International Journal of CivilJOURNAL

INTERNATIONAL Engineering andOF

Technology
CIVIL (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ENGINEERING AND
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), © IAEME
TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)
ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online)
Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), pp. 169-180
IJCIET
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.html
Journal Impact Factor (2012): 3.1861 (Calculated by GISI) IAEME
www.jifactor.com

STRUCTURAL RESPONSE OF SOFT STORY-HIGH RISE BUILDINGS

UNDER DIFFERENT SHEAR WALL LOCATION

Misam.A1 Mangulkar Madhuri.N.2

1 2
P.G Student, Dept. of Structural Asst Professor Dept. of Structural
Engineering, J.N.E.C, Aurangabad Engineering, J.N.E.C.Aurangabad
(M.S).India (M.S).India
Email:abidi.misam@gmail.com Email:mangulkarm@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
Severe structural damage suffered by several modern buildings during recent earthquakes
illustrates the importance of avoiding sudden changes in Lateral stiffness and strength.
While damage and collapse due to soft story are most often observed in buildings. The lower
level containing the concrete columns behaved as a soft story in that the columns were unable
to provide adequate shear resistance during the earthquake. Usually the most economical way
to eliminate such failure in a building is by adding shear wall to soft stories. Shear walls are
one of the most efficient lateral force resisting elements in high rise buildings. So, in this
paper occurring of soft story at the lower level of high rise buildings subjected to earthquake
has been studied. Also has been tried to investigate on adding of shear wall in various
arrangements to structure in order to reduce soft story effect on seismic response of building.
This will help in minimizing the impending damages and catastrophes.
Keywords - soft story /weak story, RC frame linear behavior of shear wall seismic analysis,
Sap (2000) v15.

I. INTRODUCTION
A soft story known as weak story is defined as a story in a building that has
substantially less resistance or stiffness or inadequate ductility (energy absorption
capacity) to resist the earthquake-induced building stresses. Soft story buildings are
characterized by having a story which has a lot of open space. Parking garages, for example,
are often soft stories, as are large retail spaces or floors with lots of windows. Figure: 1.
shows the image of a soft story. If a building has a floor which is 70% less stiff than the floor
above it, it is considered a soft story building (UBC-1997, IBC-2003 and ASCE-2002). This
soft story creates a major weak point in an earthquake, and since soft stories are
classically associated with retail spaces and parking garages, they are often on the lower
stories of a building, which means that when they collapse, they can take the whole building
down with them, causing serious structural damage which may render the structure totally
unusable.

169
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), © IAEME

RC special moment resisting frames are especially detailed to provide ductile behavior and
comply with the requirements of IS Codes [1, 2,3,4].RC shear walls have been widely
used as the main lateral load resisting system in medium and high-rise buildings because
of their high lateral stiffness. Shear walls have considerable stiffness in their own plane, but
very little stiffness in the perpendicular direction and their satisfactory performance depends
on the stiffening of floor diaphragms, which prevent buckling of walls. Nevzat Kirac et al [5]
discussed the parameters affect the weak-story irregularity formation in structures. N.Arlekar
et al [6] focused on immediate measures need to be adopted to prevent seismic responses of
soft first story’s in buildings, by avoiding the existents of soft first story’s and by providing
adequate lateral strength in the first story. Khan et al [7] proposed a novel design approach of
combining the frame with shear wall for soft story building to minimize the weak story
effects during earthquake, the lateral load resistance of tall wall-frame building structures
comprising a combination of moment-resisting frames and shear walls that are reduced in
size or terminated entirely at intermediate heights is investigated. Zhao et al [8] discussed the
advantages and disadvantages of traditional RC Shear walls and steel walls. They found that
composite shear walls, that is, steel plate shear wall with RC wall attached to one side of it
using bolts can mitigate most of the disadvantages of both RC and steel shear walls and take
advantage of the best characteristics of the 2 construction materials affected the maximum
base shear caused by earthquakes of steel and concrete. Frank et al [9] carried out
experiments on wood shear walls and found that walls with oversized large panels resisted
more load. Rahul RANA et al [10] had discussed the importance of Pushover analysis as a
useful tool of Performance Based Seismic Engineering to study post-yield behavior of a
structure which requires less effort and deals with much less amount of data than a nonlinear
response history analysis. O. Esmaili et al [11] carried out study to determine that
confinement of concrete in shear walls is a good way to provide more level of ductility and
getting more stable behavior. Shahabodin.Zaregarizi [12] studied that concrete infill’s have
considerable strength while Brick one has lower strength and such combination of
concrete and brick infill’s can reduces the negative effects of brick and concrete infill’s.
Han-Seon Lee et al [13] concluded that the existence of shear wall reduces remarkably shear
deformation at the lower frame, but had almost a negligible effect on the reduction of the
overturning deformation, base shear, and overturning moment (OTM). Nollet et al [14]
investigated the behavior of wall frame structure using two-dimensional models, in which
shear walls were reduced in size or terminated entirely at intermediate heights and proposed
that curtailment of walls was not necessarily detrimental to the performance of the structures
.Wen et al[15] investigated the redundancies of SMRF and dual systems. The factors
considered were structural configuration (number of bays and shear walls), ductility capacity,
uncertainty in demand and capacity, interaction between walls and moment frames, and
three-dimensional (3-D) motions. They concluded that in a dual system the number of shear
walls had a small effect depends on the stiffening R. S. Malik et al [16] analyzed the effect of
height on the curtailment of shear wall. RC special moment resisting frames and concluded
that that curtailment of shear wall up to 50% height of the building, had a marginal effect on
the distribution of horizontal story shear among the shear wall frames and interior frames.
But height of the building has a significant role in story
shear.distribution.There are lots of literatures availableto and analysis the shear wallHowever,
any of theseliteratures did not discuss much about the location of shear wall in high-
risebuilding.Hence
this paper has been described to determine the proper location of shear wall in weak story
based on its elastic and elasto-plastic behaviors.

170
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), © IAEME

Fig.1. Example of a soft story at the ground floor

II. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

Safety and minimum damage level of a structure could be the prime requirement of high
rise buildings with soft stories .to meet these requirements, the structure should have
adequate lateral strength, lateral stiffness, and sufficient ductility. Among the various
structural systems, shear wall-concrete frame could be a point of choice for the designer,
hence, the objective of this paper is to study the effect of soft story on structural
behavior of high rise buildings and seismic response of soft story structures with shear
wall. Also compare the soft story structural response of high rise building with various
type of shear wall arrangement on building and finding of optimum design of earthquake
resistance soft story buildings by considering of required performance level.

III. PARAMETRIC DETAILS OF MODEL IS STUDIED

Usually the most economical way to eliminate of soft story behavior is by adding shear wall
to soft stories.
For investigation on effect of different shear wall arrangement on building in seismic
response of structure with soft story at bottom, 4 models are designed with different
condition.
G+14 storied regular buildings consisting of one bare RC frame and three with different
arrangements of shear walls along RC frame have been considered. Stories height is in 3.2m
except first floor. First story height is 4.2m. Depending on the location of shear walls, various
models of the buildings have been modeled. The dynamic analysis has been done using 3-D
modeling in Sap (2000) v15. These models consist of 11 bays of 4 m each in global X-
direction (11× 4 = 44 m) and 3 bays of which outer 2 bays is of 5m and inner one is of 2.5m
in global Z-direction (2×5 =10+ 2.5 =12.5 m).The plan area of the buildings is 44 ×
12.5m.The supports of the columns are assumed to be fixed. The plan of the building is
shown in the Figure: 2.

Fig: 2.- Plan of the building with soft story at bottom floor

171
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), © IAEME

Building dimensions
Beam Cross-Sections:
Floor Beam Size: 300mm X 750mm
Column Cross-Sections
Column Size: 750mm x 300mm
Shear Wall Thickness: 250mm
Thickness of slab: 150mm
Floor to floor height: 3.2mm
Ground story height: 4.2m
Floor to floor height: 3.2
Number of story’s: G+14
External wall: 230mm
Internal wall: 150mm
Physical Properties Considered for Present
FEA
Density of brick wall = 18.85 kN/m3
‘E’ for reinforced concrete = 2.24x10 7
kN/m2
Grade of steel = Fe415
Density of concrete= 25 kN/m3
Grade of concrete=M25
Poisson’s ratio of concrete =0.17

Seismic Zone:
The behavior of all the models is studied for Zone V
(Very Severe) of Seismic zones of India as per IS code
(Ref. – 2) for which zone factor (Z) is 0.36.Importance factor to modify the basic seismic
coefficient and seismic zone factor, here it is taken as 1.5
Response Reduction Factor: 5

IV. METHOD OF ANALYSIS

Earthquake response analysis corresponds to simulate the behavior of a structure subjected
to earthquake ground motion by means of a mathematical model of the structure. A three-
dimensional model has independent displacements at each node and can simulate any type of
behavior. The present study undertaken deals with Linear Static Method of Analysis or
Equivalent Static Method of Analysis of 3D frames that can be used for regular
structure with limited height. Modeling of the Structure For the present 3D study Sap (2000)
v15 software package is used.
Seismic Zone: The behavior of all the models is studied for Zone V (Very Severe)
of Seismic zones of India as per IS code [3] for which zone factor (Z) is 0.36.
Types of Primary Loads and Load Combinations:
The structural systems are subjected to 3 types of Primary Load Cases as per I.S. 875-1987
(Part I) [1, 2], they are:
1. Dead Load case (Gravity load), denoted as “DL”
2. Live Load case (Gravity load), denoted as “LL”
3. Seismic (Lateral) Load in X-direction, denoted as “EqX”
4. Seismic (Lateral) Load in Z-direction, denoted as “EqZ”.
In addition, the structural systems are subjected to 13 different Load Combinations as per
provisions of IS code [3], they are:

172
 International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), © IAEME

5. 1.5(DL + LL) 12. 1.5(DL + EqZ)

6. 1.2(DL + LL + EqX) 13. 1.5(DL - EqZ)
7. 1.2(DL + LL - EqX) 14. (0.9DL + 1.5 EqX)
8. 1.2(DL + LL + EqZ) 15. (0.9DL - 1.5 EqX)
9. 1.2(DL + LL - EqZ) 16. (0.9DL + 1.5 EqZ)
10. 1.5(DL + EqX) 17. (0.9DL - 1.5 EqZ)
11. 1.5(DL - EqX)
Equivalent Static Analysis-The natural period of the building is calculated by the expression,
T=0.09H/√D as per IS code [3], wherein H is the height and D is the base dimension of the
building in the considered direction of vibration. Thus, the natural periods for all the models
in this method is the same. The lateral load calculation and its distribution along the height is
done as per IS: 1893-1984. The seismic weight is calculated using full dead load plus 25% of
live load. The lateral loads applied are given in fig.3.

Transverse Direction Longitudinal Direction

Fig: 3. Lateral Loads at each story level for G+ 14 stories building in zone V, kN.

173
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), © IAEME

V. DETAILS OF THE PROBLEM CHOSEN

A. Model I
The structure without any lateral load resistance system is called model-I in this paper and
plan view of the building is showed in Figure.4.

Model I
Fig.4.Model I – Plan of the building without Shear Wall
B. Model II
The model-I (Soft story at bottom) is modified into this model with adding the shear wall.
The shear wall is added in global z direction exterior only as shown in Figure.5. So Model-II
is a Model that tries to eliminate the effect of soft story at the lowest floor and reduce soft
story effect on seismic response of building.

Model II
Fig.5.Model II – Plan of the building with shear wall in global Z direction.
C. Model III
Model III is also a shear wall-frame building. The shear wall is added at the corners bays of
the building. Plan view of this model is shown in Figure.6.

Model III
Fig.6.Model III – Plan of the building with shear wall at the corners.

174
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), © IAEME

D. Model IV
Model IV is also a shear wall-frame building. The shear wall is added at the two center bay
of the building. In this Model, the soft story at the lowest floor has been added the shear wall
in center bay too. Plan view of this model is shown in Figure.7. Include this model; there are
a total number of 3 models of shear wall building.

Model IV
Fig.7.Model IV – Plan of the building with Shear Wall at the center

VI. CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF BUILDING

Linear and nonlinear static analyses are performed for the all models of the building which
described before, by SAP2000 software package. After preparing the physical model of
building and define of material properties and beam, columns sections, live and dead load
applied to the structure and earthquake static equivalent coefficient have been determined and
imposed to the model. Then different load combination cases are considered in order to get
the critical result. Stiffness of each stories are calculated and tabulated in order to recognize
of soft story in different models. The response of structures in term of displacement of model
in height of structure is evaluated and plotted into graph for comparison.

VII. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table I and Table II show the stiffness in X and Y direction corresponding to different
location of shear wall buildings. Generally, the stiffness is decrease while increase the
number of floors. That is because for upper floor, the loading that should be carried by the
column is lower as at upper floor, only few floors of weight need to be carried. However,
the stiffness at the bottom floor is still lower than second although shear wall is also
added on the lowest floor for Model-II, Model-III and Model-IV. The stiffness of floors for
model-I to IV are calculated and tabulated in Table I for X direction and Table II for Y
direction. All models except model I are with shear wall added in different arrangement. As
seen in the table, Relative stiffness (stiffness of each story compare of above story stiffness)
of first story in model I is below 70% and it is shown that the soft story happened in this
floor. For solving of soft story problem, shear wall are added to this floor in model-II on both
side of building. Although the relative stiffness is still below II in X and Y direction but it is
not consider as a soft story as its relative stiffness is greater than 70%. In model-III, where
shear wall is added at the corners of the building, based on the relative stiffness values for
this building, soft story behavior is eliminated in first floor. Model-IV, where shear wall is
only added at the center bay of the building shows first story displacement similar to that of
model III, but the strength demand on the first story columns is very large.

175
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), © IAEME

Table I
Relative stiffness of stories X direction for Model-I to Model-IV

NO. of relative stiffness of stories inX direction

floors
Model-I Model-II Model-III Model-IV
1 0.019 0.074 0.299 0.176
2 0.042 0.041 0.150 0.097
3 0.029 0.028 0.093 0.066
4 0.022 0.022 0.065 0.049
5 0.018 0.018 0.049 0.039
6 0.015 0.015 0.039 0.032
7 0.013 0.013 0.032 0.027
8 0.012 0.011 0.027 0.023
9 0.011 0.010 0.023 0.020
10 0.010 0.010 0.021 0.018
11 0.009 0.009 0.018 0.017
12 0.009 0.008 0.017 0.015
13 0.008 0.008 0.015 0.014
14 0.008 0.008 0.014 0.014
15 0.008 0.008 0.013 0.013

All floors are equipped with shear wall except in model-I since its bare frame building
because in this model by adding shear wall on all floors, effect of soft story is weakened.
Although the stiffness of floors is so high, but as seen in Table I and II soft story happened in
first floor on both directions again because of first story height. Displacement of different
location of shear wall buildings against story height in horizontal direction (horizontal
movement) under earthquake excitation is showed in Figures 8. As seen in the plot
displacements are increasing when the story height increased. This graph is plotted base on
linear response of reinforced structure response and that it is easy to make the comparison
and the effect of using different location of shear wall in building.
Table II
Relative stiffness of stories Y direction for Model-I to Model-IV
NO. of relative s tiffness of s tories inY direction
floors
Model-I Model-II Model-III Model-IV
1 0.018 0.578 0.437 0.071
2 0.032 0.341 0.242 0.041
3 0.022 0.225 0.157 0.028
4 0.017 0.162 0.112 0.022
5 0.013 0.123 0.085 0.017
6 0.011 0.098 0.067 0.014
7 0.010 0.080 0.056 0.012
8 0.009 0.067 0.047 0.011
9 0.008 0.058 0.041 0.010
10 0.007 0.051 0.036 0.009
11 0.007 0.045 0.032 0.008
12 0.006 0.040 0.029 0.007
13 0.006 0.036 0.027 0.007
14 0.006 0.033 0.025 0.007
15 0.005 0.031 0.023 0.007

176
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), © IAEME

Since all the models are fixed at the ground floor, there is no displacement at ground floor.
Model I states a maximum displacement in horizontal direction at the soft story (First story)
about 17.42mm. It is because there is no resistance to lateral forces at the soft story of these
models and the lateral strength become very weak in compare of other models.
The maximum displacement at top floor is cause by Model I with a displacement
of 184 mm. Also, model IV have a maximum displacement in top story (152.29mm) in
compare of other buildings. Stiffness of structure stories in Model II, III, IV respectively are
increased because of shear wall arrange format on buildings.
Fig.8. Displacement of building in X direction against Story height for different type of
bracing Buildings

100
Drift ELx(mm)

80
60 Model-I
40
Model-II
20
0 Model-III
G 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Model-IV

Storey

Fig.9.Displacement of building in Y direction against Story height for different type of

bracing buildings

120
100
Drift ELy(mm)

80
Model-I
60
40 Model-II
20 Model-III
0
Model-IV
G 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Storey

The shear wall is added in global z direction exterior only in Model-II , at the corners bays
of the building in Model-III and at the two center bay in Model-IV, therefore number of using
shear wall and stiffness of buildings are increasing respectively in models. Top floor
horizontal displacements of model II, III, IV are evaluated about 128.77, 75.68 and 74.93
respectively.
From this graph, the best model to resist earthquake is Model III with the minimum
displacement for overall buildings. From the result, it is observed that effect of soft story can
reduced by adding some earthquake resistant method such as shear wall.
Figure.9. shows vertical displacement of buildings against the story height for
various modeled which explained as above.

177
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), © IAEME

Model IV also has great effect during earthquake although the entire stories provided with
shear wall. This is due the shear wall in Model IV only added at the center of the building.
Earthquake is a vibration in the whole building so that if the core shear wall is only added
at the center of the building, it will not give good effect on earthquake resistant.
Model I and Model II state a maximum displacement at the lowest floor as the relative
stiffness is too low compare with others. Model III shows a most ideal condition during
earthquake, the maximum displacement is only 3.34 mm while other gives a larger value for
this.
From these few Models, shear wall is one of the methods that can be used to resist
earthquake compare to moment resisting frame. It is because beside increase the strength in
the member, it also increases the overall stiffness in the building.
However, the shear wall must be added at the correct position in order to get good effect on
earthquake resistance.
With evaluation of various shear wall arrangements on structure, it can also help to assess
vulnerability level of existing multi-storied buildings and for design new and exist building
retrofit plan on consider level of operation and safety with minimum requirements.
The maximum bending and maximum shear forces in the columns in the first and the upper
stories are shown in Table III; the bending moment and shear force (strength) demands are
severely higher for first story columns, in case of the soft first story buildings.
The introduction of shear walls in the first story reduces the force in the first story columns.
As the force is distributed in proportion to the stiffness of the members, the force in the
columns of the upper story’s, for all the models (except model I), are significantly reduced
due to the presence of shear walls. These forces (bending moment and shear force) are about
30-40% of the corresponding values in the first story columns. When concrete wall is used,
the demand on the columns is significantly reduced (by a factor of about 10.0). Interestingly,
the drift demands on the first story columns in case of model III and model IV are very close.
This is true for strength demands also. Model I results in first story drift demands similar to
that of model II, but the strength demand on the first story columns is very large
Table III
Displacement at first floor, maximum forces in first story columns and average of the
maximum forces in the columns of the story’s above for different models

Displacement
Maximum Moment(KNm) Maximum Shear(KN)
Model (mm)
at First Floor Transverse Longitudinal Transverse Longitudinal
Trans. Long. First Rest First Rest First Rest First Rest
I 13.17 17.42 280.88 411.30 309.07 330.00 73.13 200.92 71.56 253.26
II 13.45 1.73 7.50 171.00 315.90 597.00 74.24 348.97 4.69 99.00
III 3.34 2.29 1.67 229.00 13.46 394.00 1.35 220.00 4.01 142.00
IV 5.67 14.16 7.71 338.00 5.87 496.00 5.00 275.03 5.04 207.00

178
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), © IAEME

VIII. CONCLUSION
RC frame buildings with open first story are known to perform poorly during in strong
earthquake shaking. The large opening on the lowest floor causing the stiffness is relative low
compare to the stiffness at the story above. The stiffness at lower floor is 70% lesser than
stiffness at story above it causing the soft story to happen. The lateral strength of the building
is related to the stiffness. The lateral strength of a building is sum of all the stiffness from
column, shear wall added at each story. So the low strength in the lowest floor causing the
failure occurs especially during earthquake. For a building that is not provided any lateral
load resistance component such as bracing or shear wall, the strength is consider very weak
and easy fail during earthquake.
In this paper it has been tried to investigate on adding shear wall to the building in different
arrangement in order to reduce soft story effect on structural seismic response. It was found
that location and numbering of shear wall acts an important factor for the soft story
structures to displace during earthquake. Also the soft story has been eliminated as
the shear wall is added to the consider floor, The horizontal and vertical movements of
building with shear wall installed in most bays are much reduced during earthquake compare
with other models. So it shows that the use of shear wall is effectively reduced effect of soft
story on structure response in earthquake excitation.
Considerable reduction in shear force, bending moment etc. is observed in dual type
structural system as compared with frame system.
Dual type structural system (shear wall - frame interaction) with proper location shear walls
is more effective in resisting earthquake forces than the moment resisting frame system
Displacement, story drift and considerable reduction for maximum forces in model III is
found to be minimum, when shear walls are located at corners in the building plan.
In the other hand, vulnerability level of multi-storied buildings is assess by analysis
of different arrangement of shear wall on building and it can also advantages for
retrofitting of structure on consider level of operation and safety with minimum
requirements.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the Management, Principal, Head of Civil Engineering Department
and Staff of Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College and Authorities of DR .Babasaheb
Ambedkar Marathwada University for their support.

REFERENCES
[1]. Bureau of Indian Standards: IS-875, part 1 (1987), dead loads on buildings and
Structures, New Delhi, India.
[2]. Bureau of Indian Standards: IS-875, part 2 (1987), live loads on buildings and Structures,
New Delhi, India.
[3]. Bureau of Indian Standards: IS-1893, part 1 (2002), “Criteria for
earthquake resistant design of structures: Part 1 General provisions and buildings”, New
Delhi, India.

179
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), © IAEME

[4]. Bureau of Indian Standards: IS-13920, (1993), “Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete
structures subjected to seismic forces— Code of Practice”, New Delhi, India.
[5]. Nevzat K, Dogan M, Ozbasaran H. Failure of weak-story during earthquakes. Eng. Fail
Analysis 2011; 18:572–581.
[6]. Jaswant N. Arlekar, Sudhir K. Jain and C.V.R. Murty. Seismic response of RC frames
buildings with soft first story’s. Proceedings of the CBRI Golden Jubilee Conference on
Natural Hazards in Urban Habitat, 1997, New Delhi
[7]. Khan F.R. and Sbarounis.J.A (1964), Interaction of shear walls and frames.J.of the
Struct.Div. ASCE,90(3),285-335.
[8]. ZhaoQiuhong,AbolhassanAstaneh-Asl.Cyclic Behavior of traditional and innovative
composite shear walls. Journal of Structural Engineering, February 1, 2004, Vol. 130, No.2;
2-271–284.
[9]. Frank Lam, Helmut G. L. Prion, z and Ming He. Lateral resistance of wood shear walls
with large sheathing panels. Journal of structural engineering, December 1997, Vol.123, No.
12; 1667-73
[10].Rahul Rana, Limin Jin and Atila Zekioglu. Pushover analysis of a 19 story concrete
shear wall Building. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada August 1-6, 2004; 133
[11].O.Esmaili, S.Epackachi, M.Samadzad,S.R.Mirghaderi. Study of structural RC shear wall
system in a 56-story RC tall building. The 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Beijing, China. October 12-17, 2008.
[12].Shahabodin. Zaregarizi. Comparative investigation on using shear wall and Infill to
improve seismic performance of existing buildings. The 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China. October 12-17, 2008.
[13].Han-Seon Lee, Dong-Woo Ko. Seismic response characteristics of high-rise RC wall
buildings having different irregularities in lower stories. Journal of Structural Engineering,
February 1, 2004, Vol. 130, No.2; 2-271–284.
[14] Marie-Jose Nollet and Bryan Stafford Smith. Behavior of curtailed wall – frame
structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, October 1993, Vol. 119, No.10; 2835-54.
[15] Wen Y. K. and Song S.-H. Structural reliability /redundancy under earthquakes. Journal
of Structural Engineering, January 2003, Vol. 129, No. 1; 56–67.
[16] R. S. Malik, S. K. Madan, V. K. Sehgal .Effect of height on seismic response of
reinforced cement concrete framed buildings with curtailed shear wall. Journal of
Engineering and Technology, Jan-Jun 2011, Vol 01, Issue 1; 43-46
[17]SAP2000: Advanced 10.0.5 (2006), static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysisof Struct
ures, Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, CA.

180