🔒
International Peer-Reviewed Publisher
Serving Researchers Since 2012
Mobile Banner
Volume 15, Issue 03 (March 2026)

Experimental Investigation and Behavior of Various Shear Walls Under Lateral Loads

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19067705
Download Full-Text PDF Cite this Publication
Mr. Sadhu B. Nagargoje, Mr. Rajendra H. Gore, Mr. Mahesh R. More, Mr. Bhaskar S. Kakde, 2026, Experimental Investigation and Behavior of Various Shear Walls Under Lateral Loads, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY (IJERT) Volume 15, Issue 03 , March – 2026

Text Only Version

 

Experimental Investigation and Behavior of Various Shear Walls Under Lateral Loads

Mr. Sadhu B. Nagargoje

Lecturer, CSMSS College of Polytechnic, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra, India.

Mr. Rajendra H. Gore

Lecturer, CSMSS College of Polytechnic, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra, India.

Mr. Mahesh R. More

HOD, CSMSS College of Polytechnic, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra, India.

Mr. Bhaskar S. Kakde

Sr. Design Engineer, Design Tree Services consultants Pvt.Ltd. Pune, Maharashtra, India.

Abstract: Shear walls offer an economic means to provide lateral load resistance in multi-storey buildings. The seismic behavior of shear walls, modes of failure, and the factors influencing their structural response are discussed. Expressions are developed to estimate the flexural strength of slender rectangular shear wall sections with uniformly distributed vertical reinforcement. These expressions are consistent with the provisions of IS: 456-2000. The axial load-moment interaction diagram for the section is also developed from these expressions. An alternative numerical method is also defined for the same. Although various research studies have been conducted on the design of reinforced concrete shear walls, these studies were limited by the laboratory capacity. This led to inability of testing walls with their full height for high to mid-rise shear walls.

Reinforced cement concrete (RCC) shear walls are used in buildings to resist lateral forces due to earthquakes wind pressure. They are usually provided between column lines, lift wells, in stair wells, and in shafts that house other utilities. Shear walls provide lateral load resistance by transferring the wind or seismic loads to the foundation. They also impart lateral stiffness to the system and carry gravity loads. A well-designed system of shear walls in a building frame improves its seismic performance significantly. This is evident from studies on the comparative behavior of building frames with shear walls in past earthquakes framed buildings.

Keywords – Shear wall, lateral forces, seismic loads, failure.

  1. INTRODUCTION

    As per IS: 456-2000 incorporates some provisions for design of reinforced concrete walls. However, no explicit provisions are given for calculating the flexural strength of shear wall sections which are quite different from beam sections as they have reinforcement distributed along their whole length in plan. Extensive experimentation has been carried out abroad to assess the strength and behavior of RC shear walls under monotonic and reversed cyclic loading. In reinforced concrete buildings, especially those buildings located in seismic regions, shear walls are essential for resisting lateral forces and maintaining overall stability.

    These walls are typically provided with boundary elements at their edges, where longitudinal reinforcement is designed in varying percentages to handle tension and compression.

    Depending on the height-to-width ratio (H/B), a shear wall may behave as a slender wall, a squat wall, or a combination of the two. Slender shear walls usually have a height-to-width ratio greater than 2. They behave like a vertical slender cantilever beam. The primary mode of deformation is bending; shear deformations are small and can be neglected. Flexural strength usually governs the design of such walls.

    1. Literature Review

      A several researchers have investigated the role of boundary elements in shear wall performance, particularly under lateral and seismic loads. A study by Kumar and colleagues (2023) analyzed squat shear walls subjected to high axial and cyclic lateral loads using both experimental and finite element analysis methods. The study outlined that poor boundary reinforcement detailing led to concrete crushing and edge instability, especially under elevated axial loads, underscoring the risk of failure when detailing is

      misaligned. In another experimental study, Hassan et al. (2022) tested small-scale shear wall specimens under lateral loading. The results observed that the tested specimens lacking properly detailed boundary elements, exhibited premature cracking and reduced ductility, while those with boundary elements showed better energy dissipation and delayed failure, highlighting the importance of field accuracy in reinforcement placement. Mohammad et al. (2022) employed ensemble deep learning models to classify failure modes in reinforced concrete shear walls using parameters such as boundary element area and wall aspect ratio. Their findings showed that inadequate boundary element reinforcement can shift the failure mode from ductile flexural failure to brittle shear or sliding failure, emphasizing the critical role of boundary design in seismic zones. is study aimed to examine and determine the eciency of the ensemble neural networks to predict the failure mechanism of the RCSWs. The strongest model for predicting the failure mode of the RCSWs is determined by evaluating ensemble deep neural network models: model averaging, weighted average, and integrated stacking. Ensemble models are based on 5 neural network sub-models.

  2. METHODOLOGY

    To analysis the impact of boundary element reinforcement errors, a G+13+ terrace reinforced concrete building was modeled using ETABS software. The structure was analyzed under seismic loading conditions, considering a response reduction factor (R) of 5 as per IS 1893 provisions for ductile detailing, and located in Seismic Zone IV.

    The design was carried out using the Simplified Center and Torsion (C&T) method available in ETABS. This method automatically assigns varying Modal Participating Mass Ratios values and tensional irregularities to each boundary element based on the wall’s position, loading demand, mass ratios, joint displacements, storey drift, mass displacements, storey displacements, maximum storey displacements. As a result, each shear wall in the building received different Ast values on its two ends, reflecting a realistic design approach. A summary table Modal Participating Mass Ratios for each shear wall and their corresponding boundary zones is attached below:

    Figure-1: Floor plan

    Figure-2: Building Model

    TABLE-1: Modal Participating Mass Ratios
    Case Mode Period UX UY UZ SumUX SumUY SumUZ RX RY RZ SumRX SumRY SumRZ
    sec
    Modal 1 1.818 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 <p0.09 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00
    Modal 2 1.731 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.05 0.09 0.22 0.05
    Modal 3 1.484 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.64 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.56 0.09 0.24 0.61
    Modal 4 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.24 0.61
    Modal 5 0.553 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.64 0.81 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.24 0.62
    Modal 6 0.491 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.01 0.17 0.38 0.63
    Modal 7 0.438 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.18 0.38 0.75
    Modal 8 0.375 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.18 0.40 0.77
    Modal 9 0.361 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.40 0.77
    Modal 10 0.306 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.80 0.83 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.40 0.77
    Modal 11 0.302 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.80 0.89 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.40 0.78
    Modal 12 0.258 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.20 0.42 0.79
    Modal 13 0.25 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.81 0.89 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.42 0.79
    Modal 14 0.24 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.90 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.21 0.46 0.79
    Modal 15 0.224 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.86 0.92 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.23 0.46 0.80
    Modal 16 0.206 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.86 0.93 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.46 0.80
    Modal 17 0.194 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.87 0.93 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.24 0.50 0.80
    Modal 18 0.166 0.01 0.00 0.35 0.88 0.93 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.24 0.51 0.81
    Modal 19 0.154 0.04 0.00 0.08 0.92 0.94 0.52 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.24 0.55 0.81
    Modal 20 0.137 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.93 0.96 0.53 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.57 0.81
    Modal 21 0.119 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.93 0.96 0.73 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.57 0.81
    Modal 22 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.95 0.98 0.73 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.27 0.61 0.81
    Modal 23 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.98 0.99 0.74 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.27 0.65 0.81
    Modal 24 0.055 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.98 0.99 0.93 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.27 0.67 0.81
    TABLE-2a: Joint Displacements
    Story Label Output Case Ux Uy AVG MAX/AVG
    mm mm check
    TERRACE 3401 SPECX 71.825 4.117 57.12 1.259 ok
    TERRACE 3404 SPECX 71.901 6.451
    TERRACE 3725 SPECX 42.372 15.784
    TERRACE 3753 SPECX 42.398 13.710
    TABLE-2b: Joint Displacements
    Story Label Output Case Ux Uy AVG MAX/AVG
    mm mm check
    TERRACE 3401 SPECY 10.614 36.485 11.021 1.038 ok
    TERRACE 3404 SPECY 10.625 35.157
    TERRACE 3725 SPECY 11.404 35.866
    TERRACE 3753 SPECY 11.439 37.653
    TABLE-3a: Story Drifts
    Story Output Case Direction Drift
    TERRACE SPECX X 0.00140 OK
    Story13 SPECX X 0.00147 OK
    Story12 SPECX X 0.00159 OK
    Story11 SPECX X 0.00171 OK
    Story10 SPECX X 0.00181 OK
    Story9 SPECX X 0.00190 OK
    Story8 SPECX X 0.00196 OK
    Story7 SPECX X 0.00199 OK
    Story6 SPECX X 0.00200 OK
    Story5 SPECX X 0.00196 OK
    Story4 SPECX X 0.00188 OK
    Story3 SPECX X 0.00172 OK
    Story2 SPECX X 0.00146 OK
    STORY1 SPECX X 0.00106 OK
    STILT-2 SPECX X 0.00046 OK
    TABLE-3b: Story Drifts
    Story Output Case Direction Drift
    TERRACE SPECY Y 0.00078 OK
    Story13 SPECY Y 0.00082 OK
    Story12 SPECY Y 0.00094 OK
    Story11 SPECY Y 0.00101 OK
    Story10 SPECY Y 0.00105 OK
    Story9 SPECY Y 0.00108 OK
    Story8 SPECY Y 0.00112 OK
    Story7 SPECY Y 0.00114 OK
    Story6 SPECY Y 0.00115 OK
    Story5 SPECY Y 0.00116 OK
    Story4 SPECY Y 0.00117 OK
    Story3 SPECY Y 0.00117 OK
    Story2 SPECY Y 0.00109 OK
    STORY1 SPECY Y 0.00074 OK
    STILT-2 SPECY Y 0.00045 OK
    Diaphragm Displacements:
    TABLE-4: Diaphragm Center of Mass Displacements
    Story Load Case/Combo UX UY Permissible Limit:
    mm mm mm
    TERRACE SPECX 52.429 2.995 H/250 179.8 OK
    TERRACE SPECY 2.539 35.525 OK
    Story Stiffness Table
    TABLE-5a: Story Stiffness
    Story Output Case Shear X Drift X Stiff X
    kN m kN/m
    TERRACE EQX 2016.0013 3.675 548499.7 –
    Story13 EQX 3954.5952 3.855 1025842 1.87 OK
    Story12 EQX 5624.2869 4.076 1379930 1.35 OK
    Story11 EQX 7046.6785 4.29 1642450 1.19 OK
    Story10 EQX 8241.5803 4.468 1844545 1.12 OK
    Story9 EQX 9228.8028 4.594 2008989 1.09 OK
    Story8 EQX 10028.1563 4.655 2154383 1.07 OK
    Story7 EQX 10659.4514 4.642 2296268 1.07 OK
    Story6 EQX 11142.4985 4.554 2446593 1.07 OK
    Story5 EQX 11497.1079 4.376 2627290 1.07 OK
    Story4 EQX 11743.0902 4.118 2851455 1.09 OK
    Story3 EQX 11900.2557 3.748 3175308 1.11 OK
    Story2 EQX 11988.4148 3.137 3821231 1.20 OK
    STORY1 EQX 12059.4382 2.188 5511927 1.44 OK
    STILT-2 EQX 12075.5114 0.853 14163550 2.57 OK
    TABLE-5b: Story Stiffness
    Story Output Case Shear Y Drift Y Stiff Y
    kN m kN/m
    20TH FLOOR EQY 1295.2088 2.159 599783 –
    PROVISION 2 EQY 2540.686 2.406 1055904 1.76 OK
    PROVISION 1 EQY 3613.4033 2.651 1363241 1.29 OK
    19TH FLOOR EQY 4527.239 2.869 1578182 1.16 OK
    18TH FLOOR EQY 5294.9207 3.099 1708424 1.08 OK
    17TH FLOOR EQY 5929.1758 3.302 1795767 1.05 OK
    16TH FLOOR EQY 6442.7319 3.442 1871543 1.04 OK
    15TH FLOOR EQY 6848.3164 3.519 1945861 1.04 OK
    14TH FLOOR EQY 7158.6569 3.528 2029062 1.04 OK
    13TH FLOOR EQY 7386.4808 3.47 2128583 1.05 OK
    12TH FLOOR EQY 7544.5156 3.338 2260241 1.06 OK
    11TH FLOOR EQY 7645.4888 3.118 2451814 1.08 OK
    10TH FLOOR EQY 7702.1279 2.678 2876231 1.17 OK
    9TH FLOOR EQY 7747.7579 1.946 3980718 1.38 OK
    8TH FLOOR EQY 7758.0843 0.728 10655073 2.68 OK

    Graph: Displacement vs storey

  3. RESULTS

    The initial design, as shown in Table 1, provides a precise distribution of mass ratios in each shear wall, with varying values assigned to the two boundary elements based on their respective force demands. This ensures structural joint displacements and compliance with code requirements. However, in situations where a construction error leads to the reversal or misplacement of these reinforcements at the boundary zones, the shear wall develops a non-uniform reinforcement conditioncreating one under- reinforced edge and one over-reinforced edge. This discrepancy disrupts the intended moment resistance capacity of the wall and can result in premature failure under lateral or seismic forces. The wall is most vulnerable on the side originally designed to resist higher tension forces,. The table below summarizes the joint displacement and storey drift between the two boundary elements for each shear wall and identifies the corresponding failure stage likely to occur if such a misplacement happens during construction.

  4. CONCLUSION

Reinforcement in structural element plays an important role. While accurate design is essential, it alone is not sufficient the correct execution of reinforcement detailing on-site is equally, if not more, important. Specifically, in the case of longitudinal reinforcement errors in shear wall boundary elements, where reinforcement with different joint displacement values changed, the wall becomes structurally compromised. Such an error can cause the wall to fail at a critical stage of loading.

References

  1. Kumar, A., Pandey, M., & Rana, A. (2023). Experimental and finite element study of squat shear walls under combined cyclic and high axial loads. Buildings, 13(8), 2104.
  2. Hassan, S. M., Sayed, M. A., & Mohamed, A. M. (2022). Experimental investigation of small-scale shear walls under lateral loads. Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, 69, Article 141.
  3. Mohammad, I., Abdul razeg, A., Aghayan, I., & Elbeltagi, E. (2022). Failure mode detection of reinforced concrete shear walls using ensemble deep neural networks. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Mechanical Research, 13(1), Article 17.M. Young, The Technical Writers Handbook.Mill Valley, CA: University Science, 1989.
  4. Zhao, Y., Kim, S. J., & Park, H. G. (2019). Experimental study on seismic resistance of RC shear walls with CFRP bars in boundary elements. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, 13(1), 112.
  5. IS 13920:2016 Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces Code.
  6. IS 1893:2002 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures.
  7. IS 456:2000 Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice (Fourth Revision)
  8. IS 1893 (Part 1):2016 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures General Provisions and Buildings.
  9. IS 875 (Part 1):1987 Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures Dead Loads
  10. IS 875 (Part 2):1987 Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures Imposed Loads
  11. IS 875 (Part 2):1987 Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures- Wind loads