Vol.7 (2017) No.

4
ISSN: 2088-5334

The Behaviour Study of Shear Wall on Concrete Structure

by Pushover Analysis
Hanafiah#, Saloma#, Yakni Idris#, Julius Yahya#
#
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Sriwijaya University,
Jl.Raya Palembang-Inderalaya KM.32 Inderalaya, Ogan Ilir, Sumatera Selatan, 30662, Indonesia
E-mail: saloma_571@yahoo.co.id, hanafiah_dr@yahoo.com.sg

Abstract— Shear wall is applied to counter the effects of lateral load acting on a structure. Wind and seismic loads are the most
common loads that shear walls are designed to carry in high rise building. This paper used four models of 10 floors building with
three variations of shear wall position. The dimension of each floor is 18 m x 18 m. The building is located in Palembang with the soft
soil condition and has a function as an office building. The purpose of this study is to analyze building performance, curve capacity
and plastic hinge distribution from pushover analysis. The result of the study was obtained that model 4 is most effective in terms of
ductility and strength building. Model 4 is able to reduce deviation 61.43% and reduce drift ratio 69.50%. Model 4 is also reduced
deflection at the point of pushover analysis performance 72.64%. Model 3 has the smallest number of plastic hinges. The result of
pushover analysis shows that the building performance of all model is immediate occupancy.

Keywords— shear wall; pushover analysis; drift ratio; base shear; plastic hinge

Pushover analysis is a static nonlinear analysis where

I. INTRODUCTION earthquake influence to the building is regarded as static
The shear wall was designed to detain lateral force caused load, and the values were increased gradually beyond the
by the earthquake. Shear wall gave lateral strength which imposition caused plastic hinge.
was needed to carry horizontal force from the earthquake. The objectives of pushover analysis were to predict the
When shear wall received a seismic load, the shear wall will maximum load and maximum deformation occurred, and
transfer lateral force to the foundation. Shear wall gave position a critical part of a building. Some studies show that
lateral ductility to prevent high rise building deformed pushover static analysis gave accurate result than nonlinear
excessively [1], [2], [3]. The different shear wall position dynamic analysis [7], [8], [9], [10]. Pushover analysis
will reduce different lateral force, a shear position that produced curve capacity which described the correlation
approached core position, more effective to withstand base between base shear and deformation on the roof D. The
shear than other positions [4], [5], [6]. graph relationship between base shear and roof deformation
In this study, reinforced concrete building structures with can be seen in Fig. 1.
different positions of shear walls were analyzed with IO area (Immediate Occupancy) is an area where the
pushover method based on ATC-40. The building was ten structure did not experience meaningful damage and has
floors located in Palembang. Each floor has 4 m high. similar strength and ductility with the condition before the
There are four models of the building, i.e. the building with earthquake. LS (Life Safety) is where collapse on the
no shear wall and three variations of shear wall different component structure occurred, but the building did not
positions. collapse, and CP (Collapse Prevention) is a condition where
The objective of this study is to analyze structural component structure and non-structure were collapses, and
response caused by an earthquake on the building with shear structural strength was reduced drastically. Based on ATC-
wall position variation, to determine performance point 40, Building performance can be seen from maximum total
performance level of building structure during plastic drift [11].
condition, to determine plastic hinge position on building
structure, and to determine most effective shear wall position
based on pushover analysis.

1127
 Base shear

Displacement

Fig. 1 Curve capacity

II. MATERIAL AND METHOD

Model of building in this study was reinforced concrete
building structure with three position variation of shear wall
and one building without using the shear wall. Model of the
building was presented in Fig. 2. Beam and column sections
used in this study are shown in Table 1. The mechanical
properties of concrete sections are Elastic Modulus, E = (a) Model 1 (b) Model 2
20,000 MPa and fc’ = 50 MPa.
Building plans used is shown in Fig. 2, where red line
shows that there is a shear wall in that position. Each beam
span is 6 m, and each column height is 4 m. Structural
frames used in this study is ten floors made in four structural
model based on shear wall configuration, as shown in Fig. 2.
TABLE I
BEAM AND COLUMN SECTIONS

Storey Beam sections Column sections

10 500 x 300 700 x 700
9 500 x 300 700 x 700
8 500 x 300 700 x 700
7 500 x 300 700 x 700
6 500 x 300 700 x 700
5 500 x 300 700 x 700
4 500 x 300 700 x 700
3 500 x 300 700 x 700
2 500 x 300 700 x 700
1 500 x 300 700 x 700

(c) Model 3 (d) Model 4

Fig. 2 Structure models

1128
 The steps of pushover analysis in designing the structure TABLE II
THE COMPARISON OF BASE SHEAR
of an earthquake resistant construction are [11], [12], [13]:
• Determining the control point to monitor the amount Base Shear (ton)
of displacement on the structure. Model
• Making the capacity curve based on various patterns VRSX (ton) VRSY (ton)
of lateral force. Model 1 71.582 71.582
• Estimating the amount of lateral displacement during
earthquake plan or displacement target. Model 2 241.580 241.580
• Evaluating the level of structure performance when Model 3 247.440 247.441
the control point is located exactly on the target of
displacement while using ATC 40. Model 4 289.687 289.687

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION C. Lateral Displacement

Lateral displacement of the floor (storey level) in x and y
Based on the result of the analysis was obtained floor
direction in each model have the same value because the
lateral displacement, drift ratio and the result of analysis
building has symmetrical dimension. The comparison of
pushover in the form of calculation of building performance
maximum floor lateral displacement in each model can be
based on the performance point and plastic hinge distribution.
seen in Fig. 5 and Table 3.
A. Building’s Mass
TABLE III
The comparison of building’s mass of each model is Fig. THE COMPARISON OF LATERAL DISPLACEMENT
3. δ max (mm)
5000 Floor
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
4500 10 29.445 24.249 14.905 11.357
4000
9 28.394 21.301 13.091 9.950
Building's mass (ton)

3500
8 26.774 18.276 11.227 8.514
3000
7 24.507 15.213 9.344 7.069
2500
6 21.622 12.164 7.479 5.641
2000
5 18.181 9.211 5.681 4.269
1500
4 14.271 6.452 4.008 2.996
1000
3 10.027 4.009 2.527 1.874
500
2 5.712 2.015 1.311 0.958
0
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 1 1.904 0.619 0.435 0.308

Fig. 3 Building’s mass

B. Base Shear
The comparison of base shear of each model is shown in
Fig. 4 dan Table 2.

300

250
Base shear (ton)

200

150

100

50

0
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Fig. 5 Lateral displacements
Fig. 4 Base shear

1129
 Model 4 is the most effective model to reduce floor lateral E. Pushover Analysis
displacement. That is, 61.432% compared to model 1. On Fig. 7, Table 5, and Table 6 shows curve capacity, the
the other hand, model 2 and 3 each reduced floor lateral relationship between base shear and displacement occurred
displacement 17.647% and 50.618% compared to Model 1. in each model gradually when there was a static nonlinear
pushover. Performance point model 1 the greatest deflection
D. Drift Ratio than other models. It shows that building without a shear
wall is more susceptible to failure.
Fig. 6 and Table 4 shows drift ratio in each model with
Based on the capacity to carry the lateral load, model 1 is
shear wall and without a shear wall. Model 1 is building
the lowest. On the other hand, model 4 has the greatest
without shear wall has most maximum drift ratio.
capacity to carry the lateral load. Performance point model
Meanwhile, another three models used shear wall has lower
4 is 72.64% more effective compared to model 1.
drift ratio compared to model 1. The maximum point of drift
Performance point model 2 is 55.97% more effective
ratio in the model which used shear wall is on floor 8. It
compared to model 1. Meanwhile, performance point model
indicated that shear wall caused drift ratio is on the higher
3 is 68.25% more effective compared to model 1.
floor. Therefore, the collapse of the base floor can be
Plastic hinge distribution also can be seen based on
avoided.
certain level as shown in Table 7. Plastic hinge distribution
Model 2 has maximum drift ratio 35.48% more effective
of all models in x and y direction are the same because shear
than model 1. Model 3 has maximum drift ratio 60.35%
wall position is symmetrical. Performace level of each
more effective than model 1. Model 4 is most effective with
model is described in Table 8.
drift ratio 69.50% compared to model 1.

TABLE IV
DRIFT RATIO
Drift ratio
Floor
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
10 0.00145 0.00368 0.00227 0.00176
9 0.00223 0.00378 0.00233 0.00179
8 0.00312 0.00383 0.00235 0.00181
7 0.00397 0.00381 0.00233 0.00178
6 0.00473 0.00369 0.00225 0.00172
5 0.00538 0.00345 0.00209 0.00159
4 0.00584 0.00305 0.00185 0.00140
3 0.00593 0.00249 0.00152 0.00115
2 0.00523 0.00174 0.00109 0.00081
1 0.00262 0.00077 0.00054 0.00038

Fig. 7 Curve capacity

TABLE V
BASE SHEAR AND DISPLACEMENT FOR PERFORMANCE POINT

Model Base Shear (ton) Displacement (m)

1 212.914 0.29
2 930.970 0.14
3 1425.835 0.10
4 1863.714 0.09

Fig. 6 Drift ratio

1130
 TABLE VI base shear which was able to be carried by building
BASE SHEAR AND DISPLACEMENT FOR FIRST PLASTIC HINGE
compared to model 1 which did not use the shear wall.
Model Base Shear (ton) Displacement (m) First plastic hinge distribution model 3 is showed in Fig.
1 37.868 0.019 8(c). First plastic hinge model 3 only occurred on beam floor
8 and 9. The position of first plastic hinge occurred like
2 117.060 0.012
model 2. That is, besides the shear wall. While in the
3 153.351 0.009 column, plastic hinge did not occur yet. Fig. 9(c) shows the
4 229.115 0.009 first collapse on beam floor 8 and floor 9. In the last step of
pushover analysis model 3, beam collapse was occurred on
floor 7 till floor 10, Fig. 10(c). The collapse of the column
TABLE VII was in safe level with a maximum level which occurred in
BUILDING PERFORMANCE LEVEL
the column was life safety which means still far from
Symbol Explanation collapse.
Show the linear limit followed by first melt on structure

Occurred small damage on the structure. structure

ductility is almost the same as before the earthquake
Occurred damage from small to medium level. ductility
structure was declining. but still, have big chance to
collapse
Occurred serious damage on structure so that strength and
ductility decreased a lot
The maximum limit of base shear was still able to
withstand building
Occurred very big degradation of structural strength, so
that structure condition was not stable and almost
collapse
Structure was not able to withstand base shear and
wrecked

TABLE VIII
PERFORMANCE LEVEL
(a) Model 1 (b) Model 2
Maximum Maximum Performance
Model
total drift inelastic drift level
1 0.0073 0.0068 IO
2 0.0035 0.0032 IO
3 0.0025 0.0023 IO
4 0.0022 0.0020 IO

Fig. 8 (a) shows that the first plastic hinge model 1

occurred on the beam of floor 3 and 4. It means that the
building was still usable.
Fig. 9 (a) shows the maximum limit of base shear which
the building was able to carry. A beam of floor 4 shows the
first collapse. In the last step of pushover analysis model 1,
there was a collapse on floor 3 and 4 (Fig. 10(a)), while the
column indicated that there was a small damage with the
performance level of immediate occupancy. Collapses on
floor 3 and 4 were very dangerous because it can cause total
collapse.
Fig. 8(b) shows that first plastic hinge distribution on (c) Model 3 (d) Model 4
model 2. First plastic hinge occurred on floor 7 until floor 9.
It shows that the usage of the shear wall can avoid collapse Fig. 8 First plastic hinge
on the base floor. Plastic hinges occurrence shows the safety
limit. In the last step of pushover analysis model 2, beam Fig. 8(d) is the result of pushover analysis model 4 which
collapse was on floor 7 until floor 10 (Fig. 10(b)). In model shows that first plastic hinge occurred on beam floor 7 and 9.
1, all of the columns shows building performance immediate Base shear which was needed to produce first plastic hinge
occupancy. While model 2, the column still showed building on model 4 was greater than other models, while deflection
performance operational. The usage of shear wall increased on the first plastic hinge on model 4 was lower than other
models. The first collapse condition occurred on column

1131
didn’t show life safety level like model 2 and 3, but only
immediate occupancy level. Meanwhile, the collapse
occurred on beam floor 8 and 9 has shown the maximum
limit of base shear which was able to be withstood. In the
last pushover analysis, the collapse occurred on beam floor 6
to 10. Plastic hinges occurred on the column was greater
than other models. Plastic hinges occurred on a column still
showed life safety limit. Model 4 has lower base shear than
model 3. Plastic hinge collapse occurred on model 4 was
greater than model 3. Based on the plastic hinge, model 3
was the most effective model in reducing plastic hinge
collapse than other models.

(a) Model 1 (b) Model 2

(a) Model 1 (b) Model 2

(c) Model 3 (d) Model 4

Fig. 10 The plastic hinges in the last step

IV. CONCLUSION
The conclusions obtained in the study of structure
response caused by the earthquake and pushover analysis on
four models are as follows: The maximum drift ratio
occurred on model 1 namely model without a shear wall.
Each model has different performance point, minimum
performance point occurred on level 1, while maximum
performance point occurred on level 4. Performance level of
all model are immediate occupancy. In the last step of
(c) Model 3 (d) Model 4 pushover analysis, the collapse of model 1 occurred on the
Fig. 9 First failure
floor 3 and 4, the collapse of model 2 and 3 occurred on the
floor 7 and 10, the collapse of model 4 occurred on the floor
TABLE IX 6 and 10. The collapse of model 3 was the same as model 2,
PROCESS OF PLASTIC HINGE
but the base shear model 3 was greater than model 2. Based
Parameter Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 on the plastic hinge distribution, model 3 was most effective
The first plastic Storey Storey Storey Storey to reduce the seismic effect. Plastic hinges occurred on
hinge occurs 3-4 7-9 8-9 7-9 model 3 was less than other models. In the last step, the
Storey Storey Storey Storey performance level of all model was on immediate occupancy.
The first collapse
4 8-9 8-9 8-9
The collapse in
Storey Storey Storey Storey
the last stage of
3-4 7-10 7-10 6-10
analysis pushover

1132
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS [7] J. Patil and D. K. Kulkarni, “Performance based evaluation of framed
reinforced concrete shear walls by pushover analysis.” Journal of
The research presented in this paper was supported by a IRJET. vol. 2, pp. 416-422, 2015.
grant from Unggulan Kompetitif Universitas Sriwijaya, 2015. [8] P. B. Oni and S. B. Vanakudre, “Performance Based Evaluation of
Shear Walled RCC Building by Pushover Analysis,” International
Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER), vol. 3, pp 2522-
REFERENCES 2525, 2013.
[9] Q. Li and R.E. Gu, “Researches on Pushover Analysis Method of
[1] P. P. Chandurkar and P. S. Pajgade, “Seismic analysis of RCC Masonry Structures with Frame-Shear Wall at the bottom,” 4th
building with and without shear wall,” Journal of IJMER, vol. 3 pp. International Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Taiawan, 2006.
1805-1810, 2013. [10] Saloma, Y. Idris, Hanafiah, N. Setiawan, “Structural Behaviour of
[2] M. D. Kevadkar and P. B. Kodag, “Lateral load analysis of RCC. Steel Building with Diagonal and Chevron Braced CBF
Building,” Journal of IJMER, vol. 3, pp. 1428-1434, 2013. (Concentrically Braced Frames) by Pushover Analysis” International
[3] S. G. Satpute and D. B. Kulkarni, “Comparative study of reinforced Journal on Advanced Science Engineering Information Technology
concrete shear wall analysis in multistoreyed building with openings (IJASEIT), vol.2, pp. 716-722, 2017.
by nonlinear methods,” Journal of IJSCER, vol. 2, pp. 183-193, [11] Applied Technology Council 40, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
2013. Concrete Buildings, Vol 1, California.
[4] M. Atik, M. Sadek, and I. Shahrour, “Adaptive pushover procedure [12] FEMA 356, Prestandard and Commentary for the
for seismic assessment of shear wall structures,” in Proc of 21th Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency
Mechanical French Congress, 2013. p.1. Management Agency, Washington DC, 2000.
[5] R. S. Mishra, V. Kushwaha, and S. Kumar, “A comparative study of [13] FEMA 440, Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis
different configuration of shear wall location in soft story building Procedures, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California,
subjected to seismic load,” Journal of IRJET, vol. 2, pp. 513-519, 2005.
2015.
[6] A. G. Ghalimath, Y. M. Waghmare, A. A. Zadbuke, and A. R.
Chaudhari, “Seismic comparative study of multistoried r.c.c building
with shear wall in bare frame and masonry infill frame for various
types of soil and seismic zones,” Journal of IRJET, vol.2, pp. 334-
341, 2015.

1133