Compurers

& Srrucrures

Pergamon

00457949(95)00039-9

Vol. 56, No. 2;3, pp. 48S504. 1995 Elsewer Science Ltd Printed in Great Britam 0045-J949/95 $9.50 + 0 00

ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALL COMPONENTS USING THE ADINA NONLINEAR CONCRETE MODEL
D. Khatri and J. C. Anderson
Department of Structural Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A

Abstract-Two shear wall specimens loaded for experimental testing at the University of California, Berkelev. were modeled using the ADINA Nonlinear Finite Element Concrete Material Model with plane s&ess isoparametric fir&e elements. Force vs displacement results show good correlation with the experimental data. The models were loaded with monotonically increasing static loads. The analyses give an estimate of the displacement ductility available in shear walls. Using this technique, finite element modeling can be used for future structural applications to design for greater displacement ductility.

INTRODUCTION

has been extensive experimental research on predicting the in-plane response of shear walls subjected to both static monotonic loads and hysterisis loads. Research performed by the Portland Cement Association (PCA) [ 1,2,3] has contributed significantly to the progress of knowledge in the experimental domain. Experimental research has been the foundation of empirical design methods which define the standard of the industry by PCA and the American Concrete Institute (ACI). Tests to determine the ultimate capacity of shear walls are used to define acceptable detailing requirements and formulate simple empirical design methods. The shear design parameters formulated by AC1 [4] are based on the balance of shear resistance provided by concrete and steel
There

A design engineer can determine the extent of reinforcing steel required to satisfy load requirements. PCA [3] has an empirically based equation for flexure capacity

M,=O.SAB;I,(l+$)(l-9 where: MU = ultimate design resisting moment A, = total vertical reinforcing f, = yield strength of steel 1, = horizonal length of shear wall c = distance of extreme compression neutral axis d = distance of extreme compression resultant tension force h = wall thickness N, = design axial load (+ compression).

(2)

fiber fiber

with with

where: VU= V, = = V, = _ design ultimate shear force nominal concrete shear capacity 2zbd nominal steel shear capacity

AVfYd
s2

0.85(strength

reduction

factor).

Equation (1) was developed for shear stirrup design in beams. It is applied to shear wall and deep shear beams. The intent of eqn (1) is to provide an upper bound capacity on a reinforced concrete shear wall.
485

This equation (2) was developed from empirical data [1,3] and provides an upper bound moment capacity to assist the design engineer in selecting the reinforcing schedule for the wall. Both eqns (1) and (2) define the ultimate design shear and moment that a shear wall can accept. The ultimate design force is the maximum static load capacity of a shear wall, as defined by AC1 and PCA. Prior to designing a shear wall building, a structural analysis is performed to assess moments, shears and axial forces. This usually is done by modeling the shear walls using either beam elements or elastic plate elements to calculate the static and/or dynamic response. After completing the finite element analysis, the design process utilizes AC1 eqn (1) and PCA eqn (2)

486

D. Khatri and Ultimate (2) are detail the individual Design the USD shear (USD). method. wall

and J. C. Anderson

to size
ponent. walls: (1) and

com-

AC1 provides from

one method

for design

of shear Equations The

Strength

USD methodology considers the composite action of reinforcing steel with concrete. Composite behavior allows tension stresses to be taken by the steel and concrete to accept compression forces. Ironically, composite action of the steel and concrete is not considered in the analysis stage. For example, a reinforced concrete wall is modeled with elastic plate elements using a linear EC, and the effect of steel reinforcing is neglected. Consequently, the effect of cracking and overall stiffness degradation in reinforced concrete is not modeled by conventional finite element methods. Since linear elastic analysis methods have no mechanism for modeling the steel in a reinforced concrete structure, the gross section properties (or proportion of 1,) are modeled by plate or beam elements. This practice is used for both the static and dynamic analysis. It is well established that shear walls possess far greater capacity than the design codes provide [5, 61. Specifically, experimental testing has demonstrated that shear walls have high displacement ductility? (p) prior to complete failure. Current design methodology does not account for this important aspect. A primary reason for not including the effect of p into design equations is that it would initiate a nonlinear analysis of shear wall components. Nonlinear analysis of shear walls (and all reinforced concrete structures) is still an evolving area of research, and there are no universally accepted formulas for assessing the complete failure envelope of a shear wall. One of the major challenges of modeling the nonlinear static and dynamic response of a shear wall is to consider the composite effect of the steel and concrete. Since both materials experience different inelastic behavior, the finite element (FE) approach entails using two different ADINA elements with steel and concrete material models. Although bond slip is one consideration in modeling reinforced concrete, this is not considered in the scope of this research. The objective of this paper is to present a viable practical approach for considering the effects of steel reinforcing in shear walls. There has been an abundance of research aiming to capture the nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete. Two experimental test cases are analyzed with the ADINA nonlinear model to confirm the method, and comparison with AC1 USD method is provided.

ADINA has formulated a nonlinear concrete material model that may be used for two dimensional application. Several sources [7, 81 provide a detailed description of the intricacies of the ADINA concrete model. As a brief summary, the formulation consists of a hypoelastic model utilizing up to 27 constants for calibration. Plane-stress elements are implemented for two dimensional problems with in-plane forces. Shear walls are primarily intended to resist in-plane shear and flexural stresses. Figure 1 outlines the concrete material stress-strain curve with constitutive equation and constants. The ADINA concrete model is more complex than other established plasticity models. Chen [IO] discusses several plasticity models in great depth that include Mohr-Coulomb, Von-Mises, Drucker-Prager, Bresler-Pister Criterion, etc. The application of these models to practical problems poses several challenges which ADINA has solved. Several advantages of the ADINA concrete model may be summarized as follows:
l

TDisplacement ductility [6] is defined as p = 6,,/S,, where 6, = ultimate displacement at failure, and 6, = yield displacement. Therefore, structures with high p have greater energy absorption prior to failure. Energy absorption is a vital criteria in earthquake resistance.

Material calibration capability. ADINA provides the option to calibrate the material model for various concrete strength and ductility parameters. Failure envelopes may be adjusted to match the concrete behavior accordingly. For example, the user has the option to model both high-strength low ductility concrete and lightweight low-strength high-ductility concrete with the same program by adjusting the constants in the ADINA concrete model to calibrate with the material. Therefore, the scope of application is wide and varied. Multiaxial stress states. ADINA allows the capability to include the effects of multi-axial load conditions. Since multi-axial stress state changes the failure envelope, ADINA accounts for two or three dimensional stress conditions, as specified by the user. For example, a shear wall experiences a two dimensional stress condition with in-plane shear-flexure and vertical axial loads. The vertical axial load alters the concretes uniaxial stress-strain curve. High vertical loads will compress the concrete and increase its resistance to shear in horizontal direction. ADINA accounts for this complex behavior. Full range of analytical options. ADINA concrete model offers the full range of linear and nonlinear static, dynamic, buckling, and frequency analysis capabilities in one program. Few software programs have all of these analytical tools linked together. Cracking patterns and configurations. ADINA shows crack patterns with user selection of the crack width criteria. Cracking is a major indication of failure in reinforced concrete, and is not offered by any other finite element software program. Plotting of crack patterns enables an engineer to locate critical areas of failure. It also serves as a valuable tool to confirm with experimental observations, and strengthen these weak areas.

Analysis of reinforced concrete shear wall components

487

6
Compression (t5 negative) <

Strain at tension cut-off :t / E.

at tC = 0:

o= 0

and dt'i -F -Y-o de

\
at G tz =

at % = i&;: 5 = zc and g

= 0

(4> p)
For tg 5 0:

$= E+*(g)+B(;J:C(%)31

where

Fig. 1.Uniaxial stress-strain

relation used in the concrete model

From an overall perspective, ADINA has developed an outstanding finite element program that is the first significant step towards providing a comprehensive nonlinear FE program for use in practical concrete structural design. The scope of this paper focuses on the nonlinear response of individual shear walls subjected to monotonic loading. Plane stress elements are used to model the concrete, and nonlinear truss elements are used for the steel reinforcing. Figure 2 shows the stress-strain curve for steel. A Von-Mises yielding model with elasto-plastic behav-

ior was assumed for the steel. The moduli of elasticity are taken as Es = 29 Ksi for the elastic response and Et = 10 Ksi for the inelastic area. Several iterations were performed by using E, = 0 (i.e. elasto-plastic without strain hardening), but the convergence problems were compounded and it was not possible to find a solution. Figure 3(b) shows a typical shear wall model with four-node plane-stress concrete elements representing the wall. Nonlinear truss elements are attached along the boundaries of the plane stress elements to

388

Khatri

and J C. Anderson

NO SlRAlN IiAFiDENING

PLASTIC

i i
I
E

--_,i
ELASTIC ;

=STRAlN

YP Fig. 2. Steel stress vs strain curve.

(a) NORMALSTFlENGTH

(b)

NORMAL SlRENGTH CONCREI-E FOR

i-f-12
BOUNDARY STEEL 7 /WEB STEEL u4 Q 18 0.c eecil WBV. A

1 4

3 .d

ti. #

C
0

E 12 F G t-i
I J

P-NODE NONUNEA TRUSS ELEMENTS FOR HORIZONTAL

\\
Lo_.

:
10
/

Fig. 3. (a) Reinforced

concrete

shear

wall. (b) ADINA

fimte element

model.

Analysis of reinforced concrete shear wall components represent the behavior of the steel. Together, these two elements and material curves provide a composite model of reinforced concrete. The steel truss elements accept tension forces while the plane stress concrete elements accept compression forces.
U.C. BERKELEY TEST DATA AND ADINA FINITE ELEMENT MODELS

489

Shear wall testing and analysis has received extensive attention for several years [2, 5,6, 10, 11, 121. After performing a thorough literature search, it was determined that locating experimental results on hysteresis and cyclic loading was not difficult. However, it was very difficult to find data on monotonically loaded specimens, specifically with force vs deflection curves. The Portland Cement Association [ 1,2, 31 (PCA) has performed many shear wall tests to quantify their empirical wall design equations. Much of the data was expressed in the form of moment (M) vs curvature (4), which is difficult to compare against analytical models. Instead, a graph of force (P) vs deflection (6) can be readily compared. A few common objectives of many experimental test models [ 1, 11, 121 was to assess the failure envelope of shear walls with varying reinforcement ratios, wall

thickness, and the effect of confined concrete in the boundary elements. Consequently, hysterisis loading was appropriate to simulate dynamic and fatigue conditions. Monotonic loading was also tested, and the results were shown with M vs 4 curves (i.e. failure envelopes) of various walls. By comparing failure envelopes of M vs 4 the researcher could provide conclusions as to the relative strength-weakness of different shear wall designs. All of this experimental data is certainly useful for the purpose of analyzing the relative performance of shear wall test specimens, but has limited application in nonlinear finite element model (NFEM) comparisons. The reasons are summarized as follows:

lcomparing

hysterisis M vs 4 curve with FEM results is difficult because the nonlinear FEM must first demonstrate its accuracy on quasi-static monotonic loading, before it may be compared against cyclic loads. Monotonically loaded test specimens were found, but the results plotted M vs 4. Since a shear wall is very sensitive to curvature and each researcher has a different definition of curvature, it is difficult to replicate the M vs 4 curve. Force vs deflection can be readily compared for accuracy.

(a)

0.279m 1.854m 1-__1

_
2.412m TT R AT 102mm *

9#5 GpaNo7HooPsAT34mtll

(b)

0.644Vi 434 kN 1

f0.644V 1 434 kN

(c)

0.522vi 299 kN1 n57ggv

To. 522v 1 299 kN

U CB3 Specimen Fig.

4.

/ffl
&: 104v xo97v

UCB5

Specimen

(a) Cross section of UCB3 framed shear wall specimen. (b) Cross section of UCB5 shear wall specimen. (c) UCB Experimental loading diagram.

490
AOINA-PLOT VERSION 6.1, LlCB3-i STATIC ANALYSIS AOINA OmAIGINAL
002 AA XVMAX YVMTN

D.

Khatri and 3. C. Anderson

7 NOVEMBER 1994 A SHEAAWALL TEST 2
_Y

OF

SPECIMEN
XVMIN 0.000 2

XVMIN 0.000
94.00 0.000

(b):

Steel

Elements

~$~
YVMAX

~q,$$
120.0

L
\

UCB3-1

Finite

Element

Model

(~1: P vs. 6 Curve

(d):

P vs. u Curve

A AC1

NOM.

SHEAR

CAP.

203

4. FREE-END DISPLACEMENT (INCHES1 MAXIMUM TENSION STEEL STRESS (KS11

Fig. 5. Case UCB3-1

test

Since the objective of various testing programs [l, 2,3, 11, 121 was to compare the relative performance of shear wall specimens, the walls were loaded in combination with vertical and lateral loads. Certain specimens had complicated behavior

and crack patterns. This can be analytically modeled with FEM results. As a first iteration, a wall model with simpk loading (i.e. pure shear as in Fig. 3) would be more appropriate for comparing with analytical results. Complex loading situations

Analysis of reinforced concrete shear wall components

CONFINED

CONCRETE

F-0

WALL

wmN0iA.M

WALL

Fig. 6. Confined and unconfined concrete compression curves.

may be modeled from this platform. Analytical research usually begins with successful comparison of simple test problems, and then pursuing more complicated behavior. For these reasons, the U.C. Berkeley (UCB) shear wall test data [ 131 were selected for comparison. UCB performed a similar evaluation on their test data by comparing nonlinear FEM analytical results of a modified wall model. The UCB comparisons are provided in Ref. [13]. Two experimental shear wall specimens tested by University of California, Berkeley [ 131 were selected for comparison. The data plotted F vs 6 curves for monotonic loading. The two test specimens are referred to as UCB3 and UCBS. Several FEM mesh configurations were utilized for UCB3 and UCBS. A major objective of performing various FEMs was to study the sensitivity of the meshing and convergence parameters on solution time and accuracy. Details of the sensitivity analysis and conclusions are presented in this section. From the load configuration [Fig. 4(c)], the purpose of the UCB testing procedure was to simulate overturning forces in a real earthquake. The area tested simulated the lower three stories of the structural wall. Since the highest stress region of any shear wall is always near the vicinity of the base, it is prudent to focus attention on the stress variations in this area. UCB performed two tests on this wall: monotonic loading and hysterisis loading. The scope of this research work addresses the monotonic loading case. CAS 56/2-,--T

The UCB3 shear wall specimen was a framed shear wall with confined concrete boundary elements. A cross-section with loading diagram is shown in Fig. 4 (axe), respectively. Framed shear wall components are particularly suited to resisting overturning moments and flexurc-shear stresses. Boundary elements perform as chord members that accept high compression and/or tension stresses. The web (i.e. wall) performs in shear with predominately diagonal tension stresses. Framed shear walls are used in bearing wall buildings to resist vertical dead and live loads in addition to lateral loads (i.e. seismic and wind forces). Therefore, typical framed shear walls will have high vertical loads with in-plane moments generated by lateral forces. Out-of-plane forces are not considered because these are transferred to perpendicular shear wall elements by horizontal diaphragm action. The FEM of the UCB3 specimen is shown in Fig. S(a). The steel reinforcing mesh is shown in Fig. 5(b), with output results in Fig. 5(c) and (d). Mesh discretization is a choice based on engineering judgment and also the objectives of the analysis. In the case of UCB3, higher mesh discretization of elements is shown near the fixed-base boundary to accurately calculate the local stress variation. Three mesh configurations were evaluated on UCB3 and UCB4. Figure 5(a) shows a high concentration of elements near the base to calculate stress variations across the length of the wall. Steel stresses in the vertical reinforcing were also analyzed with this approach.

492

D. Khatri

and J. C. Anderson

AOINA-PLOT VERSION 6.1, 6 NOVEMBER 1994 LICED-IOA ANALYSIS OF A SHEARWALL TEST SPECIMEN

W/ UCB LOAD SCHEME

(a): cc :-cc

UCB3-1OA Finite Element *; :*;:

(b): Model c-4 .

Steel Elements ! . . . .

(c):

P VS. 6 Curve

(d):

P vs. u Curve

0
A UC BERKELY

AOINA EXPERIMENTAL DATA

2.

4.

FREE-END

DISPLACEMENT

(INCHES)

MAXIMUM

TENSION

STEEL

STRESS

(KS11

Fig. 7. Case UCB3-IOA

test

Since the boundary elements consisted of confined concrete, 12 elements [Fig. 5(a)] used a confined concrete material curve [Fig. 61. Web elements are unconfined-normal-strength concrete, and use the material curve of Fig. 6 (unconfined concrete). All of the concrete was modeled with two-dimensional

plane stress isoparametric elements. These planestress elements used the ADINA nonlinear concrete material model [lo] for the confined and normal strength concrete. Figure 5(a) shows the full finite element mesh with confined and normal strength concrete elements.

Analysis of reinforced concrete shear wall components

ADINA-PLOT STATIC VERSION 6.1, ANALYSIS OF 6 NOVEMBER 1994 A SHEARWALL TEST SPECIMEN

493

UCE-1

(a):

UCBS-1 Finite Element Model . .

(b):

Steel Elements

0 .

0 .

0 :. :

0 :. : :: -. .

(c): P vs. 6 Curve

(d):

I VS. ~curve

"0.
FREE-EN0 OISPLACEMENT (INCHES) MAX.

I 20.
TENSION

I 40.
STEEL

I 60.
STRESS

I 80.
(KS11

Fig. 8. Case UCBS-1 test.

Steel reinforcing was modeled with ADINA nonlinear truss elements using a Von-Mises elasto-plastic failure criteria based on the stress-strain curve of Fig. 2. Figure 5(b) shows the nonlinear truss element layout for UCB3. Since it was not feasible to model all the reinforcing steel, a typical rebar (in*) per unit

spacing (in) was used to approximate the actual distribution. Horizontal and vertical steel was modeled using truss elements, respectively. For example, the web steel has vertical reinforcing of # 2@,76 mm (3 o.c.). The total vertical web steel was calculated to be (As)web = 2.5in2. For FEM

494

D. Khatri and J. C. Anderson monotonic loading forcedeflection analysis with one force applied at the top of the wall. (3) UCBS-10. Fine mesh model. Performed nonlinear static monotonic loading force-deflection analysis per the load configuration diagram [Fig. 4(c)] of UCBS test specimen of Fig. 4(b). From the UCBS mesh configurations and a sensitivity analysis, it was determined that the run time (i.e. cost per run) of a coarse mesh model with 20 elements far exceeded the fine mesh model with 100 elements. The amount of effort (and total cost) required to run a coarse mesh exceeds that of a fine mesh model, because the stress distribution must be represented accurately for good convergence behavior and a sufficiently fine mesh is therefore needed. Table I summarizes the run parameters. A coarse mesh model has limitations in producing stress variation graphs and does not account for the confinement of concrete at the boundary elements. This may also be the reason why the coarse mesh model produced a premature failure graph.

application, it was assumed four vertical nonlinear truss elements spaced equally would effectively simulate the web steel. This calculates to 2.5 in*/four elements = 0.625 in2/vertical-element. Similar calculations for the vertical boundary steel and horizontal reinforcing were performed to determine the equivalent element areas. Steel material properties were used directly from the UCB test data. Two load configurations (with the same FEM) were performed: (1) UCB3-1. Nonlinear static shear test: performed nonlinear static monotonic loading forcedeflection analysis per the load configuration of Fig. 3. (2) UCB3-10. UCB shear load test: performed nonlinear static monotonic loading force-deflection analysis per the load configuration diagram of the UCB test specimen of Fig. 4(b). UCB3-1 was a static shear test analysis which consisted of a monotonically increasing load (P) applied at the top of the shear wall. Figure 5(b) shows the results of force (P) vs deflection (6). Although there were no experimental data for verification of UCB3-1, the purpose of performing this analysis was to compare the results with AC1 ultimate strength design. UCB3-10 was a monotonic load test with the UCB load configuration [Fig. 7(c)]. This analytical test was compared with the experimental data. The UCBS test specimen was a rectangular shear wall with confined concrete along the boundary elements. Figure 4(b) shows the cross-section with the reinforcing schedule. Confinement of the boundary elements was achieved by providing nine # 5 bars as shown. This enhances the performance of the concrete by allowing maximum displacement ductility prior to failure. Similar to the UCB3 model, two constitutive material curves were prepared: normal strength concrete (unconfined) for the web elements and confined concrete for the boundary elements. Horizontal and vertical reinforcing steel was modeled with nonlinear truss elements using a Von-Mises failure criterion with an elasto-plastic stress-strain curve. Figure 8 shows the FEM for the UCBS test specimen. Two FEMs were generated to study the effect of mesh discretization. A fine mesh model (UCBS-1) consisting of 80 concrete-plane-stress elements and 120 nonlinear three-node truss elements is shown in Fig. 8(b). The loose-coarse mesh model (UCBS-5) consisted of 20 concrete elements and 18 nonlinear three-node truss elements [Fig. 91. Results are presented from both models. UCBS was divided into the following output files: (1) UCBS-1. Fine mesh model with a nonlinear static shear test file. Performed nonlinear static monotonic loading force-deflection analysis with one force (P) applied at the top of the wall. (2) UCB5-5. Coarse mesh model with a nonlinear static shear test file. Performed nonlinear static

ANALYTICAL

RESULTS

VS UCB TEST DATA

The figures given show the finite element models used and results obtained for various UCB tests. In addition to comparing the analytical results with the test data, several plots examine the performance of the shear wall prior to failure. For comparison with the UCB data, two graphs [Fig. 7(a) and (c)] show reasonable correlation. The framed shear wall of UCB3-10 [Fig. 7(c)] performed similar to the test data. Convergence criteria is the principal factor that determines the ease or difficulty of solution time and accuracy. In working with these shear wall models, there are certain guidelines that will enable reasonably good convergence. Shear wall response to monotonic loading can be separated into two distinct phases: preyield and postyield. The preyield phase refers to the portion of the F vs 6 curve prior to the tension steel yielding, and the postyield area begins after the tension steel has yielded. Reinforced concrete shear wall behavior cannot be separated into distinct linear and nonlinear regions because concrete has inherently plastic behavior. Although steel has a defined yield point, concrete is nonlinear from initial loading. Therefore, reinforced concrete has a composite behavior of steel in tension regions of the wall and concrete in compression areas. Response characteristics of the pre and postyield regions are very different. Most shear walls will deflect close to a linear response in the preyield region. The postyield region consists of large deflections for small incremental loads until failure. Consechange the convergence parameters quently, drastically between the preyield and postyield regions. For future applications it is recommended that

Analysis of reinforced concrete shear wall components AOINA-PLOT VERSION 6.1,

UCB5-5 STATIC ANALYSIS

495

OF

NOVEMBER 1994 A SHEARWALL TEST

SPECIMEN

(a):

UCBS-5 Finite
Model

Element

(b):

Steel Elements

. 0

(c):

P vs. 6 Curve

(d):

P vs. u Curve

AOINA

A AC1 NOM. SHEAR

CAP.=

101 K

K 50.
FREE-EN0 DISPLACEMENT (INCHES1 MAX. TENSION STEEL STRESS
100.

(KS11

Fig. 9. Case UCB5-5 test.

the shear wall response should be performed in two consecutive files using the restart option (i.e. X-A.IN and X-B.IN). This was done on several files with the following convergence criteria: (1) UCB3-lA, UCB3-IOA, UCB5-5A, UCBS-1OA. The automatic time stepping solution (ATS) method

with the maximum number of time steps of 40. Iteration method was BFGS with line searching. An energy convergence criterion was used with ETOL = 0.5 and ITEMAX = 100. Large load increments (approximately 20 K per step) were used upto the steel yield point.

496 ADINA-PLOT UC65 STATIC VERSION ANALYSIS 6.1,

D. Khatri

and J. C. Anderson
1994 TEST

OF

7 NOVEMBER A SHEARWALL

SPECIMEN

W/

UC6

LOAD

SCHEME

(a):

UCBS-10 Finite Element Model 9 . ::

(b):

Steel

Elements

: 0 ::

. 0 -. <b

-. 0

:. 0 0 :. 0 : 0 : 0 :: 0

:. 0 .: 0 :: 0 : 0 :: 6

0 . ::

;.

:. 0

:. 0

~: 0 .: 0 :: 0

:: 0 :: 0 c: 6

:: 0

:: 0

: 4,

::

.: 0

:: 0

:: h

:: 0

(C): P vs. 6 Curve

(d):

P vs. u Curve

AOINA EXPERIM

A UC BERKELY

FREE-EN0

DISPLACEMENT

(INCHESI

MAX.

TENSION

STEEL

STRESS

(KS11

Fig. 10. Case UCBS-10

test.

(2) UCB3-lOB, UCB5-SB, UCBS-1OB. The AUTOMATIC-ATS method was used with similar criteria as for the A files. After yield, the displacement convergence criteria was used with DTOL = 0.15 and DNORM = 1.0. Small load increments of approximately 2 K per step were used in this region.

(3) UCB3-1B. The automatic load displacement control (LDC) method was used with a maximum (i.e. failure) displacement of 3.5. The displacement with convergence criteria was implemented DTOL = 0.15 and DNORM = 1.O. Small load increments of 2 K per step were used.

Analysis

of reinforced

concrete

shear wall components

1994 TEST

497

AOINA-PLOT VERSION 6.1, UCE3-1 STATIC ANALYSIS 40INA .OAO_STEP rIME 204.0 ORIGINAL k29

OF

7 NOVEMBER A SHEARWALL

SPECIMEN ORIGINAL L _ d 16.29 OEFORMEO 18.29 X Z fLY

OEFORMEO -16.29

!L,
102.0 3 1.656

X 2

AOINA LOAOSTEP TIME 204.0

CRACK-STRESS TIME FACE :;

CRACK-STRESS TIME FACE 204.0 3 5.039

i j

CRACKS

CRACKS

(a):

Crack

Pattern

at P= 102 K

(b):

Crack

Pattern

at P= 204 K

(c):

G vs. 0 Curve

AOINA

SHEAR

STRAIN

(RAO)

Fig. 11. Case UCB3-I

test.

In the preyield phase, convergence with reasonable accuracy is not difficult because wall deflections are stable between load steps. The AUTOMATIC-ATS method provided good results within reasonable solution times. During postyield, the shear wall experiences large

deflections for small load steps. This results in an unstable solution with difficult convergence problems. In order to obtain a solution, E, was taken as 10 Ksi. The ATS method performed well in the preyield region because the solution has a stable stiffness matrix. After yielding of the steel, the

498
ADINA-PLOT UC.831OA rOINA ,OAO_STEP IME 240.0 VERSION ANALYSIS ORIGINAL I. _ J 16.52

D. Khatri

and J. C. Anderson

8 NOVEMBER 1994 6.1, OF A SHEARWALL TEST SPECIMEN OEFORMEO 16.52 X Z ; Y

W/

UC8

LOAD

SCHEME ; Z Q--Y

L y

AOINA LOAO_STEP TIME 240.0

ORIGINAL L - > 16.52

DEFORMED I 18.52

CRACKSTRESS

CRACKSTRESS

TIME 100.0 FACE 3

:; 2.633 CRACKS

TIME 240.0
FACE ii 3 8.641

CRACKS

(a):

Crack

Pattern

at P= 102 K

(b):

Crack

Pattern

at P= 204 K

(c):

G vs. 8 Curve

AOINA

d SHEAR STAAIN (RAOI

Fig. 12. Case UCB3-1OA

test

stiffness matrix degrades rapidly, and the LDC method performs well in these regions of high displacement per load step and close to failure. It is important to model the confined concrete elements. Shear walls have confined concrete boundary elements with extra reinforcing compared to the

web elements. Boundary elements perform as chord members in tension or compression to increase the moment-flexure capacity of the wall, while the web elements handle the in-plane shear stresses. If the boundary elements are not distinguished in the model (as in UCBS-S), this will result in premature yielding

Analysis of reinforced concrete shear wall components

AOINA-PLOT VERSION 6.1. UCBZ-I STATIC ANALYSIS iOINA ,OAO_STEP IME 220.0 ORIGINAL ;Siei 7 NOVEMBER 1994 A SHEARWALL TEST ; 2 \OINA .OAOSTEP rIME 220.0

499

OF

SPECIMEN ORIGINAL k.8; DEFORMED -18.87

DEFORMED -18.87

fL,
220.0 3

X 2

CRACK-STRESS

CRACK-STRESS TIME FACE

:;

3.325

CRACKS CRACKS

(a):

Crack

Pattern

at P= 102 K

(b):

Crack

Pattern

at P= 204 K

(c): G VS. 8

Curve

AOINA

SHEAR

STRAIN

(RAO)

Fig.

13. Case UCBS-1

test.

of the steel and failure of the specimen. To accurately model the specimen, boundary elements with confined concrete material properties must be ineluded into the mesh generation. The models of UCB3-10 and LJCBS-10 [Figs 7 and lo] both showed reasonable correlation with the data

in the pre- and postyield regions. These results were obtained without altering any specific calibration parameters. ADINA [7] allows the user to select the failure-plasticity curves (i.e. failure envelope) in the concrete material model. Since there was no available compression test data on the shear wall specimens

500
AOINA-PLOT UC85 STATIC WINA _OAO_STEP TIME 200.0 VERSION ANALYSIS 6.1,

D. Khatri and J. C. Anderson

OF 7 NOVEMBER A SHEARWALL ; Z g--Y 1994 TEST SPECIMEN W/ ORIGINAL c _ J 18.39 UCB LOAD SCHEME X Z

ORIGINAL L _ J 18.39

DEFORMEO 18.39

ADINA LOAOSTEP TIME 200.0

DEFORMED I 19.39

CRACKSTRESS TIME FACE

I I

CRACKSTRESS I TIME FACE 200.0 3

+-

100.0 3 3.215

CRP LKS

I I 5.956 :KS CRAC

(a):

Crack Pattern

at P= 102 K
I

(b):

Crack Pattern

at P= 204 K

(c):

G vs. 8 Curve

I
01

0.

2.

4.

6.

8.

SHEAR

10 *1o-3 STRAIN

12. (RAD)

14.

16.

le.

20

Fig. 14. Case UCBS-IO test. (except forf: and E,), the default option of using the Kupfer failure envelope was selected. For future applications, the user could calibrate the concrete model to specific test data and then apply the model to a practical problem. Despite the fact that there were no compression tests available for calibration, a reasonable correlation was obtained. Failure patterns for shear walls vary between two extremes: Aexure vs shear failure. Flexure failure occurs in tall walls (h-l > 2) that behave in bending more than shear. This results in high tension and compression stresses along the boundary elements which eventually cause shear cracking in the web. Shear failure occurs in short walls (h-l < 1) that have

Analysis of reinforced concrete shear wall components

ADINA-PLOT UCE3-IOA VERSION ANALYSIS 6.1. 0 NOVEMBER 1994 OF A SHEAAWALL TEST SPECIMEN

501

W/

UCE

LOAO

SCHEME TIME 60.00

(a):

Base

Reaction

Plot at P- 60 K 1

01 Z 2 Z _ zs L 5 r _. uo $ r: 0
'0. I 20. LINE I 40. COORDINATE. I 60. FIXEOBASE I 80.

I 100.

TIME o_ (b): Base

140.0

Reaction

Plot at P= 140 K

51

20. LINE

40. COORDINATE,

60. FIXEOBASE

80.

100.

ro z

(c):

Base

Reaction

Plot at P= 240 K

LINE

COORDINATE,

FIXEOBASE

Fig. 15. Case UCB3-1OA test. pure shear stresses with minimal bending behavior. The term shear walls is commonly used for both tall and short walls, despite their difference in failure patterns. For walls between these two extremes (1 < hl-<2), these fail in a complicated transition zone of combined flexure-shear stress. All of the walls examined in this study failed in combined flexure-shear conditions, but still provided displacement ductility factors (p) of 3 or 4. By examining Fig. S(c) of UCBS-1 shows P, = 163 K with 6, = 0.6, and the failure load from ADINA is approximately 220 K with 6 = 3.0. This gives ,u to be

502

D. Khatri and .I. C. Anderson

AOINA-PLOT UC65 STATIC VERSION ANALYSIS 6.1. OF 7 NOVEMBER A SHEARWALL 1994 TEST SPECIMEN W/ UC6 LOAD SCHEME TIME 40.00

z7 w 2 s2 X

(a):

Base Reaction

Plot at P= 40 K

4 0.

I 20. LINE

I 40. COORDINATE.

I 60. FIXEDBASE

, 80.

I 100.

TIME (b): 100.0

Base Reaction

Plot at P= 100 K

=: .D. .._.

20. I
LINE

40. I
COOROINATE,

60. 1
FIXEOBASE

n!? 1

?!lcJ. I

TIME (c):

200.0

Base Reaction

Plot at P= 200 K

LO a ,o&!
p: 8 : I 20. f 40. I 60. I 80. I 100.

0.

LINE

COOROINATE.

FIXEOBASE

Fig. 16. Case UCBS-10 test. 5. Similarly, from UCB3-1 Fig. 5(c), p is calculated to be at least 4. this is a significant step for practical analysis because research in reinforced concrete structures has traditionally relied on experimental testing as the primary system for assessing nonlinear response curves and maximum ductility. With the advent of reliable cation of nonlinear possible. If the wall has stronger than the in web shear. This analytical models, practical applianalysis to shear wall problems is oversized boundary elements (i.e. web section), then the wall will fail results in a premature failure of the

Analysis of reinforced concrete shear wall components web because the boundary elements still have further capacity. Consequently, the wall has a nonductile failure [14]. The opposite is true if the wall has oversized web reinforcing, the shear capacity is high but the flexural strength is weak. The wall will fail in liexure. Baiancing the decision of boundary reinforcing (flexure strength) vs web reinforcing (shear strength) is a critical design decision that has received attention in the practical arena. Engineers can actually defeat the strength of the building by adding too much boundary reinforcing because this initiates a nonductile failure. By using ADINA, the balance of reinforcement can be addressed very specifically through F vs 6 comparisons with varying reinforcement ratios. This can offer insight into the optimum solution with maximum shear wall displacement ductility. Figures 5, 7-10(d) show the lateral load (P) vs tension steel stress (f,) curve. This curve delineates clearly the preyield and postyield regions: UCBS-1 has Py = 165 K, and UCB3-I with P, = 202 K. As expected, the yield points change with respect to load configurations: UCBS-10 has VY= 160 K, and UCB310 a V, = 220 K. Another interesting plot is the shear modulus (G) vs shear strain (0) curve: perform a assumption. ADINA terns. This of failure
ii-i4jaj

503 analysis rests on this basic

full building

provides the capability to plot crack patenables the analyst to determine the mode (i.e. flexure, shear, or both). Figures
jbj show that these waiis aii faiied in

and

G = f g

= shear modulus

(Ksi)

0 = 4 = shear strain

(rad)

where P A, 6 h = = = = laterai shear force gross cross sectional horizontal deflection wall height.

area

There are several reasons for plotting the G vs 0 curve. It is a good measure of the overall in-plane shear wall stiffness degradation that occurs due to irlFX.IOPTIlnarlinn 1 IXI.IIL.ILU rmllraant;nnll l;nc=lr Irnll.,PiE r: 111W1VUUIU UU,&. 111 .11*Vu1 UUJY., is assumed constant. Figures 11-14(c) show clearly that G varies drastically from 350 Ksi (UCBS-1) and degrades to less than 25 Ksi at failure. Contrary to conventional assumptions, G vs 0 is a highly nonlinear relationship. Additionally, the G vs 8 curve changes slightly depending on load configuration. Models UCB3-1OA [Fig. 12(c)] and UCBS-10 [Fig. 14(c)] have different G vs 0 curves from UCB3-1 [Fig. 1 l(c)] and UCBS-1 [Fig. 13(c)], respectively. The importance of this observation is that other researchers [ 151 have relied on simple linear relationships between G and 8. It is possible to assume an average G, but this should be calculated from the full G vs 6 stiffness graph. Quantifying the G vs 6 relationship is important, because applying nonlinear finite element methods to

combined flexure-shear stress. Shear cracking is indicated in the web elements by diagonal tension cracks, and compression crushing is shown along the boundary elements. Along the tension side, crack patterns show the concrete has failed and the steel reinforcing captures the tension stresses. Throughout the web, diagonal (45) lines show diagonal tension cracks. Crushing failures are indicated along the compression face of the wall. Practical applications of crack patterns allow engineers to assess critical failure zones of structures and adequately detail them for increased capacity. There is no finite element program available that currently offers plotting of concrete crack patterns. From preyield to postyield the neutral axis of the shear wall shifts towards the compression fibers of the wall because the tension concrete fails, and steel rebar captures the tension forces. This is depicted in Fig. 15(a)-(c) [UCB3-IOA] for various load levels (P). At failure, the tension rebar has forces of about 200 K, and compression forces peak to about 400 K. Similarly, for UCBS-10, Fig. 16(a)-(c) depicts the same shift in the neutral axis. Base reaction plots of the preyield and postyield regions can be used to assess a shear walls failure capacity and maximum displacement ductility by developing a simplified version of this behavior. If all shear walls exhibit this neutral axis shift, it may be possible to formulate an empirical equation that approximates the faiiure shear and moment ioad of a wall, without having to perform an extensive nonlinear analysis. This may be the next step of research to extend the current design methodology for encompassing shear wall failure capacity beyond the yield point.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Two shear wall specimens tested by the University of California, Berkeley were analyzed by the ADINA concrete material model using plane stress isoparametric elements. Steel reinforcing was modeled using nonlinear truss elements. The correlation of the analysis was reasonably accurate with respect to the experimental data. The most difficult aspect of solving the shear wall response problem was selecting the convergence criteria. It was concluded that using two separate runs with different convergence criteria was the most practical solution. Shear walls have two distinct phases, preyield and postyield, that govern the displacement ductility of the wall. It was also concluded that the shear module is not constant during the loading process, but rather

504

D. Khatri and .I. C. Anderson E. Hognestad, Design provisions for shear walls. PCA Research and Development Bulletin, RD 028.01D (1973). 4. Building code requirement for reinforced concrete and commentary. AC1 318889 (Revised 1992). 5. J. W. Wallace and J. P. Moehle, Ductility and detailing requirements of bearing waii buiidings. j. Struct. Engng 118(6), 1625-1643 (1992). 6. J. P. Moehle and M. Eeri, Displacement-based design of RC structures subjected to earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra 8(3), 403-427 (1992). 7. ADINA R&D Report 92-8, ADINA theory and modeling guide. ADINA Research & Development (1992). 8. K. J. Bathe, J. Walczak, A. Welch and N. Mistry, Nonlinear analysis of concrete structures. Cornput. Struct. 32(3,4), 563-590 (1989). 9. M. Ala Saadeghvaziri, A user-supplied concrete material model for ADINA. Comput. Struct. 47(4,5), 591-600 (1993). 10. W. F. Chen, Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete. McGrawHill, New York (1982). 11. M. Ueda and T. Kawai, Discrete limit analysis of R/C shear walls. Int. ConJ Finite Element Analysis of ReiFforced Concrete Slructures, pp. 277-879. 12. N. Inoue, N. Koshika, and N. Suzuki, Analysis of shear wall based on Collins panel test. Int. Conf. Finite
Element
REFERENCES

degrades significantly. The shear module is good parameter to judge the wall stiffness degradation from initial loading. Crack patterns enable the engineer to evaluate the weak areas of the wall, and strengthen them accordingIy. Severai areas reauire investigation for further development of the shear wall design process:
l

Additional testing with comparison of the ADINA concrete model results to confirm accuracy. Development of standard guidelines for convergence to enable the user to quickly process a problem. Develop a simplified equation to predict failure moment and shear loads from the base reaction plots. Confirm these equations with analytical and test results.

Through additional research, a practical design methodology may be developed to quickly assess the full capacity of the shear walls.

Analysis

of Reinforced

Concrete

Structures,

I. A. E. Cardenas, Magura, Strength of high-rise shear walls-rectangular cross section. PCA Research & Development Bulletin, RD 029.01D (1975). 2. A. T. Derecho, M. Iqbal, M. Fintel and W. G. Corley, Loading history for use in quasi-static simulated earthquake loading tests, pp. l-29. Portland Cement Association, R&D (1978). 3. A. E. Cardenas, J. M. Hanson, W. G. Corley and

pp. 288-299. 13. Bertero and Vulcano, Analytical models for predicting the lateral response of RC shear walls: evaluation of their reliability, UCB/EERC-87/19 (1987). 14. D. Strand, Brandow and Johnston, 1994 UBC proposed concrete shearwall boundary member design. Structural Engineers Association of California (1994). 15. Mengi, McNiven and Tanrikulu, Models for nonlinear earthquake analysis of brick masonry buildings. UCBIEERC-92/03 (1992).