ABSTRACT

The paper aims towards the seismic analysis of multi storey building with
symmetrical plan under earthquake zones-III. For the analysis purpose model of G +14
stories of RCC with core and edge shear walls are considered. Various parameters such as
lateral force, storey shear, storey displacement, story drift can be determined. ETABS stands
for Extended Three dimensional Analysis of Building Systems. ETABS is commonly used to
analyze. The case study in this paper mainly prioritizes on structural behavior of G+14 storey
building with core and edge shear wall for sloped and plane grounded building. Modeling and
analysis of the building is done on the ETABSv9.7.4 software. The seismic analysis of
building is carried out for plane grounded and flat grounded building. Estimation of response
such as; lateral forces, storey shear and storey displacement and storey drift is carried out.

Keywords: Dynamic effect, Finite Element Analysis, storey drift and lateral storey stiffness.

1
 CHAPTER-I
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Various civil structures are primarily based on prescriptive method of building codes
and loads which acts on the structure are low and resulting in elastic structural behavior. A
structure can be subjected to the force greater than the elastic limit. The structural safety
against major earthquake relate to the structural design of building for seismic loads. The
earthquake loading behavior is different from wind loading and gravity loading which
requires detail analysis to reach the acceptable elastic range in the structure. In dynamic
analysis, the mathematical model of building by determining of strength, mass, stiffness and
inelastic member properties are assigned. Dynamic analysis should be performed for
symmetrical and unsymmetrical building. The main objective is to create awareness about
dynamic effect on the building with the help of ETABSv9.7.4 software; it also Shows better
response of building under dynamic loading and minimize the hazard to the life for all
structures.

Structural design of buildings for seismic loads is primarily concerned with structural
safety during major ground motions. Seismic loading requires an understanding of the
structural performance under large inelastic deformations. Behavior of the building under this
loading is different from the wind loading or gravity loading. So it requires more detailed
analysis to assure accepTable seismic performance beyond the elastic range. Some structural
damage can be expected when the building experiences design ground motions, because
almost all building codes allow inelastic energy dissipation in structural systems. The primary
step in dynamic analysis of building is to develop a mathematical model of the building,
through which estimates of strength, stiffness and inelastic member properties are assigned.

The difference between the dynamic and the static analysis is based on whether the applied
action of forces has enough acceleration in comparison to the structure's natural frequency.

If a load is applied sufficiently slowly, the inertia forces can be ignored and the analysis can
be simplified as static analysis.

Dynamic analysis, is a type of structural analysis which covers the behavior of structures
subjected to dynamic loading i.e. actions having high acceleration. Dynamic analysis is also
related to the inertia forces developed by the structure when it is excited by means of

2
dynamic loads applied suddenly. Dynamic analysis of simple structures can be done
manually, however for complex structures finite element analysis is used.

ETABS is a FE (finite element) based software and it provides both static and dynamic
analysis for wide range of gravity and lateral loads.

This analysis mainly deals with the study of a rectangular plan of G+14 storeys RCC
building and is modeled using ETABS. The height of each storey of the building is taken as
3m, making total height of the structure as 45m above plinth level. Loads considered are
taken according to the IS-875(Part1, Part2), IS-1893(2002) code and combinations are
according to IS-875(Part5).

By the past records of earthquake, the demand about the earthquake resisting building is
increased in seismic zones. These types of buildings are possible by providing shear walls at
the core and edges of the building to withstand seismic effect.

Due to the provision of shear wall at core or at edges in multi-storied building we can resist
seismic effect of earthquake. The loads are calculated by ETABS software by providing shear
walls at various parts of building.

1.2 Shear wall:

It is a structural system composed of braced panels to counter the effects of lateral

loads acting on a structure. Shear wall is called as shear panels. Shear wall are designed to
carry wind loads and earthquake loads. Shear walls resist in-plane loads that are applied
along its height.

Shear wall sections are classified as six sections

1. L-section
2. T-section
3. H-section
4. U-section
5. W-section and
6. Box section

In the present dynamic analysis L-type sections and box sections are used. For core shear
wall box type section and for edge shear wall L type section shear walls are used.

3
In addition to slabs, beams and columns reinforced concrete buildings often have vertical
plate- like RC walls called shear walls. These walls generally start from foundation level and
are continuous throughout the building height. In high rise buildings, the thickness of shear
wall varies from 150 mm to 400 mm. shear walls are usually provided along both length and
width of buildings.

The main two functions of the shear wall are

 Strength and
 Stiffness

1.3 Behaviors of shear wall under seismic loading:

Depending upon the height to width ratio, shear walls behave as slender walls, a squat
wall or combination of these two. Generally slender shear walls have a height to width ratio
is 2. These behave like a vertical slender cantilever beam. Bending is the primary mode of
deformation and shear deformation can be neglected. Generally squat shear walls have a
height to width ratio less than 0.5. These wall show significant amount of shear deformation
compared to bending deformations. So shear strength governs these type of walls. Flexural
strength governs the slender wall. Ideally shear wall should respond in ductile manner.

Advantages of shear walls in RC Buildings:

a. Properly designed buildings with shear walls have shown very good performance in
past earthquakes.
b. Shear wall buildings are a popular choice in many earthquake prone countries.
c. Shear walls are easy to construct, because reinforcement detailing of walls is
relatively straight forward.
d. Shear walls are efficient in both construction cost and effectiveness in minimizing
earthquake damage in structures.
e. Shear walls significantly reduces the lateral sway of the building.

1.4 Storey drifts:

The lateral displacement of the storey relating to the storey lower is called storey drift.
The relative lateral deflection in any one storey should not exceed the storey height divided
by 500. Inter story drift is the difference between the roof and floor displacements of any
given story as the building sways during the earthquake, normalized by the story height.

Core shear walls: shear walls are provided at the centre or core of the building.
4
Edge shear walls: shear walls are provided at the corners or edges of the building.

1.5 Objectives:

 The main objective of this project is to check and compare the dynamic response of
G+14 building with core and edge shear walls under different seismic zones, so one
can pick the best substitute for construction in all earthquake-prone areas.
 Core and edge shear wall in R.C. Building will be modeled in ETABSv9.7.4 software
and the results in terms of storey displacement, storey drift, and storey shear are
compared.
 To study the comparison between lateral storey displacements and storey shears in
building with core shear wall and building with edge shear wall
 Comparison is to be made between core and edge shear wall building models in all
earthquake zones i.e. Zones - III.

5
 CHAPTER-II
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW:

Mohammed Azam (2013) presented a study on seismic performance evaluation of

multistoried RC framed buildings with shear wall. A comparison of structural behavior in
terms of strength, stiffness and damping characteristics is done. The provision of shear wall
has significant influence on lateral strength in taller buildings while it has less influence on
lateral stiffness in taller buildings. The provision of shear wall has significant influence on
lateral stiffness in buildings of shorter height while it has less influence on lateral strength.
The influence of shear walls is significant in terms of the damping characteristics and period
at the performance point for tall buildings. Provision of shear walls symmetrically in the
outermost moment-resisting frames and preferably interconnected in mutually perpendicular
direction forming the core will have better seismic performance in terms of strength and
stiffness.

P.P Chandurkar and P.S. Pajgade (2013) are investigated 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.
N. Janardhan reddy (2015) in his work seismic analysis of multistoried building
with shear walls using ETABS reveals that provision of shear wall generally results in
reducing the displacement because the shear wall increases the stiffness of the building and
sustains the lateral forces. The better performance is observed and displacement is reduced in
both x and y directions and shows better performances with respect to displacements when
analysis is done by response spectrum method.
Agrawal and Charkha (2012) are investigation reveals that the significant effects on
deflection in orthogonal direction by the shifting the shear wall location. Placing Shear wall
away from centre of gravity resulted in increase in most of the members forces.
Greeshma and Jaya (2006) are investigated the proper connection detailing of shear
wall to the diaphragm. The shear wall and diaphragm connection with hook deflects more
when compared to the other two configurations. Hence, the shear wall- diaphragm connection
with hook was more efficient under dynamic lateral loadings.

6
 Mayuri D. Bhagwat (2014) In the work dynamic analysis of G+12 multistoried
practiced RCC building considering for Koyna and Bhuj earthquake is carried out by time
history analysis and response spectrum analysis and seismic responses of such building are
comparatively studied and modeled with the help of ETABS software. Two time histories
have been used to develop different accepTable criteria (base shear, storey displacement,
storey drifts).
Mohit Sharma (2014) was studied a G+30 storied regular building. The static and
dynamic analysis has done on computer with the help of STAAD-Pro software using the
parameters for the design as per the IS-1893-2002-Part-1for the zones-2 and 3.
A S Patil and P D Kumbhar (2013) This study shows similar variations pattern in
Seismic responses such as base shear and storey displacements with intensities V to X. From
the study it is recommended that analysis of multistoried RCC building using Time History
method becomes necessary to ensure safety against earthquake force.
Misam Abidi, Mangulkar Madhuri. N (2012) presented an assessment to
understand the behavior of Reinforced Concrete framed structures by pushover analysis and
the Comparative study was done for different models in terms of base shear, displacement,
performance point. The inelastic behavior of the example structures are examined by carrying
out displacement controlled pushover analysis.
Bozdogan K.B.,Deierlein et.al,(2010)discussed in detail the modeling issues,
nonlinear behavior and analysis of the frame –shear wall structural system. An approximate
method which is based on the continuum approach and one dimensional finite element
method to be used for lateral static and dynamic analysis of wall-frame buildings are
presented.

Kasliwal Sagar K. has investigated that the present work two multi storey building
both are sixteen storeys have been modeled using software package ETABS and SAP2000
for earthquake ZONE - V in India. The paper also deals with the Dynamic linear Response
spectra method and static non-linear pushover method .The analysis is carried on multi-storey
shear wall building with variation in number and position of shear wall. The author has
concluded that the shear walls are one of the most effective building elements which resist
the lateral forces during earthquake. The shear wall in proper position can minimize effect
and damages due to earthquake and winds.

7
 M.Ashraf examines the significance of shear wall in high rise buildings and found
that increase on grids opposite to the changing position of shear wall away from the centroid
of the building.

J.L.Humar examines the relation between strength and stiffness for concrete shear
walls and concluded that square shaped shear wall is most effective and L shaped shear wall
is least effective.

Haroon Rasheed Tamboli & Umesh N. Karadi performed seismic analysis using
Equivalent Lateral Force Method for different reinforced concrete (RC) frame building
models that included bare frame, infilled frame and open first story frame. In modeling of the
masonry infill panels the Equivalent diagonal Strut method was used and the software
ETABS was used for the analysis of all the frame models. Infilled frames should be preferred
in seismic regions than the open first story frame, because the story drift of first story of open
first story frame is very large than the upper stories, which might probably cause the collapse
of structure. The infill wall increases the strength and stiffness of the structure. The seismic
analysis of RC (Bare frame) structure lead to under estimation of base shear. Therefore other
response quantities such as time period, natural frequency, and story drift were not
significant. The underestimation of base shear might lead to the collapse of structure during
earthquake shaking.

Anuj Chandiwala considered five different models of 10-storey RC residential

building located in india in seismic ZONE - III and founded on medium soil, which is the
reference ground condition. In this case the earthquake force is predominant then the
calculated wind pressure, hence the structure is analyzed & designed for the seismic loading
only. Based on the analysis results they found that after the analysis of the different position
of shear wall in the building configuration is the comparison in maximum base shear in X &
Y-direction.

8
 CHAPTER-III
3.1 METHODOLOGY

Code-based procedure for seismic analysis

Main features of seismic method of analysis according to IS1893 (Part 1): 2002 are described
as follows
 Equivalent Static Analysis (Linear Static)
 Response Spectrum Analysis (Linear Dynamic)
 Time History Analysis (Nonlinear Dynamic)
 Pushover Analysis (Nonlinear Static)
SuiTable methods of analysis are provided in codes of practice; in general, the more complex
and tall the building, the more stringent the analysis that is required.
Regular buildings up to around 15 storeys in height can usually be designed using equivalent
static analysis; tall buildings or those with significant irregularities in elevation or plan
require modal response spectrum analysis.

3.1.1 Equivalent static analysis

All design against earthquake effects 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 and begins with an estimate of peak earthquake load calculated as a function of the
parameters given in the code.

3.1.2 Response spectrum analysis

It is a dynamic method of analysis. In the calculation of structural response the structure
should be so represented by means of an analytical or computational model that reasonable
and rational results can be obtained by its behavior, when response spectrum method is used
with modal analysis procedure. At least 3 modes of response of the structure should be
considered except in those cases where it can be shown qualitatively that either third mode or
the second mode produces negligible response. The model maxima should be combined using
the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual model values. With the advent of
powerful desktop computers, this type of analysis has become the norm. It involves
calculating the principal elastic modes of vibration of a structure. The maximum responses in
each mode are then calculated from a response spectrum and these are summed by

9
appropriate methods to produce the overall maximum response. There are computational
advantages in using the response spectrum method of seismic analysis for prediction of
displacements and member forces in structural systems. The method involves the calculation
of only the maximum values of the displacements and member forces in each mode of
vibration using smooth design spectra that are the average of several earthquake motions.

The major advantages of modal response spectrum analysis (RSA), compared with the more
complex time-history analysis are as follows.
(1) The size of the problem is reduced to finding only the maximum response of a limited
number of modes of the structure, rather than calculating the entire time history of responses
during the earthquake. This makes the problem much more tracTable in terms both of
processing time and (equally significant) size of computer output.
(2) Examination of the mode shapes and periods of a structure gives the designer a good feel
for its dynamic response.
(3) The use of smoothed envelope spectra makes the analysis independent of the
characteristics of a particular earthquake record.
(4) RSA can very often be useful as a preliminary analysis, to check the reasonableness of
results produced by linear and non-linear time-history analysis.

3.1.3 Time-history analysis

In this analysis dynamic response of the building will be calculated at each time
intervals. This analysis can be carried out by taking recorded ground motion data from past
earthquake database. A linear time-history analysis of this type overcomes all the
disadvantages of Response spectrum analysis, provided non-linear behavior is not involved.
The method involves significantly greater computational effort than the corresponding
Response spectrum analysis and at least three representative earthquake motions must be
considered to allow for the uncertainty in precise frequency content of the design motions at a
site. With current computing power and software, the task of performing the number
crunching and then handling the large amount of data produced has become a non specialist
task.
3.1.4 Push over analysis:

This is a performance based analysis and has aim in controlling the structural damage.
In this analysis several built in hinge properties are included from FEMA 356 for concrete
members. This analysis will be carried out by using nonlinear software ETABS 2013. This

10
software is able to predict the displacement level and corresponding base shear where first
yield of structure occurs. The main objective to perform this analysis is to find displacement
vs. base shear graph. Pushover analysis is a simplified, static, nonlinear analysis under a
predefined pattern of permanent vertical loads and gradually increasing lateral loads.
Typically the first pushover load case is used to apply gravity load and then subsequent
lateral pushover load cases are specified to start from the final conditions of the gravity
pushover. Typically a gravity load pushover is force controlled and lateral pushovers are
displacement controlled. Load is applied incrementally to frameworks until a collapse
mechanism is reached. Thus it enables determination of collapse load and ductility capacity
on a building frame. Plastic rotation is monitored, and a lateral inelastic force versus
displacement response for the complete structure is analytically computed.

For the present dynamic analysis, response spectrum analysis method is used in the
FE based software ETABS. . This analysis is carried out according to the code IS 1893-2002
(part1). Here type of soil, seismic zone factor should be entered from IS 1893-2002(part1).
The standard response spectra for type of soil considered is applied to building for the
analysis in ETABSv9.7.4 software.

3.2 LOADS CONSIDERED:

Loads on a structure are generally two types.

1. Gravity loads and

2. Lateral loads

3.2.1 Gravity loads:

Gravity loads are the vertical forces that act on a structure. The weight of the
structure, human occupancy and snow are all types of loads that need to have a complete load
path to the ground.

3.2.1.1 DEAD LOADS:

All permanent constructions of the structure form the dead loads. The dead load
comprises of the weights of walls, partitions floor finishes, false ceilings, false floors
and the other permanent constructions in the buildings. The dead load loads may be
calculated from the dimensions of various members and their unit weights. the unit
weights of plain concrete and reinforced concrete made with sand and gravel or
crushed natural stone aggregate may be taken as 24 kN/m3 and 25 kN/m3 respectively.

11
 3.2.1.2 IMPOSED LOADS:
All permanent constructions of the structure form the dead loads. The dead load
comprises of the weights of walls, partitions floor finishes, false ceilings, false floors
and the other permanent constructions in the buildings. The dead load loads may be
calculated from the dimensions of various members and their unit weights. the unit
weights of plain concrete and reinforced concrete made with sand and gravel or
crushed natural stone aggregate may be taken as 24 kN/m3 and 25 kN/m3 respectively.
Live loads are taken as 2kN/m.

3.2.2 Lateral loads:

Lateral loads are the horizontal forces that are act on a structure. Wind loads and
earthquake loads are the main lateral loads act on structures.

3.2.2.1 WIND LOADS

Basic wind speed zones in India are classified as six zones as per IS 875 part -3-1987.

12
 Figure - 3.1: Basic wind speed zone map in India

Table – 3.1: Zone wise basic wind speeds in m/s

Zone Basic wind speed (m/sec)

I 33
II 39
III 44
IV 47
V 50
VI 55

Wind is air in motion relative to the surface of the earth. The primary cause of wind is traced
to earth’s rotation and differences in terrestrial radiation. The radiation effects are primarily
responsible for convection either upwards or downwards. The wind generally blows
horizontal to the ground at high wind speeds. Since vertical components of atmospheric
motion are relatively small, the term ‘wind’ denotes almost exclusively the horizontal wind,
vertical winds are always identified as such. The wind speeds are assessed with the aid of
anemometers or anemographs which are installed at meteorological observatories at heights
generally varying from 10 to 30 meters above ground.

Design Wind Speed (V,)

The basic wind speed (V,) for any site shall be obtained from and shall be modified to include
the following effects to get design wind velocity at any height (V,) for the chosen structure:

a) Risk level;
b) Terrain roughness, height and size of structure; and
c) Local topography.
It can be mathematically expressed as follows: Where:
V = Vb X kl X k2X k3
Vb = design wind speed at any height z in m/s;
kl = probability factor (risk coefficient)
k2= terrain, height and structure size factor
k3 = topography factor

13
Risk Coefficient (kI Factor): Gives basic wind speeds for terrain Category 2 as applicable
at10 m above ground level based on 50 years mean return period. In the design of all
buildings and structures, a regional basic wind speed having a mean return period of 50 years
shall be used.

Terrain, Height and Structure Size Factor (k2, Factor):

Terrain - Selection of terrain categories shall be made with due regard to the effect of
obstructions which constitute the ground surface roughness. The terrain category used in the
design of a structure may vary depending on the direction of wind under consideration.
Wherever sufficient meteorological information is available about the nature of wind
direction, the orientation of any building or structure may be suitably planned.

Topography (k3 Factor) - The basic wind speed Vb takes account of the general level of
site above sea level. This does not allow for local topographic features such as hills, valleys,
cliffs, escarpments, or ridges which can significantly affect wind speed in their vicinity. The
effect of topography is to accelerate wind near the summits of hills or crests of cliffs,
escarpments or ridges and decelerate the wind in valleys or near the foot of cliff, steep
escarpments, or ridges.

WIND PRESSURES AND FORCES ON BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES:

The wind load on a building shall be calculated for:

a) The building as a whole,

b) Individual structural elements as roofs and walls, and
c) Individual cladding units including glazing and their fixings.

Pressure Coefficients - The pressure coefficients are always given for a particular surface or
part of the surface of a building. The wind load acting normal to a surface is obtained by
multiplying the area of that surface or its appropriate portion by the pressure coefficient (C,)
and the design wind pressure at the height of the surface from the ground. The average values
of these pressure coefficients for some building shapes Average values of pressure
coefficients are given for critical wind directions in one or more quadrants. In order to
determine the maximum wind load on the building, the total load should be calculated for
each of the critical directions shown from all quadrants. Where considerable variation of
pressure occurs over a surface, it has been subdivided and mean pressure coefficients given

14
for each of its several parts. Then the wind load, F, acting in a direction normal to the
individual structural element or Cladding unit is:

F= (Cpe – Cpi) A Pd
Where,
Cpe = external pressure coefficient,
Cpi = internal pressure- coefficient,
A = surface area of structural or cladding unit, and
Pd = design wind pressure element

Wind loads are applied on the structure as per IS 875-1987.i.e wind load in x-direction WLx
and wind load in y-direction WLy.

3.2.2.2 SEISMIC LOADS:

Design Lateral Force

The design lateral force shall first be computed for the building as a whole. This
design lateral force shall then be distributed to the various floor levels. The overall
design seismic force thus obtained at each floor level shall then be distributed to
individual lateral load resisting elements depending on the floor diaphragm action.
Earthquake loads are applied as per IS 1893-2002 in earthquake x-direction, y-
direction Positive x-direction, negative x-direction, positive y-direction and negative
y- direction. And load combinations are considered as per IS 1893-2002.

Design Seismic Base Shear

The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear (Vb) along any principal
direction shall be determined by the following expression:
Vb = Ah W
Where,
Ah = horizontal acceleration spectrum
W = seismic weight of all the floor

Fundamental Natural Period

15
The approximate fundamental natural period of vibration (T,), in seconds, of a moment-
resisting frame building without brick in the panels may be estimated by the empirical
expression:

Ta=0.075 h0.75 for RC frame building

Ta=0.085h0.75 for steel frame building Where,

h = Height of building, in m. This excludes the basement storeys, where basement walls are
connected with the ground floor deck or fitted between the building columns. But it includes
the basement storeys, when they are not so connected. The approximate fundamental natural
period of vibration (T,), in seconds, of all other buildings, including moment-resisting frame
buildings with brick lintel panels, may be estimated by the empirical Expression:

T=.09H/√D

Where,

H= Height of building

D= Base dimension of the building at the plinth level, in m, along the considered direction of
the lateral force.

Distribution of Design Force

Vertical Distribution of Base Shear to Different Floor Level

The design base shear (V) shall be distributed along the height of the building as per the
following expression:

Qi=Design lateral force at floor i,

Wi= Seismic weight of floor i,

hi=Height of floor i measured from base, and

n=Number of storeys in the building is the number of levels at which the masses are located.
Distribution of Horizontal Design Lateral Force to Different Lateral Force Resisting
Elements in case of buildings whose floors are capable of providing rigid horizontal
diaphragm action, the total shear in any horizontal plane shall be distributed to the various
vertical elements of lateral force resisting system, assuming the floors to be infinitely rigid in

16
the horizontal plane. In case of building whose floor diaphragms cannot be treated as
infinitely rigid in their own plane, the lateral shear at each floor shall be distributed to the
vertical elements resisting the lateral forces, considering the in-plane flexibility of the
diagram.

Figure - 3.2: Seismic zone map of India

In India seismic zones are divided into four zones, i.e Zone – II, Zone – III, Zone – IV and
Zone - V. Zone – II is low earthquake prone area, Zone – III is moderate zone, Zone – IV is
high earthquake prone area and Zone – V is the highest earthquake intensity zone.

17
 Figure – 3.3: Behavior of building under earth quake

Figure – 3.4: performance objectives under different intensities of earthquake

18
Loads:

Wall load calculation:

Thickness of wall = 0.23m

Height of wall = height of floor – depth of beam

= 3-0.5

=2.5m

Density of wall = 20 kN/m3

Wight of wall on each floor = 0.23X2.5X20

= 11.5 kN/m

Assumed wall load = 12 kN/m

Live load : 2 kN/m

Wind load

In x-direction (according IS: 875-1987)

In y-direction (according IS: 875-1987)

Earth quake loads

In x-direction (EQx) (according IS1893-2002)

In y-direction (EQy) (according IS1893-2002)

Load combinations:

1.5 (DL + LL)

1.2 (DL + LL ± EQX)

1.2 (DL + LL ± EQY)

1.5 (DL ± EQX)

1.5 (DL± EQY)

0.9 DL ± 1.5 EQX

0.9 DL ± 1.5 EQY

Dead load factor is taken as 1 load case details in ETABS.

19
In the present analysis default load combinations are used by the software according to
IS1893-2002.

20
 CHAPTER-IV
4.1 ETABS
Structural Design Software for Structural Analysis Professionals:

ETABS is the present day leading design software in the market. Many design company’s
use this software for their project design purpose. The innovative and revolutionary new
ETABS is the ultimate integrated software package for the structural analysis and design of
buildings. Incorporating 40 years of continuous research and development, this latest ETABS
offers unmatched 3D object based modeling and visualization tools, blazingly fast linear and
nonlinear analytical power, sophisticated and comprehensive design capabilities for a wide-
range of materials, and insightful graphic displays, reports, and schematic drawings that
allow users to quickly and easily decipher and understand analysis and design results.

From the start of design conception through the production of schematic drawings, ETABS
integrates every aspect of the engineering design process. Creation of models has never been
easier - intuitive drawing commands allow for the rapid generation of floor and elevation
framing. CAD drawings can be converted directly into ETABS models or used as templates
onto which ETABS objects may be overlaid. The state-of-the-art SAP Fire 64-bit solver
allows extremely large and complex models to be rapidly analyzed, and supports nonlinear
modeling techniques such as construction sequencing and time effects (e.g., creep and
shrinkage). Design of steel and concrete frames (with automated optimization), composite
beams, composite columns, steel joists, and concrete and masonry shear walls is included, as
is the capacity check for steel connections and base plates. Models may be realistically
rendered, and all results can be shown directly on the structure. Comprehensive and
customizable reports are available for all analysis and design output, and schematic
construction drawings of framing plans, schedules, details, and cross-sections may be
generated for concrete and steel structures.

ETABS is the structural engineer’s software choice for steel, concrete, timber, aluminum and
cold-formed steel structure design of low and high-rise buildings, culverts, petrochemical
plants, tunnels, bridges, piles, aquatic structures and much more.

Structural Software can Offer the following.

•State-of-the art 2D/3D graphical environment with standard MS Windows functionality.

21
•Full range of structural analysis including static, P-delta, pushover, response spectrum, time
history, cable (linear and non-linear), buckling and steel, concrete and timber design.

•Concurrent engineering-based user environment for model development, analysis, design,

visualization, and verification.

• Object-oriented intuitive 2D/3D CAD model generation.

•Supports truss and beam members, plates, solids, linear and non-linear cables, and
curvilinear beams.

• Advanced automatic load generation facilities for wind, area, floor, and moving loads.

• Customizable

• Structural templates for creating a model.

• Toggle display of loads, supports, properties, joints, members, etc.

• Isometric and perspective views with 3D shapes.

• Joint, member/element, mesh generation with flexible user-controlled numbering scheme.

• Rectangular and cylindrical coordinate systems with mix and match capabilities.

4.2 Advantages of ETABS structural analysis software:

We revolutionized the concurrent use of spreadsheets, a 3D CAD graphical modeler,

and a text-based input language editor. With over 40 step-by-step movie tutorials and
hundreds of examples and verification problems, even a novice user can become productive
in a matter of days.

ETABS is a solution for all types of structures and includes tools designed to aid specific
structural engineering tasks. For example, for the bridge engineer, ETABS.beava
incorporates a powerful influence surface generator to assist in locating vehicles for
maximum effects.

ETABS software is mainly made for modeling, analysis and design of buildings.

Various advantages in the ETABS are listed below.

1. Fundamental to ETABS modeling is the generalization that multi-story buildings typically

consist of identical or similar floor plans that repeat in the vertical direction.
2. ETABS has feature known as similar story. By which similar storeys can be edited
and modeled simultaneously. Due to which building is modeled very speedily.

22
 3. Basic or advanced systems under static or dynamic conditions may be evaluated using
ETABS
4. ETABS can perform various seismic coefficients, Response Spectrum, Static Non-
linear, Time History, Construction sequence and many more analysis with good
graphics
5. Once modeling is complete, ETABS automatically generates and assigns code-based
loading conditions for gravity, seismic, wind, and thermal forces. Users may specify
an unlimited number of load cases and combinations.
6. ETABS can do optimization of steel section.
7. ETABS has a facility to design composite beam and composite deck.

4.3 Procedure for modeling of building using ETABS:

1. Open ETABSv9.7.4 and select grid only.

2. Define storey data like storey height, storey number and spacing in x and y directions.
3. Define code preference from option menu.
4. Define material properties of concrete and steel from the define menu.
5. Define section properties from frame section in define menu for columns, beams etc.
6. Define slab section from define menu.
7. Give supports conditions
8. Create areas for slabs.
9. From define menu, define static load cases like dead load, live load, wind load in x
and y direction and earthquake loads in x and y directions according to the IS-Code
preferences.
10. Assign loads.
11. Draw shear wall at core/edges.
12. Specify structure auto line constraint.
13. Specify response spectrum analysis.
14. Select analysis option and run analysis.

Models:
1. G+14 storey building with edge shear wall

2. G+14 storey building with core shear wall

23
4.4 BUILDING DETAILS:

4.4.1 Geometric data:

Element – G+ 14 storey

Type of frame: OMRF (ordinary moment resisting frame)

Area of building - 36mX22.5m

Number of bays

In x-direction – 6

In y-direction – 5

Spacing between frames

In x-direction – 6m

In y-direction – 4.5m

Plinth height – 1.5m

Storey height – 3m

Total Height of building- 46.5m

4.4.2 Material data:

Concrete:

Grade – M25

Characteristic cube strength of concrete (fck) – 25 N/mm2

Density of concrete (γck) – 24 kN/m3

Poisson’s ratio – 0.3

Steel:

Steel – Fe500

24
Yield strength (fy) – 500 N/mm2

Density of steel (γfy) – 78.5 kN/m3

Poisson’s ratio – 0.2

Brick masonry

Density of brick masonry = 20 kN/m3

4.4.3 Earthquake Data:

Frame: Ordinary moment Resisting Frame

Locations: ZONE - III,

Importance Factor (I): 1

Damping: 5 percent

Type of Soil: Medium (Type 2)

Seismic zone factor (z)

ZONE - III – 0.16

4.4.4 Loading Data:

Wall load : 12kN/m

Live load : 2 kN/m

Wind load:

In x-direction (WLx) (according IS: 875-1987)

In y-direction (WLy) (according IS: 875-1987)

Earth quake loads:

In x-direction (EQx) (according IS1893-2002)

In y-direction (EQy) (according IS1893-2002)

Load combinations:

1.5 (DL + LL)

1.2 (DL + LL ± EQX)

25
 1.2 (DL + LL ± EQY)

1.5 (DL ± EQX)

1.5 (DL± EQY)

0.9 DL ± 1.5 EQX

0.9 DL ± 1.5 EQY

In the present analysis default load combinations are used.

4.4.5 Member sizes:

Size of Beam – 230mmX500mm

Size of Plinth beam - 230mmX300mm

Size of Column - 300mmX500mm

Depth of Slab - 125mm

Thickness of Shear wall - 230mm

Thickness of wall – 230mm

Clear cover for beams – 25mm

Clear cover for columns – 40mm

4.5 MODELLING AND BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAMS IN ETABS:

Core shear wall is provided at the central two bays of the building and edge shear wall is
provided at the four edges or corners of the building. The prepared models for core shear wall
building and edge shear wall buildings were shown below as 2D and 3D plans, undeformed
and deformed shapes and bending moments. Deformed shape sown below is under one
earthquake zone. The bending moments shown below are also in ZONE - V under worst load
combination 1.5(DL+WLx). This combination occurs as DCON27 in ETABS default load
combinations.

26
 PREPARED MODELS

Fig-4.1: General Plan View of G+14 Storey RCC Building with Edge Shear Wall

Fig-4.2: General Plan View of G+14 Storey RCC Building with Core Shear Wall

27
Fig - 4.3: Elevation View of G+14 Storey Fig-4.4: 3D Elevation View of G+14 Storey
RCC Building with Edge Shear Wall RCC Building with Edge Shear Wall

Fig-4.5: 3D View of G+14 Storey RCC Building with Edge Shear Wall

28
Fig - 4.6: Bending Moment of G+14 Storey Fig-4.7: Deformation of G+14 Storey RCC
RCC Building with Edge Shear Wall Building with Edge Shear Wall

29
Fig - 4.8: Elevation View of G+14 Storey Fig-4.9: 3D Elevation View of G+14 Storey
RCC Building with Core Shear Wall RCC Building with Core Shear Wall

Fig-4.10: 3D View of G+14 Storey RCC Building with Core Shear Wall

30
Fig-4.11: Bending Moment of G+14 Storey Fig-4.12: Deformation of G+14 Storey RCC
RCC Building with Core Shear Wall Building with Core Shear Wall

31
 Fig-4.13: Elevation View of G+14 Storey Fig-4.14: 3D Elevation View of G+14 Storey
Slopped RCC Building with Edge Shear Wall Slopped RCC Building with Edge Shear Wall

Fig-4.15: 3D View of G+ 14 Storeys Slopped RCC Building with Edge Shear Wall
32
Fig-4.16: Bending Moment of G+14 Storey Fig-4.17: Deformation of G+14 Storey Slopped

Slopped RCC Building with Edge Shear Wall RCC Building with Edge Shear Wall

33
 Fig-4.18: Elevation View of G+14 Storey Fig-4.19: 3D Elevation View of G+14 Storey
Sloped RCC Building with Core Shear Wall Slopped RCC Building with Core Shear Wall

Fig-4.20: 3D View of G+ 14 Storeys Slopped RCC Building with Core Shear Wall

34
Fig-4.21: Bending Moment of G+14 Storey Fig-4.22: Deformation of G+14 Storey Slopped
Slopped RCC Building with Core Shear RCC Building with Core Shear Wall
Wall

35
 CHAPTER – V
5.1 ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Seismic analysis is performed on the all models of the building, i.e. building with core
shear wall and building with edge shear walls. Response spectrum method is used for the
analysis in ETABS. The parameters like storey shear; storey displacement, storey drift and
lateral storey stiffness are calculated and compared in Earthquake zones III for edge and core
shear walls.

5.1.1 Analysis of Storey Shear:

The maximum storey shear force, displacement and storey drift values are computed from
ETABS for all storeys and tabulated. The maximum storey shears in all models are compared
and graphs are drawn, storey number to maximum storey shears in different earthquake
zones. All maximum storey shears are occurred in X-direction under worst load combination.

TABLE-5.1: Maximum Storey Shears (KN) in ESW and CSW for Plane Ground

Vx (kN)
STOREY
ESW CSW
BASE 0 0
STOREY 1 4149.4 4233.63
STOREY 2 4149.4 4233.63
STOREY 3 4146.02 4230.19
STOREY 4 4132.51 4216.42
STOREY 5 4102.11 4185.44
STOREY 6 4048.07 4130.36
STOREY 7 3963.62 4044.30
STOREY 8 3842.03 3920.37
STOREY 9 3676.52 3751.59
STOREY 10 3460.35 3531.37
STOREY 11 3186.75 3252.53
STOREY 12 2848.98 2908.29
STOREY 13 2440.28 2491.75
STOREY 14 1953.89 1996.04
STOREY 15 1383.06 1414.26
STOREY 16 721.03 739.54

36
TABLE-5.2: Maximum Storey Shears (KN) in ESW and CSW for Sloped Ground

ESW CSW
STOREY
VX VY VX VY
BASE 0 0 0 0
STOREY 1 26.26 107.18 142.07 35.83
STOREY 2 965.81 158.21 39.90 121.52
STOREY 3 1053.23 253.30 98.51 1822.72
STOREY 4 1124.06 381.68 1402.52 2023.06
STOREY 5 1142.90 516.84 4130.73 4381.30
STOREY 6 1194.95 683.71 4222.39 4417.43
STOREY 7 4739.40 4739.40 4318.66 4414.90
STOREY 8 4594.00 4594.00 4186.33 4255.48
STOREY 9 4396.10 4396.10 4006.20 4037.35
STOREY 10 4137.62 4137.62 3770.94 3770.94
STOREY 11 3810.48 3810.48 3473.18 3473.18
STOREY 12 3406.60 3406.60 3105.59 3105.59
STOREY 13 2917.90 2917.90 2660.79 2660.79
STOREY 14 2336.62 2336.62 2131.45 1996.04
STOREY 15 1653.76 1653.76 1510.20 1510.20
STOREY 16 862.16 862.16 789.71 789.71

Fig-5.1: Maximum Storey Shear for Plane Ground Building with ESW & CSW

37
 Fig-5.2: Maximum Storey Shear for Sloped Ground Building with ESW & CSW in X-
Direction.

Fig-5.3: Maximum Storey Shear for Sloped Ground Building with ESW & CSW in Y-
Direction.

From the above graphs one can conclude that the maximum storey shears are
increasing from top storey to bottom storey and storey shears are nearly equal in both the
models but more in building with core shear wall when compared to the building with edge
shear walls in all earthquake zones. The maximum storey shears are reduced in edge shear
wall model as 2.0993 in seismic zones-III respectively compared to core shear wall model.

38
But the reduced percentage from core shear wall to edge shear wall is only about 2%. So the
shear wall chosen must be based on storey consideration on the edge shear wall and core
shear wall building.

5.1.2 Analysis of Storey Drift:

Storey drift is the lateral displacement of the storey. It is the drift of one level of a
multistory building relative to the level of below storey. Storey and zone wise drifts are
shown below.
TABLE-5.3: Maximum Storey Drifts in ESW and CSW for Plane Ground

STOREY DRIFTS (M)

STOREY
ESW CSW
STOREY 1 0.000211 0.000199
STOREY 2 0.000317 0.000203
STOREY 3 0.000496 0.000242
STOREY 4 0.000664 0.000310
STOREY 5 0.000811 0.000372
STOREY 6 0.000933 0.000425
STOREY 7 0.001034 0.000470
STOREY 8 0.001115 0.000507
STOREY 9 0.001176 0.000536
STOREY 10 0.001219 0.000557
STOREY 11 0.001247 0.000571
STOREY 12 0.001261 0.000579
STOREY 13 0.001264 0.000580
STOREY 14 0.001261 0.000579
STOREY 15 0.001259 0.000577
STOREY 16 0.001276 0.000576

39
Fig-5.4: Maximum Storey Drift for Plane Ground Building with ESW & CSW

TABLE-5.4: Maximum Storey Drifts in ESW and CSW for Sloped Ground

ESW CSW
STOREY
Along-X Along-Y Along-X Along-Y
STOREY 1 0.000330 0.000150 0.000345 0.000190
STOREY 2 0.000295 0.000224 0.000569 0.000433
STOREY 3 0.000362 0.000340 0.000786 0.000608
STOREY 4 0.000555 0.000454 0.001015 0.000810
STOREY 5 0.000742 0.000603 0.001485 0.001098
STOREY 6 0.000882 0.000755 0.001799 0.001162
STOREY 7 0.001351 0.000910 0.002130 0.001260
STOREY 8 0.001048 0.001104 0.000598 0.001366
STOREY 9 0.001059 0.001265 0.000582 0.001406
STOREY 10 0.001093 0.001374 0.000614 0.001428
STOREY 11 0.001111 0.001440 0.000635 0.001426
STOREY 12 0.001131 0.001470 0.000648 0.001399
STOREY 13 0.001139 0.001472 0.000654 0.001351
STOREY 14 0.001137 0.001457 0.000655 0.001289
STOREY 15 0.001133 0.001436 0.000657 0.001221
STOREY 16 0.001145 0.001440 0.000652 0.001103

40
 Fig-5.5: Maximum Storey Drift for Sloped Building with ESW & CSW in X-Direction

Fig-5.6: Maximum Storey Drift for Sloped Building with ESW & CSW in Y-Direction

The maximum storey drift graphs are drawn and both the models are compared.
Storey drifts are maximum in building model with edge shear wall compared to core shear
wall in all seismic zones. Storey drifts are based storey strength. Drifts are higher if strength
is low. In Zone-III, the maximum storey drifts are reduced to 49.8% in core shear wall
building as compared to edge shear wall building.

In seismic zone under considered, the maximum storey drifts or maximum lateral
storey displacements are lower in the building model with core shear wall compared to the

41
maximum storey drifts in the building model with edge shear walls which are provided at the
four edges of the building.

So core shear wall is preferable in any earthquake zone to minimize the dynamic
effect on multistory building.

Building model with core shear wall and model with edge shear wall are compared separately
for earthquake zones -III.

Building models with edge shear walls and core shear walls are compared separately
in earthquake zone-III. for the storey drifts. Maximum storey drifts are increasing with the
zone number. All maximum storey drifts are occurred in X-direction under worst load
combination.

5.1.3 Analysis of Storey displacements:

Storey displacements are the vertical displacements of members, occurs due to dead
and live loads. These displacement values are same in seismic zone-III. because in this
analysis lateral forces are varying due to different earthquake zones and dead loads and live
loads are equal in all zones. Storey displacements are compared when edge and core shear
walls provided in multistory building.

Table-5.3: Maximum storey displacements in Plane Building with ESW and CSW

STOREY
STOREY DISPLACEMENTS (M)
ESW CSW
BASE 0 0
STOREY 1 0.0028 0.0027
STOREY 2 0.0082 0.008
STOREY 3 0.0133 0.0128
STOREY 4 0.0179 0.0173
STOREY 5 0.0222 0.0213
STOREY 6 0.0261 0.0251
STOREY 7 0.0296 0.0284
STOREY 8 0.0328 0.0314
STOREY 9 0.0356 0.0341
STOREY 10 0.0380 0.0364
STOREY 11 0.0401 0.0384
STOREY 12 0.0419 0.0400

42
 STOREY 13 0.0433 0.0413
STOREY 14 0.0443 0.0423
STOREY 15 0.0450 0.0430
STOREY 16 0.0454 0.0433

Table-5.4: Maximum storey displacements in Sloped Building with ESW and CSW

STOREY
DISPLACEMENTS
STOREY (M)
ESW CSW
BASE 0 0
STOREY 1 0.0016 0.002
STOREY 2 0.0052 0.0059
STOREY 3 0.0101 0.0099
STOREY 4 0.0147 0.0144
STOREY 5 0.0188 0.0184
STOREY 6 0.0227 0.0221
STOREY 7 0.0261 0.0255
STOREY 8 0.0292 0.0285
STOREY 9 0.0319 0.0311
STOREY 10 0.0343 0.0334
STOREY 11 0.0363 0.0354
STOREY 12 0.0380 0.0370
STOREY 13 0.0394 0.0384
STOREY 14 0.0404 0.0393
STOREY 15 0.0411 0.0400
STOREY 16 0.0414 0.0403

43
 Fig-5.7: Comparison for Maximum storey displacement in edge and core shear wall
plane building

Fig-5.8: Comparison for Maximum storey displacement in edge and core shear wall
for Sloped Building

Core shear wall shows the lower displacements than edge shear wall. The maximum vertical
displacements are reduced to 4.05% in core shear wall building than the edge shear wall
building under all earthquake zones. So core shear wall should be adopted in the building for
better dynamic performance.

44
 CHAPTER-VI
6.1 CONCLUSION:
1 The seismic analysis of building with core shear wall and building with edge shear

walls are done and compared at earthquake zones – III by using ETABSv9.7.4.

2 Core shear wall building model and Edge shear wall building model gives the nearly

equal storey shears in all storeys at all earthquake zones. So selection of shear wall is

mainly based on storey drift.

3 When shear walls are provided on the four edges of the building, maximum storey

drifts are increased compared to the shear walls provided at centre or core of the

building in all zones. So by providing core shear wall, effect of seismic forces can be

controlled.

4 Storey displacements are maximum in edge shear wall than core shear wall in the

building in all storeys under earthquake zones - III.

5 For better seismic performance of building, it should have adequate lateral storey

stiffness. If lateral storey displacements are high, stiffness will be low or vice-versa.

6 So to minimize the earth quake effects core shear wall must be provided because

storey drifts are very low compared to edge shear wall in earthquake zones - III.

6.2 Future Scope

In the present work limited analysis i.e., considering only some parameters like storey
shear, storey displacement, storey drift and storey stiffness is done by response spectrum
method in ETABS software. The study could be extended by including various other
parameters such as torsional effects and soft storey effects in a building. Some of the future
scopes are listed below.
 Dynamic nonlinear analysis by time history method.
 Nonlinear analysis by push over method.
 Parametric study of models by varying height of building, Number of bays of building
etc.

45
 Performance-based or capacity based design of structure.
 Continue to innovate new systems.
 FEM analysis to understand beam-column junction behavior under earthquake for
RCC, Steel and Composite building.

46
 REFERENCES

1. Pankaj Agarwal and Manish Shrinkhade “Earthquake resistant design of structures”,

PHI press, New delhi.
2. S.K Duggal “Earthquake resistant design of structures” Oxford university Press, New
Delhi.
3. Roy R. Craig, Andrew J. Kurdila “Fundamentals of Structural Dynamics”, 2nd
Edition
4. Anil K. Chopra “Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake
Engineering” Prentice Hall, 2012.
5. Shaik Kamal Mohammed Azam, Vinod Hosur, Seismic performance Evaluation of
Multistoried RC framed buildings with Shear wall,International Journal of Scientific
& Engineering Research Volume 4, Issue 1, January-2013.
6. Mayuri D. Bhagwat, Dr.P.S.Patil, “Comparative Study of Performance of Rcc
Multistory Building For Koyna and Bhuj Earthquakes”,International Journal of
Advanced Technology in Engineering and Science www.ijates.com Volume No.02,
Issue No. 07, July 2014 ISSN (online): 2348–7550.
7. Mohit Sharma, Dr. Savita Maru, “Dynamic Analysis of Multistoried Regular
Building” IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) e-ISSN:
2278-1684,p-ISSN: 2320-334X, Volume 11,Issue 1 Ver. II (Jan. 2014), PP 37-42,
www.iosrjournals.org
8. A S Patil and P D Kumbhar, “Time History Analysis of Multistoried Rcc Buildings
For Different Seismic Intensities“ ISSN 2319 –6009, www.ijscer.com, Vol.2, No.3,
August 2013 © 2013 IJSCER.
9. N Janardhan reddy, D Gose peera, “seismic analysis of multistorey building with
shear walls using ETABS” volume 4 issue ,November 2015, www.ijsr.net.
10. Deshmukh S.N. and Sabihuddin S. “Seismic Analysis of Multistorey Building Using
Composite Structure” Earthquake Analysis and Design of Structures, D-56-D-61.
11. ETABS – v9.7 – Integrated Building Design Software,manual, Computer and
Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California, USA, November 2005.
12. IS-875-1987. “Indian standard code of practice for structural safety loadings
standards” Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
13. IS 456: 2000, “Indian Standard Code of Practice of Plain and Reinforced concrete”,
BIS, New Delhi.

47
14. IS 1893: 2002, “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”, BIS, New
Delhi.
15. Jain S.K., “Review of Indian Seismic Code, IS 1893 ( Part-1), 2002 “ IITK-GSDMA-
EQ02-V1.0, pp 1-9.

48