TALL BUILDING STRUCTURES
Course content:
1.
Introduction
2.5 hrs.
2.
Coupled planar walls
3.5 hrs.
3.
Coupled nonplanar walls
3.5 hrs.
4.
Coupling effects of beams and slabs
3.5 hrs.
5.
Finite element/strip analysis
3.5 hrs.
6.
Wallframe interaction
3.5 hrs.
7.
Framed tube structures
3.5 hrs.
8.
Outrigger braced structures
3.5 hrs.
9.
Shear lag effects in buildings
3.5 MS.
10.
Other topics/revision (tahe announced)
2.5 MS.
_... .... 33 MS.
RECO~NDEDTEXTBOOKS
1.
F. K Kong et al. (Edited), Handbook of Structural Concrete, Pitman
Books Ltd., 1983, Chapters 37 and 38.
2.
I.Struct.E./I.C.E., Manual for the Design of Reinforced Concrete Building
Structures, The Institution of StructuralEngineers, 1985.
3.
B. S. Taranath, Structural Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings, McGraw.
Hill Book Co., 1988.
4.
I.A MacLeod, Analytical Modelling of Structural Systems, Ellis
Horwood, 1990.
5.
B. Stafford Smith and A. Coull, Tall Building Structures: Analysis and
Design, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1991.
6.
T.Balendra, Vibration of Buildings to Wind and Earthquake Loads,
SpringerVerlag,. 1993.
1. Introduction
1".1 Dermition
From the structural engineer's point ofview, a tall building may be defined
as one in which lateral forces due to wind or earthquake play an important or
dominant role in the structural design. Lowrise buildings are generally designed
to resist gravitational .loads, and the influence of lateral forces only checked
subsequently, since most building codes allow some overstress due to the transient
nature ofthe lateral forces. However, the structure of a highrise building must be
designed to resist both horizontal as well as vertical forces, and an optimum
system sought to minimize the influence ofthe former.
It is difficult to define a highrise building in terms of height or number of
storeys. The importance of the horizontal loads relative to the vertical loads is
mainly a factor of the slenderness ratio, i e. height to width ratio, ofthe building
and is thus dependent also on the lateral dimensions of the building. Nevertheless,
very roughly speaking, one may say that a lowrise building ranges from 1 to I (j
storeys. A mediumrise building probably ranges from 10 to 20 storeys, and a
highrise building is one that has more than 20 storeys. As buildings get to more
than 50 storeys high, the lateral stiffuess (the lateral stiffuess requirement is often
given in terms of a maximum allowable lateral deflection of 1/500 of height)
would very likely become more critical than the lateral strength; such b:uildings
may be regarded as superhighrise buildings.
1.2 Loadings
Both vertical and horizontal loads need to be considered.
Vertical loads comprise of dead load and live load. Dead load is
determined from the designed member sizes and the material densities. Member
sizes depend on the span lengths of the structural components; basically, longer
span structures are more bulky and therefore heavier. Live load (also referred to
as imposed load) is .dependent on the intended function of the building. For small
loaded areas, the effects of a concentrated live load need to be considered. For
multispan structures, possible live load distributions over adjacent and alternate
spans should be considered in estimating the local maximum for member forces.
Very often, however, constmctionloads may be the most severe that a
building structure has to withstand. These include the weight of newly poured
concrete and the fonnwork, and sometimes even the weight of the construction
equipment and vehicles etc.
There are two major types of horizontal loads: wind load and earthquake
load.
Wind. load depends on the height, size and shape ofthe building, as well as
on its geographical location and the maximum design wind speed. Although wind
loads are dynamic in character, they are often replaced by equivalent static loads
to simplify the structural analysis. This is acceptable in most cases, but for
exceptionally .taR slender or vibrationprone buildings, or for those of unusual
shape or particular importance, dynamic analysis taking into account the gust
characteristios and the frequency spectnlID. of the wind may be required.
Earthquake load consists of the inertial forces of the building mass
resulting from shaking of the building during an earthquake. Earthquake designs
are normally based on the principles that buildings should:
(a)
resist minor earthquakes without .damage;
(b)
resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, although accepting
the probability ofnonstructural damage;
(c)
resist severe earthquakes with the probability of structural as well as nonstructural damage, but without collapse.
Wind and earthquake .loads have different frequency contents and dynamic
characteristics.. A building structure that is sufficiently strong to resist wind does
not necessarily imply that it can resist an earthquake inducing the same magnitude
of equivalent static load. The nature frequency of the structure, damping capacity,
any possible windstructure interaction and soilstructure interaction etc will all
affect the responses of the structure to wind and earthquake. For the particular
case of earthquake loading, the ductility and failure sequence of the structural
components also play important roles.
Earthquake
spectrum
Wind turbulence
spectrum
0.001
I
1000
0.01
,
100
0.1
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
0.1
Period (s)
Fig. 1.1. Spectral densities of earthquakes and winds.
The above figure (Balendra 1993) depicts the frequency ranges of
turbulent wind and earthquake. From this figure, it can be seen that strong winds
have a dominant frequency range of approximately 0.010.1 Hz, while earthquake
excitations have a dominant frequency range of approximately I10Hz (note,
however, that these are very rough values and" the actual frequency compone~ts
depend on many factors requiring both nearfield and farfield analysis).
The influence of these loads on buildings depends on the natural
frequencies of the buildings. A stiff building with a period of 0.5s (natural
frequency=2Hz) would only be slightly affected by the wind, but the effect of an
earthquake on this bUilding could be serious. On the other hand, for a tall and
flexible building of period 5s (natural frequency=O.2Hz), moderate earthquakes
may have no serious effects, whereas winds could have a significant effect and
would control the design. Thus, if both wind and earthquake loads need to be
considered, it may be quite difficult to totally avoid resonant effects. Researchers
are nowadays working hard on the development of both active and passive
damping devices for mitigating the resonant effects.
1.3 Structural forms
A building structure generally consists of ( 1) a horizontal subsystem
which provides flat surfaces for habitation and transfers all gravitational loads to
the vertical subsystem; and (2) a vertical subsystem which cany all vertical and
horizontal loads to the foundation and often at the same time forms external
enclosure and .partitions for fimctionalpurposes. One can visualize the horizontal
subsyste~ which comprises of beams and slabs, as 2D wholes that act vertically
to cany the floor or roof loads in bending,and horizontally as diaphragms and/or
column connectors forming part of the frame structure. Similarly, the vertical
subsyste~ which comprises of shear/core walls and columns, can be visualized as
wholes that act to pick up loads from the horizontal subsystem and to .resist.lateral .
loads as a vertical cantilever structure.
Vertical subsystems are generally slender in one or both lateral directions
(compared to the overall building height) and. cannot be very stable by themselves.
They must be held in position by the ho~ontal subsystems which provide
diaphragm (inplane) actions to tie the vertical elements together. In fact, the
horizontal subsystems may also provide coupling (outof.plane) actions to
improve the structural efficiency ofthe .vertical elements. Note that the design of
the horizontal subsystem is related to the arrangement of the supporting vertical
subsystem which determines the span lengths of the horizontal elements. On the
other hand, the structural action of the vertical subsystem is affected by any
COllpling actions of the horizontal subsystem. Hence, when actual designing, both
subsystems must be considered moreorIess simultaneously.
The structuralfonn depends largely on whether structural steel' or
reinforced concrete are to be used for .the construction and on the type of
buildings. Steel buildings are mostly frame or tress structures. Early day reinforced
concrete buildings are basically imitations of steel structures and are therefore
generally frame structures. However, starting in the 50s, engineers began . to
realize that reinforced concrete frame structures without shear walls are not the
most suitable for tall buildings (Fintel 1974). Since then, reinforced concrete
buildings become normally incorporated with shear walls. Thus, most reinforced
concrete buildings are some kind. of coupled. wallframe structures.
Different structural systems have been evolved for residential and office
buildings, which reflect their differing :functional requirements.
The basic :functional requirement of a residential building is the provision
of discrete dwelling units for groups of individuals. These have common
requirements ofliving, sleeping, cooking and toilet areas, which must be separated
by partition walls offering fire and acoustic insulation.
Framed structures may be usefully employed for residential buildings, since
the presence of permanent partitions allows the column layout to correspond to
the architectural plan. However, these depend on the rigidity of the joints for their
resistance to lateral forces, and tend to become uneconomic at heights above 2025 storeys. Since their introduction in the late 40s, shear walls, acting either
independently or in the form of core assemblies, have been used extensively as
additional stiffening elements for traditional frame structures. Typical planforms
for tall buildings, whose loadresisting structure consists of interacting shear walls
and frames are shown below.
: [ J:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
In order to provide adequate fire and acoustic insulation between dwelling
units, infill panels of brickwork or blockwork are introduced into frames.
However, although techniques exist for assessing the influence of these infill
panels on the stiffuess and strength of the frame,theyaregenerally assumed to be
nonloadbearing, in view of the danger that they may be either removed or
perforated for a change offunction at some future date, as well as the difficulty of
achieving a tight fit between an infilled panel and. the surrounding frame.
Consequently, later trends were to omit the infill panels and to utilize the walls
which are required for space division in a structural context. This has led to the
development ofthe shear wall system, in which structural walls are used to divide
and enclose space, while simultaneously resisting both vertical and horizontal
loads. They tend to become economical as soon as. lateral forces affect the design.
However, they do possess the disadvantage of an inherent .lack of flexibility for
future modifications. Thus, they are more suitable for residential buildings in
which each floor is permanently divided into dwelling units by partition walls.
Typical planforms for shear wall buildings are shown below.
(a)
(b)
The essential functional requirement of an office building is the provision
of areas unobstructed as far as possible by walls or columns to allow each
occupant to design the partitioning most suitable for his particular business. The
partition layout will generally alter when tenants change, and this necessitates
flexibility in the distnoution of services to any floor area.. As a result, services tend
to be carried vertically within one or more service cores, and a distnoution
network run beneath the floor slab to the entire floor area.
By judicious planning of the wall and column layout to maximize the open
floor areas, shear wallframe interactive structures may also be employed for
office blocks, although the presence of internal walls and columns may make it
difficult to achieve the desired planning flexibility.
One simple method of creating open floor areas is to use a central shear
wall core, which carries all essential services and which is designed to resist all
lateral forces. The floor system spans between the central core and the exterior
facade columns, and a large unobstructed floor area is created between the two
.. vertical components. Another possibility is to provide a core at each end,
especially if the building is long. However, in order to support the floor slabs in
the interior, it is then necessary to provide a spine beam running between the
cores, which may require additional supporting interior columns.
(a)
(b)
As, building become taller, the use of one or more cores acting
independently to resist lateral forces will lead to unusually large cores, occupying
too large a ratio of a given floor area, and leading to uneconomic solutions.
A further increase in stiffuess and structural efficiency can. be achieved if
the central core is tied to the exterior columns by deep (usually storey height)
flexural members or truss at the top and possibly also at other intermediate levels.
The objective of these connections is to integrate the central core and the exterior
columns together so that the wind moment is resisted not only by bending of the
core wall, but also by the couple formed of the axial forces in the exterior
columns. This allows the axial stiffuess of the exterior columns to be mobilized to
resist the wind moment. The resulting' .increase in the level arm of the base
resisting forces leads to significant increase in stiffhess and structural efficiency.
....
;......
.....
......
....
..........
...
.......
.......
........
.....
.......
The efficiency of the structure can also be increased substantially if the
outer facade is' replaced by a, rigidly jointed framework" which can be used to
resist lateral as well as vertical forces. The outer shell then acts effectively as a
closed boxlike structure whose faces are formed of rigidly jointed frame panels,
or as a highly perforated tube whose crosssectional shape is maintained by the
10
floor slabs acting as horizontal diaphragms. A combination of the framedtube
concept with the shear wallframe interaction concept yields the structural form
termed the tubeintube syste~ in which an exterior closely spaced column system
is constrained by the floor slabs to act in collaboration with a very stiff shear core
enclosing the central service area. The large level arm involved between opposite
normal faces of the exterior tube gives rise .to an efficient momentresisting
structure, akin to an ordinary tubular structural component.
The closely spaced columns in a framed tube may pose problems in gaining
access to the building at ground level, and some structural rearrangement may be
necessary in that region. Several columns may be run into one at regular.intervaIs,
or a deep girder may be provided at first floor level to transfer column loads to
more widely spaced ground level columns.
The pure framed tube has the disadvantage that under bending action, a
considerable degree of shear lag occurs in the faces normal to the wind, as a result
of the flexibility of the spandrel beams. This has the effect of increasing the
stresses in the comer columns, and of reducing those in the inner columns of the
normal panels, and results in loss of efficiency in the desired pure tubular action of
the structure. Warping of the floor slabs, and consequently deformations . of
11
interior partitions and secondary structure will occur, which may become of
importance in design.
True tubular
cantilever stress
Actual stress
due to shear lag
~~
Actual stress
True
cantilever stress
t
Wind load
One technique which has been employed to help overcome this problem is
to add substantial diagonal bracing members in the planes of the exterior frames.
The eXterior columns may then be more widely spaced, and the diagonals, .aligned
at some 45 to the vertica~ serve to tie together the exterior columns and spandrel
beams to form.. facade trusses. Consequently, a very rigid cantilever tube is
produced. As the diagonal bracing members may be subjected to both tension and
compression forces, they are normally constructed of structural steel.
An alternative method ofreducing shear lag effects is to add infill panels at
selected locations (normally in a cross diagonal pattern) so that the infill panels act
together as diagonal bracing members tying the exterior columns and spandrel
beams together in the same way as steel diagonals does. This would, however,
require some window openings to be permanently blocked.
12
1.4 Design assumptions
An important first step in the analysis of a tall building is the selection of
an appropriate idealized mode~ to include all the significant loadresisting
elements and their dominant modes of behaviour. The design assumptions usually
made are listed below:
(1)
The floor slabs are rigid in their own plane, so that each floor is subjected
to a rigid body movement in plan. Consequently, the vertical elements at
any floor level undergo the same horizontal and rotational components of
displacement in the horizontal plane.
(2)
The outof.plane flexural stiffuess of the floor slabs are negligible. As a
result, the restraint of the floor slabs against the warping of horizontal
sections of the building is ignored. However, in the case of shear walls
coupled. by floor slabs only, it is still necessary to take into account the
contribution ofthe flexural stiffuess ofthe floor slabs towards the coupling
of the shear walls, and this is normally done by treating" the coupling slabs
as equivalent beams.
(3)
The vertical elements may be regarded as assemblies of interconnected
vertical planar substructures of which the outof:.plane stiffiless are
negligible. Thus for the case of shear walls, the outofplane flexural
stiffuess of the shear walls are neglected. For the case of core walls, the
core walls are treated as assemblies of interconnected planar wall units
which act individually as two dimensional membrane structures. This
avoids the necessity to model the walls as shell elements. For the case of
frames, the frames are treated as assemblies of two dimensional plane
frames interconnected at the common columns. The outof.plane stiffiless
(4)
ofthe plane frames are neglected and as a result, the number of d.o.f/joint
is reduced from 6 to 3.
Shear deformation of the beams may be neglected. However, this
assumption is not applicable to beams with small span/depth ratios.
(5)
Shear deformation of the walls may be neglected. There is, however, little
advantage in neglecting the shear deformation of the walls. In fact, the
negligence of the wall shear deformation may lead to numerical difficulties
and significant errors in some cases. Thus the shear deformation of "the
walls should be taken into account as far as possible.
13
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
Local deformations at the beamwall joints, which are often neglected but
can in fact be quite significant in many cases, may be takeninto account by
increasing the effective length of the beams or by including rotational
springs at the beamwalljoints.
The shear lag effects in the shear/core walls are negligible. Hence the
shear/core walls may be analysed by applying the plane sections remain
plane assumption to the individual planar wall units. The shear lag effects
are normally more significant at the wall bases. If required, the shear lag
effects at the wall bases may be evaluated by analysing only the lower part
ofthe structure with the finite element method. Alternatively, design charts
maybe used.
The rotations of the beamwall joints may be taken as the rotations of the
horizontal rigid arms which are incorporated to allow for the finite width
of the walls. This assumption is often made when the frame method is
applied. However, this would lead to incompatibility between the beam
and wall elements at their common interfaces. To ensure compatibility at
the beamwall joints, the joint rotations should be defined as the rotations
of the beamwall interfaces, i.e. the rotations of the vertical fibres at the
joints.
The crosssectional shape of the shear/core walls would remain
undistorted. Hence the rotations of all beamwall joints can be related to
the horizontal displacement ofthe building thereby reducing the number of
unknowns to be solved.
The PD effects may be neglected.
For dynamic analysis, the masses of the building may be lumped. at the
floor levels so that the mass matrix becomes a diagonal matrix.
Furthermore, it is also often assumed that the vertical. inertia. of the
building may be neglected when only lateral vibration is considered.
14
2. Analysis of coupled planar walls
2.1 Methods of analysis
Continuous connection method
(EQuivalent continuum method)
 treats the coupling beams as an equivalent continuous
shear connection.medium
 the walls are regarded as vertical cantilever beams
Other assumptions made:
(a) the properties are assumed to be constant with height
(b) the coupling beams are assumed to be axially rigid
(c) points of contraflexure occurs at midspan of the beams
a second order differential equation
from which: the shear forces in the beams and consequently
the forces and moments in the walls as well as
the beams can be detennined
=>
Due to assumption (a), the method is severely limited to
relatively simple case.
15
Frame method
(Eguivalent frame method)
 treats the coupled walls as a plane frame structure
 the walls are modelled as column elements residing at the
centroidal axis of the walls
 the coupling beams are taken as beam elements with rigid
arms to take account of the [mite width of the walls
The rigid arms may be incorporated by:
 modifying the stiffness matrix of standard beam
members; or
 adding very stiff beam members as the rigid arms while
using standard plane frame programs in which it is not
practical to modify the stiffness matrix.
In this method, the beams are assumed to be connected
rigidly to the axis of the walls. However, it has been proved
by some researchers that slight rotation exist at the
connection due to local deformations at the beamwall joints
and that as a result, the effective stiffness of each beam is
reduced. This effect of joint flexibility can be taken into
account by extending the coupling beams by, say, half their
depth, at each end.
16
Finite element method
 the most powerful tool of analysis available
 can be applied to the analysis and design of any type of
buildings and for various support conditions
The standard procedure for the method is to divide the
frames, shear walls and coupling beams into many small
elements, using:
frame elements for the frames and coupling beams; and
plane stress elements for the walls (outofplane
bending actions of walls neglected).
The number of nodes and elements required to model a
building structure is usually very high and consequently the
computer solution is very costly (not only the cost of
computer time, but also the cost of preparing data and
interpreting the computer results).
There are, however, a number of problems with the use of
the fmite element method for tall building analysis, apart
from the high cost. These will be discussed in detail later on.
17
Finite striIJ method
 the shear walls are modelled as assemblages of strip
elements
 the frame part of the structure is modelled either:
(1) as a continuum having equivalent properties; or
(2) in such a way that the columns are treated as line
elements and the connecting beams as discrete beam
members spanning between the strip or line elements
In the frrst approach, it is necessary to assume that the
locations of the points of contraflexure of the actual beams
and columns are at the midpoints of the respective
members. The true locations will of course be somewhat
different, but the resulting errors are small.
In the alternative approach, the stiffness properties of each
beam are formulated through the basic beam theory, and
then subsequently transformed to the adj acent strip and line
elements.
18
2.2 Continuous connection method
I.
II
I I~
I.J:
I fZ
r
:xl. l
'I.,I
I II
0.
...
4:
o
~
~
...J
I II
rI I.
Zp
I I
[.
.,..".,.",.,..................~........................
.,
o..J
A~~ ..\
$4Y"',.fv. ... e.
A~~CA~phO~S :
I) ~""fe,rh'\ ~c.oM~""j ~p +he. h~i~"+
~''c.tCA.re
2,)
0+
+h~
lOp be~ h~S'
3)
Beo.W\ 1
4)
Po,"~4
tI..f
tw\.d 
sr~n
t>..'(Q
0..)(
ho.Jf 1. of ..}'1pic.o.l b~o.m
i ~\I'1
ri 9 i d
c.oh+rO\fle~&Are
19
OGc.CArS
0..+
~p( o..c..e
GotU\cc..+
,.ortneohC:n
().$
i~9
bQQ.MS
(+ ..~ .. b)
CohftQG"\"1"\9
.1>'1
0..
w:"'hs~"'"~
be().~.
. Ia.rM ~no. s h ~i9h1""
s+i#r\ess . Ipdx./h .
c:.o l1+i n .... o'" $
d x.
c:.onned'OM
",,,if fe'\C3~ o.G~. +hen
AI o~ rttt
CoM+
ShQor .forc:.e~ T
ot contt'O.+1 e,.)(",,t' eo w"ere
wi II
s+"re'1~+i~t\ccs
Cowf,:u"oc/(~ c.onneC+ion
(.ompri ~e,
Cons i ~ e t
~4)rrri" uoc.u
pe.r
'''.f.eAro.J ~heAr fon:.e. T
be. ~k~n ~~ r~d ~dQ,t\t .fu..r\~+,Oh
wh~re
Dc2fo.. ."'~h~n 1"flcAe.nc.an9 VoJ.... ~ of T
c.)
R~~... ion
~ca e r
of
w~1I S
e.lC+Q.t""r\O.l
DCA., +0 fre bendin9
J oo..c::l
(It
wJ
~P = 2e.,I.+I2..
I
...,tI~bp
J~
H
'to
dx +
S ... p
where b~p resCAIt.s .from ba.s.e
rohA+lon s.
if o.ny.
[ NotL a..~s.'''P~ ~ wh..:e.k ~~~s. tho.t
th(;. J.41..(.~'o"'~
"oR "301.\\S Q1'".e. th.L. s.C\~]
0t
b)
8~d;t'\~ o..t\d
shea,~
bQ.n\s .
~I
whQre
3=
J eforMO.t;on s of
~t1he..c+;n9
T'hb
T,  12 E Ir
To chclCAde effect aT sheG\.t..
Ih
c..n f\ et:.fi tl9 bett. '" ~ t\'\od i f~ I p
I
b~ ~cJor
( (+ 29)
bE:tp+
b AGt
1
~~
= sh().p~~c.+o,... foY'
S~8(J.r
= L 2..
~ere 6"'111" I~ ralo.+ive ve~1
di1' lace.", e.m
(;..+.
bo.~e
, if
().n~.
4
d )
~e."e. ...se
..oW'\t\
bend it1~ in wOolf, d&.4e to sf,eAr
.~
e(..+in~ b~MS
Tdx
FOR
COMPATI&IL'
TY
9' ,,~~
Left h~nd C'lesuibes p"~sic()..' pro~c.,.+ie.s at wo..lJ ~
t",~ nT hQ.t\c:l
Solc~d;on
0+
re'~+e.s
l:o ~pplied
~~o..+'o ....
r~
~~s""~ft\_
It ,,s t"~ired To de+ erh\;~~ ftc._t\eho .. CI> +0
$o.+i('f~ C1 u o.+io ,", ,~ reg tOh 0 ~ X ~ H OMd
S~+lS+y bo~do..... ~ C,ondi.ftQM S
To:s.
~TIop
d Tid x. 0 ~.. bASe  (~SS(A",. ""9 ,cOM,,,,do.'h6'rt
.rQs,+..o.i" s ()..,~ "tulC4.A.1 rof()I.+\ Ot\ o...,d +ro... J I 0..+1 on
G\l'1J
o;t
b.tto..., c~ W~" ~
ThQ
~"\A.4,~~ +Or
J
Hlen
 c.os h~ x..
bec.okfes
. 1.2.x,.... )
+
10
A+ o.,,~ lQ,ve.l ~(Z.. ()...)(fa.' .force (fet'\sile
0" (,Ot't1p ...~tsrVQ)
f", +he. \Ud,fls ,s ~u.o.' +0 T. Th~ betwli"j tl10"U~t1t.t
,'r, +i,e w~(1 S
a... d
~O~
cc\..,
I.f
M::
~T I..
MI
i s H.e SUM oF
b.",di"'3 mo",en+" ttl
wo..tls of. ~ .f~M I~p ~
+he.., b'j' ectu , Ii br'i.... M
... =I
w% 
2.
TJ..
'I
wQ.1I S d(>+lec* $;mao.rl~ ~et"
Sf nee
4t\<l
be ob+o..ir\ed .
It + 12.\
~,._ T J.. )
2t
M 1.:: 1 1
I. + I
(W)C.... T L)
12
2
2.
The. VAI"~
of
Ish :.c...rl;n o..t\'1
be,.Q..h'\
C6.n
b~
obio.:... ~d
..froW\. difference IV, vo..' CAe' 0+ T ~+
<>.~_
be'ow beo.m
0+
YoC>+
f....OM
+,,~s
eOoCih c..onl'eofi"9 be.o.M
U~~"g
Wt.. .
.B
fmi
GD
?/I""'P"IIt....V....
12......./
1~,+o.1oC
.h/2. ob()~e
vo.tu e +he. 8M 0.+
the
cawt
GrOSS
be. detet"'tnif\ed.
S'e~,oh o~
C\.c.oe".p,~a sheAr w~" ~how"
on
0..+
+he 142ft, +he.
A o.na
str~~s es;
B c..re 9i ,,~n bj
OA
=M
~, + T
i,
A,
f1: :: M. ~'" +
8
II
A
.!..
w"cr"A.
=( w
= ( wx"_ T
2.
J:'1.
H
M
T .R) a.. ,
2
=:r.,e+
1(.... _
L)
t
130...
AI
a .... + T
I
A.
(3b
B
E;~~a\ MC2:fl\od
,'t'\
+\\e
'~borioCA.s
a~fa.r...,ir'\~+i 0,", of +h~
G1~~'ec.t\ons
A.
... e<tu'r~$
of
Sif'f\ptt.f\~d
c.o'c:."'o..+,O~s.
s+res.s e.s
0..""
c::\
+h~ s.fr~~re
techni9~e
b~
de" 42, (oped
A, Coull
().t\d ..1. R. ChoCAa h tA .... y* re(o..t~s +i\e rec;&.4.t+.s
clir(lc,t(~ 10 +he stresses o.~ ae.fle.L+fons in
IA siMple VQr+icD,.1 c.~.,tnQ.ver beo.O".
ThQ. c.o"'ple.te. .stres.1 e::tcs+.. . i b"4hot\ ~hic:;h
reA.U+y of ~ s''pc.... posilio n oP
0...) fA (An; foto ttl (>..~'~ I $.+.e$S 0"
b)
I'neo.~
bet'ldih~
~\ showh .'v, ~~"t\+t~t\
cOI1.t;$i.s.
f~
s+y~ss ditlrib~no~
I?>
Mo.~ be
<:ol1S
.<:Iered
+0
be deriv~d.fto~ GUt o.liert\o..nve s."perpos~ho..,
.~t fwo p\oLYe be.ttd(t\~ sfres.ses. These. o..rQ..:
~) ~ bc.i\dit\j ~"'rej'S ob+A.'"edo.,H,e
o.sS~"'I>hoh fh..+ H.e
4S
tAo
b) +wo
o..ssVo'"
woJl S'1s+eM ~+j
s'nj'e CM~posi+e ~n~ve.r.
JinQ.Q..Y
pnon
GO '" ~I e
s+ress
1h<A,t
d's+.. ibCA.+'olo\ c)..,
+he "k'.VU s
a.c.+
t e.1'j i t\ d e. V\ pe n d e t\+ ( ~ .
H,~
Tb~ ~'o..+ive (l,)(tQwfof +he. nuo ~G"';OhS
c(e~end$ ""~Oh ~Q
e#eGiive ... e~s
.
H,e
a..) ~mrosite untf'eve.t"
~+r ,~ e!.
b
 
. b) t'""divtd",o.l c<>.tdlle..Yer ~
~re'ses
<J:
_"J
A.
CO""ed(r\S
s~ $tQ.h'
c::::::J
~
u:
a
1)
. of
to
,
Ac.:hoh
M.
w~1.
y.
2.
wh&~Q.
Ka.
(.~wtilev..r
The
)(
w".,.t.
M'I.=
It
)(
l4b
o.G+COh
<rA1 :::
(4~
and
~ ,.: Kg
I'ndi~~es
~fyes~es
Ka.
a+ A
+he
~",d
().~ B
e~T
of inJlvidv.oJ
I = I. ( + I
atAe
+0
7
+J.,is o..ch~n
......
=_ w"
)(.__
K
2
.I)( 8
"
Gl ....
IS
II
b)
Co.n+i f(l,ve.r AG.fion
Composite
The GO~po~ite be"d.'h~
~""~
0.+
S~GJt,on
IS
w'C
Me :.
whet'&
MOtt1en+
....
)( K M
Ib
KtoJ\ indi~ies ~e ~tet'\t of
~.,ti(e'lQ,r
c.QMpo,i+e.
~CAi otl
The !kresses ~+ A o."c:l B 4:l""c +0 ~i, .
().CJhoW\ d.re
<rAt:.
(lac..
...
..

c::.,
wx,'"
2wx.~
~
)<.
X'
<:1
I'
~{
c\=A
)(
I<M
A.t
("1::='
~(
A\..... ~l
)(
KM
1
c.
a.. 1
"
17 b
c)
18 <1...
18 b
0" ~~~+,~~ iorr~~ro~'di~~ ,.4r~~se:s. ;#..+lte.~,~r.
.e"..I.r.~.mt
.(.1 be r
.p~:~i+'o.,,,s~ "'40'M ~c.cd.Tt~.t' .r 3,
l'8 f.or: wcs.,ll I . '~A.~.
,<>o"d
:Gof"re's 'p...;;~{'~.~ .~r:t"'~~~i ~:"$'
f~~. w"11 2. , 't\d c,t$1~9 . E~ .. .io "'fo~ "~"., ~e
G.... r~~i+e .~~h:::'r~o.~.o~.~o.,..,:.l~~..~:+t~n::~ .~O.~.
~q :: ~how~ +0 he
."'. .
'+
... ,
.
'.olx') 12.
{
~:... h ~ H ...: .J H
h'
'h""
.~...}
, c.l~;J~S
~.x..+'
.M ~
. " . ~. ~ .,.~
. . . " .sJh.
~~ ".
2.
. . . (~2C.)
.
c.oshOtI1
"
.
I<
,l..e
P6.t"'().M
sfiff ness
e.f er cJ. re'~+es f:i:l~.
$(,eo...td,;t\d
be.~it\~
o.f. ~ ~ .. rCAc.+CAre. . ~~d ,;.s 5~'ve" 'b'j
~o
b elo \.0 . shews +hQ.. vO ... ;o..;(~n..s
The' ft3 u("Q.
~"d KM..fO.....
I
IV
1.
tV
~
8
lL
/:~~
~~
/'
~
diMel1siot')'~sS" p()"Y~t\4eter oJ.
<l.i"d
"4=0.15
2..0
>
K B
rUA~ ber of hei<j"+ r~+(OS , ~
0.
o.f +\'Q
Vo.tUQS
0+
'1  /
0..11$
.....
~~
~S
,
r.... r.
...... r.
/1 7. ~ V~
toO
0.8
J/l / ' 1.
i1//
0 ~
"""."..,..
.............. ...........
' 
0.1.
0
..
r)
Y..
tf/
0.1,
,...
)~~
0
(J
3
oLH
10
....>
~
t:
On ~o'~er.e.f\+,~+i"'9
o
re.
CA.",H..
E~ 1o for T
h~'9~~ "n +he
oS~ft+~b'\ of connecAi,,'3
.. ell: pr(l~s QA:l
~.
o
whe.re.
cze;J.(A'vo.l~rd c.Ot1+inuoCA S
I~mc n0..1
nto..~ boc..
Q.S
DT
= dx =
H,~
+hQ sheo..... ~orc<z
p(At"'O.ht
wH .., K
v
2.1
.......
e.+e.... p. re pre se.n+.s +he ~io1
f\~xibili+'1 0+ 4h~ waJ's o.nd is cat'len b~
1<" ~
s.~h
ol" 11H 'J .
cl
.l.H CoOs h of.
COS.hol x
Sihk d'X + x
d.
Il
Z3
lOp
0" di.ff~r~n+ia..+;n.9
0.1
~~
o.t
of +h~ ~~)(' MU'"
~h eA r foy~ ca..n
b~ fo",,,d ..
03
1+
0.4~
i~ t"di4Co..+e.d b~
'he d~s"'ed
0.5
..ff\
The she~r
0:1
~n!1
be
~ +h e.
~p
1.0
0
D.l
o.~
6.3
0.4
Sheoy FD..c.+or
O.S
Kv
o.~
0.1
0.8
fot'(.Q.
in
pQ.rriGUIa..t bee,"
m~
0.'
<=cArVe
+be. .f.i.5 w r Q.
0.".
0.8
gA~E.
2.3 Hte (O~h~h
~+i f'\4.t ~
e 1'4.Q.r. ~ '"
= ~)(h
21*
1I,e, ~tt1~ f\40Metrl
is 4h~h S;v e n b'j
b
M =Q,c25.
p
fb
~t'OM ~. (~ .f.....
rc.'M'\On
$"'P
... u
EI d ~
.for
M,
o..",c.\ M 2.
eo.c."
I.~'"
. _
"3
vI'
ax.'"
wo...lJ
+f.a~
,""OMQn+ 
t~ g,~V\
c,ur;'(.\.+CA.te
"bC;:J:
T Jl
2..
Thed~ledt~n o.'~"'~ 4he height c:>~ ..ffle ~\AtQ
c..n be ~i.,edc,...po'" i~.f~rA.+i.,.9 E=~. 2~ +w''Q..
. 6it4l. t,,~e ... +i"9 thQ.. o.pJtro~r;~te.bou. .. dQ."''1 c.o"di"ions.
The: ~O)(iMt.\"" d~ftee+ioh
be. e.prQ..ss ed
~ ~~ :.
r"D
~s ~
wH4
8 E1. ~
pI
8
 _
_ 
0..; Ht~ fop <:G.~ +hen
11
Kp
eLI{ siva h olll
c:.osh.tH + ,
(~JI)4 C()~ h at.
....._
2.(olH )1.
t.o
y..Q
~.
0.8
1
.e .0.'
'"
tf
.t 0.4.0
.5
!
~~~
~~
r ,((:::: {. 4\'\~ r::::
~
~ ~ '.~1.1
"
/).1
<.t.al
"'
I.'
~
.
~~
: ...
'0
12
2.3 Frame method
A plain shear wall acts principally as a vertical cantilever
beam, and hence it is natural to model a shear wall as a
vertical frame member residing at the centroidal axis of the
wall, Fig. lea).
Such frame analogy was extended in the 60s to deal with
plane coupled shear walls (Clough et ale 1964, Candy 1964,
MacLeod 1967) by adding beam elements to model the
coupling beams and by incorporating horizontal rigid arms
into the beam elements to take into account thefmite width
of the shear walls, Fig. 1(b).
This method can also be applied to
walls as shown in Fig. I(c).
20
mu~tiple
coupled shear
U)
:J
&E
o :J
CUO
C
~..+~r'\
CO
Q)
"'0
21
APPENDIX I. BEAM STIFFNESS ~1ATRIX FOR WIDE
COLUMN FRAME
Figure 12 sho\\'s a beam ah bet\veen t\VO shear walls (columns). Points
A and B are on the centroidal axes of the columns at beam level and are the
node points.
.y
'~.. /'
FIG.
12.. Notation for deformation of wide column frame.
Normally the member stiffness for a beam element is written in terms of
the deformations at its ends, Le.
Va
12
L3
6
L2
12
L3
L2
L
6
M"
Vb
12
L3
6
12
L2
L3
6
L2
Mb
L1
L
6 .
L2
L
= EI
L
L2
~a
L2
Va
Oa
X
~b
Db
Vb
.~)
!
A{tI( ~
~I
M"
(Since the axial terms are independent of the other
terms they have been omitted for conciseness.)
I.e.
P"b
KM"tl
Ullb
(1)
Since the equilibrium equations of the structure are written in terms of the
actions and deformations at the node points it is necessary to transform
expression (1) so that the beam stiffness is also defined in terms of these
vaiables. The deformations at the ends of the beam are related to the nodal
deformations by the expression:
~a
Oa
..lb
I da 0
j.B
08
0 0 0
= TlJ..lll
(2)
P. 111 = T'P",,_
(3)
U"b
I.e.
OA
X
1 bd
0 0
Ob
~A
By contragredience(l:!)
Substituting (2) and (3) in (I) gives P. 11t = T'K,W""TU. 11J Thus TKM""T' = KJ"f.'ll is the beam stiffness matrix in terms of the nodal
actions and deformations.
The complete matrix \vith the axial terms and shear deformation included
is quoted in Table 5.
TARLE
5.
BEAM STIFfNESS MATRIX.
r;x
r
l
J.f. 1
N.A~(I
1.
rI)
B
I
,fa
.1 (
)1 (
db
.1
,\f~
.~
..lX.1
Sy"'lmetric
=x
0([. clu
CI'
~
+ t')
(f. tla"
+ 2t'. do + eI)
I
o (f. dh + ~)
o
;: = T:
..lY.1
.~
(.{.tlaf')
(.r. Ila. llh + ~(,Iu + db) + C')
/0/3  2h)
L S
.,
= 2/(1
.. f. +L:I') ..T
d =
2IC 113 + h)
L.S
'
()
<f. db 
jYII
e)
{I. (/h~ + 2eo. db + cI)
21
= L~ 5' f = I.~ S'
= ElJulv~.lcnl she~,r area.
L'
{J.I
~XJl
1
S = (;
= POisson s ralill.
+ 2h.
011
UDC 6:!<I,Cl~'J"f,): 6~'o#,C1/:t.J:J
Frame idealization
for shear wall
support systems
very careful not to nlake the difference between the
rigidities of the nle.nbers too high since this can result
in numerical instability in the solution. This instability
is not easily identified and results can be obtained which
appear to be correct but which are in fact appreciably
in ~error.
For this type of analysis axial defornlation nlust be
considered for the colunlns but nlay be neglected for the
beanls. Shear defornlation ofthe bea.ns can have a
significant eflect bUI it is not absolutely essential to
include it.
I. A. MacLeod
SSc (Eng), PhD. CEng, MIStructE, MICE
D. R. Green
MS. SSc, PhD
LC'C'fI'~' s. Dc~p.JlltJtc"t of Ci'liIElIg;neeriIJO. University of Glasgow
Synopsis
The paper shows how a beanJ and colunJn support
,syste/n for a shear wall can be included in a plane franJe
ifllalysis. This technique which is valid for both vertical
cl/,d lateral load can 'be used 10 analyse tile wall and Its'
supporl sysleln III one cO/nputer run. COluparlson willi
finite elelJJelJ1 results illustrales I he accuracy.
Introduction
Many' shear wall structures are supported at first floor
level on a frame system to allow large open spaces at
ground floor level (Fig 1). This type of support arrangenlcnt nlay affect the behaviour of the wall under g"ravity
and latcral load.
",A1EH~l LOAD 2 "'4/""
1uN1f~~,","
"
OtS1RMkJt(C)I
,_."
..
iD
I
.[1 I
"I:::
i:
I~
D.
t /
r U"J
I :
t.
! :
.tI
"
I :
..
! .:
;
I :
;.
"
I. Ct.
A,
l:l stOREYS
COHM:CIIfoG
e(AAt
The (rarlle idealization
Fig 2(0) illusl(at~s it typic<..tl tr(llue idc<.IIiLittion of (I
shear wall supported on colun'\ns. The best way to deal
with the rigid parts 01 the traole is to treat thelll as being
fully rigid," i.e, to have an clcnlcnl in the COl1lputcr
prOfJranl of the IYPl~ shown in Fig 2{b) (St~C Appendix 1).
AltcnHltively. Ihe riUid parts can b(~ u;vc:n h;~Jh hut
finite rigidity and (J stafl'd<lrd fralnc cllHIlysis progrc.Ull
used. This can give satisfactory results" but one nlust be
:.::""
lea.
Az
i  
Note: The continuous connection techniqueS has been
applied 10 this type of problenl. This method has
its attractions but the range of wall shapes which
can be handled is Ii.nited and the calculations are
such thut tho usc of a conlputor is dcsirablo. If a
COlllputer is to be used then it is bettcr to adopt a
Inethod which has Ill0re flexibility.
Parameters affecting behaviour
The following parameters have an inlportant effect on
the behaviour of a wall supported as in Fig 1.
1. The position of the openings.
With no openings or centrally located openings.
vcrtical load is transnlHted to the supports by
arching action. The support beam provides the tie
for the arch and the wall (or connecting beams
where central openings occur) transmits the compression at the crown of the arch. For offcentre
openings the arching action is more complex
since the beams do not coincide with the crown of
the arch and arc thus recluired to transfer axial and
shcar forces. Our hypothesis is that a secondary
arch forms in the stiffer part of thcwall between
the edge of the opcning and the support column.
The relative n'lagnitude of this secondary arch
depends on the relative stiffness of the support
beam and the connecting beanls.
2. The axial and bending stiffness of the support beam.
3. The bending stiffness of the connecting beams.
4. The bending stiffness of the support colum::;.
t
I
~,..l
\. SU"f'ORl
ISAM
COd",',."
\.0:
DU\f.Ef. OF
f'''''CCOQt.A,
.,
~l .tHtOtNfSS
 0"'7::'..
\~
~"tMMt. fP!CA4.
.:
\.)rli.~If\.~
Fig 1. Wall shapes c,onsidered
:

R'c;,O'~
":CON<\:ll:>NS
j
(b) GENERAL!FORM
OF ELEMENT
Recent studies .:!,7 haveshown that it is possible to use
sin.. ple formulae
estimate the force actions in support
beanls of such shear walls under gravity load when no
openings are present.
When openings are pres'ent. especially if they are not
synlnletrically placed. the development of forn,ula~ is
inlpractical and sonle forr:ll of overall analysis is necessary.
"
This paper shows how a franle analysis can be used
lo.analyse relatively con'lplex shear wall configurations.
to'
~ . "T"h!
Srruclu(i\1
Enoinet!(IF~bu.il(Y 1973/No
2/Volume 51
rl=~1 ~StPPOAT
8t .... M
::
Co\'U,AN
(it) TYPICAL fRAME IDEALIZA TION
Fig 2. The {rjflue idealization
11
5. The finite width of the support colun'lns_
6. The type of loading (vertical and lateral)_
The use of the frame idealization of Fig 2(a) is the
simplest way to take accou.nt of all these parameters.
parameter aH is a measyre or this interilclion.t
aH is defined by
tX
H
Ib
h
b
I
Comparison with finite elenlent results
We use here finite element analysis 6 as a basis for
defining the relative accuracy of the frame nlethod. The
former method normally predicts stress and deformation
to an accuracy equivalent to that of a perspex model
with strain gauges, i.e. provided the nlesh size is chosen
sensibly, solutions by finite element may be treated as
being close to the 'exact' elastic solution.
The basic wall shapes considered arc shown In Fig 2.
The following were varied: (see Table 1).
1. Position of openings. Central and oftcentre cases
are considered.
2. Horizontal and vertical load. The relative magnitudes of the vertical and lateral loadings are such
that the vertical stress in the wall at the support
beam level on the windward side will approach zero.
3. The stiffness of the connecting beams. This has
an important effect on the degree of Interaction
between the two wall sections. The dimensionless
TABLE 1. Details of frames analysed
Az
Resulls
00875
0015
At
Table 2 gives predictions of stress actions which are
important in design, see also Figs 3 and 4. In all cases,
except for the maximum tie force in the support bearn
with offcentre openings, the frame solutions compare
favourably with the finite element results. The reason
for the discrepancy is that the frame analysis gives the
tie force at the opening whereas the maxinlum tie force
occurs below the stiffer wall section.
A simple approximation Is now developed to inlprove
on the frame results for tie force. First of all we postulate
that when the openings are offcentre two arch systenlS
forma primary one and a secondary one as shown in
Fig Sea). We therefore assume that the maximum tie
force in the support beam T is approximated by
00875
000625
Elc
A(m 2 )
0003125
hbJ
= height of wall
= moment of inertia of connecting beanl
= storey height
= clear width of openings
= distance centre to centre of wall sections
I,. = moment of Inertia of wall section
A = area of wall section
See Fig 1.
Two values of aH were used. o:H
4 represents a wall
where the connecting beams .are flexible enough to
have an Important effect on the overall behaviour of the
wall. With o:H = 15 the connecting bean,s arc stifl and
there is a high degree of composite action b~twecn th('
wall sections.
..,
, 
J12". [~ ~ ~ + ~]
03
T T"'I T"
(1)
TABLE 2. Comparison of force Actions by frame idealization and flnlte element Idealization
_____
(k_N_l
i ~c~~ ~r~~~~,~~I)llOrt
Finite
Finite
Finite
F_ra_n_'c
__I __c_lc_m_c_n_t_1_ _F_r_a_rn_e_ _ !__c_le_m_e_n_t_II__F_ra_m_e_ol__e_le_rn_e_n_t_:I__F_r_a_m_e_i.:
I__
I
1.
Maximum axial force
"'0
co
..J
f
~
t!)
In support beam
.3
;;
.3~
+1253
+1046
+782
+639
+1211
11053
I 821
1693
!iIIIII     +1528
+ 1271
+ 1046
+ 1788*
+1053
+2039
11111111.11!1
Shear force in support
beam at opening
1006
911
1553
1421
I
1'11'1111111: Shear In
+1
I
0
0
151
645
0
0
191
I 194
connecting
+2
314
315
135
beams
+3 .
119
143
~I
208
:1.199
:f:26
:! 39
Axial force in support
beam at opening
I 125.3
Finite
clement_
!:26
Maximum t\xlal force
In support beam
:!:125
158
136
.IS1
See note below
.!,I'IIIIIII_.    Shear force In support
beam at openIng
:1;261! 198
Shear force
41
1307
in connecting
42
:+:333
I .~~~n~~
"_3_
I
1..~1~~
1.600
443
795
665
! 34
1:264
1319
12S
:l14
:1365
_t 275
:l:318
.... ! 295
:'~~:~
__
~ ~~.5
.
__ __
.117
1:116
.119.~ J ~.~~.~..
..
!:106
I
12
.' 145
1155
:1 928
I
144
165
170
By approximate formula (1)
t L:ttcr"llOi\d on bC'i\n\ supported ShCClf w;\lIs dons produce axltll force in the support bean, which is generally Insignificant. In son'e
f:a~I~. hnwpv(!r. whC'"rt, the" ::;ullport hl:"" (::; ~(Hf In conlnnfi~on with Ih~ conn('ctinq h~:tn,~ tI,i~ r.flc"c:1 n';lV hC" a~ tllu("h :l~ 20 pC"~ ("{"'Ill
of lho "Ialtll''''"1 a,rlal fuft:n clun to 11 IvItV louel. Thc" halllf;' hh.,lIt"lion c:nnuul Ilrc<Ii(llh(~ 'n'Te .,,:00".
"~i
. ",,,
'LJ
D.
.
)~
.'t
on
,~ool
.\
.1
~\ 1. ..1
",.
0,
I\JOO
"'t:
.......
Z
\ 1!>TAESS AT
(.
nil!> !>ECT'Ot<
.',
Pl.OT TCO.
SOO
\'.... _.
(
;: soo
'
oC
CI.
;: soo
d
>
PRIMARY ARCH
\'.
>
1000
t Ij 11 ~ ll1!l!
~.
r' !
1000
"l",J
11\)0
.sao
fPAM
AHALYS. S
flNlTt
f.L(UE:4T ANAlYSIS
Fig 3. Vertical stress ilJwall. lale;al load case, a~H::: 15,.
(el) ARCHING ACTION
:..:
~
L"
r.:
+1~O
l&.
.fr
(!J~ 00
+100
..J
)(
+50
'"~
so
:
et.l
...ce
('lr;'~J
100
Q.
tL
::>
U)
ORMULA <I) 0< H 4
FORMULA <I> ~ H 2'5
0;' 
zoX +250
lJJ
+200
II
0:
+150
L4
..J
..c
~
1\1
.
+50
0
}i.
.(0
so
....
0:
100
CL.
ISO
a
Q.
:>
SECONDARY ARCH
+100
or:(
.. 
~~:\~
"19l
0'
va
200
LEGEND
A.A FRAME ANA~YSIS
00 o<H Il.c. } FnUTE ELE.MENT
*X o<HIS .
ANALYSIS
= tie force due to primary arch
=::: axial force in support beam from frame
analysis
T. = tie force due to secondary arch
~.
shear in support beam for frame analysis
Justification
The main assumption Is that the shear In the support
beanlls equal to the vertical reaction of the secondary
arch. We define this reaction as R and assume that the
vertical load on the secondary arch is 2R (uniformly
The Structural Engineer/February 1973/No
Fig 5. Arch action wilh off centre openings.
distributed). Taking a free body diagram atone half of
the secondary arch (Fig 5(b and assuming that the
centre of compression of the arch is at a height L.12
above the tie beanl. (L li is the span of the secondary
arch. Taking the centre of compression at L, /2 is
normally conservative'.)
Taking nloments about 0 in Fig 5(b)
L,
R 4" = T, L,/2
fig 4. Axial force in supporl beam.
where Tp
(b) FREE BODY DIAGRAM OF
SECONDARY ARCH
2/Vo'um~
51
. T. = R
_.
2
In view of the itnportance of this action and the degree
of approximation used, it (s safer to take T. = R.
Use of equation (1) gives satisfactorily conservative
results for the cases given In Table 2. If a more accurate
estimate Is requIred then a flolte element analysis can be
used. However, nleasurements have Indicated stress
levels In the tie steel much lower than calculations
predict.2
73
Conclusion
A shear wall with openings supported by a beam and
eolunln system ean be satisfactorily analysed using a
plane franle idealization wit~ rigid joints. This approach
is much more efficient computationally than finitc
elenlents and only marginally less accurate.
Appendix 1
Derivation of stiffness matrix for member with
(n)
rigid ends
For the member of Fig A 1(a) the relationship between
thc end action :P.'u,: and the corresponding deformations : Viti': is
= [KM AIl ] (U... ,,~
{P At')
where [KM..clll = [T]T [H]T [KrJ [H] [T]
~(
rK,]
rclates the end actions of Fig A 1(b) ~Pr} (where
. {P,: 7 :: IN", M", M,,}) to the corresponding dcformations, Le.
AIL
rX,]
=~
Kn "
X""
X,,,,
K,,,,
21{1 ,. to)
= ... _..
[~
K""
:.,c
l/L
l/L
l/L
1/l
IT)""
1
0
Y1
0
0
Xl
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
C
0
0
0
1
Y2
L{28
H4
1/6)
~]
0
0
0
0
1
X2
institution notes
continued (ron, page 60
Environment, and by the Construction
Industry Research and Information Association, as well as with projects of the
Building Research Establishment.
Application forms are obtainable from
G. F. Goody, CIRIA. 6 Storey's Gate,
London SW1P 3AU. and should be returned not later than 14 March.
Representation
Th~
following members have nccel,tcd the
invit;tClon of the Council to serve as Representatives in the capacities mentioned: ,
BSt Tecllnlcal Committee CEB9: Readynlixed concrete: Mr. J. H. Featherstone
(F) replacing Mr. J. A. Derrington.
aSI Technical Comnliltcc ISElt2: Steel for
Bridqc~ f,nd General Building Cons(rClclion: Mr. J. E. Ti'ylor (M) rcplClcing Mr.
S. A. C. Henry.
PYG
) Mb
Pxb
(e)
Fig 1A. Metnber with rigid ends
2. Green. o. R., MacLeod. I. A., and Girnrdau. R. S 'Foree!
action In shearwall support systems', pi\p~r pr('s('nled at
Symposium on Response of Buildings Ie Lntr,,,1 Forc('s.
Bufialo, American Concr('l~ Inslilut<" 1971
0
0
0
0
0
3. Macleod, I. A., 'Lftt('ral slinnes~ 01 sh("~, Willis with Ol)("n
Ings" Tall buildings (eds. Coull ilncl StaffordSlnilh). Lonclon,
Perg~mon, 1967.
4. Schwaighofer, J. and Microys, F. H . 'AnC\lysis of sheeu Willi
structures using standard computer pros:arcul'\S', JOl1rl1.
Cone. Ins/, Vol. 66. No. 12. Dccen,bcr 1969, p. 1005.
A,,,.
References
1. Green, D. R. 'The stress an;tlysis of shear walls'. PhD
thesis, University of Glasgow, 1970.
Pyb
(t
f
p:; ~'~i
[Tl'" relates :p. II ,: to :P",,; where
:p.t,,:7 :.: :PX..I, p,..." M,I, PXII,.P rll , Mil:
2/(1/3 ! B)
   _
. L(28 , 1/6)
[H1T' relates :P",.} to ~Pr: where
:Pnl,lT = {Prn , P"tI, M", Prl" p.If'" M ,,:
(b)
equivalent shear area.
)Mb
8
r1
28)
= 1(1/3
....... ...
K.",=. K""
A=
A L2
IH] =
K"" ':::
He
5.. Rosman, R. t 'Approximate analysis of shear wnlls subjecllo
lateral loads', Journ. Am. Conc. Inst, Vol. 61, No.6, June
1964, p. 717.
\
.
6. Zienciewicl. O. C. Tlte (illite clenu~nl ,net/.ocI in cng;lJC'cr;/JCI
science, McGrawHili, 1971.
. .
7. Green, D. R. 'The Interaction of solid shear Willis nnd their
supporting structures,' Building Science. Vol. 7, 1972. p.239.
8S1 Code o( Practice Committee BLCP/84:
Internal Partllions: Dr. W. W. L Chan (F).
8S1 Code o( Practice Committee BLCP/86:
Flat Roofs: Mr. F. E. S. West (M).
Organizing Commlltc~ (or Joint teE//SE
Conference on Offs/'ore Structures: Mr.
J. A. Derrington (F) and Mr. W. J. Shirley
(F).
CEI MacRoberl Award Evaluation Conlmiltee: Mr. E. C. Beck to represent ISEt
ICE/IMunE replacing Dr. A. A. Fullon.
Forthcoming Examinations
The next Institution Part 3 examination
and Technican Test will be held on Friday 6 July 1973.
For those nongrtlduate candidates who
have completed or been exempted fronl
the former Part 2 requirements of the
Institution the July 1973 Part 3 examination is the last opportunity to complete
the corporC\te membership requirements
and obtCl;n registration as ft chtutered
engineer by the end of 1973. Thereafter,
it. will be recalled, none will be (ldnlitt~d
to membership of the Institution unless,
prior to taking the Institution Pari 3, the
CEI Part 2 examination has been ptlss~d
or a qunlificC\tion cxr.,npling Ihercfro,"
(genernUy " UK engin~crino degree) has
been obtained. Those nongraduates who
have passed or were exempted from the
Institution Pftr.2 prior to 1970 who wish to
attempt the Part 3 examination after 1973
must first pass the 'cel 2 subiect test'
details 01 which were given in the booklet
AdnJission to tile Institution, a copy of
which Is available on ftpp'ication to the
Secretary.
Entries for the July 1973 Pcut 3 ~JtClfnin.'
lion nod Technician Test nllist be re
ceived at the Institution from home cnndid"tes not 1<'ler than 31 May 1973. The
closing date (or overseas entries hC\s now
passed.
The ,,~xt eEl P;ut 1 ~nd ParI 2 cxtl.ninalions will b(~ ht~lci in M"y 1973: (he closing
dilt!! for bolh hon1(' ilno ov{'rsnClS entries
h~s
now (lClss("cL
3. Analysis of coupled nonplanar walls
3.1 Methods of analysis
Coupled nonplanar walls maybe analysed by:
(1) continuous connection method;
(2) frame method; and
(3) fmite element/strip method.
The continuous connection method has the advantage that
for uniform sections, differential equations can be
established from which closed form solutions can be
obtained. It is therefore the most convenient approach for
simpler problems, especially where hand calculation is
possible or design charts are available for the solution. The
general application of the method is, however, difficult as it
becomes rather complicated in dealing with nonuniform
structures.
On the other hand, the fmite element method, being the most
powerful tool of analysis available, is applicable to any type
of building structure, but the cost of data preparation and
computation is often intractable.
22
It is therefore apparent that, relatively speaking, the frame
method is the most generally useful approach. It is
computationally more efficient than the [mite element
method and yet sufficiently versatile to handle most building
structures. It also has the advantage of allowing
straightforward interpretation of the structural behaviour of
the elements. In fact, it is the most popular method among
design engineers.
Herein, only the frame method is studied.
23
3.2 Frame method
Two distinct frame methods have been developed to deal
three dimensional coupled nonplanar wall structures.
Heidebrecht and Swift (1971) and Taranath (197"5, 1976)
developed special three dimensional nonplanar wall
elements, with seven degrees of freedom per node to model
the nonplanar wall units. They used Vlasov's opensection
beam theory to account for warping of the nonplanar walls
and to derive the stiffness matrices' of the nonplanar wall
elements. As a results, their
. methodology is severely limited
by the intrinsic assumption made in Vlasov theory that the
shear deformation of the walls is negligible. While this is not
really a problem for open sections, it can become a serious
problem for core walls closed by lintel beams, because the
lintel beams could induce substantial Bredt shear flow round
the cores. The method would thus lead to significant errors
in the analysis of partially closed core walls, and in the case
of nearly closed core walls, it becomes totally inapplicable
(Kahn and Stafford Smith 1975, Rutenberg and Tso 1975).
Moreover, since evaluation of the shear centres and sectorial
coordinates of the nonplanar walls are required, the method
is rather inconvenient to. use, especially for those engineers
who are not familiar with warping theories.
24
In contrast, MacLeod (1973, 1976) and MacLeod and Hosny
(1977) adopted a more fundamental approach of modelling
the nonplanar shear walls as assemblies of interconnected
planar wall units, with the warping displacement of the
nonplanar walls evaluated as an integral part of the solution.
Determination of the shear centres and sectorial coordinates
of the nonplanar walls is no longer required, and the Vlasov
theory is dispensed with all together.
Relatively, the frame method developed by MacLeod is
much more practical than the frame method which relies on
Vlasov theory.
However, in the 90s, Kwan has found two problems with
MacLeod'sframe method:
 the practice of taking the beam end rotations as the
rotations of the horizontal rigid arms is erroneous; this
would lead to incompatibility between the beam and wall
elements and consequently underestimation of beam
stiffness;
the vertical displacements of adjacent wall elements are
not compatible and as a result, artificial flexure of the
wall elements occur leading eventually errors in bending
stresses.
Herein, only the frame methods developed by MacLeod and
Kwan are presented.
25
UDC 69.022.32:624.042
Structural analysis of
wall systems
I. A. Macleod,
SSe, PhD, CEng,
MIStructE MICE
Professor 01 Civil Engine~ing" Paislt!y College 01 Technology
Introduction
The term "shear wall" has the connotation of a high wall which
The $tructural mode of action of shear walls
If a shear wall is considered over th3 height of one storey it
looks like a deep beam (Fig 1 a) and if experience with frames
is extrapolated to shear walls then there would be a temptation
to treat the wall as a deep beam. This would normally be
incorrect. For most shear walls the dominant deformation mode
is bending which (unlike the shear mode deformation of an
unbraced frame which is effectively uncoupled between the
storeys) demands that the wall be treated as a building height
unit. Looked at as a building height unit a shear wall can
normally be analysed without recourse to deep beam theory.
resists lateral 'oad but in fact aU load bearing waifs "are laterally
stiff and will tend to be the principal lateral bracing elements
whether designed to do so or not. In the past walls tended not
to be designed for lateral load. This situation is changing in that
firstfy we need to inject some science into the design process as
we build higher, and secondly modern science is capable of
helping to tackle such problems.
In this paper the recent developments in techniques for
analysis of waifs are reviewed. These techniques are principally
used for laterallaad but analysis under verticallaad can also be
useful.
Since this cannot be a comprehensive statement I intend to
concentrate on what I believe to be the more practical techniques and make no apology far the obvious personal bias.
The term"she'ar wall" is used to denote any load bearing wall
under lateral load.
Analysis ofplane walls
A single shear wall without openings therefore requires. only
elementary analytical techniques. However, a fair proportion
of walls do have at least one vertical row of openings and the
analysis of these is less straightforward. A large number of
papers have been published in recent years on the analysis of
this type of problem. Fortunately this work is easily summarised.
There is only one practical model for analysis of waifs with row
~penin~~ i.e. the frame J!!Q9~r.~f.:fi.g .1!?..~01~~~ ~ither by the
~Stiffness method' or the Continu~us.~9nnectipnmethod";
It s'lou'rd be 'noted that to achieve accuracy equivalent to
that from the frame model with plane stress finite elements an
expensively large number af. elements is required and finite
element solutions should normally be avoided for analysis of
wall systems except possibly to examine detailed problems.
Synopsis
Significant developments in techniques for analysing complex
wallsystems have occurred over the past 15 years" These
developments are reviewed and the relative importance of
various parameters is discussed. The behaviour and analysis
ofboth plane and 3D wallsystems is considered.
Continuous Connection
Bet.oJeen \o;a 11
Rigid
Sections.
Column
(Flexible)
Storeyl
Height
Unit
(a)
Plane Shear Wall
Without Openings.
Fig 1. The frame
(b)
Frame Hodel for
Wa 11 wi th Row 0 f
(c)
Continuous
Connection Method.
Openings.
model
The Structural Engineer/November 1977/No. 11/Volume 55
487
Continuous connection method
This is normally described as a separate method but it is
worthwhile to note that the basic model is 1hat of Fig 1b with
the extra assumption that the connecting beams provide a
continuous connection between the wall sections (Fig 1 c).
This is normally a good assumption (or high uniform walls
where the wall sections are stiff compared with the connecting
beams. Several solutions with varying numbers of rows of
openings, different support conditions and variation of
properties with height are available. "' 's Reaaily available connection sc;>lutions will be more efficient than corresponding
stiffness solutions but it is my experience that the versa tility
of the latter type of solution far outweighs the fact that it
requires a programme for a medium size computer.
.n.__.; . .__.i._x_Z_i
of c~~=
~;o,~.'; 11
:.f~,,:lcc~~~
. I
Hand analysis or computer analysis
Hand solutions ~re possible with the continuous connection
method although in many cases the use of a small computer is
advisable. '6
It seems that there is a reluctance on the part of designers
to use anything more than the simplest of analytical techniques.
Many situations do occur where hand analysis is not realistic
and some form of computer technique is essential.
line (lement wi th
Benc:i,uJ and
Shea,. ;:)e(o""" t i on
A~ial.
Rigid Part
xz
12
r.
(b)
Shear deformation
Terms which approximate the effect of shear deformation can
easily be included in the frame element stiffness matrix 17
although Poissons ratio and an equivalent she~r area factor
have to be added as data for each element. Shear deformation
can also be included in continuous connection solutions.
Fig 3 indicates the contrib~tion of shear def;~matiOntotop
deflection of a cantilever under uniformly distributed load. Note
that sheardeformatjon is much more important in flanged walls.
Its effect on stress is however. much less significant than its
effecton d~.fp!.f1J~Jion..__.__
 _. . .
__
It is worthwhile to include shear deformation in a computer
frame analysis of wall structures but lack of this facility in the
programme to be used should not normally cause results to be
unacceptable.
Rotationa J Spring
COl~
Fig 2. 8 asic elements
The frame method (stiffness analysis) ',2,3
The basic difference between the frame method for walls and
normal frame analysis is that the finite widths of the members
and in particular those of the "columns' cannot be neglected.
The term "wide column frame" is sometimes used to describe
this method but f now find this description somewhat restricting
and prefer to use the term "frame method" to denote a stiffness
solution which takes account of the finite widths of the members as appropriate.
The method requires the use of a plane frame programme
with the nonstandard elements shown in Fig 2 and is applica~re to a wide range of problems with no restriction on loading,
variation with height or degree of foundation fixity.
1.. 25
The stiffness of the connecting beams
There are two basic problems here i.e. :
1. How good is the assumption of full fixity between the beams
and the walls 7 This problem has been studied'8,'9 and
opinions vary. I tE~nd to ignore the effect of the ffexibility
ASF(H/D)2
100
+ 6 BID
V')
<:
)(
en
a::l
<
80
_1_
<:
c
a
C+6
f.=
top
I
H
60
010
e
.... lva
Q.I ' 
Gol
c...o
~Ic..
40
'0
CJ
a.c:.
f V')
Plan
cO'\
Top Deflection DueShear Only .
c:
s..
+6
'
Q,I
OU
Top Deflection Due Bending Only
20
1.0
I l.I.I Q\
0.5
0.2
0.0
QJ
H2:
B/D
ASF
Area Shear Factor
5/6 when B = 0
1.0 when B i 0
E
4
H/O
Fig 3. Effect of sh~ar deformation
488
The Structural Engineer/November 1977/No. 11/Volume 55
____.__,S
of this connectIon unlE:~s the re,nfofced detailing is such
that a pin is likely to develop.~~C!,~~_ea~'i...toinct!J.9~_
an estimate of this flexibility or to create a pin via the
~ (ic;~I spr~~~~~~~~~ ~ !~~~_~~t.;'~e.~~ ih~ ~igl~~~=f!qj~_~,~~b.f~
p~~lhe 1.!ame..eLement l FiY.)J.l1.
2. ~What is the contribution of the floor slabs to the connecting
beam stiffness? Again this has been studied 20 , 21., 22 but
we do not yet know the best assumption to make in all
situations.
~,.,~
~~
be
o'c.. . ~lf_',I,.
[The nodeJ.!.~ed.i!.(!1,la_b~
Each node in a s((ucturaf idealisation is normally assi;)ned
certain degrees of freedom. (In this context the degree of
freedom is the position and direction which are common to a
given force and its corresponding deformation) .. Some pro
gramming systems assign freedom numbers (or Code
numbers"') to degrees ot freedom of the structure. Tr.e 'node
freedom table' then defines the relationship between freedom
numbers and "node numbers". For example. in the portal
frame of Fig 4, nodes 1 and 2 have three degrees of freedo:n
The effect 01 cunlleclluns between IJrge panels
In large panel construction the connections between the units
do affect the overall flexibility of the structure. This ffexibility
can be modelled by introducing a 'column' between adjacent
nodes on either side of the connection at each storey level. 23
The axial stiffness of the column then models the storey height
stiffness of the vertical connection between waHs.24&.27
If would appear that this joint flexibility can be neglected in
taU large panel buifdings 2J 28 but it may have greater significance in lower buildings.
Foundation fixity
A small amount of rotational movernent at the base'
'\
t \
Freedom
Numbers
6
"4
~Ll
'Node Nur."ber
a taU
cantilever can have a most significant effect on its overall
stiffness. The introduction of foundation springs in the 'Frame
method' presents no difficulty but the values of the spring
stiffnesses to be used are not at all easy to define.
Behaviour of three dimensional wall systems
It is normal practice to treat a load bearing wall structure under
latera' load as a system of parallel walls connected by floor
slabs. Analysis is carried out for loading parallel to the two
major axes of the structure. In generat out of plane bending of
the walls is justifiably neglected as is bending of the floor slabs
except as previously noted under 'Stiffness of the connecting
beams'. The role of the floor slabs bending in .their own plane is
discussed later.
I n many cases the wans perpendicular to the direction of
loading act as flanges to the walls parallel to the loading and
the whole system behaves rather like a closed cell system
provided the connections between the walls have sufficient
strength and stiffness, As will be. shown, this three dimen
sic.;nal behaviour can now be mode!led in a quite straightforward way.
For lateral load analysis,the best approach is to carry out a
preliminary distribution of the lateral load to the waifs in
proportion to their top stiffness (the calculation of which may
require a computer analysis). This gives a feel for the importance of the various parts of the structure and it can then be
decided whether a more complete analysis is required.
Vertical load is transmitted by the connections between the
openings. the effectiveness of which can be estimated. 29
Alternatively., a better solution will be obtained by applying
vertical load to the frame model.
HOOE fREEDOH TABLE
XF
NODE
YF
THETAF
XF  Number of
X Direction Freedom
YF  Number of Y Direction freedom
THETAF  Number of Rotational Freedom
o  Restrained freedom
Fig 4. The node freedom tab/~
f \5
_1
r
<D
II
.n
FRAME
Analvsis of wall systams in three dimensions
Again a frame model is the only practical approach although
solution techniques tend to be more complex than for walls in a
single plane.
Variations on the continl;]ous connection theme have been
devised J ' JJ but discrete element solutions have greater
versatility) ...... '. I propose to discuss here ontya discrete
element stiffness app:oach which I believe has the best
versatility in combination with a simple scheme for data
input. ~2
: .. A. three dimensional (rame model need not involve nod'es ~
~ with six degrees of freedom and more efficient solutions can
i be obtained using systems of interconnected plane frames. ~
There .are various ways by which interconnections can be
made. The ~~~.o.~e~hodS) discussed here are both readily
understood by the analyst and allow wide ffexibility in use.
The Structural Engineer/November 1977 INc. 1 t /Volume 55
WAll
Hoo( fR((OC't rAel[
xf
;,
s
Fig 5, No axial deform 3 cion of bei1ms
489
I
\::'
,:
..~'

__ 1.
fRAMES
SYSTEM
Dire c t i on
NODE
loading
FREEDOM TABLE
NODE
XF
YF
THETAF
4
~
7
,
_e1~
PLAN
Fig 6. Para/ell walls connected (no torsion)
2( \s
2f \3
 1
\..:/
CD
\6.
Loading
(c)
I Wa 11 1.
ICentroidal Axis
1 Axis 
Wall 2.
(b)
FRAMES
NODE FREEDOM TABLE
PLAN
SYSTEM
~.
Wa 11 1.
Direction
3
<to
leen troi da
of
f "\7
.J)
(a)
NODE
XF
YF
THETAF
et( .
Fig 7. Walls at right angles (no torsion)
490
The Structural Engineer/November 1977/No. 11/Vofume 55
21
\3
10
'\]
\
5
1
1 \11
l~
"5
'
.... ~ ,.~
I
.......
J i
..j
"7
..:.!
_J
5
1. \
at
~1
SYSTEM
FRA:l[S
f\
l~
\8
12
ROOF
SLAB
r''
"~
Direction of loading
NODE FREEDOM TAelE
NO~E
XF
I!
YF
THETAF
PLAN
j
j
i
i
i
i
10
I
etr
11
12
Fig 8. Walls connected by floor slabs (with torsion.(S)
(normal fora plane frame). The relevantnode freedom' table
is given in Fig 4 .(freedom number 0 represents a restra int).
Such tables are used to set up the structural stiffness matrix
and would normally be established automatically by ths
computer programme. However, if the table is read as data
and freedoms at different nodes are given the same freedom
number in the table. this wiUforce the deformations which
correspond to these freedoms to be the same. Figs 5, 6, 7 and 8
show four examples of how this technique can be used to
reduce the order of solution and to model three. di.~ensi~~_!1
floor Slab
(Assumed R;9 id )
afl,\
@~ masterslavetec.'!!!iqu!]
This technique was developed independently a few yearsago.c...
using the terms "Definitive and Redunda"r rather than
Master and Slave. The Americans use the latter terminology
which is somewhat more picturesque and is adopted here.
The Structural Engineer/November 1977/No. 11/Volume 55
t 2/~~er
11
Displaced
f]
.lition
w~T_f=~x
behaviour. Thus to createithree diniensfon3r system, the\
node freedom table is read as data by the programme bU~__\
otherwi~e ~~~~~~_.~s t~e.sa~e as "that for Plane.f~a"l~S.:._~===,
_" VirtuallY any system of frames and floors which are at fight :
~" angles to each other can be analysed using this technique. _" :
rTh~;eare'however: some practical limitations. First of
one naturally wishes tf? n:'i.nimis~ ~he" cost of data prep~rati~~".J
and com uter time. lThis is where the preliminary analysis
can help to ens~r~that only the important parts of the stru.c~u~_t: "
are included in the three dimensional model.' Secondly, be ~
i careful with the numerical stability of the calculations.. Tall, \
flexible units interconnected with taU stiff units can give .
trouble and it may be better to remove the flexible part from :"
I; the analysis if it is of secondary importance. :With respect to
 ~~merical conditioning of a solution the more significant
figures (i.e. the longer the word length) used in the solution
routine the better.
.
freedom
1_
Sa
.1
Sa
Fig 9. Plan of3wall system
As mentioned before. it is normal to assign degrees of
freedom to nodes but in some cases these freedoms are not
independent but are directly related.
As a simple example,consider the floor slab shown in Fig 9. If
we wish to aSsume that the floor is rigid in its own plane then
(neglecting deflection in the X direction) two of the three
degrees of freedom shown are sufficient to define the inplane
movements. If freedoms 1 and 3 are defined as master freedoms, freedom 2 will be the slave freedom since the corresponding deformations are related bV
A2
i.e.
where
and
[0505] {~:} .
[Al{.1",}
{.d.l} is the vector of slave deformations
{.dill} is the vector of master deformations
.d.. 
TheA matrix is used to eliminate. the slave freedoms as
variables in the stiffnesssolution 44 In general, any three
491
freedoms which are not colinear can define tOe movement of
a plane and all otter freedoms in that plane can be eliminated
by thi~ technique (if the prane is rigid)_
The fonowing scheme for defining relationships between
rigidly connected freedoms has been developed to simplify
data input_
,..
A method of establishing the A matrix from this information
;s given in Appendix L
This technique can be used to analyse a wide variety of
systems of connected plates assuming only membrane action.
Th"e main applications of the masterslave technique in
building structures are in modelling:
1. The action of floor slabs as fully rigid in their own plane.
2. The three dimensional behaviour of systems of walls
which are not at right angles to each other_
Other uses are to connect frame elements to finite elements.
simulate a rigid pile capl etc.
I.
Fig 10. Plan with wallnot at right angles
As previously mentioned. a freedom defines a position and
direction. A convenient way to define a freedom ;s therefore.
bV two coordinate points. the first of which ;s the position of
the freedom and the direction of the freedom is from the first
point to the second po;nt. For example. for the system of walls
shown in Fig 10 the master freedoms can be defined by
Xl
t
Hode
X2
'
Degrees of
Freedom
Hode 2
1/
L
Freedom number
Position
Direction
00. 50
150.100
150. 00
00. 60
160.. 100
160. 00
Position
Direction
2
3
and the slave freedom by
Freedom number
300, 00
The coordinate position quoted above are in order x. y.
Node 4~
/'
,.
X3
X4
250. 50
.,
Convention As in Fig.
z.
Fig 11. The:solid wall element
10
I hI
8
~.
FlWiES
NODE fREEDOM TABLE
SYSTEM
0r
zn
"""tz.,....,..zJ;D
,....,e::z.za
(0
P;W:i1
Direction
of loading
PLAN
Fig 12. Web wall without openingthe solid wall element
492
NODE
XF
YF
10
11
 
etc.
THETAF
:...
The Structural Engineer/November 1977{No. 11/Volume 55
(1
I
1
9
. __8
I 1
10 ,
~ :Z"
D
UAlLS
SYSTEH
HODE FREEDOH TABLE
~~~""';"''''';"".,L.~:;L..dIIII:t1'"'
~
Bracing
Element
See Ref. 46.
YF
XF
WOE
THETAF
.1
10
10
~L...:.tc.
PLAN
carry out the necessary calculations. In other words, if
suitable material laws can be defined then the technology is
available to process them into an overall analysis. However,
the cost of computer time for large scale dyna:r:ic nonlinear
analysis is such that one could not describe this yet as a
practical design procedure except for very expensive structures.
Therefore. the step from linear to nonlinear analysis is not a
simple progression and a better understanding of detailed
behaviour is needed before accurate. predictions can be contemplated. ..!..!'eli~ve t.ha~ th~. bigge~t I?~!ential be')efi's from
research in building aesign could come from observatio~ of
. ~t"er~al behaviour of buildings rather than from developments'
in analysis.
.
Fig 13. Core systemthe solid wall element
The solid wall element
In some cases one needs to connect to a wall at both its edges.
This' is quite easy if the wall has a row of openings but when
the connecting wall has no openings the normal frame system
requires modification since the column element of Fig 2 has
only two nodes. The connection can be achieved using the
"master.;.slave facility previously described but it is more
efficient to use' a special elementthe solid wall element
shown in Fig 11 .6.
Fig 12 shows the solid wall element used to. model a web
waflwith no openings and. Fig 13 shows how a core system
can be treated.. G
~
,

.
Treatment ofthe Inplane action of the /Ioor slabs
It is normal practice to assume that the floor slabs are fully
rigid in their own planes although this assumption may be
somewhat inaccurate for long narrow structures J8 , .7, "S. Fig 8
shows how inplane bending can be introduced in the frame
method and the fully rigid assumption can be implemented
via the "masterslave technique.
The use of the fully rigid inplane floor assumption has
opposing effects. Firstly., it will improve the numerical conditioning since it removes high but finite stiffness from the
structural stiffness matrix. Secondly, it will decrease the number of freedoms but effectively double the band width of the
structural stiffness matrix resulting in increased computing
costs.
r ..
_..
..__ .
.(
.J
Future developments in analysis of load bearing wall
.tructu....
A more accurate model could include:
1. Prediction of post yield behaviour to provide more realistic
estimates of ultimate strength.
2. Prediction of behaviour under earthquake conditions.
3. Prediction of long term behaviour including effect of creep.
shrinkage and soil deformation.
The earthquake problem is being given considerable attention at present. particularly in USA and New Zealand. It is
clear from this work .that our knowledge of the detailed
~haviour of the materials and connections in building structures is considerably le~ well developed than our ability to
The Structural Engineer/November 19TI/No. 11/Volume 55
Conclusions
There is no doubt that the frame n,odel is a good representation
of the equivalent monolithic elastic system. One would
normally expect differences b~tween results from this model
and the real system due to :
1. Whatever values are adopted for the elastic constants to be
used they will only give a very crude approximation to the
real behaviour. For this reason estimates of deflection in
particular will not correlate well with real behaviour except
bvchance.
2. The difficulty of estimating the stiffness of the connectklg
beams.
3. The effect of joints in large panel construction or in brickwork buildings.
4. The difficulty of defining the foundation fixity.
With all these imponderables is the elastic frame model
worthwhile 7 Is it any better than simple bending theory which
does not take account of the flexibility of the connecting
beams 7 My answer to both these questions is yes. Use of the
techniques described in this paper does promote a better
understanding of . the behaviour of a' load bearing wall
structure and will lead to improved design if used with good
judgement..
Appendix 1
In Fig 14 freedoms 1, 2 and 3 are master freedoms and S is a
slave freedom. If all these freedoms move in a rigid X Y plane
then the force and deformation corresponding to freedom S
are not independent of those corresponding to freedoms 1,
493
convention for M. Similarly P s is transformed to the" origin:
.... (2)
a
where {Pols is the vector of resultant stave actions at the origin.
and P s is the slave action.
Inverting (1) {P}m  (B]' {Pa}",
\lI;c:=:::~x
.... (3)
{PO}m is staticaUy equivalent to {Po}s
i.e.
{PalM  {Pol,
.... (4)
Fig 14. Master andslavIJ freedoms
Substituting (2) and (4) in (3) gives
2 and 3. The equilibrium relationship between these freedoms
can be defined as follows:
P,. P 2 and P3 can be transformed to a system of force actions
at the origin of the X .. Y system viz (Pi is the force correspondi og to freedom i) :
lo ~~s:.l ~~S~2 ~~~3] (;:J
{;;l
MJ
a,
P3
i.e.
{po}m  [A]I p.
with the chosen
thus :Aj'  (8]1 [C] is the tran"spose of the required A matrix"'~.
If the master" or slave freedom is rotational then the corresponding column of (8J or (C] is (transposed) {a 0 1}.
Further slave freedoms can be added to increase the number
of columns of ~A]t.
Situations with two or single master freedoms can be handfea
similarly.
1. Candy, C. F. Analysis of shearwall frames by computer.... New
Zealand Engineering (Wellington).. Vol. 19.. No.9. Sept. 15.
1964. pp. 342347.
2. Macleod. I A. 'lateral stiffness of shear walls with openings".
Proceedings Symposium on" Tall Buildings with Panicufar
Reference to ShearWaU Structures. University ofSouthampton"
April. 1966. Pergamon Press. 1 967. pp. 223252.
3. Macfeod. I. A. &. Green. D. R. Frame idealisation for shear
wall support systems.. Structural Engineer 1973. Vol. 51 .. No.2.
Feb. pp. 7174.
4. Beck.. H. 'Contribution to the analysis of coupled shear wafts'.
American Concrete Institute Journ.1 Proceedings., Vol. 59"
Aug. 1962. p. 1055.
5. Rosman. R. 'Approximate analysis of shear walls subject to
lateral 10ads'pAmerican Concrete InstiluteJournalProceedings,
Vol. 61. June 1964.. p;. 717.
6. Rosman. R. Tables for the internal forces of pierced shear
walls subject to lateral loads'" Bauingenieur.. Praxis. Heft 66.
W. t"rnst and Sohn. Bef.in. 1966.
7. Rosman. R. "Statik und dynamik der scheibensysteme des
hochbaues"" Springer.. Verlag. Berlin. West Germany. 1968.
a. Traum. E. E. "Multistorev pierc"ed shear walls of variable crosssection. Proceedings. Symposium on tall buildings with
particular reference to shear wall structures. University of
Southampton. April. 1966.PergamonPress. 1967. pp. 181 .. 206.
9. Coull. A. and Choudhury.. J. R. "Analysis of coupled shear
walls'. American Concrete Institut" Journal Proceedings.
Vol. 64. September. 1967. p. 587.
.".:f O. Coull. A. 'Pierced shear walls. of stepwise variable thickness ..
Journal of the Structural Division American Society of Civil
Engineers" Vol. 100. No. S.T..5" May 1974. p. 1157.
11. Coull. A. and Chantaksinopas. B. "Design curves for coupled
chear walls on flexible bases"" Proceedings Institution of Civil
Engineers" Vol. 57. Part 2. December 1974.
12. Coull. A. and Subedi. N. K. 'Coupled shear walls with two and
three bands of openings', Buildings Science" Vot 7, 1972.
pp.8186.
13. Rosman. R. "The effect of temperature on multistorey
structures'. Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. II.
7172.. No.8. February 1972. pp. 359373.
"
14. Tso. W. K. and Chan. P. C.I<. "Flexible foundation effect on
coupled shear shear walls" American Concrettf Institut~
Journ6/. Proceedings" Vol. 69. No. 65.. November 1972. pp.
678683. Authors erasure" American concrete Institute
Journal Proceedings Vol. No.5. May 1973. pp. 372373.
1 S. Rosman. R. 'Pierced walls subject to gravity loads"" Concrete
(london). June. 1968. pp. 252258.
16. Pearce. O. J . and Mathews. D. D. "An appraisal of the
design of shear walls in boxframe structures"" Report No.
0.690.. 12/1 Directorate of Civil Engineering Development.
Department of the Environment" Croydon. England. 1973.
pp.41.
'..17. Macleod.. I. A. "General frame element for shear waif analysis'.
Proceedings" Institution of Civil Engineers" Part 2.. 1976..
Vol. 61, December. pp. 785790.
18. Michael. D. the effect of local wall deformations on the
elastic interaction of cross walls coupled by beams. Proceed
ings. Symposium on Tall Buildings with Particular Reference
to Shear Wall Structures. University of Southampton. Apr.1.
1966.. Pergamon Press. 1967. pp. 253272.
19. Harrison. T.. Siddall. J. M. and Yeadon. R. E. "A modified
beam stiffness matrix for interconnected shear walls'. BUilding
Sci~nce, Vol. 10.. No. 2. July. 1975. pp. 8994.
20 Barnard" P. R.. and Schwaighoffer. J. ,.he interaction of shear
walls connected solely through slabs" Proceedings.. Sympo
sium on TaU Buildings with Particular Reference to Shear
Wall Structures.. University of Southampton" April. 1 966.
Pergamon Press. 1967. pp. 157180.
21. Quadeer. A." and Stafford Smith. B. ,.he bending stiffness of
slabs connecting shear walls". American Concrete Institute.
June. 1969. :>p. 464473. (Discussion: December. 1969. pp.
10211022).
22. coun. A and EI Hag.. A. A. Effective coupling of shear walls
by floor slabs, American Concrete Institute Journal. August"
1975. pp. 429431.
23. Macleod. r. A. and Green.. D. R. 'Three dimensional analysis
of shear wall buildings'. Bulletin International Association for
Space & SheU Structures. No. 60. 1975.
24. Burnettr E. F" P.. and Re;endra. R. C. S. 1972" 'nfluence of
joi nts in panefized structural systems.'. Americm Society of
Civil Engineers Journal. 98 (ST9). pp. 19431955.
25. Pollner. E." Tso.. W. K... and Heidebrecht.. A. C. "Analysis of
shear walls in large panel construction', Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering" Vol. 2. No.3.. pp. 357367.. 1975.
26. Nayar. K. K. and Coull. A. Elastoplastic analysis of coupled
shear walls'" Journal of the Structural Division" American
Society of Civil Engineers" Vol. 102. No. ST9. Proceedings
Paper. 12401 September 1976.. pp. 18451860.
27. Bluger" F. 'Oetermination of deformability characteristics of
ve11ical shear joints in precast buildings". Building & Environ
ment. Vol. II. No.4 1976: pp. 217232.
28. Bhatt." P. "Influence of Vertical joints on the behaviour of
precast shear waUs. Building Science. Vot 8. pp. 221224.
Perg~mon Press" 1973.
~ 29. MacLeod. I. A.." and Hosny, H. The distribution of vertical
load in shear waif buildings". The Structural Enginel:r. Vol. 54.
No. 2.. February 1976. pp. 6771 ..
~. 30. Rosman. R. Analysis of spatial concrete shear wall systems..
Proceedings. Institution of Civil Engineers (London).. Supplement vi. Pa~( 7266 s. 1970. pp. 131152 (Oi~ussion:
: :~Supplement xvi. 1970. pp. 371374).
62
"3
i.e:2{Po}",  [B]{P}m
where
.. (1)
{Po}/ft is the vector of resultant master
{P}/ft is the vector of master actions.
origin an
The sign of
8, must be chosen to
~ccord
actions at the
References
494
The Structural Engineer/November 1977/No. 11/Volume 55
31.
Petersson, H. 'Analysis of Loadbearing Walls in Multistorey
BuildIngs', Chalmers Institute of Tp.chnology, Gothenborg,
Sweden. 1974.
'2 Coull. A. and Irwin. A. W. 'Analysis of load distribution in
.
\,3 . multlstorey shear wall structures'. The Structural nglneer..
August. 1970, pp. 301.:306.
.
33. _ Biswas, J. K., and Two. W. K. 'ThreeDimensional Analysis
V
of Shear Wall Buildings Subjected to Lateral loads', Journal
the Structural Division. American Society of Civil ngine.ers,
Vol. 100. No. STS. May. 1974. PP. 10191036. (Discussion:
January, 1975, pp. 357 358; Julv. 1975, p. 1616).
34.  Clough. R. W., King, I. P., and Wilson, E. L 'Structural a.n~lysis
of multistory buildings', Journal of the Structural DIvIsion.
American Society 01 Civil Engineers, Vol. 90, ST3, 1964..
pages 1934.
.
35. Weaver, William~ Jr., and Nelson. M. F. ahreedlmenslonal
analysis of tier buildings', Journal of the Structural Division,
American Society 0/ Civil Engineers, Vol. 92, ST6.. December,
1966, pages 385404.
.
,36 Winokur. Arnold and Gluck, Jacob, 'lateral loads in asym
\J metric multistorey structures'. Journal of the Structural
Division, Arne/ican Society of C;vil Engineers. Vol. 94". ST3,
March. 1968, pages 645656.
:'7. Webster. J. A. 'The static and dynamic analysis of orthogonal
structures composed of shear walls and frames', Proceedings,
Symposium on Tall Buildings with particular reference to
Shear Wall Structures, UniverSItY of Southampton April 1966
Pe/gamon Pess, 1967 pages 377399.
38. Goldberg. J. E. "Analysis of mult;storey buildings considering
shear wall and floor deformations', Proceedings. Symposium
on Tall Buildings with pan.cular reference' to Shear Wall
Structures, University of Southampton, April. 1966, Pe/gamon
Press. 1967. pp. 349375.
, 39.. Heidebrecht. A. C. and Swift, R. D. 'Analysis of Asymmetrical
\..
Coupled Shear Walls', Journal of the Structural Division,
American Society of Civil Enginee/s, Vol. 97, No. SIS. May
1 971. pp. 1407 1422.
The Structural En~ineer/November 1977/No. t1/Volume 55
MacLeod. I. A. 'Analysis of shear wall buildings by the frame
method" Proceedings. Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 55.
September. 1973. pp. 593603.
. 41. Taranath. B. S. Analysis of interconnected open section shear
wall structures Journal of the Structural Division. American
Society 01 Civil Engineers. Vol. 101, No. ST11. November,
1975, pp. 2367 2384.
42. MacLeod. I. A, ShearWall/l'. Genesys Subsystem Users
Manual. Genesys Ltd., Loughborough, 1976.
43. Rubinstein 'Matrix compu(er analysis of structures, Prentice
Hall, 1966.
40.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
Macleod. I. A . Wilson. W . Bhatt. P. and Green. O. R. 'Two
dimens'onal treatment of complex structures, P/oceedings.
Institution of Civil ngine,ers (London), Vol. 53" part 2,
December, 1972. pp. 589596.
Macleod. I. A. 'Analysis of Tall Buildings InCluding Torsion'
Proceedings of the Conference on Tall Buildings. Hong Kong. \
September. 1976.
MacLeod. I. A. and Hosny, H. M. "Frame analysis of shear
wall cores'.. Paper presented at American Society of C,Vil
Engineers Specially Conference, Madison" Wisconsin, U.S.A.,
August, 1976.
Dickson. M. G. T., and Nilson. A. H. 'Analysis of cellular
buildings for. lateral loads'. American Concrete Institute
Jou/nal. December, 1970.. pp. 963966.
Irwin" A. W. Analysis of tall shear wall buildings inclUding
inplane floor deformations', Build International, Vol. 8, No.1,
JanuaryFebruary. 1975. pp. 4355.
_
Singh" G. and Schwaighofer, J. 'A bibliography on shear
walls'" Report Depa/tment a/Civil Engineering. University of
Toronto, 1976.
Ramakrishnan. V. Vadivelu, S. K. and Prasad, N. M_ Report
SDSM&TCNSF 7405. Department of Civil EngineerJng.
South Dakota School of Mines &. Technology, Rapid City.
South Dak.ota 57701.
495
j.
Reformulation of the frame method
A. K. H. Kwan, BSc(Eng), PhD, MICE
Proc.lnstn Civ.
Engrs Structs &
Bldgs, 1992, 94,
Feb., 103116
Paper 9809
Am.ong design engineers, the frame
method is popular for the analysis of
coupled wallframe buildings. However,
there are several problems with it. Firstly,
shear deformation of the walls is either
totally neglected or inappropriately
allowed for. Secondly, the rotational
degrees of freedom at the beamwall joints
have been mistaken as the rotations of the
horizontal rigid arms, leading to incompatibility between the beam and wall elements. Thirdly, there is also the problem
of artificial flexure due to discrete modelling of the continuous connection between
adjacent wall units. An attempt to solve
these proble~s was made by the Author in
a previous paper; and a further investigation is carried out here. It is found that, to
overcome these problems, substantial
reformulation of the frame method is
necessary. The reformulation leads to a
new solid wall element which is really a
strainbased finite element with rotational
degrees of freedom. Numerical examples
are given for comparing with other theoretical and experimental results.
Notation
A
b
E
G
h
R
t
U,v
(Xi
Pi
x' ,
,.0
'1
1"
n1
n1
n 3 , n4
B
E
K
K1
K'1
K1
K'1
K,3
sectional area
breadth of element
Young's modulus
shear modulus
height of element
moment of inertia
radius of curvature of frame axis
thickness of element
horizontal and vertical displacements
coefficients in mixed displacement/strain
function formulation
coefficients in strain function formulation
strain in x and y directions
value of , at the centroidal axis
shear strain
shear stress
rotation of vertical fibre
strain energy due to axial and bending
strain
strain energy due to shear strain
energy lost at vertical joints between adjacent elements
strain displacement matrix
elasticity matrix
element stiffness matrix
axial and bending stiffness matrix
axial and bending stiffness matrix after
reformulation
shear stiffness matrix
shear stiffness matrix after reformulation
stiffness matrix for recovering energy lost at
wall joints
Existing frame methods
The frame method was used originally for the
analysis of skeletal frame structures. It was
adapted to the analysis of plane coupled shear
wall structures by incorporating rigid arms in
the beam elements to take the finite width of
the shear walls into account. 1.2
2. The method had been extended to the
analysis of threedimensional coupled nonplanar shear/core wall structures in two different ways, namely the nonplanar wall element
approach and the planar wall element
approach.
3. In the nonplanar wall element
approach, 3,4 the nonplanar walls of the building structure are modelled by special threedimensional nonplanar wall elements which
have seven degrees of freedom at each end,
among which the first six are the same as those
of normal space frame elements, while the
seventh is the warping displacement of the wall
section. Vlasov theory is used to evaluate the
warping effects and to derive the stiffness
matrices of the nonplanar wall elements. Calculation of the shear centres and sectorial coordinates of the nonplanar walls is required;
therefore, frankly, this method is not convenient to use, especially for those engineers who
are not familiar with warping theories.
4. On the other hand, with the planar wall
element approach,5.6 the nonplanar walls of the
building structure are treated as assemblies of
twodimensional planar wall units interconnected at their vertical joints. Each planar wall
unit is modelled individually by planar wall
elements, and, in so doing, the warping displacements of the nonplanar walls are evaluated as an integral part of the solution. Hence
reliance on Vlasov theory is not necessary, and
determination of the shear centres and sectorial
coordinates of the nonplanar walls is no
longer required. Two types of elementthe
solid wall element and the generalized column
element (Fig. I)were developed to model the
planar wall units. The solid wall element is
used to model solid walls connected to other
wall units at both edges, while the generalized
column element is used to model wall units con
neeted to coupling beams. In general cases, a
mixture of the two types of element is needed.
Problems with existing frame
methods
5. Both the above forms of frame method
have been popular among design engineers for
many years. However, there are still a number
of problems with them.
Written discussion closes
15 April 1992
A. K. H. Kwan,
Lecturer, Department of Civil and
Structural Engineering, University
o/Hong Kong
103
KWAN
:1
I
I
I
v,
u,
(b)
Fig. 1. Planar wall elements developed to model
planar wall units :6 (a) solid wall element;
(b) generalized column element
Fig. 2. Rotations o/beams whenthe walls
deflect in shear: (a) conventional frame
methodthe beams would rotate with the horizontal rigid arms; (b) in actual structurethe
beams should rotate with the axis 0/ the wall
Axis
(a)
104
(b)
6. The problems with the nonplanar wall
element approach arise mainly from their reliance on Vlasov theory which was intended
originally for open sections only. In the Vlasov
theory, the warping effects are evaluated on the
basis of the assumptions that the shear centre
is fixed and the shear deformation of the walls
is negligible. In recent years, however, the
validity of the concept of a fixed shear centre
has been questioned by many researchers. In
1984, Stafford Smith and Abate 7 showed that
the location of the shear centre is not really
fixed; there could be a fairly large shift of the
shear centre at regions of warping restraints.
Moreover, since the shear deformation of the
walls is totally neglected, the nonplanar wall
elements are not applicable to cases such as
core walls subjected to torsion (or combined
bending and torsion) and shear/core walls subjected to concentrated vertical loads, etc., where
shear deformation can be significant.
7. For the above reasons, the planar wall
element approach, which is more fundamental
and does not rely on Vlasov theory, is generally
preferred. However, the existing frame methods
that adopt the planar wall element approach are
not without problems. The major problem is
that the effects of wall shear deformation have
not been allowed for fully or appropriately.
This is not at all obvious because the shear
deformation of the walls has already been taken
into account in the derivation of the stiffness
matrices of the wall elements. What has been
missing is the effect of wall shear deformation
on the coupling beams, as explained later. In
the current practice, the lintel beams are
assumed to be rigidly connected to the horizontal rigid arms such that the rotations of the
beams at the beamwall joints are equal to
those of the rigid arms. Consequently, when the
walls deflect in shear with the rigid arms
remaining horizontal, the beams would not
rotate with the walls (Fig. 2(a. This is,
however, incorrect because, when the walls
deflect in shear, the beams should rotate as in
Fig. 2(b). It is therefore seen that the beam rotations due to wall shear deformation have been
omitted. On account of this omission, it has
become possible for the walls to deform in
shear without straining the coupling beams
(Fig. 3(a, while in actual fact, the coupling
beams should be strained (Fig. 3(b. This
results in underestimation of the coupling
effects, or, in other words, overestimation of the
shear flexibility of the coupled wall structure.
Therefore, the way that shear deformation of
the walls is allowed for in the existing frame
methods is not really appropriate. This problem
was addressed in 1986 by Rutenberg et al.,8
who also demonstrated that partly because of
this, the existing frame methods (planar wall
element approach) grossly overestimate the torsional rotations of core walls closed by medium
REFORMULATION OF
FRAME METHOD
to heavy lintel beams.
8. This problem is related closely to the
Question of how the rotational degrees of
freedom at the beamwall joints should be
defined. The intrinsic assumption in the frame
methods that the rotations of the beams at the
beam wall joints are equal to those of the horizontal rigid arms is equivalent to defining the
rotational degrees of freedom at the joints as
the rotations of the horizontal fibres in the
walls. However, this definition would lead to
incompatibility between the beam and wall elements, as shown in Fig. 4(a). To ensure compatibility between the beam and wall elements, the
rotational degrees of freedom at the joints must
be defined as the rotations of the beam wall
boundaries: i.e. the rotations of the vertical
fibres at the joints (Fig. 4(b, because this is
the only way to guarantee conformity of the
boundary displacements. It is noteworthy that
the difference in rotations of the horizontal and
vertical fibres is actually the shear strain, and
that, because of possible difference in shear
strain at the two sides of a beamwall joint, the
rotation of the horizontal fibre at the beam side
and that at the wall side are not necessarily
equal. So there is no unique horizontal fibre
rotation at a beamwall joint at all. Hence the
existing definition of joint rotations as the rotations of the horizontal fibres is incorrect; the
correct definition should be the rotations of the
vertical fibres at the joints.
9. There is yet another problem with the
planar wall element approach which is also
associated with the shear stress or strain of the
walls. Consider the interconnected planar wall
units in Fig. 5{a). As a result of the interaction
between adjacent wall units, developed shear
stresses would be evident along the vertical
edges of the wall units. In open sections, the
vertical shear stresses are generally negligible.
However, in core walls partially closed by lintel
beams or even completely closed by themselves, the vertical shear stresses developed at
the element edges could be quite significant
owing to the circulatory Brecht shear flow
round the cores. The vertical shear stresses at
the edges should theoretically be distributed
continuously along the height of the wall elements. However, as the continuous connection
between adjacent wall units is actually modelled by discrete connections at the nodes, the
continuous shear stresses can be treated only
as equivalent to concentrated vertical forces
acting at the nodes (Fig. 5(b. As a result, a
solid wall element subjected to pure shear
would, in effect, be subjected not only to shear
stresses but also to bending moments at the top
and bottom ends of the element. As these
bending moments do not exist physically, they
are considered parasitic. Such parasitic
moments cause artificial flexure of the wall elements, as shown in Fig. 5(c), and eventually
(~
(~
Fig. 3. Deformation of the lintel beams when
the walls deflect in shear: (a) conventional
frame methodthe beams remain unstrained;
(b) in actual structurethe beams should be
strained
overestimation of the shear flexibility of the
wall assembly. This problem was noted early in
1979 by Stafford Smith and Girgis. 9 It can be
reduced by dividing the building structure into
more layerssay, two or more layers per
storeyso that the discrete connection can
simulate the behaviour of the continuous con
nection more closely but cannot be totally
eliminated.
Resolving the problems with
beamwall incompatibility
10. An attempt to solve the above problems
was made recently by the Author. 10 First, he
pointed out that in order to ensure compatibility between the beam and wall elements, the
rotational degrees of freedom at the beamwall
joints must be defined as the rotations of the
vertical fibres at the joints, and that the conventional definition as the rotations of the horizontal rigid arms is erroneous. Then,
distinguishing the horizontal fibre rotation and
vertical fibre rotation in the derivation of the
stiffness matrices, he found that the shear
deformation of the walls should really be
allowed for in the rigid arms rather than in the
Fig. 4. Rotational degrees offreedom at the
beamwall joints defined as: (a) rotations of
horizontal fibres,. (b) rotations of vertical fibres
Shear
strain
Horizontal
Axis of
fibre
wall
Incompatibility
(a)
(b)
105
KWAN
column elements which model the axial and
bending behaviour of the wall units. Based on
this finding, he developed a solid wall element
with rotational degrees of freedom which are
defined as the rotations of the vertical fibres
(Fig. 6(a. Unlike other solid wall elements, this
element can be used for both solid walls connected to other wall uni ts at each edge and
walls coupled with beams. Therefore, the
Author's solid wall element is generally more
versatile and convenient to use ; and, more
importantly, his element yields much better
results than the conventional frame methods in
the analysis of shear walls subjected to concentrated vertical loads, and core walls subjected
to torsion where shear deformation is significant.
Vertical joint between
adjacent wall units
~I~
Vertical
1J
rshear
t stress
tJ
t~
tJ
tJ
(a)
These two nodal forces
induce parasitic. moment
Present study
Nodal force
due to
vertical
shear stress
I
I
J+H*
Additional
deflexion
due to
artificial
flexure
I
(b)
(c)
Fig. 5. Parasitic moments and artificial flexure
in planar wall elements: (a) shear stresses
along vertical joints,. (b) equivalent nodal forces
and parasitic moments; (c) artificial flexure
and additional deflexion
Fig. 6. Kwan's solid wall elements: (a)discrete
member model (as developed in reference 10);
(b) continuum model (adopted in this Paper)
(Note: (JJ defined as  auf Oy: i.e. rotation of
vertical fibre, displacement vector defined as
{u 1 (JJ 1V 1V 2 U 2 (JJ 2 V 3 V 4}')
ClJ2
V3!
1\
106
~
W, u,
+
V3t
~
y,v
Column
member
VII
tv.
II ~igid
arm
W2
lV2
+
Lx.u
tv.
Thickness
I.
=t
11. The Author's frame method, as presented in reference 10, resembles the conventional
frame methods, in that his solid wall element is
also modelled by discrete frame members (one
column member and two rigid arms). It will be
shown in this Paper that there are some problems with such a discrete member modelling
methodsuch as discrete variation of shear
strain, error in shear strain distribution and
error in lateral deflexion, etc.that can never
be completely resolved. In order to overcome
these problems, which are inherent in discrete
member models,the frame method is extensively reformulated by treating the wall
element as an elastic continuum rather than as
beingcomposed of discrete members. The reformulation leads to a new solid wall element
which is really a strainbased finite element
with rotational degrees of freedom. Hence the
frame method is related to the finiteelement
method. This solid wall element is generally
more efficient than other finite elements, which
allow only uniform bending moment within the
elements. However, the new element is still
afflicted by artificial flexure. A simple method
of reducing artificial flexure is proposed in the
later part of the Paper.
Shear strain in the solid wall
element
Problems arising from discrete variation of
shear strain
12. The Author's solid wall element, as
developed in reference 10, is composed of three
discrete members: one column member at the
centroidal axis of the wall unit, and two horizontal rigid arms connecting the column
member to the nodes (Fig. 6(a. The column
member simulates the axial and bending behaviour of the wall element, while the two rigid
arms, which are deformable in shear, allow for
shear deformation of the element. In reference
10, the stiffness matrix of Kwan's solid wall
element is given by
REFORMULATION OF
FRAME METHOD
(1)
where K 1 is the stiffness matrix of the column
member (axial and bending stiffness matrix of
the element) as given by equation (2), and K 2 is
the stiffness matrix of the two rigid arms (shear
stiffness matrix of the element) as given by
equation (3), in which I and A are the moment
of inertia and crosssectional area of the wall
element respectively: i.e. 1= tb 3 /12 and A = tb.
13. This solid wall element has the peculiar characteristics that: shear deformation is
allowed for in the rigid arms rather than in the
column member; and shear strain is assumed to
be uniform in each rigid arm, but the shear
strain in one rigid arm may be different from
that in the other rigid arm. As the top and
bottom rigid arms represent the upper and
lower halves of the element respectively, and
the shear strains in the two rigid arms are independent of each other, the shear strain varies
along the height as a discrete function. This
can be demonstrated by analysing a cantilever
wall subjected to a concentrated top load as
shown in Fig. 7(a), using only one element.
From the results plotted in Fig. 7(b), it can be
seen that this solid wall element yields a discrete shear stress distribution which varies
from zero at the upper half abruptly to two
times the correct value at the lower half. As the
correct answer should be a constant shear
stress along the entire height, the shear stress
distribution is erroneous. Apart from the error
in shear stress distribution, there is also error
in lateral deflexion as illustrated in Table 1, in
which the exact solution obtained by the engineering theory of bending is also tabulated for
comparison. It also shown in this table that
the error in lateral deflexion arises solely from
the overestimation of the shear deflexion of the
cantilever wall which, in turn, is due to the
error in shear strain at the base of the wall.
12EI
K1
14. The Author's way of accounting for the
shear deformation of the walls by incorporating
shear flexibility in the two rigid arms, which
leads eventually to discrete variation of shear
strain within the element, is a little awkward. It
would appear more reasonable if the variation
of shear strain within the element could be
taken as a continuous function. Since the shear
strain at the top of the element and that at the
bottom are independent, and hence generally
not equal, the shear strain within the element
must vary at least as a linear function.
EA
EA
4h
4h
EA
EA
4h
4h
4EI
6EI
J;2
GEl
12El
y
J;2
GEl
2EI
J;2
2EI
h
EA
EA
4h
4h
EA
EA
4h
4h
EA
4h
EA
4h
EA
6EI
J;2
0
12/
GEl
J;2
6EI
4EI
J;2
EA
4h
EA
EA
EA
4h
4h
4h
Glh
2b
Gthb
2
Glh
2
Gth
2
Gth
Gth
Glh.
Gth
Gth
2b
Gth
2b
Gth
Gth
Gth
K2
Gthb
2b
4h
EA
4h
Gth
Glh
2b
Glh
2b
Gth
2b
2b
(3)
Table 1. Results of analysing the cantilever wall in Fig. 7
Bending
deflexion:
Shear
deflexion:
Total
deflexion:
mm
mm
mm
% error
in total
deflexion
Exact solution
(1)
(2)
Xl +K:z
X 1 +K;
X'l+K;
5400
5400
5400
5400
0375
0750
1500
0375
5775
6150
6900
5775
0
6.5
195
0
Method
of
analysis
(3)
10 m
1
300 k
"Roof
(2)".
(1)
'"'.
Thickness
=03m
E
o
C?
I
VI
(3)
'
).l(l)
:(3)
v = 025
__
Ground
o
(a)
Exact
solution
....
Midheight
E = 20 kNlmm2
Fig. 7. Analysis of a cantilever wall using the
solid wall elements: (aJ cantilever wall
analysed; (b) shear stress distribution
6EI
J;2
12E/
y
(2)
is
Reformulation of the element assuming linear
variation of shear strain
6EI
J;2
~.~2)
.
"
(1) K = K,
+ K2
(2) K = K,
+ K2 '
(3) K = K,'
+ K2 '
'_""""..Io_~
_
01
' 02 03 04
Shear stress: N/mm 2
(b)
10
KWAN
Assuming a linear variation of shear strain
Bending strain in the solid wall
element
Shearbending interaction
17. The loophole, after some painstaking
studies, is found to be the omission of shearbending interaction in the formulation of the
axial and bending stiffness matrix as explained
below.
18. Ina conventional frame element, the
longitudinal strain is taken as
where
and
V4 
V3
Y2 = .b 
(6)
(,02
(9)
The shear strain energy is given by
TI 2 =
f ~ Cl d(vol)
(7)
Using the Principle of Virtual Work, as in the
finiteelement method, the shear stiffness
matrix of the solid wall element is obtained as
0
0
0
0
K~=
0
0
. 0
0
0
Gthb
0
Gth

Gth
3
Gth
3
0
Gthb
Gth
3b
Gth
3b
0
Gth
6
Gth
6b
Gth
6b
6
Gth
6
Gth
0
Gth
3
Gth
3b
Gth
3b
0
Gth
6
Gth
6b
Gth
6b
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gthb
6
Gth
6
Gth
6
0
Gthb
3
Gth
3
Gth
3
0
Gth
6
Gth
6b
Gth
6b
0
Gtk
3
Gth
3b
Gth
3b
0
Gth
6
Gth
6b
Gtk
6b
0
Gth
3
Gth
3b
Gth
3b
(8)
The overall stiffness matrix of the reformulated
element is obtained simply by replacing K 2 in
equation (1) with the above shear stiffness
matrix: i.e. adding K 1 and K~ together.
15. The above reformulated element is used
to analyse again the cantilever wall in Fig. 7(a).
The corresponding results on the shear stresses
along the height of the element (Fig. 7(b show
that the shear stress distribution is now continuous but still erroneous because it varies linearly from a negative value at the top to four
times the correct value at the bottom, while the
correct answer should be a constantshear
stress throughout the element. As in the previous case, owing to the error in shear strain at
the base of the elemen t, there are also errors in
the lateral deflexion of the cantilever wall
(Table 1).
16. Therefore, no matter if the shear strain
variation is taken to be a discretestep function
or a continuous linear function, the result on
shear strain distribution is still erroneous;
somewhere in the formulation process there
must be a loophole.
108
where yO is the axial strain at the centroidal
axis due to axial load, R is the radius of curvature of the frame axis after bending, and x is
the distance from the centroidal axis. For small
displacement, the curvature (I/R) is given by
1
R=
02 U
oy2
(10)
Hence
,
eyO
02 U
oy2
(11)
From this it would seem that the longitudinal
strain is independent of the shear strain.
19. If, however, the fundamental definition
of , is given at the start as
av
(12)
=
oy
then the longitudinal strain would turn out to
be dependent on the shear strain. By definition,
the shear strain is equal to
au ov
oy ax
y=+
(13)
Rearranging
av
oX
OU
=Y
oy
(14)
Integrating this equation on the assumption
that plane sections remain plane, i.e. v varies
linearly with x, gives
= vo
+(y :}
(15)
where V o is the value of v at the centroidal axis.
The longitudinal strain is thus equal to
&7
=;
[v + (y  :}]
&70
G;~;~)x
(16)
20. It can therefore be concluded that the
bending strain (the second term o(the above
equation) is not just a function of the curvature,
but also a function of the rate of change of
shear strain alongthe length of the element.
REFORMULATION OF
FRAME METHOD
The omission of the term (iJyl iJy)x in the expression for the longitudinal strain is the loophole
in the formulation which is causing the problems described in the previous section.
Reformulation taking into account
shearbending interaction
21. The solid wall element is now reformulated, using equation (16) instead of equation
(11) for the longitudinal strain.
22. The axial strain eyO' which is assumed
uniformly distributed along the frame axis
within the element, is given by
e
yO
! (V 3+ V
4 _
VI
+ V2)
2
(17)
Assuming a linear variation of shear strain as
in the previous section
121
Y
6EI
hl
K'l=
6EI
hl
3EI
h
121
GEl
y
hl
6E1
3El
h
hl
0
EA
3h
EA
6h
EA
6h
EA
3h
12/
6EI
6EI
hl
3EI
h
 y hl
121
6EI
hF
hl
6EI
3EI
h2
EA
EA
6h
EA
3h
3h
EA
6h
EA
3h
EA
6h
EA
6h
EA
3h
EA
EA
3h
6h
EA
EA
6h
3h
(22)
(18)
The term o2 u joy2 can be obtained by fitting a
cubic polynomial for the lateral deflexion of the
frame axis and differentiating the polynomial
twice as Zienkiewicz did in reference 11. The
result, which is identical to that obtained by the
conventional beam theory, is
(19)
Substituting into equation (16), the longitudinal
strain is obtai~ed as
B,
= ~ (V 3;
V
4
VI ;
V2)
The strain energy due to the axial and bending
strain is given by
fIt
f~ &:
devol)
(21)
Using the Principle of Virtual Work, the axial
and bendin.g stiffness matrix of the solid wall
element is obtained as given in equation (22).
The overall stiffness matrix of the reformulated
element is then obtained simply by adding K't
and K~ together.
23. This new element is used to analyse
again the cantilever wall in Fig. 7(a), whereupon the correct shear strain distribution and
lateral deflexion are obtained (Fig. 7(b) and
Table 1). This is achieved just by modifying the
element stiffness matrix; no additional compu
tational effort is involved.
Equivalence to finiteelement
for~ulation
24. The major advancement resulting from
the above reformulation is the change from the
conventional frame method of modelling the
solid walls by discrete frame members to the
approach of modelling the wall elements as an
elastic continuum, which is more realistic and
logical. If the discrete member model is not
replaced by the continuum model, the problems
with discrete variatioD of shear strain, error in
shear strain distribution, and error in lateral
deflexion, etc., could never be completely
resolved. Since similar methodology is adopted,
the new frame method using the reformulated
solid wall element resembles the finiteelement
method in many ways. In fact, the new solid
wall element may also be regarded as a special
kind of planestress finite element as depicted
below.
25. The solid wall element in Fig. 6{a) will
be considered again, but this time as an eight
degrees of freedom planestress finite element
(Fig. 6(b. Starting with the following displacement and strain functions
(23)
(24)
(25)
it can be seen that these are the same as those
assumed in the previous reformulation process.
Integrating the two strain functions gives
IO!
KWAN
v
= as + asY + [(a6 + a 7 y)
 (a 2
+ 2a 3 y + 3a 4 y 2 )]x
(26)
in which as is an integration constant. The
eight coefficients in equations (23) and (26) are
determined by equating the nodal translations
and rotations to the eight degrees of freedom
and solving the equations thus obtained. The
values of the coefficients are then substituted
into the displacement functions and the displacement functions differentiated to obtain the
straindisplacement matrix as follows
(27)
Ut
e.x
ey
Y%y
0
12xy
0
6xy
h3
h2
h +2y
2h
0
b +2x
2bh
h +2y
2bh
0
0
b 2x 12xy
h3
2bh
h 2y
0
2bh
6xy
h2
h 2y
2h
0
b 2x
2bh
h 2y
2bh
+ 2x
Wi
Vt
V2
2bh
U2
h+2y! W
z
2bh
V
3
V4
The element stiffness matrix is evaluated by
the standard expression
JB'EB d(vol)
(28)
where the matrix B is~the straindisplacement
matrix given in equation (27), and the matrix E
is the elasticity matrix given by
E=[~: ~]
(29)
It should be noted that in the matrix Eabove,
the Poisson ratio effects have been neglected
because the lateral stress (1.x is generally of no
significance. The stiffness matrix so derived is
identical to that obtained in the previous
section, Le. identically equal to K't + K~.
26. Hence the new solid wall element is
shown to be equivalent to a planestress finite
element formulated on the basis of a mixed set
of displacement and strain functions. This
element behaves very like a frame element, and
is particularly suited for the analysis of shear
walls which act basically as frame members.
Reform.ulation of the element as a
strainbased finite element
27. The new solid wall element can also be
formulated as a strainbased finite element
starting with the following strain functions
(30)
Sy
=Pt + (P2+ P3Y)X
Yxy=P4+PSY
SJC is set eq ual to zero because the horizon tal
strains are neglected. The coefficient PI rep
110
(31)
(32)
resents a constant axial strain along the centroidal axis, while the term (P2 + P3Y)X
represents bending strains varying linearly
with height. The last term (fJ4 + PsY) allows for
linear variation of shear strain along the beam
axis. It can be shown that the above strain
functions satisfy the secondorder differential
equation governing internal compatibility. 12
28. Integrating the strain functions and
adding the rigid body mode
U=P6PSY
(33)
V=P7+P S X
(34)
the displacement functions are obtained as
U
= P6 ~ (/3s 
P4Jy ~ t<P2 
Ps)y2 
iP 3y3
(35)
v = P7 + PlY
+ (Ps + PzY + tP 3y Z)x
(36)
Solving for the coefficients by equating the
nodal translations and rotations to the eight
degrees of freedom and substituting back into
the strain functions, ~ the same straindisplacement matrix B as given in equation
(27) is obtained. Using equation (28), the same
stiffness matrix as before is derived.
29. It can therefore be concluded that the
new solid wall element is really a strainbased
finite element. Strain function formulation has
proved very successful in many applications. 13 14 It has been applied to shear wall
analysis by Sabir 1s and by Ha and Desbois. 16
Sabir developed two strainbased finite elements,one without rotational degrees of
freedom and the other with rotational degrees
of freedom defined as the mean of the rota tions
of the horizontal and vertical fibres. Ha and
Desbois, on the other hand, developed just one
REFORMULATION OF
FRAME METHOD
strainbased element with no rotational degrees
of freedom. These strainbased elements are not
afflicted by parasitic shear under bending mode
and are therefore most suitable for the analysis
of structures whose principal mode of action is
bending, such as shear wall structures.
However, as discussed in 8, Sabir's definition
for the rotational degrees of freedom is not
correct. Hence these strainbased elements have
either no rotational degrees of freedom (without
rotational degrees of freedom, coupling with
beams would be difficult) or rotational degrees
of freedom of incorrect definition. Compared
with these elements, the new solid wall element
is more advantageous: it has rotational degrees
of freedom for easy coupling with beams and it
would not lead to errors as a result of incorrect
definition of rotational degrees of freedom.
30. It should be noted that in the strain
function for the longitudinal strain (equation
(3I, the strain state of pure bending can be
exactly represented. Therefore, the new solid
wall element is also free of parasitic shear. Furthermore, since linear variation of bending
moment with height is allowed, it can model
beam bending actions more closely than other
finite elements in which only uniform bending
moment within an element is allowed, as will be
illustrated in the following examples.
Examples
Example 1: coupled shear walls
31. A typical coupled shear wall structure is
analysed as shown in Fig. 8(a). For comparison,
the structure is first analysed by the proposed
solid wall element and then by Sisodiya and
Cheung's element. 17 Sisodiya and Cheung's
element was originally developed for bridge
analysis. It was adapted for building analysis
by Cheung in reference 18. This element has 12
degrees of freed'om: two translational and one
rotational at each of the four nodes. However, it
can be simplified to have the same degrees of
freedom as the proposed solid wall element by
incorporating the assumption of ex = 0 without
loss of accuracy, because in building structures,
the lateral strain is generally negligible. The
simplified Sisodiya and Cheung's element
which has the same degrees of freedom as the
proposed solid wall element is used in this
example. Local deformation at the beam/wall
joints is allowed for by increasing the beam
span by half beam depth at both ends. Fig. 8(b)
presents the results on lateral deflexion, from
which it can be seen that the deflexion curve
obtained using the proposed solid wall element,
with one layer of elements per storey, coincides
almost exactly with the corresponding curve by
Sisodiya and Cheung's element, with two layers
of elements per storey, and that Sisodiya and
Cheung's element slightly underestimates the
lateral deflexion if only one layer of elements is
used per storey. The bending moment and
shear forces in the shear walls at the lowest
two stories are plotted in Fig. 9. It is shown
that Sisodiya and Cheung's element. which
allows only uniform bending moment within an
element, yields a stepwise variation of bending
moment with height. These bending moment
results may be taken to be the average bending
moment within the elements and assigned to be
the bending moment values at the centres of the
elements, but will not give the maximum
Fig. 8. Example 1 : analysis ofa coupled shear
wall structure: (a) coupled shear wall;
(b) deflexion curve (Note: SW elementproposed solid wall element; SC elementSisodiya and Cheung's element)
rruH500 kN/storey
32
SC element
(1 layerlstorey)~
urru
24
1.1.
"
I.
~~d~=
~ 16
==t1~:
1 or 2 layers[
of elements
per storey _
I.
'0)
~=b==
==0==
(a)
/.
::I:
==0==
Thickness = 04 m, depth of beam
E = 2x 10 10 N/m2 v = 025
I.
SW element
(1 layer/storey) .coincide
or
SC element
almost exactly
(2 layers/storey)
= 08 m
20
40
Deflexion: mm
(b)
11:
KWAN
8

"
,
\
2nd
storey
~
y. r
SC element
(2 layers/storey)
.. ~ ,/SC
element
(2 layers/storey)
Interpolated
from SC element
I
I
SWelement
(1 layer/storey)
~ 4
SWelement
I( 1 layer/storey)
 ==:
"0)
:r:
1st
storey
I
I
00
10
15
05
Bending moment: MNm
bending moment required for designing the
structure. To obtain the maximum bending
moment, it is necessary to useat least two
layers of elements per storey and to extrapolate
from the bending moment values at the centres
of the elements, as shown in Fig. 9(a). In contrast, the proposed solid wall element requires
only one layer of elements per storey to evaluate the bending moment variation within a
storey. As revealed from Fig. 9(a), the .bending
moment variation obtained by the solid wall
element with only one layer of elements per
storey agrees closely with the corresponding
results obtained by Sisodiya and Cheung's
element using two layers of elements per
storey. The shear forces obtained using the two
different elements are compared in Fig. 9(b),
from \vhich it can be seen that Sisodiya and
Cheung's element gives large fluctuation of
shear forces wi thin an element, while the solid
wall element yields a smoother shear force distribution which is more reasonable.
Fig. 10. Example 2: analysis of a coupled nonplanar wall structure: (a) model tested by Tso
and Biswas; (b) dejlexion curve
48r
Continuous connection
method, Tso & Biswas
Example 2: coupled nonplanar walls
32. The coupled nonplanar wall structure
studied by Tso and Biswas 19 is analysed using
the new solid wall element as shown in Fig.
lO(a). Only one layer of elements per storey is
used in the analysis. The results on lateral
deflexion are plotted in Fig. lO(b), where the
theoretical and experimental results obtained
by Tso and Biswas are also plotted for comparison. The figure shows that Tso and Bis\vas's
theory, which neglects the shear deformationof
the walls, underestimates the lateral deflexion
of the structure, while the proposed element
agrees fairly closely with the experimental
results.
ti>
3 in'"
4 in "L 3
36
in ~
.5
~24
'0)
:r:
Experiment
(Tso and Biswas)
12
oo'L.O......04"0~.5":":'"8"O=~
Horizontal displacement:. in
(a)
112
20
(b)
Fig. 9. Example 1 : bending moment and shear
force at lowest two storeys (Note: SW
elementproposed solid wall element; SC
element~Sisodiya and Cheung's ele,ment)
C')
(l')
10
Shear force: MN
(a)
.5
(b)
Example 3: partially closed core wall
33. The Perspex core wall model tested by
Tso and Biswas 20 is analysed using the solid
REFORMULATION OF
FRAME METHOD
H
Torsion at top
= 2001bin
UmanSkyBenscoter
0244 in
3H/4
Bea~:/::
25 in
t1S in ,
25 in
1:
~ H/2
J:
Proposed solid wall element
(shear energy lost at
vertical joints recovered)
,:
~proposed
solid wall element
Experiment (Tso and Biswas)
H/4
Wall
Beam
Wall
(a)
wall element as shown in Fig. ll(a). This model
has also been analysed by Rutenberg et al. 8
using several continuous connection methods.
As suggested by Rutenberg et al., local deformation at the beam/wall joints need not be considered for this particular model because the
roots of the beams are provided with fillets of
radius 1/3 the depth of the beam, which has a
stiffening effect that is probably commensurate
with the loss of stiffness resulting from local
rotation at the joints. Only one layer of elements per storey is used in the analysis. Fig.
Il(b) shows the results of the analysis, together
with the experimental results of Tso and
Biswas and the theoretical results obtained by
Rutenberg et ale using Vlasov theory and
UmanskyBenscoter theory. As expected,
Vlasov theory which ignores shear deformation
in the walls yields overstiffened results. The
results of the proposed solid wall element agree
very closely with those of the UmanskyBenscoter theory which, according to Rutenberg et al., is the most accurate and widely
applicable method among the various continuous connection methods. The agreement with
the experimental results is reasonable.
Example 4: closed core wall
34. A closed core wall of square shape subjected to torsion (Fig. 12(a is analysed. The
structure is divided into 20 storeys, each of
height 50 ffi. Each storey is modelled by four
solid wall elements interconnected to form a
hollow section. The results ontorsional rotation, shear stress, and bending moment are
shown in Figs 12(b), 13(a) and 13(b) respectively, where exact theoretical values (by
BredtBatho theory) are also plotted for comparison. Fig. 12(b) shows that this frame
4
8
Rotation: x 103 rad
(b)
12
Fig. 11. Example 3: analysis of a partially
closed core wall: (a) core wall model tested by
Tso and Biswas,o (b) comparison with Vlasov
theory, UmanskyBenscoter theory and experimental results
method overestimates the twisting angles by
about 10%. The results on shear stresses are,
however, much better; they coincide exactly
with the theoretical values eccept at the region
where the thickness changes abruptly. The
reason for the overestimation of the torsional
shear deformation is given in Fig. I3(b), where
it can be seen that the solid wall elements are
subjected to parasitic bending moments in
addition to the shear stresses due to torsion.
Artificial flexure of the solid wall
element
Incompatibility along vertical joints and shear
energy lost
35. The results in Example 4 indicate that
the new solid wall element is afflicted by parasitic bending moments and that, owing to the
artificial flexure so caused, the proposed frame
method tends to overestimate the shear deforrna tion of the walls. This artificial flexure
problem actually occurs also in the conventional frame methods which adopt the planar wall
element approach. Although the problem was
identified early in 1979,9 it remains unresolved
to date.
36. A closer look at the element reveals that
the vertical displacement function of the
element is not conforming along the vertical
edges, as the vertical displacemen ts there vary
113
KWAN
z
~",
Torsion
= 100 tm
/ ",
/ ,,'
~'Proposed solid wall element
~, ,
BredtBatho theory
,,
3H/4
E
o
to
Thickness
= OSm
~,'
%'' '
!;f'
~,'
.~ H/2
:c
~,
E
oll')
(shear energy lost at
vertical joints recovered)
Proposed solid 'wall element
'f,'
I
Thickness
= 10m
H/4
Fig. 12. Example 4: analysis of a closed core
wall: (a) variable thickness shear core;
(b) variation of rotation with height
Fig. 13. Example 4: shear stresses and parasitic
bending moments: (a) shear stress in each wall;
(b) parasitic bending moment in each wall
H
3H/4
BredtBatho theory
.~ H/2
1:
.~ H/2
:x:
:x:
Proposed solid
wall element
H/4
05
Shear stress: Vm 2
(a)
114
10
,,
01
E = 105 Vm 2 G = Q5X10S tlm 2
(a)
3H/4
,W
,
H/4
 .c:::;;....'02"'02O
Bending moment: tm
L.._...L
(b)
02
03
Rotation: x 103 rad
(b)
04
as quadratic functions while there are only two
vertical degrees of freedom at each edge. Such
incompatibility leads to relative slip along the
vertical joints between adjacent elements and,
eventually, to loss of shear energy at the vertical joints. It is this shear energy loss that
results in the underestimation of the torsional
shear stiffness of the core wall structure in
Example 4.
"
37. It should nevertheless be noted that
such incompatibility permits linear variation of
bending moment with height, and it is this
factor that allows the solid wall element to
model beam bending actions more closely than
other conforming finite elements which allow
only uniform bending moment within an
element.
38. Whether or not the shear energy lost at
the vertical joints is significant depends on the
magnitude of shear stresses there. In open sections, the" shear stresses at the vertical joints
are generally small; it is expected, therefore,
that in the analysis of open section wall structures, such shear energy loss would not result
in significant errors. In fact, Example 3 demonstrates that even in partially closed core walls
subjected to torsional shear stresses, the errors
involved are still acceptable. However, in
closed core walls subjected to pure torsion
where shear stresses dominate as in Example 4,
the errors due to the shear energy.loss may be
significant.
Recovering shear energy lost along the vertical
joints
39. A simple method of mitigating the
above problem by recovering the shear energy
lost at the vertical wall joints is presented
next.
REFORMULATION OF
FRAME METHOD
40. The vertical displacement function of
the element can be written as .
v=v(~~)(~~)+v(!+~)(~~)
12 b 2 h
2 b 2 h
2
for element connected to adjacent element
at one edge
(a)
K = K'I
+ K~ + ~ K)
(44)
(b) for element connected to adjacent elements
at both edges
K = K/1 + K; + K 3
(45)
where K) is given by
12E/
Y
In the above displacement function, while the
first four terms are conforming, the last term
which has zero values at the nodes is nonconforming. This nonconforming term causes
slip between adjacent elements. The slip at the
edge x = b12 is given by
51 = [:3
(U l 
U 2) 
:2
(WI
+(
2)J
GEl
h2
0.
KJ =
0
12EI
y
GEl
h2
(38)
GEl
h2
0.
3EI
0.
h
0.
0.
0
0.
GEl
0.
h2
3El
0
h
0.
12El
/;3
GEl
h2
0.
0.
GEl
3EI
h2
0.
0.
0.
0.
12El
0.
0.
GEl
0.
0.
/;3
h2
0.
6El
3EI
h2
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(46)
while the slip at the edge x = bl2 is given by
52 = [:3
(U l 
U 2) 
:2
(WI
(2)J
Examples
42. The partially closed core wall in
(39) Example 3 and the closed core wall in Example
4 are analysed again, using the above method
of
recovering the shear energy lost at the verti41. Alternatively, the shear stress in the
cal
wall joints. The results for Example 3 are
element can be approximated by
plotted in Fig. II(b) alongside the previous
(40) results for comparison. In this example, since
r=U/A
the artificial flexure is not significant in any
where U is the lateral force on the element
case, the change in recovering the shear energy
given by
lost at the wall joints is very small. Nevertheless, there is some slight improvement in accuracy. The effects ~f recovering the shear energy
loss is more conspicuous in Example 4 because,
Thus, if the element is connected to an adjacent in this case, the shear deformation of the walls
element at the edge x = bI2, shear energy will dominates. From the results on torsional rotation shown in Fig. 12(b), it can be seen that by
be lost given by
recovering the shear energy lost at the vertical
wall joints, the error in torsional rotation is
fi 3
t5 1 t dy
reduced to only 5% which should be acceptable
from the practical application point of view.
3E/ [ (u u )2(W
h
(42) There is practically no change in shear stress,
=};3
2
1 +W 2 )
t
but the magnitude of parasitic moments is
decreased by exactly one half (the new results
Similarly, if the element is connected to an
on shear stress and parasitic moments are not
adjacent element at the edge x = b/2, there will
plotted in the figures to avoid confusing the
be shear energy lost given by
original results).
=~
J2
fi 4 =
f
t5 2 t
dy
3EI [ (U U )2(W
h
=};3
2
t
1
Conclusions
+W 2)
J2
(43)
Incorporating n J and/or fi 4 in the derivation of
the stiffness matrix gives ..
43. The problems with the existing frame
methods are identified and discussed. The
Author's previous postulations that the rotational degrees of freedom of the wall elements
should be defined as the rotations of the verti
115
KWAN
cal fibres, and that the conventional definition
as the rotations of the horizontal rigid arms is
erroneous are reaffirmed. However, it is found
in this study that Kwan's solid wall element,
which was developed by treating the element as
composed of discrete members as in the conventional frame methods, has problems in the
evaluation of shear stress distribution in
certain cases.
44. To overcome these problems, the solid
wall element is extensively reformulated by
treating the solid wall element as an elastic
continuum instead of as being composed of discrete members. The final outcome is a special
kind of planestress finite element formulated
on the basis of a mixed set of displacement and
strain functions. This new solid wall element
can also be formulated from a set of strain functions and is thus really a strainbased finite
element.
45. The new element has been applied to a
number of examples, and comparison with
other theoretical and experimental results
demonstrates that the element is both accurate
and versatile. It is nev~rtheless still subjected
to artificial flexure owing to incompatibility of
the vertical displacements at vertical joints
between adjacent elements. A simple method of
reducing artificial flexure by recovering the
shear energy lost at the vertical joints is proposed. This method can suppress artificial
flexure to a negligible degree in practically all
shear wall structures, including completely
closed core walls.
References
1. CANDY C. F. Analysis of shear wallframes by
computer. N. Z. Engng, 1964, 19, No.9, Sept.,
342347.
2.. MACLEOD I. A. Lateral stiffness of shear walls
with openings. Proc. Symp. on Tall Buildings,
University of Southampton, April 1966, Pergamon
Press, New York, 1967,223252.
3. HEIDEBRECHT A. C. and SWIFT R. D. Analysis of
asymmetrical coupled shear walls. j. Struc!. Div.
Am. Soc. Civ.Engrs, 1971, 97, No. ST5, May,
1407 1422.
4. TARANATIi B. S. Analysis of interconnected open
section shear wall structures. j. Struct. Div. Am.
Soc. Civ. Engrs, 1975, 101, No. STl1, Nov., 23672384.
116
5. MACLEOD I. A. Analysis of shear wall buildings
by the frame method. Proc. lnstn Civ. Engrs, Part
2, 1973, 55, Sept., 593603.
6. MACLEOD I. A. and HosNY H. M. Frame analysis of
shear wall cores. j. Struc!. Div. Am. Soc. Civ.
Engrs, 1977, 103, No. STI0, Oct., 2037 2047.
7. STAFFORD SMITH B. and ABATE A. The effects of
shear deformations on the shear centre of opensection thinwalled beams. Proc. lnstn Civ. Engrs,
Part 2,1984,77, Mar., 57 66.
8. RUTENBERG A. et al. Torsional analysis methods
for perforated cores. ].Struct. Div. Am. Soc. Civ.
Engrs, 1986, 112, No.6, June, 1207 1227.
9. STAFFORD SMITH B. and GIRGIS A. The torsional
analysis of tall building cores partially closed by
beams. Proc. Symp. on Behaviour of Building
Systems and Building Components, Vanderbilt
University, Nashville, Mar. 1979.
10. KWAN A. K. H. Analysis of coupled wall/frame
structures by frame method with shear deformation allowed. Proc. lnstn Civ. Engrs, Part 2, 1991,
91, June, 273297.
11. ZIENKIEWICZ O. C.The finite element method.
McGrawHili, London, 1977, 3rd edn, ch. 2, 2041.
12. TIMOSHENKO S. P. and GOODIER j. N. Theory of
elasticity. McGrawHill, New York, 1988, Int. edn,
ch. 3, 35 64.
13. ASHWELL D. G. et al. Further studies in the application of curved finite elements to circular arches.
Int.]. Mech. Sci., 1971, 13, 507.
14_ ASHWELL D. G. and SABIR A. B. A new cylindrical
shell finite element based on simple independent
strain functions. Int.]. Mech. Sci., 1972, 14, 17115. SABIR A. B. (CHEUNG Y.K. and LEE P. K. K. (eds.
Strain based finite elements for the analysis of
shear walls. Proc. 3rd Int. Coni. on Tall Buildings, Hong Kong and Guangzhou, Dec. 1984,447
453.
16. HA K. H. and DESBOlS M. Finite elements for tall
building analysis. Comput. & Structs, 1989, 33,
No.1, 249255.
17. SISODIYA R. G. and CHEUNG Y. K. (ROCKEY K. C. et
ala (eds. A higher order inplane parallelogram
element and its application to skewed girder
bridges. Developments in bridge design and construction. Crosby Lockwood, London, 1971, 304317.
18. CHEUNG Y. K. (KONG F. K. et ala (eds). Tall buildings 2. Handbook 01 Structural concrete. Pitman
Books, London, 1983,Ch.38.
19. Tso W. K. and BISWAS j. K. General analysis of
non planar coupled shear walls.]. Struct. Div. Am.
. Soc. Civ. Engrs, 1973, 99, No. ST3, Mar., 365380.
20. Tso W. K. and BISWAS J. K. Analysis of core wall
structures subjected to applied torque. Building
Sci., 1973,8, 251257.
,
J
4. Coupling effects of beams and slabs
4.1 Types ofbeamlslab/walljoints
Beamslabwall joints
I..inrcl hcam
SJah
I~illtel
lJealll
Beamwall joints
Slabwall joints
Sial
I "illtcl l"'>Calll
26
4.2 Coupling effects of beams
4.2.1 Rotational d.o.f. at beamwall joints:
 .for compatibility between the beam and wall elements,
the rotational d.o.f. at the beamwall joints should be
defmed as the rotations of the beamwall interfaces
 since the beamwall interfaces are vertical, the
rotational d.o.f. at the beamwall joints should be taken
as the rotations of the vertical fibres at the beamwall
interfaces
4.2.2 Shear deformation of beams:
 if the beams are long (with span!depth ratios > 4), then
the effects of shear deformation of the beams are small
 many coupling beams, however, havespanJdepth ratios
smaller than 4, or even smaller than 1; in such cases,
the effects of shear deformation of the. beams should be
taken into account
27
4.2.3 Local deformation at beamwall joints:
 stress concentration occurs at beamwall joints, and as
a result the bending stress distributions are not linear
across the beam sections near the joint
 the beamwall joints translate and rotate relative to the
remaining part of the wall as if the wall is an elastic
support
 Michael (1967) suggested to allow for the effects of
j oint flexibility by extending the beams at each end by
half the beam depth into the wall (equivalent length
method)
 the above method can be applied easily when the frame
method is used for analysis by increasing the lengths of
the beams and shortening the lengths of the horizontal
rigid arms linking the beam ends to the wall axis, but is
not applicable when the fmite element method is used
for analysis because the fmite element method does not
permit the lengths of the beams to be adjusted
 when thefmite element method is used for analysis, it
is better to allow for the local deformation at the beamwall joints by adding joint elements to model the joint
behaviour
28
00457949/93 $6.00 + 0.00
(l) 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd
Computers &: Structures Vol. 48. No.4. pp. 615625. 1993
Printed in Great Britain.
LOCAL DEFORMATIONS AND ROTATIONAL DEGREES OF
FREEDOM AT BEAMWALL JOINTS
A. K. H.KwAN
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong
(Received 9 April 1992)
AbstractLocal deformations at beamwall joints can significantly reduce the effective stiffness of
coupling beams in shear/core wall structures. This phenomenon has been studied by many researchers and
several methods of allowing for such effects have already been. developed. However, in the existing
methods, the beamwall joint rotations are often mistaken as the rotations of the horizontal rigid anns
leading to incompatibility between the beam and wall elements. Moreover, many practical difficulties with
the actual applications of these methods have been encountered. In this paper, it is proposed that in order
to resolve the problem of incompatibility between the beam and wall elements, the definition of the joint
rotations should be changed to the rotations of the beamwall interfaces. A new method of using joint
elements to model the joint deformations, which can overcome the problems with the existing methods,
is proposed and two alternative beam elements with joint deformations takeninto account are developed.
Finite element analysis is used to evaluate the local deformations and determine the joint element
properties.
NOTATIONS
A'
c
d
E
e
G
I
i
L
/
M
t
V
v
w
a
a'
v
A.
(JJ
equivalent shear area of beam
cantilever span, i.e. distance from support to point of
contraflexure
depth of beam
Young's modulus
equivalent length of beam....wall joint
shear modulus
moment of inertia
deflection factor
equivalent t~tal length of beam
beam span, i.e. physical length of beam
bending moment at joint
thickness of beam orwall
shear force at joint
vertical deflection of joint
width of wall
shear deformation factor of the beam itself
shear deformation factor of the equivalent beam
Poisson's ratio
joint flexibility coefficient
rotation of joint
INTRODUCTION
It is well known that when the coupling beams in
shear/core wall structures deflect under load, stress
concentrations and local deformations occur around
the beamwall joints. Cutting the coupling beams at
their points of contraflexure, they can be regarded as
cantilevers supported by elastic foundation (the walls),
see Fig. 1. Local defonnations at the beamwall joints
produce additional deflections of the cantilevers and
as a result reduce the effective stiffness of the coupling
beams.
The additional deflection of a cantilever due to
elasticity of its support was first studied by Weber [I]
in 1949. He evaluated the local deformations at the
cantilever support by treating the foundation as a
semiinfinite domain and assuming that the moment
load at the builtin end of the cantilever was transmitted to the foundation by a linear distribution of
normal stresses. The stress function method was used
to determine the deflection of the elastic foundation
and the support rotation was evaluated as the mean
rotation of the beamfoundation interface. Weber's
solution for the plane stress case is given by
(JJ
5.73(~),
Etd
(1)
where OJ is the rotation of the support and M is the
moment load transmitted to the foundation.
In 1960, O'Donnell [2] tackled the same problem
by assuming a cubic distribution of bending stresses,
instead of a linear one, at the beamfoundation
interface. The support defonnationswere evaluated
by superimposing the surface displacements caused
bya large number of point loads acting on the
foundation which was again treated as a semiinfinite
domain. Apart from the rotation of the support due
to moment load, the rotation due to shear load was
also taken into account. O'Donnell's result for the
support rotation is given by
where the second tenn on the righthand side of the
equation is the rotation due to shear load and. V is
the shear load acting on the support.
In 1967, Michael [3] used several different assumed
bending and shear stress patterns at the beamwall
A. K. H.
616
KWAN
]
8
(a) coupled shear walls
(b) cantilever supported by
elastic foundation
Fig. 1. Walls regarded as elastic foundations for cantilever beams.
interfaces to evaluate the local deformations at the
joints. A similar method to that of O'Donnell's was
used to determine the surface displacements at the
beamwall interfaces: As well as the rotations, the
vertical deflections of the joints were also calculated.
The results revealed that the joint rotations and
deflections are more or less the same for the different
stress patterns considered and that they can be given
approximately by
(J)
= 6.00(E~2) + o.
76(;d)
=O.80(~)+ 1.74(~}
(3)
(4)
Based on these two equations, Michael proposed
that the joint deformations can be accounted .for by
extending the beam into the wall by a length of d/2.
This method is called the equivalent length method.
In the discussion on Michael's results, MacLeod [4]
suggested that instead of increasing the effective beam
length, the local deformation effects may also be
allowed for in a simpler way by adding rotational
springs with moment stiffness of Etd 2/6 at the ends of
the beams. This is called the rotation spring method.
However, since only the joint rotation due to moment
load is considered, the joint rotation due to shear
load and the joint deflection due to moment and
shear loads would be effectively ignored.
All these studies were carried out by treating the
foundations (the walls) as semiinfinite domains. The
advantage of doing this is that an analytical solution
is possible. However, this method is applicable only
when the walls are wide compared to the sizes of
the beamwall joints. Moreover, since the beams and
walls are dealt with separately, it is not possible to
take into account beamwall interactions, and as a
result, the interaction stresses have to be assumed
rather than evaluated as an integral part of the
solution. In order to resolve these problems, in the
late 1960s, researchers changed to the use of the finite
element method to study the local deformation
effects.
Early in 1969, Hall [5] applied the finite element
method to analyse the local deformations around
beamwall joints. In his study, the beams and the
walls were analysed as integral structures and hence
any interactions between them were automatically
taken into account. Both L and Tjoints were
studied. Several element meshes of varying degrees of
fineness were used for the analysis, but even the finest
mesh was rather coarse. The use of the equivalent
length method to account for the joint deformations
was recommended. From the finite element analysis
results, Hall detennined the equivalent lengths as equal
to O.28d and 0.42d for T and Ljoints, respectively,
when the walls are wide and half the wall width when
the walls are narrow.
In 1973, Bhatt [6] carried out another study on the
problem using a slightly finer element mesh than those
used by Hall. Three alternative methods of allowing
for the joint deformations were proposed. The first .
method, which may be called the deflection factor
method, is to use a deflection factor, i, to increase
the flexibility of the coupling beam so as to account
for the joint deformations. Actually this ifactor also
allows for the shear deformations of the beam. It was
presented as a function of the wall width/beam depth
and cantilever span/beam depth ratios in the form of
a smallscale graph. The second method is to increase
the effective length of the beam by a factor of 0.5
x J(i) at each end. This equivalent length allows
for both local deformations at the joints and shear
deformations of the beam. In other words, the shear
deformations of the beam are not allowed for by
incorporating a shear deformation factor in the stiffness matrix but rather by extending the length of the
beam beyond that required for taking into account
joint deformation effects. The third method is to add
rotational springs at the ends of the beam, as MacLeod
suggested.
L9cal deformations at beamwall joints
More recently, Cheung [7] used quadratic elements to analyse the joint deformations. Details of
the finite element analysis were not given, but
heoretically quadratic elements should be able
to give more accurate results than lower order
elements. Cheung proposed to increase the length, I,
of the beam to PI, where P is given in the form
of a table, to allow for the joint deformations. His
method is actually identical to that of Bhatt's equivalent length method. And as in Bhatt's method the
equivalent length Pi allows for both local deformations at the joints and shear deformations of the
beam.
Although several methods have already been
developed to allow for the local deformation effects,
and they have been in use for a long time, there
are still problems with them. Firstly, many
practical .difficulties with their actual applications
have been encountered; for instance, the methodology of extending the beam a certain length
into the wall to allow for joint deformations is simply
not applicable if the shear/core wall structure
is to be analysed by the finite element. method which
617
requires the nodes to be fixed right at the physical
locations of the beam wall joints. Secondly, and in
fact more importantly, the rotational DOF at the
beamwall joints have often been mistaken as the
rotations of the horizontal rigid arms. The
author [8, 9] has found in some recent studies that the
practice of taking the joint rotations as the rotations
of the horizontal rigid arms will cause incompatibility
between the beam and wall elements. Such an incompatibility will in turn lead to errors in the joint
rotations and underestimation of the effective stiffness
of the coupling beams.. An attempt to resolve these
problems is made in this paper. It is postulated that
in order to ensure compatibility between the beam
and wall elements, the joint rotations should be
defined as the rotations of the beamwall interfaces.
Modifications necessary for the existing methods of
allowing for joint deformations after changing the
definition of the joint rotations to the rotations of the
beamwall interfaces are studied. It is found that they
all have shortcomings and that a better method is
to use joint elements to model the joint deformations.
A parametric study of the local deformations using
vertical
fibre
horizontal
fibre
  
'~p
beam
(a) joint rotations defined as rotations of horizontal fibres
vertical
fibre
horizontal
fibre
(b)
joint rotations defined as rotations of vertical fibres
Fig. 2. Rotations of beamwalljoints.
CAS 48!4E
A. K. H.
618
finite element analysis is carried out to determine the
joint element properties. Based on the finite element
results, two alternative beam elements with joint
deformations taken into account by incorporating
joint elements at the ends are developed.
ROTATIONAL DOF AT BEAMWALL JOINTS
Many different definitions have been used for the
beamwall joint rotations in the existing methods of
analysis. In the continuous connection method [10],
they are taken to be the rotations of the vertical axis
of the walls. This is equivalent to defining the rotations
of the joints as the rotations of the vertical fibres there.
In the frame method [II], they are assumed to be equal
to the rotations of the horizontal rigid arms which are
actually horizontal fibres in the walls. With regard to
the finite element method, different researchers used
different definitions. AbuGhazaleh [12] defined the
rotational OOF at the joints as the mean of the
rotations of the horizontal and vertical fibres.
MacLeod [13] defined them as the rotations of the
horizontal or vertical fibres at alternate nodes. On the
other hand, in Sisodiya and Cheung's element, which
was originally developed for bridge analysis [14] and
subsequently adapted for building analysis [7], the
joint rotations are taken as the rotations of the vertical
fibres. Mohr [15, 16] initially defined the nodal rotations as the sum of the rotations of the horizontal
and vertical fibres and later followed AbuGhazaleh's
definition.
The definitions described above are not equivalent.
Figure 2 illustrates the different effects of adopting
two common definitions for the joint rotations. In
Fig. 2(a), the joint rotations are defined as the
rotations of the horizontal fibres, while in Fig. 2(b),
they are taken as those of the vertical fibres. The
differences in deformed shapes of the beams clearly
show that the bending and shear stresses and hence
the effective stiffness of the coupling beams are
dependent on how the joint rotations are defined.
From Fig. 2(a), it can be seen that incompatibility
between the beam and wall elements at their joints
would arise if the joint rotations are taken as the
rotations of the horizontal fibres. Figure 2(b), on
the other hand, shows that to ensure compatibility
between the beams and the walls, the rotations of
the vertical fibres must be kept continuous across
the beamwall interfaces. Note that the difference
in rotations of the horizontal and vertical fibres is
actually the shear strain and that because of possible
difference in shear strain at the two sides of a
beamwall joint, the rotation of the horizontal fibre
at the beam side and that at the wall side are not
necessarily equal. So there is no unique horizontal
fibre rotation at a beamwall joint at all and therefore it would be a mistake to define joint rotations
as horizontal fibre rotations or any mathematical
function of them. It is thus clear that the joint
rotations should be defined as the vertical fibre
KWAN
rotations, i.e. the rotations of the beamwall interfaces, otherwise the beam and wall elements would be
incompatible and the effective stiffness of the beams
in error.
It is noteworthy that when Weber [I], O'Donnell [2]
and Michael [3] evaluated the joint rotations,
they determined the joint rotations as the mean
rotations of the beamwall interfaces which are
really the vertical fibre rotations at the joints.
Thus, in eqns (1)(4), the rotations (jJ are in fact
vertical fibre rotations. It was only during the
subsequent development of the various methods
of allowing for the local deformation effects that
the joint rotations became mistaken as something
else.
EXISTING METHODS OF ALLOWING FOR
JOINT DEFORMATIONS
As described in th.e Introductiop., several
methods, namely' the deflection factor method,
the equivalent length method and the rotational
spring method, have already beendeveloped. A detailed discussion on their accuracy, versatility, and
the modifications required to change the joint rotations to the vertical fibre rotations is presented
below.
Deflection factor methods
The deflection factor method was proposed by
Bhatt [6]. Basically, a deflection factor, i, is used
to increase the flexibility of the beam to allow for
the joint deformations. This factor also allows for
the shear deformations of the beam itself. Since the
ifactor is quite sensitive to the cantilever span/beam
depth ratio, it requires the location of the point of
contraflexure to be known before it can be determined (note .that the cantilever span is the length
from the beamwall joint to the point of contraflexure; it is not the same as the beam span). If the
location of the point of contraflexure is indeterminate, such as in beams connected to walls at one
end and frames at the other end, this method would
fail. Apart from the above, there is another problem
which is even more serious. It arises from the use of
the ifactor to allow for the shear deformations of the
beam, as explained below. The stiffness matrix
equation of a standard beam element (Fig. 3), with
shear deformations taken into account is given by
l
Fig. 3. A standard beam element.
Local deformations at beamwall joints
6
/2
[3
4+ex
I
p.
12
VI
[3
6
Mt
EI/(l
+ ex)
12
p.
2ex
VI
[3
[i
[3
4
I
[2
Elli
12
12
12
M2
12
[3
[3
6
p.
fi
Comparing the above two stiffness matrix equations,
it can be seen that the two equations would not give
the same results unless COl = (iJ2. Hence the use of an
ifactor to account for beam shear defonnations is
applicable only when COt = ()J2' or in other words, only
when the point of contraflexure is known to be at the
centre of the beam. If (01 and CO 2 can be different, then
this method should not be used.
Nevertheless, provided the above condition of
COl = (02 is satisfied, no modification to the method is
required after changing the definition of the joint
rotations to vertical fibre rotations.
(5J
p.
V2
4+a
I
CO 2

There are two different versions of equivalent
length method. The first version was developed by
Michael [3] and Hall [5]. They ,proposed to extend the
end of the beam by an equivalent length equal to a
COt
Equivalent length method
12
Mt
V2
p.
VI
2ex

[3
where a is the shear deformation factor defined by
a = (12EI/1 3) x (I/GA '). The corresponding stiffness
matrix equation of the same beam element with shear
deformations allowed for by an ifactor is given as
follows:
12
[3
M2

fi
V2
12
619
VI
COl
(6)
/2
V2
4
I
(JJ2
certain fraction of the depth of the beam into the wall
to account for the joint deformations. The second
version was developed by Bhatt [6] and Cheung [7]. In
this latter version, the length of the beam is extended
into the walls to allow for both local deformations
at the joints and shear deformations of the beam.
Hence, the equivalent lengths derived by Bhatt and
Cheung are longer than those by Michael and Hall.
Whichever version is used, as the beam is extended
into the walls, the beamwall joints are effectively
shifted into the walls (Fig. 4). This requires the
horizontal rigid arms, which are there to allow for
flexible portion
of beam element
tc/ /////~
////
/A
rigid"
arm
\
I
I.
wall
 ,
~+
 
beam
beamwall joint
shifted into wall
v/////.
rigid
arm
wall
A
'f
Fig. 4. Equivalent length method.
A. K. H.
620
the finite widths of the walls, to be shortened at the
same time. Thus, this method, in its current form, is
applicable only if the shear/core wall structure is to
be analysed by the frame method in which the lengths
of the beams can be increased by reducing the lengths
of the rigid arms. If the finite element method is used
to analyse the structure, then since the nodes have to
be placed right at the physical joints and cannot be
shifted, this methodology of extending the beams into
the walls would not be applicable.
After changing the definition of the beamwall joint
rotations to the vertical fibre rotations, as the joint
rotations and the rigid arm rotations would then be
unequal, two rotational DOF, namely the horizontal
fibre rotation and the vertical fibre rotation, would be
required at each end of a beam element with rigid
arms. For connection to the beam elements, the
column elements which model the walls need also to
have two rotational DOF at each end. Extensive
reformulation of the frame method is needed. However, there is a possibility of locating the nodes right
at the physical positions of the joints and incorporat .
ing the horizontal rigid arms into the wall elements
instead of in the beam elements [8, 9]. In that case,
only one rotational DOF, the vertical fibre rotation,
would be required at each node.. But then, since the
nodes have to be fixed at the joints, the equivalent
length method would become inapplicable. A solution to this problem is proposed later in this paper.
Rotational spring method
The advantage of the rotational spring method,
which was first suggested by MacLeod [4], is that it
is simple to use and easy to understand. The nodes
can be located immediately on the beamwall joints
so there is no problem with the shifting of the joint
locations. However, the joint rotations due to shear
and joint deflections caused by both moment and
shear would be ignored. This could cause significant
errors in accounting for the joint deformation effects
when the span/depth ratio of the beam is small. No
modification to the method is required after changing
the definition of the joint rotations to the vertical
KWAN
fixed
fixed
Fig. 5. Finite element analysis of local deformations around
beamwall joints.
fibre rotations. It should, nevertheless, be noted that
after changing the joint rotations to the vertical fibre
rotations, the beam elements should no longer be
incorporated with horizontal rigid arms because two
rotational DOF at each end of the beam element
would then be required. For this reason, the beam
element developed by Bhatt [6] with both rotational
springs and horizontal rigid arms incorporated should
not be used after the definition of the rotational DOF
is changed.
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
A parametric study of the local deformations
around the beamwall joints is carried out by finite
element analysis using a very fine mesh of rectangular
bilinear elements as shown in Fig. 5. The structural
parameters studied are the half wall width/beam depth
ratio, (w/2d), and the cantilever span/beam depth
ratio, (c/d). In the investigation, the problem is
analysed for (w /2d) = 4, 3, 2, 1 and 0.5, and (c /d) = 4,
3, 2, 1, and 0.5. All together, 25 combinations of
the two parameters are studied. The Poisson ratio is
contour of max. principal
stress as multiple of Vc/td 2
Fig. 6. Local deformations and stress concentrations around abeamwall joint.
Local deformations at beamwall joints
taken to be 0.25 throughout. Figure 6 illustrates the
defo~ed shape of a typical beamwall joint and the
stress concentrations around the joint.
The joint rotations and deflections due to local
deformations are determined from the following
equations
(c
621
+ e)3(c + e)
3EI
c3
c
GA' = 3EI + GA'
joint deflection by finite element analysis
 joint deflection with local deformations ignored
(7)
+ COJ = tip
deflection by finite element analysis
 tip deflection with local deformations ignored
in which the joint and tip deflections with the local deformations ignored are evaluated by hand calculation
with the walls and beams treated asframe members
connected by rigid joints. The results for the joint
rotations and deflections are summarized by the
following equations
where the dimensionless joint flexibility coefficients
At ,A2 and A3 are as given in Table 1. Note that the
Avalues vary with the half wall width/beam depth
ratio but are independent of the cantilever span/beam
depth ratio. Compared with the results obtained by
O'Donnell [2] and Michael [3] using analytical
methods with the finite widths of the walls and the
beamwall interactions ~gnored, the joint deformationsobtained by the finite element analysis are
significantly smaller.
The joint flexibilities as given by eqns (9)'and (10)
can be converted into equivalent lengths which give
the same tip deflections by. the following equation
(8)
It should be noted that the equivalent length, e,
evaluated above only allows for the joint deformations; the shear defonnations of the beam are to be
separately allowed for as in Michaers [3] and Hall's
[5] methods. Table 2 presents the results so obtained
for the equivalent lengths. It can be seen from the
table that the equivalent length of a joint varies with
both the half wall width to beam depth ratio and the
cantilever span to beam depth ratio. Generally, the
equivalent length is longer when both the wall width
and cantilever span are large, and shorter when the
wall width and cantilever span are small. The dependence of the equivalent length on the cantilever span
creates an inherent difficulty with the equivalent
length method; it requires the location of the point
of contraflexure to be known before the equivalent
length can be determined. Fortunately, unlike the
equivalent lengths in Bhatt's [6] and Cheung's [7]
methods, the equivalent lengths tabulated in Table 2
vary only slightly with the cantilever span/beam depth
ratio. In order to make the method more practicable,
it is proposed to ignore the effect of the cantilever
span on the equivalent length and account for the
effect of the wall width approximately by the following
equation
. .
= mInImum
{O.29d
0.22).~'.
(12)
Table 1. Joint flexibility coefficients
11
12
4.53
4.49
4.41
4.18
3.83
0.58
0.55
0.51
0.42
0.30
The errors in the effective stiffness of the coupling
beam due to the above approximation are given in
Table 3 from which it can be seen that with the
equivalent length taken to be O.29d when the wall is
wide and 0.22w when the wall is narrow, the error
in the effective stiffness of the coupling beam is at
most 100/0 within the range of c/d and w/2d
studied. From an engineering application point of
Table 2.. Equivalent length of joint expressed as a fraction of beam depth (e /d)
Cantilever span to beam depth ratio (c /d)
Half wall width
to beam depth
ratio (w /2d)
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.5
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.366
0.362
0.354
0.334
0.304
0.362
0.358
0.350
0.329
0.299
0.355
0.350
0.341
0.319
0.287
0.338
0.329
0.317
0.291
0.254
0.315
0.301
0.284
0.248
0.201
622
A. K. H. KWAN
Table 3. Percentage errors in beam stiffness, if e is taken to be 0.29d or
0.22w, whichever is smaller
Cantilever span to beam depth ratio (c/d)
Half wall width
to beam depth
ratio (w /2d)
4.0
3.0
2.0
l.0
0.5
4.0
3.0
2.0
LO
0.5
5.3
5.0
4.4
3.0
5.9
6.4
6.1
5.3
3.4
7.2
8.0
7.4
9.1
7.4
5.1
0.2
6.6
6.2
2.7
1.4
9.8
4.7
6.3
3.5
8.5
view, such errors should be acceptable and It IS
therefore recomtpended to use eqn (12) instead of
Table 2.
In general, the joint deformations can be evaluated by
BEAM ELEMENTS WITH JOINT DEFORMATIONS
ALLOWED FOR
A new method of using joint elements to model the
deformations at the beamwall joints is developed in
the following.
Consider the walls and the coupling beam in Fig. 7,
where the nodes 1 and 2 are the nodes at the wall sides
of the beamwall joints and the nodes I' and 2' are the
nodes at the beam sides of the joints. The flexibilities
of the joints at each end of the coupling beam are to
be modelled by joint elements. Briefly, a joint element
is one that has two nodes with the same coordinates
but different translational and rotational OOF. For
instance, the joint element at the lefthand side of the
beam consists of two nodes, nodes .1 and 1', which
have the sam~ nodal coordinates. Likewise, the joint
element at the righthand side of the beam also consists of two nodes, nodes 2 and 2', which are located
at the same position but on different sides of the joint.
VI
12
13
f2
13
M.
p.
4+a

/2
V2
EI
=l+a
wall
12
[2
2a
t
2_P:
12
13
6
p.
P2a
I
p.
VI'
WI'
(15)
v 2'
4+a
I
W2'
Two alternative beam elements with the joint
deformations taken into account by incorporating
joint elements at the ends are developed in the
following sections.
be_a_m
12
12
M2
t
:~f_l/
where VI' v2 , (lJI and (J)2 are the translational and
rotational OOF at the wall sides of the joints and
VI" V 2" ro l , and {J)2' are the corresponding DOF at
the beam sides of the joints. To ensure compatibility
between the beam and wall elements, the rotational
DOF are defined as vertical fibre rotations. Thus,
if the lateral strains in the walls are negligible, the
rotations (J). and 002 would be equal to the rotations
of the vertical axis of the respective walls. On the
other hand, the rotations 00 1, and 0)2' are the rotations
of the beamwall interfaces at the two ends of the
beam, respectively.
The coupling beam can be modeled by a standard
beam element with shear defonnations taken into
account. The stiffness matrix equation of the beam
element is given by
.
Flexibility coefficient method
wall
From eqns (9) and (10), the flexibility matrices of
the two joint elements are obtained as
(16)
Fig. 7.A beam element with joint deformations allowed for.
Local deformations at beamwall joints
623
in which
L = I +e.
(17)
ct.
where AI' A2 and A) are the joint flexibility coefficients
as given by Table 1.. and the items in parentheses
with subscripts 1 and 2 are the corresponding values
at nodes I and 2, respectively. Appending these two
joint elements to the ends of the beam element, an
element with four nodes., two internal nodes l' and 2'
and two external nodes I and 2, is formed. Substituting the above equations for the flexibility matrices
into eqns (13) and (14), and eliminating the DOF at
the internal nodes from eqns (13){15).. the stiffness
matrix equation of the beam element with joint
deformations allowed for is obtained as follows.
VI
MI
V2
M2
=(I+K{~I
:J)I
and
COl
. (18)
Let the equivalent lengths of the beamwall joints
at the left and righthand sides of the coupling beams
be e J and e2 ~ respectively. The joint flexibility matrices
are as follows:
F1 =
F2 =
(d)
(e2EIf )
(;~)
(3EI
e~
e2 )
+ GA'

(d)
2El .
2EI
(19)
(e~
)
2EI
(20)
(il)
Substituting into eqns (13) and (14) and eliminating
the DOF at the internal nodes, the following stiffness matrix equation for the beam element with
joint deformations taken into account by means of
equivalent lengths is obtained
12
VI
MI
V2
M2
EI
=T'1 +a'
12
 L3
0
1 e'!
0
(24)
VI
2a
L2
12
 L3
6
L 2
12
L3
6
 L2
2a'
:L
6
 L2

6
 L2
e 1 0
[2
4+a
L
(23)
Since the end nodes are placed at the physical
positions of the beamwall joints.. both the above
elements can be applied to the finite element analysis
of coupled shear/core wall structures in which the
nodes are required to be located right at the joints.
Moreover, when applied to the frame method.. as the
nodes can be located immediately on the beam\vall
joints, they allow the joint. deformations to be taken
into account without shifting the beamwall joints into
the walls. This is important because when the frame
method is reformulated to have the joint rotations
redefined as the vertical fibre rotations.. the nodes must
be moved from the centroidalaxis of the walls to the
beamwall joints or else the use of two rotational DOF
at each node, which is rather cumbersome.. would be
required.. Although the rotational spring method can
allow joint deformations to be taken into account
without shifting the joints, it only accounts for the
joint rotations due to moment loads and is therefore
less accurate.
Each of the above beam elements has its own
advantages and disadvantages. Generally speaking,
the beam element based on the flexibility coefficient ;~
. method is more versatile; it can be applied even to
those cases in which the walls and the beams are of
different materials or thickness. Theoretically.. it can
also give more accurate results. However, it requires
Equivalent length method
el )
~)
L) )(GA'
Applications
V2
There is no simple algebraic expression for the stiffness matrix of this beam element. However, it can be
obtained numerically with no particular difficulties as
part of the computer analysis.
3/+ GA'
(22)
It is interesting to note that the stiffness platrix in
eqn (21) is very similar to that of a standard beam
element with horizontal rigid arms incorporated;
the only differences between them are just the signs
and values of the rigid arm lengths. Hence~ existing
computer programs need only be modified slightly
with the rigid ann lengths changed.
(JJ2
(d
2EI
T=
VI
Kh
'=C
+ e2
4+a'
L
WI
(21)
V2
W2
624
A. K. H. KWAN
either the flexibility coefficients to be input or the the beam elements. This would, however, require the
whole of Table I to be stored in the computer program nodes to be moved from the centroidal axis of the
and the actual coefficients interpolated according walls to the physical positions of the beamwall
to the wall width. Moreover, as there is no simple joints. And, as the joints cannot then be shifted, the
algebraic expression for the stiffness matrix, it takes joint deformations would have to be allowed for by
extra computer time to obtain the stiffness matrix some means without shifting the locations of the
numerically. On the other hand, the beam element beamwall joints.
based on the equivalent length method is much
A new method of allowing for the joint deformsimpler to apply. In fact, its stiffness matrix resembles ation effects by using joint elements to model the joint
that of a standard beam element with horizontal rigid deformations is proposed. This method can allow
arms so closely that existing computer programs need the joint deformations to be accounted for without
only be slightly modified with the rigid arm lengths shifting the locations of the joints and can therefore
changed. There will be some errors in the effective be applied to both finite element analysis and frame
stiffness of the coupling beams due to the negligence method analysis of the structures. A parametric study
of the effect of cantilever span on the equivalent of the joint deformations using finite element analysis
length but the errors are at most only 10% which is carried out to detennine the joint element properties.
should be acceptable in normal engineering applica The results of the finite element analysis are presented
tions. Unfortunately, however, eqn (21) would not be . in both the forms of flexibility coefficients and equivapplicable if the walls and the beams are of different alent lengths. Two alternative beam elements, one
materials or thickness. Summing up, it is suggested with the joint deformations allowed for by means
that if highest generality and accuracy are desired, of flexibility coefficients and the other by means of
tl1en the beam element based on the flexibility equivalent lengths, are developed. The first element is
coefficient method should be used. But, for most more general and can give more accurate results, but
engineering applications in which the walls and the is also more involved in computer implementation.
beams are of the same material and thickness, the Relatively, the second element is easier to use. In fact,
beam element based on the equivalent length method this element can be implemented just by modifying
the values of rigid arm lengths in existing computer
is recommended.
programs. However, it is restricted only to those cases
in which the walls and beams are of the same material
CONCLUSIONS
and thickness and is slightly less accurate than the
The existing methods of allowing for the effects first element.
of joint deformations are reviewed. It is found that
despite being used for many years, there are still a
REFERENCES
number of problems with them. The major problem
1. C. Weber, The deflection of loaded gears and the effect
is with the definition of the joint rotations which have
on their load carrying capacity. Department of Scientific
often been mistaken as the rotations of the horizontal
and Industrial Research, Germany, Report No.3, Part 1,
rigid arms thereby leading to incompatibility between
England (1949).
2. W. J. O'Donnell, The addi~ional deflection of a cantithe beam and wall elements. Moreover, many practical
lever due to elasticity of the support. J. Appl. Mech.,
difficulties with their actual applications have been enASME 461464 (1960).
countered. For instance, the deflection factor method
3. D. Michael, The effect of local wall deformations on
is, strictly speaking, applicable only when the point
the elastic interaction of cross walls coupled by beams.
Proceedings, Tall Building Symposium, University of
of contraftexure is at the centre of the beam. The
Southampton, pp. 253270. Pergamon Press (1967).
equivalent length method, on the other hand, suffers
4. I. A. MacLeod, Discussions on ref. [3]. Proceedings,
from the shortfall of requiring the beamwall joints
Tall Buildings Symposiuln, University of Southampton,
to be shifted as the lengths of the beams are increased
pp. 271272. Pergamon Press (1967).
to allow for the joint deformations. The rotational
5. A. S. Hall, Joint deformations in building frames.
Civil Engng Trans, InSf. Engrs, Australia 6062 (1969).
spring method does not require the position of the
6.
P.
Bhatt, Effect of beamshea rwa II junction defonnations
joints to be shifted, but it is not capable of taking into
on the flexibility of the connecting beams. Building Sci.
account the joint rotations due to shear loads and
8, 149151 (1973).
the joint deflections due to moment and shear loads.
7. Y. K. Cheung, Chapter 38: Tall Buildings 2. Handbook
of Structural Concrete (Edited F. K. Kong et af.).
It is postulated that in order to restore compatibility
Pitman, London (1983).
between the beam and wall elements, the beamwall
8. A. K. H. Kwan, Analysis of ocupled wall/frame
joint rotations should be redefined as the rotations
structures by frame method with shear deformation
of the beamwall interfaces, i.e. the vertical fibre
allowed. Proc./nsl. Civ. Engrs, ParI 291,273297 (1991).
rotations. As the joint rotations and the rigid arm
9. A. K. H. Kwan, Refonnulation of the frame method.
Proc. Insf. Civ. Engrs J. Struct. Bldgs 94, 103116 (1992).
rotations would then be unequal, each end of a beam
element with horizontal rigid arms incorporated must 10. J. K. Biswas and W. K. Tso, Three dimensional analysis
of shear wall buildings to lateral load. J. Struct. Div.,
have two rotational DOF. The use of two rotational
ASCE 100, 10191036 (1974).
DOF per node can be avoided by incorporating II. I. A. MacLeod, Structural analysis of wall systems.
Structural Engineer 55, 487495 (1977).
the rigid arms into the wall elements rather than in
r.
Local deformations at beamwall joints
12. B. N.AbuGhazaleh, Analysis of platetype prismatic
structures. Ph.D. thesis, University of California,
Berkeley (1965).
13. I. A. MacLeod, New rectangular finite element for
shear wall analysis. J. SlrUCI. Div., ASCE 95, 399409
(1969).
14. R. G. Sisodiya and Y. K. Cheung, A higher order
inplane parallellogram element and its applications
to skewed girder bridges. In Developments in Bridge
~25
Design and Construction (Edited by K. C. Rockey
et al.), pp. 304317. Crosby Lockwood, London
(1971).
15. G. A. Mohr, A simple rectangular membrane element
including the drilling freedom. Comput. Struct. 13,
483487 (1981).
16. G. A. Mohr, Finite element formulation by nested interpolations: application to the drilling freedom problem.
Comput. Struct. 15, 185190 (1982).
4.3 Coupling effects of slabs
4.3.1 Rotational d.o.f. at slabwall joints:
 if the slabs are modelled as thin plates, then the slab
wall interfaces are horizontal
 hence, the rotational d.o.f at the slabwall joints should
be defmed as the rotations of the horizontal fibres in
the walls
4.3.2 Shear deformation of slabs:
 since the span!depth ratios of the slabs are normally
greater than 4, the effects of shear deformation of the
slabs are negligible
4.3.3 Stress concentration around slabwall joints:
 bending of slab is maximum near the wall and
decreases with distance from the plane of the wall
 effective bending stiffness of slab normally expressed
in terms of the effective width of the slab
 there is also local deformation of the wall which will
affect coupling stiffness of the slab
29
4.3.4 Effective width of couIJling slabs
Results obtained by Coull and Wong (1981):
08
06
>........
>
'04
=~1__
02
'
(a)
y.
~ = l~(!:) 1
5 Y
08
__ o=o==o
0=0=0
YL ~ ... ~
,~o=
o~<:J
O~\
,/'
. if'
~
06
0/ "'"
Ye
Generalized design centre
./
02
YY
Normal section
2 L
SY'
Reciprocal section
Uy
(bl
Effective slab width for p(anewall configuration: (a) generalized design curve;
(b) empirical curve
30
4.4 Coupling effects of beams and slabs together
 the beam and slab act compositely like aTbeam
 coupling effect of the Tbeam is highly dependent on
the effective flange width of the beam
 effective flange width depends on two factors: the outofplane bending action of the slab and the inplane
membrane action of the slab
 both the outofplane bending and inplane membrane
actions exhibit stress concentration characteristics
 moreover, there is also lqcal deformation in the wall
which will also affect the coupling action of the
composite beamslab element
 behaviour very complicated, no defmite solution at the
moment, no design guidance available, more research
needed
31
5. Finite element analysis of tall buildings
5.1 Difficulties with the finite element method
Application of the [mite element method to shear/core
wall analysis can be dated back to the 60s'. Theoretically, the
[mite element method, being the most powerful tool of
analysis available, can be applied to any type of building
structures. However, due to relatively low efficiency and
high computing cost, full [mite element analysis of coupled
shear/ core walls hav,e never been popular. There are all
together three causes for the low efficiency of the method.
32
The fust cause is the inefficiency of using 2d plane
stress elements to model the coupling beams. During the
earliest applications of the fmite element method to coupled
wall structures, both 2d plane stress elements
(Girijavallabhan 1969) and Id beams elements (MacLeod
1969) had been used to model the coupling beams. In 1975,
a comparative study (AlMahaidi and Nilson 1975) revealed
that it is much more accurate and efficient to model the
coupling beams by Id beam elements. Since then, it became
widely recognized that the coupling beams should be
modelled as Id elements and, in order to allow direct
connection with the beam elements, the walls should be
modelled by plane stress elements with rotational d.o.f. The
incorporation of rotational d.o.f. into plane stress elements
had been found a formidable task (Mohr 1982).
Nevertheless, various forms of plane stress elements with
rotational d.o.f: have been developed. A review of these
elements regarding their suitability for tall building analysis
was given by the Author in a previous paper (Kwan 1992).
When incorporating rotational d.o.f into plane stress
elements, it should be borne in mind that the rotations of the
vertical fibre and that of the horizontal fibre are not the same
(they differ by an amount equal to the shear strain) and that
for beamwall compatibility, the rotational d.o.f at the
beamwall joints should be defmed as the rotations of the
vertical fibres at the beamwall interface.
33
The second cause is the occurrence of stress
concentratio,ns and local deformations around the beamwall
joints. In order to deal with high stress gradients near the
joints, the element mesh needs to be refmed at least locally
there. Numerical experience (Hall 1969, Bhatt 1973)
indicated that very fme meshes around the joints are
required to give acceptable accuracy. It is thus not practical
to allow for local joint deformations by refming the element
mesh near every joint in a full scale analysis (not only
because of the high computing cost, but also because of the
difficulties with the renumbering of the nodes due to mesh
refmement). A more practical solution is to account for the
local deformations by adding rotational springs or both
rotational and shear springs at the beamwall joints
(Harrison et al. 1975).
34
The third cause is the presence of parasitic shears in
many of the lower order elements which render the elements
too stiff under bending unless the elements are very small.
Since shear/core walls are subjected principally to bending
actions, this is a very serious problem indeed. The source of
the trouble is the inability of the elements to curve
themselves to follow the deformed shape of the structure
when subjected to bending. Various techniques of
overcoming this problem had been developed (Cook 1975).
However, it is felt that the best method of dealing with
parasitic shears is to avoid them by using elements which
can exactly represent the strain state of pure bending.
35
In order to improve the computational efficiency of the
f~te element method, fmite strip elements (Cheung and
Swaddiwudhipong 1978) and higher order elements (Chan
and Cheung 1979) were developed to model the walls. The
fmite strip elements extend the whole height of the building
while the higher order elements span at least several stories
high. Thus the number of unknowns to be solved is generally
smaller than those of other fmite element methods. These
elements are not subjected to parasitic shears. However, as .
they span at least several stories, they are afflicted by an
excess continuity problem which arises from the fact that the
elements can only yield continuous stress distributions
within an element but due to the diaphragm actions of the
floor slabs and the concentrated moments from the coupling
beams, there could be discrete changes in shear force and
bending moment across a floor level.
36
5.2 Suitable finite elements for tall building analysis
It became clear at this stage that a good element for
modelling the walls should be:
(1) one that has rotational d.o.f for direct connection to
the beams;
(2) can represent the strain state of pure bending so as to
avoid parasitic shears; and
(3) spans at most only one story so that there will be no
excess continuity problem.
In 1983, Cheung adapted the so called beamtype
element, which was originally developed for bridge deck
analysis (Sisodiya and Cheung 1971), to apply to buildings
(Cheung 1983). This beamtype element is a rectangular four
node element with three d.o.f. at each node. The nodal d.o.f.
include a horizontal translation, a vertical translation and an
inplane rotation defmed as the rotation of the vertical fibre
at the node. This element satisfies all the above criteria for a
good wall element.
5.3 Beamtype element for shear/core wall analysis
See attached paper.
37
Analysis of coupled shear/core
walls using a beamtype finite
element
A. K. H. Kwan and Y. K. Cheung
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, University oj Hong Kong,Hong
Kong
(Received July 1992,. revised version accepted March 1993)
The Sisodiya and Cheung socalled beamtype element, which was
originally developed for bridge analysis, had been successfully adapted
by Cheung to apply to coupled shear/core wall structures. This element
is not afflicted by shear Jocking and has rotational qegreesoffreedom
for direct connection with the coupling beams. Moreover, the definition
adopted for each of its rotations is the vertical fibre rotation which, as
Kwan recentl,y found, is the only definition that can ensure compatibility
between the beam and wall elements. In this paper, further studies on
the application of this element are carried out and improvements, which
can lead; firstly, to higher computational efficiency of the method;
secondly, enable .more reasonable shear stress results to be obtained,
and finally, allow the maximum bending stress to be determined for
practical design purpose without using a fine mesh, are proposed.
Numerical examples are given to demonstrate the improvements
achieved.
Keywords: shear/core wall structures, FEM
Existing methods for coupled shear/core wall analysis
may be categorized into the continuous connection
method 1 2 , the frame method 3 4 and the finite element
methodS. 6. Among them, the finite. element method,
being the most powerful tool of analysis available, is the
most versatile; it can be applied to any form of structures
with various support conditions and subjected to any
type of loadings.
Many different types of finite elements are now available. However, not all of them are suitable for coupled
shear/core wall analysis. For instance, some of the lowerorder elements, such as the bilinear element, are found to
be afflicted by the shear locking problem which renders
the elements overstiff under bending actions. Since shear/
core walls are subjected principally to bending actions,
such shear locking can severely reduce the convergence
rate and thus the efficiency of the elements. Hence for
shear/core wall analysis, elements not afflicted by shear
locking are preferred. Moreover, as the coupling beams
are normally modelled by beam elements with end rotations, the elements which model the walls need to have
inplane rotations so that they can be connected directly
with the beams. A number of plane stress elements with
rotationaldegreesoffreedom (DOF) have been developed and many different definitions for the rotations
adopted 7 1o However, Kwan 11. 12 has recently found
that the various definitions adopted are not equivalent to
each other and that if the rotational DOF are not defined
01410296/94/02011108
1994 Butterworth Heinemann Ltd
as the rotations of the beamwall interfaces, i.e. the
rotations of the vertical fibres at the beamwall joints, the
beam and wall elements would be incompatible.. Therefore for modelling shear/core walls, elements with rotational DOF. defined as the vertical fibre rotations are
more appropriate.
In 1983, Cheung 13 adapted the Sisodiya and Cheung!4
socalled beamtype element!, which was originally developed for bridge analysis, to apply to coupled shear/
core wall structures. This element (Figure 1) has rotational DOF defined as vertical fibre rotations for direct
connection with the beam elements and is not afflicted by
shear locking. Hence it is a suitable element for coupled
shear/core wall analysis. It is called a beamtype element
because its lateral displacement function is similar to that
of a beam element.
This beamtype element can generally produce very
accurate results for the lateral deflections. However, like
most other elements formulated by the displacement
method, it is less accurate in the stress evaluations.
Firstly, as its shear strain function is quadratic along the
vertical direction, it should theoretically yield reasonably
accurate shear stress results, but in reality it tends to
produce unrealistically large fluctuations in shear
stresses. Secondly, since the element allows only a constant bending moment within an element, it yields a
stepwise variation of bending moment with height. The
bending moment results may be taken as the average
Engng Struct. 1 994, Volume .16, Number 2
111
Analysis of coupled shear/core walls: A. K. H. Kwan and Y. K. Cheung
tion while v is linear in both directions, i.e.
+ 'X 2 ,., + ':t 3 17 2 + ':1. 4 17 3 )
+ ~(a9 + alo'l + 1 11 11 2 + Ct. 12 113 )
v = (as + ct6~ + ':t,fl + ~8~YJ)
which ~ = x/a and 'I = y/b. The close
U
~(~2
.. _ul
_ u2
Sisodiya and Cheung beamtype element
bending moments within the elements and attributed as
the bending moment values at the centres of the elements
but would not give directly the maximum bending
moments which usually occur at either the top or bottom
of the elements and are neededfor structural design.
In this paper, the above problems are studied and
methods of overcoming them are proposed. Additionally,
the computational efficiency of the method is also improved by neglecting the lateral strains in the walls
which are generally of little significance.
Notation
E Young's modulus
G
Ii
u
v
t
(Xi
ex
e,
1X1
(j %
(j,
7:
%,
co
shear modulus
shape functions
horizontal displacement
vertical displacement
thickness of wall
coefficients in displacement functions
horizontal axial strain
vertical axial strain
shear strain
horizontal axial stress
vertical axial stress
shear stress
inplane rotation defined as ou/oy
The Sisodiya and Cheung beamtype element
This is a rectangular fournoded element with three DOF
at each node (Figure 1). The nodal OOF are the horizontal displacement u, the vertical displacement v, and the
inplane rotation co which is defined as (au/oy)., i.e. t.he
vertical fibre rotation. It was formulated by starting with
displacement functions which are such that u is linear in
the horizontal direction and cubic in the vertical direc
112
(2)
(3)
~~f}
Figure 1
(})
t_~ :.W_l_
II
(1 1
in
resemblance of
the above displacement functions to the actual deformation modes of a beam renders this element very beamlike. It is this beamlike characteristic that makes it
particularly suited for the analysis of shear/core walls
which act principally as vertical cantilever beams. Solving the a coefficients in terms of the nodal DOF, the
displacement field is obtained as
y,v
.b
Engng Struct. 1994, Volume 16, Number 2
where
f 1 i = (1 + ~ ei )( 1 + '1 r/i)
f 2i = t(2 + 11Y/i  11 2 )f 1
f 3i = t b11l1  11 2 )fli
(4)
(5)
(6)
ei
and
and 11i are simply the values of and '1 at node i.
The strain functions and the stiffness matrix of the
element can be derived by following the standard procedure of finite element formulation.
The above element has been successfully applied to
various kinds of coupled shear/core wall structures 13 and
implemented in some tall building analysis software.
However, its computational efficiency can actually be
further improved byneglecting the lateral strains in the
walls which are generally insignificant. With the lateral
strains neglected, the horizontal displacement u of the
element becomes independent of and the number of
DOF of the element can be reduced from twelve to eight
as shown in Figure 2. The resulting element, hereafter
called the simplified beamtype element, is computationally much more efficient than the original element. The
idea of making the assumption that the lateral strains in
the walls are negligible so as to improve the computational efficiency of the analysis method is not new.
Although often not explicitly stated, this assumption has
been incorporated in the frame method 3 4 . Cheung l3 and
Cheung and Swaddiwudhipong lS have applied this idea
to the finite strip method. K wan 12 has also incorporated
such an assumption in his strainbased element and had
in fact suggested previously that this idea could be
applied also to the beamtype e.lement.
Neglecting the lateral strains, the displacement functions of the element become
(!Xl
v=
(!X s
+ ':1. 2 '1 + ':1. 3 11 2 + ~4113)
+ ':1.6~ + ':1. i '1 + !X8~'1)
(7)
(8)
Solving the (X coefficients in terms of the nodal parameters shown in Figure 2{ a), the displacen1ent field of
the element is obtained as
+ '1 3 )U 1 +!b( 1 + 11 + 11:!  '1 3 )W 1
l(2 + 3'1  ,,3 )U 2 + ib( I + 'I  ,,2  11 3 )w 2 (9)
v = !( 1  ~)( I  'l)V 1 + !( 1 + ~)( I  11)r 1
+!( I  ~)( 1 + '1)v 3 + i( I + ~)( 1 + ,,}t'4
(10)
Ll =
*(2 
311
Analysis of coupled shear/core walls: A. K. H. Kwan and Y. K. Cheung
M
v
3
.f.
).
thickness
t
J..
M
a
Figure2
t
1
Simplified beamtype element. (a), nodal displacements; (b), nodal forces
It should be noted that the horizontal displacement
function u is identical to the lateral displacement function
of a beam element while the vertical displacement function v is the same as that of a standard bilinear element.
Although this element resembles a bilinear element in the
v function, it is not afflicted by shear locking because its u
function allows it to bend like a beam when subjected to
bending. The rest of the formulation follows the standard
finite element procedure.
Shear stress in the element
Differentiating the displacement functions given in eq uations (9) and (10), the shear strain in the element is
obtained as
"txy
= ~ (V2~ VI
W1
+KV4 ~ V3 W 2
)(1 
)(1 +
1])
1])
+~U2 ~ U l + W l + W2 )(1  1]2)
(11)
It is thus seen that the shear strain in the element varies
as a quadratic function in the vertical direction. So
theoretically, this element should be able to give reasonably accurate shear stress results. However, experience
from actual applications of the element revealed that this
is not really the case. The problems with the shear stress
evaluation are best illustrated by studying Example 1
given in Figures 3 and 4.
In Example 1, a typical 8storey coupled shear wall
structure subjected to lateral loads, Figure 3a, is analysed
using two layers of beamtype elements per storey. For
comparison, the structure is also analysed by the frame
method. The deflection results as obtained by the two
methods of analysis are plotted in Figure 3 (h) from
which it can be seen that the two methods give more or
less the same lateral deflections. However, the shear
stress results obtained by the two methods are quite
different from each other. From Figure 4{ a), in which the
shear force distribution at the lowest two storeys are
plotted, it can be seen that while the frame method yields
exact shear force results, the finite element method produces a fairly large fluctuation of shear force with height
which is not reasonable from the physical point of view.
The large and erratic fluctuation of shear stresses in the
finite element results is rather annoying. When a structural design engineer comes across such shear stress
results, he/she is often lost as to what shear force values
should be used for the design because in most practical
cases, it is difficult to guess the correct shear forces in the
walls. Fortunately, however, the remedy to this situation
is actually quite simple. There are two possible ways of
overcoming this problem.
The first way is to take the shear stresses everywhere
within an element as always equal to that at the centre of
the element. In displacement formulated finite elements,
the stress and strain results are usually more accurate at
the centroids of the elements and so it is thought that the
same should also apply to this element. Putting 11 = 0 in
equation (11), the shear strain at the centre of the element
is obtain as
"txy
= i(U 2~ U l )
1(
+4
WI
+ (J)2 +
V2
+ v4
. Vl 
V3 )
(12)
from which the shear force acting on the element can be
determined as
= 2Gtay.~).
3Q
=Gt( 2b (11 2
+!(V2 + V4
ud + 2 (w l + W2)
Vl 
V3
Engng Struct. 1994, Volume 16, Number 2
(13)
113
Analysis of coupled shear/core walls: A. K. H. Kwan and Y. K. Cheung
32
'I
finite element
method
rt
,,'1,1
24
rt
frame method
'I
'dt
@)
16
(J)
QJ
....4
....
o
[f)
00
0'...1.0....1..
..
60
40
20
o
thickness = O.4m
beam depth = O.8m
E = 20GPa. v = 0.25
deflection (mm)
a
Figure 3
Example 1, coupled shear walls. (a), structure analysed; (b), deflection curve
finite element
method using
    L
.       Eqn. (15)
....
.
"
frame method
or
finite element
method using
Eqn. (18)
2nd
storey
..r:: ' )
"j
~
___
  ......:__ _
,.
DO
(coincide with
exact results)
Y f l n i t e element
method using
"1
a
Figure 4
114
extrapolated from
finite element results
frame method
4
O...r.a."'~
shear force
Eqn. (19)
..c:
Eqn. ( 17 )
L a.&__..I_...c....L..&.1
a
Q)
fInite element
method using
~<
o.S
  ....
1st
storey
,_yr
.....
..c:
(MN)
10
lS
bending moment (MNm)
Example 1, shear force and bending moment results. (a), shear force in walls; (b), bending moment in walls
Engng Struct. 1994, Volume 16, Number 2
Analysis of coupled shear/core walls: A. K. H. Kwan and Y. K. Cheung
Taking this shear force as the shear force acting at all
horizontal sections of the element, a stepwise variation of
shear force as shown in Figure 4{a) is obtained. This
results in a less fluctuating and apparently more reasonable shear force distribution, but compared to that
evaluated by the frame method, it is still less accurate.
The second way is to determine the shear force in the
element from the horizontal nodal forces acting at the
top or bottom of the element, Figure 2(b), which can be
obtained simply by multiply the stiffness matrix with the
Flodal displacements, i.e.
u=
U2
= G{~: (u 2 +teV2
+ V4 
u1)
+; +
(w 2
Vi  V3
Wi)
(14)
The shear force results so obtained are plotted in Figure 4{a) alongside the other results. It can be seen from
the figure that the shear force results now coincide with
the exact values. Thus this method is more accurate than
the previous one. This is because whilst the strains
evaluated from the straindisplacement relation are generally one order less accurate than the displacements, the
nodal forces which are always in equilibrium with the
external loads are generally as accurate as and sometimes
even more accurate than the displacements especially if
the structure is close to a statical determinate one. As
the amount of computational work for the two methods
are the same, this latter method, which is more accurate,
is recommended.
Figure 4(b). To determine the maximum bending moment for structural design, first attribute the bending
moment results as the bending moment values at midheight of the finite elements and then estimate the
bending moment values at the top and bottom of the
elements by linear extrapolation as shown in the figure.
The bending moments at the top and bottom of the
elements give the maximum bending moment values
needed. As can be seen from the results plotted, the
maximum bending moments so obtained by extrapolation agree closely with those evaluated by the frame
method.
It should be noted that .such extrapolation would not
be possible if only one layer of element is used per storey.
Hence this beamtype element needs to be used at a rate
of at least two layers per storey. On the other hand, since
in the physical structure, the variation of bending moment with height is only linear (to be exact, the variation
of bending moment with height should be piecewise
linear but within a storey, it is linear), a linear extrapolation within each storey should suffice and therefore the
use of two layers of elements per storey should be
sufficient.
A more general method of axial and bending stress
evaluation based on the above methodology is developed
below. As discussed above, the beamtype element should
be used at a rate of two layers per storey. Consider each
pair of beamtype elements comprised of one element
stacked above the other (see Figure 5), as a composite
element. Using linear extrapolation, the axial strain at
the top of the composite element is obtained as
By =
Axial and bending stresses in the element
Differentiating the vertical displacement function given
in equation (10), the axial strain in the element is
obtained as
By =
i(V
~ V1 )(1  e) + i(V4 ~. V2)(1 + e)
cvs 
This gives .a linear variation of axial strain across a
horizontal section. However, the axial strain is constant
in the vertical direction. Therefore, this finite element
method always produces a stepwise variation of bending
moment with height. The bending moment results may
be taken as the average bending moments within the
elements but would not give directly the maximum
bending moments in the walls which are needed for
structural design purposes (it is always the maximum
bending moment that is more critical than the average
bending moment). If the bending moment results produced by the finite element method are used directly as
the maximum bending moments for the structural design,
there will be errors which are not on the safe side.
Depending on how rapidly the bending moments vary
with height,a very fine element mesh is required to
reduce such errors to within an acceptable level.
Nevertheless, the maximum bending moment may be
accurately determined wi.f.hout using a fine element mesh
byextrapolation as depicted below. Consider the bendingmoment results for. the lowest t\VO storeys of the
structure analysed in Example 1 which are plotted in
V6
:~4 + V2)(1 + e)
(16)
Likewise theaxial strain at the bottom of the composite
element is derived as
By
(15)
:~3 + V 1 )(1  e)
(vs + :~3
+(
V6
+ :~4
)(l 
3V 1
e)
)(1 + e)
3V 2
(17)
The maximum axial force and bending moment acting on
the walls can then be evaluated by integrating the axial
stresses so determined.
Numerical examples
Example 2: coupled nonplanar .walls
To illustrate the application of the beamtype element,
the coupled nonplanar wall structure studied by Tso and
Biswas 16, Figure 6{ a), is analysed. This structure can be
treated as composed of four planar wall units and a row
of coupling beams. The four planar wall units are modelled by two layers of beamtype elements per storey
while the coupling beams are modelled by onedimensional beam elements. For comparison, the structure is
also analysed by the frame method. The results on the
lateral deflections are plotted in Figure 6 (b) where the
theoretical and experimental results obtained by Tso and
Engng Struct. 1994, Volume 16, Number 2
115
Analysis of coupled shear/core walls: A. K. H. Kwan and Y. K. Cheung
from the results that the frame method yields inconsistent
vertical stresses for the waH units at the vertical wall
joints. This is due to the presence of parasitic moments in
the solid wall elements which arise from the incompatibility of vertical displacements along the vertical wall
joints 11. The finite element method, on the other hand,
does not have such a problem. So relatively speaking, the
results of the finite element analysis are more realistic.
Example 3: partially closed core wall
In this example, the core wall model tested by Tso and
Biswas 17 , Figure 7(a), is analysed. The model is a 20storey symmetric core wall structure formed of two
channelshaped nonplanar wall units coupled together
by lintel beams at each floor. In the finite element
analysis, each channelshaped wall unit is treated as an
assembly of three planar wall units, i.e. one web and two
flanges, and each planar wall unit is modelled by two
layers of beamtype elements per storey similar to Example 2. For comparison, the model is also analysed by
the frame method.. The torsional rotation results obtained by the two methods agree fairly closely with each
other.. However, the two different methods again yield
different stress results. The vertical stresses at the ground
level as obtained by the two methods are plotted in
Figure 7 (b) . In the figure, the results obtained by the
frame method, the finite element method using one layer
of beamtype elements per storey, and the finite element
method using two layers of beamtype elements per
storey together with linear extrapolation as per equation
(17) are given as cases I, II and III, respectively. As in the
previous example, the frame method yields inconsistent
stresses at the vertical wall joints.. The results by the finite
element method are more consistent but comparing the
results of cases II and III with those of case I, it is
apparent that the finite element method yields accurate
results only when at least two layers of elements are used
in the analysis..
one
storey
Figure 5
Treating each pair of beamtype elements as a composite
element
Biswas are also plotted for checking.. It is shown that
both the finite element method and the frame method
agree quite closely with the experimental results.. The
results for the shear forces acting on the walls obtained
by the finite element method using equation (14) and
those obtained by the frame method agree almost exactly
with each other but the results on the axial stresses
obtained by the two methods differ significantly.. Figure 6 ( c) shows the axial stresses at the base of the
structure evaluated by the two methods.. It can be seen
//
48
load
~/
..c:
60
f/e
.5
~
36
~"
f in1 te element
{,,method
GJ
..c:
{"
120
f
Incon ..........
slstent
frame method
6S
193
frame method
j,
24
/I
1,'
I'
~I
12
1S
experiment,
1so & Blswas
r'
I
1SO "'+,..01;..
0''''.08
.06
.04
.02
0
deflection (in)
Figure 6
116
S2
150
flnite element
method
Example 2, coupled non planar walls. (a), model tested by Tso and Biswas; (b), deflection curve; (c), axial stress at base (psi)
Engng Struct. 1994, Volume 16, Number 2
Analysis of coupled shear/core walls: A. K. H. Kwan and Y. K." Cheung
104
76
....
1:: : : r'
_1...
_
I
frame method
S"
torsion at top
= ZOO Ibin
 I
I _ / ..._'
r..
109
92
beam
iz.~5,,,fl1.5"
z.5" } 
#of
no. of stories
20
storey height
2.45"
beam depth
II
III
finite element method
(1 layer/storey)
finite element method
(2 layers/storey)
= 0.375"
a
Figure 7
49~"""""
47..'!1I....
Example 3, partially closed core wall. (a) model tested byTso and Biswas; (b), axial stress at base (psi)
Conclusions
The Sisodiya and Cheung beamtype element is found to
be particularly suitable for the analysis of coupled shear/
core wall structures. However, it is not without problems.
Firstly, when connected with coupling beams, it yields
large fluctuations of shear stresses which are not realistic.
Secondly, it gives only the average bending moments
within the elements but would not give directly the
maximum bending moments needed for structural design. Thirdly, the finite element method is computationally less efficient than many other methods. These
problems have been studied and the following remedies
are proposed.
To resolve the problem with shear stress evaluation, it
is suggested that the shear stresses in the element should
be determined from the horizontal nodal forces acting on
the element instead of from the straindisplacement
relation of the element. This can eliminate all the unrealistic fluctuation of shear stresses and produce shear stress
results which are always in equilibrium with the external
loads. To resolve the problem with bending stress evaluation, it is proposed to use the element in pairs in the form
of a composite element and apply linear extrapolation to
determine the maximum axial and bending stresses.
Finally, in order to improve the computational efficiency
of the n1ethod, the number of unknowns to be solved is
reduced by neglecting the lateral strains in the walls
which are generally insignificant. After thesemodifications, it is believed that'the improved beamtype element
n1ethod is a better method than most others for the
analysis of coupled shear/core wall structures.
Acknowledgments
The work presented herein is part of a research project
aiming at the development of suitable methods for the
computer aided design or tall building structures. Financial support from theU.P.G.C. Research Grants Council
is gratefully acknowledged.
References
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rosman, R., 'Analysis of spatial concrete shear wall systems', Proc.
Instn. Civ. Engrs., 1970, Suppl. 131152
Biswas, J. K. and Tso, W. K. 'Threedimensional analysis of shear
wall buildings to lateral load', J. Struct. Div. ASCE 1974, 100, (5),
10191036
MacLeod, I. A. 'Analysis of shear .wall buildings by the frame
method', Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs., Part 2, 1973, 55, 593603
MacLeod, I. A. 'Structural analysis of wall systems', Struct. Eng.,
1977, 55 (11) 487495
Zienkiewicz.. O. C., Parekh, C. 1. and Teply, B. 'Three dimensional
analysis of buildings composed of floor and wall panels" Proc.
Illstn. Civ. Engrs., Part 2, 1971,49, 319332
Ha. K. H. and Desbois, M. Finite elements for tall building
analysis', Comput. & Struct., 1989,33, (1) 249255
MacLeod, I. A., 'New rectangular finite element for shear wall
analysis. J. Struct. Div. ASCE.. 1969, 95, (3) 399409
ivfohr, G. A., A simple rectangular membrane element including
the drilling freedom', C0I11pUt. & StruC:l, 1981. 13, 483487
Mohr, G. A., Finite element formulation by nested interpolations:
application to the drilling freedom problem". Conlput. &. Struct.
1982.. 15, 185 t 90
Allnlan, D. J., A compatible triangular element including vertex
rotations for plane elasticity analysis', Conlput. & Struc/, 1984, 19,
18
&
Engng Struct.1994, Volume 16, Number 2
117
Analysis of coupled shear/core walls: A. K. H. Kwan and Y. K. Cheung
It
12
13
14
118
Kwan, A. K. H. 'Analysis of coupled wall/frame structures by
frame method with shear deformation allowed', Proc. Instl1. Civ.
Engrs, Part 2, 1991,91, 273297
K wan, A. K. H. 'Analysis of buildings using a strainbased element
with rotational d.oJ.', J. Saucr. Engng. ASCE, 1992, 118 (5),
11911212
Cheung, Y. K., 'Chapter 38: Tall buildings 2', Handbook o.f
Structural Concrete, F. K.Kong et af (eds). Pitman, London, 1983
Sisodiya, R. G. and Cheung, Y. K. 'A higher order inplane
parallelogram element and its application to skewed girder
Engng Struct.1994, Volume 16, Number 2
bridges', in K. C. Rockey et al. (eds) De,;elopn1enls in Bridge Design
and Construction, Crosby Lockwood, London, 1971, 304317
15 Cheung, Y. K. and Swaddiwudhipong, S. ' Analysis of frame shear
wall structures using finae strip elements', Proc. In:an. Civ. Engrs.,
Part 2, 1978,65, 517535
16 Tso, W. K. and Biswas, 1. K. 'General analysis of non planar
coupled shear walls', J. Scruct. Diu. ASC, 1973, 99, (ST3),
365380
17 Tso, W. K. and Biswas, J. K., ~ Analysis of core wall structures
subjected to applied torque', Building Sci., 1973, 8, 251257
6 Wallframe interaction
In the design of composite shear (core) wall/frame
building structures, it isoften assumed that all horizontal
loads
are
carried
by
the
shear
(core)
walls
only;
the
contribution of the frame part of the building is neglected.
Effect of the assumption: the load carried by the walls and
hence
the
resulting
deflection
will be overestimated.
Although. the
contribution of
the
frame
portion
is
neglected, it may still be necessary to check and allow for
the effects of the lateral deflection on the frame.
If
the frame
necessary
horizontal
portion is relatively stiff,
to determine
forces
the
between
elements.
38
distribution
the
wall
and
it
of
is
the
frame
2.
.JcT~ .~
~,""JId
~"j
D~~~~
'rt.t.A~(~~~ 'Alrt'o ~ ~:;
et
2.6,
.,."..1.....................
~~
.twtot+t
{1{~?/1
e,i\~ ~ ~IS~~
~':J
'J
~ AftYLA ~
3
Analysis of Yall/Frame Interaction
If
similar
~llowed
to deform independently under the action of
horizontal
loads,
the
adopt different configurations,
cantilever
wall
and
as shown in the following
figure.
Interaction forces
I
....
...
.....

,.....
.....
...
...
....
.....
.
....
(a)
Figure 81
(b)
frame
(c)
Intera:ction between frame and
shear wall constrained to act
together by floor system
Consequently, when the two components are constrained to
deflected together by the floor slabs, they will have to be
'pulled together'
base.
at the top,
A redistribution of horizontal
place throughout the height,
the
and 'pushed apart'
top
and
bottom.
load must
near the
then take
wi th heavy interactions near
The
frame
will
thus
resist
proportionately more load at the top, whilst the wall will
tend to' pick up a larger proportion in the lower regions of
the bui lding.
An approximate continuum based method of analysis may
again be derived to yield simple formulae and design curves
for both preliminary and final design calculations [1].
Ref.
ell: Heidebrecht A C and
St~ford
Smith B, "Approximate
analysis of tall wallframe structures", J. Struct
Div, ASCE, Vol 99, No.ST2, Feb 1973, pp199221.
The
composite
wallframe
structure
is
assumed
to
consist of a combination of a vertical flexural beam and a
shear cantilever.
The
equations
governing
the
behaviour
of
the
two
components are:
E I
shear wall:
(in flexure)
d Yb
dx
= wb(x)
(1)
w (x)
(2)
d y
frame
(in shear)
 GA
dx 2
in which:
. the subscripts tb' and's' refer to the wall
(in bending) and frame (in shear) respectively,
w is the distributed lateral load intensity, and
El and GAare the equivalent flexural and shear
p~gidities
of the wall and frame respectively.
E1 ~
d,Xj'1 
?>
?"
Wb
7
..;L
d.f1
r
cl~
=7
tls
....,.
4X
7
, II
......
I I
/~/
J
1
/ " .,
tJ\
= .... s
...... wb
7
The two components are assumed linked by floor slabs so
that they have identical horizontal deflections throughout
the height.
It
the discrete set
is then assumed that
links may be replaced by an equivalent .pinended
connecting medium.
so
only
that
hor~zontal
Consequently,
transmitted between the two.
induced a set of distributed horizontal
at.
the
connecting
medium
to
of
continuous
forces
are
there wi 11 be
interaction forces
maintain
horizontal
compatibility of the wall and frame.
Let
y =y
= y
(horizontal
w (x) + w (x) = w(x)
Since
co~patibility)
(horizontal equilibrium)
therefore:

 a.
(3)
E I
in which:
W
= w
distribu~ed
load. and a
ratio, g1 venby
Equation
closedform
constants of
(3)
may
solution
is the intensity of the applied
(X
int~gration
is the relative stiffness
= GA/EI.
readily
for
any
be
integrated
applied
loading.
to
give
The
four
which arise in the solution may be
determined from the known boundary condl t ions at the base
and the top of the structure.
8
In the particular case of a structure which is free at
the top and rigidly built in at the base) and subjected to a
uniformly dlstriputed
load
of
intensi ty
w.
complete
the
solution becomes, in nondimensional form:
y =
wH
EI
= 
~
ex
sinh
(X
wH
_tl
__
s_i_nh
__
a_+_l_
(cosh a z  1)
cosh ex.
(X
+ ex 2 [ z  1 z 2
2
(4)
  F (z,a.)
EI
The solution is
dependenc~
01
in this form to emphasize the
express~d
the
horizontal
deflection
on
dimensional parameters only, t.he height ratio z
the relative stiffness
Since
lateral
deflection
at
cantilever of flexural
non
(= x/H) and'
a H).
(=
1
8
the term
two
w H /EI
the
top
represents the maximum
of
rigidity EI,
uniformly
the function F
loaded
1
is a
measure of the stiffening influence of the frame component.
If F
1s large, of the order of unity, the stiffness of the
building Is derived almost entirely from the wall component,
whereas if F
is small, the frame component provides a major
.
part of the lateral stiffness of the building.
Once
the
deflect ion
is
known.
the
other
force
components follow from the forcedisplacement relationships.
The
val ues of the bending moment
flexural
cantIlever,
and shear force
on the
expressed in design form in terms of
the maximum applied moment and shear force at the base of
the structure, then become:
(5)
(6)
in which the moment and shear functions are:
2
2
{a sinh
cosh
(X
1
~
ex. + 1
cosh a z  a sinh a z  1 }
(7)
(X
a. +
1 sinh az }
.acosh az  asinh
cosh
(8)
(X
These functions indicate graphically the
influence of
the f'rame component on the force distribution in the wall
element.
The corresponding bending moment and shear force on the
frame will be given by:
M = _1_ w H2 ( 1  z ) 2  M
s
2
b
(9)
(lG)
=wH(lz)S
Cl
6 4 3
2
1.5
1 0.50
1.0 ,..............."........,...............~"."...,...................
0.8
t\I
0.6
+J
co
L
......,
..c.
en
0.4
Q)
0.2
o
Figure 82
0.. 2
0.8
Deflection function, F,
0.4
0.6
1.0
Variation of deflection function
1.0 , .     . . . . .   . . . , , . . .     ,     , .   . . .     . .    r  _ 
0.8
I\,J
....
o 0.6
ro
'
+'
..c
.~ 0.4
:r:
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Moment function,F 2
Figure 83
Variation of wall bending moment function
(2..
0.8
N
o 0.6
+J
co
~
......,
..r::
.Cn
0.4
Q)
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Shear force function, F3
Figure 84
Variation of wall shear force function
(~
Evaluatio~
of Equivalent Shearing Rigidity of Frame
Due to the racking action which
oc~urs
over each storey
height, plane frames in tall buildings behave essentially as
shear components, since the overall mode of deformation 1s
more akin to a shearing than a
frame
component may then be replaced for
'shear
equivalent
rigidity,
the
bending act Ion.
GA,
cantilever')
with
beam deflects
only
~LD8.~~fJt!WThe overall
in
analysis by an
effective
such that when subjected to
substitute
The tall
shear
lateral forces,
shear.
~~~
shear stiffness will depend
on the individual member stiffness, the frame configuration,
and the rigidity of the joints.
Assumption: points of contraflexure occurs at the midheight
positions of all
columns and at
the
midspan
positions of all beams.
The forces on a typical interior frame segJUent
bounded
by the assumed points of contraflexure and subjected to a
horizontal shear force QJ are shown in the following figure,
in which the appropriatoe boundary condi t ions are indicated.
(4
Q
.....
h
rrrT
I,J
'I
1'1
II
II
\~~t= ~ .~ ~ ~~t"
T\J~j
f)~
tC.P+t~'~
bj
~~
of
The horizontal displacement, 6,
equivalent shear cantilever,
the segment of the
of storey he ighth,
subjected
to the same shear force Q 1s given by:
=(
(11)
Q / GA ) h
The horizontal deflection of the frame segment may be
and on equating the
calculated,
two
displacements,
the
effective shearing rigidity, GA, established.
If the relative size of the
joint
1s small and the
rigid arms are 'omitted, GA is given by:
(12)
G A
where I d
'
= second moments of area of beams and column;
= bay width; and
= storey height.
The finite size of the joints may 'be allowed for by
incorporating
short
deformation of the
(Refer to
II
~tiff
memb~rs
arms
at
the
joints.
Shear
and joints may also be included.
Hand,book of Structural Concrete" edi ted by F. K.
Kong etal) Chapter 37 for the formulae).
I~
Corresponding expressions for an exterior column may
readily be deduced, by the simple expedience of omitting the
contribution 01 one of the beams and its associated stiff
arm at the Joints.
L
7 Framedtube structures
or ~
:framedtube
is
essentially
per:forated
boxA
comprising four orthogonal frame panels of closely spaced
columns connected by spandrel beams around the perimeter at
IAS~
each floor level. The outer tube is ~ designed to resist al<l
lateral forces.
r
Figure38
,
Planform of tubeintube structure
39
In a preliminary approximate analysis.
assumed that
th~
it is sometimes
side frames parallel to the wind carryall
lateral loads, so that a plane frame analysis can be used.
However,
the
frames
normal
t,o
wind
the
directions
are
constrained by the floors to deform as flanges in the same
mode as the side frames, and can playa significant part in
re~isti~g
wind loads (or other lateral loads). In this case,
these normal :frames are subjected mainly to axial forces and
the
side
primary
spandrel
frames
Q,et"~o\t'\
axt ion
beams
are
subjected
1s complicated
allowing
stresses in the corner
to
by
shearing
the
shear lag
column~t
inner columns of" the normal
actions.
The
flexi bil i ty of
the
which
the
increase
and reduces those in the
rram::J The
major interactions
between the 'two types of frame are the vertical shear f'orces
at the corners.!
True tubular
cantilever stress
Actual stress
due to shear lag
~;i>]
Actu aI stress
True
cantilever stress
\
1
t
Wind load
3
By
recognizing the
panels,
behaviour
more
may
dominant
accurate
again
be
modes
of
assessment; of
achieved
using
action of
the
a
the
structural
plane
frame
analysis.
Methods of Analysis:
(A) Bending action only:
The side and norma.! frames may be considered to lie in
the same plane,
and are connected in series by ficti tious
linking members whose stiffnesses are appropriately chosen
to allow only verticalforqes
frames.
This
may
be
to
be transmitted between the
performed
most
conveniently
incorporating a hinge release in the fictitious members.
~ ~
to~~\S")\
111/,/1'
g~~,
llS"
by
(b) Bending and twisting:
~ ~~ oX~f
If a symmetric framedtube structure is subjected to
bending
and
separately.
twisting
forces,
the
two
may
In the case of pure torsion.
be
considered
the stiff floors
ensure that the crosssect ion shape is maintained at each
level. so that the applied torque is resisted primarily by
the
shearing
periphery.
resistance
The main
of
each
interactive
plane
forces
frame
around' the
between the frame
panels are again the vertical shear forces at the corners.
Since the rotation of each frame relative to the centre of
the building is the same. 'the shear deformation in the plane
of each frame is equal to the product 01 the rotation and
the distance from the
is not
centre).
necessari ly
centre
(note
~troportion~l
Knowing the shear
to
that
the shear force
the distance from the
stiffness
of each frame.
and
using overall condit!ons of compatibility and equilibrium,
the
horizontal
forces
on
each
frame
and
the
vertical
interaction forces at the 90rners can be established.
lA
A~~\MIt*iGM~.
CD
~~
1~
Cb
~ ~s
~ ~
c5l
~~
= A/H
~
oX ~clt"T.
~ers
~~~~4~~
~y\h
,/J'\r~
~. uw+;cM ~~ ~ 3~
t~t~~~~ ~s
~ ~ ~
~ . .h..
d
,f;f
6~
~J.
\,3
=
~
.
6l
r."
( 2. E
a)
12 E
c6"
(X
(Xh. . .!:L
do
.r~
D.J
h1
\L.eI.~
G~
.........
~
6l
ci
t+
!h.~1
\,
~~
"\
Il
~~Uo"''''''
OtJ"'
........ ...,............. ra
.I::J' J.
_r1......................
,.......xas
_ _..
...
Journal of the
Proceedings of tlle American Society of Civil Engineers
~
gF7JJliBLL.............,...........
lj
ratelr the struclural beh:l\'lor of the systenl itl order to produce an e{[lcicnl
d~sl~n.
S1"\RUCrUI~AL DIVISION
....
t)T
AUl!usl, 1971
2098
nn:"'f..4: "  '. ,
_  .
C1":'U' (.. ,.
{c {,'"
~.o;"''''&
tn this paper. a slnlpUCled nlethod 1s presented lor_the analysts of {ranled ..
tube struc.turessubJected to bending due to lateralloadlnc. By recognizing the
d(\:~ .. lnant nlo.:\e oCbeha\'lor or the structure, it \s possible to redu'ce the anal}'"
sl$ to that of an equhalent plane franle, \vllh a consequent large reduction In
tha 4't1\Ount oCconlputalion required in a convent\onallhrecdlmenslonnl ana \y.
sis. The accurac):of the method Is tested by conlpar lng results wlth those from
A.r,n.~
'j'Oil
CJ
FRAMEDTUBE STRUCTURES FOR HIGHRISE BUILDINGS
CJ
Cl
c.~
C3
By Alexander Coull,IM. ASeE and Nutan Kumar Subcdl,2 A.M. ASCE
.~
t ....
....
INTRODUCTION
Recent developments In highrise bulldings have produced a number of new
structural concepts whlch are erflclent and economlc in the use of materials.
One such concept Is the framedtube system, a natural evolution or the rigidly
jointed frame, which has proved to'beecono1nic overa wide range or building
heights (1,2). The framedtube structure conslsts of rour orthogonalrlg1d frame
panels formlnga tube 1n plan, as indicated In Fig. 1. .:r!l~_!~3:..m.~s a~e ,formed
by the perlm.~,~~.:!:. C;.91umns whlc~ are cQnnec~ed by spandrel beams at each story.
level. 111.J!l_~ny. s.tructures, the ~xterlor tube Is designed to resist the ~nq.r.~
wind loading. Both steel and concrete have been used In the construcUon or such
Sfructures. .
The system has the advantage that it Is conlpatlble \vlth the traditlbnal architectural arrangelnents {or \vlndo\vs,and It cah be used for both conlnlerclal .
and residential requlrelnents.
WhUe the structure has a tubellke appearance. the behavior Is much more
complex than ~hat or a plain tube, and the sUffness is considerably reduced. In
addition to the cantUevered tube action, whlch tends to produce tensile and
compressive ror~ces in the colunlns on opposlte sides of the structure (AB and
DC in Fig. 1), the frames parallel to the lateral load (AD and Be) undergo the
usual shearlng action associated with an independent rigid frame. This basic
a.ction is complicated by the fact that the flexibllityof the spandrel beams pro .
duces a[hear lagl which has the effect of Incr~aslng the stresses In the corner
columns, and reducing those In the Inner columns. This latter effect will pro .
duce \varplng or the rloor slabs, and thererore delornlatlons or inter lor parli .
Hons and seconda.rystr)Jctures. Consequently, II Is essential to predict accuNotc.Discu~slonopen unW Januar)' 1. 1972. To extend Ule closing date one month,
a written request must bo CUed with the Executive Director, ASeE. 'I111s paper Is p3rt
or the copyrIghted JOlU"nal oC the Structural Division, Proceedings or the American 50cletyoC Civil Enrjneera, Vol. 97. ST8. August, 1971. }Ylan\\scrlpt was subn\1tlcd fol' reYltnV for possible publication on Scptclnber 22, 1970.
lProf. of Slructural EngTg., Unlv. of Strathclyde. Glasgow,Scotland.
lResearch Student.Unh'. of Sn:athclyde, Glasgow, ScoU:md.
?n~'7
l.,:'( I...
,.
I
71 In.
FIG. I.PLAN VIEW OF FRAl\lEDTUD'E l\10DEL
Crom acomplete threedlmenslonalsolutlon achieved
with a commercially available standard computer program:
a modelln\'estlgatlonand
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
In a framedtube structure of the form sho\\'1l in Fig. 1, the lateral load is
resls.ted malnl)' by the {ollo\vlng actlons: (1) Th~x:!g.~?..!:t.::J~lJ1~~.d. r!,,~I1)e .. a~.tlo.n.
.!?U!!! she!!.:!.~~~~!~.~g .. p~tleJs parallel Lo. the ~lrectio~ or. the load(Ap a,n4 Be).
and (2) the axial d.eformatlons of the rraf1le_{1~!l.~l~_~9r_mal to lhe diI;ccllon of
j~e load .<A..t?. ~t1P 1?G)..
(,) ~.r .~ J (1.) bL"'cl,','f "...~'
The interacUon between the two types of panel eonsls1s nH\lnly of vertical
lntera.ctlve Corees along corners A, D, C~ and D. As a result of these lnleractlon forces, panelsAB and DC undergo axia.l dCrornlatlon, the unlformlly or
which across the panclwlll depend on the stUfncss or the conncctln~ l'pandrel
beams.
Secondary outof plane actions wlll occur, but these will tend to be reslr lcled
by lhe high Inplane sUrfness of the floor slabs, and can generally be assunled
insignificant In relation to the primary acllons.
By re:cognlzlng the tv/a dominant modes of action in the.orthogonalpancls,
thre~dlmenslonal frame may be reduced to the equlvalent plane !ranle
shown In Fig. 2. For simplicity, It has been assumed as is generally the case.
lhat the slructure Is symmetrical about both cenler Hnes, 50 that only onc
the
ST Ii
FRAMEDTUDE STRUCTURES
2099
quarter need be considered In the analysls .. Appropriate joint condltltuis nre
Indicated to give the required constraints at tho axes of syJnnlcl1'y. As the flOOr
slabs are very stU! In their o"/n plane, it can be assunled f or the purposes or
analysis th(~t tho lateral forces acUng on the norlnal face of the bUilding can
be applled In the plane ot the parallel Caces, as lndicnted In Fig; 2. In Fig. 2
orthogonal pan\~ls AD and DC are shown joined at each floor level by !lCllllou~
( \tt.o. h' (A,'\ J'\u.. t'
fN". !.c.r'1 )
alon~ junctloil D. l.e., along Hnes l\1~'l and LL In Fig. 2). The transfer or vertical she:\f Illay be achlc\'ed shuply by luaklng the approprlale clcnlenls in the
~tlffne~Snl3.trl~ for the ,"ertlc3.1 shear transfer 1l1tHllber a laree quantlly com"
p3.l'ed to the elements In the ~tUCI\ess mall'lccs Cor the real members.
The stiffness nlatrL~ lor a typical plane franle nlenlbcl' oriented along a
horlzontal'coordlnate a.xis has the ,\"ellkno\vn fOl'1l1 (e,g" s~e Ref. 3)
4y,.4....
)o/M
~.
I,
I
Panel DC
.:M.
12 El
L3
IT
.[;2
EA
6E1
12 1
rr
Fictitious memb.eu
L
15th slol')'
4 1
K ='
L
~
=P:
6El
~g
BEl
(1)
6 El
IT
L:r
Symmetric
I , ..... , ..
12 EI
I En 14th'
'1
51' 8
Augusl, 1971
21(\0
'41
L
13;th
using standard notations, in \\'hich the colunlns refer, respectively, to axial
displacements, nornlal (vertical) displacements, and notations, or the corresponding forces. For slmpliclty, and to compare directly wlth the vertical
shear transfer stiffness matrlx K l ' only the slnlple slUfness matriX K, referring to a horizontal member, is shown.
Uslng the same notation, the sUrfness matrix for a horizontal vertical shear
transfer member can be written as
~
PO.532Ib
~.
I
I
J'i:1"
FIG. 2.QUARTRR ~LEVATION OF EQUTVALENT PLANE FRA1\'tl:: STnUCTURE
horizontal members indicated by heavy lines. These beams lnay be ter'Jl1ed lhe
vertical shear transfer members, whose sole purpose Is to transfer vertlcal
shear forces between the two frames. By this. mechanism, only vertical lnter
acllon Corces are induced into the normal panel DC. The propcl'tle~ of the fletltlous members must be such thal the two panels rentAln conlpatlblC' VC'ltlrnlh
z:
'"~,, \:(~.(
0'
10
0'
.Q
f ,:
I~,
(I' (, "
.. :. ,.
 Q 0
t
"
"
(2)
In which Q = somerelatlvely large number"
The analysis may then be carrled out on the modi fled plane frame by a conventional stUfness method, using a standard program,
In the prest:nt work, a standard plane Craine pro~ram was modified to allow
variations of lhe value of parameter Q in matr lx K 1. The modified progran1
picks out the largest element In Ule sllflncss matrices {or c.lthcr the beams or
columns and mulUplles It by an arbitrary large number to gl~e Q. Various nunlbers were used, rt:.nging from 102 to 10 8 ~ all gave similar results, and the value Unally chosen 'was 10.
The results qUCll(;d in succec:dlng sectlons were achieved by usi'ng a value
of Q = 10~ limes the largc6t clement In the other sliffneSR malrlces,
The rnalr lx, K I ' ensur es thal only vertical Rhp.n r forr.('~ ~ r f\ trn n~f,..r T(\d
:f'HAMED.. 1.'UDE STRUCTURES
ST H
2101
across the JuncUons of the orthogonal frames, and thalverUcal conlpatlbllHy
is achieved.
Au~ust.
2102
1971
,)pctl'lcal restst:\nce slraln gages, and deflections
~ep.\ l"ate frallH~,
Model Details, The 15slory nlodel was constructed of Pcrspex, the columns being cut from a 3/1 aln. thick sheet and the Cloor slabs Crom a liSin,
thick sheet. Th~ nlodel had eight colulnns along one edge and five along the
other, each column being 1/2 In. wide. \vith plan dimensions as sho,lm In Fig. I,
The corner columns were glued together to form an angle member. The story
height was 21/8 In., I.e., 2ln, clear height betweenfloor slabs. The petlnleter
uy dial gages mounted on a
AGnEE~IENT DET\VEEN TllEOlt Y
COll1PARISON \'lI'l'H ItESUL1'S FR01\'fJvIODEL TESTS
8T 8
ANl)
EXPBnl~'I ENT
Fig. 3 s.ho,,"s lhe theoretlci\l and experinH?nlal stress dist'ributions at the
third floer le,'el. Slnl11ar distributions v.:ere oblained at other levels. For simplicity, the lheoreltcal values' have been presented as contlnuous curves be ..
cause a prototype (ralnedtube structure will contain a large n\.llnber or closely
t::
\:>am
cUII'{ \'~;~S
200
8.
:::
~
\1
"'!
i]
8.8. "0
:::
~'~l
I
I
t::
en~i
.::
rl
o
,_. ._._._._.+
~
I
+~
100 .5.. .c: ~
~ ~.
~.
:::
~
.LJ J .
.'
II
I I
(b) PLAN VIEW
J
Crosssection
o Experimental
  Theoretical
 :...
FIG. 3.11iEORETICAL AND MEASURED STRESS DISTRIBUTIONS AT THIRD
FLOOH LEVEL OF l\10DEL STRUCTURE
colunlns were connected by floor slabs at each Cloor level. the colunlns being
glued Into slots nlachlned in the slabs. (As the nlodcl was to be used for subsequent tests on a hullcore type oCstructural systell1, central holes were cut
In the floor slabs to receive a box core ala later stage).
At the base, th~ columns \\'erc glued Inlo slots passing through the entire
depth of a lln.th~ck Perspcx base plate. The nlodel was cantilevered horizontally byclamplng the base plate to a test {ranle, using rectangular hollow
steel sections passing as ncar Lo the structure as possible In an alt~lllpt to
achieve a rigid foundation condltlon.
Lateral loads were applied to lhe nlodel by lhe slnlplc expedient or hanging
dead weights at each slory level. Strains were nlcasured 'at several levels b}'
C<,I',,,n I
~rtl
,~
'1loa
1
I..
..
3'
5
6
;er ,~
~r
~,r ~ r
H H H H H
(e) (QUIVALE.'~T PLANE
II
~20 11+20 1\../.2010II~
fl
1~1
I
IL
FRAMe
rJri. 4.t'HAl\1EDTUUf; :::;THlJc.;1'Un~~ FOB EXA~tPL~: PllOIJLEM
p .......... ""
L)
r HAf\'H~U 'l'U 13,(:; :)'fHUl:'l'Ull;S
1 u
2103
I"
.)'1' ti
purpose, the Gstory structure 6ho" ;0 in Fl~. 4 wns chosen, lhls being the
I
spaced colulnns, and the dlslribution oraxial stresses will apprOx.inlate lo a
continuous curve. In general, good. agreement Is oblained between theoretical
and cxperhllcn(al results, p:\rUcularly bearing tn Inhad the difficulties or fab..
rlcation involved In a nlodel oC this nature, \vhlch makes it very dlCllcult 10
achieve a unlCornl structure. The stresses In the columns at the outer edges
of the normal panels tend, generally, to be lo\ver than the theoretical values.
This may be due to the influence of the increased sUrCness of the Cloor slab In
the corner, where It Is restrained by the orthogonal edge colulnns in lhe side
panels.
.
In order to evaluate the effective stiffness of the Cloor slabs Cor use In the
theoretical calculations, separate tests were performed on a representative
sectlon ot floor slab and columns.
The curves Illustrate the severe shear lag effects whlch can exlst in structures of this forln. In the present case, the stresses at the center of the panels
whlch lie normal to the directlon of the applied load are only of the order ot
26 % of the stresses at the edges.
COMPARISON BETWEEN SIMPLE METHOD AND COl\1PLETE
THREEDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
The proposed method \vas also tested against the accuracy achieved by a
analysis using a standard spaceframe program. For this
threedlmension~l
TABLE
Spacclramc analysts
deflection, in inches
(1)
(2)
1
2
3
4
6
6
0.363
0.854
1.272
1.589
1.803
1.918
SlmpllIled me thod
deflection, in inches
(3) L'
0.365
0.860
1.281
1.599
1.814
1.929
TABLE 2.EXJUfPLE PRODLE~tAX1AL FOnCES AND
FmsT STORY COLUhiNS
SPACE FRAl\lE ANALYSJS
Axial force,
in tons
(1)
(2)
0
+0.5G9
5.348
2
3
3
.(
0.0'11
+0.001
0.000
CONCLUSIONS
1.EXA~fPLE PROB.LE~{DEJ""LECTIONS
Story
Colwnn
Inl'(tcst confl~:uratlont \\rlthln the gLven series of constraints, which could be
t'oh'ed by the a,nllable progralll. In each case. because or syn1mclr}'. only one ..
qU:\l't('r ot the; slructure need be conslcierecl.
The sectlonal properties oC the colulnns and spn.ndl'el beanlS were ns rollow~
lor colulllnsS In. x Sin. )( 58 Ib; Ix A. = 227.3 in"' ; 1\'}' = 74,9 lno(; aren ::
17.0Gsq In.jandJ = 3.3ilno(.Forbeallls5in. x 121n.x 31,Slb;lxx = 215.8
In"; I yy = 9.5 1no(; area = 9.26 sq l112 j and J = 0.92 In<C.
.
In fhe sinlple method of analysis, the corner colunln (3). was assun\ed to
contribute hali its total area. and the respective 'appropriate nljnlent ot inertia,
to each franle panel nleetlng there [see Fig. 4(c) ].
The results obtained from the tv'o analyses are con\pared in Tables 1 and 2,
the {01'n1er ghrlng dellectlons throughout the height, and the latter axial forces
and monlents at the nlost heavily loaded first story level. Only bending monlen!s In the plane of the frame have been sho\vn.
The deflections agree everywhere wlthln 1/2 %. Good agreenlent was also
obtained between both bending lnoments and axlal forces, The simplified method
gave sllght1)~ hl.gher nlonlents 1n the plane of the main loadcarrying panel,
which \vould be anticipated In view of the neglect of the normal bending and
torsional stlflnesses In the plane frame systeln.
.
The conlputer Unle Involved in the simplified method was about onequarter
of that for the space frame analysis.
hlomcnlR I in
tonlJ\ches
Lower end Upper end
(:1 )
(4)
115.3
233.5
205.0
0.10
0.088
0.014
0.006
70.0
145.0
8~.5
0.10
0.142
0.007
0.005
BJ~NDINO
l\IOl\lENTS IN
A slmpl1!led method has been presented lor Ute analysis of framedtube
structures subje'cted to lateral loads. The method can be used with standard
plane frame programs. and should be partlcularly useful where only a small
computer Is available. As the sUllness matrlces are much smaller than those
required {or a space frame analysis. the technique enables larger structures
to be treated on a given computer.
The method has been lested under wldely dlllerent conditionsagainst model tests, using a structure with relatively stlC! spandre 1 beams, and against
an exact solutlon, using a structure wlth weak spandrel beams. In each case,
the degree or accurac)' was very satisfactory.
By using conditlons of equUlbrlum and compatlbllLty at different levels on
the stru~ture, the method could be developed to treat more complex slructures
such as the hullcore or tubeIntube systems for highrise buildings,
SI~tPLIFIED ~IETHOD
Axial force.
in tons
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
htoments, in
tonInches
The work described In this report was aided by a Grant [rom the Sclence
Research Counc 11.
.
Lower cnd Upper end
(5 )
(6)
(7)
0
+0.502
2.69
2.69
0.0'14
.. 0.001
0.000
116.2
235.1
206.7
0.08
0.074
0.005
0.003
70.6
146.3
89.0
0.15
0.131
0.001
0,00:1 _
APPENDIX I.REFJ:;HENCES
I.Kh~n. F.
R., "Current Trend_ in Cunerelc IliShRhe nuildincs,"
/'ft)Crt'cJill/;,I. S)'1I1PIlSiulll
on
lJ
'"
,It'HAi\1EO TU BE S'fnUC'l'UnJ::s
2105
rail DUlllJinJ;~, Univer:aily of SuullI;IOlplon. P~r~amon Pn:s~. Lond\ln. t=:ntland. Coull und Star.
lonJ Smilh. cds. 1967, Pil. 571 590.
.
1. Khnn. F. R "Colun'nFrcc Rox.r)Il~ Franlin~ \Vilh und \\'ilhuUI Corc," Prclimin:lr)' f'uulica.
lion. Eighth Con1H~u of the Internatiunal I\uociutiun fur Hrid~e .lnd Suutlurul engineering,
New Ynrk. Sept. 1968, pp. 261273.
3. \\'(aver .\V CtJII,pllltr PrugrQlI1S fur S""CllIr&lI.'lIal.rS;J. VUH ~oslrand COn1IUln)', In..:,. Prince.
ton. N.J .. 1967.
APPENDIX II.NOTATION
The !ollowlng synlbols are used In this paper:
'A
E
= crosssectional area of member;
modulus of elasticity;
I = moment of inertia of member;
torslonal constant lor cross section;
J
K = sUfeness matrlxoC typical member;
.;.
K 1 = stlflness matrix tor horizontal vertl~al shear transfer member;
L = length or member;
and
Q = elenlcnt In matrix K l'
SIMPLE METHOD FOR ApPROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF
FRAMED TUBE STRUCTURES
By A. K. H. Kwan '
ABSTRACT: Framed tube structures are particularly suitable for tall buildings.
They act primarily like cantilevered box beams and since they generally have much
larger lateral dimensions than the internal shear wall cores, they arc more effective
in resisting the overturning moments of the lateral loads. However. due to nexural
and shear flexibilities of the frame members, the basic beam bending actions of
the framed tubes are complicated by the occurrence of shear lag. which could
significantly affect the stress distributions in the frame panels and reduce the lateral
stiffnesses of the structures. In this paper, a simple handcalculation method is
proposed for approximate analysis of framed tube structures with the shear lag
effects taken into account. This method is suitable for quick evaluations during the
preliminary design stage and can provide a better understanding of the effects of
various parameters on the overall structural behavior. Numerical examples are
given to demonstrate the case of application and accuracy of the proposed method.
INTRODUCTION
Framed Tube System
The framed tube system is widely accepted as an economic solution for
tall building structures over a wide range of building heights (Khan 1967.
1985; Wonget al. 1981; Spires and Arora 1990). In its basic form, the system
consists of closely spaced perimeter columns tied at each floor level by deep
spandrel beams to form a tubular structure, Fig. 1. It is compatible with
the traditional architectural arrangements for windows and has the advantage that as the perimeter configuration is used to form the structure, the
whole width of the building is utilized to resist the overturning moment due
to lateral load.
Under lateral load, a framed tube acts primarily like a cantilevered box
beam. The overturning moment of the lateral load is resisted by axial stresses
in the columns of the four frame panels, whereas the shear from the lateral
load is resisted by inplane bending of the beams and columns of the two
side frames. If the frame members are very rigid, then the axial stresses in
the columns due to the overturning moment may be determined by the
normal "plane sections remain plane" assumption, as shown in Fig. 2. However, because of requirements for window provisions, there are practical
limits to the sizes and hence rigidities of the frame members. As a result
of the flexural and shear flexibilities of the frame members, the basic beam
bending action of the framed tube is complicated by the Hshear lag" phenomenon which has the effects of increasing the axial stresses in the corner
columns and decreasing those in the inner columns as illustrated in Fig. 2,
and reducing the lateral stiffness of the structure. Shear lag could also
produce warping of the floor slabs and consequently deformations of the
secondary structures.
ILect. Dept. of Civ. and Struct. Engrg., Univ. of Hong Kong, Pokfulum Road.
Hong Kong.
Note. Discussion open until September 1, 1994. To" extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
November 30, 1992. This paper is part of the Journal 01 Structural Engineering, Vol.
120, No.4, April, 1994. COASCE, ISSN 07339445/94/00041221/$2.00 + $.25 per
page. Paper No. 5196.
1221
actual stress due
axial stress if
to shear lag
beams are rigid
web
panel
web panel
(1)
flange
panel
::J
"0
U)
U)
bO
...., ....."'
(1)
~
U)
.....
td
4)
nS.c
::J en
....o
cd .....
~
.r4
U)
U)
bO
td
QJ .....
~
.....
U)
flange panel
"'
4)
........c::
cd
en
.r4
lateral load
nS C
FIG. 2.
FIG. 1.
Typical Framed Tube Structure
Existing Analysis Methods
Framed tubes, which are essentially three.. dimensional space.. frame structures, can be analyzed by most existing spaceframe analysis programs.
IIowever, as the outofplane deformations of the frame panels are insignificant and the interactions between the web and flange panels consist
rnainly of vertical shearforces, a simpler and in fact better alternative is to
analyze the three dimensional system as an equivalent plane frame by neglecting the outofplane actions and using various forms of fictitious frame
elements to effect the vertical shear transfer at the panel junctions (Coull
and Subedi 1971; Khan and Amin 1973). This could substantially reduce
the amounts of data and computation required.
While computer programs can be used to numerically analyze the framed
tube structures, they cannot substitute theoretical analysis methods which
may offer better understanding of the structural system. Furthermore, in
view of the wide applications of such system, there is an obvious need for
a simplified analysis method that can be used during the preliminary design
stage to give an initial assessment of the.structural behavior and in the final
design stage for manual checking of the computer analysis results.
A number of simplified analysis methods have been developed. Khan
and Amin (1973) suggested that for very preliminary design purposes, the
shear lag effects may be approximately allowed for by treating the framed
tube structure as a pair of equivalent channels each with an effective flange
1222
Distribution of Axial Stresses In Framed Tube Structure
width of not more than half the width of the web panel or more than 10%
of the building height.
Chan et al. (1974) proposed to' evaluate the shear lag effects incnntilevered box structures with solid shear walls as \veb panels and rigidly jointed
beamcolumn frames as flange panels by assuming the distribution of axial
displacements across the width of the flange panels to be of either parabolic
or hyperbolic cosine shape. Although the structures studied by them were
not really franled tube structures, their nl~thodology of ullo\ving for sh~ur
lag in the flange panels should also be applicable to framed tube structures.
Coull and Bose (1975, 1976) and Coull anG Ahmed (1978) developed un
orthotropic membrane analogy of transforming the framework panels into
equivalent orthotropic membranes each with elastic properties so chosen to
represent the axiaJ and shear behavior of the actual framework. They analyzed the equivalent membrane tubes by assuming the bending stress distributions to be cubic and parabolic in the web and flange panels respectively
and using energy formulation to derive the governing differential equations.
Khan and Stafford Smith (1976) have also developed an orthotropic membrane analogy for simplified analysis of framework panels by using finite
element analysis to determine the equivalent elastic properties of the membranes. Although their membrane analogy was applied only to plane frames,
it is actually also applicable to framed tube structures. .
Subsequently, Ha et al. (1978) further developed the orthotropic membrane analogy to include the shear deformations of the framemen1bers and
the deformations of the beamcolumn joints in the derivation of the equivalent elastic properties. Their membrane analogy is more refined than the
others' and should thus be more accurate.
1223
Present Study
The methodology of modeling the framework panels as equivalent orthotropic membranes so that the framed tubes can be analyzed as continuous
structures is followed in the present study. There are two factors that can
affect the accuracy of solutions based on this membrane analogy: (1) The
equivalent elastic properties for the membranes; and (2) the method of
analyzing the equivalent membrane structures. The primary concern in this
investigation is to develop an analysis method for the membrane tubes that
is simple to use and yet reasonably accurate.
The analysis. method proposed herein has the characteristic that unlike
previous methods, independent distributions of axial displacements are used
for the web and flange panels. Thus the shear lag in each panel is individually
allowed for; this is more reasonable because the shear lag in one panel is
obviously more related to the properties of that particular panel rather than
those of other panels and is therefore not necessarily so much dependent
on the shear lag in the other panels. It will be seen that this can, in fact,
also lead to simpler formulas for the evaluation of the shear lag effects.
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
flange
PROPOSED METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Structural Modeling
The framed tube structure shown in Fig. 1 can be considered to be composed of: (1) Two web panels parallel to the direction of the lateralload;
(2) two flange panels normal to the direction of the lateral load; and (3)
four discrete columns at the corners. These structural components are interconnected to each other along the panel joints and connected to the floor
slabs at each floor level. The high inplane stiffness of the floor slabs will
restrict any tendency for the panels to deform outofplane and it may
therefore be assumed that the outofplane actions are insignificant compared to the primary inplane actions.
If the sizes and spacings of the frame members are assumed uniform, as
is usually the case in practice, then each framework panel may be replaced
by an equivalent uniform orthotropic membrane. Methods for determining
the equivalent membrane properties have been given in the following references: Coull and Bose (1975). Khan and Stafford Smith (1976), and Ha
et a1. (1978). Appendix I presents the method being used by the writer,
which is actually an abridged version of Ha et al. 's method. This method
is less sophisticated than the original Ha et al. 's method and is thus simpler
to apply. On the other hand, since the shear deformations of the frame
members are taken into account, it is more accurate than CouJl and Bose's
method.
Mathematical Formulation
Shear lag occurs in both the web and flange panels and as a result, the
distributions of axial stresses are no longer linear in the web panels or
uniform in the flange panels. To take into account the shear lag effects in
the flange panels, Chan et a1. (1974) allowed variations of the axial displacements across the width of the flange panels in the forms of either
parabolic or hyperbolic cosine distributions. Coull and Bose (1975, 1976),
on the other hand, took into account not only the shear lag effects in the
flange panels but also the shear lag effects in the web panels. In their analysis
method, the distributions of the axial stresses are assumed to be cubic in
the web panels and parabolic in the flange panels. However, the cubic
1224
I I
I
I
Y ,I
.,. ..J.....
FIG. 3.
web
_x
Orthotroplc Membrane Tube Analogy
distribution of axial stresses in the web panels is dependent on the parabolic
distribution in the flange panels. They had tried to use an independent cubic
distribution for the axial stresses in the web panels and found that this would
lead to more accurate results but eventually decided not to pursue any
further because this would make the governing differential equations rather
laborious to solve (Coull and Bose 1977).
Herein, an attempt to use independent distributions for the axial dis..
placements in the web and flange panels is made. The axial displacemen t
distributions are assumed to be cubic in the web panels and parabolic in
the flange panels, and the principle of minimum total potential energy is
employed for the formulation.
Consider the analogous membrane tube structure in Fig. 3. Due to shear
lag, plane sections will no longer remain plane after the structure is loaded.
Let the axial displacements in the web and flange panels, denoted respectively by wand w', be approximated by the following equations:
1225
aw'
e; = a;
(4)
Similarly, the shear strains in the web and flange panels are given respectively, by
t
C'I.,pa
ow
au
'YXl  az + ax
(5)
(l);a
iJw'
"I...: = ay
From these axial and shear strain expressions, the strain energy of the framed
tube can be evaluated as
tangent to curve at centre
assumed displacement curve
fit'. =
lH fa
(a) distribution of axial displacement in web
I
(6)
Q
/w(EwE~
+
+ Gw"Y;z) dx dz
f fb
H
b
l,(E,F.;2 + G,'Y;z) dy dz
. lH 2E",A
+ () .
E~
dz
(7)
On the other hand, the potential energy of the applied lateral load is
given by the following equations, in which u(z) is the lateral displacement
of the structure.
Load case l~point load of magnitude P at top
tl'a
I1p =  Pu(H)
(8)
Load case 2uniformly distributed load of intensity U per unit height
(lI3)c/>a
L
H
rIp
(b) distribution of axial displacement 1n flange
FIG. 4.
w' =
TIp = 
~a [(1  a) ~ + a (~r]
(1)
~a [(1  (3) + (3 (~r]
(2)
which give cubic and parabolic distributions of axial displacements in the
web and flange panels, respectively. "These assumed distributions of axial
displacements are illustrated in Fig. 4. Note that <f> is the rotation of the
plane section joining the four corners of the tubular structure which initially
lie on the same horizontal plane, and a and (3 are dimensionless shear lag
coefficients representing the degrees of shear lag in the web and flange
panels, respectively.
The axial strains in the web and flange panels are given, respectively) by
the following expressions:
aw
= az
1226
Uu(z) dz
(9)
Load case 3triangularly distributed load of intensity T per unit height at
top and intensity zero at base
Assumed Distributions of Axial Displacements
=
(3)
fH T H
z
u(z) dz
Jo
(10)
The total potential energy is just the sum of the potential energy of the
applied force and the strain energy of the structure. Having obtained the
expression for the total potential energy, the governing differential equations can then be derived by minimizing the total potential energy with
respect to the unknown displacement functions <t> and u and the unknown
coefficients a and ~ using the calculus of variations. However, the set of
governing equations so derived, which consists of four simultaneous firstor secondorder partial differential equations, is rather difficult to solve. To
make the solution more tractable, the following SiOlplifications are intro
duced.
Approximate Solution Method
Minimization of the total potential energy with respect to <p yields the
governing equation for <1>, which may be interpreted as the moment equilibrium equation and expressed in the following form:
1 o<t> = M
dz
1227
(11 )
where El = effective bending stiffness of the tubular structure and M is
the overturning moment of the lateral load. This equation is not easy to
solve because 1 varies with height and is dependent on other unknowns.
Nevertheless, if the effect of the variation of EI with height on the bending
rotation <I> is assumed negligible, then <p can be evaluated by direct integration as follows:
<p =  1
EI
=S
(13)
in which S = shear of the lateral load. This is actually the horizontal shear
equilibrium equation. From this equation, u can be determined by direct
integration as follows:
= (z ( _ S 
Jo
4G w twQ
<1
dz
(14)
and
(X
l3
(2)
(3)
Puint luatl.at
= , 1.17nl". +
l.OU
QI
1.00
(X"
Q,
lOp
Uniform distributed load
= 111;
+ 2.67m", + 0.57
~~
= HI} + 11.20n" + Hl.OR
2.57m no + 1.12
= Ill;'. + 2.94/11". + 0.04
~.
+ 2.6711'". + U.S7
O.29In",
m~.
O.03m". + 1.12
ex" =          Triangular distributed
load
(X
m;. + 2.94m", + 0.64
+ 1.09
= m~. 2.22m".
+ 2.86,nt\' + 9.62
OJ
J.SOn" + 12.60
+ tl.:!()I1'r + to.OX
~I
111 ~,.
= m;'.
O.10m", + 1.09
+ 2.86111", + 0.62
O.RSln,. + 11.00
nl i,
7.721n, + 14.15
15111, + II ..l '
+ I' ...
O.ORnl,. + 14.15
II ._
3'
1.
~~ = rtl;. + I'_.."5 In, +
J3. =
J3
6.67/111' + 13.71
.
nlj + 12.01111{ + 10.97
7
__0_.2_9_11...:..'1_+_13_._
In} + 11.01",{ + 10.97
_1_
_ G w H2
~
E w a2
(17)
G H2
m /
/  E b'1
( 18)
m
H'
Substituting the preceding values of <p and u into the expression for the total
potential energy and minimizing the total potential energy with respect to
a and ~, the governing differential equations for the determination of ex and
~ are obtained. It is found that although EI is still an unknown quantity,
the governing equations for (X and f3 are not dependent on El.
Although theoretically, the values of (X and f3 can be evaluated by solving
their governing equations as a PDE problem, it is suggested that the method
of analysis might be further simplified by approximating both (X and f3 as
polynomial functions expressed in terms of a certain number of unknown
coefficients to be solved. Limiting the polynomial functions to quadratic
order and applying the boundary condition that at the top of the structure,
the axial stresses are equal to zero, which leads to dex/dz = 0 and df3/dz =
oat z = H, it can be shown that the polynomial functions for (X and ~ can
each be expressed in terms of only two unknown coefficients as follows:
(1 )
(~~ + <l
Formulas for
Load case
(12)
M dz
Likewise, minimization of the total potential energy with respect to u yields
the following governing equation for u:
4G w t,.tl
TABLE 1.
It should be noted from the formulas given in the table that the shear lag
coefficient of a frame panel is dependent only on the elastic properties of
that particular panel, not on those of any other panels.
EFFECTS OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS ON SHEAR LAG
where a .. (X2' f3 .. and f32 = unknown coefficients to be solved. Note that
al and f31 are actually the values of (X and f3 at the base, while (X2 and f32
are the corresponding values at the top. Substituting the foregoing equations
into the expression for the total potential energy, minimizing with respect
to a. (X2' f3., and f32' and solving the set of algebraic equations thus obtained,
the shear lag coefficients are determined for each loading case. The results
are given in Table 1 in which the relative shear stiffness parameters m w and
In, are defined by
The shear lag coefficients are plotted against the relative shear stiffness
parameters of the frame panels for each loading case in Fig. 5. Fronl this
figure, the effects of the various parameters on the degrees of shear lag are
readily revealed.
Firstly, it can be seen that in all cases, a. > a2 and f3. > f32 and therefore,
the shear lag effects are generally greater at the base of the structu re than
at higher levels.
Secondly, it is apparent that the degrees of shear lag are dependent on
the distribution of lateral loads. At the base of the structure, the degrees
of shear lag increase with the following order of load cases: point load at
top, triangularly distributed load and uniformly distributed load. However,
at the top of the structure, the degrees of shear lag decrease wi th the same
order of load cases.
Thirdly, since the shear lag coefficients decrease with the relative shear
stiffness parameters of the panels, the shear lag effects may be reduced by
increasing the frame member sizes. Moreover, as the shear lag effects are
largest when the relative shear stiffness parameters, which are proportional
to the square of the height/width ratios of the frame panels, are small, the
shear lag effects are generally more significant in lowrise buildings than in
highrise buildings.
Lastly, it is identified that the single most important structural parameter
1228
1229
(1  ~Y + [2 ~  (~y]
~ = ~I (1  ~r ~ ~2 [2~  (~y]
a = a.
a2
(15)
(16)
flange panels can be evaluated by first differentiating the axial displacements
with respect toz as per (3)(4), and then multiplying the axial strains so
determined bytheir respectively Young's moduli. The expressions thus obtained for the axial stresses generally consist of two terms, one proportional
to d4>/dz and the other proportional to 4>. At the base of the structure,
where the axial stresses are most critical, cP is equal to zero and the expressions for the axial stresses would be reduced to
load
case
.
. ___
 .j}
3
m
1.0
load
case
QJ.
L
.
0.8
1
2
ct:J.....
0.6
  }~I
 .. .
0.4
0.2
} f3
2
that determines the degree of shear lag in a frame panel is the relative shear
stiffness parameter of the panel as defined by (17) or (18). The effects of
changing the sizes of the frame members can be evaluated simply by calculating the new values of relative shear stiffness parameters and using the
design chart given in Fig. 5 to determine the corresponding values of shcur
I,lg coefficients. This nlethod is, therefore, particularly suitable for preliminary evaluations of the main structural element sizes during the early stages
of design.
STRESSES AND DEFLECTIONS
Axial Stresses
Having determined the shear lag coefficients ex and f3 and hence the
distributions of the axial displacements, the axial stresses in the web and
1230
(20)
I:n 2t CTzX dx
w
fb
2tf CT;a dy
+ 4A k CT k a
(21 )
= M
d<t>/dzis determined as dcf>/dz = MIEI, where EI is given by
= ~ Ewtwa)
(1  ~ ex) + 4E
f lf
a 2b
(1  ~ f3) + 4E",A a
k
(22)
Values of a and
(19)
At levels above the base, however, <p would be nonzero and strictly speaking,
the terms proportional to <p should be included. However, it has been found
that the contributions of the terms proportional to <p are generally small
compared to the terms given by (19)(20), particularly at the lower part of
the structure and thus, if high accuracy is not required, the above equations
may also be applied to evaluate the axial stresses throughout the height of
the building.
The axial stresses given by the above equations are dependent on dcP/dz,
which is still an unknown quantity to be determined. Substituting the fore
going equations for the axial stresses into the following moment ~quilibrium
equation:
EI
m
FIG. 5.
= Ew ~~ a
f
[(1  ex); + ex (;rJ
CT; = E ~~ a [(1  ~) + ~ (~r]
az
Putting the value of d4>/dz so obtained back into (19) (20). the axial stresses
can be expressed directly in terms of the overturning nlonlent.
Lateral Deflections
The lateral deflection u of the structure can be evaluated by first substituting the value of EI into (12) to solve for <p, and then putting the value
of cf> thus obtained into (14) to solve for u. Since the value of 1 varies with
height, the resulting expressions for <p and u are rather complicated. Nevertheless, as most of the bending deformations occur near the base and the
exact values of EI near the top do not really affect the values of cP and II
very much, the variation of EI with height may be neglected and the value
of EI at all height taken as its value at the basco This is equivalent to assunling
that the structure behaves like a cantilevered beam with a constant bending
stiffness of El. After such simplifications, the formulas for the lateral deflection u become as follows.
Load case Ipoint load at top
(1
u= P  H Z 2
EI 2
1) + 4G 
1231
zJ
w l wQ
(23)
Load case 2uniform load
(1
c:
1) +  
u = U  H2 z2   HzJ + 1 4
24
Z4
4G w tw a
1)
( Hz  2
Z2
.2
.!
(24)
~
C
.2
Load case 3 triangular load
u = T
(1 H2
EI 6
Z2 
(1
1 H z3 +  1 ZS) + T  Hz  1 Z3)
12
120 H
40 w t..,a 2
6H
g
o
o....
(1)"8
(25)
8..:
o~
0.&
Example 1
A highrise 40story reinforced concrete framed tube structure, as shown
in Fig. 6(a), is analyzed. All the beam and column members are of sizes
0.8 m x 0.8 m. The height of each story is 3.0 m and the centertocenter
spacings of the columns are 2.5 m. The Young's and shear moduli of the
material are 20 GPa and 8.0 OPa, respectively. A uniformly distributed
lateral load of 120 kN/m is applied to the structure. The equivalent elastic
properties of the analogous orthotropic membrane tube, as evaluated by
the method given in Appendix I, are as follows:
!l
=~
III
61>'
L. Q
+J
....
' ....
oII)
......... "
0, = 1.441 GPa
= 0.256 m
t w = I,
Ak
=0
(ij
<
~
0
OJ
~
c:
<
OJ
:;
(I)
~,
U;~
~
&14
eu eu
&.. I::
\to4 eu
..0
)
(27)
+J
.:
, 7
."
(29)
.c:I
"0
..4
GJ
~
ns
14
en
Q)
GJ
.!.H
QJ
:r.
bO
.D
'/
..4
From these elastic properties, the relative shear stiffness parameters pf the
web and flange panels are worked out by (17)(18) as
en
."
."
....
..0
tJ
&
~
'"
:0
GJ
"0
o...c:
0 .....
...
en
Q)
m,
= 3.388
(30a,b)
.0
o.e
1::lJ.IJ.L...J
...OJ
t>:::s
bO
C
co
e
GJ
(/1"0
~
:s
co
&.. GJ
m.., = 4.611;
...
en
(26)
(28)
en
en
Q)
n;
GJ
OK'
~o
0
Q)
Ew = , = 20.0 GPa
Q)
t
~
"0
......
~ns
~,
Jl=
en
C
QJ
' ... ""
.:
.0
.t:
c
~
I.. GJ
EXAMPLES AND COMPARISONS WITH COMPUTER ANALYSIS
:;
&
....:::J
"C
C1)
The shear lag coefficients are then determined by the formulas given in
co
Table 1 as
u:
a, = 0.366;
Ct2
= 0.624;
~2
~l
= 0.035
= 0.223
OJ
(31a,b)
C/)
(32a,b)
Having determined the shear lag coefficients, the bending stresses at the
base and at midheight of the structure are evaluated by (19)(20) and
plotted in Fig. 6(b). The deflections of the structure are then calculated by
(24) and plotted in Fig. 6(c). For comparison, the corresponding results
obtained by using a standard spaceframe analysis program are also plotted
alongside the foregoing results. It is revealed that the proposed method
underestimates the maximum axial stress at the base by 14% and overestimates the maximum lateral deflection by 13%.
_
~
a:,
C'l
.t:
i:
'0
C/)
'iii
>
'i
r:
w Oll
<
.,..I
C1)
0..
E
CO
)(
Example 2
In this example, a lowrise ISstory framed tube structure constructed of
structural steel, Fig. 7(a), is analyzed. All the beam and column members
arc 610 x 305 x 238 kg/n, Universal Benrns (I = 207,571 cnl"; A = 303.R
C1l1 1 ; A. = 117.7 cm 2). The height of each story is 3.2 m and the center to
UJ
cD
l!o
1232
C1)
:::Jc:
C)
1233
center spacings of the columns are 2.8 ffi. The Young's and shear moduli
of the material are 200 OPa anti 80 OPa, respectively. A triangularly distributed lateral load of intensity 150 kN/m at the top and zero intensity at
the bottom is applied to the structure. The equivalent elastic properties of
the analogous orthotropic membrane tube are determined according to Appendix I as follows:
n
Q)
....
~
....
C
.2
'5
.a
.t:
!
~
U
GJ
.... ....
(33)
U)
Ak = 0
(36)
ca
~
From these equivalent properties, the relative shear stiffness parameters
are calculated as
1;)
d
0
e
""
= 200 OPa
G w = G, = 5.345 GPa
I ... = If = 0.0109 m
EM' = E1
C
en
CI)
...
.....
.....
QJ
(34)
(35)
Q)
"C
mK' = 0.218;
"C
m/
= 0.314
(37a,b)
Q)
~
...
and the corresponding shear lag coefficients are obtained as:
coc
<
...
.tJ
.....
.t:
QJ
GJ
..0
"0
e
GJ
tl()
ns
S
o6.J
ns
~:
"C
GJ
...
CX2
= 0.861
(38a,b)
(31
1.065;
132
= 0.930
(39a ,b)
RS
..0
~g
Figs. 7(b and c) illustrate the final results for the axial stresses and lateral
deflections. The corresponding frame analysis results are also plotted in the
above figures "to demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed method. I t is
seen from the comparison that the proposed method underestimates the
maximum axial stress at the base by 5% and overestimates the maximum
lateral deflection by 8%. These errors are quite acceptable for preliminary
design purposes. However, since the values of a and ~ at the base of the
structure are both greater than 1.0, the proposed method yields axial stresses
of the wrong sign near the centroidal axis of the frame panels at the base
of the structure. Fortunately, as the axial stresses there are actually very
small, such errors are not of much practical importance.
en
....
.!,
...:JQ)
o...c
1j
c.e
.....
en
...:J
Q+J
L. GJ
Jl:J
....
"C
(1)
E
~
u.
~
CONCLUSIONS
a:
nt
~
o
...I
....o
.u;U)
~
"i
<
C'I
1.129;
:J
C'3
1j
en
.t::
RS
:J
:&
t:IO
e
GJ
al
(1)
.tJ
4J
w 8~
Go)
0.
E
n)
><
w
r=
Q)
CJ :::s
i!o
1234
A simple hand calculation method for approximate analysis of framed
tube structures with the shear lag effects taken into account was proposed .
In the proposed method, independent distributions of axial displacCIl1Cnts
are used for the web and flange panels and thus the shear lag in each panel
is individually allowed for. Closedform solutions are obtained, from which
the effects of various parameters on the overall structural behavior can be
readily evaluated. The single most important parameter that determines the
degree of shear lag in a frame,panel is the relative shear stiffness parameter
of the panel as defined by (17) or (18). Since the shear lag effects of each
frame panel can be separately evaluated and the degree of shear lag in a
frame panel is dependent only on the properties of that particular panel,
the shear lag effects may be calculated by means of only a small set of design
charts (Fig. 5). The proposed method is easy to use and yet reasonably
accurate and is thus most suitable for preliminary design calculations. Numerical examples demonstrated that the method is applicable to framed
tube structures over a wide range of building heights.
1235
Ii
APPENDIX I. ELASTIC PROPERTIES OF eQUIVALENT
ORTHOTROPIC MEMBRANES
A typical frame segment bounded by the centers of the adjacent frame
members, Fig. 8, constitute a basic unit of the frame and may be modeled
'as a solid membrane spanning the same area (shown by dotted lines in Fig.
8) provided the elastic properties of the membrane are so chosen to represent
the axial and shear behavior of the actual framework. The method for
evaluating the equivalent properties of the membrane is presented in the
following. This method is applicable to both the web and flange panels and
thus in the following, they are not distinguished from each other. When it
is necessary, the corresponding properties may be denoted with a subscript
w to signify their belonging to a web panel, or with a subscript f to signify
their belonging to a flange panel.
h./2
h/2
Axial Stiffness
Under the action of vertical axial forces, the loaddeformation relationships for both the frame unit and the equivalent membrane will be equal if
Est = EmA e
(40)
where E = equivalent elastic modulus of the membrane; t= thickness of
the membrane; Em = elastic modulus of the construction material; and
A e = sectional area of the column. It is normal practice to fix the value of
t such that the area of the membrane is equal to the sectional area of the
column (Le. st = A(") and so that the axial stress in the column and that in
the membrane are equal. In such a case
t
= Ae
(41)
centre
of column
.,
column
centre
of beam
beam
I
I
boundary of
menlbrane
equivalent
L_
.J
~
c
FIG. 8.
Membrane Analogy for Basic Frame Unit
1236
and
= Em
(42)
Shear Stiffness
Consider now the case of the frame unit subject to a lateral force Q, Fig.
9. The lateral deflection may be computed as the sum of that due to bending
6 h and due to shear 6.s The bending deflection Ah is given by
dbI
Basic Frame Unit under Lateral Shear Force
6. h
I
I
FIG. 9.
= (It
 db )3
12Em I("
+ (~) 2 (s  dr)'~}
s
12E",lb
(43)
where Ib and 1(" = moments of inertia of the beam and column respectively.
On the other hand, the shear deflection As is given by
.,
D. s
db)
(s  de)
(44)
Q = OmAs(" + ;
G",A sb
(h 
(h) 
in which A sb and A s(" = effective shear areas of the beam and column
respectively; and Om = shear modulus of the material. Equating the total
lateral deflection of the frame unit to the shear deflection of the membrane,
the following equation is obtained:
h
Q OS!
= Ab + 6.s
(45)
where G = equivalent shear modulus of the membrane. From this equation,
the value of G is derived as
1237
h
G
st
db
mw,m,
(46)
As
+Q Q
Wt
I,
U
W
w'
a
in which /lJQand AJQ are as given by (43) and (44), respectively.
APPENDIX II.
f3
REFERENCES
'Yxz
Chan, P. C. K., Tso, W. K., and Heidebrecht, A. C. (1974). "Effect of normal
frames on shear walls." Building Sci., Vol. 9, 197209.
Cheung, Y. K. (1983). "Chapter 38: Tall buildings 2." Handbook of structural concrete, F. K. Kong et aI., eds., Pitman Books Ltd., London, England.
Coull. A . and Ahmed, A. A. (1978). "Deflections of frametube structures." J.
Strllct. Div., ASCE, 104(5),857862.
Coull, A., and Bose, B. (1975). "Simplified analysis of frametube structures. J.
Struct. Div., ASCE, 101(1 1),22232240.
Coull. A" and Bose, B. (1976). "Torsion of frametube structures." J. Struct. Div.,
ASCE. 102(12),23662370.
Coull, A., and Bose, B. (1977). "Discussion of 'Simplified analysis of frame.tube
structures. tt, J. Siruct. Div., ASCE, 103(1),297299.
Coull, A., and Subedi, N. K. (1971). "Framedtube structures for highrise buildings." J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 97(8), 20972105.
Ha, K. H., Fazio, p.. and Moselhi, O. (1978). "Orthotropic membrane for tall
building analysis." J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 104(9), 14951505.
Khan, A. H., and Stafford Smith, B. (1976). "A simple method of analysis :or
deflection and stresses in wallframe structures." Building and En vir. , Vol. 11,
tI
1yz
k
Ez
E'z
ak
az
a'1
<P
relative shear stiffness parameter's defined by (17) and (18);
= shear of lateral load;
equivalent thickness of web and flange panels, respectively;
lateral deflection of structure;
= axial displacement in web panel;
axial displacement in flange panel;
= shear lag coefficient of web panel;
shear lag coefficient of flange panel;
= shear strain in web panel;
shear strain in flange panel;
= axial strain in corner column;
axial strain in web panel;
axial strain in flange panel;
axial stress in corner column;
axial stress in web panel;
axial stress in flange panel; and
rotation of plane section joining corners of tube.
6978.
Khan, F. R. (1967). "Current trends in concrete highrise buildings." Proc.. Symp.
on Tall Buildings, Coull and Stafford Smith, eds., Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, 571590.
Khan, F. R. (1985). "Tubular structures for tall buildings. Handbook of concrete
engineering, M. Fintel, ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, N.Y., 399410.
Khan, F. R., and Amin, N. R. (1973). "Analysis and design of frame tube struct,u:es
for tall concrete buildings." Struct. Eng., 51(3), 8592.
Spires. D., and Arora, J. S. (1990). "Optimal design of tall RCframed tube building;."
J. Strllct. Engrg., ASCE, 116(4), 877897.
Wong, C. H., EI Nimeiri, M. M., and Tang, J. W. (1981). "Preliminary unul}ksis
and member sizing of tall tubular steel buildings. ,. Engrg. J., (Second Quarter),
3347.
It
APPENDIX III.
NOTATION
The following symbols are used in tfzispaper.
Ak
sectional area of corner column;
half width of web panel;
half width of flange panel;
Em = Young's modulus of material;
equivalent Young's moduli of web and flange panels, respec'1" ,
tively;
bending stiffness of structure;
1
shear modulus of material;
Gm
equivalent shear moduli of web and flange panels, respective:y;
G"" G,
overturning moment of lateral load;
M
a
b
1238
1?~A
8 Outrigger braced structures
40
......
l~
'j
SP
6321
,j
Behavior of MultiOutrigger Braced
Tall Bui.lding Structures
By B. Stafford Smith and I. O. Nwaka
.I:i.~
.j'
l
I
Synopsis: A study iR made of the forces nnd displacements in
multioutrigger tnll huilding structures! SifTlplified r,eneral
equations are developed for the restraining moment of the outriggers, the reduction in drift nnd the optimum location of the
outriggers for maximum drift reduction. The efficiencies of
various optimum and evenly spaced outriAger systems are presented.
The assumptions used make the method of analysis suitable only
for preliminary design guidance; however, some v,lluable general
conclusions relating to the number and location of outriggers are
'j::;
:11,.\
Ii:Ii
I
:\:
.11;
'I~
III
1;;
,ill
i:i
drawn.
1'\
.,\\
m
11
1
Keywords: bending moments;brac;ng; columns (supports); highrise buildings; lateral pressure; loads (forces); mathematical
models; structural analysis.
I
itl
\:~
.:;~
jll
'It:
",i,
.).J'II
JI!;,1.,'
,II
. ~ll
,I'
"'d~1
j~
JI
,\I,'j
1'1
!
I
,I,
":If
~
,I
r.:1r.:
JIU
t,J La I V
I U
..,
.....
MU1{IUUlrlt;O~r ~ll U\...lUI \";~
Bryan Stafford Smith is a Professor of Civil Engineering at
McGill University, Montreal. Previously he was a Professor of
Civil Engineering at the University of Surrey in England. He has
researched over a period of many years on various problems relating to tall building analysis.
acting about a common neutral axis and contributing to the total
res~sting moment an amount
fc
1
1
,i
INTRODUCTION
Outrigger bracing is an efficient means of reducing the
drift and forces in a tall building structure. In its simplest
form the system consists of a reinforced concrete or braced steel
core to which horizontal cantilevers  outriggers  are rigidly
attached at one or mora levels, (Fig. 1). The ends of the outriggers connect to columns which, when the building is subjected
to sideways loading, resist the rotation of the outriggers and
core. In modifying the free deformation of the core, the total
drift of the building and the moments in the core are reduced,
(Fig. 2).
If the principal restraining columns are on the face of the
building it is sometimes expedient to mobili~e the axial stiffness of additional perimeter columns by running a deep, very
stiff spandrel girder around the structure at the outrigger
levels. If this is placed at the top, the system is sometimes
called "hat" or "tophat" br.acing, and if located at int ermed iate
levels, "beltbracing". Notable recent examples of beltbraced
buildings include the 42  storey First ~~isconsin Centre in 1.1ilwaukee, (Fig. 3), by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill of Chicago,
and the 43  storey Yasuda Insurance Company Building in Tokyn,
(Fig. 4) designed by the Structural Department of the Tasei Corporation.
Taranath (1) who showed that the level of the outrigger for minimum drift is close to the midheight of the building. ~tc~abb
and Muvdi have also studied the problem, confirminA Taranath's
results for a single outrigger (2) and extending their considerations to two outriggers (3). Further reductions in the total
drift and the core bending moments can be achieved by increasing
the size Rnd therefore nxi:ll Atiffnf'fHl of the' Q(ll\1mn~. ilnd hv
lldd ln~ ou t r 19ge rH n t more leve 1M. The lmprovcmcn t d 1m1n 1 ::;hl"fi ,
however, for each additional level. Taken to the limit. c.)utrigp,ers plnccd at nn infinite number of levels, (FiA. 5) ,,,...\\lld
r '" \l ~ l' the r 01 \I mn H t (\ he hnve f \l 11yenmr 0 ~ 1r l' 1~' \\' l t h t \ h" \ \"1 r l'
EI + AE
d 2/2
.) . N
total
( 1)
in which EI is the flexural rigidity of the core, ARc is the axial
rigidity of the columns and d/2 is the distance of the columns
from the common neutral axis.
This concept, of the fully composite structure, will be used
as a standard of efficiency when comparing different outrigger
systems later in this paper.
It is usually convenient. as well as necessary from strength
considerations, to make the outrigger at least a full storey
depth. Their bulk, and obstructive configuration, often makes
it appropriate for them to share the plant room levels. This
and aesthetic architectural considerations, as well as structural
factors, will all have to be taken into account in arriving at the
eventual number and location of the outriggers. For the structural engineer's contribution to the discussion it would be
valuable if he could easily assess the relative performance of
systems with different numbers of outriggers at different locations. He could then make known the structural and cost penalties
incurred by departures from the structural optimum.
l
~
i
1
The belthrnced structure hns been studied previously hy
2
d /2
AE
M
Onyemaechi Nwaka graduated with an ~{.Eng. from McGill University
in 1977. This paper is based on the results of a research
project which contributed to that degree. He now works in his
home country, Nigeria.
...., .. "
1
ItA
In this paper, multioutrigger structures are studied to
obtain guidelines for the relative performance of different
arrangements. Generalized formulae are developed for estimating
the core moments, the column forces and the total drift in structures with any number of outriggers at any levels. General formulae are also derived which allow the optimum location of the
outriggers to be determined. The formulae are used to give
numerical. comparisons of efficiency for a range of structures with
alternative arrangements of single and multioutrigger bracing.
Some general conclusions are then 'drawn 'relating to the useful
number and locations of outrigger bracing.
It Rhould be restated that the Assumptions u5cd in developing the formulae in this paper, in particular the vertical uniformity of the structure, ~he flexural rigidity of the outr~ggers
nnd the uniform distribution of the londing) re~tricts their use
to the preliminary stages of design.
~
",.
ThC' mnin vnl\1(' of tlH' work IH thcr('rore 1n thn p,cncrlll guldHIlCl! It pruvLul'H In numbcrlnR nnd locnt1.ng the oLltriggers for
their greatest effect.
'~
':~gt
"r518
:
Stafford Smi.th and Nwaka
MultiOutrigger Structures
519
j:
f.
ANALYSIS OF A SINGLEBELT STRUCTURE
c) The outrigger action induceR only axial forces in the columns.
The neglect of any bending in the columns due to rigidity o( their
connections to the outriggers will be small and conservative.
The main purpose of this study is to develop general equations for the analysis of multibelt structures. It is useful.
however, to refer initially to a study of singlebelt structures
made by Tarannth (1). He developed equations for the outrigger
restraining moment) drift and optimum location as follows.
d) The core is riRidly attached to the foundation. This will be
ensured in the design o( the core to foundation connection.
e) The sectional properties of the core and columns, and the distribution of horizontal loading) are uniform through the height.
In a tall building this assumption will almost certainly be not
valid. This reinforces the restriction that the results of this
study are to be used for preliminary design guidance only.
Restraining moment
(H 3 _ X3 )
M
1
;;[ir + AE~d2J'
wH
Drift
(H  Xl)
Analysis of Core Moments
M ~H2 _ X2)
= BEl
2EI
in which w is the uniform horizontal distributed loading.
the height of the structure and Xl is the distance of the
rigger from the top of the building.
The optimum location Xl of the outrigger for minimum drift
is given by the solution of
4X~
3X~H
3
 U 0
(4)
These equations will be used in conjunction with equations to be
developed for two and three outrigger structures to establish
general forms of the equations for restraining moments) drift
and optimum outrigger locations.
ANALYSIS OF A
DOUBLEOUTRIGGE~
"
STRUCTURE
Assumptions
These are
The structure behaves linear elastically. This should be
reasonably valid in both steel and reinforced concrete structures
up to the design wind loading. In ~ases of reinforced concrete
columns, a check should be made to assess the possibility of net
tensile strtsses in the columns. If thl8 occurH, nnypreoLctlolls
for resisting moment and drift reduction based on ~ross sectional
areas may be excessive.
"c~l.1l111
1I11.lInllll"
l,,whlch I hc' oul rl)aJ..'rli. "llh.""J.11 11"xllllllly
very Hllrf. :lrl' not rl",ld. Thfllr II .. xJhllltl(,:H will r .. d,u'p lit ..
effectiveness o( the bracIng system. Thls important factor ls,
t h l"' r ft f n r (', rl t Sf' \l H r; e cl R e pn rat e 1 v, 1 n t e r i nth e pnrc r .
Taking the restraining moments ~l and H2 as the redundant
actions to be solved, the analysis can proceed using the conditions of rotational compatibility. Considering in Fig. 6a the
rotation of the structure at the upper outrigger. the compatibility equation is
H
a)
b) The outriggers are rigidly connected to the core and are thcmselveR flexurally rigi.d. Thi.R iR C1 groRR Rimplifi.cntinn of the
When a core stands as n free cantilever without outri~gerst
it is statically determinate. The addition of a single outrigger
system makes the structure once redundant. For each additional
outrigger it becomes one degree more redundant. Referring now
to the double cantilever structure shown in Fig. 6a) the structure is twice redundant. In addition to the "free l l bending
moment distribution applied to the structure by the sideways
force) Fig. 2b. each outrigger will impose on ~he core R restrAining moment which extends all the way froM that outrigger to the
base, as shown in Figs. 6b and 6c.
2H l (HX 1 )
 +
Xl
(5)
w(HJ_X J )
HI (HX l ) + H2 (HX 2)
in which
'1
2) 12.J:
X
(wx~ _ ~I )dx
I
_
l.(",.~ 2 _ Ml~12)dx"'()
EI
2
I
x
E1 
in which the first two terms represent the rotation of the upper
outrigger and the last two represent the rotation of the core at
the upper outrigger level.
Equation 5 then reduces to
1.
d 2 (HX
2]
s=  +   2
TiT
i\I\.c1
(6)
6EIS
(7)
Considering now the rotation of the lower outrigger, it can he
shown similarly that
i:~~
!'~!~I'I""
~~
':~f'
j'
:1~
:...
Stafford Smith and Nwaka
520
+ M (l1X )
M (HX )
1
2
MUltiUutrlgger
w<H _X )
=_
_2_
wH
6
(8)
6ElS
222
=
(12 )
'3
M1
4X 1 ,+ 3X
(9a)
Xl
w
2
2
and
(9b)
M2 = 6EIS (H + HX 2  X2X1  Xl)
\.
Hl and H2 can b~ subtracted from the "free" bending moment
diagram to give the iesulting bending moment distribution in the
core, Fig. 6d. The forces in the columns just below the top
outrigger are then! M1/d and, in the columns below the lower
outrigger, ! (M1 + ~12)/d. The maximum moments in the outriggers
will then be the product of the column force and the free length
of the outrigger. Note that these will be less than the half
moments Ml /2, M2/2 which are the moments of the column forces at
the centroid of the core.
L[ IXl
o
giving
wH
dx +
2 (w~ 2M ) .x.dx
'
i
Xl
= 8El  ZEI [M l (H 
2
y 2
3 _
 3X l X2 + 3 " H  H  0
( 13)
The procedures for deriving equations foi bending moments,
drift and optimum locations have been given for a doubleoutrigger
structure. Similar procedures can be used for structures with
three or more outriggers to give equations corresponding to
Eqn. 9 for the redundant moments, Eqn. 11 for drift and Eqn. 13
for optimum outrigger locations. For a tripleoutrigger structure,
these are
Outrigger Moments
wx
X  X
2
2
with respect to Xl'
ANALYSIS OF A TRIPLEOUTRIGGER STRUCTURE
The moment area method is a simple means of determining the
top deflection of the outrigger structure
= EI
~irst
The simultaneous solution of these gives the optimum values of
Xl and X2 as O.3122H nnd O.6355H, respectively. These can he
substituted into Eqns. 9 and 11 to determine the corresponding
restraining moments ~nd minimum top deflection.
Analysis of Drift
tJ
222
l2(El) S
which, when partially differentiated,
then to X2t yields
The simultaneous solution of Eqns. 6 and 8 leads to expressions
for the redundant moments
2
2
6EIS (X 2 + X2X1 + Xl)
V_I
w[ (X +X X +X ) (H X1)+(H +HX X X X ) (H X ))
2 2 1 l
2 2 l 1
2
2
BEl
~lrU\;lUr~~
(w~ 2~liM2) .x.dx]
x2
(10)
2
2
2
Xl ) + MZ(H  X2 )J
(11)
t
M)
Optimum Location of Outriggers
The primary purpose of any bracing system is to resist drift.
It is useful, therefore, to know at which levels the outriggers
should he plRf:cO to nr.hirvp minimum rlri ft. T1H"HP """ he' fnul1c1
r Ir:al. In :<l
then to X2 . Therefore, substituting for M and H from Eq.
2
i
into Eq. 11 gives
C)
= 6ElS
(X 2
+ X2Xi +
(14 a)
~~i)
__w_
2
2
H2  6EIS (X 3 + XJ X2  XZX l  Xl)
~.
.,.
Hence, for a structure in which the dimensions, sectional properties and horizontal load intensity are specified, the actions
in the structure can be derived from Eqns. 9, and the drift by
substituting the obtained values of H and HZ into Eqn. 11.
1
by mlnlmll.lnJl, lilt, dC'lll'c:lloll f!'lunl Inn wlt.h r'lIp.'c'l
Hi
= 6EIS (H + HX J
. (14b)
(14c)
 X1X2  X2)
Drift
= wH
8J:.:l
_ _l_x [ l\{
2EI' 1
2
N (H 2 X )
2 2
N (H  X )
Optimum Outrigger Locations
'I'll,'"'' "rl' glvPIl hv XI' X'J. nnd X.\ frnm lhe' nnl"t'Inn nr
l~qU:Il. IOIl~"
4X
(H 2_X2)
J
2
J
+ 1X X2  X2 = 0
t
t
( 15 )
522
~tanora ~mltn
ana
X3 _ 3X x2 + 3X 2X _ x3
1
1 2
233
22
X32  3X
2X3 +03X 3 H
I~Wdl\.d
, l' I U ". _. '"" .'41 " .
4X
o
and the remaining
00""'  ....      
32'3
~l
+ 3X X2  X
1
2
equations of the form
(16)
22
Xj _ 1  3X j _ 1Xj + JXjX j +1
GENERALIZED EQUATIONS FOR MULTIOUTRIGGER STRUCTURES
Equations are now available to solve the redundant moments
2, g and l4}, drift (3, 11 nnd 15) and optimum outrigger
locations (4, 11 and 16) in single, double and tripleoutrigger
structu~es. An inspection of these equations indicates sequences
which allow corresponding generalized equations to be written
for structures with any number of outriggers, as follows.
X'+l
J
(20)
where j is equation number.
(Eqns.
Outrigger Moments
In a structure with N outriggers, the restraining moment due
to the uppermost outrigger is given by
In the equation for a singleoutrigger structlJre and in the
for an N outrigger structure X2 = Hand XN+1 = H,
respectlvely.
~th equ~tion
The formulation and simultaneous solution of the set of
equations for a structure with N outriggers will determine their
optimum locations for minimum drift.
THE
PE~FOR}~NCE
OF OUTRIGGER STRUCTURES
:1
I:
l
l;.
~
"~
2
2
6ElS (X 2 + X2X1 + Xl)
w
If the outrigger is at the top of the structure then Xl = O.
In an attempt to develop a feeling for the relative performance of optimum and certain nonoptimum outrigger structures,
the derived equations will be used to ohtain valueR of optimum
locations. restraining moments and drift reductions.
In all other outriggers, i to N
Structures with Optimum Location of Outriggers
M1
(17)
w
2
Mi = 6ElS (X i +l + Xi+lX i  XiX i _ l
~+l
taking, for the lowest outrigger,
x.1 1)
(18)
= H.
,I~
iI~I'ro
'tl.l
~~:
~ .i,
'f;
'~t
01 ~,~
:j."
The results for optimum locations) restraining moments and
drift reduction for structures with up to four levels of outriggers are given in Table 1. The presentation and implications
of the results are discussed below.
:t,,
l,:~
"i':rl
t.~
"
Drift
The total drift for a structure with N outriggers is given
by
Ii
wH 4
BEl
___ _
2EI ~i=l
M (H 2
.(19)
 Xi )
The first term represents the drift of a free cantilever under
the action of a distributed horizont~l load wand the second
represents the reduction in drift due to the o\ltriA~cr syRtem.
Optimum Location of Outriggers
'1' II U
II L J IIIlJ III LtJ t: II L LUll tJ. X1
llJ
XN'
t)'
II C
(I 1I
r f ~ ~ l~ .. Ii
J It
, "
Outrigger locations Values which are obtained from the simultaneous solution of sets of equations. as per Eq. 20, are optimized to produce maximum drift reduction. Although the drift
reduction will also be influenced by the axial stiffness of the
column system the larger their stiffness the greater the reduction  it is evident from Eq. 20 that the optimum locations are
independent of both the core and column stiffness properties.
The resulting optimum locations are noteworthy in two respects.
First. that the top of the structure is not nn optimum locntion
for an outrigger in any of the cnsey. Second, thnt in nll cases
the optimum locations are very close to the equal interval points
in the height of the structure. For example, the optimum level
of the outrigger in n HinKle outrigger structure is almost
exactly at midheight whilst those in a threeoutrigger system
nrc cl o~e to the quarter, hal f an1d threequarter heights.
Although th~ primary function of l1
bracing system is the reduction of drift, an associated merit of
the o\ltrlp.Rcr bracing Rystem is the reduction in core moment.
I': q. 2. r() r 1\ H In ~\1 C 0 \l t r 1RRc r H t r \l C t \1 r c. ah ow 8 t hn t the low crt he
1{t!9training moments
outrigger structure can be obtained from the simultaneous solution
of n set of N equations including a first equation.
J1
.. :~
il~I'n':11
~~I
IW:l
,!\
:1
I~;:
q;~
1i;:~
j:X
11'~1
ii:
:!:
"
~~lLll
.\il~,~
IIJ~ .
!;~
I'
d
'I
. ...
,
. .Stafford Smith and Nwaka
'524
Multi::Outrigger Structures
outrigger the greater the resisting moment it provides. The
benefit of placing it very low on the structure to give a high
resisting moment is offset by the fact that it would not be as
effective in reducing qrift nor would the reduction in moment,
from the outrigger to the base, extend over much of the height
of the core. Indeed the moment in the core above a very low
outrigger might even be larger than below. The values of
resisting moment in Table 1 were obtained from Eq. 17 and 18,
and correspond to outriggers at the optimum drift locations.
The resisting moments are expressed nondimensionally as a
percentage of the fully composite moment, Mfc (Eq. 1) .. The
values are, therefore, absolute measures of the moment resisting
efficiency of the system, independent of the column and core
sectional properties. The justification for this form of pres entation is as follows
2
AE d /2
from Eq. 1
11 f
EI + AE d 2 /2
c
Mfc
= EIS
The results in Table 1 show that the larger the number of
outriggers, the greater the'total moment reductton in the core.
However, for each additional outrigger there is a diminishing
return in the extra reduction of moment. The largest resisting
moment of an individual outrigger occurs in a singleoutrigger
structure. In multioutrigger structures the lowest outrigger
carries the highest resisting moment and each successively higher
outrigger carries less.
Reductions in drift These are also given in Table 1 in a
nondimensional form, as a percentage of the drift reduction which
would be achieved by the same system acting fully compositely.
By simllar reasoning to that for the restraining moments, the
fully composite reduction in moment due to the outriggers and
columns would be
2
( 21)
2
wH
'2
or
wH
AE d/2
dLi
fc
wH
2
EI + AE'd /2
c
wH
(22)
4
( 26)
BEl
4
(27)
8(EI)2 S
Taking Mi' the actual resisting moment of outrigger i from Eq. 18,
and expressing it as a percentage of Mfc gives
Mi
Mi
= M:
fc
~ 100
100 w
= 6ElS (X i+l
+ Xi+1X i  XiX i _ l  Xi  l )
2EIS
2
wH
(23)
hence
*i =
JJ.J
(X~+l
+ Xi+1X i  XiX i _ 1 2
H
X~~l)
(24)
I
i
Taking the second term of Eq. 19 as the actual reduction in
drift, d6, and substituting in it for Mi from Eqs. 17 and 18. it
can be expressed as a percentage of the fully composite reduction
by
d/\
Mt
'M~
Mi
= 100
wH2
ET~
where S is defined by Eq. 7.
dl\
'If
di\rt'
:< 100
~
1(
Therefore, although the actUAl resisting moments of the outriggers
are dependent on the size and spacing d, of the columns, the
efficiency of the system, based on the fully composite hehnviour
of the columns and core as heine 100% efficient, is ShO~l hy
Eq. 24 to be dependent only on the number and locations of the
outriggers. Values of
in Table 1 can be converted to Actual
moments ~11 in n pnr t iculnr struc t ure hy us inA
525
dl\
(:? '))
1
':'
N
+ E
2
8fEI)2S
wH 4
100 x ~~'
(X~+l
[(X
l2(El) S
2
2
2
2
+ X2X1 + Xl) (H
+ Xi+1X i  XiX i _1  X:_ 1){H
.
r'" *  66.7
,II
r (X " + X" X, + XI) (11
'2
 XtX i _1  Xi_1)(H
 Xi)]
 X I)
X~)]
2
X)
1
(28)
~ 2
+ f. (X, 1 1 + X 1 I. \ X1
:~
(29)
:>..rr~
.:)IdTTOfO :7IT1lln ano
J~Kd
0
O_J~/
Generally, outrigger flexibility will shift the optimum
locations of the outriggers, however many, up the structure from
the posit ion s Cl u0 ted for r i g i d 0 U t rig gerR. The ext en t 0 f the
shift will depend on the rcductlon in stlffncHs or th~ outri~n~~r
and also on the stiffness of the column system. The more flexibl~
the outriggers, the greater the shift. On the other hand, the
stiffer the column system the greater will be the effect of any
change in outriAgcr flexihility.
Equation 29 demonstrates that the efficiency of the system in
reducing drift, taking the .fully composite system as 100%
efficient, is dependent only on.the number and location of the
outriggers. The efficiency~of the outrigger system in reducing
drift is so high, 88%foro~e outrigger and 96% for two, that
the extra return for additional outriggers diminishes even more
than 1n the case of restraining moments. The extremely high,
98.6%, efficiency of a fouroutri~gcr system implies that nny
more than four is not worthwhile.
As an illustration of the influence of outrigger flexibility,
Table 5 shows the change in the resisting moment and drift reduction efficiencies for structures with three values of coreto . .
outrigger stiffness ratios,
and three coretocolumn stiffness
ratios.~. Clearly,the influence of softening the outrigger is
greater for structures with the high column stiffness Q = 1 than
with the lowcolumn stiffness, C1 = 10.0. Fig. 11 shows the shift
in the optimum location of a single outrigger as it becomes more
flexible. for hypothetical structures with axially 'rigid'
columns. Two points are plotted in Fig. 11 for existing structures
with known coretooutrigger stiffness ratios, which show that
even in the extreme case of assumed rigid columns, the shift in
the optimum positions for these structures is not large.
Structures with Outriggers at Even Spacing
a,
To allow integration of the outriggers within the normal
floor intervals. as well as for architec~ura1 and plant considerations,it may be more convenient to lo~~te the outriggers at
equally spaced positions rather than at the optimum locations.
Therefore Tables 2. 3 and 4 present the resisting moment and
drift reduction efficiencies for equispaced outriggers. It is
useful to compare their performances with the optimum.
Table 2 compares the efficiencies of systems with a single
outrigger located either at the top, or at midheight, orat the
optimum location, Xl = 0.455 H. Whilst the midheight and
optimum outriggers are Jndistinguishable in performance, a
single, top outrigger behaves relatively poorly in providing only
60% of the moment resistance and 75% of the drift reduction of
the same outrigger with an optimum location. Figures 7 and 8
compare the bending moment diagrams and deflected shape for top
and midheight single outrigger structures with those fqr a free
cantilever. The core to column stiffness ratio a (where a = 2EI/
oAE c d 2) for this case is 1.0. The fully c~mposite, that is
maximum possible, reduction which could have been achieved in
these cases for moment and deflection is 0.5.
Tables 3 and 4 are for equispaced, multioutrigger structures,
the first including one at the top and the second without. It is
evident that for systems with the same number of equi5paced
outriggers,those with an outrigger at the top are relatively
inefficient. Indeed, the total resisting moment of any system
which includes a top outrigger can b~ almost equalled by a
system with one less outrigger, omitting the one at the top.
Figures 9 and 10 compare the bending m~ment and deflection
diagrams for a triplebelt structure with those for a free cnntllever core.
CONCLUSIO~S
The followinggeneial conclusions apply:
Allthc dcrlvutlons and results have safar assumed the outriggers to beflexurally rigid. In reality, their flexibility
will reduce the overr.111 Rtiffnp.RR of thf' n\ltrtRRl"r HyHI.(\1ll /llul
J.I
Outrigger bracing, in single or multioutrigger arrangements,
is an efficient means of reducing drift and core bendinR
moments in tall building structures.
2.
In singleoutrigger structures, it is more efficient to locate
the outrigger in the midheight region than at the top of
the structure.
3.
Multioutrigger structures can be more effective than singl~
outrigger systcmsj however with each Cldditional olltrigger the
increment of additional stiffness and moment reduction
diminishes. The possible reductions in drift for more than
four outriggers are insignificant.
4.
If, in multioutrigger structures, the outri~gers ore located
~:
fa t (! q \I I cl {H t nn t III Lg h t {11 t (' r v f\ 1H r r n III t 11 e J~ r 0 lJ n d. h 1I t nmit t 1n g
une Ht the top of lhu structure, u close to optimum rcuuctlun
in drift will be achieved.
1
'1
An investigation is proceeding into the detailed effacts of outrigger flexibility, but some general comments based on preliminary
results ~an he mArtp..
1.
!
INFLUENCE OF OUTRIGGER BENDING STIFFNESS
'."11ke it lell see fee tive in controlling the d r H t and core moment II
NlOl(f.UUtrrggeT~1.rUClUr~~
~~
MultiOutrigger Structures
Stafford Smith and Nwaka
528
529
REFERENCES
<J
1.
Taranath, B.S., "Optimum Belt Truss Location for HighRise
Structures", Structural Engineer, No. 8,V53, August, 1975.
or+oJ
'f
~<)
2.
3.
McNabb, J.~., and Muvdi, B.B., "Drift Reduction Factors for
Belted HighRise Structures", Engineering Journal, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Third quarter, 1975.
McNabb, J.W., and Muvdi, B.B., Discussion of Reference (2)
Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction
First quarter, 1977.
"C"O
C1I
J,.'f+J
area of column
horizontal distance
between columns
a:
\C
ID
.......
en
\G'i
~
f'.:
.......
0)
0'\,
VI
CIt,
0i:
'"
Oft'
h:
'7
Ln
~
\0
It
:F
.....
::')
fU
:F
c:::
Vl
UJ
'0:
.. rr:
...
,Jrdl
;1'1'"
intensity of uniformly
distributed horizontal
loading
co
(\.
0IIl:t
of[
\0
::')
Q)
....
0:
4:
r4
VI
0:
LLJ
C'
C
distance of outrigger
from top of structure
c.!:l
..
"Z
C?
f',
:;'
'"
Ui)
:e.
,.rJ...
co
U).
I:::J
0')
oI
V\
E
c
elastic modulus of columns
total height of structure
moment of inertia of core
ex
M
fc
resisting moment of
outrigger i
Mi expressed as a percentage
a parameter
VI + AE:d 2]
~
..,..
.:r
..
LIt
horizontal drift at top
of building
d6
reduction in drift
0
~J
~
Cully composite reduction in drift
centage of dli fc
":'!:
l.L.
::::
0:
Lt.J
0..
~g
\U
~
~
Ln
M
4l:t'
IIIl:1"
t.
U'l
ll;:I"
Q.
t'""
('\,
~.
C""!
C')
~
Q
C'.:
r",
q
4'
C"
L 0'
GJo,...
.J:J'
t: ...,
;=?
Lt.J
...J
co
....
U')
,II
c(
V\
d6 expressed as n per
....
0..
it L
d6*
:~l~
'
g ,.,:.'
~
C"'
C":~'
~ ~"i.I
ii
1/
.. \
l.L.
+oJ
l5
L
'+
i~
:::t:
5 1+;
"'~I ~'1
";1'
~ 1:1:
;\;1
~
~
it )of(
dL\fc
(;)
"i
;~~r , .\
.......J
:::J
2::
'
V\
.,...
of H
fc
total number of outriggers
core to outrigger
relative stiffness
parameter
EI . d
(EI)o H
=
fully composite resisting
moment
6
N*
core to column relative
stiffness parameter
= 2EI 2
AE d
c
c
:1
::,
;~~.
0:
.~
GI
eo
co
elastic modulus of core
0
'to ,;
HOTATION
A
~l'
:t
III
I
'/
..
CJ
~
c:
Resisting moment
as % of Mfc
location of outriggers
Drift reduction
as % of d~fc
d~
(J
,...
Optimum
X1/H = 0.4554
55.4
...=
88.0
CI
~1idUeight
58.3
X1/H = 0.5000
::J
87.5
::s
TopHat
X1/H ::: fJ
..
I
t
'!umbp.r of
C'.Itriq<jers

*
Xl
X*z
~
~
~
Distance from toP :
:2
66.6
PERFORMA~iCE OF SINGLEOUTRIGGER STRUCTURES
TABLE 2
....
33.2
!
~
:<3
....1 ..
Po
I
i
XII
R~sistinn
\1 *
.1?*
.~::.;,:=,'=~'"
. ..
noment as
"'1
till
...
of Mfc
'*
Mil
I.~~
Drift reduction dd
as .~ of dt\fc
::;
i
I
33.2
()
0.5
83
..
.~
JJ.2
66.6
5S.,"3
91.6
oc
,.....
,i
I
t
50.0
:!.
QQ
(JQ
1
I
0.33
0.67
.Q.25
f).
8.6
23.1
43.9
70.6
96.3
0.75
2.1
12.. c;
2.5.0
,7.5
77.1
97.8
50
..
_J
TABl E 3
PERFORMA:JCE. OF EQU I SPACE') I)UTR I ~GC:R ST~UCTURES ~'IITH TOP 11UTR IGfiER
...
r.r.
,....
...c.
!1
c...
m
to
iI
(I)
u.
~fflittiii'iii_fl.I1_~d4t
IiWEg~~~:::~
c.n
~I
Distancp.
'tumber of
outriggers
Xl*
top : H
X,*
X*2
0.5
fro~
Resistino
X*
4
t.4
'1
.,!*
as
&.1 *
4
'~3
~fc
of
1:"1*
Drift reduction d6
as ~ of d6 fc
til
,.....
~
mo~nt
5S.3
87.5
5~.3
t
C.
2
0:33
0.67
2'5.9
~4.
70.3
95.5
0.25
0.50
0.75
14.~
25.0
37.5
77.1
97.8
0.20
~.4
0.6
0.9
9.3
16.0
24.!)
32.0
81.3
98.5
.,,1
til
3
;::;:
::r
~
::J
C.
. TABLE 4
}..   
t ,
PERFOR~A!lCE
10
EXCLUOI~G
.:.
;::
TOP OUTRIGGER
.......
.'.~'='.~
 ._..  ._ .. _ ..  ..... _.Drift
reduction
d6 as % of d6 fc
Resisting moment as % of Mfc
...
....
..  _.._    . .
hr
.....
OF EQUISPACED OUTRIGGER STRUCTURES
. .. ..... ..
1.0
I
I
2.0
1.0
10.0
2.0
10.0
66.6
....~
oc
33.2
33.2
33.2
66.6
66.6
32.0
32.4
33.0
64.0
64.8
66.0
51.9
61.6
23.6
,.....
:!.
26.1
47.0
30.8
= Core: column stiffness ratio
O"Q
CJQ
....
(D
,.....
CIl
2
AE d
I
t:
~
2EI
I
B = Core:
outr;~qer stiffness ratio
E1
{fI}o
IT
(t)
en
TABLE 5 INFLUE~CE OF SI~GLE OUTRIGGER FLEXIBILITY O~ PERFORMANCE
(JJ
W
VJ
CJ1
+
OUTRIGGERS
~.
...
.
HAT GIRDER
+
c.n
,...
~
COLUMNS
h.
......
o
.,
c.
8.M.
,',
. :i:
<J I
II
Fig. 2a"Free"
Fig. 2bB.M .
cantilever
diagram for a
_.
3,...,.
free cantilever
CORE
CIl
:r
~
:::J
C.
Z
~
~
~
Fig. 2dB.M.
diagram for outrigger braced
Fig.2cOutrigger
braced cantilever
Fig. IJutrigger braced structure
cantilever
1..
__..
~.,
1201t
fO 1
404
41~
z..::'l...r:......
_'" ,.
tJ. *",lSj';O_.,.
,r.
OUTRIGGERS
2  STOREYS
..
..
OUTRtGGER BENTS
DEEP
r+ A
FLOOR
....
+
o
(\J
c
2!
+
oc
'f
...
.....
<D
......
:::!
eJ
r<l
C1Q
()Q
<.0
4A
5
40 ft
11:
200 ft
...
,....
...enc
Q.
c...
to
tt>
U')
Fig. 3bTypical plan of first Wisconsin Centre
Fig. 3aSection AA of first
Wisconsin Centre
~:.~;}~:~~Y:=
(J1
. ~__:.}/:;:~~::;~~~1!!~ri~:.:
    
.  '.'Stafford Smith and Nwaka
536
HAT GIRD

,.
43 rd FLOOR
;,0
.
OLUMNS
_.... _21
..
""V~
...
'.
L....:.
'" ~
~
.,
I
A
++
1
,
11
+
+
~
...!L
.: "~
537
CORE
35
BELT GIROE
.  MultiOutrigger
  Structures
INFINITE NUMBER
OF OUTRIGGERS
.A.C. WALLS
}~.,~=
FOUNDATION
.
,(
Fig. 5aFully composite outrigger braced structure
Fig. 4aTyp;cal section of Yasuda Building
FREE CANTILEVER
B. M. DIAGRAM
OUTRIGGERS
....,...
:/
;t
~~l
I~
E
Q
.
~"l~_'  _ _~1_m_.
Fig. 4bPlon of Y4sudo Uu11d1ny
.,ty..m~
B.M. IN CORE
B.M. CARRIED
BY COLUMNS
B.M.
FlU. ~JbJ\11()CilLI()1l of hendlnu lI1o\li(!nl 'n fully composlLe structure
JI
':',
":\J~\t~!\:
:,1~!11 ' .
j,",t'.:
."
..
,._ . . . . . . . . . v .
~~
'~
.~, ~~.~~~~~~~;~~:~:~~~~;~~~
_::Z:i...
_. _ ...._ ... ~.~:.:: .:_":w:.: ...,..~ . '::~7~: ..
en ."
r t ..
.os co
c
n
~.
~. _~.~:::::~:~.::=' ._~.: .;~_:
~r
20
ct" 0'\
c:s:u
.os.
t
~
I Z
o
I
o
fllGl
(i)~
t+
J.
..
10
(,Q
(,Q
\0
rn
CD
s
en
c..
:::c
(1)
'"
c
r+
c:
::s
CJ
3:
",,.~
,." NI ~
:r:
:0
le
:s:
...0..
en
r+ ....... ."
o:::::s .......
....... u:l co
::J3
0...0 m
3:
30"
s
c:
<CD
....... :::::s
:r
\0
Q..
3:
:::s
n
......
:=:
CIl
:::c:
NI~N
NI~N
CO
l>
i o
CDI
r'1
(JJ
~
C
PI
.~
c+::J
a.
PI
0...
. ....... m
:J
C.
010
Ul I
CSI
'"1
r+CI::O
(1)
s3C'D
....... c.n c.n
\0
r+
co
c....os
.os
CD
3:
N
C'DCPI
VI
::s
0.._..
~. 6
tat
TOP ,
rR..
TOP
0.16610
\
..
O. Loading w/tnt :
0.1 ~ Height _
0.1
\0.2
\
0.2L
~.3
O5
'
0.3
FREE CANTLEVER
0.4
:x:
::x:
+
0..
t
~j
~
0
0:
LL.
OQ
0.8
'I
cr.
,....
t
0.8.
0.9
0.9
BASE 1.0
CD
0.7
Ij
0.7
(f)
02
0.4
0.6
>
A.
0.8
>t
LO
BENDING MOMENT IN C.ORE + wH /2
Fig. 7Bending moment diagram
for singleoutrigger structure
:~~~;;,.:.;~::::.
'I
QQ.
0.6
0.5
SINGLE
OUTRIGGER
MIDHEIGHT
0
S
oc
,.....
BASE 1.0
c.r
2EI
d..
to
AE d 2 = 1
(I)
02
0.4
0.6
08
LO
HOOZONTAL DISPLACEMENT + wH /8 El
Fig. 8Deflection diagram for
singleoutrigger structure
CJ
V.
c.c
.~~~~~il.I~~~:5='~Jjf~::'~~~'~i~~;~;~::~~
. ...._.:::. . _". _.:..
~
~ _..~'~. ~~~
=_r~"
..
~ ~
:~.,j.:,I~~"''''' .,,,
..
>'.
._
,...
'"
.....
.r ,
.
..
.
#
'"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~h
TOP
TOP
2EI
do. =
0.1
TOP OUTRIGGER
8.M. DIAGRAM FOR
0.4 ..
0.6
~u
07
'"
,,
,
~~
,
if.X
(f)o
'"
0.9',
Q2
~ 0.75 H
"" ,
,
0.6
04
08
'"
BASE 1.0
LO
2
AE d 2
=
,
o
0.2
04
0.6
08
LO
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT e;. wH4;e EI
Fig. lODeflection diagram
for tripleoutrigger structure
for tripleoutrigger structure
0.
d.
Fig. 9Bending moment diagram
......
2EI
BENDING MOMENT + w:H /2
....
&.1
~
0.9
:
"
.=1
HeicJht ::.
BOTTOM OUTRIGGER ...
118
CANT1LE~lR
U>oding
w IUit
0.7
:r
Z
aM. DIAGRAM
FREE
"
0.6
fE
::;:
FREE CANTILEVER
sanOM OUTRIGGER
0.8',
BASE 1.0
31
0.5
a..
t
c.
+
"
....
::I:
'
...
..
..
I~
n n
0
'\0
c:
5.Con
0
tv
0
.
0
C'+
3
c:
3
::r
ro
0
W
(J1
(J1
~.
h

.I
YI!;..
()
.
\0
i ~o
C ::0 ..
::r
~
r G> (J1
C'+
0
t)

::;
O(Jl
t)
~O
..II

).
CT
"
CD
C
,...,.
::Oc
Cf
0::0
C1Q
CG)
tn
::!.
(JQ
f
rt
e
til
e
::oG)
:l
,..
fTlfT1
to
to
CD
Ul~
t:
""1
.
0
""1
1"'+
.
t
X
..
'<
s
0:>
0
c:
GZ1
t'D
en
t .O
a
~U
0
0
,,:',::::'.,
I
g:~ I
0.4
0.3
X2 t
X3
MIDDLE OUTRIGGER
X2  O.SH
,.__ .1
+
0..
o....
\
\
0.5
YII
:.
x:
It:
_
TRIPLE OUTRIGGER STRUCTURE
.~.,
\
\
lit
w J1Jnit Height
~\
\\
O.2~ ~m
r Loodi"9
0.25 H
0.1
XI:
.J ~
:I:
AE d 2 
02"
0.3
CJ1
~
4
d:c!=~:'~:~:': '~~;";'~:~7~~::~~"'~]:;' ;:;~.;;'.i~~~~~~~~~~.~::~~~~:~?'~4S't~~!!fii/fr~~::t~?~~!.4#f3:~~~~f!l~~~~f:::';~"~
9 Shear lag effects in buildings
9.1 The shear lag phenomenon
Shear lag is the lagging behind of bending stresses
relative to that induced by pure bending action (as derived
by the plane section remain plane assumption). It occurs
whenever there is shear stress and is generally more
significant for structures with relatively small height/width
or length/width ratios. Shear lag leads to stress
concentrations around the comers of the structures and
additional deflection. Asa result, the overal structural
efficiency of the structure would be reduced. Common
structures whose structural efficiencies are affected by shear
lag include framedtube structures, shear/core wall structures
and bridge deck structures.
Shear lag occurs in both the web and flange panels, but
since the shear lag phenomenon is generally more significant
in the flange panels, most researchers take into account only
the shear lag effects in the flange.
41
9.2 Shear lag in framedtube structures
See attached paper.
9.3 Shear lag in shear/core wall structures
See attached paper.
42
SHEAR LAG IN SHEAR/CORE WALLS
By A. K. H. Kwan l
ABSTRACT: Shear lag occurs not only in bridge decks and framed tubes, but also in shear/core walls. However,
there have been relatively few studies on shear lag in wall structures. Moreover, most existing theories neglect
shear lag in the webs and, although they are acceptable for bridge decks that normally have flanges wider than
webs, they may not be applicable to shear/core walls whose webs can be much wider than flanges. To study
the shear lag phenomenon in wall structures, a parametric study using finiteelement analysis is carried out.
Unlike previous studies that neglected shear lag in the webs, many layers of elements are used for both the
webs and flanges so that shear lag in the webs can also be taken into account The results indicate that the
shape of the longitudinal stress distribution in an individual web or flange panel is quite independent of the
dimensions of the other panels. Based on this observation, design charts and empirical formulas for estimating
the shear lag effects are developed for practical applications.
INTRODUCTION
Shear Lag Phenomenon
The BernoulliEuler assumption that plane sections remain
plane after bending is often used for the analysis of beam
structures. According to this assumption, the longitudinal
stresses in the webs and flanges should be linearly and uniformly distributed, as in Fig. 1(a). However, this assumption
is approximate and strictly applicable only when there is no
shear force or when the structure has infinite shear stiffness.
In actuality, when the structure is subjected to shear forces, a
shear flow would be developed between the web and flange
panels and, owing to shear deformations of the panels, the
longitudinal displacements in the parts of the webs and flanges
remote from the webflange junctions would lag behind those
at the junctions. As a result, the longitudinal stresses in the
webs and flanges would become distributed as shown in Fig.
l(b). Such "shear lag" phenomenon reduces the effectiveness
of the webs and flanges and may significantly increase the
longitudinal stresses at the webflange junctions and the lateral
deflections of the structure.
Shear lag is most pronounced in beam structures with relatively wide webs and/or flanges such as bridge. decks and
shear/core walls, and in beam structures with low shear stiffness such as framed tubes. However, although there have been
a number of studies on the shear lag phenomenon in bridge
decks and framed tubes, there were relatively few studies on
shear lag in shear/core walls.
Existing Analysis Methods
Existing methods for shear lag analysis include (1) the
foldedplate method; (2) the harmonic analysis method; (3) the
finite stringer method; (4). the finiteelement method; and (5)
semiempirical methods.
In the foldedplate method (DeFriesSkene and Scordelis
1964; Kristek 1979, 1983; Kristek and Skaloud 1991), the
structure is treated as an assembly of plates interconnected at
their longitudinal joints. The displacements and forces along
the longitudinal joints are expressed as Fourier series of harmonic functions and by considering the plate bending and
membrane actions of each individual plate, each tenn in the
series for the joint forces is related to the corresponding term
1 Sr. Lect., Dept. of Civ.. and Struct. Engrg.y Univ. of Hong Kong,
Pokfulum Rd., Hong Kong.
Note. Associate Editor: ~c M. Lui. Discussion open until February
1, 1997. To extend the clOSing date one month, a written request must
be filed with the ASCE M~ager of Journals. The manuscript for this
paper was submitted. ~or review and possible publication on November
22, 1994. This paper IS partor the Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 122, No.9, September, 1996. ~ASCE, ISSN 07339445/96/000910971104/$4.00 + $.50 per page. Paper No. 9648.
in the series for the joint. displacements by a stiffness matrix.
Then, by also representing the external loads in the form of
Fourier series, the entire analysis can be conducted separately
for each term of the series and the final results can be obtained
by summing the partial results.
As for the foldedplate method, the hannonic analysis
method (AbdelSayed 1969; Kristek 1983; Song and Scordelis
1990a,b; Kristek and Skaloud 1991) also represents the external loads as Fourier series. Unlike the former method, however, this method simplifies the analysis by. neglecting the outofplane bending action of the individual plates and treating
the web plates as simple bending elements so that the analysis
can' be confined to the flange plates only.
The finitestringer method (Evans and Taherian 1977, 1980;
Taherian and Evans 1977; Connor and Pouangare 1991) also
treats the web plates as simple bending elements so that the
analysis can be confined to the flange plates. Instead of using
Fourier series solution method, it models the axial action of
the flange plates by a finite number of stringers welded onto
the plates, and the shearing action of the flange plates by the
plates themselves that are assumed to take no axial loads.
Thus, the axial and shearing actions of the flange plates are
separated and the governing equations become easier to solve.
Using only three stringers to model a flange plate, a simplified
version, called the threebar method, has been developed by
Evans and Taherian (1977, 1980) for practical applications.
The finiteelement method, being the most powerful and
versatile numerical method, can also be used to evaluate the
shearlag effects. Moffatt and Dowling (1975) had, by using
the finiteelement method, carried out a comprehensive para
flange
web
Ca)
flange
web
(b)
FIG. 1. Axial Stress Distribution in Beam Structure: (a) with
No Shear Lag; (b) with Shear Lag
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEER1NG./ SEPTEMBER 1996/1097
~,.
metric study on shear lag in bridge decks.. It was found necessary to use fine mesh divisions over the width and length of
the flange plates.. However, the web plates were assumed to
behave in accordance with the elementary theory of ben~ing
and, thus, each web plate was modeled by one layer of
elements only. From the finiteelement results, Moffatt and
Dowling (1975) had produced a set of design values for the
estimation of shear lag in bridge deck structures..
Apart from the previous method, there are also some semiempirical methods based on energy formulation (Coull and
Bose 1975; Coull and Abu EI Magd 1980; Kwan 1994).. In
these methods, various simplifying assumptions regarding the
longitudinal stress distributions in the web and flange plates
are made to render the analysis more tractable, and solutions
are effected by minimizing either the strain energy or total
potential energy of the structure.. They vary in their accuracy
and are generally not as accurate as the rigorous methods..
Although shear lag can be accurately analyzed by many of
the existing methods, such accurate analysis is generally very
time consuming.. For practical applications, there is still the
need for simple methods, which can allow quick estimation of
the shearlag effects without the use of computers, particularly
during the preliminary design stage. There are, however, very
few simplified methods for shear/core wall structures. Moreover, in most of the existing methods, the webs are assumed
to act as simple bending elements and, as a result, any possible
shear lag in the webs is effectively neglected. Although methods that neglected shear lag in webs are acceptable for bridge
decks that nonnally have flanges wider than webs, they may
not be applicable to shear/core walls whose webs can be much
wider than flanges. It is, therefore, necessary to have a new
method that is easy to use and yet capable of taking into account shear lag in both the webs and flanges for application
to wall structures.
Present Study
Herein, a parametric study on the shearlag phenomenon in
shear/core wall structures is carried out by using finiteelement
analysis. Unlike previous studies that neglected shear lag in
the webs, many layers of elements are used for both the webs
and flanges so that any shear lag in the webs can also be taken
into account. Apart from point loads and unifonnly distributed
loads, triangularly distributed loads, which are quite common
in tall building structures, are also considered. The ultimate
aim is to develop a simple method for estimating the effects
of shear lag in both the webs and flanges of shear/core wall
structures.
PARAMETRIC STUDY USING FINITE ELEMENT
ANALYSIS
FiniteElement Analysis
To study the shear lag phenomenon in wall structures, a
parametric study is carried out by analyzing a number of core
wall models using the finiteelement method. The models are
shown in Fig.. 2(a). Due to symmetry, only half of the core
wall model is analyzed. Very fine element meshes of isoparametric eightnoded quadratic serendipity elements are used
for both the web and flange panels, as illustrated in Fig. 2(b).
Twenty layers of elements are used in each web or flange panel
(since only half of each flange is included in the analysis for
taking advantage of symmetry, 10 layers of elem~nts are used
in each half flange). Along the height, there are 60 elements
in each layer which are distributed in such a way that 40 of
them are evenly distributed within the lower half while the
other 20 are distributed within the upper half. The structural
parameters studied are the flange width/web width ratio, the
t
1098/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1996
height/web width ratio, and the height/flange width ratio.. Altogether, 15 models are analyzed.. They are numbered from 1
to 15, and their (web width:flange width:height) ratios are
given in the second column of Tables 13.. The flange width!
web width ratios of the models range from 0.. 33 to 3.. 0, while
the height/half web width and height/half flange width ratios
both range from 3.. 33 to 40.. 0 . On the other hand, the web and
flange panels are assumed to have the same and constant thickness along the height of the structure, and the Poisson ratio is
taken to be 0.. 25 throughout. Three loading cases, namely point
load at top, uniformly distributed load, and triangularly distributed load, are considered. The loads are applied laterally
20 ale.ents
1n upper
halt
H
40 elements
1n lover
half
Ca)
FIG. 2. Core Wall Model: (a) General Layout; (b) Half Model
Analyzed by FiniteElement Method
TABLE 1.
FiniteElement Results (Point Load at Top)
Shearlag Shearlag
coefficient coefficient
Model
number
(1)
2a:2b:H
(2)
(3)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
3:1:5
3:1:10
3:1:20
2:1:5
2:1:10
2:1:20
1:1:5
1:1:10
1:1:20
1:2:5
1:2:10
1:2:20
1:3:5
1:3:10
1:3:20
0.386
0..209
0.. 102
0.301
0.151
0.. 065
0.. 175
0.075
0.035
0..202
0.094
0.. 042
0.222
0.. 107
0.049
TABLE 2.
Model
number
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
<X
{4)
Stress
factor at
fixed end
(5)
Deflection
factor at
free end
(6)
0.. 313
0.163
0.073
0.290
0.150
0.069
0.267
0.139
0.064
0.427
0.253
0.. 128
0.. 538
0..345
0.. 191
1.299
1..139
1..060
1..255
1.116
1.049
1..221
1..101
1.044
1..432
1..215
1.098
1.657
1..331
1.. 159
1..017
1.006
1.002
1.015
1.005
1.. 002
1.014
1.004
1.002
1.071
1.018
1.004
1.. 162
1.043
1.010
FiniteElement Results (Uniformly Distributed Load)
Stress
Shearlag Shearlag
coefficient coefficient factor at
a.
fixed end
2a:2b:H
13
(4)
(5)
(3)
(2)
3:1:5
3:1:10
3:1:20
2:1:5
2:1:10
2:1:20
1:1:5
1:1:10
1:1:20
1:2:5
1:2:10
1:2:20
1:3:5
1:3:10
1:3:20
0.. 533
0..307
0.. 146
0..425
0.220
0..090
0.. 248
0.. 110
0.. 048
0.. 273
0.128
0.. 057
0.. 297
0.144
0.. 066
0.431
0.233
0.104
0..415
0.. 216
0.100
0.384
0.202
0.096
0..588
0.370
0.. 191
0.707
0..489
0.. 281
1.470
1..217
1..089
1..412
1.179
1..072
1.355
1.156
1.068
1.. 724
1..353
1..155
2.. 100
1.552
1.256
Deflection
factor at
free end
(6)
1..022
1.. 008
1.003
1.020
1..006
1..003
1..018
1..005
1.003
1.. 080
1.021
1..005
1.. 185
1.046
1.012
TABLE 3.
FiniteElement Results (Triangularly Distributed
Load)
Model
number
(1 )
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Deflection
factor at
free end
(6)
Stress
Shearlag She~rIag
coefficient coefficient factor at
2a:2b:H
fixed end
a
~
(2)
(5)
(4)
(3)
1.399
3:1:5
0.385
0.478
1.183
3:1:10
0.203
0.267
1.077
3:1:20
0.093
0.126
1.343
2:1:5
0.362
0.378
1.152
2:1:10
0.188
0.193
1.062
2:1:20
0.089
0.075
1.299
1:1:5
0.339
0.218
1.131
1:1:10
0.175
0.094
1.059
1:1:20
0.085
0.042
1.608
1:2:5
0.531
0.247
1.295
1:2:10
0.325
0.114
1.131
1:2:20
0.166
0.050
1.912
1:3:5
0.650
0.267
1.466
1:3:10
0.437
0.130
1.214
1:3:20
0.245
0.059
1.020
1.007
1.003
1.018
1.006
1.002
1.0.16
1.005
1.002
1.077
1.020
1.005
1.177
1.045
1.011
to the web panels in their inplane directions. Twisting of the
channelshaped structure (half of the .core wall model) is prevented by restraining the free edges of the half flanges (line
of symmetry of the flange panels) from moving horizontally
in the inplane direction. The base of the model is assumed to
be perfectly fixed.
Numerical Results
The axialstress distributions in the web and flange panels
of a typical model, model 7, which has a flange width/web
width ratio of 1.0 and height/half web width and height/half
flange width ratios equal to 10.0, are shown in Fig. 3, from
y
18014
Eqn. (2)
flange
....x
flange
web
r Inl te
FIG. 3.
elellant rewl t
Axial Stress Distribution at Base of Model 7
which it can be seen that significant shear lag occurs in both
the web and flange panels.
The degree of shear lag varies among the models and is
dependent on the loading case. To allow detailed study of the
shear lag phenomenon, it is proposed to measure shear lag in
the web and flange panels in terms of the dimensionless shear
lag coefficients, Ctand (3, whose definitions are depicted in
Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. These shearlag coefficients were
first proposed by the writer and had been applied to shear lag
analysis of framed tube structures in an earlier paper (Kwan
1994). From Fig. 4, which shows the distribution of axial
stress across the web panel, it can be seen that when the degree
of shear lag is small, the distribution of axial stress across the
web panel is approximately linear..;..but when the degree of
shear lag is large, the axial stress near the centroidal axis of
the panel would significantly lag behind that given by a linear
distribution leading to a reduction in the gradient of the stress
distribution curve at the center in such a way that the larger
the shear lag, the greater the reduction. Hence, the reduction
in gradient of the stressdistribution curve at the center of the
panel may be taken as a measure of the degree of shear lag
in the web. The proposed shearlag coefficient a is defined
mathematically as the fractional reduction in the gradient of
the axial stress distribution curve at the center of the web
compared to that of a straight line with zero stress at the center
of the web and the same maximum stress at the webflange
junction (note that the straight line with zero stress at the center of the web and the same maximum stress at the webflange
junction is not the same as the stress distribution obtained
without considering the shearlag effects because negligence
of shear lag would lead to a different value of maximum
stress). Similarly, from Fig. 5 which shows the distribution of
axial stress across the flange panel, it can be seen that when
the degree of shear lag is small, the distribution of axial stress
across the flange panel is approximately uniformbut when
the degree of shear lag is large, the axial stress near the centroidal axis uf lhe:: panel would lag behind that given by a
unifonn distribution leading to a significant reduction in stress
at the. center in such a way that the larger the shear lag, the
greater the reduction. Hence, the reduction in stress at the center of the panel may be taken as a measure of the degree of
shear lag in the flange. The proposed shearlag coefficient ~
is defined mathematically as the fractional reduction in the
axial stress at the center of the flange compared to the maximum stress at the wehflange junction (note that this maximum
stress is the maximum stress obtained with shearlag effects
allowed for, not the maximum stress obtained without considering the shearlag effects). These two shear lag coefficients
are dimensionless and are therefore not dependent on the units
used. When shear lag is small, the shearlag coefficients would
webflange
junction
webflange
junction
}
ct (0"
Iv
gradient
reduced due
to shear lag
_I~
}
a
~
a
,lIL
Ca}
FIG. 4.
a
(b)
a)
}
'l
(e)
Axial Stress Distributions In Web Panels Illustrating Definition of a: (a) Small Shear Lag; (b) Large Shear Lag; (c) Definition of
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1996/1099
.GDiP?i
web~
flange
Junction
~ I
stress
reduced due
to shear lag
Ca)
FIG. 5.
afp
Junction
D:t::sJ I
J )
\leb
flange
(e)
(b)
Axial Stress Distributions in Flange Panels Illustrating Definition of~: (a) Small Shear Lag; (b) Large Shear Lag; (c) Definition
be close to zero, and when shear lag is large, they would be
close to unity.
The finiteelement results show that the values of Ct and f3
vary along the height of the wall structures and are generally
greatest at the bases, Le., the fixed ends, of .the structures.
Therefore, the shear lag effects are most critical at the bases.
The values of a and 13 at the bases of the models, as determined from the finiteelement results, are given in the third
and fourth columns of Tables 13. From these results, it can
be seen that ex is dependent mainly on the heightlhalf web
width ratio, while 13 is dependent mainly on the heightlhalf
flange width ratio. When the heighttawidth ratios of the panels are small, the values of a and f3 can be as large as or even
larger than 0.5 and 0.7, respectively. Comparing the shearlag
coefficients under different load cases, it can also be seen that
the importance of shear lag increases in the order of point load
case, triangularly distributed load case, and uniformly. distributed load case.
Regarding the axialstress distributions in the web panels,
most researchers neglected the shear lag in the webs and assumed a linear distribution of axial stresses across the width
of the webs, except Coull and Bose (1975) and Kwan (1994),
who considered shear lag in the webs and assumed that the
deviation of the axial stresses in the webs from linear distributions can be expressed as thirdorderpolynomial functions.
The present finiteelement results, however, reveal that the deviation of the axial stresses in the webs from linear distributions may be more accurately represented by fifthorder polynomials. In Fig. 3, a fifthorderpolynomial curve, whose
equation is given by
is plotted on the web panel alongside the finiteelement results
to demonstrate the close agreement between the axial stress
distribution in the web panel and the fifthorder polynomial.
Regarding the axial stress distributions in the flanges, the
stress distributions across the width of the flanges were approximated as secondorderpolynomial curves by Coull and
Bose (1975), Coull and Abu EI Magd (1980), and Kwan
(1994); as thirdorderpolynomial curves by Evans and
Taherian (1977); and as fourthorder polynomial curves by
Moffatt and Dowling (1975). Hence, there is no agreement
between the different researchers on the stress distribution in
the flange panels. The present finiteelement results indicate
that the stress distributions in the flange panels lie somewhere
between a thirdorder polynomial and a fowthorder polynomial, but are generally closer to a fourthorder polynomial. A
fourthorder polynomial curve, whose equation is given by
CT/(Y) =
el..
[(l  /3) + /3 (~r]
(2)
is plotted on the flange panel alongside the finiteelement results in Fig. 3 to demonstrate how close the axialstress distribution in the flange panel is to a fourthorder polynomial.
Shear lag increases the axial stresses at the webflange junctions and the lateral deflections of the structure. Such effects
may be quantified in terms of a stress factor As and a deflection
factor Ad as follows:
A .r 
axial stress at webflange junction with shear lag
axial stress at webflange junction without shear lag
lateral deflection with shear lag
Ad
= lateral deflection without shear lag
(3)
4
( )
Since the axial stresses are largest at the fixed ends while the
lateral deflections are largest at the free ends, the stress factors
at the fixed ends and the deflection factors at the free ends are
more important than those at other locations, and they are tabulated in the last two columns of Tables 13. From the tabulated results, it can be. seen that in the worst case of a short
and wide wall structure subjected to uniformly distributed lateral loads, the stress factor at the fixed end can be larger than
2.0. The stress factor qecreases as the height of the structure
increases, and when the height/half web width and heightJhalf
flange width ratios are both greater than 40.0, the increase in
bending stress due to shear lag becomes insignificant. On the
other hand, the effects of shear lag on lateral deflections are
generally much smaller. The increase in lateral deflection due
to shear lag would become negligible when the heightlhalf
flange width ratio is greater than 10.0.
Comparison with Others' Results
The stress factors obtained from the present parametric
study are compared to those obtained by Moffatt and
Dowling's method (1975) and by Evans and ):aherian's
method (1980) in Tables 4 and 5 for the load cases of point
load at top and uniformly distributed load, respectively. There
are no existing results for triangularly distributed loads and,
thus, no similar comparison can be made for this load case.
Moffatt and Dowling's (1975) results were obtained by finiteelement analysis, while Evans and Taherian's (1980) results
were obtained by the threebar method. In both Moffatt and
Dowling's (1975) results and Evans and Taherian's (1980) results, the effects of any shear lag in the webs were neglected.
Comparison of the present results with these" existing results
reveals that when the flange width/web width ratio is equal to
or greater than 2, there is very close agreement in the stress
1100 I JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING I SEPTEMBER 1996
.:~ .... ::,..~
'$J~~
.~ ~" ... 1....'/"
: .. ~:
.'P
TABLE 4.
Top)
Comparison with Others' Results (Point Load at
Stress Factor at Fixed End
(3)
Present
analysis
(4)
Moffatt and
Dowling
(1975)
(5)
Evans and
Taherian
(1980)
(6)
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/2
1/2
1/2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1.299
1.139
1.060
1.255
1.116
1.049
1.221
1.101
1.044
1.432
1.215
1.098
1.657
1.331
1.159
1.111
1.064
1.036
1.136
1.078
1.044
1.176
1.099
1.055
1.394
1.207
1.110
1.631
1.321
1.168
1.056
1.028
1.014
1.075
1.038
1.019
1.119
1.059
1.030
1.359
1.179
1.090
1.675
1.338
1.169
Model
number
(1)
2a:2b:H
(2)
bla
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 .
14
15
3:1:5
3:1:10
3:1:20
2:1:5
2:1:10
2:1:20
1:1:5
1:1:10
1:1:20
1:2:5
1:2:10
1:2:20
1:3:5
1:3:10
1:3:20
TABLE 5. Comparison with Others' Results (Uniformly Distributed Load)
Stress Factor at Fixed End
Model
number
(1 )
2a:2b:H
(2)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
3:1:5
3:1:10
3:1:20
2:1:5
2:1:10
2:1:20
1:1:5
1:1:10
1:1:20
1:2:5
1:2:10
1:2:20
1:3:5
1:3:10
1:3:20
bla
(3)
Present
analysis
(4)
Moffat and
Dowling
(1975)
(5)
Evans and
Taherian
(1980)
(6)
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/2
1/2
1/2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1.470
1.217
1.089
1.412
1.179
1.072
1.355
1.156
1.068
1.724
1.353
1.155
2.100
1.552
1.256
1.190
1.099
1.058
1.238
1.121
1.071
1.316
1.156
1.090
1.699
1.378
1.182
2.092
1.562
1.290
1.106
1.054
1.028
1.143
1.073
1.037
1.228
1.116
1.059
1.674
1.348
1.177
2.249
1.650
1.331
factors. When the flange width/web width ratio is less than 2,
however, the stress factors obtained by the present finiteelementanalysis are significantly higher than those obtained by
Moffatt and Dowling's (1975) method or by Evans and
Taherian's (1980) method. Such discrepancies may be attributed to shear lag in the webs. From the differences in stress
factors when the flange width/web width ratio is small, it can
be seen that shear lag in the webs can contribute to a further
increase in maximum bending stress of more than 20% when
the webs are short and wide.
SIMPLIFIED METHOD FOR PRACTICAL DESIGN
APPLICATIONS
Estimation of Shear Lag Coefficients
The .shearjag .coefficients, a and 13, are plotted against Hla
and Rib, respectively, for. the three loading cases in Figs. 68. From the plotted results, it can be clearly seen that a. is
dependent mainly on Hla, while 13 is dependent mainly on HI
b.The ratio bla does affect the values of ex and ~, but its
effects are gener~lly. mi?or. As et and J3 define the shapes of
the axialstress. dls~butlons, it may be said that the shape of
the shear lagged axIal stress distribution in an individual web
.._" .... _ .. .....
:
....::...~.:_
.. .
0.& , . .                      
bI.IIJ
TABLE 6.
Fixed End
0.6
Empirical Formulas for Shear Lag Coefficients at
Shear lag
coefficient
Load
bfaI
004
case
ex
(1 )
(2)
Point load at top
ex=
Prq:loI:cd
1DnnuIa
Uniformly distributed
load
Triangularly distributed load
0.2
Shear lag
coefficient
J)
(3)
1.50
1.00
+ 0.76
1.25
(Hla)
1.59
ex=
1.00 + 0.54 (Hla)
1.56
ex=
1.00 + 0.62 (Hla)
J)
= 1.00 + 0.37
(Hlb)
1.31
J) = 1.00 + 0.24 (Hlb)
1.29
J) = 1.00 + 0.28 (Hlb)
O+++lif
10
20
30
40
Hla
0.1.,..
P
blall3
blplJ2
blpl
Point Load at Top
0.6
Model
number
(1)
a blP2
o bla=a3
0.4
Prq:loI:cd
formula
0.2
0+++~14
20
10
30
40
BIb
FIG. 8.
Values of a and
IJ for Triangularly Distributed Load
or flange panel is quite independent of the dimensions of the
other panels.
To simplify the estimation of the shearlag coefficients, it is
proposed to neglect the influence of bla on a. and ~, and take
the values of ex and ~ as those corresponding to the case of
bla = 1.0. Hence, the curves fitting the finiteelement results
for the case of bla = 1.0 may be taken as design charts for the
estimation of ex and ~. Furthermore, to allow quick evaluation
using handheld calculators, formulas for these design charts
are derived by empirically matching the finiteelement results
with different forms of equations. Good matching is found to
be achieved with equations of the following forms:
CI
a=C2 + Hla
TABLE 7. Comparison of Stress Factors at Fixed End Obtained by Proposed Formulas with Those by FiniteElement
Analysis
Finiteelement
analysis
(2)
1
2
3
4
1.299
1.139
1.060
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1.116
1.049
1.221
1.101
1.044
1.432
1.215
1.098
1.657
1.331
15
1.159
1.2S5
Uniformly Distributed
Load
Proposed
formulas
(3)
Finiteelement
analysis
(4)
Proposed
formulas
(5)
1.295
1.149
1.075
1.249
1.125
1.063
1.226
1.114
1.057
1.460
1.235
1.119
1.704
1.361
1.183
1.470
1.217
1.089
1.412
1.179
1.072
1.355
1.156
1.068
1.724
1.353
1.155
2.100
1.552
1.256
1.462
1.233
1.117
1.394
1.198
1.099
1.363
1.183
1.092
1.749
1.379
1.191
2.166
1.589
1.296
Triangularly
Distributed Load
Finiteelement
analysis
(6)
Proposed
formulas
(7)
1.399
1.183
1.077
1.343
1.152
1.062
1.299
1.131
1.059
1.608
1.295
1.131
1.912
1.466
1.214
1.390
1.197
1.099
1.332
1.167
1.084
1.306
1.154
1.078
1.630
1.319
1.161
1.971
1.494
1.250
for simplicity, that (j w and CTf can be approximated by (1) and
(2). Substitution into (7) and then integration yields
0'",[(4/3)t",a2 (1  4na.)
4tf ab(1  4/5~)] = M
(8)
From this equation, the maximum bending stress is obtained
as
Ma
(9)
where I w and I, are given by
I w = (4/3)tw a 3
(5)
(10)
(11)
(6)
where Cl to C4 = unknown coefficients to be determined. The
empirical formulas so derived are tabulated in Table 6, and
plotted in Figs. 68 to demonstrate their close agreement with
the finiteelement results.
and are actually the moment of inertia of the webs and flanges
when there is no shear lag. The effects of shear lag are now
clear. Shear lag in the webs causes reduction of the effective
moment of inertia of the webs to 1  O.57a. times the original
value, while shear lag in the flanges causes reduction of the
effective moment of inertia of the flanges by a factor of 1
0.80(3. From (9), the stress factor is evaluated as
Estimation of Stress Factors
The bending stresses are governed by the following momentequilibrium equation:
f:a
2tw CTw X dx
f:'
2r,CT,a dy = M
(7)
in which t w and ~ = thickness of web and flange panels; and
M = bending moment acting on section. It may be assumed,
1102/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1996
As
[w + I,
=~[w(1  0.57a) + [,(I  0.80~)
(12)
The stress factors so evaluated by using the empirical formulas
given in Table 6 and the prior equation are compared with
those obtained by finiteelement analysis in Table 7. It is seen
that within the range of parameters studied, the stress factors
evaluated by the proposed fonnulas differ by, at most, a few
percent from those by finiteelement analysis. Hence, the pro
; ;;
~_
20
posed formulas are considered sufficiently accurate for practical applications.
fa
tf
10
ANALYSES
III
It
III
180 JcH/1i
load
(b)
II
3.62 HPa
90 leN/,.
3.62 HPa
\leb
{lanalt
Ca)
(e)
FIG. 9. Example: (a) Core Wall SUbjected to Wind Load; (b)
Cross Section; (e) Axial Stress at Base As Obtained by FiniteElement Analysis
high accuracy, the variation of thickness with height may be
neglected in the evaluation of the degree of shear lag at the
base.
The value of Poisson ratio used in the analysis would also
affect the numerical results for the shearlag effects. There is,
however, the problem of what Poisson ratio should be used in
the analysis. Concrete has a Poisson ratio under static load of
0.150.20, but an average Poisson ratio under dynamic load
of about 0.24 (Neville 1981). The presence of reinforcement
affects the Poisson ratio, too. Although reinforced concrete is
not homogeneous, it is often treated as a homogeneous material with equivalent properties in order to simplify the structural analysis. This can be done by smearing the reinforcement
across the concrete section and taking the effective Young's
modulus E of the reinforced concrete as
E = (1  p)Ec
pE.r
(13)
where Ec and E.r = Young's moduli of concrete and steel, respectively; and p = reinforcement ratio. However, since reinforced concrete walls can be deformed in shear without straining the horizontal and vertical reinforcement, the effective
shear modulus G should be unaffected and remain the same
as that of plain' concrete. For compatibility, the effective Pois..
son ratio of the reinforced concrete needs to be taken as that
evaluated' by
2(1+ v) = EIG
Limits of Applications
In the present study, homogeneous, isotropic walls of constant thickness and a Poisson ratio of 0.25 have been assumed.
Because of the assumption made regarding homogeneity,
the proposed method should not be applied to precast concretepanel structures whose joints, as planes of weakness, could
render the structural behavior quite different from that of homogeneous walls.
Theoretically, anisotropy in reinforced concrete walls due to
differences in horizontal and vertical reinforcement could affect the stress distributions. But, as the lateral stresses in the
walis are normally quite small compared to the longitudinal
stresses, it is unlikely that the Young's modulus in the lateral
direction would significantly affect the overall. structural behavior. Thus, the effects of anisotropy may be neglected and
the present results should be applicable to reinforced concrete
walls albeit they may not be entirely isotropic.
Strictly speaking, variation of wall thickness with height
may affect the shearlag .phenomenon. Nevertheless, since
shear lag is basically a localstressconcentration .problem at
the lower part of the wall structure, it is anticipated' that the
wall thickness at. the upper part of the structure would not
significantly affect the shear lag at the base where it is most
critical. Therefore, for preliminary designs that do not require
:: thickness
ft or vall.
::  0.3 III
ft
Of
If
50
In actual practice, the applied lateral loads are never as simple as the three loading cases considered. Nevertheless, for the
purpose of estimating the shearlag coefficients, the actual
loading case may be approximated, by exercising engineering
judgment, as one of the three loading cases studied. An example of a core wall subjected to wind loads is given in Fig.
9. In this case, the applied loads consist of several uniformly
distributed loads of increasingly larger intensity at greater
height. Although the loads are not distributed as in any of the
three loading cases studied, the load distribution is treated, for
the purpose of estimating a. and ~, as a triangular distribution.
Using the proposed formulas for the triangularly distributed
load case, the values of a. and (3 at the base of the core wall
are evaluated as 0.380 and 0.339, respectively. The bending
moment acting at the base of the core wall is then calculated
from the actual load distribution as 264.4 MNm. Finally, the
maximum bending stress at the base is obtained by using (9)
as 3.52 MPa. For comparison, finiteelement analysis of the
core wall using the actual load distribution is carried out and
the bending stress results are shown in Fig. 9(c). The maximum bending stress obtained by finiteelement analysis is 3.62
MPa, which is very close to that evaluated previously by hand
calculation.
Moffatt and Dowling (1975) suggested that for bridges, if
the applied loads are type HA or HB vehicle loads, as defined
in British Standard BS5400 ("Steel" 1978), for the .purpose
of estimating the reduced effective widths of the flanges due
to shear lag, a uniformly distributed load case may be assumed. For buildings, a' similar assumption may be made. If
the applied loads are wind loads whose distribution is similar
to that in the previous example, then a triangularly distributed
load case may be assumed in the evaluation of the shearlag
coefficients. When the load distribution lies between unifonnand triangular distributions, then the mean value of the shearlag coefficients for uniformly and triangularly distributed load
cases may be used.
III
U l o a d
5IU
270 kN/1ll
Load Case
20
(14)
from which a higher Poisson ratio than that of plain .concrete
would be obtained. For typical walls cast of concrete having
a Poisson ratio of 0.150.20 and with 0.31.2% reinforcement provided, the effective Poisson ratio ranges from 0.18 to
0.30. Under dynamic load, the Poisson ratio would be slightly
higher. In actual engineering practice, however, it is not really
necessary to be so precise in the evaluation of the Poisson
ratio. For most applications, it should be sufficiently accurate
to just use an average value of 0.25 regardless of the amount
of reinforcement provided, whether the load is static or dynamic.
CONCLUSIONS
A parametric study of the shearlag phenomenon in shearl
core wall structures has been carried out by analyzing a number of core wall models with.the finite.;.element method. In the
study, shear lag in allthe web and flange panels is taken into
account, and the load cases considered include point. load at
top, unifonnly distributed load, and triangularly distributed
loads.
The numerical results showed that (1) the degree of shear
lag in a cantilevered wall structure varies along the height and
is generally greatest at the fixed end; (2) the. axial stress disJOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING I SEPTEMBER 1996/1103
tributions across the widths of the web and flange panels can
be described approximately by polynomials of fifth and fourth
order, respectively; (3) the importance of shear lag increases
in the order of point load case, triangularly distributed load
case, and uniformly distributed load case; and (4) the effects
of shear lag in the web panels can be quite significant when
the web panels are relatively short and wide, and hence, it
should be prudent to also take into account the effects of any
shear lag in the webs.
Detailed analysis of the shearlag phenomenon revealed that
the degree of shear lag in an individual web or flange panel,
measured in tenns of the dimensionless shearlag coefficients
a or J3, is dependent mainly on the height/width ratio of the
panel. Plotting the shearlag c;oefficients against the heightJ
width ratios of the panels and matching the numerical results
with empirical equations of different forms, design charts and
empirical formulas for estimating the shearlag coefficients are
produced. A simple equation for evaluating the increase in
maximumbending stress due to shear lag in both the web and
flange panels is also derived. Comparison with the finiteelement. results confirmed that the proposed formulas are sufficiently accurate for practical applications. A numerical example has also been presented to demonstrate the ease of
application of the proposed formulas.
APPENDIX I.
REFERENCES
AbdelSayed, G. (1969). ""Effective width of steel deckplate in bridges."
J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 95(7), 14591474.
Connor, J. J., and Pouangare, C. C. (1991). ""Simple model for design of
framedtube structures." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 117(12), 3623
3644.
Coull, A., and Abu EI Magd, S. A. (1980). Analysis of wideflanged
shearwall structures." Reinforced concrete structures subjected to wind
and earthquake forces, ACI Spec. Publ. 63, Paper No. SP6323, Concrete Institute, Detroit, Mich., 575 607.
Coull, A., and Bose, B. (1975). "'Simplified analysis of frametube structures." J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 101(11), 22232240.
DeFriesSkene, A., and Scordelis, A. C. (1964). "'Direct stiffness solution
for folded plates." J. Struct. Div., ASCE, Vol. 90(4), 1548.
Evans, H. R., and Taherian, A. R. (1977). '''The prediction of shear lag
effect in box girder." froc., Ins tn. Civ. Engrs., Part 2, 63, Thomas
Telford Services Ltd., London, 6992.
Evans, H. R., and Taherian, A. R. (1980). ""A design aid for shear lag
calculations." Proc., Instn. Civ. Engrs., Part 2, 69, Thomas Telford
Services Ltd., London, 403 424.
Kristek, V. (1979). ""Folded plate approach to analysis of shear wall systems and frame structures." Proc., Instn. Civ. Engrs., Part 2, 67,
Thomas Telford Services Ltd., London, 1065 1075.
Kristek, V. (1983). "Chapter 6: Shear lag in box girders." Plated
U
1104 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1996
structuresstability and strength, R. Narayanan, ed., Applied Science
Publishers, London and New York, N.Y., 165194.
Kristek. V. and Skaloud, M. (1991). Advanced analysis and design of
plated structuresDevelopments in Civil Engineering 32. Elsevier Science Publishing Co. Inc., New York., N.Y.
Kwan, A. K. H. (1994). "Simple method for approximate analysis of
framed tube structures. u J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 120(4), 12211239.
Moffa~ K. R., and Dowling. P. J. (1975). "Shear lag in steel box girder
bridges." Struet. Engrg., 53(10), 439448.
Neville, A. M. (1981). "Chapter 6: Elasticity. shrinkage and creep."
Properties of concrete. Longman Scientific and Tech. Ser., Longman
Group U.K. Ltd. Essex, England, 359432.
Song, Q., and Scordelis, A. C. (1990a). hFonnulas for shearlag effect
of T, 1 and box beams." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 116(5), 13061318.
Song. Q., and Scordelis A. C. (1990b). "'Shear lag analysis of T, 1 and
box beams:' J. Struct. Engrg., 116(5), 12901305.
"Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges." (1978). BS5400, British Standards Instn., London.
Taherian, A. R., and Evans, H. R. (1977). uThe bar simulation method
for the calculation of shear lag in multicell and continuous box girders." Proc., lnsm. Civ. Engrs., Part 2, 63 Thomas Telford Services
Ltd., London, 881897.
9
APPENDIX II.
NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this paper:
a = half width of web panel;
b = half width of flange panel;
C, = coefficients;
E = effective Young's modulus;
Ec = Young's modulus of plain concrete;
E s = Young's .modulus of steel reinforcement;
G = shear modulus of concrete;
H = height of wall;
IJ = moment of inertia of flange;
I w = moment of inertia of web;
M = bending moment;
~ = thickness of flange;
tw = thickness of web;
a = shear lag coefficient of web panel;
~ = shear lag coefficient of flange panel;
Ad = deflection factor as defined by (4);
AI = stress factor as defined by (3);
v = Poisson's ratio;
p = reinforcement ratio;
a', = axial stress in flange panel;
am = axial stress at webflange junction (maximum stress in section); and
a'w = axial stress in web panel.
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.