PDF Archive

Easily share your PDF documents with your contacts, on the Web and Social Networks.

Share a file Manage my documents Convert Recover PDF Search Help Contact



46I16 IJAET0916922 v6 iss4 1848to1854 .pdf



Original filename: 46I16-IJAET0916922_v6_iss4_1848to1854.pdf
Author: Editor IJAET

This PDF 1.5 document has been generated by Microsoft® Word 2013, and has been sent on pdf-archive.com on 04/07/2014 at 08:11, from IP address 117.211.x.x. The current document download page has been viewed 464 times.
File size: 574 KB (7 pages).
Privacy: public file




Download original PDF file









Document preview


International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, Sept. 2013.
©IJAET
ISSN: 22311963

EFFECT OF DIFFERENT POSITION OF SHEAR WALL ON
DEFLECTION IN HIGH RISE BUILDING
Rajesh Jayarambhai Prajapati1 &Vinubhai. R. Patel2
1
M.Tech. Research Scholar & 2 Assistant Professor,
Applied Mechanics & Structural Engg.Department, Faculty of technology &
Engineering. M. S. University of Baroda, Vadodara – 390001, Gujarat, India.

ABSTRACT
This paper discusses importance of the lateral stiffness of a building on its wind and seismic design. To reduce
damage in the event of wind and an earthquake, it is desirable to have large lateral stiffness. Shear walls
contribute significant lateral stiffness, strength, and overall ductility and energy dissipation capacity. Therefore
we have introduced shear walls at different location on plan of building like side centre shear wall, corner
shear wall, shear wall at near to centre of building plan. The effect of shear wall on deflection is studied in A1,
B1, C1& D1 models of 30 storied building.

KEYWORDS: Deflection, position of shear wall.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Tallness, however, is a relative matter, and tall building cannot be defined in specific terms related
just to height or to the number of floors. From the structural engineer’s point of view, however, a tall
building may be define as one that, because of its height, is affected by lateral forces due to wind or
earthquake actions to an extent that they play an important role in the structural design .The influence
of these action must therefore be considered from the very beginning of design process. Tall towers
and building have fascinated mankind from the beginning of civilization, their construction being
initially for defence and subsequently for ecclesiastical purposes. The growth in modern tall building
construction, however, which began in the 1880s, has been largely for commercial residential
purpose. Tall commercial buildings are primarily a response to the demand by business activities to be
as close to each other, and to the city centre, as possible, thereby putting intense pressure on the
available land space.
Loading on tall building differs from loading on low-rise building in its accumulation into much
larger structural forces, in the increased significance of wind loading, and in the greater importance of
dynamic effects. The collection of gravity loading over a large number of stories in a tall building can
produce column loads of an order higher than those in low-rise building surface, but also with greater
intensity at the greater heights and with a larger moment arm about the base than on a low-rise
building. Although wind loading on a low-rise building usually has an insignificant influence on the
design of the structure, wind on high-rise building can have a dominant influence on its structural
arrangement and design in the wind may have to be considered in assessing the loading applied by the
wind. In earthquake regions, any inertial loads from the shaking of the ground may well exceed the
loading due to wind and, therefore, be dominant in influencing the building’s structural form, design,
and cost. As an inertial problem, the building’s dynamic response plays a large part in influencing,
and in estimating, the effective loading on structure.

1848

Vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 1848-1854

International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, Sept. 2013.
©IJAET
ISSN: 22311963

II.

GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 Types of Models
The mathematical models developed in ETABS V9.5 for the purpose of this study are having the
following:
Way to read models (A1, B1, C1 and D1)
A=Without Shear Wall Model
B=Side Center Shear Wall Model
C=Corner Shear Wall Model
D=Shear Wall At Center Of Building Plan Model
1=Cross Section Of Column Change
General Geometry Data of 30 Story Building for Model (A1, B1, C1, D1)
Plan dimension
: 44.16 m × 10.98 m
Total height of building from ground level
: 93.24 m
Structural plan of building as shown in figure 1

(A) PLAN OF BUILDING

(B) FRONT VIEW

(C) SIDE VIEW

(D) 3 D VIEW

Figure 1 (A) Plan, (B) Front View, (C) Side view, (D) 3 D View of 30 Story Building

Type of soil
: Medium
Total Story
: Basement +Ground +29
Basement story height
: 3.9 m
Ground floor height and first floor height
: 3.9 m
Typical floor height
: 3.048 m
Grade of steel use in building
: Fe500 only
Grade of concrete use in building
: M45 only
Autoclave aerated block (AAC BLOCK) used instead of brick masonry work in building

1849

Vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 1848-1854

International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, Sept. 2013.
©IJAET
ISSN: 22311963
TABLE 1 Property of Autoclave Aerated Block
PROPERTY OF AAC BLOCK
DRY DENSITY
(Kg/m3)

COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH N/mm2

STATIC MODULUS OF
ELASTICITY (KN/mm2

400

1.3-2.8

0.18-1.17

500

2.0-4.4

1.24-1.84

600

2.8-6.3

1.76-2.64

700

3.9-8.5

2.42-3.58

For Models (A1, B1, C1, D1)
Column size (In mm)
STORY 27 TO 31
: 300 × 600 mm
STORY 23 TO 26
: 450 × 600 mm
STORY 18 TO 22
: 525 × 825 mm
STORY 11 TO 17
: 600 × 1050 mm
STORY 6 TO 10
: 825 × 1050 mm
STORY 1 TO 5
: 825 × 1350 mm
Slab Thickness
: 150 mm
Beam size
(Basement story and ground floor story)
: 600 × 900 mm
(1st story to 5th story)
: 450 × 750 mm
(6th story to 30th story)
: 450 × 600 mm
Thickness of service shear wall (lift purpose) SW1
: 150 mm
SW2
: 200 mm
Thickness of other shear wall SW
: 300 mm
Along shorter direction of a building plan length of SW : 4.0 m
Along longer direction of a building plan length of SW : 3.0 m
Periphery wall (used autoclave aerated block)
: 230 mm
Different Location of Shear Wall in Plan

A1 MODEL

B1 MODEL

C1 MODEL

D1 MODEL

FIGURE 2 B+G+29 Storey Building Plan W/O Sw Model(A1), Side Centre Sw Model(B1), Corner Sw
Model(C1), Sw At Centre Of Building Plan Model(D1) With Changing C/S Of Column

III.

LOAD CONSIDERED

1) Floor finish load

1850

Vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 1848-1854

International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, Sept. 2013.
©IJAET
ISSN: 22311963
For all floor levels
2) Imposed Load (Live load)
For all Floor Levels
3) Wall Load on Periphery
For Terrace Level
For Typical Floor Level
4) Wind Load: (only in Y-direction)
As per IS 875(part 3) – 1987
Wind speed Vb (m/s)
Terrain category
Structure class
Risk coefficient (k1 Factor)
Topography (k3 factor)
For wind co-efficient referred Figure 4A,
Page no 39 in IS-875(part-3)-1987.
5) Earthquake Load:
As per IS 1893:2002 Considering,
Seismic zone
Zone Factor
Type of Soil
Importance Factor
Response Reduction Factor

IV.

=1.5 kN/m2
= 4 kN/m2
= 1.68 kN/m
= 4.66 kN/m

= 44
=2
=C
=1
=1

= III
= 0.16
= Medium Soil
=1
= 5.

PARAMETERS FOR ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

The mathematical models developed are subjected to dead load, live load, wind load and earthquake
load to analysis and design using ETABS VERSION 9.5 software. In this term we are taking
maximum deflection according to DCON 6 wind combination (DCON 6 = 1.5 DL + 1.5 WL). In 30
story building we have compared different models (Models A1, B1, C1, D1) with respect to
displacement.

V.

RESULTS

The analysis and design results for different models are shown in tabular and graphical form, their
results are compared with each other. Notation “D” is used for deflection in showing the results in the
tabular form: D - Displacement in mm
TABLE 2 Displacement for (Model A1, B1, C1, D1)
SR NO

1851

STORY
NAME

A1

DISPLACEMENT “D” IN (mm)
B1
C1

D1

1

STORY 31

360.52

221.95

88.05

290.25

2

STORY 30

347.04

213.62

83.53

279.06

3

STORY 29

333.52

205.23

79.02

267.82

4

STORY 28

319.98

196.77

74.57

256.51

5

STORY 27

306.39

188.24

70.20

245.13

6

STORY 26

292.74

179.64

65.91

233.69

7

STORY 25

278.91

171.02

61.71

222.24

8

STORY 24

265.00

162.36

57.60

210.75

9

STORY 23

251.04

153.65

53.59

199.23

10

STORY 22

237.04

144.92

49.67

187.71

11

STORY 21

223.00

136.22

45.85

176.24

12

STORY 20

208.92

127.52

42.12

164.79

13

STORY 19

194.86

118.84

38.49

153.39

Vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 1848-1854

International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, Sept. 2013.
©IJAET
ISSN: 22311963
14

STORY 18

180.86

110.21

34.98

142.08

15

STORY 17

166.92

101.63

31.60

130.87

16

STORY 16

153.12

93.18

28.35

119.84

17

STORY 15

139.44

84.83

25.21

108.96

18

STORY 14

125.95

76.63

22.22

98.28

19

STORY 13

112.73

68.59

19.38

87.84

20

STORY 12

99.85

60.77

16.73

77.70

21

STORY 11

87.40

53.20

14.27

67.92

22

STORY 10

75.48

45.92

12.00

58.56

23

STORY 9

64.23

39.04

9.92

49.73

24

STORY 8

53.50

32.55

8.00

41.40

25

STORY 7

43.60

26.60

6.24

33.75

26

STORY 6

34.61

21.22

4.69

26.84

27

STORY 5

26.44

16.33

3.36

20.59

28

STORY 4

19.20

11.98

2.25

15.04

29

STORY 3

12.82

8.15

1.38

10.18

30

STORY 2

6.16

4.15

0.58

5.11

31

STORY 1

1.86

1.40

0.16

1.67

Graph 1 Displacement for (Model A1, B1, C1, D1)

VI.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

6.1. As per IS 456-2000 CL : 20.5 page no 33 maximum top deflection of building due to wind
should not exceed H/500, where H is total height of building in mm, Means in our case 93240/500 is
equal to 186.48mm. For earth quake As per IS 1893-1-2002CL :7.11.1 page no 27, The story drift in
any story due to minimum specified design lateral force, with partial load factor of 1.0 shall not
exceed 0.004 times story height. For deflection 0.4 percentage of height of story it means H/250,
where H is height of story. In our case 3048/250 is equal to 12.192mm. Because of book of “Analysis
and Design of tall building “by Bryan Stafford Smith and Alex Coull, maximum top deflection of
100m height or 33 story building is 100 mm to 500 mm (6 inch to 20 inch), or, alternatively width of

1852

Vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 1848-1854

International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, Sept. 2013.
©IJAET
ISSN: 22311963
building 10.98 m which is too small compare to length of building 44.16 m in our case, so that wind
case more governing/severe than the earth quake case.
6.2 As per, a relative deflection of 3 to 15 mm (0.12 to 0.6 inch) over a story height of 3 m (10 ft).
For Model A1, B1, C1, D1.
As per table 1 and Graph 1 of Top deflection, top deflection observed for wind combinationDCON6
(1.5 DL + 1.5 WL) for each models A1, B1, C1 and D1. In without shear wall model A1 top
deflection is 360.52 mm which is reduce up to 40% in top deflection due to shear wall at centre of
building plan and side centre shear wall but drastically (suddenly) reduction up to 75% in top
deflection by using corner shear wall. At this stage we observed an effect of position of shear wall on
top deflection of a building.

VII.

CONCLUSION

As per discussion of results we conclude that there is marginal reduction in deflection, by introducing
side centre shear wall, shear wall at centre. But the deflection is reduced drastically by introducing
shear wall at corner along both directions. Width of building is too small compare to length of
building in plan in present work therefore wind case is governing case in our building.

VIII.

FUTURE SCOPE
 Study of all the system without infill walls and its effect.
 Study of coupled shear wall.
 Study of different parameters like thickness, height and tapered section for shear wall.
 Study of foundation for various systems

IX.

CASE STUDY

“GIFT CITY”, A 30 story building, near Gift City circle, Gandhinagar (zone - 4), Gujarat, India.

REFERENCES
[1] Bryan Stafford Smith and Alex Coull “Analysis and Design of tall building ”, A wiley-interscience
publication, NEW YORK.
[2] IS 456:2000, “Indian Standard plain and reinforced concrete-Code of Practice”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, 2000.
[3] IS: 875 (Part 1), “Indian Standard Code of Practice for design loads for building and structures, Dead
Loads” Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[4] IS: 875 (Part 2), “Indian Standard Code of Practice for design loads for building and structures, Live
Loads” Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[5] IS: 875 (Part 3), “Indian Standard Code of Practice for design loads (Other than earthquake) for
building and structures, Wind Loads” Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[6] David Scott & David Farnsworth “The effects of complex geometry on tall towers”new york, usa
[7] R. K. L. Su1, A. M. Chandler1, M. N. Sheikh1 and N. T. K. Lam2“Influence of non-structural
components on lateral stiffness of tall buildings”1 department of civil engineering, university of
Hong Kong, Hong Kong 2 department of civil and environmental engineering, University of
Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
[8] S. Lee, S. Tovar, A. Kareem “Shape and topology sculpting of tall buildings under aerodynamic loads”
department of civil engineeringand geological sciences,University of Notre dame.
[9] MisamAbidi, MangulkarMadhuri. N. “Review on shear wall for soft story high-rise buildings”
International journal of engineering and advanced technology
[10]Wenjuan Lou, Mingfenghuang, hujin, guohuishenand C. M. Chan“Three-dimensional wind load effects
and wind-induced dynamic responses of a tall building with x-shape”

AUTHORS
V. R. Patel is currently assistant professor in applied mechanics department at faculty of
technology and engineering, M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodara. He obtained his B.E.
civil, M.E. structure and Ph.D. from M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodara, Gujarat.

1853

Vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 1848-1854

International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, Sept. 2013.
©IJAET
ISSN: 22311963
R. J. Prajapati is currently M.E. Research Scholar in Applied Mechanics Department at
Faculty of Technology and Engineering, M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodara. He obtained
his B.E. Civil degree from B.V.M. College, S.P. University, V.V. Nagar, Anand and M.E.
Civil (structural Engineering) degree from M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodara, Gujarat.

1854

Vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 1848-1854


Related documents


46i16 ijaet0916922 v6 iss4 1848to1854
30i14 ijaet0514266 v6 iss2 826to835
45i16 ijaet0916895 v6 iss4 1836to1847
15i15 ijaet0715593 v6 iss3 1160to1168
ijetr2254
15i18 ijaet0118661 v6 iss6 2448 2454


Related keywords