You are on page 1of 12

A simplified model for

linear dynamic analyses of


planar frame- wall systems
G. Oliveto
Instltuto dt Sctenza delle Costruziom, Universtt~ di Catama Vtale A_ Dorta 6, 95125

Catania. Italy
A. Santini
IstltUtO dt Ingegneria Cwde ed Energetica, Universttd di Regglo Calabria, Via Vittorto
Veneto 69, 89100 Reggto Calabria, Italy

This paper presents t w o simplified methods for dynamic analyses of


f r a m e - wall structures. The methods are based on some simplifying
assumptions widely used in the literature. One method has been
derived for frequency-domain analyses and may be most useful when
dynamic loads are specified as random processes. One particular
feature of the method is that all modal components of the physical
model are included in the analyses. A second aspect of interest is that
hysteretic as well as viscous damping may be easily included. The
second model is better suited for time-domain analyses. Novel
aspects of the t w o methods are the inclusion of shear deformation
effects in the structural elements, rotational inertia in the girders and
a rotational component for the base motion. Some results obtained by
the present methods are also compared with those available in
the literature. Finally some parametric studies are conducted in order
to assess the behaviour of uniform f r a m e - w a l l systems.

Keywords: f r a m e - w a l l structures,
quency domain, time domain
Frame-wall and frame-coupled wall structural
systems are widely used in high rise buildings to resist
horizontal forces arising from wind and earthquake
loading. In particular, frame-coupled wall systems have
been recognized L2 to inherently possess response
characteristics that accord with optimum seismic design
criteria 3. These seismic design criteria require that the
structural system behaves linearly not only under frequent minor earthquake ground shaking, but also during
occasional moderate seismic events. Of course, it may
undergo inelastic deformations during a rare but probable major earthquake shaking. All this calls for both
linear and nonlinear dynamic analyses to be performed
on the structural system.
General purpose, finite-element, three-dimensional,
linear analysis computer programs 4 have been available
for some time. Two-dimensional, nonlinear analysis
programs have also been available 5-7. However, the
use of such programs is possible and justified only after
the prehminary design stage has been completed and
sizes and detailing of the structural elements have
become available, m the preliminary design stage ~t
would be desirable to obtain an estimate of the maximum
dynamic response even if the actual sizes of the structural elements are not yet known and only the relative
stiffnesses of the major structural components may be
anticipated. These analyses should also be quick and in0141-O296/92/01015-12
1992 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd

linear dynamic analysis, fre-

expensive. For this reason several approximate models


involving the concept of an equivalent continuum beam
have been presented in the literature 8-15. Some of them
deal only with planar systems 8-1~, while others consider three-dimensional systems 12-~5.
Although the continuum approach analyses provide
invaluable information on the behaviour of frame-wall
structures and other combined systems, and allow for a
quick and reliable estimate of the static and dynamic
response of such systems, they cannot fully represent the
actual behaviour of a combined frame-wall system as
was pointed out by Coull and Khachatoorian 9.
Oliveto and Santini ~s, by using the same basic approximations of the equivalent continuum approach s,
have treated the problem discretely by means of the
transfer matrix method This allows for a simple formulatmn of the frequency response functions accounting
for all modes of vibration present in the mathematical
model. Both deterministic and random earthquake excitations may be handled via frequency-domain analyses
leading to estimates of the maximum linear structural
response much in need in the early design stages. The
fact that the analysis can be formulated, at least for
uniform braidings, in dimensionless form, the widespread usage of personal computers with enhanced computational and graphics capabilities, the minimal amount
of data required for input operations combined with
Eng. S t r u c t . 1 9 9 2 , Vol. 14, No 1

15

A simphfied model for hnear dynamtc analyses. G Ohveto and A. Santim


response characteristics of great appeal in the design
office, make this discrete method a reasonable alternative to the equivalent continuum approach
The paper also includes a section providing the stiffness and mass matrices of the structural system These
allow for the calculation of the natural frequencies and
mode shapes which may be used in an alternative modal
analysis either m the frequency or in the nine domain.
The natural frequencies may also be used to tune the
damping parameters of the model

The physical model


The main features of the physical model representing the
structural system have already been described in the
literature s'~5 The model is that of a frame and a wall
connected at floor levels by rigid links. Contrary to the
continuum approach all masses are here lumped at floor
levels The frame and wall elements are therefore
massless, although their masses may be included
amongst the lumped floor masses.
Viscous dampers are included at floor levels and
hysteretlc damping may easily be accommodated by
using complex moduh for the frame and wall
materials ~ The novel features of the present model include the rotational mertm and damping at floor levels,
and a rotational" component of the base motion. The
shear deformation in wall members may also be easily
accounted for

may be written as follows


-1

M,/h
.fiR!/h ~
~rRr/h 2

00~

-l

oo

1/6 - 1 / 2 1
1/2

-I

St

Mdh

i
1 ''

01|

ytRrth
cbtRf/h 2

(])
where the barred variables refer to the top of the column
and the unbarred ones refer to the bottom. Furthermore,
S[ denotes the shear force, My the bending moment, y/
the displacement and ~I the rotation. In the following it
is convenient to refer to a rigidity parameter R, which
accounts for the rigidity of both the frame and the wall,
l e., R, = R y + R , . where R~ = EI~ is the bending
rigidity of the wall By introducing the rigidity rano
p = R f f R I and by referring the state variables to R,
rather than RI, equation (1) becomes:

h
yyR,/h 3

li-1 o ooll sr 1
=

~fR,/h 2

-1

0 o

-3a

1 1

yfgt/h 3

3a

-6a

OfR,/h 2

M? h

(2)

Mathematical model for frequency-domain


analyses
In what follows a mathematical model will be provided
which allows for the evaluation of the relevant frequency
response funcnons of f r a m e - w a l l structural systems
due to both translational and rotational base motions.
These functions will be defined m terms of a few dimensionless parameters which will allow the relative importance of the relevant physical assumptions inherent in
the model to be assessed.
The field matrtx f o r a frame segment
It has been suggested in the literature 8 ~,~6-J9 that the
frame may be replaced by a single member of rigidity

where a = (1 + p)/6.
The field matruc f o r a wall segment
The field matrix for a wall segment is defined in a
similar way as that for a frame segment The relationship between the state variables at the two ends of a wall
segment may be written as follows

i,ll 0001i,l
fiL/h

y,R,/h ~

~,.R,/h 2

-1

o o

Mw/h

bd

3b

-3b

1 1

y~R,/h 3

-6b

0 1

OwRflh 2

(3)
j=l

and by rotational springs of rigidity

k ' = ~ 12Elbj/bj

where b = a/p and d = 1 - 6r accounts for shear deformations through the ratio
r = (E/kG)(I/Ah 2) = (E/kG)(1/)~ 2)

j=l

applied discretely at floor levels 16-w The summation


prowdmg the flexural rigidity of the equivalent member
extends to the number of columns of the frame in question, while the summation defining the stiffness of the
rotatmnal spring extends to the number of bays. By settlng R f = E l y , the relationship between the state
variables at the top and at the bottom of a frame segment

16

Eng. Struct

1992, Vol

14, No 1

In the above formula k is the shear correction factor and


X is the slenderness ratio of the wall segment.
The field matrix f o r a f r a m e - wall segment
The field matrices in equations (2) and (3) may be combined together to form the field matrix for a f r a m e - w a l l
segment. This is achieved by enforcing the two

A simplified model for linear dynamic analyses: G. Oliveto and A. Santini


is the total horizontal displacement at the jth floor and
is composed of:

equilibrmm and compatibility conditions:

s=s~+ Sw

vg
Ogzj

Y=Yf=Yw

which also apply to barred variables. After some algebra


the following relationships are found:

-1

i~If/h

Mw/h

-3A

',0

- 3 B ',0

-T

-T

D
.

',0
.

0 -"

~Rt/h 3

-3E

-3L', 1

~fR,/h 2

3E

- 9 L ', 0

3A

3L

-9L

3B

-D

'.0

In the above equihbrium equations the rotational mass


and damping properties have been associated to the
frame only. It should be noticed that the rotational
spring stiffness kf has already been defined, while
accounts for the rotational inertia associated with the
flexibility of the frame girder and may be calculated
through the same basic assumptions which have led to
the formulation of k/, i.e., mtd-span contraflexure
points,

Mf/h
Mw/h

the ground input horizontal displacement;


the horizontal displacement due to the input
ground rotation 0g,
Ys
the additional ground &splacement due to soil
flexibility;
~bszj the horizontal displacement due to the additional ground rotatmn caused by soil flexibihty;
yj
the horizontal displacement to the base, Le,
yj = 0 f o r j = 0 .

(4)

= ~.t r&b~/210

ygt]h 3

l=l

4~iR,/h2

with rh, the distributed mass over the span of length b,.
Besides the dynamic equilibrium equations (5) some
compatibility relations are also necessary to derive the
point matrix. These are as follows

dp~R,/h 2

where

y, = y,_,,

T = 1/(a + bd);

(~Jf _-- (])Jfl

~,_,
-w

(~7=

(6)

where the suffix j denotes the frame-wall segment


above the jth floor, while the suffice j-1 denotes that
below
By assuming a harmomc motion of frequency w, after
some algebra, the relationships which define the point
matrix may be written as follows:

A = aT;
B = bT;
C = 2a - B;

D = B(3 - d) - A;
L = bA;
E = Ld;
P = Bd;

-d~-

i I3 i 0 i 0 1

(7)

--.-- !-;--! i; !-;--/ '

O = 3A(a - 2bd);

R = 3B[b(3 - 2d) - 2a].


The point matrix at floor level

where

The point matrix relates the state variables at the top of


a frame-wall segment to the state variables at the
bottom of the next segment across the floor structure.
These relationships are established through the dynamic
equilibrium equations as they apply to the floor structure
separating two consecutive frame-wall segments.
These equations, which are best derived by means of
Hamilton's principle, may be written as follows:

f7 = [s,, q/h, ~ / h ] ,
aT= [y,R,/h 3, edR,/h 2, ~;/h21,
d r = [ysR,/h 3, OsR,/h2] ;
frg = [rn, gg, mthO'g] ;

12 and 13 are 2 2 and 3 3 identity matrices;

S, + S,_, +cjy,+m~'gj = 0
Mf.+.~f

+ k ;r , f +

- '~
f + /- ~
"f ,
c1~

~ + A/,'_, =0

(5)

psd=

0
0

F
0

0
0

; pf =

0
0

where
pf=v~ = vg + Ogzj + ys + O~zj + yj

0
0

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 1

17

A stmpfified model for hnear dynamtc analyses: G. Ohveto and A. Santmt

and having set


F = (mo~" - tcw)h3/R,;

E
3E
3L

Tdt :

G = m~o2h3/R, ;
H = re~mr,
f = ([w 2 - t~o~ - U)h/R,,

-3E
Q
-9L

-3L 1
-9L ,
R

1 P
A 1
Tad= | 0 - C 3A ,
L 0 3B - D

'V

m, = ]~_ mj = Nm.
/=1

In the above relationships the material and geometrical


properties are assumed to be uniform with height, i.e.,

mj=m
=

j=l

.....

I
T/,=

(j + 1)G-]

0j

"

cl=c

k =kr

I -H
0
0

,,

The more general case may easily be dealt with by entermg the interstorey height and the stiffness, damping and
mass coefficients in the relevant point and field
matrices.

-(./+ I)H 1
0
;
0

The state vector at the base


The state vector at any floor m the structure may be expressed in terms of the state vector at the base as
follows:

The transfer matrix for a f r a m e - w a l l segment


Having defined the field matrix for a f r a m e - w a l l
interstorey segment and the point matrix across a floor
through the relationships:

~,= F:s/, s,+,= P,~:

s,+. = P:F:sj = T:sj


T/=PjF,

TIS0 = TNS0

where T N = TNTN_ x - . Tj becomes the Nth power of


the constant transfer matrix T in the special case of
periodic frame-wall structures, i.e.,
. - =TI=T

The state vector at the base may be written as:

In partitioned form this becomes.

SoT: [for, dot, dTs, fT]


where do = 0 because the vector dj denotes the relative
motion to the base of the structure. Furthermore the vector fg denotes the input motion while d, = 0 for a rigid
foundation soil. Therefore the state vector at the base is
fully known if the force vector f0 is known. By applylng the boundary condiuons at the top of the structure m
the form.

t
. . . .

-f[-

I. . . .

-O--!-O--! O ', I2 )

where

fu = T~fo + T~do + TN:ds + T/~fg= 0


I

(1 + FE)
-3FE
-3FL 1
( - e + 3FE) ( - C + FQ) (3B - 9F'L) ,
-A

T/,/ =

(9)

In particular the state vector at the top of the structure


may be written as'

TN=TN l =

or

T# =

T zSo

SN = TNTN-j

The transfer matrix for a f r a m e - w a l l segment may


easily be defined as follows

18

s, = 3":Tj_j

3A

0 (T - f C ) ( - T
0
T

-D

3FA) ;

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 1

the following expression is found:


f0 = -T/fNT~f~

(10)

Therefore the state vector at the base for a rigid foundation may be written as follows"
sot

- N Tfgfg)
N
T. 0 r, O r, f r]
= [ -(T/:

A simplified model for linear dynamic analyses: G. Oliveto and A. Santini


where

The f r e q u e n c y response f u n c n o n s

Once the state vector at the base of the structure has been
evaluated and the ground motion has been prescribed in
the form

% = otE1j/hs ;
g =
o,

fs(t) = fgO explioa I

eel,/h

any frequency response function may easily be computed. In fact any response parameter must be contained
in the state vector at some station and this may be computed through equation (9). If the response to a translational excitation is required, then 9gO = 1 and 0~ = 0
are set in fgo; on the other hand VgO= 0 and 0gO = 1 if
the response to a rotational excitation is required. Once
the frequency response functions have been evaluated,
the structural response to a general seismic excitation
may be computed as is shown in the literature .5

Mathematical model for time-domain analyses


A mathematmal model for time-domain analyses which
is fully equivalent to that developed for frequencydomain analyses may easily be derived by means of
Hamilton's principle. Three equations of motion for
each intermediate floor may be found as given by equation (5). For a rigid foundation these may be written as
follows:

a = 4(1 + 3r)/1 + 12r);


3=c~-2,
0=c~+3;
6 = 20,

Further details on the stiffness functions a, 3, 0, 8 may


be found in the literature 2. Equations (13), when written for the first floor ( / = 1), become:
(6 T + 6f)y, + (Of - 0 [ ) ~ + (0~' - 0 ~ ' ) ~
f f + 0 ~ v ~ -'l- C l y I "1"- mly 1
- - 6Ty2 + 021112
= -- ml~)g -- m~Z]Og
(0~ - O~)y~ + (eel + otf + k[)ck[ - O~y2
f f
+ &,~
+ e, 4,~ + i, $[ = o

(0~ -- O'S)y, + (e'~ + o~w)


2 '4"w
,el -- O~y 2 + (J~dp~ = 0

s,+, + $, + c,y, + % y , = -m,9, - m,z,O'~


M~f , + ~'1~; + kr~Of + drcbr + I;#O,"'~
- -- 0
M~+, + ~ = 0

(j=

] .....

N-

(14)Similarly for j = N one obtains:

(11)

1)

__t3TyN_I - O w
w w
+t~TNYN _ O Nw( D Nr
N O Nf - I -- ON4~N-I
+ cNys + msyN = --msvg -- muzN(]g

For the top floor these equatmns become:

e~yN-t + 3sd~N-, -- O~Ny~ +

Sly + CNYN + mNJ)N = --mNi~g -- mNZNO'g


r f

+ e~

= o

M- wN = 0

(12)

The equations of motion in the form given by equations


(11) and (12) are especially significant because they
effectively show the balance of forces applied at each
floor. However, when a dynamic analysis must be performed it is convenient to replace bending moments and
shear forces by their expressions in terms of joint
displacements. For an intermediate floor the equations
of motion corresponding to equations (11) become:

f - - ej,~~j_l
w "4- (1~?
Ojf ~/)j_l

"1!-

(~jTI)Yj

= - mj~g - mjz~O'~

where.
d r = [dr, d r , . . . ,

dNr]

rf=

[1, O, O]

[z,

zL

, rNT]

z, = [z,, 0, 01

f r + (Os+,
r -O~)y~ + (off+ %+t
Ofy,_, + 13jcbj_,
r
f

- Of;+,y,+t + 3j+1 ~b;+l +

"f
c,- ek,

~bf

_0

e?y,-t + 3~07-, + (07+1 - OT)y, + ( a T + ot?+,)O~'


- O,+,yj+l

w __

M d + C d + K d =M~(rgg + z~)g)

r T= [r~, r~,

f
f + (0;+, _ o~e~ 7 - tSj+lyj+
~
- o,)~,
l
+ 0~+,~+, + OjW+,O,~+,+ c,y, + m;yj

r
f
kj)~b;

-- O~yN "{- IL)[N~N -- 0

It may be convenient, for computational purposes, to


arrange the equations of motion in matrix from as
follows:

d/= [y,,
--

Jr- ( o f + 1

.~_

O~vYN I "Jr"3 N ~ N - I

(15)

Matrtx f o r m o f the equations o f motion

The equations o f motion in terms o f d i s p l a c e m e n t s

_&fyj_~

+/~4;~ = 0

+/3j~+10,+, = 0

(13)

M = M~ + M E is a diagonal mass matrix composed of a


translational part M~ and a rotational part M 2 The damping matnx C = C~ + C2 is also diagonal and composed
of a translational and a rotational part. The stiffness
matrix K is banded and its half band-width is equal to 3.
r and z are pseudostatic displacement vectors

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 1

19

A s i m p l i f i e d m o d e l for hnear d y n a m i c a n a l y s e s . G. O l i v e t o a n d A. S a n t t m

associated with unit translational and rotational ground


displacements.
The coefficients of the mass, dampmg and stiffness
matrices may eastly be referred from equatmns (13),
(14), and (15)
The shear deformation p a r a m e t e r r

The shear deformation parameter r apphes to an individual wall or frame member In practical applications
one has to deal with one or more frames composed of
several columns and with several independent walls or
coupled walls. Therefore the problem arises of how to
define the shear deformation parameter of the replacement column from the values pertaining to the individual
components. Any shearing-flexural deformation may
be decomposed in a pure flexural deformatmn and in a
shear-type deformation 2~. The former is independent of
r while the latter depends on r. The value of r for the
replacement column may therefore be defined in such a
way that the work performed in a shear-type deformaUon is the same as the sum of the works performed in
the individual components. Because the work performed
m a shear-type deformation is proportional to the stiffness parameter 0 = a +/3, if follows that-

r = [/(mh '-)
= c/(2mwD

= cI(2[w, )

rotational inertia parameters,


flCtltous viscous damping ratm (translational),
fictitious viscous damping ratio (rotational),

where 00r is a reference frequency. By defining wr


through the relationw~ = R,/(m,h 3)

and by introducing a structural hysteretJc damping


parameter in the form:
3' = (tzf + P#w)/( 1 + P)

the dimensionless coefficients F, /e and G which enter


the definition of the pomt and transfer matrices may be
written as:
F = (1 - i7)(p 2 - i 2 ~ p ) / [ ( 1

+ 3,2)N]

~ = (1 - 13,) [t(p 2 - i 2 ~ p ) / N + ~5/(1 + p)]/(1 +3, 2)


G = (1 - t3,)p2/[(1 + 3,Z)N]

where p = w/c0r is the excitation frequency parameter


r

E Ei,o,=o Eel,
~=1

Numerical applications

t=l

or

o =

E/,O,
I=l

EL
=

On the other hand the work performed in a purely flexural deformation is proportional to the stiffness
parameter.
c - f l = 2
By combmlng the above equation with the other
et + fl =O

the values of ~ and /3 may be found. The stiffness


parameter 6 is also in a simple relationship with 0,
namely:
6 = 20

Comparison with results f r o m the c o n t m u u m approach

Parameter analysis for periodic systems


The analysis of periodic systems requires the introduction of only a few dimensionless parameters which are
listed below
p = R.,IRf
[.t.

#/
N
= krh/Rf

20

In the previous paragraphs two fully equivalent


mathematical models have been presented for the same
physical problem. The range of applications for the
frequency-domain model has already been shown in a
previous work ~5. In the present paper some parametric
studies will be presented aiming at showing the relative
role played by the individual parameters which govern
the problem.
The time-domain model will only be used for the
calculation of frequencies and modes of vibration which
wll] be compared against existing results in the
literature. The aim of this comparison is twofold. On
one side the results produced by the present model will
be compared with those of the continuum beam
approach relying on the same basic assumptions. This
should allow for an assessment of the continuum
approach. On the other hand, the results of the present
model will be compared against those of more refined
models, thus allowing for an evaluation of the former

rigidity ratio,
hysteretic damping parameter for the
wall;
hysteretlc damping parameter for the
frame;
number of storeys
girder's rigidity ratio,

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 1

A structure which has been frequently considered in the


literature 8'~ was originally presented by Heidebrecht
and Stafford Smith B. For the plan of the structure and
the mechanical and geometric characteristics of the
structural elements, reference is made to the original
paper. The above authors provided the first period of
vibration of the structure along two directions of
orthogonal symmetry The periods were computed
under two different assumptions for the evaluation of the
stiffness of the rotational springs. Subsequently Basu et
al. ~o extended the analysis to include shear deformation
effects in the walls. In Table 1 the results provided by
the quoted authors for vibrations in the X direction are
compared with those obtained by the present method in

A simplified mode/ for linear dynamic analyses: G. O/iveto and A. Santini


Table 1

First five periods for v=brat=ons in the X directmn


Second hypothes=s

F=rst hypothesm

Presented method

Present method

T1
T2
T3
T4
T5

2 4034
0 7509
0 4039
0 2522
0.1714

2
0
0
0
0

4028
7506
4028
2518
1709

From
ref 10

From
ref 8

2 34

214

N
1 6828
0.5438
0 3084
0.2046
0 1463

1 6824
0 5436
0.3082
0 2043
0 1460

From
ref 10

From
ref 8

1.68

1 45

Structure from Heidebrecht and Stafford Sm=th a


Shear deformations m the walls I = included, N = neglected

Table 2

F=rst five periods for v~brat=ons m the Y direction


Second hypothes=s

First hypothesm

Presented method

Present method

T1
T~
T3
T4
T5

1 9013
0.4906
0.2093
0 1147
0.0732

1
0
0
0
0

8969
4863
2045
1096
0632

From
ref 10

From
ref 8

181

1.88

1 4275
0.4072
0 1906
0.1086
0 0704

1.4236
0 4041
0 1867
0 1041
0 0656

From
ref 10

From
ref 8

1 33

1 35

Structure from Hmdebrecht and Stafford Sm=th a


Shear deformations =n the walls I = included, N = neglected

the two cases when the shear deformation in the wails is


included or neglected. Similar results are reported in
Table 2 for vibrations in the Y direction. In these tables
the results for the periods up to the fifth, obtained by the
present method, are also included in order to show the
effects of shear deformations on higher modes. From the
analysis of these results it follows that the effects of
shear deformations may be important for vibrations in
the Y direction where the walls are more effective. The
maximum period elongation occurs m the fifth mode
when it reaches almost 14%. However, in the first and
second modes the period elongation is negligible, never
reaching 1%, while in the third mode it Is slightly above
2% and in the fourth less than 5%. The results of the
continuum approach always under-estimate the fundamental period.
The results of Basu et al. ~o are an improvement with
respect to those by Heidebrecht and Stafford Smith s for
vibrations in the X direction. However, for vibrations in
the Y direction the results by Basu et al.~ are
suspicious. They are not only smaller than the results of
the present method, but also smaller than those by
Heidebrecht and Stafford Smith s
It may be concluded that the effects of shear deformations may become important in the frame-wall structures for motions along the directions where the walls
most contribute to the stiffness of the structural system
and that these effects become larger for higher modes.
Furthermore, it appears that the continuum approach
determines a stiffer system than the original discrete
one.

Comparison wtth results f r o m more refined models

Results on the periods and frequencies of vibration for


frame-coupled wall structures obtained from general
purpose finite element programs are available in the
literature ~,2.
For the structural plan and for the mechanical and
geometrical properties of the structural elements,
reference is made to the original publications of Aktan
and Bertero z2'23. The same publications also contain a
detaded discussion of the model used in the analyses.
The first three planar periods of vibration are reported
for the two cases when the structural stiffness is provlded only by the coupled walls and when it is provided
by the frame-coupled wall system. In the present
analysis the coupled walls are treated as a frame. The
girder connecting the two walls ~s composed of two rigid
lateral parts and a central flexible one In principle more
than two walls may be coupled together and in such
cases the stiffness of the rotational spring replacing the
connecting girder may be defined as follows:
b

k r = ~,~ 6,(EI,/b,)(b,/a,) 3
t=l

where a, ~s the length of the central flexible part of the


ith bay of the girder and tS, is a stiffness function which
accounts for the shear deformations in the girder.
Wails are often coupled by short stubby girders for
which the effects of shear deformations must be

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 1

21

A simplified mode/ for Imear dynamtc analyses: G. Ohveto and A. Santlnl


allowed. For slender girders
6, = 12,

otherwise

structural parameters appears to be most s~gmficant


from a structural viewpoint. Of the structural parameters
revolved, the wall-frame rigidity ratio p and the
girder's rigidity parameter/5 appear mostly to affect the
fundamental period, while the influence of the girder's
rotational inertia parameter t-seems negligible_ The
results may therefore be represented in the form of
graphs of the fundamental frequency against the rigidity
ratio p for various values of the girder's rigidity
parameter/5.

6, = 12/(1 + 126)

where r, should be evaluated with reference to the


length a,.
As for individual walls, ~t may also be important to
account for shear deformanon effects in the coupled wall
elements Therefore it will also be necessary to include
shear deformation effects for frame members as the
coupled walls are treated as a frame
In the following, two analyses are presented. In one,
the stiffness coefficients are directly evaluated from the
concrete gross sections and from the mechanical properties of concrete specified by Aktan and Bertero z2'23, m
the other the effective stiffnesses, as provided by the
same authors, are used for the structural elements. The
computed periods are reported in Table 3 and compared
with those by previous authors.
From the analysis of the results it may be gathered that
cross-sectional data provide shorter periods than effective ones. The effect of including shear deformation is,
as expected, a lengthening of the natural periods of
vibraUon.
The fundamental period of vibration calculated by the
present method is surprisingly close to that calculated by
more refined models when shear deformation is included. This is so in both cases, when the stiffness is
contributed only by the coupled walls and when it is contributed by both the coupled-walls and the frames. The
second and third periods are larger than those calculated
by Aktan and Bertero when shear deformation is included and shghtly shorter when xt is neglected Because
the model used by Aktan and Bertero includes shear
deformation, the discrepancy may be due to the assumptxon of mid-span contraflexure points adopted in the present model, which may be much less accurate for higher
modes than for the first one.

Constant total rigidtty


In one Investigation the varmtion of the fundamental frequency with p and ~ has been sought for a constant total
rigidity R , = R I + R w In other words, for p = 0 ,
R, = 0 and Rf = R,; by increasing P, Rw is increased as
the expense of RI so that Rf + Rw = R, = constant. The
numerical calculations carned out for a number of
storeys N = 4 and N = 12 are reported in Figures la and
lb Both figures show a decrease of the fundamental frequency with Increasing p, signifying that it is not possible to stiffen the system by increasing the stiffness of
the walls at the expense of that of the frames. The rate
of frequency change is largest for p = 0 and decreases
with Increasing p so that for large values of this
parameter any further increase does not determine a
significant decrease in frequency The increase of the
girder's rigidity parameter/5 results, as expected, in an
Increase of the frequency for all fimte values of the
wall-frame rigidity ratio p.

Constant frame rigtdity


Another investiganon has been carried out for a constant
frame rigidity Rj, and increasing walt and total rigidities
Rw and R,. In this way the stiffening effect of the walls
on given frames may be studied. Once again two cases
have been considered, corresponding to a storey number
of 4 and 12. The results are reported in Figures 2a and
2b. As expected, the frequency increases with increasing
values of p and ~. The rate of increase is larger for small
values of p and tends to a fnite limit for large values of
p. As with the previous case, the girder's rigidity affects
the frequency considerably and the often adopted
hypothesis of shear-type frames (# = 00) may lead to
crude overestimates of frequencies.

Parametric studies
Some parametric studies have been carried out aiming at
ascertaining the general behaviour of the structural
system when the geometrical and mechanical characteristics are uniform along the height. The variation of
the fundamental period of vibration with the governing

Table 3

F,rst three penods of v,brat,on for the A k t a n - B e r t e r o frame-coupled wall structure

St,ffness coefflc,ents from concrete


gross-sections

Effect,ve stiffness coefflments

CW

T1
T2
T3

F-CW

CW

F-CW

F-CW

0 81
0 24
0.11

0 88
0 25
0 12

0 77
0 23
0.11

0.83
0.24
0 12

1.09
0 32
0 15

1.21
0.36
0 17

0.87
0.26
0 13

0.98
0 30
0 16

1 20
0 32
0.15

0 99
0.28
0.13

CW = coupled walls only, F-CW = frame-coupled wall system


Shear deformations m the walls I = included, N = neglected

22

Results from
ref 23

from ref 23

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 1

A simplified model for linear dynamic analyses: G. Oliveto and A. Santini


24

100

20

3
all
=

15

h = 0 01

1.0

~= l o
1

05

I
10

20

40

30

50

Rigidity ratio, p

20

40

60

80

100

Rig,dity ratio, p

1.5

10

ii
O.

p : 100

II

~= 10

0.5

~= 1

~=ool

10

20

30

I
40

50

Rigidity ratio, p

,,

'

IL
4

~
o==
03

03
:

'"
0

I1'

r__'l

I
6

s/w,

10

1oo

' r
6 -,--'

,I

~
o-=

03

L-L_

I
.~1

I
2

.....

iJ

rJ

:1

"r "~

] .....

80

li

6
4

60

Rigidity ratio, p

~
I I

I]

40

viscous dampers have been chosen m such a way that the


modal damping ratio ~s 5 % in the first and the second
mode. The response characteristics which have been invesugated are the total shear force along the height of the
structure together with the shear force in the wails and
also m the frames. The floor displacement has also been
investigated along the height of the structure. For the

The peak value of the frequency response function has


been evaluated for several response characteristics and
its variations with the basic governing parameters have
been studied. The amplitude of the ground acceleration
used in the calculations is 1 g. The characteristics of the

,i

N=12

Response to harmonic ground motions

:1

Figure 2 Variation of the fundamental frequency with the


wall - f r a m e rigidity ratoo p and with the girder's rigidity parameter
(at constant frame rigidity Rt)- Storey number: (a) N = 4, (b)

Figure 1 Variation of the fundamental frequency with the


wall - f r a m e rigidity ratio p and with the girder's rigidity parameter
h (at constant total rigidity Rt) Storey number: (a) N = 4; (b)
N=12

20

s/w,

I
10

10

s/w,

Figure 3 Variatmon of shear forces (peak of the shear frequency response function to horizontal acceleration) with the wall-frame rigidity
ratio p. (a) p = 5; (b) p = 2U; (c) p = 100. - - ,
Total shear force,
Amplitude of ground,acceleration = 1 g; /~ = 10; t- = 0.01

, shear force in the wall: . . . .

Eng. Struct.

1992,

shear force in the frame

Vol.

14, No 1

23

A s i m p l i h e d m o d e / for Imear d y n a m t c analyses: G. Ohveto and A. S a n t t m

sake of brevity, only the case N = 8 is presented but


slmdar behavlour is shown by the cases N = 4 and
N = .12 which are not reported. The ratio of the shear
force to the total weight IV, of the structure is used to
represent the shear forces, whde the floor displacements
have been dlwded by the reference displacement

total amount. For sufficiently high values of p there l~


a storey where wall and frame share almost equally the
total shear
The variation with p of the floor displacements is
reported in Figures 4a, 4b and 4c It may be noticed
how, with increasing O, the deflected shape gradually
changes from a frame-type one to a beam-like one It
should also be noticed that with increasing o the peak
displacements at all floors increase considerably For mstance the top displacement increases by 40 times on
passing from p = 0 to p = 100. This confirms that it is
not possible to stiffen the system by increasing the wall
at the expense of the frame.

W~h3/e~.

Vartation with p
The variation of the peak response with p is reported m

Figures 3a, 3b and 3c for the interstorey shear forces,


and in Ftgures 4a, 4b and 4c for the floor displacements.
The girder's rigidity parameter has been kept to a constant value t~ = 10, while the rotational inertia parameter
has been set equal to t--- 0.01. From Figures 3a, 3b and
3c it may be noticed that the total base shear decreases
as p increases. This result is due to the fact that the total
rigidity R, is kept constant and that R, increases at the
expense of Rf, and is consistent with the previous result
of elongation of the natural fundamental period. The
way in which the frame and the wall share the total shear
changes dramatically with p. For low values of p the
total shear is mostly carried by the frame With increasing p the wall carries increasing fractions of the total
shear, which are larger at the lower storeys. At the top
storeys the frame usually carries more shear than the

Vartatton with
The overall stiffness of the frame is greatly affected by
the bending rigidity of its girders. For low values of
the frame shows a beam-like behavlour As ~ increases, the behaviour of the frame gradually changes
from that of a beam to that of a shear-type frame
(t5 = oo). In the numerical investigations the w a l l frame rigidity ratio has been set equal to p = 20 and the
girders' rotational inertia parameter has been set equal
to t = 0 0 1 .
The varmUon of the shear force with t~ is reported
in Figures 5a, 5b and 5c. As expected, for low values

6
>
(1}

>
(1)

.o

2
o

O9

o~
4

03

O9

[
8

I
16

]
24

I
32

40

80

160

240

320

400

I
80

yRJWt ha

yRt/Wt tP

I
160

J
240

Figure 4 Variat=on of storey d i s p l a c e m e n t s (peak of the d i s p l a c e m e n t f r e q u e n c y response function to horizontal acceleration)


w a l l - f r a m e ngld=ty ratio p (a) p = 5, (b) p = 20, (c) p = 100 A m p l i t u d e of ground acceleratmn = 1 g, /~ = 10, t- = 0 01

8
i

>
0,)

w i t h the

--

8
I

>
(])

400

yRt/Wt ha

I
320

o
CO

I
I
0

2
i

I
2

I
4

I
6

I
8

10

s/w,

s/w,

I
8

10

I
2

I
4

'1

-I

)
8

10

s/w,

Figure 5 Vanat=on of shear forces (peak of the shear f r e q u e n c y response function to horizontal acceleration) w i t h the girder's rigidity
p a r a m e t e r ~, (a) b = 1, (b) ~ = 10, (c)/5 = 100_ - - ,
Total shear force;
frame A m p l i t u d e of ground acceleratmn = 1 g, p = 20, { = 0 01

24

Eng.

Struct.

1992,

Vol

14,

No

, shear force in the wall; . . . .

, shear force in the

A simplified model for linear dynamic analyses: G. Oliveto and A. Santini


8

6
(D
>,

o
03

>

09

09

I
80

I
160

240

320

400

40

80

120

160

40

YRt/W, t'P

yR t/W t I'P

200

80

120

160

200

yR t / W t ha

Ftgure 6 Vanat=on of storey dmplacements (peak of the d=splacement frequency response funct=on to horizontal acceleration) w=th the
girder's ng=d=ty parameter/~ (a) ~ = 1, (b) ~ = 10; (c) ~ = 100 Amphtude of ground accelerat=on = 1 g; p = 20, { = 0 01

of ~ the overall stiffness of the frame turns out to be


much smaller than that of the wall and the total shear is
carried mostly by the wall. With increasing ~ the overall
stiffness of the frame increases and especially at high
and intermediate storeys, the fraction of shear taken by
the frame gradually increases and overtakes that taken
by the wall. For high values of iS, the overall stiffness
of the frame considerably exceeds that of the wall and,
apart from the top and lower storeys, most of the shear
is carried by the frame.
The variation with ~ of the floor displacements is
reported in Figures 6a, 6b and 6c. For low values of t5
the deflected shape ~s beam-hke while it changes
gradually to a shear-type frame shape as ~ increases. All
floor displacements decrease considerably as ~ increases.
For instance, the top displacement for ~ = 0.001 is more
than 10 times larger than that for ~ = 100.

Final remarks on parametric analyses


F r o m the p r e v i o u s p a r a m e t r i c a n a l y s e s it f o l l o w s that the
s t r u c t u r a l b e h a v i o u r is c o n s i d e r a b l y a f f e c t e d b y t h e
wall-frame
r i g i d i t y ratio p a n d the g i r d e r s ' r i g i d i t y
p a r a m e t e r / 5 . T h e e f f e c t o f the g i r d e r s ' r o t a t i o n a l i n e r t i a
has n o t b e e n d i s c u s s e d but a p p e a r s to b e n e g l i g i b l e .
Two main conclusions may be drawn.

(1)

(2)

For a given frame the addition of walls stiffens the


system and changes the overall structural
behaviour.
It is not possible to stiffen a wall-frame structural
system by increasing the wall at the expense of the
f r a m e . I f this is d o n e , the r e s u l t i n g s y s t e m is c o n s i d e r a b l y m o r e f l e x i b l e than the o r i g i n a l o n e as is
s h o w n by the e l o n g a t i o n o f the f u n d a m e n t a l p e r i o d
o f v i b r a t i o n a n d b y c o m p a r i s o n o f the p e a k
r e s p o n s e s to h a r m o n i c e x c i t a t i o n s .

T h e s e c o n d c o n c l u s i o n d o e s n o t a p p l y to c o u p l e d w a l l s
w h i c h c o m b i n e the m o s t a p p e a l i n g f e a t u r e s o f both
f r a m e s and w a l l s a n d a r e treated in the p r e s e n t m o d e l as
frames.

Acknowledgements
This work has been financially supported by grants from
the Italian Ministry of Education.

References
1 Aktan, A E and Bertero, V V 'Seismic response of R/C framewall structures', J_ Struct Engng 1984, 110 (8), 1803-1821
2 Aktan, A E and Bertero, V V 'Conceptual seismic design of
frame-wall structures', J Struct Engng 1984, ll0 (11),
2778 - 2797
3 'Recommended Lateral Force Reqmrements and Commentary',
Smsmologlcal Commlttec, Structural Engineers Association of
California, 1975
4 Wilson, E L , Dovey, H H and Hablbullah, A "Three-dimensional
analysis of building systems-TABS 77', Report No EERC-72/8,
Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, Umverslty of Cahfornla,
Berkeley, CA, USA, 1972 (revised 1979)
5 Kanaan, A E and Powell, G H 'DRAIN-2D, a general purpose
computer program for dynamic analyses of inelastic plane structures',
Report No UCB/EERC- 73/6, EarthquakeEnglneenng ResearchCentre, Umverslty of Cahfornla, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1973 (revised
August 1975)
6 Mondkar, D P and Powell, G H 'ANSR-II, analyses of nonhnear
structural response, User's manual', Report No UCB/EERC-79/17,
Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of Cahfornla,
Berkeley, CA, USA, 1979
7 Powell, G H 'Computer programs for analyses of seismic response
of reinforced concrete buildings', Proceedings, A Workshop on
ERRCBC, Vol I1, University of Cahforma, Berkeley, CA, USA, July
1977
8 Heldebrecht, A C and Stafford Smith, B "Approximate analysis of
tall wall-frame structures', J Struct Dzv , ASCE 1973, 99 (ST2),
199-221
9 Coull, A and Khachatoonan, H 'Analysis of laterally loaded wallframe structures', J Struct Engng 1984, 110 (6), 1396-1400
l0 Basu, A K , Nagpal, A K and Nagar, A K 'Dynamic
characteristics of frame-wall systems', J Strucr Div , ASCE 1982,
108 (ST6), 1201 - 1218
I I Stafford Smith, B , Kuster, M and Hoenderkamp, J C D
"Generahzed method for estimating drift m high-rise structures', J
Strucr Engng 1984, 110 (7), 1549-1562
12 Stamato, M C and Mancim, E "Three-dimensional interaction of
walls and frames', J Struct Dry, ASCE 1973, 99 (STI2),
2375 -2389
13 Balendra, T , Swaddiwudhipong, S , Ser-Tong Quek and Seng-Llp
Lee 'Free vibration of asymmetric shear wall-frame buildings',
Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn 1984, 12, 629-650

Eng. Struct.

1992,

Vol.

14, No 1

25

A stmplified mode/for linear dynamtc analyses: G. Oliveto and A. Santim


14 Chlarugl, A and Diotallevl, P P "Altl edlficl Slsteml spazlah dl lrrlgldlmentl, osservazlom sul comportamento torslonale', Gtornale
del Gemo Ctvde 1980, No 4-5-6
15 Ohveto, G and SantmJ, A 'The dynamic response of coupled framewall systems to earthquake excltatmns', Engng Struct 1986, 8 (4),
237 - 2 4 7
16 La Tegola, A 'Stablht~ dell'eqmhbrm e dmamma de1 telal elastJcl
multlpmm', Costruztom Metalhche 1963, No 1,2
17 Ohveto, G 'Calcolo degh sforzl crmcl m alcum tlpl dl telat prom a
nod1 spostabdf, Te~mca e Rwostruzmne, Catama, 1977, No 3,
] 2 5 - 146
18 Home, M R and Merchant, W "The 5taOtltl3'of Frames', Pergamon
Press, Oxford
19 Bowles, R E and Merchant, W 'Critical loads of tall braidings
frames', Structural Engineer Pt IV 1958, 36, 187

26

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 1

20

Marmem, A and Olweto, G 'Second order analysis o1 elastm frames


with Timoshenko members" Engineering Analysts 1984, 1 (2),
92 - 9 8
21 Llvesley, R K "Matrta Methodv of Structural 4nalvst~' 2nd edn
Pergamon Press, 1975, 3 5 - 3 6
22 Aktan, A E and Bertero, V V 'The smsmlc resistant design of R/C
coupled structural walls'. Report No UCB/EERC-81/07, Earthquake
Engineering Research Centre, Umvers W of Cahforma, Berkeley,
CA, USA, 1981
23 Aktan, A E , Bertero, V V and Piazza, M 'Pred~cnon of the
seismic responses of R/C frame-coupled wall structures', Report No
UCB/EERC-82/12, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre,
Umverslty of Cahforma, Berkeley, CA, USA. 1982