Premium
New nonlinear dynamic response model of squat/slender flanged/non‐flanged reinforced concrete walls
Author(s) -
Allouzi Rabab,
Alkloub Amer
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
structural concrete
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.912
H-Index - 34
eISSN - 1751-7648
pISSN - 1464-4177
DOI - 10.1002/suco.201700066
Subject(s) - structural engineering , squat , engineering , envelope (radar) , shear wall , eurocode , reinforced concrete , nonlinear system , range (aeronautics) , physiology , telecommunications , radar , physics , quantum mechanics , biology , aerospace engineering
The response of reinforced concrete ( RC ) shear wall as a lateral resisting member has been studied extensively, but it still demands a general practical model that identifies the envelope within which load–drift paths occur during cyclic loading. Such a broad model is vital to ensure adequate lateral strength to resist reversal loadings imposed on these walls during earthquake events and ductility to measure inelastic deformation capabilities. A new model to define the backbone curve is developed in this paper for squat, intermediate, and slender flanged and non‐flanged RC walls. The most common failure modes observed in the field and laboratory experiments are investigated and incorporated in the proposed model to estimate the response of these walls from elastic range until ultimate failure. The main parameters controlling the estimation of drifts that features the backbone curve thresholds are presented in this paper. The results of proposed model are compared with the outcomes of 117 specimens experimentally tested by other researchers. Also, the results are compared with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 356, the updated American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)/Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) 41, and Eurocode ( EC8 and EC2 ) provisions which reveal that only one general model, proposed in this paper, can capture the response of RC structural walls with an aspect ratio ranging from 0.35 to 2.5 and an axial load ratio from 0 to 0.4 with good agreement with experimental outcomes.