Seismic Evaluation of Flat Slab Buildings

with Shear Wall

Prithwi Raj K1, Umesh K Sharma2, Yogendra Singh3,
Pradeep Bhargava4 and N M Bhandari5

Flat slab system is being adopted in many buildings presently due to the advantage of
reduced floor heights to meet the economical and architectural demands. Flat slab
construction gives lesser floor-to-floor height for the same headroom. Generally, flat
slab column system is designed in lower seismic zone areas for resisting gravity loading.
Its performance reduces drastically as this system is introduced to lateral loadings of
higher seismic zones. As IS code is silent about flat slab structure design provisions in
higher seismic zones, while analyzing these structures in such zones, we must have
certain provisions to get rid of its poor performance. Thus, to resist this lateral loading,
this system is provided with lateral load resisting elements such as shear walls.
Author/ This paper deals with the behavior of flat slab column system which was designed safe
CE pl for resisting gravity loading is studied for lateral loading of Zone IV and Zone V
chk as defined in IS: 1893-2002 for 8, 12 and 16 storey flat plate building. Along with
this, how its behavior varies and improves with the introduction of shear wall is
studied using static nonlinear analysis, i.e., pushover analysis and the results are
presented.

Keywords: Flat slabs, Shear wall, Pushover curve, Performance points, Performance level,
Yield pattern, Inter storey drift ratio, Punching shear failure

Introduction
Use of flat slab in building systems is finding much preference these days because of its
distinct role in cost cutting due to the use of slip forms in construction, which gives lesser
floor-to-floor height for same headroom. Flat slab structures have flexible space utility and
thus mostly preferred in offices and parking areas.
In flat slab buildings, load is transferred directly from slab to column. Flat slab systems are
not accounted as primary lateral load resisting element because of their poor seismic
1
M. Tech., Computer Aided Design, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,
Roorkee 247667, India. E-mail: riterulez@gmail.com
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667,
India. E-mail: umuksfce@iitr.ernet.in
3
Associate Professor, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee
247667, India. E-mail: yogenfeq@iitr.ernet.in
4
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667, India.
E-mail: bhpdpfce@iitr.ernet.in
5
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667, India.
E-mail: nmbfce@iitr.ernet.in

Seismic
2011 Evaluation of Flat
IUP. All Rights Slab Buildings with Shear Wall
Reserved. 1
performance. Slab column connection is the most vulnerable part of structure during cyclic
loading, and even after combining flat slab structure with shear-walls, their deformation
compatibility is doubtful.
The present Indian code gives provisions for flat slab structures subjected only to gravity
loading. There is no provision for cyclic loading. Also there is no such provision that strength
and ductility of slab column connection exists. Gravity and lateral loads have different natures,
hence a separate design philosophy is required for making connections ductile; otherwise, a
brittle failure may lead to structural collapse.
At present, building industry is designing flat slabs using response reduction factor of R =
5, but it is not going to behave as Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF), as it is not
possible to achieve ductility equal to SMRF; hence R = 3 may be justified. But economy is
again a concern which needs to be looked into.
The mechanism of transfer of moments from slab to column is very complex when
subjected to lateral loading and produces heavy moments. This unbalanced moment produces
additional shear and torsion at the connection and is then transferred to the column, which
results in excessive cracking of slab, leading to further reduction in the stiffness of the slab.
Many researchers adopted a reduction of up to 33% in the stiffness of the slab, which cracked
under lateral loading.
In this paper, a 3-D model of flat plate structure is done using SAP-2000 V11. Buildings
with 8, 12 and 16 storey with and without shear walls are studied. For modeling of flat slab,
explicit transverse torsional member method is used. For modeling of shear wall, wide column
method is used. Provisions of FEMA 356 (IS 1893 (Part 1), 2002), ATC 40 (ATC, 1996) and
ACI 318-05 (ACI Committee 318, 2002) are used to define user-defined hinge properties.
On the basis of presented results, it can be concluded that flat slab structure does not
behave like conventional beam column structure. With the introduction of shear wall, the
behavior of flat slab structure improves drastically. Also here, the behavior of structure with
0.5 and 1.0% as floor area of shear wall is studied. And it has been concluded that with
increase in percentage of shear wall until a limit, the performance of the flat slab structure
improves.

2. Parametric Studies
2.1 Modeling of Structural Members
2.1.1 Flat Slabs
There are two approaches for modeling of flat slab: equivalent frame method and finite
element method. In the present study, equivalent frame approach has been adopted. For
modeling of slab-beam member, Effective Beam Width Method (Hwang and Moehle, 2000),
and for modeling of slab column connection, Explicit Transverse Torsional Member Method
(Cano and Klingner, 1988) have been used.

2 The IUP Journal of Science & Technology, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2011

 In effective width method, slab is modeled as beam, so it can be easily used with frame
analysis. Thickness of slab beam element is equal to that of the slab, and effective width is
given by many researchers such as Benchik, Grossman and Laurel and Dovich. Effective
width of the beam given by Benchik using finite element method (Hwang and Moehle, 2000)
assuming joints to be rigid is best suited and used, as given by Equations (1) and (2).

b 2C1 L 1 (for interior frame) ...(1)

3

b C1 L 1 (for exterior frame) ...(2)

6

Cano and Klingner (1988) proposed explicit transverse torsional member method
for idealization of flat slab structure to analyze. In this method of modeling, the conventional
columns are indirectly connected by two conventional slab beam elements, each with half
the stiffness of the actual slab beam. This indirect connection made using explicit
transverse torsional member permits the modeling of moment leakage as well as slab torsional
flexibility. The lengths of transverse torsional members are arbitrary, provided that their
torsional stiffness is consistently defined by using Equations (3) and (4) and compared with
Equation (5).

Ec s C
Kt 3
C ...(3)
l 2 1 2
l2

x x 3y
C 1 0.63 y 3
...(4)

GJ
Kt ...(5)
L

2.1.2 Shear Wall

The shear wall is modeled as Wide Column Model (WCM). Design parameters such as Pu, Mu
and Vu are calculated using static analysis and shear wall is designed as per IS-13920. Yield
moment for the designed section is calculated using SAP section designer, and hinge properties
are calculated using Tables 6-18 ASCE (2000). Since shear wall acts as vertical cantilever
fixed at base, its hinge is provided at the bottom storey near the base.

2.2 Details of Generic Building

2.2.1 Building Model
Case study model details are as follows:
The following building is designed safe in gravity loading using static linear analysis using
SAP-2000 v11 and subsequently checked for lateral loading in different zones using static

Seismic Evaluation of Flat Slab Buildings with Shear Wall 3

nonlinear analysis (Pushover Analysis). Plan and elevation of the building are shown in
Figures 1 and 2 respectively.

Figure 1: Plan and Location of Shear Wall for 8, 12 and 16 Storey Building

a. 0.5% Shear Wall 0.16 5.0 m2 b. 1.0% Shear Wall 0.21 5.0 m2
5@5 m

5@5 m
5@5 m
5@5 m

Figure 2: Elevation of Generic Building (8, 12 and 16 Storey)

c. 16 Storey

b. 12 Storey
16@3.0 m

a. 8 Storey
12@3.0 m
8@3.0 m

4 The IUP Journal of Science & Technology, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2011

 Size of building: 25 m 25 m; Width of each bay: 5 m; Height of typical storey: 3.0 m.
Height of building considered: 8, 12 and 16 storey building; Type of soil: Type-II (as per IS
Author pl. 1893-1993); Seismic zones studied: Zone IV and Zone V (as per IS 1893-1993); Slab Thickness:
chk: in refs 200 mm (from static linear analysis, gravity design); Column dimensions:
IS 1893-2002 400 400 sq columns for 8 storey building, 500 500 sq columns for 12 storey building,
is given Author pl clarify
600 600 sq columns for 16 storey building (actual static linear analysis is to be carried out
the sentence
and required column dimensions and its percent reinforcements we got).

2.2.2 Loading Considered

Dead load: 5 kN/m2; Floor live load: 3 kN/m2; Roof live load: 1.5 kN/m2; Sidl: 1 kN/m2; Wall
load: 2.9 kN/m2 (equivalent floor area load).

2.3 Design of Case Study Building

Flat slab has been designed for gravity loads using Equivalent Frame Method (ACI Committee
318, 2002; IS 456, 2000; and Pillai and Menon, 1998). Thickness of slab is taken as 200 mm.
Punching shear capacity of slab column connection is based on eccentric shear stress model
(ACI Committee 318, 2002). Shear stress at critical section is due to factored shear force (Vu)
and part of unbalanced moment (Mu v = Mu) transferred to the column through eccentricity
of shear forces. Combined shear stress due to both effects is given by Equation (6).
Vu M u v C
v ...(6)
b0 d Jc
Columns have been designed according to provisions of IS 456 (2000). Shear wall is
designed using IS 13920 (1993) for the design parameters obtained from static linear analysis.

2.4 Pushover Analysis

To check the performance of flat slab building nonlinear static pushover analysis is performed
using SAP 2000 v11 software. Pushover analysis is relatively simple and considers nonlinear
behavior of structure, but it is an approximate analysis method in which the structure is
subjected to monotonically increasing lateral forces with an invariant height-wise distribution
until a target displacement is reached.
At first, all dead load and appropriate percentage of live load is applied to the building.
Then a predefined lateral load pattern which is distributed along the building height is
applied on the building. The lateral forces are increased until some members yield. The
structural model is modified to account for the reduced stiffness of yielded members and
lateral forces are again increased until some other members yield. The process is continued
until a control displacement at the top of building reaches a certain defined level of
deformation or structure becomes unstable.
Lateral load for pushover analysis can be applied according to IS 1893 (Part 1) (2002),
parabolic load varies from zero at base to maximum at roof. It is applied at the centroid of each
floor.

Seismic Evaluation of Flat Slab Buildings with Shear Wall 5

 A three-dimensional model of each structure has been created to undertake the
nonlinear analysis. Beams and columns are modeled as nonlinear frame elements with lumped
plasticity at the start and at the end of each element. SAP 2000 provides default-hinge
properties and recommends P-M2-M3 hinges for columns, and for beams the plastic hinge
properties are assigned at start, center and end of beam as M3 hinges defined in SAP-2000 as
described in FEMA 356 (ASCE, 2000). The plastic hinge properties for beams and columns
used are defined by the load-deformation behavior.

3. Analysis, Results and Discussion

Performance-based static nonlinear, i.e., pushover analysis, is studied over on 8, 12 and 16
storey flat plate building with 200 mm slab thickness (gravity design) with and without shear
Author pl chk:
walls. To improve the performance of the building, lateral strengthening member such as
incomplete
sentence shear walls. A percentage variation of 0.5 and 1.0% shear walls as floor area in each direction
is provided to study the performance of the building.

Figure 3: Pushover Curve of 8 Storey Building Without Shear Wall,

with 0.5% Shear Wall and with 1.0% Shear Wall

14000

DBE Z-IV
12000 CP
MCE Z-IV
IO

10000
DBE Z-V
Base Shear (kN)

8000

DBE Z-IV
6000 8 Storey, 1.0% SW
MCE Z-IV 8 Storey, 0.5% SW
CP 8 Storey, Without S W
DBE Z-IV
4000 Performance Points
DBE Z-V
Performance Levels

2000 LS CP
IO D
B DBE Z-V
E
DBE Z-IV Z-
V
0.10 0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
Roof Displacement (m)

6 The IUP Journal of Science & Technology, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2011

 Figure 4: Pushover Curve of 12 Storey Building Without Shear Wall,
with 0.5% Shear Wall and with 1.0% Shear Wall

12000

10000

MCE Z-V
CP

8000 MCE Z-IV

DBE Z-IV
Base Shear (kN)

MCE Z-IV
12 Storey, 1.0% S W
IO CP
6000 MCE Z-IV 12 Storey, 0.5% S W
D
B 12 Storey, Without S W
E DBE Z-IV
Z-
IV Performance Points
Performance Levels
4000
DBE Z-IV

2000

0.10 0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Roof Displacement (m)

Figures 3, 4 and 5 show the pushover curve of 8, 12 and 16 storey flat plate building with
0.5, 1.0% and without shear walls respectively. Performance levels, base shear and
corresponding roof deflection at each performance points are presented in tabular form in
Table 1.
The maximum inter storey drift ratios and their corresponding floor levels at each
performance levels of 8, 12 and 16 storey flat plate buildings with 0.5, 1.0% and without shear
wall are presented in tabular form in Table 2.

Seismic Evaluation of Flat Slab Buildings with Shear Wall 7

 Figure 5: Pushover Curve of 16 Storey Building Without Shear Wall,
with 0.5% Shear Wall and with 1.0% Shear Wall

10,000

9.000
MCE Z-V

8,000
MCE Z-IV
CP
7,000
DB MCE Z-V
EZ
-V
MCE Z-V
6,000
Base Shear (kN)

CP 16 Storey, 1.0% S W
DBE Z-V 16 Storey, 0.5% S W
DB

5,000
16 Storey, Without S W
EZ
-IV

Performance Points
4,000 Performance Levels

DBE Z-IV

3,000 IS
IO
MCE Z-IV
2,000 DBE Z-V

DBE Z-IV
1,000

0.20 0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40

Roof Displacement (m)

Table 1: Performance Results of 8, 12 and 16 Storey Flat Plate Building

DBE (V, D) MCE (V, D) Performance Level

Storey Case Zone
(kN, m) (kN, m) DBE MCE

8 Without SW IV 1289.161 0.139018 1584.137 0.3109 LS C

V 1514.922 0.217196 NA C NA

8 The IUP Journal of Science & Technology, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2011

 Table 1 (Cont.)

DBE (V, D) MCE (V, D) Performance Level

Storey Case Zone
(kN, m) (kN, m) DBE MCE

0.5% SW IV 4405.551 0.070945 5201.043 0.1252 IO C

V 4941.761 0.09594 NA CP NA

1.0% SW IV 6303.203 0.0576 11742.67 0.1121 IO LS

V 9177.602 0.085013 12726.93 0.1474 IO C

12 Without SW IV NA NA

V NA NA

0.5% SW IV 3876.282 0.136 6264.435 0.2470 IO C

V 5396.427 0.197026 7178.947 0.3528 IO C

1.0% SW IV 4538.329 0.107658 8259.037 0.2163 IO LS

V 6718.109 0.166665 9419.028 0.2983 IO C

16 Without SW IV 2007.558 0.232 2524.094 0.468 IO LS

V 2295.114 0.338 NA LS NA

0.5% SW IV 3788.126 0.202 6292.674 0.368 IO C

V 5529.246 0.298 7210.341 0.518 IO C

1.0% SW IV 3934.251 0.165239 6520.643 0.3272 IO CP

V 5350.093 0.245239 7660.64 0.4712 LS C

Table 2: Maximum Inter Storey Drift Ratio of 8, 12 and 16 Storey Flat Plate Building

DBE MCE Ultimate

Storey Case Zone Drift Floor Drift Floor Drift Floor
Ratio (%) Ratio (%) Ratio (%)

8 Without SW IV 0.85 4th 1.99 4th 2.8 4th

V 1.37 4th NA

0.5% SW IV 0.37 6th 0.61 6th 1.5 5,4th

V 0.49 6,th NA

1.0% SW IV 0.31 7th 0.59 7th 0.86 7th

V 0.46 7th 0.76 7th

Seismic Evaluation of Flat Slab Buildings with Shear Wall 9

 Table 2 (Cont.)
DBE MCE Ultimate
Storey Case Zone Drift Floor Drift Floor Drift Floor
Ratio (%) Ratio (%) Ratio (%)
12 Without SW IV NA NA NA

V NA NA

0.5% SW IV 0.47 9th 0.87 9th 1.47 9th

V 0.69 9th 1.2 9th

1.0% SW IV 0.43 10, 11th 0.83 10, 11th 1.38 10, 11th

V 0.64 10, 11th 1.07 10, 11th

16 Without SW IV 0.72 6th 1.54 6th, 7th 2.1 7th

V 1.1 6th NA

0.5% SW IV 0.52 9, 10, 11th 0.95 10th 2.5 8, 9th

V 0.77 9, 10, 11th 1.3 10, 11th

1.0% SW IV 0.48 11, 12, 13th 0.94 12, 13th 1.86 10, 11th

V 0.73 12th 1.24 12, 13th

4. Summary
1. On the basis of the time periods compared of these structures among themselves
and with time period of framed structure calculated using IS-1893-2002 formula,
it is concluded that flat slab structures are more flexible than framed structures (Table
3).
2. Also time period of flat slab structures reduces with the insertion of 0.5% of shear wall,
which further reduces if 1.0% shear wall is inserted. Thus, this shows that by increasing
the percentage shear walls, stiffness of the building increases.

Table 3: Time Period of 8, 12 and 16 Storey Building

8 Storey 12 Storey 16 Storey

Case Time Period Time Period Time Period
(s) (s) (s)

Framed Building Without S W(IS 1893:2002) 0.8132 1.1023 1.3677

Flat Slab Building Without S W 2.8518 3.7964 4.6839

Flat Slab Building with 0.5% S W 1.4301 2.2093 3.2866

Flat Slab Building with 1.0% S W 0.9659 1.9389 2.9849

10 The IUP Journal of Science & Technology, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2011

 3. Time periods for 8, 12 and 16 storey building increases as the number of storey increases
in all model configurations of buildings, i.e., flat slab buildings, flat slab buildings with
and without shear wall respectively.
4. On the basis of pushover curves, it has been observed that flat slab building gives the
lowest performance in all zones, i.e., DBE and MCE of Zone IV and Zone V. The
performance of the building improves with the insertion of 0.5% shear walls. This
performance further increases if the building is inserted with 1.0% shear wall. This
shows that by increasing the percentage of shear walls, the performance of the building
improves.
5. From the observed yield pattern, it has been concluded that first hinges are framed on
TTM members (punching failure) and then on equivalent beams and then on columns;
this shows that flat slab structures follows weak beam and strong column concept.
6. From the inter storey drift ratio of Table 2, it has been concluded that maximum inter-
storey drift reduces from flat slab building to flat slab shear wall building.

Conclusion
The objective of the paper is to get the behavior of flat slab building, flat slab building with
0.5% shear wall, flat slab building with 1.0% shear wall, as floor area in each direction. From
the literature available, explicit transverse torsional member method was found to be best
suited for modeling of flat slabs, whereas for shear wall, the best suited method for nonlinear
analysis turns out to be wide column method.

References
1. ACI Committee 318 (2002), Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
(ACI 318-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington, MI.

2. ASCE (2000), Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of

Buildings(FEMA 356) , Prepared by American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC.

3. ATC (1996), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, ATC-40 Report,
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.

4. Cano M T and Klingner R E (1988), Comparison of Analysis Procedure for Two Way
Slabs, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 85, No. 2, November-December, pp. 597-608.

5. Hwang S J and Moehle J P (2000), Models for Laterally Loaded Slab-Column Frames,
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 97, No. 39, March-April, pp. 345-353.

6. IS 456 (2000), Plain and Reinforced ConcreteCode of Practice, Bureau of Indian

Standards, New Delhi.

Seismic Evaluation of Flat Slab Buildings with Shear Wall 11

 7. IS 1893 (Part 1) (2002), Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part
1General Provisions and Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
8. IS 13920 (1993), Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to
Seismic Forces, Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
9. Pillai S U and Menon D (1998), Reinforced Concrete Design, Tata McGraw-Hill, 2nd Edition,
New Delhi.

Author 10. Reitman M A and Yankelevsky D Z (1997), A New Simplified Model for Nonlinear RC
pl. chk: Slabs Analysis, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 94, No. 4, July-August, pp. 30-38.
underlined 11. Prithwi Raj K (2010), Seismic Evaluation of Flat Slab Buildings with Shear Wall, M.
refs are Tech. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
not in text
Roorkee, Roorkee, India, June .

Appendix

Notations

b0 = Perimeter of critical section

b = Width of the equivalent beam
= Ratio of cracked section stiffness to uncracked section stiffness
C1 = Size of support in direction parallel to lateral load
C2 = Size of support in direction transverse to lateral load
= Fraction of moment transferred to column through eccentricity of shear forces
d = Effective depth of slab
G = Shear modulus of concrete
J = Torsional stiffness of section
Jc = Cross-sectional property of critical section
l1 = Length of span of supports in direction parallel to lateral load
l2 = Length of span of supports in direction transverse to lateral load
L = Length of transverse torsional member
Mu = Unbalanced moment
v = Punching shear strength
Vu = Factored shear force

Reference # 30J-2011-03-xx-01

12 The IUP Journal of Science & Technology, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2011