Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927
DOI 10.1007/s12517-015-1903-7
ORIGINAL PAPER
Controlling the earthquake-induced lateral displacement of RC
buildings using shear walls: parametric study
Mohamed A. Dahesh 1 & Ahmet Tuken 1 & Nadeem A. Siddiqui 1
Received: 28 April 2014 / Accepted: 1 April 2015 / Published online: 22 April 2015
# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2015
Abstract Shear walls are known for their contribution in im-
proving the lateral stiffness and thus controlling the story drift
of the Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings against earthquake
loading. Although substantial research is available on shear
wall-frame buildings, a detailed parametric study which can
help the designers and field engineers to obtain an optimum
arrangement of shear walls is missing in the literature. In the
present study, a multi-story RC building, square in plan and
assumed to be located in a seismically active city of the King-
dom of Saudi Arabia, was laterally stiffened with the shear
walls of different thickness, height, configuration, and open-
ing location. The building was then subjected to seismic
forces, and the influence of shear walls in controlling the lat-
eral response of the building was studied by varying the above
parameters. The earthquake was considered from one direc-
tion only while studying the effect of the first two parameters
(i.e., thickness and height) as the building and shear wall ar-
rangements were symmetric along the two orthogonal direc-
tions. However, in case of third and fourth parameters (i.e.,
shear wall configuration and opening location), earthquake
was considered from the two directions separately as the shear
wall configuration and opening location were not symmetric
in the two orthogonal directions. The results of the present
study are very useful for obtaining the optimum amount and
arrangement of shear walls in a given RC frame building
against a specified seismic loading.
* Nadeem A. Siddiqui
nadeem@ksu.edu.sa
1
Department of Civil Engineering, King Saud University,
Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia
Keywords Shear wall . Seismic loading . Multi-story RC
building . Lateral displacement . Serviceability
Introduction
To have the lateral story drift within the code-specified limits
is one of the major requirements in the seismic design of
multi-story Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings. Generally
under seismic forces of moderate to high magnitude, these
requirements are difficult to satisfy unless a sufficient quantity
of shear wall is provided in the building. Shear walls improve
the lateral stiffness of the building and thus control the story
drift of the building substantially. As a result, almost all the
seismic codes recommend the employment of shear walls for
the design of RC buildings against seismic forces.
In the recent past, substantial research has been carried out
on seismic response of RC buildings with shear walls. Burak
and Comlekoglu (2013) evaluated the effect of shear wall area
to floor area ratio on the seismic response of RC buildings.
They carried out nonlinear time-history analysis for 24 mid-
rise building models having shear wall ratios ranging between
0.51 and 2.17 % in both directions. In the analyses, seven
different earthquake records were used in the evaluation of
the seismic performance of these buildings. The results
showed that to control the lateral story drift, a minimum of
1.0 % shear wall ratio was recommended in the design of mid-
rise buildings. They also observed that when the shear wall
ratio is more than 1.5 %, the effect of shear wall on the per-
formance was not insignificant.
Chai and Kunnath (2005) outlined a methodology for
assessing the minimum wall thickness to ensure that the in-
plane lateral strength was fully developed. The results were
presented for a number of parameters including the ground mo-
tion intensity, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, floor weight,
9914 Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927

wall-to-floor area ratio, and number of stories. The minimum

wall thickness was compared with recommendations in current
building codes. Kim et al. (2005) proposed an efficient method
for a three-dimensional analysis of a high-rise building structure
with shear walls. Three-dimensional super elements for walls
and floor slabs were developed, and a substructure was formed
by assembling the super elements to reduce the time required for
the modeling and analysis. Static and dynamic analyses of ex-
ample structures with various types of opening were performed
to verify the efficiency and accuracy of the proposed method.
They concluded that the proposed method is very useful for an
efficient and accurate analysis of high-rise building structures
with significantly reduced computational time and memory.
Neuenhofer (2006) investigated the accuracy of a simpli-
fied hand method, recommended in several design guidelines
for practicing structural engineers, for calculating the lateral
stiffness of shear walls with openings. Parametric studies were
performed in which the location and size of the opening as
well as the aspect ratio of the wall were varied. A special-
purpose finite-element algorithm was developed and imple-
mented in the computing package MATLAB. Results from
finite-element analysis were compared with those of the hand Fig. 1 3D model of the studied building
method. He found that the hand method enormously overes-
timates the stiffness of shear walls with openings. buildings. The method derives its simplicity by relying on
Tjhin et al. (2007) presented a simple method for the the stability of the yield displacement and the representation
performance-based seismic design of ductile RC wall of inelastic seismic demand using yield point spectra. The

Fig. 2 Plan of the studied

building
Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927
Table 1 Salient data for the
studied building Parameter
Compressive strength of concrete (f'c)
Yield strength of steel (fy)
Modulus of elasticity of concrete (E)
Width of typical shear wall (bw)
Ratio of horizontal web
reinforcement of wall to the
gross area of wall web (n)
Story weights (wi)
Occupancy importance factor (I)
design method was based on an estimate of the roof displace-
ment at yield. The required base shear strength was determined
using yield point spectra. The walls were designed for a single
base shear force that was established based on one or more
performance objectives, where each performance level was
expressed in terms of roof drift and plastic hinge rotation at
the base of the wall. A six-story building was used as an ex-
ample to illustrate the method, with the hazard represented by
either smoothed design spectra or recorded ground motions.
Nonlinear static and dynamic analyses confirmed the adequacy
of the method to achieve the intended performance objectives.
Tuken (2004) proposed an analytical method to determine
the sway of a mixed structure (frame+shear wall) subjected to
seismic forces. The validity of the analytical method was test-
ed on three-dimensional (3-D) buildings of different heights.
He also obtained the sway response using SAP2000 and found
that the sway results obtained by the analytical method
matches well with the results of SAP2000.
Tuken and Siddiqui (2013) proposed a simple-to-apply an-
alytical method to determine the amount of shear walls neces-
sary to make reinforced concrete buildings seismic-resistant
against moderate to severe earthquakes. The method is based
on the following design strategy: (1) The total design base
shear must be resisted by shear walls; (2) equal amounts of
shear walls must be placed in both orthogonal directions of the
structure; and (3) the moment resisting frame elements, which
are beams and columns, must independently be able to resist
25 % of the total design base shear. For such a system, the ratio
of the total area of shear walls to the area of the floor plan has
been obtained by equating the total design base shear to the
Table 2 Seismic coefficients and factors used for the present building
Basic seismic force-resisting system Response modification
coefficient (R)
Special reinforced concrete shear walls 6.5
9915
Value Remark
30 MPa Assumed for all the concrete elements
420 MPa Assumed for all the steel
q
25,742,960 kN/m2 0
4700 f c according to Saudi Building
Code (SBC) 304 (2007)
0.20 to 0.50 m Assumed
0.0025 Minimum value based on Saudi Building
Code (SBC) 304 (2007)
9.0 kN/m2 Assumed weight of ith story of the building
(being the same for all stories)
1.0 For all buildings and other structures of
category II based on Table 1.6-1 in Saudi
Building Code (SBC) 301 (2007)
total shear resistance provided by all shear walls in one direc-
tion. Because seismic action may occur in any direction, equal
amount of shear walls is recommended to provide in the two
orthogonal directions. A procedure is also presented to check
the stiffness (or story drift) requirement for the determined
amount of shear walls. The complete analytical procedure
was demonstrated by implementing it on a ten-story 3-D-
reinforced concrete building.
Tuken and Siddiqui (2015) proposed an analytical method
based on Bdual-system^ concept and Saudi Building Code
(SBC 301, SBC 304) provisions to determine the quantity of
shear walls which can satisfy the strength, stiffness, and duc-
tility requirements imposed by the Saudi Building Code on
RC moment-resisting frame buildings. The method also out-
lines a detailed procedure for the assessment of displacement
and curvature ductility of RC shear wall-moment resisting
frame buildings. This formulation is based on plastic analysis
and the assumption that the plastic hinge forms at the base of
the shear wall. The proposed methodology was then applied to
a 10-story RC building containing shear walls. It was shown
that the amount of shear walls which is enough to satisfy the
strength requirements also fulfills the stiffness criteria (i.e.,
story drift limitation) required by the Saudi Building Code.
It was also proved that the ductility requirements imposed by
the Saudi Building Code can easily be satisfied by using the
same quantity of shear walls.
Above review of literature shows that although a good
number of studies are available on shear wall-frame buildings,
a detailed parametric study which can help the designers and
field engineers to obtain an optimum amount and arrangement
System over strength Deflection amplification
factor (o) factor (Cd)
2.5 6.5
9916 Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927

Table 3 Details of the parameters studied

Description Model Parameter studied Parameter Shear wall Shear wall area
varied area (m2) to floor area ratio (%)

Shear wall is provided in the form of enclosed box Model A Thickness (L=16 m; H=30 m) 0.2 m 3.2 0.56
and continued along the full height of the building 0.3 m 4.8 0.83
0.4 m 6.4 1.11
0.5 m 8.0 1.39
Shear wall is provided in the form of enclosed box Model B Height (L=16 m; t=0.2 m) 6m 3.2 0.56
again, but continued for different heights along the 12 m 3.2 0.56
height of the building
18 m 3.2 0.56
24 m 3.2 0.56
30 m 3.2 0.56
The shear walls are provided at different locations Model C Configuration Figure 10 5.6 0.97
but keeping the area and height of the shear walls same
The shear walls are provided with opening(s) Model D Opening location Figure 13 3.2 0.56
for elevators at different locations

L total length of the shear walls, H height of the building, t thickness of the shear walls

of shear walls is required. In the present study, a multi-story
RC building, square in plan and assumed to be located in a
seismically active city of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, was
laterally stiffened with the shear walls of different thickness,
height, configuration, and opening location. The building was
then subjected to seismic forces, and the influence of shear
walls in controlling the lateral response of the building was
studied by varying the above parameters.
Description of the studied building
Equivalent lateral force procedure
In the present study building containing the shear walls was
subjected to the seismic base shear, V, in a particular direction.
This base shear can be determined using the following equa-
tions as per SBC code (Saudi Building Code (SBC) 301 2007).
V CsW 1
where, Cs =the seismic response coefficient; W=the effective
seismic weight.
The Cs, can be determined using the following equation:

A ten-story RC building containing shear walls was selected S DS

for the present study. The building is square in plan having a Cs   2
R
total height of 30 m with 5-bays in each direction and a con-
Ie
stant floor plan area of 576 m2 at each story. The height of where, R=the response modification factor, Ie =the im-
every story is equal to 3 m. The building is assumed to be portance factor, SDS =the design spectral response accel-
fixed at the base. The floors of the building are considered to eration parameter in the short period range. SDS can be
act as rigid diaphragms. All the columns, beams and slabs calculated using
were considered to be of the same sizes (columns: 500
500 mm; beams: 250600 mm; slab thickness: 150 mm). 2
S DS F aSS 3
The building was modeled in ETABS-2013 (2013). Figures 1 3
and 2 show the 3D-model and plan of the building respective-
where, Fa =acceleration-based site coefficient (at 0.2-s
ly. Table 1 provides the salient data of the building.
period).S=the mapped maximum considered earthquake
spectral response acceleration at short periods.
The value of Cs should not exceed the following:
Loads on the building
S D1
Cs  
In the present study, gravity and seismic loads were consid- R
T
ered acting on to the building. Gravity load was due to the self- Ie
weight of the building in addition to the dead and live loads. But shall not be less than
The seismic loads were obtained using equivalent lateral force
procedure as described below. C s 0:044S DS I
Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927 9917

Model A1 (t = 0; wf = 0%)

Model A2 (t = 0.2 m; wf = 0.56%) Model A3 (t = 0.3 m; wf = 0.83%)

Model A4 (t = 0.4 m; wf = 1.11%) Model A5 (t = 0.5 m; wf = 1.39%)

Fig. 3 Models used to study the effect of shear wall thickness

where, S D1 23 F v S 1 is the design spectral response acceler- considered earthquake spectral response acceleration parame-
ation parameter at a period of 1.0 s; T=the fundamental period ter. It is worth mentioning that the values of Fa and Fv are
of the structure, T=long transition period. F=velocity-based based on the site class (A, B, C, D, E, and F). The site class is
site coefficient (at 1.0 s period); S1 =the mapped maximum classified according to the site soil properties.
9918 Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927

Fig. 4 Lateral displacement profile of the building (model A1: without shear wall)

Selection of ground motion data
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been divided into
seven regions for determining the maximum considered
earthquake ground motion. According to SBC 301, seis-
micity can be described through the following parame-
ters: maximum spectral response acceleration for short
periods (S MS ) and at 1 s (S M1 ); spectral response
acceleration at short periods, SDS, and at 1-s period
SD1, site class and site coefficients Fa and Fv, respec-
tively; response modification coefficient (R); system
over strength factor (o); and deflection amplification
factor (Cd). For Haql City, located in Region 1, the
values of Fa and Fv are 1.15 and 1.838, respectively
(SBC 301). The values of SS and S1 were obtained from
the maps provided in SBC 301. The corresponding

Fig. 5 Lateral displacement profile of the building (model A5: with shear wall)
Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927 9919

values were 0.866 and 0.281 g, respectively. Using the- (model D) were studied in this section. The earthquake
se values, the parameters like SMS, SM1, SDS, and SD1 was considered from one direction only while studying
can be determined for Haql City as follows: the effects of first two parameters as the building and
shear wall arrangements are symmetric along the two
orthogonal directions. However, in case of third and
S MS F a S S 1:15  0:866 0:996 fourth parameters, earthquake was considered from the
S M1 F v S 1 1:838  0:281 0:516 two directions separately as the shear wall configuration
2 2
S DS S MS S DS  0:996 0:664 and opening location are not symmetric in the two or-
3 3 thogonal directions.
2 2
S D1 S M1 S DI  0:516478 0:344
3 3
Effect of shear wall thickness (model A)
The parameters R, o, and Cd were determined from SBC
301 for special reinforced concrete moment frames. These
In this parametric study, the shear wall thickness was varied
values are shown in Table 2.
from 0.2 to 0.5 m, and its effect was studied on lateral dis-
placement of the building. Due to change in the thickness
from 0.2 to 0.5 m, shear wall area to floor area ratio (wf)
Parameters studied was varied from 0.56 to 1.39 %. The model corresponding
to each case was identified by adding a suffix number 1 to 5
In the present parametric study, the building mentioned after the letter A as mentioned below and shown in Fig. 3.
above was laterally stiffened with the shear walls of dif-
ferent thickness, height, configuration, and opening loca- Model A1frame without any shear wall (t=0; wf =
tion. The building was subjected to seismic forces, and 0 %)
the influence of shear walls in controlling the lateral re- Model A2frame with shear wall (t = 0.2 m; wf =
sponse of the building was then studied by varying the 0.56 %)
above parameters (Table 3). In the present study, the se- Model A3frame with shear wall (t = 0.3 m; wf =
lected configurations of shear walls are entitled as models 0.83 %)
(e.g., model A, model B, etc.) Model A4frame with shear wall (t = 0.4 m; wf =
1.11 %)
Model A5frame with shear wall (t = 0.5 m; wf =
Discussion of results 1.39 %)

The effects of (i) shear wall thickness (model A), (ii) The response curves shown for the case of without
shear wall height (model B), (iii) shear wall configura- shear wall and with shear wall (Figs. 4 and 5) clearly
tion (model C), and (iv) shear wall opening location illustrate the influence of shear wall in controlling the

Fig. 6 Story displacement in x 30

(or y) direction for models A.1 to
27 Earthquake in x (or y) direction
A.5
24
Height of the Building (m)

21

18

15

12
Model A.1
9 Model A.2
Model A.3
6
Model A.4
3 Model A.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Story Displacement (mm)
9920 Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927

lateral displacement of the building. This can be attrib- the presence of shear walls. Figure 6 shows the effect
uted to enhanced lateral stiffness of the building due to of thickness (or shear wall area to floor area ratio) on

Model B1 (hw = 6.0 m)

Model B2 (hw = 12.0 m) Model B3 (hw = 18.0 m)

Model B4 (hw = 24.0 m) Model B5 (hw = 30.0 m)

Fig. 7 Models used to study the effect of shear wall heights
Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927 9921

Fig. 8 Plan for models B.1 to B.5

the buildings lateral response against the seismic load-
ing. These curves illustrate that as the thickness of the
shear wall is increasing, the lateral displacement is de-
creasing. This is an expected trend which can be attrib-
uted to the increase of lateral stiffness of the building
due to increase in the shear wall area. Quantitatively,
increasing the shear wall area to floor area ratio from
0.56 to 1.29 % reduces the roof lateral displacement by
38 to 72 % respectively of the corresponding displace-
ment when there was no shear wall in the building.
Effect of shear wall height (model B)
In order to study the effect of shear wall height on
lateral displacement of the building, the height of the
shear wall was varied from 6 to 30 m, while shear wall

Fig. 9 Story displacement in x- 30

direction for models B.1 to B.5
27 Earthquake in x-direction
24
Height of the Building (m)

21

18

15

12
Model B.1
9 Model B.2
Model B.3
6
Model B.4
3 Model B.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Story Displacement (mm)
9922 Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927

Model C1 Model C2

Model C3 Model C4

Model C5 Model C6

Model C7 Model C8
Fig. 10 Models used to study the effect of shear wall configuration

thickness was kept the same. As the thickness and shear to floor area ratio (wf) was constant (i.e., 0.56 %). The
wall plan area were not varied, the shear wall plan area model corresponding to each case was identified, as
Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927 9923

Table 4 Top displacement for

models C.1 to C.8 due to Model Top displacement (mm)
earthquake in x- and y-directions
Earthquake in x-direction Earthquake in y-direction

C.1 26.2 26.6

C.2 100.8 10.0
C.3 116.5 27.3
C.4 101.5 9.7
C.5 114.8 28.0
C.6 93.8 10.0
C.7 98.7 25.3
C.8 31.6 61.3

Fig. 11 Story displacement in y- 30

direction for models C.1 to C.8
27
Height of the Building (m)

24 Earthquake in y-direction
21
18
15 Model C1
12 Model C2
Model C3
9 Model C4
Model C5
6 Model C6
Model C7
3 Model C8
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Story Displacement (mm)

before, by adding a suffix number 1 to 5 after the letter building plan with centrally located closed box shear
B as mentioned below and shown in Fig. 7. The wall, used in these models, is shown in Fig. 8.

Fig. 12 Story displacement in x- 30

direction for models C.1 to C.8
27 Earthquake in x-direction
Height of the Building (m)

24
21
18
15 Model C1
Model C2
12
Model C3
9 Model C4
Model C5
6 Model C6
Model C7
3 Model C8
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Story Displacement (mm)
9924 Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927

Model D1 (Opening: 0%)

(No opening in the front and back shear walls)

Model D2 (Opening: 17%) Model D3 (Opening: 17%)

(Front shear wall has side-openings, but no opening (Front shear wall has central-openings, but no
in the back shear wall) opening in the back shear wall)

Model D4 (Opening: 17%) Model D5 (Opening: 17%)

(Front shear wall has side-openings up to third (Front shear wall has central-openings up to third
floor; and the back shear wall has side-openings for floor; and the back shear wall has central-openings
the remaining floors) for the remaining floors)
Fig. 13 Models used to study the effect of shear wall opening location

Model B1building frame having the shear wall height Model B3building frame having the shear wall height
of 6 m (i.e., hw =6 m) of 6 m (i.e., hw =18 m)
Model B2building frame having the shear wall height Model B4building frame having the shear wall height
of 6 m (i.e., hw =12 m) of 6 m (i.e., hw =24 m)
Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927 9925

Fig. 14 Story displacement in x- 30

direction for models D.1 to D.5
27

24 Earthquake in x-direction

Height of the Building (m)

21

18

15

12
Model D.1
9 Model D.2
Model D.3
6
Model D.4
3 Model D.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Story Displacement (mm)

Model B5building frame having the shear wall height
of 6 m (i.e., hw =30 m)
The results clearly illustrate that as the shear wall
height increases, the lateral displacement of the building
decreases due to increase in the lateral stiffness of the
building. Figure 9 shows the variation of lateral displace-
ment with the story height. For model B1, when the shear
wall height was extended up to two floors, the building
experiences quite a high value of lateral displacement
(Fig. 9). The displacement was reduced substantially
when shear wall height was extended up to eight floors
(models B2 to B4). After this, the decrease in the lateral
displacement with increase in the shear wall height was
not significant. This illustrates that lower floor shear walls
are much dominant in controlling the lateral displacement
than upper floors of the building. Quantitatively, the de-
crease in the lateral displacement due to every 6-m in-
crease in the shear wall height is about 30 % up to six
stories. However, after the sixth floor, the same 6-m in-
crease in the shear wall height decreases the lateral dis-
placement less than 10 %.
Effect of shear wall configuration (model C)
The shear wall location has significant effect on the building
lateral displacement. In the present parametric study, keeping
the total shear wall-to-floor area ratio as constant (0.97 %),
different arrangements of shear walls were selected as shown
in models C1 through C8 (Fig. 10). Shear walls are very

Fig. 15 Story displacement in y- 30

direction for models D.1 to D.5
27

24 Earthquake in y-direction
Height of the Building (m)

21

18

15

12
Model D.1
9 Model D.2
Model D.3
6
Model D.4
3 Model D.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Story Displacement (mm)
9926
effective when the seismic forces are acting in their plane and
not much effective when the seismic forces are out of their
plane. Table 4 shows the values of roof displacements under
different locations of shear walls. For model C1, although the
lengths and thicknesses of shear walls are different in the two
directions, their plan areas are the same. This caused a little
difference in the roof displacement of the building. This illus-
trates that as long as the shear wall area is the same in earth-
quake direction, its effect on the lateral displacement will also
be almost the same irrespective of its location in the building.
For models C2 through C7, the shear walls are provided only
along y-direction with no shear walls along x-direction. It is
due to this reason that when the seismic force is acting along
the y-direction, the roof displacement is very small in this
direction (Fig. 11) and substantially high in the other direction
(i.e., x-direction) as shown in Fig. 12. For model C8, there was
almost double quantity of shear wall in x-direction compared
with y-direction which resulted in substantial reduction in the
roof displacement in the x-direction. The roof displacement is
almost double in y-direction due to half quantity of shear wall
used in the corresponding direction.
Effect of shear wall opening location (model D)
It is very common to have openings in the shear wall to ac-
commodate elevators and stair cases. These openings may
affect the lateral stiffness of the building which may results
in higher lateral displacement. In the present study, the effect
of openings in the shear walls was studied on parametric basis.
The openings were provided in the front and back shear walls
along x-direction only. Five models were selected for this
parametric study as shown in Fig. 13. The opening area to
shear wall area ratio along the height in x-direction was kept
as 17 % in the models D2 to D5.
Figures 14 and 15 show the variation of story displacement
when seismic forces were applied separately along x- and y-
directions. As the openings were provided only in the x-direc-
tion shear walls, the lateral stiffness of the building was pri-
marily affected in this direction. The effect was almost negli-
gible in the y-direction as there were only openings in the x-
direction shear walls (i.e., no openings in the y-direction shear
walls). Figures 14 and 15 show that when there are central
openings in the first three floors of the front shear wall and
then similar openings in the back shear wall of the remaining
floors (i.e., model D5), the lateral stiffness is least affected.
However, lateral stiffness of the building was reduced sub-
stantially when side-openings were provided at the same lo-
cations as shown in model D4. The figures also show that
when the openings are provided at all the floors but only in
the front shear wall as shown in models D2 and D3, there is no
significant difference in the lateral displacements regardless if
the openings are provided in the centers or in the sides of the
shear wall.
Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927
Conclusions
The major conclusions drawn from the present parametric
study are as follows:
& The shear wall area-to-floor area ratio substantially affects
the lateral stiffness of the building. In the present study,
increasing the shear wall area-to-floor area ratio from 0.56
to 1.29 % reduces the roof lateral displacement by 38 to
72 % of the corresponding displacement when there was
no shear wall in the building.
& As the shear wall height increases, the lateral story
drift decreases due to the increase in the lateral stiff-
ness of the building.
& The lower floor shear walls are much dominant in control-
ling the lateral displacement than upper floors of the build-
ing. In the present study, the decrease in the lateral dis-
placement due to every 6-m increase in the shear wall
height is about 30 % up to six stories. However, after the
sixth floor, the same 6-m increase in the shear wall height
decreases the lateral displacement by less than 10 %.
& As long as the shear wall area is the same in earthquake
direction, its effect on the lateral displacement will also be
almost the same irrespective of its location in the building.
& When there are central openings in the first three floors of
the front shear wall and then similar openings in the back
shear wall of the remaining floors, the lateral stiffness is
least affected. However, lateral stiffness of the building
was reduced substantially when side-openings were pro-
vided at the same locations.
& When the openings are provided at all the floors but only
in the front shear wall, there is no significant difference in
the lateral displacements whether the openings are provid-
ed in the centers or in the sides of the shear wall.
Acknowledgments The work presented in this paper was funded by the
Deanship of Scientific Research, Research Centre, College of Engineer-
ing, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
References
Burak B, Comlekoglu HG (2013) Effect of shear wall area to floor area
ratio on the seismic behavior of reinforced concrete buildings. J
Struct Eng ASCE 139(11):19281937
Chai YH, Kunnath SK (2005) Minimum thickness for ductile RC struc-
tural walls. Eng Struct 27:10521063
ETABS-2013 (2013) Integrated building design software. Computers and
Structures, Inc. (CSI), California
Kim H, Lee D, Kim CK (2005) Efficient three-dimensional seismic anal-
ysis of a high-rise building structure with shear walls. Eng Struct
27(6):963976
Neuenhofer A (2006) Lateral stiffness of shear walls with openings. J
Struct Eng ASCE 132(11):18461851
Saudi Building Code (SBC) 301 (2007) Loads and Forces Requirements
(SBC 30107), Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Arab J Geosci (2015) 8:99139927
Saudi Building Code (SBC) 304 (2007) Concrete Structures
Requirements, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Tjhin TN, Aschheim MA, Wallace JW (2007) Yield displacement-based
seismic design of RC wall buildings. Eng Struct 29(11):29462959
Tuken A (2004) Analysis and assessment of seismic drift of reinforced con-
crete mixed (shear wall-frame) structures. Technology 7(4):523532
9927
Tuken A, Siddiqui NA (2013) Assessment of shear wall quantity in
seismic-resistant design of reinforced concrete buildings. Arab J
Sci Eng (AJSE) 38(10):26392648
Tuken A, Siddiqui NA (2015) SBC-based assessment of shear wall quan-
tity in moment resisting frame buildings. KSCE J Civ Eng 19(1):
188199