Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 319–332 | Cite as

Investigation of the behavior of reinforced concrete-coupled shear wall with opening using IDA analysis

Original Paper
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

In a tunnel formwork system, concrete pour of the walls and ceilings is usually combined simultaneously and is done in one step. This causes the structure to be homogenized and also minimizes the number of cold connections in the structure. This system includes static formworks; thus, during the implementation of the structure, these formworks are seamlessly moved from place to place by lifters and cranes. This system combines quality, accuracy, and pace. An incremental dynamic analysis is a parametric analysis based on nonlinear dynamic analysis. This analysis method has been approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the last decade and has been considered in the FEMA 350 and FEMA 351 standards for determining the overall disruption capacity of the structure. In this study, two, one-story buildings, one of which including openings and the other not including one, is analyzed by the ABAQUS software. The results indicate that the building without an opening demonstrates a better behavior than the one including openings. In this study, the effect of existence of openings on base shear as well as ductility and resistance factor, which are effective factors on the response modifier factor, is considered.

Keywords

Coupled shear wall Tunnel form Response modification factor Ductility Incremental Dynamic Analysis 

References

  1. ABAQUS theory manual and user’s manual. Version 6.13 (2013).Google Scholar
  2. ACI 318–08. (2008). Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. ACI 318–08, American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI.Google Scholar
  3. Aghayari, R., Roudsari, M. T., Ashrafy, M. (2012). Base shear and fundamental period of RC coupling beam structures. International Conference on Transport, Environment and Civil Engineering Kuala Lumpur.Google Scholar
  4. Ali, A., Wight, J. K. (2000). RC structural walls with staggered door openings. Journal of Structural Engineering, 117(5), 1514–1531.Google Scholar
  5. ATC. (1978). Tentative provision for the development of seismic regulations for buildings (pp. 45–53). Redwood City: ATC-3-06, Applied Technology Council.Google Scholar
  6. ATC. (1995). A critical review of current approaches to earthquake resistant design (pp. 31–36). Redwood city: ATC-34, Applied Technology Council.Google Scholar
  7. Beheshti A. S. B. & Asayesh, M. J. (2017). Seismic performance evaluation of asymmetric reinforced concrete tunnel form buildings. Structures, 10, 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Balkaya, C., Kalkan, E. (2004). Seismic vulnerability, behavior and design of tunnel form building structures. Engineering Structures, 26(14), 2081–2099.Google Scholar
  9. Beheshti Aval, S. B., Mohsenian, V., & Nikpour, N. (2015). Seismic characteristic of tunnel form concrete buildings with irregular plan. Journal of Solid and Fluid Mechanics, 3, 1–15.Google Scholar
  10. Beheshti, A. S., & Mohsenian, V. (2016). Probabilistic seismic performance model for tunnel form concrete building structures. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, 3(3), 42–57. (Article 4).Google Scholar
  11. Eshghi, S., Tavafoghi, A. (2012). Seismic behavior of tunnel form building structures. Int. Inst. of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), Tehran, Iran.Google Scholar
  12. Fajfar, P. (2002). Structural analysis in earthquake engineering, a breakthrough of simplified nonlinear method. 12th European Conference on Earhquake Engineering. Google Scholar
  13. Hamid, N. H., Saleh, S. M., Anuar, S. A. (2014). Seismic performance of double-unit tunnel form building under in-plan lateral cyclic loading. WIT Transaction on the Built Environment, 141.Google Scholar
  14. Kalkan, E., Yuksel, S. B. (2007). Pros and Cons of multi story RC tunnel-form (box-type) buildings. The Structural Design of Tall AND Special Buildings, 17(3), 601–617.Google Scholar
  15. Keykhosravi, A., Aghayari, R. (2016). Evaluating response modification factor (R) of reinforced concrete frames with chevron brace equipped with steel slit damper. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 1–7.Google Scholar
  16. Mosoarca, M., Stoian, V., & Truta, M. (2002). Nonlinear analysis of seismic behavior of R.C shear wall with staggered openings. Ovidius University Anaals of constructions, 1(3), 119–126.Google Scholar
  17. Mwafy, A. M., & Elnashai, A. S. (2002). Calibration of force reduction factors of RC buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 6(2), 239–273.Google Scholar
  18. Naeim F. (2001). The seismic design handbook (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Niknam, A., & Kazemi, M. (2009). Evaluation and comparison of seismic effects of near-fault and far-fault region with standard project spectrum of code of practice 2800 of Iran. Journal of Civil Engineering of Islamic Azad University, 2(1), 71–79.Google Scholar
  20. Sosidharan, A., Aslam, M., (2015). Comparative study of tunnel form and framed buildings by dynamic analysis. International Conference on Technological Advancements in structures and construction, June.Google Scholar
  21. Sotoudeh, Y., Salehi, M., Moradzadeh, S., Taghipoor, H., & Behboodi, M. (2013). Building technology for mass concrete tunnel form method. Advances in Environmental Biology, 7(9), 2190–2194.Google Scholar
  22. Tavafoghi, A., Eshghi, S. (2008). Seismic behavior of tunnel form concrete building structures. The 14 th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, October 12–17, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
  23. Tavafoghi, A., & Eshghi, S. (2011). Evaluation of behavior factor of tunnel-form concrete building structures using Applied Technology Council 63 methodology. The Structure Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 22(8), 615–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tehranizade, M., & Movahed, H. (2011). The investigation of steel moment-resisting frames in tall structures in near-fault range. Journal of Civil Engineering and Mapping, 5(44), 621–633.Google Scholar
  25. Vamvatsikos, D., & Allin Cornell, C. (2002). Incremental dynamic analysis. International Association for Earthquake Engineering, 31(3), 491–514.Google Scholar
  26. Wang, T., & Hsu, T. T. C. (2001). Nonlinear finite element analysis of concrete structures using new constitutive models. Computer and Structures, 79(32), 2781–2791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Structural Engineering, Department of Civil EngineeringRazi universityKermanshahIran
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringRazi UniversityKermanshahIran

Personalised recommendations