net/publication/299584311
CITATIONS READS
5 934
4 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Ground Motion Selection for Seismic Collapse Fragility Prediction of RC Frame Buildings View project
Seismic Vulnerability Assessment. Retrofit Strategies and Risk Reduction View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Arsalan Niroomandi on 03 April 2016.
1 INTRODUCTION
In recent earthquakes in Chile (2010) and New Zealand (2011), peculiar failure mechanisms were
observed in reinforced concrete (RC) shear walls which differed from the traditional 2D-based
response (Fig. 1). Of interest was the effect of bi-directional loading on the performance of RC shear
walls, typically ignored in code guidelines for both new design and assessment of existing buildings.
In the past decades the effects of bi-directional loading have been recognized and studied, through
experimental and numerical investigations for both columns (Umehara and Jirsa 1984, Low and
Moehle 1987, Zeris and Mahin 1991, Qiu et al. 2002, Boys et al. 2008) and beam-column joints (Jirsa
and Leon 1986 and Akguzel and Pampanin 2010). However, due to the inaccurate and simplistic
assumption that walls would mostly response as in-plane structural elements, the effect of bi-
directional loading was overlooked for shear walls. In fact, as long as a structural ‘column’ has a
section aspect ratio (length to width) longer than a certain value (e.g. four), it is considered to act as a
wall, and bi-directional loading effects are not considered.
(a) (b)
Figure 1. Shear wall failure modes observed in recent earthquakes in (a) Chile (NIST 2014) and (b) New
Zealand (Elwood et al. 2012)
A large number of studies experimental and numerical studies were conducted on the seismic
behaviour of RC walls; most of which focused on the uni-directional cyclic lateral load, simulating the
response of a proto-type structure during an earthquake. Only a small number of these studies
scrutinized the bi-directional loading effects.
Tatsuya (1996) tested five one-third scaled shear wall specimens; one under uni-directional and four
under bi-directional loadings. The tests showed a smaller deformation capacity for the specimens
tested under bi-directional loading compared to the benchmark specimen subjected to uni-directional
loading. However the same failure mode (web crushing) was observed in both cases. In terms of shear
strength and flexural stiffness, instead, not much difference was observed between the specimens
tested under uni-and bi-directional loading regimes.
In a more recent experimental study by Kabeyasawa et al. (2014), eight one-third scaled specimens
representing the first story of a medium-rise multi-story shear wall structure were tested (four under
uni-directional and four under bi-directional loading). The flexural strengths were not much different
between the two loading regimes. However, relatively smaller ultimate inelastic deformations under
bi-directional loading were observed in those tested under uni-directional loading by 1.2 to 1.33 times.
In this paper a FE model capable of simulating RC shear walls under bi-directional loading is utilized
and validated with experimental results conducted by other researchers. This paper is part of a larger
research project investigating the seismic response of rectangular RC shear walls under bi-directional
loading. In the next phases, the key parameters affecting the performance of rectangular RC shear
walls under bi-directional loading will be numerically investigated and an experimental campaign on
shear wall specimens subjected to cyclic bi-directional loading will be carried out in the structural
laboratory.
2
2.1 Material Models
3
2.2 Solid vs. Curved Shell Elements
DIANA provides a wide selection of different elements including but not limited to the truss, beam,
flat shell, curved shell, solid, and interface elements. Solid or shell elements are the two possible
options to model shear walls. Solid elements tend to produce large system of equations. These are
usually utilized only when other elements are unsuitable or produce inaccurate results. If selection of
solid elements increases the computational effort and time required for the analysis without adding
significant value to the final outcome, two-dimensional elements (shell) may be used. Thus, curved
shell elements, (Fig. 2) which proved to be suitable for modelling shear walls (Dashti et al. 2014) are
used. By employing the curved shell elements, location of steel reinforcements (longitudinal and
transverse) along the thickness of shear wall can still be defined and different diameter bars can be
modelled (Fig. 7 and 8).
The curved shell elements (in this case Q20SH) in DIANA (Fig. 2) are defined based on isoparametric
degenerated-solid approach by introducing two shell hypotheses (DIANA 2015) as follows.
Straight-normals: assumes that normals remain straight, but not necessarily normal to the reference
surface. Transverse shear deformation is included according to the Mindlin–Reissner theory (Mindlin
1951, Reissner 1945 and Reissner 1947).
Zero-normal-stress: assumes that the normal stress component in the normal direction of a lamina
basis is forced to zero (i.e. σzzl(ξ,η,z) = 0). The element tangent plane is spanned by a lamina basis which
corresponds to a local Cartesian coordinate system (xl, yl) defined at each point of the shell with xl and
yl tangent to the ξ,η plane and zl perpendicular to it.
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Curved shell elements (a) Characteristics and (b) Q20SH (DIANA 2015)
Five degrees of freedom are defined in every element node: three translations and two rotations (Fig.
3). The basic variables in the nodes of the curved shell elements are the translations uX, uY and uZ in the
global XYZ directions (Fig. 3a) and the rotations ϕx and ϕy around the local +x and +y axes in the
tangent plane (Fig. 3b).
(a) (b)
Figure 3. Displacements (a) Translations, (b) Rotations (DIANA 2015)
4
other four shear walls are still under investigation and the results will be presented in future
publications. A comparison between the numerical vs experimental results is carried out with
reference to the force-displacement curves and cracking patterns.
Figure 4. Details of tested wall specimens (WC and WD) (Kabeyasawa et al. 2014)
Table 2 and 3 show the material properties of each specimen. In the absence of information on the
ultimate strain of steel reinforcements, an ultimate limit state value of 0.06 was adopted for as
recommended by Kowalsky (2000) and NZSEE (2006).
The test set up and the bi-directional loading protocol adopted by Kabeyasawa et al. (2014) are shown
in Fig. 5 and 6, respectively. The out-of-plane displacement was attained first, then at each peak the
in-plane displacement was applied maintaining the out-of-plane peak displacement (Fig. 6).
The target peak deformation angle (drift) for the in-plane loading reversals were 1/400, 1/300, 1/200,
1/150, 1/100, 1/75, 1/50, 1/37.5, while those for out-of-plane loading were 1/300, 1/200, 1/150, 1/100,
1/75, 1/50, 1/37.5, 1/25. The corresponding peak drifts in the out-of-plane direction were 33% or 50%
larger than those in the in-plane direction, simulating the earthquake response in buildings with
moment resisting frames in the one direction and walls in the other direction. In such cases, the walls
are expected to be subjected to larger drift demands in the out-of-plane direction due to the higher
5
flexibility of the frame systems. Furthermore, for the out-of-plane direction of loading, the lateral
jacks were set at the mid-height of the inner column height and a lever arm was adopted to apply shear
and moment on the top of the wall, so that asymmetric bending moment could be applied in the
orthogonal direction (Fig. 5).
Figure 5. Test setup for uni- and bi-axially loaded walls (Kabeyasawa et al. 2014)
Fig. 7 and 8 show the FE models of WD-1D and WD-2D, respectively. As explained before, the shear
walls tested by Kabeyasawa et al. (2014) are cantilever in the in-plane and double curvature in the out-
of-plane directions; thus, there were two challenges involved in simulating the test setup shown in Fig.
5. First, to make sure that the out-of-plane loading system (the rigid liver arm in Fig. 8a) does not
affect the in-plane behaviour and that the shear wall acts as a cantilever in the in-plane direction (Fig.
9a). Second, the rigid liver arm should have enough rigidity to give a double curvature displacement
for the out-of-plane direction (Fig. 9b).
6
Linear Concrete
Gravity loads
Concrete Cover
(Unconfined)
Lateral load
Boundary Zone
(Confined)
Web (Unconfined)
Boundary
Condition
(a) (b)
Figure 9. Finite Element Model of WD-1D (a) Materials Assignment (b) boundary conditions and loadings
Rigid zone
Web Flexural
In-Plane and Shear
Loading Reinforcements
Out-of-Plane BZ Longitudinal
Loading and Transverse
Reinforcements
(a) (b)
Figure 8. Finite Element Model of WD-2D (a) boundary conditions and loadings (b) steel reinforcements
7
Double
curvature
Cantilever deformation
deformation (out-of-plane)
(in-plane)
(a) (b)
Figure 9. Shear wall deformation in each direction for the ones under bi-directional loading (a) in-plane
(b) out-of-plane
800
600
Horizontal Force (kN)
400
200
0
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
-200
-400
WC-1D
-600
WC-2D
-800
In-plane Drift Angle (rad.)
(a) (b)
Figure 10. Force-Displacement curves of WC (a) Experiments (Kabeyasawa et al. 2014) (b) DIANA
8
800
600
(a) (b)
Figure 12. Cracking pattern of WC-1D (a) Experiments (Kabeyasawa et al. 2014) (b) DIANA
(a) (b)
Figure 13. Cracking pattern of WC-2D (a) Experiments (Kabeyasawa et al. 2014) (b) DIANA
9
(a) (b)
Figure 14. Cracking pattern of WD-1D (a) Experiments (Kabeyasawa et al. 2014) (b) DIANA
(a) (b)
Figure 15. Cracking pattern of WD-2D (a) Experiments (Kabeyasawa et al. 2014) (b) DIANA
4 CONCLUSION
This paper is one of the first steps of a comprehensive study dealing with some concerns arisen after
recent earthquakes in Chile (2010) and New Zealand (2011), and specifically regarding the effects of
bi-directional loading on the performance of RC shear walls. The main goal of the whole study is to
identify the key parameters affecting the performance of rectangular RC shear walls under bi-
directional loading and possible recommendations (based on the experimental and analytical
investigations) to improve current practice (taking into account bidirectional loading effect) for both
the design of new walls as well as the assessment of existing ones. Thus, in this paper, a finite element
model capable of simulating cyclic response of RC walls under uni- and bi-directional loading is
proposed and validated with the experimental results available in the literature. For the next step the
proposed finite element model will be used for a numerical parametric study on rectangular RC shear
walls to identify the key parameters influencing the seismic performance of these shear walls under bi-
directional loading.
5 AKNOWLEDGEMNTS
Financial support of this research was provided by the SAFER Concrete Research Project funded by
the Natural Hazards Research Platform (NHRP) and the MBIE Wall project.
6 REFERENCES
Akguzel1, U. and Pampanin, S. (2010). Effects of Variation of Axial Load and Bidirectional Loading on Seismic
10
Performance of GFRP Retrofitted Reinforced Concrete Exterior Beam-Column Joints. J. Compos. Constr.,
vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 94-104.
Balan, T. A., Filippou, F. C. and Popov, E. P. (1998). Hysteretic Model of Ordinary and High-Strength
Reinforcing Steel. Journal of structural engineering New York, N.Y., vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 288-297.
Boys, A., Bull, D. K. and Pampanin, S. (2008). Seismic Performance Assessment Of Inadequately Detailed
Reinforced Concrete Columns. NZSEE Conference.
Dashti, F., Dhakal, R. and Pampanin, S. (2014). Numerical simulation of shear wall failure mechanisms.
Proceeding of the NZSEE14, New Zealand.
Dhakal, R. P. and Maekawa, K. (2002a). Modeling for postyield buckling of reinforcement. Journal of Structural
Engineering, vol. 128, no. 9, pp. 1139-1147.
Dhakal, R. P. and Maekawa, K. (2002b). Path-dependent cyclic stress-strain relationship of reinforcing bar
including buckling. Engineering Structures, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 1383-1396.
DIANA (2015). DIANA Manual Release 9.6, TNO DIANA BV, Delft, the Netherlands.
Dodd, L. L. and Restrepo-Posada, J. I. (1995). Model for predicting cyclic behavior of reinforcing steel. Journal
of structural engineering New York, N.Y., vol. 121, no. 3, pp. 433-444.
Elwood, K., Pampanin, S. and Kam, W. Y. (2012). 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake and implications
for the design of concrete structures. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons
Learned from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, March 1-4, 2012, Tokyo, Japan.
Hordijk, D. A. (1991). Local Approach to Fatigue of Concrete. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology.
Hoehler, M. S. and Stanton, J. F. (2006). Simple phenomenological model for reinforcing steel under arbitrary
load. Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 132, no. 7, pp. 1061-1069.
Kabeyasawa, T., Kato, S., Sato, M., Kabeyasawa, T., Fukuyama, H., Tani, M., Kim Y. and Hosokawa, Y.
(2014). Effects of bi-directional lateral loading on the strength and deformability of reinforced concrete walls
with/without boundary columns. Proceeding the Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Kowalsky, M. J. (2000). Deformation limit states for circular reinforced concrete bridge columns. Journal of
Structural Engineering, vol. 126, no. 8, pp. 869-878.
Leon, R. and Jirsa, O. (1986). Bi-directional loading of RC beam-column joints. Earthquake Spectra, vol. 2, no.
3, pp. 537-64.
Litton, RW 1974, A Contribution to the Analysis of Concrete Structures Under Cyclic Loading University of
California, Berkeley.
Low, S., and Moehle, J. (1987). Experimental study of reinforced concrete columns subjected to multiaxial
cyclic loading. Report No. UCB/EERC-87/14, University of California, Berkeley.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N. and Park, R. (1988). Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete.
Journal of structural engineering New York, N.Y., vol. 114, no. 8, pp. 1804-1826.
Menegotto, M., and Pinto, E. (1973). Method of Analysis for Cyclically Loaded Reinforced Concrete Plane
Frames Including Changes in Geometry and Non-Elastic Behaviour of Elements Under Combined Normal
Force and Bending. in IABSE Symposium on the Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted
on by Well-Defined Repeated Loads, Lisbon, Portugal.
Mindlin, R. D. (1951). Influence of rotary inertia and shear on flexural motions of isotropic, elastic plates. Trans
ASME, J Appl Mech, vol 18, pp. 1031–6.
NIST (2014). Recommendations for Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Wall Buildings Based on Studies of
the 2010 Maule, Chile Earthquake, NIST GCR 14-917-25, prepared by the NEHRP Consultants Joint
Venture A partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research
in Earthquake Engineering.
NZSEE. 2006. Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquake.
Recommendations of a NZSEE Study Group on Earthquake Risk Buildings.
Popovics, S. (1973). A Numerical Approach to the Complete Stress-Strain Curve of Concrete. Cement and
Concrete Research, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 583-599.
Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, M.C., and Kowalsky, M.J. 2007. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures.
IUSS Press, Pavia.
Priestley, M.J.N, Seible, F. and Calvi, G.M. 1996. Seismic design and retrofit of bridge structures. John Wiley
11
and Sons, New York.
Qiu, F., Li, W., Pan, P., and Qian, J. (2002). Experimental tests on reinforced concrete columns under biaxial
quasi-static loading. Engineering Structures, vol. 24, pp. 419–428.
Reissner, E. (1945). The effect of transverse shear deformation on the bending of elastic plates. Trans ASME, J
Appl Mech, vol. 12, pp. A68–77.
Reissner, E. (1947). On bending of elastic plates. Quart Appl Math, vol. 5, pp. 55–68.
Remmel, G., (1994). Zum zug und schubtragverhalten von bauteilen aus hochfestem beton. tech. rep., Deutscher
Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, Beuth Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Rodriguez, M. E., Botero, J. C. and Villa, J. (1999). Cyclic stress-strain behavior of reinforcing steel including
effect of buckling. Journal of structural engineering New York, N.Y., vol. 125, no. 6, pp. 605-612.
Rodríguez, M. E., Ortiz, A., Torres-Matos, M. A. (2013), ‘Diseño Sísmico de Muros de Concreto Reforzado
Basado en Desplazamiento’, XIX Congreso Nacional de Ingeniería Sísmica, Veracruz (in Spanish).
Saatcioglu, M. and Razvi, S. R. (1992). Strength and Ductility of Confined Concrete. Journal of Structural
Engineering; ASCE, vol. 118; no. 6; 1992; pp. 1590-1607.
Tatsuya, I. (1996). Post-yield behaviours of multi-story reinforced concrete shear walls subjected to bilateral
deformations under axial loading. Proceeding of the Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Thorenfeldt, E., Tomaszewicz, A. and Jensen, J. J. (1987). Mechanical Properties of High-Strength Concrete and
Applications in Design. in Proc. Symp. Utilization of High-Strnegth Concrete, Stavanger, Norway.
Umehara, H. and Jirsa, J. O. (1984). Short Rectagular RC Columns Under BiDirectional Loadings, J. Struct.
Eng, vol 110, pp.605-618.
Vecchio, F. J. and Collins, M. P. (1986). Modified Compression-Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements
Subjected to Shear. Journal of the American Concrete Institute, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 219-231.
Zeris, C. A., and Mahin, S. A. (1991). Behaviour of reinforced concrete structures subjected to biaxial excitation.
J. Struct. Eng, vol. 117, pp. 2657-2673.
12