Session 6

Seismic design of concrete structures

NEW GENERATION OF EARTHQUAKE RESISTING SYSTEMS

Jos I. Restrepo
Associate Professor
University of California, San Diego
UNITED STATES
Keywords: energy dissipation devices, precast concrete, prestressed concrete, self-centering systems

INTRODUCTION

The impact and cost of the consequences of damage caused by earthquakes worldwide during
the past two decades have raised serious questions of whether current building seismic design philosophies are satisfying the needs of modern society. Most seismic design standards are based on a
life-prevention approach where building structural and non-structural damage is accepted providing
that collapse is avoided. No other economic parameters, such as the cost of damage to equipment
and stored goods and the cost associated with loss of operation following a moderate/strong earthquake, are currently accounted for in the design process. The rapid advance in technology has meant
that often, in many countries, the cost of equipment, of stock and the loss of business operation in the
aftermath of a moderately or strong earthquake are higher than that of the building itself. As a result,
and in spite of efforts aimed at improving seismic design methodologies and construction practices,
economic losses due to earthquakes have increased rather than decreased in the past decades.
The framework for a performance-based design was first proposed in an attempt to encompass,
directly or indirectly, all parameters within a set of objectives aimed at ensuring predictable behavior of
the entire building [1] and to, ultimately, mitigate economic losses. Within the framework of performance-based seismic design, significant effort has been made in recent years at developing new methodologies [2, 3] and new structural systems in a way that the design objectives could be achieved.
This paper describes a number of emerging structural wall systems aimed at minimizing seismically induced structural damage. The design of the system within a displacement-based seismic design procedure is also discussed herein. Finally, the paper describes the results of experimental work
performed on these systems.

NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NEW STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

The cost associated with the loss of business operation, damage to equipment and structural
damage following a moderately strong earthquake can be significant to modern society, particularly in
those centers of advanced technology. Such cost is often comparable, if not greater, to the cost of the
building itself. With current design approaches, most building structures are designed to respond beyond the elastic limit and eventually to develop a mechanism involving a number of flexural plastic
hinges. For this reason plastic hinges are especially detailed for ductility and for energy dissipation.
Whilst the concept of inelastic response is very appealing, it has two main drawbacks: First, regions in the principal lateral force resisting system will be sacrificed in moderately strong earthquakes
and in need of repair, or damaged beyond repair in strong earthquakes. Second, current design approaches are based on the premise that large energy dissipation capacity is necessary to mitigate the
effects induced by earthquakes. This premise has very often led to the notion that a good structural
system should be characterised by "fat" hysteresis loops. As a very large fraction of the input energy
is expected to be dissipated by hysteresis due to flexural yielding in the plastic hinges, significant residual displacements could be expected in a building after an earthquake. In a parametric analysis on
single degree of freedom oscillators, Christopoulos et al. [5] noted that oscillators characterised by a
flag-shaped hysteretic response, which have significantly less energy dissipated per cycle than elastoplastic oscillators, were subjected in general to lower ductility demands than elasto-plastic oscillators
with the same level of strength. An added benefit of a flag-shaped hysteretic response was the lack of
residual displacements.
The use of some widely accepted structural systems can become questionable in light of postearthquake occupancy and reparability. For example, it has long been recognized that, in moment
resisting frames of high-rise buildings, the best mechanism of inelastic deformation is the beam

41

Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress

sidesway mechanism, see Fig. 1. This mechanism distributes the plastic rotations through
most beams in the frame, precluding the concentration of rotation in any particular location.
Nevertheless, the distribution of plasticity in so
many locations in the structure can have a
severe impact on the cost of repair, particularly if
a prefabricated faade or ceiling hide such
regions. This potential problem is more relevant
to current design practice as little emphasis is
given to post-earthquake reparability issues, like
providing suitable access for grouting residual
cracks in cladded perimeter frames. Such
problems were observed in Kobe following the
1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake [4].
Another important issue in seismic design
nowadays deals with current societal performance expectations. While the principle of mitigating loss of life in a strong earthquake still prevails,
society expects buildings to survive a moderately
strong earthquake with no disturbance to business operation. This implies that repairs of incipient structural damage may not be economical,
and may no longer be tolerated in small and
moderately strong events. Alternatives such as
seismic isolation provide some of the desirable
response characteristics, but the cost confine
such alternatives to only landmarks of significant
importance and to bridge structures.
The main objective of this paper is to describe some structural systems that possess selfcentering characteristics and are economically
viable alternatives to current lateral force resisting systems. Particular emphasis is given to the
response characteristics of cantilever walls that
are explicitly designed to self-center after an excursion beyond the limit of proportionality. This
system encompasses a range of walls that are
jointed at their base and are properly detailed to
rock about their foundation. These walls can be
prestressed with unbonded tendons and can incorporate devices designed especially for energy
dissipation. Jointed walls are grouped into rocking or hybrid types depending on the lateral
force-lateral displacement response characteristics, see Fig. 2. Rocking walls show a non-linear
elastic response, whereas hybrid walls show a
flag-shaped response.

Fig. 1 Typical beam sidesway mechanism

in a ductile frame

PRACTICAL DEVELOPMENT

In 1993, Priestley and Tao [6] proposed the

use of moment resisting frame systems
prestressed with partially unbonded tendons as
the primary lateral force resisting systems in
seismically prone areas. This proposal was supported by a series of non-linear dynamic timehistory analyses that showed the viability of such

Fig. 2 Classification of jointed walls

42

Session 6

Seismic design of concrete structures

systems. These researchers pointed out that an

advantage of these systems is the lack of residual drift following a strong earthquake. MacRae
and Priestley [7] and Stanton et al. [8] subsequently carried out experimental work on precast
beam-column subassemblies. Stanton et al.
proposed a hybrid system, in which mild steel
reinforcement was combined with unbonded tendons in the critical connections. The objective of
using mild steel reinforcement was to provide
hysteretic energy dissipation to the system. The
concept developed by Stanton et al. is conceptually similar to the rocking concept combined with
energy dissipation devices used in the design of
the stepping rail bridge over the south
Rangitikei river, New Zealand. This bridge, see
Fig. 3, has been in operation since 1981. Since
then, several systems have been studied as part
of the co-ordinated four-phase PRESSS
research programme on precast concrete
systems in the United States. This programme
completed with the testing of a 60% scale fivestorey building [9, 10]. This building included a
coupled wall designed to provide lateral force
resistance in one direction of loading. U-shaped
rolling stainless steel plates were designed for
energy dissipation and used to couple the walls.
Experimental work has also been carried out in
the United States to evaluate the response of
systems incorporating unbonded prestressing in
bridge piers [11].

Fig. 3 "Stepping" rail bridge over the

Rangitikei river, New Zealand

STATIC RESPONSE CHARACTERISATION

Fig. 5 plots the idealized monotonic lateral force - lateral displacement

response of the hybrid cantilever wall
depicted in Fig. 4. This figure also
shows the responses of a purely rocking wall system and of a wall system
prestressed with unbonded tendons. In
the example shown, the axial load level
due to combined gravity loading and
prestressing is relatively low and, therefore, the neutral axis depth at the ultimate limit state is relatively small. Also,
the unbonded length of the tendons is
designed to ensure that the limit of proportionality is not reached as a result of
the elongation caused by the opening of
the gap at the wall base during the largest expected lateral displacement demand. The opening of a large gap at
the base of the wall implies that large
compressive strains are expected to
arise at the corner of the wall. This
usually requires special reinforcing de-

Fig. 4 Main features of a hybrid wall

43

Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress

tailing to prevent the concrete from crushing prematurely.

In the initial stages of lateral loading there is no contribution to the lateral displacement from deformations in the joint at the base of the wall, the wall panel deforming primarily in
flexure. At point a in Fig. 5, the extreme fibre of the joint located at the base of the wall is decompressed. Further loading results in a gradual opening of the joint, and as a result, in a gradual reduction in stiffness, see the dotted line ab in Fig. 5 When the gap in the joint is sufficiently wide, the energy dissipators attain the elastic limit (see point b in Fig. 5). Following this point the stiffness of the
wall is further reduced. The stiffness of the system at loading beyond point b is related to the strainhardening stiffness in the energy dissipators plus the stiffness of the tendons. At point c of Fig. 5, the
energy dissipators reach the plateau associated with the behaviour of steel beyond one-half the ultimate tensile strain. Hence, the remaining stiffness left in the system is solely due to the presence of
the tendons that remain elastic. At point d of Fig. 5, the energy dissipators reach the limiting strain
and are expected to fracture at any displacement beyond this point. The quadri-linear representation
given by the lines oa, ab, bc, and cd is able to provide a good representation of the monotonic response of hybrid walls.
In a hybrid cantilever wall of rectangular cross section subjected to a single lateral force, the lateral force, Hr, causing decompression at the extreme fibre at one of the lower corners of the wall can
be determined from elastic theory. In this case the presence of reinforcing steel in the wall and of the
energy dissipators is ignored for practical purposes. Thus:

H r = (P + N )

lw
6heff

(1)

where P and N are the prestressing force after losses and gravity load actions at the base of the wall
panel, respectively, and heff and lw are the distance from the base to the lateral force and the length of
the wall, respectively.
The lateral displacement, r, at the point of application of the lateral force Hr, is obtained by combining the flexural and shear deformations occurring within the wall panel. Using elastic theory, assuming the wall panel is uncracked and that the shear modulus of concrete Gc = 0.4Ec, the following
expression is obtained for r,

Hu
Hp

Hy
Lateral load

Hr

1
Kp
Ked + Kp

Ked + Kp
1

K
p

Kr
1

Partially- Prest ressed

Prest ressed-on ly

Ro cking -only

Kw
1
r

y
p
Lateral displacement

Fig. 5 Monotonic lateral force lateral displacement response of jointed systems [14]

44

Session 6

Seismic design of concrete structures

3 l

r = 1 + w

4 heff

h 3
eff
Hr

3
E
I
c g

(2)

where Ec is the concrete Youngs modulus and Ig is the second moment of area of the gross section.
When the wall is loaded towards point b, see Fig. 5, the neutral axis depth migrates towards the
extreme fibre in compression. The resulting compressive force at the base of the wall approaches the
extreme compressive fibre. The tangential stiffness Ked, Ked and Kp of the lines depicted in Fig. 5 can
be determined using the mechanical model shown in Fig. 6. At ultimate load, the resulting force will be
very close to the extreme fibre in compression. If the position of the resulting force is assumed to remain constant when loading through points b to d, the wall can be represented by the superposition of
a prestressed-only and a energy dissipation-only mechanisms, see Fig. 5. If gravity loading is small
and is ignored for practical purposes, Kr = 0 in Fig. 5. For a wall prestressed with tendons acting
through the walls centerline and incorporating axial energy dissipation devices acting also at this location the stiffness Ked, Ked and Kp are:

K ed

1 E s Asd
=
4 Led

lw a

h
eff

1 E ' s Asd
K ' ed =
Led
4

(3)

lw a

h
eff

(4)

and

1 E sp Asp
Kp =
4
Lsp

lw a

h
eff

(5)

where a/2 is the position of the resultant compressive force at the base of the wall, measured from the
extreme compressive fibre; Es is the elastic modulus of steel in the axial energy dissipation devices;
Es is the strain hardening modulus of steel in the idealised tri-linear stress-strain relationship shown in
Fig. 7; Asd is the area of a single energy dissipator; Esp is the elastic modulus of the tendons; Asp is the
total area of the tendons and Lsd and Led are the tendons unbonded length and the yielding length of
the axial energy dissipation device.
Point b in Fig. 5, associated with the onset of yielding in the energy dissipation device, is described by the lateral force Hy and lateral displacement y given by,

a
H y = (K ed + K p )(
. y r ) + 3H r 1
lw

(6)

and

y = 2

fy
Es

Led

a
+ 3 r 1
(l w a )
lw
heff

(7)

Where fy is the yield strength of the steel in the energy dissipation devices.
By substituting Eqs 3, 5 and 7 and simplifying, Eq. 8 is obtained:

Hy =

E sp Led
1 l w a
1+
2 heff
E s Lsp

Asp

f y Asd + 3H r 1 a

Asd
lw

45

(8)

Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress

Fig. 6 Mechanical model for determining the response of a hybrid wall [14]

Stress
c

fs u

fy

Es =

fs u -fy
s u - y
2

Es
1
O

s u

s u

Strain

Fig. 7 Idealised Stress-strain relationship for mild steel in tension [14]

Point c in Fig. 5, corresponds to the development of a stress equal to the ultimate tensile strength of
the energy dissipators in the idealised stress-strain relationship shown as point b in Fig. 7. The force Hp
and displacement u describing this point are given by the incremental equations,

H p = (K ' ed + K p )(
. p y )+ H y

and

46

(9)

Session 6

Seismic design of concrete structures

p = 2

f su f y
E's

Led

heff

(l w a )

+ y

(10)

Point c in Fig. 5 marks the ultimate deformation capacity of the wall for use in design when incorporating axial energy dissipation devices. The displacement capacity beyond this point should not be relied upon
since the energy dissipators themselves will not be subjected to axial strains only but also to bending due to
the kinematics of the system [14].
The tangential stiffness between points c and d in Fig. 5 equals Kp. This means that the lateral force in
this region of the curve is given by,

H = K p ( p ) + H p

(11)

The self-centering response achieved in jointed systems enables hysteretic damping to be treated as if
viscous. That is, the system is ideal for use in a displacement-based design approach such as that proposed by Priestley [3]. This approach takes a non-linear multi-degree-of-freedom (mdof) system and condenses it into a single-degree-of-freedom (sdof) elastic structure with a corresponding equivalent viscous
damping ratio. However, the level of equivalent viscous damping in jointed system cannot be uniquely defined since it is amplitude dependent.
Consider the case of a wall prestressed with tendons and having axial energy dissipation devices at or
near the wall centerline. The energy dissipated, ED, by the devices in a complete cycle is from Fig. 8:

E D = 4 B u Fd d = 2 B u b Fd l w

(12)

where Fd is the force in the energy dissipation devices, d = b lw / 2 is the wall uplift at the centerline;
factor u is the ratio between the energy dissipated by an ideal bi-linear dissipator and a rigid plastic
dissipator with a force capacity Fd. Values of u range from 0 at the onset of yielding and tend asymptotically to 1; B is the ratio of the actual energy dissipated to that dissipated by the idealized bi-linear
device. Thus, this factor accounts for the Bauschinger effect. Typical values of B for low carbon
steel range between 0.8 and 0.9.
The strain energy, ESo, in an elastic sdof structure is given by,

E So =

H
2

(13)

The energy dissipation devices begin to dissipate energy once they exceed the elastic limit. This
implies the opening of a gap at the base of the wall. At this stage the lateral displacement at the
effective height of the wall can be related to the base rotation, b:

= f b heff

(14)

where is f a factor that considers all sources of flexibility in all elastic regions of the system: flexural
and shear deformations in the wall panel, in the foundation element and the flexibility in the system
induced by the rotation of the foundation due to the soil-structure interaction. Factor f is largest at the
onset of yielding of the energy dissipation devices. This factor tends to 1 as the opening of the joint
becomes the largest contributor to the imposed lateral displacement in the wall.
Now, the equivalent viscous damping due to hysteresis, h, can be obtained as

h =

ED
4E So

(15)

Substituting Eqs. 12 to 14 into Eq. 15 and simplifying:

h =

B u l w Fd
f heff H

(16)

but the lateral force H in the substitute structure can be approximated by:

47

Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress

H=

lw
(Fd + N + P )
2heff

(17)

Substituting Eq. 17 in Eq. 16 and simplifying:

h = 2

B u

1
{ 1 + (N + P ) / Fd }

(18)

The lower bound for h is obtained when u = 0  h,min = 0. This situation arises when the dissipators respond elastically. The upper bound for h is obtained from Eq. 18 by replacing u =1, B =
0.9, f =1 and Fd = Fdu. Therefore,

h , max =

0.573
{ 1 + (N + P ) / Fdu }

(19)

The requirement for self-centering response implies that the gap at the base joint of the walls
closes upon unloading. Thus, the prestressing force after losses, in addition to the gravity loads, must
be sufficient to bring the energy dissipation devices to nominally zero strain upon unloading. Under
reversed cyclic loading in the tensile strain domain, the compressive stress at zero strain is very similar to the tensile stress obtained at the maximum reversal point for low carbon steels, see Fig. 8. This
limiting condition implies that:

Fdu N + P

(20)

Fig. 8 Energy dissipated per cycle by a centrally located axial dissipator

48

Session 6

Seismic design of concrete structures

When Fdu = N+P, the maximum equivalent hysteretic damping is from Eq. 19, h,max = 0.287. In
practice, however, the maximum values obtained for h,max are of seldom larger than 0.20.
The total equivalent viscous damping, eq, for design should also consider the intrinsic and radiation damping. These two sources of damping can be approximately taken as 0.05. These two
sources contribute significantly to reducing the dynamic response at low amplitudes and less at large
amplitudes. Hence, the total equivalent damping in a hybrid wall is,

eq = h + 0.05
5

(21)

DYNAMIC RESPONSE

The static response characterisation and subsequent use of the response in a displacementbased design approach with a sdof structure falls short of describing the dynamic response of a multidegree of freedom system. Following a capacity design approach, it should be ensured that in jointed
systems the sole source of non-linear deformations are those due to the opening of the joints. All
other regions and elements in the structure should be made stronger to ensure elastic response. For
this reason, it is necessary in design to complement the understanding obtained from the static response characterisation with the trends observed from the dynamic response. In particular, the bending moment and shear force envelopes in the walls should be expected to be quite different from those
estimated with any static procedure.
Fig. 9 shows the bending moment and shear force envelopes obtained from non-linear time history analyses for a twelve-storey cantilever wall building subjected to a synthetic record matching a
design response spectrum. Analyses were conducted on models representing conventional monolithic
cast-in-place reinforced concrete wall construction and the hybrid cantilever wall incorporating axial
energy dissipators described in Section 4.
To enable a comparison of the dynamic response, the backbone moment-curvature response
employed in the analyses was identical for the monolithic and jointed wall models. The response of
the monolithic wall was modelled using the Takeda hysteresis rule, whereas an Origin-centered rule
was used to represent the response of the hybrid wall. The monolithic wall was designed for ductile
response following the recommendations of the New Zealand Loadings and Concrete Structures
Standards [15, 16]. The hybrid wall was designed to match the capacity of the monolithic wall. The
axial load level for the walls was small and was ignored in the analyses. Constant 5% damping was
assigned to all modes of response.
Fig. 9 (a) shows that, for the particular case studied, the maximum bending moment demand in
12

12
11
Monolithic
Jointed

10
9

Monolithic

10

Jointed
NZS 3101:1995, o = 1.46.

Level

Storey

11

6
5

7
6
5

4
3

M n = 11870

0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

500

1000

1500

2000

Shear force, kN

Bending moment, kNm

(a) Bending moment envelope

(b) Shear force envelope

Fig. 9 Comparison between the dynamic response of monolithic and jointed walls in a twelvestorey building

49

Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress

the hybrid wall develops above the base where the joint opens. In the case of the monolithic wall, the
maximum bending moment develops at the base. Yielding in this wall spreads upwards to about 50%
of the walls height, a value greater than currently assumed in design. In the upper half of the walls
the bending moment envelopes are nearly identical for both systems.
Fig. 9 (b) compares the shear force envelopes obtained from the analysis of both systems with
the design envelope derived from the recommendations of the New Zealand Concrete Structures
Standard. The shear force envelopes are very similar for both systems and are, for most of the height
of the walls, are within the design envelope obtained from the standard. This finding suggests that the
shear force magnification factor, recommended for the design of monolithic walls in this particular
standard, might also be equally applicable to hybrid walls incorporating energy dissipators.

EXPERIMENTAL WORK

Rahman and Restrepo [12], Holden et al. [14, 17] and Toranzo et al. [13] (also Toranzo [18]) have
reported testing a variety of jointed wall systems.
Rahman and Restrepo tested three half-scale precast concrete wall units, representative of a
four-storey building. The units were designed to ensure that yielding of the tendons would not take
place below 2.5% drift. The wall specimens were 4 m high by 1.35 m long by 125 mm thick. Units 2
and 3 incorporated energy dissipation devices, whereas Unit 1 was post-tensioned only. Additional
gravity loading was simulated in Unit 3 by externally applying 200 kN concentric axial force through a
servo-controlled load system. Fig. 10 shows the geometry of the test specimens and the loading

Fig. 10 Test set-up used in the testing of units by Rahman and Restrepo [12]

50

Session 6

Seismic design of concrete structures

frame. Quasi-static reversed cyclic loading was

applied to the specimens by a horizontal actuator
fitted at the top of the walls. The specified concrete
compressive strength was 45 MPa. The wall specimens were prestressed with 2-12.7 mm diameter
low relaxation strands. The strands were fed
through 70 x 20 mm flat ducts. The ample gap provided by the ducts was deliberately chosen to minimise friction. The total prestressing force in the
units at the commencement of the tests was 188 kN.
The lowermost corners of the wall units were
confined with an arrangement of closely spaced
Grade 400 rectangular hoops and cross ties having
a nominal volumetric steel ratio = 2%, see Fig. 11.
The confining cage was extended up to a height
equal to twice the neutral axis depth associated with
an extreme compressive strain of 0.4%.
A 20 mm diameter Grade 430 steel bar with a
nominal strength of 430 MPa was used for the axial
energy dissipation devices in Units 2 and 3. The
diameter of the milled portion of the bar for Unit 3
was 16 mm. The milled portion was 200 mm long.
The milled portion was cast into the foundation
beam to ensure that the surrounding concrete prevent buckling from occurring. Fig. 12 shows the
energy dissipation devices placed for casting in the
foundation beam of Unit 3.
The lateral force-deflection response of Unit 1
is shown in Fig. 13 (a). The non-linear elastic response is clearly evident in this figure. As expected
for this system, no residual displacements were observed to develop in the wall during the test. The
initial stiffness of the wall specimen at small dis-

Fig. 11 View of cage of Unit 3 [12]

Fig. 12 Close-up view of energy dissipation devices [12]

51

Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress

(a) Unit 1

(b) Unit 3
Fig. 13 Hysteretic response of a jointed and a hybrid wall tested by Rahman and Restrepo [12]

Fig. 14 Extent of damage in Unit 3 at 4% drift [12]

52

Session 6

Seismic design of concrete structures

placements was maintained even after excursions to large lateral drifts. In addition, no degradation in
lateral strength capacity occurred with the progressively increasing lateral drift demands.
Fig. 13 (b) shows the hysteretic response of Unit 3. The hysteretic energy dissipation provided by
the axial energy dissipators is evident in the lateral force-lateral drift response. No strength degradation occurred during testing below 3% drift. The prestressing strands, together with the simulated
gravity loading, provided a restoring force so the wall always returned after unloading to its original
position. After the tendons exceeded the limit of proportionality, some residual drift was observed. The
apparent loss of stiffness observed evident at large drift levels in Fig. 13 (b) was mainly due to irrecoverable compressive strains developed in the confined concrete at the wall toes.
The extent of concrete cracking and spalling in the wall panel of Unit 3 near the end of the test is
illustrated in Fig. 14. Cosmetic spalling of the concrete took place over a length of approximately 180
16

Unit 3

Equivalent Viscous Damping (%)

14
12
10

1st Cycle
2nd Cycle

3rd Cycle
6
4
2
0
0

0.5

1.5

2
Drift,

2.5
h

3.5

4.5

(%)

Fig.15 Equivalent viscous damping obtained from the hysteretic response of Unit 3 [12]

Fig. 16 Hysteretic response of the east energy dissipator in Unit 3 [12]

53

Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress

mm vertically and horizontally. A network of very small width cracks developed on both faces of the
wall through the anchorage length of the bars used for energy dissipation
Fig. 15 shows the equivalent viscous damping ratios obtained from the hysteretic response of
Unit 3. The equivalent damping levels ranged between 9 and 12% in the first large amplitude cycles
associated with drifts varying between 1 and 2.5%. This was principally due to the presence of the
energy dissipation devices in this unit.
The stress-strain relationship for a dissipator installed in Unit 3 is plotted in Fig. 16. The dissipators yielded extensively within the tensile strain domain, as expected. Strains of up to 7% were recorded in the dissipator.
Holden at al. [14, 17] tested two geometrically identical half-scale precast concrete cantilever wall
units with dimensions identical to those tested by Rahman and Restrepo. One unit, Unit 1, was a
code compliant conventionally reinforced specimen, designed to emulate the behaviour of a ductile
cast-in-place concrete wall. The other unit, Unit 2, was hybrid wall. A constant axial force of 200 kN
was applied to each unit to represent gravity loading. Both units were cast with 40 MPa concrete and
were tested under quasi-static reversed cyclic loading conditions.
The hybrid wall unit contained two ducts with 3-5.5mm diameter carbon fibre tendons unbonded

1350

80x40 duct
3 - 5.5 mm
CFRP tendons/duct
R6@300 crs stirrup

4000

4-HD16
3-HD10@100 crs
(2 legs)
350x130
10mm thick plate

1350

R6@50 crs stirrups

4-HD16
4-HD16

Guide plate

180
350

50x50x4.0 SHS

200x125
25mm thick plate
1350x125
25mm thick plate

Fig. 17 Wall panel reinforcement in the hybrid unit tested by Holden et al. [14, 17]

54

Session 6

Seismic design of concrete structures

over 5.5 m. The elastic modulus for the tendons was Esp = 160 GPa. These tendons were
prestressed to 46% of the ultimate tensile strength to induce an initial prestressing force of 132 kN.
The concrete of wall panel in the hybrid unit included 35 mm long high strength steel fibres at a
dose of 40 kg/m3. This was done to reduce conventional reinforcement in the wall panel. Axial energy
dissipation devices, similar to those used by Rahman and Restrepo but with 15.8 mm in diameter,
were provided in this unit.
An arrangement of diagonal steel reinforcement welded to steel plates was designed to transfer
the internal forces in the wall panel directly to the foundation, without the need for confining the concrete at the wall toes, see Fig. 17.

(a) Monolithic wall unit at 2.5 drift

(b) Hybrid wall unit at 3 drift

Fig. 18 View of wall panel reinforcement at large drifts [14, 17]

Monotonic response

180

Applied lateral force (kN)

(a)

Hn = 154 kN

140
100
60
20

-120

-90

-60

-30

-20 0
-60

30
60
90
120
Lateral displacement (mm)

-100
-140

Hn = 154 kN

-180
-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

+1.0

+2.0

+3.0
Drift (%)

(a) Monolithic unit

Fig. 19 Hystertic response of the units tested by Holden et al. [14, 17]

55

Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress

Theoretical pushover response

120

Applied lateral force (kN)

(b)
80
40
0
-120

-90

-60

-30

30

60

90

120

Lateral displacement (mm)

-40
-80
-120
-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

+1.0

+2.0

+3.0
Drift (%)

(b) Hybrid unit

Fig. 19 Hystertic response of the units tested by Holden et al. [14, 17]

The conventional precast reinforced wall performed very well in terms of ductility capacity and energy
absorption capability, reaching 2.5% drift before a number of fractures in the reinforcement resulted in
significant strength degradation. This unit, however, showed a significant number of residual cracks in
the cycles past 1% drift.
The hybrid wall unit achieved drift levels well in excess of 3% with no visible damage to the wall
panel prior to failure. Fracture of the energy dissipators was observed at 5% drift. The carbon fibre
tendons fractured at 6.2% drift. This suggests that this system can be designed to have large reserve
of lateral deformation capacity.
Fig. 18 shows a close-up view of the wall panels at the base of the wall. It is evident that the development of plasticity in the monolithic wall is associated with extensive damage, whereas at large
levels of drift no visible damage was observed in the hybrid wall.

56

Session 6

Seismic design of concrete structures

2.5

(c)
Unit 1

Residual drift (%)

1.5

0.5
-3

-2

-1

-0.5

Unit 2
1st Cycle

-1.5

2nd Cycle
3rd Cycle

-2.5
Peak drift (%)

Fig. 20 Residual drifts measured during testing reported by Holden et al. [14, 17]
Fig. 19 shows the lateral force-lateral displacement response of the units tested by Holden et al.
The monolithic unit, Unit1, showed the characteristic fat loops whereas the hybrid unit, Unit 2,
showed a characteristic self-centering response. Fig. 20 plots the residual drifts for the units. The
monolithic unit displayed significant residual displacements. These displacements were equal to the
peak displacement less the small elastic recovery. In contrast, the hybrid wall unit showed essentially
no residual displacements.
In many countries the adoption of seismic design approaches combined with traditional methods
of construction has resulted in structural conflict. For example, very often the design of frame buildings aims at developing the beam sidesway mechanism shown in Fig. 1. In actual construction, however, the frames are infilled with unreinforced brick masonry. The use of unreinforced masonry infills
in the frames leads to a dramatic change in the seismic response. The presence of the infills precludes the formation of the mechanism postulated in design. In turn, the brittle failure of an infill often
results in the formation of an intermediate column sideway mechanism and leads to extremely poor
building performance and even collapse.
Toranzo et al. [13] (also Toranzo [18]) reported the first shake table testing of a 40% scale
three-storey hybrid wall unit. The wall unit in this test was built with brick masonry infill, and included
the slabs, see Fig. 21. The columns were designed to for strain control to ensure small shear distortions would occur in the wall panel, while the wall rocked at the foundation. Energy dissipation devices,
in the way of tapered levers designed to yield in bending with constant curvature, were installed at the
wall toes, see Fig. 22.
This test unit was subjected to 60 dynamic tests on the 200 KN capacity shake table at the
University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Fig. 23 shows the response of the unit under the Taft N21E
record of the 1952 Kern County earthquake record magnified to attain a target peak ground acceleration of 0.5g. The seismic response of this unit was excellent. The masonry infill maintained its integrity throughout. No cracking was observed to occur in the infill. The maximum residual drift of 0.13%
was observed after an excursion to 1.8% drift. The residual drifts were due to the spreading of yield
lines in the slabs.

57

Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress

120

470

470

840
580

120

130

200

1260

4585

3980

1260

1260

130

shake table

Fig. 21 Details of the shake table test unit by Toranzo [18]

rocking wall

dissipator-end connected
to the wall throught pin

foundation beam

dissipator-end fixed to
foundation through bracket

brackets fixed
to foundation

Fig. 22 Details of the flexural energy dissipation devices [18]

58

Session 6

Seismic design of concrete structures

60

Base moment
(kNm)

Run 41
(Taft x 2.83)

40

20
0

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0
-20

0.5

1.5

Drift (%)

-40
Fig. 23 Base moment vs drift dynamic response to the magnified Taft earthquake record [18]

CONCLUSIONS

1.

This paper described the behavioural concepts pertinent to a new generation of structural concrete jointed systems.

2.

The main advantages of the jointed systems described are the large lateral displacement capacity,
the lack of structural damage associated with large displacements and the ability to return to the
original position upon unloading.

3.

Jointed systems can be explicitly designed with hysteretic energy dissipation devices to provide
energy dissipation with a theoretical equivalent viscous damping up to 0.287.

4.

The self-centering response characteristics of jointed systems make them ideal for use with a
displacement-based design approach. The equivalent viscous damping is, however, amplitude
dependent. This dependence must be considered in design.

5.

Results from non-linear time history analyses indicate that the dynamic response of hybrid wall
systems, as reflected by the bending moment and shear force envelopes, is similar to that of
conventional monolithic wall systems.

6.

Quasi-static and shake table experimental work have clearly shown the benefit of jointed systems.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The experimental part presented in this paper was carried out while the author on the faculty at
the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. The author is grateful to the colleagues and technicians
for the support that made the experimental program successful.
Special recognition is also due to Mr. L. Toranzo, Ph.D. candidate and to Mr. T. Holden, Project
Engineer, KPFF, San Francisco, who as students at the University of Canterbury conducted part of the
research and provided material for this paper.
Finally, the author expresses his gratitude to Prof. A. Rutenberg, Technion University, Israel, for
proof reading this manuscript.

59

Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]

SEAOC: Vision 2000 A framework for performance-based design. Vols. I, II and II, Structural
Engineers of California, Sacramento, California, USA, 1995
Moehle, J.P., Displacement-based design of RC structures subjected to earthquakes. Earthquake
Spectra, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 403-428, 1992
Priestley, M.J.N: Performance-based seismic design. State-of-the-Art Report, 12 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, Paper 2831, 2000
Otani, S.: Development of performance-based design methodology in Japan. Seismic Design
Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes (eds: Fajfar and Krawinkler), AA. Balkema, pp.
59-67, 1997
Christopoulos, C., Filiatrault, A. and Folz, B.: Seismic response of self-centring hysteretic SDOF
systems. J. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 1131-1150, May
2002
Priestley, M.J.N. and Tao, J.R.T.: Seismic response of precast prestressed concrete frames with
partially debonded tendons. PCI J., Vol. 38, No 1, pp. 58-69, Jan.-Feb.1993
MacRae, G.A. and Priestley, M.J.N.: Precast post-tensioned ungrouted concrete beam-column
subassemblage tests. Report No. SSRP-94/10, Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences, University of California, San Diego, California. USA, 1994
Stanton, J., Stone, W. and Cheok, G.S.: A hybrid reinforced precast frame for seismic regions.
PCI J., Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 20-32, Mar.-Apr. 1993
Nakaki, S.D., Stanton, J.F. and Sritharan, S.: An overview of the PRESSS five-story precast test
building. PCI J., Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 26-39, Mar.-Apr. 1999
Priestley, M.J.N., Sritharan, S., Conley, J.R. and Pampanin, S.: Preliminary results and conclusions from the PRESSS five-story precast concrete test building. PCI J., Vol.44, No. 6, pp.42-67,
Nov.-Dec. 1999
Mander, J.B. and Cheng, C-T.: Seismic resistance of bridge piers based on damage avoidance
design. Technical Report NCEER-97-0014, NCEER, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo, New York, USA, 1997
Rahman, A. and Restrepo, J.I.: Earthquake resistant precast concrete buildings: seismic performance of cantilever walls prestressed using unbonded tendons. Research Report 2000- 5, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2000
Toranzo, L., Carr, A.J and Restrepo, J.I.: Displacement based design of rocking walls incorporating hysteretic energy dissipators. 7th International Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy
Dissipation and Active Control of Vibrations of Structures Assisi, Italy, Oct. 2001
Holden, T., Restrepo, J.I. and Mander, J.B.: A comparison of the seismic performance of precast
wall construction: emulation and hybrid approaches. Research Report 2001-04, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2001
NZS 4203: Code of practice for general structural design and design loadings for buildings. Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, 1992
NZS 3101: Concrete structures standard. Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand,
1995
Holden, T., Restrepo, J.I. and Mander, J.B.: Seismic performance of precast reinforced and
prestressed concrete walls. J. Structural Engineering, ASCE, In Press
Toranzo, L.: Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, (In preparation)

60