7.04.

01
1
1 INTRODUCTION
The impact and cost of the consequences of damage caused by earthquakes worldwide during
the past twelve years has raised the question of whether the current building seismic design
philosophy is satisfying the needs of modern society. The advance in technology has meant that
very often the cost of equipment and stock kept within the building are generally more
expensive than that of the structure itself. As a result, risk to property tends to increase with
modernization. Most seismic design standards are based on a life-prevention philosophy 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 the loss of operation following a moderate/strong earthquake, are currently
accounted for in the design process.
In New Zealand, ductile design has been common practice since 1976 when capacity design
principles were formally codified and adopted. In capacity design a suitable mechanism of
plastic deformation is chosen and the critical regions are detailed for ductility. Other regions in
the structure are made with sufficient strength to ensure the mechanism can develop and be
maintained. Whilst the concept of designing a structure to ensure the development of a suitable
mechanism of plastic deformation is a very effective mean of avoiding collapse, it has an
important shortcoming. The primary structural system is built with regions that will be
sacrificed in moderate and strong earthquakes and may require from minor to expensive repair
work or even demolition.
This paper covers design aspects of a new generation of structural systems whose response is
aimed at minimizing damage. The paper briefly discusses the results of a test programme on
precast/post-tensioned structural wall systems being conducted at the University of Canterbury.



New Generation of Structural Systems for Earthquake
Resistance


J.I. Restrepo, J. Mander and T.J. Holden
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch
NZSEE 2001
Conference

ABSTRACT: The current seismic design philosophy for reinforced concrete structures in
New Zealand is based on the concept that it is generally uneconomical to design a building to
ensure elastic response in a large earthquake. An implication of this concept is that structural
damage is accepted, as long as collapse is prevented in a major earthquake. For this reason
standards allow the use of design forces that are generally smaller than those required for elastic
response. This requires the critical regions of the structure to be adequately designed for
ductility and for energy dissipation. In New Zealand, ductile design has been achieved since
1976 by selecting a suitable mechanism of plastic deformation and ensuring, through capacity
design, that the mechanism can develop and be maintained.
Experience gained from earthquakes abroad indicates that the cost of repair of buildings
designed for ductile response has not been insignificant. This prompts the need to develop
structural systems that have large displacement capacity and perform essentially damage-free,
even when subjected to large earthquakes. This paper covers design aspects of a new generation
of structural systems aimed at minimizing damage. The paper briefly discusses the results of a
test programme on precast/post-tensioned structural wall systems being conducted at the
University of Canterbury.


7.04.01
2
2 WHY DO NEW SYSTEMS ARE NEEDED?
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, than the cost of the structure. There are many ways in which seismic design can be
performed to control damage and to minimize the loss of business operation. One of them is
through seismic isolation (Skinner et al., 1993). In seismic isolation, special devices are placed
in specific locations in the structure with the main aim to dissipate energy and to reduce the
dynamic response. Such devices can be usually replaced with minor disturbance in case their
limiting performance is reached. An alternative structural system, which with future
development could be designed with replaceable energy dissipation devices, is described in
detail in this paper.
In 1993, Priestley and Tao proposed the use of lateral force resisting systems built
incorporating unbonded prestressing for use in seismically prone areas. This proposal was
supported by a series of non-linear dynamic time-history analyses that showed the viability of
such systems. Priestley and Tao pointed out that a main advantage of these systems is the lack
of residual drift following a strong earthquake. This advantage could easily offset the greater
lateral displacement demand obtained for such systems when compared with traditional
systems. Since then, several systems have been proposed and tested as part of the co-ordinated
four-phase PRESSS research programme in United States. This programme recently finished
with the testing of a 60% scale five-storey building (Nakaki et al., 1999; Priestley et al., 1999).
Detailed research work has also been carried out in United States to evaluate the response of
systems incorporating unbonded prestressing in bridge piers (Mander and Ching-Tung, 1997).
The basic behaviour of a system incorporating unbonded prestressing is illustrated in Fig. 1.
The structural element, in this case a precast concrete wall jointed at the base, is prestressed
with partially unbonded tendons. The tendons are generally prestressed to stress levels lower
than those used in conventional prestressed systems. The unbonded length of the tendons is
proportioned 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 the use
of confinement to enable the concrete to develop such strains without crushing. The opening of
the gap at the base of the wall shown in Fig. 1 plays a fundamental role in the lateral force-
displacement response of the system, see Fig. 2 (a). During small amplitude displacements, the
joint at the wall-foundation beam remains closed and most deformations take place within the
wall panel and the foundation structure. A gap opens as soon as decompression is reached at
one end. A marked change in the tangential stiffness occurs when the neutral axis depth,
measured from the extreme compressive fibre, migrates to within 50-25% of the length of the
wall. This change of stiffness results in the apparent yield point P shown in Fig. 2 (a).
Imposed displacements beyond point P result in some increase in the restoring force. This is
because the stiffness of the wall is significantly reduced as a result of the development of the
large gap at the base of the wall. Unloading takes place through essentially the same loading
path. This implies that the response of the wall is non-linear elastic. The main two advantages
of this response are (i) the lack of structural damage, and, (ii) the lack of residual displacements.
A disadvantage of the system shown in Fig. 1 is the lack of energy dissipation capacity. The
lack of energy dissipation capacity can significantly increase the demand on the system, usually
by increasing the lateral displacements, the shear forces and the floor accelerations.
Energy dissipation capacity can be incorporated into the system by several means. For
example, in the case of the cantilever precast wall shown in Fig. 1, energy dissipation can take
place if mild steel bars, with a milled segment in the form of a dog-bone, are cast in the
foundation and then grouted into the wall, see Fig. 3. These bars look just like the commonly
used starter bars. Energy dissipation takes place through extensive yielding in tension and
compression in the tensile strain domain within the milled portion of the bar only. Note that
buckling cannot occur as the milled portion of the bar is surrounded by concrete in the elastic
foundation beam. The diameter of the milled segment is selected such that closing of the gap at
the horizontal connection is ensured upon unloading. Thus, the prestressing force after losses, in


7.04.01
3
addition to the gravity loads, must be sufficient to ram the dog-bones to nominally zero strain
upon unloading. As consequence of this action is that the hysteretic response of the overall
system is characterised by loops showing energy dissipation and no residual lateral
displacements, see Fig. 2 (b).

3 DESIGN ASPECTS FOR JOINTED CANTILEVER WALLS
Rahman and Restrepo (2000) developed a series of guidelines for the design of cantilever walls
prestressed with partially unbonded tendons incorporating the energy dissipation devices
described in previous section. A summary of these guidelines is presented below.
To ensure the development of rocking in walls that are seated on the foundation beam but are
not slotted into it, the aspect ratio of a wall, defined as the ratio between the wall height, H, and
its length, L
w
, should be such that

v
w f
H
=
L 2
(1)
where
v
is a shear force dynamic magnification factor that accounts for the increase shear
resulting from the higher modes of response and
f
is the coefficient of friction between the
contacting wall and foundation surfaces. As it will be indicated in Section 4, the shear force
magnification factor
v
can be made equal to the value recommended by the New Zealand
Concrete Structures Standard for monolithic walls (NZS 3101, 1995).
As a wall is subjected to cyclic reversals under sesimic loading conditions, the force in the
tendons will increase with the amplitude of the lateral displacement. In order to delay the onset
of yielding the optimum location for the tendons at midlength of the wall. The maximum stress
after losses in the post-tensioning tendons, f
psi
, is determined from the expected stress increase
due to kinematics of the rocking wall. The critical tendons is that furthest from the neutral axis
depth at the drift
u
at the ultimate limit state, see Fig. 1. Stress f
psi
is given by,


ps
psi lp ps u
ps
d c
f f E
L

= (2)
where c is the position of the neutral axis depth measured from the extreme fibre in
compression, E
ps
is the elastic modulus of the tendon, f
lp
is the stress in the tendon at the limit of
proportionaly, d
ps
is the distance of the tendon furthest from the extreme compressive fibre to
this fibre and L
ps
is the tendons unbonded length.
The lengths of the non-milled segments at either end of the milled section of the bar should
be such that the full tensile strength of the bar may be developed while the non-milled segments
remain elastic. The diameter of the milled segment is selected such that closing of the gap at the
horizontal connection is ensured before and after an earthquake. Consequently, the prestressing
force after losses, in addition to the gravity loads, must be sufficient to push the milled section
of the bar to nominally zero strain upon unloading. To meet this design requirement, the total
area A
sd
of the milled segments acting as energy dissiaptors should satisfy,

sp psi
sd
y
A f *
A
1.5f
N +
(3)
where N* is the axial compression force acting at the base of the wall, A
sp
is the total area of
prestressing steel reinforcement and f
y
is the lower 5% characteristic yield strength of the energy
dissipation devices.


7.04.01
4
The design procedure proposed by Rahman and Restrepo (2000) for determining f
psi
and A
sd

is iterative and requires the determination of the neutral axis depth c. An approximate
expression for c at the ultimate limit state is given by,

lp sp y sd c e c
c e
N* + 0.9f A 1.5f A 1.4f b c
c =
1.4f b
+ +

(4)
where f
c
is the concrete cylinder compressive strength, b
e
is the wall width and c
c
is the
concrete cover to the longitudinal reinforcing bars confining the wall edges.
For determining the length L
e
of the milled segment of the energy dissipator see Fig. 3,
Rahman and Restrepo (2000) proposed the following expression,
( )
u
e ed
su
L 1.5 d c

(5)
where d
ed
is the distance from the dissipator furthest from the extreme compressive fibre to this
fibre and
su
is the uniform strain of the reinforcing steel used for manufacturing the dissipator.
Equation 5 is based on the assumption that the axial strain in the milled section of the energy
dissipator would not exceed 2
su
/3. They pointed out that the energy dissipator needs to be
properly anchored in the foundation beam and in the wall panel to ensure the development of
tensile and compressive stresses in the milled section equal in magnitude the ultimate tensile
strength.
The nominal flexural strength M
n
at the base of a cantilever wall at the level at which the limit
of proportionality of the tendons is attained can be approximated by the following equation,

M
n
= ( N* + f
lp
A
sp
+ 1.5f
y
A
sd
) ( L
w
c c
c
) /2 (6)

where L
w
is the wall length. Equation 6 assumes that, when the limit of proportionality of the
tendons is reached, the axial strain in the energy dissipators is greater than
su
/2.

4 DYNAMIC RESPONSE
Figure 4 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 the design response spectra for intermediate soil conditions in Wellington. Analyses
were conducted on models representing conventional monolithic construction and jointed
construction incorporating energy dissipators as described in Section 3. 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 modeled using a Takeda hysteresis rule whereas an Origin-centered rule was used to
represent the response of the jointed wall. The monolithic wall was designed for ductile
response following the recommendations of the Loadings and Concrete Structures Standards
(NZS 4203, 1992; NZS 3101, 1995). The jointed wall was designed to match the capacity of
the monolithic wall. The axial for the walls was small and was ignored in the analyses.
Constant 5% damping ratio was assigned to all modes of response. Figure 4 (a) shows that, for
the particular case studied, the maximum bending moment demand in the jointed wall develops
above the base where rocking occurs. In the case of the monolithic wall, the maximum bending
moment develops at the base. Yielding in this wall spreads upwards up to about fifty percent 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. Figure 4 (b)
compares the shear force envelopes obtained from the analysis for both systems with the design


7.04.01
5
envelope derived from the recommendations given by the Concrete Structures Standard (NZS
3101, 1995). The shear force envelopes are very similar for both systems and are, for most of
the height of the walls enveloped by the design envelope obtained from the standard. This
finding suggests that the shear force magnification factor,
v
, recommended for the design of
monolithic walls in the Concrete Structures Standards is equally applicable to jointed walls
incorporating energy dissipators.

5 EXPERIMENTAL WORK
Five walls have been built and tested as part of an ongoing research programme at the
University of Canterbury. Full details of the experimental work can be found elsewhere
(Holden, 2001; Rahman and Restrepo, 2000). Figure 5 shows the main features of each test unit.
Unit 1R tested by Rahman and Restrepo was post-tensioned only. Units 2R and 3R
incorporated energy dissipation devices in the way of dog-bone bars. Unit 3R was tested under
constant axial load. Unit 1H tested by Holden was precast and was designed to emulate a
ductile cast-in-place concrete wall following the requirements of the Concrete Structures
Standard, (NZS 3101, 1995). The wall was seated inside a slot built into the foundation beam
and was grouted afterwards. This wall was designed for the same capacity as Units 2H and 3R.
Problems with scaling down the reinforcing bars while satisfying the minimum spacing
requirements meant that the wall was about 30% stronger than the post-tensioned units. Units
2H and 3R were similar, except that the wall in Unit 2H was cast using steel-fibre reinforced
concrete and was post-tensioned using carbon fibre tendons. The reinforcing detailing was
eased in all the jointed walls as a plastic hinge, resulting in structural damage at the base of the
walls was not expected to occur.
Figure 6 shows the general geometry and loading arrangement. The test units represented a
one-half scale of a 250 mm thick wall used in a prototype four-storey building. The units were
subjected to quasi-static reversed cyclic loading to increasing drift levels. The lateral force was
applied by a single double acting hydraulic actuator at 3.75 m from the base of the walls. Figure
7 shows the lateral force lateral displacement response for Units 1H and Unit 3R. Both units
showed satisfactory behaviour as far as the hysteretic response is concerned. Unit 1H failed by
fracturing the longitudinal reinforcing bars during a cycle towards 2.5% drift. In this unit
several residual cracks of 1 mm and 2.2 mm in width were observed after the unloading from
cycles to 1% drift. In contrast, Unit 3R reached 4% drift without failure and with very limited
damage. The gap at the base of the wall always closed upon unloading. Only hairline cracks
were observed to develop in this unit but cracks closed upon unloading. Figure 8 shows the
extent of damage in each unit at a drift of 3%.
A comparison of the hysteretic response of the two units shows that Unit 1H has the ability to
dissipate more energy than Unit 3R. This is due to the fatness of the hysteresis loops. For
example during the first cycle to 2% drift the equivalent viscous damping obtained for Unit 1H
24 % whereas Unit 3R attained a ratio of 11.5%. While a higher damping ratio may be a
desirable feature to control the dynamic response of a system, the lack of structural damage and
lack of residual drifts observed in jointed walls will easily overshadow the smaller inherited
damping.
6 CONCLUSIONS
This paper covered the design aspects of a new generation of structural systems whose
response is aimed at minimizing damage. The system comprises jointed precast concrete walls
that are prestressed with partially unbonded tendons. The paper briefly discussed the results of a
test programme on precast/post-tensioned structural wall systems being conducted at the
University of Canterbury.

The following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The impact and cost of the consequences of damage caused by earthquakes worldwide during
the past twelve years has raised the question of whether the current building seismic design


7.04.01
6
philosophy is satisfying the needs of modern society. The advance in technology has meant that
very often the cost of equipment and stock kept within the building are generally more
expensive than that of the structure itself. A consequence of this is that the level of structural
damage observed to occur in buildings in earthquake affected regions may no longer satisfy the
needs of modern society. The level of damage prompts the need for the development of systems
that could be considered to be inert to input ground motion. One such system comprises jointed
cantilever precast concrete walls that are prestressed with partially unbonded tendons. Such
system can be built with energy dissipation devices in the way of starter bars with a milled
section placed at the wall-foundation structure connection.

2. Jointed walls have the main advantage over conventional ductile reinforced concrete wall
systems in that no residual drifts or structural damage is expected to occur after a major
earthquake. These two features easily offset the fact that the energy dissipation capacity of the
jointed system is less than of that expected from a well detailed ductile reinforced concrete
system.

3. The basic mechanics and design parameters for the jointed walls described in the paper were
outlined in the paper.

4. Dynamic non-linear time history analyses on multi-storey wall systems have shown that the
shear force envelope is very similar to that found for conventional monolithic wall systems.
This allows the shear force magnification factor given in the Concrete Structures Standard (NZS
3101:1995) to be used for the design of jointed walls.

5. A comparison of the test results of a precast concrete cantilever wall designed to emulate
monolithic behaviour and a jointed wall conclusively showed the main advantages of the system
proposed. The monolithic wall presented residual cracks between 1 mm and 2.2 mm in width
after unloading from a cycle to 1%. Buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement preceded
fracture in a cycle to 2.5% drift. In contrast, the jointed wall developed a large gap at the wall
base. This gap always closed upon unloading. Hairline cracks also closed upon unloading. The
wall reached 2.5% drift with only cosmetic damage. The jointed unit attained cycles to 4%
drift with no strength degradation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
The Public Good Science Fund, Foundation for Research Science and Technology provided
funding under contract UOC 808 for the 1998/2000 grant cycle. The University of Canterbury
provided funding for the second phase of the project. The financial contribution is gratefully
acknowledged.
BBR Switzerland, Contech Group, Hurricane Wire Ltd, Stresscrete Ltd donated materials for
the research project. The contribution of these firms is thanked.
The authors also thank Professors R.C. Fenwick, M.J.N Priestley and J. Stanton and to Mr L.
McSaveney and Mr R. Irwin for their generous comments and suggestions. The technical staff
of the Structures Laboratory were instrumental for the success of this project. Their input is
duly recognised.
REFERENCES:
Holden, T.J., A Comparison of The Seismic Performance of Precast Wall Construction:
Emulation And Hybrid Approaches, ME Report, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Canterbury, Christchurch, 2001. (in preparation).
Mander, J. and Chin-Tung, Seismic Resistance of Bridge Piers Based on Damage Avoidance
Design, NCEER Report 97-14, State University of New York, Buffalo, , 1997.
NZS 3101:1995, Concrete Structures Standard, Standards New Zealand, 1995.
NZS 4203:1992, Code of Practice for General Structural Design and Design Loadings for
Buildings, Standards New Zealand, 1992.
Otani, S., 1997, Development of Performance-Based Design Methodology in Japan, Seismic


7.04.01
7
Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes (eds: Fajfar and Krawinkler),
AA. Balkema, pp. 59-67.
Priestley, M.J.N. and Tao, J.R.T., 1993, Seismic Response of Precast Prestressed Concrete
Frames with Partially Debonded Tendons, PCI Journal, 38 (1). 58-69.
Priestley, M.J.N., Sritharan, S., Conley, J.R. and Pampanin, S., 1999, Preliminary Results and
Conclusions From the PRESSS Five-Story Precast Concrete Test Building, PCI Journal,
44 (6). 42-67.
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, 2000.
SEAOC, Vision 2000 A Framework for Performance-based Design, Vols. I, II and II,
Structural Engineers of California, Sacramento, 1995.
Skinner, R.I., Robinson, W.H. and McVerry, G.H., An Introduction to Seismic Isolation, John
Wiley & Sons, 1993.




Figure 1. Main features of walls prestressed with partially unbonded tendons.



Figure 2. Lateral force-lateral displacement response of walls
prestressed with partially unbonded tendons.





7.04.01
8


Figure 3. Energy dissipators installed in Unit 3R tested by Rahman and Restrepo.





















Figure 4. Comparison between the dynamic response of monolithic and
jointed walls in a twelve-storey building.



Figure 5. Overview of the experimental work conducted at the University of Canterbury.

(b) Shear force envelope (a) Bending moment envelope
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Bending moment, kNm
S
t
o
r
e
y
Monolithic
Jointed
M
n
= 11870
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Shear force, kN
L
e
v
e
l
Monolithic
Jointed
NZS 3101:1995, .
o
= 1.46


7.04.01
9



Figure 6. General geometry and load arrangement.



















Figure 7. Lateral force-lateral displacement response of Units 1H and 3R.








Moko_318



(a) Unit 1H at 2.5% drift (b) Unit 1R at 3% drift

Figure 8. View of Units 1H and 3R at near end of the tests.
7 RETURN TO INDEX
-160
-120
-80
-40
0
40
80
120
160
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift,
h
(%)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e
,

V

(
k
N
)
-160
-120
-80
-40
0
40
80
120
160
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift,
h
(%)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e
,

V

(
k
N
)
(b) Response of Unit 3R (a) Response of Unit 1H