Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ABSTRACT: Shake-table tests of a full-scale seven-story wall structure at the University of California at San
Diego (UCSD) provide a crucial benchmark in evaluating methods that are currently being used to design mid-rise
and high-rise concrete buildings in seismically active areas. The authors compare properties and characteristics
of the UCSD test structure with twelve tall concrete core-wall buildings that have recently been designed for the
western United States, and find that the test results are applicable to this type of structure. Using assumptions,
methods, and software that are typical in design practice, the authors constructed linear and non-linear computer
analysis models of the UCSD test structure. Iterations of assumptions for the linear models lead to recommended
concrete stiffness properties, which are then compared to published recommendations that are often used in
design. Recommended stiffness properties are lower than those commonly used in practice. Comparison of the
non-linear models to test results shows a difficulty in matching building deformations while also matching
overturning moments and shear forces. Both types of models show a significant influence of slabs engaging
columns, and acting as outriggers, increasing overturning resistance and shear demand on the wall.
939
Table 1. Comparison of key properties for UCSD test
structure and typical tall concrete core-wall buildings.
940
Table 2. Effective elastic flexural stiffness properties for
strong way bending of structural walls: Comparison for
UCSD test specimen and typical high-rise.
Wall Wall
1st 2nd–7th Floor
Floor Floor slabs Record Results/comments
Figure 3. UCSD test versus typical layout of high-rise
concrete core-wall. Factor on Ig
0.8 0.8 0.5 EQ3 Typical practice
assumption;
could be considered to represent a scaled down version
too stiff
of the hatched part of the core wall. 0.2 0.2 0.2 EQ3 OK match of
displacement
0.2 0.2 0.1 EQ3 Better match of
2 ELASTIC MODELING FOR WALL displacement
BUILDINGS history
0.13 0.3 0.3 EQ3 Accounts for bond
A linear-elastic model of the test structure is built slip; limited
in the ETABS (2006) analysis software. For the wall improvement
in match
and floor slabs wall/slab elements are used, which are 0.13 0.3 0.1 EQ3 Best match of
shell-type elements with a membrane and a bending displacement
component. The analysis model is shown in Figure 4. history and profile
Mass and forces are calculated by ETABS from 0.1 0.3 0.15 EQ3 Improves match of
the concrete self-weight. The mass contribution from outrigger factor
the post-tensioned wall that provides out-of-plane
fiber fiber 0 EQ3&EQ4 Slightly over predicts
restraint to the test is added to the central node of the peak displacement,
web wall, at each story. under predicts
Six models with different sets of assumptions on moment and shear
the effective wall and slab stiffness are created, and fiber fiber 0.1 EQ3&EQ4 Matches peak
subjected to linear time-history analysis using an inte- displacement and
gration time step of 1/240s. With each elastic model profile, under
the medium level ground motions EQ3 from the tests predicts moment
(Panagiotou et al. 2006) is used, as discussed in the and shear
introduction. All cases analyzed are summarized in fiber fiber 1 EQ3&EQ4 Under predicts
displacement,
Table 3. For simplicity the effective stiffness factor matches system
reported is applied to the material stiffness Ec , thus moment and shear
affecting the stiffness in both shear and flexure for
941
8 800 800
Experiment Experiment
ETABS 0.8/0.5 ETABS 0.8/0.5
700 700
6 ETABS 0.2/0.1 ETABS 0.2/0.1
Mn,exp
600 600
500 500
2
400 400
0
300 300
40 45 50 55 60
-2
200 200
-4 100 100
-6 UCSD Test 0 0
ETABS 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 100 200 300
-8
System Moment [kip-ft] System Shear Force [kip]
Time [s]
Figure 6. Comparison of peak displacement envelopes for
8 EQ3, using 80% of gross wall stiffness and 50% of gross slab
6
stiffness (left), and 20% of gross wall stiffness and 10% of
gross slab stiffness (right).
4
Roof Displacement [in]
800 800
2 Experiment Experiment
ETABS 0.8/0.5 ETABS 0.8/0.5
700 700
ETABS 0.2/0.1 ETABS 0.2/0.1
0 Mn,exp
600 600
Building Height [in]
40 45 50 55 60 Mwall 0.8/0.5
-4 400 400
0 0
Figure 5. Comparison of roof displacement response for 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 100 200 300
EQ3, using 80% of gross wall stiffness and 50% of gross System Moment [kip-ft] System Shear Force [kip]
slab stiffness (top), and 20% of gross wall stiffness and 10%
of gross slab stiffness (bottom). Figure 7. Comparison of peak moment (left) and peak story
shear (right) for EQ3, using 80% of gross wall stiffness and
50% of gross slab stiffness, and 20% of gross wall stiffness
all degrees of freedom. Comparisons are made to the and 10% of gross slab stiffness.
UCSD test wall response for the same earthquake
record. of gross slab stiffness show very good agreement in
The first three models apply the same effective the displacement response, see Figure 5.
stiffness multiplier over the entire wall height. They Looking at the displaced shape in Figure 6 (right-
represent the extremes of the published effective stiff- hand side), it can be seen that the displacement at the
ness values from Table 2. The effective stiffness val- lower floors is slightly under-predicted, while the gra-
ues used for the slab bound a fully cracked and an dient at higher floors is slightly over-predicted. The
un-cracked response. Key response quantities are additional displacement in the first floor could result
shown in Figures 5 through 7. Figure 5 includes from both bond-slip at the lap splice and strain penetra-
response time-histories for roof displacement, Figure 6 tion into the foundation. To account for such behavior,
shows the peak displacement envelope over the build- the stiffness of the ground floor is reduced to add this
ing height, and Figure 7 shows peak moment and shear additional flexibility, based on an estimate of this con-
values at each story. All values are shown together tribution from strain penetration calculations. To keep
with the experimental results. The moment in Figure the match of roof displacement, the effective stiffness
7 is the system moment, including overturning resis- for the upper floors is somewhat increased. Three addi-
tance from the slab and column system. Included in tional models include this effect, as summarized in
the figure showing the system moments are the peak Table 3. Results are shown in Figure 8.
web-wall moment at the base (from analysis) and the
expected wall yield moment under gravity loads. The
difference between the system moment and these latter 3 NON-LINEAR MODELING FOR WALL
moments are indicators of the slab-outrigger effect on BUILDINGS
the structural response.
The results show that use of the lower stiffness val- In addition to the linear modeling, a non-linear model
ues predicts the response much better. In particular, of the structure is built, using the Perform 3D anal-
the results for the 20% wall stiffness model using 10% ysis software (2006). The model uses vertical fiber
942
800 800
Experiment
700 700 ETABS
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
943
800 800 800 Experiment
Experiment
Perform3D wall only
700 Perform3D wall only 700
700 Perform3D 0.1slab
Perform3D 0.1slab
Perform3D 1slab
600 Perform3D 1slab 600
200 200
300
100 100
200 Experiment
0 0
Perform3D wall only 0 100 200 300
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
100 Perform3D 0.1slab System Moment [kip-ft] System Shear Force [kip]
Perform3D 1slab
0
0 5 10 15 20 Figure 11. Comparison of peak moment (left) and peak
Lateral Displacement [in] story shear (right) for EQ4, using 100% gross slab stiffness.
944
Perform 3D version 4.0.1 (2006) Nonlinear Analysis and δxe = deflection determined by linear analysis;
Performance Assessment for 3D Structures, Computers & Ec = concrete modulus of elasticity;
Structures, Inc. Berkeley, California. fc = nominal concrete peak stress;
Restrepo, J.I. 2000. Issues Related to the Seismic Design of
h = wall height;
Reinforced Concrete Structural Systems. Sesoc Journal,
13(1): 50–58. Ig = moment of inertia of gross concrete section;
Restrepo, J.I. 2006. Seven-story Building-slice Earthquake lw = wall length;
Blind Prediction Contest. NEES@UCSD, <http://nees. µ = structure ductility capacity;
ucsd.edu/7Story.html> (March, 2006). Mn,exp = expected wall moment strength;
SEAONC 2007. Recommended Administrative Bulletin on Mu = peak wall moment demand;
the Seismic Design and Review of Tall Buildings P = wall axial load;
Using Non-Prescriptive Procedures, Structural Engi- ρvert = longitudinal wall reinforcement ratio;
neers Association of Northern California, San Francisco, ρhoriz = transverse wall reinforcement ratio;
California.
R = response modification coefficient;
S1 = mapped MCE spectral response acceleration
parameter at a period of 1s (ICC 2006);
APPENDIX I. NOTATION Sa = design spectral response acceleration;
tw = wall thickness;
The following symbols are used in this paper: T1 = first period of vibration;
Ag = area of gross concrete section; Vu = peak wall shear force demand;
Cd = deflection amplification factor (ICC 2006); Vyield = shear force demand at flexural yielding;
δx = design deflection (ICC 2006); W = total building weight.
945