SHARING OF LATERAL LOADS LIKE EQ & WIND IN BIDGS BET: FR

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15130&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=
048909b6ea3a4d2b8fd0d1646a9aaac7

Sub: Sharing of lateral loads in design of tall bldgs between frames and shear walls

to expert in SEFI.

It is stated that when a multi-storeyed building has columns & shear walls as supporting members,
forming a combination of load sharing system between framed parts & shear walls, for taking care of
lateral forces (like EQ & WIND), then the FRAMED part of the structure can be assumed to take care
of a maximum of 25% of the lateral loads and the remaining75% of the load by the shear walls.
But how to do this type of analysis, in practice, using commercial software is the question.
Also what modification in the load inputs is required to share these lateral forces between frames and
shear walls.

The load carrying capacity of a structure depends on the stiffness of members and therefore how can
one predetermine that a certain percentage will be taken by framed parts and the balanced portion will
be shared by the shear walls.
Can we force the structural system to do such type of sharing in the analysis , when the system has
certain inherent stiffness properties of its own.

If anybody in SEFI has carried out such an analysis on buildings following this procedure, using
ETABS or STAADPRO , a request is made to those , to please share their experience and explain the
procedure.

There are experts in Sefi, like Er. Rajan , Er. Sukatha ADHIKARI, Er. Kumar Abhishek singh, Er.
Rahul, Er. Rengarajan , Er. Prabhakar to mention a few,
and other experts to explain the procedure for the benifit of others , if it is possible.

I request experts in this forum to express their comments on this and offer their valuable opinion in
the matter.

wark regards

Dear Sir,
I have posted the method I suggest a while back, but I will post it again for your
benefit.

First of all, the 25% : 75% sharing system (Dual System) is not mandatory - you can
design a building with Ductile shear wall and SMRF without satisfying the above if you
adopt R=4 instead of R=5. This is brought out by note 4 b in table 7 of IS 1893. Further,
if you are in Zone II where ductile detailing is not essential, you can even design the
shear wall to take full eq load and your main frame as OMRF and have R=3. However,
it is recommended to go for Dual System (for zones 3 and above, you will get R=5
instead of R=4 since ductile detailing is anyway mandatory for both the wall and the
frame).

Secondly, we must understand the requirement of dual system. As per the code,
Buildings with dual systems consist of shear walls ( or braced frames ) and moment
resisting frames such that:
a) the two systems are designed to resist the total design force in proportion to their
lateral stiffness considering the interaction of the dual system at all floor levels, and
b) the moment resisting frames are designed to independently resist at least 25 percent
of the design seismic base shear.

In simple terms, if total base shear is 100 kN, consider the following two cases:

a. If walls take 80 kN and frame takes 20 kN, we need to boost frame component to
25kN, but walls should still take 80kN (overall, system takes 105kN in this case)

b. If walls take 70 kN and frame takes 30 kN, frame takes more than 25% by itself and
hence, no need to make changes.

Now, the next question is how to implement the same in design. The method
adopted by me is explained below. Do note that STAAD as of date does not design
ductile shear walls. Hence, we should go for ETABS or design the shear walls
manually.

Step 1: Create the standard model and run the analysis and design. Revise sections to
ensure all sections adopted for frame and wall are safe.

Step 2: In post processor, look up total reaction in EQX and EQZ corresponding to (a)
all supports, and (b) supports for the shear walls only. Let us call total reactions to all
supports as RA and total reactions to supports of shear walls only as RB.

Step 3: If RB is more than 75% of RA, we need to boost the earthquake forces for frame
design. If RB is less than 75% of RA, design can be finalized.

Step 4: If required by step 3, boosting the eq forces of frame design is carried out as
follows (i) Calculate factor as 0.25 x RA/(RA-RB). In above example with RA=100 and RB=80,
the factor will be .25 x 100/20 = 1.25
(ii)Create a new set of load combinations for frame design and in these combinations,
multiply factor for earthquake case by the above factor. For example, 0.9 DL + 1.5 ELX
will become in the above case to 0.9 DL + 1.25 x 1.5 ELX or 0.9 DL + 1.875 ELX.
(iii)Alternatively, we can create copies of the load cases EQX and EQZ and apply load
factors from (i). Then, the new load combinations will be copy of existing load
combinations, but will use different load case number for earthquake code.
(iv) Design the wall to old load combinations and frame to new load combinations.

I dont have any project softcopy right now to highlight above. If some body shares a
model in ETABS completed upto Step 1 (create dual system model and apply general
loads, run analysis and design to check safety of frame and wall sections), I will post
the methodology above with values so that you can do a similar check...

Hope this helps.

Yours sincerely,
Arunkumar

I find the approach given by Arunkumar fully contemplate-able, though many fellow members appear
to be confused by it. At the best I can, I shall re-explain the same. This might most probably clear the
confusion, or at the other end, might throw the confused to utter confusion Ill still make the try:

The code only says that the frames alone should be able to resist 25% of total lateral load. This does
not mean the shear wall alone should be able to resist the rest, ie., 75% of total lateral load. This is
because, if frames are able to resist 30% (ie., more than 25%) no matter how rare or not so rare that
case might be, in that case the shear walls need to resist only 70%, not 75%.

Concerning the requirement that the frames alone should be able to resist 25% of total lateral load,
there are two ways of looking at it :

(1) Assuming that if the shear walls are removed from the configuration, leaving the structure with the
bare frames alone, this frame should take 25% of the lateral load.

(2) Assuming that the frames have to be able to resist at lest 25% of lateral load, while staying in the
frame-shear wall configuration that is a more realistic assumption

The approach to implementing these is as follows:

(1) Approach 1: Take a copy of the completed model file, delete all the shear walls. Provide minimal
columns where shear walls were also carrying gravity loads directly- ie, where the frames fail in gravity if
no columns are provided instead (this induces an error, but I feel its small enough to be covered by the
safety factors).

Reduce the applied lateral load to its one-fourth, by tweaking one of the scaling factors that goes into
its definition.

Design for frame is the maximum requirements of both these models.

(2) Approach 2: Get the list of support reactions of all the supports, and separate them to two lists, one
for those supporting columns and one for those supporting shear walls. For each direction of
earthquake, add up the horizontal reactions for earthquake cases in the two lists separately.

Say, if you got sum of support reactions of columns as 60 and those of walls as 140, the sum of these
is 60+140=200; the %-age of shear taken by frames is 60/200, which is 30%. Well and good, and
nothing more to do.

Instead, if you got sum of support reactions of columns as 40 and those of walls as 160, the sum of
these is 40+160=200; the %-age of shear taken by frames is 40/200, which is 20%. We need this to be
at least 25% of the total load, as per our codal requirement. And 25% of the total load is 50.

But since we are not separating shear walls from frame, as we did in the 1st case, we need to boost
the lateral load in such a way that the load taken by the frame is 50.

The best way to do this without disturbing the finalized model is to boost the total lateral load by
1.25. That makes the sum of supports of columns as 50 and those of walls as 200, the sum of these is
250 (just proportionately boosted the whole thing);

At this stage, forget that the %-age of shear taken by frames, is still is 50/250, which is 20% of the
boosted whole. Also don't ask yourself as to isn't 250 too much for the structure in question?

The thing is, if we design this structure for frames, we end up with a frame that can take 50, which is
25% of the original loading (ie, 40+160=200).

So use the above loading (50+200=250) to design frames ALONE and the original loading (of
40+160=200) to design shear walls.

Hope that is clear enough.

Rahul Leslie

I appreciate your long explanation. In this regard kindly go through the article

"PRACTICAL MODELLING OF HIGH-RISE DUAL SYSTEMS WITH

REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB-COLUMN FRAMES"

which is in pdf form.

In this I have highlightened the important notes in yellow colour. This is an excellent
paper which explain the way how it should be modeled and analysed through a
software.

I have taken notes from the above and others . I have attached the same for the benefit
of others.

In the same how the model should be made inorder to get the S.W to take full Seismic
forces.

Please send your comment.

T.RangaRajan.