AS3600-2018 Shear Wall Design Clause 11.2.1 (b) (ii)

[structcode666]

Hi All,

At my current practice, we use ETABS to analyze the stresses in the wall from lateral loads (EQ, Wind). If ETABS denotes ANY tension, we design it as a column in accordance with section 10.

I just wanted to get a second opinion on everyone's interpretation of what a wall subject to tension means - I have peers who will compare the tension from ETABS to the uniaxial concrete tensile stress. If the stress from ETABS is less than the uniaxial tensile stress, then they design it as wall in accrodance to the simplified method. However, in strict accordance with the code, I dont think this is right.

I would love to get thoughts from people who design to other codes as well!

Thanks!

 

[Greenalleycat]

I've had a quick look in NZS3101 and can't see anything about walls in tension so not sure exactly
All I can see are upper bound axial compression limits which then direct you to design the wall as a column

I agree with you that I don't think that their interpretation is correct
It seems to me that if N* is negative (for tension) then you design it as a column - not if N* is within the bounds of the concrete tension
Literally the first clause of 3101 says that "This standard does not cover the design of brittle elements." and concrete in tension is definitely brittle

Being realistic, if you have a tiny net tension demand then I can see it being rationalised away to save the big extra cost/hassle of designing it as a column, sure
But if you have a genuine tension demand on the wall then it should be done properly as per the code
I can't really see where this arises though, except in coupled walls which are forced by our code to be designed for significant confinement etc anyway - which is pretty column to designing it as a column anyway