Comparison of Performance of RCC Buildings with Varying Number of Columns and Shear Walls

Abstract

As the frequency and intensity of natural hazards like earthquakes and cyclones increase, the demand for resilient and efficient high-rise buildings continues to grow. In these tall structures, seismic forces scale with the mass of the building, necessitating stronger and often heavier structural components. This presents a fundamental challenge for structural engineers: to strike a balance between strength and flexibility—ensuring safety without compromising cost-effectiveness. To manage seismic energy, the concept of ductility becomes vital. While reinforcement can enhance the ductility of framed structures, this solution becomes less practical with increasing building height. On the other hand, shear walls offer significant lateral stiffness, enhancing stability but often resulting in an overly rigid structural system. This rigidity, if not managed properly, can negatively affect the dynamic performance of the building under lateral loads.This study explores the seismic performance of various reinforced concrete structures across different heights, focusing on configurations with and without shear walls, as well as those featuring coupled shear walls. By analyzing and comparing these systems, we aim to understand their relative advantages and limitations. Numerical results are systematically plotted and tabulated to illustrate their behavioral trends under seismic loading. Additionally, a real-world case study of a modern high-rise residential building is conducted to validate the findings and provide practical insights. The results highlight how the performance of tall buildings is significantly influenced by lateral forces such as wind and earthquakes. Therefore, the study emphasizes the importance of determining an optimal ratio of shear walls to columns—a critical design parameter that ensures both stability and ductility in high-rise construction. This balanced approach is key to achieving structural integrity and performance in the face of increasingly demanding environmental conditions.

Introduction

The evolution of tall buildings has shifted from protection and worship to primarily serving residential and commercial purposes, especially in dense urban centers where limited land drives vertical construction. Commercial skyscrapers cluster businesses near city hubs, while residential high-rises address growing urban population demands.

Structural Elements:
Shear walls are critical vertical components in reinforced concrete high-rises that resist lateral (wind, seismic) and gravity loads, providing stiffness and stability. Their shapes vary to optimize performance and architectural integration, often housing services like elevators.

Seismic Considerations:
In earthquake-prone regions, the placement and quantity of shear walls and columns significantly impact a building’s seismic response. Structural optimization is crucial for safety and economic efficiency. Studies analyze different configurations to enhance seismic resistance.

Research Objectives:

• Evaluate structural performance of shear walls and frames under various loads.

• Investigate effects of shear wall configurations (size, shape, location).

• Compare stability and stiffness of shear wall systems vs. framed structures.

• Use modeling tools (e.g., ETABS) for analysis of forces, displacements, and drifts.

• Provide design recommendations for engineers.

Methodology:
Various building models (ranging from 10 to 50 stories) with different shear wall and column arrangements were analyzed using finite element software. Results on lateral displacement, base shear, and time periods were compared and validated.

Findings:
The study revealed that varying the number and placement of shear walls and columns significantly affects building behavior under seismic and lateral loads. Optimal configurations minimize displacement and improve stability, guiding safer and more efficient design practices for modern high-rise buildings.

Conclusion

An attempt has been made, however, to choose models that are representative of the kind of structures that are being constructed currently. Developing an exhaustive inventory of buildings that includes all building types is outside the scope of this study. Most structures respond reasonably predictably to gravity stresses, but lateral loads need to be considered. Three basic load instances have been looked at in detail here. The above is a summary of the findings from the analysis of seismic loads, both static and dynamic. Static analysis has been conducted using the building\'s fundamental time period and empirical calculations from IS 1893: 2016. Additionally, wind loads in structures have been investigated, and the results have been complied. 1) Type A buildings, rigid 10 storey structures, have minimum displacement when column percentage is maximum. The maximum displacement occurs when column percentage is 10%-20%. Increasing shear walls doesn\'t limit displacements but loses structure ductility. An optimal level of ductility is achieved by providing 50% columns and 50% shear walls. 2) Type B 25-story buildings experience vibration-induced displacement, with minimum displacement at 40%-70% column percentage and maximum at 10%-30%. Shear walls help in reducing displacements, but increasing shear walls can also reduce structure ductility. An optimal level of ductility can be achieved by providing 20% columns and 80% shear walls, making 80% shear walls the most economical choice for Type B buildings. 3) Type C 35-story buildings are ductile and effective against higher vibration modes. The minimum displacement occurs when column percentage is 40%-70%, while maximum displacement occurs when column percentage is 10%-20%. 4) Type D 50-story structures are highly ductile, affecting vibration significantly. They vibrate predominantly in the displacement response spectrum, with minimum displacement at 50%-60% column percentage. The optimal level of ductility is achieved with 40% columns and 60% shear walls, shifting from type C structures where shear wall demand reduces.

References

[1] Reddy K. R. C., Sandip A. Tupat (2012). “The effect of zone factors on wind and earthquake loads of high-rise structures” International Journal of Structural Engineering, 12(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijse.2023.02.005. [2] Jain. S K and Navin C Nigam (2014) “Historical developments and current status of Earthquake Engineering in India, Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand. [3] Mohapatra, A.K. & Mohanty, W.K. (2012) “An Overview of Seismic Zonation Studies in India” Earth-Science Reviews, 96(1–2), 67–91. [4] Dean Kumar B. & Swami B.L.P. (2023) “Wind effects on tall building frames-influence of dynamic parameters” Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 3(5), 583–587. [5] Varalakshmi V., Shiva Kumar G., Sunil Sarma R. (2014) “Analysis and Design of G+5 Residential Building” International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR), 2023. [6] Bagheri Bahador, Firoozabad Salimi Ehsan, and Yahyaei Mohammadreza (2024) “Comparative Study of the Static and Dynamic Analysis of Multi-Storey Irregular Building” [7] Location on storey drift of multistorey building subjected to lateral loads” International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 2(3), 1786–1793. [8] Yousuf Mohammed & shimpale P.M. (2013) “Dynamic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Building with Plan Irregularities” International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 2(6), 1786–1793. [9] Anshuman. S, Dipendu Bhunia, Bhavin Ramjiyani (2011) “Solution of Shear Wall Location in Multi-Storey Building” [10] Seyed M. Khatami, Alireza Mortezaei & Rui C. Barros (2012) “Comparing Effects of Openings in Concrete Shear Walls under Near-Fault Ground Motions” ACI Structural Journal, 109(5), 637–646. [11] Hatzigeorgiou, G.D. and A.A. Liolios, Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under repeated strong ground motions. Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, 2010. 30(10): p. 1010-1025. [12] Potter, S.H., et al., An overview of the impacts of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015. 14: p. 6-14. [13] Scott, B., Park. R and Priestley. MJ N_Stree—strain Behavior of Concrete Confined by Overlapping H0ops at and HigIl Strain Rates. Joum81 of The American Concrete Institute, 1982. 79: p. 13-27. [14] Zameeruddin, M., & Sangle, K. K. (2021). Performance-based seismic assessment of reinforced concrete moment resisting frame. Journal of King Saud University-Engineering Sciences,33(3), 153-165. [15] Bush T. D., Wyllie L. A. and Jirsa, J. O. Observations on two seismic strengthening schemes for concrete frames. Earthquake Spectra, 2000, 7, No.4, 511-527.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Rajesh Ranjan Kumar, Mirza Aamir Baig. 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.