This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ANALYSIS OF SHEAR WALL DUE TO LATERAL LOAD
A Project Report Submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering of
World University Of Bangladesh in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor
Of
Science in Civil Engineering
Submitted By
MD. ABUL KASHEM
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/635
MD. ZAHIRUL HOQUE
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/636
MD. MASUD RANA
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/639
MD. ABDUL BATEN
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/623
RANZU AHMED
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/637
Supervisor
NOVEMBER 2012
AHMED SHIBLEE NOMAN
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
World University of Bangladesh.
S M TANVIR FAYSAL ALAM
CHOWDHOURY
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
World University of Bangladesh.
2
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
November 2012
To
Ahmed Shiblee Noman
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
World University of Bangladesh.
Subject: Submission of Project Report.
Sir,
We are pleased to submit hereby the project report on “Analysis of shear wall due to
lateral load’’ .It was great pleasure to work on such an important topic. This project
report has been prepared according to the requirement of the World University of
Bangladesh,
We are pleased that this report will certainly help you in evaluating our project report on
“Analysis of shear wall due to lateral load”. We would be very happy to provide any
assistance in interpreting any part of the report whenever necessary.
Thanking You.
Sincerely yours,
RANZU AHMED
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/637
MD. ZAHIRUL HOQUE
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/636
MD. MASUD RANA
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/639
MD. ABDUL BATEN
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/623
MD. ABUL KASHEM
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/635
3
DECLARATION
We hereby, solemnly declare that the work presented in the project report has been
earned out by us and so far known, none has yet submitted this type of work in any
University, College and Organization for an academic qualification.
We hereby guarantee and ensure that the work has been presented by us, does not breach
any existing copyright.
We, further, undertake to indemnify the University against any loss or damage arising
from breach of the for the foregoing obligation,
RANZU AHMED
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/637
MD. ZAHIRUL HOQUE
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/636
MD. MASUD RANA
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/639
MD. ABDUL BATEN
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/623
MD. ABUL KASHEM
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/635
4
World University of Bangladesh (WUB)
CERTIFICATION
This is the certify that the project on “ANALYSIS OF SHEAR WALL DUE TO
LATERAL LOAD,” is an authentic and bonafide record of the project work done by
Md. Abdul Baten, Md. Masud Rana, Ranzu Ahme, Md. Zahirul Haque, and Md. Abul
Kashem for partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of B. Sc in Civil
Engineering from the World University of Bangladesh (WUB) .
This project work has been carried out under my guidance and is a record of successful
work.
Faculty Guide.
Ahmed Shiblee Noman
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
World University of Bangladesh.
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
All parses for the Almighty Allah, the most merciful and beneficent, for giving us
enormous opportunity endowing us with enough energy and patience to carry on and
complete this project work.
We wish to express our profound gratitude and sincere appreciation to our respected
supervisor Ahmed Shiblee Noman of the Department of Civil Engineering of the World
University of Bangladesh, for his continuous guidance, dynamic supervision, invaluable
suggestion and unfailing enthusiasm throughout the process of completing the project.
His noble guidance and advice in every segment for the preparation and completion of
this work carry a most pleasant experience in the lives of the authors, which imbued with
ever ending remembrance of his great contribution.
We exceptionally express our deepest gratitude and thanks to professor
A.F.M Abdur Rauf, Advisor of the Department of Civil Engineering and
Mr. Skender Ali, Associate Professor of the Department of Civil Engineering,
Mr. Rabindra Ranjan Saha, Head of the Department of Civil Engineering of the World
University of Bangladesh, Dhaka, for their grating necessary permission to conduct this
project work and also for this whole hearted support to give us more enthusiastic in doing
this project work.
We are ever grateful to our friends and parents for their inspiration encouragement and
blessings.
RANZU AHMED
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/637
MD. ZAHIRUL HOQUE
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/636
MD. MASUD RANA
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/639
MD. ABDUL BATEN
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/623
MD. ABUL KASHEM
Reg: WUB 10/08/23/635
6
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to model and analyze the non planar shear wall assemblies
of shear wallframe structures. Two nos three dimensional models, for open and
closed section shear wall assemblies, have been developed.
These models are based on conventional wide column analogy, in which a planar
shear wall is replaced by an idealized frame structure consisting of a column and rigid
beams located at floor levels. The rigid diaphragm floor assumption, which is widely
used in the analysis of multi storey building structures, is also taken into consideration.
The connections of the rigid beams are released against torsion in the model proposed
for open section shear walls. For modeling closed section shear walls, in addition to
this the torsional stiffness of the wide columns are adjusted by using a series of
equations.
Several shear wall systems having different shapes of wallframe and Flat Plate shear
wall assemblies have been analyzed by static lateral load, response spectrum where the
proposed methods have been used. The results of these analyses are compared with the
results obtained using common shear wall modeling techniques.
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………... V
ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . …... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………... . vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……….. viii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………... xiii
CHAPTER 1
1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………….. . . . . 1
1.2 Objectives .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………. . . . . . 3
1.3 Scope of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………. . . . . 4
1.4 Analysis of Shear Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………... . . . . . . 5
CHAPTER 2
2. Literature Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………………. . . . . 7
2.1 Shear Wall Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………. . . 7
2.2 Equivalent Lateral Force Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………….. 8
2.3 Method of Analysis of Shear Wall Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………..10
8
2.3.1 Finite Element Analysis (FEA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……….. .. . . . 10
2.3.2 Continuous Connection Method (CCM) . . . . . . . . . . . . ………. . 11
2.3.3 Equivalent Frame Analysis (EFA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……….. . 12
2.3.4 ETABS non Linear Version 8.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………... 13
CHAPTER 3
3. Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………………. . 14
3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………..14
3.2 Behavior of Symmetric Wall Frame. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………. . . .. .15
3.3 Computer Analysis by ETABS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………. 15
3.4 Manual Calculation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………………………….20
3.5 Summery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………...27
CHAPTER 4
4. Modeling of Shear Walls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………. .29
4.1 Two Dimensional (Planar) Shear Wall Models. . . . . . . . . . . . ………... . . . 30
4.2 Modeling And Analyzing the Shear Wall Model.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………31
4.3 Equivalent Frame Model (Wide Column Analysis) . . . . .. ………. . . .. . . 33
CHAPTER 5
9
5. Three Dimensional Modeling of Shear Walls in the Lateral Load Analysis of
Shear WallFrame Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………………………….34
5.1 Basic Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………….. 35
5.1.1 Material Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… 35
5.1.2 Element Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………35
5.1.3 Structural Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………….... 36
5.2 Modeling NonPlaner Shear Wall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………... . 37
5.2.1 Modeling of Open Sections Shear Walls.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………… . 38
5.2.2 Modeling of Close Sections Shear Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………... . 41
5.2.3 Comparison of the Proposed Models with other Models . . . . . . ………. . 42
CHAPTER 6
6. Analysis And Result Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………... .43
6.1 Calculation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………... .43
6.2 Plate Element Data & Column Element Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………. . .46
6.2.1 Comparative values of Base Moment due to Lateral Load
(Shear Wall1) .……………………………………………………….....59
6.2.2 Comparative values of Base Moment due to Lateral Load
(Shear Wall2) .……………………………………………………….....60
6.2.3 Comparative values of Base Moment due to Lateral Load
(Shear Wall3) ..…………………………………………………………61
CHAPTER 7
7. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………..... . . .. . . . . . .62
7.1 Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . …………... … .63
References .……………………………………………………….….64
LIST OF FIGURES
10
FIGURES
1.1 Typical Floor Plan of a Shear Wall  Frame Building Structure .. . . . . . . . ……….... 2
1.2 Typical Shear Wall Sections .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………………. . 5
2.1 Shape of Shear Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………… . 7
2.2 Building Structure Subjected to Equivalent Lateral Loads. . . . . . . . . . . ………… . . 9
4.2 Shear Wall Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………..30
4.2.2 ETABS Shear Wall Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… 31
4.2.3 ETABS Model Used for Linear Procedures . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……….... . . 32
4.3.1 Equivalent Frame Model of a Shear Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………... .33
5.3 UShaped Shaped Shear Wall Assembly . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………... . . .39
5.4 LShaped Shaped Shear Wall Assembly . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………... . .39
5.5 WShaped Shaped Shear Wall Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………. 40
5.6 HShaped Shaped Shear Wall Assembly . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………..40
5.7 TShaped Shaped Shear Wall Assembly . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………... 40
5.8 Plan of a Rectangular Wall Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………41
11
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
High rise building is a structure vertically cantilevered from the ground level subjected
to axial loading and lateral forces. It consists of frames, beams, shear walls, core walls,
and a slab structures which interact through there connected edges to distribute lateral
and axial load imposed on the building. Lateral forces generated either due to wind
blowing against the building or due to the inertia forces induced by ground shaking
which tend to crack the building in shear and push it over in bending. These types of
forces can be resisted by the use of shear wall system which is one of the most
efficient methods of ensuring the lateral stability of tall buildings.
For building taller than ten stories, frame action obtained by the interaction of slabs
and columns is not adequate to give the required lateral stiffness. It also has become
and uneconomical solution for tall buildings. However it can be improved by statically
placing shear walls as it is very effective in maintaining the stability of tall buildings
under severe wind or earthquake loading.
1. Structural Frame Systems: The structural system consist of frames.
Floor slabs, beams and columns are the basic elements of the structural
system. Such frames can carry gravity loads while providing adequate
stiffness.
2. Structural Wall Systems: In this type of structures, all the vertical
members are made of structural walls, generally called shear walls.
3. Shear Wall–Frame Systems (Dual Systems): The system consists of
reinforced concrete frames interacting with reinforced concrete shear
walls.
12
Most of the high rise reinforced concrete building structures in Bangladesh have shear
wallframe systems. A typical floor plan of a shear wallframe building structure is
given in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1 Typical Floor Plan of a Shear WallFrame Building Structure
13
1.2 OBJECTIVES:
The main objectives of the research are as follows:
1. To carry out a frame analysis on shear wall models using ETABS non
linear version 8.5 software.
2. To check the reliability of frame analysis method compare to wall
frame shear wall and flat plate shear wall.
3. To determine the ultimate lateral load due to wind and earthquake.
4. To find out and compare the different calculated value of those wall
frame and flat plate shear wall structures.
14
1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The main intention of the research work presented in this thesis is to study typical high
rise building structures with shear wallframe 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. The object of this study is to model and analyze shear wall
frame structures having nonplanar shear walls. In order to reduce the required time
and capacity for the analysis of the structural systems, frame elements are used instead
of plane stress elements in modeling the shear walls. Two twodimensional shear wall
models, based on the conventional wide column analogy, are developed for modeling
(a) open and (b) closed section nonplanar shear walls. The proposed models can be
used in both static and dynamic elastic analysis of shear wallframe structures.
The accuracy and the efficiency of the proposed models are tested by performing static
lateral load analysis, response spectrum analysis and time history analysis on single
shear walls and shear wallframe systems. In order to check the validity of the
proposed models, the same analysis are performed on the considered structural
systems, in which shear walls are modelled by wall elements of ETABS [8.5]. In
addition, comparisons are made with several methods and experimental results from
the literature.
In the first part of the static lateral load analyses, single shear walls having different
cross sections are taken into consideration. They are subjected to point loads acting at
floor levels. Two different loading conditions are applied on the structure:
(a) Axisymmetric lateral loading
(b) Pure floor torsions
Translations and rotations at floor levels are obtained for different shear wall models.
15
1.4 Analysis of shear wall:
It is a fact that shear walls have high lateral resistance. In a shear wallframe system,
this advantage can be used by placing shear walls at convenient locations in the plan
of the building.
In general, shear walls are in planar form in the plan of the building. However, some
combinations of planar walls are also used in the structural systems. Typical non
planar shear wall sections used in the building structures are given in Figure 1.2
Figure 1.2 Typical Shear Wall Sections
16
The analysis of shear wallframe structures is more complicated than frame systems.
In order to reflect the actual behavior of the shear walls, several models have been
developed. Wide column analogy, braced frame analogy and shell element derived by
using finite element formulation are the most popular models. In the first two models,
frame elements are used and in the last model, plane stress elements are used.
Another important point for the lateral load analysis of building structures is modeling
the structural system. A common method which is widely used in design offices is to
perform analysis on a two dimensional model obtained from the actual three
dimensional system by using some simplifying assumptions. The total number of
degrees of freedom is reduced significantly through this method. Some computer
programs which model the buildings in series of two dimensional frames in two
orthogonal directions use the same logic. The displacement compatibility is
established by infinitely rigid slabs at floor levels.
17
CHAPTER 2
Literature review
2.1 Shear walls systems
Shear walls have been the most common lateral force resisting elements for tall
building besides frame system. It is an efficient method of ensuring the lateral stability
of tall buildings and also efficient against torsional effects when combined together
with frame structure. There stiffness is such that sway movement under wind &
earthquake load can be minimized.
Structural forms of shear wall are commonly using buildings of 10 to 30 stories.
Monolithic shear wall can be classified as short, squat or cantilever as in fig 2.1
according to there height/depth ratio. The walls may be planer, flanged or core in
shape.
Figure : 2.1 Shapes of Shear Wall
18
2.2. Equivalent Lateral Force Method
The equivalent lateral force method is commonly preferred by design engineers
because of its simplicity. It is based on the following assumptions:
1. The effects of yielding on the building structure are approximated
using elastic spectral acceleration reduced by a modification factor.
2. A linear lateral force distribution can be used to represent the
dynamic response of the building structure.
The following procedure is used for the analysis of building structures using the
equivalent lateral load method:
1. Determination of the first natural vibration period.
2. Determination of the total equivalent seismic load.
3. Determination of design seismic loads acting at storey levels.
4. Determination of points of application of design seismic loads.
5. Analysis of the structural system.
A building structure subjected to lateral forces obtained by the equivalent lateral force
method is shown in Figure 2.2. A triangular distribution of equivalent lateral loads
with zero loading at the base of the structure is considered in the analysis.
19
Figure 2.2 Building Structure Subjected to Equivalent Lateral Loads
20
2.3 Method of Analysis of Shear wall structures
Analysis on shear wall structures can be made in elastic, elasticplastic and ultimate
condition. Due to its simplicity, elastic analysis is still widely in used today in the
design offices.
There are several methods available for the analysis of coupled shear wall as been
introduced in Chapter 1. Three common basic methods that usually been used are
finite element analysis, continuous connection method and equivalent frame analysis.
2.3.1 Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
In finite element method, the main idea is to discrete a complex region defining a
continuum into simple geometric shapes called finite element. The material properties
and the governing relationships are considered over these elements and expressed in
terms of unknown values at element corners. An assembly process, duly considering
the loading and constrain, results in a set of equations. Solution of this equations gives
us the approximate behavior continuum.
The advantage of finite element analysis includes in which the nonlinearities behavior
of material or structure can be considered in the analysis. The term non linear is use in
structural analysis to describe a solution where the deformation is not proportional to
the applied load. This is may be due to geometric nonlinearities, materials
nonlinearities and the contact of bodies with geometric and materials nonlinearities. It
also virtually may include various geometrical shapes of structures.
21
Factors that usually considered for nonlinear concrete materials model used in the
analysis are includes of.
1) Nonlinear behavior in compression at materials including hardening
and softening
2) Fracture of concrete in tension based on nonlinear fracture mechanics
3) Biaxial strength failure criterion
4) Reduction of the shear stiffness after cracking
Nonlinear finite element analysis (NLFEA) make possible for me to analyze models
real life conditions on the desktop. The analysis can be made in elastic, elastoplastic
and ultimate conditions. Results obtain cold offer very good alternatives to
excremental results. This method is cheaper but time consuming whereas relatively
simple force distribution output is required for design but certainly not true for
research purposes.
2.3.2 Continuous connection method (CCM):
Continuous connection method is an analysis where the coupling beams of shear wall
structure are replaced by continuous connected media along its height. The coupling
beams are assumed to deform with a point of contra flexure, normally at midspan.
The walls are assumed as cantilever system on a rigid foundation and it neglects the
effect of the beams axial deformation. The openings are replaced by a single
continuous shear medium.
The method also allows simple elevation for any load pattern to be included in the
analysis. A simple analytical solution can be derived, including the accuracy of force
and deflection by explicit mathematical relationships which are dependent of the no.
of stories. The analysis can be made in elastic and elastoplastic conditions. Elasto
plastic method of analysis based on CCM is done by dividing the structure into elastic
and plastic zone.
Several problems may arise when obtaining the solution to the equation if unusual
base forms, irregularities of openings, such that new boundary conditions that has to
be applied to the equation.
22
2.3.3 Equivalent Frame Analysis (EFA)
Frame analysis may also be called wide frame analogy . It is a simple method and can
be used in plan frame programs. This method treats the walls and beams as discrete
frame members .walls and connecting beams are replaced by the line element of
stiffness equal to those of the units they replaced.
The method of analysis is based on the assumption that a linear relationship exists
between the applied action and the resulting displacement .This assumption requires,
first the material of the frame shall behave in Hookean manner at all points and
throughout the range of loading considered. Second, it assumes that the changes in the
geometry of the structure are small enough to be neglected when the internal action
are calculated .
Two basic procedures in frame analysis are flexibility method and deflection or
stiffness method. in the first approach, certain action are temporarily removed, these
action are the unknowns in the compatibility equations which lead to the
complementary solution. In the second approach. certain displacements are prevented
or removed. The equilibrium equations are written in terms of these unknown to be
sought displacements.
Stiffness method is the basic method used nonlinear ETABS8.5 to analyse structures.
It can be performed in a linear analysis or geometrical non linear analysis. However,
this second order elastic analysis has not yet included in the version ETABS 8.5 non
linear. Since this study was using non linear version ETABS 8.5.
So the shear wall models where actually analyzed using firstorder elastic analysis of
stiffness method. In this method, the structures assumed to behaves linearly elastic so
that the principles of superposition applied.
Occasionally these method give the wrong impression on the behavior of shear wall
structure under loading (Kwan 1993), however due uncertain and inability to
understand the postelastic behavior, time constraint and also its simplicity, the results
23
output are still acceptable by engineers. Thus this study was carried out to view the
reliability of the method compared to the analytical and NLFEA method.
2.3.4 ETABS non linear version 8.5
This manual presents a set of simple building systems that have been analyzed using
ETABS Version 8.5. The examples demonstrate some of the analytical capabilities of
the ETABS system. For purposes of verification, key results produced by ETABS are
compared to independent sources, such as hand calculated results, theoretical or
published results, or results obtained from other structural/finite element programs that
are verified not using ETABS. The examples cover each type of element, static and
dynamic analysis and linear and nonlinear options.
For each example, this manual contains a short description of the problem; a list of
significant ETABS options activated; and a comparison of key results with theoretical
results or results from other computer programs.
Significant Options of ETABS Activated
◊ Twodimensional frame analysis
◊ Vertical beam span loading
◊ No rigid joint offsets on beams and column
◊ Column pinned end connections
24
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction:
The Research Methodology was started with problem identification on reinforced
concrete shear wall and setting up the objectives & scope of study. Then all the related
background information were collected an studied for the literature review for
knowledge updating.
The major parts of this study are structural modeling and computational analysis using
frame analysis method in non linear version ETABS. The results obtain then being
assessed, interpreted and compared with one which was obtained from the calculation.
3.2: Behavior Of Symmetric WallFrame
Considering the separate horizontal stiffness’s at the top of a typical 10story elevator
core and a typical rigid frame of the same height the core might be 10 or more times as
stiff as the frame. If the same core and frame were extended to a height of 20 stories, the
core would then be only approximately three times as stiff as the frame. At 50 stories the
core would have reduced to being collects half as stiff as the frames. This change in the
relative top stiffness with the total height occurs because the top flexibility of the core,
which behaves as a flexural cantilever, is proportional to the cube of the height ,where as
the flexibility of the frame ,which behaves as a shear lever, is directly proportional to its
height. Consequently, height is a major factor in determining the influence of the frame
on the lateral stiffness of the wallframe.
A further understanding of frame interaction between the wall and the frame in a wall
frame structure is given by the deflected shapes of a shear and a rigid frame subjected
separately to horizontal loading. The wall deflects in a flexural mode with concavity
downwind and a maximum slopes at the top, while the frame deflect in a shear mode
with concavity upwind and a maximum slope at the base. When the wall frame are
connected together by pinended links and subjected to horizontal loading, the deflected
shape of the composite structure has a flexural profile in the lower part and a shear profile
in the upper part. Axial forces in the connecting links cause the wall to restrain the frame
near the base and the frames to restrain the wall at the top. Illustrations of the effect of
25
wall frame inter action are given by the curves for deflection, moments and shear for a
typical wallframe structure. The deflection curve and the wall moment curve indicate the
reversal in curvature with appoint of inflexion ,above which the wall moment is opposite
in sense to that in a free cantilever. The share as approximately uniform over the height
of the frame, except near the base where it reduces to a negligible amount. at the top,
where the external share is zero, the frame is subjected to a significant positive shear
,which is balanced by an equal negative share at the top of the wall, with a corresponding
concentrated interaction force action between the frame and the wall. Special
consideration may have to be given in the design to transferring this interaction force
3.3 Computer Analysis:
i. GRID >XDIC> 6, YDIC> 5
UNIT – KFT
NO OF story2
Typical story height=10’
Bottom story height=6’
Custom Grid spacing > Edit Grid>
X Grid Data>
A=0,B=15,C=20,D=30,E=55,F=60
Y Grid Data>
1=0,2=25,3=45,4=50,5=60
ok> Grid only> ok>Get Plan
ii. Define> Materials properties>Concrete>
Modify/Show Materials> Materials NameConcrete>
iii. Define > Frame Section> Delete all Properties>
Add/Wide Flange > Add rectangular>
Section Name> [For Beam b 10 X 18 Similarly
Selection C 18 X 21, GB 10 X 18
Materials>Conc> Depth 18″, Width>10″>
Reinforcement> Beam> Concrete Cover to Rebar center>2.5″(Top)
>2.5″(Bottom)> ok>
Ok
26
Properties:
Type of Property to find
B1=10″ X 18″
B2=10’ X 21″
B3=10″ X 24″
C1=18″ X 21″
C2=18″ X 24″
C3=21″ X 24″
GB=10″ X 18″ >ok>ok>
Define> wall/slab/Deck section> Slab 1>
Add new Slab>7 >Concrete>
Membrane7″
Bending7
Plate>ok>
Add New Slab>5>concrete>
Membrane>5″
Bending>5″
Plate>ok>
Add New Slab>4>concrete>
Membrane>4″
Bending>4″
Plate>ok>
(Draw lines)>1
Properties of Object
Property [say B1 10 X 18’(Draw lines at Plan)
(at story Level 2)[one story]
[Similarly B1,B3 Beam line draw at plan]
All stories> Select > Properties>C1 18 X 21
C2 18 X 24, C3 21 X 24 all Column input on plan>
Select one story new select (plan)> Base>ok>Esc>
Select all column>(select)> Fixed Support(select)>ok>
Again (Draw lines )(For GB)> Property> Select>
One story>Plan>Story1>ok>
GB 10 X 18,(Now Draw GB lines at plan)
(Esc)>
Plan> story2>ok>
Select>Property>4>Draw at Plan
Property>5>(Draw at plan)
Again property & select >7> & Draw at Plan
27
Select> All Panel (all) and select object fill>Apply all windows >ok>
UNITKFT>
Edit> Edit Story data> insert story>
Story height10’
No of stories>6story
Select> (all)>Assign> Shell area loads> Uniform>Dead>unit(lbft)>
load 120 lb ft>ok>
Select (P5 )>Assign> shell/area loads> Uniform>
Live> Unit(lb ft)>Load40 lb ft >ok>
Define >static load case>
Load TYPE Self WT Multiplier Auto Lateral Load
EQX QUAKE 0 UBC94>add New
load>
EQY QUAKE 0 UBC94>add Now
load>
WIND X WIND 0 UBC94>add Now
load>
WIND Y WIND 0 UBC94>add Now
load>
Select>EQX, QUAKE 0 UBC  94
Modify lateral load >XDic>Method a>
Ct(ft)>0.03>Rw>12
Seismic CoEfficient> Seismic Zone factor, z
Per Code 0.20>
Site CoEfficient>1.2/1.5
Importance factor =I=1.0
YDic>Method A>
Ct(ft)>0.03>Rw=12
Seismic zone Factor,2
Per Code>0.20>
Site CoEfficient, s=1.2
Importance factor I=1.00>ok>ok>
Select [all Stories]>
(All)>Assign>Shall/Area>
Area object Mesh options>
[Area object auto Mesh options]
Auto mesh object into structural elements
Further Sub divide auto mesh with Maximum elements size of 4>ok.
Select auto area mesh >
Apply all windows>
Ok>
Select (all)>D1 >ok>
28
Define>Mass source> From loads>
Dead1.2 Add>
Live1.6 add>
EQX> 1 Add>
EQY> 1 Add>
WINDX=1 Add>ok>
WINDY=1
Define>Special Seismic Data>
Do not include special seismic design data>
Ok>
Analyze>select analysis option>
(OFF) Dynamic analysis>
Include PData>Select PData
Parameters>
Maximum Iteration10
Dead12 Add>
Live1.5 Add>ok
Analyze>Run Analysis>Save>
Options>Preferences>Concrete Frame
Design> Design Code>ACI 31899>ok>
Design> Concrete Frame Design>
Start design/Check of Structure Again left site select >Design>concrete frame
Design
Start design/Check of Structure
Plan>Top of building>ok>
Display>Show Deformed shape>
Dead Static Load >EQX, EQY, WINDX, WINDY etc 14/16 Loads >ok>
Now plan corner select, so we found slab panel any corner deflection value
(<<(>>) select > Dcon 14 (similarly we found any type of deflection)
Display>Show member force/Stress diagram>
Frame/pier/spandrel force>
Dead static load moment 33
Similarly share 22
Option >Moment diagram on tension side >
Beam deflection calculation>
Select any Beam member then right button click we get deflection
value/moment/share
29
Rebar calculation:
Design> Concrete frame design>
Display design info ………….>
Design output>
Longitudinal Reinforcements>ok>
Share Reinforcements
Rebar percentage
The approximate method of analysis is valuable in providing an understanding of a wall
frames behavior and in allowing the initial sizing of members as part of the preliminary
design process. It does not allow, however, for changes of properties within the height of
the structure or for the effects of axial deformations of the columns that in a tall slender
frame could be significant. Therefore, a computer analysis, using one of the widely
available structural analysis programs, should be used for the final design.
Modeling the wall frame structure for a computer analysis will follow the principles
outlined in chapter 4. If the structure is symmetric on plan and subjected to symmetric
loading. So that it does not twist, a planer model of only onehalf of the structure
subjected to onehalf of the loading need be considered. Shear walls and share wall
core are represented by simple column cantilevers with corresponding moments of
inertia, while the frames are represented by equivalent assemblies of beam elements.
In the planar model the cantilever columns and frames are constrained at each floor by
the analysis programs nodal constraint option, if available, or connected by axially
rigid links, to cause equal horizontal displacements of the bents, as imposed on the
structure by the in plane rigidity of the floor slabs. The horizontal loads may be
applied to the nodes of any convenient column or frame.
30
Analysis of Shear will due to lateral load.
3.4 : Manual Calculation
Worked Example:
15 story Building, 52.5m height, wall frame structure.
Frame Type Interior Column
Ixx (m
4
)
Exterior Column
Iyy (m
4
)
Girder
Type01 0.052 0.030 0.007 (15"×24")
Type02 0.030 0.013 0.005 (12"×24")
Core Inertia = 597.75 m
4
Elastic modulus. E = 2.0×10
7
kn/m
2
Wind pressure = 1.5 kn/m
2
Step01
Determine parameter = o H
(a) Add the flexural rigidities EI of all walls and cores to give the total (EI)
t
. In this
case there is only a core.
For the core I = 597.75 m
4
.
There fore (EI)
t
= 2.0×10
7
×597.75
= 11.95 × 10
9
knm
2
(b) Evaluate the when rigidities (GA) of the rigid frame bents and any wall frame
bents, using equation 11.26, 11.27 and 11.28 and sum them to give the total (GA)
t
. In this
case there are only the former.
The when rigidities (GA) of the two types of frame (1) and (2) by using the
expression. For frame type  01
31
Now, GA =

.

\

+
C G
h
E
1 1
12
=
(
(
(
(
¸
(
¸
× + ×
+
×
× ×
5 . 3
052 . 0 3 03 . 0 2
1
62 . 7
007 . 0 4
1
5 . 3
10 0 . 2 12
7
=
  20 . 16 14 . 272 5 . 3
10 0 . 2 12
+
× ×
7
= 2.38 × 10
5
Kn
FOR FRAME TUPE02
GA =
(
(
(
(
¸
(
¸
× + ×
+
×
× ×
5 . 3
03 . 0 3 013 . 0 2
1
62 . 7
005 . 0 4
1
5 . 3
10 0 . 2 12
7
=
  17 . 30 381 5 . 3
10 2 12
7
+
× ×
= 1.67×10
5
Kn
Total (GA)
t
= ( )
¿
GA = (2×2.38+2×1.67) × 10
5
= 8.10×10
5
Kn
(c) Use the Values obtained in items a and b to evaluate o H, using
( )
( )
t
t
EI
GA
H H = o
= 52.5
9
10 95 . 11
10 10 . 8
×
×
5
Therefore 43 . 0 = H o
32
An analysis for uniformly distributed loading in then made as follows.
Step02:
Determine Horizontal Displacements:
The displacement at height z from the base is obtained by substituting H o and
Z/H in equation (11.10) or, at ternotively by taking the value of K
1
corresponding of the
obtained values of H o and Z/H from fig 1 . 2 A and substituting it in the expression.
( )
( )
( ) ( ) 30 . 11 /
8
1 1
4
H Z H K
EI
wH
Z Y
t
o =
For the given structure, the wind loading per unit height.
W= 1.5×45.73 = 68.60 Kn/m
At the top = H o = ÷÷ 0.4
Z/H = 1, K
1
=0.87 0.43 ÷÷÷ 0.87
0 ÷÷÷÷ 1.0
( ) 87 . 0
10 95 . 11 8
5 . 52 60 . 68
9
4
×
× ×
×
= H Y
= 0.0047 m.
STEP03
Determine maximum story drift Index:
The maximum story drift index is obtained by referring to fig 2 . 2 A and scaning
the appropriate H o curve to find the maximum value of K
2
, which is then substituted in
( )
( )
( ) max
6
max
2
3
k
EI
WH
dz
dy
t
=
For the given structure, K
2
(max) = 0.36
Therefore, the maximum story drift index approximate height is obtained as,
Z/H= 0.55m
( ) 36 . 0
10 95 . 11 6
5 . 52 60 . 68
max
9
3
×
× ×
×
= =
dz
dy
= 0.000050 2 ÷÷ 0.2
33
0.43 ÷÷ 0.36
0 ÷÷ 0.41
STEP04
Determine bending moments in the wall and frame.
(a) The total moment carried by the walls in obtained either by substituting H o and
Z/H is equation (11.16) on by taking the appropriate value of K
3
from fig 3 . 2 A and
substituting in
M
b
(Z) =
3
2
2
K
WH
For example, at the mid 6th story level Z = 22.75 m, Z/H = 22.75/02.5 = 0.43 of
the structure considered, K
3
= 0.283.
Therefore, the moment in the core is obtained is,
M
b
= 283 . 0
2
5 . 52 6 . 68
2
×
×
= 2.67×10
4
Knm H o 2 ÷÷÷ 0.05
0.43 ÷÷÷ 2.28 (K
3
)
0 ÷÷ 0.35
For a structure consisting of multiple walls, the moment in any individual wall is
then obtained by distributing the total wall moment between the walls in proportion to
their flexural rigidities.
(b) The total moment in the set of frames of a level Z from the base as expressed in
equation (11.17) is equal to the difference between the total external moment and the
total moment in the walls of that level.
M
s
(Z) =
( )
) (
2
2
Z M
Z H W
b
÷
÷
34
At the same midsixth story level of the given structure as in item 4a. The moment
carried by the frames is obtained as.
M
s
=
( )
4
2
10 67 . 2
2
75 . 22 5 . 52 6 . 68
× ÷
÷
= 3.65×10
3
Knm
The moment in the individual frames is obtained by distributing the total frame
moment between the frames in proportion to their shearing rigidities.
Therefore, the moment in frame type01
=
3
5
5
10 65 . 3
10 10 . 8
10 38 . 2
× ×
×
×
= 1.07×10
3
Knm
and the moment in frame type2
=
3
5
5
10 65 . 3
10 10 . 8
10 67 . 1
× ×
×
×
= 752.53 Knm.
The banding moments of other levels of the structure have been found similarly
and are potted in fig 11.10 (b)
STEP05
Determine shear forces in wall and frame =
(a) The total shear in the walls at a level Z from the base may be obtained by
substituting H o and Z/H in equation (11.19) on by taking the value of K
4
from fig 4 . 2 A
and substituting in equation (11.33)
Q
b
(Z) = WHK
4
For example, at the midseventh story level (Z=26.25m, Z/H = 0.5 of the structure
considered, K
4
= 0.22.
35
Therefore, the their in the core is obtained as,
Q
b
= 68.60×525×0.22 H o 2 ÷÷ 0.02
= 792.33 Kn 0.43 ÷÷÷ 0.22
0 ÷÷÷÷ 0.28
K
4
= 0.22
For a structure consisting of multiple walls, the shear force in the individual, walls
is then obtained by distributing the total shear between the walls in proportion to their
flexural rigidities.
(b) The total shear in the frames of a height Z is the difference between the external
shear and the total wall shear of that level, as determined above.
Q
s
(Z) = W (HZ)  Q
b
(Z)
At the same mid seventh story level of the given structure, as in item 5a, the shear
carried by the frames is obtained as
Q
s
= 68.6 (52.526.25)  792.33
= 1008.42 Kn.
The shear in the individual frames is given by distributing the total frame shear
between the frames in proportion to their shearing rigidities.
Therefore, the shear in frame type01
= Kn 30 . 296 42 . 1008
10 10 . 8
10 38 . 2
5
5
= ×
×
×
And the shear in frame type2
= 42 . 1008
10 10 . 8
10 67 . 1
5
5
×
×
×
= 208 Kn
36
The values of share at other levels of the structure have been found similarly and
are potted in fig 11.10.
37
Summary:
The horizontal interaction between the walls and frames in wallframe structure causes
an increased lateral; stiffness of structure, reduced moments in the walls, and, in a
uniform structure, an approximately uniform shear in the frame. The benefits of
interaction increase withframes are economical for buildings of to 15 stories or more.
The wallframe horizontal interaction occurs because the different freedeflected
shapes of the wall and the frame are made to conform to the same configuration by the
axially stiff connecting girders and slabs.
An approximate theory is presented for non twisting uniform wallframes on the basis
of a continuum model of the structure, with a flexural cantilever representing the
walls, a shear cantilever representing the frames, and a horizontally stiff continuous
linking medium repressing the slabs and girders. A characteristics differential equation
for deflection is retrain in terms of the two structural parameters of the wall frames.
This has be solved for three tropical types of loading to obtain general formulas for the
deflections, the story drift, the shears, and moments on the walls and frames. Design
curves are also develop that allow repeat estimates of the deflections and forces. The
solution by both formulas and grapes give close estimate of the deflection and forces
in non twisting uniform wall frames of 15 stories or more, and approximate estimate
of the forces in nontwisting, nonuniforms wall frames, which may be use as guide
lines for preliminary design. An accurate estimate of the deflections and forces in non
uniform or in twisting wall frame structures requires a computer analysis.
38
The extent of the benefit that can be obtained form wall frame interaction depends on
the relative stiffness of the walls and frames and the height of the structure. In a very
tall structure with a repetitive floor plan arrangement, an optimum proportioning of the
wall and frame would be one that results in a practically uniform shear within each
height reason of the frame.
If the shear wall in a wall frame structure are reduced or eliminated above a certain
level, or the shear walls are omitted for one or two stories at an intermediate level, the
lateral stiffness of the structure will be effectively not less than that of the
corresponding fully continuous full height structure, provided the change are located
above the point of inflection of the ″fully continuous″ structure.
39
CHAPTER 4
MODELING OF SHEAR WALLS
According to Earthquake Code a shear wall is defined as a vertical structural member
having a length of seven or more times greater than its thickness. Being the major
lateral load resistant units in multi storey building structures, shear walls have been
studied experimentally and theoretically over the last fifty years.
In the lateral load analysis of building structures having shear walls, proper methods
should be used for modeling planar and nonplanar shear wall assemblies. Shear wall
models in the literature can be divided into two:
1. Models developed for elastic analysis of building structures.
2. Models developed for nonlinear analysis of building structures.
The investigation of nonlinear shear wall models is beyond the scope of this study.
In this chapter, shear wall models developed for the lateral load analysis of multi
storey structures in elastic region are presented. Since the methods for modeling
building structures are analyzed separately (two dimensional modeling and three
dimensional modeling are presented in Chapter 2) shear wall modeling studies can
also be investigated in according to the two and three dimensional approaches.
4.1 Two Dimensional (Planar) Shear Wall Models
The literature mentions several shear wall models that were developed for two
dimensional elastic analysis of multi storey building structures. In this part, a review
of these models is given.
40
4.2 Modeling and Analyzing the Shear Wall Model:
Generally there are several steps in modeling and analyzing the shear walls. First is by
installing the section properties for every part of the shear wall using section maker in
ETABS. Followed by building the frame models for every shear walls in ETABS 8.5
and all the section properties and restraints are assigned to the respective part of the
structure. Then applying the structure with load and analyzed it too obtain all the
results.
Figure 4.2 : Shear Wall Model
41
Figure 4.2.2 : ETABS Shear Wall Model
42
Figure 4.2.3 : ETABS Model Used for Linear Procedures
43
4.3 Equivalent Frame Model (Wide Column Analogy)
The equivalent frame model was developed the analysis of plane coupled shear wall
structures. The model was limited to lateral load analysis of rectangular building
frames without torsion. It was improved in the 1970’s by Mcleod and McLeod and
Hosny for the analysis of nonplanar shear walls. In the equivalent frame method,
which is also known as wide column analogy, each shear wall is replaced by an
idealized frame structure consisting of a column and rigid beams located at floor
levels. The column is placed at the wall’s centroidal axis and assigned to have the
wall’s inertia and axial area. The rigid beams that join the column to the connecting
beams are located at each framing level. In this method, the axial area and inertia
values of rigid arms are assigned very large values compared to other frame elements.
Due to its simplicity, the equivalent frame method is especially popular in design
offices for the analysis of multistory shear wallframe structures.
Figure 4.3.1 Equivalent Frame Model of a Shear Wall
44
CHAPTER 5
THREE DIMENSIONAL MODELING OF SHEAR WALLS
IN THE LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS OF SHEAR
WALLFRAME STRUCTURES
5. Three Dimensional Modeling of Shear Walls in the Lateral Load Analysis of
Shear WallFrame Structures
As stated in Chapter 1, the main objective of this study is to model nonplanar shear
wall assemblies in a realistic and feasible way for the analysis of shear wall–frame
structures. The modeling studies are based on rigid diaphragm floor assumption and
the three dimensional equivalent frame method, in which a planar shear wall is
modeled using an equivalent column and rigid beams at floor levels. A generalized
three dimensional finite element program, ETABS 8.5, is used in the studies.
In the first part of this chapter, the basic assumptions used in the modeling studies are
presented. These assumptions are divided into three categories:
1. Material behavior
2. Element behavior
3. Structural behavior
In the second part, the models developed for nonplanar shear walls having open and
closed sections are presented. The comparison of the proposed models with the other
shear wall modeling methods (using ETABS wall element and conventional
equivalent frame method) in lateral load analyses are made in the last part of the
chapter.
45
5.1 Basic Assumptions
In the analysis of all kinds of structures, a number of assumptions should be made in
order to reduce the size of the actual problem. As stated above, these assumptions can
be divided into three categories: material behavior, element behavior and structural
behavior. In this part, the assumptions used in the modeling studies are presented.
5.1.1 Material Behavior
The behavior of the materials in this study is assumed to be linear elastic. Linear
elasticity is the most common material model for analyzing structural systems and is
based on the following assumptions:
1. The material is homogenous and continuous.
2. The strain increases in a linear portion as stress increases.
3. As stress decreases, the strain decreases in the same linear portion.
4. The strain induced at right angles to an applied strain is linearly
proportional to the applied strain, which is called Poisson’s ratio
effect.
In addition, the effects of cracking, creep, shrinkage and temperature on the material
are not taken into consideration.
5.1.2 Element Behavior
Two different structural elements are used in the analyses. The three dimensional
frame element, which is presented in Chapter 2 (Figure 2.4), is used for modeling the
beams and columns of the structural systems. It is assumed to have six degrees of
freedom at each end. The elements of the equivalent frame model (equivalent wide
column and rigid beams) are also modelled using three dimensional frame element.
46
The three dimensional shell element, which is used for modeling shear walls in
verification studies, is assumed to have six degrees of freedom at each node.
Additional assumptions about the element behavior are as follows:
1. Shear deformations in the structural elements are ignored.
2. Frame elements and shell elements have uniform crosssections
throughout the length.
5.1.3 Structural Behavior
The multistory building systems analyzed in this study are considered to be rigid
frame structures. In such systems, all structural elements of the system are assumed to
have infinitely rigid moment resistant connections at both ends. Another assumption
about the structural system is the linear elastic structural system behavior, in which the
deformations are proportional to the loads. It is widely used in structural analysis and
leads to a very important simplification called superposition.
In superposition, if a linear elastic structure is subjected to a number of simultaneously
applied loads, the overall response can be determined by summing the responses of the
structure to the loads applied at one time. Based on this assumption, the behavior of
the structural system under eccentric lateral loads can be determined by superposing
the behavior under the considered lateral loads, which are applied axisymmetrically,
and the behavior under the pure torsion produced by these eccentric lateral loads.
In the analysis performed in this study, it is assumed that only the structural
components participate in the overall behavior. The effects of structural components,
such as nonstructural walls, are assumed to be negligible in the lateral load analysis.
One of the most important assumptions in this study is the ‘rigid diaphragm floor’
assumption, a common assumption which simplifies the problem significantly and
reduces computing time. The rigid diaphragm floor assumption is based on the rigidity
of the floors in their own plane. Field measurements on a large number of building
structures verified that inplane deformations in the floor systems are small compared
to the interstorey horizontal displacements. With the use of rigid floor diaphragms,
the horizontal lateral loads acting at the floor levels of a building structure are directly
47
transferred to the vertical structural elements (columns and shear walls). This results in
three displacement degrees of freedom at each floor level (translations in two
orthogonal directions and rotation about vertical direction), and inplane
displacements of the diaphragm can be expressed in terms of these displacements .
In dynamic analyses, it is assumed that the mass of each floor is lumped at a single
node on the floor, which is generally the master node. The mass, m, is defined only in
three degrees of freedom due to the constraining effect of the floor diaphragms. This
approach is suggested by Chopra .
5.2 Modeling Nonplanar Shear Walls
Due to deficiencies in the two dimensional and the ´pseudo´ three dimensional lateral
load analyses that are discussed in Chapter 2, three dimensional analysis should be
performed for shear wallframe structures having nonplanar shear wall assemblies. In
this study, the modeling of nonplanar shear walls is examined in two parts, are as
follows:
1. Open sections
2. Closed sections
Two different modeling methods are developed for open and closed section shear wall
assemblies. These methods are based on the behavior of the assemblies in shear wall
frame structures subjected to lateral loads for which the rigid diaphragm floor
assumption is valid. In the modeling studies, the conventional equivalent frame model
is used with significant modifications. The translational and rotational response of the
shear wall assemblies are considered separately and the actual behavior of the
structure subjected to eccentric lateral loads is assumed to be obtained by the
superposition of the two responses. In the modeling and verification studies, SAP2000
software is
used. However, the proposed models can be implemented in any three dimensional
frame analysis program having constraint option.
In the following two parts, the proposed models developed for open and closed section
shear wall assemblies are presented. In the last part, the performance of these models
48
is investigated by comparing the responses of the assemblies in static and dynamic
loading.
5.2.1 Modeling of Open Section Shear Walls
It is a common assumption that due to the high inplane stiffness of floor slabs, open
section shear walls can be considered as thinwalled beams of nondeformable contour
. In modeling open section shear walls, each planar wall in the assembly is replaced
with a column having the same mechanical properties of the wall as in the equivalent
frame method. In order to ensure the vertical compatibility of the displacements, the
rigid beams at floor levels are rigidly connected to each other at the corners. In
addition, the ends of the rigid beams that are connected to each other are released
(disconnected) from the connection joint only for torsional moments. In another
words, the transfer of torsional moments between rigid beams is prevented. In Figure
the connection details of two orthogonal shear walls are given.
In three dimensional analysis of open shear wall assemblies modelled by the
conventional equivalent frame model, serious errors occur especially in the analysis of
assemblies subjected to torsion. The stiffness of the structural system becomes stiffer
than with finite element modeling. In the studies, it is observed that releasing the ends
of the rigid beams from the connection joint decreases the torsional stiffness of the
shear wall assembly significantly. This difference can be seen in the comparison
studies of open section shear walls presented in the last part.
Several modeling studies are performed on the open section shear wall assemblies.
The plans of the analyzed open section shear walls and the corresponding models
developed by the proposed method are given in Figure 5.3 to 5.7.
49
Figure 5.3 UShaped Shear Wall Assembly
Figure 5.4 LShaped Shear Wall Assembly
50
Figure 5.5 WShaped Shear Wall Assembly
Figure 5.6 HShaped Shear Wall Assembly
Figure 5.7 TShaped Shear Wall Assembly
51
5.2.2 Modeling of Closed Section Shear Walls
The proposed model for closed section shear wall assemblies is similar to the model
developed for open section shear wall assemblies. The columns are placed at the
walls’ centroidal axes and assigned to have the same mechanical properties of the
walls. Rigid beams are located at the floor levels and make rigid connections with
each other. Similar to the previous model, the ends of the rigid beams are released at
the connections only for torsional moments.
In the case of pure torsion, due to the rigid floor assumption, it is observed that rigid
beams behave independently from the wide columns and make closed loops at floor
levels. For this reason, the torsional stiffness of the model becomes much smaller than
the torsional stiffness of the actual closed section assembly, as it is a summation of the
torsional stiffnesses of disconnected wide columns in the model. This problem is also
stated by Smith and Girgis . They reported that the closed section shear walls
modelled by the equivalent frame method become less stiff than with the finite
element method.
The proposed model solves this problem by modifying the torsional constants of the
wide columns by using the torsional constant of the shear wall section considered. The
procedure has three steps:
1. Calculation of the torsional constant of the closed section (Jc)
2. Calculation of the torsional constants of the wide columns (Ji)
Figure 5.8 Rectangular Shear Wall Assembly
52
5.2.3 Comparison of the Proposed Models With Other Models
The performance of the proposed models are compared with the following shear wall
modeling methods:
1. Modeling with ETABS wall elements
2. Conventional equivalent frame method
In the comparisons, the following single shear wall assemblies are taken into
consideration:
1. Ushaped shear wall (SWS1) shown in Figure 5.3
2. Lshaped shear wall (SWS2) shown in Figure 5.4
3. Wshaped shear wall (SWS3) shown in Figure 5.5
4. Hshaped shear wall (SWS4) shown in Figure 5.6
5. Tshaped shear wall (SWS5) shown in Figure 5.7
6. Rectangular shear wall (SWS7) shown in Figure 5.8
All assemblies have four stories with rigid diaphragms at the floor levels. The height
of all stories is 3.0 m and the thickness of the shear walls is 0.25 m. Other dimensions
of the shear wall assemblies are given in the related figures.
Two different types of analyses are performed in comparison studies of single shear
wall assemblies:
1. Static lateral load analysis.
2. Dynamic analysis to obtain natural vibration periods of the assemblies.
In the static lateral load analyses, two different loading conditions are used as shown.
In loading condition 1, the shear wall assemblies are subjected to axisymmetric lateral
loads acting at floor levels. Each of the four loads is 100 t. In load condition 2,
assemblies are subjected to pure torsions (out of plane moments) at the floor levels.
53
CHAPTER 6
Analysis and Result Interpretation:
This Chapter consists of the results from frame analysis. The analysis was carried out
to study the structural behavior of reinforced concrete shear wall structures under
lateral loading at the ultimate condition. The study is focused on the determination of
the ultimate lateral load due to wind and earthquake.
6.1 : Calculation:
SHEAR WALL 1 (at point 4, 39, 50)
A. Base Moment: WINDX
1. Plate Element : ¿MY = 6028 (kipin)
2. Column Element : ¿MY = 6018 (kipin)
B. Base Moment: WINDY
1. Plate Element : ¿MX = 5441 (kipin)
2. Column Element : ¿MX = 5612 (kipin)
C. Base Moment: EQX
1. Plate Element : ¿MY = 20908 (kipin)
2. Column Element : ¿MY = 21753 (kipin)
D. Base Moment: EQY
1. Plate Element : ¿MX = 36509 (kipin)
2. Column Element : ¿MX = 36502 (kipin)
54
SHEAR WALL 2 (at point 4, 5, 55)
A. Base Moment: WINDX
1. Plate Element : ¿MY = 1417 (kipin)
2. Column Element : ¿MY = 1450 (kipin)
B. Base Moment: WINDY
1. Plate Element : ¿MX = 705 (kipin)
2. Column Element : ¿MX = 703 (kipin)
C. Base Moment: EQX
1. Plate Element : ¿MY = 4179 (kipin)
2. Column Element : ¿MY = 4169 (kipin)
D. Base Moment: EQY
1. Plate Element : ¿MX = 29289 (kipin)
2. Column Element : ¿MX = 29284 (kipin)
55
SHEAR WALL 3 (at point 25, 39, 52)
A. Base Moment: WINDX
1. Plate Element : ¿MY = 1808 (kipin)
2. Column Element : ¿MY = 1804 (kipin)
B. Base Moment: WINDY
1. Plate Element : ¿MX = 1223 (kipin)
2. Column Element : ¿MX = 1234 (kipin)
C. Base Moment: EQX
1. Plate Element : ¿MY = 7143 (kipin)
2. Column Element : ¿MY = 7148 (kipin)
D. Base Moment: EQY
1. Plate Element : ¿MX = 19743 (kipin)
2. Column Element : ¿MX = 19737 (kipin)
Note:
WINDX = Wind Load at XAxis
WINDY = Wind Load at YAxis
EQX = Earth Quake Load at XAxis
EQY = Earth Quake Load at YAxis
56
Analysis and Result Interpretation:
6.2 : PLATE ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 4 WINDY 0.29 0 6 0 0 0
BASE 39 WINDY 0.03 0.01 2.39 0 0 0
BASE 50 WINDY 0.29 0.75 5.98 0 0 0
Summation Base WINDY 0.03 0.75 14.36 5441 6028 288
COLUMN ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 4 WINDY 0.26 0 5.93 0 0 0
BASE 39 WINDY 0.03 0.01 2.1 0 0 0
BASE 50 WINDY 0.31 0.72 6.76 0 0 0
Summation Base WINDY 0.02 0.73 14.79 5612 6208 287
57
PLATE ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 4 WINDX 0.29 0 6 0 0 0
BASE 39 WINDX 0.03 0.01 2.39 0 0 0
BASE 50 WINDX 0.29 0.73 5.98 0 0 0
Summation Base WINDX 0.03 0.74 14.36 5641 6028 288
COLUMN ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 4 WINDX 0.26 0 5.93 0 0 0
BASE 39 WINDX 0.03 0.01 2.1 0 0 0
BASE 50 WINDX 0.31 0.71 6.76 0 0 0
Summation Base WINDX 0.02 0.72 14.79 5612 6018 288
58
PLATE ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 4 EQY 0.05 0.2 36.8 0 0 0
BASE 39 EQY 0 0.09 13.61 0 0 0
BASE 50 EQY 0.07 79.24 67.78 0 0 0
Summation Base EQY 0.03 78.95 90.97 36509 38179 33130
COLUMN ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 4 EQY 0.04 0.14 31.64 0 0 0
BASE 39 EQY 0 0.1 10.58 0 0 0
BASE 50 EQY 0.05 79.33 71.37 0 0 0
Summation Base EQY 0.02 79.09 92.43 36502 38160 33170
59
PLATE ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 4 EQX 0.87 0 18.14 0 0 0
BASE 39 EQX 0.08 0.02 8.17 0 0 0
BASE 50 EQX 1.09 1.02 23.5 0 0 0
Summation Base EQX 0.14 1.04 49.81 18693 20908 1218
COLUMN ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 4 EQX 0.78 0.00 18.19 0 0 0
BASE 39 EQX 0.08 0.02 7.15 0 0 0
BASE 50 EQX 0.99 0.98 26.48 0 0 0
Summation Base EQX 0.12 1.00 51.82 18501 21753 1118
60
PLATE ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 4 WINDY 0.29 0 6 0 0 0
BASE 5 WINDY 0.29 0 7.63 0 0 0
BASE 55 WINDY 0 0 0 0 0 0
Summation Base WINDY 0.58 0 1.63 705 1417 252
COLUMN ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 4 WINDY 0.26 0 5.23 0 0 0
BASE 5 WINDY 0.26 0 6.95 0 0 0
BASE 55 WINDY 0 0 0 0 0 0
Summation Base WINDY 0.52 0 1.72 703 1450 256
61
PLATE ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 4 WINDX 0.29 0 6 0 0 0
BASE 5 WINDX 0.29 0 7.63 0 0 0
BASE 55 WINDX 0 0 0 0 0 0
Summation Base WINDX 0.58 0 1.63 705 1417 252
COLUMN ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 4 WINDX 0.26 0 5.23 0 0 0
BASE 5 WINDX 0.29 0 6.86 0 0 0
BASE 55 WINDX 0 0 0 0 0 0
Summation Base WINDX 0.55 0 1.63 703 1450 256
62
PLATE
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 4 EQX 0.87 0 18.14 0 0 0
BASE 5 EQX 0.85 0 20.25 0 0 0
BASE 55 EQX 2.21 0 0 0 0 0
Summation Base EQX 3.93 0 2.11 2208 4179 1696
COLUMN
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 4 EQX 0.78 0 18.19 0 0 0
BASE 5 EQX 0.76 0 20.76 0 0 0
BASE 55 EQX 2.21 0 0 0 0 0
Summation Base EQX 3.75 0 2.57 2163 4069 1619
63
PLATE ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 4 EQY 0.05 0.2 36.8 0 0 0
BASE 5 EQY 0.03 0.2 31.7 0 0 0
BASE 55 EQY 0 2.46 0 0 0 0
Summation Base EQY 0.02 2.86 68.49 29289 31810 1347
COLUME ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 4 EQY 0.04 0.14 37.64 0 0 0
BASE 5 EQY 0.02 0.13 29.66 0 0 0
BASE 55 EQY 0 2.46 0 0 0 0
Summation Base EQY 0.02 2.72 67.3 29284 31844 1357
64
PLATE ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 25 WINDY 0.02 0.01 1.37 0 0 0
BASE 39 WINDY 0.03 0.01 2.39 0 0 0
BASE 52 WINDY 8.95 0.01 3.24 0 0 0
Summation Base WINDY 8.9 0.01 4.25 1223 1808 2519
COLUMN ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 25 WINDY 0.02 0.01 1.83 0 0 0
BASE 39 WINDY 0.03 0.01 4.1 0 0 0
BASE 52 WINDY 8.13 0 2.02 0 0 0
Summation Base WINDY 8.08 0 4.29 1234 1804 2514
65
PLATE ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 25 WINDX 0.02 0.01 1.37 0 0 0
BASE 39 WINDX 0.03 0.01 2.39 0 0 0
BASE 52 WINDX 8.95 0.01 3.24 0 0 0
Summation Base WINDX 8.9 0.01 4.25 1223 1808 2519
COLUMN ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 25 WINDX 0.02 0.01 1.83 0 0 0
BASE 39 WINDX 0.03 0.01 4.1 0 0 0
BASE 52 WINDX 8.13 0 2.02 0 0 0
Summation Base WINDX 8.08 0 4.29 1234 1804 2514
66
PLATE ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 25 EQY 0.02 0.06 1.43 0 0 0
BASE 39 EQY 0 0.09 13.61 0 0 0
BASE 52 EQY 1.68 0.9 56.39 0 0 0
Summation Base EQY 1.66 0.75 68.57 19743 31358 830
COLUMN ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 25 EQY 0.12 0.07 1.72 0 0 0
BASE 39 EQY 0 0.1 15.58 0 0 0
BASE 52 EQY 1.78 0.87 52.32 0 0 0
Summation Base EQY 1.66 0.70 66.18 19737 31332 834
67
PLATE ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 25 EQX 0.07 0.02 4.18 0 0 0
BASE 39 EQX 0.08 0.02 8.17 0 0 0
BASE 52 EQX 30.21 0.03 11.75 0 0 0
Summation Base EQX 30.06 0.03 15.74 4884 7143 8637
COLUMN ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 25 EQX 0.07 0.02 3.89 0 0 0
BASE 39 EQX 0.08 0.04 9.67 0 0 0
BASE 52 EQX 30.21 0 9.89 0 0 0
Summation Base EQX 30.06 0.02 15.67 4864 7148 8632
68
PLATE ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 25 EQX 0.07 0.02 4.18 0 0 0
BASE 39 EQX 0.08 0.02 8.17 0 0 0
BASE 52 EQX 30.21 0.03 11.97 0 0 0
Summation Base EQX 30.06 0.03 15.96 4884 7143 8667
COLUMN ELEMENTS
Story Point Load FX (Kip) FY (Kip) FZ (Kip) MX (Kipin) MY (Kipin) MZ (Kipin)
BASE 25 EQX 0.07 0.02 4.23 0 0 0
BASE 39 EQX 0.08 0.04 9.15 0 0 0
BASE 52 EQX 30.47 0 9.11 0 0 0
Summation Base EQX 30.32 0.02 14.03 3464 7082 8732
lxix
Figure  1
Figure  2
Fig: Comparative values of Base Moment due to Lateral Load (Shear Wall1)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
EQX EQY
Plate
Column
5100
5200
5300
5400
5500
5600
5700
5800
5900
6000
6100
WINDX WINDY
Plate
Column
L
o
a
d
(
K
i
p

i
n
)
Axis (X, Y)
Axis (X, Y)
L
o
a
d
(
K
i
p

i
n
)
lxx
Figure  1
Figure  2
Fig: Comparative values of Base Moment due to Lateral Load (Shear Wall2)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
EQX EQY
Plate
Column
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
WINDX WINDY
Plate
Column
L
o
a
d
(
K
i
p

i
n
)
Axis (X, Y)
Axis (X, Y)
L
o
a
d
(
K
i
p

i
n
)
lxxi
Figure  1
Figure  2
Fig: Comparative values of Base Moment due to Lateral Load (Shear Wall3)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
EQX EQY
Plate
Column
0
500
1000
1500
2000
WINDX WINDY
Plate
Column
Axis (X, Y)
L
o
a
d
(
K
i
p

i
n
)
L
o
a
d
(
K
i
p

i
n
)
Axis (X, Y)
lxxii
CHAPTER 7
Conclusion:
In the lateral load analysis of shear wallframe structures, a fundamental goal is to model
the shear wall assemblies using a realistic and feasible method. Modeling and analysis of
symmetric building structures having planar shear walls in two dimensions may be a
practical solution. However, especially for asymmetric shear wallframe building
structures, which have non planar shear wall assemblies, modeling and analysis studies
should be in three dimensions.
The proposed shear wall models are based on the conventional wide column analogy and
they can be used effectively in the analysis of multistory building structures where rigid
diaphragm floor assumption is valid. The model for open section shear wall assemblies
consists of wide columns located at the middle of the planar shear wall units between two
floor levels. These wide columns have the same stiffness properties as the planar shear
wall units.
The performance of the proposed models is checked by
(a) equivalent lateral load analysis,
(b) response spectrum analysis.
In the analysis of building structures having a large number of elements and degrees of
freedom, the improvement is more significant. In order to illustrate this situation, a 15
storey BS2 type building structure is considered and the shear wall assemblies of the
structure are modeled using shell elements and the proposed wide column model
separately. The two methods of analysis (equivalent lateral load, response spectrum) are
used for comparison.
In order to have more accurate results, the wide column member should be divided into a
number of frame elements to obtain a better mass distribution. For example, if the
considered wide column is divided into three equal frame elements, which is equal to the
value obtained using shell elements.
lxxiii
Findings of the study are as follows:
1. Values are closed : analyzing of Plate shear wall and column shear wall
structures we have found base moment values are very closed.
2. Frame Methods are more accurate: according to analysis of two
methods that we have got more accurate results in frame method as a
alternate for plate element method.
3. Economical And Memory Efficient: the frame element method is
more economical and memory efficient.
4. Frame analysis method is very simple rather than plate element method.
Recommendation:
◊ The study is used for building structure, similar study may be done for
Bridge structure.
◊ We have done this method by static analysis. Dynamic analysis should
be used to analysis the structures to have a comparative result .
lxxiv
REFERENCES
[1] Stafford Smith, B., and Coull A., Tall Building Structures: Analysis and
Design, John Wiley and Sons, 1991.
[2] Taranath, B. S., Structural Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings, McGraw
Hill Company, 1988.
[3] Wilson, E. L., Dovey, H. H. and Habibullah, A., ″ETABS, Three
Dimensional Analysis of Building Systems″, Computers and Structures Inc.,
Berkeley, California, USA.
[4] MacLeod, I. A., Analytical Modeling of Structural Systems, Ellis Horwood
Limited, 1990.
[5] ″Response of Buildings to Lateral Forces″, ACI Committee Report, SP 97,
American Concrete Institute,
[6] Rutenberg, A. and Eisenberger, M., ″Simple Planar Modeling of
Asymmetric Shear Buildings for Lateral Forces″, Computers and Structures,
Vol.24, No.6, 1986: 885891.
[7] Smith, B. S. and Cruvellier, M., ″A Planar Model for the Static and
Dynamic Analysis of Asymmetric Building Structures″, Computers and
Structures, Vol.48, No.5, 1993: 951956.
[8] Wilson, E. L. and Dovey, H. H. ″Three Dimensional Analysis of Building
Systems  TABS″, Report No. EERC 72 – 8, College of Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley, California, December 1972.
[9] Hoenderkamp, J. C. D., ″Simplified Analysis of Asymmetric High – Rise
Structures with Cores″, The Structural Design of Tall Buildings, Vol.11,
2002: 93107.
[10] Wilson, E. L., Dovey, H. H. and Habibullah, A., ″TABS90, Three
Dimensional Analysis of Building Systems″, Computers and Structures Inc.,
Berkeley, California, USA, 1994.
The End
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.