CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION
1.1 General

Earthquake resistant design of reinforced concrete building is an ongoing area of

research since the earthquake engineering has kicked-off not only in India but in other
highly-developed countries as well. Mass of the building is chiefly located at its floor.
Considering earthquake force is an internal force (i.e., force is equal to mass times
acceleration), most of the earthquake force is rendered at the floors. Structure’s upshot
to the ground motion is directly concomitant to the lateral stiffness of the structure.
Hence to escalate this lateral stiffness a peculiar lateral load resisting system is to be
designed particularly for the structure.

1.2Lateral Load Resisting Systems

Most commonly used lateral load resisting systems are:

1. Moment Resisting Frame: They are comprised of shafts and sections that
oppose sidelong loads through flexure of individuals and through firmness of
unbending joints interfacing the pillars and segments. It provides flexibility for
architectural design and layout but at the same time produces greater deflection and
drift compared to that of braced frames or shear walls

2. Braced Frames: They oppose loads through a progression of brackets made of

steel individuals. The corner to corner individuals from the supports oppose horizontal
burdens as pivotal anxieties, either by strain or pressure. They are more workable for
steel structures as compared to reinforced concrete structures

3. Shear Walls: These likewise give protection from parallel powers by cantilever
activity through shear and twisting. The piece associated with the shear divider should
work as a flat stomach. They have enormous solidness and strength for opposition shear
dividers should be put evenly in the two ways to the plane of stacking with the goal that
no torsional impact would be delivered.
1.3 Flat Slab & Lateral Stiffness

A flat slab is a strengthened solid piece upheld straightforwardly by solid

segments without the utilization of bars. Fortified solid level sections are perhaps the
most famous floor frameworks utilized in private structures, vehicle leaves and
numerous different designs. They address rich and simple to-develop floor frameworks.
But flat slabs as compared to the regular solid slabs have much lesser stiffness and
hence are more susceptible to higher lateral displacement and drift values due to lack
of resistance offered against the lateral load.

Also, the structure should feature uncomplicated and streamlined configuration,

apposite lateral strength, stiffness and ductility to perform deftly under the effect of
earthquake. Those constructions with basic normal math and consistently conveyed
mass and solidness in arrangement just as in rise are considered to endure a lot lesser
harm than structures with sporadic structures.

Yet, these days, sporadic structures are liked because of their useful and tasteful
contemplation are apparent from instances of practical existing unpredictable
structures.. As per IS 1893(part1):2016 enlists the irregularity in buildings. These
irregularities are categorized as follows

1.4 Irregularities in Building Structures

There are two types of building irregularities, they are

1. Plan Irregularities.
2. Vertical Irregularities

In plan irregular building there are of five types, they are

1. Torsion Irregularity.
2. Re-entrant Corners.
3. Diaphragm Discontinuity.
4. Out-of-Plane Offsets.
5. Non-parallel Systems.

In vertical irregularity buildings there are also five types, they are
● Stiffness Irregularity i.e., Soft Storey
● Mass Irregularity.
● Vertical Geometric Irregularity.
● In-Plane Discontinuity in Vertical Elements Resisting Lateral Force.
● Discontinuity in Capacity - Weak Storey.

Torsional Irregularity: Torsional irregularity as per Indian code, is to be

considered to exist when the maximum story drift, computed with design
eccentricity, at one end of the structures transverse to an axis is more than 1.2 times
the average of the storey drifts at the ends of the structure. The reason behind this
irregularity is shift in the location of centre of rigidity of the horizontal system from
position of centre of mass. The point of action of load is centre of mass and the
point or line along which the applied external load is resisted is centre of rigidity.
This leads to generation of eccentric moment equal to the product of storey lateral
force and the eccentricity. This induces a twisting moment along the vertical axis
of the structure.

Re-Entrant Corners: Plan configuration of a structure as per Indian code and its
lateral forces resisting system contain re-entrant corners, where both projection of
the structure beyond the re-entrant corner are greater than 15% of its plan dimension
in the given direction. This leads to irregular behaviors of the structure and stress
concentration at such locations in the structures.
 CHAPTER-2
LITERATURE REVIEW WITH CRITIQUES

2.1 Introduction

Research papers published in different journals of national and international

stature were studied to understand the significance and need of research in the chosen
field. The review of literatures listed below gives a brief idea about perform ace of flat
slab buildings.

2.2 Review of Literature

Osama Ahmed Mohamed (2015) [1] states that Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
(MRSA) is one of the most often used methods for evaluating seismic response in
building systems. In MRSA, the configuration is idealized as a set of single-degree
freedom structures, each of which has its own mode form and vibration time. MRSA is
allowed for structures in any category of seismic design (SDC) and several forms of
irregularities. The presence of torsional disturbances suggests that the seismic forces
may be intensified due to the eccentricity of the seismic forces. The aim of this paper
is to address the determination of the effects of torsional irregularity on seismic
response in conjunction with ASCE 7–10 while MRSA is used for the measurement of
seismic forces and drifts. A common misunderstanding is that the use of MRSA
requires various vibration modes, hence, torsional irregularity effects do not have to be
accounted for like many vibration modes. This paper explores that torsional irregularity
needs to be compensated for even though MRSA is used. The case study reinforced
concrete system is used to illustrate the understanding of the existing provisions of the
Code for the incorporation of torsional irregularity effects while the MRSA procedure
is used.

Rajiv Banerjee (2020) [2] in this article calculates optimal or acceptable position of
the shear wall in a high-rise irregularly shaped building. In dimensional analysis, they
evaluated multiple models with the aid of ETABS. Both Time History and RSA
approaches are used in the study. The paper specifically specifies the causes of torsion
in a high-rise building, as well as the ways in which torsion and displacement can be
managed with the aid of a shear wall in high-rise buildings. The productivity of the
shear wall is determined by its position in the building. When we speak about an
irregularly shaped house, it becomes very difficult to define the optimal position. This
is due to the fact that under lateral forces, irregularly formed buildings cause torsion
due to their geometry. In such situations, the supply of shear walls in dangerous areas
can cause further torsion in the building. It is therefore very interesting to research the
generation of torsional force in a high-rise building. In addition, its clearly exemplified
that we must not neglect the use of shear walls, i.e. to have resistance to lateral forces.
Thus, the optimum position of the shear wall can only be calculated by considering the
torsion produced in the building during the lateral forces

Wang Quanfeng (1986) [3] explains a simpler approach is used to address the effects
of systemic steps twisting on the optimum stiffness of the shear wall in this paper's tall
house. Second, the position of the rigidity core on each floor would be determined.
Then the moment of twisting can be located on every surface. Based on the combination
of forces, the angle of rotation of each floor is reached. After getting the values of these
angles of twisting, the formulas of drift at each floor and the maximum lateral
deformation of the building calculated under the condition that the structural twisting
is ignored can be easily adjusted. Next, restriction constraints, including displacement
and tension limits, may be proposed again. After that the earthquake load chosen as an
analytical feature may be based on the theory of the spectra of reaction. By taking the
effective stiffness of the shear wall as a design element, a mathematical model is
developed to determine the optimum stiffness of the shear wall.

2.3 Critiques

Flat slab building using shear wall have become common due to significantly
contribution in lateral stiffness. Especially for taller buildings, the structural
configuration using combination of flat slab and shear wall is generally used in multi-
storey building.

Many researchers have investigated the behaviors of irregular building, but tall
structure having floors with imparted angular rotation have not been sufficiently studied
yet. Especially flat slab systems having twisted floors with re-entrant corners have not
been researched over much.
The work is to study the seismic behaviors of the flat slab tall structure having rotated
floors at certain angles for different storey with re-entrant corners and hence to study
various configurations of shear walls and to find the best configuration out of these
configurations as modelled.
 CHAPTER-3

OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

3.1 Objectives

The objective is to study the seismic behaviors of multi-story flat slab

building having in plan irregularity & vertical irregularity with re-entrant corners.

The detailed objective shall be as follows:

1. To study the behaviors of multistorey flat slab building having floors rotated
by certain degrees & having re-entrant corners.
2. To find the effectiveness of the shear walls placed at different structural
locations under static and dynamic loads by performing multiple analysis.
3. Linear Static and Response Spectrum analysis shall be performed using
ETABS 18 software on the building models to study various parameters such
as storey drift, storey displacement, storey shears, and storey stiffness.

To finally plot the graphs between and compare result for variation of following

4.1 Displacement vs. Storey height

4.2 Drift vs. Storey height

4.3 Drift Reduction Percentage vs. Storey Height

4.4 Contribution Factor vs. Storey Height

5. To study the effect of various configurations and to find which is more effective in
terms of displacement, drift, contribution factor and drift reduction factor.
3.2 Methodology

In this study comparison of outrigger system and conventional structure under

seismic as well as gravity loading is worked out, and concept of outrigger structural
system is studied. To achieve the objective of this study the methodology used is as
follows:

 Rigorous review of the literature & the past research works done on response of
the building having re-entrant corners & twisted floors to find best structural
configuration of shear walls.
 Selection of the building’s geometry and Seismic zone.
 Calculation of loads on building using IS 875 Part 1&2.
 Formation of load combination as per IS: 1893 (Part I): 2016
 Review of provisions as stated in Indian standards in relation to seismic analysis
of reinforced concrete structures.
 Formulating a problem having eleven storeys with twisted floors and multiple
configurations of shear walls.
 Preliminary member sections are assumed and modeling of conventional frame
with different configurational systems is done by using ETABS 2018 software.
 Analyzing the structure based on static and dynamic analysis for different cases,
calculating diaphragm eccentricities and reapplying them into model.
 To plot the graphs between Displacement vs. Storey eight, Contribution
percentage vs. Storey height, Drift vs. Storey height, Drift reduction percentage
vs. Storey Height and compare results for variations is presented.
 CHAPTER-4

PROBLEM FORMULATION

4.1 General

To draw a comparative study & analyses between the structural effectiveness of the
shear walls, various configurations of the multi storey structure were so chosen which
had in plan irregularities along with vertical irregularities along the height of the
structure. The floors of the building were rotated by certain degrees along their vertical
axis. The structure so chosen had re-entrant corners as well.

Hence, the structure was modelled with different configurations of the shear walls
which were terminated at different heights. Also, the location of the shear walls that
were modelled was different for different cases.

The following cases & configurations were so chosen:

1. Bare frame (Case 1)

2. Frame with core shear wall (Case 2)

3. Frame with corner shear wall (Case 3)

4. Frame with combination of core and corner shear wall (Case 4)

 CHAPTER-5
STRUCTURAL MODELING AND ANALYSIS
5.1 General
In this chapter the details of various structural configurations modelled for the
analysis are presented. The various models are prepared in the ETABS 2017 software
package. The details of various loadings applied on the structures for analysis and the
material properties are discussed briefly in this chapter. Also, the various methods used
to perform the analysis and the design details of the sections chosen for the structural
systems in this study are discussed.

5.2 Details of Structural Models

 Storey height: 3.658m

 Number of Storey: 11 including base

 Base Storey Height: 4m

 Grid size: 5m X 5m

 Thickness of Flat Slab: 200mm

 Thickness of Shear Wall: 250mm

 Grade of Concrete: M30

 Grade of Steel: Fe500D

 Grade of Steel for Stirrups: Fe415

 Table 5.1 Angle of rotation for various storey levels

STOREY LEVEL ANGLE OF TWIST

Storey 1 to Storey 3 0°
Storey 4 to Storey 7 5° Anticlockwise
Storey 8 to Storey 11 5° Clockwise

Table 5.2 Angle of rotation for various storey levels

STOREY LEVEL SLAB AREA

Storey 1 to Storey 3 95mx100m – 4x(20mx20m) = 7900m2
Storey 4 to Storey 7 4200m2
Storey 8 to Storey 11 2025m2

Figure 5.1 Bare Frame Structure (Case 1)

Figure 5.2 Bare Frame Plan at Storey 1 to 3

Figure 5.3 Bare Frame Plan at Storey 4 to 7

Figure 5.4 Bare Frame Plan at Storey 8 to 11

Figure 5.5 Frame with core shear wall (Case 2)
Figure 5.6 Core Shear Wall Plan at Storey 1 to 3

Figure 5.7 Core Shear Wall Plan at

Storey 4 to 7

Figure 5.8 Core Shear Wall Plan at Storey 8 to 11

Figure 5.9 Frame with corner shear wall (Case 3)
5.10 Corner shear wall plan at storey 1 to 3

5.11 Corner shear wall plan at storey 4 to 7

5.12 Corner shear wall plan at storey 8 to 11

Figure 5.13 Frame with core and corner shear wall (Case 4)
5.14 Core and corner shear wall plan at storey 1 to 3

5.15 Core and corner shear wall plan at storey 4 to 7

5.16 Core and corner shear wall plan at storey 8 to 11

5.3 Section Modifiers
1.For Column Section:

a. Moment of Inertia about 2-Axis = 0.7

b. Moment of Inertia about 3-Axis = 0.7

2.For Wall Sections:

a. Moment of Inertia about 2-Axis = 0.7

b. Moment of Inertia about 3-Axis = 0.7

5.4 Loadings Details

5.4.1 General

 Self-weight of members that were modelled in the software

 Floor Finish Load: 1.5kN/m2

 Live load – 3.5kN/m2 as specified in IS 875 Part (II)

 Earthquake load as per IS 1893 (Part-I):2016.

a. Earthquake Zone: Zone V

b. Zone Factor: 0.36

c. Importance Factor: 1.5

d. Response Reduction Factor: 3

e. Site Type: I

f. Time Period: As calculated for EQ-X & EQ-Y

5.4.2 Load combinations

5.4.2.1.1 Equivalent Static Analysis

1. 1.5(DL)

2. 1.5(DL+LL)

3. 1.2(DL+LL+EQX)

4. 1.2(DL+LL-EQX)

5. 1.2(DL+LL+EQY)

6. 1.2(DL+LL-EQY)

7. 1.5(DL+EQX)

8. 1.5(DL-EQX)

9. 1.5(DL+EQY)

10. 1.5(DL-EQY)

11. 0.9(DL)+1.5(EQX)

12. 0.9(DL)-1.5(EQX)

13. 0.9(DL)+1.5(EQY)

14. 0.9(DL)-1.5(EQY)

5.4.2.2 Response Spectrum Analysis

1. 1.2(DL+LL+RS-x)

2. 1.2(DL+LL+RS-y)

3. 1.5(DL+RS-x)

4. 1.5(DL+RS-y)

5. 0.9(DL)+1.5(RS-x)

6. 0.9(DL)+1.5(RS-y)
5.5 Material Properties

The various material properties and constants considered for the present study
work are mentioned below:

5.5.1 Concrete Properties

Weight per unit volume – 25 kN/m3

Poisson’s Ratio – 0.2
Modulus of Elasticity – 25000 MPa for M25

Shear Modulus – 10416.67 MPa for M25

5.5.2 Rebar Properties

Mass per unit volume – 7850 kg/m3

Modulus of Elasticity – 200 GPa
Yield Strength (longitudinal bars) – 500 MPa
Yield Strength (transverse bars) – 415 MPa
 CHAPTER-6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 General
The results are inferred according to the values obtained by the equivalent static and
dynamic analysis i.e., response spectrum analysis carried out on the structural
configurations having different locations of the shear walls. The parameters so chosen
to draw a comparison amongst different configurations are enlisted below.

The following cases & configurations were so chosen:

1. Bare frame (Case 1)

2. Frame with core shear wall (Case 2)

3. Frame with corner shear wall (Case 3)

4. Frame with combination of core and corner shear wall (Case 4)

The parameters, which are selected for comparison, are as follows:

1. Floor Displacement (mm): It is a parameter which tells us about the floor wise
maximum lateral displacement due to ground motion.

2. Drift Ratio: It is ratio of difference between the displacements of two adjacent floors
due to ground motion divided by the inter storey height.

3. Contribution Factor: It helps to judge the added contribution of the lateral load
resisting system added to the structure in resisting the lateral loads.

4. Drift Reduction Factor: It is a factor that gives effectiveness of lateral load resisting
system, floor wise, in terms of reduction in inter storey drift.
6.2 Storey Level V/S Lateral Displacement Plots

DISPLACEMENT X
1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

WITHOUT CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Figure 6.2.1 Static Analysis Displacement V/S Storey Height: X DIRECTION

DISPLACEMENT Y
1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

WITHOUT CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Figure 6.2.2- Static Analysis - Displacement V/S Storey Height: Y DIRECTION

 DISPLACEMENT X
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

WITHOUT CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Figure 6.2.3- Dynamic Analysis - Displacement V/S Storey Height: X DIRECTION

DISPLACEMENT Y
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

WITHOUT CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Figure 6.2.4- Dynamic Analysis - Displacement V/S Storey Height: Y DIRECTION

Discussion: Lateral Displacement
Lateral displacement of any storey level depends upon the lateral resistance that the
structure offers at that particular story level. This is directly a function of stiffness of
the lateral load resisting system. It can be clearly seen that the lateral displacement
values are more at the upper storey as compared to the lower storey. Out of all the
configurations, after bare frame structure, the least resistance is offered by the
configuration having shear walls placed at the re-entrant corners, infact the values as
obtained after performing dynamic analysis show that the shear wall placed at the re-
entrant corners yield even poorer performance than bare frame dure to uneven and
insignificant contribution to the stiffness The results clearly show that configuration
having shear wall at the core performed even better and the displacements were reduced
by 96%. The configuration having shear walls at both core and corner had the least
storey displacement if compared to other configurations at all levels and performed the
best.
6.2 Storey Level V/S Contribution Factor Plots

CONTRIBUTION RATIO X
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Figure 6.3.1- Static Analysis - Contribution Factor V/S Storey Height: X

DIRECTION

CONTRIBUTION RATIO Y
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Figure 6.3.2- Static Analysis - Contribution Factor V/S Storey Height: Y

DIRECTION
 CONTRIBUTION RATIO X
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
-0.2

CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Figure 6.3.3- Dynamic Analysis - Contribution Factor V/S Storey Height: X

DIRECTION

CONTRIBUTION RATIO Y
1.01

0.99

0.98

0.97

0.96

0.95

0.94
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Figure 6.3.4- Dynamic Analysis - Contribution Factor V/S Storey Height: Y

DIRECTION
Discussion: Contribution Factor

This is a factor that helps us to judge the contribution of lateral load resisting system in
curbing and resisting the lateral loads at different floor levels. Uniform values of
contribution factor represent a well-designed structure. As it can be observed in Graph
5 to Graph 8, that the values for a structure having shear walls at re-entrant corners are
very inconsistent, and the values of contribution factor are decreasing with increase in
storey height. This shows that shear walls when placed at re-entrant corners only are
insufficient to resist the lateral loads and displacement values are closer to bare frame.
The values for the other two configurations are very consistent and uniform. The values
in general are more for static analysis as compared to the once obtained from dynamic
analysis.
6.4 Storey Level V/S Drift Plots

DRIFT X
0.045
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
-0.005 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

WITHOUT CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Figure 6.4.1- Static Analysis - Drift V/S Storey Height: X DIRECTION

DRIFT Y
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
-0.005 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

WITHOUT CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Figure 6.4.2- Static Analysis - Drift V/S Storey Height: Y DIRECTION

 DRIFT X
0.01

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.002

WITHOUT CORE CORNER CORE+CORNER

Figure 6.4.3- Dynamic Analysis - Drift V/S Storey Height: X DIRECTION

DRIFT Y
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.2

WITHOUT CORE CORNER CORE+CORNER

Figure 6.4.4- Dynamic Analysis - Drift V/S Storey Height: Y DIRECTION

Discussion: Storey Drift
Story drift is the difference of displacements between two consecutive stories divided
by the height of that story whereas lateral displacement is the absolute value of
displacement of the storey under action of the lateral forces with respect to base. The
permissible limit as specified in IS 1893 2016 is 0.4% times the storey height. It is
observed in all the configurations that the drift values increase with increasing storey
heights. The drift values as calculated by static analysis are on higher side as compared
to the once obtained via dynamic analysis. The drift values for the bare frame
configuration were maximum as it possessed minimum lateral stiffness. The
configuration having shear walls placed at the re-entrant corners initially at the lower
storeys performed better than bare frame but with increasing heights performs worse.
The configurations having shear walls at the core and at the core along with the re-
entrant corners performed almost similar, and performed most efficiently under lateral
loads.
6.5 Storey Level V/S Drift Reduction Factor Plots

DRIFT RATIO X
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.2

CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Figure 6.5.1- Static Analysis - Drift Ratio V/S Storey Height: X DIRECTION

DRIFT RATIO Y
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.2

CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Figure 6.5.2- Static Analysis - Drift Ratio V/S Storey Height: Y DIRECTION
 DRIFT RATIO X
1.20E+00
1.00E+00
8.00E-01
6.00E-01
4.00E-01
2.00E-01
0.00E+00
-2.00E-01 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

-4.00E-01
-6.00E-01

CORE CORNER CORE+CORNER

Figure 6.5.3- Dynamic Analysis - Drift Ratio V/S Storey Height: X DIRECTION

DRIFT RATIO Y
1.20E+00
1.00E+00
8.00E-01
6.00E-01
4.00E-01
2.00E-01
0.00E+00
-2.00E-01 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

-4.00E-01
-6.00E-01

CORE CORNER CORE+CORNER

Figure 6.5.4- Dynamic Analysis - Drift Ratio V/S Storey Height: Y DIRECTION
Discussion: Drift Reduction Factor
Drift reduction factor is a tool that shows reduction in drift values of different
configurations as compared to the bare frame having no shear walls. The values of drift
reduction factor decrease with increase in storey heights. This indicates that drift values
for higher storeys become closer to the values that of a bare frame, this means that
contribution of shear walls decreases with increase in height. As it can be seen in Graph
13 to Graph 16 that the value of reduction factor even turned negative for configurations
having shear wall at re-entrant corners only. This means that shear wall in that case is
infact degrading the performance of the building. The values of reduction factor if
uniform represent a well-designed structure. The values obtained from static analysis
are on higher side than once obtained from dynamic analysis.
 CHAPTER-7
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE SCOPE
7.1 Conclusion

Within the scope of present work, following conclusions are drawn form results:

1. The values of various parameters as obtained by performing static analysis over

different models were little more as compared to those obtained by performing
dynamic analysis on the same configurations.
2. The lateral displacement values significantly reduced when shear walls were
placed at the core and at core along with re-entrant corners. The performance of
configuration having walls only at the re-entrant corners wasn’t satisfactory.
3. The values of displacement are observed to increase with increase in storey
levels in general
4. The contribution of shear walls was effective at the lower storeys as compared
to the upper storeys. Still, shear walls were very much active in reducing the
displacement values by over 95% & inter storey drifts by over 97% when the
walls were placed at the core along with the re-entrant corners.
5. The shear walls when placed only at the re-entrant corners adversely affected
the performance of the building under lateral loads. The negative values of
contribution factor and drift reduction factor are suggestive of the same.
6. Overall values of all the parameters suggest that shear walls significantly
reduced displacement & drift when shear walls were placed at the core and re-
entrant corners. But since there is only a deduction of 11% between these two
configurations, hence looking at the economic aspect, configuration with core
shear wall is suggested.
7.2 Future Scope

1. Assessment of performance of similar configuration of buildings by Time

History analysis and Push over analysis.
2. Extension of this study on other steel buildings.
3. Similar analysis with curtailing of the core shear wall at different heights.
4. Different configurations of bracings can be tested to find out the most suitable
configuration.