DESIGN OF LARGE OPENINGS IN UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED PRECAST CONCRETE WALLS Michael G. Allen Yahya C. Kurama University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN PCI.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Codes and Standards Future Work

Advertisements

Steel Lab., Sejong University, Seoul, Korea

PRECAST CONCRETE COUPLED WALL SYSTEMS

8621 Georgia Avenue Silver Spring, MD

2.2 STRUCTURAL ELEMENT BEAM

Ying Tung, PhD Candidate

Structural System Overview

Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Xuehui AN.

UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED HYBRID COUPLED WALLS Yahya C. KURAMA University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana Qiang SHEN, Michael MAY (graduate students) Cooperative.

EFFECT OF LARGE OPENINGS IN UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED PRECAST CONCRETE WALLS Michael Allen Yahya C. Kurama University Of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN.

Design of Tension Members

Yahya C. Kurama University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana, U.S.A

UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED HYBRID COUPLED WALLS

Design of Tension Members

PCI 6th Edition Connection Design.

Shake Table Testing of a Large Scale Two Span R-C Bridge Univ. of Washington *PI: Marc Eberhard Co-PI: Pedro Arduino Co-PI: Steven Kramer RA: Tyler Ranf.

POTENTIAL ISSUE TEAM STUDIES CONCRETE CODIFICATION OPPORTUNITIES 1. CONCRETE SHEAR WALLS Current Codes provide detailed provisions for the seismic design.

SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF A CONCRETE BUILDING California State University at Los Angeles Belen Valencia Art Chianello Marlon Calderon Faculty Advisor: Rupa Purasinghe.

Partially Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete Walls

Seismic Performance Assessment of Flat Plate Floor Systems John W. Wallace, Ph.D., P.E. Thomas Hyun-Koo Kang, Ph.D. Student Department of Civil and Environmental.

Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete Coupling Beams for RC Walls

Prof. Sarosh H Lodi NED University of Engineering and Technology What Works and Does not Work in the Science and Social Science of Earthquake Vulnerability,

1 Yahya Gino Kurama, Associate Professor Civil Engineering and Geological Sciences University of Notre Dame Introduction to Engineering Program University.

SEISMIC ANALYSIS WITH SHEAR WALLS

Analytical Evaluation of Precast Concrete Structures Resistance to Disproportionate Collapse Progressive Collapse:  When a ”disproportionately” large.

The ground must push up as hard as the building pushes down

Note: Moment Diagram Convention

Villanova University Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering CEE 8414 – Structural Dynamics Northridge Earthquake 1 Northridge Earthquake - Concrete.

Feng Xiong PhD Professor of Civil Engineering Sichuan University Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis for Precast Short Column Connections Under Cyclic Loading.

Courtesy of Holbert Apple Associates Georgia Avenue Building Introduction Statistics Gravity System Lateral System Problem Statement & Solution.

Ömer O. Erbay & Ahmet Çıtıpıtıoğlu 25 April 2008

STRUT & TIE MODELS (S-T-M)

Design Example The 10” TH. wall system shown in the figure below is to be checked for a service gravity load of 3 Kips/ft and a lateral load of 25 Kips,

Static Pushover Analysis

Jennifer Soderstrom University of Washington

Basic Structural Theory. BASIC STRUCTURAL THEORY TECHNICAL STANDARDS BRANCH INTRODUCTION TO BRIDGES TRANSPORTATION Slide 2 Beams Different member types.

Jurg Conzett – Traversina Bridge

Frames and Walls Lateral Stability

GARY NEWMAN STRUCTURES OPTION ADVISOR: DR. HANAGAN SENIOR THESIS PRESENTATION SPRING 2008.

Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Xuehui AN.

AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS Quantum II Corporate Headquarters Michael Sandretto Spring – 2007 Structural Option.

Southeast View of IRMC West View of IRMC. Presentation Outline Introduction Existing Structure Thesis Goals Structural Depth Lighting Breadth Conclusion.

University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN

300 North La Salle Liam McNamara BAE / MAE Senior Thesis April 13 th, 2010.

URS – ARENA DISTRICT OFFICE BUILDING DAVID LEE STRUCTURAL OPTION.

DESIGN OF LARGE OPENINGS IN UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED PRECAST CONCRETE WALLS Michael G. Allen Yahya C. Kurama University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN PCI.

Nicholas Reed Structural Option Seneca Allegany Casino Hotel Addition AE Senior Thesis 2013 Courtesy of Jim Boje, PE.

Brad Oliver – Structural Option Advisor – Professor Memari.

Fordham Place Bronx, NY Aric Heffelfinger Structural Option Spring 2006.

 Building Background  Building Structural System  Problem Statement  Proposed Solution  Structural Investigations  Architectural Impact  Sustainability.

Greg Deierlein, Paul Cordova, Eric Borchers, Xiang Ma, Alex Pena,

Buckling Capacity of Pretwisted Steel Columns: Experiments and Finite Element Simulation Farid Abed & Mai Megahed Department of Civil Engineering American.

Two loading Conditions

Reinforcement Information - Code

Chagrin Highlands Building One Beechwood, Ohio Branden J. Ellenberger - Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004.

Beam Design Beams are designed to safely support the design loads.

Biobehavioral Health Building The Pennsylvania State University Daniel Bodde Structural Option Advisor – Heather Sustersic.

John Pillar Hampton Inn & Suites National Harbor, Md Advisor: Dr. Memari Distinguished Speaker Series, Spring 2007.

Kenneth O’Neill Experimental Investigation of Circular Concrete Filled Steel Tube Geometry on Seismic Performance.

Comparative Study of Chord forces in Flat Slabs due to Seismic loads in buildings of different plan aspect ratios Aman Gupta (B.Tech. student) Dr. S. Mandal.

R. Bryan Peiffer– Structural Option AE Senior Thesis 2011 Three PNC Plaza, Pittsburgh Pa.

National University Rail Center Innovative Fully Precast Retaining Wall System For Highways and Railroads Maen Farhat, Momenur Rahman, Mustapha Ibrahim.

SHERINE RAJ AP/CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF SCD

Unified Theory of Reinforced Concrete

2 Master of the Department of Civil Engineering, NTUT, Taipei, Taiwan.

CONDOMINIUM TOWER & PARKING

Advisor: Professor M. Kevin Parfitt

Outline Introduction Structural Redesign Gravity System

Mitre III Building McLean VA Debra Schroeder Structural Option.

Instability of Geological Materials under Three-Dimensional Stress Conditions Poul V. Lade The goal of this project is to study the conditions for instability.

Presentation transcript:

DESIGN OF LARGE OPENINGS IN UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED PRECAST CONCRETE WALLS Michael G. Allen Yahya C. Kurama University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN PCI Convention, Palm Springs, California, October 17-20, 1999

1998 PCI Daniel P. Jenny Research Fellowship University of Notre Dame

ELEVATION wall panel horizontal joint unbonded PT steel spiral reinforcement foundation anchorage

GAP OPENING BEHAVIOR gap

BASE PANEL compression stresses shear stresses

CRACKING

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES Develop analytical model Conduct parametric investigation Develop design approach

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL truss elements contact elements nonlinear plane stress elements

ABAQUS MODEL

GAP OPENING

ABAQUS VERSUS DRAIN base shear (kips) roof drift (%) DRAIN yielding state gap opening state ABAQUS

ABAQUS VERSUS DRAIN roof drift (%) contact length / wall length ABAQUS DRAIN

CLOSED FORM VERIFICATION (Savin 1961) (INFINITE PANEL) f tx T C

ABAQUS VERSUS CLOSED FORM SOLUTION f tx (ksi) closed form (Savin 1961) ABAQUS h o /l o lolo hoho

PARAMETRIC INVESTIGATION Wall length Initial concrete stress Opening size

WALL LENGTH 10 feet x 16 feet 15 feet x 16 feet 20 feet x 16 feet

INITIAL CONCRETE STRESS l p =20 feet C L f ci =1.48 ksi (high seismicity) f ci =0.67 ksi (medium seismicity) f ci =0.34 ksi (no seismicity)

OPENING SIZE lolo hoho h p =16 feet l p =20 feet hoho 2 feet (0.13 h p ) 4 feet (0.25 h p ) 6 feet (0.38 h p ) 8 feet (0.50 h p ) lolo 2 feet (0.10 l p ) 4 feet (0.20 l p ) 8 feet (0.40 l p ) 6 feet (0.30 l p ) 10 feet (0.50 l p )

STAGES OF RESPONSE Gravity and post-tensioning only Gap opening PT steel yielding Concrete crushing

UNDER GRAVITY AND POST-TENSIONING ONLY A sf or A sc

EFFECT OF f ci (l p =20 feet) A sf (in 2 ) f ci h o /h p =0.125 h o /h p =0.25 h o /h p =0.375 l o /l p =0.3 lolo lplp hphp hoho

EFFECT OF f ci (l p =20 feet) A sf (in 2 ) f ci l o /l p =0.1 l o /l p =0.2 l o /l p =0.4 l o /l p =0.3 h o /h p =0.25 lolo lplp hphp hoho

A sf (in 2 ) h o /h p l p =20 feet l p =15 feet l p =10 feet EFFECT OF h o (f ci =0.68 ksi) l o /l p =0.3 lolo lplp hphp hoho

A sf (in 2 ) l o /l p l p =20 feet l p =15 feet l p =10 feet EFFECT OF l o (f ci =0.68 ksi) h o /h p =0.25 lolo lplp hphp hoho

EFFECT OF f ci (l p =20 feet) A sc (in 2 /ft) f ci h o /h p =0.125 h o /h p =0.25 h o /h p =0.375 l o /l p =0.3 lolo lplp hphp hoho

EFFECT OF f ci (l p =20 feet) A sc (in 2 /ft) f ci l o /l p =0.1 l o /l p =0.2 l o /l p =0.4 l o /l p =0.3 h o /h p =0.25 lolo lplp hphp hoho

EFFECT OF h o (f ci =0.68 ksi) 0.5 h o /h p 0.25 A sc (in 2 /ft) 0 l p =20 feet l p =15 feet l p =10 feet l o /l p =0.3 lolo lplp hphp hoho

A sc (in 2 /ft) l o /l p h o /h p =0.25 l p =20 feet l p =15 feet l p =10 feet EFFECT OF l o (f ci =0.68 ksi) lolo lplp hphp hoho

DESIGN PREDICTION T C C

PREDICTED VERSUS ABAQUS (l p =20 feet) A sf (in 2 ) f ci predicted ABAQUS l o /l p =0.3 h o /h p =0.25 lolo lplp hphp hoho

A sf (in 2 ) h o /h p l p =20 feet PREDICTED VERSUS ABAQUS (f ci =0.68 ksi) l o /l p =0.3 predicted ABAQUS lolo lplp hphp hoho

A sf (in 2 ) l o /l p l p =20 feet PREDICTED VERSUS ABAQUS (f ci =0.68 ksi) h o /h p =0.25 predicted ABAQUS lolo lplp hphp hoho

PREDICTED VERSUS ABAQUS (l p =20 feet) predicted ABAQUS f ci l o /l p =0.3 h o /h p =0.25 A sc (in 2 /ft) lolo lplp hphp hoho

h o /h p l p =20 feet PREDICTED VERSUS ABAQUS (f ci =0.68 ksi) l o /l p =0.3 predicted ABAQUS lolo lplp hphp hoho

l o /l p A sc (in 2 /ft) l p =20 feet PREDICTED VERSUS ABAQUS (f ci =0.68 ksi) h o /h p =0.25 predicted ABAQUS lolo lplp hphp hoho

h o /l o 1.0 l p =10 feet (f ci =0.68 ksi) l p =15 feet (f ci =0.44 ksi) l p =15 feet (f ci =0.68 ksi) l p =20 feet (f ci =0.68 ksi) l p =20 feet (f ci =1.48 ksi) l p =20 feet (f ci =0.67 ksi) l p =20 feet (f ci =0.34 ksi) 1.5 A sf (predicted/ABAQUS) ALL CASES 0.5

CONCLUSIONS Analytical Model ABAQUS model developed for walls with openings ABAQUS results compare well with DRAIN-2DX results and closed form results Parametric Investigation Gravity and post-tensioning loads only As f ci increases, steel requirement increases significantly As h o increases, steel requirement decreases, especially for longer walls As l o increases, steel requirement increases, especially for shorter walls

CONCLUSIONS Design Approach Utilizes a strut-and-tie model Can be used to predict the ABAQUS results; and To design the reinforcement above the openings –A sc to prevent cracking –A sf to minimize crack widths

REMAINING WORK Design for lateral loads Experimental verification (Lehigh Tests)