PSI - Issue 64

Austin Martins-Robalino et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 64 (2024) 418–425 Martins-Robalino and Palermo / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

421

4

FRC Tension

Creep and Relaxation Hysteretic Response

SDEM-Monotonic

Not Considered

Confined Strength

Kupfer/Richart

Palermo 2002 (w /decay)*

Steel Constitutive Models

Hysteric Response

Buckling

Bauschinger Effect (Seckin)

Modified Dhakal-Maeka

Dowel Action

Concrete Bond

Tassios (Crack Slip)

Eligehuasen

* indicates non-default model Both walls were idealized with six different regions based on section thickness and transverse reinforcement spacings. These regions were the Foundation, Cap Beam, Cover, Web, Plastic Hinge Boundary Region, and Boundary Region, illustrated in Fig. 2. [Note: The cap beam and foundation were modelled 100 mm longer than the tested wall to allow the models to be applied to previous walls tested by Abdulridha & Palermo (2017) and Cortés-Puentes et al. (2018) in other studies.] Transverse reinforcement was defined in these regions as “smeared” with reinforcement ratios, ρ, for each region listed in Table 3 with subscripts representing the reinforcement angle from the horizontal plane and 361 representing out-of-plane reinforcement. As the regions are well distributed the smeared reinforcement ratios were based on the cross-sectional area of the transverse reinforcement over tributary area represented by the c/c spacing of the reinforcement and the orthogonal dimension. The foundation and cap beam were assigned large reinforcement ratios to prevent localized failure of the concrete elements adjacent to the loading point and restrained nodes.

Fig. 2. Idealized regions of Wall SWS and SWN models.

Table 3. Smeared reinforcement properties of different regions. Region ρ 0 (%)

ρ 90 (%)

ρ 361 (%)

Foundation Cap Beam

2 2

1 1

NA

1

Cover

NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA

Web

0.88 1.78 2.67

Boundary Region

0.83 1.67

Plastic Hinge Boundary Region