MINOR PROJECT REPORT IN SHEAR WALLS

1. Comparative Dynamic Analysis of Structural
Performance with and without Shear Walls
Shivam Srivastava Ravi Sharma
Aditya Kumar Uma Kumari
Richa Nalumolu karthik
INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
PRESENTATION

2. The project involved a thorough analysis of a G+4 building using ETABS software, encompassing
geometric modeling, load application, and dynamic analysis per IS 1893 2016.
Three scenarios were considered: the original structure, and two variations with shear walls (case 1
and case 2). The study focused on seismic performance, storey drifts, deformation and bending
moment diagrams, and the influence of shear walls on lateral stability
Results indicated a significant reduction in lateral deformations with shear walls. The
findings provide valuable insights for optimizing structural designs in seismic-prone
areas, serving as a practical guide for enhancing resilience in similar structures
Brief Overview

3. 01
Structure Overview
02
Approximate Analysis
03
Modelling
04
Shear Wall
05
Conclusion
CONTENTS

4. Structure
Overview

8. M 30
Fe 500
25 kN/m2 RCC
20 kN/m2 Masonry
300*450 mm Beams
400*400 mm Column
125 mm Thickness of Slab
250 mm Outer Wall
150 mm Inner Wall
4m ground floor
height
3.3 m Floor Height
1.2 m Parapet
Height
Seismic Zone V
Loading as per IS 875
Load Combination as per IS
1893
Ductile Detailing as per IS
13920
25 mm clear cover provided for slabs
30 mm clear cover provided for Beams
40 mm clear cover provided for columns
STRUCTURAL
SPECIFICATIONS

9. Approximate
Analysis

10. Approximate Analysis
Although the building is a three-dimensional structure, it is usually analysed and designed as an assemblage of two-
dimensional (planar) sub-structures lying primarily in the horizontal and vertical plane.
Dead Load consists of Self-Weight, Ceiling Plaster and Floor-Finish

20. Modelling

21. Grid Geometry defined as per plan.
Properties of materials, beams, columns, slabs etc. defined
Moment of Inertia reduced as per Clause requirement
Floor diaphragms added at appropriate floor levels.
CSI Etabs Sotware used for structural
Design

22. SEISMIC LOAD DEFINITION
(IS 1893:2016 PART 1)
The seismic load has been defined using parameters that have been
mentioned in IS 1893:2016 Part 1 the input provisions for which have
already been incorporated in Etabs software and can be found in the
load generation interface.
Zone
Factor (Z)
Importance
Factor (I)
Response
Reduction
Factor (R)
Soil Type
Seismic
Zone Factor
5
considered
for analysis
purposes.
I is considered
to be 1.2 under
Residential
Buildings with
occupancy
more than 200
IS 1893:2016
Part 1.
Structure
type is RC
buildings
with special
moment
resisting
frame.
We have
considered
type of soil
as medium
soil.
Damping
Ratio
Damping ratio
has fixed value
of 5%
irrespective of
material of
construction

24. DEFINING LOAD
PATTERNS
The dead loads are estimated from the dimensions of
various members of the building and their unit
weights.
The dead load contains the weight of
walls, partitions, floor finishes, false
ceilings, floors and the other permanent
standing construction in the buildings.
They are referred to as Superdead Load

25. Assignment of
Imposed/Live
Loads
The imposed loads have been
assigned as per provisions given in
IS 875 Part 2
Floor loads have been added as
per requirement of geometry and
magnitude
The loads consist of Live Load,
Roof Live load

28. Load Combination
When responses from the three earthquake components are to be considered, the responses due to each component may be
combined using the assumption that when the maximum response from one component occurs, the responses from the
other two components are 30 percent each of their maximum. All possible combinations of three components (ELx, ELy
and ELz) including variations in sign (plus or minus) shall be considered. This implies that sets of load combinations
involving Earthquake effects to be considered shall be given as below :
1) 1.2 [DL+IL±(ELx±0.3 ELy±0.3 ELz)] and
1.2 [DL+IL±(ELy ±0.3 ELx ±0.3 ELz)];
2) 1.5 [DL+(ELx ±0.3 ELy±0.3 ELz)] and
1.5 [DL (ELy±0.3 ELx ±0.3 ELz)];
3) 0.9 DL±1.5 (ELx±0.3 ELy±0.3 ELz) and
0.9 DL±1.5 (ELy±0.3 ELx±0.3 ELz).
where X and Y are two orthogonal directions and Z is the
vertical direction

29. Defining Mass Source
In Mass Source we define the
mass of the structure along
with additional dead and live
load to be taken into account
for the Earthquake analysis.
Weights of equipment and other
permanently fixed facilities
should be considered
01
For calculation of design seismic
forces of buildings, imposed load
on roof need not be considered..

30. Dynamic Loading (Response Spectrum)
The Response Spectrum function needs to be first defined for X and Y directions as per codal provisions for corresponding
seismic parameters.
The scale factors of the Response Spectrum Function is initially takes as 1
Analysis is run initially and the Base Shear values for Static case and dynamic case is compared and their ratio becomes
the new scale factor that we have to update in the Response Spectrum Function. The same process is repeated for Y
direction
The Response Spectrum function for Z direction needs to be user defined with all values as 2.5. The scale factor is set to be
The higher of the two scale factors for X and Y direction.

31. R.Sx and R.Sy R.Sz
R.Sy

32. Shear Wall

33. A shear wall is a structural element in a building that
resists lateral forces parallel to the plane of the wall.
These lateral forces can arise from various sources,
such as wind, seismic activity, or other horizontal
loads. Shear walls are crucial components in
structural design for several reasons:
• Lateral Load Resistance
• Stabilization of the Structure
• Reduction of Building Drift
• Distribution of Lateral Forces
• Enhanced Structural Performance

36. Without Shear
Wall
With Shear wall
Case 1
With Shear wall
Case 2

39. Story Output Case
Direction
Drift without
shear wall
With Shear
Wall
With Shear
Wall
% Reduction % Reduction
Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2
Plinth
1.5[DL+(RSx +0.3RSy +0.3RSz)] X 0.001472 0.000589 0.000217 59.98641 85.25815
1.5[DL+(RSy +0.3RSx +0.3RSz)] Y 0.001472 0.000589 0.000217 59.98641 85.25815
First Floor Slab
1.5[DL+(RSx +0.3RSy +0.3RSz)] X 0.006526 0.000318 0.000497 95.12718 92.38430
1.5[DL+(RSy +0.3RSx +0.3RSz)] Y 0.006526 0.000318 0.000497 95.12718 92.38430
Second Floor Slab
1.5[DL+(RSx +0.3RSy +0.3RSz)] X 0.005525 0.000498 0.000755 90.98642 86.33484
1.5[DL+(RSy +0.3RSx +0.3RSz)] Y 0.005525 0.000498 0.000755 90.98642 86.33484
Third Floor Slab
1.5[DL+(RSx +0.3RSy +0.3RSz)] X 0.004429 0.000591 0.000815 86.65613 81.59855
1.5[DL+(RSy +0.3RSx +0.3RSz)] Y 0.004429 0.000591 0.000815 86.65613 81.59855
Fourth Floor Slab
1.5[DL+(RSx +0.3RSy +0.3RSz)] X 0.003131 0.000615 0.000781 80.35771 75.05589
1.5[DL+(RSy +0.3RSx +0.3RSz)] Y 0.003131 0.000615 0.000781 80.35771 75.05589
Roof
1.5[DL+(RSx +0.3RSy +0.3RSz)] X 0.001682 0.000589 0.000701 64.98216 58.32342
1.5[DL+(RSy +0.3RSx +0.3RSz)] Y 0.001682 0.000589 0.000701 64.98216 58.32342

42. TABLE: Concrete Column Design Summary - IS 456-2000 Without Shear Wall SW Case 1 SW Case 2 % R/F Reduced
Label AsMin As As As
CASE 1
mm² mm² mm² mm²
C2 1280 6482 2789 2862 56.97
C3 1280 6298 2783 2827 55.81
C4 1280 6482 2789 2853 56.97
C6 1280 6609 2570 2645 61.11
C7 1280 6779 2842 2836 58.08
C8 1280 6779 2842 2789 58.08
C9 1280 6779 2842 2789 58.08
C10 1280 6609 2570 2644 61.11
C11 1280 6551 2574 2609 60.71
C15 1280 6551 2574 2596 60.71
C16 1280 6609 2570 2635 61.11
C17 1280 6779 2842 2795 58.08
C20 1280 6609 2570 2657 61.11
C22 1280 6482 2789 2857 56.97
C23 1280 6298 2783 2809 55.81
C24 1280 6482 2789 2862 56.97

43. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PERCENTAGE
MODE NUMBER
Modal Mass Participating Ratio
Modal Mass Participating Ratio SW Case 1 Modal Mass Participating Ratio SW Case 2

44. Mode
Modal Mass
Participating Ratio
Modal Mass
Participating Ratio
Modal Mass
Participating Ratio
Without SW SW Case 1 SW Case 2
1 0.2329 0 0.3061
2 0.885 0.0673 0.6716
3 0.885 0.7035 0.7297
4 0.9056 0.7035 0.7754
5 0.9574 0.7035 0.8694
6 0.9574 0.8304 0.9177
7 0.9617 0.877 0.9247
8 0.9729 0.877 0.9419
9 0.9729 0.877 0.9528
10 0.9741 0.877 0.9543
11 0.977 0.877 0.9582
12 0.977 0.8794 0.959

45. 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Period(sec)
Mode Number
Modal Time Periods
Period(sec) SW Case 1 Period(Sec) SW Case 2

46. Mode
Period(sec) Period(sec) Period(Sec)
Without SW SW Case 1 SW Case 2
1 0.906 1.676 0.314
2 0.906 0.95 0.292
3 0.8 0.95 0.228
4 0.287 0.541 0.085
5 0.287 0.322 0.071
6 0.254 0.226 0.062
7 0.16 0.226 0.042
8 0.16 0.224 0.034
9 0.141 0.172 0.03
10 0.107 0.137 0.027
11 0.107 0.11 0.023
12 0.095 0.101 0.021

49. Conclusion

50. • The maximum reduction in storey drifts observed was
92.38 % and 95.12% for Case 1 and Case 2 respectively.
• Average reduction in storey drifts for case 1 is 79.68%
and 79.82% for case 2.
• Bending Moment Diagram of plan was shown and the
Shear Force and Bending Moment was found to be
significantly reduced in case of both structures with
Shear Walls
• Average reduction in column reinforcement for Case 1
and Case 2 was 58.60% and 58.07% respectively.
• Maximum reduction in column reinforcement was
found out to be 60.37% and 69.11% respectively.

51. • Minimal Displacement of Centre of Mass of Diaphragm at each storey
was observed in both structures with Shear Walls to be minimal in nature
as compared to the bare frame counterpart.
• Significantly increased Storey Stiffness was observed in Plinth level in
structures containing Shear Walls.
• The modal time periods in Case 3 were considerably lower than even
Case 2 which was already significantly lower than modal time periods of
original structure thereby indicating the increased effectiveness of
Structure in Case 3 as compared to case 2
• The modal mass participation factors were found to be lower than
necessary for the structure, it is thereby recommended that the
structure contain either infill walls or retaining walls at the ground level.
• It was observed that without changing any properties of the structure i.e
beam dimensions, column dimensions, material properties etc the
structures with shear wall were extendable to 11 storeys without any
failure and with similar column reinforcements as in the original G+4
structure

52. References
1.IS 456-2000 (Fourth Revision). “Plain and reinforced concrete
2.IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2016. “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings”
3.IS 875 (Part 1): Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake) For Buildings and Structures. Part 1: Dead
Loads--Unit Weights of Building Materials and Stored Materials (Second Revision).
4.IS 875 (Part 2): Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake) For Buildings and Structures. Part 2: Imposed
Loads (Second Revision).
5.SP 16: Handbook on Concrete Reinforcement and Detailing.
6.Structural Engineering Software | Computers and Structures, Inc. (csiamerica.com)
7.Course: ETABS & SAFE Complete Building Design Course + Detailing | Udemy
8.Structural Analysis- Devdas Menon