Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2002 Hidalgo Engineering-Structures PDF
2002 Hidalgo Engineering-Structures PDF
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Received 10 July 2000; received in revised form 5 June 2001; accepted 11 June 2001
Abstract
The development of an analytical model to predict the inelastic seismic response of reinforced concrete shear-wall buildings,
including both the flexural and shear failure modes is presented. The use of shear-wall buildings is quite common in a number of
seismic countries as a result of their successful seismic behavior during past severe earthquakes. The objective of this study has
been to develop a computer model capable of predicting the seismic behavior of shear-wall buildings. Such model would allow
better estimations to be obtained of both the ultimate lateral strength of these buildings as well as their inelastic deformation demand
under severe ground motions. Such information may be used in the implementation of performance-based design procedures, and
to improve present code design procedures. To fulfill this objective, a shear failure mode model based on experimental results has
been added to the computer program larz. This paper discusses the most relevant problems and solutions devised during the
development of this model. Validation of the model proposed to predict the inelastic seismic response of shear-wall structures was
carried out by comparing its results with the actual response of two real buildings during the March 3, 1985 Chilean earthquake. In
spite of the fact that the model is two-dimensional and, hence, it ignores the torsional response, the results obtained are satisfactory.
2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Shear-wall buildings; Reinforced concrete buildings; Inelastic behavior; Shear failure model
0141-0296/02/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 6 1 - X
86 P.A. Hidalgo et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 85–98
Fig. 1. Typical wall element. Fig. 3. Hysteretic model for shear mode of failure (shear walls).
P.A. Hidalgo et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 85–98 87
similar soil conditions as for the buildings were used as beams may develop significant seismic shear forces that
input for the computer model. induce variable axial loads on the walls, but the resulting
error in the axial loads becomes smaller as the flexural
strength of the coupling elements decreases.
2. Model for flexural failure mode The evaluation of the bending moment for the collapse
point defined by fmax , assumes the same compressive
stress block in the concrete that was used for point U.
The SINA hysteresis model implemented in the larz
This is obviously an approximation since it always yields
computer program (Fig. 2) was adopted in this study to
to fmax=3.33fu in Fig. 2. This assumption is verified by
model the non-linear flexural behavior and the moment-
computing the moment-curvature relationship for some
curvature hysteretic relations for wall elements. As
of the walls using a realistic stress–strain curve for the
shown in Fig. 2, pinching effects and stiffness and
concrete. In all cases a slightly larger value of fmax is
strength reductions due to repeated cycles at the same
obtained by using the more ‘exact’ method. Neverthe-
deformation level were not implemented in the model
less, when the model was used in this study to predict
for flexural behavior.
the inelastic seismic behavior of real buildings, the
The model operates on a primary M–f envelope curve
maximum curvature never exceeded the value of fu.
consisting of four linear segments for positive and nega-
tive bending as shown in Fig. 2. The primary curves need
not be symmetric about the origin, but a single straight
3. Model for shear failure mode
line must be specified for moments below the cracking
moment in both directions (line C⬘C in Fig. 2). Points
Shear dominated behavior was also modeled using the
Y and U (and Y⬘ and U⬘) correspond to moments asso-
SINA hysteresis model as shown in Fig. 3. Pinching
ciated with first yielding and a concrete compressive
effects and strength reduction due to repeated cycles at
strain of ⑀cu=0.003, respectively. An horizontal line fol-
the same deformation level were now implemented in
lowing point U is assumed, and collapse is defined by
the hysteresis model. The model for the shear failure
a maximum curvature fmax, associated to a concrete
mode assumes independence of the shear strength of
compressive strain of ⑀cmax=0.01.
walls on both the bending moment and the axial force
For moments below the cracking level, loading and
present in the wall. This is also an approximation, but
unloading follow the primary curve. For moments above
to neglect interaction between shear and axial force is
the cracking moment, unloading follows a line con-
consistent with the current ACI design provisions for
necting the unloading point with the cracking point in
walls [6].
the other direction (line PC⬘ in Fig. 2). If the yield
The model was initially developed for squat shear
moment is exceeded and unloading takes place at point
walls with an aspect ratio M/(VLw) of 1.0 or smaller,
P1, the slope of the unloading branch P1P2 is taken as
where M is the bending moment at the base of the wall,
Kun⫽Ky⬘c 冉冊fy
fm
a
(1)
V the shear force, and Lw the length of the wall. It was
then extended to the case of slender shear walls with
aspect ratio larger than 1.0, as explained later. In Fig. 3,
where fm is the maximum curvature attained in the load- point C represents the point where a change in the slope
ing direction and Ky⬘c the slope of the line connecting of the envelope of the load–displacement relationship is
the yield point in the loading direction with the cracking experimentally observed; the new value of the stiffness
point in the opposite direction. The exponent a controls of the specimens is about 60% of the initial stiffness.
the slope of the unloading branch after yielding, and was Point C was generally very close to the point at which
taken equal to 0.5 as suggested by Saiidi and Sozen [3]. the first diagonal crack from corner to corner of the walls
A detailed description of all the hysteresis rules can be was developed during the tests. Point Y corresponds to
found elsewhere [3]. the largest value of shear load attained during the test,
The bending moment and curvature values were while point U may be associated with the ultimate con-
defined using the standard theory for reinforced concrete dition under which the element may still be considered
elements; both the boundary reinforcement and the dis- as an effective part of the resisting mechanism of the
tributed vertical reinforcement are taken into account in structure. The definitions of points C, Y and U in the
defining the primary M–f curve for wall elements. envelope curve (Fig. 3) are based on the experimental
Further, the axial load force values due to gravity, results obtained from the cyclic test of 26 full scale,
assumed to remain constant throughout the seismic shear wall specimens. All these specimens were
response, are considered in the calculation of moment designed to exhibit a shear mode of failure and had
and curvature associated with points C, Y and U of the aspect ratios M/(VLw) between 0.35 and 1.0. The loading
primary curve. This constitutes an approximation for sequence of each test consisted of sets of two cycles at
shear walls coupled by spandrel beams, since these a given displacement amplitude, which increased gradu-
88 P.A. Hidalgo et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 85–98
Fig. 8. Comparison of shear model to estimate cracking strength with Fig. 11. Comparison of shear model to estimate maximum strength
experimental values. with experimental values.
Fig. 12. Structural floor plans of buildings studied. (Dimensions in centimeters). (a) Villa Real building. (b) Sermena building.
experimental values obtained from the test of squat walls either a flexural or a shear failure mode could be
[7] may be improved by multiplying Vc by a factor of developed in each of the walls of the structure under a
1.41. The estimation of Vu for slender walls was taken severe ground motion. The failure mode predicted by the
as the ACI formula to predict the shear strength of program is based on the fact that the flexural response
beams, but using as contribution of concrete the of a particular wall element follows the hysteresis curve
expression proposed by Paulay and Priestley [10] (Fig. for flexure (M–f curve, see Fig. 2) while the shear
10). This model has been labeled as N.Z. model in Fig. response follows the hysteresis curve for shear (V–d
11 that shows the complete correlation between model curve, see Fig. 3). Therefore, at each integration step,
values and experimental results. Finally, the value of Vult the curvature f and shear displacement d demands asso-
shown in Fig. 3 was arbitrarily taken as 1.01 times Vu ciated with the calculated values of M and V are obtained
to avoid instability in the numerical model analysis due directly from the hysteresis curves, making possible the
to negative stiffness. development of either a flexural or a shear failure mode.
Since the shear model parameters depend on the aspect
4. Prediction of inelastic seismic behavior of real ratio M/(VLw), the value of this ratio for each wall was
buildings taken as the inter-story height h divided by the length
of the wall Lw. This assumption is based on time-history
The models of flexural and shear failure modes were results of M/(VLw) which was found to be closer to h/Lw,
implemented into the larz computer program, such that than to the total wall height divided by Lw. The analytical
P.A. Hidalgo et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 85–98 91
Fig. 13. Acceleration record and base shear response, Villa Real
building. (a) Viña del Mar acceleration record, S20W component. (b)
Base shear, X-direction analysis. (c) Base shear, Y-direction analysis. Fig. 14. Acceleration record and base shear response, Sermena build-
ing. (a) El Almendral acceleration record, N50E component. (b) Base
shear, X-direction analysis. (c) Base shear, Y-direction analysis.
model developed so far is two-dimensional, but a three-
dimensional version is currently being investigated.
The model was validated by predicting the inelastic Real building, and 0.008 and 0.015, in the X- and Y-
seismic behavior of two real buildings that developed directions, respectively, for the Sermena building. The
inelastic behavior and shear cracking during the March latter, despite being three stories smaller than the Villa
3, 1985 Chilean earthquake. The 10-story plus a base- Real building, has lower values of this ratio, which is
ment Villa Real building, designed in 1981, and the 7- consistent with the more extensive shear cracking
story plus a basement Sermena building, designed in developed by this building during the 1985 earthquake.
1971, are presented in Fig. 12(a) and (b), respectively. The earthquake response histories along both principal
Both are shear wall reinforced concrete structural sys- horizontal directions of the Villa Real building were
tems located in the coastal cities of Viña del Mar and obtained using the S20W component of the acceleration
Valparaiso, respectively, about 30 km from the epicenter record obtained in downtown Viña del Mar. The site of
of the 1985 earthquake. The distribution in plan of shear the record was at about 1000 m from the site of the
walls for both buildings is quite symmetric with respect building. In the case of the Sermena building, the N50E
to horizontal axes X and Y. The typical ratios of shear component of the El Almendral acceleration record was
wall area to floor plan area are 0.027 in the X-direction used for the analysis of the building. This was recorded
and 0.033 in the Y-direction, respectively, for the Villa at about 2600 m from the building. In both cases, the
92 P.A. Hidalgo et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 85–98
Fig. 15. Hysteretic response examples, Villa Real building. (a) Hys- Fig. 16. Hysteretic response examples, Sermena building. (a) Hyster-
teretic shear behavior wall M5, axis 2, story 2. (b) Hysteretic flexural etic shear behavior wall M3, axis A, story 1. (b) Hysteretic flexural
behavior at base of wall M5, axis 2, story 2. behavior at base of wall M3, axis A, story 1.
soil at the recording site had the same characteristics as ing, were 5520 kN (26.6% of weight) and 7020 kN
those of the corresponding building site. (33.9% of weight), respectively, that is, 2.3 and 2.9 times
Structural and architectural drawings of both build- larger than the design base shear. Likewise for the Ser-
ings, strength characteristics of both concrete and rein- mena building, the design base shear was 2830 kN (12%
forcing steel obtained after the earthquake, and a detailed of weight), while predicted maximum values were
documentation of damage and cracking patterns are 8370 kN (35.5% of weight) and 7310 kN (31% of
available to conduct this study [11,12]. In order to ascer- weight), in the X- and Y-directions, respectively, i.e. 3.0
tain the validity of structural model assumptions associa- and 2.6 times the design base shear. Maximum values
ted with the elastic behavior of the buildings, the com- of inter-story drift ratios predicted for these buildings
puted first mode translational periods of vibration are were 0.0073 and 0.0051, in the X- and Y-directions,
correlated with the values measured after the earthquake. respectively, for the Villa Real building. Corresponding
For the Villa Real building the nominal periods are values for the Sermena building were 0.0048 and
0.74 s (0.71) and 0.53 s (0.51), in the X- and Y-direc- 0.0044, respectively.
tions, respectively; and for the Sermena building 0.48 s Examples of hysteretic behavior, both in flexure and
(0.45) and 0.42 s (0.41), in these directions, respectively. shear, developed at some critical shear-wall segments are
The numbers in parenthesis correspond to the periods shown in Fig. 15 for the Villa Real building and in Fig.
measured experimentally. 16 for the Sermena building. Fig. 15(a) and (b) shows
Let us consider first the prediction of base shear the hysteresis loops developed in wall M5 of the Villa
obtained with the computer program along each of the Real building, shown in Fig. 12(a), both for the shear
principal directions of resistance as shown in Figs. 13 behavior and the flexural behavior, respectively. It can
and 14. It is interesting to note that the original design be observed from Fig. 15(a) that shear behavior almost
base shear for the Villa Real building was 2390 kN reached the cracking point, with very limited energy dis-
(11.5% of total weight), using the current Chilean Code sipated through this type of behavior. On the other hand,
when the design was carried out. Maximum values pre- the formation of a plastic hinge is apparent from Fig.
dicted for the X- and Y-directions of the Villa Real build- 15(b), with larger energy dissipation through the flexural
P.A. Hidalgo et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 85–98 93
Fig. 17. Experimental results for Specimen 23 (M/VLw=0.69, rh=0.25%, rv=0). (a) Actual cracking patterns. (b) Hysteretic shear behavior.
behavior than through the shear behavior. The same seismic response was evaluated by comparing the crack-
information is shown in Fig. 16 for wall M3 of the Ser- ing that would be obtained from the predicted internal
mena building (Fig. 12(b)); in this case, more energy is forces in each of the structural elements with the actual
dissipated, through both the shear and the flexural cracking patterns due to flexure and shear. The cracks
behavior. It is worthwhile to note that minimum values due to flexure are sometimes difficult to observe after
of the aspect ratio M/(VLw) of walls that experienced an earthquake, but those due to shear may be easily reco-
shear cracking in the Villa Real building, at any instant gnizable. In order to correlate the predicted internal shear
of the time-history response, reached 0.72 and 0.60, for forces with cracking patterns, the experimental infor-
the X- and Y-directions, respectively. mation obtained from a previous research program was
The capability of the model to predict the inelastic used, [7]. Figs. 17 and 18 show two examples of the
94 P.A. Hidalgo et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 85–98
Fig. 18. Experimental results for Specimen 27 (M/VLw=0.50, rh=0.25%, rv=0). (a) Actual cracking patterns. (b) Hysteretic shear behavior.
relation between the hysteretic shear behavior of shear behavior of walls, the attention was mainly focused on
walls and the resulting cracking patterns. A more the walls that developed shear cracking during the 1985
detailed analysis of the results of this comparison for earthquake. In order to validate the results from the
each building follows. analysis with the actual performance of the structure, the
experimental results of cracking patterns, like those
4.1. Villa Real building presented in Fig. 17, are used as follows. Consider for
instance wall M14 (Fig. 19) which shows a maximum
The inelastic response of the structure was determined shear of 58% of the cracking shear (Fig. 19(b)). There-
by using the acceleration record indicated above, first as fore, this wall has attained a point that is below point 1
base acceleration history along the X-direction, and then in Fig. 17 and, hence, should present less cracking than
along the Y-direction. To evaluate the inelastic shear pattern 1 in that figure. This coincides with the actual
P.A. Hidalgo et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 85–98 95
Fig. 19. Axis D, Villa Real Building. (a) Observed cracking pattern. Fig. 20. Axis E, Villa Real Building. (a) Observed cracking pattern.
(b) Quality of shear behavior prediction. (b) Quality of shear behavior prediction.
Fig. 21. Axis 2, Villa Real Building. (a) Observed cracking pattern.
(b) Quality of shear behavior prediction.
Fig. 22. Axis 5, Villa Real Building. (a) Observed cracking pattern. Fig. 23. Axis A, Sermena Building. (a) Observed cracking pattern.
(b) Quality of shear behavior prediction. (b) Quality of shear behavior prediction.
P.A. Hidalgo et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 85–98 97
Fig. 26. Axis 5b, Sermena Building. (a) Observed cracking pattern.
(b) Quality of shear behavior prediction.
5. Conclusions
tributions to the writing of the manuscript, and Professor [6] American Concrete Institute. Building code requirements for
P. Bonelli from the Universidad Tecnica F. Santa Maria, reinforced concrete, ACI 318-99. Detroit (Michigan), USA, 1999.
[7] Hidalgo P, Jordan R, Ledezma C. Experimental study of
who provided the structural details and damage docu- reinforced concrete walls under shear failure. In: Proceedings of
mentation of the buildings used in this study. the Sixth US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Paper No. 297, Seattle (Washington), 1998.
[8] Bresler B, Scordelis AC. Shear strength of reinforced concrete
beams — Series III. Report No. 65-10, Structures and Materials
References Research. University of California, Berkeley (California), USA,
1966.
[1] Wood S. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the [9] ASCE-ACI Task Committee 426 on Shear Diagonal Tension. The
1985 Chile earthquake: implications for the design of structural shear strength of reinforced concrete members. J Struct Division
walls. Earthquake Spec 1991;7(4):607–38. ASCE 1973;99:ST6.
[2] Sozen M. Earthquake response of buildings with robust walls. In: [10] Paulay T, Priestley M. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and
Proceedings of the Fifth Chilean Conference on Seismology and masonry buildings. New York: Wiley, 1992.
Earthquake Engineering, Santiago (Chile), 1989. [11] Gajardo J. Estudio de un edificio levemente fisurado por el terre-
[3] Saiidi M, Sozen MA. Simple and complex models for nonlinear moto del 3 de Marzo de 1985. Civil Engineering Thesis. Univer-
seismic response of reinforced concrete structures. Structural sidad Tecnica F. Santa Maria, Valparaiso (Chile), 1987.
Research Series No. 465. University of Illinois, Urbana (Illinois), [12] Yañes E. Estudio del edificio del Consultorio Externo del
USA, 1979. Servicio Nacional de Salud de Valparaiso, dañado en el sismo de
[4] Linde P, Bachmann H. Numerical modeling and design of earth- Marzo de 1985. Civil Engineering Thesis. Universidad Tecnica F.
quake-resistant walls. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynamics Santa Maria, Valparaiso (Chile), 1987.
1994;23:1331–50. [13] De La Llera J, Chopra A. Evaluation of seismic code provisions
[5] Saiidi M. User’s manual for the LARZ family. Structural using strong-motion building records from the 1994 Northridge
Research Series No. 466. University of Illinois, Urbana (Illinois), earthquake. Report No. UCB/EERC-97/16, University of Califor-
USA, 1979. nia, Berkeley, 1998.