Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2215–2223
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Review article
Simplified model for damage in squat RC shear walls
Edward D. Thomson ^{a} , María E. Perdomo ^{b}^{,}^{∗} , Ricardo Picón ^{b} , María E. Marante ^{b} , Julio FlórezLópez ^{c}
^{a} Structural Engineer, Fluor Canada Ltd, Suite 700, 1075 W Georgia St,Vancouver, Canada
^{b} Department of Structural Engineering, Lisandro Alvarado University, Barquisimeto, Venezuela
^{c} Department of Structural Engineering, University of Los Andes, Mérida, Venezuela
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 5 December 2008 Received in revised form 29 March 2009 Accepted 28 May 2009
Available online 21 June 2009
Keywords:
Shear walls
Reinforced concrete
Earthquake damage
Fracture mechanics
Finite elements
Lumped plasticity
Elastoplasticity
Contents
a b s t r a c t
In this paper, a new simplified model for simulating damage of squat RC shear walls under lateral loads is proposed. This simplified model is based on damage and fracture mechanics. It describes the reduction in stiffness and strength due to diagonal cracking, permanent deformations due to yielding of transverse reinforcement and sliding across shear cracks. First, the analytical expressions are developed for the particular case of monotonic loading. A yield function to describe permanent deformations due to yielding of transverse reinforcement is proposed. Then, a crack resistance function, based on the Griffith criterion, is introduced and experimentally identified. Finally, the necessary analytical expressions are developed for hysteretic behavior. The proposed numerical model is implemented in a commercial finite element program and validated against experimental results. It is shown that the model can predict well the response of RC shear walls.
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction 
2216 

2. Model of monotonic behavior 
2216 

2.1. Element flexibility matrix 
2216 

2.2. Evolution law of the permanent deformations 
2217 

2.3. Evolution law of the damage 
2217 

2.4. Identification of the crack resistance function 
2217 

2.5. Computation of the model parameters 
2218 

2.6. Numerical simulation 
2219 

3. Model for hysteretic behavior 
2219 

3.1. Unilateral behavior 
2219 

3.2. Pinching effects in shear walls 
2220 

3.2.1. Sliding function of a shear crack 
2220 

3.2.2. Computation of sliding shear parameters 
2221 

4. Numerical implementation and model validation 
2221 

4.1. A finite element for squat RC shear walls 
2221 

4.2. Numerical simulations 
2222 

5. Conclusions 
2222 

Acknowledgements 
2223 

Appendix. 
Notations 
2223 
References 
2223 
^{∗} Corresponding author. Tel.: +58 251 2529279; fax: +58 251 2592173. Email address: mariaperdomo@ucla.edu.ve (M.E. Perdomo).
01410296/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2216
E.D. Thomson et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2215–2223
1. Introduction
Simulation models of shear wall nonlinear behavior can be classified into three groups: lumped plasticity models, distributed plasticity models, and multilayer models. Lumped plasticity models are easier to implement because inelastic effects are considered concentrated on nonlinear springs or plastic hinges of zero length. The nonlinear behavior of these hinges is described by complicated rules. Most used typical models are those reported by Riyadh et al. [1] Williams et al. [2], Reinhorn et al. [3], Bazant and Bhat [4] and Ma et al. [5]. The weakness of these models results from the difficulty in choosing appropriate model parameters. These models usually represent real behavior when applied to laboratory specimens and using
appropriate parameters. However, when they are used to simulate real structure behavior, many uncertainties in the correct choice of adequate parameters appear. Distributed plasticity models are slightly more complicated, as they take into account the distribution of inelastic effects along
a finite length as described by Kunnath et al. [6]. They are less
popular than the lumped plasticity models, because they have the same shortcomings of these models with an added uncertainty when estimating the length along which inelastic effects are distributed. Multilayer models are based mainly on the finite element method. These models use discretization of elements for structure representation. Material behavior is represented by constitutive relations that are usually well known. In general, the results ob tained with these models are suitable; however, the computational cost and the time consumed in the preparation of the necessary in put data make these models of limited use when large shear wall structures are to be modeled. Vulcano [7] analyzes several models
which fall into this last category comparing analytical simulations with experimental results. Models based on Vulcano’s macroscopic approach are more effective than those based on a microscopic ap proach. Other authors such as Colotti [8] and Ghobarah [9] report multicomponent models that include some refinements allowing
a better representation of the nonlinear behavior, but there is ba sically no improvement in computational cost. In this paper, a new simplified model for simulating the damage of squat RC shear walls under lateral loads is proposed. This simplified model is based on damage and fracture mechanics. It can be classified in the group of lumped plasticity models that describes the reduction in stiffness and strength due to diagonal cracking, permanent deformations due to yielding of transverse reinforcement and sliding across shear cracks. This paper is organized as follows; in Section 2 a model of the monotonic behavior of shear walls is proposed; in Section 3 the model is extended to the more general case of walls subjected to cyclic loading; the numerical implementation of the model is briefly described in Section 4 and some simulations of
experimental tests are presented in order to show the performance
of 
the model. 
2. 
Model of monotonic behavior 
2.1. Element flexibility matrix
Consider a shear wall as a deep beam, the damage model of RC frame members is adapted for members subjected to high shear forces. The model is based on methods of continuum damage mechanics and fracture mechanics; see FlórezLópez [10]. The generalized stresses and deformations matrices of a wall member are: {M} ^{t} = (M _{i} , M _{j} , N) and {Φ} ^{t} = ^{} φ _{i} , φ _{j} , δ ^{} respec tively. The mechanical interpretation of the components in those matrices is present in Figs. 1 and 2.
Fig. 1.
Generalized stresses.
Fig. 2.
Generalized deformations.
In this paper, permanent deformation due to flexural effects is neglected; only plastic deformations due the shear effects are con sidered. Therefore, a new variable denoted generalized plastic de
formation matrix is introduced: ^{} Φ ^{P} ^{} ^{t} = (φ
represents the plastic deformations due to the yielding of the trans
verse reinforcement and is represented in Fig. 3. This assumption restricts the use of the model to the case of squat elements. Generalized stresses and deformations in an elastoplastic shear wall are related by:
p
s
, φ
p
s
, 0), where φ
p
s
(1)
where [F _{0} ] is the flexibility matrix in local coordinates whose expression is:
^{} Φ − Φ ^{p} ^{} = [F _{o} ] {M}
[F _{0} ] = ^{} F
a
o
^{} + ^{} F ^{f} ^{} + ^{} F
o
s
o
^{} .
(2)
The matrices ^{} F
axial forces, flexure effects, and shears respectively. These matrices have the following expressions:
and ^{} F ^{} represent the flexibility due to
a
o
^{} , F ^{f}
o
s
o
^{} F ^{} =
a
o
^{} F ^{f} ^{} =
o
^{} F ^{} =
s
o
l
0
EA ^{} 0
0
0
0
0
3EI
l
1
−1/2
0
GA _{v} l
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
−1/2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
(3a)
(3b)
(3c)
E.D. Thomson et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2215–2223
2217
Fig. 3.
Plastic rotation in a shear wall.
where E is the modulus of elasticity, A is the total area of cross section, A _{v} is the effective shear area, I is the moment of inertia, G the shear modulus and l the length of the member. It can be seen that for large values of l, the shear term becomes small while the flexure term increases. This is the case for slender members where shear deflections can be neglected. Another significant inelastic phenomenon is concrete cracking. This effect produces a reduction of the element stiffness. The goal of this paper is the inelastic analysis of RC shear walls; therefore the latter term in expression (2) is modified by introducing the damage variable (d _{s} ) that can take values between zero and one:
^{} F ^{s} (d _{s} ) ^{} =
GA _{v} l(1 − d _{s} )
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0 .
0
(4)
Physically, the damage variable measures the degree of con crete cracking in the wall, i.e. d _{s} = 0 indicates that there is no concrete cracking, d _{s} = 1 represents a cracked wall that has no shear stiffness at all (see Fig. 4). The flexibility matrix of a degrad able shear wall has the following expressions:
(5)
Therefore, the state law of a member with shear deformations, damage and plastic rotations is:
[F(d _{s} )] = ^{} F
a
o
^{} + ^{} F ^{f} ^{} + ^{} F ^{s} (d _{s} ) ^{} .
o
(6)
The internal variables in the shear wall model as the permanent deformations (Φ ^{p} ) and damage (d _{s} ) are obtained from evolution laws.
^{} _{Φ} − _{Φ} ^{p} ^{} = [F (d _{s} )] {M} .
2.2. Evolution law of the permanent deformations
When actions on the member exceed some critical value, permanent or plastic deformations appear in the member. As aforementioned only shear plastic effects are considered. In order to compute the evolution of the plastic rotation, a yield function f _{y} is introduced:
f _{y} =
V
1 − d _{s}
− c _{s} φ
p
s
_{} − V _{y}
(7)
where V = (M _{i} +M _{j} )/l is the shear force on the member, c _{s} and V _{y} are parameters of the model that depend on the properties of the element. There may be plastic rotation evolution only if the yield function is equal to zero:
˙
φ
p
s
> 0
only if f _{y} = 0.
(8)
Fig. 4.
Physic representation of damage variable by shear.
2.3. Evolution law of the damage
The Griffith criterion, which is the basis of Fracture Mechanics, states that there may be crack propagation only if the energy release rate equals the crack resistance of the wall:
˙
d _{s} > 0
only if G _{s} = R(d _{s} )
(9)
where R = R(d _{s} ) is the crack resistance of the wall that is assumed to be a function of the damage state of the wall. The energy release rate of a damaged shear wall can be defined
as:
G _{s} = − ^{∂}^{W} ^{∗} ∂d _{s}
V
^{2} l
2GA _{v} _{(}_{1} − d _{s} _{)} ^{2}
=
^{(}^{1}^{0}^{)}
where W ^{∗} is the complementary strain energy of a damaged wall that can be written as: W ^{∗} = 1/2{M} ^{t} [F(d _{s} )]{M}. As in Fracture Mechanics, the crack resistance function has to be identified from experimental results, as described in the next section.
2.4. Identification of the crack resistance function
The model that describes the behavior of a shear wall is com posed by the state law (6), the plastic rotation evolution law (8) with yield function (7), and the Griffith criterion (9). It can be no ticed that only the crack resistance term needs experimental iden tification. In order to carry out this identification an experimental program of shear walls was carried out at in Laboratory of Struc tural Mechanics at the Lisandro Alvarado University. The shear walls were designed according to ACI Code 31805 [11]. A relationship l/d (d is the effective depth) less than 2.5 was used in order to obtain a shear dominant failure mode. Reinforcement of the specimens where chosen so that damage or cracking due to bending are negligible. A RC nonslender element with a high percentage of longitudinal reinforcement and a low concrete resistance allows a further degradation of the strength and stiffness to achieve shear failure [12]. The geometric characteristics of shear walls are shown in Table 1. These walls were tested under cyclic loading and zero axial force, see Fig. 5. Fig. 6 shows a shear wall built in as a cantilever. The boundary and kinematic conditions of the test are: M _{i} = V · l; M _{j} = 0;
where t is the lateral displacement at the top of the wall.
φ _{i} = ^{t}
l
2218
Table 1 Geometry of shear wall specimens.
E.D. Thomson et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2215–2223
Specimen 
w (mm) 
e (mm) 
l (mm) 
d (mm) 
l/d 
ρ _{v} (%) 
ρ _{s} (%) 
f c 

(MPa) 
F _{y} (Mpa) 
F _{s}_{u} (Mpa) 
SWM01 
500 
125 
600 
475 
1.26 
6.25 
0.50 
16.7 
389.3 
630.0 

SWH02 
600 
100 
850 
575 
1.48 
3.29 
0.73 
16.5 
461.0 
630.0 

SWH03 
585 
100 
700 
560 
1.25 
0.33 
0.26 
37.0 
607.8 
759.7 

w = wide of wall 

e = thickness of wall 

l = length of wall 

d = effective depth 

ρ _{s} = percentage of transverse reinforcement 

ρ _{v} = percentage of longitudinal reinforcement nominal resistance of concrete F _{y} = yield stress of transverse steel F _{s}_{u} = ultimate stress of transverse steel
f c = 
Fig. 5.
Shear wall specimen geometry and loading.
The relationship between force and displacement can be obtained from the state law (6) and those conditions.
(t − t ^{p} ) =
l
^{3}
l
d s ) V
GA _{v} (1
−
3EI ^{+}
where, t ^{p} = φ
p
s
.l is the plastic deflection.
(11)
The slope of an elastic unloading in the test (see Fig. 6), denoted
as Z, is:
Z =
V
(t − t ^{p} ) ^{.}
^{(}^{1}^{2}^{)}
Therefore, after (11)–(12) the following relationship between shear damage d _{s} and the slope Z is obtained:
Z =
1
l
3 l
3EI ^{+}
GA _{v} (1−d _{s} )
Then
d _{s} = 1 −
GA _{v}
l
1
1 l
3
Z ^{−}
3EI
(13) 

. 
(14) 
It 
can be noted that this procedure to measure shear damage 
is 
a modification of the stiffness variation method of continuum 
damage mechanics, Lemaitre [13]. The energy release rate can be computed from Eq. (10) with the experimental values of V and d _{s} . Fig. 7 shows the energy release values for specimen SWM01. An expression for the crack resistance function is:
R (d s ) = G crs + q s
ln _{(}_{1} − d _{s} _{)}
(1 − d _{s} )
.
(15)
Two member dependent parameters are necessary to define the crack resistance of the wall: G _{c}_{r}_{s} and q _{s} . A plot of this function with appropriate values of the parameters can also be seen in Fig. 7.
A good correlation is observed between the experimental results
and the proposed crack resistance function. A similar analytical
expression was proposed by Cipollina et al. [14] for RC frames.
2.5. Computation of the model parameters
The proposed model has four parameters: G _{c}_{r}_{s} , q _{s} , c _{s} , V _{y} ; they depend on the crosssection of the wall, the horizontal and
Fig. 6.
Representation of the variable Z .
E.D. Thomson et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2215–2223
2219
Fig. 7.
Damage variable vs. Energy release rate for shear wall SWM01.
vertical reinforcement, and the material properties. The direct determination of these parameters is not convenient; instead they can be computed by the resolution of the following system of equations:
V
V
V
V
= V _{c}_{r}
= V _{p} = V _{u} = V _{u}
implies
implies
implies
implies
d _{s} = 0
φ
p
s
= 0
dV /dd _{s} = 0
φ
p
s
= φ
p
_{u}_{s}
(16a)
(16b)
(16c)
(16d)
where, V _{c}_{r} is the shear that produces the first diagonal crack, V _{p} is the shear that lead to yielding of transverse reinforcement, V _{u} is the ultimate shear resisted by the wall, and φ _{u}_{s} is the ultimate plastic rotation. All these wall properties can be computed from conventional reinforced concrete theory. The cracking shear of a RC member, when the member is sub jected to shear and axial loads can be obtained by the expression of ACI 31805 [11]:
p
Table 2 Computed properties of the Specimen SWM01.
Specimen 
V _{c}_{r} 
V _{p} 
V _{u} 
φ 
P 

us 

SWM01 
34.05 
50.75 
170.60 
0.0066 

V _{c}_{r} = shear force that produces the first diagonal crack (kN) V _{p} = shear force that yields the horizontal reinforcement (kN) V _{u} = the ultimate shear force resisted by the wall (kN) 

φ 
P _{u}_{s} = the ultimate plastic rotation in a member due to shear 

Table 3 Model parameters of the Specimen SWM01. 

Specimen 
V _{y} 
c _{s} 
G _{c}_{r}_{s} 
q _{s} 

SWM01 
51.72 
61371 
3.73 
−253.46 

V _{y} = parameter for yield function (kN) c _{s} = parameter for yield function (kN) G _{c}_{r}_{s} = parameter for crack resistance function (kN mm) q _{s} = parameter for crack resistance function (kN mm) 
2.6. Numerical simulation
A simulation of the SWM01 test was carried out. The results of this simulation are shown in Fig. 8(b). As it can be seen, the proposed model represents adequately the evolution of the damage due to shear and the accumulation of plastic deformations in the wall. The wall properties used for the simulation are presented in Table 2 and the corresponding model parameters are
shown in Table 3. The envelope of the numerical result can be seen, together with the experimental results, in Fig. 8(a). It can be observed that the model represents correctly the experimental behavior of the wall.
3. Model for hysteretic behavior
V _{c}_{r} = 1 +
14A _{g} f
P
c
6
0.8A _{g}
(17)
where A _{g} is the total area of the wall cross section, f
resistance of the concrete in MPa, and P is the axial load on the wall.
The shear load that leads to yielding of transverse reinforce ment can be obtained by the expression of ACI 31805 [11]:
is the nominal
c
V p = ^{} A _{v} F _{y} Cotθ
s
d
(18)
where A _{v} is the transverse reinforcement area of the wall, d is the effective depth of the wall, F _{y} is the yielding stress of transverse reinforcement in MPa, s is the separation between stirrups, and θ is the angle between the compression strut and the longitudinal axis of the shear wall. The ultimate shear can be obtained by the expression proposed in Sezen and Moehle [15]:
V u = A _{v} F _{y} d
s
+ ^{} 0.5 ^{} f
c
l/d
1 +
P
c
A g 0.8A _{g} .
0.5
^{} f
(19)
The ultimate plastic rotation for a shear load can be computed by the expression proposed by Park and Paulay [16]:
φ
us = (F _{s}_{u} − F _{y} )A _{v}
P
1
c 0.25l
E
s
E _{s} ts
ρ
s
E
+
(20)
where the F _{s}_{u} is the ultimate stress of the transverse reinforcement in MPa, E _{s} is the modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement in MPa, E _{c} is the modulus of elasticity of concrete in MPa, ρ _{s} is the percentage of transverse reinforcement.
3.1. Unilateral behavior
During cyclic loadings, two distinctive sets of shear cracks can
appear in the wall (see Fig. 9). Each set is mainly related to a specific
direction of the shear load. In continuum damage mechanics, similar phenomena are represented by the introduction of two damage variables. One of them is related to microcracking density due to positive stress (positive damage) and the other represents damage due to negative stress (negative damage), see [17]. When the shear force changes sign, one set of cracks tends to close and its presence has a reduced effect in the wall behavior while the other set of cracks tends to open and became the dominant stiffness reduction phenomenon. This class of behavior is called ‘‘unilateral’’ in the damage mechanics literature. The model described in this paper can include the concept to unilateral damage as described in FlórezLópez [10]. There are now
, which characterize
two damage variables for shear: d
the state of damage due to positive and negative shear forces, respectively (see Fig. 9).
+
s
and d
−
s
The elasticity law (1) can be generalized as:
(21)
where, { M _{+} } represents the positive part of the elements of matrix {M} and { M _{−} } is the negative part of the elements of {M}; i.e.
^{} Φ − Φ ^{P} ^{} = ^{} F(d ) ^{}^{} M _{+} ^{} + ^{} F(d
+
s
−
s
) ^{}^{} M _{−} ^{}
M _{i} _{+} 
= M _{i} 
if M _{i} > 
0 
and 
M _{i} _{+} 
= 0 otherwise 
(22a) 

M _{i} _{−} = M _{i} 
if M _{i} < 0 
and 
M _{i} _{−} = 0 
otherwise. 
(22b) 
The flexibility matrices have the same basic form of Eq. (5)
substituting d _{s} by d
that for a positive shear force the flexibility terms are increased
) ^{} . It can be noticed
+
s
and d
−
s
: ^{} F(d
+
s
) ^{} and ^{} F(d
−
s
2220
E.D. Thomson et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2215–2223
Fig. 8.
Shear wall SWM01 (a) Experimental results (b) Numerical simulation.
only by the damage variable d
totally closed with no influence at all in the wall behavior.
The evolution of shear damage is described according again to the Griffith criterion:
and negative cracks are assumed
+
s
˙
(23a)
d
The plastic evolution law is similar to the one for the model of monotonic behavior, but the yield function has now two expres sions: one for positive actions and another for negative ones.
d
(23b)
+
˙
s
−
s
>
>
0
0
only if G only if G
+
s
−
s
=
=
R(d
R(d
+
s
−
s
)
).
f _{y} =
V
(1 − d
+
s
_{)} − X − Q ;
f _{y} = −
V
(1 − d
−
s
) + X − Q
if
V
(1 − d
+
s
)(1 − d
−
s
_{)}
otherwise
− αc _{s} φ ≥ 0
p
s
(24)
where X is a kinematic hardening term, and Q is an isotropic hard ening term, which are defined as follows:
Fig. 9.
Representation of positive and negative shear damage.
X
Q
The variable p _{s} is the maximum plastic rotation at any given time of the entire plastic deformation history.
P
= 0.60c _{s} φ = 0.40c _{s} p _{s} + V _{y} .
s
(25) 
Fig. 10. 
(a) Interface between two media. (b) Nonslide domain. 
(26) 
3.2.1. Sliding function of a shear crack The process of slide across a shear crack can also be explained in terms of Coulomb friction criterion. Consider a shear crack in a shear wall which has been formed under positive load. As the load is reduced to zero, the crack remains open. Once the load starts to be applied in the negative direction, friction across the crack is small, but as the crack begins to close, friction increases gradually, which can be seen as a gradual increase in the normal stress and consequentially in the slide resistance. Additionally, if reinforcement yielding has occurred as the crack opens, it is evident that in order to close the crack completely, the reinforcement must be yielded in compression. Therefore, there is an interaction between two phenomena: slide across shear cracks and yield of the reinforcement. Both phenomena generate plastic rotations in the wall. A generalization of the concept of Coulomb friction criterion can be used to describe the behavior of an inelastic shear wall with slide. Thus, the following ‘‘slide function’’ is introduced:
(28)
Expression (28) allows one to define the evolution of plastic rota tions as follows: there will be increments of the plastic rotations due to slide across shear cracks if the shear force reaches the crit ical value k _{s} , otherwise these increments are null. In the case of Coulomb friction criterion, it is accepted that the slide critical value depends on the normal stresses on the interface. For slide across shear cracks, it will be assumed that the
3.2. Pinching effects in shear walls
The so called pinching effect in the hysteretic behavior curves was observed during the experimental analyses. This phenomenon is due to some sliding between the cracked surfaces before they come in full contact [18]. The basis for the modeling of this phenomenon is explained below. Consider an interface between two different continuum bodies as is shown in Fig. 10(a) and let σ and τ be the normal and
shear stresses on the interface. If the surface is characterized by
a Coulomb friction criterion, the relative horizontal displacement h between the blocks obeys the following law:
˙ 

h 
> 0 
if τ  − τ _{s} (σ ) = 
0 
˙ 

h 
= 0 
if τ  − τ _{s} (σ ) < 
_{0} 
(27)
where the term τ _{s} is the slide resistance that depends on the
normal stress. The nonslide domain, for an arbitrary resistance,
is represented in Fig. 10(b). It can be noted that slide occurs when
the shear stress reaches the slide resistance. The latter value is not constant but depends on the normal stress. For higher values of the compressive normal stress, higher values of the slide resistance are obtained. A general presentation of interface behavior can be seen in plasticity textbooks (see for instance Salençon [19]).
f _{s} = V − k _{s} .
E.D. Thomson et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2215–2223
2221
Fig. 11.
Interaction between yield and slide functions.
critical value k _{s} corresponds to a hardening function. The analytical determination of the hardening function is a very complex problem, therefore the following phenomenological expression is proposed:
(29)
An exponential function of the plastic rotation has been chosen so that the typical pinched curves are obtained when slide is present in the wall. The term V _{o} will be called ‘‘slide resistance’’ which is a concept similar to the yield shear force in plasticity, i.e., V _{o} is the shear force that produces slide when no plastic rotations have occurred yet. The computation of the parameters V _{o} and γ will be discussed in a following section. To model sliding shear together with damage due to cracking, a slide function due to sliding shear is proposed, similar to that proposed by Picón et al. [20] for a similar phenomenon observed in beams with bond failure. This slide function (f _{s} ) is defined as follows:
_{k} s _{=} _{V} o _{e} sign(V )γ φ
p
s
.
if
V
(1 − d
then f _{s} =
+ )(1 − d
s
V
−
s
_{)}
(1 − d
+
s )
else f _{s} =
V
(1 − d
−
s
)
p
s
≥ 0
− αc _{s} φ
_{−}
_{V} o _{e} sign(V )γ φ
p
s
_{−}
_{V} o _{e} sign(V )γ φ
p
^{s}
.
(30)
Now, there are two yield functions which interact, one due to actual yielding of horizontal reinforcement and the other due to sliding shear. The function which controls the evolution of plastic deforma tions will be the one with the largest value at any given time as is illustrated in Fig. 11. This function takes into account the fact that on closure of the shear cracks, there are two competing effects: friction between crack faces and compression forces acting on the horizontal rein forcement.
3.2.2. Computation of sliding shear parameters
In expressions (29) and (30), two new parameters are intro duced: V _{o} and γ . Where V _{o} represents the value of shear force which produces slide across a crack for zero plastic rotation and
γ is a parameter which can be calculated by solving the following
equations:
if f _{y}
or
f _{s} = 0
then
G
G
+
s
−
s
=
=
R(d
R(d
+
s
−
s
)
)
for positive actions for negative actions.
^{(}^{3}^{1}^{)}
As a result, the following expression is obtained for positive ac tions:
γ =
(1 − d
+
s
) ln 2GA _{v} R(d
+
s
)
2
l·V
0
2 2GA _{v} (1−d
l
+
s
) ^{2} R(d
+
s
)
−(1 − d
+
s
)V _{y} − (1 − α)(1 − d
+
s
)c _{s} p _{s}
(32)
Fig. 12.
Effect of γ parameter.
Fig. 13.
Generalized displacements {q} and internal forces {Q }.
and, for negative actions:
γ =
(1 − d
−
s
)
) ln 2GA _{v} R(d
−
s
2
l·V
0
2 2GA _{v} (1−d
l
−
s
) ^{2} R(d
−
s
)
−(1 − d
−
s
)V _{y} − (1 − α)(1 − d
−
s
)c _{s} p _{s}
. (33)
The effect of the γ parameter on the hysteretic curves can be seen
in Fig. 12.
4. Numerical implementation and model validation
4.1. A finite element for squat RC shear walls
The model can be included in conventional structural analysis programs as a new finite element. The generalized displacements (degrees of freedom) and internal forces of the element are
, q _{6} ) and {Q } ^{t} =
given, respectively, by {q} ^{t} = (q _{1} , q _{2} ,
, Q _{6} ) as indicated in Fig. 13. A finite element is defined
as the set of equations that relate the generalized displacements {q} with the internal forces {Q }. A finite element for a RC shear wall is
composed by the proposed model and two additional equations. The first one is denoted kinematic equation and relates the generalized deformations {Φ} with the generalized displacements {q}. The second one is the element equilibrium equation that relates the element internal forces {Q } with the generalized stresses {M}. The kinematic equation is
(Q _{1} , Q _{2} ,
{Φ} _{=} _{[}_{B}_{]} {q}
secα
l
secα
l − cos α
[B] _{=}
cos α
^{−}
cos α
^{−}
−secα
l 1
0
0
l
secα
−
l
secα
−
l
cos α
cos α
l
cos α
l
secα
^{0}
^{1}
0
(34)
where [B] is called transformation matrix and α is the angle
between the chord of the element and the global axis X (see Fig. 13).
The member equilibrium equation can be expressed as
{Q} _{=} _{[}_{B}_{]} ^{t} {M} _{.}
(35)
2222
E.D. Thomson et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2215–2223
Fig. 14.
Specimen SWH02 (a) Experimental results (b) Numerical simulation.
Fig. 15.
Specimen SWH03 (a) Experimental results (b) Numerical simulation.
Table 4 Computed properties of the specimens SWH02 and SWH03.
Specimen 
V _{c}_{r} 
V _{p} 
V _{u} 
φ 
P 

us 

SWH02 
32.50 
145.47 
193.04 
0.0162 

SWH03 
47.44 
74.15 
154.84 
0.0053 

V _{c}_{r} = shear force that produces first diagonal crack (kN) V _{p} = shear force that yields horizontal reinforcement (kN) V _{u} = ultimate shear force resisted by a shear wall (kN) 

φ 
P _{u}_{s} = ultimate plastic rotation in a member due to shear 
The finite element for squat RC walls was included in the library of a commercial FE program [21]. The numerical implementation of the model was carried out in a similar way as is described in [22].
4.2. Numerical simulations
In order to validate the model some additional tests were carried out. The specimens are similar to the one described in Section 2. They were called SWH02 and SWH03 and its geometry is presented in Table 1. The specimens were subjected to cyclic lateral loading of increasing amplitude and zero axial force. Figs. 14 and 15 show the experimental results and the numerical simulations of those tests. The shear wall properties for the simulation are presented in Table 4 and the corresponding model parameters are shown in Table 5. It can be noticed that two degrees of pinching can be observed in these tests. This difference might be related to the percentage of transversal reinforcement in both specimens (0.73 % for SW H02 and 0.26 % for SWH03). In the model the degree of pinching is controlled by the parameter V _{o} in Eq. (30). So far there is no validated procedure to compute this parameter as a function of the wall characteristics and this is a limitation of the model.
Table 5 Model parameters of the specimens WWH02 and SWH03.
Specimen 
V _{y} 
c _{s} 
G _{c}_{r}_{s} 
q _{s} 
V _{o} 
SWH02 
189.70 
20427 
6.99 
−668.18 
103.52 
SWH03 
78.53 
63076 
11.27 
−322.18 
45.95 
V _{y} = parameter for yield function (kN) c _{s} = parameter for yield function (kN) G _{c}_{r}_{s} = parameter for shear damage function (kN · mm) q _{s} = parameter for shear damage function (kN · mm) V _{o} = parameter for shear slide function (kN) 
The envelope of the numerical results can be seen, together with the experimental results, in Fig. 14(a) and Fig. 15(a). It can be observed that the model represents correctly the experimental behavior of squat RC shear walls.
5. Conclusions
A model for the simulation of damage in squat RC shear walls
under cyclic lateral loads has been proposed. It is based on concepts and methods of damage and fracture mechanics. It allows, at least in a qualitative manner, a representation of the following effects: stiffness and strength degradation due, mainly, to diagonal cracking of the concrete; plastic deformations due to yield of the horizontal reinforcement; and sliding shear across diagonal cracks (‘‘pinching effect’’).
A good correlation between experiment and model can be
appreciated. Most parameters of the model can be determined from conventional reinforced concrete theory. In its present state, the model does not account for the combined damage due to shear and bending, as in tall shear walls, where cracking due to bending may be more significant than cracking due to shear.
E.D. Thomson et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2215–2223
2223
Acknowledgements
The experimental investigation presented in this paper was carried out in the Laboratory of Structural Mechanics at the Lisandro Alvarado University. The research work was sponsored by FONACIT and CDCHT Lisandro Alvarado University, Venezuela.
Appendix. Notations
The following symbols are used in this paper:
A
A
A
c
total cross section area gross area of concrete section effective shear area of cross section parameter for yield function
effective depth shear damage variable
_{g}
_{v}
_{s}
d
d
d s
d s
E
_{c}
E
E _{s}
_{s}
+ shear damage variable for positive actions
−
f c
f _{s}
F _{s}_{u}
f _{y}
F _{y}
[F _{o} ]
shear damage variable for negative actions modulus of elasticity of concrete
modulus of elasticity modulus of elasticity of steel
nominal resistance of the concrete shear slide function ultimate stress of transverse steel yield function yield stress of transverse steel flexibility matrix of member
[F
[F ^{f}
o
s
[F ]
o
_{c}_{r}_{s}
_{s}
+
G s
G s
−
a
o
_{]} flexibility matrix due to axial forces
] flexibility matrix due to flexure effects
flexibility matrix due to shear effects shear flexibility matrix of a damaged wall flexibility matrix of a damaged wall
shear modulus parameter for shear damage function energy release rate of damaged shear wall
energy release rate of a damaged shear wall for positive actions
energy release rate of a damaged shear wall for negative actions
relative displacement between two blocks of an interface critical shear force that produces slide
length of wall flexural moments at nodes i and j of a member positive part of the elements of matrix {M} negative part of the elements of matrix {M}
axial force in a member
axial load maximum plastic rotation achieved parameter for shear damage function
isotropic hardening term for yield function percentage of transverse reinforcement percentage longitudinal reinforcement crack resistance function
thickness of wall
shear force in a member shear force that produces first diagonal crack parameter for shear slide function shear force that yields horizontal reinforcement ultimate shear force resisted by a shear wall
[F ^{s} (d _{s} )]
[F(d _{s} )]
G
G
G
h
k _{s}
l
M _{i} , M _{j}
M _{+} M _{−}
N
P
p
q
Q
_{s}
_{s}
ρ ρ R, R(d _{s} )
e
V
_{s}
_{v}
V _{c}_{r}
V _{o}
V _{p}
V
_{u}
V _{y}
w
parameter for yield function
wide of wall complementary strain energy of a damaged wall
W ^{∗}
X kinematic hardening term for yield function
Z slope of elastic unloading
α parameter of yield function
δ axial elongation of the member cord
t
t ^{p}
φ _{i} , φ _{j}
horizontal displacement at top of shear wall plastic horizontal displacement at top of wall total rotation at nodes i and j of member
plastic rotation in a member due to shear
ultimate plastic rotation in a member due to shear
P
φ s
φ
P
_{u}_{s}
γ parameter for shear slide function
σ normal stress across an interface
τ
τ _{s}
shear stress across an interface shear slide resistance
References
[1] Riyadh H, Mohamad M, Murat D. Prediction of damage in R/C shear panels subjected to reversed cyclic loading. J Earth Eng 2005;9(1):41–66. [2] Williams MS, Villernure I, Sexsmith RG. Evaluation of seismic damage indices for concrete elements loaded in combined shear and flexure. ACI Struct J 1997;
94(3):315–22.
[3] Reinhorn AM, Kunnath SK, Mander JB. In: Fafjar P, Krawinkler yH, editors. Seismic design of structures for damage control in nonlinear seismic analysis and design of reinforced concrete buildings. London: Elsevier Applied Science;
1992. p. 63–76.
[4] Bazant ZD, Bhat PD. Prediction of hysteresis of reinforced concrete members. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1977;103(1):153–80. [5] Ma SM, Bertero VV, Popov EP. Experimental and analytical studies on the hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete rectangular and T beams. Report No. EERC 762, Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
of California, 1976. [6] Kunnath SK, Reinhorn A, Park YJ. Analytical modeling of inelastic seismic response of R/C structures. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1990;116(4):996–1017.
[7] Vulcano A. In: Fafjar P, Krawinkler yH, editors. Macroscopic modeling for nonlinear analysis of rc structural walls in nonlinear seismic analysis and design of reinforced concrete buildings. London: Elsevier Applied Science;
1992. p. 81–202.
[8] 
Colotti V. Shear behavior of RC structural walls. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1993;119(3): 
728–46. 

[9] 
Ghobarah A, Youssef M. Modelling of reinforced concrete structural walls. Eng 
Struct, Elsevier Science 1999;21(10):912–23. [10] FlórezLópez J. Simplified model of unilateral damage for RC frames. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1995;121(12):1765–72. [11] American Concrete Institute (ACI). Building code requirement for structural concrete. ACI Committee 318, Farmington Hills, Mich, 2005. [12] Woodward KA, Jirsa JO. Influence of reinforcement on RC short columns resistance. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1984;110(1):90–104. [13] Lemaitre J. A course on damage mechanics. Germany: SpringerVerlag; 1992.
[14] Cipollina A, LópezInojosa A, FlórezLópez J. A simplified damage mechanics approach to nonlinear analysis of frames. Comput Struct 1995;54(6):1113–26. [15] Sezen H, Moehle J. Shear strength model for lightly reinforced concrete columns. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2004;130(11):1692–703. [16] Park R, Paulay T. Reinforced concrete structures. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1975. [17] Ladeveze P. On an anisotropic damage theory. In: Proc. of the CNRS international colloquium of failure criteria of structural media. France: Villard de Lans; 1983. [18] Saatcioglu M, Humar JM. Dynamic analysis of buildings for earthquake resistant design. J Civ Eng Can 2003;30:338–59.
[19]
Salençon J. Calcul à la rupture et analyse limite. Presses de l’école nationale des ponts et chaussées, Paris, France, 1983.
[20] PicónRodríguez R, QuinteroFebres C, FlórezLópez J. Modeling of cyclic bond deterioration in RC beamcolumn connections. Struct Eng Mech 2007;26(5):
569–89.
[21] Abaqus user’s manual – Version 6.2. Pawtucket, RI: Hibbitt, Karlson & Sorensen, Inc; 2001.
[22]
Marante ME, FlórezLópez J. Three dimensional analysis of reinforced concrete frames based on lumped damage mechanics. Int J Solids and Struct 2003;
40(19):5109–23.
Molto più che documenti.
Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.
Annulla in qualsiasi momento.