Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 55

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

Definition of shear wall


Position
Design provisions
Behavior
Case studies

Fig. 1 A reinforced concrete


wall

RC STRUCTURAL WALLS
Known as shear walls
Designed to resist lateral forces
Excellent structural system to resist
earthquake
Provided throughout the entire height of wall
Practicing from 1960s for medium and high
rise

buildings (4 to 35 stories high)


3

ADVANTAGES OF SHEAR WALLS


Provide large strength and stiffness in the
direction of orientation
Significantly reduces lateral sway
Easy construction and implementation
Efficient in terms of construction cost and
effectiveness in minimizing earthquake
damage
4

PLACEMENT OF SHEAR
WALLS

PLACEMENT OF SHEAR WALLS


Located symmetrically to reduce ill effects of
twist
Symmetry can be along one or both the
directions
Can be located at exterior or interior
More effective when located along exterior
perimeter of building

Y
X

Fig. 2 Reinforced concrete shear wall (Murthy


7
C.V.R. ,2005)

PLACEMENT OF SHEAR WALLS


Located symmetrically to avoid ill effects of
twisting
Symmetry can be along one or both the
directions
Can be located at exterior or interior
More effective when located along exterior
perimeter of building
6

CODES FOR DESIGN OF SHEAR


WALLS
Widely used design approaches for shear
walls
ACI method (ACI 318-1995)
IS 13920:1993 - Indian Standard Ductile
Detailing of RC members
Code provides a ductile design to
give adequate toughness and ductility
to resist severe earthquakes

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Thickness 150 400 mm
Minimum reinforcement 0.25% of gross area in
each direction
Diameter shall not exceed 1/10 th thickness of
section
Reinforcement provided in two curtains when:
0.25 f ck
Factored shear stress exceeds

or

Wall thickness exceeds 200 mm


9

SHEAR STRENGTH OF WALLS


Nominal shear stress
v ,

Vu
v
tw d w
Thickness of wall
section

Factored shear
force

Effective depth of
wall section
0.8lw =
for rectangular
sections
10

SHEAR STRENGTH OF WALLS


Design shear stress,

456:2000
If
If

CONTD

from table 19 of IS

<

minimum shear reinforcement

>

shear reinforcement is

v c
v c

designed for excess shear force of

Vus

11

SHEAR STRENGTH OF WALLS


Vu ct w d w

Vus

CONTD

Area of horizontal
shear reinforcement

0.87 f y Ah d w
Sv

Vertical
f y = characteristic strength of spacing
steel
d
w

= effective depth of wall

12

FLEXURAL STRENGTH
For

xu xu

lw lw

M uv
xu
1
1 0.416
2
f ck twlw
2
lw

where,

xu

lw 2 0.36

0.87 f y
f ck

Pu

f ck twlw

xu
2
0.168
3
lw

xu

lw

0.0035
0.87 f y
0.0035
Es

0.87 f y
0.0035 Es

Ast

t wlw
13

FLEXURAL STRENGTH
xu xu
1
For
lw lw


1
3

6 xu / lw
2

xu
xu
M uv
1 2
2
f ck t wlw
lw
lw

1
0.36 1
2 2

CONTD

3
2

2 1

0.15 1
2
2 3

xu depth of NA from extreme compression


xu* fibre
balanced depth of NA
14

BOUNDARY ELEMENTS
Portions along edges of shear wall strengthened
by longitudinal and transverse reinforcement
Can have same or greater thickness compared to
wall
Develop good flexural strength
Should have adequate axial load carrying capacity
Vertical reinforcement range between 0.8 and 6%

16

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF WALLS


Factors governing seismic behavior of
shear walls:
Ductility
Stiffness
Soil structure interaction effects
Period of structure
15

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR

CONTD

Ductility
Ratio of displacement at maximum load to
that at yield
Highly desirable property for shear walls
Stiffness
Property of element to resist displacement
More stiffer wall need more force to deflect it

16

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR

CONTD

Soil- structure interaction


Structural damage directly related to
depth of soil overlying the rock and
period of vibration of soil
Understanding relationship between
period of vibrations of soil and structure
is important
18

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR CONTD


Period of a building
Important index that identifies
vulnerability to excessive drift
A simple approximation to period of
building: 2
Tw

EI
3.5 c 4w
mhw

(Mete a Sozen, 2004)

m = unit mass (total mass divided with


height )

19

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR

CONTD

Some important conclusions from


extensive experimental studies on seismic
behaviour of shear walls:
High axial load ratio is undesirable for
structures [7]
Damage always initiate from top of splices.
So splice impacts seismic performance [1]
20

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR

CONTD

For accurate evaluation of seismic


demands soil structure interaction
must also be considered [8]
Shear walls with staggered openings
produce better results in earthquakes
[4]
22

CASE STUDY 1

22

BEHAVIOUR OF SHEAR WALLS UNDER


HIGH AXIAL LOAD RATIO
[R.K.L. Su and S.M. Wong]
Three specimens
W1, W2, W3
Represent slender shear walls
Aspect ratio 4
Axial load ratios (ALR) 0.25,0.5,0.5 resp.
23

lw

hw

Fig. 3 A shear
wall

hw
Aspect ratio
lw
=

1 Squat

1 2 Intermediate

2 Slender

24

BEHAVIOUR OF SHEAR WALLS


UNDER HIGH AXIAL LOAD RATIO
[R.K.L. Su and S.M. Wong]
Three specimens
W1, W2, W3
Represent tall slender shear walls
Aspect ratio 4
Axial load ratios (ALR) 0.25,0.5,0.5 resp.
2

AXIAL LOAD RATIO


applied axial load
Axial load ratio =
axial load capacity at a section
Pu
ALR '
f c Ag
f c' compressive strength of
Ag concrete
gross cross section of the wall
25

TESTING METHODOLOGY

Fig.4 Testing rig (R.K.L. Su and S.M.

TESTING METHODOLOGY

CONTD

Specimens placed in a steel loading


frame
Compressive axial force applied from
bottom simulated gravity load
Push and pull forces to the flange beam
represented lateral seismic loads
27

Fig. 5 Testing rig and load application (Su and


28
Wong, 2006)

TESTING METHODOLOGY

CONTD

Specimens placed in a steel loading


frame
Compressive axial force applied from
bottom simulated gravity load
Push and pull forces to the flange beam
represented lateral seismic loads
27

Testing rig and load application (Su and


Wong, 2006)

28

OBSERVATIONS
W1 exhibited flexural
ductile failure
Cracks developed at
early stage
Propagated inwards
to the core of the
section

Fig. 6 Failure pattern of


specimen W1
29
(Su and Wong, 2006)

OBSERVATIONS

CONTD

W2 and W3 exhibited brittle compression


failure
Spalling of concrete observed due to high
ALR

Fig.7 Failure pattern of specimens W2 and W3


(Su and Wong, 2006)

30

SUMMARY

ALR affect failure

High ALR has a suppressive effect on ductility


As ALR increases energy dissipation decreases
Axial stiffness reduces with increasing lateral
deformation
Leads to reduction in applied axial load
With high ALR faster and greater reduction

31

Fig. 8 Energy dissipation of specimens (Su and Wong,


2006)
32

SUMMARY
High ALR affect failure
High ALR has a suppressive effect on ductility
As ALR increases energy dissipation decreases
Axial stiffness reduces with increasing lateral
deformation
Leads to reduction in applied axial load
With high ALR faster and greater reduction

31

Fig. 9 Reduction in ALR (Su and Wong, 2006)


33

CASE STUDY 2

34

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF SHEAR WALLS


(MOSOARCA MARIUS, 2013)

To study effect of staggered openings


5 specimens with same amount of reinforcement
Represented 4 storey rectangular walls
Specimen W1 without opening
W2,W3,W4 with staggered openings
W5 with regular openings
35

Wall without opening


36

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF SHEAR WALLS


(MOSOARCA MARIUS, 2013)

To study effect of staggered openings


5 specimens with same amount of reinforcement
Represented 5 storey rectangular walls
Specimen W1 without opening
W2,W3,W4 with staggered openings
W5 with regular openings
35

Wall without opening

Staggered openings
36

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF SHEAR WALLS


(MOSOARCA MARIUS, 2013)

To study effect of staggered openings


5 specimens with same amount of reinforcement
Represented 5 storey rectangular walls
Specimen W1 without opening
W2,W3,W4 with staggered openings
W5 with regular openings
35

Wall without opening


Regular openings

Staggered openings
36

TESTING METHODOLOGY

Fig. 10 The test bench (Mosoarca Marius,


2013)

37

TESTING METHODOLOGY

CONTD

Reversed cyclic lateral loads


A constant vertical force
Seismic behaviour studied for different
horizontal displacements
Behaviour of specimens monitored by
transducers, strain gauges etc.
38

OBSERVATIONS
Initial
cracking

Plasticized
concrete

Crushed
concrete

P (kN)

P (kN)

P (kN)

W1

29.33

113.63

114.43

W2

25.12

100.12

103.72

W3

25.13

88.63

92.03

W4

25.15

88.40

95.90

W5

17.7

69.70

73.80

Model

39

SUMMARY
Walls with staggered openings were more
rigid
With same amount of reinforcement ductile
failure observed for staggered opening walls
and brittle failure for regular opening walls
Staggered opening walls failed at higher
seismic forces and horizontal displacements
40

CONCLUSIONS
Shear walls are efficient in resisting earthquakes
More efficient with increased ductility
Soil structure interaction studies are important
ALR ratio has adverse influence on seismic

performance of shear walls


Shear walls with staggered openings are more

effective than walls with regular openings


41

REFERENCES
1. Anna Birely and Dawn Lehman (2008).
Investigation of the seismic behavior and
analysis of reinforced concrete structural
walls. The 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
2. Lepage, A (1994). Seismic Drift Estimates
for RC Structures. Eleventh World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Acapulco, Mexico.

42

REFERENCES

CONTD

3. Murty, C.V.R.(2005). Earthquake Tips.


Learning Earthquake design and
Construction. IIT Kanpur
4. Mosoarca Marius (2013). Seismic behavior
of reinforced concrete shear walls with regular
and staggered openings after the strong
earthquakes between 2009 and 2011.
Journal of Engineering Failure Analysis.
43

REFERENCES

CONTD

5. Mete A. Sozen, (2004) Earthquake


Engineering from engineering seismology to
Performance based Engineering. Second
Edition, CRC Press.
6. Shimazaki and Sozen, M.A., (1984).Seismic
drift of reinforced conctrete structures.
Technical Research Report of Hazana- Gumi,
Tokyo. Vol. 5, ISSN 0385- 7123.
44

REFERENCES

CONTD

7. Su, R.K.L. Wong, S.M. (2006). Seismic behavior of


slender reinforced concrete shears walls under high
axial load ratio. Journal of Engineering Structures,
29 (2007) 1957-1965.
8. Yuchuan Tang and Jian Zhang (2010). Probabilistic
seismic demand analysis of a slender RC shear wall
considering soil- structure interaction effects.
Journal of Engineering Structures, 33 (2011) 218229.
45

THANK YOU