Non Linear Analysis of RCC Building with and Without Shear Wall

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 04 Issue: 07 | July -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 5.181 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 2526
NON LINEAR ANALYSIS OF RCC BUILDING WITH AND WITHOUT SHEAR
WALL
MD SHARIB RAHMANI M.TECH (STRUCTURAL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING)
Department of Civil Engineering Al-FALAH UNIVERSITY, FARIDABAD INDIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - Although different procedures arepossible, the
non-linear static analysis, also known as the Pushover
analysis, also known as collapse analysis is considered to be
a convenient method for evaluatingtheperformance.Onthis
study, the method is used to evaluate the performance of RC
plane frames. Reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings are
becoming increasingly common in urban India due to
increase in population and safety in such situation is much
more important.
The static pushover analysis is becoming a popular tool for
seismic performance evaluation of existing and new
structures. The expectation is thatthepushoveranalysiswill
provide adequate information on seismic demandsimposed
by the design ground motion on thestructural systemand its
components. The purpose of the paper is to summarize the
basic concepts on which the pushover analysis canbebased,
assess the accuracy of pushover predictions, identify
conditions under which the pushover will provide adequate
information and, perhapsmoreimportantly,identifycasesin
which the pushover predictions will be inadequate or even
misleading.
This paper deals with the non-linear analysis of an RCC
frame and also the non-linear analysis of an RCC frame with
shear walls at different levels. The main aim is to carry out
the difference in the push-over curves of the RCCframesand
to calculate the displacement in the frames.
The analysis is carried out using ETABS software .Push-over
the analysis is carried out using ETABS software .Push-over
curves for both the frames are obtained and comparison is
carried out.
Key Words: Linear Static and Dynamic, Non-Linear
static pushover analysis and performance based
analysis, ETABS
1.INTRODUCTION
The major criteria now-a-daysindesigningRCCstructuresin
seismic zones is control of lateral displacement resulting
from lateral forces. In this thesis effort has been made to
investigate the effect of Shear Wall position on lateral
displacement and Base Shear in RCC Frames. RCC Frames
withG+14 are considered with and without shear wall.
Non-linear static analysis (pushover analysis) was carried
out for the frames and the frames were then compared with
the push over curves. Displacement and Base shear is
calculated from the curves and compared. The nonlinear
analysis of a frame has become an important tool for the
study of the concrete behavior including its load-deflection
pattern and cracks pattern. It helps in the study of various
characteristics of concrete member under different load
conditions.
1.1 OBJECTIVE
1. To provide analysis of R.C.C Structural with or without
shear wall.
2. To perform Linear Analysis and Non-Linear Analysis.
3. To study the performance of R.C.C structure with or
without shear wall w.r.t. different parameters such as story
drift, story displacement, base shear, shear force etc.
4. To study the hinge formation during the performance of
concrete frame to verify strong column weak beam.
5. To determine the effect of earthquake on various
parameters like fundamental, time period, storey drifts,
lateral joint displacements, bending moments and shear
force in beam and columns.
6. To study the hinge formation during the performance of
concrete frame to verify strong column weak beam
behaviour of the members.
7. To determine the performance point of R.C.C with shear
wall and without shear wall concrete frame by capacity
spectrum.
1.2 Description of pushover analysis
The non-linear static pushover procedure was originally
formulated and suggested by two agencies namely, federal
emergency management agency (FEMA) and applied
technical council (ATC), under their seismic rehabilitation
programs and guidelines. This is included in the documents
FEMA-273 [4], FEMA-356 [2] and ATC-40 [32].
1.3 Introduction to FEMA-273
The primary purpose of FEMA-273 [4] document is to
provide technically sound and nationally acceptable
guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. The
Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings are

intended to serve as a ready tool for design professionalsfor
carrying out the design and analysis of buildings,a reference
document for building regulatory officials, and a foundation
for the future development and implementation of building
code provisions and standards.
1.4Introduction to ATC-40
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings
commonly referred to as ATC-40 [32] was developed by the
Applied Technology Council (ATC) with funding from the
California Safety Commission. Although the procedures
recommended in this document are for concrete buildings,
they are applicable to most building types.
1.5Pushover guideline as per ATC-40
In Nonlinear Static Procedure, the basic demand and
capacity parameter for the analysis is the lateral
displacement of the building. The generation of a capacity
curve (base shear v/s roof displacement) defines the
capacity of the building uniquely for an assumed force
distribution and displacement pattern. It is independent of
any specific seismic shaking demand and replaces the base
shear capacity of conventional design procedures. If the
building displaces laterally, its response must lie on this
capacity curve. A point on the curve defines a specific
damage state for the structure, since the deformation for all
components can be related to the global displacement of the
structure. By correlating this capacity curve to the seismic
demand generated by a specific earthquake or ground
shaking intensity, a point can be found on the capacity curve
that estimates the maximum displacement of the building
the earthquake will cause. This defines the performance
point or target displacement. The location of this
performance pointrelativetotheperformancelevelsdefined
by the capacity curve indicates whether or not the
performance objective is met. Thus, for the Nonlinear Static
Procedure, a static pushover analysis is performed using a
nonlinear analysis program for an increasing monotonic
lateral load pattern. An alternative is to perform a step by
step analysis using a linear program. The base shear at each
step is plotted again roof displacement. The performance
point is found using the Capacity Spectrum Procedure. The
individual structural components are checked against
acceptability limits that depend on the global performance
goals. The nature of the acceptability limits depends on
specific components. Inelastic rotation is typically one of
acceptability parameters for beam and column hinges. The
limits on inelastic rotation are based on observation from
tests and the collective judgment of the development team.
Irjet Template sample paragraph .Define abbreviations and
acronyms the first time they are used in the text, even after
they have been defined in the abstract. Abbreviationssuchas
IEEE, SI, MKS, CGS, sc, dc, and rms do not have to be defined.
Do not use abbreviations in the title or heads unless they are
unavoidable.
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS
This method is based on the assumption that whole of the
seismic mass of the structure vibrates with a single time
period. The structure is assumed to be in its fundamental
mode of vibration. But this method provides satisfactory
results only when the structure is low rise and there is no
significant twisting on ground movement. As per the IS
1893: 2002, Total design seismic base shear is found by the
multiplication of seismic weight of the building and the
design horizontal acceleration spectrum value. This force is
distributed horizontally in the proportion of mass and it
should act at the vertical center of mass of the structure.
2.2 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Dynamic analysis is perform after the static analysis is
completed. Thereforethe response-spectrum scalefactor is I
g / R, where g is acceleration due to gravity (386.4
in/sec2 for kip-in and 9.81 m/sec2 for KN-m). After analysis,
users should review the base shear due to all modes,
reported in the Response Spectrum Base Reaction Table. If
the dynamic base shear reported is more than 80% of the
static base shear, no further action is required. However, if
dynamic base shear is less than 80% of the static base shear,
then the scale factor should be adjusted such that the
response-spectrum base shear matches 80% of the static
base shear. In this case, the new scale factor would be (I g /
R) * (0.80 * static base shear / response-spectrum base
shear). Analysis should then be rerun with this scale factor
specified in the response-spectrum.
2.3 NON-LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS
Non-linear static analysis is improvement over linear static
or dynamic analysis in the sense that it allows inelastic
behavior of structure. The method is simple to implemented
and provide information on strength, deformation and
ductility of the structure as well as distribution of demands.
This permits the identification of critical member that are
like to reach limits states during the earthquake, to which
attention should be paid during the design and detailing
process. But this method is based on many assumptions
which neglected the vibration of the loading patterns, the
influence of higher modes of vibration and the effect of
resonance. In spite of deficiencies this method known as
pushover analysis. It is the method of analysis by applying
specified pattern of direct lateral loads on the structure,
starting from zero to a value corresponding to a specific
displacement level, and identifying the possible weak points

and failure patterns of a structure. The performance of the
structure is evaluated and using the statusofhingesattarget
displacement or performance point corresponding to
specified earthquake level (the given response spectrum).
The performance is satisfactory if the demand is less than
capacity at all hinges
Fig.no.1 plane of without shear wall
Fig.no.2 plan of with shear wall
Fig.no.3 3D VEIW
Fig.no4
2 MODEL CONFIGURATION
Table.no.1
R.C.C BUILDING
WITH SHEAR
WALL
R.C.C BUILDING
WITHOUT SHEAR
WALL
HEIGHT 45.5 m 45.5 m
AREA 180 sqm. 180sqm.
Each Story
height
3m 3m
COLUMN 0.35m*0.55m (1st
to 15th floor)
0..35m*0.55m (1st to
15th floor)
BEAM 250mm*450mm 250*450mm
SLAB 125mm 125mm
GRADE OF
CONCRETE
25M (SLAB) 25M(SLAB)
GRADE OF
CONCRETE
25M (BEAM) 25M (BEAM)
GRADE OF
CONCRETE
30M(COLUMN) 30M(COLUMN)
ZONE IV IV
REGION NOIDA NOIDA
LIVE LOAD 3KN/sqm 3KN/sqm

3 RESULTS
3.1 BASE SHEAR
Table.no.2
WITHOUT SHEAR
WALL
WITH SHEAR
WALL
DEAD
LOAD
22852.125 18184.75
EQX 1005.5067 1066.6376
EQY 1005.5067 1066.6378
RSX 1011.4049 1180.4846
RSY 1016.6182 1186.2659
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
EQX EQY RSX RSY
WITHOUT SHEAR
WALL
WITH SHEAR
WALL
Chart.no.1 BASE SHEAR
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
DEAD LOAD
WITHOUT SHEAR
WALL
WITH SHEAR WALL
Chart.no.2 BASE SHEAR OF DEAD LOAD
Chart.no.3
3.2. DISPLACEMENT DUE TO EARTH QUAKE
Table.no.3
DISPLACEMENT DUE TO EARTH QUAKE
WITHOUT SHEAR
WALL
WITH SHEAR WALL
X-DIR Y-DIR X-DIR Y-DIR
95.78 111.50 37.43 44.74
93.52 109.30 35.48 42.42
90.23 105.90 33.37 39.92
85.90 101.21 31.06 37.18
80.64 95.38 28.53 34.17
74.62 88.58 25.79 30.91
67.96 80.98 22.89 27.43
60.82 72.75 19.85 23.79
53.30 64.02 16.74 20.04
45.54 54.93 13.62 16.27
37.62 45.59 10.55 12.57
29.64 36.12 7.63 9.05
21.68 26.61 4.95 5.83
13.85 17.19 2.66 3.19
6.39 8.185 0.93 1.07
0 0 0 0
Chart no.4
3.3. DISPLACEMENT DUE TO WIND
WITHOUT SHEAR WALL WITH SHEAR WALL
x-dir y-dir x-dir y-dir
82.90 77.68 32.83 31.38
81.28 76.46 31.34 29.97
79.05 74.66 29.74 28.46

76.16 72.22 27.98 26.79
72.63 69.13 26.03 24.94
68.45 65.40 23.89 22.89
63.66 61.05 21.55 20.64
58.28 56.10 19.03 18.22
52.34 50.58 16.36 15.64
45.86 44.50 13.58 12.95
38.90 37.9 10.75 10.21
31.48 30.82 7.94 7.51
23.64 23.29 5.28 4.95
15.47 15.38 2.90 2.69
7.26 7.44 1.04 0.95
0 0 0 0
Table.no.4
Chart.no.5
Chart.no.6
3.4. PUSHOVER CURVE
Table.no5
WITH SHEAR WALL WITHOUTSHEARWALL
DISP(mm) SHEAR(KN) DISP(mm) SHEAR(KN)
0 0 0 0
-31.66 1358.3 -9.187 153.11
-62.47 2316.7 -35.03 465.44
-150.92 3406.2 -44.51 511.38
-155.61 3443.2 -90.51 602.3
-155.62 3442.5 -173.92 683.76
-161.67 3489. -180.76 688.19
-181.48 688.42
-181.51 688.42
-181.53 688.43
-183.3 688.99
-183.32 688.99
-183.45 689.03
-183.47 689.04
-183.49 689.05
-183.5 689.05
-183.89 689.17
Chart.no.7

Chart.no.8
Fig.no.5
Fig.no.6
Fig.no.7

Fig.no.8
3. CONCLUSIONS
1) Provision of shear wall results in a huge decrease in base
shear and roof displacement both with shear wall building
and without shear wall building.
3) The performance based seismic design obtainedbyabove
procedure satisfies the acceptance criteria for immediate
occupancy and life safety limit states for various intensities
of earthquakes.
4) Performance based seismic design obtained leads to a
small reduction in steel reinforcement when compared to
code based seismic design (IS 1893:2002) obtained by etab.
5).With shear wall RCC building frame having more lateral
load capacity compare to without shear wall building frame.
6) The lateral displacement of With shear wall RCC building
frame is reduced as comparedwithoutshearwallRCCframe.
7) With shear wall RCC building frame is give good result in
pushover curve base shear v/s displacement is less as
compared to R.C.C.
References
[1]. ASCE, 1998, Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of
Buildings, a Prestandard, FEMA 310 Report,prepared bythe
American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
[2]. ASCE, 2000, Prestandard and Commentary for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356 Report,
prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
[3]. ASCE, 2002, Standard Methodology for Seismic
Evaluation of Buildings. Standard No. ASCE-31. American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
[4]. ATC, 1997a, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 273 Report, prepared by
the Applied Technology Council for the Building Seismic
Safety Council, published by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
[5]. ATC, 1997b, NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for
the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 274 Report,
prepared by the AppliedTechnologyCouncil,fortheBuilding
Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
[6]. ATC, 2006, Next-GenerationPerformance-BasedSeismic
Design Guidelines: Program Plan for New and Existing
Buildings, FEMA 445, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, D.C.
[7]. Bertero VV. 1997, Performance-based seismic
engineering: a critical review of proposed guidelines. In:
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Seismic
Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes.
Bled/Slovenia.
[8]. Biggs JM. 1964 Book:- Introduction to structural
dynamics. USA, Publisher: McGraw-Hill.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all I thank the Almighty God, I would like to express
my sincerely gratefulness to Mr. NAZISH mythesisCo-guide
without whom this project could possibly never have been
accomplished. He gives me not only large number of
significant advice, guidance and comments, but also
motivates supervision and encouragement.
There are people without whom this dissertation might not
have been possible and to whom I am greatly thankful.
Therefore, I would like to acknowledge:
My supervisor MISBAH DANISH SABRI,AssistantProfessor
and Project Guide, Department of Civil Engineering, Al-
FALAH University who was not simply supervisors, but also
friends and mentors. Without him and his wealth of
knowledge, patience and reliability;Icouldnotreachthis far.
BIOGRAPHY
MD SHARIB RAHMANI
M.TECH(Structural & Foundation
Engineering)
Department of Civil Engineering
AL-FALAH UNIVERSITY Faridabad.
(INDIA)

Non Linear Analysis of RCC Building with and Without Shear Wall

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Non Linear Analysis of RCC Building with and Without Shear Wall (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Non Linear Analysis of RCC Building with and Without Shear Wall