A Comprehensive Study on the Effect of Regular and Staggered Openings on the Seismic Performance of Shear Walls.pdf

Citation: Saeed, A.; Najm, H.M.;
Hassan, A.; Qaidi, S.; Sabri, M.M.S.;
Mashaan, N.S. A Comprehensive
Study on the Effect of Regular and
Staggered Openings on the Seismic
Performance of Shear Walls. Buildings
2022, 12, 1293. https://doi.org/
10.3390/buildings12091293
Academic Editor: Arslan Akbar
Received: 20 July 2022
Accepted: 17 August 2022
Published: 23 August 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
buildings
Article
A Comprehensive Study on the Effect of Regular and Staggered
Openings on the Seismic Performance of Shear Walls
Ahmed Saeed 1,* , Hadee Mohammed Najm 2,* , Amer Hassan 2 , Shaker Qaidi 3 ,
Mohanad Muayad Sabri Sabri 4 and Nuha S. Mashaan 5
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Zakir Husain Engineering College, Aligarh Muslim University,
Aligarh 202002, India
3 Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Duhok,
Duhok 42001, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
4 Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, 195251 St. Petersburg, Russia
5 Faculty of Science and Engineering, School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University,
Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
* Correspondence: alanessy2015@gmail.com (A.S.); gk4071@myamu.ac.in (H.M.N.)
Abstract: Shear walls have high strength and stiffness, which could be used at the same time to
resist large horizontal loads and weight loads, making them pretty beneficial in several structural
engineering applications. The shear walls could be included with openings, such as doors and
windows, for relevant functional requirements. In the current study, a building of G + 13 stories
with RC shear walls with and without openings has been investigated using ETABS Software. The
seismic analysis is carried out for the determination of parameters like shear forces, drift, base shear,
and story displacement for numerous models. The regular and staggered openings of the shear wall
have been considered variables in the models. The dynamic analysis is carried out with the help
of ETABS software. It has been observed that shear walls without openings models perform better
than other models, and this is in agreement with the previous studies published in this area. This
investigation also shows that the seismic behaviour of the shear wall with regular openings provides
a close result to the shear wall with staggered openings. At the roof, the displacement of the model
with regular openings was 38.99 mm and approximately 39.163 mm for the model with staggered
openings. However, the model without a shear wall experienced a displacement of about 56 mm at
the roof. Generally, it can be concluded that the openings have a substantial effect on the seismic
behaviour of the shear wall, and that should be taken into consideration during the construction
design. However, the type of opening (regular or staggered) has a slight effect on the behaviour of
shear walls.
Keywords: seismic behaviour; opening shear wall; story drift; displacement; base shear
1. Introduction
Reinforced concrete (RC) buildings considerably resist horizontal and vertical loading.
Wind and seismic loads are the most common loads that shear walls are designed to carry [1].
The shear walls are the best and simplest method to sustain these lateral forces as they
provide the required strength against seismic forces [2–4]. Shear walls are the components
in the external form of a box that provide lateral support to the building. The shear wall
provides strength and stiffness to the building in the lateral direction [5–8]. Since shear
walls carry massive lateral forces, the overturn effects on them are significantly important
and must be considered in the structural design. Shear walls in buildings are preferred
to be symmetrical in order to mitigate the negative effects of twists [9–11]. They might be
placed symmetrically along with one or both directions in the plan. Shear walls are more
effective when provided on the exterior perimeter of the building; therefore, this layout
Buildings 2022, 12, 1293. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12091293 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 2 of 21
will increase the resistance of the structure against twisting [12]. The shear walls behaviour
depends upon the material used, wall length, wall thickness, wall position, and building
frame. RC shear walls are used in the design of multi-story buildings located in seismically
vulnerable areas because of their rigidity, bearing capacity, and high ductility [13–15].
Obviously, an opening in a shear wall positioned along with in-plane loading is more
critical than an opening in a shear wall located along without-of-plane loading because
there is a considerable change in displacement noticed after having an opening in a shear
wall positioned along with in-plane loading [16].
Shear walls are considered an essential element in the construction of buildings be-
cause of their capacity to resist lateral loads such as earthquakes and wind loads. Therefore,
research studies have been carried out to understand the structural behaviour of shear
walls under different load cases and conditions. Zhang and Wang [17] investigated the
seismic performance of prefabricated reinforced masonry shear walls with vertical joint
connections, while Dang-Vu et al. [18] studied the seismic fragility assessment of columns
in a piloti-type building retrofitted with additional shear walls. Coccia et al. [19] reported
the behaviour of masonry walls retrofitted with vertical FRP rebars, and their study showed
that the conventional seismic retrofitting techniques on masonry walls influence the seis-
mic performance of the element, which is typically modified in an out-of-plane bending
behaviour. Further, the study of Jeon et al. [20] investigated the seismic fragility of ordinary
reinforced concrete shear walls with coupling beams, and their study showed that high-rise
ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls designed using seven pairs of ground motion
components and a shear force amplification factor ≥ 1.2 were adequate to satisfy the criteria
on collapse probability and the collapse margin ratio prescribed in FEMA P695.
Reinforced concrete structures with L-shaped walls provide numerous benefits for
architects that permit them to design architectures with larger open areas and a lot of
versatility [21–23]. However, a lot of experimental tests and numerical models should be
done for L-shaped shear walls to ensure compliance with the safety provisions obligatory
by the various code standards. What is more, given the necessities of deformability and
resistance, L-shaped concrete shear walls are used in multi-story buildings because they
possess a high capability of resisting lateral loads and may expend an excellent amount
of seismic energy if they are properly designed [24–27]. Openings in shear walls may
be required because of municipality or remodeling considerations, similar to elevators,
windows, doors, and the placement of staircases [28]. Providing openings in the shear
walls decreases the total structural capacity and integrity of the wall, in addition to stress
condensation around the openings [27].
The main aim of this study is as follows: to understand the behaviour of staggered
and regular openings and to analyze the effectiveness of staggered openings to seismic
load when different loads are used.
2. Model Description
A 14-story RC structure with shear wall elements and the 14 stories were selected in
the model to minimize the analysis time in the software, and the behaviour of shear walls
with the openings was the aim of this study and not the effect of the building’s length,
shape “L” of RC shear wall without opening, with a vertical and staggered opening in
Seismic Zone V, has been considered in this study. Tables 1–3 illustrate the model data,
applied loads on the structure, and seismic input data. The plan and geometry of the
models are shown in Figures 1–4. Compared to the area of the wall in that story, the shear
wall has a 5% opening.

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 3 of 21
Table 1. Models data.
Number of Stories 14
Column Size (600 × 600) mm
Beam Size (300 × 600) mm
Slab Depth 150 mm
Shear Wall Thickness 300 mm
Size of opening (2 × 1.5) m
Story Height 3.5 m
Support Fixed
Concrete Grade M25
Steel Grade Fe 500
Table 2. Loads.
Unit Weight of Concrete 25 kN/m3
Dead load 3.75 kN/m2
Live load 3 kN/m2
Beam Load 11 kN/m
Table 3. Seismic data.
Seismic Zone V
Zone factor (Z) 0.36
Soil Type Medium
Damping Ratio 5%
Response Reduction factor (R) 5
Importance factor (I) 1
ildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Figure 1. The geometry of the structure and the 3D of the structure without shear wal
Figure 1. The geometry of the structure and the 3D of the structure without shear walls.

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 4 of 21
Figure 2. The geometry of the structure and 3D structure shear wall without opening.
Figure 3. The geometry of the structure and 3D structure shear walls with vertical opening
Figure 3. The geometry of the structure and 3D structure shear walls with vertical openings.
Figure 3. The geometry of the structure and 3D structure shear walls with vertical openings.
Response spectrum function and time history function (El Centro 1940) have been
used in this study for seismic analysis. A response spectrum is a plot of the maximum
response amplitude (displacement, velocity or acceleration) versus time period of many
linear single degree of freedom oscillators to a give component of ground motion as shown
in Figure 5. The resulting plot can be used to choose the response of any linear SDOF
oscillator, given its natural time period of oscillation. One such use is in evaluating the peak
response of structures to ground motions. The first data listed from an earthquake record
are usually the peak ground acceleration (PGA), which expresses the tip of the maximum
spike of the acceleration ground motion.

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 5 of 21
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4
Figure 4. The geometry of the structure and 3D structure shear walls with staggered opening
Response spectrum function and time history function (El Centro 1940) have
used in this study for seismic analysis. A response spectrum is a plot of the maxi
response amplitude (displacement, velocity or acceleration) versus time period of
linear single degree of freedom oscillators to a give component of ground moti
shown in Figure 5. The resulting plot can be used to choose the response of any
SDOF oscillator, given its natural time period of oscillation. One such use is in evalu
the peak response of structures to ground motions. The first data listed from an e
quake record are usually the peak ground acceleration (PGA), which expresses the
the maximum spike of the acceleration ground motion.
Figure 5. Response spectrum function definition.
ETABS Software handles the initial conditions of a time function differently for
and nonlinear time-history load cases. Linear cases always start from zero, thus the
Figure 4. The geometry of the structure and 3D structure shear walls with staggered openings.
Figure 4. The geometry of the structure and 3D structure shear walls with staggered openings.
Response spectrum function and time history function (El Centro 1940) have been
used in this study for seismic analysis. A response spectrum is a plot of the maximum
response amplitude (displacement, velocity or acceleration) versus time period of man
linear single degree of freedom oscillators to a give component of ground motion a
shown in Figure 5. The resulting plot can be used to choose the response of any linea
SDOF oscillator, given its natural time period of oscillation. One such use is in evaluatin
the peak response of structures to ground motions. The first data listed from an earth
quake record are usually the peak ground acceleration (PGA), which expresses the tip o
the maximum spike of the acceleration ground motion.
ETABS Software handles the initial conditions of a time function differently for linea
and nonlinear time-history load cases. Linear cases always start from zero, thus the corre
sponding time function must also start from zero and nonlinear cases may either star
from zero or may continue from a previous case. When starting from zero, the time func
tion is simply defined to start with a zero value. When analysis continues from a previou
case, it is supposed that the time function also continues relative to its starting value. A
long record may be broken into multiple sequential analyses which use a single function
ETABS Software handles the initial conditions of a time function differently for linear
and nonlinear time-history load cases. Linear cases always start from zero, thus the
corresponding time function must also start from zero and nonlinear cases may either start
from zero or may continue from a previous case. When starting from zero, the time function
is simply defined to start with a zero value. When analysis continues from a previous
case, it is supposed that the time function also continues relative to its starting value. A
long record may be broken into multiple sequential analyses which use a single function
with arrival times. This prevents the need to create multiple modified functions. The time
history function used in this study is shown in Figure 6.

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 6 of 21
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 2
with arrival times. This prevents the need to create multiple modified functions. The tim
history function used in this study is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Time history function definition.
This study was conducted on a regular plan structure with shear walls containing
vertical and staggered openings. The buildings are modelled with a floor area of 690 m
(30 m × 23 m) with 7 bays along a 30 m span and 5 bays along a 23 m span.
Table 1. Models data.
Number of Stories 14
Column Size ˑ (600 × 600) mm
Beam Size ˑ (300 × 600) mm
Slab Depth ˑ 150 mm
Shear Wall Thickness ˑ 300 mm
Size of opening ˑ (2 × 1.5) m
Story Height 3.5 m
Support Fixed
Concrete Grade ˑ M25
Steel Grade ˑ Fe 500
Table 2. Loads.
Unit Weight of Concrete 25 kN/m3
Dead load 3.75 kN/m2
Live load 3 kN/m2
Beam Load 11 kN/m
Figure 6. Time history function definition.
This study was conducted on a regular plan structure with shear walls containing
vertical and staggered openings. The buildings are modelled with a floor area of 690 m2
(30 m × 23 m) with 7 bays along a 30 m span and 5 bays along a 23 m span.
3. Modeling and Analysis
Four models have been considered in this study. The first model contains a building
without shear walls (Figure 1); the second model characterizes a building with shear
walls without openings (Figure 2); the third model includes shear walls with vertical
openings (Figure 3). However, the fourth model includes shear walls with staggered
openings (Figure 4).
4. Results & Discussion
4.1. Story Displacement
Tables 4 and 5 and Figures 7 and 8 demonstrate the maximum displacement in the
case of equivalent static analysis (ESA) (EX&EY). On the top floor, the results show that the
building without shear walls produced about 53.089 mm when compared to the building
with shear walls produced 37.212 mm, i.e., a 30% reduction in the X-direction. It is observed
that the story displacement of the vertical opening at the roof is approximately 38.032 mm
and 38.173 mm for staggered openings, respectively.
Similarly, in the Y-direction, on the top floor, the results show that the building without
shear walls produced 56 mm, while the building with shear walls produced 38.125 mm, a
32% difference. The displacement story of the vertical opening at the roof was also discovered
to be 38.99 mm for staggered openings and 39.136 mm for unstaggered openings. The story
displacement in the case of response spectrum analysis (RSA) is shown in Tables 6 and 7 and
Figures 9 and 10. Results show that the building without shear walls produced about 42.006 mm
while the building with shear walls produced 28.938 mm, i.e., a 31% decline in the X-direction
and a 33% decline in the Y-direction. The displacement story of the vertical opening at the roof is
29.283 mm for staggered openings in the X-direction and 29.434 mm for vertical and staggered
openings in the Y-direction, respectively. Tables 8 and 9 and Figures 11 and 12 demonstrate
the story displacement in the case of time history analysis (THA). The results appear to show

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 7 of 21
that the building without shear walls produced 45.727 mm, while the building with shear
walls produced about 34.72 mm, i.e., a 24% reduction. In the X-direction, the displacement
story of the vertical opening at the roof is 28.74 mm for staggered openings and 28.7 mm for
unstaggered openings, 32.809 mm and 32.34 mm for vertical and staggered openings in the
Y-direction respectively.
Table 4. Comparison of the story displacements, ESA and X-direction (mm).
Story without Shear Walls Shear Walls without Openings Vertical Openings Staggered Openings
Story 14 53.089 37.212 38.032 38.173
Story 13 51.742 34.488 35.436 35.552
Story 12 49.685 31.614 32.628 32.724
Story 11 46.954 28.609 29.658 29.739
Story 10 43.649 25.48 26.538 26.603
Story 9 39.87 22.259 23.3 23.348
Story 8 35.715 18.987 19.991 20.022
Story 7 31.27 15.723 16.668 16.679
Story 6 26.614 12.532 13.398 13.392
Story 5 21.817 9.489 10.258 10.232
Story 4 16.941 6.681 7.332 7.294
Story 3 12.046 4.205 4.717 4.672
Story 2 7.216 2.171 2.523 2.488
Story 1 2.725 0.707 0.876 0.865
Table 5. Comparison of the story displacements, ESA, and X-direction (mm).
Story 14 56.000 38.125 38.99 39.163
Story 13 54.475 35.291 36.281 36.423
Story 12 52.221 32.311 33.364 33.482
Story 11 49.275 29.203 30.287 30.389
Story 10 45.738 25.977 27.065 27.146
Story 9 41.715 22.663 23.731 23.796
Story 8 37.307 19.307 20.332 20.373
Story 7 32.606 15.965 16.927 16.952
Story 6 27.695 12.705 13.585 13.583
Story 5 22.648 9.604 10.382 10.366
Story 4 17.532 6.749 7.405 7.37
Story 3 12.411 4.237 4.752 4.716
Story 2 7.381 2.181 2.534 2.498
Story 1 2.749 0.707 0.875 0.873
The results show that buildings without shear walls have higher story displacement
in comparison with other models. The shear wall with staggered openings experiences a
higher displacement than vertical openings and shear walls without openings. A shear wall
without openings reveals improved performance compared to shear walls with vertical
and staggered openings. The same findings have been found in the published literature by
Marius [29]. Overall, it can be concluded that the presences of shear walls in the buildings
significantly improve the seismic response of the buildings regardless of the openings in
that shear wall.

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 8 of 21
Story 6 27.695 12.705 13.585 13.583
Story 5 22.648 9.604 10.382 10.366
Story 4 17.532 6.749 7.405 7.37
Story 3 12.411 4.237 4.752 4.716
Story 2 7.381 2.181 2.534 2.498
Story 1 2.749 0.707 0.875 0.873
Figure 7. Story displacements, ESA in X-direction.
Figure 8. Story displacements, ESA in the Y-direction.
Similarly, in the Y-direction, on the top floor, the results show that the building with-
out shear walls produced 56 mm, while the building with shear walls produced 38.125
mm, a 32% difference. The displacement story of the vertical opening at the roof was also
discovered to be 38.99 mm for staggered openings and 39.136 mm for unstaggered open-
ings. The story displacement in the case of response spectrum analysis (RSA) is shown in
Tables 6 and 7 and Figures 9 and 10. Results show that the building without shear walls
produced about 42.006 mm while the building with shear walls produced 28.938 mm, i.e.,
a 31% decline in the X-direction and a 33% decline in the Y-direction. The displacement
story of the vertical opening at the roof is 29.283 mm for staggered openings in the X-
direction and 29.434 mm for vertical and staggered openings in the Y-direction, respec-
tively. Tables 8 and 9 and Figures 11 and 12 demonstrate the story displacement in the
Story 7 32.606 15.965 16.927 16.952
Story 6 27.695 12.705 13.585 13.583
Story 5 22.648 9.604 10.382 10.366
Story 4 17.532 6.749 7.405 7.37
Story 3 12.411 4.237 4.752 4.716
Story 2 7.381 2.181 2.534 2.498
Story 1 2.749 0.707 0.875 0.873
Similarly, in the Y-direction, on the top floor, the results show that the building with-
out shear walls produced 56 mm, while the building with shear walls produced 38.125
mm, a 32% difference. The displacement story of the vertical opening at the roof was also
discovered to be 38.99 mm for staggered openings and 39.136 mm for unstaggered open-
ings. The story displacement in the case of response spectrum analysis (RSA) is shown in
Tables 6 and 7 and Figures 9 and 10. Results show that the building without shear walls
produced about 42.006 mm while the building with shear walls produced 28.938 mm, i.e.,
a 31% decline in the X-direction and a 33% decline in the Y-direction. The displacement
story of the vertical opening at the roof is 29.283 mm for staggered openings in the X-
direction and 29.434 mm for vertical and staggered openings in the Y-direction, respec-
tively. Tables 8 and 9 and Figures 11 and 12 demonstrate the story displacement in the
Table 6. Comparison of the story displacements, response spectrum, and X-direction (mm).
Story 14 42.006 28.938 29.283 29.434
Story 13 41.105 26.869 27.339 27.468
Story 12 39.745 24.699 25.251 25.361
Story 11 37.935 22.439 23.057 23.15
Story 10 35.724 20.092 20.759 20.836
Story 9 33.152 17.673 18.373 18.433
Story 8 30.252 15.206 15.924 15.964
Story 7 27.047 12.722 13.441 13.459
Story 6 23.555 10.262 10.961 10.959
Story 5 19.788 7.878 8.533 8.509
Story 4 15.758 5.634 6.216 6.178
Story 3 11.482 3.61 4.087 4.041
Story 2 7.025 1.905 2.244 2.207
Story 1 2.694 0.641 0.807 0.793

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 9 of 21
Table 7. Comparison of the story displacements, response spectrum, and Y-direction (mm).
Story 14 43.769 29.29 29.845 30.009
Story 13 42.743 27.159 27.822 27.96
Story 12 41.252 24.931 25.659 25.776
Story 11 39.305 22.619 23.393 23.493
Story 10 36.951 20.224 21.028 21.11
Story 9 34.23 17.764 18.583 18.648
Story 8 31.179 15.262 16.08 16.122
Story 7 27.822 12.75 13.551 13.574
Story 6 24.178 10.27 11.032 11.03
Story 5 20.264 7.872 8.572 8.554
Story 4 16.093 5.62 6.232 6.194
Story 3 11.681 3.593 4.088 4.049
Story 2 7.101 1.891 2.238 2.2
Story 1 2.688 0.634 0.801 0.796
Figure 9. Story displacement of the models, response spectrum analysis in the X-direction.
Figure 10. Story displacement of the models, response spectrum analysis, Y-direction.
Table 8. Comparison of the story displacements, time history, and X-direction (mm).
Story 14 45.727 34.74 28.749 28.662
Story 13 44.907 32.402 26.854 26.753
Story 12 43.659 29.935 24.805 24.699
Story 11 41.941 27.329 22.651 22.546
Story 14 45.727 34.74 28.749 28.662
Story 13 44.907 32.402 26.854 26.753
Story 12 43.659 29.935 24.805 24.699
Story 11 41.941 27.329 22.651 22.546

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 10 of 21
Story 14 45.727 34.74 28.749 28.662
Story 13 44.907 32.402 26.854 26.753
Story 12 43.659 29.935 24.805 24.699
Story 11 41.941 27.329 22.651 22.546
Story 10 39.98 24.57 20.405 20.303
Story 9 37.979 21.667 18.09 18
Story 8 35.546 18.652 15.727 15.644
Story 7 32.594 15.577 13.337 13.266
Story 6 29.044 12.511 10.942 10.87
Story 5 24.855 9.54 8.575 8.51
Story 4 20.043 6.759 6.289 6.214
Story 3 14.698 4.28 4.159 4.096
Story 2 9.009 2.224 2.292 2.23
Story 1 3.454 0.736 0.824 0.807
Table 9. Comparison of the story displacements, time history, and Y-direction (mm).
Story 14 46.471 32.91 32.809 32.34
Story 13 45.45 30.694 30.608 30.14
Story 12 43.937 28.363 28.24 27.777
Story 11 41.891 25.903 25.755 25.312
Story 10 39.327 23.298 23.168 22.751
Story 9 36.562 20.554 20.506 20.127
Story 8 33.959 17.697 17.795 17.457
Story 7 30.943 14.778 15.058 14.767
Story 6 27.447 11.865 12.325 12.078
Story 5 23.419 9.039 9.634 9.431
Story 4 18.849 6.397 7.043 6.882
Story 3 13.791 4.043 4.641 4.523
Story 2 8.412 2.095 2.545 2.477
Story 1 3.186 0.686 0.909 0.896
Table 9. Comparison of the story displacements, time history, and Y-direction (mm).
Story 14 46.471 32.91 32.809 32.34
Story 13 45.45 30.694 30.608 30.14
Story 12 43.937 28.363 28.24 27.777
Story 11 41.891 25.903 25.755 25.312
Story 10 39.327 23.298 23.168 22.751
Story 9 36.562 20.554 20.506 20.127
Story 8 33.959 17.697 17.795 17.457
Story 7 30.943 14.778 15.058 14.767
Story 6 27.447 11.865 12.325 12.078
Story 5 23.419 9.039 9.634 9.431
Story 4 18.849 6.397 7.043 6.882
Story 3 13.791 4.043 4.641 4.523
Story 2 8.412 2.095 2.545 2.477
Story 1 3.186 0.686 0.909 0.896
Figure 11. Story displacement of the models, time history analysis, X-direction.

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 11 of 21
Figure 12. Displacement of the models, time history analysis, Y-direction.
Figure 12. Displacement of the models, time history analysis, Y-direction.
4.2. Story Drift
Tables 10 and 11 and Figures 13 and 14 demonstrate the story drifts carried out by
using ESA (EX&EY). The results show that the maximum drift that could be found on
the fourth floor due to the buildings lack of shear walls is 4.895 mm in X-direction and
5.121 mm in Y-direction. It is also observed that the maximum drift story of the building
with shear walls seen on the eighth floor is 3.274 mm, 3.323 mm, and 3.344 mm for the
building’s vertical and staggered openings in the X-direction, and 3.358 mm for shear walls
without openings and 3.405 mm and 3.425 mm as results of shear walls with a vertical and
staggered opening in the Y-direction.
Tables 12 and 13 and Figures 15 and 16 demonstrate the story drifts in the case
of response spectrum analysis (RSA) in the (X&Y) direction. The results show that the
maximum drift seen on the third floor due to the building without shear walls is 4.476 mm
in X-direction and 4.6 mm in Y-direction. It is consequently observed that the maximum
drift story of the building with shear walls seen on the eighth floor is 2.544 mm, 2.566 mm,
and 2.585 mm for the building’s vertical and staggered opening, respectively, in X-direction.
However, shear walls without openings have a 2.573 mm thickness, while shear walls
with vertical and staggered openings in the Y-direction have 2.614 mm and 2.63 mm
thicknesses, respectively.
Tables 14 and 15 and Figures 17 and 18 determine the story drifts in the case of time
history analysis (THA) in the (X&Y) direction. The results show that the maximum drift
found on the third floor is due to the building’s lack of shear walls, 5.689 mm in X-direction
and 5.379 mm in Y-direction. Likewise, it was observed that the maximum drift story of the
building with shear walls seen on the eighth floor was 3.075 mm, 2.397 mm, and 2.381 mm
for the building’s vertical and staggered opening in X-direction, respectively; 2.919 mm for
shear walls with no openings, and 2.783 mm and 2.741 mm for shear walls with vertical
and staggered Y-direction openings.
The results show that the story drift increases from the second story and onwards. It
gradually grew and has a tendency to fall back to the top story. The model with a vertical
opening and staggered opening shear wall indicates more drift value compared to the shear
wall without an opening. The building without shear walls shows a high drift value. The
same findings have been found in the published literature by Marius [29].

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 12 of 21
Table 10. Comparison of the measured story drift, static analysis, and X-direction (mm).
Story 14 1.347 2.725 2.61 2.621
Story 13 2.057 2.874 2.808 2.828
Story 12 2.731 3.005 2.97 2.985
Story 11 3.305 3.129 3.12 3.136
Story 10 3.778 3.222 3.238 3.255
Story 9 4.155 3.271 3.309 3.326
Story 8 4.445 3.274 3.323 3.344
Story 7 4.656 3.192 3.27 3.288
Story 6 4.797 3.043 3.141 3.161
Story 5 4.876 2.808 2.927 2.938
Story 4 4.895 2.476 2.616 2.624
Story 3 4.83 2.034 2.195 2.185
Story 2 4.49 1.463 1.647 1.624
Story 1 2.725 0.707 0.876 0.865
Table 11. Comparison of the story drift, static analysis, Y-direction (mm).
Story 14 1.526 2.834 2.722 2.74
Story 13 2.253 2.98 2.917 2.941
Story 12 2.946 3.108 3.076 3.094
Story 11 3.538 3.226 3.222 3.242
Story 10 4.023 3.314 3.334 3.352
Story 9 4.408 3.356 3.399 3.423
Story 8 4.701 3.358 3.405 3.425
Story 7 4.911 3.26 3.343 3.368
Story 6 5.047 3.101 3.204 3.22
Story 5 5.116 2.855 2.977 2.997
Story 4 5.121 2.512 2.654 2.658
Story 3 5.103 2.057 2.22 2.218
Story 2 4.632 1.474 1.659 1.631
Story 1 2.749 0.707 0.875 0.873
Figure 13. Story drift of the models: static analysis and X-direction analysis.

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 13 of 21
Figure 14. Story drift of the models: static analysis and Y-direction (mm).
Tables 12 and 13 and Figures 15 and 16 demonstrate the story drifts in the case of
response spectrum analysis (RSA) in the (X&Y) direction. The results show that the max-
imum drift seen on the third floor due to the building without shear walls is 4.476 mm in
X-direction and 4.6 mm in Y-direction. It is consequently observed that the maximum drift
story of the building with shear walls seen on the eighth floor is 2.544 mm, 2.566 mm, and
2.585 mm for the building’s vertical and staggered opening, respectively, in X-direction.
However, shear walls without openings have a 2.573 mm thickness, while shear walls
with vertical and staggered openings in the Y-direction have 2.614 mm and 2.63 mm thick-
nesses, respectively.
Figure 14. Story drift of the models: static analysis and Y-direction (mm).
Table 12. Comparison of the story drift, response spectrum, and X-direction (mm).
Story 14 1.144 2.138 2.038 2.052
Story 13 1.777 2.256 2.197 2.215
Story 12 2.318 2.355 2.318 2.334
Story 11 2.732 2.443 2.424 2.439
Story 10 3.063 2.508 2.503 2.519
Story 9 3.338 2.543 2.552 2.568
Story 8 3.572 2.544 2.566 2.585
Story 7 3.782 2.504 2.542 2.559
Story 6 3.981 2.414 2.472 2.491
Story 5 4.167 2.263 2.345 2.357
Story 4 4.342 2.035 2.145 2.153
Story 3 4.476 1.71 1.852 1.841
Story 2 4.333 1.266 1.44 1.417
Story 1 2.694 0.641 0.807 0.793
Table 13. Comparison of the story drift, response spectrum analysis, and Y-direction (mm).
Story 14 1.278 2.201 2.118 2.136
Story 13 1.923 2.316 2.273 2.295
Story 12 2.471 2.41 2.392 2.407
Story 11 2.889 2.493 2.493 2.511
Story 10 3.221 2.551 2.566 2.58
Story 9 3.499 2.58 2.608 2.628
Story 8 3.734 2.573 2.614 2.63
Story 7 3.945 2.526 2.582 2.605
Story 6 4.14 2.429 2.504 2.519
Story 5 4.319 2.271 2.369 2.387
Story 4 4.483 2.037 2.161 2.163
Story 3 4.6 1.707 1.859 1.857
Story 2 4.416 1.26 1.44 1.411
Story 1 2.688 0.634 0.801 0.796

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 14 of 21
Story 6 4.14 2.429 2.504 2.519
Story 5 4.319 2.271 2.369 2.387
Story 4 4.483 2.037 2.161 2.163
Story 3 4.6 1.707 1.859 1.857
Story 2 4.416 1.26 1.44 1.411
Story 1 2.688 0.634 0.801 0.796
Figure 15. Story drift of the models, response spectrum analysis and X-direction.
Figure 15. Story drift of the models, response spectrum analysis and X-direction.
Figure 16. Story drift, response spectrum analysis, and Y-direction.
Tables 14 and 15 and Figures 17 and 18 determine the story drifts in the case of time
history analysis (THA) in the (X&Y) direction. The results show that the maximum drift
found on the third floor is due to the building’s lack of shear walls, 5.689 mm in X-direc-
tion and 5.379 mm in Y-direction. Likewise, it was observed that the maximum drift story
of the building with shear walls seen on the eighth floor was 3.075 mm, 2.397 mm, and
2.381 mm for the building’s vertical and staggered opening in X-direction, respectively;
2.919 mm for shear walls with no openings, and 2.783 mm and 2.741 mm for shear walls
with vertical and staggered Y-direction openings.
Table 14. Comparison of the story drift, time history analysis, X-direction (mm).
Story 14 1.04 2.338 1.907 1.909
Story 13 1.624 2.467 2.048 2.054
Story 12 2.206 2.606 2.155 2.154
Story 11 2.714 2.759 2.246 2.243
Story 10 3.123 2.903 2.315 2.305
Story 9 3.533 3.015 2.363 2.356
Story 8 3.862 3.075 2.397 2.381
Story 7 4.078 3.066 2.396 2.376
Story 6 4.233 2.972 2.367 2.364
Story 5 4.812 2.78 2.287 2.296
Figure 16. Story drift, response spectrum analysis, and Y-direction.
Table 14. Comparison of the story drift, time history analysis, X-direction (mm).
Story 14 1.04 2.338 1.907 1.909
Story 13 1.624 2.467 2.048 2.054
Story 12 2.206 2.606 2.155 2.154
Story 11 2.714 2.759 2.246 2.243
Story 10 3.123 2.903 2.315 2.305
Story 9 3.533 3.015 2.363 2.356
Story 8 3.862 3.075 2.397 2.381
Story 7 4.078 3.066 2.396 2.376
Story 6 4.233 2.972 2.367 2.364
Story 5 4.812 2.78 2.287 2.296
Story 4 5.345 2.479 2.131 2.124
Story 3 5.689 2.056 1.869 1.866
Story 2 5.555 1.493 1.47 1.43
Story 1 3.454 0.736 0.831 0.807

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 15 of 21
Table 15. Comparison of the story drift, time history analysis, Y-direction (mm).
Story 14 1.197 2.311 2.213 2.201
Story 13 1.817 2.432 2.368 2.363
Story 12 2.446 2.541 2.485 2.466
Story 11 2.994 2.64 2.587 2.561
Story 10 3.491 2.745 2.662 2.626
Story 9 3.913 2.856 2.727 2.679
Story 8 4.204 2.919 2.783 2.741
Story 7 4.343 2.914 2.757 2.722
Story 6 4.328 2.826 2.692 2.653
Story 5 4.57 2.642 2.591 2.549
Story 4 5.058 2.354 2.404 2.368
Story 3 5.379 1.947 2.098 2.046
Story 2 5.226 1.41 1.639 1.592
Story 1 3.186 0.686 0.909 0.896
Story 9 3.913 2.856 2.727 2.679
Story 8 4.204 2.919 2.783 2.741
Story 7 4.343 2.914 2.757 2.722
Story 6 4.328 2.826 2.692 2.653
Story 5 4.57 2.642 2.591 2.549
Story 4 5.058 2.354 2.404 2.368
Story 3 5.379 1.947 2.098 2.046
Story 2 5.226 1.41 1.639 1.592
Story 1 3.186 0.686 0.909 0.896
Figure 17. Story drift of the models, time history analysis, X-direction.
Figure 18. Story drift of the models, time history analysis, Y-direction.
opening and staggered opening shear wall indicates more drift value compared to the
shear wall without an opening. The building without shear walls shows a high drift value.
Story 9 3.913 2.856 2.727 2.679
Story 8 4.204 2.919 2.783 2.741
Story 7 4.343 2.914 2.757 2.722
Story 6 4.328 2.826 2.692 2.653
Story 5 4.57 2.642 2.591 2.549
Story 4 5.058 2.354 2.404 2.368
Story 3 5.379 1.947 2.098 2.046
Story 2 5.226 1.41 1.639 1.592
Story 1 3.186 0.686 0.909 0.896
opening and staggered opening shear wall indicates more drift value compared to the
shear wall without an opening. The building without shear walls shows a high drift value.

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 16 of 21
4.3. Story Forces
In the case of the response spectrum, the values of story forces on the first floor are
3558.8 kN for modal without shear walls, 6295.9 kN for building with shear walls, and
5906.5 kN, 5871.6 kN for vertical opening, and staggered opening, respectively (as shown in
Figures 19 and 20). As can be seen, the reduction percentage of story force value on the
first floor is about 16.3% in buildings without shear walls when compared to buildings
with shear walls. Figures 21 and 22 demonstrate the story forces in the case of time history
analysis; the story forces on the first floor due to building without shear walls are 4491.0 kN
when compared to building with shear walls, 7087.7 kN, and 5381.2 kN, 5333.9 kN for shear
walls staggered and vertical openings in the case of time history, respectively. Additionally,
it is noticed that the difference in story forces in the time history analysis (THA) as compared
to the response spectrum analysis (RSA) results are insignificant for the same cases. Overall,
it can be said that the displacement and story drift of the building significantly affected
by the height of the structural element, story or building. Therefore, the shear walls
openings have a slight effect on these mechanical properties as compared to the story
forces. However, the distribution of the lateral forces (story forces) on the building are
significantly influenced by the weight of the building. Consequently, the openings on the
shear wall reduced the weight and stiffness of the building and then increased the lateral
forces. Moreover, compared to other methods of analysis, time history analysis shows that
the story forces are higher for all models. That might be attributed to the higher lateral
forces applied on the building which generated by earthquake (El Centro).
4.3. Story Forces
In the case of the response spectrum, the values of story forces on the first floor are
3558.8 kN for modal without shear walls, 6295.9 kN for building with shear walls, and
5906.5 kN, 5871.6 kN for vertical opening, and staggered opening, respectively (as shown
in Figures 19 and 20). As can be seen, the reduction percentage of story force value on the
first floor is about 16.3% in buildings without shear walls when compared to buildings
with shear walls. Figures 21 and 22 demonstrate the story forces in the case of time history
analysis; the story forces on the first floor due to building without shear walls are 4491.0
kN when compared to building with shear walls, 7087.7 kN, and 5381.2 kN, 5333.9 kN for
shear walls staggered and vertical openings in the case of time history, respectively. Ad-
ditionally, it is noticed that the difference in story forces in the time history analysis (THA)
as compared to the response spectrum analysis (RSA) results are insignificant for the same
cases. Overall, it can be said that the displacement and story drift of the building signifi-
cantly affected by the height of the structural element, story or building. Therefore, the
shear walls openings have a slight effect on these mechanical properties as compared to
the story forces. However, the distribution of the lateral forces (story forces) on the build-
ing are significantly influenced by the weight of the building. Consequently, the openings
on the shear wall reduced the weight and stiffness of the building and then increased the
lateral forces. Moreover, compared to other methods of analysis, time history analysis
shows that the story forces are higher for all models. That might be attributed to the higher
lateral forces applied on the building which generated by earthquake (El Centro).
The findings of this study agree with the results of the study by Mosoarca [12].
Figure 19. Story forces of the models, response spectrum analysis, X-direction.
Figure 19. Story forces of the models, response spectrum analysis, X-direction.

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 17 of 21
Figure 20. Story forces of the models, response spectrum analysis, Y-direction.
Figure 21. Story forces of the models, time history analysis, X-direction.

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 18 of 21
Figure 22. Story forces of the models, time history analysis, Y-direction.
4.4. Time Period
As shown in Figure 23 the time period of the structure increases with an increase in
mass. The time period decreases when the shear wall is provided and is a minimum for
shear walls on the outer edges of the structure. A building with shear walls indicates that
the time period reduces compared to a building without shear walls. Besides, a building
with shear walls with a vertical opening, as in Figure 23, shows that the time period de-
clines compared to a staggered opening.
Finally, more or less similar behaviour of using finite element modelling in solving
structures and materials problems has been conducted by several researchers, which pro-
vided by literature reports [30–37].
Figure 23. The time period of the models.
The findings of this study agree with the results of the study by Mosoarca [12].
4.4. Time Period
with shear walls with a vertical opening, as in Figure 23, shows that the time period declines
compared to a staggered opening.
4.4. Time Period
with shear walls with a vertical opening, as in Figure 23, shows that the time period de-
clines compared to a staggered opening.
structures and materials problems has been conducted by several researchers, which pro-
vided by literature reports [30–37].

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 19 of 21
structures and materials problems has been conducted by several researchers, which
provided by literature reports [30–37].
5. Conclusions
From the analytical study on the effect of openings on the seismic behaviour of shear
walls, the following conclusions could be drawn:
1. Based on the ESA method of the models, it can be seen that the model with a shear
wall showed improved performance in terms of displacement reduction. Additionally,
a building with a shear wall without an opening shows better performance based on
displacement reduction.
2. According to the response spectrum analysis, it is observed that the percentage
reduction of story force value on the first floor is about 43% in buildings without
shear walls when compared to buildings with shear walls and about 28% in buildings
with shear walls when compared to shear walls with opening, equally for time
history analysis.
3. From time-history analysis, it is concluded that the building with a shear wall showed
good quality performance in terms of displacement reduction. Similarly, a build-
ing with a shear wall without an opening shows superior performance based on
displacement reduction.
4. The results show that using shear walls cuts down on story drift and movement in
the X and Y directions by a lot.
5. The maximum story drift in most of the cases produced is found on the seventh floor.
6. In all three analyses (equivalent static analysis, response spectrum, and time his-
tory analysis), the results concluded that shear walls without openings show less
displacement as compared to the other models.
7. Similarly, it has been found that shear walls without openings show less drift as
compared to other models. Thus, in turn, it emphasizes the vital impact of using
these models.
8. Compared to other methods of analysis, time history analysis shows that the seismic
story forces are higher for all models.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.S., A.H., H.M.N., S.Q., M.M.S.S., and N.S.M.; method-
ology, A.S, A.H., H.M.N., M.M.S.S., and N.S.M.; software, A.S. and A.H.; validation, H.M.N., S.Q.,
M.M.S.S., N.S.M.; formal analysis, A.S. and A.H.; investigation, A.S., A.H., H.M.N., S.Q. M.M.S.S.,
and N.S.M.; resources, A.S., A.H., H.M.N., M.M.S.S., and N.S.M.; data curation, A.S., A.H., H.M.N.,
M.M.S.S., S.Q., and N.S.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S.; writing—review and editing,
A.S., A.H., H.M.N., M.M.S.S., and N.S.M.; visualization, A.S. and A.H.; supervision, A.S., A.H., and
H.M.N.; project administration, M.M.S.S.; funding acquisition, M.M.S.S. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The research is partially funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the
Russian Federation under the strategic academic leadership program ‘Priority 2030’ (Agreement
075-15-2021-1333 dated 30 September 2021).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data used to support the findings of this study are included in
the article.
Acknowledgments: The authors extend their thanks to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education
of the Russian Federation for funding this work.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 20 of 21
References
1. Lu, X.; Xie, L.; Guan, H.; Huang, Y.; Lu, X. A Shear Wall Element for Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of Super-Tall Buildings Using
OpenSees. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 2015, 98, 14–25. [CrossRef]
2. Najm, H.M.; Ibrahim, A.M.; Sabri, M.M.; Hassan, A.; Morkhade, S.; Mashaan, N.S.; Eldirderi, M.M.A.; Khedher, K.M. Modelling
of Cyclic Load Behaviour of Smart Composite Steel-Concrete Shear Wall Using Finite Element Analysis. Buildings 2022, 12, 850.
[CrossRef]
3. Pei, S.; Popovski, M.; van de Lindt, J.W. Seismic Design of a Multi-Story Cross Laminated Timber Building Based on Component
Level Testing. In Proceedings of the World Conference on Timber Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 16–19 July 2012.
4. Esmaili, O.; Epackachi, S.; Samadzad, M.; Mirghaderi, S.R. Study of Structural RC Shear Wall System in a 56-Story RC Tall
Building. In Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 12–17 October 2008.
5. Vigh, L.G.; Deierlein, G.G.; Miranda, E.; Liel, A.B.; Tipping, S. Seismic Performance Assessment of Steel Corrugated Shear Wall
System Using Non-Linear Analysis. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2013, 85, 48–59. [CrossRef]
6. Hassan, A.; Pal, S. Effect of Soil Condition on Seismic Response of Isolated Base Buildings. Int. J. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2018,
10, 249–261. [CrossRef]
7. Hassan, A. Optimization of Base Isolation Parameters. LAMBERT Acad. Publ. 2017, 97, 1207–1222.
8. Hassan, A.; Pal, S. Performance Analysis of Base Isolation & Fixed Base Buildings. ISSN (Online) Int. J. Eng. Res. Mech. Civ. Eng.
(IJERMCE) 2017, 2, 152–157.
9. Fintel, M. Performance of Buildings with Shear Walls in Earthquakes of the Last Thirty Years. PCI J. 2014, 40, 62–80. [CrossRef]
10. Wallace, J.W.; Thomsen IV, J.H. Seismic Design of RC Structural Walls. Part II: Applications. J. Struct. Eng. 2002, 121, 88–101.
[CrossRef]
11. Wu, Y.T.; Kang, D.Y.; Yang, Y.B. Seismic Performance of Steel and Concrete Composite Shear Walls with Embedded Steel Truss for
Use in High-Rise Buildings. Eng. Struct. 2016, 125, 39–53. [CrossRef]
12. Mosoarca, M. Failure Analysis of RC Shear Walls with Staggered Openings under Seismic Loads. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2014, 41, 48–64.
[CrossRef]
13. Farzampour, A.; Laman, J.A. Behavior Prediction of Corrugated Steel Plate Shear Walls with Openings. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2015,
114, 258–268. [CrossRef]
14. Taranath, B.S. Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Buildings; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009.
15. Galal, K.; El-Sokkarry, H. Recent Advancements in Retrofit of Rc Shear Walls. In Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 12–17 October 2008.
16. Najm, H.M.; Ibrahim, A.M.; Sabri, M.M.S.; Hassan, A.; Morkhade, S.; Mashaan, N.S.; Eldirderi, M.M.A.; Khedher, K.M. Evaluation
and Numerical Investigations of the Cyclic Behavior of Smart Composite Steel–Concrete Shear Wall: Comprehensive Study of
Finite Element Model. Materials 2022, 15, 4496. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Zhang, Z.; Wang, F. Experimental Investigation into the Seismic Performance of Prefabricated Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls
with Vertical Joint Connections. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4421. [CrossRef]
18. Dang-Vu, H.; Shin, J.; Lee, K. Seismic Fragility Assessment of Columns in a Piloti-Type Building Retrofitted with Additional
Shear Walls. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6530. [CrossRef]
19. Coccia, S.; di Carlo, F.; Imperatore, S. Masonry Walls Retrofitted with Vertical FRP Rebars. Buildings 2020, 10, 72. [CrossRef]
20. Jeon, S.H.; Park, J.H. Seismic Fragility of Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls with Coupling Beams Designed Using a
Performance-Based Procedure. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4075. [CrossRef]
21. Zheng, S.-S.; Yang, W.; Yang, F.; Sun, L.-F.; Hou, P.-J. Seismic Fragility Analysis for RC Core Walls Structure Based on MIDA
Method. Zhendong Yu Chongji/J. Vib. Shock 2015, 34, 117–123. [CrossRef]
22. Coronelli, D.; Martinelli, L.; Mulas, M.G. Pushover Analysis of Shaking Table Tests on a RC Shear Wall. In Proceedings of the
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011, Leuven, Belgium, 4–6 July 2011.
23. Wang, Q.; Shi, Q.; Tian, H. Experimental Study on Shear Capacity of SRC Joints with Different Arrangement and Sizes of
Cross-Shaped Steel in Column. Steel Compos. Struct. 2016, 21, 267–287. [CrossRef]
24. Lehman, D.E.; Turgeon, J.A.; Birely, A.C.; Hart, C.R.; Marley, K.P.; Kuchma, D.A.; Lowes, L.N. Seismic Behavior of a Modern
Concrete Coupled Wall. J. Struct. Eng. 2013, 139, 1371–1381. [CrossRef]
25. Husain, M.; Eisa, A.S.; Hegazy, M.M. Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls with Openings Using Carbon Fiber-
Reinforced Polymers. Int. J. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2019, 11, 129–150. [CrossRef]
26. Dou, C.; Jiang, Z.Q.; Pi, Y.L.; Guo, Y.L. Elastic Shear Buckling of Sinusoidally Corrugated Steel Plate Shear Wall. Eng. Struct. 2016,
121, 136–146. [CrossRef]
27. Berman, J.W.; Bruneau, M. Experimental Investigation of Light-Gauge Steel Plate Shear Walls. J. Struct. Eng. 2005, 131, 259–267.
[CrossRef]
28. El Ouni, M.H.; Laissy, M.Y.; Ismaeil, M.; Ben Kahla, N. Effect of Shear Walls on the Active Vibration Control of Buildings. Buildings
2018, 8, 164. [CrossRef]
29. Marius, M. Seismic Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls with Regular and Staggered Openings after the Strong
Earthquakes between 2009 and 2011. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2013, 34, 537–565. [CrossRef]
30. Najem, H.M.; Ibrahim, A.M. The Effect of Infill Steel Plate Thickness on the Cycle Behavior of Steel Plate Shear Walls. Diyala J.
Eng. Sci. 2018, 11, 1–6. [CrossRef]

Buildings 2022, 12, 1293 21 of 21
31. Najem, H.M.; Ibrahim, A.M. Influence of Concrete Strength on the Cycle Performance of Composite Steel Plate Shear Walls.
Diyala J. Eng. Sci. 2018, 11, 1–7. [CrossRef]
32. Fadhil, H.; Ibrahim, A.; Mahmood, M. Effect of Corrugation Angle and Direction on the Performance of Corrugated Steel Plate
Shear Walls. Civ. Eng. J. 2018, 4, 2667–2679. [CrossRef]
33. Ahmed, H.U.; Mohammed, A.S.; Faraj, R.H.; Qaidi, S.M.; Mohammed, A.A. Compressive strength of geopolymer concrete
modified with nano-silica: Experimental and modeling investigations. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 16, e01036. [CrossRef]
34. Khan, M.; Cao, M.; Ali, M. Cracking behaviour and constitutive modelling of hybrid fibre reinforced concrete. J. Build. Eng. 2020,
30, 101272. [CrossRef]
35. Parvez, I.; Shen, J.; Khan, M.; Cheng, C. Modeling and solution techniques used for hydro generation scheduling. Water 2019,
11, 1392. [CrossRef]
36. Ahmed, H.U.; Mohammed, A.S.; Qaidi, S.M.; Faraj, R.H.; Hamah Sor, N.; Mohammed, A.A. Compressive strength of geopolymer
concrete composites: A systematic comprehensive review, analysis and modeling. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2022, 26, 1–46.
[CrossRef]
37. Faraj, R.H.; Ahmed, H.U.; Rafiq, S.; Sor, N.H.; Ibrahim, D.F.; Qaidi, S.M. Performance of Self-Compacting Mortars Modified with
Nanoparticles: A Systematic Review and Modeling. Clean. Mater. 2022, 4, 100086. [CrossRef]

A Comprehensive Study on the Effect of Regular and Staggered Openings on the Seismic Performance of Shear Walls.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to A Comprehensive Study on the Effect of Regular and Staggered Openings on the Seismic Performance of Shear Walls.pdf (20)

More from Shakerqaidi (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A Comprehensive Study on the Effect of Regular and Staggered Openings on the Seismic Performance of Shear Walls.pdf