Load-Displacement Responses

REGION A Failure occurs by general yielding and is associated with large extension as if no crack is present. The load-displacement response is schematically indicated in Fig. 2.13 along with a typical failed specimen. Yielding extends across the entire uncracked section, and the displacement is principally associated with plastic extension. Fracture is characterized by considerable contractions... 

Figure 2.16. Crack growth resistance curves associated with Types 1 and 2 load-displacement response in Region C (Fig. 2.15) (a) for Type 1 response associated with thicker materials (b) Type 2 response for thinner materials.

The simulated crushing response of the EA web segment is shown in Figure 10.10. It should be noted that the model is shown with the upper plate removed to allow the internal failure mode to be observed. The corrugated core exhibited a failure mode similar to that observed for hat-shaped crush elements tested in [43] where the two C-sections splayed out from the corrugated core as the crush element progressively failed. A comparison of the experimental and predicted load—displacement response... 

Overall, other than underestimation of compressive strains, the MVLEM proves to be an effective modeling approach for the flexural response prediction of slender RC walls, as the model provides good predictions of the experimentally observed global and local responses, including wall lateral load capacity and lateral stiffness at varying drift levels, yield point, cyclic properties of the load-displacement response, rotations (average over the region of inelastic deformations), position of the neutral axis and tensile strains. 

The experimentally-measured lateral load vs. top displacement response for column specimens 2S10M (subjected to an axial load level corresponding to 10 % of its axial load capacity) is compared with the analytical model prediction in Fig. 20.8. The comparison indicates that the model provides reasonably accurate load-displacement response predictions. Overall, a good level of agreement is achieved between the test data and model results in terms of column lateral load... 

Fig. 20.8 Comparison of test results with model predictions for lateral load-displacement response for Specimen 2S10M...

All joints, both small scale and scaled up, have been manufactured and tested. Tests have included determination of load-displacement response of joints and their constituents, bend strength, fracture toughness, and failure loads under mixed mode conditions. An engineering joint assessment and design has been formulated, verified, and a PC computer code using the model has been written. The final report is in preparation for submittal in July, 1990. 

Envelope curves of the lateral load-displacement response of both tested bents. 

Fig. 6. A cracked adhesive joint and its load-displacement response during loading, crack growth and unloading.

These methods consider generally an elastic-perfectly plastic load-displacement response for the walls according to given strength... 

Often, there may not be sufficient material test data to calibrate all the material parameters in a finite element model. In such cases, a sensitivity analysis is required to determine the sensitivity of the numerical results to the values of parameters that cannot be determined from material test data. A parametric study by Stavridis and Shing (2010) with finite element models has indicated that the shear strength parameters for mortar joints are most influential on the load-displacement response of an infilled frame. 

---