Abstract

This paper gives a brief presentation about different types of analysis, plastic hinge, moment-resisting frames (MRFs) and shear walls (SWs) in reinforced concrete (RC) Structures. ETABS computer software is employed to model and analyse the structures applying the pushover. The performances of the modelled structures are also evaluated considering different parameters such as the number of stories, spans length, shear walls, reinforcement yield strength and characteristic strength of concrete. The study includes two cases, which are moment-resisting frames with and without shear walls (i.e. MRFs and MRF-SWs, respectively). Each case covers low-, mid- and high-rise buildings. In this regard, a comparative study has been performed for the results obtained from all models. It was observed that the stiffness of MRFs compared to MRF-SWs was less and also the stiffness of low-rise frames was higher than that of mid-rise and high-rise frames. Technically this means that a low-rise building is stiffer than a mid-rise building and a mid-rise building is stiffer than a high-rise building. Additionally, when the span length increases, the stiffness of the building decreases. Therefore, it can be concluded that the span length is inversely proportional to the stiffness. Finally, all stiffness values were calculated taking into consideration the displacement and base shear at the first hinge formation on the pushover curve of each model.

Highlights

  • There exist two main types of seismic analysis which are static and dynamic

  • Plastic hinges are represented in different colours based on the plastic situation at a particular location, and they are explained below: Fig. 5

  • This paper included the assessment of plastic hinge in reinforced concrete (RC) structures with and without shear walls applying pushover analysis in ETABS

Read more

Summary

Introduction

There exist two main types of seismic analysis which are static and dynamic. Using a linear static method for the analysis of structures is good, but the ultimate load that they could exactly or approximately withstand may not be estimated properly by the designer. This is due to the assumption made in taking into consideration the maximum load that the structure could support as the load that first causes the stress somewhere in the structure (McCormac, 1992). This push magnitude is considered as the lateral force induced by the earthquake or wind (Hassaballa, 2014; Sujani et al 2012). For better safety and economy of the structure, it is preferable to design the structure using the load at collapse (Kamath et al 2016; Papanikolaou et al 2008)

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call