Summary: Seismic Performance of Slender Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls

Behavior, Analysis, and Design of
Complex Wall Systems

Planar Wall Test Program Summary
Document
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 ........................................................................................................................ 20
CHAPTER 3: 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
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 .................................................................................................................. 55
CHAPTER 7: 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

7.2.2 Damage ...................................................................................................................................... 66
7.3 Specimen PW3 .................................................................................................................................. 71
7.3.2 Damage ...................................................................................................................................... 73
7.4 Specimen PW4 .................................................................................................................................. 77
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
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
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 0.71h10, where h10 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
2.75Agf'c, or 0.67Vn, where Vn is the design nominal shear strength of 210 kips (934 kN).
Figure 2-1: ASCE 7 ELF load distribution.
6
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 0.50h10. At the design nominal strength
(see Section 2.3.1), the shear demand on the specimen is 3.90Agf'c, or 0.95Vn.
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 0.1Ag f 'c
Figure 2-3: Target cross-section of specimens with boundary element reinforcement layout.
7
Given these initial assumptions, the following process was used to complete the design of the
specimens:
1. Determine nominal shear strength, Vn, per ACI 318-05 (2005)

2. Determine shear demand, Vu, given ACI 318-05 requirement: shearVn > Vu
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 u = eff HVu
4. Design boundary element, length and reinforcement ratio, per ACI 318-05 (2005) to achieve
flex M n > M 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:
Vn = Acv ( c f 'c + t f y )
where, Vn is the nominal strength of the wall, Acv is the gross area of concrete section bounded by web
thickness and length of section in the direction of shear force (720 in2), c is the coefficient defining the
relative contribution of concrete strength to wall strength (2.0), f ' c is the specified compressive
strength of concrete (5000 psi), t is the ratio of area distributed transverse reinforcement to gross
concrete area perpendicular to that reinforcement (0.0025), and f y is the specified yield strength of
reinforcement (60,000 psi). This yielded a result for nominal shear resistance of:
Vn = 209.8 kips or 4.12 Acv f ' c (from code specified minimum reinforcement)
The shear demand on the structure was back calculated from this value, assuming that:
Vu = Vn
where Vu is the shear demand and is the strength reduction factor (0.60). This yielded a result for
shear demand of:
Vu = 125.9 kips or 2.47 Acv 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
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 u = eff h10Vu
where eff is the effective height of wall (0.71 from ASCE 7 lateral load distribution), h10 is height of
the ten-story wall (480 inches), and Vu is the shear demand (125.9 kips). This yielded a result for
moment demand of:
Mu = 42,900 in-kips
The nominal strength ( M n ) required was determined by:
M u M n (4)
where is the strength reduction factor (0.9). This yielded a result for moment capacity of:
Mn 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
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 M n was 49,000 in-kips, which
corresponds to an over-strength of 2.7% above the code requirements.
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:
lw
c
600( u / h10 )
where c is the distance from the extreme compression fiber to neutral axis, calculated for the factored
axial force and nominal moment strength, consistent with the design displacement u , resulting in the
largest neutral axis depth (24.5 inches), l w is the length of the wall (120 inches), and u is the design
displacement ( u / hw = 0.02; conservative assumption). Since 24.5 10 , the statement is true and
boundary elements are required.
Second, it must be determined if the length of the boundary elements are long enough.
c 0.1l w
lbe
c / 2
where l be 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.
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:

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

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

s (7)
14 hx
4 + 14 3in
= 4+ = 7.7 in
3 3
2 in

10
where hx 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.
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 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:
Ash 0.09 sbc f ' c / f yt
where Ash is the total cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement (including crossties) within
spacing s and perpendicular to dimension bc , s is the spacing of transverse reinforcement measured
along the longitudinal axis of the structural member, bc is the cross sectional dimension of boundary
element core measured center-to-center of confining reinforcement, and f yt is the yield strength of
transverse reinforcement. In the plane that cuts along the width of the wall, the values are:
Ash = (2)(0.049 in2)

s = 2 in
bc = 4.75 in
f 'c = 5,000 psi
f yt = 60,000 psi
The Ash / s provided is 38% greater than required in this direction.

In the plane that cuts along the length of the wall, the values are:
Ash = (7)(0.049 in2)

s = 2 in
bc = 18.75 in
f 'c = 5,000 psi
fy = 60,000 psi
The Ash / 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 l w or M u / 4Vu above the critical section (the
base). For the wall and design load case,
eff h
M u / 4Vu = = 85 in (9)
4
11
and l w 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.
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.
Figure 2-4: Design drawings for boundary element distribution of longitudinal reinforcement.
12
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

3 1.25 f y t e s
ld = d b
40 f ' c cb + k tr

d b
and,
Atr f yt
k tr =
1500sn
where t is the reinforcement location factor (1.0), e is the coating factor (1.0), s is the
reinforcement size factor (0.8 for #2 bars; 1.0 for #4 bars), is the lightweight aggregate concrete
factor (1.0), cb is the spacing or cover dimension (0.875 in for #2 bars; 1.0 for #4 bars), d b is the
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
k tr is the transverse reinforcement index (0.0 for #2 bars and unconfined #4 bars). A 1.25 f y factor is
used to account for over-strength in the steel. This yielded a result for #2 bars of:
ld = 6.4 in = 25.6 d b
and a result for confined #4 bars of:
k tr = 0.109
ld = 17.9 in = 35.8 d b
and a result for unconfined #4 bars of:
ld = 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
Table 2-1: Embedment and lap splice lengths.
Embedment Length Lap Splice Length
#2 7 in = 28 db 9 in = 36 db
#4 20 in = 40 db 24 in = 48 db
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.
Figure 2-6: Dog-leg detail of lapped bars.
Figure 2-7: Typical splice detail. Units are in inches unless

otherwise noted.
15
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, 0.71H10 was applied. The construction of PW2 was identical, but
had loading representative of a uniform load distribution, or 0.5H10. 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 0.1Agf'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 (0.71h10)
2.75Agf'c (0.67Vn)
PW2 Boundary Element Yes ASCE 7 (0.50h10)
(reference) 3.90Agf'c (0.95Vn)
PW3 Uniform Yes ASCE 7 (0.50h10)
3.90Agf'c (0.95Vn)
PW4 Boundary Element No ASCE 7 (0.50h10)
3.90Agf'c (0.95Vn)
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
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).
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
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
Figure 2-9: Completed rebar. 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.
Figure 2-11: Formwork and rebar cage for wall cap. Figure 2-12: Casting a typical wall cap.
19
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.
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
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
Figure 3-1: Boundary element mock-up.
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
Compressive Strength (psi)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (Days)
Figure 3-3: Strength development curve for Specimen PW1.
22
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, c0 is the strain at peak
compressive strength, Ec is the modulus of elasticity (57,000f'c), and ft 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) c0, in/in*10-3 Ec, ksi (MPa) ft, psi (MPa)
PW1 5231 2.27 4123 1030
PW2 5843 2.51 4357 1065
PW3 4980 2.85 4022 1016
PW4 4272 2.07 3726 878
4
Stress (ksi)
Cylinder Max Values
Cylinder 1 - 5064 psi @ 2.35 milli-strain

2 Cylinder 2 - 5654 psi @ 2.29 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
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
4
Stress (ksi)
Cylinder Max Values

________________________________
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Figure 3-5: Concrete cylinder (4x8) stress-strain response of Specimen PW2 (Tested 6-12-2008).
4
Stress (ksi)
Cylinder Max Values

________________________________
* These cylinders were broke on test day
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Figure 3-6: Concrete cylinder (4x8) stress-strain response of Specimen PW3 (tested 6-12-2008).
24
4
Stress (ksi)
3 Cylinder Max Values

2 ________________________________
Day of test strength 4272 psi (7-9-2008)

* These cylinders were broke 11 days af ter
1
start of test
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
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 Es =
29,000 ksi (200 MPa) was assumed for all bars. The yield strength was determined by drawing a line with
slope Es offset at 0.2% strain. The stress at which this line crosses the test data is the yield stress, fy. The
corresponding yield strain is y = fy/Es. To capture the yield plateau behavior, the strain at which strain
hardening (sh) was reported. A stress, fsh, 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 (fmax) and the
25
corresponding strain (max) were also recorded. The ultimate strain, u, was reported as that at a stress of
0.9fmax.
Table 3-3: Steel material properties
Specimen(s) Bar size fy, ksi y, in/in fsh, ksi sh, in/in fmax, ksi m, in/in fu, ksi 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
(a) #2 bars (All specimens) (b) #4 bars (Specimens PW1 and PW2)
(c) #4 bars (Specimen PW3) (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
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:
projected rib area normal to bar axis

Rr =
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.
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.
Figure 3-10: #2 rebar in heat treatment chamber.
27
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.
Figure 3-11: #2 rebar behavior from first large heat Figure 3-12: #2 rebar behavior from final heat
treatment batch. treatment batch.
28
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.
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
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.
Figure 4-2: Moving test specimen into the testing location underneath the LBCBs.
30
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
Figure 4-3: Elevation views of specimen to LBCB connection.
Figure 4-4: Plan view of specimen to LBCB connection.
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
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: Side-mounted actuator attachment detail.
33
CHAPTER 5: Loading and Displacement History

The Illinois MUST-SIM facilitys 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.
Figure 5-1: Illinois MUST-SIM facility. 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
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.
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, x (roll) and 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 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
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
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.
Figure 5-5: SimCor screen shot.
37
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
desired axial load of 0.1 f c' Ag was targeted and a tolerance of +/- five kips was specified within the LBCB
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.
Figure 5-6: LBCB Plugin screen shot.
5.3.3 Operation Manager
38
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: 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
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.
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 (Fz), horizontal in-plane shear (Fx),
and moment (My); 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
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
eff 0.71 0.50 0.50 0.50
V1 / Vtop , % - 12.5 12.5 12.5
V2 / Vtop , % - 12.5 12.5 12.5
N , kips (kN) 360 (1601) 360 (1601) 360 (1601) 360 (1601)
N /( Ag f )' 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
c
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
The design axial load for the walls was 360 kips (1601 kN), or N = 0.10Agf'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 Fz) and axial load ratios (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, V1 and V2, 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 (Vtop or Fx). 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 1/8Vtop; due
to a calibration error, Specimen PW2 had actual floor shears equal to approximately 1/12Vtop. 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 eff is the effective height of the base shear
(Vb or Vbase), and is calculated as
Mb
eff =
Vb h10
where Mb and Vb are the base moment and shear, respectively, and h10 is the height of the scaled 10-
story prototype specimen (480 inches or 12.2 m).
5.4.3 Displacement History
42
The walls were tested by applying a prescribed lateral displacement history for the top of the wall
subassemblage (3rd 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 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 fcrack =
7.5f'c the cracking moment at the base was calculated as:
f crack I g
base
M crack =
0.5lw
The theoretical cracking displacement is
Vtop hw3 M top hw2

=
d crack +
3Ec Ig 2 Ec I g
where Vtop and Mtop 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
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
Figure 5-10: Applied displacement history for Specimens PW2 (last step = 1305), PW3 (last step = 1287),
and PW4 (last step = 1250).
44
Figure 5-11: Applied displacement history for Specimen PW1.
45
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.
Figure 6-1: Steel gauge (below) and concrete surface gauge (above).
46
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.
Figure 6-3: Typical instrumentation layout of concrete strain gauges.
47
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.
Figure 6-4: Typical instrumentation layout of relative displacement measurements.
48
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.
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
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 6-8: Krypton non-contact measurement system.
50
Figure 6-9: Measurement range of Krypton measurement system.
Figure 6-10: Typical layout of LED targets for Krypton measurement system.
51
The K600s dynamic frame capabilities are used to measure the motion for both LBCBs relative to the
specimens 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.
Figure 6-11: Locations of high-resolution cameras.
52
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
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
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:
z grid

x 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
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
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 (hw). 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 (Vtop or Fx) and moment (Mtop
of My) at the top of the specimen and from the side-mounted actuators at the first (V1) and second (V2)
floor levels. The base moment calculation included consideration for the P- effect of the applied axial
load (N or Fz).
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
eff 0.71 0.50 0.50 0.50
V1 / Vtop , % - 12.5 12.5 12.5
V2 / Vtop , % - 12.5 12.5 12.5
N , kips (kN) 360 (1601) 360 (1601) 360 (1601) 360 (1601)
N /( Ag f )' 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
c
Actual eff 0.71 0.54 0.51 0.52

V1 / Vtop , % - 8.7 12.4 12.2
V2 / Vtop , % - 8.6 12.5 12.2
N , kips (kN) 359 (1597) 546 (2429) 360 (1601) 360 (1601)
N /( Ag f )' 0.095 0.130 0.100 0.117
c
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
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.
Figure 7-1: Specimen PW1 cross-section.
58
Figure 7-2: Specimen PW1 elevation.
An average axial load of N = 359 kips (1597 kN) or N = 0.095, was applied to the wall. Lateral force (Vtop)
and overturning moment (Mtop) 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 Vb and base moment Mb; 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 (Mtop/Vtop) 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 0.71h10, or 2.37hw. 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 hw = 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
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.
(a) Base shear (b) Base moment

Figure 7-3: Specimen PW1 load-drift response.
At the base of the wall, the maximum shear demand (Vb) was approximately 0.73Vn, where Vn is the
expected shear strength of the cross section (see Section X). The maximum moment demand (Mb) was
approximately 1.08Mn, where Mn 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
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.
Figure 7-4: Specimen PW1 crack pattern in lower 2 stories following three cycles to 0.25% drift.
61
(a) Bar buckling at final WL- peak at 1.0% drift (b) Bar buckling on way to first ER+ peak at 1.5%
(Step 620) 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
Figure 7-6: Specimen PW1: Longitudinal bar fracture on front face of east boundary element at final
peak (-1.52% drift, Step 740).
(a) (b)
Figure 7-7: Specimen PW1 final damage state and crack pattern.
63
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.
64
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
(Mtop/Vtop) was 11.9 feet (0.30 m), ancillary actuators provided first and second floor lateral loads of
8.7% and 8.6% of Vtop, respectively, and the ratio of the base reactions was 21.4 feet (0.54 m). The
effective height of the load was 0.54h10, or 1.80hw. 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 hw = 144 inches (3.66 m)) as the control point. The displacement history is presented in
Section 5.4.3.
65

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.

7.2.2 Damage
viewed at http://www.youtube.com/user/NEESRWallProject#p/u/2/Miepayt10Vk. The following lists

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.
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.
during the first half cycle (ER+) to 1.5% drift.
66
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.
Figure 7-11: Specimen PW2 crack pattern in lower two stories following three cycles to 0.21% drift.
67
(a) Bar buckling in west boundary element

(b) Bar buckling above east boundary element
following third WL- peak at -0.75% drift (Step
splice at third ER+ peak at 1.0% drift (Step 1190).
1070).
Figure 7-12: Specimen PW2 comparison of damage above splice in west (left) and east (right) boundary
elements.
Specimen PW2 successfully sustained one half cycle to 1.5% drift in the ER+ direction. When the
specimen was loaded in the WL- direction, bar buckling and core crushing progressively increased above
the west (left) boundary element splice. Damage at this location is shown in Figure 7-13a at -1.06% drift
(one step beyond the previous maximum drift in the WL- loading direction). While loading the wall to
the next step (Step 1305, 1.10% drift, the axial load dropped from 560 to 220 kips (2491 to 979 kN)),
longitudinal bars buckled in the entire west boundary element (previously only the outer bars were
buckled), the region of crushed concrete grew from the boundary element into the web and longitudinal
and horizontal bars in the web buckled. A reduced axial load was necessary to complete the step. Figure
7-14 shows a photograph and the final crack pattern of the wall at the end of the test.
68
(a) -1.06% drift (Step 1304); one step prior to loss of lateral load carrying capacity.
(b) -1.10% drift (Step 1305) following loss of lateral load carrying capacity.
Figure 7-13: Specimen PW2 damage in the first floor before and after loss of lateral load carrying
capacity.
69
(a) (b)
70
7.3 Specimen PW3

Specimen PW3 was built with a uniform distribution of longitudinal reinforcement and with a lap splice
at the base of the wall. Figure 7-15 and Figure 7-16 shows 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 4980 psi (34.3 MPa). The yield stress of the #2 and #4 bars were 75.7 ksi (522 MPa) and
51.3 ksi (579 ksi), respectively.
71
12.4% and 12.5% of Vtop, respectively, and the ratio of the base reactions was 20.2 feet (0.51 m). The
effective height of the load was 0.51h10, or 1.70hw. 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 hw = 144 inches (3.66 m)) as the control point. The displacement history is presented in
Section 5.4.3.
72

carrying capacity during the first cycle to 1.5% drift (at approximately 1.25% drift) due to shear-
compression failure of the east (right) boundary element above the top of the splice.

7.3.2 Damage
viewed at http://www.youtube.com/user/NEESRWallProject#p/u/3/WVtKmeCOFPU. The following lists

3. Vertical cracking initiated at 0.21% drift.
drift.
6. Cover spalling initiated above the splice at 0.52% drift.
7. Web crushing was observed at 0.75% drift.
8. Bar buckling was observed above the splice during the first cycle to 1.0% drift.
73
during the second (and final) cycle to 1.0% drift.
10. Failure occurred due to extensive bar buckling and core crushing in the east (right) boundary
element above the splice at 1.28% drift during the first ER+ half cycle to 1.5% drift.
Figure 7-18 shows the crack pattern in Specimen PW3 following three cycles to 0.21% drift. Damage
other than horizontal and diagonal cracking was concentrated above the top of the splice in the
boundary elements and in the web. The initial spalling occurred along the edges of the wall above the
top of the splice in the boundary elements, however, the most apparent damage to the wall was in the
web of the wall. The cover concrete in the web spalled but did not immediately fall of the wall, forming
a bulged region in the web at the top of the splice; the bulged region was identified by tapping the wall
and listening for a hollow sound, and was marked on the wall with a dashed blue line. Figure 7-19a
shows the wall after the second ER+ peak at 1.0% drift; Figure 7-19b and Figure 7-19c show the damage
in the web and boundary element.
74
(a) Damage to first floor.
(b) Close-up of damage in east (right) side of web (c) Close-up of damage in east (right) boundary
above the splice. element above the splice.
Figure 7-19: Specimen PW3 damage at WL- peak at 1.0% drift (1230).
75
Specimen PW3 failed during the first half cycle (ER+ direction) to 1.5% drift. At 1.28% drift, the axial load
dropped from 360 kips (1601 kN) to 190 kips (845 kN). This drop in load was accompanied by extensive
bar buckling and core crushing in the east boundary element and increased damage to the concrete in
the web. Figure 7-20 shows a photograph and the final crack pattern of the wall at the end of the test.
(a) (b)
Figure 7-20: Specimen PW3 final damage and crack pattern.
76
7.4 Specimen PW4

Specimen PW4 was built with a boundary element distribution of longitudinal reinforcement;
reinforcement was continuous from the foundation to the wall cap. Figure 7-21 and Figure 7-22 show
the cross section and elevation drawings of the as-built specimen. The concrete compressive strength
was 4272 psi (29.4 MPa). The yield stress of the #2 and #4 bars was 75.7 (522 MPa) and 67.1 ksi (462
MPa), respectively.
77
12.2% of Vtop, and the ratio of the base reactions was 21.0 feet (0.53 m). The effective height of the load
was 0.52h10, or 1.73hw. 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 hw = 144 inches
(3.66 m)) as the control point. The displacement history is presented in Section 5.4.3.
78

carrying capacity during the second cycle to 1.0% drift due to shear-compression failure of the east
(right) boundary element at the base of the wall.

7.4.2 Damage
viewed at http://www.youtube.com/user/NEESRWallProject#p/u/4/auU03q70EVg. The following lists

drift.
5. Vertical cracking initiated during the first cycle to 0.50% drift.
6. Cover spalling initiated at the toe of the wall during the first cycle to 0.50% drift.
7. Longitudinal reinforcement was exposed at the toe of the wall at 0.75% drift.
79
8. Bar buckling was observed at the toe of the wall during the third cycle to 0.75% drift.
9. Damage (crushing) of the confined core of the boundary element was observed during the third
cycle to 0.75% drift.
10. Failure occurred due to extensive bar buckling and core crushing in the east (right) boundary
element at the toe of the wall during the second ER+ half-cycle to 1.0% drift.
Figure 7-24 shows the crack patter in Specimen PW4 following three cycles to 0.21% drift. Damage other
than horizontal and diagonal cracking primarily occurred in the boundary elements at the wall-
foundation interface. In the east (right) boundary element, at a height of approximately 4 inches (10.2
cm), cracking and spalling occurred primarily where the cover concrete was patched. Throughout the
test, damage in the east (right) toe of the wall was greater than that in the west (left) toe of the wall.
Figure 7-25 shows the damage to the toes of the wall during the first cycle to 0.75% drift.
80
(a) Bar buckling and core damage in east (right) (b) Exposed longitudinal reinforcement in west
toe of wall. (left) toe of wall.
Figure 7-25: Specimen PW4 damage to wall following three cycles to 0.75% drift (Step 1070).
Specimen PW4 lost lateral load carrying capacity during the second cycle to 1.0% drift, at 0.85% drift
(Step 1187). The loss of lateral load carrying capacity was associated with a significant increase in bar
buckling and core crushing in the east (right) boundary element; the damage extended the full length of
the boundary element, where on the previous cycle, the damage extended only a few inches in from the
edge of the wall. On the back side (north face) of the wall, buckled horizontal and longitudinal steel was
observed in the web. Figure 7-26 shows the base of the east (right) and west (left) boundary elements at
the second ER+ peak. The test was officially concluded following a return to zero displacement (Step
1250), although additional loading in the WL- direction was done to evaluate the wall behavior in that
direction. Figure 7-27 shows a photograph and the final crack pattern of the wall at the end of the test.
(a) West (left) boundary element. (b) East (right) boundary element.
Figure 7-26: Specimen PW4 damage at base of wall at the second ER+ peak at 1.0% drift (Step 1230).
81
(a) (b)
82
CHAPTER 8: NEES Project Warehouse

A component of all NEES funded projects is the archival of data and documentation in the NEES Project
Warehouse (https://nees.org/warehouse), the purpose of which is to provide a central data repository
for the earthquake engineering research community. The project "Behavior, Analysis, and Design of
Complex Wall Systems" is available in the Project Warehouse as Project #104 and can be found at
https://nees.org/warehouse/project/104/.
This chapter provides an overview of the data and documentation available in the project warehouse.
Section 8.1 discusses the data available in the data directories required by NEES; this includes
photographs. Section 8.1.3.1 discusses the archival of material data. Section 8.3 discusses the archival of
sensor metadata. Section 8.4 discusses the available documentation, including student dissertations.
Section 8.6 discusses the inDEED data visualization sessions provided to make the project a NEES
Enhanced Project.
The four planar wall tests are archived in the Project Warehouse as 'Experiment-1' (Specimen PW1),
'Experiment-2' (Specimen PW2), 'Experiment-3' (Specimen PW3), and 'Experiment-4' (Specimen PW4).
To reduce the length of this chapter, links are provided only for Specimen PW1; the data for the other
specimens can be changed by modifying the experiment name in the links.
8.1 Data Directories

The NEES policies for data archival provide four levels of data processing, each with files contained in a
separate directory. The following sections discuss each level of data processing and the relevant files for
the planar wall test program.
8.1.1 Raw (or Unprocessed) Data

This directory contains the data as collected during the testing. Each experiment took multiple days to
complete. Consequently, there is a set of files for each day. Photo numbers indicate the step number for
each day, not the global step number for the full experiment. The details of the data processing are
provided in a document in Unprocessed_Data directory.
8.1.2 Converted Data

The contents of this directory are modified versions of the data found in the Unprocessed_Data
directory. The difference is that the data from all days have been combined into one file and photo
names have been modified to have numbers that reflect the global step number for the full experiment.
The contents of the directory are as originally provided to the UW research team by the UIUC research
team. Corrected Data
This folder contains the data that had one more level of processing beyond that in the converted data
folder. This included i) correcting of any errors in channel names, ii) conversion of data from voltage, iii)
removal of bad data points, and iv) application of offsets. The details of the data processing are provided
in a document in the Corrected_Data directory for each specimen; for Specimen PW1 this file is available
at https://nees.org/data/get/NEES-2005-0104/Experiment-1/Trial-1/Rep-
1/Corrected_Data/CorrectedDataDocumentation.pdf.
83
The data in the Corrected_Data directories represent a portion of the final data set used for data
analysis by Birely (2012). The files available are summarized in Table 8-1.
Table 8-1: Data files available in the Corrected_Data directory for each experiment.
File Name File Description

AbsoluteDisplacement.csv Absolute vertical, horizontal, and out-of-plane displacements.
AppliedLoads.csv Forces and moments applied at the top of the specimens by
the LBCBs and ancillary actuators (if applicable. Total
forces/moments only. Excludes forces in individual boxes and
actuators.
ConcreteSurfaceStrain.csv Concrete surface strain gauges.
KryptonDisplacement.csv Krypton in-plane (x and z) and out-of-plane (y) displacements.
RelativeDisplacements.csv Relative vertical, horizontal, and diagonal displacements
between two points on walls.
SteelStrainHorizontalBars.csv Strain gauges on horizontal reinforcement.
SteelStrainVerticalFoundationBars.csv Strain gauges on vertical reinforcement originating in the
foundation block and terminating at the top of the splice. Not
available for Specimen PW4.
SteelStrainVerticalWallBars.csv Strain gauges on vertical reinforcement originating just above
the foundation block (in the foundation block for Specimen
PW4) and terminating in the wall cap.
8.1.3 Derived Data

This folder contains the data that was created from the collected data. This includes i) base reactions
calculated from the applied loads, ii) drift values calculated from the measured lateral displacements, iii)
steel stress data calculated from the measured strain gauge readings, and iv) strain data calculated from
the measured in-plane displacements of Krypton LED targets. The details of the calculation of this data is
available in Birely (2012) and in the Derived_Data directory for each specimen; for Specimen PW1 this
file is available at https://nees.org/data/get/NEES-2005-0104/Experiment-1/Trial-1/Rep-
1/Derived_Data/DerivedDataDocumentation.pdf.
The data in the Derived_Data directories represent a portion of the final data set used for data analysis
by Birely (2012). The files available are summarized in Table 8-2.
84
Table 8-2: Data files available in the Derived_Data directory for each experiment.
File Name File Description

CalculatedLoadAndDrift.csv Base reactions calculated from applied loads. Drifts at first,
second, and third floors from absolute horizontal
measurements and horizontal krypton displacements.
KryptonStrainsVertical.csv
KryptonStrainsHorizontal.csv
KryptonStrainsShear.csv
Strains calculated from Krypton displacement data.
KryptonStrainsFirstPrincipal.csv
KryptonStrainsSecondPrincipal.csv
KryptonStrainsMaxShear.csv
SteelStressHorizontalBars.csv Stress calculated from gauges on horizontal reinforcement.
SteelStressVerticalFoundationBars.csv Stress calculated from gauges on vertical reinforcement
originating in the foundation block and terminating at the top
of the splice. Not available for Specimen PW4.
SteelStressVerticalWallBars.csv Stress calculated from gauges on vertical reinforcement
originating just above the foundation block (in the foundation
block for Specimen PW4) and terminating in the wall cap.
8.1.3.1 Crack Maps

In addition to the data files available in the Derived_Data directory, .jpg image files are available in the
\Derived_Data\Photos\Crack_Maps\ directory. The images show the crack pattern in the lower two
floors of the walls. High-resolution allows for the use of these images in determining crack spacing.
Additional details are provided by Hart (2011). An additional set of crack maps is provided that show the
crack patterns on an outline of the test specimen for use in presenting experimental results.
8.2 Material Data

The material data for each specimen can be found by selecting by selecting the appropriate experiment
on the 'Experiments' tab of the project warehouse.
For the concrete used for the walls, a description of the mix and material properties are provided. An
Excel file containing the measured stress-strain response of the cylinders is available as well
(https://nees.org/data/get/NEES-2005-0104/Experiment-1/Specimen-2722/Component-301/Material-
438/Wall1%20-%20Concrete%20Stress%20vs%20Strain.xlsx).
For the reinforcing bars (#2 and #4 bars), a description of the material and material properties are
provided. The measured stress-strain response of the bars is available in .txt files for the #2
(https://nees.org/data/get/NEES-2005-0104/Experiment-1/Specimen-2722/Component-301/Material-
439/AllWalls_no_2bar.txt) and #4 bars (https://nees.org/data/get/NEES-2005-0104/Experiment-
1/Specimen-2722/Component-301/Material-440/Wall1_no_4bar.txt).
Material data for concrete and reinforcing steel used for the foundation blocks and wall caps are not
available.
85
8.3 Sensor Metadata

Sensor data (the location of the instruments) is provided per the NEES Project Warehouse requirements
and can be accessed via the main page for each experiment. Additionally, the sensor metadata files used
by the project team are provided in the documentation folder for each experiment. Also found in the
documentation folder is a *.pdf file with images showing the instrumentation layout; these images are
accompanied by tables indicating the instrument location. These images, also available as individual .jpg
images in the Documentation/Drawings folder, were prepared by the UIUC team and thus the gauge
locations are indicated using the UIUC naming scheme.
8.4 Drawings
The drawings section of each experiment (specimen) provide .jpg images of the design drawings,
instrument layouts, and experimental set-up. These drawings are also provided in .pdf and/or .dwg
(AutoCAD) format in the documentation folder.
8.5 Documentation
The following provides a list of the documentation available for each experiment:
1. Drawings
a. A .pdf containing drawings of the test specimens. For Specimen PW1, this can be
downloaded at https://nees.org/data/get/NEES-2005-0104/Experiment-
1/Documentation/PW1%20Test%20Specimen.pdf
b. A .pdf containing drawings of the test setup. For Specimen PW1, this can be
1/Documentation/PW1%20Test%20Setup.pdf
c. A .pdf file containing the instrumentation layout (same as provided in the appendix of
this document). For Specimen PW1, this can be downloaded at
https://nees.org/data/get/NEES-2005-0104/Experiment-
1/Documentation/PW1%20Instrumentation%20Layouts.pdf
d. A .dwg file containing the drawings in the files above. For Specimen PW1, this can be
1/Documentation/Planar%20Walls%20CAD.dwg
e. A .dwg file containing details for the foundation block. For Specimen PW1, this can be
1/Documentation/PW_Foundation_Typ.dwg
f. A .dwg file containing details for the wall cap. For Specimen PW2, this can be
1/Documentation/PW_Cap_Beam_Typ.dwg
2. Testing Notes: A .pdf file containing testing notes is provided for each wall. Only steps for which
notes were taken are provided. Each step is one row in a table. For each step the following is
provided: i) the cycle in which the step occurred (the letter indicates the first, second or third
cycle), ii) the specimen drift, iii) comments, and iv) picture number for the roaming camera
pictures (not always available). For some specimens, crack width measurements are also
86
provided in the testing note document. The testing notes for Specimen PW1 can be found at:
https://nees.org/data/get/NEES-2005-0104/Experiment-
1/Documentation/TestingNotesPW1.pdf
3. Sensor Database: A .xls file containing the original sensor database used by the project team (as
provided by the UIUC team to the UW team). This is provided in addition to sensor metadata
provided per the NEES Project Warehouse project requirements.
8.6 Visualization Tools

NEEShub provides a tool called inDEED that functions a method for visualizing the data contained within
the project warehouse. An inDEED session has been created for each experiment that contains all
measured instrumentation readings, applied forces, base reactions, and floor drifts. The data in the
inDEED session are the same as found in the Corrected_Data and Derived_Data directories of each
experiment.
8.7 Analysis Tools

Files used to perform a moment-curvature analysis for each specimen are available. These files are *.tcl
files written for use with OpenSees. For Specimen PW1, these files are located in the following folder
/NEES-2005-0104/Experiment-1/Trial-1/Analysis/OpenSeesMomentCurvature. Subfolders are available
for spliced and unspliced cross sections. For the spliced cross section, both bars are considered to
contribute fully to the strength of the section, thus, the area of steel is double that in the unspliced cross
section. Output files are provided for a) moment-curvature response, b) concrete strain at the extreme
compression and tension fibers, and c) rebar strain at the extreme compression and tension bars.
IMPORTANT NOTE: At the time this document was written, these files are not accessible from the
experiment main page (the analysis section indicates no files) but these files can be accessed using the
file browser.
CHAPTER 9: References
American Society of Civil Engineering. (2005). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
ASCE/SEI 7-10. ASCE, Reston, Virginia.
American Concrete Institute. (2005). Building Code Requirements for Concrete (ACI 318-05) and
Commentary (ACI 318R-05), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
Birely, A.C. (2012). Seismic Performance of Slender Reinforced Concrete Walls. Ph.D. theis in progress,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Hart, C.R. (2011). Tensile Response of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls Under Reversed Cyclic
Loading. Ph.D. thesis in progress, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois.
Marley, K.P (2011). Evaluation of Concrete Compressive Models Applied to Large-Scale Structural
Walls. Ph.D. thesis in progress, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois.
87

Summary: Seismic Performance of Slender Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Summary: Seismic Performance of Slender Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Behavior, Analysis, and Design of

Complex Wall Systems

5.1 Illinois MUST-SIM Overview .............................................................................................................. 34

7.2.1 General Response ...................................................................................................................... 66

CHAPTER 2: Test Specimens

2.2 Shear Demand/Lateral Load Distribution

Figure 2-1: ASCE 7 ELF load distribution.

Figure 2-2: Uniform load distribution.

2.3 Reinforcement Design

Geometry discussed in Section 2.1.

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

2.3.1 Shear Design

Vu = 125.9 kips or 2.47 Acv f 'c

2.3.1.1 Final Design

2.3.2 Flexural Design

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

2.3.2.1 Determination of Moment Demand and Required Nominal Strength

The nominal strength ( M n ) required was determined by:

2.3.2.2 Calculation of Flexural Capacity

2.3.2.3 Boundary Element Design

Ash 0.09 sbc f ' c / f yt

Ash = (2)(0.049 in2)

The Ash / s provided is 38% greater than required in this direction.

Ash = (7)(0.049 in2)

2.3.2.4 Final Designs

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

2.3.3 Detail Design

and a result for confined #4 bars of:

and a result for unconfined #4 bars of:

Table 2-1: Embedment and lap splice lengths.

Embedment Length Lap Splice Length

2.4 Splice Design

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

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

2.5 Test Matrix

Table 2-2: Design test matrix.

Specimen Reinforcement Layout Splice Lateral Load Distribution

2.6 Foundation/Wall Cap Design

2.6.1 Foundation Block

Figure 2-8: Foundation reinforcement cage.

2.6.2 Wall Cap

2.7 Specimen Construction

2.7.1 Foundation Construction

2.7.2 Wall Construction

Figure 2-9: Completed rebar. Figure 2-10: Closed formwork.

2.7.3 Cap Construction

2.7.4 Concrete Casting

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

CHAPTER 3: Material Properties

3.1 Concrete Material Properties

Table 3-1: Concrete wall mix design.

Constituent Amount per Cubic Yard

Coarse Aggregate (3/8 Chips) 1340 lb

Fine Aggregate (Sand) 1383 lb

Fly ash 150 lb

Water 36.7 gal (w/c = 0.49)

Air-entraining agent 0.5 oz

Figure 3-1: Boundary element mock-up.

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

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

Table 3-2: Summary of concrete properties.

Cylinder Max Values

Cylinder 1 - 5064 psi @ 2.35 milli-strain