Shear wall ppt presentation useful for BE

UNDER THE GUIDENCE
OF
Dr B S Jayashankar babu
Professor
By,
Kavya K M
USN-4PS15CCS09
4th SEM (CAD
Structures)

 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 LITERATURE REVIEW
 OBJECTIVES
 MODELING
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES

 Earthquakes are one of the most devastating natural hazards that cause great loss of life and
livelihood.
 Passed research works based on experimental and analytical investigations show that the
contribution of infill walls and shear wall cannot be simply neglected towards adding
strength and stiffness to the RC framed regular and irregular buildings.
 The results of various parameters like time period, storey displacement, and storey stiffness
are obtained and the graphs are plotted.From the results it can be observed that regular
structure possess better seismic performance as compared to irregular structures.
 The time period and displacement was found to be reduced and storey stiffness
was found to be increased as compared to that of bare frame, with the addition of
shear wall and infill wall.

 Shear walls in buildings must be symmetrically located in plan to reduce ill-effects of
twist in buildings. They could be placed symmetrically along one or both direction in
plan. Shear walls are more effective when located along exterior perimeter of the
building- such a layout increases resistance of the building to twisting.

• When masonry infills are considered to interact with the surrounding frames the
lateral stiffness and the lateral load capacity of the structure largely increase.
• Infill walls may be constructed using various materials such as bricks, timber,
concrete, light steel etc. Masonry infill walls are the most commonly provided.
• It is a structural composite system which consists of a reinforced concrete frame
with masonry or concrete panels.
• The masonry infill wall is modeled using equivalent strut method and determined
strut is applied as diagonal struts for the models considered in this project.

 Ravikanth chittiprolu and Ramancharla pradeep kumar[23]: Shear wall has
high in-plane stiffness and strength which can be used to simultaneously resist large
horizontal loads and support gravity loads. Extensive research has been done in the
design and analysis of shear wall highrise buildings. However, significance of shear
wall in highrise irregular structures is not much discussed in literature. A study on an
irregular highrise building with shear wall and without shear wall was studied to
understand the lateral loads,storey drifts and torsion effects. From the results it is
inferred that shear walls are more resistant to lateral loads is in an irregular
structure.
 POLAYAKAV 1956 [16]: The first published research on infilled RC frames subjected to
lateral load was by Polayakav (1956). This publication reported a test program carried out
from 1948 to 1953. In order to determine the racking strength of infilled frames, Polayakav
performed a number of large-scale tests including square as well as rectangular frames.
Parameters investigated included the effects of the type of masonry units, mortar mixes,
methods of load application (monotonic or cyclic), and the effect of openings. Based on
observation of the infill boundary separation, he suggested that the infilled frame system is
equivalent to a braced frame with a compression diagonal strut replacing the infill wall.

 JAGADISH 1981[9]: In this paper the author presented the results undertaken on
the behaviour of reinforced concrete frames infilled with openings using FEM
analysis. He studied the behaviour of infilled frame with different types of openings
and stiffners subjected to lateral load. The contribution of stiffeners around the
openings is investigated in relation to the behaviour of infilled frame. He concluded
that characteristics of infilled frame undergo unfavorable changes whenever an
openings provided in the infill and seperation is allowed at the interface. And he also
suggested that the behaviour of infilled frames can be improved considerably by
suitable strengthing the opening.

 Analysis of multi-storey frames with brick masonry infill and shear wall
 To study the regular building along with the effect of brick infill and shear wall panels.
 To study the effect of irregularities with the effect of brick infill and shear wall panels.
 The infilled frames are subjected to lateral loads which are calculated as per IS 1893(part
1);2002 for the seismic zone 5 and hard and medium soil.
 The frame is analyzed by finite element method of analysis using the software ETABS.
 Various models thus generated parametrically are compared and suitable conclusions are
drawn.

The types of buildings considered in the study and comparison are:
 Regular bare frame
 Regular bare frame with shear wall
 Regular bare frame with infill wall
 Regular buildings are analyzed in etabs using equivalent lateral force method and irregular
buildings are analyzed in etabs using response spectrum method.
 Irregular bare frame
 Irregular bare frame with shear wall
 Irregular bare frame with infill wall

Details of regular and irregular buildings considered in this work as follows:
Column size 300*900 mm
Beam size 300*450 mm
Slab size is 150 mm thick
Height of the floor 3 m
Plan dimensions 10*10 m, each bay width 5m
Live load on roof slab 1.5 KN/m2 and on floor slab 3 KN/m2
Floor finish on roof slab 1.5 KN/m2 and on floor slab 1 KN/m2
Earthquake loads are calculated as per IS 1893(part 1): 2002 for the seismic zone 5
Soil types considered as type 1 – Rock/Hard soil, type 2 – Medium soil
All columns are assumed to be fixed at the base.
Grade of concrete in slabs is M25
Grade of concrete in Columns is M40
Grade of concrete in Beams is M30
Grade of steel is Fe415

Etabs Model Screen Shot of a Regular 15 Storied Building

RE-ENTRANT IRREGULARITY
In this irregularity the changes with respect to Regular building is that one grid is deleted in order to
make it Re-entrant corners according to the IS code with respect to the Regular building as per IS 1893-
2002 part 1
Etabs Model Screen Shot of a Re-Entrant Corners Irregular 15 Storied Building

STIFFNESS IRREGULARITY
In this Irregularity the changes with respect to Regular building is that the bottom floor height has been
increased in order to lower the stiffness of the building to create the irregularity with respect to the
regular building as per IS 1893-2002 part1
Etabs Model Screen Shot of a Stiffness Irregular 15 Storied Building

MASS IRREGULARITY
In this Irregularity the changes made with respect to the Regular building is that the live load is
increased more than 200% that of a regular building. Live load is considered is 3 kN/m2 where as in
Irregular building it is considered as 7 kN/m2 in 4th and 8th floor as per IS 1893-2002 part1
Etabs Model Screen Shot of a Mass Irregular 15 Storied Building

DIAPHRAGM IRREGULARITY
In this irregularity the changes made with respect to Regular building are floor area is reduced by
50% as that of regular building as per mentioned in the IS 1893-2002 part1 and floor area is
reduced by 50% in alternate floors of the respective irregular building
Etabs Model Screen Shot of a Diaphragm Irregular 15 Storied Building

Etabs Model Screen Shot of Infills applied as Diagonal Strut
MODELLING OF REGULAR AND IRREGULAR BUILDINGS WITH
BRICK INFILL AS DIAGONAL STRUT
The masonry infill wall is modeled using equivalent strut model and determined strut is applied
as diagonal strut for the above mentioned buildings

Stiffness Irregularity
Diaphragm Irregularity
Mass Irregularity

MODELLING OF REGULAR AND IRREGULAR BUILDUINGS WITH
SHEAR WALLS
Shear wall of 300 mm thick and M20 grade concrete is applied for exterior walls of building
model for above mentioned regular and irregular buildings
Etabs Model Screen Shot of regular and Irregular Building with Shear Walls all around

Stiffness Irregularity Diaphragm Irregularity
Mass Irregularity

 The results of each building model are presented in this chapter. The analysis carried out
are equivalent static and (response spectrum) dynamic analysis, the results are obtained for
fifteen storey building.
 The result of Storey displacement, Fundamental time period and Storey stiffness are
presented and compared with 15 storey building model for regular and different
irregularities with brick infills and shear walls on hard and medium soils in seismic zone V.

Regular and re-entrant irregularity

FUNDAMENTAL TIME PERIOD:
 From the graphs seen in the Fig 7.1(a) and 7.1(c) for 15 storey buildings designed for regular and re-entrant
irregularity for fundamental time period respectively.
 Time period for soil type1 and soil type2 in 15 storey re-entrant irregular building with brick infill wall and
shear wall is decreased by 52.1% and 72.47% (from table 7.1 a and 7.1 b) as compared with re-entrant irregular
building respectively.
 Time period in regular building will be less compared to irregular buildings can be seen in above tables.
STOREY DISPLACEMENT:
 From the graphs seen in the Fig 7.1(b) and 7.1(d) for 15 storey buildings designed for regular and re-entrant
irregularity for storey displacement respectively.
 The storey displacement for soil type1 in 15 storey re-entrant irregular building with brick infill wall and shear
wall is decreased by 37.87% and 62.79% (from table 7.1 a) as compared with 15 storey re-entrant irregular
building respectively,37.80% and 72.43% for soil type2(from table 7.1 b) respectively.
 Storey displacement in regular building will be less compared to irregular buildings can be seen in above
tables.

STOREY STIFFNESS:
 From the graphs seen in the Fig 7.1(b) and 7.1(d) for 15 storey buildings designed for regular and re-
entrant irregularity for storey stiffness respectively.
 The storey stiffness for soil type1 in 15 storey re-entrant irregular building with brick infill wall and
shear wall is increased by 111.60% and 755.94% (from table 7.1 a) as compared with 15 storey re-
entrant irregular building respectively,111.87% and 751.88% for soil type2(from table 7.1 b)
respectively.
 Storey stiffness in regular building will be more compared to irregular buildings can be seen in above
tables.

Regular and stiffness irregularity

 From the graphs seen in the Fig 7.2(a) and 7.2(c) for 15 storey buildings designed for regular and stiffness
 Time period for soil type1 and soil type2 in 15 storey stiffness irregular building with brick infill wall and shear
wall is decreased by 56.91% and 77.36% (from table 7.2 a and 7.2 b) as compared with stiffness irregular
 From the graphs seen in the Fig 7.2(b) and 7.2(d) for 15 storey buildings designed for regular and stiffness
 The storey displacement for soil type1 in 15 storey stiffness irregular building with brick infill wall and shear
wall is decreased by 44.29% and 69.46% (from table 7.2 a) as compared with 15 storey stiffness irregular
tables.

STOREY STIFFNESS:
 From the graphs seen in the Fig 7.2(b) and 7.2(d) for 15 storey buildings designed for regular and
stiffness irregularity for storey stiffness respectively.
 The storey stiffness for soil type1 in 15 storey stiffness irregular building with brick infill wall and shear
wall is increased by 107.58% and 760.08% (from table 7.2 a) as compared with 15 storey stiffness
irregular building respectively,107.51% and 759.37% for soil type2(from table 7.2 b) respectively.
tables.

 From the graphs seen in the Fig 7.3(a) and 7.3(c) for 15 storey buildings designed for regular and mass
 Time period for soil type1 and soil type2 in 15 storey mass irregular building with brick infill wall and shear
wall is decreased by 57.52% and 78.25% (from table 7.3 a and 7.3 b) as compared with mass irregular
 From the graphs seen in the Fig 7.3(b) and 7.3(d) for 15 storey buildings designed for regular and mass
 The storey displacement for soil type1 in 15 storey mass irregular building with brick infill wall and shear
wall is decreased by 46.49% and 70.7% (from table 7.3 a) as compared with 15 storey mass irregular building
respectively,46.20% and 77.28% for soil type2(from table 7.3 b) respectively.
tables.

STOREY STIFFNESS:
 From the graphs seen in the Fig 7.3(b) and 7.3(d) for 15 storey buildings designed for regular and mass
irregularity for storey stiffness respectively.
 The storey stiffness for soil type1 in 15 storey mass irregular building with brick infill wall and shear
wall is increased by 112.42% and 807.50% (from table 7.3 a) as compared with 15 storey mass irregular
tables.

Regular and diaphragm irregularity

 From the graphs seen in the Fig 7.4(a) and 7.4(c) for 15 storey buildings designed for regular and diaphragm
 Time period for soil type1 and soil type2 in 15 storey diaphragm irregular building with brick infill wall and
shear wall is decreased by 55.53% and 75.90% (from table 7.4 a and 7.4 b) as compared with diaphragm
irregular building respectively.
 From the graphs seen in the Fig and 7.4(b) and 7.4(d) for 15 storey buildings designed for regular and
diaphragm irregularity for storey displacement respectively.
 The storey displacement for soil type1 in 15 storey diaphragm irregular building with brick infill wall and
shear wall is decreased by 44.29% and 68.45% (from table 7.4 a) as compared with 15 storey mass irregular
tables.

STOREY STIFFNESS:
 From the graphs seen in the Fig 7.4(b) and 7.4(d) for 15 storey buildings designed for regular and
diaphragm irregularity for storey stiffness respectively.
 The storey stiffness for soil type1 in 15 storey diaphragm irregular building with brick infill wall and
shear wall is increased by 106.34% and 656.98% (from table 7.4 a) as compared with 15 storey
diaphragm irregular building respectively,106.21% and 655.17% for soil type2(from table 7.4 b)
respectively.
tables.

When a regular and irregular building was analyzed using Equivalent lateral force method and
Response Spectrum analysis considering Hard and Medium soils and seismic zone 5, considering the
effect of brick infills and shear walls, the results obtained highlighted the importance of infills and
shear wall effects. Following broad conclusions can be made in this respect:
 In the four irregular buildings (Re-entrant, Stiffness, Mass, Diaphragm), the time period and
displacement was found to be reduced as compared to that of bare frame, with the addition of shear
wall and infill wall.
 The storey stiffness was found to be increased as compared to that of bare frame with the addition of
shear wall and infill wall.
 The percentage of variation should be less in time period, and displacement and more in stiffness by
comparing these four irregular bare frames with shear wall and infill wall, the percentage of variation
of time period, displacement is less and stiffness is more in Mass irregularity. Hence Mass irregularity
gives the best results for the considering parameters among the four irregularities for soil
type1(Hard/Rock soil) and soil type2(Medium soil).

 By comparing these four irregularities (Re-entrant, Stiffness, Mass, Diaphragm) with regular
building. Regular building gives the best results, because the time period, storey displacement is less
and storey stiffness is more in regular building compare to irregular building.
 The seismic response of the regular structure is better in comparison with that of irregular structure,
because of the discontinuities along the height of the building.
 Then the comparison between the soil types, in soil type1(Hard soil) the displacement was found to
be less and stiffness was found to be more as compared to the soil type2(Medium soil). Hence soil
type1( Hard soil) gives the best results.
 It is thus concluded that seismic response of an irregular building is influenced greatly by brick
infills & shear walls, soil supporting its base and earthquake excitations striking the base. Ignoring
any one of them, can significantly affect the performance of the structure during earthquake and lead
to devastating effects.

 Study on these buildings considering the effect of shear wall with different locations can be
performed.
 Study on these buildings considering the effect of openings in brick infills can be
performed.
 Study on these buildings can be performed using real time earthquake data by performing a
time history analysis.

 Asteris P.G. “Lateral Stiffness of Brick Masonry Infilled Plane Frames”, ASCE, Journal of Structural
Engineering, August 2003, PP 1071 – 1074.
 Devesh P. Soni and Bharath B. Mistry. “Qualitative review of seismic response of Vertically Irregular
Building Frames”, ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, Vol 43, No.4, December 2006, PP 121 –
132.
 Diptesh Das and C.V.R. Murty. “Brick Masonry Infills in seismic design of RC Framed Buildings, Part
1: Cost Implications”, The Indian Concrete Journal, Vol 78, No.7, July 2004, PP 39 – 44.
 Fahjan Y.M, Kubin J and Tan M.T. “Nonlinear Analysis methods for reinforced concrete buildings
with Shear Walls”, 14th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, September 2010.
 Goutam Mandal and S.K.Jain. “Lateral Stiffness of Masonry Infilled RC Frame with Central
Opening”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol 24, No.3, August 2008, PP 701 – 723.
 Holmes M. “Steel Frames with Brickwork and Concrete Infilling”, Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers, Vol 19, August 1961, PP 473 – 478.
 IS: 456 – 2000, Indian Standard code of Practice for Plane and Reinforced Concrete, Fourth Revision,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2000
 IS: 1893 (Part 1): 2002 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant design of structures.

Shear wall ppt presentation useful for BE

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Shear wall ppt presentation useful for BE

Similar to Shear wall ppt presentation useful for BE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Shear wall ppt presentation useful for BE