Abstract
The seismic shear provisions of EC8 for ductile reinforced concrete walls, serving as the lateral load resisting system in multistorey building structures are re-examined. Two aspects are considered (1) single walls, or a system comprising a number of equal-length walls, (2) a resisting system comprising walls of different lengths. It is demonstrated, in light of recent parametric studies, that the EC8 provisions for walls in the medium- and high-ductility classes (DC-M and DC-H, respectively) are both in need of revision. Possible revisions of requirements and a design procedure for a wall system are presented.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
R.W.G. Blakeley R.C. Cooney L.M. Megget (1975) ArticleTitleSeismic shear loading at flexural capacity in cantilever wall structures Bulletin New Zealand National Society Earthquake Engineering. 8 278–290
A.J. Carr (2000) RUAUMOKO – Program for inelastic dynamic analysis Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury Christchurch
Comite Europeen de Normalization (CEN) (2002) Eurocode (EC) 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1 General rules and rules for buildings (prEN-1992-1-1), Brussels.
CEN (2004), Eurocode (EC) 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1 General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings (EN 1998-1), Brussels.
A. Filiatrault D. D’ Aronco R. Tinawi (1994) ArticleTitleSeismic shear demand of ductile cantilever walls: a Canadian code perspective Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 21 363–376
S.K. Ghosh (1992) Required shear strength of earthquake-resistant reinforced concrete shearwalls P. Fajfar H. Krawinkler (Eds) Nonlinear Seismic Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Elsevier London 171–180
InstitutionalAuthorNameIBC (2000) International Building Code International Code Council Falls Church Virginia
T. Karman Particlevon M. A. Biot (1940) Mathematical Methods in Engineering McGraw-Hill New York
E. Keintzel (1990) ArticleTitleSeismic design shear forces in reinforced concrete cantilever shear wall structures European Journal of Earthquake Engineering. 3 7–16
New Zealand Standards Association. (1982) and (1995) NZS 3101 Code of Practice for the design of Concrete Structures (Parts 1 & 2). Standards Association of New Zealand, Wellington.
E. Nsieri (2004) The seismic nonlinear behaviour of ductile reinforced concrete cantilever wall systems Technion, Israel Institute of Technology Haifa, Israel
R. Park T. Paulay (1975) Reinforced Concrete Structures John Wiley & Sons New York
T. Paulay M.J.N. Priestley (1992) Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings John Wiley & Sons New York
T. Paulay J. Restrepo (1998) ArticleTitleDisplacement and ductility compatibility in buildings with mixed structural systems Journal New Zealand Structural Engineering Society 11 IssueID1 7–12
G.G. Penelis A.J. Kappos (1997) Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures E & FN SPON (Chapman and Hall) London, U.K
A. Rutenberg (2004) ArticleTitleThe seismic shear of ductile cantilever wall systems in multistorey structures Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics. 33 881–896 Occurrence Handle10.1002/eqe.384
InstitutionalAuthorNameSEAOC (1999) Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary Structural Engineers Association of California Sacramento, CA
Seneviratna, G.D.P.K. and Krawinkler H. (1994). Strength and displacement demands for seismic design of structural walls. Proceedings of the 5th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Chicago, Vol. 2, pp. 181–190.
Somerville, P. et al. (1997) Development of ground motion time histories for Phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project. Report SAC/BD-97/4, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, Calif.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rutenberg, A., Nsieri, E. The Seismic Shear Demand in Ductile Cantilever Wall Systems and the EC8 Provisions. Bull Earthquake Eng 4, 1–21 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-005-5407-9
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-005-5407-9