Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Notation . 3
1. Behavior of Structures Under L?teral Lnad . 5
l.l. Behavior Difference Between Frames and Shear Walls 5
1.2. Behavior of Floor Slabs . 6
1.3. Effect of Torsion 6
1.4. Effect of Openings in Shear Walls 6
2, Simplified Methods of Estimating Lateral Lnad Distribution 7
2.1. Use of Charts from References 6 and 7 7
2.2. The Component Stiffness Method-Equation C 7
2.3. The Component Stiffness Method for Structures with Torsion 12
3. Calculation of Moments and Shears Within the Structure Is
4. More Accurate Analysis 15
4.1. Numerical Accuracy . Is
4.2. Plane Frame Computer program 16
4.3. Space Frame Computer Progmm 16
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
This publication is based on the facts, tests, and authorities stated herein. It is intended
for the use of professional personnel competent to evaluate the significance and limitw
tions of the reported findings and who will accept responsibility for the application of the
material it contains. Obviously, the Portland Cement Association disclaims any and all
responsibility for application of the stated principles or for the accuracy of any of the
sources other than work performed or information developed by the Association.
NOTATION
Kw=lateral point load applied at the top AB = top deflection due to bending defor-
of a shear wall to cause unit defleti mation
tion in its Iineofaction; also specifi- 8 = a deformation at top of structure
cally tbe stiffness of a shear wall with torsion—see Section 2.3
without openin~–see Eq. (1)
A = ratio of column to beam stiffness
K ~. = stiffness of a shear wall with open-
ings–see Eq. (2)
!?= distance between centroidal axes of
walls or columns, or span of beams
(-e+
p = variable used for shear wall with
~ = ~ or ~ j“ equations of Table 1 openings–see Section 1.4
%wtlon number
I
I
~
NOtOrsiOn With torsion
-’* &
5’
Calculate moments and shears in members
4.2
[ a==
4
Shear ht@raCth)I’i A DESIGNAID
1. BEHAVIOR OF STRUCTURES behavior under lateral load, i.e. if they are all rigid frames
UNOER LATERAL LOAO or all shear walls, the analysis is comparatively simple. The
load can be distributed to the units directly in proportion
to their stiffnesses. The difference in behavior under lateral
load, in combination with the in-plane rigidity of the floor
A suggested procedure for lateral load analysis of high-rise slabs, causes nonuniform interacting forces to develop when
buildings is illustrated by tbe flow diagram in Fig. 1 and walls and frames are present (Fig. 2 [c]). Thk makes the
this publication, as a design aid, will follow that pattern analysis more difficult.
section by section. The following is a general introduction
to the behavior of structures under lateral load.
(c%%%?”
W’a,
l,
(’cl}
;.,, 2
W
I.) SHEAR WALL WITH
SINGLE Row OF OPENINGS
~M
... ,,
*b+
w,,,,
(b] IDEALIZATION
SHEAR CONNECTION
FOR
METHOD
(c) FRAME IDEALIZATION
carefully if they are to be used in resisting lateral load. FormH that is greater than 8, the wall tends to behave
like a single cantilever, For Iowaff, e.g. less than 4, the
behavior ismorelike twoconnected walls and frame action
1.3. Effect of Torsion is more prominent.
With a single mwof openings the effect ofopeningson
the stiffness can be assessed by comparing
The effect of torsion should be considered if the layout is 3EI
unsymmetrical or if the stiff vertical units are close to the Kw = -$ (1)
center of the structure, Some earthquake codes require that
a structure be capable of resisting a specified torsional and
loading even if the applied lateral load theoretically does 3E(IC, + I, ~)
not cause torsion~ 1J * The importance of torsion may be K w. = ff3&
(2)
asseseed by comparing results from simplified methods
without torsion (Sections 2.1 and 2,2) and with torsion where Kw and Kwo = stiffnesses of the wall without and
(Section 2.3). with openings, respectively
E = Young’s modulus of elasticity
IW = moment of inertia of wall without
oneninm
1.4. Effect of Openings in Sberrr Wells
6
openings. The shear connection methodtz’5 J is suitable for proportioned frame may be defined as one that has points
band calculation (although the use of a computer to do the of contra flexure at all nddbeam sections under lateral load.
calculations is desirable) and can be used for more complex Any frame whose bay widths and member properties are
~~problems than that illustrated in Fig. 3(b). Coull and reasombly constant across the width of tbe frame may be
Choudhury’s chartsfz ,3) are particularly useful for prob- considered to be proportioned. The frame being propor-
lems with a single row or two symmetrical rows of tioned and the column axial deformation being negligible
openings. are basic assumptions made in reducing a multi-bay frame
Shear walls with openings can be idealized as illustrated to a single- or three-bay frame,
in Fig. 3(c), using a plane frame analysis program (Section The procedure for reducing tbe number gf bays is: at
4.2). each story level, sum_aU cofynn inertias (Ie) and beam
‘For analysis of walls with openings, axial deformation rotational sJiffnesses (lb/!). (lC is the moment of inertia of
of the wall sections should be included. a cnhmm; Ib and !?are the moment of inertia and the span
of a beam, respectively.) The equivalent stiffnesses to be
used in the substitute frames thus become
1== Zid/2 and Ib/!? = ~-b/k?
2. SIMPLIFIED METHOOS OF ESTIMATING
for the frame in Fig. 4(a) and
LATERAL LOAD DISTRIBUTION
10= ZTC[6 and Ib/t =~~~l!i
If torsion is not considered, two simplified methods of for the frame in Fig. 4(b). This procedure is clearly
determining the interaction of frames and shear walls are: described by Khan and Sbarounis.
. to use the charts given by Khan and Sbarounis(6) Having thus reduced the problem, the shears on the
or PCA’S Advanced Engineering Bulletin No. frame, moments on the shear wall, and deflection can be
14,f7) and found using the charts.
. to use Equation C (Table 2).
b = story height
Fm 1,5
H = total height
E = Young’s modulus (subscript denotes structural system) I.0 I,0
Load
condition
where AA = deflection at top of frame due to axial deformation of ex
terior columns Point load 1-4n+3n2-2n210gen
at top (1 - fl)3
Fn = function of n, dependent on the type of loading
Area of exterior column at top of frame Uniformly 2-9n+18n2- lln3+6n310gen
n = ratio
Area of exterior column at bottom of frame distributed 6(1 - n)4
(linear variation of ,4C with height)
(
,4C = area of exterior columns at first-story level
~ 210gef2+ 5(l-n+10gen)
B = totaf width of frame
3 n-1 (n- 1)2
9
TOTAL DEFLECTION A= AB + AA
Triangular
+ ~- :n:,;33
6“ n
‘“g’
NOTES (earthquake) 3n2 ~3
For accuracy, the following rxmditions should be satisfied:
1. Q and lb should not vary ,acrow the frame, -;+3n - ~+; -logefl
2. [ should not vary acro$s the frmne, except that 1, for an interior column
$%ould be twice that of an exterior @wnn.
+
3. Columns should h.,. points of io.trai%xure at nddhel@t.
(n- 1)4
4, Story hei ht should he constant, 25 4n3 ~4
5. /c, lb, a. J A. should vary linearly with height. -fi+4n- 3n2+T-T-10ge n
6.k ,< 5,
7, AA should be smell compared with ALI, +
Rewo.nable results can be expected in many cases which satisfy the above con. (n- l)s
diti.ns only ,approximatety, )
Eq..rio.s A and B both tend to o.erathn.te deflection,
ness of the wall to that of the foundation, i.e. Problems involving several frames and walls may be
reduced to that of a singfe wall and frame as described in
KBH Section 2.1. Alternatively, Kfor KW foreach verticaf unit
‘rw=— maybe calculated separately and the results summed. XKf
4EJW
and ZKW are then used instead of Kf and KW in f@atiOn
where KB is the rotational stiffness Of the shear wail c.
support. If the rotation at the base of the shear wall is to be Studies on shear wall-frame interaction normally use
neglected, the terms with Yw in Equation C shoufd be three parameters to detine bebavior; namely, h,Iw, and
XIc, where
EcIc/h
~l”o Sflffrm,s -K,
A=—
E#bl!2
/r- L,nk Bar,
/
Ly;eldin,
shearW.(I
s“,,.,+
‘-From’ Accuracy
(01 STRUCTURE [b) INTERACTION (c1 FRAME MODELED
AT TOP ONLy BY SPRING
When a frame and wall are interconnected as shown in Fig.
5(a), maximum shear on the frame tends to occur tOwards
midbeigbt (see Fig. 8). Equation C can underestimate
Fig. 5. Idealization for Equation C. maximum frame shear by as much as 30 percent in this
.“.
area. Therefore, when calculating moments in theimme, lt
is worthwhile to increase the calculated value of F’by 30
omitted. However, the effect of shear wall base rotation can percent.
significantly affect the distribution of load between shear If Kw/Kfis less than 1, the use of Equation Cis not
walls and frames, and Equation C can be used as a simple recommended and the use of chartsce,~j produces more
method of assessing this factor. accurate resufts.
Table 2. Equation C
Load
condition I Ecytion C
NOTATION
T
H= total height of wall
Uniformly
distributed
$=
,+
{)
3
*1+1-
L+%
‘fW
E= Young’smodulus
IW= moment ofinertia
(subscript denotes structural system)
of wall
AB 12.62X126X123
‘Fig.6, Example structure for component stiffness method–no 7=12X3X 103X 105,080 X(2”54+1 ‘2x2”02)
torsion.
= 0.0602 in./kip (computer value is 0,0607 in./kip).
Table 3. Moments of Inertia (in.4) Estimate A/P due to axial deformation of columns.
of Frame Members, Example Structure* Assuming column areas of the order of 400 sq.in. and n =
0.5, from Equation A (Table 1) we find that Fn = 0.77 and
story Ib AA H3 x 0.77= 1263 X I 23 x 0.77
T = ECACB2 3X 103 x400X602X 12Z
10 13,800 2,540
9 13,800 4,430 = 0.00426 in./kip.
AA
8 13,800 7,390 Hence ~ = 0.071; i.e., top deflection of a frame due to
-/ 13,800 9,270
6 13,800 11,520 column axial deformation would be approximately 7
5 13,800 14,140 percent of that due to bending. Since column axial
“4 13,800 17,080 deformation was neglected for the analysis given by
3 13,800 21,680 Goldberg, it is also neglected here and
2 13,800 24,770
I
——
13,800 26,270 ~=l=L = 16.6 kip/in.*
f AB 0.0602
*E = 3,000 ksi for wall and frame members.
XKf = 7 X 16.6 = l16kip/in.
P
A. D18TR3BUTELOADS TO THE VERTfCAL UNITS — would he used were column axial deformation
*Kf = AB + AA
use Equation C (Table 2), Foundation rotation of the shear to be considered.
CaIcuk+te PI W midheight. The 1.3 factor allows for the fact that maximum
frame shear will be underestimated by approximately 30
percent.
Moment in Wall
Moment at base of structure for one.half of the applied
loading is 18,835 kip.ft. (see Fig. 6). Therefore, for each
SHEAR ON FRAME ( KIPS)
wall
max. moment = 18,835- PH = 18,835- 10.9 X 126
= 17,474 kip.ft.
Fig. 8. Comparison of frame shear estimates.
Moments in Frame Columns
Assume an interior column takes twice the shear as an
Table 4. Accuracy of F.qustion C in Comparison
exterior column. Therefore, with Frame Analysis*
sheiu on interior colwnn = ‘-
>
z
I
(1) (2) (3)
=+=1.03 kips
Percent cliff. =
Maximum moment will occur towards midheight of the (2)- (l)X loo
Design Frame
frame and have a value of
values anal ysis Equation C F
1.03 X 0.5 X 12X 1.3= 8.0 kip.ft.
R
288
g
*Frame malysis in Example 1 by Goldbem (8)
[o) FRAME (7 Th”31 (b) WALL [2 Thu31
B
‘w% _Spring supports
[walls only)
Wtqid beam
+ w
(b) DISTRIBUTION OF W
TO WALLS
W.1 1
Q?$
L v
‘w
RW (At TOP) ~J-:;;:r,,
‘– Rigid beom
o
Q W ( ~st,ib,tedl
2.3. The Component Stiffoess Method for Structures prevented by a force that equals R W, where R is the
with Torsion support reaction coefficient for a propped cantilever (e.g.,
for a uniformly distributed load, R = 3/8) and W is total
lateral load. R W acts in the line of and in the opposite
By making the assumption that the frames take constant direction to the resultant of W at the top of the structure.
shear (as for Equation C), the structure shown in Fig. 9(a) For analysis of System 2 (Fig. 9 [f]), the roof slab can be
may be idealized as in Fig. 9(d). Two degees of freedom considered as a rigid beam on spring supports. The spring
which correspond to the deformations A and 8 at the top of stiffnesses are KW and K, as defined in Section 2.2.
the structure (Fig. 9 [f]) can be assigned and the structure The equations for determining the unknowns A and O
solved by the stiffness method, The analysis is carried out are set up as follows: Transverse equilibrium gives
by adding the results from Systems 1 and 2 (Fig. 9 [e and
f]). Lateral movement at the top of System 1 (Fig. 9 [e]) is ZKi(A + X8) ‘R W
and therefore the proportion of distributed Imd to the shear
ZKiA + 2CKiX10 = R W (3) walls described previously is accurate only when all
the walls exhibit the same behavior under lateral
By taking moments about O, load, e.g. if they all have fixed bases and uniform
XKi(A + X#+)A’i= R Wa properties with height. It may be rewonable,asa
further approximation, to de fine KWstrictly as the
and therefore load at the top to cause unit deflection in its line of
2KiXiA + ZKiXfO = R Wa (4) action, taking account of nonrigid foundation,
variation of properties with height, and openings
The above Ki represents both the wall stiffnesses, KW, and
the frame stiffnesses, Kfi and u is the distance Of applied (see Eq. [2]). These factors alsoaffect thevalueof
load from origin. For delineation of X and a, see Fig. 9(f). R.
Having solved Eqs. (3) and (4) for A and 6, the loads on The behavior ofashear wall. frame structure with torsion
the springs are is bigMy complex and only rough accuracy should be
F’i= Ki(A + Xi6) (5) expected from the procedure outlined previously. As with
all simplified methods, unusual situations can occur for
If there are only two walls, simple statics gives the
which the accuracy will be unpredictable.
distribution of the total lateral load, W. With more than
two walls, Eqs. (3) and (4) must be re-established,
neglecting the frame springs and solving with Was the only Example Calculation with Torsion
loading (Fig. 9[b]). The resulting deformations are ficti-
tious but can be used to calculate W,, i.e. the proportion of In Fig. 10(a) Wall 2 has been moved to the position of
Wto each wall,accordingto Eq. (5) bysubstituting Wifor Frame 5 of Fig. 6(a) and Frames 5,6, and 7 have each been
Pi. moved one bay to the right. This is not a practical system
In other wbrds, the process of analysis for more than
but serves here to illustrate the method and the effect of
two walls is:
torsion in general. The steps outlined previously are
A. Analyze System 1. followed in this example calculation.
I. Find the propped cantilever reaction coeffi-
cient, R, for the given loading.
A. ANALYZE SYSTEM 1
2. Calculate the portion of W tributary to each
wall by applying the system of Fig. 9(b).
Establish R
In both these calculations the frames should be
ignored. For uniformly distributed load, R = 3/8 and W = 547 kips
B. Analyze System 2 as a rigid beam on spring (see Section 2.2.A). Therefore,
supports (include the frames) to find the top RW= 3/8X 547 = 205 kipS
loads, Pi, on each unit as shown in Fig. 9(f).
C. Add results for the two systems. Distribute W to the Walls
Care is needed with thesignsofthc forces. On a given For this problem with only two walls, W can be distributed
unit, RWiisalways opposite indirection to Wi, and positive by simple statics:
Pi from Eq. (5)wiObe inthesame directional W. The final w .547 X24
Ioadingson the units are illustrated in Fig. 9(c). Situations 1 —=120 lo9kips
coul,d occur where some values of Pi would be in the W2 = 547 L 109 = 438!@
OppOsite direction to W, e.g. when the effect of torsion is
pronounced. With more than two walls, an,analysis as shown in Fig.
Theabove approach can be extended tocover problems 9(b) is required. To illustrate the procedure, the calcula-
where deformation in the longitudinal direction is also tions required for such analysis are set out in Table 5 as
possible. Under these circumstances three simultaneous “Analysis of System 1.“ Columns (l) through (5) of
equations have to be solved. Table 5 are used to calculate the coefficients for the
equilibrium in Eqs. (3) and (4). For System I the frames
are ignored and, with W substituted for R W, these
Accuracy equations become
11 ,664A, + 699,SOOfl ~ = 547
The main assumptions which could produce inaccurate 699,800A1 + 83,976,0000, = 547 X 96
results fmm this procedure are:
. Constant frame shear. Thisassumption wiO tend to These equations are solved to give Al and @, as in columns
be more reliable when thestiffnesses of the fmmes (6) and (7). Columns (8), (9), and (1 O) are for Eq. (5),
are low compared with those of the walls. In which gives the values of Wi as calculated by statics above.
problems with torsion, however, in addition to
relative stiffness, the relative locations of the units B. ANALYZE SYSTEM 2
are important andmayaffcct the accuracy.
. Same beha~ior of walls. The method of assessing Equations (3) and (4) must be re-established with the frame
Table 5. Example Calcuk4ionkComponent Stiffness Method with Torsion”
leflec
Rota- Tzr Distrib. stem!
Trans- cOOr- tional tion load cm 3sist- due tc Sum of Lateral Point
verse dimte Dis- Coeffi- stiff- Rota- due to Sum of shear ing >eflec- Rota- angle deflec- load on load
struc- stiff- dis- tance cient, ness, Deflec. tion, angle deflec- walls, >rce, tion, tion, :hangf tion, spring, ,n unit
tural ness, tance, square, KJi 0, change, tion, Vi= KiX / Wi= A2 X,82 ,2+X,82 D,=K.X It top,
unit Ki xi x: (X1U3) (%3) ‘y’ :x 103) x,$, Al+ X#l \,+x,J31) /8 ~ x 103] (X203) :x103 (X103) <2+iie2 Di< -RW.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (s) (9) (lo) [11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)
Wall 1 5,832.( o o 0 0 0.0187 0.472 0 0.0187 109 40.8 7.34 0.129 0 7.34 42.8 2.0
wall 2 5,832.( 120 14,400 699.8 83,976 0.0187 0.472 0.0566 0.0753 438 64.4 7.34 0.129 15.46 22.80 133.0 -31.4
Frame 1 199.: 24 576 4.8 115 – — — — 7.34 0.129 3.09 10.43 2.08 2.1
Frame 2 199.: 48 2,304 9.6 459 – — — — 7.34 0.129 6.18 13.52 2.69 2.7
Frame 3 199.2 72 5,184 14.3 1,0321 – — — — — 7.34 0.129 9.27 16.61 3.31 3.3
Frame 4 199.: 96 9,216 19.1 — — — — 7.34 0.129 12.36 19.70 3.92 3.9
Frame 5 199: 144 20,736 28.7 &l z — — — 7.34 0.129 18.55 25.89 5.17 5.2
Frame 6 199.: 168 28,224 33.5 5.622 ~ – — — — — 7.34 0.129 21.64 28.98 5.77 5.8
Frame 7 199.2 192 — — — 7.34 0.129 24.73 32.07 6.39 6.4
Total 13,058 — — — — — — —
Fig, 10, ExmvJ/e structure for component stiffness method– with torsion.
stiffnesses included and with R W as the applied loading. story can be distributed so that the shear on an interior
Using columns (1) through (5) of Table 5 now gives column is twice that on an exterior column. By assuming
points of contraflexure at column midheight, the column
13,058A2 + 848,0000 * = 205
and beam moments can be calculated. Corrections can be
848,000A2 + 104,513,00002 = 205 X 96
made for points of contraflexure being off-center in the
These equations are solved to give AZ and O* as in COIUIIMS lower and upper stories.( 11 J
(12) and (13) of Table 5. Columns (14) and (15) are used in It is important to judge whether the moments and shears
Eq. (5) to calculate Pi, which is given in column (1 6). as calculated by the simplified analysis are significant in the
design. The simplified analysis may be acceptable if the
C. ADD RESULTS FOR SYSTEMS 1 AND 2 effect of Pateral load to the frames or to the structure as a
whole is small compared with the effect of vertical Ioadlng.
The final top loadings are given in column(17) of Table 5. In many cases a more rigorous analysis will be necessary
This column, in combination with column (10), gives the and the insight into behavior gained from the simplified
distribution of load to each unit. Note that, due to the analysis will be useful in deciding what refinements are
torsion, the top load on Wall 1 is positive, i.e. in the required.
direction of W. Also, the inaximum frame load (for Frame
7) is more than doubled by moving the position of the
shear wall.
4. MORE ACCURATE ANALYSIS
---b---
[0) SIMPLIFIED PLAN OF STRUCTURE (bl ~o;vA;~~Ly~;wING CONNECTION OF UNITS
finite values in order to simulate “infinite rigidity”) or ments and shears in the upper stories of a rigid frame.
when the structure is very large. Unsatisfactory results of an The ratio AA/AB as calculated using Equations A and
equilibrium check on the structure (normally give” with the B (Table 1) isa useful measurcof the effect of column
output) are normally caused by such “ill conditioning.” axial deformation on stiffness. If AA/AB is less than
This behavior is not easy to predict since the error will be a 0.05, it is probably safe to neglect this effect.
function of the number of significant figures usedin the 4. When computer stcxage islimited, itmaybenccessaryto
computations as well as the form of the structure. reduce the number of bays for analysis, using the
summotion procedure described in Section 2.1. This
should not be done ifaxid deformation is important,
4.2. Plane Frame Computer Program 5. The finite widths of the shear walls orcolumns can have
an important effect on the stiffness of a frame and on
beams that are connected to shear walls, Equation B can
A plane frame computer program can be used for the be used to assess the effect on stiffness.* The best way to
analysis of shear wall-frame structures provided in-plane account for finite width is to assume that the beams are
deformation of floor slabs and torsion can be neglected, fufly rigid over the widths of the columns (Fig. 3 [c]),
The basic approach is illustrated in Fig. 11. The vertical Ability to do this is not a common feature in plane frame
units are connected at each floor level by “linkbars” which programs. Alternatively, a framework type of analogy
simulate the effect of the floor slabs intransmitting load in may be used to model the action of shear walls.(14.16J
their own plane. 6.It miy be necessary toinclude foundation movementsin
the analysis.
7. The effect of openings in shear walls, if important,
Notes should be accounted for in the analysis. See Section 1,4.
&d:
FLOO
17
r ------------------------------ -------------------
I
t
E
I
I
1
KEY WORDS: high-rise building, shear walls, rigid frames, bending mode,
shear mode, lateral load, point load, stiffness method, shear connection
method, torsion.
ABSTRACT: A shear wall deflects inabending mode; arigidframe bendsin
a shear mode. A simple method for analyzing shear wall-frame interactions
present ed in this publication.
L---------. ------------------------------------------------J
PORTLAND CEMENT m I I ASSOCIATION