EFFECT OF EARTHQUAKE ON HIGH RISE BUILDING IN DIFFERENT POSITION OF

SHEAR WALL USING STAAD PRO 1Amit A. Paul, 2Prof. G. D. Dhawale, 3Prof. V. A. Kalmegh

1M-Tech Research Scholar (Structural Engineering), Department of Civil Engineering, BDCE, Sevagram, Wardha, MH.

2 3Asst. Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, BDCE, Sevagram, Wardha, MH.

Abstract:

The present study reports the effect of earthquake on high rise building in different position of shear wall using STAAD Pro. V8i SS5 to work out effective, economical, and ideal location of shear walls. G+7 high rise building in zone IV for Delhi is considered for the present study. Analysis of the building is conferred with some preliminary investigations, analyzed by varied position of shear wall by considering five models as without shear wall building, shear wall along periphery, shear wall at corner, shear wall in middle and shear wall at corner in different position. Maximum shear wall moments and maximum deflections are calculated and analyzed for all considered cases. M30 grade of concrete is used with Fe415 steel is used for the present study. The design and analysis are complete using the software package STAAD Pro.

Keywords— Shear Walls, STAAD Pro. V8i SS5, Lateral forces, Base shear.

I. INTRODUCTION

Earthquake is one of the most destructive natural hazards in more damages in manmade structures. The stability and stiffness of any structure is the major issue of concern in any high-rise buildings. Shear walls are structural members which resist lateral forces major on moment resisting frame. Shear walls are most preferred structural walls for earthquake resistance. This research is related to comparison of shear wall type structure with moment resisting type of building. The present study includes five types of models with G+7 storey building, moment resisting frame i.e. model 1, shear wall along periphery i.e. model 2, shear wall at corner i.e. model 3, shear wall in middle i.e. model 4, shear wall at corner in different position i.e. model 5. Models of the four structures with same loading be create on STADD Pro. and be present analyzed and further they will be compared for their suitability and loads be applied as per the IS specifications. The analysis will be conducted as per the specifications of IS standards IS 1893, IS 875, IS 456.

Shear wall is a structural member located at different places in a building from foundation level to top parapet level, used to resist lateral forces i.e. parallel to the plane of the wall. When lateral displacement is large in a building with moment frames only, structural walls, often commonly called shear walls, can be introduced to help reduce overall displacement of buildings, because these vertical plate-like structural elements have large in-plane stiffness and strength. There are different materials by which shear wall can be constructed but reinforced concrete (RC) buildings often have vertical plate-like Reinforced concrete walls (Fig. 1.1) in addition to slabs, beams, and columns. Their thickness can be as low as 150mm, or as high as 400mm in high rise buildings. Shear walls are usually provided along both length and width of buildings.

1.1 OBJECTIVEThe broad objective of the present study is started herein.

1. To analyze an earthquake resistant structure using STAAD Pro. 2. To analyze same structure with rectangular shear wall for earthquake resistance.3. To analyze same structure column and beam structure with different position of shear wall. 4. Comparing the effect earthquake forces for four types of structure in shear wall building.

5. Establishing a comparison between the four types of structure and analyzing the result and establishing a needful resemblance with effectiveness.

Fig.1.1: 3D Views of Shear Walls in the Building

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

1Prasad Ramesh Vaidya Building was modelled by using finite element software SAP 2000. Beams and columns were modelled as two nodded beam elements with six degree of freedom at each node. Slab and shear wall were modeled by using shell element. Walls were modelled by equivalent strut approach. The thickness of strut was same as thickness of brick infill wall and only width of the strut was derived. Four models for the building were prepared. Model one was of frame type structural system and other three models were of shear wall frame interaction system. Total four shear walls were provided two on sloping side and other two on other side of the building. In model II all the four walls were provided towards the shorter columns of the building on corner, i.e. two on sloping side and two on other side. In model III all the four walls were provided towards the longer columns of the building. In model IV shear walls were arranged symmetrically in plan. Response spectrum analysis was carried out on the models as per IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002.

2Tarun shrivastava, Prof. Anubhav Rai They have conducted the study on effectiveness of shear wall frame structure subjected to wind loading in multi-storey building. Different cases were prepared with different configuration of shear wall. Frames of 8 storey R.C.C. structure in medium soil with a ground plan of 20m x 18m and height of the structure is 25.6m. Assuming wind pressure of 1.5 kN/m2 and special moment resisting frame, analysis was carried out with shear wall at different location for regular shape building. Various parameters such as lateral deformation, storey drift index, maximum bending moment and shear force were calculated. Result showed that model 3 with core shear wall case is most suitable as moment percentage of moment and shear force resisted by shear wall in this case is 93.2% and 98% which was much greater than other cases. Also model 3 is stiffer against lateral loads. Study concluded that effectiveness of shear wall was not helping too much in reducing the base shear but providing more lateral stiffness and taking maximum share of the moment.

3M. Pavani, G. Nagesh Kumar, Dr. Sandeep Pingale This paper mainly focuses on analysis and design optimization of shear wall arranged in such a way to resist the lateral forces in zone-III in case of 45 storey high rise building. The optimization technique was implemented for no. of times to estimate the strength of structure which can resist the forces coming on the structure. Considering the stability of building the analysis was made for two cases, in case I the dimensions of shear wall is kept same throughout the building and in case II dimensions of shear wall are increased on the basis of results obtained from case I. From the analysis it has been concluded that the stiffness as well as torsional irregularities of building depends upon the sudden change in plan of building above 4th floor level in case of small horizontal forces such as seismic force strikes the building structure.

4Ehsan Salimi Firoozabad, Dr. K. Rama Mohan Rao Determined the shear wall configuration on seismic act of building. The top storey displacements for different configurations were obtained using SAP 2000. From the study it was observed that the top storey drift can be reduced by changing the location of shear wall and it was suggested that the quantity of shear wall could not affect the seismic behavior of buildings. Different place of shear walls can reduce the top story drift at least twice, which means the drift of building is reduced 100 percent from highest value to lowest one. The quantity of shear walls cannot guarantee the seismic behavior of buildings, which means, if you provide more shear walls.

5Shaik Kamal Mohammed Azam, Vinod Hosur They have conducted the study on seismic performance evaluation of multistoried RC framed building with shear wall. The elastic as well as in-elastic analysis were carried out for the evaluation of seismic performance on 6, 12, 24 and 36 storied moment resisting RC framed building using ETAB software. Eight models were prepared for each type of storey with plan area of 30m x 20m and height of 3m. Approximate method was used for lateral static and dynamic analysis of wall frame based on the continuum approach and one-dimensional finite element method. Structure was analyzed for various load combination as per IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 for seismic zone. Capacity curve was drawn based on load deformation responses. Result showed that the storey displacement for 6 and 12 storey building behave like shear building due to less height, while 24 and 36 storey building exhibit flexural behavior as grater height than lateral dimension. Non-linear static pushover analysis showed that lateral stiffness has the least value for the model without shear wall and also influence of shear wall was quite large for shorter building.

6Seyed M. Khatami, Alireza Mortezaei, Rui C. Barros This paper presented the results of time history analysis which addressed the effect of openings in shear walls near- fault ground motions. A model of ten storey building with three different types of lateral load resisting system: Complete shear walls, shear walls with square opening in the center and shear wall with opening at right end side were considered. From the results it was practical that shear walls with openings experienced a decrease in terms of strength. The maximum lateral displacement of complete shear wall is 17% less than that of shear walls with openings at center whose displacement is found to be 8% less than that of shear walls with beginnings at right end.

7Romy Mohan, C Prabha This paper presented dynamic analysis of RCC buildings with shear Wall. For study consider the two multi storey structures, one of six and other of eleven storey have been modeled using software package SAP 2000 for earthquake zone V in India. Six different types of shear walls with its variation in shape are considered for learning their effectiveness in resisting lateral forces. This paper also contracts with the effect of the variation of the building height on the structural response of the shear wall.

III. PROBLEM STSTEMENT AND METHODOLOGY

Analysis of any structure for resisting earthquake is the basic need of this study. In this project analysis of a seismic resistant structure is a need of concern, and thereby establishing a comparison between structures with normal shear wall. In high rise structures most adoptable type to resist earthquake is to provide shear wall. Basically, many analysis and design software’s can be adopted to analyze and design any earthquake resistant structure. There are many methods for analysis and design such as equivalent static method, seismic coefficient method and response spectrum method. Among all these methods in this study only equivalent static method is adopted. In this study STADD Pro is used for analysis. The proposed work is planned to be carried out in the following manner

The structure selected for this project is a simple residential building with the following description as stated

below.

Table 3.1: Structural Modeling for The Project Models

Sr. No. Description of Structure Values1 Grade of concrete M30

2 Grade of steel Fe4153 Number of bays in X-direction and its width 4 bays of 4 m each4 Number of bays in Z-direction and its width 4 bays of 4 m each5 Floor to floor height 3 m each6 Number of storey G+77 Depth of foundation from ground level 2.2 m8 Plinth height 800 mm9 Column size 600 mm x 600 mm

10 Beam size 400 mm x 600 mm11 Thickness of slab 150 mm12 Density of concrete 25 kN/m313 Live load on roof 1.5 kN/m214 Live load on floors 2 kN/m215 Floor finish 1 kN/m216 Thickness of external wall 230 mm17 Thickness of internal wall 115 mm18 Density of brick wall 20 kN/m319 Internal plaster 12 mm20 External plaster 15 mm21 Density of plaster 18 kN/m3

For the present study following values for seismic analysis are assumed. The values are assumed on the basis of reference steps given in IS 1893 (Part 1):2002, 13920:1993 and IS 456:2000. Since Delhi is more vulnerable to earthquakes, for this present study assigning zone IV for moderate seismic intensity as stated in table 3.2 of IS 1893 (Part 1):2002.

Table 3.2: Seismic Parameters

1 Seismic zone IV (Delhi)

2 Zone factor (Z) 0.24 (Table 2, P.16)

3 Importance factor (I) 1 (Table 6, P.18)

4 Special reinforced concrete moment resisting frame

5SMRF is a moment resisting frame detailed to provide ductile behavior and comply with the requirements of 13920:1993

6Response reduction factor for ordinary shear wall with SMRF

4

7 Type of soil Medium (Type II)

8 Damping percent 5 % (0.05)

9 Thickness of shear wall 230 mm

10 Brick infill panel building type

3.1 Plan and Model Generated for Structural Modeling

From the values mentioned in the problem definition three models are generated to study the behavior of earthquake resistant structure. Fig. shows plan of the structure generated in STAAD. Pro. Following are the models generated.

1. Model I: Simple structure without any shear wall. Fig. illustrates this model. In this model all the parameters are considered for designing the structure as earthquake proof as per IS1893 (Part 1): 2002.

2. Model II: Structure with symmetrical shear wall on along periphery of building on outer walls of structure concentrically located. Fig. illustrates the model. In this model all the parameters are same as model 1 also parameters of shear wall are added for design of shear wall as per IS 13920:1993.

3. Model III: Structure with symmetrical shear wall at corner of building on outer walls of structure concentrically located. Fig. illustrates the model. In this model all the parameters are same as model 1 also parameters of shear wall are added for design of shear wall as per IS 13920:1993.

4. Model IV: Structure with symmetrical shear wall in middle of building on outer walls of structure concentrically located. Fig. illustrates the model. In this model all the parameters are same as model 1 also parameters of shear wall are added for design of shear wall as per IS 13920:1993.

5. Model V: Structure with symmetrical shear wall at corner in different position of building on outer walls of structure concentrically located. Fig. illustrates the model. In this model all the parameters are same as model 1 also parameters of shear wall are added for design of shear wall as per IS 13920:1993.

3.2 Calculation of Load And Earthquake Related Parameters

1. Dead load of slab = (0.15 x 1 x 25) = 3.75 kN/m2 2. Dead load of outer brick wall can be calculated as = (0.23) x (3-0.6) x 20

= 11.04 kN/m3. Dead load of inner brick wall can be calculated as = (0.115) x (3-0.6) x 20

= 5.52 kN/m 4. Dead load of parapet wall can be calculated as = (0.23) x (1) x (20)

= 4.6 kN/m 5. Dead load of plaster for outer walls can be calculated as = (0.015+0.012) x (3-0.6) x 18

= 1.17 kN/m 6. Dead load of plaster for inner walls and parapet wall can be calculated as

= (0.012+0.012) x (3-0.6) x 18 = 1.04 kN/m

7. Total dead load for outer walls (considering 85% of weight due to openings) = 0.85x(11.04 +1.17)

=0.85x (12.21) =10.38 kN/m

8. Total dead load for inner walls (Least openings are there in partitions) = 5.52+1.04 = 6.56 kN/m

9. Total dead load for parapet walls = 4.6 +1.04 = 5.64 kN/m

3.3 Seismic Weight Calculation

As per table 3.1 in clause 7.3.1 of IS 1893 (Part 1):2002 “Percentage of imposed load to be considered in seismic weight calculation” (As per the norms given in the IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 for live load greater than 3, 50% of the live load is added for seismic weight. And for live load up to and less than 3, 25% live load is added for seismic weight).

1. Total seismic weight floors = 3.75 + (0.25 x3) = 4.5 kN/m2

2. Total seismic weight roof floors = 3.75 kN/m2

STAAD Pro V8i SS5 calculates the design base shear by adding some useful parameters during analysis. The fundamental natural period of vibration (Ta) is calculated by

Ta = 0.09 h√ d

Where,

h= Height of building and d= Width of building at plinth height in a particular direction.

Along X-direction, Ta = 0.09 h

√ d = 0.09 x 21

√ 20 = 0.423 sec.

Along Z-direction, Ta = 0.09 h

√ d = 0.09 x 21

√ 20 = 0.423 sec.

Model I Model II Model III

Model IV Model V

Fig.3.1: Models generated in STAAD Pro V8i SS5 for the problem statement

Loads as mentioned above are added and generated in STAAD. Pro for earthquake analysis and applied to the prepared models as shown in fig.3.2 The Member loads (wall loads) are same for all the floors except roof floor. The intermediate members carry fewer loads as compared to exterior walls as shown in fig. also shows earthquake load in positive X-direction.

A. Dead Load B. Live Load C. Roof Live Load

D. Earthquake Load E. Earthquake Load F. Load Combination Along +ve X-Direct. Along +ve Z-Direct. Along +ve X-Direct.

G. Load Combination H. Load Combination I. Load Combination Along -ve X-Direct. Along +ve Z-Direct. Along-ve Z-Direct.

Fig.3.2: Load distribution (STAAD Pro V8i SS5 model)

A plan generated in STAAD Pro V8i SS5 and the floor loads distributed on the respective beams on each floor as per the guidelines of IS 456: 2000 shown in fig.3.3. All the models are same in size and height except the introduction of shear wall and column flange in model 2 and model 3 respectively.

The Plan of Building Without Loading The Plan of Building with Loading

Fig.3.3: Plan of building with and without loading distribution generated in STAAD Pro V8i SS5

IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The equivalent static method or seismic coefficient method had been used to find the design lateral forces along the storey in X-direction and Z-direction of the building since the building is symmetrical. An 8 storied RCC building in zone IV is modelled using STAAD. Pro software and the results are computed. The configurations of all the models are discussed in previous chapter. Five models were prepared according to the different configuration, Model 1 for multi-storey buildings without shear wall, Model 2 for the same building with the type of shear wall along periphery, Model 3 for the same building with shear wall at corner, Model 4 for the same building with shear wall in middle and Model 5 for the same building with shear wall at corner in different position. These models are analyzed and designed as per the specifications of Indian standard codes IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002, IS 13920: 1993, IS 875 and IS 456: 2000.

4.1 Lateral Force and Base Shear

Elements or members of building should be designed and constructed to resist the effects of design lateral force. STAAD. Pro gives the lateral force distribution at various levels and at each storey level. Lateral force of earthquake is predominant force which needs to be resisted for any structure to be earthquake resistant. The equivalent static method had been adopted to find out the lateral force in STAAD. Pro. Table 4.1 shows storey height and the distribution of the lateral force and the base shear at each storey level in X-direction. The lateral force of the model 2 is an approximate decrease of about 50%, model 3 is an approximate decrease of about 30%, model 4 is an approximate decrease of about 55% and model 5 is an approximate decrease of about 45% in the X-direction compared to the model 1. The table 5.4 clearly shows that, there is a pattern of reduction in lateral force for model 2, model 3, model 4 and model 5 when compared with model 1. This briefly states that the building is stiff with shear walls. Whereas the model 4 becomes economical as the concrete is reduced being approximate similar stiffness is acquired.

Table 4.1: Lateral Force at Different Level of The Floor Along X-Direction

Floor Height

Lateral Force Percentage Force Decrease from Model 1

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

24 428.135 217.244 227.366 207.422 235.412 49.258 46.893 51.552 45.014

21 637.463 311.010 448.856 298.420 321.242 51.211 29.587 53.186 49.606

18 468.340 228.497 329.772 201.310 241.205 51.211 29.587 57.016 48.497

15 325.236 158.678 229.008 141.461 170.143 51.211 29.587 56.505 47.686

12 208.151 101.554 146.565 98.132 116.542 51.211 29.587 52.855 44.010

9 117.085 57.124 82.443 52.534 63.420 51.211 29.587 55.131 45.834

6 52.038 25.389 36.641 24.910 26.321 51.210 29.587 52.131 49.419

3 13.009 6.347 9.160 5.142 8.534 51.210 29.584 60.473 34.399

Average Percentage (%) 50.96 31.75 55.23 45.56

Graph 4.1: Lateral Force or Storey Shear Along X-Direction Throughout the Height

The graph 4.1 clearly shows that, there is a pattern of reduction in shear force for model 2, model 3, model 4 and model 5 when compared with model 1. This briefly states that the building is stiff with shear walls. Whereas the model 4 becomes economical as the concrete is reduced being approximate similar stiffness is acquired.

Table 4.2 shows base shear values at different floor level along X-direction. Base shear is cumulative of lateral force from top storey to bottom storey. Therefore, the value of the shear of the lower floor is the maximum and the value of the shear of the upper floor is the minimum. Introducing shear wall shows an approximate 50% reduction in the base shear for model 2, approximate 35% reduction in the base shear for model 3, approximate 53% reduction in the base shear for model 4 and approximate 47% reduction in the base shear for model 5 in the X-direction compared to the model 1. The values for each storey is cumulative of top storey thus it differs from storey to storey. The table 4.2 clearly shows that, there is a pattern of reduction in lateral force for model 2, model 3, model 4 and model 5 when compared with model 1. This briefly states that the building is stiff with shear walls. Whereas the model 4 becomes economical as the concrete is reduced being approximate similar stiffness is acquired.

Table 4.2: Base Shear at Different Level of The Floor Along X-Direction

2 4 2 1 1 8 1 5 1 2 9 6 3

428.

135

637.

463

468.

34

325.

236

208.

151

117.

085

52.0

38

13.0

09

217.

244 31

1.01

228.

497

158.

678

101.

554

57.1

24

25.3

89

6.34

7

227.

366

448.

856

329.

772

229.

008

146.

565

82.4

43

36.6

41

9.16

207.

422 29

8.42

201.

31

141.

461

98.1

32

52.5

34

24.9

1

5.14

2

235.

412

321.

242

241.

205

170.

143

116.

542

63.4

2

26.3

21

8.53

4

Storey Shear Along X-Axis Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Storey Height

Stor

ey S

hear

Graph 4.2: Base Shear Along X-Direction Throughout the Height Storey Wise

The graph 4.2 clearly shows that, there is a pattern of reduction in shear force for model 2, model 3, model 4 and model 5 when compared with model 1. This briefly states that the building is stiff with shear walls. Whereas the model 4 becomes economical as the concrete is reduced being approximate similar stiffness is acquired.

V. CONCLUSION

[1] Adding shear wall significantly increases the lateral load carrying capacity of the building. The building before adding shear wall was not designed as earthquake resistant. But after adding shear wall, significant improvement is seen in seismic performance of the building.

[2] The columns which were failing before addition of shear wall became safe after addition of shear wall. Also, the problem of soft present was solved. As addition of shear wall imposes very less disturbance to the existing structure so it is still very viable option in improving the earthquake resistance of the existing buildings.

[3] Lateral force or storey shear at each consecutive storey level for model 1 is more as compared to model 2, model 3, model 4 and model 5. Model 4 has least lateral force on consecutive storey as compared to model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 5.

[4] The lateral force of the model 2 is an approximate 50% decrease in the X-direction compared to the model 1, the model 3 is an approximate 30% decrease in the X- direction compared to the model 1, the model 4 is an approximate 55% decrease in the X- direction compared to the model 1 and the model 5 is an approximate 45% decrease in the X- direction compared to the model 1.

[5] The lateral force of the model 2 is an approximate 50% decrease in the Z-direction compared to the model 1, the model 3 is an approximate 30% decrease in the Z-direction compared to the model 1, the model 4 is an approximate 55% decrease in the Z-direction compared to the model 1 and the model 5 is an approximate 45% decrease in the Z-direction compared to the model 1.

2 4 2 1 1 8 1 5 1 2 9 6 3

428.

135

1065

.598

1533

.938 18

59.1

74

2067

.325

2184

.41

2236

.448

2249

.457

217.

244 52

8.25

4

756.

751

915.

429

1016

.983

1074

.107

1099

.496

1105

.843

227.

366 67

6.23

1 1006

.003

1235

.011

1381

.576

1464

.019

1500

.66

1509

.82

207.

422 50

5.84

2

707.

152

848.

613

946.

745

999.

279

1024

.189

1029

.331

235.

412 55

6.65

4

797.

859

968.

002

1084

.544

1147

.964

1174

.285

1182

.819

Base Shear A long X -A xis Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Storey Height

Bas

e Sh

ear

Floor Height

Base Shear Percentage Force Decrease from Model 1

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

24 428.135 217.244 227.366 207.422 235.412 49.258 46.893 51.552 45.014

21 1065.598 528.254 676.231 505.842 556.654 50.426 36.539 52.529 47.761

18 1533.938 756.751 1006.003 707.152 797.859 50.666 34.416 53.899 47.986

15 1859.174 915.429 1235.011 848.613 968.002 50.761 33.572 54.355 47.933

12 2067.325 1016.983 1381.576 946.745 1084.544 50.806 33.170 54.204 47.538

9 2184.41 1074.107 1464.019 999.279 1147.964 50.828 32.978 54.254 47.447

6 2236.448 1099.496 1500.66 1024.189 1174.285 50.837 32.899 54.204 47.493

3 2249.457 1105.843 1509.82 1029.331 1182.819 50.839 32.880 54.240 47.417

Average Percentage (%) 50.55 35.42 53.65 47.33

[6] Base shear at each consecutive storey level for model 1 is more as compared to model 2, model 3, model 4 and model 5. Model 4 has least base shear on consecutive storey as compared to model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 5.

[7] Introducing shear wall on along periphery of building shows approximate 50% reduction in the base shear for model 2, shear wall at corner shows approximate 35% reduction in the base shear for model 3, shear wall in middle shows approximate 53% reduction in the base shear for model 4 and shear wall at corner in different position of building shows approximate 47% reduction in the base shear for model 5 in the X-direction compared to the model 1.

[8] Introducing shear wall on along periphery of building shows approximate 50% reduction in the base shear for model 2, shear wall at corner shows approximate 35% reduction in the base shear for model 3, shear wall in middle shows approximate 53% reduction in the base shear for model 4 and shear wall at corner in different position of building shows approximate 47% reduction in the base shear for model 5 in the Z-direction compared to the model 1.

VI. REFERENCE

[1] Prasad Ramesh Vaidya, “Seismic Analysis of Building with Shear Wall on Sloping Ground”, International

Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Research (IJCSER), ISSN No: 2348-7607, Volume 2, Issue 2,

October 2014 - March 2015, pp.53-60.

[2] Tarun shrivastava and Prof. Anubhav Rai, “Effectiveness of Shear Wall-Frame Structure Subjected to Wind

Loading in Multi-Storey Building”, International Journal of Computational Engineering Research (IJCER),

ISSN No: 2250 – 3005, Volume 5, Issue 2, February 2015, pp.20-28.

[3] M. Pavani, G. Nagesh Kumar and Dr. Sandeep Pingale, “Shear Wall Analysis and Design Optimization in

Case of High-Rise Buildings Using ETABS (Software)”, International Journal of Scientific & Engineering

Research (IJSER), ISSN No: 2229-5518, Volume 6, Issue 1, January 2015, pp.546-559.

[4] Ehsan Salimi Firoozabad and Dr. K. Rama Mohan Rao, “Effect of Shear Wall Configuration on Seismic

Performance of Building”, Proc. Of Int. Conf. On Advances in Civil Engineering (PICACE), 2012, pp.121-

125.

[5] Shaik Kamal Mohammed Azam1 and Vinod Hosur2, “Seismic Performance Evaluation of Multistoried RC

Framed Buildings with Shear Wall”, Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research (JSER), ISSN No: 2229-

5518, Volume 4, Issue 1, January 2013, pp.1-6.

[6] Seyed M. Khatami, Alireza Mortezaei and Rui C. Barros, “Comparing Effects of Openings in Concrete Shear

Walls Under Near-Fault Ground Motions”, The 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (WCEE),

2012, pp.1-10.

[7] Romy Mohan and C Prabha, “Dynamic Analysis of RCC Buildings with Shear Wall”, International Journal of

Earth Science and Engineering (IJESC), ISSN No: 974-5904, Volume 04, October 2011, pp.659-662.

[8] B. Ramamohana Reddy and M. Visweswara Rao, “Earthquake Resistant Design of a Building Using Shear

Wall”, International Journal & Magazine of Engineering, Technology, Management and Research

(IJMETMR), ISSN No: 2348-4845, Vol. 2, Issue 10, October 2015, pp.415-421.

[9] P. P. Chandurkar and Dr. P. S. Pajgade, “Seismic Analysis of RCC Building with and Without Shear Wall”,

International Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER), ISSN No: 2249-6645, Vol. 3, Issue. 3, May -

June 2013, pp.1805-1810.

[10] Alokkumar A. Mondal, Miss. Deepa Telang and Mrs. Gitadevi. B. Bhaskar, “Comparing the Effect of

Earthquake on High-Rise Building with Shear Wall and Flange Concrete Column”, International Journal for

Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET), ISSN No: 2321-9653, Vol. 5, Issue. 7,

July 2017, pp.697-711.

[11] Shyam Bhat M, N. A. Premanand Shenoy and Asha U Rao, “Earthquake Behaviour Of Buildings with And

Without Shear Walls”, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), e-ISSN No: 2278-

1684, p-ISSN No: 2320-334X, 2015, pp.20-25.

[12] Ali Fathalizadeh, “Introducing Two Most Common Types of Shear Walls and Their Construction Methods”,

Journal of Civil Engineering Researchers (JCER), February 2017, pp.7-12.

[13] Bhruguli H. Gandhi, “Effect of Opening on Behaviour Of Shear Wall”, International Journal for

Technological Research in Engineering (IJTRE), ISSN No: 2347 – 4718, Vol. 3, Issue. 4, December 2015,

pp.875-878.

[14] Vishal A. Itware and Dr. Uttam B. Kalwane, “Effects of Openings in Shear Wall on Seismic Response of

Structure”, International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA), ISSN No: 2248-9622,

Vol. 5, Issue. 7, July 2015, pp.41-45.

[15] Venkata Sairam Kumar, Surendra Babu and Usha Kranti, “Shear Walls- A Review”, International Journal of

Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology (IJIRSET), ISSN No: 2319-8753, Vol. 3, Issue.

2, February 2014, pp.9691-9694.

[16] Sanjeebanee Behera and P.K Parhi, “Studies on Location of Shear Wall in Buildings for Structural Stability”,

International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology (IJRET), e-ISSN No: 2319-1163, p-ISSN

No: 2321-7308, Vol. 6, Issue. 6, Jun 2017, pp.116-122.

[17] Pradnya Nagrale and Dr. M. M. Mahajan, “Critical Study of The Buildings with Shear Walls for The Best

Suitable Placement”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Environmental Technology (JCEET), e-ISSN No:

2349-879X, p-ISSN No: 2349-8404, Vol. 2, June 2015, pp. 54 -57.

[18] Swathi P and Haritha P. S, “Effective Distribution of RC Shear Wall in Buildings”, International Journal of

Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT), ISSN No: 2231-5381, Vol. 37, July 2016, pp.363-367.

[19] S.K. Duggal, “Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”, Second Edition, 2013, Oxford University Press,

ISBN- 0-19-808352-1.

[20] IS 875 (part-1), “Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake) For Building and Structures”, Dead loads, New Delhi, 1987.

[21] IS 875 (part-2), “Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake) For Building and Structures”,

Imposed loads, New Delhi, 1987.

[22] IS 1893:2002 (Part 1), “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”, Fifth revision, Bureau of

Indian Standards, New Delhi.

[23] IS 456:2000, “Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice”, Fourth revision, Bureau of Indian Standards,

New Delhi.