See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268687641

Interaction between shear walls and transfer-slabs, subjected to lateral and vertical
loading

Conference Paper · August 2013

CITATIONS READS

2 667

3 authors, including:

Alonso Gomez-Bernal Hugón Juárez García

Metropolitan Autonomous University Metropolitan Autonomous University
32 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   93 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic Hazard Mexico View project

Learning from earthquakes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alonso Gomez-Bernal on 24 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Vienna Congress on Recent Advances in
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2013 (VEESD 2013)
C. Adam, R. Heuer, W. Lenhardt & C. Schranz (eds)
28-30 August 2013, Vienna, Austria
Paper No. 447

Interaction between shear walls and transfer-slabs, subjected to lateral and

vertical loading
A. Gomez-Bernal1, D.A. Manzanares2, H. Juarez-Garcia1
1
Professor, Departamento de Materiales, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Azcapotzalco, D. F., México
2
Graduate student, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Azcapotzalco, D. F., México

Abstract. In order to study the so-called structural system "transfer-slabs", used in mid-rise buildings, in this
research we performed linear and non-linear analysis for slab-wall models, using the finite element method with
ANSYS program. The models were subjected to vertical and horizontal loads. The thickness of the slab, the
material of walls (masonry or reinforced concrete), and the length of the wall were the studied parameters. The
models used non-linear properties, so that capacity curves were obtained. We performed stress analysis at
specific points for each model. We also carried out a comparative analysis of the initial stiffness of each system,
and hence, we proposed Limit States from the observed behaviour. When we compared the results of the models
for transfer-slab (flexible base) against models with rigid base, we could observe significant differences in the
behaviour of both systems. The capacity of deformation and shear resistance are significantly reduced in the
structural shear walls.

Keywords: Transfer floor system; Transfer slabs; flexible floor.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Transfer-slab system

The number of buildings in Mexico City has increased in the last 20 years; however, the building
requirements to be met at the Buildings Office of Mexico City are less rigorous. The structural
engineering community has shown concern for the proper application of the seismic provisions for
new structural projects. A selected number of buildings were studied (Gómez et al., 2009), in order to
verify if the projects met the current seismic provisions. A large percentage of the studied buildings
were designed with transfer floor systems, even in high seismic intensity zones of Mexico City. The
studied buildings were located in “Colonia Roma”, one of the most affected areas during the 1985,
Michoacán Earthquake.

In recent years, the structural system called "transfer-slabs" has been popularized; and it has been used
in mid-rise buildings. We detected a significant increase in the construction of this type of structural
system in Mexico. These structures are characterized by a slab on the parking stories of the building,
which supports a six story shear wall structure. Most of these shear walls are interrupted in the first
level, and hence a discontinuity in elevation is observed, and therefore a significant irregularity in
elevation is considered. This structural system requires a detailed seismic and structural research due
to additional demands that may occur both in the transfer-slab and in the load-bearing walls.

When any structural analysis software is used to model a building with a transfer-slab system, it is
essential that the structure complies with the analytical hypotheses of the software. This is necessary to
ensure that the path of the vertical loads is correct, and that all gravity loads in the structure are
considered. In order to make a correct analysis, the method of construction of the building should be
A. Gómez-Bernal, D. Manzanares, H. Juárez-García / VEESD 2013 2

known. Any 3D static analysis of building assumes that all vertical loads are applied simultaneously to
all of the structure. In reality, the load is gradually applied on several floors as they are being built. If
the structure is shore up, and struts are removed once the concrete is cast completely, static analysis is
correct. But if the struts on each floor are removed until the upper floor is built, the static analysis will
not provide accurate results.

1.2 Transfer floor types

There are several cases of structural systems based on transfer floor systems. For example, the
columns and walls of transfer floors can be supported on beams with different stiffness, which implies
that these beams can be idealized as elastic springs (Figure 1). In addition, the slabs can be classified
as one-direction or two-direction slabs. Another case is when transfer-slabs are built with waffle slabs
without beams (Figure 2). Then transfer floors can be considered, either rigid or semi-rigid
diaphragms. We can summarize a set of common situations detected in systems with transfer floor
systems, (Gomez et al, 2009):

 When building models are analysed with vertical loading, large shear forces are calculated on the
walls of the subsequent 3 stories that are supported by the transfer floor system; this increase of
shear forces is observed due to the flexibility of the slabs and the secondary beams.
 When building models are simultaneously analysed with vertical and lateral loading, extreme shear
forces are observed on the walls of the subsequent 3 stories that are supported by the transfer floor
system. In several walls these shear forces exceed the design requirements.
 The ratio between the calculated shear forces in walls resting on a transfer slab of the building, and
the shear forces computed from walls supported on rigid base, can be larger than 5 (the walls
exceed their resistant capacity).
 Due to the scarcity of information on the design and behaviour of transfer-slab buildings, there are
a lot of variables that should be considered for the proper performance of the structure: slab type
(solid, waffle, plane); wall position on the slab; anchor between slab-wall; and eccentricities in the
distribution of the walls. It is important to eliminate uncertainties in the design, in order to achieve
a safe and functional structure.

Figure 1. a) Transfer floor formed by beams and solid slabs, b) Wall ddistribution on transfer floor

Figure 2. a) Transfer floor formed by a waffle slab system, b) Distribution of walls on transfer slab.
A. Gómez-Bernal, D. Manzanares, H. Juárez-García / VEESD 2013 3

In this paper we studied transfer-slabs that are supported by edge beams and a solid slab. Systems with
waffle slab systems will be discussed in future research.

2 METHODOLOGY

One of the main objectives of this work is to study analytical models for the system transfer slab-wall,
using ANSYS software. Four geometries were studied (Figure 3), and two materials were used for the
wall (masonry and concrete). One of these models is similar to a test specimen, which will be tested in
the Structures Lab of the Universidad Autónoma Metropoliatana – Azcapotzalco (UAM-A). One of
the main goals in this research is the definition of capacity curves for the slab-wall models subjected to
2 different loading conditions: 1) incremental cyclic vertical loading, and 2) under combined
horizontal and vertical loading. Several experimental and theoretical research studies assumed that
shear walls are supported on a non-deformable base (i.e. Astroza and Schmidt, 2002). In this research
we considered that the walls might be supported on a flexible base, and that the performance of the
wall-slab system might be different than the one observed for rigid base supports.

250 cm

slab
wall
wall
250 cm

slab

375 cm 375 cm

Figure 3. Plan and elevation view of the studied models. L varies from 2.5 to 3.50 m.

On the other hand, our interest is the definition of the deformation relationship of the wall-slab system;
for example, the determination of the relationship between the slab deformation and the wall crack
pattern will define the functionality conditions (serviceability) for this type of structures. These results
are important to clarify the reasons why the presence of a particular crack pattern on the first story
walls, in buildings that used transfer-slabs.

Figure 4 shows the geometric characteristics of the studied models: 4 wall lengths and 2 slab
thicknesses. The model was divided in two sections for reducing computational time consumption and
analysis complexity. It also shows the support conditions of the slab, which is supposedly restricted on
all edges by the edge beams. Two materials were also used, for the wall, for each model: confined
masonry and reinforced concrete wall; thus, to assess the differences in the behaviour of both wall
materials, Figure 4 and Table 1.

Non-linear models for the slab-wall system were also produced for comparison purposes. The
comparisons for the vertical loading were done using the non-linear slab model (without wall)
subjected to uniform loading; for the lateral loading comparison, a non-linear model of the wall on a
rigid base was used. The wall and slab models have the same geometric and material characteristics
for all the models.
A. Gómez-Bernal, D. Manzanares, H. Juárez-García / VEESD 2013 4

Slab

Wall .
.

Figure 4. Main scheme of transfer slab models. Wall-slab models used in FEM-ANSYS. Models including
vertical and horizontal confining elements (tie-column and bond-beam).

Table 1. Studied slab-wall models

Concrete Masonry Wall length (m) Slab thickness (cm)

M1_C2.5_12V M2_M2.5_12V 2.50 12
M3_C3_12V M4_M3_12V 3.00 12
M5_C3.75_12V M6_M3.75_12V 3.75 12
M7_C3_13V M7_M3_13V 3.00 13
M9_C2.5_12VL M10_M2.5_12VL 2.50 12
M11_C3_12VL M12_M3_12VL 3.00 12
M13_C3.75_12VL M14_M3.75_12VL 3.75 12
M15_C3_13VL M16_M3_13VL 3.00 13

3 RESULTS

3.1 Results: vertical loading

Figure 5 shows the deformation contours obtained from analysis for 2.5 m length walls (concrete
model M1_C2.5_12V, and masonry model M2_M2.5_12V). The effect of the wall stiffness and the
influence on the resistant capacity of the slab is evident. The concrete wall moved downwards as a
rigid body, trying to penetrate the slab. For this case, all the deformation energy was absorbed by the
slab system. On the other hand, the masonry wall moved downwards, in a differential way, the
displacements were increasing from the centre to the corners of the wall. Thus, when the wall is less
rigid, it also absorbs part of the deformations; and allows the slab to deform freely in a vertical way,
unlike the concrete wall-slab system.
A. Gómez-Bernal, D. Manzanares, H. Juárez-García / VEESD 2013 5

Figure 5. Contours of vertical deformations: a) M1_C2.5_12V b) M2_M2.5_12V

Figure 6 shows the capacity curves from concrete and masonry models of the two groups, with wall
length of 2.5 m and 3 m. We also included the capacity curve for the slab model, subjected to uniform
loading, for comparison purposes. The results show a large difference in the resistant capacity of the
models; the slab subjected to uniform loading exhibited the largest capacity. Figure 7 shows all the
capacity curves for the studied models, it is worth noting that the stiffness of the system increases with
the wall length L.
Vertical Load (Ton)

Vertical Displacement (mm) Vertical Displacement (mm) Vertical Load (Ton)

Figure 6. Comparison between curves from models with L=2.5 m (left) and L=3.0 m (right), (models
M1_C2.5_12V and M2_M2.5_12V).
Vertical Load (Ton)

Vertical Displacement (mm)

Figure 7. Comparison between all capacity curves of studied models under vertical load.
A. Gómez-Bernal, D. Manzanares, H. Juárez-García / VEESD 2013 6

Figure 8. Crack patterns in wall (left), and slab of model M2_M2.5_12V, top (centre), bottom (right)

3.2 Results: horizontal and vertical loading

Figure 9 shows the capacity curves from all analysed models, there are significant differences between
the responses of concrete and masonry models. Load capacity and stiffness values are larger in the
concrete wall models. Masonry wall models exhibited a larger lateral distortion capacity. However, in
all the eight studied models, the ultimate distortion exhibited was limited by cracking or crushing of
the first finite element model. All the models (except M13_C3.75_12VLl) showed a significant
reduction in stiffness, before they reached the ultimate state, thus indicates severe cracking in the
system, Figure 9.

M9_C2.5_12VL M11_C3_12VL
10 20
M13_C3.75_12VL M15_C3_13VL
M10_M2.5_12VL M12_M3_12VL
M14_M3.75_12VL M16_C3_12VL
Lateral Load (Ton)

Lateral Load (Ton)

15

5 10

M9_C2.5_12VL M10_M2.5_12VL
5

0 0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035 0.004 0.0045 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035 0.004 0.0045
Lateral distortion of the wall (mm/mm) Lateral distortion of the wall (mm/mm)

Figure 9. (a) Comparison between load vs lateral distortion, models with L=2.5 m, subjected to combined load.
(b) Comparison among lateral distortion of all models subjected to combined load.

3.3 Comparison: wall supported on flexible base (transfer-slab) vs wall supported on rigid base

The comparison between flexible and rigid (fixed) base models showed significant differences. The
concrete wall models cracking pattern is quite different, Figure 10. The wall-slab flexible model
showed a low crack pattern and provides little shear resistance. This is because of rotations in the slab,
caused by vertical loading, and therefore a large percentage of the system stiffness is reduced. The
wall-rigid-base model showed a severe crack pattern at the tension area (lower left corner) and
develops most of its shear capacity, Figure 10.

This condition is very critical in the slab, in the areas located at the ends of the wall. In these areas, the
slab shows a large crack pattern on its underside, as well as concrete crushing in the upper face; this
situation significantly reduces the capacity of the slab.
A. Gómez-Bernal, D. Manzanares, H. Juárez-García / VEESD 2013 7

REINFORCED CONCRETE

20

15
Lateral Load (Ton)

10

5
M9_C2.5_12VL

MBR_C2.5
0
0.0000 0.0010 0.0020 0.0030 0.0040
Lateral Distortion (mm/mm)
Figure 10. Lateral load-lateral distortion curves for M9_C2.5_12VL and MBR_C2.5 models, including crack
patterns.

The behaviour showed in the concrete and masonry models are quite different. There are also
differences in the capacity curves from wall-slab and rigid base models, although the difference is not
as large as the one showed in the concrete systems. In the masonry models the capacity converges at 8
tons. The distribution of crack patterns in the walls of the two models is also very similar, Figure 11.

MASONRY
10

8
Lateral Load (Ton)

2
M10_M2.5_12VL
MBR_M2.5
0
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
Laeral Distortion (mm/mm)

Figure 11. Lateral load-lateral distortion Curves for M9_M2.5_12VL and MBR_M2.5 models, including crack
patterns.

3.4 Limit States proposal.

The curves in Figure 9 can be normalized for comparative purposes, since they represent very different
behaviours. The following expression is proposed for the normalization of the curves:
A. Gómez-Bernal, D. Manzanares, H. Juárez-García / VEESD 2013 8

𝜉 = 1 𝑥 10−4 𝛾 𝐿3 (1)

where:
ξ = normalizing factor
γ = lateral distortion of the wall
L = length of the wall

Figure 12 shows the capacity curves and a selection of Limit States, which define the behaviour of
masonry and concrete wall-slab models. Five Damage States are proposed, ranging from slight to
destructive level. It should be noted that the Destructive State does not mean collapse, however
according to the cracking patterns, the structure showed a considerable amount damage at this state.

LIMIT STATES IN MASONRY WALL-SLAB MODELS

M10_M2.5_12VL M12_M3_12VL M14_M3.75_12VL M16_M3_13VL
MODERATE

0.8
SLIGHT

0.6
P/Pf

DESTRUCTIVE
VERY HEAVY
HEAVY

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Normalized Lateral Distortion (ξ)

LIMIT STATES IN REINFORCD CONCRETE WALL-SLAB MODELS

M9_C2.5_12VL M11_C3_12VL M15_C3_13VL

1.0
MODERATE

0.8
SLIGHT

DESTRUCTIVE

0.6
VERY HEAVY

P/Pf
HEAVY

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Normalized Lateral Distortion (ξ)

Figure 12. Limit States for wall-slab models with masonry (upper) and concrete (lower) walls

Tables 5 and 6 show the normalized deformation parameter values, ξ, for each Limit State; and the
distortion at the end of each Limit State, that we proposed for masonry and concrete wall models.
A. Gómez-Bernal, D. Manzanares, H. Juárez-García / VEESD 2013 9

Table 5. Limit States in wall-slab models with masonry wall.

SLIGHT MODERATE HEAVY VERY HEAVY DESTRUCTIVE
MODELO ξ ϒ ξ ϒ ξ ϒ ξ ϒ ξ ϒ
M10_M2.5_12VL 1 0.0006 2.5 0.0016 4 0.0026 6 0.0038 >6 ----
M12_M3_12VL 1 0.0004 2.5 0.0009 4 0.0015 6 0.0022 >6 ----
M14_M3.75_12VL 1 0.0002 2.5 0.0005 4 0.0008 6 0.0011 >6 ----
M16_M3_13VL 1 0.0004 2.5 0.0009 4 0.0015 6 0.0022 >6 ----

Table 6. Limit States in wall-slab models with concrete wall.

SLIGHT MODERATE HEAVY DESTRUCTIVE
MODELO ξ ϒ  ϒ ξ ϒ ξ ϒ
M9_M2.5_12VL 1.8 0.0012 3.2 0.0020 4 0.0026 >4 ----
M11_M3_12VL 1.8 0.0007 3.2 0.0012 4 0.0015 >4 ----
M15_M3_13VL 1.8 0.0007 3.2 0.0012 4 0.0015 >4 ----

4 CONCLUSIONS

In this research we observed large differences between masonry and concrete wall models. The
capacity curves showed a large contrast in initial stiffness and load capacity. Concrete wall models
performed better in both stiffness and load capacity.

It is worth noting, that the wall determines the total capacity of the system under lateral loading, while
in other models, the slab is the critical structural member. Thus, in the concrete wall models, the slab
defined the whole system capacity, since the slab failure occurred long before the concrete wall’s
failure; because of its great stiffness capacity the wall generates a compression strut in the lower
corner, at the other end of the load application. This strut generates large concentrated stresses that
cause concrete crushing in the corner of the wall and a large amount of cracks in the slab.

The comparison between the flexible wall-slab and the wall on rigid base models showed significant
differences in the walls’ performance. In the walls supported on rigid base, the lateral load capacity
and the initial stiffness is larger than the one observed in the wall-slab models. In the wall-slab
concrete models the displacement is proportional to the damage, despite their large resistance capacity;
they are limited to move laterally.

On the other hand, models with masonry walls (although they did not reach completely the collapse
displacement), they showed better deformation capacity than the one showed in fixed walls (rigid
base); because the flexibility of the slab allows the wall to move freely. However, this behaviour
depends on the interaction of the wall-building system.

The distortions proposed in other research, that defined levels of damage were based on the
assumption of wall supported on rigid base. The conditions showed in this paper bears no relationship
to the rigid base conditions, because wall distortions on flexible base are different, and they depend on
their location in the building.
 A. Gómez-Bernal, D. Manzanares, H. Juárez-García / VEESD 2013 10

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the support provided by the Secretaría de Obras del Gobierno del
Distrito Federal (GDF, Mexico City) through the conventions 212015 and 22611040.

REFERENCES

ANSYS (2009), v 12.0.1, ANSYS Inc. USA.

Astroza, M. and Schmidt, M. (2002). Capacidad de Deformación de Muros de Albañilería Confinada para
Distintos Niveles de Desempeño”, Revista de Ingeniería Sísmica, 70, 59.75
Dahmani, L, Khennane, A. and Kaci, S. (2010) Crack Identification in Reinforced Concrete Beams Using
ANSYS Sofware.
Gómez Soberón, M.C., Gómez Bernal, A., González Cuevas, O. M, Terán, A. and Ruiz Sandoval, M. (2009).
Evaluación del diseño sísmico de estructuras nuevas ubicadas en la Colonia Roma del Distrito Federal. Proc.
XVII Congreso Nacional de Ingeniería Sísmica, SMIS, Puebla, México, Noviembre. (In spanish)
Hopkins, D.C. and Park, R. (1971) Test on a Reinforced Concrete Slab and Beam Floor Designed with
Allowance for Membrane Action, Cracking, Deflection and Ultimate Load of Concrete Slab Sistem, ACI
Special Publication 30.
Kennedy, G. Goodchild, C. (2005) “Practical Yield Line Design”, 1st. Ed., British Cement Association.
Park, R. and Gamble, W.L. (2000). Reinforced Concrete Slabs, 2nd. Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Reglamento de Construcciones del Distrito Federal (2004). Gaceta Oficial del Gobierno del Distrito Federal.
México.
Tickoo, S. and Singh, V. (2009) ANSYS 11.0 for Designers, CADCIM Technologies.
Vecchio, F:J. and Tang, K. (1990). Membrane Action in Reinforced Concrete Slab, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 17, 686-
697.
Willam, K. J. and Warnke, E. D. (1975) Constitutive Model for the Triaxial Behavior of Concrete". Proc.
International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering. Vol. 19. ISMES. Bergamo, Italy. p. 174.

View publication stats