journal article·2018-12Open access

Effect of Preliminary Selection of RC Shear Walls’ Ductility Level on Material Quantities

Hossam El-Sokkary, Khaled Galal

Abstract

According to the National Building Code of Canada, the seismic force resisting systems (SFRS) of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings are classified based on their ductility level as being ductile, moderately ductile and conventional construction systems. The selection of the ductility level of an SFRS at the conceptual design phase is primarily governed by the seismicity at the building location, the building dynamic characteristics, and the height limitations specified by the design code. The selected ductility level affects the design loads, the cross-sections and reinforcement of the SFRS components, and hence the overall construction cost. This paper aims to evaluate the effect of the wall’s selected ductility level on the quantities of its constituent materials as well as the rebar detailing. Four multi-storey RC shear wall buildings with different heights located in three different cities in Canada; Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, were selected to represent three different seismic hazard zones (low, medium, and high). For each building height and location, the walls were designed using the dynamic analysis procedure of the National Building Code of Canada to reach different ductility levels. The construction material quantity estimates were evaluated and compared to a reference case for each building height, seismic hazard and ductility level. The effect of ductility level on the bars detailing is also investigated. This paper helps the structural engineers to select the cost-effective and constructible RC shear wall system at the conceptual design phase before reaching the detailed design phase.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Structural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete · Seismic Performance and Analysis · Masonry and Concrete Structural Analysis

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (22)

Show source-provided references
1. Adebar, P., Bazargani, P., Mutrie, J., & Mitchell, D. (2010). Safety of gravity-load columns in shear wall buildings designed to Canadian standard CSA A23.3. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 37(11), 1451–1461.10.1139/L10-075 ↗
2. Adebar, P., & Ibrahim, A. (2002). Simple nonlinear flexural stiffness model for concrete structural walls. Journal of Earthquake Spectra, 18(3), 407–426.10.1193/1.1503343 ↗
3. Adebar, P., Mutrie, J. De Vall, R., and Mitchell, D. (2014). Seismic design of concrete buildings: The 2015 Canadian building code. In Proceedings of the 10th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK.
4. Adebar, P., Mutrie, J., & DeVall, R. (2005). Ductility of concrete walls: The Canadian seismic design provisions 1984 to 2004. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 32(6), 1124–1137.10.1139/l05-070 ↗
5. Boivin, Y., & Paultre, P. (2010). Seismic performance of a 12-storey ductile concrete shear wall system designed according to the 2005 National Building Code of Canada and the 2004 Canadian Standard Association Standard A23.3. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 37(1), 1–16.10.1139/L09-115 ↗
6. Canadian Standards Association CSA. (2004). Design of concrete structures A23.3-04, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
7. Canadian Standards Association CSA. (2014). Design of concrete structures A23.3-14, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
8. Choopool, N., & Boonyapinyo, V. (2011). Seismic performance evaluation of reinforced concrete moment resisting frames with various ductility in low seismic zone. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 4(1), 17–36.10.3844/ajeassp.2011.17.36 ↗
9. CSA CAN/CSA-A23.3-04 (2005). Concrete design handbook. Ottawa (Ontario): Canadian Portland Cement Association.
10. CSI. (2013). Analysis reference manual for SAP2000, ETABS, and SAFE. California: Computers and Structures Inc.
11. Filiatrault, A., Lachapelle, E., & Lamontagne, P. (1998). Seismic performance of ductile and nominally ductile reinforced concrete moment resisting frames. I. Experimental study. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 25(2), 331–341.10.1139/l97-097 ↗
12. Galal, K., & El-Sokkary, H. (2008). Analytical evaluation of seismic performance of RC frames rehabilitated using FRP for increased ductility of members. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities (ASCE), 22(5), 276–288.10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2008)22:5(276) ↗
13. Heidebrecht, A., & Naumoski, N. (1999). Seismic performance of ductile medium height reinforced concrete frame buildings design in accordance with the provisions of the 1995 National Building Code of Canada. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 26(5), 606–617.10.1139/l99-020 ↗
14. Hutchison, D., & Van Geldermalsen, T. (1983). Optimum design of reinforced concrete shear walls. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 17(3), 185–197.10.5459/bnzsee.17.3.185-197 ↗
15. NBCC (2010). National Building Code of Canada. Associate Committee on the National Building Code, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
16. Paulay, T., Priestley, M., & Synge, A. (1982). Ductility in earthquake resisting squat shear walls. ACI Journal, 79(4), 257–269.
17. Priestley, M., & Park, R. (1987). Strength and ductility of concrete bridge columns under seismic loading. ACI Structural Journal, 84(1), 61–76.
18. Pullmann, T., Skolicki, Z., Freischlad, M., Arciszewski, T., De Jong, K., SchnellenbachHeld, M. (2003). Structural design of reinforced concrete tall buildings: Evolutionary computation approach using fuzzy sets. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop of the European group for intelligent computing engineering, Delft, Netherlands, pp. 53–61.
19. Sadjadi, R., Kianoush, M., & Talebi, S. (2007). Seismic performance of reinforced concrete moment resisting frames. Engineering Structures, 29(9), 2365–2380.10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.11.029 ↗
20. Wallace, J. (1994). New methodology for seismic design of RC shear walls. Journal of Structural Engineering, 120(3), 863–884.10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1994)120:3(863) ↗
21. S-Frame Software Inc. (2015). S-concrete: Concrete section design, version 11.00.31. Maycrest Way, Richmond, B.C., Canada.
22. Kang, S., Park, S., Jang, S., Jin, J., Eom, T., & Park, H. (2013). Constructability and economic evaluation of continuous hoop reinforcement method. Journal of the Korea Institute of Building construction, 13(3), 291–305.10.5345/JKIBC.2013.13.3.291 ↗