Study on Dynamic Behavior of Shear Walls in Vertically Irregular Building Frames

Abstract

According to recent studies, the shear wall\'s construction is the most effective weight-restraining system in use today. Shear walls are of the most attainable and consequently usually utilized horizontal burden opposing parts in elevated structures. It is provided by progressing through the design levels starting at the foundational level. The extent of the ongoing work is to determine the ideal location of the shear walls in plans with erroneous shear wall placements, such as I frame, L packaging, and T frames for various zones in G+17 stories with each story level being 3.2 m. Shear walls are provided at the design\'s corners and edges. Additionally, the impact of seismic zone results according to IS CODE 1893(Part1): 2016 has been shown. Utilizing the striking assessment and plan programming ETABS 18.1.0, a novel reaction range investigation is done as part of the seismic assessment. Seismic execution of the design has been analyzed considering specific, for instance, story evacuating, Story float, Story Shear, Base shear.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

A. General

The most emerging nation ll over the planet; the urban communities are likewise becoming however because of developments towards city it emerges in populace expansion in the majority of the urban areas. As a part of the improvement, it's vital to construct multi celebrated structures, as there's limited space and this type of modification work accomplishes much faster advancement. It can now resist sidelong loads imposed by tremors and winds because it has been raised in level. As a result, we must focus on design security rather than economics. When investigated and planned with quake opposing boundaries, multi-celebrated constructions were renowned for withstanding against the vertical and moreover sidelong loads. The foundation of shear walls makes the structure robust, stable, safe, and increases its resistance to bending under horizontal loads such as those caused by wind and tremors. Shear walls often begin at the foundation level and continue all the way up to the structure level. They are fundamentally provided along the structure's length and width and can be found. At the structure's edges, corners, and lifts in the middle. Without a doubt, shear barriers can be built on the site and are a smart and practical way to reduce seismic tremor injuries.

B. Shear Walls
Shear walls are those in building that can endure wind's horizontal loads or seismic tremor in the wall's plane coupled with twisting. Shear walls occur frequently in high rise buildings, The majority of the effect from wind and seismic forces. Shear walls are given since they are in simple in development, it assists in limiting the seismic tremor with harming, Large in-plane firmness, direction toward strength, automatically decreases the horizontal influence.

C. Placement of Shear walls

The shape and configuration position of the shear wall credits the way of behaving of the construction impressively. Basically, the best position for the shear walls in the Center of every portion of the structure. This is seldom viable, thinking of it as directs the utilization of the space, so it can position at the finishes. This shape and placement of the walls gives better flexural stiffness in the short direction, in any case, perceive on firmness of the edge in the other bearing. This sort of game plan gives great flexural firmness in along the two headings, yet it might bring on some issues from shrinkage. As this game plan with a solitary center, it has issue of limitation of shrinkage. Despite the fact that, this game plan decreases the great torsional firmness of the courses of action because of the capriciousness of the center. In the event that the center stays in this arrangement, it will be arranged unequivocally for the twist.

D. Plan Irregularities

 If any of the following conditions are met, a building is deemed irregular.

• Torsion abnormalities
• Re-entrant corners
• Excessive cutouts in floor slabs
• Out of plane offsets in vertical parts
• A force system that is not parallel

1. Reentrant Corners: Three varieties are seen as I, L, and T; These are experiencing a re-participant corner type plan oddity. Re-entrant corners are included in the plan arrangement of the design and the parallel burden opposing framework, while all of the constructions' extensions further than the s basically vertices were >15 percentage.

II. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF STUDY

A. The Study's Objectives

The current project's objectives are to choose how the G+17 Story Building will be displayed using various irregular arrangements, both with and without shear walls, using ETABS programming and the direct unique examination technique.

1. Calculate the models' base shear, story stiffness, story shear, and story displacement.
2. Examine the seismic response of various irregular plans that have shear walls and those that do not in various zones that are subject to lateral loads.
3. To identify the ideal uneven pattern construction having transverse reinforcement for enduring earthquake loads.
4. Identify the best placement and arrangement for retaining wall.

B. Scope of the study

1. In the task of study has embraced to decide the harm RCC Commercial structure under the activity of parallel burdens is seismic loads and wind loads.
2. The review has been done by utilizing plan abnormalities outline and the investigation has been completed by using two strategies. Static examination, Dynamic investigation.
3. In the review eighteen models are utilized having re-participant corners and their way of behaving is concentrated.
4. The primary goal of this study is to determine how two distinct structures in two distinct zones—zone iii and zone v—behave in relation to the multi-celebrated sporadic structure. These zones are thought to represent the seismic behaviour of the structure.

III. LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Tarun Magendra, Abhyuday Titisk, A.A Qureshi (May-Jun 2016)

‘‘Retaining wall placement in inter buildings at its best’’ In the study, an analysis was conducted to determine the best development plan for a tall structure by analyzing the shear walls in great detail., along with no arbitrary behavior in the mass location and hardness focus. They used the ETABS programming in this breakdown.

The structure's seismic stacking adheres to I S codes. They believed that as compared to other models, Shear walls located at the periphery have the most notable benefits of narrative shear. In common designs, overturing minutes are reduced. Finally, they determined that the optimum method of defining towering structures is one that has a Box-type Shear wall at its core.

B. Kusuma B (2017)

‘‘Seismic analysis of a High-rise RC Framed structure with irregularities” Static parallel burdens. In ETABS (v 13.1) programming, she has dissected every sporadic and regular structure using the reaction range technique. The reaction bounds, such as Story relocation, Story float, and so on, have been reviewed after the structure has been examined. She made the assumption that story float is higher in unpredictable design when compared to conventional structure, story uprooting is established higher in the participant corner building when compared to the subsequent sporadic structure, and solidity in sporadic structure and participant building decreased when compared to vertical sporadic.

C. Prem Shankar Singh, Jay Kumar Sah, Chinmay Kumar Kundu (2018)

‘‘The Optimum location of the shear wall in irregular plan multi-story RC frame Structure under lateral load” This study uses the reaction range technique to conduct an analysis for G+19 stories with a level of 3m for each story. Wind loads are examined in accordance with I S:875 (Part-iii):1987, and tremor IS:1893(Part-1) is completed. They have argued that by strategically placing shear walls, which directly reduce story removal and story float, the seismic notion of RC outline design may be increased. Increase the structure's sturdiness and strength. As opposed to sporadic arrangements without shear walls, which are seen to be overly unpredictable, sporadic arrangements along the shear walls provide less float and dislodging. Finally, it was concluded that the ideal site for the shear wall was at its center and corner.

D. Jawid Ahmed Tajzadah, Proff A. N Desai, Proff. Vimlesh V. Agrawal (April 2019)

‘‘Optimum Location of shear wall in RC Building” Under this study, G+9 stories were used, also with bottom level being 3.5 meters high as well as the other stories being 3 meters. Buildings in Zone v are square in plan and have 250mm-thick shear walls. Utilizing the reaction range technique in ETABS programming, the examination is completed. Shear walls are provided at the building's corners, internal inlets, and outer edges.

Finally, they made the assumption that, when taken into account using various models, that shear wall near the center of operation has a grater base shear. Parallel uprooting and Story float adhere to I S codes to the best of their ability. The largest conceivable distance from the structure's center of mass is provided by the torsional opposition of constructions equipped with shear walls.

E. Sandesh M O, Chetan Gonni S (April 2020)

‘‘A Limit Equilibrium Comparison Has been made on the Behavior of Shear Walls in RC Concrete Beams both with Openings” Therefore in study, a structure with a level of 3 meters and a 300 mm thick shear wall was used. By utilizing ETABS programming. They have finally concluded that the base shear is a stronger motivator for shear walls in the center when taken into account with different models, foundation stress values for similarly in the same static test, and reaction range examination. For stories that proceed from the base to the popular narrative, story uprooting is at its maximum for regular structure in both the headers and the dislodging increments.

IV. METHODOLOGY

This project research was conducted in two distinct zones using various models with plan irregularities (Re-entrant corners) in accordance with I S-Codes.

• Using the FEM software ETABS, a multi-story commercial structure is modelled.
• Due to the many re-entrant corners, 18 separate models are used.
• For the frame structure, I Shape in Zones 5 and 3 and Flexural Rigidity at the Borders and Outer boundary.
• Zones 3 and 5 for the bare frame, Zone 5 for the L-frame, & Zone-3 for the corner and perimeter shear walls.
• Shear walls at corners & the perimeter, T-frame in Zones 5 and 3 for the bare frame, and periphery.

Following the modelling of the irregular frames, these frames are examined using 2 distinct methods of linear dynamic analysis.

1. Equivalent static method
2. Response Spectrum Analysis

By adjusting the seismic zones factor in accordance with IS 1893:2016, the nature of each of the 18 models are examined in various zones. Comparison, interpretation, and validation of the findings from various analyses conducted for various zones.

A. Software Utilized

ETABS (Extended Three-Dimensional Analysis of Building Systems) is a stand - alone utilization of underlying investigation alongside an exceptional goal include for the foundational layout and examination of construction framework. ETABS is easy to use and client - cordial and it an extraordinary in its capacity to address the full range of errands developed in the advancement of construction examination and plan.

B. Model Description

1. Building configuration: The structure in this task has Eighteen stories and every story has 3.2 m. The tall structure model is having sporadic narrows outlines both the headings in X bearings and Y headings. I have considered the three different types irregular frames like I, L, T frames. In this study Eighteen building models are utilized with seismic zones with equal bay lengths. The details are tabulated in the table 1 below.
2. Seismic Zone Factor: In this task the structure for two unique zones and the upsides of each zone is unique. From lower to higher the upsides of the zone factor as changes in like manner. According to zone raises the zone factor likewise raises then the seismic zone has been completed as follows from (Page 16, T-2, Clause 6.4.2, IS 1893:2016). Zone ?: - 0.16, Zone ?: - 0.36.
3. Importance Factor (I): Importance Significance Factor ought to be assessed on the kind of building. According to IS 1893-2016, then, at that point, the worth alluded for business building ought to be 1.2.
4. Response Reduction Factor (R): Response reduction factor primarily relies on the type of frame according to the IS 1893:2016. In the project it has been examined as the RC buildings with Special moment resisting frame (SMRF) for that the response reduction factor is 5.
5. Soil Conditions: Soil conditions the subsurface constituents deigning of foundations. All over structures relies on the foundation. Because from top story of the building to the bottom the loads are applied on it, it transmits its load to foundation. The soil condition must be good in requirement for it to be safer. The soil condition in this investigation is Type B (medium or stiff soils). It is taken from (Page 10, T- 2, Clause 6.4.2.1, IS 1893:2016).

Table 1. Study of Structure Components

Table 2. ETABS Model Details

Table 3. Earthquake Load Details

C. Building Details

Grid Dimension [Plan] Number of the bays = (11*11)

No of Bays in X-direction = 11 bays

No of Bays in Y-direction = 11 bays Number of Stories = 18 story’s (G+17) Each stories height =3.2m

Material Properties Concrete (IS 456:2000) Grade of Concrete: M25

Directional Symmetry type = Isotropic M25 for beams, columns, slabs

Compressive strength of concrete, Fck =25000 KN/m2 Density of concrete (Weight per unit Volume) =25Kn/m2 Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete = 0.2

Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete, Ef = (5000√fck) = 25.00x106 KN/m2

D. Steel

Grade of steel = Fe415

Yield strength of steel, Fy = 4150000 KN/m2

E. Earthquake Load evaluation

Seismic zone Factor, Z = 0.10 [low], 0.16[ Medium], 0.24 [ Moderate], 0.36 [Severe] For analysis I have considered Zone ?, Zone ?.

Eccentricity ratio =0.05 Site Type = Medium Importance Factor = 1.2

Response Reduction Factor = 5 Damping Ratio = 5%

Mass source = DL= 1

Live load =0.25 < 3 KN/m2

R C Building with Special moment resisting Frame (SMRF) is 5, it is taken from the Page no 20, T 9, IS 1893(Part 1) :2016.

F. Shear Walls Details

In this task the underlying walls considered are shear walls which are responsible to quake loads. The shear walls are all around outfitted from the establishment level to full level of the structure. By giving a similar thickness of the shear wall along base to popular narrative. By the docks and spandrels names in ETABS, I have utilized the General Reinforcing task of shear walls. In my venture I have used shear walls at the fringe, at the corners.

V. RESULTS

A. Introduction
The project is carried out using ETABS's FEM programming. Using the ESM (Equivalent Static Method and Response Spectrum Analysis, the examination for this project is completed. In general, 18 models are prepared utilizing several determinations, such as Base Shear, Story Relocation, Story Float, Story Shear, and Story Stiffness. Zone 3 and Zone 5 results are compared with the three results from the abnormality model.

C. Base Shear

A similar gradual expansion of bare frame will occur. Based structurally on the mass and stiffness of the structures, Base Shear was applied to the abnormalities. For the Response Spectrum Analysis, each model's base shear should be comparable. The X-pivot in the preceding chart of the unexpected structures, the Y-hub in Table 4, and Graph 1 denote the Base Shear for Unpredictability’s.

1. I Frame

The Base Shear for the I, right off the bat, Frame for the unmistakable seismic zones, Base Shear for the Bare Frame Zone 5 is 8062.3346 and afterward especially in Zone 3 is 3585.5752, While noticing the Base Shear for the shear walls at periphery in Zone-5 is 10362.3872 & afterward especially the thing that matters is 28.53% expanded. Then perceiving the Zone 5 in Shear walls at Corners is 10760.4 and the thing that matters is 33.47% expanded.

2. L Frame

Also, the Bare Frame for the L Frame for unmistakable seismic Zones, Base Shear for the Bare Frame Zone 5 is 7763.3688 and afterward especially in Zone 3 is 3450.3861, While noticing the Base Shear for the Shear walls at outskirts in Zone 5 is 10535.0819 and afterward the especially the thing that matters is 35.70% expanded. Then perceiving the Shear walls at Corners in Zone 5 is 11022.54 and the thing that matters is 41.98% expanded.

3. T Frame

Finally, the Bare Frame for the T Frame for unmistakable seismic Zones, Base Shear for the Bare Frame Zone 5 is 7776.618 and afterward especially in Zone 3 is 3455.795, While noticing the Base Shear for the Shear walls at outskirts in Zone 5 is 9953.572 and afterward the especially the thing that matters is 27.99% expanded. Then, at that point, perceiving the Shear walls at corners in Zone 5 is 10468.1 and the thing that matters is 34.61% expanded.

Therefore, it is clear from all of the chart's aforementioned impacts that the Design Base will rise in proportion to the region component. As shown in the margins, Foundation Stress for L, T, and I Outline Shear Walls Structures suitably indicates rises by the aforementioned rates while accounted is along Shear Strength of L, T, and I Frames of Revealed Outer Buildings.

• As the Zone factors increase, base shear will also rise. According to the R.C. frame values for the atypical construction in Zones 3 and 5, respectively, of 3450.386 KN and 7763.3688 KN, respectively, base shear shows increase of 35.70 percent in both zones.
• When compared to R.C. Frames with shear walls, bare frames have the lowest base shear.
• When compared to the I and T frames, the L frame has the largest base shear, followed by Zone 3.
• The highest base shear of any R.C. frame is found in shear walls with corners.

Comparing of Zone 5 and Zone3 of Story Displacement

Table 5: Story Displacement of Irregular buildings

D. Story Displacement

The Lateral burden enduring design can restrict the additional removal of building. Story dislodging will likewise be expanding continuously founded on the level of the design, Story Displacement in Irregularities, An equivalence of Story relocation for the reaction range examination among every one of the models. From the above outline of unpredictable structures, from the table 5 and Graph 2, X-pivot indicate unmistakable seismic zones and Y-hub determine story relocation for anomalies.

1. I Frame

Right off the bat, the story removal for the I outline for the unmistakable seismic zones. Story relocation of the uncovered edge of Zone 5 is 106.261mm then especially in Zone 3 is 45.917 mm, while noticing the story removal for the shear walls at fringe in Zone 5 is 94.371mm, then, at that point, especially the thing that matters is 11.14% diminished. Then perceiving the Zone 5 in Shear walls at corners is 91.193mm and the thing that matters is 14.14%.

2. L Frame

Besides, the story dislodging for the L casing for the unmistakable seismic zones. Story dislodging of the exposed edge of Zone 5 is 107.716 mm then, at that point, especially in Zone 3 is 47.458 mm, while noticing the story removal for the Shear walls at fringe in Zone 5 is 86.34 mm, then especially the thing that matters is 19.84% diminished. Then, at that point, perceiving the Zone 5 in Shear walls at corners is 85.897 mm and the thing that matters are 20.26% diminished.

3. T Frame

In conclusion the story relocation for the T outline for the unmistakable seismic zones. Story Displacement of the uncovered casing of Zone 5 is 104.477 mm then especially in Zone 3 is 46.52mm, while noticing the story relocation for the shear walls at fringe in Zone 5 is 91.722 mm, then, at that point, especially the thing that matters is 12.21% diminished. Then, at that point, perceiving the Zone 5 in Shear walls at Corners is 90.493 mm, then the especially the thing that matters is 13.38% diminished.

Additionally, the Shear barriers at the corners and edges of Zone 3 shrank. The displacement also increased along both bearings as the stories got longer. The I S Code revealed outline uncertain structure comply with as much as feasible (H/500), as was previously mentioned. Finally, it can be deduced from each of the chart's preceding impacts that when the Zone factor rises, the Story uprooting will also increase. In particular, when taken into account along the Story relocation of I, L, and T Frames of the uncovered edge structures.

• The final story has the largest story displacement, and the first story has the smallest narrative displacement.
• As noticed the level of the unpredictable arrangement R C outline structures expanding, story uprooting will likewise increment outline story removal shows the decrease in story dislodging as noticed it has the least story relocation.
• The higher tale displacement when compared to the other R.C. frames has been observed for the I frame.
• The ideal location and positioning for shear walls is at corners.

With shear walls at the corners, the L edge is regarded as the ideal R.C. outline. Given that when considering the exposed edge unpredictable casing, shear wall structures have shrunk by 19.84 and 20.26 percent, respectively.

E. Story drift

Extent of dislodging in height of the floor to two progressive floors. Story float is assessed relying upon the story float isolated from the story level. Story float will show augments primarily relying upon the level of the design. And afterward Zone factor likewise assumes a superb part, as the Zone factor expands the Story float will likewise increments. A Comparability of story float for reaction Spectrum examination among every one of the Models. From the above Chart of the unpredictable structures, from table 6 and Graph 3, X-pivot determine unmistakable seismic Zones and Y-hub indicate Story float Irregularities.

1. I frame

First and foremost, the story float for the I outline for the unmistakable seismic zones, story float for the exposed casing zone 5 is 0.02711 it is the most noteworthy story float and afterward especially in zone 5 is 0.00067 it is the least story float, in the shear walls at fringe the story float for the zone 5 is 0.00213 it is the most noteworthy story float and afterward especially in zone 5 is 0.00038 it is the most minimal story float. In the Shear walls at Corners the story float for Zone 5 is 0.00202 it is the most noteworthy story float and afterward especially in zone 5 is 0.00035 it is the least story float. Same concerning the zone 3.

2. L frame

In addition, the story float for the L edge for the unmistakable seismic zones, story float for the exposed casing zone 5 is 0.002758 it is the most elevated story float and afterward especially in zone 5 is 0.000717 it is the most minimal story float, in the shear walls at fringe the story float for the zone 5 is 0.001929 it is the most noteworthy story float and afterward especially in zone 5 is 0.0000345 it is the least story float. In the Shear walls at Corners the story float for Zone 5 is 0.001902 it is the most elevated story float and afterward especially in zone 5 is 0.000328 it is the least story float. Same with respect to the zone 3.

3. T frame

Finally, the story float for the L casing for the unmistakable seismic zones, story float for the exposed edge zone 5 is 0.002696 it is the most elevated story float and afterward especially in zone 5 is 0.000681 it is the most reduced story float, in the shear walls at outskirts the story float for the zone 5 is 0.002074 it is the most elevated story float and afterward especially in zone 5 is 0.000375 it is the least story float. In the Shear walls at Corners the story float for Zone 5 is 0.002 it is the most noteworthy story float and afterward especially in zone 5 is 0.000356 it is the least story float. Same concerning the zone 3.

The story float also grows along both directions as the stories get longer. According to the I S Code's disclosed outline and unexpected structure, stories should be as close to 0.0004 times tale level as possible. The level of the design will largely determine how far the story floats. The sporadic designs for I, L, and T are, however, going to be reduced at the ninth story and expanded at the tenth story, respectively. This is demonstrated in the story float of I, L, and T's edge of Zones 5 and 3. Finally, it can be concluded from all of the aforementioned outlining impacts that as the Zone factor increases, the tale float will exhibit increases and decreases. It has been discovered that the zone factors from the analysis cause the story drift to grow. Values from Zones 3 to 5 will display increments. Story relocation is reduced as seen by the L casing, which has the least story float. When compared to the other R.C. outlines, the uncovered outline has been viewed as having a higher story float.

With shear walls at the corners, L frame is regarded as the best R.C. frame. Because it demonstrates how shear walls in buildings degrade when viewed individually along the bare frame uneven frame.

Table 7: Story Shear of Irregular Buildings

F. Story Shear

We can observe the lateral powers on the unambiguous floor in a supplied direction in the story's summary. A schematic of story shear and parallel burdens will be used to build the level-by-level game plan. According to Graph 23 and Table 26 of the I, L, T methods, tale shear tends to be greater in the beginning of stories and to decrease as they go. The story is told inconsistently. The reaction range examination for each of the Models is compared for tale similarity. Drawings 30 and a table 31 from the overall Storytelling Chart. Unmistakable seismic Zones are shown by the X-pivot, and the anomalies' narrative shear is determined by the Y-hub.

1. I Frame

First and foremost, the Story shear for the I outline for the particular seismic zones. Story shear of the exposed edge of Zone 5 is 12514.4 KN then, at that point, especially in Zone 3 is 5135.01 KN, while noticing the story shear for the shear walls at outskirts in Zone 5 is 15176.8 KN, then, at that point, especially the thing that matters is 21.27% expanded. Then perceiving the Zone 5 in Shear walls at corners is 15787.3 KN and the thing that matters is 26.15%.

2. L Frame

Additionally, the story shear for the L edge for the unmistakable seismic zones. Story shear of the uncovered edge of Zone 5 is 12066.2 KN then especially in Zone 3 is 5362.87 KN, while noticing the story shear for the Shear walls at fringe in Zone 5 is 16125.2 KN, then especially the thing that matters is 33.64% Increased. Then perceiving the Zone 5 in Shear walls at corners is 16843.4 KN and the thing that matters is 39.59% expanded.

3. T Frame

Ultimately the story shear for the T outline for the particular seismic zones. Story shear of the uncovered edge of Zone 5 is 12083.9 KN then, at that point, especially in Zone 3 is 5370.636 KN, while noticing the story shear for the shear walls at fringe in Zone 5 is 15264.8 KN, then especially the thing that matters is 26.32% expanded. Then, at that point, perceiving the Zone 5 in Shear walls at Corners is 7124.902 KN, then the especially the thing that matters is 32.66% expanded.

Conclusion

A. Base Shear 1) As the Zone factors increase, base shear will also rise. According to the R.C. frame values for the atypical construction in Zones 3 and 5, respectively, of 3450.386 KN and 7763.3688 KN, respectively, base shear shows increase of 35.70 percent in both zones. 2) The shear wall of unbraced is lower than that of R.C. structure with base shear. 3) L frame has the lowest shear strength in comparison to the other R.C. frame structures. 4) T frame has the lowest average shear of all R.C. structure cantilever walls. B. Story Displacement 1) L-frame is regarded as the best narrative deformation because it has the smallest stories dislocation and hence indicates a decrease in stories displaced. 2) According to the study, zone-3 to zone-5 values will exhibit increases as the tale movement rises with the zone parameters. 3) The final story has the largest story movement, and the first story has the smallest narrative deformation. 4) As the height of the R.C. frame structures with uneven plans rises, the movement of the stories will also naturally rise. C. Story Drift 1) It has been discovered that the zone elements from the study cause the plot to veer off course. Values from Zones 3 to 5 will display increases in the corresponding directions. 2) Narrative drift will get worse as the building gets taller. For I, L, and T\'s illogical designs, it will fall at the ninth story, rise at the tenth story, then descend twice. 3) The highest story drift among all R.C. frames is found in bare frames. 4) The best tale drift is considered to be that which has the least reduction in the Shear walls at corners. D. Story Shear 1) It has a strong story shear at the beginning of stories and a low story shear at the conclusion of stories. 2) When compared to the other R.C. frames, the I frame\'s story shear is the lowest of them all. 3) When compared to the other R.C. frames, the bare frame has the lowest story shear. 4) L frame is the best story shear frame among all R.C frames since it has seen the maximum story shear in the shear walls at corners. 5) Shear walls have proven to be the optimum construction solution for R.C. frame irregular layouts in this project. Corner shear walls are considered to be the best possible placement for shear walls.

References

Venkata Sairam Kumar.N, Surendra Babu (2014), „Shear walls – A Review?. IJIRSET, ISSN: 2319 - 8753, Vol. 3, Issue 2, February 2014. [2] Mohammed Safeer Kodappana, Priyanka Dilip, ‘‘Study on Dynamic Behaviour of Shear walls with Staggered Openings in Irregular R.C. Framed Structures’’ (IJSRET), Volume 3, Issue 8, e-ISSN: 2395- 1990, Page number :561-567, April-2017. [3] Ravikanth Chittiprolu, Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar, „Significance of Shear wall in High rise Irregular Buildings?, IJEAR Volume 4, Issue SpL-2, Jan – June 2014. [4] Pradeep Pujar, Amaresh, ‘‘Seismic analysis of plan irregular multi-storied building with and without Shear walls”, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Volume 4, Issue 8, e-ISSN: 235-005, p-ISSN: 235-0072, Impact Factor value: 5.181, Page no: 1405-1411, August 2017. [5] Varsha R. Harne (2014), „Comparative Study of Strength of RC Shear wall at different location of Multi- storied Residential Building?, International Journal of Civil Engineering Research ISSN 2278-3652, Volume 5, Number 4 (2014), pp. 391-400. [6] Saurabh Mishra, V.K Singh, ‘‘Effective Location of Shear Wall in Irregular Multi-Story Building’’, International Journal of Engineering Research in Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IJERMCE), Vol 3, Issue 5, ISSN (Online) 2456-1290, Page number: 57-60, May 2018. [7] Syed Abrar Hussaini, Nadeem Pasha, Shaik Abdulla, Mohd.Faisaluddin, Dr.S.K. Md. Azam,‘‘A Study on Optimum Location of Shear Wall under Seismic Loads ’’, International Journal of Research in Advent Technology (IJRAT) , Volume 6, No.7, E-ISSN: 2321-9637 , Page number :1471-1476 , July 2018 . [8] Sylviya B, P. Eswaramoorthi, ‘‘Analysis of RCC Building with Shear Walls at Various Locations and In Different Seismic Zones, International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE) ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume-8 Issue-2, Page number :336-339, December, 2018. [9] Shaikh Abdul Aijaj Abdul Rahman (2013), „Seismic Response of Vertically Irregular RC Frame with Stiffness Irregularity at Fourth Floor?, International Journal of Emerging Technology & Advanced Engineering ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 3, Issue 8 (2013). [10] J. V. Sunil Ganesh & Mallikarjun S. Bhandiwad (2014), „Seismic Analysis of Irregular Multi-storied structure with Shear wall?, The International Journal of Science & Technoledge, Vol. 2, Issue 6.

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Srinidhi G, Dr. R. Subhash Chandra Bose , Dr. Govardhanswamy H S. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.