Journal of Physics: Conference Series

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Investigation of the fire effect on the
Analysis of RC buildings under seismic zones in behavior of corrugated steel plate shear
walls considering environmental aspects
Bangladesh concerning shear wall, aspect ratio D-P N Kontoni, A Ghamari and S Mahmudi

- Response analysis of a multi-story building

and breadth to length ratio structure with a variety of horizontal
irregularities and shear wall geometries
A H Prathama, M Teguh and F Saleh
To cite this article: Redwan-Ul-Islam et al 2023 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2521 012005
- Literature review of seismic performance
of double-layer steel plate-concrete
composite shear wall with stiffeners
Chungang Wang, Shengkai Liu, Yong
Chen et al.
View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 118.179.127.17 on 25/07/2023 at 20:04

CONCET-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2521 (2023) 012005 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2521/1/012005

Analysis of RC buildings under seismic zones in Bangladesh

concerning shear wall, aspect ratio and breadth to length ratio

Redwan-Ul-Islam1,*, Zeba Fariha1, M A Bashar Bhuiyan1 and Rafszanul Islam1

1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Islamic University of Technology, Gazipur,
Dhaka, Bangladesh
*Corresponding author: redwan-ulislam@iut-dhaka.edu

Abstract. Lateral forces (wind, seismic) generated in RC buildings are major design criteria against
structural collapse. Shear walls offer effective ways to provide resistance against such lateral loads.
The present study investigates the drift and defection control of RC symmetrical buildings by
providing core and corner shear walls. Different limiting criteria were determined in four seismic
zones (Zone-1 to Zone-4) in Bangladesh, based on aspect ratio and proposed breadth to length ratio
(B/L ratio). Equivalent Static Analysis in ETABS V.2016 was used to analyze three distinct breadth-
to-length ratios – 1, 0.7, and 0.4 for each zone without shear wall and with both core and corner shear
walls. Results reveal that corner shear walls act efficiently compared to core walls to resist lateral
loads, drift, and deflection. A descending failure pattern was observed from lower to higher seismic
zones for the corresponding breadth to length ratios (B/L).

Keywords: Breadth to length ratio (B/L), Aspect ratio, Equivalent Static Analysis, Core wall, Corner
wall, Lateral loads.

1. Introduction
Bangladesh, located in Southeast Asia, has a very high seismic active zone due to tectonic plate movements
and active fault lines. Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, has a growing tendency of urban population density
and is geographically located near the Madhupur Fault, making it more vulnerable to earthquake damage
[1]. According to the literature, if an earthquake with a Richter scale magnitude of 6.0 strikes Dhaka, will
cause a total financial loss of $1,075 million and destroy 78,323 urban structures [1]. As such, while
undertaking structural designs, the dynamic responses of loads must be taken into consideration [2]. An
earthquake generates a lateral force that increases with respect to the height of the structure. Structural drifts
and deflections are the effects of these lateral forces which may lead to the collapse of reinforced cement
concrete buildings. One of the effective ways to control drift and deflection is by providing shear walls in
critical locations [3]. The addition of a shear wall aids in decreasing displacement in comparison to simple
framed constructions.
The resistance of shear walls against lateral forces has been greatly reported in the literature. Dewangan
et al. [4] studied the effect of core walls in RC buildings and found that shear force as well as strength and
stiffness increased by using core walls compared to without core wall conditions. Karnale and Shinde [5]
stated that shear walls in a building's core allowed for permitted deflection. But maximum base shear made
it more vulnerable to earthquakes, whereas the shear wall at the building's corner provided deflection within
acceptable limits as well as minimal base shear, making it less resistant to earthquakes. Our study

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
CONCET-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2521 (2023) 012005 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2521/1/012005

investigates the impact of limiting the aspect and B/L ratios for a given structural condition in four
earthquake zones, which is not sufficiently covered in literature in the context of Bangladesh.
Structural behavior during any seismic event depends on several factors: base shear, ductility, stiffness,
lateral strength, and configurations are critical among others [6] [7] [8]. Adequate stiffness is necessary for
high-rise buildings to increase resistance against lateral loads from wind or seismic events [9]. Jaya and
Alandkar [10] performed lateral displacement and drift analysis of multistoried buildings using equivalent
static loads and concluded that models with shear wall systems showed comparatively lower lateral
displacement and drift than moment-resisting frame systems. Moreover, Patel and Mehta [11] did a
comparative study on shear wall building as well as core wall building and reported similar outcomes.
Prakash [12] performed an analysis on a multi-storied building with and without shear walls using STAAD
Pro and reported that corner shear wall orientation resulted in the least displacement and moment than other
orientations which to some extent, aligns with the analysis undertaken in this study. Another analysis using
STAAD Pro was conducted by Kumar et al. where he focused to control and reduce the potential damage
that an earthquake may cause and finding a solution that is safe and economic against the maximum
considered earthquake [13]. Furthermore, Caterino et al. [14] proposed approximate methods for evaluating
story stiffness and maximum inter-story drift of RC buildings in seismic areas. A similar kind of seismic
analysis was conducted by Dwivedi and Tyagi using the static analysis method by ETABS [15].
Bangladesh lies at the edge of a moderate to high-level risk from seismic earthquakes. Buildings designed
and eventually constructed without considering seismic parameters as critical parameters are at risk of
failure even from reasonable levels of lateral loading events. To that extent, there are a number of researches
undertaken on seismic performance evaluation from a Bangladeshi perspective. Tafheem et al. [16] did a
comparative analysis between static (equivalent static force method, ESFM) and dynamic (response
spectrum method, RSM) loading conditions on a multistoried RC building following BNBC 2006 and
analyzed earthquake response as per the methodologies. Through analysis, as expected, maximum sway
tended to occur in the top story. However, story drift showed a decreasing tendency with increased story
height. The equivalent static force method (ESFM) provided more accurate data compared to the response
spectrum method (RSM) in this particular study. Shahrin and Hossain [17] performed a non-linear inelastic
pushover analysis to evaluate the seismic performance of residential buildings in Dhaka city, whereas
Ahmed et al. [18] studied the seismic performance of RCC structures, with and without shear walls, located
in different seismic zones in Bangladesh. Their study showed that base shear, base moment, and story drift
increased with a higher zone coefficient and shear wall building performs better in higher seismic zones
compared to buildings with no shear wall. Moreover, seismic performance in the case of plan irregularity
of structures was acknowledged in the study conducted by Haque et al. [19].
This research is based on Bangladesh's most recent building code, BNBC 2020 [20], which closely
follows ASCE 7-10. The models with and without shear walls were tested in four distinct scenarios at four
typical sites (Barisal, Dhaka, Chittagong, and Sylhet) from the four seismic zones established by BNBC
2020. Since the study covers a variety of unexplored areas of research on shear walls in reinforced concrete
structures, it sets the base for future research on the subject. The proposed model highlights the importance
of core wall and corner shear wall with respect to the aspect ratio, zone-wise limitations of RC buildings for
certain conditions, and the impact of slender RC buildings in different seismic zones of Bangladesh.

2. Methodology
2.1. Equivalent static analysis
The Equivalent Static Method is used for analyzing drift and deflection using ETABS V.2016 software. For
symmetrical structures, analysis by an equivalent linear static method is sufficient as the models range
within low to medium-rise buildings; ensuring resistance against torsional movement [21] which is based
on the fundamental natural period of vibration of the structure. It is a simplified technique to distribute the
dynamic loading of an earthquake into static form. Here, seismic actions in both X and Y directions are
considered. In this study, breadth (B) was fixed to 60' while the length (L) varied in order to see the changing

2
CONCET-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2521 (2023) 012005 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2521/1/012005

pattern. To make the behavior understandable, B/L ratios of 1 (L=B), 0.7 (L>B), and 0.4 (L>B) were
utilized. The factors used in the modeling are depicted in Table 1 and the properties of the material with a
brief description of the models are shown in Table 2. The loading conditions and combinations considered
in the models are clearly illustrated in Table 3 and Table 4 respectively.

2.2. Structural modeling

The special moment-resisting frame (SMRF) approach is considered in this study for structural modeling.
Compared to the ordinary moment-resisting frame (OMRF) and intermediate moment-resisting frame
(IMRF), SMRF provides higher elastic characteristics in case of drift or displacement due to lateral loading.
For a seismic force-resisting system, SMRF can be a good solution against strong earthquakes with severe
inelastic activity. This system can help to keep critical failure parameters within the limit and provide
structural rigidity.

Table 1. 
 o), and Deflection Amplification
Factor (Cd)
Special Reinforced Concrete Special Reinforced Concrete
Factors [Ref BNBC 2020: Table Moment Frames Shear Walls
6.2.19][21]
Without Shear Wall With Shear Wall
R 8 7
o 3 2.5
Cd 5.5 5.5

Table 2. Summary of model description and material properties

Model Description Material Properties

Provided B/L Ratios B/L = 1; B/L = 0.7; B/L = 0.4 Material Type Concrete
Comprehensive Strength
Breadth of Model 60’ (18.28 m) 4000 psi (2.76 × 104 kN/m2)
of Concrete
Column Size 17 " × 17 " (0.43 m × 0.43 m) Weight per Unit Volume 150 pcf (23.56 kN/m3)
Ground Column 19 " × 19 " (0.48 m × 0.48 m) Modulus of Elasticity (E) 3.65 × 106 psi ((2.48 × 105 kN/m2)
Shear Modulus of
Floor Beam 14 " × 20 " (0.34 m × 0.51 m) 1502 psi (1.03 × 104 kN/m2)
Concrete (G)
Grade Beam 16 " × 22 " (0.41 m × 0.56 m) Yield Strength of Steel 60,000 psi (4.13 × 105 kN/m2)
Slab Thickness 5 " (0.13 m) Soil Type SC
Shear Wall Thickness 8 " (0.20 m) SPT 15-50
Interior Wall 5 " (0.13 m)
Exterior Wall 10 " (0.25 m)
Occupancy Category II
Exposure Category B
* Values in the brackets () indicate metric unit of the mentioned parameters

2.3. Loading Criteria

Applied loads on structures are investigated in this study according to BNBC 2020 including dead load, live
load, wind load, and seismic load. Table 3 summarizes the loading considerations utilized in this study.

3
CONCET-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2521 (2023) 012005 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2521/1/012005

Table 3. Load Considerations for the Models According to BNBC 2020

Load Considerations
Load Pattern Definition
Dead Load Self-weight/other dead loads
Partition Wall
Super Dead Load (Shell) Partition Wall (Roof)
[Ref Table 6.2.2][21] Floor Finish
Floor Finish (Roof)
Exterior Walls
Super Dead Load (Frame) [Ref Table 6.2.2][21] Interior Walls
Parapet
Floor Live Loads (LL)
Live Load [Ref Table 6.2.3][21]
Roof Live Load (Lr)
* Values in the brackets () indicate metric unit of the mentioned parameters
Value
Auto calculated by software
25 psf (1.2 kN/m2)
0 psf (0 kN/m2)
25 psf (1.2 kN/m2)
25 psf (1.2 kN/m2)
1000 lb/ft (14.59 kN/m)
500 lb/ft (7.29 kN/m)
150 lb/ft (2.18 kN/m)
41.77 psf (2 kN/m2)
60.57 psf (2.9 kN/m2)

Table 4. Load Combinations According to BNBC 2020

Load Combinations [Ref Sec 2.7.1.3 BNBC 2020][21]

Case Basic Load Combinations [Sec 2.7.3.1] Used combinations Considered Zones
1 1.4 (D+F) 1.4D All
2 1.2(D+F+T) + 1.6(L+H) + 0.5(Lr or R) 1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5Lr All
1.2D + 1.6Lr + L All
3 1.2D + 1.6(Lr or R) + (L or 0.8W)
1.2D + 1.6Lr ± 0.8W All
4 1.2D + 1.6W + L + 0.5(Lr or R) 1.2D ± 1.6W + L + 0.5Lr All
1.246D ± 1.0E + 1.0 L Zone 1
1.2767D ± 1.0E + 1.0 L Zone 2
5 1.2D + 1.0E + 1.0 L
1.3073D ± 1.0E + 1.0 L Zone 3
1.338D ± 1.0E + 1.0 L Zone 4
6 0.9D + 1.6W + 1.6H 0.9D ± 1.6W All
0.854D ± 1.0 E Zone 1
0.8233D ± 1.0 E Zone 2
7 0.9D + 1.0E + 1.6H
0.7927D ± 1.0 E Zone 3
0.762D ± 1.0 E Zone 4

In Table 4, the mentioned symbols denote particular forces. The loads are as followed:

D = Dead Load
L = Live Load
W = Wind Load
E = Earthquake Load
R = Rain Load
Lr = Roof Live Load
F = Weight loads and pressures of fluids with well-defined densities with regulated maximum heights or
corresponding internal moments and forces
T = Self-staining forces as well as the cumulative impact of temperature, creep, differential settlement,
shrinkage, and shrinkage compensating concrete.
H = Soil pressure and weight loads, existing water in soil loads, or associated internal forces and moments

4
CONCET-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2521 (2023) 012005 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2521/1/012005

2.4. Problem statement

The analysis is divided into three basic modeling patterns:
1. Case a and d: Model without shear wall
2. Case b and e: Model with core shear wall
3. Case c and f: Model with corner shear wall

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 1. Model configurations using ETABS for B/L = 1; 3D view and plan view of Case (a and d):
Without shear wall, Case (b and e): With core shear wall, Case (c and f): With corner shear wall

In Figure 1, we presented 3D views and plan views of models with B/L = 1. Here, both breadth (B) and
length (L) are of 60’, covering an area of 60’× 60’. Case a and d depict conditions without shear wall system.
On the contrary, case b and e depict model with core shear wall system of 8” thickness and 12’ length on
each side right at the center of the area. Lastly, case c and f depict model with corner shear wall system of
8” thickness and 12’ length on each side right at the four corners of the area.
In the conclusion, it is to be added that models with similar cases have been analyzed for B/L = 0.7 and
B/L = 0.4. Breadth (B) was fixed to 60' while the length (L) varied; lengths for B/L ratio 0.7 and 0.4 are
85.71’ and 150’ accordingly. Thickness of shear wall is 8” for all cases.

5
CONCET-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2521 (2023) 012005 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2521/1/012005

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Limitation analysis for various seismic zones with the aspect ratio
The limitation analysis for various seismic zones is illustrated in Figure 2. Limiting aspect ratios for
particular seismic zones were derived for each breadth-to-length ratio. For the B/L ratio of 1, limiting aspect
ratios of 2.17, 2, 1.5, and 0.83 were found for zone 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. Similarly, for the B/L ratio
of 0.7, limiting aspect ratios of 2, 1.83, 1.33, and 0.83 were found for zone 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. For
the B/L ratio of 0.4, limiting aspect ratios of 1.83, 1.67, 1.17, and 0.67 were found for zone 1, 2, 3, and 4
accordingly.
Figure 2 demonstrates a decreasing limiting pattern of aspect ratio from zone-1 to zone-4 for models
with lower B/L ratio which significantly indicates exceeding of deflection limit for particular story heights.
However, structures of the zone – 4 require more attention as these are the most susceptible ones to higher
seismic activities. Moreover, a descending failure pattern or limitation of the aspect ratio trend is clearly
seen for the increment of zones (from zone 1 to 4) as well as the decrement of the B/L ratio (from B/L=1 to
B/L=0.4).

3.2. Limitation analysis for various breadth to length (B/L) ratios with the aspect ratio
The limitation analysis for various breadth to length (B/L) ratios is illustrated in Figure 3. Limiting aspect
ratio for particular B/L ratio were derived for each seismic zone in the following order of B/L of 1, 0.7, and
0.4 respectively. For zone - 1, limiting aspect ratios were 2.17, 2, and 1.83. Similarly, for zone - 2, limiting
aspect ratios were 2, 1.83, and 1.67. For zone - 3, limiting aspect ratios were 1.5, 1.33, and 1.17.

Limitation Analysis: Aspect Ratio vs Seismic Limitation Analysis : Aspect Ratio vs B/L Ratios
Zones
3
2.17 2 2 1.83
3 2.17 1.83 1.67
2 2 2 1.5
Aspect Ratio
Aspect Ratio

1.83 1.83 1.67

1.5 1.33
1.33 1.17
2 1.17 0.83 0.83
0.83 0.83 0.67 1 0.67
1
0 0
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 B/L Ratio 1 B/L Ratio 0.7 B/L Ratio 0.4

Seismic Zones B/L ratio

BL Ratio=1 BL Ratio=0.7 BL Ratio=0.4 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4

Figure 2. Limiting aspect ratio for different seismic Figure 3. Limiting aspect ratio for different B/L
zones ratios

For zone - 4, limiting aspect ratios were 0.83, 0.83, and 0.67. Figure 3 demonstrates a decreasing limiting
pattern of aspect ratio from B/L 1 to 0.4 for models with a higher seismic coefficient. It is observed that
structures become slender with decreased B/L ratio which results in lower stiffness and resistance against
lateral loads. As a result, structures cross deflection limits at lower aspect ratios. Like Figure 2, here also, a
descending failure pattern or limitation of the aspect ratio trend is seen with the decrement of B/L ratio from
B/L=1 to B/L=0.4.

3.3. Deflection reduction based on shear wall orientation

The inclusion of a shear wall significantly reduced the model's deflection as illustrated in Figure 4, Figure
5, and Figure 6 for B/L ratios of 1, 0.7, and 0.4 respectively in different seismic zones. Each case is illustrated
with reference allowable deflections. The reduction of deflection varies with shear wall orientation. From
the following figures, it is observed that the deflection in buildings with corner shear walls decreases more

6
CONCET-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2521 (2023) 012005 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2521/1/012005

than double that of core walls in maximum cases. As the zone with high seismicity and risks, buildings of
zone-4 face greater seismic loads and fail with a high deflection at a lower aspect ratio for any range of B/L
ratios. This problem can be effectively handled if these buildings are provided with adequate shear walls,
specifically corner-oriented shear walls. The models of zone-4 resulted in a larger proportion of reduced
displacement than the other three zones verifying greater stiffness of the structure. Moreover, torsional
effects were negligible in all the cases.

Zone 1 (B/L = 1) Zone 2 (B/L = 1)

3.28
3.5 3.12 3.5
2.879 2.88
Maximum Deflection (in)

Maximum Deflection (in)

3 2.74 2.59 3
2.3656 2.25
2.5 2.5
2 1.56 2
1.32
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
2 2.17 2.17 (With 2.17 (With 1.83 2 2 (With Core 2 (With
Core Wall) Corner Wall) Wall) Corner Wall)
Aspect ratio Aspect ratio

Maximum Deflection Maximum Deflection

Allowable Deflection Allowable Deflection

(a) (b)

Zone 3 (B/L = 1) Zone 4 (B/L = 1)

2.5 2.177 2.16 1.4 1.255

1.2
Maximum Deflection (in)

Maximum Deflection (in)

1.865 1.81 1.2

2 0.99
1 0.816
1.5 0.8
0.91 0.6
1 0.36
0.4
0.5
0.2
0 0
1.33 1.5 1.5 (With Core 1.5 (With 0.67 0.83 0.83 (With 0.83 (With
Wall) Corner Wall) Core Wall) Corner Wall)
Aspect ratio Aspect ratio
Maximum Deflection Maximum Deflection
Allowable Deflection Allowable Deflection

(c ) (d)

Figure 4. Deflection reduction based on shear wall orientation for B/L = 1; (a) Zone-1, (b) Zone-2, (c) Zone-
3, (d) Zone-4

7
CONCET-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2521 (2023) 012005 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2521/1/012005

Zone 1 (B/L = 0.7) Zone 2 (B/L = 0.7)

3.5 3.16 3 2.73 2.64

2.88
Maximum Deflection (in)

Maximum Deflection (in)

3 2.6 2.5 2.21
2.5 2.29 1.94
2
2
1.52 1.5 1.27
1.5
1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
1.83 2 2 (With Core 2 (With Corner 1.67 1.83 1.83 (With 1.83 (With
Wall) Wall) Core Wall) Corner Wall)
Aspect ratio Aspect Ratio
Maximum Deflection Maximum Deflection
Allowable Deflection Allowable Deflection

(a) (b)

Zone 3 (B/L = 0.7) Zone 4 (B/L = 0.7)

2.5 1.6
1.4
2 1.92 1.4 1.2
Maximum Deflection (in)

Maximum Deflection (in)

2
1.68 1.2
1.45 0.92 0.93
1.5 1
0.8
0.9
1 0.6 0.46
0.4
0.5
0.2
0 0
1.167 1.33 1.33 (With 1.33 (With 0.67 0.83 0.83(With 0.83(With
Core Wall) Corner Wall) Core Wall) Corner Wall)
Aspect ratio Aspect Ratio
Maximum Deflection Maximum Deflection
Allowable Deflection Allowable Deflection

(c ) (d)

Figure 5. Deflection reduction based on shear wall orientation for B/L = 0.7; (a) Zone-1, (b) Zone-2, (c)
Zone-3, (d) Zone-4

8
CONCET-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2521 (2023) 012005 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2521/1/012005

Zone 1 (B/L = 0.4) Zone 2 (B/L = 0.4)

3.5 3
2.96 2.52 2.4
3 2.64 2.5

Maximum Deflection (in)

Maximum Deflection (in)

2.38 2.41 1.99 2.02

2.5
2
2
1.53 1.5 1.3
1.5
1
1

0.5 0.5

0 0
1.67 1.83 1.83 (With 1.83 (With 1.33 1.67 1.67 (With 1.67 (With
Core Wall) Corner Wall) Core Wall) Corner Wall)
Aspect ratio Aspect ratio
Maximum Deflection Maximum Deflection
Allowable Deflection Allowable Deflection

(a) (b)

Zone 3 (B/L = 0.4) Zone 4 (B/L = 0.4)

2 1.52
1.74 1.6
1.8 1.68
1.4
1.6
Maximum Deflection (in)

1.44 1.2
Maximum Deflection (in)

1.35 1.2
1.4
1.2 1 0.88
0.94
1 0.71
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6 0.38
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
0 0
1 1.167 1.167 (With 1.167 (With 0.5 0.67 0.67 (With 0.67 (With
Core Wall) Corner Wall) Core Wall) Corner Wall)
Aspect Ratio Aspect ratio
Maximum Deflection Maximum Deflection
Allowable Deflection Allowable Deflection

(c ) (d)

Figure 6. Deflection reduction based on shear wall orientation for B/L = 0.4; (a) Zone-1, (b) Zone-2, (c)
Zone-3, (d) Zone-4

9
CONCET-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2521 (2023) 012005 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2521/1/012005

4. Limitations, implementations, and future scopes

One of the significant flaws of this study is that it only considered low-rise buildings as the ESFM approach
is better suited to low-rise structures than high-rise structures. Models for four specific places within each
of the four seismic zones were analyzed, which did not comprehensively capture the entire picture of seismic
conditions. This analysis, however, will aid in the formation of a guideline for determining the best aspect
ratio for providing a shear wall based on zonal features. Effective design, costing, and safety can as such,
be ensured with proper data collection and subsequent analysis and execution. This would aid in the
classification of building layouts based on seismic conditions, soil types, exposure, wind speed, and other
factors. Furthermore, pushover analysis and dynamic analysis can be used to analyze the seismic
performance of high-rise buildings.

5. Conclusion

1. Drift and deflection of high-rise structures should be considered in areas with higher seismic zone
coefficient due to notable earthquake magnitude, as these parameters often dictate the selection of
structural systems for high-rise buildings.
2. Buildings with shear walls perform better in larger seismic zones than buildings without shear walls
because shear walls enhance overall structural stiffness and strength.
3. When compared to core walls, corner shear walls are more efficient in resisting lateral loads, drift,
and deflection.
4. A deteriorating curve can be noticed among the aspect ratios for comparable B/L ratios where the
maximum permissible deflection and drift constraints were exceeded. Buildings in higher seismic
zones require shear walls at a lower aspect ratio.
5. The aspect ratios show a declining pattern for models with B/L ratios of 1, 0.7, and 0.4, respectively.
It is observed that structures become slender with decreased B/L ratio which results in lower
stiffness and resistance against lateral loads. As a result, structures fail at lower aspect ratios. The
limiting aspect ratios for different zones can be considered as best aspect ratios accordingly for the
construction of buildings without shear walls.
6. Buildings with a lower aspect ratio (low-rise buildings) do not show a significant change in
structural behavior under seismic loads even after providing shear walls.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Professor Dr. Tarek Uddin Mohammed for his valuable guideline
throughout the research work.

References
[1] Rahman N, Ansary MA and Islam I 2015 GIS based mapping of vulnerability to earthquake and fire
hazard in Dhaka city, Bangladesh International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 13 291–300
[2] Sunil SK, Mahesh Kumar CL, Shweta KG and Raghavendra HJ 2017 Seismic Evaluation of Multi-
Storey Building using E-tabs International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology 4(8)
1943-1949
[3] Tarigan J, Manggala J and Sitorus T 2018 The effect of shear wall location in resisting earthquake
IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 309 012077
[4] Dewangan U, Dubey SK and Pradesh M 2008 Effect of core wall on seismic response of soft story
RC building International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology 5(6) 3144-3150
[5] Karnale AB and Shinde DN Seismic Analysis of RCC Building with Shear Wall at Different
Locations

10
CONCET-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2521 (2023) 012005 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2521/1/012005

[6] Mushtaq M 2019 By using ETABS, Study and Design the Lateral Resistance System to Reducing
the Displacement in Multistory Buildings International Journal of Science and Research 10 2319–
7064
[7] Ravikumar CM, Babu Narayan KS, Sujith BV and Venkat Reddy D 2012 Effect of Irregular
Configurations on Seismic Vulnerability of RC Buildings Architecture Research 2(3) 20–26
[8] Reshma TV, Sankalpasri SS, Tanu HM and Nirmala MV 2021 Multistorey Building Analysis and
Its Behavior because of Shear Wall Location Underneath completely different Seismal Zones IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 822 012044
[9] Bongilwar R, Harne VR and Chopade A 2018 Significance of Shear Wall in Multi-Storey Structure
with Seismic Analysis IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 330 012131
[10] Jaya P and Alandkar PM 2016 Drift analysis in multistoried building Int J Eng Sci Res Technol 5(12)
[11] Patel SJ and Mehta NS 2020 Comparison of Shear wall Building and Core wall Building IOSR
Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering 17(3) 35–42
[12] Sugamya K and Prakash J 2016 Seismic Evaluation Of Multistoried Building With Ground Soft
Story And With Infills By Using E-tabs International Journal of Science Engineering and Advance
Technology 4(2)
[13] Kumar LH, Reddy VSR and Kumar NV 2021 Seismic analysis and design of a multi storied building
of (G+15) by using StaadPro The International Journal of Analytical and Experimental Modal
Analysis
[14] Caterino N, Cosenza E and Azmoodeh BM 2013 Approximate Methods to Evaluate Storey Stiffness
and Interstory Drift of RC Buildings in Seismic Area Structural Engineering & Mechanics 46(2)
245-267
[15] Dwivedi A and Tyagi BS 2020 Seismic Analysis of Building with and Without Shear Wall for
Building with RCC and Composite Column International Journal of Engineering Research &
Technology 9(6) 172-179
[16] Tafheem Z, Jihan JI, Samdanee T, Syed A and Tarin M 2016 Earthquake response analysis of a
multistoried RC building under equivalent static and dynamic loading as per Bangladesh national
building code 2006
[17] B. Institution of Engineers (Bangladesh). 
!#%&<??%Q\^ ^_
Institution of Engineers (Bangladesh) Civil Engineering Division, and B. Civil Engineering
`?#%&<??%Q\ {!
 ?`  |  
Congress, December 22-24, 2011, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
[18] Ahmed MM, Hasan M, Tahora S and Haque M 2019 Study of Seismic Performances of RCC
Buildings Located in Different Seismic Zones in Bangladesh Journal of Construction and Building
Materials Engineering 5(1) 13-18
[19] Haque M 2016 Seismic Performance Analysis of RCC Multi-Storied Buildings with Plan Irregularity
American Journal of Civil Engineering 4(3) 68-73
[20] BNBC – 2020, 2021, February. Bangladesh National Building Code 2020, Ministry of Housing and
Public Works, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
[21] Bagheri B, Firoozabad ES and Yahyaei M 2012 Comparative Study of the Static and Dynamic
Analysis of Multi-Storey Irregular Building International Journal of Civil and Environmental
Engineering 6(11) 1045-1049

11