Prepared by:

Patel Dipali Y. (09 MS 10)

Guided by:
Dr. J.A.Amin
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
Faculty of Technology
DHARMSINH DESAI UNIVERSITY
NADIAD 387001

CONTENT
Introduction

Objective and Scope of Work

Literature Review
Study Parameters

Parametric Study

Conclusion of Part Dissertation

Work to be done in Next Phase

References

INTRODUCTION
Shear wall is a structural element used to resist

lateral/horizontal/shear forces parallel to plane of the

wall.

Shear wall provide lateral strength to resist horizontal

earthquake forces and transfer these horizontal forces to

the next element in the load path below them.

It also provide lateral stiffness to prevent the roof or floor

above from excessive side-sway.

 Reinforced concrete building structures can be classified

as

1) Structural Frame Systems

2) Structural Wall Systems

3) Shear WallFrame Systems

 Drift may be defined as the displacement of one storey relative

to the other storey above or below.

Drift control is necessary to limit damages to interior
partitions, elevators and stair enclosures, glass, and cladding
systems.
The drift of the structure can be reduced by-

Changing the geometric configuration to alter the lateral

load resistance.
2. Increasing the bending stiffness of the horizontal members.
3. Adding additional stiffness by the inclusion of shear wall in
frame.
1.

DRIFT LIMITATIONAS
Country

Year

Max. interstorey
drift

Lateral deflection

India

2002

0.004h

0.002H

Euro code

1988

0.002h

Yugoslavia

1982

0.0029h

0.0017H

By M.Fintel

0.0015h

0.0007H

Canada

1995

0.004h

0.004H

Colombia

1981

0.015h

0.015H

Egypt

1988

0.0017h

0.0017H

Turky

1995

0.0035h

0.0035H
7

OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF WORK

To evaluate the effectiveness of shear wall and its pattern in

reducing the drift and top displacement of tall buildings.

To investigate and critically assesses the various arrangements

of staggered shear wall panels for their feasibility and

advantages as compared to the conventional shear wall
system.

To analyse the reinforced concrete frame building without

and with shear wall using seismic coefficient method,

response spectra method 1893(Part-1)-2002 and time history
method using E-TABS 9.0.7.
8

LITERATURE REVIEW
Zeynep SindelRagip Akba

and Semih S. Tezcan (1999) have

describe the importance of drift control and damages in tall
buildings. Authors emphasized that a moment resisting frame
building satisfying all requirements of strength and ductility may
still be subjected to severe nonstructural damages, if inter storey
drift are not restricted properly by means of shear wall.

Tolga Akis (2004) had suggested a model for shear wall-frame

structures and analyze the nonplanner shear wall assemblies of

shear wall-frame structures. Several shear wall-frame systems
having different shapes of nonplanner shear wall assemblies are
analyzed by static lateral load, response spectrum and time history
methods.
9

 S.K.Rai , J.Prasad, A.K.Ahuja (2006) have done static analysis and

non-linear static analysis of a 35-storeyed reinforced concrete

frame building provided with conventional shear wall and with
different arrangements of shear wall. The shear wall panels are
bay-wide and storey deep discrete panels used to resist lateral loads.

K.K.Singh, S. Chakraborty and T.R.Reddy (2006) had carried out a

study on a 13 storeyed RC framed building to investigate the effect

of openings in shear walls. The building was analyzed as a 3-D
frame with shear wall in both directions using matrix stiffness
methods and finite elements to represent the beams, columns, shear
walls and slabs.

10

 S.K.Rai , J.Prasad, A.K.Ahuja (2006) have studied on Importance of

shear wall in Tall buildings. They had presented a paper on the

control of damage to buildings by way of increasing the stiffness by
providing shear walls and thereby restricting the lateral deflections
under the lateral loads. The analysis of a bare frame has done first
and later it has been stiffened with shear wall and analysis has been
done.

Quanfeng Wang (2007) had described the effect of the shear wall

cutoff on storey drifts of frame-shear wall structures by analyzed

the structures using a member system-storey model under
simulated earthquake excitations.

11

STUDY PARAMETERS
The parametric study has been carried out on 3 different

storeyed building for 3 different patterns of shear wall.

Building height considered:
1) 20-storeyed
2) 30-storeyed
3) 35-storeyed
Patterns of shear wall used in study are:
1) Conventional shear wall Panels
2) Zigzag shear wall Panels
3) Diagonal shear wall Panels

12

BUILDING PLAN

13

DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING

SR No.

Particulars

Details

1.

Number of storeys

20

2.

Number of bay in X and Z direction

3.

Spacing of frame in X and Z direction

5.0 m

4.

Each storey height

3.5 m

5.

Size of all beams

300 mm x 600 mm

6.

Size of columns (from ground to ten storey)

600mm x 600 mm

7.

Size of columns (from eleven to twenty storey)

500 mm x 500 mm

8.

Grade of concrete

30 MPa

9.

Grade of steel

415 MPa

10.

Slab thickness

150 mm

11.

Live load

5 kN/m
14

INPUT PARAMETERS IN E-TABS

Plan dimension
No. of storey

Material Property

Sizes of beams and columns

Thickness of slab

Property of shear wall

Different loads

Nature of diaphragms

15

RESULTS
Comparison of results for D.L. & L.L. case
Load case

By Manually

By ETAB

Dead load

86204.16 kN

87733.97 kN

Live load

62500 kN

62500 kN

Maximum column force

At storey one 8048.97 kN

At storey eleven 3907.62 kN

Maximum beam force and moment

V = 158.64 kN & M = 217.243 kN -m

16

DIMENSION OF COLUMNS
Designing the column as Axially loaded
Pu = 0.4 x fck x Ac + 0.67 x fy x Asc (From IS 456 :2000)

Where Pu = Axial load on member

fck= Characteristic compressive strength of concrete
Ac = Area of concrete
Asc = Area of longitudinal reinforcement for column
For ground storey
Ac = 614789.73 mm
B=D=784.08 mm

17

DIMENSION OF COLUMNS
From SP-16 (Chart 25)
Assuming p=1%
Ac = 5500 cm
B=D=741.6 mm
For column at eleven storey
Pu =3907.62 kN

B=D=526.71 mm
B=D=529.1 mm

(From IS 456:2000)
(From SP-16)
18

 Taking the size of columns for

1)
2)

1 to 10 storey 900 mm x 900 mm

11 to 20 storey 600 mm x 600 mm

Check for beam

V = 158.64 kN & M= 217.243 kN-m

Size of beam taken is 300 mm x 600 mm

Assuming 25 mm dia. Bars with 25 mm cover

Effective depth = 600-25-12.5 = 562.5 mm

From SP-16 (Table D)
Mu,lim = 4.14 x 10 x b x d
= 392.97 kN-m > 217. 243 kN (O.K.)

19

20-Storey Building With Conventional Shear Wall

20

20-Storey Building With Diagonal Shear Wall

21

20-Storey Building With Zig-zag Shear Wall

22

METHODS OF ANALYSIS CONSIDERED

1) Static coefficient method

It is the simplest method and used widely.

It consists of following steps.

a) Estimate the first-mode natural period.

b) Choose the appropriate seismic base shear coefficient.

c) Calculate the seismic design base shear.

d) Distribute the base shear as component forces acting at

different levels of the structure.

e) Analyze the structure under the design lateral forces to
obtain design actions.

23

Displacement comparison between four systems

DISPLACEMENT
70

displacement in mm

60

50

without S.W.

40

With Peri. S.W.

30

With Diag.S.W.
20

With zig-zag S.W.

10

0
0

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

No. of storey
24

SR.NO.

DESCRIPTION

MAX.
DISPLACEMENT

% REDUCTION
IN
DISPLACEMENT

1.

Building Without Shear Wall

57.70mm

2.

With Conventional Shear Wall

51.60mm

10.7%

3.

With Diagonal Shear Wall

27.80mm

51.8%

4.

With Zig-zag Shear Wall

27.7mm

52.0%

Diagonal and Zig-zag shear wall patterns may reduce more than 50%
of lateral displacements.
25

26

Interstorey Drift comparison between four

systems
DRIFT
1.2

Drift in mm

0.8

Without S.W.
0.6

With Peri S.W.

With Diag.S.W.

0.4

With zig-zag S.W.

0.2

0
0

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

No. of storey
27

SR.NO.

DESCRIPTION

MAX.
INTERSTOREY
DRIFT

% REDUCTION
IN INTERSTOREY
DRIFT

1.

Building Without Shear Wall

1.12mm

2.

With Conventional Shear Wall

0.963mm

14.0%

3.

With Diagonal Shear Wall

0.651mm

41.8%

4.

With Zig-zag Shear Wall

0.579mm

48.3%

Diagonal and zig-zag shear wall patterns are much effective in

reducing interstorey drift compare to peripheral shear wall.
28

2) Response Spectrum Method

The response spectrum is given from IS 1893(Part-1):2002.
The building lies in zone V and the soil below it is medium.
The importance factor is 1 and response reduction factor is

taken as 5.

29

Displacement comparison between four systems

IS 1893 Spectra
40
35

Disp. in mm

30

25

Without S.w.

20

With Peri S.W.

15

With Diag S.W.

10

With zig-zag S.W.

5
0
0

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

No. of storey
30

SR.NO.

DESCRIPTION

MAX.
DISPLACEMENT

% REDUCTION
IN
DISPLACEMENT

1.

Building Without Shear Wall

37.70mm

2.

With Conventional Shear Wall

32.10mm

14.8%

3.

With Diagonal Shear Wall

17.70mm

53.05%

4.

With Zig-zag Shear Wall

17.50mm

53.58%

Diagonal and Zig-zag shear wall patterns may reduce more than 50%
of top lateral displacements.
31

Interstorey Drift comparison between four

systems
IS 1893 Spectra
0.8
0.7

Drift in mm

0.6

0.5

Without S.W.

0.4

with Peri S.W.

0.3

With Diag.S.W.

0.2

With zig-zag S.W.

0.1
0
0

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

No. of storey
32

SR.NO.

DESCRIPTION

MAX.
INTERSTOREY
DRIFT

% REDUCTION
IN INTERSTOREY
DRIFT

1.

Building Without Shear Wall

0.735mm

2.

With Conventional Shear Wall

0.607mm

17.41%

3.

With Diagonal Shear Wall

0.420mm

42.85%

4.

With Zig-zag Shear Wall

0.377mm

48.70%

Zig-zag shear wall patterns are much effective in reducing

interstorey drift compare to peripheral shear wall.
33

3) Time history method

A selected earthquake motion is applied directly to the base of

the structure. For the full duration of the earthquake,

instantaneous stresses throughout the structure are evaluated
at small time interval.
It is much used in inelastic analysis.
Considered earthquake ground motion for study is-

June 28, 1992 Landers, California, at Lucerne Valley

34

NEAR FAULT EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTIONS

Near-fault earthquake
ground motions

Recording station

Duration
(sec)

PGD
(m)

PGV
(m/sec)

PGA
(g )

October 15, 1979

Imperial Valley,
California

El Centro Array
#5

39.420
(1971/0.02)

0.765

0.98

0.37

January 17, 1994

Northridge, California

Newhall

60.000
(3000/0.02)

0.381

1.19

0.72

June 28, 1992

Landers,

Lucerne
Valley

49.284
(12321/0.004)

2.300

1.36

0.71

January 17, 1994

Northridge, California

Rinaldi

14.950
(2990/0.005)

0.391

1.75

0.89

January 17, 1994

Northridge, California

Sylmar

60.000
(3000/0.02)

0.311

1.22

0.73
35

Displacement Comparison along X-Direction

between Four Systems
Lucerne
300

Disp. in mm

250
200
Without S.W.

150

Peri. S.W.

100

Diag.S.W.
Zig-zag S.W.

50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

No. of storey
36

SR.NO.

DESCRIPTION

MAX.
DISPLACEMENT

% REDUCTION
IN
DISPLACEMENT

280mm

268.10mm

4.25%

1.

Building Without Shear Wall

2.

With Conventional Shear Wall

3.

With Diagonal Shear Wall

90.0mm

67.53%

4.

With Zig-zag Shear Wall

91.9mm

67.17%

.
37

38

Displacement Comparison along Y-Direction

between Four Systems
Lucerne
250

Disp. in mm

200
150

Without S.W.
Peri. S.W.

100

Diag. S.W.

50

Zig-zag S.W.

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

No. of storey
39

% REDUCTION
IN
DISPLACEMENT

SR.NO.

DESCRIPTION

MAX.
DISPLACEMENT

1.

Building Without Shear Wall

233.3mm

2.

With Conventional Shear

Wall

232.7mm

4.25%

3.

With Diagonal Shear Wall

112.4mm

51.8%

4.

With Zig-zag Shear Wall

110.7mm

52.55%

.
40

Interstorey Drift Comparison along X-Direction

between Four Systems
Lucerne
10
9

Drift in mm

8
7
6

Without S.W.

Peri S.W.

4
3

Diag. S.W.

Zig-zag S.W.

1
0
1

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

No. of storey
41

SR.NO.

DESCRIPTION

MAX.
INTERSTOREY
DRIFT

% REDUCTION
IN INTERSTOREY
DRIFT

1.

Building Without Shear Wall

8.904mm

2.

With Conventional Shear Wall

6.59mm

25.98%

3.

With Diagonal Shear Wall

3.027mm

66.0%

4.

With Zig-zag Shear Wall

3.067mm

65.55%

More than 50% of drift can be reduced with diagonal and zig-zag
shear wall.
42

Interstorey Drift Comparison along Y-Direction

between Four Systems
LUCERNE
6

Drift in mm

5
4
Without S.W.

Peri. S.W.

Diag. S.W.
Zig-zag S.W.

1
0
0

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

No. of storey
43

SR.NO.

DESCRIPTION

MAX.
INTERSTOREY
DRIFT

% REDUCTION
IN INTERSTOREY
DRIFT

1.

Building Without Shear Wall

5.0mm

2.

With Conventional Shear Wall

4.59mm

8.0%

3.

With Diagonal Shear Wall

3.093mm

38.14%

4.

With Zig-zag Shear Wall

3.053mm

39.0%

Diagonal and zig-zag shear wall patterns are much effective in

reducing interstorey drift compare to peripheral shear wall.
44

CONCLUSION
The lateral displacement of frame with conventional shear wall is

reduced as much as 10% to 12% and interstorey drift is reduced about

15% as compared to the building frame without shear wall.

The lateral displacement of frame with diagonal and zig-zag shear

wall frame is reduced as much as 50% and 48% to 50% respectively as

compared to the building frame with conventional shear wall.

The interstorey drift of frame with diagonal and zig-zag shear wall

frame is reduced as much as 42% and 48% to 50% respectively as

compared to the building frame with conventional shear wall.

Hence, diagonal and zig-zag shear wall patterns gives better result

compare to conventional shear wall.

45

WORK TO BE DONE IN NEXT PHASE

The same dynamic analysis will be done for 30-storeyed and

35-storeyed building and comparison will be done for

interstorey drift and top lateral displacement between four
systems.

To do modeling and analysis of reinforced concrete building

with patterns of shear wall for finding out lateral loads shared
by frames and shear wall.

46

REFERENCES

Chopra, A. K., Dynamics of Structures, Second Edition, Prentice Hall,

2000.
Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures,(Fifth
Revision),IS 1893:2002, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Design Aids for Reinforced Concrete to IS 456: 1978, Special
Publication SP: 16, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Fintel Mark, Hand book of Concrete Engineering , Second Edition.
Paulay, T., Pristley M.J.N., seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete
and Masonry Buildings
Penelis George G. and Kay Andreas J., Earthquake Resistant
Concrete Structures, Publication- E and FN Spon , London, UK.
Plain and Reinforced Concrete code of Practice (Forth Revision),
Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 456: 2000
47

 Rai, S.K., Prasad J. and Ahuja, A.K., (2006), Reducing Drift and

Damages in Tall Buildings by Shear Wall Panels, National

conference on High-Rise Buildings: Materials and Practices, New
Delhi, India, October 30-31, 2006.
Rai, S.K., Prasad J. and Ahuja, A.K., (2006), Importance of Shear
Wall in Tall buildings, National conference on High-Rise
Buildings: Materials and Practices, New Delhi , India, October 3031 ,2006.
Singh, K.K., Chukraborty S. and Reddy, T.R., Effect of Openings in
Shear Walls of Multistoried Buildings, National conference on
High-Rise Buildings: Materials and Practices, New Delhi, India,
October 30-31, 2006.
Tolga Akis (2004),Thesis on Lateral load Analysis of Shear Wall
Frame-Structure ,Tokiyo
48

 Taranath

Bungale S. (2005) Wind and Earthquake Resistant

Building, Taylors and Frnci Group.
Varghese, P.C., Advanced Reinforced Concrete Design. Prentic Hall
India, New Delhi.
Wang-chu-kia and Salmon Charles G. Reinforced Concrete
design, Wesley Educational Publisher Inc.
Zeynep, S.A. and Tezcan, S. S. (1999), Importance of drift control
and damages in tall buildings.

49

50