International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 7, Issue 3, MayJune 2016, pp. 373384, Article ID: IJCIET_07_03_038

Available online at
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=7&IType=3
Journal Impact Factor (2016): 9.7820 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
IAEME Publication

EFFECT OF POSITIONING OF RC SHEAR

WALLS OF DIFFERENT SHAPES ON
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF BUILDING
RESTING ON SLOPING GROUND
S.P.Pawar
PG Student, Department of Civil Engineering
SKN Sinhgad College of Engineering, Korti, Pandharpur, India
Dr.C.P.Pise
HOD and Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
SKN Sinhgad College of Engineering, Korti, Pandharpur, India
Y.P.Pawar, S.S.Kadam, D. D. Mohite and C. M. Deshmukh
Assistant Professors, Department of Civil Engineering,
SKN Sinhgad College of Engineering, Korti, Pandharpur, India
N. K. Shelar
Assistant Professors, Department of Civil Engineering,
Government College of Engineering, Karad, India
ABSTRACT
The buildings situated on hill slopes in earthquake prone areas are
generally irregular, torsionally coupled. Hence, subjected to severe damage
when affected by earthquake ground motion. Such buildings have mass &
stiffness varying along the vertical & horizontal planes, resulting the center of
mass & center of rigidity do not coincide on various floors, they demand
torsional analysis, in addition to lateral forces under the action of
earthquakes. This study compels with a studies on the seismic behavior of
buildings resting on sloping ground with a shear walls. It is observed that the
seismic behavior of buildings on sloping ground differ from other buildings.
The various floors of such buildings step backs towards hill slope. Most of the
studies agree that the buildings resting on sloping ground has higher
displacement and base shear compared to buildings resting on plain ground
and the shorter column attracts more forces and undergo damage when
subjected to earthquake. Step back building could prove more vulnerable to
seismic excitation.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

373

editor@iaeme.com

S.P.Pawar, Dr.C.P.Pise, Y.P.Pawar, S.S.Kadam, D. D. Mohite, C. M. Deshmukh and N. K.

Shelar

Index terms: Seismic Performance, Sloping ground, Step back building with
slope 100 ,200 ,300 , Shear wall with different configuration
Cite this Article: S.P.Pawar, Dr.C.P.Pise, Y.P.Pawar, S.S.Kadam, D. D.
Mohite, C. M. Deshmukh and N. K. Shelar, Effect of Positioning of RC Shear
Walls of Different Shapes on Seismic Performance of Building Resting On
Sloping Ground. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology,
7(3), 2016, pp.373384.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=7&IType=3

1. INTRODUCTION
The scarcity of plain ground in hilly areas compels construction activity on sloping
ground resulting in various important buildings such as reinforced concrete framed
structures resting on hilly slopes. Since, the behavior of buildings during earthquake
depends upon the distribution of mass and stiffness in both horizontal and vertical
planes of the buildings, both of which vary in case of hilly buildings with irregularity
and asymmetry due to step-back and step back-set back configuration. The presence
of such constructions in seismically prone areas makes them exposed to greater shears
and torsion as compared to conventional construction. In order to highlight the
differences in behavior, this may further be influenced by the characteristics of the
locally available foundation material. Current building codes including IS: 1893 (Part
1): 2002 suggest detailed dynamic analysis of these types of buildings on different
soil (hard, medium and soft soil) types. To assess acceptability of the design it is
important to predict the force and deformation demands imposed on structures and
their elements by severe ground motion.

2. BUILDING DESCRIPTION
Number of storey: 6
Slab thickness: 120 mm
Floor height: 3.5 m
Thickness of concrete shear wall: 200 mm
No of bay in x and y direction: 5
Spacing in x and y direction: 4 m
2
Live load: 4 kN/m
Floor finish load: 1. 875 kN/m2
Grade of concrete: M20
Grade of steel: Fe415
Beam sizes: 300x500 mm
Column sizes: 500x500 mm
Earthquake parameters
Type of frame: SMRF seismic zone: v
Response reduction factor: 5
Importance factor: 1
The models are analyzed on leveled as well as sloping ground with a varying
slope V: H). The frames on leveled and sloping ground under consideration for
present study is as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 and Fig. 3

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

374

editor@iaeme.com

Effect of Positioning of RC Shear Walls of Different Shapes on Seismic Performance of

Building Resting On Sloping Ground

Ground slope 100

Plan

Figure 1 Building frame on sloping ground

Ground slope 200

Ground slope 300

Figure 2 and 3 Building frame on sloping ground

3. MODELLING AND ANALYSIS

In the present study lateral load analysis as per the seismic code for the bare Frame
and concrete Shear wall structure is carried out and an effort is made to study the
effect of seismic loads on them and thus assess their seismic vulnerability by
performing response spectrum analysis. The analysis is carried out using SAP 2000 V
15.2.2 analysis. Concrete frame elements are classified as beam and column frames.
Columns and beams are modelled using three dimensional frame elements. Slabs are
modelled as rigid diaphragms. The beam column joints are assumed to be rigid. Using
Software, analyses are carried on six storied building models on sloping ground with a
different slope which are as follows: 100 ,200 and 300. To improve the seismic response
of building different shear walls configurations are c hosen as shown in fig 4 to Fig 8.
In every model, position of shear walls is decided to keep the building symmetrical
about both the principal axes to avoid undue torsion. Length of shear walls and no of
columns in both directions is kept same to keep the structure symmetrical in both
principal directions in plan.

Load Combinations
The following load combination has been used for the calculating the member forces
and for comparing its results as per IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002.

1.5 (DL + IL)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

375

editor@iaeme.com

S.P.Pawar, Dr.C.P.Pise, Y.P.Pawar, S.S.Kadam, D. D. Mohite, C. M. Deshmukh and N. K.

Shelar

1.2 (DL + IL EL)

1.5 (DL EL)
0.9 DL 1.5 EL

4. METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 recommends 3D modeling for dynamic analysis (Response
Spectrum analyses and Time History analyses) of irregular buildings higher than 12m
in zone IV and V, and those greater than 40m in height in zone II and III. 3D analysis
including torsional effect has been carried out by using response spectrum method for
this study. Dynamic response of these buildings, in terms of base shear, fundamental
time period, roof displacement and member forces is presented, and compared within
the considered configuration of shear walls as well as with model without shear walls
on sloping ground and at different slopes, efficient positioning of shear walls
configuration to be used is suggested. Three columns A, B and C as shown in Fig. are
considered for comparison of member forces in the present study.
The seismic analysis of all buildings is carried by Response Spectrum Method in
accordance with IS: 1893 (Part 1): 2002. As per codal provisions dynamic results are
normalized by multiplying with a base shear ratio Vb/VB , where Vb is the base shear
evaluation based on time period given by empirical equation and, VB is the base shear
from dynamic analysis , if Vb/VB ratio is more than one. Damping considered for all
modes of vibration was five percent. For determining the seismic response of the
buildings in different directions for ground motion the response spectrum analysis
was conducted in longitudinal and transverse direction (X and Y). The other
parameters used in seismic analysis were, severe seismic zone (IV), zone factor 0.36,
importance factor 1, special moment resisting frame (SMRF) for all models with a
response reduction factor of 5. The default number of modes (i.e. 12) in software was
used and the modal responses were combined using CQC method. The response
spectra for medium soil sites with 5% damping as per IS 1893 (Part1):2002 is utilized
in response spectrum analysis.
The following models of building are considered on sloping ground.
W 10 without shear wall
W 20 without shear wall
S 10 with straight shape shear wall
S 20 with straight shape shear wall L10
with L-shape shear walls
L 20 with L-shape shear walls
C10 with channel shape shear wall
C 20 with channel shape shear wall
T10 with T-shape shear walls
T 20 with T-shape shear walls
W 30
S 30
L 30
C 30
T 30

without shear wall

with straight shape shear wall
with L-shape shear walls
with channel shape shear wall
with T-shape shear walls

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

376

editor@iaeme.com

Effect of Positioning of RC Shear Walls of Different Shapes on Seismic Performance of

Building Resting On Sloping Ground

Figure 4 Building without shear wall on sloping ground

Figure 5 Building with straight shape shear walls on sloping ground

Figure 6 Building with L-shape shear walls on sloping ground

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

377

editor@iaeme.com

S.P.Pawar, Dr.C.P.Pise, Y.P.Pawar, S.S.Kadam, D. D. Mohite, C. M. Deshmukh and N. K.

Shelar

Figure 7 Building with T-shape shear walls on sloping ground

Figure 8 Building with Channel shape shear walls on sloping ground

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of present study are categories as follows
From the results obtained in present study it is observed that the buildings on slopes
are more vulnerable to seismic activity. The building on slopes shows the different
behavior in two principal directions as presented in this study. The base shear of
buildings on slopes for different shear walls configuration is increased by
approximately 50% along the direction parallel to slope whereas it is increased by 3045% in other transverse direction as shown in Fig.9 and Fig.10 compared to model
1.The lateral displacement observed in the direction parallel to slope is more as
compared to displacement in transverse direction. Hence displacement in x direction
is only shown in fig.11and Fig.12. The reduction in lateral displacement is observed
similar to that of models on leveled ground due to provision of shear walls in both
directions. The time period of shear walled model get reduced by 50-60% as
compared to model 1.The time period and lateral displacement observed is minimum
for model 2 (straight shape) among all the configurations. The seismic performance of
building on slope is as presented in Fig.13, and Fig.14

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

378

editor@iaeme.com

Effect of Positioning of RC Shear Walls of Different Shapes on Seismic Performance of

Building Resting On Sloping Ground

Figure 9 Variation of base shear for building of without shear wall on sloping ground with
varying slope

Figure 10 Variation of base shear for building of with a shear wall on sloping ground with
varying slope

Figure 11 without shear wall

Figure 12 Straight shape shear wall

Lateral displacement of building on sloping ground

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

379

editor@iaeme.com

S.P.Pawar, Dr.C.P.Pise, Y.P.Pawar, S.S.Kadam, D. D. Mohite, C. M. Deshmukh and N. K.

Shelar

Figure 13 without shear wall Figure 14 Straight shape shear wall

Variation of time period on sloping ground

6. MEMBER FORCES
The shear forces and bending moments in columns also get red uced same as to model
on sloping ground due to shear wall. The member forces such as axial forces, shear
forces and bending moment are presented in Fig.15, to Fig.20 respectively. The
buildings on slope are subjected to torsion when subjected to lateral load. Hence the
torsional moments are also compared. These torsional moments get reduced by 7590% as shown in Fig.21, 22

Figure 15 Axial Forces for building without shear wall on sloping ground

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

380

editor@iaeme.com

Effect of Positioning of RC Shear Walls of Different Shapes on Seismic Performance of

Building Resting On Sloping Ground

Figure 16 Axial Forces for building with shear wall on sloping ground

Figure 17 Shear Forces for building without shear wall on sloping ground

Figure 18 Shear Forces for building with shear wall on sloping ground

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

381

editor@iaeme.com

S.P.Pawar, Dr.C.P.Pise, Y.P.Pawar, S.S.Kadam, D. D. Mohite, C. M. Deshmukh and N. K.

Shelar

Figure 19 Bending Moment for building without shear wall on sloping ground

Figure 20 Bending Moment for building without shear wall on sloping ground

Figure 21 Tortioal Moment for building without shear wall on sloping ground

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

382

editor@iaeme.com

Effect of Positioning of RC Shear Walls of Different Shapes on Seismic Performance of

Building Resting On Sloping Ground

Figure 22 Tortioal Moment for building with shear wall on sloping ground

7. CONCLUSIONS
From the present study the following conclusions are drawn
1. There is significant improvement observed in seismic performance of building on
slopes by providing shear walls with different configurations since lateral
displacement and member forces reduces considerably in building due to provision of
shear walls.
2. For buildings on slopes shortest column on higher stiffness. The base shear and
displacement is more along the slope than in other transverse direction.
3. The straight shape (or rectangular) shear walls configuration proves to be better
among all configurations for resisting the lateral displacement.
4. The L-shape shear walls configuration is effective during seismic activity because the
member forces developed in this configuration are less as compared to other
configurations on sloping ground whereas on plane ground this configuration has
approximately same member forces for all configurations. Also for this configuration
base shear is Minimum among all configurations on leveled ground.
5. Use of T-shape shear walls gives more lateral displacement and member forces for
buildings on slopes as compared to other configurations.

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]
[5]

S. K. Hirde and Ms. S. T. Charjan, (2009), Effect of various positions of

reinforced concrete shear walls on seismic performance of building having soft
bottom storey, ISSE Journal, 11(1)
B. G. Birajdar, S. S. Nalawde, (2004), Seismic analysis of buildings resting on
sloping ground, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,
B.C., Canada, Paper No. 1472.
Prabhat Kumar, Sharad Sharma et al, (2012), Influence of soil-structure
interaction in seismic response of step back buildings. ISET Golden jubilee
symposium Indian Society of Earthquake Technology, Department of Earthquake
Engineering Building IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Paper No. C013. October 2021.
S.M.Nagargoje and K.S. Sable, (2012), Seismic performance of mult i-Storeyed
building on sloping ground, Elixir International Journal
S. A. Halkude, Mr. M. G. Kalyanshetti et al, (2013), Seismic Analysis of
Buildings Resting on Sloping Ground with Varying Number of Bays and Hill
Slopes, International Journal of Engineering Research 2(12).

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

383

editor@iaeme.com

S.P.Pawar, Dr.C.P.Pise, Y.P.Pawar, S.S.Kadam, D. D. Mohite, C. M. Deshmukh and N. K.

Shelar
[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

Prabhat Kumar, Ashwani Kumar et al, (2014), Comparison of Seismic Response

of Buildings on Slopes, National conference on emerging trends in engineering
science & technology (NCETEST-2014) March 29th -30th, College of
Engineering Roorkee (COER), Roorkee, India.
R. M. Sawant, Junaid Khan, Jabeen Khan and Satish Waykar, Behavior of High
Strength Fiber Reinforced Concrete under Shear. International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology, 6(4), 2015, pp.4654.
Reshma Chandran, Unni Kartha G and Preetha Prabhakaran, Comparative Study
on Solid and Coupled Shear Wall. International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 5(12), 2014, pp.117133.
Anila Anna Samson, Preetha Prabhakaran and Dr. Girija K, Performance of Shear
Wall Building during Seismic Excitations. International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology, 5(12), 2014, pp.7384.
IS 1893 (Part I): (2002), Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures, Part I General Provisions and Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

384

editor@iaeme.com