Design of RC Shear Wall Buildings at Different Performance Levels
Publication: Journal of Architectural Engineering
Volume 30, Issue 4
Abstract
Earthquake catastrophes continue to cause substantial damage and casualties in many parts of the world. Despite design codes and standards having succeeded in reducing life losses during earthquakes, the level of damage in buildings after severe earthquakes still cannot be precisely predicted. Code provisions focus on the safety of buildings with no consideration of the amount of damage expected after an event. Current U.S. guidelines designate three performance levels related to the inelastic rotational demands of RC shear walls––immediate occupancy, life safety, and collapse prevention. The damage corresponding to these performance levels is minor, moderate, and severe, respectively. In the current study, these performance limits were implemented, along with other recognized standards, in order to design four RC ductile shear wall buildings with different heights located in a high seismic hazard zone. Each building was designed based on Canadian building codes to reach the three designated performance levels. For each case, the quantities of the constitutive materials of the RC shear walls were estimated and compared. The impact of the targeted performance level on the building’s gravity-load-resisting system was also investigated. The cost effectiveness of using moderately ductile shear walls in high seismic hazard zones was also examined.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
- As conc
- concentrated reinforcement at the wall end;
- bcol
- boundary column width;
- c
- neutral axis distance;
- Dh
- confinement hoop diameter;
- Dnx
- building dimension in plan view perpendicular to the seismic force;
- Ec
- concrete material modulus of elasticity;
- concrete compressive strength;
- fy
- steel reinforcement yield strength;
- HPH
- plastic hinge height;
- hn
- building total height;
- hw
- wall height;
- Lu
- maximum clear height between two successive floors;
- Lw
- wall length;
- ℓd
- minimum steel bar development length;
- Mcorr.
- column’s moment corresponding to the maximum axial force;
- Mf
- wall’s factored base moment demand;
- Miv
- shear force magnification factor for inelastic effects of higher modes;
- Mmax.
- column’s maximum moment;
- Mn
- wall’s nominal flexural resistance;
- Mpr
- wall’s probable flexural resistance;
- Mr
- wall’s factored flexural resistance;
- Mr/Mf
- wall’s flexural overstrength ratio;
- Pcorr.
- column’s axial force corresponding to the maximum moment;
- Pd
- wall’s unfactored dead load at the base;
- Pmax.
- column’s maximum axial force;
- Rd
- ductility-related force modification factor;
- Ro
- overstrength-related force modification factor;
- SHoop
- confinement hoop spacing;
- Shl
- spacing of wall’s transverse reinforcement;
- Svl
- spacing of wall’s longitudinal reinforcement;
- S(Ta)
- design spectral acceleration at the fundamental period Ta;
- S(0.2)
- spectral acceleration at period = 0.2 s;
- S(2.0)
- spectral acceleration at period = 2.0 s;
- Ta
- fundamental period of vibration;
- Td
- fundamental period from the modal analysis;
- Ts
- fundamental period using the code’s empirical expression;
- tw
- wall thickness;
- V
- wall’s minimum design shear demand;
- VRS
- building base shear from the dynamic analysis;
- Vdesign
- building design base shear;
- Vf
- wall’s factored base shear demand;
- Vr/V
- wall’s shear force overstrength ratio;
- Vstatic
- equivalent static base shear;
- Vwind
- building base shear due to wind loads;
- W
- building seismic weight;
- αw
- section property reduction factor;
- γw
- wall overstrength factor
- Δf
- wall’s linear top displacement;
- Δf Rd Ro
- wall’s design top displacement;
- ɛcu
- concrete ultimate compressive strain;
- ɛs
- longitudinal steel reinforcement strain;
- ɛy
- steel reinforcement yield strain;
- θic
- inelastic rotational capacity; and
- θid
- inelastic rotational demand.
References
Adebar, P., J. Mutrie, R. De Vall, and D. Mitchell. 2014. “Seismic design of concrete buildings: The 2015 Canadian building code.” In Proc., 10th U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI).
ASCE. 2017. Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. ASCE SEI 41-17. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Boivin, Y., and P. Paultre. 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.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 37 (1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1139/L09-115.
Cheung, A., and A. S. Kiremidjian. 2014. “Development of a rotation algorithm for earthquake damage diagnosis.” Earthquake Spectra 30 (4): 1381–1401. https://doi.org/10.1193/012212EQS016M.
CSA (Canadian Standard Association). 2005. Concrete design handbook. CAN/CSA-A23.3-04. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Canadian Portland Cement Association.
CSA (Canadian Standard Association). 2014. Design of concrete structures. CAN/CSA A23.3-14. Mississauga, ON, Canada: CSA.
CSI (Computers and Structures). 2016. Analysis reference manual for SAP2000, ETABS, and SAFE. Walnut Creek, CA: CSI.
El-Sokkary, H., and K. Galal. 2018. “Effect of preliminary selection of RC shear walls’ ductility level on material quantities.” Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 12 (48). 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40069-018-0273-4.
El-Sokkary, H., and M. Elsharawy. 2022. “Impact of revised seismic hazard values in NBCC 2015 on RC shear wall buildings.” J. Archit. Eng. 28 (3). 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000547.
El-Sokkary, H., and K. Galal. 2020. “Material quantities of reinforced masonry versus reinforced concrete shear walls.” Structures 27: 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.06.020.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1997. Guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA 273. Washington, DC: FEMA.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2000. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA 356. Washington, DC: FEMA.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2005. Improvement of inelastic analysis procedures. FEMA 440. Washington, DC: FEMA.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2009. Quantification of seismic performance factors. FEMA P695. Washington, DC: FEMA.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2018. Seismic performance assessment of buildings – Volume 1 Methodology. FEMA P58. Washington, DC: FEMA.
Ghobarah, A. 2004. “On drift limits associated with different damage levels.” In Proc., Int. Workshop on Performance-Based Seismic Design. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Ghobarah, A., N. Aly, and M. El-Attar. 1998. “Seismic reliability assessment of existing reinforced concrete buildings.” J. Earthquake Eng. 2 (4): 569–592.
Gwalani, P., and Y. Singh. 2023. “Performance-based seismic design of RC structures.” In Theory and practice in earthquake engineering and technology. Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering, edited by T. G. Sitharam, S. Kolathayar, R. S. Jakka, and V. Matsagar. 309–330. Singapore: Springer. pp. 309–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2324-1_13.
Jadid, M. N., and M. M. Idrees. 2007. “Cost estimation of structural skeleton using an interactive automation algorithm: A conceptual approach.” Autom. Constr. 16 (6): 797–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2007.02.007.
NBCC (National Building Code of Canada). 2015. Associate Committee on the National Building Code. Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada.
Powell, G. H., and R. Allahabadi. 1988. “Seismic damage prediction by deterministic methods: Concepts and procedures.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 16 (5): 719–734. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290160507.
Priestley, N. 1993. “Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering.” Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthquake Eng. 26 (3): 329341.
Priestley, N. 2000. “Direct displacement-based design.” In Proc., 12th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Auckland, New Zealand: New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering.
Priestley, M., G. Calvi, and M. Kowalski 2007. Displacement-based seismic design of structures. 1st ed. Pavia, Italy: IUSS Press.
Qi, X., and J. P. Moehle. 1991. Displacement design approach for reinforced concrete structures subjected to earthquakes. Rep. No. UCBIEERC-91/02. Berkeley, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering/Univ. of California.
SEAOC (Structural Engineers Association of California). 1995. Vision 2000—A framework for performance-based design. Sacramento, CA: SEAOC. California Office of Emergency Services.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2024 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jun 17, 2023
Accepted: May 29, 2024
Published online: Aug 13, 2024
Published in print: Dec 1, 2024
Discussion open until: Jan 13, 2025
ASCE Technical Topics:
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.