A STUDY ON STRUCTURAL RESPONSE OF CONVENTIONAL, SHEAR WALL

AND HYBRID STRUCTURES USING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM AND

TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS
A PROJECT REPORT
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY

IN

CIVIL ENGINEERING

With specialization in

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
By

S. PRANAV CHAITANYA

Reg.No: 1118283
Under the esteemed guidance of

Dr. B. MADHUSUDHANA REDDY

Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

TIRUPATI-517502 (A.P) INDIA

2018-2020
`

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING SRI VENKATESWARA

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING TIRUPATI-517502 (A.P)
INDIA

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the design project entitled “A STUDY ON STRUCTURAL

RESPONSE OF CONVENTIONAL, SHEAR WALL AND HYBRID
STRUCTURES USING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM AND TIME HISTORY
ANALYSIS”is the bonafide work done and submitted by Mr. S. PRANAV CHAITANYA
(1118283) in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of degree of MASTER OF
TECHNOLOGY in CIVIL ENGINEERING with specialization in STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING from SVU College of Engineering, Tirupati. The contents of the thesis have
not been submitted to any other universities for the award of any degree.

Head Guide
Dr. D. V. Satya Narayana Murthy Dr.B. Madhusudhana Reddy
Professor Assistant Professor
Dept. of Civil Engineering Dept. of Civil Engineering
S.V.U. College of Engineering S.V.U. College of Engineering
Tirupati - 517502 Tirupati - 517502
`

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my profound gratitude and indebtedness to my esteemed guide

Dr.B. Madhusudhana Reddy, Assistant professor, Department of civil engineering, Sri
Venkateswara University College of Engineering, Tirupati, for his valuable advice and inspiring
guidance which has played a vital role in carrying out this investigation.

I thank Prof. S. Narayana Reddy, principal, S.V.U College of Engineering, Tirupati for
providing facilities for completion of work.

My profound thanks to Prof. D. V. Satyanarayana Murthy, Head of the Department in Civil

Engineering, S.V.U College of Engineering, Tirupati, for his assistance in completion of work.

I am extremely grateful to Dr.B. Madhusudhana Reddy, In-charge of structural Engineering

Department, S.V.U College of Engineering, Tirupati for his assistance in completion of my
dissertation work.

I am also thankful to all the office staff and Structural Engineering Laboratory staff for their co-
operation in the department for successful completion of this project.

I express my sincere thanks to my family members and friends who are the constant source of
inspiration and encouragement throughout the work.

Finally, I would like to thank one and all who directly or indirectly helped me in making the
project a reality.

S. Pranav Chaitanya

(Roll. No. 1118283)

`

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the entire work embodied in this report entitled “ A STUDY ON
STRUCTURAL RESPONSE OF CONVENTIONAL, SHEAR WALL AND HYBRID
STRUCTURES USING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM AND TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS”
which is being submitted to SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERING, has been carried out by me and no part of it has been submitted for
any degree or diploma of any institution previously.

Place: SVU, TIRUPATI S PRANAV CHAITANYA

Date: 1118283
 ABSTRACT

Due to rise in the demand and complexities of architectural aesthetics, conventional RC

structures can no longer suffice. Reinforced concrete structural wall act as a barrier

during earthquakes. In the construction industry, conventional RC structures were

generally adopted for residential and commercial buildings owing to ease of design and

construction. In recent times due to evolution in design and improved technology, there

is a scope for the new method of design of structures with ease. As a result, in addition

to conventional structure, shear wall structure and hybrid structures have been

proposed. The conventional structural system composed of beams, columns and floor

slabs. In shear wall structures, vertical members are designed to carry both lateral as

well as gravity loads. The hybrid structures consist of reinforced concrete frames and

reinforced concrete shear walls which are interacting with each other.

In this study, responses of three types of structures when subjected to earthquake are

compared in order to find the most effective structure in different seismic zones. A

residential building is considered and modelled as conventional structure, shear wall

structure and hybrid structure. The dynamic performance under different seismic zones

(zone-III, IV, V) are evaluated using structural software ETABS incorporating response

spectrum analysis. Also, to study the response of a structure for real time earthquake, a

building structure is modelled as conventional and shear wall structure and is analysed

for KOBE earthquake ground motion. The analysis incorporates the time-history

analysis method. The load considerations and design conform to IS 1893:PART-I [4].

The storey stiffness, storey shear, maximum storey drift and maximum story

displacement are the response parameters considered for the analysis. The responses of

the three structural systems at different seismic zones obtained from response spectrum

i
analysis and time history analysis are compared and it is observed that the shear wall

structure is the most effective to resist the earthquake ground motion

Keywords: shear wall structure, hybrid structure, seismic response, Storey Stiffness,

response Spectrum method, time-history Analysis.

ii
 CONTENTS

Particulars Page No.

Abstract ii

List of Tables v

List ofFigures vii

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General 1

1.2 Conventional structure 2

1.3 Shear wall structure 2

1.4 Hybrid structure 4

1.5 Objectives 13

Chapter 2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 General 14

2.1.1 Description of the model 14

2.2 Methodology followed 15

2.3 Modelling 16

2.3.1 Conventional structure 16

2.3.2 Shear wall structure 18

2.3.3 Hybrid structure 20

2.4 Method of analysis 23

2.4.1 Response spectrum method 23

2.4.2 Time history analysis 24

2.4.3 Loads and forces considered 24

2.4.3 Software platform 25

2.5.4 Ductile detailing 26

iii
Chapter 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 General 27

3.1.1 Load combinations 29

3.2 Response of buildings from RS method 30

3.2.1 Response of conventional structure 30

3.2.2 Response of shear wall structure 33

3.2.3 Response of hybrid structure-I 37

3.2.4 Response of hybrid structure-II 41

3.3 Comparison of peak responses for structures 44

3.4 comparison of the structures in seismic zones 46

3.5 Response of structures for KOBE earthquake 51

3.5.1 Response of structures by Time-history analysis 51

CONCLUSION 55

FURTHUR STUDY 56

REFERENCES 57

ANNEXURE 61

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No Table Title Pg. No

3.1 Materials and geometric properties 28

Comparison of maximum displacements for structures in

3.2 46
different seismic zones

3.3 Comparison of storey displacements in seismic Zone-III 44

3.4 Comparison of storey displacements in seismic Zone-IV 47

3.5 Comparison of storey displacements in seismic Zone-V 48

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig No. Figure Title Pg. No

1.1 Functions of shear wall subjected to earthquake force 3

2.1 Conventional Structure Plan View 17

2.2 Shear wall Structure Plan View 19

2.3 Hybrid structure-I Plan view 21

2.4 Hybrid Structure-II Plan view 22

Variation of maximum storey displacements for

3.1 30
conventional structure
Variation of maximum storey drift for conventional
3.2 31
structure

3.3 Variation of storey shear for conventional structure 32

3.4 Variation of storey stiffness for shear wall structure 33

Variation of maximum storey displacements for shear wall

3.5 34
structure

3.6 Variation of maximum storey drift for shear wall structure 35

3.7 Variation of storey shear for shear wall structure 36

3.8 Variation of storey stiffness for shear wall structure 37

3.9 Variation of storey displacements for Hybrid structure-1 38

3.10 Variation of maximum storey drift for Hybrid structure-1 39

3.11 Variation of storey shear for Hybrid structure-1 40

3.12 Variation of storey stiffness for Hybrid structure-1 40

vi
 Variation of maximum storey displacements for Hybrid
3.13 41
structure-2

3.14 Variation of maximum storey drift for Hybrid structure-2 42

3.15 Variation of storey shear for Hybrid structure-2 43

3.16 Variation of storey stiffness for Hybrid structure-2 44

3.17 Comparison of maximum storey displacements 45

3.18 Comparison of storey displacements for zone-III 47

3.19 Comparison of storey displacements for zone-IV 48

3.20 Comparison of storey displacements for zone-V 49

3.21 variation of storey displacements for KOBE-earthquake 51

3.22 variation of storey drift ratios for KOBE-earthquake 52

variation of storey stiffness in X direction for earthquake

3.23 53
KOBE
variation of storey stiffness in Y direction for earthquake
3.24 53
KOBE

vii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

High rise buildings have always fascinated the minds of people since the start of its

construction in the ancient times. A considerable increase in the need for construction

of tall buildings (i.e. residential and commercial) has led to more innovative

construction methods, which involve slender and more tall structures. The main reasons

involved for investments in high rise buildings are as follows:

• Expensive land prices.

• Constant pressure of limited land area due to rapid growth of population.

• Restriction of random expansion in major cities close to farm land.

• Cost of establishing infrastructure for new cities is very high.

RC structures in this study are classified as:

i.) Conventional structure: It is a framed structure designed with beams and columns

as structural elements.

ii.) Shear wall structure: The structure is designed as shear panels to counter both

gravity and lateral loads devoid of beams and columns.

iii.) Hybrid structure: The structure is a combination of conventional and shear wall

structure. This includes beams and columns along with shear walls at some places to

provide required stiffness to structure.

In construction industry, conventional RC structures were generally adopted for

residential and commercial building, owing to ease of design and construction. In recent

times due to evolution in design and improved technology, it results in shear wall

structures and hybrid structures.

1
1.2 CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE

It is a framed structure designed with beams and columns as structural elements. This

is a traditional method of construction and the construction knowledge is passed from

one generation to other using reinforced concrete with columns, beams and slabs. In

conventional frame structures, though the brick masonry is not designed to counter the

gravity or seismic loads, they behave as shock absorbers to a certain extent and facilitate

in energy dissipation during seismic activities as well as contribute, to a certain extent,

for the strength of structure under gravity loads.

1.3 SHEAR WALL STRUCTURE

Shear wall can be defined as a constructive vertical reinforced concrete member, which

is able to resist combination of shear, moment and axial load induced by gravity load

and lateral load. shear wall will transfer these loads to the wall from another structural

member. Shear walls are very important in high-rise buildings when they aresubjected

to lateral loads (wind or earthquake). Failure of the structure due to shear is mainly

because of uneven settlements of different loads acting on the structure, lateral loads

caused by wind or earthquake and occupants. These different types of loads in a

building creates larger twisting forces (torsional forces). The placement of shear wall

in a building significantly affects the behaviour of the structure.

The shear wall structures are effective in providing lateral load resistance to a multi-

storied building. In such engineering design, the walls are reinforced and thus contribute

to counter both gravity and seismic loads. Shear walls can be effectively used to control

the drift against a load of earthquakes that operate on them. The RC shear wall system

works well in all structural parameters because the entire structure is composed of the

RC wall, where strength, stiffness, and load-bearing capacity are uniform throughout

the structure. Whereas for peripheral shear wall and inner core shear wall the strength,

2
stiffness, and load-bearing capacity are heterogeneous. Reinforced concrete structural

walls are the key components of high-rise buildings that provide lateral stiffness and

strength against the effects of wind and earthquake. In the ductile design as per

IS:13920, the main concern in designing a building in severe earthquake zones is the

prevention of shear failure.

1.3.1 Functions of shear wall

Shear walls provide the necessary lateral strength to resist the horizontal earthquake

forces. When shear walls are strong enough, it transfers the horizontal forces to the next

element in the load path below. Shear walls also offers lateral stiffness to prevent the

roof or floor above from excessive side sway (shown in fig.1.1)

Fig.1.1: Functions of shear wall subjected to earthquake (Colotti [17])

1.3.2 Behavior of shear wall under seismic loading (David [15])

Shear walls have a rectangular cross section in general and when it is provided

monolithically between two columns, it results in barbell shape. The columns that are

present at either ends of the wall are termed as boundary elements. They increase the

strength of the wall in flexure and shear significantly. Flanged wall sections result due

3
to intersecting walls. The primary mode of deformation is bending. Shear deformations

are small and can be neglected. Flexural strength usually governs the design of shear

walls.

1.4 HYBRID STRUCTURE

The structure is a combination of framed and shear wall structure. This includes

structural elements of columns and beams along with shear wall panels at places to

provide required stiffness to the structure. In this system RCC frames like beams and

columns are braced with reinforced concrete walls. The main reason for bracing a shear

wall with reinforced concrete frames are to counter the effect of lateral loads (wind or

earthquake) acting on the structure.

In the past twenty-eight years, the world’s intense earthquakes have occurred between

the time of five to ten years. Earthquake is extremely dangerous among all the natural

hazards and it has a severe damage. According to past earthquake hazard investigations,

the damage that is most concentrated in a building on the base of the structure is very

difficult to repair. The main concern in the multi-storey building design is the structure

must have enough lateral stability and stiffness to resist lateral forces from wind and

earthquake. When structure is subjected to lateral load, different types of failure occurs

such as sliding, overturning, drift and collapse and it must be prevented. The behavior

of structure during an earthquake motion depends on stiffness, weight of distribution,

and strength in both vertical and horizontal planes of the building. when the structure is

tall, beams and column section sizes are quite heavy and steel quantity required is most

in case of conventional structures at severe earthquake zones (zone-V, IV, and III) and

also there is lot of congestion for placing and flow of concrete. Drifts and displacements

are quite high due to seismic forces at severe earthquake zones for conventional

structure.

4
According to IS:1893-2016 a structure designed for earthquake must have simple and

regular configuration. A structure with simple geometry provides adequate strength,

stability and stiffness and it will suffer lesser damage compared to irregular structure

buildings with irregular configuration.

There are number of investigations to study the effectiveness of shear wall structures.

Few of the major studies investigated to know the importance of shear wall in a

building, behavior of shear wall, function of shear wall and its uses are discussed below:

Jaswant et al. [1] has studied the effectiveness of RC frame and shear wall. In this

study they highlighted the importance of explicitly recognizing the presence of the open

first storey in the analysis of the building. In this study they considered nine different

models. Linear elastic analysis is performed for the nine models of the building using

ETABS. In this, frame members are modelled with rigid end zones; the walls are

modelled as panel elements and floors are modelled as diaphragms rigid in-plane. The

soil flexibility is introduced as linear Winkler springs under the footing. Based on the

results to avoid soft storey effect due to heavy seismic load they suggested that increase

in the stiffness of the first storey is at least 50% as stiff as second storey and provision

of concrete service core in the building.

Daniel et al. [2] carried out an experiment of two large scale flanged shear walls tested

under static cyclic loading. The main objective of the tests was to provide behavior of

three-dimensional reinforced concrete shear wall under cyclic displacements and more

importantly to provide data to help constitutive models for concrete exposed to arbitrary

loading conditions. The results indicated that the presence of an axial load, although

relatively small and stiffness of the flange walls have a significant effect on the strength,

ductility and failure mechanisms of the shear wall.

5
Jiang and Xilin [3] developed a macro numerical model for the wall element and the

energy dissipation device. Non-linear time history analysis is carried out for a ten-storey

slit shear wall model and it is tested on a shaking table. The seismic input energy and

the individual energy dissipated by the components are calculated by a method based

on Newmark-assumptions for this shear wall model. He concluded that according to the

seismic damage criterion on the basis of plastic accumulative energy and maximum

response, the optimal analysis is carried out to select design parameters for the energy

dissipation device.

Cao et al. [4] carried out a study on seismic performance of RC shear walls with

concealed bracings. This is an experimental investigation on new type of RC wall with

concealed bracing with 1:3 scale medium-height specimens were designed. The

parameters discussed in this study are load carrying capacity, stiffness, ductility,

hysteretic behaviour and energy dissipation. He concluded that in comparison with a

normal shear wall, the seismic performance of the shear wall can be significantly

improved by adding concealed bracing within the wall panel. He stated that concealed

bracing displays significant energy dissipation capacity, ductility in comparison with

normal shear wall.

Masato and Hiroshi [5] carried out seismic performance of RC shear walls with multi

openings. In this a static load test of RC shear walls with openings carried out to

investigate the influence of different number and layout of openings. All the specimens

have same equivalent parameter ratio as 0.4. FEM analysis was also conducted to

simulate hysteresis loops and failure progress of the shear walls with openings. The

results showed that the shear strength, failure mode and deformability of RC shear walls

with openings were significantly affected by the difference of the number and layout of

6
openings. They observed that the overturning moment at the bottom of the shear walls

with openings were smaller than those of without opening.

Chandurkar and Pajgade [6] have been carried out seismic analysis of RCC building

with and without shear wall. In this study the main focus is to determine the solution

for the location of shear wall in the multi-storey building. In total four buildings with

ten storey each with 3m floor height are modelled one is bare frame structure and rest

three are dual type. This study is carried out in different seismic zones (zone-II, Zone-

III, Zone-IV, Zone-V) using ETABS. From this study they concluded that large

dimensions of shear wall are not effective in ten storeys or below ten storey structure,

it is economical only in high rise building. They observed that if the dimensions of shear

wall are large then major amount of horizontal forces are taken by shear wall.

Dong et. al [7] proposed and examined concrete filled steel tube (CFST) columns and

steel plate (SP) deep beams. The new wall is composed of three different energy

dissipation elements: CFST columns, SP deep beams, and reinforced concrete (RC)

strips. The RC strips are intended to allow the core structural elements, CFST columns

and SP deep beams are intended to work as a single structure to consume energy. Six

specimens of different configurations were tested under cyclic loading. The core

structure exhibits a ductile yielding mechanism with a characteristics of strong column-

weak beam structures. The deformation of the shear wall specimens with encased CFST

column and SP deep beam design appears to be closer to that of entire shear walls.

Establishing optimal design parameters for the configuration of SP deep beams is

pivotal to the best seismic behavior of the wall. The study concluded that new composite

shear wall is therefore suitable for use in the seismic design of building structures.

7
Varsha [8] focussed to determine the solution for shear wall location in multi-storied

building. This is a comparative study of strength of RC shear wall at Differentlocation

on Multi-storied residential building. An RCC building of six storeys placed in Nagpur

subjected to earthquake loading in Zone-II is considered. In this earthquake load is

calculated by seismic coefficient method using IS 1893:2002 (Part-1) and analysis were

carried out by STAAD Pro. Three different cases of shear wall position in a building

have been analysed. First is structure without shear wall, second is structure with L type

shear wall, third is structure with shear wall along periphery and finally structure with

cross type shear wall. From this study they concluded that building with L-type shear

wall is more efficient than all other types of shear wall and load combination of

1.5DL+1.5EQX is found to be more critical.

Mahdi et. al [9] have explained the seismic behavior of RC shear walls. They said that

the main function of shear wall is to increase the rigidity for lateral load resistance.

These lateral loads results from wind or earthquake actions and both can cause a

collapse of improperly braced building. Shear walls are commonly used as a vertical

structural element for resisting the lateral loads as well as gravity loads. They concluded

that we cannot afford to build concrete buildings meant to resist severe earthquakes

without shear walls.

Sung et. al [10] focused on analytical approach to model non-linear behavior of steel

plate concrete shear wall (SC) subjected to the lateral forces. The lateral load responses

of the composite wall models were predicted to compare with experimental results

using finite element modelling and analysis. Non-linear static analysis was performed

to estimate the seismic capacity of the SC shear wall. The failure modes, strength and

stiffness characteristics of the composite walls were obtained from the analysis. It was

observed that initial stiffness and displacement outcomes of the FE model and

8
experimental results were within the limits and showed good concurrences. They also

found that the analytical results depend on the interface contact (i.e. boundary

conditions between concrete and studs, steel reinforcement and welded studs

respectively) while modelling the SC shear wall using FE.

Mishra and Tokuhiro [11] has analysed a special moment Resisting Frame (SMRF)

in order to find the location of shear wall in the building. In this study the building

consists of eleven floors and five bays along both directions with a span of 4m each

with a floor height of 2.8m and it is located in seismic zone-II and it is analysed using

STAAD.PRO. Here a comparative study has been done by placing a shear wall at

different locations in the building subjected to seismic load. The locations considered

in this study are at periphery, at intermediate position and in the core. Based on the

analysis he concluded that intermediate position of shear wall is best suited with respect

to core and periphery positions of the structure.

Mitesh et. al [12] conducted an experimental procedure on estimation of seismic

performance of shear-walls and shear-wall core buildings designed for Indian codes

using non-linear pushover analysis. The shear walls are modelled as wide column model

and shell element model and are validated through the experimental results. It is

observed that both the wide column model and shell element model predict nearly the

same strength capacity for the shear-walls and shear-wall cores. However, the wide

column model underestimates while the shell element model overestimates the ductility

capacity of the shear-walls and shear-wall cores. It is also observed that the stiffness

obtained from moment-curvature analysis is in close agreement with the experimental

results. The shell element model predicts high initial stiffness and after cracking

stiffness reduces and matches with experimental results.

9
Gunadeep [13] carried a study of shear wall system and framed tube system in high

rise buildings. In this study twenty storey and forty storey residential buildings are

considered. Different structural systems such as framed structure with shear wall and

tube system has been to building with different height 20 to 65m, 40 to 129m storey

and various internal forces like reactions, bending moments, shear force, axial force of

the members joint displacement has been studied and analysed. It was observed that

lateral roof displacement for twenty storey structure framed shear wall system and

framed system are very close whereas framed tube system is very effective in higher

storey 40.

Subhajit and Yogendra [14] studied the performance of flat slab buildings of various

heights, designed for gravity load according to code evaluated under earthquake loading

as per ASCE methodology. It was observed that performance of flat slab buildings

under earthquake loading is found to be unsatisfactory due to their vulnerability to

punching shear failure. They concluded that performance of flat slab buildings with

continuity of slab bottom reinforcement through column cage improves the

performance of flat slab buildings to some extent, but these flat slab systems are not

adequate in high seismicity areas and need additional primary lateral load resisting

systems such as shear walls. A displacement-based method is also proposed to design

shear walls as primary lateral load resisting elements to ensure satisfactory

performance.

David [15] tried to find the behavior of Reinforced concrete shear wall buildings

subjected to large earthquakes. Two actual buildings of seventeen and twenty six

storeys that survived with no damage during the Chile earthquake 2010 were analysed

using response spectrum analysis. From this study it is observed that good performance

of the with stranded structures are might be a consequence of possible foundation uplift.

10
They also suggest that even when there is no damage, elastic analysis has limitations to

reproduce the actual observed behavior.

Pallavi [16] have done a comparative studyof seismic analysis of multi-storied building

with shear wall and bracings. In this a G+9 building is modelled along with shear wall

and bracings are being considered for the analysis. The performance of the building is

evaluated for storey displacement, storey drift and base shear. Location of shear wall

and bracings are varied and analysis is carried out by ETABS. From this study they

concluded that providing a shear wall element is efficient in reducing drift and they

observed that horizontal deflection induced in shear wall are much lesser in comparison

with bare frame and bracings also providing a shear wall at corner gives more strength.

Colotti [17] carried out seismic analysis and comparative study of a structure with shear

wall and without shear wall frame system. In these three buildings with same plan and

equal number of storeys with two different configurations of shear walls and other

structure with no shear wall are considered. Response spectrum analysis is adopted and

storey displacements for different structures are compared. Design analysis is carried

out using ETABS. In this study they observed maximum displacements and maximum

stiffness in structure without shear wall. They concluded that positioning of shear wall

is dominant.

Niharika and Raut [18] carried a study to compare the multi-storey RC building

having Flat slab with and without shear wall with conventional frame structure

subjected to earthquake. In this study a G+9 multi-storeyed commercial building having

flat slab with column and drop structure, flat slab with column and shear wallstructure

and conventional framed structure are considered and analysed. Comparative study of

these structures is analysed on the parameters like base period, base shear, storey drift

and storey displacements. They observed that structural efficiency of the flat slab

11
structure without shear wall is poor under earthquake loading. It has low stiffness and

it can be improved by adding supplemental lateral load resisting system in the form of

shear wall. They concluded that among all the models flat slab with shear wall structure

is safest.

Bagheri and Sang [19] investigated on increasing the energy dissipation capacities of

coupled shear wall-frame system. This study presents an investigation on the seismic

behavior of coupled shear wall-frame system in which energy dissipation devices are

located at the middle portion of the linked beam. Proposed method was based on the

energy equilibrium method which offers an important design method and provides

result of increasing energy dissipation capacity and reducing damage to the structure. It

was observed that the non-linear dynamic response of the walls can be effectively

controlled with a proper set of damping parameters. An optimized formula is proposed

to calculate the distribution of the yield shear force coefficients of energy dissipation

devices.

Eren et al. [20] carried out a study on shear migration and dynamic shear amplification

effects on seismic response of core walls. The paper presents the effect of dynamic

shear amplification on cantilever walls and shear migration effect on coupled core walls

which are vital elements for seismic design of tall buildings. Demonstrative examples

on core walls are presented for both phenomena. The unique characteristic of both of

these phenomena is that they cannot be observed by linear analysis. The analyses results

show that shear design of core walls exhibiting coupled wall behavior is governed by

shear migration effect. The increase in shear due to shear migration is calculated

between 1.65 and 1.75. It means that Shear demand on coupled walls obtained by linear

analysis procedures could be amplified by twice due to shear migration effect.

12
Thus, it can be observed that considerable studies have been carried out to study the

effectiveness of RC frame and shear wall structures under cycling loading, seismic

performance of RC shear wall when subjected to seismic load, seismic behavior of shear

wall, importance and location of shear wall in high rise building at severe earthquake

zones. However, all these studies considered only one shear wall panel in a building to

study the effectiveness of shear wall structures. But, all the rest of shear wall also

participate in resisting the lateral load during earthquake. Hence, it is required to

consider all the shear wall panels in the analysis of shear wall structures. Therefore, in

the proposed study the effectiveness of shear wall structure is studied and compared

with conventional and hybrid structure considering all the shear walls in the analysis

excluding columns. In order to study the effectiveness of shear wall structure, the

response of shear wall structure for various earthquakes are compared with the response

of conventional structure and hybrid structure. Various responses considered for the

study are the storey displacements, storey drifts, storey shear and storey stiffness using

response spectrum method of dynamic analysis.

1.5 OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of this study are:

• To model the building frame as conventional structure, shear wall structure, hybrid

structure and to perform dynamic analysis using response spectrum method and time

history analysis using real ground motion.

• To compare the seismic responses of conventional structure, shear wall structure

and hybrid structure in order to find the most effective structure to resist the

earthquake ground motion.

13
 CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY

2.1 GENERAL

This chapter deals with structures considered in this study, type of analysis carried out

and ground motion details considered for analysis to obtain various structural responses

for conventional structures, shear wall structures and hybrid structures. Details of

software platform used in the study and modelling of various structures are also

discussed for different seismic zones.

2.1.1 Description of model

For the given architectural plan, the building is modelled as three different structural

forms. The frame work of the study follows the procedure of structural analysis and

design. The structural elements for all the structural forms are placed aesthetically in

accordance to the architectural plan. The property assignment for the structural

elements and the load imposition on the structure are carried out as recommended by

the IS codes.

A tall structure, considered for the analysis has stilt + ground + nine floors with storey

height of 3m each. The structure is modelled as a conventional frame structure, shear

wall structure, and hybrid structure. The modelling and the analysis of the structure is

carried out by ETABS ULTIMATE 2016 which uses the FEM analysis. The

performance of structures is evaluated for seismic zone-III, IV and V. The analysis

incorporates the response spectrum method conforming to IS Part-I [24] and the load

considerations conforming to IS 875 [21] corresponding parts. The design of the

structure conforms to IS 456 and ductile designing incorporated as per IS13920 [25].

Also, aims at analysing and evaluating the structural performance of multi-storey

conventional structure and shear wall structure for representative earthquake.

14
In this study the considered architectural plan consist of stilt+ground+fifteen floors with

a floor height of 3m each with 1.2m parapet wall and is modelled as conventional

structure (framed structure designed with columns and beams as structural elements)

and shear wall structure (designed as shear panels to counter both gravity and seismic

loads). The analysis is carried out by ETABS. Here earthquake considered is KOBE,

Japan-1995. The analysis incorporates the time-history analysis method.

2.2 METHODOLOGY

Methodology used for the analysis is briefly summarized below:

The required multi-storey building plan is finalized in accordance to

architecture team

Developing model in ETABS and assigning the loads and building

parameters considered for study.

In conventional frame structures, brick masonry is designed as not to

counter the gravity or seismic loads. In shear wall structure, walls are
modelled to counter both gravity and lateral loads.

The performance of structures is evaluated for seismic zone-III, IV and V.

The analysis incorporates the response spectrum method conforming to IS
1893-[24]

The responses of the structure are evaluated in terms of maximum storey

shear, maximum storey drift, maximum story displacement and storey
stiffness.

It is observed that among all three types of structures, shear wall structure
is most effective in resistance to earthquake.

15
2.3 MODELLING

The structures are modelled using ETABS software package. Beams and columns are

modelled using frame elements in conventional structure, shear walls are modelled as

shell elements in shear wall structure and in hybrid structure both shell elements and

frame elements are used for modelling.

The following are the three type of structures considered to study the response of the

multi storey building when subjected to earthquake. fig.2.1 shows architectural plan

view of conventional structure, fig.2.2 shows plan view of shear wall structure and

fig.2.3 and fig.2.4 shows hybrid structure plan views. The length in transverse direction

is 47.62m and in Y direction is 13.87m.

2.3.1 Conventional structure

In conventional structure beams, columns and slabs are designed to resist all the loads

vertical as well as horizontal. In this contribution of walls is neglected.

columns and beams are modelled as frame elements. Displacements at each node are

modelled with three translational degrees of freedom and three rotational degrees of

freedom.

16
Fig.2.1: Conventional Structure Plan view

17
2.3.2 Shear wall structure

The structure is designed as shear panels to counter both gravity load and seismic loads.

The structural design is devoid of columns and has beams placed to divide slabs at

extreme cases. In shear wall structure walls are modelled as four noded shell elements.

Displacements at each node are modelled with three translational degrees of freedom

and three rotational degrees of freedom.

18
Fig.2.2: Shear Wall Structure Plan view

19
2.3.3 Hybrid structure

The structure is a combination of framed and shear wall structure which includes

structural elements of columns and beams along with shear wall panels at places to

provide required stiffness to the structure. In hybrid structure beams and columns are

modelled as frame elements and shear walls are modelled as shell elements.

Displacements at each node are modelled with three translational degrees of freedom

and three rotational degrees of freedom.

Two types of structures are considered under hybrid structures. They are hybrid

structure-I and hybrid structure-II. In hybrid structure-I, shear walls are placed at the

corners of the building and in hybrid structure-II shear walls are placed in intermediate

positions in the building to find the effective position of placing a shear wall in multi-

storey building.

20
Fig.2.3: Hybrid Structure-I plan view

21
Fig.2.4: Hybrid Structure-II plan view

22
2.4 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

In this study both response spectrum and time-history methods of dynamic analysis is

used. Response spectrum method of dynamic analysis is used to find the most effective

structure among conventional structure, shear wall structure and hybrid structure,

whereas time-history analysis is used only for conventional structure and shear wall

structure subjected to KOBE- earthquake.

2.4.1 Response spectrum method

A response spectrum is a plot of high or stable state responses like displacement,

velocity or acceleration of a series of oscillators of varying natural frequency, that are

forced into motion by the same base vibration or shock. It is also used to assess the

response of linear systems with multi-degree of freedom systems, though they are

accurate to lower levels of damping.

In this study response spectrum of dynamic analysis is used to find the most effective

structure among conventional structure, shear wall structure and hybrid structure when

subjected to earthquake. Response spectra is the most useful tool for earthquakes to

analyse the dynamic performance of structures. If the natural frequency of the structure

is known, then the maximum response of the building can be estimated by reading the

value from the ground response spectrum for the appropriate frequency.

The main limitation of response spectrum method is that it only applies to linear

systems. The response spectra can also be created for non-linear systems, but it can be

only applicable to systems with the same non-linearity. If the input is used to calculate

a response spectrum is steady-state periodic, then the steady state result is recorded.

there must be damping in calculating steady state response otherwise the reaction is

infinite.

23
2.4.2 Time-history analysis

Time-history analysis is a step by step analysis process of the dynamic response of a

structure to a specific loading that can change with time. This process is used to

determine the seismic response of a structure for representative earthquake under

dynamic loading and to perform time-history analysis, a representative earthquake time

history information is required to evaluate the structure. In this study, a residential

building with regular plan is modelled as conventional structure and shear wall

structure. It is evaluated for its dynamic performance under KOBE- earthquake using

ETABS. The time history data for KOBE is collected from PEER. The analysis

incorporates the time-history analysis method. The load considerations and design

conform to IS 1893: PART I [24]. The storey stiffness, maximum storey drift and

maximum story displacement of the two different models under KOBE seismic forces

are compared. This method is applicable for both elastic and inelastic analysis.

2.4.3 Loads and forces considered

The various types of loads considered are as follows:

i. Dead load:

Dead load consists of the weight of the complete structure with finishes, fixtures, wall

panels and all equipment of permanent nature including tanks, partitions etc. as Per IS: 875

(Part-I) [21].

ii. Live load:

Imposed loads in different areas include live loads which will not be less than those

specified in IS: 875 (Part-II) [22]

iii. Wind load:

Wind load on structure is calculated as per provisions of IS: 875 (Part-III) [23]. Wind

is assumed to blow in any direction and the most unfavourable condition will be

24
considered for design. The computation of wind loads is based on IS: 875 (Part-III)

[23].

Wind speed Vz = Vb k1 k2 k3 k4 -----------------------(1)

where

k1 = Risk coefficient factor (Table 1 of the IS: 875 (Part 3)) [23]

k2 =Terrain, height factor (Table 2 of the IS: 875-2015 (Part 3)) [23]

k3 =Topography factor (as per Clause 6.3.3. of the IS: 875-2015 (Part 3)) [23]

Design wind pressure (Pz) = Design wind pressure in N/sq.m at a height ‘z’

= 0.6*Vz2 N/m2 ------------------------- (2)

iv. Earthquake forces:

The project considered falls in Zone-V, Zone-IV and Zone III. The base shear force will

be computed for building depending on total height, no of stories, typeof construction,

type of foundation, dead loads and live loads.

v. Load considerations:

100% DL+ 25% LL (for Live Load up to 3 kN/m2)

100% DL+ 50% LL (for Live Load above 3 kN/m2)

As the site is in Zone III, Zone IV and Zone V.

Response spectrum method (dynamic analysis method) is used for analysis and

considered load is 100%DL+25%LL since the live loads didn’t exceed 3kN/m2 as per

IS:1893 [24].

2.4.4 Software platform - ETABS

ETABS (Extended Three-dimensional Analysis of Building Systems) is general-

purpose civil-engineering software developed by computer and structures Inc. (CSI),

Berkeley, California. The software is capable of performing both static and dynamic

25
analysis as well as design. It is used in the present study to analyse the structures.

ETABS can also perform time history analysis. It has the capability of showing results

graphically and it is also possible to export these results.

2.4.5 Ductile detailing

As the considered structures are in seismic zone-V, zone-IV and zone-III ductile

design and detailing is considered as per IS:13920 [25]

26
 CHAPTER 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 GENERAL

In this chapter, the response of eleven story regular buildings conventional structure,

shear wall structure and hybrid structure when subjected to earthquake are compared in

different seismic zones in terms of storey displacements, storey shear, storey drift and

storey stiffness. For each model, the response due to earthquake are obtained in different

seismic zones. Two types of structures are considered under hybrid structures. They are

hybrid structure-I and hybrid structure-II. In hybrid structure-I, shear walls are placed

at the corners of the building and in hybrid structure-II shear walls are placed in

intermediate positions in the building to find the effective position of placing a shear

wall in multi-storey building. Also, the response of fifteen storey building modelled as

conventional structure and shear wall structure are also analysed for real earthquake

ground motions (data collected for ground motion is from PEER) for earthquake-

KOBE-1995 and are compared in order to find the most effective structure using time

history analysis.

The various types of structures considered for the analysis using response spectrum

method of dynamic analysis are shown in figure 2.1 conventional structure, fig-2.2

shear wall structure, fig-2.3 hybrid structure-I and fig-2.4 hybrid structure-II).

27
The structural system comprises of moment resisting RCC and shear wall frames. The

whole structure is analysed using ETABS 2016 Ultimate 16.2.1 for dead load, wind load,

live load earthquake load and their appropriate load combinations confirming to IS-13920

[25]. The material and geometric properties of the structures considered are tabulated in

table 3.1

Table 3.1 Material and geometric properties for the considered structures

S.NO Description

1 Number of stories 11

2 Each storey height 3m

3 Shear wall thickness 200, 160 mm

4 Column dimension 300 X 750 mm

5 Beam dimension 230x300, 230x450, 230x525mm

6 Slab thickness 125, 150 mm

7 Grade of concrete M25

8 Grade of steel Fe 500

9 fck 25 N/mm2

10 fy 500 N/mm2

11 Zone factors 0.16, 0.36, 0.24

12 Importance factor 1.2

13 Response reduction factor 0.05

14 Damping ratio 5%

15 Brick type Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Bricks

16 Type of soil Medium

28
3.1.1 Load Combinations

The structures are analysed using finite element software ETABS for all loadings. Different

load combinations, (Dead Load + Live Loads), (Dead Loads + Live Loads + Earthquake /

Wind Loads) and (Dead Loads + Earthquake / Wind Loads) with appropriate load factors

as suggested in relevant codes are considered for the design of all frame and shell elements.

Following load combinations are considered which are adopted from IS 456 [26] (table 18)

to arrive at the governing load case for the structural design of a structure / member.

● 1.5 DL + 1.5 LL

● 1.5 DL + 1.5 WL

● 1.5 DL + 1.5 EQ

● 1.2 DL + 1.2 LL + 1.2 WL

● 1.2 DL + 1.2 LL + 1.2 EQ

● 0.9 DL + 1.5 WL

● 0.9 DL + 1.5 EQ

● DL - Dead load

● LL - Live load

● EQ - Earthquake load

● WL - Wind load

3.2 RESPONSE OF BUILDINGS OBTAINED FROM RESPONSE SPECTRUM

METHOD OF ANALYSIS

In this study the response of the structures obtained using response spectrum method

when subjected to earthquake for different seismic zones are discussed. The various

responses considered for the study are storey displacements, storey drifts, storey shear

and storey stiffness for conventional structure, shear wall structure, hybrid structure-I

and hybrid structure-II.

29
3.2.1 Response of conventional structure obtained from response spectrum

method

The conventional structure shown in fig 2.1 is analysed for the responses: storey

displacement, storey drift, storey shear and storey stiffness for various zones. The

results obtained from the analysis are discussed in the following sections.

i.) Response of conventional structure for storey displacement

The variation of maximum storey displacements with storey height for conventional

structure subjected to earthquakes of zone-V, zone-IV, zone-III is shown in fig. 3.1

Storey displacement is the ratio of displacement of two consecutive floor to height of

that floor. It is observed that storey displacement values are increasing along with storey

height. Also, the displacements are increasing from zone-III to zone-V. Also, the

displacements are larger in seismic zone-V compared to shear wall structure.

Fig.3.1: Variation of displacements in conventional structure

30
ii.) Response of conventional structure for storey drift

The variation of maximum storey drifts with storey height for conventional structure

subjected to earthquakes of zone-V, zone-IV, zone-III is shown in fig. 3.2. Storey

drift is the displacement of displacements between two consecutive stories by the

height of the storey. It is observed that storey drift values are increasing gradually

till the storey height equal to 14m and decreases when the storey height is larger

than 14m for all seismic zones. Also, drift values are increasing from zone- III to

zone-V.

Fig.3.2: Variation of storey drift ratios in conventional structure

iii.) Response of conventional structure for storey shear

The variation of maximum storey shear with storey height for conventional structure

subjected to earthquakes of zone-V, zone-IV, zone-III is shown in fig. 3.3. “Base

shear is an estimate of maximum expected lateral force that will occur due to seismic

ground motion at the base of the structure and storey shear factor is the ratio of the

storey shear force when storey collapse occurs to the storey shear force when

31
total collapse occurs”. It is observed that storey shear values are increasing

gradually with height and also with varying seismic zones.

Fig.3.3: Variation of storey shear in conventional structure

iv.) Response of conventional structure for storey stiffness

The variation of maximum storey drifts with storey height for conventional structure

subjected to earthquakes of zone-V, zone-III, zone-IV is shown in fig. 3.4. Storey

stiffness is the extent to which the element is able to resist deformation or deflection

under the action of an applied force. The lateral stiffness of a storey should be less

than 70% of the stiffness of any adjacent storey, or less than 80% of the average

stiffness of the three stories above or below in the structure. It is observed that storey

stiffness values are increasing very slightly with variation of seismic zones. There

is no much variation of stiffness with varying seismic zones.

32
 Fig.3.4: Variation of stiffness in conventional structure

3.2.2 Response of shear wall structure from response spectrum method

The shear wall structure shown in fig 2.2 is analysed for the responses: storey

displacement, storey drift, storey shear and storey stiffness for various zones and are

discussed below:

i.) Response of shear wall structure for storey displacement

The variation of maximum storey displacements with storey height for shear wall

structure subjected to earthquakes of zone-V, zone-IV, zone-III is shown in fig. 3.5.

It is observed that similar to conventional structure storey displacement values are

increasing gradually with height and also the displacements are increasing with

variation of seismic zones. Compared to conventional structure displacement values

are lesser in case of shear wall structure for all the seismic zones.

33
 Fig.3.5: Variation of displacements in shear wall structure

ii.) Response of shear wall structure for storey drift

The variation of maximum storey drifts with storey height for shear wall structure

subjected to earthquakes of zone-V, zone-IV, zone-III is shown in fig. 3.6. It is

observed that storey drift ratios are increasing gradually with variation of storey

height. It is observed that storey drift values are increasing gradually till the storey

height equal to 8m and decreases when the storey height is larger than 8m for all

seismic zones however in conventional structure the drift values are decreasing at

14m. Compared to conventional structure, hybrid structure have lesser drift values

Also, drift values are increasing from zone-III to zone-V. Compared to conventional

structure, hybrid structure showed lesser values of storey drifts even in high seismic

zone like zone-V. This clearly shows that shear wall structures are more effective

in reducing drifts.

34
 Fig.3.6: Variation of storey drift ratios in shear wall structure

iii.) Response of shear wall structure for storey shear

The variation of maximum storey shear with storey height for shear wall structure

subjected to earthquakes of zone-III, zone-IV, zone-V is shown in fig. 3.7. It is

observed that similar to conventional structure storey shear values are increasing

gradually with storey height and also increasing with variation of seismic zones.

When compared to conventional structure storey shear is lesser in case of shear wall

structure.

35
 Fig.3.7: Variation of storey shear in shear wall structure

iv.) Response of shear wall structure for storey stiffness

The variation of maximum storey stiffness with storey height for shear wall

structure subjected to earthquakes of zone-III, zone-IV, zone-V is shown in fig. 3.8.

It is observed that similar to conventional structure, storey stiffness values are

increasing slightly with variation of seismic zones. The stiffness values are

increasing till stilt floor(3m) and again decreases in parking floor (6m) and then

increases till 9m after that it decreased gradually with storey height. The decrease

in the stiffness values in shear wall structure at stilt floor is due to high percentage

of openings for parking floor. Even though the stiffness variation is more in shear

wall structure but still it shows larger values of stiffness when compared with

conventional structure. There is no much variation of stiffness in zone-3 to zone-5

in shear wall structure.

36
 Fig.3.8: Variation of stiffness in shear wall structure

3.2.3 Response of hybrid structure-I obtained from response spectrum method

The hybrid structure-I shown in fig 2.3 is analysed for the responses: storey

displacement, storey shear, storey drift, and storey stiffness for various zones and the

results obtained from analysis are discussed below:

i.) Response of hybrid structure-I for storey displacement

The variation of maximum storey displacements with storey height for hybrid

structure-I subjected to earthquakes of zone-V, zone-IV, zone-III is shown in fig.

3.9. It is observed that storey displacement values are increasing gradually with

variation of storeyheight and with variation of seismic zones. Displacement values

observed in hybrid structure-1 is lesser even in high seismic zones when compared

to conventional structure. when compared to shear wall structure the displacements

are larger in hybrid structure-I in all the seismic zones.

37
 Fig.3.9: Variation of displacements Hybrid structure-1

ii.) Response of hybrid structure-I for storey drift

The variation of maximum storey drifts with storey height for hybrid structure-I

subjected to earthquakes of zone-V, zone-IV, zone-III is shown in fig. 3.10. It is

observed that storey drift values are increasing gradually with variation of storey

height and also increases with seismic zones. There is slight decrease in the drifts at

22m in all the seismic zones. Conventional structure is prone to high drift ratios.

Compared to conventional structure drift ratio values are lesser in case of hybrid

structure-I and when compared to shear wall structure the drift values are larger in

hybrid structure.

38
 Fig.3.10: Variation of storey drift ratios in Hybrid structure-I

iii.) Response of hybrid structure-I for storey shear

The variation of maximum storey shear with storey height for hybrid structure-I

subjected to earthquakes of zone-V, zone-IV, zone-III is shown in fig. 3.11. It is

observed that storey shear values are increasing gradually with variation of storey

height similar to conventional structure and shear wall structure. Also, shear is

increasing with variation of seismic zones. When compared to conventional

structure storey shear is marginally larger however it is considerably lesser

compared to shear wall structure.

39
 Fig.3.11: Variation of storey shear for Hybrid structure-1

iv.) Response of hybrid structure-I for storey stiffness

The variation of maximum storey stiffness with storey height for hybrid structure-I

subjected to earthquakes of zone-V, zone-IV, zone-III is shown in fig. 3.12. It is

observed that storey stiffness values are increasing slightly with variation of seismic

zones. There is no much variation of stiffness even in high seismic zones. Compared

to conventional structure stiffness is larger in hybrid structure-I and lesser when

compared to shear wall structure in all seismic zones.

Fig.3.12: Variation of stiffness in Hybrid structure-1

40
3.2.4 Response of hybrid structure-II obtained from response spectrum method

The hybrid structure-II shown in fig 2.4 is analysed for the responses: storey

displacement, storey shear, storey drift, and storey stiffness for various zones and results

obtained from the analysis are discussed below:

i.) Response of hybrid structure-II for storey displacement

The variation of maximum storey displacements with storey height for hybrid

structure-II subjected to earthquakes of zone-V, zone-IV, zone-III is shown in fig.

3.13. It is observed that storey displacement values are increasing gradually with

variation of seismic zones. Compared to conventional structure, displacement

values are very less in case of hybrid structure-II and when compared to shear wall

structure the displacements are larger in hybrid structure-II. It is observed that, when

compared to hybrid structure-I the displacement values are lesser in case of hybrid

structure-II.

Fig.3.13: Variation of displacements in hybrid structure-II

41
ii.) Response of hybrid structure-II for storey drift

The variation of maximum storey drifts with storey height for hybrid structure-II

subjected to earthquakes of zone-V, zone-IV, zone-III is shown in fig. 3.14. It is

observed that storey drift values are increasing gradually with variation of seismic

zones. Compared to conventional structure drift ratio values are lesser in case of

hybrid structure-II and when compared to shear wall structure the displacements are

more in hybrid structure-II. among hybrid structure-I and hybrid structure-II it is

observed that the drift values are marginally lesser in case of hybrid structure-II.

With the variation of seismic zones there is gradual increase in drift ratios

uniformly. the drift ratios are increasing till 25m and it is decreasing slightly with

height.

Fig.3.14: Variation of storey drift ratios in Hybrid structure-2

iii.) Response of hybrid structure-II for storey shear

The variation of maximum storey shear with storey height for hybrid structure-II

subjected to earthquakes of zone-V, zone-IV, zone-III is shown in fig. 3.15. It is

observed that storey shear values are increasing gradually with variation of storey

42
height and also increasing with variation of seismic zones. When compared to

conventional structure storey shear is very high in case of shear wall structure and

in hybrid structure it is larger.

Fig.3.15: Variation of storey shear ratios in Hybrid structure-II

iv.) Response of hybrid structure-ii for storey stiffness

The variation of maximum storey stiffness with storey height for hybrid structure-

II subjected to earthquakes of zone-V, zone-IV, zone-III is shown in fig. 3.16. It is

observed that storey stiffness values are increasing very slightly with variation of

seismic zones. There is no much variation of stiffness even in high seismic zones.

Compared to conventional structure stiffness larger in hybrid structure-II and lesser

when compared to shear wall structure. Among hybrid structure-I and hybrid

structure-II it is observed that hybrid structure-II is more effective due to high

stiffness.

43
 Fig.3.16: Variation of storey stiffness in Hybrid structure-II

3.3 COMPARASION OF PEAK RESPONSES OF THREE DIFFERENT TYPES

STRUCTURES

Peak responses obtained for three types of structures by response spectrum method are

tabulated and shown below in table 3.2 and the variation of peak response of

displacements in all the structures are compared in fig 3.17 in different seismic zones

TABLE 3.2: Maximum storey displacements for different structures

STRUCTURE TYPE ZONE-III ZONE-IV ZONE-V

CONVENTIONAL (mm) 20.79 31.55 47.29

SHEAR WALL (mm) 3.431 5.147 7.72

HYBRID-1 (mm) 13.593 20.39 30.584

HYBRID-2 (mm) 12.327 18.512 27.769

44
 Fig.3.17: Comparison of maximum storey displacements

From fig. 3.21 it is observed that shear wall structure is found to be most effective in

reducing displacements in comparison with conventional structure and hybrid structure.

Displacement values are increasing gradually in conventional structure from zone-III

to zone-V and it is very high in zone-V. But there is no much variation for displacements

in shear wall structure for different seismic zones. Among hybrid structure-I and hybrid

structure-II it is observed that hybrid structure-II is more effective in reducing storey

displacements.

As number of stories and height increases displacements will exceed the limits in case

of conventional structure and this leads to heavy section sizes due to increase in the

stiffness in a building and it was observed in case of shear wall structure and hybrid

structure. Among hybrid structure-1 and hybrid structure-II, it was observed that hybrid

structure-II is more effective to control drifts and displacements. From this it can be

said that placing a shear wall in Intermediate position in a building is better when

compared to placing a shear wall in periphery positions of the structure. It is important

for a structure to ensure adequate stiffness to resist the lateral load (wind or earthquake).

The shear wall provided in the building is found to be effective in resistance to lateral
45
loads. It is found that stiffness of building without a shear wall is larger when compared

to building with a Shear wall. From this comparative study it is observed that shear wall

structure is most effective compared to conventional and hybrid in reducing drifts and

displacements with high stability.

3.4 COMPARISON OF STRUCTURES FOR STOREY DISPLACEMENTS

The response in terms of displacements of the structure are tabulated in 3.2 for zone-

III, 3.3 in zone-IV, 3.4 in zone-V and compared for all the considered structures. Fig.

3.18, 3.19, 3.20 shows the comparison of responses in shear wall structure, conventional

structure, hybrid structures in different seismic zones (zone-III, zone-IV, zone-V).

Table 3.3: Variation of displacements in seismic Zone-III

CONVENTIONAL SHEAR WALL HYBRID-1 HYBRID-2

Story Elevation X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir

M mm mm mm mm

TERRACE 37.5 20.79 3.431 13.593 12.327

10TH 34.5 19.83 3.31 12.397 11.187

9TH 31.5 18.613 3.168 11.132 10.009

8TH 28.5 17.156 3.008 9.825 8.8

7TH 25.5 15.471 2.835 8.486 7.571

6TH 22.5 13.59 2.651 7.137 6.34

5TH 19.5 11.558 2.46 5.803 5.131

4TH 16.5 9.429 2.267 4.514 3.969

3RD 13.5 7.267 2.076 3.304 2.887

2ND 10.5 5.146 1.89 2.213 1.92

1ST 7.5 3.169 1.716 1.283 1.103

PARKING 4.5 1.448 0.951 0.56 0.475

PLINTH 1.5 0.222 0.227 0.1 0.083

Base 0 0 0 0 0

46
 Fig.3.18: Comparison of displacements for various structures in zone-III

Table 3.4: Variation of displacements in seismic Zone-IV

CONVENTIONAL SHEAR WALL HYBRID-1 HYBRID-2

Story Elevation X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir

M mm mm mm mm

TERRACE 37.5 31.558 5.147 20.39 18.512

10TH 34.5 30.072 4.965 18.596 16.801

9TH 31.5 28.2 4.752 16.698 15.031

8TH 28.5 25.965 4.513 14.737 13.215

7TH 25.5 23.391 4.252 12.73 11.37

6TH 22.5 20.528 3.976 10.706 9.521

5TH 19.5 17.447 3.69 8.704 7.705

4TH 16.5 14.227 3.401 6.77 5.961

3RD 13.5 10.961 3.113 4.956 4.335

2ND 10.5 7.764 2.836 3.319 2.88

1ST 7.5 4.783 2.574 1.924 1.652

PARKING 4.5 2.186 1.427 0.841 0.712

PLINTH 1.5 0.333 0.341 0.15 0.125

Base 0 0 0 0 0

47
 Fig.3.19: Comparison of displacements for various structures in zone-IV

Table 3.5: Values of displacements in seismic Zone-V

HYBRID-
CONVENTIONAL SHEAR WALL HYBRID-1 2

Story Elevation X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir

M mm mm mm mm
TERRACE 37.5 47.299 7.72 30.584 27.769

10TH 34.5 45.058 7.447 27.893 25.202

9TH 31.5 42.251 7.128 25.046 22.547

8TH 28.5 38.898 6.769 22.105 19.823

7TH 25.5 35.034 6.378 19.094 17.055

6TH 22.5 30.738 5.964 16.058 14.282

5TH 19.5 26.115 5.535 13.056 11.557

4TH 16.5 21.285 5.101 10.155 8.941

3RD 13.5 16.388 4.67 7.434 6.503

2ND 10.5 11.595 4.253 4.979 4.32

1ST 7.5 7.136 3.862 2.886 2.478

PARKING 4.5 3.264 2.14 1.261 1.068

PLINTH 1.5 0.498 0.511 0.224 0.187

Base 0 0 0 0 0

48
 Fig.3.20: Comparison of displacements for various structures in zone-V

The variation of maximum storey displacements with storey height for conventional

structure, shear wall structure, hybrid structure-I and hybrid structure-II are compared

in fig. 3.22, fig. 3.23 and fig. 3.24 for earthquakes of zone-III, zone-IV, zone-V.

From these figures it is observed that shear wall structures are most effective in

providing lateral load resistance to a multi-storied building even at severe seismic

zones. When the structures are compared in terms of displacements it is observed that

the values are increasing from zone-III to zone-V with respect to storey height.

Conventional structure leads to high displacements and drifts. Among hybrid structure-

I and hybrid structure-II, hybrid structure-II is more effective in reduction of

displacements and when they are compared to conventional structure it is found that

displacements are less in all the seismic zones. In case of shear wall structure, it is

observed that the displacements are considerably lesser compared to other structures in

all the seismic zones-III, IV and V.

49
The major concern designing a multi-storey building is the structure must have enough

strength and lateral stability to resist lateral forces from wind or earthquake and hence

it was found that shear wall structures are effectively used to control the drift against

earthquakes. The RC shear wall system works well in all structural parameters because

the entire structure is composed of the RC wall, where strength, stiffness, and load-

bearing capacity are uniform throughout the structure. when the structure is tall, beams,

column section sizes are quite heavy and steel quantity required is in larger in case of

conventional structures at severe earthquake zones like zone-V, zone-IV, zone-III and

also there is lot of congestion for placing and flow of concrete. Drifts and displacements

are larger due to high seismic forces at severe earthquake zones for conventional

structure. In hybrid structure, drifts and displacements are medium. Compare to

conventional structure, hybrid structure and shear wall structures are more effective in

design of high-rise buildings when they are subjected to high seismic forces. Providing

Shear walls in critical locations in the building significantly reduces displacement due

to an earthquake.

3.5 RESPONSE OF SHEAR WALL STRUCTURE AND CONVENTIONAL

STRUCTURE FOR KOBE-EARTHQUAKE

In this study the responses of the structures subjected to KOBE-earthquake are obtained.

Two types of structures are considered for this study. They are conventional structure

and shear wall structure. The considered architectural plan consist of stilt+ground+15

floors with a floor height of 3m each with 1.2m parapet wall and is modelled as

conventional structure (framed structure designed with columns and beams as structural

elements) and shear wall structure (designed as shear panels to counter both gravity and

seismic loads). It is evaluated for its dynamic performance for KOBE- earthquake,

Japan-1995 using ETABS. The analysis incorporates the time-history

50
analysis method. The load considerations and design conform to IS 1893 PART-1 [24].

The storey stiffness, maximum storey drift and maximum story displacement of the two

different models under KOBE seismic forces are compared. The two types of structures

considered for the analysis are shown in figure (fig-2.1 conventional structure, fig-2.2

shear wall structure) under time-history analysis.

3.5.1 RESPONSE OF THE STRUCTURES FOR KOBE-EARTHQUAKE

The response of the structures: conventional structure and shear wall structure are

discussed in terms of storey displacements, storey drift and storey stiffness below

i.) COMPARISON OF STRUCTURES FOR STORY DISPLACEMENT

The variation of maximum storey displacements with storey height for the structures

subjected to KOBE-earthquake using time history analysis is shown in fig. 3.21. It is

observed that storey displacement values are increasing gradually with variation of

storey height in case of conventional structure. In comparison to conventional structure,

displacements are lesser in case of shear wall structure when subjected to an earthquake.

Fig.3.21: Variation of storey displacements for KOBE-earthquake

51
 ii.) COMPARISON OF STRUCTURES FOR STOREY DRIFT RATIOS

The variation of maximum storey drift with storey height for the structures subjected to

KOBE-earthquake using time history analysis is shown in fig. 3.22. It is observed that

storey drift values are increasing with storey height up to 15m and then it decreases. In

comparison to conventional structure, drift ratios are considerably lesser in shear wall

structure.

Fig.3.22: Variation of storey drift ratios for KOBE-earthquake

iii.)COMPARISON OF STRUCTURES FOR STOREY STIFFNESS

The variation of maximum storey stiffness with storey height for the structures

subjected to KOBE-earthquake using time-history analysis is shown in fig. 3.23 and

fig. 3.24. The variation of maximum storey stiffness in different seismic zones in X

direction and Y direction for shear wall structure when subjected to earthquake is

shown in fig 3.23 and 3.24. It is observed that storey stiffness values are increasing

gradually with storey height. Stiffness variation in shear wall structure is increasing

till 3m and decreasing till 6m and then it is increasing. The decrease in the stiffness

values in x-direction in shear wall structure at stilt floor is due to high percentage

52
of openings for parking floor. There is no much variation of stiffness with storey

height in y-direction.

Fig.3.23: Variation of storey stiffness in X direction KOBE-earthquake

Fig.3.24: Variation of storey stiffness in Y direction for KOBE-earthquake

53
From the above figures it is observed that the response-stiffness of shear wall structure

are found to be lesser in comparison with conventional structure when they are

subjected to KOBE-earthquake. The displacement values and storey drifts are larger in

conventional structure than shear wall structure. It is observed that storey stiffness is

more in shear wall structure than conventional structure. By this we can say that shear

wall structure is most effective for high-rise buildings to reduce displacements and

drifts. It provides good stability than conventional structure.

54
 CONCLUSIONS

The building structures are modelled as conventional structure, shear wall structure,

hybrid structure and the seismic responses of structures are compared in order to find

the most effective type of structure to resist earthquake loads. Response spectrum and

time-history method of dynamic analysis is used. From the study the following

conclusions are drawn

1. Shear wall structure is found to be the most effective when compared to

conventional structure and hybrid structure to reduce storey displacements and

storey drift ratios for earthquake.

2. Stiffness of shear wall structure is found to be largest compared to conventional

structure and hybrid structure. It is observed that stiffness variation is slightly

varying (decreasing) from stilt to parking floor in case of shear wall structure due

to a high percentage of openings in stilt and parking floor.

3. Storey shear of shear wall structure is lesser compared to conventional structure and

hybrid structure.

4. The responses of shear wall structures are lesser compared to conventional structure

when they are subjected to real KOBE-earthquake.

5. Shear wall structure performs well even in high seismic zones than conventional

structure and hybrid structure with minimum drift values and lower displacement

values. Among the hybrid structure-I and hybrid structure-II it is observed that

hybrid structure-II is found to be more effective when subjected to earthquake.

Providing a shear wall in a building is more effective to reduce lateral displacement.

This is because in shear wall structure, the whole structure is composed of the RC

wall, where strength, stiffness, and load-bearing capacity are uniform throughout

the structure.

55
 FURTHER STUDY

Parameters of material consumption in terms of weight of steel, volume of concrete,

time of construction and cost should be evaluated to outline and compare the economic

efficiency of the structures and also different construction techniques should be studied

for all the structure to provide optimum and most economical structure for execution of

high rise building with rapid construction techniques along with high strength and

stability.

56
 REFERENCES

Journal / Conference Papers:

1. Jaswant N, Sudhir K and Murthy C, “Seismic response of RC frame buildings

with soft first storeys”, Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 391-

400, 1997.

2. Daniel N, Kumar K and Gajjar R, “Non-linear response of two-way asymmetric

multi-storey building under biaxial excitation”, Journal of Structural Engineering,

vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1162-1168, 2002.

3. Xilin L and Jiang H, “Nonlinear earthquake response analysis and energy

calculation for seismic slit shear wall structures”, Earthquake Engineering and

Engineering Vibration, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1671-3664, 2002.

4. Cao W, Xue D and Zhang W, “Seismic performance of RC shear wall with

concealed bracing”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 16, no.

6, pp. 429-442, 2003.

5. Masato S and Kuramoto H, “Seismic performance of RC shear walls with multi-

openings”, 14th world conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 2008.

6. Chandurkur P and Pajgade S, “Seismic analysis of RCC building with and

without shear wall”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 25, no.

6, pp.1301-1306, 2013.

7. Dong H, Cao W and Jainwei Z, “Analysis and seismic tests of composite shear

walls with CFST columns and steel plate deep beams”, Earthquake Engineering

and Engineering Vibration, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 609-624, 2013.

57
8. Varsha R, “Comparative study of strength of RC shear wall at different location

on multi-storied residential building”, Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 5, no.

4, pp. 391-400, 2014.

9. Mahdi H, Ahmed N and Abdullah A, “Seismic behavior of RC shear walls”,

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol.25, no. 16, pp. 1735-1749,

2014.

10. Sung G, Woong P and Seing T, “Seismic capacity estimation of steel plate

concrete shear wall specimens by non-linear static analyses”, Journal of Structural

Engineering, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 698-709, 2014.

11. Mishra M and Tokuhiro I, “Proposal of reducing rate for strength due to opening

effect of reinforced concrete framed shear walls”, Journal of Structural and

Construction Engineering, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 119-129, 2015.

12. Mitesh S, Yogendra S and Dominik H, “Seismic performance of shear wall and

shear wall core buildings designed for Indian codes”, Journal of Structural

Engineering, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 322-337, 2015.

13. Gundeep C, “Comparative study of shear wall system and framed tube system in

high rise buildings”, Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 256-262,

2017.

14. Subhajit S and Yogendra S, “Displacement based seismic design of flat slab shear

wall buildings”, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, vol. 15, no.

2, pp. 209-221, 2016.

15. David U, “Behavior of reinforced concrete shear wall buildings subjected to large

earthquakes”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 5, no. 5, pp.

198-209, 2017.

58
16. Pallavi M, “Behavior-based method to determine design shear in earthquake-

resistant walls.” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 820-829,

2017.

17. Colotti V, “Shear behavior of RC structural walls” Journal of Structural

Engineering, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 728-746, 2017.

18. Niharika M and Raut S, “Comparative study of multi-storey building having flat

slab with and without shear wall with conventional frame structure subjected to

earthquake”, Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 469-472, 2018.

19. Bhageri K and Sang S, “Effects of torsional irregularity to structures during

earthquakes”, Engineering Failure Analysis, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 713-717, 2013.

20. Eren A, Tawil S and Sadek F, “Progressive collapse resistance of steel-concrete

composite floors”, Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 136, no. 10, pp. 1187-

1196, 2018.

21. Indian standard code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for

Buildings and structures – Dead loads part-I875, Bureau of Indian Standards, New

Delhi, India, 1987.

22. Indian standard code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for

Buildings and structures – live loads part-II 875, Bureau of Indian Standards, New

Delhi, India, 1987.

23. Indian standard code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for

building and structures – wind loads Part-III 875, Bureau of Indian Standards, New

Delhi, India, 1987.

59
24. Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures: general

provisions and buildings (fifth revision). part-1 1983. Bureau of Indian Standards,

New Delhi, India. 2016.

25. Indian standard ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to

seismic forces-code of practice 13920. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,

India. 1993.

26. Indian standard plain and reinforced concrete code of practice 456. Bureau of Indian

Standards, New Delhi, India. 2000.

60
 ANNEXURE

1. MATERIAL PROPERTIES

i. Concrete

As per Table 5 of IS:456-2000

● Grade of concrete

Columns = M25 (Concrete design Mix as per IS: 456-2000)

Beams = M25 (Concrete design Mix as per IS: 456-2000)

Slabs = M25 (Concrete design Mix as per IS: 456-2000)

● Characteristic compressive strength (fck) = 25N/mm2

● Poisson’s ratio (µ) = 0.15

● Young’s Modulus (E) = 5000 √25

= 25000 N/mm2

ii. Steel Reinforcement

● Grade of steel

Main reinforcement = Fe 500

Secondary reinforcement = Fe 500

● Yield strength (fy) = 500 N/mm2

● Poisson’s ratio (µ) = 0.2

● Young’s Modulus (E) = 200000 N/mm2

iii. Concrete Covers

Considering mild exposure condition and 1.5 hours fire resistance (as per Table 16 &

16A of IS:456-2000).

● Minimum clear cover to main reinforcement shall be as follows.

Columns = 40 mm

61
 Floor Beams = 25 mm

Slabs = 20 mm (with terrace water proofing)

2. LOADS AND FORCES:

i.) Dead load:

Dead loads consist of the weight of the complete structure with finishes, fixtures, wall

panels and all equipment of permanent nature including tanks, partitions etc.

As Per IS: 875 (Part-I)-1987, the unit weights of building materials used in construction

are given below:

Reinforced concrete : 25.00 kN/m3

Plain concrete : 24.00 kN/m3

Floor finishes : 24.00 kN/m3

Cement plaster : 21.00 kN/m3

Brick work (Local available material) : 19.00 kN/m3

Light weight brick bats : 10.00 kN/m3

(For sunken portion)

ii.) Live loads:

Imposed loads in different areas include live loads which will not be less than those

specified in IS: 875 (Part-II). The loads listed here under are the minimum loads for the

areas involved.

All rooms : 2.00 kN/m2

Staircase and lobby area : 3.00 kN/m2

Roof - accessible : 1.50 kN/m2

Roof - non-accessible : 0.75 kN/m2

62
 iii.) Wind loads:

Wind load on structure is calculated as per provisions of IS: 875 (Part-III)-1987. Wind

is assumed to blow in any direction and the most unfavourable condition will be

considered for design.

The computation of wind loads is based on IS: 875 (Part-III) -2015.

e.g., The basic wind speed for Pune,

(From Fig 1 of the IS: 875-2015 Part-III)

Vb = 39 m/sec

Design wind speed Vz = Vb k1 k2 k3 k4

= 39*1.0*1.12*1.0*1.0 = 39 m/sec

where,

k1 = Risk coefficient factor = 1.0 (Table 1 of the IS: 875-2015 (Part 3))

k2 =Terrain, height factor = 1.12 (Table 2 of the IS: 875-2015 (Part 3))

k3 =Topography factor = 1.0 (as per Clause 6.3.3. of the IS: 875-2015 (Part 3))

Design wind pressure (Pz) = Design wind pressure in N/sq.m at a height ‘z’

= 0.6*Vz2 N/m2

= 0.6*(39)2 N/m2

= 0.912 kN/m2

kd (wind directionality Factor) = 0.9 (as per Clause 7.2.1. of the IS: 875-2015

ka (area averaging factor) = 0.955 (as per Clause 7.2.2. of the IS: 875-2015

kc (combination factor) = 1.0 (as per Clause 7.3.3.13. of the IS: 875-2015

Pd (design wind pressure) = kd x ka x kc x Pz (or) 0.7pz

= 0.9 x 0.955 x 1.0 x 0.912

= 0.7838 kN/m2

63
 iv.) Earthquake forces:

The project considered falls in Zone-V, Zone-IV and Zone III. The base shear force will

be computed for building depending on total height, no of stories, type of construction,

type of foundation, dead loads and live loads

v.) Load considerations:

100% DL+ 25% LL for Live Load up to 3 kN/m2

100% DL+ 50% LL for Live Load above 3 kN/m2

As the site is in Zone III, Zone IV and Zone V.

Response spectrum method (Dynamic analysis method) is used for analysis.

e.g., Zone-III

Time period in X direction (Px) = 0.491 (as per Clause 7.6.2.c of the IS1893:2016

Part 1)

Time period in Z direction (Pz) = 0.295 (as per Clause 7.6.2.c of the IS1893:2016

Part 1)

Design acceleration coeff. (Sa/g) = 2.5 (as per Clause 6.4.2.b of IS1893:2016 Part 1)

Zone factor (Z) = 0.16 (Table 3 IS 1893:2016 Part-1)

Importance factor (I) = 1.2 (Table 8 IS 1893:2016 Part-1)

Response Reduction factor (R) = 3.0 (Table 9 IS 1893:2016 Part-1) Soil

type (for Soft soils) = III (Table 4 IS 1893:2016 Part-1)

Damping considered for RCC = 5% (as per Clause 7.3.3.13. of IS1893:2016

Part 1)

Design horizontal seismic coeff. (Ah)= 0.08 (as per Clause 6.4.2. of the IS1893:2016

Part 1)

64
 3. LOADS DETAILS AS PER ETABS:

Bricks considered in the project is Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Bricks (AAC)

i) 230 mm thick wall load

unit weight of brick = 7.84 kN/m3

floor to floor height considered = 3.00 m

width of the wall = 0.23 m

load per meter length of wall = 4.87 kN/m

ii) 230 mm thick terrace parapet load

unit weight of brick = 7.84 kN/m3

floor to floor height considered = 1.20 m

width of the wall = 0.23 m

load per meter length of wall = 2.17 kN/m

iii) slab load 125mm thick

unit weight of concrete = 25 kN/m3

thickness of slab = 125 mm

dead weight of slab = 3.125 kN/m2

floor finish = 1.5 kN/m2

(for all rooms)

total dead load of slab = 4.625 kN/m2

floor finish = 3.0 kN/m2

65
(for toilets)

total dead load of slab = 7.625 kN/m2

66