Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tilt-Up
Concrete Wall
Panels
By Gerry Weiler
April 2006
1
CSA A23.3-04 - Chapter 23,
Tilt-up Wall Panels
e ∆
P
• Provides a Pe
simplified method
for analysis and
design of slender
concrete walls P∆
W + =
• Based on flexural
tension yielding of Deflected
Shape
the longitudinal
reinforcement Panel Primary Secondary Combined
Loading Moment Moment Moment
2
Moment Magnifier Method
Pf Mmax
Mmax = Mb + ––––––
Kbf
Rearranging:
⎧ 1 ⎫
Mmax = Mb ⎨–––––––– ⎬ = Mb δb
⎩ 1- Pf / Kbf ⎭
1
δb = ––––––––
1 - Pf / Kbf
= moment magnification factor
Gives identical results to iteration method
7
Bending Stiffness
• Bending stiffness, Kb is the maximum
moment divided by maximum deflection
• It will vary, depending on support conditions,
type of loading and properties of the cross
section
• For pure axial load it is the same as the Euler
buckling load:
π2 E I 9.87 E I
Kbf = Pcr = –––––– = ––––––
l 2 l2
• For tilt-up panels the following is more
representative:
48 E I 9.6 E I
Kbf = –––––– = ––––––
5 l 2 l2
8
3
Area of Reinforcement
Modification (23.3.1.5)
φs As fy + Pf
As eff = ––––––––––– (23-4)
φs fy
• Simulates increased strength due to axial load
on the cross section
• Not specifically permitted for increasing
bending stiffness in CSA A23.3-04
• More conservative than ACI and UBC codes
where stiffness modification is permitted
10
Clause 23.3.1.2
Provides limit on axial compression
Pwf + Ptf
–––––––– < 0.09 φc f´c
Ag
• Assumptions for bending stiffness and P-delta
effects not valid with large axial loads
• Axial loads on most tilt-up panels are small
• Sometimes affects panels with large openings
and narrow legs
11
4
Maximum Unsupported
Panel Height
Panel Reinforcement
Thickness Single mat Double mat
140 mm 7.0 m 9.1 m
160 mm 8.0 m 10.4 m
190 mm 9.5 m 12.4 m
260 mm 13.0 m 16.9 m
13
5
Creep and Initial Deflections
• The design should allow for initial deflections
due to warping or uneven casting beds
• Differential shrinkage and thermal gradients
may also be a factor
• Long term creep has not been a significant
problem because axial loads are usually
small
• Clause 23.3.1.4 requires a minimum initial
deflection ∆0 = l / 400
16
17
18
6
Lateral Wind Loads on Panels
• Effect of new wind load provisions are not a
significant change for tilt-up design
• NBCC 2005 load factor reduced to 1.4 for wind
• Design wind pressures are typically greater
compared to ASCE requirements
• Panels reinforcement for high, simply supported
panels is directly proportional to wind loads
19
d = 4.75"
Roof DL = 500 plf
Roof LL = 1000 plf
20
21
7
Comparison of Wind Loads
Design Wind Pressures:
NBCC 1995 NBCC 2005 ASCE 7-02
+ve W 21.2 psf 25.5 psf 13.6 psf
+ve Wf 31.8 psf 35.7 psf 21.8 psf
------ + 12% - 31 %
-ve W 23.0 psf 24.1 psf 15.1 psf
-ve Wf 34.5 psf 33.7 psf 24.2 psf
------ - 2% - 30%
Total Panel Reinforcement:
A23.3-94 A23.3- 04 ACI 318-02
1473 lbs 1536 lbs 1100 lbs
Difference ------ + 4% - 25%
22
23
24
8
Axial Loads
• Axial (vertical) loads from Joist Load
.
thickness Design
l/2 Cross
• Effect of eccentricity Section
should be additive to
bd
lateral load effect
• Do not use wind uplift to
reduce axial load
25
26
27
9
Continuity and End Fixity
• Panels extending below
P
floor slab
• Effect of lateral soil
pressure below floor slab
• Consider the M1 M1δ
W
effectiveness of footing
restraint
M2 M2 δ
• Continuous multi storey
panels
Primary Secondary
• Moments may be affected Moment Moment
by lateral deflections at δ = Moment Magnifier
flexible supports
• Additional lateral loads from intermediate floors
28
29
Openings in Panels
• Effect of openings b
approximated by using bt bt
vertical design strips bd b d =12 t bd =12 t bd =12 t
max max max
• Gives reasonable
accuracy and economy
for most designs
• Distribute entire axial
and lateral load over
the tributary width to
the design strips each bt = Tributary Width Typical
side of the opening bd = Design Width Design Strip
t = Panel Thickness
• Limit design width to
12t
30
10
Isolated Footings and
Pier Foundations
Joist Load
• Panels support at each end
of panel
• Continuous lateral restraint Design
at top (roof) and bottom Strip
(floor)
• Design strip bd limited to Critical
Cross
12t 2
Section
1
• Distribute all vertical loads,
including self weight into bd
the design strips.
• Lateral bending resisted by
entire panel width
31
Stiffening Pilasters
Beam supported
• Support large vertical on Pilaster
Roof
loads
• Provide increased out-
of-plane bending
resistance at edges of
large openings Floor
• Provide ties at beam
bearing points Roof
Header Beam
• Compression ties Over Opening
wind or seismic on x
H
intermediate floors c .
R2 R2
• Lateral loads from
W W
cranes or other Load Moment Deflection
equipment Diagram Diagram
• Opposing lateral
loads from
suspended elements
such as canopies
33
11
Cantilever Panels
∆ max ∆1
• Free standing signs ∆ ∆1
and screen walls with 3 Wc1 2
cast-in-place concrete
W l1 W
footings lc Wc
Roof
• Parapets above the Fixed
base 2 ∆2
roof of a building M
3
l2 Wc2
• Moment magnifier Cantilever Panel
.
34
Cantilever Panels
wf lc2 ∆ max
Mb = –––– ∆
2 3
Wc ∆ W Mf lc2
Mf = Mb + –––– = –––c –––– W
3 3 4 EI lc Wc
Mf lc2 4 EI
∆max = ––––; Kbc = –––– Fixed
base
4 EI lc2
M
Cantilever Panel
Moment magnifier equation:
1
–––––––––
Mf = Mf δc where δc = Wc
1 - ––––––
3 φm Kbc
35
12
In-Plane Shear
Design Considerations:
In- Plane Shear from
• Panel overturning Roof or Floor Diaphragm
• Panel sliding
Panel Shear
• Concrete shear
stress
Panel
• Axial load stability Weight
• Frame action
Panel to Panel Resisting Force
• Seismic ductility Shear Force at Foundations
In-Plane Shear Forces
37
l floor W panel
• Resists
overstress
39
13
Resistance to Sliding
40
41
42
14
Seismic Design for Frame Panels
43
44
45
15
Rotational Demand for
a Simple Panel
Vf
Rotational Demand
= ∆/ L
4-20M EF 4-20M EF
Typical Elevation of
Frame Panels
16
Single Storey Office
49
50
51
17
Frame Panel
Roof VF
Plastic
VP Hinge
Floor VF
WP
Closed Hoop
Ties
Header Concrete
Stirrups Spalling
Hooked
Longitudinal
Reinforcement
53
54
18
Clause 21.7.2 - Moderately Ductile
Moment Resisting Frames
• The provisions were modified to reflect
changes to NBCC
• Close spacing of ties required to prevent
buckling of longitudinal reinforcement
• Tie spacing of 8db or 6.25" (160mm) for 20M
longitudinal bars in beams
• Tie spacing in columns is more restrictive
6db or h/2 (4” or less)
55
Hoop Hoop
Ties Ties
2 7 10M @ 18"
Ea Face
Ties @ 4’ o/c
above Joint
VP
10M @ 10"Alt Face
WP
2 - 15M
Horizontal
Ties @ 6" o/c
Bars in
at Joint
Headers
20M Vertical Ties @ 12" o/c
Bars in Legs Below Joint
Floor VR
57
19
3 Storey Tilt-Up
58
Solid Panels
• Panel overturning should be checked and
often controls the panel design
• Edge connections added to resist
overturning
• Panel hold down ties to foundations are
rarely used
• Energy absorption achieved by
deformation of edge connectors and
panels rocking on foundations
59
60
20
Squat Shear Walls
• Can apply to solid tilt-up panels where shear
stresses
–––
vf ≥ 0.1 φc √ f ’c
• Equivalent to a threshold in-plane shear force
of 3400 plf for a 6” tilt-up panel for 4350 psi
(30MPa)
• Permits Rd = 2.0 and Ro =1.4
• Buildings with a mixture of stiff and flexible
panels may fall into this category
• Designers will likely try to avoid this clause by
using “Conventional Construction” with
Rd = 1.5 and Ro =1.3
61
3 major categories:
• Cast-in-place concrete infill
sections
• Welded embedded metal
• Drilled-in anchors
62
Cast-in-place
pilaster with ties
Cast-In-Place Panel Infill
Cast-In-Place Pilaster
Hooked
dowel
Floor slab infill
after panel
Exterior
installation
grade
Rebar pins
or welded
connection
Strip Footing
Panel on Strip Footing 63
21
Cast-In-Place Concrete
In-fill Sections
• Usually very strong and can
emulate cast-in-place concrete
• Good seismic ductility
• Excessive restraint for concrete
shrinkage
• Post construction cracking
64
65
66
22
Welded Embedded Metal
EM2 EM4
embed embed
plate plate
Steel
Edge angle beam
Bolts with
slotted holes
Shear plate field
welded to embed
plate
Shear Plate Steel Beam
Connection Connection
67
Strip footing
Vf
Tf
d = 100mm 150mm
d = 100 Vr = 110 kN 110 kN
or 150m m Tr = 45 kN 70 kN
Connections Vf
Tf
100mm 150mm
Studs
Vr = 65 kN
Studs
65 kN
Tr = 50 kN 95 kN
23
Standardized Connections
• Developed by an SECBC Committee in
Vancouver
• Testing Carried out at UBC by Kevin
Lemieux
• Included monotonic and cyclic testing
• Includes 5 basic connector types
• Decreases cost of fabrication
• Provides load capacities for design
70
Panel Edge
Connector
in form
71
72
24
Drilled-in Anchors
• Includes expansion bolts, adhesive
anchors and coil inserts
• Limited strength and ductility
• Readily available and inexpensive
• May be used where other connections
are incorrectly installed
• Suitable for light architectural
components
73
74
75
25
Construction Requirements
76
77
Acknowledgements
The following provided assistance in reviewing and
checking this document:
• Kevin Lemieux, Ben Benjamin, Brent Weerts; WSB
Consultants
• Andy Metten; Bush Bohlman
• John Wallace, Pomeroy Engineering
• Perry Adebar, Ken Elwood; UBC
• Ron DuVall; RJC
• Jim Mutrie; JKK
• Walid Salmon, Sal Tabot, Calvin Schmitke; Krahn
Engineering
• Bill McKevitt; McKevitt Engineering
And of course Rick McGrath and Andy Viser of CPCA
78
26
End of
Presentation
79
27