Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2021) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Structural Integrity 46 (2023) 162–168

5th International Conference on Structural Integrity and Durability

Orientation and location of shear walls in RC buildings to control

deflection and drifts
Ashikur Rahman Simona,*, Ferdows Kabir Hridoya, M. Fahim Siddiquea, Sanjid Ahmed
Safata
a
Islamic University of Technology, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Gazipur, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Abstract

Controlling drifts and deflection caused by lateral loads such as wind load and earthquake load is a major concern while
constructing high-rise buildings. To resist the lateral loads, one of the most feasible and commonly used mechanisms are the
shear wall system. Shear walls provide high plane stiffness and strength which can be utilized to resist large horizontal loads and
support gravity loads simultaneously. While placing the shear walls in a building structure, a major issue is the orientation and
location which plays a vital role in the seismic performance of such a system against lateral loads. If shear walls are not placed
properly, they may generate eccentricity in buildings which is the main cause for torsion. In this study, attempts have been
carried out to find out the proper orientation and location of shear walls in RC buildings to control drifts and deflection by
modeling and analyzing buildings with different shear wall positions. For this purpose, a 10 storey RC building has been modeled
in computer application software ETABS with different locations of shear walls (i.e. shear walls at center, shear walls at sides
and inner walls, shear walls at the periphery, shear walls at corners, and shear walls at center and edges). The framed building
structure was subjected to lateral and gravity loadings under BNBC 2020 and the analytical results of each model have been
compared with that of the bare frame in terms of storey shear, storey drift, storey displacement, stiffness, torsional irregularity,
and time period. Based on the results of structural analysis, it has been concluded that shear walls at the periphery are the best
location to control deflection and drifts of reinforced concrete buildings.

© 2023
© 2021TheTheAuthors.
Authors.Published
Publishedby Elsevier B.V.
by ELSEVIER B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of ICSID 2021 Organizers
Peer-review under responsibility of ICSID 2021 Organizers
Keywords: Shear Wall; Shear Wall Location; Lateral Loads; Drift; Displacement; Time Period; Stiffness; ETABS

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +880 1922 757410

E-mail address: [email protected]

2452-3216 © 2021 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of ICSID 2021 Organizers

2452-3216 © 2023 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of ICSID 2021 Organizers
10.1016/j.prostr.2023.06.028
 Ashikur Rahman Simon et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 46 (2023) 162–168 163
2 Simon A. R. et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

1. Introduction

Generally, shear wall can be defined as a vertical structural element that can resist the combination of shear,
moment, and axial load induced by lateral loads such as wind load and earthquake load (Rokanuzzaman et al., 2017).
It is a rigid vertical diaphragm that is capable of moving lateral loads in a direction parallel to their planes from
exterior walls, floors, and roofs to the ground foundation (Ali & Aquil, 2014). Due to different factors such as
availability of usable land, cost of land, development of urban areas, development of modern structural systems,
high-rise buildings are becoming very common. But increasing the height of the building makes it susceptible to
lateral loads. An introduction of shear wall can be a structurally efficient solution to this problem.
Shear walls are proven to be extremely effective in terms of structural stability (Magendra et al., 2016). A
research was conducted to investigate the behavior of structure by varying percentage length of shear walls with an
aspect ratio (L/B) of 1 for seismicity and concluded that for a square type of building having a length of shear walls
10 to 20% of plan dimension shows efficient seismic performance (Halkude et al., 2015). If shear walls are placed
properly, they can provide adequate strength and stiffness to control lateral displacements. Therefore, a thorough
investigation is necessary to find out the optimum location of shear walls in RC buildings to control drift and
deflection.
In this study, a detailed investigation was carried out to find out the proper location and orientation of shear walls
in RC buildings in earthquake zone II of Bangladesh. For this purpose, a (G+9) storey building with 10 feet height
for every storey is selected. Six structural models have been developed with different locations of shear walls under
the BNBC 2020 using the software ETABS 2016 V16.2.1. The analytical results are displayed in terms of storey
shear, lateral displacement, storey drift, torsional irregularity, storey stiffness, and time period.

2. Methodology

2.1. Description of the framed building

For analysis, a ten-storied (G+9) reinforced concrete building over a land area of 56 ft x 40 ft has been selected in
earthquake Zone II as per Bangladesh National Building Code 2020 (BNBC, 2020) (zone factor = 0.20). The
parameters of the building are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Building details
Sl. No. Particulars Data
1 No. of storey 10
2 Plan dimension 56ft x 40ft
3 Storey height 10ft
4 Grade of concrete M30
5 Grade of steel Fe420
6 Thickness of slab 5in
7 Grade beam size 12in x 15in
8 Beam size 12in x 15in
9 Column size 12in x 20in, 15in x 18in
10 Seismic zone II
11 Importance factor 1
12 Site co-efficient 1.2
13 Earthquake load BNBC 2020
14 Thickness of shear wall 10in
15 Load assign BNBC 2020
164 Ashikur Rahman Simon et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 46 (2023) 162–168
Simon A. R. et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 3

2.2. Methods for seismic analysis of buildings

There are two commonly used methods for determining seismic design lateral forces: equivalent static analysis
and response spectrum analysis. In this study, equivalent static analysis was used. The equivalent static analysis is a
simplified technique that substitutes the dynamic loading effect of an expected earthquake by a static force
distributed laterally on the building structure (Prasad et al., 2014). In this technique, it is considered that the building
responds in its fundamental mode when the vibrations due to earthquakes are generated (Belgaonkar et al., 2017).
For this to be valid, the building must be low rise and must be sufficiently symmetrical to prevent torsional motion
under ground motion. This method of analysis can be applicable to the buildings whose seismic response in each
direction is not significantly influenced by contributions from modes higher than the fundamental mode.

2.3. Structural models

Six structural models have been developed for the analysis. One model has been constructed without the shear
wall and five others have been constructed with different locations and orientations of shear walls which are shown
in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. (a) Model 1 (No shear wall); (b) Model 2 (Shear walls at center); (c) Model 3 (Shear walls at sides and Inner walls); (d) Model 4 (Shear
walls at the periphery); (e) Model 5 (Shear walls at corners); (f) Model 6 (Shear walls at center and edges).
 Ashikur Rahman Simon et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 46 (2023) 162–168 165
4 Simon A. R. et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Storey shear

Storey shear of all models is summarized in Table 2. As expected, storey shear is gradually decreased in the
upper floors of the models. It is observed from the following table that storey shear has been decreased by about
85% from ground floor to the roof. This is because the earthquake waves are generated from the ground and the
storey which is very near to the ground will be affected by a greater force. The effect of the earthquake thus
gradually goes on decreasing to the top stories. Comparing the results of the different models, it is observed that
storey shear is slightly reduced when shear walls are placed at periphery. Other than that, no significant variation in
storey shear at a particular level of the building is found.
Table 2. Storey shear (kip)
Storey shear, kip
Storey
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Roof 59.90 64.18 67.14 64.14 64.08 63.57
Storey9 127.40 132.70 135.00 129.22 129.11 130.70
Storey8 188.02 194.23 195.94 187.65 187.51 190.99
Storey7 241.75 248.76 249.95 239.44 239.27 244.42
Storey6 288.59 296.30 297.03 284.60 284.39 291.00
Storey5 328.54 336.85 337.19 323.11 322.88 330.73
Storey4 361.60 370.41 370.43 354.98 354.73 363.62
Storey3 387.77 396.98 396.74 380.22 379.95 389.65
Storey2 407.06 416.56 416.13 398.81 398.53 408.83
Storey1 419.46 429.14 428.60 410.76 410.48 421.16
GF 422.71 432.42 431.76 413.67 413.38 424.31

3.2. Storey drift

Storey drift in X and Y directions of all models are summarized in Figure 2 and Table 3. Structural model with
no shear wall shows maximum storey drift among all models in both X and Y directions as shown in Figure 2. It
indicates that by implementing shear walls it is possible to reduce storey drift significantly. Similar conclusion was
also drawn in a different study conducted on the location of shear wall in RC structure (Ganesh.A et al., 2016). After
implementing the shear wall, drift values become within the permissible value of 0.004 as per BNBC 2020. It is
observed from Table 3 that storey drift is dependent upon the location of the shear wall. In this study, shear walls at
the periphery model shows about 95% less drift at the ground floor than no shear wall model in X-direction. On the
contrary, the model with shear walls at sides and inner walls shows about 97% less drift at the ground floor than no
shear wall model in Y-direction.

Fig. 2. (a) Storey drift in X-direction; (b) Storey drift in Y-direction.

166 Ashikur Rahman Simon et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 46 (2023) 162–168
Simon A. R. et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 5

Table 3. Storey drift

X - direction Y - direction
Maximum
Storey Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model
limit
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Roof 0.0029 0.0012 0.0011 0.0007 0.0011 0.0012 0.0024 0.0023 0.0004 0.0014 0.0019 0.0018 0.004
Storey9 0.0049 0.0013 0.0012 0.0007 0.0012 0.0012 0.0036 0.0024 0.0004 0.0014 0.0019 0.0018 0.004
Storey8 0.0070 0.0013 0.0012 0.0007 0.0012 0.0012 0.0050 0.0024 0.0004 0.0014 0.0019 0.0018 0.004
Storey7 0.0089 0.0013 0.0011 0.0007 0.0011 0.0012 0.0063 0.0024 0.0004 0.0014 0.0019 0.0018 0.004
Storey6 0.0106 0.0012 0.0011 0.0006 0.0011 0.0012 0.0074 0.0024 0.0004 0.0014 0.0019 0.0017 0.004
Storey5 0.0120 0.0012 0.0010 0.0006 0.0010 0.0011 0.0083 0.0023 0.0004 0.0013 0.0018 0.0017 0.004
Storey4 0.0132 0.0011 0.0009 0.0006 0.0009 0.0010 0.0091 0.0021 0.0004 0.0012 0.0016 0.0015 0.004
Storey3 0.0139 0.0009 0.0008 0.0005 0.0008 0.0009 0.0094 0.0018 0.0003 0.0010 0.0014 0.0013 0.004
Storey2 0.0137 0.0007 0.0006 0.0004 0.0006 0.0007 0.0091 0.0015 0.0003 0.0008 0.0011 0.0010 0.004
Storey1 0.0111 0.0005 0.0004 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0071 0.0010 0.0002 0.0005 0.0007 0.0007 0.004
GF 0.0048 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 0.0029 0.0005 0.0001 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.004

3.3. Storey displacement

Storey displacement in X and Y directions of all models is summarized in Table 4. Shear walls at the periphery
model undergoes less displacement in X-direction. In this study, shear walls at the periphery show about 94% less
displacement at the roof than no shear wall model in X-direction. On the contrary, shear walls at sides and inner
walls model undergo less displacement in Y-direction. It shows about 95% less displacement than no shear wall
model in Y-direction. Lateral displacement for the model without a shear wall is more than the permissible limit
prescribed in BNBC 2020 (permissible limit = h/500, h is the height of the building). In addition, displacement in
each direction is within the limit for other models except for shear walls at the center model.

Table 4. Storey displacement (in)

X - direction Y - direction
Storey Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Roof 12.22 1.30 1.16 0.68 1.15 1.24 8.40 2.52 0.44 1.45 1.96 1.83
Storey9 11.88 1.15 1.02 0.60 1.01 1.10 8.12 2.24 0.39 1.28 1.74 1.62
Storey8 11.29 0.99 0.88 0.52 0.88 0.95 7.68 1.95 0.34 1.11 1.51 1.40
Storey7 10.45 0.84 0.74 0.44 0.74 0.80 7.08 1.66 0.29 0.94 1.28 1.18
Storey6 9.39 0.69 0.61 0.36 0.60 0.66 6.33 1.37 0.24 0.77 1.05 0.97
Storey5 8.11 0.54 0.47 0.28 0.47 0.52 5.44 1.08 0.19 0.60 0.83 0.76
Storey4 6.67 0.40 0.35 0.21 0.35 0.38 4.44 0.81 0.14 0.45 0.61 0.56
Storey3 5.09 0.28 0.24 0.14 0.23 0.26 3.36 0.55 0.10 0.30 0.42 0.38
Storey2 3.43 0.17 0.14 0.08 0.14 0.16 2.23 0.33 0.06 0.18 0.25 0.22
Storey1 1.78 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.07 1.14 0.15 0.03 0.08 0.11 0.10

3.4. Storey stiffness

Storey stiffness in X and Y directions of all models is summarized in Table 5. It is observed that with the
increasing length of the shear wall, the stiffness of the structure also increases. As displacement and stiffness are
inversely proportional, the lesser the displacement more is the stiffness. From Table 5, it is seen that shear walls at
the periphery model have the highest value of stiffness in X-direction which is 36486.52 Kip/in on the ground floor.
So, this model can be considered as the best one in X-direction. On the contrary, in Y-direction, shear walls at sides
and inner walls model have the highest value of stiffness which is 44531.46 kip/in on the ground floor.
 Ashikur Rahman Simon et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 46 (2023) 162–168 167
6 Simon A. R. et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

Table 5. Storey stiffness (kip/in)

X - direction Y - direction
Storey Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Roof 171.6 428.4 489.3 793.7 465.0 437.6 209.1 229.7 1410.2 381.9 286.1 299.9
Storey9 217.4 871.4 974.4 1581.1 929.4 887.9 292.7 463.3 2753.6 757.7 566.2 608.7
Storey8 224.8 1269.3 1414.0 2296.5 1352.3 1294.3 314.0 668.0 3937.8 1094.4 814.2 884.0
Storey7 226.5 1639.9 1828.6 2973.0 1753.0 1674.5 321.2 852.2 5024.6 1406.4 1041.5 1137.9
Storey6 227.1 2010.5 2247.8 3658.7 2160.2 2056.2 324.9 1031.1 6095.9 1717.3 1265.6 1389.5
Storey5 227.7 2416.9 2712.9 4419.3 2613.4 2476.5 328.1 1223.7 7248.5 2058.7 1509.8 1665.0
Storey4 229.0 2916.2 3290.9 5361.0 3178.0 2994.9 332.9 1459.6 8624.0 2481.6 1810.7 2006.2
Storey3 233.0 3617.4 4114.1 6690.6 3983.0 3726.6 343.4 1794.6 10472.6 3085.5 2239.1 2495.2
Storey2 247.2 4787.6 5518.0 8919.7 5353.4 4954.6 373.2 2367.2 13352.6 4120.4 2973.2 3340.8
Storey1 316.0 7550.3 8961.6 14190.6 8692.8 7711.7 491.4 3742.9 18795.8 6606.9 4751.6 5411.5
GF 928.8 19166.2 25043.4 36486.5 25231.8 22188.3 1500.7 10793.7 44531.5 19526.5 14815.4 17598.4

3.5. Torsional irregularity

Torsional irregularity in X and Y directions of all models is summarized in Table 6. According to BNBC,
torsional irregularity exists when the ratio of maximum storey drift to the average of storey drifts in any direction is
more than 1.2. If the values are more than 1 then we must take measures to reduce torsional force. In this study, no
torsional irregularity is found in any model because of symmetrical building models.
Table 6. Torsional irregularity
9th floor
Model no. Direction ∆1 ∆2 ∆max ∆avg ∆max/∆avg Allowable limit Comment
X 8.47 8.47 8.47 8.47 1 ok
1
Y 5.79 5.79 5.79 5.79 1 ok
X 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 1 ok
2
Y 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1 ok
X 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 1 ok
3
Y 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 1 ok
1.2
X 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 1 ok
4
Y 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 1 ok
X 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 1 ok
5
Y 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1 ok
X 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 1 ok
6
Y 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1 ok

3.6. Time period

Time period of all the models is summarized in Table 8. It has been observed that the no shear wall model shows
a maximum time period of 3.75 seconds among all the models. Time period for shear walls at center model is having
a reduction of about 25%, the model with shear walls at sides and inner walls by about 73%, the model with shear
walls at the periphery by about 70%, the model with shear walls at corners by about 65%, and shear walls at center
and edges model by about 60%. After implementation of shear walls, time period is reduced significantly. It is
because shear walls give high stiffness to the structure that can reduce the time period of structure. It is also
observed that shear walls at periphery model and shear walls at sides and inner walls model show relatively low
natural time period compared to others.
168 Ashikur Rahman Simon et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 46 (2023) 162–168
Simon A. R. et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 7

Table 7. Time period (sec)

Model Time period (sec) Difference (%)
Model 1 3.75 -
Model 2 2.81 24.99
Model 3 1.01 73.04
Model 4 1.13 69.68
Model 5 1.32 64.59
Model 6 1.48 60.32

4. Conclusions

Based on the analytical result of this study, the following conclusions are drawn:

 Utilization of shear walls can contribute to decreasing lateral displacements, storey drift, time period, and
increasing stiffness of the structure
 By comparing shear walls at center model and shear walls at center and edges model, it is found that shear walls
should be placed in both short and long directions.
 Shear walls become more effective when placed symmetrically apart from the center of mass of the building.
 Shear walls at the periphery show better performances.

References

Ali, S. E., & Aquil, M. M. U. (2014). Study of Strength of RC Shear Wall at Different Location on Multi-Storied Residential Building. Int.
Journal of Engineering Research and Application, Vol. 4(Issue 9 (Version 5)), pp.134-141.
Belgaonkar, S. L., A.Amarnath, Bevinakatti, S. B., Pise, N. S., P, C., & Auti, K. I. (2017). Effectiveness of Shear wall Orientation in RC Framed
Structures under the action of Seismic Forces. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, Vol. 7(Issue
3).
BNBC. (2020). Bangladesh National Building Code: Housing and Building Research Institute.
Ganesh.A, C., Jagan.S, & Muthukannan.M. (2016). Study On The Location Of Shearwall In A Structure Using Etabs Nonlinear. International
Journal of Advances in Mechanical and Civil Engineering.
Halkude, S. A., Konapure, C. G., & S.M.Birajdar. (2015). Effect of Location of Shear Walls on Seismic Performance of Buildings. International
Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol. 5.
Magendra, T., Titiksh, A., & Qureshi, A. A. (2016). Optimum Positioning of Shear Walls in Multistorey-Buildings. International Journal of
Trend in Research and Development, Vol. 3(3).
Prasad, V. V. B. L. N. D. V., Sujatha, M. T., & Supriya, M. J. ( 2014). Optimum Location of a Shear Wall in High Rise U-Shape Building.
International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), Vol. 3(Issue 8).
Rokanuzzaman, M., Khanam, F., Das, A., & Chowdhury, S. R. (2017). Effective Location Of Shear Wall On Performance Of Building Frame
Subjected To Lateral Loading. International Journal of Advances in Mechanical and Civil Engineering, Vol. 4(Issue 6).