Comparative Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Building with Different Height and Shear Wall Configurations in Gujarat Region Using ETABS

Abstract

Earthquakes produce significant lateral forces on multi-storey buildings, which may lead to excessive displacement and structural damage. Reinforced concrete (RC) buildings without adequate lateral load resisting systems may experience large deformations during seismic events. Shear walls are important structural elements used to improve the lateral stiffness and strength of buildings. The present study investigates the seismic performance of RC buildings with different shear wall locations. Several building models were developed and analyzed using ETABS. The analysis considers different shear wall configurations such as core shear wall, corner shear wall and mid-side shear wall arrangements. The seismic behavior of the buildings was evaluated based on important response parameters including storey displacement, storey drift and base shear. A comparative analysis was carried out among different structural models to understand the influence of shear wall placement on overall building performance. The results indicate that the presence of shear walls significantly improves the seismic behavior of RC buildings by reducing storey displacement and drift. Proper placement of shear walls enhances the structural stiffness and stability of the building. The study helps in identifying the most efficient shear wall configuration for improving seismic performance of multi-storey RC buildings.

Introduction

Earthquakes pose a major threat to multi-storey reinforced concrete (RC) buildings due to strong lateral forces that can cause displacement, drift, and structural failure. Shear walls are effective structural elements that improve seismic performance by increasing stiffness, strength, and stability. Their location (core, corner, or mid-side) significantly influences building behavior during earthquakes.

This study aims to analyze the effect of building height and different shear wall locations on seismic performance using ETABS software. Key parameters evaluated include storey displacement, storey drift, and base shear. The objective is to identify the most efficient shear wall configuration for mid-rise RC buildings, particularly in seismic regions like Gujarat.

A research gap is identified in the lack of systematic comparative studies considering both building height variations and different shear wall placements under a unified framework.

The study involves modeling 20 RC building configurations with varying heights (G+5 to G+15) and shear wall positions (core, corner, mid-side), along with bare frame models for comparison. All models maintain consistent material and structural properties and are analyzed using seismic code IS 1893.

Results from bare frame models show that as building height increases:

• Storey displacement and drift increase.

• Maximum values occur at the top storey.

• Displacement and drift are generally higher in the Y-direction.

• Base shear is higher in the X-direction.

Conclusion

The present study focused on the comparative seismic analysis of reinforced concrete buildings with different heights and shear wall configurations using ETABS software. The analysis was carried out to understand the influence of building height and shear wall location on the seismic performance of RC buildings. From the analysis results, it was observed that storey displacement increases with the increase in building height. Taller buildings tend to be more flexible and therefore experience greater lateral movement during earthquake loading. The results also show that the introduction of shear walls significantly improves the seismic behavior of the structure. The bare frame structure showed the highest storey displacement and storey drift values, indicating lower lateral stiffness. When shear walls were introduced in different locations such as core, corner and mid-side positions, a noticeable reduction in displacement and drift was observed. Among all the configurations analyzed in this study, the mid-side shear wall configuration showed the best overall seismic performance. This configuration provided the lowest storey displacement and storey drift values for different building heights, indicating better lateral stiffness and improved structural stability. Another important observation from the analysis is that all the storey drift values obtained from the ETABS analysis are within the permissible limits specified in IS 1893, which confirms that the models are safe under seismic loading conditions.

References

Indian Standard Codes: - [1] IS 456:2000 – Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.3 [2] IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016 – Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India. [3] IS 875 (Part 1 & 2): 1987 – Code of Practice for Design Loads (Dead Load and Imposed Load), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India. [4] IS 13920:2016 – Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India. RESEARCH PAPERS [5] A. B. Patil and P. D. Kumbhar, “Effect of shear wall on seismic performance of RC frame buildings,” International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 223– 232, 2013. [6] Bush, R. C., Shirkol, A. I., & Sruthi, J. S. (2022). Study of seismic analysis of asymmetric building with different shapes of staggered openings and without openings in shear wall. Materials Today: Proceedings. [7] Mosallam, A. S., & Nasr, A. (2017). Structural performance of RC shear walls with postconstruction openings strengthened with FRP composite laminates. Composites Part B: Engineering, 115, 488-504. [8] Machine Learning approaches for lateral strength estimation in squat shear walls: A comparative study and practical implications. [9] Prathap, G. V., & Radha, D. R. (2023). Comparative analysis of behavior of horizontal and vertical irregular buildings with and without using shear walls by ETABS software. International Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 14(2). [10] Cheng, Y., He, H., Sun, H., & Li, J. (2024). Seismic experiment and performance analysis on embedded optimized steel plate-reinforced concrete composite shear wall under multi-dimensional loading. Journal of Building Engineering, Article 111087. [11] Zhao, W., Rezgui, Y., Cerè, G., & Petri, I. (2022). Shear walls optimization in a reinforced concrete framed building for seismic risk reduction. Journal of Building Engineering, 54, Article 104620. [12] Yi, W., Wang, W.-H., Wang, P., & Yang ... (2024). Tests on seismic and shear performance of RC shear walls under alternating axial tensile and compressive loads. [13] Simplified shear wall building model for design optimization. Case Studies in Construction Materials (or relevant journal). [14] Abualreesh, A. M., Tuken, A., Albidah, A., & Siddiqui, N. A. (2022). Reliability-based optimization of shear walls in RC shear wall–frame buildings subjected to earthquake loading. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 16, e00978. [15] ETABS Full Tutorial for Beginners | Structural Analysis & Design, Structural Hub, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVpTRtA4qZI (Accessed on: 21 August 2025) [16] Complete ETABS Tutorial | Step by Step Building Analysis, Civil Engineering Tutorials, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzB5QG3Pt6Q (Accessed on: 21 August 2025) [17] How to Model a G+10 Building in ETABS | Stepwise Guide, Build with Steel, YouTube, and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOCjTSpBzGk (Accessed on: 21 August 2025) Online sources and Tutorial: - [18] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UUvYt_gnjM&pp=ygUZZXRhYnMgc2hlYXIgd2FsbCBtb2RlbGluZw%3D%3D [19] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VybrqbHvJqE&pp=ygUZZXRhYnMgc2hlYXIgd2FsbCBtb2RlbGluZw%3D%3D [20] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVTEw1M6qBw&pp=ygUZZXRhYnMgc2hlYXIgd2FsbCBtb2RlbGluZ9IHCQnFCgGHKiGM7w%3D%3D [21] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyaqPMzC2SY&pp=ygVNY29tcGFyYXRpdmUgc2Vpc21pYyBhbmFseXNpcyBvZiByYyBidWlsZGluZyB3aXRoIGFuZCB3aXRob3V0IHNoZWFyIHdhbGwgZXlhYnM%3D

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Namrata H. Khandekha, Prof. Darshan Parmar, Dr. Prashant K. Bhuva, Dr. Chirag R. Odedra, Prof. Vandit Bhatt. 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.