Nuclear Engineering and Design 79 (1984) 69-80 69

North-Holland, Amsterdam

MODELING OF SHEAR WALL BUILDINGS

Ajaya K. G U P T A
Department of Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7908, USA

Received June 1983

Many nuclear power plant buildings, for example, the auxiliary building, have reinforced concrete shear walls as the primary
lateral load resisting system. Typically, these walls have low height to length ratio, often less than unity. Such walls exhibit
marked shear lag phenomenon which would affect their bending stiffness and the overall stress distribution in the building. The
deformation and the stress distribution in walls have been studied which is applicable to both the short and the tall buildings.
The behavior of the wall is divided into two parts: the symmetric flange action and the antisymmetric web action. The latter
has two parts: the web shear and the web bending. Appropriate stiffness equations have been derived for all the three actions.
These actions can be synthesized to solve any nonlineal cross-section. Two specific problems that of lateral and torsional
loadings of a rectangular box have been studied.
It is found that in short buildings shear lag plays a very important role. Any beam type formulation which either ignores
shear lag or includes it in an idealized form is likely to lead to erroneous results. On the other hand a rigidity type approach
with some modifications to the standard procedures would yield nearly accurate answers.

1. Introduction
Many nuclear power plant buildings, for example,
the auxiliary building, have reinforced concrete shear
walls as the primary lateral load resisting system. Typi-
cally, these walls have low height to length ratio, often
less than unity. It is well known that such walls exhibit
marked shear lag phenomenon, which would affect their
bending stiffness and the overall stress distribution in
the building. It is conceivable that these buildings could
be modeled using a finite element program in which
each wall is discretized as several plate bending or plane
stress elements. Partly to avoid the cost of such a
numerical solution both in manpower and in comput-
ing, and also due to the fact that an elaborate finite
element model may be an overkill considering all the
other uncertainties, resort is taken to simplified "stick"
modeling techniques. These techniques typically use
three degrees of freedom per floor - two horizontal
translations and one rotation. Past investigators [1] have
classified such techniques into two categories: the rigid-
ity approach and the beam approach. In the rigidity
approach [2], the stiffness of each wall is calculated as
an isolated wall. The stiffnesses of all the walls are
combined to form the story stiffness using simple trans-
formation equations. This method is sufficiently accu-
rate when the walls are indeed independent, but its
application to situations where various walls in a
nonlinear system are continuous at the vertical edges is
questionable. The beam approach avoids this problem
by looking upon the building as a beam with nonlinear
cross-section. Chokshi and Lee [1] have modeled the
buildings using the Timoshenko beam theory [3-5]. This
approach allows for bending and shear deformations,
but does not address to the problem of shear lag.
Hadjian and Atalik [6] have used Reissner's shear lag
formulation [7] to avoid the problem. Danay [8] uses a
"general" element with a parabolic stress distribution to
model the buildings. The problem with both the Reis-
sner's and the Danay's formulations is that they presup-
pose the form o~f shear lag, which perhaps is adequate
for relatively taller buildings, but may not be so for
short buildings.
In the present paper the deformation and the stress
distribution in wails have been studied which are appli-
cable to both the short and the tall buildings. The
formulation for individual walls yields general stiffness
relationships which can be integrated into a general
purpose program. Specific behavioral aspects are also
studied which may lead to a simplified modeling similar
to that in ref. [2].

0 0 2 9 - 5 4 9 3 / 8 4 / $ 0 3 . 0 0 © Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

( N o r t h - H o l l a n d Physics P u b l i s h i n g Division)
70 A.K. Gupta / Modeling of shear wall buildings

2. B o x structure subjected to lateral force

Consider the box structure shown in fig. 1 which is

assumed to be fixed at the bottom. Two parallel walls of
the box are subjected to an inplane shear force of
magnitude S, each. Under the action of these forces the
free body diagrams of one of the flange walls and one of
the web walls are shown in fig. 2. The free body
diagram of the web wall consist of two parts; the first
I ~l'llf'll [ll /Ill I Ill i [ i

20
i

(o) FLANGE WALL

part constitutes the state of pure shear, and the second
part introduces the web bending. For equilibrium, the
following relationships hold ro

% = S / 2 bt w ,

( t f / t w ) ' r f + "rw = "ro , (1)

ro +
where t r and t w are the thicknesses of the flange and the
web walls, respectively, and other symbols are as shown
in figs. 1 and 2. Under the edge shear shown in fig. 2,
the vertical stress distributions in the flange wall are
Ill...........
J~ 2b
lll/I/lllllll

2b ~q
shown in fig. 3. The shear lag phenomenon is most
pronounced in a short wall, and is practically nonex- (b } WEB OR SHEARWALL
istent in a tall wall. Similar situation for the web wall is Fig. 2. Free body diagrams of walls in the box.
pictured in fig. 4. To study these stress states, a stress
function approach, in conjunction with a Fourier series
representation of the stress function if applied which is
discussed in detail in Appendix A.

T llll
Fig. 5 shows the flange wall with the forces F r on the
two edges which are given by

Ff = "rfhtf. (2)

The corresponding vertical displacement at the top 2o

corners of the wall are related to the edge force with a TALL WALL

relationship of the following type

F r = Kft). (3)

The value of the stiffness term for a tall wall is denoted

by Kfo and is given by

Kfo = 2Etra/h. (4)

MEDIUM TALL WALL

SHORT WALL

Fig. 1. Box structure subjected to lateral force. Fig. 3. Vertical stress distribution in the flange wall.
 A.K. Gupta / Modeling of shear wall buiMings 71

6.0- /

,'/
,7
TALL WALL
5.0-

4.0-
± = 3_.0,~.~ /
o rf h ///

MEDIUM TALL WALL

I1:

W
3.0-
111//
W
2D-
Y//
_'I
1.0.

." ~ Present Study

..
.. -- - - - - P r o p o s e d Approximotion

SHORT WALL
o
Fig. 4. Vertical stress distribution in the web wall. o 0'.5 d.o ¢.s z'.o
ASPECT RATIO ( o/h )
Fig. 6, Variation of the flange stiffness ratio (1/rf) with the
This value changes for relatively short walls due to shear aspect ratio (a/h).
lag. The modified expression can be written as

Kf = rfKto. (5)
A plot between a/h and 1/rf is shown in fig. 6 which is based on the derivation in Appendix A. It is noted that
for small values of a/h (tall walls), 1/r r ~ 1 and for
short walls 1/rf ~- 3a/h which gives
-I
Kf = ~Et r for short walls. (6)
For practical application it is suggested that the value of
g f be taken as equal to smaller of the values given by
eqs. (4) and (6). Eq. (4) will govern for h >/3a, eq. (6)

!1................... for other values of h.

As shown in fig. 2b, the behavior of the web wall can
be studied in two parts. One is the pure shear behavior.
The other part consists of applying equal and opposite
y forces Fw = ~whtw on the two vertical edges as shown in
Fig. 5. The flange wall. fig. 7. These forces cause the vertical edge displacement
72 .4. K. Gupta / Modeling of shear wall bu /dings

I-
2b ~_]
l- c and the horizontal displacement t%, which are given
by
X~ ~2' = K ~ U , [wh = Kv, bUb" (7)

As before, in terms of the tall wall stiffnesses, K,,.,~ and

Kwho, we can write

.-!1..................I!.-i Kw = rwK ....

in which

K,~.o = 2Etwb/3h,
Kwb = rwbKwb o,

Kwbo = Eb2tw/h 2.
(8)

(9)
The variations in the values of rw and r,~b in terms of
Fig. 7. The web wall.
b / h were obtained by a formulation similar to that
given for the flange wall in Appendix A, and are shown
in figs. 8 and 9. As expected, for tall walls, b/h --, O, r~
2.5~ and r,,,b --, 1. For short walls we have 1/r w -- b/h which
would give
Kw = ~£,w. (10)
As an approximation then, for practical application we
may use lower of the two values of K w given by eqs. (9)
and (10).
2.0-
The variation in l/rwb is more complex. As shown in
fig. 9, the value of l/rwb is zero at h / b = 0, it rises to
1.28 for h / b of 1.5, and then it starts going down until it
7 stabilizes at 1/rwb -- 1. A reasonable approximation ap-
T // pears to be l/rwb = 2 h / b for h / b < 0.5, and ]/rwb = l
beyond that. The substitution of this in eqs. (8) and (9)
1.5- leads to the following equation for short walls
0
(Z Kwh = Eb3tw/2h 3. (11)
/ /..,. ± = b_ Contrary to the observation in case of the stiffnesses K f
__.,,J__ll I - r~ h and K w which were lower for the short walls than would
be given by the corresponding expressions for the tall
1.0- wall, the value of K,,, b given by eq. (11) for short wall is
actually higher than that given by the tall wall expres-
sion in eq. (9). In fact, Kwh --, ~ as h ~ 0. In this case
therefore, for practical application, we should use higher

oi . Present Study
of the two values of Kwh obtained from eqs. (9) and
(11).
In addition to the edge shear bending the web wall is
subjected to a state of pure shear, as shown in fig. 2b,
which is accompanied with a horizontal shear displace-
-----Proposed Approximation
ment ush. We can write

S = KshU~h, K.~h = Ebtw/h (12)

assuming Poisson's ratio equal to zero.

o ,'.o 2'.0 3'.0
2.1. Modeling of box
ASPECT RATIO ( b/h )
Fig. 8. Variation of the web stiffness ratio for vertical displace- Having established the stiffnesses of the individual
ment (1/r~,) with the aspect ratio (b/h). walls we shall now proceed to derive the stiffness of the
 A.K. Gupta / Modelingof shear wallbuildings 73

1.4-

1.2-

I.O-

.0
2 I 2h
rwb b
0.8-
o_

(2:

¢q
(/)
tJJ
Z
t~.
0.6-

m
tJJ

0.4.

O.Z-
Present Study
- - - - - - Proposed Approximotion

O J

0 1.0 2.0 30 4.0 50

ASPECT RATIO (h/b)

Fig. 9. Variation of the web stiffness ratio for the horizontal displacement (1/rwh) with the aspect ratio (h/b).

complex box by satisfying the displacement compatibil- (13) yield

ity and the equilibrium at the common edge. The equi-
librium equation at the common edges is given by eq. S=2~bh (Kf+ Kw)v. (14)
(1), which can be rewritten as
Eq. (7) also gives v = (K,,,b/K . ) Ub, and its substitution
2b in eq. (16) results in
S = - h - ( Ff + Fw). (13)
2b Kf + K,,,
The compatibility at the edges would be satisfied if we S = KbUb, Kb h 7-~ Kwb. (15)
assume that the vertical edge displacement is same for
the flange walls and the shear walls. Eqs. (3), (7) and The total horizontal displacement, u = u b + Ush, or in
74 A.K. Gupta / Modeling of shear wall buildings

terms of the box stiffness K Alp [ Af~

S=Ku, K - I = K ~ I + K ~ 1. (16)
[ =s
Given S one can calculate the value of u from eq. (16),
or the values of u b and Usn from eqs. (15) and (12),
respectively. The vertical displacement v comes from eq. 2b
(7), the relationship v = (Kwb/K W) Ub, which finally give
the edge forces Ff and Fw. Fig. 10. Idealized cross-section of a wall.
The form of eq. (16) is familiar. In conventional
formulation we know that eq. (16) gives K = K b for tall
0 to o0 for case (i), between 1 / 2 and 1 for case (ii) and
buildings, because Ksh >> K w Conversely, for shorter
between 1 to oo for case (iii). Whereas some of the
buildings K b >> Ksh and K --- Ksh. The presence of shear
extremes are unlikely, the above comparison does show
lag affects the value of K b, eq. (15). For tall buildings,
that the shear lag phenomenon plays an important role
shear lag is of little consequence. For short buildings K b
in the distribution of the stresses.
would be affected some what depending upon the rela-
The stiffness expressions developed in this section
tive values of the stiffnesses Kf, Kw and Kwh. In fact for
can be used to model any single story building. The
very short buildings Kwb is very large, which may give
details of the method are given in Appendix B. For
K b > Kbo, thus further establishing K~h >> K b and K -
short buildings, however, a simplification is possible
K~,. A numerical study we performed in fact showed
and is presented here.
that the effect of shear lag on the box stiffness was not
significant. We note from the preceding discussion that the
lateral stiffness of short buildings is governed by the
On the other hand, the effect of shear lag on the
value of the edge force Ff which is transferred to the shear stiffness, and for all practical purposes the bend-
flange can be quite significant. Eqs. (3), (7) and (15) ing stiffness can be ignored. The contribution of indiv-
give ual walls to the bending stiffness is, however, important
from the point of view of distributing the bending
h 1 stresses. Further, eq. (17) indicates that for distributing
Ff 2b l + ( K w / K f ) S" (17) the bending stresses, only Kf and Kw stiffnesses play a
role and not Kwh. It can be shown that the stiffnesses
If the value of Ff when the shear lag is ignored is Fro, we K f and K w can be modeled accurately by concentrating
can writ¢ areasAf and Aw at the ends of the web wall, fig. 10. The
moment of inertia of the section is I = 2(Af +Aw)b 2.
F, 1 +(Kwo/Kro ) 1 +(btw/3at,)
The bending stress at the corner is given by M c / I =
Ffo 1 +(Kw/Kf) 1 +(Kw/Kf) " (18)
Sh/2( A e + Aw)b. The flange force becomes.
There are four cases possible: h 1
Ff 2b l + ( . 4 w / A f ) s (19)
(i) h<3a and h<b:
F f = _111 + (btw/3atf)]; (18a) Eqs. (18) and (19) would given identical values when we
Fro 2 t ~ define the concentrated areas as
(ii) h<3a and h>b:
A r --- smaller of ( h / 3 and a)tf, (20a)
Fe 1 +(btw/3atf). (18b)
A w = smaller of ( h / 3 and b / 3 ) t w. (20b)
Fro 1 + ( btw/htf ) '
(iii) h>3a and h<b: This modeling procedure should not be used when
the role of K b in eq. (16) becomes important, say when
Ff 1 + ( btw/3atf )
Kb/Ksh < 10.
~ro 1 +(htw/3atf)' (18c)
(iv) h>__3a and h>b:
F, 3. Box structure subjected to torsional moment
F,--~= 1. (18d)
The box structure is now subjected to a torsional
It can be shown that the value of Ff/Ffo varies between moment on the top diaphragm, fig. 11. It is assumed
 A.K. Gupta / Modeling of shear wall buildings 75

For wall 1 (length 2a), we can write

El = K w l v hs,
S 1 = KshlUshl, = KwblUbl , Fshl = 2a 1
h
F = F~hI +/'1, ul = UShl -- /'/bl' (22)
which give

Kwbl [ S1
°= x,~--;- t ~., - "')'
Fig. 11. Box structure subjected to torsional moment.
+ - - S 1 - K w b l u 1. (23)
"F = -~a Ksh 1

that the diaphragm is rigid in its own plane. The equi- Similarly for wall 2, we have
librium and the compatibility equations between the
walls and the diaphragm are given by
v = - ,rwb2/
K,~
- I 1'12 - K-2I.~)'
$2
T = 2 b S 1 + 2 a S 2, u 1 = b$, u z = aO, (21)
where T is the applied torsional moment and 0 the
corresponding rotation; S, and S 2 are the shear force
+-k-~ ) S2 - rwb2U~. (24)
and u~ and u 2 are the corresponding horizontal dis-
placements on the wails with length 2a and 2b respec- Using the same v and F for the two walls presumes
tively. The distribution of forces and the displacements compatibility and equilibrium at the vertical edges. Eqs.
on the two walls are shown in fig. 12. It is clear that all (23) and (24) with eq. (21) yield
the walls in this problem are behaving like the web wall
in the previous section. A1S1 + B l S 2 = CaO, A2S2 - B 2 S z = C20, (25)

vI . s,.0, iv SI sushi Vl Ubl t- ~V

I d l l l l c

2o
J I J l l

"1
"-- Fshl

!1i i i i i i i i i i i ii
Fshl

+ J J I I l I J J I l I J
I!F'
(O) FORCES AND DISPLACEMENTS FOR WALL I

V~ ~ S2,U 2 IV S 2 , Ush2 v~ . ub2 tv

ii

!1............I!
~ sh2

J I J J a l l J l ~ ' I J q i i q t i r ! r i t i i i
r -

2b
(b) FORCES AND DISPLACEMENTS FOR WALL 2
Fig. 12. Free body diagrams of the walls.
in which For the purpose of comparison, we introduce here the
K stiffness of an open section in which the vertical edges
are assumed free with no compatibility and shear trans-
fer.
K,,,b Kwbza
C,=K+- 2ab(at, + bt,)E
WI K w2 ’
K open= (29)
h .
h Kwb2

B2=Zb+ Ksh2 ’ For the three idealizations, viz, the present formulation.
the closed section and the open section, the shear force
C, = K,,,b - K,,,a. distributions are given by.
Eqs. (21) and (25) give

T= K,O.
where
K
T
+ 2bKwb,
Kwb2 (KG +K:)
1
/

+ 2aK,,,K,,, ( K,: + Ki: > (30)

1

For the case of large h when shear lag can be ignored and (31)
eq. (26) gives
8a2b2t t E
K,,= h’2 (32)

1 +(at, + bt2)(at2 + bt,)/(2f,f2h2) c271

x ( at, + bt,) + 2ab( at, + bt2)/h2 3.1. Comparison of three torsion formulations
Further, if we eliminate he2 terms, we get the standard
torsional stiffness for a closed rectangular section A comparison was made between the three sets of
stiffnesses and the shear distributions with a view to-
8a2b2t 12t E wards possibly simplifying the modeling procedure.
KTO = &osed = (28) Among the three idealizations, the present study is most
(at, + bt,)h ’

Table 1
Comparison of shear force distribution and torsional stiffnesses, (S,/S,),,,,, = a/b, (S,/.S,),,, = 1, 1, = tZ

h/a h/b s, is2 Kr /&osed KT/Kopen

0 to 0.5 0 to 0.5 Approx. 1 .O 1 to cc Approx. 1 .O

0.5 to 1.0 1 to 1.25 1.13 to cc 0.8 to 1.0
21.0 1.16 to 00 0.48 to 03 0 to 0.93

0.5 to 1.0 0.5 to 1.0 1 to 1.16 1 to 1.13 0.95 to 1

21.0 1 to M 1 to 1.75 0 to 1

> 1.0 21.0 1 toa/ba’ 1 to 1.5 0 to 1

:,2b b,

Note: It is assumed that a > b:

a) when both h/a and h/b are large,
b, when only h/b is large.
 A.K. Gupta / Modeling of shear wall buildings 77

rigorous and the resulting expressions, eqs. (26) and (30) The above observation is made on the basis of the
should give the most accurate results. The approximate studies performed here on the lateral load and torsional
expressions for Kwl and Kwh 1 give rise to three ranges behavior of a rectangular box section.
of h / a ratios, viz, when h / a <_0.5, 0.5 < h / a <_1.0
and when h / a > 1.0. Similarly, there are three ranges
for h / b ratios. Together, there are nine combinations of Appendix A. Analysis of the flange wall
these ranges. However, if we assume a > b, we can cut
down the number of combinations to six. For the pur- The coordinate system for the flange wall is shown in
pose of comparison, we assumed t 1 = t 2. Various values fig. 5. The boundary conditions are: at x = a, ox = 0 and
are summarized in table 1. %y = - ~-f; at y = 0, Oy = zxy = 0. The shear boundary
F r o m table 1, it is observed that the stiffness and the condition at x = a can be represented in terms of a
shear force distribution for the open section are rea- Fourier series:
sonably close to those calculated in the present study Txy = E Tm cos amy,
for h / a and h / b < 1.0. Therefore, as long as the lengths m~1,3 ....
of all the walls (2a or 2b) are greater than twice the
m~
height, the open section idealization is reasonably accu- r,, = ( - 1 ) °'+1)/2 47m a m= --. (A.1)
rate. Further, the closed section idealization essentially mlr ' 2h
governs the behavior for relatively tall buildings. In A stress function which satisfies the boundary condi-
between, however, none of the two idealizations give tions at y = 0 is
uniformly good results. An attempt was made to extend
the h / a / h / b _< 1 boundaries. Depending upon the = ~-~Fm sin amy. (g.2)
degree of accuracy desired, some relaxation may be
Substituting eq. (A.2) into the bihormonic equation of
possible, nothing very significant to report here.
the plane stress problem we get

F~iv - 2a,,F,i,
2 ii + 4
a m E n - O_, (A.3)
4, Conclusions
F m = A,~1 cosh amx + A,,EX sinh a,~x. (A.4)
The behavior of any wall can be studied in two
Applying the boundary conditions at x = a gives
parts: the symmetric part which constitutes the flange
action, and the anti-symmetric part constituting the web Am1 = - Cma sinh area, Am2 = Urn cosh otma,
action. The web action has two parts also - the web
shear and the web bending. Appropriate stiffness equa- Cm = ( - 1 ) t ' - 1 ) / 2 4~'f ( 2 a m a + s i n h 2 a , , a ) _ l . (A.5)
tions have been derived for all the three actions. These
actions can be synthesized to solve any nonlineal cross- Let us represent the vertical displacement anywhere in
section problem. The general formulation is presented the wall by o = E o m ( x ) cos amy. For zero Poisson's
in Appendix B. Two specific problems that of lateral ratio we can write vm = Fii/Ea. At the top corner of the
and torsional loadings of a box structure are presented vertical edge, x = a, y = 0,
in the preceding two sections.
In short buildings, shear lag plays a very important u = ~'~(1 + cosh 2ama)Cm/E. (A.6)
role. Any beam type formulation which either ignores
shear lag or includes it in an idealized form is likely to When h is large, eq. (A.6) gives
lead to erroneous results. Quite interestingly, on the
16~'fh2 ( - 1)t'~- ~)/2 ~'fh2 (A.7)
other hand, a rigidity type approach with some modifi-
v° = - - '3Ea
,7" E m3 2Ea "
cations to the standard procedures would yield nearly
accurate answers for short buildings, say when length of We denote the ratio of o0 and v by re which is given by
all the walls is at least twice the height. The suggested
modification is to concentrate effective areas of the 1 32 a ( - 1) t ' - 1 ~ / 2 1 + cosh 2area (A.8)
flange and the web walls at the ends of the web wall for rf ~r2 h ~ m2 2ama + sinh 2ot,,,a "
the purpose of calculating bending stresses in the flange
and the web walls, as explained in section 2. For calcu- The rf given above is the same rf used in eq. (5). Fig. 6 is
lating the building stiffness one only need include the based on eq. (A.8). The expressions for rW and rwb were
shear stiffness of the short walls. similarly derived and are not presented here.
78 A.K. Gupta / Modeling o["shear wall buildings

Appendix B. Analysis of a complex shear wall building

Vn I Vn2
Sn
Consider a complex shear wall building shown in fig. m B
Unl
1
13. For the present treatment it is assumed that the
building has one story only. The top floor slab of the
building is subjected to forces in horizontal X and Y
directions, Fx and Ev, and a torsional moment T. The
corresponding horizontal displacements are Ux and U," F"l ® Fnz

and a rotation 0. Under the action of the applied forces

are torsional moment, a typical wall ' n ' will be sub- m m / r / 1 / / / / r r / /
jected to forces as shown in fig. 14.
The solution of the complete problem can be ap-
proached from the stiffness formulation. In light of the 2an
development in the previous sections, the forces and Fig. 14. Forces and displacements in a typical wall number n
displacements in nth wall can be decompose into three
actions, viz, flange action, web bending action and the Vfn Vfn
web shear action, fig. 15. The following relationships are
obvious

fo, = 6 . + f,,,,. - K,., F.~ = 6 . - Fw. + ~..,

Fshn/h = S . / 2 a n

Vnl = Vfn q" Vwn , Vn2 = Vfn - - Own ,

(B.1)
U n = Ubn + Ush n.
Ffn ® Ffn

(B.2)
Based on the treatment in the text the following //////////r
force displacement relationships can be written o) FLANGE ACTION
Vwn Vwrl
Ffn = KfnVfn , Fwn = Kw.vw.,
I ¢

l
Fw n = g w b n U b n , an = KshnUshn. (B.3)

Eq. (B.2) and (B.3) give

Ffn Fwn Ffn Fwn

v.,,] = ~ "t K . , , , ' v"2 Kr~ K.n ' Fwr
®
Fw°
- - + --
So (B.4)
Un Kwbn Kshn '

I I l l [ l / / l / l /
(b WEB BENDING ACTION
Sn
Uihn

Fy,Uy
F~, @ Ft.n

/ ///rz//~/, r
Fx ,U X (C) WEB SHEAR ACTION
Fig. 13. Cross-sectional plan of a shear wall building. Fig. 15. Various actions in a wall.
 A.K. Gupta/ Modelingof shear wallbuildings 79

Eq. (B.4) can be solved to obtain or

Kfn Kfn /,own Kwh ( S ) = [ K s s ] ( U , ) + [Ksv]( V~},
Ffn = --~----On1 + -'-~- On2, Vwn = - - ~ - O n l - --~-'- on2 ,
{ Fe } = [ KFS] { Uw } + [KFF]{ V~). (B.11)
Kwn Kshn Kwn Kshn
S. 2 Kwb. V.1 + - - 2 Kwh ~ v"2 + Ksh"Un" (B.5) In case of the single story building, there is no external
edge force applied, or {F¢} = {0}, therefore eqs. (B.11)
Eqs. (B.1) and (B.5) yield give

{F},~=[Kln(u)n, { F } . = [ S n F . a F n 2 ] T, { S ) = [Ks~o]( Uw },

{ u}° = [,,°o°,o.~ f. (B.6) [/(s~] = [r~A - [ r ~ l [ r ~ ] - ' I r F A . (S.12)

where

Kshn K,,,. Ksn n Kwh

Kshn
Kwbn 2 Kwbn 2

h K + h Kshn h Kshn
[K]. = -- ~ shn (S.7)

h K
2a n shn 2 1 + 2 a . Kwbn 2 - - ~ + 1 + 2 a . Kwhn

The above 'stiffness matrix' is not symmetric because
the forces S., Fnl, Fn2 and the displacements u., V,1, v~2
are not exact pairs in the energy sense.
For the solution of the complete problem, each wall
' n ' can be viewed as a "finite element," which can be
assembled to form a global force displacement equation
of the type
Note the [Ksso] matrix is symmetric. The { S } and the
(Uw } vectors can be rearranged, such that they first
have all the walls in X direction, then all the walls in Y
direction. Then eq. (B.12) can be rewritten as
Xwxy U,~x

vw For the mth wall in X direction and the n th wall in the

(F}=[K]{u}, {F} = (Se), (U}={ Ve ) ,
Y direction
(a.8) Uw~m = U~ - Y,,fl, U,y, = Ur + X,O. (B.14)
in which
Applying eqs. (B.14) for all the walls, the following
S = [ SLS253... SNW ]x, Fe = [ FelFe2Fe3... FeNE f . transformation relationship can be developed.

(!:/
(B.9a)

v= [Vw~Vw~v.~ . . . Vw,~wl ~, r~ = [ v.,v~=v,~ ... vo~] ~. v.y / = [ a l , (B.15)

(B.9b)
In eqs. (B.9), NW is the number of walls, NE is the
number of edges, S 1, S 2 ..... SNw are the shear forces = [r],~o~,, Vy ,
applied on the top of the walls, and Uwl, Uw2, U.NW are #
the corresponding horizontal displacements; F~], F~2,
F~3..... F ~ e are the vertical edge forces, and V~I, V¢2, ( Kwxx Kwxy
V~3..... VcNE are the corresponding displacements. [g]global=.[h]rLKwy x [h]. (n.16)
Eq. (B.8) can be rewritten as follows
Eqs. (B.16) can be solved for Ux, Uy and 0 for the given
forces and moment, which can be then back substituted
LKFs v, }'
K F F J ( Uw (B.lo) all the way to obtain forces in the individual walls.
80 A.K. Gupta / Modeling of shear wall buildinys
References
Ill N.C, Choksi and J.P. Lee, Shear coefficient and shear force
distribution in nuclear power plant structures due to seismic
loading, in: Proc. Internat, Symposium on Earthquake
Structural Engineering, St. Louis, Mo., August 1976, pp.
629-642.
[2] J.A. Blume, N.M. Newmark and L.H. Corning, Design of
Muhistory Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Earthquake
Motions (PCA, 1961).
[3] S. Timoshenko and J.N. Goodier, Theory of Elasticity
(McGraw Hill, New York, 1951).
[4] G.R. Cowper, The shear coefficient in Timoshenko beam
theory, J. Appl. Mech. 33 (1966) 335-340.
[5] A,M. Ebner and D.P. Billington, Steady state vibrations of
damped Timoshenko beam, J. Struct. Div. ASCE 94 (ST3)
(March 1968) 737-759.
[6] A,H. Hadjian and T.S. Atalik, Discrete modeling of sym-
metric box-type structures, in: Proc. Internat. Symposium
on Earthquake Structural Engineering, St. Louis, Mo.,
August 1976, pp. 1151-1164.
[7] E. Reissner, Analysis of shear lag in box beams by the
principle of minimum potential energy, Appl. Math. 1V (3)
(1946) 268-278.
[81 A. Danay, A general element for analysis of asymmetric
multistory buildings with varying cross-sections, Building
and Environment II (1976) 57-67.