STUDY ON SEISMIC EFFECT OF HIGH RISE BUILDING SHEAR WALL/WALL WITHOUT SHEAR WALL

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 8, Issue 1, January 2017, pp.
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976
© IAEME Publication Scopus
STUDY ON SEISMIC EFF
BUILDING SHEAR WALL/
PG
Assistant Profess
ABSTRACT
Objective: In this paper the analytical study on the lateral behaviour of the structure is mainly
concentrated and how it is varying in the different zones of zone II and zone III wit
heights of a 6storey, 11storey, and 16storey
shear wall. Method in this study the behaviour of lateral displacements induced on or after
earthquakes. Concrete shear walls are used to
vibrations. Shear walls can be placed around the building as periphery walls, around the lift and
beside the staircase. Filing the buildings are modelled with floor area of 32mx28m. with 8 bays
along 32m span and 7 bays along 28m and apiece bay width of 4m .the lateral displacement of the
structure is compared in OMRF
to another floor level should reach storey drift, the analysis is done in s
lateral displacements of the struc
displacement is less in SMRF compare with OMRF.
Key words: Equivalent Static Method, Shear Wall, Lateral Displacement, Staadprov8
Cite this Article: K Venkatesh and T. Venkatdas, Study On Seismic Effect of High Rise Building
Shear Wall/Wall Without Shear Wall
8(1), 2017, pp. 852–862.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIE
1. INTRODUCTION
A huge serving of India is susceptible to damaging levels of seismic exposures. In future, it is necessary to
take into excuse the seismic load for the design of towering
analysis of G+5, G+10, G+15 storied building was done by Equivalent static method. The main
constraintspains taking in this revision to relate the seismic enactment of dissimilar Zones i.e. II and III are
lateral displacement. The building frame is modelled
beams with a slab panel of 4m x 4m the model is made using STAAD.PRO Software. In case of building
IJCIET/index.asp 852
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
, pp. 852–862, Article ID: IJCIET_08_01_101
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=
ISSN Online: 0976-6316
Scopus Indexed
STUDY ON SEISMIC EFFECT OF HIGH RISE
BUILDING SHEAR WALL/WALL WITHOUT SHEAR
WALL
K Venkatesh
PG student, Department of Civil Engineering
KL University, Vaddeswaram
T. Venkatdas
Assistant Professor Department of Civil Engineering,
KL University, Vaddeswaram
this paper the analytical study on the lateral behaviour of the structure is mainly
concentrated and how it is varying in the different zones of zone II and zone III wit
6storey, 11storey, and 16storey structure. The study also involves the orientation of
study the behaviour of lateral displacements induced on or after
earthquakes. Concrete shear walls are used to resist the lateral displacement owing to earthquake
the buildings are modelled with floor area of 32mx28m. with 8 bays
span and 7 bays along 28m and apiece bay width of 4m .the lateral displacement of the
structure is compared in OMRF &SMRF and the lateral displacement values of current floor level
to another floor level should reach storey drift, the analysis is done in s
of the structure is compared in OMRF & SMRF and it is found that lateral
displacement is less in SMRF compare with OMRF.
Equivalent Static Method, Shear Wall, Lateral Displacement, Staadprov8
K Venkatesh and T. Venkatdas, Study On Seismic Effect of High Rise Building
Shear Wall/Wall Without Shear Wall. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=1
take into excuse the seismic load for the design of towering construction. In present study, the earthquake
alysis of G+5, G+10, G+15 storied building was done by Equivalent static method. The main
taking in this revision to relate the seismic enactment of dissimilar Zones i.e. II and III are
lateral displacement. The building frame is modelled with a dimensions of 32m x 28 m having columns &
editor@iaeme.com
&IType=1
ECT OF HIGH RISE
WALL WITHOUT SHEAR
Department of Civil Engineering,
this paper the analytical study on the lateral behaviour of the structure is mainly
concentrated and how it is varying in the different zones of zone II and zone III with different storey
involves the orientation of
study the behaviour of lateral displacements induced on or after
resist the lateral displacement owing to earthquake
the buildings are modelled with floor area of 32mx28m. with 8 bays
span and 7 bays along 28m and apiece bay width of 4m .the lateral displacement of the
&SMRF and the lateral displacement values of current floor level
to another floor level should reach storey drift, the analysis is done in staadprov8i.findingthe
ture is compared in OMRF & SMRF and it is found that lateral
Equivalent Static Method, Shear Wall, Lateral Displacement, Staadprov8
K Venkatesh and T. Venkatdas, Study On Seismic Effect of High Rise Building
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology,
T&VType=8&IType=1
construction. In present study, the earthquake
alysis of G+5, G+10, G+15 storied building was done by Equivalent static method. The main
taking in this revision to relate the seismic enactment of dissimilar Zones i.e. II and III are
with a dimensions of 32m x 28 m having columns &

Study On Seismic Effect of High Rise Building Shear Wall/Wall Without Shear Wall
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 853 editor@iaeme.com
with shear wall the building frame is modelled as above dimensions only with alternate shear wall using 4
node plate proposed thickness of 150 mm along the height of the structure. The new zone map places this
area in zone III. The new zone map will currently take individual four seismic zones – II, III, IV and V.
The zones decreasing in seismic zone I in the present map are combined by those of seismic zone II. Also
Madras will come underneath seismic zone III as beside zone II presently consequently, for significant
developments, such as a chief dam or a nuclear power plant, the seismic hazard is assessedexactly for that
place. Also, for the purposes of city design, civicregions. In this paper to analyse a model for earthquake
resisting structure. The model structure is located in both Zone-III&ZONE-II. To calculate the Lateral
Displacement, on buildings using equivalent static method. By using STAAD pro. And make a
comparative analysis between OMRF &SMRF Structure in equivalent static method .Comparison between
G+5, G+10, and G+ 15.Nikhil Agrawal(3)
et. al. (2013) present masonry in filled RC frames including soft
storey buildings used in various multi structures in our country. In the present study, masonry in filled
reinforced concrete (RC) frames including soft storey of with and without opening. This opening is express
in terms of various percentages here, in this paper, symmetrical institutional building (G+5) located in
seismic zoneIII is considered by modelling of initial frame. This analysis is to be carried out on the models
such as bare frame, strut frame, strut frame with 15% centre&corner opening, which is performed by using
structure analysis and design software from which different parameters are computed. Sara Swati
Setia(5)
et al (2012) has performed a study on 6 storied RC frame building model and is analyzed using the
software STAAD PRO.2006. The static analysis is then performed for the modelled RC frame building
using the computer software STAAD PRO. 2006. Five models are generated with this plan of the building
by introducing different variation and displacement, story drift, base shear and story shear are the various
parameters. Lateral displacement is largest in bare frame with soft storey defect both for earthquake force
in X-direction as well as in Z direction for corner columns as well as for intermediate columns. Buildings
with shear wall in core and shear wall in X direction as well as in Z-direction have uniform displacement
because of shear wall. Which shows a gradual change of stiffness between the lower soft storey and the
upper floors that is essentially required.
2. OBJECTIVE
In this paper the analytical study on the lateral behaviour of the structure is mainly concentrated and how it
is varying in the different zones of zone II and zone III with different storey heights of a 6storey, 11storey,
and 16storey structure. The study also involves the orientation of shear wall.
3. METHODOLOGY
The (OMRF &SMRF) structures of G+5, G+10, G+15, Floor structure is exposed in Fig 1. The seismic
analysis of building is done by Seismic Coefficient with given above procedures for Zone II and III. The
obtained results of both structures are compared with each other.
3.1. ANALYSIS DATA FOR THIS INVESTIGATION
Following data used in the analysis of the RC frame building model
Type of frame : RC frame (OMRF & SMRF)
Seismic zone : II&III
Number of storey : G+5, G+10, G+15
Floor height : 3m
Depth of two-way slab : 0.125m
Materials :M25 concrete, Fe415 steel
Shear wall thickness : 150mm
Type of soil : medium

K Venkatesh and T. Venkatdas
Density of concrete : 25KN/m2
Equivalent static method : IS-1893(part-1)2002
Damping of structure : 5%
Shear wall thickness : 150mm
3.2 SESMIC COEFFIECIENT METHOD
As per IS 1893 (part1)-2002, Seismic Coefficient analysis Procedure is potted in resulting phases
Design Seismic Base Shear:- The whole projecthorizontal force or design seismic base shear (VB)
laterally every primary path of the structure will be resolute by the resulting manifestation
VB= Ah W
Where Ah = Design straight seismic coefficient
W = Seismic weight of the building.
b) Seismic Weight of Building: - The seismic mass of every storey is its complete structural weight plus
suitable quantity of imposed load as indicated. While calculating the seismic mass of every surface, the
mass of pillars and walls in any storey will stay similarly dispersed towards the levels overhead and
underneath the storey. The seismic burden of the entire structure is the amount of the seismic masses of
totally the levels. Any mass resting in among the storey intend to be dispersed to the levels overhead and
underneath in opposite fraction toward its distance from the levels.
c) Fundamental Natural Time Period-: The fundamental natural time period (Ta) computes after the
brick filling, then the essential period of vibration, may be taken as
Ta = . / √
d)Distribution of Design Force: - The design base shear, VB calculated over head shall be dispersed
length ways the tallness of the structure as per the following equation.
i =VB
The total base shear and lateral force is calculation by STAAD Pro
3.3. Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame
It includes the beams & columns along with fixed supports. These columns and beams are created with
beam node elements and connected with beam elements of the software. Here the slab loading at each floor
level is acting vertically on the slab and is calculated for square meter as its applied on the beam and the
wall load is also assigned on the beams only . for horizontal loads , the physically present phenomena that
the floor slab at each floor level is acting as very rigid horizontal beams which ensures that the lateral
deformation of all the nodes at any particular floor level are the same. This is known as diaphragm action
of the horizontal slabs.
3.4. Special R C Moment Resisting Frame
It includes the columns and beams as the framing system but with four sides alternate shear walls on the
structure on all the side instead of columns
The image
part with
relationship
ID rId10 was
not found in
the file.
The image part with relationship ID rId12 was not found in the file.

4. RESULTS
Zone II
• From the above graph we can say that Max lateral displacement of OMRF is obtained at 18th
storey of G+5
structure. Similarly for SMRF max lateral displacement obtained at 18th
storey of the structure in graph 1.
storey of G+10
storey of G+15
ZONE III
storey of G+5
storey of G+10
storey of G+15
5. CONCLUSION
ZONE III
• When coming to G+5 Storey building the variation of storey drift between OMRF & SMRF structure is
0.15%
0.42%
0.66%.
ZONE II
0.04%
0.21%
0.41%
• When compared to ZONE II and ZONE III the lateral displacement is less in ZONE II.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.
Fig 2 G+15 OMRF BUILDING Fig 3 G+15 SMRF SHEAR WALL AT CORNER
ZONE II G+5 OMRF G+5 SMRF
COLUMN
DETAILS
0.45X0.45
BEAM
DETAILS
0.4X0.3
ZONE III
G+5
OMRF
COLUMN
DETAILS
0.45X0.45
BEAM
DETAILS
0.4X0.3
IJCIET/index.asp 856
Fig 1 FLOOR PLAN
G+15 SMRF SHEAR WALL AT CORNER Fig 4 G+15 SMRF AT OUTER PERIPHARY
Table 1
Table 2
G+5 SMRF
G+10
OMRF
G+10
SMRF OMRF
0.55X0.5 0.55X0.5 0.65X0.6 0.55X0.5
0.5X0.5 0.6X0.23 0.6X0.55 0.6X0.3
G+5
SMRF
G+10
OMRF
G+10
SMRF
G+15
OMRF
0.55X0.50 0.55X0.5 0.65X0.6 0.55X0.5
0.5X0.5 0.6X0.23 0.6X0.55 0.6X0.3
editor@iaeme.com
G+15 SMRF AT OUTER PERIPHARY
G+15
OMRF
G+15
SMRF
0.55X0.5 0.65X0.65
0.6X0.3 0.65X0.6
G+15
OMRF
G+15
SMRF
0.55X0.5 0.65X0.65
0.6X0.3 0.65X0.6

ZONE III
Table 1The results of (ordinary moment resisting frame & special moment resisting frame)
S.NO STOREY LEVEL
STOREY DISPLACEMENT IN CM
OMRF SMRF OMRF SMRF
X X Z Z
1 0 0 0.0002 0 0.0002
2 3 0.6475 0.098 0.6531 0.1058
3 6 1.7046 0.2378 1.723 0.2544
4 9 2.7705 0.33872 2.8033 0.4123
5 12 3.7047 0.531 3.7507 0.5642
6 15 4.3996 0.6535 4.4562 0.6932
7 18 4.7867 0.7414 4.8509 0.7848
From above table shows the Storey Displacement Values in Both Longitudinal(X) & Transverses (Z)
Direction in ZONE-III of G+5 Storey building.
Table 2 The results of (OMRF& SMRF)
S.NO STOREY LEVEL
OMRF SMRF OMRF SMRF
X X Z Z
1 0 0 0.0005 0 0.0005
2 3 0.5926 0.1242 0.6435 0.1286
3 6 1.5399 0.3048 1.6424 0.3131
4 9 2.5406 0.5074 2.689 0.5198
5 12 3.536 0.7217 3.7287 0.739
6 15 4.502 0.9406 4.7382 0.9633
7 18 5.4165 1.1569 5.6947 1.1856
8 21 6.254 1.3638 6.5717 1.3989
9 24 6.9852 1.5547 7.3385 1.5963
10 27 7.577 1.723 7.9605 1.7711
11 30 7.9964 1.8621 8.4022 1.9163
12 33 8.2318 1.9683 8.6492 2.0278

Table 3The results of (OMRF& SMRF)
S.NO STOREY LEVEL
X X Z Z
1 0 0 0.8 0 0.8
2 3 0.5834 0.2184 0.6138 0.2056
3 6 1.4767 0.5287 1.5274 0.4995
4 9 2.4187 0.878 2.485 0.8316
5 12 3.3714 1.2533 3.4534 1.1892
6 15 4.3243 1.6458 4.4229 1.5693
7 18 5.2695 2.0476 5.3856 1.9483
8 21 6.1982 2.4515 6.3326 2.3356
9 24 7.1007 2.8511 7.2538 2.7196
10 27 7.9658 32402 8.1378 3.0944
11 30 8.7812 3.6129 8.9722 3.4543
12 33 9.5335 3.9639 9.7431 3.7942
13 36 10.208 4.288 10.4357 4.109
14 39 10.7889 4.5803 11.0339 4.3944
15 42 11.2595 4.8366 11.5207 4.6338
16 45 11.604 5.0524 11.8794 4.8594
17 48 11.8203 5.2256 12.1071 5.033
ZONE II
S.NO STOREY LEVEL
OMRF SMRF OMRF SMRF
X X Z Z
1 0 0 0.0001 0 0.0001
2 3 0.2196 0.0613 0.2196 0.0661
3 6 0.5771 0.1487 0.5833 0.1591
4 9 0.9345 0.2421 0.9455 0.2578
5 12 1.241 0.332 1.2563 0.3528
6 15 1.4572 0.4086 1.4758 0.4335
7 18 1.5629 0.4636 1.5837 0.4907

S.NO
STOREY
LEVEL
Storey Displacement in cm
OMRF SMRF OMRF SMRF
X X Z Z
1 0 0 0.0005 0 0.0005
2 3 0.3704 0.1354 0.4022 0.1402
3 6 0.9624 0.3324 1.0265 0.3415
4 9 1.5879 0.5536 1.6806 0.5673
5 12 2.21 0.788 2.3304 0.807
6 15 2.8137 1.0277 2.9614 1.0527
7 18 3.3853 1.2651 3.5592 1.2967
8 21 3.9087 1.4929 4.1073 1.5315
9 24 4.3657 1.704 4.5866 1.7498
10 27 4.7356 1.8914 4.9753 1.9444
11 30 4.9978 2.048 5.2514 2.1079
12 33 5.1449 2.169 5.4057 2.235
S.NO
STOREY
LEVEL
OMRF SMRF OMRF SMRF
X X Z Z
1 0 0 0.0008 0 0.0006
2 3 0.3647 0.1365 0.3836 0.1319
3 6 0.9229 0.3304 0.9546 0.3122
4 9 1.5117 0.5488 1.5531 0.5197
5 12 2.1071 0.7833 2.1584 0.7432
6 15 2.7027 1.0286 2.7643 0.9774
7 18 3.2934 1.2797 3.366 1.2177
8 21 3.8739 1.5322 3.9579 14598
9 24 4.4379 1.7819 4.5336 1.6998
10 27 4.9786 2.0251 5.0861 1.934
11 30 5.4883 2.2581 5.6076 2.1589
12 33 5.9584 2.4774 6.0894 2.3714
13 36 6.38 2.68 6.5223 2.5682
14 39 6.743 2.8627 6.8962 2.7465
15 42 7.0372 3.0229 7.2004 2.9037
16 45 7.2525 3.1577 7.4274 3.0371
17 48 7.3877 3.266 7.5669 3.1456

ZONE II
Comparison between OMRF and SMRF ofG+5TO15 Level Structures
From the above graph we can say that Max lateral displacement of OMRF is obtained at 18th
storey of
G+5 structure. Similarly for SMRF max lateral displacement obtained at 18th
storey of the structure in
graph 1.
storey of
G+10s structure. Similarly for SMRF max lateral displacement obtained at 33th
graph 2.
storey of
graph 3.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 3 6 9 121518
DEFLECTIONINMM
STOREY HEIGHT
OMRF SYSTEM X-TRANSIT
SMRF SYSTEM X-TRANSIT
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 6 12 18 24 30
DEFLECTIONINMM
STOREY HEIGHT
0
5
10
15
0 6 12182430364248
DEFLECTIONINMM
STOREY HEIGHT
SMRF SYSTEM X- TRANSIT

ZONE III
Comparison between OMRF and SMRF of G+5, TO15levelstructures
storey of
graph 1.
storey of
G+10s structure. Similarly for SMRF max lateral displacement obtained at 33th
graph 2.
storey of
graph 3.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 3 6 9 12 15 18DEFLECTIONINMM
STOREY HEIGHT
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 6 12 18 24 30
DEFLECTIONINMM
STOREY HEIGHT
OMRF SYSTEM X TRANSIT
SMRF SYSTEM X TRANSIT
0
2
4
6
8
0 6 12182430364248
DEFLECTIONINMM
STOREY HEIGHT
OMRF SYSTEM X TRANSIT
SMRF SYSTEM X- TRANSIT

REFERENCES
[1] Is: 875 (part 1) – 1987 code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and
structures
[2] Is: 875 (part 2) – 1987 code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and
structures
[3] Is 1893- 2000 criteria for earth quake design of structures
[4] Duggal, S.K., Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures (Oxford University Press, 2007).
[5] Pankaj Agarwal, Manish Shrikhande, Earthquake Resistant design of Structures (Prentice Hall India
Publication).
[6] S.P.Pawar, Dr.C.P.Pise, Y.P.Pawar, S.S.Kadam, D. D. Mohite, C. M. Deshmukh and N. K. Shelar,
Effect of Positioning of RC Shear Walls of Different Shapes on Seismic Performance of Building
Resting On Sloping Ground. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(3), 2016,
pp.373–384.
[7] Dr. S. B. Shinde and N.B. Raut, Effect of Change in Thicknesses and Height in Shear Wall on
Deflection of Multistoried Buildings. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(6),
2016, pp.587–591.
[8] T. Chrysanidis, V. Panoskaltsis and I. Tegos, Preliminary Design and Analysis of Cost Parameters of a
High-Rise Building: Braced Shear Wall Core System. International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 7(5), 2016, pp.137–152.
[9] Clough, R.W., & Penzien, J. 1993. Dynamics of Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York.
[10] A. Asokan, (2006) Modelling of Masonry Infill Walls for Nonlinear Static Analysis of Buildings under
Seismic Loads. M. S. Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai.
[11] Seismic analysis of buildings resting on sloping Ground by B.GBirajdar1, S.S.Nalawade2.
[12] Effects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete buildings by Mehmet
Intel, HayriBaytanOzmen. Dept of Civil Engineering Pamukkale University.
[13] Pankaj Agarwal –Earthquake Resistant Design Of Structure A.K. Chopra-Dynamics of Structures

STUDY ON SEISMIC EFFECT OF HIGH RISE BUILDING SHEAR WALL/WALL WITHOUT SHEAR WALL

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to STUDY ON SEISMIC EFFECT OF HIGH RISE BUILDING SHEAR WALL/WALL WITHOUT SHEAR WALL

Similar to STUDY ON SEISMIC EFFECT OF HIGH RISE BUILDING SHEAR WALL/WALL WITHOUT SHEAR WALL (20)

More from IAEME Publication

More from IAEME Publication (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

STUDY ON SEISMIC EFFECT OF HIGH RISE BUILDING SHEAR WALL/WALL WITHOUT SHEAR WALL