Anda di halaman 1dari 9

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 8, Issue 2, February 2017, pp. 511519 Article ID: IJCIET_08_02_053


Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=2
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

ANALYTICAL STUDY ON EFFECT OF CURTAILED


SHEAR WALL ON SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF HIGH
RISE BUILDING
Birat Dev Bhatta
Graduate Student, M.Tech. (Structure), SRM University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

G. Vimalanandan
Asst. Professor (SG), Department of Civil Engineering,
SRM University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Dr. S. Senthilselvan
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, SRM University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

ABSTRACT
Dual structural systems in high rise buildings are effective in resisting lateral loads and show
excellent performance during earthquake. In this structural system, mostly shear walls are provided
for full height of building. However, the role of shear wall in the upper portion of building in resisting
the lateral load is minimal and exclusively taken care by the frames. Hence, elimination of shear
walls in upper portion of wall frame structure is not necessarily detrimental to the seismic
performance of building. This concept has been employed in 30 storeyed symmetrical RCC building
model with curtailment of shear wall up to different height of building. Dynamic Analysis of three
dimensional models were carried out in the STAAD. Pro software.
Key words: Curtailment, Dual Structural System, Response Spectrum, Shear Wall, Special Moment
Resisting Frame
Cite This Article: Birat Dev Bhatta, G. Vimalanandan and Dr. S. Senthilselvan, Analytical Study on
Effect of Curtailed Shear Wall On Seismic Performance of High Rise Building. International Journal
of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 511519.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=2

1. INTRODUCTION
Dual structural system also known as wall frame structural system is categorized by its resistance to
horizontal loading by a combined action of shear wall and special moment resisting frames (SMRF). Shear
wall is attributed by its high in-plane stiffness hence effective in resisting seismic load in high seismic zone.
Columns are designed to primarily carry the gravity loads and the shear walls are designed to carry the lateral
loads. A central core or disperse shear walls interact with frame structure through rigid floor diaphragm.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 511 editor@iaeme.com


Analytical Study on Effect of Curtailed Shear Wall On Seismic Performance of High Rise Building

These systems are stiffer as compared to rigid frame system. When the wall and frame are connected together
and subjected to horizontal loading, the deflected shape of the composite structure has a flexural profile in
the lower part and shear profile in the upper part. Axial forces cause the wall to restrain the frame near the
base and the frames to restrain the wall at the top. Consequently, the upper part of the shear wall could play
negative role and may lead to unreasonable design by introducing additional internal forces to the system.
However, the location of shear walls in building remarkably affected the maximum base shear caused by
earthquake. Shear wall should be placed in such a way that centre of mass and centre of rigidity coincide at
the same point which avoid the twisting effect in building during earthquake.
Nollet and Smith [1] generalized theory for the deflection of tall wall-frame structure on the basis of a
continuum model, to show that curtailment of the walls is not necessarily detrimental to the performance
under lateral. Indeed, if the walls are curtailed within a certain height region, forces in the upper part of the
frame are reduced while top deflection is negligibly affected. Malik and Badawi et al [2] analysed the
optimum level of shear wall curtailment in wall frame building under lateral load by revisited continuum
model and found that optimum level of curtailment always lies between the point of inflection and the zero
wall shear in the corresponding full height of structure. Vikas Govalkar et al [3] analysed the effect of
curtailment of shear wall in bare frame and infill frame and concluded that infill frame is superior to the bare
frame in the sense that when shear wall provided and curtailed, the infill frame shows better results than the
bare frame. B. Smith and A. Coull [4] affirmed that the potential advantage of a wall frame structure depend
on the amount of horizontal interaction, which is governed by the relative stiffness of the walls and frames,
and the height of the structure. Ishac and Heidebrecht [5] concluded that the dynamic analysis of high rise
buildings should be a prime essential because dynamic coupling amplifies the torsional response, and static
analysis cannot adequately determine stresses and deformations.

2. DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURAL MODEL


A thirty storeyed symmetrical building has been envisaged for this study. These building models are
characterized by ductile shear wall with special RC moment resisting frame (SMRF) with provision of shear
wall at the edges and central lift core which is indicated in Fig.1. Six different prototypes are generated
with the provision of shear wall up to 100%, 90%, 80%, 70%, 60% & 50% of gross height of building as
listed in Table 1.
A rectangular plan with 25mx 20m is considered with 5 bays in longitudinal direction and 4 bays in
transverse direction. Beam with (450x600) mm and that of column with (1150x1150) are provided throughout
the building height. Slab with thickness of 150mm and shear wall with 250mm are provided. Infill wall of
thickness 230 mm are considered. The end supports of column are considered as fixed.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 512 editor@iaeme.com


Birat Dev Bhatta, G. Vimalanandan and Dr. S. Senthilselvan

Figure 1 Plan of the Building

Table.1 Building Model Details


Building Prototype Height of Shear Wall
S-100 100% height of frame
S-90 90% height of frame
S-80 80% height of frame
S-70 70% height of frame
S-60 60% height of frame
S-50 50% height of frame

3. METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The analysis of three dimensional building models was performed by the STAAD.Pro software as per IS
1893: 2000 (part-I). Frame is modelled as the special moment resisting frame with response reduction factor
of 5. Shear walls are modelled as a surface elements and the all the floor diaphragms are considered as rigid.
The effect of infill walls in resisting lateral load is ignored. Building is assumed to be situated in zone-V as
per codal provision. Building is categorized as general building with importance factor 1.0 with damping as
5%. The dead load and live load on building is assumed as 4.75 KN/m2 and 4 KN/m2 respectively as per IS
857 (Part-II). The seismic weight is calculated using full dead load and 50% of live load with no live load is
considered at the top storey. The dynamic analysis of building is carried out using a response spectrum
method. The load combination of different categories of load is performed as per guidelines in Clauses 6.3
of IS 1893 (Part I): 2000. Based on the guide lines in Clause 7.3 and Clause 7.8.2 of same code, the seismic
weight of the building and the corresponding base shear correction are performed.

4. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS


Analysis of six different models were performed based on displacement, storey drift, bending moment, shear
force and axial forces which are presented as below. Frame 1-1 and 2-2 are assumed to represent the overall
behaviour of building model due to symmetrical nature of building. However, graphical presentations of S-
100, S-50 and S-80 models are only presented in this report for clarity.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 513 editor@iaeme.com


Analytical Study on Effect of Curtailed Shear Wall On Seismic Performance of High Rise Building

4.1. Base Shear


Dual frame structural system resist the lateral load by the combine action of shear wall and the frame
structures. Analysis of models shows that around 70% of base shear is resisted by the shear wall frame and
remaining 30% of base shear is resisted by the remaining frame in all six models. The graphical representation
of this distribution of base shear is shown in fig. no.2.

10000
Base Shear (KN)

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
S-100 S-90 S-80 S-70 S-60 S-50

Total Base Shear Shear Wall Base Shear

Figure 2 Base Shear Distribution

4.2. Lateral Displacement


The lateral displacement of building at the top storey in contrast to S-100 decreases by 2.1%, 3.4% and 2.2%
in S-90, S-80 and S-70 whereas increases by 1.7% and 8.1% in S-60 and S-50. Curtailment of shear wall at
80% of building height shows least displacement as compared to full height of building as shown in Fig.1.
This is affirms that interruption of shear wall at the optimum level eliminates the reverse force and minimize
the deflection.

4.3. Inter Storey Drift


Inter storey drift of each model is calculated as per codal provision which demands the use of un-factor load
combination and whose value should not exceeds 0.004 times the storey height. The values of inter storey
drift in all the model are within permissible limit. Results show that inter storey drift in S-80 is minimum
than S-100 followed by S-90. Whereas the inter storey drift increases with S-70, S-60, S-50 as shown in
Fig.4. Analysis reveals that after the maximum inter-storey drift its value decreases with height.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 514 editor@iaeme.com


Birat Dev Bhatta, G. Vimalanandan and Dr. S. Senthilselvan

30 30
S-100
28 28
26 S-80 26
24 S-50 24
22 22 S-100
STOREY NUMBER

20 20
S-80
18 18
S-50

STOREY NUMBER
16 16
14 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3 3.3

Displacement (mm) Storey Drift (mm)

Figure 3 Lateral Displacement in Models Figure 4 Inter Storey Drift in Models

4.4. Bending Moment in Beam


Bending moment of beams in frame1-1 & frame 2-2 shows identical shape with varying magnitude as shown
in fig. 5 and Fig.6. In both frames, bending moment at top storey in S-100 is more than other models but
there is increment in bending moment at the location of termination of shear wall. Variation in the magnitude
of the bending moment in frame 1-1 to frame 2-2 is due to the presence of shear wall in frame 1-1 which
attracts more lateral load. There is a transition from flexural model to shear model at point of absolute
maximum bending moment. In both the frame, S-80 follows the same bending moment as of S-100 and there
is significant reduction in bending moment at the upper portion in S-80 in contrast to S-100.
30
S-100 30
28 S-100
S-80 28
26 S-80
S-50 26
24 S-50
24
22
22
20
STOREY NUMBER

20
STOREY NUMBER

18
18
16
16
14
14
12
12
10
10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Bending Moment (KNm) Bending Moment (KNm)

Figure 5 Bending Moment of Beam in 1-1 Figure 6 Bending Moment of Beam in 2-2

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 515 editor@iaeme.com


Analytical Study on Effect of Curtailed Shear Wall On Seismic Performance of High Rise Building

4.5. Axial Force in Column


There is linear variation in axial force of column in all models with respect to height of building in both
frames 1-1 and 2-2 as shown in fig. 8 & Fig.9. However there is sharp change in the value of axial force in
models where curtailment is carried out. S-80 Models have followed almost same bending moment as of S-
100 despite of curtailment of shear wall. But in S-70, S-60 & S-50 the value of bending moment goes on
increasing at the termination level respectively. Curtailment of shear up wall does not necessarily pose any
change in axial force in column in frame 2-2. Obviously, the magnitude of the axial force in frame 1-1 is
more than frame 2-2 due to the presence of shear wall. The axial force in S-100 model at the bottom in frame
1-1 is 2000 KN as compared to frame 2-2. Fig. 7 & Fig. 8 affirms that there is no any change in the value
of axial force at the top storey even after successive curtailment of shear wall.
30 30
S-100 S-100
28 28
S-80 S-80
26 26
S-50 S-50
24 24
22 22
20 20
STOREY HEIGHT

18 STOREY NUMBER 18
16 16
14 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000
1000 4000 7000 10000 13000 16000 19000
Axial Force (KN) Axial Force (KN)

Figure 7 Axial Force in Column in frame 1-1 Figure 8 Axial Force in Column in frame 2-2

4.6. Bending Moment in Column


The variation of maximum bending moment in column is due to the interaction between structural wall and
frame. Structural wall being stiff at the bottom storey attract more bending moment. However at the top
storey, bending moment increases due to the negative role of shear wall in resisting lateral load as indicated
by Fig.10 & Fig.11.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 516 editor@iaeme.com


Birat Dev Bhatta, G. Vimalanandan and Dr. S. Senthilselvan

30 30
S-100 S-100
28 28
S-80 S-80
26 26
S-50 S-50
24 24
22 22
STOREY NUMBER

20 20
18 18

STOREY NUMBER
16 16
14 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 200 350 500 650 800 950 1100 1250
Bending Moment (KNm) Bending Moment (KNm)

Figure 9 B. M. of Column in frame 1-1 Figure 10 B. M. of Column frame 2-2

4.7. Shear Force in Column


Shear force in a column in both frame 1-1 and 2-2 have max value at the level of termination of shear wall
in all the cases as shown in Fig.11 & Fig.12. Shear force at top storey decreases with the level of curtailment
of shear wall. Comparative model analysis shows that S-80 model has the minimum Shear Force. Shear force
at the second storey change abruptly and is counter balanced by the shear wall which is being very stiff at
the lower level.
30 30
28 28
26 26
24 24
22 22
STOREY NUMBER

20
STOREY NUMBER

20
18 18
16 16
14 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
S-100 S-100
4 4
S-80 S-80
2 2
S-50 S-50
0 0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Shear Force (KN) Shear Force (KN)
Figure 11 Shear Force of Column in frame1-1 Figure 12 Shear Force of Column in frame2-2

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 517 editor@iaeme.com


Analytical Study on Effect of Curtailed Shear Wall On Seismic Performance of High Rise Building

5. CONCLUSIONS
Dynamic analysis of wall frame structure was performed with varying level of curtailment of shear wall in
building models. Comparative analyses of models were carried in terms of storey drift, lateral displacement,
bending moment, shear force and axial force which are summarized as below.
In all the models, around 70% of total base shear is resisted by the shear wall which signifies the characteristic
dual frame system. Even after the curtailment of the shear wall in various levels, there is no significant change
in the time period of building.
The inter storey drift results affirms that shear wall curtailment up to one fourth of building height reduces
inter storey drift and lateral displacement of building at the top storey. Inter storey drift increases with further
reduction of shear wall height in building.
There is significant reduction in the bending moment of beam at the top storey with increasing level of
curtailment of shear wall which indicates that shear wall plays negative role at the top storey of building in
resisting the lateral load. However, significant increment in bending moment can be observed at the junction
of curtailment of shear wall. But this increment in value is insignificance in case of 80% curtailment of shear
wall.
There is no significant change in the axial force at the top and bottom of building models in the column even
after the curtailment of shear wall. However, there is sharp increment in value at the junction of curtailment of
shear wall in external frame. Interestingly, there is no change in value of axial force in column in internal frame
despite the curtailment of shear wall at different level.
Bending moment of the column decreases with the increment in the level of curtailment at the top storey and
remains constant at the bottom storey in all the model. However, this value increases with the level of
curtailment at the junction. It is evident from the graph that curtailment of shear wall up to 80% of building
height dont have detrimental effect on the bending moment of the column.
Shear force in the column decreases with the level of curtailment of shear wall at top storey and value remain
constant at the ground storey. However, there is sharp increment in shear force at the junction of termination
of shear wall with its decreasing height. This increment in the shear force at the junction in S-80 is minimum
with respect to other model and which is even less than the shear force of S-100 top at top storey.
Hence, Dynamic analysis of building models with curtailment of shear wall at different levels reveal that
curtailment up to one fourth height of 30 storey building has ideal performance against seismic load. So, it
also affirms that curtailment of shear wall ultimately reduces the cost of structure and improves the seismic
performance of building.

REFERENCES
[1] Nollet M.J. (1991). Behavior of wall frame structures: A Study of the interactive behavior of continuous
and discontinuous wall-frame structures. Ph.D. thesis, McGill Univ., Montreal, Canada.
[2] Malik Atik, Badawi, Isam Shahrour. (2014). Optimum level of shear wall curtailment in wall-frame
buildings J.Stru.Eng., 2014, 140(1): 06013005.
[3] Vikas Govalkar, P.J. Salunke, N.G. Gore. (2014). Effect of curtailment of shear wall in bare and infilled
frame. IJESE.,ISSN: 2319-6378, Volume -2 Issue-9, July 2014.
[4] B.S. Smith, A. Coull. (1991). Tall building structures, Analysis and design. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
page.255.
[5] N. Subramanian (2015). Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures. Oxford University Press.page.644-
645.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 518 editor@iaeme.com


Birat Dev Bhatta, G. Vimalanandan and Dr. S. Senthilselvan

[6] Dr. S. B. Shinde and N.B. Raut, Effect of Change in Thicknesses and Height in Shear Wall on Deflection
of Multistoried Buildings. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(6), 2016, pp.587
591.
[7] S.P.Pawar, Dr.C.P.Pise, Y.P.Pawar, S.S.Kadam, D. D. Mohite, C. M. Deshmukh and N. K. Shelar, Effect
of Positioning of RC Shear Walls of Different Shapes on Seismic Performance of Building Resting On
Sloping Ground. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(3), 2016, pp.373384
[8] T. Chrysanidis, V. Panoskaltsis and I. Tegos, Preliminary Design and Analysis of Cost Parameters of a
High-Rise Building: Braced Shear Wall Core System. International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 7(5), 2016, pp.137152
[9] K Venkatesh and T. Venkatdas, Study On Seismic Effect of High Rise Building Shear Wall/Wall Without
Shear Wall, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(1), 2017, pp. 852862.
[10] M.Ishac, and A. Heidebrecht, Dynamic Response of Asymmetric shear wall frame building structure,
7th World Conference Proceedings Earthquake Engg. Symposium London, Vol. 2, 1977.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 519 editor@iaeme.com