Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927

DOI 10.1007/s12517-015-1903-7

ORIGINAL PAPER

Controlling the earthquake-induced lateral displacement of RC

buildings using shear walls: parametric study
Mohamed A. Dahesh 1 & Ahmet Tuken 1 & Nadeem A. Siddiqui 1

Received: 28 April 2014 / Accepted: 1 April 2015 / Published online: 22 April 2015
# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2015

Abstract Shear walls are known for their contribution in im- Keywords Shear wall . Seismic loading . Multi-story RC
proving the lateral stiffness and thus controlling the story drift building . Lateral displacement . Serviceability
of the Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings against earthquake
loading. Although substantial research is available on shear
wall-frame buildings, a detailed parametric study which can Introduction
help the designers and field engineers to obtain an optimum
arrangement of shear walls is missing in the literature. In the To have the lateral story drift within the code-specified limits
present study, a multi-story RC building, square in plan and is one of the major requirements in the seismic design of
assumed to be located in a seismically active city of the King- multi-story Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings. Generally
dom of Saudi Arabia, was laterally stiffened with the shear under seismic forces of moderate to high magnitude, these
walls of different thickness, height, configuration, and open- requirements are difficult to satisfy unless a sufficient quantity
ing location. The building was then subjected to seismic of shear wall is provided in the building. Shear walls improve
forces, and the influence of shear walls in controlling the lat- the lateral stiffness of the building and thus control the story
eral response of the building was studied by varying the above drift of the building substantially. As a result, almost all the
parameters. The earthquake was considered from one direc- seismic codes recommend the employment of shear walls for
tion only while studying the effect of the first two parameters the design of RC buildings against seismic forces.
(i.e., thickness and height) as the building and shear wall ar- In the recent past, substantial research has been carried out
rangements were symmetric along the two orthogonal direc- on seismic response of RC buildings with shear walls. Burak
tions. However, in case of third and fourth parameters (i.e., and Comlekoglu (2013) evaluated the effect of shear wall area
shear wall configuration and opening location), earthquake to floor area ratio on the seismic response of RC buildings.
was considered from the two directions separately as the shear They carried out nonlinear time-history analysis for 24 mid-
wall configuration and opening location were not symmetric rise building models having shear wall ratios ranging between
in the two orthogonal directions. The results of the present 0.51 and 2.17 % in both directions. In the analyses, seven
study are very useful for obtaining the optimum amount and different earthquake records were used in the evaluation of
arrangement of shear walls in a given RC frame building the seismic performance of these buildings. The results
against a specified seismic loading. showed that to control the lateral story drift, a minimum of
1.0 % shear wall ratio was recommended in the design of mid-
rise buildings. They also observed that when the shear wall
ratio is more than 1.5 %, the effect of shear wall on the per-
formance was not insignificant.
* Nadeem A. Siddiqui Chai and Kunnath (2005) outlined a methodology for
[email protected] assessing the minimum wall thickness to ensure that the in-
plane lateral strength was fully developed. The results were
1
Department of Civil Engineering, King Saud University, presented for a number of parameters including the ground mo-
Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia tion intensity, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, floor weight,
9914 Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927

wall-to-floor area ratio, and number of stories. The minimum

wall thickness was compared with recommendations in current
building codes. Kim et al. (2005) proposed an efficient method
for a three-dimensional analysis of a high-rise building structure
with shear walls. Three-dimensional super elements for walls
and floor slabs were developed, and a substructure was formed
by assembling the super elements to reduce the time required for
the modeling and analysis. Static and dynamic analyses of ex-
ample structures with various types of opening were performed
to verify the efficiency and accuracy of the proposed method.
They concluded that the proposed method is very useful for an
efficient and accurate analysis of high-rise building structures
with significantly reduced computational time and memory.
Neuenhofer (2006) investigated the accuracy of a simpli-
fied hand method, recommended in several design guidelines
for practicing structural engineers, for calculating the lateral
stiffness of shear walls with openings. Parametric studies were
performed in which the location and size of the opening as
well as the aspect ratio of the wall were varied. A special-
purpose finite-element algorithm was developed and imple-
mented in the computing package MATLAB. Results from
finite-element analysis were compared with those of the hand Fig. 1 3D model of the studied building
method. He found that the hand method enormously overes-
timates the stiffness of shear walls with openings. buildings. The method derives its simplicity by relying on
Tjhin et al. (2007) presented a simple method for the the stability of the yield displacement and the representation
performance-based seismic design of ductile RC wall of inelastic seismic demand using yield point spectra. The

Fig. 2 Plan of the studied

building
Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927 9915

Table 1 Salient data for the

studied building Parameter Value Remark

Compressive strength of concrete (f'c) 30 MPa Assumed for all the concrete elements
Yield strength of steel (fy) 420 MPa Assumed for all the steel
q
Modulus of elasticity of concrete (E) 25,742,960 kN/m2 0
4700 f c according to Saudi Building
Code (SBC) 304 (2007)
Width of typical shear wall (bw) 0.20 to 0.50 m Assumed
Ratio of horizontal web 0.0025 Minimum value based on Saudi Building
reinforcement of wall to the Code (SBC) 304 (2007)
gross area of wall web (n)
Story weights (wi) 9.0 kN/m2 Assumed weight of ith story of the building
(being the same for all stories)
Occupancy importance factor (I) 1.0 For all buildings and other structures of
category II based on Table 1.6-1 in Saudi
Building Code (SBC) 301 (2007)

design method was based on an estimate of the roof displace- total shear resistance provided by all shear walls in one direc-
ment at yield. The required base shear strength was determined tion. Because seismic action may occur in any direction, equal
using yield point spectra. The walls were designed for a single amount of shear walls is recommended to provide in the two
base shear force that was established based on one or more orthogonal directions. A procedure is also presented to check
performance objectives, where each performance level was the stiffness (or story drift) requirement for the determined
expressed in terms of roof drift and plastic hinge rotation at amount of shear walls. The complete analytical procedure
the base of the wall. A six-story building was used as an ex- was demonstrated by implementing it on a ten-story 3-D-
ample to illustrate the method, with the hazard represented by reinforced concrete building.
either smoothed design spectra or recorded ground motions. Tuken and Siddiqui (2015) proposed an analytical method
Nonlinear static and dynamic analyses confirmed the adequacy based on Bdual-system^ concept and Saudi Building Code
of the method to achieve the intended performance objectives. (SBC 301, SBC 304) provisions to determine the quantity of
Tuken (2004) proposed an analytical method to determine shear walls which can satisfy the strength, stiffness, and duc-
the sway of a mixed structure (frame+shear wall) subjected to tility requirements imposed by the Saudi Building Code on
seismic forces. The validity of the analytical method was test- RC moment-resisting frame buildings. The method also out-
ed on three-dimensional (3-D) buildings of different heights. lines a detailed procedure for the assessment of displacement
He also obtained the sway response using SAP2000 and found and curvature ductility of RC shear wall-moment resisting
that the sway results obtained by the analytical method frame buildings. This formulation is based on plastic analysis
matches well with the results of SAP2000. and the assumption that the plastic hinge forms at the base of
Tuken and Siddiqui (2013) proposed a simple-to-apply an- the shear wall. The proposed methodology was then applied to
alytical method to determine the amount of shear walls neces- a 10-story RC building containing shear walls. It was shown
sary to make reinforced concrete buildings seismic-resistant that the amount of shear walls which is enough to satisfy the
against moderate to severe earthquakes. The method is based strength requirements also fulfills the stiffness criteria (i.e.,
on the following design strategy: (1) The total design base story drift limitation) required by the Saudi Building Code.
shear must be resisted by shear walls; (2) equal amounts of It was also proved that the ductility requirements imposed by
shear walls must be placed in both orthogonal directions of the the Saudi Building Code can easily be satisfied by using the
structure; and (3) the moment resisting frame elements, which same quantity of shear walls.
are beams and columns, must independently be able to resist Above review of literature shows that although a good
25 % of the total design base shear. For such a system, the ratio number of studies are available on shear wall-frame buildings,
of the total area of shear walls to the area of the floor plan has a detailed parametric study which can help the designers and
been obtained by equating the total design base shear to the field engineers to obtain an optimum amount and arrangement

Table 2 Seismic coefficients and factors used for the present building

Basic seismic force-resisting system Response modification System over strength Deflection amplification
coefficient (R) factor (o) factor (Cd)

Special reinforced concrete shear walls 6.5 2.5 6.5

9916 Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927

Table 3 Details of the parameters studied

Description Model Parameter studied Parameter Shear wall Shear wall area
varied area (m2) to floor area ratio (%)

Shear wall is provided in the form of enclosed box Model A Thickness (L=16 m; H=30 m) 0.2 m 3.2 0.56
and continued along the full height of the building 0.3 m 4.8 0.83
0.4 m 6.4 1.11
0.5 m 8.0 1.39
Shear wall is provided in the form of enclosed box Model B Height (L=16 m; t=0.2 m) 6m 3.2 0.56
again, but continued for different heights along the 12 m 3.2 0.56
height of the building
18 m 3.2 0.56
24 m 3.2 0.56
30 m 3.2 0.56
The shear walls are provided at different locations Model C Configuration Figure 10 5.6 0.97
but keeping the area and height of the shear walls same
The shear walls are provided with opening(s) Model D Opening location Figure 13 3.2 0.56
for elevators at different locations

L total length of the shear walls, H height of the building, t thickness of the shear walls

of shear walls is required. In the present study, a multi-story Equivalent lateral force procedure
RC building, square in plan and assumed to be located in a
seismically active city of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, was In the present study building containing the shear walls was
laterally stiffened with the shear walls of different thickness, subjected to the seismic base shear, V, in a particular direction.
height, configuration, and opening location. The building was This base shear can be determined using the following equa-
then subjected to seismic forces, and the influence of shear tions as per SBC code (Saudi Building Code (SBC) 301 2007).
walls in controlling the lateral response of the building was
V CsW 1
studied by varying the above parameters.
where, Cs =the seismic response coefficient; W=the effective
seismic weight.
Description of the studied building The Cs, can be determined using the following equation:

A ten-story RC building containing shear walls was selected S DS

for the present study. The building is square in plan having a Cs   2
R
total height of 30 m with 5-bays in each direction and a con-
Ie
stant floor plan area of 576 m2 at each story. The height of where, R=the response modification factor, Ie =the im-
every story is equal to 3 m. The building is assumed to be portance factor, SDS =the design spectral response accel-
fixed at the base. The floors of the building are considered to eration parameter in the short period range. SDS can be
act as rigid diaphragms. All the columns, beams and slabs calculated using
were considered to be of the same sizes (columns: 500
500 mm; beams: 250600 mm; slab thickness: 150 mm). 2
S DS F aSS 3
The building was modeled in ETABS-2013 (2013). Figures 1 3
and 2 show the 3D-model and plan of the building respective-
where, Fa =acceleration-based site coefficient (at 0.2-s
ly. Table 1 provides the salient data of the building.
period).S=the mapped maximum considered earthquake
spectral response acceleration at short periods.
The value of Cs should not exceed the following:
Loads on the building
S D1
Cs  
In the present study, gravity and seismic loads were consid- R
T
ered acting on to the building. Gravity load was due to the self- Ie
weight of the building in addition to the dead and live loads. But shall not be less than
The seismic loads were obtained using equivalent lateral force
procedure as described below. C s 0:044S DS I
Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927 9917

Model A1 (t = 0; wf = 0%)

Model A2 (t = 0.2 m; wf = 0.56%) Model A3 (t = 0.3 m; wf = 0.83%)

Model A4 (t = 0.4 m; wf = 1.11%) Model A5 (t = 0.5 m; wf = 1.39%)

Fig. 3 Models used to study the effect of shear wall thickness

where, S D1 23 F v S 1 is the design spectral response acceler- considered earthquake spectral response acceleration parame-
ation parameter at a period of 1.0 s; T=the fundamental period ter. It is worth mentioning that the values of Fa and Fv are
of the structure, T=long transition period. F=velocity-based based on the site class (A, B, C, D, E, and F). The site class is
site coefficient (at 1.0 s period); S1 =the mapped maximum classified according to the site soil properties.
9918 Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927

Fig. 4 Lateral displacement profile of the building (model A1: without shear wall)

Selection of ground motion data acceleration at short periods, SDS, and at 1-s period
SD1, site class and site coefficients Fa and Fv, respec-
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been divided into tively; response modification coefficient (R); system
seven regions for determining the maximum considered over strength factor (o); and deflection amplification
earthquake ground motion. According to SBC 301, seis- factor (Cd). For Haql City, located in Region 1, the
micity can be described through the following parame- values of Fa and Fv are 1.15 and 1.838, respectively
ters: maximum spectral response acceleration for short (SBC 301). The values of SS and S1 were obtained from
periods (S MS ) and at 1 s (S M1 ); spectral response the maps provided in SBC 301. The corresponding

Fig. 5 Lateral displacement profile of the building (model A5: with shear wall)
Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927 9919

values were 0.866 and 0.281 g, respectively. Using the- (model D) were studied in this section. The earthquake
se values, the parameters like SMS, SM1, SDS, and SD1 was considered from one direction only while studying
can be determined for Haql City as follows: the effects of first two parameters as the building and
shear wall arrangements are symmetric along the two
orthogonal directions. However, in case of third and
S MS F a S S 1:15  0:866 0:996 fourth parameters, earthquake was considered from the
S M1 F v S 1 1:838  0:281 0:516 two directions separately as the shear wall configuration
2 2
S DS S MS S DS  0:996 0:664 and opening location are not symmetric in the two or-
3 3 thogonal directions.
2 2
S D1 S M1 S DI  0:516478 0:344
3 3
Effect of shear wall thickness (model A)
The parameters R, o, and Cd were determined from SBC
301 for special reinforced concrete moment frames. These
In this parametric study, the shear wall thickness was varied
values are shown in Table 2.
from 0.2 to 0.5 m, and its effect was studied on lateral dis-
placement of the building. Due to change in the thickness
from 0.2 to 0.5 m, shear wall area to floor area ratio (wf)
Parameters studied was varied from 0.56 to 1.39 %. The model corresponding
to each case was identified by adding a suffix number 1 to 5
In the present parametric study, the building mentioned after the letter A as mentioned below and shown in Fig. 3.
above was laterally stiffened with the shear walls of dif-
ferent thickness, height, configuration, and opening loca- Model A1frame without any shear wall (t=0; wf =
tion. The building was subjected to seismic forces, and 0 %)
the influence of shear walls in controlling the lateral re- Model A2frame with shear wall (t = 0.2 m; wf =
sponse of the building was then studied by varying the 0.56 %)
above parameters (Table 3). In the present study, the se- Model A3frame with shear wall (t = 0.3 m; wf =
lected configurations of shear walls are entitled as models 0.83 %)
(e.g., model A, model B, etc.) Model A4frame with shear wall (t = 0.4 m; wf =
1.11 %)
Model A5frame with shear wall (t = 0.5 m; wf =
Discussion of results 1.39 %)

The effects of (i) shear wall thickness (model A), (ii) The response curves shown for the case of without
shear wall height (model B), (iii) shear wall configura- shear wall and with shear wall (Figs. 4 and 5) clearly
tion (model C), and (iv) shear wall opening location illustrate the influence of shear wall in controlling the

Fig. 6 Story displacement in x 30

(or y) direction for models A.1 to
27 Earthquake in x (or y) direction
A.5
24
Height of the Building (m)

21

18

15

12
Model A.1
9 Model A.2
Model A.3
6
Model A.4
3 Model A.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Story Displacement (mm)
9920 Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927

lateral displacement of the building. This can be attrib- the presence of shear walls. Figure 6 shows the effect
uted to enhanced lateral stiffness of the building due to of thickness (or shear wall area to floor area ratio) on

Model B1 (hw = 6.0 m)

Model B2 (hw = 12.0 m) Model B3 (hw = 18.0 m)

Model B4 (hw = 24.0 m) Model B5 (hw = 30.0 m)

Fig. 7 Models used to study the effect of shear wall heights
Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927 9921

Fig. 8 Plan for models B.1 to B.5

the buildings lateral response against the seismic load- 38 to 72 % respectively of the corresponding displace-
ing. These curves illustrate that as the thickness of the ment when there was no shear wall in the building.
shear wall is increasing, the lateral displacement is de-
creasing. This is an expected trend which can be attrib- Effect of shear wall height (model B)
uted to the increase of lateral stiffness of the building
due to increase in the shear wall area. Quantitatively, In order to study the effect of shear wall height on
increasing the shear wall area to floor area ratio from lateral displacement of the building, the height of the
0.56 to 1.29 % reduces the roof lateral displacement by shear wall was varied from 6 to 30 m, while shear wall

Fig. 9 Story displacement in x- 30

direction for models B.1 to B.5
27 Earthquake in x-direction
24
Height of the Building (m)

21

18

15

12
Model B.1
9 Model B.2
Model B.3
6
Model B.4
3 Model B.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Story Displacement (mm)
9922 Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927

Model C1 Model C2

Model C3 Model C4

Model C5 Model C6

Model C7 Model C8
Fig. 10 Models used to study the effect of shear wall configuration

thickness was kept the same. As the thickness and shear to floor area ratio (wf) was constant (i.e., 0.56 %). The
wall plan area were not varied, the shear wall plan area model corresponding to each case was identified, as
Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927 9923

Table 4 Top displacement for

models C.1 to C.8 due to Model Top displacement (mm)
earthquake in x- and y-directions
Earthquake in x-direction Earthquake in y-direction

C.1 26.2 26.6

C.2 100.8 10.0
C.3 116.5 27.3
C.4 101.5 9.7
C.5 114.8 28.0
C.6 93.8 10.0
C.7 98.7 25.3
C.8 31.6 61.3

Fig. 11 Story displacement in y- 30

direction for models C.1 to C.8
27
Height of the Building (m)

24 Earthquake in y-direction
21
18
15 Model C1
12 Model C2
Model C3
9 Model C4
Model C5
6 Model C6
Model C7
3 Model C8
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Story Displacement (mm)

before, by adding a suffix number 1 to 5 after the letter building plan with centrally located closed box shear
B as mentioned below and shown in Fig. 7. The wall, used in these models, is shown in Fig. 8.

Fig. 12 Story displacement in x- 30

direction for models C.1 to C.8
27 Earthquake in x-direction
Height of the Building (m)

24
21
18
15 Model C1
Model C2
12
Model C3
9 Model C4
Model C5
6 Model C6
Model C7
3 Model C8
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Story Displacement (mm)
9924 Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927

Model D1 (Opening: 0%)

(No opening in the front and back shear walls)

Model D2 (Opening: 17%) Model D3 (Opening: 17%)

(Front shear wall has side-openings, but no opening (Front shear wall has central-openings, but no
in the back shear wall) opening in the back shear wall)

Model D4 (Opening: 17%) Model D5 (Opening: 17%)

(Front shear wall has side-openings up to third (Front shear wall has central-openings up to third
floor; and the back shear wall has side-openings for floor; and the back shear wall has central-openings
the remaining floors) for the remaining floors)
Fig. 13 Models used to study the effect of shear wall opening location

Model B1building frame having the shear wall height Model B3building frame having the shear wall height
of 6 m (i.e., hw =6 m) of 6 m (i.e., hw =18 m)
Model B2building frame having the shear wall height Model B4building frame having the shear wall height
of 6 m (i.e., hw =12 m) of 6 m (i.e., hw =24 m)
Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927 9925

Fig. 14 Story displacement in x- 30

direction for models D.1 to D.5
27

24 Earthquake in x-direction

Height of the Building (m)

21

18

15

12
Model D.1
9 Model D.2
Model D.3
6
Model D.4
3 Model D.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Story Displacement (mm)

Model B5building frame having the shear wall height are much dominant in controlling the lateral displacement
of 6 m (i.e., hw =30 m) than upper floors of the building. Quantitatively, the de-
crease in the lateral displacement due to every 6-m in-
The results clearly illustrate that as the shear wall crease in the shear wall height is about 30 % up to six
height increases, the lateral displacement of the building stories. However, after the sixth floor, the same 6-m in-
decreases due to increase in the lateral stiffness of the crease in the shear wall height decreases the lateral dis-
building. Figure 9 shows the variation of lateral displace- placement less than 10 %.
ment with the story height. For model B1, when the shear
wall height was extended up to two floors, the building Effect of shear wall configuration (model C)
experiences quite a high value of lateral displacement
(Fig. 9). The displacement was reduced substantially The shear wall location has significant effect on the building
when shear wall height was extended up to eight floors lateral displacement. In the present parametric study, keeping
(models B2 to B4). After this, the decrease in the lateral the total shear wall-to-floor area ratio as constant (0.97 %),
displacement with increase in the shear wall height was different arrangements of shear walls were selected as shown
not significant. This illustrates that lower floor shear walls in models C1 through C8 (Fig. 10). Shear walls are very

Fig. 15 Story displacement in y- 30

direction for models D.1 to D.5
27

24 Earthquake in y-direction
Height of the Building (m)

21

18

15

12
Model D.1
9 Model D.2
Model D.3
6
Model D.4
3 Model D.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Story Displacement (mm)
9926 Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927

effective when the seismic forces are acting in their plane and Conclusions
not much effective when the seismic forces are out of their
plane. Table 4 shows the values of roof displacements under The major conclusions drawn from the present parametric
different locations of shear walls. For model C1, although the study are as follows:
lengths and thicknesses of shear walls are different in the two
directions, their plan areas are the same. This caused a little & The shear wall area-to-floor area ratio substantially affects
difference in the roof displacement of the building. This illus- the lateral stiffness of the building. In the present study,
trates that as long as the shear wall area is the same in earth- increasing the shear wall area-to-floor area ratio from 0.56
quake direction, its effect on the lateral displacement will also to 1.29 % reduces the roof lateral displacement by 38 to
be almost the same irrespective of its location in the building. 72 % of the corresponding displacement when there was
For models C2 through C7, the shear walls are provided only no shear wall in the building.
along y-direction with no shear walls along x-direction. It is & As the shear wall height increases, the lateral story
due to this reason that when the seismic force is acting along drift decreases due to the increase in the lateral stiff-
the y-direction, the roof displacement is very small in this ness of the building.
direction (Fig. 11) and substantially high in the other direction & The lower floor shear walls are much dominant in control-
(i.e., x-direction) as shown in Fig. 12. For model C8, there was ling the lateral displacement than upper floors of the build-
almost double quantity of shear wall in x-direction compared ing. In the present study, the decrease in the lateral dis-
with y-direction which resulted in substantial reduction in the placement due to every 6-m increase in the shear wall
roof displacement in the x-direction. The roof displacement is height is about 30 % up to six stories. However, after the
almost double in y-direction due to half quantity of shear wall sixth floor, the same 6-m increase in the shear wall height
used in the corresponding direction. decreases the lateral displacement by less than 10 %.
& As long as the shear wall area is the same in earthquake
Effect of shear wall opening location (model D) direction, its effect on the lateral displacement will also be
almost the same irrespective of its location in the building.
It is very common to have openings in the shear wall to ac- & When there are central openings in the first three floors of
commodate elevators and stair cases. These openings may the front shear wall and then similar openings in the back
affect the lateral stiffness of the building which may results shear wall of the remaining floors, the lateral stiffness is
in higher lateral displacement. In the present study, the effect least affected. However, lateral stiffness of the building
of openings in the shear walls was studied on parametric basis. was reduced substantially when side-openings were pro-
The openings were provided in the front and back shear walls vided at the same locations.
along x-direction only. Five models were selected for this & When the openings are provided at all the floors but only
parametric study as shown in Fig. 13. The opening area to in the front shear wall, there is no significant difference in
shear wall area ratio along the height in x-direction was kept the lateral displacements whether the openings are provid-
as 17 % in the models D2 to D5. ed in the centers or in the sides of the shear wall.
Figures 14 and 15 show the variation of story displacement
when seismic forces were applied separately along x- and y- Acknowledgments The work presented in this paper was funded by the
Deanship of Scientific Research, Research Centre, College of Engineer-
directions. As the openings were provided only in the x-direc-
ing, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
tion shear walls, the lateral stiffness of the building was pri-
marily affected in this direction. The effect was almost negli-
gible in the y-direction as there were only openings in the x-
References
direction shear walls (i.e., no openings in the y-direction shear
walls). Figures 14 and 15 show that when there are central
Burak B, Comlekoglu HG (2013) Effect of shear wall area to floor area
openings in the first three floors of the front shear wall and ratio on the seismic behavior of reinforced concrete buildings. J
then similar openings in the back shear wall of the remaining Struct Eng ASCE 139(11):19281937
floors (i.e., model D5), the lateral stiffness is least affected. Chai YH, Kunnath SK (2005) Minimum thickness for ductile RC struc-
However, lateral stiffness of the building was reduced sub- tural walls. Eng Struct 27:10521063
ETABS-2013 (2013) Integrated building design software. Computers and
stantially when side-openings were provided at the same lo- Structures, Inc. (CSI), California
cations as shown in model D4. The figures also show that Kim H, Lee D, Kim CK (2005) Efficient three-dimensional seismic anal-
when the openings are provided at all the floors but only in ysis of a high-rise building structure with shear walls. Eng Struct
the front shear wall as shown in models D2 and D3, there is no 27(6):963976
Neuenhofer A (2006) Lateral stiffness of shear walls with openings. J
significant difference in the lateral displacements regardless if Struct Eng ASCE 132(11):18461851
the openings are provided in the centers or in the sides of the Saudi Building Code (SBC) 301 (2007) Loads and Forces Requirements
shear wall. (SBC 30107), Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927 9927

Saudi Building Code (SBC) 304 (2007) Concrete Structures Tuken A, Siddiqui NA (2013) Assessment of shear wall quantity in
Requirements, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia seismic-resistant design of reinforced concrete buildings. Arab J
Tjhin TN, Aschheim MA, Wallace JW (2007) Yield displacement-based Sci Eng (AJSE) 38(10):26392648
seismic design of RC wall buildings. Eng Struct 29(11):29462959 Tuken A, Siddiqui NA (2015) SBC-based assessment of shear wall quan-
Tuken A (2004) Analysis and assessment of seismic drift of reinforced con- tity in moment resisting frame buildings. KSCE J Civ Eng 19(1):
crete mixed (shear wall-frame) structures. Technology 7(4):523532 188199