International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research and Engineering (ijasre)

ISSN: 2454-8006 [Vol. 03, Issue 3, April -2017]

www.ijasre.net

“Comparative Study of Multi-Storey RC Building Having

Flat Slab with and without Shear Wall with Conventional
Frame Structure Subjected To Earthquake.”
Niharika .M. Keskar1, Dr.S.P.Raut2
Yeshwantrao Chavan College of Engineering,
Nagpur
India
ABSTRACT
In present era, there has been a considerable increase in the number of tall buildings. In construction industry a
conventional RC building were commonly adopted for constructing residential, commercial and office building till
recent. The use of flat slab system is very common in public buildings. The Structural efficiency of the flat slab
construction is poor under earthquake loadings. It has low stiffness. It can be improved their stiffness by adding a
supplemental lateral load resisting system in the form of shear wall. In the present work, a G+9 multistoried
commercial building having flat slab with and without shear wall and has been analyzed. Comparative study of
these structures are analyzed on the parameters like base period, base shear, storey drift and storey displacements.
As compared to the conventional frame structure model and flat slab with shear wall model behavior is better than
flat slab without shear wall model.
Keyword: Flat slab, Shear Wall, Base Period, Storey Drift, Storey Displacement, Storey Shear.

I. INTRODUCTION
India at present is fast growing country in economy this brings demands in increasing of infrastructure facilities
along with the growth of population. In this modern industrial era we can see huge construction activities taking
place everywhere, we may face a shortage of land. So construction of tall structures is only solution to overcome
this problem. Reinforced concrete has been used for building construction since the middle of the 19th century,
initially for some parts of buildings, and then for the entire building structure.

Conventional columns, beams and slab Framed Structure System has been used since many years, in most
vulnerable parts of world and these structures has proven themselves as earthquake resistant structures.

In conventional framed structure the brick/block walls are not designed to carry any load except self-load.
They are considered as panel walls to provide enclosure. But when it comes to earthquake forces these walls
although not designed to carry earthquake shear act as energy dissipating devices and transfer the earthquake load
upto some extent to column beam slab system. These walls if constructed in Reinforced concrete and designed to
carry gravity as well as earthquake forces, are known as Shear Walls. These Walls are placed at suitable locations
and can be used to improve efficiency of flat slab with columns structure in earthquake zones.

16
Journal Impact Factor (JIF): 2.712 www.ijasre.net
Niharika .M. Keskar et al., Comparative Study of Multi-Storey RC Building Having Flat Slab with and .....

Subhajit Sen et al. [1] studied the performance of flat slab buildings designed as per existing code guidelines under
earthquake loading for five and a ten storied buildings with identical plans. These buildings have been designed as
per guidelines of

Indian code, ACI code, Euro code and New Zealand code.Fromresults it is observed that the ultimate drift capacity
of all the flat slab buildings, is slightly lower than the corresponding drift limits.

Xiaomeng Zhang et al. [2]proposed an innovative structural wall, named bundled lipped channel concrete
composite wall. The wall consists of bundled lipped channels seam welded together and in-filled concrete. The
specimens failed in the sequence of local buckling of the steel sheet, and the propagation of the fractures at the
boundary of the wall. The presence of shear studs prevent the steel sheets from local buckling and allows the steel
and concrete to act compositely and thus, increased the yield strength and delayed the occurrence of fracture and
failure.

Amadeo Benavent-Climent etal.[3]studied the effective width of reinforced concrete flat slab structures subjected
to seismic loading on the basis of dynamic shaking table tests. The study focuses on the effective slab width
method, which in contrast to the torsional member method, can be easily used with conventional frame analysis
software. From the results it is found that the effective width tends to increase withincreasing values of the peak
acceleration applied to the structure. This increase is limited or even slowed down by the loss of adherencebetween
the reinforcing steel and the surrounding concreteinduced by the strain reversals caused by cyclic loading.

Ahmad J. Durrani et al. [3]used four different models in the finite-element based dynamic and static analyses. The
system identification results on natural frequencies, mode shapes, and inter storey drifts are used to validate the
four analytical models. The dynamic analysis and system identification results indicate that the shear wall kept the
drift level at the central core within the code limit. This seems to be typical of a flat-slab building with a central
core of shear walls. The direct comparison of displacement and drift obtained from Static analysis according to
code specification to those of the dynamic analysis and system identification may not be very meaningful, it is
noted that the static results are much smaller than the other two results. The base shear calculated from the dynamic
analysis is close to that of the static procedure in the NS direction but is twice as much in the EW direction.

S. Greeshma et al.[4]the study is carried out on floor slab and shear wall together which acts as a rigid jointed
frame structure in resisting gravity loads and lateral forces caused by wind and earthquake. The behavior of the
connection can influence the pattern and distribution of lateral forces among the vertical elements of the structure.
The adequate transverse reinforcement, slab shear reinforcement, and proper detailing will provide better ductility,
stiffness, and strength to the structural elements of the buildings. The performance of exterior shear wall diaphragm
joints with nonconventional reinforcement detailing was examined experimentally and analytically.It is observed
that theexperimental ultimate strength for Shear reinforcement in slabs is 28.13%higher than that of Conventional
slab system, whereas the variation is19.2% in analytical results.

H.S.Kim et al. [5]proposedan efficient method for a three dimensional analysis of a high rise building structure
with shear walls.Three-dimensional super elements for walls and floor slabs were developed and a substructure
was formed by assembling the super elements to reduce the time required for the modelling and analysis. They

17
Journal Impact Factor (JIF): 2.712 www.ijasre.net
 International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research and Engineering (ijasre)
ISSN: 2454-8006 [Vol. 03, Issue 3, April -2017]
www.ijasre.net

concluded that the proposed method is very useful for an efficient and accurate analysis of high-rise building
structures with significantly reduced computational time and memory.

II. METHODOLOGY

Comparative study of with and without shear wall with conventional frame structure was carried out. In this study,
three models were analyzed,

Model 1 : Building was modelled as conventional framed structure as shown in (Fig.1) having slab thickness of
150mm, beams of 230X750mm and columns sizes of 300x900mm, 300X750mm, 300X600mm and 300X450mm
respectively.

Model 2 : Building was modelled as flat slab structure as shown in (Fig.2) having slab thickness of 200mm, plan
dimension of drop as 2200X2200mm having thickness of 300mm and column sizes of 900x900mm, 750X750mm,
600X600mm and 450X450mm respectively.

Model 3 : Building was modelled as flat slab with shear wall structure as shown in (Fig.3) having slab thickness of
200mm, column size having 450X600mm and shear wall having thickness of 200mm respectively.

The analysis has been done using commercial software. The material properties like Grade of Concrete, Steel,
Density and Modulus of elasticity are defined initially. Various loads like dead load,live load, wind load, super
dead load and seismic loads are defined and the following properties has been assigned,

Grade of concrete: M30

Grade of steel: Fe500

Modulus of Elasticity: 2x105 N/mm2

Live loads: 2.5 kN/m2

Floor finish: 1.5 kN/m2

Table 1. Structure Plan Details

Number of stories G+9
Height of each storey 3.6m

Table 2: Earthquake load data

Seismic Zone` II
Zone factor Z 0.1
Importance factor I 1
Response reduction factor 5
Type of soil Medium

18
Journal Impact Factor (JIF): 2.712 www.ijasre.net
Niharika .M. Keskar et al., Comparative Study of Multi-Storey RC Building Having Flat Slab with and .....

Fig 1.Plan of model 1

Fig. 2 .Plan of model 2

19
Journal Impact Factor (JIF): 2.712 www.ijasre.net
 International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research and Engineering (ijasre)
ISSN: 2454-8006 [Vol. 03, Issue 3, April -2017]
www.ijasre.net

Fig 3.Plan of model 3

The analysis of the following three models has been done as per IS 456-2000 [6] and IS 1893-2002 [7]. The
following flow chart shows the steps involved in the analysis of models by ETABS.

Defining The Member

Defining Dimension
And Material
Of The Plan
Properties

Run Check Model To Assigning Loads And

Find Errors Load Combination

Run Analysis And

Extract Results

Fig 4.Flow Chart of Steps involved in Etabs

20
Journal Impact Factor (JIF): 2.712 www.ijasre.net
Niharika .M. Keskar et al., Comparative Study of Multi-Storey RC Building Having Flat Slab with and .....

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The study examines the performance of multi-storey buildings having different types of slabs with and without
shear walls. As it is discussed earlier that use of flat slabs makes the structure flexible under seismic loading,
therefore, in present work beam slab arrangement is replaced by flat slabs and behavior of buildings is studied with
and without shear walls.
To study the effectiveness of all these models, the time period, storey shear, storey drift, lateral
displacement are worked out and are presented.

TIME PERIOD
1.57
1.60 1.54
1.55 1.48
1.47
1.50
Time in Sec

1.45
1.37
1.40
1.317
1.35
1.30
1.25
1.20
1.15
MODEL-1 MODEL-2 MODEL-3
Model Number
X-DIRECTION Y-DIRECTION

Fig 5. Time period (sec) VS Types of Models

In (Fig.5) model 1 time period in x-direction decreases but increases in y-direction.The time period in x-direction
in model 2 increases due to the provision of square shaped drops instead of beams and the time period in y-
direction decreases due to the rectangular plan area. In model 3 the time period in x and y direction comes same by
provision of shear walls in both directions.

STOREY SHEAR
40
35
Storey Height in m

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00

MODEL 1 Storey Shear in

MODEL 2 kN MODEL 3

Fig 6. Storey Shear (kN) VS Storey Height (m)

21
Journal Impact Factor (JIF): 2.712 www.ijasre.net
 International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research and Engineering (ijasre)
ISSN: 2454-8006 [Vol. 03, Issue 3, April -2017]
www.ijasre.net

In (Fig.6) model 1 storey shearincreasesat the top floor.The storey shear in model 2 increases due to the elimination
of beams as the weight of building increases. In model 3 the storey shear is decreased by provision of shear walls
in both directions.In model 2 storey shear is 38% more than model 1 and in model 3 it is 6% less than model 1 &
38% less than model 2.

DISPLACEMENT
40
35
Storey Height in m

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00
Displacement in mm
MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3

Fig 7. Storey Displacement (mm) VS Storey Height (m)

In (Fig.7) model 1 storey displacement at the top floor is maximum.The storey displacement in model 2 increases
as the stiffness in that model is decreased by elimination of beams. In model 3 the storey displacement is decreased
by provision of shear walls in both directions.In model 2 storey displacement is 49% more than model 1 and in
model 3 it is 1.3% less than model 1 and 49% less than model 2.

DRIFT
40
35
Storey Height in m

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007
Drift

Model 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3

Fig 8. Storey Drift VS Storey Height (m)

22
Journal Impact Factor (JIF): 2.712 www.ijasre.net
Niharika .M. Keskar et al., Comparative Study of Multi-Storey RC Building Having Flat Slab with and .....

In (Fig.8) model 1 storey drift at the first floor is maximum due to the soft storey effect.The storey drift in model 2
increases as the stiffness in that model is decreased by elimination of beams and due to open ground storey at first
floor. In model 3 the storeydrift is decreased by provision of shear walls in both directions.In model 2 storey drift is
53% more than model 1 and in model 3 it is same in case of model 1 but it is 40% less than model 2.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

From the study and comparisons of results above Flat slab with column and drop structure, Flat slab with column
and shear wall structure and Conventional Framed structure subjected to earthquake loading are concluded below.

1. Fundamental natural period of flat slab with shear wall structure is less than flat slab with drop column
structure and conventional structure because we have provided shear walls in such a way that the time period
along x and y direction are made nearly same.
2. Storey shear in flat slab with shear wall structure is much less than flat slab with columns and drop structure
and is also less than conventional structure, as the stiffness in x and y direction come to almost same by
providing shear walls at corner and centers.
3. Storey displacement in flat slab with shear wall structure is much lesser than flat slab with column structure
and almost same as conventional frame structure because of use of shear walls in place of some columns.
4. Storey drift in flat slab with shear wall structure is much lesser than flat slab with columns structures and same
as conventional structure.
5. The displacements and drift of all models are within permissible limit as per IS: 1893:2002.

V. REFERENCES

[1] Subhajit Sen and Yogendra Singh, “Seismic Performance of Flat Slab Buildings", Advances in Structural
Engineering, Vol.No.2, (2015), PP. 897-907.

[2] Amadeo Benavent-Climent, Diego Zamora Sanchez, Jose Francisco Gil-Villaverde, “Experimental Study on
the Effective Width of Flat Slab Structures under Dynamic Seismic Loading", Engineering Structures Vol.No. 40
(2012), PP.361–370.

[3] Ahmad J. Durrani S. T. Mau, Amr Ahmed AbouHashish and Yi Li “Earthquake Response Of Flat-slab
Buildings”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 3, March, 1994 Paper No. 5149.

[4] S. Greeshma And K. P. Jaya, “Effect Of Slab Shear Reinforcement On The Performance Of The Shear Wall–
floor Slab Connection”, Journal Of Performance Of Constructed Facilities Asce / July/August 2013 / 391 .

[5] H.S. Kim, D.G. Lee, "Efficient Analysis of Flat Slab Structures Subjected To Lateral Loads", Engineering
Structures 27 (2005), PP. 251–263.

[6] IS456:2000 – Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice (Fourth Revision),Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi, July 2000
[7] IS 1893 (PART 1):2002 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures,Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi, June 2002.
23
Journal Impact Factor (JIF): 2.712 www.ijasre.net