Recent UBC Research

on the Seismic Design of

Concrete Shear Wall Buildings:
towards the 2014 Canadian Code
Perry Adebar
Professor of Structural Engineering
The University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

August 19 – 21, 2013

Background:
Significant changes to
Clause 21 – Seismic Design
of 2014 CSA A23.3 Design of Concrete Structures.

Presentation:
Briefly highlight some CSRN sponsored research
done at UBC that informed the changes.

2
Outline of Presentation:
1. Effective Stiffness of Concrete Walls
2. Thin Concrete Walls
3. Flexural Yielding at Mid-Height
4. Design Shear Force
5. Gravity-load Frames
6. Foundation Movements

3
1. Effective Flexural Rigidity
of Concrete Shear Walls

4
Current CSA A23.3 Clause 21

Typical value: αw = 0.70

5
 V

Vn
ki A ks D
1
1
F

A : Upper bound loading

C
B : unloading (prior to yield)
Vco B
C : mid-cycle reloading

D : unloading (after yield)

E : residual displacement

F : Lower bound loading

Vcc E

Δ
Vn/ki ΔyUB ΔyLB
 Loading curves after wall severely cracked
High Compression
1.0

0.9 W-L2-R3
W-L2-R2
0.8
W-L2-R1
0.7 W-L4-R4
W-L4-R2
0.6
W-L4-R1
V/Vn

0.5 W-L5-R3
W-L5-R2
0.4
W-L5-R1
Low Compression
0.3 W-L6-R3
W-L6-R2
0.2
W-L6-R1
0.1 W-L8-R2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10

Dki/Vn 7
 V

Vn
ki A ks D
1
1
F

A : Upper bound loading

C
B : unloading (prior to yield)
Vco B
C : mid-cycle reloading

D : unloading (after yield)

E : residual displacement
High Compression F : Lower bound loading
Vcc E
Low Compression
Δ
Vn/ki ΔyUB ΔyLB
Results from SDOF model of “building” for one Ti
1.2
Each point average of
40 ground motions W-L2-R3
1.0 W-L2-R2
W-L2-R1
W-L4-R4
0.8
W-L4-R2
W-L4-R1
ke /kg

0.6 W-L5-R3
W-L5-R2
Wall with largest W-L5-R1
0.4
compression W-L6-R3
W-L6-R3
0.2
Initial period of SDOF “building” = 3.0 s
W-L6-R2

Ti = 3.0 W-L8-R2

0.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Ratio of elastic force demand to strength R

9
Results from nonlinear analysis of full buildings
1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
EIe / EIg

0.5
 = 1.4-0.4R  0.5
0.5
0.4
10 stories
0.3
20 story
0.2 30 stories
40 story
0.1
50 stories
From E. Dezhdar, 2012
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
10
Force
Force ratio
reduction RR
factor
CSA A23.3 – 2014:
The effective stiffness of a concrete wall to be
used in a linear seismic analysis depends on
the ratio of elastic force demand to strength.

11
 New typical values:
Rd = 2.0  αw = 0.65
Rd = 3.5  αw = 0.50
Generally larger design displacements!
12
2. Thin Concrete Walls

13
Feb. 2010 M8.8 Maule Earthquake Chile

14
15
16
17
18
Recent UBC tests
inspired by
shear wall failures
in 2010 Chile
Earthquake

19
20
 35
Average (LP1,LP2)

30

25
Stress (MPa)

20

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Strain -3 21
x 10
 Average Value (LP1,LP2)
30 Loaded to here

25
Stress (MPa)

20

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Strain -3 22
x 10
23
24
25
26
 Average Value (LP1,LP2)
30

25
Stress (MPa)

20

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Strain -3 27
x 10
 Compression strain
capacity = 0.00125

Compression strain
capacity = 0.0015 28
29
Experimental
study on
gravity-load
columns:
Cross section of four
gravity columns tested in
current study.

P = 0.33 fc′ Ag
From: Helen Chin, 2012

30
Results of gravity-load column test:
Photographs of 27.5 x 55 cm column after test showing height of
damaged zone – column had much more ductility than expected.

From: Helen Chin, 2012 31

32
33
Complete
collapse of wall
specimen

34
 Changes to CSA A23.3:

1. Reduce axial compression applied to thin

columns and walls (Clause 10).
2. Limit compression strain depth in all shear
walls to ensure yielding of vertical reinf. in
tension prior to concrete crushing in Clause 14
– over full height (next topic).
3. Account for unexpected strong axis bending of
long thin bearing walls.
35
3. Flexural Yielding at Mid-Height of
Cantilever Shear Walls

36
 Traditional
design approach
for cantilever
shear walls

37
 Bending moment envelopes:
nonlinear elements only at base of wall
75.6

C1
56.7
C2
C3
C4
H (m)

37.8 C5
C6
C7
S1
18.9
S2
S3
Average
0
0 400,000 800,000 1,200,000 1,600,000 2,000,000
M (kN.m)
38
Actual shear wall

Simple EPP model of shear wall

39
 90
Influence of nonlinear model
80

70
EPP, 0.5EIg
Trilinear
60
EPP yield curvature
Height (m)

50 Trilinear yield curvature

40

30

20

10
From E. Dezhdar, 2012

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Curvature (rad/km)
40
 90 Influence of ground motion matched to UHS

80
selection and scaling CMS at T1

Historical records
70
Selected records
60
FEMA records
Height (m)

50 Yield curvature

40

30

20

10 R = 1.5
From E. Dezhdar, 2012
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Curvature (rad/km)
41
 Mid-height Curvatures: results from appropriate NLA

0.008
f mid . l w
10story,R=3.2
Wall R µ µ+σ
20story,R=2.7
0.007
30story,R=3.1 1.7 0.0018 0.0035
Midheight curvaturex wall length

0.006
40story,R=3.6 10 story 2.3 0.002 0.0037
50story,R=3.7
3.2 0.0021 0.0037
0.005 From E. Dezhdar, 2012
20 story 2.7 0.0023 0.0042
0.004 1.4 0.0014 0.0027
2 0.002 0.0039
0.003 30 story
2.3 0.0019 0.0032
0.002 3.1 0.0021 0.0037
40 story 3.6 0.0018 0.0033
0.001
1.3 0.0015 0.0027
0 1.8 0.0018 0.0029
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 50 story
Roof displacement / wall height * 100
2 0.0019 0.0025
3.7 0.0023 0.004
Average 0.0019 0.0034
Mid-height curvature is less than commonly assumed yield curvature 42
Summary:

• Need to design wall for nominal yielding at

mid-height

• Most important issue –

prevent compression failure of wall
(relates to thin walls)

• Some advocate adding vertical

reinforcement at mid-height to reduce (or
even eliminate) yielding
43
4. Design Shear Forces

44
“Dynamic Magnification of Shear”

Same force Amplification

reduction for flexural
factors as used overstrength
for bending

45
Many existing recommendations for Dynamic
Magnification Factor based on:
• improperly selected and scaled ground motions

and/or

• nonlinear models that do not account for highly

nonlinear moment-curvature response due to flexural
cracking.

46
 9 NZ/SEAOC
Rutenberg (Van)
8 Rutenberg (Mont)
Ghosh (Van)
Shear Amplification Factor (Rd = 3.5)

7 Ghosh (Mont)
Keintzel (Van)
Keintzel (Mont)
6
Priestly (2003, Van)
Priestly (2003, Mont)
5
Priestly (2006, Van)
Priestly (2006, Mont)
4

1
From J. Yathon, 2011
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Number of Storeys
47
 90
Influence of nonlinear model
80

70
Trilinear
Ehsan
60 EPP

50 RSA
Height

40

30

20

10
From E. Dezhdar, 2012
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Shear kN
48
 2.5
Results from appropriate NLA
2.0
Shear amplification factor

1.5

1.0

10 story
20 story
0.5
30 story
40 story
From E. Dezhdar, 2012 50 story
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
ForceForce
reduction
ratio factor
R (0.5 R
EI(0.5EI
) g) 49
g
Dezhdar, 2012

50
Reasons to use a low shear magnification factor:
• Very few wall shear failures outside the laboratory,

• Higher mode shear forces exist for a very short time,

• Nonlinear analysis has shown that walls have shear ductility –

horizontal reinforcement yields,

• Max. base shear force does not occur at same time as

maximum base rotation.

• The largest shear force demand occurs during one cycle

• …
51
5. Design of Gravity-load Frames

… for Seismic Deformations

 Largest change in CSA A23.3 – 2014

52
53
CTV Building (built 1986)

Before
Christchurch
Earthquake
2011

Courtesy Ken Elwood 54

 After
Shear wall

Gravity-load frame

55
Courtesy Ken Elwood
Interstory Drift Demands - Shear Wall Buildings

• Important in order to evaluate demands on gravity

frame members such as slab-column connections and
gravity-load columns.

• Nonlinear interstory drift envelope different than

determined from linear analysis for same top wall disp.

• Currently no simplified approach to estimate nonlinear

interstory drift envelope.

56
 Example Results:
40 story, R = 3.6
120

THA,
100 RSA
THA, +σ

80
Height (m)

60
Need to account for
drift due to shear
40 strain in hinge region Model

20

From: E. Dezhdar, 2012

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
57
Interstory drift (%)
CSA A23.3 – 2014 Clause 21.11.2.2
Simplified analysis of shear wall buildings

The shear force and bending moments induced

in members of a gravity-load frame shall be
determined at each level by subjecting the
frame to the interstory drift given in Fig. 21-1 for
that level.
…

58
Fig. 21-1

59
21.11.2.2 Simplified analysis of shear wall
buildings
…
The deflection demand used to calculate the
global drift Δ/hw in Fig. 21-1 shall be
design lateral deflection at top of gravity-load
frame determined from an analysis
incorporating the effects of torsion, including
accidental torsional moments
and including foundation movements.

60
6. Foundation Movements

61
 Results of nonlinear analysis by
P. Bazargani, 2013
Not capacity
protected
“ROCKING”

Capacity
protected

Each point is average result from

10 ground motions on a shear
wall building with given
foundation size and soil type

Overturning Resistance of Foundation

62
CSA A23.3 – 2014 Clause 21.10.3.3
Foundation movements
The increased displacements due to
movements of foundations shall be
accounted for in design of SFRS and design
of members not considered part of SFRS
(i.e., the gravity-load frame).

(similar requirement in Draft 2015 NBCC)

63
Movements of capacity-protected
foundations

… may be calculated using

a static analysis that accounts for
assumed bearing stress distribution in soil
or rock and stiffness of soil or rock.

64
Footing rotation may be estimated from:

𝑞𝑠 𝑙𝑓
𝜃 = 0.3
𝐺𝑠 a𝑠

Where:
as = length of uniform bearing stress in soil or rock;
qs = uniform bearing stress in soil or rock;
Gs = effective Shear Modulus of soil or rock, which may
be estimated from 0.2γsVs2 (γs = density of soil or
rock,Vs = shear wave velocity measured in soil or
rock immediately below foundation)
lf = length of footing (perpendicular to axis of rotation).
65
Movements of not capacity-protected
(“Rocking”) foundations

… shall be determined using

a dynamic analysis that accounts for
the reduced rotational stiffness of footing
due to footing uplift and soil deformation.

66
In lieu of a dynamic analysis…

interstorey drift shall be increased at every level,

including immediately above footing,

by an interstorey drift ratio equal to 50% of

displacement at top of SFRS divided by height
above footing;

but shall be increased by not less than an

interstorey drift ratio equal to 0.005.
67
The End

68