Kelly 2007
Kelly 2007
Kelly 2007
ABSTRACT
A full scale slice of a 7 story reinforced concrete building was tested on the shake table at the UCSD
Engelkirk Structural Research Centre in 2006. As part of the research project, a blind prediction contest
was sponsored to assess the capability of currently available analysis procedures to predict the seismic
response of cantilever reinforced concrete shear wall structures. This paper describes an entry based on a
nonlinear finite element model, using macro elements to represent both the shear and the flexural modes
of behaviour. A comparison of the predicted response with the test results showed that the analysis
procedure produced reasonable predictions of deformations for the lowest and highest of the four
earthquakes but under-estimated response for the two moderate earthquakes by approximately 30%. For
all earthquakes, the analysis base moment was much lower than the test value. Modifications to the
procedure to improve the correlation were identified and implemented but did not remedy the deficit in
base moments. Detailed results of the test program revealed that the causes for this discrepancy were
the contribution to overturning results of gravity columns and the flange wall, neither of which had been
included in the model. When these were incorporated the average error between test and analysis results
was less than 10% for all earthquakes, well within acceptable limits for a design office type of model.
The correlation of tests and analysis also provided useful information on design aspects for shear walls,
such as the influence of secondary components and dynamic magnification factors.
Keywords: Reinforced concrete shear walls, reinforced concrete, nonlinear analysis, capacity curve,
pushover analysis, hysteresis, earthquake, performance based design.
INTRODUCTION
The floor slabs were extended to connect the web wall to the
flange wall but the slab was slotted adjacent to each wall to
reduce the effective thickness to 50 mm with the intention of
implementing pin-pin connections in the slab.
The
segmental pier was connected to the floor slab at each level
with pin ended angle sections. Gravity columns were pinpin 44 mm diameter high strength rods grouted into 100 mm
pipe sections.
The total height of the specimen was 19.20 m and the total
weight 2,450 kN.
Figure 3 shows the completed test
structure.
Concrete slabs
203 mm (L1,L7)
152 mm (L2-L6)
Gravity
Columns
Horizontal
steel truss
7 @ 2.743 m = 19.202 m
Slots in
Slab
8.128 m
Concrete slabs
203 mm (L1,L7)
152 mm (L2-L6)
Post tensioned
precast
segmental pier
3.658 m
Segmental
pier
Web Wall
203 mm (L1,L7)
152 mm (L2-L6)
(see Table 1)
Flange
Wall
Flange
Wall
Slots
in Slab
Web Wall
3.658 m
ACCELERATION (g)
2.50
5.1
MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Element Types
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
PERIOD (Seconds)
1.25
1.50
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
element is linear elastic; the tension (truss) element is bilinear with strain hardening.
SHEAR MODEL
SHEAR STRESS
SHEAR STRAIN
Segment 1 w = 0.3048 m
Segment 2 w = 0.3048 m
Segment 3 w = 2.1336 m
Segment 4 w = 0.6096 m
Segment 5 w = 0.3048 m
TENSION
FLEXURE MODEL
COMPRESSION
5.2
GAP CLOSED
GAP OPEN
Shear.
Plane stress elements represent the shear behaviour of the
wall. These elements are defined by horizontal grid lines at
each floor level and vertical grid lines to define the regions
with different vertical reinforcing ratios. The elements
degrade in stiffness and strength as a function of maximum
imposed shear strain.
Flexure
Pairs of gap / truss elements represent potential flexural
yielding. These are defined at the bottom two levels at each
plane stress element intersection. The compression (gap)
Wall
T
(m)
1
2
3,4
5
0.203
0.203
0.203
0.203
1
2
3,4
5
0.152
0.152
0.152
0.152
Reinforcing
Ratio
Concrete
Shear
Strength
vc
V
H
MPa
Base to 1st Floor
0.0256 0.0100
1.287
0.0041 0.0100
0.714
0.0023 0.0031
0.598
0.0256 0.0100
1.287
1st Floor to 8th Floor
0.0334 0.0041
1.287
0.0027 0.0041
0.626
0.0031 0.0041
0.648
0.0334 0.0082
1.287
Steel
Shear
Strength
vs
MPa
6.154
6.154
1.407
6.154
1.876
1.250
1.250
1.250
6
6.1
600
500
Lateral Load (kN)
Difference = P-
400
300
200
Applied Load
Base Reaction
Model Characteristics
100
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
800
600
Mode
Number
1
Period
(Seconds)
0.557
Effective
Mass
66.3%
Cumulative
Mass
66.3%
0.094
17.5%
83.8%
14
0.031
4.7%
88.8%
-200
-200
200
400
-400
-600
-800
8th Floor Displacement (mm)
6.2
Solution Procedures
EQ1 Test
EQ2 Test
EQ2 Analysis
EQ1 Analysis
20
60
-1%
50
100
150
Displacement (mm)
-14%
-31%
+172%
-16%
+14%
40
45
50
55
60
50
55
60
-20
-40
-60
EQ 2 Top Displacement
Displacement (mm)
100
50
0
-50
40
45
-200
200
8000
150
4000
Displacement (mm)
6000
Test Moment
Analysis Moment
2000
0
0
100
200
300
Top Displacement (mm)
EQ 3 Top Displacement
Analysis
Test
100
50
0
-50 40
45
50
55
-200
500
400
EQ 4 Top Displacement
300
Analysis
200
Test
100
0
-100 40
-200
45
50
55
-300
Figure 13 plots the top floor time histories for each of the
earthquakes for the period of strong motion from 40 seconds
to 60 seconds. These show that the analysis appears to
capture the frequency content of the wall response but the
60
-100
-150
400
Displacement (mm)
Analysis
10000
100
200
300
400
Top Displacement (mm)
600
20
1000
200
400
Displacement (mm)
Test
Test
200
EQ 1 Top Displacement
Analysis
Analysis Shear
EQ4 Test
EQ4 Analysis
40
-150
200
200
60
-100
Test Shear
150
12000
400
100
Displacement (mm)
1200
600
50
EQ3 Test
EQ3 Analysis
800
-14%
150
40
Displacement (mm)
Mean
Displacement (mm)
EQ 1
EQ 2
EQ 3
EQ 4
Top Displacement (mm)
Test
52.1
146.0
159.8
395.0
Analysis
56.2
100.0
119.0
366.0
Error
+8%
-31%
-26%
-7%
Top Acceleration (g)
Test
0.420
0.593
0.728
1.078
Analysis
0.481
0.618
0.728
0.838
Error
+14%
+4%
0%
-22%
Base Shear (kN)
Test
425
628
704
1185
Analysis
426
564
537
939
Error
0%
-10%
-24%
-21%
Base Moment (kN-m)
Test
5606
8093
8490
11840
Analysis
4955
5417
5594
6485
Error
-12%
-33%
-34%
-45%
EQ 4 Results
Test
Analysis
Residual Displacement (mm)
13.5
36.8
Concrete Strain
0.00264 0.00222
Steel Strain
0.02634 0.03015
-400
Time (Seconds)
60
Test
(Seconds)
0.595
0.654
0.813
0.903
1.168
Before EQ1
Before EQ2
Before EQ3
Before EQ4
After EQ4
Analysis
(Seconds)
0.557
0.675
0.743
0.762
1.013
8.1
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
EQ1 Input
Test
Analysis
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.0
2.0
4.0
3.5
Acceleration (g)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
Period (Seconds)
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Period (Seconds)
1.5
0.5
0.0
2.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
Period (Seconds)
EQ4 Input
Test
Analysis
3.5
Test
Analysis
3.0
Acceleration (g)
2.5
1.0
Analysis Parameters
EQ2 Input
Test
Analysis
3.0
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
Top floor response spectra were generated from both the test
and the analysis acceleration time histories and these are
compared in Figure 14. Also shown on these plots are
spectra of the input motion. These plots show that both
period and amplitude match closely for EQ1 but for the
remaining earthquakes the analysis peak is wider and much
less pronounced than the test peak. It appears that the test
specimen responded essentially with a constant period
whereas the analysis reflected a higher degree of
nonlinearity, which produced a wider spectral peak and
inhibited resonance.
MODIFICATIONS TO MODEL
Improved Model
1000
0
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
-1000
20
40
60
80
-2000
-3000
Displacement (mm)
Improved Model
1000
Submitted Model
800
600
400
200
0
-400
-300
-200
-100-200 0
100
200
300
400
Segmental Pier
-400
-600
-800
-1000
Displacement (mm)
Web Wall
Elastic Beam
Gravity Columns
8.4
1600
800
400
9.1
Force-Displacement Relationship
0
-300
-200
-100
0
-400
100
200
300
400
500
Submitted Model
-800
-1200
Modified Model
Final Configuration
Displacement (mm)
1400
14000
1200
12000
1000
800
600
400
Test Shear
Analysis Shear
200
0
-400
1200
10000
8000
6000
4000
Test Moment
Analysis Moment
2000
0
100
200
300
400
Top Displacement (mm)
100
200
300
Top Displacement (mm)
400
Moment (kN-m)
5000
2500
0
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
-2500
100
200
300
400
-5000
-7500
Test Moment-EQ 4
Analysis Moment EQ4
-10000
-12500
Displacement (mm)
9.2
EQ1 Test
EQ1 Analysis
Test
Analysis
Error
Test
Analysis
Error
Test
Analysis
Error
Test
Analysis
Error
EQ 1
EQ 2
EQ 3
Top Displacement (mm)
52.1
146.0
159.8
50.6
136.0
172.0
-3%
-7%
+8%
Top Acceleration (g)
0.420
0.593
0.728
0.490
0.561
0.730
+17%
-5%
0%
Base Shear (kN)
425
628
704
474
677
677
+11%
+8%
-4%
Base Moment (kN-m)
5606
8093
8490
5432
7112
7112
-3%
-12%
-16%
EQ 4 Results
Residual Displacement (mm)
Concrete Strain
Steel Strain
Test
13.5
0.00264
0.02634
EQ 4
Mean
395.0
395.0
0%
-1%
1.078
1.010
-6%
EQ2 Analysis
60
50
100
200
EQ4 Test
EQ4 Analysis
EQ3 Analysis
150
Displacement (mm)
EQ3 Test
50
100
150
Displacement (mm)
200
200
400
600
Displacement (mm)
EQ2 Test
EQ1 Test
EQ1 Analysis
EQ2 Analysis
+1%
0.00
1185
1302
+10%
20
40
Displacement (mm)
EQ2 Test
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
+6%
EQ3 Test
11840
12796
+8%
Analysis
24.9
0.00485
0.01755
EQ4 Test
EQ3
Analysis
EQ4
Analysis
-6%
0.00
-84%
+84%
-34%
0.20
0.40
Acceleration (g)
0.60
0.80
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Acceleration (g)
2000
4000
Moment (kN-m)
EQ1 Test
100
200
300
Shear (kN)
500
EQ3 Test
EQ3 Analysis
200
400
Shear (kN)
200
400
Shear (kN)
9.3
500
Shear (kN)
10000
EQ4 Test
EQ4 Analysis
5000
10000
Moment (kN-m)
15000
The preceding section has shown that the best fit model
developed using information obtained from the test is able to
predict maximum forces and deformations well within an
accuracy acceptable for design office use. In this section, the
variation of response with time between the analysis and test
is compared.
Test
800
1.20
EQ4 Analysis
800
5000
Moment (kN-m)
10000
1.40
600
EQ4 Test
600
5000
Moment (kN-m)
EQ2 Analysis
400
EQ3 Test
EQ3 Analysis
Period (Seconds)
6000
EQ2 Test
EQ1 Analysis
EQ2 Test
EQ2 Analysis
EQ1 Test
EQ1 Analysis
1000
1.00
Submitted Analysis
Improved Analysis
0.80
0.60
0.40
1500
0.20
Start
EQ1
EQ2
EQ3
EQ4
60
EQ 1 Top Displacement
Analysis
Test
20
0
40
45
50
55
60
-20
-40
-60
150
EQ 2 Top Displacement
Analysis
Test
0
-50
40
45
50
55
60
-100
-200
200
150
Displacement (mm)
50
-150
EQ 3 Top Displacement
Test
50
0
-50 40
45
50
55
60
-100
-200
500
400 EQ 4 Top Displacement
300
200
100
0
-100 40
45
-200
-300
-400
-500
Analysis
100
-150
Displacement (mm)
50
Analysis
4.0
Test
3.5
55
60
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Period (Seconds)
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
EQ4 Input
Test
Analysis
3.0
2.5
1.0
Period (Seconds)
3.5
Acceleration (g)
3.0
0.5
4.0
EQ3 Input
Test
Analysis
3.5
Acceleration (g)
0.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
1. For EQ1, the analysis trace matches the test trace very
well for both frequency content and amplitude for the
first 15 seconds of strong motion. In the last 5 seconds
1.5
1.0
4.0
2.0
0.5
0.0
2.5
1.0
0.0
Time (Seconds)
EQ2 Input
Test
Analysis
3.5
EQ1 Input
Test
Analysis
Acceleration (g)
Displacement (mm)
100
Acceleration (g)
Displacement (mm)
40
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
Period (Seconds)
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
Period (Seconds)
For EQ1, the analysis matches the test spectrum very well.
For EQ2, the test showed double peaks at 0.83 and 0.98
seconds whereas the analysis showed a strong peak at 1.01
second period. The periods matched well for EQ3 but the
analysis spectral amplitude was lower, which reflects the
lower amplitude in the time history (see Figure 26). For EQ4
the spectral amplitudes correlated well but the amplitude
peak at 1.44 seconds was at a slightly shorter period than the
test peak at 1.51 seconds.
10
10.1
10.2
10.3
L p = 0.2 Lw + 0.03hn
(1a)
L p = 0.054hn + 0.022 f y db
(1b)
Test
Submitted Analysis
Modified Analysis
(No gravity column / flange wall)
Best Fit Analysis
Steel
Strain
(mm/mm)
0.026
0.030
+14%
0.027
+4%
0.017
-35%
Concrete
Strain
(mm/mm)
0.0026
0.0022
-15%
0.0047
+81%
0.0048
+85%
800
700
Lateral Load (kN)
600
500
400
300
As Submitted 3% S.H.R.
Adjusted Model 8% S.H.R.
Final Model 15% S.H.R.
200
100
0
0
100
200
300
400
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
Test
Best Fit Analysis
Analysis with no Gravity Columns or Links
0.00
10.5
v = 0.9 +N / 10
EQ1
EQ2
EQ3
EQ4
11
12
13
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.