Effective Location of Shear Wall On Performance of Building Frame Subjected To Lateral..

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286601788
EFFECTIVE LOCATION OF SHEAR WALL ON

PERFORMANCE OF BUILDING FRAME
SUBJECTED TO LATERAL...
Thesis October 2014
CITATIONS READS
0 2,977
2 authors, including:
Balaji Kvgd
GITAM University
132 PUBLICATIONS 29 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Balaji Kvgd on 12 December 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

EFFECTIVE LOCATION OF SHEAR WALL ON PERFORMANCE OF
BUILDING FRAME SUBJECTED TO LATERAL LOAD
A Thesis submitted to Department of Civil Engineering
in part ial fulfillment of the requirements for the Award of Degree of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AND
NATURAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT
Submitted By
K.LOVARAJU
(1221112113)
Under The Guidance of
Dr. K.V.G.D.BALAJI Ph.D.

Professor of Civil Engineering, GITAM University
DEPATMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

GITAM INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
GITAM UNIVERSITY
(Est. U/s 3 of UGC act 1956)
VISAKHAPATNAM-530045
OCTOBER, 2013
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

GITAM UNIVERSITY
(Est. U/s 3 of UGC act 1956)
VISAKHAPATNAM-530045
CERTIFICATE
Certified that the thesis entitled EFFECTIVE LOCATION OF SHEAR

WALL ON PERFORMANCE OF BUILDING FRAME SUBJECTED TO
LATERAL LOADsubmitted by K.LOVARAJU, Regd. No. 1221112113 in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of degree of Master of
Technology in Civil Engineering with specialization in Structural Engineering
and Natural Disaster Management, GANDHI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY is
accorded to the students own work, carried out by him in department of Civil
Engineering during the year 2012-2014 under our supervision and guidance.
Neither his thesis nor any part of this thesis, has been submitted for any
degree/diploma or any other academic award anywhere before.
Dr. K.V.G.D.Balaji Ph.D. Dr M. Ramesh Ph.D.

Professor Professor &Head of Department
Dept. of Civil Engineering Dept. of Civil Engineering
GITAM University GITAM University
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This thesis is completed with the help of many people who had given me their full
support and encouragement all the time. However I would like to specially acknowledge
and extend my heart- full gratitude to the few people who made this thesis completion
possible.
I would like to thank Dr. K.V.G.D BALAJI, who has given me his valuable time,
stimulated suggestions and encouragement in this thesis work.
I would like to thank Dr. K.V.RAMESH, who has given me his support and
suggestions from the beginning.
I would like to thank Dr. M.POTHA RAJU, who has given me his length support
in doing this thesis.
I would like to thank Dr. P.C.KUMAR, who has given me his time and
encouragement.
I would like to thank Mr. T.SANTHOSH KUMAR, who has given me his
experienced suggestions in doing the report.
I would like to thank Mrs. K. REKHA, who has given me her advices from the
beginning.
I would like to thank Ms. S. KANAKA DURGA, who has given me her advices and
support from the beginning.
I would like to thank specially Dr. M. Ramesh, Head of Department, Civil

Engineering, who had given a special care and attention for me in submitting the
report.
I would like to show my special gratitude to my parents for their affection and
love all the time.
I would like to thank my friends who had given me support even at the critical
times.
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GITAM UNIVERSITY
M.Tech THESIS EVALUATION REPORT
This thesis ent it led Effective Location of Shear Wall on Performance

of Building Frame Subjected to Lateral Load submitted by K.LOVARAJU in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of t he degree of Master of
Technology in Civil Engineering wit h specializat ion in Structural Engineering
and Natural Disaster Management of GITAM Universit y, Visakhapatnam has
been approved.
EXAMINERS
1. Thesis Supervisor
2. External Examiner
3. Head of the department

Civil
Engineering
Visakhapatnam
Date:
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the work done in this thesis ent it led Effective
Location of Shear Wall on Performance of Building frame Subjected to
Lateral Load has been carried out by me, in part ial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of degree of Master of Engineering in Civil
Engineering wit h specializat ion in Structural engineering and Natural Disaster
Management of GITAM Inst itute of Technology, GITAM Universit y a nd further
declare that neit her this thesis nor any part of this thesis has not been su bmitted
for any degree/diploma or any other academic award anywhere before.
Place: Visakhapatnam K.LOVARAJU

Date:
ABSTRACT
The practice before 1960s has been to design buildings primarily for
gravity loads and check the adequacy of the structure for safety against lateral
loads. It is established that the design of a multi-storey building is governed by
lateral loads and it should be the prime concern of designer to provide adequate
safety to structure against lateral loads. Many existing RC frame buildings
located in seismic zones are deficient to withstand earthquakes. Insufficient
lateral resistances and poor detailing of reinforcement are the main reasons for
inadequate seismic performance. Shear wall system is one of the most
commonly used lateral-load resisting technique for high-rise buildings. Shear
walls have very high in-plane strength and stiffness, which can be used
simultaneously for resisting large horizontal and gravity loads. In tall buildings,
it is very important to ensure adequate lateral stiffness to resist lateral load.
The aim of this project is to determine the solution for shear wall
location in multi-storey building. For this purpose four different models eight
storeyed building each has been considered i.e. one model without shear wall
and other three with shear walls in different zones. Models are studied in all the
four zones for comparing lateral displacement and load transfer to various
structural elements with different positioning of shear wall. Earthquake load is
calculated as per IS: 1893-2002 (Part-1), the various parameters like response
reduction factor, importance factor, zone factor are taken from IS: 1893-2002
(Part-1) and are applied to a building located in Zone II, Zone III, Zone IV and
Zone V.The buildings are modelled using software ETAB Nonlinear v 9.7.2.
Providing shear walls at adequate locations substantially reduce the
displacements due to earthquake. Hence accounting shear wall in a building will
form an efficient lateral force resisting system. Finally concluded that small
dimension of shear wall is not more effective then large dimension of shear wall
to control the lateral displacement in 8 stories or below 8 stories buildings.

CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 2
1.2 Objective 4
1.3 Scope 4
1.4 Methodology 4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 5
3. STRUCTURAL MODELLING 31
3.1 Materials 35
3.2 Structural Elements 35
3.2.1 Beams & Columns 35
3.2.2 Beam-Column Joints 35
3.2.3 Foundations 35
3.3 Loads 36
3.4 Load Combinations 36
4. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF FRAMES 37
4.1 Necessity Of NLSP Analysis 38
4.1.1 What is Non-Linear Static Push-over Analysis? 38
4.1.2 Purpose of Push-over Analysis 40
4.1.3 Non-Linear Static Analysis for Buildings 42
4.2 Capacity Spectrum Method 45
4.3 Seismic Load Distribution 47
4.4 Load Deformation Behaviour of Elements 47
4.5 Different Hinge Properties in NLSP Analysis 48
4.6 Limitations of Push Over Analysis 50
5. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS ( Etabs) 51
5.1 Modeling of Frame 52
5.2 Member Properties 52
5.3 Member Loading 52
5.4 Push-Over cases 53
6. RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS 54

6.1 Results 55
6.2 Discussions 108
6.3 Conclusions 109
7. REFERENCES 110
LIST OF FIGURES
S.No Description of Figures
1 Fig 3.1 Model-1 Plan without Shear Wall 32
2 Fig 3.2 Model-2 Plan with Shear Wall Position-1 33
5 Fig 4.1 Push-over Analysis Curve 44
6 Fig 4.2 Strength Deformation Curve 45
7 Fig 4.3 Capacity Spectrum Curve 46
8 Fig 4.4 Performance Levels (ATC-40) 48
9 Fig 6.1 RCC frame (Plan) in ETABS 56
10 Fig 6.2 RCC Frame (3D view) 57
11 Fig 6.3 RCC Frame (3D view)- External Wall Loading 58
12 Fig 6.4 RCC Frame (3D view)- Internal Wall Loading 59
13 Fig 6.5 RCC Frame Hinge formation step-1 60
18 Fig 7.1 RCC Frame Plan of Shear Wall Location -1 65
19 Fig 7.2 RCC Frame Plan of Shear Wall Location -1(3D view) 66
20 Fig 7.3 RCC Frame with shear wall P-1 Hinge formation step-1 67
LIST OF TABLES
S.No Description Of Tables
1 Tab 6.1 RCC Frame Pushover curve LATERAL PUSH in Zone-2 86
Tab 7.1 RCC Frame Pushover curve With shear wall Position-1
5 LATERAL PUSH in Zone-2 90
17 Table 6.1 Displacement of model-1 without Shear Wall Frame 102
Table 6.2 Comparing Displacement between Model-1 and
18 Model-2 103
19 Model-3 103
20 Model-4 104
21 Fig 1: Displacement of model 1 (Graph) 104
1. INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 Back Ground:
Shear wall are one of the excellent means of providing earthquake resistance to
multi-storeyed reinforced concrete building. The structure is still damaged due
to some or the other reason during earthquakes. Behaviour of structure during
earthquake motion depends on distribution of weight, stiffness and strength in
both horizontal and planes of building. To reduce the effect of earthquake
reinforced concrete shear walls are used in the building. These can be used for
improving seismic response of buildings. Structural design of buildings for
seismic loading is primarily concerned with structural safety during major
Earthquakes, in tall buildings, it is very important to ensure adequate lateral
stiffness to resist lateral load. The provision of shear wall in building to achieve
rigidity has been found effective and economical. When buildings are tall,
beam, column sizes are quite heavy and steel required is large. So there is lot of
congestion at these joint and it is difficult to place and vibrate concrete at these
place and displacement is quite heavy. Shear walls are usually used in tall
building to avoid collapse of buildings. When shear wall are situated in
advantageous positions in the building, they can form an efficient lateral force
resisting system.
The major criteria now-a-days in designing RCC structures in seismic zones is
control of lateral displacement resulting from lateral forces. In this thesis effort
has been made to investigate the effect of Shear Wall position on lateral
2
displacement and Base Shear in RCC Frames. Three types of structures,G+7 are
considered which one of the frames were provided with arrangement of shear
wall in the position of lift walls.
Non-linear static analysis (pushover analysis) was carried out for three types
frames and the frames were then compared with the push over curves.
Displacement and Base shear is calculated from the curves and compared.
The nonlinear analysis of a frame has become an important tool for the study of
the concrete behavior including its load-deflection pattern and cracks pattern. It
helps in the study of various characteristics of concrete member under different
load conditions.
3
1.2 OBJECTIVES:
To study the performance of RC plane frames under lateral loads
(Earthquake loads).
To study the inelastic response of RC plane frames using Pushover
analysis
To study the variation of pushover curve for a plane framed structure and
for a framed structure with shears walls.
1.3 SCOPE:
Only multi-storey frames are considered.
Plan irregularities are not considered.
Shear walls are considered for the frame at different position for the study
of push over analysis.
Push over analysis is used as a non-linear static method to predict the
actual performance of the RC Frames under lateral loadings.
1.4 METHODLOGY:
For the purpose of study a plan of G+7 floor levels were considered. For
push over study, RC plane frames with and without shear wall were analyzed
and designed for gravity loads as per IS 456:2000 and lateral loads (earthquake
loads) as per IS 1893 (part-1):2002.
4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
5
ATC-40: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings
The Applied Technology Council (ATC) is a non-profit, tax exempt

corporation established in 1971 through the efforts of the Structural Engineers
Association of California. ATC is guided by a Board of Directors consisting of
representatives appointed by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the
Structural Engineers Association of California, the Western States Council of
Structural Engineers Associations, and four at large representatives concerned
with the practice of structural engineering.
The purpose of ATC is to assist the design practitioner in structural engineering

in the task of keeping abreast of and effectively using technological
developments. ATC also identifies and encourages needed research and
develops consensus opinions on structural engineering issues in a non
proprietary format.
This document is organized into two volumes. Volume one contains the main
body of the evaluation and retrofit methodology, presented in 13 chapters, with
a glossary and a list of references. This volume contains all of the parts of the
document required for the evaluation and retrofit of buildings. Volume two
consists of appendices containing supporting material related to the
methodology.
FEMA 356: Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of

the Buildings
The preparation of this prestandard was originally undertaken with two

principle and complimentary objectives. The first was to encourage the wider
application of the NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings, FEMA 273, by converting it into mandatory language. Design
6
professionals and building officials thus would have at their disposal a more
resistant to earthquake. This volume fully meets this first objective.
The second objective was to provide a basis for a nationally recognized, ANSI-
approved standard that would further help in disseminating and incorporating
the approaches and technology of the prestandard into the mainstream of the
design and construction practices in the United States.
LITERATURE REVIEW ON PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
K.V.G.D BALAJI et al (2012) explained non-linear analysis of various

symmetric and asymmetric structures constructed on plain as well as sloping
grounds subjected to various kinds of loads. Different structures constructed on
plane ground and inclined ground of 30o slope is considered in the present study.
Various structures are considered in plan symmetry and also asymmetry with
difference in bay sizes in mutual directions. The analysis has been carried out
using SAP-2000 and ETABS software. Pushover curves have been developed
and compared for various cases. It has been observed that the structures with
vertical irregularity are more critical than structures with plan irregularity.
The nonlinear static procedure or pushover analysis is
increasingly used to establish the estimations of seismic demands for building
structures. Since structures exhibit nonlinear behavior during earthquakes, using
the nonlinear analysis is inevitable to observe whether the structure is meeting
the desirable performance or not (ATC 40).
The pushover procedure consists of two parts. First, a target
displacement for the building is established. The target displacement is an
estimation of the top displacement of the building when exposed to the design
earthquake excitation. Then a pushover analysis is carried out on the building
until the top displacement of the building equals to the target displacement and
7
the second one force controlled type in which the total amount of force acting is
estimated and applied to the structure and the analysis is carried out.
In order to consider the torsion effects in the nonlinear static
analysis of the asymmetric buildings is carried out by defining the target
displacement for each resisting element until failure (Emrah erduran(2008)).
The base shear is applied in incremental order until the target displacement is
reached.
The main objective of the thesis is to consider the effect of the
changes in the structures modal properties of asymmetric-plan buildings during
the pushover analysis (Chatpan Chintanapakde (2004))and the application of the
displacement based adaptive pushover procedure (Kazem shakeri(2012)). The
analysis part of structures is carried out in ETABS, SAP and STAAD. Results
obtained in all the cases are compared with remaining two cases and found
satisfactory results, so as to carry out the analysis in ETABS and SAP.
Nonlinear analysis has been carried out for structures with irregularities in both
plan and elevation which undergo torsion effect due to vertical irregularity. The
various results obtained from the analysis are presented.
Mrugesh D. Shah et al (2011) explained the Nonlinear static analysis is an

iterative procedure so it is difficult to solve by hand calculation and thats why
software is required to do nonlinear static analysis. ETABS 9.7 have features to
perform nonlinear static analysis. This is an approach to do nonlinear static
analysis in simplify and effective manner.
The nonlinear analysis of a structure is an iterative procedure. It depends on the

final displacement, as the effective damping depends on the hysteretic energy
loss due to inelastic deformations, which in turn depends on the final
displacement. This makes the analysis procedure iterative. Difficulty in the
solution is faced near the ultimate load, as the stiffness matrix at this point
8
becomes negative definite due to instability of the structure becoming a
mechanism. Software available to perform nonlinear static (pushover) analysis
are ETABS, SAP, ADINA, SC Push3D Extended Three Dimensional Buildings
Systems (ETABS) and Structural
Analysis Program finite element program that works with complex geometry
and monitors deformation at all hinges to determine ultimate deformation. It has
built-in defaults for ACI 318 material properties and ATC-40 and FEMA 273
hinge properties. Also it has capability for inputting any material or hinge
property. ETABS 9.7 deals with the buildings only. The analysis in ETABS 9.7
involves the
Following four step.1)Modelling, 2 )Static analysis, Designing 4)Pushover
analysis
Steps used in performing a pushover analysis of a simple three-dimensional
building.
1. Creating the basic computer model (without the pushover data) in the usual
manner.
2. Define properties and acceptance criteria for the pushover hinges. The
program includes several built-in default hinge properties that are based on
average values from ATC-40 for concrete members and average values from
FEMA-273 for steel members. These built in properties can be useful for
preliminary analyses, but user defined properties are recommended for final
analyses.
3. Locate the pushover hinges on the model by selecting one or more frame
members and assigning them one or more hinge properties and hinge locations.
4. Define the pushover load cases. In ETABS 9.7 more than one pushover load
case can be run in the same analysis. Also a pushover load case can start from
the final conditions of another pushover load case that was previously run in the
same analysis. Typically a gravity load pushover is force controlled and lateral
pushovers are displacement controlled.
9
5. Run the basic static analysis and, if desired, dynamic analysis. Then run the
static nonlinear pushover analysis.
6. Display the pushover curve and the table.
7. Review the pushover displaced shape and sequence of hinge formation on a
step-by-step basis.
S. V. Venkatesh et al (2011) explained an attempt is made to study the

difference in structural behaviour of 3-dimensional (3D) single-bay three- bays
10 storey basic moment resisting RC frames when provided with two different
types of shear wall as LLRS. Detailed investigations are carried out for zone V
of Seismic zones of India as per IS 1893 (part 1):2002, considering primary
loads (dead, live and seismic loads) and their combinations with appropriate
load factor. Altogether 15 models are analyzed to which consist of one basic
moment resisting RC frame (Bare frame) with three different size / orientation
of column and other two include basic moment resisting RC frame with the
same sizes / orientation of columns as in bare frame with internal shear walls
and external shear wall of two different thicknesses.
In this study STAAD.Pro2006 software package is been used, where
the floor Slabs are not discretized for analysis and the load is applied directly to
the beams. The plan have been consists of Single bay of span 7.5 m along X
direction, three bays of span 3.0 m each along Z direction. The typical Ten-
Storey building has each storey height of 3.0 m along Y direction. The
structural systems are subjected to 3 types of Primary Load Cases as per I.S.
875-1987 (Part I) Dead Load, live load, Seismic (Lateral) Load in Z-direction,
Seismic (Lateral) Load in Z-direction.
The main objective of the thesis is necessary to consider gravity and
seismic loads as well as all the load combinations during analysis of the
structure. Provision of both external shear wall and internal shear wall
effectively reduce large joint displacements found in bare frame. Change in
10
column size / orientation gives rise to varying forces in support reaction and
forces in structural members. Performance of square columns adopted in the
present study is better than rectangular columns of different orientations under
lateral (earthquake) load. Provision of external and internal shear walls in
general results in reducing support reactions and member forces, but may give
rise to additional forces such as shear force and torsion moment in columns and
beams which need to be accounted for during design. Thickness of shear wall
does not have much influence on the member forces or stresses of the structure.
For the shear wall thicknesses considered in this study, the magnitudes of
Maximum or Minimum principal stresses and maximum shear stresses are very
small. Even though the performance of internal shear walls is better that
external shear walls, External shear walls serve as an alternative to internal
shear walls in retrofitting seismically deficient structures, particularly when it is
not possible to vacate the building during retrofitting.
Anshuman S et al (2011) explained is to determine the solution for shear wall

location in multi-storey building based on its both elastic and elasto-plastic
behaviours. An earthquake load is calculated and applied to a building of fifteen
stories located in zone IV. Elastic and elasto-plastic analyses were performed on
both STAAD Pro 2004 and SAP V 10.0.5 (2000) software packages used. Shear
forces, bending moment and story drift were computed in both the cases and
location of shear wall was established based upon the above computations.
The plan of the building without shear wall and with shear wall has been
considered to carry out the study. The top deflection (when the seismic load
direction is in the shorter dimension) has been exceeded the permissible
deflection, i.e. 0.004 times the total height of the building [IS 1893 (Part 1)
(2002)] in STAAD PRO 2004. It has exceeded for the load combinations
1.5(DL+EQ) and 0.9DL+1.5EQ, respectively.
11
The idea about the location for providing the shear wall which was based
on the elastic and inelastic analyses in this paper. It has been observed that the
top deflection was reduced and reached within the permissible deflection after
providing the shear wall in any of the 6th & 7th frames and 1st and 12th frames
in the shorter direction. It has been also observed that the both bending moment
and shear force in the 1st and 12th frame were reduced after providing the shear
wall in any of the 6th & 7th frames and 1st and 12th frames in the shorter
direction. It has been observed that the in inelastic analysis performance point
was small and within the elastic limit. It can be said that shear wall can be
provided in 6th and 7th frames or 1st and 12th frames in the shorter direction.
Mangulkar Madhuri N et al (2012) explained about the lower level containing

the concrete columns behaved as a soft story in that the columns were unable to
provide adequate shear resistance during the earthquake. This paper highlights
the importance for immediate measures to prevent the indiscriminate use of soft
first story in buildings, which are designed without regard to the increased
displacement, ductility and force demands in the first story and the importance
of novel design approach which has an advantage of interaction between rigid
frames and shear walls.
The most destructive and unfortunately the most general irregularity in
India stock of building structures that lead to collapse is certainly the soft story
irregularity. The commercial and parking areas with higher story heights and
less infill walls reduce the stiffness of the lateral load resisting system at that
story and progressive collapse becomes unavoidable in a severe earthquake for
such buildings. Total seismic base shear as experienced by a building during an
earthquake is dependent on its natural period; the seismic force distribution is
dependent on the distribution of stiffness and mass along the height. In
buildings with soft first story, the upper storys being stiff, undergo smaller
inter-story drifts. However, the inter-story drift in the soft first story is large.
12
The strength demands on the columns in the first story for third buildings are
also large, as the shear in the first story is maximum. For the upper storys,
however, the forces in the columns are effectively reduced due to the presence
of the Buildings with abrupt changes in story stiffnesss have uneven lateral
force distribution along the height, which is likely to locally induce stress
concentration. This has adverse effect on the performance of buildings during
ground shaking.
RC frame buildings with open first storys are known to perform poorly
during in strong earthquake shaking. Large opening on the lowest floor causing
the stiffness is relative low compare to the stiffness at the story above thus there
is need of immediate measure to prevent to in discrimate use of soft story in
building which are design without regard to increase the displacement, ductility
and force demand in the first story in this paper highlight the various factors
which are responsible for failure of high rise building under seismic forces and
also argues the importance of shear wall as a one of the efficient approach to
eliminate seismic failure of soft story high rise building. He tried to discuss
various aspects regarding shear wall discussed by many of the investigators on
adding shear wall to the building in different arrangement in order to reduce soft
story effect on structural seismic response in earthquake excitation. It was found
that location, number and curtailment of shear wall acts an important factor for
the soft story structures to displace during earthquake.
Anuj Chandiwala et al (2012) the researcher, had tried to get moment occur at
a particular column including the seismic load, by taking different lateral load
resisting structural systems, different number of floors, with various positions of
shear wall for earthquake zone III in India has been selected. Demand of
earthquake resisting building which can be fulfilled by providing the shear wall
systems in the buildings.
13
This researcher project studied on 10-storey RC residential building
located in India in seismic zone III and founded on medium soil, which is the
reference ground condition. The structural configuration and dimension of the
building structure are shown in Figures 3 to7 and 9. The thickness of wall is 230
mm and the foot print of building 18 m X 22.5 m. In this case the earthquake
force is predominant then the calculated wind pressure, the structure is analysed
& designed for the seismic loading only.
The analysis of the different position of shear wall in the building
configuration following is the comparison in maximum base shear in x & y-
direction and the analysis of the building configuration, it is concluded that
option-i is best suited for the base shear during earthquake. Among different
location of shear wall (f- shear wall at end of l section) best result. Main
reason is end portion of flange always oscillate more during earthquake. shear
wall directly obstruct this end oscillation, hence reduce overall bending moment
of building.
O. Esmaili S. et al (2012) the researcher on the structural aspects of one of the

tallest RC buildings, located in the high seismic zone, with 56 stories. In this
Tower, shear wall system with irregular openings are utilized under both lateral
and gravity loads, and may result some especial issues in the behavior of
structural elements such as shear walls, coupling beams and etc. To have a
seismic evaluation of the Tower, a lot of non-linear analyses were performed to
verify its behavior with the most prevalent retrofitting guidelines like FEMA
356. In this paper; some especial aspects of the tower and the assessment of its
seismic load bearing system with considering some important factors will be
discussed. After a general study of ductility levels in shear walls he conclude
the optimality and conceptuality of the tower design. Finally, some technical
information about the structural behavior of the case would be very fascinating
and useful for designers.
14
The tower is a 56-story tall building, located in Tehran, which is the most
high seismicity zone in Iran and extensively populated nowadays. As the policy
of construction in Tehran is toward the vertical accommodation, so building
such a tower would be helpful to approach this goal. The tower has three
transverse main walls with the angle of 120 and multiple sidewalls
perpendicular to each of them. It seems that this kind of architectural
configuration is due to aesthetic considerations.
Conclusion the designer should recognize the presence of time-
dependent effects, and provide for them in the design. Having concrete
structural elements with different longitudinal stiffness makes the tower to be
more sensitive to differential displacements due to concrete time dependency. A
level of ductility for seismic bracing systems, conceptually, should be provided
for energy absorption but axial loads have an adverse effect on their acceptable
performance and this fact should be considered exactly. As is proofed here,
using shear walls for both gravity and bracing system is unacceptable neither
conceptually nor economically. Not only main walls are assumed to carry
seismic loads, but also they are going to bear a significant percentage of gravity
loads. Increasing axial load level decreases R factor. So design base shear will
be increased and moment of inertia of the section should be increased. In other
hand, the lesser the axial load, the much more cross sectional area. Confinement
of concrete in shear walls is a good way to provide more level of ductility and
getting more stable behaviour.
Y.M.Fahan et al ( 2009) explained the proper modelling of the shear walls is

very important for both linear and nonlinear analyses of building structures. In
linear analyses of structures, Reinforced concrete (RC) shear walls are modelled
utilizing different techniques either using shell elements or combination of
frame elements. In the nonlinear analyses, the nonlinear material model of mid-
pier frame is generally based on plastic hinge concept located on the plastic
15
zones at the end of the structural elements or distributed along the member span
length. The nonlinear behavior of the shell elements is generally modeled using
multi layer shell element with layered material model. In this approach, the
concrete and the reinforcement inside the structural elements are modeled
respectively with different layers. In this study, different approaches for linear
and nonlinear modeling of the shear walls in structural analyses of buildings are
studied and applied to RC building with shear walls. The analyses results of
different approaches are compared in terms of overall behavior of the structural
systems.
In the countries with active seismicity, reinforced concrete structural walls are
widely used in multi-storey structure systems. Therefore, a proper modeling of
the shear walls is very important for both linear and nonlinear analyses of
building structures.
In linear analyses of structures, shear walls are modeled utilizing
different techniques either using shell elements or combination of frame
elements. The most common modeling technique is to use a composition of
mid-pier frame to represent the shear wall stiffness and a horizontal frame (rigid
arm) to allow proper connections with intersecting beams and slab components.
Shell elements formulations generally consist of out-of-plane (plate) and in-
plane (membrane) degree of freedoms.
In practice, even though, the nonlinear analysis procedures for frame
structural systems (columns, beams) are well-developed, the nonlinear models
for shear walls need further researches to adopt it to the structural engineering
applications. Different analytical models for the material nonlinearity of the
shear walls are used depending on either mid-pier frame or a composition of
shell elements.
The nonlinear model of mid-pier frame is generally based on plastic
hinge concept and a bilinear moment-rotation relationship. Taking into account
16
the analysis purpose, the plastic (P-M-M Interaction) hinges can be assumed
either on the plastic zones at the end of the structural elements or distributed
along the member span length (Otani, 1980). More comprehensive hinge model
can be considered using a fiber model to predict the plastic behavior of the
hinge.
The nonlinear material of the shell elements can be modeled using
layered shell element with directional material model (dorninger and
Rammerstorfer, 1990). In this model, the concrete and the reinforcement inside
the structural elements are modeled respectively with different fibers so that the
cyclic behavior of material can be properly simulated. On the other hand, most
of the applications do not include nonlinear shear models for such members.
In this study, a nonlinear static Pushover analysis is performed for RC
frame building with shear walls. The shear walls are modeled either with Mid-
Pier frame elements or with shell elements. The nonlinear material for the Mid-
Pier model is assumed to be plastic (P-M-M Interaction) hinge; while a multi
layer model considering the concrete and reinforcement as a layered shells. The
results of different models are compared in terms of overall behavior of the
structural systems.
A.Kadid et al (2008) explained the Boumerdes 2003 earthquake which has

devastated a large part of the north of Algeria has raised questions about the
adequacy of framed structures to resist strong motions, since many buildings
suffered great damage or collapsed. To evaluate the performance of framed
buildings under future expected earthquakes, a non linear static pushover
analysis has been conducted. To achieve this objective, three framed buildings
with 5, 8 and 12 stories respectively were analyzed. The results obtained from
this study show that properly designed frames will perform well under seismic
loads.
17
The recent earthquakes including the last Algerian earthquake in
which many concrete structures have been severely damaged or collapsed, have
indicated the need for evaluating the seismic adequacy of existing buildings. In
particular, the seismic rehabilitation of older concrete structures in high
seismicity areas is a matter of growing concern, since structures venerable to
damage must be identified and an acceptable level of safety must be
determined. To make such assessment, simplified linear-elastic methods are not
adequate. Thus, the structural engineering community has developed a new
generation of design and seismic procedures that incorporate performance based
structures and is moving away from simplified linear elastic methods and
towards a more non linear technique. Recent interests in the development of
performance based codes for the design or rehabilitation of buildings in seismic
active areas show that an inelastic procedure commonly referred to as the
pushover analysis is a viable method to assess damage vulnerability of
buildings. Basically, a pushover analysis is a series of incremental static
analysis carried out to develop a capacity curve for the building. Based on the
capacity curve, a target displacement which is an estimate of the displacement
that the design earthquake will produce on the building is determined. The
extent of damage experienced by the structure at this target displacement is
considered representative of the damage experienced by the building when
subjected to design level ground shaking. Many methods were presented to
apply the nonlinear static pushover (NSP) to structures. These methods can be
listed as: (1) the capacity spectrum method (CSM) (ATC), (2) the displacement
coefficient method (DCM) (FEMA-356), (3) modal pushover analysis (MPA).
The approach has been developed by many researchers with minor variation in
computation procedure. Since the behaviour of reinforced concrete structures
may be highly inelastic under seismic loads, the global inelastic performance of
RC structures will be dominated by plastic yielding effects and consequently the
accuracy of the pushover analysis will be influenced by the ability of the
18
analytical models to capture these effects. In general, analytical models for the
pushover analysis of frame structures may be divided into two main types: (1)
distributed plasticity (plastic zone) and
(2) concentrated plasticity (plastic hinge). Although the plastic hinge approach
is simpler than the plastic zone, this method is limited to its incapacity to
capture the more complex member behaviour that involve severe yielding under
the combined actions of compression and bi-axial bending and buckling effects.
In this paper, are presented the results of pushover analysis of reinforced
concrete frames designed according to the Algerian code.
BAI JiuLin et al (2011) explained the structural failure under severe ground
motions is primarily caused by their unreasonable seismic failure mode (SFM).
This paper provides a methodology aiming at the SFM improvement of
reinforced concrete frame structure. An RC frame is modelled and three types
of failure criterion are defined as the premise of SFM. Static pushover analysis
is adopted to identify the SFM. The dominant failure modes and failure paths of
the structure are obtained in three lateral load patterns (inverted triangular
distribution, uniform distribution and adaptive distribution). Based on the
pushover analysis, the sequential failure of components and the probability of
the occurrence of plastic hinges are determined. By this, weak components of
the structure are detected and herein are strengthened. The project cost of the
proposed strengthening strategy increases by 2.4%. Capacity spectrum method
is used to study the performance of the strengthening structure. Pushover
analysis is conducted again to present the improvement of strength and ductility.
Lateral drift and local response through IDA are also studied to indicate that the
strengthening of some columns and beams can improve the SFM to enhance the
seismic capacity of structure.
During the design life, the structure is generally subjected to
19
a number of varying loads and their combinations, and the action of seismic
load is usually the key factor for structural design in seismic regions. A
redundant structure has numerous seismic failure modes because of the
significant randomness and uncertainty of earthquake, and the structural failure
under severe earthquake loads is primarily caused by their unreasonable seismic
failure mode (SFM).Failure mode is a basic concept in earthquake-resistant
limit state design of structures and failure mode analysis is recognized as useful
and indispensable in the calculation of structural system reliability. Usually,
only the dominant SFM contributes to the structural system failure probability
while others have a very low probability of occurring. Thus, the identification of
dominant failure modes is extremely important for structural reliability
calculation and disaster prevention.
In recent years, earthquake disaster frequently occurred in the
whole world. Earthquake damage investigations show that aseismatic structures
have better behaviors than that without seismic fortification, but the resisting
progressive collapses ability is inferior to what we expect, especially in 512
Wenchuan earthquake. The most outstanding reason for this is the structural
unreasonable seismic failure node. Therefore, how to improve, optimize and
control the SFM is a major challenge for the performance-based seismic design.
SFMs vary rapidly in different ground motions and the search of SFMs must
consider the right way, such as pushover analysis,or IDA method .The
optimization of SFM of building structures may be an effective way to improve
the earthquake-resistant collapse capacity. Ou et al. presented the concept of the
weakest failure mode. If it can be eliminated, the structures will have more
capacity to resist earthquake. In the meantime, a new structure system may be
derived from the optimization and control of failure modes. Starting from this
consideration, an RC frame structure is established in the study. The nonlinear
static pushover procedure is adopted to identify the dominant seismic failure
modes. Three different lateral load distribution patterns are used to represent the
20
seismic actions, under which the structures failure modes are gained.
Considering the failure path and the probability of the occurrence of plastic
hinges, strengthening strategy is proposed. The nonlinear analyses (pushover
analysis and incremental dynamic analysis) and project cost analysis are
presented for the feasibility and validity of the SFM improvement.
Abhilash R et al (2009) explained the pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear

procedure in which the magnitude of the structural loading is incrementally
increased in accordance with a certain predefined pattern. With the increase in
the magnitude of the loading, weak links and failure modes of the structure are
found. Static pushover analysis is an attempt by the structural engineering
profession to evaluate the real strength of the structure and it promises to be a
useful and effective tool for performance based design. The performance point
of the structure depends on the lateral load pattern applied on the structure.
Commonly applied load patterns are inverted triangle and uniformly distributed.
Then guidelines like FEMA- 257 & 356 provide guidelines for lateral loads and
doing pushover analysis. Here pushover analysis is done a typical RCC
structure by applying different lateral load patterns using ETABS and SAP2000.
The lateral load patterns used here are uniform load distribution and equivalent
lateral force distribution as per FEMA-257, lateral loads from response
spectrum analysis as per IS-1893(2002) and the lateral load pattern as per
Upper-Bound Pushover analysis method.
Analysis methods are broadly classified as linear static, linear
dynamic, nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic analysis. In these the first two
is suitable only when the structural loads are small and at no point the load will
reach to collapse load. During earthquake loads the structural loading will reach
to collapse load and the material stresses will be above yield stresses. So in this
case material nonlinearity and geometrical nonlinearity should be incorporated
into the analysis to get better results. Non Linear Static analysis or Push-over
21
analysis is a technique by which a computer model of the building is subjected
to a lateral load of a certain shape (i.e., parabolic, triangular or uniform). The
intensity of the lateral load is slowly increased and the sequence of cracks,
yielding, plastic hinge formations, and failure of various structural components
is recorded. In the structural design process a series of iterations are usually
required during which, the structural deficiencies observed in iteration is
rectified and followed by another. This iterative analysis and design procedure
continues until the design satisfies pre-established performance criteria.
The performance criteria for pushover analysis are generally
established as the desired state of the building, given roof- top displacement
amplitude. The non-linear static analysis is then revisited to determine member
forces and deformations at target displacement or performance point. This
analysis provides data on the strength and ductility of the structure which
otherwise cannot be predicted. Base shear versus top displacement curve of the
structure, called pushover curves, are essential outcomes of pushover analysis.
These curves are useful in ascertaining whether a structure is capable of
sustaining certain level of seismic load.
This method is considered as a step forward from the use of linear
analysis, because they are based on a more accurate estimate of the distributed
yielding within a structure, rather than an assumed, uniform ductility. The
generation of the pushover curve also provides the nonlinear behaviour of the
structure under lateral load. However, it is important to remember that pushover
methods have no rigorous theoretical basis, and may be inaccurate if the
assumed load distribution is incorrect. For example, the use of a load pattern
based on the fundamental mode shape may be inaccurate if higher modes are
significant, and the use of any fixed load pattern may be unrealistic if yielding is
not uniformly distributed, so that the stiffness profile changes as the structure
yields. Here lateral load pattern recommended by FEMA-273, Upper bound
22
pushover analysis and the lateral load obtained by dynamic analysis based on
response spectra in IS-1893(2002) are used.
Pushover analysis is done on a regular single bay four storied RCC
structure using SAP2000 and ETABS. Four load patterns are applied and the
variations in performance point are checked.
F. Khoshnoudian et al (2011) explained the proposal lateral load pattern for

pushover analysis is given in two forms for symmetric concrete
buildings: 1-(X/H)0.5 for low-rise and mid-rise buildings, 2- Sin(X/H) for
high-rise buildings. These two forms give more realistic results as compared to
conventional load patterns such as triangular and uniform load patterns. The
assumed buildings of 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 30 story concrete buildings are special
moment frame which have been designed according to 2800 standard. Then
using conventional load patterns and proposal load patterns, the pushover
analysis has been done and results have been compared with the outcomes of
nonlinear time history analysis. Results show the accuracy of proposed load
pattern in comparing to the load patterns proposed by standards such as
FEMA356.
In the last ten years, much attention has been paid to performance-based
seismic design in earthquake engineering research. This new method requires
designing a building for several expected performance levels associated with
different earthquake hazard levels. To meet this objective, a more rational
design procedure based on inelastic displacement rather than elastic force is
needed. At present, the method has been suggested in some recommended or
guidance codes and documents.
An important step in performance-based design is to estimate the nonlinear
seismic
response of buildings. There are two procedures: nonlinear time history analysis
and simplified nonlinear analysis here in referred to as pushover analysis. The
23
nonlinear time history analysis can provide more realistic results for a given
earthquake ground motion. However, such analytical methods tend to be highly
sensitive to the earthquake input. It is difficult to provide suitable earthquake
time histories as earthquake motion for general design use in codes. Pushover
analysis is not as complicated as nonlinear time history analysis and can use
response spectrum as demand diagram to estimate the seismic response of
structures.
Therefore it is generally recommended in performance-based design.
In pushover analysis, the first step is to suppose a certain lateral
load pattern, then perform a static analysis of the structural model under this
pattern. The load pattern is applied step by step until a predetermined target
displacement is reached. Thus, the relationship between base shear and roof
displacement is obtained, which is referred to as the capacity curve of building.
It is clear that different load patterns will result in different capacity curves. If
the curve over-or-underestimates the seismic capacity of the building, then the
steps used to estimate the displacement response based on this curve and design
demand diagram would not be realistic. Therefore, the selection of a reasonable
lateral load pattern is particularly important in pushover analysis.
Several lateral load patterns have been suggested. They are:
(1) inverted triangle distribution (modal pattern); (2) uniform distribution; (3)
load distribution based on linear elastic dynamic analysis or response spectrum
analysis of the building ;(4) the adaptive distribution, which is varied as the
inter story resistance changes in each load step ;(5) distribution proportional to
the product of the mass and fundamental mode shape, which is
used initially until the first yielding takes place. Then the lateral forces are
determined based on the product of the current floor displacement and mass at
each step; (6) a distribution based on mode shapes derived from secant stiffness
at each load step.
24
The last three distributions are adaptive patterns, which try to establish
equivalent lateral load distribution based on a certain theoretical basis.
However, their superiority over the simple fixed load patterns has not been
demonstrated.
It was also noted that the first two patterns might result in the lower and upper
bound of push over curves, respectively.
In present paper, numerous time history analyses are carried out for
4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 30 story concrete buildings, which were selected to
represent a variety of structures, to obtain the capacity curves of these buildings
under earthquake excitations. Then, pushover analyses are conducted under
different load patterns including conventional and proposed load patterns, the
obtained capacity curves are compared with those obtained from time history
analysis, the effectiveness of different load patterns is examined and suitable
load patterns are suggested for different types of structures. RC buildings have
been designed according to Iranian earthquake standard. Then pushover and
nonlinear time history analysis are applied to each building by means of
FEMA356.
Pushover analysis is done by applying of triangular load, uniform
load as well as proposed load patterns then the building capacity curve is drawn
for each pattern. These curves are compared with those obtained from time
history capacity of the building. The best lateral load pattern can be given by
comparison of buildings capacity curve while applying of different lateral load
patterns with exact capacity curve obtained from time history nonlinear
analysis.
Anil K. Chopra et al explained the Developed herein is an improved pushover

analysis procedure based on structural dynamics theory, which retains the
conceptual simplicity and computational attractiveness of current procedures
with invariant force distribution. In this modal pushover analysis (MPA), the
25
seismic demand due to individual terms in the modal expansion of the e<ective
earthquake forces is determined by a pushover analysis using the inertia force
distribution for each mode. Combining these modal demands due to the three
terms of the expansion provides an estimate of the total seismic demand on
inelastic systems. When applied to elastic systems, the MPA procedure is
shown to be equivalent to standard response spectrum analysis (RSA). When
the peak inelastic response of a 9-storey steel building determined by the
approximate MPA procedure is compared with rigorous non-linear response
history analysis, it is demonstrated that MPA estimates the response of
buildings responding well into the inelastic range to a similar degree of
accuracy as RSA in estimating peak response of elastic systems. Thus, the MPA
procedure is accurate enough for practical application in building evaluation and
design.
M. K. Rahman et al explained the Western region of Saudi Arabia lies in a

moderate seismic zone and seismic events of magnitude 5.7 were recorded in
2009 in areas near the holy city of Madinah. A historical event involving
ground cracking and fissuring with volcanic activity took place in the year
1256. The recent seismic events have led to concerns on safety and vulnerability
of RC buildings, which were designed only for gravity loads in the past devoid
of any ductile detailing of joints. This paper presents a 3D nonlinear static
analysis for seismic performance evaluation of an existing eight-story
reinforced concrete frame-shear wall building in Madinah. The building has a
dome, reinforced concrete frame, elevator shafts and ribbed and flat slab
systems at different floor levels. The seismic displacement response of the RC
frame-shear wall building is obtained using the 3D pushover analysis. The 3D
static pushover analysis was carried out using SAP2000 incorporat ing inelastic
material behavior for concrete and steel. Moment curvature and P-M
interactions of frame members were obtained by cross sectional fiber
26
analysis using XTRACT. The shear wall was modeled using mid-pier approach.
The damage modes includes a sequence of yielding and failure of
members and structural levels were obtained for the target displacement
expected under design earthquake and retrofitting strategies to strengthen the
building were evaluated.
Recent awareness of a potential seismic events in low to moderate

seismicity regions of Saudi Arabia such as Otaibah, Makkah (2005), Haradh,
Eastern Province (2006) , Al-Hadama, Al-Amid, Al-Qarasa and Yanbu (2009),
Eastern Province (August,2010) have led to concerns of safety and vulnerability
of reinforced concrete buildings, in which ductile detailing has not been
provided explicitly in the design process. Majority of the structures built in
Saudi Arabia in the seismically active Western region are designed primarily
for combination of gravity and wind loads and are not able to resist
seismic loading.
Gravity load designed RC frames in Saudi Arabia have limited
lateral load resistance and are susceptible to column-side sway or soft-story
mechanisms under earthquake effects. In some cases, for relatively taller
buildings in Saudi Arabia, the design may have considered lateral forces due to
wind loads, it is still important to carry out a complete seismic evaluation, since
higher mode effects sometimes lead to soft-story mechanisms in the mid to
upper levels of the building. Also non ductile detailing practice employed in
these structures makes them prone to potential damage and failure during
earthquake. Therefore analysis of such buildings are required which have not
been designed to take care of seismic forces. The nonlinear static approach is
used to evaluate the seismic response of the building. Modeling of shear wall is
done by mid-pier approach. The nonlinear model of the mid -pier frame is
generally based on plastic hinge concept and a bilinear moment -rotation
relationship. Taking into account the analysis purpose, the plastic hinges
27
(P-M-M Interaction) can be assumed either on the plastic zones at the end of
the structural elements or distributed along the member span length (Otani,
1980).
This paper presents a 3D nonlinear static analysis for seismic
performance evaluation of an existing eight-story reinforced concrete frame-
shear wall building in Madinah. The building has a dome, reinforced concrete
frame, elevator shafts and ribbed and flat slab systems at different floor levels.
The seismic displacement response of the RC frame-shear wall building
obtained using the 3D pushover analysis. The 3D static pushover analysis
was carried out using SAP2000 incorporating inelastic material behaviour
for concrete and steel. Moment curvature and P-M interactions of frame
members were obtained by cross sectional fiber analysis using XTRACT.
The shear wall was modelled using mid pier approach.
Helmut Krawinkler et al (1998) In this research seismic design can be

viewed as a two step process. The first, and usually most important one,
is the conception of an effective structural system that needs to be
configured with due regard to all important seismic performance
objectives, ranging from serviceability con-siderations to life safety and
collapse prevention. This step comprises the art of seismic engineering,
since no rigid rules can, or should, be imposed on the engineer's creativity to
devise a system that not only fulfills seismic performance objectives, but
also pays tribute to functional and economic constraints imposed by the
owner, the architect, and other professionals involved in the design and
construction of a building. By default, this process of creation is based on
judgment, experience, and understanding of seismic behavior, rather than
rigorous mathematical formulations. Rules of thumb for strength and
stiffness targets, based on the fundamental knowledge of ground motion
and elastic and inelastic dynamic response characteristics, should suffice to
28
configure and rough-size an effective structural system. Elaborate
mathematical/physical models can only be built once a structural system
has been created. Such models are needed to evaluate seismic
performance of an existing system and to modify component behavior
characteristics (strength, stiffness, deformation capacity) to better suit the
specified performance criteria. This second step of the design process
should involve a demand/capacity evaluation at all important performance
levels, which requires identification of important capacity parameters and
prescription of acceptable values of these parameters, as well as the
prediction of the demands imposed by ground motions. Suitable capacity
parameters and their acceptable values, as well as suitable methods for
demand prediction will depend on the performance level to be evaluated.
This paper is concerned only with demand prediction at low performance
levels, such as life safety and collapse prevention, at which it is expected
that the structure will have to undergo significant inelastic deformations. In
an ideal world there would be no debate about the proper method of
demand prediction and performance evaluation at low performance levels.
Clearly, inelastic time history analysis that predicts with sufficient
reliability the forces and cumulative deformation (damage) demands in
every element of the structural system is the final solution. The
implementation of this solution requires the availability of a set of ground
motion records (each with three components) that account for the
uncertainties and differences in severity, frequency characteristics, and
duration due to rupture characteristics and distances of the various faults
that may cause motions at the site. It requires further capability to model
adequately the cyclic load- deformation characteristics of all important
elements of the three-dimensional soil-foundation structure system, and the
availability of efficient tools to implement the solution process within the
time and financial constraints imposed on an engineering office. Moreover,
29
it requires the adequate knowledge of element deformation capacities with
due regard to deterioration characteristics that define the limit state of
acceptable performance. We need to work towards this final solution, but
we also need to recognize the limitations of today's states of knowledge
and practice. It is fair to say that at this time none of the afore-
mentioned capabilities have been adequately developed and that efficient
tools for implementation do not exist. Recognizing these limitations, the
task is to perform an evaluation process that is relatively simple, but
captures the essential features that significantly affect the performance
goal. In this ,context, the accuracy of demand prediction is desirable, but
it may not be essential, since neither seismic input nor capacities are
known with accu-racy. The inelastic pushover analysis, which is the
subject of this paper, serves this purpose provided its limitations and
pitfalls are fully recognized.
30
3. STRUCTURAL MODELLING
31
Modelling: For this study, 8-story building with a 3-meters height for each
story, regular in plan is modeled. These buildings were designed in compliance
to the Indian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings.The
buildings are assumed to be fixed at the base. The sections of structural
elements are square and rectangular. Storey heights of buildings are assumed
to be constant including the ground storey. The buildings are modeled using
software ETAB Nonlinear v 9.7.2. Four different models were studied with
different positioning of shear wall in building. Models are studied in all four
zones comparing lateral displacement for all models.
Fig: 3.1 Model-1 Plan without Shear Wall
32
Fig: 3.2 Model-2 Plan with Shear Wall Position-1
33
34
3.1 MATERIALS
The modulus of elasticity of reinforced concrete as per IS 456:2000 is given by
For the steel rebar, the necessary information is yield stress, modulus of
elasticity and ultimate strength. High yield strength deformed bars (HYSD)
2
having yield strength 415 N/mm is widely used in design practice and is
adopted for the present study.
3.2 STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

In this section, the details of the modeling adopted for various elements of the
frame are given below.
3.2.1 Beams and Columns

Beams and columns were modelled as frame elements. The elements
represent the strength, stiffness and deformation capacity of the members.
While modelling the beams and columns, the properties to be assigned are
cross sectional dimensions, reinforcement details and the type of material
used.
3.2.2 Beam-Column Joints

The beam-column joints are assumed to be rigid.
3.2.3 Foundation Modelling

Fixed supports were provided at the ends of supporting columns.
35
3.3 LOADS
All loads acting on the building except wind load were considered. These are
1. Dead Load
2. Live Load
3. Lateral Load due to Earthquake
It was assumed that wind load will not govern the demands on the members.
3.4 LOAD COMBINATIONS

The load combinations considered in the analysis according to IS 1893:2002 are
given below.
COMB1 = 1.5(DL+LL)
For Pushover analysis the load cases are as follows.
a. Gravity push (Push1), which is used to apply gravity load (DL+LL). The
percentage of imposed load was selected from the Table-8, IS 1893:2002. It is
2
25% for imposed load less than 3 KN/m .
b. Lateral push (Push 2) in X- direction.
c. Lateral push (Push 3) in Y- direction.
36
4. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF FRAMES
37
Pushover analysis of frames
Pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear procedure in which the
magnitude of the lateral loads is incrementally increased, maintaining a
predefined distribution pattern along the height of the building. Pushover
analysis can determine the behavior of a building, including the ultimate load
and the maximum inelastic deflection. Local nonlinear effects are modeled and
the structure is pushed until a collapse mechanism is developed. At each step,
the base shear and the roof displacement can be plotted to generate the
pushover curve.
4.1 Necessity of Non-Linear Static Pushover Analysis (NLSA)
The existing building can become seismically deficient since seismic

design code requirements are constantly upgraded and advancement in
engineering knowledge. Further, Indian buildings built over past two decades
are seismically deficient because of lack of awareness regarding seismic
behavior of structures. The wide spread damage especially to RC buildings
during earth quakes exposed the construction practices being adopted around
the world, and generated a great demand for seismic evaluation and retrofitting
of existing building stocks
4.1.1 What is Non-Linear Static Push-over Analysis?
The pushover analysis of a structure is a static non-linear analysis under

permanent vertical loads and gradually increasing lateral loads. The equivalent
static lateral loads approximately represent earth quake induced forces. A plot
of the total base shear versus top displacement in a structure is obtained by this
analysis that would indicate any premature failure or weakness. The analysis is
carried out up to failure, thus it enables determination of collapse load and
ductility capacity. O a building frame, and plastic rotation is monitored, and
38
lateral inelastic force versus displacement response for the complete structure is
analytically computed. This type of analysis enables weakness in the structure
to be identified. The decision to retrofit can be taken in such studies.
The seismic design can be viewed as two step process. The first, and usually
most important one, is the conception of an effective structural system that
needs to be configured with due regard to all important seismic performance
objectives, ranging from serviceability considerations. This step comprises the
art of seismic engineering. The rules of thumb for the strength and stiffness
targets, based on fundamental knowledge of ground motion and elastic and
inelastic dynamic response characteristics, should suffice to configure and
rough-size an effective structural system.
Elaborate mathematical/physical model can only be built once a structural

system has been created. Such models are needed to evaluate seismic
performance of an existing system to modify component behavior
characteristics (strength, stiffness, deformation capacity) to better suit the
specified performance criteria.
The second step consists of the design process that involves demand/ capacity
evaluation at all important capacity parameters, as well as the prediction of
demands imposed by ground motions. Suitable capacity parameters and their
acceptable values, as well as suitable methods for demand prediction will
depend on the performance level to be evaluated.
The implementation of this solution requires the availability of a set of ground

motion records (each with three components) that account for the uncertainties
and differences in severity, frequency characteristics, and duration due to
rupture characteristics distances of the various faults that may cause motions at
the site. It requires further the capability to model adequately the cyclic load
39
deformation characteristics of all important elements of the three dimensional
soil foundation structure system, and the availability of efficient tools to
implement the solution process within the time and financial constraints on an
engineering problem.
4.1.2 Purpose of Push-over Analysis
The purpose of pushover analysis is to evaluate the expected performance

of structural systems by estimating performance of a structural system by
estimating its strength and deformation demands in design earthquakes by
means of static inelastic analysis, and comparing these demands to available
capacities at the performance levels of interest. The evaluation is based on an
assessment of important performance parameters, including global drift, inter-
story drift, inelastic element deformations (either absolute or normalized with
respect to a yield value), deformations between elements, and element
connection forces (for elements and connections that cannot sustain inelastic
deformations), The inelastic static pushover analysis can be viewed as a method
for predicting seismic force and deformation demands, which accounts in an
approximate manner for the redistribution of internal forces that no longer can
be resisted within the elastic range of structural behavior.
The pushover is expected to provide information on many response

characteristics that cannot be obtained from an elastic static or dynamic
analysis. The following are the examples of such response characteristics:
40
The realistic force demands on potentially brittle elements, such as axial force
demands on columns, force demands on brace connections, moment demands
on beam to column connections, shear force demands in deep reinforced
concrete spandrel beams, shear force demands in unreinforced masonry wall
piers etc.
Estimates of the deformations demands for elements that have to form in
elastically in order to dissipate the energy imparted to the structure.
Consequences of the strength deterioration of individual elements on behavior
of structural system.
Consequences of the strength deterioration of the individual elements on the
behavior of the structural system.
Identification of the critical regions in which the deformation demands are
expected to be high and that have to become the focus through detailing.
Identification of the strength discontinuities in plan elevation that will lead to
changes in the dynamic characteristics in elastic range.
Estimates of the inter-story drifts that account for strength or stiffness
discontinuities and that may be used to control the damages and to evaluate P-
Delta effects.
Verification of the completeness and adequacy of load path, considering all
the elements of the structural system, all the connections, the stiff nonstructural
elements of significant strength, and the foundation system.
The last item is the most relevant one as the analytical model incorporates all
elements, whether structural or non structural, that contribute significantly to the
lateral load distribution. Load transfer through across the connections through
the ductile elements can be checked with realistic forces; the effects of stiff
partial-height infill walls on shear forces in columns can be evaluated; and the
maximum overturning moment in walls, which is often limited by the uplift
41
capacity of foundation elements can be estimated.
These benefits come at the cost of the additional analysis effort,

associated with incorporating all important elements, modeling their inelastic
load-deformation characteristics, and executing incremental inelastic analysis,
preferably with three dimensional analytical models.
4.1.3 Non-Linear Static Analysis for Buildings
Seismic analysis of buildings can be categorized depending upon the

sophistication of modeling adopted for the analysis. Buildings loaded beyond
the elastic range can be analyzed using Non-Linear static analysis, but in this
method one would not be able to capture the dynamic response, especially the
higher mode effects. This is pushover analysis. There is no specific code for
NLSA. This procedure leads to the capacity curve which can be compared with
design spectrum/DCR of members and one can determine whether the building
is safe or needs strengthening and its extent.
The capacity of structure is represented by pushover curve. The most

convenient way to plot the load deformation curve is by tracking the base shear
and the roof displacement. The pushover procedure can be presented in various
forms can be used in a variety of forms for the use in a variety of
methodologies. As the name implies it is a process of pushing horizontally, with
a prescribed loading pattern, incrementally, until the structure reaches the limit
state. There are several types of sophistication that can be used over for
pushover curve analysis.
42
Level-1: It is generally used for single storey building, where at a
single concentrated horizontal force equal to base shear
applied at the top of the structure and displacement is
obtained.
Level-2: In this level, lateral force in proportion to storey mass is

applied at different floor levels in accordance with IS: 1893-
2002 (Part-I) procedure, and story drift is obtained.
Level-3: In this method lateral force is applied in proportion to the

product of storey masses and first mode shape elastic model
of the structure. The pushover curve is constructed to
represent the first mode response of structure based on the
assumption that the fundamental mode of vibration is the
predominant response of the structure. This procedure is
valid for tall buildings with fundamental period of vibration
upto 1 sec.
Level-4: This procedure is applied to soft storey buildings, wherein

lateral force in proportion to product of storey masses and
first mode of shape of elastic model of the structure, until
first yielding, the forces are adjusted with the changing the
deflected shape.
Level-5: This procedure is similar to level 3 and level 4 but the effect
of higher mode of vibration in determining yielding in
individual structural element are included while plotting the
pushover curve for the building in terms of the first mode
lateral forces and displacements. The higher mode effects
can be determined by doing higher mode pushover analysis.
43
For the higher modes, structure is pushed and pulled
concurrently to maintain the mode shape.
Fig 4.1 push over analysis
44
Fig 4.2 Strength deformation for a frame structure
4.2 CAPACITY SPECTRUM METHOD

The nonlinear static pushover analysis is a comprehensive method of
evaluating earth quake response of structures explicitly considering nonlinear
behavior of structure elements. The capacity spectrum method is on approach
for implementing pushover analysis that compares structure capacity with
ground shaking demand to determine peak response during an earthquake.
The capacity spectrum method estimates peak response by expressing
both structure capacity and ground shaking demand in terms of spectral
acceleration and displacement (hence the name capacity spectrum)
A capacity spectrum is the base shear versus roof displacement curve.
When the demand spectrum is plotted along with the capacity spectrum in an
45
Acceleration Displacement Response Spectrum (ADRS) format, the two curves
may meet to give a performance point.
The performance point represents the maximum deformation and the
degree of damage that the building will sustain the applied static forces.
Fig 4.3 capacity spectrum curve
46
4.3 SEISMIC LOAD DISTRIBUTION:
Pushover analysis requires the seismic load distribution with
which the structure will be displaced incrementally. The load distribution
is based on the first three mode shapes.
4.4 LOAD-DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR OF ELEMENTS:

In pushover analysis, it is necessary to model the non-linear load-
deformation behavior of the elements. Beams and columns should have
moment versus rotation and shear force versus shear deformation hinges. For
columns, the rotation of the moment hinge can be calculated for the axial load
available from the gravity load analysis. All compression struts have to be
modeled with axial load versus axial deformation hinges.
An idealized load-deformation curve is shown in Fig (3.4). It is a piece-wise
linear curve defined by five points as explained below.
(i) Point A corresponds to the unloaded condition
(ii) Point B corresponds to the onset of yielding.
(iii) Point C corresponds to the ultimate strength.
(iv) Point D corresponds to the residual strength. For the computational
stability, it is recommended to specify non-zero residual strength. In absence
of the modeling of the descending branch of a load-deformation curve, the
residual strength can be assumed to be 20% of the yield strength.
(v) Point E corresponds to the maximum deformation capacity with the
residual strength. To maintain computational stability, a high value of
deformation capacity equal to 15 y can be assumed, where y is the deformation
at the onset of yielding.
47
Fig 4.4 Performance levels (ATC 40)
4.5 DIFFERENT HINGE PROPERTIES IN PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

There are three types of hinge properties in E-Tabs. They are
1) Default hinge properties,
2) User-defined hinge properties and
3) Generated hinge properties.
Only default hinge properties and user-defined hinge properties can be
assigned to frame elements. When these hinge properties are assigned to a
frame element, the program automatically creates a different generated hinge
property for each and every hinge.
Default hinge properties cannot be modified. They also cannot be viewed
because the default properties are section dependent. The default properties
cannot be fully defined by the program until the section that they apply to is
identified. Thus to see the effect of the default properties, the default property
should be assigned to a frame element, and then the resulting generated hinge
property should be viewed. The built-in default hinge properties are typically
based on FEMA-273 and/or ATC-40 criteria. For example of default properties,
48
we have Default-M3, Default-P, Default-P-M-M and Default-V2. Usually
moment hinge properties (Default-M3) are assigned to beams and interacting
hinge properties (Default-P-M-M) are assigned to columns.
In addition to moment-rotation relationships, a three dimensional
interaction surface with axial force-bending moment interaction diagrams has to
be defined for columns. Although E-Tabs could not update the moment-rotation
relationships due to variations in axial load levels during pushover analysis, the
yield and ultimate moment values are updated by using the three dimensional
interaction surfaces. Axial force-bending moment interaction diagrams about
two major axes of each column section are utilized to determine three
dimensional interaction surfaces.
User-defined hinge properties can be either based on default properties
or they can be fully user-defined. When user-defined properties are based on
default properties, the hinge properties cannot be viewed because, again, the
default properties are section dependent. When user-defined properties are
not based on default properties, then the properties can be viewed and
modified.
The generated hinge properties are used in the analysis. They can be
viewed, but they cannot be modified. Generated hinge properties have an
automatic naming convention of Label H#, where Label is the frame element
label, H stands for hinge, and # represents the hinge number.
The program starts with hinge number 1 and increments the hinge
number by one for each consecutive hinge applied to the frame element. For
example if a frame element label is F23, the generated hinge property name
for the second hinge applied to the frame element is F23H2.
The main reason for the differentiation between defined properties (in this
context, defined means both default and user-defined) and generated
properties is that typically the hinge properties are section dependent. Thus
49
different frame section type in the model. This could potentially mean that a
very large number of hinge properties would need to be defined by the user.
4.6 LIMITATIONS OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS:

Although pushover analysis has advantages over elastic analysis
procedures, underlying assumptions, the accuracy of pushover predictions and
limitations of current pushover procedures must be identified. The estimate of
target displacement, selection of lateral load patterns and identification of
failure mechanisms due to higher modes of vibration are important issues that
affect the accuracy of pushover results.
Static pushover analysis neglects dynamic effects. Hence, during an
earthquake, the inelastic structural behavior can be described by balancing the
dynamic equilibrium at every time step. As pushover analysis focuses only on
the strain energy of the structure during a monotonic static push, it neglects
other sources of energy mainly associated with dynamic components of forces
such as kinetic energy and viscous damping energy.
Target displacement is the global displacement expected in a design
earthquake. The roof displacement at mass center of the structure is used as
target displacement. The accurate estimation of target displacement associated
with specific performance objective affect the accuracy of seismic demand
predictions of pushover analysis.
50
5. ANALYSIS OF FRAMES (E-Tabs)
51
5.1 MODELLING OF FRAME:
All the preliminary modelling was done in E-Tabs. A eight storey frame
was modelled in to E-Tabs without shear wall. Along with the above frame,
another three frame with shear walls in different position was modelled in E-
Tabs. The main aim is to derive the difference in displacement & Base Shear
between these four frames.
5.2 MEMBER PROPERTIES:

All the beams in the frame were sized to 0.3m X 0.45m.
All the columns in the frame were sized to 0.35m X 0.75m.
The slab of 0.12m thickness was taken for the analysis purpose and
assigned to each floor.
Default M3hinge was assigned to beams.
Default P-M-M hinge was assigned to columns.
4.4 MEMBER LOADING:

All the members were assigned the following loadings.
Self Weight
External Wall Load--- 6 KN/m
Internal Wall Load--- 5 KN/m
Live Load----------- 2 KN/m
Earth Quake Loading----- as per IS-code:1983-2002
It was assumed that the wind force was not governing the frame
efficiency.
52
4.5 PUSH OVER CASES:
Two pushover cases were defined for the analysis.
Push-1 also known as Gravity push which is done for gravity loading (
DL+LL) for which it is done in load defined pattern
Push-2 also known as lateral push in which the governing load is lateral
load (EQ) for which it is done in displacement defined pattern.
53
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
54
6.1 RESULTS:
The results from the analysis are the deflected shape and the formation of
hinges with increasing load and their performance levels.
The main difference between the frames can be found from the
displacement and base reaction plots i.e., push-over curves. Capacity
Spectrum curves can be drawn from the analyzed plot.
From the capacity spectrum curve the existence of performance point can
be noted. If the performance point doesnt exist, the structure fails to achieve
the target performance level.
6.1.1
Pushover curve have been developed for multi-storey frame with and
without shear wall.
CASE-1: Multi Storey Frame without Shear Wall.
CASE-2: The shear wall have been located in position case-1 at lift corners
CASE-3: The shear wall have been located in position case-2 at beside lift
as considering mid position of span length 4m..
CASE-4: The shear wall been located in Position case -3 at longer span as
mid position of span length 6m.
55
Fig: 6.1 RCC frame (Plan) in ETABS
56
Fig: 6.2 RCC frame (3D view)
57
Fig: 6.3 RCC frame (3D view) External Wall Loading
58
Fig: 6.4 RCC frame (3D view) Internal Wall Loading
59
1.FORMATION OF HINGES (RCC PLANE FRAME) WITH OUT
SHEAR WALL (MODEL-1):
Fig: 6.5 RCC frame deformed shape (Lateral-step 1)
60
61
62
63
64
Fig: 7.1 RCC frame Plan of shear wall location in position-1
65
Fig: 7.2 RCC frame shear wall position-1(3D view)
66
2. FORMATION OF HINGES (RCC PLANE FRAME) WITH SHEAR
WALL IN POSITION -1 (MODEL-2):
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
3.FORMATION OF HINGES (RCC PLANE FRAME) WITH SHEAR
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
4.FORMATION OF HINGES (RCC PLANE FRAME) WITH SHEAR
81
82
83
84
85
PUSH-OVER CURVES
Tab: 6.1 RCC frame Push Over curve without shear wall-LATERAL PUSH in
Zone-II
86
Zone-III
87
Zone-IV
88
Tab: 6.4 RCC frame Push Over curve without shear wall- LATERAL PUSH in
Zone-V
89
Tab: 7.1 RCC frame Push Over curve with SHEAR WALL (position-1) -
LATERAL PUSH in Zone-II
90
LATERAL PUSH in Zone-III
91
LATERAL PUSH in Zone-IV
92
LATERAL PUSH in Zone-V
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
STATIC LINEAR ANALYSIS OF FRAME (MODEL-1)
Table: 6.1
MODEL-1 WITHOUT SHEAR WALL FRAME
8 STOREY (MODEL-1) DISPLACEMENT (mm )
Zone-2 130.24
Zone-3 203.11
Zone-4 301.37
Zone-5 442.68
102
Table: 6.2
COMPARING DISPLACEMENT BETWEEN MODEL-1 AND MODEL-2
MODEL-1 MODEL-2 % reduction in

8 STROYED
Displacement (mm ) Displacement (mm) Displacement
Zone-2 130.24 119.13 8.5
Zone-3 203.11 184.5 9.1
Zone-4 301.37 272.65 9.5
Zone-5 442.68 399.55 9.7
Table: 6.3

8 STROYED
Zone-2 130.24 107.36 17.5
Zone-3 203.11 166.24 18.1
Zone-4 301.37 254.65 15.5
Zone-5 442.68 359.94 18.6
103
Table: 6.4

8 STROYED
Zone-2 130.24 96.51 25.8
Zone-3 203.11 151.88 25.2
Zone-4 301.37 226.6 24.8
Zone-5 442.68 334.23 24.4
LATERAL DISPLACEMENT FOR WITHOUT SHEAR WALL IN ALL

FOUR ZONES MODEL-1
Model-1
500
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
400
300 Zone -2
200 Zone-3
Zone-4
100
Zone-5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
STORY
Figure 1: displacement of model 1
104
LATERAL DISPLACEMENT FOR WITH SHEAR WALL POSITION-1
IN ALL FOUR ZONES MODEL-2
Model-2
450
400
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
350
300
250 Zone -2
200 Zone-3
150
Zone-4
100
50 Zone-5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
STORY

Model-3
400
350
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
300
250
Zone -2
200
Zone-3
150
Zone-4
100
50 Zone-5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
STORY
105
Model-4
400
350
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
300
250
Zone -2
200
Zone-3
150
Zone-4
100
50 Zone-5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
STORY
From results it is observed that the displacement of all models in zone II, III, IV,
V as comparing in model-4 from model-1 its reduced 25.8% in Zone-2, 25.2%
in Zone-3, 24.8% in Zone-4, 24.4% so it can concluded as shear wall in
position-3 (Model -4) is more effective than the other models and providing
shear walls at adequate locations substantially reduce the displacements due to
earthquake.
106
PUSH-OVER CURVES OF FRAMES
Table: 7.5
% reduction in
TYPE DISPLACEMENT(m) Displacement for each
Frame
RCC FRAME WITHOUT

32.9x10-2 0
SHEAR WALL (MODEL-1)
RCC FRAME WITH SHEAR

WALL POSITION-1 25.1x10-2 24
(MODEL-2)

WALL POSITION-2 24.5x10-2 25.5
(MODEL-3)

WALL POSITION-3 24.1x10-2 26.7
(MODEL-4)
Push-Over Curves of Frames.
107
6.2 DISCUSSIONS
From Table 7.5, It can be observed that the maximum displacement, RCC plane
frame (Model-1) that can withstand up to elastic limit is 3.29x10-2 m and the
corresponding base reaction is 1.790x103 KN.
Also for the above push-over curve table it can be noted that the maximum
displacement, the Shear Wall RCC frame Position-1 (Model-2) can with stand
up to the elastic limit is 25.1x10-2m and 24% reduced in displacement in Shear
wall providing in position-1.
up to the elastic limit is 24.5x10-2m and 25.5% reduced in displacement in
Shear wall providing position-2.
up to the elastic limit is 24.1x10-2m and 26.7% reduced in displacement in
Shear wall providing position-3.
108
6.3 CONCLUSIONS:
From the pushover curves, it can be concluded that RCC Frames with
Shear Walls are able to resist more base-shear than that of normal RCC
Frames.
It can be concluded that shear wall placing at adequate locations is more
significant in case of base shear and displacement.
From all the above analysis, it can be concluded that small dimension of
shear wall is not more effective then large dimension of shear wall to
control the lateral displacement in 8 stories or below 8 stories buildings.
It is observed that in 8 story building, constructing building with shear
wall at middle position of long span of building (model 4) is economical
as compared with other models.
Changing the position of shear wall will affect the attraction of forces, so
that wall must be in proper position.
If the dimensions of shear wall are large then major amount of
horizontal forces are taken by shear wall
Providing shear walls at adequate locations substantially reduces the
displacements due to earthquake.
109
7. REFERENCES:
1. ATC. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildingsvolume 1

(ATC-40). Rport No. SSC 96-01. Redwood City (CA): Applied
Technology Council; 1996.
2. FEMA. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings
(FEMA 273). Washington (DC): Building Seismic Safety Council; 1997.
3. FEMA 356 NEHRP Pre standard and commentary for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings. (2000).
4. K.V.G.D BALAJI PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF UNSYMMETRICAL
FRAMED STRUCTURES ON SLOPING GROUND. International
Journal of Civil, Structural Environmental and Infrastructure
Engineering, Research and Development (IJCSEIERD), ISSN 2249-
6866,Vol. 2 Issue 4 Dec - 2012 45-54.
5. Mrugesh D. Shah NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS OF R.C.C.
FRAMES (Software Implementation ETABS 9.7) National Conference
on Recent Trends in Engineering & Technology.
6. S. V. Venkatesh EFFECT OF INTERNAL & EXTERNAL SHEAR
WALL ON PERFORMANCE OF BUILDING FRAME
SUBJECTED TO LATERAL LOAD. International Journal of Earth
Sciences and Engineering, ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL,
October 2011.
7. Anshuman.S. SOLUTION OF SHEAR WALL LOCATION IN
MULTI-STOREY BUILDING. International Journal Of Civil And
Structural Engineering, ISSN 0976 4399, Volume 2, No 2, 2011.
8. Mangulkar Madhuri N. REVIEW ON SHEAR WALL FOR SOFT
STORY HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS. International Journal of
Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT), ISSN: 2249 8958,
Volume-1, Issue-6, August 2012
110
9. Anuj Chandiwala EARTHQUAKE ANALYSIS OF BUILDING
CONFIGURATION WITH DIFFERENT POSITION OF SHEAR
WALL. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced
Engineering, ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 12, December 2012.
10. O. Esmaili S STUDY OF STRUCTURAL RC SHEAR WALL
SYSTEM IN A 56-STORY RC TALL BUILDING. The 14th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Oct 2008, Beijing, China.
11. Y.M. Fahjan. NONLINEAR ANALYSIS METHODS FOR REINFORCED
CONCRETE BUILDINGS WITH SHEAR WALLS. Gebze Institute of
Technology, 41400 Gebze, Kocaeli, Turke
12. A. Kadid, PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE
FRAME STRUCTURES.Asian Journal Of Civil Engineering (Building
And Housing) Vol. 9, No. 1 (2008) Pages 75-83
13. BAI JiuLin SEISMIC FAILURE MODE IMPROVEMENT OF RC
FRAME STRUCTURE BASED ON MULTIPLE LATERAL LOAD
PATTERNS OF PUSHOVER ANALYSES. School of Civil
Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China,
published online June 24, 2011.
14. Abhilash R. EFFECT OF LATERAL LOAD PATTERNS IN
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS, 10th National Conference on Technological
Trends (NCTT09) 6-7 Nov 2009.
15. F. Khoshnoudian, PROPOSAL OF LATERAL LOAD PATTERN
FOR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF RC BUILDINGS. Comp. Meth.
Civil Eng., Vol. 2, 2 (2011) 169-183.
16. Anil K. Chopra A MODAL PUSHOVER ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
FOR ESTIMATING SEISMIC DEMANDS FOR BUILDINGS.
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:561582.
111
17. M.K. Rahmn, NONLINEAR STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF
AN EIGHT STOREY RCFRAME- SHEAR WALL BUILDING IN
SAUDI ARABIA
18. Rahul RANA, Limin JIN and Atila ZEKIOGLU, PUSHOVER
ANALYSIS OF A 19 STOREY CONCRETE SHEAR WALL
BUILDING 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada. August 1-6, 2004 Paper No. 133.
19. Chan CM, Zou XK. OPTIMAL INELASTIC DRIFT DESIGN OF
REINFORCE CONCRETE STRUCTURES UNDER PUSHOVER
LOADING. In: The second ChinaJapanKorea joint symposium on
optimization of structural and mechanical systems, (2002).
20. Sun-Pil Kim(2008), AN ALTERNATIVE PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
PROCEDURE TO ESTIMATE SEISMIC DISPLACEMENT
DEMANDS Engineering Structures 30 (2008), pg 3793-3807
112
View publication stats

Effective Location of Shear Wall On Performance of Building Frame Subjected To Lateral..

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effective Location of Shear Wall On Performance of Building Frame Subjected To Lateral..

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

EFFECTIVE LOCATION OF SHEAR WALL ON

Thesis October 2014

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Dr. K.V.G.D.BALAJI Ph.D.

DEPATMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Certified that the thesis entitled EFFECTIVE LOCATION OF SHEAR

Dr. K.V.G.D.Balaji Ph.D. Dr M. Ramesh Ph.D.

I would like to thank specially Dr. M. Ramesh, Head of Department, Civil

M.Tech THESIS EVALUATION REPORT

This thesis ent it led Effective Location of Shear Wall on Performance

3. Head of the department

Place: Visakhapatnam K.LOVARAJU

loads. It is established that the design of a multi-storey building is governed by

safety to structure against lateral loads. Many existing RC frame buildings

located in seismic zones are deficient to withstand earthquakes. Insufficient

inadequate seismic performance. Shear wall system is one of the most

commonly used lateral-load resisting technique for high-rise buildings. Shear

it is very important to ensure adequate lateral stiffness to resist lateral load.

structural elements with different positioning of shear wall. Earthquake load is

Providing shear walls at adequate locations substantially reduce the

displacements due to earthquake. Hence accounting shear wall in a building will

to control the lateral displacement in 8 stories or below 8 stories buildings.

6. RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS 54

multi-storeyed reinforced concrete building. The structure is still damaged due

to some or the other reason during earthquakes. Behaviour of structure during

earthquake motion depends on distribution of weight, stiffness and strength in

both horizontal and planes of building. To reduce the effect of earthquake

improving seismic response of buildings. Structural design of buildings for

seismic loading is primarily concerned with structural safety during major

Earthquakes, in tall buildings, it is very important to ensure adequate lateral

building to avoid collapse of buildings. When shear wall are situated in

The major criteria now-a-days in designing RCC structures in seismic zones is

wall in the position of lift walls.

helps in the study of various characteristics of concrete member under different

To study the performance of RC plane frames under lateral loads

To study the inelastic response of RC plane frames using Pushover

for a framed structure with shears walls.

Only multi-storey frames are considered.

Plan irregularities are not considered.

of push over analysis.

Push over analysis is used as a non-linear static method to predict the

actual performance of the RC Frames under lateral loadings.

loads) as per IS 1893 (part-1):2002.

The Applied Technology Council (ATC) is a non-profit, tax exempt

The purpose of ATC is to assist the design practitioner in structural engineering

FEMA 356: Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of

The preparation of this prestandard was originally undertaken with two

LITERATURE REVIEW ON PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

K.V.G.D BALAJI et al (2012) explained non-linear analysis of various

Mrugesh D. Shah et al (2011) explained the Nonlinear static analysis is an

The nonlinear analysis of a structure is an iterative procedure. It depends on the

S. V. Venkatesh et al (2011) explained an attempt is made to study the

Anshuman S et al (2011) explained is to determine the solution for shear wall

Mangulkar Madhuri N et al (2012) explained about the lower level containing

O. Esmaili S. et al (2012) the researcher on the structural aspects of one of the

Y.M.Fahan et al ( 2009) explained the proper modelling of the shear walls is

A.Kadid et al (2008) explained the Boumerdes 2003 earthquake which has

Abhilash R et al (2009) explained the pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear

F. Khoshnoudian et al (2011) explained the proposal lateral load pattern for

Anil K. Chopra et al explained the Developed herein is an improved pushover

M. K. Rahman et al explained the Western region of Saudi Arabia lies in a