Comparative Analysis of Conventional Shear Wall and Dumbbell Shear Wall Using ETABS

The comparative research confirms that shear wall configuration strongly influences the seismic response of reinforced concrete multi-storey buildings. Conventional shear walls improve lateral resistance and displacement control compared with an ordinary frame system, but the boundary-element or dumbbell/coupled wall configuration provides better overall seismic performance due to enhanced stiffness, ductility and energy dissipation capacity. The validation results show a reduction in maximum displacement from 84.5 mm in the model without shear wall to 28.7 mm in the boundary-element shear wall model. The fundamental time period reduces from 1.75 s to 1.05 s, while lateral stiffness increases from 11.2 kN/mm to 30.5 kN/mm. These findings demonstrate that the inclusion of properly detailed wall elements improves global rigidity and reduces seismic deformation demand. Storey displacement and storey drift results in both X and Y directions show that the boundary condition consistently produces the lowest response values across the building height. Although base shear values remain close in the storey-wise output tables, the displacement and drift results demonstrate the practical benefit of optimized wall configuration. This confirms that performance-based comparison should consider deformation parameters in addition to force parameters. The study recommends the use of optimized dumbbell or boundary-element shear wall systems for medium-rise reinforced concrete buildings in seismic regions where both structural safety and architectural flexibility are important. Future work may include nonlinear pushover analysis, time-history analysis using multiple ground motions, cost comparison, reinforcement detailing checks and experimental validation of coupling beam behavior.

1.                Aghagholizadeh, M. (2024). Overview and analysis of seismic resilient structures with modular rocking shear walls. arXiv:2406.19582. 2.                Bastami, M., Salehi, M., Ghorbani, M., & Sarvghad Moghadam, A. (2023). Performance of special reinforced concrete shear walls under lateral cyclic and axial loads. Engineering Structures. 3.                Bureau of Indian Standards. (2000). IS 456:2000: Plain and reinforced concrete—Code of practice. New Delhi, India: BIS. 4.                Bureau of Indian Standards. (2016a). IS 1893 (Part 1):2016: Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Part 1: General provisions and buildings. New Delhi, India: BIS. 5.                Bureau of Indian Standards. (2016b). IS 13920:2016: Ductile design and detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces—Code of practice. New Delhi, India: BIS. 6.                Computers and Structures, Inc. (2024). ETABS: Integrated building analysis and design software. Berkeley, CA: CSI. 7.                Deger, Z. T., & Kaya, G. T. (2021). A novel GPR-based prediction model for cyclic backbone curves of reinforced concrete shear walls. arXiv:2111.13605. 8.                Deger, Z. T., Kaya, G. T., & Wallace, J. W. (2023). Estimate deformation capacity of non-ductile RC shear walls using explainable boosting machine. arXiv:2301.04652. 9.                Dhakal, B., & Rathore, R. (2022). Seismic analysis of vertically irregular RC building frame with and without shear wall using NBC 105:2020. International Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 6(2), 55–64. 10.             Ghori, M. A. R., & Chandrakant. (2022). Study on analysis of G+10 building with shear wall using ETABS. International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology, 9(3), 210–216.