Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Slender Wall ACI 318-11 PDF
Slender Wall ACI 318-11 PDF
E
design. When evaluating a “strength” limit state note that this is not the displacement considering
R
– e.g., flexural design of a reinforced concrete realistic service loads. Solving equation 14-5 for
beam – we are considering the ultimate failure Δu and equation 14-4 for Mu typically requires at
U
state of the member. We know that the likeli- least a few iterations; for example, the first attempt
t
righ
yhood of a sufficiently could assume zero deflection. Conveniently,
T
Cop
designed member ever equation 14-6 provides direct calculation of
C
Slender Reinforced reaching this failure state
is extremely small and
Mu, implicitly accounting for the P-delta effect.
Interestingly, this approach uses cracked section
e
U
Concrete Walls that, if it does happen, properties, a rational (and probably conservative)
i
the member will fail “in n presumption since we are applying ultimate loads
R z
a certain way” so that its that will likely produce stresses beyond the con-
T a
behavior is controlled, manipulated and even pre- crete modulus of rupture. Note that ACI 318-11
The Merging of Design
g
S
dictable; ductile is another descriptor that comes section 14.8.3 does not prescribe a maximum
Philosophies
a
to mind. Calculation of deflections at the ultimate limit for this (ultimate) displacement.
32 April 2014
Most engineers will be inclined to implement presumes that it has cracked. For this example, be surprising to see such a large difference in
this process using a spreadsheet, although when the serviceability analysis shows a peak moment deflections between the strength design and
considering only one load combination, most of 2.7 kip-ft/ft, while the cracking moment for serviceability design approaches. Closer corol-
solutions converge quickly and can be obtained this wall, based on the modulus of rupture, is laries in behavior between strength analysis
by hand. However, once you start considering 5.06 kip-ft/ft. Hence, the wall does not crack and serviceability analysis can be observed
multiple load combinations and the ubiquitous and essentially maintains its gross section prop- in elements with relatively high loads such
trial-and-error design scenarios, automating the erties and relatively high stiffness. Interestingly, as jamb columns, which are more likely to
process becomes very attractive. Interestingly, the cracked moment of inertia for the strength crack under service loads.▪
a direct solution is available, not unlike the analysis is only 34.7 in4/ft, whereas the gross
strength design process; but it becomes a chal- moment of inertia is 512 in4/ft. A similar article was published in the
lenge if we are on the threshold of cracking, Considering this, coupled to the concept Structural Engineers Association-Utah
since the equations are dramatically changed that the procedure for strength design pre- (SEAU) Monthly Newsletter (January 2013).
between the uncracked and cracked states. sumes that the wall is cracked, it should not Content is reprinted with permission.
Hence, the procedure inherently requires
that we consider whether the wall has
cracked within each iteration, and we use ®
different equations for peak out-of plane
The Industry Leader
E
displacement accordingly.
R
Consider an example: An 8-inch thick
concrete wall (f 'c = 4,000 psi) spans verti-
In Seismic And Wind
U
cally 24 feet. One curtain of vertical bars is
Solutions.
t
at the center of the wall with #5 @ 12 inches righ
T
y
Cop
(assume effective depth d = 4 inches). Over
C
a 1-foot wide design segment, unfactored
loads include 1.6 kips of dead load and 0.5 At Hardy Frame® we created the original steel shear wall
e
U
kips of snow load, both at an eccentricity of system nearly two decades ago and remain the most trusted
7 inches with respect to the wall centerline,
i n
R
name in seismic and wind solutions year after year. Contact
plus a 30 psf outward wind load. Based on
z
T a
ACI 318-11 load combination 9-4 (1.2D + us today and let us create the right solution for you.
g
S
1.0W + 0.5S), the wall is satisfactory, with
Mu = 4.19 kip-ft/ft < fMn = 6.21 kip-ft/ft.
a
This calculation utilizes the effective area
m HARDY
4.6 inches.
Now consider serviceability and a cor-
relating service load combination from
ASCE 7-10 section 2.4: D + 0.6W, where Hardy Frame®
W is taken as the same 30 psf wind load Hardy Frame® Special Moment Frame
HFX Panel
indicated previously. Following the proce-
dure from ACI 318-11 section 14.8, the
calculation for deflection appropriately
incorporating the P-delta effect requires
the iteration of deflections approach
unless you are certain that the wall does
not crack, in which case a direct solu-
tion can be found similar to the strength
analysis. It turns out that the deflection
is about 0.10 inches, a far cry from the
4.6 inches determined from the earlier
strength calculation.
Why the major disparity? It stands to
reason that the strength analysis and the
serviceability analysis should yield different hardyframe.com 800 754.3030
results, but by a factor of nearly 50? What
are we missing? The answer is simple and
was alluded to earlier: the serviceability A Berkshire Hathaway Company
analysis considers whether the wall has Better Technology. Better Building.
cracked, whereas the strength analysis
Hardy Frame - Structure
STRUCTURE magazine 33 April 2014 Half Page Size: 5" x 7.5"
3-3-2014