See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235975701

Practical Approach to Shear Wall Frame Interaction considering Foundation

Compliance

Conference Paper · February 2008

CITATION READS

1 1,559

2 authors:

Jitendra Pratap Singh Indrajit Chowdhury

Independent Researcher Independent Researcher
20 PUBLICATIONS   36 CITATIONS    56 PUBLICATIONS   187 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Blast Resistant Design of RC Buildings in Oil & Gas Industry View project

Seismic response of rectangular liquid retaining structures resting on ground considering coupled soil-structure interaction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jitendra Pratap Singh on 31 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Challenges and Applications of Mathematical Modeling Techniques
in Building Science and Technology (CAM2TBST), February 7-8, 2008,
Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee, India

PRACTICAL APPROACH TO SHEAR WALL FRAME

INTERACTION CONSIDERING FOUNDATION COMPLIANCE

J.P. Singh and Indrajit Chowdhury

Petrofac International Ltd., Sharjah, UAE

ABSTRACT

RCC Shear walls are an important structural component that absorbs lateral force induced in
high rise buildings under earthquake and wind loads. A number of approximate techniques
exist for analysis of such shear walls (under lateral load) for practical engineering application.
Detailed three dimensional model of such shear wall and frame interaction analysis is also
possible through computer. However, considering the intense computational and modeling
effort required for such analysis, is still not an often happenstance except for some very
critical structures. Equivalent two dimensional analysis considering fixed base is still the most
popular practice in design offices around the country, though it is well acknowledged that
ignoring the soil effect possibly gives a conservative design in many cases.

The present paper proposes a method based on which it is possible to carry out analysis of
such shear wall frame system considering the foundation compliance effect in two dimensions
which is mostly deemed sufficient for such analysis. The column frame stiffness is derived
based on standard shear frame theory while the bending and shear deformation stiffness of the
Shear wall is derived based on an improved Rayleigh Ritz technique. This combined stiffness
of the superstructure is then coupled to the foundation by a technique based on a modified
method for multi degree freedom, for a coupled soil structure interaction analysis. A detailed
dynamic analysis considering foundation compliance is carried out to determine the Moments
and Shears in the wall and compared to fixed base case as well as a detailed 3D analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Shear walls play an important role on limiting the horizontal drift of high rise buildings under
lateral load like wind or earthquake. In spite of its popularity in diminishing the lateral
deflection and economizing the column section design, analytical basis of such shear walls
have more or less remain unaltered since early 1960 till present date [1, 2 & 3].
For dynamic analysis, time period calculation of such shear wall framed building the normal
practice has been either to follow the empirical relationships as furnished in code [4] like
T = 0.09H/ D where H= Height of the building and D its width, or follow a detailed three
dimensional space frame analysis [5] where the cost of computation becomes quite high even
for a fixed base analysis. Considering the soil foundation compliance which can have a
significant influence on the dynamic response makes this computationally still more
expensive and has generically developed apathy among professional engineers to carry out
 CAM2TBST-2008, C.B.R.I. Roorkee, India

such analysis though it is well acknowledged that dynamic soil structure interaction (DSSI)
effect can well influence its design.
Present paper proposes a semi analytical method based on which many of the deficiencies as
cited above can be overcome and also does a parametric study of how DSSI affects the
overall response of such shear wall cum framed structure.

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE

1
Plan View of the frame Sec-1-1

Fig. 1 Plan view and Section of a typical shear wall framed structure

Shown in Fig-1 is the plan and sectional view of a typical five (N=5) storied building
consisting shear wall framed structure. Let n be the number of columns in the building and m
be the number of shear wall in the building. Now considering Jc as the moment of inertia of
n m
the individual columns and Jw as the inertia of the walls we have I c = ∑
i =1
J c and I w = ∑J
i =1
w .

The building as shown in Fig-1 can be mathematically modeled as shown hereafter.

V1 = VI c /( I w + I c )
K5 EI → ∞ (typ) V 2 = VI w /( I w + I c )

K4 Rigid Links
H EIC K3 EIW

Z K2

h K1
X
V V1 V2

Fig. 2 Mathematical Model of Shear Wall and Frame

10
 CAM2TBST-2008, C.B.R.I. Roorkee, India

Based on Fig. 2, stiffness matrix of the columns only can be considered as

⎡ K1 + K 2 −K2 0 0 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ − K2 K 2 + K3 − K3 0 0 ⎥
[K c ] = ⎢ 0 − K3 K3 + K 4 − K4 0 ⎥ (1)
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 − K4 K 4 + K5 − K5 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 − K5 K5 ⎥⎦
⎣

where Kc= Stiffness of columns and K1=K2=…. K5= 12EIc/h3

Potential energy of the shear wall under external force under combined shear and flexure can
be considered as [6]
H H 2
2
1 ⎡ d 2v ⎤ 1 ⎡ dv ⎤
∏p =
0
2 ∫
EI w ⎢ 2 ⎥ + ηGAw ⎢ ⎥
⎣ dz ⎦ 0
2 ⎣ dz ⎦ ∫ (2)

Here E= Young’s modulus of concrete, G= Shear modulus of concrete [E/2(1+ν)], Aw = Area

of wall η = a correction factor for shear deformation and v is the displacement considered as
v = φ(z).q(t) , where φ (z) is the admissible function and q(t) is displacement with respect to
time. For the potential energy equation as shown in Eq. (2), it can be proved [7] that the
stiffness matrix of the shear wall that behaves as a cantilever beam can be expressed as
H H
[K ]w = ∫ EI wφi′′φ ′j′dz + ∫ ηGAψ i′ψ ′j dz (3)
0 0

μm z ⎛ μ z μm zμ z⎞
Where φ ( z ) = sin − α m ⎜ cos m − cosh m ⎟
− sinh (4)
H H ⎝ H H ⎠
2m − 1
μ m = 1.875, 4.694,7.855, π For m, n=1, 2, 3……..N (5)
2
sin μ m + sinh μ m (2n − 1)πz
αm = and ψ ( z ) = sin (6)
cos μ m + cosh μ m 2H
Double and single differentiation of Eqs. (4) and (6) respectively gives

μi 2 ⎡ μi z μz ⎛ μz μ z ⎞⎤
φ i′′( z ) = ⎢− sin
2
− sinh i + α i ⎜ cos i + cosh i ⎟⎥ and (7)
H ⎣ H H ⎝ H H ⎠⎦

(2n − 1)π (2n − 1)πz

ψ ′( z ) = cos (8)
2H 2H
Substituting Eqs. (7) and (8) in Eq. (3) and subsequent integration will give the stiffness
matrix of the wall. However before performing such integration the local co-ordinates are to
be converted to general co-ordinates as follows
z dz
Considering ξ = when dξ = and as z → 0, ξ → 0 and as z → H , ξ → 1 based on
H H
above we can now express Eqs. (7) and (8) as

μi 2 2
F ′′(ξ )i = 2
[− sin μ i ξ − sinh μ i ξ + α i (cos μ i ξ + cosh μ i ξ )] = μ i 2 f i′′(ξ ) (9)
H H
( 2n − 1)π ( 2n − 1)πξ
ψ ′(ξ ) = cos (10)
2H 2

Thus, the flexural stiffness matrix of the wall can be expressed as

11
 CAM2TBST-2008, C.B.R.I. Roorkee, India

⎡ 1 ⎤
⎢ 1 1 ∫
⎢ μ 4 f ′′(ξ ) 2 Symmetrica
l ⎥
⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ 1 1 ⎥
∫
⎢μ 2 μ 2 f ′′(ξ ) f ′′(ξ ) μ2 4
∫ f ′′(ξ) ⎥
2
2 1 2 1 2
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 ⎥
EI ⎢ 1 1 1 ⎥
[K]wf ∫
= w ⎢μ32 μ12 f 3′′(ξ ) f1′′(ξ ) μ32 μ22
∫ f 3′′(ξ ) f1′′(ξ )
∫
μ34 f 3′′(ξ ) 2 ⎥ (11)
H3 ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 1 1 1 1 ⎥
∫
⎢μ42 μ12 f 4′′(ξ ) f1′′(ξ ) μ4 2 μ2 2
∫ f ′′(ξ) f ′′(ξ) ∫ f ′′(ξ) f ′′(ξ) ∫ f ′′(ξ) ⎥
2 2 4 2
3 1 μ4 μ3 3 1 μ4 4
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 1 1 1 1 1 ⎥
∫
⎢μ52 μ12 f 5′′(ξ ) f1′′(ξ ) μ52 μ22
⎢ ∫ ∫ ∫
f 3′′(ξ ) f1′′(ξ ) μ52 μ32 f 3′′(ξ ) f1′′(ξ ) μ52 μ4 2 f 3′′(ξ ) f1′′(ξ ) μ54
∫ f 5′′(ξ ) 2 ⎥
⎥
⎣ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎦

The Shear deformation stiffness matrix can be expressed as

⎡ 21 ⎤
⎢ π cos2 πξ
⎢ 4 ∫ 2
Symmetrica l ⎥
⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ 2 1 2 1 ⎥
3π 3πξ πξ 9 π 3πξ
⎢
∫ ∫ ⎥
2
cos cos cos
⎢ 4 2 2 4 2 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 1 1 1 ⎥
ηGA⎢ 5π2 5πξ πξ 15π 2 5πξ 3πξ 25π 2 5πξ
[K]ws = ∫
cos cos
∫
cos cos cos2
∫ ⎥ (12)
H ⎢ 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 21 21 21 21 ⎥
7π 7πξ πξ π
21 7πξ 3πξ π
35 7πξ 5πξ 49π 7πξ
⎢
∫ ∫ ∫ ⎥
∫
2
cos cos cos cos cos cos cos
⎢ 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 9π2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 ⎥
9πξ πξ 27π 9πξ 3πξ 45π 9πξ 5πξ π
63 9πξ 7πξ π
81 9πξ
⎢
⎢ 4 ∫
cos cos
2 2 4 2∫
cos cos
2 4
cos cos
2 2 4 ∫ cos cos
2 2 4
cos2
∫ ⎥
2 ⎥ ∫
⎣ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎦
Adding Eqs. (1), (11) and (12) based on displacement compatibility, we finally have the
equivalent stiffness matrix [K]e of the frame-shear-wall system as
[K ]e = [K ]c + [K ]wf + [K ]ws (13)
The values within the parenthesis can be very well integrated numerically when Eq. (13) can
be expressed as

⎡ 24 Sym ⎤ ⎡ 22.94 Sym ⎤

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ −3 ⎥
− 12 24 − 2.48 × 10 468 .04
EI c ⎢ ⎥ EI w ⎢ ⎥
[K ]e = 3 ⎢ 0 − 12 24 ⎥ + ⎢ 5.84 × 10−3 − 0. 11 3813 ⎥+
h ⎢ ⎥ H3 ⎢ −3 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 − 12 24 ⎥ ⎢ 3.95 × 10 0.044 0.573 14620 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 − 12 24⎥⎦ c ⎢ 3.73 × 10−3 − 0.037 − 0.522 0.291 39940⎥
⎣ ⎣ ⎦
(14)
⎡1.234 Sym ⎤
⎢ ⎥
0 11.103
ηGI w ⎢⎢ ⎥
⎥
2 ⎢
0 0 30.84
Hr ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 60.45 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 99.33⎥
⎣ ⎦

Similarly the mass matrix for the system can be obtained from the expression
⎡1 1
⎤
[M ] = W ⎢ f i (ξ ) f j (ξ )dξ + ψ i (ξ)ψ j (ξ )dξ ⎥
∫ ∫ (15)
g ⎢⎣ 0 0 ⎥⎦
Here W= Total Weight of the building

12
 CAM2TBST-2008, C.B.R.I. Roorkee, India

Ignoring the shear deformation effect which is not so profound for tall slender shear wall and
considering T= 2π M K the fundamental time period of building can be thus be expressed
as
WH 3 ⎡ 3 ⎛ Ic ⎞⎤
T = 1.7 ⎢1 + 1.05N ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥ (15a)
EI w g ⎣⎢ ⎝ Iw ⎠⎦⎥

For the complete structure, the eigen value vis a vis time period of the system can be obtained
from the equation

[K ] − [M ]ω 2 = 0 , (16)

where Ti=2π/ωι, where Ti are time periods of the fixed based structure, where i=1,2,3….N.

Consideration of foundation compliance for dynamic soil structure interaction

(DSSI)

The consideration of foundation effect for DSSI is now quite simple. It has been shown [8]
that for multi degree freedom system of order N×N, coupled stiffness of soil and structure
system can be expressed as

[I]N× N
=
[I]N×N + [I]N×N + h 2 N×N [ ] (17)
[K DSSI ]N×N [K e ]N×N K x Kθ
⇒ [FDSSI ]N× N = [Fe ]N× N + [Fx ]N× N + [Fθ ]N× N (18)

Where, [KDSSI ]= equivalent stiffness of the soil structure system; [Ke] =stiffness matrix of the
building as derived earlier vide Eq. (15); Kx= lateral stiffness of the building foundation[9]
3
@ 8G s R x /( 2(1 − ν s ) ; Kθ= rocking stiffness of foundation[9] @ 8G s Rθ / 3(1 − ν s ) ; [h] =
distance of lumped masses from centeroid of the foundation springs;
⎛ n m
⎞ ⎛ n m
⎞
Rx= ⎜⎜ ∑
⎝ 1
A fc +
1
∑
A fw ⎟⎟ π and Rθ = 4 4 ⎜⎜ J fc +
⎠ ⎝ 1 1
∑ ⎠
∑
J fw ⎟⎟ π .Here Gs and νs are dynamic

shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the soil-foundation, Afc = Area of foundation of the
columns, Afw = Area of foundation of the shear walls ,Jfc = Moment of inertia of the column
foundation and Jfw = Moment of inertia of the shear wall foundation.
The damping ratio of combined soil structure system of order N×N [8] can be considered as

[ζ DSSI ]N× N = [K DSSI ]N×N ([ζ e ]N× N [Fe ]N×N + ζ x [Fx ]N× N + ζ θ [Fθ ]N× N ) (19)

where ζ DSSI = equivalent damping ratio of the system; ζ e = damping ratio of the
(7 − 8ν s ) mg 3
building; ζ x = 0.288 / B x ; B x = 3
, m = 0.28 ρ s R x
32(1 − ν s ) ρ s R x
0.375 J θ g 5
ζ θ = 0.15 /((1 + Bθx ) Bθx ) ; Bθx = 3
, J θ = 0.49 ρ s Rθ , ρs = mass density of soil.
ρ s Rθ
Based on Eq. (17) once the coupled stiffness matrix of the soil and the super-structure is
obtained one can adapt Eq. (16) to obtain the time period of the soil-structure system and
then corresponding to the modal damping as obtained from Eq. (19) one can assess the values
of Sa/g from the code for each significant mode.

13
 CAM2TBST-2008, C.B.R.I. Roorkee, India

Calculation of Dynamic Amplitude, Moment and Shear of the Shear wall

The maximum amplitude of displacement is given by [10]

S
v max = κ i β a2 where κ i =
ω
miφi
2
∑
m i φ i , β = ZI 2R ;
i =1
∑ i =1
where [5]; Z= zone factor, I= importance factor and R= response reduction factor.
To determine the amplitude of displacement for the shear walls (this will be same as that of
the columns) for any mode i can be expressed as
2
S ai Ti
vi = κ i β 2
[φi ]TN ×1 [ f m(ξ )]m= N ×1 (20)
4π
Here κ i , S ai , Ti are modal mass participation factor, acceleration and time period
respectively for the ith mode, [φ i ]TN ×1 is the transpose matrix of the mode shape of the system
in ith mode of order N×1( here N=5) and [ f m (ξ )]m =N ×1 are the admissible shape functions as
given in Eq. (4) expressed in terms of general co-ordinates having limit of 0-1.

The Bending moment and Shear along the individual shear wall can now be expressed as Mz
= EI (d2vi/dz2) and Vz = EI (d3vi/dz3) and this gives

[φ i ]TN×1 [μ m 2 f m′′ (ξ )]m = N×1

2
S ai Ti
M i = EJ w κ i β 2 2
(21)
4π H

[φ i ]TN×1 [μ m 3 f m′′′ (ξ )]m = N×1

2
S ai Ti
Vi = EJ w κ i β (22)
4π 2 H 3
Finally the design SRSS values may be obtained from the expression
p p
M SRSS = ∑
i =1
Mi
2
and VSRSS = ∑V
i =1
i
2
(23)

Where p is the number of significant mode (p ≤ N) considered for the analysis

Calculation of Base and Floor shear for the columns

The floor shears Vi can be obtained from the standard expression [10] where for the ith mode
Ln
[Vi ]N×1 = β[M ]N×N [φ i ]N×1 S ai (24)
Mn

Where M n = [φ]N × N [M ][φ]N × N and

T
(25)

L n = [φ]N×N [M ][I]N×N where I = The identity matrix

T
(26)
The base shear Vb is obtained from the expression
⎡ p
⎤
[Vb ] = ⎢∑ Vi ⎥ (27)
⎣⎢ i =1 ⎦⎥
Once the base shear is obtained the shear for individual columns can be obtained from the
expression
Vb J c
[Vbc ] = (28)
Ic + Iw

14
 CAM2TBST-2008, C.B.R.I. Roorkee, India

On deriving Eq. (28) usual procedure may be followed [4] to derive the shear and moments in
columns at individual floors.

OBSERVATIONS

The analytical method presented above has been used as a basis to calculate the moments and
shear in a 5 storied building resting on isolated footing as shown in Fig. 1 having 4.0 m grid
along Y-axes and 6.0 meter grid along X-axes. The total height of building is 18.0m with each
floor height @ 3.6 meter columns are of size 300×300 mm, beam size along Y axes is
300×400 mm and that along X axes is 300×600 mm. The shear walls are 200 mm thick and
4.0 m depth. Live load taken is 2.0 kN/m2 @ 25% at the roof and 50% on other floors, under
earthquake condition. Dead load of partition wall, ceiling plaster etc is 2.5 kN/m2.The slab
thickness is 100mm .The building is located in zone IV as per IS-code. The building is
considered as an ordinary moment resistant frame (OMRF), having 5% modal damping for all
modes. The shear wave velocity of the site is considered as 200 m/sec (soft soil), 900 m/sec
(rock) and 2000 m/sec i.e. almost fixed. The salient results are as presented hereafter.

Table 1 Time period (sec) of the building first three modes

Mode
1 2 3
Proposed Method –Fixed base 0.410 0.025 0.013
Proposed Formula Eq. (15a) 0.450 - -
UBC-97 0.420 - -
Eurocode 8 (Formula-1) 0.436 - -
IS code (1893) 0.467 - -
Proposed Method –DSSI (Vs=200m/s) 0.547 0.429 0.358
Proposed Method –DSSI (Vs=900m/s) 0.408 0.122 0.081
Proposed Method –DSSI (Vs=2000m/s) 0.410 0.025 0.013
STAAD analysis -3D 0.520 - -

Table 2 Variation of modal damping ratio (%) (Eq. 19)

Mode
1 2 3
Fixed base 2D 5.0 5 5
With DSSI(Vs=200m/s) 21.0 43 43
With DSSI(Vs=900m/s) 6.1 24 39
With DSSI(Vs=2000m/s) 5.2 11 29
Damping STAAD Pro 5.0 5 5

Table 3 Acceleration Sa (m/sec2) considered for various model as per IS-1893

Mode
1 2 3
Fixed base 0.100g 0.050g 0.044g
With DSSI Vs=200m/sec 0.080g 0.050g 0.050g
With DSSI Vs=900m/sec 0.100g 0.070g 0.044g
With DSSI Vs=2000m/sec 0.100g 0.070g 0.040g

15
 CAM2TBST-2008, C.B.R.I. Roorkee, India

Table 4 Amplification Factors f with respect to fixed base structure

Mode χf(Vs=200) χf (Vs=900) χf (Vs=2000)

1 1.42 0.99 1.00
2 294.47 33.34 1.40
3 861.78 38.82 0.91
The variation of SRSS Bending moments and Shear force for first three modes for various
cases are as shown hereafter

Comparison of SRSS moment on Shear wall

3500
3000 M(FB)
Moment (kN.m)

2500 M (Vs=900)
2000 M Vs=2000)
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
z/H

Fig. 1 Variation of Moment along shear wall for Vs= 900 &2000 m/sec and fixed base

Comparison of SRSS Moment of shear wall

20000
M(FB)
Moment(kN.m)

15000 M (Vs=200)

10000

5000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
z/H

Fig. 2 Variation of Moment along shear wall for Vs= 200 m/sec and fixed base

Comparison of SRSS Shear force for the Wall

7000
6000 V(FB)
5000 V(Vs=200)
Shear (kN)

V (Vs=900)
4000
V (Vs=2000)
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
z/H

Fig. 3 Variation of Shear force along shear wall without shear deformation

16
 CAM2TBST-2008, C.B.R.I. Roorkee, India

Comparison of DSSI Moment on wall with and without shear

deformation
20000
M (Vs=200)

Moment (kN.m)
15000
Ms (200 m/s)
10000

5000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
z/H

Fig. 4 Comparison of DSSI Moment with and without Shear deformation

Bending Moment for first three Mode

20000
15000 M1 M2 M3
Moment (kN.m)

10000
5000
0
-5000
-10000
-15000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
z/H

Fig. 5 Variation of Moment first three mode for Vs= 200 m/sec

Bending Moment for first three Mode

3500
3000 M1
Moment (kN.m)

2500 M2
2000
1500 M3
1000
500
0
-500
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
z/H

Fig. 6 Variation of Moment first three mode for fixed base case

Results furnished in Tables 1, 2 and 3 reflect the normal trend as will be expected in a DSSI
analysis i.e. the time periods get elongated w.r.t. a fixed base structure. The time period
obtained by the proposed method and the formula for fundamental time period as proposed
vide Eq. (15a) is compared to the values furnished in UBC-97, Euro code 8 and IS-1893 and
has been found to be closely matching. The modal damping increases significantly on
inclusion of soil geometric damping and also increase with higher modes. However, results
obtained in terms of Moment and Shear is somewhat surprising (if not startling!) and surely
questions some of the myth as prevalent with DSSI analysis and conventional design like:
• DSSI analysis, generically reduce the dynamic response of a structure as such considering
a fixed base analysis is always conservative.

17
 CAM2TBST-2008, C.B.R.I. Roorkee, India

• Fundamental mode is mostly the governing mode as such effect of higher modes may be
ignored.
Figs. 2 & 3, show significant jump in the moments and shear values compared to the fixed
base case for soft soil. It is only in case of nearly fixed base (Vs=2000 m/sec) and rock
(Vs=900 m/sec) Figs 1 & 3 the values are comparable. For DSSI case Shear deformation does
not affect the results much (Fig. 4) and can well be ignored for tall slender shear wall.
The reason for this amplification in response due to DSSI is not difficult to explain. Referring
to Eqs. (21) and (22) it will be observed that all other parameter remaining constant the
Moment and shear values are basically a function of the factor SaT2 and this value undergoes a
significant jump so long as the fixed base time period is within the Zone of Sa=1+15T. The
( ) ( )
amplification factors χ f = Sa T 2 DSSI Sa T 2 FB as shown in Table 4 substantiate this
statement. The higher mode contribution which is usually deemed negligible for a fixed base
case (Fig. 6) starts to contribute significantly (Fig. 5) as the time period gets prolonged.
It thus comprehensively shows the danger of working with only the fundamental period for
such type of structure, and which is the usual practice in most of the design offices.

CONCLUSION

The paper proposes a practical approach for analysis of Shear Wall framed structure including
the effect of DSSI which is generally deemed a tedious analysis. The method does not require
an elaborate software to perform the analysis (even for DSSI) where a simple spread sheet or
a MathCAD shell will suffice.

It also brings into light the importance of considering DSSI effect for such analysis and draws
a generic conclusion that-“Over stiff or short structure located on soft soil can expect much
higher force then conventional analysis where participation of higher modes can be far more
critical than the fundamental mode” a fact that is usually ignored in practice. Further
parametric study of this problem in terms of structural geometry, soil non- linearity under
strong motion earthquake and effect of cracked moment of inertia of the wall would surely
enhance this study.

REFERENCE

[1] Khan F.R & Sbarounis J.A. (1964) “Interaction of shear wall and frames” Proceedings
ASCE Vol-90 ST-3 pp 285-335.
[2] Macleod I.A. (1970) “Shear Wall Frame Interaction” Portland and Cement Association,
Skokie Illinois.
[3] Clough R.W., King I.P. and Wilson E.L. (1964) Structural Analysis of multistoried
Buildings; Proceeding ASCE Vol-90 ST-3 pp 19-34.
[4] IS: 1893-Part-1, (2002), "Indian standard code for earthquake resistant design of
buildings", Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[5] SAP-2000 (2004) - SAP Users Manual- University of California Berkeley.
[6] Shames I.H and Dym C.L. (1995) Finite Element and Energy Methods in Structural
Mechanics New Age Publishers India.
[7] Hurty W.C. and Rubenstein M.F. (1967) Dynamics of Structures Prentice Hall of India.
[8] Chowdhury I and Dasgupta S.P. (2002) Earthquake response of soil structure systems
Indian Geotechnical Journal Vol 32(2) pp-309-328.
[9] Richart F.E. (Jr), Hall J.R. and Woods R.D. (1970) - Vibration of Soils and
Foundations Prentice Hall Englewood Cliff New Jersey.
[10] Clough R.W. and Penzien J (1990) – Dynamics of Structures McGraw-Hill
Publications.

18

View publication stats