Analysis of High-rise Reinforced Concrete Building

With & Without Shear Wall

Myat Zar Ni Win1, Yin Min Han2, Nwe Nwe Khin3
Master Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Technological University (Toungoo)1
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Technological University (Toungoo)2
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Technological University (Toungoo)3
Bago Division, Myanmar
myatzarni270466@gmail.com1, yinminhan13@gmail.com2, khinnwenwe.772@gmail.com3

Abstract – This paper presents ten-storied regular shaped reinforced concrete building which is located in high seismic risk
zone, Mandalay. Analysis and design of proposed building will be performed according to MNBC-2020 and ACI 318-08 code.
For seismic design of buildings, reinforced concrete structural walls or shear walls are major earthquake resisting members
subject to lateral wind and seismic forces. In the modern construction, shear walls are especially important to make the
structure resistant against lateral loads for high-rise buildings. RC shear walls have high in plane stiffness and they are
usually provided as an encasement for the elevator cores, stairwells etc, thereby resisting the horizontal and vertical forces
effectively. The position of shear wall has influence on the overall behaviour of the building. It is very important to position
shear wall in an ideal location for effective and economic performance of building. In the present study, analysis of RC
building has been carried out by changing the location and type of shear wall in the building using Linear Static Method.
Three different models of RC building, one with no shear wall and other two models with different positions and types of
shear wall have been studied. The comparison of this study for different parameters like story displacement, story drift, story
shear, base shear and time period has been presented. The main objective of this study is the factors which affect the
behaviour of shear wall such as position and configuration of shear wall.

Keywords – Shear Wall, Linear Static Method, Story Displacement, Story Drift, Story Shear, Base Shear and Time Period.

avoided. In this study, reinforced concrete buildings

I. INTRODUCTION without and with shear walls at different location are
Due to the rapid growth of population, there is analyzed and the comparison of the results has been
increasing growth in high-rise buildings in the urban presented.
areas. In modern high-rise buildings, shear wall systems
are mostly used as lateral load resisting systems that may II. DATA PREPARATION FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE
induced by the effect of wind and earthquakes. Behavior STRUCTURE
of building during earthquake motion depends on
distribution of weight, stiffness and strength in both A. Site Location and Structural System
horizontal and lateral direction of structure. Shear wall The proposed structure is a ten-storied reinforced
has high stiffness and strength to control lateral concrete residential building. Details of the structure are
displacement. Shear walls are very essential in high described below,
seismic zones to resist seismic forces when strong - Height of structure = 108ft
earthquakes occur. In high-rise buildings, beam and - Length of structure = 78ft
column sizes are very heavy, requirement of steel is - Width of structure = 52ft
large. So, there is a lot of congestion takes place at the - Typical storey height = 10ft
joints and it is difficult to place and vibrate concrete at - Bottom storey height = 11ft
the joints and displacement is quite heavy. Therefore, - Shape of building = regular
shear walls are widely used in high-rise building to avoid - Location = seismic zone 4
collapse of buildings. - Type of occupancy = Residential
Nowadays, reinforced concrete shear walls play an
B. Material Properties
important role in seismic design of structures. Shear
walls reduce story displacement and story drift of the Material properties for structural data are;
building when strong earthquakes occur. Shear walls can - Weight per unit volume of concrete = 150 pcf
perform in minimizing earthquake damage in structural - Concrete cylinder strength = 3000 psi
and nonstructural elements. And then, the overall - Yield strength of main reinforcement = 50000 psi
construction cost of the building can be reduced by using - Yield strength of shear reinforcement = 50000 psi
shear wall. - Modulus of elasticity for concrete = 3122 ksi
For effective and economic performance of building, - Poison’s ratio = 0.2
it is necessary to determine the ideal location of shear - Coefficient of thermal expansion =5.5×10-6in/in
wall so that they are torsional effect on the building is per degree F
C. Load Combinations - Seismic importance factor, I =1
The load combinations are shown in the following - Response modification factor, R =8
table according to ACI 318-08 and MNBC 2020 (ASCE - System overstrength, Ωo =3
7-05). - Deflection amplification, Cd = 5.5
TABLE I - Site coefficient, Fa = 1.02
LOADING COMBINATIONS FOR PROPOSED BUILDINGS
- Site coefficient, Fv = 1.5
- 0.2 sec spectral acceleration, Ss = 1.2
Sr Combinations Name in ETABS
- 1 sec spectral acceleration, S1 = 0.7
1 1.4DL COMB-1 - Long-period transition period, t = 6sec
2 1.2DL+1.6LL+0.5R COMB-2 - Ct and x value = 0.016 & 0.9
3 1.2DL+0.8WX+1.6R COMB-3
4 1.2DL-0.8WX+1.6R COMB-4 For wind load,
- Exposure type =B
5 1.2DL+0.8WY+1.6R COMB-5
- Basic wind velocity = 80mph
6 1.2DL-0.8WY+1.6R COMB-6 - Method use = Semi-rigid Diaphragm
7 1.2DL+LL+1.6WX+0.5R COMB-7 Method
8 1.2DL+LL-1.6WX+0.5R COMB-8 - Importance factor, I =1
- Topographical factor, Kzt =1
9 1.2DL+LL+1.6WY+0.5R COMB-9
- Guest factor = 0.85
10 1.2DL+LL-1.6WY+0.5R COMB-10 - Directionality factor, Kd = 0.85
11 1.36DL+LL+EQX COMB-11 - Pressure coefficient:
12 1.36DL+LL-EQX COMB-12 Winward coefficient = 0.8
Leeward coefficient = 0.3
13 1.36DL+LL+EQY COMB-13
14 1.36DL+LL-EQY COMB-14
15 0.9DL+1.6WX COMB-15 E. 3D Views and Plans of the Proposed Models
16 0.9DL-1.6WX COMB-16 In this study, three different models of RC building
are presented as the following:
17 0.9DL+1.6WY COMB-17
(1) Building with no shear wall (Model 1)
18 0.9DL-1.6WY COMB-18 (2) Building with core shear wall (Model 2)
19 0.74DL+EQX COMB-19 (3) Building with planar shear wall (Model 3)
20 0.74DL-EQX COMB-20
21 0.74DL+EQY COMB-21
22 0.74DL-EQY COMB-22

D. Loading Consideration
The applied loads are dead loads, live loads,
earthquake load and wind load. Dead loads consist of the
weight of all materials and fixed equipment incorporated
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
into the building. Floor finishing, ceiling, partitions are
Fig-1. 3D View of the Models
considered as superimposed dead loads. Loads that are
almost always applied horizontally are called lateral
loads.

For dead load,

- Unit weight of concrete = 150 pcf
- 4.5" thick brick wall = 55 psf
- Superimposed dead load = 25 psf

For live load,

Model 1
- Live load on floor = 40 psf
- Live load on stair case = 100 psf
- Live load on roof = 20 psf
- Weight of lift = 49000 N
-Unit weight of water = 62.4 psf

For earthquake load,

- Type of seismic zone = IV
- Soil profile type = SD
- Structural system = SMRF +
Shear Wall Model 2
 TABLE V
THICKNESS OF SHEAR WALL FOR PROPOSED BUILDINGS

Name Thickness
SW 10

IV. STABILITY CHECKING

The followings the stability checks for soft story,
torsional irregularity, story drift, P-Δ effect, overturning
Model 3 moment and sliding are done for the proposed buildings
such as model 1, model 2 and model 3. Stability
Fig-2. Plan View of the Models
checking are considered according to MNBC-2020.
III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED BUILDINGS
TABLE VI
The followings are the design sections of beam, CHECKING OF STRUCTURAL STABILITY FOR MODEL 1
column, slab and shear wall for the proposed buildings
after analysing by using Linear Static Analysis. All X- Y-
structural members are designed according to ACI (318- Item Limit Remark
Direction Direction
08) code.
Soft story 0.00222 0.00226 ≤0.00283 Satisfied
TABLE II
DESIGN SECTIONS FOR BEAMS Torsional
1.008 1.046 ≤1.2 Satisfied
irregularity
Beam Type Size (in x in) Story drift 1.83 1.87 ≤2.4 Satisfied
B1 Main Beam 12x16 P-Δ effect 0.0416 0.0412 ≤0.1 Satisfied
B2 Main Beam 12x14 Overturning
7.39 4.75 ≥1.5 Satisfied
moment
SB Secondary Beam 10x14
Sliding 3.97 3.54 ≥1.5 Satisfied
TABLE III
DESIGN SECTIONS FOR COLUMNS TABLE VII
CHECKING OF STRUCTURAL STABILITY FOR MODEL 2
Column Level Size (in x in)
Base to 1F 18x18 X- Y-
Item Limit Remark
1F to 4F 16x16 Direction Direction
C1
4F to 7F 14x14 Soft story 0.00095 0.00084 ≤0.00283 Satisfied
7F to 10F 12x12 Torsional
1.082 1.168 ≤1.2 Satisfied
Base to 1F 20x20 irregularity
1F to 4F 18x18 Story drift 0.785 1.123 ≤2.4 Satisfied
C2
4F to 7F 16x16 P-Δ effect 0.0205 0.026 ≤0.1 Satisfied
7F to 10F 12x12
Overturning
Base to 1F 22x22 4.64 3.44 ≥1.5 Satisfied
moment
1F to 4F 20x20
C3 Sliding 2.41 2.49 ≥1.5 Satisfied
4F to 7F 18x18
7F to 10F 12x12 TABLE VIII
Base to 1F 24x24 CHECKING OF STRUCTURAL STABILITY FOR MODEL 3

1F to 4F 22x22
4F to 7F 20x20 X- Y-
C4 Item Limit Remark
Direction Direction
7F to 10F 14x14
Soft story 0.00126 0.0011 ≤0.00283 Satisfied
PH 12x12
Torsional
1.031 1.064 ≤1.2 Satisfied
TABLE IV irregularity
THICKNESS OF SLAB FOR PROPOSED BUILDINGS
Story drift 0.85 1.04 ≤2.4 Satisfied
Name Type of Slab Thickness (in) P-Δ effect 0.026 0.0269 ≤0.1 Satisfied
S1 One Way Slab 4 Overturning
4.67 3.73 ≥1.5 Satisfied
S2 Two Way Slab 4 moment
Stair One Way Slab 5 Sliding 2.42 2.7 ≥1.5 Satisfied
 V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
All the buildings with different models are analyzed
by using ETAB software. Member sizes are considered
as the same for all models. As shown in the following
figures, the analysis results are compared for all the
models with different parameters such as story
displacement, story drift, story shear, base shear and
time period of building.

A. Story Displacement
Story displacement is the lateral displacement that is Fig-5. Comparison of Story Drift for X-direction
the absolute value of displacement of the storey under
action of the lateral forces such as wind and earthquake.
The serviceability of the building depends on the value
of story displacement. The lower the value of story
displacement, the better the performance in
serviceability of building.

Fig-6. Comparison of Story Drift for Y-direction

From the above figures, it can be seen that the value

Fig-3. Comparison of Story Displacement for X-direction
of story drift is minimum in model 2 for X direction and
model 3 for Y direction. The model 2 and 3 is 0.31% and
0.09% smaller than model 1 for X direction. The model
2 and 3 is 0.13% and 0.2% smaller than model 1 for Y
direction.

C. Story Shear
Story shear is the lateral force acting on a storey due
to the lateral forces such as wind and earthquake.

Fig-4. Comparison of Story Displacement for Y-direction

From the above figures, it can be seen that the value

of story displacement is minimum in model 2 for X and Fig-7. Comparison of Story Shear for X-direction
Y directions. The model 2 and 3 is 0.61% and 0.56%
smaller than model 1 for X and Y directions. So, model
2 is better performance in serviceability than model 1
and 3.

B. Story Drift
Story drift is defined as the difference between lateral
displacements of one floor relative to the other floor.
The importance of story drift is in design of partitions
and curtain walls. Partitions and curtain walls must be
designed as to accommodate the story drift, else they
will crack. For structural glazing and brick walls on
external surfaces, story drift could prove catastrophic. Fig-8. Comparison of Story Shear for Y-direction
 From the above figures, it is observed that the value
of story shear is maximum in model 2 for X and Y
directions. The model 1 and 3 is 0.43% and 0.003%
smaller than model 2 for X and Y directions. The value
of story shear changes from minimum at the top to
maximum at the bottom of the building.
D. Base Shear
Base shear is the total lateral force acting on the
building at its base, which is equal to story shear of the
bottom storey. Base shear takes part of the mainly factor
on the design of the structure. If the value of design base
shear is high, it can cause structure failure.
Fig-9. Comparison of Base Shear for X and Y-direction
From the above figure, it can be seen that the base
shear of model 2 is maximum. The base shear of model
1 and 3 is 0.43% and 0.003% smaller than model 2 for X
and Y directions.
E. Time Period
The time period of the building is its natural period of
oscillation when subjected to ground shaking in the
event of an earthquake. The natural period is controlled
by mass and stiffness of the building.
Fig-10. Comparison of Time Period for X and Y-direction
From the above figure, it is observed that the value
of time period is maximum in model 1 for X and Y
directions. The maximum value of time period is
1.417sec in X direction and 1.261sec in Y direction.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The proposed building with three different models is
analyzed by using linear static method. Among different
types and locations of shear wall, the detail of the results
has been performed for a variety of models. Based on
static analysis of the different configurations of the
building, the following conclusions are drawn-
[1] The amount of maximum story displacement is
model 1 but the amount of lowest story
displacement is model 2 for X and Y directions.
Model 2 has good serviceability.
[2] Story drift for structures without shear wall are
greater than structure with shear wall. Shear wall
resist lateral force and reduce story drift. So, the
minimum story drift is model 2 and maximum
story drift is model 1.
[3] It is observed that story shear for structure with
shear wall gives higher values as compared to that
of structure without shear wall. The minimum story
shear is model 1 and maximum story shear is
model 2.
[4] The values of base shear for building with core
shear walls are the highest value as compared to
that of building with planar shear walls and
building without shear wall since its mass and
stiffness are more.
[5] The values for time period are the highest in model
1 in X and Y directions since its mass and stiffness
are less.
From the above conclusions, shear wall effects
the seismic behavior of structure. Moreover, the
location of shear wall should be clearly
investigated. It is observed that structure with core
shear wall is the most suitable for the lateral load
resistance. So, model 2 is the best seismic behavior
as compared to that of other models.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the author would like to acknowledge the
support and the encouragement of Prof Dr. Tin Win
Mon, Pro-rector, Technological University (Toungoo).
The author would also like to thank to Dr. Yin Min Han,
Professor at the Department of Civil Engineering,
Technological University (Toungoo), for her support and
guidance. The author would like to express deepest
gratitude to Daw Nwe Nwe Khin, Associate Professor,
and all the teachers from the Department of Civil
Engineering, Technological University (Toungoo), for
their effective suggestions and help till this journal is
completed. Finally, the author likes to express grateful
thanks to her parents for their supports, kindness and
unconditional love.
References
[1] Arthur H. Nilson, David Darwin and Charles W. Dolan 2010.
Design of Concrete Structure. 14th Edition. U.S.A: McGraw Hill
Book.
[2] American Society of Civil Engineers, Minimum Design Loads
for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-05.
[3] Myanmar National Building Code, The Republic of the Union of
Myanmar, Ministry of Construction, MNBC 2020.
[4] American Concrete Institute, Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete, ACI 318-08.
[5] Duggal S K (2010), Earthquake Resistance Design of Structure,
Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
[6] Structural Seismic Design Manual, Building Design Examples
for Steel and Concrete, 2006 IBC.
[7] Guidelines for Highrise Building Construction Projects
(Structure), Committee for Quality Control of High-rise Building
Construction Projects, Republic of the Union of Myanmar.