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

net/publication/281480864

Comparative Study on Modelling of RC Structural Walls for Nonlinear Static

Analysis

Conference Paper · March 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 229

2 authors, including:

Rupen Goswami
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
59 PUBLICATIONS   62 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rupen Goswami on 05 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 National Conference on Technological Innovations for Sustainable Infrastructure: 13-14 March,2015

Paper No.: T0009

Comparative Study on Modelling of

RC Structural Walls for Nonlinear Static Analysis
Ketan Kulkarnia and Rupen Goswamib
a
Graduate Student, e mail: ketankkul28@gmail.com
b
Assistant Professor, e mail: rg@iitm.ac.in
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036

Abstract

Proper modelling of Reinforced Concrete (RC) structural walls in buildings is important for obtaining meaningful results
from analysis. In particular, result of nonlinear static analysis of buildings is sensitive to type of modelling adopted of RC
walls. Two common approaches to model RC walls in commercially available structural analysis programs involve using
“mid-pier frame element” or “multilayer shell element”. In this paper, behaviour is studied of RC walls using both the
modelling approaches for walls with different aspect ratio and amount of longitudinal reinforcement. It is observed that
while both the modelling approaches help estimate initial stiffness adequately, estimates are not good of lateral strength and
ductility capacities of RC walls modelled using multilayer shell element, particularly for squat walls expected to fail in
shear. Thus, it is concluded that while both modelling approaches are adequate for linear elastic analysis, as required in
routine design, modelling using multilayer shell element is not appropriate for undertaking nonlinear static pushover
analysis for assessment of seismic behaviour of buildings with RC walls.

Keywords: shell element, frame element, stiffness, plastic hinge, ductility

1. 1ntroduction strategy is extended to model RC walls as

Reinforced Concrete (RC) walls are efficient
lateral load resisting systems and are commonly
used in seismic design of RC buildings. These
walls offer large in plane stiffness and strength, and
help resist strong seismic actions. Behaviour of a
RC wall is primarily governed by its aspect ratio
(height to length ratio), in addition to grade of
materials, shape of wall cross-section, amount and
distribution of both longitudinal (vertical) and
transverse (horizontal) reinforcement, etc. Thus,
walls are generally classified as slender,
intermediate, or squat, based on the aspect ratio.
Behaviour of slender walls is governed by flexural
action and are expected to fail by formation of
flexural plastic hinge, while that of squat walls is
governed by shearing action and are expected to
fail in shear. Thus, in seismic design of buildings,
slender walls are preferred that provides sufficient
ductility, in addition to large stiffness and strength,
to resist seismic actions.
But, for assessment of seismic behaviour of
buildings, through nonlinear static pushover
analysis (PoA), the numerical model adopted
should be capable of capturing both flexural and
shear actions, as estimate of overall ductility
critically depends on the type of damage a member
is expected to undergo. Thus, PoA of frame
buildings requires proper input of force-
deformation relation of the expected mode of
damage in the form of lumped hinge properties at
pre-determined locations within a frame member.
Traditionally, in buildings with RC walls, the same
equivalent mid-pier frame elements. This requires
additional attention, especially on defining proper
connectivity of walls with neighbouring beams,
often using rigid offsets, and on input of
appropriate hinge property. To add to this option,
many structural analysis programs now offer
simpler strategy of modelling RC walls using
multi-layered shell element with inbuilt features to
control connectivity and expected material
nonlinearity. In this paper, lateral load resisting
behaviour of slender and squat RC walls is
discussed using these two modelling approaches.
1.1 Failure Modes and Ductility in RC Walls
Expected failure mode of a RC wall depends on
numerous factors. In general, behaviour of slender
walls, with high aspect ratio, is governed by the
flexural strength that is primarily governed by the
amount of longitudinal (vertical) reinforcement
provided; they are subjected to very low nominal
shear stress [Park and Paulay, 1975]. Failure of
slender walls is initiated by either of (a) yielding of
longitudinal tensile reinforcement, (b) crushing of
concrete at the highly compressed edge, (c) loss of
anchorage of longitudinal reinforcement bars, or
(d) lateral instability of compression zone. On the
other hand, behaviour of squat walls, with low
aspect ratio, is governed by shear strength that is
primarily governed by the amount of transverse
(horizontal) reinforcement provided; they are
subjected to very high nominal shear stress. Failure

208
TISI-2015, National Institute of Technology Calicut
 National Conference on Technological Innovations for Sustainable Infrastructure: 13-14 March,2015

of squat walls is initiated by either of (a) diagonal 3. Numerical Study

compression failure of concrete, (b) yielding of
RC walls of 300×4000 rectangular cross-section
transverse reinforcement, or (c) sliding shear
(Figure 1) are modelled as vertical cantilevers with
failure [Medhekar and Jain, 1993]. Consequently,
full fixity at base. The walls are modelled
any failure mode other than tensile yielding of
separately using frame and multi-layered shell
longitudinal reinforcement (in under-reinforced
elements. Material properties of standard M25
sections) critically reduces ductility. Increase in
grade concrete (with Poisson’s ratio of 0.15) and
amount of longitudinal reinforcement, and in
grade A615 Gr60 steel reinforcement are used in
particular shear failure mode, limit ductility
the study. Walls of aspect ratio of 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10
capacity of RC walls.
are considered, each with 0.26 % of horizontal
reinforcement, and 0.26 and 1.15% of longitudinal
reinforcements. Displacement controlled pushover
analysis is performed of each wall, under the action
2. Modelling of RC Walls
of self weight alone, using SAP 2000 V14.
Modelling of RC walls is discussed in the
following using equivalent mid-pier frame element
and multi-layer shell element, along with the 3.1 Frame-Element: Model and Hinge Properties
assumptions involved and approximations built in
RC walls are modelled as equivalent 1-D frame
these elements.
elements (Figure 2). Cross section of the frame
elements are defined equal to cross section of wall
2.1 Frame Element
sections. Vertical reinforcement in walls is
RC wall can be modelled as a mid-pier frame modelled as main longitudinal reinforcement in the
element using standard 1-D frame elements with frame elements, while horizontal reinforcement as
three translational and three rotational degrees of stirrups. Auto generated moment and shear hinges,
freedom at each of the two nodes of the element. based on FEMA 356 [FEMA 356, 2000]
The stiffness of the member is governed by the recommendations, are assigned at the base of frame
details of cross-section and material given as input elements that is the location of maximum bending
since the plan dimension of the wall is reduced to a moment. Figures 3 and 4 show moment hinge
point by 1-D frame element, rigid links are required properties for longitudinal reinforcement of both
for connecting the wall to the adjacent beams. The 0.26 and 1.15%, while Figure 5 shows the shear
rigid link, however, results in overestimation of hinge property.
stress resultants in the beams [Kubin, et. al., 2008].
But, in real building models with many beams and
columns, this does not alter the global response
significantly. The expected nonlinear behaviour of
the wall needs to be modelled separately by
assigning moment and shear hinges to the 1-D h
frame element representing the wall. RC walls of
simple geometric (rectangular) shape without, or
with small, openings are commonly modelled using
this approach [Rana et. al., 2004; Akis et. al., 2009;
ATC 40, 1996].

2.2 Multi-layered Shell Element

RC wall can be modelled as a multi-layered 300
shell element also. Each shell element has six
4000
translational degrees of freedom at each node,
along with in-plane rotational degree freedom to
Figure 1: Geometry of structural wall
maintain compatibility with adjacent frame
elements [CSI, 2011]. Concrete and steel F
reinforcement are defined as a separate material
layers to define the geometry of the cross-section.
Nonlinear behaviour is computed directly using the
input stress-strain relations of the constituent
materials. Slender RC walls of complex geometric
shapes (e.g., L, T) with openings can be easily
modelled using this approach [Miao et. al., 2006; Shear Hinge
Simonini et. al., 2012]. Moment Hinge

Figure 2: Frame element with hinge assignments

209
TISI-2015, National Institute of Technology Calicut
 National Conference on Technological Innovations for Sustainable Infrastructure: 13-14 March,2015

F
3000
Moment (kNm)
2000

1000

0
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040

Normalised Rotation
Figure 3: Moment hinge properties (pt = 0.26%)

16000 Figure 6: Shell element with mesh

12000
Moment (kNm)

8000
30
4000

Stress (N/mm2)
0 20
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040
10
Normalised Rotation
Figure 4: Moment hinge properties (pt = 1.15%) 0
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
1000
Strain
Shear Force (kN)

750
Figure 7: Constitutive relation of concrete
500

250

0 800

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 600

Stress (N/mm2)

Normalised Shear Strain 400

Figure 5: Shear hinge properties 200

3.2 Multi-layered Shell Element: Mesh and
Material Properties
RC walls are modelled using nonlinear
multilayer shell element in SAP 2000 V14. Both
vertical and horizontal reinforcements are defined
as steel layers, near the faces, with uniform
distribution along the depth of the cross-section and
the height of the walls. Optimum mesh size (Figure
6) is determined for wall of each aspect ratio
through standard mesh convergence study. Figures
7 and 8 show stress-strain relations of concrete and
reinforcing steel used to incorporate nonlinear
behaviour of multilayer shell element.
4. Results
Results of nonlinear static pushover analyses
are presented of walls, of different aspect ratio and
amount of longitudinal reinforcement, modelled
using the two approaches discussed above. The
results are discussed under two broad heads
representing elastic and inelastic behaviours,
respectively.
0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
Strain
Figure 8: Constitutive relation of reinforcing steel
4.1 Elastic Response: Initial Stiffness
Lateral translational stiffness of walls, of
different aspect ratio, modelled using the two
approaches, are compared with theoretical estimate
in Table 1. Theoretical estimate of stiffness is
computed as effective stiffness considering both
shear and flexural deformations. It is observed that
both the modelling approaches are adequate to
capture elastic response of RC walls, as governed
by the lateral stiffness; variation in estimate of
lateral stiffness is slightly more in squat walls. But,
it also observed that estimate of stiffness obtained
using multilayer shell element is highly sensitive to
the mesh size used in analysis. Convergence study
is essential in using multi-layered shell element to
model RC walls in buildings; Figure 9 shows
variation of stiffness with changing mesh size for
wall with aspect ratio of 1.

210
TISI-2015, National Institute of Technology Calicut
 National Conference on Technological Innovations for Sustainable Infrastructure: 13-14 March,2015

Table 1: Comparison of initial stiffness 1000

Frame Element
Height Aspect Lateral Stiffness 750 Shell Element
of Wall Ratio (kN/mm)

Load F (kN )
h (m) 500

Shell Frame 250

Theoretical
Element Element
0
4 1 1091 1073 1109
0 1 2 3 4
8 2 199 204 200
12 3 64 68 64 Drift %
20 5 15 15 15 Figure 11: Pushover response curves of wall with aspect ratio 3
and 0.26% longitudinal steel
40 10 2 2 2
1000
Frame Element
750 Shell Element

Load F (kN )
500
1150
Lateral Stiffness (kN/mm)

250
1125
0
1100
0 1 2 3 4
1075
Drift %
1050 Figure 12: Pushover response curves of wall with aspect ratio 5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 and 0.26% longitudinal steel

Mesh Size (m) 3000

Figure 9: Convergence study

Load F (kN )

2000

4.1 Inelastic Response: Strength and Ductility 1000

Frame Element
Strength and ductility of walls, of different Shell Element
0
aspect ratio, modelled using the two approaches, 0 1 2 3 4
are compared in the following. For RC walls with
low longitudinal reinforcement (of 0.26%), both Drift %
the modelling approaches provide appropriate
Figure 13: Pushover response curves of wall with aspect ratio 1
estimate of ultimate strength and ductility, as and 1.15% longitudinal steel
shown in Figure 10, 11, and 12 for walls with
aspect ratio 1, 3 and 5, respectively. But, multilayer 1000
shell element overestimates both ultimate strength 750
Load F (kN )

and ductility, and fails to capture shear failure that

is captured by frame element, when the amount of 500
longitudinal reinforcement is increased to 1.15%, 250
as shown in Figures 13, 14, and 15, again for walls Frame Element
Shell Element
with aspect ratio 1, 3 and 5, respectively. Thus, it 0
can be inferred that either of the modelling 0 1 2 3 4
approaches can be used effectively to model
Drift %
slender walls in buildings to predict both elastic
and inelastic behaviours. Figure 14: Pushover response curves of wall with aspect ratio 3
and 1.15% longitudinal steel

3000 1000
Frame Element Frame Element
Shell Element 750 Shell Element
Load F (kN )

2000
Load F (kN )

500
1000
250

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

Drift % Drift %

Figure 10: Pushover response curves of wall with aspect ratio 1 Figure 15: Pushover response curves of wall with aspect ratio 5
and 0.26% longitudinal steel and 1.15% longitudinal steel

211
TISI-2015, National Institute of Technology Calicut
 National Conference on Technological Innovations for Sustainable Infrastructure: 13-14 March,2015

6. Conclusions 7. Miao, Z.W., Lu, X.Z., Jiang, J.J., and Ye,

L.P., 2006, Non-linear FE Model for RC
The following salient conclusions are drawn
Shear Walls Based on Multi layer Shell
from this study:
Element and Microplane Constitutive
1. Numerical models using both multilayer
Model, Computational Methods in
shell element and frame element provide
Engineering and Science, Proceedings of
good estimate of initial lateral stiffness of
the EPMESC X, Sanya, Hainan, China
RC walls, provided appropriate mesh size is
8. Park, R., and Paulay, T., 1975, Reinforced
used in modelling using multi-layer shell
Concrete Structures, A Wiley-
elements;
Interscience Publication, New York
2. For linear elastic analysis, both modelling
9. Rana, R., Jin, L., and Zekioglu, A., 2004,
approaches provide results similar to
Pushover Analysis of 19 Story Concrete
theoretical estimates. Thus, multi-layer shell
Shear Wall Building, Proceedings of the
element can effectively be used to model
13th World Conference on Earthquake
RC walls of complex geometric shapes and
Engineering, Vancouver, Canada
with openings, which are difficult to model
10. Simonini, S., Constantin, R., Rutenberg,
using frame element.
A., and Beyer, K., 2012, Pushover
3. For inelastic analysis, both modelling
Analysis of Multistory Cantilever Wall
approaches provide similar estimates of
Systems, Proceedings of the 15th World
strength and ductility of slender RC walls
Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
expected to demonstrate ductile flexural
Lisbon, Portugal
actions (due to relatively low amount of
…
longitudinal reinforcement).
4. Inelastic response is not predicted properly
of squat walls expected to fail in shear by
multi-layer shell elements; both strength and
ductility capacities are overestimated. In
such cases, traditional strategy of modelling
RC walls using equivalent frame element is
the best option.

7. References
1. Akis, T., Tokdemir, T., and Yilmaz, C.,
2009, Modeling of Asymmetric Shear
Wall-Frame Building Structures, Journal
of Asian Architecture and Building
Engineering, 8(2), 531-538
2. ATC 40, 1996, Seismic Evaluation and
Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Applied
Technology Council, USA
3. CSI Analysis Reference Manual, 2011,
Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley,
California, USA
4. FEMA 356, 2000, Prestandard and
Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal
Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C
5. Kubin, J., Fahjan, M., and Tan, M.T.,
2008, Comparison Of Practical
Approaches For Modelling Shearwalls in
Structural Analyses of Buildings,
Proceedings of the 14th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing,
China
6. Medhekar, M.S., and Jain, S.K., 1993,
Seismic Behaviour, Design and Detailing
of RC Shear Walls, Part I: Behaviour and
Strength, Indian Concrete Journal , 67(7),
311-318

212
TISI-2015, National Institute of Technology Calicut
View publication stats