2571-1075ISSN (Online)
Volume 12 , Issue 1 , PP: 75-96, 2026 | Cite this article as | XML | Html | PDF | Full Length Article
Islam Ibrahim Shoheb 1 * , Moustafa Metwally 2 , Intan Rohani Endut 3
Doi: https://doi.org/10.54216/IJBES.120105
Purpose: This study develops a code-agnostic, mechanics-first framework to quantify the parametric sensitivity of axial flexural (N-M) interaction in reinforced concrete (RC) shear walls and to produce transferable rankings of key “design knobs” controlling N–M response metrics. Design/methodology/approach: A strain-compatibility, fiber-based sectional solver is formulated for rectangular, T, I/H, and U-shaped wall sections. The mechanics engine is decoupled from a modular code-profile layer (ACI-/EC2-/BS-consistent mappings) to enable cross-code comparisons. Interaction curves are normalized to isolate mechanics-driven shape effects, and scalar metrics are extracted at multiple axial levels (e.g., M^* (N^*=0.1,0.3,0.5), Mmax, and balanced-point indicators). Sensitivity is quantified using local elasticities, Morris screening, and Sobol variance-based indices; numerical reproducibility is verified through convergence and mesh-independence controls. Findings: Normalization collapses most cross-code variability in curve shape, while design-level curves retain separable safety-format differences. Sensitivity rankings vary with axial level and section family, revealing nonlinear interactions and regime shifts especially for irregular sections where flange participation can dominate near peak or balanced states. Practical implications: The framework supports cross-code traceability and efficiency-based design guidance (steel and boundary efficiency) across axial regimes, highlighting diminishing returns and marginal benefits. Originality/value: The study delivers a reproducible, code agnostic N–M engine integrated with rigorous global sensitivity analysis to bridge the gap between sectional mechanics and design-oriented decision-making.
Axial&ndash , flexural interaction , Code-agnostic modeling , Global sensitivity analysis , Parametric sensitivity , RC shear walls
[1] J. W. Wallace and K. Orakcal, “ACI 318-99 provisions for reinforced concrete structural walls,” ACI Struct. J., vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 499–508, 2002.
[2] R. Smith, J. T. Brown, and L. C. Johnson, “Innovative approaches to analyzing reinforced concrete structures under seismic loads,” J. Struct. Eng. Res., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 215–230, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jser.2023.03.002 .
[3] R. B. Caldas, R. H. Fakury, and J. G. S. da Silva, “Numerical aspects in the construction of interaction diagrams for reinforced concrete sections,” Eng. Struct., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1814–1823, 2010.
[4] M. H. Patel and R. K. Singh, “Behavior of reinforced concrete shear walls subjected to lateral loads: A comprehensive review,” Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol., vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1020–1035, 2021, doi: 10.34218/IJCIET.12.5.2021.092 .
[5] K. Kolozvari, J. W. Wallace, and L. N. Lowes, “Finite-element modeling of reinforced concrete walls for seismic performance assessment,” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 421–442, 2019.
[6] F. Pozo, P. Martinelli, and J. I. Restrepo, “Evaluation of macromodels for nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete shear walls,” Eng. Struct., vol. 214, p. 110602, 2020.
[7] T. A. Tran and J. W. Wallace, “Cyclic testing of reinforced concrete structural walls with varying axial load ratios,” ACI Struct. J., vol. 112, no. 4, pp. 479–490, 2015.
[8] Y. Lu, B. Li, and K. Beyer, “Influence of reinforcement distribution on deformation capacity of reinforced concrete shear walls,” Eng. Struct., vol. 150, pp. 493–505, 2017.
[9] M. Sobol, “Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates,” Math. Comput. Simul., vol. 55, nos. 1–3, pp. 271–280, 2001.
[10] F. Campolongo, J. Cariboni, and A. Saltelli, “An effective screening design for sensitivity analysis of large models,” Environ. Model. Softw., vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 1509–1518, 2007.
[11] Saltelli and P. Annoni, “How to avoid a perfunctory sensitivity analysis,” Environ. Model. Softw., vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 1508–1517, 2010.
[12] J. B. Mander, M. J. N. Priestley, and R. Park, “Theoretical stress–strain model for confined concrete,” J. Struct. Eng., vol. 114, no. 8, pp. 1804–1826, 1988.
[13] J. Baek, L. N. Lowes, D. E. Lehman, and J. P. Moehle, “Influence of loading rate on the seismic behavior of reinforced concrete shear walls,” J. Struct. Eng., vol. 146, no. 5, p. 04020062, 2020.
[14] S. T. Nguyen and P. H. Tran, “Dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete structures using advanced finite element techniques,” J. Eng. Mech., vol. 150, no. 8, p. 04024045, 2024, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0002023 .
[15] D. L. Thomas, E. R. Wilson, and A. J. Lee, “Assessment of reinforced concrete wall systems under multi-directional loading,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 275, pp. 122–130, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122130 .
[16] T. Homma and A. Saltelli, “Importance measures in global sensitivity analysis of nonlinear models,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 1996.
[17] V. K. Papanikolaou and A. G. Sextos, “Analytical methodologies for reinforced concrete members under combined axial and bending loading,” Struct. Concr., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 653–665, 2016.
