ISSN XXXX XXXX 2016 IJESC

Research Article Volume 6 Issue No. 8

Shear wall Locations with Flat Slab and its Effect on Structure
Subjected to Seismic Effect for Multistorey Building
K. G. Patwari1 , L. G. Kalurkar2
PG Student 1 , Assistant Professor2
Civil Engineering Depart ment
Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering Co llege, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India

Abstract:
In present construction practice shear wall has gained a high importance because of its high lateral load resisting c apability. Sh ear
wall are a structural element which are used to resist horizontal (lateral) forces parallel to the plane of the wall. Shear w all has
high in plane stiffness and strength which is used to resist large forces generated due to seis mic action. Shear Walls are specially
designed RCC walls that are included in buildings to resist horizontal and vertical forces and that are induces in the plane of the
wall due to wind, earthquake and other forces. Shear walls are mainly flexu ral members and usually is provided in high and low
rise buildings to avoid the total collapse of buildings under seismic forces. In this paper, study of 5 storeys building in zone II is
considered, and is analyzed with flat slab by changing various location of shear wall to de termine various parameters like storey
shear and displacement. Analysis is done using ETA Bs software. 3D building model is created for various static and dynamic
analysis method and effect on structure.

Keywords: Shear wall, Equivalent static, Response Spectrum method

I. INTRODUCTION displacements of each storey. The analysis is done by using

Multi-storey buildings are adequate for resisting both the
vertical and horizontal load. When such building is designed
without shear wall, beam and co lu mn sizes are quite heavy
and there is problem arises at these joint and it is congested to
place and vibrate concrete at these places and displacement is
quite heavy which induces heavy forces in building member.
Shear wall may become essential fro m the point of view of
economy and control of horizontal displacement.
Mohamed A El- Shaers et al [2] paper showed the
lateral analysis for tall build ings due to the seismic
performance for d ifferent reinforced concrete slab systems.
The author studied three systems, flat slab, ribbed slab, and
paneled beam slab. The three systems constitute the most
attractive and commonly used floor systems, especially in
high-rise constructions. In high seismicity regions, the
declared non-ductile flat slab system poses a significant risk;
brittle punching failure arises fro m the transfer of shearing
forces and unbalanced mo ments between slab and columns
that may trigger a progressive building collapse.
P. S. Lande and A. B. Raut [3] presents a study of
investigations carried out in order to identify the seis mic
response of systems a) flat slab build ing b) flat slab with
parametric beams c) flat slab with shear walls d) flat slab with
drop panel. e) Conventional building the aforementioned
hypothetical systems were studied for two different storey
heights located in zone v. and analyzed by using ETABS
Nonlinear version 9.7.3. Linear dynamic analysis i.e. response
spectrum analysis is performed on the system to get the
seismic behavior.
P. V. Su manth Chowdary and Senthil Pandian [4]
they studied the solution for shear wall location and type of
shear wall in seismic prone areas. The effectiveness of RCC
shear wall building is studied with help of four d ifferent
models. Model one is bare frame system and remain ing three
types are different shear wall buildings. An earthquake load is
applied to 8 storey building located in different zones. The
performance of build ing is evaluated in terms of lateral
structural fin ite element analysis (SAP2000) software. Fro m
the above response spectrum analysis it is observed that the
corner type shear wall (model 2) is less deflection and
compared to all other models. 1. In zone V and IV like h igh
earthquake intensity areas provide shear walls on all four
corners and centroid of the building to reduce deflection in X
and Y direct ion. 2. Corner core type shear wall reduce shear
force and bending mo ment of building. 3. React angle type
shear wall (model 3) is suitable for zone III. The deflection of
this model is allowab le range of X and Y direction of build ing
in zone III. 3. Coupled type shear wall with openings (model
4) is allowab le deflection in zone II.
S. M. Bhat et.al [5] studied the base shear ratio, period of
vibration and displacement for six and ten storey build ing
using Etabs. All models were studied using various shear wall
locations and they identified that an appropriate FE model of
SW dominant flat -plate R/ C buildings, which can be used to
study its dynamic behavior. Th is paper presents the study and
comparison of the difference between the earthquake behavior
of build ings with and without shear wall using STAAD.p ro for
a 50 storey building with and without shear walls for d ifferent
position and concluded that top displacement of model 1 is
high compared to other models. 2. Top displacement can be
reduced by providing shear walls. 3. Top displacement of
model 2 is 3% less compared to model 1; model 3 is 18% less
compared to model 1, and model 4 is 24% less compared to
model 1 in earthquake zone 2. 4. Top displacement of model 2
is 3.5% less compared to model 1; model 3 is 16% less
compared to model 1, and model 4 is 17.5% less compared to
model 1 in earthquake zone 3. 5. Top displacement of model 2
is 3.8% less compared to model 1; model 3 is 15.7% less
compared to model 1, and model 4 is 18% less compared to
model 1 in earthquake zone 4. 6. Top displacement of model 2
is 3.7% less compared to model 1; model 3 is 15% less
compared to model 1, and model 4 is 19% less compared to
model 1 in earthquake zone 5.

International Journal of Engineering Science and Computing, August 2016 2722 http://ijesc.org/
 II. METHODOLOGY
In the present study seismic behavior o f mu ltistoried build ing
combined with conventional structure, shear wall and flat slab
is studied for various models (buildings). Building is assumed
for seismic analysis and response spectrum analysis for zone II
Aurangabad city, static and dynamic analysis is also carried
out for various models G+5 by using a three dimensional
modeling and analysis of structure is carried out with the help
of FEM based Etabs 2009 software.

1. Type of frame: Special RC mo ment resisting frame

fixed at the base

2. Seis mic zone: II

3. Nu mber of storey: G + 5
FIGURE 1 CONVENTIONA L M ODEL WITHOUT SHEA R
4. Floor height: 3.6 m WALL

5. Depth of Slab: 150 mm

6. Size of beam: (230 450) mm

7. Size of colu mn (exterior): (230 600) mm

8. Spacing between frames: 5 m along x and 5m along

y- direct ions

9. Live load on floor: 4 KN/ m2

10. Floor fin ish: 1.0 KN/ m2

11. Wall load (External): 14.49kN/ m

12. Wall load (Internal): 9.45 kN/ m FIGURE 2 MODEL WITH CORE SHEA R WA LL

13. Materials: M 30 concrete, Fe 500 steel Material

14. Thickness of wall: 230 mm

15. Thickness of shear wall: 250mm

16. Density of concrete: 25 KN/ m3

17. Density of brick masonary: 20 KN/ m3

18. Type of soil: Hard

19. Response spectra: As per IS 1893(Part-1):2002

20. Damping of structure: 5 percent

21. Size of drop: 5m x 5m FIGURE 3 MODEL WITH SHEA R WA LL AT OUTER

PERIPHERY
22. Time h istory functions: Imperial Valley and Kern
City.

International Journal of Engineering Science and Computing, August 2016 2723 http://ijesc.org/
 TABLE I
MODEL DESCRIPTION WITH THEIR NOTATION
Model Description Notati
ons

Conventional Structure (CS) A

CS with Flat Slab (FS) B

CS with Core Shear Wall (SW) C

Core Shear Wall with Flat Slab D

CS with Outer Periphery Non Parallel Shear Wall E

FIGURE 4 MODEL WITH SHEA R WA LL AT OUTER Outer Periphery Non Parallel SW with FS F
PERIPHERY
CS with Outer Periphery Parallel Shear Wall G

Outer Periphery Parallel Shear Wall with FS H

CS with Outer Right Angled Shear Wall I

Outer Right Angled Shear Wall with FS J

FIGURE 5 MODEL WITH SHEA R WA LL RIGHT

ANGLED

FIGURE 7 VA RIATIONAL BASE SHEA R (KN) FOR

DIFFERENT M ODELS

FIGURE 6 MODEL WITH CORE SHEA R WA LL TORSION

MODE

III. RESULTS FIGURE 8 VA RIATIONAL DISPLACEM ENT (MM) FOR

The seismic analysis of all the frame models that includes DIFFERENT M ODELS
different location of shear walls with flat slab has done by
using software ETABS and the results are shown below. The
parameters which are to be studied are base shear and lateral
displacement.

International Journal of Engineering Science and Computing, August 2016 2724 http://ijesc.org/
 and flat slab, The 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Beijing, China. October 12-17, 2008.

[2] Mohamed A El-shaer, Seismic Load Analysis of different

RC Slab Systems for Tall Bu ild ing, INPRESSCO, Vol. 3, No.
5, 2013.

[3] Prad ip Lande and A. B. Raut, Seis mic Behavior of Flat

Slab Systems, Journal of Civ il Engineering and
Environ mental Technology, vol. 2.10, pp 7- 10, 2015.

[4] Sumanth Chowdary P. V., Senthil Pandian M., A

comparative study on RCC structure with and without Shear
Wall, International Journal for Scientific Research &
Development Vol. 2, Issue 02, 2014.
FIGURE 9 VA RIATIONAL ACCELERATION FOR
DIFFERENT M ODELS [5] Bhat S. M., Shenoy Premanad, N. A. Rao, Earthquake
behavior of building with and without shear walls, IOSR
Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, PP 20-25, 2012.

[6] Chandurkar P.P., Pajgad P. S., Seis mic analysis of RCC

Building with and without Shear wall-A literature review on
experimental study, International Journal of Modern
Engineering Research, Vo l. 3, pp-1805-1810, May - June
2013.

FIGURE 10 VA RIATIONA L TIM E PERIOD FOR

DIFFERENT M ODELS

IV. CONCLUSION
1. Lateral d isplacement: Displacement increases in case of
flat slab structure than conventional structure but
displacement decreases in case of structure along with flat
slab with shear wall. For Structure with shear wall along
periphery have story displacement is minimu m. It is 29.13
% and 10.06 % less for Structure with s hear wall along
periphery than Structure with L type shear wall and
Structure with non parallel shear wall along periphery
respectively.
2. Storey shear: Base shear increases with the height of the
structure. Base shear of conventional R.C.C. structure is
less than flat slab structure. The values of storey drift for
all the stories are found to be within the permissible limit
i.e. not more than 0.004 t imes to storey height according
to IS 1893 : 2002 (Part I)
3. Time period: The natural time period increases as the
height of structure increases irrespective of type of
structure. However, the time period is same for flat slab
structure and flat slab with shear wall. In co mparison of
the conventional structure to flat slab structure, the time
period is mo re for conventional structure than flat slab
structure because of monolithic construction.

V. REFERENCES
[1] Alpa Sheth, Effect of perimeter frames in seis mic
performance of tall concrete buildings with shear wall core

International Journal of Engineering Science and Computing, August 2016 2725 http://ijesc.org/