IRJET- Seismic Behavior of RC Flat Slab with and without Shear Wall Technique by using Response Spectrum Analysis

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 06 | June 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 3604
Seismic Behavior of RC Flat Slab with and without Shear Wall
Technique by using Response Spectrum Analysis
Shivaraju G D1, Usha S2, Kumbar Bhanu Prakash3
1Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, SSIT
2Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, BRCE
3Former Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, MVJCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - Earthquake resistant structures are structures
designed to withstand earthquakes. According to building
codes, earthquake resistant structures are intended to
withstand the largest earthquake of a certain probabilitythat
is likely to occur at their location. This means the loss of life
should be minimized by preventing collapse of the buildings
for rare earthquakes while the loss of functionality should be
limited for more frequent ones. In this paper, the dynamic
response of RC flat slab with bare frame and flat slab with
shear wall at different location is compared with static
response of the structure. Five models are considered for the
analysis which includes Equivalent Static Force Method and
Response Spectrum Analysis. From Equivalent static force
method base shear, maximum storey drift, displacement
results are obtained and from response spectrum analysis
acceleration results are obtained. For all the cases zone-5, soil
type-2 as per IS 1893-2002(part-1) isconsideredandanalysed
using ETABS, a commercially available finite elementanalysis
software package.
Key words : earthquake, equivalent static force method,
modal analysis, displacement, acceleration.
1. INTRODUCTION
Earthquake resistant design of RC buildings is a continuing
area of research since the earthquake engineering has started
not only in India but in other developed countries also. The
buildings still damage due to one or the other reason during
earthquakes. In spite of all the weaknesses in the structure,
either code imperfections or error in analysis and design, the
structural configuration system has played a vital role in
disaster. Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs are one of the most
popular floor systems used in residentialbuildings,carparking
and manyotherstructures.Theyrepresentelegantandeasy-to-
construct floor systems. Flat slabs are favoured by both
architects and clients because of their aesthetic appeal and
economic advantage. A flatslab floor system is oftenthechoice
when it comes to heavier loads such as multi-storey car
parking, libraries and multi-storey buildings where larger
spans are also required. Flat slab building structures are
significantlymoreflexiblethantraditionalconcreteframe/wall
or frame structures, thus becoming more vulnerable to second
order p-effects under seismic excitations. Therefore, the
characteristics of the seismic behaviour of flat slab buildings
suggest that additional measures for guiding the conception
and design of these structures in seismic regions are needed.
Reinforced Concrete(RC)buildingsoftenhaveverticalSlab-like
RC walls called Shear Walls or structural walls in addition to
slabs, beams and columns. These RC wallsarereferredasshear
walls because they resist a high proportion of the shear due to
the lateral loads. However, failures of RC walls are not
necessarily dominated by shear deformations. Shear walls
define as vertically oriented wide beamsthatcarryearthquake
loads to the foundation. It can also be defined as a slender
vertical cantilever resisting the lateral load with or without
frames.
In this paper, the dynamic responseofRCflatslabwithbare
frame and flat slab with shear wall at different location is
compared with static response of the structure is studied. Five
models are considered for the analysis which includes
Equivalent Static Force Method and Response Spectrum
Analysis. From Equivalent static force method base shear,
maximum storey drift, displacement results are obtained and
from response spectrum analysis acceleration results are
obtained. For all the cases zone-5, soil type-2 as per IS 1893-
2002(part-1) is considered and analysed using ETABS, a
commercially available finite element analysis software
package.
2. EQUIVALENT STATIC FORCE METHOD
The seismic force effect on the structure can be translated
to equivalent lateral forceat the base of the structure andthen
this force will be distributed to the different stories and then to
the vertical structural elements (frames and/ or shear walls)
The static lateral force procedure may be used for the
following structures:
a. All structures, regular or irregular, in Seismic Zone 1
and in Seismic Zone 2.
b. Regular structures under 240 feet (73,152 mm) in
height.
c. Irregular structures not more than five stories or 65
feet (19,812 mm) in height.
d. Structures having a flexible upper portion supported
on a rigid lower portion where both portions of the
structure considered separately can be classified as
being regular, the average story stiffness of the lower

portion is at least 10 times the average story stiffness
of the upper portion and the period of the entire
structure is not greater than 1.1 times the period of
the upper portion considered as a separate structure
fixed at the base.
However, for simple regular structures, analysis by
equivalent linear static methods is often sufficient. This is
permitted in most codes of practice for regular, low- to
medium-rise buildings. It begins with an estimation of base
shear load and its distribution on each story calculated by
using formulas given in the code. Equivalentstaticanalysiscan
therefore work well for low to medium-rise buildings without
significant coupled lateral-torsional modes, in which only the
first mode in each direction is considered. Tall buildings (over,
say, 75 m), where second and higher modes can be important,
or buildings with torsional effects, are much less suitable for
the method, and require more complex methods to be used in
these circumstances (Earthquake Design Practice For
Buildings, E. Booth).
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
(sudden changes in mass or stiffness with height) or plan
(separation between the centres of stiffness and mass at any
level) require modal response spectrum analysis. Non-linear
static or dynamic analysis (time history analysis) is becoming
more common in design practice, and has for many years been
mandatory in Japan for buildings taller than 60m.
3. RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS
In order to perform the seismic analysis and design of a
structure to be built at a particular location, the actual time
history record is required. However, it is not possible to have
such records at each and every location. Further, the seismic
analysis of structures cannotbecarriedoutsimplybasedonthe
peak value of the ground acceleration as the response of the
structure depend upon the frequencycontentofgroundmotion
and its own dynamic properties. To overcome the above
difficulties, earthquake response spectrum is the most popular
tool in the seismic analysis of structures. There are
computational advantages in using the response spectrum
methodof seismic analysis for prediction of displacementsand
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.
4. DESCRIPTION AND MODELLING OF BUILDING
A 3D RC frames with 5 bay by 4 bay and 7(G+6) storey of
dimension 25mx16mx23.5m, has been taken for seismic
analysis. Five building models are considered for comparison:
Model-1: Bare Frame with Flat Slab (BFFS)
Model-2: Exterior Shear Wall with Flat Slab (E-SWFS)
Model-3: L-Shaped Shear Wall with Flat Slab (L-SWFS)
Model-4: Rectangular Shear Wall with Flat Slab (R-SWFS)
Model-5: Lift core Shear Wall with Flat Slab (LC-SWFS)
5. LOAD CONSIDERATION
The following loading standards are considered on the
models during analysis
A. Gravity and Lateral loads
The RC frames comprises of columns, beams and flat slabs.
Analysis of the frames is done using ETABS 9.7.1 software. The
structural systems are subjected to 3 types of Primary Load
Cases as per provisions of Indian Standard Code of Practice for
Structural safety of Buildings, loading standards IS 875-1987
(Part I and II) and IS 1893 2002(Part I) they are:
i. Dead Load case (Vertical or Gravity load), denoted as
“DL”
ii. Live Load case (Vertical or Gravity load), denoted as
“LL”
iii. Floor Finish case(VerticalorGravityload),denotedas
“FF”
iv. Seismic Load in X-direction (Lateral or Earthquake
load), denoted as “Ex”
v. Seismic Load in Y-direction (Lateral or Earthquake
load), denoted as “Ey”
B. Gravity Loads
Gravity loads on the structure include the self-weight of
beams, columns, flat slabs. The self-weight of beams and
columns (frame members) and flat slabs (area sections) is
automatically considered by the program itself.
i. Dead Load (DL)
The dead load isconsideredasperIS875-1987(PartI-Dead
loads), “Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than
Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures”.
 Unit weight of Reinforced Concrete = 25 kN/m3
 Floor finishes = 2 kN/m2
ii. Imposed/Live Load (LL)
The imposed load is considered as perIS 875-1987 (Part II-
Imposed loads), “Code of Practice for DesignLoads(Otherthan
Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures”.

 Imposed load on slab = 4 kN/m2
 Imposed load on roof = 4 kN/m2
C. Lateral Loads
i. Equivalent static lateral force method
The earthquake load is considered as per the IS 1893-
2002(Part 1). The factors considered are
Zone factor (z) = 0.36
Soil type = medium (Type-2)
Importance factor (I) = 1.0
Response reduction factor (R) =3.0
Time period,
For bare frame Ta = 0.075* h 0.75
Ta = 0.075* (22) 0.75 = 0.76 sec
For shear wall Ta = (0.09* h)/(sqrt of D)
Where D = base dimension in ‘m’
h = height of the building above the ground level in ‘m’
For D=25m in X-direction
Ta = (0.09* 22)/ (sqrt of 25) = 0.396 sec
For D=16m in Y-direction
Ta = (0.09* 22)/ (sqrt of 16) = 0.495 sec
ii. Response Spectrum Method
The earthquake load is considered as per the IS 1893-
2002(Part 1). The factors considered are
Soil Condition: Medium soil
Damping: 5%
TABLE-1: SEISMIC ZONES AS PER IS 1893(PART 1):2002
Seismic
Zone
II III IV V
Seismic
Intensity
Low Moderate Severe
Very
Severe
Zone
Factor (Z)
0.10 0.16 0.24 0.36
6. DETAILS OF RC FRAME
FIG -1: BUILDING PLAN-BARE FRAME
FIG -2: ELEVATION- FLAT SLAB WITH BARE FRAME
FIG-3: 3D VIEW- FLAT SLAB WITH BARE FRAME

A. Building Data
i. Grid System-Grid Dimensions (Plan)
Number of bays = 5 bay by 4 bay
Number of bays in X-direction = 5 bay
Number of bays in Y-direction = 4 bay
ii. Story Height
Number of Storeys =7 Storey (G +6)
Depth of foundation =1.5 m
Bottom storey =4.0 m
Other storeys =3.0 m
iii. Structural Elements Dimension
Beam size =0.2 m x 0.6 m
Column size =0.6 m x 0.6 m
Flat Slab thickness =0.20 m
Drop thickness =0.350 m
B. Material properties
i. Concrete (IS456:2000)
Grade of Concrete: M25 and M30
M25 for beams and Flat slabs
M30 for columns
Compressive strength of concrete, fck=25000 kN/m2 and
30000 kN/m2
Density of Concrete (weight per unit volume) =25 kN/m3
Modulus of Elasticity of concrete, Ef= (5000√fck) = 22.36X106
kN/m2 and 27.38 X106 kN/m2
Poisson’s ratio of concrete=0.2
ii.Steel (IS456:2000)
Grade of Steel: Fe 415
Yield Strength of Steel, Fy= 415000 kN/m2
C. ETABS Models of Structural Systems
Different types of frames considered for this analysis are as
follows:
Model-1: Bare Frame with Flat Slab (BFFS)
Model-2: Exterior Shear Wall with Flat Slab (E-SWFS)
Model-3: L-Shaped Shear Wall with Flat Slab (L-SWFS)
Model-4: Rectangular Shear Wall with Flat Slab (R-SWFS)
Model-5: Lift core Shear Wall with Flat Slab (LC-SWFS)
FIG-4: PLAN- FLAT SLAB WITH L- SHAPED SHEAR WALL
FIG-5: ELEVATION- FLAT SLAB WITH L-SHAPED SHEAR
WALL
FIG-6: 3D VIEW- FLAT SLAB WITH L-SHAPED SHEAR WALL

FIG-7: PLAN - FLAT SLAB WITH EXTERIOR - SHEAR WALL
FIG-8: PLAN - FLAT SLAB WITH RECTANGULAR- SHEAR
WALL
FIG-9: PLAN- FLAT SLAB WITH LIFT CORE- SHEAR WALL
7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The analysis is carried out to compare the response of RC
flat slab with bare frame and flat slab with shear wall with
different location. Total five models are considered for the
linear static and dynamic analysis which includes Equivalent
Static Force Method and Response Spectrum Analysis. From
Equivalent Static Force Method base shear, maximum storey
drift and displacement results are obtained for zone-5, soil
type-2 as per IS 1893-2002(part-1). From Response Spectrum
Analysis acceleration results are obtained.
A. Storey and Base Shear
Storey and Base Shear (kN) in X Direction
No. of
Storeys
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model
4
Model 5
Storey 6 826.49 1516.11 1515.46 1511.57 1792.21
Storey 5 1513.58 3203.75 2948.86 2994.38 3248.64
Storey 4 2014.29 4448.27 3999.87 4083.17 4309.66
Storey 3 2358.04 5317.30 4727.82 4838.84 5038.63
Storey 2 2574.27 5878.46 5192.07 5322.30 5496.96
Storey 1 2692.39 6199.37 5451.97 5594.44 5747.35
Ground
Floor
2743.25 6348.70 5583.76 5737.12 5859.55
TABLE -2: COMPARISON OF STOREY AND BASE SHEAR
ALONG X DIRECTION FOR DIFFERENT MODELS
FIG-10: COMPARISON OF STOREY AND BASE SHEAR ALONG
X DIRECTION FOR DIFFERENT MODELS
From Fig. 10, it is observed that, the decrease in storey
shear in bare frame (model- 1) is nearly 57%, 51%, 53% and
54% at ground floor (base level) comparedtomodel-2, model-
3, model-4 and model-5 in equivalent static lateral force
method for zone-5, medium soil in X-X direction. It is observed
that, there is a decrease in storey shear which is nearly69% to
78% in storey-6 compared to ground floor for all models (i.e.
model-1 to model-5) and the storey shear goes on increases
from storey-6 to ground floor in X-X direction in Equivalent
static force method for all models (i.e. model-1 to model-5).
TABLE-3: COMPARISON OF STOREY AND BASE SHEAR
ALONG Y DIRECTION FOR DIFFERENT MODELS
Storey and Base Shear (kN) in Y Direction
No. of
Storeys
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Storey 6 782.47 1516.11 1432.93 1511.57 1792.21
Storey 5 1432.96 3203.75 2788.27 2994.38 3248.64
Storey 4 1907.00 4448.27 3782.03 4083.17 4309.66
Storey 3 2232.44 5317.30 4470.34 4838.84 5038.63
Storey 2 2437.15 5878.46 4909.31 5322.30 5496.96
Storey 1 2548.99 6199.37 5155.06 5594.44 5747.35
Ground
Floor
2597.13 6348.70 5265.20 5717.57 5859.55

FIG-11: COMPARISON OF STOREY AND BASE SHEAR
ALONG Y DIRECTION FOR DIFFERENT MODELS
From Fig. 11, it is observed that, the decrease in storey
shear in bare frame (model-1) is nearly 59%, 51%, 55% and
56% at ground floor (base level) comparedtomodel-2, model-
3, model-4 and model-5 in equivalent static lateral force
method for zone-5, medium soil in Y-Y direction. It is observed
that, there was a decrease in storey shear which is nearly70%
to 80% in storey-6 compared to ground floor for all models
(i.e. model-1 to model-5) and the storey shear goes on
increases from storey-6 to ground floor in Y-Y direction in
Equivalent static force method for all models (i.e. model-1 to
model-5).
B. Storey and Base Displacements
Storey and Base Displacement (mm) in X Direction
No. of
Storeys
Storey 6 35.89 1.19 17.76 4.95 2.78
Storey 5 33.52 1.09 15.05 4.26 2.45
Storey 4 29.96 0.95 12.21 3.51 2.07
Storey 3 25.31 0.79 9.37 2.74 1.67
Storey 2 19.87 0.62 6.62 1.99 1.26
Storey 1 13.94 0.44 4.13 1.30 0.86
Ground
Floor
7.83 0.27 2.06 0.70 0.50
TABLE-4: COMPARISON OF STOREY AND BASE
DISPLACEMENT ALONG X DIRECTION FOR DIFFERENT
MODELS
FIG-12: COMPARISON OF STOREY AND BASE
DISPLACEMENT ALONG X DIRECTION FOR DIFFERENT
MODELS
From Fig. 12, it is observed that, there is an increase in
displacement which is nearly 78% in storey-6 compared to
ground floor and the displacement goes on decreases from
storey-6 to ground floor in X-X direction in Equivalent static
force method. This shows the displacementvalueis morein top
floor compared to bottom floor because stiffnessparticipation
factor is more in ground floor compared to top floor in X-X
direction.
It is observed that, there is a increase in displacement
which is nearly 75% to 85% in storey-6 compared to ground
floor for all models (i.e. model-1 to model-5) and the
displacement goes on decreases from storey-6 to ground floor
in X-X direction in Equivalent static force method for all
models (i.e. model-1 to model-5).
Storey and Base Displacement (mm) in Y Direction
No. of
Storeys
Storey 6 38.49 2.18 24.26 18.93 6.41
Storey 5 35.76 1.97 20.63 16.09 2.45
Storey 4 31.79 1.71 16.82 13.11 2.07
Storey 3 26.68 1.41 12.95 10.09 1.67
Storey 2 20.73 1.09 9.18 7.17 1.26
Storey 1 14.30 0.77 5.73 4.49 0.86
Ground
Floor
7.79 0.46 2.84 2.26 0.50
TABLE-5:COMPARISON OF STOREY AND BASE
DISPLACEMENT ALONG Y DIRECTION FOR DIFFERENT
MODELS
FIG-13: COMPARISON OF STOREY AND BASE
DISPLACEMENT ALONG Y DIRECTION FOR DIFFERENT
MODELS
From Fig. 13, it is observed that, there is an increase in
displacement which is nearly 80% in storey-6 compared to
ground floor and the displacement goes on decreases from
storey-6 to ground floor in Y-Y direction in Equivalent static
force method. This shows the displacementvalueis morein top
floor compared to bottom floor because stiffness participation
factor is more in ground floor compared to top floor in Y-Y
direction.

It is observed that, there is an increase in displacement
floor for all models (i.e. model-1 to model-5) and the
displacement goes on decreases from storey-6 to ground floor
in Y-Y direction in Equivalent static force method for all
models (i.e. model-1 to model-5).
C. Acceleration
Acceleration (m/s2) in X Direction
No. of
Storeys
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model
5
Storey 6 1.4117 2.4036 3.0290 2.8409 2.6354
Storey 5 1.1784 2.1916 2.4063 2.3684 2.2862
Storey 4 1.0627 1.9319 1.9772 1.9523 1.9434
Storey 3 0.9979 1.6638 1.7289 1.6437 1.6466
Storey 2 0.9637 1.3954 1.5426 1.3993 1.3789
Storey 1 0.8843 1.0988 1.2897 1.1403 1.1150
Ground
Floor
0.7006 0.7435 0.9084 0.7956 0.7888
TABLE-6:COMPARISON OF ACCELERATION ALONG X
DIRECTION FOR DIFFERENT MODELS
FIG-14: COMPARISON OF ACCELERATION ALONG X
From Fig 14, it is observed that, there is an increase in
acceleration which is nearly 51% in storey-6 compared to
ground floor and the acceleration goes on decreases from
storey-6 to ground floor in X-X direction both in Equivalent
static force and response spectrum .This shows the
acceleration value is more in top floor compared to bottom
floor because mass participation factorismore ingroundfloor
compared to top floor both in X-X direction.
It is observed that, there is an increase in acceleration
floor for all models (i.e. model-1 to model-5) and the d
acceleration goes on decreases from storey-6 to ground floor
in X-X direction both in Equivalent static force and response
spectrum method for all models(i.e. model-1 to model-5).
Acceleration (m/s2) in Y Direction
No. of
Storeys
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model
5
Storey 6 1.3917 2.4920 2.8635 3.0816 2.7172
Storey 5 1.1326 2.2332 2.2712 2.408 2.3106
Storey 4 1.0209 1.9426 1.8817 1.9822 1.9508
Storey 3 0.9697 1.6669 1.6545 1.7318 1.6771
Storey 2 0.9504 1.4056 1.4769 1.5396 1.4548
Storey 1 0.8796 1.1185 1.2368 1.2942 1.2135
Ground
Floor
0.6967 0.7666 0.8759 0.9179 0.8748
TABLE-7:COMPARISON OF ACCELERATION ALONG Y
FIG-15: COMPARISON OF ACCELERATION ALONG Y
From Fig 15, it is observed that, there is an increase in
acceleration which is nearly 50% in storey-6 compared to
ground floor and the acceleration goes on decreases from
storey-6 to ground floor in Y-Y direction both in Equivalent
static force and response spectrum .This shows the
acceleration value is more in top floor compared to bottom
floor because mass participation factorismore ingroundfloor
compared to top floor both in Y-Y direction.
It is observed that, there is an increase in acceleration
floor for all models (i.e. model-1 to model-5) and the d
acceleration goes on decreases from storey-6 to ground floor
in Y-Y direction both in Equivalent static force and response
spectrum method for all models(i.e. model-1 to model-5).
8. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents the summary of the study, for RC Flat
slab building for bare and shear wall with different location.
The effect of seismic load has been studied for the five types of
building with bare and shear wall with different location. On
the basis of the results following conclusionshavebeendrawn.

1. For all the structure, base shear is maximum at the
base level (ground floor). Base shear of flat slab R.C.C building
with bare frame is less than the flat slab building with shear
wall for different models or location because of mass
participation factor are more in shearwall buildingcompared
with that of flat slab with bare frame.
2. For all the structure, displacement increases as the
height increases. Displacement of flat slab R.C.C building with
bare frame is more than the flat slab building with shear wall
for different models or location because of stiffness
participation factor is more in shear wall building compared
with that of flat slab with bare frame. Displacement value for
model-2 (Exterior shear wall) is less compared with those
other models (i.e. model-1, model-3, model-4 and model-5).
Exterior shear wall structure gives better performance and
resists lateral displacement for seismic loads.
3. For flat slab building with bare frame, response
acceleration decreases with increase in the height of building,
however, for flat slab with shear wall; this change is not
significant because in both structures fewer members are
stiffened. Flat slab with bare frame is having less acceleration
value compared with that of flat slab with shear wall for
different models (i.e. model-2 to model-5).
REFERENCES
[1]. Pan A and MoehleJ. P, “LateralDisplacement Ductility
of RC Flat Plates”. ACI Structural Journal, 86:3, 1989, pp. 250-
258.
[2]. ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for
Design of Slab-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced
Concrete Structures”. ACI Structural Journal, 85:6, 1988, pp.
675-696.
[3]. Erberik M.A and Elnashai A.S, “Seismic Vulnerability
of Flat-Slab Structures”. Technical Report Mid-America
Earthquake Center DS-9 Project (Risk Assessment Modeling),
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA, 2003, 178 pages.
[4]. Megally S and Ghali A, “Design Considerations for
Slab-Column Connections in Seismic Zones”. ACI Structural
Journal, 91:3, 1994, pp. 303-314.
[5]. Penelis G.G and Kappos A. J, “Earthquake Resistant
Concrete Structures”, E & FN Spon, London, UK, 1997.
[6]. Sobhy B.M, “A Comparative Study for Three-
DimensionalModelingandDesign-OrientedSeismicAnalysisof
Mid-rise Flat Slab Buildings”. M.Sc. Thesis, Structural
Engineering Department, Cairo University, Egypt, 1997.
[7]. Joshi D. S, Nene R. L, Muley M. D, Suresh Salgaonkar,
“Design of Reinforced Concrete Structure for Earthquake
Resistance”, Indian Society of Structural Engineers, pp.32-37.
[8]. Park R., “Capacity Design of Ductile RC Building
Structures for Earthquake Resistance”, Journal of the
Structural Engineer, Volume 70, No. 16, August 1 1992, pp.
279-289.
[9]. Sezen H., Whittaker A.S, Elwood and
Mosalam K.M, “Performance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings
during the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake, and
Seismic Design and Construction Practice in Turkey”, Journal
of Engineering Structures, Volume 25, 2003, pp. 103-114.

IRJET- Seismic Behavior of RC Flat Slab with and without Shear Wall Technique by using Response Spectrum Analysis

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to IRJET- Seismic Behavior of RC Flat Slab with and without Shear Wall Technique by using Response Spectrum Analysis (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

IRJET- Seismic Behavior of RC Flat Slab with and without Shear Wall Technique by using Response Spectrum Analysis