13 COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SOLID AND COUPLED SHEAR WALL · PDF fileCOMPARATIVE STUDY ON SOLID AND COUPLED SHEAR WALL ... For that coupled shear wall with varying depth of coupling beam

Proceedings of the International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering and Management (ICETEM14)

30 – 31, December 2014, Ernakulam, India

117

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SOLID AND COUPLED

SHEAR WALL

Reshma Chandran1, Unni Kartha G

2, Preetha Prabhakaran

3

1PG Student, Civil Engineering Department, SNGCE, Kolenchery,Kerala, India 2Head of the Department, Civil Engineering, FISAT, Angamaly, Kerala, India

3Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Department, SNGCE, Kolenchery, Kerala, India

ABSTRACT

Coupled shear walls are one of the systems commonly used in medium and high rise structures to resist lateral

forces. Yet these systems should not collapse or be induced severe damage during earthquake actions. For this reason,

coupled shear walls must have high strength, high ductility, high energy absorption capacity and high shear stiffness to

limit lateral deformations. So we generally preferred solid shear wall.

In the first part of the project, compare the building with solid shear wall and same building with coupled shear

wall. For that coupled shear wall with varying depth of coupling beam were used and then compared with the solid shear

wall. And studied behavior of those buildings. The performance of the building against lateral loads is different in both

the conditions. Finally, found out the critical slenderness ratio of the coupling beam which gives approximately same

results of building with solid shear wall. In the second part, studied the behavior of coupling beam in coupled shear wall

system. And also assessed the effect of variation of building height on the structural response of the shear wall. This

analysis is done by using ETABS. The analysis show that the performance of building with coupling shear wall is varies

with the depth of coupling beam. For each building, there must be a critical slenderness ratio for the coupling beam of

coupled shear wall.

Keywords: Base Moment, Coupling Degree, Drift, Slenderness Ratio, Diagonal Reinforcement.

1. INTRODUCTION

A coupled shear wall is part of a shear wall system, made of coupling beams and wall piers. It provides more

openings, which increase the functional flexibility in architecture. Furthermore, by coupling individual flexural walls, the

lateral loads resisting behavior changes to one where overturning moments are resisted partially by an axial

compression–tension couple across the wall system rather than by the individual flexural action of the walls.

The key parameter in coupled shear walls, stiffness ratio of coupling beams to wall piers, is a representative of

the degree of coupling between wall piers. Over coupling should be avoided, which causes the system to act as a single

pierced wall with little frame action. Similarly, light coupling should also be avoided as it causes the system to behave

like two isolated walls. Since the coupling action between wall piers is developed through shear force in the coupling

beams, correct modeling of coupling beams may substantially affect the overall response of coupled shear walls.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND

TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)

ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print)

ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online)

Volume 5, Issue 12, December (2014), pp. 117-133

© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/Ijciet.asp

Journal Impact Factor (2014): 7.9290 (Calculated by GISI)

www.jifactor.com

IJCIET

©IAEME



118

Fig.1: Solid Shear wall Fig.2: Coupled Shear wall

2. STRUCTURAL ACTION OF COUPLED SHEAR WALL SYSTEM

The behavior and mechanisms of lateral resistance of a single (i.e., uncoupled) wall and two coupled wall

systems are compared in Fig. 3. The gravity loads acting on the walls are ignored for this example and it is assumed that

a lateral force in the plane of the walls is applied at the top.

The base moment resistance, Mw,unc of the uncoupled wall Fig. 3(a) is developed in the traditional form by

flexural stresses, while axial forces as well as moments are resisted in the coupled shear wall systems Figs. 3(b). When a

coupled shear wall system is pushed from left to right under lateral loads, tensile axial forces (Ntwb) develop in the left

wall pier and compressive axial forces (Ncwb) develop in the right wall pier due to the coupling effect.

The magnitude of these wall axial forces is equal to the sum of the shear forces of all the coupling beams at the upper

floor and roof levels; and thus, depends on the stiffness and strength of those beams.

As a result of the axial forces that develop in the walls, the lateral stiffness and strength of a coupled wall

system is significantly larger than the combined stiffness and strength of the individual constituent walls (i.e., wall piers)

with no coupling. The total base moment, Mw of the coupled wall structures in Figs. 3(b) can be written as:

“Mw=Mtw+Mcw+NcwbLc” (1)

Where, Mtw and Mcw are the base moments in the tension and compression side walls, respectively, Ncwb = Ntwb,

and Lc is the distance between the centroids of the tension and compression side walls. Then, the contribution of the wall

axial forces from coupling to the total lateral resistance of the system can be expressed by the Coupling Degree, CD as:

“CD = = ” (2)

Too little coupling (i.e., too small a coupling degree) yields a system with behavior similar to uncoupled walls

and the benefits due to coupling are minimal. Too much coupling (i.e., too large a coupling degree) will add excessive

stiffness to the system, causing the coupled walls to perform as a single pierced wall with little or no energy dissipation

provided by the beams, and will result in large axial forces in the foundation.

3. BEHAVIOUR OF COUPLING BEAM

In general reinforced concrete bending members (RC beams) are classified according their shear-span/depth

ratio (a/h) into four categories, 1) deep (a/h ≤1); 2) short (1< a/h ≤ 2.5); 3) slender (2.5 < a/h ≤ 6); and 4) very slender (6

< a/h), where (a/h) is the shear span to depth ratio. Very slender beams fail in flexure, while slender beams without any

stirrups experience diagonal tension failure. The most common mode of failure in deep beams is anchorage failure at the

end of the tension tie combined with dowel splitting. For coupling beam, direct loads have no significant effect in the



119

same time beam internal forces are induced mainly due to coupling action. According it is reasonable to consider that the

shear span is the total length of the beam (i.e. a = Lb) and this can be only considered for coupling beams which governed

mainly by coupling action.

Coupling beams with aspect ratio, (Lb /h) ≥ 4, have to satisfy the requirements of flexural members of Special

Moment Frames (SMF). While coupling beams with aspect ratio, (Lb /h) < 4, shall be permitted to be reinforced with two

intersecting groups of diagonally placed bars symmetrical about the mid-span. Each diagonal element consists of a cage

of at least four longitudinal bars confined with transverse reinforcement.

Fig. 3: Reinforcement Detailing of Coupling Beam

From all the above it could be concluded that there are four main stations (Lb/h) = 1,2.5,4 and 6. These stations

control the behavior of the coupling beam and significantly affect the overall efficiency of the system.

4. SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

The majority of the residential building structures have shear wall-frame systems. Proper analysis and design of

building structures that are subjected to static and dynamic loads is very important. Another important factor in the

analysis of these systems is obtaining acceptable accuracy in the results.

Primary goals of seismic design of a coupled wall are to design the wall such that during a seismic event energy

is dissipated through yielding of coupling beams up the height of the wall as well as through exural yielding of the wall

piers. Coupled wall structures are outstanding lateral load resisting systems that not only reduce the deformation

demands on the building, but also distribute the inelastic deformation both vertically and in plan, between the coupling

beams and the wall piers. Different than cantilever walls, where the overturning moment is resisted entirely by flexural

stresses, coupled walls resist the overturning moment by a combination of an axial force couple that develops in the wall

piers as a result of shear demand in the coupling beams and flexural action in the wall piers.

The main scope of this project is that, we have to study the behaviour of a building with solid and coupled shear

wall. The coupling beams of these structures must exhibit excellent ductility and energy-absorption ability.

5. OBJECTIVE OF PROJECT

• To analyse the building with solid and coupled shear wall, and study the behaviour of the building.

• To assess the behavior of the coupled shear wall and the influence of the size of the coupling beam on the system.

• To assess the effect of variation of building height on the structural response of the shear wall.

• To find the critical slenderness ratio of coupling beam.

6. BUILDING DESCRIPTION

The dimensions are length of solid shear wall Lw= 4.5 m in X and Y directions length of wall piers in coupled

shear wall Lw= 1.35 m in X and Y directions. It is of L shaped shear walls, provided all the corners of the building.

Therefore the total length of the coupling system B = 4.5 m. The depth of beam h will be varied based on (Lb/h) as shown

in Table 1, total wall height H= n (floor number) x 3.0 m (floor height); Three wall heights were adopted based on

number of floors [n=10, 20, and 40], and wall thickness tw= 200, 400-200, and 800-400-200mm; respectively. In order to

generalize the study, building height is reflect in terms of aspect ratio of the coupling system (H/B). In other words (H/B)

varied (6.66, 13.33 and 26.66) based on n (10, 20 and 40) respectively.



120

Fig. 4: Plan of the Building

6.1 Materials And Methods

o Type of frame: Special RC moment resisting frame fixed at the base

o Seismic zone: V

o Number of storey: 10,20 and 40

o Floor height: 3 m

o Depth of Slab: 150 mm

o Size of beam: (300 × 450) mm

o Spacing between frames: 4.5 m along x and y-directions

o Live load on floor: 3 KN/m2

o Materials: M 30 concrete, Fe 415 steel Material

o Density of concrete: 25 KN/m3

o Density of infill: 20 KN/m3

o Type of soil: Hard

o Damping of structure: 5 percent

o Response spectra: As per IS1893(Part-1):2002

TABLE 1: Geometric Parameters and Factors That Were Used In The Parametric Study

Coupling beam aspect ratio(Lb/h) Coupling beam depth(h) (mm)

1 1800

2.5 720

4 450

6 300

MODEL I: Building with Coupled Shearwall – Depth of Coupling Beam = 300 mm

MODEL II: Building with Coupled Shearwall – Depth of Coupling Beam = 450 mm

MODEL III: Building with Coupled Shearwall – Depth of Coupling Beam = 720 mm

MODELIV: Building with Coupled Shearwall – Depth of Coupling Beam = 1800mm

MODEL V: Building with Solid Shearwall

6.2 Method of Analysis of Structure

6.2.1 Equivalent Static Analysis

All design against seismic loads must consider the dynamic nature of the load. However, for simple regular

structures, analysis by equivalent linear static methods is often sufficient. This is permitted in most codes of practice for

regular, low- to medium-rise buildings. It begins with an estimation of base shear load and its distribution on each story

calculated by using formulas given in the code. Equivalent static analysis can therefore work well for low to medium-rise

buildings without significant coupled lateral-torsional modes, in which only the first mode in each direction is

considered. Tall buildings (over, say, 75 m), where second and higher modes can be important, or buildings with



121

torsional effects, are much less suitable for the method, and require more complex methods to be used in these

circumstances.

6.2.2 Response Spectrum Method

The representation of the maximum response of idealized single degree freedom system having certain period

and damping, during earthquake ground motions. The maximum response plotted against of un-damped natural period

and for various damping values and can be expressed in terms of maximum absolute acceleration, maximum relative

velocity or maximum relative displacement. For this purpose response spectrum case of analysis have been performed

according to IS 1893.

7. MODELLING OF STRUCTURE IN ETABS

In the FEM walls and slabs are modeled using four-nodded shell element, while columns and beams are

modeled as two nodded frame elements. Coupling beam was modeled as a shell element to ensure joint connectivity and

to account for shear deformations in the coupling beam. Walls and coupling beams are defined as piers and spandrels

respectively.

In ETABS single walls are modeled as a pier/spandrel system, that is, the wall is divided into vertical piers and

horizontal spandrels. This is a powerful mechanism to obtain design moments, shear forces and normal forces

across a wall section. Appropriate meshing and labeling is the key to proper modeling and design. Loads are only

transferred to the wall at the corner points of the area objects that make up the wall. Generally the membrane or shell

type element should be used to model walls. Here the shell type is used for modeling the wall element.

Wall pier forces are output at the top and bottom of wall pier elements and wall spandrel forces are output at the

left and right ends of wall spandrel element, see Figure3

Fig.5: Pier and Spandrel forces in ETABS

Spandrel labels are assigned to vertical area objects (walls) in similar fashion to pier labels. The pier and

spandrel labels must be assigned to wall element before performing analysis.

8. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

In the first part of the thesis, compare the following parameters of the building with solid and coupled shear wall

with various depth of coupling beam.

• Lateral displacement at each floor levels.

• Time period of the building

• Maximum deflection at roof level.

• Seismic base shear for models.

• Story drift of the structure.

• Storey shear

• Axial force in column



122

8.1 Storey-Wise Displacement In X And Y Direction Storey wise displacement for five models in X and Y directions are shown in the figure.

Fig. 6: Storey-wise displacement in X Direction Fig. 7: Storey-wise displacement in X Direction

(Response Spectrum Method) (Equivalent Static Analysis)

Fig. 8: Storey-wise displacement in Y Direction Fig. 9: Storey-wise displacement in X Direction




123

Fig. 10: Storey-wisw displacement in X Direction Fig. 11: Storey-wise displacement in X Direction


Fig. 12: Storey-wise displacement in Y Direction Fig. 13: Storey-wise displacement in X Direction




124

Fig. 14:Storey-wise displacement in X Direction Fig. 15: Storey-wise displacement in X Direction


Fig. 16: Storey-wise displacement in Y Direction Fig. 17: Storey-wise displacement in Y Direction




125

From the results it is observed that, lateral displacement is maximum for MODEL I as compared to the other

models and minimum for Model V, i.e. Building with solid shear wall. In static and response spectrum analysis solid

shear wall shows lesser lateral displacement both in X and Y directions. When coupling aspect ratio increases lateral

deflection also increases. Response spectrum analysis gives higher value than the Equivalent static analysis.

8.2 Time Period of the Building

From the table it is observed that, MODEL I had more time period than other models. As the coupling beam

aspect ratio increases time period also increases.

TABLE 2: Time Period of the Building

MODEL

NO:

10 FLOORS 20 FLOORS 40 FLOORS

MODEL I 0.755 1.6265 4.066

MODEL II 0.6601 1.4723 3.82

MODEL III 0.5903 1.3776 3.698

MODEL IV 0.5318 1.3134 3.62

MODEL V 0.5067 1.2752 3.547

8.3 Maximum Deflection at the Roof

Maximum deflection at roof level for different models of 10, 20 and 40 storey buildings are shown in the table.

Deflection at the roof level is more for building with coupled shear wall of 300mm depth coupling beam. And building

with solid shear wall shows lesser roof deflection. Maximum deflection at roof level is increases with increase the (H/B)

ratio.

TABLE 3: Maximum Deflection At Roof Level

MODEL NO: 10 FLOORS 20 FLOORS 40 FLOORS

MODEL I 15.000

60.877 247.4

MODEL II 13.633 56.627 234.7

MODEL III 12.330 53.864 229.7

MODEL IV 10.821 52.374 227.3

MODEL V 9.901 51.208 223.7

8.4 Base Shear of Building

As the coupling beam aspect ratio increases base shear decreases. Solid shear wall have higher base shear than

the other models.

TABLE 4: Design Seismic Base Shear of 10 Storey Building

MODEL NO: VB(kN)

MODEL I 2853.19

MODEL II 3138.93

MODEL III 3330.14

MODEL IV 3432.63

MODEL V 3549.55

8.5 Interstorey Drift

Story drift is the displacement of one level relative to the other level above or below. From the results observed

that drift increases as height of the building increases and reduced at the top floors.

For 10 and 20 storied building, the storey drift is maximum for MODEL I i.e. coupled shear wall with 300mm

beam depth, as compared with other models. But top most floors MODEL I shows lesser drift than the other models. And

drift increases with increase the aspect ratio between shear wall heights to the coupled shear wall width (H/B) ratio for

each storey level.



126

Fig. 18: Inter Storey Drift in X Direction Fig. 19: Inter Storey Drift in X Direction

for 10 storey building for 20 storey building

Fig. 20: Inter Storey Drift in Y Direction Fig. 21: Inter Storey Drift in Y Direction




127

Fig. 22: Inter Storey Drift in X Direction Fig. 23: Inter Storey Drift in Y Direction


8.6 Storey Shear

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

ST

OR

EY

SH

EA

R (

kN

)

STOREY NO.

MODEL I

MODEL II

MODEL III

MODEL IV

MODEL V

Fig. 24: Storey shear for 10 storey Building Fig. 25: Storey shear for 20 storey Building

Storey shear for 10 and 20 storey building are shown in the figure. From the graph, solid shearwall have more

storey shear than coupled shearwall. Coupled shearwall wall with 300mm depth have less storey shear.



128

8.7 Axial Force in Column

Axial force in column C12 of 10, 20 and 40 storey buildings are shown in the tables.

TABLE 5: Axial force in column C12 for 10 storey building

FOR 10 STOREY BUILDING

MODEL

NO.

COLUMN

NO.

STATIC ANALYSIS DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

LOAD

COMBINATION

AXIAL

FORCE

kN

LOAD

COMBINATION

AXIAL

FORCE

kN

I 12 EQX 614.38 REX 644.68

II 12 EQX 677.42 REX 712.10

III 12 EQX 715.66 REX 726.57

IV 12 EQX 686.68 REX 655.26

V 12 EQX 592.82 REX 557.46



MODEL

NO.

COLUMN

NO.


LOAD

COMBINATION

AXIAL

FORCE

kN

LOAD

COMBINATION

AXIAL

FORCE

kN

I 12 EQX 1255.01 REX 1255.84

II 12 EQX 1320.58 REX 1320.97

III 12 EQX 1360.98 REX 1324.87

IV 12 EQX 1345.38 REX 1259.87

V 12 EQX 1237.18 REX 1135.81



MODEL

NO.

COLUMN

NO.


LOAD

COMBINATION

AXIAL

FORCE

kN

LOAD

COMBINATION

AXIAL

FORCE

kN

I 12 EQX 2447.69 REX 2381.88

II 12 EQX 2509.78 REX 2463.88

III 12 EQX 2533.65 REX 2476.43

IV 12 EQX 2498.28 REX 2461.10

V 12 EQX 2284.48 REX 2179.19

From the table it is clear that column C12 in MODEL V have less axial force than other models. And axial force

is less in the case of coupled shear wall with 1800mm depth coupling beam compared with other models with coupled

shear wall. So the amount of reinforcement in column can be reduced in MODEL IV and MODEL V.

In the second part, in order to assess the behavior of the coupled shear wall and the influence of the size of the

coupling beam on the system, the following parameters are selected to be studied and discussed in this section:

� Coupling Degree (CD)

� Induced shear force in the coupling beam

� Induced Bending moment in the individual shear wall

8.8 Coupling Degree

Figs.29 represents the coupling degree (CD) in percentage versus to beam (span/depth), (Lb/h) ratio for different

buildings stories numbers 10, 20, and 40, respectively. The seismic analysis for these cases was done using static analysis

and response spectrum analysis.



129

Fig.30 represents the same relation between the CD versus to different building stories number of different

coupling beam (span/depth) ratio in trial to expect the optimum value of beam (span/depth) with high coupling degree

percentage.

From the above figures, the Coupling degree is inversely proportional to the Lb/h ratio. And from the second

figure efficiency of the coupled shear wall systems increases with increase in the slenderness ratio (H/B) of the building

system until a certain value (in this study until slenderness of 13.33. i.e. 20 stories building) after this value the system

showed much lower efficiency. To conclude there is an optimum slenderness ratio for coupling beam system depends on

the dimensioning of the system and door openings size and location.

Fig. 26: Coupling degree (CD) versus beam (span/depth) ratio under response spectrum analysis

Fig. 27: Coupling Degree (CD) versus number of building stories

8.9 Induced Shear Force In The Coupling Beam

In this study the induced shear for in the coupling beam (Vb) is proportioned to the applied base shear of the

building (V). As shown in Fig. coupling beam exhibits the maximum shear at the second floor. For the current case study

the maximum (Vb/V) is 70%. It is worth to note that the maximum ratio of (Vb/V) do not affected by the slenderness of

the building system, in other words maximum (Vb/V) is constant for a particular coupling beam system for all building

heights. In the current case study the opening width to the total length of coupling system ratio (Wopen/B) has a constant

percent for all cases.



130

Fig. 28: Coupling shear ratio (Vb/V) building height for 10 storey versus building

Fig.29: Coupling shear ratio (Vb/V) versus building height

Fig. 30: Coupling shear ratio (Vb/V) versus building height



131

8.10 Induced Bending Moment in the Individual Shear Wall In order to generalize the concept, induced bending moment in the individual wall (Mw) is proportioned to the

applied base moment of the building (M). As shown in Fig. the induced bending moment is ranging from 8% to 18% the

base moment.

The induced bending moment in the individual wall is inversely proportional to the beam size. As the efficiency

of the coupled shear wall systems increases by the increase of the slenderness ratio (H/B) of the system until a certain

value, the induced bending moment in the individual wall to base moment ratio also decreased until it reaches a

minimum value at a critical slenderness ratio after that this ratio of the induced bending moment to base moment started

to increase again. The minimum value of induced bending moment in the individual wall and the critical slenderness

ratio for coupling beam system varies from system to another depending on the dimensioning of the system and door

openings size and location.

Fig. 31: Wall bending moment to base moment ratio versus beam span-to-depth ratio

9. CONCLUSION

The seismic response of high rise buildings with solid and coupled shearwall with different height, 10, 20, and

40 stories building are investigated for the static and response spectrum analysis to evaluate structural behavior , the

effect of the geometry parameters (Span/depth) ratios (1, 2.5, 4 and 6), and the aspect ratio of the shear wall height to

coupled shear wall width (H/B) effects on the monolithic reinforcement concrete coupling beams of symmetrical coupled

shear wall system.

1. Building with solid shear wall is more stable than building with coupled shear wall, because displacement and

drift in X and Y directions are more in the case of building with coupled shear wall.

2. Coupled shear wall with 1800mm depth shows approximately same results of solid shearwall. So the critical

slenderness ratio of the coupling beam is equal to one.

3. MODEL IV and MODEL V have less axial force in columns. So these models are more beneficial.

4. CSW will react to lateral loadings on the basis of its degree of coupling (DC). The Coupling degree is inversely

proportional to the Lb/h ratio.

5. Coupled shearwall is more efficient in case of 20 storey building.

6. Coupling beam exhibits the maximum shear at the second floor. And for 10, 20 and 40 storey building shear

force is high from second to sixth floor level, so transverse reinforcement should be confirmed.

7. The coupling shear wall as a lateral resistance system of seismic load will be not sufficient to improve the

performance of building system and may be it will be necessary to adding additional resistance lateral load for

building system depend on the building slenderness ratio (H/B).



132

10. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First and foremost I thank to lord almighty for the grace, strength, and hope to carry out the Master’s Thesis report.

I wish to record my sincere thanks to Dr. V.S. Pradeepan, Head of Civil Engineering Department, SNGCE, for

his valuable suggestion.

I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude to our Project coordinator Mrs.S.Usha, Professor, Department of

Civil Engineering for the sustained guidance and useful suggestions in completing the Master’s Thesis.

I wish to record my sincere gratitude to Mr. Harinarayanan. S, Professor, Civil Engineering, our Project

coordinator for the sustained guidance and useful suggestions in completing the Master’s Thesis work.

I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude to Mr. Unnikartha G, Head of the Civil Engineering Department,

FISAT Engineering College, Angamaly for his valuable time, sustained guidance and useful suggestions, which helped

me in the Thesis.

I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude to my guide Mrs. Preetha Prabhakaran, Associated Professor,

Department of Civil Engineering, for her valuable time, sustained guidance and useful suggestions, which helped me in

completing the Thesis work, in time.

Last, but not the least, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my beloved parents for their blessings, my

friends/classmates for their help and wishes for the successful completion of this Master’s Thesis.

REFERENCE

[1] P. P. Chandurkar ,Dr. P. S. Pajgade(2013), Seismic Analysis of RCC Building with and Without Shear Wall,

International Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER), Vol.3, Issue.3, pp-1805-1810

[2] Dawn E. Lehman, M.ASCE; Jacob A. Turgeon; Anna C. Birely, M.ASCE; Christopher R. Hart, M.ASCE;

Kenneth P. Marley; Daniel A. Kuchma; and Laura N. Lowes(2013), Seismic Behavior of a Modern Concrete

Coupled Wall, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp-1-11

[3] Nam Shiu, M. ASCE, T. Takayanagi, and W. Gene Corley, F. ASCE(1984), Seismic Behavior Of Coupled Wall

Systems, American Society of Civil Engineers ,pp-1-16

[4] Dipendu Bhunia, Vipul Prakash, and Ashok D. Pandey(2013). A Conceptual Design Approach of Coupled

Shear Walls, ISRN Civil Engineering, pp-1-29.

[5] Mazen A. Musmar(2013), Analysis of Shear Wall with Openings Using Solid65 Element, Jordan Journal of

Civil Engineering, Volume 7, No. 2, 164 - 173

[6] P. S. Kumbhare, A. C. Saoji(2012),Effectiveness of Changing Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Location on

Multi-storeyed Building, International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, Vol. 2, Issue 5,

pp.1072-1076

[7] Romy Mohan and C Prabha(2011), Dynamic Analysis of RCC Buildings with Shear Wall, International Journal

of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Volume 04, pp 659-662

[8] Himalee Rahangdale and S.R.Satone(2013), Design And Analysis of Multistoreied Building With Effect of

Shear Wall, International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA), Vol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun

2013, pp.223-232

[9] M.D. Kevadkar, P.B. Kodag(2013), Lateral Load Analysis of R.C.C. Building International Journal of

Modern Engineering Research (IJMER),Vol.3, Issue.3, pp-1428-1434

[10] Varsha R. Harne(2014), Comparative Study of Strength of RC Shear Wall at Different Location on Multi-

storied Residential Building, International Journal of Civil Engineering Research. Volume 5, pp. 391-400

[11] Shahzad Jamil Sardar and Umesh. N. Karadi(2013), Effect Of Change In Shear Wall

[12] Location on Storey Drift of Multistorey Building Subjected to Lateral Loads, International Journal of

Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2, Issue 9, pp-1-9

[13] P. S. Kumbhare and A. C. Saoji(2012), Effectiveness of Changing Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Location on

Multi-storeyed Building, International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, Vol. 2, Issue 5,

pp.1072-1076

[14] Ashish S.Agrawal and S.D.Charkha(2012), Effect of Change In Shear Wall Location on Storey Drift of

Multistorey Building Subjected To Lateral Loads, International Journal of Engineering Research and

Applications (IJERA), ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 2, Issue 3, pp.1786-1793

[15] R. Yeghnem, S.A. Meftah, S. Benyoucef , A. Tounsi and E.A. Adda Bedia(2013), Earthquake Response of Rc

Coupled Shear Walls Strengthened With Composite Sheets With Varying Widthwise Material Properties: Creep

And Shrinkage Effect, 2nd Turkish Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, pp 1-1

[16] Unnikrishna Pillai,S. & Devadas Menon, “Reinforced Concrete Design”, Fourth reprint Tata Mcgraw –Hill

Publishing Company Limited,New Delhi,2010.



133

[17] Varugheese,P.C., “Advanced Reinforced Concrete Design”, Prentice –Hall of India Private Limited., New

Delhi,2008.

[18] Arthur.H.Nilson, “Design of Concrete Structures”, Twelth edn, Tata Mcgraw –Hill Publishing Company

Limited, New Delhi, 2003.

[19] Dr. Suchita Hirde and Dhanshri Bhoite, “Effect of Modeling of Infill Walls on Performance of Multi Story RC

Building”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 4, 2013,

pp. 243 - 250, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.

[20] Dharane Sidramappa Shivashaankar and Patil Raobahdur Yashwant, “Earthquake Resistant High Rise Buildings

–New Concept”, “International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering & Technology (IJARET)”,

ISSN 0976-6480(Print), ISSN 0976-6499(Online), Volume 5, Issue 6, (2014), pp. 121 - 124.

Documents

13 COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SOLID AND COUPLED SHEAR WALL · PDF fileCOMPARATIVE STUDY ON SOLID AND COUPLED SHEAR WALL ... For that coupled shear wall with varying depth of coupling beam