Transactions, SMiRT

Transactions, 19,19,
SMiRT Toronto,
Toronto,August
August2007
2007 Paper
Paper # ????
# B02/3

Static and Dynamic Analysis of a Concrete Shear-Wall

Jaegyun Park1), Chul-Hun Chung1), Chang Hun Hyun2), Yong Lak Paek2), Kang Ryong Choi2)

1) Professor, Dankook University

2) Researcher, Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

ABSTRACT

Many structures built under the earthquake resistant design were severely damaged in Loma Prieta(1989),
Northridge(1994), and Kobe(1995) earthquakes. Current design trend is to limit the maximum displacement under the load.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the displacement control under the near-field ground motion due to earthquake, IAEA
initiated CRP program. In this paper, we try to regenerate the test results of the CRP program using ABAQUS, a general
purpose nonlinear FE program, and compare the result with previous calculations. The model of the concrete shear wall came
from the previous report KINS/GR317. A dynamic analysis on this model resulted in the 3 initial modes of the structure,
which are similar to the modes of beam-stick model in that report. To describe the response of the concrete structure more
precisely, more calibrations are necessary.

INTRRODUCTION

Many structures built under the earthquake resistant design were severely damaged in Loma Prieta(1989),
Northridge(1994), and Kobe(1995) earthquakes. Therefore, more efficient analysis technique and design codes are required
thesedays. Current design trend is to limit the maximum displacement under the load. To evaluate the effectiveness of the
displacement control under the near-field ground motion due to earthquake, IAEA initiated CRP program. As a first step,
they performed an analysis of a shear wall and compared the result with the shaking table test results. In this paper, we try to
regenerate the test results using ABAQUS, a general purpose nonlinear FE program, and compare the analysis result with
previous calculations and experiments.

TEST SETUP

The model of the concrete shear wall came from the previous report KINS/GR317 (Hyun et. al., 2005) by Korea
Institute of Nuclear Safety(KINS). Fig. 1 describes the original shear wall for the real test and Fig. 2 presents the two
dimensional (2D) model of the shear wall with rotational and translational springs on support.

Fig. 1 Shear Wall under Test

1
 Transactions, SMiRT
Transactions, 19,19,
SMiRT Toronto,
Toronto,August
August2007
2007 Paper
Paper # ????
# B02/3

Fig. 2 Two-Dim. Model

Fig. 3 2D Mesh for the FE analysis

Fig.3 describes 2D mesh of the test structure, which consists of 942 shell elements (4 node) with 1016 nodes. The
spring constants of the support are assumed to be infinity such that the shear wall is fixed to the shaking table. Rebar of the
structure is implemented by REBAR LAYER model in ABAQUS and its mechanical behavior follows elasticity-perfect
plasticity rule. The amount of steel is exactly calculated from the steel data in Hyun et. al.(2005). The amounts of rebar in
each level in Table 2, are modeled as layers in ABAQUS. Such layers are treated as a smeared layer with a constant thickness
equal to the area of each rebar divided by the reinforcing bar spacing. The overall material properties of the shear wall are as
follows:

1
 Transactions, SMiRT
Transactions, 19,19,
SMiRT Toronto,
Toronto,August
August2007
2007 Paper
Paper # ????
# B02/3

Table 1. Material Properties of the Shear Wall

Concrete Steel Rebar

Strength(MPa) 35 500
Youngs 28000 200000
Modulus(MPa)
Poissons ratio 0.15 0.3

Fig 4. Rebar Configurations in Shear Wall

Table 2. Amounts of Rebar in Level 1 to Level 6

Lateral Rebar Central Rebar

Level
f (mm) No. As(mm2) Ratio(%) f (mm) No. As(mm2) Ratio(%)
Level 6 4.5 1 15.90 0.016 - 0 - -
Level 5 4.5 1 15.90 0.016 5.0 4 78.54 0.077
Level 4 6.0 1 28.27 0.028 5.0 4 78.54 0.077
6.0 1 28.27 0.028 5.0 4 78.54 0.077
8.0 1 50.27 0.049 4.5 2 31.81 0.031
Level 3
4.5 1 15.90 0.016 - - - -
S 94.44 0.093 S 110.35 0.108
6.0 2 56.55 0.055 5.0 4 78.54 0.077
8.0 2 100.53 0.099 4.5 2 31.81 0.031
Level 2
4.5 2 31.81 0.031 6.0 1 28.27 0.028
S 188.89 0.185 S 138.62 0.136
8.0 4 201.06 0.197 5.0 4 78.54 0.077
6.0 2 56.55 0.055 4.5 2 31.81 0.031
Level 1
4.5 2 31.81 0.031 6.0 1 28.27 0.028
S 289.42 0.284 S 138.62 0.136

1
 Transactions, SMiRT
Transactions, 19,19,
SMiRT Toronto,
Toronto,August
August2007
2007 Paper
Paper # ????
# B02/3

The material model for concrete is Concrete Damage Plasticity Model in ABAQUS which could describe the plastic
behavior of uni-axial compression test very well(Kang, 2006). This model was originally proposed in Lubliner et al.(1989)
and further developed in Lee and Fenves(1998). The concrete damaged plasticity model uses concepts of isotropic damaged
elasticity in combination with isotropic tensile and compressive plasticity to represent the inelastic behavior of concrete. It is
defined by using the *CONCRETE DAMAGED PLASTICITY, *CONCRETE TENSION STIFFENING, and *CONCRETE
COMPRESSION HARDENING options, and, optionally, the *CONCRETE TENSION DAMAGE and *CONCRETE
COMPRESSION DAMAGE options.

Fig 5. The Concept of Concrete Damaged Plasticity Model

Table 3. Concrete Damaged Plasticity Model used for Analysis

Inelastic Elastic Total Plastic

Stress dc
strain strain strain strain
0.000000 7.42 0.000 0.000307 0.000307 0.000000
0.000012 9.60 0.020 0.000397 0.000409 0.000004
0.000029 11.64 0.040 0.000481 0.000510 0.000009
0.000053 13.53 0.060 0.000559 0.000612 0.000017
0.000082 15.28 0.080 0.000631 0.000713 0.000027
0.000117 16.88 0.109 0.000698 0.000815 0.000032
0.000158 18.34 0.126 0.000758 0.000916 0.000048
0.000205 19.66 0.144 0.000812 0.001017 0.000068
0.000257 20.83 0.161 0.000861 0.001118 0.000091
0.000316 21.86 0.179 0.000903 0.001219 0.000119
0.000380 22.74 0.196 0.000940 0.001320 0.000151
0.000450 23.47 0.213 0.000970 0.001420 0.000187
0.000526 24.07 0.231 0.000995 0.001521 0.000228
0.000608 24.51 0.248 0.001013 0.001621 0.000274
0.000696 24.82 0.265 0.001026 0.001722 0.000325
0.000790 24.97 0.283 0.001032 0.001822 0.000383
0.000889 24.99 0.300 0.001033 0.001922 0.000446
0.002640 21.25 0.517 0.000878 0.003518 0.001700

1
 Transactions, SMiRT
Transactions, 19,19,
SMiRT Toronto,
Toronto,August
August2007
2007 Paper
Paper # ????
# B02/3

STATIC ANALYSIS

Pushover analysis was performed to obtain the static response data. The lateral force F, with a triangular shape, was
applied as follows:
- Level 6: F 5/15
- Level 5: F 4/15
- Level 4: F 3/15
- Level 3: F 2/15
- Level 2: F 1/15
Displacement was measured at Level 6. The pushover analysis is carried out by incrementally applying the lateral loads
to the structure. Fig. 6 shows the force-displacement plot of the current analysis. For comparison purpose, Fig. 7 (Hyun et al,
2005) presents the previous results from other countries, which reveals that the stiffness of current model is slightly above
average.

140

120

100
Load(kN) .

80

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
displacement (mm)

Fig. 6 Push over Test

Fig. 7 Various Results of Push over Test

1
 Transactions, SMiRT
Transactions, 19,19,
SMiRT Toronto,
Toronto,August
August2007
2007 Paper
Paper # ????
# B02/3

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

To investigate the modal characteristics of the shear wall, a modal analysis was done first. One major difference in the
model between the dynamic analysis and static push over analysis is the existence of the lumped mass in the dynamic model.

Fig. 8 Mode 1: 8.94 Hz

Fig. 9 Mode 2: 40.43 Hz

Fig. 10 Mode 3: 43.20 Hz

The first and second modes presents side sway and the third mode presents vertical movements. These values are
similar to the result of stick bar model (9.36, 44.60, 45.10 Hz respectively) in Hyun et al(2005). Using the given data, time
history analyses were done for several cases. Fig.11 and 12 show results for one case, in which analysis result and experiment
result are compared:

1
 Transactions, SMiRT
Transactions, 19,19,
SMiRT Toronto,
Toronto,August
August2007
2007 Paper
Paper # ????
# B02/3

RUN1-Top

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5
Acc. (g)

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (s ec)

Fig. 11 Top Acceleration Time History (Analysis Result)

EX P RUN1

2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Acc. (g)

0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (s ec)

Fig. 12 Top Acceleration Time History (Experiment Result)

This test was named Run 1 in Hyun et. al.(2005). As shown above, the difference in the result between the analysis
and the experiment clearly exists. Because the elastic behavior can be well predicted relatively, the major difference comes
from the plastic behavior of concrete model, which is the main target to be refined further.

CONCLUSION

Plasticity of concrete is different from that of metal. As expected, a result from all FE analysis can only estimate the
real behavior approximately due to the intrinsic uncertainty in the FE model of concrete material. More refined and
systematic approach is required to improve the performance of the concrete model.

REFERENCES

1. Hyun, C.H., Choi, S., Choi, K.R., Kim, M.S., Noh, M., Shin, H.M. and Park, J.H., IAEA Coordinated Research
Program(CRP), Safety Significance of Near Field Earthquake/Assessment of Near Field Earthquake Effect, KINS, GR-
317, 2005.
2. Kang, Un-Suk, Analysis of concrete structures using plasticity theory, MS thesis, Dankook University, Seoul, 2005.
3. Lubliner, J., Oliver, J., Oller, S., and Onate E., A Plastic-Damage Model for Concrete, Int. J. Solids Structures, Vol.
25, No. 3, pp.299-326, 1989
4. Lee, J. and Fenves, G. L., Plastic-Damage Model for Cyclic Loading of Concrete Structures, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, vol.124, no.8, pp. 892900, 1998.