CHAPTER-I

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Various civil structures are primarily based on prescriptive method of building codes
and loads which acts on the structure are low and resulting in elastic structural behavior. A
structure can be subjected to the force greater than the elastic limit. The structural safety
against major earthquake relate to the structural design of building for seismic loads. The
earthquake loading behavior is different from wind loading and gravity loading which
requires detail analysis to reach the acceptable elastic range in the structure. In dynamic
analysis, the mathematical model of building by determining of strength, mass, stiffness and
inelastic member properties are assigned. Dynamic analysis should be performed for
symmetrical and unsymmetrical building. The main objective is to create awareness about
dynamic effect on the building with the help of ETABSv9.7.4 software; it also Shows better
response of building under dynamic loading and minimize the hazard to the life for all
structures.

Structural design of buildings for seismic loads is primarily concerned with structural
safety during major ground motions. Seismic loading requires an understanding of the
structural performance under large inelastic deformations. Behavior of the building under this
loading is different from the wind loading or gravity loading. So it requires more detailed
analysis to assure accepTable seismic performance beyond the elastic range. Some structural
damage can be expected when the building experiences design ground motions, because
almost all building codes allow inelastic energy dissipation in structural systems. The primary
step in dynamic analysis of building is to develop a mathematical model of the building,
through which estimates of strength, stiffness and inelastic member properties are assigned.

The difference between the dynamic and the static analysis is based on whether the applied
action of forces has enough acceleration in comparison to the structure's natural frequency.

If a load is applied sufficiently slowly, the inertia forces can be ignored and the analysis can
be simplified as static analysis.

Dynamic analysis, is a type of structural analysis which covers the behavior of structures
subjected to dynamic loading i.e. actions having high acceleration. Dynamic analysis is also
related to the inertia forces developed by the structure when it is excited by means of

1
dynamic loads applied suddenly. Dynamic analysis of simple structures can be done
manually, however for complex structures finite element analysis is used.

ETABSis a FE (finite element) based software and it provides both static and dynamic
analysis for wide range of gravity and lateral loads.

This analysis mainly deals with the study of a rectangular plan of G+21 storeys RCC
building and is modeled using ETABS. The height of each storey of the building is taken as
3m, making total height of the structure as 45m above plinth level. Loads considered are
taken according to the IS-875(Part1, Part2), IS-1893(2002) code and combinations are
according to IS-875(Part5).

By the past records of earthquake, the demand about the earthquake resisting building is
increased in seismic zones.These types of buildings are possible by providing shear walls at
the core and edges of the building to withstand seismic effect.

Due to the provision of shear wall at core or at edges in multi-storied building we can resist
seismic effect of earthquake. The loads are calculated by ETABS software by providing shear
walls at various parts of building.

1.2Shear wall:

It is a structural system composed of braced panels to counter the effects of lateral

loads acting on a structure. Shear wall is called as shear panels. Shear wall are designed to
carry wind loads and earthquake loads. Shear walls resist in-plane loads that are applied
along its height.

Shear wall sections are classified as six sections

1. L-section
2. T-section
3. H-section
4. U-section
5. W-section and
6. Box section

In the present dynamic analysis L-type sections and box sections are used. For core shear
wall box type section and for edge shear wall L type section shear walls are used.

2
In addition to slabs, beams and columns reinforced concrete buildings often have vertical
plate- like RC walls called shear walls. These walls generally start from foundation level and
are continuous throughout the building height. In high rise buildings, the thickness of shear
wall varies from 150 mm to 400 mm. shear walls are usually provided along both length and
width of buildings.

The main two functions of the shear wall are

 Strength and
 Stiffness

1.3 Behaviors of shear wall under seismic loading:

Depending upon the height to width ratio, shear walls behave as slender walls, a squat
wall or combination of these two. Generally slender shear walls have a height to width ratio
is 2. These behave like a vertical slender cantilever beam. Bending is the primary mode of
deformation and shear deformation can be neglected.Generally squat shear walls have a
height to width ratio less than 0.5. These wall show significant amount of shear deformation
compared to bending deformations. So shear strength governs these type of walls. Flexural
strength governs the slender wall. Ideally shear wall should respond in ductile manner.

Advantages of shear walls in RC Buildings:

a. Properly designed buildings with shear walls have shown very good performance in
past earthquakes.
b. Shear wall buildings are a popular choice in many earthquake prone countries.
c. Shear walls are easy to construct, because reinforcement detailing of walls is
relatively straight forward.
d. Shear walls are efficient in both construction cost and effectiveness in minimizing
earthquake damage in structures.
e. Shear walls significantly reduces the lateral sway of the building.

1.4 Storey drifts:

The lateral displacement of the storey relating to the storey lower is called storey drift.
The relative lateral deflection in any one storey should not exceed the storey height divided
by 500. Inter story drift is the difference between the roof and floor displacements of any
given story as the building sways during the earthquake, normalized by the story height.

Core shear walls: shear walls are provided at the centre or core of the building.
3
Edge shear walls: shear walls are provided at the corners or edges of the building.

1.5 Objectives:

 The main objective of this project is to check and compare the dynamic response of
G+21 building with core and edge shear walls under different seismic zones, so one
can pick the best substitute for construction in all earthquake-prone areas.
 Core and edge shear wall in R.C. Building will be modeled in ETABSv9.7.4 software
and the results in terms of storey displacement, storey drift, and storey shear are
compared.
 To study the comparison between lateral storey displacements and storey shears in
building with core shear wall and with edge shear wall
 Comparison is to be made between core and edge shear wall building models in all
earthquake zones i.e. Zones – III & IV.

4
 CHAPTER-II
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW:

Mohammed Azam (2013) presented a study on seismic performance evaluation of

multistoried RC framed buildings with shear wall. A comparison of structural behavior in
terms of strength, stiffness and damping characteristics is done. The provision of shear wall
has significant influence on lateral strength in taller buildings while it has less influence on
lateral stiffness in taller buildings. The provision of shear wall has significant influence on
lateral stiffness in buildings of shorter height while it has less influence on lateral strength.
The influence of shear walls is significant in terms of the damping characteristics and period
at the performance point for tall buildings. Provision of shear walls symmetrically in the
outermost moment-resisting frames and preferably interconnected in mutually perpendicular
direction forming the core will have better seismic performance in terms of strength and
stiffness.

P.P Chandurkar and P.S. Pajgade (2013) are investigated Changing the position of
shear wall will affect the attraction of forces, so that wall must be in proper position. If the
dimensions of shear wall are large then major amount of horizontal forces are taken by shear
wall. Providing shear walls at adequate locations substantially reduces the displacements due
to earthquake.
N. Janardhanreddy(2015) in his work seismic analysis of multistoried building with
shear walls using ETABS reveals that provision of shear wall generally results in reducing
the displacement because the shear wall increases the stiffness of the building and sustains
the lateral forces. The better performance is observed and displacement is reduced in both x
and y directions and shows better performances with respect to displacements when analysis
is done by response spectrum method.
Agrawal and Charkha (2012) are investigation reveals that the significant effects on
deflection in orthogonal direction by the shifting the shear wall location. Placing Shear wall
away from centre of gravity resulted in increase in most of the members forces.
Greeshma and Jaya (2006) are investigated the proper connection detailing of shear
wall to the diaphragm. The shear wall and diaphragm connection with hook deflects more
when compared to the other two configurations. Hence, the shear wall- diaphragm connection
with hook was more efficient under dynamic lateral loadings.

5
 Mayuri D. Bhagwat (2014) In the work dynamic analysis of G+12 multistoried
practiced RCC building considering for Koyna and Bhuj earthquake is carried out by time
history analysis and response spectrum analysis and seismic responses of such building are
comparatively studied and modeled with the help of ETABS software. Two time histories
have been used to develop different accepTable criteria (base shear, storey displacement,
storey drifts).
Mohit Sharma (2014)was studied a G+30 storied regular building. The static and
dynamic analysis has done on computer with the help of STAAD-Pro software using the
parameters for the design as per the IS-1893-2002-Part-1for the zones-2 and 3.
A S Patil and P D Kumbhar (2013) This study shows similar variations pattern in
Seismic responses such as base shear and storey displacements with intensities V to X. From
the study it is recommended that analysis of multistoried RCC building using Time History
method becomes necessary to ensure safety against earthquake force.
MisamAbidi, MangulkarMadhuri. N (2012) presented an assessment to understand
the behavior of Reinforced Concrete framed structures by pushover analysis and the
Comparative study was done for different models in terms of base shear, displacement,
performance point. The inelastic behavior of the example structures are examined by carrying
out displacement controlled pushover analysis.
Bozdogan K.B,Deierlein et.al,(2010)discussed in detail the modeling issues,
nonlinear behavior and analysis of the frame –shear wall structural system. An approximate
method which is based on the continuum approach and one dimensional finite element
method to be used for lateral static and dynamic analysis of wall-frame buildings are
presented.

KasliwalSagar K. has investigated that the present work two multi storey building
both are sixteen storeys have been modeled using software package ETABS and SAP2000
for earthquake ZONE - V in India. The paper also deals with the Dynamic linear Response
spectra method and static non-linear pushover method .The analysis is carried on multi-storey
shear wall building with variation in number and position of shear wall. The author has
concluded that the shear walls are one of the most effective building elements which resist
the lateral forces during earthquake. The shear wall in proper position can minimize effect
and damages due to earthquake and winds.

6
 M.Ashraf examines the significance of shear wall in high rise buildings and found
that increase on grids opposite to the changing position of shear wall away from the centroid
of the building.

J.L.Humar examines the relation between strength and stiffness for concrete shear
walls and concluded that square shaped shear wall is most effective and L shaped shear wall
is least effective.

HaroonRasheedTamboli&Umesh N. Karadi performed seismic analysis using

Equivalent Lateral Force Method for different reinforced concrete (RC) frame building
models that included bare frame, infilled frame and open first story frame. In modeling of the
masonry infill panels the Equivalent diagonal Strut method was used and the software
ETABS was used for the analysis of all the frame models. Infilled frames should be preferred
in seismic regions than the open first story frame, because the story drift of first story of open
first story frame is very large than the upper stories, which might probably cause the collapse
of structure. The infill wall increases the strength and stiffness of the structure. The seismic
analysis of RC (Bare frame) structure lead to under estimation of base shear. Therefore other
response quantities such as time period, natural frequency, and story drift were not
significant. The underestimation of base shear might lead to the collapse of structure during
earthquake shaking.

AnujChandiwala considered five different models of 10-storey RC residential

building located in india in seismic ZONE - III and founded on medium soil, which is the
reference ground condition. In this case the earthquake force is predominant then the
calculated wind pressure, hence the structure is analyzed & designed for the seismic loading
only. Based on the analysis results they found that after the analysis of the different position
of shear wall in the building configuration is the comparison in maximum base shear in X &
Y-direction.

7
 CHAPTER-III
3.1 METHODOLOGY

Code-based procedure for seismic analysis

Main features of seismic method of analysis according to IS1893 (Part 1): 2002 are described
as follows
 Equivalent Static Analysis (Linear Static)
 Response Spectrum Analysis (Linear Dynamic)
 Time History Analysis (Nonlinear Dynamic)
 Pushover Analysis (Nonlinear Static)
Suitable methods of analysis are provided in codes of practice; in general, the more complex
and tall the building, the more stringent the analysis that is required.
Regular buildings up to around 15 storeys in height can usually be designed using equivalent
static analysis; tall buildings or those with significant irregularities in elevation or plan
require modal response spectrum analysis.

3.1.1 Equivalent static analysis

All design against earthquake effects must consider the dynamic nature of the load.
However, for simple regular structures, analysis by equivalent linear static methods is often
sufficient. This is permitted in most codes of practice for regular, low- to medium-rise
buildings and begins with an estimate of peak earthquake load calculated as a function of the
parameters given in the code.

3.1.2 Response spectrum analysis

It is a dynamic method of analysis. In the calculation of structural response the structure
should be so represented by means of an analytical or computational model that reasonable
and rational results can be obtained by its behavior, when response spectrum method is used
with modal analysis procedure. At least 3 modes of response of the structure should be
considered except in those cases where it can be shown qualitatively that either third mode or
the second mode produces negligible response. The model maxima should be combined using
the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual model values. With the advent of
powerful desktop computers, this type of analysis has become the norm. It involves
calculating the principal elastic modes of vibration of a structure. The maximum responses in
each mode are then calculated from a response spectrum and these are summed by

8
appropriate methods to produce the overall maximum response. There are computational
advantages in using the response spectrum method ofseismic analysis for prediction of
displacements and member forces in structural systems. The method involves the calculation
of only the maximum values of the displacements and member forces in each modeof
vibration using smooth design spectra that are the average of several earthquake motions.

The major advantages of modal response spectrum analysis (RSA), compared with the more
complex time-history analysis are as follows.
(1) The size of the problem is reduced to finding only the maximum response of a limited
number of modes of the structure, rather than calculating the entire time history of responses
during the earthquake. This makes the problem much more tracTable in terms both of
processing time and (equally significant) size of computer output.
(2) Examination of the mode shapes and periods of a structure gives the designer a good feel
for its dynamic response.
(3) The use of smoothed envelope spectra makes the analysis independent of the
characteristics of a particular earthquake record.
(4) RSA can very often be useful as a preliminary analysis, to check the reasonableness of
results produced by linear and non-linear time-history analysis.

3.1.3 Time-history analysis

In this analysis dynamic response of the building will be calculated at each time
intervals. This analysis can be carried out by taking recorded ground motion data from past
earthquake database. A linear time-history analysis of this type overcomes all the
disadvantages of Response spectrum analysis, provided non-linear behavior is not involved.
The method involves significantly greater computational effort than the corresponding
Response spectrum analysis and at least three representative earthquake motions must be
considered to allow for the uncertainty in precise frequency content of the design motions at a
site. With current computing power and software, the task of performing the number
crunching and then handling the large amount of data produced has become a non specialist
task.
3.1.4Push over analysis:

This is a performance based analysis and has aim in controlling the structural damage.
In this analysis several built in hinge properties are included from FEMA 356 for concrete
members. This analysis will be carried out by using nonlinear software ETABS 2013. This

9
software is able to predict the displacement level and corresponding base shear where first
yield of structure occurs. The main objective to perform this analysis is to find displacement
vs. base shear graph.Pushover analysis is a simplified, static, nonlinear analysis under a
predefined pattern of permanent vertical loads and gradually increasing lateral loads.
Typically the first pushover load case is used to apply gravity load and then subsequent
lateral pushover load cases are specified to start from the final conditions of the gravity
pushover. Typically a gravity load pushover is force controlled and lateral pushovers are
displacement controlled. Load is applied incrementally to frameworks until a collapse
mechanism is reached. Thus it enables determination of collapse load and ductility capacity
on a building frame. Plastic rotation ismonitored, and a lateral inelastic force versus
displacement response for the complete structure is analytically computed.

For the present dynamic analysis, response spectrum analysis method is used in the
FE based software ETABS.. This analysis is carried out according to the code IS 1893-2002
(part1). Here type of soil, seismic zone factor should be entered from IS 1893-2002(part1).
The standard response spectra for type of soil considered is applied to building for the
analysis in ETABSv9.7.4 software.

3.2 LOADS CONSIDERED:

Loads on a structure are generally two types.

1. Gravity loads and

2. Lateral loads

3.2.1 Gravity loads:

Gravity loads are the vertical forces that act on a structure. The weight of the
structure, human occupancy and snow are all types of loads that need to have a complete load
path to the ground.

3.2.1.1 DEAD LOADS:

All permanent constructions of the structure form the dead loads. The dead load
comprises of the weights of walls, partitions floor finishes, false ceilings, false floors
and the other permanent constructions in the buildings. The dead load loads may be
calculated from the dimensions of various members and their unit weights. the unit
weights of plain concrete and reinforced concrete made with sand and gravel or
crushed natural stone aggregate may be taken as 24 kN/m3 and 25 kN/m3respectively.

10
 3.2.1.2 IMPOSED LOADS:
All permanent constructions of the structure form the dead loads. The dead load
comprises of the weights of walls, partitions floor finishes, false ceilings, false floors
and the other permanent constructions in the buildings. The dead load loads may be
calculated from the dimensions of various members and their unit weights. the unit
weights of plain concrete and reinforced concrete made with sand and gravel or
crushed natural stone aggregate may be taken as 24 kN/m3 and 25 kN/m3 respectively.
Live loads are taken as 2kN/m.

3.2.2 Lateral loads:

Lateral loads are the horizontal forces that are act on a structure. Wind loads and
earthquake loads are the main lateral loads act on structures.

3.2.2.1 WIND LOADS

Basic wind speed zones in India are classified as six zones as per IS 875 part -3-1987.

11
 Figure - 3.1: Basic wind speed zone map in India

Table – 3.1: Zone wise basic wind speeds in m/s

Zone Basic wind speed (m/sec)

I 33
II 39
III 44
IV 47
V 50
VI 55

Wind is air in motion relative to the surface of the earth. The primary cause of wind is traced
to earth‟s rotation and differences in terrestrial radiation. The radiation effects are primarily
responsible for convection either upwards or downwards. The wind generally blows
horizontal to the ground at high wind speeds. Since vertical components of atmospheric
motion are relatively small, the term „wind‟ denotes almost exclusively the horizontal wind,
vertical winds are always identified as such. The wind speeds are assessed with the aid of
anemometers or anemographs which are installed at meteorological observatories at heights
generally varying from 10 to 30 meters above ground.

Design Wind Speed (V,)

The basic wind speed (V,) for any site shall be obtained from and shall be modified to include
the following effects to get design wind velocity at any height (V,) for the chosen structure:

a) Risk level;
b) Terrain roughness, height and size of structure; and
c) Local topography.
It can be mathematically expressed as follows: Where:
V = Vb X kl X k2X k3
Vb = design wind speed at any height z in m/s;
kl = probability factor (risk coefficient)
k2= terrain, height and structure size factor
k3 = topography factor

12
Risk Coefficient (kI Factor): Gives basic wind speeds for terrain Category 2 as applicable
at10 m above ground level based on 50 years mean return period. In the design of all
buildings and structures, a regional basic wind speed having a mean return period of 50 years
shall be used.

Terrain, Height and Structure Size Factor (k2, Factor):

Terrain - Selection of terrain categories shall be made with due regard to the effect of
obstructions which constitute the ground surface roughness. The terrain category used in the
design of a structure may vary depending on the direction of wind under consideration.
Wherever sufficient meteorological information is available about the nature of wind
direction, the orientation of any building or structure may be suitably planned.

Topography (k3 Factor) - The basic wind speed Vb takes account of the general level of
siteabove sea level. This does not allow for local topographic features such as hills, valleys,
cliffs, escarpments, or ridges which can significantly affect wind speed in their vicinity. The
effect of topography is to accelerate wind near the summits of hills or crests of cliffs,
escarpments or ridges and decelerate the wind in valleys or near the foot of cliff, steep
escarpments, or ridges.

WIND PRESSURES AND FORCES ON BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES:

The wind load on a building shall be calculated for:

a) The building as a whole,

b) Individual structural elements as roofs and walls, and
c) Individual cladding units including glazing and their fixings.

Pressure Coefficients - The pressure coefficients are always given for a particular surface
orpart of the surface of a building. The wind load acting normal to a surface is obtained by
multiplying the area of that surface or its appropriate portion by the pressure coefficient (C,)
and the design wind pressure at the height of the surface from the ground. The average values
of these pressure coefficients for some building shapes Average values of pressure
coefficients are given for critical wind directions in one or more quadrants. In order to
determine the maximum wind load on the building, the total load should be calculated for
each of the critical directions shown from all quadrants. Where considerable variation of
pressure occurs over a surface, it has been subdivided and mean pressure coefficients given

13
for each of its several parts. Then the wind load, F, acting in a direction normal to the
individual structural element or Cladding unit is:

F= (Cpe – Cpi) A Pd
Where,
Cpe = external pressure coefficient,
Cpi = internal pressure- coefficient,
A = surface area of structural or cladding unit, and
Pd = design wind pressure element

Wind loads are applied on the structure as per IS 875-1987.i.e wind load in x-direction WLx
and wind load in y-direction WLy.

3.2.2.2 SEISMIC LOADS:

Design Lateral Force

The design lateral force shall first be computed for the building as a whole. This
design lateral force shall then be distributed to the various floor levels. The overall
design seismic force thus obtained at each floor level shall then be distributed to
individual lateral load resisting elements depending on the floor diaphragm action.
Earthquake loads are applied as per IS 1893-2002 in earthquake x-direction, y-
directionPositive x-direction, negative x-direction, positive y-direction and negative
y- direction.And load combinations are considered as per IS 1893-2002.

Design Seismic Base Shear

The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear (Vb) along any principal
direction shall be determined by the following expression:
Vb = Ah W
Where,
Ah = horizontal acceleration spectrum
W = seismic weight of all the floor

Fundamental Natural Period

14
The approximate fundamental natural period of vibration (T,), in seconds, of a moment-
resisting frame building without brick in the panels may be estimated by the empirical
expression:

Ta=0.075 h0.75 for RC frame building

Ta=0.085h0.75 for steel frame building Where,

h = Height of building, in m. This excludes the basement storeys, where basement walls are
connected with the ground floor deck or fitted between the building columns. But it includes
the basement storeys, when they are not so connected. The approximate fundamental natural
period of vibration (T,), in seconds, of all other buildings, including moment-resisting frame
buildings with brick lintel panels, may be estimated by the empirical Expression:

T=.09H/√D

Where,

H= Height of building

D= Base dimension of the building at the plinth level, in m, along the considered direction of
the lateral force.

Distribution of Design Force

Vertical Distribution of Base Shear to Different Floor Level

The design base shear (V) shall be distributed along the height of the building as per the
following expression:

Qi=Design lateral force at floor i,

Wi=Seismic weight of floor i,

hi=Height of floor i measured from base, and

n=Number of storeys in the building is the number of levels at which the masses are located.
Distribution of Horizontal Design Lateral Force to Different Lateral Force Resisting
Elements in case of buildings whose floors are capable of providing rigid horizontal
diaphragm action, the total shear in any horizontal plane shall be distributed to the various
vertical elements of lateral force resisting system, assuming the floors to be infinitely rigid in

15
the horizontal plane. In case of building whose floor diaphragms cannot be treated as
infinitely rigid in their own plane, the lateral shear at each floor shall be distributed to the
vertical elements resisting the lateral forces, considering the in-plane flexibility of the
diagram.

Figure - 3.2: Seismic zone map of India

In India seismic zones are divided into four zones, i.e Zone – II, Zone – III, Zone – IV and
Zone - V. Zone – II is low earthquake prone area, Zone – III is moderate zone, Zone – IV is
high earthquake prone area and Zone – V is the highest earthquake intensity zone.

16
 Figure – 3.3: Behavior of building under earth quake

Figure – 3.4: performance objectives under different intensities of earthquake

17
Loads:

Wall load calculation:

Thickness of wall = 0.23m

Height of wall = height of floor – depth of beam

= 3-0.5

=2.5m

Density of wall = 20 kN/m3

Wight of wall on each floor = 0.23X2.5X20

= 11.5 kN/m

Assumed wall load = 12 kN/m

Live load : 2 kN/m

Wind load

In x-direction (according IS: 875-1987)

In y-direction (according IS: 875-1987)

Earth quake loads

In x-direction (EQx) (according IS1893-2002)

In y-direction (EQy) (according IS1893-2002)

Load combinations:

1.5 (DL + LL)

1.2 (DL + LL ± EQX)

1.2 (DL + LL ± EQY)

1.5 (DL ± EQX)

1.5 (DL± EQY)

0.9 DL ± 1.5 EQX

0.9 DL ± 1.5 EQY

Dead load factor is taken as 1 load case details in ETABS.

18
In the present analysis default load combinations are used by the software according to
IS1893-2002.

19
 CHAPTER-IV
4.1 ETABS
Structural Design Software for Structural Analysis Professionals:

ETABSis the present day leading design software in the market. Many design company‟s use
this software for their project design purpose. The innovative and revolutionary new ETABS
is the ultimate integrated software package for the structural analysis and design of buildings.
Incorporating 40 years of continuous research and development, this latest ETABS offers
unmatched 3D object based modeling and visualization tools, blazingly fast linear and
nonlinear analytical power, sophisticated and comprehensive design capabilities for a wide-
range of materials, and insightful graphic displays, reports, and schematic drawings that
allow users to quickly and easily decipher and understand analysis and design results.

From the start of design conception through the production of schematic drawings, ETABS
integrates every aspect of the engineering design process. Creation of models has never been
easier - intuitive drawing commands allow for the rapidgeneration of floor and elevation
framing. CAD drawings can be converted directly into ETABS models or used as templates
onto which ETABS objects may be overlaid. The state-of-the-art SAP Fire 64-bit solver
allows extremely large and complex models to be rapidly analyzed, and supports nonlinear
modeling techniques such as construction sequencing and time effects (e.g., creep and
shrinkage). Design of steel and concrete frames (with automated optimization), composite
beams, composite columns, steel joists, and concrete and masonry shear walls is included, as
is the capacity check for steel connections and base plates. Models may be realistically
rendered, and all results can be shown directly on the structure. Comprehensive and
customizable reports are available for all analysis and design output, and schematic
construction drawings of framing plans, schedules, details, and cross-sections may be
generated for concrete and steel structures.

ETABS is the structural engineer‟s software choice for steel, concrete, timber, aluminum and
cold-formed steel structure design of low and high-rise buildings, culverts, petrochemical
plants, tunnels, bridges, piles, aquatic structures and much more.

Structural Software can Offer the following.

•State-of-the art 2D/3D graphical environment with standard MS Windows functionality.

20
•Full range of structural analysis including static, P-delta, pushover, response spectrum, time
history, cable (linear and non-linear), buckling and steel, concrete and timber design.

•Concurrent engineering-based user environment for model development, analysis, design,

visualization, and verification.

• Object-oriented intuitive 2D/3D CAD model generation.

•Supports truss and beam members, plates, solids, linear and non-linear cables, and
curvilinear beams.

• Advanced automatic load generation facilities for wind, area, floor, and moving loads.

• Customizable

• Structural templates for creating a model.

• Toggle display of loads, supports, properties, joints, members, etc.

• Isometric and perspective views with 3D shapes.

• Joint, member/element, mesh generation with flexible user-controlled numbering scheme.

• Rectangular and cylindrical coordinate systems with mix and match capabilities.

4.2 Advantages of ETABS structural analysis software:

We revolutionized the concurrent use of spreadsheets, a 3D CAD graphical modeler,

and a text-based input language editor. With over 40 step-by-step movie tutorials and
hundreds of examples and verification problems, even a novice user can become productive
in a matter of days.

ETABS is a solution for all types of structures and includes tools designed to aid specific
structural engineering tasks. For example, for the bridge engineer, ETABS.beava
incorporates a powerful influence surface generator to assist in locating vehicles for
maximum effects.

ETABS software is mainly made for modeling, analysis and design of buildings.

Various advantages in the ETABS are listed below.

1. Fundamental to ETABS modeling is the generalization that multi-story buildings typically

consist of identical or similar floor plans that repeat in the vertical direction.
2. ETABS has feature known as similar story. By which similar storeys can be edited
and modeled simultaneously. Due to which building is modeled very speedily.

21
 3. Basic or advanced systems under static or dynamic conditions may be evaluated using
ETABS
4. ETABS can perform various seismic coefficients, Response Spectrum, Static Non-
linear, Time History, Construction sequence and many more analysis with good
graphics
5. Once modeling is complete, ETABS automatically generates and assigns code-based
loading conditions for gravity, seismic, wind, and thermal forces. Users may specify
an unlimited number of load cases and combinations.
6. ETABS can do optimization of steel section.
7. ETABS has a facility to design composite beam and composite deck.

4.3 Procedure for modeling of building using ETABS:

1. Open ETABSv9.7.4 and select grid only.

2. Define storey data like storey height, storey number and spacing in x and y directions.
3. Define code preference from option menu.
4. Define material properties of concrete and steel from the define menu.
5. Define section properties from frame section in define menu for columns, beams etc.
6. Define slab section from define menu.
7. Give supports conditions
8. Create areas for slabs.
9. From define menu, define static load cases like dead load, live load, wind load in x
and y direction and earthquake loads in x and y directions according to the IS-Code
preferences.
10. Assign loads.
11. Draw shear wall at core/edges.
12. Specify structure auto line constraint.
13. Specify response spectrum analysis.
14. Select analysis option and run analysis.

Models:
1.G+21 storey building with edge shear wall

2. G+21storey building with core shear wall

22
4.4 BUILDING DETAILS:

4.4.1 Geometric data:

Element – G+ 21 storey

Type of frame: SMRF (Special moment resisting frame)

Area of building-36mX22.5m

Plinth height – 3.0m

Storey height – 3m

Total Height of building-66.5m

4.4.2 Material data:

Concrete:

Grade – M25

Characteristic cube strength of concrete (fck) – 25 N/mm2

Density of concrete (γck) – 25kN/m3

Poisson‟s ratio – 0.3

Steel:

Steel – Fe500

Yield strength (fy) – 500 N/mm2

Density of steel (γfy) – 78.5 kN/m3

Poisson‟s ratio – 0.2

Brick masonry

Density of brick masonry = 20 kN/m3

4.4.3 Earthquake Data:

23
Frame: Ordinary moment Resisting Frame

Locations: ZONE – III & IV

Importance Factor (I): 1.5

Damping: 5 percent

Type of Soil: Medium (Type 2)

Seismic zone factor (z)

ZONE - III– 0.16

ZONE - IV– 0.24

4.4.4 Loading Data:

Wall load : 12kN/m

Live load :2 kN/m

Wind load:

In x-direction (WLx) (according IS: 875-1987)

In y-direction (WLy) (according IS: 875-1987)

Earth quake loads:

In x-direction (EQx) (according IS1893-2002)

In y-direction (EQy) (according IS1893-2002)

Load combinations:

1.5 (DL + LL)

1.2 (DL + LL ± EQX)

1.2 (DL + LL ± EQY)

1.5 (DL ± EQX)

1.5 (DL± EQY)

0.9 DL ± 1.5 EQX

0.9 DL ± 1.5 EQY

In the present analysis default load combinations are used.

24
4.4.5 Member sizes:

Size of Beam –230mmX450mm

Size of Plinth beam-230mmX300mm

Size of Column-500mmX500mm

Depth of Slab-125mm

Thickness of Shear wall-230mm

Thickness of wall – 230mm

Clear cover for beams – 25mm

Clear cover for columns – 40mm

4.5 MODELLING AND BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAMS IN ETABS:

Core shear wall is provided at the central two bays of the building and edge shear wall is
provided at the four edges or corners of the building. The prepared models for core shear wall
building and edge shear wall buildings were shown below as 2D and 3D plans, undeformed
and deformed shapes and bending moments. Deformed shape sown below is under one
earthquake zone. The bending moments shown below are also in ZONE - V under worst load
combination 1.5(DL+WLx). This combination occurs as DCON27 in ETABS default load
combinations.

Fig-4.1: General Plan View of G+21 Storey RCC Building with Edge Shear Wall

25
Fig-4.2:Modeling of G+21 Storey RCC Building with Edge Shear Wall

26
Fig-4.3: 3D View of G+21 Storey RCC Building with Edge Shear Wall

27
Fig - 4.4: Bending Moment of G+ 21Storey
Fig-4.5: Deformation of G+21 Storey RCC
RCC Building with EdgeShear Wall
Building with Edge Shear Wall

28
 CHAPTER – V
5.1 ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Seismic analysis is performed on the all models of the building, i.e. building with core
shear wall and building with edge shear walls. Response spectrum method is used for the
analysis in ETABS. The parameters like storey shear; storey displacement, storey drift and
lateral storey stiffness are calculated and compared in Earthquake zones III for edge and core
shear walls.

5.1.1 Analysis of Storey Shear:

The maximum storey shear force, displacement and storey drift values are computed from
ETABS for all storeys and tabulated. The maximum storey shears in all models are compared
and graphs are drawn, storey number to maximum storey shears in different earthquake
zones. All maximum storey shears are occurred in X-direction under worst load combination.

TABLE-5.1: MaximumStorey Shears (KN) for ESW in Zone –III

ESW
STOREY
Vx (kN) Vy (kN)
BASE 0 0
STOREY 1 1282.59 1309.05
STOREY 2 1282.37 1308.83
STOREY 3 1281.17 1307.61
STOREY 4 1278.47 1304.85
STOREY 5 1273.67 1299.95
STOREY 6 1266.17 1292.30
STOREY 7 1255.38 1281.28
STOREY 8 1240.69 1266.69
STOREY 9 1221.49 1246.90
STOREY 10 1197.2 1221.91
STOREY 11 1167.22 1191.30
STOREY 12 1130.93 1154.27
STOREY 13 1087.75 1110.19
STOREY 14 1037.07 1058.47
STOREY 15 978.27 998.48
STOREY 16 910.82 929.61
STOREY 17 834.05 851.26
STOREY 18 747.39 762.81
STOREY 19 650.23 663.64

29
 STOREY 20 541.97 553.15
STOREY 21 422.02 430.73
TABLE-5.2: MaximumStorey Shears (KN) for ESW in Zone –IV

MAX STOREY SHEARS (kN)

ESW
STOREY
Vx (kN) Vy (kN)
BASE 0 0
STOREY 1 1923.88 1963.48
STOREY 2 1923.55 1963.25
STOREY 3 1921.75 1961.41
STOREY 4 1917.70 1957.28
STOREY 5 1910.51 1949.93
STOREY 6 1899.26 1938.45
STOREY 7 1883.07 1921.93
STOREY 8 1861.03 1899.43
STOREY 9 1832.24 1870.05
STOREY 10 1795.80 1832.86
STOREY 11 1750.81 1786.95
STOREY 12 1696.40 1731.40
STOREY 13 1631.62 1665.29
STOREY 14 1555.60 1587.70
STOREY 15 1467.44 1497.72
STOREY 16 1366.23 1394.42
STOREY 17 1251.08 1276.89
STOREY 18 1121.08 1144.21
STOREY 19 975.34 995.46
STOREY 20 812.95 829.73
STOREY 21 633.03 646.09

30
 EDGE SHEAR WALL ZONE-III
1400
1200
1000
Story Shear (kN)

800
600 Vx (kN)
400 Vy (kN)
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Story No

Fig-5.1: Maximum Storey Shear for Edge Shear wall Building in Zone-III

EDGE SHEAR WALL ZONE-IV

2500.00

2000.00
Story Shear (kN)

1500.00

1000.00 Vx (kN)
Vy (kN)
500.00

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
Story No

Fig-5.2: Maximum Storey Shear for Edge Shear wall Building in Zone-IV

From the above graphs one can conclude that the maximum storey shears are
increasing from top storey to bottom storey and storey shears are nearly equal in both the
models but more in building with edge shear wall when compared with all earthquake zones
III & IV. The maximum storey shears are reduced in edge shear wall model as 2.0993 in
seismic zones-III& IV respectively. But the reduced percentage from edge shear wall is only
about 2%. So the shear wall chosen must be based on storey consideration on the edge shear
wall building.

31
5.1.2 Analysis of Storey Drift:
Storey drift is the lateral displacement of the storey. It is the drift of one level of a
multistory building relative to the level of below storey. Storey and zone wise drifts are
shown below.

TABLE-5.3: Maximum Storey Drifts for ESW in Zone-III

MAXIMUM STOREY DRIFTS (m)

ESW IN ZONE-III
STOREY
Drift-X Drift-Y
STOREY 1 0.000422 0.000243
STOREY 2 0.000721 0.000493
STOREY 3 0.000929 0.000686
STOREY 4 0.001120 0.000870
STOREY 5 0.001214 0.001024
STOREY 6 0.001303 0.001152
STOREY 7 0.001364 0.001258
STOREY 8 0.001407 0.001345
STOREY 9 0.001436 0.001413
STOREY 10 0.001452 0.001465
STOREY 11 0.001457 0.001502
STOREY 12 0.001452 0.001525
STOREY 13 0.001437 0.001536
STOREY 14 0.001416 0.001537
STOREY 15 0.001387 0.001527
STOREY 16 0.001350 0.001509
STOREY 17 0.001305 0.001484
STOREY 18 0.001253 0.001454
STOREY 19 0.001196 0.001419
STOREY 20 0.001134 0.001385
STOREY 21 0.001071 0.001353
Fig-5.4: Maximum Storey Drifts for ESW in Zone-IV

MAXIMUM STOREY DRIFTS (m)

ESW IN ZONE-IV
STOREY
Drift-X Drift-Y
STOREY 1 0.000564 0.000348
STOREY 2 0.001047 0.000725
STOREY 3 0.001347 0.001001
STOREY 4 0.001608 0.001266

32
 STOREY 5 0.001750 0.001487
STOREY 6 0.001873 0.001672
STOREY 7 0.001957 0.001824
STOREY 8 0.002015 0.001946
STOREY 9 0.002052 0.002041
STOREY 10 0.002071 0.002113
STOREY 11 0.002074 0.002163
STOREY 12 0.002062 0.002193
STOREY 13 0.002041 0.002206
STOREY 14 0.002008 0.002203
STOREY 15 0.001963 0.002185
STOREY 16 0.001906 0.002156
STOREY 17 0.001838 0.002116
STOREY 18 0.001760 0.002068
STOREY 19 0.001676 0.002015
STOREY 20 0.001588 0.001962
STOREY 21 0.001499 0.001911

STORY DRIFTS FOR ESW IN Z-III

1.800
1.600
1.400
Story Drift (mm)

1.200
1.000
0.800 Drift-X
0.600
Drift-Y
0.400
0.200
0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25
Story No

Fig-5.3: Maximum Storey Drift for Building with ESW X&Y-Direction in Zone-III

33
 STORY DRIFTS FOR ESW IN Z-IV
2.500

Story Drift (mm) 2.000

1.500

1.000 Drift-X
Drift-Y
0.500

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25
Story No

Fig-5.4: Maximum Storey Drift for Building with ESW X&Y-Direction in Zone-IV

The maximum storey drift graphs are drawn and both the models are compared.
Storey drifts are maximum in building model with edge shear wall in Zone-III compared to
Edge shear wall in Zone-IV. Storey drifts are based storey strength. Drifts are higher if
strength is low. In Zone-III, the maximum storey drifts are reduced to 49.8% in edge shear
wall building ascompared to Zone-IV.

In seismic zone under considered, the maximum storey drifts or maximum lateral
storey displacements are lower in the building model with edge shear wall Zone-III compared
to the maximum storey drifts in the building model with edge shear wall Zone-IV which are
provided at the four edges of the building.

Building model with edge shear wall is compared separately for earthquake zones –
III& IV.

Building models with edge shear walls are compared separately in earthquake zone-
III& IV. for the storey drifts. Maximum storey drifts are increasing with the zone number. All
maximum storey drifts are occurred in X-direction under worst load combination.

5.1.3 Analysis of Storey displacements:

Storey displacements are the vertical displacements of members, occurs due to dead
and live loads. These displacement values are same in seismic zone-III& IV. because in this
analysis lateral forces are varying due to different earthquake zones and dead loads and live

34
loads are equal in all zones. Storey displacements are compared when edge and core shear
walls provided in multistory building.

Table-5.5: Maximum storey displacementwith ESWfor Zone-III & IV

MAX STOREY DISPLACEMENTS (m)

STOREY
DISPLACEMENTS (m)
STOREY FOR ESW
Z - III Z - IV
BASE 0 0
STOREY 1 0.0819 0.0832
STOREY 2 0.0860 0.0860
STOREY 3 0.0946 0.0953
STOREY 4 0.0946 0.0959
STOREY 5 0.0967 0.0984
STOREY 6 0.0983 0.1003
STOREY 7 0.0998 0.1019
STOREY 8 0.1013 0.1034
STOREY 9 0.1026 0.1047
STOREY 10 0.1039 0.1058
STOREY 11 0.1050 0.1068
STOREY 12 0.1061 0.1076
STOREY 13 0.1070 0.1083
STOREY 14 0.1079 0.1088
STOREY 15 0.1087 0.1092
STOREY 16 0.1094 0.1095
STOREY 17 0.1100 0.1100
STOREY 18 0.1106 0.1106
STOREY 19 0.1111 0.1111
STOREY 20 0.1114 0.1114
STOREY 21 0.1120 0.1120

35
 STORY DISPLACEMENT(m) FOR ESW
0.1400
0.1200
Story Displacement (m)
0.1000
0.0800
0.0600 Z - III
0.0400 Z - IV
0.0200
0.0000
0 5 10 15 20 25
Story No

Fig-5.7: Comparison for Maximum storey displacement with edge shear wall in zone
–III & IV

Edge shear wall in zone-III shows the lower displacements compared to Zone-IV. The
maximum vertical displacements are reduced to 4.05% in Zone-III than zone-IV under all
earthquake zones. So edge shear wall should be adopted in the building for better dynamic
performance.

36
 CHAPTER-VI
6.1 CONCLUSION:
1 The seismic analysis of building with with edge shear walls are done and compared at

earthquake zones – III& IV by using ETABSv9.7.4.

2 Edge shear wall building model gives the nearly equal storey shears in all storeys at all

earthquake zones. So selection of shear wall is mainly based on storey drift.

3 When shear walls are provided on the four edges of the building, maximum storey

drifts are decreased compared to the without shear walls in all zones. So by providing

edge shear wall, effect of seismic forces can be controlled.

4 Storey displacements are minimum in edge shear wall in zone – III than all storeys

under earthquake zones -IV.

5 For better seismic performance of building, it should have adequate lateral storey

stiffness. If lateral storey displacements are high, stiffness will be low or vice-versa.

6 So to minimize the earth quake effects edge shear wall must be provided because

storey drifts are very low compared to without shear wall in earthquake zones –III&

IV.

6.2Future Scope

In the present work limited analysis i.e., considering only some parameters like storey
shear, storey displacement, storey drift and storey stiffness is done by response spectrum
method in ETABS software.The study could be extended by including various other
parameters suchas torsional effects and soft storey effects in a building. Some of the future
scopes are listed below.
 Dynamic nonlinear analysis by time history method.
 Nonlinear analysis by push over method.
 Parametric study of models by varying height of building, Number of bays of building
etc.
 Performance-based or capacity based design of structure.

37
 Continue to innovate new systems.
 FEM analysis to understand beam-column junction behavior under earthquake for
RCC, Steel and Composite building.

38
 REFERENCES

1. PankajAgarwal and Manish Shrinkhade “Earthquake resistant design of structures”,

PHI press, New delhi.
2. S.K Duggal “Earthquake resistant design of structures” Oxford university Press, New
Delhi.
3. Roy R. Craig, Andrew J. Kurdila “Fundamentals of Structural Dynamics”, 2nd
Edition
4. Anil K. Chopra “Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake
Engineering” Prentice Hall, 2012.
5. Shaik Kamal Mohammed Azam, VinodHosur, Seismic performance Evaluation of
Multistoried RC framed buildings with Shear wall,International Journal of Scientific
& Engineering Research Volume 4, Issue 1, January-2013.
6. Mayuri D. Bhagwat, Dr.P.S.Patil, “Comparative Study of Performance of Rcc
Multistory Building For Koyna and BhujEarthquakes”,International Journal of
Advanced Technology in Engineering and Science www.ijates.com Volume No.02,
Issue No. 07, July 2014 ISSN (online): 2348–7550.
7. Mohit Sharma, Dr. SavitaMaru, “Dynamic Analysis of Multistoried Regular
Building” IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) e-ISSN:
2278-1684,p-ISSN: 2320-334X, Volume 11,Issue 1 Ver. II (Jan. 2014), PP 37-42,
www.iosrjournals.org
8. A S Patil and P D Kumbhar, “Time History Analysis of Multistoried Rcc Buildings
For Different Seismic Intensities“ ISSN 2319 –6009, www.ijscer.com, Vol.2, No.3,
August 2013 © 2013 IJSCER.
9. N Janardhanreddy, D Gosepeera, “seismic analysis of multistorey building with shear
walls using ETABS” volume 4 issue ,November 2015, www.ijsr.net.
10. Deshmukh S.N. and Sabihuddin S. “Seismic Analysis of Multistorey Building Using
Composite Structure” Earthquake Analysis and Design of Structures, D-56-D-61.
11. ETABS – v9.7 – Integrated Building Design Software,manual, Computer and
Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California, USA, November 2005.
12. IS-875-1987. “Indian standard code of practice for structural safety loadings
standards” Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
13. IS 456: 2000, “Indian Standard Code of Practice of Plain and Reinforced concrete”,
BIS, New Delhi.

39
14. IS 1893: 2002, “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”, BIS, New
Delhi.
15. Jain S.K., “Review of Indian Seismic Code, IS 1893 ( Part-1), 2002 “ IITK-GSDMA-
EQ02-V1.0, pp 1-9.

40