Performance,Analysisand

DesignofFlexuralConcreteWalls
Reducing Earthquake Losses:
From Research To Practice
Reducing Earthquake Losses:
From Research To Practice
Performance,Analysisand
DesignofFlexuralConcreteWalls
DawnLehmanandLauraLowes
UniversityofWashington,Seattle
Acknowledgements
UWResearchers
Dr.AnnaBirely,TexasA&MUniversity
Dr.JoshuaPugh,EDG,Inc.
JacobTurgeon,Hammel,GreenandAbrahamson,Inc.
UIUCResearchers
Dr.DanielKuchma,UniversityofIllinois
AnahidBehrouzi,UniversityofIllinois
Dr.ChrisHart,ThorntonTomasetti
KenMarley,WJE
AndrewMock,UniversityofIllinois
ProfessionalEngineers
RonKlemencicandJohnHooper,MKA
AndyTaylor,KPFF
NeilHawkins,UWandUIUC
Acknowledgements
FundedbytheNationalScienceFoundation
throughtheNEESRprogram
SupplementalfundingprovidedbytheCharles
Pankow Foundation
ResearchObjectives
1. Establish the seismic
performance of modern
reinforced concrete walls.
2. Develop response and
damage-prediction
models for these systems.
3. Advance seismic design
of walled buildings.
PhotocourtesyofMKASeattle
CurrentDesign
Process
DefinitionofShearWallTerms
Boundary
Zone:
Heavy Vertical
And Transverse
Steel
Web:
Light Vertical
And Transverse
Steel
h
w
l
w
t
w
l
b
(http://www.jacobsschool.ucsd.edu)
AvoidingDamageinWalls:
HighShear
shear force v
diagonal compression strut
crushed web concrete
From: Seismic Design of Cast-in-Place Concrete Special Structural Walls Moehle et al. 2011
AvoidingDamageinWalls:
InadequateConfinement
WallDesigntoAchieveDuctile
FlexureControlledResponse
1. Proportionwallsoshearstressdemandislow
forelasticforce(typicallywithsystemtorsion
includedincalculation)
2. Designflexuralreinforcementtoachievebase
momentcapacity(similartoacolumn)
3. Designforsheardemandcorrespondingto
flexuralyieldingofwall(capacitydesign)
4. Detailboundaryelementwithrequired
confinement
AchievingFlexuralYielding
v
u,CS
O
o
v
u,CS
(b) Wall elevation
v
u,CS
N
u,CS
N
u,CS
N
n,CS
(c) Shear (d) Moment
capacity-amplified
code forces
code forces
(a) Lateral forces
Idealized Response: Flexural Yielding at Base of Wall
From: Seismic Design of Cast-in-Place Concrete Special Structural Walls Moehle et al. 2011
SpecialRCShearWalls(ACI21.7)
1. Finddemands(ELForMRSA)
2. Provideminimumreinforcement(21.7.2).
3. Capacitydesign?
No,designforP
u
,M
u
andV
u
,basedonprescribed
lateralloadsand|
shear
=0.6 (21.7.3).
Yes,higher| (0.75) forshear
4. Designanddetailforshear(21.7.4).
5. Designanddetailforflexure(Pu andMu)
LengthofBoundaryElement
ConfinementofBoundaryElement ifend
compressionhigh(21.7.6).
6. Couplingbeamsoftenused (21.7.7).Diagonallyor
conventionallyreinforced.
DesignIssues/Uncertainties
Demand
Overstrength,torsion,nonlineardynamicamplification
effects.
Sheardemand/capacity
Demanddependsonaccuracyofanalysis.
ACI3812011givesmaximumshearstressof8f
c
(psi).
Sometargetshearstresslevelsof46f
c
(psi)underelastic
demands(withtorsionincluded).
Confinement
Constructability
Splices
Typicallyeveryotherfloorandbase.
Experimental Program
UNIVERSITY of ILLINOIS
TestProgram
Rangeofconfigurations
SimulatesACI31811
Actualdetails(confinement/splices)
Realisticdemands(shear/axial)
(Courtesy of MKA, Seattle)
CShaped
Wall
Coupled
Walls
PlanarWallTestSpecimens
1Sscale mouel of
bottom S stoiies of a
1ustoiy wall
Full Scale:
12 ft. stoiy height
18 in. thick
Su ft. long
Lab:
4 ft. stoiy height
6 in. thick
1u ft. long
A B
A
B
LVL 3
LVL 2
LVL 1
LVL 0
1'-8" 1'-8" 6'-8"
A
10'-0"
MARK REINFORCEMENT
EMBED
LENGTH
LAP
LENGTH
A (3) #4 @ 3" 1' - 8" 2' - 0"
B (2) #2 @ 6" 7" 9"
REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE
Section A
B
NOTES:
Scale: Not to Scale
#2 TIES @ 2" o.c. (TYP.)
Detail B
Scale: Not to Scale
HOOKS OVERLAP TIE
3" (TYP.)
2

(
T
Y
P
.
)
PlanarWallTestSpecimens
Bounuaiy Elements (S.S%)
Splice at Base of Wall
PlanarWallTestMatrix
Moment-to
Shear Ratio
Distribution of
Reinforcement
Splices?
STUDY
PARAMETERS
Wall 1
Wall 2
Wall 3
Wall 4
M
b
= 0.71hV
b
V
b
= 2.8\f c = 0.7V
n
UNIFORM
NO
YES
BE at EDGE
BE at EDGE
BE at EDGE
YES
YES
M
b
= 0.50hV
b
V
b
= 4.0\f c = 0.9V
n
M
b
= 0.50hV
b
V
b
= 4.0\f c = 0.9V
n
M
b
= 0.50hV
b
V
b
= 4.0\f c = 0.9V
n
NEESandPriorTests
NEES Tests
ACI
Compliant
PlanarWallTestatMUSTSIM@UIUC
Lowerstoriesofmid
risebuildingstories
simulatedinlab.
Shearandmoment
applied to
varysheardemand
Axialloadof0.1A
g
f
c
.
PW2: h
eff
=0.5h,concentratedBE,splice
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
k
i
p
s
)
Top Drift (%)
W
PW1: h
eff
=0.7h,concentratedBE,splice
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
k
i
p
s
)
Top Drift (%)
W
Spalling above splice
Spalling towards base
Steel fracture at base
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
k
i
p
s
)
Top Drift (%)
W
PW3: h
eff
=0.5h;uniformreinf.;splice
PW4: h
eff
=0.5h, concentratedBE, nosplice
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
k
i
p
s
)
Top Drift (%)
SummaryofTestResults
Force-displacement envelopes
for all specimens
PW1: Low shear
PW2: Splice
PW3: Uniform
reinforcement
PW4: No splice
TexasA&MSeminar 32
PW 1 PW 2
PW 3
PW 4
VerticalStrain:+1.0%Drift
PW1
1.5% drift
PW2
1.1% drift
PW3
1.25% drift
PW4
1.0% drift
ShearStrain:+1.0%Drift
PW1 PW2 PW3 PW4
2
nd
(Compressive)PrincipalStrain
PW1
PW2
PW3 PW4
CoupledWallTestSpecimen
Geometrytakenfrom
buildinginventory
Couplingbeams(AR=2)and
diagonalreinforcement.
Codebaseddesign(IBC,ACI)
Pierwallsarecapacity
protectedforshear(IBC
SeismicDesignManual).
Seismicloadingresultsin
yieldingincouplingbeams
andwallpiers.
Additionaldesignparameters
Nonlinearanalysesofthe
designwereusedtoassess
behavior(Mohr,2007)
Coupling beams:
aspect ratio = 2.0

diag
= 1.3%
V
n
=
g c
A f 2 . 6
Boundary Element

long
= 3.7%

trans
= 1.6%
Web

long
= 0.27%

horz
= 0.27%
0.54%
WallPiersYield
0.50%
CB3
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
3
rd
Story Drift [ % ]
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

[

k
i
p
s

]
0.50%
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
3
rd
Story Drift [ % ]
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

[

k
i
p
s

]
CB
Yield
Walls Yield
CB1Yields
0.75%
InitialSpalling
1.00%
Initial Spalling
CB
Yield
Walls Yield
1.50%
C
B
3
ModerateSpalling
Moderate
Spalling
CB2
ProgressionofDamage to2.25%
2.20%
2.27%
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
3
rd
Story Drift [ % ]
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

[

k
i
p
s

]
1.80%
2.00%
2.0% drift (Moderate
Spalling near failure)
0.50% drift
(TWP Yields)
ShearStrains
1.00% drift
(Initial Spalling)
0 m 6 m
PrincipalCompressiveStrains
-6 m
0 m
2.0% drift (Moderate
Spalling near failure)
0.50% drift
(TWP Yields)
1.00% drift
(Initial Spalling)
CouplingBeamRotation
AxialForcein CompressionPier
L
CWP
CshapedWallCrossSection
4 x 6 Flanges (Coupled wall)
10 x 6 Web (planar wall)
1.44in(1.0%drift)
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
% Drift
M
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
i
p
-
f
t
)
Base Moment vs. 3rd Story Drift
WestFlange EastFlange
3
rd
Story Shear and Base Moment:
Fx = 217 kip
My = 6,075 kip-ft
2.16in(1.5%drift)
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
% Drift
M
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
i
p
-
f
t
)
Base Moment vs. 3rd Story Drift
3
rd
Story Shear and Base Moment:
Fx = 201 kip
My = 5,765 k-ft
3
rd
Story Shear and Base Moment:
Fx = 198 kip
My = 5,612 k-ft
3.24in(2.25%drift)
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
% Drift
M
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
i
p
-
f
t
)
Base Moment vs. 3rd Story Drift
WestFlange EastFlange
+5.1in(3.512%drift)
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
% Drift
M
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
i
p
-
f
t
)
Base Moment vs. 3rd Story Drift
Pushed to 3.5% to
evaluate post-lateral
failure response.
Retained almost 50% of
strength
EvaluationforPerformanceandDesign:
ComparisonwithPriorTestData
Wallace 2011
SlenderWallExperimentalDataSet
Assembledtoprovideinsightintothefactorsthat
affectdamageanddriftcapacity
Includes
Datafrom49testsfrom15testprograms
Dataforwallswithshearspanratio>2
DataforrectangularandflangedRCwalls
Doesnotinclude
Wallslessthan2in.thick
Wallswithopenings
Wallssubjectedtomonotonicordynamicloading
OverviewofSlenderWallDatabase
(Birely2012)
DamageModesforThisDiscussion
Compression Failure
Bar Rupture Failure
TensileStrainatM
n
Compression
Failure
Bar Rupture
Failure
Wall that are tension controlled still fail
in compression damage mode
Confinement
Resultssuggestyouneedalottomakea
differenceindriftcapacity
ShearDemandCapacityRatio
Compression
Failure
Bar Rupture
Failure
Mixed
Modelingthe
NonlinearResponse
ofWallsResponse
NonlinearModelsTypicallyEmployed
forSimulationofWalledBuildings
Fiber Model (M,P) = function(|,c)
Uniform Shear
Model
(V) = function()
Lumped Plasticity
Model (e.g., SAP2000)
Distributed Plasticity
Model (e.g., OpenSees)
Planar Element
(e.g., Perform)
fiberandshear
sections(typ.)
ForceBasedFiberTypeBeamColumn
Element(OpenSees)
Assume:linearmomentdistribution,constantaxialload>
solveforsectionstrainandcurvaturetosatisfycompatibility
reqts.
Flexural section
Shear section
Elastic section w/ reduced shear stiffness,
per Oyen (2006)
Fiber-type section
FiberSection:ConcreteModel
CyclicmodelperYassin (1994)
Compression:
ModifiedKentPark(Scottetal.1982)
Unconfinedfibers:
Confinedfibers:
K,c
0
,c
20
perSaatcioglu andRazvi (1992)
Tension:
Elasticstiffness:
StrengthperWongandVecchio (2006):
PostpeakstiffnessperYassin (1994):

t
= 4
c
psi
E
t
= E
c
= S7uuu
c
psi
E
ts
= u.uSE
t
FiberSection:Steel Model
MenegottoPintoFilippou
model(1983)

t
= 4
c
psi
ModelEvaluation
Datasetof21walls
Slenderwalls(M/hl
w
>1.5)
Exhibitingflexuralfailure
modes:
Modelevaluatedonthe
basisofsimulatedstiffness,
strengthanddriftcapacity
No.of
I.P.
No. of
Specs
Mean COV Mean COV Mean COV
3
21 0.97 0.09 0.98 0.10
Mesh
Dependent
5
21 1.00 0.08 0.99 0.10
7
21 1.00 0.09 0.99 0.10
ModelEvaluationforFlexuralFailure
LocalizationofDamage/Deformation
Specimen WSH4
(Dazio et al. 2009)
0.63%
Inelastic Localization
ToAchieveMeshObjectiveResults
Regularizematerialresponse
Thisistypicallydoneincontinuumanalysis.
Useamaterialenergyandameshdependentlengthtodefine
thepostpeak(softening)portionofthestressstraincurve.
ColemanandSpacone (2001)proposedthisapproachfor
beamcolumnelements,butprovidedlimited
recommendationsforthematerialenergytobeused.
Todeterminematerialenergy
Useexperimentaldatafromwalltests(concrete)andcoupon
tests(steel)
MaterialRegularization:PlainConcrete
3-I.P. Element
L
IP,1
L
IP,1
L
IP,2
Constant material energy
Mesh dependent length
MaterialRegularizationRecommendations
Bare Bar
Regularized
ConcreteCrushingEnergy
Unconfined:G
fc
=2f
c
(N/mm)
Calibratedusingdatafrom2planarwallspecimens
constructedentirelyofunconfinedconcrete.
Confined:G
fcc
=1.70G
fc
Calibratedusingdatafor12planarwallspecimens
constructedofunconfinedandconfinedconcrete.
SteelPostYieldHardening
ComputedusingASTMgagelengthformaterialtesting
ImpactofRegularization
WSH4 Specimen (Dazio et al., 2009)
No regularization of
material response
Regularization of
material response
SimulationUsingRegularizedModel
Forcebasedbeam
columnelement
Fibertypeflexural
section
Concreteandsteeloc
modelsareregularized
Steelassumedtobuckle
whenconcrete
compressivestrengthis
lost
Elasticshearsection
(0.1G
c
A
cv
)
3elementsusedto
modeleachwall
specimen
3to7sections/I.P.sper
element
WSH4 (Dazio et al. 2009):
Crushing/Buckling Failure
WSH1 (Dazio et al. 2009):
Rupture Failure
RW1 (Thompson and Wallace 2004):
Buckling/Rupture Failure
SW6 (Vallenas et al. 1979): High
Shear and Crushing/Buckling Failure
FailureMode
(3EL/7IP)
Mean COV Mean COV Mean COV
Crushing
(12Specimen)
0.94 0.04 0.98 0.10 1.02 0.17
BucklingorRupture
(9Specimens)
0.99 0.06 0.99 0.10 1.12 0.25
AllFlexure 0.96 0.04 0.98 0.06 1.06 0.17
RegularizedLineElementModelResults
CShapedWalls
(6Specimen)
0.97 0.07 1.07 0.11 0.99 0.17
EvaluationofCurrent
DesignProcedures
EvaluationProcess
Design8idealizedcorewallbuildingsranginginheight
from16to30stories
DesignusingcurrentCodesandstandardpractice:
DemandsdefinedperASCE7(2010)
WallssizedforshearperSeismicDesignofCastinPlace
ConcreteSpecialStructuralWallsandCouplingBeams(NIST
2011)
WallcapacitiesanddetailingdeterminedperACI318(2011)
EvaluatewallsusingtheFEMAP695Methodology(ATC
2009)
BuildingDesigns
loading direction
considered
Seismic weight = 170 psf
Gravity weight = 190 psf
Wall axial load at base = 0.1f
c
A
g
NumericalModelUsedforEvaluation
a
g
(t)
C
o
r
e

W
a
l
l
P
-

C
o
l
u
m
n

(
L
e
a
n
i
n
g
)
Regularizedfibertypeforce
basedbeamcolumnelement
1elementwith5integration
pointsperstory
Elastic,grosssectionshear
stiffnessemployed(shear
stiffness=GA
cv
)
Impactoflargedisplacementson
walldemands(i.e.pdeltaeffects)
wasincluded
2%Rayleighdampingemployed
FEMAP695UsedforEvaluation
S
MT
S
T1
T
1
= C
u
T
a Determines
1. Probability of collapse in
the MCE, and
2. If the design procedure (R-
factor, etc.) is acceptable.
Collapse
Margin Ratio
=
NonlinearAnalysisResults
(ELFProcedureDesigns)
M
C
E
D
B
E
V
n,pr
Ground Motion Intensity Ratio = S
T1
/S
MT
flexural failure
shear failure
Developmentof
ImprovedDesign
ProceduresforWalls
ConsiderationsforWallDesign
Sheardesign
Capacitydesignforshearisrequired
Designforincreasedsheardemandtoensurethat
shearcapacitynotexceededpriortoflexuralyielding
Flexuraldesign
Designenvelopetoensurethatflexuralyielding
occursinexpectedlocations
Rfactorcalibratedtoachievedesiredcollapse
probability
CapacityDesignforShear
Sheardemandincreasedtoaccountfor
FlexuralOverstrength
DynamicAmplification
Currentdesignmethod(ASCE7andACI318)
|V
n
V
u
with| =0.6
Capacitydesignforshear
|V
n
V
u

withV
u

=
v

o
V
u
Flex. Overstrength
Dyn. Amplification
FlexuralOverstrength
a
g
(t)
Shear, V Moment, M
V
E
M
E
V
u
M
u
R
R
M
u
M
n
FlexuralOverstrength
a
g
(t)
Shear, V Moment, M
V
E
M
E
V
u
M
u
R
R
M
u
M
n
M
pr
=
o
M
u
FlexuralOverstrength
a
g
(t)
Shear, V Moment, M
V
E
M
E
V
u
M
u
M
pr
V
pr
R/
o
M
pr
=
o
M
u
DynamicAmplification
h
e
f
f
1
s
t
m
o
d
e
2
n
d
m
o
d
e
t
o
t
a
l
Base Moment Demand
Base Shear Demand
+ + =
elastic
model
DynamicAmplification
h
e
f
f
M
u
V
u
1
s
t
m
o
d
e
2
n
d
m
o
d
e
t
o
t
a
l

u
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
t
o
t
a
l

r
e
d
u
c
e
d
Assume all
modes are
reduced
equally
+ + =
DynamicAmplification
M
u
h
e
f
f
V
u

1
s
t
m
o
d
e
2
n
d
m
o
d
e
t
o
t
a
l

r
e
d
u
c
e
d
Only 1
st
mode
demands
limited due
to inelastic
action in 1
st
mode
h
e
f
f
M
u
V
u
1
s
t
m
o
d
e
2
n
d
m
o
d
e
t
o
t
a
l

u
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
t
o
t
a
l

r
e
d
u
c
e
d
Assume all
modes are
reduced
equally
+ + =
+ + =
Designandanalyzeasetofprototypewalled
buildings
CompareshearfromITHAwithdesignshear
Buildingdesigns
64Buildings
Buildingheights:N=6 24stories
Fundamentalbuildingperiods:T
1
=0.08N 0.20N
Forcereductionfactors:R=2,3,4
ToDetermineaCapacityDesign
MethodforShear
IdealizedBuildings
N = 16, 20, 24 stories N = 6, 8, 12 stories
loading
direction
Seismicweight=170psf
Gravityweight=190psf
Wallaxialloadatbase=0.1f
c
A
g
SeismicDemandforITHA
7syntheticgroundmotionrecords
Providedconsistencyindemandbetweendesign
spectrumusedfordesignandearthquakemotions
usedforevaluation
ShearDemandComparison
ShearDemandComponents:
overstrength,O
o
,anddynamicamplification,e
v

o
1.4
Dynamic Amplification, e
v
DynamicAmplification,e
v
Mostexistingmodelsresultinimpreciseprediction
ofe
v
andhighconservatismfortallerbuildings
SEAOC(2008)
NZ3101(2004)
Priestleyetal.(2007)
MRSAmethodbyEibl etal.(1998)isbestmodel
1
st
modecontributiontoshearisreducedbyRandelastic/
unreducedcontributionsfromallothermodesareused
(Eibl etal.1988)
Providesminimaldispersionandslightlyconservative
estimatefor6 12storybuildingsbutlargerdispersion
andinaccuracyfor16+storybuildings
ModifiedMRSAMethod
Eibl Method: Reduce 1
st
mode elastic shear contribution
Proposed Modified MRSA Method: Reduce largest elastic shear
contribution
Eibl et al. (1988): MRSA Method
Proposed Modified MRSA Method
Building Height (Stories)
RecommendedCapacityDesign
ProcedureforShear
|V
n
V
u
withV
u
=
v

o
V
u

o
=1.4toaccountforflexuraloverstrength
e
v
determinedusingModifiedMRSAmethod
Sheardemandissummationofmodelcontributions
withonlythemodethatcontributesthemosttothe
baseshear(1
st
or2
nd
typically)reducedbyR
ValidationofCapacityDesignProcedure
Designnewsuiteofwalledbuildingsusingtwo
proceduresforshear
CapacitydesignforshearwithR=2,3,4
CodebaseddesignforshearwithR
ASCE
=5,6
ConsiderDesignandMCEleveleventsusing
syntheticgroundmotions
ClarificationofRvs.R
ASCE
R = 5
S
t
o
r
i
e
s
ClarificationofRvs.R
ASCE
R = 5
R
ASCE
= 5; R 3.3
Scaling MRSA demands up
so that V
base,MRSA
= V
base,ELF
R
ASCE
= 5; R 3-3.5
R
ASCE
= 6; R 4-4.5
S
t
o
r
i
e
s
6-story
DesignLevelShearDemandCapacityRatio
(10% probability of exceedance in 50 years)
8-story
12-story
16-story 20-story
24-story
6-story
MCELevelShearDemandCapacityRatio
(2% probability of exceedance in 50 years)
8-story 12-story
16-story 20-story
24-story
FlexuralDesignofWalls
Goals:
Determinepreferredenvelope(s)forflexuraldesign
EstimateanRfactorforslenderwallsthatprovidesacceptable
probabilityoflossoflateralcapacity
Method:
Investigatedesignenvelopes(i.e.barcurtailments)forflexure
Redesign64buildingsusingmultipledesignenvelopes
ConsiderdistributionofcurvatureductilitydemandsatMCE
Note:designwithR=3andemploysyntheticgroundmotionsuite
Rfactor
Designnewsetofbuildingsusingpreferreddesignmethod
EmployP695Methodology
EstimateRfactorrequiredtoachieve20%probabilityoflossoflateral
loadcarryingcapacityunderMCE
FlexuralDesignEnvelopes
MRSA Moment Envelope
M
u
M
u
M
u
M
u
FlexuralDesignEnvelopes
MRSA Moment Envelope
M
u
M
n
Constant
M
u
M
n
MRSA/ELF
M
u
M
u
Paulay/Priestley (1992)
M
n
M
n
Dual Hinge
(Panagiotou and
Restrepo, 2009)
0.5H
ImpactofFlexuralDesignEnvelopes
DesignsemployR=3
Analysesaredonefor
MCEintensitylevel
Analysesaredone
usingsynthetic
groundmotionsuite
P695MethodologyforEstimationofR
Evaluate6,12 and20storysimplifiedbuildingdesigns
6 and12storybuildingshaveplanarwalls
20storybuildinghascshapedwalls
Sheardesign:
Capacitydesignforshear
Overstrength:O
0
=1.4
Dynamicamplification:ModifiedMRSAMethod
Flexuraldesign:
R=3
BothPaulay/Priestely andDualHingeenvelopesemployed
EstimationofrequiredRusingP695Methodology
UseP695 groundmotionstoincluderecordtorecordvariability
EstimateRfactorrequiredtoachieve20%probabilityoffailureatMCE
P695Evaluation Results
Prob. of
Failure
P695Evaluation:CapacityDesignedWalls
Slender planar
walls: R 2.5
Slender core
walls: R 3.5
Prob. of
Failure
R

20
= R
required to
achieve 20%
probability of
failure
SummaryofRecommendedDesign
Approach
ShearDesign
CapacityDesignforShear
Overstrength:O
0
=1.4
Dynamicamplification:ModifiedMRSAMethod
FlexuralDesign
DesignEnvelope:Paulay/PriestleyorDualHinge
Planarwalls:R2.5
Corewalls:R3.5
}
ASCE 7-10:
R
ASCE
= 5,6
(R
ASCE
4.0)
(R
ASCE
5.0)
ConclusionsaboutWallPerformance
Wallsmayexhibitcompressioncontrolledfailureevenif
tensilestrainsatnominalstrength,M
n
,arelarge(c
t
>0.02
reqd fortensioncontrolledresponse)
Highaxialloadsmaydevelopinacoupledwallsystem
Presenceofaspliceaffectsthelocationofinelasticactionand
damagepattern
Ahighsheardemandcapacityratioincreasesthelikelihoodof
acompressioncontrolledfailure
Cshapedwallsandsymmetricflangedwallsingeneralexhibit
higherdriftcapacitiesandretainmoreflexuralstrength(post
failure)thanplanarwalls.
ConclusionsaboutWallAnalysis
Regularizationofmaterialresponseisrequired
forpredictionofdriftcapacitybecause
responseiscompressioncontrolledwith
localizedsoftening
Regularizedlineelementmodelsprovide
accurateandprecisesimulationofstiffness,
strengthanddriftcapacity
ConclusionsaboutWallDesign
CurrentUScodedesignunderestimatesshear
demandinwalls
Anoverstrengthfactor,O
0
=1.4andthe
ModifiedMRSAmethodcanbeusedto
estimatesheardemandinwalls
Smallerforcereductionfactors,Rfactors,are
requiredtolimitflexuraldamageatMCE
CrossSectionalShape
Symmetric Flanged
Asymmetric Flanged
Rectangular
Pleaseenteryourquestionsin
thechatwindowaddressed
toAllPanelists
Questions? Questions?