A

goo
per
Ear
can
Ins
Arc
cal
per
or
,Fu
the
K
Per
its
ma
cat
Str
a
and
Sh
Fra
Be
ma
Co
cou
R
RC
con
to
are
stu
mo


R
Uni
(Em
M
Eng
Iran
Eng
Uni
Ash
T
Abstract Re
od structural L
rformance of th
rthquake or wind
n be constructed
sulating Concre
chitectural reaso
lled this system
rformance is affe
opening place a
undamental Peri
em .
KeywordsCo
riod- Nonlinear f
oday Concr
.It found eve
weakness agai
So since the b
aterial named a
tegorized in to
ructure. The co
semi natural
d wall Structur
hear Wall". Aft
ance it becam
ecause of som
ade some open
oupled Shear-W
upling beam sy
Rapid Constru
C Shear wall
nstruction any
Nuclear Powe
e construct by
udy on this sy
oment resisting
Reza Aghayari, A
iversity, Kermansh
mail: reza_agh@ra
Mehrzad Tahamo
gineering, Kerman
n (E-mail: Taham
*
Mohammad Ash
gineering ,Kerma
iversity, Kerma
hrafy@kssriau.ac.i
B
T
einforced Concre
Lateral Load Re
his Structural sy
d make it very p
d by many diffe
ete form and
ons some openi
ms as Coupled
ected by some p
and etc .This stu
od and some p
oupled Shear W
finite element St
I. INTROD
rete is one of m
en in historical
inst Tension m
beginning it w
as Reinforced C
o several types
ombination of
, good perform
re make a Stru
er the End of W
me very popu
me reasons , li
ning on walls a
Wall System
ystem in Fig. 1
uction and Goo
Coupling bea
y type of struc
er Plans even
this system al
ystem and com
g frame was pu
Assistant Professor,
hah,Iran
azi.ac.ir r.aghayar
ouli Roudsari, Ass
nshah Branch , I
mouli@iauksh.ac.ir
hrafy, Master of S
anshah Science an
anshah, Iran
ir Mohammad.ash
Base Sh
Reza
ete Shear wall i
esisting systems
ystem against u
popular in Engin
erent methods li
etc . For m
ing must made
d Shear wall .
parameters like H
udy determined
parameters that
Wall - Base Sh
tatic Pushover A
DUCTION
most popular s
Structures mad
make it bad for c
was mixed by
Concrete. Struc
s like Frame st
both Reinforc
mance and for
uctural system
World War II(
ular for Resid
ike Architectu
and called this
(You can se
) .
od Structural p
am system v
ctures from res
and today mil
ll over the wor
mbination betw
ublished by Kha
, Department of Ci
ri@gmail.com)
sistant Professor,
slamic Azad Uni
mtrfkh@yahoo.c
Science Student ,
nd Research Bra
(Corresponding
hrafy@gmail.com)
hear an
Coup
a Aghayari , M
is known as one
s for years. Go
unusual loads l
eering Societies
ike Tunnel form
many reasons l
e on the walls
It's obvious t
Height or Geome
seismic base sh
have relation w
ear - Fundamen
Analysis
tructural mater
de by human. B
construction.
some admixtu
ctural systems
tructures or W
ed Concrete (
rmable materia
called "Concr
1945 ~1950 's)
dential Buildin
ure and etc, th
new system a
ee schematic
erformance ma
very popular
sidential build
llions of build
rld First practi
ween it and R
an[1] in 1964 .
ivil Engineering, R
Department of C
versity, Kermansh
com ).
,Department of C
anch , Islamic A
author E-m
).
nd Fun
pling B
Mehrzad Taha

e of
ood
like
. It
m or
like
and
that
etry
hear
with
ntal
rial
But
ure
are
Wall
( as
al )
rete
) in
ngs.
hey
as a
of
ade
for
ing
ing
ical
RC
.
Razi
Civil
hah,
Civil
Azad
mail:

Fig. 1 Sc

He f
couplin
pay som
respons
dominan
In 1969
definitio
as "Co
.In 197
Elemen
of Shea
Since 1
Shear w
attention
of it .In
Shear w
cyclic F
differen
be the
models

Fig

ndame
Beam S
amouli Rouds
chematic of a Co
two Vertical
focused on be
ng in lateral lo
me attention
se of these stru
ant mode of the
9 Tom Pauley[
on of coupling
oupling in Rein
1 he published
nts as Spandrel
ar diagonal Re
1971 lots of a
walls and th
n on the Seism
n 1988 Lin &
walls Structures
Finite Element
nt Shape and s
same experim
and their form
g. 2 Wall Specim
Reinf
ntal Pe
Structu
sari , Mohamm
oupled Shear (H
l Shear Wall as a
ehavior of Cou
oad distributio
on torsional r
uctures and dete
e combined str
[2] presented
g beams for the
nforced Concr
d another artic
Beams . In 19
einforcement fo
articles were
heir Performan
mic base shear
Kuo publishe
s with opening
t Analysis on
size of Openin
mental researc
m of failure mod

mens with differe
forcement (Lin &
eriod o
ures
mad Ashrafy
Horizontal Segme
a Coupled Syste
upled walls an
on of earthquak
response on t
ermined effect
ructures(Wall a
more accurate
e first time and
rete Shear wall
cle to name th
974 he studied
or Deep Coup
published abo
nce but they
r and Importan
ed their knowl
g [3] .They perf
12 One Storey
ng and verify t
h.Fig.2 & 3
de .
ent types of Open
& Kuo
1998
)
of RC
*
ent Connected
em
nd effects of
kes .He also
the total 3D
s of walls on
and Frame) .
e and general
d published it
l Structures
ese coupling
d the strength
ling beams .
out coupling
rarely pay
nt parameters
ledge on the
formed some
y model with
these models
shows these
nings and
International Conference on Transport, Environment and Civil Engineering (ICTECE'2012) August 25-26, 2012 Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)
127

F


aff
im
see
cau

N
dom
per
ana
and
pro
coe
ana
bet
Ac
non
of
rel
cal
, A
stru
per
ana
it's
go
eff
tim
sys
Mo
tha
Fig. 3 Failure m
They observe
fected by open
mportant in fa
en in some cas
used by Shear
In 1994 Ba
Nonlinear Thr
minant reinfo
rforming a new
alysis RC wal
d by the met
oposed by A
efficients for
alyses in Both
tween them he
ctions .He said
1. Edges A
2. Base No
3. Slab W

Chopra & Geo
n-Coupled RC
Northridge
19
lation for funda
lculated by em
A
c
= A
c
|u.2 +
ucture and

c
h
n

riod .
In 2003 and 2
alysis on some
s result in mos
od performanc
fected by struc
me period exp
stem . Balkaya
odification fac
at this paramet
modes of Specime
that cracking
ning orientation
ilure mode sh
ses .Cracks Con
and Bending.
alkaya [4] in
ree-Dimension
orced Concret
w Isoparametr
ll structure . H
thod of Capac
TC40 , he c
two 2 and 5
h 2D and 3D
e said this diff
the critical poi
Around Openin
odes
Wall Interaction
ol [5] develope
C Structures and
94
Earthquake
amental period
mpirical relation
+[

c
h
n

2
]
UBC 1
is always less
2004 Balkaya
e structures m
st of times sho
ce . They find i
ctural Geometr
perimental rela
a et al also fo
ctor ie behavio
ter is affected
ens (Lin & Kuo
1
g and failure
n and size of
hapes too. Wal
ncentrates in th
n his Docto
nal behavior
te Building S
ic Nonlinear S
He did some P
city Spectrum
can predict s
stories mode
and after his
ference is only
ints of this stru
ngs
n Zone ( Conn
ed some Shear
d test them un
to perform a
d .They found
n (I = C
t
(b
t
)
997
which is h
than 0.9 ) is
[6] and Kalka
made by tunnel
ows Extra Ordi
it structural per
ry .They said e
ation must be
ocused on conc
or factor and it
d by Geometry
1998
)
modes are v
openings is v
ll distortion ha
he Critical pla
oral Dissertat
of shear-w
Structures af
Shell Element
Pushover analy
Method (CS
ome base sh
ls .He did th
s clear differen
y for 3d coupl
uctures as :
ections)
r wall Coupled
der the excitat
a better empiri
that periods t
0.75
, C
t
=
0.0
A
h
t
is the height
Larger than r
an , perform t
l form techniq
inary rigidity a
rformance is v
even fundamen
e edited for t
cept of Respon
t's models sho
and height sa

ery
ery
ave
ces
ion
wall
fter
for
ysis
M)
hear
ese
nce
ing
d or
ion
ical
that
0743
c
0.S

t of
real
this
que;
and
ery
ntal
this
nse
ows
ame
as Base
and 5 S
3D).It's
Wall-W
etc . Th
structur
In 20
factor
method
some N
experim
factor b
Coeffic
between

Fig. 4

In thi
analysis
some m
show so
and som


For th
freedom
materia
laminar
Mass m
center o
element

e Shear . They
Storey Models
Difference be
Wall Interaction
hey tried to C
ral codes for fu
011 Tavafoghi
(response mo
dology for Tunn
Numerical mod
mental model .
between 4 to 6
ient). Eshghi
n behavior fact
4 Pushover Curv
is study some
s by a nonlin
models with 1 ,
ome relation b
me structural pa
II
his Study a No
m in each node
al such as Reinf
r Shear forces
matrix of eleme
of element(Ele
t are shown he
Fig. 5
result Curves
s are presente
etween 2D and
n and Wall -Sla
Calibrate empir
undamental Per
i & Eshghi [7]
odification fa
nnel form RC
dels and verify
. They calcula
6.6 (Equals to
et al. had n
tor and other p

ves for 2 and 5 S
Kalkan
2004
finite element
near finite elem
,2 ,3 ,.... story
between base s
arameters like
I. ELEMENT M
onlinear 8 Nod
were used .It c
forced concret
and Tension S
ents are concen
ement Center o
re in Fig 5.
Schematic form

of Pushover a
ed here in Fig
d 3D is for 3D
ab Interaction
rical relations
riod for this str
] tried to evalu
ctor R) due
building . The
y it by a 3 Stor
ated response
0.25 ~0.15 of
no study on
arameters with
Story models (Ba
4
)
t Nonlinear sta
ment program
model .This S
shear- Fundam
geometry and
ODELING
des that have S
can be defined
te or composite
Softening are d
ntrated as Lum
of Mass). Schem
m of Elements
analysis for 2
g. 4.(2D and
effects like
, torsion and
proposed by
ructures .
uate behavior
to ATC63
ey performed
rey 1/3 scale
modification
f Base Shear
the relation
h geometry .
alkaya and
atic Pushover
m is done on
Study tried to
mental period
height.
Six degree of
d as a layered
es .The inter-
defined here .
mped mass in
matic of this


International Conference on Transport, Environment and Civil Engineering (ICTECE'2012) August 25-26, 2012 Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)
128


thi
gre
ele
and
of
are
us
Ac
set

bot
use
mi
use
tria
Wi
a C
fai
Fig
Ta

pla
pla
E
thi
2
It supposed
ickness of eac
eater than 1/3
ement thicknes
d slabs ). 7 di
Steel Rebars
e defined as sm
how we defin
ccording to Mia
tting is used fo
Fig. 6 Define
To define a R
th concrete and
e a linear isotro
ises hardening
e a Von-mises
axial behavior
illiam & Warn
Constitutive m
ilure zone .You
g 7. The prope
able I.
Fig. 7 Failu
The models w
an .It had no co
an of models ar
Each Storey h
ickness are e
8@20 cm .
that Stress
ch layer and
of total elemen
sses are equal
ifferent layer (
) is defined h
meared plate . (2
ne a Nonlinea
ao
2006
et al[8].
r this models .
of Layered RC
layer ( M
III. MATERI
Reinforced con
d steel in case
opic material f
plasticity .For
linear elastici
r of concrete
nke [9]

.William
model for triaxi
u can see 5 Pa
erties of defin
ure Surface Shap
IV. MODELS
were consist of
olumn but som
re shown here
has 3.50 meters
equals to 15
varies linear
layer thicknes
nt thickness . F
to 15 cm (Sam
( 5 Layer Conc
here. In this ca
2*8@20cm )
ar Layered Rein
A Convergenc

Shell Element w
Miao
2006
)

IAL MODELING

crete element
of nonlinear m
for steel and th
r elastic region
ity but a Const
plasticity is
m & Warnke i
ial behavior of
arameter failur
ed material ar

pe(William and W

S GEOMETRY
f a 19.8 * 9.8 m
me wall connect
below in Fig 8
s of height . A
cm and Rei
rly through
ss should not
For this model
me for both wa
crete and 2 Lay
ase reinforcem
). Fig 6.0 Show
nforced Concr
ce based time s
with smeared stee
G
we should def
materials. Here
hen a bilinear v
n of Concrete
titutive model
assumed due
in 1974 presen
f concrete due
re Zone shape
re show below

Warnke
1975
)
meter rectangu
ting beams. Flo
8.
All Wall and flo
inforcements

the
be
all
alls
yer
ment
wed
rete
step

el
fine
we
von
we
for
to
nted
e to
in
w in
ular
oor
oor
are

An A
equals
Elemen
rebar in
Some
on thos
10% dr
Transve
have a
ratios fo
drift at t
levels t
combin
05[13].

V. B

Drift
Perform
Conside
some v
curve c
be expr
TABL
Uniaxial Co
Modulu
Pois
Shear Transfer C
Shear Transfer C
Uniaxial C
Unixial C
Biaxial C
Ambient H
Uniaxial Crushin
hydro
Tensile
Modulu
Poa
Yield
Tangant P
Fig. 8 Typica
Adoptive conve
to 20 cm were
nts .Tension S
nteraction .
e Pushover No
se models . Fo
rift for top lev
erse ( 3.50*0.1
modal analysi
or both directio
top level in bo
the displaceme
nation .Primary
BASE SHEAR DE
ft Limit is m
mance .Some ev
ering a limit o
value for seism
can be estimate
ressed in term o
LE I . MATERIAL P
CONCRETE PROPE
ompressive Strength
us of Elasticity
sson's Ratio
Coefficient for open
Coefficient for close
Cracking Strength
Crushing Strength
Crushing Strength
Hydrostatic Stress
ng Strength under am
static pressure
Density
e Crack Factor
Rebar Properti
us of Elasticity
ation Ratio
ding Strength
Plasticity Modulus

al Floor Plan wit

ergence mesh
e used . Concre
Stiffening are
onlinear Static
or 1 storey mo
vel in both dire
=0.35 m=35 cm
is first and co
ons .Then the
oth direction.( 7
ent are determ
y design of mod
ETERMINATION
RESULTS
most important
vents like P-
on structural dr
mic base shea
ed. Even yield
of yield drift (n
PROPERTIES
ERTIES
h 2
250
crack
e crack
3
2
3
43.
mbient 43.
240
ies
200
40
1.0
th slab yield Surf
with maximum
ete Cover are 3
considered fo
c Analysis wer
del we push th
ection of Long
m ). For 2 stor
ompute modal
model was pu
7.0*0.15=1.05m
mined from assu
dels are based
N AND CAPACIT
t parameter i
effect can be c
rift. By consid
ar from Capaci
d point of the s
non-dimension
25 Mpa
000 Mpa
0.2
0.45
0.8
.5 Mpa
25 Mpa
30 Mpa
301 Mpa
125 Mpa
00 Kg /m
3
0.6
0000 Mpa
0.3
00 Mpa
035 Mpa

face
m mesh size
30 mm for all
r concrete -
re done here
hat model to
gitudinal and
rey model we
combination
shed for15%
m) for other
umed modal
on ACI 318-
TY CURVE
n Structural
controlled by
der drift limit
ity Pushover
structure can
nal Rotation )
International Conference on Transport, Environment and Civil Engineering (ICTECE'2012) August 25-26, 2012 Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)
129

.Th
thi
yie
mo
Faz
Ca
and
dis
plo
II.
A
fro
tha

Fig


Fig

Fra
Fra
Fra
Fra
Fra
Fra


*
Th


tim
0
1
2
3
4
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

he width of Joi
is drift limit.
elding occurre
odel It was poi
zileh 2011) be
apacity .So acc
d Iran's 2800
splacement).Af
otted and some

As mentioned b
om modal com
at includes 90 %
g. 9 Model 1 Sto
g. 10 Model 2 S
TABLE II. BA
LON
1 Storey
Transver
ame 1 1.70967
ame 2 0.90596
ame 3 1.12283
ame A 0.76254
ame B 0.74709
ame C 1.02085
3D 0.3444
hese values are calc
Here, after do
me periods for
0
1
2
3
4
0 1
TopD
2StoreyT
int of Building
After doing a
ed in drift mo
inted by some
efore that this
cording to som
0 we limit d
fter the analys
e results has ex
before the defo
mbinations of t
% of Structural
orey Left) 3d Tra
Longitudinal P
Storey Left) 3d T
3d Longitudinal
ASE SHEAR COEFF
NGITUDINAL DIREC
y
rse
1 Storey
Longitudina
7 0.5453
6 0.4321
3 0.2720
4 4.9555
9 1.8563
5 3.8084
1 0.1099
culated from capac
oing some mo
r fundamental
0 20
Drift%
Transverse
s Separation w
analysis it wa
ore than 10%
literature (like
system have a
me structural co
drift to 0.5%(
is capacity pu
xpressed in Fig
ormation patter
the models ( A
l mass had con
ansverse Pushov
Pushover Curve
Transverse Pusho
Pushover Curve
ICIENT IN BOTH TR
CTION(DRIFT
*
=0.5

al
2 Storey
Transverse
1.03315
0.69100
0.96788
0.55255
0.58576
0.65447
0.20813
city curves at 0.5 p
odal Analysis
dominant dyn
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

2Stor
were calculated
as seen that f
for top level
e Paulay 2001 a
a great Rotatio
odes like ASCE
(0.005 of hei
ushover curve h
g 9 &10 and ta
rns are calcula
At least 4 Mod
nsidered here) .
ver Curve Right)
over Curve Rig
e
RANSVERSE AND
5 %)
2 Storey
Longitudinal
0.25464
0.21994
0.24748
2.51836
1.35253
1.65556
0.051297
percent of drift.
for each mo
namic mode h
10 2
TopDrift%
reyLongituinal

d by
first
of
and
onal
E 7
ght
has
able
ated
des
.

) 3d

ght)
odel
has
compar
like UB
Standar
I
u
= C
t
10 tak
0.0488
0.75 he
Table II

Model
name
1 Storey
2 Storey
3 Storey
In thi
models
Some o

A) It
structur
=2*8@
they can
seismic
not for
and non
B) It
Respon
strong r
adding j
in Base
base she
C) T
Surface
total sur
Base Sh
base sh
non ope
D) A
resistan
are sma
of in pl
are vari
each dir
E) Co
presente
said as
structur
should c
F) As
and by
the mod
of abou
high fre
G) In
dominan
20
red with empir
BC
1997
[10] ,
rd
2005
[12]

. ASC
t
b
n
x
for app
kes C
t
and h
n
(~0.05 ) and 0
ere and the equ
II presented C
t
TABLE III.
Height
Ti
3.5 m 0.0
7.0 m 0.0
10.5 m 0.
is article some
of Coupling b
of important co
t was found th
res (Wall thi
@20 cm ) hav
n passed over
design codes
structural stab
n-structural ele
sounds that B
nse modificatio
relation with s
just one storey
e Shear Coeffi
ear in some ca
The results sh
e Area of open
urface probably
hear Coefficie
hear coefficient
ened frames ha
Analyses show
nce in his plane
aller . But in 3D
lane and out of
ies only by dif
rection.
omparing the v
ed by ASCE 7
a result that
ral fundamenta
calibrated for t
s shown in Tab
increasing the
del the value o
ut 0.011 at its m
equency. More
n some mode
ant in the struct
rical relation p
, ASCE 7-10
CE 7-10
2010
pr
proximate fund
for RC shear
0.75. Due to x
uation calibrat
t
Value and Tim
. FUNDAMENTAL M

ime Period
Frequ
0282 sec 35.06
0385 sec 25.97
.0514sec 19.45


VI. CONCLUS

e pushover anal
beam RC syste
nclusions are p
hat even with
ckness = 15
ve good perfo
large rotations
and provisions
bility. ( other p
ements stability
Base shear valu
on factor ( i.e
tructural heigh
y on the 1 stor
icient was see
ases ) .
howed that so
nings and the ra
y effected on S
ent . (Very ex
t in frames wit
ave seen here .)
wed that mos
e but in out of
D - because of
f plane actions
fference of hei
values for C
t
ra
7-10 ( 0.0488
in most of th
al period has a
this type of stru
able III by incr
e bending beha
of C
t
has been m
maximum leve
Studies should
els the 3D to
tural behavior .
presented by se
0
2010
[11]

and
esented empiri
damental period
r wall building
x -Coefficient a
ted by the fact
me -Periods .
MODES, PERIODS
uency C
t
62 Hz 0.01102
43Hz 0.008946
02Hz 0.008814
SION
lysis was perfo
ems with 1, 2 a
pointed here in
minimum des
cm and Re
ormance in dri
s ) and drift lim
s for other prob
problem like s
y )
ue ( Coefficien
e. Behavior fac
ht ( Refer to T
rey model a la
en ( about half
ome other par
atio of opening
Structural perfo
xtraordinary re
th low ratio of
)
st of frames
plane action th
f homogenous
s - it seems tha
ight and ratio o
atio in Table.III
for Shear wal
he cases code
at least 20% of
uctures special
easing the heig
avior in overall
more accurate
el and structur
d be done in th
orsional effect
.
eismic codes
Iran's 2800
ical equation
d . ASCE 7-
g equals to
are equals to
tor of C
t
.
Mode
Shape
X-Transfer
6 Y-Transfer
4 Y-Transfer
ormed on the
and ... story .
n below:
sign of these
einforcement
ift capacity (
mits made by
blem and it's
serviceability
nt ) and even
ctor) have a
Table II. ) By
arge decrease
f of primary
ameters like
gs surface to
ormance and
esistance and
f openings or
have great
he base shear
s distribution
at base shear
of opening in
I to C
t
value
ll ) it can be
es period for
f error and it
lly .
ght of model
l behavior of
on the value
re behaves in
his case .
t are more
International Conference on Transport, Environment and Civil Engineering (ICTECE'2012) August 25-26, 2012 Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)
130


H) It seems that in this type of structures period are very
related to other geometrical parameters and it needs more
study in future .
These analyses will be continued in its second phase to boost
the knowledge and present better relation for base shear and
fundamental period .

References

[1] Khan ,F R . Sbarounis ,J A (1964). Interaction of Shear Walls and
Frames .Journal of Structural Devision , Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers ,Vol 90 No ST3 June 1964 ,ASCE
[2] Paulay ,T. Coupling in Reinforced Concrete Shear wall Structures
,(1969)
[3] Lin ,C Y . Kuo, C L.(1988) Behavior of shear wall with openings ,
Proceeding of Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering ,
August 2-9 , 1988 Tokyo - Kyoto , Japan (Vol IV)
[4] Balkaya , Can .(1994) Nonlinear three - dimensional of shear wall
dominant reinforced concrete building structures , Submitted Thesis in
partial fulfillment of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in civil
engineering , University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ,December
1993
[5] Chopra A,K . Geol,R ,K .(1998) Period Formulas for Concrete Shear
Wall Buildings , ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering , Vol.124 ,
No4 ,April 1998 , Page 426-433
[6] Kalkan E , Balkaya ,Can . (2004) , Seismic Vulnerability , behavior and
design of tunnel form Structures , Engineering Structures, Vol 26 Pages
2081-2099 , Doi :10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.07.005
[7] Tavafoghi .A, Eshghi .S (2011) , Evaluation of behavior factor of
tunnel-form concrete building structures using Appiled Technology
Council 63 methodology, The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings , 8 June 2011 ,John Wiley & Sons DOI: 10.1002/tal.710
[8] Miao. Z W . Lu X Z . Jiang . J J ,Ye L P (2006) Nonlinear FE Model for
RC Shear Walls Based on Multi-layer Shell Element and Micro plane
Constitutive Model , COMPUTATIONAL METHODS IN
ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE , EPMESC X, Aug. 21-23, 2006,
Sanya, Hainan,China
[9] William ,J K . Warnke E R (1975) Constitutive Model for the Triaxial
Behaviour of Concrete , Proceeding of the International Association for
bridge and Structural Engineering , Vol .19 . Page 1-31 Bergamo ,Italy
.1975
[10] Uniform Building Code (UBC) , 1997,USA
[11] ASCE 07-10 , Minimum design loads for structures, American Society
of Civil Engineer , 2010 ,American Society of Civil Engineers -ASCE
[12] Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of
Building(Iran's 2800 Standard ), (2005),Building and Housing Research
Center BHRC - Publication Number : S253 ,3
rd
Edition ,Iran
[13] ACI Publication 318-05(2005) ,American Concrete Institute -2005 ACI


International Conference on Transport, Environment and Civil Engineering (ICTECE'2012) August 25-26, 2012 Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)
131