You are on page 1of 276

(

)
BEHAVIOUR OF WALL-FRAME STRUCTURES
A Study of the Interactive Behaviour of Continuous and Discontinuous
Wall-Frame Structures
by
Marie-Jos Nollet
February 1991
Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics
McGill University
Montreal, Canada
A THESIS SU BMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCII IN
PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF
PHILOSOPHY
Copyright 1991 by Marie-Jos Nollet
Abstract
The horizontal interaction between the walls and frames in wall-frame structures is
investigated to determine its role in stiffening the structure against lateraJ, wind or earth-
quake loading. Discontinuous wall-frame structures are studied to assess the effects of the
discontinuities on the horizontal interaction, and on the structures' lateral stiffness. The
discontinuities include stepped walls or frames, curtailed walls, and different configurations
of Etiffened-storey frames.
In each case, a continuum solution is developed and used to describe the beha\'iour
of the structure, and to evaluate the effects of the discontinuities. Corresponding discrete
finite e!ements analyses are also performed ta verify the accuracy of the algebraic solutions
and to determine the nature and magnitude of the resulting effects.
For stepped and curtailed wall-frame structures, it is found that the walls can be
reduced or curtailed without modifying signincantly the overall horizontal interaction and
latera! stiffness. It is found that for stiffened-storey frame structures, the horizontal inter-
action and lateraI stiffness are significantly increased. This constitutes an entirely new type
of high-rise wall-frame structure of greater efficiency.
...
Rsum
L'interaction horizontale entre les .mposantes de btiments comprenant des refends
et des portiques est tudie afin de dterminer sa contribution la rigidit de la structuH'
aux charges latrales dues au vent ou aux sismes. L'influence de discontinuits
dans ces types de structures sur l'interaction horizontale, et consquemment, leur rigidit
latrale est ensuite examine. Les discontinuits considres sont la rduction de la rigidit
des refends ou des portiques, l'interruption des refends, et l'ajout de panneaux
diffrents tages des portiques.
Dans chaque cas tudi, une solution analytique est dveloppe et utilise pour du in'
le comportement de la structure et valuer les effets des discontinuits physiques. La
prcision de ces solutions analytiques est vrifie par des analyses par lments finis, pel-
mettant galement de dterminer la nature des effets rsultant.
Les rsultats dmontrent que les refends peuvent tre interrompus, ou avoir 1('111'
rigidit rduite, sans modifier l'interaction horizontale ou la rigidit latrale de la structure
Ds dmontrent galement que l'ajout de panneaux raidisseurs augmentent l'lllteractioll ho-
rizontale et la rigidit latrale de faon substantielle. Ceci constitue un tout nOU\'CiU tYI'"
plus efficace de grands btiments refends et portiques .
ii
mes proches ...
et tout spcialement ma mre.
iii
1
...
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to express her appreciation to her research supervisor, Profes'ior
B. Stafford Smith, for his assistance, guidance and encouragement throughout the C O U I ~ f
of this work. His help and constructive criticism during the writing of the thesis is gr(',lt]\,
acknowledged.
The judicious advice of Professors P. Lger and D. Mitchell on sorne particular p01l1 t
of this research is well appreciated.
The author would also like to mention her gratitude to her loved ones for their l>upport
and continuous encouragement.
The financial support for this project research was provided by the NaturaJ SCiell((H_
and Engineering Research Council of Canada .
iv
1
l
Abstract _
Rsum .
Acknowledgements
List of Figu res _
List of Tables __
Notation __ ...
Table of Contents
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1 UNIFORM WALL-FRAME STRUCTURES
1 Introduction and Literature Review - Part 1
1.1 Introduction ___ _
1.2 Literature Heview
2 General Behaviour of Uniform Wall-Frame Structures
3 Continuum Model
3.1 Characteristic Parameters and Combination of Bents .
3.2 Study of Three Approaches to Wall-Frame Analysis
3.2 1 Heidebrecht and Stafford Smith . . ....
3.2.2 Stafford Smith, Hoenderkamp and Kuster
3.2.3 Murashc\' ................. .
3.3 Solution of DifferentiaI Equatio!1 in terms of Deflection .
3.4 Interpretation of Continuulil Solution
3.5 Solution for Forces __ . ___ .....
3.6 Influence of Characteristic Parameters
v
ii
i\'
xii
x\'iii
xx
1
3
4
1
-1
7
11
11
1 ;j
1:3
li
26
28
29
30
32
3.7 Comparisons Between Continuum and Discrete Model Solutions ..
3.7.1 Deficiencies in Assumptions for Continuum Method
3.7.2 Examples ..
36
36
37
4 Horizontal Interaction 43
4.1 Effect of Interaction on Horizontal Stiffness of Wall Frame Structure 43
4.1.1 Overall Lateral Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .
4.1.2 Influence of oH and k
2
on Stiffening EITeet of Interaction
4.2 Evaluation of Interactive Forces from Continuum Solution
4.3 Interaction at Top ............. .
4.3.1 Intensity of Interactive Force at Top
4.3.2 Stiffening Effect of Top Interaction
4.4 Example ............. .
4.4.1 With Half-Size Top Bearn
4.4.2 With Full-Size Tc.p Bearn
4.4.3 Horizontal Shear in Floor Slab
II DISCONTINUOUS WALL-FRAME STRUCTURES
5 Introduction and Literature Review - Part II
5.1 Introduction ...
5.2 Literature revlew
6 Stepped Wall-Frame Struct ures
6.1 General Effects of Change in Rigidity
6.1.1 Reducing Wall Flexural Rigidity El
6.1.2 Reducing Frame Shear Rigidity GA
6.2 Algebraic Solution " ..... .
6.2.1 Description of Solution ..
6.2.2 Example to Dlustrate Method ..
vi
43
45
17
55
G'2
65
66
GC
(i7
69
l
7'2
::;
6.3 Influence of Location of Change Level and Characteristic Parameters . . 81
6.3.1 Using Algebraic Solution .
6.3.2 Examples ... . . . . .
6.4 Examplt:. of Existing Structure
6.4.1 Description of Structure
6.4.2 Results al\d Discussion.
6.5 Conclusion '" . . . . . . . .
7 Behaviour of Wall-Frame Structures with Curtailed Walls
A. STATIC LOAD BEHAVIOUR .....
7.1 Behaviour of Curtailed Wall-Frame.
7.1.1 Shear Force Distribution.
7.1.2 Moment Distribution ...
7.1.3 Interaction Force Distribution.
7.1.4 Modification of Detlected Shape and Top Deflection .
7.2 Algebraic Solution for Wall Frame Structures with Curta.iled Wall
81
84
85
86
90
90
93
93
93
93
9-1
94
96
96
7.2.1 Modelling Curtailed Wall-Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
7.2.2 LocatIOn of Point of Curtailment to Cause Minimum Change in Top
Deflection . 105
7.3 Example Analyses
7.3.1 Description of Examples .
7.3.2 Results ......... .
7.4 Comparing Continuum and Discrete Model Solutions.
7.5 Influence of oH and k
2
7.5.1 Influence of aH .
7.5.2 Inti uence of k
2

7.6 Practical Example of Curtailed Stepped Structures
7.6.1 Results .
7.7 Discussion....
B. EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE
vji
108
lOS
110
116
119
119
122
122
123
129
130

7.8 Comparing Dynamic Characteristics of Wall and Frarn('
7.9 Effects of Md.SS and Stiffness Reduction
7.10 Description of Structures Analyscd
7.11 Results of Analyses ....... .
7.11.1 Dynarnic Characteristics .
7.11.2 Mode Shapes ...
7.11.3 Design Quantities
7.12 Discussion.
.i3 Conclusion
130
130
132
132
1
'1

143
14\
III STU'FENED-STOREY WALL-FRAME STRUCTURES 146
8 Introduction - Part III
9 Stiffening Top Level of Frame
A. STATIC LOAD BEHA\'IOUR .
9.1 COl.tnuum Solution .....
9.11 Shearing Force in Stiffened Top Store)' ..
9.1.2 Deflectio:l of Wall-Frame with Stiffened Top Storey ..
9.2 Example Analyses . . . . . . . .....
9.2.1 Description of Exarnples .
9.2.2 Results ......... .
9.2.3 Obsc.vations from Results of Analyses
9.2.4 Comparing Continuum and Model Solutions ..
9.3 Influence of pararneters al! and k
2

9.4 Discussion ......... .
B. EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE
9.5 Description of Structure Analysed .
9.6 Results of Analyses .
9.7 Discussion ..... .
viii
147
148
1IS
150
I.SO
153
155
155
15
I!)
lCi1
J(j 1
lm
lfj1
IfH
Ifj!i
IG.)
9.8 Conclusion!. on Static and Earthquake Responses 169
10 Stiffening n-ame at Intermediate Level 171
A. STATIC LOAD BEHAVIOUR . 171
10.1 Continuum Solution . . . . . 171
10.1.1 Solution for Axial Force Pl . 173
10.1.2 Lateral Deftections . . . . . . 175
10.1.3 Optimum Level of Stiffener for Maximum Structure Stiffness 176
10.2 Example Analyses .. . . . 178
10.2.1 Results of Analyses. 178
10.2.2 Observations from Results . 181
10.3 Practical Example of Wall-Frame Structure with Stiffening Panels 183
10.3.1 Description of Examples 183
103.2 Results of Analyses. . . 184
10.3.3 Axial Forces in Columns . 190
10.34 Horizontal Shear in Slab . 190
10.3.5 Shear in Core. . . . . . . 192
10.3.6 Forces ln Members Surrounding Panel 9 ~
10.3.7 ConclUSIOn .. . . . 193
B. EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE 194
10.4 Description of Structure Analysed for Earthquake Loading . 194
10.5 Results and ObservatIOns 19.1
105.l Results ... 194
10.5.2 ObservatIOns 196
10.6 Discussion. . . . . . . 196
11 Stiffening Frame at Level where Wall is Curtailed 200
11.1 Approximate Solution . . . . . . . 200
11.1.1 Sol u tian for Su bstructure 1 202
11.1.2 Solution for Substructure 2 204
ix
11.1.3 Parameters Influencing Stiffening Effect
11.2 Example Analyses . . ....
11.2.1 Results ...
11.2.2 Observations of Results and Discussion
11.3 Comparison of Approximate and Discrete Solutions.
11.4 Conclusion
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
References
APPENDICES
A Continuum Solutions
A.1 Uniform Wall-Frame Structures
A.l.1 Solutions for various loading cases
A.1.2 Location of point of inflexion
A.l.3 Derivative of Top Defiection .
A.2 Generalized Solution ........ .
A.2.1 Solution of differential equation for shear force T'(x), Eqll. 3.52
A.2.2 Racking displacement at top ..... .
A.2.3 Solution for y(x) from generalized approach
A.3 Stepped Wall-Frame Structures .
A.3.1 Transfer Matrix Solution
A.3.2 Generalized Solution for Stepped Wall-Frame StruLtures .
A.4 Curtailed Wall-Frame Structures ...
A.5 Stiffened-Storey Wall-Frame Structure
A.5.1 Solution for stiffening panel at top
A.5.2 Solution for stiffening panel at intermediate storey
A.5.3 Solution for stiffening panel at level where wall is curtailed
x
201
20
20
'lO!)
20!)
212
213
217
220
220
220
220
221
2 ~
22G
22
228
229
2:W
2:30
233
23(J
nk
23k
239
242
l b Description of Examples
C Approach to earthquake response of wall-frame structures
C.I The Dynamic Approach . . . . . . . .. . ....
C.2 Description of the model and data used
xi
244
245
245
247
'.'

2.1
2.2
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
List of Figures
Deflected shapes of wall, frame and wall-frame
Uniform wall-frame structure ....
Planar model of wall-frame structure
10
10
14
Flexural and shear components members of wall-frame structure 15
Typical single-bay moment-resisting frame. . . . . . . . . 19
Continuous medium representing the beams in the frame. 19
Components of the relative deformations in beams 22
Forces acting on wall and frame . . . . . . 24
Location of point of inflexion for aH < 10 33
Location of point of inflexion for aH < 100 33
Top drift coefficient for a uniformly loaded wall-frame 35
Application of the load on the discrete and continuum structures 35
Example analyses of wall-frame structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Comparison of lateral defiections of continuum and discrete models 40
Comparison of forces in continuum and discrete models 41
Wall and frame linked at the top . . . . . . . . 46
Effect of the interaction on the lateral stiffness 46
Distribution of interaction force according to the continuum solution 49
Evaluation of the discrete interaction force at level x from base, using the
continuum solution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49
Concentrated interaction force QH at the top of a wall-frame structure.. 51
Variation of the top interaction force Q H versus the characteristic param-
eter aH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51
Components of top defiection 54
Proportion of reduction in top defiection from the stiffening effect of the
top interadive force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56
xii
,
1
4.9 Interaction forces in example structure with full-size beam at the top, aH =
3.41 and k
2
= 1.0317 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56
4.10 Shear forces in the f r ~ m and interaction forces when the top beam is fun-size 61
4.11 Shear diagram of the 'slab-beam'
4.12 Multi-bent wall-frame structure .
4.13 Shear force diagrams in the floor slab .
6.1 StE'pped wall-frame structure .....
61
63
63
70
6.2 Transfer of moment at the change level in stepped wall-frame structure. 70
6.3 Resulting interaction when tht! wall is stepped . . 71
6.4 Reduction in shear rigidity . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6.5 Stepped wall-frame structure with n segments . 75
6.6 Acting forces at discontinuity levels . . . . 75
6.7 Example stepped structure, Example E6.1 79
6.8 Comparative lateral deflections of example structure, Example E6.1. . 79
6.9 Percentage change in top deflection according to the change level when the
flexural rigidity of the wall is reduced by 50% and k
2
= 1.05 . . . . . . .. 83
6.10 Percent age change in top deflection according to the change level when the
shear rigidity of the frame is reduced by 50% and k
2
= 1.00 . . . . . . .. 83
6.11 Percentage change in top deflection according to the change level when the
shear rigidity of the frame is reduced by 50% and k
2
= 1.05 . . . . . . .. 87
6.12 The City Syire Building in New York: east elevation (photo:W.Grossman,
taken from Grossman 1990, p.49) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88
6.13 City Spire: Four typicallevels (taken from Grossman 1990, pA9.), Example
E6.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88
6.14 Lateral deflection of City Spire for a uniformly distributed lateralload of
unit intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91
6.15 Forces in walls of City Spire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 92
7.1 Distribution of the external forces on the lower region of curtailed wall-
frame structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 95
7.2 General effect of curtailment on the deflection . . . 97
7.3 Substructures of curtailed wall-frame . . . ...
98
xiii
'ft
7.4 Angle a.t the base of Substructure 2 . lOI
7.5 Moment distribution below level k 101
7.6 Analysis of Substructure 2 . . . 103
7.7 Components of interstorey drift lO3
7.8 Location of the curtailment level, ec, producing minimum change in the top
deflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 107
7.9 Levels of curtailment for examples 109
7.10 Lateral deflection for wall curtailed at various levels, Example E7.2 . 111
7.11 Shear force in the wall when curtailed at various levels, Example E7.2 112
7.12 Moment in the wall when curtailed at various levels, Example E7.2 . . 113
7.13 Percent age reduction in top deflection: Discrete versus algebraic solution 117
7.14 Application of the load : Continuum versus discrete model . . . . . . .. 120
7.15 Percent age change in top deflection when the wall is curtailed, for k
2
= 1.01 121
7.16 Percentage change in top deftection when the wall is curtailed, for k
2
= 1.15 121
7.17 Plan of practiral wall-frame structure, Example E7.5 124
7.18 Lateral deftections of curtailed stepped structure . . 127
7.19 Moment distribution in the wall of curtailed stepped structure. 127
7.20 Shear force distribution in the frame of curtailed stepped structure 127
7.21 Normalized mode shapes for curtailed wall-frame structure (level 11) with
aH = 3.41 ................................... 138
7.22 Probable maximum peak storey shear for curtailed wall-frame structure
(level 11) with uH = 3.41 .............. _ . . . . . . . . . . .. 139
7.23 Probable maximum deflections for curtailed wall-frame structure (level 11)
with aH = 3.41 . . . . . . . . . . . ......... _ . . . . . . . . . . .. 140
7.24 Probable maximum interstorey drifts for curtailed wall-frame structure
(level 11) with aH = 3.41 ............... _ . . . . . . . . . .. 140
7.25 Probable maximum shear in the frame for curtailed wall-frame structure
(level 11) with aH = 3.41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 140
7.26 Modal contributions for curtailed wall frame structure (level1l) with aH =
3.41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 142
9.1 Stiffening panel at the top ofthe frame. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 149
xiv
(
9.2 Ra.cking deformatioll of top stiffened storey .... 152
9.3 Percentage change in top deflection when k
2
= 1.0 154
9.4 Percentage change in top deflection when k
2
= 1.2 154
9.5 Equivalent diagonal strut action. . . . . . . . . . . 156
9.6 Lateral deflections for wall-frame structure with aH = 3.41 158
9.7 Shear forces in the frame for wall-frame structure with aH = 3.41 158
9.8 Bending moment in the wall for wall-frame structure with aH = 3.41 . 158
9.9 Horizontal interaction forces for wall-frame structure with aH = 3.41 . 158
9.10 Percentage change for different examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
9.11 Percentage change in modal mass with respect to parameters f' and fm 167
9.12 Probable maximum peak storey shear for example structure with aH = 3.41 167
9.13 Probable maximum deflections for example structure with OtH = 3.41. .. 168
9.14 Probable maximum interstorey drifts for example structurt! with aH = 3.41 168
10.1 Wall-frame structure with a .;tiffened storey at intermediate level 172
10.2 Interaction forces at the stiffened storey level 172
10.3 Optimum level of panel to stiffen the structure 177
10.4 Percent age reduction in top deflection when stiffening is added at the opti-
mum level (1' ::: 1.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 177
10.5 Lateral deflections for example structure with o:H = 1.80 and k
2
= 1.10 179
10.6 Lateral deflections for example structure with o:H = 3.41 and k
2
= 1.03 179
10.7 Shear forces in the frame for example structure with o:H = 3.41 and k
2
=
1.03 .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 182
10.8 Bending moment in the wall for example structure with o:H = 3.41 and
k
2
= 1.03 ................................... 182
10.9 Lateral deUections for 30-storey example structure
10.10 Shear forces in the cores of the 30-storey example strudure
10.11 Bl2nding moment in the cores of the 30-storey example structure
10.12 Axial forces in the columns of bent II and III ...
10.13 Shear force diagram in the slab at levels 17 and 18
xv
185
186
187
188
191
1
10.14 Approximate shear stresses distribution between the panel and surrounding
members ................................... 193
10.15 Peak storey shear for example structure with stiffened storey at kvel 10 19
10.16 Probable maximum deftections for example structure with stiffened storey
at level 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 197
10.17 Probable maximum interstorey drifts for example structure with stiffened
storey at level 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 198
11.1 Substructures of curta.iled wall-frame with stiffened frame storey 201
11.2 Percent age change in top deflc!ction for level of curt ail ment at the 'optimum
level of curtailment' .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 206
11.3 Percentage change in top deflection for level of curtailment at level 10, i.e.
ecp =.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 206
11.4 Lateral deflections for wall-frame structure with the wall curtailed at level
6, with and without a stiffened frame storey (f' = 1.0 and fi = 0) .... 208
11.5 Lateral deflections for wall-frame structure with the wall curtaikd at level
11, with and without a stiffened frame storey (f' = 1.0 and f = 0) . . .. 208
11.6 Shear forces in the frame for wall-frame structure with the wall curtailed
at levelll, with and without a stiffened frame storey (f' = 1.0 and fi = 0) 210
11.7 Bending moment in the wall for wall-frame structure with the wall curtailed
at levelll, with and without a stiffened frame storey (f' = 1.0 and f' = 0) 210
11.8 Lateral deflections for approximate and discrete solutions of the wall- frame
structure with the wall curtailed at level 11 and a stiffened frame storey
(f' = 1.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 211
A.1 Derivative of y(H) with respect to aH 225
A.2 of y(H) with respect to k 225
A.3 Shearing force in typical segment of wall-frame structure 227
A.4 Flowchart for transfer matrix solution program ... 234
A.5 Flowchart for stepped wall-frame structures program 235
A.6 Flowchart for optimum level of curtailment
C.1 Response spectra from NBCC 1985 .....
C.2 Finite element model for dynamic analyses.
xvi
237
248
250
1
(
C.3 Flowchart for post-processing of design quantities
C.4 Period ratios ................... .
xvii
251
252
List of Tables
4.1 Interaction forces from discrete and continuum analyses for example struc-
ture with half-size beam at the top. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5;
4.2 Proportion of bending moment resisted by the wall in examplc structure
with full-size beam at the top . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60
6.1 Comparative lateral deflections (m) for example structure (Example E6.1)
using three methods of solution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80
6.2 Top deflections and change in top deflections for Examples E6.2 and E6.3 84
6.3 Interaction forces at the change levels 85
6.4 Properties of City Spire . . . . . . . . 87
6.5 Characteristic pa.rameters of the City Spire 89
6.6 Member properties of 2-dimensional model for City Spire. 89
7.1 Characteristic parameters for example structures 108
7.2 Changes in the top deflection 110
7.3 Results of example analyses 114
7.4 Percentabe change in the top deflection - Comparison between the algebraic
and discrete model solutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 118
7.5 Level of curtailment for minimum increase or maximum reduction in the
top deflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 118
7.6 Values of k
2
122
7.7 Beams and Columns Dimensions 124
7.8 Cores properties. . . . . . . . . . 124
7.9 Results for reference stepped structure, Example E7.5 125
7.10 Results of curtailment of stepped structure. . . . . . . 128
7.11 Modal characteristics of uniform wall and uniform frame structures 131
7.12 Level of curtailment for example structures subjected to earthquake loading 133
7.13 Dynamic characteristics of curtailed wall-frame structure with 011 = 3.41
and k
2
= 1.03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 135
xviii
1
,(
7.14 Dynamic characteristics of curtailed wall-frame structure with aH = 15.33
and k'J = 1.0075 ............................ . . .. 136
7.15 Base shear and overturning moment of example structures subjected to
loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
9.1 Comparison of the continuum and discrete solutions, Example E9.2 . 162
9.2 Panel-to-frame shear rigidities and masses ratios 164
9.3 Dynamic characteristics for example structure with aH = 3.41 166
9.4 Change in maximum top deflection for example structure with aH = 3.41 166
9.5 Probable maximum forces for example structure with aH = 3.41 166
10.1 Horizontal interaction forces at the stiffened storey level ..... 180
10.2 Dynamic characteristics for example structure with aH = 3.41 and stiffened
storey at intermediate level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 195
10.3 Maximum possible forces for example structure with aH = 3.41 with a
stiffened storey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
11.1 Top deflections and percentage reductions for example structure.
B.1 Characteristic parameters of example structures.
B.2 Frame dimensions and properties (E=2.0 x 10
7
)
B.3 Wall dimensions and properties ........ .
xix
212
244
244
244
1
A
Ad
b
w
C
Cl
C
2
d
DI
e
E
El
Elc
E1w
fm
f'
f ~
F
Fl,max
GA
GAH
GAp
h
H
I.P.
1
lb
le
19
lw
k
2
[Il]
l\e
".
Notation
sectional area of a column
section al are a of equivalent diagonal strut
width of the slab
distance of the centroid of a column section from the common centre of area of ,III
the columns of the frame
constant of the general solution for the shear force intensity
constant of the general solution for the shear force intensity
diagonallength of a frame's bay
differential operator of order i
effective modal mass
modulus of elasticity
total flexural rigidity
total flexural rigidity of the columns of the frame
flexural rigidity of the wall
ratio of additional mass to the mass of a typical storey
ratio coefficient of the additional shear rigidity of the stiffened storey tn the ~ h l . l 1
rigidity of a typical storey, divided by N
specified compressive strength of concrete
concentrated top interactive force in a top-connected wall-frame
equivalent external force from response spectrum
shear rigidity of a typical storey
shear rigidity of the top storey
additional shear rigidity of the stiffened top storey
storey height
total height of the structure
point of inflexion
total flexural inertia
beam 's flexural inertia
column 's flexural inertia
gross flexural inertia
wall's flexural inertia
non-dimensional characteristic parameter for axial deformations of tll(' (011111111-.
of the frame
stiffness matrix
flexural rigidity of the columns in any one storey used by M urashPv
xx
(
\
.,
K, shear rigidity used by Murashev
Kt top deflection coefficient
KI top lateraI stiffness of a top-connected wall-frame
K
2
top lateral stiffness of a fully interacting wall-frame
mp mass of stiffening panel
mF mass of a frame storey
mw mass of the wall per storey
[M] diagonal mass matrix
M"max,k overturning moment from response spectrum
M
bend
col (x) bending moment in the columns
Mt, Mu bending moments in the columns (e:lower, u:upper)
Mw(x) bending moment in the wall
Mw .. , MWt bending moment in the wall (l:lower, u:upper)
MB(X) bending moment in the flexural cantilever
M E( x) external moment on the structure
M F( x ) external moment on the frame
Mil concentrated moment at the top
M sC x) momen t on the shear cantilever
Ml concentrated external moment at the top of substructure 1
n
N
p
q(x)
Qu
Qll
p
Q.
TE
TG
S
Sa
Sd
S,(X)
Sw(X)
SE(X)
SF
SI/
SI
t
T(x)
T'tl')
V
c
V
p
V.,max,k
tL/
tL/BeX)
tL/F(X)
number of segment in steppcd wall-frame structures
total number of storeys of the structure.
axial force at the top of the columns
distributed horizontal interaction
concentrated top interactive force
top horizontal interactive force related ta the additional shear rigidity
interactive force at level x in the discrete structure
ratio of the upper ftexural rigidity ta the base flexural rigidity in a stcppcd \\,tll-frame
ratio of the upper shear rigidity to the base shear rigidity in a stepped \\all-fl aille
concentrated external top force
pseudo absolu te acceleration
true relative displacement
shear in the frame
shear in the wall
external shear
concentrated top shear acting on the frame
concentrated horizontal external top force
concentrated horizontal external force at the top of substructure 1
effective thickness of the slab
axial force in the columns at height x
shear force intensity
factored shear resistance of the slab
concentrated vertical shear force in the stiffened storey
peak storey shear from response spectrum
horizontal uniformly distributed externalload on the structure
horizontal loading on the flexural cantilever beam
horizontal loading on the frame
xxi

ws(x)
x
y(x)
y(H)umf
yc(H)
Yf(H)
Yfull( H)
Ylmk(H)
Yq(H)
Y(QH-F)(J/)
Y"max
y'(X)
y"( X)
)
)
0'2
aH
HP
HR
HT

r
"max,k
6,
6
0
6"max
,
'il
.x
e
w
2
[w
2
]
<Pc


8
8
r
8
1
c
cp
p

c,opl
",
p,oPI
horizontallu:l.ding on the shear cantilever beam
vertical axis with the origin at the base of the structure
horizontal deflection of the structure
top deftection of a full-height-wall structure
top deftection of a curtailed wall-frame
top deflection of the frame
top deflection of fully interacting wall-frame
top deflection of the top-connected wall-frame
top deftectiou due to full-height distributed interaction
reduction in top defiection due ta the additional top intNactive fOf{{'
generalized displaceme!!t from response spectrum
slope of the structure
curvature of the structure
curvature in the shear cantilever from rad.mg deformations
curvature in the shear cantilever from axial deforrnation of tht' rollllllll'.
ratio of the frame shear rigidity to the wall flexural rigidity
non-dimensional characteristic parameter for the rf'lative
ini tial vertical displacernen t caused by the bcndlllg of the col U III u<'
initial vertical caused by the r(lverse bending of col u III Il:-'
initial vertical displacement caused by axial deformatlon of thl' COllllllll'o
total mterstorey dnft
interstorey drift related ta racking of the frame
peak interstorey drift from response spectrurn
initial vertical displacernent related ta racking of the frame
sumrnation of aIl the mitlal vertIcal dlsplaccments (llp - bill' -
peak storey dcflection from response spectru m
ratio of additional shear rigidity of the stiffencd storey ta the silear rigi!hty (lf .1
typictl ste ey, times the storey height
participation factor in mode l
factor ta account for low density of concrete
width of the equivalent slIlgle-bay moment-resisting frame
circular frequcncy squared, or modal stiffnes!>
diagonal matrix of eigenvalues (circular frequencie!> squared)
resistance factor for concrete
eigenvectors (mode shapes)
top rotation of the frame related to the aXIal deformatiollh of tlt!'
inclination of a storey
inclination of the frame related to racking deformatioll
totaJ inclination of the structure corresponding to th(' top 1It<.IinatlOI\ (Jf t hl' \\.JI 1
ratio of the curtailed wall 's height to the total h('ight
ratio of the curtalled v,rall's height ta the total height a stifrC'llI'f 1'> .1
the levcl of curtailmcnt
ratio of the l1eight below the stlffened stor('y ta the total helght
ratio of height of the lower segment ta the total height in a stcpJll'd wiLiI fl,IIIII'
heights ratIO for the optimum level of curtadment
heights ratio for the optimum level for stiffener
xxii
,
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
General
One definition of a high-rise building is that it is a structure which, because of its
height, IS affected by lateral forces due to wind or earthquake actions to an extent that
they play an important role of their structural design, Stafford SmJth and Coull (to be
publJshed III 1991). Over the last thTee decades, various types of high-risf' <;tructures have
been developed to be efficient in resisting both gravit y and lateralloading. Une of the most
common of these is the wall-frame structul ,comprising sets of shear walls and moment-
resistlllg frames. In Il1gh-rise structure, the walls and frames interact horizontally to share
in carrying the lateral loading, whde both carry their share of gravit y loading. Walls an<i
frames III.!y be arrangcd lIt parallel and therefore interact horizontally through the
floor i:>lab, or ln the saIlle plane and interact horizontally through the connecting beams. In
both rases, the honzntal interaction results from the change in relative stlffnesses between
the walls and fr:tmes over the helght, the walls restraining the frame from deflecting in the
lower f('glOn and the frames restraming the walls in the u'.lper region.
Because the horizontal interaction between walls and the frames, the distri-
butions of loading on the walls and the frames be very different from that of the
externalloading, with the result that the lateral stiffness of the structure is increased, mak-
ing wall-frame a moderately efficient type of high-rise building struct.ure. Although uniform
wall-frame structures have been analysed thoroughly, the nature and the role of the hor-
izontal lllteraction ln sllffening the structure has not been studied III depth. A study of
this inevltably raiscs the question of how changes in the physical properties of the structure
would affcct the horizontallllteractlOn and consequently Its lateral stlffness.
This thesis first considers uniform wall-frame structures, and the nature and role of
the horizontal interaction forces in inftuencing the lateral stiffness of the structure. From
this fundamental knowledge, an exploration can be made of the changes in the interaction
forces, and the resulting changes in the lateral stiffness of the structure, that are caused by
changes in the relatl VPS st. li' sses of the walls and frames, or by introducing discontinuities
Illto either or both of these. 'J li' .,tudy naturally e"olves into the possibility of variations that
can be made to wall-frame st. uctures, that lead to either a more efficient and economical
system, or to a much stiffer structure.
1
Scope and Organization of the Thesis
The objective of this thesis is to provide a detailed exposition of the behaviour of tOIl-
tinuous and discontinuous wall-frame structures, by considering the raIe of the horizontal
interaction between the walls and the frames in stiffening the structure and influencing the
component forces. To achleve this, continuum solutions are developed that allow general-
izations of the behaviour cof a wide range of wall-frame structures with various frame-t-welll
relative stiffnesses, and certain types of structure discontinuities. The considered types
of discontinuities include stepped walls or frames, curtailed walls, and stiffened storeys of
the frame.
The thesis is divided in three parts, each with its introduction, literature review and
conclusions:
In the first, the author presents a detailed description of the behaviour of plan-
symmetrical uniform wall-frame structures, and a general continuum solution is specifically
developed by the author for wall-frame structures. Although the two first chapters of this
part are original, they do not constitute the main work of the thesis. They arc comid-
ered essentiaI, however, in setting the basis of the theory on the behaviour of wdll-fl.tllll'
structures, and allowing a better undcrstanding of the following parts which are of gre.llel
originality and importance. The role of the horizontal mteraction in increasing the lateraJ
stiffness is investigated thoroughly, which to the best of the author's knowledge hits Ilot
been done before.
In the second part, the effects of discontlmities in the stiffness of the structure's COIll-
ponents aIong the height, su ch as reductions in the frames' shear rigidity, the walls' f1exulal
inertia, or curtailment of the wall, are investigated. Continuum solutions are develojwd to
study the effects of these modifications on the behaviour of the structure, and in particular
on the horizontal interaction, and consequently on the overall lateral stiffness of the strut-
ture. The static behavjour and, in sorne cases, the earthquake response of thl' structufef,
are investigated.
In the last part of the thesis, the author proposes various ways of increasing the ov('rall
stiffness of the wall-frame structure: by stiffening the frame at the top, or at an intermedia.te
level, or at the level where the wall is curtailed. The consequences of such IIlodificatlonf, ail'
analysed for both statie and earthquake responses.
The consequences of this study include a significantly increased undcrstaliding of
the roles of the interaction forces in stiffening wall-frame structures and influeIlcillg the
compone nt forces, and of bow the interactIOn forces and their effects change with challg!!"
in relative stiffness of the components, and by introducing in the structUf('
Significant practical consequences include new guidelines for deciding at what 1('\,('1" tlll>
walls and cores in wall-frame structures cali be curtailed without affecting the perforrr.dllce
of the structure. They also include th\' proposaI of an entirely new form of wal]-frdllle
structure, the 'stiffened-storey' structu.e, that is highly practical and offers ill
lateral stiffness of up to thirty-five percent.
2
Part 1
UNIFORM WALL-FRAME
STRUCTURES
3
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE
REVIEW - PART 1
1.1 Introduction
The objective of Part 1 of the thesis is to describe thoroughly the behaviour of uniform
plan-symmetrical wall-frame structures subjected to lateralloading, and to explain partie-
ularly the horizontal interaction between the shear walls and moment-resisting frames. A
wall-frame structure is uniform when the properties of the walls and frames are uniform
over the height.
A broad understanding of continuous uniform wall-frames can be achieved by studying
the behaviour of a continuum model in which all the horizontal elements are rcplared
by an equivalent continuous medium, a so-called 'continuum'. In reviewing the state of
knowledge about continuum solutions for wallframe structures, the author will show how
all the different approaches lead to the same representation, and can be applied to wall-
frame structures to include consideration of all the significant structural parameters. The
solution will then he generalized to include various houndary conditions and static loadJllg
cases. In Parts 2 and 3 of the thesis, the generalized continuum solution will be adapted
for the analysis of stepped and discontinuous wall frame structures.
In the many earlier studies of wall frame behaviour, there has been no investigation of
the specifie role played by the horizontal interadion in stiffening the structure. The autltor
presents here a detailed study on the horizontal interaction.
In the discussion of wall-frame structures, the author will from now refer to the shcar
walls or cores of the lateralload resisting system simply as a wall, or wal1s, while the tenu
'frame' or 'rigid frame' will be used to refer to the other component of the system, the
momentresisting frames.
1.2 Literature Review
Sorne of the first researchers to study wall frames and to propose a simplified methud
of analysis, taking into consideration the horizontal interaction, used iterative techniqu(!s.
4
,
"'
By relating the slope to the ben ding moment in the sbear wall, and the drift to the shear in
the frame, Rosenblueth and Holtz (1960) s o l v ~ for the shear distribution between the wall
and the frame, using a method of successive approximations. Khan and Sba.rounis (1964)
offered a solution in which either the wall is treated as the primary system and the frame
as the secondary system, or vice versa. The resulting deformations of the primary system
are imposed on the secondary system. The resisting forces tbua induced in the secondary
system are taken as the correction loading on the primary system. This process is repeated
successively until convergence of equilibrium and compatibility of deformations 3 achieved.
This band method is very laborious, but it contributed significantly to an understanding of
the horizontal interaction between the walls and frames.
Rosman (1967) established a differential Equation similar to Rosenblueth and Holtz's
using the elastic strain energy formula.tion, and proposed an equation for the bending mo-
ment in the wall as a solution. In both cases the properties of the wall and frame were
uniform over the height, and axial deformations of the columns of the frame were not
considered.
Heidebrecht and Stafford Smith (1973) represented the wall by a flexural column and
the frame by a shear column, and connected them by a distributed, axially rigid linking
medium. The columns of the frames were considered axially rigid. From that continuum
!'epresentation, they proposed the solution for the deflections of uniform wall-frame struc-
tures based on the governing differential equation of the system
The continuum technique that had been applied earlier to coupled-waU structures,
and the resulting differential equation, was generalized by Stafford Smith, Kuster and Hoen-
derkamp (1981) so that it could be applied to any type of shear-flexure cantilevers, such as
rigid-frames or braced frames. Separating the shear response from the individual member
and overall structure fiexural responses, they defined characteristic parameters o:H and k
2
,
the latter of which inc1udes consideration of the axial deformation of the vertical elements.
In 1984 they extended the generalized differential equation to combinations of coupled-walls,
rigid-frames or braced frames. By deduction it is also applicable to wall-frame structures
with axial deformations of the columns. By a simiIar process of combining different types
of structure, Stafford Smith and Abergel (1983) linked one or a number of shear waHs,
to coupled-walls and showed that the generalized solution was still applicable. U sing the
results of these two studies, the writer will show, in Chapter 3 of this thesis, that the gen-
eralized solution can in fact be extended ta include multi-bent wall-frame structures with
axial deformation of tl.e columns.
Murashev (1971) used a similar process to analyse rigid frames, and generalized his
solution to coupled-wall, braced-frame and wall-frame structures. The parameters he used
to characterize the structure are slightly different from those used in the \Vestern literature,
but it will be shown that his solution leads to the same ditferential equation proposed by
Stafford Smith et al. (1981).
Sorne authors developed a continuum solution that could include asymmetric wall-
frame structures. Rutenberg and Heidebrecht (1975) proposed an approximate hand method
for the lateral force analysis of su ch structures. The reslting coupled torsion-ben ding dif-
ferential equations were de cou pIed using an orthogonal transformation. Swaddiwudhipong
5
. ~
a.nd Lee (1984) suggested decoupling tbese equations using tbe Galerkin technique. Both
methods lead to solutions that can be applied to wall frame structures with uniforrn prop
erties over the height, and without any axial deforma.tions of the columns.
The continuum solution for asymmetric structures was extended by Hoenderkamp
(1983), who proposed a generalized solution that included axial deformations of walls and
columns in coupled-walls and moment resisting frames. The differential equations werc
decoupled using the same technique as applied by Rutenberg and Heidebrecht (19i5).
Wall frame structures have also been analyzed by stiffness matrix methods for discretc
rnember models. The results of a study by Grundy and Watben (1972) showed the relative
importance of the axial deformations of columns on the analysis of wall frame structures.
This conclusion supports the proposai to include axial deformation of the columns in tht'
continuum model solution for wallframe structures.
6
f
...
Chapter 2
GENERAL BEHAVIOUR OF UNIFORM
WALL-FRAME STRUCTURES
An understanding of the interaction in a wall-frame structure is given by the deftected
shapes of a shear wall and a moment resisting frame subjected independently to horizontal
loading. The wall deftects in a ftexural mode, with concavity downwind and a maximum
slope at the top, while the frame deftects in a shear mode, with concavity upwind and a
maximum slope at the base. The walls and frames of a structure that is symmetrical about
the axis of loading are constrained to deftect identically by the in-plane rigidity of the ftoor
slabs. Consequently, the deftected shape of the dual systp.m has a flexural profile in the
lower part and a shear profile in the upper, Fig. 2.1.
The wall and the frame cons train each other from adopting their free deftected shapes,
and cause a redistribution of forces between the two. The redistri bution of forces is achieved
through the presence of horizontal interaction forces, Fig. 2.2a. The wall restrains or holds
back the frame in the lower storeys, while the frame restrains the wall in the upper storeys.
The significantly different top slopes of the freely deflecting separate wall and frame cause
them, when combined in a wall-frame structure, to push on each other with a concentrated
interaction force at the top, so that they adopt the same slope.
The resultant effect of the horizontal interaction contributes to the wall-frame struc-
ture's lateral stiffness, making it greater than the summation of the individual wall's and
frame's lateral stiffnesses. The degree of horizontal interaction is governed by the relative
stiffnesses of the walls and frames, and the height of the structure.
Consider ng the horizontal stiffnesses at the tops of a lO-storey elevator core and a
moment-rosistil\g frame of the same height, with the core say four times stiffer than the
framing. If the same core and framing were extended to a height of twenty storeys, the
frame would than be exactly as stiff as the core. At forty storeys frame would be four times
as stiff as the core. Thil> change in relative stiffness with height occurs because the top
flexibility of the core, which behaves as a flexural cantilever, is proportional to the third
power of its height, whereas the flexibility of the frame, which behaves as shear cantilever,
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 wall-frame. In low-rise buildings
the contribution of the frame to the lateral resistance is often negligihle, but in medium-
to high-rise buildings its contribution can he significant and should he considered in the
design for lateral loading .
7

The relative stiffnesses of the walls and the frames tan be expressed by a 1\01\-
dimensional parameter, combining the relative rigidities and the height. That parameter,
aH, will be described in more detail in the next chapter.
The principal contribution to the flexural behaviour of a wallframe is from the wall
or core components, but the axial deforma.tion of the vertical members of the frame also
participates in the overall flexural behaviour. li a frame has very axially flexible columl1s,
a flexural mode will he added to its typical sbear mode of deformation. In a wall-fram<,
structure this will increase the relative flexural flexibility of the structure and modif)' Its
behaviour.
As a consequence of the horizontal interaction between the wall and the frame, thl'
individual distributions of lateralloadillg applied to tht::m may be very differcnt from that of
the externalloading. Typical distributions of sbears and moments for the components of a
wallframe structure are shown in Figs. 2.2b and 2.2c. The wall moment diagram, Fig. 2.2c,
indicates the reversal in moment at the point of inflexion, above which the moment AI U' IS
opposite ir.. sense to the resistance of the externalloading, ME. In the frame the moment
is resisted principally by the axial forces in the vertical members, forming a couple cqual to
T xl.
Hence,
(2.1)
The single curvature bending of the colurons, Mbend col, is negligible cornpared with
the axial forces contribution in resisting the externat moment. Because of the reven,al !I
sense of the moment in the upper region of the wall, tbe couple in the frame forrned by tht'
axial forces in the columns above the point of inflexion exceeds the total external mOIllCll t,
Fig.2.2c.
The shear force distribution in tbe wall, Fig. 2.2b, indicates that most of the cxtel-
nal shear is resisted by the wall in the lower storeys, but in the upper storeys the wall
carries shear opposite in sense to that of the externat loading. The shear in the frame j"
approximately uniform over the height, except near the base where it reduces to a neglig.J-
ble amount. In the upper storeys, the shear in the frame exceeds the externat load shcal
above the point of zero wall shear. At the very top, where the external shear lb zelO, tlll'
frame carries a very significant positive shear which is balanced by a negative shear III thl'
wall. This corresponds to a concentrated top horizontal interaction force acting b('t WC('II th('
frame and the wall, Fig. 2.2a. Special consideration may have to be given to the t r l l ~ f e l
of this force in the design of the top connecting slab or beamsj this will be analysed mon'
extensively in Chapter 4.
There are sorne real benefits to be gained by accounting for the horizontal interactioll
in a wall-frame structure. These include:
(a) the reduction of the calculated top drift, as compared with considering the wall
alone to resist the lateral loading.
(b) the calculated maximum ben ding moments in the walls and core are less.
(c) the frame may be designed as fully braced, with the effecti' e length of thl'
8
t
columns equal to their clear storey height.
(d) the almost uniform shear over the height of the frame allows a repetitive design
and construction, and a consequent economy of the floor framing.
Taking these advantages into consideration, it is more rational and economical to
design wall-frame structures to consider the interaction, especially in the cases of taller
buildings of more than twenty storeys.
9
1
t q""ldl
1" HII Ill!
-
-
~
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wall
-
--
1
,
-
--
-
-
-
--
1
l
1
--
-
-
-
-
--- -
--
Figure 2.1: Deftected shapes of wall, frame and wall-frame
(""''''''" '0'"
Il
-
.. q( x)
..
-
-
-
__ . L ___ 4 _ ~ Y
Shear(x) MUlllent(x)
(a) Wall-frame interaction (b) Shear force distribution (c) Moment force distribution
Figure 2.2: Uniform wall-frame structure
10
(
Chapter 3
CONTINUUM MODEL
The continuous medium technique, also known as the 'continuous connection method'
and the 'corltinuum method', assumes that all horizontal elements connecting the vertical
components are in effect smeared over the height of the building to produce a uniform
continuons connecting medium.
In this work the writer shows that three continuum solutions for wall-frame structures
with axial deformation of the columns, which were ohtained by different approaches, alllead
to the same differential governing equation.
First, the basic theory for wall-frame structures proposed hy Heidebrecht and Stafford
Smith (1973) is extended by the writer to include the effect of axial deformation of the
columns. Second, the writer demonstrates that the generalized method, Stafford Smith,
Hoenderkamp and Kuster (1981,1984), can be developed specifically for struc-
tures with or without axial deformation of the columns. The solution is proposed in a general
form that allows various boundary conditions and loading cases to be considered. Third,
it is shown that the approach taken by Murashev (1971) to the analysis of rigid frames,
coupled-walls and wall-frames, results in the same differential equation as the generalized
method proposed by Stafford Smith et al. (1981,1984).
Once the continuum solution has been established for wall-frame structures with axial
deformation of the columns, it can he used to determine the force distribution between the
walls and frames, and the influence of the relative stiffnesses and axial deformation of the
columns on various aspects of the behaviour of the structure.
3.1 Characteristic Parameters and Combinat ion of Bents
Most of the continuum solutions proposed are functions of two characteristic parame-
ters, oH and k
2
The dimensionless parameter aH represents the relative stiffnesses of the
walls and frames and is expressed by:
(3.1)
where GAis the racking shear rigidity of the moment resisting frame, El the flexural rigidity
of the walls and columns, and H is the total height of the structure.
11
1
The parameter k
2
expresses the relative importance of the axial deformations of the
columns of the frames, and is given by
k2 = El + EEAc
2
EEAc
2
(3.2)
where EAc
2
i5 the summation of the second moments of areas of the column section al areas
about their corn mon centre of area, in which A is the sectional area of a colnmn, and c is
the distance of the centroid of a column section from the corn mon centre of area of ail tIll'
columns of the frame. E is the modulus of elasticity.
In the simplest form the continuum theory is developed for a plana.r model romprising
one wall linked ta a single bay frame. Stafford Smith, Kuster and H()('nderkamp (U)IH)
demonstrated that a structure combining several bents such as coupled-walls, righi-frames or
braced frames, can be analysed approximately using the same generalizcd solution ploposcd
for a single bent. Stafford Smith and Abergel (1983) combined coupled-walls with on(' or
many shear walls, and showed that the same generalized solution applies.
The theory for a combination of bents can also be extended ta a combinatlon of 1-lcveraJ
frames and walls of a wall-frame structure.
In the theory for a non-twisting combination of bents, the frames a.re lllmped iuto one
equivalent single-bay frame, and the walls are lumped into one equivalent wall. The result
is a planar single-wall single-frame structure with equivalent charact('ristlc parameters that
inc1ude the properties of all the frames and walls.
The equivalent 'combined' parameters are determined as follows
GAE
=
EGAl
ElE
=
EEl, (3.3)
and E E c ~
=
E(EEAc
2
)1
then
a
2
GAE
ElE
k
2
=
ElE+ EEA4
(3.4)
EEAck
in which subscript E refers to the equivalent structure and subscript i refers to an individual
bent.
12
3.2 Study of Three Approaches to Wall-Frame Analysis
For the three approaches previously discussed, the differential equation for the lateral
deftection of a planar wall-frame structure with axial deformation of columns will be
established.
The assumptions of the continuum technique for a wall-frame, or a moment
resisting frame, with uniform properties of the beams, columns and wall over the height are
as follows:
(a) The connecting links and beams are assumed to be axially rigid, thus the columns
deftect and rotate equally, to cause a point of contraftexure at the midspan of
the beams.
(b) The columns deform with a point of contraflexure at the mid-storey height.
(c) The column and beam properties are assumed uniform over the height.
(d) The discrete set of beams, each of inertia lb, may be replaced by a uniformly
distributed connecting medium of the same ftexural stiffness. For this, it is
necessary to assume that the ftexural inertia of the top beam is a half that of a
typical beam.
3.2.1 Heidebrecht and Stafford Smith
A wall-frame structurp. resists lateral loading by simple ben ding of the wall and
columns of the frame, by racking of the frame associated with double curvature bending of
the columns and beams, and by the overall flexure of the frame due to axial deformations
of the columns, Fig. 3.1.
In the basic theory for the wall-frame proposed by Heidebrecht and Stafford Smith
(1973), the structure is considered to consist of a combination of flexural and shear vertical
cantilevers, i.e. deforming in bending and shear configurations, respectively. The writer's
contribution is to extend their work by including the axial deformation of the columns of
the frame in their continuum model.
The external lateral load of intensity w( x) applied to the structure, Fig. 3.2a, is
distributed between the ftexural cantilever, WB(X), Fig. 3.2b, and the shear cantilever,
ws(x), Fig. 3.2c. The subscripts, B and S, refer to flexural bending and shear cantilever
beams.
W(x) = WB(X) + ws(x) (3.5)
The equation governing the flexural beam, which resists the external load by simple
bending of the wall and columns, is:
13
1
- ,..., ~
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1 '" ,
(b) Bending of
the wall
---4.
~ .



w(x)







1 1 1 1 1 1 l , , l , , 1
1 1
(a) Laterally loaded wall-frame
(c) Single ben ding
of the columns
~ .... --.. .....
1..+-_ ......
L +-_Iio-I
1 1
r .... - .....
... +--1-1
I.. ..... -Aooo-t
1
r 1
rt---......
........ - ......
double-curvature
bendmg oC typical
storey
(d) Racking of
the frame
(e) AXl,t! dcforrnatlon
of the colurnns
Figure 3.1: Planar model of wall-frame structure
14
..
~ ..
-----.
/
.. ~
..
..
, /
..
/
/
..
/
..
~
----..
~
~
l1J ( x)---. WB (X)
..
--+
~
---+ ws{X)
--+ --+
---+
/
---+
/
~
/ /
----+
----..
//
..
/
--+
..
..
/
)
----+
/
/
-->
/ ,
-+ , ,
1
,
", "
( a) Shear- flexural member (b) Flexural mem ber (c) Shar member
Qn

) l)
l)

l)

.. , l)

.. .. l)
..
- -
/
--+
- -
/
----l)o
---+
-
---+
wB(x)
--+
q{r)
/
~
ws(x)
--+
-
---+
--+
-
---.
---+
-
---+
----..
-
--+
l)


----+

(d) Systems of force on sheal' and flexural members
Figure 3,2: Flexural and shear cornponents members of wall-frame structure
15
1
in which y(x) is the horizontal deflection of the beami
E is the modulus of elasticitYi
and 1 is the total flexural inertia of the wall (Iw) and columns (Ele).
( 3.6)
To incorporate the axial deformation of the columns, the curvaturc of the shcar can-
tilever is considered to have two componen ts, the first from the racking deformations, (.x),
and the second from the axial deformation of the columns, Fig. 3.l. The cquation
governing the racking deformation of the shear beam is
- GA = ws(x) (3.7)
The relation between the external moment Ms( x) on the shear beam and the curvature
resulting from the axial deformation of the columns is
( 3.8)
where EAc
2
is the sum of the second moments of area of the columns' sectional Ll'Cas about
their common centre of area.
Adding Eqns. 3.7 and 3.8, and respecting the curvature relation
(3.9)
and substituting for and from Eqns. 3.7 and 3.8
(3.10)
Considering the case when the flexural and the shear cantilevers are linked, so that
they have the same horizontal deflections at allievels, their compatibility of deformations
requires the action of a distributed horizontal interaction force of magnitude fl( x), and a
concentrated force Q H at the top, Fig. 3.2d. The force Q H is nccessary for buth components
to be in equilibrium at the top and to have the same slope.
Therefore, the governing equations of the shear-flexural cantilever beam are givcn by
ys(x) = YB(X) = y(x) (3.li)
and
d
4
y(x)
El dx
4
= WB(X) - q(x) (3.12)
(
d
2y
(X) MS(X)
-GA dx2 - EI;Ac
2
= ws(x) + q(x)
(3.13)
16
"
Adding Eqns. 3.12 and 3.13, and dividing by El, gives
d
4
y(z) _ GA (tPy(Z) _ MS(Z) = wez)
dz
4
El dz
2
EEAc
2
El
(3.14)
The moment carried by the shear member, Ms(z), whh:h is mainly the moment carried
by the axial forces in the columns, T x l, can be expresse i by the difference between the
external moment and the ben ding moment carried by the wall a.nd individu al columnsj that
is
Ms(z} = ME(Z) -
substituting for Ms(z) from Eqn. 3.15, in Eqn. 3.14
d
4
y(x) GA ( El) ,py(z) 1 ( GA )
dz4 - El 1 + EEAc2 --;I;2 = El w(x) - EEAc2ME(z)
Defining
2 GA
Q =-
El
and
k
2
_ El + EEAc
2
- EEAc
2
(3.15)
(3.16)
(3.17)
(3.18)
in which GA for a moment-resisting frame is the expression, Stafford Smith et al. (1981)
GA = 12E
h [El!/h +
(3.19)
where h is the storey height. Substituting these in Eqn. 3.16, the governing differential
equation of a wall-frame with axial deformation of the columns is
(3.20)
This differs from the governing equation proposed by Heidebrecht a.nd Stafford Smith
(1973) by including the parameter k
2
When there is no axial flexibility in the columns,
the flexural rigidity El is negligible relative to EEAc
2
, and the parameter k
2
(Eqn. 3.18)
is equal to 1.0. Eqn. 3.20 then becomes identical to the governing equation of Heidebrecht
and Stafford Smith.
3.2.2 Stafford Smith, Hoenderkamp and Kuster
The objective of this section is to demonstrate that the generalized theory proposed
by Stafford Smith et al. (1981) can be developed specifically for wall-frame structures with
axial deformation of the columns. The generalized theory is first applied to a single-bay
moment-resisting frame, which is then linked to a shear wall using the technique proposed
17
by Stafford Smith and Abergel (1983).
Considering a typical segment of a symmetrical single-bay moment-resisting frame of
height H and width i, as shown in Fig. 3.3, the size of the beams and columns are i\sSUIlH'd
uniform over the height, as per the basic assumptions of the continuous medium technique.
For generality, it is assumed that the frame is subjected, at a height x, to a moment
MF(X), resulting from a distributed lateralload WF(X), a concentrated top monH'nt Mil,
and concentrated top shear SF, Fig. 3.3. MH and SF result from the loaing on the upper
segment of frame. The top moment is resisted by the couple due to the axial forces, P, and
the bending moment, Mt, in the columns, while the top shear is resisted by equal shears in
the columns, SF/2, Fig. 3.4.
To satisfy equilibrium, the moment on the frame at any height x
(3.21)
where
MH = Px l+2Mt (3.22)
In the distributed connecting medium there is a distributed shear force of intensity
T'(x), Fig. 3.4. At any height x, the column axial force T(x) is equal to the stlmmation of
all the shear forces in the laminae from the top of the segment of height H down to the
level considered, plus the concentrated axial force P acting at the top of the columns.
T(x) = 1
H
T'(x)dx + P
(3.23)
Derivation of the Characteristic Differentiai Equation in Terms of the Shear
Force T'(x)
By making a vertical eut along the line of contraflexure, which is assumed to he at
the mid-span of the beam, the relative vertical deformations at the eut ends of the heams
are as follows
1. Rotation of the columns under free hending from the moment MF{X), Fig. 3.5a.
6p = el (3.24)
where
(3.25)
If ICI = IC2 = le/2, and le is the summatlon of all the columns' flexural inertias
(3.26)
18
1
1
1
1
H

]h
1 1
1 1
x
Il l
l' " l', ,
"
1
FigUrl' J.3. '1 ypicaJ single-bay moment resisting fI dlill
t J
t J

J

J--
e-..
t J
t J
t J
t J

T7 "1"
1/2 1
r
r
Figure 3.4: Cl': tinuous medium representing the beams in tlt( frame
19
-r
.'
where 6HP is an initial vertical displacement caused by the ben ding of the colullIus
be10w the segment of structure considered.
2. Due to racking deformations from double-flexure of the beams and columlls, Fig. :J.5b.
When considering one storey of height h, the vertical distributcd shear force T'( x)lI,
acting at the rnidspan of the eut beam, produces bending in the beam and columus.
Referring to Fig. 3.5b, the vertical displacement at the midspan of the beam, duc to
ben ding of the half-span beam, is the dis placement caused by a vertica.l force applil'<t
at the free end of a cantilever of length i/2.
6T
t
,b _ T'(x)h (i/2)3
-2- - 3 Eh
(3.27)
The vertical distributed shear force T'( x)h acting at the midspan of the bearn prodllccs
a moment T'(x)h X (l/2) at the joint. Halfthat moment rotates the half-storcy-height
colurnn of inertia Ic/2 through an angle 0. Referring to Fig. 3.5b
0= (T'(x)hl) h/2
4 3E(Icl2)
(3.28)
the vertical displacement at the midspan of the bearn due to the column bending is
then
Then
6Tl,C = 0(l/2)
2
6T
1
,c _ T'(x)l2h
2
2 - 48(E1c/2)
(3.29)
(3.30)
Adding the two vertical displacements and doubling the result to accollnt for relative
displacement between the two halves of the beams
6T
1
= 2 6 ~ , b + ~ , c ) (3.31 )
and substituting from Eqns. 3.27 and 3.30
T'(x)hl
3
T'(x)h
2
1
2
6Tl = 12E1b + 12E1c
(3.32)
Then substituting from Eqn. 3.19 for GA, the shear rigidity of the frame, the relative
vertical displacement due to the racking deformation of the frame is
(3.33)
3. Due to axial deformation of the columns, Fig. 3.5c.
The vertical displacement of the eut end of a half span beam due to axial deformation
of the column is equal to the atCumulation of the deformation of the column hetween
20
1
its base and the level in question Le.
1 r
Al Jo T(x)dx
(3.34)
Therefore the relative vertical displacement is
tT
2
= .!.. (..!... +..!....) r T( x )dx
E Al A
2
Jo
(3.35)
If Al = A2 =: A/2 and A is the summation of all the columns' sectional areas, then
(3.36)
where tHT is an initial vertical displacement caused by axial deformation of the
columns below the segment of the structure considered.
4. Due to reverse bending in the columns, resulting from the moment of the shear force
in the connecting beams, Fig. 3.5d.
(3.31)
and
0- r T(x)idx
- Jo E(Ic/2 + Ic/ 2)
(3.38)
where T(x) is given by Eqn. 3.23
i
2
LX
8T3 = El T(x)dx + 6HR
c .0
(3.39)
where 8HR is an initial vertical displacement caused by the reverse bending of columns
below the segment of the structure considered.
Considering compatibility of the beams' vertical disp!lcements at mid-span
(3.40)
Substituting in Eqn. 3.40 from Eqns. 3.26, 3.33, 3.36 and 3.39, the compatibility equation
for the frame segment becomes
i lX i
2
i
2
( 41 ) lX
- MF(X)dx - T'(x)- - - 1 + _c T(x)dx - ~ = 0
Elc 0 GA E1c i
2
A 0
(3.41)
where ~ is defined as the summation of all the initial vertical displacements (8HP - 6HT-
8UR) If the compatibility equation, Eqn. 3.41, is applied to two successive segments of
frame, the initial vertical displacement ~ of the upper segment is directly related to the
21
1
e
2 A


1
0
, jO)
h/Z _ _,.\1 1;, '"
:VJi
(a) Free bending of the columns (b) Racking of the frame
f
A,=f
L 2 .1.
(c) Axial deformation of the columns (d) Reverse bending in columns
Figure 3.5: Components of the relative deformations in beams
22
/,
l
..
\.
racking deformation at the top of the lower segment of frame. Therefore,
T'(H)12
Ao = - GA (of lower segment offra.me) (3.42)
Multiplying Eqn. 3.41 by GAI12
GA 1 r 1 GA ( 4Ic ) r GA
Elc l Jo MFdx - T(x) - Elc 1 + l2A Jo T(x)dx -12Ao = 0
(3.43)
Adding the Shear Wall to the Moment Resisting Frame
It has been shown (Stafford and Abergel, 1983) that a coupled-walilinked to one or
more shear walls can be represented by the same differential equation as for the coupled-wall
but with the values of the characteristic parameters modified to account for the added wall.
Since a moment-resisting frame can also be represented by the differential equation
for a coupled-wall, as demonstrated in the generalized method, the wall can be added ta
the frame and the coupled-wall differential equation representing the frame modified ta
represent the resulting wall-frame structure.
In the continuum model, the links of the discrete model are replaced by a distributed,
axially rigid linking medium eonstraining the components ta deftect identically, thus redis-
tributing the external load between the frame and the shear wall. If the medium is eut
along its height, equal and opposite distributed horizontal forces q(x) and concentrated top
interaction forces Q H are seen as acting on the frame and the wall, Fig. 3.6, ta maintain
compatibility of lateraI deftection. This gives two separately loaded systems. System 1 is
the wallloaded with a momellt Mw(x). The moment Mw(x) is the difference between the
total external moment ME(X) and the interacting force moment. System 2 is the frame
loaded only by the interacting forces, Q H and q(x), creating the interacting force moment
MF(X).
Tllerefore the moment acting on the wall is
(3.44)
The differential equation of the wall subjected to Mw( x) is
E1w ~ x ~ = Mw(x) (3.45)
In the frame, the expression for the single-curvature ben ding of the columns is:
(3.46)
23
....
- ~
C
QH
'"

'"


~ ..
~
-
-

- -
'"
-
-
'"
-
- IL d.r)
'"
-
q(x)
-

-
-

-
-
'"
-
-
'"
..

'"
..

~

~
r r
Figure 3.6: Forces acting on wall and frame
Adding Eqns. 3.45 and 3.46, and defiIting El as the summation of E1w and E1c, the total
bending of the wall-frame structure is
(3.47)
Substituting into Eqn. 3.43 the expression for MF{X), Eqn. 3.46, and using Eqn. 3.47
GA 1 r , GA ( 4EI) {X 0
2
El f. Jo ME(X)dx - T (x) - El 1 + EAl2 Jo T(x)dx - E I ~ o = 0
(3.48)
and defining the characteristic parameters for the wall-frame structure as
GA
0
2
=
El
k
2
4EI
=
1 + EAl2
k
2
El
or
=
1 + EAEc
2
Eqn. 3.48 becomes
a
2
r (X 0
2
T Jo ME(X)dx - T'(x) - (ka)2 Jo T(x)dx - (EILlo = 0 (3.49)
24
differentiating once
a
2
dT'(x)
iME(x) - dx - (ka)2T(x) = 0
(3.50)
and substituting Eqn. 3.23 for the axial force T(x)
ME(Z) - - (ka)' [lH T'(x)d% + pl = 0
(3.51)
The governing equation for the shear forces in the beams of the frame, when the frame is
linked to the wall, is obtained after differentiating Eqn. 3.50 or Eqn. 3.51.
(3.52)
This equation for a wall-frame structure with axial deformation of the columns, is
exactly the same as the one developed in the generalized solution for coupled-walls, rigid-
frames and braced-frames.
General Solution for the Shear Force Intensity T'(x)
The general solution of the differential equation, Eqn. 3.52, is
. 1 ( dME(X)
T'(x) = Cl smh ko:x + C2 cosh kax + k21 - dx
(3.53)
The constants Cl and C
2
are determined from the boundary conditions at the base
and the top of the segment of the structure considered .
At the base (x=O), from Eqn. 3.49
T'(O) = _0.
2
(3.54)
If the segment of structure considered is fixed at the base, there is no initial deforma-
tion and that boundary condition equals zero .
At the top (x=H), from Eqn. 3.51
dT'(H) = 0.
2
ME(H) _ (ka)2 Pl
dx l l
(3.55)
If there are no axial forces acting at the tops of the columns of the segment of the
structure, the second term on the right-hand side of Eqn. 3.55 vanishes.
25
1.
,,,
Deriving the DifferentiaI Equation for the Deftections
The lateral deflection equation can be easily found by integrating twice the curvature,
Eqn. 3.47, replacing the axial force T(x) by Eqn. 3.23, and using the expressions for the
constants Cl and C
2
from Eqn. 3.53. The boundary conditions necessary for solving the
deflections are the lateral deflection and slope at the base, y(O) and y'(0), respectivcly.
This procedure has the advantage of including boundary conditions reiating to tl\l'
initial racking deformation 6
0
, and the axial force at the top of the columns P, a.s in the
case of a segment of structure of a stepped wall-frame or other special cases tha.t will be
studied in the following chapters. A complete general solution including those boundary
conditions is given in Appendix A.2.
It is also possible to obtain the characteristic differential equation of a wall-frame
structure in terms of deflection. The expression for the column axial forces, T( x), given
by Eqn. 3.23. is introduced into Eqn. 3.49, and the expression for the shear force T'( x) is
replaced by
(3.56)
then,
Eld
3y
(x)_(k )2 El dy(x) _!dME(X) a
2
(k
2
-1) r
M
()d a
2
E1A
=0 (357)
i dx3 a l dx l dx + l Jo E x x + 12 uo .
Differentiating Eqn. 3.57 and multiplying through by il El
(3.58)
This differential equation, which was obtained by an approach different from the basic
theory for wall-frames, is exactly the same as the differential equation for the defiections
obtained in Section 3.2.1.
3.2.3 Murashev
Murashev (1971) proposed a continuum solution for the deflection, the bending mo-
ments and the lateral force in systems of rigid frames, wall-frames, and frames with coupled-
walls, having uniform properties along the height. His approach differs from the one by the
previous authors, in the chara.cteristic parameters used and the steps taken. It leads to a
generalized solution which is the same as the one proposed by Stafford Smith et al. (l9Rl).
There are three steps to Murashev's approach. First he considers the rigid frame alone
with only its shear rigidity, so the deflection is represented by
26
(3.59)
where KI is the racking shear stiffness of the frames, or the shear force to produce a unit
shear deflection per unit height.
In a second step, the axial deformations of the columns of the frame that give rise to
the rotation of the horizontal section, are introduced. A relationship is established between
the curvature caused by this axial flexibility
where
and the curvature caused by the racking shear action, so that
(3.60)
(3.61)
(3.62)
By integrating y"( x) twice, the expression for the lateral deflection of the frame be-
comes
(3.63)
The first term of Eqn. 3.63 represents the racking shear deformations, and the second
term the flexural deformations caused by the axial flexibility of the columns.
Finally Murashev generalizes the equation of bending, Eqn. 3.62, by considering the
single-curvature bending of the columns. The external moment, ME(X), is now resisted by
the axial forces in the colurnns, and the bending moment of the columns, Mbend. cal.(X).
where
Mbend. cal.(x) = KcY'(x) (3.64)
in which Kc = EE1c, the flexural rigidity of the columns in any one storey
The curvature as described in Eqn. 3.61 becomes
(3.65)
Rearranging Eqn. 3.62 to consider the part of the externalload resisted by the single
curvature bending of the columns, the final differential equation for a rigid frame is:
27
1
K
d4y(x) _ K ( "( ) _ ME(X) - Y"(X)) = ()
c dX4 J y x Ke W x
(3.(i6)
Establishing the equivaledce of K, and GA, Eqn. 3.66 is similar to Eqn. 3.14 from
the modified basic theory.
Murashev's approach leads to the samf' differential equation for the deflection of a.
frame, as proposed in the generalized solution. Then he adds a shear wall to the frame, in
the same manner as a shear wall is added to a coupled-wall in Stafford Smith and Ahergcl's
work (1983). The result is the same governing differential equation for a wall-frame with
axial deformation of the LOlumns, as Eqns. 3.20 and 3.58.
3.3 Solution of Differentiai Equation in terms of Deftection
The general solution of the fourth order differential equation, Eqn. 3.58, obtained
from the three different approaches is
(3.67)
where DI is a differential operator of order i.
For a uniform wall-frame structure with fixed base conditions, subjected to a unifofmly
distributed lateralload of intensity w, the boundary conditions necessary ta determine tht'
four constants of integration are:
1. The lateraI defiection at the base is zero
y(O) = 0 (3.68)
2. The slope at the base is zero
y'(O) = 0
(3.()9)
3. The bening moment in the wall at the top is equal ta zero
(3.70)
4. The shear due ta racking at the base of the frame, because (y'(0) = 0), is zero, and
all the external shear, SE(O), is resisted by the wall.
28
(3.71)
(3.72)
The expression for the external moment is
ME(X) = ; (H - X)2 (3.73)
Hence the second and higher derivatives of the external moment are zero. The general
solution in terms of the externalloading, w, is then
y(X) = C
3
+ C
4
x + Cs cosh kax + Cssinh kax
1 [1 wH
2
(I-x)2 2 2 VJH
4
4 1 w ]
- EI(ka)2 k2 -2- aH - a (k - 1)24(1 - x) + k2 (ka)2
(3.74)
Applying the boundary conditions, and solving for the constants and substituting
them into Eqn. 3.74, the expression for the lateral defiection of a wall-frame subjected to a
uniform lateralload of intp.nsity w, is
y(x) = ~ (k'k; 1) [H;)' -H; r + ;4 (;)'j
+..!.. [2(X
I
H) - (xl H)2 + (1 + kaH sinh kaH)( cosh kax - 1) _ sinh kax] (375)
k
2
2(kaH)2 (kaH)4 cosh kaH (kaH)3'
The derivatives of Eqn. 3.75 ale given in Appendix A.1.1, together with the solu-
tions for other standard cases of 10alUng: a concentrated horizontal force at the top, a
concentrated moment at the top, and a t.riangular distributed load.
Note that the generalized solution of Section 3.2.2 leads to the same equa.tions when
considering the appropriate external moment and boundary conditions.
3.4 Interpretation of Continuum Solution
The deflection equation for a uniform wall-frame structure subjected to a uniformly
distributed load can be more easily interpreted if a gross inertia Ig is used (Stafford Smith
et al. (1981. The gross inertia is defined as the summation of the total inertia of the
columns 'E1c and the walls 'L.l
w
, with the second moment of area of the columns 'L.Ac
2

2 2 k
2
Ig = E/c -t- E/w + EAc = 1 + EAc = 1 (k2 _ 1)
(3.76)
This gross inertia takes into consideration the axial flexibility of the columns of the
frames. The defiection equation is then rewritten, and divided in three parts, A, B, and C.
29
!-
y(x)
= wH4 [! ~ ) 2 _ ! (3:...)3 ..!. (!!...)4] wH
4
1 [2(X/ Il) - (.xl Il)'l]
Elg 4 H 6 H + 24 H + Elg (k
2
-1) 2(kall)2
, y , , ..... '
A B
WH4 [( 1 + kaH sinh kaH)( cosh kax - 1) sinh kaX]
+-- -----::-
Elg (kaH)4 coshkaH (kaH)3
(3.77)
, ,
...
l
The first part (A) is recognized as the deftf>ction equation for a fiexu ral cantilever of
rigidity Elg, subjected to a ul'iformly distrihuted loading of intensity w, with the origin of
the x-axis at the fixed end.
The second part (E) is less obviously rccognizable. However, by substituting for [g,
0:
2
, and the values of El and GA, it simplifies to
1 wH2 [x 1 (X ) 2]
y( X)B = k4 GA H - 2 II
(3.78)
For structures in which :EAc
2
comprises a dominant part of 19, or in which 1 is small
relative to 19, as in rigid f,ames, braced frames, or wall-frames with severa! frames having
a large structural width, k
2
is approximately unity. Then
WH2 [x 1 ( x ) 2]
y( X ) B = GA H - 2 H
(3.79)
which is the deflection equation of a shear cantilever of shear rigidi ty GA, subjectcd to a
uniformly distributed loading of illtensity w. When k'2 is different from unit y, or 1 is a
significant proportion of 19, the flexural behaviour becomes more significant, and this shear
part of the total deflection is relatively less.
The last part of the deflection equation (C), has a profile of a negative shear cnrve. For
structures with large values of aH, greater than 40, sueh as wall-frames with a h l ~ h shea.r
rigidity GA, this term tends to zero. This part of the deflection e<luation represf'nts the
effeets of the interaction between the walls and frames whieh tends to reduce the proportions
of the other contributions (A and B). Part (C) inrreases in importance for wall-frames with
lower values of aH, in the range of 1.5 ta 10, in which the shear walls or cores are rela.tively
stiff.
3.5 Solution for Forces
The continuum solution can provide results for forces in the wall and the frame.
30
The external moment is resisted by moments in the frame and the wall
where ET xl
and, MB(X)
= couple made by the axial forces in the columns
= the single-curvature bending moment of the walls and columns
~ ~
= El dx} = (Elw + Elc}p
The external shear is equal to
where A represents the shear related to single curvature bending in the wall and
the columns, B represents the shear in the frame due to racking and C
represents a reduction due to axial deformation of the columns.
Therefore, the shear in the walls is
(3.80)
(3.81)
(3.82)
from which the moment in the wall at top or bottom of a typical storey in the discrete
structure can be deduced by adding to it the double-curvature moment produced by the
shear at the mid-storey height
h
Mw,to'P or bottom of a 6torey = Mw(x) Sw(X)2'
(3.83)
The shear in the frame is
S,ex) = w(B - x) - Sw(x) (3.84)
The double-curvature moments at the top or bottom of the columns in any typical
storey of the frame can be calculated similarly from the shear force at the mid-storey height
of that same storey.
To obtain the forces in the individual columns and girders of a frame, any traditional
method of frame analysis can be used to redistribute the resulting load on that frame.
For multi-bent wall-frame structures, the forces obtained from the continuum solution
are the totals of the forces resisted by the wa.lls, and of those by the frames of the mode!. The
total ben ding moment and shear at any level in the lumped wall are distributed between the
walls according to their relative flexural rigidities. The total shear in the lumped frame is
distributed between the frames according to their relative shear rigidities, providing there is
negligible axial deformations of the columns. In the case of frames with axial deformations
of the columns the distribution of the forces between them is more complex.
31
1
3.6 Influence of Characteristic Parameters
In a wall-frame structure, flexural and shear behaviour are combined. Depending on
whether the flexural or shear behaviour is dominant, the deflected shape has a point of
inflexion located, respectively, higher or lower in the height of the structure. The relativl'
importance of the flexural and the shear modes of deformation of a wall-frame are related to
its characteristic parameters aH and k
2
. Curves giving the location of the point of inflexion
for ranges of the two parameters, Figs. 3.7 and 3.8, provide an indication of thdr influencE!
on the hehaviour of the wall-frame structure.
The point of inflexion, which roincides with the level of maximum storey drift, ~
corresponds to the point where the curvature, ~ is zero in a wall frame structure. Using
the equation for ~ given in Appendix A.1.1 for a uniformly distrihuted load, the location
of the point of inflexion may he found by an iterative solution using Halley's algorithm,
Appendix A.1.2.
For structures with stiff walls, resulting in a low value of aH (lower than 1.5), the
axial deformations of the columns of the frame, which determine the parame ter k
2
, do Ilot
influence significantly the location of the point of inflexion which then lies in the top third
of the structure. A shear wall alone has a value of QH equal to zero, and the inflexion point
is effectively at the top of the wall. For structures with aH between .5 and 1.5, the location
of the inflexion point can he approximated by the following straightline equation.
I.P. = 1.0625 - .275(QH) (3.85)
Structures having wallframe relative stiffnesses in an intermediate range, with values
of QH between 1.5 and 10.0, are more influenced by the shear mode of the frame and
the axial deformation of the columns. In general, for wall-frames with QH between 1.5
and approximately 4.0, additional shear rigidity (i.e. increasing aH) lowers the point of
inflexion, but for QH greater than 4.0 additional shear rigidity raises the point of inflexion if
there is axial deformation of the columns in the frame. The axial deformations can change
the overall behavlur of the structure frorn heing predominantly shear to predominantly
flexural. For example, a structure with aH equal to 5.0, and k
2
= 1.0, that is having no
axial deformations, the point of inflexion is at approximately a third of the height. If axial
deformations occur, ta the extent of increasing k
2
to 1.2, the point of inflexion moves above
the mid-height, showing the predominance of the flexural mode of behaviour. In that range
of aH the point of inflexion is generally between 0.25 and 0.7 of the height.
In the range of values of QH between 10.0 and 40.0, and k
2
greater than Ilnity, the
location of the inflexion point increases with QH.
For higher values of aH, greater than 40, the inflexion point stabilizes in location and
is no longer influenced by additional shear rigidity. The influence of the axial deformations
is, however, very important, and the point of inflexion rises from approximately .75 of the
height for k
2
= 1.005, to almost the top for k
2
greater than 1.2.
32
t
1.0
0.9
0.8
......
J:
'-.
)(
0.7
......,
..
oC
CIl

0.6
J:

5
0.5
CIl
c
0
0.4
<i!
c
0
;J
0.3
0
u
.9
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 10
aH
Figure 3.7: Location of point of inflexion for aH < 10
1.0
0.9
0.8

0.7
'-.

..
0.6 oC
CIl
'i
J:
0.5

5
CIl
0.4
c
0
<i!
c 0.3
0
:;1
0
u
0.2 0
..J
0.1
k
2
:: 1.0
0.0
0 80 100
aH
(
Figure 3.8: Location of point of inflexion for aH < 100
..
33
1 To summarize, wall-frame structures can he divided into four categories, according to
their value of aR:
1. Low values of aH 1.5), representing structures that behave predomillalltly as
flexural cantilevers and are not inftuenced by the axial deformations of the columns.
This range includes wall-frame structures with very stiff walls and few, flexible frames;
~ Values of oH hetween 1.5 and 10, representing structures with a 'balanced' lH'haviour
in which the predominance of flexure increases with k
2
This 'balanced' bl'haviour is
more accentuated for structures with values of oH hetween loS and 4.0, and for which
the frame shear is almost uniform over the height. For example wh('n the v,l.lue of ('( /1
is about 3.5, the point of inflexion is always around mid-height, no matter what the
value of k
2
For su ch structures, for example wall-frames with comparably stiff wa.lls
and frames, it can be said that the relative stiffnesses of the wall and frame causes a
high degree of interaction;
3. Values of aH between 10 and 40. In this region the structure becomes very s('nsi tive
to the parameter k
2
, that is to the axial flexibility of the columns. When k
2
is unit y,
that is when the columns are axially rigid, the structure behaves predominantly a.s a
shear cantilever; and when k
2
increases the flexura.l mode becomes highly significant.
4. Righ values of aH (> 40), representing structurE:'S with flexible walls and stiff frames,
that behave compositely mainly in a flexural mode when the axial flexibility of the
columns is considered, that is when the parameter k
2
is greater than unity.
The parameters oH and k
2
of a structure allow the deflected shape to be determined
and the total drift can be found as a function of wH
4
/ El from the continuum solution.
Fig. 3.9 shows curves of the total drift factor Kt when the structure is umformly loaded,
with respect to different values of oH and k
2
.
where Kt is defined by Eqn. A.9 as
wll"
y(H) = --](t
EIg
r;" 1 1 [1 (coshkaH -1- kaHSinhkaH)]
.L\. t = - + + .:....-.------...,....,...---,:-------...:..
8 (k
2
-1) 2(kaH)2 (kaH)4coshkoH
(3.86)
(3.87)
Assuming there are no a:cial deformations of the column, an increase in the sh('ar
rigidity of the frame, causing an increase in the value of a1l, reduces the coefficient Kt and
the total drift. If the flexural rigidity of the wall is reduced, also increasing the value of
aH, the coefficient Kt diminishes, but the total dflft is generally i ncrea.'ied because of the
change in the gross inertia.
If axial deformations are allowed, causing the parameter k
2
to be greater than unit y,
the flexibility of the structure increases and so does the total drift. According to Fig. 3.9,
a greater value of the characteristic parameter k
2
corresponds to a 1>maller c()('fl'tcient K"
but an increase in k
2
reduces the gross inertia, resulting in an increased total drift.
34
1
1.50
Kt 1.00
0.!l0
0.00 1
10
aH
Figure 3.9: Top drift coefficient for a uniformly loaded wall-frame
u.h/2
~
wh
..
wh
..
uh
-
u.h
, ' I I I ~ ~ r.'1
Discrele model
r.?
w
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
w
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Conlmuum model
Figure 3.10: Application of the load on the discrete and continuum structures
35
.....
The effects on a structure's total drift of modifying its parameters oH and k
2
, can he
seen in Figs. A.l and A.2, in Appendix A.1.3, showing the curves of and
versus the parameter oH.
For a given value of k
2
, increasing the value of oll of a structure will, in all cases,
reduce the coefficient of the top deflection. This effect is greater for lesser values of 0 Il.
If no modification is made to the flexural inertia El, this corresponds to a reduction in
top deflection. However, if El is reduced, this generally corresponds to an increase in top
deflection.
For a given value of oH, increasing the value of k
2
to be larger than Illlity 111l'leal>eS
the deflections. This effect is greater for lesser values of k
2
.
Generally, above certain values of k
2
and oH (around 1.5 for k
2
and 10 for (11),
the structure is not really influenced by small modifications of either k
2
or 011. It is,
therefore, more important to appreciate the influence of modifying a structure with low or
intermediate values of oH and k
2

3.7 Comparisons Between Continuum and Discrete Model
Solutions
The precision of the continuum solution depends main!y on the numher of of
the structure analysed. As the nurnber of storeys increases, the continuum more close!y
represents the discrete structure. The other sources of differences in accuracy belw<,en
the continuum and discrete representations arise principally from deficiencies in the baSIC
assumptions, as explained below.
3.7.1 Deficiencies in Assumptions for Continuum Method
In the continuum model the flexural rigidity of the wall and the shear ngidity of tht>
frame are assumed constant over all the height. For the original frame to correspond to
this, it should have a half-size beam at the top level and it should behave at 3.11leve!s in the
same way as a typical intermediate storey; that is, there shou!d be pOlIlts of wntraflexure at
the mid-height of the columns. However, even with a half-size beam at the top, tlH' points
of contraflexure in the columns of the first and top storeys of a moment-resbting frame a.re
displaced significantly from the mid-storey !eve!s. Therefore, in thohe regions the lontlllllllm
model is an inadequate representatlOn of the discrete solutIOn. Considering the top half-!>ize
beam of the discrete structure smeared downwards over the top half storey, and th<, other
full-size beams each smeared over half storeys upwards and downwards, it may be !>een that
the bottom half-storey of the continuum is additional to a stnctly ne{'essary rf'presen talion
of the discrete structure. On this account the continuum mode! is stiffer at the ba..,e than
the discrete structure.
The condition of zero slope at the base of the continuum structure implies a zero shear
at the base of the frame. In the discrete structure, the frame deflects sideways at the first
36
.,.
floor level, therefore shear must exist throughout the whole height of the first storey. This
difference between the continuum and the discrete model also makes the continuum model
stiffer.
In the discrete solution a concentrated load of intensity wh is applied at each level, and
wh/2 is applied at the top, whereas in the continuum model the resultant of the top half-
storey distributed load is at h/4 from the top, Fig. 3.10. The moment at the midheight of
the top floor is therefore smaller in the continuum solution, tending to reduce the deflection
of the top floor, and contributing to make the continuum model stiffer.
In the discrete representation, the load between the base and tbe half first-storey
height, which should be applied at the quarter-storey level is, in fact, omitted, Fig. 3.10. ln
the continuum representation, however, the whole of the load in the base region is applied.
Thus, the continuum structure is loaded more at the base, increasing the deflections slightly.
This effect partly neutralizes the reduction in deflections in the continuum model caused
by the previously discussed assumptions.
In general the solution for a continuum model underestimates the deflections in com-
parison with that for a discrete model. As explained, the principal reasons are:
The continuum models' incorrect representation of the discrete frame's shear rigidity
near the base and the top.
The stiffer conditions at the base
The application of the load at the top.
These factors, which make the continuum model stiffer, generally prevail over the
others.
3.7.2 Examples
Using a basic structure, the difference between the continuum and discrete solutions
will be illustrated. The illfluence of the chara.cteristic parameters on the mode ofbehaviour,
shear or flexure, will aIso be shown by modifying the walls inertia and allowing for axial
deformations.
A simple plan symmetricaI wall-frame structure of twenty storeys, comprising two
double.bay moment-resisting frames, and two shear walls, Fig. 3.ll, was anaIysed first using
the continuum solution, and then by a discrete method using a frame analysis program.
The symmetry of the structure allowed it to be represented by a planar mode} with
one wall and one frame linked together, Fig. 3.11. In tbe discrete model the beams, the
colurons and the wall are modelled by beam elements, the wall being replaced at its centroid
by a column of the same inertia and sectionaI area. The analyses were performed using the
commercial fini te element program SAP80, which permits the use of a rigid-floor option
constraining the lateraI degrees offreedom of the elements on each same floor to be related
as though attached to a horizontal rigid diaphragm.
37
t
25 Ir.N
...
50/cN
---+
---+
---+
---+
---+
1
1
G,\
1 !
r. r.
"'7
E
o
r-
1."" " . ~
1
1
_1
1
r d l n 1
( rt. Oln con, roi ..
ln Y rllrpcllon
1
1
i

-- - -
- '/
Figure 3.11: Example analyses of wall frame structures to illustrate influence of
characteristic parameters variation
38
This basic structure will be used in the following chapters as an example structure
with different values of the characteristic parameters, oH and /c2. Tables B.1 to B.3 in
Appendix B present the properties of the frame and wall for the whole range of example
structures.
To minimize the differences between the continuum and discrete models, the top beam
of the discrete structure was assigned to be half the size of the typical beams, as assumed
in the continuum solution.
Influence of Wall-Frame Relative Stift'ness, oH
The change in behaviour of the structure due to the change in the relative stiffnesses
of the walls and frames was illustrated by assigning the shear wall three different inertias,
to give three similar structures, but with different values of the parameter aH (refer to
Tables B.1 to B.3 for properties).
Taking k
2
= 1.0, oH was taken in turn as 1.32, 3.41 and 15.34.
Influence of Axial Deformation in Columns, /c2
The importance of considering the axial deformation of the columns in the continuum
solution was illustrated by computing the deflections for the above three structures assuming
first no axial deformation of the columns, i.e. k
2
=1.0, and then repeating the analyses with
axial deformations allowed by increasing k
2
Values of /c2 were adopted as follows:
Example E4.1 : aIl = 1.32, k
2
= 1.0and k
2
= 1.2125
Example E4.2 : oH = 3.41, k
2
= 1.0 and k
2
= 1.0317
Example E4.3 : oH = 15.34, k
2
= 1.0 and k
2
= 1.0016
The results for the lateral deflections for each example arc slwwn in Fig. 3.12. Con-
sidering the results from the discrete solution when axial deformations are allowed, the
accuracy of the continuum solution is illustrated by indicating the percentage change in top
deflection between the two solutions.
The forces in the walls and frames for Example E4.2, aH =3.41 and k
2
= 1.03, are
compared for the solutions in Fig. 3.13.
Discussion of Results
As discuss in Section 3.7.1, the continuum model is stiffer than the discrete one and
predicts smaller deftections, Fig. 3.12. The difference between the two solutions, is reduced
for the structures with the lower values of oH, which result from having a stiffer wall. The
greater continuity of the properties in the wall-dominant structure cause the continuum
39
1
20
15
Qj
> 10
V
....J
5

(-15.) (-6 . .:5!I)
/1
20
1"'1
/Z
,
II,
,
,
II,
15


,

,
,

ai ,
> 10
Il)
-l
aH
=
1..32
5
Lateral Deflection (m) Lateral
20
15
10
V
....J
5
-- Stlffness matrnc solutl9n (k
2
JI , 0)
- - Continuum solution (k
2
1 , 0)
. Continuum solution (k = , 0)
Figure 3.12: Comparison of lateral deflections of continuum and d!:,crete models
40
c
(
Wall Moment (kNom)
2 0 ~ ~
15
~ 10
Q)
.....J
5
Frame Shear (kN)
-- Stiffness motrix solution
- - Continuum solution
Figure 3.13: Comparison of forces in continuum and discrete models for example
structure with oH = 3.41 and k
2
= 1.03
41
r
....
and discrete models to he more similar. When the frame is relatively stiffer, that is in tht'
structure with aH =15.34, the continuum model loses sorne accuracy. These results ruso
sbow how the addition of axial flexibility to the columns (k
2
:f l.0) increases the dellertion
and the flexural hehaviour, especially for the two last examples wit.h oH greater th.Ul l.f).
It is therefore important to consider the axial deformations of the columns in the continuulll
solution. If they are not considered, as when k
2
=1.0, the top deflf'ction of tht' strurture
with the greater value of oH can be underestimated hy more than 16%.
The correspondence hetween the two types of solution for the IH'nding maillent in tll('
wall is very close, Fig. 3.13a. The shear force in the discrete structure is necessarily constant
over a storey height while in the continuum structure it varies continuously. Therefore, cUly
comparisons should he made at the midstorey levels. In Fig. 3.13b the shear forces in the
frame generally compa!'<.! weIl, the major differences appearing at the base because of the
assumption of zero shear in the frame .
42
Chapter 4
Horizontal Interaction
Although in the earlier studies on wall-frame structures, the horizontal interaction has
been recognized to contribute to the lateraI stiffness of the structure, no investigation has
been done to determine to which extend it does contribute. Considering that the subject
of this thesis is concerned with ways of modifying the horizontal interaction, by physically
changing the structure, and thereby changing its behaviour, it is appropriate that a thorough
study of wall-frame horizontal interaction should first be made.
There are two components to the horizontaI interaction: a concentrated interaction
furce acting at the top of the wall and frame and a distributed interaction acting along the
height.
To ascertain the stiffening effect of the horizontal interaction, the composite lateral
stiffness of a wall-frame structure is compared with the lateraI stiffness of a wall and a frame
linked at the top only.
4.1 Effect of Interaction on Horizontal Stiffness of
Wall-Frame Structure
A wall and a frame linked at the top have an identical top deflection and, when
suhjccted to a concentrated top load, the lateraI stiffness at the top is the summation of
their respective top stiffnesses.
In a wall-frame structure, the wall and the frame interact horizontally through the
floor slabs, and deftect identically at every level. The composite lateral stiffness is then
greater than the summation of the respective separate top stiffnesses. The evaluation of
the increase in stiffness caused by the top concentrated interactive force and the distributed
interaction along the height, permits an assessment of the influence of the characteristic
parameters aH and k
2
on the stiffening effect of the horizontal interaction.
4.1.1 Overall Lateral Stiffness
The cases of a fully interacting wall-frame and a walilinked to a frame at the top onl)',
will be compared for a concentrated load applied at the top of the structure. A uniformly
43
1 distributed lateral load could not be used to compare the lateral stiffnesses because tll<'
top lateral stiffness of a wall linked to the top of a frame and subjected to an l'xterna\
distributed load varies, depending on the component to which the Joad is applied.
The lateral defiection of a wall and a framp. linked at the top can be calcu\ated from
either the forces acting on the wall, or from the forces on the frame. The shear wall of
fiexural rigidity El is subjected to the concentrated load, 5, and a top interactive force, F,
acting through the link, Fig. 4.1. Therefore, its top defiection is:
(4.1)
The moment resisting frame, of racking shear rigidity GA, deftects under the top
interactive force F. If axial deformations of the columns are considered, its top defiection
is
FR FIl
3
YJ(H) = GA + 3EEAc2
(4.2)
Using Eqn. 4.2, the top interactive force, F, may be expressed as a function of the
frame top deflection y/(H), and the characteristic parameters aIl and k
2
as defined in
Chapter 3
3GA
F = YJ(H) H(3 + (k2 _ 1)(aH)2)
(4.3)
Introducing this expression into Eqn. 4.1 and solving for the top defiection of a wall
and a frame linked at the top, Ylink(H), knowing that
Ylmk(H) = yw(H) = Yf(H) ( 4.4)
then,
( 4.5)
Defining the lateral stiffness as the force required to produce a unit displacement, the
latera.1 stiffness KI of a wall and a frame linked at the top is the ratio of the applied load
S, to the top deflection Ylank'
( 4.6)
Hence
3EI [ (aH)2 1
KI = H3 1 + (3 + (k2 _ 1)(aH)2)
( 4.7)
44
For a wallframe structure in which the wall and frame interact aU along the height,
the overall lateral stiffness K 2 is given by the ratio of the top force, S, to the top deflection
y(H), as given by the continuum solution, Eqn. A.14 in Appendix A.l.I.
(
H) = SH3 [(k
2
- 1) 1- (kaH - tanh kaH)]
y El 3k
2
+ k
2
(kaH)3
(4.8)
Then,
y(H) 3EI [ 1 1
K
2
= S = H3 (k'2;l) + 3 (lsgH-lanhlsoH)
le P (lsoH}3
(4.9)
The increase in lateral stiffness of a wall-frame structure that can be attributed to
connecting the structure at every level, as opposed to just at the top is given by tne difference
in lateral stiffness when the wall and framp are linked all over the height, ](2, and when
they are linked at the top only, KI, given respectively by Eqns. 4.9 and 4.7.
Expressed as a percentage, the increase in lateral stiffness = (K2
K1
K
I) X 100
4.1.2 Influence of crH and P on Stiffening Effect of Interaction
The influence of the relative stiffness between the walls and frames and the axial
deformation of the columns, can be ascertain by computing the percentage increase in
lateral stiffness for series of values of the parameters oH and k
2

Curves of the increase in lateral stiffness versus the characteristic parameter aH, are
shown in Fig. 4.2 when axial deformations of the columns are nE'glected, i.e. when k
2
= 1.0,
and when they are signincant, i.e. when k
2
= 1.2. These curves clearly indicate that for
each value of k
2
there is a "alue of oH for which the horizontal interaction is most effective
in stiffening the structure.
When there is no axial deformation of the columns, i.e. for k
2
= 1.0, the maximum
increlse in stiffness due to the interaction occnrs for a value of aH equal to 3.5, and when
axial deformations of the columns are considered, i.e. for k
2
= 1.2, the maximum increase
is for a value of oH equal to 2.25. Structures with such values of oH, between 1.5 and 4.0
or more widely between 1.5 and 10.0, were referred to in Section 3.6 as having a 'balanced'
behaviour.
The addition of axial flexibility to the columns of the frame reduces the effects of
the horizontal interaction on the lateral stiffness of the structure. Considering a structure
with a given value of aH and initially no axial deformation of the columns, Le. k
2
:; 1.0,
when axial flexibility is added, the inclination of the frame increases, resulting in greater
lateral deflectiolls. The relative lateral stiffness of the frame to the wall is reduced, thereby
reducing the intensity of the horizontal interaction and the stiffening effect. It is shown In
45
For a wa.ll-fra.me structure in which the wall and frame interact all along the height,
the overalliateral stiffness K 2 is given by the ratio of the top force, S, ta the top deflection
y(H), as given by the continuum solution, Eqn. A.14 in Appendix A.1.i.
(H) = SH3 [(k
2
- 1) ..!. (kOH - tanhkOlI)]
y El + k
2
(koll)3
( 4.8)
Then,
/(2 - y(H) - 3EI [ 1 1
- S - H3 (k
2
;1) + 3 (koH-tanhk,df)
k k! (koH)3
( 4.9)
The increase in lateral stiffness of a wallframe structure that can be attribllted ta
connecting the structure at every level, as opposed to just at the top is given by the difference
in lateral stiffness when the wall and frame are linked all over the height, 1\'2, and when
they are linked at the top only, /(t, given respectively by Eqns. 4.9 and 4.7.
Expressed as a percentage, the increase in lateral stlffness = (K2
K
\Ktl x 100
4.1.2 Influence of aH and k
2
on Stiffening Effect of Interaction
The influence of the relative stiffness between the walls and frames and the axial
deformation of the columns, can be ascertalll by computmg the percenlage increase in
lateral stiffness for a sene of values of the parameters oH and k
2

Curves of the increase in lateral stiffness versus the characterisllc parampter oll , are
shawn in Fig. 4.2 when axial deformatlons of the columns are neglected, I.e. when k
2
= 1.0,
and when they are significant, i.e. when k
2
= 1.2. These ('urve& clearly indlcate that for
each value of k
2
there is a value of 0// for whlch the horizontal mtp.ractloll IS most dfectivp
in stiffening the structure.
\Vhen there is no axial deformatlOn of the columns, I.e for P = 1.0, the maximum
increase in stiffness due to the interaction occurs for a value of 011 equal to 3 .5, and whpn
axial deformations of the columns are considered, i.e. for k
2
= 1.2, the maximum increase
is for a vd.lue of oH equal to 2.25. Structures with such values of ail, between 1.5 and 4.0
or more widely between 1.5 and 10.0, were referred ta ln SectIOn :1.6 as ha.VUlg a 'ba.ldllcpd'
behaviour.
The addition of axial flexibility to the columns of the frame reduces thp. effects of
the horizontal interaction on the lateral stiffness of the structure. COllsidering a structure
with a glven value of oH and initially no axlal deformation of the I.e. k
l
= 1.0,
when axial flexibility is added, the inclination of the frame increa:.e!-l, resulting ln greater
lateral deflections. The relative lateral stiffnes8 of the frame to the wall 18 redu('('d, thereby
reducing the intensity of the horizontal interaction and the stiffenint?; effect. It 1& shawn in
45
x
Shear !domenl-reslslmg
wall Prame
s
F
.. 1--4- --....
CA
El

y
Figure 4.1: Wall and frame linked at the top
,.....
!!.
Il
10
Il

C
....
....
.,
V1
"0
...
"
v
..
0
..J
\
.5
5

\
..
0
\
u
...
u
.s
\
'\.
......

0
0 10 20 JO 40
aH
Figure 4.2: Effect of the interaction on the lateral stiffness
46
1

--- -------------------------
Fig. 4.2, that for aH = 3.5 the increase in lateral stiffness due to interaction when k
J
= 1.0
is almost double that when k
2
= 1.2.
The addition of axial flexibility to the columns modifies tht> effect of the horizontal
interaction on the lateral stiffness by an amount depending of the value of li Il. Wlll'n olle
of the components, either the wall or the frame, is relatively a lot stiffer, the int('ractioll
does not increa.se the lateraI stiffness significantly. The greater th(' value of nll, the Il'S8
important the stiffening effect of the horizontal interaction. However, the addition of axial
flexibility to the columns of structures having greater valueb of oH re(II1('('s tlll' oVt'f.tll
stiffness a lot more than for those with smaller values.
The structures in which the horizontal interaction is the m08t etf('ctivp III latera..l
stiffening, are those with comparable contributions to the lateral stiffness from the wall and
the frame, i.e with aH between 1.5 and 10.0, and more precisely, th05(, with ail betwe('n 1.5
and 4.0. The sm aller the value of k
2
the greater the increase in lateral stiffness. Conversely,
the increase in lateral stiffness due to the horizontal interaction is not as slgllificant in wall
frames with a dominant flexural mode, i.e. with small values of aH, below 1.5, or with
values of aH greater than 10.0 and axtal deformations of the columlls, i.e. k
2
greater thall
unity.
4.2 Evaluation of Interactive Forces from Continuum
Solution
In a discrete planar model, the horizontal interaction ~ represpnted by axial forces in
the rigid links joming the wall and the frame at each Hoor level. In the case of the externa.1
load being applied to the wall, the horizontal interaction is also equal to the difference in
shear in the frame between two successive storeys. In a continuum model the interactive
force per unit height is q(x), which is the differential of the shear force in the frame; t"at is
dS,
q(x) = -
dx
( 4.10)
From the continuum solution of a uniform wall-frame structure subjected to an ext('r-
nal moment ME(X), the shear in the frame at height x is:
(4.11)
Assuming the moment of inertia of the walls lS much greater than the sum of the colurons'
inertias, so that Elw ~ El, q(x) becoroes,
(4.12)
47
l
r
where
(4.13)
then
(4.14)
This representation of the interaction force is a continuous distribution, as shawn in
Fig. 4.3. Eqn. 4.14 indicates that for structures with negligible axial deformations of the
columns, that is for k
2
= 1.0, the level of zero interaction, which corresponds to the change
in sense of interaction, concides with the point of inflexion, where = O. When axial
deformations of the columns are significant, the increase in the flexural mode behaviour
raises the point of inflexion while the point of zero interaction tends ta move slightly down
the structure.
To obtain the equivalence with the discrete interactive force acting at fioor level, l,
the value of q( x) at that floor level is multiplied by the storey height h.
Q, = (q(x) X h), ( 4.15)
This gives an approximate value of the interactive force because it assumes a constant
variation of q(x) over the height h, Fig. 4.4.
The force in the link at a level x, Qr, for a uniformly distributed external load of
intensity w is obtained from Eqns. 4.14 and A.8 in Appendix A.l.l.
Q
_ wh [_ (koHsinhkaH + l)coshkax _ k H . hk ]
r - k2 1 + coshkaH 0 SIn ox
( 4.16)
Note that in the case of the external load being applied ta the frame, the horizontal
interaction is equal to the difference in shear in the wall between two successive storeys.
The resulting interactive force per unit height q(x) is therefore obtained by Eqn. 4.14 plus
the distributed load w. Similarly, the expression for the concentrated force at the top Qr
is given by Eqn. 4.16 plus wh.
4.3 Interaction at Top
4.3.1 Intensity of Interactive Force at Top
According to Eqn. 4.16, the interaction force at the top of the structure, x = H,
is zero. However, at the top of the wallframe structure the frame is usually relatively
stiffer than the wall, and naturally tends to assume a vertical slope, as in its free mode of
deftection. Because of the horizontal interconnection between the wall and the frame, the
two components must deftect identically, and at the top the frame must adopt the slope
48
.,
rotCPh tlll\uUlt
llt tr.Jme

def I,f t r.lme
Figure 4.3: Distribution of interaction force according to the continuum solution
A
Y
----
--


\
A
)
il
'I( 1 ,
U
D
'1/ l',
Figure 4.4: Evaluation of the discrete interaction force at level x from base, using
the continuum solution
49
1
1
of the structure. This requires a concentrated horizontal force to act at the top of the
frame with an equal reactive force on the top of the wall. The magnitude of this interactive
force Q H is equal to the product of the racking rigidity of the frame and its inclination
corresponding to shear deformation, Fig. 4.5.
The interaction will be considered first as though the frame columns are a.x.ially rigid,
and then allowing for the effects of axial deformations.
Neglecting axial deformations of columns (k
2
= 1.0)
Normally, the top inclination of the frame is a combination of the rotation due to
racking shear of the storey and rotation due to axial deformation of the columns. If axial
deformation of the columns are neglected, the inclination of the top storey is entirely due
to racking of that storey, which is the sarue as the inclination of the wall y'( H).
Considering the top haU of the top storey of the frame of shear rigidity G AH, the
shear required for it to be constrained to the same slope as the wall is Q H, Fig. 4.5;
where
QH = y'(H) X GAH ( 4.17)
in which y'(H) is the inclination at the top of the wall, which is also equal to the inclination
caused by the racking of the frame, 6
r

Assuming that the point of contraflexure in the columns is at the midstorey height,
and that the top beam's inertia is half the value of a typical beam (i.e. 1&/2), the shear
rigidity of the top half-storey is equal to GA, that is
GAH = GA ( 4.18)
and
QH = y'(H) x GA (4.19)
Considering Axial Deformations of Columns (k
2
~ 1.0)
If axial deformations of the columns are allowed for, the total inclination of the top
storey of the frame is:
( 4.20)
where 6
t
is the total mclination of the structure corresponding to the inclination at the top
of the wall, y'(H), and Or and ~ are, respectively, the rotations of the frame related to
racking deformation, and to the axial deformations of the columns, Fig. 3.1
The component of the rotation that has to he considered in calculating the shear force
at the top, Q H, is the rotation related to racking, Or.
50
.'
-
- -t----I
- -1---04
t- ....... __ ..
... .. .... ---1
...... --...
- - .... --...
- - .... --...
-
Figure 4.5: Concentrated interaction force QH at the top of a wall-frame structurE'
0.20
:J:
l,
:1
1
..........
\
le
0
\
0.15
QI
\
0
L-
0
\ U-
r:: \
0 0.10
\
0
\ 0
L-
4)
....
..s
0.05
a.
0
1-
- --
- -
0.00 0
10 20 30 40
aH
Figure 4.6: Variation of the top interaction force Q H versus the characteristl< ..
parameter aH
51
r
QH = 9, XGAH ( 4.21)
According to Eqn. 4.20, that rotation is the difference between the total top inclination
and the inclination related to axial deformation of the columns.
9, = y'(H) - tH ( 4.22)
The rotation caused by axial deformations of the columns, tH, can be evaluated by
the moment area method, taking the first moment about the top of the are a of the moment
diagram in the frame between the base and the top, divided by EEAc
2
The moment in
the frame is mainly carried by the axial forces in the columns, T(z) X l. Therefore,
tH = rH T(z)ldx
Jo EEAc
2
where, for a uniformly distributed lateralload of intensity w
(4.23)
T(x) x e = ME(X) _ El
d2y
(x) = w(H - x)2 _ El
d2y
(x) (4.24)
dx
2
2 dx
2
Substituting this in Eqn. 4.23
1 rH [ w(H - x)3 ,]
~ = EEAc
2
Jo - 6 - Ely (x) dx
from which
1 [ WR3]
H = EEAc2 -Ely'(H) + 6
if EEAc
2
= EI(k
2
- 1), then
that is
tH = _(k
2
-1)y'(H) + (k
2
- 1) wH3
El 6
tH = k2y'(H) _ (k
2
- 1) wH
3
El 6
(4.25)
(4.26)
(4.27)
( 4.28)
Using the continuum solution, the resulting expression for the top inclination of the
wall is given by Eqn. A.IO in Appendix A.1.1
Y/CH) = wH3 [(k
2
- 1) + .!. (sinh kaH - kaH)]
El k
2
6 k
2
(kaH)3 cosh kaH
(4.29)
52
.'
1
Thus, the expression for the rotation related to the racking deformation at the top of
the frame is:
(( _ wH
3
[Sinh koH - kOH]
r - El (kaH)3coshkaH
< l.30)
From Eqns. 4.21 and 4.30, the expression for the top interactive force for a wall-franH'
structure subjected to a uniformly distributed lateraiload of intensity, w, and allowing for
column axial deformations, is
QH = wH [SinhkOH - kaHl
k
2
koH cosh koH J
<4.31)
and for a concentrated top load S
QH = [coshkaH - 1]
k
2
coshkaH
(" .:l2)
Fig. 4.6 shows the variation of the top interactive force Q H with respect to the char-
acteristic pararneter oH, when k
2
= 1.0 and k
2
= 1.2, for the structure subjected to a
distributed loading. As the relative shear stiffness of the frame increases from zero, the
top interaction force Q H increases, up to a maximum for oH around 3.5. As the relative
stiffness of the frame increases further, the top interactive force diminishes. When the in-
teraction at the top is at its maximum, with oH around 3.5, the wall-frame hab a. 'balanced'
behaviour, Section 3.6, with the horizontal interaction aIong the height havlIlg the rnost
effect in increasing the structures' laterai stiffness.
Considering the values of Q H for various values of the characteristic parameters 0/1
and k
2
, it was found that the top interactive force of a structure with axial deformation of
the columns equals approximately the top interactive force of the same structure without
axial deformation, divided by the parameter k
2
, that is
Q H (with k
2
= 1.0)
Q H (with k
2
:F 1.0) :::::: k2
( 4.33)
The addition of axial ftexibility of the columns reduces the interaction between the
wall and the frame at the top of the structure, as it does for the overall interaction.
4.3.2 Stiffening Effect of Top Interaction
When the wall and the frame are connected at all levels, horizontal interaction is
developed over the full height as q( x), a.s weIl as a concentrated force at the top that is
additional to the one F, already in the top link of the top-connected wall-frame. This
additional concentrated force is expressed by (Q H - F), the difference betwef'n the top
interacting force for the fully interacting wall-frame, as given by Eqn. 4.:l2, and the top
53
1
t
interacting force obta.ined from Eqn. 4.3, for when the wall is linked to the frame at the
top.
ln Section 4.1, the additional stiffening effect of the total interaction was demon-
strated by a. comparison of the top deftections of a top-connected wall-frame and a fully
interacting wall-frame. That additional stiffening effect is caused by the combination of
the distributed interaction q( x) and the additional top interactive force (Q H - F). The
additional top interactive force generally restrains the wall from deftection, while the dis-
tributed interaction causes it to deftect forward, but by a lesser amount than that from
the additional top interactive force. The resulting top deftection of the fully interacting
wall-frame is then sm aller than that of the linked wall-frame, Fig. 4.7. Thus,
(4.34)
in which
Yhnk(H) = top deftection of the top-connected wall-frame, Eqn. 4.5
YJul/(H) = top deflection of fully interacting wall-frame, Eqn. 4.8
Y(QH-F)(H) = reduction in top deflection due to the additional top intf'Tactive force
= (9"311)H3, in which F and Q H are evaluated respectively hy
Eqns. 4.3 and 4.32.
Yq{ H) = top deftection due to full-height distributed interaction
Yfull (H)
"1
Y/Lnl.. (H)
1 "1
Yqx (H)
1
..
1_ !J"" -nf H) 1
1
Figure 4.7: Components of top deftection
To evaluate the contributions of the two types of interaction, the corresponding top
lateral deftections of the wall caused by the concentrated and distributed interactions are
compared.
54
The relative reduction in top deflection resulting from the additional top interactive
force (QH - F) is compared with the relative reduction in top deflection resulting from tht'
total interaction in Fig. 4.8. The restra.ining action of the additiona.l top interactivp force
is particularly significant for wall-frame struct ures wi t h val ues of ('( Il betw(,(,11 1.5 .\.IId 10.0.
whatever the value of k
2
Note that the difference between the two curvt's rt'presellts the
amount of the forward deflection due to the dist.ributed interaction.
Consider a structure with a relatively stiff wall, so that the value of nU is sma.llcr
than 10, and a frame with no aJdal deformations of the columns When the wa.ll IS llllked
to the frame at the top, they share the top externalload through the top IntN.H'tive forre
F. By linking them along the height, the top interactive force IncH'aM'd to (J li, .lnd
the additional interaction (Q H - F) reduces the wall's deflectlOn, while the distributed
interaction q(x) tends ta increase it. The net result is a stiffer strurture wlth a lomaller top
deflection.
If the wall is relatively flexible, i.e. for values of oH greater than 10, tilt' t'xterna.l
load is practically all resisted by the frame. In the top-linked structure, the rpsulting force
acting on the wall is very small, (S - F). In the fully interading structure, virtually the
whole of the external top load is transferred to the frame through the top ln t.erMti ve force,
QH' The additional top interactive force is small but, becallse the waLl's flexllral rigidity is
so small, it makes the wall deflect backward almost to its initial position. Thcrcfore, the
stiffening effect of that additional top interactive force is arollnd 100%, while the distnbuted
interaction, q(x), tends to increase the wall's deflection, resulting in top deflerlion slighly
less than the top-Imked structure's top deflection.
By adding axial flexibility to the columns of the frame, the deflcctions inrrease COII-
siderably, and the horizontal top interaction force is reduced. The stiffening effect of the
top interactive force is greatly diminished by axial flexibility of the columns, especially for
structures in which the wall is relatively flexi ble and the frame resists most of the loading.
4.4 Example
When a uniform wall-frame structure subjected to a uniforrnly dil>tributed la.tPralload
is analysed, the interaction forces can be viewed as represented either by the axial forre in
the links, if rigid links are used to constra.in the wall and the frame, or by the sleps in shear
in the frame. The 20-storey example structure, having a value of 01/ = 3.41 and
to a uniformly distributed lateral load of intensity, w, was analys('d by a disrrete model
stiffness matrix method and by the continuum method.
4.4.1 With Half-Size Top Bearn
In the first case the top beam of the discrete model was assigned to be half the size of
a typical beam, to allow a better comparison with the continuum model solution, Example
E4.1.
55
{
{
-20
---.
-40
al
CI
C
....
c:
al

al
a.
-80
-
.. \
, \
X 100
/ \ ..
\
l12lt.=.f.l x 100
V"ftll
\
\
\,,- /
\l.. /

\
"
- --

aH
Figure 4.8: Proportion of reduction in top deftection from the stiffening e1fect of
the top intera.cti ve force
-
2C(j 1 t\
-
-
1
1 \.\
-
25 t\
-
-
IJ l\'
-

67 C\
-
-
:- t\
-
-
.7' f.J t\
-
71J \.\
-
-
l>
t'
-
; J .... ,'
-
l" 1 ,\
-
,
-;-
"

CI.!
"
.
\,j(,
"
.
14 :.J
, ,
-
... 1') l\
-
-
)0 1)
"
-
1 1
"
-
Il 1
"
-
-
"
:
"
-
1';7 / .
Figure 1.9: Interaction forces in example structure wi th full-siz(> beam at the
top, aH = 3Al and k
2
= 1.0317, Example E4.1
56
-.
With Axial Deformations No Axial Deformation
P = 1.0317 k
2
= 1.0
Level Discrete Continuum Discrete Continuum
1 -90.35 -95.45 -91.55 -96.74
2 -68.28 -73.12 -69.38 -74.34
3 -51.47 -54.45 -52.51 -.1.1.55
4 -37.09 -38.88 -37.98 -39.84
5 -25.05 -25.93 -25.85 -26.75
6 -15.06 -15.22 -15.69 -1.1.90
7 -6.76 -6.42 -7.29 -6.96
8 -0.01 0.72 -0.40 0.31
9 5.46 6.43 5.13 6.14
10 9.74 10.88 9.52 10.69
11 12.92 14.20 12.79 14.09
12 15.19 16.49 15.12 16.44
13 16.51 17.81 16.50 17.82
14 16.99 18.21 16.98 18.26
15 16.59 17.71 16.62 17.78
16 15.31 16.28 15.35 16.35
17 13.13 13.88 13.19 13.95
18 9.98 10.44 10.04 10.50
19 5.79 5.86 5.78 .5.89
20 220.45 0.00 228.22 0.00
Table 4.1: Interaction forces [kN] from discrete and continuum analyses for ex-
ample structure with half-size beam at the top, Example Et!.1
57
,
l,
The interaction forces determined by the discrete and the continuum analyses are
presented in Table 4.1, with and without axial deformations of the columns, Le. for k
2
= 1.03
and k
2
= 1.0 respectively. A positive interaction force signifies that additional shear is
injected into the frame, or that the axial force in the rigid llnk is compressive.
Comparing the continuum and discrete solutIOns, Table 4.1, it is evident that the
accuracy of Eqn. 4 16 is satisfactory for the representation of the distributed interaction.
As predicted, the addition of axial fleXlbility to the columns of the frame, reduces the
in tensity of the interaction.
'1'0 evaluate the Interactin!l force at the top of the wall-frame, Eqn . ..t.31 must be
llsed. For k
2
= 1.0, the contmuum solution value of the top interaction force, QH, is
266_1 kN, with an error of -.71% relative to the 'exact' dis crete solution. For k
2
=-= 1.032,
the approximate value of the top interaction f o r c ~ Q H, is 218.65 kN, with an error of - 82%.
The pomts of contraflexure of the top-storey columns, which were assurned for the
continuum solutioIl to be at the mid-storey height are, in reality, sllghtly lower. Therefore,
t: e effective height of the storey contnbutmg to the resistanc'" is greater, causing the effec-
tive shear rigidity at the top, GAll, to be slightly smaller than the uniform shear rigidity,
GA, assumed III Eqn. 4.31. Then, for the discrete solution, the top interaction force is:
( 4.35)
According ta Eqn. 4.35 the top interactive force evaluated by the continuum solution
should be greater than the value obtained by the discrete analysis, which was not the case. In
the previous chapter It was shown that for various reasons the top deflectlOn and top slope,
y'(H), are usually underestimated br the continuum met\.. , Consequently, the rotation
due t.o rackmg deformation as efined by Eqn. 4.22 is alfO' 1 restimated, causing the top
in teractive force Q fi to be also underevaluated, which 1 explains the inadequacy of
ElIn. 4.35.
4.4.2 With Full-Size Top Bearn
In a practical frame the top beam, which would be designed primarily for gravit y
loads, would probably be of about the same size as the others. Therefore, the effective
shear rigidity of the top level, GAIl, would be significantly greater than the shear rigidity
of a typical storey, GA. Thus, in a wall-frame structure with a top beam the same size as the
others, the continuum solution for the top interactive force, Eqn. 4.31, should underestimate
the 'exact' value of the top interactive force as obtained by the discrete method.
( 4.36)
Considering the structure previously analysed, but with the top beam full size, and
subjected to the uniformly distributed load w, the interaction forces resulting from the
discrete analyses are shown in Fig. 4.9, Example E4.2. As anticipated above, the top
58
1
interaction force is greater than the one obtained from the continuum
however, that at the next-to-top level, there is a negative foret' to
a reduction in shear in the frame at that level. This reVNse COIlCl'ntr.\tl'd illtPr.\.ctl\t' forn'
can be explained by the dlfference in shear rigidity betWl:'el1 thl' top and thl' Ilt'xtto-top
levels, as follows.
Since the interactive force is equaI to the dlfferl'nce III shl'ar in the fr.wH' l)('tWl'('1I
two successive storeys, the top mteractive force Q H is equaI to the top shear ill t ht' franw
5
1H
, and the interactive force QH-I' at the level next to the top, IS l'quai to th(' dlffNl'IU'('
between the shear at that level and the shear at the top of the frame, that il.
(L:l)
In a wall-frame structure with no a.:cial deformation of tht' columns, t1H' rotation
related ta the racking deformatlOn of the top storey of the framp is ('quai to the toLt! top
rotation, OH or y'(H). Assuming that at the storey next to the top, Il - 1. t1H' rotatlOlI
related ta racking deformation is the same as the top rotation, the rdatioll IH't WP('II th('
storey rotation and the shear forces 5fll and 5fH_1 IS, Fig. 4.10:
BH-I =
(51H+
5
111_1)
(4.:l8)
2GA
and
OH = 0H-l
( l.:lU)
then
51H_l = 2BlIGA - 5111
(4.4 0)
Replacing the top rotation B H by the ratio of the top force ta the top shl'ar rtgidi ty,
(4.41)
Since GA/GAH is smaller than unit y, the shear force in the frame 8111_1 at levelll -1
will generally be smaller than the shear force at the top. To correspond with this reduction
in shear force in the frame at the next-to-top level, there has to be a negatlvl' interactive
force at that same level, QH-l' Fig 4.10.
The sud den variation ln interaction forces extends for two or three storeyh from thf'
top, from where they vary in a more manner, as presrribed by thf' continuum
solution. The distnbutlOn of single bending moment IS normally III accordallce wlth the
relative flexuraI rigldities of the wall, E1w, and colurnns, E1c. Table 42 llhows that it is
true below the three top storeys.
.59
f
1 Level 1 Percent age 1
1 99-:00
2 98.98
3 98.99
4 98.98
5 98.98
6 98.97
7 98.95
8 98.91
9 99.00
10 99.00
11 99.03
12 99.02
13 99.00
14 99.06
15 99.03
16 99.00
17 99.09
18 98.91
19 100.01
20 87.34
Table 4.2: Proportion of bending moment resisted by the wall in example struc-
ture with full-size beam at the top, Example E4.2
60


StH
1
QH= SJH
:>
8)
1
GAil
:>
/ 1
<
5
tH
<:

'}--I (,'
'fil .
Figure 4.10: Shear forces in the frame and interaction forces when th(' top !lI'.LlIl IS
full-size

:;:
;:
f
0) ..,
;:
tlS
D. S8
n
i!
8"
-
<Il
':'5
8
,
t!.
S
8,
II' 1
"
'''--''------
-""-"..-1- - ___ -_'-"" _"- w
L3
.1
L/3
Plan Vlew ot Sla b
>,(axlmum HOrizontal Shear (+)
HOrizontal Shear (-)
Figure 4.11: Shear diagram of the 's\ab- beam'
61
1
4.4.3 Horizontal Shear in Floor Slab
In a plan-symmetncal three-dimensional multi-bent wall-frame structure. such as the
building cornprising two InnLr walls and two outer frames, shown In Fig. 3 Il. the hOrIZontal
interaction forces ln the links of the modE:' 1 are actually the lorces transferred between
ddjacent I)('nt!> throught horizontal shear in the connecting fioor diaphragm. This IS
('valudted by consl<leflng the 'il ab acting m Its plane as a continuous beam and supported
by the Th/' In("[flrnent of lH each bent at an)' level IS then the realtlOn to the
horizolltal ].pral lo.ujlHg dt th,tt floor. Fig 4 Il.
The lliagrdlIl l)f the ''ilab-beam' gn/es the ma:mnum value of the horizontal shear
ln the slab due to tht' wall-frame lllteractlOn. It occurs in thls case at the JUllctlOIl of the core
or w,tll l)I'nt In of multI-lH'nt wall-frame structures, the maximum hOflzontal shear
in the noor lliaphragm bl'tw('en two adjacent bents depends on the relatl\e plan locatIOns
of the frtme:, and
,lIl exarnple structure compflsmg four frames and four walls arranged
symmeticallv and Io.ld('d by 140 kN per fioor, Fig. 4.12. When analysed as a pl anar one-
wall one-frame model with the loading applied on the wall, the interactIOn force obtained
for that sllnpll' model ,>tructure at any level is the increment in shear ,n the lumped frames.
The hl( relllent ln !'ohe,if ln the lumped walls is therefore the external floor loading minus the
InteractlOll force. At olle leve\ the resultmg lllteractlOn force between the walls and frames IS
:210 kN, or the lIluements ln on the frames and on the walls are -240 kN and 100 kN
re!'opecllwly A., for th(' shear in the lumped wall,; and frames, these total Illcrements
of shear 111 the 1 ulllped walls are dlstnbuted between the ITJ.dividuals walls accordIng to
thelr relative flexur,t1 flgldlties, and the total increment of shear ln the Iumped frames are
distnbuted blween the frame:, aCLOrdlllg to their relative shear nglditIes. provldmg there
is negligi ble aXial deforIuatlOn of the columns. From those increment3 III shear at each level
in each bent, the force dlagram of any ftoor slab can be obtained. Dependlllg on the
relative locatIOns of the v.alls, the ma.ximum honzon'll shear in a si ab has a different value.
('on!:>idPI ing three different cases:
(a) the walls grouped together between the frames,
(b) the frames grouped between the walls, and
(c) th walb and frames alternated.
The resulting shear force diagrams of the slab are shown in Fies. 4.13.
This eXmple shows that the maximum horizontal shear in the fioor slab differs,
depending on the arrangement of the bents. In the above cases, it occurs in the portion
of slab betwecn the stlffer wall and the adjacent frame bent, wlth the most critical cases
occurring when the walls and frames form two separate groups, cases a and b.
62
GA, CAz El, El, El, El, CA, CA,


1 1 Il Il
: 1 1 Il Il





1
; \
1 1
il
Il
1 , 1



1 1 i
l '
1 1
Il 1

-------
L - L
7
L
;" L

L,7 L,7 L 7
,
,
CAz = 7' 5 1;.4.
i
El: = 2 J El,
,.so Io..N
Figure U2: wall-frame structurp
CA, El, El, El, El, CA, CA,
70 lc.N 70 lc.N
50/eN 50 /cN
30 /cN 30/eN
Plan Vlew of lhe Slab
-50
-30
(a) Walls grouped together between the frames
Figure 4.13: Shear force diagrams in the Haar si ab
63
El, El, CA. CA, CA, CA. El, El,
"
\.
70 /eN 70 /eN
50/cH 50 "IV
30 tN 30 tN
Plan Vlew of the SI ab
60
20
-10
-20
(b) Frames grouped together between the walls
CA. E:I, CA, El, El, El, CA,
70 tH 70 lcN
50/cN 50 kH
30 tH 30 kH
Plan Vlew of the Slab
eN] V
MAX
mJ v
JlAX
~ ~ ~ 3 c J
o
L:l[] V JlAX c=ill VJlAX
(c) Walls and frames alternated
Figure 4.13: Shear force diagrams in the floor slab
64
Part II
DISCONTINUOUS
WALL-FRAME STRUCTURES
65
(
Chapter 5
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE
REVIEW - PART II
5.1 Introduction
This second part of the thesis covers discontinuous wall-frame structures incorporating
abrupt variations in stiffness and how they modify the horizontal interaction and lateral
stiffness.
The most typlcal and practical type of wall-frame structure is 'stepped'. That is,
the properties of the walls and/or frames vary, with both components extending over the
full-height.
Another type of discontin Ulty occurs commonly where, in practical wall-frame struc-
tures, for various reasons, the shear walls may not be extended ta the top. The walls may
be 'curtailed' in the upper reglOlI, either ta provlde a more open floor plan, or because
the plan is leduced, or because [ewer elevator shafts are required in the upper part of the
building.
The behaviour of these most practical wall-frames can be understood and described in
the light of the behaviour of uniform wall-frame structures. Their static loading behaviour as
well as theIr earthquake response behaviour are studied on a comparative basis wlth uniform
wall-frames For most of the types of discontinuous wall-frame structures studied here, a
continuum model solution for static loading IS proposed, along with a range of discrete
lllodcl solutions, ta Illustrate the modifications on the deftections and force distributions
caused by the discontinuity. Recommendations for the design of wall-frame structures with
discontinuities "lIe made in an attempt to optimize benefit3, when t h ~ s are possible, and
to minimize detrimental consequences in term of deftections and resulting forces, or other
undesirable behavioural effects.
Bath wind and earthquake loading on a structure depend partly on its intrinsic struc-
tJral properties, including its natural frequency. Therefore, it is important to know to what
extent a modification in the structure stiffness can change its dynamic characteristics. For
each type of structure, the response to earthquake loading will be examined to determine
if the guidelines used for static loading for the modifications studie
rl
will still be valid for
earthquake loading.
66
T
5.2 Literature review
The amount of literature on the behaviour of the discontinuolll> wall-fraIlH' strurlurps
studied in this work is small. A continuum solution has been b} IIt'idphn'{ ht .uld
Stafford Smith (1973) for the analysis of stepped wall-frame structures U:-III)!; II\(' Ir,ut:-fpr
matrix techmque. lIowever, the columns of the frame were conl>idl'rf'd ,LXI,Llly ngHI
The d} namic behaviour of unI form wall-frdIlle struct u f('l> h,\.." hl'PII :- t udlPc! 1'\ 1 t'Ihl "'t'ly
from a continuum approach. whde th(' maJority of the !ltudies Il!ling .. tt' 1111'1 h.Lw
emphasized non-linear behaviour. Only a few papers have attl'Illpted 10 <1(',,( rllH' 1 hl' t'arl h-
quake response of wall-frame structures with Interruptions. EVPll thou)!;h dl:-( rplp ,1I1.tly:-I'S
will principally be performed here, the concept of charactpristlc will \)(' Il,>pd 10
interpret the results and descrtbe the general b",havlour of IIl1dl'r t'.lrlhqll.lk('
loading.
Continuum dynanllc solutions for wall structures modelled by ,l f\{'xllral r.llltlll''''l'r
and moment- resisting frames modelled by shear cantIlever, are U!lcd to del/('lop 1 ht' ('011 ti Il
uum solution for wall-frames or shear cantilever St,lrtlllg from .l f!lltll h ordl'r
dlfferential equation for a wall-frame structure, Heidebr(>cht ,Uld St.tflord SlIut.h
(1973) proposed a for the fllndamental pertod, the mode .1Ild thl'
shear Later Ru tenberg and HeH!pbrec h t (1975) vertfied the ,lCCIIr<H y of t hal f'q Il.lIIOII tll
show that the degree of precision changer" dependtng on the value of ft Il ln 1 !fj';). H Il tt'rt-
berg IIsed the decoupling technique 011 the fourth order difTerent.l.l! PqlldllOll III pn'dl( t tllP
first few f'lgenvallles of coupled wall wlth reasonahle accllracy. Stafford Smith .lIld Crowp
(1986) proved that those equatlOns could be dPphed to the pnlire faIlllly of ... hp,Lr-f!"xllrl'
cantilevers, mcluding coupled-walls studied in Pdralle! by mdny otller 1\0 and
Chan (1971); and COlIll (1973); Ilasu et al. (1979); BaSil (1!>8:J), and DM
and Gu!am (1982).
In 1983, 13asu, and Kaul (1983) provled sets of curves to .LJ>ply ta wall-frau\('
struct ures, for the periods, mode shapes, shear forces, dnd bendln)!; 1lI0fr\eH t. III the wa.1I for
the first three modes of vibration. Yoon (1988) completed this work by provHling cllrvps for
the base shear using the NBCC 1985 requirements. Other approachps, as lht' fll'xibihty
method, Rosman (1973), and the Rayleigh metho, Tso and Rut.('nberg (1977), ha\'(' .tbo
been suggested.
references coyer the earthquake response of wall-fran\('
Ghosh and Fintel (1979) show the relevance of using a bimple planar model for wall-frame
structures in dynamic analysls. They also consider"d (19RO) the effects of wall ,Ule! fralll('
stiffness on the seismic response of yielding wall-elastlc frame InteractIve )!;ivill)!;
sorne additional information for the case of elast<" wall. Their comments are very general,
and do not consider the cause of the dlfferences in reSp0rlbe betwccn .), uniform wall-framl'
structure and one \VIth a change in rigidity.
Specifie cases of curtailed wall-fra11"'! structures have heen ana.lYbed for l'art.hqul.kl'
loading: Moehle and Sozen (1980) and Korkut (1990). Moehle and Sozen (1980) analy&cd
one wall-frame structure with a curtailed wall for earthquake loading. Although t.I1f'ir anal-
67
r
ysis ma.inly considered non-linear behaviour, they also described linear analysis. In terms
of results their work is complete, but they only considered one wall-frame structure wi th
a. particular wall-to-fra.me stiffnesses ra.tio. For tha.t specifie structure, they recommended
the wall should he terminated at mid-height to avoid irregularities in the hehaviour. In
this work, the author will show that the optimal level for curtailment of the wall in any
wall-frame structure can be determined hy general, more definite guidelines.
More research needs to he done to obtain an accurate knowledge of the earthqua.ke
response of different discontinuous wall-frame structures.
68
Chapter 6
STEPPED WALL-FRAME STRUCTURES
A wall-frame structure is defined as stepped when the wall and the fr.LIl\(, ('('tlIICP
in size up their height, Fig. 6.1. The accumulation of the gravi ty loads from the top (If
the structure to its base require the thicknesses of the shear walls and the spctiolls of t hl'
columns of the moment resistmg frames to be increased down the structllre. Thp variatloll
in relative stiffnesses between the walls and the frames due to their changl's in r1guilty
implies a variation in the horizontal interactIOn bctween them, and, conscqlH'ntly, ,L chang!'
10 the overall lateral stiffness, compared with a Illllform wall-frame htructuH'. The best
combination of relative stlffnesses between the wall and the frame ov('r the hl'Ight is a
problem of optimum deSIgn, and is not cOllsldered herl'. Thh, chaptf'r glVl'h ,L deta.tlpd
observation of the behaviour of a stepped wall-frame and the parameters affp( ting it: the
change level, the charactenstlc parameters (dl and k
l
<l.t Its base, and thl' dpgn'e of rpdllctlOlI
in rigldity of the wall or the frame. or both
A continuum solutIOn for :-,tepped wall-frame "tr\lcturl's 18 dcvploped to ohtaw the
lateral deflections. Saille baSIC cxamplc structures wtll be for differl'Ilt cha.ngl'
level, and changch in r1gidity, t 11l1l8tr{tte the influence of the change levc! ,Lnd of t.he
characteristlc parameters on the behaviour. The characteristlc paramcters of ,UI existing
70-storey wall-frame the City Spire building in New York, will be evalu<Lt('d (,fla.ble
the structure to be represented as a simple planar mode!.
6.1 General Effects of Change in Rigidity
\Vhen one of the components of a wall-frame structure reduced in hiz<" i.1'., stPPIH'd,
as in a practical building structure, its relative stdfllPSS IS abruptly rc(luced. Tl\(, structure
is made more fleXIble and its deflected shape 1'0 {'ontinllity of dl'forrnatlollS
with the segment of structure below, the wall and fra.lIle Will or pull on p,u Il other
through sorne horizontallllteractive forces at, and close to, the level of the change III
Depending at what levcl the wall's or frame'h ngldity is reduC(d, the co,npofllle la.teral
stiffness could reduce by an amount ranging from negligible to !>I.I!;IlIficant
Reducing the section of the wall only corresponds to ,i suddPII change in the
rigidity El, while, if the moment resisting frame 15 stepped, the ngidity (,'A a.nd
the axial fiexibility of the calumns, EEAc
2
, will be modified. Depending 11pOIl thp typ('
69
1
-.J
o
~
r-' &...,- -1 j 1
~ I 1 1
.......
r.....
~ / / / / / /. /. /.
Figure 6.1: Stepped wall-frame structure
~
~
~
JI tdL tIIJ/"" ni
r-- "
-
-
i '.1"10 \JOI1H.H.t
(a) Reducing the wall below the point of inflexion
-
-
H 1111 \/fJIIlI nt I,l/"tt tlol111 nI
(b) Reducing the wall ab ove the point of inflexion
Figu f(' 6.1: TI <lII1.f<'f of 111011 ... 111 ,lIt lit ( hange level
in stepped wall-frame structure
"
of modification introduced, the interaction forces at the change level are different in sense,
intensity and manner. The greater the interaction forces induced at the change level, the
greater the change in the lateraI stiffness of the structure.
t"
-
r-
_ POlnt of lllfl"xlon
ln
structure
Figure 6.3: Resulting interaction when the wail is stepped
6.1.1 Reducing Wall J.t"'lexural Rigidity El
Scanning a wall-frame structure from the top to the base, when the wall incrcasc!>
in size at a change level that is below the point of inflexion in the corre!>ponding uniform
structure, the positive moment in the wall just below the change level is abruptly larl!,cr
than that in the wall immediatcly above it. This is caused by having a transfcr of positive
moment from the frame to the wall. This transfer occurs through horizonta.l intera./'tlOn
forces at the change level and the level below, applying a positive cou pie ta the wall illld
a corresponding cou pIed of the opposite sense to the frame, Fig. 6.2a. If the change Il'vpl
occurs above the point of inflexion in th!? uniform structure, thp negativp mOI\wnt in the
wall just below the change level is abruptly larger than that in the wall immediately ahov('
it, with the transfer of negative moment to the wall being made by a negative couple of
horizontal forces acting on the wall, Fig. 6.2b.
In bath cases the magnitude of the couple depends on the amount of mornpnt trans-
ferred. Consequently, changing the wall inertia at a level close to the point of inflpxion,
where the moment is originally zero, will lead to small interaction forces a.%ociated with
the transfer of moment.
The resulting interaction forces at the change level arE' a couple, plus a separate
concentrated force at the change level acting in the same sense as the component of tlw
71
--
couple, Fig. 6.3. This separate concentrated force is similar to the top interaction force
in a. uniform wall-frame structure. The greater these interaction forces, the greater the
reduction in lateraI stiffness. The point of inflexion becornes then the principal point of
reference determining the direction and the intensity of the interaction forces at t.he change
level when the size of the wall is reduced.
6.1.2 Reducing Frame Shear Rigidity GA
Again scanning a wall-frame structure from the top to the base, when the shear rigidity
of the moment resisting frame increases at the change level, the directions of the interaction
forces at that level are al ways the same no matter at what level the change is made. The
sudden increase in the shear rigidity GA of the frame causes an increase in the proportion
of the shear carried by the flame and, therefore, a transfer of positive shear from the wa.ll
to the frame at the change level.
Consider a stepped structure in which the shear rigidity of the frame is changed at
level k, from GAu of the upper segment, to GAL of the lower segment, Fig. t:.4a. The
inclination of the successive storeys k - 1, k, k + 1 and k + 2 is assumed to he identlcal, so
that all those storeys are inclined at the same angle (J.
Considering a typical frame storey j, of shear rigidity GA J' i nclined at an angle (J. The
upper half of the storey is racked by the shear force S'1+1 , and the lower half by the shear
force S,], Fig. 6.4b. If the axial deiormations of the columns are negligible, the inclination
related to racking deformations is equal to
(6.1)
If the angle of inclination (J and the shear rigidity are unchanged in successive storeys
j and j + 1, the shear forces SI] and S I
J
+! are equal.
Considering storey k in Fig. 6.4c, in which the inertias of the columns are higher than
in storey k + 1, the shear forces S'k and S"'+1 necessary to rotate, respectively, the lower
and the upper half storey by the same angle, are different, S'le being greater than S1k+1
because of the stiffer columns. Comparing the shear forces S Ik+1 and S , ~ , Fig. 6.4c, the
former is greater than the latter because of the stiffer beam in the upper half of storey k.
Then,
(6.2)
To satisfy equilibrium, horizontal shear needs to be transferred to the frame at levels
k + 1 and k, Fig. 6.4d. This ace urs through the local interaction forces acting at the change
level.
In fact, in a wall-frame structure, the slope and the interadion forces change from
storey to storey. When the frame is stepped, a perturbation in the interaction forces occurs
72
,
{
around the level of change because of the change in shear rigidity. The intensity of these
interaction forces depends on the degree of change in the shear ri gi dit y at the change levels.
The greater the reduction in shear rigidity the greater t.he interaction forces. The slope
of the frame and the shear acting at the change level aIso influence the intensity of these
interaction forces. Since the change in la.teraI stiffness of the structure is related to the
change in interaction forces, the lateraI stiffness of the wall-frame structure reduces when
the frame i& stepped, and the lower the change level the greater the reduction in lateral
stiffness.
6.2 Algebraic Solution
An aIgebraic solution based on the continuum model can also be applied to stepped
wall-frame structures to obtain the lateral deflections. Heidebrecht a.nd Stafford Smith
(1973) proposed such a solution for stepped wall-frame structures but excluded axial de-
formations of the columns. Their solution uses the transfer matrix method, a technique
for solving elongated structures that involves the handling of sm aller size matrices than
the usual stiffness method. In this study, an extended solution for tne stepped wall-frame
structure, which accounts also for the axial deformations, is presented by the author in
Appendix A.3.I.
The generalized solution including column axial deformations, presented in Chapter
3, is applicable to uniform wall-frame structures. The author proposes in this chapter
a method that allows the application of this generallzed solution to stepped wall-frame
structures with any number of stepped variations.
6.2.1 Description of Solution
A stepped wall-frame with abrupt changes of the properties of the wall or frame
at n - 1 levels, to form n different segments, is considered as the basic structure for the
analysis. There are three different types of segments: (i) the base segment, segment 1,
includes the base region with a ftxed end, (ii) segments 2 to ft - 1 are considered as the
intermediate regions, and (iii) segment n is the top segment with a Cree end. For generality,
it is assumed that the uniformly distrihuted lateralload applied to a segment i of height H"
is oC magnitude w, enabling different wind pressures to he considered if required, Fig. 6.5.
Assuming that each segment is independent, the forces acting at the discontinuity
levels between two segments i and i + 1, horizontal sbear forces, Sw, and SF" axial forces
Pi and bending moments, Mwu, , M
wt
,. Mu, and Mt, are as shown in Fig. 6.6.
73

,t,
Storey kT2
H
CAU
Storey "-+ 1
H
CAU
1 1

Storey k CAL
1 1
StOl '-!J 1..-1
H
(,'..\ L
1 1
(a) Successive storeys with the same
rotation

e ) f l 3
;::.101"'1/1..+2 H CAu
( Sf",
.. 1 (JI .1/ 1... 1
<:lH>
, L
< "f,.,
')'
. 1 ,
'((JI'!J 1..
'( ..
(c) Shear forces at successive storeys
SJ
1
.,/2 :':f
,./ -
--'" -"
Storey J
..---
Sfl/:!
(b) Shear in typical storey j
Q ... .. ,-Sh"

Q, SI.-St'H
)
(d) Increment in shear in storey k and
k+l
Figure 6.4: Reduction in shear rigidity
74
{
-
-
- " ..
H. Segment n
-
-
.
-

-
-
-
w, H. S.gm.n.t \
-
-
-
'---
-
-
-
S,gmenC 1
-
-
1-
-
",
/? 1:7
Figure 6,5: Stepped wall-frame structure with n segments
-
-
-t J-
--.
--- --.
t
d
J
(LI. ,
--.
Segmp.nt 1.,.1
- t
.: J
--. ,...
--.
t J
--.
--.
"--"

'tf ';,,12
't lIu.
If u
lL",
P,
P.
P.

rt "
---+ .... ',-/2 ":.,.,/ ..
--.
--.
t J
--.
- t
-
J
--.
-t
Sp7mr nl
'1.
--.
-t
f:.:
J
---.
t J-
--.
--.
Il.: V2
(
Figure 6.6: Acting forces at discontinuity levels
..
75
The total shear and overturning moment a.t each discontinuity level are expressed
respectively by SH, and MH,.
SH, Sw, + S'F.
MH. = Mw
u
+ 2Mu, + P,i'+l
= MWt. + 2Mt, + P,i,
( 6.3)
( 6.4)
The values of SH. and MH, are obtained from the external equilibrium of each segment.
For example, to satisfy the equilibrium of segment n and n - 1, of respective heights llT'
and Rn-l, and subjected respectively to umformly distributed lateralload of intensity Wu
and Wn-l, then:
SHn_l
=
wnHn (6.5)
SHn_2
=
wnHn + wn-IHn-1
(6.6)
MHn_l
1 2
"2
w
n
H
n
(6.7)
MHn_2
=
1 2 1 2
"2wn-IHn-1 + 2wnHn + SHn_1
H
n-1
(6.8)
(6.9)
The generalized solution developed in Chapter 3 can be applied to each segment
considering its particular boundary conditions. The general solution for the deflection
given in Appendix A.2.3, Eqn. A.49, implies that the axial force at the top of the segment
considered and the racking deformation at its base must be defined in addition to the initial
slope and lateral deflection.
For any intermediate segment ~ the axial force P, at its top may be expressed in tenns
of the axial force P
I
+1 in the columns at the top of the segment above and the accumulation
of axial force caused by shear in the beams, T:+1' between those levels, Fig. 6 6.
l
X
.+1=H.+l
PI = P'+1 + T:+1(x'+1)dx l +1
X.+l=O
(6.10)
The initial deformations are:
racking deformation at top of segment i - 1 = ~ - l
lateral deflection = y,(O) = YI-l(H.-J)
total slope = y:(O) = Y:_l(Il,-d
in which
(6.11)
For the top segment n, there is no axial force at the top free end, Pn = 0, and at its
lower end the initial deformations are the deformations at the top of the segment below:
76
1
ra.c.king deformation from segment n - 1 = Ll
n
-
1
given by Eqn. 6.11
lateral defiection = Yn(O) = Yn-dHn-d
total slope = y'n(O) =
For the base segment, the axial force is given by Eqn. 6.10 and the initial deformations
are ail equal ta zero.
For each segment the general solution for the shear force T:( x,) is given by Eqn. A.34
in Appendix A.2.1.
,. 1 ( dME,(X,))
T.(x,) = Cl, smh(kax), + C2, cosh(kax)j + - dx,
(6.12)
Assuming that the distance l, etween the two extreme columns of the frame is al ways
constant, 50 that l, = l'-l = l'+1 = l, the equation for the couple caused by the axial force,
P,l, and the racking slope, 6.,/ l, are obtained by substituting the expression for the vertical
shear force T:(x,) into Eqns. 6.10 and 6.11
and
- (k:t [c,,l sinh( kaH). + C,,l cosh( kaH). +
(6.14)
Multiplying the constants CIl and C
2l
by i, ta eliminate the distance l as an indepen-
dent variable, the constants CI,l and C2,l, given in Appendix A.2.1, are functions of the
axial force P, and the racking deformation Ll,_I, which are themselves functions of P,+!,
P'-l and 6.'_2, and so on ... To solve for the axial force and the racking deformation, an
iterative process ]S necessary. Starting the first iteration with values of the axial forces P,
and the racking deformation Ll, initialized ta zero, the steps of each iteration j are:
1. For each segment t, from segment n - 1 to segment 1:
(a) Compute CI,l and C
2
,l, using Eqns. A.37 and A.3S with = 0 for i = l,
and p,l(J-l), or for a faster convergence use the average of the two previous
values of Pl, 1/2(P,l(J-l) + P,l(J-2)
(b) Compute 6.!J) using Eqn. 6.14
(c) Compute C
1
,+/ ;md C
2
'+ll, using Eqns. A.37 and A.3S with and p'+1lb-1)
(d) Compute P,l(J), using Eqn. 6.13
2. Checked the convergence for all segments, by comparing the axial force obtained in
iteration j with the one obtained in iteration j - 1. If the difference is less than
77
1
a predetermined limit l, then convergence is reached. If for one or more segments
convergence has not been obtained, continue with further cydes of iteration.
The flowchart of the program is given in Appendix A.3.2.
6.2.2 Example to IlIustrate Method
A 20-storey wall-frame structure with abrupt changes in the wall cross-hectioll tilt'
sixth and storey levels, Fig. 6.7, is to be analysed, Example Et> 1. TIH' 100\:"r
segment of the wall-frame has the properties presented in Tabl<' B.l, AppelHlIx B, for tht'
type A structure, the middle segment 's properties corr<,spond to the type Il strlldllrp and
the top segment's properties to the typ . C structure.
A discrete model of the structure was analysed using a structura.l frarnp analysis
program, SAP80, in order to allow '.. comparison with the results for deflectioIl!> .uul i\.xial
force couples at the change levels, as obtaineJ from th(' approximate
The wall-frame is subjected to a uniformly distributed loading w, of intensity kN /m,
over the full height, or to 50 kN at every level in the discrete mode\. the it<>rative
method, the couple of axial forces Pll and P
2
i at the junction leve\s are found 1.0 be:
Pli = 9502.5 kNm
and P
2
l = 4420.4 kNm
Comparing these with the results from the discrete model analysis of 0375.8 and
4799.9 kN-m, the errors in the approximate lesults are, respectively, 1.3% and 7.0%, which
are acceptable for practical purposes. It is possi ble that the highest percen tag() of error on
P2f is due to the iterative process in addition to the assumptions of the continuulIl model,
Section 3.7.1.
The approximate lateral defiections are determined lI<;ing the deflection pxpression,
Eqns. A.49, applied to each segment. The results are given in Table 6.1 and plotted in
Fig. 6.8. The approximate results show very close agreement, with a maximum error of
-4%.
Fig. 6.8 also shows the deflections obtained by the transfer matnx solutIOn, Appcndix
A.3.l, which are not as accu rate as the proposed continuum solution, but still cOllstitute a
good method of approximation. In the transfer matrix solution, the deflection in segment
i depends on the deflection and s}ope obtained at the top of segment i - 1. Therefore, the
error is cumulative and increases with the number of segments.
78
A
-J
CQ
---+
--.
--.
---+
-
--.
-
{.
-

...
-
...
..
:
-
---+
e
.,
--.
~
~
-
<>
.,
--.
~
-
-
--.
---+
-
--.
--.
"
/,!>
"
1 9m 1 9m 1
!
..
..
!
..

..
s.,.,...., ~
rw- 0' .",........ C
~ - Sl99' z o - ~
lia - f 0076
li s.,.,...., Z
~ rw. 0' .",..n.r. B
(1IZ - Z 37B '" 10-
1
! 1 ... - f 031.,
.,

&
;;
E
.,
.,

...
s.II ...... , 1
rw. 0' 5'""" ..... A
(1" - S549 % '0-
ta _ 1 ZI25
Figure 6.7: Example stepped structure, Example E6.1
20r
r
18
Hi
14
12
1
~ 1 0 ~
..J r
1
8
6
2
cP.oo
iJIIftt.
(-l1..lII) (-4.0II)
-- Stlfln... matrix solution
- - Gen.rallzed continuum solution
---- Tranafer matrix solution
, " Il! 1 1) l 1 1 1 J
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Lateral Deflection (m)
FigUle 6.8: Comparative lateral deflections of example
structure, Example E6.1
_J
1
Level Stiffness
Generalized l Transfer
Matrix Solution Matrix
1 .00038 .00037 .00037
2 .00145 .00142 .00140
3 .00311 .00305 .00300
4 .00526 .00516 .00507
5 .00782 .00767 .00753
6 .01071 .01049 .01029
7 .01453 .01421 .01390
8 .01967 .01918 .01869
9 .0257.5 .02504 .02432
10 .03250 .03153 .03052
11 .03967 .03840 .03707
12 .04708 .04.549 .04378
13 .05458 05264 .050.13
14 .06199 05969 .05709
15 .06904 0(i635 .06318
16 .07552 .07248 .06865
17 08136 .07798 .07346
18 .08655 .08289 .07764
19 .09117 .08729 .08130
20 .09543 .09139 .08465
Table 6.1: Comparative lateral defiections (m) for example structure (Exam pIe 86.1)
using three methods of solution
80
,r
1 ..
6.3 Influence of Location of Change Level and
Characteristic Parameters
The continuum model solution and example analyses are used to determine the in-
fluence on a wall-frame structure's top deftection, of the change level, the characteristic
parameters at the base of the structure, and the relative ap'ount of reduction in the flexural
or shear rigidity.
6.3.1 Using Aigebraic Solution
Considering the properties of a uniform wall-frame reference structure ta be:
Height = H
Flexural rigidity = El a
2
= GA/El
Shear rigidity = GA aH = (GA/ EI)1/2H
Flexural axial rigidity = EE(Ac
2
) k
2
= 1 + EI/ EE(Ac
2
)
The structure is stepped by its division into lower and upper segments of respective
heights Hl and H
2
is defined as the ratio of Hl ta the full height H. Then the properties
of segment 1 are:
Hl =
EI
I
= El = (GAt! Elt) = a
2
GAI = GA (aHh =
EE(Ac
2
)1 = EE(Ac
2
) = k
2
Considering only the wall ta be reduced so that the flexural rigidity of its upper part
is equal to a fraction r E of its base flexural rigidity, the properties of segment 2 are:
H2 = (1 -
El
2
= rE x El = GA/(rE X El) = a
2
/rE
GA2 = GA (aHh = (1-
EE(Ac
2
h = EE(Ac
2
) = 1 + rE X (k
2
- 1)
Considering only the frame to be stepped, with the shear rigidity of its upper part
equal to a fraction TG of its base shear rigidity, the properties of segment 2 are:
81
.!'I
.. '
H2 = (1 -
EI2 = El = TG X GAI El = rG X n',)
GA2 = TG X GA
=
(oHh (1- x .fTG
k
2
From the algebrair solution and adoptmg the above dC'llnitlOns for the charclctC'ristir
parameters of both segments in a stepped wall-frame structure, tl\{' top dpllert.ion can Ill'
obtained as a functlOn of the followlng variables
(a) the charactertstic parameters dt the base, ('( Il and k
l
(b) the change level,
(c) the reduction in flexural rigidity, rE
(d) the reduction in shear rigidity, rG
The number of variables mvolved makes i1 difficult to illustrate ail thpir inllul'nll's
grap hically. It was chosen to represent princi pally the in ft uenu. of tl\(' chan!!;p Ipv('1, shown
in Figs. 6.9, 6.10 and 6.11, on the top deflectlon, for a !ixed of rpducllOn III
flexural rigidity of 50%, and then alternatively a reductlOn in ri)!;lc!ity of 50%. The
axial parameter k'l was set at unit y and then at l 05, a valu<, thell mrr<',ll>PS tlH' !l(lxural
behaviour of structures with 011 greater than 4.0. On each figurp, four ,tf(, .,hown,
each one for a of oIl repre:,entative of the categories of wall-franH' strurt\lfl's dPM'nbed
in SectIOn 3 6.
That is oH = 1.0, 3.5, 10 and 20
Reduction of El
In a wall-frame structure, the smaller the value of 0 Il, corresponding to a greater
flexural behaviour, the greater the effect of a reduction in the flexural ngldity on the de-
flectlOn.
Since the fiexural behaviour is dommant in the lower part of tl\\' l>lrUC\.IIH', Iwlow tl",
point of infleXIOn, reducmg the wall rigidity in that region thp 1,!.tPral 1II0rp
than reducing it III tlle upper region. The location of the pOint of lldlexlOll c!"IH'nd!> 011
the value of off and k
2
, therefore the reglOn most to d. n'ductwll in wd.ll Ilgidlty
also depends on them. To determine that region, referencc 1)(' made 1.0 t hp furV.-l>
showing the location of the pOint of Inflexion, Figs. 3 7 and
Fig. r 9 shows a. reductlOn in top dcfiectlOn whcl1 the' wall Il> rpdllced ln the Hllddle
region for a structure with o:H = 3.5. It was shawn 1Il Chapt<,r 1 that structur<,s with
such a value of aH have thc most etTective horizontal intPra.ction. Any modlfica.tion ill the
relative stiffnesses will thcn change slglllficantly the di:,tnbutlOn of forc!'!> hptwp!'n t.he w,dl
and frame. A wall reduced in the upper region will rea.ct with a .,rnaller llPgative morrH'nt
and consequently cause the frame pOSitive moment to be :,maller 'l'Ill!>, and the rpdllttioll
of the Influence of the rotation of the top of the lower wall reglOn muid ln (omblllation
result in a reduction in top deflection.
82
'{
....
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
,....


...... 0.6
'ii
ii 0.5
...J
Il
0.4 Cl
c
0
.r:
0.3
U
0.2
0.1
0Q.5.0
45.0
Percentage Change (%)
Figure 6.9: Percent age change in top deflection accordi.lg to the change level whell the
f1exural rigidity of the wall is reduced by 50% and k
2
= 1.05
1.0
O.i
0.8
0.7
-
0.6


....,
'ii
0.5
>

0.4
Il
Cl
c
0.3
0
.r:
U
0.2
0.1
olt.o
Figure 6.10: Percentage change in top deflection according to the change level when the
shear rigidity of the frame is reduced by 50% and k
2
= 1.00
83
For structures with values of aH greater than 10, the frame participates more in thl'
total behaviour, and the effects of reducing the wall rigidity very small.
The axial deformations of the columns, which are represented by the parame ter k
2
,
have littlE' influence on the effects of reducing the wall rigidity.
Reduction of GA
Reducing the frame shear rigidity, increases the top deflection of the structure. Con-
sidering first structures with no axial deformations of the columns, Le. k
2
= 1.0, Fig. 6.10.
Starting to reduce the frame rigidity in the lower region will have more effect if the shear
behaviour is relatively significant, as it is for wall-frame with a high value of aIl.
Starting to reduce the frame rigidity in the upper region has more effect fOT wall-frame
structures with lower values of aR, in which the wall is relatively stiffer. By reducing tll('
shear rigidity of the frame, the constraint on the wall is reduced and consequently allowing
its top defiection to increase.
When axial deformations of the columns are included, for wall-frames with
of aH greater than 3.5, 6.11, the effects of reducing the frame rigidlty
significantly, because of the predominance offlcxural behaviour. For example, a wall-fral1lP
with aH = 20 and having the shear rigidity of the frame reduced by half at onc-tenth of
the height, undergoes a reductioD in top deflection of 70% when axial deformations are Ilot
considered (k
2
= 1.0), and only 10% when they are considered (k
2
= 1.05).
6.3.2 Examples
In a first case, an example 20-storey structure with values of aH = 3.41 and k
2
== 1.03
in the lower region has its wall reduced so the equivalent aH of the upper segment is cquaJ
ta 15.33. The percentage reduction in the flexural rigidity is approximately 9G%, Example
E6.2.
In a second case, for the same uniform wall-frame, only the shear rigidity of tbe frallll'
;---
Example E6.2 Example E63
Change Top Percentage Top Percent age
Leve} Deflection Change Deflection Change
(m) (%) (m) (%)
6 .1812 +3.64 .2065 t18.14
11 .1714 -1.96 .1932 t10.53
15 .1735 -0.77 .1832 t4.83
18 .1750 tO.14 .1775 t1.52
1
none .1748 - .1748 -
Table 6.2: Top deflections and change in top deflections for Examples E6.2 and EG.3
84
'.
wu reduced, without changing k
2
, Example E6.3. The new GA is equal to 95945 kN, about
70% of the original value, corresponding to a new size of beam (0.300xO.617 m
2
, Structure
of type E, Table B.2, Appenrux B). For both cases, the reduction in rigidity wu made at
four different levels in succession.
Table 6.2 shows the top deflection for each example and various change levels. As
predicted, reducing the wall rigidity above the point of inflexion does not increase the top
deflection as much as ree ucing it below the point of inflexion; in fact in the former case, the
deflection diminishes. B,I! reducing the wall rigidity, the influence of the rotation of the top
of the lower wall region is reduced, allowing the flame to be more vertical and consequently
resulting in a sm aller top drift.
Considering the interaction forces at the change level in tbe stepped wall-frame struc-
tures, the pattern predicted in Section 6.1 occurs. The interaction forces where the wall is
reduced comprise a couple of forces at and below the level of change plus a concentrated
interaction force at the level of change, their directions being det.ermined by the location of
the change level relative to the point of inflexion, Table 6.3.
Dy reducing only the frame rigidity in the upper region, the moment reversaI in the
top of the wall is sm aller, and the structure is more flexible at the top. When the frame
figidity is changed at level i, therc are two injected forces, at levels i and i + 1, which change
in intensity depending on the inclinatioll of the f:4me at the change level, Table 6.3
Example E6.2 Example E6.3
Change Level Interaction Force Change Level Interaction Force
at Level i 1 at Level i - 1 at Level i at Level i - 1
6 -176 +63.3 6 +51.2 +42.1
11 +4.6 -3.9 II +66.5 +67.1
15 +76.4 -30.8 15 +56.6 +59.7
18 +106 -37.9 18 -36.0 +62.6
.. . .
A posItIve mteractlOn force slgmfies that addltlOnal shear acts on the frame
Table 6.3: Interaction forces at the change levels
6.4 Example of Existing Structure
Practical stepped wall-frame structures are not as simple and idealized as the planar
model representing one walllinked to one moment-resisting frame. However, it
is possible to represent them as such. The City Spire building in New York is a stepped
symmetrical wall-frame structure of 70 storeys with a total height above the ground of
723 feet, Fig. 6.12, Example E6.4. Its height-to-width ratio of 10:1 makes it one of the
tallest, most sien der structures, (concrete or steel) in the world today, Grossman (1990).
The evaluation of its rigidity properties will indicate possible values of the characteristic
85
..
parameters for ta.1l stepped wall-frame structures .
6.4.1 Description of Structure
The plan of the different bents, cores, walls and frames changes principally at 3
levels, separating the building into 4 regions, each having a different purpose, Fig. 6.13.
Considering the structure in its short N-S direction, where the maximum cross-wind action
occurs, Grossman (1990). the properties of the walls, cores and frames are prcsented in
Table 6.4.
To evaluate the shear rigidity of the various bents, frames or walls and coluffins, the
expressions proposed by Stafford Smith et ai. (1984) were used. The resulting characteristic
parameters for each region are presented in Table 6.5, permitting the structure to be iden-
tified as a wall-frame with a significant shear behaviour. Note that the three first storeys
include additional shear walls to increase the structure's lateraI stiffness at the base.
The representation of the structure as a planar model allows a rapid lateral load
analysis to obtain the deflection and the force distribution. The walls and cores are lumped
as a single shear wall with the following flexural rigidity:
EIw = 1: EIw + 1: EIcore
(6.15)
and the frames are lumped as a single-bay moment-resisting frame with the following indi-
viduaI member and column area and flexural rigidities:
E1c =
Ac =
EEIe
2
EAc
2
(2(1./2)2)
(6.16)
(6.17)
If the equivaIent single-bay beam span, l, is arbitrarily fixed at 30 feet alld the storey
height, h, at an average value of 10 feet, the equivalent girder flexural inertia is obtained
from the racking shear rigidity of the equivalent frame, Eqn. 3.19.
Table 6.6 presents the resulting properties for the planar model. The top region of the
structure, comprising only frames, was assumed to have the same properties as the region
below.
The two-dimensional model structure was then analysed using a discrete solution for
a uniformly distributed lateralload of unit intensity. The continuum solution was also used
to obtained the lateraI deflection. The error on the total drift when compared to that given
by the discrete solution was of +2%.
86
<
(
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
...-.
...:
........
0.6
"i)
>
0.5

t)
0.4 01
c:
0
..c:
0.3
U
0.2
0.1
60.0
Figure 6.11: Percentage change in top deflection according to the change level when the
shear rigidity of the frame is reduced by 50% and k
2
= 1.05
1-3 747800 109124 13778
4-25 686700 9586 352
E
g
=580400
26-45 614200 5484 994 7545 138432
47-61 614200 1222 379 4557 95210
63-70 614200 0 15 321 24361
Dimensions of members obtained from drawings provided
by R. Rossenwasser & Ass., New York.
Table 6.4: Properties of City Spire
87
Figure 6.12: Trie City Spire Building in New-York: east elevation
(photo:W.Grossman, taken from Grossman 1990, p.49)
(a) Typical office level
OprprlCI!
~ : = ~
47-61
(b) Typicallower residentiallevel
..
28-415
( c) Typical midrise residen tial level
, ,
,I!
,q
,
"
"
MI
(d) Typical octagon level
Q
a "
Figure 6.13: City Spire: Four typicallevels (taken from Grossman 1990, p.49.), Example
E6.4
88
l
(
(
1 Storeys Il aH 1
1-3 4. 1948e-5 1.5450 4.68
4-25 8.9164e-4 1.0667 21.59
26-46 2.0540e-3 1 0 4 3 ~ 32.77
47-61 4.633Je-3 1.0168 49.21
63-69 3.4594e-2 1.0006 134.47
* computed for full height, 723 feet
Table 6.5: Characteristic parameters of the City Spire
Region Storeys
lw le Ac E
19
(ft
4
) (ft
4
) (ft
2
) (psI) (ft
4
)
1 1-3 109124 689 450 747800 119
2 4-25 9586 176 331 686700 332
E
g
=580400
3 26-45 5484 497 308 614200 342
4 46-70 1222 190 212 614200 222
The intermediate storeys were included in one of the regions selected
The last region, comprising only frames, was neglected for the analysis, and the upper
storeys were assumed to ha.ve the same properties as rE'gion 4
Table 6.6: Member properties of 2-dimensional model for City Spire
89
---- ------- ----------------------
6.4.2 Results and Discussion
Fig. 6.14 showa the lateral defiections of the building. Figs. 6.15a and b show the shear
and moment force distributions in the equivalent shear wall, compared with the magnitudes
of the base overturning moment and base shear force, respectively.
From its characteristic parameters the structure would have qualified as a wall-franH'
with a dominant shear behaviour, but the axial deformation of the columns is signilicant
(k
2
> 1.0) and the results represent a dominant flexural behaviour with the point of inflexion
at 3/4 of the height. The wall moment is therefore positive over most of the height.
At the base the wall resists 23% of the base overturning moment, the rpst lwill)!;
resisted by the axial forces in the columns. At the change level, the perturbation in t.he
wall moment diagram illustrates the transfer of moment between the walls and frauH's a.t
that level. Similarly, the shear force diagram shows clearly the steps at the change level,
corresponding to the transfer of horizontal interaction forces from the wall to th(l frame
through horizontal shear in the fioor slahs. In a practical structure, those forces ca.n be
very significant if the walls are all grouped together, as explained in Section 4.4.3.
6.5 Conclusion
Stepped structures arp. economical and are shown to he potentially as stiff as a. wall-
frame structures with uniform properties over the height, providing the change lovel is
chosen judiciously. Optimally, the wall rigidity should be reduced in the region where i ts
moment reverses, in order to reduce the axial forces in the columns of the frame a.nd to
minimize the influence of the rotation of the top of the lower wall region. The frame rig!dity
should preferably be reduced in a region where its inclination is small. The level of the point
of inflexion in the structure having properties of the base segment uniform over the height:
is the point of reference above which reduction of the wall or frame rigidity is preferable.
90
(
(
7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
60
50
40
JO
20
10
. cP.oo O.JO
Lateral Deflection (m)
Figure 6.14: Lateral deflection of City Spire for a uniformly distributed lateralload of
unit intensity
91
~ ~
1- ~
50
40
"i
~ 1 ~
"i
>
>
~
~
JO
co
~
20
10
10
~ . 2 5
Figure 6.15: Forces in walls of City Spire
{
(
"
Chapter 7
Behaviour of Wall-Frame Structures with
Curtailed Walls
A. STATIC LOAD BEHAVIOUR
The curtailed wall-frame can be perceived either as a wall-frame structure up to
the height of the wall curtailment, with the frames extending alone up to the top of the
building, or as a full-height wall-frame structure with the walls removed down to the level of
curtailment. In order to allow comparisons with the behaviour of the full-height wall-frame,
the latter perception will be taken. A curtailed wall-frame would Dot be expected to behave
the same as a uniform one, but a thorough understanding of the behaviour of the latter
leads to a good appreciation of what occurs in the former.
7.1 Behaviour of Curtailed Wall-Frame
Intuitively, it might be thought that curtailing the shear walls would cause the building
to drift more and to have larger internal forces than the corresponding, more substantial,
wall-frame structure with full-height walls. In fact, this is not necessarily the case. In sorne
circumstances the curtailed structure drifts less and has comparable or even smaller internaI
forces than the corresponding full-height-walI structure.
The effects of curtailment on the top deflection of the structure may be examined by
considering the effects that curtailment causes to the distributions of shear and moment
on the frame, and the consequent effect of these actions on its top deflection. Therefore, a
minimum cll\nge in the frame force distribution after curtailment of the wall will directly
lead to a minimum change or increase in the top deflection. A study of the force distribution
should help towards an understanding of the effects of curtailment on the behaviour of the
wallframe structure.
7.1.1 Shear Force Distribution
Considering a typical shear force distribution in a uniform wall-frame structure sub-
jected to a uniformly distributed lateralload of intensity w, Fig. 2.2b, it can be divided in
two regions separated by the point of zero shear in the wall, where d
3
yfdx
3
= O. In the
93
, 1
upper region the shear in the wall is opposite in sense to the external shear, therefore the
shear in the frame in that region must exceed the externat shear.
If the wall is curtailed in the described upper region, the resulting shear in the top
part of the frame will be reduced, to equaI the external shear. ln the lower part of the
structure, the curtailed wall and the rigid frame will share the externaI si.oar. If the wall
is curtailed below the point of zero shear in the waIl of the reference lmiform wallfran\('
structure, the shear in the frame in the upper region will equal the externaI "hear and
thereforn, will incrE'ase locally above the level of curtailment while generally decTtoasing in
the upper region.
7.1.2 Moment Distribution
Considering the typical distribution of moment between the wall and the frame of a
uniform full-height-wall structure subjected to a uniformly distributed load of intenslty li"
Fig. 2.2c, it aIso can be divided in two regions, separated in this case by the point of Zl'ro
moment in the wall, i.e. the point of inflexion, where d
2
yJdx
2
= O. In the "pper region tlll'
moment in '.he wall is opposite in sense to the external moment, while th. 'noment III tlll'
frame (whlCh is carried mainly by axial forces in the columns) is greater thal, the extefllal
load moment.
If the wall is curtailed anywhere in the region above the point of inflexion, the' moment
in the upper region of the frame will be reduced, to equal the external load moment. If
the wall is curtailed below the point of inflexion, the moment in the frame just abo\'e tllp
curtailment level will be increased, to equal the external load moment, while generally
decreasing in the upper region.
An inspection of Figs. 2.2b and 2.2c shows that if the wall 15 curtailed betwepn tll(,
point of zero shear and moment, the shear in the frame just above the curtailment le\'el will
increase by a smaU amount while the moment in the frame above that level will be reduced,
resulting overall in an almost unmodified force distribution.
If the wall is curtailed below the point of inflexion, both the shcar and the moment
in the frame will increase.
7.1.3 Interaction Force Distribution
A related consideration in curtailing the wall is that the concentrated interaction fOHl',
which acts between the wall and the frame at the top of the full-height wall-frame st ru(t ure,
Fig. 2.1a, is transferred in a curtailed wall-frame structure to the level of curtailrnelit 'ne
total concentrated force at that level is caused parti y by the uniformly distriouted load
between the base of the structure and the level of curtailment. In addition, the concentrat{'(j
shear and moment at the curtailment level, which result from the lateraI loading on tlle
upper part of the structure, both make contributions to the concentrated interactive forte
between the top of the curtailed wall and t ~ frame.
94

-
-
-
-
lU
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
s
---+
-
-
1>---
b--
- -
Moment (x)
--
0---
--- 0---
>--
F>---
p.---.
-1...
-
\lament (x)
0----
~
... 1...
Moment (x)
Shear(x)
1
1
1
SE: 1
\
1
\
\
\
Sheal(x)
~ . . . . . . t P 7
S"'all
/
/ Sfram.
SE: /
~
1
1
1
Shear(x)
Figure 7.1: Distribution of the externat forces on the lower region of curtailed wall-frame
,( structure
95
Figs. 7.1 present typical force distributions betweer. the wail and the frame subjectcd
first to a. uniformly distributed load, w, then to a concentrated shear force 8 at tht' top,
and finally to a concentrated moment AI at the top. At the top of thp w;l-frallll' tl\('
concentrated moment and ulliform loadmg each praduce a shear forn' ('qua.! ,1I\d oppositp
in the wall and the frame, while the concentrated shear S is rl'sisted alillost. ('lItlrl'ly by th('
frame.
The relative importance of the these three loadings, lU, S .llld .\1, (0 (Ilt l'lhl',H III
the frame at the rurtailment level, de pends on the level of <lrtailllH'lIt WIH'I\ (Il!' :-.11l',1f
in the frame remal.ls approximately constant at and above t ht' 1('\,,,1 of etll (,ulnwnt., t ht'
corresponding mteractlOil force at the curtailment level or the ..,tt'p III :-.heM III (Ill' frall\(, IS
very smaIl. Hence, there is a level of curt.ailment for whlch the Inter.l.ctlOlI fOfel', lH'twl'en the
top of the curtailed wall and the frame at the curtaJlment level, b reduced to ,l minimum.
7.1.4 Modification of Deftected Shape and Top Deflection
The defiected shape of a wall-frame structure has two regions: ,l IOWN ft'f.!;ion ill
which the flexural mode is dominant, and an upper region in which tlll' slIP.tr mode is
dominant. Therefore, curtailing the wall in the \ower reglOn, where it ('If('( tively
and serves to restrain the frame from defiecting, releases the frame and al\ow!> It to defl(>ct
more. Conversely curtailing the wall in the upper region, where the fraIlle IS pffectively
stiffer, does not slglllficantly modify the top deflection, but allows the [famp to become
almost vertical at the top, which is tYPlcal of a separate, uniformly loa<led !'IIP<lf rantilpvpr,
Fig. 7.2.
The effects of curtailment on the top defiection of the structure art' rpl,!.tpd to the
changes in the dist,ributions of shear and over the height of the franl(' and,
the steps III shear and moment in the frame at the level of cllrtallment are directly related
to the interaction forces at that level, the smal\er the interactIOn forces at th,l.l lev"l, the
sm aller is the effect on the top deftection.
7.2 Algebraic Solution for Wall-Frame Structures with
Curtailed Wall
To estimate the change in top deftection callsed by curtailment of the wall, comparee!
with the top deftection of the corresponding full-height-wall structure, an algebraic solution
for the deftection of a continuum model of a curtailed wall-frame structure is rHPsented.
7.2.1 Modelling Curtailed Wall-Frame
A structure with a less than full height wall can be considered as two
Substructure 1 and Substructure 2, Fig. 7.3. Sstr.1 is a uniform wall-frame with a
Hl = cH. Sstr.2 is a rigid frame of height H
2
= (1- E.c)ll with known sh(lar ngidity a.nd
96
'.t:>
-.J

c\
_ l!l _
J
I-!
c
_ .....
-
....
-=
bD
.(jj
==
"
f 1
/ ,1
/ /
/
,
/
1
1
/
/
Full-height-wall
Curtailment Leve} a
Curtailment Level b
Curtailment Leve) c
Lateral Deflection
Figure 7.2: General effect of on the deflection
p1llb"
'lI
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
"///
:x::
.......
...y
1
--
W
-
-
-
-
-
:x::
-
...y
-
-
-
-
/ 1.
11.1
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
Subslruclure 2
~
S, = w( 1 -'.,)11
;.
-
t-
l-
r/ U I. 1.
Subslructure 1
Figure 7.3: Substructures of curtailed wall-frame
98
1
i
I,
~ l
,
differential axial deformation properties. To obtain a good representation of the equivalent
total structm-e, the lower region (Sstr.1) should be subjected to:
(a) a uniformly distributed load of intensity Wj
(b) a conr.entrated shear at the top St, equal to: wH
2
= w(l- and
h
wHl w(l-e )llfl
(c) a concentrated moment at t e top Ml, equal to: T = 2
c

and Sstr.2 is submitted to a uniformly distributed load w, while respecting the fol-
lowing conditions at its base:
(a) The lateral deflection at the base of Sstr. 2 is equal to the top deftection of Sstr.l
(YI(Ht)
(b) The ini tial slope at the base of Sstr. 2 is equal to the slope at the top of the frame
of Sstr.l, due to axial deformatiolls in the columns of Sstr.1.
From these conditions the expression of the total deflection of the curtailed wall-frame
structure, Yc(H), can be written as:
(7.1)
where Y2(1I
2
) is the top deflection of the upper rigid frame ofSstr. 2 caused by the uniformly
distributed load w, with initial slope at its base.
Both regions are analysed as continuum structures with their properties spread over
their heights.
Solution for Substructure 1
The deflection YI(H
I
) and the slope yi(Ht} at the top of Sstr.1 are the summations
of the deflections and slopes caused by the three different cases of loading: w, 5'1 and Ml.
YI(HI) = YI (Ht}w + Yl(H1)sl + YI (HI)MI
yHHt ) = + +
(7.2)
(7.3)
The equations for the top deflection and top slope of a uniform structure subjected
to each of those loading cases are given in Appendix A.1.l. To relate the properties of
Sstr.l to the properties of the corresponding uniform structure with a full-height wall of
total height H, the following substitutions should be made.
El
1
= El
= k
2
(kaHh =
99
The resulting expressions for the top deftection and top slope of Sstr. 1 are:
= wH4(k
2
-1) _ + _ (coshkaHl-l) 1
El k
2
4 6 24 2 (kaH)2coshkalll
wH
4
1 [(2ec - e;) tanhkaHl (coshkaH1-l) 1
+ --- - +
El k
2
2(kaH)2 (kaH)3 (kaR)4 cosh kaRl
( .4)
and,
(7.5)
It is important to appreciate that the slope at the top of the wall, (Ill), is Ilot the
same as the slope at the base of the upper rigid frame. This is because the wall and the
rigid frame are not constrained to rotate identically at each level. The only slope affecting
the frame of Sstr.2 is the one caused by the axial deformation of the columns of the lower
region, Hl.
Referring to Fig. 7.4, the angle at level k is evaluated from the are a of 'tht' moment
diagram in the rigid frame, divided by the second moment of area of the columns about their
corn mon centre of gravit y and the Young's modulus', between the base of the substructure
and midheight of storey k.
That is
(7.6)
Fig. 7.5 represents the moment distribution between the wall and the frame below
level k, where the moment in the frame, mainly carried by the axial forces in the columns,
(below level k) is equal to the external moment less the wall bending moment.
d
2
y(x) d
2
y(.r:)
MJrame(x) = ME(X) - Elw dx
2
ME(X) - El -;[;2 = T(x) x i (7.7)
where ME(X) = w(H
2
-x)2
Solving Eqn. 7.6 by integrating between the base (x = 0) and level k, (x = Xk)
(7.8)
100
r
,
k -
t
4
,
,J
1
t"--p- 1
1
-,
,
1
- 1
1
1
-,
1
1 =l
1
-
1
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-- --
Figure 7.4: Angle at the base of Substructure 2

,
1\ l,
\-k
-k
\
- \
-
Hf
-
.r x
\
x
1
A
\
1 ..L
Frame Moment External Moment Wall Moment
Figure 7.5: Moment distribution below level k
101
-
At the top of Sstr.l,
and
Therefore,
Xk = Hl = focH
= +HI
-
- 0
To generalize the form of Eqn. 7.13, replace EI/ E'EAc
2
by (k
2
- 1).
wB3(k
2
-1) [ ( )3] 2 '(
ibHI = El 6 (1- 1- foc ) - (k - 1)YI Bd
Solution of Substructure 2
( i.9)
(7.10)
(7.11)
(7.12)
(7.13)
(7.14)
Consider the moment-resisting frame of Sstr. 2 with the origin of the J:2-axis taken
from the bottom, Fig. 7.6. In a discrete frame, the deflection a.t the Nth floor is the sum of
the single-storey drifts, 6,.
I=N
YN = LO'
(7.15)
1=1
The resulting drift in a single storey is the sum of the racking drift 6
r
, caused by the
shear force Q, in that storey, Fig. 7.7a, and the addition::>l effect in each storey due to
the rotation resulting at level i from the axial deformation of the columns, Fig. 7. 7b.
where,
Qi h,
GAi
= [M(X,)]I
Area E'EAc2 0
(7.16)
(7.17)
(7.18)
If the moment resisting frame is considered as continuous, the drift components he-
come
102
(
lu
--.
-+
--.
--.
--+
--+ Q.
--+ -+
--+
--.
--+
H
2
--.
--.
--+
--+
--+
X,2
--+
J
X.,
~ .
--+
--+
Figure 7.6: Analysis of Substructure 2
~ .
Il
Q.
6.'L

1 1
1 1
1 1
h.
1
/
1 1
1 1
1 1
: ~ ) Racking deformation
(b) Axial deformation
( Figure 7.7: Components of interstorey drift
103
(
t
(
r

1
r

"1:'
,
f


(7.19)
and
(7.20)
where tHi is the initial slope from the axial deformation of the columns ofSstr.l, Eqn. 7.14.
For the purpose of simplifying the expression for t(%2), %2, will not be taken at the mid
storey, but at the top of the storey considered.
Now
(7.21)
and
(7.22)
Substituting these into Eqns. 7.19 and 7.20 gives
W(H2 - %2) - (H
2
- Z2)3)
6(Z2) = GA dX2 + (6EEAc
2
) dZ2 + (7.23)
The top deftection of Sstr. 2 from its base is, therefore,
Substituting into Eqn. 7.24
H2
GA
1
EEAc
2
=
=
=
(1- ec)H
a
2
EI
(k
2
- 1)
El
wH" [(1- {c)2 (k
2
- 1) .. ] )
Y2(H2) = El 2(oH)2 + 8 (1- ec) + {c H
in which El, 0
2
and k
2
are properties of Sstr.1, and tHl is given by Eqn. 7.14.
(7.24)
(7.25)
Adding the lateral deflection at the top of Sstr.l, and using Eqns. 7.4 and 7.25, the
final expression for the top deflection of the curtailed wall yc(H) is as in Eqn. 7.1:
104
(
or
where Yl(Hd is given by Eqn. 7.4, and
cfJHI is given by Eqn. 7.14.
(7.26)
7.2.2 Location of Point of Curtailment to Cause Minimum Change in
Top Deflection
The continuum model algebraic solution for the top deflection of a curtailed wail-
frame, Eqn. 7.1, can be compared with the continuum solution for the top deflection of a
corresponding full-height-wall frame, Eqn. A.9. It is then possible to find algebraically the
location of the level of curtailment for which the difference between those two top deflections
is a minimum.
If,
F(r) = YumJ.(H) - Yc(H) (7.27)
to obtain the minimum value of F( r), its first derivative shuld be equal to zero:
F'(r) = 0 (7.28)
Since the function is implicit, the 'method of the false position', Appendix A.4, was
chosen as an iterative process to compute a solution.
Fig. 7.8 shows the curves representing the level of curtailment, ec, producing mininum
change in top deflection, for different values of aH and a given k
2

Superimposing on Fig. 7.8 the location of the points of zero shear and inflexion for
different values of aH and k
2
, Fig. 7.8, it is evident that the level of curtailment producing
a minimum change in the top deftection is generally between the point of inflexion, or zero
moment in the wall, and the point of zero shear in the wall.
Sorne examples will be analysed to verify that fact and to evaluate the genercJ effects
of curtailment.
105
LOO
----
~ = O
",.,.
~ = O .""
", /
,fJ. ,/
",
~ ~
/ ",/
0.80
.,/
... .......
-
//
~
1
0.60
/
,
--/
~ = O
"'"' III
>
~
0.40
0.20
oH
Location of the points of zero wall shear and zero wall moment
106
(
.......
U
4J'
.....,
...
c
QJ
e
~
....
10
...
~
::s
u
....
0
~
<li
>
QI
..J
(
1.00
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
1
,
0.80
,
,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
,
/
1
1
1
,
1
/
1
1
1
1
1
/ 1
1
,
~ I
,
0.60
/
,
.... '/
&/
,
1
,
1 1
1
't
1
1
,
1
---
,
/
~
1
....;
1
1
1
/J
~ I
/
,'
1
0.40
....;,
1
~ I , ,
~ , /
&
.... ; /
' ,
.. ,
~ ~ - -
1
1
'", ........
./
.......
0.20
~
""
~
1
~ r
/'0 1
1
0.00
10
o:H
Figure 7.8: Location of the curtailment level, ec, producing minimum change in
the top eflection
107
7.3 Example Analyses
The purpose of analysing a number of curta.iled wall-frame structures is to ascNtaill
the behaviour of the s t r u c t u r ~ with respect to where the wall is curtailed relative to the
points of inflexion and zero shear in the wall.
7.3.1 Description of Examples
In the following example structures the reference structure is a uniform wall-frame of
20 storeys composed of a relatively stiff wall and a two-bay rigid frame, both rigidly fixed
at their bases, and represented by a discrete finite element model, Fig. 3.11. Ta ronsider
the influence of the characteristic structural parameters, aH and k
2
, on the behaviour of
a curtailed wall-frame, analyses were carried out on structures witt! four different values of
aH and four different values of k
2

The characteristic parameters of the example structures are listed in Table 7.1, and
the detailed dimensions of the walls and rigid frame are given in Tables D.l ta 8.3 in
Appendix B.
Levelof Levelof
EXAMPLE STRUCTURE a
2
aH k
2
Inflexion Zero Shear
of Point in the
Reference (1. P.) Wall
E7.1 D 3.55 xlO-4 1.32 1.2170 14 17
E7.2 C 2.38 xl0-3 3.41 1.032 8 15
E7.3 B 9.99 xl0-3 7.00 1.0075 6 13
E7.4 A 4.80 xl0-2 15.33 1.0016 4 14
Table 7.1: Characteristic parameters for example structures
Using the two characteristic parameters, aH and k
2
, the location of the point of
inflexion (I.P.) of the structures was also found by the continuum solution given in Chapter
3 (Figs. 3.7 and 3.8), Table 7.1. The wall of each structure was curtailed at four different
locations, Fig. 7.9:
(a) below the point of inflexion, Example (a);
(b) close to the point of inflexion ~ = 0), Example (b);
(c) between the points of inflexion and zero wall shear ~ = 0), Example (c)j
(d) close to the top, Example (d).
108
i
~
....
o
~
El 5.58x10
7
kN 2
~
_ld)
_tel
_(!l)
(a)
1---
p.-
'/ / //
1.4.47m .1
1
{
\
l'' /'.
1. l m ~ !lm.'
13.45 x10
4
kN
5 2
6.87 xlO kN.m
- ~ = 0; POlnt of zero
dx
- ~ : ~ = 0
x
L
y
wall shear
(Leve 1 15)
Inflexion Point
(Level 8)
Figure 7.9: Levels of curtailment (or examples
~
Values of Wall-Frame Parameters
2 -3 -2
a = GA = 2.375xlO m
il
aH = 3.41
2
k = 1.04
For each case the effects of curtailment on the deftection and on the force distributions
will be discussed.
7.3.2 Results
The results are plotted for one of the structures considered to be reprl'sentativ(' of the
other examples; Example E7.2 with aH = 3.41 and k
2
= 1.03.
The effects of curtailment on the deftection are shown in Figs. 7.10a,b,c and d, on the
wall shear in Figs. 7.l1a,b,c and d and on the wall mc-ment in Figs. 7.12a,b,c and d.
The value of the shear III the frame at any level can be round from Figs. 7.11 by
subtracting the value of the shear in the wall from the correspondi ng total externa.l sh('<lf
at that level. The moment in the frame at any level can be found similarly from Figs. 7.12.
The top deftections and their percentage changes are shown in Table 7.2, and a SUIlI
mary of the findings for aU the examples is presented in Table 7.3. From one example tn
another, or from one value of aH ta another, the magnitudes of the changf's caused by
curta.ilment vary.
EXAMPLES #
E7.1 E7.2 E7.3 E7.4
aH = 1.32 3.41 7.00 1.5.33
y(H)umf.
.0729 m .1748 m .2287 m .2671 m
Curta.ilment y(H) % y(H) % y(H) % !,1(1I) %
Level (m) (m) (m) (m)
a) Below LP. .1342 +84.1 .1865 +6.68 .2325 +164 .2673 07;J
h) At I.P. .0731 +0.27 .1758 +0.58 .2286 -Cl.O.=) .2671 .015
c) Above J.P. .0698 -4.22 .1713 -2.03 .2282 -0.24 .2672 045
c) At Zero .0698 -4.22 .1729 -1.10 .2290 +0.12 .2673 .075
Wall Shear
d) Close ta .0710 -2.58 .1750 +0.14 .2292 +0.23 .26734 .090
the top
Table 7.2: Changes in the top deflection
110
.-
.-
.-
14
/ " (+6.7%)
/ "
,/"";+20%)
/ ,,'
- / ,"
10 .,"
Inflex.
e -/,.,
6_ " . Uniform (aH ... J.t.l)
12
4'" Curt. - - - -: Curtoiled (Leve: 6)
Level
Lateral O.flectlon (m)
(a) Below the point of inflexion
5
- ---------- ----,
20
18
16
14
12
,0
>
...J
8
6
4
....
,
,
,
,
.,
,
/
,'( +9%)
,
,.f- C. L.
I. P. 7"
Uniform
Curtoiled
.ro- 0.1
Lateral Oeflectlon
------------- -
(-2%)
(aH=J.41)
(Level 11)
.25
-
(c) Belween the points of inflexion and zero wall shear
20
18
16
14
12
.. 10
>

-J e
20
18
16
14
12
i 10 .
>

-J 8
6
./ (+.6%)
,
(+14%)
.,
I.7' _...: C.L.
--: Uniform (aH-J.41)
- - - -: Curtoiled (Level 8)
.fv
lateral Deflectlon (m)
------ -
(h) Close to the point oC inflexion



"
.,
(+.14%)
,
/-C.L.
" (+5%)
... 5
/
1.:7
Uniform (aH-J.41l
Curtailed (Level 1 )
"" 'b:&s"'" 'b:l&"" "b:t!"' Il
lateral Defl.ctlon Cm)
(d) Close to the top
Figur(' 7.10: Lateral deflcction for wall curtaiJed at various levels, Examplf' E7.2
1 -,
.....
.....
t-:I


>
....J
-300.00
-t
10
8
4
2
Uniform (a H=3.41)
Curtailed (Level 6)
External Shear

-L
LL

----,
- -l
,1
l ,'l"L
.vO
u
' , ' , '
Sheor ln the wall (kN)
..
>
....J

-30000
(a) Be]ow the point of inflexion
la
8
6
4
2
........ .
LI
--1
'L
t
Uniform (CtH=3.41)
Curtoilcd (Level 11)
El<ternol Shear
L
L,
L-
1

Ll
'. 'L
t
'1. 1_
1
' , '6b
J
5b--L L
I
L L
ln the wall (kN) 900 00
(c) n('t w('('n the points of inflexion and zero wall shear
-300.
..
>
....J
Unifarm (Ct H=J.41)
Curtailed (Level 8)
External Shear
(b) Close to the point of inflexion
10
8
6
4
2
Sheor ln
Unitorm (CtH=J.41)
Curtailed (Level 18)
ElIternal Shear
wall
(d) Close to the top
rigllT<' T .11: Shear force in the wall when curtailed at various levels, Example E.2
... .,
J


c;.:I
f"
----------- --- --------- -----------
..
>

.J
-5
..
>

-'
20,
"'\"\ .. ,
'.
........
' .
.....
'.
".
" .
Uniform (aH"'J.41)
Curtaled (Level 6)
External Moment
............
' .
................
.........'"
".
'.
'"
.............
25000
(kN.m)
J5000
(a) Below the point of inflexion
20,


\
\' ..
C. L: ...
Uniform (aH ... J.41)
Curtailed (Level t t)
Externol Moment
HIFj
" , ......... " ....... .
..... " ...
2 ....
1 cl ' '8 ' " , , , , 'id' , , ..... : .. ; .. , ...
- - -- . r___ 25 00 J5000
ln (kN.m)
(c) Bctween the points of inO('xion and ZNO wall shf'ar
..
>

-'
-50
..
>

20,
-- : Unitorm (a H-J. 41)
- - - - : Curtailed (Level 8)
.... ,
'.
".
.................
Externol Uoment
., ....... .....
Moment ln
. ................... .
"
..............
2
(kN.m)
(b) Close to the point of inflexion
20,
'1\
\
\ .
...
............
",
"
ln
"
..............
' .
Uniform (aH=-J.41)
Curtoilo1ld (Level 18)
Externol Uoment
................,
. ............... .
25000
(kN.m)
' ..
.................
35000
- ------_.--- ----
(d) C)Ilc.,e to thf> tnp
Figure 7.12: Moment in the wall when curtailed at various levels, ExamplE' E7.2
L E V E L 0 F C U R T A 1 L M E N T
(.)
(II' (c)
'mm 'ftII POIlft'S
(el)
IIIILOII TIll 111A11U POlir or Im.IIIOI AJID IIW TIl! TOP
POUf or Im.IDOII or nm.DI0i ZIIO WALL SIIIAI
IncreuH . Incr."H Incr .... eI

lianlUc.ntly n.aUalb1y (-21) n.al1libly
(+6.7%) (+.61) (+.141)
!

5
Incr cI .bon 1e,a1 .Iner ... ad .bo'. 1 ... 1 Iner d .Inere .. d eround
'" '"
of of sHallt1r lenl of curtell_nt
:!
1
( .... -201) ( .... -14%) ( .... -9%) (Ml -SI)
R.duucl sUalltly Unc:lI.na.d b.10 .. . Unchana.eI e ls.wh.re
&1
b.low 1 ... 1 of laval of eurtaH ..
",t Hona Hone Nana . Hon
;8
(no ... U) (no ... U) (no ... U) (no ... 11)

41:1
:1
!i

i
t
.Incre d sUalltl, Uncll.n,ad .Redue" dl,lItly Iner ud dilhtlr
.Poslti,a n.p ln PO.l tha stap ln abo,. point of zero
!B
sh.er ln nory b.lo .. sll.er ln story b.lo .. .No st.p. wall sll r
Iil'
le,el of lual of curtaHunt .H.a.tl st.p ln slleer
.. !OI
(+60%) (+30%) ln star y b.lo .. levet
of Curt811 ... nt (+125%1
",t
.Equal ta elterna! .Equal ta esurnal Equll ta auernal . Equal ta e-Iternal

sh sh.er sh sll.ar
. Reduced abo,e pOlnt Reduced abo .. .Reeluc.d abo .. point

oC::!
of zaro vall sllear of zero .. all sil of zero waU sile .. .a.duc.d
:1
Incr .... d belo .. 1t .Increas.d belo .. lt . Incr H s11ll1tl Y

-1
be1o .. 1.t

t
.Reduced s11lht1y .Unchan,ed Incr .... d s11ll1t1y Incr .... d Slllhtly

!B
Ne,at .. e st.p in . Kea ti .. nep ln .Pontl.e step
il-l
sh.u ln story belo .. sheer 10 story balo .. .No step. shear ln 5tory below
...... l .. el of curtaUment 1nel of levet of cureatillent
...
(-70%1 (-301) (+1001)

t
... =
i-:
. None Non. Non
i
oC::I (no .. aU) (ne wall) (no well) (now.ll)
...

3 t
.R.duced .Uncll.naed . Incr d !!11alldy Inflel10n pOlnt lS the
=-
!B
H ... ,nfte.lon pOlnt .No n ... tha ..,..nt se .... ln full hu,ht
at 1 ... 1 of curtaU- rt'alon v.ll structure
ih!
IMnt .1101" lnflauon pOlnt at lIo .. nt reduced
... le,el of curtatillent above ,nn ... p01.nt
..
Unchan,ed b.iov lt
-
t
.Equal ta a.tarna1 .Equal tO e .. urns1 .Equal to ttlternal .Equal ta elternll
... -
:le nt. IIOMnt lIO ..
,.0

Roduced abo.e lnf les.
5
,olnt .Redue.d Reduced .Reduced


Incre.sad bel 0" 1t
!
t OI
. Incte.se4 .Unchan .... .Reduced .Reduced abcve pOlnt
..
!B
"flellon
!:!.
belav ?Olnt
... ::1

of tnr lel10n
-
!

Wall s'in,tieanth . Wall restralnS .frame ..-estnuns rhe
>- reltrains the frase the fralle lnteraCti0n wall (-'lIlll.!r to the
COI :ale
tOp etfeet ln the full


5
t-=
helllht ",all structure)
oCy
Table 7.3: Results of exarnple analyses
114
Observations froID Results of Analyses
From the findings presented in Table 7.3, an Figs. 7.10 to 7.12, it is evident that
the effects of curtailment on the deflection and the shear and moment distributions vary
significantly according to the level of curtailment. Generally the behaviour resulting from
curtailment can be categorized according to three regions of curtailment:
1. With the wall curtailed below the point of inflexion in the full-height-wall structure:
Curtailment below the point of inflexion, where the wall is relatively stiffer, generally
increases the deflections, Table 7.3. The deflected shape changes both above and
below the curtailment level, with the deflections above it significantly increased and
those below it slightly reduced, Fig. 7.lOa. The latter efl'ect occurs because of the
increase of interaction at the curtailment level.
When the wall is curtailed below the point of inflexion, the shear and moment distri-
butions are signincantly modified. The in the wall is positive, Fig. 7.11a, and
greater than in the corresponding full-height-wall structure. At the level of curtail-
ment, it exhibits a significant step in positive shear which is balanced by a sudden
reduction in shear in the To these sudden changes in magnitude correspond
significant interaction forces. Below the curtailment level, the shear in the frame
is slightly reduced compared with that in the full-height-wall structure, while above
that level it is equal to the external shear. The moment in the curtailed wall incfeases
down the wall from a value of zero at the level of curtailment, Fig. 7.12a and b. Com-
pared with the full-height-wall structure thE' moment in the wall is reduced, while the
moment in the frame is increased below the point of inflexion, and leduced above it.
Therefore, generally, curt ail ment of the wall in the region below the point of inflexion
in the corresponding full-height-wall structure is not desirable.
2. With the wall curtailed near the top, above the point of zero shear in the wall of the
full-height-wall structure:
When the wall is curtailed in the top reglOn, the top deflection is practically un-
changed, while the defleetions near the curtailment level increase slightly, Fig. 7.10d.
The positive shear in the wall is slightly reduced below the point of zero shear in the
full-height-wall structure, while the negative shear is increased above it. Therefore,
the shear in the frame is slightly lelow the curtailment level and reduced to
equal the external shear above it. The conceArated force usually acting at the top of a
uniform wall-frame now aets at the level of cl.:rtailment to create a significant change
in magnitude in shear distribution. The nega, ive wall moment is slightly reduced
above the point of inflexion corresponding to a reduction in the frame moment above
that point, Fig. 7.12d, while below it the force distribution is practically unchanged.
Therefore curtailment in the top region is not significantly detrimental to either the
deflections or force distributions, but the economic benefit of curtailing the wall very
close ta the top would be small.
3. With the wall curtailed between the points of inflexion and zero shear in the wall of
the full-height-wall structure:
115
This is the most significant case. With curtailment at such a level, there is little
increa.se, or perhaps even smaIl decrease, in the top deflection, Fig. 7 .lle and Table 7.3,
Fig. 7.9c and Table 7.2. Furthermore, there would be a worthwhile economy resulting
from the omission of the walls. The only disadvantages are small incrl'ases in the
lateral deflections at levels just below the top, and in the maximum value of interstorey
drift.
The force distributions below the curt ail ment level are practically unchanged. The
shea.r in the frame is reduced to equal the external shear above the point of zero shear
in the wall, and slightly increased between that point and the level of curtailment.
The m o m ~ i t in t h ~ frame is reduced above the level of curtailment. In correspondence
with these reduced effects, and there being no abrupt step in shear or moment in the
frame, the interaction force at the curtailment level is very small.
In view of the above discussion, the region in which it is most beneficial to <'urtail
the wall, with respect to the minimum increase in top deflection and a small interaction
force at the curtailment level, lies between the points of inflexion and zero shear of the
corresponding full-height-wall structure.
7.4 Comparing Continuum and Discrete Model Solutions
Considering the continuum model algebraic solution in Section 7.2, the top deflection
of a wall-frame with a less-than-full-height wall can be compared with the top deflection of
a wall-frame with a full-height wall, also expressed by a continuum solution (Section 3.3).
The change in the top deflection is:
Change(%) = (Yumj.(H) - yc(H)) x 100
. Yt.mf (H)
(7.29)
A Fortran program was written to compile the percentage changes in the top deflection
fo,: ranges of aH and k
2
(See Appendix A.4 for the flowchart of the program). A typical
curve for Eqn. 7.29 of the continuum model algebraic solution is shown in Fig. 7.13, and is
compared with a typical curve given by a discrete analysis of the same equation. The results
for the change in the top deflection for the dis crete model examples used in the Section 7.3
(E7.1, E7.2, E7.3 and E7.4) are compared with the results given by the algebraic solution
in Table 7.4.
The difference between the percentage change in the top defiection, as obtained from
the discrete model and the algebraic solution, is more noticeable when curtailment is made
near the top. For example, for values of aH equal to 7.00 and 15.33, the algebraic solution
shows a reduction, while the discrete solution show an increase in top deflection.
The accuracy of this solution depends aIso on the accuracy of the solution for each
substructure, which increases with the number of storeys of the substructure considered.
Therefore, for very low levels of curtailment the irnprecision origina.tes rnainly frorn the
116
(
(1)
>
(1)
.....J
.+J
C
(1)
E
1.00
1
- - Discrete solution
Algebraic solution
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __ ~ ~ J
70.0 90.0
Percentage change (9&)
Figure 7.13: Percentage reduction in top de8ection: Discrete versus algebraic so-
lution
117
Level Example E7.1 Example E7.2 Example E7.3 Example E.4
of aH = 1.32 aH = 3.41 aH = 7.00 ail = 15.33
Curtaihnen t k
2
= 1.22 k
2
= 1.03 k
2
= 1.0075 k
2
= 1.002
x/H Dise. Alg. Dise. Alg. Dise. Alg. Dise. Aig.
.1 226.10 225.40 42.00 42.80 8.73 10.51 0.48 +0.92
.2 161.30 162.10 20.00 20.50 1.64 1.87 0.01 -0.05
.3 106.00 108.40 6.68 7.06 -0.05 -0.29 0.01 -0.05
.4 68.00 65.70 0.58 0.40 -0.24 -0.57 0.04 -0.04
.5 33.00 34.10 -1.80 -2.18 -0.10 -0.46 0.06 -0.03
.6 13.00 12.90 -2.20 -2.67 -0.05 -0.31 0.07 -0.02
.7 0.27 0.63 -1.80 -2.23 0.18 -0.19 0.07 -0.01
.8 -4.17 -4.48 -0.50 -1.48 0.26 -0.10 0.09 -0.005
.9 -2.58 -4.16 0.14 -0.69 0.28 -0.04 0.08 -0.01
Table 7.4: Pereentage change in the top deftection - Comparison between the
algebraie and discrete model solutions
aH Il
Algebraic Solution Discrete Analysis
Levelof % cha.nge in Levelof % change in
curt ail ment top defteetion curtailment top deftection
1.32 16 -4.48 18 -4.22
3.41 12 -2.70 11 -2.00
7.00 8 -0.57 9 -0.24
15.33 6 -0.05 6 +0.01
Ta.ble 7.5: Level of curtailment for minimum inerease or maximum reduction in
the top deftection
118
.{
solution for Sstr.l, while for higher levels of curtailment it cornes principally from the
solution for Sstr.2.
Apart from the difference arising from the imprecision of the uniform continuum
solution, Section 3.7.1, the assumption of continuity of the top frame introduces additional
differences between the properties of, and the loading on, the discrete and continuum models
and makes the latter stiffer at the top, as shown flom the results in Table 7.4.
Particularly for a curtailed wall-frame structure, the application of the loading on the
wall at the curtailment level, and on the frame above that level, differs in the discrete and
continuum models. At the level of curtailment in the discrete model the load applied at the
top of the wall is wh, while in the corresponding continuum solution it is wh/2. Similarly
at the bottom of the rigid frame in the discrete model there is a portion of the load omitted
in comparison with the continuum model, Fig. 7.14.
The percentage change given by the algebraic solution is not exact, but it is a close
enough approximation of the effect of curtailment on the top deflection, and it is sufficient
to locate the level of curtailment for which the reduction in top deflection is a maximum or
the increase is minimum, Table 7.5.
7.5 Infl uence of aH and k
2
7.5.1 Influence of oH
From the first series of example structures considered in Section 7.3 and the curves
given by the algebraic solution, it is possible to assess the influence of the characteristic
parameter aH on the behaviour of a curtailed wall-frame structure.
The primary effect of aH on the behaviour of the full-height-wall structure is to
modify the position of the inflexion point, and the point of zero shear. Consequently, the
points of reference in the curtailed wall-frame structure are changed, Fig. 7.8. As aH
initially increases from zero, the inflexion point moves down from the top of the wall. As
aH increases further, to become greater than 10, the axial deformation of the columns
c u s ~ s an overall flexural behaviour of the structure which becomes dominant to the shear
behaviour and causes the point of inflexion to move up again, Chapter 3. The doser the
inflexion point to the top, the sm aller the region of particular concern, between the points
of inflexion and zero wall shear.
A low value of oH represents a wall-frame structure with a very stiff wall relative to
the frame; therefore, curtailment of tltat type of structure causes more extreme changes in
the overall stiffness, in contrast to wall-frames with higher values of aH. Figs. 7.15 and
7.16 represent the percentage change in the top deflection given by the algebraic solution
for two extreme values of k
2
, 1.01 and 1.15, for a range of values of aH j they illustrate very
weIl the above statement.
119
1
w
--+
.-,......
~ ,. ...
~
--+
--+
~
w --+
~
-+
-+
~
-+
-+
~
-+
-+
~
-+
--'
..
Conlmuum mode! Discrele mode!
Figure 7.14: Application of the load : Continuum versus discrete model
120
....

....

1.00 r-
........
..

......,
0.50

-
c:
III
.
'5

::J
U
0.25
-25'.0
aH = 1.0
aH = 2.0
aH = 4.0
aH = 6.0
aH = 20.0
\
\
\
\
\
'\
'\
"
175.0 275.0
Percentage Change (.)
Figure 7.15: Penentage rh.Ulge in top deflection when
the wall is curtailed, for k
2
= 1.01
375.0
1.00
0.75
........
u

......,
0.50
III
-l
-
c:
III
E
"5

::J
U 0.25
-25.0

- aH ... 1.0
- - aH - 2.0
.----- aH :0: 4.0
- aH = 6.0
- - aH = 20.0
\
\
\
\
\
'\
'\
"
75.0 175.0 275.0
Percentage Change (.)
Figure 7.16: Percentage change in top deftection when
the wall is curtailed, for k
2
= 1.15
375.0
c
7.5.2 Influence of k
2
For each example in Section 7.3, a second analysis was carried out for a different
value of k
2
, Table 7.6, to evaluate the effect of that parameter on the behaviour of curtailed
wall-frame structures.
The important factor in the behaviour of a curtailed wall-frame is the location of the
level of curtailment relative to the point of inflexion of the corresponding full-height-wall
structure. From the analysis of these extra examples, it is shown that when the value of
oH is low, the influence of k
2
is negligible. For high values of oH, the larger the value
of k
2
, the higher the location of the inflexion point, and the less significant the percentage
change in the top deflection when the wall is curtailed in the optimum region.
GeneralIy, oH and k
2
influence the behaviour of curtailed wall-frame inasmuch as
they influence the location of the point of inflexion. And the stiffer the wall relative to the
frame, Le. for low values of aH, the more the structure is influenced by curtailment of the
wall.
7.6 Practical Example of Curtailed Stepped Structures
So far the study has concerned curtailed uniform wall-frame structures. Practical
structures, however, are 'stepped', i.e. their member sizes reduce up the height. The analysis
of wall-frame structures with stepped walls described in Chapter 6, shows that simply
reducing the wall at certain levels influences the deflections and forces similarly to, although
not to the same degree as, curtailment at those levels. If the wall is reduced at a. level
between the inflexion point and the point of zero shear in the wall of the reference full-
weight-wall uniform structure, the changes in the deflection and force distribution of the
structure are a minimum. Again, the smaller the value of the characteristic parameter aH
of the full-height-wali uniform structure, the more significant are the changes resulting from
reducing the wall.
According to the findings of this study, the designer can foresee the effects of cur-
tailment or reduction of the wall on a uniform wall-frame structure, and be offered the
possibility of taking advantage of those effects on the deflection and forces. If the full-
1 Example Il aH ! Initial k
2
! New k
2
1
E7.1 1.32 1.2170 1.05
E7.2 3.41 1.0320 1.10
E7.3 1.00 1.0075 1.15
E7.4 15.33 1.0016 1.10
Table 1.6: Values of k1.
122
(
height-wall stepped structure is taken as a reference, and its wall is curtailed at certain
levels with respect to the shear and flexural reference points, the effects on the deflec-
tion and forces are similiar to those found and described for uniform wall-frame structures
curtailed at certain levels with. respect to its own reference points.
With regard to the modifications studied in this work, the fol1owing steps are suggested
for an effective approach to the design of a practical curtailed wall-frame structure.
(a) analyse the proposed structure with the uppermost stage of its curtailed walls
extended instead to the top of the structure
(b) plot the resulting deflection and wall shear diagrams
(c) if the level of curtailment of the walls in the proposed structure is below the
point of inflexion in the analysed extended structure, consider raising the level
of curtailment to between the points of inflexion and zero wall shear
A practical stepped wall-frame structure, shown in Fig. 7.17, is considered, to show
the effect of curtailment on a stepped reference structure, Example E7.5. To avoid more
than one variable, the variation in stiffness, the structure was analysed, as were the previous
structures, for a uniformly distributed lateralload. Its walls were curtailed at two different
levels, below or above the point of inflexion of the reference structure, and analysed to verify
the effects on the top deflection and the force distributions.
7.6.1 Results
The results were considered relative to those obtained for the full-height-wall stepped
structure. The stepped structure was alldoiysed to locate the points of inflexion and zero
wall shear. Table 7.9 shows the general results for the stepped structure.
123
J
,
1
1
1
t'I.Dm 01- 6.0m _r
6

Om
_1 6.0m -f' 6.0m '10
6

Om
"i
A __ __ ________________ _
1 1
1 1
.1 Il
-...J

Il
, 1
0
El
B --


Il
Il
Il
-...J
Il Il
Il
0
Il
Il
9
C --


Il
"
Il
-...J
1 1 Il Il

0

Il
Il
Il
0--
l II III III II l
1 (A) Beams Level Section al Areil Moment of IneHlil Modulus of
Bent TYP1Cal Floor Roof Modulus of
(mm x mm) (mm x mm) Elashclty
(ml) (ml) ElastlClly
()( 10
3
kl'a)
(xI0
3
kPa) 1-10 350 3471 J535S
1 300 x 525 300 x 525 27:186 11-10 325 2556 31623
Il 350 x 600 350 x 600 27386
:!1-30 240
1
1442 27186
1 (B) Columns
Bent Column Lme Leve\ Column Slze Modulus of
(mm x mm) Elasllclty
Table Cores propertlcs
(x 103kPa)
1 A-D 1-10 550 x 550 35355
1 A-D 11-20 500 x 500 .11623
1 A-D 21-30 400 x 400 27386
1 B-C 1-10 800 x 525 35355
1 B-C 11-20 700 x 475 31623
1 B-C 21-30 525 x 375 27386
II-III A-D 1-10 775 )( 525 35355
Il-Ill A-D 11-20 700 x 450 31623
II-III A-D 21-30 525 )( 350 27386
II-III B-C 1-10 1075 )( 775 35355
II-Ill B-C 11-20 ';)50 x 700 31623
11111 B-C 21-30 700 )( 550 27386
Table .7: Beams and Columns DimenSions
Figure 7.17: Plan of practical wall-frame structure, Example E7.5
124
(
L
y(H)
Drift
Levelof
Inflexion
Point
Level for
d
3
y/dx
3
= 0
Top Shear
in one Core
Step in Shear
Between level
Stepped
.1686m
1/623
21.5
26
-284.8 kN
10 and 11 +92.4 kN
22 and 23 -52.9 kN
Table 7.9: Results for reference stepped structure, Example E7.5
125
The cores of the stepped building were curtailed at two characteristic locations: below
the point of inflexion and between the points of inflexion and zero shear in the wall.
Those two points of reference are located respectively at 0.68 of the height, or \cvel
20.5, a.nd 0.87 of the height, or level 26, in the reference stepped structure. Tlwrefore, the
first level of curtailment chosen is 10, and the second 22. Table 7.10 and Figs. i.l8 to i.tH
summarize the results obtained for the deflections and the redistribution of the loads, in
comparison with the stepped structure having full-height cores.
126
1
:'
...
30
/
,/
/
/
/
/
1
1
/
-- Fuli-hII,ht-wall
- - Curtallecf (1AveI 1 0)
_._... Curtoll," (L.evel 22)
.1 . 0
Lateral Oeflectlon (m)
- Extemal moment
- FuU-h,IQht-woli
- - Curtolld (lAI/el 10)
- Curtalle" (L..vll 22)
5
-1 1 000
Moment in th. wall (kN.m)
Figure 7.18: Lateral deflections of curtailed
stepped structure
Figure 7.19: Moment distribution in the
wall of curtailed stepped struc-
ture
- ExtemoJ Ih,or
-- Full-hil,ht-wolJ
- - Curton,cf (L..vel 10)
Curtoll," (L..vel 22)
..
15
>

10
5
-1
50
Sh.ar ln th. wall (kN.m)
Figure 7.20: Shear force distribution in the
frame of curtailed stepped struc
ture
127
CURTAILMENT LEVEL
Level 10 Level 22
.
Top Increase of 49.7% Reduction of 1 2%
Lateral
Increase above level Generally unchanged
Deftection Elsewhere 10, and reduction Increase of 6%
around level 10 around level 22
Above
Shear curtallment None None
Level
m the
Below Increase Small reductlon
Wall curtallment Step ID positive shear Small step ID positive
Level at level10 shear at level 22
( +125%) ( +25%)
Above External Shear
Shear curtallment Reduction above d
3
y/dz
3
= 0 and Increase below
Level
in the
Below Reduction
Frame curtailment Step in negative shear at Small reductlon
Leve! level 10 (reverse shear)
Above
Moment curtallment None None
Level
ln the
Below
Wall curtallment Significant red uctlon Unchanged
Level
Above External moment External moment
Moment curtailment Reduction above Inf Pomt ReductIOn
Level Increase below Inf POlOt
m the
-- ----
Below
Frame curtallment Increase Unchanged
Level
Interaction At 74 tlmes the 3 tlmes the
curtallment External shear load External shear load
Force Level Increase by a factor 20 Increase by a factor 6
Table 7.10: Results of curtailment of stepped !>tructure
.1
128
(
(
7.7 Discussion
This work shows that the minimum increase in top deflection and the minimum re-
sulting interaction at the curtailment level are obtained by curtailing the wall between the
points of inflexion and zero wall shear, in the corresponding full-height-wall structure.
Curtailment in that region can even prod uce a reduction in the top deflection, as shown
in Table 7.3, where, for ail = 1.32, there is a reduction of 4%. This can be explained
in physical terms hy the fact that in the upper region of the full-height-wall structure, the
frame is relatively stiffer near the top and the wallleans on the frame and inclines the top
of the strutture. After curtailment of the wall, however, the frame is released at the top
from loading by the wall, ann is then free to hecome almost vertical at the top, which may
he sufficient to reduce the top deflection.
The magnitude of the effects of curtailment are also related to the value of the charac-
teristic parameter aH for the corresponding full-height wall-frame structure: the smaller
the value of a.H, that is the stifter the walls relative to the frames, the greater are the
effects of curtailment. For values of ail greater than approximately 10, the frame is such a
dominant compone nt of the structure that the effects of wall curtailment are for all practical
purposes negligible.
129
B. EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE
When the wall of a wall-frame structure is curtailed, the shear behaviour of the frame
becomes more influential. A greater understanding of the dynamic behaviour of a wall
frame structl.:e, whether continuous or discontinuous over its height, can be achieved by
looking at the separate dynamic characteristics ofthe wall and the moment-resisting frame.
The approach taken to analyse wall-frame structures subjected to earthquake load
ing is described in Appendix C. Tbe objective of tbe analyses is to compare the general
earthquake response of discontinuous wall frame structures with the response of the corre
sponding continuous wall frames.
7.8 Comparing Dynamic Characteristics of Wall and
Frame
The dynarnic characteristics of the two systems, wall (flexural cantilever) and frame
(shear cantilever), differ in two main aspects; namely, the ratios of the higher periods to the
fundamental period, and the relative participation factors in cach of the modes. Table 7.11
from Heidebrecht and Lu (1988) illustrates both aspects for the first five modes of each type
of structural system. It can be seen that the firstmode participation factor is rnuch larger
for frame structures than for wall structures. If the response spectra ordinates decrease with
increasing period (as they normally do), then frame structures having the same fundamen tal
period as wall structures would have a higher response. The wall-frame structure's dynamic
characteristics faU in between those two extremes. The approximate values of the penod1>
ratio proposed by Basu, Nagpal and Kaul (1983) for a range of values of oH, show that
if aH is sm aller than unit y, the periods ra.tio approaches closely the flexural wall valucs,
and for aH greater than 10 it approaches the frame values, Fig. CA in Appendix C. The
addition of axial flex..ibility to the columns of the frame, that is having k
2
greater than uni ty,
increases the flexural behaviour and should therefore reduce the relative participation of the
first mode.
7.9 Effects of Mass and Stiffness Reduction
The dynamic characteristics, and therefore the response quantities, of a structure
depends on its mass, M, and its stiffness, J(. In a wall-frame structure, the global
comprises the frame and the wall stiffnesses, and the mass includes the mass of the structural
components as well as the dead weight of the floor. Wh en the wall is curtailed, the gloudl
mass remains almost constant since only the mass of the wall is removed, but the stiffll('ss
is reduced.
If the stiffness and mass matrix of a structure are factored to become M and fi',
the new dynamic quantities are related to the factors involved and the former dynalllH
quantities [Bouwkamp (1983)].
130
l
Period ratio Weighted participation
Mode Ti/Tl factor
(a) Uniforrn wall structures (fiexural cantilevers)
1 1.000 0.6131
2 0.167 0.1883
3 0.057 0.0647
4 0.030 0.0331
5 0.018 0.0200
(b) U niforrn frame structures (shear cantilevers)
1 1.000 0.8106
2 0.333 0.0901
3 0.200 0.0324
4 0.143 0.0165
5 0.111 0.0100
Table 7.11: Modal characteristics of uniforrn wall and uniforrn frame structures
(from Heidebrecht and Lu (1988))
Defining ](- = al( = the factored stiffness matrix
and M- = bM = the factored mass rnatrix
The Bouwkamp report (1983) shows clearly that the ratio of the new and old periods
and therefore, spectral amplitudes, Sa, depends upon the ratio of the factors band a.
If the period is defined as T = 27rJ M / J(, then
= 1/2
if
where in the NBCC 1985 response spectrum, Fig. C.1
p = 0 for .100 < T < 0.4278
p = 1 for 0.427< T < 5.0s.
(7.30)
(7.31 )
The second range of periods includes the typical fundamental period of high.rise wall
frame structures.
Then
=
Sa b
(7.32)
131
Relating the storey forces and the storey deflections as defined in Appendix C.2 ta
factors, a, band p, it is observed that for peciods between 0.4278 and 58, as for wallfran\('
structures, a reduction in stiffness only, (a < 1, b = 1), increases the period and deftections
and reduces the forces, while a reduction in mass only, (a = 1, b < 1), reduces the period,
deflections and forces by the same proportion.
If the reduction in stiffness is more significant than the reduction in mass (a < b), the
result is an increase in the periods and deflections, and a reduction in forces. Conversely if
the reduction in mass is more significant than the reduction in stiffness, (b < a), the penot!
and deflections will reduce as well as the forces.
It is important to keep in mind that the factors a and b are applied to the full matrix 1\
and M, sa the changes in stiffness or mass are uniform. In the case of a wall-frame structure
with an interruption, the changes in stiffness or mass are not uniform, but nevertheless thes(l
relations can help to predict the tendency of the modifications on the periods and dl'sign
quantities.
7.10 Description of Structures Analysed
In this study two simple wall-frame structures, Fig. 3.11, were analysed for earthquake
loading, one with a value of aH = 3.41 representing a highly interactive wall-frame structure
with a behaviour between the pure flexural and shear cantilevers, Example E7.6, and another
with aH = 15.33, closer ta the shear cantilever behaviour. To study the effect of the axia.l
flexibility of the columns on the earthquake response, the structure with ail = 15.33, which
would be more influenced by a change in the parameter k
2
, was analysed with two different
values of that parameter (k
2
= 1.0 and 1.0075), Examples E7.7 and E7.8 respectively.
Following the procedure for statie loading, the wall-frame structures to be analysed
had their walls curtailed at different locations relatively to the points of inflexion and zero
wall shear, Table 7.12. The dynamic characteristics and the earthquake responae of these
curtailed wall-frame structures were compared with those of the full-height-wall structure.
7.11 Results of Analyses
The dynamic characteristics resulting from the free vi bration analyses of the struct ures
with aH = 3.41 and 15.33, with the full-height and curtailed wall, are presented respectively
in Tables 7.13 and 7.14. F'g. 7.21 shows the first four normalized mode shapes for the
wall-frame structure with its walls curtailed at level 11, which is the optimal location for
curtailment according to the static analysis, in comparison with the mode shapes of the
corresponding full-height-wall structure.
The design quantities obtained for the base shear and base overturning moment, after
subjecting the structure with oH = 3.41 to the NBCC Response Spectra, are summarized
in Table 7.15. Since the total mass of the structure with a curtailed or a full-height-wall
are different, their repective ratios of the base shear to the total weight of the structure
132
t
Floor Level of Curtailment
Region aH = 3.41 aH = 15.33 all = 15.33
of curtailment k
2
= 1.03 k
2
= 1.0 k
2
= 1.005
Below d
2
y/dx
2
x = 0 6 2 2
Around d
2
y / dx
2
= 0 8 4 4
Between d
2
y / dx
2
= 0 11 10 10
and d
3
y/dx
3
= 0
In upper part 15 15 15
Table 7.12: Level of curtailment for example structures subjected to earthquake loading
are compared. The resulting peak storey shear, or resulting cumulative external shear, is
plotted in Fig. 7.22, for the wall-frame structure wi th its wall curtailed at level 11. Similarly
the problable maximum deflections, interstorey drifts and shear force distributions in the
frame are plotted, respectively, in Figs. 7.23, 7.24 and 7.25. Fig. 7.26 shows the modal
contribution of the displacements, interstorey drifts, peak storey shear and overturning
moment for the same structure, in comparison with the modal contributions for the full-
height-wall structure.
7.11.1 Dynamic Characteristics
Any significant change in the first-mode participation factor of the curtailed structure
would be of a con cern because it would also mean significant changes in the resulting external
forces to which the structure is subjected, and therefore, significant changes in its response.
Tables 7.13 and 7.14 show clearly the effect of the wall discontinuity by a reduction in the
first-mode participation factor when the wall is curtailed at the lower levels. Consequently
there must be an increase in the number of modes to be included to obtain an effective
modal mass of at least 90%. These changes are even more significant when the value of CIIH
is low and when the wall is curtailed below the inflexion point, Table 7.13.
There is also a change in the fundamental period, but it remains in the same range of
values, so the spectral amplitude Sa is not significantly changed. Since the
peri ad remains between .427 and 5 Jeconds, the separate influence of the mass or stiffness
reduction on the fundamental period and design quantities can be studied in accordance
with Section 7.9
Generally the reduction in the fundamental period (Tables 7.13 and 7.14) after cur-
tailment of the wall, indicates that the overall effect of the reduction in mass overcomes
the reduction in stiffness. For the wall-frame structure with aH = 15.33, alileveis of cur
133
."
tailment produce a reduction in the fundamental period, Table 7.14, showing that for such
values of aH the frame really con troIs the behaviour, with a Iesser influence of the stiffness
of the full-height or curtailed wall.
134
l
Period Period Weighted Change in Number
ratio participation modal of modes
Mode T, T,/TI factor stiffness to include
(a) Uniform wall structures, aH = 3.41
1 2.6664 1.000 0.6858 - 5
2 0.6671 0.250 0.1457
3 0.2783 0.104 0.0595
4 0.1491 0.056 0.0321
5 0.0920 0.035 0.0199
6 0.0622 0.023 0.0012
7 0.0448 0.017 0.0097
(b) Curtailed wall-frame, etH = 3.41, level 6
1 2.6666 1.000 0.6360 -.015% 8
2 0.8768 0.329 0.1212
3 0.5248 0.197 0.0690
4 0.3720 0.140 0.0365
5 0.2761 0.104 0.0156
6 0.2115 0.079 0.0079
7 0.1668 0.063 0.0053
(c) Curtailed wall-frame, etH = 3.41, leve18
1 2.5753 1.000 0.6419 +7.2% 7
2 0.8814 0.342 0.1403
3 0.5197 0.202 0.0470
4 0.3432 0.133 0.0176
5 0.2435 0.095 0.0116
6 0.1838 0.071 0.0147
7 0.1480 0.057 0.0287
(d) Curtailed wall-frame, etH = 3.41, levelll
1 2.5453 1.000 0.6657 +9.7% 6
2 0.8695 0.342 0.1109
3 0.4452 0.175 0.0342
4 0.2881 0.113 0.0477
5 0.2230 0.088 0.0369
6 0.1664 0.065 0.0086
(e) Curtailed wall-frame, etH = 3.41, level 15
1 2.5994 1.000 0.6807 +5.22% 5
2 0.7181 0.277 0.1046
3 0.4027 0.155 0.0758
4 0.2352 0.091 0.0177
5 0.1655 0.064 0.0355
Table 7.13: Dynamic characteristics of curtailed wall-frame structure with etH =
3.41 and k
2
= 1.03, Example E7.6
135
Period Period Weighted Change in Number
ratio participation modal of mod('s
Mode T, T,/T
t
factor stiffness to include
--
(a) Uniform wall structures, 01/ = 15.3:J
1 3.3757 1.000 0.7583 - ~
2 1.0536 0.314 0.1172
3 0.5651 0.168 0.0392
4 0.3699 0.110 0.0223
(b) Curtailed wall-frame, oH = 15.33, level 2
1 3.3209 1.000 0.7548 +3.33% 3
2 1.0638 0.320 0.1152
3 0.5972 0.180 0.0377
4 0.4141 0.125 0.0216
(c) Curtailed wall-frame, oH = 15.33, level 4
1 3.3104 1.000 0.7528 +3.98% 3
2 1.0631 0.321 0.1177
3 0.5975 0.181 0.0381
4 0.4126 0.125 0.0199
(d) Curtailed wall-frame, oH = 15.33, level 10
1 3.3185 1.000 0.7535 +3.48% 4
2 1.0580 0.319 0.1053
3 0.5830 0.176 0.0401
4 0.3978 0.120 0.0205
(e) Curtailed wall-frame, oH = 15.33, level 15
1 3.3404 1.000 0.7562 +2.13% 3
2 1.0519 0.315 0.1175
3 0.5704 0.171 0.0381
4 0.3846 0.115 0.0217
Table 7.14: Dynamic characteristics of curtailed wall-frame structure with 0/1 =
15.33 and k
2
= 1.0075, Example E7. 7
136
(
(
Levelof
curta.ilment
Base Shear Base overturning Ratio of base shear 1
(kN) moment (kNm) to total weight J
(a) Wall-frame structure (aH = 3.41), Example E7.6
none 653.2 22 702 4.80%
6 498.2 19407 4.14%
8 504.6 20066 4.12%
Il 540.3 20 723 4.30%
15 604.7 21 492 4.65%
(b) Wall-frame structure (aH = 15.33), Example E7. 7
none 213.7 15041 1.94%
2 195.2 14 625 1.85%
4 204.0 14 676 1.92%
10 209.0 14 793 1.94%
15 211.8 14 907 1.94%
Table 7.15: Base shear and overturning moment of example structures subjected to
earthquake loading
For structures with lower values of aH, such as that having aH = 3.41, curtail-
ment of the wall below the inflexion point produces an increase in the fundamental period,
Table 7.13, showing that the effect of the reduction in stiffness in increasing the period
overwelms the opposite effect of the reduction in rnass. The contribution to the overall
stiffness of the structure of the wall at the base, is very significant in such structure.
Comparing the higher to the fundamental period ratios of the curtailed structure
to those of the pure flexure a.nd pure shear cantilevers, Tables 7.11, 7.13 and 7.14, it is
interesting to note that their ratios get doser to those of the pure shear cantilever for wall-
frames with their wall curta.iled at the lower levels. It also shows the increasing influence
of the frame on the behaviour of the curtailed structure.
The modal stiffness is a good indicator of the overall change in lateral stiffness if the
mass rema.ins constant. In these examples, the greatest reduction in total rnass is of 11%
when the wall is curtailed at leve16, for the wall-frame structure with aH = 3.41. Therefore,
the change in modal stiffness does not represent the real change in lateral stiffness, but
since the change in mass is relatively small, it could still be used as a general indicator.
Generally the fundamental modal stiffness of the curta.iled structures is equal to or greater
than the fundamental modal stiffness of the full-height-wall structure. In both examples
the maximum increase is reached when the wall is curta.iled around or just above the point
of inflexion in the uniform wall- frame, respectively +9.7% and +4% for aH = 3.41 and
15.33.
Observations of the dynarnic characteristics for all examples show that, the doser to
137
20
15
'"
\
,-
'"
,-
,-
1
1
1
1
-- Full-helght-woll
- - Curtoiled (Level 11)
a 2 0.4 0.6 .8 1 a
Normalized Mode Shape 1
Qi
>

5
-1. -o. . 0.6 1.0
Normalized Shape 3
1
\
\
\
,
20
,
-10 -.6 .
Normalizad
al
>
al
20
-1 10
/
6 10
Shape 2
-1. . . 0 10
Normalized Mode Shape 4
Figure 7.21: Normalized mode shapes for curtailed wall-frame structure (level 11) with
aH = 3.41
138
(
{
15
Q) 10
>
Q)
-l
5
1
t
1
1
L_
I
1 :
ri
1
",,-1_1
1
1 ~ _
1 :
1
-. -,
1
1 ~
1 :
l L_ ,
1
L ~ ~
1 :
I-
I 1
1
1
-, -,
1
1 ~ ~
1 1
1
1
Full-height-wall
Curtailed (Level 6)
Curtailed (Level 11)
1 :
.....,1- _1
1
1 l '--,
1
1
-,
1
1
,
1
1
Peak Storey Shear (kN)
Figure 7.22: Probable maximum peak storey shear for curtailed wall-frame structure
(levelll) with aH = 3.41
139
.,....
20
15
r
r
10
j
-- Full-height-wall
- - Curtolled (Level 6)
- - - Curtoiled (Level Il)
5
0.05 a la 015
Lateral Deflection (m)
20

"


15


-- :\. \'
:
- - Curioiled Level B
: '> \
- - - Curtoiled Level 1 1
' ,
. \\
- - Curioile !LeVel
. Curtoiled Level
110
,
.. \
,
QI
...J
5

Interstorey Drift
Figure 7.23: Probable maximum deflections for
curtailed wallframe structure (level
11) with aH = 3.41
Figure 7.24: Probable maximum interstorey drifts
for curtailed wall frame struct u r<'
(level 11) with aH = 3.41

15
5
Shear in
1 L-.. _
,-1- ,
1- 1_,
l.. I-
r - - _L
Il l-
I 1-
-- Full-helght-woll
- - Curtolled (Level 6)
- - - Curtoiled (Level 1 1 )
(kN)
Figure 7.25: Probable maxJmum shear in the
frame for curtailed wall frame struc
ture (Ievelll) with oH = 3.41
140
-
r
20 2
18
16
12
10
cu
...J \
8 \
\
6
\
4
1
\
2 1 \
8.0 .2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Modal Contribution
3,
2
,
,
" \
1
14 ...
, .
--
-- , ,.
" ,""
12 : -- \
--
" \
1.0
1
10 ,
CU
...J \,
8
: ,
. ,
6 "
\
,
4, "
'. \
2
\ \
\ 1
.
.
" \
1
,
4 ......... '-':0 ..... ""6 .L...J........,...0 ...... 8....L-..J'-Y.1.0
Modal Contribution
20 :5
18 1
16
14 1
/
12 /
1
8
6 \
\
1
... ,
,
1
2 \ \
1
,
2
1
1
.0'
Modal Contribution
,
12 '
"
,
\
1
10
CIl " /
" /
...J /
...-
...-
8
1
6 /

Modal Contribution
Modal contributions for full-height-wall structure with aH = 3.41
141
t
20 2
18
16
14
8
6

Modal Contribution
( a) Lateral deftec tians
/
--
--
0.2 0.4 .6 O. 1.0
Modal Contribution
(c) Peak storey shear
\
8 \
\
6 \
1
/
/
1
,
,
\
/
/
/

Modol Contribution
(b) Interstorey dnfll>
\
1
12
/
/
ai .
/
/
> 10.
/
CD
..J . 1
8: 1
: 1
6
4
2
8.0

O. 4 06 08
' 0
Modal Contribution
(d) Overturning moment
Figure 7.26: Modal contributions for curtailed wall-frame structure (level 11) with
aH = 3.41
142
(
(
',.
the flexural wall that a wall-frame structure behaves, i.e. the lower aH, the more its dy-
namic cha.racteristics (Le., periods, mode shapes and mode participation factors, Tables 7.13
and 7.14) a.re affected by curta.ilment, especially for curtailment below the point of inflexion,
where the wall is relatively For the wall-frame structure with aH greater than 10,
which is already close to a pure frame behaviour, the curtailed wall structure's characteris-
tics remain close to those of the full-height-wall structure, Table 7.14 for aH = 15.33.
7.11.2 Mode Shapes
In sorne cases, the mode shapes of the curtailed structures present interesting features.
The curtailed wall-frame structure can be considered as two substructures of different stiff-
ncss and mass, one on top of the other, the one at the base being generally stiffer. The
natural frequencies of these two substructurf's are not the same, and when the nat ural fre-
quency of the top part corresponds to the overall frequency of the curtailed structure, the
top frame could resonate, Fig. 7.21c.
From the analyses, it is observed that this phenomenon occurs in the higher modes,
3 and above, for structures with a low value of aH, or with a high wall-to-frame stiffnesses
ratio. Smce the mode shapes determine the distribution of the forces, it could cause prob-
lems just above the level of curtailment, if the mode in question contributes significantly to
the response.
7.11.3 Design Quantities
The magnitude of the design quantities is controlled by the natural periods of vibration
of the structure, while their distribution is controll -:1 by the mode shapes. As explained in
Section 7.9, a reduction in stiifness and mass leads to a reduction of the forces. This is
illustrated in Fig. 7.22 by the reduction in peak storey shear or resulting external shear after
curtailment of the wall, and consequently in the base shear and base overturning moment,
Table 7.15. For both the ratio of the base shear to the total weight remains
relatively constant for alileveis of curtailment.
The probable maximum deflections are also reduced, and the maximum reduction in
the top deflection is found when the wall is curta.iled close to or just above the inflexion
point of the corresponding full-height-wall structure, level 8 for aH == 3.41 and level 6
for a1l :::: 15.33. Fig. 7.23 aIso shows that curta.ilment does not modify significantly the
maximum possible deflections along the height of the structure.
However, the local changes in forces or in interstorey drift are more significant. The
maximum interstorey drift in a. curtailed structure is found just above the level of curtail-
ment, where the frame is released from the wall interaction. The lower the level
of curtailment, where the frame is relatively more flexible, the greater the maximum inter-
storey drift, Fig. 7.24. In the example of the structure with aH = 3.41, curtailment of the
wall at level 6 increases the maximum interstorey drift index from 1/447 to 1/331, which is
significant.
143
As the shear in the frame is directly relatE!d to the interstorey drift, and the increment
in shear to the ir.crement in interstort"? drift, attention should be paid to the frallle in
the storey above curtailment. Even though the external forres are r('duced, the probabl('
maximum forces in the members of the structure could he locally inereased. \V}WI\ the w,lil
is curtailed at any level, the maximum shear in the frame occurs at the level above the I('wl
of curtailment, the greatest value occuring when the wall in the given exa,mples, Fig, 7.25, b
curtailed at the lowest level. As antlclpated from the interstor('y drifts, the Illa..XtnHlIll slwilr
in the frame is preeeded by a significant important step in the distributiol\ of the probahlt'
maximum shear, Fig. 7.25. The behaviour is very similar to what was h,tppPl\ing in tl\('
statie case, but there does not seem to be any level of curtailm('nt that prodllces ,llll'giigiblt'
increase in shear. However, curtailing the wall above the point of inflexion produces ~ t p
in shear significantly less than when cllrtrulment is donc hclow that point.
As for aU other quantities the dlfference between the ulllform and curtatled strllctufl'
is very small when aH is greater than 10.
At the level above curtailment there is also an increasc in overturning momcllt a.nd III
the single curvature ben ding moment in the columns of the frame. These corre:.pond to ft
small increase in the moment T x e or the axial forces in the columns. It IS ohsPrvc(! that
t he minimum change in overturning moment happens when the wall is CIIrtatlt'd around HI('
inflexion pomt.
The modal contributions to the deftection, interstorey drift, peak storey slwar and
overturning moment are also modified by curtailment of the wall, Fig. 7.26. In tlH' curtailed
structure, the modal contributions becC/me similar to the typical modal contnbutlons of
a shear cantilever. The first mode cont.ributes less to the top interstor('y drift, and more
to the base shear. The contributIOns of the first five modes to the peak storey shear and
overturning moment are almost equal at the top. The lower the value of aH, the more
difference there is between the modal contributions of the curtailed and uniform !>tructur<!s.
7.12 Discussion
Curtailment of the wall in a wall-frame structure generally reduces its fundamental
period, its first-mode participation to the response and, consequently, the resulting external
forces on the structure. The top deftection is reduced for alileveis of curtailment, but the
maximum interstorey drift and shear forces in the frame could increase significantly if
curtailment were made below the inflexion point. If it is nece:.sary to curtail the wall in
the lower region, the level of curtailment can he chosen to avOlo significant increases in the
local forces. It is suggested that the wall should be curtailN around the static inflexion
point of the full-height-wall structure, or just above it.
In wall-frame structures with low values of aH (smaller than 10) the stiffness of the
wall is important enough to impose a dominant fh!xural behaviour on the structure. Cur-
tailment leads ta a significant reduction in the total stiffness, consequently the magnitude
of the increase in the design quantities is always greater for those structures.
144
7.13 Conclusion
It has been shown that the behaviour of curtailed wall-frame structures subjected to
statie loading can serve as a guideline for the design of such structures for both static and
earthquake loading. The storey above the curtailment level is subjected to an increase in
flexibility and member forces. For static loading, these can be minimized by choosing a
level of cllrtailment in the region between the point of inflexion and zero shear wall of the
corresponding full-height-wall structure.
For earthquake loading, the static point of inflexion in the full-height wall-frame can
also be taken as a reference. Curtailment of the wall around or just above it is preferable in
terms of a minimum value of the maximum probable top deflection. In terms of a significant
step in the interstorey drift and shear, curtailment above that point is preferable to below
it.
At the level above curtailment, there is a high deformation demand. Probably most of
the energy dissipation would happen at that floor and the damages would be concentrated
at that location. If is therefore recommended that future work should include a non-linear
analysis to evaluate the response at that partielllar storey.
As specified in Section 7.7, these guidelint's can be used ruso for structures that are
to be stepped, or for stepped structures that are to be curtailed.
145
Part III
STIFFENED-STOREY
WALL-FRAME STRUCTURES
146
Chapter 8
INTRODUCTION - PART III
In this last part of the thesis, the author proposes possible modifications, which do
not as yet appear in practical structures, but that are studied here as being potentially
of significant benefit. The addition of stiffening panels, or other stiffening means, at the
top of the frame could stiffen the wall-frame structure by increasing the top interaction
force between the wall and the frame. The effect of such an addition on the behaviour of
the wallframe is considered here as weIl as the possibility of adding the stiffening panel
elsewhere along the height, where it may be even more effective.
The basis of a continuum solution proposed by A. Coull (1974), for coupledwalls \Vith
a stiffening beam at the top to counteract the effects of base rotation, are used by the
author to develop an approximate solution for wall-frame structures with a stiffening panel
at the top of the frame, at intermediate levels and at the level the wall is curtailed. These
solutions, along with discrete analysis, aIso provide informations to determine for which
type of wall-frame structures such stiffening techniques are the most effective.
147
"
Chapter 9
STIFFENING TOP LEVEL OF FRAME
A. STATIC LOAD BEHAVIOUR
At the top level of the wall-frame structure, there is a concentrated interactioll forn'
Q H, adding to the load on the frame and restraining the wall, and causing both to havc the
same slope at the top, Fig. 9.1a. The force (represented by a compressive force in tlll' top
link of the two-dimensional model) is equal to the product of the shear rigidity GA of th<,
frame, and the inclination related to the racking action, Or, resulting from double bendinp;
of the columns and the heams.
Q 1-1 = Or X GA (9.1 )
The interaction between the wall and the moment-resisting frame is an importan t
factor in the total structure stiffness, as shown hy its stiffcning effect in Fig. 4.8. TIH'refoll"
if the intensity of the interactive force at the top could he increased, the structuH' would
be stiffer, especially at the top, and the total drift would be reduced. Such an in
the interactive force can be achieved by increasing the shear rigidity GA of the top le\ el of
the rigid frame, either by increasing the stiffness of the top storey columns and bC.IIIl'>, 01
by inserting a stiffening panel or hraces in the top storey of the frame, };'ig. 9 lb
As part of a preliminary study, a number of dlscrete finite element of wall
frame structures wlth a stiffened top store)' of the frame, were made These demol\,t rrttpd
very c1early a significant increase in the overall lateral stiffness.
On the basis of the knowledge that a wallframe structure, and otller structull'!:>, (ail
be represented hy coupled wall theory, (Stafford SmIth et aI (1981)), and
that the interaction force can he increased hy increasing the shear rigldity of the top stOl l')
of the frame, it may he deduced that a stiffened top storey in a wallframe strll( llll(' "
analogous to an increase in the flexural stiffness of the top connecting beam in a ({JU pl(d
wall structure. Coull (1974) considered the problem of a coupled wall with a top
connecting beam and developed a contrnuum solution The theory for a coupleJ wall witlt
a stiffened top beam will he developed here to represent the behaviour of a wallflrtlllt
structure with top-store)' stiffenmg.
The reduction in the top deftection of the stiffened store)' wallframe structure Il''(-
essarily ':\ssociated with significant increases in the interaction force hetweell the top of tltt
148
"
\
iii
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Shear Wall
...-QH_
tJ.CA
r f
-;'l
- -
- -
.- .....
.-
-
..
..
- -
-
-
- -
(a) Concentrated top interactive force QH
Frame
""' 1-
Increased
Columns and
Beams Slzes
w
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Shear Wall
-1- J
Frame


/ / / / / / / / / 1 // / 1 / ///////// ///1/
(b) Increased shear rigidity of the top level of the frame
Figure 9.1: Stiffening panel at the top of the frame
149
Sllffenmg
Panel
-
wall and the frame, and the local shear force and moment in the frame and wall. To evaluate
the relative importance of these forces, and to study in detail the various consequences of
stiffening the top storey of the rigid-frame, example analyses were performed.
9.1 Continuum Solution
The solution for a cou pIed wall with a stiffened top beam was adapted to apply to a
wall-frame structure with a stiffened top storey and having general characteristic parameters
o.H and k
2
The compatibility equation of a wall-frame with a stiffened top storey is similar
to that of a uniform wall-frame structure without a stiffened top storey, Eqn. :''''3. To
account for the effect of the stiffened top storey of the frame, the concentrated bhear forre
V
p
in it is introduced in the compatibility equation at the top of the structure, Chaptcr :1.
9.1.1 Shearing Force in Stiffened Top Storey
Considering the concentrated shear force V
p
in the stiffened top storey, Fig. 9.1, the
new expression for the axial force T(x) as given by Eqn. 3.23 for a uniform wall-frame
structure becomes:
T(x) = Ix
H
T'(x)dx + Vp
(9.2)
Considering the new expression for the axial force T(x) and writing the compatibility
equation of the frame as in Chapter 3, and linking the wall ta the frame, Eqns. 3.49 and
3.50 become:
0
2
r: r [l
H
1 0
2
T Jo ME(X)dx - T'(x) - (ko)2 Jo x T'(x)dx + Vp dx - (iEIt::. o = 0
(9.3)
and
0.
2
dT'(x) [l
H
]
TME(x) - !lx - (ko)2 x T'(x)dx + Vp = 0
(9.4)
The governing equation for the shearing force intensity, T'(x), in the beams of the frame
is identical to Eqn. 3.52 for a uniform wall-frame structure without a stiffcned top storey,
and leads to the same general solution.
. 1 ( dME(X))
T'(x) = Cl smhkox + C2 cosh kox + k2 - dx
(9.,5)
in which the external moment is
(9.6)
150
i
However, the modi1ied compatibility equations, Eqns. 9.4 and 9.3, lead to new bound-
ary conditions for a uniform wall-frame structure with a stiffened top storey and fixed base.
From Eqn. 9.3, if .10 = 0
T'(O) = 0 (9.7)
and from Eqn. 9.4
dT'(H) = -(ka?V.
dx "
(9.8)
These boundary conditions, Eqns. 9.7 and 9.8, allow the constants Cl and C2 of the
expression for the shearing force intensity T'(x), Eqn. 9.5, to be found as functions of the
vertical shearing force V
p
in the stiffened top storey, Appendix A.5.l.
The vertical shearing force, V"' in the stiffened top storey induces a couple, Vpf, equal
to the couple, QH,.h, caused by the top horizontal force QH,. related to the additional shear
rigidity in the top frame storey, Fig. 9.2.
(9.9)
Fig. 9.2 shows the correspondence between the inclination related to racking action,
9
r
, and the relative vertical top displacement, .1
1
, taken into consideration in the equation
of compatibility.
(9.10)
The inclination of the stiffened top storey corresponding ta the racking action, e
r
, is
directly related ta the top horizontal force Q H by :
e _ QH
p
T - GA
p
where GAp is the additional shear rigidity of the top store)'.
(9.11)
Combining Eqns. 9.11 and 9.9, and substituting the resulting expression for Or in
Eqn. 9.10, the vertical displacement .11 becomes
Taking
GA
ph
_
GA --y
(9.12)
(9.13)
where GA is the shear dgidity of a typical storey of the frame and h, the storey height.
151
>:
h
Figure 9.2: Racking deformation of top stiffened storey
Then Eqns. 9.12 and 9.13 give
(9.14)
Since the relative vertical displacement due to racking at the top of the structure is
related to the shearing force intensity at the top by
Then,
i
2

1
= -T'(H)-
GA
V
p
= -yT'(H)
(9.15)
(9.16)
Comparing the solution of Eqn. 9.5 for the shearing force intensity at the top of the structure,
T'(H), Appendix A.5.l, with Eqn. 9.16,
v.l = wH
2
(k'f) (sinhkaH - koH)
p k
2
(kaH)2 (cosh koH + ky sinh kaH)
(9.17)
152
1
9.1.2 Deftection of Wall-Frame with Stiffened Top Storey
In the wall-frame, the external moment is resisted by a combination of the bending
of the wall and columns, and the couple resulting from the axial forces in the columns of
the frame.
ME(X) = El
d
7;:) t T(x) x f (9.18)
where T(x) is the column force in an equivalent single-bay frame of span f, and is given by
Eqn.9.2.
To determine the expression for the lateral defiection, y( x), the same procedure as
in Chapter 3 is followed. The curvature, ( ), given by Eqn. 9.18 is integrated twice,
replacing the external moment and the axial force by their respective expressions, Eqns. 9.6
and 9.2, Appendix A.2.3. The integrations are done considering the boundary conditions
at the base of the structure.
and
y(O) = 0
y'(O) = 0
(9.19)
(9.20)
The expression for the lateral defiection of the structure with a stiffened top storey
when subjected to a uniformly distributed lateralload, is
y(x) = tExpression for defiection of uniform wall-frame subjected to uniformly
distri b\!ted load (Eqn. 3.75)
_ Vpi Hl (cosh kax - 1) (9.21)
El (kaH)2coshkaH
The second part of Eqn. 9.21 accounts for the reduction in the defiection caused by
the stiffened storey.
At the top,
y(H)
= wH
4
(k
2
- 1)!
El k
2
8
wH4 1 [1 (cosh kaH - 1 -kaH sinh kaH)]
+ El k
2
2(kaH)2 + (kaH)4 cosh kaH
_ Vpi H
2
(coshkaH - 1)
El (kaH)2 cash kaH
(9.22)
in which Vpf is given by Eqn. 9.11
153
,- i
.,
Factor f'=(GAp/GA)/N
Factor f'=(GAp/GA)/N
2 3 5
000 1 2
. I ~ 3 4 5
1 1 l , 160' i
-10.0
-10.0
-----
.,........
tR ~
'-./
c:
-20.0 c:
-20.0
0
0
+
+
u
u
Cl)
Cl)
..... ...-
en
-
,j:o.. Cl)
Cl)
-u
-u
0.. -30.0
0.. -30.0
0
0
.....,
...,
c:
c:
Cl)
Cl)
Ol
Ol
c:
C
0
-40.0
0
-40.0
.c
.c
U
U
-50.0 ~ I ~
5 0 . 0 ~ 1 ~
Figure 9.3: Percentage change in top deftection when k
2
= 1.0
Figure 9.4: Percentage change in top defiection when k
2
= 1.2
Comparing the top deBection of a wall-frame structure having a stiffened top storey
with that of a uniform wall-frame structure, Eqn. A.9, the percentage reduction in the top
deflection of a uniform wall-frame structure caused by a stiffened top storey, is found for
different values of aH and k
2
, Figs. 9.3 and 9.4.
To generalize the curves, by allowing for different storey heights and numbers of
storeys, the non-dimensional parameter fi is used.
f' = (GAp/GA) == l
N H
(9.23)
in which GAp and GA are the additional shear rigidity of the stiffelled top storey and of a
typical storey respectively, and N is the total number of storeys of the structure.
9.2 Example Analyses
To evaIuate the effects of stiffening the top level of the frame, sorne discrete example
structures were analysed with a diagonal strut to model an infill panel in the top storey.
9.2.1 Description of Examples
The same four uniform wall-frame structurEoS of twenty storeys used in Chapter 7
were analysed.
Example E9.!: aH = 1.32 and k
2
== 1.22
Example E9.2: aH = 3.41 and k
2
= 1.0 ....
Example E9.3: aH = 7.00 and P = 1.0075
Example E9.4: aH = 15.33 and k
2
= 1.0016
The detailed characteristics of those structures are li[:ed in Appendix B.
The mechani,m by which an infill panel braces a rectangular frame ma)' be perceived
as bcing by either the infill's in-plane shear resistanre or its diagonal compressive resistance.
The translation of the upper part of the 'windward' column and the shortening of the leadmg
diagonal in the frame cause the column to lean against the wall and to compress it as a
diagonal strut. Previous studies, Stafford Smith (1967), have shown that the effects of
an infill panel can be simulated very approximately by an equivaIent diagonal strut acting
along the compressive path and ha"ing the following section al area, Fig. 9.5:
155
1
1.
1
V
v
V-
V-
V
i---- -
1
1
-.
~ ,
,
(:1
10
h
l'
"-
-L
'
Figure 9.5: Equivalent diagonal strut action
d
Ad = l-
10
Il
(9.24)
where t is the effective thickness of the concrete or blockwork panel, and d is the diagonal
length of the panel.
Assuming that the panel remains elastic, tlJ.e horizontal rigidity of the infill is expressed
by, Fig. 9.5:
(9.25)
A conservative way to obtain the overall stiffness of the infill and the rigid frame is
to add their respective horizontal stiffnesses. For a structure with multi- bay rigid frames
connected together horizontally, Riddington (1974) wrote in his thesis:
"The behaviour of infilled frames connected together horizontally is larg(Jy de-
pendent on the distribution of loading. Provided the loading lS appHed approx-
imately equally at the two ends of a series of infills, or is dlstributed evellly by
means of a Hoor etc., it should be reasonably accurate to calcuJalc the overall
strength of a series of infilled frames by summing thelr lIIdividual strengths,
(provided they are of similar dimensions)."
The equivalent strut model can then be used to represent that type of infilled frame,
since in reality the wind loading on buildings tends to be divided approximately equaUy
156

1
between the windward and leeward faces of a building. The total shear rigidity of the top
storey of the rigid frame with n bays is then equal to:
GAtop = GARF + GAp
(9.26)
where
(9.27)
The factor f' as defined previously, Eqn. 9.23, is assigned in the analyses to he 0.05,
0.25, 0.5 ,land 5 successively. The area of the diagonal strut is then:
(9.28)
9.2.2 Ilesults
For each examyle analysed the deflections, interstorey drifts and force distributions
were obtained. The mast interesting results are plotted for one of the structures cOIlsidered
to he representative of the other examples, Example E9.2, with aH = 3.41 and k
2
= 1.03.
The lateral deflections are shown in Fig. 9.6, the bending moment in the wall in
Fig. 9.7, the shear forces in the frame in Fig. 9.8, and the horizontal interaction forces in
Fig. 9.9.
Fig. 910 aIso shows the variation in the magnitude of the changes caused by the
stiffening of the frame, from one example to another or from one value of aH to another.
9.2.3 Observations from Results of Analyses
Generally, lncreasing the shear rigidity of the top level of the frame produces a reduc-
tion in the lateral deflections over the height and at the top, which increases in significu'1ce
as the value of aH reduces. When the relative shear rigidity of the panel (f') is increased,
the portion of the height in which the deftections are reduced is also increased, Fig. 9.6. As
ma)" be observed ln FIgs. 9.3 and 9.4, wIll ch are derived from the continuum solution, the
structure with the lower value of nH (1.32 < 1.5) tends to have smaller .eduction in the
top deftection, when l' is sm aller than 0.25, than the structure with nH slightly higher,
suell as aH = 3.41, Fig. 9.10a.
Stiffening the top of the frame increases the interacdon between the wall and frame
and, consequentl)" the top forces, the bending moment in the wall, the axial forces in the
columns, and the shear in the wall and frame. At the level next to the top, the shear in the
wall and frame are much smaller than at the top level. The sud den reduction corresponds
to a significant interaction force at level 19, which can be observed in Fig. 9.1Oe In the
worst case. (nH = 1.32), the interactive force is approximately 40 times the original vaIuC'
157
r
1
20
111
,.
14
-f'- 0.0
- - r - o.OS
._-- r - 0.25

-- f' - 0.50
- - r - 1.00
'--- r - 5.00
.10 0
Lateral Deflectlon (m)
Figure 9.6: La.teral deflections for wall
frame structure witb aH =
3.41
20 ,-----r-T .. ..,
18
18
14
6
4
2
,
~ _ . _ . _ ... _-----_.
-- r - 0.0
. - - r - 0.05
-.-- r - 5.00
1500
(kN)
Figure 9.7: Shear forces in the frame
for wall frame structure with
aH = 3.41
158
-r-o.o
- - r 0.05
._-- r 0.25
-- r 0.50
- - r 1.00
-- - r - 5.00
Woment ln the
Figure 9.8: nendin,,; moment in the wall
for wall frame structure with
aH = 3.41
,.--------------
I J
4
2
-_ .... _ .. ---_ ..... __ ....... '"
_.L I
-- r 0.0
. - - r - 0.05
... - r - 5.00
-1 -5 1 1500
Interaction rorce (kN)
(+ tensile, - compressive)
Figure 9.9: Horizontal interaction forces
for wallframe structure with
aH = 3.41
{
35
30
c:
25
0
-+-1
U
:J
20
-0
ID
0:::
Cl)
15
01
0
-+-1
c:
Cl)
10
u

Q)
D-
5
1
1
1
1
1
""
"" ri"
1
""
""
""
cxH:=:7.0 ______ ...
..-------------
1 2 3 4 5
Ratio of shear rigidities (f')
(a) Top lateral deflection
Figure 9.10: Percent age change for different examples
159
1250
_1000

Q)
CI)
o 750
e
u
c:
Q)
01 500
o
....
c
Q)
u
"-
Il)
a..
250
1250
1
1
1
1
1
..
"
"
,
,
,
,
, ClH-7.0 ____ _
... - - - - - - - - - - .. - - -
2
Ratio of shear rigidities (fI)
(h) Top bending moment and top
shear in the wall
..-

........,
cu
U'l
0
cu
"-
u
c:
cu

0
.....
c:
cu
U
"-
cu
a..
2000
1500
1000
500
4000
1
1
1
1
----
_ 0.. __ - - - - _0

Ratio of shear rigidlties (f')
(c) Top moment (T x l) ln the
frame
l
Ratio of shear rigidities (fI)
(e) Interaction at level 19
Figure 9.10: Percentage change for different examples
160
i

.
'r
of the force in the structure without a stiffening panel .
9.2.4 Comparing Continuum and Discrete Model Solutions
The continuum solution developed in Section 9.2 used to obtain curves of the change
in the top defle<..tion for various values of aH, k
2
and f' (= 'YI H), can also be used to obtain
the top deflections or the reduction in top deflection for a given structure, a.s in Example
E9.2. ln Table 9.1, the top deflections and their percentage reductions from th:' continuum
and finite element solut:ons compare quite weil. The relative difference between the top
deftections of the continuum and finite element solutions, reduces a.s fi increa.ses.
9.3 Influence of parameters aH and k
2
From an examination of Figs. 9.3 and 9.4 and the previous examples, the influence
of the characteristic parameter aH on the stiffening effect of the panel and its reduction in
the top deflection of the structure can be divided in three categories:
1. For structures having low values of aH (aH < 1.5) the wall flexural behaviour is dom-
inant and the frame participation is small. In these cases the sma.ller OtH, the greater
the flexural behaviour, and the smaller the relative reduction in the top deflection.
2. For structures having middle range values of aH (> 1.5 and < 4.0) the interaction
between the wall and the frame is important, and reaches its maximum at a value of
aH around 3.0 (Chapter 4). The stiffening panel is therefore very effective, and the
srnaller the value of aH in this range, the greater the reduction in the top deflection.
3. For structures having higher values of aH (> 4.0) the shear behaviour of the frame
dominates and the wall participation is srnall. In all ca.ses where the interaction
between the wall and the frame influences Its lateral behaviour, any modification to
the frame, such a.s adding a stiffening panel, will be effective. But as aH increases
the interaction diminishes, and the effectiveness of the stiffening panel also.
The curves also show that for structures with values of aH greater than approximately
3.0, the reduction in top deflection does not change when the shear rigidity of the stiffening
panel is increased beyond by a factor f' approximately equal to 1, or a ratio of G Apl GA
equal to 20 for a 20-storey building. For higher values of aH, the top slope is almost vertical,
therefore, Or is very small, and the top interaction force remains very small whatever the
value of the panel's shear rigidity. The higher aH, the earlier that plateau is reached.
A reduction in the axial stiffness of the columns, corresponding to k
2
greater than
unit y, allows the panel to rotate more and reduces its effective shear rigidity. Therefore,
when a stiffening panel is added, structures with greater values of k
2
have a smaller reduc-
tion in the top deflection than corresponding structures with axially rigid columns. The
parameter k
2
also modifies the relative change in percent age reduction when the parameter
161
t
r
Top Deflection Percentage Change
(m) in top deftection
f'
GA,,/GA Continuum Finite Continuum Finite
(N=20) Solution Element Solution Element
0 0 .165 .175 0 0
.05 1 .160 .169 -2.7 -3.3
.25 5 .151 .158 -8.5 -9.6
.50 10 .146 .152 -11.6 -13.1
1.0 20 .141 .147 -14.8 -16.2
5.0 100 .136 .140 -17.3 -20.0
Table 9.1: Comparison of the continuum and wscrete solutions, Example E9.2
aH increases. For example, for k
2
= 1.0, the reduction in top deftection when o.H = 6.0
is about 30% of the reduction when aH = 3.0. However, if k
2
= 1.2, the reduction in top
deftection when aH = 6.0 is oruy 20% of the reduction when aH = 3.0.
9.4 Discussion
The increased lateral stiffness of the structure, resulting from the introduction of infills
in the frame, is accompanied by the disadvantage of a greatly increased magnitude of the
forces induced in the top two levels. The stiffer the panel, the greater these forces. The
increase in the top forces, however, is not proportional to the increase in shear rigidi ty.
When the panel is adequately stiff, the top of the frame becomes almost vertical with an
inclination close to zero. Even if the panel is made twice as stlff, the inclination is 50 small
that the resulting forces and overall stiffness are not increased by the same proportion,
Fig. 9.10.
It was found that it is not neccessary to stiffen the top storey of the frame by a
factor J' greater than unit y G A ~ G A ) == 1). Above that value the benefit of an additional
reduction in top deflection is negligible.
The panel stiffens the wall-frame structure by resisting racking of the frame, thereby
producing significant horizontal shear forces and interactive forces. The frame, in turn,
also resists the rotation of the panel, producing an important overturning moment in the
frame which is carried by the axial forces in the columns. 1'0 equilibrate this overturning
moment, the wall carries an equal and opposite bending moment. Therefore, the strength of
the floor slab or beams connecting between the walls and frames, as well as of the columns
and beams surrounding the infill, needs to be checked for their capacity to withstand the
162
.,
!
strut model is a.dequate to represent the defiections of the frame and the infill. However,
it misrepresents the actual condition of load transfer from the frame to the infill, Stafford
Smith (1967). The pressure exerted by the infill on the frame over the lengths of contact
produces additional bending moments in the columns and beams. Therefore, the beams
and coJumns are subjected to shear forces equal to the vertical and horizontal components
of the diagonal force, respectively.
In the next Chapter, an example structure will be analysed for a stiffened top storey in
the frame and at an intermediate level. The strength of the slab and memhers surrounding
the panel will he checked for the most critical case.
163
...
B. EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE
To evaluate the earthquake response of a wall-frame structure with a stiffened top
storey, a stifl'ened wall-frame structure was analysed to determine its dynamic characteristics
and the dt!sign quantities. These are compared with corresponding results for the structure
without a stifl'ened top storey.
9.5 Description of Structure Analysed
The earthquake response of a wall-frame structure with a stiffening panel at the top
of the frame is infiuenced by the additional shear rigidity that it provides, as well as by
the additional lumped mass of the panel. However, the total weight of the structure is
practically unchanged, and it is reasonable to compare the structures with and without the
stiffening panel on the bases of the same total weight.The two-dimensional model structure,
with aH = 3.41, was analysed for free-vibrations and then subjected to the NBCC Response
Spectrum, Example E9.5.
The ratio factor of the panel-to-frame shear rigidities, J', was assigned ta be, suc-
cessively: 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.5. The first two values could represent infills of concrete
blockwork or steel diagonal braces, and the last two solid concrete panels. The increases in
mass for concrete panels corresponding to the increases in shear rigidity are represented by
the factor fm showing ratio of the mass of the panel ta the mass of the frame storey, and
are shawn in Table 9.2.
As an aid towards a better understanding of the separate effects of the additional
mass and the additional shear rigidity, the structure was also analysed with the parameters
f' and lm fixed, in tum, at zero.
Shear Rigidity Shear Rigidity Strut Area Equivalent Mass of Total Mass
Factor Ratio Ad
Thickness t one panel Ratio
f' - GAf/GA
GAp
(m'2) (m) (kNs
2
/m) f !:!.P.
- N GA
m - Mt
.25 5 .053365 .055 4.178 .429
.50 10 .106730 .110 8.356 .857
1.0 20 .213460 .221 16.711 1.714
2.5 50 .533650 .553 41.780 4.285
Table 9.2: Panel-to-frame shear rigidities and masses ratios
164
1
9.6 Results of Analyses
The addition of top panels to the wall-frame structure modifies its dynamic character-
istics, such as the fundamentai period, the first-mode participation factor, and the modal
stiffness, as presented in Table 9.3. To illustrate the separate inftuences of the increase in
mass and shear rigidity on the modal stiffness, curves of the perceutage change with respect
to the parameters f' and Jm are shown in Fig. 9.11.
The resulting peak storey shear, Le. the resulting external shea.r, is plotted in Fig. 9.12.
The deflections are shown in Figs. 9.13 and Table 9.4, and the interstorey drifts in Fig. 9.14.
The most interesting design quantities resulting from the earthquake loading are the
shear forces in the frame at the top of the structure, the base shear, and the base overt urnil'g
moment, which are presented in Table 9.5.
9.7 Discussion
The additional mass and additional shear rigidity created by the infill in the top
storey act oppositely in inftuencing the fundamental period and the modal stiffness, but
both increase the participation of the first mode in the response.
Considering first the effect of the additional mass at the top, which corresponds to
the fundamental mode contributing about 70% of the structure effective modal mass, it
is observed that the increase in mass alone increases the first-mode participation factor
and reduces the modal stiffness almost proportionately, Fig. 9.11. Since the first mode
contributes highly to the top deftection, the increase in the maximum probable top deflection
is also almost proportionate to the increase in the panel's mass.
Considering now the increase in shear rigidity alone. The participation of the first
mode in the response is increased by the additional shear rigidity at the top storey. Also the
additional shear rigidity produces a reduction in the maximum probable top deftection, and
an increase in the shear force at the top of the frame. The modal stiffness also increases, but
for values of the parameter J' greater than l, the rate of increase is very small, Fig. 9.11.
In the example structure, the effects of the increase in mass and stiffness at the top
storey are combined, Tables 9.3 to 9.5. These show the dominant influence of the increase
in the shear rigidity for values of f' lower than 1 and the corresponding lm ratios, by the
increases in the modal stiffness and the reduction in the fundamental. period. For higher
values of J' and the corresponding Jm ratio, the increase in mass begins to affect noticeably
the dynamic characteristics: the reduction in the fundamental period and the increase in
modal stiffness ale both less.
The base shear and base overturning moment, whicb are generally accepted as repre-
senting weIl the dynamic loading effects for structures with the same total mass, are both
increased by the additional shear rigidity, Table 9.5. The frame with a stiffened top storey
deftects less, Fig. 9.13 a.nd Table 9.4. And is more in the shape of a shear cantilever with a
165
1
1
-,
Shear Rigidity Fundamental Modal
Factor Period Stiffness
fi = G ~ G
Tl (s) First-mode w
2
% change
participation factor
0 2.6664 .6858 5.553 -
.25 2.5918 .7004 5.877 +5.8
.50 2.5750 .7062 5.954 +7.2
1.0 2.5801 .7124 5.930 +6.8
2.5 2.6569 .7209 5.592 +0.7
Table 9.3: Dynamic characteristics for example structure with oH = 3.41
Shear Rigidity Top Percentage
Factor Deflection Change
f' - GAp/GA
- N
y(H) (m) (%)
0 .12408 -
.25 .11597 -6.5
.50 .11303 -8.9
1.0 .11090 -10.6
2.5 .11087 -10.6
Table 9.4: Change in maximum top deflection for example structure with oH = 3.41
Shear Rigi dit Y Shear in The Frame Interaction Base Base
Factor Force Shear Overturning
fi = G ~ G
Top Level Level19 Leve119 Moment
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kNm)
.-
0 269.6 197.3 -72.3 653.0 22 702
.25 841.5 130.3 -711.2 670.9 23 772
.50 1082.7 104,8 -977.9 677.7 24264
1.0 1322.0 82.3 -1239.7 684.9 24827
2.5 1608.9
1
63.6 -1545.3 694.3 25 811
Table 9.5: Probable maximum forces for example structure with oH = 3.41
166
CIl
r--. CIl
150
100
$ E 50
'",=0 and ___ ------
... - - - - - - ..
..... - ....... _ ''''/0
- - _O"..d ,!'Io
Q)
Ol-
e: 0
0-0
.!: 0
u E
Q) Q) (
0'1 > Rigidities ratio fI)
0:';:;
...... u
-50

Q)
a.. .S
-100

Moss ratio (f m)
Figure 9.11: Percentage change in modal mass with respect ta pararneters l'and fm
20....----.
15
10
5
f' = 0.0
f' = 1.0
Figure 9.12: Probable maximum peak storey shear for example structure with
aH = 3.41, f' = .5 and fm = .857
167
20
15
Q)
10
-l
-- f' = 0.0
- - f' = 0.25
- - f' = 0.50
- - - f' = 1.0
------ f' = 2.5
Lateral Deflection (m)
Figure 9.13: Probable maximum deftections for example structure with n FI =
3.41. f' = .5 and lm = .857
Q)
>
20
15
Q) 10
-l
5
-- f'
- - f'
- - f'
- - - f'
------ f'
= 0.0
= 0.25
= 0.50
= 1.0
= 2.5

Interstorey Drift
Figure 9.14: Probable maximum interstorey drifts for example structure wlt.h
aH = 3.41, l' = .5 and fm = .857
168
.....
smaller interstorey drift at the top, Fig. 9.14. The top deflection is reduced for all combina-
tions of J'and lm, but the percentage change stabilizes for f' greater than 1, showing once
again the influence of the increase in mass which, when considered alone, tends to increase
the deftection. The frame is held back by a concentrated interaction force at the top of the
structure, which produces significant shear in the frame in the top storey.
As in the static loading case, the forces induced at the top of the structure are of
great concem. The additional mass and shear rigidity independently produce increases in
the forces at the top, but the effect of the mass inc.ease is negligible in comparison wi t h
that of the additional shear rigidity. As with the static case, the top shear in the frame,
and the interaction forces at the top two levels, are the actions most dramatically increased.
The higher the value of f', the greater the increase in the forces. But there is no benptit to
be gained by adding a panel with a shear rigidity corresponding to a factor f' greater than
1, because above that approximate value of f', the additional increase in the structure's
stiffness is negligible.
With regard to the top forces, and the reduction in top deflection and top interstorey
drift, the optimum effect would be achieved by minimizing the additional mass and in-
creasing the shear rigidity by a factor f' of approximl.tely 1. This could be realized most
effectively by using a structural steel diagonal member to brace the top storey.
9.8 Conclusions on Static and Earthquake Responses
Only one example structure was analysed for earthquake loading, but its general
behaviour compares closely with that under static loading. The addition of shear rigidity at
the top storey of the frame reduces the top deflection under static loading and the maximum
probable top deflection under earthquake loading. The shear force in the frame and the wall
at the top level is increased in both cases corresponding to a greater horizontal interaction.
It indicates that the general stiffening effect of the panel at the top is efficient in increasing
the overalliateral stiffness. However, it is beyond the scope of this thesis to perform a more
in-depth study ta generalize the influence of the frame-to-wall stiffnesses ratios, i.e. the
parameter aH, oI:. the earthquake response.
The study of the behaviour of the wall-frame structure with a stiffened top storey of
the frame an' subje-ted to statie or earthquake loadtng, leads to the following conclusions.
The advantages of stiffening the top of the frame of a wallframe structure are the
resulting reduction in top drift and the &maller interstorey drifts in the upper part of the
structure.
A disadvantage is the significant increase in the interbent horizontal interaction force
at the top level of the structure, which may produce excessive shear stresses in the fioor slab
between a.djacent walls and frames. Also, at the top of the frame, the vertical and horizontal
components of the diagonal force in the stiffening panel produces significant stresses in the
beams and coluIi4ns surrounding the panel. Special attention should be paid to thE.' design
of the those members in the top region of a wall-frame structure with a stiffened top storey .
169

(
(
The magnitude of these local stresses and specifie problems that could arise in that region
will be c:oDlidered in the next chapter.
Therefore, for both static and earthqua.ke loading, the top store)' could be stiffened to
reduce the top drift, but the ~ r m e t e r fi, which represents the additional shear rigidity,
should not exceed a value of 1. Any additional gain in stiffn.:!ss by increasing the shear
rigidity ratio is negligible compared with the magnitude of the increase in top forces that
will be induced.
From the static behaviour, the greater the frame stiffness relative to the wall, Le.,
the greater the parameter OtH, the smaller the relative magnitude of the change due to a
stiffening panel.
170
Chapter 10
STIFFENING FRAME AT INTERMEDIATE
LEVEL
A. STATIC LOAD BEHAVIOUR
The stiffened storey at the top of the frame de\'elops a greater interaction force at
that level, thereby reducing the deflection and top rotation of the structure. It is necessa.ry
to consider whether stiffening a storey at a lower level, wht"re the racking action is greater,
would produce an even greater force which, despite its lower level, would have a net effect
of causing a greater reduction in deflection and rotation.
By stiffening a storey at an intermediate level, the lower part of the structure is
stiffened and has a smaller deflection and rotation at the level of the stiffening panel. The
upper part of the structure is therefore subject to smaller initial deformations, and will
deftect less.
To ascertain the effects of a stiffened storey at an intermediate level, a continuum
solution has been developed and example analyses performed. These have shown that it is
in fact more effective to stiffen a storey at an intermediate level than at the top. However,
the consequent local increase in horizontal shear force in both the wall and the frame is also
more significant than when the top storey is stiffened.
10.1 Continuum Solution
The wall-frame with a stiffened storey at intermediate level forms two substructures.
The first is the base region, Substructure 1, with a fixed base and a stiffened storey at its
top, while the second is the upper region, Substructure 2, with a free end at the top. Both
substructures have the same characteristic pr'lperties and are subject to the same uniformly
distributed load w, but have different heights, Hl and H2' Fig. 10.1. It can be considered
as a special case of stepped structure, and analysed by the generalized theory developed in
Chapter 6.
The forces acting on the frame at the discontinwty level, x = Hl' which include the
horizontal shear forces, S Ft /2, the axial force, Pl, and bending moments M UI and Mil' are
as shown in Fig. 10.2. In addition there is a concentrated vertical shear force V
p
in the
stiffened storey.
171
Shear Wall Frame
w
....
-
-
H
2
-
-
YP


r"-Sl1tren
Panel
mg
-
Hl
-
-
-
/////////1///1/
Figure 10.1: Wall-frame structure with a stiffened storey at intermediate level
t
t J
t J
t J
t J
tI; 5,v1
M..
I
PI
t-vzi
Figure 10.2: Interaction forces at the stiffened storey level
172
In the wall the mteraction forces at that f,ame level are the horizontal shear force SU.l
and the bending moment M
Wl

Denoting Hl = pH
Ta satisfy equilibrium:
( 10.1)
and
WH2 wH2(1 _ )2
= Ml = __ 2 = P
2 2
= M
W1
+ 2M
u1
+ Pt xl
= Mw, + 2Ml1 + Pt xl ( 10.2)
where the axial force Pl expresses the axial reaction of the lower part due ta the upper part.
It is sim ply represented as the summation of the vertical shear force T
2
( X2), that is
( 10.3)
At any level Xl of Sstr. 1, the external moment on the wall-frame is:
(10.4)
At any level X2 of Sstr. 2, the external moment on the wall-frame is:
(10.5)
10.1.1 Solution for Axial Force Pl
Ta solve for the deflections of a wall-frame structure with 'l. stiffened storey at height
Hl it is necessary ta sol ve first for the axial force PI, as for the case of stepped wall-frame
structures, Chapter 6.
The compatibility equations of Sstr.l are the same as those developped for a wall-
frame structure with a stiffened top storey, Eqns. 9.4 and 9.3, using the following expression
for the axial force Tl (x d at any level Xl
( 10.6)
173
i
r
where V, is the 8heari ng force in the panel, Fig. 10.2.
The differential equation of a typicai segment of wall-frame structure, Eqn. 3.52, is
aiso vaiid and leads tu the same general solution.
1 h( 1 ( dME1(xd)
TI(XI) = CIl SIn kax)l + C21 cosh(kax)l + - dXI
(10.7)
in which the external moment is defined by Eqn. 10.4.
The constants of Eqn. 10.7 are found using the boundary condition at the base of
Sstr.1, which is, from Eqn. 9.3
T{(O) = 0 (10.8)
and the boundary condition at the top of Sstr.l, which is, from Eqn. 9.4
( 10.9)
that the shearing force V
p
is also
(10.10)
where "Y = 0;; h
the constants CIl and C
21
of Eqn. 10.7 are defined in Appendix A.5.2 as functions of
the axial force at the top of the columns of S8tr.1, Pt. and the shear force in the stiffened
storey, V
p
Then, using Eqn. 10.10, and the solution for the shearing force intensity T{(H
1
),
Eqn. A.91 in Appendix A.5.2, expression for the shear force V
p
is also found as a
function of Pl, Eqn. A.93.
The axial force Pl depends on the shearing force in Sstr.2, Eqn. 10.3, which
needs to he defined in order to ohtain a solution for Sstr. 1.
The general solution of the shearing force intensity in Sstr.2 is given by Eqn. A.lOl,
Appendix A.5.2, which is similar to Eqn. 10.7, and in which the external moment on Sstr. 2
is defined by Eqn. 10.5. The boundary condition on the shearing force, at the base
of Sstr. 2 is
(10.11)
in which al is the initial racking deformation resulting from the deformations at the top of
Sstr.1.
174
At the of Sstr.2 the boundary condition is
( lO.12)
.'
The constants CIl and C
2l
for Sstr.2., given in Appec.dix A.5.2, are functions of the
initial racking deformation The expression for the racking deformation can be found
by establishing the relation with the vertical shearing force V
p
, a:: c;hown in Chapter 9. by
the following expression.
( 10.13)
Using the solution for the shear force V
p
in Appendix A.5.2, the expression for
is then,
( 10.14)
where Et and E
2
are constants, which are functions of 0'2, k
2
and "y, and are given in
Appendix A.5.2,
Solving Eqn. 10.3, the axial force, Pl, at the top of Sstr.1 is:
2 El
Pli = FlwH + F
2
---
l H
( 10.15)
where FI and F
2
are constants, which are functions of p, 0
2
and k
2
, and are given in
Appendix A.5.2,
To obtain the expression for Pti, Eqns. 10.15 and 10.14 are combined, and
Pli = (FI + F2Ed wH2
(1 - F2E2)
which is then substituted into Eqn. 10.14.
10.1.2 Lateral Deftections
(10.16)
Once the value for the axial force Pl and the racking deformation a.re defined,
the deflection equations for each substructure can be obtained in the same manner as for
a typical segment of wall-frame structure, Chapter 3, using their respective constants Cl
and C
2
, and respective initial d;:f.)rmations, y(O) and y'(O). The defiection at the top of
Sstr.1, y(H
t
), and rotation, y'(Hd, are respectively
175
(
(10.17)
(10.18)
(10.19)
where Dt, O
2
, 0
3
, Cl! G
2
and G
3
a.re constants, which are functions of p, 0.
2
, k
2
and "'{,
and are given in Appendix A.5.2.
Considering that at the base of Sstr. 2, the initial defiection is y( Hd, and the initial
slope y'(H
t
), the resulting expression for the top deflection of Sstr. 2 ls
(10.20)
where RI and R2 are constants, which are functions of ~ p 0
2
, k
2
and "'{, and are given
in Appendix A.5.2.
10.1.3 Optimum Leve} of SWfener for Maximum Structm'e Stiff'ness
Repeating the proced ure for various heights of stiffened storey, ~ p gave the optimum
level of stiffening to produce the minimum top deflection, ~ P . o p t . Fig. 10.3 shows the loca.tion
of the optimum level to stiffen a storey of the frame, as a. function of the characteristic
parameter aH, for two extreme values of k
2
, 1.0 and 1.2. The location of the inflexion
point as a function of o.H is also shawn in the figure.
It is observed tha.t the optimum level is influenced principally by the relative stiffnesses
of the wall and frame, or the parameter aH, and almost not a.t all by the parameter k
2
, that
i5 by the axial tlexibility of the columns. The stiffening panel acts principally by resisting
racking of the frame. It is therefore more efficient when placed at a.level where the wall stops
restraining the frame, which, from that point, starts to act as the restraining component.
That level corresponds a.pproximately to the point of zero interaction between the wall and
fra.me. The suffer the wall, or the lower the value of aH, the higher that level. When the
wall i5 more flexible, as for higher values of aH, the frame starts restraining the wall at a
lower level, therefore the optimum level of stiffener i8 lower.
The curve of the optimum level for a stiffened storey is close to the level of zero
interaction, or to the change in sense of the intera.:tion. When axial deformations of the
columns are neglected, that is when k
2
= 1.0, that level coincides with the point of inflexion,
Chapter 4.
The addition of a.xial flexibility to the columns, Le. when k
2
:f. 0, increases the rotation
of the fra.me but does not change the point along the height were the wall stops restraining
the frame laterally. Therefore, it has a negligible influence on the location of the optimum
level of stiffener. Fig. 10.3.
176
-
-1
-.J
-'
1.0 r.--------------------------------------------,
_0.8

a.
o
u

-.-
fi)
>
fi)
0.6
E 0.4
::J
E
-a.
o
0.2
c.c} ,
/
lnflnlon Point

J....-""-""-
ln!lexion Po lnt
....-
-
-
-
1 1
10
cxH 20
Figurl' 10.3: Optimum levl'i of pant"1 to stiffl'n the structure


- -
--
..........

c
o
-10
:;::; -20
o
:J

a>
0::
a>
0'1
o -30
+J
C
a>
o
L-
a>
Q...
-40

1
1
\ 1
"
1
1
;-
/

.. /1""
"rI
1
....
10
20
cxH
Figure 10.4: Percentage reduction in top deflection when stiff-
ening is added at the optimum level (f' = 1.0)
.,
l
As for the case when the top storey ofthe frame was stiffened, the percentage reduction
in the top deftection varies, depending on the characteristic parameters oH and k
2
Fig 10.4
shows the percentagc reduction in the top deftection for a given panel- .o-frame rigidity ratIO
factor (f' ::: = L), for twoextreme values of k
2
It is observed that the percentage
reduction Illcreases wlth 011, then reaches a value of oH that gives a maJamum reduction.
For higher values of ail the reductlOn decreases and becomes asymptotic to 0% reductlOn
when oHIs g:reater than 40
The par,"\.meter k
2
influences the V."'UP of oH for which the maximum percentage
reduction is obt:tined, as well as the percentage reduction. In Chapter 4, Fig. -12, it was
shown that the hor;?Ontal interaction between the wall and the frame is the most effective
for a value of oH arounu 3.5 .vhen there is no axial deformation in the columns, i.e. k
2
= 1.0,
and for a value of aH around 2.0 when axial deformations are significant, i e. k
2
= 1.20. It
is observed that the stiffened storey at the optimum intermediate level is the most effective
for ail = 3.5 when there is no axial deformations of the columns, Le. k
2
= 1.0, and for
oH = 2.0 v,hen k
2
= 1.2. Therefore, It could be deduced that a stiffened storey is the most
effective for st'"'lctures in which the stiffening effect of horizontal interaction between the
wall and the frame is a maxtmum.
10.2 Example Analyses
Two example 20-&torey wall frame structures were analysed with a stiffening infill
panel at an intermediate level modelled by a diagonal strut. The structure was chosen for
its high degree of interaction. The structure, with the characteristic parameters oH = :l.41
and k
2
= 1 03, Example E10.1, was analysed with a stiffening panel, having an equivalent
shear ngidity of twenty times the shear rigidity of the frame (f' = 1.0). The infill panel was
inserted at the opt.imum level, i.e. = 0.5, as given by the continuum solution. Another
structure with a sm aller value of 011, Example E10.2, with oH = 1.80 and k
2
= 1.10,
was also analysed, with the stiffenmg panel (J' = 1.0) inserted at the optimum level, Le.
= 0.6.
10.2.1 Results of Analyses
The lateraI deftections of both examples are plotted on Figs. 10.5 and 10.6, and ar('
compared with the deflections of their respecti ve structures without any stiffening panel, and
with an identicaI stiffening panel at the top of the frame. The lateraI deflections obtained
from the continuum solution are also plotted, and show close agreement with the discrete
solution.
The resulting shear forces in the frame and the bending moment in the wall are
given in Figs. 10.7 and 10.8, respectively, for the example with aH = 3.41. Tbe horizontal
interaction forces induced at the panellevel, and the level below, are presented in Table 10.1
for both examples .
178
....
-..:a
co
20,
15
Q)
> 10
Q)
-'
5
cP.oo
} 7
Stiffness motrix solution
Approximote solution
0.02 0.04 0.06
Lateral Deflection y(x)x(EI/wH
4
)
0.08
Figure 10.5: LatE'ral ddl('ctions for example structure with
oH = 1 ~ and P = 1.10
20. 11
Ponel ot .5H
'5
No Panel
Q)
> 10
Q)
...J
5
Stiffness motrix solution
Approxmote solution
cP.oo
0.02
Lateral Deflection y(x)x(EI/wH4)
0.03
Figure 10.6: Lateral deflections for example structure with
oH = 3.41 and k
1
= 1.03
.'
Stiffened Interaction Force at Pa.nel Level
Example Storey Level Without Panel With Pa.nel
(kN) (kN)
EIO.1
aH = 3.41 20 230.4 1190.8
k
2
= 1.03 10 10.1 2779.6
EIO.2
aH = 1.80 20 238.7 1459.9
k
2
= 1.10 12 1.2 2180.7
Table 10.1: Horizontal interaction forces at the stiffened storey level
180
L
r
10.2.2 Observations from Results
The objective of reducing the top deflectlOn by adding a stiffening panel al the opti-
mum level is achieved in both examples, with a reduction of 30.9% when nH = 1.80, a.nd
34.5% when oH = 3.41. It indicates clearly that stiffening a stcrey at an levl'l
can be more effective tha.n stiffening the top storey. The deflections are reduced all OVPf
the height as weU, Figs. 10.5 and 10.6.
It can be observed from the lateral deflection, shear force and bending moment dl-
agrams, that the sudden change m stiffness caused by the stiffened storey 's('parates' tl\l'
structure into two parts. The stiffened storey reduces the top deflection and of the
lower substructure, imposing on the upper substructure a smaller initial deflectlOll and
rotation than at that level in the uniform wall-frame structure. The results are smalll'f
deflections over aU the height of the bU1lding.
The shear force diagram can also be separat,ed inta two parts. Above the panel level
the shear in the frame is almost uniform, resulting in an almost constant storey drift 10 that
region, Fig. 10.7. Below the panellevel the distribution of shear in the frame IS slmilar to
that in a urform wall-frame structure wlth a stiffened top storey.
The horizontal mteraction and the concentrated shear forces at the stiffened storey
level, are very significant. The interaction force is approXlmately two and a half times the
interactIOn force at the top of the frame the panel is added there, T<"ble 10.1. The
interaction force, Qp, indnced at the panellevel is the prod uct of the frame's inclination Or,
related to the racking deformation at that level, and the shear ngidity of the panel, GAp.
(10.21)
Since the racking deformation is much greater at the optimum intermediate level than
at the top, the resulting interaction force, Qp, and the shear forces at that level, are aise-
l'1uch greater.
The wall bending moment diagram can also he separated into two parts. The ufJper
region is typical of the wall hending moment of a partial height uniform wall-frame structure
subject to a uniforp.y distributed loading. The lower region is typical of a. wall bending
moment diagram of a partial height uniform wall-frame structure with a stiffened top storey,
Fig. 10.8. At the top of the lower substructure, the panel restrams the frame's rotatIOn and,
thereby, induces significant axial forces in the columns belo v, prod ucing a. positive couple
that exceeds, in these examples, the externally applied Therefore, the bending
moment in the wall at the panel level is negative and sign.\ficant.
181
~
OD
t..:>
~
20, 1 1
15
Cl)
> la
...
l
1
1
--j
~
__ _________________________ - - - __ - - - - - - __ - - - - - - - __ 1
5
,
,
-,
,
,
-- No panel
Panel at the top
----- Panel at level la
1000 2000
Shear in the Frame (kN)
3000
Figure 10.1: Shear forces in the frame for example structure
with aH = 3.41 and k
2
= 1.03
20
1
.-
r
1
1
1
15t-
\
\
\
\
\
r
Cl)
> la
Cl>
......J L .-_ ---
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
...
,
,
1
5
_Qnnn
..
,
...
...
,
,
...
\
'.
...
...
...
...
...
...
----'
~
No panei
Panel at the top
Panel at leveJ la
'''', ~
.... ,... ~
.... ,.... ~
...
... ,.... ~
............ ~
""'-, ... ~
o 6000
Moment in the Wall (kN-m)
18000
Figure 10.8: Dending moment in the wall for example structure
with aH = 3.41 and k
l
= 1.03
.'
10.3 Practical Example of Wall-Frame Structure with
Stiffening Panels
The forces induced at the stiffened storey level are significant and require the strength
of the members surrounding the panels to be verified. To assess the magnItude of the forces
involved, an example structure with members of practical dimensions and having stiffening
panels first at the top, and then at an intermediate level, was analysed. The mernbers'
strength are checked for the most critical situation.
10.3.1 Description of Examples
The top storey of the 30-storey stepped building described in Chapter 7 is stiffened
by integral con crete panels in the two interior frames, bents II and III, Fig. 7.17. The
panels are placed in the outer bays of the frames, so that the middle bay is not obstructed.
The concrete panels are assumed to be constructed integrally with the frame, byextending
the panel reinforcement into the surrounding columns and beams. As a result, diagonal
tension, as weil as compression, can be developed in the panels. To model the stiffening
effect of such panels, double diagonal struts are used. As suggested by McHenry (1943),
the equivalent are a of these struts is approximately equal to:
3
Ad = -dt
8
( 10.22)
where d is the diagonallength of the panel and t is the effective thickness, assumed equal
to 200mm. The vaIues of the Young's Modulus of the panels and columns are taken to be
the same.
The structure was analysed for lateraI and gravit y loading according to the pre&crip-
tion of the NB CC 1985.
(a) Factored live, dead and wind: 0.7 x 1.5(L + Q) + 1.25D
(b) Factored live and dead (gravit y on1y): 1.5L + 1.25D
( c) Factored wind and dead: 1.25D + 1.5Q
The wind pressure on the building had a uniform distribution from the ground up
to 30 meters, and above that a trlangular distribution with a maximum pressure at the
top of the building of 1.01kPa. The lateraI deflections were obtained for the service wind
loading based on a probability of 1/10 for serviceability. Then the combination of loading
producing the greatest forces in the members was retained to check their strength.
The choice of the level to add the stiffening panel was ma.de using Fig. 10.3. Knowing
that the a.verage value of aH for the building is around 2.0, the panels are placed at 0.6 x H,
or at the 18'" storey.
183
10.3.2 Results of Analyses
The lateral deftections of the wall-frame structure with and without the panels under
service wind loading conditions, are plotted in Fig. 10.9. The top deflections a.re reduced
by 11 % with the pa.nels at the top and 26% with them at level18. There is also a. reduction
of the deflections over all the height, especially when the concrete panels are used at level
18.
These simple results show decisively that a. significant stiffening of the structure is
achieved by the addition of a.n integra.l concrete panel in the top storey, but that panels at
the intermediate levels are even more effective.
The maximum forces in the core and frames are obtained for the fa.ctored wind and
dead loading conditions. Fig. 10.10 shows the shear forces in the cores for the structure with
or without stiffening panels. The shear forces in the frames are obtained by subtracting
the shear in the core from the external loading. At the level of the stiffening panel there
is a significant step in negative shear in the core which corresponds to an interactive force
between the cores and frames of 3077 kN when the panels are placed at the top, and
8701 kN when they are at level 18.
Fig. 10.11 shows the ben ding moment in the core, and Fig. 10.12, the axial forces
in the frames of bent n and nI. The addition of stiffening panels produces an increase in
the moment due to axial forcc.>s in the columns of the frame below the panel's level, mainly
producing an increase in the tensile and compressive forces in the windward and leeward
outer columns.
Considering the axial forces in the columns in bents II a.nd nI under wind loading
conditions only, it is interesting to note that placing the two panels in the outer bays causes
these bays to behave more as two single-bay bents. When there are no stiffening panels,
the two windward columns are in tension and the two leeward columns in compression,
producing one positive couple. With panels placed in the outer bays, the outer column of
the windward bay, below the panel's level, is in tension l'Lnd the inner one in compression,
producing a positive couple. In the leeward bay, the inner column is in tension and the
outer one in compression, also producing a positive couple, Fig. 10.12. The result is a
superposition of two similar positive couples in the windward and leeward bays and an
overall positive couple in the fra.me.
It has been shawn, Salvati (1990), that pIa.cing two panels in adjacent bays and keeping
the third bay open produces a stiffer structure than pla.cing them in the outer bays. This
arrangement causes the three leeward coIumns to behave more as a two-bay bent, and
produces larger axial forces in the columns and local forces. Three adjacent panels remains
the most efficient arrangement in stiffening the structure, but it obstructs passage along the
building.
184
-
J O ~ ~ ~ ~ /
20
&.do
,
,
"
,
,
,
"
/
,
""
" A
,,' ,&
,-,,-"
-,'
,,',,,
,
0.02
"
"
/ponel al /
,'- the top /
,,' '-.."
,l' /
Panel ot " "
0.6H,.. "
,>"
Panel
,
0.04 0.06 0,08
Lateral Daflaction (m)
Figure 10.9: Lateral deflections for 30-storey example structure
185
0.10

\
CD
>
CD
...J

20
1.
10
-- External Shear
Na Panel
- - Panel at the top
The shtar ccrried by
the Irame at any lev.1
IS equal ta the elCtemal
shear monus the core
shear ot that level

'li
':1
,
'.1,
,.!I
!i...

:,

1

,
,
"
- H>'ooo -8000 -6000 -4000 -2 0 0
Shear in the Wall (kN)
( a) Panel at the top
.
l,
L
,
..
,
,
'1
'1
'1
4000

20
10
-- External Shear
No Panel
- - Panel at O.6H
_.p
,
': 1
,L
' . .,
,
',1
': 1
.: 1
,.
t. L
_____________ .-!,J
'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - _1,.-
Th. ah.ar carrl.d by
the Irame at any level
is equal to the .lItemal
shecr ml nUI th. care
.hear at that level
t
,
" ,
11
"
U

the Wall (kN)
Figure 10.10: Shear forces in the cores of the 30-storey example structure
186

II)
>
CI)
...J
20
10
The moment carried by
the frame at any level
19 equal ta the external
moment minus the core
mo,"lent at that level
. External moment
-- No Panel
- - Panel at the top
""
"""
.
1
.'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.
.
.
1
.
.
,
.
.
.
l,' "
1
1
1
:
1
1
1
"
1
"
1
1
1
1
1
-50000 0
the Wall (kN.m)
(a) Panel at the top
50000

CD
>

20
10
-2'00000
The moment corried by
the frame at any level
is equal ta the external
marnent minus the core
moment at that level
----- Externel moment
-- No Panel
- - Panel at 0.6H
,'.
",,,,
-".',1
,
1
,
.
.
.
,
/,/'/
1
1
,
1
1
1
:1
! 1
1
1
1
,
l' 1
,
,/ 1
: 1
1
-50000 0
the Wall (kN.m)
(b) Panel at 0.6 X H
1
1
50000
Figure 10.11: Bending moment in the cores of the 30-storey example structure
187
,

l
\
CD
>
CD
...J
CD
>
CD
...J
(
JO
ElItenor
Column 0
20
10
-gooo -2000
1
1
1
1
Exterior
Column A
1
1 Int.rior
Column B
1---
(a) No panel
2000 3000

20 l r
1 1
l J
\ 1
Il
10
" Il
, 1
1 1
Interior 1 1 Interior
COlumz:...t

-gooo -2000 2000 000
(b) Panel at the top
Figure 10.12: Axial forces in the columns of bent II and III
188
.30
r 1
1 1
1 1
Exterior ,J L, Exterior
Column 0 Column A
20
Q)
>
.,
..
ID
1 r
...J
1 1
10
~ 1
1 r
1 1
1
--1
l ~ r i r Interior 1
Column B 1
Column C
1
-gooo -2000 -1000 a 1000 .3000
Axial Force (kN)
(c) Panel at 0.6 x H
Figure lO.12: Axial forces in the cvlumns of bent n and III
189
10.3.3 Axial Forces in Columns
Under wind loading, the outer windward columns of the frames are subjected to the
greatest tensile forces, which lllust be suppressed if possibll') hll the compressive forces from
gravit y loading in order to maintain a net compressive force. When gravit y loading is used
to the lat"ralloading action, j he dead load must be factored by 0.85 instead of
1.25 in the two follow:ng combinations:
(a) 0.85D + 1.5Q, and
(b) 0.85D + 0.7 x 1.5(L + Q)
The case with panels at the top is the most susceptible to producing a net tensile force
in the upper columns, because of the small gravit y loads in that regjon. In that example, the
windward columns at levels 29 and 30 are subjected to net tensile forces of 62 and 63 kN,
respectively, for the factored wind and dead loading conditions. fIowever, these forces are
very small and the steel reiforcement in the actual design would be sufficient to provide
the tensile resistance.
10.3.4 Horizontal Shear in Slab
Assuming a rectangular distribution of horizontal shear stress in the rectangular sec-
tion slab, according to the "Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings, 1984" (Clause
11.3.4.1), the factored shear resistance of the si ab is
( 10.23)
where"\ = 1.0 for normal weight concrete, <Pc = 0.6, b
w
is the full width of the slab, i.e., 21m,
and dis the distance from the extreme compressive fibre to the centroid of the longitudinal
reinforcement, which is taken as 0.9t, or 225mm. Then for = 30M Pa,
V
c
= .2(1.0)(0.6)(30)(21 X 10
3
mm)(225mm) = 3105 X 10
3
N
This vaIue of shear resistance is exceeded by the shear force in the 51 ab when stiffening
panels are placed at level 18. From the slab shear diagram, the maximum horizontal shear
occurs between the core and the adjacent frame at level17, Fig. 10.13, and equals 8688.5 kN.
At the level of the stiffening panel, the maximum shear force is 8596 kN. The shear
resistance of the si ab is also exceeded by about 45% between bent II and III at the same
level. These significant shear forces in the slab exist only at the levels just above and below
the panels. On the basis of the present design they are unacceptable.
To reduce this maximum shear stress in the sI ab between the core and the adja-
cent frame at levels just below and above the panels, it is recommended to use one, or a
combination of the following solutions:
(a) Increase the thickness of the slab in that region,
190
LEVEL '7
1 thl" l,
tur"
H .. ,,, /1
-8701 , d70, ,
J.Jr .. ;' 4]14 7
II'

16688 51 \ VA r
__
Jo l..tJ ..
f! t.
'.! 0
... :. ,loL Id
!Jt.'" 1 lJa.'d Il
litt'U Il ... orl! Cor'
/Jenl Il
Il Il
-.JJ269 -43269
Il''
r
-4326
fO 5
l' ,I! ,I!

IQS
J. v
8.nl 11/ J
43'47
-1.8
[kN)
B.nl 1/1
-43269
III
t
IJJ '76 91N
-.-zm
U"", 1
'0,
J'

., 1

-JO

Figure 10.13: Shear force diagram in the sla.b a.t leve1s 17 and 18
191
1 (b) Reduce the shear rigidity of the panels, and
(c) Increase the shear reinforcement in the slab.
The second item would result in a smaller reduction in top defiection of the structure,
but in comparison with the structure with no panel, the gain in lateral stiffness would still
be significant.
10.3.5 Shear in Core
CorrespoTlding to the increase in horizontal shear in the frame, there is an opposite
significant shear in the core at the level of the stiffening panel. In these examples the worst
case for shear in the core is again when the panels are placed at level 18 for the building
subjected to the factored wind and dead loading. The shear in the core at the stiffened level
is equal to 7691 kN, acting in the plane of the core's web. Because the shear resistance
of the core is increased by the compressive axial force resulting from the gravit y loads, the
increase in horizontal shear in the core would not present any problem.
It should be noted that torsIOn shear stresses in the core I1ust also be considered if
the external loading is liable to cause twisting of thE' building. A detailed analysis of the
interaction between the slab and the core would then be required.
10.3.6 Forces in Members Surrounding Panel
The two-diagonal model of an integral panel is adequate for predicting the defiection
response, but to obtain the stresses in the panels, or between the panels and the surrounding
members, it is recommended that a more detailed analysis of the panel should be performed.
It is not within the scope ofthis thesis to study Lhe detailed behaviour ofsuch monolithicaIly
built panels. However, it could be assumed that vertical shear would exist between the
columns and the panel, and horizontal shear between the beams and the panel. As an
appropriate indicator of the intensity of the shear stresses, a triangular distribution of these
stresses could be assumed with a maximum value at the corners, Fig. 10.14.
The greatest tenslle force in the diagonal member is found in the leeward bay, when
the panels are placed at level18, and is equal to 2199 kN. The average shear stress between
the panel and the columns and beams is therefore 1.4 M Pa for a maximum at the corner of
2.8M Pa. The shear connections between the panel and columns and beams should at least
be sufficient to withstand such a shear stress.
For the panel itself, enough reinforcement should be provided along the diagonal to
resist in one case the tensile force, and the strength of the concrete and the reinforcement
must be sufficient to resist to compression along the diagonal path. It is suggested that
the diagonal reinforcement should be closely contained with stirrups to pre vent out-of-plane
buckling along the compressive path in the other case. Again, a detailed analysis would be
more than adequate to (jetermine the stresses in the panel, especially at the corners.
192
Figure 10.14: Approximate shear stresses distribution between the panel and sur-
rounding members
10.3.7 Conclusion
This example shows that stiffening panels can achieve a slgnificant reduction in the top
deftection, and that local forces induced in the members at the panel level cau he handled
by careful and proper design. Attention should be paid in particular to:
(a) the shear in the floor si ab between the core and adjacent frame bents at the levels
above and below the panels,
(b) the connections between the panels and their surroundmg members,
(c) the tensile resistance of the panel along the diagonal, and
(d) the possibility of net tensile forces in the windward column, especially when
panels are placed at the top.
It is recommended that panels of a shear rigidity limited to achieve only the desired
reduction in top deflection should be used.
193
B. EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE
Th,! results of the statie analyses in this and the previous chapters, have clearly shown
that stiffening a storey of the frame at an intermediate level reduces more significantly the
overall deftection of a wall-frame 3tructure than stiffening the top storey. The change in
over:...il stiflness modifies also the dynamk characteristics of the structure and it') earthquake
response. To ascertain these modifications, the dynamic characteristics and the earthquake
response of the stru.:ture were compared with those of the structure without any stiffened
storey and with a stiffened top storey.
10.4 Description of Structure Analysed for Earthquake
Loading
According to Fig. 10.3, the optimum level to stiffen the frame of the 20-storey wall-
frame structure with characteristic parameters aH and k
2
equal, respectively, to 3.41 and
1.03, is level 10. A panel with a shear rigidity 20 times greater than the frame's shear
rigidity was inserted at that level and motielled by a diagonal strut, and then analysed for
earthquake loading.
The additional mass from the panel at level 10 is estimated to be about 1.7 times the
mass of one storey of the frame. The separate influence of both the additional mass and
stiffness was studied by analyses of the structure when the mass only is added and then
when the rigidity only is added.
10.5 Results and Obser.vations
10.5.1 Results
The dynamic characteristics, first-mode participation factor, fundamental period, and
modal stiffness of the wall-frame, with and without a stiffened storey at level 10, are pre-
sented in Table 10.2, along with the dynamic chara.cteristics, when the mass or stiffness are
added separately.
The resulting peak storey shear, or external shear, is shown in Fig. 10.15 and the design
quantities, such as the base shear, overturning moment and the forces at the stiffened storey
level, are presented in Table 10.3. Figs. 10.16 and 10.17 show the lateraI deflection and the
interstorey drifts along the height.
194
1
Description of Fundamental Modal
Example Period Stitfness
1'=1
First-mode
and Tl partici pation w
2
% change
lm = 1.7 factor
No panel 2.664 .6858 - -
Increase in 2.1418 .7066 8.606 +55.0
mass and stiffness
Increase in 2.6796 .6914 5.498 -1.0
mass only
Increase in 2.1282 .7015 8.717 +57.0
stiffness only
Table 10.2: Dynamic characteristics for example strU<.ture with aH = 3.41 and stiffened
storey at intermediate level
Force at stitfened storey level Base
Examples Base Overturning
analysed Frame Shear Interaction Force Shear Moment
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kNm)
Stiffened 1322.0 1322.0 684.9 24827
top storey
Stiffened
storeyat 26.52.4 2511.4 738.9 29040
level 10
Table 10.3: Maximum possible forces for example structure with aH = 3.41 with a
stiffened storey
195
10.5.2 Observations
Observations of the results show clearly that the stiffened storey at the intermediate
level has a greater influence on the dynamic character;stics and earthquake response of the
structure than a stiffened top storey.
Since the change in the fundamental period is sma.ll el10ugh so it remains between .427
and 5 sf>conds, for which the spectral acceleration is proportional to period, the
new spectral acceleratioll, and consequently the deflections and external forces, will change
according to the tendency described in Section 9.9.
The addition of a stiffening panel at the int.ermediate l(>vel, as at the top, reduces the
fundamental period and consequently the deflections, but in('reases the external forces as
shown in Fig. 10.15.
If the influences of the additional stiffness and masses are considered separately, it is
evident that the stiffened storey at an intermediate level influences th! dynamic character-
istics and earthquake response more than when it is at the top. The oJ:,timum intermediate
level was chosen because it was the optimum level to increase the oVt'rall stiffness under
either statie loading or dynamic loading. However, the influence of the additlnal mass at
the intermediate level is less it was at the top, since the inertia, forces resulting from
an increased mass at the top storey of the structure would correspond to the fundamental
mode, which contributes about 70% to the structure effective modal mass. With the ad-
ditional mass at an intermediate level it would correspond to a higher mode, contributing
less to the response.
The stiffening effect of the panel at the intermediate level is significant considering the
increase in modal stiffness of almost 55%, which is about 8 times greater than when the top
storey is stiffened. The maximum possible deftections are then reduced more considerably
at the top of the :,tructure as well as along the height, Fig. 10.16.
As for the static response, the intermediate stiffened stcrey effectively 'separates' the
structure into two substructures: a wall-frame & -, ucture with il, stiffened top storey in the
lower part, and a uniform wall-frame in the uppc. part. That behaviour is clearly shown in
Fig. 10.17 by the interstorey drifts, and by the maximum possible shear force in the frame
at the stiffened storey levp.l, Table 10.3. That concentrated shear is very significant and is
about twice the value obtained when the top storey was stiffened.
10.6 Discussion
The statie and dynamic analyses both clearly show that stiffening a storey of a frame
in a wall-frame structure is more efficient in increasing the overall stiffness when introduced
at an intermediate level, as determined from Fig. 10.3. However, the increase in the local
horizontal shear forces in the frame and wall is a.lso more significant and could therefore
create sorne excessive shear stresses in the horizontal ftoor slab at the junction of the wall,
as for stiffened top storey.
196
""'"
''#.
20
15
Q)
>
Q)
......J
10
5
-- No panel, f'=Q
----- Panel ot the top, f'=1
- - Ponel al level 10, f'=1
._,
,
1_-
1
,
,-,
,
,
,
,
--,
,
,-.
,
,
--,
,
" ,
~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8
Pe''Jk
Figure 10.15: Peak storey shear for example structure with stiffened storey at level 10
20
Q)
~ 10
....J
0q}0
1
1
.'
1
1
1
1
1
,
,
,
"
1 V
" ?
" ?
,
,
,
,
""
,
1
,
,
,
,
" ?
1
1
l "
-- No panel, f'=O
- - - Panel ot the top, f'=1
----- Panel ot level 10, f'=1
0.05 0.10
Lateral Deflect!on (m)
0.15
Figure 10.16: Probable ma.ximum deflections for example structure with stiffened storey
at levellO
197
i
20
15 -- No panel, f'=O
----- Panel at the top, f'=1
----- Panel ct level 10, f'= 1
Q)
10
...J
5
1 ,
. "
" " , "
,,'
0.006
Drift
,,.,','/
1
,
,
1
1
1
0.008
Figure 10.17: Probable maximum interstorey drifts for example structure with stiffened
storey at level 10
198
1 From the results, the shear rigidity ratio factor of the stiffened storey to the frame.
j', does not need to be very high to obtain a valuable reduction in top deflection. For
example, when the a.dditional shear rigidity of the stiffened storey is one-half that of thl'
frame rigidity, a wall-frame structure with aH = 3.0 has its top deflection rl'duced by 27%.
while an additional shear rigidity of twice the frame rigidity reduces th(' top d('llection by
50%. The gain in overaU stiffness is obviously not directly proportion al to the additional
shear rigidity. If the shear rigidity ratio is chosen to be no higher than is nec('ssary ta
produce the desired reduction in top deflection, the local increase in the local horizonta.l
shear forces will aIso be minimized.
199
(
(
Chapter 11
STIFFENING FRAME AT LEVEL WHERE
WALL IS CURTAILED
The analyses of curtailed wall-frame structures have shown that they can be considered
as the superposition of two substructures: a wall-frame and a moment-resisting frame. The
overall stiffness of the curtailed wall-frame structure is mainly determined by the stiffness
of the lower substructure, and could be increased by stiffening t t lower substructure.
A stiffened top storey in a full-height wall-frame structure increases the horizontal
interaction between the top of the wall and the fra.me, and consequently the overall stiff-
ness of the structure. The same technique could be used ta stiffen the lower substructure
in a curtailed wall-frame structure to obtain an overall greater stiffness. In the cases of
curtailment that noticeably reduce the overall stiffness, as when made below the point of
inflexion of the corresponding full-height-wall structure, the additional stiffness provided by
the stiffened frame storey could be very significant in terms of reduction in top deflection.
An approximate analytical solution to the problem is provided to determine the change
in top deflection consequent to the stiffening of a storey at the curtailment level, as a function
of the level of curtailment and the characteristic parameters aH and k
2
The approach uses
the solution for wall-frames with a stiffened top storey, Chapter 9, and is a special case
of the approximate solution for curtailed wall-frame structures given in Chapter 7. Sorne
analyses of example curtailed wall-frame structures with a stiffened storey at curtailment
level are also performed to ascertain the consequences on the local forces.
11.1 Approximate Solution
The curtaihd wall-frame structure is considered as the superposition of two substruc-
tures, a lower unihrm wall-frame of height Hl with a stiffened top storey of additional shear
rigidity GAp, and an upper moment-resisting frame of height H
2
The lower substructure
is subjected to the uniformly distributed load, w, a concentrated top shear force, SI, and a
concentrated top moment, Ml! Fig. 11.1.
200
-
w
-
-
-
-
~
..
..,
1
-
-
~
-
-
-
~ ' l /
-
-
-
-
~
J
-
-
-
-
"
/. t;
w
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
w
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Subslructure Z
~
t::;"/>///
r. ~
Sulrslruclure 1
1 rr
Figure 11.1: Substructures of curtailed wall-frame with stiffened frame storey
201
,
t If
(11.1)
then
(11.2)
and
( 11.3)
so that
(11.4)
The upper substructure is subjected to a uniformly distributed load W, and the initial
deformation at its base comprises the imposed deflection Yl(H
1
) and the initial rotation
HI resulting from the axial deformatian of the calumns in the lower substructure.
The resulting deflection at the very top of the curtailed wall-frame structure with a
stiffened storey at curtailment level is then:
Ycp(H} = Yl(HI } + Y2(H2) (11.5)
in which Y2( H2) includes the effect of the initial inclination of Sstr. 2, Hl'
11.1.1 Solution tor Substructure 1
The solution for Sstr. 1 can be obtained by using the continuum solution for a wall-
frame structure with a stiffened storey at the top, Chapter 9, but subject to the external
moment ME{xd, given by Eqn. 11.4.
It is assumed that the moment Ml at the top of Sstr.1 is entirely resisted by the axial
forces at the top of the columns of the frame, Pl X l, so that
(11.6)
Considering the shear force V
p
in the stiffened storey and the axial force Pl at the top
of the columns, the expression for the axial force Tt(xt} in Sstr. 1 is similar to Eqn. 9.2
(11. 7)
The general solution for the shearing force intensity T{(xt} is the same as for a wall-frame
structure with a stiffened top storey, Eqn. 9.5) but with the external moment defined by
Eqn. 11.4. The boundary conditions are as follows
at Xl = 0
at Xl = Hl
202
(11.8)
(11.9)
These boundary conditions allow the constants Ct, and C2" of the shearing force
equation, Ti(Zl), to be determined as functions of the shear force VI" Eqns. A.l15 and
A.U6 in Appendix A.5.3. The shear force VI' is defined llsing its relationship with the
shearing force intensity at the top of Sstr.1, THH
t
), which is
(11.10)
therefore, if Hl =
Vpl = H
1 [tanh(kaHh 1 (1-
"(W - - +
k
2
(ko:H) cosh(ko:Hh (ko:H)
(k
2
- 1) [ (
1
- 1 1
(kaH) '2 tanh(kaHh (1 + kO''ftanh(kalld)(11.11)
The expression for the top deflection of SsLr.1 is given by Eqn. A.95 for a stiffcncd
storey at an intermediate level, with Vpl defined by Eqn. 11.11, and the expression Pl X l
replaced by its equivalent moment Ml, Eqn. 11.3. After simplification, Appendix A.5.3, it
becomes
= WH4 (k
2
-1) _ + _ (1 - (coshkaHl - 1) 1
El k
2
4 C 24 2 (kaH)2 cosh kalll
wH
4
1 - tanhkaHt (cosh ko:Hl - 1) 1
+ El k
2
2(kaH)2 - (kaH)3 + (kaH)4 cosh kaHt
Vpl H 2 [ cosh (kaHh - 1 ]
El (kaH)2 cosh (kaH).
(11.12)
The first part of Eqn. 11.12 is the lateraI defiection of Sstr. 1 in a curtailed wall frame
structure without any stiffened storey, and the last part of the equation represents the
reduction in lateral deflection due to the stiffening panel.
The rotation at the top of Sstr.l, tH" caused by axial deformations of the colllmns,
is determined by the moment-area methodj that is, the integration of the moment of axial
forces in the columns divided by the term El:Ac
2
, from the base to the top of Sstr. 1. Taking
the moment of the axial forces in the frame as the difference between the external moment
and the bending moment in the wall, the inclination H, becomes
1 rH,
tH, = EEAc
2
Jo (ME(Xt) - Ely"(xtdx
(11.13)
After integration
(11.14)
203
1
in which the top slope of Sstr.l, is obta.ined by differentiating the expression for
the lateral deflection, and is given in Appendix A.5.3 for a wall-frame structure with a
stiffened frame storey at intermediate level, but with the expression Pti replaced by the
equivalent moment M), Eqn 11.3.
11.1.2 Solution for Substructure 2
Neglecting the minor effect of single bending of the columns, the solution for Sstr.2
is the solution of a moment-resisting frame subjected to a uniformly distributed load W, as
described in detail in Section 7.2.1 for curtailed wall-frame structures
_ wH" [(1 - {cp)2 (1 - {cp)" .2 - 1
y(H
2
) - El 2(oH)2 + 8 (k 1) + H
2
(11.15)
in which is given by Eqn. 11.14.
Adding the initiallateral displacement at the base of Sstr. 2, y(H), the top deflection
of the curtailed wall-frame structure with a st.iffened btorey at the curtailed level is
y(H)
= wH4 (k
2
- 1) _ + _ (1 - (cosh koH) - 1) ]
El k
2
4 6 24 2 (kerH)2 cosh koH)
wH
4
1 [(2{c - {;) tanh koH) (cosh koH) - 1) 1
+ El k
2
2(koH)2 - (koH)3 + (koH)4 cosh koH)
Vpf H 2 [ cosh (koH) - 1 ]
- El (koH)2 cash (koH}t
+ wH
4
[(1 -{cp)2 + (1- {c
p
)4(k2 _ 1)] + H
El 2(oH)2 8 Hl 2
(11.16)
where Vpl is given by Eqn. 11.11
11.1.3 Parameters Infl uencing Stiffening Effect
Using this algebraic approximate solution the change in top deflection was obtained
for different levels of curtailment, {cp, and various values of the characteristics parameters
aH and k
2
The ratio factor of shear rigidity of the stiffened storey and the frame, (f' =
or "YIH), was successively fixed to 0 and 1.
Fig. 11.2 shows the percentage reduction in top deflection when the frame storey \\'as
stiffened, J' = 1.0, and not stiffened, J' = 0, for structures with their walls curtailed at
midheight. Depending on the characteristic parameters erH and P, curtailment at that
height is above or below the point of inflexion. In the case when the wall is curtailed below
the point of inflexion of the full-height-wall structure, as wh en oH is smaller than 2.5 for
k
2
= 1.0, and for most values of oH wh en k
2
= 1.2, the 10ss in overall stiffness is important.
204
Stiffening tbe frame at tbe curtailment level helps to recover part of tbat 1055, Fig. 11.2, and
sometimes more, depending on how significant was the 1055 in stiffness due to curta.ilment.
In the cases when the wall is curtailed close to the point of inflexion, or just above it, as
when aH is between 2.5 and 4.0 for k'l = 1.0, and 3.5 and 5.0 for k
2
= 1.2, curtailment
produces a reduction in top deftection, and the stiffened frame storey helps increase that
reduction, sometimes significantly, as for aH = 3.5 and k'l = 1.0, when the reduction e q u l ~
25%.
Now considering the percentage reduction in the top deflection when the frame !>ton'y
was stiffened, f' = La, and not stiffened, f' -= 0, for structures with their walls curtailccl at
the level considered to be the optimum level for curtailment, Figs 11.3 and 7.8. A structure
with its wall curtailed at the optimum level has an overall stiffness which is greater than for
any other level of curtailment. The insertion of a stiffened storey at the curtailment Il:'vel
accentuates that increase in stiffness. That optimum level of curtailment is known to ue
the one producing the minimum interaction force, Chapter 7, and it was shown in Chapter
10 that the stiffened storey was most effective at a height wher( the original interaction
between the wall and the frame was minimum. Therefore, it is for that optimum levcl of
curtailment that the stiffened storey is most efficient.
In the case when the wall is curtailed below the inflexion point of th(' full-height-
wall structule, the 10ss in overall stiffness is important. In the particular cases cOIl"idcled,
stiffening the frame al the curtailmenl level helped to recover almost completly that loss.
Hence, the overall stiffness of the curtailed wall-frame with a stiffcned frame ston'y at the
level of curtailment was comparable witl: that of the full-height-wall structure
The influence of the characteristic parameters on the efficiency of the stiffened store)'
is the same as for a curtailed wall-frame without any stiffened storey. The importance of the
reduction in top deflection depends greatly on the location of the curtailment \'el T('latiVl'
to the inflexion point in the full-height-wall structure. Generally, the lower aH, the more
significant is the change in top deftection, and the higher aH, the less significant it is.
The addition of axial flexibility to the columns, that is increasing k
2
, acts if! t wo way'>.
First, by increasing the flexural behaviour of the structure, causing the point of ITIflexioll
of the full.height.wall structure to move upwards. Therefore curtailment wou Id produ ce a
more significant change in the top deflection if the curtailment level were lower relative t
the new point of inflexion, or a smaller change if it were closer to the new point of inflexion
Second, it reduces the efficiency of the stiffened storey, by increasins the rotation al the top
of the lower substructure.
205
.

BO
70
",-...
60

...........
Q)
50
0'1
C 40
0
.r::.
30
U
Q)
20
0'1
0
\ r.,
-t-.J
10
c:
,
Q)
u
0
'-
Q)
0.. -10
, - - -) - --
k
2
.1 .2. f'-1.0
----

1 10
aH
Figure 11.2: Percent age change in top deflection for level of curtailment at level 10, Le.
= .5
,......

0
Il>
,..-
"" 0'
""
c:
,
0
f'-O
"
,
.r::.
,

"
Cl)
0'1 k'.1.2. r-1.0
0
.....
C
Il>
0
-40
Cl)
1 10
CL
aH
Figure 11.3: Percent age change in top defiection for level of curtailment at the 'optimul1l
level of curtailment'
206
11.2 Example Analyses
To ascertain the effects of stiffening a storey of the frame at the curtailn1l'nt of tlll'
wall level on the deftected shape of the structure, and on the local forces, four exampll'
structures were analysed with different values of etH' 1 32, 3..11, j 0 and 15.:JJ. Exampleh
Ell.l, El1.2, El1.3 and EllA respectively. In each case the structures wcre analysed wlth
and without a stiffened panel in the frame, and with their wall curtailed at various It'v<,ls.
The behaviour of the structure with the value of ail = ;1.41, Example ElO.2, Il-!
representative of the others, and was chosen to illustrate the results. Its wall Wcl.S curtitiled
first below the point of inflexion at level 6, and then at the optimum level of curtitilment,
levell1. The storey at the curtailment lfVel was stiffened by inserting a panel, modelled
by a diagonal strut, with an area Ad eqUlvaient to an additional shear rigidity GAp of 20
times the shear rigidity of the frame, corresponding to a factor f' = 1.0.
11.2.1 Results
The lateral deflections obtained for the two levels of curtailmcnt are compared with
the lateral deftections of the full-height-wall structure, and with the curtailed wall-frame
without a stiffened storey, Figs. 11.4 and 11.5.
The stiffened .. torey being more effectiva for the structure with the wall curtailed at
levelll, the resulting shear forces in the fnme and the bending moment in the wall in that
structure are plotted respectively in Figs. 11.6 and 11.7.
207
1
f
...
20
18
/
16
14
12
Panel ct Curtailed
CP
la
Level 6, f'= 1.0
>
Q)
",,"::
...J
8
,-",
,
.-
6
.-

4
FigUf(, 11.4: Lateral defiections for wall-frame structure with the wall curtailed at level6,
with and without a stiffened frame storey (f' = 1.0 and f' = 0)

18
16
Panel at Curtailed / ' ,.,
Lo'"
14
12
"
,
1
,
,
,
1
1
1
1
1
/
/
/ Full-Height
Weil-Frame
Figure 11.5: Lateral deflt>rtions for wall-frame structure with the wall curtailed at levei
11, with and Wilhout a stiffened frame storey (f' = 1.0 and f = 0)
208
11.2.2 Observations of Results and Discussion
The effect of the stiffened storey was to reduce the top deflection, by increasing tilt'
stiffness of the lower substructllre, as shown clearly in Fig: . lIA alld 11.5. When the ffallu'
storey is stiffened at the curtailment level, the changp oetween the two is VPry
evident, with a much stiffer lower sutstructure and a moment-r('sisting frame 011 top of it.
This abrupt change in stiffness is representd by a break in continuity in the deficrted shape,
and a sud den increase in interstorey drift, which is a ma.'urnum just above curtculmenl leve\
Corresponding to the suddell increase in interstorey dnft, therc is an a.brupt incrt'ase
in the shear in the frame, Fig. 11.6. While the wall-frame structure witlt the wall curta.iled
at the optimum level for curtailment, and without a stiffened storey, doe!> not produre
an abrupt increase in shear in the frame, the frame with the stiffened storey produces a
significant shear in the frame at the wall curtailment For tht> ex.l.Inple in question,
Example ElO.2, where GAp = 20 X GA or f' = 1.0, the shear in the frame at the curtailment
level is more than 5 times the original value, or 2.2 times the total base shear.
The shear in the frame at the stiffened level is resisted mainly by the (,0mpressive force
in the diagonal strut which models the inserted infill panel. As for other cases of stiffened
frame storey, the problem is in the transfer of shear from one bent to the next through the
horizontal elements, Le. slabs and beams, and the shear in the wall.
The moments in the wall and frame are also abruptly modified by the stiffened storey.
Moving downwards from the top of the wall, the abrupt negative shear forre is accompanicd
by a bending moment increasing from zero to an relatively high negativc value, Fig. 11.7.
Consequently, at the level of the stiffening panel, the moment in the fr,l.'1e rcsisted by the
adal forces in the columns, T X l, increases in an abrupt step, to exreed the externally
applied moment. The increase in axial forces in the columns of the frame, at the level just
below the stiffened storey, is a direct consequence of the stiffened storey, as explained in
Chapter 10.
11.3 Comparison of Approximate and Discrete Solutions
The approximate solution developed in Section Il.1 can be used to evaluate the
deflections of one particular curtailed wall-frame structure, with a stiffened storey III the
frame at the wall curtailment level. The solution gives a close approximation, in the same
range of preCIsion as the approximate solution for uniform wall-frame structures, Chapter
3. Fig. 11.8 compares the lateral deflections from the approximate and discretc llolutions for
full-height-wa11 and curtailed-wall structures, and Table 11.1 compares the top deflections
and the reduction in top deftection for different cases.
The accuracy of the approximate solution depends on the assumptions made for the
two substructures. The continuum model of Sstr. 1 usually predicts a stiffer structure, but
the model with the stiffened top storey predicts a more flexible structure. The accuracy
of the continuum model increases with the height and number of storeys of the building.
Therefore, depending on the height of Sstr.1, and on the shear rigidity of the stiffened
209

f
(
2 0 ~ ~ ;
18
16
12
CI)
10
>
L Panel ct Curtailed
1 Level 11, f'.. 1 0
~ _________________ Z __________ --1
~ ______ I
CI)
...J
8
LI
1
,
6
1
2
2500
Force in
Figure 11.6: Shear forces in the frame for wall-frame structure with the wall curtailed at
level 11, with and without a stiffened frame storey (J' = 1.0 and fi = 0)
20
18
16
14
12
CI)
10
---
>
...
CI) ...
...J
...
...
8
...
6
4
2
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
... ~
...
Moment in
Panel ct Curtailed
Level 6, f'= 1.0
Figure 11.7: Bending moment in the wall for wall-fra.me structure with the wall curtailed
at levelll, with a.nd without a stiffened frame storey (f' = 1.0 and fi = 0)
210
1
20
18
16
14
-CI)
10 >
CI)
...J
8
6
- - Solution
4
-- Discrete Solution
2
Figure 11.8: Lateral deflections for approximate and discrete solutions of the wa.ll frame
structure with the wall curtailed at level 11 and a stiffened frame storey
(f' = 1.0)
211
2
..
t
(
,
Levelof
f'
Top Deflection Accuracyof Percent age Change
Curtailment

(m) Aigebraic Solution (%)
Discrete (%) Algebraic Discrete
None 0 .16[)56 .17483 -.5.3 - -
6 0 .17711 .18708 -5.3 +7.0 +7.0
6 0.5 .16817 .17430 -3.5 +1.6 -0.3
6 1.0 .16575 .17041 -2.7 +0.14 -2.5
11 0 .16118 .17115 -5.8 -2.6 -2.1
11 0.5 .13527 .13788 -1.9 -18.3 -21.1
11 1.0 .12927 .12939 -0.1 -21.9 -25.9
Table 11.1: Top deflections and percentage reductions for example structure
storey, the approximate solution may predict either a stiffer or a more flexible substructure,
but with a result generally very close in magnitude to that for the discrete substructure.
The upper substructure model a.ssumes uniformity of the properties of the rnoment-resisting
frame, which would predict a stiffer Sstr. 2. But the resulting top deflection depends greatly
on the initial conditions at the base of Sstr. 2. If the approximate solution for Sstr. 1 is more
flexible, the initial condition at the base of Sstr.2 will tend to cancel the tendency of the
model of Sstr. 2 to be stiffer, and will result in a top deflection very close to that of the
discrete structure.
In the case of there being no stiffened storey, the model of the lower substructure is
usually stiffer, as is that of the top substructure, resulting in a top deflection smaller than
for the discrete model.
11.4 Conclusion
Apart from reducing the deflections, the stiffened storey also produces a discontinuity
in the deftected shape of the structure, and a significant increase in local forces. The
greater the shear rigidity ratio of the stifi'ened storey to that of the frame, the more severe
the discontinuity. The use of the lowest shear rigidity ratio necessary to achieve the desired
reduction in deflection is then desirable. One way to avoid the sudden increase in interstorey
drift at the curtailment level would be to use the results of Chapter 10. The overall stiffness
of the lower substructure could be increased by stiffening an intermediate storey instead of
the storey at the level. By doing so, the change in stiffness at the curtailment
level would be less abrupt and the increase in interstorey drift in that region would be
diminished, to become close: to the interstorey drift usually obtained for a curtailed wall-
frame structure without any Sl ;ffened storey.
212
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
Continuum algebraic solutions developed for uniform and discontinuous wall-franw
structures, along with series of discrete analyses for verification, permit the following con-
clusions to he drawn.
1. Uniform Wall-Frame Structures
(a) The horizontal interaction hetween the walls and frames in wall-frame structures
is the significant factor in contributing ta an increase in the lateral of
the structure. A concentrated top interaction force restrains the structure, and
a distributed interaction along the height makes the structure deflect forward
The combined resulting effect is a reduction in lateraI deflections.
(b) Wall-frame structures with a point of inflexion around mid-height have the high-
est degree of horizontal interl.ction, the walls restrain the frames bclow the paint
of inflexion and the frames restrain the walls abave it. Such wall-frame
represent a 'baIanced' behaviour between shear and flexure.
(c) The analysecl examples showed that the continuum generalized solution, devc\-
oped by the author, applied ta unifarm wall-frame structures gives lateral de-
flections, force distributions and interaction forces in very close agreemellt witll
'exact' computer discrete solutions far the same structure.
2. Discontinuous Wall-Frame Structures
(a) A change of stiffness in the walls or frames within the height of a wallframe
structure, or curtailment of the wall, modifies the horizontal interactioll and
therefore the latera! response of the structure. Locally, at the change level ill
a stepped wall-frame, there is a sudden increase in the horizontal interaction,
and at the curtailment level in a curtailed wall structure, there is a concelltratpd
interaction force at the top of the wall. These changes in the interaction force,
correspond to changes in the deflection and force distributions
213
(
(
(b) Continuum algebraic solutions for curtailed or stepped wall-frame structures give
results in close agreement with lexact' computer discrete solutions. Also, and
most importantly, continuum solutions provide useful guidance to determine the
location along the height to reduce in size or curt ail the wall so as to produce
a minimum change 'in the horizontal interaction, and consequently in the top
deflection and force distributions.
(c) The increase in the top deflection and horizontal interaction can be minimized,
in the case of curtailment, as weil as in reducing the walls' size, by choosing a
change level between the points of zero wall shear and zero wall moment, i.e. the
point of inflexion, in the full-height uniform reference structure. More generally,
if a wall of a wall-frame structure has to be curtailed, it is preferable that the
level of curtailment be just above the point of inflexion.
(d) The structures with the highest degree of interaction, that is those with values
of aH between 1.5 and 4.0, are also the on es that are the most affected by
reductions in the walls' size, the frames' size, and by curtailment of the wall.
3. Stiffened-Storey Wall-Frame Structures
(a) Stiffening one storey of the frame, and thereby increasing the concentrated inter-
action fOl ce, is a new, and hightly efficient, way of increasing the lateral stiffness
of the structure.
(b) There is a level at which stiffening a storey of the frame is most efficient in in-
creasing the lateral stiffness of a wall-frame structure. A continuum algebraic
solution developed for a stiffened-storey frame was used to determine the opti-
mum level for stiffening a storey of the frame to give the minimum top lateral
deflection. The level is in the region where the distributed horizontal interac-
tion in the uniform wall-frame structure is minimum. Therefore, increasing the
stiffness of the frame :-t that level produces a larger increase in the horizontal
interaction and consequently in the lateral stiffness.
(c) Stiffening the frame storey at the optimum intermediate level is much more
effective in increasing the lateral stiffness of the structure than when stiffened at
the top.
(d) When the wall of a wall-frame structure is curtailed at a level below the point of
inflexion of the full-height reference structure, a part of the loss in lateral stiffness
may be recovered by stiffening the frame storey at that same level.
(e) The consequences of stiffening a storey of the frame are not only an increase
in the horizontal interaction at the stiffened storey level and in the structure's
lateral stiffness, but also a significant increment in shear force in the walls and
frames at that same level, and, consequently, in the horizontal shear in the floor
slab. The members of the frames at the stiffened storey are also subjected to
significant forces. Aiso the axial forces in the external columns of the frame with
a stiffened storey are increased below the stiffened storey level.
(f) In order to minimize the increase in forces at the stiffened storey level, and still
obtain a considerable increase in lateral stiffness, it is preferable to increase the
shear rigidity GA of the frame not more than by a factor equal to the number
214
"
of storeys of the structure. It would correspond to a factor f' of a value of one.
where
f
' GAp 1
= GA x N = 1.0
in which GAp and GA are respectively the additional shear rigidity in the stiff-
ened storey and the typical frame storey shear rigidity, and N is the total number
of storeys_
Recommendations for future research
In practice, wall-frame structures are often subjected to torsion as weIl as to trans-
lation, because of either the eccentricity of the lateral load, or the plan-asymmetry of the
structure itself. The behaviour of stepped, curtailed or stiffened-storey wall-frame structures
in torsion and translation is area of research that should be investigated.
Whereas in a purely translational wall-frame stiucture the deftected configuration and
the levels of the points of inflexion and zero shear are functions of the in-plane rigidities
of the bents, GA, El and EL Ac
2
, in a torsional wall-frame, the deftected configuration
and the levels of inflexion and zero shear are aIso dependent on the relative position of the
walls to the frames. A combinat ion of translation and twist therefore cause the deftected
configuration and levels of infleyjon and zero shear to he dependent on both, and on tlH'
relative importance of the torque versus the translationalloading, or its eccentricity.
The effects of curtailment of the wall will vary depending on the relative position of
the waHs to the frames and of the position of the wall to be curtailed. The rotational points
of inftexion and zero wall shear become the reference to choose the level of curtailment pro-
ducing minimum interaction forces and consequently change in deflections. A compromise
'optimum' of curtailment between the lateral and torsionalloading could be round to creale
minimum change in horizontal interaction and lateral stiffness. In case of torsion, the equiv-
aient shear behaviour is increased when the contnbution of the moment-resisting frame to
the torsional resistance is relatively more significant than the contributions of the wall. The
effect of stiffening a storey of the frame would then depends on the relative posi tion of the
frame in that structure. An investigation of by which proportion and at what 'optimum'
level a storey of the frame could be stiffened to produced a maximum lateraI and torsion al
stiffness is recommended. A study of the torsion al behaviour of discontinuous wall-frame
structures should also include the effects of those sudden discontinuities in rela.tive stiff-
ness on thb position of the centre of resistance and consequently the torque acting on the
structure.
Other aspects of the earthquake response of discontinuous wall-frame structures in-
cluded in this thesis should also be studied. General solutions, using matrix analysis, for
the dynamic characteristics and mode shapes could be developed for curtalled and stiff-
ened storey wall-frame structures by considering them as two-substructure problems. The
extension of this purely elastic study into the non-linear field, to determine the variations
that this would cause to the elastic solutions, would be appropriate to most of the prob-
215
lems investigated in this thesis. Such studies are not just beyond the scope of the research
presented here, but would probably constitute in themselves a number of major derivative
in vestigations.
216
References
[1) ASSOCIATE COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE (1985)
(NBCC) National Building Gode of Canada 1985, NRCC No.29179, Supplement to
the National Building Code of Canada 1985. Na.ional Research Council of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
[2) BASU, A.K. (1983). "Seisrnic Design Charts for Cou pIed Shear Walls". Journal of tllE'
Structural DIvision, ASeE, Vol. 109, No. 2, pp. 335-352.
[3] BASU, A.K., DAR and GULAM Q. (1982). "Dynarnic Characteristics of Cou pIed Wall-
Frame Systems". Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 10, NoA, pp.
615-631.
[4] BASU, A.K., NAGPAL, A.K., BAJAI, R.S. and GULIANI, A.K. (1979). "Dynamic
Characteristics of Coupled Shear Walls". Journal of the Structural Divzsion, ASeE,
Vol. 105, No.8, pp. 1637-1652.
[5] BASU, A.K., NAGPAL, A.K. and KAUL, S. (1983). "Charts for Seismic Design of
Frame-wall Systems". Journal of Structural Engmeermg, Vol. 110, No.l, Feb., pp. 31-
46. (Discussions: Vol. 110, No. 6, pp.1425 and Vol. 11, No. 1, p.231)
[6] BOUWKAMP, J.G. !ne., Engineering Consultants (1983). A study of C0r711Jut(r Mod
e/ing Formulation and Special Analytical Procedures for Earthquake Responsc of MIlI-
hstory Buildmg. A report to the National Science Foundation, January
[7] CANADIAN STANDARDS ASSOCIATION (1984). Design of Concrete Structure'! foT'
Buildmgs -\ National Standard of Canada, Rexdale (Toronto), Ontario, Canada.
[8] CLOUGH, R.W. and PENZIEN, J. (1975). Dynamics of Structures. McGraw-llill, New
York, 634 p.
[9] COULL, A. (1974). "Stiffening of coupled shear walls against foundation mo\'cmcnt".
Structural Engineer, Vol. 52, pp.23-26.
[10] GHOSH, S.K. and FINTEL, M. (1979). Modelling of Frame-Shear Wall Structures for
Static and Dynamic Analysls. Proc. Symposium on Behavior of Buildings System!> and
Building Components, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennesse, March, pp. 4i9--19G
[11] GHOSH, S.K. and FINTEL, M. (Hl80). Effects of Wall and Frame Stiffness on the
mie Response of Ytelding Wall-Elastie Frame Internctive Systems. Annual COllfereIl((O
of Canadian Society for Civil Engineering Winnipeg, Manitoba, S2.1- S2.8.
[12] GROSSMAN, J. (1990). "SIen der Concrete Structures - The New Edge". ACI Sll/1('-
tura/ Journal, Vol. 87, No.1, January-February, pp. 39-52.
[13] GRUNDY, P. and WATHEN, G.R. (1972). "Frame-Shear Wall Interaction". CIVIl Er/!}l-
neering Transactzons, The Instltute of Engmeers, Vol. CE 14, No. l, April,
217
,
i.
[14J HEIDEBRECHT, A.C. and LU, C.Y. (1988). "Evalua.tion of the Seismic Response
Factor Introduced in the 1985 Edition of the National Building Code of Canada".
Canadian Journal 0/ Civil Engineering, Vol. 15, pp. 382-388.
(15] HEIDEBRECHT, A.C. and STAFFORD SMITH, B. (1973). "Approximate Analysis
of Tall Wall-Frame Structures". Journal of the Structural Division, ASeE, Vol. 99, No.
ST2, Feb., pp. 199-221.
[16J HOENDERKAMP, J.C.D. (1983). A General Band Method of Ana/ysis for Tall Build-
ing Structures Subject to Lateral Loads, thesis suhmitted to the McGill University at
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor in Philosophy.
[17] KHAN, F.R. and SBAROUNIS, J.A. (1964). "Interadion of Shear Walls and Frames".
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 90, No. ST3, June, pp. 285-335.
[18] KORKUT, K. (1990). "Zur mafigeblichen Beteiligung der hheren Eigenformen am seis-
rnischen Verhalten von Tragwerken mit diskontinuierlichen Scheiben". Bauingenieur,
Vol. 65, pp. 35-42.
[19] MOEHLE, J.P. and SOZEN, M.A. (1980). Experiments to Study Earthquake Response
of RIC Structures with StiJJness Interruptions. Civil Engineering Studies, Structural
Research Series No. 482 University oflllinois, Urbana-Campaign, minois, August, 421p.
[20] MUKHERJEE, P.R. and COULL, A. (1973). "Free Vibrations of Coupled Shear
Walls". Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamic, Vol. l, pp. 377-386.
(21) MURASHEV, V., (1971). Design 0/ Reinforced Concrete Structures. Mir Publishers,
Moscow, Section 192, pp. 542-587.
[22] RIDDINGTON, J.R. (1974). The Composite Behaviour of Walls Interacting with Flex-
ural Members. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southampton, Faculty of Engineering and
Applied Sciences, August, 270 p. (citation from p.l97).
[23] ROSENBLUETH, E. and HOLTZ, J. (1960). "Elastic Analysis of Shear Walls in Tall
Buildings". Journal of the American Institute, Proc., Vol. 56, No. 12, June, pp. 1209-
1222.
[24] ROSMAN, R. (1967). "Laterally Loaded Systems Consisting of Walls and Frames".
Proceedings of Conference on TaU Buildings at University of Southampton 1966, Perg-
amon Press, pp. 273-289.
[25] ROSMAN, R. (1973). "Dynamics and Stability of Shear Wall Building Structures".
Proc. of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 55, pp. 411-423.
[26] RUTENBERG, A. (1975). "Approximate Natural Frequencies for Coupled Shear
Walls". Earthquake Engmeermg Structural Dynamic, VolA, pp.95-100.
[27] RUTENBERG, A. and HEIDEBRECHT, A.C. (1975). "Approximate Analysis of
Asymmetric Wall-Frame Structures". Building Sciens, Vo1.10, pp. 27-35.
218
[28] SALVATI, M. (1990). Optimum Arrangement of Stiffened Stories in Wall-Frame Struc-
tures, Thechnical paper, McGill University, Department of Civil Engineering and Ap-
plied Mechanics, September, 61 p.
[29] SOKOLNIKOFF, I.S., (1966). Mathematics of Physics and Modern Englllccnng.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, Second Edition @1958, 152 p.
[30] STAFFORD SMITH, B. (1967). "The Composite Behaviour of lnfilled Frames". TaU
Buildings, Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 481- 492.
[31] STAFFORD SMITH, B. and ABERGEL, D.P. (1983). "Approximate Analysis of High-
Rise Structures Comprising Cou pIed Walls and Shear Walls". Buildmg and Environ-
ment, Vol. 18, No. 1/2, pp. 91-96.
[32] STAFFORD SMITH, B. and COULL, A. (to be published in 1991). TaU Building
Structures, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New-York.
[33] STAFFORD SMITH and CROWE (1986). "Estimating Periods of Vibration of Tall
Buildings". Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE. Vol. 112, No. 5, pp. 1005-1019.
[34J STAFFORD SMITH, B., KUSTER, M. and HOENDERKAMP, J.C.D. (1981). "A
Generatzed Approach to the Defiection Analysis of Braced-Frame, Rigid Frame and
Coupled Wall Structures". Journal of CIVil Engineers, Vo1. 8, No. 2, pp. 230-240.
[35J STAFFORD SMITH, B., KUSTER, M. and HOENDERKAMP, J.C.D. (1984). "Geu-
eralized Method for Estimating Drift in High Rise Structures". Journal of the Structural
Division, ASeE, Vol. 110, No. 7, July, pp. 1549-1562.
[36J SWADDIWUDHIPONG, S. and LEE, 5.1. (1985). "Core-Frame Interaction in TaIJ
Buildings". Engmeering Stuctures, Vol. 7, No. 1, Jan., pp. 51-55.
[37] TSO, W.K.and CHAN, R.B. (1971). "Dynamic Analysis of Plane Coupled Shear
Walls". Journal of Engineers Mechanlcal Division, ASeE, Vol. 97, pp. 33-48.
[38] TSO, W.K. and RUTENBERG, A. (1977). "Seismic Spectral Response of
Coupled Shear Walls". Journal of DIvision, ASeE, Vol. 103, No. 1,
pp.181-196.
[39] WILSON, E.L. and HABIBULLAH, A. (1986). SAP80 Structural Analysl$ Program!',
A SeMes of Computer Progmms for the Statzc and Dynamic Finile Element Analysl,s
of Structures. Techmcal Reference Manual., Computers & Structures Ine. Berkeley,
California.
[40] WILSON, E.L., KIUREGHIAN, A.D. and BAYO, E.P. (198'). "A Replacement for the
SRSS Method in Seismic Analysis". Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dy1lfl1nlc,
Vol. 9, pp. 187-194.
[41] YOON, Y. (1988). Estimating Seismic Base Shears of Tal/ Buildings. Thesi" - De-
partment of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Montreal,
December, 125 p.
219
,
Ap!>endix A
CONTINUUM SOLUTIONS
A.l Uniform Wall-Frame Structures
A.1.1 Solutions for various loading cases
If the solution for a uniform wall-frame structure with a fixed base is obtained from the
differential equation for the deflection, Eqn. 3.58, the boundary conditions to consider are:
y(O)
=
0 (A.1)
y'(O)
=
0 (A.2)
El
d2y
dz
2
=
Mw(H) = 0 (A.3)
_El
d3y
=
dME(O)
(A.4)
dx
3
dx
The deflection equations are obtained for various loading cases by solving for the constants
of Eqn. 3.67.
U niCormly distributed load oC intensity w:
The externat moment expression is:
The latera! deflection equation is:
M(z) = w(H - x)2
2
(A.5)
y(x) = 1) {[H; r -H;)'+ ;4 (;) ']+ :'
+ wH
4
..!.. [(COShkaz - 1)(kaHsinhkaH + 1) _ sinhkaZ] (A.6)
El k
2
(kaH)4 cosh kaH (kaH)3
220
The slope equation is:
The curvature equation is:
y"(x) =
wH
2
(k
2
- 1) [! _ -=- !
El k
2
2 H + 2 H J
wH2l [-1 (kaHsinhkaH+l)coshkoJ: sinhkaX]
+-E-/- k2 (kaH)2 + (kaH)2 cosh kaH - -(-ka-H-)-
(A.8)
At the top of the structure,
y(H) = 1 + (COShkaH-1-ka//sinhkall)]}
El k
2
8 k
2
2(kaIl)2 (kaH)4 cosh kali (A.9)
and
Y/CH) = wll
3
{(k
2
- 1) 1 + [Sinh kaH - kali]}
El k
2
6 k
2
(kaH)3coshkaH
(A.lO)
Concentrated shear force at top of intensity S:
The external moment expression is:
ME(X) = S(Il - x) (A.ll)
The lateral deflection equation is:
y(x) = 1) r - (; r] + :2 L:i::)2]}
SH3 1 [ tanhkaH(coshkax -1) sinhkaX]
+ El k
2
+ (kaH)3 - (koll)J
(A.12)
The slope equation is:
SH
2
{(k
2
- 1) [( X) 1 ( x )2] l [ 1 ]}
y/Cx) = El k2 H - 2 H + k2 (koll)2
S H
2
1 [ tanh kaH sinh kox cosh kax]
+ El k
2
+ (kaH)2 - (kaH)2
(A.13)
221
1 At the top of the structure,
S H3 { (k
2
- 1) 1 1 [1 tanh kaH] }
y(H) = El k2 3 + k2 (kaH)2 - (kaH)3
(A.l4)
and
, S H
2
{( k
2
- 1) 1 1 [ cosh kaH - 1 ] }
y (H) = El k
2
2 + k
2
(kaH)2 cosh kaH
(A.15)
Concentrated Moment applied at top of intensity M:
When a moment is applied at the top of a wall-frame structure, it is assumed that it is
resistE!d entirely by the axial forces in the columns and that the ben ding moment at the
top of the wall is zero. Therefore, the boundary condition, Eqn. A.3, still applies for the
solution of the differential equation of the deflection, Eqn. 3.58.
The external moment expression is:
(A.l6)
The lateral deflection equation is:
M 3
2
(k
2
- l) [l (X) 2 ( cosh kax - 1) 1
y(x) = El- k
2
'2 H - (kaH)2coshkaH
(A.17)
The slope equation is:
, M H (k
2
- 1) [ x sinh kax ]
y (x) = El k
2
H - (kaH)coshkaH
(A.l8)
At the top of the structure,
(H) = MH2 (k
2
- 1) [! _ (coshkaH -1) ]
Y El k
2
2 (kaH)2 cosh kaH
(A.19)
and
'(H) = MH (k
2
- 1) [1- tanhkaH]
y El k
2
(kaH)
(A.20)
222
Triangular distributed load, with apex at base and maximum intellsity p at
the top:
The external moment expression is:
(A.21 )
The lateral deflection equation is:
y(x) =
pH4 Ck
2
- 1) (.:..)2 _ (-=-)3 _1 (-=-)5]
El k
2
6 H 12 H + 120 H
pH4 1 1 [(Sinh kaH sinh ko:H 1) (COSh ko:x - 1)]
+ El (kaH)2 k
2
2ko:H - (kaH)3 + (kaH)2 cosh kaIl
pH4 1 1 [( x sinh ko:X) (1 1) 1 (X) 3]
+ El (kaH)2 k
2
H - kaH 2: - (kaH)2 - 6 II
(A.22)
The slope equation is:
11() = P:; 1) - + ;4
pH3 1 1 [(Sinh kaH sinh ko:H 1) (Sinh kax ))
+ El (ko:H)2 k
2
2 - (kaH)2 + (kaH) cosh kaf{
+p:: k
I2
[(1- coshko:x) - (;) 2]
(A.23)
At the top of the structure,
y(H) =
pH
4
[(k
2
-
El k
2
120
pH
4
1 1 [1 tanh ko:H tanh kaH 1 ] (A 2
+- - - + - <1
El (ko:H)2 k
2
3 2ko:H (kaH)3 (kcdI)2coshka/I .)
and
Y/CH)
= pH
3
[Ck
2
- 1) 1]
El k
2
8
pH
3
1 1 [kO:H sinh ko:H + 1 1]
+ El (kaH)2k
2
(ko:H)2coshko:H - 2coshkaH
(A.25)
223
A.1.2 Location of point of inflexion
Theory
To find the location of the point of inflexion, the curva t.ure must equal zero, Eqn. A.8.
(A.26)
If the curvature is defined as the function f( x), then the point of inflexion is the value of x
for which the function f(x) is equal to zero. To solve for the point of inflexion, the iterative
solution method using Halley's algorithm which is as follows:
Given the function f(x
n
) whic.a is equal to zero, the value of Xn+l is defined as:
[
f(xn) ]
X - X -
n+l - n f'() _ ["(Xn)!(Zn)
Zn 2/'(.1:
n
)
(A.27)
for Zn> D (A.28)
The iteration ends when the error on zn+! is less than the limit established or when the
maximum number of iteration is reached.
A.1.3 Derivative of Top Deflection
The derivative of the top deflection with respect to the characteristic parameter aH is
dy(H) El
--x--
daH wH4
= !. [tanh kaH(kaH sinh ~ + 1) + 4(1 - cosh kaH) )
k (kaH)4coshkaH (kaH)5coshkaH
1 [2tanhkaH sinh
2
kaH (4 4 )]
+k (kaH)4 + (kaH)2 (kaH)2 + kaH + tanhkaH (A.29)
The derivative of the top deflection with respect to the characteristic parameter k is
dy(H) El 1 [1 2 6(I-coshkaH) 5tanhkaH (Sinhkan-kaH)]
~ x WH4 = k
3
4" - (kaH)2 + (kaH)4coshkaH + (kaH)3 + (kaH)3cosh
2
kaH
(A.3D)
224
.

r -0.013
l
3:
..........
W
'-"
* -0.025
l

l:J
..........
.........
l
-0.038
"0
-- k
Z
= 1.0002
- - k
2
1.25
-0.050 ,L-. __ --1 __ .L---L.--..JI.-J--L....l.-IL....
,
1- 0---L--.L---1.--..JL-J--1.-L..l.J
,
0 '
ocH
Figure A.l: Derivative of y(H) with respect to etH
0.25
0.20
.........
-
- -

-
-
-
l

,...
,..-
.......... 0.15
,..-
W
,.-
'-'" /
*
/

,/
k
Z
=
10002
l:J
0.10 /
k
2
= 1 25
.......... /
.........
/
l
'-'" /
>,
"0
005
/
/
'/"
0.00,
1 1
10
ocH
Figure A.2: Derivative of y( H) with respect to k
225
(
A.2 Generalized Solution
The generalized solution is presented to indude all the cases studied in this thesis:
1. U niform wall-frame structures subjected to different loading cases
2. Stepped wall-frame structures
3. Wall-frame structur('s with stiffened frame storey at the top
4. Wall-frame structures .... ith 3tiffened frame storey at an intermediate level
5. Wall-frame structures with stiffened frame storey at the wall curtailment level
Considering a segment of wall-frame structure with a stiffened top storey, Fig. A.3. The
axial force T(x) at any level x is:
T(x) = l
H
T'(x)dx+ P + Vp
(A.3l)
where P is the axial force at the top of the columns, and V
p
is the vertical shear force in
the stiffened storey.
The general external moment that includes a uniformly distributed load w, a concentrated
load SH at the top and a concentrated moment MH at the top, is:
(A.32)
where MH = 2M
l
+ Pi
Eqns. 3.49 and 3.50 derived from. the equation of compatibility established in Chapter 3
are valid and lead to the same differential equation, Eqn. 3.52.
(A.33)
A.2.1 Solution of differential equation for shear force T'(x), Eqn. 3.52
. 1 ( dME(X)
T'(x) = C.smhkax+C2coshkax + k2f - dx (A.34)
The boundary conditions at the base and at the top of a segment of structure of height H
and with an initial racking deformation are:
at x = 0 T'(O)

(A.35) =
-a--
i
2
at x = H
dT'CH)
=
MEeR) _ (Pl + Vpi)
(A.36)
dx
226
, , , ,
t J
t J
t J
t J
E-..
t J
t J
t J
t J
, ,
1-1,/2 ~ . 1/2-
1
",
- Ltne of contra.fLezure
Figure A.3: Shearing force in typical segment of wall-frame structure
227
The expressions for the constants of integration Cl and C
2
multipUed by tare:
Cl. t
= 1. [kaH sinh kaH + 1] wH + [tanh kaH] SR
k'l (kaH) cosh kaH k
2
+ ;2 + tanh kaH 0
2

[
kaH ] (Pl V"l)
- coshkaH H + H
(A.37)
and
(A.3B)
A.2.2 Racking displacement at top
At the top of the segment of wall-frame structure, the vertical displacement related to
racking deformation is t,
T'(H)l2

l
=- a2E!
Since the shear force in a stiffened top storey is:
v" = -yT'(H)
then from Eqn. A.34
therefore
l Vpl
T = - -ya
2
EI
and from Eqn. A.41
l Cll. C
2
l SR
T = - a2EIsmhkaH - a2ElcoshkaH + (ka)2EI
(A.39)
(A.40)
(A.41)
(A.42)
(A.43)
1t is possible ta define explicitely the shear force lfp by introducing Eqn. A.41 into the
constants expressions, Eqns. A.37 and A.3B.
228
A.2.3 Solution for y(x) from generalized approach
From Eqn. 3.45 the curvature is:
d
2
y(x) _ ME(X) _ T_(_x_)i
dx
2
- El El
(A..lI)
Integrating once and using the boundary condition at the base of the segment of structurp
y'(O) = ~
the expression for the slope is
dy _ 1 r i r ,
dx - El Jo ME(X) - El Jo T(x)dx + Yo
(A.15)
(A.-16)
Using Eqn. A.31 for the axial force T(x), and Eqn. A.34 for the shearing force intt'Ilsity,
T'(x), then
( A.4)
Integrating once again, with the boundary condition at the base of the segment of the
structure
y(O) = Yo ( AA8)
the expression for the lateral deflection is:
229
,
,..
,
_(Pl+ Vpl)H2 (:=.-)2 'H (:=.-)
El 2 H + Yo H + Yo
(A.49)
At the top of the segment of structure, the deftection y(H) and the slope y'(H) are respec-
tively,
y(H)
wH4 (k
2
- 1) 1 SHH3 (k
2
- 1) 1 MH H2
= El k
2
8 + El k
2
3 + El T
_ Gii H
3
[COshkaH _ (coshkaH - 1)]
El 2(kaH) (kaH)3
_ G21 H
3
[Sinh kaH _ sinh kaH 1]
El 2(kaH) (kaH)3 + (ko:H)2
(Pl + Vpi) H2 , H
- El 2 +Yo +Yo
(A.50)
and
Y
'(H) wH3 (k
2
- 1) 1 SHH
2
(k
2
- 1) 1 MH H
= El k
2
fi + El k
2
2" + El
_ CIL H
2
[kaH coshkaH - sinhkaH]
El (kaH)2
_ C2
1
H
2
[kaH sinh kaH - cosh kaH + 1]
El (kaH)2
(Pl+Vpl)H '
- El +Yo
(A.51)
A.3 Stepped Wall-Frame Structures
A.a.1 Transfer Matrix Solution
Considering a symmetrical wall-frame structure with (n - 1) changes of properties over the
hcight, Fig. 6.6. The structure is divided into n segments, each with its own properties and
loads, and regrouped in three categories: the base (segment 1), the middle (segments 2 to
n -1) and the top (segment n). For each segment i the differential equation for a continuum
uniform wall-frame, Eqn. 3.58 can be applied.
(A.52)
For each differential equation i there is a corresponding generaI solution i for Y(Xi) which
is a direct function of ME(X,), the externaI moment at level i or height X" If the third and
higher derivatives of the external moment are zero, then
230
"
If the load Wi(X,) is uniform, tbe external moment on segment i at height x, is
where MH, = external moment at the top of segment t
SH, = external shear at the top of segment 1.
At the base of segment i the p.xterna.l moment Mo, and the external shear Sa' are
M S
w,H,2
= H, + H,H, + -2-
(A.51)
(A.55 )
(A.56)
Therefore the external moment ME(X,) at height x, of segment i ca.n he expressed as a.
function of Mo, and Sa'
2
ME(X,) = Mo, - So,X, + (A.57)
The general solution for the deflection of each segment y,(x,) then hecomes a direct function
of the external moment and shear at its base.
For segment 1. the boundary conditions are:
Yi(O) = Yo,
y:(O) =
d
2
y,(0)
MBi(O) = EI'd7l' = MBo,
S (
0) = -El d
3
y,(0) + GA k
2dy
,(0) = S
, 'dx3 "dx a'
( A.58)
(A.S9)
(A.60)
(A.61)
Solving Eqn. A.53 for the boundary conditions, the deflection y(x,} can then he
as
y(xa)
sinh ( kctX )., ( cosh (kax), - 1) M H,2
= Yo, + (ka), Y
o
, + (kaH), Ba, El,
-I)..!. (COSh(kaX), - 1) _
+ El, 24 H, + 2
_ (kaX).)]
+ El, k: 6 HI
231
(
{
+ Mo,Ht (kl- 1) _ (cosh(kax)i - 1)]
El, 2 Hi
(A.62)
Considering a segment of height H" the resulting transfer matrix for astate vector {z}. at
position x., when 0 < x, < HI! can he written in the following form
{z(x)}, = [T(x)],{z(O)}, + {B(x)h
in which
{z(x)}, = y'(x,)
{
y(x,) }
and
{.(On, = {
{B(x)}, =
MB(X,)
sinh(kax),
(ka),
cosh (kax), [T(x)J, = [
E l( ka), sinh (kax ),
(cosh(kax),-l) 1

sinh(kax),
EI(ka).
cosh (kax),
w,H: 4 + 1 (C08h(kaX),-1) _ (X,/H.)2)]
El, ,24 H, ) k[ (kaH):
+ So,H: [_ l (L-)3 _ 1 (81nh(kaX),-jkaX),)]
El, ,6 H, k[ (kaH),
+ Mo,H? [1 (.!:a..) 2 _
El, k, 2 H, (kaH),
wH: 1 + 1 (sinh(kaX), _
l, ,6 H, (kaH),
+ [_(Jr'l'i
1
) 1 (L-)2 _ 1
E , ,2 H, p." (kaH),
+ MmH, [.=L _ sinh kax ,]
El, , H, (kaH ,
H2 2 + 1
W, , 2 H, (kaH)
, "
+S H [_ (Jr'l'i
1
) _ 1 8inh
C
kaX),]
0" , H, (kaH),
(kl-l)
[cosh(kax), -1]
,
(A.63)
(A.64)
(A.65)
As w" 50, and Mo, can he determined from statics for any segment in the structure, the
matrix [T(x)], and vector {B(x)}, are known quantities for any value of x, in that segment.
The continuum assumption and the compatibility conditions hetween two segments require
that the deflection, the slope and the curvature he the same at the top of segment i as at
the bottom of segment i + 1: therefore
{z(H)}, = {Z(O)}.+l (A.66)
232
.'
if {zd represents {z(H).} and Eqn. A.63 is rewritten using Eqn. A.66, then
{z.} = [T.){z.-tl + {BI} (A.6i)
For segment i - 1
(A.68)
and 50 on, until segment 1
(A.69)
if {z(O)h =- {zo} at the base of the structure, Eqn. A.67 can be rewritten as:
(A.70)
and 50 on, 50 that
(A.i1)
where (T,] = [T,][T'_l]
{B,}: [Ti]{B,-l} + {B.}
For the structure witb N segments, there are N similar equations, and the n
'h
is
(A.72)
where {zo} = < 0,0, MBo >T
{ZN}= < YN'YN,EINY'N >T and EINY'N = 0
Eqn. A.72 can be used to determine the value of the unknown parameter MB
Q
As Yo,
and MB(R) are all zero, the third equation in that set yields to
(A.i3)
then
BN3
MBo = (A.4)
TNa.3
in which EN
3
is the third element of the vector {B N}, and T N
3
3 is the (3,3) elemen t of the
matrix [TN]. .
Nowall the boundary conditions at the base of the structure are known, Eqn. A.5 can 1)('
solved for any segment.
A.3.2 Generalized Solution for Stepped Structures
The solution for stepped wall-frame structures is based on tbe generalized continuum
solution and is as explained in Chapter 6, the the flowchart of the program is s}JQwn in
Fig. A.5.
233
t
Read number of segments n
E/(n). H(n). w(n). a
2
(n) and k 2 (n)
Compu/ahon of base Sia/e VectoT Izo j
CALL S08ASE
Compute So(n)
,..---_---( 1. n)
(T] (Tl
CAU T8AR
Compute .\fatn.z
CALL 88AR
Compute VectoT
1
+
If 80 = -8(3), rr J 3)
, Il
r
rie =0'
10
,
,
CALL TMAT
LALL BVECT
1
IIZ(
~
,Tllzo t
~
IBII
1
y((I = :(' )
1/(U = :(2)
~ f B U = zr J)
);:o(
lz" ( J
<-
STOP)
[r]
Ii'H
Figure A.4: Flowchart for transfer matrix solution program
234
J.
."
( START )
numbn a' Slg_nts
Lomp1de sh.4ta.r a.nd fT'&.O'111.nt
,11 lop of PClCIt segm.nt SOrt} and MEOlt}
t.UlnpUU? ba.s" und olJ.rtum1.ng
BSHR and 811011
InUtallzatlon
,B)
Compuh i.ale,.cJ.
.-l....
t;.'!:1 nl
y', Hlt-II
Comput. C,lIt) and C,I(1)
IC)
18)-----4
fA) /loratton
,="-1 ri
-, 1
1/'-1
,t= l "-I ______ ..L. ________ ...J
Figure A.5: Flowchart for stepped wallframe structures program
235
(
..
A.4 Curtailed Wall-Frame Structures
Method of the false position
.
Considering a function f( x), its root can be found by the 'method of the faIse position',
Sokolnikoff (1966). Knowing that the sign of the function f(x) on each side of its root
changes, this method approaches the root simultaneouly by the 'left' and the 'right'.
To evaluate the level of curtailment producing mininum top deflection, adjustment to
the method must be made to consider the possibility that the function :F'(r) equals zero at
two different points. For highe: values of aH, greater than 15, if curtailment is made at a
level very close to the top, the resulting top deflection is sometimes greater than the top
deflection of the full-height-wall structure, producing a curve of change in top defl.ection
and a function :F' as shown below.
F(r) = YuntJ.(H) - yc(H) .1"( r)
236
(+)
'(L VaLue of x ut the lefl = 0 01
XR Value of x at the rtght .; : 0
o
\INT = (\R-.-\LJ,.!
\INT " the tntcl"mvdtlltc v,t/ue of l
.V
Rool between
\R and \/NT
rL = \Nr
.vo
PL IG .!
\L! = \/Vr
\R2 = \R
Figure A.6: Flowchart for optimum level of curtailment
237
I/u,)[ 1>. lit, 1 n
(
f
..
A.5 Stiffened-Storey Wall-Frame Structure
A.5.1 Solution for stiffelling panel at top
The general solution of Appendix A.2 is applicable with the following boundary conditions
for a wall-frame structure fixed at the base with no initial deformation
~ o = 0
y(O) = 0
y/CO) = 0
(A.75)
(A.76)
(A.77)
For a wall-frame structure with a stiffened frame storey at the top and subjected to a
uniformly distributed load of intensity w, the external moment is
(A.78)
Therefore the terms S H, M H, and the axial force P at the top of the columns, all equal
zero. Using the general expressions for the constants of integration Cl and Cz multiplied
by i, Eqns. A.37 and A.38 give
CIl = ..!.. [kaH sinh kaH + 1] wH _ (ka)Vpl
k
2
(kaH) coshkaH cosh kaH
(A.79)
(A.80)
At the top, the shear force in the stiffened storey is:
V
p
= "{T'(H) (A.81)
if
T'(H)l = CIl sinh kaH + C
2
i cosh kaH + ~ SH (A.82)
then
V. i = wH2 (ka"{) (sinh kaH - kaH)
P k2 (kaH)2 (cosh kaH + ky sinh kaH)
(A.S3)
Using the appropriate external moment and constants Cl and C
2
, the lateral deflection,
Eqn. A.49, becomes
238
wH" 1 [2(Z/H)-(Z/H)'l (koHsinhkaH+l)(coshkaz-l) SinhkOX]
+ El k
2
2(koH)2 + (kaH)4 cosh kaH - (kali )3
V"l H
2
[ cosh kox - 1 ] (A.8t!)
El (kaH)2coshkaH
A.5.2 Solution for stiffening panel at intermediate storey
Substrudure 1
The generalized solution from Section A.2 is used for Sstr. 1, which is fixed at the base,
sa that
ao = 0
y(O) = 0
Y/CO) = 0
and is subjected to the general external moment
where if Hl = ~ p x H
The general solution is
51 = wH'}. = wH(l - ~ p
Ml = w:? = w:
2
(1 _ ~ p 2
T;(X1) = CIl sinh (koxh + C
2l
cosh (koxh + k;e SI
(A.85)
(A.8G)
(A .8i)
(A .88)
(A.8a)
(A.90)
(A 91)
in which the constants CIl and C'll are given by Eqns. A.37 and A.38, but with no initial
displacement ~ o , and using Hl and Xl'
At the top of Sstr. 1, the shear force VI' is given by
(A 92)
which leads to
J
wH [( c) tanh(koHh 1 (1- {p)2(kOIl)Sinh(hdlh]
Vpf = 1'- 1 - 'Op + - 1 (k + k
k
2
(kaH) cos 1 aHh 2cosh( 0.//)1
-JI ka')'PIl tanh (koHh (A.9;J)
239
where
(A.94)
The lateral dellection for Sstr.l is given by Eqn. A.49, with no initial displacements and
using the constants Ch and C
2
!.
At the top
(A.95 )
where
__ (k
2
- 1) ~ - ~ ~ ]
0
1
k
2
24 6 + 4
+1- [(COSh(kOHh - 1)(1-{p)2 + (cosh(koHh -1) _ tanh(kOHh] (A.96)
k
2
2(koH )2cosh (koH)1 (koH)4 cosh (koHh (koH)3
and
O
2
__ [ cosh (koIId - 1 ]
- (koH)2 cosh (koH
l
)
(A.97)
The sJope at the top of Sstr.l is
(A.9B)
where
G] = (k
2
- 1) ~ ~ - {; + {pl
k
2
6 2 2
+..1.. [(1-{p) _ __ 1 + tanh(koHh + (1-{p)2
tanh
(kOHh] A 99
k2 (koH)2 (koH) cash (kaH h (koH)3 2(koH) ( . )
and
G = _ [tanh (koHh]
2 (koH)
(A.IOO)
Substructure 2
Simiiarly, for Sstr. 2 the general solution is
(A.101)
240
where the externa.l moment is
(A.I02)
and the constants Cl, and C22 are defined by Eqns. A.37 and A.38 using the following
initial displacements
=
Y2(O) = Yl(lId
= (l/l)
Therefare
C i
= 2- [1 + (1- {p)kaH sinh (koll h] H h (k H) 2E/
l
12 k2 (koH)cosh(koHh w +tan 0 2
0
e
C
2
e = _ wH2 _ 0 2 Elfj.l = _ wH(l- _ 0 2 EI/)"l
2 k
2
e k'2 i
If
TheJ1 from Eqn. A.93
whue
(A.I0:\)
(A.I04)
(A 1(5)
(A 1 QG)
E J [(l-{p) tanh(kaH)l 1
l ::: - 1 (kaH)2 + (kaH? - (kaH)2 cash (koJl h + 2(ka/l)
(A.107)
and
E = k2 tanh (koHh J
2 (kalI) 1
(A.I08)
where JI is given by Eqn. A.94
The solution for the axial force Pl, as defined by Eqn. 11.4 is
Cl i C
2
f . 1 wH2 2
PI f = (cosh (ka H h - 1) + Sin h (ko lJ h + p. -2-(1 - '.7))
(A lOa)
Therefore,
= [(1- {p)2 + cosh(koHh - (1- {p)kaH sinh(kaHh - 1]
k
2
2 (koH)2 cosh (koll h
" y ,
Fl
241
[
kaH ] El
+ -J;2tanh(
kaH
h lli
L Vi' -1
(A.110)
The lateraI deflection in Sstr. 2 is given by Eqn. A.49, with SH, MH and P equal to zero,
and the initial displacements YI(Hd and yi(Ht}.
The deftec tion at the top of Sstr. 2 is
(A.1ll)
where
RI = (k
2
- 1) [(1 -
k
2
8
+J.. [(1- + (cosh(kaHh -1) _ (1- (A.1l2)
k
2
2( kaH)2 (kaH )4 cosh (kaH h (kaH)3
and
R == [(1 _ C ) _ tanh(kaHh]
2 k
2
'op (kaH)
(A.1l3)
A.S.3 Solution for stiffening panel at level where wall is curtailed
For Sstr. 1 the external moment is
(A.114)
where Hl = X H and MI = Pli
Therefore, the constants CIl and C
21
of Eqns. A.37 and A.38 becorne
J.. [kaH sinh (kaHh + 1 _ (k2 _ 1) (kaH)(l - wH
k
2
(kaH)cosh(kaHh 2cosh(kaHh
(ka)Vpl
cosh(kaH).
(A.U5)
and
(A.1l6)
The top deflection at top of Sstr.1 is obtained by substituing the constants CIl and C
21
into Eqn. A.50 and replacing the term P xl by the moment Ml
242
(
H) = WH4 (k
2
- 1) _ +
YI 1 El k
2
24 6 4
+ wH4 [2cp - _ tanh (koHh + (cosh (koHh - 1) + (1 - e'1,)2 cosh (kali h - 1 )]
El k
2
2(kaH)2 (kaH)3 (koH)4 cosh (kaHh 2(koH)2 cosh (kall)1
Vpl H2 [ cosh (kaH)1 -1 ] Ml H
2
[ cosh (koHh - 1 ]
- El (koH)2 cosh (koHh - El (koH)2 cash (koHh (A.II i)
Substituting the expression for M}, which is
M
WH2( c '2
1 = -2- 1 - .. cp)
(A.118)
therefore
= wH
4
(k
2
- 1) _ + _ (1 - (cosh (kalI)! - 1) ]
El k
2
24 6 4 2 (kall)2 cosh (kali h
wH
4
1 [(2{cp - {;p) tanh (koHh (cosh (koll)1 - 1) ]
+ El k
2
2(koll)2 - (koH)3 + (koll)4cosh(ko/lh
Vpf H2 [ cosh (kaH)] - 1 l
- El (koH)2cosh(koHhJ (A.l19)
Similarly the top slope of Sstr.1 is found from Eqn. A.51
'(H) = wH4 (k
2
- 1) _ + CP]
YI 1 El k2 6 2 2
+ --- + - + -'-----'--'-'------'-
WH4 1 [1- ecp tanh (kaHh 1 (1- c,Y tallit (koIl li]
El k
2
(kQH)2 (kolI)3 (kall)2 cash (kollh 2(koJJ)
_ l'pl H [tanh(kall h] _ Ml H [tanh(kall
h
) (A.120)
El (kaH) El (kaH)
and substituting the expression for Ml, Eqn. A.l18
wH
3
(k
2
- 1) _ ep _ (1- cp)2 tanh(kOIlh]
= El k2 6 2 + 2 2 (koR)
wH
3
1 [(I-ecp) 1 tanll(kQ}[l!]
+ El k
2
(koJ/)2 - (koH)2cosh(kalIh + (kOJ/}3
_ vpe H [tanh(koll)l] (A.121)
El (koH)
243
Frame
Id.
FI
F2
F3
F4
FI
Appendix B
DESCRIPTION OF EXAMPLES
1 Structure Il Wall 1 Frame 1
aH
A W1 FI 3.492e-
4
1.319 1.2125
B W2 FI 2.3784e-
3
3.414 1.0317
C W3 FI 9.991e-
3
6.997 1.00755
D W4 FI 4.8024e-
2
15.34 1.00157
E W3 F2 7.133e-
3
5.910 1.00755
F W3 F3 1.516e-
2
8.618 1.00755
G W3 F4 9.991e-
3
7.000 1.0085
H W3 F5 9.991e-
3
7.000 1.01025
Table B.1: Characteristic parameters of example structures
Columns Bearn
Cl C2 le B
h
f
(rnxm) (mxm) (m
4
) (mxm) (m
4
) (m)
.800 X .550 .500 X .505 2.755e-
2
.350 X .671 8.812e-
3
9
.800 x .550 .500 x .505 2.755e-
2
.300 x .617 5.872e-
3
9
.800 x .550 .500 x .505 2.755e-
2
.400 X .772 1.534e-
2
9
.674 x .582 .500 x .505 2.755e-
2
.350 x .61 8.812e-
3
9
.506 x .641 .500 X .505 2.755e-
2
.350 X .671 8.812e-
3
9
Table B.2: Frame dimensions and properties (E=2.0 X 10
7
)
1 Wall Il
W1
W2
W3
W4
bxh
(mxm)
.500 x 6.868113.5000
.300 x 4.470, 2.2330
.220 )( 3.031 0.5105
.150 X 2.036 0.1055
2.8 e7
2.5 e7
2.5 e7
2.0 e7
Table B.3: Wall dimensions and properties
244
Properties
GAIE
~ A c
(m
2
) (mol)
5.376e-
3
71.28
3.874e-
3
71 28
8.154e-
3
71.28
5.376e-
3
63 . .56
5.376e-
3
52.51
\
Appendix C
APPROACH TO EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE
OF WALL-FRAME STRUCTURES
C.l The Dynamic Approach
The National Building Codp. of Canada suggests a pseudo-statie analysis to evaluate
the distribution of earthquake forces for a. uniform building. For buildings with signifieant
irregularities in stiffness or mass, adynamie analysis with modal superposition is recom-
mended to obtain a more accu rate spatial distribution of forces. In this work, Binee most
of the discontinuous wall-frame structures analysed present irregularities in stiffnl'ss, tl\{'
dynamic analysis procedure is chosen. However, since this study remains at tht' lev(ll of
comparison between two similar structures, the modal contributions were not hcalcd by
the ratio of the Code base shear to the total probable base shear. ln addition, the first
mode response is not necessarily dominant for the base shear in the case of disrontinuou1>
wall-fram( structures, as it is assumed by the Code.
J .G. Bouwkamp (1983), Inc., Engineering Consultants, in their report on the analytical
proced ures for earthquake response of multistorey buildings, suggest an approach ta the
dynamic analysis that will be followed for all the following analyses.
In order to describe the dynamic behaviour of a structure, the natural period of
vibration and the mode shapes of the building are the most important characteristics. The
mode shapes govern the distribution of the design quantities over the height of the building,
and the periods govern the magnitudes of these design quantities.
The natural frequeneies and mode shapes of the structure are computed through the
following relationship for free vibration, Clough & Penzien (197.5);
where [K] : Stiffness matrix
[M]: Diagonal mass matrix
[w
2
]: Diagonal matrix of eigenvalues (circular frequencies squared)
[ ~ : Corresponding eigenvectors (mode shapes)
245
(C.I)
Another dynamic characteristic that is useful in comparing two structures with the
same total mass, is the modal stiffness, or the stiffness in modal coordinates, which in fact
is the frequency squared.
(C.2)
where w
2
= 2rr: fT, and T is the period.
Prescribing an appropriate earthquake input is problematic because it js very jffi-
cult to accurately predict the future seismic ground motion at any given site during the
useful life of a structure. Therefore, it is safe to base seismic design on a range of possi-
ble earthquake ground motions, presented as a response spectrum. Sorne of the response
spectra more commonly used are the Newmark and Hall, VBC, ATC or NBCC with a 5%
damping ratio. The NBCC 1985 response spectrum, based on the ratio of the peak ground
acceleration (PGA) to the peak ground velocity (PGV), Fig. C.la, is chosen here because
it is conservative for the frequency range of the structures considered. Heidebrecht and
Lu (1987) has shawn that for structures having fundamental periods above 0.55., such as
high-rise wall-frame structures, the seismic response factor specified in NBCC 1985 is a
satisfactory means of specifying how earthquakes with differing PGAfPGV values amplif)'
struct ural response.
Using the fundamental period of vibration of the structure, the spectral quantities
are obtained from the response spectrum, Fig. C.la,b. The true relative displacement, Sdll
and the pseudo absolu te acceleration, Sa" arp. then used to evaluate the maximum relative
generalized displacement, y"max, with peak store)' deflections and the equivalent external
forces for each mode. At each level k, the peak storey shear and overturning moments, as
weIl as the peak interstorey drift, are determined.
The maximum values of the design quantities are:
Generalized displacement
y"max =
"'f,Sd,
where Sd, w?Sa,
Peak storey deflection

=

Equivalent external force
F"max =
[M]cJ>,"'fISa,
Peak stcrey shear
V"ma.T,k = Ft max,)
Overturning moment
M"ma.T,k
=
h]F"max,)
Peak interstorey drift
eS"max,1e = - Ll"max,k-l
where the participation factor "'f, represents the proportion of the total mass partlcipating
in the mode of vibration i and is expressed by:
in which
p, =
m: =
P,
"'f,=-
m
,
246
r : unit influence vector
4l; mode shape vector i
(C.3)
Since for each mode the time at which the maximum response occurs is not simul
taneous, the maximum probable response is computed using a. probabilistic combinatioll
such as Square-Root-of-the-Sum-of-the-Squares method (SRSS). The SRSS method, Wil
son and al. (1981), gives accurate response predictions for regular buildings in which the
centres of resistance and mass coincide, a.nd for structures with well-spaced modes. For
all the ex amples analysed, this method will he used, since the structures respect the abo\'<,
crite-ria.
Enough modes should be included in the combination so that the effective modal
mass, e, representing the percentage of the total mass participating in the response be at
least 90%.
",N II
e = L..'-l p, m, X 100
rT[MJr
(C 4)
A more complete understanding of the dynamic behaviour of a building can be gai lied
by reviewing the modal contributions to the total design quantities. The contribution of
each mode ta the peak response, when SRSS is used, can be represented as the ratio of the
square of the mode's peak response to the sum of the squares of all modal peak respollse!>
included in the response. The contribution for mode n is:
where N : total number of modes considered
R : peak response in mode i
(C.5)
The quantities that represent weIl the dynamic loading on the structure, and that
will be used to compare the response of two structures with the same total mass, are the
resulting base shear and base overturning moments. If the curtailed wallframe and urllform
wall-frame structures do not have the same total mass, the ratio of the base shear to the
total mass should be compared
C.2 Descriptlon of the mode} and data used
The two most important factors for an accurate dynamic analysis are the correct
structural modelling of the stiffness and mass properties, and an appropriate
of the earthquake ground motions.
ln order ta estimate the reallstic structural behaviour it is better that tbe uf
the secondary structural systems and non-structural components should be indud,_J 111
this study, howe\'er, the basic structure with primary lateral force system actmg alon('
considered sufficient for a first dynamic analysis and for U5e in a comparative studj of th('
structures behaviour.
247
C
lit
-
E
'>
V'I
.
>

U
0
-J

>
-J
cC


U

a..
V'I
(
10


4
2
08
01
04
02
O. l
008
006
004
002
0.01
002
0.01 O. l l 10 100
PERIOD T,
BR 6470-14
.......
CIl
....."
Z
0

lLJ
...J
lLJ
U
U
<
...J
<
Cl:::
t-
U
lLJ
C-
V}
S
(a) Normalized design distribution spectn m for pea.k horizontal ground
veloclty v = 1 ml s
3.5
LlNEAR
S.
=
3.0
RESPONSE SPECTRA
3.0
NBCC 1985
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
s
(b) Linear response spectra
Figure C.I: Response spectra from NBCC 1985
248
. ,
A wall-frame structure can be modelled by a simple planar model to represent ad-
equately the forces, displacements, interstorey drift and frequency caused by earthquake.
The wall will be modelled by a. column constrained ta deflect in the lateral directlOll idcn-
tically to a two-bay rigid frame, as described in Fig. 3.11 and in Appendix B. The mass of
the members and floor is lumped at every level, Fig. C.2.
Such a. representation implies an analysis of earthquake loading in only orthogonal
direction of the structure. When the purpose of the analysis is for design, it is important
to consider the structure loaded in orthogonal dIrections, but analysing the structure in the
principallateral direction is considered adequate for this comparative st udy.
For each analysis the eigenvalues will be computed using a structural analysis program
SAP80, which also computes the maximum possible member forces resulting frow response
spectral analysis. The peak interstorey drift, peak storey shear, peak overturning maIllent
and the modal contributions are obtained by a small post-processing program writtcn hy
the author (Flowchart, Fig. C.3) .
249
Top m.
m.


a


1
1

a
1
1 a
q
1
.
q
1
.
1
H
Lateral degree 01
freedom conslralDed
ID Y dIrectIon
1. 9m .1. 9m .. 1
Top m,
m,
y
Figure C.2: Finite element model for dyna.mic a.na.lyses
250
a
o
C'-
o
C\l
( START )
READ
Mau mile)
1
!
\
1
1
D./l.e'um Ezf.rnol F(JF('U
:..U" .s.. +(t ", .. 7f")
"(Ic \, mfd ,).,1,., 'h)
i
SRSS on A( le. 1)
1
1
E A(I: IJ'
:mIl
P'ok 3'''''11 .JMar
6 (t Il ollie .) - AIIc-1 Il
MO<I<U Cont,.buI1on 01 A
VIt Il I(t. r" nt Il
A(t ) ,
1
!: AOc _J'
1
'h ...
!
1
j/(t 11 .. V(t .. ' 1. Pt l'lia
l
WRITE
)
Figure C.3: Flowchart for post-processing of design qnantitie&
251
A

0.40
0.35 (T
2
/T,) Frame
,,--....
.-
1-
0.30
"'-
r-=--
-- 0.25
0

0
0.20
n:::
"
(Tl/T,) Frame
Wall

""0 CJ1
0 0.15

-
-
-
L
Q)
-
-
(T
l
/T
,
)
..,/
0....
0.10
..,/
/'
/'
0.05
- (Tl /T
,
) Wall
0.0%.0
16.0
aH
Figure C.4: Period ratIos