International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp.

571-576

571

Effect of Internal & External Shear Wall on Performance of Building Frame Subjected to Lateral Load
S. V. Venkatesh
Assistant professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, PES Institute of Technology, Bangalore 560 085, Email - svvenkatesh@pes.edu, venkateshsv@yahoo.com

H. Sharada Bai
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University Visvesvaraya college of Engineering, Bangalore University, Bangalore 560 056, E-mail - sharadaj29@yahoo.com ABSTRACT: Seismic loads are occasional forces that may occur during the life time of a building. Buildings should be able to withstand seismic loads due to minor earthquake without any structural damage and major earthquake without total collapse. Therefore, it is important to know the behavior of buildings for different Lateral (earthquake) Load Resisting Structural systems (LLRS). In the present study, an attempt is made to study the difference in structural behavior 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. The 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 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. The results obtained from the linear static analysis are thoroughly investigated for maximum values of joint displacements, support reactions, column forces and beam forces. Along with these parameters, the study on the principal and shear stresses in shear walls is carried out. The results indicate better resistance to lateral load in the presence of shear walls with square columns. KEY WORDS: RC frame, Earthquake load, linear static analysis, External Shear wall, Internal Shear wall. INTRODUCTION 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. Further, the old buildings were having substantial non-structural masonry walls, partitions and connected staircases, which provided a significant safety margin against lateral loads. The modern buildings are having light curtain walls, lightweight flexible partitions along with high strength concrete and steel reinforcement, which reduce the safety margin provided by non-structural components. 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. In recent years a significant amount of research has been devoted for the study of various strengthening techniques to enhance the seismic performance of reinforced concrete frame structures. While many of these techniques can effectively improve the lateral stiffness and resistance of the existing structure, adequate seismic behavior will be obtained only if the retrofitted structure can satisfy the strength and ductility demands imposed by the earthquake. PRESENT INVESTIGATION In general building construction, medium-rise structures up to ten storeys are very common. Thus, the present investigation is concerned with detailed 3D study of results of analysis of a ten storey Moment Resisting Frame having single bay along X and three bays along Z provided with shear wall as Lateral Load Resisting Systems (LLRS), in comparision with identical Moment Resisting Bare Frame (without any special LLRS feature) subjected to gravity load, seismic load and their combinations. Two types of shear walls, External and Internal and three variations in column size / orientation are considered in the present investigation. The study is hoped to be helpful during retrofitting of such structures which are initially designed only for gravity loads and found unsafe for seismic loads and any combination of loads. METHOD OF ANALYSIS Earthquake response analysis corresponds to simulate the behavior of a structure subjected to earthquake ground motion by means of a mathematical model of the structure. A three-dimensional model has independent displacements at each node and can simulate any type of behavior. The present study undertaken deals with Linear Static Method of Analysis or Equivalent Static Method of Analysis of 3D frames that can be used for regular structure with limited height.

#020410325 Copyright 2011 CAFET-INNOVA TECHNICAL SOCIETY. All rights reserved

572

S. V. Venkatesh, H. Sharada Bai

Modeling of the Structure For the present 3D study STAAD.Pro2006 software package is used, where the floor Slabs are not discretized for analysis and the load is applied directly to the beams. DETAILS OF THE PROBLEM CHOSEN Plan and Height of the Bare Frame The plan consists of Single bay of span 7.5 m along X direction, three bays of span 3.0 m each along Z direction as shown in figure 1a. The typical Ten-Storey building as shown in figure 1b has each storey height of 3.0 m along Y direction. Beam Cross-Sections: Plinth Beam Size: B1 (Primary Beam) (Z x Y) B2 (Secondary Beam) (X x Y) Floor Beam Size: B1 (Primary Beam) (Z x Y) B2 (Secondary Beam) (X x Y)

: 300mm X 450mm : 300mm X 300mm : 300mm X 750mm : 300mm X 375mm

4. Seismic (Lateral) Load in Z-direction, denoted as ELz. In addition, the structural systems are subjected to 13 different Load Combinations as per provisions of IS code (Ref. 2), they are: 5. 1.5(DL + LL) 6. 1.2(DL + LL + ELx) 7. 1.2(DL + LL - ELx) 8. 1.2(DL + LL + ELz) 9. 1.2(DL + LL - ELz) 10. 1.5(DL + ELx) 11. 1.5(DL - ELx) 12. 1.5(DL + ELZ) 13. 1.5(DL - ELZ) 14. (0.9DL + 1.5ELX) 15. (0.9DL - 1.5ELX) 16. (0.9DL + 1.5ELZ) 17. (0.9DL - 1.5ELZ) The dead load consists of self weight of structural elements and masonry wall load of thickness 230 mm (The lateral load resistance effect of infill wall is not considered for analysis). The live load considered is as adopted for medium office, hospital or hostel building i.e., 4 kN/m2 as per IS code (Ref. 3). The Equilibrium Static Method of analysis is adopted for the calculation of the lateral load at each floor level as per IS code (Ref. 2). The lateral loads applied are given in Table 1. Table 1 Lateral Loads at each storey level for ten storeys building in zone V, kN. ZONE 5 Bare Frame ISXZ2 ESXZ2 ENDMIDFRAME FRAME Z-AXIS 0.40 0.562 0.964 1.095 1.36 1.61 2.248 3.854 4.380 5.44 3.61 5.058 8.673 9.855 12.23 6.43 8.992 15.418 17.519 21.75 10.04 14.050 24.090 27.374 33.98 14.46 20.232 34.690 39.418 48.94 19.68 27.538 47.217 53.653 66.61 25.70 35.968 61.671 70.077 87.00 32.53 45.522 78.053 88.691 110.10 25.18 34.882 60.059 66.682 79.98

Column Orientation and Cross-Sections Three size / orientation of columns considered (such that the total area remains same) are as follows. CL1 - Regular (X x Z) : 750mm x 300mm CL2 - Orientation change (X x Z) : 300mm x 750mm CL3 - Square (X x Z) : 474mm x 474mm Shear Wall Thickness: Two thicknesses are considered: 300mm & 200mm Frames With Special Feature of LLRS: Shear walls are used as LLRS in the study. Both external shear wall and internal shear wall with different thicknesses are considered for each frame having three different configurations of column (as above). 1. Internal shear wall with regular beams (Buttress wall) (ISXZ2): Shear wall provided with in the exterior frames along both longitudinal transverse (X-axis) & (Z-axis) for a specified length i.e. corresponding span / 2 as shown in Figure 1c, 1d. 2. External shear wall without beams (ESXZ2): Shear wall provided in continuity towards the outside of the frame at corners along longitudinal (X-axis) and transverse (Zaxis) direction for a specified length i.e. corresponding span / 2 as shown in Figure 1e, 1f. Seismic Zone: The behavior of all the models is studied for Zone V (Very Severe) of Seismic zones of India as per IS code (Ref. 2) for which zone factor (Z) is 0.36. Types of Primary Loads and Load Combinations: The structural systems are subjected to 3 types of Primary Load Cases as per I.S. 875-1987 (Part I) (Ref.3), they are: 1. Dead Load case (Gravity load), denoted as DL 2. Live Load case (Gravity load), denoted as LL 3. Seismic (Lateral) Load in X-direction, denoted as ELx

FL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Physical Properties Considered for Present FEA: Density of brick wall = 18.85 kN/m3 E for reinforced concrete = 2.24x107kN/m2 Density of concrete = 25 kN/m3 Poissons ratio of concrete = 0.17 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The results obtained from the 3D analysis of 10 storey framed structure considered in zone V are observed and the maximum values obtained among all the load cases and load combinations (L/C) considered are presented in Table 2, along with the corresponding load case. The Table indicates the results of frames with both types of LLRS considered (i.e. ISXZ2 and ESXZ2) for the two thicknesses of shear wall and different column size /

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp. 571-576

Effect of Internal & External Shear Wall on Performance of Building Frame Subjected to Lateral Load orientation considered. Corresponding values obtained for the moment resisting Bare Frame (BF) are also indicated. The discussions focus on the comparison between the two LLRS considered and the basic Bare Frame with respect to Maximum Joint Displacements, Maximum Support Reaction, Maximum Column Force, Maximum beams Forces, Maximum Principal Stresses occurring in shear wall. Maximum Joint Displacement For all the structural systems considered, the maximum joint displacement is observed at the top storey level (Lateral sway in X and Z directions) as expected, the Bare Frame (without any LLRS) undergoes the maximum joint displacement namely Max X, Max Z & Max Ab. The maximum joint displacement in X direction is about 117 mm when column size / orientation is CL2 - 300 x 750mm and the maximum joint displacement in Z direction (Max Z) as well as absolute joint displacement (Max Ab) is about 176mm when column size / orientation is CL1 - 750 x 300mm. When the two types of LLRS are considered the least value of the maximum joint displacement in X (Max X) is about 5.35mm which occurs in ISXZ2 for all column size / orientation with shear wall thickness of 300mm, whereas in Z (Max Z) as well as the absolute maximum displacement (Max AB) is about 40 mm which also occur in ISXZ2 when column size / orientation is CL2 - 300 x 750mm with shear wall thickness of 300mm. It may be observed that both types of LLRS adopted are effective in reducing displacements. Effect of load and load combination: For all the structural systems considered, load combinations for which Max X and Max Z occur are load case 10 or 11 i.e. 1.5(DL + ELx) and 12 or 13 i.e. 1.5(DL + ELZ) respectively, whereas Max Ab occurs for load combination 12 or 13 i.e. 1.5(DL + ELZ). Only in case of BF with column CL1, Max Ab occurs in load combination 10 or 11 i.e. 1.5(DL + ELx), which is because of the simple reason that the length of shear wall along Z direction is lesser than that in X direction (Moment of inertia along X direction (4.05E10 mm4) is very much lesser that Z direction (3.16E11 mm4)). Effect of column size / orientation: It can be observed that the maximum joint displacements Max X, Max Z & Max Ab for square column of size CL3 - 474 x 474mm have a value in between both the rectangular columns of size CL1 - 750 x 300mm and CL2 - 300 x 750mm considered. The magnitude of Max Ab drastically reduces with respect to column CL1 by changing the orientation of the column in all the structural systems considered. Effect of LLRS: The value of Max X reduces by 59% to 95% in all the LLRS considered when compared with the corresponding bare frame of same column size / orientation. The values

573

of Max Z and Max Ab reduce by 16% to 71% in all the LLRS considered when compared with the corresponding bare frame of same column size / orientation. The main objective of providing LLRS is to control the lateral displacement and it may be observed that this is satisfied in case of all the LLRS considered. Comparison between external shear wall and internal shear wall: When external shear wall is compared with the internal shear wall of the same length and thickness the maximum joint displacement Max X is 2.74 to 3.25 times more, Max Z & Max Ab is 1.15 to 1.2 times more. Effect of shear wall thickness: The difference in the Max X, Max Z & Max Ab between 200mm and 300mm thick shear walls is about 4 to 18% only. The greatest value of Max Ab of about 124.21mm occurs in ESXZ2 with shear wall thickness 200mm and column size CL1 - 750 x 300mm. The max lateral sway in X and Z direction are considerably less when the orientation of the column is such that the longer dimension of column is in the direction of sway under consideration. This is because the stiffness of the column also changes as the column size / orientation changes. Thus the values of column CL3 lie between CL1 and CL2. Maximum support reactions Effect of load and load combination: For all the structural systems considered Maximum support reactions Fx occur for load combination 10 or 11 i.e. 1.5(DL + Elx). Max Fy occurs in 10 or 11 i.e. 1.5(DL + ELx) for bare frame, 12 i.e. 1.5(DL - ELx) for ISXZ2 and 5 i.e. 1.5(DL + LL) for ESXZ2. Max Fz and Mx occur in 12 or 13 i.e. 1.5(DL + ELZ) and Mz occurs in 10 i.e. 1.5(DL + ELx) for bare frame, 5 i.e. 1.5(DL + LL) for ISXZ2 and 7 i.e. 1.2(DL + LL - ELx) for ESXZ2, except with column size CL2 300 x 750 which occur in 5 i.e. 1.5(DL + LL). Effect of column size / orientation The maximum support reaction Fx, Fy, Fz, Mx and Mz change by a large extent on varying the orientation of the columns for a particular structural system. It can be observed that the maximum support reactions for square column of size CL3 - 474 x 474mm lie between the rectangular columns CL1 and CL2 considered. Effect of LLRS: Generally, provision of LLRS reduces the column end reactions developed in case of bare frame. In case of Bare Frame with column CL1 the greatest value of Maximum Support reaction Fy of 3361.24 kN occur in Load combination 11 i.e. 1.5(DL - ELx) and Mx of 259.88 kNm occur in Load combination 13 i.e. 1.5(DL ELz), the corresponding value of Mz being 378.54 kN-m occur in Load combination 10 i.e. 1.5(DL + ELx), whereas in Bare Frame with column CL2, the greatest value of Mz is 283.99 kN-m and occurs in Load combination 10 i.e.

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp. 571-576

574

S. V. Venkatesh, H. Sharada Bai ISXZ2 in case of Mx which occurs in 13 i.e. 1.5(DL ELZ) and when Mz is considered, it occurs in L/C 10 or 11 i.e. 1.5(DL + ELx) except for ISXZ2 which occurs in L/C 5 i.e. 1.5(DL + LL). This demonstrates the necessity of considering all load combinations in seismic design of structures. Effect of column size / orientation: The greatest values of the maximum column forces Fx, Fy and Mz occur in column CL1 except in case of Fy for ESXZ2 greatest value occurs in CL3 but, Fz occur in column CL2 except for ESXZ2 greatest value occurs in CL3, Mx occur in column CL3 for all the structural systems considered. It can be observed that the maximum Mz, drastically reduces by 22 44 % when column orientation changes from CL1 to CL2. The smallest values of the maximum column forces Fx, Fy and Mz occur in column CL2 and Fz, Mx occur in column CL1 except for ESXZ2 smallest value occurs in CL2. Effect of LLRS: The greatest values of the maximum column forces Fx and Mz, of all the structural systems considered, are seen in bare frame, where as Fy, Fz and Mx occur in ESXZ2. For all the ISXZ2 type LLRS considered, the value of maximum column forces Fx, Fy, Fz and Mz reduce between 24 to 35 %, 48 to 58 %, 29 to 39 % and 52 to 58 % respectively when compared with the corresponding bare frame of same column size and orientation. For ESXZ2 type LLRS the values of maximum column forces Fx and Mz reduce between 12 to 15 % and 31 to 56 % but the value of maximum column forces Fy, and Fz increase between 1% and 23%, 8 to 26 % respectively, except Fz with column size / orientation CL2 which decreases by 1 to 4 % when compared with the corresponding bare frame of same column size and orientation. The maximum column forces Mx increases by 1.22 to 10.5 times, but the values are very much less than the grade of concrete considered. Effect of shear wall thickness: The maximum column forces Fx, Fy, Fz, Mx and Mz increase as the thickness is reduced from 300mm to 200mm for all the LLRS considered. Comparison between external shear wall and internal shear wall: When external shear wall is compared with the internal shear wall of the same length and thickness, maximum column forces Fx, Fy, Fz, and Mz are higher by 21 to 30%, 100 to 198%, 26 to 100% and 5 to 50 % respectively. Maximum forces in beams Effect of load combination: For all the structural systems considered maximum Bending moment in beams Mz and maximum shear force in beams Fz occur in load combination 10 or 11 i.e.

1.5(DL + ELx), the corresponding value of Mx being 433.75 kN-m occur in Load combination 13 i.e. 1.5(DL ELz). It may be observed that in all LLRS considered as the column size / orientation changes, the Maximum support moment reaction also changes along with load case which is because of change of stiffness, but is not felt to such an extent in Bare Frame with square column. Therefore square column is preferable to rectangular column when seismic loads are applicable. The same trend is observed in all the other LLRS considered. Of all the structural systems considered the greatest value of the maximum support reaction Fx of 181.10kN is observed in ISXZ2 and Fz of 257.91kN are observed in ESXZ2. The least value of maximum support reactions Fx is 142.40kN, Fy is 2225.42kN, Mx is 80.40kN-m and Mz is 120.42kN-m are observed in ISXZ2, whereas Fz is 141.63kN and is observed in Bare frame. The values of maximum support reactions Fx, Fy, Fz, Mx and Mz reduces between 1 to 15 %, 10 to 33 %, 0 to 80 %, 52 to 140 % and 51 to 68 % respectively for all the LLRS considered when compared with the corresponding bare frame of same column size and orientation, the range of increase in Fx and Fz is 1- 10%. Effect of shear wall thickness: Generally the maximum support reactions Fx, Fz and Mx reduces as the thickness of shear wall reduce from 300mm to 200mm for both internal shear wall and external shear wall, except in case of column size / orientation CL2, Fx, Fz, Mx and also Fy increases. The maximum support reactions Mz value is constant in case of ISXZ2 and slightly increases in case of ESXZ2. Comparison between external shear wall and internal shear wall: When frames with external shear wall are compared with those of internal shear walls of the same length and thickness, considering different variations in column orientation, in the former, the maximum support reactions Fy and Fz are higher by 18 to 31%, 26 to 48%, whereas Fx and Mx are lesser by 0 to 14%, 7 to 15% respectively except in case of CL2, where an increase of 9% and 36 to 56% respectively is observed. The maximum support reactions Mz is almost same except in case of CL1 which increase by 16 to 28%. Maximum column forces Effect of load and load combination: For all the structural systems considered Maximum column forces Fx occurs in load combination 10 or 11 i.e. 1.5(DL + ELx) for bare frame, 12 i.e. 1.5(DL + ELZ) for ISXZ2 and for ESXZ2 occurs in L/C 5 i.e. 1.5(DL + LL) for the two thicknesses of shear wall considered. Maximum column forces Fy occurs in load combination 10 or 11 i.e. 1.5(DL + ELx) for bare frame and ESXZ2, for ISXZ2 Fy occurs in L/C 5 i.e. 1.5(DL + LL) for the two thicknesses of shear wall considered. Max Fz and Mx is found in L/C 12 or 13 i.e. 1.5(DL + ELZ), except for

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp. 571-576

Effect of Internal & External Shear Wall on Performance of Building Frame Subjected to Lateral Load 1.5(DL + Elx), except Mz for ISXZ2 occur in load combination 5 i.e. 1.5(DL+LL). Maximum Torsion moment Mx occur in load combination 5 i.e. 1.5(DL + LL), except in ESXZ2 with column size / orientation CL1 which occur in load combination 10 or 11 i.e. 1.5(DL + Elx), where as maximum shear force in beams Fy occurs in 10 or 11 i.e. 1.5(DL + Elx) for bare frame, 12 or 13 i.e. 1.5(DL + ELZ) for ISXZ2 and 5 i.e. 1.5(DL + LL) for ESXZ2. Thus both gravity load and seismic load find their importance in analysis and design of a structure. Effect of column size / orientation: Of all the structural systems considered, the greatest value of the maximum beam forces occurs in column CL1 for Mz and Fy in CL2. It can be observed that the maximum beam forces Mz and Fy for square column of size CL3 474 x 474mm has a value between both the rectangular columns of size CL1 750 x 300mm and CL2 - 300 x 750mm considered. The maximum beam forces Mz decrease about 7% and 22% respectively when orientation changes from CL1 to CL2 for all LLRS considered. But the maximum beam forces Fy increases by about 3 % in case of Bare frame and ISXZ2, it is constant in case of ESXZ2. Effect of LLRS: The greatest value of the maximum Bending moment in beams Mz, of all the structural systems considered, occurs in bare frame, but maximum shear force in beams Fy occur in ISXZ2. The value of maximum Bending moment in beams Mz reduces between 42 to 57% for all the LLRS considered when compared with the corresponding bare frame of same column size / orientation, but maximum shear force in beams Fy increases between 1 to 4% in case of ISXZ2 because the beam span reduces and stiffness drastically changes at the junction of shear wall and beam, but in case ESXZ2 the value Fy decreases between 9% and 11%. It is thus necessary to account for the higher shear forces in beams when internal shear walls are provided. Effect of shear wall thickness: The maximum Bending moment in beams Mz increases as the thickness is reduced from 300mm to 200mm for all the LLRS considered but maximum shear force in beams Fy decreases for ISXZ2 and is constant for ESXZ2. Comparison between external and internal shear wall: When external shear wall is compared with the internal shear wall of the same length and thickness, maximum Bending moment in beams Mz is higher by 11 to 44% where as maximum shear force in beams Fy decreases between 11 to 14%. Internal shear walls are found to result in higher shear force and lower Bending moment in beams than external shear walls.

575

Maximum and minimum Principal stresses and shear stresses The Principal stresses Smax, generally occur at top section of shear wall except for ESXZ2 with column size / orientation CL2 and CL3 with shear wall thickness 200mm. But Principal Stresses Smin and Tmax, generally occurs at the bottom section. The Maximum Principal stress Smax occur in the load combination 16 or 17 i.e. (0.9DL + 1.5ELZ) whereas Minimum Principal stress Smin and Maximum shear stress Tmax occur in the load combination 12 or 13 i.e. 1.5(DL + ELZ). The values of stresses obtained are very small (greatest value 0.022 MPa) and are very much less than the corresponding stresses in concrete considered in this study. There is an increase between 10 -20% when thicknesses of shear walls are reduced from 300 to 200mm. When the values of external shear wall (ESXZ2) are compared with internal shear wall (ISXZ2) the values in the former are higher by 1.85 2.41 times for Smax, 100% for Smin and Tmax.

Fig. a BF Plan

Fig. b BF 3D

Fig. d ISXZ2 3D Fig. c ISXZ2 Plan

Fig. e ESXZ2 Plan

Fig. f ESXZ2 3D

Fig. 1 Typical Plan and Isometric view of frames considered.

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp. 571-576

576

S. V. Venkatesh, H. Sharada Bai

CONCLUSIONS It 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 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. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank the Management, Principal, Head of Mechanical Engineering Department and Staff of PES Institute of Technology and Authorities of Bangalore University for their support.

REFERENCE [1] Ashraf M, Siddiqi Z.A, Javed M.A (2008). Configuration of a multistory building subjected to lateral forces. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing), 9(5), 527-537. [2] Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings, IS: 1893 (Part 1) 2002. [3] Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures IS: 875 1987, Part 1: Dead Loads, Part 2: Imposed Loads, Part 5: Special Loads and Load Combinations. [4] Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice IS: 456 2000. [5] Manoj S Medhekar and Sudhir K Jain (1993). Seismic Behavior, Design and Detailing of RC Shear walls, Part II. India Concrete Journal; 67(7). [6] Venkatesh S.V, Sharada Bai H, Savitha B.A. (2007) Structural behavior of lateral load resisting Systems with shear walls. Proceedings of the International conference on recent development in Structural engineering (RDSE-2007), Aug 30, 31, Sept 1, 2007. Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal, India, 1124. [7] Venkatesh S.V, Sharada Bai H, Rajeshwari R (2010). Effect of Shear wall and Steel bracing as lateral load resisting system on a ten storey building, proceedings of The Fourth International Conference on Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation (SEMC 2010), Sept. 6-8, 2010, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa, 229-231. [8] Yasar Kaltakchi M, Hakan Arslan M, Ulku S. Yilmaz, Derya Arslan H (2008). A new approach on the strengthening of primary school buildings in Turkey: An application of external shear wall. Building and Environment Journal, 43, 983 990.

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp. 571-576