Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1821–1830

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Comparative analysis of behaviour of horizontal and vertical irregular

buildings with and without using shear walls by ETABS software
Rachakonda Divya, K. Murali ⇑
Department of Civil Engineering, Marri Laxman Reddy Institute of Technology and Management, Hyderabad, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: At present days building a structure with all the regular configurations is not feasible in most of the cases
Available online 17 December 2021 due to the irregular plot dimensions, aesthetic visual and functional requirements in the urban cities. The
structure with more irregular configuration either horizontally or vertically are more vulnerable to earth-
Keywords: quake & wind forces which leads to collapses of structure, property loss and casualties. Although a con-
RCC structure siderable amount of research effort was made on capturing the responses of irregular configuration
Irregular structures under the earthquake forces, but well-accepted guidelines for multi storey irregular configu-
Horizontal
ration structures are still yet to be framed. In this aspect a question might arise in the mind of structural
Vertical
Shear wall
engineers designing a high-rise structure i.e., which irregular configuration of structures and type of
ETABS structures provide considerably good responses to the earthquake forces in reducing the damage caused
Setback by earthquakes and cost effective in implementing. A well-known answer is that shear walls provide
Storey shear good response to resist lateral forces when added to a structure.
Storey drift and model stiffness In the present study a structure with horizontal irregularity, vertical irregularity, Stiffness irregularity
and Mass irregularity buildings with and without shear wall is considered and responses of the buildings
are compared. Modeling of these 4 types of models with and without shear walls are done with ETABS
software for G + 15 storey. The goal of the study is to compare model results like Stiffness,
Displacement, Shear & Drift values and find out which model performs better. Vertical geometrical irreg-
ular building with shear wall has shown considerably better performance than other irregular buildings.
Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence on Smart and Sustainable Developments in Materials, Manufacturing and Energy Engineering

1. Introduction We often see irregular plot areas in which construction is car-

ried out. In order to make complete utilization of the land, irregular
A building structure can be regarded as irregular, if a structure structures are proposed. When such structures are to be designed
has irregular distributions due to its irregular geometrical configu- for seismic zone areas, the analysis and design becomes a more
rations like Vertical Set-back irregularity, Re-Entrant corners irreg- complex task. Irregular structures without proper analysis are vul-
ularity, Mass Irregularity and Stiffness irregularity of the building nerable to earthquake. A well-known fact is that when Shear Walls
as per IS 1893:2016 [11]. Generally, damage in a building will are added to the structure, it provides more earthquake & wind
majorly initiate at a place where there is a weakness which exists resisting strength to the structures which in turn makes the struc-
in the structure. The weakness which is present in the building will tures stable under lateral loading [2]. Shear Walls act as horizontal
cause structural damage that may end up with structure collapse. diaphragm to distribute the lateral loads through the structure par-
In majority the presence of irregularities such as strength of a allel to the force of action. Because of its high rigidity shear wall
storey, stiffness of the storey or mass of a floor will cause weakness resist lateral forces to with stand shear and flexure to stop struc-
in a structure. The irregularities in a structure are largely catego- ture from overturning. The orientation and location of shear wall
rized as Vertical Irregularity & Horizontal (Plan) Irregularity. provides major effect on the behavior of the structure under appli-
cation of lateral loads because orientation and location of shear
wall plays a major role in load distribution in a structure. Com-
⇑ Corresponding author.
pared to horizontal rigid frames, Shear walls are much stiffer.
Therefore, shear walls are economical. Hence, application of shear
E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Murali).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.489
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Developments in Materials,
Manufacturing and Energy Engineering
R. Divya and K. Murali Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1821–1830

walls to irregular structures may increase performance and reduce ric irregular building if the horizontal proportions of any storey
the structural damage. In this study an attempt is made to compare which acts as a lateral force resisting system is over and above
Plan (Horizontal) irregularity, Vertical geometric irregularity, Stiff- 125 percent.
ness irregularity and Mass irregularity structure behavior with and Plan (Horizontal) Irregularity is modeled with a re-entrant
without shear walls and their performance parameters like Storey corner configuration with a projection at any corner of the building
Stiffness, Storey Drift, Storey Displacement and Storey Shear is ver- along horizontal direction. As per IS 1893-2016 [11] (clause 7.1,
ified. Here a G + 15 storey structure is considered for comparison Table 5, Fig. 3B) a structure is said to be Horizontal Irregular if
with an irregular configuration as per IS 1893:2016 [11]. The the floor has a slab projection of measurement over and above
design & analysis of structures are done in ETABS 2018 software 15 percent of floor proportions in the given direction.
with linear static analysis & linear dynamic analysis i.e., Response Mass Irregularity is modeled with a building of regular config-
spectrum analysis methodologies where obtained responses were uration and mass load acting on any of the floor (15th Floor in this
compared. study) is increased. As per IS 1893–2016 [11] (clause 7.1, Table 6,
Zabihullah, Priyanka Singh and Mohammad Zamir Aryan (2020) Fig. 4B) a structure is said to be Mass Irregular if the seismic weight
conducted study on ‘‘Effect of (Vertical & Horizontal) Geometric in each floor is over and above 150 percent of floor below it.
Irregularities on the Seismic Response of RC Structures” [1]. In Stiffness Irregular (Soft Storey) is modeled with a building of
the given study Ground + 7 RCC buildings are modeled with hori- regular configuration and the height of the ground floor is
zontal and vertical geometric irregularities. The modeling, analysis increased. As per IS 1893-2016 [11] (clause 7.1, Table 6, Fig. 4A)
and design are performed in ETABS where Base shear, Fundamental a structure is said to be Stiffness Irregular if the lateral stiffness
period, Storey Stiffness, Lateral-displacement, Storey Drift, Eccen- of the given floor is smaller than the storey immediately above
tricity and Torsion irregularity is compared. In this study, the to it.
author had concluded that vertical geometric irregularity model The analysis of G + 15 buildings are done using linear static
provided superior seismic performance whereas Horizontal geo- analysis & linear dynamic analysis i.e., response spectrum analysis
metric irregularity model provided least seismic performance considering all factors as per IS code: 1893–2016 part 1 [11].
among the models compared. The study also concluded that cer-
tain combinations of irregularities will display better seismic
performance. 4. Modeling details
Pradeep Pujar, Amaresh (2017) conducted study on ‘‘SEISMIC
ANALYSIS OF PLAN IRREGULAR MULTI-STORIED BUILDING WITH In the current study, structure analysis of Ground + 15 multi-
AND WITHOUT SHEAR WALLS” [9]. In the given study Ground + 9 storey commercial structures are considered in ETABS keeping
RCC buildings are modeled with horizontal geometric irregularities same plan dimension and storey height for Plan (Horizontal) irreg-
like I-Shape, L-Shape and C-Shape. The modeling, analysis and ularity, Vertical geometric irregularity, Stiffness irregularity and
design are performed in ETABS where storey drift, storey displace- Mass irregularity with and without shear walls. In all the struc-
ment and storey shear are compared. In this study, the author had tures the column base joints were given restraints in all directions,
concluded that by deploying shear walls the uprooting effect of the this would represent the foundation of the Structure. The values of
building is decreased by 50–70%. L-Shape and C-Shape buildings seismic zone factor, soil type is taken from the tables of IS
show great seismic performance. 1893:2016 (Part 1) code. Hyderabad city is considered for Wind
and Seismic analysis which is present in Zone II as per IS
2. Aim and scope of the study 1893:2016. Basic parameters considered for the analysis are shown
in below table (see Tables 1–7).
The goal of this study is to find which irregularity configuration
structure provides good performance under lateral loads for the Horizontal (Plan) irregularity
given models within the study. Although IS-code book suggests
to always prefer regular configuration of the building but in real See Figs. 1 and 2.
time scenario it is not always possible to have regular configura-
tion structure. When these building are to be built in high earth- Vertical geometric irregularity
quake zone and there is a need of any irregular configuration
then this study helps to ensure optimal model is chosen with the See Figs. 3 and 4.
behaviour of the structure when we construct a building which
has Shear wall, and which doesn’t have Shear wall. The scope of Mass irregularity
the study includes comparison of Storey Stiffness, Story Drift, Story
Displacement and Story Shear of four irregularity (vertical Geomet-
Table 1
ric, Horizontal, Mass and Stiffness) buildings with and without Structure properties.
shear wall using ETABS software.
Building Height 51 m
Storey Height 3m
3. Methodology Rebar Grade Fe550
Condition of Soil Medium type of Soil [11] (Codebook-Clause No.
6.4.2.1)
A plot with 30 m  30 m plan is considered and column-to- Earthquake Zone 2 [11] (Codebook-Annex E)
column distance is kept at 5 m in both X & Y direction. Within this Speed of Wind 44 m per second [15] (Codebook-Annex A)
30 m  30 m plan four types of irregular models with and without Imposed Load 4 kN/m2 [14] (Codebook-Table 1)
shear walls were modeled. Below are the irregularities which are Super Dead Load 2.5 kN/m2 [13] (Codebook-Table 1)
Structure Importance 1.2[11] (Table 1)
considered: Factor
Vertical Geometric Irregularity is modeled with a setback con- Response Factor for RCC 3[11] (Table 1)
figuration for 3 different step heights i.e., ground to 5th Floor, 6th Time Period for RCC 1.43 sec [11] (Clause 7.6.2)
to 10th Floor and 10th to 15th Floor. As per IS 1893-2016 [11] Damping Ratio for RCC 5% [11] (Clause 7.8.2.1)
Slab Thickness 125 mm
(clause 7.1, Table 6, Fig. 4C) a building is said to be vertical geomet-
1822
R. Divya and K. Murali Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1821–1830

Table.2
Size of the members (without shear wall).

Type Units Column Size Beam Size

HIWoSW mm 400  650 (GF to 5th Floor) 400  400
400  400 (6th to 15th Floor)
VIWoSW mm 400  600 (GF to 5th Floor) 400  400
400  400 (6th to 15th Floor)
MIWoSW mm 450  650 (GF to 5th Floor) 450  400
450  400 (6th to 15th Floor)
SIWoSW mm 450  650 (GF to 5th Floor) 450  400
450  400 (6th to 15th Floor)

Table 3 Fig. 1. Horizontal Irregularity without Shear Wall (HIWoSW).

Size of the members (With Shear Wall).

Type Units Column Size Beam Size See Figs. 5 and 6.

HIWSW mm 400  600 (GF to 5th Floor) 400  400
400  400 (6th to 15th Floor) Stiffness irregularity
VIWSW mm 400  500 (GF to 5th Floor) 400  400
400  350 (6th to 15th Floor) See Figs. 7 and 8.
MIWSW mm 450  600 (GF to 5th Floor) 450  400 Below are the achieved sizes of columns and beam after analy-
450  400 (6th to 15th Floor)
SIWSW mm 450  550 (GF to 5th Floor) 450  400
sis and design maintaining the steel percentage of below 4% for
450  400 (6th to 15th Floor) columns (see Figs. 9–24).

Table 4
Maximum value of Storey Stiffness (kN/m).

Analysis Parameters HIWoSW HIWSW VIWoSW VIWSW MIWoSW MIWSW SIWoSW SIWSW
Seismic-X 1247869.48 6710942.92 1375231.15 6179406.12 1918466.92 4377076.59 1591132.76 4227699.92
Seismic-Y 774077.20 6446511.99 991641.84 16699868.13 1343648.09 4015914.69 1121582.64 4039981.63
Wind-X 1178748.59 7137588.15 1380038.95 6609274.38 1934225.89 4616699.44 1598769.25 4405174.16
Wind-Y 749330.54 6896777.61 995636.91 12469182.55 1349033.61 4237005.19 1124197.11 4219207.93
Response spectrum X 1236973.47 7721213.14 1389850.63 7450336.23 1941467.96 4688277.96 1604096.22 4479266.61
Response spectrum Y 780808.75 7433931.80 867786.74 10072711.52 1353437.34 4296762.36 1126952.33 4280095.71

Table 5
Maximum value of Storey Drift (Unit less).

Analysis Parameters HIWoSW HIWSW VIWoSW VIWSW MIWoSW MIWSW SIWoSW SIWSW
Seismic-X 0.001869 0.000785 0.001608 0.000822 0.001806 0.001236 0.001750 0.001213
Seismic-Y 0.001884 0.000796 0.001929 0.000387 0.001698 0.001222 0.002475 0.001195
Wind-X 0.002106 0.000808 0.001427 0.000671 0.000988 0.000658 0.001313 0.000699
Wind-Y 0.002507 0.000822 0.001130 0.000125 0.000988 0.000672 0.001313 0.000730
Response spectrum X 0.001614 0.000586 0.001328 0.000538 0.001461 0.000942 0.001702 0.000951
Response spectrum Y 0.001755 0.000602 0.001704 0.000268 0.001501 0.000940 0.002422 0.000957

Table 6
Maximum value of Storey Displacement (mm).

Analysis Parameters HIWoSW HIWSW VIWoSW VIWSW MIWoSW MIWSW SIWoSW SIWSW
Seismic-X 67.94 31.87 59.78 33.77 65.66 48.91 67.70 49.70
Seismic-Y 75.35 32.53 76.15 15.22 67.60 48.72 72.69 49.44
Wind-X 78.63 33.79 54.73 28.41 34.71 24.97 39.84 28.06
Wind-Y 86.42 34.49 33.99 5.02 34.71 25.14 39.84 28.14
Response spectrum X 56.80 23.71 42.22 20.96 50.63 36.28 54.37 38.20
Response spectrum Y 62.31 14.11 59.26 8.57 53.21 36.58 59.57 38.35

Table 7
Maximum value of Storey Shear (kN).

Analysis Parameters HIWoSW HIWSW VIWoSW VIWSW MIWoSW MIWSW SIWoSW SIWSW
Seismic-X 2444.86 2061.40 2465.63 2576.93 3794.38 3790.09 3703.09 3677.33
Seismic-Y 2478.93 2063.01 2496.12 2536.86 3823.92 3794.34 3751.51 3680.66
Wind-X 2790.61 2697.33 2767.45 2696.84 2787.40 2735.87 2809.92 2744.14
Wind-Y 2827.52 2699.00 1822.46 1741.68 2809.57 2739.06 2846.99 2746.76
Response spectrum X 2410.30 2040.14 2436.78 2548.94 3741.35 3741.19 3662.11 3635.30
Response spectrum Y 2442.91 2041.30 2459.45 2533.70 3773.33 3746.44 3712.64 3639.56

1823
R. Divya and K. Murali Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1821–1830

Fig. 6. Mass Irregularity with Shear Wall (MIWSW).

Fig. 2. Horizontal Irregularity with Shear Wall (HIWSW).

Fig. 3. Vertical Irregularity without Shear Wall (VIWoSW).

Fig. 7. Stiffness Irregularity without Shear Wall (SIWoSW).

Fig. 4. Vertical Irregularity with Shear Wall (VIWSW).

Fig. 8. Stiffness Irregularity with Shear Wall (SIWSW).

larity with SW), SIWoSW (Stiffness Irregularity without SW) and

SIWSW (Stiffness Irregularity with SW) types of buildings for
Storey Stiffness, Storey Drift, Storey Displacement and Storey Shear
parameters are compared. Comparison of all the models is carried
out considering both X and Y-Axis which are listed in the study.

5.1. Storey stiffness

In the above table it can be observed that HIWSW (horizontal

irregularity with shear wall model) provides better stiffness in X-
direction whereas VIWSW (vertical irregularity with shear wall
Fig. 5. Mass Irregularity without Shear Wall (MIWoSW). model) provides better stiffness in Y-direction. With addition of
shear walls to the buildings the stiffness of the building increased
drastically by more than 100% due to the factor that shear walls act
5. Analysis results & discussion as a stiffening component and increase the rigidity of the building
to stand movement of the building caused by lateral forces.
With the help of below charts and tables, comparison results of
HIWoSW (Horizontal Irregularity without SW), HIWSW (Horizon- 5.2. Storey drift
tal Irregularity with SW), VIWoSW (Vertical Geometry Irregularity
without SW), VIWSW (Vertical Geometry Irregularity with SW), In the above table it can be observed that VIWSW (vertical geo-
MIWoSW (Mass Irregularity without SW), MIWSW (Mass Irregu- metric irregularity with shear wall model) provides better Storey
1824
R. Divya and K. Murali Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1821–1830

Fig. 9. Storey Stiffness for Seismic-X Direction.

Fig. 10. Storey Stiffness for Seismic-Y Direction.

Fig. 11. Storey Stiffness for Response Spectrum-X Direction.

Drift for X & Y-axis. By adding of shear walls to the irregular mod- code. For Vertical geometry Irregularity model, the Storey Drift
els the storey Drift of the building decreased by more than 32% for shows a decrease of 68% on average of all the load cases for with
all the models because shear walls increase the stiffness of the shear wall model. For Horizontal Irregularity model the Storey
frame which makes the structure to drift less under lateral forces. Drift shows a decrease of 66% on average of all the load cases for
The drift of all the models is in allowable level as described the IS with shear wall model. For Mass Irregularity model the Storey Drift

1825
R. Divya and K. Murali Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1821–1830

Fig. 12. Storey Stiffness for Response Spectrum-Y Direction.

Fig. 13. Storey Drift for Seismic-X Direction.

Fig. 14. Storey Drift for Seismic-Y Direction.

shows a decrease of 32% on average of all the load cases for with 5.3. Storey displacement
shear wall model. For Stiffness Irregularity model the Storey Drift
shows a decrease of 47% on average of all the load cases for with In the above table it can be observed that VIWSW (vertical
shear wall model geometry irregularity with shear wall model) provides better Dis-
placement in X & Y-direction. With addition of shear walls to the
1826
R. Divya and K. Murali Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1821–1830

Fig. 15. Storey Drift for Response Spectrum-X Direction.

Fig. 16. Storey Drift for Response Spectrum-Y Direction.

Fig. 17. Storey Displacement for Seismic-X Direction.

irregularity models the storey Displacement of the building shows a decrease of 61% on average of all the load cases for with
decreases by more than 28% for all the models because shear walls shear wall model. For Mass Irregularity model the Storey Displace-
make the structure to displace less under lateral forces. For Vertical ment shows a decrease of 28% on average of all the load cases for
geometry Irregularity model, the Storey Displacement shows a with shear wall model. For Stiffness Irregularity model the Storey
decrease of 65% on average of all the load cases for with shear wall Displacement shows a decrease of 30% on average of all the load
model. For Horizontal Irregularity model the Storey Displacement cases for with shear wall model

1827
R. Divya and K. Murali Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1821–1830

Fig. 18. Storey Displacement for Seismic-Y Direction.

Fig. 19. Storey Displacement for Response Spectrum-X Direction.

Fig. 20. Storey Displacement for Response Spectrum-Y Direction.

1828
R. Divya and K. Murali Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1821–1830

Fig. 21. Storey Shear for Seismic-X Direction.

Fig. 22. Storey Shear for Seismic-Y Direction.

Fig. 23. Storey Shear for Response Spectrum-X Direction.

Fig. 24. Storey Shear for Response Spectrum-Y Direction.

1829
R. Divya and K. Murali Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 1821–1830

5.4. Storey shear Declaration of Competing Interest

In the above table it can be observed that HIWSW (horizontal The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
irregularity with shear wall model) provides better Storey Shear cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
in X & Y-direction. With addition of shear walls to the irregularity to influence the work reported in this paper.
model the storey shear of the building decreased by more than 10%
this is because there is reduction in the size of the members which References
reduced the mass of the building.
[1] Zabihullah, Priyanka Singh, Mohammad Zamir Aryan, Effect of (Vertical &
Horizontal) Geometric Irregularities on the Seismic Response of RC Structures,
6. Conclusion IJET, May 2020.
[2] Ravikanth Chittiprolu, Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar, Significance of Shear Wall
in High-rise Irregular Buildings, IJEAR 4(Spl-2) (2014).
A building performance is measured based on parameters like
[9] Pradeep Pujar, Amaresh, Seismic analysis of plan irregular multi-storied
lower drift & Displacement values and higher storey stiffness val- building with and without shear walls, IRJET 4 (2017), e-ISSN: 2395-0056.
ues with economical member sizes then non economical member [11] IS 1893(Part 1) 2016: Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures,
usage. A building with higher column and beam sizes is tends to Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings.
[13] IS 875(part 1): 1987, ‘‘Code of practice for design loads (other than
show lower drift & Displacement values and higher storey stiffness earthquake) for buildings and structures”.
values then other models but the building is said to be non- [14] IS 875(part 2): 1987, ‘‘Code of practice for design loads (other than
economical. Hence, it can be concluded from the above study that earthquake) for buildings and structures”.
[15] IS 875(part 3): 2015, ‘‘Code of practice for design loads (other than
VIWSW (vertical geometric irregularity with shear wall model) earthquake) for buildings and structures”.
performs better among all the other models in the study due to
its lower Storey drift, Storey Displacement and higher Storey Stiff- Further reading
ness values achieved by considering minimum member size usage
when compared to other models and the model is said to be eco- [3] S. Naveen E, N.M. Abraham, A.K. S D, Analysis of irregular structures under
nomical than any other model because of its minimum structural earthquake loads, Proc. Struct. Integrity 14 (2019) 806–819.
[4] Dileshwar Rana, Juned Raheem, Seismic analysis of regular & vertical geometric
member’s size. irregular RCC framed building, IRJET 2(4) (2015) e-ISSN: 2395-0056.
[5] Hema Mukundan, S. Manivel, Effect of vertical stiffness irregularity on multi-
 By adding shear walls to irregular building models, the overall storey shear wall-framed structures using response spectrum analysis, Int. J.
Innovative Res. Sci., Eng. Technol. 4(3) (2015).
performance of the building under lateral forces increased by [6] Rakesh Sakale, R.K. Arora, Jitendra Chouhan, Seismic behavior of buildings
nearly 60%-70%. having horizontal irregularities, Int. J. Struct. Civil Eng. Res. 3(4) (2014).
 The Storey Displacement & Storey Drift of the building has [7] N. Vishal, M. Ramesh Kannan, L. Keerthika, Seismic analysis of multi-storey
irregular building with different structural systems, IJRTE 8 (6) (2020), ISSN:
reduced by more than 30% which increased stiffness to with 2277-3878.
stand lateral forces acting on the structure. [8] H.N. Chaitra, B. Shivakumara Swamy, Study on performance of regular and
 With addition of shear walls the structure member sizes vertically irregular structure with dampers, shear wall and infill wall, IRJET 3
(10) (2016), e-ISSN: 2395 -0056.
required for a building are reduced which helps to decrease
[10] Suruchi Mishra, Rizwanullah, Conducted study on ‘‘Comparative Analysis of
the storey shear by decrease of overall mass. Regular and Irregular Buildings with and Without Shear Wall”, 2017.
 Shear walls makes the irregular structure more economical [12] IS 456:2000 Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice.
when compared to irregular structure without shear walls.

1830