1991 Seismic Performance of High Rise Concrete Buildings in Chile

Proceedings of the International Conference
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL on Emerging

OFTrends
CIVILin Engineering and ManagementAND
ENGINEERING (ICETEM14)
30 – 31, December 2014, Ernakulam, India
TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)
ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print) IJCIET

ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online)
Volume 5, Issue 12, December (2014), pp. 117-133
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/Ijciet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2014): 7.9290 (Calculated by GISI)
©IAEME
www.jifactor.com
COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SOLID AND COUPLED

SHEAR WALL
Reshma Chandran1, Unni Kartha G2, Preetha Prabhakaran3

1
PG Student, Civil Engineering Department, SNGCE, Kolenchery,Kerala, India
2
Head of the Department, Civil Engineering, FISAT, Angamaly, Kerala, India
3
Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Department, SNGCE, Kolenchery, Kerala, India
ABSTRACT
Coupled shear walls are one of the systems commonly used in medium and high rise structures to resist lateral
forces. Yet these systems should not collapse or be induced severe damage during earthquake actions. For this reason,
coupled shear walls must have high strength, high ductility, high energy absorption capacity and high shear stiffness to
limit lateral deformations. So we generally preferred solid shear wall.
In the first part of the project, compare the building with solid shear wall and same building with coupled shear
wall. For that coupled shear wall with varying depth of coupling beam were used and then compared with the solid shear
wall. And studied behavior of those buildings. The performance of the building against lateral loads is different in both
the conditions. Finally, found out the critical slenderness ratio of the coupling beam which gives approximately same
results of building with solid shear wall. In the second part, studied the behavior of coupling beam in coupled shear wall
system. And also assessed the effect of variation of building height on the structural response of the shear wall. This
analysis is done by using ETABS. The analysis show that the performance of building with coupling shear wall is varies
with the depth of coupling beam. For each building, there must be a critical slenderness ratio for the coupling beam of
coupled shear wall.
Keywords: Base Moment, Coupling Degree, Drift, Slenderness Ratio, Diagonal Reinforcement.
1. INTRODUCTION
A coupled shear wall is part of a shear wall system, made of coupling beams and wall piers. It provides more
openings, which increase the functional flexibility in architecture. Furthermore, by coupling individual flexural walls, the
lateral loads resisting behavior changes to one where overturning moments are resisted partially by an axial
compression–tension couple across the wall system rather than by the individual flexural action of the walls.
The key parameter in coupled shear walls, stiffness ratio of coupling beams to wall piers, is a representative of
the degree of coupling between wall piers. Over coupling should be avoided, which causes the system to act as a single
pierced wall with little frame action. Similarly, light coupling should also be avoided as it causes the system to behave
like two isolated walls. Since the coupling action between wall piers is developed through shear force in the coupling
beams, correct modeling of coupling beams may substantially affect the overall response of coupled shear walls.
117
Proceedings of the International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering and Management (ICETEM14)
Fig.1: Solid Shear wall Fig.2: Coupled Shear wall
2. STRUCTURAL ACTION OF COUPLED SHEAR WALL SYSTEM
The behavior and mechanisms of lateral resistance of a single (i.e., uncoupled) wall and two coupled wall
systems are compared in Fig. 3. The gravity loads acting on the walls are ignored for this example and it is assumed that
a lateral force in the plane of the walls is applied at the top.
The base moment resistance, Mw,unc of the uncoupled wall Fig. 3(a) is developed in the traditional form by
flexural stresses, while axial forces as well as moments are resisted in the coupled shear wall systems Figs. 3(b). When a
coupled shear wall system is pushed from left to right under lateral loads, tensile axial forces (Ntwb) develop in the left
wall pier and compressive axial forces (Ncwb) develop in the right wall pier due to the coupling effect.
The magnitude of these wall axial forces is equal to the sum of the shear forces of all the coupling beams at the upper
floor and roof levels; and thus, depends on the stiffness and strength of those beams.
As a result of the axial forces that develop in the walls, the lateral stiffness and strength of a coupled wall
system is significantly larger than the combined stiffness and strength of the individual constituent walls (i.e., wall piers)
with no coupling. The total base moment, Mw of the coupled wall structures in Figs. 3(b) can be written as:
“Mw=Mtw+Mcw+NcwbLc” (1)
Where, Mtw and Mcw are the base moments in the tension and compression side walls, respectively, Ncwb = Ntwb,
and Lc is the distance between the centroids of the tension and compression side walls. Then, the contribution of the wall
axial forces from coupling to the total lateral resistance of the system can be expressed by the Coupling Degree, CD as:
“CD = = ” (2)
Too little coupling (i.e., too small a coupling degree) yields a system with behavior similar to uncoupled walls
and the benefits due to coupling are minimal. Too much coupling (i.e., too large a coupling degree) will add excessive
stiffness to the system, causing the coupled walls to perform as a single pierced wall with little or no energy dissipation
provided by the beams, and will result in large axial forces in the foundation.
3. BEHAVIOUR OF COUPLING BEAM
In general reinforced concrete bending members (RC beams) are classified according their shear-span/depth
ratio (a/h) into four categories, 1) deep (a/h ≤1); 2) short (1< a/h ≤ 2.5); 3) slender (2.5 < a/h ≤ 6); and 4) very slender (6
< a/h), where (a/h) is the shear span to depth ratio. Very slender beams fail in flexure, while slender beams without any
stirrups experience diagonal tension failure. The most common mode of failure in deep beams is anchorage failure at the
end of the tension tie combined with dowel splitting. For coupling beam, direct loads have no significant effect in the
118
same time beam internal forces are induced mainly due to coupling action. According it is reasonable to consider that the
shear span is the total length of the beam (i.e. a = Lb) and this can be only considered for coupling beams which governed
mainly by coupling action.
Coupling beams with aspect ratio, (Lb /h) ≥ 4, have to satisfy the requirements of flexural members of Special
Moment Frames (SMF). While coupling beams with aspect ratio, (Lb /h) < 4, shall be permitted to be reinforced with two
intersecting groups of diagonally placed bars symmetrical about the mid-span. Each diagonal element consists of a cage
of at least four longitudinal bars confined with transverse reinforcement.
Fig. 3: Reinforcement Detailing of Coupling Beam
From all the above it could be concluded that there are four main stations (Lb/h) = 1,2.5,4 and 6. These stations
control the behavior of the coupling beam and significantly affect the overall efficiency of the system.
4. SCOPE OF THE PROJECT
The majority of the residential building structures have shear wall-frame systems. Proper analysis and design of
building structures that are subjected to static and dynamic loads is very important. Another important factor in the
analysis of these systems is obtaining acceptable accuracy in the results.
Primary goals of seismic design of a coupled wall are to design the wall such that during a seismic event energy
is dissipated through yielding of coupling beams up the height of the wall as well as through exural yielding of the wall
piers. Coupled wall structures are outstanding lateral load resisting systems that not only reduce the deformation
demands on the building, but also distribute the inelastic deformation both vertically and in plan, between the coupling
beams and the wall piers. Different than cantilever walls, where the overturning moment is resisted entirely by flexural
stresses, coupled walls resist the overturning moment by a combination of an axial force couple that develops in the wall
piers as a result of shear demand in the coupling beams and flexural action in the wall piers.
The main scope of this project is that, we have to study the behaviour of a building with solid and coupled shear
wall. The coupling beams of these structures must exhibit excellent ductility and energy-absorption ability.
5. OBJECTIVE OF PROJECT
• To analyse the building with solid and coupled shear wall, and study the behaviour of the building.
• To assess the behavior of the coupled shear wall and the influence of the size of the coupling beam on the system.
• To assess the effect of variation of building height on the structural response of the shear wall.
• To find the critical slenderness ratio of coupling beam.
6. BUILDING DESCRIPTION
The dimensions are length of solid shear wall Lw= 4.5 m in X and Y directions length of wall piers in coupled
shear wall Lw= 1.35 m in X and Y directions. It is of L shaped shear walls, provided all the corners of the building.
Therefore the total length of the coupling system B = 4.5 m. The depth of beam h will be varied based on (Lb/h) as shown
in Table 1, total wall height H= n (floor number) x 3.0 m (floor height); Three wall heights were adopted based on
number of floors [n=10, 20, and 40], and wall thickness tw= 200, 400-200, and 800-400-200mm; respectively. In order to
generalize the study, building height is reflect in terms of aspect ratio of the coupling system (H/B). In other words (H/B)
varied (6.66, 13.33 and 26.66) based on n (10, 20 and 40) respectively.
119
Fig. 4: Plan of the Building
6.1 Materials And Methods
o Type of frame: Special RC moment resisting frame fixed at the base

o Seismic zone: V
o Number of storey: 10,20 and 40
o Floor height: 3 m
o Depth of Slab: 150 mm
o Size of beam: (300 × 450) mm
o Spacing between frames: 4.5 m along x and y-directions
o Live load on floor: 3 KN/m2
o Materials: M 30 concrete, Fe 415 steel Material
o Density of concrete: 25 KN/m3
o Density of infill: 20 KN/m3
o Type of soil: Hard
o Damping of structure: 5 percent
o Response spectra: As per IS1893(Part-1):2002
TABLE 1: Geometric Parameters and Factors That Were Used In The Parametric Study
Coupling beam aspect ratio(Lb/h) Coupling beam depth(h) (mm)
1 1800
2.5 720
4 450
6 300
MODEL I: Building with Coupled Shearwall – Depth of Coupling Beam = 300 mm

MODEL II: Building with Coupled Shearwall – Depth of Coupling Beam = 450 mm
MODEL III: Building with Coupled Shearwall – Depth of Coupling Beam = 720 mm
MODELIV: Building with Coupled Shearwall – Depth of Coupling Beam = 1800mm
MODEL V: Building with Solid Shearwall
6.2 Method of Analysis of Structure

6.2.1 Equivalent Static Analysis
All design against seismic loads must consider the dynamic nature of the load. However, for simple regular
structures, analysis by equivalent linear static methods is often sufficient. This is permitted in most codes of practice for
regular, low- to medium-rise buildings. It begins with an estimation of base shear load and its distribution on each story
calculated by using formulas given in the code. Equivalent static analysis can therefore work well for low to medium-rise
buildings without significant coupled lateral-torsional modes, in which only the first mode in each direction is
considered. Tall buildings (over, say, 75 m), where second and higher modes can be important, or buildings with
120
torsional effects, are much less suitable for the method, and require more complex methods to be used in these
circumstances.
6.2.2 Response Spectrum Method

The representation of the maximum response of idealized single degree freedom system having certain period
and damping, during earthquake ground motions. The maximum response plotted against of un-damped natural period
and for various damping values and can be expressed in terms of maximum absolute acceleration, maximum relative
velocity or maximum relative displacement. For this purpose response spectrum case of analysis have been performed
according to IS 1893.
7. MODELLING OF STRUCTURE IN ETABS
In the FEM walls and slabs are modeled using four-nodded shell element, while columns and beams are
modeled as two nodded frame elements. Coupling beam was modeled as a shell element to ensure joint connectivity and
to account for shear deformations in the coupling beam. Walls and coupling beams are defined as piers and spandrels
respectively.
In ETABS single walls are modeled as a pier/spandrel system, that is, the wall is divided into vertical piers and
horizontal spandrels. This is a powerful mechanism to obtain design moments, shear forces and normal forces
across a wall section. Appropriate meshing and labeling is the key to proper modeling and design. Loads are only
transferred to the wall at the corner points of the area objects that make up the wall. Generally the membrane or shell
type element should be used to model walls. Here the shell type is used for modeling the wall element.
Wall pier forces are output at the top and bottom of wall pier elements and wall spandrel forces are output at the
left and right ends of wall spandrel element, see Figure3
Fig.5: Pier and Spandrel forces in ETABS
Spandrel labels are assigned to vertical area objects (walls) in similar fashion to pier labels. The pier and
spandrel labels must be assigned to wall element before performing analysis.
8. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
In the first part of the thesis, compare the following parameters of the building with solid and coupled shear wall
with various depth of coupling beam.
• Lateral displacement at each floor levels.

• Time period of the building
• Maximum deflection at roof level.
• Seismic base shear for models.
• Story drift of the structure.
• Storey shear
• Axial force in column
121
8.1 Storey-Wise Displacement In X And Y Direction

Storey wise displacement for five models in X and Y directions are shown in the figure.
Fig. 6: Storey-wise displacement in X Direction Fig. 7: Storey-wise displacement in X Direction

(Response Spectrum Method) (Equivalent Static Analysis)
Fig. 8: Storey-wise displacement in Y Direction Fig. 9: Storey-wise displacement in X Direction

122
Fig. 10: Storey-wisw displacement in X Direction Fig. 11: Storey-wise displacement in X Direction
Fig. 12: Storey-wise displacement in Y Direction Fig. 13: Storey-wise displacement in X Direction
123
Fig. 14:Storey-wise displacement in X Direction Fig. 15: Storey-wise displacement in X Direction

Fig. 16: Storey-wise displacement in Y Direction Fig. 17: Storey-wise displacement in Y Direction
124
From the results it is observed that, lateral displacement is maximum for MODEL I as compared to the other
models and minimum for Model V, i.e. Building with solid shear wall. In static and response spectrum analysis solid
shear wall shows lesser lateral displacement both in X and Y directions. When coupling aspect ratio increases lateral
deflection also increases. Response spectrum analysis gives higher value than the Equivalent static analysis.
8.2 Time Period of the Building

From the table it is observed that, MODEL I had more time period than other models. As the coupling beam
aspect ratio increases time period also increases.
TABLE 2: Time Period of the Building

MODEL 10 FLOORS 20 FLOORS 40 FLOORS
NO:
MODEL I 0.755 1.6265 4.066
MODEL II 0.6601 1.4723 3.82
MODEL III 0.5903 1.3776 3.698
MODEL IV 0.5318 1.3134 3.62
MODEL V 0.5067 1.2752 3.547
8.3 Maximum Deflection at the Roof

Maximum deflection at roof level for different models of 10, 20 and 40 storey buildings are shown in the table.
Deflection at the roof level is more for building with coupled shear wall of 300mm depth coupling beam. And building
with solid shear wall shows lesser roof deflection. Maximum deflection at roof level is increases with increase the (H/B)
ratio.
TABLE 3: Maximum Deflection At Roof Level

MODEL NO: 10 FLOORS 20 FLOORS 40 FLOORS
MODEL I 60.877 247.4
15.000
MODEL II 13.633 56.627 234.7
MODEL III 12.330 53.864 229.7
MODEL IV 10.821 52.374 227.3
MODEL V 9.901 51.208 223.7
8.4 Base Shear of Building

As the coupling beam aspect ratio increases base shear decreases. Solid shear wall have higher base shear than
the other models.
TABLE 4: Design Seismic Base Shear of 10 Storey Building

MODEL NO: VB(kN)
MODEL I 2853.19
MODEL II 3138.93
MODEL III 3330.14
MODEL IV 3432.63
MODEL V 3549.55
8.5 Interstorey Drift

Story drift is the displacement of one level relative to the other level above or below. From the results observed
that drift increases as height of the building increases and reduced at the top floors.
For 10 and 20 storied building, the storey drift is maximum for MODEL I i.e. coupled shear wall with 300mm
beam depth, as compared with other models. But top most floors MODEL I shows lesser drift than the other models. And
drift increases with increase the aspect ratio between shear wall heights to the coupled shear wall width (H/B) ratio for
each storey level.
125
Fig. 18: Inter Storey Drift in X Direction Fig. 19: Inter Storey Drift in X Direction
for 10 storey building for 20 storey building
Fig. 20: Inter Storey Drift in Y Direction Fig. 21: Inter Storey Drift in Y Direction
126
Fig. 22: Inter Storey Drift in X Direction Fig. 23: Inter Storey Drift in Y Direction
8.6 Storey Shear
10000
9000
8000
7000
STOREY SHEAR (kN)
6000
5000 MODEL I
4000
MODEL II
3000
MODEL III
2000
MODEL IV
1000
0
MODEL V
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
STOREY NO.
Fig. 24: Storey shear for 10 storey Building Fig. 25: Storey shear for 20 storey Building
Storey shear for 10 and 20 storey building are shown in the figure. From the graph, solid shearwall have more
storey shear than coupled shearwall. Coupled shearwall wall with 300mm depth have less storey shear.
127
8.7 Axial Force in Column
Axial force in column C12 of 10, 20 and 40 storey buildings are shown in the tables.
TABLE 5: Axial force in column C12 for 10 storey building

FOR 10 STOREY BUILDING
MODEL COLUMN STATIC ANALYSIS DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
NO. NO. LOAD AXIAL LOAD AXIAL
COMBINATION FORCE COMBINATION FORCE
kN kN
I 12 EQX 614.38 REX 644.68
II 12 EQX 677.42 REX 712.10
III 12 EQX 715.66 REX 726.57
IV 12 EQX 686.68 REX 655.26
V 12 EQX 592.82 REX 557.46

kN kN
I 12 EQX 1255.01 REX 1255.84
II 12 EQX 1320.58 REX 1320.97
III 12 EQX 1360.98 REX 1324.87
IV 12 EQX 1345.38 REX 1259.87
V 12 EQX 1237.18 REX 1135.81

kN kN
I 12 EQX 2447.69 REX 2381.88
II 12 EQX 2509.78 REX 2463.88
III 12 EQX 2533.65 REX 2476.43
IV 12 EQX 2498.28 REX 2461.10
V 12 EQX 2284.48 REX 2179.19
From the table it is clear that column C12 in MODEL V have less axial force than other models. And axial force
is less in the case of coupled shear wall with 1800mm depth coupling beam compared with other models with coupled
shear wall. So the amount of reinforcement in column can be reduced in MODEL IV and MODEL V.
In the second part, in order to assess the behavior of the coupled shear wall and the influence of the size of the
coupling beam on the system, the following parameters are selected to be studied and discussed in this section:
Coupling Degree (CD)

Induced shear force in the coupling beam
Induced Bending moment in the individual shear wall
8.8 Coupling Degree

Figs.29 represents the coupling degree (CD) in percentage versus to beam (span/depth), (Lb/h) ratio for different
buildings stories numbers 10, 20, and 40, respectively. The seismic analysis for these cases was done using static analysis
and response spectrum analysis.
128
Fig.30 represents the same relation between the CD versus to different building stories number of different
coupling beam (span/depth) ratio in trial to expect the optimum value of beam (span/depth) with high coupling degree
percentage.
From the above figures, the Coupling degree is inversely proportional to the Lb/h ratio. And from the second
figure efficiency of the coupled shear wall systems increases with increase in the slenderness ratio (H/B) of the building
system until a certain value (in this study until slenderness of 13.33. i.e. 20 stories building) after this value the system
showed much lower efficiency. To conclude there is an optimum slenderness ratio for coupling beam system depends on
the dimensioning of the system and door openings size and location.
Fig. 26: Coupling degree (CD) versus beam (span/depth) ratio under response spectrum analysis
Fig. 27: Coupling Degree (CD) versus number of building stories
8.9 Induced Shear Force In The Coupling Beam

In this study the induced shear for in the coupling beam (Vb) is proportioned to the applied base shear of the
building (V). As shown in Fig. coupling beam exhibits the maximum shear at the second floor. For the current case study
the maximum (Vb/V) is 70%. It is worth to note that the maximum ratio of (Vb/V) do not affected by the slenderness of
the building system, in other words maximum (Vb/V) is constant for a particular coupling beam system for all building
heights. In the current case study the opening width to the total length of coupling system ratio (Wopen/B) has a constant
percent for all cases.
129
Fig. 28: Coupling shear ratio (Vb/V) building height for 10 storey versus building
Fig.29: Coupling shear ratio (Vb/V) versus building height
Fig. 30: Coupling shear ratio (Vb/V) versus building height
130
8.10 Induced Bending Moment in the Individual Shear Wall

In order to generalize the concept, induced bending moment in the individual wall (Mw) is proportioned to the
applied base moment of the building (M). As shown in Fig. the induced bending moment is ranging from 8% to 18% the
base moment.
The induced bending moment in the individual wall is inversely proportional to the beam size. As the efficiency
of the coupled shear wall systems increases by the increase of the slenderness ratio (H/B) of the system until a certain
value, the induced bending moment in the individual wall to base moment ratio also decreased until it reaches a
minimum value at a critical slenderness ratio after that this ratio of the induced bending moment to base moment started
to increase again. The minimum value of induced bending moment in the individual wall and the critical slenderness
ratio for coupling beam system varies from system to another depending on the dimensioning of the system and door
openings size and location.
Fig. 31: Wall bending moment to base moment ratio versus beam span-to-depth ratio
9. CONCLUSION
The seismic response of high rise buildings with solid and coupled shearwall with different height, 10, 20, and
40 stories building are investigated for the static and response spectrum analysis to evaluate structural behavior , the
effect of the geometry parameters (Span/depth) ratios (1, 2.5, 4 and 6), and the aspect ratio of the shear wall height to
coupled shear wall width (H/B) effects on the monolithic reinforcement concrete coupling beams of symmetrical coupled
shear wall system.
1. Building with solid shear wall is more stable than building with coupled shear wall, because displacement and
drift in X and Y directions are more in the case of building with coupled shear wall.
2. Coupled shear wall with 1800mm depth shows approximately same results of solid shearwall. So the critical
slenderness ratio of the coupling beam is equal to one.
3. MODEL IV and MODEL V have less axial force in columns. So these models are more beneficial.
4. CSW will react to lateral loadings on the basis of its degree of coupling (DC). The Coupling degree is inversely
proportional to the Lb/h ratio.
5. Coupled shearwall is more efficient in case of 20 storey building.
6. Coupling beam exhibits the maximum shear at the second floor. And for 10, 20 and 40 storey building shear
force is high from second to sixth floor level, so transverse reinforcement should be confirmed.
7. The coupling shear wall as a lateral resistance system of seismic load will be not sufficient to improve the
performance of building system and may be it will be necessary to adding additional resistance lateral load for
building system depend on the building slenderness ratio (H/B).
131
10. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First and foremost I thank to lord almighty for the grace, strength, and hope to carry out the Master’s Thesis report.
I wish to record my sincere thanks to Dr. V.S. Pradeepan, Head of Civil Engineering Department, SNGCE, for
his valuable suggestion.
I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude to our Project coordinator Mrs.S.Usha, Professor, Department of
Civil Engineering for the sustained guidance and useful suggestions in completing the Master’s Thesis.
I wish to record my sincere gratitude to Mr. Harinarayanan. S, Professor, Civil Engineering, our Project
coordinator for the sustained guidance and useful suggestions in completing the Master’s Thesis work.
I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude to Mr. Unnikartha G, Head of the Civil Engineering Department,
FISAT Engineering College, Angamaly for his valuable time, sustained guidance and useful suggestions, which helped
me in the Thesis.
I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude to my guide Mrs. Preetha Prabhakaran, Associated Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering, for her valuable time, sustained guidance and useful suggestions, which helped me in
completing the Thesis work, in time.
Last, but not the least, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my beloved parents for their blessings, my
friends/classmates for their help and wishes for the successful completion of this Master’s Thesis.
REFERENCE
[1] P. P. Chandurkar ,Dr. P. S. Pajgade(2013), Seismic Analysis of RCC Building with and Without Shear Wall,
International Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER), Vol.3, Issue.3, pp-1805-1810
[2] Dawn E. Lehman, M.ASCE; Jacob A. Turgeon; Anna C. Birely, M.ASCE; Christopher R. Hart, M.ASCE;
Kenneth P. Marley; Daniel A. Kuchma; and Laura N. Lowes(2013), Seismic Behavior of a Modern Concrete
Coupled Wall, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp-1-11
[3] Nam Shiu, M. ASCE, T. Takayanagi, and W. Gene Corley, F. ASCE(1984), Seismic Behavior Of Coupled Wall
Systems, American Society of Civil Engineers ,pp-1-16
[4] Dipendu Bhunia, Vipul Prakash, and Ashok D. Pandey(2013). A Conceptual Design Approach of Coupled
Shear Walls, ISRN Civil Engineering, pp-1-29.
[5] Mazen A. Musmar(2013), Analysis of Shear Wall with Openings Using Solid65 Element, Jordan Journal of
Civil Engineering, Volume 7, No. 2, 164 - 173
[6] P. S. Kumbhare, A. C. Saoji(2012),Effectiveness of Changing Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Location on
Multi-storeyed Building, International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, Vol. 2, Issue 5,
pp.1072-1076
[7] Romy Mohan and C Prabha(2011), Dynamic Analysis of RCC Buildings with Shear Wall, International Journal
of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Volume 04, pp 659-662
[8] Himalee Rahangdale and S.R.Satone(2013), Design And Analysis of Multistoreied Building With Effect of
Shear Wall, International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA), Vol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun
2013, pp.223-232
[9] M.D. Kevadkar, P.B. Kodag(2013), Lateral Load Analysis of R.C.C. Building International Journal of
Modern Engineering Research (IJMER),Vol.3, Issue.3, pp-1428-1434
[10] Varsha R. Harne(2014), Comparative Study of Strength of RC Shear Wall at Different Location on Multi-
storied Residential Building, International Journal of Civil Engineering Research. Volume 5, pp. 391-400
[11] Shahzad Jamil Sardar and Umesh. N. Karadi(2013), Effect Of Change In Shear Wall
[12] Location on Storey Drift of Multistorey Building Subjected to Lateral Loads, International Journal of
Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2, Issue 9, pp-1-9
[13] P. S. Kumbhare and A. C. Saoji(2012), Effectiveness of Changing Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Location on
Multi-storeyed Building, International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, Vol. 2, Issue 5,
pp.1072-1076
[14] Ashish S.Agrawal and S.D.Charkha(2012), Effect of Change In Shear Wall Location on Storey Drift of
Multistorey Building Subjected To Lateral Loads, International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA), ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 2, Issue 3, pp.1786-1793
[15] R. Yeghnem, S.A. Meftah, S. Benyoucef , A. Tounsi and E.A. Adda Bedia(2013), Earthquake Response of Rc
Coupled Shear Walls Strengthened With Composite Sheets With Varying Widthwise Material Properties: Creep
And Shrinkage Effect, 2nd Turkish Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, pp 1-1
[16] Unnikrishna Pillai,S. & Devadas Menon, “Reinforced Concrete Design”, Fourth reprint Tata Mcgraw –Hill
Publishing Company Limited,New Delhi,2010.
132
[17] Varugheese,P.C., “Advanced Reinforced Concrete Design”, Prentice –Hall of India Private Limited., New
Delhi,2008.
[18] Arthur.H.Nilson, “Design of Concrete Structures”, Twelth edn, Tata Mcgraw –Hill Publishing Company
Limited, New Delhi, 2003.
[19] Dr. Suchita Hirde and Dhanshri Bhoite, “Effect of Modeling of Infill Walls on Performance of Multi Story RC
Building”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 4, 2013,
pp. 243 - 250, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.
[20] Dharane Sidramappa Shivashaankar and Patil Raobahdur Yashwant, “Earthquake Resistant High Rise Buildings
–New Concept”, “International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering & Technology (IJARET)”,
ISSN 0976-6480(Print), ISSN 0976-6499(Online), Volume 5, Issue 6, (2014), pp. 121 - 124.
133

1991 Seismic Performance of High Rise Concrete Buildings in Chile

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

1991 Seismic Performance of High Rise Concrete Buildings in Chile

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proceedings of the International Conference

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL on Emerging

ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print) IJCIET

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SOLID AND COUPLED

Reshma Chandran1, Unni Kartha G2, Preetha Prabhakaran3

Fig.1: Solid Shear wall Fig.2: Coupled Shear wall

2. STRUCTURAL ACTION OF COUPLED SHEAR WALL SYSTEM

3. BEHAVIOUR OF COUPLING BEAM

Fig. 3: Reinforcement Detailing of Coupling Beam

4. SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Fig. 4: Plan of the Building

6.1 Materials And Methods

o Type of frame: Special RC moment resisting frame fixed at the base

MODEL I: Building with Coupled Shearwall – Depth of Coupling Beam = 300 mm

6.2 Method of Analysis of Structure

6.2.2 Response Spectrum Method

7. MODELLING OF STRUCTURE IN ETABS

Fig.5: Pier and Spandrel forces in ETABS

8. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

• Lateral displacement at each floor levels.

8.1 Storey-Wise Displacement In X And Y Direction

Fig. 6: Storey-wise displacement in X Direction Fig. 7: Storey-wise displacement in X Direction

Fig. 8: Storey-wise displacement in Y Direction Fig. 9: Storey-wise displacement in X Direction

Fig. 14:Storey-wise displacement in X Direction Fig. 15: Storey-wise displacement in X Direction

8.2 Time Period of the Building

TABLE 2: Time Period of the Building

8.3 Maximum Deflection at the Roof

TABLE 3: Maximum Deflection At Roof Level

8.4 Base Shear of Building

TABLE 4: Design Seismic Base Shear of 10 Storey Building

8.5 Interstorey Drift

8.6 Storey Shear

8.7 Axial Force in Column

TABLE 5: Axial force in column C12 for 10 storey building

TABLE 6: Axial force in column C12 for 20 storey building

TABLE 7: Axial force in column C12 for 40 storey building

Coupling Degree (CD)

8.8 Coupling Degree

Fig. 27: Coupling Degree (CD) versus number of building stories

8.9 Induced Shear Force In The Coupling Beam

Fig.29: Coupling shear ratio (Vb/V) versus building height

Fig. 30: Coupling shear ratio (Vb/V) versus building height

8.10 Induced Bending Moment in the Individual Shear Wall

You might also like