Evaluation of Analysis and Design Results of Reinforced Concrete Walls Carried out using ETABS
| dc.contributor.advisor | Zerayohannes, Girma(PhD) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Kassa, Wondimu | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2018-06-21T08:00:05Z | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-11-11T12:56:32Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2018-06-21T08:00:05Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2023-11-11T12:56:32Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2008-03 | |
| dc.description.abstract | The use of commercial application programs is well established in the local structural design offices working in Ethiopia. Among the most widely used programs are SAP2000 and ETABS by CSI, California, Berkeley. User confidence in respect of analysis results is reasonably high for building structures or bridges whose lateral force resisting systems comprise 3-D rigid frames. For buildings with wall or dual wall-frame systems, however, the comparison is not so straight forward, and has not yet been systematically investigated and reported. More recently some users while accepting the drawbacks in respect of the design of columns tend to accept the design results of walls as valid. Clearly, response of structural walls to axial load and biaxial bending is much more involved than their column counterpart. In an effort to show the proximity and/or divergence of the results of ETABS with other soft wares and analysis methods the following processes has been performed. 1. Lateral load distribution results of ETABS were compared with those of the approximate elastic analysis procedure for a system of walls. 2. Column reinforcement results of ETABS were compared with those from interaction charts of EBCS 2 Part2. 3. Reinforcement of the walls from ETABS was checked by software specially developed for checking capacities of structural walls of any shape under normal load and biaxial bending. From the lateral load distribution comparison result, it was observed that there were differences between the outputs of ETABS and the approximate elastic analysis. The percentage difference varies from one wall arrangement type to another and wall section to wall section. In case of the design results, column reinforcement areas obtained from ETABS were larger than those from interaction charts of EBCS 2 Part 2. For the simple rectangular structural walls considered, the reinforcement from ETABS was found to be insufficient to resist the design actions on it. The same thing was observed on the L-shaped walls. Where as for the C-shaped walls designed by ETABS the capacity to demand ratio were nearly 1. vii Based on the comparison results of the design of a limited number of columns and walls, it may be concluded that the design of walls and columns performed by ETABS may lie on the safe side or the unsafe side. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/12345678/2594 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Addis Ababa University | en_US |
| dc.subject | Evaluation ; Analysis | en_US |
| dc.title | Evaluation of Analysis and Design Results of Reinforced Concrete Walls Carried out using ETABS | en_US |
| dc.type | Thesis | en_US |