Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Diego Vargas

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Effective sections properties in NZS-3101 [3]. Table 1

Table 1 Effective sections properties in NZS-3101 [3]. Table 1

Related Figures (18)

Fig. 1. Geometry of some wall specimens. prescribed by codes or reported in a literature review. The effect o! geometrical and mechanical properties of walls on stiffness are also assessed in this section. In addition, a semi-empirical model for pre- dicting the stiffness degradation associated to limit states and perfor- mance levels is proposed. Lateral stiffness was assessed in 23 solid walls (without openings) of the 39 wall specimens tested under quasi-static reversed-cyclic load (Table 2). Walls tested under quasi-static
Fig. 1. Geometry of some wall specimens. prescribed by codes or reported in a literature review. The effect o! geometrical and mechanical properties of walls on stiffness are also assessed in this section. In addition, a semi-empirical model for pre- dicting the stiffness degradation associated to limit states and perfor- mance levels is proposed. Lateral stiffness was assessed in 23 solid walls (without openings) of the 39 wall specimens tested under quasi-static reversed-cyclic load (Table 2). Walls tested under quasi-static
* Without web reinforcement, § Wall with openings. Table 2
* Without web reinforcement, § Wall with openings. Table 2
Experimental and theoretical stiffness.
Experimental and theoretical stiffness.
Correlation coefficient (r) for the different variables studied.
Correlation coefficient (r) for the different variables studied.
Fig. 2. Stiffness degradation curves in terms of aspect ratio of walls: (a) h,/ly = 0.5, (b) hy/ly = 1, (c) hy/ly = 2, (d) all walls.
Fig. 2. Stiffness degradation curves in terms of aspect ratio of walls: (a) h,/ly = 0.5, (b) hy/ly = 1, (c) hy/ly = 2, (d) all walls.
deriving Eq. (5) needed for computing R’ for quasi-static tests. From trends of the experimental results in Fig. 6, proposed values of coeffi- cients a, Bi, @2 and Bs. are included in Table 5. An iterative nonlinear regression an analysis was performed for deriving such coefficients in terms of the aspect ratio of walls. where R’ characterizes the drift ratio associated to peak shear strength, a, and , are coefficients associated to the first branch where R < R’, and az and Bz are coefficients associated to the second branch where R = R’. Stiffness degradation curves computed for the three values of aspect ratio of walls is shown Fig. 7a.
deriving Eq. (5) needed for computing R’ for quasi-static tests. From trends of the experimental results in Fig. 6, proposed values of coeffi- cients a, Bi, @2 and Bs. are included in Table 5. An iterative nonlinear regression an analysis was performed for deriving such coefficients in terms of the aspect ratio of walls. where R’ characterizes the drift ratio associated to peak shear strength, a, and , are coefficients associated to the first branch where R < R’, and az and Bz are coefficients associated to the second branch where R = R’. Stiffness degradation curves computed for the three values of aspect ratio of walls is shown Fig. 7a.
Fig. 3. Stiffness degradation curves in terms of type of concrete: (a) normal-weight, (b) light-weight, (c) self-compacting, (d) all walls.
Fig. 3. Stiffness degradation curves in terms of type of concrete: (a) normal-weight, (b) light-weight, (c) self-compacting, (d) all walls.
Fig. 4. Stiffness degradation curves in terms of web steel ratio: (a) 50% Pmin, (b) 100% pmin, (c) all walls.
Fig. 4. Stiffness degradation curves in terms of web steel ratio: (a) 50% Pmin, (b) 100% pmin, (c) all walls.
Fig. 5. Stiffness degradation curves in terms of type of web reinforcement: (a) welded-wire mesh, (b) deformed bars, (c) all walls.
Fig. 5. Stiffness degradation curves in terms of type of web reinforcement: (a) welded-wire mesh, (b) deformed bars, (c) all walls.
Stiffness degradation coefficients of the proposed model. Table 5
Stiffness degradation coefficients of the proposed model. Table 5
Fig. 8. Comparison of stiffness degradation curves —- model proposed by Carrillo [8]: (a) hy/ly = 0.5, (b) hy/ly = 1, (c) hy/ly = 2 Stiffness degradation curves computed with the model proposed herein for aspect ratios (hy/ly) of walls of 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 are shown in Fig. 8a, b and c, respectively. According to the model proposed by Stiffness degradation curve computed with the model proposed herein and data measured during testing of walls reported by Zhang and Wang [15], Salonikios et al. [16], and Quiroz et al. [6] are shown in Fig. 9. Comparison between measured and predicted stiffness
Fig. 8. Comparison of stiffness degradation curves —- model proposed by Carrillo [8]: (a) hy/ly = 0.5, (b) hy/ly = 1, (c) hy/ly = 2 Stiffness degradation curves computed with the model proposed herein for aspect ratios (hy/ly) of walls of 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 are shown in Fig. 8a, b and c, respectively. According to the model proposed by Stiffness degradation curve computed with the model proposed herein and data measured during testing of walls reported by Zhang and Wang [15], Salonikios et al. [16], and Quiroz et al. [6] are shown in Fig. 9. Comparison between measured and predicted stiffness
Fig. 6. Stiffness degradation curves of the proposed model: (a) hy/l, = 0.5, (b) Ay/ly = 1, (c) Ay/ly = 2.
Fig. 6. Stiffness degradation curves of the proposed model: (a) hy/l, = 0.5, (b) Ay/ly = 1, (c) Ay/ly = 2.
Fig. 7. Stiffness degradation curve: (a) proposed model, (b) values of R’ versus hy/ly,
Fig. 7. Stiffness degradation curve: (a) proposed model, (b) values of R’ versus hy/ly,
Story drift ratios for different limit states. degradation of specimens reported in a literature review demonstrated that proposed model can be a tool to estimate, with high accuracy, the stiffness degradation of concrete walls with different values of aspect ratios.
Story drift ratios for different limit states. degradation of specimens reported in a literature review demonstrated that proposed model can be a tool to estimate, with high accuracy, the stiffness degradation of concrete walls with different values of aspect ratios.
Fig. 9. Comparison of measured and computed stiffness degradation curves: (a) Zhang and Wang [15]: h,/l, = 2, (b) Salonikios et al. [16]: hy/ly = 1, (c) Quiroz et al. [6]: h,/l, = 1.
Fig. 9. Comparison of measured and computed stiffness degradation curves: (a) Zhang and Wang [15]: h,/l, = 2, (b) Salonikios et al. [16]: hy/ly = 1, (c) Quiroz et al. [6]: h,/l, = 1.
Allowable story drift ratios proposed by Carrillo and Alcocer [2].
Allowable story drift ratios proposed by Carrillo and Alcocer [2].
Fig. 10. Performance indicators in terms of stiffness degradation: (a) hy/ly = 0.5, (b) hy/ly = 1 y (c) hy/ly = 2. Table 8
Fig. 10. Performance indicators in terms of stiffness degradation: (a) hy/ly = 0.5, (b) hy/ly = 1 y (c) hy/ly = 2. Table 8
Fig. 11. Limit states in terms of stiffness degradation: (a) hy/ly = 0.5, (b) hy/ly = 1, (c) Ay/ly = 2.
Fig. 11. Limit states in terms of stiffness degradation: (a) hy/ly = 0.5, (b) hy/ly = 1, (c) Ay/ly = 2.
Related topics:
Civil EngineeringMaterials ScienceStructural Engineering
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved