Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

ACI 318-19 Seismic Shearwall Design - Plastic Analysis to Limit Shear Demand

Status
Not open for further replies.
sticksandtriangles

sticksandtriangles

Structural
Apr 7, 2015
476
Looking at a tall, high seismic concrete tower with the new ACI 318-19.

The new equations for design shear strength are as follows:

image1_yw1u2p.png


In our specific case, 18.10.3.1 gets capped at 3*Vu, where Vu is the shear that comes from the analysis model.

I do not see any specific out in ACI 318-19 that allows you to pick the minimum of 18.10.3.1 or the shear that is required to induce flexural yielding.

For example, in our building, we are looking at a sample wall, ~4' wide, 22'-9" long and 240ft high.

Vu = 567 kips
3*Vu = 1701 kips

Doing a plastic analysis on this wall, assuming a conservative value on the location of the shear load on the wall, 0.5 * h, the shear to induce flexural yielding = 747 kips. This plastic moment capacity was calc'd with 1.25fy.

Some sample calc's shown below:
Capture_fddlrf.png


Can I limit my design shear to 747kips instead of the 3*Vu value of 1701 kips? There does not seem to be anything in ACI 318-19 that states you can limit Ve to be the plastic shear to induce flexural yielding of the wall, but that seems to be what is at the heart of the code.

Appreciate the feedback!
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
The left side of the inequality in Equation 18.10.3.1 is capping the shear at the plastic moment capacity of the wall (ΩvVu) amplified by ωv for higher mode affects. This value need not exceed 3Vu, which historically has been the limit for the system overstrength factor (Ω0) in ASCE 7. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You might be chasing your tail here. The reason that dynamic shear amplification was introduced was because for tall slender walls the effective height of the resultant shear force becomes lower once dynamic and nonlinear effects are included. You're assuming that this height is 0.5H, but the code is telling you that they want it to be h_eff = Mp / 3Vu
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ωv is the ratio of Mpr/Mu, so this already accounts for the plastic mechanism. It still needs to be amplified by higher mode factor.

Research has shown that wall shears are not strictly limited by flexural yielding at the base. You can have higher mode shears that increase beyond the shear corresponding to wall yield.

-JA (working on [link calcs.app]Calcs.app[/url])
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
chris3eb said:
You might be chasing your tail here. The reason that dynamic shear amplification was introduced was because for tall slender walls the effective height of the resultant shear force becomes lower once dynamic and nonlinear effects are included. You're assuming that this height is 0.5H, but the code is telling you that they want it to be h_eff = Mp / 3Vu
Click to expand...

Not sure that 3Vu is meant to capture higher mode affects by limiting the effective height. Do you have a reference? I've understood it to be a practical limit on the design shear so that strict adherence to capacity design principles is not required where deemed to be too onerous.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Deker said:
Not sure that 3Vu is meant to capture higher mode affects by limiting the effective height. Do you have a reference? I've understood it to be a practical limit on the design shear so that strict adherence to capacity design principles is not required.
Click to expand...

I have the same understanding of 3Vu as you. I'm saying that dynamic shear amplification in general lowers the effective height. In general, the effective height is h_eff = Mp / Ve. In OP's case, Ve is 3Vu which so I substituted it in, but that might have confused the issue.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
chris3eb said:
You might be chasing your tail here. The reason that dynamic shear amplification was introduced was because for tall slender walls the effective height of the resultant shear force becomes lower once dynamic and nonlinear effects are included. You're assuming that this height is 0.5H, but the code is telling you that they want it to be h_eff = Mp / 3Vu
Click to expand...

Thanks for this reference, it helps to keep reading the code, I see the definition of Heff in fig R18.10.3.1.

The way I see it written though, H eff = Mu/ Vu, not Mu / Ve (3*Vu).

This yields the following results:

Capture_xfjltk.png


Using 70ft for Heff still yields about 410 kips of less shear to design for as compared to the Ve = 3*Vu.

Is it acceptable to design to this reduced shear?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
sticksandtriangles said:
Is it acceptable to design to this reduced shear?
Click to expand...

No, because you're missing the dynamic amplification factor and guessing at the real effective height. You've already found the yield moment Mpr, which is required to determine Ωv = (Mpr / Mu). ΩvVu then needs to be amplified by ωv to capture higher mode effects. Once you've found Ve = ΩvωvVu, you can determine the actual effective height using Mpr / Ve (as chris3db described above) and compare it to your initial guess of 0.5H, but it's unnecessary.

The effective height concept is useful for illustrating the shift in vertical force distribution up the wall and perhaps for preliminary design, but that's about it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks Deker, that makes sense.

Based on these new 318-19 provisions, both increasing the demand side of the equation and reducing capacity side of the equation, I am not sure these tall concrete shearwall buildings are feasible in high seismic anymore.
This building had about 2' thick shearwalls under 318-14, and with 318-19, we are struggling to get a 3' thick shearwall to work. I had heard the changes were big in the webinars I sat through, I guess it just takes a real project for that to truly sink in.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It is a big change on the demand side for this to be required by code, but many engineers in high seismic areas were already proportioning their walls to resist Vpr so they could use Φv=0.75 for shear walls and diaphragms. Some were also already using the ωv factor based on recommendations from SEAOC / Paulay and Priestley.

You may want to check your design, though, as I don't believe shear wall capacities have changed in ACI 318-19.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MJC6125
  • Question
ACI 318-19, Section 9.9.3.1 - Deep Beam Distributed Reinforcement Question
Replies
1
Views
904
HTURKAK
HTURKAK
DTS419
  • Locked
  • Question
Breakout Splitting Factor per ACI 318-19 17.6.2.6
Replies
3
Views
325
EngDM
EngDM
zurch1818
  • Locked
  • Question
ACI 318-19 Reduced Shear Capacity 1
Replies
8
Views
409
lexpatrie
lexpatrie
oengineer
  • Locked
  • Question
ACI 318-19 Shear Design/Check for a Cast-in-place Reinforced Concrete Wall
Replies
2
Views
207
Celt83
Celt83
StrEng007
  • Locked
  • Question
ACI 318-19 Aggregate Size Discrepancy
Replies
4
Views
434
BridgeSmith
BridgeSmith

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top Bottom