International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT)

ISSN: 2249 – 8958, Volume-9 Issue-1, October 2019

Seismic Performance of Flat Slab in Tall

Buildings with and without Shear wall
D.S.Vijayan, S.Arvindan, K.Naveen Kumar, S Mohamed Javed

Abstract: Tall buildings structure has been a considerable A. Flat slab

increase in both residential and commercial as well as modern Flat slabs are solid concrete slabs of uniform depths that
Trend structures. There are two systems comprise the most transfer loads onto the supporting columns while not the
attractive and commonly used now a days are flat slab and shear supports of beams. Flat slabs are most typically used slab
wall system. Flat slab is most widely used system in reinforced
concrete construction in offices, industrial buildings etc. It
system for multistory reinforced concrete, hotels, Apartments,
supports floor slab without beams. When it comes to seismic houses, hospitals, and theaters. The most disadvantages in flat
performance or lateral force flat slab tall buildings without shear slabs is their lack of resistance to lateral loads. Lateral masses
wall is relatively less when compared to with shearwall.in this will develop stresses and turn out vibration.
study I have done two models of flats slab tall buildings one with
shear wall and another one without shear wall by using ETABS
software. The comparison of analysis results will take place in
order to see how both a buildings are performing under lateral
and seismic loads and finding a seismic parameters like time
period, base shear, lateral displacement, and storey displacement
are checked out.
Keywords : Flat slab, Shear wall, Seismic coefficient method,
Response spectrum method, ETABS

I. INTRODUCTION
In India, for seismic design of building structures, the
normal technique, strengthening the strength, stiffness, and
ductility of the structures, has been in common use for a
protracted time. Therefore, the scale of structural members,
and also the consumption of fabric is expected to be inflated,
that ends up to higher value of the buildings likewise as larger
unstable responses because of larger stiffness of the
structures. Thus, the potency of the normal technique is
strained. To beat these disadvantages related to the normal
technique, several vibration-control measures, known as
structural management, are studied and noteworthy advances
during this respect were re-modelled recent years. Structural
management may be a numerous field of study. Structural
management is the one among the areas of current research
aims to cut back structural vibrations throughout loading like
earthquakes and powerful winds. In each field within the
world conservation of energy is followed. If the energy
obligatory on the structure by wind and earthquake load is
absolutely dissipated in how the structure can vibrate less.
Each structure naturally releases some energy through varied
mechanisms like internal stressing, rubbing, and plastic
deformation. So, a replacement generation high rise building
was used flat block, shear wall, vibration management, etc.
Revised Manuscript Received on October 15, 2019.
Dr.D.S.Vijayan,Associate Professor in the department of Civil
Engineering on Aarupadi veedu institute of Technology.
Mr.S.Arvindan,Assistant professor in Anand school of architecture
Affiliated under Anna university
Mr.K.NaveenKumar,Professor in the department of Civil Engineering
on Aarupadi veedu institute of Technology.
Mr.S.Mohamed Javed,Graduation in civil Engineering from Aarupadi
Veedu Instuite of Technology
Fig 1 Flat Slab
B. Flat slab with shear wall
It is important for the structure to own adequate strength
against vertical Load, and lateral loads. Because of light
Lateral resistance the behaviour in the main because of
absence of shear wall in the flat slab system which supplies
excessive deformations.
Shear wall with flat slab provides stability to structure
additionally because it improves lateral load resistance. So,
we are able to get the required strength and rigidity, so use of
shear wall in flat block tall building would be a right manner
of construction to resist lateral resistance, and seismic
loading.
II. METHODOLOGY
Two models of multi-storey flat slab building has got to be
done one while not shear wall and another with shear wall by
exploitation ETABS software. Load assignment are going to
be given to ascertain however, the building performs during
design lateral load and unstable masses. Analysis of 2 models
of multistory flat block building are going to be done by
victimization ETABS code. Design of models are going to be
done victimization ETABS software. The comparison of
design results can take place to check, however, each a
building are acting under lateral and seismic loads.

Published By:
Retrieval Number: A9732109119/2019©BEIESP Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.A9732.109119 2672 & Sciences Publication
 Seismic Performance of Flat Slab in Tall Buildings with and without Shear wall

Author (s) can send paper in the given email address of the B. Natural Time Period
journal. There are two email address. It is compulsory to send In dynamic analysis fundamental period is used to describe
paper in both email address. the stiffness of structure. Natural time period of first three
A. Modelling in ETABS modes in X-Direction of fixed base and storey isolated
structure is shown in table. From results it can be shown that
a. Performance of flat slab tall building without shear wall.
Time period of fixed base building is lowest and time period
b. Performance of flat slab tall building with shear wall.
of Storey Isolated building is highest as the isolation layer
shifts downward.
Table 1. Structural Data
Number of storey 15m
Height of each floor 3m
Total height of the building 45m
Plan Area 25 m X 25 m
Each bay width in X-direction 5m
Each bay width in Y-direction 5m
Number of bays in X & Y direction 4
Fig 2 Flat slab without shear wall Grade of concrete M35
25000×106
Modulus of elasticity
N/m²
Live load on slab 3000 N/m²

Table 2. Modal participation mass ratios

Types of Building

Flat Slab Shear Wall

Mode Period(sec) Mode Period(sec)

Fig 3. Flat slab with shear wall 1 14.821 1 7.934

Hence various finite element models are possible for the
2 14.821 2 7.798
same problem. A model which can take into account all the
important structural effects at the least computational cost is 3 6.329 3 5.637
called as the best model.
4 2.367 4 2.161
B. Dynamic Analysis
1. Coefficient Method 5 2.367 5 1.748
2. Response Spectrum method
3. Time History Method 6 1.622 6 0.879
These are different types of methods should be designed in
7 0.846 7 0.879
Table 2. Modal participation mass ratios the dynamic analysis
8 0.846 8 0.842
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
9 0.679 9 0.671
This journal uses double-blind review process, which
means that both the reviewer (s) and author (s) identities 10 0.432 10 0.527
concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the
0.432 11 0.495
review process. All submitted manuscripts are reviewed by 11
three reviewer one from India and rest two from overseas. 12 0.363 12 0.326
There should be proper comments of the reviewers for the
purpose of acceptance/ rejection. There should be minimum
01 to 02 week time window for it.
A. Modal analysis of the frame
A modal analysis is always linear. The modes are
properties of the structure. By carrying out Modal analysis
method using ETABS v16.0.0 software package following
results were obtained.

Published By:
Retrieval Number: A9732109119/2019©BEIESP Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.A9732.109119 2673 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT)
ISSN: 2249 – 8958, Volume-9 Issue-1, October 2019

Table 3. Base Shear Table 4 Maximum Drifting moment of the building

Storey Max drift
STOREY Flat Slab Shear Wall
15 18.7
15 78.86 309.16 14 18.9
13 16.2
14 156.3824 706.85 12 18.6
13 223.2238 1087.21 11 14.2
10 13.1
12 280.1773 1411.31
9 9.8
11 328.0342 1683.64 8 9.3
10 367.5852 1908.07 7 10.3
6 10.6
9 399.6216 2091.01 5 9.7
8 424.9343 2235.05 4 10
3 9.5
7 444.3144 2426.36
2 11
6 458.5527 2482.26 1 9.3
5 468.4405 2518.64
4 474.7687 2538.89
3 478.3283 2547.39
2 479.9103 2549.89
1 480.3058 2550.89

Figure 7. Maximum Drifting moment of the building

C. Response of the 3D frame with variation of mass ratio
A middle column point on substructure and a point on
Figure 4. Lateral Displacement Vs Storeys super structure is taken for consideration. For substructure
6th floor middle column point and for superstructure 20th
floor middle column point is selected time history
considered is TH-EL Centro X.

Figure 5. Base Shear

Figure 8. Displacement VS Time

D. Shear
Shear of all the cases are shown in fig. for P2 TH- EW
component of El-Centro earthquake. Shear reduction for mass
ratio 0 and 0.053
Figure 6. Time Period

Published By:
Retrieval Number: A9732109119/2019©BEIESP Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.A9732.109119 2674 & Sciences Publication
 Seismic Performance of Flat Slab in Tall Buildings with and without Shear wall
Figure 9 Mass ratio Vs Time
Table 5 Percentage of Reduction
Flat Slab Shear Wall % Reduction
7361 (KN) 6601 (KN) 10 %
7361 (KN) 6007 (KN) 18 %
Figure 10. Shear reduction for mass ratio 0 and 0.111
IV. CONCLUSION
Analysis of multi-storey flat slab tall buildings with and
without shear wall has been carried out by using ETABS
software. Results of analysis Shows shear wall are found to be
more effective than without shear wall.
1. For different time history, Storey has different behavior.
For generalization it can be concluded that, Storey
effective with mass ratio in the range 0.1 to 0.3.average
Percentage reduction in drift.
2. An average reduction of 10%, 18% and 21% in shear is
seen, with and without shear wall.
3. An average reduction of 10% in overturning moment is
seen, with and without shear wall.
4. All slabs deflect within the limit when strata is of type one
i.e. rock, or hard soil.
REFERENCES
1. K. G. Patwari, L. G. Kalurkar Department OF Civil Engg. “Comparative
study of RC Flat Slab & Shear wall with Conventional Framed Structure
in High Rise Building”,International Journal of Engineering Research .
2. Shyam Bhat M, N.A.Premanand Shenoy, Asha U Rao, “Earthquake
behavior of building with and without shearwall”. IOSR Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering.
3. Fayazuddin Ahmed Syed, B. Dean Kumar, Y. Chandrasekhar, B.L.P.
Swami.” Comparative Analysis of Flat Plate Multistoried Frames With
and Without Shear Walls under Wind Loads”. International Journal of
Engineering and Advanced Technology.
4. Rajib Kumar Biswas, Md.Meraj Uddin, Md.Arman Chowdhury,
Md.Al-Imran Khan. “ Comparative Analysis of a 15 Story Flat Plate
Building with and Without Shear Wall and Diagonal Bracing Under
Wind and Seismic Loads” IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil
Engineering (IOSR-JMCE).
Retrieval Number: A9732109119/2019©BEIESP
DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.A9732.109119
5. IS 875 (part 3):1987 ; code of practice for design loads for buildings and
structures.
6. IS 1893 (part 1):2002; criteria for earthquake resistant design of
structures.
7. IS 456 :2000; plain and reinforced concrete code of practice.
8. IS 13920:1993 ; ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structure.
AUTHORS PROFILE
Dr.D.S.Vijayan complete Graduation in civil
Engineering from Bharath University in the year
2007, Post-Graduation in structural Engineering
from Anna University in the year 2010 and
completed the doctorate from Bharath University in
2017. Currently working as Associate Professor in
the department of Civil Engineering on Aarupadi
veedu institute of Technology. I have completed my doctorate in pre-stressed
concrete beams with FRP Laminates and has major interest in design and
experimental works. Published 3 International Research papers and 5
National Research Paper. Have 2 years of industrial and 9 years of teaching
experience. Has a life member in ICI (Indian Concrete institute), ISTE
(Indian Society for Technical Education) and ASCE (American Society for
Civil Engineering). Certified Registered Engineer Grade I from Greater
Chennai Corporation from 2019 to 2024 and Certified Registered Structural
Engineer Grade I from CMDA (Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority) from 2019 to 2024.
Mr.S.Arvindan completes Graduation in civil
Engineering from Dr.MGR educational and research
Institute University in the year 2014.post-graduation in
structural engineering from Sathyabama University in
2017. Currently working as Assistant professor in
Anand school of architecture ,Affiliated under Anna
university and also pursuing doctorate in aarupadai
veedu institute of technology .I have published two
international journal and one conference paper .I have 1 .5 year of teaching
experience and 1 year of site experience. Has a life member of ISTE (Indian
Society for Technical Education) and ASCE (American Society for Civil
Engineering). Certified Registered Engineer Grade II from Greater Chennai
Corporation from 2019 to 2024 and Certified Registered Structural Engineer
Grade II from CMDA (Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority) from
2019 to 2024
Mr.K.NaveenKumar complete Graduation in
civil Engineering from Mohammed Sathak A.J
College of Engineering affiliated to Anna University
in the year 2015, Post-Graduation in structural
Engineering from Sathyabama University in the
year 2017. I have worked as a Planning and Billing
Engineer for various project in NAPC Limited.
Currently working as Assistant Professor in the department of Civil
Engineering on Aarupadi veedu institute of Technology. Has a member in
ASCE (American Society for Civil Engineering).
Mr.S.Mohamed Javed complete Graduation in
civil Engineering from Aarupadi Veedu Instuite of
Technology affiliated to Vinayaka Mission
Research Foundation in the year 2019. Has a
Student member in ASCE (American Society for
Civil Engineering).
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
2675 & Sciences Publication