Analysis of High-Rise Building and its Behaviour Due to Shear Wall at Different Location and in Different Seismic Zones

Download Full-Text PDF Cite this Publication

Text Only Version

Analysis of High-Rise Building and its Behaviour Due to Shear Wall at Different Location and in Different Seismic Zones

Mr. Basavalingappa Asst-Professor

Department of Civil Engineering RYMEC Ballari

Mr. Anil Kumar B

PG Student

Department of Civil Engineering RYMEC Ballari

Abstract:-

India at present is fast growing economy &Population g rowthwill increase demands of1land.

To construct high rise structure are more

advantage to provide they demands in construction indus try.After many practical studies it has shown that use of lateral loadresistingsystems in the building configuration has tremendouslyimproved the per formance of the structure in earthquake. Framed & Shear walls are mainly flexural members and usually provided in high rise buildings to avoid the total collapse of1the

high rise buildings under seismic forces. Shear walls are provided in elevator Authors Name/s per core, face & corner of1the structure to increase the stiffens & behaviour of structure., there by resisting the horizontal and vertical forces effectively. In the present study, analysis of RCC building has been carried out by changing the locations of1shear walls in the building. Also, the effect of variations in seismic zones as per IS codes has been presented. The seismic analysis performed is dynamic response spectrum method as per IS1893-2016 using the well-known analysis and design software ETABS15.0. Seismic performance of the building has been investigated based on parameters such as time period, storey displacements, storey drift & base shear along both the direction of the structure.

From the investigation conclude the shear wall impacts in high rise structural system with respective all seismic zones.

KeywordsSeismic, ETABS, storey, Indian Standard, high rise

I. INTRODUCTION

India at present is fast growing economy,which brings about demands in increaseof1infrastructure facilitiesalong with the growth of population.The demand of2land in urban regions is increasing day by day.It is imperative that land available for farming andagriculture remains intact. To cater the land demand in these regions, vertical development is the only option. This type of development brings challenges to counteract additional lateral loads due to wind and earthquake. This demands changes in the current structural system which needs to be implemented to resist these forces. Much research has been carried which describes the suitability of various lateral load resisting system against deformation and shear exerted due to the earthquake and windforces.

The seismic movement of the ground causes the structure to vibrate and causes structural deformity in the building. Different parameters regarding this deformity like frequency of vibration, time period and amplitude are of significant importance and defines the overall response of the structure. This overall response also depends on the distribution of seismic forces within the structure which again depends on the method which is used to calculate this distribution. Different methods of 3-Dimensional dynamic analysis of structures have become more efficient in use along with the development of2technology.

MAJOR STRUCTURALSYSTEMS

RIGID FRAMESYSTEM:

`Consist of column and girders joined by moment resistant connections. The lateral stiffness of a rigid-frame bent depends on the bending stiffness of the columns, girders and connections in the plane of the bent

RIGID FRAME WITH SHEARWALL:

It is a vertical continuous stiffening element, that deform in bending mode. It is Used in reinforced concrete buildings and suited to residential buildings and hotels.

When shear walls are combined with rigid frame the walls, which tend to deflect in flexural configuration, and the frames, which tend to deflect in shear modeare constrained to adopt a common deflected shape by the horizontal rigidity of the girders and slabs.

Consequences, the walls and frames interact horizontally, especially at the top to produce a stiffer and stronger structure.

The interacting wall-frame combination is appropriate for building in the 20 to 40 stories range, well beyond that of rigid frames or shear walls alone.

SHEAR WALL WITHOPENING

Framed structures with shear walls are frequently adopted as the structural system for high rise buildings, the openings may be window, door types openings as described previously. The behaviour of wall will change, these change will occur in deflection, bending moment, shear force, and the stress in walls. Openings may be small or large depending on the function of the building. In residential

building, opening like window, door, and corridor are sufficient whereas for special building like cinema theatres, function hall, hotels, community halls, it requires larger openings to meet the requirements

OUTRIGGERSYSTEM

Outriggers are connected directly to the core and to exterior columns. Used in reinforced concrete and steel buildings. Outriggers restrain the rotation of the core and convert part of the moment in the core into a vertical couple at the columns.

The outrigger structural systems not only proficient in controlling the top displacements but also play substantial role in reducing the inter storey drifts

The beneficial action is a function of two factors:

  1. The stiffness of the outrigger (Varies inversely with the outrigger distance from the base)

  2. Its location in the building.

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR DIFFERENT HEIGHTS:

Table 1: structural systems for different heights

ROLE OF SHEAR WALL

FUNCTION OF SHEAR WALL

The main function of a Shear Wall can be described as follows.

  • Providing Lateral Strength to building: Shear Wall must

    provide lateral shear strength to the building to resist the horizontal earthquake forces, wind forces and transfer these forces to the foundation.

  • Providing Lateral Stiffness to building: Shear Walls provide

    large stiffness to building in the direction of their orientation, which reduces lateral sway of the building and thus reduces damage to structure

    STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS METHODS TO UNDERSTAND THE BEHAVIOUR OF STRUCTURE

    Few of the methods are explain below:

    EQUIVALENT STATICMETHOD:

    This approach defines a series of forces acting on a building to represent the effect of earthquake ground motion. It assumes that the building responds in its fundamental mode. For this to be true, the building must be low-rise and must not twist significantly when the ground moves. As per this method first the design base shear shall be computed for the building as a whole. Then the base shear shall be distributed to the various floor levels at the corresponding centre of mass and finally the design seismic force shall be distributed to individual lateral load resisting elements through structural analysis considering the floor diaphragm action. This method

    is applicable for regular building with height less than 15m in seismic zone II as per IS code 1893-2016.

    RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD:

    The response spectrum represents an envelope of upper bound responses, based on several different ground motion records. For the purpose of seismic analysis, the design spectrum given in IS: 1893 2016 is used. This spectrum is based on strong motion records of eight Indian earthquakes. This method is an elastic dynamic analysis approach that relies on the assumption that dynamic response of the structure may be found

    To resist these lateral forces, shear wals are specially designed structural walls included in the buildings to resist horizontal forces that are induced in the plane of the wall due to wind, earthquake and other forces.

    ADVANTAGES OF SHEARWALL

  • It provides adequate strength to resist large lateral

    loads without excessive additional cost.

  • It provides adequate stiffness to resist lateral displacement

    within permissible limits, thus reducing risk of non- structural damage.

  • They should be located such a way that they also act as

    functional walls and do not interfere with the architectural of the building.

  • Shear wall should be placed along both the axis, so that

    lateral stiffness can be provided in both directions, particularly in the case of square buildings.

  • To avoid torsion effect shear wall should be placed

    symmetrically about the axis.

    by considering the independent response of each natural mode of vibration and then combining the response of each in same way. This is advantageous in the fact that generally only few of the lowest modes of3vibration have significance while calculating moments, shear and deflections at different levels of the building.

    DYNAMIC ANALYSIS:

    Static Analysis method requires less effort because except for the fundamental period, the periods and shapes of higher natural modes of vibration are not considered while in dynamic analysis the periods and shapes of3higher natural modes of vibration are also considered addition to fundamental periods which are considered in static analysis. Dynamic method as compared to static method mainly observed base shear is less in static than dynamic the displacement will be less in dynamic and also the moment hence dynamic method is used for analysis.

    MainObjectives

    1. To determine the optimum position of shear wall by consider architectural plan of the building.

    2. To analyze behavior of structurer due to dynamic load with all seismic zones.

    3. To study the structures with respect to story drift ratio, story displacement, time period, base shear&forces.

    4. The present study is limited to analysis of 20 story of

      R.C.C. Buildings

    5. To provide guide lines for structural engineer on the serviceability & economic aspects, that could be obtained by using shearwall.

      Scope of the presentwork

      1. In the present work four structural system has been considered i.e., one RCC frame structure without shear wall and three structure with shearwall.

      2. All models were analyzed using and dynamic response spectrum method as per IS1893-2016 specifications using ETABS software.

    METHODOLOGY

    The term building in Civil Engineering is used to mean a structure having various components like foundation, walls, columns, floors, roofs, doors, windows, ventilators, stairs lifts, various types of surface finishes etc. Structural analysis and design is used to produce a structure capable of resisting all applied loads without failure during its intended life. Prior to the analysis and design of any structure, necessary information regarding supporting soil has to be collected by means of geotechnical investigation. A geotechnical site investigation is the process of collecting information and evaluating the conditions of the site for the purpose of designing and constructing the foundation for a structure. Structural engineers are facing the challenges of striving for most efficient and economical design with accuracy in solution while ensuring that the final design of a building and the building must be serviceable for its intended function over its design life time. Now a days various software packages are available in market for analyzing and designing practically all types of structures viz. RISA, STAADPRO, ETABS, STRUDL, MIDAS, SAP

    and RAM etc.

    MODELLING AND ANALYSIS

    Modelling allows planners, designers and engineers to redesign routes based on value engineering principles and changing construction techniques.

    Modelling and analysis of8building is necessary for various components of structure with cost efficient bridge to overcome all type of disasters, to develop some design which is most efficient in a way to carry high loads at a very low fabrication cost etc. There are many modelling and design softwares are available in construction field. In this research work AutoCAD, Etabs, MS office are effectively utilized.

    MODEL DATA

    General details of the building

    Structure: RCC framed structure with & without shear wall.

    Plan Dimension: 35m x25m along X and Y directions

    Grid2Spacing: As per plan

    No. of2storey.: Basement+12

    Storey height 1) Basement storey: 3.2 m 2)Ground &Typical storey: 3.0 m

    Type of building use: Commercial

    Material Property

    Grade of2concrete: M40 Grade of Steel: Fe HYSD550 Structural member details Column :300×750 mm

    Beam :230x600mm Slab-150mm

    Load Intensities

    Floor finishes: 1.50 KN/m2 Live Load: 3.0 KN/m2 Wind Load Parameters Wind speed: 50m/sec Terrain category:2

    Seismic Load Parameters

    Zones: II, III, IV, V

    Importance Factor(I):1

    Response Reduction Factor(R):5 Soil Type: medium

    MODEL DESCRIPTION

    The modelling of the 1 basement +12, storey building has been done. These buildings are modelled with RCC structural elements. The models are further studied for different Shear wall members. Here are the different types of model shown for the easy assessment

    BASE MODELS

    MODEL 1: RCC frame without shear wall

    MODEL 2: RCC frame with shear wall -periphery of building

    MODEL 3: RCC frame without shear wall-corners of the building

    MODEL 4: RCC frame without shear wall-Face of thebuilding

    ANALYSIS

    PURPOSE OF USING DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

    Dynamic analysis is related to the inertia forces developed by a structure when it is excited by means of4dynamic loads applied suddenly (e.g., wind blasts, explosion and earthquake). A static load is one which varies very slowly with time. A dynamic load is one which changes with time fairly quickly in comparison to the structure's natural frequency. If it changes slowly, the structure's response may be determined with static analysis, but if4it varies quickly (relative to the structure's ability to respond), theresponse must be determined with a dynamic analysis.

    Dynamic analysis of structure is a part of structural analysis in which behaviour of flexible structure subjected to dynamic loading is studied. Dynamic load always changes with time. Dynamic load comprises of wind, live load, earthquake load etc. Thus, in general we can say almost all the real life problems can be studied dynamically. Types of seismic analysis used in this study are Equivalent lateral force method (Static linear method) and Response spectrum method.

    RESPONSE SPECTRUM4ANALYSIS4

    This method is applicable for those structures where modes other than the fundamental one affect significantly the response of the structure. In this method the response of Multi-Degree-of-Freedom (MDOF) system is expressed as the superposition of modal response, each modal response being determined from the spectral analysis of4single – degree-of- freedom (SDOF) system, which is then combined to compute total response. Modal analysis leads to the response history of the structure to a specified ground motion; however, the method is usually used in conjunction with a response spectrum. A response spectrum is simply a plot of the peak or steady- state response (displacement, velocity or acceleration) of a series of oscillators of varying natural frequency that are forced into motion by the same base vibration or shock. The resulting plot can then be used to pick off the response of any linear system, given its natural frequency of4oscillation. One such use is in assessing the peak response of buildings to earthquakes. The science of4strng ground motion may use some values from the ground response spectrum (calculated from recordings of7surface ground motion from seismographs) for correlation with seismic damage. If the input used in calculating a response spectrum is steady- state periodic, then the steady-state result is recorded. Damping must be present, or else the response will be infinite.

    For transient input (such as seismic ground motion), the peak response is reported. Some level of damping is generally assumed, but a value will be obtained even with no damping. Response spectra can also be used in assessing the response of linear systems with multiple modes of oscillation (multi-degree of freedom systems), although they are only accurate for low levels of7damping. Modal analysis is performed to identify the modes, and the response in that mode can be picked from the response spectrum. This peak response is then combined to estimate a total response. A typical combination method is the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) if the modal frequencies are not close. he result is typically different from that which would be calculated directly from an input, since phase information is lost in the process of generating the response spectrum. The main limitation of response spectra is that they are only universally applicable for linear systems. Response spectra can be generated for non-linear systems, but are only applicable to systems with the same non- linearity, although attempts have been made to develop non- linear seismic design spectra with wider structural application.

    TIME PERIOD

    TIME PERIOD (sec)

    TIME PERIOD (sec)

    Table 2 TIME TABLE

    TIME PERIOD

    TIME PERIOD

    2

    1.5

    1

    0.5

    0

    0

    5

    10

    15

    2

    1.5

    1

    0.5

    0

    0

    5

    10

    15

    MODEL 1

    MODEL 2

    MODEL 1

    MODEL 2

    MODELS3TORIEMSODEL 4

    MODELS3TORIEMSODEL 4

    Graph 1 TIME PERIOD

    According to IS 1893-2016 the total number of modes to be considered in the analysis should satisfy the condition that the sum of the modal mass of all the modes selected is 90% the seismic mass. Sixteen modes are considered for the analysis and sum of modal mass of all modes found to be greater than 90 % of the total seismic mass

    The maximum time period obtained is 1.658 sec for Model –

    1. The time period is 0.274, 0.917, 1.123 seconds for Model-2, Model-3, Model-4 respectively, which is lesser than Model-1. Whereas, the least time period obtained is

      1. sec for Model-2 compared to all the other models indicating that it is stiffer model than other models.

        BASE SHEAR

        The percentage reduction is found to be similar for all seismic zones.

        7000

        6000

        5000

        4000

        3000

        2000

        1000

        0

        BASE SHEAR X-DIRECTION

        8000

        6000

        4000

        2000

        0

        Table 3 Base shear zone II9

        BASE SHEAR X-DIRECTION

        5000

        4000

        3000

        2000

        1000

        0

        BASE SHEAR Y-DIRECTION

        5000

        4000

        3000

        2000

        1000

        0

        BASE SHEAR Y-DIRECTION

        Graph 3 Base shear zone III

        BASE SHEAR X-DIRECTION

        8000

        7000

        6000

        5000

        4000

        3000

        2000

        1000

        0

        BASE SHEAR X-DIRECTION

        8000

        7000

        6000

        5000

        4000

        3000

        2000

        1000

        0

        MODEL 1

        MODEL 2

        MODEL 3

        MODEL 4

        Graph 2 Base shear zone II

        Table 4 Base shear zone III9

        Table 5 Base shear zone IV

        Graph 4 Base shear zone IV

        Table 6 Base shear9zone V9

        Graph 5 Base shear zone V

        • With the increase in the zones the base shear values is also found to be incrementing and is found to be highest in zones.5

          BASE SHEAR Y-DIRECTION

          6000

          5000

          4000

          3000

          2000

          1000

          0

          BASE SHEAR Y-DIRECTION

          6000

          5000

          4000

          3000

          2000

          1000

          0

        • Base shear is highest in Model-2 for all the zones.

        • Base shear is found to be least in model-3 and model-1 for all zones along both thedirections.

        • The percentage reduction in base shear with respect to

          model-2 is 19.55%, 19.20%, 28.25% along X direction,

          similarly 29.59%, 26.49%, 41.96% along Y direction for model-1, model-3, model-4 respectively in zone V.

          STOREY DISPLACEMENT

          The storey drift ratio for response spectrum analysis for all the stories, and for all the models are tabulated in the table along X direction and Y direction and graphs are plotted respectively for all seismic zone.

          BASE SHEAR X-DIRECTION

          10000

          8000

          6000

          4000

          2000

          0

          BASE SHEAR Y-DIRECTION

          7000

          6000

          5000

          4000

          3000

          2000

          1000

          0

          BASE SHEAR X-DIRECTION

          10000

          8000

          6000

          4000

          2000

          0

          BASE SHEAR Y-DIRECTION

          7000

          6000

          5000

          4000

          3000

          2000

          1000

          0

          The incremental percentage in drift ratio is found to be similar for the seismic zones.

          Table 7 Displacement v/s storey along X & Y direction for zone II

          STORY DISPLACEMENT X-

          DIRECTION

          STORY DISPLACEMENT X-

          DIRECTION

          4

          2

          0

          4

          2

          0

          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

          STORIES

          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

          STORIES

          STORIES

          MODEL 3

          STORIES

          MODEL 3

          MODEL 1

          MODEL 4

          MODEL 1

          MODEL 4

          MODEL 2

          MODEL 2

          DISPLACEMWNT (mm)

          DISPLACEMWNT (mm)

          STORY DISPLACEMENT Y-

          DIRECTION

          DISPLACEMWNT (mm)

          DISPLACEMWNT (mm)

          4

          2

          0

          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

          STORIES

          STORIES MODEL 1 MODEL 2

          Table 8 Displacement v/s storey along X & Y direction for zone III

          STORY DISPLACEMENT X- DIRECTION

          MODEL 3 MODEL 4

          Graph 6 Displacement v/s storey along X and Y direction for zone II

          4

          DISPLACEMWNT (mm)

          DISPLACEMWNT (mm)

          3

          2

          1

          0

          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

          STORIES

          STORY DISPLACEMENT Y- DIRECTION

          DISPLACEMWNT (mm)

          DISPLACEMWNT (mm)

          5

          4

          3

          2

          1

          0

          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

          STORIES

          Graph 7 Displacement v/s storey along X and Y direction for zone III

          STORY DISPLACEMENT Y- DIRECTION

          DISPLACEMWNT (mm)

          DISPLACEMWNT (mm)

          6

          4

          2

          0

          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

          STORIES

          STORIES MODEL 1 MODEL 2

          MODEL 3 MODEL 4

          Table 9 Displacement v/s storey along X & Y direction for zone IV

          STORY DISPLACEMENT X- DIRECTION

          DISPLACEMWNT (mm)

          DISPLACEMWNT (mm)

          4

          3

          2

          1

          0

          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

          STORIES

          STORIES MODEL 1 MODEL 2

          MODEL 3 MODEL 4

          Graph 8 Displacement v/s storey along X and Y direction for zone IV

          Table 10 Displacement v/s storey along X & Y direction for zone V

          STORY DISPLACEMENT X- DIRECTION

          DISPLACEMWNT (mm)

          DISPLACEMWNT (mm)

          6

          5

          4

          3

          2

          1

          0

          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

          STORIES

          STORY DISPLACEMENT Y- DIRECTION

          DISPLACEMWNT (mm)

          DISPLACEMWNT (mm)

          10

          5

          0

          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

          STORIES

          STORIES MODEL 1 MODEL 2

          MODEL 3 MODEL 4

          Graph 9 Displacement v/s storey along Y direction for zone V

          In the dynamic response spectrum method of4analysis, the storey displacements for all the stories, and for all the models are tabulated in the table along X direction and Y direction and graphs are plotted respectively for zone II, III, IV and V respectively.

          Along X-Direction:

          The maximum displacement obtained is 5.37 mm for model-

    1. along Y-direction as shown in the table for zone V is within the permissible limits.

    Storey Displacement is found to be highest in model-1 and is found to be least in model-2 in all the zones II, III, IV and V.

    The percentage reduction along X-direction for model-1, model-3 and model-4 is 8.49%, 10.95% and 9.86% respectively with respect to least displaced model ie., model- 2 for zone V.

    Along Y-Direction:

    The maximum displacement obtained is 7.99mm for model-

    1 along Y-direction as shown in the table for zone V is within the permissible limits.

    Storey Displacement is found to be highest in model-1 and is found to be least in model-2 in all the zones II, III, IV and V.

    The percentage reduction along Y-direction for model- 1,model-3 and model-4 is 9.32%, 14.76% and 12.44% respectively with respect to least displaced model ie., model-2 for zone V.

    STOREY DRIFT

    The storey drift ratio for response spectrum analysis for all the stories, and for all the models are tabulated in the table along X direction and Y direction and graphs are plotted respectively for all seismic zone.

    The incremental percentage in drift ratio is found to be similar for the seismic zones.

    Table 11 Drift ratio v/s storey along X&Y direction for zone II

    STORY DRIFT X- DIRECTION

    STORY DRIFT X- DIRECTION

    0.0001

    0.00005

    0

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

    STORIES

    0.0001

    0.00005

    0

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

    STORIES

    STORIES

    MODEL 1

    MODEL 2

    STORIES

    MODEL 1

    MODEL 2

    MODEL 3 MODEL 4

    MODEL 3 MODEL 4

    DRIFT RATIO (mm)

    DRIFT RATIO (mm)

    DRIFT RATIO (mm)

    DRIFT RATIO (mm)

    0.00015

    0.0001

    STORY DRIFT Y- DIRECTION

    0.00005

    0

    0 5 10 15

    STORIES

    STORIES MODEL 1 MODEL 2

    MODEL 3 MODEL 4

    Table 12 Drift ratio v/s storey along X&Y direction for zone III

    STORY DRIFT X- DIRECTION

    DRIFT RATIO (mm)

    DRIFT RATIO (mm)

    0.00015

    0.0001

    Graph 10 Drift ratio v/s storey along Y direction for zone II

    0.00005

    0

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

    STORIES

    STORIES MODEL 1 MODEL 2

    MODEL 3 MODEL 4

    STORY DRIFT Y- DIRECTION

    DRIFT RATIO (mm)

    DRIFT RATIO (mm)

    0.0002

    0.00015

    0.0001

    0.00005

    0

    0 5 10 15

    STORIES

    STORIES MODEL 1 MODEL 2

    MODEL 3 MODEL 4

    Graph 11 Drift ratio v/s storey along X and Y direction for zone III

    DRIFT RATIO (mm)

    DRIFT RATIO (mm)

    0.0004

    0.0002

    0

    STORY DRIFT Y- DIRECTION

    0 5 10 15

    STORIES

    STORIES MODEL 1 MODEL 2

    MODEL 3 MODEL 4

    Table 13 Drift ratio v/s storey along X&Y direction for zone IV

    Graph 12 Drift ratio v/s storey along X and Y direction for zone IV

    DRIFT RATIO (mm)

    DRIFT RATIO (mm)

    0.0002

    0.0001

    0

    STORY DRIFT X- DIRECTION

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

    STORIES

    STORIES MODEL 1 MODEL 2

    MODEL 3 MODEL 4

    Table 14 Drift ratio v/s storey along X&Y direction for zone V

    DRIFT RATIO (mm)

    DRIFT RATIO (mm)

    0.0003

    0.0002

    0.0001

    0

    DRIFT RATIO (mm)

    DRIFT RATIO (mm)

    0.0004

    STORY DRIFT X- DIRECTION

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

    STORIES

    STORIES MODEL 1 MODEL 2

    MODEL 3 MODEL 4

    STORY DRIFT Y- DIRECTION

    than othermodels in all zones.

  • The displacement at the top storey is more, in all

    zonemodels.

  • Models with shear wall shows reduction in displacement,

    there by models 2 shows least displacement compared to other models.

  • By increasing seismic zones gradually displacements also

    increase in response spectrum method ofanalysis.

  • The displacements in the shear wall model-2 is less as

    compared to other models.

  • The percentage reduction for model-1, model-3

    and model-4 is 8.49%, 10.95% and 9.86% respectively with respect to least displaced model ie., model-2 for zone V.

  • The displacement is increased gradually from bottom to

    topstory.

  • The storey drift is gradually reduced in model 3 & model4.

    0.0002

    0

    0 5 10 15

    STORIES

    STORIES MODEL 1 MODEL 2

    MODEL 3 MODEL 4

  • The percentage reduction for model-1, model-3 and model- 4 is 14.71%, 6.76% and 8.20% respectively with respect to maximum displaced model ie., model- 2 for zone V

  • Drift ratio is least in model-3 and model-4 along X and Y

    directions for all the zones.

  • The percentage of6increment in the displacement and

    drift ratio is same for all the seismic zones.

  • The base shear values are incrementing in all the zones

    & shows highest base shear value for zoneV

  • Base shear is highest in Model-2 for all thezones.

    Graph 13 Drift ratio v/s storey along X and Y direction for zone V

    The storey drift ratio for all the stories, and for all the models are tabulated in the table along X direction and Y direction and graphs are plotted respectively for zones II, III, IV and V respectively.

    The maximum Drift ratio obtained at top storey is found to be 0. 000111 along X-direction in model-3 and 0.00015 along Y-direction in model-3 as shown in the table for zone V. Storey Drift ratio is found to be highest in model-3 and model-3 along X and Y directions respectively for all the zones II, III, IV and V.

    Similarly Drift ratio is found to be least in model-2 and model-2 along X and Y directions respectively for all the zones II, III, IV and V.

    The percentage reduction along X-direction for model-1, model-3 and model-4 is

    14.71%, 6.76% and 8.20% respectively with respect to maximum displaced model ie., model- 2 for zone V. Similarly the percentage reduction along Y direction for model-1, model-3 and model-4 is 20.00%, 10.00% and 10.20% respectively with respect to maximum displaced model ie., model-2 for zoneV.

    CONCLUSION

    From the results and discussions following conclusions are made with respect to dynamic response spectrum analysis of RCC Framed structure with and without shear wall.

  • The maximum time period obtained is 1.658 sec for model –

1& minimum time period is 0.274 sec for model-2, hence from this analysis models 2 is more stiffer

Considering the construction time factor, with shear wall structure need more time to execution,however proper workmanship needs to be followed for better structural behavior.

REFERENCES

  1. Jalali and F. DashtiNonlinear Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls Using Macro ModelEngineering Structures32(9):2959- 2968 · September2010.

  2. Hamdy H. A and Abd-el-rahim, "Role of shear walls in high rise buildings journal of engineering sciences, vol. (55) no.1 Marcp010.

  3. A Murali Krishna, Dr. E ArunakanthiOptimum Location of Different Shapes of Shear Walls in Unsymmetrical High Rise Buildings International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology2014.

  4. li>

    M.Pavani, G.NageshKumar,Dr.Sandeep Pingale Shear Wall Analysis and Design Optimization In Case of High Rise Buildings Using Etabs (software) International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Researcp015.

  5. Mallika.K , Nagesh Kumar.G Analysis of Shear Wall in High Rise Unsymmetrical Building Using Etabs International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology Vol. 5, Issue 11, November 2016.

  6. Shruti Badami, M. R. Suresh A Study on Behavior of Structural Systems for Tall Buildings Subjected To Lateral Loads International journal of civil engineeringVolume 03, Issue 07 (July2014)

  7. Axay Thapa &Sajal Sarkar Comparative study of multi-storied RCC building with and without shear wallInternational journal of civil engineering Vol. 6, Issue 2, February-March 2017.

  8. Sylviya B, P. EswaramoorthiAnalysis of RCC Building with Shear Walls at Various Locations and In Different Seismic Zones International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, Volume-8 Issue-2, December, 2018.

  9. MD. Maksudul Haque, Md. HasibulhasanRahat, Numerical analysis of high rice RCC buildings with shear walls having opening of different shapes International Journal of Advances in Mechanical

    and Civil Engineering, Volume- 5, Issue-3,Jun.-2018.

  10. N.SubramanianDesign Of Reinforced Concrete StructuresOxfordpublications

  11. Bungale S. Taranath Structural Analysis And Design Of Tall BuildingsCRC presspublications

RRFERENCES CODE OF PRACTICE

  1. IS 456 (2000): Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice.

  2. IS 875 I (1987): Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake) For Buildings and Structures, Part 1: Dead Loads.

  3. IS 875 II (1987): Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake) For Buildings and Structures, Part 2: Imposed Loads.

  4. IS 875 III (2015): Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures, Part 3: Wind Loads.

  5. IS 1893- Part 1 (2016): Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings

  6. IS 1893(Part 1)-2002: Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures: Part 1: General Provisions and buildings

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *