South -Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies (SAJMS) ISSN:2349-7858:SJIF:2.

246:Volume 3 Issue 2

COMPARISION OF STRENGTH PARAMETERS BETWEEN RCC FRAME AND

SHEAR WALL FRAME USING PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
A.L.Deepak

N.Jitendra Babu

Lecturer
Bule Hora University
ETHIOPIA

Seife Getachew

Asst.Professor
K.L. University
INDIA

Lecturer
Bule Hora University
ETHIOPIA

ABSTRACT
This paper deals with the non-linear (pushover) analysis of a six storey RCC Frame and a SHEAR WALL
Frame subjected to various kinds of loads. Both the structures are considered in the present study. The analysis has
been carried out using ETABS software. Pushover curves have been developed and compared for both the cases. It
was observed that the base force increased up to 20.6%. It has been observed that the RCC Frame with Shear wall is
more stable to displacement than that of plane RCC Frame.

Keywords: Pushover Analysis, plane RCC Frame and RCC Shear Wall Frame.

INTRODUCTION:
The static pushover analysis is becoming a
popular tool for seismic performance evaluation of

carries out estimating the total force acting on the

structure.

existing and new structures. The expectation is that

the

pushover

analysis

will

provide

adequate

information on seismic demands imposed by the

design ground motion on the structural system and its

The main objective of the paper is to study

the performance of RC frames and RCC shear walled
frames under lateral loads and change in their modal
properties under push.

components.
This paper deals with the non linear analysis of
The

pushover

procedure

could

be

categorized into two groups: displacement-based

an RCC frame and also the non-linear analysis of an RCC

frame with shear walls done for lift walls on both sides.

loading and force-based loading, Antoniou and

The analysis is carried out using ETABS

Pinho[2004]. Displacement-based procedure, the

analysis is carries until the target displacement equals
to the top displacement of the structure. Force
controlled pushover procedure is that the analysis is

software. Push-over curves for both the frames are

obtained and comparison is carried out between the two
cases.

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT LTD

227

South -Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies (SAJMS) ISSN:2349-7858:SJIF:2.246:Volume 3 Issue 2

LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS (LSA) OF

CASE: 1 Linear Static Analysis (LSA) of

FRAMES:

RCC Frame without Shear Wall:

Linear static analysis of both the frames is carried out

The frame was considered with six storys (Stilt

in ETABS. All the general loads are considered for

+ G+6) with no irregularities in plan and

the frames with slab at each floor.

elevation i.e., frame on plane ground

The plan considered with column placement is shown

below.

MEMBER PROPERTIES:
All the beams in the frame were sized to
0.3m X 0.45m

All the columns in the frame were sized to

0.3m X 0.6m

The slab of 0.1m thickness was assigned to

each floor.

MEMBER LOADING:
All the members were assigned the following
loadings.

Fig: 1 RCC Frame without Shear Wall.

Self Weight

Dead Load (member load) --- 10 KN/m

Dead Slab Load---- 4.5 KN/m

Live Load----------- 3 KN/m

Earth Quake Loading-- as per IS

1893:2002

It was assumed that the wind force was

not governing the frame efficiency.

The failure beams members in the

analysis appear in red colour in the below
figure: 3

No failure of member was observed in the

analysis.
All the members are designed and the
reinforcement details are displayed on the

Fig: 2 RCC Frame with Shear Wall.

top of the members.

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT LTD

228

South -Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies (SAJMS) ISSN:2349-7858:SJIF:2.246:Volume 3 Issue 2

Earth Quake Loading----- as per IS

1893:2002

It was assumed that the wind force was

not governing the frame efficiency.

The failure beams members in the

analysis appear in red colour in the below
figure: 4

All the outer most columns are subjected

to failure.

All the top most edge beams are subjected

to failure.

Fig.3 (Failure members in case 1)

Some of the intermediate beams are also

subjected to failure.

All the passed members are designed and

CASE: 2 Linear Static Analysis (LSA) of

the reinforcement details are displayed on

RCC Frame with Shear Wall:

the top of the members.

The frame was considered with six storys (Stilt

+ G+6) with no irregularities in plan and
elevation i.e., frame on plane ground
MEMBER PROPERTIES:
All the beams in the frame were sized to
0.3m X 0.45m.

All the columns in the frame were sized to

0.3m X 0.6m.

The slab of 0.1m thickness was assigned to

Fig.4 (Failure members in case 2)

each floor.

The shear wall in the frame was sized to

NON-LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS (NLSA)

1.83mX0.23m.

OF FRAMES:

MEMBER LOADING:
All the members were assigned the following
loadings.

Self Weight

Dead Load (member load) --- 10 KN/m

Dead Slab Load---- 4.5 KN/m

Live Load----------- 3 KN/m

In Fig: 3 & Fig: 4 it was observed the analysis results

of RCC frame with and with-out shear wall. The
failure and passed members were represented in
different colours.
In non-linear static analysis of the above frames, the
failure criteria were represented in hinges and the

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT LTD

229

South -Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies (SAJMS) ISSN:2349-7858:SJIF:2.246:Volume 3 Issue 2

hinges corresponding to the different levels were

Case1. RCC Frame without Shear Wall:

represented in their respective colours.

As per ATC 40 the elastic zone is

developed to a six storey frame ( G+Stilt+6)

categorized as below.

Point

The structure shown in the Fig:1 was

with no irregularities in plan and elevation

A corresponds to the

i.e., frame on plane ground

unloaded condition

Point B corresponds to the onset

MEMBER PROPERTIES:
All the beams in the frame were sized to

of yielding.

Point

0.3m X 0.45m.
corresponds

to

the

ultimate strength.

Point

D corresponds to the

0.3m X 0.6m.

residual strength.
Immediate Occupancy (IO)
Life safety (LS)
Collapse prevention (CP)

floor.

Nodes beyond CP zone are in yellow,

orange and red colours depending on the
severity.

It was assumed that the wind force was

not governing the frame efficiency.

The failure nodes are shown in the below

fig.6 with their corresponding zones from
the Non-linear Static Analysis.

CP) in light blue colour and CP in green

Nodes below IO zone are in pink colour.

The slab of 0.1m thickness was taken for

the analysis purpose and assigned to each

The (IO- LS) zone in dark blue colour, (LS-

colour,

All the columns in the frame were sized to

The nodes in the ground floor are in dark

blue and pink colour which implies the zone
as Immediate Occupancy to Life Safety (IOLS)

Similarly the nodes on the structure are

representing their corresponding zone which
can be seen in the below figure.6.

Fig.5 Performance levels (ATC 40)

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT LTD

230

South -Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies (SAJMS) ISSN:2349-7858:SJIF:2.246:Volume 3 Issue 2

The failure nodes are shown in the below

fig.7 with their corresponding zones from
the Non-linear Static Analysis.

The nodes in the ground floor are in dark

blue and pink colour which implies the zone
as Immediate Occupancy to Life Safety (IOLS)

Similarly the nodes on the structure are

representing their corresponding zone which
can be seen in the below figure.7.
All the nodes of the top floor are in pink
colour representing their occurrence below
IO level.
All the nodes in mid floors are beyond CP

Fig.6 (Nodes corresponding to different

zones for RCC Frame)

zone.
All the nodes represented in green colour
represent their zone as CP.

Case2. RCC Frame with Shear Wall:

The structure shown in the Fig:1 was

developed to a six storey frame ( G+Stilt+6)
with no irregularities in plan and elevation
i.e., frame on plane ground

MEMBER PROPERTIES:
All the beams in the frame were sized to
0.3m X 0.45m.

All the columns in the frame were sized to

0.3m X 0.6m.

The shear wall in the frame was sized to

1.83mX0.23m.

The slab of 0.1m thickness was assigned to

each floor.

It was assumed that the wind force was not

governing the frame efficiency.

Fig.7 (Nodes corresponding to different

zones for RCC Frame with Shear Wall)

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT LTD

231

COMPARISION OF PUSHOVER CURVES:

Pushover analysis for RCC frame and RCC Frame

In the above comparison the base

with Shear Wall were carried out and the pushover

shear resisted by the RCC Frame

curves were determined with Displacement is

without shear wall for a maximum

represented on X-axis and Base-Reaction on Y-axis.

displacement of 79.6 mm is 7783

KN. and for the RCC Frame with

The Comparision is carried out for the curves in both

shear wall the base shear and the

the cases.

maximum displacement values are

9720

Comparision of Results:

KN.

and

63.2

mm

respectivel y.
The Comparision is carried out for the
values obtained in Displacement and Base Reaction

for both the cases.

resist 1937 KN (i.e., 19.9%) more

base shear than that of a plane RCC

The maximum displacement that

Frame up to the elastic limit and

the RCC frame can withstand up to

the displacement decreased was

the elastic limit is 7.96x10-2 m and

the

A RCC Frame with shear wall can

base

reaction

for

about 20.6 %.

this

displacement is 7.783 x103 KN.

The maximum displacement that

Table :1
Structure

Displacement

Base Shear

79.6 mm

7783 KN.

63.2 mm

9720 KN.

the RCC frame with Shear Wall

can withstand up to the elastic limit

RCC frame

is 6.32x10-2 m and the base reaction

for this displacement is 9.72 x103
KN

RCC frame with Shear

Wall

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT LTD

As the RCC frame was provided with

shear walls in lift walls, the displacement
was reduced by 20.6%.

REFERENCES:
1. Art Chianello, Rupa Purasinghe Push
Over Analysis Of A Multi-Storey
Concrete Perforated Shear Wall 29th
Conference on OUR WORLD IN
CONCRETE & STRUCTURES: 25 - 26
August 2004, Singapore.

Fig: 8 Pushover curve for RCC Frame

2. ATC. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of

concrete buildingsvolume 1 (ATC-40).
Report No. SSC 96-01. Redwood City (CA):
Applied Technology Council; 1996.

3. FEMA. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic

rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 273).
Washington (DC): Building Seismic Safety
Council; 1997.

4. M. Ajmal ,M.K. Rahman and M.H. Baluch

,Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis of a
ShearWall Building in Madinah, King
Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. International
workshop on Role of Research

Fig: 9 Pushover curve for RCC Frame with

Shear wall.

Infrastructures in Seismic Rehabilitation 89 feb-2012, Istanbul.

CONCLUSIONS:

5. Rahul RANA, Limin JIN and Atila

ZEKIOGLU, Pushover Analysis Of A 19

RCC Structure with Shear Wall is more

Storey Concrete Shear Wall Building

stable and resistant to Base Shear and

13th World Conference on Earthquake

Displacement than that of normal RCC

Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

Frame.

August 1-6, 2004 Paper No. 133.

An RCC Shear walled Structure can resist

19.9% more base shear than that of a normal
RCC Frame.

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT LTD