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

net/publication/266890391

Pushover Analysis for Structure Containing RC Walls

Article

CITATIONS READS

0 384

2 authors, including:

Chung-Yue Wang
National Central University
91 PUBLICATIONS   531 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

A Verification Study on Bridges Supported by Pile Shaft Foundations with Non-Destructive Depth Inspection Technique View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chung-Yue Wang on 27 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The 2nd International Conference on Urban Disaster Reduction, Taipei, Taiwan
November, 27-29, 2007

Pushover Analysis for Structure Containing RC Walls

Chung- Yue Wang1 and Shaing-Yung Ho2

Abstract
In this paper, a method for the determination of the parameters of plastic hinge properties (PHP)
for structure containing RC wall in the pushover analysis is proposed. Nonlinear relationship
between the lateral shear force and lateral deformation of RC wall is calculated first by the
Response-2000 and Membrane-2000 code. The PHP (plastic hinge properties) value of each
parameter for the pushover analysis function of SAP2000 or ETABS is defined as the product of two
parameters α and β . Values of α at states of cracking, ultimate strength and failure of the concrete
wall under shear loading can be determined respectively from the calculations by Response-2000.
While the corresponding β value of each PHP parameter is obtained from the regression equations
calibrated from the experimental results of pushover tests of RC frame-wall specimens. The accuracy
of this newly proposed method is verified by other experimental results. It shows that the presented
method can effectively assist engineers to conduct the performance design of structure containing RC
shear wall using the SAP2000 or ETABS codes.

Keywords: pushover analysis, RC wall, plastic hinge properties

Corresponding Author
Name: Chung-Yue Wang
Address: Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Central University, Chungli, Taiwan 32054, ROC
E-mail: cywang@cc.ncu.edu.tw
Tel: 886-3-4227151 ext. 34127
Fax: 886-3-4252960
.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Pushover Analysis

Pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear procedure in which the magnitude of the
structural loading is incrementally increased in accordance with a certain predefined pattern.
Static pushover analysis is an attempt by the structural engineering profession to evaluate
the real strength of the structure and it promises to be a useful and effective tool for
performance based design.
The ATC-40 (1996) documents have developed modeling procedures, acceptance
criteria and analysis procedures for pushover analysis. These documents define

1
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Central University, Chungli, Taiwan 32054, ROC
2
Associate Professor, Department of Construction Engineering, Vanung University, Chungli, Taiwan 32061, ROC
 The 2nd International Conference on Urban Disaster Reduction, Taipei, Taiwan
November, 27-29, 2007
force-deformation criteria for hinges used in pushover analysis. As shown in Figure 1, five
points labeled A, B, C, D, and E are used to define the force-displacement behavior of the
hinge and three points labeled IO, LS, and CP are used to define the acceptance criteria for
the hinge. The IO, the LS and the CP stand for Immediate Occupancy, Life safety and
Collapse Prevention, respectively. These are informational measures that are reported in
the analysis results and used for performance-based design.
Figure 2 illustrates a typical representation of capacity curve of RC structure containing
shear wall. It is clear to be observed that the pattern of the experimental cure is continuous
and is different from the general Skelton model shown in Fig. 1. As shown in that figure,
the response is linear to an effective crack point, B, followed by cracking (with concrete
cracking) to yield point C, followed by yielding (possibly with strain hardening) to ultimate
point D, followed by final collapse and loss of gravity load capacity at point E.

CP
LS
IO C
FORCE

D
E

A DISPLACEMENT

Figure 1: Force-displacement curve defined for the plastic hinge in the pushover analysis.

1.2 SAP2000
SAP2000 is a well known and widely accepted, general-purpose, three-dimensional
structural analysis program. The pushover analysis module has been installed into the
SAP2000. In the procedure of the pushover analysis, the assignment of the values of
plastic hinge properties (PHP) strongly affects the prediction of the capacity curve of RC
structure.
SAP2000 program includes several built-in default hinge properties that are based on
average values from ATC-40 for concrete members. These built-in properties can be useful
for preliminary analyses, but user-defined properties are recommended for final analyses
(Habibullah and Pyle, 1998). Yielding and post-yielding behavior can be modeled using
discrete user-defined hinges. Currently SAP2000 allows hinges can only be introduced
into frame elements; the PHP properties can be assigned to a frame element at any location
along it.
The authors have been developed a dual parameters method to define the PHP
properties of RC frame structure for the pushover analysis (Ho and Wang, 2006). The
purpose of this paper is to extend the application of this method to the RC structures
containing RC shear wall. In order to use the functions provided by the SAP2000 code, the
RC shear wall is treated as a wide, flat column. Modeling a RC wall as a wide and flat
column (frame elements) not only can consider the steel reinforcements in RC elements
exactly, but also can assign the PHP of RC walls according to its plastic behavior. In
SAP2000, the default properties are available for hinges in the following degrees of freedom:
1. Axial (P)
2. Major shear (V2)
 The 2nd International Conference on Urban Disaster Reduction, Taipei, Taiwan
November, 27-29, 2007
3. Major moment (M3)
4. Coupled P-M2-M3 (PMM)
Since the wall or wall segment behavior is governed by shear, it is more appropriate to use shear drift
ratio as the deformation measure. Shear drift ratio capacities are defined in ATC-40 Table 9-11. In
the present method, the major shear (V2) is adopted as the PHP type of RC walls.

1.3 Response-2000
To reasonably model the interactions among steel reinforcements and concrete material of a
member under shear, a mechanics based reinforced concrete analysis method should be selected.
Response 2000 uses the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT) firstly proposed by Collins
(Mitchell and Collins, 1974, Collins, 1978). A definitive description of the MCFT can be found in
the paper published by the American Concrete Institute. (Vecchio and Collins, 1986).
Response 2000 will calculate strengths and deformations for beams and columns subjected to
axial load, moment and shear based on the familiar assumption “plane sections remain plane” of
engineering beam theory. Therefore, to have a reasonable analysis result, a limitation on the
depth/span ratio of the frame component should exist.
Deep beams (short and flat columns) can be considered as special beams where shear force is
much more predominant than bending moment. Due to the parabolic distribution of the shear stress
from top to bottom of a beam section, the cross sections of a deep beam which were originally plane
surfaces become warped (Timoshenko and Gere, 1972), Furthermore, the interaction between wall
and columns make the behavior of RC frame containing RC wall more complicated. This is the
reason of using dual parameters to characterize the PHP properties. As shown in Fig. 2, parameters
βV and β ∆ .are used to modified the capacity curve [( α ∆I ,α VI ), I = B, C, D, E] predicted by the Response
2000 based on the plane section remaining plane assumption. The physical meaning of the
β parameter is close to the shear factor in the Timoshenko beam theory.

(1) Calculate α from Response2000

(α , α )
D
∆
D
V (α ∆E = 2.6α ∆D ,α VE = 0.95α VD )
(α , α )
C
∆
C
V
(2) Modification by βV , β ∆
D ( β ∆α ∆D , βV α VD )
E ( 2.6 β ∆α ∆D ,0.95 β V α VD )

C ( β ∆α ∆C , βV α VC ) (3) Experimental curve

B ( β ∆α ∆B , β V α VB )

Figure 2 Construction of the capacity curve of RC structure containing shear walls in the
pushover analysis with SAP2000 by dual parameters.
 The 2nd International Conference on Urban Disaster Reduction, Taipei, Taiwan
November, 27-29, 2007
2. DETERMINATION OF PHP AND REGRESSIVE FORMULA OF β
The core idea of the determination of the PHP of RC wall by dual parameters is illustrated by Fig. 2.
The Response is used first to obtain a reference skeleton curve. The ultimate values α ∆D and α VD are
modified by parameters β ∆ and β V , respectively. Regression formulae for parameters β ∆ and β V
are obtained by comparing the ultimate values of predicted and experimental data. These
modification coefficients are also applied to points B and C and E on the skeleton curve. Detail
procedure is explained in the following sections.

2.1 Construction of the Skeleton Curve α

Experimental results of 11 RC frames containing RC walls under pushover tests were adopted to
construct the regression formulae of the modification parameters ( βV , β ∆ ). The material properties
and size of these specimens were given in Table 1.

The capacity curve of RC frame containing RC wall is calculated first by the code Response 2000.
As shown in Fig. 2, three characteristic points denoted as crack, yield and ultimate states are selected
to form a skeleton curve for the determination of the values of PHP. However, crack or yielding
point can not be decided easily from the relational curve. But, one can estimate the ultimate point
according to maximum strength of the capacity curve predicted by response 2000. Therefore, the
present method selected the ultimate point as the reference to scale down all other characteristic points
by its modification coefficients ( βV , β ∆ ).
One thing has to be mentioned is the definition of failure point in the pushover analysis.
Experimental data show that the failure point can not be identified exactly due to a rather precarious
condition at final stage of the experiment. Therefore, present method adopts the average value of
experimental results at final stage to define the failure point and use the factor 0.95 and 2.6 to time the
ultimate shear force and ultimate lateral displacement respectively to define the failure point E, as
shown in Figs. 2 and 3.

Estimated from Response 2000

The approximation curve

Ultimate point

Failure point

Characteristic point 2 (yielding)

Characteristic point 1 (initial cracking)

Figure 3 Selection of the characteristic points from the response curve predicted by Response 2000.

2.2 Regression Formulae for the Parameters β V and β ∆

To construct the regression formula of the parameter β V which is used to modify the ultimate
strength, another parameter βV is defined as the ratio of the ultimate strength of experiment and the
ultimate strength predicted by Response 2000 from the previous step.
 The 2nd International Conference on Urban Disaster Reduction, Taipei, Taiwan
November, 27-29, 2007

Year [ref.] 2004[Xiao] 2004[Xiao] 2004[Xiao] 2004[Xiao] 2004[Xiao] 2004[Xiao]

No. of specimen HWFL1 HWFL2 HWFH1 HWFH2 MWF1 MWF2
frame (W , H) 200 x340 200 x340 200 x340 200 x340 250 x240 250 x240
LxWxD 150x25x40 150x25x40 150x25x40 150x25x40 200x30x40 200x30x40
Beam section

Main steel 4-#5 4-#5 4-#5 4-#5 4-#5 4-#5

fy (Mpa) 428.13 428.13 428.13 428.13 390 390
Stirrup #3@15cm #3@15cm #3@15cm #3@15cm #3@10cm #3@10cm
fy (Mpa) 458.72 458.72 458.72 458.72 458.72 458.72
LxWxD 25x25x300 25x25x300 25x25x300 25x25x300 25x25x200 25x25x200
Main steel 4-#5 4-#5 4-#5 4-#5 4-#5 4-#5
Col. section

fy (Mpa) 428.13 428.13 428.13 428.13 390 390

Stirrup #3@10cm #3@10cm #3@10cm #3@10cm #3@10cm #3@10cm
fy (Mpa) 458.72 458.72 458.72 458.72 458.72 458.72
LxWxD 300x150x12 300x150x12 300x150x12 300x150x12 200x200x12 200x200x12
Wall section

Longitudinal #3@17cm #3@23cm #3@17cm #3@23cm #3@17cm #3@23cm

Transverse #3@23cm #3@23cm #3@23cm #3@23cm #3@23cm #3@23cm
fy (Mpa) 458.72 458.72 458.72 458.72 458.72 458.72
Concrete fc’ (Mpa) 23.04 22.43 28.03 27.73 23.45 23.45

Table 1 Material properties and dimensions of RC frames containing shear wall

Year [ref.] 2004 [Xiao] 2004 [Xiao] 2001 [Ye] 2002 [ Qio] 2002 [ Qio]
No. of specimen LWF1 LWF2 WF15Y WF12C WF15C
frame (W , H) 320 x240 320 x240 350 x205 350 x205 350 x205
LxWxD 270x30x40 270x30x40 250x30x50 250x30x50 250x30x50
Beam section

Main steel 4-#5 4-#5 8-#6 8-#6 8-#6

fy (Mpa) 390 390 571 571 571
Stirrup #3@10cm #3@10cm #3@20cm #3@20cm #3@20cm

fy (Mpa) 458.72 458.72 446 446 446

LxWxD 25x25x200 25x25x200 50x30x155 50x30x155 50x30x155
Main steel 4-#5 4-#5 10-#6 10-#6 10-#6
Col. section

fy (Mpa) 390 390 571 571 571

Stirrup #3@10cm #3@10cm #3@30cm #3@30cm #3@30cm
fy (Mpa) 458.72 458.72 446 446 446
LxWxD 200x270x12 200x270x12 155x250x15 155x250x12 155x250x15
Wall section

Longitudinal #3@17cm #3@23cm #3@20cm #3@30cm #3@20cm

Transverse #3@23cm #3@23cm #3@20cm #3@30cm #3@20cm
fy (Mpa) 458.72 458.72 446(double) 446 446( double )
Concrete fc’ (Mpa) 23.75 23.75 21.6 21 22.6

L: Length (cm), W: width (cm), D: depth (cm), H: height (cm), fy : yielding stress (Mpa)
 The 2nd International Conference on Urban Disaster Reduction, Taipei, Taiwan
November, 27-29, 2007
Following parameters are selected to construct the regression formula:
11. ( K ) ratio : the ratio of rigidity between two columns connected to wall and wall at ultimate stage.
12. ( Pu ) sum /( Pu ) wall : ultimate strength of columns connected to wall divided by ultimate strength of
wall.
13. H / A w : the height of wall divided by the width of wall.
Hence, the regressive formula is in the following form.

βV = a + b × ( K ) ratio + c × ( Pu ) sum /( Pu ) wall + d × ( H A w ) (1)

1tt
Using part of the data and test results of the specimens shown in Table 1 and the values of βV ,
those coefficients of the regression equation (1) can be determined as a=0.84652, b=－2.39019,
c=0.09413, d=0.07647.
The lateral displacement of the shear wall is controlled by the shearing resistance and the
bending rigidity inherited in the wall system. Hence, the lateral displacement, ∆ u at ultimate stage
is proposed by the following equation.

H 2 H H H3
∆ u = a( ) Vcr + b( ) 2 Vcr (2)
Aw Aw G Aw I g Ec

Where Vcr is the lateral force at cracking stage(KN), Aw is the total cross sectional area of RC wall
and columns section (mm2), G is the shear modulus of concrete (Mpa), I g is the total mass moment
of inertia of RC wall and side columns (mm4), Ec is the elastic modulus of concrete (Mpa). Using
part of the data and test results of the specimens shown in Table 1, those coefficients of the regression
equation (2) can be determined as a = 0.0018214，b =－0.00001519.
For any specimen a modification parameter β ∆ can be calculated by the following equation.

β ∆ = ∆ u /( ∆ u ) response (3)

Where ∆ u is the regressive value which was estimated from the regression equation (2), while the
( ∆ u ) response is the ultimate displacement calculated from Response 2000. This β ∆ is used to adjust the
displacement coordinate of each characteristic point in Fig, 3.

(a) Specimen SW7 (b) Specimen HM4-3

 The 2nd International Conference on Urban Disaster Reduction, Taipei, Taiwan
November, 27-29, 2007

(c) Specimen SW16 (d) Specimen PWL

Figure 4 Comparison of experimental results and predictions by the dual parameters method for the
determination of PHP values of RC structures containing shear walls.

Figure 4 shows the predictions of the capacity curves of some specimens that were not used in
the regression analysis by the method and associated regression formulae proposed in this paper.
Comparing with the experimental results, it shows that the proposed dual parameters method for the
determination of PHP can provide quite good predictions of the capacity of the structures containing
shear walls.

3. EXAMPLES
In order to evaluate the capability and accuracy of proposed method on the analysis of real larger
structure, 2 bays 2 stories RC structures with and without shear walls, as shown in Fig. 5, were
adopted to do the study. Figure 6 illustrates the agreement between the prediction and experimental
result of each case. The location and number of shear walls strongly affect the load capacity of the
structure.

Figure 5 Geometrical data and reinforcement details of a 2 bays- 2 stories frame specimen.
 The 2nd International Conference on Urban Disaster Reduction, Taipei, Taiwan
November, 27-29, 2007

Figure 6 Comparisons of experimental curves and predicted curves of 2 bays-2 stories RC frames
with and without RC walls.

4. Conclusions
A dual parameters method is introduced to define the plastic hinge properties (PHP) of RC wall
in the pushover analysis of RC structure. The effectiveness of this simple method is verified by the
agreement of the prediction curves with some additional test data. This newly proposed method is
quite simple and is easy for engineers to link with commercial structural analysis code to conduct the
performance design of structure under seismic loading.

References:
Applied Technology Council (1996)﹐“Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings,” ATC-40﹐Redwood City,
California, pp. 8.1-8.3.
Collins, M. P., (1978), “Towards a Rational Theory for RC Members in shear,” Journal of the Structure Division, ASCE,
Vol. 104, pp. 649-666.
Chang, Kuo-Chun and Sen-Nann Shain, " Seismic Upgrade of RC Frames with Infilled Brick Walls," National
Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering , NCREE – 03 - 039, Taiwan (2003).
Habibullah, Ashraf. and Stephen, Pyle (1998)., “Practical Three-Dimensional Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis,”
Structure Magazine, U.S.A. , pp.1-2.
Ho, S.Y. and Wang, C. Y. (2006), “Determination of the Plastic Hinge Properties of RC structure containing Brick Walls,”
Structural Engineering of Taiwan, (in press) (in Chinese).
Mitchell, D. and Collins, M. P., (1974), “Diagonal Compression Field Theory – A Rational Model for Structural Concrete in
pure Torsion,” Journal of American Concrete Institute, 71, 396-408.
Qio, C. Z.. (2002), A Study of Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Walls which Retrofit with FRP, Master Thesis,
Dep. of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipai., Taiwan.
Timoshenko S. P. and Gere J. M (1972)., Mechanics of Materials, Litton Educational Publishing Inc., New York, U. S. A., p.
126.
Vecchio, F. J. and Collins, M. P. “Predicting the Response of Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected to Shear Using
Modified Compression Field Theory.” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 85, No. 3, 1988, pp. 258-268.
Xiao, F. P. (2004), Experimental and Numerical Studies on Reinforced Concrete Framed Shear Walls, Ph. D. Dissertation,
Dep. of Civil Engineering, Nation Cheng Gong University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Ye, Y. X..(2001), A Study of Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Walls which Retrofit with FRP, Master Thesis,
Dep. of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipai., Taiwan.

View publication stats