Planar stability analysis

of
frameworks, coupled shear walls and
cross-wall system buildings

Manual

for the computer procedure

PlaStab

K. A. Zalka

© 1982-2002 Version 3.81: Budapest, March 2002

 Contents list

1 Introduction; basic principles 1

2 Program description 1
2.1 Features of the program 2
2.2 Hardware requirements 2
2.3 Software requirements 2
3 Loading and running PlaStab 3
3.1 Getting started 3
3.2 Input data 3
3.2.1 One structural unit 4
3.2.2 Cross-wall system building 5
3.3 Output data and numerical results 6
3.3.1 One structural unit 6
3.3.2 Cross-wall system building 8
APPENDIX 9
4 Theoretical background 9
4.1 Frameworks 9
4.1.1 Basic assumptions 9
4.1.2 Characteristic deformations and stiffnesses 9
4.1.3 Frameworks on fixed supports 15
4.1.4 Frameworks on pinned supports 15
Frameworks on pinned supports, with ground floor beams 16
Frameworks on pinned supports, without ground floor beams 16
4.1.5 Frameworks with longer first storey columns 17
4.1.6 Frameworks with cross-bracing 18
4.1.7 The effect of non-proportional loading 20
4.1.8 Closing remarks 20
4.2 Shear walls and cross-wall system buildings 21
4.2.1 Shear walls 21
4.2.2 Coupled shear walls 22
4.2.3 Symmetrical cross-wall system buildings 24
4.2.4 Equivalent shear wall 25
4.3 Global critical load ratio 26
5 Design guidelines 27
5.1 Frameworks 27
5.2 Coupled shear walls 30
5.3 Symmetrical cross-wall system buildings 30

-i-
6 Worked examples 31
6.1 Frameworks 31
6.1.1 Frameworks on fixed supports. FFSH1 31
6.1.2 Frameworks on fixed supports in Sheffield Arts Tower I. Framework FSat1 34
6.1.3 Frameworks on fixed supports in Sheffield Arts Tower II. Framework FSat2 35
6.1.4 Frameworks on pinned supports with special beams. FPSH2 37
6.1.5 Frameworks on pinned supports with no ground floor beams. FPSH3 40
6.1.6 Framework on pinned supports with ground floor beams. FPSH4 42
6.1.7 Framework with cross-bracing. SR-X 45
6.2 Shear-wall structures 47
6.2.1 Shear wall SWSH1 47
6.2.2 Coupled shear walls CSWSH3 48
6.2.3 Symmetrical cross-wall system building BUISH1 51
7 Sample runs 53
7-bay, 12-storey framework on fixed supports. Filename: FFSH1.PLA 55
FSat1: framework for Sheffield Arts Tower. Filename: SAT1.PLA 57
FSat2: framework for Sheffield Arts Tower. Filename: SAT2.PLA 59
Frame with (T)-shaped and (S)pecial beams. Filename: FPSH2.PLA 61
2-bay, 18-storey on pinned supports. Filename: FPSH3.PLA 63
2-bay, 18-storey on pinned supports. Filename: FPSH4.PLA 65
SR8; p19 in Global Stability of X-bracing Sys. Filename: SR-X.PLA 67
8-storey shear wall. Filename: SWSH1.PLA 69
2-bay, 18-storey coupled shear walls. Filename: CSWSH3.PLA 70
18-storey building with 7 bracing units. Filename: BUISH1.BUI 72
Framework FF1 with (D)ifferent columns. Filename: FF14.PLA 73
10-storey, one-bay perspex framework model. Filename: FFTEST.PLA 75
10-storey, one-bay perspex coupled shear walls model. Filename: CSWTEST.PLA 77
8 References 79

- ii -
1 Introduction; basic principles
The primary structural elements of buildings are the vertical and horizontal load bearing
elements. These structures carry the horizontal and vertical loads of the building. The vertical
(dead and live) loads are transmitted to the vertical load bearing elements (shear walls,
coupled shear walls, frameworks and columns) by the horizontal load bearing elements (floor
slabs). The horizontal loads (wind, construction misalignment, seismic forces) are transmitted
by the floor slabs to those vertical load bearing elements which are capable of passing them
on the foundation. These dedicated structural elements (shear walls, coupled shear walls,
frameworks and cores) are called the bracing units of the building, whose main task is to
provide the building with adequate lateral and torsional stiffness. They represent a system, the
bracing system, which may develop lateral and torsional movements.
Of the vertical load bearing units, the computer procedure PlaStab deals with
frameworks, shear walls and coupled shear walls and investigates their planar stability
individually. In addition, PlaStab can look at the planar stability of cross-wall systems
consisting of frameworks and/or coupled shear walls and/or shear walls, provided the system
only develops lateral buckling and no torsion occurs – in other words the layout of the cross-
wall system is symmetric. (Three-dimensional behaviour, including stability, frequencies,
shear forces and deformations, is handled by Global [Zalka, 2002].)
The stability analysis is based on a second order elastic analysis. The solution of the
eigenvalue problem of the governing differential equations results in the critical load
parameter and PlaStab produces the critical load.
The conditions that must be fulfilled for the analysis are given in Chapter 4.
The computer procedure PlaStab makes it possible to carry out lateral buckling checks
in minutes by computing the critical load of regular frameworks, coupled shear walls, shear
walls and symmetrical cross-wall system buildings. The global critical load ratio (which can
be used to assess the safety level of the structure) and the size of an equivalent wall (which
makes it possible to consider the framework/couples shear wall in a 3-dimensional analysis)
are also calculated. The next chapter gives step-by-step instructions how to use PlaStab.

2 Program description
Based on the elastic analysis of the individual bracing unit, PlaStab is applicable to the
following two practical cases.
A) A single structure (a framework or a shear wall or a system of coupled shear walls)
is investigated. The structure may be supposed to support an unstable structural system.
B) A symmetrical structural system consisting of frameworks, shear walls and coupled
shear walls is investigated.
In case A), PlaStab carries out the stability analysis of the bracing unit. The global
critical load and the global critical load ratio of the framework/shear wall/coupled shear walls
are given. Knowing the critical load and the critical load ratio, a decision can be made
whether or not the bracing unit can support an unstable structural system.
In case B), PlaStab carries out the stability analysis of a system of parallel frameworks,
shear walls and coupled shear walls. The global critical load and the global critical load ratio
are presented. Knowing the critical load and the critical load ratio, it can be decided whether
the cross-wall system building is stable or not.
PlaStab assumes uniformly distributed load (UDL) at floor levels and/or concentrated
forces on top of the structures.
PlaStab is designed to enable rapid checks both on individual bracing units and on

-1-
cross-wall structural systems. The second order stability analysis can be carried out in
minutes, even for large structures. In changing the geometrical and stiffness characteristics
and monitoring the change in the critical load and global critical load ratio, a step-by-step
approach quickly leads to the optimum structural solution.
By relying on PlaStab in structural analysis, considerable cost reduction can be
achieved. This reduction partly results from the time saved during the design process and
partly from the economic use of the materials built into the structures.
Apart from the actual money saved by the application of the program, PlaStab is also
useful in developing structural engineering common sense. The program is simple and useful
to practical engineers whose theoretical background may be limited.
PlaStab relies on a procedure which is approximate. In the case of structures widely
used in structural engineering practice, the results are conservative and the error is normally
under 10% for frameworks on fixed supports. More details regarding accuracy are given in
[Zalka, 2000].
The maximum number of (full-height) columns/wall sections in a framework/pierced
shear wall is 20. The maximum number of frameworks, shear walls and pierced shear walls
(coupled shear wall systems) in a building is 20. The maximum number of storeys is 99.

2.1 Features of the program

PlaStab is a very simple, DOS-based program. It is applicable to the elastic in-plane stability
analysis of regular frameworks, shear walls, coupled shear walls and buildings consisting of
such bracing units. The structures can be subjected to either uniformly distributed load (UDL)
at floor levels or concentrated forces at top level or both together. The critical load, the critical
load ratio, the size of an equivalent shear wall as well as important stiffness characteristics are
computed.

2.2 Hardware requirements

PlaStab is designed to run on IBM PC and IBM compatible microcomputers. The minimum
system requirements are as follows:
• one (1.44 MB) floppy disk drive or a hard disk
• 512 kB of RAM
• IBM Enhanced Graphics Adapter or Video Graphics Adapter with the corresponding
monitor
• the program is keyboard operated. Mouse is not supported
A limited off-screen printing facility is offered. The input data, a sketch of the structure
and the numerical results may be sent directly to a dot matrix or inkjet printer installed under
DOS. Alternatively, and preferably, the textfile that PlaStab produces automatically when a
calculation is completed can be edited and printed using any type of printer installed under
Windows.

2.3 Software requirements

PlaStab is a DOS-based program! It operates either under DOS or in a DOS window in the
Windows environment.
Under DOS, PlaStab will execute successfully under the MS DOS 3.1 or higher
operating system. If printed documentation is needed, the file DRAW33.COM (part of DOS)
should be loaded first.
On Windows-based computers, a DOS shell has to be used. It is strongly recommended
that the DOS-emulator DOSBox is used. DOSBox has been extensively tested on Windows-

-2-
based computers and no problem has been encountered. The textfile PlaStab automatically
produces (filename.txt) can then be opened and edited by any word processor (e.g. Word) and
printed under Windows. See Chapter 7: Sample runs.

3 Loading and running PlaStab

DOS environment is needed for running PlaStab!
This is achieved by either using a PC operating under
• DOS, or
• Windows where DOS is made available, e.g., by installing and running DOSBox

3.1 Getting started

At the DOS prompt C:\, create a working directory for PlaStab, e.g., Plastab {md Plastab},
and copy the files Plastab.exe and Plastab.bat into this directory. It is recommended that the
same directory is used for storing the data files (filename.pla) and their editable and printable
versions (filename.txt) as well.
Navigate to this directory, type Plastab and press the <Enter> key. The title screen
appears. From now on, through interactive operation, PlaStab always tells the user what and
how to do. In pressing key <F1>, help is available at every screen. Help emerges in windows
and in most cases refers to the actual screen. Sometimes, however, the information available
is of general validity.
The interactive operation together with the help windows make PlaStab self-
explanatory. However, to ensure smooth application, a detailed description of the procedure to
be followed is presented.

3.2 Input data

The title screen is followed by the main menu. The type of analysis can be selected here:
• one structural unit (framework or coupled shear walls or shear wall) or
• a cross wall system building (a system of parallel structural units)
The choice can be made by placing the red indicator bar (manipulated using the up and
down arrows) on the appropriate line and pressing <Enter>.
The next screen shows that the analysis can be carried out by using data already stored
on disk or by entering new data. If existing data are to be used, PlaStab offers the available
data files in a window. The window can be extended by using the <PgDn> and <PgUp> keys.
The option to change drive/path is supported by PlaStab.
The process of entering and modifying data (in the case of data already on disk) is the
same. The general rules for data input are as follows.
The flushing cursor indicates where the input data will be placed. For entering sets of
data, PlaStab leads the user from the top of the screen to the bottom. After entering the data
into a cell, <Enter> should be pressed. At this point the data is not yet accepted by PlaStab.
Another <Enter> tells PlaStab that the data is confirmed. Between these two <Enter>s, the
user can check the data that has just been entered. The flashing cursor immediately puts the
user into the next cell. When the bottom of the screen is reached, the question “Next screen?
(Y/N)” offers a possibility to change the data on the screen. By answering (N)o, the user can
go through the cells again and the necessary changes can be made. The answer (Y)es leads the
user to the next screen. The last possibility to change data emerges after completing all input
screens. The question “Would you like to see and modify the data? (Y/N)” makes it possible

-3-
for the user to check the data a last time and to modify them if necessary.
Throughout the input screens help is available by pressing <F1>.
As a rule, pressing the <Esc> key moves the user back to the beginning of the program.
3.2.1 One structural unit
A problem identifier (maximum 45 characters) is needed first. After entering the problem
identifier, the in-plane stability analysis of the following types of bracing unit can be carried
out.

1. Framework on fixed supports

2. Framework on pinned supports without ground floor level beams
3. Framework on pinned supports with ground floor level beams
4. Coupled shear walls
5. Shear wall
6. Framework with cross-bracing

In placing the red indicator bar on the type of structure and pressing <Enter>, the
appropriate stability analysis is initiated. In cases 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, the process of entering the
data is the same.
Units are required on the first screen. Acceptable units are “kN” and “MN” for forces
and “mm” and “m” for length, respectively. The modulus of elasticity – and the shear
modulus for coupled shear walls – are also needed on this screen.
The next screen asks for the geometrical characteristics of the columns. (The cross-
section of a column is assumed to be identical over the height of the bracing unit.) The
number of columns (min. 2 and max. 20), the number of storeys (min. 4 and max. 99), then
the storey height are the necessary inputs. The cross-section of the columns can be
(R)ectangular or (S)pecial. Size “A” (in the plane of the framework) and “B” (perpendicular
to the plane of the framework) are required for a (R)ectangular cross-section. The cross-
sectional area and the moment of inertia are needed for a (S)pecial cross-section. This option
makes it possible to analyse structures with columns having a cross-section different from the
usual rectangle. The columns can have the (S)ame or (D)ifferent cross-sections. In the former
case, the input of data is quick and simple; only one input should be made for all the columns.
If, however, at least one of the cross-sections is different, the (D)ifferent option should be
chosen. The cross-sectional characteristics have to be given now, one by one, for each
column.
The geometrical characteristics of the beams are requested on the next screen. As far as
the horizontal arrangement of the beams is concerned, two possibilities are open. The
arrangement is defined (S)ame when the cross-section and the length of the beams are the
same. If, however, there is at least one bay where the length and/or the cross-section of the
beams are different, the arrangement is defined as (D)ifferent. Two types of cross-section
[(R)ectangular and (T)-shaped] are available, as well as the (S)pecial option. The span of the
beam (distance between the axes of the columns) and the depth and width of the cross-section
are needed for a (R)ectangular cross-section. The depth of the cross-section refers to the size
in the plane of the framework. The thickness (in-plane size) and the width of the flange are
also needed for a (T)-shaped cross-section. It should be pointed out here that in the case of
coupled shear walls the length of the beam refers to the actual length of the beam – as
opposed to the span in the case of frameworks. If the (S)pecial option is chosen, the length of
the beam as well as the moment of inertia of the cross-section are the input data.
Load data on the next screen is optional input. Concentrated forces of the (S)ame or
(D)ifferent magnitude at top floor level and/or uniformly distributed load (UDL) at floor
levels can be entered. The intensity of this UDL must assume the same value at every floor

-4-
level. The ratio of the greatest and smallest concentrated forces must not exceed 4.0. If
external load is given, the global critical load ratio will also be calculated and presented as
output data.
In case 5. – shear wall – all the input data (number of storeys, storey height, modulus of
elasticity, thickness and width of the wall) and the optional load data (concentrated force at
top floor level, intensity of the UDL at floor levels) are requested on one screen. The width of
the wall is the in-plane size of the cross-section of the wall.
After completing the input process, the sketch of the structure appears on the next
screen. The next screen offers the possibility of saving the input data in a file with the
extension PLA. Whether or not a *.PLA file was created, the computation of the eigenvalue
(the load parameter) and the eigenfunction (the buckling shape) follows. Following the
computation, the sketch of the structure is shown again but this time together with the
characteristic buckling shape. This drawing only indicates the nature of the global deflection
mode of the structure (bending/shear), subjected to uniformly distributed load at floor levels.
Local effects are not taken into account in the drawing.
The next screen presents the results of the stability analysis.
3.2.2 Cross-wall system building
A problem identifier (maximum 45 characters) is needed first.
The first step in investigating a building is to input the data of the parallel bracing units
(frameworks, coupled shear walls, shear walls). This can be done as described in Section
3.2.1. It is also possible to make use of data already on disk and to “put together” a building
from existing frameworks, coupled shear walls and shear walls. In this case, each structure
can be examined and, if needed, modified. The input process is even simpler if, from earlier
investigations, there are buildings already on disk. The bracing units of the building can be
looked at, modified or deleted. New bracing units can also be added. It is possible to look at
the ground plan arrangement of the building at any time.
After entering data for the individual bracing units making up the building, the next
screen asks for the characteristic data of the building. Load data are again optional. The
intensity of the uniformly distributed load on each floor slab [kN/m2] and/or the sum of the
concentrated forces at top floor level [MN] may be entered. The maximum ratio of the sum of
the concentrated forces on top of one bracing element (framework, coupled shear walls, shear
wall) to that of another bracing unit is 4.0. If no load is given, PlaStab does not compute the
global critical load ratio.
It should be pointed out here that when analysing a building, PlaStab does not take into
consideration the applied load which may have been given before for the analysis of the
individual bracing units (frameworks/coupled shear walls/shear walls) and only deals with the
applied load given for the analysis of the building. The applied load entered for the analysis of
an individual bracing unit is only used for the stability analysis of that individual structure
regardless of what kind of building the structure might later be put in. The role of that load is
to help to give an early indication whether or not the individual bracing unit may be
applicable at all.
The size of the ground plan and the number of storeys (minimum 4) are to be entered
then. The width and the length of the ground plan refer to the size parallel with and
perpendicular to the bracing units (frameworks, coupled shear walls, shear walls). PlaStab
does not ask for the location of the bracing units in the building. From the point of view of
lateral stability analysis, the exact location of the bracing units parallel to each other does not
play an important role since they contribute to the critical load through the stiff floor slabs.
When producing the drawing of the ground plan, PlaStab assumes that the frameworks and
(coupled) shear walls are equally placed from each other and when shorter than the width of

-5-
the ground plan, they all start from the “upper” side of the ground plan.
The next screen shows the ground plan of the building. After pressing <Enter>, the
results appear on the screen.

3.3 Output data and numerical results

A limited printing facility is offered and if written documentation of the analysis is required,
the input data can be sent to the printer.
Note that printing from the screen is only available in a genuine DOS environment
where a printer has also been installed under DOS!!! If PlaStab is executed under Windows
(in DOS emulation, e.g., in DOSBox), then printing is best facilitated using the textfile
(filename.txt), that PlaStab automatically produces and stores in the working directory by the
time the calculation is completed. This file can be edited by any word processor and printed
using the printer installed under Windows.
3.3.1 One structural unit
When the analysis is completed, the following information is presented (and included in the
textfile “filename.text”) for frameworks or coupled shear walls.

General data:
number of storeys
storey height
height of the framework/coupled shear walls
number of columns/walls
modulus of elasticity (for columns/beams/diagonals)
shear modulus (only with coupled shear walls)

Geometrical characteristics of the columns/walls of rectangular cross-section:

in-plane size (A)

perpendicular size (B)
cross-sectional area
moment of inertia

Geometrical characteristics of the beams:

type (R, T, S) {Rectangular, T-shape, Special}

span/length with coupled shear walls
depth of the cross-section (in-plane size)
width of the cross-section (perpendicular size)
flange thickness (in-plane size) (only with T-shape)
flange width (perpendicular size) (only with T-shape)
moment of inertia

Geometrical characteristics of the cross-bracing (only for frameworks with cross-

bracing):

type (R, T, S)
span
depth of the cross-section (in-plane size)
width of the cross-section (perpendicular size)

-6-
 flange thickness (in-plane size) (only with T-shape)
flange width (perpendicular size) (only with T-shape)
area

Load data:
intensity of the UDL on the beams
magnitude of the concentrated forces at top floor level

In the case of a single shear wall, the above data refer to one wall.

When the stability analysis has been carried out, the results may be printed out.
Note that printing from the screen is only available in a genuine DOS environment
where a printer has also been installed under DOS!!! If PlaStab is executed under Windows
(in DOS emulation, e.g., in DOSBox), then printing is best facilitated using the textfile
(filename.txt), that PlaStab automatically produces and stores in the working directory by the
time the calculation is completed. This file can be edited by any word processor and printed
using the printer installed under Windows.
The following data are presented on the printer – and also on the screen.

Results:

critical load for UDL at every floor level

critical intensity of the above UDL
critical load for concentrated forces at top floor level
global critical load ratio
size of equivalent wall

Details:

shear critical load [K]

global [Kg]
local [Kl]
full-height global bending critical load of the structure
for UDL at floor levels [Ng]
for concentrated forces at top floor level [Fg]
full-height local critical load of the columns/walls
for UDL at floor levels [Nl]
for concentrated forces at top floor level [Fl]
...............................................................................
local inertia of the columns [Ic]
global inertia of the columns [Ig]
stiffness ratio β
critical load parameter α
stiffness ratio βs
critical load parameter αs
load distribution factor rs
combination factor r

-7-
3.3.2 Cross-wall system building
The first set of data in the textfile that can be printed covers the general characteristics of the
building and the applied load:

number of bracing units

identifier of the bracing units
width of the ground plan
length of the ground plan
number of storeys
sum of the concentrated forces at top floor level
intensity of the UDL at floor levels

The above set of information does not appear on the screen, only in the textfile.

The second set of data – the main results – appears on the screen and also in the textfile that
can be printed:

critical load for UDL at floor levels

critical load for concentrated forces at top level
global critical load ratio for
top level applied load
UDL at floor levels
both top level load and UDL at floor levels

The above information can be sent to the printer if the building was put together from
existing bracing units (frameworks, coupled shear walls, shear walls) without looking through
or modifying their geometrical characteristics. (Please see note on printing in Section 3.3!) If
the building is made up using new bracing units, or existing ones are used but their data have
been checked and/or modified by browsing through the relevant screens, the data and the
results relating to each bracing unit can also be printed out.

-8-
 APPENDIX
4 Theoretical background
The following general assumptions must be fulfilled for the lateral buckling analysis
• The material of the structures is homogeneous, isotropic and obeys Hooke’s law
• The geometrically perfect structures develop small deformations
• The loads are applied statically and maintain their direction (conservative forces)
• The structures are sway structures and the stability problem is of a bifurcation one
A concise background is presented in this chapter; the details are available in [Zalka, 2000].

4.1 Frameworks
Frameworks are often used as load bearing as well as bracing units in multi-storey buildings.
Even the stress analysis is a complicated procedure which is largely helped by well
established computer procedures. The stability analysis is a formidable task with multi-storey,
multi-bay frameworks and the larger the framework, the more complicated the solution
becomes. There are computer procedures available for the stability analysis but the
complexity of the problem and the great number of input and output data needed for the
analysis of large, multi-storey, multi-bay frameworks often makes it difficult to get a clear
picture of the behaviour of the structure and to achieve optimal structural solution.
The continuum approach used for the establishment of the formulae presented in this
chapter (and used by PlaStab) offers quick and simple solutions and clear understanding of
the response of even very large frameworks.
After introducing the basic assumptions, four characteristic stiffnesses and the
corresponding four deformations will be established which determine the behaviour of
frameworks in sway buckling. Then, based on the characteristic stiffnesses, simple closed
form formulae will be given for the critical load of multi-storey, multi-bay frameworks on
different types of support.
4.1.1 Basic assumptions
In addition to the general assumptions listed above, the following basic assumptions also have
to be fulfilled for the stability analysis:
• The frameworks have a rectangular network with constant storey height
• The beams-column joints are rigid
• Centre points of contraflexure in the beams are assumed. The stiffnesses of the beams
above each other are the same but the stiffnesses of the beams at the same level can be
different. The axial deformation of the beams is negligible
• The cross-section of the columns does not vary over the height of the framework
• The columns of the frameworks can be maximum four times overloaded
4.1.2 Characteristic deformations and stiffnesses
A great number of material, geometrical and stiffness characteristics should be considered
when the critical load of frameworks is calculated. As it is not possible to take everything into
consideration, the question emerges what to include and what to neglect when the
mathematical model of the structure is established.
All the important characteristics must be taken into consideration, otherwise the results
are not accurate enough. To decide which characteristics are important and which are not, it is

-9-
necessary to know their contribution to the resistance of the structure. Knowing the
contribution of the characteristics is also important in improving the performance of the
structure. One way to achieve this is the establishment of the characteristic deformations.
Deformations and stiffnesses are in close relationship and a part critical load can be attached
to each type of deformation. With these part critical loads, the resulting overall critical load of
the structure can be easily produced.

a) b) c) d)

Figure 4.1. Characteristic deformations. a) full-height bending of the columns, b) full-height bending of the
frame as a whole, c) storey-height shear, d) full-height shear.

The application of the continuum method to the stability analysis of large sway frames
under vertical load shows that the deformation of the framework as a whole can be
superimposed from four different types: the full-height bending of the individual columns
(Fig. 4.1/a), the full-height bending of the framework as a whole (Fig. 4.1/b), the storey-
height shear deformation (Fig. 4.1/c) and the full-height shear deformation (Fig. 4.1/d). A
characteristic stiffness and then a part critical load can be attached to all four types of
deformation. With these critical loads, the resulting overall critical load of the framework can
then be produced in a relatively simple form.
The characteristic stiffnesses derived from the deformations are as follows. The full-
height bending of the individual columns (Fig. 4.1/a) is characterized by the stiffness of the
individual columns:
n
Ec I c = Ec ∑ I c ,i (4.1)
1

where Ec is the modulus of elasticity of the columns, Ic,i is the second moment of area of the
ith column and n stands for the number of columns.
The full-height bending deformation of the framework as a whole (Fig. 4.1/b) is
associated with the full-height bending stiffness of the framework
n
Ec I g = Ec ∑ Ac ,iti2 (4.2)
1

where Ig is the global second moment of area of the cross-sections of the columns with respect
to their centroid

- 10 -
 n
I g = ∑ Ac ,iti2 (4.2a)
1

and Ac,i and ti are the cross-section of the ith column and its distance from the centroidal axis,
respectively.
The full-height shear deformation (Fig. 4.1/d) is characterized by the global shear
stiffness
n −1
6 Eb I b ,i
K g = 2∑ (4.3)
1 li h

where Eb is the modulus of elasticity of the beams, Ib,i is and the second moment of area of the
ith beam, h is the storey height and li is the length of the ith beam.
The storey-height shear deformation (Fig. 4.1/c) is associated with the local shear
stiffness

n
π 2 Ec I c ,i
Kl = ∑ (4.4)
1 h2

which normally depends on the support of the columns – formula (4.4) assumes a framework
on fixed supports (or on pinned supports but with ground floor level beams).
In most cases, the global and local shear stiffnesses can be combined, leading to the
shear stiffness of the framework:
−1
 1 1  Kl
K = + = Kg (4.5)
K  K g + Kl
 g Kl 

To take into consideration the fact that all four types of deformation cannot develop at
the same time in certain stiffness regions [Hegedűs and Kollár, 1987], combination factor r
will be introduced in the formulae of the critical load. The combination factor is calculated
using the local and global shear stiffnesses:

Kl
r= (4.6)
K g + Kl

The three characteristic stiffnesses defined by formulae (4.1), (4.2) and (4.5) are
associated with three part critical loads. The shear critical load, by definition, is identical to
the shear stiffness given by formula (4.5).
The full-height bending critical load of the columns is given by

π 2 Ec I c
Fl = (4.7)
4H 2

when the framework is subjected to concentrated forces on top and by

- 11 -
 7.837rs Ec I c
Nl = (4.8)
H2

when the framework is subjected to uniformly distributed load on the beams. Values for the
load distribution parameter rs are given in Table 4.4. The full-height bending critical load of
the framework as a whole is given by

π 2 Ec I g
Fg = (4.9)
4H 2

when the framework is subjected to concentrated forces on top and by

7.837 rs Ec I g
Ng = (4.10)
H2

when the framework is subjected to uniformly distributed load on the beams.

These part critical loads supplemented by some critical load parameters make it possible
to produce simple closed-form formulae for the overall critical load of regular frameworks on
different support systems, under different types of vertical load.
These critical load parameters are given in Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 and in Figures 4.2
and 4.3 below, as a function of the number of storeys (n) and stiffness ratios

K
β= (4.11)
Nl
and
K
βs = (4.12)
Ng

Table 4.1. Critical load parameter α.

β α β α β α β α
0.0000 1.0000 0.05 1.1487 2 5.624 80 106.44
0.0005 1.0015 0.06 1.1782 3 7.427 90 118.38
0.001 1.0030 0.07 1.2075 4 9.100 100 130.25
0.002 1.0060 0.08 1.2367 5 10.697 200 246.24
0.003 1.0090 0.09 1.2659 6 12.241 300 359.51
0.004 1.0120 0.10 1.2949 7 13.749 400 471.29
0.005 1.0150 0.20 1.5798 8 15.227 500 582.06
0.006 1.0180 0.30 1.8556 9 16.682 1000 1127.5
0.007 1.0210 0.40 2.1226 10 18.118 2000 2199.1
0.008 1.0240 0.50 2.3817 20 31.820 5000 5360.5
0.009 1.0270 0.60 2.6333 30 44.862 10000 10567
0.010 1.0300 0.70 2.8780 40 57.545 100000 102579
0.020 1.0598 0.80 3.1163 50 69.991 1000000 1011864
0.030 1.0896 0.90 3.3488 60 82.265 2000000 2018802
0.040 1.1192 1.00 3.5758 70 94.405 >2000000 β +1

- 12 -
 Table 4.2. Critical load parameter αp.

β αp β αp β αp β αp
0.0000 0.0000 0.05 0.0987 2 3.060 80 90.33
0.0005 0.0010 0.06 0.1182 3 4.359 90 101.13
0.001 0.0020 0.07 0.1375 4 5.616 100 111.91
0.002 0.0040 0.08 0.1568 5 6.847 200 218.61
0.003 0.0060 0.09 0.1760 6 8.061 300 324.21
0.004 0.0080 0.10 0.1950 7 9.261 400 429.18
0.005 0.0100 0.20 0.3811 8 10.451 500 533.75
0.006 0.0120 0.30 0.5596 9 11.633 600 638.01
0.007 0.0140 0.40 0.7316 10 12.808 800 845.88
0.008 0.0160 0.50 0.8981 20 24.303 1000 1053.1
0.009 0.0180 0.60 1.0598 30 35.545 5000 5153.0
0.010 0.0200 0.70 1.2174 40 46.646 10000 10242
0.020 0.0398 0.80 1.3715 50 57.655 100000 101113
0.030 0.0595 0.90 1.5226 60 68.595 200000 201764
0.040 0.0792 1.00 1.6709 70 79.482 >200000 β
Table 4.3. Critical load parameter αs.

βs αs βs αs βs αs βs αs
0.0 1.0000 2.0 0.4005 4.0 0.2230 20 0.04884
0.1 1.0000 2.1 0.3852 4.1 0.2181 25 0.03926
0.2 1.0000 2.2 0.3711 4.2 0.2135 30 0.03282
0.3 1.0000 2.3 0.3579 4.3 0.2090 35 0.02819
0.4 0.9972 2.4 0.3457 4.4 0.2047 40 0.02471
0.5 0.9325 2.5 0.3342 4.5 0.2006 45 0.02199
0.6 0.8663 2.6 0.3235 5.0 0.1824 50 0.01981
0.7 0.8051 2.7 0.3134 5.5 0.1672 55 0.01803
0.8 0.7501 2.8 0.3039 6.0 0.1543 60 0.01654
0.9 0.7011 2.9 0.2950 6.5 0.1433 65 0.01527
1.0 0.6575 3.0 0.2866 7.0 0.1337 70 0.01419
1.1 0.6186 3.1 0.2787 7.5 0.1253 80 0.01243
1.2 0.5838 3.2 0.2711 8.0 0.1179 90 0.01105
1.3 0.5526 3.3 0.2640 8.5 0.1114 100 0.00995
1.4 0.5243 3.4 0.2572 9.0 0.1055 200 0.00499
1.5 0.4988 3.5 0.2508 10 0.09544 300 0.00333
1.6 0.4755 3.6 0.2447 12 0.08015 400 0.00250
1.7 0.4543 3.7 0.2389 14 0.06908 500 0.00200
1.8 0.4349 3.8 0.2333 16 0.06069 1000 0.00100
1.9 0.4170 3.9 0.2280 18 0.05413 >1000 1/(1+βs)

- 13 -
 Table 4.4. Values for load distribution parameter rs.

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
rs 0.315 0.528 0.654 0.716 0.759 0.791 0.815 0.834 0.850 0.863 0.874
n 12 13 14 15 16 18 20 25 30 50 >50
rs 0.883 0.891 0.898 0.904 0.910 0.919 0.926 0.940 0.950 0.969 n/(n+1.6)

Critical load parameter

20

15

α
10

αp
5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
β

Figure 4.2. Critical load parameters α and αp.

Critical load parameter

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
αs
0.2

0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
βs

Figure 4.3. Critical load parameter αs.

- 14 -
4.1.3 Frameworks on fixed supports
Frameworks on fixed supports develop all four characteristic types of deformation (Fig. 4.4).
When the structure is under concentrated top load, the critical load is computed from the
formula

rFl K
rFl + K +
Fg
Fcr = (4.13)
K
1+
Fg

Ib Ib Ib

H = nh
Ic Ic Ic Ic

l1 l2 l3
L

Figure 4.4. Framework on fixed supports.

It is rarely the case that frameworks are only subjected to concentrated forces at top
floor level. In most practical cases the applied load consists of uniformly distributed load
(UDL) at floor levels. This load case can also be investigated by the continuum method. The
solution to the continuum model of multi-storey frameworks leads to the following formula
for the critical load:

rN l (1 + α − β + 2β s ) + K (1 + α s + α s β s )
N cr = (4.14)
2(1 + β s )

Critical load parameters α and αs are obtained from Tables 4.1 and 4.3 or from Figures
4.2 and 4.3, as a function of stiffness ratios β and βs. Part critical loads Nl, Ng and K are
defined by formulae (4.8), (4.10) and (4.5). Finally, combination factor r is given by formula
(4.6).
4.1.4 Frameworks on pinned supports
There are cases when the fixed supports at ground floor level cannot be constructed or the
rigid connection between the superstructure and the substructure is not welcome for some
reason. In such cases, frameworks on pinned supports, with or without ground floor beams
(Fig. 4.5), are used.

- 15 -
 Ib Ib
h
Ib Ib
h
Ib Ib
Ic Ic Ic Ic h Ic Ic Ic Ic
Ib H Ib
h
Ib Ib
h
Ib Ib
h
Ib
l1 l2 l3 l1 l2 l3
L L

a) b)

Figure 4.5. Frameworks on pinned supports. a) with, b) without ground floor beams.

Frameworks on pinned supports, with ground floor beams

The formula for frameworks with ground floor beams, under concentrated top load reads

K
Fcr =
K (4.15)
1+
Fg

Part critical loads Fg and K are given by formulae (4.9) and (4.5).
When the framework is subjected to UDL at floor levels (Fig. 4.5/a), the formula for the
critical load assumes the form

rN l (1 + α p − β + β s − rβ s − r ) + K (1 + α s + α s β s )
N cr = (4.16)
2(1 + β s )

Part critical loads Ng and K are given by formulae (4.10) and (4.5). Stiffness ratios β and
βs are given by formulae (4.11) and (4.12) and combination factor r is defined by formula
(4.6). Critical load parameters αp and αs are obtained from Tables 4.2 and 4.3.
Frameworks on pinned supports, without ground floor beams
The situation with frameworks without ground floor beams is somewhat different as they are
more sensitive to local shear-type deformation at ground floor level and formula (4.4) cannot
be used (because it assumes that rotations are prevented at ground floor level). Because of the
pinned supports and the lack of ground floor beams, the columns of the first storey region
tend to develop sway, resulting in the local shear stiffness, i.e. the local shear critical load as

n π 2 Ec I c , i
Kl = ∑ (4.17)
1 4h 2

All the other formulae in Section 4.1.2 hold.

- 16 -
 The formula for the overall critical load of frameworks under concentrated load at top
floor level assumes the form

K
Fcr =
K (4.18)
1+
Fg

where the part critical loads Fg is given by formulae (4.9). The shear critical load is calculated
from formula (4.5) [but using formula (4.17) instead of formula (4.4)].
For frameworks under UDL at floor levels (Fig. 4.5/b), the critical load is:

rN l (α p − β ) + K (1 + α s + α s β s )
N cr = (4.19)
2(1 + β s )

The shear critical load is calculated as above; all the rest of the parameters in formula
(4.19) are obtained from section 4.1.2.
4.1.5 Frameworks with longer first storey columns
It is a practical case that the length of the columns at ground floor level is different from that
of the ones above the first floor level. In most cases, they are longer than the ones at the other
storey levels (Fig. 4.6/a/b/c) and therefore they create a more unfavourable situation, as far as
stability is concerned.

Ib/2 Ib/2 Ib/2

Ib h Ib h Ib

Ib h Ib h Ib

Ib h Ib h Ib
Ic Ib Ic h Ic Ib Ic h Ic Ic
Ib

Ib h Ib h Ib

h h
Ib/2

a) b) c)

Figure 4.6. Non-regular frameworks with longer first storey columns.

Such frameworks are non-regular but their behaviour only differs from the
corresponding regular ones in local shear buckling. Because of the “softer” first storey region,
local failure would occur through the buckling of the ground floor columns. It follows that the
formulae given for the global critical load can still be used if the formula for the local shear
critical load is modified as follows. With frameworks with longer columns at ground floor
level, the local shear critical load should be computed from

- 17 -
 n π 2 Ec I c , i
Kl = ∑ (4.20)
1 h*2

with

h * = 2h (4.21)

for the framework in Fig. 4.6/a and with

h* = h (4.22)

for the frameworks in Figs 4.6/b and 4.6/c. The critical load is then obtained by applying the
corresponding formulae given for the global critical load in the previous sections.
Parameter h in the above formulae marks the length of the longer first storey columns.
It should be borne in mind that, because of the longer first storey columns, an
approximation is made on the nature of the applied load, which may result in a slightly
overestimated critical load for frameworks with longer first storey columns. This
unconservative effect can be approximately compensated for by using a load distribution
factor rs which belongs to a framework one storey lower than the actual one.
4.1.6 Frameworks with cross-bracing
When the framework is subjected to uniformly distributed load on floor levels, the critical
load is obtained from

N cr = α s K (4.23)

where K represents the total shear stiffness as given below for different types of cross-bracing.
Values for critical load parameter αs are given in Fig. 4.3 and in Table 4.3 as a function of
stiffness ratio

K
βs = (4.24)
Ng

When the structure is subjected to concentrated load on top, the formula for the critical
load is

K
Fcr =
K (4.25)
1+
Fg

In the above formulae, Fg and Ng are the full-height bending critical loads defined by
formulae (4.9) and (4.10).
Formulae for different types of cross-bracing in one-bay frameworks are given as
follows. For single cross-bracing shown in Fig. 4.7/a:
−1
 d3 l 
K =  2
+  (4.26)
A E
 d d hl A E h
h h 

- 18 -
 With double cross-bracing (Figs 4.7/b and 4.7/c):

hl 2
K = 2 Ad Ed (4.27)
d3

The situation is similar when there is only one set of continuous diagonals with no
horizontal bars (Fig. 4.7/d):

hl 2
K = Ad Ed (4.28)
d3

For the K-bracing system shown in Fig. 4.7/e:

−1
 2d 3 l 
K =  2
+  (4.29)
A E
 d d hl 4 A E h
h h 

The situation with the cross-bracing in Fig. 4.7/f is somewhat different as the bending of
the horizontal bar also affects the shear stiffness:
−1
 d3 m h(l − 2m) 2 
K =  2
+ +  (4.30)
 2 Ad E d hm 2 Ah E h h 12 I h E h l 

where Ih is the second moment of area of the horizontal bar.

Ah Ah

Ad Ad
h Ad Ad Ad Ad
d d
d d d d
Ah Ah
l l l l

a) b) c) d)

Ah Ah Ah
Ad d d
h Ad Ad Ad d
d d

Ah Ah Ah

l/2 l/2 m l-2m m m l-2m m

e) f) g)

Figure 4.7. Different types of cross-bracing.

Finally, the shear stiffness of the knee-braced frame in Fig. 4.7/g is obtained from

- 19 -
 −1
 d3 l − 2m hm 2 
K =  + +  (4.31)
 Ad Ed h(l − 2m)
2
Ah Eh h 3I h Ehl 

The above formulae for the shear stiffness assume one-bay frameworks. For multi-bay
frameworks, the shear stiffness is obtained by adding up the shear stiffnesses of each bay:
n −1
K = ∑ Ki (4.32)
1

where n is the number of columns and Ki refers to the shear stiffness of the ith bay.
4.1.7 The effect of non-proportional loading
The formulae obtained in the foregoing are applicable to obtaining the total critical load. The
total critical load is of interest since one column cannot fail alone but a whole storey with all
the columns [Zalka and Armer, 1992]. Even if one or more columns are overloaded, the
framework as a whole can remain stable. This is only possible if the stronger – or underloaded
– columns support the weaker – or overloaded – columns. It follows that there is some load
redistribution. However, the non-proportional loading of the framework does have an effect
on the accuracy of the formulae obtained by the continuum method. The less proportional the
load of the structure, the less accurate the results are. The question is, how much. According
to Dulácska’s theorem, the critical load of a single storey framework hardly depends on the
distribution of the external vertical load among the columns [Kollár, 1999]. He suggests that a
maximum of fourfold overloading is allowed, in which case the error made by calculating the
total critical load is less than 10 per cent. The formula he suggests assumes the form

Fi
= 4
∑ Fi (4.33)
Fi*,cr ∑ Fi*,cr
where

π 2 EI i
Fi *,cr = (4.34)
h02,i

is the critical load of the ith column,

h0,i = µhi (4.35)

is the effective length of the ith column, hi is the story height and Fi is the applied load on the
ith column. Factor µ is the effective length factor.
See also Kollár [1999] for more details on the behaviour and design of individual
columns in multi-storey buildings.
4.1.8 Closing remarks
The methods presented in this chapter make it possible to save considerable time and energy
in carrying out the stability analysis of even large structures. The task can be further reduced
by using the computer procedure PlaStab, which solves the relevant governing differential
equations and, in addition to calculating all the relevant stiffness characteristics, also produces
the value of the global critical load. By making use of the program, the global analysis of even

- 20 -
large structures can be carried out in minutes. Details and detailed explanation on how to use
the program are given in Chapter 3.
The formulae in this chapter were produced by using the equivalent column approach
[Zalka, 2000] and applying the summation theorems of civil engineering [Tarnai, 1999].

4.2 Shear walls and cross-wall system buildings

Shear walls represent another large group of structure used in the building industry. Above a
certain height, frameworks alone cannot ensure the necessary lateral stiffness of a building
and shear walls or a system of coupled shear walls are often included in the bracing system.
4.2.1 Shear walls
Of all the possible bracing units, shear walls represent the simplest problem, as far as the
calculation of the critical load is concerned. When the load is a concentrated force at top floor
level, the formula for the critical load is

π 2 EI
Fcr = (4.36)
4H 2

where E is the modulus of elasticity, I represents the second moment of area of the wall and H
stands for the height of the wall (Fig. 4.8). In Fig. 4.8 t and L mark the thickness and the
width of the wall, respectively.

h
h

h H
h

t L

Figure 4.8. Shear wall.

When the load of the shear wall is uniformly distributed normal load at every floor
level, the critical load is obtained from

7.837rs EI
N cr = (4.37)
H2

where rs is the load distribution factor whose values are tabulated in Table 4.4.

- 21 -
4.2.2 Coupled shear walls
A system of coupled shear walls can be regarded as a special framework where walls (instead
of columns) are connected with beams or lintels (Fig. 4.9). However, there are two basic
differences between coupled shear walls and frameworks.
a) The two end-sections of the beams cannot develop bending because the walls, whose
stiffness is considered infinitely great along these sections, do not let them. The centroidal
axis of these sections must be characterized by straight lines when the deflection curve of the
beams is established.
b) As a rule, in the case of coupled shear walls, the depth of the cross-section of the
beams is relatively great and the beams are relatively short. In other words, the beams of
coupled shear walls are not as slender as those of the frameworks and therefore the shear
deformation of the beams is no longer negligible.

c/2
c/2
h
c
h
c
h
c H
h
c
h
c
h

s1 l1 si li si+1 li+1 sn
L

Figure 4.9. Coupled shear walls.

Bearing in mind the above differences, the equations and formulae derived for the
stability analysis of frameworks can be used for the stability analysis of coupled shear walls if
certain modifications are made. Both differences only affect the global shear stiffness and the
necessary modifications can be built into formula (4.3), which then assumes the form:

K =∑
*
n −1 (
6 Eb I b ,i (li + si ) 2 + (li + si +1 ) 2 )
g
 ρE I  (4.38)
li3 h1 + 12 2 b b ,i 
1

 li GAb ,i 

In this formula of the modified global shear stiffness, the following new notations are
used:
G modulus of elasticity in shear of the beams
Ab,i cross-sectional area of the ith beam
li distance between the ith and (i+1) walls

- 22 -
 si width of the ith wall
ρ constant depending on the shape of the cross-section of the beams
(ρ = 1.2 for rectangular cross-sections)
With the modified global shear stiffness, the formula for the modified shear stiffness is
obtained as with the frameworks:

Kl
K * = K g* * (4.39)
K + Kl
g

where local shear stiffness Kl is defined by

n π 2 Ec I c , i
Kl = ∑ (4.40)
1 h2

The formulae derived for frameworks can now be used. When the coupled shear walls
are subjected to concentrated load at the top floor level, the critical load is obtained from

rFl K *
rFl + K * +
Fg
Fcr = (4.41)
K*
1+
Fg

When the coupled shear walls are subjected to UDL at every floor level, the formula for
the critical load is

rN l (1 + α − β + 2β s ) + K * (1 + α s + α s β s )
N cr = (4.42)
2(1 + β s )

Combination factor r in formulae (4.41) and (4.42) is now defined by

Kl
r= * (4.43)
K + Kl
g

where K g* is the modified global shear stiffness (4.38). The local and global bending critical
loads in formula (4.41) are defined by formulae (4.7) and (4.9), respectively, as is presented in
Section 4.1.2. Critical load parameters α and αs are obtained from Tables 4.1 and 4.3 or in
Figs 4.2 and 4.3, as a function of stiffness ratios

K*
β= (4.44)
Nl

and

K*
βs = (4.45)
Ng

- 23 -
 Nl, Ng and K* are part critical loads defined by formulae (4.8), (4.10) and (4.39).
4.2.3 Symmetrical cross-wall system buildings
A set of parallel shear walls, coupled shear walls and frameworks represents a typical building
system. In the symmetrical case when the centre of the bracing system of a building and that
of the applied vertical load coincide, stability failure may occur in three different ways. The
system can develop sway buckling in both principal planes and pure torsional buckling.
Sway buckling is investigated in this section. Figure 4.10 shows the layout of a
symmetrical cross-wall system building, where
L and B are the plan length and breadth of the building [m]
s is the distance between the bracing units [m]
m is the number of bracing units in the building
In addition to the assumptions made for individual bracing units in Section 4.1.1, the
following assumptions regarding buildings also have to be fulfilled:
• The floor slabs are stiff in their plane and flexible perpendicular to their plane
• In buildings overloading the individual structural units is maximum four
• The structures are sway structures developing lateral buckling. With buildings, sway is
ensured when the bracing system is symmetrical

1 2 3 j m

L=(m-1)s

Figure 4.10. Cross-wall system building.

According to Southwell’s additive theorem, the sum of the critical loads of the bracing
units (frameworks, shear walls and coupled shear walls) is a lower bound to the critical load
of the system. Formulae
m
Fcrbu = ∑ Fcr , j (4.46)
1

and
m
N crbu = ∑ N cr , j (4.47)
1

give the total critical load of cross-wall system buildings subjected to concentrated forces at

- 24 -
top floor level and uniformly distributed load at floor levels, where Fcr,j and Ncr,j are the
critical loads of the individual bracing units. Simple formulae for their computation are given
in Sections 4.1.3…4.1.6.
The building shown in Fig. 4.10 may not be stable in direction x. Stability in this
direction should also be ensured. This can be done by perpendicular (coupled) shear walls or
by cores. In the first case, and if the system is symmetrical, a stability analysis, similar to the
one just presented, can be carried out. In the general case, when the system is not
symmetrical, combined sway-torsional buckling has to be investigated, as described in [Zalka,
2002]. Even if the system is doubly symmetrical, the possibility of pure torsional buckling has
to be considered. This investigation can also be carried out according to the procedure given
in [Zalka, 2002].
The remarks made in section 4.1.7 on overloading certain columns of a framework
subjected to concentrated forces still hold but this time overloading also refers to the
overloading of the individual frameworks and coupled shear walls. The factor of maximum
overloading must not exceed four.
4.2.4 Equivalent shear wall
The global analysis of bracing systems consisting of bracing cores, shear walls and
frameworks/coupled shear walls can be considerably simplified, if the frameworks/coupled
shear walls are replaced by equivalent solid walls. The cores and (real and equivalent) walls
can be combined to form a single cantilever whose 3-dimensional analysis leads to simple
closed-form solutions [Zalka, 2002].
The replacement of the frameworks and coupled shear walls by equivalent walls can be
based on making the critical load of the framework/coupled shear walls equal to that of the
equivalent wall. In making use of the critical load of a framework/coupled shear walls (Ncr) –
and assuming UDL on the floor levels – the thickness of the equivalent wall (t*) is obtained as

1.53N cr H 2
t* = (4.48)
rs EL3

where
Ncr is the critical load of the framework/coupled shear walls
H, L, E are the height, width and the modulus of elasticity of the equivalent wall
(identical to the height, width and the modulus of elasticity of the
framework/coupled shear walls)
rs load distribution factor (whose values are given in Table 4.4)
When an equivalent wall is incorporated into the bracing system of shear walls and
cores developing predominantly bending type deformation, the accuracy and reliability of the
3-dimensional analysis basically depend on how well the equivalent wall ‘fits in’ the bracing
system, as far as deformations are concerned, i.e., to what extent the characteristic
deformation of the equivalent wall conforms to the deformation of the bracing system. Details
on the limitations of using the equivalent wall are given in [Zalka, 2000]; it is only noted here
that the nearer the deformation of the equivalent wall to bending type deformation, the better
the accuracy of the 3-dimensional procedure.
Practical calculation is helped by the application of the computer procedure PlaStab
described in detail in Chapters 2 and 3. In addition to the necessary stiffness characteristics,
the program also calculates the thickness of the equivalent wall.

- 25 -
4.3 Global critical load ratio
The global critical load ratio is defined as the ratio of the design vertical load and the
estimated minimum critical load for the building structure as a whole [MacLeod and Zalka,
1996]. If the ratio is used in its reciprocal form, then it can directly be linked to the global
safety of the structure:

N cr
λ= (4.49)
N

When the structure is subjected to two different load systems, the global critical load
ratio is calculated using
−1
1 N F  N F 
= + → λ =  +  (4.50)
λ N cr Fcr N
 cr Fcr 

In formulae (4.49) and (4.50), Fcr is the critical load of the structure subjected to
concentrated forces on top floor level, Ncr is the critical load of the structure subjected to
uniformly distributed load at floor levels, F is the total concentrated load on top floor level
(e.g., a water tank or a panorama restaurant) and N is the total uniformly distributed load
measured at ground floor level. For an individual bracing unit the total vertical load is

N = pLn (4.51)

where L is the width of the structure, p [kN/m] is the intensity of the uniformly distributed
load on the beams and n is the number of storeys.
When – instead of a single bracing unit – a cross-wall system building is investigated,
the total vertical load is calculated as

N = QLBn (4.52)

where Q [kN/m2] is the floor load and L and B are the size of the layout.
The minimum value of the global critical load ratio is recommended as

λ ≥ 10 (4.53)

The criterion can be applied to either a particular load bearing element or to a building.
If this criterion is satisfied for a particular load bearing element, then it can be considered as a
bracing unit (in a building). If the criterion is satisfied for a building, then its vertical load
bearing elements can be considered as braced (by the bracing system) and neglecting the
second order effects (due to sway and torsion) may result in a maximum 10% error.
If Criterion (4.53) is not satisfied, the structure can still be in a stable condition, but this
should be verified by a second order analysis.
As a widely accepted rule of thumb in structural engineering design, a global critical
load ratio of minimum 4 is required for a structure which is considered stable enough.
It is demonstrated in Chapter 6 that the global critical load ratio can be used
• to monitor structural performance
• ensure adequate global safety
• achieve an economic and cost-effective bracing system

- 26 -
5 Design guidelines
The application of the equivalent column approach to regular structures makes it possible to
produce simple formulae for the stability analysis. The terms in the formulae represent basic
geometrical and stiffness characteristics. The evaluation of these formulae combined with
theoretical and numerical analyses [Zalka, 2000] show the key stiffness characteristics and the
dominant deformation modes which determine structural behaviour.

5.1 Frameworks
The formulae given in Sections 4.1.3…4.1.6 can be applied to the stability analysis of multi-
storey frameworks with any number of bays. The procedure is reliable, simple, fast, albeit
approximate.
As a rule, the method is conservative. According to comprehensive accuracy analyses,
the maximum error made by the application of the equivalent column approach to frameworks
with cross-bracing is between -2% (unconservative) and 8% (conservative). The error of most
critical loads of frameworks on fixed supports is between 0% and 10% and the maximum
error does not exceed 19%. The error range widens for frameworks on pinned support: it is
between 0% and 20% in most practical cases and, in some extreme cases, between -3% and
39%. However, as a rule, frameworks on pinned supports are not recommended for bracing
purposes.

F
F F F F F F F
F

a) b) c)

Figure 5.1. Frameworks under concentrated top load.

As demonstrated in Section 4.1.2, the behaviour of frameworks can be characterized by

four distinct types of deformation: the local bending deformation of the columns, the global
shear deformation, the local shear deformation and the global bending deformation. All four
deformations are associated with the corresponding stiffnesses. The overall critical load is
determined by a combination of these four stiffnesses.
For low- to medium-rise (4-25-storey) structures the characteristic sway-buckling
behaviour can be described as follows.
The global shear stiffness of the framework, which is determined by the bending

- 27 -
stiffness of the beams, plays a very important role in the response of the structure to the
applied vertical load.

a) b) c)

Figure 5.2. Frameworks under UDL on the beams.

With frameworks on fixed supports and on pinned supports but with ground floor
beams, subjected to concentrated forces on top of the columns, the global bending
deformation is normally dominant, the shear deformation is important and the local bending
deformation is negligible (Fig. 5.1).

F F F

a) b) c)

Figure 5.3. Frameworks on pinned supports without ground floor beams

When frameworks on fixed supports and on pinned supports but with ground floor

- 28 -
beams are subjected to UDL on the beams, the effect of shear stiffness is dominant (Fig. 5.2).
When the frameworks have pinned supports which are not connected with beams,
buckling failure develops through the horizontal sway of the ground floor columns in most
cases (Fig. 5.3). This, from the point of view of the framework as a whole, is considered local
shear deformation. This local shear deformation is closely associated with the critical load of
the system of ground floor columns, which normally determines the critical load of the
framework.
Frameworks with (single or double) cross-bracing on fixed or pinned supports, under
both concentrated top load and UDL on the beams, develop predominantly full-height
bending deformation (as shown in Fig. 5.4/c where the double curvature bending of the bars
between the nodes is not shown). The nature of the support (fixed of pinned) does not effect
the behaviour (and the value of the critical load).

a) b) c)

Figure 5.4. Frameworks with cross-bracing.

For medium- to high-rise (over 25-storey) structures the effect of shear-type

deformation tends to get less and less important. As the global height per width ratio (H/L)
gets greater, the sway-buckling behaviour tends to get dominated by their full-height global
bending.
The critical load – and the safety of a framework – can be increased as follows. First,
the role of the four types of deformation and the contribution of the corresponding stiffnesses
to the overall critical load (dominant/important/negligible) have to be established. Then, after
identifying the key type of deformation and the main weakness of the system, the
corresponding stiffness has to be increased which leads to a greater overall critical load. Using
the computer program PlaStab, the critical load can be recalculated in minutes with the new
stiffnesses.
Finite element methods occasionally produce unreliable results. In some cases, some FE
results indicated greater critical loads for higher frameworks than for lower frameworks, when
all the other characteristics of the frameworks were the same. In other cases, unconservative
errors (overestimated critical loads) in the region of 150-250 per cent were experienced.
However, it should be mentioned that the stiffness characteristics in such cases assumed
extreme values. Even so, these cases indicate that great care should be exercised with the FE
procedures because the ill-conditioned stiffness matrix might result in incorrect critical loads.
This latter remark underlines the statement that one should be very cautious with the

- 29 -
application of the equivalent column method to non-regular structures. Both the nature and
the extent of the deviation from the regular case should be carefully examined. Even after
establishing the differences, the structural engineer may find himself in a situation when
neither the magnitude nor the sign of the error is known. The results of numerical examples
showing the accuracy and the limitation of the equivalent column method are presented in
Section 5.6 in [Zalka and Armer, 1992].

5.2 Coupled shear walls

The results of accuracy analyses show that the equivalent column method offers reliable
approximate values for the critical load. As with frameworks, the analysis can be carried out
very easily and in minutes.
The method is approximate. In the cases investigated the error was between +23 per
cent (conservative critical loads) and -6 per cent (unconservative critical loads). For structures
between 8 and 20 storeys, the most conservative estimates dropped bellow +15 per cent.
Of the four characteristic deformations, global bending and global shear deformations –
and the corresponding critical loads – play an important role. Local bending deformation –
and the corresponding critical load – only have a smaller effect on the overall critical load.
Local shear deformation, i.e., sway between the floor levels is negligible, as a rule.
It is worth mentioning that some well-publicized FE procedures have difficulties with
the stability analysis in certain stiffness regions when the system is too large. Incorrect load
factors were obtained for different twelve-storey coupled shear wall systems with two rows of
openings. As the stiffness matrix is often ill-conditioned to a different extent with coupled
shear walls, it is sometimes difficult even to realize that the results are not reliable. With the
twelve storey structures investigated, the incorrect buckling shape was a warning sign.
However, when the buckling shape looks reasonable, it is very difficult indeed to find out that
the critical load may not be correct.
5.3 Symmetrical cross-wall system buildings
The method presented in Section 4.2.3 can only be applied to cross-wall system buildings
when the shear centre of the bracing system and the centroid of the vertical loads coincide. In
practice, this condition effectively means that the system should be symmetrical. If the
structure is not symmetrical, sway buckling combines with the torsion of the bracing system
and the formulae given in Section 4.2.3 may easily overestimate the critical load by orders of
magnitude and must not be used.
As cross-wall system buildings consist of frameworks, shear walls and coupled shear
walls, all that was said in the previous sections about these bracing elements apply here, too.

- 30 -
6 Worked examples
Ten design situations have been chosen to illustrate the use of the formulae presented in
Chapter 5. The same structures will be used to demonstrate the application of PlaStab in
Chapter 7.

6.1 Frameworks
Frameworks on fixed supports and frameworks on pinned supports with and without ground
floor beams and with or without cross-bracing are looked at in this section.
6.1.1 Framework on fixed supports. FFSH1
The seven-bay, twelve-storey framework on fixed supports is subjected to eight concentrated
forces at the top of the structure and UDL on the beams (Fig. 6.1). The framework has a
regular network and the columns and beams are identical, respectively. The cross-section of
the columns is 400 mm × 400 mm. The depth of the cross-section of the beams is 500 mm and
the width is 400 mm. The storey height is h = 2.9 m and the total height of the structure is
H = 34.8 m. The modulus of elasticity of the beams and the columns is E = 29000 MN/m2.
The span is l = 6 m.

2.9
2.9
2.9
0.4/0.4
2.9
2.9
2.9 34.8
2.9
0.5/0.4
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9

6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Figure 6.1. Framework FFSH1.

The following stiffness characteristics are needed for the computation.

The global shear stiffness is defined by formulae (4.3):
n −1
6 Eb I b ,i 14 ⋅ 6 ⋅ 29000 ⋅ 0.004167
K g = 2∑ = = 583.4 MN
1 li h 6 ⋅ 2 .9

- 31 -
The local shear stiffness is given by formula (4.4):

n
π 2 Ec I c ,i 8π 2 29000 ⋅ 0.002133
Kl = ∑ = = 580.8 MN
1 h2 2.92

The shear stiffness is obtained from formula (4.5):

Kl 583.4 ⋅ 580.8
K = Kg = = 291.0 MN
K g + K l 583.4 + 580.8

where the combination factor (4.6), characteristic of the behaviour of the framework, assumes
the value

Kl 580.8
r= = = 0.499
K g + K l 583.4 + 580.8

The local bending critical load is obtained from formula (4.7) for the concentrated load:

π 2 Ec I c π 2 29000 ⋅ 8 ⋅ 0.002133
Fl = = = 1.01 MN
4H 2 4 ⋅ 34.82

and from formula (4.8) for the UDL:

7.837rs Ec I c 7.837 ⋅ 0.883 ⋅ 29000 ⋅ 8 ⋅ 0.002133

Nl = = = 2.83 MN
H2 34.82

The global bending critical load assumes the value

π 2 Ec I g π 2 29000 ⋅ 241.92
Fg = = = 14294 MN
4H 2 4 ⋅ 34.82

for concentrated forces [formula (4.9)] and

7.837 rs Ec I g 7.837 ⋅ 0.883 ⋅ 29000 ⋅ 241.92

Ng = 2
= = 40089 MN
H 34.82

when the framework is under UDL [formula (4.10)]. The global second moment of area in the
above formulae is obtained from formula (4.2a):
n
I g = ∑ Ac ,iti2 = 2 ⋅ 0.16(212 + 152 + 92 + 32 ) = 241.92 m4
1

Stiffness ratios β and βs [formulae (4.11) and (4.12)] are also needed for the
computation:

K 291.0
β= = = 102.8
Nl 2.83
and

- 32 -
 K 291.0
βs = = = 0.007
N g 40089

The critical load parameters are now obtained from Tables 4.1 and 4.3 as a function of β
and βs as
α = 133.6 and α s = 1.0

With the above stiffness and geometrical characteristics, the critical loads can now be
produced.
The critical load for frameworks under concentrated forces is obtained from formula
(4.13):

rFl K 0.499 ⋅ 1.01 ⋅ 291.0

rFl + K + 0.499 ⋅ 1.01 + 291.0 +
Fg 14294
Fcr = = = 285.7 MN
K 291.0
1+ 1+
Fg 14294

When the framework is subjected to UDL on the beams, the critical load is obtained
from formula (4.14):

0.499 ⋅ 2.83(1 + 133.6 − 102.8 + 2 ⋅ 0.007) + 291(1 + 1 + 1 ⋅ 0.007)

N cr = = 312.3 MN
2(1 + 0.007)

The concentrated forces on the columns and the intensity of the UDL on the floor levels
assume the value

Fi = 0.6 MN and p = 28 kN/m

In this case, the total external concentrated load is

n
F = ∑ Fi = 4.8 MN
1

The total UDL is obtained from formula (4.51) as

N = pLn = 0.028 ⋅ 7 ⋅ 6 ⋅ 12 = 14.11 MN

With the external total loads and the critical loads now available, the global critical load
ratio is obtained from formula (4.50):
−1 −1
 N F 
 = 
14.11 4.8 
λ =  + +  = 16.1
 N cr Fcr   312.3 285.7 

Criterion (4.53)

λ ≥ 10

- 33 -
is fulfilled.
According to this result, the framework is stable enough and secondary effects can be
ignored, as far as in-plane stability is concerned. For the actual structural design, however, the
application of safety factors in accordance with the relevant code of practice may have to be
considered.
6.1.2 Frameworks on fixed supports in Sheffield Arts Tower I. Framework FSat1
Calculate the global critical load of the 22-storey, 12-bay perimeter framework in Sheffield
Arts Tower. The aim is to produce an equivalent shear wall for the 3-dimensional analysis of
the building, which can be carried out using Global [Zalka, 2002]. The framework has a
regular network and all the columns and the beams are identical with a cross-section of
400 mm × 400 mm. The storey height is h = 3.0 m and the total height of the structure is
H = 66.0 m. The modulus of elasticity of the beams and the columns is E = 23000 MN/m2.
The span is l = 3 m.
The following stiffness characteristics are needed for the computation.
The global shear stiffness is defined by formulae (4.3):
n −1
6 Eb I b ,i 24 ⋅ 6 ⋅ 23000 ⋅ 0.002133
K g = 2∑ = = 785.0 MN
1 li h 3⋅3

The local shear stiffness is given by formula (4.4):

n
π 2 Ec I c ,i 13π 2 23000 ⋅ 0.002133
Kl = ∑ = = 699.5 MN
1 h2 33

The shear stiffness is obtained from formula (4.5):

Kl 785.0 ⋅ 699.5
K = Kg = = 369.5 MN
K g + K l 785.0 + 699.5

where the combination factor (4.6), characteristic of the behaviour of the framework, assumes
the value

Kl 699.5
r= = = 0.471
K g + K l 785.0 + 699.5

The local bending critical load is obtained from formula (4.8):

7.837rs Ec I c 7.837 ⋅ 0.933 ⋅ 23000 ⋅13 ⋅ 0.002133

Nl = = = 1.07 MN
H2 662

The global bending critical [formula (4.10)] assumes the value

7.837 rs Ec I g 7.837 ⋅ 0.933 ⋅ 23000 ⋅ 262.08

Ng = 2
= = 10115 MN
H 66 2

where the global second moment of area in the above formulae is obtained from formula
(4.2a):

- 34 -
 n
I g = ∑ Ac ,iti2 = 2 ⋅ 0.16(182 + 152 + 122 + 92 + 62 + 32 ) = 262.08 m4
1

Stiffness ratios β and βs [formulae (4.11) and (4.12)] are also needed for the
computation:

K 369.9
β= = = 345.7
N l 1.07
and
K 369.9
βs = = = 0.037
N g 10115

The critical load parameters are now obtained from Tables 4.1 and 4.3 as a function of β
and βs as
α = 410.6 and α s = 1.0

With the above stiffness and geometrical characteristics, the critical load can now be
produced. using formula (4.14):

0.471 ⋅1.07(1 + 410.6 − 345.7 + 2 ⋅ 0.037) + 369.9(1 + 1 + 1 ⋅ 0.037)

N cr = = 379.5 MN
2(1 + 0.037)

The thickness of the equivalent wall is obtained from formula (4.48) as:

1.53N cr H 2 1.53 ⋅ 379.5 ⋅ 662

t* = = = 0.00253 m
rs EL3 0.933 ⋅ 23000 ⋅ 363

A shear wall of cross-sectional size of 36 m × 0.00253 m may be used for a spatial

analysis of the building. See the three-dimensional global stress, stability and frequency
analysis in [Zalka, 2002].
6.1.3 Frameworks on fixed supports in Sheffield Arts Tower II. Framework FSat2
The Sheffield Arts Tower building has two more frameworks that have to be replaced for a
three-dimensional analysis. The global critical load of the 22-storey, 7-bay perimeter
framework will now be calculated which leads to the cross-section of the equivalent shear
walls that can be used for the three-dimensional analysis carried out using Global [Zalka,
2002]. The framework has a regular network and all the columns and the beams are identical
with a cross-section of 400 mm × 400 mm. The storey height is h = 3.0 m and the total height
of the structure is H = 66.0 m. The modulus of elasticity of the beams and the columns is
E = 23000 MN/m2. The span is l = 2.85 m.
The following stiffness characteristics are needed for the computation.
The global shear stiffness is defined by formulae (4.3):
n −1
6 Eb I b ,i 14 ⋅ 6 ⋅ 23000 ⋅ 0.002133
K g = 2∑ = = 482.0 MN
1 li h 2.85 ⋅ 3

- 35 -
 The local shear stiffness is given by formula (4.4):

n
π 2 Ec I c ,i 8π 2 23000 ⋅ 0.002133
Kl = ∑ = = 430.5 MN
1 h2 33

The shear stiffness is obtained from formula (4.5):

Kl 482.0 ⋅ 430.5
K = Kg = = 227.4 MN
K g + K l 482.0 + 430.5

where the combination factor (4.6), characteristic of the behaviour of the framework, assumes
the value

Kl 430.5
r= = = 0.472
K g + K l 482.0 + 430.5

The local bending critical load is obtained from formula (4.8):

7.837rs Ec I c 7.837 ⋅ 0.933 ⋅ 23000 ⋅ 8 ⋅ 0.002133

Nl = = = 0.658 MN
H2 662

The global bending critical [formula (4.10)] assumes the value

7.837rs Ec I g 7.837 ⋅ 0.933 ⋅ 23000 ⋅ 54.58

Ng = 2
= = 2107 MN
H 662

where the global second moment of area in the above formulae is obtained from formula
(4.2a):
n
I g = ∑ Ac ,iti2 = 2 ⋅ 0.16(9.9752 + 7.1252 + 4.2752 + 1.4252 ) = 54.58 m4
1

Stiffness ratios β and βs [formulae (4.11) and (4.12)] are also needed for the
computation:

K 227.4
β= = = 345.3
N l 0.658
and
K 227.4
βs = = = 0.108
N g 2107

The critical load parameters are now obtained from Tables 4.1 and 4.3 as a function of β
and βs as
α = 410.2 and α s = 1.0

With the above stiffness and geometrical characteristics, the critical load can now be
produced. using formula (4.14):

- 36 -
 0.472 ⋅ 0.658(1 + 410.2 − 345.3 + 2 ⋅ 0.108) + 227.4(1 + 1 + 1 ⋅ 0.108)
N cr = = 225.6 MN
2(1 + 0.108)

The thickness of the equivalent wall is obtained from formula (4.48) as:

1.53N cr H 2 1.53 ⋅ 225.6 ⋅ 662

t* = = = 0.00883 m
rs EL3 0.933 ⋅ 23000 ⋅ 19.953

A shear wall of cross-sectional size of 19.95 m × 0.00883 m may be used for a spatial
analysis of the building. See the three-dimensional global stress, stability and frequency
analysis in [Zalka, 2002].
6.1.4 Frameworks with special beams. Framework FPSH2
The two-bay, eight-storey framework on pinned supports (Fig. 6.2/a) is subjected to three
concentrated forces at the top of the structure and UDL on the beams. The framework is
regular in network and the columns are identical, with a cross-section of 400 mm × 400 mm.
The framework has different types of beams in the two bays.
The beams have a T-shaped cross-section in the first bay, with a depth of 400 mm and a
width of 300 mm. The width of the flange is 600 mm and the thickness of the flange is 50 mm
(Fig. 6.2/b). The beams in the other bay have a hollow cross-section with the second moment
of area of the cross-section I = 0.002 m4. There are no beams on the ground floor level. The
storey height is h = 3.0 m and the total height of the structure is H = 24 m. The modulus of
elasticity of the beams and the columns is E = 30000 MN/m2. The span in both bays is
l = 6.0 m.

"T" "S"
0.6

3
3
3 0.05
0.4/0.4 0.4
3
3
3
3 0.3
3

6 6 "T" cross-section in the first bay

a) b)

Figure 6.2. Framework FPSH2.

The following stiffness characteristics are needed for the calculation.

The global shear stiffness is defined by formulae (4.3):

- 37 -
 n −1
6 Eb I b ,i 2 ⋅ 6 ⋅ 30000
K g = 2∑ = (0.002011 + 0.002) = 80.22 MN
1 li h 6⋅3

The local shear stiffness is given by formula (4.4):

n
π 2 Ec I c ,i 3π 2 30000 ⋅ 0.002133
Kl = ∑ = = 52.64 MN
1 4h 2 4 ⋅ 33

The shear stiffness is obtained from formula (4.5):

Kl 80.22 ⋅ 52.64
K = Kg = = 31.78 MN
K g + K l 80.22 + 52.64

where the combination factor (4.6), characteristic of the behaviour of the framework, assumes
the value

Kl 52.64
r= = = 0.396
K g + K l 80.22 + 52.64

The global bending critical load assumes the value

π 2 Ec I g π 2 ⋅ 30000 ⋅11.52
Fg = = = 1480 MN
4H 2 4 ⋅ 242

for concentrated forces [formula (4.9)] and

7.837 rs Ec I g 7.837 ⋅ 0.834 ⋅ 30000 ⋅ 11.52

Ng = 2
= = 3922 MN
H 242

when the framework is under UDL [formula (4.10)]. The global second moment of area in the
above formulae is obtained from formula (4.2a):
n
I g = ∑ Ac ,iti2 = 2 ⋅ 0.16 ⋅ 62 = 11.52 m4
1

Stiffness ratios β and βs [formulae (4.11) and (4.12)] are also needed for the
computation:

K 31.78
β= = = 14.58
N l 2.178
and
K 31.78
βs = = = 0.008
N g 3922

where parameter Nl is obtained from formula (4.8):

- 38 -
 7.837rs Ec I c 7.837 ⋅ 0.834 ⋅ 30000 ⋅ 3 ⋅ 0.002133
Nl = = = 2.178 MN
H2 242

The critical load parameters are now obtained from Tables 4.2 and 4.3 as a function of β
and βs as
α p = 18.12 and α s = 1.0

With the above stiffness and geometrical characteristics, the critical loads can now be
produced.
The critical load for frameworks under concentrated forces is obtained from formula
(4.18):

K 31.78
Fcr = = = 31.11 MN
K 31.78
1+ 1+
Fg 1480

When the framework is subjected to UDL on the beams, the critical load is obtained
from formula (4.19):

0.396 ⋅ 2.19(18.12 − 14.58) + 31.78(1 + 1 + 1 ⋅ 0.008)

N cr = = 33.17 MN
2(1 + 0.008)

The concentrated forces on the columns and the intensity of the UDL on the floor levels
assume the value

Fi = 1.0 MN

and

p = 30.0 kN/m

In this case, the total external concentrated load is

n
F = ∑ Fi = 3.0 MN
1

and the total UDL is obtained from formula (4.51) as

N = pLn = 0.03 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 6 ⋅ 8 = 2.88 MN

With the external total loads and the critical loads now available, the global critical load
ratio is obtained from formula (4.50):
−1 −1
 N F 
 = 
2.88 3 
λ =  + +  = 5.4
 N cr Fcr   33.17 31.11 

According to this result, the framework is shaky and second order effects should be

- 39 -
taken into consideration, as far as in-plane stability is concerned. The framework cannot be
considered as a bracing element in a building structure.
6.1.5 Framework with no ground floor beams. Framework FPSH3
This (and the next) case show that the lack of beams at ground floor level has a significant
effect on the magnitude of the critical load with frameworks on pinned supports.
The two-bay, eighteen-storey framework on pinned supports (Fig. 6.3/a) is subjected to
three concentrated forces at the top of the columns and UDL on the beams. The framework is
regular in network and the columns and beams are identical, with a cross-section of
400 mm × 400 mm. There are no beams on the ground floor level. The storey height is
h = 3.0 m and the total height of the structure is H = 54 m. The modulus of elasticity of the
beams and the columns is E = 30000 MN/m2. The span in both bays is l = 5.3 m.

H=18·3=54

2·5.3 Every cross- 2·5.3

section: 0.4/0.4

a) b)

Figure 6.3. Frameworks on pinned supports. a) FPSH3: without, b) FPSH4: with ground floor beams.

The following stiffness characteristics are needed for the calculation.

The global shear stiffness is defined by formulae (4.3):
n −1
6 Eb I b ,i 2 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 6 ⋅ 30000 ⋅ 0.002133
K g = 2∑ = = 96.6 MN
1 li h 5 .3 ⋅ 3

The local shear stiffness is given by formula (4.4):

n
π 2 Ec I c ,i 3π 2 30000 ⋅ 0.002133
Kl = ∑ = = 52.64 MN
1 4h 2 4 ⋅ 33

The shear stiffness is obtained from formula (4.5):

- 40 -
 Kl 96.6 ⋅ 52.64
K = Kg = = 34.07 MN
K g + K l 96.6 + 52.64

where the combination factor (4.6), characteristic of the behaviour of the framework, assumes
the value

Kl 52.64
r= = = 0.353
K g + K l 96.6 + 52.64

The global bending critical load assumes the value

π 2 Ec I g π 2 ⋅ 30000 ⋅ 8.9888
Fg = = = 228.18 MN
4H 2 4 ⋅ 542

for concentrated forces [formula (4.9)] and

7.837 rs Ec I g 7.837 ⋅ 0.919 ⋅ 30000 ⋅ 8.9888

Ng = = = 666.05 MN
H2 542

when the framework is under UDL [formula (4.10)]. The global second moment of area in the
above formulae is obtained from formula (4.2a):
n
I g = ∑ Ac ,iti2 = 2 ⋅ 0.16 ⋅ 5.32 = 8.9888 m4
1

Stiffness ratios β and βs [formulae (4.11) and (4.12)] are also needed for the
computation:

K 34.07
β= = = 71.88
N l 0.474
and
K 34.07
βs = = = 0.051
N g 666.05

where parameter Nl is obtained from formula (4.8):

7.837 rs Ec I c 7.837 ⋅ 0.919 ⋅ 30000 ⋅ 3 ⋅ 0.002133

Nl = = = 0.474 MN
H2 542

The critical load parameters are now obtained from Tables 4.2 and 4.3 as a function of β
and βs as

α p = 81.52 and α s = 1.0

With the above stiffness and geometrical characteristics, the critical loads can now be
produced.
The critical load for frameworks under concentrated forces is obtained from formula

- 41 -
(4.18):

K 34.07
Fcr = = = 29.65 MN
K 34.07
1+ 1+
Fg 228.18

When the framework is subjected to UDL on the beams, the critical load is obtained
from formula (4.19):

0.353 ⋅ 0.474(81.52 − 71.88) + 34.07(1 + 1 + 1 ⋅ 0.051)

N cr = = 34.01 MN
2(1 + 0.051)

The concentrated forces on the columns and the intensity of the UDL on the floor levels
assume the value

Fi = 1.0 MN

and

p = 30.0 kN/m

In this case, the total external concentrated load is

n
F = ∑ Fi = 3.0 MN
1

and the total UDL is obtained from formula (4.51) as

N = pLn = 0.03 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 5.3 ⋅ 18 = 5.724 MN

With the external total loads and the critical loads now available, the global critical load
ratio is obtained from formula (4.50):
−1 −1
 N F 
 = 
5.724 3 
λ =  + +  = 3.7
 N cr Fcr   34.01 29.65 

According to this result, the framework is shaky and second order effects should be
taken into consideration, as far as in-plane stability is concerned. The framework cannot be
considered as a bracing element in a building structure.
6.1.6 Framework with ground floor beams. Framework FPSH4
The two-bay, eighteen-storey framework on pinned supports in the previous section does not
have too much safety against instability. It is interesting to check how the situation changes if
beams at ground floor level are built in the structure (Fig. 6.3/b). All the other geometric and
stiffness characteristics remain the same.
Some of the stiffness characteristics are not affected by the change but the local shear
critical load and those containing it have to be recalculated.
The global shear stiffness [formulae (4.3)] is unchanged:

- 42 -
 n −1
6 Eb I b ,i 2 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 6 ⋅ 30000 ⋅ 0.002133
K g = 2∑ = = 96.6 MN
1 li h 5 .3 ⋅ 3

The local shear stiffness is given by formula (4.4):

n
π 2 Ec I c ,i 3π 2 30000 ⋅ 0.002133
Kl = ∑ = = 210.55 MN
1 h2 33

The shear stiffness is obtained from formula (4.5):

Kl 96.6 ⋅ 210.55
K = Kg = = 66.22 MN
K g + K l 96.6 + 210.55

Combination factor (4.6), characteristic of the behaviour of the framework, assumes the
value

Kl 210.55
r= = = 0.685
K g + K l 96.6 + 210.55

The full-height bending critical load of the framework subjected to concentrated forces
[formulae (4.9)] is unchanged:

π 2 Ec I g π 2 ⋅ 30000 ⋅ 8.9888
Fg = = = 228.18 MN
4H 2 4 ⋅ 542

When the framework is subjected to uniformly distributed load, the full-height bending
critical load is obtained from formula (4.10), but with rs = 1.0:

7.837rs E c I g 7.837 ⋅ 1.0 ⋅ 30000 ⋅ 8.9888

Ng = 2
= = 724.75 MN
H 54 2

where the global second moment of area [formula (4.2a)] is the same as with frameworks
without ground floor beams:
n
I g = ∑ Ac ,iti2 = 2 ⋅ 0.16 ⋅ 5.32 = 8.9888 m4
1

Stiffness ratios β and βs [formulae (4.11) and (4.12)] are also needed for the
computation:

K 66.22
β= = = 128.33
N l 0.516
and
K 66.22
βs = = = 0.091
N g 724.75

- 43 -
where parameter Nl is obtained from formula (4.8) but with rs = 1.0:

7.837 rs E c I c 7.837 ⋅ 1.0 ⋅ 30000 ⋅ 3 ⋅ 0.002133

Nl = = = 0.516 MN
H2 54 2

The critical load parameters are now obtained from Tables 4.2 and 4.3 as a function of β
and βs as

α p = 142.3 and α s = 1.0

With the above stiffness and geometrical characteristics, the critical loads can now be
produced.
The critical load for frameworks under concentrated forces is obtained from formula
(4.18):

K 66.22
Fcr = = = 51.32 MN
K 66.22
1+ 1+
Fg 228.18

With framework on pinned supports and with ground floor beams, subjected to UDL on
the beams, the critical load is obtained from formula (4.16):

0.685 ⋅ 0.516(1 + 142.3 − 128.3 + 0.091 − 0.685 ⋅ 0.091 − 0.685) + 66.22(1 + 1 + 0.091)
N cr = =
2(1 + 0.091)

= 65.78 MN

The applied loads are

Fi = 1.0 MN

and

p = 30.0 kN/m

The total external concentrated load is

n
F = ∑ Fi = 3.0 MN
1

and the total UDL is obtained from formula (4.51) as

N = pLn = 0.03 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 5.3 ⋅ 18 = 5.724 MN

With the external total loads and the critical loads now available, the global critical load
ratio is obtained from formula (4.50):

- 44 -
 −1 −1
 N F 
 = 
5.724 3 
λ =  + +  = 6.9
 N cr Fcr   65.78 51.32 

This interesting result shows that by building in two beams at ground floor level, the
resistance of the framework against instability has nearly doubled. However, the framework is
still shaky and second order effects have to be taken into consideration. The framework
cannot be considered as a bracing element in building structures.
6.1.7 Framework with cross-bracing. Framework SR-X
Calculate the global critical loads of the 8-storey framework with single cross-bracing shown
in Fig. 6.4, assuming floor load on each storey level [Zalka, 1999]. The uniformly distributed
floor load is transmitted to the frame at the joints. The framework represents a bracing
element of the Cardington Steel Building which was constructed in 1993 at the Building
Research Establishment’s Large Building Test Facility in Cardington.
In the example, the cross-sections of the beams (356×171×45UB) and cross-bracing
(250/15) are identical to those of the Steel Building. The cross-section of the columns
(305×305×UC137) is identical to that of the Steel Building on the first four storeys and they
are considered to be the same over the height of the structure (as opposed to the real building
where the cross-section of the columns is reduced on the 5-8 storeys).

H=8·3=24m

l=3m

Figure 6.4. 8-storey framework with single cross-bracing.

The size of the bay and the storey height are 3.0 metres, respectively. The modulus of
elasticity for the beams, columns and cross-bracing is E = 2·105 MN/m2. The cross-sectional
characteristics of the columns, beams and diagonals are given in Table 6.1.
The shear stiffness associated with the diagonal bars is obtained from formula (4.26):

- 45 -
 −1 −1
 d3 l   4.2433 3 
K =  2
+ 
 = 
 −3 5 2
+ −3 5
 = 215.3 MN
 Ad Ed hl Ah Eh h   3.75 ⋅10 ⋅ 2 ⋅10 ⋅ 3 ⋅ 3 5.73 ⋅10 ⋅ 2 ⋅10 ⋅ 3 

Table 6.1. Cross-sectional characteristics for framework SR-X.

Characteristics Columns Beams Diagonals

Cross-section 305×305UC137 356×171×45UB 250/15
Area [m2] 1.74⋅10-2 5.73⋅10-3 3.75⋅10-3
Second moment of area [m4] 3.281⋅10-4 1.207⋅10-4 1.953⋅10-5

The full-height bending critical load for concentrated top load is given by formula (4.9):

π 2 Ec I g π 2 200000 ⋅ 7.83 ⋅ 10−2

Fg = = = 67.08 MN
4H 2 4 ⋅ 242

and the full-height bending critical load for UDL is calculated from formula (4.10):

7.837rs Ec I g 7.837 ⋅ 0.834 ⋅ 200000 ⋅ 7.83 ⋅10−2

Ng = = = 177.7 MN
H2 242

where the global second moment of area is calculated using formula (4.2a):
n
I g = ∑ Ac ,iti2 = 1.74 ⋅ 10− 2 ⋅ 1.52 ⋅ 2 = 7.83 ⋅ 10− 2 m4
1

and the value of reduction factor rs is obtained from Table 4.4.

The critical load for frameworks subjected to concentrated load on top is obtained from
formula (4.25):

K 215.3
Fcr = = = 51.15 MN
K 215.3
1+ 1+
Fg 67.08

Stiffness parameter βs needed for the calculation is defined by formula (4.24) and
assumes the value:

K 215.3
βs = = = 1.21
N g 177.7

Using the above value of the stiffness parameter, the critical load parameter is obtained
from Table 4.3 as

α s ( β s ) = 0.58

The critical load for frameworks subjected to uniformly distributed load on floor levels
is finally obtained from formula (4.23):

- 46 -
 N cr = α s K = 0.58 ⋅ 215.3 = 124.9 MN

6.2 Shear-wall structures

The sway critical loads of two individual structures and a cross-wall system building are
presented in this section.
6.2.1 Shear wall SWSH1
The eight-storey shear wall SWSH1 in Fig. 6.5 may be a bracing unit in an otherwise unstable
system. The width of the shear wall is 6.0 m, the wall thickness is 0.25 m, the storey height is
h = 3.0 m, the total height of the structure is H = 24.0 m and the modulus of elasticity is
E = 30000 MN/m2.

3
24.0 m
3

0.25 6.0

Figure 6.5. Shear wall SWSH1.

The value of the critical concentrated load is obtained from formula (4.36):

π 2 EI π 2 30000 ⋅ 4.5
Fcr = = = 578.3 MN
4H 2 4 ⋅ 242

When the shear wall is subjected to uniformly distributed load on storey levels, the
critical load is obtained from formula (4.37):

7.837rs EI 7.837 ⋅ 0.834 ⋅ 30000 ⋅ 4.5

N cr = = = 1532 MN
H2 242

where rs = 0.834 is the reduction factor from Table 4.4.

If the shear wall is a bracing unit whose load share is p = 120.0 kN/m as a UDL at every
storey level, then after making use of formulae (4.49) and (4.51), the critical load ratio is

- 47 -
obtained as

N cr 1532
λ= = = 266 > 10
N 0.12 ⋅ 6 ⋅ 8

The comparison of this ratio to those obtained with frameworks clearly demonstrates
the well-known fact that shear walls are by orders of magnitude more effective as bracing
units than frameworks.
It is important to note that the above shear wall was supposed to develop bending in its
plane. If buckling perpendicular to its plane is not prevented by some bracing structure in the
perpendicular plane, then the critical load of the wall in the perpendicular direction should
also be considered. The analysis in the plane perpendicular to the shear wall results in much
smaller critical loads.
The critical concentrated load (4.36) assumes the value:

π 2 EI π 2 30000 ⋅ 0.0078
Fcr = = = 1.0 MN
4H 2 4 ⋅ 242

When the shear wall is subjected to uniformly distributed load on storey levels, the
global critical load (4.37) is

7.837rs EI 7.837 ⋅ 0.834 ⋅ 30000 ⋅ 0.0078

N cr = = = 2.66 MN
H2 242

With the same UDL on floor levels as above, the ratio of the critical load to the applied
load is now obtained as

N cr 2.66
λ= = = 0.46 < 10
N 0.12 ⋅ 6 ⋅ 8

showing an unstable structure, if buckling is not prevented in the perpendicular direction.

6.2.2 Coupled shear walls CSWSH3
Three shear walls are linked together by beams at storey levels resulting in the coupled shear
wall system CSWSH3 in a regular network (Fig. 6.6). The thickness of the system is 0.20 m.
The width of the two side walls is 2.0 m and that of the wall in the middle is 3.0 m. All the
beams are identical, with a length of 2.0 m and a cross-section of 1.5×0.2 = 0.3 m2. The storey
height is h = 3.0 m and the total height of the eighteen-storey structure is H = 54.0 m. The
modulus of elasticity of the structure is E = 30000 MN/m2. The modulus of elasticity in shear
is G = 12500 MN/m2.
The following stiffness characteristics are needed for the calculation.
The global shear stiffness is defined by formulae (4.38):
n −1
2 ⋅ 6 ⋅ 30000 ⋅ 0.05625(42 + 52 )
K g* = ∑ = 13204 MN
3  1.2 ⋅ 30000 ⋅ 0.05625 
1
2 ⋅ 31 + 12 
 22 ⋅12500 ⋅ 0.3 

The local shear stiffness is obtained from formula (4.4):

- 48 -
 n
π 2 Ec I c ,i π 2 30000(2 ⋅ 0.1333 + 0.45)
Kl = ∑ = = 23577 MN
1 h2 32

The shear stiffness is obtained from formula (4.39):

Kl 13204 ⋅ 23577
K * = K g* =*
= 8464 MN
K + K l 13204 + 23577
g

Combination factor (4.43), characteristic of the behaviour of the structure, assumes the
value

Kl 23577
r= *
= = 0.641
K + K l 13204 + 23577
g

0.75 1.5

3.0 1.5
1.5
3.0 1.5
1.5
3.0 1.5

1.5 54.75 m
3.0
1.5
3.0 1.5
1.5
3.0 1.5
1.5
3.0 2.25

2 2 3 2 2

Figure 6.6. Coupled shear walls CSWSH3.

The local bending critical load is obtained from formula (4.7) for the concentrated load:

π 2 Ec I c π 2 30000(2 ⋅ 0.1333 + 0.45)

Fl = = = 18.19 MN
4H 2 4 ⋅ 542

and from formula (4.8) for the UDL:

- 49 -
 7.837rs Ec I c 7.837 ⋅ 0.919 ⋅ 30000(2 ⋅ 0.1333 + 0.45)
Nl = = = 53.10 MN
H2 542

The global bending critical load assumes the value

π 2 Ec I g π 2 30000 ⋅ 16.2
Fg = = = 411.2 MN
4H 2 4 ⋅ 542

for concentrated forces [formula (4.9)] and

7.837 rs Ec I g 7.837 ⋅ 0.919 ⋅ 30000 ⋅ 16.2

Ng = = = 1200 MN
H2 54 2

when the framework is under UDL [formula (4.10)]. The global second moment of area in the
above formulae is obtained using formula (4.2a):
n
I g = ∑ Ac ,iti2 = 2 ⋅ 0.4 ⋅ 4.52 = 16.2 m4
1

Stiffness ratios β and βs [formulae (4.11) and (4.12)] are also needed for the
computation:

K * 8464
β= = = 159.4
Nl 53.1
and
K * 8464
βs = = = 7.05
N g 1200

The critical load parameters are now obtained from Tables 4.1 and 4.3 as a function of β
and βs as
α = 199.6 and α s = 0.133

With the above stiffness and geometrical characteristics, the critical loads can now be
produced.
The critical load for frameworks under concentrated forces is obtained from formula
(4.41):

rFl K * 0.641 ⋅18.19 ⋅ 8464

rFl + K * + 0.641 ⋅18.19 + 8464 +
Fg 411.2
Fcr = = = 403.8 MN
K* 1+
8464
1+
Fg 411.2

When the framework is subjected to UDL on the beams, the critical load is obtained
from formula (4.42):

- 50 -
 0.641 ⋅ 53.1(1 + 199.6 − 159.4 + 2 ⋅ 7.05) + 8464(1 + 0.133 + 0.133 ⋅ 7.05)
N cr = = 1205 MN
2(1 + 7.05)

The concentrated forces on the columns and the intensity of the UDL on the floor levels
that is transmitted to the couple shear walls assume the value

Fi = 1.0 MN and p = 60 kN/m

In this case, the total external concentrated load is

n
F = ∑ Fi = 3.0 MN
1

The total UDL is obtained from formula (4.51) as

N = pLn = 0.06 ⋅11 ⋅18 = 11.88 MN

With the external total loads and the critical loads now available, the global critical load
ratio is obtained from formula (4.50):
−1 −1
 N F 
 = 
11.88 3.0 
λ =  + +  = 57.8
N
 cr Fcr   1205 403 .8 

Criterion (4.53)

λ ≥ 10

is fulfilled.
According to this result, the coupled shear wall system is stable enough to be a bracing
unit in a building where the load shares on the coupled shear walls correspond to those
assumed above. No second order effects have to be considered, as far as in-plane stability is
concerned.
6.2.3 Symmetrical cross-wall system building BUISH1
In most practical cases, a system of bracing units is created by linking them by the floor slabs
at storey levels. One possibility for creating such a system is the commonly used cross-wall
system arrangement. To avoid unfavourable torsional effects, the system is symmetrical in
many cases. To show how the formulae can be applied to such systems in structural
engineering design, compute the critical load ratio of the eighteen-storey cross-wall system
building BUISH1 shown in Fig. 6.7. The building is braced by five frameworks and two
systems of coupled shear walls in a symmetrical arrangement. The seven bracing units
represent the following three different types.

CSWSH3 - two systems of coupled shear walls,

FPSH3 - four frameworks on pinned supports without ground floor beams,
FPSH4 - one framework on pinned supports with ground floor beams.

All these types have already been analysed in Section 6.1.5 (FPSH3), Section 6.1.6
(FPSH4) and Section 6.2.2 (CSWSH3) and the results will be used for this example.

- 51 -
 The size of the building is 11.0 m in direction y and 42.0 m in direction x. The building
is subjected to UDL on the floors:

Q = 15 kN/m2

and concentrated forces at the top of the building. The sum of the concentrated forces is
m

∑F 1
j = 10 MN

CSWSH3 FPSH3 FPSH4 FPSH3 CSWSH3

L = 6·7=42 m

Figure 6.7. Symmetrical cross-wall system building BUISH1.

First, the critical loads of the bracing elements are needed:

CSWSH3: Fcr,1 = 403.8 MN, Ncr,1 = 1205.0 MN

FPSH3: Fcr,2 = 29.7 MN, Ncr,2 = 34.0 MN
FPSH4: Fcr,3 = 51.3 MN, Ncr,3 = 65.8 MN

Details of the computation of the above critical loads are given in sections 6.1.5, 6.1.6
and 6.2.2.
The critical load of the building for the concentrated load is obtained from formula
(4.46):
m
Fcrbu = ∑ Fcr , j = 977.7 MN
1

When the building is under UDL on the floors, the critical load is obtained from
formula (4.47):
m
N bu
cr = ∑ N cr , j = 2611.8 MN
1

- 52 -
 Formula (4.50) takes both loads into consideration and gives the critical load ratio:
−1 −1
 N F 
 = 
124.74 10 
λ =  + +  = 17.2 > 10
 N cr Fcr   2611.8 977.7 

where the total applied UDL is

N = QLBn = 0.015 ⋅11 ⋅ 42 ⋅18 = 124.74 MN

According to this result, the building is stable in direction y, and no second order effects
have to be considered.

7 Sample runs
The following numerical examples show the different application possibilities with PlaStab.

7.1 Problem identifier: 7-bay, 12-storey framework on fixed supports

File name: FFSH1.PLA
See Section 6.1.1 where the framework is investigated in detail

7.2 Problem identifier: FSat1: framework for Sheffield Arts Tower

File name: SAT1.PLA
See Section 6.1.2 where the framework is investigated in detail

7.3 Problem identifier: FSat2: framework for Sheffield Arts Tower

File name: SAT2.PLA
See Section 6.1.3 where the framework is investigated in detail

7.4 Problem identifier: Frame with (T)-shaped and (S)pecial beams

File name: FPSH2.PLA
See Section 6.1.4 where the framework is investigated in detail

7.5 Problem identifier: 2-bay, 18-storey frame on pinned supports

File name: FPSH3.PLA
See Section 6.1.5 where the framework is investigated in detail

7.6 Problem identifier: 2-bay, 18-storey frame on pinned supports

File name: FPSH4.PLA
See Section 6.1.6 where the framework is investigated in detail

7.7 Problem identifier: SR8; p19 in Global Stability of X-bracing Sys

File name: SR-X.PLA
See Section 6.1.7 where the framework is investigated in detail
This example is also documented in [Zalka, 1999]

7.8 Problem identifier: 8-storey shear wall

File name: SWSH1.PLA
See Section 6.2.1 where the shear wall is investigated in detail

- 53 -
7.9 Problem identifier: 2-bay, 18-storey coupled shear walls
File name: CSWSH3.PLA
See Section 6.2.2 where the coupled shear wall system is investigated in detail

7.10 Problem identifier: 18-storey building with 7 bracing elements

File name: BUISH1.BUI
See Section 6.2.3 where the building is investigated in detail

7.11 Job description: Framework FF1 with (D)ifferent columns

File name: FF14.PLA

This eight-storey, four-bay framework on fixed supports is an example to show how to carry
out the stability analysis when the framework has columns of different cross-section.

7.12 Job description: 10-storey, one bay, perspex framework model

File name: FFTEST.PLA

Sway buckling tests on this small-scale, non-proportional model were carried out at the
Technical University of Budapest in 1979 [Zalka and Armer, 1992]. The critical load of the
framework was determined by using Southwell’s Plot [Croll and Walker, 1972], based on the
load steps and the corresponding deformations, and also by using the LUSAS finite element
package [LUSAS, 1991]. The difference in the value of the critical load given by PlaStab
and by LUSAS was 5%; when PlaStab’s critical load was compared to the test result, the
difference was 18%. (The difference of the LUSAS result from the test result was 15%.)

7.13 Job description: 11-storey perspex coupled shear walls model

File name: CSWTEST.PLA

Sway buckling tests on this small-scale model of coupled shear walls were carried out at the
Technical University of Budapest in 1979 [Zalka and Armer, 1992]. The critical load of the
coupled shear walls was determined by using Southwell’s Plot [Croll and Walker, 1972],
based on the load steps and the corresponding deformations, and also by using the LUSAS
finite element package [LUSAS, 1991]. The difference in the value of the critical load given
by PlaStab and by LUSAS was 7%; when PlaStab’s critical load was compared to the test
result, the difference was 17%. (The difference of the LUSAS result from the test result was
26%.)

- 54 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M E W O R K S
Problem identifier: 7-bay, 12-storey framework on fixed supports
File name : FFSH1.PLA FIXED FRAMEWORK
Date: 17/ 5/2002. Time: 20:24 Page: 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BASIC DATA

Number of storeys : 12

Storey height : 2.90 M

Total height : 34.80 M

Number of columns : 8

Modulus of elasticity for columns: 29000.00 MN/ M 2

Modulus of elasticity for beams : 29000.00 MN/ M 2

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COLUMNS

In-plane Perpendicular A r e a Inertia

size (A) size (B) ( M 2) ( M 4 )

1. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133

2. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
3. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
4. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
5. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
6. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
7. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
8. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BEAMS

S p a n B e a m Flange Inertia
Type ( M ) depth width thickness width ( M 4 )

1. R 6.000 0.500 0.400 0.004167

2. R 6.000 0.500 0.400 0.004167
3. R 6.000 0.500 0.400 0.004167
4. R 6.000 0.500 0.400 0.004167
5. R 6.000 0.500 0.400 0.004167
6. R 6.000 0.500 0.400 0.004167
7. R 6.000 0.500 0.400 0.004167

APPLIED LOADS

Sum of the concentrated forces on top : 4.800 MN

Intensity of the UDL on the floors : 0.028 MN/ M
Total distributed load : 14.112 MN

- 55 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M E W O R K S
Problem identifier: 7-bay, 12-storey framework on fixed supports
File name : FFSH1.PLA FIXED FRAMEWORK
Date: 17/ 5/2002. Time: 20:24 Page: 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

R E S U L T S

Critical load for UDL on the beams : 312.26 MN

Critical intensity of this UDL : 0.62 MN/ M
Critical load for concentrated forces on top : 285.74 MN

Global critical load ratio : 16.1311

Size of equivalent wall for global analysis L :21.00 t : 0.00244

D E T A I L S

Shear critical load (K) : 291.04 MN

global (Kg) : 583.33 MN
local (Kl) : 580.83 MN

Full-height critical load of the framework

for UDL on the beams (Ng) : 40094.37 MN
for concentrated forces on top (Fg) : 14293.91 MN

Full-height critical load of the columns

for UDL on the beams (Nl) : 2.83 MN
for concentrated forces on top (Fl) : 1.01 MN

...........................................................................

Local inertia of the columns (Ic) : 0.02 M 4

Global inertia of the columns (Ig) : 241.92 M 4

Stiffness ratio (beta) : 102.89

Critical load parameter (alpha) : 133.67

Stiffness ratio (betaS) : 0.007

Critical load parameter (alphaS) : 1.000

Reduction factor (rs) : 0.883

Combination factor (r) : 0.499

- 56 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M E W O R K S
Problem identifier: FSat1: framework for Sheffield Arts Tower
File name : SAT1.PLA FIXED FRAMEWORK
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 18:36 Page: 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIC DATA
Number of storeys : 22

Storey height : 3.00 M

Total height : 66.00 M

Number of columns : 13

Modulus of elasticity for columns: 23000.00 MN/ M 2

Modulus of elasticity for beams : 23000.00 MN/ M 2

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COLUMNS

In-plane Perpendicular A r e a Inertia

size (A) size (B) ( M 2) ( M 4 )

1. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133

2. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
3. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
4. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
5. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
6. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
7. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
8. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
9. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
10. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
11. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
12. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
13. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BEAMS

S p a n B e a m Flange Inertia
Type ( M ) depth width thickness width ( M 4 )

1. R 3.000 0.400 0.400 0.002133

2. R 3.000 0.400 0.400 0.002133
3. R 3.000 0.400 0.400 0.002133
4. R 3.000 0.400 0.400 0.002133
5. R 3.000 0.400 0.400 0.002133
6. R 3.000 0.400 0.400 0.002133
7. R 3.000 0.400 0.400 0.002133
8. R 3.000 0.400 0.400 0.002133
9. R 3.000 0.400 0.400 0.002133
10. R 3.000 0.400 0.400 0.002133
11. R 3.000 0.400 0.400 0.002133
12. R 3.000 0.400 0.400 0.002133

APPLIED LOADS

Sum of the concentrated forces on top : 0.000 MN

Intensity of the UDL on the floors : 0.000 MN/ M
Total distributed load : 0.000 MN

- 57 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M E W O R K S
Problem identifier: FSat1: framework for Sheffield Arts Tower
File name : SAT1.PLA FIXED FRAMEWORK
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 18:36 Page: 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

R E S U L T S

Critical load for UDL on the beams : 379.46 MN

Critical intensity of this UDL : 0.48 MN/ M
Critical load for concentrated forces on top : 333.92 MN

Global critical load ratio : ------

Size of equivalent wall for global analysis L :36.00 t : 0.00253

D E T A I L S

Shear critical load (K) : 369.91 MN

global (Kg) : 785.07 MN
local (Kl) : 699.50 MN

Full-height critical load of the framework

for UDL on the beams (Ng) : 10114.71 MN
for concentrated forces on top (Fg) : 3414.39 MN

Full-height critical load of the columns

for UDL on the beams (Nl) : 1.07 MN
for concentrated forces on top (Fl) : 0.36 MN

...........................................................................

Local inertia of the columns (Ic) : 0.03 M 4

Global inertia of the columns (Ig) : 262.08 M 4

Stiffness ratio (beta) : 345.60

Critical load parameter (alpha) : 410.63

Stiffness ratio (betaS) : 0.037

Critical load parameter (alphaS) : 1.000

Reduction factor (rs) : 0.933

Combination factor (r) : 0.471

- 58 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M E W O R K S
Problem identifier: FSat2: framework for Sheffield Arts Tower
File name : SAT2.PLA FIXED FRAMEWORK
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 18:37 Page: 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BASIC DATA

Number of storeys : 22

Storey height : 3.00 M

Total height : 66.00 M

Number of columns : 8

Modulus of elasticity for columns: 23000.00 MN/ M 2

Modulus of elasticity for beams : 23000.00 MN/ M 2

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COLUMNS

In-plane Perpendicular A r e a Inertia

size (A) size (B) ( M 2) ( M 4 )

1. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133

2. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
3. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
4. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
5. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
6. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
7. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
8. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BEAMS

S p a n B e a m Flange Inertia
Type ( M ) depth width thickness width ( M 4 )

1. R 2.850 0.400 0.400 0.002133

2. R 2.850 0.400 0.400 0.002133
3. R 2.850 0.400 0.400 0.002133
4. R 2.850 0.400 0.400 0.002133
5. R 2.850 0.400 0.400 0.002133
6. R 2.850 0.400 0.400 0.002133
7. R 2.850 0.400 0.400 0.002133

APPLIED LOADS

Sum of the concentrated forces on top : 0.000 MN

Intensity of the UDL on the floors : 0.000 MN/ M
Total distributed load : 0.000 MN

- 59 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M E W O R K S
Problem identifier: FSat2: framework for Sheffield Arts Tower
File name : SAT2.PLA FIXED FRAMEWORK
Date: 18/ 5/2012. Time: 18:37 Page: 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

R E S U L T S

Critical load for UDL on the beams : 225.61 MN

Critical intensity of this UDL : 0.51 MN/ M
Critical load for concentrated forces on top : 172.41 MN

Global critical load ratio : ------

Size of equivalent wall for global analysis L :19.95 t : 0.00883

D E T A I L S

Shear critical load (K) : 227.40 MN

global (Kg) : 482.06 MN
local (Kl) : 430.46 MN

Full-height critical load of the framework

for UDL on the beams (Ng) : 2106.58 MN
for concentrated forces on top (Fg) : 711.11 MN

Full-height critical load of the columns

for UDL on the beams (Nl) : 0.66 MN
for concentrated forces on top (Fl) : 0.22 MN

...........................................................................

Local inertia of the columns (Ic) : 0.02 M 4

Global inertia of the columns (Ig) : 54.58 M 4

Stiffness ratio (beta) : 345.24

Critical load parameter (alpha) : 410.23

Stiffness ratio (betaS) : 0.108

Critical load parameter (alphaS) : 1.000

Reduction factor (rs) : 0.933

Combination factor (r) : 0.472

- 60 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M E W O R K S
Problem identifier: Frame with (T)-shaped and (S)pecial beams
File name : FPSH2.PLA PINNED FRAMEWORK WITHOUT FLOOR BEAMS
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 18:23 Page: 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BASIC DATA

Number of storeys : 8

Storey height : 3.00 M

Total height : 24.00 M

Number of columns : 3

Modulus of elasticity for columns: 30000.00 MN/ M 2

Modulus of elasticity for beams : 30000.00 MN/ M 2

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COLUMNS

In-plane Perpendicular A r e a Inertia

size (A) size (B) ( M 2) ( M 4 )

1. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133

2. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
3. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BEAMS

S p a n B e a m Flange Inertia
Type ( M ) depth width thickness width ( M 4 )

1. T 6.000 0.400 0.300 0.050 0.600 0.002011

2. S 6.000 0.002000

APPLIED LOADS

Sum of the concentrated forces on top : 3.000 MN

Intensity of the UDL on the floors : 0.030 MN/ M
Total distributed load : 2.880 MN

- 61 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M E W O R K S
Problem identifier: Frame with (T)-shaped and (S)pecial beams
File name : FPSH2.PLA PINNED FRAMEWORK WITHOUT FLOOR BEAMS
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 18:23 Page: 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

R E S U L T S

Critical load for UDL on the beams : 33.17 MN

Critical intensity of this UDL : 0.35 MN/ M
Critical load for concentrated forces on top : 31.12 MN

Global critical load ratio : 5.46

Size of equivalent wall for global analysis L : 6.00 t : 0.00541

D E T A I L S
Shear critical load (K) : 31.78 MN
global (Kg) : 80.23 MN
local (Kl) : 52.64 MN

Full-height critical load of the framework

for UDL on the beams (Ng) : 3923.36 MN
for concentrated forces on top (Fg) : 1480.44 MN

Fictitious full-height critical load of the columns

for UDL on the beams (Nl) : 2.18 MN
for concentrated forces on top (Fl) : 0.82 MN

...........................................................................

Local inertia of the columns (Ic) : 0.01 M 4

Global inertia of the columns (Ig) : 11.52 M 4

Stiffness ratio (beta) : 14.58

Critical load parameter (alphap) : 18.12

Stiffness ratio (betaS) : 0.008

Critical load parameter (alphaS) : 1.000

Reduction factor (rs) : 0.834

Combination factor (r) : 0.396

- 62 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M E W O R K S
Problem identifier: 2-bay, 18-storey frame on pinned supports
File name : FPSH3.PLA PINNED FRAMEWORK WITHOUT FLOOR BEAMS
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 18:54 Page: 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BASIC DATA

Number of storeys : 18

Storey height : 3.00 M

Total height : 54.00 M

Number of columns : 3

Modulus of elasticity for columns: 30000.00 MN/ M 2

Modulus of elasticity for beams : 30000.00 MN/ M 2

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COLUMNS

In-plane Perpendicular A r e a Inertia

size (A) size (B) ( M 2) ( M 4 )

1. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133

2. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
3. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BEAMS

S p a n B e a m Flange Inertia
Type ( M ) depth width thickness width ( M 4 )

1. R 5.300 0.400 0.400 0.002133

2. R 5.300 0.400 0.400 0.002133

APPLIED LOADS

Sum of the concentrated forces on top : 3.000 MN

Intensity of the UDL on the floors : 0.030 MN/ M
Total distributed load : 5.724 MN

- 63 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M E W O R K S
Problem identifier: 2-bay, 18-storey frame on pinned supports
File name : FPSH3.PLA PINNED FRAMEWORK WITHOUT FLOOR BEAMS
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 18:54 Page: 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

R E S U L T S

Critical load for UDL on the beams : 34.01 MN

Critical intensity of this UDL : 0.18 MN/ M
Critical load for concentrated forces on top : 29.65 MN

Global critical load ratio : 3.71

Size of equivalent wall for global analysis L :10.60 t : 0.00462

D E T A I L S

Shear critical load (K) : 34.07 MN

global (Kg) : 96.60 MN
local (Kl) : 52.64 MN

Full-height critical load of the framework

for UDL on the beams (Ng) : 665.99 MN
for concentrated forces on top (Fg) : 228.18 MN

Fictitious full-height critical load of the columns

for UDL on the beams (Nl) : 0.47 MN
for concentrated forces on top (Fl) : 0.16 MN

..........................................................................

Local inertia of the columns (Ic) : 0.01 M 4

Global inertia of the columns (Ig) : 8.99 M 4

Stiffness ratio (beta) : 71.86

Critical load parameter (alphap) : 81.50

Stiffness ratio (betaS) : 0.051

Critical load parameter (alphaS) : 1.000

Reduction factor (rs) : 0.919

Combination factor (r) : 0.353

- 64 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M E W O R K S
Problem identifier: 2-bay, 18-storey frame on pinned supports gfb
File name : FPSH4.PLA PINNED FRAMEWORK WITH FLOOR BEAMS
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 18:58 Page: 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BASIC DATA

Number of storeys : 18

Storey height : 3.00 M

Total height : 54.00 M

Number of columns : 3

Modulus of elasticity for columns: 30000.00 MN/ M 2

Modulus of elasticity for beams : 30000.00 MN/ M 2

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COLUMNS

In-plane Perpendicular A r e a Inertia

size (A) size (B) ( M 2) ( M 4 )

1. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133

2. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133
3. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BEAMS

S p a n B e a m Flange Inertia
Type ( M ) depth width thickness width ( M 4 )

1. R 5.300 0.400 0.400 0.002133

2. R 5.300 0.400 0.400 0.002133

APPLIED LOADS

Sum of the concentrated forces on top : 3.000 MN

Intensity of the UDL on the floors : 0.030 MN/ M
Total distributed load : 5.724 MN

- 65 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M E W O R K S
Problem identifier: 2-bay, 18-storey frame on pinned supports gfb
File name : FPSH4.PLA PINNED FRAMEWORK WITH FLOOR BEAMS
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 18:58 Page: 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

R E S U L T S

Critical load for UDL on the beams : 65.77 MN

Critical intensity of this UDL : 0.34 MN/ M
Critical load for concentrated forces on top : 51.33 MN

Global critical load ratio : 6.87

Size of equivalent wall for global analysis L :10.60 t : 0.00894

D E T A I L S

Shear critical load (K) : 66.22 MN

global (Kg) : 96.60 MN
local (Kl) : 210.55 MN

Full-height critical load of the framework

for UDL on the beams (Ng) : 724.75 MN
for concentrated forces on top (Fg) : 228.18 MN

Fictitious full-height critical load of the columns

for UDL on the beams (Nl) : 0.52 MN
for concentrated forces on top (Fl) : 0.16 MN

...........................................................................

Local inertia of the columns (Ic) : 0.01 M 4

Global inertia of the columns (Ig) : 8.99 M 4

Stiffness ratio (beta) : 128.33

Critical load parameter (alphap) : 142.31

Stiffness ratio (betaS) : 0.091

Critical load parameter (alphaS) : 1.000

Reduction factor (rs) : 1.000

Combination factor (r) : 0.685

- 66 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M E W O R K S
Problem identifier: SR8; p19 in Global Stability of X-bracing sys
File name : SR-X.PLA FRAMEWORK WITH CROSS-BRACING
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 19: 4 Page: 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BASIC DATA

Number of storeys : 8

Storey height : 3.00 M

Total height : 24.00 M

Number of columns : 2

Modulus of elasticity for columns : 200000.00 MN/ M 2

Modulus of elasticity for beams : 200000.00 MN/ M 2

Modulus of elasticity for diagonals: 200000.00 MN/ M 2

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COLUMNS

In-plane Perpendicular A r e a Inertia

size (A) size (B) ( M 2) ( M 4 )

0.0174 0.000328
0.0174 0.000328

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BEAMS

S p a n B e a m Flange Area
Type ( M ) depth width thickness width ( M 2 )

1. R 3.000 0.057 0.100 0.005730

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SINGLE CROSS-BRACING

S p a n B e a m Flange Area
Type ( M ) depth width thickness width ( M 2 )

1. R 3.000 0.038 0.100 0.003750

APPLIED LOADS

Sum of the concentrated forces on top : 1.000 MN

Intensity of the UDL on the floors : 0.000 MN/ M
Total distributed load : 0.000 MN

- 67 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M E W O R K S
Problem identifier: SR8; p19 in Global Stability of X-bracing sys
File name : SR-X.PLA FRAMEWORK WITH CROSS-BRACING
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 19: 4 Page: 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

R E S U L T S

Critical load for UDL on the beams : 124.92 MN

Critical intensity of this UDL : 5.21 MN/ M
Critical load for concentrated forces on top : 51.15 MN

Global critical load ratio : 51.15

Size of equivalent wall for global analysis L : 3.00 t : 0.02445

D E T A I L S

Shear critical load (K) : 215.34 MN

based on the beams (Kb) : 1146.00 MN
based on the diagonals (Kd) : 265.17 MN

Full-height critical load of the framework

for UDL on the beams (Ng) : 177.78 MN
for concentrated forces on top (Fg) : 67.08 MN

Full-height critical load of the columns

for UDL on the beams (Nl) : 1.49 MN
for concentrated forces on top (Fl) : 0.56 MN

...........................................................................

Global inertia of the columns (Ig) : 0.078 m4

Stiffness ratio (betaS) : 1.211

Critical load parameter (alphaS) : 0.580

Reduction factor (rs) : 0.834

- 68 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F S H E A R W A L L S
Problem identifier: 8-storey shear wall
File name : SWSH1.PLA SHEAR WALL
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 20: 0 Page: 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BASIC DATA

Number of storeys : 8

Storey height : 3.00 M

Total height : 24.00 M

Number of walls : 1

Modulus of elasticity for walls : 30000.00 MN/ M 2

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WALLS

Width of Thickness of A r e a Inertia

wall wall ( M 2 ) ( M 4 )

1. 6.000 0.250 1.5000 4.500000

APPLIED LOADS

Sum of the concentrated forces on top : 0.000 MN

Intensity of the UDL on the floors : 0.120 MN/ M
Total distributed load : 5.760 MN

R E S U L T S

Critical load for UDL on the beams : 1532.56 MN

Critical intensity of this UDL : 31.93 MN/ M
Critical load for concentrated forces on top : 578.30 MN

Global critical load ratio : 266.07

Reduction factor (rs) : 0.834

- 69 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F C . S H E A R W A L L S
Problem identifier: 2-bay, 18-storey coupled shear walls
File name : CSWSH3.PLA COUPLED SHEAR WALLS
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 20: 5 Page: 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BASIC DATA

Number of storeys : 18

Storey height : 3.00 M

Total height : 54.00 M

Number of walls : 3

Modulus of elasticity for walls : 30000.00 MN/ M 2

Modulus of elasticity for beams : 30000.00 MN/ M 2

Shear modulus : 12500.00 MN/ M 2

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WALLS

Width of Thickness of A r e a Inertia

wall wall ( M 2 ) ( M 4 )

1. 2.000 0.200 0.4000 0.133333

2. 3.000 0.200 0.6000 0.450000
3. 2.000 0.200 0.4000 0.133333

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BEAMS

Length B e a m Flange Inertia

Type ( M ) depth width thickness width ( M 4 )

1. R 2.000 1.500 0.200 0.056250

2. R 2.000 1.500 0.200 0.056250

APPLIED LOADS

Sum of the concentrated forces on top : 3.000 MN

Intensity of the UDL on the floors : 0.060 MN/ M
Total distributed load : 11.880 MN

- 70 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F C. S H E A R W A L L S
Problem identifier: 2-bay, 18-storey coupled shear walls
File name : CSWSH3.PLA COUPLED SHEAR WALLS
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 20: 5 Page: 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

R E S U L T S

Critical load for UDL on the beams : 1204.49 MN

Critical intensity of this UDL : 6.08 MN/ M
Critical load for concentrated forces on top : 403.84 MN

Global critical load ratio : 57.83

Size of equivalent wall for global analysis L :11.00 t : 0.14657

D E T A I L S

Shear critical load (K) : 8463.84 MN

global (Kg) : 13203.72 MN
local (Kl) : 23577.39 MN

Full-height critical load of the coupled shear wall

for UDL on the beams (Ng) : 1200.27 MN
for concentrated forces on top (Fg) : 411.23 MN

Full-height critical load of the walls

for UDL on the beams (Nl) : 53.10 MN
for concentrated forces on top (Fl) : 18.19 MN

...........................................................................

Local inertia of the columns (Ic) : 0.72 M 4

Global inertia of the columns (Ig) : 16.20 M 4

Stiffness ratio (beta) : 159.40

Critical load parameter (alpha) : 199.60

Stiffness ratio (betaS) : 7.052

Critical load parameter (alphaS) : 0.133

Reduction factor (rs) : 0.919

Combination factor (r) : 0.641

- 71 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P L A N A R S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F B U I L D I N G S
Problem identifier: 18-storey building with 7 bracing units
File name : BUISH1.BUI
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 20: 8 Page: 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATA OF THE BUILDING:

Number of frames/shear walls : 7

The bracing units of the building:

CSWSH3.PLA
FPSH3.PLA
FPSH3.PLA
FPSH4.PLA
FPSH3.PLA
FPSH3.PLA
CSWSH3.PLA

Width of the building : 11.00 M

Length of the building : 42.00 M

Number of storeys : 18

Sum of concentrated forces on top : 10.00 MN

Intensity of the UDL on the floors: 15.00 KN/M 2

R E S U L T S

Critical load for UDL on the floors : 2610.79 MN

Critical load for concentrated forces on roof level: 977.59 MN

Global critical load ratio

for concentrated forces only : 97.76

for UDL only : 20.93

for the total applied load : 17.24

- 72 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M E W O R K S
Problem identifier: Framework FF1 with (D)ifferent columns
File name : FF14.PLA FIXED FRAMEWORK
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 20:11 Page: 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BASIC DATA

Number of storeys : 8

Storey height : 3.00 M

Total height : 24.00 M

Number of columns : 5

Modulus of elasticity for columns: 30000.00 MN/ M 2

Modulus of elasticity for beams : 30000.00 MN/ M 2

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COLUMNS

In-plane Perpendicular A r e a Inertia

size (A) size (B) ( M 2) ( M 4 )

1. 0.400 0.400 0.1600 0.002133

2. 0.410 0.390 0.1599 0.002240
3. 0.420 0.380 0.1596 0.002346
4. 0.420 0.400 0.1680 0.002470
5. 0.410 0.400 0.1640 0.002297

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BEAMS

S p a n B e a m Flange Inertia
Type ( M ) depth width thickness width ( M 4 )

1. R 3.000 0.700 0.400 0.011433

2. R 3.000 0.700 0.400 0.011433
3. R 3.000 0.700 0.400 0.011433
4. R 3.000 0.700 0.400 0.011433

APPLIED LOADS

Sum of the concentrated forces on top : 5.000 MN

Intensity of the UDL on the floors : 0.030 MN/ M
Total distributed load : 2.880 MN

- 73 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M E W O R K S
Problem identifier: Framework FF1 with (D)ifferent columns
File name : FF14.PLA FIXED FRAMEWORK
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 20:11 Page: 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

R E S U L T S

Critical load for UDL on the beams : 312.61 MN

Critical intensity of this UDL : 3.26 MN/ M
Critical load for concentrated forces on top : 268.67 MN

Global critical load ratio : 35.94

Size of equivalent wall for global analysis L :12.00 t : 0.00637

D E T A I L S

Shear critical load (K) : 313.19 MN

global (Kg) : 1829.33 MN
local (Kl) : 377.89 MN

Full-height critical load of the framework

for UDL on the beams (Ng) : 4976.48 MN
for concentrated forces on top (Fg) : 1877.82 MN

Full-height critical load of the columns

for UDL on the beams (Nl) : 3.91 MN
for concentrated forces on top (Fl) : 1.48 MN

...........................................................................

Local inertia of the columns (Ic) : 0.01 M 4

Global inertia of the columns (Ig) : 14.61 M 4

Stiffness ratio (beta) : 80.06

Critical load parameter (alpha) : 106.51

Stiffness ratio (betaS) : 0.063

Critical load parameter (alphaS) : 1.000

Reduction factor (rs) : 0.834

Combination factor (r) : 0.171

- 74 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M E W O R K S
Problem identifier: 10-storey, one-bay perspex frame model (TUB)
File name : FFTEST.PLA FIXED FRAMEWORK
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 20:12 Page: 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BASIC DATA

Number of storeys : 10

Storey height : 80.00 MM

Total height : 800.00 MM

Number of columns : 2

Modulus of elasticity for columns: 3.20 KN/MM 2

Modulus of elasticity for beams : 3.20 KN/MM 2

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COLUMNS

In-plane Perpendicular A r e a Inertia

size (A) size (B) (MM 2) (MM 4 )

1. 15.650 120.000 1878.0000 38330.371250

2. 10.100 120.000 1212.0000 10303.010000

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BEAMS

S p a n B e a m Flange Inertia
Type ( MM ) depth width thickness width ( MM 4 )

1. R 150.000 7.200 120.000 3732.480000

APPLIED LOADS

Sum of the concentrated forces on top : 10.000 KN

Intensity of the UDL on the floors : 0.000 KN/MM
Total distributed load : 0.000 KN

- 75 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M E W O R K S
Problem identifier: 10-storey, one-bay perspex frame model (TUB)
File name : FFTEST.PLA FIXED FRAMEWORK
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 20:12 Page: 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

R E S U L T S

Critical load for UDL on the beams : 17.21 KN

Critical intensity of this UDL : 0.01 KN/MM
Critical load for concentrated forces on top : 11.35 KN

Global critical load ratio : 1.13

Size of equivalent wall for global analysis L :150.00 t : 1.80998

D E T A I L S

Shear critical load (K) : 11.38 KN

global (Kg) : 11.94 KN
local (Kl) : 240.00 KN

Full-height critical load of the framework

for UDL on the beams (Ng) : 560.44 KN
for concentrated forces on top (Fg) : 204.47 KN

Full-height critical load of the columns

for UDL on the beams (Nl) : 1.64 KN
for concentrated forces on top (Fl) : 0.60 KN

...........................................................................

Local inertia of the columns (Ic) : 48633.38 MM 4

Global inertia of the columns (Ig) : 16573805.83 MM 4

Stiffness ratio (beta) : 6.92

Critical load parameter (alpha) : 13.63

Stiffness ratio (betaS) : 0.020

Critical load parameter (alphaS) : 1.000

Reduction factor (rs) : 0.863

Combination factor (r) : 0.953

- 76 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F C . S H E A R W A L L S
Problem identifier: 11-storey perspex coupled shear walls at BTU
File name : CSWTEST.PLA COUPLED SHEAR WALLS
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 20:14 Page: 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BASIC DATA

Number of storeys : 11

Storey height : 73.00 MM

Total height : 803.00 MM

Number of walls : 2

Modulus of elasticity for walls : 3.20 KN/MM 2

Modulus of elasticity for beams : 3.20 KN/MM 2

Shear modulus : 1.60 KN/MM 2

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WALLS

Width of Thickness of A r e a Inertia

wall wall (MM 2 ) (MM 4 )

1. 55.000 9.900 544.5000 137259.375000

2. 55.000 9.900 544.5000 137259.375000

GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BEAMS

Length B e a m Flange Inertia

Type ( MM ) depth width thickness width ( MM 4 )

1. R 50.000 7.000 9.900 282.975000

APPLIED LOADS

Sum of the concentrated forces on top : 10.000 KN

Intensity of the UDL on the floors : 0.000 KN/MM
Total distributed load : 0.000 KN

- 77 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F C. S H E A R W A L L S
Problem identifier: 11-storey perspex coupled shear walls at BTU
File name : CSWTEST.PLA COUPLED SHEAR WALLS
Date: 18/ 5/2002. Time: 20:14 Page: 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

R E S U L T S

Critical load for UDL on the beams : 29.13 KN

Critical intensity of this UDL : 0.02 KN/MM
Critical load for concentrated forces on top : 12.63 KN

Global critical load ratio : 1.26

Size of equivalent wall for global analysis L :160.00 t : 2.51150

D E T A I L S

Shear critical load (K) : 12.44 KN

global (Kg) : 12.54 KN
local (Kl) : 1626.96 KN

Full-height critical load of the coupled shear wall

for UDL on the beams (Ng) : 102.01 KN
for concentrated forces on top (Fg) : 36.75 KN

Full-height critical load of the walls

for UDL on the beams (Nl) : 9.33 KN
for concentrated forces on top (Fl) : 3.36 KN

...........................................................................

Local inertia of the columns (Ic) : 274518.75 MM 4

Global inertia of the columns (Ig) : 3001556.25 MM 4

Stiffness ratio (beta) : 1.33

Critical load parameter (alpha) : 4.30

Stiffness ratio (betaS) : 0.122

Critical load parameter (alphaS) : 1.000

Reduction factor (rs) : 0.874

Combination factor (r) : 0.992

- 78 -
8 References
Croll, A.G.J. and Walker, C.A., 1972: Elements of structural stability. Macmillan, London
Hegedűs, I. and Kollár, L.P, 1987: Stabilitätsuntersuchung von Rahmen und Wandscheiben
mit der Sandwichtheorie. Die Bautechnik, 64, 420–425
Kollár, L. Ed., 1999: Structural stability in engineering practice. E & FN Spon, London
LUSAS, 1991: Lusas Finite Element Analysis System: Finite Element Analysis Ltd, 66 High
Street, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey, KT1 1HN, UK
MacLeod, I.A. and Zalka, K.A., 1996: The global critical load ratio approach to stability of
building structures. The Structural Engineer, 74, (15), 249-254
Tarnai, T., 1999: Summation theorems concerning critical loads of bifurcation. In Structural
stability in engineering practice. Ed. L. Kollár, E & FN Spon, London, 23-58
Zalka, K.A. and Armer, G.S.T., 1992: Stability of large structures. Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford
Zalka, K.A., 1999: Full-height buckling of frameworks with cross-bracing. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers. Structures and Buildings. 134, 181-191
Zalka, K.A., 2000: Global structural analysis of buildings. E & FN Spon, London
Zalka, K.A., 2002: Stability, stress and frequency analyses of shear-wall structures. Manual
for the computer procedure Global, version 4.32. Budapest

- 79 -