3.4 Comparison of Design Demands on CCW Elements between Strength-Based Method and Performance-Based Method

42

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 f c' Group I shifting 6 f' c 13.1 f ' c 3.8 f ' c Group II shifting 10.9 f ' c Group III shifting Story 2.1

f c'

7.2 f ' c

ACI Limit

10

f c'

3.8 f ' c

10.9

43

Group III Beams #11 wall longitudinal bras #4 distributed bars @5.2c-c Group II Beams #4 ties@6c-c #4 ties@4c-c diagonal box: 11"wide, 6"high (out to out) Group I Beams 6#10 #4 distributed bars @5c-c

Group II Beams

A-A

B-B

6#10

44

#11 wall longitudinal bras #4 distributed bars @5.2c-c #4 ties@6c-c #4 ties@4c-c diagonal box: 11"wide, 6"high (out to out) 6#9 #4 distributed bars @5c-c

C-C

D-D

6#9

45

#11 wall longitudinal bras #4 distributed bars @5.2c-c #4 ties@6c-c #4 ties@4c-c diagonal box: 11"wide, 6"high (out to out) 6#7 #4 distributed bars @5c-c

E-E

F-F

6#7

46

4.1 Notations Ax : Torsion amplification factor of each level in the X direction

Axavg : Average of Ax of all levels Ay : Torsion amplification factor of each level in the Y direction A yavg : Average of Ay of all levels

D : Dead Load E : Elastic modulus

F y : Lateral loads in the Y direction I g : Gross moment of inertia

I x : Moment of inertia of wall pier about its local axis parallel to the global X axis

I y : Moment of inertia of wall pier about its local axis parallel to the global Y axis

L : Live load L : Coupling arm

M tay : Accidental torsion associated with lateral loads in the Y direction

M 1x : Moment in the X direction on P100 due to lateral loads in the Y direction M 2 x : Moment in the X direction on P200 due to lateral loads in the Y direction

M 1 y : Moment in the Y direction on P100 due to lateral loads in the X direction

47

P : Compression force in wall pier section

T : Tension force in wall pier section

Vby : Beam yield shear capacity V fx1 : Shear in wall pier P101, P102 or P103 caused by lateral loads in the X

direction

V fx 2 : Shear in wall pier P201, P202 or P203 caused by lateral loads in the X

direction

V fy1 : Shear in wall pier P101, P102 or P103 caused by lateral loads in the Y

direction

V fy 2 : Shear in wall pier P201, P202 or P203 caused by lateral loads in the Y

direction Vstr : Story Shear Vtx1 : Shear in wall pier P101, P102 or P103 caused by accidental torsion in the X direction Vtx 2 : Shear in wall pier P201, P202 or P203 caused by accidental torsion in the X direction

Vty1 : Shear in wall pier P101, P102 or P103 caused by accidental torsion in the Y

direction

48

Vty 2 : Shear in wall pier P201, P202 or P203 caused by accidental torsion in the Y

direction V1x : Shear in the X direction on P100 due to lateral loads in the X direction

V1 y : Shear in the Y direction on P100 due to lateral loads in the Y direction

V2 y : Shear in the Y direction on P200 due to lateral loads in the Y direction x : Abscissa of center of the wall pier y : Ordinate of center of the wall pier

1.0X+0.3Y: Load combination with 100 percent of the X direction loads plus 30 percent of the Y direction loads 0.3X+1.0Y: Load combination with 30 percent of the X direction loads plus 100 percent of the Y direction loads

: Redundancy factor

y : Redundancy factor in the Y direction

by

L : Coupling moment

49

4.2 Introduction The wall piers were designed by using performance-based design (PBD) method. A simplified method, which covers the following characteristics of the PBD design methodology, was proposed to facilitate the application of PBD method in the practical CCW system designs. (1) In the simplified method, internal forces on wall sections are calculated assuming that all the coupling beams have yielded. Due to this early yielding, the forces on wall sections are increased (2) The tension wall and compression wall exhibit different stiffness characteristics because of the axial load effect. Hence, they resist different percentages of the total seismic loads. In this method, the relative stiffness ratio between the tension wall and the compression wall is taken as 0.3/0.7 (Paulay, 2002). As a result, the tension and compression wall piers carry 30 percent and 70 percent of the total seismic forces, respectively. (3) For consistency between the beam and wall analyses, modal spectrum response method is also used. (4) In addition to the lateral loads in the X and Y directions ( Fx and F y ), the accidental torsion in these two directions ( M tax and M tay ) associated with Fx and

F y are also included.

(5) The effects from Fx , F y , M tax , and M tay are combined by following NEHRP. The resulting axial forces and moments in two orthogonal directions are grouped together as the demands for biaxial bending design. The shear forces are considered separately as the requirement for shear design.

50

4.3 Simplified Method for Wall Pier Analyses A former method involving beam modified stiffness was suggested to account for the effect of the early yielding of coupling beams (McNeice, 2004). The purpose of manually iterating the modification of beam stiffness is to keep all beam shear forces between the beam shear capacity ( Vby ) and 1.25 times the capacity (1.25 Vby ). The range between Vby and 1.25 Vby is the expected beam yielding extent after considering the reinforcement strength hardening effect. Once all beams yield simultaneously in a particular iteration, the internal wall forces calculated by ETABS are taken as wall design demands. Obviously, this iterative method is time consuming. Every round of iteration requires a complete modal response spectrum analysis. Furthermore, no methodology for the magnitude and sequence of the needed stiffness modifications has been provided. As a result, this method is cumbersome and time-cost. The simplified method proposed in this chapter does not require iteration because all member stiffness is determined. The following requirements need to be satisfied in the implementation of this method. Per Section 5.2.5.2.2 of NEHRP, modal response spectrum analysis is required independently in two orthogonal directions for buildings in seismic design category D. The most critical load effect is from the combination of 100 percent of the forces in one direction plus 30 percent of the forces in the perpendicular direction. Therefore, the simplified method requires two independent 2-D models respectively in the X and Y direction. In each direction, modal response spectrum analysis is carried out accounting the lateral forces and the associated 5 percent accidental torsion in that direction. The wall design demands are the results from these

51

two independent analyses after the combination, which is described in details in the Section of 4.4.

4.3.1 X Direction Analyses Figure 4.1.1 displays the free-body diagram of the coupled walls with the X direction lateral forces as established from the design response spectrum. See Tables C.1.1 and C.1.2 for the details of how these forces were calculated. Because the beams are assumed to have yielded, the value of shear force at each level is equal to the beam yield capacity ( Vby ) at that level. As discussed previously, the axial forces (tensile on the left walls and compressive on the right walls for the case shown in Fig. 4.1.1) change the distribution of the lateral loads between the tension and compression walls. The tensile wall piers (P101, P102, and P103 in Fig. 4.1.1) are assumed to resist 30% of the total lateral loads, and the remaining 70% of the lateral loads is resisted by the compression walls (P201, P202, and P203 in Fig. 4.1.1). The moment in the tension walls at each story ( M 1 y ) is taken as 30% of the effective moment ( M E in Table 4.1.1), which is equal to the overturning moment (OTM in Table 4.1.1) minus the coupling effect moment ( Vby L in Table 4.1.1). The moment in the compression walls at each story is 70% taken as of the effective moment. The story shears for the tension walls ( V1x ) and compression walls ( V2 x ) are assumed to 30% and 70%, respectively, of the total story shear ( Vstr ). Subsequently, V1x is distributed equally to P101 and P102, which are in the coupled direction. The wall pier P103 carries no shear because it is perpendicular to the

52

direction of lateral loads. Similarly, V2 x is divided equally between wall piers P201 and P202. Once again, wall pier P203 carries no shear. The modal response spectrum analysis method is employed to calculate the wall pier design forces. The overturning moment and story shear are the SRSS results from the first two modes in the X direction. The lateral load and the effects of each mode are provided in Table C.1.1 and Table C.1.2. The base shear amplification factor ( Cb listed in Table 3.2) is also included to increase the values of the overturning moment and story shear. The resulting X direction lateral loads along with the effective overturning moments are listed in Table 4.1.1. The axial load, moment, and shear in the wall piers making up the tension and compression wall piers are summarized in Table 4.1.2. Figure 4.1.2 illustrates the effects of the accidental torsion in the X direction. The shear force in each wall pier is calculated by using the following equations, which ignore warping of the core wall system. Vtx =

(x (x

M tax yI y

2

Ix + y2I y )

(4.1)

Vtx =

M tax x I x

2

Ix + y2I y )

(4.2)

Equation 4.1 is used for the wall piers in the X direction, i.e., P101, P102, P201, and P202. Equation 4.2 is used for the wall piers in the Y direction, i.e., P103 and P203. The term Vtx symbolizes the shears in wall piers caused by the X direction torsion. x and

y are the distances measured from the geometry center of the wall pier to the story

center of rigidity. I x and I y are the moments of inertia about the local axes parallel to the global X and Y axes through the centroid of each wall pier, respectively. To account for

53

the effects of axial load, the stiffness I x or I y for piers P101, P102, and P103 is taken as 0.3 I g . I x or I y for pier P201, P202, and P203 is taken as 0.7 I g . Table 4.2 lists the results of the X direction torsion analysis. Combination of the lateral load and torsional effects is discussed in Section 4.4.

4.3.2 Y Direction Analyses Figure 4.2.1 shows the free-body diagram of the coupled wall under the action of the Y direction lateral loads. The applied lateral forces from the first two modes of the Y direction, as calculated from the design spectrum are used. (See Tables C.3.1 and C.3.2.) Because there is no coupling effect in the Y direction, the two wall piers act as two cantilever members with the same stiffness and equally resist the lateral loads. Hence, the moments and shear forces in the wall piers ( M 1x and V1 y in the left wall pier, and M 2 x and V2 y in the right wall pier, see Fig. 4.2.1) are equal to one half of the total overturning moment (OTM in Table C.3.3) and the total story shear ( Vstr in Table C.3.3), respectively. The values of the total overturning moment and story shear were calculated by using modal response spectrum analysis. As NEHRP requires, the first two modes in the Y direction were included. These two modes contribute to 92 percent of mass participation (see Table C.2.1). The lateral loads and their load effects in each mode are listed in Table C.3.1 and Table C.3.2. The SRSS results of load effects scaled up by the base shear amplification factor ( Cb in Table C.2.2) are listed in Table C.3.3. The resulting forces after the load distribution between two wall piers are summarized in Table 4.3. Note that the walls in the perpendicular direction do not carry any shear unless

54

the effects of torsion are taken into account. Wall pier P103 in the Y direction carries the entire story shear in the left wall pier ( V1 y in Fig. 4.2.1) and wall piers P101 and P102 perpendicular to the direction of later loads carry no shear. Similarly, wall pier P203 carries the entire story shear in the right wall pier ( V2 y in Fig. 4.2.1) and wall pier P201 and P202 carries no shear. The additional shear forces due to torsion, which in this case is accidental torsion, are shown in Fig. 4.2.2. The analysis procedure is the same as that descried for computing the effects of accidental torsion in the X direction. The only difference is that the wall piers have the same stiffness values, and as a result shear forces are distributed based on their gross stiffness. The results are listed in Table 4.4. The combinations of additional shear forces due to torsion with shear forces from lateral loads are presented in Section 4.4.

4.4 Load Combinations The lateral loads in the X and Y directions ( Fx and F y ) and their associated tonsions ( M tax and M tay ) result in four sets of forces that need to be combined in order to obtain the design demands for wall piers. The load combinations are carried out based on the following NEHRP provisions. (1) Section 5.2.5.2.2 states that the most critical load effect is assumed to be 100 percent of the forces for one direction plus 30 percent of the forces for the perpendicular direction. (2) Section 5.4.4.2 states that torsion shall be considered simultaneously with lateral loads in the same direction. (3) Section 5.4.4.3 states that torsional effects shall be enlarged using the torsion amplification factor ( Ax ). (4) Section 5.2.7 states that effects from horizontal seismic loads shall be scaled up by

55

multiplying them by the redundancy factor ( ). (5) Section 5.5 states that the vertical seismic loads (taken as 0.2 S Ds D ) and gravity loads (summarized in Table C.4) shall be taken into account for load combinations in the gravity direction. With the aforementioned summary of NEHRP specifications, axial force, moment in X, moment in Y, and shear force are completed from 1.0X+0.3Y and 0.3X+1.0. In each load condition, the tension wall pier (P100 in Fig. 4.1.1) and the compression wall pier (P200 in Fig. 4.1.1) are distinguished from each other. Note that the focus is on the wall piers in the coupled direction. (a) Axial Force (a.1) 1.0X+0.3Y (100 Percent of the X Direction Loads Plus 30 Percent of the Y Direction Loads) For tension Wall Pier (P100) For Compression Wall Pier (P200) 0.9 D -0.2 S Ds D - x T (4.3) (4.4)

The redundancy factor in the X direction ( x in Table C.5.1) is used because for this load condition it is the major direction (the direction with 100 percent lateral loads). The term 0.2 S Ds D represents the effects of vertical component of ground motion per NEHRP. The terms D and L are the gravity loads on the wall section due to the dead and live load, respectively (given in Table C.4). The signs of vertical earthquake load effects in Equations 4.3 and 4.4 were selected to produce the largest axial loads in the tension and compression wall piers. (a.2) 0.3X+1.0Y (30 Percent of the X Direction Loads Plus 100 Percent of the Y Direction Loads)

56

For tension Wall Pier (P100) For Compression Wall Pier (P200)

(4.5) (4.6)

For this case, 30 percent of the X direction loads are included, and therefore the axial loads ( T and P ) from the X direction loads are reduced by multiplying them by 0.3. The use of the redundancy factor y implies the major direction changes to the Y direction in this condition. The resulting design axial forces, which account for biaxial loading, are summarized in Tables 4.5.1 and 4.5.2. (b) Moment in the X direction (b.1) 1.0X+0.3Y (100 Percent of the X Direction Loads Plus 30 Percent of the Y Direction Loads) For Tension Wall Pier (P100) For Compression Wall Pier (P200) 0.3 x M 1x 0.3 x M 2 x (4.7) (4.8)

(b.2) 0.3X+1.0Y (30 Percent of the X Direction Loads Plus 100 Percent of the Y Direction Loads) For Tension Wall Pier (P100) For Compression Wall Pier (P200)

y M 1x y M 2x

(4.9) (4.10)

Note that only the loads in the Y direction produce moments in the X direction. Therefore, only M 1x and M 2 x are used for case (b.1) or (b.2). However, the redundancy factors are different because they are a function of the major direction of lateral loads. (c) Moment in the Y Direction (c.1) 1.0X+0.3Y (100 Percent of the X Direction Loads Plus 30 Percent of the Y Direction Loads)

57

For Tension Wall Pier (P100) For Compression Wall Pier (P200)

x M 1y x M 2y

(4.11) (4.12)

(c.2) 0.3X+10Y (30 Percent of the X Direction Loads Plus 100 Percent of the Y Direction loads) For Tension Wall Pier (P100) For Compression Wall Pier (P200) 0.3 y M 1 y 0.3 y M 2 y (4.13) (4.14)

The moments as computed from aforementioned cases are summarized in Table 4.5.1 and 4.5.2. (d) Shear Force (d.1) 1.0X+0.3Y (100 Percent of the X Direction Loads Plus 30 Percent of the Y Direction Loads) For Tension Wall Piers Parallel to the X Direction (P101 and P102):

For Tension Wall Piers Parallel to the Y Direction (P103):

(4.15)

For Compression Wall Piers Parallel to the X Direction (P201 and P202):

(4.16)

For Compression Wall Piers Parallel to the Y Direction (P203):

(4.17)

(4.18)

The Y direction loads have no effect in the wall piers parallel to the X direction, and correspondingly the components V fy1 or V fy 2 do not appear in the Equations 4.15 and 4.17. Similarly, Equations 4.16 and 4.18 do not include the effects from the X direction

58

lateral loads ( V fx1 or V fx 2 ) in the wall piers parallel to the Y direction (P103 and P203). As discussed previously (Section 4.3.1), the compression and tension wall piers resist 70% and 30% of the total X direction lateral loads, respectively. Therefore, V fx1 and V fx 2 are 30% and 70% of the total lateral loads in the X direction. Since the walls are not coupled in the Y direction, the tension and compression wall piers resist 50% of the total lateral loads in the Y direction, i.e., V fy1 and V fy 2 are equal to 50% of the total Y direction lateral loads. For simplicity, the average torsion amplification factors ( A xavg in Table C.5.2 and A yavg in Table C.6.2) are used to scale up the responses due to torsion irregularity per NEHRP 5.4.4.3. In contrast to other studies (Brienen, 2002) that have ignored the minor direction torsion, bidirectional accidental torsion is included in this research. (d.2) 0.3X+1.0Y (30 Percent of the X Direction Loads Plus 100 Percent of the Y Direction Loads) For Tension Wall Piers Parallel to the X Direction (P101 and P102):

For Tension Wall Piers Parallel to the Y Direction (P103):

(4.19)

For Compression Wall Piers Parallel to the X Direction (P201 and P202):

(4.20)

For Compression Wall Piers Parallel to the Y Direction (P203):

(4.21)

(4.22)

59

Based on the discussion for the previous case, V fx1 and V fx 2 are equal to 30% and 70% of the total X direction lateral loads, respectively. V fy1 and V fy 2 are equal to 50% of the total Y direction lateral loads. The combined shear forces are listed in Tables 4.6.1 and 4.6.2. The shaded cells represent the maximum shear demands for wall piers, which are used for wall design discussed in the next section.

4.5 Wall Pier Design The design moments (see Table 4.5.1 and 4.5.2) decrease along the building height. The building floors are grouped into three types. Levels 1 to 3 are classified as Group I, levels 4 to 7 as Group II , and levels 8 to 15 as Group III. Each group was designed based on the requirements in Chapter 21 of ACI 318-02. As Section 21.7.6 of ACI requires, boundary elements are provided at the ends of wall flanges and the intersections between flanges and webs. The boundary element design calculations are presented in Tables C.7.1 through C.7.3 in Appendix C. The biaxial bending moment demands (see Tables 4.5.1 and 4.5.2) establish the longitudinal reinforcement in the wall sections. The effects of confinement due to boundary elements were taken into account for computing the bending moment and axial capacities of the wall piers. A program called XTRACT (Imbsen, 2002) was used to generate the axialmoment interaction diagrams (see Figures C.1.1 through C.1.3). These figures show that each wall group has adequate biaxial bending capacities to resist the design forces. Shear design of the wall pier is summarized in Table C.8.1 through C.8.3. The cross sectional details are shown in Figures 4.3.1 through 4.3.3.

60

Table 4.1.1 Lateral Load Effects and Effective Moments in the X Direction

Beam Coupling Effects Effective Overturning Moments Beam Shear Coupling Capacity Vby Story OTM Story Shear Vstr ME=OTM-VbyL (two beams Moment=VbyL (k-ft) (kips) (k-ft) included) (k-ft) (kips) 15 3060 335 229 4953 -1893 14 9048 655 229 9907 -858 13 17381 913 229 14860 2521 12 27484 1110 229 19813 7670 11 38828 1254 229 24767 14061 10 50979 1360 382 33023 17956 9 63634 1445 382 41278 22355 8 76642 1529 382 49534 27108 7 90003 1626 485 60019 29984 6 103833 1741 485 70504 33329 5 118301 1867 485 80988 37313 4 133566 1992 485 91473 42093 3 149710 2100 485 101958 47752 2 166705 2180 485 112442 54263 1 190340 2227 382 120698 69642 Notations: (1) Refer to Table C.1.3 for calculations of lateral load effects. (2) L, the coupling arm, is 21.6 ft shown in Fig. 4.1.1. Lateral Load Effects

Table 4.1.2 X Direction Lateral Load Effect Distribution between Wall Piers

Left Side Wall P100 in Tension Right Side Wall P200 in Compression Vfx1 on Vfx1 on Vfx2 on Vfx2 on V on Vfx1 on M2y V2x V1x Story T=Vby M1y P101= P102= P201= P202= fx2 P=Vby =0.3ME =0.3Vstr =0.7ME =0.7Vstr P103 P203 0.5V1x 0.5V1x 0.5V2x 0.5V2x (kips) (kips) (k-ft) (kips) (k-ft) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) 15 229 -568 100 50 50 0 229 -1325 234 117 117 0 14 459 -258 196 98 98 0 459 -601 458 229 229 0 13 688 756 274 137 137 0 688 1765 639 319 319 0 12 917 2301 333 166 166 0 917 5369 777 388 388 0 11 1147 4218 376 188 188 0 1147 9843 878 439 439 0 10 1529 5387 408 204 204 0 1529 12569 952 476 476 0 9 1911 6707 434 217 217 0 1911 15649 1012 506 506 0 8 2293 8132 459 229 229 0 2293 18976 1070 535 535 0 7 2779 8995 488 244 244 0 2779 20989 1138 569 569 0 6 3264 9999 522 261 261 0 3264 23330 1219 609 609 0 5 3749 11194 560 280 280 0 3749 26119 1307 654 654 0 4 4235 12628 598 299 299 0 4235 29465 1394 697 697 0 3 4720 14326 630 315 315 0 4720 33427 1470 735 735 0 2 5206 16279 654 327 327 0 5206 37984 1526 763 763 0 1 5588 20893 668 334 334 0 5588 48749 1559 779 779 0 Notation: See Fig. 4.1.1 for the locations of P100, P101, P102, P103, P200, P201, P202 and P203.

61

Story 15 Mtax (k-ft) Shear on Compression Wall Shear on Tension Wall Components (kips) Components (kips) Vtx1 on Vtx2 on Vtx2 on Vtx1 on P101 Vtx1 on P102 Vtx2 on P201 P103 P202 P203 1668 2 -2 -34 5 -5 80 -10 -13 -16 -19 -20 -21 -23 -24 -26 -28 -29 -31 -32 -33 157 219 266 301 326 347 367 390 418 448 478 504 523 534

14 3267 4 -4 -67 10 13 4552 6 -6 -94 13 12 5535 7 -7 -114 16 11 6256 8 -8 -129 19 10 6782 9 -9 -140 20 9 7208 9 -9 -149 21 8 7627 10 -10 -157 23 7 8111 10 -10 -167 24 6 8683 11 -11 -179 26 5 9313 12 -12 -192 28 4 9934 13 -13 -205 29 3 10474 13 -13 -216 31 2 10871 14 -14 -224 32 1 11107 14 -14 -229 33 Notation: See Fig. 4.1.2 for the locations of P101, P102, P103, P201, P202 and P203.

Table 4.3 Y Direction Lateral Load Effect Distribution between Wall Piers

P100 Story M1x=0.5 V1y=0.5 Vstr Vfy1 on Vfy1on OTM P101 P102 (kips) (k-ft) (kips) (kips) Vfy2 on P103 =V1y (kips) P200 M2x=0.5 V on V2y=0.5Vstr fy2 OTM P201 (kips) (k-ft) (kips) Vfy2 on P202 (kips) Vfy2 on P203 =V2y (kips)

15 1561 170 0 0 170 1561 170 0 0 170 14 4573 329 0 0 329 4573 329 0 0 329 13 8712 452 0 0 452 8712 452 0 0 452 12 13673 544 0 0 544 13673 544 0 0 544 11 19196 611 0 0 611 19196 611 0 0 611 10 25078 660 0 0 660 25078 660 0 0 660 9 31194 702 0 0 702 31194 702 0 0 702 8 37491 745 0 0 745 37491 745 0 0 745 7 43990 796 0 0 796 43990 796 0 0 796 6 50757 856 0 0 856 50757 856 0 0 856 5 57877 921 0 0 921 57877 921 0 0 921 4 65424 985 0 0 985 65424 985 0 0 985 3 73433 1041 0 0 1041 73433 1041 0 0 1041 2 81890 1084 0 0 1084 81890 1084 0 0 1084 1 93690 1114 0 0 1114 93690 1114 0 0 1114 Notations: (1) See Fig. 4.2.1 for the locations of P100, P101, P102, P103, P200, P201, P202 and P203. (2) Refer to Table C.3.3 for calculations of lateral load effects, i.e, OTM and Vstr.

62

Story Mtay (k-ft) Shear on Left Side Wall Components (kips) Shear on Right Side Wall Components (kips)

Vty1 on P101 Vty1 on P102 Vty1 on P103 Vty2 on P201 Vty2 on P202 Vty2 on P203 -4 -7 -10 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -18 -19 -21 -22 -23 -24 -58 -113 -155 -187 -210 -227 -241 -256 -274 -294 -316 -338 -358 -372 -382

15 1702 4 -4 58 4 14 3287 7 -7 113 7 13 4523 10 -10 155 10 12 5443 12 -12 187 12 11 6107 13 -13 210 13 10 6598 14 -14 227 14 9 7017 15 -15 241 15 8 7452 16 -16 256 16 7 7964 17 -17 274 17 6 8561 18 -18 294 18 5 9208 19 -19 316 19 4 9846 21 -21 338 21 3 10408 22 -22 358 22 2 10844 23 -23 372 23 1 11135 24 -24 382 24 Notation: See Fig. 4.2.2 for the locations of P101, P102, P103, P201, P202 and P203.

Table 4.5.1 Design Demands for Biaxial Bending Design with 1.0X+0.3Y Combination

P100 (Biaxial Bending Case 1) Story Tension (kips) Mx (k-ft) My (k-ft) P200 (Biaxial Bending Case 2) Compression (kips) Mx (k-ft) My (k-ft)

(0.9D-0.2SDsD 0.3xM1x/ xM1y/ (xP+0.2SDsD+1.2D+0.5L)/ 0.3xM2x/ xM2y/ xT)/ 15 -192 756 -917 751 756 -2139 14 -385 2214 -416 1502 2214 -970 13 -577 4218 1221 2253 4218 2849 12 -769 6620 3714 3004 6620 8666 11 -962 9294 6808 3755 9294 15885 10 -1401 12142 8694 4753 12142 20286 9 -1840 15103 10824 5751 15103 25256 8 -2279 18152 13125 6749 18152 30625 7 -2885 21299 14518 7913 21299 33875 6 -3490 24575 16137 9077 24575 37653 5 -4096 28023 18066 10242 28023 42154 4 -4702 31677 20381 11406 31677 47555 3 -5307 35555 23121 12570 35555 53948 2 -5913 39649 26273 13735 39649 61303 1 -6322 45363 33719 14792 45363 78678 Notations: (1) Refer to Table C.4 in Appendix C for values of D and L (2) Refer to Table C.5.2 for the value of x (3) is 0.9 for tension controlled failure. 63

Table 4.5.2 Design Demands for Biaxial Bending Design with 0.3X+1.0Y Combination

P100 (Biaxial Bending Case 3) Story P200 (Biaxial Bending Case 4) Tension (kips) Mx (k-ft) My (k-ft) Compression (kips) Mx (k-ft) My (k-ft) (0.9D-0.2SDsD yM1x/ 0.3yM1y/ (0.3yP+0.2SDsD+1.2D+0.5L)/ yM2x/ 0.3yM2y/ 0.3yT)/ 15 79 2230 -243 479 2230 -568 14 159 6533 -110 958 6533 -258 13 238 12446 324 1438 12446 756 12 318 19533 986 1917 19533 2301 11 397 27422 1808 2396 27422 4218 10 411 35826 2309 2941 35826 5387 9 425 44562 2874 3486 44562 6707 8 439 53559 3485 4030 53559 8132 7 409 62843 3855 4619 62843 8995 6 379 72509 4285 5208 72509 9999 5 349 82681 4797 5797 82681 11194 4 318 93463 5412 6386 93463 12628 3 288 104905 6140 6975 104905 14326 2 258 116985 6977 7564 116985 16279 1 302 133843 8954 8169 133843 20893 Notations: (1) Refer to Table C.4 in Appendix C for values of D and L. (2) Refer to Table C.6.2 for the value of y (3) is 0.9 for tension controlled failure.

Table 4.6.1 Design Demands for Shear Design with 1.0X+0.3Y Combination

Shear with 1.0X+0.3Y Effect Combination (kips) P102 P103 P201 P202 P203 Story x(Vtx1Axavg+ x(Vfx2+Vtx2Axavg x(Vfx2+Vtx2Axavg x(Vtx2Axavg+ x(Vfx1+Vtx1Axavg x(Vfx1+Vtx1Axavg 0.3Vfy1+0.3Vty1A +0.3Vty2 Ayavg) +0.3Vty2 Ayavg) 0.3Vfy2+0.3Vty2 +0.3Vty1Ayavg) / +0.3Vty1Ayavg) / / / Ayavg) / yavg) / 15 104 104 207 239 239 299 14 203 203 402 468 468 583 13 283 283 556 652 652 807 12 344 344 671 793 793 977 11 389 389 755 896 896 1100 10 422 422 816 972 972 1191 9 448 448 868 1032 1032 1266 8 474 474 921 1093 1093 1342 7 504 504 982 1162 1162 1430 6 540 540 1054 1244 1244 1534 5 579 579 1133 1334 1334 1647 4 618 618 1211 1423 1423 1759 3 652 652 1279 1501 1501 1857 2 676 676 1330 1558 1558 1931 1 691 691 1364 1591 1591 1977 Notations: (1) Refer to Table C.5.2 for the value of x. (2) Refer to Table C.5.1 for the value of Axavg. (3) is 0.75 for shear design. P101

64

Table 4.6.2 Design Demands for Shear Design with 0.3X+1.0Y Combination

Shear with 1.0X+0.3Y Effect Combination (kips) P101 P102 P103 P201 P202 P203 Story y(Vty1Ayavg+0.3 y(Vty1Ayavg+0.3 y(Vty2Ayavg+0.3 y(Vty2Ayavg+0.3 (V +V A (V +V A Vfx1+0.3Vtx1Axavg Vfx1+0.3Vtx1Axavg y fy1 ty1 yavg Vfx2+0.3Vtx2Axavg Vfx2+0.3Vtx2Axavg y fy2 ty2 yavg +0.3Vtx1Axavg) / +0.3Vtx2Axavg) / ) / ) / ) / ) / 15 450 34 34 426 70 70 14 66 66 823 137 137 871 13 92 92 1133 190 190 1200 12 1445 112 112 1364 231 231 11 127 127 1531 261 261 1623 10 137 137 1655 283 283 1754 9 1865 146 146 1759 301 301 8 154 154 1868 319 319 1980 7 2115 164 164 1996 339 339 6 2273 176 176 2145 363 363 5 189 189 2307 389 389 2444 4 202 202 2467 415 415 2612 3 2761 213 213 2607 438 438 2 221 221 2716 455 455 2875 1 2951 226 226 2788 465 465 Notations: (1) Refer to Table C.6.2 for the value of.y. (2) Refer to Table C.6.1 for the value of Ayavg. (3) is 0.75 for shear design.

65

F.B.D

Tension Wall P100 X Modal Lateral Load Compression Wall P200

Lines through Beam Inflection Points

0.5V1x 0.5V2x

P102

P103

P202

P203

Vstr

Beam Axial Force Beam Axial Force

P101

P201

A V 1x M 1y

L P T V 2x M 2y

Notation: The stiffness ratio between P100 and P200 is 0.3/0.7 due to the coupling effect.

Y

X

V tx on P103

M tax

V tx on P203

V tx on P101

V tx on P201

Notation: The stiffness ratio between P100 and P200 is 0.3/0.7 due to the coupling effect.

66

V1y

P103

P101 P102

Y

Vstr

P201

P203

V2y

X

A-A A A V1y ,V 2y M 1x ,M 2x

Notation: P100 and P200 have the same stiffness without the coupling effect.

V ty on P102 P100

V ty on P202 P200

X

V ty on P103

M tay

P202

V ty on P203

V ty on P201 Notation: P100 and P200 have the same stiffness without the coupling effect.

Fig.4.2.2 Y Direction Torsion Analysis

V ty on P101

67

Distributed reinforcement in the flange two curtains vertical:#7 @8" c-c horizontal: #7@8" c-c

Group II Walls

Group I Walls

Distributed reinforcement in the web two curtains vertical:#7 @10" c-c horizontal: #7@ 10" c-c

8 5.41

6.80 6.80 6.80 6.80

5.41 7 5.41

68

Distributed reinforcement in the flange two curtains vertical:#7 @10" c-c horizontal: #7@10" c-c

Distributed reinforcement in the web two curtains vertical:#7 @10" c-c horizontal: #7@10" c-c

transverse confinement bar:#7@5" c-c longitudinal bras:24 #11 transverse confinement bar:#7@5" c-c longitudinal bras:9 #11

6.80 6.80

5.41

5.41 5.41

69

Distributed reinforcement in the flange two curtains vertical:#7 @16" c-c horizontal: #7@16" c-c

Distributed reinforcement in the web two curtains vertical:#7 @18" c-c horizontal: #7@18" c-c

5.41

transverse confinement bar:#7@8" c-c longitudinal bars:14 #11 transverse confinement bar:#7@8" c-c longitudinal bars:6 #11

6.80 6.80

10.82

70

5.1 Notations Ac : Confined core area As : Area of the reinforcement in one diagonal core

b : Beam width

C y : Yield compression force of a diagonal core

E : Elastic modulus

f c ( y ): Concrete stress at the steel yielding strain, y represents steel yield strain

f y : Steel yield strength

'

h : Beam depth

I g : Gross moment of inertia

71

L : Beam span

T y : Yield tension force of a diagonal core

V y : Beam yield shear capacity

T : Elongation of the diagonal tension core

C : Shortening of the diagonal compression core

y : Beam yield vertical deformation between two ends

y : Steel yield strain

y : Beam yield chord rotation

72

5.2 Objective Tables 6.18 and 6.19 in FEMA 356 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000) provide values for strength and rotation capacities of diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams. However, the stated capacities do not correspond to those observed experimentally and are conservative. Nonlinear modeling of coupled core wall structures requires accurate assessment of rotation capacity and strength of diagonally reinforced coupling beams. Using experimental data from tests conducted between 1970s and 2000s, two previously proposed analytical models and FEMA 356 were evaluated. A new model was developed to overcome the deficiencies of the available models, and to better predict the expected rotation capacity and strength of diagonally reinforced coupling beams.

5.3 Test Data The database (Shahrooz, 2005) contains data from 16 tests, as shown in Table 5.1. The following tests were included in the data base. (a) Three beams tested by Paulay in 1974 (Paulay, 1974). One of the beams had an unconfined concrete core whereas the other two specimens were with confined concrete. (b) A diagonally reinforced concrete beam tested by Santhakumar in 1974 at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand (Paulay, Santhakumar, 1976). (c) Two specimens with unconfined concrete cores tested by Barney (Barney et al., 1978). (d) Two beams with confined cores tested by Tassios (Tassios, 1996).

73

(e) A series of tests containing seven specimens conducted by Galano (Galano, 2000). (f) A specimen with confined core tested in 2001 by Hindi (Hindi, 2001).

5.4 Evaluation of Theoretical Models 5.4.1 Paulays Model (Paulay, 2002) This model is structured with the assumption that the concrete in cores of the coupling beam can stabilize the diagonal steels from buckling but has no contribution to the beam capacity. At the time of steel bars yielding, the concrete has already cracked severely and lost its capacity. Hence, the steel bars predominantly control the strength of the beam. The capacity of a diagonal coupling beam is calculated based on the statically determined model illustrated in Fig. 5.1. The yield forces of diagonal steel bars are calculated by Equation 5.1. The term T y represents tension force and the term C y symbolizes the compression force. Due to the symmetric configuration of the beam in the two diagonal directions, T y is equal to C y . Using equilibrium equations, the yield shear capacity ( V y ) and yield moment capacity ( M y ) are computed by Equations 5.2 and 5.3.

Ty = C y = As f y V y =2 T y sin M y = V y L /2

74

Paulays model is based on a perfect elastic-plastic strain stress model for the steel bars. Therefore, the beam ultimate strengths, which occur at the steel ultimate strain, are equal to the yield strengths as Equation 5.4 shows. Vu = V y , M u = M y (5.4)

The second part of the model deals with the coupling beam deformations. The elongation of the diagonal tension chord ( T ) of a coupling beam at the time yielding of bars can be expressed by Equation 5.5. The first term in the parentheses is the elongation of the bars and the second term is the deformation due to the anchorage sliding.

T = y ( L /cos +16 d b )

(5.5)

Experimental data suggest that the shortening ( C ) of the diagonal compression chord is 30 percent of T . The average diagonal deformation is ( T + C )/2. By referring to Fig. 5.2, deformation y is the vertical component of the average diagonal deformation. If the inclination of the diagonal is , y is calculated by Equation 5.6. The chord rotation y , calculated as the ratio of y to the beam span L , is obtained from Equation 5.7.

y =( T + C )/(2sin )=1.3 T /(2sin )=0.65 y ( L /cos +16 d b )/sin

(5.6) (5.7)

y=y /L

At the ultimate limit state, the strain of a bar reaches u . An empirical equation (Segui, 2003) considering 1 percent strain hardening effect is used to establish u . This relationship is shown in Equation 5.8. The vertical deformation and chord rotation at the

75

ultimate state ( u and u ) is calculated by replacing y in Equations 5.6 and 5.7 with u .

u =12 y +( f u - f y )/(0.1 E )

u =0.65 u ( L /cos +16 d b )/sin

u = u / L

Using Equations 5.1 to 5.10, the capacities and chord rotations at the yield and ultimate limit states of the 16 beams in the database were calculated. The results are listed in Table 5.2.

5.4.2 Hindis Model (Hindi, 2001) Riyadh Hindi proposed a truss model to analyze the capacity and deformation of diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams (Hindi and Sexsmith, 2001). This model is similar to Paulays model except that confined diagonal concrete is assumed to develop its compression strength and contribute toward capacity. This assumption is based on axial restraining effects of floor slabs that can prevent formation of large cracks. As shown in Fig 5.3, at the onset of yielding, the diagonal tension force T y is equal to A s f y . The diagonal compression force C y includes yielding force of the diagonal bars and the concrete compression force, as expressed in Equation 5.11.

C y = A s f y + A c f c ( y )

(5.11)

In this equation, A c is the confined concrete core area and f c ( y ) is the concrete stress at the steel yielding strain y . The shear capacity is the sum of the vertical components of

C y and T y , as shown in Equation 5.12 shows.

76

V y =( T y + C y )sin

(5.12)

At the ultimate limit state, the steel remains at its yielding strength and the concrete reaches the peak strain. Hence, the tension force Tu remains the same as A s f y , but the concrete compression force is changed to A c f cc , as shown in Equation 5.13. Cu = A s f y + A c f cc

' ' '

(5.13)

In this equation, f cc is confined concrete strength at its peak strain cc . The ultimate capacity is calculated from Equation 5.14. Vu =( Tu + Cu )sin (5.14)

The deformations at yield and ultimate limit states are calculated based on the assumption that shortening and elongation along the two diagonal directions are the same. Moreover, deformations in the anchorage region are ignored. Therefore, Equation 5.6 is rewritten as Equation 5.15 and y is calculated from Equation 5.16.

y = y L /sin

(5.15) (5.16)

y = y / L = y / sin

Similar to Paulays model, vertical deformation and chord rotation at the ultimate limit state ( u and u ) are obtained by replacing y with cc in the previous equations to obtain Equations 5.17 and 5.18. u = cc L /sin (5.17) (5.18)

u = u / L = cc / sin

The calculated deformations and capacities of the 16 beams in the database are calculated based on the aforementioned equations. The results are organized in Table 5.3.

77

5.5 FEMA 356 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000) Section 6.8.2.3 of FEMA 356 states that the nominal flexure and shear strength of a diagonally reinforced concrete beam shall be evaluated using principles and equations from Chapter 21 of ACI 318-02. ACI 318-02 uses the same equation as Paulays model to get the beam strength. Therefore, FEMA 356 and Paulays model are identical in how strengths of diagonally reinforced concrete beams are calculated. However, the two methods are different in so far as how deformation capacities are calculated. FEMA 356 provides an effective stiffness value ( I e ) of 0.5 E C I g for the coupling beam. Assuming the coupling beam is deformed in double curvature like a typical elastic beam with two fixed ends, the vertical deformation of the beam can be derived from the following equation.

y = M y L2 /(6 E C I e ) = M y L2 /(3 E C I g )

(5.19)

The chord rotation at yield is calculated by dividing y by the span length ( L ). For the post-yield stage, a value of 0.030 is suggested by FEMA 356 as the difference between the ultimate chord rotation and the yield rotation. Thus, the ultimate chord rotation u is equal to y plus 0.030, as shown in Equation 5.20.

u = y +0.030

(5.20)

Table 5.4 lists the calculated capacities and deformations of the 16 beams in the database.

5.6 Statistical Analyses and Evaluation of Methods The calculated yield strength, ultimate strength, yield chord rotation, and ultimate chord rotation are compared against the corresponding measured values. The ratios of the

78

computed to the measured values are tabulated in Table 5.5. Clearly, the models capture the observed capacities if this ratio is close to 1.0. Each of the aforementioned quantities is evaluated in the following subsections.

5.6.1 Yield Strength FEMA 356 and Paulays models produce capacities larger than the actual values for only 4 cases out of 16 test specimens. The average yield strength from FEMA or Paulays model is 0.84 times the measured value with a coefficient of variation of 28%. The lower calculated capacity may be attributed to the fact that FEMA 356 and Paulays model ignore the contribution of the core concrete to the beam capacity. For Hindis model, the average value is 1.38 and coefficient of variation is 24%. Hence, Hindis model tends to overestimate the yield capacity. Among the 16 specimens, the capacity for only 1 case is less than the test value. The overestimation of capacity from Hindis model is apparently because the contribution of confined core concrete is estimated excessively.

5.6.2 Ultimate Strength Similar to yield strength, FEMA or Paulays model underestimates the coupling beam ultimate strength. For all of the16 specimens, the ultimate capacities from FEMA 356 or Paulays model are less than the test values. The average value is 0.69 with a coefficient of variation of 12%. For Hindis model, 3 cases out of the 16 specimens have smaller ultimate capacities than the test values. The average value of calculated/measured ultimate capacity is 1.32 and coefficient of variation is 30%. The results indicate again

79

that Hindis model overestimates the beam ultimate strength as it does for calculating the yield strength. 5.6.3 Yield Chord Rotation Compared with the experimental results, extremely small yield rotations are produced by using FEMA method. None of the calculated yield rotations is larger than the measured rotations, with the average and coefficient of variation of calculated/measured ratio being 0.11 and 105%, respectively. The results imply that FEMA method can not accurately represent the real behavior of coupling beams. The major difference is attributed to the use of elastic beam analysis method in FEMA 356. This method appears to be applicable to the conventional beams but inappropriate for diagonally reinforced concrete beams as the deformation characteristics of the diagonally reinforced beams and conventionally reinforced beams are significantly different (Park and Paulay, 1975). Hindis model results in the average value and coefficient of variation of calculated/measured ratio of 0.99 and 46%, respectively. These values suggest that Hindis model apparently provides good estimates of the yield rotation for diagonally reinforced concrete beams. The yield rotations as computed by Paulays method are smaller than the experimental values for 13 out of 16 specimens in the database. The average value and coefficient of variation of calculated/measured ratio is 0.82 and 45%, respectively. Hence, Paulays method also tends to underestimate the yield deformation capacity.

80

The tabulated results in Table 5.5 indicate that Hindis model cant accurately predict the ultimate chord rotations. The average value of calculated/measured is 0.31 with a coefficient of variation of 72%. The calculated ultimate chord rotations for all the specimens are less than the measured values. The difference is due to how the ultimate limit state is defined in Hindis model and test data. In Hindis model, the ultimate limit state corresponds to when the core concrete reaches its peak strain cc . However, the ultimate limit state in the test data is taken as when the steel bars reach the ultimate tensile strain u , which is typically larger than cc . FEMA method estimates the ultimate chord rotation much better than it does the yield chord rotation. The average value of calculated/measured ultimate chord rotation is 0.88 with a coefficient of variation of 32%. The better performance is partially attributed to the incremental value of 0.030 used to relate the yield chord rotation to the ultimate chord rotation (Fig. 5.4). The large value of 0.030 partly masks the effects of the extremely small yield chord rotation calculated from FEMA method. With the exception of one case, Paulays model results in larger ultimate chord rotations than the test data. The average value of calculated/measured ultimate chord rotation is 2.39 with the coefficient of variation of 36%.

5.7 Modified Model Considering the values of yield strength, ultimate strength, yield rotation, and ultimate rotation, Paulays model appears to be the most appropriate model to capture the behavior of diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams. This model can adequately

81

predict the behavior at the yield but not as well the ultimate responses. A modified version of Paulays model is proposed herein. In the modified model, Equation 5.2 is still used to calculate the yield strength of the beam. To account for the strain hardening at the ultimate limit state, which is neglected in Paulays model, the proposed model assumes a 25% increase in the yield capacity, i.e., Vu =1.25 V y (5.21)

For the yield chord rotation, Equation 5.6 is used in the modified model except that the anchorage term is increased from 16 d b to 40 d b . The value of 40 d b is based on the assumption of having 20 d b of anchorage length (as recommended by ACI-ASCE Committee 352 Provisions for monolithic beam-column connections (ACI 352R-02)) on either end of diagonal bar. Therefore, Equation 5.6 is changed to the following expression.

y =0.65 y ( L /cos +40 d b )/sin

(5.22)

Once the yield strength, ultimate strength, and yield chord rotation are determined, the ultimate chord rotation is calculated by Equation 5.23 (see Fig. 5.5).

u = y +( Vu - V y )/ E r

(5.23)

In this equation, E r is the post yield modulus of elasticity. FEMA 356 suggests that E r ranges between 0 and 10% of the elastic stiffness ( E ). A value of 5% is used in the proposed model. The calculated values from the proposed model are summarized in Table 5.6. As evident from the comparisons of the calculated versus the measured values, the proposed

82

model reproduces the test data appreciably better than existing models discussed in the previous sections. The average values and coefficients of variation from the proposed model of the calculated/measured ratio of yield capacity, ultimate capacity, yield rotation, and ultimate rotation are respectively 0.84 and 28%, 0.87 and 12%, 1.09 and 44%, 1.20 and 44%. The proposed model will be used in the simulation studies described in Chapter 6.

83

Table 5.1 Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Beam Test Database (Organized By Drs. Shahrooz and Harries)

Researcher ID L span (in) 316 Paulay & Binney, 1974 317 395 CB-2A CB-2B P05 b1 P06 b1 P07 b1 Galano and P08 b1 Vignoli, 2000 P10 b2 P11 b2 P12 b2 Tassios et al., 1996 C6 PCA, 1978 C8 33.33 6.67 4.00 5.00 3.470 40.00 40.00 40.00 19.69 19.69 23.62 23.62 23.62 23.62 23.62 23.62 23.62 16.67 Depth b h width L/h f'c (ksi) (in) (in) 31.00 6.00 1.29 4.825 31.00 6.00 1.29 7.348 39.00 6.00 1.03 5.150 19.69 11.81 15.75 15.75 15.75 15.75 15.75 15.75 15.75 6.67 5.12 5.12 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.91 1.00 1.66 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 4.133 3.814 5.787 6.672 7.832 7.745 6.788 5.787 6.033 Diagonal Steel db (in) As (in2) fy (ksi) fu (ksi) (deg) 0.88 2.40 41.8 34.9 1.00 2.37 41.7 0.88 2.40 44.4 34.9 1.00 2.37 39.2 0.88 2.40 37.6 41.9 1.00 2.37 41.6 0.39 0.49 73.10 110.80 37.2 0.39 0.49 73.10 110.80 19.8 0.39 0.49 82.23 95.72 25.5 0.39 0.49 82.23 95.72 25.5 0.39 0.49 82.23 95.72 25.5 0.39 0.49 82.23 95.72 25.5 0.39 0.49 82.23 95.72 25.5 0.39 0.49 82.23 95.72 25.5 0.39 0.49 82.23 95.72 25.5 0.38 0.22 70.70 104.70 19.1 0.50 0.20 59.20 103.20 0.38 0.22 82.50 125.10 9.8 0.50 0.20 62.80 102.50 Ac (in2) 18 18 18 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 0 0 Vy (kips) 125.00 110.00 110.00 48.11 25.85 53.84 49.72 48.14 47.81 54.24 43.42 44.66 7.80 4.30 y (rad) 0.004000 0.003500 0.003500 0.014800 0.017000 0.008420 0.008584 0.007259 0.006878 0.007750 0.007860 0.009762 0.006599 0.006306 Vu (kips) 151.50 130.00 143.00 63.62 38.22 52.56 54.14 52.59 51.44 52.56 52.81 53.51 13.40 7.50 204.59 NA u (rad) 0.058000 0.025500 0.045000 0.028500 0.031250 0.030000 NA 0.026600 NA 0.027700 NA 0.025000 0.053389 0.087582 0.049180 0.035000

Hindi et al., 1 48.00 17.50 12.00 2.74 5.163 1.18 4.38 67.30 90.07 12.4 30.315 148.38 0.008197 2001 Santhakumar, 0.375 B 15.00 12.00 3.00 1.25 4.352 0.32 47.07 65.09 35.6 1.27 56.50 0.002400 1974 0.25 Notation: The shaded cells are for the specimens with unconfined cores. The non-shaded cells are for the specimens with confined cores.

84

ID Vy=2Asfysin (kips) 316 317 395 CB-2A CB-2B P05 b1 P06 b1 P07 b1 P08 b1 P10 b2 P11 b2 P12 b2 C6 C8 1 B 113.94 114.12 126.11 43.07 24.11 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 8.97 5.25 126.66 17.45 y=fy/Es 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0025 0.0025 0.0028 0.0028 0.0028 0.0028 0.0028 0.0028 0.0028 0.0022 0.0025 0.0023 0.0016 Yield Limit State y=1.3(L/cos+16db) y/(2sin) (in) 0.104294 0.104459 0.091324 0.084004 0.131670 0.139081 0.139081 0.139081 0.139081 0.139081 0.139081 0.139081 0.109763 0.390819 0.477967 0.042481 y=y/L (rad) 0.002607 0.002611 0.002283 0.004267 0.006689 0.005888 0.005888 0.005888 0.005888 0.005888 0.005888 0.005888 0.006584 0.011726 0.009958 0.002832 u=12y+(fufy)/(0.1Es) 0.02879 0.02884 0.02730 0.04325 0.04325 0.03868 0.03868 0.03868 0.03868 0.03868 0.03868 0.03868 0.04037 0.04481 0.03570 0.02569 Ultimate Limit State u=1.3(L/cos+16db) u/(2sin) (in) 2.085878 2.089177 1.826478 1.441408 2.259288 1.897100 1.897100 1.897100 1.897100 1.897100 1.897100 1.897100 1.969989 6.946094 7.352870 0.672344 u=u/L (rad) 0.052147 0.052229 0.045662 0.073224 0.114772 0.080311 0.080311 0.080311 0.080311 0.080311 0.080311 0.080311 0.118176 0.208404 0.153185 0.044823 Vu=Vy (kips) 113.94 114.12 126.11 43.07 24.11 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 8.97 5.25 126.66 17.45

85

Unconfined Concrete ID fc' (ksi) 4.825 7.348 5.150 4.133 3.814 5.787 6.672 7.832 7.745 6.788 5.787 6.033 2.620 3.470 5.163 4.352 c 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 Esec=fc'/c (ksi) 2413 3674 2575 2067 1907 2893 3336 3916 3872 3394 2893 3017 1310 1735 2582 2176 6.009 5.658 0.0036 0.0050 fcc' (ksi) 4.825 7.634 5.423 5.195 4.855 5.787 6.672 7.832 7.745 10.29 9.193 9.465 Confined Concrete cc=0.002(1+5(fcc'/fc'-1)) 0.0020 0.0024 0.0025 0.0046 0.0047 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0072 0.0079 0.0077 Ac 2 (in ) 18 18 18 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 0 0 30.32 1.27 4096 3760 Ec (ksi) 3959 4886 4091 3664 3520 4336 4656 5044 5016 4696 4336 4427

316 317 395 CB-2A CB-2B P05 b1 P06 b1 P07 b1 P08 b1 P10 b2 P11 b2 P12 b2 C6 C8 1 B

86

Table 5.3 Strengths and Deformations Calculated According to Hindis Model (Continued)

Yield Limit State ID y 0.00144 0.00144 0.00137 0.00252 0.00252 0.00284 0.00284 0.00284 0.00284 0.00284 0.00284 0.00284 0.00225 0.00252 0.00232 0.00162 1.1603 0.8116 2.70 2.37 5.064 4.228 x=y/c 0.7198 0.7210 0.6825 1.2603 1.2603 1.4178 1.4178 1.4178 1.4178 1.4178 1.4178 1.4178 r=Ec/(Ecfcon=fc'xr/(r-1+xr) Esec) 2.56 4.03 2.70 2.29 2.18 3.01 3.53 4.47 4.39 3.61 3.01 3.14 4.466 6.474 4.615 3.991 3.695 5.073 5.605 6.029 6.013 5.663 5.073 5.233 Vy=(2Asfy+Acfcon) y=yL/(cos sin sin) (kips) (in) 159.93 180.79 181.58 80.51 43.51 68.29 71.84 74.67 74.56 72.23 68.29 69.36 8.97 5.25 159.62 20.57 0.122723 0.122917 0.109850 0.102997 0.155692 0.172457 0.172457 0.172457 0.172457 0.172457 0.172457 0.172457 0.121134 0.498755 0.531113 0.051423 y=y/L (rad) 0.003068 0.003073 0.002746 0.005232 0.007909 0.007301 0.007301 0.007301 0.007301 0.007301 0.007301 0.007301 0.007267 0.014964 0.011065 0.003428 Ultimate Limit State Vu=(2Asfy+Acfcc')sin (kips) 163.63 192.74 191.29 91.80 49.60 62.90 68.80 76.54 75.96 103.09 95.77 97.58 8.97 5.25 165.77 21.62 u=ccL/(cos sin) (in) 0.170488 0.203667 0.203600 0.186670 0.292057 0.121636 0.121636 0.121636 0.121636 0.435466 0.479619 0.467555 0.121134 0.498755 0.832702 0.158403 u=u/L (rad) 0.004262 0.005092 0.005090 0.009483 0.014836 0.005149 0.005149 0.005149 0.005149 0.018435 0.020304 0.019793 0.007267 0.014964 0.017348 0.010560

316 317 395 CB-2A CB-2B P05 b1 P06 b1 P07 b1 P08 b1 P10 b2 P11 b2 P12 b2 C6 C8 1 B

Notation: (1) Manders confined concrete model is used in the calculation. (2) It is assumed that Member C6 reached its yield and ultimate states simultaneously because its core concrete area is 0 in the database. The same assumption is applied to Member C8.

87

Table 5.4 Strengths and Deformations Calculated According to FEMA 356 Method

Element Properties ID E=57000fc'0.5/1000 (ksi) 3959 4886 4091 3665 3520 4336 4656 5044 5016 4696 4336 4427 2918 3358 4096 3760 Ig (in4) L (in) EIe=0.5EIg (kips-in2) 29488223 36390206 60661382 5961251 1236934 4166960 4474163 4847633 4820626 4512901 4166960 4254804 144295 166060 10975312 812219 Vy=2fyAssin (kips) 113.94 114.12 126.11 43.07 24.11 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 8.97 5.25 126.66 17.45 Yield Limit State My=VyL/2 (kips-in) 2278.79 2282.39 2522.10 423.95 237.32 407.00 407.00 407.00 407.00 407.00 407.00 407.00 74.80 87.52 3039.77 130.86 y=MyL2/(3EIg) (in) 0.02061 0.01673 0.01109 0.00459 0.01239 0.00908 0.00846 0.00781 0.00785 0.00839 0.00908 0.00890 0.02401 0.09758 0.10635 0.00604 y (rad) 0.00052 0.00042 0.00028 0.00023 0.00063 0.00038 0.00036 0.00033 0.00033 0.00036 0.00038 0.00038 0.00144 0.00293 0.00222 0.00040 Ultimate Limit State Vu=2fuAssin (kips) 113.94 114.12 126.11 43.07 24.11 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 8.97 5.25 126.66 17.45 u (rad) 0.03052 0.03042 0.03028 0.03023 0.03063 0.03038 0.03036 0.03033 0.03033 0.03036 0.03038 0.03038 0.03144 0.03293 0.03222 0.03040

316 317 395 CB-2A CB-2B P05 b1 P06 b1 P07 b1 P08 b1 P10 b2 P11 b2 P12 b2 C6 C8 1 B

14896 40.00 14896 40.00 29660 40.00 3253 703 1922 1922 1922 1922 1922 1922 1922 99 99 5359 432 19.69 19.69 23.62 23.62 23.62 23.62 23.62 23.62 23.62 16.67 33.33 48.00 15.00

88

Yield Strength/ Test Yield Strength ID Paulay's 316 317 395 CB-2A CB-2B P05 P06 P07 P08 P10 P11 P12 C6 C8 1 B Average Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variation b1 b1 b1 b1 b2 b2 b2 0.912 1.037 1.146 0.895 0.933 0.640 0.693 0.716 0.721 0.635 0.794 0.772 1.151 1.221 0.854 0.309 0.839 0.233 27.75% Hindi's 1.279 1.644 1.651 1.673 1.683 1.268 1.445 1.551 1.560 1.332 1.573 1.553 1.151 1.221 1.076 0.364 1.376 0.335 24.32% FEMA 0.912 1.037 1.146 0.895 0.933 0.640 0.693 0.716 0.721 0.635 0.794 0.772 1.151 1.221 0.854 0.309 0.839 0.233 27.75% Modified 0.912 1.037 1.146 0.895 0.933 0.640 0.693 0.716 0.721 0.635 0.794 0.772 1.151 1.221 0.854 0.309 0.839 0.233 27.75% Paulay's 0.652 0.746 0.652 0.288 0.393 0.699 0.686 0.811 0.856 0.760 0.749 0.603 0.998 1.859 1.215 1.180 0.822 0.366 44.58% Hindi's 0.767 0.878 0.785 0.354 0.465 0.867 0.851 1.006 1.061 0.942 0.929 0.748 1.101 2.373 1.350 1.428 0.994 0.457 46.00% FEMA 0.129 0.119 0.079 0.016 0.037 0.046 0.042 0.046 0.048 0.046 0.049 0.039 0.218 0.464 0.270 0.168 0.113 0.119 104.62% Modified 0.882 1.009 0.866 0.376 0.530 0.903 0.886 1.047 1.105 0.981 0.967 0.779 1.421 2.335 1.721 1.557 1.085 0.476 43.88% Yield Rotation/ Test Yield Rotation

89

Ultimate Strength/ Test Ultimate Strength ID Paulay's 316 317 395 CB-2A CB-2B P05 P06 P07 P08 P10 P11 P12 C6 C8 b1 b1 b1 b1 b2 b2 b2 0.752 0.878 0.882 0.677 0.631 0.656 0.636 0.655 0.670 0.656 0.652 0.644 0.670 0.700 Hindi's 1.080 1.483 1.338 1.443 1.298 1.197 1.271 1.455 1.477 1.961 1.813 1.824 0.670 0.700 FEMA 0.752 0.878 0.882 0.677 0.631 0.656 0.636 0.655 0.670 0.656 0.652 0.644 0.670 0.700 0.619 NA 0.692 0.083 11.94% Modified 0.940 1.097 1.102 0.846 0.789 0.819 0.796 0.819 0.837 0.819 0.816 0.805 0.837 0.875 0.774 NA 0.865 0.103 11.94% Paulay's 0.899 2.048 1.015 2.569 3.673 2.677 NA 3.019 NA 2.899 NA 3.212 2.213 2.380 3.115 1.281 2.385 0.871 36.54% Hindi's 0.073 0.200 0.113 0.333 0.475 0.172 NA 0.194 NA 0.666 NA 0.792 0.136 0.171 0.353 0.302 0.306 0.219 71.66% FEMA 0.526 1.193 0.673 1.061 0.980 1.013 NA 1.140 NA 1.096 NA 1.215 0.589 0.376 0.655 0.869 0.876 0.280 32.00% Modified 0.365 0.831 0.404 1.172 1.730 1.520 NA 1.715 NA 1.646 NA 1.824 1.054 1.009 1.721 0.641 1.202 0.528 43.92% Ultimate Rotation/ Test Ultimate Rotation

1 0.619 0.810 B NA NA Average 0.692 1.321 Standard Deviation 0.083 0.391 Coefficient of Variation 11.94% 29.56% Notation: The NA cell is due to unavailable test data.

90

ID 316 317 395 CB-2A CB-2B P05 b1 P06 b1 P07 b1 P08 b1 P10 b2 P11 b2 P12 b2 C6 C8 1 B Vy=2fyAssin y=fy/Es (kips) 113.94 114.12 126.11 43.07 24.11 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 34.46 8.97 5.25 126.66 17.45 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0025 0.0025 0.0028 0.0028 0.0028 0.0028 0.0028 0.0028 0.0028 0.0022 0.0025 0.0023 0.0016 db (in) 0.937 0.937 0.937 0.394 0.394 0.394 0.394 0.394 0.394 0.394 0.394 0.394 0.435 0.435 1.181 0.313 L (in) 40.00 40.00 40.00 19.69 19.69 23.62 23.62 23.62 23.62 23.62 23.62 23.62 16.67 33.33 48.00 15.00 (deg) 34.9 34.9 41.9 37.2 19.8 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 19.123 9.847 12.400 35.628 y=1.3(L/cos+40db) y/(2sin) (in) 0.141080 0.141303 0.121206 0.109589 0.177375 0.179558 0.179558 0.179558 0.179558 0.179558 0.179558 0.179558 0.156302 0.490760 0.677084 0.056066 y=y/L (rad) 0.003527 0.003533 0.003030 0.005567 0.009011 0.007601 0.007601 0.007601 0.007601 0.007601 0.007601 0.007601 0.009376 0.014724 0.014106 0.003738 Vu=1.25Vy (kips) 142.42 142.65 157.63 53.84 30.14 43.07 43.07 43.07 43.07 43.07 43.07 43.07 11.22 6.56 158.32 21.81 u=y+(Vu-Vy)/(0.05E) (rad) 0.021162 0.021195 0.018181 0.033403 0.054064 0.045608 0.045608 0.045608 0.045608 0.045608 0.045608 0.045608 0.056258 0.088346 0.084635 0.022426

91

Cy Ty

Vy My Vy L My

Ty Vy

Ty Cy L

Cy

h

Fig. 5.2 Coupling Beam Vertical Deformation of Paulays Model

92

Ty Cy

Tension Diagonal

B B Cy L A Ty A

A-A

V Vy = Vu

y

V Vu Vy

0.030

Er

93

6.1 Notations Cb : Base shear amplification factor

E : Elastic modulus

L : Beam Span

r : Ratio of the post-yield stiffness to the elastic stiffness

: Stiffness degradation factor 2

y : Yield vertical deformation of the diagonally reinforced concrete beam

1 : Rigid link rotation at left side of the beam 2 : Rigid link rotation at right side of the beam

y : Beam yield rotation capacity

94

6.2 Objective The responses of the 15-story building designed based on performance-based design (PBD) methodology were examined in this chapter to evaluate the adequacy of PBD. For this purpose, nonlinear static and dynamic analyses were carried out. This chapter summarizes these analyses and the corresponding results.

6.3 Pushover (Nonlinear Static) Analysis 6.3.1 Introduction As discussed in Section 3.5.1, a well-designed building has to meet the following performance requirements. (1) At the Life Safety (LS) level earthquake, the beams are allowed to yield but the wall piers are required to remain elastic. The maximum building story drift is to be less than NEHRP-defined 2% limit. (2) At the Collapse Prevention (CP) level earthquake, the wall piers are allowed to yield after the beams have already yielded. The beams are allowed to reach their ultimate limit capacities. The Appendix to Chapter 5 of NEHRP 2000 provides guidelines for conducting pushover analysis. For example, modeling aspects of components, force-deformation characteristics, and selection of lateral loads are discussed in this appendix. The pushover analysis of the 15-story building is based on these guidelines.

95

The computer model along with the dimensions, member labels, and node numbers is shown in Fig.6.1. The vertical members represent wall piers, and are located at the centroid of each C shaped wall pier. The horizontal members are coupling beams. The thin line in the middle represents the actual coupling beam and the two thick lines at the ends are rigid links to reflect the large stiffness of the wall piers that are modeled by line elements. The length of each rigid link is 7.78 ft, which is the distance between the centroid of the wall section and the edge to which the beams are connected. Since the core wall is modeled two dimensionally, one beam member represents two coupling beams. The calculated masses used in the model are listed in Table A.4.1. At each level, the mass is distributed equally to each node at that level.

6.3.2.2 Coupling Beam Member Properties RUAUMOKO (Carr, 2000), the software employed to conduct the analyses, requires the following quantities to formulate bilinear force-deformation characteristics for a beam member: the yield moment capacity ( M y ), the effective moment of inertia ( I e ), and the ratio of the residual stiffness to the effective stiffness ( r ). The value of M y is calculated based on Equation 5.3 as proposed by the modified model in Section 5.7. A linear distribution of curvature along the beam is assumed. Based on the elastic analysis concepts, the vertical deformation of the beam ( y ) is equal to

y L2

6

beam reach yield curvature ( y ). The beam yield vertical deformation ( y ) is computed from the modified model (see Equation 5.22). The calculated deformations for various

96

coupling beam groups are listed in Table 6.1. The value of yield curvature ( y ) is subsequently computed from Equation 6.1.

y =

6 y L2

(6.1)

The effective moment of inertia ( I e ) is calculated based on the fundamental elastic analysis concepts as shown in Equation 6.2. The values I e for these three coupling beam groups are provided in Table 6.1. Ie = M y / E y (6.2)

The value of the residual stiffness ratio r is taken as 0.02, which is an empirical value generally accepted for reinforced concrete members (Harries et al., 1998).

6.3.2.3 Wall Member Properties The quadratic beam-column element is selected to model the wall piers. This element takes into account the interaction between the axial force capacity and moment capacity by using a parabolic capacity curve (see Fig. 6.2). The four control points of the curve represent the maximum compression capacity, maximum tension capacity, maximum positive flexure capacity, and maximum negative flexure capacity. A cross sectional analysis computer program called XTRACT was used to calculate the values of these four points for the C-shaped wall piers. Per ACI 21.7.5.1 the reinforcement bars concentrated in the boundary elements and distributed in the flanges and web were included. Table 6.2 lists the calculated values of the control points in each wall group. Appendix D provides the details of the XTRACT calculation of the control point values in different groups. The signs in the PM interaction curve from XTRACT need to be

97

reversed before using them to establish control points in RUAUMOKO quadratic beamcolumn elements because of the difference in the sign conventions of these two programs. The effective moment of inertia ( I e ) and residual stiffness ratio ( r ) are also required by RUAUMOKO to set up the bilinear force-deformation characteristics for the quadratic beam-column member. The effective stiffness ( E I e ) as calculated by XTRACT is divided by E (taken as 57000

( r ) is directly taken from the XTARCT output (which is called Bilinear Hardening Slope). These values for the tension and compression walls were obtained from XTRACT analyses (see Appendix D). The average values of I e and r are used because RUAUMOKO allows only single values of I e and r regardless of the direction of loading. For static pushover analyses, it is possible to predetermine which wall pier will be in tension or in compression and different values of I e and r can be assigned to the two wall piers. However, in dynamic analyses each wall pier will be subjected to load reversals. For consistency between the static and dynamic analyses, it was decided to use average values of I e and r in all the analyses reported in this chapter.

6.3.2.4 Applied Lateral Loads According to Section 5A.1.2 of NEHRP, in the pushover analysis the pattern of lateral loads applied at the mass center of each story should follow the distribution of fundamental mode as obtained from a modal analysis. For the 15-story building, the fundamental mode is in the coupled direction. Section 5A.1.2 of NEHRP also states that the increment of the lateral loads should be sufficiently small to permit capturing of

98

significant changes in individual components, such as yielding, buckling, or failure in the model. In the reported study, the lateral load increment is set to 1 percent of the modal base shear ( Vt ). The modal base shear is calculated as the SRSS of the base shears of the first two modes in the coupled direction (see Table 3.2 for the base shear of each mode). As Section 5.5.7 of NEHRP requires, the SRSS value needs to be scaled to reach 85 percent of the base shear of equivalent lateral force (ELF) method (see Table 3.2 for 85% of ELF base shear). For the prototype structure, the value of SRSS base shear was increased to reach the target value. As Section 5A.1.4.3 of NEHRP stipulates, the analyses are terminated when the story drift exceeds 125 percent of the design drift limit, which is 2% percent of the story height. Hence, the pushover analysis was terminated when the story drift exceeded 2.5% of the story height.

6.3.3 Results and Discussions Fig. 6.3 (a) shows the development of the roof displacement with the increment of the lateral loads. The abscissa is the roof displacement in feet and the ordinate is the ratio of the base shear to the model base shear ( Vt ). The response curve in Fig. 6.3 (a) is approximately a tri-linear curve. The large slope of the initial part of the curve implies that the structure is in the elastic state. The slope of the curve changes at a base shear level equal to 0.70 Vt . This change represents the initiation of yielding of the coupling beams. Due to reduced effectiveness of the coupling beams after yielding, the stiffness of the structure is reduced and the roof displacement increases more rapidly. The second change of the slope occurs at the base shear level equal to 1.22 Vt , at which both wall piers at the ground story form hinges and the stiffness of the building is reduced further.

99

Fig. 6.3 (c) shows the sequence of yielding. The first yielding occurs in the 8th and 11th floor coupling beams at the base shear equal to 0.70 Vt . Subsequently, yielding spreads to other coupling beams. The last yielding of coupling beams occurs in the first level at the base shear level of 1.01 Vt . The range of base shear and displacements corresponding to yielding of the coupling beams are marked in Fig. 6.3 (a), and the exact values are shown in Fig. 6.3 (b). The first wall to yield is the tension wall at the ground level at the base shear level of 1.07 Vt , followed by yielding of the tension walls at the 4th level yields (at 1.14 Vt ) and the 2nd level (at 1.20 Vt ). The first yielding of the compression wall happens at the ground level at 1.22 Vt . Before exceeding the 2.5% story drift limit (at which the analysis was terminated), the 5th level tension yielded at 1.30 Vt followed by yielding of the 4th level compression wall at 1.33 Vt . The range of yielding in the wall piers is shown in Fig. 6.3 (a) with the exact sequences of yielding (11 to 16) denoted in Fig. 6.3 (b) and 6.3 (c). The roof displacements corresponding to LS and CP level earthquakes are needed to evaluate the performance of the prototype structure. The SRSS of the roof displacements of the first two modes in the coupled direction is 0.79 ft. After multiplying the base shear amplification factor ( Cb =1.73) to scale up to reach 85% of the ELF base shear level, the roof displacement at LS level is 1.37 ft. The design spectrum response spectrum in NEHRP, which was used to conduct the reported modal analyses, corresponds to LS level earthquake acceleration. Therefore, the calculated roof displacement of 1.37 ft is the displacement at LS level. As seen from Fig. 6.3 (a), this displacement occurs at the base shear level of 1.02 Vt . The displacement at the CP level is 1.5 times that at the LS level

100

(see Section 3.1). Hence, the roof displacement at the CP level is 2.06ft, which happens at the base shear of 1.20 Vt (see Fig 6.3 (a)). The previous results verify that the beams yield gradually and at the LS level all the beams have yielded while wall piers remain elastic. The yielding of walls happens prior to the CP level. At the CP level, three tension wall piers have yielded. The coupling beams undergo additional inelastic deformations beyond the LS level. These responses meet the predefined design requirements described in Section 6.3.1. The beam chord rotations at the LS and CP levels were obtained based on the rotations of rigid links computed by RUAUMOKO. As the rigid links, which are between the column elements representing wall piers and the coupling beams, rotate the beam undergoes vertical deformations as shown in Fig. 6.4. The total deformation of the beam is the sum of the absolute values of 1 and 2 . Note that 1 and 2 are equal to 1 e and 2 e , respectively, where 1 and 2 are the rotations calculated by RUAUMOKO and e is the length of the rigid link. The beam chord rotation ( ) can then be found from Equation 6.3.

=( 1 + 2 )/ L =( 1 + 2 ) e / L

(6.3)

This equation does not account for the deformation of the beam, i.e., it assumes the beam is a rigid link. Therefore, the beam rotations ( 1 + 2 ) need to be added into the value computed from Equation 6.3. The beam rotation is taken as the average of the absolute values of 1 and 2 . Therefore, Equation 6.4 is used to establish the beam chord rotation.

=( 1 + 2 ) e / L +( 1 + 2 )/2

The beam chord rotations along the building height for the LS and CP levels are

(6.4)

plotted in Fig. 6.5. At the LS level, all the beams yield but do not reach the ultimate chord

101

rotation capacity. On the other hand, at the CP level the beams above the 6th floor exceed the ultimate chord rotation capacity. The level of chord rotations at the LS and CP levels meet the performance criteria discussed in Section 6.3.1.

6.4 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis 6.4.1 Computer Model The model used for pushover analyses was also used for the dynamic analyses to ensure some level of consistency between the results from two methods. The stiffness and mass distributions were the same as those used for pushover analyses. However, dynamic analyses require additional input parameters, as discussed in the following. The modified Takeda model (Carr, 2000), as shown in Figure 6.6, was employed to model the hysteretic force-deformation relationships of the coupling beams and wall piers. This model accounts for stiffness and strength degradations, which are two important characteristics of reinforced concrete members under cyclic loads. The factors and are used to control the level of stiffness degradation. The selected for wall piers and beams are 0 and 0.1, respectively. The selected for walls and beams are 0.6 and 0.5, respectively. These values were selected based on a prior research (Harries et al., 1998). The strength degradation in RUAUMOKO program is expressed in terms of a reduction factor. The value of the reduction factor is related to the member ductility (see Fig. 6.7). The selected values for beams and wall piers are listed in Table 6.4. Five ground motions ranging from slight intensity to severe intensity were selected, three of which were recorded acceleration records (El Centro1940 NS, Northridge 1994 at Pacoima Dam NS, and Northridge 1994 at Slymar Hospital NS) and two were artificial accelerograms. The

102

artificial records were generated by SIMQKE, which is a component of RUAUMOKO. The selected ground motions are shown in Fig. 6.8 with their acceleration response spectra illustrated in Fig. 6.9. Based on the shown response spectra, El Centro 1940 NS record is deemed to be a service level earthquake, and the remaining records are taken as collapse prevention level earthquake.

6.4.2 Results and Discussions The histories of the roof displacement for the five seismic ground excitations are shown in Fig. 6.10. The maximum roof drifts are 0.82 ft, 0.86 ft, 0.91 ft, 1.23 ft, and 1.83 ft for simulated LS level, El Centro (NS), Northridge at Pacoima Dam (NS), simulated CP level, and Northridge at Slymar (NS), respectively. The artificial ground motions at LS and CP levels continue to impart energy to the building as evident by continued roof drift reversals throughout the ground motion records, whereas the selected recorded ground motions stop producing significant deformations during approximately the last half of the records The maximum inter-story drifts along the building height are displayed in Fig. 6.11. The maximum values (as a percentage of story height) are 1.0%, 1.12%, 1.62%, 1.86% and 2.49% for El Centro, simulated LS level, simulated CP level, Northridge at Pacoima, and Northridge at Slymar, respectively. These magnitudes match the expected input energies of the different records. For example, at 1.8 sec., which is the period of the first mode, Northridge at Slymar has the largest acceleration response spectrum value and the lowest value is for El Centro record. The maximum inter-story drift of 1.12% at LS level

103

excitation is less than 2%, which meets one of the predefined performance criteria discussed in Section 6.3.1. The complete histories of chord rotation under the five selected ground excitations are displayed in Fig. 6.12 through 6.16. The maximum chord rotations with the time at which and locations where the maximum rotations occur are tabulated in Table 6.5. For service level ground motions (i.e., El Centro and simulated LS), the beam chord rotations exceed the yield rotation capacity ( y ) but are less than the ultimate capacity ( u ). This behavior coincides with the predefined LS level requirement of Section 6.3.1, where beams are expected to yield but not exceed the ultimate state. Under the excitations considered to correspond to collapse prevention level (i.e., simulated CP record, Northridge at Pacoima, and Northridge at Slymar), the beam chord rotations exceed both the yield and ultimate rotation capacities. This performance also meets the performance criteria at CP level where beams are allowed to reach the ultimate state, as discussed in Section 6.3.1. An index, referred to as Wall Damage Index (WDI), is used to quantify the wall state during seismic ground excitations. A value of zero indicates that the wall pier is elastic, i.e., the axial load-moment demands are within the capacity interaction diagram. On the other hand, WDI equal to 1 indicates that the axial load-moment demands are outside of the interaction surface, and the wall has experienced inelastic deformations. Figures 6.12 and 6.13 show that all wall piers remain elastic under El Centro and simulated LS level ground motion, which satisfies the performance criteria defined in Section 6.3.1. Figures 6.14 through 6.16 show the histories of WDI under simulated CP level, Northridge at Pacoima, and Northridge at Slymar, respectively. Under all of these

104

three ground motions, the ground level wall piers develop inelastic deformations and plastic hinges form. Wall piers at other levels near the middle or close to the top of structure also experience inelastic deformations. Levels 4, 10, 11, and 12 develop inelastic deformations under simulated CP motion. Levels 6, 7, 11, and 12 under Northridge at Pacoima motion, and levels 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11 under Northridge at Slymar motion also experience inelastic deformations. Although inelastic deformation is more likely to be produced in the ground level, other floors also experience inelastic deformations albeit less frequently. The predefined criteria in Section 6.3.1 allow wall piers in any level to undergo inelastic deformation under motions corresponding to collapse prevention level. Hence, the behaviors of wall piers are in accordance with the performance criteria for which the structure was designed. The occurrence of plastic deformations in these upper levels indicates a gradual reduction of the stiffness as the coupling beams reach their ultimate limit state. Similar observations have also been made by others (McNiece, 2004).

105

L (ft) Group I (Lv 2-7) Group II(Lv 8-10,1) Group III(Lv 11-15) 6 6 6 My (k-ft) 1456 1147 688 y (ft) 0.0530 0.0506 0.0464 y=6y/L2 (/ft) 0.00883 0.00843 0.00773 Ie=My/Ey (ft4) 0.260 0.214 0.140 0.02 0.02 0.02

Table 6.2 Values of Four Control Points for Quadratic Beam-Column Elements (refer to Fig. 6.2)

PYC (kips) Group I (Lv 1-3) Group II(Lv 4-7) Group III(Lv 8-15) -79630 -72880 -68180 PB (kips) -43700 -42810 -40900 MB (k-ft) 133800 112200 100400 PC (kips) -23400 -21250 -20290 MC (k-ft) -115800 -100600 -91360 PYT (kips) 13970 9433 5553

Tension Wall Ie (ft ) Group I (Lv 1-3) Group II(Lv 4-7) Group III(Lv 8-15) 230 162 116

4

4

106

DUCT1 Beam Member Shear Wall Member 20 14 DUCT2 30 20 RDUCT 0.5 0.5 DUCT3 0 0

Table 6.5 Maximum Chord Rotations under Five Selected Ground Motions

Maximum Chord Ground Motion El Centro Simulated LS Simulated CP Northridge at Pacoima Northridge at Slymar

+

+ + +

Rotation Capacity* (rad) y 0.0077 0.0077 0.0077 0.0077 0.0077 u 0.0464 0.0464 0.0464 0.0464 0.0464

0.088

Notation: * Rotation capacity corresponding to the floor where the maximum chord rotation was obtained. Although the coupling beams have exceeded their ultimate rotation capacities, the wall piers can still provide resistance because they have not reached their ultimate capacities.

107

45

Member Number

9.17ft 12.17ft 9.17ft 9.17ft 9.17ft 9.17ft 9.17ft 9.17ft 9.17ft 9.17ft 9.17ft 9.17ft 9.17ft 9.17ft 9.17ft

Node Number

16 15 14

15

44

30

32 31

14 43

29

30

13 42 28

13

29

12 41 27

12

11 40

26

28

11

10 39 25

27

10 9

38

24

26 25

8 37

23

8

7 36 22

24

6 35

21

23

34

20

22

5 4

4 33

19

21 20

32

18

3

2 31 17

19

2

e=7.78 ft L=6 ft

18

1 16

17

21.56 ft

108

Fig. 6.2 Axial Load-Moment Interaction Diagram for Quadratic Beam-column Element

109

1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00

1.60 1.40 1.20

9 10 8 6 5 7

Wall Yield Range

7 (0.77)

Level 15 Level 14

Notation:

14 (1.22)

6 (0.75)

1.07

3 (0.72)

Level 13

3 (0.72) 1 (0.70)

Level 12

Level 11

LS

Beam Yield Range

CP

Roof Displacement (ft)

2 (0.71)

Level 10

2 (0.71)

Level 9 Level 8

1 (0.70) 3 (0.72)

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

Level 7

16

4 (0.73)

Level 6

5 (0.74)

14 15

13 12 11 4 1 2 3

5 (0.74) 12 (1.14)

Refer to (c) for the position of the member that each number represents.

8 (0.80)

13 (1.20)

9 (0.87)

Level 2

0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

st

10 (1.01)

Level 1 14 (1.22)

11 (1.07)

110

Wall

Rigid Link

2

Node

2 1

L e

Story

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08

LS Chord Rotation from Rigid Link Method Yield Chord Rotation Capacity

CP Chord Rotation from Rigid Link Method Ultimate Chord Rotation Capacity

111

112

0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 0 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 0 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 0 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 0 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 0 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20

El Centro 1940 NS

10

12

14

16

18

20

10

12

14

16

18

20

10

12

14

16

18

20

LS Simulated

10

12

14

16

18

20

CP Simulated

10

12

14

16

18

20

Time (s)

113

3.6 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8

Simulated CP Level

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Simulated LS Level

1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Fig. 6.9 Structural Acceleration Response Spectra Induced by 5 Selected Ground Motions

114

El Ce ntro (NS)

0.86

10

12

14

16

18

20

Simulate d LS Le ve l 0.82

10

12

14

16

18

20

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0 .5 0 -1 -1 .5 -2

-0.91

10

12

14

16

18

20

Simulate d CP Le ve l 1.23

10

12

14

16

18

20

10

12

14

16

18

20

Time (s)

115

S tory

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Story Drift (% ) Northridge Slymar (NS) 2.49% El Centro (NS) 1.0%

116

Beams

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 4 6 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 y =0 .0 0 77 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

1

1

Level 15

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 4 6 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 y =0 .0 0 77 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

Level 14

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 4 6 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 y =0 .0 0 77 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

WDI

Level 13

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 4 6 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 y =0 .0 0 77 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

Level 12

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 11

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (s)

Time (s)

Time (s)

Notations: 1. y and u are the yield and ultimate chord rotation capacities, see Section 6.3.2.2 2. WDI is the abbreviation of Wall Damage Index; WDI=0: Elastic behavior; WDI=1: Inelastic Behavior; see Section 6.4.2

117

Beams

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 50 6 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 y =0 .0 0 8 4 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

1

1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 50 6 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 4 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

Level 9

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5

y =0 .0 0 8 4 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

WDI

0 .0 6 0 .0 5

u =0 .0 50 6

Level 8

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 53 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 8 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

Level 7

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 53 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 8 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

Level 6

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (s)

Time (s)

Time (s)

Notations: 1. y and u are the yield and ultimate chord rotation capacities, see Section 6.3.2.2 2. WDI is the abbreviation of Wall Damage Index; WDI=0: Elastic behavior; WDI=1: Inelastic Behavior; see Section 6.4.2

118

Beams

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 53 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 8 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

1

1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 53 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 8 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

Level 4

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

10

12

14

16

18

20

WDI

Level 3

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 2

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 50 6 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 4 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

Level 1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (s)

Time (s)

Time (s)

Notations: 1. y and u are the yield and ultimate chord rotation capacities, see Section 6.3.2.2 2. WDI is the abbreviation of Wall Damage Index; WDI=0: Elastic behavior; WDI=1: Inelastic Behavior; see Section 6.4.2

119

Beams

0 .0 6 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5

1

1

u =0 .0 4 6 4 y =0 .0 0 77

Level 15

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 6 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5

u =0 .0 4 6 4

Level 14

y =0 .0 0 77

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

WDI

Level 13

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 12

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 11

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (s)

Time (s)

Time (s)

120

Beams

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 50 6 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 y =0 .0 0 8 4 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

1

1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 50 6 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 4 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

Level 9

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5

y =0 .0 0 8 4 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

WDI

0 .0 6 0 .0 5

u =0 .0 50 6

Level 8

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 7

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 6

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (s)

Time (s)

Time (s)

121

Beams

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 53 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 8 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

1

1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 4

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

10

12

14

16

18

20

WDI

Level 3

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 2

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (s)

Time (s)

Time (s)

122

Beams

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 4 6 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 y =0 .0 0 77 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

1

1

Level 15

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 14

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

WDI

Level 13

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 12

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 11

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (s)

Time (s)

Time (s)

123

Beams

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 50 6 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 y =0 .0 0 8 4 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

1

1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 9

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5

y =0 .0 0 8 4 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

WDI

0 .0 6 0 .0 5

u =0 .0 50 6

Level 8

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 7

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 6

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (s)

Time (s)

Time (s)

124

Beams

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 53 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 8 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

1

1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 4

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

WDI

Level 3

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 2

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 53 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 8 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

1 1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 1

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 50 6 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 4 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

1 1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (s)

Time (s)

Time (s)

125

Beams

0 .0 8 0 .0 7 0 .0 6 u =0 .0 4 6 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 y =0 .0 0 77 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

1

1

Level 15

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 8 0 .0 7 0 .0 6 u =0 .0 4 6 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 y =0 .0 0 77 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

Level 14

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 8 0 .0 7 0 .0 6 u =0 .0 4 6 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 y =0 .0 0 77 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

WDI

Level 13

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 8 0 .0 7 0 .0 6 u =0 .0 4 6 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 y =0 .0 0 77 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

Level 12

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 8 0 .0 7 0 .0 6 u =0 .0 4 6 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 y =0 .0 0 77 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

Level 11

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (s)

Time (s)

Time (s)

Fig. 6.15 Member Responses under Northridge Pacoima Ground Motion (Lv11Lv15)

126

Beams

0 .0 8 0 .0 7 0 .0 6 u =0 .0 4 6 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 y =0 .0 0 77 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

1

1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 8 0 .0 7 0 .0 6 u =0 .0 4 6 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 y =0 .0 0 77 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

Level 9

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 8 0 .0 7 0 .0 6 u =0 .0 4 6 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 y =0 .0 0 77 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

10

12

14

16

18

20

WDI

Level 8

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 7

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 6

0 .0 8 0 .0 7 0 .0 6 u =0 .0 4 6 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 y =0 .0 0 77 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (s)

Time (s)

Time (s)

Fig. 6.15 Member Responses under Northridge Pacoima Ground Motion (Lv6Lv10)

127

Beams

0 .0 8 0 .0 7 0 .0 6 u =0 .0 53 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 8 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

1

1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 8 0 .0 7 0 .0 6 u =0 .0 53 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 8 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

Level 4

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 8 0 .0 7 0 .0 6 u =0 .0 53 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 8 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

10

12

14

16

18

20

WDI

Level 3

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 8 0 .0 7 0 .0 6 u =0 .0 53 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 8 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

Level 2

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 8 0 .0 7 0 .0 6 u =0 .0 50 6 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 4 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6

Level 1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (s)

Time (s)

Time (s)

Fig. 6.15 Member Responses under Northridge Pacoima Ground Motion (Lv1-Lv5)

128

Beams

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 4 6 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 y =0 .0 0 77 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6 -0 .0 7 -0 .0 8

1

1

Level 15

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 4 6 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 y =0 .0 0 77 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6 -0 .0 7 -0 .0 8

Level 14

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 4 6 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 y =0 .0 0 77 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6 -0 .0 7 -0 .0 8

WDI

Level 13

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 4 6 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 y =0 .0 0 77 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6 -0 .0 7 -0 .0 8

Level 12

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 4 6 4 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 y =0 .0 0 77 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6 -0 .0 7 -0 .0 8

Level 11

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (s)

Time (s)

Time (s)

Fig. 6.16 Member Responses under Northridge Sylmar Ground Motion (Lv11-Lv15)

129

Beams

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 50 6 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 y =0 .0 0 8 4 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6 -0 .0 7 -0 .0 8

1

1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 50 6 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 4 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6 -0 .0 7 -0 .0 8

Level 9

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 50 6 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 4 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6 -0 .0 7 -0 .0 8

WDI

Level 8

1 1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 7

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 53 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 8 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6 -0 .0 7 -0 .0 8

1 1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 6

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 53 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 8 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6 -0 .0 7 -0 .0 8

1 1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (s)

Time (s)

Time (s)

Fig. 6.16 Member Responses under Northridge Sylmar Ground Motion (Lv6-Lv10)

130

Beams

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 53 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 8 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6 -0 .0 7 -0 .0 8

1

1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 53 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 8 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6 -0 .0 7 -0 .0 8

Level 4

1 1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 53 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 8 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6 -0 .0 7 -0 .0 8

WDI

Level 3

1 1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Level 2

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 53 0 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 8 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6 -0 .0 7 -0 .0 8

1 1

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8

Level 1

10

12

14

16

18

20

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 .0 6 u =0 .0 50 6 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 y =0 .0 0 8 4 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 1 0 2 4 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 6 -0 .0 7 -0 .0 8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Time (s)

Time (s)

Time (s)

16

18

20

Fig. 6.16 Member Responses under Northridge Sylmar Ground Motion (Lv1-Lv5)

131

7.1 Summary The thesis presents the details of an insightful investigation of the behavior of a 15-story coupled core wall (CCW) building designed by a performance-based design (PBD) methodology. ETABS elastic analyses of four prototype structures were carried out initially to establish the critical geometry of the structure used in this research. The high shear stresses in the coupling beams show the difficulties of using strength-based design method of current building codes. Performance-based design method is introduced as a viable alternative design approach. In this study, PBD criteria are proposed for performance at the life safety (LS) and collapse prevention (CP) levels. Coupling beams are allowed to yield, the wall piers are required to remain elastic, and the maximum story drift is limited to less than 2% under LS seismic loads. Under CP seismic loads, wall piers are permitted to yield and beams are allowed to reach their ultimate limit state. Other performance criteria may be selected to capture the expected behavior of CCW. Different shear capacities, within the limits of capacities of constructible coupling beams, are assigned to coupling beams at different levels to simulate approximately the distribution of shear forces computed from elastic analysis. Within the context of PBD, a simplified method is suggested for computing the wall pier design forces without cumbersome iterations. Using the data from previous tests, a new model was developed to more accurately capture the expected rotational capacities and strengths of diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams at yield and ultimate limit states. This model was

132

used as part of modeling of the prototype structure. Detailed nonlinear static and dynamic analyses were conducted to evaluate the adequacy of the PBD methodology used herein.

7.2 Conclusions The following conclusions may be drawn from the results and discussions presented in this report. (1) The critical dimensions of typical CCW buildings are determined by two factors: (i) 2% story drift limit specified in the US code (NEHRP) and (ii) a minimum 66% degree of coupling as specified in Canadian code (NBCC). Usually, the first parameter controls, and the second parameter is checked. (2) High shear stresses in coupling beams are produced by following the traditional strength-based design method. The largest shear stress exceeds the maximum value specified in ACI building code (10 f c' ) and the maximum value for constructible beams (6

f c' ). The high shear stresses indicate that the prototype building can not be designed

by strength-based method. (3) The assumption of strength-based design method, which enforces the coupling beams to yield simultaneously with the wall piers, is not valid. This assumption is the underlying cause of high shear stresses in coupling beams. (4) FEMA 356 provides conservative estimations of deformation and strength capacities of diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams, especially for yield chord rotation. The proposed new model provides a more precise method for predicting the

133

behaviors of diagonally reinforced concrete beams, which are needed for nonlinear analyses. (5) The performance-based design method greatly reduces the shear stresses in coupling beams, and increases the wall pier forces which can be handled by traditional design measures. The ACI building code and practical constructability requirements can easily be met by using this method. (6) The pushover analysis indicates that the coupling beams and wall piers yield at different base shear levels. (7) The beams in the upper levels undergo larger chord rotations than those close to the lower parts. The nonlinear dynamic analyses also demonstrate that the maximum chord rotation occurs within the top three stories. As a result, the beams in the upper levels need to be designed with more deformation capacities. (8) The inelastic deformation of wall pier is not restricted to the ground floor. It spreads to wall piers in other floors both in the pushover and nonlinear dynamic analyses. The occurrence of inelastic deformations in the upper floors indicates reduction of structural stiffness and loss of degree of coupling. (9) The pushover analysis indicates that at drift corresponding to the life safety (LS) limit state the walls have remained elastic while all the coupling beams have undergone inelastic deformations. Under ground motions equal to (or less than) the LS level, a similar observation can be made. The wall piers do not experience inelastic deformation until the collapse prevention (CP) limit state or ground motions equal to (or more than)

134

the CP level are considered. These observations regarding the behavior of the prototype structure under static and dynamic loads suggest the adequacy of the PBD methodology as presented herein for design of coupled core walls.

7.3 Recommendations for Future Research This research is an attempt to implement PBD methodology for design of CCW structures. The following future research topics are recommended to further develop this new design method. (1) The accuracy of the new model (proposed in Chapter 5) for predicting of response of diagonally reinforced concrete beams needs to be verified through additional tests, particularly those with ACI 318-02 compliant specimens. (2) The PBD design with performance criteria other than those implemented in this research (see Section 6.3.1) should be tried out. Thus, it will be possible to optimize PBD design by comparing the results from different performance criteria. (3) The contributions of structural members surrounding the coupled core walls should be taken into account in the analyses. In particular, the effects of slab stiffness and the participation of perimeter and other gravity load columns need to be investigated. (4) Performance based design of different types of coupling beams, such as steel, hybrid, and fused coupling beams, should be conducted. (5) Additional CCW systems with complex configurations (e.g. asymmetric systems and wall piers with openings) should be investigated to more extensively evaluate the

135

136

Reference

American Concrete Institute Committee 318, 2002, ACI 318-02 Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-02/ACI 318R-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI

ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (Joint), 2002, Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI 352R-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI

Barney, G.B., Shiu, K.N., Rabbat, B.G., Fiorako, A.E., Russell, H.G., and Corley, W.G., 1978, Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls-Test of Coupling Beams, Report to National Science Foundation, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL

Bertero, V., 1997, Performance-based Seismic Engineering: A Critical Review of Proposed Guidelines, Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, A.A. Balkema Publisher, pp1-32

Brienen, P., 2002, Spreadsheets (electronic version) of a 10-Story CCW Building Design

Carr, J, 2000, Manual of Ruaumoko-Computer Program Library, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury

137

Computers and Structures Inc (CSI), 1997, ETABS v6.2 Three Dimensional Analysis of Building Systems User Manual

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000, NEHRP Recommendation Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (NEHRP 2000)

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356)

Fortney, P., 2005, Next Generation Coupling Beams, Ph.D Dissertation, Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept., University of Cincinnati

Galano,L., Vignoli, A., 2000, Seismic Behavior of Short Coupling Beams with Different Reinforcement Layouts, ACI Structural Journal, Vol 97, No. 6, pp 171-179

Hindi, A., Sexsmith, R., 2001, A Proposed Damage Model for R/C Bridge Columns under Cyclic Loading, Earthquake Spectra, EERI, Vol. 17, No. 2

Harries, K.A., Mitchell, D., Redwood, R.G., and Cook, W.D., 1998, Nonlinear Seismic Response Predictions of Walls Coupled with Steel and Concrete Beams, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol 25, pp803-818

138

Harries, K.A., Fortney P.J., Shahrooz B.M., and Brienen P., 2003, Design of Practical Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Coupling BeamsA Critical Review of ACI 318 Requirements, ACI Structural Journal, in press

Harries, K. A., Shahrooz, B. M., Brienen, P., Fortney, P. J., 2004, Performance-Based Design of Coupled Wall Systems, Composite Construction V, July 18-23, 2004, Kruger National Park, South Africa, in press

Imbsen Software Systems, 2002, Release Notes of XTRACT v 2.6.2Cross Sectional Xs Structural Analysis of Components

McNeice, D., 2004, Performance Based Design of a 30 Story Coupled Core Wall Structure, Master Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of South Carolina

National Research Council of Canada, 1995, National Building Code of Canada, (NBCC)

Park, R., Paulay, T., 1975, Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley&Sons Inc., pp645-655

Paulay, T., and Binney, J. R., 1974, Diagonally Reinforced Coupling Beams of Shear Walls, ACI Special Publication, Shear In Reinforced Concrete, Vol 2, pp579-598

139

Paulay, T., and Santhakumar, A.R., 1976, Ductile Behavior of Coupled Shear Walls, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. ST1, pp.93-108

Paulay, T., Priestley, M.J.N., 1992, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley&Sons Inc., pp376-377, pp381-383

Paulay, T., 2002, A Displacement-Focused Seismic Design of Mixed Building Systems, Earthquake Spectra, 18(4), pp689-718.

Shahrooz, B., Harries, K., 2005, Spreadsheets (electronic version) of Coupling Beam Experiment Database

Tassios, P., Moretti, M., Bezas, A., 1996, On the Behavior and Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams of Shear Walls, ACI Structural Journal, November-December, pp711-720

140

Notations: Ax : Torsion amplification factor in the X direction

Axavg : Average value of Ax of all floors

Ay : Torsion amplification factor in the Y direction Axavg : Average value of Ay of all floors

C d : Deflection amplification factor C s : Seismic response coefficient of the ELF method C cvx : Vertical distribution factor of ELF

F : Lateral force from the ELF method

h : Story height

hi : Height from measured from the base to level i

I : Importance factor of the building, equal to 1 L : Coupling arm, distance between two centroids of adjacent walls

V : Beam shear

Vb : Design base shear Vsum : Sum of beam shears

A-1

wi : Weight of story i

: Total displacement

e : Elastic displacement

avg : Average displacement

: Story drift

A-2

Top Floor Unit Weight Walls Beams Columns Slab Partitions Claddings Mechanics Total Loads of Top Floor Middle Floors Unit Weight Walls Beams Columns Slab Partitions Claddings Mechanics Total Loads of Middle Floor Ground Floor Unit Weight Walls Beams Columns Slab Partitions Claddings Mechanics Total Loads of Ground Floor Total Building Weight 150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 10 psf 15 psf 5 psf Volume or Area 1153 ft

3 3 3 3 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 2 2 2

Weight 74 (kips) 6 (kips) 61(kips) 1000 (kips) 100 (kips) 28 (kips) 50 (kips) 1319 (kips)

150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 10 psf 15 psf 5 psf

3 3 3 3 2 2 2

Weight 149 (kips) 6 (kips) 122 (kips) 1000 (kips) 100 (kips) 55 (kips) 50 (kips) 1482 (kips) Weight 173 (kips) 6 (kips) 142 (kips) 1000 (kips) 100 (kips) 64 (kips) 50 (kips) 1535 (kips) 22120 (kips) 40 ft

150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 10 psf 15 psf 5 psf

A-3

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Sum Story Weight, wi Height above Grade, hi Vertical Distribution (kips) 1319 1482 1482 1482 1482 1482 1482 1482 1482 1482 1482 1482 1482 1482 1535 22120

Story

Lateral Load Accidental Torsion at Stories, F (kips) 407.4 399.9 346.0 296.0 250.0 207.8 169.5 135.1 104.6 78.0 55.3 36.5 21.6 10.6 3.6 2521.7 at Stories, Mta (k-ft) 2037.0 1999.5 1730.0 1480.0 1250.0 1039.0 847.5 675.5 523.0 390.0 276.5 182.5 108.0 53.0 18.0

(ft) 140.55 131.38 122.21 113.04 103.87 94.70 85.53 76.36 67.19 58.02 48.85 39.68 30.51 21.34 12.17

Factor, Cvx 0.162 0.159 0.137 0.117 0.099 0.082 0.067 0.054 0.041 0.031 0.022 0.014 0.009 0.004 0.001 1.000

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

A-4

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 avg (ft) 0.7412 0.6934 0.6437 0.5920 0.5383 0.4830 0.4265 0.3695 0.3127 0.2569 0.2030 0.1519 0.1047 0.0628 0.0277 ta (ft) 0.1742 0.1662 0.1572 0.1473 0.1365 0.1249 0.1126 0.0997 0.0865 0.0731 0.0598 0.0468 0.0346 0.0233 0.0133 max= avg + ta (ft) 0.9155 0.8595 0.8009 0.7393 0.6748 0.6079 0.5391 0.4692 0.3992 0.3300 0.2628 0.1987 0.1393 0.0860 0.0410 Axavg Ax=[ max /(1.2 avg)]

2

e= avg +Axavg ta(ft) 0.9433 0.8861 0.8260 0.7628 0.6966 0.6278 0.5570 0.4851 0.4130 0.3417 0.2723 0.2062 0.1448 0.0897 0.0431

= e Cd/I(ft) 4.7164 4.4303 4.1299 3.8140 3.4830 3.1390 2.7851 2.4256 2.0649 1.7083 1.3615 1.0309 0.7239 0.4487 0.2157

(ft) 0.2861 0.3003 0.3159 0.3311 0.3440 0.3538 0.3595 0.3607 0.3566 0.3468 0.3306 0.3070 0.2752 0.2330 0.2157

h (ft) 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 12.17 Max /h

/ h (%) 3.12% 3.27% 3.45% 3.61% 3.75% 3.86% 3.92% 3.93% 3.89% 3.78% 3.61% 3.35% 3.00% 2.54% 1.77% 3.93%

1.06 1.07 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.15 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.30 1.53 1.16

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 avg (ft) 0.7880 0.7230 0.6577 0.5924 0.5273 0.4630 0.4000 0.3390 0.2805 0.2252 0.1739 0.1273 0.0860 0.0508 0.0225 ta (ft) 0.1742 0.1662 0.1572 0.1473 0.1365 0.1249 0.1126 0.0997 0.0865 0.0731 0.0598 0.0468 0.0346 0.0233 0.0133 max= avg + ta (ft) 0.9622 0.8892 0.8149 0.7397 0.6638 0.5879 0.5126 0.4387 0.3670 0.2983 0.2337 0.1741 0.1205 0.0741 0.0358 Ayavg Ay=[ max /(1.2 avg)]

2

e= avg 1.0010 0.9262 0.8499 0.7724 0.6942 0.6157 0.5377 0.4609 0.3862 0.3146 0.2470 0.1845 0.1282 0.0793 0.0387

= e 5.0050 4.6308 4.2494 3.8621 3.4709 3.0784 2.6884 2.3045 1.9311 1.5730 1.2351 0.9226 0.6411 0.3963 0.1934

(ft) 0.3742 0.3814 0.3873 0.3912 0.3924 0.3901 0.3839 0.3734 0.3581 0.3380 0.3125 0.2815 0.2448 0.2029 0.1934

h (ft) 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 12.17 Max /h

/ h (%) 4.08% 4.16% 4.22% 4.27% 4.28% 4.25% 4.19% 4.07% 3.91% 3.69% 3.41% 3.07% 2.67% 2.21% 1.59% 4.28%

1.04 1.05 1.07 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.30 1.36 1.47 1.78 1.22

Notations for Tables A.1.3 and A.1.4 : (1) Values in columns of avg and ta are from ETABS calculations. (2) Column of e represents the elastic displacement at each level including the amplified torsion deformation. (3) Column of is the displacement considering the inelastic effect. Cd=5 and I=1 (4) , the story drift, is the difference of for two adjacent stories.

A-5

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Shear Sum Vsum (kips) Coupling Arm L(ft) Coupling Moment Mc=2VsumL (k-ft) (2 beams at one level) Overturning Moment Motm (k-ft) DOC=Mc/Motm Beam Shear V (kips) 195.6 220.1 255.5 296.4 337.8 376.6 410.6 438.6 459.2 471.4 473.7 464.1 439.4 395.1 324.0 5557.9 19.0 211201.3 265062.9 79.7%

A-6

Top Floor Unit Weight Walls Beams Columns Slab Partitions Claddings Mechanics Total Loads of Top Floor Middle Floors Unit Weight Walls Beams Columns Slab Partitions Claddings Mechanics Total Loads of Middle Floor Ground Floor Unit Weight Walls Beams Columns Slab Partitions Claddings Mechanics Total Loads of Ground Floor Total Building Weight 150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 10 psf 15 psf 5 psf Volume or Area 1423 ft

3 3 3 3 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 2 2 2

Weight 92 (kips) 6 (kips) 61 (kips) 1000 (kips) 100 (kips) 28 (kips) 50 (kips) 1337 (kips)

150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 10 psf 15 psf 5 psf

3 3 3 3 2 2 2

Weight 184 (kips) 6 (kips) 122 (kips) 1000 (kips) 100 (kips) 55 (kips) 50 (kips) 1517 (kips) Weight 213 (kips) 6 (kips) 142 (kips) 1000 (kips) 100 (kips) 64 (kips) 50 (kips) 1575 (kips) 22633 (kips) 40 ft 40 ft

150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 10 psf 15 psf 5 psf

A-7

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Sum Story Weight, wi Height above Grade, hi Vertical Distribution (kips) 1337 1517 1517 1517 1517 1517 1517 1517 1517 1517 1517 1517 1517 1517 1575 22633

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 Fx(kips) 400.0 500.0 Story

Lateral Load Accidental Torsion at Stories, F (kips) 413.4 409.8 354.6 303.4 256.2 212.9 173.7 138.4 107.2 79.9 56.7 37.4 22.1 10.8 3.7 2580.2 at Stories, Mta (k-ft) 2067.0 2049.0 1773.0 1517.0 1281.0 1064.5 868.5 692.0 536.0 399.5 283.5 187.0 110.5 54.0 18.5

(ft) 140.55 131.38 122.21 113.04 103.87 94.70 85.53 76.36 67.19 58.02 48.85 39.68 30.51 21.34 12.17

Factor, Cvx 0.160 0.159 0.137 0.118 0.099 0.083 0.067 0.054 0.042 0.031 0.022 0.014 0.009 0.004 0.001 1.000

A-8

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 avg (ft) 0.5459 0.5114 0.4756 0.4381 0.3990 0.3586 0.3172 0.2753 0.2333 0.1921 0.1520 0.1140 0.0789 0.0476 0.0214 ta (ft) 0.1167 0.1109 0.1047 0.0978 0.0904 0.0825 0.0741 0.0655 0.0566 0.0477 0.0389 0.0303 0.0223 0.0149 0.0085 max= avg + ta (ft) 0.6626 0.6224 0.5802 0.5359 0.4894 0.4410 0.3913 0.3407 0.2899 0.2397 0.1909 0.1444 0.1012 0.0625 0.0298 Axavg Ax=[ max /(1.2 avg)]

2

e= avg +Axavg ta(ft) 0.6734 0.6327 0.5899 0.5449 0.4978 0.4487 0.3982 0.3468 0.2952 0.2442 0.1945 0.1472 0.1032 0.0639 0.0306

= e Cd/I(ft) 3.3670 3.1634 2.9497 2.7247 2.4889 2.2435 1.9909 1.7340 1.4760 1.2208 0.9726 0.7359 0.5161 0.3195 0.1531

(ft) 0.2036 0.2137 0.2249 0.2358 0.2454 0.2526 0.2569 0.2580 0.2552 0.2482 0.2367 0.2198 0.1967 0.1664 0.1531

h (ft) 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 12.17 Max /h

/ h (%) 2.22% 2.33% 2.45% 2.57% 2.68% 2.75% 2.80% 2.81% 2.78% 2.71% 2.58% 2.40% 2.14% 1.81% 1.26% 2.81%

1.02 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.11 1.14 1.20 1.35 1.09

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 avg (ft) 0.5545 0.5089 0.4630 0.4170 0.3713 0.3261 0.2818 0.2388 0.1977 0.1588 0.1227 0.0898 0.0607 0.0360 0.0159 ta (ft) 0.1167 0.1109 0.1047 0.0978 0.0904 0.0825 0.0741 0.0655 0.0566 0.0477 0.0389 0.0303 0.0223 0.0149 0.0085 max= avg + ta (ft) 0.6712 0.6198 0.5676 0.5148 0.4617 0.4085 0.3559 0.3043 0.2543 0.2065 0.1615 0.1201 0.0830 0.0508 0.0244 Ayavg Ay=[ max /(1.2 avg)]

2

e= avg 0.6868 0.6346 0.5816 0.5279 0.4737 0.4195 0.3658 0.3130 0.2618 0.2129 0.1667 0.1242 0.0860 0.0528 0.0320

= e 3.4338 3.1731 2.9080 2.6394 2.3686 2.0977 1.8290 1.5652 1.3092 1.0643 0.8337 0.6210 0.4299 0.2641 0.1599

(ft) 0.2607 0.2651 0.2686 0.2708 0.2709 0.2687 0.2638 0.2560 0.2450 0.2306 0.2127 0.1911 0.1657 0.1043 0.1599

h (ft) 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 12.17 Max /h

/ h (%) 2.84% 2.89% 2.93% 2.95% 2.95% 2.93% 2.88% 2.79% 2.67% 2.51% 2.32% 2.08% 1.81% 1.14% 1.31% 2.95%

1.02 1.03 1.04 1.06 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.17 1.20 1.24 1.30 1.39 1.00 1.13

Notations for Tables A.2.3 and A.2.4 : (1) Values in columns of avg and ta are from ETABS calculations. (2) Column of e represents the elastic displacement at each level including the amplified torsion deformation. (3) Column of is the displacement considering the inelastic effect. Cd=5 and I=1 (4) , the story drift, is the difference of for two adjacent stories.

A-9

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Shear Sum Vsum (kips) Coupling Arm L(ft) Coupling Moment Mc=2VsumL (k-ft) (2 beams at one level) Overturning Moment Motm (k-ft) DOC=Mc/Motm Beam Shear V (kips) 190.8 211.2 240.7 275.0 310.1 343.0 371.8 395.3 412.1 421.2 421.2 410.4 386.1 344.6 280.3 5013.7 21.0 210573.3 278815.5 75.5%

A-10

Top Floor Unit Weight Walls Beams Columns Slab Partitions Claddings Mechanics Total Loads of Top Floor Middle Floors Unit Weight Walls Beams Columns Slab Partitions Claddings Mechanics Total Loads of Middle Floor Ground Floor Unit Weight Walls Beams Columns Slab Partitions Claddings Mechanics Total Loads of Ground Floor Total Building Weight 150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 10 psf 15 psf 5 psf Volume or Area 1494 ft

3 3 3 3 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 2 2 2

Weight 96 (kips) 6 (kips) 61 (kips) 1000 (kips) 100 (kips) 28 (kips) 50 (kips) 1341 (kips)

150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 10 psf 15 psf 5 psf

3 3 3 3 2 2 2

Weight 193 (kips) 6 (kips) 122 (kips) 1000 (kips) 100 (kips) 55 (kips) 50 (kips) 1526 (kips) Weight 224 (kips) 6 (kips) 142 (kips) 1000 (kips) 100 (kips) 64 (kips) 50 (kips) 1586 (kips) 22765 (kips)

150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 10 psf 15 psf 5 psf

40 ft 6667 ft 3668 ft

40 ft 6667 ft 4268 ft

A-11

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Sum Story Weight, wi Height above Grade, hi Vertical Distribution (kips) 1341 1526 1526 1526 1526 1526 1526 1526 1526 1526 1526 1526 1526 1526 1586 22765

Story

Lateral Load Accidental Torsion at Stories, F (kips) 414.8 412.4 356.8 305.3 257.8 214.3 174.8 139.3 107.9 80.4 57.0 37.6 22.2 10.9 3.7 2595.2 at Stories, Mta (k-ft) 2074.0 2062.0 1784.0 1526.5 1289.0 1071.5 874.0 696.5 539.5 402.0 285.0 188.0 111.0 54.5 18.5

(ft) 140.55 131.38 122.21 113.04 103.87 94.70 85.53 76.36 67.19 58.02 48.85 39.68 30.51 21.34 12.17

Factor, Cvx 0.160 0.159 0.138 0.118 0.099 0.083 0.067 0.054 0.042 0.031 0.022 0.014 0.009 0.004 0.001 1.000

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

A-12

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 avg (ft) 0.5259 0.4930 0.4588 0.4229 0.3855 0.3466 0.3068 0.2665 0.2261 0.1862 0.1476 0.1108 0.0768 0.0465 0.0210 ta (ft) 0.0975 0.0928 0.0875 0.0818 0.0756 0.0690 0.0621 0.0549 0.0475 0.0400 0.0327 0.0256 0.0188 0.0127 0.0073 max= avg + ta (ft) 0.6234 0.5858 0.5463 0.5047 0.4611 0.4157 0.3689 0.3214 0.2736 0.2263 0.1803 0.1364 0.0956 0.0591 0.0282 Axavg max= avg + ta (ft) 0.5479 0.5063 0.4639 0.4210 0.3778 0.3345 0.2916 0.2496 0.2088 0.1698 0.1330 0.0992 0.0688 0.0424 0.0206 Ayavg Ax=[ max /(1.2 avg)]

2

e= avg +Axavg ta(ft) 0.6273 0.5895 0.5498 0.5080 0.4641 0.4185 0.3714 0.3236 0.2755 0.2279 0.1816 0.1374 0.0964 0.0596 0.0285

= e Cd/I(ft) 3.1364 2.9475 2.7490 2.5400 2.3206 2.0923 1.8571 1.6178 1.3773 1.1394 0.9079 0.6870 0.4819 0.2981 0.1426

(ft) 0.1889 0.1985 0.2090 0.2193 0.2284 0.2351 0.2393 0.2404 0.2379 0.2315 0.2208 0.2052 0.1838 0.1555 0.1426

h (ft) 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 12.17 Max /h h (ft) 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 12.17 Max /h

/ h (%) 2.06% 2.16% 2.28% 2.39% 2.49% 2.56% 2.61% 2.62% 2.59% 2.52% 2.41% 2.24% 2.00% 1.70% 1.17% 2.62% / h (%) 2.31% 2.35% 2.39% 2.41% 2.41% 2.39% 2.35% 2.28% 2.19% 2.06% 1.90% 1.71% 1.49% 1.23% 0.89% 2.41%

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.08 1.12 1.26 1.04 Ay=[ max /(1.2 avg)]

2

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 avg (ft) 0.4504 0.4135 0.3764 0.3392 0.3021 0.2655 0.2296 0.1947 0.1613 0.1297 0.1004 0.0736 0.0499 0.0297 0.0134 ta (ft) 0.0975 0.0928 0.0875 0.0818 0.0756 0.0690 0.0621 0.0549 0.0475 0.0400 0.0327 0.0256 0.0188 0.0127 0.0073 e= avg 0.5622 0.5199 0.4768 0.4330 0.3889 0.3447 0.3008 0.2577 0.2158 0.1756 0.1378 0.1030 0.0715 0.0443 0.0217 = e 2.8112 2.5996 2.3839 2.1651 1.9444 1.7233 1.5039 1.2883 1.0788 0.8782 0.6892 0.5148 0.3577 0.2213 0.1085 (ft) 0.2116 0.2156 0.2188 0.2207 0.2211 0.2195 0.2156 0.2094 0.2006 0.1890 0.1745 0.1571 0.1364 0.1128 0.1085 +Ayavg ta(ft) Cd/I (ft)

1.03 1.04 1.05 1.07 1.09 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.19 1.22 1.26 1.32 1.41 1.00 1.15

Notations for Tables A.3.3 and A.3.4 : (1) Values in columns of avg and ta are from ETABS calculations. (2) Column of e represents the elastic displacement at each level including the amplified torsion deformation. (3) Column of is the displacement considering the inelastic effect. Cd=5 and I=1 (4) , the story drift, is the difference of for two adjacent stories.

A-13

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Shear Sum Vsum (kips) Coupling Arm L(ft) Coupling Moment Mc=2VsumL (k-ft) (2 beams at one level) Overturning Moment Motm (k-ft) DOC=Mc/Motm Beam Shear V (kips) 190.7 211.0 240.3 274.4 309.1 341.8 370.5 393.8 410.4 419.4 419.3 408.5 384.2 342.8 278.7 4994.7 21.2 211775.7 280401.8 75.5%

A-14

Top Floor Unit Weight Walls Beams Columns Slab Partitions Claddings Mechanics Total Loads of Top Floor Middle Floors Unit Weight Walls Beams Columns Slab Partitions Claddings Mechanics Total Loads of Middle Floor Ground Floor Unit Weight Walls Beams Columns Slab Partitions Claddings Mechanics Total Loads of Ground Floor Total Building Weight 150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 10 psf 15 psf 5 psf Volume or Area 1601 ft

3 3 3 3 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 2 2 2

Weight 103 (kips) 8 (kips) 61 (kips) 1000 (kips) 100 (kips) 28 (kips) 50 (kips) 1350 (kips)

150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 10 psf 15 psf 5 psf

50 ft 6667 ft 1836 ft

3 3 3 3 2 2 2

Weight 206 (kips) 8(kips) 122 (kips) 1000 (kips) 100 (kips) 55 (kips) 50 (kips) 1541 (kips) Weight 240 (kips) 8 (kips) 142 (kips) 1000 (kips) 100 (kips) 64 (kips) 50 (kips) 1604 (kips) 22987 (kips)

150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 150 pcf 10 psf 15 psf 5 psf

815 ft 10000 ft

50 ft 6667 ft 4268 ft

A-15

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Sum Story Weight Height above Grade wi (kips) 1350 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1604 22987 hi (ft) 140.55 131.38 122.21 113.04 103.87 94.70 85.53 76.36 67.19 58.02 48.85 39.68 30.51 21.34 12.17 Vertical Distribution Lateral Load Factor Cvx 0.159 0.159 0.138 0.118 0.099 0.083 0.067 0.054 0.042 0.031 0.022 0.015 0.009 0.004 0.001 1.000 at Stories Fx (kips) 417.7 416.6 360.5 308.4 260.4 216.5 176.6 140.7 109.0 81.3 57.6 38.0 22.5 11.0 3.7 2620.0 Accidental Torsion at Stories Mta (k-ft) 2088.5 2083.0 1802.5 1542.0 1302.0 1082.5 883.0 703.5 545.0 406.5 288.0 190.0 112.5 55.0 18.5

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Story

A-16

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 avg (ft) 0.4166 0.3902 0.3627 0.3339 0.3040 0.2731 0.2416 0.2098 0.1782 0.1470 0.1169 0.0884 0.0618 0.0381 0.0179 ta (ft) 0.0574 0.0552 0.0526 0.0497 0.0464 0.0427 0.0388 0.0347 0.0304 0.0260 0.0215 0.0172 0.0130 0.0091 0.0055 max= avg + ta (ft) 0.4739 0.4454 0.4153 0.3836 0.3503 0.3158 0.2804 0.2445 0.2085 0.1730 0.1385 0.1055 0.0748 0.0472 0.0235 Axavg Ax=[ max /(1.2 avg)]

2

e= avg +Axavg ta(ft) 0.4749 0.4464 0.4162 0.3845 0.3512 0.3166 0.2811 0.2451 0.2091 0.1735 0.1389 0.1058 0.0751 0.0473 0.0235

= e Cd/I(ft) 2.3747 2.2318 2.0812 1.9223 1.7558 1.5830 1.4055 1.2255 1.0453 0.8673 0.6943 0.5292 0.3753 0.2366 0.1177

(ft) 0.1429 0.1506 0.1589 0.1665 0.1729 0.1774 0.1800 0.1802 0.1779 0.1730 0.1650 0.1539 0.1388 0.1188 0.1177

h (ft) 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 12.17 Max /h

/ h (%) 1.56% 1.64% 1.73% 1.82% 1.89% 1.94% 1.96% 1.97% 1.94% 1.89% 1.80% 1.68% 1.51% 1.30% 0.97% 1.97%

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.06 1.19 1.02

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 avg (ft) 0.3414 0.3137 0.2857 0.2576 0.2297 0.2020 0.1748 0.1484 0.1231 0.0992 0.0769 0.0566 0.0386 0.0232 0.0107 ta (ft) 0.0574 0.0552 0.0526 0.0497 0.0464 0.0427 0.0388 0.0347 0.0304 0.0247 0.0204 0.0162 0.0130 0.0091 0.0055 max= avg + ta (ft) 0.3988 0.3688 0.3383 0.3073 0.2760 0.2447 0.2136 0.1831 0.1535 0.1239 0.0973 0.0728 0.0516 0.0322 0.0162 Ayavg Ay=[ max /(1.2 avg)]

2

e= avg 0.4054 0.3752 0.3443 0.3130 0.2813 0.2496 0.2181 0.1871 0.1570 0.1267 0.0997 0.0747 0.0531 0.0333 0.0168

= e 2.0270 1.8759 1.7217 1.5650 1.4066 1.2480 1.0904 0.9354 0.7849 0.6337 0.4984 0.3735 0.2653 0.1664 0.0840

(ft) 0.1511 0.1542 0.1567 0.1584 0.1587 0.1576 0.1550 0.1505 0.1512 0.1353 0.1249 0.1082 0.0990 0.0824 0.0840

h (ft) 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.17 12.17 Max /h

/ h (%) 1.65% 1.68% 1.71% 1.73% 1.73% 1.72% 1.69% 1.64% 1.65% 1.48% 1.36% 1.18% 1.08% 0.90% 0.69% 1.73%

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.08 1.11 1.15 1.24 1.34 1.60 1.11

Notations for Tables A.4.3 and A.4.4 : (1) Values in columns of avg and ta are from ETABS calculations. (2) Column of e represents the elastic displacement at each level including the amplified torsion deformation. (3) Column of is the displacement considering the inelastic effect. Cd=5 and I=1 (4) , the story drift, is the difference of for two adjacent stories.

A-17

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Shear Sum Vsum (kips) Coupling Arm L(ft) Coupling Moment Mc=2VsumL (k-ft) (2 beams at one level) Overturning Moment Motm (k-ft) DOC=Mc/Motm Beam Shear V (kips) 159.2 186.4 224.3 267.1 309.6 349.1 383.6 412.1 433.8 447.9 453.4 448.3 429.6 392.1 327.2 5223.5 21.6 225655.2 283093.6 79.7%

A-18

Notations:

A : Floor area

Ag : Diagonal core gross area

Ahh : Area of horizontal reinforcement Ash : Area of transverse reinforcement Avd : Area of diagonal reinforcement Avh : Area of vertical reinforcement Ax : Torsion amplification factor

Axavg : Average of Ax of all floors

c : Concrete cover

C vxm : Vertical distribution factor of Mode m d x : Height of diagonal core Fxm : Lateral load of Mode m

f c' : Concrete compression strength

f y : Longitudinal reinforcement yield strength f yh : Transverse reinforcement yield strength

B-1

l d : Reinforcement development length l n : Clear span of link beam l w : Length of rectangular wall pier M taxm : Accidental torsion associated with Fxm of Mode m n sh : Number of transverse reinforcement legs in beam section

reinforcement

V pf : Shear on wall pier caused by Fxm V pt : Shear on wall pier caused by M taxm

Vstr : Story Shear Vn : Nominal shear demand for coupling beam Vw : Shear on wall pier after torsion amplification and wall length adjustment wi : Weight of story i

max : Maximum ratio of wall pier shear to story shear

avg : Floor average displacement

: Redundancy factor or steel ratio

B-2

Table B.1.1 Lateral Loads and Accidental Torsion of Mode 1 in the Coupled Direction

Story Weight wi Lateral Load at Stories Fxm Accidental Torsion at Stories Mtaxm Story Mode Shape i Vertical Distribution Load Cvxm (kips) (kips) (k-ft) 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Sum 1350 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1604 22987 0.063 0.059 0.055 0.051 0.046 0.042 0.037 0.033 0.028 0.023 0.019 0.014 0.010 0.006 0.003 0.114 0.123 0.114 0.106 0.097 0.087 0.078 0.068 0.058 0.048 0.038 0.029 0.021 0.013 0.006 1 127.0 136.1 127.0 117.4 107.3 96.9 86.2 75.3 64.3 53.4 42.7 32.5 22.9 14.2 7.0 1110.4 634.8 680.6 634.8 586.8 536.7 484.7 431.2 376.6 321.7 267.1 213.7 162.5 114.4 71.0 35.2

B-3

Table B.1.2 Lateral Loads and Accidental Torsion of Mode 2 in the Coupled Direction

Story Weight wi Lateral Load at Stories Fxm Accidental Torsion at Stories Mtaxm Story Mode Shape i Vertical Distribution Load Cvxm (kips) (kips) (k-ft) 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Sum 1350 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1604 22987 0.059 0.045 0.029 0.013 -0.003 -0.018 -0.032 -0.042 -0.049 -0.051 -0.050 -0.045 -0.036 -0.026 -0.015 -0.225 -0.195 -0.128 -0.057 0.014 0.080 0.138 0.183 0.213 0.224 0.218 0.195 0.159 0.113 0.067 1 -145.2 -125.7 -82.3 -36.6 9.0 51.8 89.0 118.1 137.1 144.7 140.8 126.0 102.4 72.7 43.0 644.8 -726.0 -628.6 -411.4 -183.2 44.9 259.0 445.2 590.7 685.4 723.6 703.8 630.1 511.8 363.7 215.0

B-4

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Notations: (1) Column of

avg

(ft) 0.1582 0.1486 0.1386 0.1281 0.1172 0.1058 0.0941 0.0822 0.0702 0.0583 0.0467 0.0355 0.0250 0.0155 0.0074

ta

(ft) 0.0221 0.0213 0.0204 0.0194 0.0182 0.0169 0.0155 0.0139 0.0123 0.0106 0.0088 0.0071 0.0054 0.0038 0.0023

max = avg + ta

(ft) 0.1803 0.1699 0.1590 0.1475 0.1354 0.1227 0.1096 0.0961 0.0825 0.0689 0.0555 0.0425 0.0304 0.0193 0.0097

Ax=[ max /(1.2 avg )]2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.07 1.20

avg

ta

Axavg 1.02 (the displacement due to accidental torsion), are from ETABS calculation

(2) The value of Ax is limited between the range from 1.0 to 3.0

B-5

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Notations: (1) Column of

avg

(ft) -0.0118 -0.0089 -0.0059 -0.0026 0.0006 0.0037 0.0063 0.0084 0.0097 0.0103 0.0100 0.0090 0.0073 0.0052 0.0029

ta

(ft) 0.0001 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020 0.0025 0.0030 0.0033 0.0034 0.0034 0.0032 0.0029 0.0024 0.0018 0.0012

max = avg + ta

(ft) 0.0119 0.0094 0.0068 0.0041 0.0027 0.0062 0.0093 0.0116 0.0131 0.0137 0.0132 0.0118 0.0097 0.0070 0.0119

Ax=[ max /(1.2 avg )]2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.71 3.00 1.98 1.49 1.34 1.27 1.23 1.21 1.21 1.23 1.27 1.39

avg

ta

Axavg 1.42 (the displacement due to accidental torsion), are from ETABS calculation

B-6

Story Vf (kips) Vt (kips) 15 31.6 16.4 14 65.6 18.1 13 97.3 21.8 12 126.8 25.7 11 153.7 29.5 10 178.1 32.9 9 199.9 36.0 8 219.0 38.6 7 235.3 40.6 6 248.8 42.0 5 259.6 42.7 4 267.8 42.6 3 273.3 41.6 2 276.4 39.7 1 278.2 38.7 Story Vf (kips) Vt (kips) 15 0 7.7 14 0 15.0 13 0 32.3 12 0 47.4 11 0 60.9 10 0 73.0 9 0 83.9 8 0 93.7 7 0 102.4 6 0 110.3 5 0 117.4 4 0 124.1 3 0 130.4 2 0 136.9 1 0 141.7 Vf+AxavgVt(kips) 48.3 84.1 119.6 153.0 183.8 211.7 236.6 258.3 276.7 291.7 303.1 311.2 315.7 316.9 317.6 7.9 15.3 32.9 48.3 62.1 74.4 85.6 95.5 104.5 112.5 119.8 126.5 133.0 139.6 144.5 P101 (Group I) Lw(ft) Vw=(Vf+AxavgVt)10/Lw(kips) 10 48.3 10 84.1 10 119.6 10 153.0 10 183.8 10 211.7 10 236.6 10 258.3 10 276.7 10 291.7 10 303.1 10 311.2 10 315.7 10 316.9 10 317.6 P103 (Group II) Lw(ft) Vw=(Vf+AxavgVt)10/Lw(kips) 25 3.1 25 6.1 25 13.2 25 19.3 25 24.8 25 29.8 25 34.2 25 38.2 25 41.8 25 45.0 25 47.9 25 50.6 25 53.2 25 55.8 25 57.8 Vstr(kips) 127.0 263.1 390.1 507.4 614.8 711.7 797.9 873.3 937.6 991.0 1033.8 1066.3 1089.2 1103.4 1110.4 =|Vw/Vstr| 0.38 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 =|Vw/Vstr| 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.38 1.47

Vf+AxavgVt(kips)

Vstr(kips)

Notations: (1) Vf is the wall pier shear due to lateral loads Fxm. (2) Vt is the wall pier shear due to torsion Mtaxm. (3) Axavg is the average of Ax (refer to Table B.2.1). (4) Lw is the wall length. (5) Vstr is the story shear.

127.0 263.1 390.1 507.4 614.8 711.7 797.9 873.3 937.6 991.0 1033.8 1066.3 1089.2 1103.4 1110.4 max= =2-20/(maxA0.5)

B-7

Story Vf (kips) Vt (kips) 15 -35.87 -9.14 14 -66.97 -11.82 13 -87.38 -13.82 12 -96.53 -14.56 11 -94.41 -13.88 10 -81.68 -11.83 9 -59.7 -8.58 8 -30.46 -4.39 7 3.54 0.39 6 39.5 5.35 5 74.54 10.06 4 105.93 14.1 3 131.44 17.1 2 149.51 18.6 1 160.91 21.81 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Vf (kips) Vt (kips) 0 9.89 0 28.73 0 40.64 0 46.31 0 46 0 40.13 0 29.43 0 14.91 0 -2.16 0 -20.42 0 -38.44 0 -54.95 0 -68.95 0 -80.11 0 -83.38 Vf+AxavgVt(kips) -48.86 -83.77 -107.02 -117.23 -114.14 -98.50 -71.90 -36.70 4.09 47.10 88.84 125.97 155.75 175.95 191.91 14.06 40.84 57.77 65.83 65.38 57.04 41.83 21.19 -3.07 -29.03 -54.64 -78.11 -98.01 -113.87 -118.52 P101 (Group I) Lw(ft) Vw=(Vf+AxavgVt)10/Lw(kips) 10 -48.86 10 -83.77 10 -107.02 10 -117.23 10 -114.14 10 -98.50 10 -71.90 10 -36.70 10 4.09 10 47.10 10 88.84 10 125.97 10 155.75 10 175.95 10 191.91 P103 (Group II) Lw(ft) Vw=(Vf+AxavgVt)10/Lw(kips) 25 5.62 25 16.33 25 23.11 25 26.33 25 26.15 25 22.82 25 16.73 25 8.48 25 -1.23 25 -11.61 25 -21.86 25 -31.24 25 -39.20 25 -45.55 25 -47.41 Vstr(kips) -145.21 -270.92 -353.20 -389.83 -380.86 -329.05 -240.02 -121.89 15.20 159.92 300.68 426.70 529.05 601.80 644.80 =|Vw/Vstr| 0.34 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.27 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.30 =|Vw/Vstr| 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.34 1.41

Story

Vf+AxavgVt(kips)

Vstr(kips)

Notations: (1) Vf is the wall pier shear due to lateral loads Fxm. (2) Vt is the wall pier shear due to torsion Mtaxm. (3) Axavg is the average of Ax (refer to Table B.2.2). (4) Lw is the wall length. (5) Vstr is the story shear.

-145.21 -270.92 -353.20 -389.83 -380.86 -329.05 -240.02 -121.89 15.20 159.92 300.68 426.70 529.05 601.80 644.80 max= =2-20/(maxA0.5)

B-8

Comments bw (in)--beam width 20 h (in)--beam height 30 ln (in)--clear span 72 fc' (ksi) 6 fy,fyh (ksi) 60 Vn (kips)--design shear capacity demand 279 Nominal shear stress=6root(fc') Diagonal Reinforcement ln/h 2.4 When ln/h<4.0, a diagonal beam is recommended by bx (in)--width of diagonal element 11 At least bw/2, referring to ACI 21.7.7.4 dx (in)--depth pf diagonal element 6 At least bw/5, referring to ACI 21.7.7.4 c (in)--concrete coverage 1.5 Per ACI 7.7.1 Inclination of diagonal bars, (degree) 15.4 Calculated Avd (in2) 8.7 Avd=Vn/(2fysin()) Choose 6 #10 in one diagonal core At least 4 longitudinal bars needed, per ACI 21.7.7.4 Actual Avd (in2) 7.6 actual capacity (kips) 243 Actual shear stress=5.2 root(fc') (steel ratio) 2.5% 1%<<6%, per ACI 21.4.3.1 Check Diagonal Section Dimension Transverse Dimension of Core Min clear distance of bars (in) 1.9 Greater(1.5,1.5db),db=diameter of #10,per ACI 7.6.3 Actual clear distance (in) 3.1 (bx-2dt-3db)/2,dt = diameter of core transverse Checking result OK Vertical Dimension of Core Min clear distance of bars (in) 1.9 Max(1.5,1.5db),db=diameter of #10, per ACI 7.6.3 Actual clear distance (in) 2.5 dx-2dt-2db, Checking result OK Development Length Per ACI 21.7.7.4 ld (in)--Required 54.6 Per ACI 12.2.2 Actual ld (in) 55 Diagonal Transverse Reinforcement nsh 3 Number of transverse legs hx (in) 5.25 c-c space between legs in core width direction sx (in) 6 sx=4+(14-hx)/3,4<sx<6,per ACI 21.4.4.2 Max allowed s(in)--c-c space of transverse 5 Lesser (bw/4, 6db,sx), per ACI 21.4.4.2 Actual s (in) 4 (dx+21.5) (bx+21.5), Coverage is 1.5in Ag (in2)--gross area of diagonal core 126 bxdx Ach (in2)--out to out cross section 66 hc (in)--c-c height between transverse 5.5 dx-dt Ash (in2)--Required 0.6 Ash=0.3shcfc'/fyh [(Ag/Ach)-1], per ACI Eq. 21-3 Ash=0.09shcfc'/fyh, per ACI Eq. 21-4 0.2 2 Actual Ash (in ) 0.6 3 #4 legs Choose 3 legs of #4@4 Distribution Reinforcement Horizontal Steel Max s (in)--c-c space between horizontal steels 6 Lesser (h/5,12 ), per ACI 11.8.5 Actual s (in) 6 Ahh=0.0015bws Required Ahh (in2) 0.2 Choose #4@5 in the side faces and #4@5.2 in the Distance between horizontal steels is adjusted to top/bottom faces fit the dimension of the beam face Actual Avh (in2) 0.4 2 legs of #4 Vertical Steel Max s (in)--c-c space between horizontal steels 6 Lesser (h/5,12 ), per ACI 11.8.4 Actual s (in) 6 Avh=0.025bws Required Avh (in2) 0.3 Choose #4@6 Actual Avh (in2) 0.4 2 legs of #4 Design Parameter

B-8

Comments 20 30 72 6 60 177 Nominal shear stress=3.8 root(fc') Diagonal Reinforcement ln/h 2.4 When ln/h<4.0, a diagonal beam is recommended by bx (in)--width of diagonal element 11 At least bw/2, referring to ACI 21.7.7.4 dx (in)--depth pf diagonal element 6 At least bw/5, referring to ACI 21.7.7.4 c (in)--concrete coverage 1.5 Per ACI 7.7.1 Inclination of diagonal bars, (degree) 15.4 Calculated Avd (in2) 5.6 Avd=Vn/(2fysin()) Choose 6 #9 in one diagonal core At least 4 longitudinal bars needed, per ACI 21.7.7.4 Actual Avd (in2) 6 Actual capacity (kips) 191 Actual shear stress=4.1 root(fc') (steel ratio) 2.0% 1%<<6%, per ACI 21.4.3.1 Check Diagonal Section Dimension Transverse Dimension Min clear distance of bars (in) 1.7 Greater(1.5,1.5db),db=diameter of #9,per ACI 7.6.3 Actual clear distance (in) 3.3 (bx-2dt-3db)/2,dt = diameter of core transverse Checking result OK Vertical Dimension Min clear distance of bars (in) 1.7 Greater(1.5,1.5db),db=diameter of #9,per ACI 7.6.3 Actual clear distance (in) 2.7 dx-2dt-2db, Checking result OK Development Length Per ACI 21.7.7.4 ld (in)--Required 39 Per ACI 12.2.2 Actual ld (in) 40 Diagonal Transverse Reinforcement nsh 3 Number of transverse legs hx (in) 5.25 c-c space between legs in core width direction sx (in) 6 sx=4+(14-hx)/3,4<sx<6,per ACI 21.4.4.2 Max allowed s(in)--c-c space of transverse 5 Lesser (bw/4, 6db,sx), per ACI 21.4.4.2 Actual s (in) 4 (dx+21.5) (bx+21.5), Coverage is 1.5in Ag (in2)--gross area of diagonal core 126 bxdx Ach (in2)--out to out cross section 66 hc (in)--c-c height between transverse 5.5 dx-dt Ash (in2)--Required 0.6 Ash=0.3shcfc'/fyh [(Ag/Ach)-1], per ACI Eq. 21-3 Ash=0.09shcfc'/fyh, per ACI Eq. 21-4 0.2 2 Actual Ash (in ) 0.6 3 #4 legs Choose 3 legs of #4@4 Distribution Reinforcement Horizontal Steel Max s (in)--c-c space between horizontal steels 6 Lesser (h/5,12 ), per ACI 11.8.5 Actual s (in) 6 Ahh=0.0015bws Required Ahh (in2) 0.2 bw (in)--beam width h (in)--beam height ln (in)--clear span fc' (ksi) fy,fyh (ksi) Vn (kips)--design shear capacity demand Choose #4@5 in the side faces and #4@5.2 in the top/bottom faces Actual Avh (in2) Vertical Steel Max s (in)--c-c space between horizontal steels Actual s (in) Required Avh (in2) Choose #4@6 Actual Avh (in2) Distance between horizontal steels is adjusted to fit the dimension of the beam face 2 legs of #4 Lesser (h/5,12 ), per ACI 11.8.4 Avh=0.025bws 2 legs of #4 Design Parameter

B-9

Comments 20 30 72 6 60 98 Nominal shear stress=2.1root(fc') Diagonal Reinforcement ln/h 2.4 When ln/h<4.0, a diagonal beam is recommended by bx (in)--width of diagonal element 11 At least bw/2, referring to ACI 21.7.7.4 dx (in)--depth pf diagonal element 6 At least bw/5, referring to ACI 21.7.7.4 c (in)--concrete coverage 2 Per ACI 7.7.1 Inclination of diagonal bars, (degree) 15.4 Calculated Avd (in2) 3.1 Avd=Vn/(2fysin()) Choose 6 #7 in one diagonal core At least 4 longitudinal bars needed, per ACI 21.7.7.4 Actual Avd (in2) 3.6 Actual capacity (kips) 115 Actual shear stress=2.4root(fc') (steel ratio) 1.2% 1%<r<6%, per ACI 21.4.3.1 Check Diagonal Section Dimension Transverse Dimension Min clear distance of bars (in) 1.5 Greater(1.5,1.5db),db=diameter of #7,per ACI 7.6.3 Actual clear distance (in) 3.7 (bx-2dt-3db)/2,dt =diameter of core transverse Checking result OK Vertical Dimension Min clear distance of bars (in) 1.5 Max(1.5,1.5db),db=diameter of #7 per ACI 7.6.3 Actual clear distance (in) 3.3 dx-2dt-2db, Checking result OK Development Length Per ACI 21.7.7.4 ld (in)--Required 34 Per ACI 12.2.2 Actual ld (in) 35 Diagonal Transverse Reinforcement nsh 3 Number of transverse legs hx (in) 5.25 c-c space between legs in core width direction sx (in) 6 sx=4+(14-hx)/3,4<sx<6,per ACI 21.4.4.2 Max allowed s(in)--c-c space of transverse 5 Lesser (bw/4, 6db,sx), per ACI 21.4.4.2 Actual s (in) 4 (dx+21.5) (bx+21.5), Coverage is 1.5in Ag (in2)--gross area of diagonal core 126 bxdx Ach (in2)--out to out cross section 66 hc (in)--c-c height between transverse 5.5 dx-dt Ash (in2)--Required 0.6 Ash=0.3shcfc'/fyh [(Ag/Ach)-1], per ACI Eq. 21-3 Ash=0.09shcfc'/fyh, per ACI Eq. 21-4 0.2 2 Actual Ash (in ) 0.6 3 #4 legs Choose 3 legs of #4@4 Distribution Reinforcement Horizontal Steel Max s (in)--c-c space between horizontal steels 6 Lesser (h/5,12 ), per ACI 11.8.5 Actual s (in) 6 Ahh=0.0015bws Required Ahh (in2) 0.2 bw (in)--beam width h (in)--beam height ln (in)--clear span fc' (ksi) fy,fyh (ksi) Vn (kips)--design shear capacity demand Choose #4@5 in the side faces and #4@5.2 in the top/bottom faces Actual Avh (in2) Vertical Steel Max s (in)--c-c space between horizontal steels Actual s (in) Required Avh (in2) Choose #4@6 Actual Avh (in2) Distance between horizontal steels is adjusted to fit the dimension of the beam face 2 legs of #4 Lesser (h/5,12 ), per ACI 11.8.4 Avh=0.025bws 2 legs of #4 Design Parameter

B-10

Notations:

A : Area

Acv : Section gross area Ash : Area of transverse reinforcement Ax : Torsion amplification factor in the X direction

Axavg : Average value of Ax of all levels

Ay : Torsion amplification factor in the Y direction A yavg : Average value of Ay of all levels

b : Section thickness

Cb : Base shear amplification factor C vx : Vertical distribution factor in the X direction

C vy : Vertical distribution factor in the Y direction

D : Accumulated dead load corresponding to dead loads at that story and above

f c' : Concrete compression strength f yh : Transverse steel yield strength

F y : Lateral loads in the Y direction

hc : Center to center distance between two transverse reinforcement bars located at the edge of the section

C-1

L : Accumulated live load corresponding to live loads at that story and above

Li : Live load of the story i Lw : Wall length M tax : Accidental torsion associated with the X direction lateral loads

M tay : Accidental torsion associated with the Y direction lateral loads

p L : Uniformly distributed live load p D : Uniformly distributed dead load, accounting for weight of the slab, column,

partition, and cladding

S DS : Design spectral response acceleration at short period Vb : Base shear from ELF Vstr : Story Shear Vw : Shear on the wall sub-section

V y : Base shear of each mode in the Y direction calculated by modal response

'

spectrum analysis

Wi : Level i weight Wc : Concrete core weight, including one C-shaped wall section and one beam

W y : Effective weight of each mode in the Y direction

C-2

'

x max : Maximum x

y : Ratio of Vw to Vstr in the Y direction

'

y max : Maximum y xavg : SRSS of average displacements of all considered modes in the X direction

direction

yavg : SRSS of average displacements of all considered modes in the Y direction y max : SRSS of maximum displacements of all considered modes in the Y

direction

: Longitudinal reinforcement ratio

n : Horizontal reinforcement ratio v : Vertical reinforcement ratio x : Redundancy factor in the X direction

y : Redundancy factor in the Y direction

C-3

Table C.1.1 Lateral Loads and Their Effects for Mode 1 in the X Direction

Lateral Load Calculations Story Load Effects Accidental Overturning Story Shear Vertical Story Weight Mode Shape Lateral Load, Torsion Moment, Vstr Distribution Mtax OTM wi (kips) Fx (kips) i (kips) Factor, Cvx (k-ft) (k-ft) 1350 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1604 0.063 0.059 0.055 0.051 0.046 0.042 0.037 0.033 0.028 0.023 0.019 0.014 0.010 0.006 0.003 0.114 0.123 0.114 0.106 0.097 0.087 0.078 0.068 0.058 0.048 0.038 0.029 0.021 0.013 0.006 127.0 136.1 127.0 117.4 107.3 96.9 86.2 75.3 64.3 53.4 42.7 32.5 22.9 14.2 7.0 634.8 680.6 634.8 586.8 536.7 484.7 431.2 376.6 321.7 267.1 213.7 162.5 114.4 71.0 35.2 1164 3577 7154 11807 17444 23970 31287 39295 47893 56981 66461 76239 86226 96344 109858 127 263 390 507 615 712 798 873 938 991 1034 1066 1089 1103 1110

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Table C.1.2 Lateral Loads and Their Effects for Mode 2 in the X Direction

Load Effects Accidental Overturning Story Shear Vertical Story Story Weight Mode Shape Lateral Load, Torsion, Moment, Vstr, Distribution Fx (kips) OTM Mtax wi (kips) i (kips) Factor, Cvx (k-ft) (k-ft) 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1350 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1604 0.059 0.045 0.029 0.013 -0.003 -0.018 -0.032 -0.042 -0.049 -0.051 -0.050 -0.045 -0.036 -0.026 -0.015 -0.225 -0.195 -0.128 -0.057 0.014 0.080 0.138 0.183 0.213 0.224 0.218 0.195 0.159 0.113 0.067 -145.2 -125.7 -82.3 -36.6 9.0 51.8 89.0 118.1 137.1 144.7 140.8 126.0 102.4 72.7 43.0 -726.0 -628.6 -411.4 -183.2 44.9 259.0 445.2 590.7 685.4 723.6 703.8 630.1 511.8 363.7 215.0 -1332 -3816 -7055 -10629 -14122 -17139 -19340 -20458 -20319 -18852 -16095 -12182 -7331 -1812 6035 -145 -271 -353 -390 -381 -329 -240 -122 15 160 301 427 529 602 645 Lateral Load Calculations

C-4

SRSS of Load Effects from Table C.1.1&C.1.2 Story OTM Story Shear Vstr (k-ft) (kips) 15 1769 193 14 5230 379 13 10047 528 12 15886 641 11 22444 725 10 29468 786 9 36783 835 8 44302 884 7 52025 940 6 60019 1006 5 68382 1079 4 77206 1151 3 86537 1214 2 96361 1260 1 110023 1287 Notation: See Table 3.2 for Cb value SRSS Results Multiplied by Cb OTM (k-ft) 3060 9048 17381 27484 38828 50979 63634 76642 90003 103833 118301 133566 149710 166705 190340 Story Shear Vstr (kips) 335 655 913 1110 1254 1360 1445 1529 1626 1741 1867 1992 2100 2180 2227

Mode 1 Modal Mass W y (kips) 15984 22987 70% Mode 2 4973 22987 22% 92% Total

Building Total Mass

Mode 1 Vy (kips) Vt SRSS of both Vy (kips) 0.85Vb from ELF (kips) Cb =0.85Vb/Vt 1190 Mode 2 829 1450 2227 1.54

C-5

Table C.3.1 Lateral Loads and Their Effects for Mode 1 in the Y Direction

Load Effects Accidental Overturning Story Shear, Vertical Lateral Load, Story Story Weight Mode Shape Torsion, Moment, Vstr Distribution Fy Mtay OTM wi (kips) i (kips) (kips) Factor, Cvy (k-ft) (k-ft) 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1350 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1604 0.067 0.062 0.056 0.051 0.045 0.040 0.035 0.029 0.025 0.020 0.015 0.011 0.008 0.005 0.002 0.127 0.133 0.121 0.110 0.098 0.086 0.075 0.064 0.053 0.043 0.033 0.025 0.017 0.010 0.005 151.0 158.5 144.6 130.6 116.6 102.8 89.2 75.9 63.1 51.0 39.7 29.3 20.1 12.1 5.9 755.0 792.6 722.9 653.0 583.2 514.0 445.9 379.5 315.7 255.0 198.3 146.5 100.3 60.5 29.3 1385 4223 8387 13749 20180 27554 35746 44634 54100 64034 74333 84899 95650 106511 120998 151 310 454 585 701 804 893 969 1032 1083 1123 1152 1172 1184 1190 Lateral Load Calculations

Table C.3.2 Lateral Loads and Their Effects for Mode 2 in the Y Direction

Load Effects Accidental Overturning Story Shear, Vertical Lateral Load, Story Story Weight Mode Shape Torsion, Moment, Vstr Distribution Fy Mtay OTM wi (kips) i (kips) (kips) Factor, Cvy (k-ft) (k-ft) 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1350 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1541 1604 0.058 0.041 0.025 0.008 -0.008 -0.022 -0.034 -0.043 -0.049 -0.050 -0.049 -0.044 -0.037 -0.028 -0.018 -0.196 -0.161 -0.096 -0.031 0.031 0.087 0.133 0.167 0.189 0.196 0.190 0.171 0.142 0.107 0.071 -162.4 -133.5 -79.6 -25.6 25.7 71.8 110.1 138.8 156.5 162.5 157.1 141.6 117.9 88.6 59.3 -811.8 -667.6 -397.8 -128.1 128.5 358.9 550.7 694.2 782.3 812.4 785.7 708.1 589.4 443.2 296.3 -1489 -4202 -7645 -11323 -14765 -17549 -19323 -19824 -18889 -16466 -12601 -7437 -1192 5865 15953 -162 -296 -375 -401 -375 -304 -193 -55 102 264 421 563 681 770 829 Lateral Load Calculations

C-6

SRSS of Load Effects from Table C.3.1&C.3.2 Story OTM Story Shear Vstr (k-ft) (kips) 15 2033 222 14 5957 428 13 11349 589 12 17811 709 11 25005 795 10 32668 860 9 40634 914 8 48838 971 7 57303 1037 6 66118 1115 5 75393 1200 4 85224 1283 3 95657 1356 2 106673 1413 1 122045 1450 Notation: See Table C.2.2 for Cb value SRSS Results Multiplied by Cb OTM (k-ft) 3122 9147 17424 27346 38391 50156 62387 74983 87980 101513 115754 130849 146867 163779 187380 Story Shear Vstr (kips) 340 657 905 1089 1221 1320 1403 1490 1593 1712 1842 1969 2082 2169 2227

Table C.4 Dead and Live Loads for Wall Pier Design

Dead Load Distributed Distributed Core Live Load at Total at Each Tributary Dead Load, Live Load, Weight, Each Story, Story, Story Area, A L=Li pD Li=pLA pL Wc Di=pDA+Wc (ft2) (kips) (psf) (psf) (kips) (kips) (kips) 15 914 133 50 107 229 46 46 14 914 133 50 107 229 46 91 13 914 133 50 107 229 46 137 12 914 133 50 107 229 46 183 11 914 133 50 107 229 46 229 10 914 133 50 107 229 46 274 9 914 133 50 107 229 46 320 8 914 133 50 107 229 46 366 7 914 133 50 107 229 46 411 6 914 133 50 107 229 46 457 5 914 133 50 107 229 46 503 4 914 133 50 107 229 46 548 3 914 133 50 107 229 46 594 2 914 133 50 107 229 46 640 1 914 138 50 141 267 46 686 Total D=Di (kips) 229 457 686 914 1143 1371 1600 1828 2057 2286 2514 2743 2971 3200 3467

C-7

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Shear on Wall Component P201, Vw = Vw10/Lw Story Shear,Vstr Wall Length, Lw (ft) x= Vw /Vstr Vw (kips) (kips) (kips) 122 10 122 334 0.37 239 10 239 653 0.37 333 10 333 910 0.37 404 10 404 1107 0.37 457 10 457 1251 0.37 496 10 496 1356 0.37 527 10 527 1442 0.37 557 10 557 1525 0.37 593 10 593 1622 0.37 635 10 635 1737 0.37 681 10 681 1863 0.37 726 10 726 1987 0.37 765 10 765 2095 0.37 794 10 794 2174 0.37 812 10 812 2221 0.37 0.37 xmax 1.45 x=2-20/(xmax100)

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 xavg (ft) 0.3214 0.2997 0.2772 0.2538 0.2298 0.2052 0.1804 0.1556 0.1311 0.1071 0.0840 0.0621 0.0420 0.0244 0.0104 xmax (ft) 0.3656 0.3425 0.3185 0.2933 0.2669 0.2396 0.2120 0.1841 0.1563 0.1288 0.1021 0.0764 0.0525 0.0313 0.0140 Axavg Amplification Factor Ax=(xmax/1.2xavg)2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.09 1.14 1.25 1.04

C-8

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Shear on Wall Component P203, Wall Length, Lw Vw=Vw10/Lw Story Shear, Vstr Vw (ft) (kips) (kips) (kips) 238 25 95 341 459 25 184 658 632 25 253 905 761 25 304 1089 853 25 341 1222 922 25 369 1320 980 25 392 1404 1041 25 417 1491 1113 25 445 1593 1196 25 478 1713 1287 25 515 1842 1376 25 550 1970 1454 25 582 2082 1515 25 606 2170 1556 25 622 2228 ymax y=2-20/(ymax100) y= Vw /Vstr 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 1.29

Story 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 yavg (ft) 0.2238 0.2055 0.1871 0.1687 0.1503 0.1322 0.1144 0.0971 0.0806 0.0650 0.0505 0.0373 0.0256 0.0155 0.0073 ymax (ft) 0.2612 0.2417 0.2219 0.2018 0.1815 0.1612 0.1410 0.1211 0.1018 0.0832 0.0656 0.0495 0.0350 0.0223 0.0116 Ayavg Amplification Factor Ay=(ymax/1.2yavg)2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.06 1.08 1.11 1.14 1.17 1.22 1.30 1.44 1.77 1.15

C-9

Boundary Element at Flange End Transverse Steel Perpendicular to X hc(in) s(in) Min Ash(in ) Actual Ash(in2) Check max distance (c-c) between legs (in) Distance OK or Not hc(in) s(in) Min Ash(in ) Actual Ash(in2) Check max distance (c-c) between legs (in) Distance OK or Not

2 2

C-C distance of two transverse steels at the edge of confined area 5 1.6 3.0 13 OK Less than 14 inches is OK per ACI 21.4.4.3 Transverse Steel Perpendicular to Y 17 C-C distance of two transverse steels at the edge of confined area 5 0.8 1.8 9.5 Vertical spacing per ACI 21.4.4.2 0.09shcfc'/fyh per ACI 21.4.4.1(b) Choose 3 Legs of No. 7@5 Vertical spacing per ACI 21.4.4.2 0.09shcfc'/fyh per ACI 21.4.4.1(b) Choose 5 Legs of No. 7 @5

OK Less than 14 inches is OK per ACI 21.4.4.3 Boundary Element at Intersection Extending into Flange Transverse Steel Perpendicular to X 27 5 Vertical spacing per ACI 21.4.4.2 0.09shcfc'/fyh per ACI 21.4.4.1(b) Choose 4 Legs of No. 7@5

hc(in) s(in) Min Ash(in ) Actual Ash(in ) Check max distance (c-c) between legs (in) Distance OK or Not hc(in) s(in) Min Ash(in ) Actual Ash(in ) Check max distance (c-c) between legs (in) Distance OK or Not

2 2 2 2

1.2 2.4 13

OK Less than 14 inches is OK per ACI 21.4.4.3 Transverse Steel Perpendicular to Y 17 5 0.8 1.8 9.5 Vertical spacing per ACI 21.4.4.2 0.09shcfc'/fyh per ACI 21.4.4.1(b) Choose 3 Legs of No. 7@5

OK Less than 14 inches is OK per ACI 21.4.4.3 Boundary Element at Intersection Extending into Web Transverse Steel Perpendicular to X 17 5 Vertical spacing per ACI 21.4.4.2 0.09shcfc'/fyh per ACI 21.4.4.1(b) Choose 3 Legs of No. 7@5

hc(in) s(in) Min Ash(in ) Actual Ash(in ) Check max distance (c-c) between legs (in) Distance OK or Not hc(in) s(in) Min Ash(in ) Actual Ash(in2) Check max distance (c-c) between legs (in) Distance OK or Not

2 2 2

OK Less than 14 inches is OK per ACI 21.4.4.3 Transverse Steel Perpendicular to Y 71 5 3.2 4.2 13 OK Less than 14 inches is OK per ACI 21.4.4.3 Vertical spacing per ACI 21.4.4.2 0.09shcfc'/fyh per ACI 21.4.4.1(b) Choose 7 Legs of No. 7@5

C-10

Boundary Element at Flange End Transverse Steel Perpendicular to X hc(in) s(in) Min Ash(in ) Actual Ash(in2) Check max distance (c-c) between legs (in) Distance OK or Not hc(in) s(in) Min Ash(in ) Actual Ash(in2) Check max distance (c-c) between legs (in) Distance OK or Not

2 2

13 C-C distance of two transverse steels at the edge of confined area 5 0.6 1.2 13 OK Less than 14 inches is OK per ACI 21.4.4.3 Transverse Steel Perpendicular to Y 17 C-C distance of two transverse steels at the edge of confined area 5 0.8 1.8 9.5 Vertical spacing per ACI 21.4.4.2 0.09shcfc'/fyh per ACI 21.4.4.1(b) Choose 3 Legs of No. 7@5 Vertical spacing per ACI 21.4.4.2 0.09shcfc'/fyh per ACI 21.4.4.1(b) Choose 2 Legs of No. 7 @5

OK Less than 14 inches is OK per ACI 21.4.4.3 Boundary Element at Intersection Extending into Flange Transverse Steel Perpendicular to X 27 5 Vertical spacing per ACI 21.4.4.2 0.09shcfc'/fyh per ACI 21.4.4.1(b) Choose 4 Legs of No. 7@5

hc(in) s(in) Min Ash(in ) Actual Ash(in ) Check max distance (c-c) between legs (in) Distance OK or Not hc(in) s(in) Min Ash(in2) Actual Ash(in ) Check max distance (c-c) between legs (in) Distance OK or Not

2 2 2

Vertical spacing per ACI 21.4.4.2 0.09shcfc'/fyh per ACI 21.4.4.1(b) Choose 3 Legs of No. 7@5

OK Less than 14 inches is OK per ACI 21.4.4.3 Boundary Element at Intersection Extending into Web Transverse Steel Perpendicular to X 17 5 Vertical spacing per ACI 21.4.4.2 0.09shcfc'/fyh per ACI 21.4.4.1(b) Choose 3 Legs of No. 7@5

hc(in) s(in) Min Ash(in ) Actual Ash(in ) Check max distance (c-c) between legs (in) Distance OK or Not hc(in) s(in) Min Ash(in2) Actual Ash(in ) Check max distance (c-c) between legs (in) Distance OK or Not

2 2 2

Vertical spacing per ACI 21.4.4.2 0.09shcfc'/fyh per ACI 21.4.4.1(b) Choose 5 Legs of No. 7@5

C-11

Boundary Element at Flange End 400/fy Check 21.7.6.5 Using 2 No 7 Legs@8 Check max distance (c-c) between legs (in) Distance OK or Not Using 3 No 7 Legs@8 Check max distance (c-c) between legs (in) Distance OK or Not 400/fy Check 21.7.6.5 Using 4 No 7 Legs@8 Check max distance (c-c) between legs (in) Distance OK or Not Using 3 No 7 Legs@8 Check max distance (c-c) between legs (in) Distance OK or Not 400/fy Check 21.7.6.5 Using 3 No 7 Legs@8 Check max distance (c-c) between legs (in) Distance OK or not Using 5 No 7 Legs@8 Check max distance (c-c) between legs (in) Distance OK or Not 9.5 OK Less than 14 inches is OK per ACI 21.4.4.3 Vertical spacing s=8 inches per ACI 21.7.6.5 13 OK Less than 14 inches is OK per ACI 21.4.4.3 9.5 OK 5.2% 0.7% Yes Check Transverse Legs Perpendicular to X Vertical spacing s=8 inches per ACI 21.7.6.5 Less than 14 inches is OK per ACI 21.4.4.3 Actual longitudinal steel ratio Minimum steel ratio as checking limit If >400/fy, check ACI 21.7.6.5 13 OK Less than 14 inches is OK per ACI 21.4.4.3 Vertical spacing s=8 inches per ACI 21.7.6.5 9.5 OK 4.3% 0.7% Yes Check Transverse Bars Perpendicular to X Vertical spacing s=8 inches per ACI 21.7.6.5 Less than 14 inches is OK per ACI 21.4.4.3 Actual longitudinal steel ratio Minimum steel ratio as checking limit If >400/fy, check ACI 21.7.6.5 13 OK Less than 14 inches is OK per ACI 21.4.4.3 Vertical spacing s=8 inches per ACI 21.7.6.5 2.8% 0.7% Yes Check Transverse Bars Perpendicular to X Vertical spacing s=8 inches per ACI 21.7.6.5 Actual longitudinal steel ratio Minimum steel ratio as checking limit If >400/fy, check ACI 21.7.6.5

C-12

Flange P101, P102, P201, P202 Dimensions and Factors b (in) lw (in) Acv (in2) Root (fc)Acv (kips) Vu (kips) n,v low limit c n Final n,v Select 2 Layers of No. 7 @8 for Vertical and Horizontal Steel Actual n,v Vn(kips) 10root(fc')Acv Checking 0.0075 Check Shear Strength Up limit Per ACI 21.7.4.4 1963 2014 OK Web P103, P203 Dimension and Factors b (in) lw (in) Acv (in2) Root(fc')Acv (kips) Vu (kips) n,v low limit c n Final n,v Select 2 Layers of No. 7 @10 for Vertical and Horizontal Steel Actual n,v Vn(kips) 10root(fc')Acv Checking 0.006 Check Shear Strength Up limit Per ACI 21.7.4.4 3295 4957 OK Eq 21-7 per ACI 21.7.4.1 Up limit value per ACI 21.7.4.4 If Vn <10root(fc')Acv, OK 20 320 Section Dimension Check 6400 496 2951 0.0025 Shear Strength 2 0.0051 0.0051 Per ACI 21.7.4.1 Eq 21-7 per ACI 21.7.4.1 Shall be greater than 0.0025, the low limit s=10 less than the max allowable spacing 18 inches Design Shear value from Table 4.7.2 If(Vu>root(fc)Acv) per ACI 21.7.2.1 b l w Thickness Web length Eq 21-7 per ACI 21.7.4.1 Up limit value per ACI 21.7.4.4 If Vn <10root(fc')Acv, OK 20 130 Section Dimension Check 2600 201 1591 0.0025 Shear Strength 2 0.0075 0.0075 Per ACI 21.7.4.1 Eq (21-7) per ACI 21.7.4.1 Shall be greater than 0.0025, the low limit s=8 less than the max allowable spacing 18 inches Design Shear value from Table 4.7.1 If(Vu>root(fc)Acv) per ACI 21.7.2.1 b l w Thickness Flange length

C-13

Flange P101, P102, P202, P202 Dimensions and Factors b (in) lw (in) 20 130 Section Dimension Check Acv (in ) Root(fc)Acv (kips) Vu (kips) n,v low limit c n Final n,v Select 2 Layers of No. 7 @8 for Vertical and Horizontal Steel Actual n,v 0.0075 Check Shear Strength Up limit Per ACI 21.7.4.4 Vn(kips) 10root(fc')Acv Checking 1573 2014 OK Web P103, P203 Dimension and Factors b (in) lw (in) 20 320 Section Dimension Check Acv (in2) Root(fc')Acv (kips) Vu (kips) n,v low limit 6400 496 2612 0.0025 Shear Strength c n Final n,v Select 2 Layers of No. 7 @10 for Vertical and Horizontal Steel Actual n,v 0.006 Check Shear Strength Up limit Per ACI 21.7.4.4 Vn(kips) 10root(fc')Acv Checking 3295 4957 OK Eq 21-7 per ACI 21.7.4.1 Up limit value per ACI 21.7.4.4 If Vn <10root(fc')Acv, OK 2 0.0042 0.0042 Per ACI 21.7.4.1 Eq 21-7 per ACI 21.7.4.1 Shall be greater than 0.0025, the low limit s=10 less than the max allowable spacing 18 inches Design Shear value from Table 4.7.2 If(Vu>root(fc)Acv) per ACI 21.7.2.1 b l w Thickness Web length Eq 21-7 per ACI 21.7.4.1 Up limit value per ACI 21.7.4.4 If Vn <10root(fc')Acv, OK

2

b l w

Design Shear value from Table 4.7.1 If(Vu>root(fc)Acv) per ACI 21.7.2.1

Per ACI 21.7.4.1 Eq (21-7) per ACI 21.7.4.1 Shall be greater than 0.0025, the low limit s=8 less than the max allowable spacing 18 inches

C-14

Flange P101, P102, P202, P202 Dimensions and Factors b (in) lw (in)

2

Acv (in ) Root(fc)Acv (kips) Vu (kips) n,v low limit c n Final n,v Select 2 Layers of No. 7 @12 for Vertical and Horizontal Steel Actual n,v

b l w

Design Shear value from Table 4.7.1 If(Vu>root(fc)Acv) per ACI 21.7.2.1

Per ACI 21.7.4.1 Eq (21-7) per ACI 21.7.4.1 Shall be greater than 0.0025, the low limit s=12 less than the max allowable spacing 18 inches

Eq 21-7 per ACI 21.7.4.1 Up limit value per ACI 21.7.4.4 If Vn <10root(fc')Acv, OK

b (in) lw (in)

b l w

Design Shear value from Table 4.7.2 If(Vu>root(fc)Acv) per ACI 21.7.2.1

c n Final n,v Select 2 Layers of No. 7 @18 for Vertical and Horizontal Steel Actual n,v

2 0.0026 0.0026

Per ACI 21.7.4.1 Eq 21-7 per ACI 21.7.4.1 Shall be greater than 0.0025, the low limit s=18 equal to the max allowable spacing 18 inches

2271 4957 OK

Eq 21-7 per ACI 21.7.4.1 Up limit value per ACI 21.7.4.4 If Vn <10root(fc')Acv, OK

C-15

120000

My (k-ft)

My (k-ft)

120000

0 -600000 0

Mx (k-ft)

600000 -400000

0 0

Mx (k-ft)

400000

Lv 3 Demand Lv 2 Demand

-120000

Lv 3 Demand

-120000

Lv 1 Demand

Lv 2 Demand Lv 1 Demand

Curves from outside to inside represent the capacities of Lv 3, Lv 2 My (k-ft) 60000 and Lv 1

100000

0 -150000 0

Mx (k-ft)

150000-250000

Mx (k-ft)

0 0 250000

-60000

-100000

Notation: The capacity curves were generated by XTRACT. The difference between the curves in the same diagram is due to the difference of axial loads at difference levels.

C-16

My (k-ft)

120000

My (k-ft)

120000

0 -300000 0

Mx (k-ft)

300000 -300000

0 0

Mx (k-ft)

300000

Lv 7 Demand

-120000

Lv 6 Demand

Lv 5 Demand Lv 4 Demand

My (k-ft)

60000

My (k-ft)

90000

0 -120000 0

Mx (k-ft)

120000

0 -180000 0

Mx (k-ft)

180000

-60000

Lv 4 Demand Lv 5 Demand

-90000

Lv 6 Demand

Notation: The capacity curves were generated by XTRACT. The difference between the curves in the same diagram is due to the difference of axial loads at difference levels.

C-17

My (k-ft)

90000

70000

My (k-ft)

0 -180000 0

Mx (k-ft)

180000 -180000

0 0

Mx (k-ft)

180000

Curves from outside to inside represent the capacities of Lv 8, Lv9, -90000 Lv 10, Lv 11

Lv 11 Demand Lv 10 Demand Lv 9 Demand Curves from outside to Lv 8 Demand inside represent the -70000 capacities of Lv 8, Lv9, Lv 10, Lv 11

My (k-ft)

50000

My (k-ft)

50000

0 -80000 0

Mx (k-ft)

80000

Mx (k-ft)

0 -120000 0 120000

Lv 8 Demand Curves from outside to inside represent the capacities of Lv 11, -50000 Lv10, Lv 9, Lv 8 Lv 9 Demand Lv 10 Demand Lv 11 Demand Curves from outside -50000 to inside represent the capacities of Lv 8, Lv9, Lv 10, Lv 11 Lv 8 Demand Lv 9 Demand Lv 10 Demand Lv 11 Demand

Notation: The capacity curves were generated by XTRACT. The difference between the curves in the same diagram is due to the difference of axial loads at difference levels.

Fig. C.1.3 Biaxial Bending Capacity Check for First Four Levels in Wall Group III

C-18

My (k-ft)

70000

Curves from outside to inside represent the capacities of Lv 12, Lv13, Lv 14, Lv 15

My (k-ft)

50000

0 -150000 0

Mx (k-ft)

0

Mx (k-ft)

0 120000

150000 -120000

Lv 15 Demand Curves from outside to inside represent the capacities of Lv 12, Lv13, Lv 14, Lv 15 -70000 Lv 14 Demand Lv 13 Demand Lv 12 Demand

-50000

My (k-ft)

40000

My (k-ft)

50000

0 -100000 0

Mx (k-ft)

100000

-100000

0 0

Mx (k-ft)

100000

Lv 12 Demand Curves from outside to inside represent the capacities of Lv 15, -40000 Lv14, Lv 13, Lv 12 Lv 13 Demand Lv 14 Demand Lv 15 Demand

Lv 12 Demand Lv 13 Demand Curves from outside to inside represent the Lv 14 Demand capacities of Lv 12, -50000 Lv13, Lv 14, Lv 15 Lv 15 Demand

Fig. C.1.3 (Continued) Biaxial Bending Capacity Check for Last Four Levels in Wall Group III

C-19

Appendix D Calculated Wall Pier Parameters from XTRACT for RUAUMOKO Modeling

D-1

D-2

D-3

D-4

D-5

D-6

D-7

D-8

D-9

D-10

- Shear Wall Design GuideDiunggah olehNemer Abu
- Civil Paper 1Diunggah oleh9290010274
- Pushover Analysis FinalDiunggah olehAhmet Hasim
- Basics of Nonlinear Pushover AnalysisDiunggah olehRafiqulIslam
- COMPOSITE-BEAMS-AND-SLABS1.docxDiunggah olehrameshbabu_1979
- 2016Chap31F 33Diunggah olehsidhappy86
- 4b. Nonlinear Structural Analysis for Seismic Design_Spring 2018Diunggah olehNguyen Duy
- PushOver BuildingDiunggah olehBrankica Zivkovic
- A Modal Pushover Analysis Procedure to Estimate Seismic Demands fDiunggah olehnguyenvanduyet
- openi ngsDiunggah olehhappy
- NS21-1steelDiunggah olehpbharadwaj545
- Concrete Under5Diunggah olehNurul Ain
- High-RiseDiunggah olehEdward Albert Mendoza Bañaga
- 0802 SlidesDiunggah olehMohan Krishna
- Chapter 3 - Material Property Characterization of Ultra-High Performance Concrete, August 2006 - FHWA-HRT-06-103Diunggah olehlivia_lim_2
- An Efficient Approach for Pushover Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry (Urm) StructuresDiunggah olehHaris Alam
- Pushover Analysis Explained-RahulDiunggah olehjacopap
- Seismic AnalysisDiunggah olehaditya singh
- 2 Way Slab DesignDiunggah olehSambhav Poddar
- 38961Diunggah olehPutu Didik
- Daniel Celarec. the Sensitivity of Seismic Response Parameters to the Uncertain Modelling Variables of Masonry-Infilled Reinforced Concrete FramesDiunggah olehAdel Adel
- PoerDiunggah olehDify Rizky K
- TunnelDiunggah olehani1167
- 930 858loadratingbibbgraves StallingsDiunggah olehev xv
- CheeKhoonNg2006_ReinforcedconcretebeamsatultimateDiunggah olehAbhishek Shatagopachari
- Module1 Stress ObjectiveDiunggah olehpalluravi
- WCEE2012_1981.pdfDiunggah olehSakis
- Plastic _Design ___in Structuralll11111111111111111111 Stelel2222222222.pdfDiunggah olehShams Khattak
- Manual for Design and Detailing of Reinforced Concrete 2013 HK GuideDiunggah olehLau Kim Hwa
- Etab Manual by Atkins and Another Model Etab Design and What Are ModifiersDiunggah olehKenny Manuel Vettoor

- Nguyen FinalPaperDiunggah olehLê Trung
- Li Quanwang q 200605 PhdDiunggah olehLê Trung
- eqeauthDiunggah olehLê Trung
- divamva_PhDThesis_A4compact (1)Diunggah olehLê Trung
- Dissertation2009 AliDiunggah olehLê Trung
- Dissertation2008 Pavan[1]Diunggah olehFrancisco Calderón
- A Study of Dynamic Interaction of Soil and Pile With Nonuniform SectionDiunggah olehLê Trung
- App EndsDiunggah olehLê Trung
- refs.pdfDiunggah olehNestor Luis Gomero Espinoza
- chap9Diunggah olehLê Trung
- chap8Diunggah olehLê Trung
- chap7Diunggah olehLê Trung
- chap6Diunggah olehLê Trung
- chap5Diunggah olehLê Trung
- chap4Diunggah olehLê Trung
- Chap 3Diunggah olehSomnath Bose
- chap1Diunggah olehLê Trung
- IntroDiunggah olehLê Trung
- WilsonbookDiunggah olehchuncho88
- fema-65Diunggah olehsonnt_pecc1
- RESPONSE SPECTRA AND SEISMIC ANALYSIS FOR CONCRETE HYDRAULIC STRUCTURESDiunggah olehabcd2011
- Earthquake Design for Civil WorksDiunggah olehAnonymous 87xpkIJ6CF

- Pluronic L-61 EUDiunggah olehv
- QC LAB.docxDiunggah olehCheslie Andal
- Measurement by Wheatstone BridgeDiunggah olehnoi_doi8990
- BikeEDiunggah olehAbhishek Yadav
- MTH 307 Numerical Analysis IIDiunggah olehakinwamb
- 2 - Code Developments_tcm14-80215 (1).pdfDiunggah olehJose Leo Mission
- Centrifugal TachometerDiunggah olehtaraka sriram
- 9709_s14_qp_21Diunggah olehAbrar Jahin
- Ib Chemistry DefinitionsDiunggah olehChe Jen Wang
- Sorptions Isotherms and Isosteric Heats of Sorption of OliveDiunggah olehImèneHermassi
- The Greatness of Emmy NoetherDiunggah olehRansom Stephens
- Alpha Eritrean Engineers Magazine 2014 August IssueDiunggah olehmeharigrw
- ABSTRAC1Diunggah olehRianAidil
- Microbial Corrosion ReportDiunggah olehAdewunmi Daniel
- Praktica LtlDiunggah olehwoundedword
- Lect 8 - 12 - Equations of Change - IsothermalDiunggah olehSatyajit Samal
- 116_Std 7 Physics Qp T1 2016Diunggah olehParagJumde
- History of AstronomyDiunggah olehmanfredm6435
- Order, Chaos, and the End of ReductionismDiunggah olehJohn Winders
- Fragmentación por plasmaDiunggah olehFrancisco Javier Jimenez Perez
- (r) Philippines. Pilot Plant Production of Citric Acid. Activities at the Laboratories of Itdi%2c Bicutan%2c Metro Manila. Technical Report (17535.en) (1)Diunggah olehYsabelle Jimenea
- EHB en File 6.5.3 Calculation of the Reaction ForceDiunggah olehGuillermo Cordero
- Chapter 6Diunggah oleh00gp1200r
- Design and Optimization of Intake Manifold of Carburetor using Computational Fluid DynamicsDiunggah olehIJIRST
- Omo Winter 13 ProbsDiunggah olehbipasha2302_23716749
- Adesivos - Substancias Em EstudoDiunggah olehtmihailenko3404
- ch2Diunggah olehBenyVazquez
- Printed Bpf for l BandDiunggah olehalokcena007
- Chapter 4 Linear Impulse and MomentumDiunggah oleh胡宇晟
- Intel Linear Solver BasicsDiunggah olehbooks_uk

## Lebih dari sekadar dokumen.

Temukan segala yang ditawarkan Scribd, termasuk buku dan buku audio dari penerbit-penerbit terkemuka.

Batalkan kapan saja.