Sei sulla pagina 1di 87

Behavior, Analysis, and Design of Complex Wall Systems

Planar Wall Test Program Summary Document

Wall Systems Planar Wall Test Program Summary Document Laura N. Lowes Dawn E. Lehman Anna C.

Laura N. Lowes Dawn E. Lehman Anna C. Birely University of Washington

Daniel A. Kuchma Christopher R. Hart Kenneth P. Marley University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1:

Introduction

5

CHAPTER 2:

Test Specimens

6

2.1 Dimensions

6

2.2 Shear Demand/Lateral Load Distribution

6

2.3 Reinforcement Design

7

2.3.1 Shear Design

8

2.3.2 Flexural Design

9

2.3.3 Detail Design

13

2.4 Splice Design

15

2.5 Test Matrix

16

2.6 Foundation/Wall Cap Design

16

2.6.1 Foundation Block

17

2.6.2 Wall Cap

17

2.7

Specimen Construction

18

2.7.1 Foundation Construction

18

2.7.2 Wall Construction

18

2.7.3 Cap Construction

19

2.7.4 Concrete Casting

CHAPTER 3:

20

Material Properties

21

3.1 Concrete Material Properties

21

3.2 Reinforcing Steel Properties

25

3.2.1

Development of #2 Bars

26

CHAPTER 4:

Test Setup

29

4.1 Description of Test Setup

29

4.2 Placement of Wall

30

4.3 Description of Connection Details

31

4.3.1 Connection to Strong Floor

31

4.3.2 Loading Beam Connection

31

4.3.3 Cap Connection

32

4.3.4 Side Mounted Actuators Connection

33

CHAPTER 5:

Loading and Displacement History

34

2

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

5.1 Illinois MUST-SIM Overview

34

5.2 Load and Boundary Condition Boxes (LBCBs)

35

5.3 Load Control Software

36

 

5.3.1 SimCor

37

5.3.2 LBCB Plugin and Operations Manager

38

5.3.3 Operation Manager

38

5.3.4 Shore Western Control Software

39

5.3.5 Mixed-mode Control

39

5.3.6 Elastic Deformations Correction

40

5.4

Load Control for Planar Wall Specimens

40

5.4.1 Axial Load

41

5.4.2 Lateral Load and Overturning Moment

42

5.4.3 Displacement History

42

CHAPTER 6:

Instrumentation and Data Collection

46

6.1

Traditional Instrumentation

46

6.1.1 Strain Gauges

46

6.1.2 Relative Displacement Measurements

48

6.1.3 Absolute Displacement Measurements

49

6.2

Advanced Instrumentation

50

6.2.1 Krypton System

50

6.2.2 High-resolution Cameras

52

6.3 Data Acquisition System

53

6.4 Testing Notes

54

6.5 Data Processing

54

 

6.5.1

Krypton Data

54

6.6

Instrument/Channel Naming Schemes

54

6.6.1

UW Naming Scheme

CHAPTER 7:

55

Experimental Results

57

7.1

Specimen PW1

58

7.1.1 General Response

60

7.1.2 Damage

60

7.2

Specimen PW2

64

3

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

7.2.1 General Response

66

7.2.2 Damage

66

7.3

Specimen PW3

71

7.3.1 General Response

73

7.3.2 Damage

73

7.4

Specimen PW4

77

7.4.1 General Response

79

7.4.2 Damage

79

CHAPTER 8: NEES Project Warehouse

83

8.1

Data Directories

83

8.1.1 Raw (or Unprocessed) Data

83

8.1.2 Converted Data

83

8.1.3 Derived Data

84

8.2 Material Data

85

8.3 Sensor Metadata

86

 

8.4 Drawings

86

8.5 Documentation

86

8.6 Visualization Tools

87

8.7 Analysis Tools

87

CHAPTER 9: References

87

4

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

CHAPTER 1:

Introduction

This document provides detailed documentation of the design, testing, and preliminary results of the planar wall test program of the project "Behavior, Analysis, and Design of Complex Wall Systems", a joint effort between the University of Washington (PI Laura Lowes and co-PI Dawn Lehman) and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (co-PI Dan Kuchma). Funded by NEES (George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation) and the Charles Pankow Foundation, the project seeks to establish the seismic performance of modern mid-rise reinforced concrete structural walls and to develop the tools and technologies to advance performance based design of these systems.

In the experimental component of the project, large-scale wall sub-assemblages were tested to improve the understanding of seismic behavior of walls in modern buildings. Walls were tested at the NEES MUST-SIM (Multi-Axial Full-Scale Sub-Structured Testing and Simulation) Facility at the University of Illinois. Use of this facility allowed collection of high resolution data to assist in characterizing the performance of walls. Equipment at the facility allowed for testing of the sub-assemblages with force and displacement control in six-degrees of freedom. This allowed for the testing of large-scale (1/3 scale of prototype walls) in that axial load, lateral load, and overturning moment could be applied to the top of the specimens in a manner such that the base reactions were equivalent to that of a much taller wall with a specified lateral load distribution. The actual specimens represented the bottom three stories of a ten story prototype wall. The full experimental test program consisted of 8 specimens: 4 planar (or rectangular) walls, 1 coupled wall, and 3 C-shaped (or U-shaped) walls. This document is limited to the planar wall test program; similar documents are available for the coupled and C-shaped wall test programs.

The contents of the document are as follows. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the test specimens, including test variables considered, design of the specimens, construction drawings and details on construction of the specimens. Chapter 3 provides material properties data and expected material strengths. Chapter 4 discusses the experimental test set-up, application of loads, and displacement histories. Chapter 5 discusses the data collected including traditional and non-contact instrumentation, high-resolution images, and crack width measurements. Chapter 6 presents the loading and displacement histories applied to the wall specimens. Chapter 7 presents basic experimental results for the tests. Chapter 8 discusses data processing and the availability of the data in the NEES Project Warehouse. The contents of this document are limited to the observed behavior of the tests; results of analysis of the experimental data can be found in the dissertations of Birely (2012), Hart (2011), and Marley (2011).

5

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

CHAPTER 2:

Test Specimens

The planar wall test program sought to test large-scale specimens representative of modern mid-rise construction on the west coast. Section 2.1 discusses the geometry of the specimens. Four planar wall test specimens were tested to investigate the impact of i) shear demand, achieved through the use of different lateral load distributions, iii) layout of longitudinal reinforcement, and iv) the use of lap splices in the region of highest moment demand. Each of these test variables are addressed individually in Sections 2.2 through Section 2.4. Section 2.5 discusses how the test variables were combined to form the four wall test program. Section 2.6 discusses design of the foundation blocks and wall caps. Section 2.7 describes construction details.

2.1 Dimensions

A prototype wall was developed based on a review of west coast building; details of the building review are provided in Birely (2012). The prototype wall was 120 feet (36.58 m) tall (10 12-foot (3.66 m) tall stories), 18 inches (45.72 cm) thick, and 30 feet (9.14) long. The specimens tested in the laboratory were one-third scale of the prototype wall. Use of the UIUC MUST-SIM facility (see Section 5.1) allowed application of loads to the specimens in a manner that allowed only the bottom three stories of the one- third scale walls to be tested, yet create base reactions equal to that of a ten-story specimen. The test specimens were 12 feet (3.66 m) tall (3 stories at 4 feet (1.22 m) tall), 6 inches (15.24 cm) thick, and 10 feet (3.05 m) long.

2.2 Shear Demand/Lateral Load Distribution

To investigate the impact of shear demand, loads were applied to simulate two different lateral load distributions on a 10-story wall. This section discusses the lateral load distributions considered. Application of the lateral load distributions to the test specimens is discussed in Section 5.4.

The first lateral load distribution considered was the ASCE 7-05 (2005) equivalent lateral force distribution. This load distribution, shown in Figure 2-1 is essentially an inverted triangular load distribution and acts at an effective height of 0.71h 10 , where h 10 is the height of the 10-story scaled prototype wall. At the design nominal strength (see Section 2.3.1), the shear demand on the specimen is 2.75A g f' c , or 0.67V n , where V n is the design nominal shear strength of 210 kips (934 kN).

, where V n is the design nominal shear strength of 210 kips (934 kN). Figure

Figure 2-1: ASCE 7 ELF load distribution.

6

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

The second lateral load distribution considered was a uniform distribution of lateral forces. This load distribution, shown in Figure 2-2, acts at an effective height of 0.50h 10 . At the design nominal strength (see Section 2.3.1), the shear demand on the specimen is 3.90A g f' c , or 0.95V n .

specimen is 3.90A g √ f' c , or 0.95V n . Figure 2-2: Uniform load

Figure 2-2: Uniform load distribution.

2.3 Reinforcement Design

Two reinforcement layouts were designed, one with longitudinal reinforcement concentrated in confined boundary regions (referred to as the boundary element layout or distribution) and one with a uniform distribution of longitudinal reinforcement (referred to as the uniform layout or distribution). The design of the former is detailed in depth here; design of the latter was done in a similar manner. In designing the boundary element reinforcement layout for the wall specimens the following was considered:

Geometry discussed in Section 2.1.

Wall mid-span horizontal and vertical reinforcement ratios as specified in Figure 2-3.

Target boundary element reinforcement ratios and lengths as shown in Figure 2-3.

Specified concrete compressive strength of 5000 psi (34.5 MPa).

Specified reinforcement yield strength of 60 ksi (414 MPa).

Wall axial load equal to 0.1

A

g

f '

c

MPa). • Wall axial load equal to 0 . 1 A g f ' c Figure

Figure 2-3: Target cross-section of specimens with boundary element reinforcement layout.

7

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

Given these initial assumptions, the following process was used to complete the design of the specimens:

1. Determine nominal shear strength, V n , per ACI 318-05 (2005)

2. Determine shear demand, V u , given ACI 318-05 requirement: φ shear V n > V u

3. Determine flexural demand at the base of the wall, assuming the design lateral load distribution

specified by ASCE 7-02. This results in

M = α HV

u

eff

u

4. Design boundary element, length and reinforcement ratio, per ACI 318-05 (2005) to achieve

φ

flex

M

> M

n

u

The following sections discuss the design of the wall for shear and flexure, as well as detailing of wall confinement, lap splice and anchorage lengths.

2.3.1 Shear Design First, the nominal shear strength of a wall with 0.25% horizontal reinforcement was determined, by ACI 318-05 equation 21-7:

V

n

= A

cv

(

α c

f ' c
f
'
c

+ρ

t

f y

)

where,

thickness and length of section in the direction of shear force (720 in 2 ),

relative contribution of concrete strength to wall strength (2.0),

strength of concrete (5000 psi),

concrete area perpendicular to that reinforcement (0.0025), and

reinforcement (60,000 psi). This yielded a result for nominal shear resistance of:

V

n

is the nominal strength of the wall,

A

cv is the gross area of concrete section bounded by web

α

c

is the coefficient defining the

f '

c is the specified compressive

ρ

t

is the ratio of area distributed transverse reinforcement to gross

f

y

is the specified yield strength of

V

n

=

209.8 kips or

4.12A

cv

(from code specified minimum reinforcement)yield strength of V n = 209.8 kips or 4.12 A cv The shear demand on

The shear demand on the structure was back calculated from this value, assuming that:

V =φV

u

n

where

shear demand of:

V

u

is the shear demand and φ is the strength reduction factor (0.60). This yielded a result for

V

u

=

125.9 kips or

2.47 A

cv

f ' c
f '
c

2.3.1.1 Final Design Using (2) curtains of #2 bars horizontally at the code specified minimum spacing of 6 in (at 1/3 scale), the actual horizontal reinforcement ratio was 0.27%. This was deemed within the margin of over- strength that a designer would consider acceptable.

8

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

2.3.2 Flexural Design Given the results of the building inventory review, it was decided to use the code-specified minimum vertical reinforcement ratio at mid-span of the rectangular wall and to include boundary elements at the ends of the wall with substantially higher reinforcement ratios. Thus, design of the wall to achieve the required flexural capacity amounted to determining the boundary element length and longitudinal reinforcement ratio. Given that there is not a unique solution to this design problem, a solution was determined iteratively by:

1. Choosing a trial boundary element length and reinforcement ratio,

2. Completing a moment-curvature analysis of the wall cross-section to determine nominal flexural strength and neutral axis depth,

3. Adjusting boundary element length to meet code-based requirements and adjusting boundary element reinforcement ratio to increase or decrease flexural strength, and

4. Repeating the process.

In computing flexural strength, a moment-curvature analysis method was used. For design purposes, the steel was modeled as elastic perfectly plastic and the concrete followed a parabolic curve up to its specified compressive strength. The following sections detail the steps used in determining the final design of the flexural reinforcement.

2.3.2.1 Determination of Moment Demand and Required Nominal Strength

The moment demand (

M

u

) was determined by:

M =α

u

eff

hV

10

u

where

the ten-story wall (480 inches), and

moment demand of:

α

eff

is the effective height of wall (0.71 from ASCE 7 lateral load distribution),

V

u

is height of

is the shear demand (125.9 kips). This yielded a result for

h

10

M

u

=

42,900 in-kips

The nominal strength (

M

u

φM

n

M

n

(4)

) required was determined by:

where φ is the strength reduction factor (0.9). This yielded a result for moment capacity of:

M

n

47,700 in-kips

2.3.2.2 Calculation of Flexural Capacity

All calculations to evaluate the flexural capacity of the wall were performed using a moment-curvature analysis method implemented in Matlab (www.mathworks.com). The steel constitutive model was bilinear elastic perfectly plastic. The concrete constitutive model used was parabolic up to the maximum

9

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

compressive stress and subsequently exhibits a linear decrease in strength down to 20% of the maximum compressive stress. The nominal moment was the moment at the point where the extreme

compressive fiber reached a strain of 0.3%. The resulting value of corresponds to an over-strength of 2.7% above the code requirements.

n was 49,000 in-kips, which

M

2.3.2.3 Boundary Element Design ACI 318 Section 21.7.6 governs the design of boundary elements. First, it must be determined if boundary elements are required. If the following equation is true, then they are:

c

l

w

600(

δ

u

/

h

10

)

where c is the distance from the extreme compression fiber to neutral axis, calculated for the factored

, resulting in the

is the design

displacement (

boundary elements are required.

= 0.02; conservative assumption). Since 24.5 10 , the statement is true and

largest neutral axis depth (24.5 inches),

axial force and nominal moment strength, consistent with the design displacement

δ

u

l

w

is the length of the wall (120 inches), and

δ

u

δ

u

/ h

w

Second, it must be determined if the length of the boundary elements are long enough.

l

be

c


c / 2

0.1

l

w

where

is the length of the boundary element (19.5 inches). The length of the boundary element is

greater than both 12.5 in and 12.25 in from equation 6. Therefore, the specified boundary element length is sufficient.

l be

Third, the amount of transverse steel must be checked. ACI 318-05 Section 21.7.6.4 refers to sections 21.4.4.1 through 21.4.4.3 (moment frame members). ACI 318-05 equation (21-3) need not be satisfied. Since #2 bar is the smallest size that is to be used, the maximum spacing requirements control the design. The following calculations demonstrate this.

The vertical spacing must satisfy the following requirements at one-third scale:

s

One quarter of minimum dimension = 0.25 * 19.5 in = 4.9 in

Six times longitudinal bar diameter = 6 * 0.5 in = 3 in

14 h 4 + 

= 4 +   14

3

in

x

3

3

2 in

(7)

= 7.7 in

10

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

where

is the maximum horizontal spacing of hoop or crosstie legs on all faces of the column. Thus,

the vertical spacing, s , is 2 in. The spacing of ties and overlapping hoops shall not exceed 4.67 inches (at one-third scale) in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the structural member.

h

x

Therefore, in the plane that cuts along the width of the wall, (3) #2 @ 2” are required. However, providing (2) legs will be considered sufficient, because it is within ¼” of the spacing requirement. In the plan that cuts along the length of the wall, (7) #2 @ 2” are to be provided.

The area of steel provided in each direction must satisfy the following equation:

A

sh

0.09sb f '

c

c

/ f

yt

where

spacing s and perpendicular to dimension

A sh

is the total cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement (including crossties) within

, s is the spacing of transverse reinforcement measured

is the cross sectional dimension of boundary

is the yield strength of

b

c

along the longitudinal axis of the structural member,

b

c

element core measured center-to-center of confining reinforcement, and

transverse reinforcement. In the plane that cuts along the width of the wall, the values are:

f yt

A sh

s

b

c

f '

c

f yt

=

(2)(0.049 in 2 )

=

2 in

=

4.75 in

=

5,000 psi

=

60,000 psi

The A

In the plane that cuts along the length of the wall, the values are:

sh

/

s

provided is 38% greater than required in this direction.

The A

sh

A

sh

=

(7)(0.049 in 2 )

s

=

2 in

b

c

=

18.75 in

f

'

c

=

5,000 psi

f

y

=

60,000 psi

/

s

provided is 22% greater than required in this direction.

Lastly, the region of the wall where special boundary elements are required must be determined.

Section 21.7.6.3 states that they must extend the larger of base). For the wall and design load case,

above the critical section (the

l

w

or

M u

/ 4V

u

M

u

/ 4

V

u

=

α eff

h

4

= 85

in

(9)

11

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

and

is 120 in. Therefore, the ties must extend 120 in above the base. Also, for a mat or footing

foundation, ACI 318 Section 21.7.6.4 states that the ties must extend 4 in (at one-third scale) into the support.

l

w

2.3.2.4 Final Designs The final design has a boundary element with full-scale length of 60 in. (one-third scale length of 20 in.) and a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 3.5%. The mid-span vertical reinforcement ratio is 0.27%. This is because (2) #2 bars were used at the code specified minimum spacing. Additionally, in completing the design it was verified that boundary elements are indeed required by the code and that boundary element length exceeds the length specified by code. The design drawings for the boundary element reinforcement distribution and the uniform reinforcement distribution are shown in Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5, respectively.

are shown in Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5, respectively. Figure 2-4: Design drawings for boundary element
are shown in Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5, respectively. Figure 2-4: Design drawings for boundary element

Figure 2-4: Design drawings for boundary element distribution of longitudinal reinforcement.

12

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program Figure 2-5: Design drawings for uniform distribution of longitudinal
NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program Figure 2-5: Design drawings for uniform distribution of longitudinal

Figure 2-5: Design drawings for uniform distribution of longitudinal reinforcement.

2.3.3 Detail Design Embedment and splice lengths must be designed for vertical #2 and #4 bars at the top and bottom of the wall and for horizontal #2 bars anchored in the boundary elements. The #4 bars are unconfined at embedment locations and confined at lap splice locations. Straight embedment was chosen as the method of anchoring bars into the foundation and top block for the walls. The embedment and lap splice details are designed using ACI 318-05 21.7.2.3, which refers to Chapter 12.

They are designed according to the full-scale representation. A #4 bar corresponds to a #12 bar at full scale, which is fictitious. While #14 and #18 bars are prohibited from being lap spliced by the code, it is assumed that the lap splice provisions for #11 bars may be applied to the #4 bars in the scaled specimens.

Chapter 21 specifies that lap splices and embedment lengths are to be designed according to Chapter 12, including a factor of 1.25 for development length at places where yielding is expected to occur due to seismic loading. The procedure in 12.2.3 was used, which specifies that the development length is:

13

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

l

d =

k tr

ψ

t

=

is

      3 1.25 f ψψψλ  y t e s
 
3
1.25 f
ψψψλ
y
t
e
s
d
b
40
f '
 c
+
k
c
b
tr
d
 
b
  
A
f
tr
yt
1500 sn
the
reinforcement
location

and,

where

reinforcement size factor (0.8 for #2 bars; 1.0 for #4 bars),

factor (1.0),

diameter of the bar (0.25 in for #2 bars; 0.5 in for #4 bars), n is the number of bars being spliced, and

factor is

used to account for over-strength in the steel. This yielded a result for #2 bars of:

is the

λ is the lightweight aggregate concrete

the

factor

(1.0),

ψ

e

is

the

coating

factor

(1.0),

ψ

s

d

b

is

c

b

is the spacing or cover dimension (0.875 in for #2 bars; 1.0 for #4 bars),

A

1.25 f

y

k

tr

is the transverse reinforcement index (0.0 for #2 bars and unconfined #4 bars).

l

d

=

6.4 in

=

25.6

d

b

and a result for confined #4 bars of:

k tr

= 0.109

l

d

=

17.9 in

=

35.8

d

b

and a result for unconfined #4 bars of:

l

d

=

19.9 in

=

39.8

d

b

Therefore, the embedment length to be provided was 7 in for #2 bars and 20 in for #4 bars. This also indicates that embedment of the horizontal #2 bars in to the confined region of the boundary element will provide sufficient anchorage, because the length of the confined region is greater than the required embedment length. Therefore, hairpins are not required.

Lap splices were to be incorporated in the test specimens at the first and perhaps third stories. Their design was governed by section 12.14.2.1. Since all of the bars were spliced at the same level, a factor of 1.3 was applied to the development length for the bars. Therefore, the lap splice length was 9 in for the #2 bars and 24 in for the #4 bars. Table 2-1 summarizes the embedment and lap splice lengths for the bars.

14

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

Table 2-1: Embedment and lap splice lengths.

 

Embedment Length

Lap Splice Length

#2

7 in

=

28 d b

9 in

=

36 d b

#4

20 in

=

40 d b

24 in

=

48 d b

2.4 Splice Design

The ACI 318-08 Building Code allows for the use of lap splices in the expected hinge region, yet little experimental data is available to understand the impact of splices on the performance of structural walls. Thus, the planar wall test program sought to evaluate this impact. Calculation of the splice lengths are provided in Section 2.3.3. Discussions with the external advisory panel indicated that a common practice is the use of the "dog-leg" detail, shown in Figure 2-6. This detail was used only for the #4 bars in the wall specimens. Figure 2-7 shows a typical detail of the splice in the boundary elements.

a typical detail of the splice in the boundary elements. Figure 2-6: Dog-leg detail of lapped

Figure 2-6: Dog-leg detail of lapped bars.

elements. Figure 2-6: Dog-leg detail of lapped bars. Figure 2-7: Typical splice detail. Units are in

Figure 2-7: Typical splice detail. Units are in inches unless otherwise noted.

15

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

2.5 Test Matrix

In developing the testing program for planar walls, the following parameters were considered: i) reinforcement layout, ii) spliced longitudinal reinforcement at the base of the wall, and iii) shear span ratio (or effective height of loading). Two reinforcement layouts were considered (see Section 2.3.2.4), one with longitudinal steel uniformly distributed across the cross-section, and one with most longitudinal steel concentrated in boundary elements at the edges of the wall and minimum steel reinforcement in the center of the wall. Modern walls, per ACI 318 code provisions, are allowed to have splices in the plastic hinge region of the wall. Consequently, walls were tested both with and without splices at the base of the wall (see Section 2.4). The NEES MUST-SIM facility allowed for testing of the walls with control over forces and displacements in six degrees of freedom at the top of the sub- assemblages. This capability was used to test the walls with different ratios of base moment to base shear, the equivalent of different load distributions on the ten story prototype building. The load distributions considered a) uniform distribution of forces at the floor levels and b) load distribution of that from ASCE 7 (see Section 2.2).

Table 2-2 provides a summary of the test program and the parameters varied for each specimen. The first wall tested, PW1, was constructed with the boundary element steel layout and a splice at the base of the wall. An ASCE 7 load distribution, 0.71H 10 was applied. The construction of PW2 was identical, but had loading representative of a uniform load distribution, or 0.5H 10 . PW2 served as the reference wall for the test program, as it shared at but one design parameter in common with each wall. PW3 was loaded with a uniform load distribution, was spliced at the base, but was constructed with a uniform distribution of steel. The final test, PW4, had boundary element distribution of steel, was loaded with a uniform load distribution, but was not spliced at the base (longitudinal reinforcement was continuous from the foundation block to the wall cap). An axial load of 0.1A g f' c was specified all walls.

Table 2-2: Design test matrix.

Specimen

Reinforcement Layout

Splice

Lateral Load Distribution Design Shear Demand

PW1

Boundary Element

Yes

ASCE 7 (0.71h 10 ) 2.75A g f' c (0.67V n )

PW2

Boundary Element

Yes

ASCE 7 (0.50h 10 ) 3.90A g f' c (0.95V n )

(reference)

PW3

Uniform

Yes

ASCE 7 (0.50h 10 ) 3.90A g f' c (0.95V n )

PW4

Boundary Element

No

ASCE 7 (0.50h 10 )

3.90A g f' c (0.95V n )

2.6 Foundation/Wall Cap Design

Design of the wall specimens is addressed in Section 2.3. To provide a realistic way of testing the wall, each specimen was constructed with a foundation block below the wall and a wall cap above the wall. The foundation and cap were a means of connecting the specimen to the strong floor and to the loading

16

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

units, respectively. Additionally, these served as means to provide adequate anchorage and development of the longitudinal steel in the wall specimens.

2.6.1 Foundation Block

The foundation was a massive concrete block that was used to anchor the entire test specimen to the strong floor and anchor the longitudinal reinforcement of the wall. The height of the foundation was 36 inches (91.44 cm) and was determined based on the necessary development length of the wall longitudinal reinforcement. The foundation reinforcement was designed to resist reactions introduced by the wall specimens and tension splitting introduced by the post-tensioning system used to anchor the specimens to the reaction floor. Mats of reinforcing steel were provided at the top and bottom of the foundation to provide steel in the longitudinal and transverse directions. In each mat, #8 bars were spaced at about 6-8 inches (15.24-20.32 cm). Vertical hooked stirrups (#3 bars) were evenly distributed

at 12 inches (30.48 cm) throughout the foundation in both directions.

PVC tubes were provided to provide ducts for post-tensioning rods used to secure the specimen to the strong floor. Two rows of 5 PVC pipes were provided at 36 inches (91.44 cm) to align with the holes in the strong floor. The PVC tubes were 3 inch (7.62 cm) diameter and were supported by #3 spirals (10 inch (25.4) diameter with 4 inch (10.16) pitch).

The wall specimen was located off center from the center of foundation block to allow the specimen to be centered beneath the loading units. Figure 2-8 shows a photograph of the foundation block for one of the spliced wall specimens. AutoCAD files with the detailed design of the foundation blocks can be found on the NEES Project Warehouse (see Section 8.5 for details).

on the NEES Project Warehouse (see Section 8.5 for details). Figure 2-8: Foundation reinforcement cage. 2.6.2

Figure 2-8: Foundation reinforcement cage.

2.6.2 Wall Cap

The wall cap provided a means of connecting the loading units to the specimen while providing a buffer

region against the development of stress concentrations.

The cap was detailed similar to the foundation. There were two mats of reinforcing steel with vertical stirrups. Smaller PVC tubes were used as anchoring ducts, approximately 2 inch (5.08 cm) diameter. The

17

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

cap was symmetric and centered about the wall. AutoCAD files with the detailed design of the wall caps can be found on the NEES Project Warehouse (see Section 8.5 for details).

2.7 Specimen Construction

Wall specimens were constructed in the Newmark Laboratory at the University of Illinois. Each wall specimen was constructed independently due to constraints on lab space and the availability of formwork. This section details the construction procedure. Sections 2.7.1 discusses construction of the foundation. Section 2.7.2 discusses construction of the wall. Section 2.7.3 discusses construction of the wall cap. Section 2.7.4 provides details for casting the concrete for each portion of the specimen.

2.7.1 Foundation Construction

The reinforcement cage in the foundation block was placed in the formwork, along with the PVC pipes that provided ducts for the post-tension connection to the strong floor and movement of the wall in the laboratory. The longitudinal reinforcing bars that originated in the foundation were placed in the appropriate locations. The wires for the strain gauges on these bars were bundled and routed away

from the specimen.

The foundation block was cast using a self-consolidating concrete mix (SCC); the design mix and material properties of this concrete are provided in Section 3.1. Two trucks of concrete were needed to cast each foundation block. The concrete was directly cast into the formwork from a shoot, with an inverted cone diameter ranging from 16-22 inches (40.64-55.88 cm). After initial set of the concrete, the surface was scoured with 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) groves at 2 inch (5.08 cm) spacing; this provided a mechanical shear key to aid in shear transfer at the wall-foundation interface.

2.7.2 Wall Construction

The wall was constructed after the foundation had been cast. Engineered steel forms with multiple ties were used to accommodate the large hydrostatic forces expected from casting self-consolidating concrete (SCC) over a height of 12 feet (3.66 m). Steel is a much more robust that a traditional wood formwork system and it would not deteriorate over multiple uses. Most importantly, a steel system could handle the design formwork pressures. The research group decided to purchase a formwork system from EFCO Forms. The system utilized heavy duty plate-girder® formwork. Heavy duty formwork ties and anchorage bolts were used to stabilize and hold the forms together during casting. The backside

of the formwork was erected first to provide a vertical guide for construction.

The confinement hoops and horizontal reinforcement were erected from the bottom to the top in layers. The confinement hoops were placed over the top of the longitudinal steel and then tied into position. Hoops were tied to the longitudinal reinforcement with at least four ties; two in the front and two in the back. Hooks were tied in two places and horizontal shear reinforcement was typically tied to every other longitudinal bar between the boundary elements. Wood blocks were used to space the different layers of reinforcement. At the second and third floor levels, a system of steel pipes was tied into the cage to allow for the application of floor loads via steel dowels (see Section 4.3.4). After the wall reinforcement was completed, strain gauge wires were bundled together and routed through the top of the wall.

18

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program Figure 2-9: Completed rebar. Figure 2-10: Closed formwork. 2.7.3

Figure 2-9: Completed rebar.

Walls: Planar Wall Test Program Figure 2-9: Completed rebar. Figure 2-10: Closed formwork. 2.7.3 Cap Construction

Figure 2-10: Closed formwork.

2.7.3 Cap Construction After the wall portion of the specimens was set, the steel forms were removed and scaffolding was erected to support the cap formwork, shown in Figure 2-11. The cap reinforcement was placed into the forms and strain gauge wires were routed out of the formwork so as not to interfere with the loading unit connections. Casting of the wall cap was achieved by feeding a 1/3-cubic yard concrete bucket and lifting it over the specimen with a crane. Figure 2-12 shows a wall cap being cast.

with a crane. Figure 2-12 shows a wall cap being cast. Figure 2-11: Formwork and rebar

Figure 2-11: Formwork and rebar cage for wall cap.

19

a wall cap being cast. Figure 2-11: Formwork and rebar cage for wall cap. 19 Figure

Figure 2-12: Casting a typical wall cap.

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

2.7.4 Concrete Casting All three lifts in the construction (foundation, wall, and cap) of the specimen were cast with highly fluid self-consolidating concrete (SCC). SCC is a highly fluid, workable concrete that does not need manual vibration to consolidate around tight rebar cages making it ideal for the construction of the 1/3 third scale specimen.

The concrete was brought into the lab in standard concrete trucks and placed with a large 1/3-cubic yard hopper. Typically, the foundation block was cast directly out of the shoot, but the wall and cap were constructed by craning up the hopper. The concrete for the wall was cast with flexible tremmy tubes. The tremmy tubes were placed in two locations within the web near the boundary elements, which can be seen in Figure 2-13. The tremmy tubes were 6 inches (15.24 cm) in diameter and were attached to a concrete hopper affixed to the top of the wall. Concrete was placed into a 1/3-yard hopper that was craned up and emptied into the hoppers attached to each tremmy tubes.

and emptied into the hoppers attached to each tremmy tubes. Figure 2-13: Location of tremmy tubes

Figure 2-13: Location of tremmy tubes used for casting concrete.

When form work was removed from Specimen PW4, some minor damage to the concrete at the bottom east corner of the wall occurred. Damage occurred only to the cover concrete and no reinforcement was exposed. This concrete was patched using aesthetic mortar (details are available on the Project Warehouse for Specimen PW4).

20

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

CHAPTER 3:

Material Properties

The wall specimens were designed using concrete compressive strength of 5000 psi (34.5 MPa) and a steel yield stress of 60 ksi (413.7 MPa). The mix design and actual material properties of the constructed specimens are provided in Section 3.1. The measured material properties of the reinforcing steel are provided in Section 3.2.

3.1 Concrete Material Properties

The concrete used to construct the wall specimens was a highly fluid self-consolidating concrete (SCC). A highly fluid mix was desired to help flow and consolidate around the tight rebar cage. The target design strength was 5000 psi (34.5 MPa). To accommodate clear cover and clear rebar spacing dimensions as small as 0.5 inches (12.7 mm), the maximum top aggregate was limited to 3/8 inch (9.5 mm). It was difficult to obtain a low strength of 5000 psi (34.5 MPa) because more cement, flyash, and fines were added to replace typical coarse aggregate. To help keep strength low, the water to cement ratio (w/c) was increased to 0.50. The super plasticizer was a high-range water-reducing admixture, based on polycarboxylate chemistry. Table 3-1 provides the concrete mix design.

Table 3-1: Concrete wall mix design.

Constituent

Amount per Cubic Yard

Coarse Aggregate (3/8” Chips)

1340 lb

Fine Aggregate (Sand)

1383 lb

Cement

450 lb

Fly ash

150 lb

Water

36.7 gal (w/c = 0.49)

Air-entraining agent

0.5 oz

A local ready-mix concrete supplier helped batch and test the concrete mix. After adjusting mix

properties to hone in on the target design strength, the flowability of the mix was investigated. Mock rebar cages, shown in Figure 3-1, of the most congested area of steel were built to assess the flowability

of the mix. Three separate concrete trucks with two cubic yards of concrete were shipped to the lab

and, for each batch, superplastizer was until a target inverted cone ring diameter of 20, 24, or 28 inches (50.8, 60.96, or 71.12 cm) was reached. Figure 3-2 shows the inverted cone test for a batch test. It was determined that a large ring diameter around 28 inches (71.12 cm) was needed for the concrete to

naturally flow through the tight rebar cage without the help of hydrostatic pressure or manual vibration. A ring diameter larger than 28 inches (71.12 cm) was susceptible to segregation. This was noted by slight ponding within the middle of the inverted cone test.

21

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program Figure 3-1: Boundary element mock-up. Figure 3-2: Self-consolidating
NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program Figure 3-1: Boundary element mock-up. Figure 3-2: Self-consolidating

Figure 3-1: Boundary element mock-up.

Wall Test Program Figure 3-1: Boundary element mock-up. Figure 3-2: Self-consolidating concrete inverted cone test.

Figure 3-2: Self-consolidating concrete inverted cone test.

For the foundation and wall cap concrete batches, 4 inch (10.16 cm) by 8 inch (20.32 cm), or 4x8, cylinders were cast. For the wall concrete batches, both 4x8 and 6 inch (15.24 cm) by 12 (30.48) inch, or 6x12, cylinders, were cast. Additionally, modulus of rupture (MOR) beams were cast with every wall pour. Cylinders were cast in the same environment as the specimen with wet burlap and covered with a plastic tarp. All compressive cylinder tests were conducted in a Forney testing machine according to ASTM specification C39. For PW-1, 4x8 cylinders were tested on days 1, 7, 14, 21, 28, and test day. A strength development curve can be seen in Figure 3-3.

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Compressive
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Compressive Strength (psi)

Time (Days)

Figure 3-3: Strength development curve for Specimen PW1.

22

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

On test day, 6x12 inch cylinders were tested to obtain a concrete strength at the time of testing. These were the only material tests performed on the day of testing. However, more detailed material tests were conducted after the tests to measure the stress-strain response and the tensile strength of the concrete. To determine the stress-strain response of the concrete two surface strain gauges were attached to three 4x8 cylinders for each wall and tested in compression. Figure 3-4 through Figure 3-7 show the stress-strain response of the cylinders tested for each specimen. Table 3-2 provides material properties, where f' c is the compressive strength on the day of testing, ε c0 is the strain at peak compressive strength, E c is the modulus of elasticity (57,000f' c ), and f t is the tensile strength of the concrete as determined from the MOR tests.

Table 3-2: Summary of concrete properties.

Specimen

f' c , psi (MPa)

ε c0 , in/in*10 -3

E c , ksi (MPa)

f t , psi (MPa)

PW1 5231 2.27 4123 1030 PW2 5843 2.51 4357 1065 PW3 4980 2.85 4022 1016
PW1
5231
2.27
4123
1030
PW2
5843
2.51
4357
1065
PW3
4980
2.85
4022
1016
PW4
4272
2.07
3726
878
6
5
4
3
Cylinder Max Values
Cylinder 1 - 5064 psi @ 2.35 milli-strain
2
Cylinder 2 - 5654 psi @ 2.29 milli-strain
Cylinder 3 - 5250 psi @ 2.18 milli-strain
Average 5323 psi @ 2.27 milli-strain
1
Day of test strength 5231 psi (12-20-2007)
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Stress (ksi)

Strain (milli-strain)

Cylinder 1

Cylinder 2

Cylinder 3

Figure 3-4: Concrete cylinder (4x8) stress-strain response of Specimen PW1 (Tested 6-12-2008).

23

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

6 5 4 3 Cylinder Max Values Cylinder 1 - 5128 psi @ 2.21 milli-strain
6
5
4
3
Cylinder Max Values
Cylinder 1 - 5128 psi @ 2.21 milli-strain
2
Cylinder 2 - 5920 psi @ 2.96 milli-strain
Cylinder 3 - 5308 psi @ 2.35 milli-strain
Average 5452 psi @ 2.51 milli-strain
1
Day of test strength 5843 psi (4-4-2008)
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Stress (ksi)

Strain (milli-strain)

Cylinder 1

Cylinder 2

Cylinder 3

Figure 3-5: Concrete cylinder (4x8) stress-strain response of Specimen PW2 (Tested 6-12-2008).

6 5 4 3 Cylinder Max Values Cylinder 1 - 4967 psi @ 2.51 milli-strain
6
5
4
3
Cylinder Max Values
Cylinder 1 - 4967 psi @ 2.51 milli-strain
2
Cylinder 2 - 5096 psi @ 2.93 milli-strain
Cylinder 3 - 4878 psi @ 3.11 milli-strain
Average 4980 psi @ 2.85 milli-strain
1
Day of test strength 4980 psi (6-12-2008)
* These cylinders were broke on test day
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Stress (ksi)

Strain (milli-strain)

Cylinder 1

Cylinder 2

Cylinder 3

Figure 3-6: Concrete cylinder (4x8) stress-strain response of Specimen PW3 (tested 6-12-2008).

24

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

6 5 4 3 Cylinder Max Values Cylinder 1 - 3889 psi @ 2.04 milli-strain
6
5
4
3
Cylinder Max Values
Cylinder 1 - 3889 psi @ 2.04 milli-strain
Cylinder 2 - 4124 psi @ 2.18 milli-strain
Cylinder 3 - 4208 psi @ 2.00 milli-strain
2
Average
4074 psi @ 2.07 milli-strain
Day of test strength 4272 psi (7-9-2008)
* These cylinders were broke 11 days after
1
start of test
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Stress (ksi)

Strain (milli-strain)

Cylinder 1

Cylinder 2

Cylinder 3

Figure 3-7: Concrete cylinder (4x8) stress-strain response of Specimen PW4 (tested 7-18-2008).

3.2 Reinforcing Steel Properties

The primary longitudinal reinforcement used to construct each wall was standard #4 Grade 60 deformed bars. It was not possible to build all test specimens with the same batch of steel to ensure that all test specimens had the same steel properties. PW1 and PW2 were built with the same batch of steel. The steel used to construct the four planar walls was purchased from a local Illinois steel supplier. This steel was produced under the ASTM specification A615.

Standard tension tests were performed on each batch of steel to determine the as built properties of the steel. Tension tests were conducted in a MTS uniaxial testing frame with hydraulic grips. A calibrated extensometers with a 4 inch or 8 inch gauge length were clamped onto the side of each specimen to measure strain in the bars; a 4 inch (10.16 cm) gauge length was used to measure strain up to the yield point and an 8 inch (20.32 cm) gauge length was used to measure strain up to failure. Only if the specimen ruptured within the gauge length was the measurement considered valid.

For each batch of steel 2-6 bars were tested. For each value, the values corresponding to yield, strain hardening, maximum stress, and ultimate strain were determined. The average values for each batch are provided in Table 3-3. Figure 3-8 shows the experimental stress-strain. An elastic modulus of E s = 29,000 ksi (200 MPa) was assumed for all bars. The yield strength was determined by drawing a line with slope E s offset at 0.2% strain. The stress at which this line crosses the test data is the yield stress, f y . The corresponding yield strain is ε y = f y /E s . To capture the yield plateau behavior, the strain at which strain hardening (ε sh ) was reported. A stress, f sh , was associated with this point that is larger than the yield stress; this creates a slight slope in the yield plateau, which eliminates issues associated with a zero slope when performing sectional analysis of the specimens. The maximum stress (f max ) and the

25

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

corresponding strain (ε max ) were also recorded. The ultimate strain, ε u , was reported as that at a stress of 0.9f max .

Table 3-3: Steel material properties

Specimen(s)

Bar size

f y , ksi

ε y , in/in f sh , ksi

ε sh , in/in f max , ksi ε m , in/in f u , ksi ε u , in/in

PW1 & PW2

#4

84.0

0.0029

84.9

0.015

100.8

0.086

91.2

0.12

PW3

#4

51.3

0.0018

52.0

0.0115

77.9

0.140

70.2

0.20

PW4

#4

67.1

0.0023

68.1

0.0075

109.5

0.094

99.0

0.13

All

#2

75.7

0.0026

77.0

0.015

84.6

0.050

76.3

0.058

0.0026 77.0 0.015 84.6 0.050 76.3 0.058 (a) #2 bars (All specimens) (c) #4 bars (Specimen

(a) #2 bars (All specimens)

84.6 0.050 76.3 0.058 (a) #2 bars (All specimens) (c) #4 bars (Specimen PW3) (b) #4

(c) #4 bars (Specimen PW3)

0.058 (a) #2 bars (All specimens) (c) #4 bars (Specimen PW3) (b) #4 bars (Specimens PW1

(b) #4 bars (Specimens PW1 and PW2)

#4 bars (Specimen PW3) (b) #4 bars (Specimens PW1 and PW2) (d) #4 bars (Specimen PW4)

(d) #4 bars (Specimen PW4)

Figure 3-8: Reinforcement stress-strain response with average critical values.

3.2.1 Development of #2 Bars Small #2 bars are not common construction material and are not produced by any local steel fabricator. Typically, when constructing small-scale specimens, researchers use smooth bar stock. While this type of bar has the correct net area, it does not have the correct stress-strain characteristics of typical reinforcing bar. Usually, round bar stock have cold rolled response without a defined yield plateau and low ductility common in hot-rolled reinforcing steel.

26

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

The research group decided that it would be beneficial to add deformations to standard smooth bar stock and heat treat the steel to give it a hot-rolled response. The steel was purchased in a large round spool that was fed through a special machine that stamped on external deformations in a helical pattern. The deformation pattern that was stamped on the bar was comparable to conventional reinforcing steel such that it had a similar relative rib area defined as:

R

r

projected rib area normal to bar axis

=

nominal bar perimeter

× center to center rib spacing

Then the bars were cut to 15 foot straight lengths, bundled and shipped to a special heat treating facility. The 15 foot lengths were the maximum length that the oven at the heat treatment place could accommodate. The cold-rolled stress-strain response of these bars is shown in Figure 3-9.

stress-strain response of these bars is shown in Figure 3-9. Figure 3-9: Cold-rolled stress-strain response of

Figure 3-9: Cold-rolled stress-strain response of #2 reinforcing bars prior to heat treatment.

To augment the response of this steel, a series of heat treatments were applied to small samples about 12 inches long, varying both heating temperature and duration. After achieving acceptable results by heating a sample to 1125 degrees for one hour, a test run on a 2,500-pound portion of the total lot was performed by Exotic Metal Treatment, Inc., of Indianapolis, Indiana. Thermocouples were attached at six locations within the lot, and temperatures were recorded as the forced air heating chamber was activated. The lot remained in the chamber until all thermocouples indicated that temperatures were within ±25 degrees of the target 1125 degrees for one hour, after which time the lot was allowed to air cool. This lot of steel inside the heating chamber and the attached thermocouples are shown in Figure

3-10.

chamber and the attached thermocouples are shown in Figure 3-10. Figure 3-10: #2 rebar in heat

Figure 3-10: #2 rebar in heat treatment chamber.

27

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

Twelve-inch samples from varying locations were cut and tested for their stress-strain behavior, with results shown in Figure 3-11. While some of the samples exhibited acceptable behavior, the level of variation between all the samples was unacceptable. Steel samples taken from the ends of the bars in particular showed a much lower strength than the interior portions due to the fact that the ends were exposed to elevated temperatures the longest. While the interior reached 1125 degrees for one hour, the end regions experienced this temperature for up to 2.5 hours.

To correct for this imbalance, a new two-stage heating regimen was developed by the heat treaters. First, the entire lot of steel would be brought uniformly to a temperature beneath the stabilization temperature, 1000 degrees in this case. Once achieved, the chamber would resume heating until the thermocouple requirements were satisfied for a 1100 degrees target for one hour. After applying this scheme to another 2,500-pound lot, samples were cut and tested, and the results are presented in Figure 3-12. As shown, the behavior of the #2 reinforcement was now more uniform throughout the entire heat treatment batch. After the second heat treatment regimen was performed on the remaining 5,000-pound lot of steel, all three loads were shipped to the Illinois for use in constructing the test specimens. No reinforcement from the first load was used in construction.

reinforcement from the first load was used in construction. Figure 3-11: #2 rebar behavior from first

Figure 3-11: #2 rebar behavior from first large heat treatment batch.

28

#2 rebar behavior from first large heat treatment batch. 28 Figure 3-12: #2 rebar behavior from

Figure 3-12: #2 rebar behavior from final heat treatment batch.

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

CHAPTER 4:

Test Setup

The wall specimens were tested at the University of Illinois NEES MUST-SIM Facility. This chapter provides details of the how the tests were setup within the facility (Section 4.1), placement of the wall in the testing location (Section 4.2), and connection of the specimens to the laboratory strong floor and equipment used to load the specimens (Section 4.3).

4.1 Description of Test Setup

The test setup is located in the MUST-SIM facility at the University of Illinois (see Section 5.1). A 5 feet (1.52 m) thick, L-shape strong wall that is heavily reinforced and post-tensioned sits atop a strong floor. The test specimens were positioned along the long leg of the L-shape strong wall. The in-plane direction of the wall specimen ran parallel with the long leg of the strong wall which is oriented in the East-West direction of the lab. A figure denoting the orientation of the lab can be seen in Figure 4-1.

the orientation of the lab can be seen in Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1: Plan view of

Figure 4-1: Plan view of typical experimental set-up of specimens at the NEES MUST-SIM Facility.

Loads were primarily applied to the specimens using Load and Boundary Condition Boxes (LBCBs) that allow application of forces in six-degrees of freedom. The LBCBs are described in detail in Section 5.2. The wall specimens were strong enough in their in-plane direction that two LBCBs were needed to test the walls to failure. Each LBCB was mounted to the strong wall with 36 high strength 1.5 inch diameter threaded rods. The threaded rods were post-tensioned with a double acting center hole jack to 100 kips for a total tie down force of 3600 kips. This tie down force guaranteed that the boxes would not slip during loading. To further prevent the boxes from moving upward under extreme downward force,

29

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

simple shear keys were installed at the top of the LBCBs. External sensors were used to measure slip, and no significant movements were observed.

In addition to the loads applied by the LBCBs, two side mounted actuators were used to impose lateral force at the second and third stories for PW2, PW3, and PW4. Two 100 kip double acting servo controlled hydraulic actuators were used to impose these forces. These two actuators were controlled with separate Instron controllers in force control utilizing a proportional, integral and derivative or PID control loop. PW1 did not utilize side mounted actuators.

Instrumentation reference columns were placed around the specimen to mount instruments and high- resolution cameras. Two camera reference columns were placed in front of the wall specimen to mount six cameras. These two camera columns can be seen in Figure 4-1. Also a reference column was placed on the west side of the specimen to affix instruments to measure absolute displacements. A reference stand was needed to mount the Krypton system to maximize the field-of-view of the system. This system is discussed in detail in Section 6.2.1.

4.2 Placement of Wall

The test specimens were constructed away from the testing location and moved into place prior to testing. Shoring was provided between the foundation block and wall cap to provide stability. To move the specimens into place, a special lifting rig was fabricated to help lift the approximately 27-31 ton specimens. The lifting rig is shown in Figure 4-2. A spreader beam was used to lift the specimen over its center of gravity. Cables were attached to ducts running through the foundation block.

Because the LBCBs were attached to the strong wall prior to placement of the wall specimen, the specimens could not be fully moved into place using the lifting rig. Once the specimens were moved as close to the final resting place as possible, the final movement was accomplished by pushing on the specimens using standard double acting jacks that reacted against shear keys in the strong floor.

jacks that reacted against shear keys in the strong floor. Figure 4-2: Moving test specimen into

Figure 4-2: Moving test specimen into the testing location underneath the LBCBs.

30

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

4.3 Description of Connection Details

Once the specimen was in the final resting place, connection of the specimen to the strong floor and loading units was accomplished in four stages. Section 4.3.1 details the connection of the specimens to the strong floor. Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 details the connection of the LBCBs to the loading beam and of the loading beam to the wall cap, respectively. Section 4.3.4 details the connection of the side mounted actuators to the first and second floor levels.

4.3.1 Connection to Strong Floor

The foundation block anchored the specimen to the strong floor with ten heavy duty post tensioning rods. The post tensioning rods were high-strength steel, 100 ksi yield strength, 2 inch diameter. Each post tensioning rod was stretched to a force of approximately 100 kips for a total tie down force of 1,000 kips. This was done to ensure that the design shear force imposed on the wall would not cause the specimen to slide across the floor. Prior to stretching to the bolts, low shrinkage, high strength

hydrocal was placed underneath the wall to provide a smooth uniform area for the wall to sit on.

4.3.2 Loading Beam Connection

The loading platens on the LBCBs can accommodate connections by means of a grid on 1 inch (2.54 cm) tapped holes, spaced at 6 inch (15.24) centers across the platen's length and width. Direct connection of the specimens to the loading platens was not possible due to connection tolerances of the specimens; an intermediate connection was therefore necessary to allow for creating a high-tolerance connection

to the LBCB platforms before making a low-tolerance connection to the specimen caps.

This intermediate connection element is referred to as the loading beam, or connection beam. In addition to accommodating the appropriate connection tolerances, it rigidly connected the two LBCBs together. The beam was designed to remain elastic and evenly distribute the load from each LBCB such that any “fighting” between the boxes would be absorbed by the loading beam. The connection beam was a heavy duty W14x132 steel section. Two additional 62 inch (157.48 cm) by 26 inch (66.04 cm) by 2 inch (5.08 cm) thick spreader plates were attached flush against the wide flange beam with 1 inch (2.54 cm) bolts running through a counterbored hole. One inch (2.54 cm) thick web stiffeners were placed at 12 inches (30.48 cm) on center to resist buckling. The beam was directly connected to the LBCBs with 1 inch (2.54 cm) high strength socket head cap screws placed at 6 inches (15.24 cm) on center on either side of the beam. A total of 40 bolts were used to make this connection (2 rows of 10 for each LBCB). Figure 4-3 through Figure 4-5 show the connection of the LBCBs to the connection beam and the connection of the connection beam to the specimen cap (see Section 4.3.3). AutoCAD files with complete details of the connection are available in the NEES Project Warehouse (see Section 8.4).

31

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program Figure 4-3: Elevation views of specimen to LBCB connection.

Figure 4-3: Elevation views of specimen to LBCB connection.

Figure 4-3: Elevation views of specimen to LBCB connection. Figure 4-4: Plan view of specimen to

Figure 4-4: Plan view of specimen to LBCB connection.

Figure 4-4: Plan view of specimen to LBCB connection. Figure 4-5: Close-up image of specimen to

Figure 4-5: Close-up image of specimen to LBCB connection.

4.3.3 Cap Connection After the LBCBs were connected to the connection beam, the LBCB platforms were completely retracted to allow the specimen to be pushed underneath the loading units (see Section 4.2). Once the specimen was in the correct place on the strong floor and anchored to the strong floor with post tension rods (see Section 4.3.1), the connection beam was lowered onto the concrete cap. A 0.5-1.0 inch (12.7-25.4 mm)

32

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

thick layer of wet low shrinkage hydrocal or grout on its surface created a smooth bearing surface transition from the loading plate to the concrete cap. Once the grout or hydrocal cured, high strength 1.5 inch (38.1 mm) diameter post tension rods were torque onto the cap. Thick 1 inch (25.4 mm) washers were used to transfer the load across the 2 inch (50.8 mm) diameter PVC ducts.

During the connection process, concrete surface strain gauges were used to monitor the response of the wall. For all specimens there was no significant external load introduced into the specimen during the connection.

4.3.4 Side Mounted Actuators Connection The side mounted actuators were the last piece of loading equipment to setup. An extensive analytical investigation was undertaken to determine the appropriate way to connect the side mounted actuators at the second and third story levels in which the desired load distribution from a floor slab would be introduced. Three scenarios were investigated: 1) actuators attached to one side of the wall, and 2) actuators attached to cast-in-place floor slab wings, and 3) actuators attached a multiple spots across the width of the wall. The first scenario was not representative of the actual load path because the load formed a concrete strut and was highly concentrated at the point of loading. The second scenario was the most representative however it was considerably more expensive to build and much more complex to construct. It would have been necessary to build the wall in three floor lifts if this option were chosen, and it was deemed better to cast the entire wall as one monolithic pour so this scenario was abandoned. The third scenario was the best alternative as it was relatively cheap and the stress distribution matched the desired loading distribution.

The side-mounted actuators were connected to the flanges of W14x132 beams that were post- tensioned to the reaction wall. The other end of the actuators were connection to HSS 16x8x3/8 spreader beams, which in turn were connected to two HSS 4x4x1/2 extension arms. The extension arms were connected to the specimen by ten 1.5 inch (38.1 mm) diameter high strength threaded. A six inch (15.24 cm) space between the wall surface and the rigid loading arms was used to allow the threaded rods to deform such that there was an even distribution of force across all ten threaded rods. Figure 4-6 shows a detail of the side-mounted actuator connection.

Figure 4-6 shows a detail of the side-mounted actuator connection. Figure 4-6: Side-mounted actuator attachment detail.

Figure 4-6: Side-mounted actuator attachment detail.

33

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

CHAPTER 5:

Loading and Displacement History

The Illinois MUST-SIM facility’s equipment allows for load application in all six degrees of freedom, and successful experimentation requires an extensive attention to detail. This chapter details the components associated with load control for the wall tests. Sections 5.1 and 5.2 provide summaries of the MUST-SIM facility and the loading equipment used, respectively. Section 5.3 provides an overview of the software used to control the tests. Section 5.4 provides details on the control of the planar wall specimen tests, including the applied forces and displacement history.

5.1 Illinois MUST-SIM Overview

The Multi-Axial Full-Scale Sub-Structured Testing and Simulation (MUST-SIM) facility at the University of Illinois is one of the 15 equipment sites that form the George E. Brown Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES). Central to the facility are the six-DOF Loading and Boundary Condition Boxes (LBCBs)—three in the large-scale laboratory and three in the small-scale studio.

In the large-scale lab, the LBCBs can be oriented as needed on either the reaction floor or reaction wall. The reaction wall is a five foot thick, 28-foot tall L-shaped post-tensioned concrete wall, with legs measuring 50 and 30 feet long. The large-scale facility with the strong wall and three LBCBs is shown in Figure 5-1, with a closer view of an LBCB shown in Figure 5-2. Examples of structural components tested in the MUST-SIM facility include concrete bridge piers, steel frames, steel beam-column assemblies, and the concrete structural walls discussed herein.

and the concrete structural walls discussed herein. Figure 5-1: Illinois MUST-SIM facility. Figure 5-2: LBCB

Figure 5-1: Illinois MUST-SIM facility.

discussed herein. Figure 5-1: Illinois MUST-SIM facility. Figure 5-2: LBCB resting on lab floor. The small-scale

Figure 5-2: LBCB resting on lab floor.

The small-scale facility that has a 1/5 scale reaction structure with three 1/5 scale LBCBs. The small- scale facility provides researchers the opportunity to conduct pre-test verifications with various load and displacement scenarios. The small-scale laboratory is essential to the operation of the large-scale facility in that it allows users to understand the capabilities and limitations of the laboratory and the control systems prior to conducting experiments using the large-scale facility.

The MUST-SIM facility is capable of conducting hybrid simulation tests, whereby displacement demands are computed by analytical tools and are updated with feedback from experimental data. Hybrid

34

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

simulation coupled with six degree-of-freedom loading units allows the facility to conduct versatile component testing where the structural component of interest is tested experimentally and the remainder of the structure is modeled analytically.

5.2 Load and Boundary Condition Boxes (LBCBs)

The LBCBs are large loading units in which the loading platform (shown in orange in Error! Reference source not found.) is a loading and boundary conditions point where any combination of six actions (three forces and three moments) and six movements (three rotations and three translations) may be controlled. Each LBCB weighs 35 tons and can be attached at the bottom (on the strong floor), or on the side (on the reaction wall). The unit itself is a self-contained system whereby the six actuators react within its own reaction frame, shown in blue in Figure 5-3. Figure 5-3 also shows the naming convention of the six actuators. The six actuators are labeled X1, X2, Y1, Z1, Z2, and Z3 which correspond to the global coordinate space of the LBCB as a whole.

to the global coordinate space of the LBCB as a whole. Figure 5-3: LBCB and actuator

Figure 5-3: LBCB and actuator naming convention.

The overall dimensions of the reaction box are approximately 11.8 feet (3.60 m) long, 6 feet (1.83 m) wide and 6 feet (1.83 m) high. The loading platform is approximately 7.2 feet (2.19 m) long and 6.2 (1.89 m) feet wide. Each individual actuator has a capacity of 225 kips in tension and 311 kips in compression. While every actuator moves and contributes to each single degree-of-freedom, the majority of each force and displacement limit is controlled by the actuators in the principal direction. The three vertical actuators (Z1, Z2, and Z3) are primarily used to control the z, θ x (roll) and θ y (pitch) position of the loading platform. Each of these actuators is anchored to the base of the reaction box and attached to the underside of the loading platform. Two horizontal actuators (X1 and X2) that are attached to the end of the reaction box are used to primarily control the x and θ z (yaw) position of the loading platform. One additional horizontal actuator (Y1) is used to control the y-direction position of the loading platform.

35

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

The capacity and displacement limits of the six degrees-of-freedom can be seen in Table 5-1. Pillow Block Spherical Bearings have been selected so that the motion of the loading platform is not unduly restricted in any of the six degrees of motion.

Table 5-1: Generalized LBCB capacity and displacement limits.

Loading DOF

Force Capacity

Stroke

X-Translation

430/660 kips (T/C)

± 10 in.

Y-Translation

215/330 kips (T/C)

± 5 in.

Z-Translation

645/980 kips (T/C)

± 5 in.

X-Rotation

7600

kip-in

± 16°

Y-Rotation

10000 kip-in

± 11.8°

Z-Rotation

7600

kip-in

± 16°

5.3 Load Control Software

The MUST-SIM facility uses four separate software programs to control an experiment which makes the control architecture complex yet extremely flexible and comprehensive. The architecture can be thought of as a top-down hierarchal chain of steps, substeps, commands, and checks all looped over one another. The four programs are called Simulation Coordinator (SimCor), LBCB Plugin, Operations Manager (OM), and the Shore Western control software. While these are the four software packages directly related to the control of the LBCBs, other software is utilized during the experiment to measure and record data, take pictures, and share this data with offsite researchers and collaborators. These other programs, which will be discussed later in this document, are the data and acquisition software (NEESdaq), camera plugin, Krypton plugin, Data Turbine, Remote Data Viewer (RDV), and NEES Central. The entire software architecture can be seen in Figure 5-4.

36

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program Figure 5-4: MUST-SIM software architecture. 5.3.1 SimCor SimCor (Simulation

Figure 5-4: MUST-SIM software architecture.

5.3.1 SimCor SimCor (Simulation Coordinator) is the main program that coordinates the entire experiment.

The

program was developed at the University of Illinois using Matlab. The user inputs a desired loading protocol into SimCor and it divides it up into loading steps, sometimes referred to as SimCor steps. The main function of this program is to communicate with all the other computers and software packages by sending triggers and messages at the start and/or completion of each loading step. For example, at the completion of a loading step SimCor sends a message to the data acquisition software to take a series of

measurements to record step data. A screen shot of this software package can be seen in Figure 5-5.

to record step data. A screen shot of this software package can be seen in Figure

Figure 5-5: SimCor screen shot.

37

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

5.3.2 LBCB Plugin and Operations Manager

The primary function of SimCor within the control architecture is to pass displacement targets to the LBCB Plugin. The displacement targets can be predetermined from a loading protocol, or the displacements can come from hybrid simulation force feedback. The LBCB Plugin is another Matlab program that was developed at the University of Illinois. It is a project specific program that has user defined information about the test structure. It breaks a SimCor step into manageable substeps that fit within a desired substep tolerance. For example, a SimCor step may be a tenth of an inch of lateral displacement. It would not be wise to move a concrete specimen abruptly a tenth of an inch, therefore the LBCB Plugin will divide the tenth of an inch into manageable substep increments such as 0.01 inches, or whatever is acceptable to the researchers. The LBCB Plugin manages user defined displacement and rotation tolerances, as well as force control tolerances and calculations. In the case of the wall project, a

was targeted and a tolerance of +/- five kips was specified within the LBCB

desired axial load of

Plugin. If this tolerance is not met, the Plugin will continually update the commands it sends to the Operations Manager until it converges on the tolerance or the user can increase the tolerance to force the program to move onto the next step. Figure 5-6 provides a screen shot of the LBCB Plugin.

'

0.1 f A

c

g

a screen shot of the LBCB Plugin. ' 0.1 f A c g Figure 5-6: LBCB

Figure 5-6: LBCB Plugin screen shot.

5.3.3 Operation Manager

38

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

The Operation Manager is a LabView based program developed at the University of Illinois. It is continuously receiving displacement, rotation, and force targets from the LBCB Plugin and directly communicates with the Shore Western software, hardware and servo valves to physically move the actuators. The LBCB Plugin is used to send substep commands to the Operations Manager, then the Operation Manager executes the commands and sends back the measured displacement and force readings from the system which the LBCB Plugin then checks against user defined tolerances before proceeding to the next substep. Figure 5-7 shows a screen shot of the Operation Manager.

Figure 5-7 shows a screen shot of the Operation Manager. Figure 5-7: Operation Manager (OM) screen

Figure 5-7: Operation Manager (OM) screen shot.

5.3.4 Shore Western Control Software

The Operations Manager is continuously communicating with the Shore Western control software. The Shore Western control software sits on an independent computer that houses the control hardware used to send voltages to the actual servo valves to move the LBCBs. The Shore Western software does nothing more than relay the commands from the Operations Manager. A screen shot of this program

can be seen in Figure 5-8.

5.3.5 Mixed-mode Control

An important feature within the MUST-SIM control software is the ability to control any degree-of- freedom in either displacement control or force control called mixed-mode control. Displacement control is straight forward in that the actuators are moved precisely according to the command input voltage. However, this is not the case for force control. To impose a desired force on a structure, it is necessary to know the stiffness of the structure. This is an ever complicated value to calculate in all degrees-of-freedom while a structure undergoes nonlinear damage and deterioration. The Operations Manager overcomes this challenge be continuously updating the Jacobian stiffness matrix with every

39

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

displacement command it receives. This type of force control is referred to as a discrete iterative control loop, rather than traditional proportional integral, and derivative (PID) force control algorithms.

integral, and derivative (PID) force control algorithms. Figure 5-8: Shore Western control software screen shot.

Figure 5-8: Shore Western control software screen shot.

5.3.6 Elastic Deformations Correction Another unique feature within the control software loop is the ability to correct for elastic deformations (ED). Elastic deformations are defined as the elastic movement of the system outside of the test structure. In other words, the entire systems deforms as load is applied to a structure, not just the structure. For example, the LBCBs blue reaction box deforms as load is applied to a structure, as well as the strong floor, and any connection device used to transfer load to a specimen. This unwanted movement needs to be compensated for. To account for elastic deformations, external instruments are used to monitor the absolute movement of the test structure and this information is fed into the LBCB Plugin and an ED correction step is executed at the completion of each LBCB Plugin step. It is up to the researcher to decide which elastic deformation degrees-of-freedom should be accounted for. Furthermore, it may be the case that an ED correction step is not needed provided tolerances from the external instruments are met.

5.4 Load Control for Planar Wall Specimens

The planar walls were tested under combined loading of axial load (F z ), horizontal in-plane shear (F x ), and moment (M y ); out-of-plane degrees-of-freedom were maintained at zero displacement. The capacity of the planar wall is large enough that two LBCBs are needed to test the wall to failure. However, both LBCBs need to be controlled about a common point at the top of the wall. This control point is shown in Figure 5-9.

40

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

Table 5-2 summarizes the intended loads applied to the wall specimens. Section 5.4.1 discusses the applied axial load. Section 5.4.2 discusses the applied lateral load and overturning moment. The loading protocol was reverse cyclic with increasing displacement levels; details on the displacement history are provided in Section 5.4.3.

Table 5-2: Summary of intended loads applied to the wall specimens.

Value

 

PW1

PW2

PW3

PW4

Load distribution

ASCE 7

Uniform

Uniform

Uniform

α

eff

 

0.71

0.50

0.50

0.50

V 1 /V

top

,

%

-

12.5

12.5

12.5

V

2

/V

top

,

%

-

12.5

12.5

12.5

N , kips (kN)

360 (1601)

360 (1601)

360 (1601)

360 (1601)

 

'

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

N

/(

A

g

f

c

)

0.10 0.10 0.10 N /( A g f c ) Figure 5-9: Elevation view of wall

Figure 5-9: Elevation view of wall specimen with loading units. The control point for the LBCBs is shown at the base the wall cap. The two side-mounted (or ancillary) actuators were not used for Specimen PW1. Units are shown in cm.

5.4.1 Axial Load

41

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

The design axial load for the walls was 360 kips (1601 kN), or λ N = 0.10A g f' c . The axial loads were applied by the LBCBs and held at an approximately constant force throughout the tests. Table 5-2 specifies the intended and actual axial forces (N or F z ) and axial load ratios (λ N ). The actual values presented are the mean of all load steps. For Specimen PW2, a calibration error resulted in a higher load than intended; once noticed, it was decided to keep the load constant rather than to change the intended load.

5.4.2 Lateral Load and Overturning Moment

As discussed in Section 2.1, the wall specimens were one-third scale of a ten-story prototype building, with only the bottom three stories actually constructed. The LBCBs at the MUST-SIM facility (see Section 5.2) allowed the three story specimens to be loaded with both shear force and overturning moment at the top of the wall. The applied loads were controlled such that the base reactions of the wall were

equivalent to those of a 10-story wall with a specified lateral load distribution.

The ultimate control of the tests was displacement controlled, with the control displacement being that of the top center of the wall specimen (the control point shown in Figure 5-9). The displacement history was specified by the control software (see Section 5.3). The software determined the lateral shear force necessary to achieve the necessary displacement and ensured that the applied moment was a constant relationship to this force. The relationship between the applied moment and shear at the top of the wall was determined based on the specimen geometry and the desired relationship between the base moment and the base shear.

For Specimens PW2, PW3, and PW4, two side-mounted actuators double acting servo controlled hydraulic actuators (see Section 4.3.4) were used to impose horizontal shear at the first and second story levels. These forces, V 1 and V 2 , were force-controlled during the test by using an individual Instron controller; the input voltage was determined from the Operation Manager and was slaved to the horizontal shear force at the top of the wall (V top or F x ). The floor level shear forces were accounted for in determining the relationship between forces at the top of the wall specimens. To provide an equivalent uniform lateral load distribution, it was necessary to apply floor shears equal to 1/8V top ; due to a calibration error, Specimen PW2 had actual floor shears equal to approximately 1/12V top . The side- mounted actuators were not used for Specimen PW1.

Table 5-2 summarizes the intended and actual loads applied to the specimens. The values for the actual loads are the mean values from all load steps. The variable α eff is the effective height of the base shear (V b or V base ), and is calculated as

α eff

=

M

b

V h

b

10

where M b and V b are the base moment and shear, respectively, and h 10 is the height of the scaled 10- story prototype specimen (480 inches or 12.2 m).

5.4.3 Displacement History

42

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

The walls were tested by applying a prescribed lateral displacement history for the top of the wall subassemblage (3 rd floor of the scaled prototype). The loads applied to achieve this displacement were held a constant ratio to achieve the desired relationship between the base reactions. The magnitude of the displacement for each drift level was determined to meet the following states: i) displacement at theoretical cracking, ii) twice the theoretical cracked displacement, iii) 50% of the theoretical yield displacement, iv) 75% of the theoretical yield displacement, v) 125% of the theoretical yield displacement, and vi) third story drift of 0.5%, 0.75%, 1.0%, 1.5%. The theoretical displacements were calculated using the design properties of the wall, the boundary element reinforcement layout, and effective loading height of α eff = 0.71 (from ASCE 7-02 load distribution). The yield moment of the wall was determined from the moment-curvature analysis used in the design process. The drift at this moment was computed from a VecTor analysis of the wall. Assuming the wall cracked at a stress f crack = 7.5f' c the cracking moment at the base was calculated as:

M

base

crack

=

f

crack

I

g

0.5 l

w

The theoretical cracking displacement is

d crack

=

3

w

Vh

top

+

M

top

2

w

h

3

E Ig

c

2

E I

cg

where V top and M top are the third floor shear and moment, respectively, required to achieve the base cracking moment. Table 5-3 and Figure 5-10 summarize the prescribed displacement history, including the number of cycles at each displacement level. The intended displacement history was the same for all walls, however, the actual displacement history of PW1 is different than that of the other walls. This was due to an error in conversion from voltage to inches during the first few cycles of the test. Table 5-4 and Figure 5-11 summarizes the displacement history of PW1.

Prior to beginning the displacement history described above, ten steps were taken that did not apply a lateral displacement to the wall. These "zero-displacement" steps were used to check the communications between computers and to apply the axial load to the wall. Displacements were first applied to the east (referred to as the ER+ loading direction) and then to the west (referred to as the WL+ loading direction).

43

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

Table 5-3: Prescribed displacement history.

Displacement, in (mm)

% Drift

Description

Cycles

Steps per cycle

0.02

(0.51)

0.014%

Cracking

1-3

10

0.04

(1.02)

0.028%

2x Cracking

4-6

10

0.2

(5.1)

0.139%

50% Yield

7-9

20

0.3

(7.6)

0.208%

75% Yield

10-12

20

0.5

(12.7)

0.347%

125% Yield

13-15

40

0.72

(18.3)

0.50%

16-18

40

1.08

(27.4)

0.75%

19-21

40

1.44

(36.6)

1.0%

22-23

40

2.16

(54.9)

1.5%

24-25

40

Table 5-4: Actual displacement history for Specimen PW1.

Displacement, in (mm)

% Drift

Description

Cycles

Steps per cycle

0.072

(1.8)

0.05%

1-3

10

0.145

(3.7)

0.10%

4-6

10

0.36 (9.1)

0.25%

7-9

20

0.5

(12.7)

0.347%

125% Yield

10-12

20

0.72

(18.3)

0.50%

13-15

20

1.08

(27.4)

0.75%

16-18

20

1.44

(36.6)

1.0%

19-20

20

2.16

(54.9)

1.5%

21-22

20

19-20 20 2.16 (54.9) 1.5% 21-22 20 Figure 5-10: Applied displacement history for Specimens PW2

Figure 5-10: Applied displacement history for Specimens PW2 (last step = 1305), PW3 (last step = 1287), and PW4 (last step = 1250).

44

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program Figure 5-11: Applied displacement history for Specimen PW1. 45

Figure 5-11: Applied displacement history for Specimen PW1.

45

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

CHAPTER 6:

Instrumentation and Data Collection

One of the goals of the planar wall test program was to collect high resolution data from the experimental tests to support development of numerical models. Section 6.1 discusses the use of traditional measurement systems. Section 6.2 discusses the use of advanced measurement systems, including non-contact measurements and high-resolution cameras. Section 6.3 discusses the data acquisition system used. Section 6.4 discusses crack width measurements and notes collected during testing. Section 6.5 discusses post-processing of the data. Section 6.6 discusses the naming scheme used for the instrumentations and the channel names used for collection and archival of the data.

6.1 Traditional Instrumentation

Traditional instrumentation used in structural engineering applications generally included strain gauges, displacement transducer, and potentiometers. These types of instruments were used extensively for the tests and are described in the following sections.

6.1.1 Strain Gauges Each wall was heavily instrumented with quarter bridge strain gauges on reinforcing bars and the concrete surface.

Reinforcing bars were instrumented with Texas Measurements Inc. (TML) high-elongation strain gauges, YEFLA-5-5LT. The gauges were 5 mm in length and are shown in Figure 6-1. A typical layout of the strain gauges on reinforcing bars can be seen in Figure 6-2. Strain gauges were attached to the reinforcing bars by first mechanically grinding and sandpapering the rebar to a smooth, rounded surface. The small gauge length was selected in order to minimize the effects of installing the gauge itself. The gauge location was then cleaned of any debris, and the gauge was affixed with a cyanoacrylate adhesive. The gauge was next coated with polyurethane for moisture protection and covered with a layer of butyl rubber for protection from handling damage. The strain gauge wire was finally strain-relieved by securely zip tying it to the bar.

finally strain-relieved by securely zip tying it to the bar. Figure 6-1: Steel gauge (below) and

Figure 6-1: Steel gauge (below) and concrete surface gauge (above).

46

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program Figure 6-2: Typical instrumentation layout of strain gauges on
NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program Figure 6-2: Typical instrumentation layout of strain gauges on

Figure 6-2: Typical instrumentation layout of strain gauges on reinforcing bars.

Large gauge length strain gauges were affixed to the concrete surface to measure strain on the concrete surface. The gauges were 30 mm in length and are shown in Figure 6-1. These gauges also came from TML and were PFL-30-11-5LT. A typical layout of the strain gauges affixed to the concrete surface is shown in Figure 6-3. Concrete surface gauges were attached by first cleaning the surface and applying an epoxy base layer. After setting, the base was smoothed with sandpaper and cleaned. The concrete gauge was then affixed with more epoxy onto the base and left to set. No additional protective measures were taken since concrete gauges were only installed in the final stages of test the test specimen loading preparations.

final stages of test the test specimen loading preparations. Figure 6-3: Typical instrumentation layout of concrete

Figure 6-3: Typical instrumentation layout of concrete strain gauges.

47

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

6.1.2 Relative Displacement Measurements On the back side of the wall (North face), a grid of linear potentiometers were used to measure relative displacement across large gauge lengths, to collect average strain data. Figure 6-4 shows the layout of the grid. Gauges were oriented primarily in the vertical and diagonal directions. A denser grid of instruments, including gauges oriented in the horizontal direction, was used on the third story as the field-of-view of the Krypton system (see Section 6.2) could not extend the full height of the wall. The measurements were broken into horizontal regions such as the East and West boundary element, and the web region. Similar, in the vertical direction the wall was broken up into the three story levels.

Gauges with a 1, 2, or 6 inch gauge stroke were used depending upon predicted damage and gauge length. Figure 6-5 shows examples of the gauges used. The gauges were from Celesco and were either the CLP and MLP model. All of these instruments used direct current (DC) voltage. The gauges were mounted to a threaded post that was anchored into the wall with an embedded threaded rod that was cast in the concrete. A ball joint at each end of the instrument accommodate minor rotations, and aluminum tubing was used to limit unwanted out-of-plane buckling of the measurements.

to limit unwanted out-of-plane buckling of the measurements. Figure 6-4: Typical instrumentation layout of relative

Figure 6-4: Typical instrumentation layout of relative displacement measurements.

48

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program Figure 6-5: Linear potentiometers of varying lengths. 6.1.3 Absolute

Figure 6-5: Linear potentiometers of varying lengths.

6.1.3 Absolute Displacement Measurements A series of absolute measurements were made using either LVDTs or string potentiometers. Two types of string potentiometers were used, which are referred to as standard tension and high tension string potentiometers (shown in Figure 6-7). All the string potentiometers were from Celesco. All standard tension string potentiometers were the model PT1A, and the high tension string potentiometer were either model PT101 or PT8101.

High tension string potentiometers were used to perform elastic deformation calculations due to their high accuracy over a large stroke length (see Figure 6-6 (right)). String potentiometers were also used to measure absolute displacement of the West (left) side of the specimens (see Figure 6-6). LVDTs were used to measure absolute slip and rotation of the foundation block (see Figure 6-6). These instruments were provided by the TransTek group.

6-6). These instruments were provided by the TransTek group. Figure 6-6: Typical instrumentation layout of absolute

Figure 6-6: Typical instrumentation layout of absolute measurements. The instruments shown on the left were used to measure absolute displacement in-plane and out-of-plane. The instruments on the right were used for control of the tests.

49

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program Figure 6-7: High-tension (left and top) and regular (right)

Figure 6-7: High-tension (left and top) and regular (right) string pots.

6.2 Advanced Instrumentation

In addition to the traditional instruments discussed in Section 6.1, advanced measurements systems were used to aid in the collection of high-resolution data. Section 6.2.1 discusses the Krypton measurement system and Section 6.2.2 discusses cameras used to collect high-resolution photographs of the wall damage.

6.2.1 Krypton System The Krypton/Metris/Nikon K600 optical coordinate measuring machine (CMM), shown in Figure 6-8, is a system that uses three linear charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras mounted to a fixed unit to measure the position of infrared light-emitting diodes (LEDs) through triangulation. Key features include the ability to define a measurement coordinate system, record rigid body motion of a set of points (dynamic frame), and record the 3D position of up to 256 LEDs. LEDs were attached to the front (south) face of the wall specimens in a grid covering the first two floors (lower two-thirds) of the specimens. By recording the position of these targets throughout the test, the three-dimensional displacement field of the wall surface is known. The limited range of the Krypton system is shown in Figure 6-9. Figure 6-10 shows the typical layout of LED targets on the walls.

Figure 6-10 shows the typical layout of LED targets on the walls. Figure 6-8: Krypton non-contact

Figure 6-8: Krypton non-contact measurement system.

50

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program Figure 6-9: Measurement range of Krypton measurement system. Figure

Figure 6-9: Measurement range of Krypton measurement system.

Figure 6-9: Measurement range of Krypton measurement system. Figure 6-10: Typical layout of LED targets for

Figure 6-10: Typical layout of LED targets for Krypton measurement system.

51

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

The K600’s dynamic frame capabilities are used to measure the motion for both LBCBs relative to the specimen’s coordinate system. After making these observations, the data can be operated on to produce a transformation matrix that augments the LBCB motion to align with each other and the specimen. In a similar manner, the control points (or centers of rotation) of the LBCBs can be observed and transferred to the appropriate place on the specimens.

K600 data was recorded and stored separate from the traditional instruments. The Krypton system collected continous data at approximately 1 Hz, depending on the total number of LEDs used. The data was manually post-processed and averaged over 5 seconds to obtain cleaned step data; this process is documented in Section 6.5.

6.2.2 High-resolution Cameras Another advanced instrumentation system that was utilized was the use of high-resolution cameras. Nikon D80 and D90 12.1 megapixels were used to capture high-resolution photographs of the specimen. A program called the Camera Plugin was developed by the MUST-SIM facility staff to communicate with SimCor and take pictures at the completion of each load step. For the planar wall tests, 8 cameras were utilized to capture different regions of the front of the wall. An additional camera for Specimen PW1 was used to capture the side of the specimen. Figure 6-11 shows the location of the cameras.

side of the specimen. Figure 6-11 shows the location of the cameras. Figure 6-11: Locations of

Figure 6-11: Locations of high-resolution cameras.

52

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

The photos taken by the high-resolution cameras were used for digital photogrammetry, in which a collection of digital photographs taken by calibrated cameras and stitches them all together using a set of unique targets affixed to a surface. Assembly requires an overlap of targets among the photos. This can be achieved by either taking lots of pictures with one camera, or taking one picture on each of many stationary cameras. It is the second method that is used on the wall tests, with the aid of the commercial package PhotoModeler. The finished product is a single image mapped to a defined coordinate system that removes camera lens distortions. This composite picture then provides both a single image of the specimen surface and the coordinates of all photogrammetric targets. In order for PhotoModeler to assemble the images, all targets must be visible in three different pictures from three different points of view. The positions of individual targets are calculated by triangulation, similar to the K600 system. While performing the same basic function of the K600 system, photogrammetric accuracy is lower. Post-processing can also be labor intensive as many targets need to be identified in situations of poor resolution or lighting. In the end, it is the assembled pictures themselves that is the best combination of uniqueness and usefulness to the project. Through the duration of the wall tests, crack formation tracked on the specimens’ surfaces with a permanent marker. Photomodeler provides a finished product that shows the damage progression of the entire specimen, which is useful for comparison against analytical predictions or for visualizing specimen damage states. Additional information on the use of photogrammetric data is provided by Hart (2011).

6.3 Data Acquisition System

While the measurement instruments used in the wall tests are diverse and extensive, collecting their data in a meaningful way is vital to the success of the experiments. Data acquisition at the MUST-SIM facility operates both continuously and discretely. Continuous data collection has been the norm for structural testing, with post-processing work aligning observed behavior with measured results. Such a system is manageable with a low number of instruments, but selecting individual data samples from hundreds of channels becomes a major obstacle.

The NEES DAQ software works around this problem by also recording data samples at discrete times. By linking to the control software over a network connection, the DAQ program is automatically notified when a load step is completed. When such a signal is received, the DAQ program takes a separate reading for each instrument and stores them to a “step log.” In this way, step data is readily available at the end of testing, while continuous data is also logged in case a significant event occurs between load steps.

The data acquisition (DAQ) system is made up of National Instruments (NI) hardware primarily utilizing two SCXI-1001 chassis daisy-chained together. Signal conditioning is provided by a series of modules and terminals that connect into each chassis. The modules used are the SCXI-1540, SCXI-1520, SCXI- 1521b, and SCXI-1104c which are connected to the following respective terminal blocks SCXI-1513, SCXI- 1314, SCXI-1317, and the BNC-2095. The two chassis are connected directly to a dedicated DAQ computer via a NI PCI-6289 card. Raw data can occupy about 2 gigabytes of disk space, with digital photos taking up about 20 gigabytes. All data is recorded locally within the MUST-SIM data repository, and instrument step data is uploaded to the NEES data repository.

53

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

In additional to the robust DAQ software, organizing and setting up a large number of channels is critical and can be quite difficult and tedious to researchers. Because of this, a script was developed to help synthesize metadata and channel parameters to eliminate tedious work that can easily lead to a channel mislabel. The researcher inputs and organizes all of the instrumentation parameters in an Excel spreadsheet that is used to generate input files for the NI hardware and NEESdaq. This information is also necessary to run Realtime Data Viewer (RDV), and organize data within project warehouse on NEEShub and DataTurbine.

6.4 Testing Notes

During the tests, notes were taken in at each step to document events that occurred. This included:

Observed damage.

Crack width measurements.

Photograph numbers taken on the roaming camera.

Any problems encountered with instrumentation, the DAQ, or control software.

6.5 Data Processing

As the data collected by the DAQ (see Section 6.3) collected step data throughout the duration of the tests, the amount of data processing following the test was minimal. The details on the data processing are provided for each wall specimen in documents available on the NEES Project Warehouse (see Section 8.1), thus the data processing is not elaborated on here. The data processing tasks necessary included:

Combination of data files collected on different test days

Correction of channel names

Conversion of volt data to engineering units

Application of offsets (setting initial instrument readings to zero)

Removal of bad data points

Reduction of continuous krypton data to step data (see Section 6.5.1)

6.5.1 Krypton Data The Krypton/Metris system collected data continuously and thus it was necessary to create “step” data that aligned with the other data collected during testing. Details on how this were done are not available at this time.

6.6 Instrument/Channel Naming Schemes

Two different naming schemes were used for the instrumentation; one was used by the research team at the University of Washington (Section 6.6.1) and one was used by the research team at the University of Illinois for construction purposes. Both names were combined to create the channel names provided in the sensor metadata information available in the NEES Project Warehouse.

54

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

6.6.1 UW Naming Scheme Names were assigned to the instruments to allow for easy identification of instrument type and location. In general, the instrument names consisted of 8 characters. An example of an instrument name, for the wall longitudinal reinforcement strain gauge located at the bottom west (right) corner of the wall is as follows:

x grid

z grid

 

sgw01 f 1a sgw 01 f 1 a

type

floor

The first characters are letters that identify the type of instrumentation (see Table 6-1). The first two letters indicate the instrument type. The third letter of the identification string serves as either further clarification of the instrument type or as an indicator of orientation.

Following the three letter identification are five characters denoting the location of the instrument. This is broken down into i) a two character numerical identification, from 00 to 12, of the location of the instrument along the length of the wall, ii) the floor location, from f0 (foundation) to f3 (third floor), and iii) the location along the height of the wall within the floor, identified as a letter from A to G.

Although the intent of the instrument layout was to align the vertical and horizontal labeling systems for each type of instrument with each other, ultimately this did not happen. The naming scheme for the Krypton/Metris LED targets follows the same format as the other instrumentation, but the naming grid numbers, spacings and labels are significantly different. X grids range from 01 to 15 and z grids range from f1a to f2e.

Table 6-1 lists the three letter identification for the types of instruments used, provides a brief description, and indicates the number of instruments on each wall.

55

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

Table 6-1: Summary of instrumentation and naming scheme prefixes.

Prefix

Type

Description

SGW

Steel strain gauge

Long. reinf. bars in wall

SGF

Steel strain gauge

Long. reinf. bars in foundation

SGH

Steel strain gauge

Horizontal reinf. bars

CSG

Concrete strain gauge

Surface of concrete

ADH

String pot

Absolute horizontal displacement

ADV

LVDT

Absolute vertical displacement

ADO

String pot

Out-of-plane displacement

DTV

Linear potentiometers

Relative displacement (vertical)

DTH

Linear potentiometers

Relative displacement (horizontal)

DTP

Linear potentiometers

Relative displacement (positive angle)

DTN

Linear potentiometers

Relative displacement (negative angle)

LED

Krypton target

Position of target

56

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

CHAPTER 7:

Experimental Results

This chapter summarizes the four planar wall specimen tests. The contents of this chapter is restricted to discussion of i) applied loading and base reactions, ii) measured drift at the top of the specimen, iii) initial yield as indicated by the strain gauges, and iv) a discussion of observed damage. Detailed discussion of the damage to the walls is presented in Birely (2012). Analysis of the experimental data collected can be found in Birely (2012), Hart (2011), and Marley (2011).

The specimen drift was calculated as the displacement of the control point (measured by a string pot attached to the bottom center of the wall cap) divided by the height of the wall (h w ). The rotation and lateral slip of the foundation block with respect to the strong floor was found to be negligible and the affect s of these movements were not removed from the total displacement of the specimens.

The base reactions were calculated from the experimentally applied shear (V top or F x ) and moment (M top of M y ) at the top of the specimen and from the side-mounted actuators at the first (V 1 ) and second (V 2 ) floor levels. The base moment calculation included consideration for the P-δ effect of the applied axial load (N or F z ).

Table 7-1: Summary of intended and actual loads applied to the wall specimens.

 

Value

PW1

PW2

PW3

PW4

Intended

Load distribution

ASCE 7

Uniform

Uniform

Uniform

α

eff

0.71

0.50

0.50

0.50

V 1 /V

top

,

%

-

12.5

12.5

12.5

V

2

/V

top

,

%

-

12.5

12.5

12.5

N

, kips (kN)

360 (1601)

360 (1601)

360 (1601)

360 (1601)

N

/(

A

g

f

c

'

)

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

Actual

α

eff

0.71

0.54

0.51

0.52

V 1 /V

top

,

%

-

8.7

12.4

12.2

V

2

/V

top

,

%

-

8.6

12.5

12.2

N

, kips (kN)

359 (1597)

546 (2429)

360 (1601)

360 (1601)

N

/(

A

g

f

c

'

)

0.095

0.130

0.100

0.117

Sections 7.1 through 7.4 provide a summary of the results of each planar wall test. For each specimen, the following is provided i) a summary of the specimen design and construction, including drawings and basic material properties, ii) applied axial load and the base moment to base shear ratio (load distribution), iii) summary of general response of the wall, including force-drift hysteresis plots, drift capacity, and failure mode, and iv) a brief summary, including images, of the damage progression. In summarizing the damage, the aim is to a) identify when key damage states occur, ii) show the crack pattern, iii) identify the key locations of damage and provide images to illustrate the extent of damage, and iv) describe the failure and show the final damage state of the wall.

57

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

7.1 Specimen PW1

Specimen PW1 was built with a boundary element distribution of longitudinal reinforcement, with a lap splice at the base of the wall. Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2 show the cross section and elevation drawings of the as-built specimen. Note that the cover dimension at the ends of the wall were larger than specified by the cross section design. Details of the lap splice are provided in Section 2.4. The concrete compressive strength was 5231 psi (36.0 MPa). The yield stress of the #2 and #4 bars was 75.7 ksi (522 MPa) and 84.0 ksi (579 MPa), respectively.

the #2 and #4 bars was 75.7 ksi (522 MPa) and 84.0 ksi (579 MPa), respectively.

Figure 7-1: Specimen PW1 cross-section.

58

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program Figure 7-2: Specimen PW1 elevation. An average axial load

Figure 7-2: Specimen PW1 elevation.

An average axial load of N = 359 kips (1597 kN) or λ N = 0.095, was applied to the wall. Lateral force (V top ) and overturning moment (M top ) were applied to the top of the specimen. Throughout the test, the ratio of the lateral force to the overturning moment was held constant such that the base reactions (base shear V b and base moment M b ; measured at the wall-foundation interface) were equivalent to those of a 10-story wall with a lateral load distribution calculated from the Equivalent Lateral Force procedure in ASCE 7-05. The applied load ratio (M top /V top ) was 16.5 feet (0.42 m) and the ratio of the base reactions was 28.8 feet (0.73 m). The effective height of the load was 0.71h 10 , or 2.37h w . Details on the application of the loads to the wall can be found in Section 5.4. The test was displacement-controlled, with the top center of the specimen (elevation of h w = 144 inches (3.66 m)) as the control point. The displacement history is presented in Section 5.4.3.

The following sections provide an overview of the test. Section 7.1.1 provides a general overview of the test, including load-drift response, failure mode, and comparison of the maximum strength to the expected strength. Section 7.1.2 provides an overview of the wall damage.

59

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

7.1.1 General Response

The load-displacement hystereses for Specimen PW1 are shown in Figure 7-3. Figure 7-3a shows the base shear versus drift. Figure 7-3b shows the base moment versus drift. The wall lost lateral load carrying capacity during the second cycle to 1.5% drift due to fracture of longitudinal reinforcement at

the wall-foundation interface in the east (right) boundary element.

interface in the east (right) boundary element. (a) Base shear (b) Base moment Figure 7-3: Specimen

(a) Base shear

in the east (right) boundary element. (a) Base shear (b) Base moment Figure 7-3: Specimen PW1

(b) Base moment

Figure 7-3: Specimen PW1 load-drift response.

At the base of the wall, the maximum shear demand (V b ) was approximately 0.73V n , where V n is the

expected shear strength of the cross section (see Section X). The maximum moment demand (M b ) was approximately 1.08M n , where M n is the expected moment strength of the cross section (see Section X).

7.1.2 Damage

A brief summary of the wall damage is presented here. A detailed description of the damage

progression for Specimen PW1, including a large set of images depicting the damage, can be found in Birely (2012). A time-lapse movie of damage in the first floor (lower one-third of the specimen) can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/user/NEESRWallProject#p/u/1/KC7b-k3ZRjs. The following lists

when key damage states first occurred:

1. Horizontal cracking initiated at 0.06% drift.

2. Diagonal cracking initiated at 0.1% drift.

3. Vertical cracks initiated at 0.34% drift.

4. Tensile yield of extreme vertical reinforcing bars was indicated by strain gauges at 0.35% drift.

5. Compressive yield of extreme vertical reinforcing bars was indicated by strain gauges at 0.64% drift.

6. Cover spalling initiated at the toe of the wall at 0.56% drift.

7. Cover spalling initiated above the splice during that second cycle to 0.75% drift.

8. Longitudinal reinforcement was exposed above the splice during the third cycle to 0.75% drift.

9. Bar buckling was observed above the splice during the second cycle to 1.0% drift.

60

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

10. Damage (crushing) of the confined core of the boundary element was observed above the splice during cycles to 1.5% drift.

11. Failure occurred due to bar fracture during the second cycle to 1.5% drift.

Although cracking initiated in the 0.10% drift cycles, a distinct crack pattern, shown in Figure 7-4, was not developed until the 0.25% drift cycles. Damage other than horizontal and diagonal cracking was spread from the wall-foundation interface to a height of approximately 36 inches (91.4 cm), or 12 inches (30.5 cm) above the top of the splice, but was restricted to the edges of the wall and the wall- foundation interface. The extent of the damage along the edges of the wall was i) greater above the top of the splice than in the splice region and ii) greater in the west (left) boundary element than in the east (right) boundary element. Figure 7-5a shows damage to the west (left) edge of the wall at 1.0% drift; above the top of the splice, bars were buckled, however, within the spliced region, the cover was spalled but the longitudinal reinforcement was not exposed. Figure 7-5b shows the damage to the east (right) edge of the wall at 1.5% drift; the longitudinal reinforcement was exposed in the spliced region and one bar was buckled at the top of the splice, but to a lesser extent than on the west (right) side of the wall.

a lesser extent than on the west (right) side of the wall. Figure 7-4: Specimen PW1

Figure 7-4: Specimen PW1 crack pattern in lower 2 stories following three cycles to 0.25% drift.

61

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program (a) Bar buckling at final WL- peak at 1.0%

(a) Bar buckling at final WL- peak at 1.0% drift (Step 620)

(a) Bar buckling at final WL- peak at 1.0% drift (Step 620) (b) Bar buckling on

(b) Bar buckling on way to first ER+ peak at 1.5% drift (Step 680).

Figure 7-5: Specimen PW1 damage along wall edges. Damage was more severe above the top of the

splice and in the west boundary element.

Leading up to the final cycle, the major observed damage was concentrated above the west boundary element splice, however, failure of the wall ultimately occurred along the wall-foundation interface in the east boundary element. In the second half (WL- peak) of the second cycle to 1.5% drift, at ±1.38% drift, loss of lateral load carrying capacity occurred when bars fractured at the base of the east (right) boundary element. The bars fractured along the crack at the wall-foundation interface, which had been observed previously, but the width of which increased significantly at this step. In the steps to complete the cycle to the WL- peak, additional bars fractured. Ultimately all the bars on the front of the east boundary element, expect the extreme bar, had fractured. Figure 7-6 shows the fractured bars on the front east side of the wall at the final peak. Figure 7-7 shows a photograph and the final crack pattern of the wall at the end of the test.

62

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program Figure 7-6: Specimen PW1: Longitudinal bar fracture on front

Figure 7-6: Specimen PW1: Longitudinal bar fracture on front face of east boundary element at final peak (-1.52% drift, Step 740).

boundary element at final peak (-1.52% drift, Step 740). (a) (b) Figure 7-7: Specimen PW1 final

(a)

boundary element at final peak (-1.52% drift, Step 740). (a) (b) Figure 7-7: Specimen PW1 final

(b)

Figure 7-7: Specimen PW1 final damage state and crack pattern.

63

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

7.2 Specimen PW2

Specimen PW2 was built with a boundary element distribution of longitudinal reinforcement and with a lap splice at the base of the wall. Figure 7-8 and Figure 7-9 show the cross-section and elevation drawings of the as-built specimen. The details of the lap splice are provided in Section 2.4. The concrete compressive strength was 5843 psi (40.2 MPa). The yield stress of the #2 and #4 bars were 75.7 ksi (522 MPa) and 84.0 ksi (579 ksi), respectively.

#2 and #4 bars were 75.7 ksi (522 MPa) and 84.0 ksi (579 ksi), respectively. Figure

Figure 7-8: Specimen PW2 cross-section.

64

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program Figure 7-9: Specimen PW2 elevation. An average axial load

Figure 7-9: Specimen PW2 elevation.

An average axial load of N = 546 kips (2426 kN) or λ N = 0.130, was applied to the wall. Lateral force (V top ) and overturning moment (M top ) were applied to the top of the specimen. Throughout the test, the ratio of the lateral force to the overturning moment was held constant such that the base reactions were equivalent to those of a 10-story wall with a uniform lateral load distribution. The applied load ratio (M top /V top ) was 11.9 feet (0.30 m), ancillary actuators provided first and second floor lateral loads of 8.7% and 8.6% of V top , respectively, and the ratio of the base reactions was 21.4 feet (0.54 m). The effective height of the load was 0.54h 10 , or 1.80h w . Details on the application of the loads to the wall can be found in Section 5.4. The test was displacement-controlled, with the top center of the specimen (elevation of h w = 144 inches (3.66 m)) as the control point. The displacement history is presented in Section 5.4.3.

The following sections provide an overview of the test. Section 7.2.1 provides a general overview of the test, including load-drift response, failure mode, and comparison of the maximum strength to the expected strength. Section 7.2.2 provides an overview of the wall damage.

65

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

7.2.1 General Response

The load-displacement hystereses for Specimen PW2 are shown in Figure 7-10. Figure 7-10a shows the base shear versus drift. Figure 7-10b shows the base moment versus drift. The wall lost lateral load carrying capacity during on the way to the WL- peak of the first cycle to 1.5% drift due to shear-

compression failure of the west (left) boundary element above the top of the splice.

west (left) boundary element above the top of the splice. (a) Base shear (b) Base moment

(a) Base shear

boundary element above the top of the splice. (a) Base shear (b) Base moment Figure 7-10:

(b) Base moment

Figure 7-10: Specimen PW2 load-drift response.

At the base of the wall, the maximum shear demand (V b ) was approximately 1.06V n , where V n is the

expected shear strength of the cross section (see Section X). The maximum moment demand (M b ) was approximately 1.05M n , where M n is the expected moment strength of the cross section (see Section X).

7.2.2 Damage

A brief summary of the wall damage is presented here. A detailed description of the damage

progression for Specimen PW2, including a large set of images depicting the damage, can be found in Birely (2012). A time-lapse movie of damage in the first floor (lower one-third of the specimen) can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/user/NEESRWallProject#p/u/2/Miepayt10Vk. The following lists

when key damage states first occurred:

1. Horizontal cracking initiated at 0.10% drift.

2. Diagonal cracking initiated at 0.10% drift.

3. Vertical cracks initiated at 0.35% drift.

4. Compressive yield of the extreme vertical reinforcing bars was indicated by strain gauges at 0.20% drift.

5. Tensile yield of extreme vertical reinforcing bars was indicated by strain gauges at 0.42% drift.

6. Cover spalling initiated above the splice during the first cycle at 0.75%.

7. Longitudinal reinforcement was exposed above the splice during the third cycle to 0.75% drift.

8. Damage (crushing) of the confined core of the boundary element was observed above the splice during the first half cycle (ER+) to 1.5% drift.

66

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

9. Failure occurred due to extensive bar buckling and core crushing in the west (left) boundary element above the splice at 1.05% drift in the first WL- cycle to 1.05% drift.

Figure 7-11 shows the crack pattern in Specimen PW2 following three cycles to 0.21% drift. Damage other than horizontal and diagonal cracking primarily occurred at the top of the splice (24-36 inches (61.0-91.4 cm)), although some minor spalling of the concrete was observed at the toes of the wall. Damage above the splice was greater in the west (left) boundary element than in the east (right) boundary element; the damage to both boundary element following cycles to -0.75% and 1.0% drift are shown in Figure 7-12.

cycles to -0.75% and 1.0% drift are shown in Figure 7-12. Figure 7-11: Specimen PW2 crack

Figure 7-11: Specimen PW2 crack pattern in lower two stories following three cycles to 0.21% drift.

67

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program

NEESR Complex Walls: Planar Wall Test Program (a) Bar buckling in west boundary element following third

(a) Bar buckling in west boundary element following third WL- peak at -0.75% drift (Step

1070).