Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:26392648

DOI 10.1007/s13369-012-0482-0

TECHNICAL NOTE - CIVIL ENGINEERING

Assessment of Shear Wall Quantity in Seismic-Resistant

Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings
Ahmet Tuken Nadeem A. Siddiqui

Received: 7 October 2011 / Accepted: 22 January 2012 / Published online: 12 December 2012
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals 2012

Abstract It is common to design reinforced concrete build-

ings with shear walls to resist seismic loads. In the present
study, an easy to apply analytical method has been proposed
to determine the amount of shear walls necessary to make
reinforced concrete buildings seismic-resistant against mod-
erate to severe earthquakes. The method is based on the fol-
lowing 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 struc-
ture; 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 total shear resistance provided by all shear walls
in one direction. 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 storey drift) requirement
for the determined amount of shear walls. The complete ana-
lytical procedure was demonstrated by implementing it on a
10 storey 3-D reinforced concrete building.

Keywords Shear wall Earthquake Storey drift

Dual system

1 Introduction

To be able to resist a major earthquake, a reinforced concrete

(RC) building must possess adequate strength, stiffness and
ductility. These three requirements are generally satisfied by
properly placing the required amount of shear walls in RC
A. Tuken N. A. Siddiqui (B)
buildings. Observations and evaluations of past earthquake
Department of Civil Engineering, King Saud University,
Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia damages show that buildings with shear walls, despite inade-
e-mail: nadeem@KSU.EDU.SA quate amount and poor placement in the building plan, resist

123
2640
the seismic forces efficiently and generally do not collapse
under moderate to severe earthquakes. It is due to the reason
that almost all the seismic codes recommend the employment
of shear walls in RC buildings. In the recent past, substantial
research has been carried out on seismic response of RC
buildings with shear walls.
Kim et al. [1] 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 example structures with various types of opening were
performed to verify the efficiency and accuracy of the pro-
posed 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.
Aksogan et al. [2] studied the forced vibration analysis of a
multi-bay coupled shear wall on an elastic foundation. Their
analysis considers shear walls with a finite number of stiff-
ening beams, the properties of which vary from span to span
and/or from section to section in the vertical direction. They
employed continuous connection method (CCM) to find the
structure stiffness matrix. The structure mass matrix was
found with the lumped mass assumption. A time-history anal-
ysis was carried out using the Newmark numerical integra-
tion method to obtain the response. The response obtained by
the present method was then compared with those obtained
using SAP2000 structural analysis program. They found a
good match between the results of present method and the
results of the SAP2000 program.
Chai and Kunnath [3] outlined a methodology for assess-
ing the minimum wall thickness to ensure that the in-plane
lateral strength was fully developed. The results were pre-
sented for a number of parameters including the ground
motion intensity, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, floor
weight, wall-to-floor area ratio and number of stories. The
minimum wall thickness was compared with recommenda-
tions in current building codes.
Kim and Lee [4] proposed an efficient analysis method
that can be used regardless of the number, size and loca-
tion of openings. The analysis method uses super elements
developed by the matrix condensation technique. Static and
dynamic analyses of example structures having various types
of openings were performed to verify the efficiency and accu-
racy of the proposed method. The results demonstrated that
the proposed method can be used for the analysis of a shear
wall structure with openings. Outstanding accuracy in analy-
sis was achieved with drastically reduced computational time
and memory.
Lee et al. [5] investigated the amplification of forces and
displacements in flexible diaphragms for low-rise structures
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:26392648
having relatively stiff perimeter shear walls. Various degrees
of diaphragm flexibility, shear wall flexural over-strength and
numbers of stories were considered in the inelastic dynamic
analyses. The results confirmed that current code provisions
consistently underestimate diaphragm forces at the upper and
lower floors under common conditions.
Lee and Ko [6] studied three 1:12 scaled 17-storey RC
wall building models having different types of irregularity
at the bottom two stories after subjecting to the simulated
earthquake excitations to observe their seismic response
characteristics. The first model had a symmetrical moment-
resisting frame (Model 1), the second had an infilled shear
wall in the central frame (Model 2), and the third had an in-
filled shear wall in only one of the exterior frames (Model
3) at the bottom two stories. Based on the test results, which
were analyzed and compared, the following conclusions were
drawn:
(1) The estimated fundamental periods for other structures
than moment frames and bearing wall structures in UBC 97
and AIK 2000 appear to be reasonable, (2) The total amounts
of energy absorption by damage are similar regardless of the
existence and location of the infilled shear wall, (3) The larg-
est energy absorption is due to overturning, followed by that
due to shear deformation and (4) The rigid upper system ren-
ders rocking behavior in the lower frame, and thereby the self
weight contributes up to about 23 % of the resistance against
the total overturning moment.
Kara and Dundar [7] presented an iterative analytical
procedure to study the effect of concrete cracking on the stiff-
ness and deflection of shear walls. They developed a com-
puter program for the mentioned study. In the program, the
variation of the flexural stiffness of a cracked member was
evaluated by ACI and probability-based effective stiffness
models. In the analysis, shear deformation which can be large
and significant after development of cracks was also taken
into account and the variation of shear stiffness in the cracked
regions of members was also considered using effective shear
stiffness model available in the literature. Verification of the
proposed procedure was confirmed with series of reinforced
concrete shear wall tests available in the literature as well.
Comparison between the analytical and experimental results
showed that the proposed analytical procedure can provide
an accurate and efficient prediction of both the deflection
and flexural stiffness reduction of shear walls with different
height to width ratio and vertical load. The results of the ana-
lytical procedure also indicated that the percentage of shear
deflection in the total deflection increases with decreasing
height to width ratio of the shear wall.
Marini and Meda [8] presented a new technique for the
strengthening of existing R/C shear walls based on the appli-
cation of thin high performance jackets. The strengthening
jacket was made of high performance concrete, having a com-
pression resistance higher than 150 MPa, and reinforced by
Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:26392648
means of a high strength steel mesh. The experimental study
was carried out on a 1:3 scale-R/C wall, proportioned to resist
vertical loads only, and reinforced by means of a 15 mm
thick-high performance jacket. Cyclic loads of increasing
magnitude were applied to the experimental shear wall up
to collapse. The effectiveness of the technique was also ver-
ified numerically. The results showed the efficiency of the
proposed solution on the significantly increasing structure
resistance, deformation capacity and ductility.
Mo et al. [9] presented a study which accomplishes three
main tasks: (1) formulating the Cyclic Softened Membrane
Model (CSMM) for the development of a finite element pro-
gram, (2) implementing the formulated CSMM into a finite
element program SCS (Simulation of Concrete Structures)
using OpenSees that stands for Open System for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation as a framework, (3) validating the
finite element program SCS by comparing its predictions
with the experimental results of RC framed shear walls avail-
able in the literature.
Tuken [10] proposed an analytical method to determine
the sway of a mixed structure (frame + shear wall) subject
to seismic forces. The validity of the analytical method was
tested on 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. In a similar study, Tuken and Atim-
tay [11] proposed an analytical method to determine the sway
of a totally framed building subject to seismic forces. The
implementation of the proposed method to framed buildings
in regions of high seismic risk was emphasized.
A detailed review on different aspects of typical frame
structures containing shear walls shows that simplified pro-
cedures for the assessment of shear wall quantity that can
resist the earthquake forces safely and can also satisfy the two
major requirements of the seismic codes (strength and stiff-
ness) are not widely available. Keeping this scope in view, in
the present study, an easy to apply analytical method has been
proposed to determine the amount of shear walls necessary to
make reinforced concrete buildings seismic-resistant against
moderate to severe earthquakes. The amount of shear walls
obtained was checked to fulfill the two requirements (i.e.
adequate strength and adequate stiffness) of seismic design.
The third requirement, ductility, was not presented here as
ductility requirement can easily be satisfied with the same
quantity of shear walls by proper detailing and satisfying the
minimum requirements of the seismic codes.
2 Problem Formulation
Under maximum probable earthquake, some repairable dam-
age to the contents of buildings is acceptable. Therefore,
a damage control limit state is to be defined to mark the
2641
boundary between economically repairable minor damage
and damage that is not worth repairing. The intensity of
ground shaking associated with this limit state has a low prob-
ability of occurrence during the expected life of the building.
In the event of a ground shaking, the most important desired
property is the strength of the building, especially when its
elastic limit is attained or slightly exceeded. A building can be
avoided to reach the limit state by providing adequate shear
walls in the orthogonal directions. Keeping this requirement
in view, in the present study, effort has been made to deter-
mine that amount of shear walls, which is necessary to make
a building safe against excessive damage. For this purpose,
the following assumptions (or design strategy) were made.
The total design base shear is resisted by shear walls;
Equal amounts of shear walls are available in the orthog-
onal directions of the structure because seismic action
may occur in both directions;
The moment resisting frame elements, which are beams
and columns, independently resist 25 % of the total
design base shear.
The Uniform Building Code (UBC)-1997 [12] defines the
structure that possesses the above-mentioned three proper-
ties as the dual system.
In the present study, the amount of required shear walls in
one direction was obtained by satisfying the strength crite-
rion that is obtained by equating the total design base shear
(Vt ) to the total shear resistance (Vr ) provided by all the shear
walls in one direction. That is
Vt = Vr (1)
The total design base shear, Vt , can be estimated using an
acceleration response spectrum. In the present study, the
acceleration response spectrum defined by UBC-1997 [12],
was employed. This spectrum is shown in Fig. 1.
2.5Ca Control Periods
Spectral Acceleration (gs)
Ts= Cv /2.5Ca
To=0.2Ts
Cv/T
Ca
To Ts
Period (Seconds)
Fig. 1 Acceleration response spectrum (UBC-97 [12])
123
2642 Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:26392648

The above acceleration response spectrum reveals that the web; f y is the yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement
effective ground acceleration is magnified by a factor of 2.5, (in MPa).
for natural periods of 0.21.0 s. These natural periods are Equating the Eqs. (5) and (6), the ratio of the total area of
the most typical values of building structures generally exist shear walls to the area of the floor plan can be obtained as
in practice. Based on this observation, the total design base 
Asw S(T )A0 I nwi
shear, Vt , can be estimated by the equation provided by UBC- =  103 , (7)
1997 [12]. This equation is given by Ap 
R(0.166 f c + sh f y )
S(T )A0 I W
Vt = , (2) 
where wi is in kN/m2 ; f c and f y are in MPa.
R
The total area of shear walls obtained from above equa-
where S(T ) is the spectrum coefficient, which is the ratio tion (Eq. 7) must also satisfy the stiffness requirement. In
of spectral acceleration to effective peak ground accelera- other words, the stiffness provided by all shear walls should
tion, its maximum value is 2.5; A0 is the effective ground not be less than the minimum stiffness required by the codes
acceleration coefficient; I is the building importance factor; by means of storey drift limitation. In the present study the
R is the seismic force reduction factor (structural behavior storey drift (i ) and relative storey drift (i / h i ) are defined
factor); and W is the total weight of building calculated by as
considering live load participation factor .
The total weight of the building can be expressed in terms i di di1
i = di di1 ; = (8)
of its floor areas and number of stories as hi hi

n
Where h i = Height of ith storey of building; di = Displace-
W = wi Api , (3) ment calculated at ith storey of building. In each earthquake
i=1
direction; the maximum value of calculated storey drifts,
where Api is the plan area of the ith floor; n is the number of (i )max , for columns and structural walls of the ith storey of a
stories; wi = gi + qi . building should not exceed the limiting value lim , generally
Here wi is the weight of ith storey of building by consid- specified by the building codes. In other words,
ering live load participation factor ; gi is the total dead load
at ith storey of building; qi is the total live load at ith storey (i )max lim . (9)
of building.
Assuming an average value of wi , and same floor-area for In the cases, where the condition specified by Eq. (9) is not
each storey, the total weight of the building can be approxi- satisfied, the lateral stiffness of the structural system should
mately expressed as: be increased.
The value of total stiffness of all shear walls =  E I =

n
total stiffness of all shear walls within a storey. Here, E is
W = wi Api = wi n Ap (4) the modulus of elasticity of building material (e.g. concrete)
i=1
and I is the moment of inertia of shear wall.
Substituting above expression for the total weight of the Let n sw be the number of shear walls to be used in each
building in Eq. (2), we get direction and taking bw = bmin. Here bmin is the minimum
width of shear wall required by the code. We may write,
S(T )A0 I wi n Ap
Vt = (kN), (5) 
R Asw
lw = (10)
where wi is in kN/m2 and Ap is in m2 . bw
Having determined the total base shear, now we need to Then assuming a typical shear wall with (lw )typical = lmin
find an expression of shear resistance Vr . According to UBC-  
1997 [12], a lower-bound value of the shear strength of the lw Asw
n sw = = (11)
total number of shear walls in one orthogonal direction can (lw )typical (Asw )typical
be obtained using the following expression: K min = (E I ) = n sw E Itypical , (12)
   
Vr = Asw 0.166 f c + sh f y 103 (k N ), (6) where Itypical = 12 1
bw lw3 = 12
1 3 ; (A )
bmin lmin sw typical =
lw bw = lmin bmin
where is the strength-reduction factor; Asw is the area of Substituting Eq. (11) into Eq. (12) we have
shear wall (in m2 ); f c is the 28-day characteristic compres-

sive strength of concrete (in MPa); sh is the ratio of hori- Asw
K min = E Itypical (13)
zontal web reinforcement of wall to the gross area of wall (Asw )typical

123
Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:26392648 2643


Substitution of Asw from Eq. (7) into Eq. (13) yields the flexural rigidity of the structure in the horizontal plane;
v 2 = 1 + KK0 ; GA is the the shear rigidity of the frame per
E Itypical S(T )A0 I n Ap wi
K min =   103 (kN/m2 ), unit height (i.e. equivalent shear stiffness of the building).
(Asw )typical R 0.166 f c + sh f y
(14)
2.1.1 Solution Procedure

where wi is in kN/m2 , Ap is in m2 , E is in kN/m2 and f c and
f y are in MPa. Letting w = K y in Eq. 17, the differential equation of lateral
A multiplying factor (1) is introduced in the above displacement factored by K multiplier, can be obtained as
equation to increase the lateral stiffness of building having expressed in Eq. (18).
many stories (e.g. 10). This is necessary to satisfy the maxi-
mum relative storey drift value required by the seismic codes. d4 w d2 w v 2 1
Thus, Eq. (14) can be rewritten in the following form that s2 + M(x) s 2 f (x) = 0, (18)
dx 4 dx 2 v2
includes the multiplying factor .
where s 2 = K /(v 2 G A); K = K (shear walls) +  K
E Itypical S(T )A0 I n Ap wi
K min =  103 (kN/m2 ). (columns).

(Asw )typical R(0.166 f c + sh f y ) In shear wall-frame structures, since the stiffness of col-
(15) umns is negligibly small when compared to that of shear
walls,  K (columns) term can be neglected.
For those buildings which have relatively lesser number of Bending moment expression can easily be found by dif-
stories (e.g. 9), the value of multiplying factor = 1. It ferentiating the equation of w = K y twice. Therefore, the
is worth mentioning that Eq. (15) includes a multiplication degree of general differential equation of bending is reduced
factor that can be obtained easily by increasing the value of to two as expressed in Eq. (19).
K min in Eq. (14) until any seismic code requirement for max-
imum relative storey drift is satisfied. Equation (15), thus, d2 M(x) v2 1
provides the value of the total stiffness required to satisfy s2 M(x) + M0 (x) s 2 f (x) = 0. (19)
dx 2 v2
both strength and stiffness requirements of seismic design.
The solution of this differential equation can be expressed
2.1 Formulation of Shear Wall-Frame Interaction as the summation of two separate solutions, one is particular
solution and the other one is complementary solution. That
In the present study, to derive the governing equation for is
the estimation of lateral storey drift of the shear wall-frame
building under seismic excitation, a number of assumptions M(x) = M(x)complementary + M(x)particular (20)
were made as mentioned in Tuken [13].
Using these assumptions, the following governing differ-
ential equation of flexuralshear beam (i.e. shear wall-frame)
has been derived considering dynamic equilibrium of shear M(x) = A1 cosh + A2 sinh
wall-frame building.  
v2 1
d2 y (1 + s 2 D 2 ) s 2 f (x) M 0 (x) (21a)
4
d y 2
d y K M(x) v2
K 4 G A 2 + dx = f (x)
2
(16) x
dx dx K0 where = .
s
d4 y 2
2d y G A M(x) The calculation of M0 (x) in Eq. (21a) based on Fig. 2
K 4
G A v 2
+ f (x) = 0, (17)
dx dx K0 can be written as in Eqs. (21b) and (21c).
 x  (H x)2  x  (H x)2
where G is the shear modulus; K =  E I = total stiffness M0 (x) = p + p 1 (21b)
of all shear walls within the storey (since stiffness of the col- H 2 H 3
 
umns are very small compared to total stiffness of all the (H x)2 x H x
M0 (x) = p +
shear walls within that storey); f (x) is the distributed lateral H 2 3
2  
force; K ddx y2 M(x) is the moment taken by the frame; M(x) 2H 3 3H 2 x + x 3
2 =p (21c)
is the moment caused by the external loads at height x; K ddx y2 6H
2y
Kd 2 M(x)
is the moment taken by the shear walls; dx K 0 is the unit To find A1 and A2 , two boundary conditions can be applied
rotation due to axial deformations of frame columns; K 0 is as follows:

123
2644 Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:26392648

Fig. 2 Shear wall-frame p p(x/H) p(1-x/H)

structure under triangular
distributed lateral load

(H-x) = +
x x
p(x/H) p(x/H)
1. The shear force at the base level must be equal to the 1. Moment at the top of the structure must be zero, i.e.
total lateral load, i.e. M(H ) = 0 (25b)
2. The shear force at the base level must be equal to
H
dM(0) the total lateral load, i.e.
= f (x)dx (22) 
dx dM  1
0
 = p H. (25c)
dx x=0 2
2. Moment at the top of the structure must be zero, i.e.
Applying the above two boundary conditions in order, we
obtain A1 and A2 as expressed in Eqs. (26) and (27), respec-
M(H ) = 0 (23)
tively.
Recalling w = K y, Eq. (21) must be integrated twice and    
ps 2 1
two more boundary conditions must be applied to find the A1 = 2 1+ sinh (26)
v cosh 2
equation of lateral displacement, w, as expressed in Eq. (24).  
ps 2 1
x  A2 = 2 , (27)
v 2
w= M(x)dx + A3 x + A4
2
(24)
0 where = Hs .
To find A3 and A4 , two additional boundary conditions can The lateral displacement expression can be obtained by
be applied as follows: integrating Eq. (25) twice, as expressed in Eqs. (28) and (29).

x 
1. Displacement must be zero at the base level of the struc- w(x) = M(x)dx 2 (28)
ture, i.e.
0

v 2 1
w(0) = 0 w(x) = A1 s 2 cosh + A2 s 2 sinh + M(x)dx 2
v2
s2 p x 3
2. Slope must be zero at the base level of the structure due + A3 x + A4 (29a)
v2 H 6
to the fixed base assumption, i.e. To obtain A3 and A4 , the following two boundary
dw(0) conditions can be applied.
= 0. 1. Displacement must be zero at the base level of the
dx
building, i.e.
2.1.2 Response Estimation Under Triangular Load w(0) = 0 (29b)
x 2. Slope must be zero at the base level of the building due to
For triangular distributed lateral load of f (x) = p H as
shown in Fig. 2, Eq. (21a) will take the following form. fixed base assumption, i.e.

dw 
v2 1 =0 (29c)
M(x) = A1 cosh + A2 sinh + M0 (x) dx  x=0
v2
s2 Applying the above two boundary conditions in order, we
p(k), (25a) obtain A3 and A4 as expressed in Eqs. (30) and (31), respec-
v2
x tively.
where k = .
H
To find A1 and A2 in Eq. (25) following two boundary, A3 = A2 s (30)
conditions can be applied; A4 = A1 s . 2
(31)

123
Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:26392648 2645

Finally, the equation of lateral displacement factored by K Calculate the minimum stiffness of all shear walls (K min );
multiplier, w(x), can be written as expressed in Eq. (32) or flexural rigidity (K 0 ), due to the most exterior columns
equivalently in Eq. (33). and the shear walls that is not placed on the symmetry
axis of building; and shear rigidity (GA) of all the col-
v2 1
K y(x) = A1 s 2 cosh + A2 s 2 sinh + pH4 umns using
  v 2
 
k3 k4 k5 k2 1 k k2 k3
+ + + E Itypical S(T )A0 I (n Ap wi )
12 12 40 3 2 2 4 20 K min =    103 .

s2 p x 3 (Asw )typical R 0.166 f c + sh f y
+ A3 x + A4 (32)
v2 H 6  
1
K y(x) = A1 s 2 cosh + A2 s 2 sinh + 1 2 p H 4 K 0 is the flexural rigidity of the structure in the horizon-
v
  tal plane (i.e. Ad2 terms due to the most exterior columns
k 2 k 3 k 5 2
s pk 2 and the shear walls that is not placed on the symmetry
+ x + A3 x + A4 (33)
6 12 120 6v 2 axis of building) and

If the equation of sway, y(x), is differentiated once, the

slope distribution is obtained. If it is differentiated twice, the 12E c Ic 1
GA = . ,
curvature distribution over the shear walls is obtained. Multi- lc2 1+  2Ic
I I

lc l b1 + l b2
plying the curvature by the sum of flexural rigidities of shear b1 b2

walls, the moment distribution M(x) on the shear walls is

obtained by Eq. (34). where Ib1 is the moment of inertia of beam to the left
EI of the column considered; Ib2 is the moment of inertia
M(x) = [A1 cosh + A2 sinh of beam to the right of the column considered; E is the
K
     Modulus of elasticity of concrete; Ic is the moment of
1 1 x x3 s2 p
+ 1 2 p H 4
+ 2 x (34) inertia of column; lc is the length of column; lb1 is the
v 3H 2 2H 3 6H 5 v H
length of beam to the left of the column considered; lb2
2.2 Algorithm for the Determination of Stiffness Multiplier is the length of beam to the right of the column considered.
()
Estimate the lateral storey drifts by calculating the lateral
For any particular case, stiffness multiplier () can easily be displacement y(x) using
figured out by following the algorithm given below:
K y(x) = A1 s 2 cosh + A2 s 2 sinh
Determine the amount of total shear wall ( Asw ) using    
1 2 k3 k5
4 k
 + 1 2 pH +
Asw S(T )A0 I (nwi ) v 6 12 120
=    103
Ap  s 2 pk 2
R 0.166 f c + sh f y x + A3 x + A4
6v 2

Assume bw = bmin , which is the minimum width of shear Finally, based on the maximum relative storey drift value;
walls required by the seismic code; Calculate the total the value of that is the multiplier of K can be obtained
length of shear walls to be used in both x and y directions easily by increasing only the K value until any valid seis-
( Iw ) using mic code requirement for relative storey drift has been
 satisfied.
Asw
lw =
bw

Assume the minimum length of each shear wall being 3 Implementation and Numerical Study
lw = lmin , and calculate the total number of shear walls to
be used in both directions as To demonstrate the methodology discussed in problem for-
  mulation, a 10 storey 3-D building having a typical floor
lw Asw
n sw = = plan as shown in Fig. 3 was selected. The other salient data
(lw )typical (Asw )typical required for the analysis are presented in Table 1.

123
2646
Fig. 3 Typical floor plan of the
3-D building studied
Table 1 Data employed for the
seismic-analysis of the 3-D
building studied
3.1 Total Area of Shear Walls
Using Eq. (7) and the data presented in Table 1, total area of
shear walls to the area of the floor plan can be calculated as

Asw / Ap = 0.008; where Ap = 50 26 = 1,300 m2 (Fig. 3).
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:26392648
Parameter Value Remark
Column size 600 600 mm Assumed same for all columns
Beam size 250 450 mm Assumed same for all beams
Slab thickness 120 mm Assumed same for all slabs
Storey heights 3,000 mm Assumed same for all stories
Spectrum coefficient (S(T )) 2.5 Maximum value required by
Turkish Earthquake Code [14]

Compressive strength of concrete ( f c ) 20 MPa
Yield strength of steel ( f y ) 420 MPa
Modulus of elasticity of concrete (E) 28,500,000 kN/m2
Width of shear wall (bw ) 0.25 m Minimum value required by
Turkish Earthquake Code [14]
Length of shear wall (lw ) 3.0 m Assumed minimum value
Ratio of horizontal web reinforcement of wall to 0.0025 Minimum value required by
the gross area of wall web (sh ) UBC-97 [12]
Effective Ground Acceleration Coefficient (A0 ) 0.4 For seismic zone 1
Storey weights (wi ) 7.0 kN/m2 Assumed average value for the
weight of ith storey of the
building (same value was
assumed for each storey)
Structural behavior factor (R) 7.0 For buildings in which seismic
loads are jointly resisted by
frames and solid and/or coupled
structural walls
Building importance factor (I ) 1.0 For residential and office buildings,
hotels, industrial buildings, etc.
Strength reduction factor () (for shear) 0.7 Recommended by UBC-97 [12]
for shear walls in seismic zone1
Then the total area of shear walls to be used can be calcu-
lated as  Asw = 0.008(1300) = 10.4 m2 . Using bw = 0.25 m
of shear walls, minimum length of total shear walls to be
provided in each orthogonal directions will be = 10.4 /
0.25 = 41.6 m.
Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:26392648
Fig. 4 Arrangements of shear
walls for the 3-D building
studied
For the 3-D building studied, shear walls can be placed on
the floor plan as shown in Fig. 4. As it can be seen that the
total length of shear walls in x direction is 40 m and the total
length of shear walls in y direction is 38 m, which is nearly
equal to the length of shear walls provided in x direction. In
Fig. 4, a symmetric placement of shear walls was preferred
to avoid the development of torsion.
Having decided the arrangements of shear walls and tak-
ing the minimum width of shear walls as bw = 0.25 m, total
stiffness of all shear walls along x and y directions can be cal-
culated as K x = 1,484,375,000 kN/m2 and K y = 681,625,000
kN/m2 .
Here, K x and K y are the lateral stiffness values provided
by the minimum amount of shear walls satisfying the strength
requirement of seismic code. Using the minimum amount of
shear walls obtained from strength requirement of Vr = Vt and
the minimum value of total stiffness of all shear walls (K min ),
stiffness requirement of seismic code was found to be auto-
matically satisfied up to 9 storey building. After that the min-
imum stiffness of total shear walls (K min ) must be increased
by a factor of to satisfy the maximum relative storey drift
criteria (i.e. stiffness requirement) of seismic code.
For the selected numerical example, the minimum value of
total stiffness of all shear walls K min can be computed using
Eq. 15. However, to use Eq. (15), it is necessary to compute
first the stiffness multiplier . The value of was determined
using the data shown in Table 1 and following the Algorithm
presented in Section 2.2. The value of this multiplier comes
out to be 1.2 for this implementation problem.
3.2 Checking the Stiffness Requirement
(Storey Drift Limitation)
The total area of shear walls must also satisfy the stiffness
requirement. In other words, the stiffness provided by the
2647
shear walls should not be less than the minimum stiffness
required by the codes with storey drift limitation. For the
selected numerical example, the minimum value of total stiff-
ness of all shear walls K min can be computed using Eq. 15.
Substituting = 1.2 for 10 storey building, and all the
desired data from Table 1 we have K min = 209,664,000
kN/m2 . As both the K x and K y are much greater than the
minimum required stiffness K min , the amount of shear walls
obtained using proposed methodology also satisfies the stiff-
ness criteria required by the seismic codes (e.g. Turkish
Earthquake Code-1997 [14]).
Under all circumstances; total stiffness of all the shear
walls, obtained from the strength requirement, is greater than
the required minimum stiffness K min and hence the maxi-
mum relative storey drift requirement is automatically satis-
fied for the 10-storey building studied.
4 Conclusions
An easy to apply analytical method was presented to deter-
mine the amount of shear walls necessary to make rein-
forced concrete buildings seismic-resistant against moderate
to severe earthquakes. The methodology was demonstrated
by implementing it on a 10 storey 3-D reinforced concrete
building. For a realistic set of data, total area of shear walls
for the chosen building was determined and then provided
in x and y directions. The total stiffness of all shear walls
was also determined in x and y directions. To compare the
total stiffness provided by the shear walls in two orthogo-
nal directions; a minimum value of total stiffness, satisfying
the storey drift limitation of any seismic code (e.g. Turkish
Earthquake Code [14]), was determined using a stiffness mul-
tiplier . This multiplier was obtained using the selected data
presented in Table 1 and proposed algorithm. The value of
123
2648
comes out to be 1.2 for this implementation problem. The
results clearly show that the amount of shear walls obtained
using proposed methodology also satisfies the storey drift
limitation required by any seismic code (e.g. Turkish Earth-
quake Code [14]). This infers that for 3-D reinforced concrete
buildings, the maximum relative storey drift requirement is
generally satisfied as long as the minimum amount of shear
walls, obtained from the strength requirement, is provided in
each orthogonal direction irrespective of the orientation of
shear walls. In the cases where the maximum relative sto-
rey drift requirement is not satisfied, the amount of shear
wall should be revised (considering minimum required lat-
eral stiffness) to satisfy the maximum relative storey drift
requirement of relevant seismic code.
Acknowledgments This research work presented herein was sup-
ported by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Research Centre,
College of Engineering, King Saud University, Kingdom of Saudi Ara-
bia through Grant No. 1/432.
References
1. Kim, H.; Lee, D.; Kim, C.K.: Efficient three-dimensional seismic
analysis of a high-rise building structure with shear walls. Eng.
Struct. 27(6), 963976 (2005)
2. Aksogan, O.; Bikce, M.; Emsen, E.; Arslan, H.M.: A simplified
dynamic analysis of multi-bay stiffened coupled shear walls. Adv.
Eng. Softw. 38, 552560 (2007)
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2013) 38:26392648
3. Chai, Y.H.; Kunnath, S.K.: Minimum thickness for ductile RC
structural walls. Eng. Struct. 27, 10521063 (2005)
4. Kim, H.S.; Lee, D.G.: Analysis of shear wall with openings using
super elements. Eng. Struct. 25(8), 981991 (2003)
5. Lee, H.J.; Kuchma, D.; Aschheim, M.A.: Strength-based design of
flexible diaphragms in low-rise structures subjected to earthquake
loading. Eng. Struct. 29(7), 12771295 (2007)
6. Lee, H.; Ko, D.: Seismic response characteristics of high-rise RC
wall buildings having different irregularities in lower stories. Eng.
Struct. 29(11), 31493167 (2007)
7. Kara, I.F.; Dundar, C.: Prediction of deflection of reinforced con-
crete shear walls. Adv. Eng. Softw. 40, 777785 (2009)
8. Marini, A.; Meda, A.: Retrofitting of R/C shear walls by means of
high performance jackets. Eng. Struct. 31, 30593064 (2009)
9. Mo, Y.L.; Zhong, J.; Hsu, T.T.C.: Seismic simulation of RC wall-
type structures. Eng. Struct. 30, 31673175 (2008)
10. Tuken, A.: Analysis and assessment of seismic drift of reinforced
concrete mixed (shear wall-frame) structures. Technology 7(4),
523532 (2004)
11. Tuken, A.; Atimtay, E.: Analysis and assessment of seismic drift of
concrete framed structures. In: Seventh International Congress on
Advances in Civil Engineering, October 11-13, Yildiz Technical
University, Istanbul, Turkey (2006)
12. Uniform Building Code (UBC).: International Conference of
Building Officials (1997)
13. Tuken, A.: Quantifying Seismic Design Criteria for Concrete
Buildings: The Amount of Shear Walls Necessary to Satisfy Earth-
quake Code Requirements. PhD thesis, VDM Publishing, Germany
(2009)
14. Turkish Earthquake Code.: Specification for Structures to be Built
in Disaster Areas. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara
(1997)