A Comparative Analysis of Base Shear and Lateral Forces with and

Without Shear Walls

Vikas Rathi1

Abstract:

Author keywords:

1.Introduction

The rapid growth of urbanization and the increasing demand for

high-rise structures, ensuring the lateral stability of buildings has
become a critical concern in structural engineering. High-rise
buildings are highly susceptible to lateral forces induced by wind
and seismic activity, which can significantly impact their perfor-
mance and safety. To mitigate these effects, shear walls have (a)
emerged as an effective structural solution due to their ability to
resist lateral loads through a combination of shear, moment, and
axial forces.
Shear walls function as rigid vertical diaphragms,
transferring lateral loads from floors and roofs to the foundation,
thereby enhancing the overall strength and stiffness of the build-
ing. Previous studies have demonstrated that the optimal place-
ment and proportion of shear walls are crucial in controlling sto-
rey drift, lateral displacement, and torsional irregularities.
(b)
Despite extensive studies on shear walls, determining their ideal
Fig.1. Analysis models: (a) With Shear Wall; (b) Without Shear Wall
location and orientation for maximum efficiency remains a chal-
lenge, especially in seismic-prone regions.
1
This study investigates the seismic response of a rein- M-Tech. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Applied Me-
forced concrete (RC) building in Earthquake Zone III of Indore, chanics, Shri G.S. Institute of Technology & Science, Indore, In-
comparing structural performance with and without shear walls. dia. Email: [email protected]
Two structural models are developed and analysed using
STAAD. Pro. The analysis focuses on key parameters such as Tirado-Gutiérrez et al. (2024) proposed a methodology for esti-
mating the seismic response of buildings using transfer func-
storey shear, lateral displacement, drift, stiffness, and overall
tions. By analysing the dynamic behaviour of three different
structural stability. building models, they determined an optimal transfer function
conducting this comparative analysis, we seek to pro- for each structure, enabling efficient prediction of engineering
vide valuable insights into Optimal Shear Wall Placement, Cost- demand parameters (EDPs) while significantly reducing compu-
Effectiveness, And Overall Structural Efficiency, helping engi- tational time. Their findings indicated that a limited set of seis-
neers and designers make data-driven decisions in seismic-prone mic records could be utilized to develop a more effective strategy
regions. for obtaining reliable statistical estimates of seismic response.
The progressive collapse of high-strength concrete (HSC) and
normal-strength concrete (NSC) frame buildings under extreme
©SGSITS 7789-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng. 2025, 178(9): 7789-1

loading conditions has been a critical area of research in struc- 3.Methodology
tural engineering. Many numerical and experimental studies
have been conducted to evaluate structural integrity under differ- 3.1 Building Description and Modelling Consideration
ent loading scenarios, particularly column removal (Yousef &
El-Mandouh, 2020). Several methodologies have been employed
The administrator’s building (G+9) under approval is designed
to analyse the response of reinforced concrete (RC) structures
with two distinct structural systems: one with shear walls and one
under progressive collapse, including linear static, linear dy-
without. The analysis and designed process is done with the
namic, and nonlinear dynamic analyses (Kishi et al., 2001; Fu-
STAAD.PRO software. The building parameters are as follows
jikake et al., 2009; Tachibana et al., 2010; Nghiem & Kang,
2020). Table 1. Building information
A significant amount of research has been dedicated to Parameter Contents
traditional RC frame buildings, but studies on the behaviour of Length 95 m
high-strength concrete (HSC) structures in progressive collapse Width 26 m
scenarios remain limited (Kishi et al., 2002a, b; Bhatti et al., Height 32 m
2009; Saatci & Vecchio, 2009). Previous investigations have pri- Floor-to-Floor Height 3.2 m
marily focused on static failure mechanisms, with little emphasis
on the dynamic effects caused by sudden column removal. To
The seismic and wind load conditions which are taken in the
address this gap, recent numerical studies have analysed the
analysis are as follows
structural response of three-story and six-story HSC and normal-
strength concrete (NSC) buildings, assessing their behaviour un-
Table 2. Seismic and wind load conditions
der various dynamic conditions following central column re-
moval (Ishikawa et al., 1998, 2000; Wu et al., 2016). Parameter Content
Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.16
Response Reduction Factor, R 3
2.Literature review Importance Factor, I 1.5
Site Condition, SS 3
Tirado-Gutiérrez et al. (2020) introduced a probabilistic ap- Soil Type Type I
proach for estimating the seismic response of high-rise buildings Damping Ratio 0.03 %
using transfer functions. By optimizing these functions for dif- Basic wind speed 39 m/s
ferent structures, their method significantly reduced computa- Surface Roughness Category B
tional demands while maintaining accuracy in predicting engi- Topography factor, Kzt 1.0
neering demand parameters (EDPs). Their findings suggest that Importance Factor, Iw 3
a limited set of seismic records can provide reliable statistical Load Factor 1
estimations, improving efficiency in seismic assessments.
The load combinations which are applied are given in table be-
Yousef & El-Mandouh (2020) investigated the progressive col- low
lapse behaviour of high-strength concrete (HSC) and normal-
strength concrete (NSC) buildings under central column re- Table 3. Load combinations
moval. Their study utilized numerical simulations, comparing 1.5 DEAD + 1.5 LIVE
linear static, linear dynamic, and nonlinear dynamic analyses. 1.2 DEAD + 1.2 LIVE + 1.2 WIND (1)
The results highlighted the limitations of static approaches in 1.2 DEAD + 1.2 LIVE + 1.2 WIND (2)
capturing structural vulnerabilities, particularly in taller build- 1.2 DEAD + 1.2 LIVE + -1.2 WIND (1)
ings, where dynamic effects significantly influenced internal
1.2 DEAD + 1.2 LIVE + -1.2 WIND (2)
forces and displacement responses.
1.2 DEAD + 1.2 LIVE + 1.2 SEISMIC (1)
1.2 DEAD + 1.2 LIVE + 1.2 SEISMIC (2)
Bothara et al. (2021) focused on earthquake-resistant school
building designs for Nepal following the 2015 Gorkha earth- 1.2 DEAD + 1.2 LIVE + -1.2 SEISMIC (1)
quake. Their study emphasized the importance of local materials 1.2 DEAD + 1.2 LIVE + -1.2 SEISMIC (2)
and traditional craftsmanship in reconstruction efforts, aligning 1.5 DEAD + 1.5 WIND (1)
with the ‘Build Back Better’ initiative. By developing and testing 1.5 DEAD + 1.5 WIND (2)
four innovative school building prototypes, they demonstrated 1.5 DEAD + -1.5 WIND (1)
the viability of cost-effective, resilient construction techniques 1.5 DEAD + -1.5 WIND (2)
tailored to seismic-prone regions. 1.5 DEAD + 1.5 SEISMIC (1)
1.5 DEAD + 1.5 SEISMIC (2)
Iancovici et al. (2021) explored nonlinear dynamic responses of 1.5 DEAD + 1.5 SEISMIC (1)
buildings subjected to wind loads, a less studied area in structural 1.5 DEAD + 1.5 SEISMIC (2)
engineering. Using the 3D Force Analogy Method (3D-FAM) 1.5 DEAD + -1.5 SEISMIC (1)
and wind tunnel pressure data, their analysis assessed hysteretic 1.5 DEAD + -1.5 SEISMIC (2)
energy dissipation, plastic rotations, and damage indices. Their 0.9 DEAD + 1.5 WIND (1)
findings reinforced the importance of advanced numerical meth- 0.9 DEAD + 1.5 WIND (2)
ods in capturing nonlinear wind-induced effects and improving 0.9 DEAD + -1.5 WIND (1)
resilience in wind-prone areas. 0.9 DEAD + -1.5 WIND (2)
0.9 DEAD + 1.5 SEISMIC (1)
Momose et al. (2021) examined the seismic behaviour of Cross- 0.9 DEAD + 1.5 SEISMIC (2)
Laminated Timber (CLT) buildings, addressing gaps in large de- 0.9 DEAD + -1.5 SEISMIC (1)
formation studies. By replicating a full-scale shake table experi- 0.9 DEAD + -1.5 SEISMIC (2)
ment through analytical modelling, they extended previous re-
search beyond conventional interstudy drift limits. Their analysis
demonstrated strong agreement with experimental data

©SGSITS 7789-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng. 2025, 178(9): 7789-1

4.Analysis Results
The static analysis of each model has been performed by defining The storey displacement of each storey is as interpreted as fol-
seismic masses, seismic parameters, and incorporating the lows
STAAD SPACE DXF import of centreline geometry.
The structural model is configured with isotropic concrete mate- Table 6. Story displacement
rial properties, including Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, den-
With Shear Without Shear
sity, thermal expansion coefficient, damping factor, and concrete Story Height
Wall Wall
strength as per the design specifications.
The model utilizes member properties categorized un- 10 37.7 162.485 205.637
der American standards, with varying sectional dimensions as- 9 34.5 157.829 201.992
signed to specific members. Fixed supports are applied at key 8 31.3 157.206 195.514
joint locations to ensure stability.
The seismic analysis follows IS 1893:2016 guidelines, 7 28.1 154.119 185.224
incorporating seismic zone coefficients, response reduction fac- 6 24.9 147.350 170.827
tors, and importance factors. Wind load analysis is defined per 5 21.7 136.632 152.380
ASCE-7-2010 parameters, accounting for varying wind speeds
and exposure categories. Load cases, including dead load, live 4 18.5 121.916 129.939
load, seismic loads in X and Z directions, and wind loads, are 3 15.3 103.276 129.939
applied, followed by structural performance analysis. 2 12.1
The results provide crucial insights into the load distribution, 80.985 103.652
structural stability, and overall capacity, ensuring the model 1 8.9 55.793 73.765
meets design safety standards and performance criteria. GL 5.7 29.686 41.786
The axial, shear forces and bending moment in a conner FL 2.5
column are interoperated as follows, 7.492 11.944

Table 4. Axial, Shear Force and B.M in corner column 5.Conclusion

Model Type Axial Force
With Shear Wall 353.71 kN This study evaluates the impact of shear walls on the structural
performance of buildings under static and seismic loading con-
Without Shear Wall 203.03 kN ditions.
Model Type Shear Force The analysis, conducted using STAAD SPACE DXF import, in-
With Shear Wall 7.018 kN tegrates seismic and wind load parameters as per IS 1893:2016
Without Shear Wall 43.07 kN and ASCE-7-2010 standards. The results highlight the signifi-
cance of shear walls in enhancing structural stability, reducing
Model Type Bending Moment displacement, and improving load distribution.
With Shear Wall 7.018 KN Key findings indicate that the inclusion of shear walls
Without Shear Wall 43.07 KN significantly increases axial force capacity while reducing shear
forces, bending moments, and base shear.
Moreover, the story displacement values demonstrate
The time period, base shear in x and z direction, horizontal ac- that structures with shear walls exhibit superior lateral stability,
celeration and torsion in column are as follows. mitigating excessive drift under seismic loading. Despite having
no noticeable impact on periods and horizontal acceleration,
Table 5. Time period, Base Shear, Horizontal acc.& Torsion
shear walls contribute to overall structural integrity by limiting
Model Type Time Period ( Z Direction) deformations and enhancing resilience against lateral forces.
With Shear Wall 1.06764 S In conclusion, the implementation of shear walls is a crucial
Without Shear Wall 1.06764 S design consideration for improving the seismic and structural
performance of buildings. Future research can further explore the
Model Type Time Period ( X Direction)
dynamic behaviour of structures by incorporating non-linear
With Shear Wall 1.06764 S
analysis and experimental validations to refine predictive models
Without Shear Wall 1.06764 S
and enhance building safety standards.
Model Type Base Shear ( Z Direction)
With Shear Wall 1512.01 kN  Shear Wall Impact: The study demonstrates that the inclu-
Without Shear Wall 1724.24 kN
sion of shear walls significantly enhances structural stabil-
Model Type Base Shear ( X Direction) ity and load distribution.
With Shear Wall 8600.29 kN
Without Shear Wall 9807.40 kN
 Load Resistance: Axial force capacity increases with shear
Model Type Horizontal Acceleration walls, while shear forces, bending moments, and base
With Shear Wall 0.93 kN-m shear values are reduced.
Without Shear Wall 1724.24 kN
Model Type Torsion  Story Displacement: Buildings with shear walls show lower
With Shear Wall 0.93 kN-m story displacement, improving lateral stability under seis-
Without Shear Wall 1724.24 kN mic conditions.

 Seismic Performance: The structural model complies with

IS 1893:2016 and ASCE-7-2010 standards, ensuring effec-
tive seismic and wind load resistance.

©SGSITS 7789-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng. 2025, 178(9): 7789-1

 Time Period & Acceleration: The presence of shear walls
does not significantly impact time periods or horizontal ac- Ceccotti, A. (2008). “Few technologies for construction of me-
celeration but enhances overall stiffness. dium-rise buildings in seismic regions.” Struct. Eng. Int., 18(2),
156–165. https://doi.org/10.2749/101686608784218680.
 Future Scope: Further studies using non-linear analysis and
experimental validation can refine predictive models and Ceccotti, A., and Follesa, M. (2006). “Seismic behavior of multi-
enhance building safety standards. story XLAM buildings.” Proc., Int. Workshop on Earthquake
Engineering on Timber Structures, Univ. of Coimbra, Coimbra,
Portugal.
6.References
Ceccotti, A., Sandhaas, C., Okabe, M., Yasumura, M., Minowa,
C., and Kawai, N. (2013). “SOFIE 3D shaking table test on a
Tirado-Gutiérrez, R. J., Y. F. Vargas-Alzate, and R. González-
seven-storey full-scale cross-laminated timber building.” Earth-
Drigo. (2024). “Probabilistic estimation of the dynamic response
quake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 42(13), 2003–2021.
of high-rise buildings via transfer functions.” J. Struct. Eng. Pol-
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2309.
ytechnic University of Catalonia (UPC).
Cundall, P. A. (1971). “A computer model for simulating pro-
Bothara, J. K., Ingham, J., & Dizhur, D. (2021). Innovative earth-
gressive large-scale movements in blocky rock system.” Proc.,
quake-resistant school building typologies for earthquake-hit ar-
Symp. ISRM, 129–136, International Society for Rock Mechan-
eas of Nepal. Engineering Structures, 245, 112862.
ics and Rock Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
Iancovici, M., Ionică, G., Pavel, F., Moța, F., & Nica, G. B.
Dujic, B., Strus, K., Zarnic, R., and Ceccotti, A. (2010). “Predic-
(2021). Nonlinear dynamic response analysis of buildings for
tion of dynamic response of a 7-storey massive XLAM building
wind loads: A new frontier in structural wind engineering. Jour-
tested on a shaking table.” Proc., WCTE 2010, World Conf. on
nal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 215,
Timber Engineering, Riva del Garda, Torento, Italy.
104755.
Hidaka, T., Nakagawa, T., and Inayama, M. (2013). “Damage
Momose, S., Nakagawa, T., Namba, T., Isoda, H., & Miyake, T.
investigation and collapsing process analysis of Myokenji
(2021). An Analytical Method to Reproduce Seismic Behavior
Hondo damaged from the Great East Japan EARTHQUAKE:
of a Two-Story Cross-Laminated Timber Building At large De-
Part 1 Damage investigation and measurement survey.” J. Struct.
formation. Journal of Structural Engineering, 147(12),
Eng., 59, 567–572.
04021145.
Japan Housing and Wood Technology Center. (2016). Design
Yousef, A. M., & El-Mandouh, M. A. (2020). Dynamic anal-
and construction manual for CLT buildings, Japan Housing and
ysis of high-strength concrete frame buildings for progressive
Wood Technology Center, Koutou ward, Tokyo.
collapse. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng-
struct.2020.113524.
JISC (Japanese Industrial Standards Committee). (2010). Set of
anchor bolt with rolled threads for structures, JIS B 1220, JISC,
Nghiem, B. & Kang, S. (2020). Investigation of flexural and
Tokyo.
shear failure in reinforced concrete structures. Structural Engi-
neering & Mechanics, 75(4), 567-580.
Meguro, K., and Hakuno, M. (1991). “Simulation of structural
collapse due to earthquakes using extended distinct element
Kishi, N., & Mikami, H. (2012). Experimental study on the pro-
method.” Proc., Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meet-
gressive collapse resistance of RC frames. International Journal
ing, 763–764, Architectural Press Institute of Japan, Tokyo.
of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 12(5), 1157-1172.
Nakagawa, T., Hidaka, T., and Inayama, M. (2013). “Damage
Bhatti, A. Q., Mahmood, H., & Iqbal, M. (2009). Shear-critical
investigation and collapsing process analysis of Myokenji
behaviour of reinforced concrete members under impact loading.
Hondo damaged from the Great East Japan EARTHQUAKE:
Structural Engineering Journal, 24(3), 45-59.
Part 2 Collapsing process analysis using 3D space frame model.”
J. Struct. Eng., 59, 573–578.
Fujikake, K., Senga, M., & Kuwata, Y. (2009). Dynamic re-
sponse of RC beams subjected to impact loading. Engineering
Nakagawa, T., and Ohta, M. (2003a). “Collapsing process simu-
Structures, 31(12), 2876-2884.
lations of timber structures under dynamic loading I: Simulations
of two-story frame models.” J. Wood Sci., 49(5), 392–397.
Ishikawa, Y., Nakamura, M., & Sakai, H. (1998). Behavior of
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-002-0500-z.
unbonded prestressed concrete beams under impact loads. Jour-
nal of Structural Engineering, 124(4), 456-463.
Nakagawa, T., and Ohta, M. (2003b). “Collapsing process simu-
lations of timber structures under dynamic loading II: Simplifi-
Blmgren, H. E., Pei, S., Jin, Z., Powers, J., Dolam, J., van de cation and qualification of the calculating method.” J. Wood Sci.,
Lint, J. W., Barbosa, A. R., and Huang, D. (2019). “Full-scale 49(6), 499–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-002-0507-5.
shake table testing of cross-laminated timber rocking shear walls
with replaceable components.” J. Struct. Eng., 145(10),
04019115. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0002388.

©SGSITS 7789-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng. 2025, 178(9): 7789-1