152

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & ENGINEERING RESEARCH, VOLUME 9, ISSUE 7, JULY-2018

ISSN 2229-5518

Optimum location of a shear wall in a R.C building

Mr.Madhu sudhan rao.kondapalli
Department of civil engineering, anil neerukonda institute of technology and sciences
Sanghivalasa,visakhapatnam,andhra pradesh,531162,india.
Mail id : [email protected]

Abstract: Shear walls are commonly used as vertical structural element for resisting the lateral loads that may be induced by the
loads due to wind and earthquake. Besides that, they also carry gravity loads. A well designed system of shear wall in building
frame improves seismic performance significantly. This study aims at comparing various parameters such as storey drift, storey
shear and storey displacement of a building under lateral loads based on strategic positioning of shear walls. Linear static
analysis has been adopted in this paper. The software used is E-TABS.

Keywords: story displacement, storey drift, linear analysis, shear wall, seismic zone.

1. Introduction
Shear wall systems are one of the most commonly used 2. Objectives :
lateral load resisting systems in high rise buildings. An
introduction of shear wall represents a structurally efficient ▪ The main objective is to check and compare the
solution to stiffen a building, because the main function of a seismic response of multi-storied building for

IJSER
shear wall is to increase the rigidity for lateral load different location of shear wall, so that one can
resistance. In modern tall buildings, shear walls are choose the best alternative for construction in
commonly used as a vertical structural element for resisting earthquake-prone area.
the lateral loads that may be induced by the effect of wind ▪ Different location of shear wall in R.C.Building
and earthquakes. Shear wall has high in-plane stiffness and
will be modelled in E-TABS software and the
strength which can be used to simultaneously resist large
horizontal loads and support gravity loads, which results in terms of storey displacement, storey drift,
significantly reduce lateral sway of the building and thereby storey shear is compared.
reduce damage to structure. Shear walls in buildings must be 3. Storey parameters
symmetrically located in plan to reduce ill-effects and twist ▪ Storey displacement
in buildings.
It is the total displacement of the storey with
Shear walls are like vertically-oriented wide beams which
transfer these horizontal forces to the next element in the respect to ground.
Total Height Of Building
load path. These other components in the load path may be Allowable displacement = .
500
other shear walls, floors, foundation walls, slabs or footings
▪ Storey drift
and finally these walls carry earthquake loads downwards to
the foundation. These walls generally start at foundation Storey drift is the displacement of one level relative
level and are continuous throughout the building height. It is to the other level above or below it: As per Clause
possible for a Reinforced concrete multi-storey building to no. 7.11.1 of IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002, the storey drift
resist both the vertical and horizontal load without in any storey due to specified design lateral force
considering a shear wall, but the problem is beam and with partial load factor of 1.0, shall not exceed
column sizes are become quite heavy, steel quantity 0.004 times the storey height. In Software value of
requirement is also in large amount thus there is lot of
storey drift is given in ratio.
congestion takes place at joints and it is difficult to place and
vibrate concrete. Storey drift ratio
Difference Between Displacement Of Two Storeys
When shear walls are situated in advantageous positions in =
Height Of One Storey
the building, they can form an efficient lateral force resisting
system by reducing lateral displacements under earthquake ▪ Base(or)storey shear
loads. Therefore it is very necessary to determine effective, It is the maximum expected lateral force that will
efficient and ideal location of shear wall. occur due to seismic ground motion at the base of
It may be possible to decide the optimum or ideal location of structure.
shear wall in a building by comparing various parameters
such as storey displacement, storey (or) base shear, storey
drift and reinforcement requirement in columns etc of a 4. Design Loads (Types of Loads Used)
building under lateral loads based on strategic positioning of
shear wall. In our project some of the above parameters are
being calculated by using software E-TABS 9.5.
IJSER © 2018
http://www.ijser.org
 153
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & ENGINEERING RESEARCH, VOLUME 9, ISSUE 7, JULY-2018
ISSN 2229-5518

4.1 Dead Loads (Dl) :

The first vertical load that is considered is dead
load. Dead loads are permanent or stationary loads.
Which are transferred to structure throughout the
6. Building details
life span. Dead load is primarily due to self weight
of structural members, permanent partition walls, Table 2 Building Details
fixed permanent weight of different materials. The
calculation of dead loads of each structure are S.no Particulars Data
calculated by the volume of each section and 1 No. Of storeys 15
multiplied with the unit weight. 2 Plan dimension 20x20 m
4.2 Imposed Loads Or Live Loads (IL Or LL) : 3 Storey height 3.0 m
The second vertical load that is considered in 4 Grade of concrete M25,M30
design of a structure is imposed loads or live loads. 5 Grade of steel Fe415
Live loads are either movable or moving loads 6 Thickness of slab 0.2 m
without any acceleration or impact. These loads are 7 Beam size 0.6x0.6 m
assumed to be produced by the intended use or 8 Column size 0.6x0.6 m
occupancy of the building including weights of 9 Seismic zone 2
movable partitions or furniture etc. 10 Seismic factor 0.1
Live loads keep on changing from time to time. 11 Earthquake load for As per IS
These loads are to be suitably assumed by the type2 1893:2002
designer. It is one of the major loads in the design. 12 Top storey load 1.5 KN/m2
The minimum values of live loads to be assumed 13 Intermediate storey 3.0 KN/m2
are given in IS 875 (part 2)–1987. It depends upon load
the intended use of the building. 14 Floor/cover load 1.0 KN/m2
4.3 Wind Loads :

IJSER
Wind load is primarily horizontal load caused by
the movement of air relative to earth. Wind load is
7. Material properties:
required to be considered in structural design
especially when the height of the building exceeds Strength of concrete
two times the dimensions transverse to the exposed (fck) = 30 N/mm2
wind surface. Yield strength of main reinforcement
4.4 Earthquake Loads (Or) Seismic Loads: (fy) = 415N/mm2
The seismic (or) earth quake loads on the structure Yield strength of shear reinforcement
during an earthquake result from inertia forces (fys) = 415 N/mm2
which were created by ground accelerations. The Young’s modulus of concrete
magnitude of these loads is a function of the (Ec) = 3x104 N/mm2
following factors: mass of the building, the
dynamic properties of the building, the intensity, 8. Loading:
duration, and frequency content of the ground
motion, and soil-structure interaction. Table 3 load cases

5. Seismic Zones of India: Load cases Type Details

Use self-weight
Dead Dead load
The earthquake zoning map of India divides India multiplier
into 4 seismic zones (Zone 2, 3, 4 & 5). According Floor Live load Slab: 200mm
to the present zoning map, Zone 5 expects the Slab: 200 mm
highest level of seismicity whereas Zone 2 is Storey Live load Beams:
associated with the lowest level of seismicity. 600x600 mm
Is:1893:2002
Table 1 zone factors response
Earthquake Seismic load
reduction
Zone no Factors factor = 5
5 0.36
4 0.24
3 0.16
2 0.1

IJSER © 2018
http://www.ijser.org
 154
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & ENGINEERING RESEARCH, VOLUME 9, ISSUE 7, JULY-2018
ISSN 2229-5518

9. Model in E-TABS

Fig 3 elevation
10. Models:

The following are the models to be considered for

Fig 1 3-D view of model
analysis of a R.C building with shear walls at various

IJSER
locations.

i. Bare frame (no shear walls) M1

ii. Shear wall at central core M2

iii. Shear walls at corners M3

iv. Shear walls at edge faces M4

v. Shear walls at core + corners M5

vi. Shear walls at core + edges M6

11. Results and discussions

After analysis done for the building without shear walls

Fig 2 floor plan the various storey parameters are compared with the
models having shear walls placing at strategic
positions. The following results are evaluated below by
comparing the storey parameters.

11.1 Comparison Of A Parameter (Storey

Displacement) :

IJSER © 2018
http://www.ijser.org
 155
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & ENGINEERING RESEARCH, VOLUME 9, ISSUE 7, JULY-2018
ISSN 2229-5518

Fig 4 model 1 storey displacement plot

Fig 8 model 5 storey displacement plot

IJSER
Fig 5 model 2 storey displacement plot
Fig 9 model 6 storey displacement plot

0.25

0.2
Displacement(mm)

M1
M2
0.15
Fig 6 model 3 storey displacement plot M3
M4
0.1
M5
M6
0.05

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
storey's

Graph 1 storeys vs storey displacement(mm)

Fig 7 model 4 storey displacement plot

IJSER © 2018
http://www.ijser.org
 156
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & ENGINEERING RESEARCH, VOLUME 9, ISSUE 7, JULY-2018
ISSN 2229-5518

0.000016 45
0.000014 40
0.000012 M1 35

Base Shear (KN)

30 M1
0.00001
Storey Drift

M2
25 M2
0.000008 M3 20 M3
0.000006 M4 15 M4
0.000004 10
M5 M5
0.000002 5
M6 M6
0
0 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415
Storey's Storey’s

Graph 2 storeys vs storey drift Bar chart 1 storeys vs base shear (kn)

IJSER
Table 4 Combination of storey displacement plots of above six models

Storey’s M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6
no’s displacement(mm) displacement( displacement( displacement(m displacement(m displacement(m
mm) mm) m) m) m)

15 0.217 0.127 0.147 0.169 0.12 0.094

14 0.202 0.116 0.115 0.145 0.096 0.085
13 0.193 0.109 0.105 0.134 0.089 0.084

12 0.186 0.102 0.1 0.129 0.085 0.082

11 0.178 0.095 0.094 0.122 0.08 0.079
10 0.168 0.088 0.086 0.115 0.074 0.075
9 0.156 0.08 0.079 0.106 0.068 0.072
8 0.144 0.072 0.072 0.097 0.062 0.068
7 0.129 0.064 0.064 0.087 0.057 0.064
6 0.113 0.055 0.057 0.076 0.051 0.061
5 0.096 0.047 0.05 0.065 0.046 0.057
4 0.077 0.039 0.044 0.054 0.041 0.054
3 0.057 0.032 0.037 0.043 0.037 0.049
2 0.036 0.026 0.032 0.034 0.032 0.042
1 0.016 0.023 0.028 0.031 0.029 0.036
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IJSER © 2018
http://www.ijser.org
 157
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & ENGINEERING RESEARCH, VOLUME 9, ISSUE 7, JULY-2018
ISSN 2229-5518

Table 5 comparison of models to model 1 by % reduction in displacement

S to rey ’s M2 M3 M4 M5 M6

% red u ctio n % red u ctio n in % red uction in% red uction in% red uction in
No ’s
in d isp lacemen t d isp lacemen t d isp lacemen t d isp lacemen t d isp lacemen t

15 4 1 .4 7 3 2 .2 5 2 2 .1 1 4 4 .7 5 6 .6 8
14 4 2 .5 7 4 3 .0 6 2 8 .2 1 5 2 .4 7 5 7 .9 2
13 4 3 .5 2 4 5 .5 9 3 0 .5 6 5 3 .8 8 5 6 .4 7
12 4 5 .1 6 1 4 6 .2 3 3 0 .6 4 5 4 .3 0 5 5 .9 1
11 4 6 .6 2 4 7 .1 9 1 3 1 .4 6 5 5 .0 5 5 5 .6 1
10 4 7 .6 1 4 8 .8 0 3 1 .5 4 5 5 .9 5 5 5 .3 5
9 4 8 .7 1 4 9 .3 5 3 2 .0 5 5 6 .4 1 5 3 .8 4
8 50 50 3 2 .6 3 5 6 .9 4 5 2 .7 7
7 5 0 .3 8 5 0 .3 8 3 2 .5 5 5 5 .8 1 5 0 .3 8
6 5 1 .3 2 4 9 .5 5 3 2 .7 4 5 4 .8 6 4 6 .0 1

IJSER
5 5 1 .0 4 1 4 7 .9 1 3 2 .2 9 1 5 2 .0 8 3 4 0 .6 2 5
4 4 9 .3 5 4 2 .8 5 2 9 .8 7 4 6 .7 5 2 9 .8 7
3 4 3 .8 5 3 5 .0 8 2 4 .5 6 3 5 .0 8 1 4 .0 3
2 2 7 .7 7 1 1 .1 1 5 .5 5 1 1 .1 1 -1 6 . 6 6
1 -4 3 . 7 5 -7 5 -9 3 . 7 5 -8 1 . 2 5 -1 2 5
0 0 0 0 0 0

IJSER © 2018
http://www.ijser.org
 158
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & ENGINEERING RESEARCH, VOLUME 9, ISSUE 7, JULY-2018
ISSN 2229-5518

Table 6 combination of storey drifts of above six models

STOREYS M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6
15 8.00E-06 6.00E-06 1.40E-05 1.30E-05 1.10E-05 5.00E-06
14 3.00E-06 3.00E-06 6.00E-06 4.00E-06 5.00E-06 4.00E-06
13 2.00E-06 3.00E-06 4.00E-06 3.00E-06 3.00E-06 3.00E-06
12 3.00E-06 3.00E-06 3.00E-06 3.00E-06 3.00E-06 3.00E-06
11 3.00E-06 3.00E-06 3.00E-06 4.00E-06 3.00E-06 3.00E-06
10 4.00E-06 3.00E-06 3.00E-06 4.00E-06 3.00E-06 3.00E-06
9 4.00E-06 4.00E-06 4.00E-06 4.00E-06 3.00E-06 3.00E-06
8 5.00E-06 4.00E-06 4.00E-06 5.00E-06 3.00E-06 4.00E-06
7 5.00E-06 4.00E-06 4.00E-06 5.00E-06 3.00E-06 4.00E-06
6 6.00E-06 4.00E-06 4.00E-06 5.00E-06 3.00E-06 3.00E-06
5 6.00E-06 4.00E-06 4.00E-06 5.00E-06 3.00E-06 3.00E-06
4 7.00E-06 3.00E-06 3.00E-06 4.00E-06 3.00E-06 2.00E-06

IJSER
3 7.00E-06 3.00E-06 3.00E-06 4.00E-06 2.00E-06 3.00E-06
2 8.00E-06 3.00E-06 4.00E-06 4.00E-06 4.00E-06 5.00E-06
1 5.00E-06 8.00E-06 9.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-05 1.20E-05
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12. Conclusions: quantitative analysis. since it was model 6 having

shear walls at (core+edges). However the edges
1. Shear wall placing at adequate locations is more
direction is parallel to the earth quake load applied.
significant in case of base shear and displacement.
2. It is observed that horizontal displacement of a 15
storey building with shear wall at core+edge
faces(x-dir) of building is lesser when compared to
other models.
3. Larger the width of shear wall , the larger will be 13. Future scope:
the resistances against lateral forces. 1. In this paper i have considered building of 15
4. The graph of displacement reflects that for structure storeys only, we can also consider buildings with
having core shear wall the displacement is least. more number of storeys.
The maximum structural displacement for 15 storey 2. I have studied only three major parameters i.e..
building is 0.271mm for bare frame structure and storey displacement, storey drift and storey (or)
least value is 0.127mm for structure with shear wall base shear. The volume of work undertaken in this
at core+edge(x-dir) location. The displacement study is limited to comparison of seismic response
observed is within the limits specified in IS parameters in a building with different shear wall
1893:2002 (Part I). locations using linear analysis. The study could be
5. Base shear is inversely proportional to the storey extended by including various other parameters
displacement. Hence the model with least storey such as torsional effects and soft storey effects in a
displacement have the maximum base shear value.it building. Non-linear dynamic analysis may be
means to resists the maximum lateral force. carried out for further study for better and realistic
6. From the results above it was possible to notify the evaluation of structural response under seismic
optimum location of a shear wall by approximate forces .

IJSER © 2018
http://www.ijser.org
 159
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & ENGINEERING RESEARCH, VOLUME 9, ISSUE 7, JULY-2018
ISSN 2229-5518

3. In this paper I considered the building with regular Performance Evaluation of Multistoried
plan and assumes seismic load be acts in a RC framed buildings with Shearwall”,
unidirection.it also to carry out for irregular plan International Journal of Scientific &
and load acts in a multi directional. Engineering Research.
14. References: [11] S.K.Duggal (2007), “Earthquake
[1] Anshumn. S, Dipendu Bhunia, Bhavin resistant design of structures” Oxford
Rmjiyani (2011), “Solution of shear wall university press 2, New Delhi ISBN-
location in Multi-storey building.” 13:978-0-19-568817-7.
International Journal of Civil Engineering Vol. [12] S. M. Yarnal, S.S. Allagi, P.M. Topalakatti
9, No.2Pages 493-506. and A. A. Mulla (2015), “Non-Linear
[2] Anuj Chandiwala (2012), “Earthquake Analysis of Asymmetric Shear Wall with
Analysis of Building Configuration with Openings”, International Journal of
Different Position of Shear Wall”, Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
International Journal of Emerging Technology Vol. 4 Issues 08, August-2015.
and Advanced Engineering ISSN 2250-2459, [13] Venkata Sairam Kumar.N, Surendra
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 2, Babu.R, Usha Kranti.J(2014),“Shear walls –
Issue 12, December 2012, Adhoc Lecturer in A review”,International Journal of Innovative
Sarvajanik College of Engineering & Research in Science, Engineering and
Technology, Athvalines, Surat, Gujarat, India. Technology, Feb 2014.
[3] A.B. Karnale and Dr.D.N. Shinde (2015),
“Comparative Seismic Analysis of High Rise

IJSER
and Low Rise RCC Building with Shear
Wall”, International Journal of Innovative
Research in Science, Engineering and
Technology, September 2015.
[4] Chen Qin and Qian Jiaru (2002), “Static
inelastic analysis of RC shear walls”,
department of civil engineering, Tsinghua
University, Beijing 100084, China.
[5] IS. 456-2000, Indian standard Plain and
Reinforced Concrete code of practice, Bureau
of Indian standards, New Delhi.
[6] IS 1893 (Part 1): (2002) Indian Standard
Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures General Provisions and Buildings.
[7] Pavan K.E., Naresh A., Nagajyothi M. and
Rajasekhar M., (2014), “Earthquake analysis
of multi storied residential building - a case
study”, Int. Journal of Engineering Research
and Applications, Vol. 4 (11), 59-64.
[8] P. P. Chandurkar and Dr. P. S. Pajgade
(2013), “Seismic Analysis of RCC Building
with and Without Shear Wall”, International
Journal of Modern Engineering Research
(IJMER) www.ijmer.com Vol. 3, Issue. 3,
May - June 2013.
[9] Shah M. D and Patel S. B., (2011),
“Nonlinear static analysis of R.C.C. frames” -
Software implementation ETABS 9.7,
National Conference on Recent Trends in
Engineering & Technology, 1-6.
[10] Shaik Kamal Mohammed Azam,
Vinod Hosur,(2013), “Seismic
IJSER © 2018
http://www.ijser.org