Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Course content:
1.
Introduction
2.5 hrs.
2.
3.5 hrs.
3.
3.5 hrs.
4.
3.5 hrs.
5.
3.5 hrs.
6.
Wall-frame interaction
3.5 hrs.
7.
3.5 hrs.
8.
3.5 hrs.
9.
3.5 MS.
10.
2.5 MS.
_... ---.... --33 MS.
RECO~NDEDTEXTBOOKS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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. Low-rise 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 high-rise 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 high-rise 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 low-rise building ranges from 1 to I (j
storeys. A medium-rise building probably ranges from 10 to 20 storeys, and a
high-rise 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
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
multi-span 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 vibration-prone 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 ofnon-structural 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 wind-structure interaction and soil-structure 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.
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 load-resisting structure consists of interacting shear walls
and frames are shown below.
: [ J:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(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.
---....
-;......
--.....
--......
--....
.......-...
-----...
.......
.......
........
--.....
.......
10
The closely spaced columns in a framed tube may pose problems in gaining
access to the building at ground level, and some structural re-arrangement 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.
12
(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)
(3)
(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 beam-wall 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 beam-walljoints.
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 beam-wall 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 beam-wall joints, the joint rotations should be defined as the rotations
of the beam-wall interfaces, i.e. the rotations of the vertical fibres at the
joints.
The cross-sectional shape of the shear/core walls would remain
undistorted. Hence the rotations of all beam-wall joints can be related to
the horizontal displacement ofthe building thereby reducing the number of
unknowns to be solved.
The P-D 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
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
16
17
18
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~~ ..\
$-4-Y"',.f-v. ... e.
A~~CA~p-hO~S :
I) ~""fe,rh'\ ~c.oM~""j ~p +he. h~i~"+
~'-'c.tCA.re
2,)
0+
+h~
3)
Beo.W\ 1
4)
Po,"~-4-
tI..f
tw\.d -
sr~n
t>..'(Q
0..)(
i ~\I'1
r-i 9 i d
c.oh+r-O\fle~&Are
19
OGc.CArS
0..+
~p( o..c..e
GotU\cc..+
,.ortneohC:n
().$
i~9
bQQ.MS
(+ ..~ .. b)
C-ohftQG"\-"1"\9
.1>'1
0..
w:"'hs~"'"~
be().~.
d x.
c:.onned-'OM
AI o~ rttt
CoM+
ShQo-r .forc:.e~ T
s+"re'1~+i~t\ccs
Cowf,:u"oc/(~ c.onneC+ion
(.ompri ~e,
Cons i ~ e t-
~4)rrri" uoc.u
pe.r-
wh~re
R~~... ion
~ca e r
of
w~1I S
e.lC+Q.t""r\O.l
-J oo..c::l
(It
wJ-
~P = 2e.,I.+I2..
I
--...,--t--I--~bp
J~
H
'to
dx +
S ... p
ro-hA+lon s.
if o.ny.
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
Ih
bE:tp+
b AGt
1
~~
= sh().p~~c.+o,... foY'
S~8(J.r
= L 2..
(;..+.
bo.~e
, if
().n~.
4-
d )
~e."e. ...se
..oW'\t\
.~
e(..+in~ b~MS
Tdx
FOR
COMPATI&IL'
TY
9' ,,~~
Solc~d;on
0+
re'~+e.s
-l:o ~pplied
~~o..-+'o ....
r~
~~s""~ft\_
To:s.
~T-I-op
o;t-
b.-tto..., c~ W~" ~
ThQ
~"\A.4-,~~ +Or
J
-Hlen
- c.os h~ x..
bec.okfes
. 1.2.x,.... )
+--
10
a... d
~O~
cc\..,
I.f
M::
~T I..
MI
... -----=I
w% -
2.
TJ..
'I
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
be,.Q..h'\
C6.n
b~
obi-o.:... ~d
be'ow beo.m
0+
YoC>+
-f....OM
+,,~s
Wt.. .
.B
f-mi
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~
on
0..+
str~~s es;
B c..re 9i ,,~n bj
OA
=M
~, + T
i,
A,
f1: :: M. ~'" +
8
II
A
-.!..
w"c-r"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:f-l-\od
,'t'\
+\\e
'~borioCA.s
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.f-r~~re
techni9~e
b~
A, Coull
().t\d ..1. R. ChoCAa h tA .... y* re(o..t~s +i\e rec;&.4.t+.s
clir(lc,t(~ -1-0 +he stresses o.~ ae.fle.L+fons in
IA siMple VQr+icD,.1 c.~.,tnQ.ver beo.O".
b)
I'neo.~
bet'ldih~
cOI1.t;$i-.s.
f~
s+y~ss ditl-rib~no~
I?>
Mo.~ be
<:ol1S
.<:Ie-red
+0
4S
tAo
b) +wo
o..ssVo'"
pnon
GO '" ~I e
s+ress
1-h<A,-t
a.c.+
-t e.1'j i t\ d e. V\ pe n d e t\+ ( ~ .
-H,~
-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)
Composite
~""~
0.+
S~GJt,on
IS
w'C
Me :.
whet'&
MOtt1en+
....
)( K M
Ib
~.,ti(e'lQ,r-
c.QMpo,i+e.
~CA-i otl
().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
.e"..I-.r.~.mt
.(.1 be r
,<>o"d
."'--. .
'+
... ,
.
'.olx') 12.
{
~:... h ~ H ...: -.J H
h'
'h""
.~...}
, c.l~;J~S
-~.x..+'
.M ~
. " . ~-. ~ .,.~
. . . " .sJh.
~-~ ".
2-.
. . . (~2C.)
.
c.oshOtI-1
"
.
I<
,-l..e
P6.t"'().M
sf-iff ness
$(,eo...t-d,;t\d
be.~it\~
~o
I
IV
1.
tV
~
8
l-L
/:~~
~~
/'
~
<l.i"d
"4=0.15
2..0
>
K B
0.
o.f +\'Q
Vo.tUQS
0+
'1 - /
0..11$
.....
~~
~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
oS~ft+~b'\ of connecA-i,,'3
~.
o
whe.re.
cze;J.(A'vo.l~rd- c.Ot1+inuoCA S
I~mc n0..1
nto..~ boc..
Q.S
DT
= dx =
-H,~
p(At"'O.ht
wH .., K
-v-
2.1
.......
1<" ~
s.~h
cl
.l.H CoOs h of.
COS.hol x
Sihk d-'X + x
d-.
I-l
Z3
lOp
0" di.ff~r~n+ia..+;n.9
0.1
~~
o.t
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-
Sheo-y 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.
~+i f'\4.t ~
e 1'4.Q.-r. ~ '"
= ~)(h
21*
fb
~t'OM ~. (~ .f.....
rc.'M-'\On
$"'P
... u
EI d ~
.for
M,
o..",c.\ M 2.
eo.c."
I.~'"
. _
"3-
v-I-'
ax.'"
wo...lJ
+f.a~
,""OMQn+ -
t~ g,~V\
c,ur;'(.\.+CA.te
"bC;:J:
T Jl-
2..
r"D-
~s ~
wH4
8 E1. ~
p-I
8
-- _
_ ----
1-1
Kp
c:.osh.tH + ,
..-...-_-
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
20
mu~tiple
coupled shear
U)
:J
&E
o :J
CUO
C
~..----+--~----------r'\
CO
Q)
"'0
21
.-y
--'~.. /'--
FIG.
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"
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.
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
.~
(-.{.tla-f')
= 2/(1
.. f. +L:I') ..T
d =
2IC 113 + h)
L.S
'
()
<-f. db -
jYII
e)
L'
{J.I
~XJl
1
S = (;
= POisson s ralill.
+ 2h.
011
Frame idealization
for shear wall
support systems
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.
-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
:.::""
lea.
Az
i - ----
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\.~
:
-
R'c;,O-'--~
"-:-CON<\:ll:>NS
j-
(b) GENERAL!FORM
OF ELEMENT
to'
~ . "T"h!
Srruclu(i\1
Enoinet!(IF~bu.il(Y 1973/No
2/Volume 51
r--l=~--1 ~StPPOAT
8t .... M
::
Co\'U,AN
H
Ib
h
b
I
Az
Resulls
00875
0015
At
0-0875
000625
Elc
A(m 2 )
0003125
hbJ
= height of wall
-..-,---
--, -
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
110-53
I 821
1693
!-----i------I------II------I------I----- - - - - +1528
+ 1271
+ 1046
+ 1788*
+1053
+2039
1----------1------1-----1-----1-----111-----.1-----1-----!-----1
-100-6
-91-1
-1553
-1421
I-----
1------'----1-----1-----'1-----1-----111-----1-----1----:-- ----Shear In
+1
I
0
0
-151
-645
0
0
-191
I --194
connecting
+2
-314
-315
-135
beams
+3 .
-11-9
-143
~I
208
:1.199
:f:26
:! 39
-I- 125.3
Finite
clement_
!:26
:!:12-5
-158
-136
.IS-1
:1;261! 198
Shear force
--41
-1307
in connecting
-4-2
:+:33-3
I .~~~n~~
"-_3_
I-
1..~1~~
-1.600
443
795
665
! 34
1:26-4
1319
12S
:l14
:1-36-5
_t 275
:l:318
.... ! 295
:'~~:~
__
~ ~~.5
.
__ __
.117
1:116
.119.~ J ~.~~.~..
..
!:106
I
12
.' 145
1155
-:1 928
I-----
144
16-5
170
"~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
fP-AM
AHALYS. S
flNlTt
f.L(UE:4T ANAlYSIS
:..:
-~
L"
r.:
+1~O
l&.
--.fr---
(!J~ --00
+100
..J
)(
+50
'"~
-so
-:
et.l
...ce
('lr;'~J
-100
Q.
tL
::>
U)
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
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
L,
R 4" = T, L,/2
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
{P At')
~(
rK,]
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
Representation
Th~
PYG
) Mb
Pxb
(e)
0
0
0
0
0
A,,,.
References
1. Green, D. R. 'The stress an;tlysis of shear walls'. PhD
thesis, University of Glasgow, 1970.
Pyb
(t
f
p:;- ~--'~----i
2/(1/3 ! B)
- - - _-
. L(28 , 1/6)
(b)
)Mb
8
r----1
28)
= 1(1/3
.......- ...
K.",=. K""
A=
A L2
IH] =
K"" ':::
He
\
.
Forthcoming Examinations
The next Institution Part 3 examination
and Technican Test will be held on Friday 6 July 1973.
For those non-grtlduate 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
now (lClss("cL
22
23
24
25
UDC 69.022.32:624.042
Structural analysis of
wall systems
I. A. Macleod,
Introduction
The term "shear wall" has the connotation of a high wall which
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.
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 3-D wallsystems is considered.
Continuous Connection
Bet.oJeen \o;a 11
Rigid
Sections.
Column
(Flexible)
Storeyl
Height
Unit
(a)
(b)
(c)
Continuous
Connection Method.
Openings.
model
487
.--n---.__--.; . .__-.i._x_Z_i
of c~~=
~;o,~.'; 11
:.f~,,:lcc~~~
. I
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;~matiOn-to-to-p
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~
1.. 25
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'\
c:
s..
+6
'-
Q,I
OU
20
1.0
I- l.I.I Q\
0.5
0.2
0.0
QJ
H2:
B/D
ASF
4
H/O
488
____.__----,S
~,.,~
~~
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
'\
t \
Freedom
Numbers
6
-----"4
~Ll
'Node Nur."ber
a taU
XF
NODE
YF
THETAF
XF - Number of
X Direction Freedom
YF - Number of Y Direction freedom
THETAF - Number of Rotational Freedom
o - Restrained freedom
f \5
-_1
r
<D
II
.n
FRAME
WAll
xf
;,
s
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.
I---Centroidal Axis-
1 Axis -
Wall 2.
(b)
FRAMES
PLAN
SYSTEM
~.
Wa 11 1.
Direction
-3
<to
leen troi da
of
f "\7
.J)
(a)
NODE
XF
YF
THETAF
et( .
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
XF
I!
YF
THETAF
PLAN
j
j
i
i
i
i
10
I
etr
11
12
floor Slab
(Assumed R;9 id )
afl,\
@~ master-slavetec.'!!!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
freedom
1_
Sa
.1
Sa
A2
i.e.
where
and
[050-5] {~:} .-
[Al{.1",}
{.d.l} is the vector of slave deformations
{.dill} is the vector of master deformations
.d.. -
I.
Xl
t
Hode
X2
'
Degrees of
Freedom
Hode 2
1/
L
Freedom number
Position
Direction
00. 5-0
150.10-0
150. 0-0
0-0. 6-0
16-0.. 10-0
16-0. 0-0
Position
Direction
2
3
and the slave freedom by
Freedom number
30-0, 0-0
The co-ordinate position quoted above are in order x. y.
Node 4~
/'
,.
X3
X4
25-0. 5-0
.,
Convention As in Fig.
z.
10
I hI
-8
-------~.
FlWiES
SYSTEM
0r
zn
-"""tz.,....,..zJ;D
,....,e::z-.z--a
(0
P;W:i1
Direction
of loading
PLAN
Fig 12. Web wall without opening-the solid wall element
492
NODE
XF
YF
10
11
------- ------
etc.
THETAF
:...--
(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 non-linear
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 non-linear 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.
.
~
,
--
--.-
r--------- -------..--
_..
.-.__ .
.(
--.J-
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
.... (2)
a
.... (3)
{PalM - {Pol,
.... (4)
i.e.
{po}m - [A]I p.
62
"3
i.e:2{Po}", - [B]{P}m
where
.. (1)
origin an
The sign of
8, must be chosen to
~ccord
actions at the
References
494
31.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
495
j.
Proc.lnstn Civ.
Engrs Structs &
Bldgs, 1992, 94,
Feb., 103-116
Paper 9809
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
A. K. H. Kwan,
Lecturer, Department of Civil and
Structural Engineering, University
o/Hong Kong
103
KWAN
:1
I
I
I
v,
u,
(b)
(a)
104
(b)
REFORMULATION OF
FRAME METHOD
(~
(~
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.
~I~
Vertical
1J
rshear
t stress
tJ
t~
tJ
tJ
(a)
Present study
Nodal force
due to
vertical
shear stress
I
I
J-+H*---
Additional
deflexion
due to
artificial
flexure
I
(b)
(c)
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
method-such 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 strain-based finite element
with rotational degrees of freedom. Hence the
frame method is related to the finite-element
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.
REFORMULATION OF
FRAME METHOD
(1)
12EI
K1
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)
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
6EI
-J;2
12E/
-y
(2)
is
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
where
and
V4 -
V3
Y2 = -.-b- -
(6)
(,02
(9)
TI 2 =
f ~ Cl d(vol)
(7)
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)
108
R=
02 U
oy2
(10)
Hence
,
eyO
02 U
oy2
(11)
av
(12)
=-
oy
au ov
oy ax
y=-+-
(13)
Rearranging
av
oX
OU
-=Y--
oy
(14)
= vo
+(y -:}
(15)
=;
[v + (y - :}]
&70
G;-~;~)x
(16)
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
shear-bending 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)
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)
(19)
Substituting into equation (16), the longitudinal
strain is obtai~ed as
B,
= ~ (V 3;
V
4
VI ;
V2)
f~ &:
devol)
(21)
Equivalence to finite-element
for~ulation
IO!
KWAN
v
= as + asY + [(a6 + a 7 y)
- (a 2
+ 2a 3 y + 3a 4 y 2 )]x
(26)
(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)
E=[~: ~]
(29)
Yxy=P4+PSY
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 second-order differential
equation governing internal compatibility. 12
28. Integrating the strain functions and
adding the rigid body mode
U=P6-PSY
(33)
V=P7+P S X
(34)
= P6 ~ (/3s -
P4Jy ~ t<P2 -
Ps)y2 -
iP 3y3
(35)
v = P7 + PlY
(36)
REFORMULATION OF
FRAME METHOD
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
--r-r----u----H-500 kN/storey-
32
SC element
(1 layerlstorey)~
--u---r-r----u--
24
1.1.
"
I.
~~d~=
~ 16
==t1~:
1 or 2 layers-[
of elements
per storey _
I.
'0)
~=b==
==0==
(a)
/.
::I:
==-0==
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
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
ti>
3 in'"
4 in "L 3
36
in ~
.5
~24
'0)
:r:
Experiment
(Tso and Biswas)
12
oo'-----L-.--O......0-4----"---0~.5":":'"8---"---O-=~
Horizontal displacement:. in
(a)
112
20
(b)
C')
(l')
10
Shear force: MN
(a)
.5
(b)
REFORMULATION OF
FRAME METHOD
H
Torsion at top
= 2001b-in
UmanSky-Benscoter
-0-244 in
3H/4
Bea~:/::----
2-5 in
t1-S in ,
25 in
1:
-~ H/2
J:
,:
~proposed
Wall
Beam
Wall
(a)
4
8
Rotation: x 10-3 rad
(b)
12
113
KWAN
z
~",
Torsion
= 100 tm
/ ",
/ ,,'
Bredt-Batho theory
,,
3H/4
E
o
to
Thickness
= OSm
~,'
%'' '
!;f'
~,'
.~ H/2
:c
~,
E
oll')
'f,'
I
Thickness
= 10m
H/4
3H/4
Bredt-Batho theory
.~ H/2
1:
.~ H/2
:x:
:x:
Proposed solid
wall element
H/4
05
Shear stress: Vm 2
(a)
114
10
,,
01
3H/4
,W
,
H/4
- -.c:::;;....--'0------2"'-02O
Bending moment: tm
L-.-.-_...L
(b)
02
03
Rotation: x 103 rad
(b)
04
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
(a)
K = K'I
+ K~ + ~ K)
(44)
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 non-conforming 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)
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)
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 plane-stress 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 strain-based 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 wall-frames by
computer. N. Z. Engng, 1964, 19, No.9, Sept.,
342-347.
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, 1967,223-252.
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
453.
16. HA K. H. and DESBOlS M. Finite elements for tall
building analysis. Comput. & Structs, 1989, 33,
No.1, 249-255.
17. SISODIYA R. G. and CHEUNG Y. K. (ROCKEY K. C. et
ala (eds. A higher order in-plane 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., 365-380.
20. Tso W. K. and BISWAS J. K. Analysis of core wall
structures subjected to applied torque. Building
Sci., 1973,8, 251-257.
,
J
I..inrcl hcam
SJah
I~illtel
lJealll
Beam-wall joints
Slab-wall joints
Sial
I "illtcl l"'>Calll
26
27
28
Abstract-Local deformations at beam-wall 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 beam-wall 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 beam-wall 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
INTRODUCTION
(JJ
5.73(~),
Etd
(1)
A. K. H.
616
KWAN
---]
---8
(a) coupled shear walls
(J)
= 6.00(E~2) + o.
76(;d)
=O.80(~)+ 1.74(~}
(3)
(4)
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
vertical
fibre
horizontal
fibre
-- - -
'----~p---
beam
vertical
fibre
horizontal
fibre
(b)
A. K. H.
618
KWAN
rotations, i.e. the rotations of the beam-wall 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 beam-wall 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
6
/2
-[3
4+ex
I
-p.
12
VI
[3
6
Mt
EI/(l
+ ex)
12
-p.
2-ex
VI
[3
[i
-[3
4
I
-[2
Elli
12
12
-12
M2
12
-[3
[3
6
-p.
fi
(5J
-p.
V2
4+a
I
CO 2
--
COt
12
Mt
V2
-p.
VI
2-ex
--
[3
12
-[3
M2
--
fi
V2
12
619
VI
COl
(6)
-/2
V2
4
I
(JJ2
flexible portion
of beam element
-tc/ /////~
////
/A
rigid"
arm
\
I
I.
wall
- ,
~+
- ---
beam
beam-wall joint
shifted into wall
v/////.
rigid
arm
wall
A
'f
A. K. H.
620
KWAN
fixed
fixed
Fig. 5. Finite element analysis of local deformations around
beam-wall joints.
(c
621
+ e)3(c + e)
3EI
c3
c
GA' = 3EI + GA'
(7)
+ COJ = tip
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
(8)
. .
= mInImum
{O.29d
0.22).~'.
(12)
11
12
4.53
4.49
4.41
4.18
3.83
0.58
0.55
0.51
0.42
0.30
Table 2.. Equivalent length of joint expressed as a fraction of beam depth (e /d)
Cantilever span to beam depth ratio (c /d)
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)
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
12
13
f2
-13
M.
p.
4+a
--
-/2
V2
EI
=-l+a
wall
-12
-[2
2-a
t
2_P:
12
13
6
-p.
P2-a
-I
-p.
VI'
WI'
(15)
v 2'
4+a
-I
W2'
be_a_m
12
12
M2
-t
:~f_l/
wall
(16)
Fig. 7.A beam element with joint deformations allowed for.
623
in which
L = I +e.
(17)
ct.
MI
V2
M2
=(I+K{~I
:J)-I
and
COl
. (18)
F1 =
F2 =
(d)
(e2EIf )
(;~)
(3EI
e~
e2 )
+ GA'
-
(d)
2El .
2EI
(19)
(e~
)
2EI
(20)
(il)
MI
V2
M2
EI
=T'-1 +a'
12
- L3
0
1 e'!
0
(24)
VI
2-a
L2
12
- L3
6
-L 2
12
L3
6
- L2
2-a'
:L
6
- L2
--
6
- L2
-e 1 0
[2
4+a
-L
(23)
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)
(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 beam-wall
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 beam-wall 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 461-464 (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. 253-270. 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 beam-wall joints
Tall Buildings Symposiuln, University of Southampton,
to be shifted as the lengths of the beams are increased
pp. 271-272. 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 60-62 (1969).
spring method does not require the position of the
6.
P.
Bhatt, Effect of beam-shea 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, 149-151 (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 beam-wall
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 beam-wall interfaces, i.e. the vertical fibre
allowed. Proc./nsl. Civ. Engrs, ParI 291,273-297 (1991).
rotations. As the joint rotations and the rigid arm
9. A. K. H. Kwan, Re-fonnulation of the frame method.
Proc. Insf. Civ. Engrs J. Struct. Bldgs 94, 103-116 (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, 1019-1036 (1974).
DOF per node can be avoided by incorporating II. I. A. MacLeod, Structural analysis of wall systems.
Structural Engineer 55, 487-495 (1977).
the rigid arms into the wall elements rather than in
r.
~25
29
0-6
>........
>-
'0-4
=~1_-_
0-2
----'
(a)
y.
~ = l-~(!:-) -1
5 Y
0-8
__ o=--o==-o
0=-0=0-
YL ~ ... ~
,~o-=-
o~<:J
O~\
,/'
. if'
~
0-6
0/ "'"
Ye
./
0-2
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
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
0141-0296/94/020111-08
111
~(~2
.. _ul
_ u2
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
112
(2)
(3)
~~f----}
Figure 1
(})
t_~- :.W_l_
I-I
(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 beam-like 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
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 by-neglecting 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 beam-type 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 strain-based element and had
in fact suggested previously that this idea could be
applied also to the beam-type e.lement.
Neglecting the lateral strains, the displacement functions of the element become
(!Xl
v=
(!X s
(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
Ll =
*(2 -
311
M
v
3
--.f--.
).
thickness
t
J..
M
a
Figure2
t
1
= ~ (V2~ VI
W1
+KV4 ~ V3 -W 2
)(1 -
)(1 +
1])
1])
(11)
= i(U 2~ U l )
1(
+4
WI
+ (J)2 +
V2
+ v4
-. Vl -
V3 )
(12)
= 2Gtay.~).
3Q
=Gt( 2b (11 2
+!(V2 + V4
ud + 2 (w l + W2)
Vl -
V3
(13)
113
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
Example 1, shear force and bending moment results. (a), shear force in walls; (b), bending moment in walls
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 strain-displacement 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 beam-type 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 beam-type element should
be used at a rate of two layers per storey. Consider each
pair of beam-type 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 =
i(V
cvs -
V6
:~4 + V2)(1 + e)
(16)
(15)
:~3 + V 1 )(1 - e)
(-vs + :~3
+(
-V6
+ :~4
)(l -
3V 1
e)
)(1 + e)
3V 2
(17)
Numerical examples
Example 2: coupled nonplanar .walls
115
one
storey
Figure 5
element
//
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)
76
....-
1:: : : r'---
_-1-----...
_
I
frame method
S"
torsion at top
= ZOO Ib-in
- --I
I _- -/- ..-.-_-----'
r..-
109
92
beam
i--z-.~5,-,----,f-l-1-.-5-"
--z.-5-"- } -
-#-of
no. of stories
20
storey height
2.45"
beam depth
II
III
= 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 beam-type 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 strain-displacement
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 beam-type 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
117
13
14
118
6 Wall-frame interaction
In the design of composite shear (core) wall/frame
building structures, it is-often assumed that all horizontal
loads
are
carried
by
the
shear
(core)
walls
only;
the
the
resulting
deflection
will be overestimated.
Although. the
contribution of
the
frame
portion
is
the frame
necessary
horizontal
to determine
forces
the
between
elements.
38
distribution
the
wall
and
it
of
is
the
frame
2.
.JcT~ .~
~,""JId
~"j
D~~~~
et
2.6,
.,."..1-.....---......-..........
-----~--~
.-t----w-----tot---+t
{1{~?/1
e,i\~ ~ ~IS~~
~':J
'J
~ A-ftYLA ~
3
Analysis of Yall/Frame Interaction
If
similar
~llowed
horizontal
loads,
the
cantilever
wall
and
figure.
Interaction forces
I
--....
--...
--.....
---
-,.....
--.....
---...
--...
-....
--.....
-.-
--....
(a)
Figure 8-1
(b)
frame
(c)
'pulled together'
base.
at the top,
A redistribution of horizontal
top
and
bottom.
load must
near the
then take
The
frame
will
thus
resist
Ref.
St~ford
Smith B, "Approximate
The
composite
wall-frame
structure
is
assumed
to
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:
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
so
only
that
hor~zontal
Consequently,
at.
the
connecting
medium
to
of
continuous
forces
are
there wi 11 be
interaction forces
maintain
horizontal
y =y
= y
(horizontal
Since
co~patibility)
(horizontal equilibrium)
therefore:
-
- a.
(3)
E I
in which:
W
= w
distribu~ed
load. and a
ratio, g1 venby
Equation
closed-form
constants of
(3)
may
solution
(X
int~gration
= GA/EI.
readily
for
any
be
integrated
applied
loading.
to
give
The
four
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
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
express~d
the
horizontal
deflection
on
lateral
deflection
at
cantilever of flexural
non-
(= x/H) and'
a H).
(=
1
8
the term
two
w H /EI
the
top
of
rigidity EI,
uniformly
the function F
loaded
1
is a
whereas if F
Once
the
deflect ion
is
known.
the
other
force
flexural
cantIlever,
on the
(5)
(6)
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
influence of
(9)
(lG)
=wH(l-z)-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 8-2
0.. 2
0.8
Deflection function, F,
0.4
0.6
1.0
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 8-3
(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
Figure 8-4
(~
Evaluatio~
oc~urs
'shear
equivalent
rigidity,
the
GA,
cantilever')
with
beam deflects
only
~LD8.~~fJt!WThe overall
in
analysis by an
effective
substitute
The tall
shear
lateral forces,
shear.
~~~
columns and at
the
mid-span
bounded
(4
Q
.....
h
-rrrT-
I,J
'I
1'1
II
II
\~~t= ~ .~ ~ ~~t"
T\J~j
f)~
tC.P+t~'~
bj
~~
of
of storey he ighth,
subjected
=(
(11)
Q / GA ) h
calculated,
two
displacements,
the
joint
(12)
G A
where I d
'
incorporating
short
deformation of the
(Refer to
II
~tiff
memb~rs
arms
at
the
joints.
Shear
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
L
7 Framed-tube structures
or ~
:framed-tube
is
essentially
per:forated
boxA
r-
Figure3-8
-,-
39
th~
it is sometimes
However,
the
frames
normal
t,o
wind
the
directions
are
side
primary
spandrel
frames
Q,et"~o\t'\
axt ion
beams
are
subjected
1s complicated
allowing
to
by
shearing
the
shear lag
column~t
actions.
The
flexi bil i ty of
the
which
the
increase
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:
frames.
This
may
be
to
performed
most
conveniently
~ ~
to~~\S")\
111/,/1'
g~~,
ll-S"
by
~ ~~ oX~-f
and
separately.
twisting
forces,
the
two
may
be
considered
shearing
periphery.
resistance
The main
of
each
interactive
plane
forces
frame
around' the
centre).
necessari ly
centre
(note
~troportion~l
to
that
stiffness
of each frame.
and
horizontal
forces
on
each
frame
and
the
vertical
lA
A~~\MIt*iGM~.
CD
~~
1~
Cb
~ ~s
~ ~
c5l
~~
= A/H
~
oX ~cl-t"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.e-I.~
G~
.........
~
6l
ci
t+
!h.~1
\,
~~
"\
Il
~~Uo"''''''
OtJ"'
........ ...,............. ra
.I::J' J.
_r1.......-...............
,.......xas
----_ _..
...
Journal of the
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
{c {,'"
~.o;"''''&
'j'Oil
CJ
CJ
Cl
c.~
C3
....
INTRODUCTION
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 tube-llke 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.
a modelln\'estlgatlonand
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
In a framed-tube 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 out-of -plane actions wlll occur, but these will tend to be reslr lcled
by lhe high In-plane 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
FRAMED-TUDE STRUCTURES
2099
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 ,\"ell-kno\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
Uslng the same notation, the sUrfness matrix for a horizontal vertical shear
transfer member can be written as
~
P-O.532Ib
~.
I
I
J'i:1"
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)
ST H
2101
Au~ust.
2102
1971
Model Details, -The 15-slory nlodel was constructed of Pcrspex, the columns being cut from a 3/1 a-ln. thick sheet and the Cloor slabs Crom a liS-in,
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 2-1/8 In., I.e., 2-ln, clear height betweenfloor slabs. The petlnleter
8T 8
ANl)
EXPBnl~'I ENT
t::
\:>am
cUII'{ \'~;~S
200
8.
:::
~
\1
"'!
i]
8.8. "0
:::
~'~l
I
I
t::
en~i
.::
r----------l
o
,_. ._._._._.+
~
I
+~
~.
:::
~
.LJ J .
.'
II
I I
--J
Cross-section
o Experimental
- - Theoretical
- :-...
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 hull-core 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 l-ln.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
II
1~1
I
IL
FRAMe
p .......... ""
L)
1 u
2103
I"
.)'1' ti
purpose, the G-story structure 6ho" ;0 in Fl~. 4 wns chosen, lhls being the
I
three-dlmension~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
(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
hlomcnlR I in
ton-lJ\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
The method has been lested under wldely dlllerent conditions-against 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 hull-core or tube-In-tube systems for high-rise buildings,
SI~tPLIFIED ~IETHOD
Axial force.
in tons
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
htoments, in
ton-Inches
The work described In this report was aided by a Grant [rom the Sclence
Research Counc 11.
.
(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.
/'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'n-Frcc 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
L = length or member;
and
INTRODUCTION
web
panel
web panel
(1)
flange
panel
::J
"0
U)
U)
bO
...., ....."'
(1)
~
U)
.....
td
4)
nS.c
::J en
....o
cd .....
~
.r-4
U)
U)
bO
td
QJ .....
~
.....
U)
flange panel
"'
4)
........c::
cd
en
.r-4
lateral load
nS C
FIG. 2.
FIG. 1.
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
beam-column 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 beam-column 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
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 in-plane stiffness of the floor slabs will
restrict any tendency for the panels to deform out-of-plane and it may
there-fore be assumed that the out-of-plane actions are insignificant compared to the primary in-plane 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
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
fit'. =
lH fa
(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)
(l-I3)c/>a
L
H
rIp
(b) distribution of axial displacement 1n flange
FIG. 4.
w' =
TIp = -
~a [(1 - a) ~ + a (~r]
(1)
(2)
aw
= az
1226
Uu(z) dz
(9)
=-
(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 second-order 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 )
=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
= 111;
+ 2.67m", + 0.57
~~
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
+ 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.
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
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
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 low-rise buildings than in
high-rise 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)
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
= ~ 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
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 I-point load at top
(1
u= -P - H Z 2
EI 2
1) + -4G- -
1231
zJ
w l wQ
(23)
(1
c:
1) + - -
u = -U - H2 z2 - - HzJ + 1 4
24
Z4
4G w tw a
1)
( Hz - 2
Z2
.2
.!
(24)
~
C
.2
(1 H2
EI 6
Z2 -
(1
-g
o
o....
(1)"8
(25)
8..:
o~
0.&
Example 1
A high-rise 40-story 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 center-to-center
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;~
~
&1-4
eu eu
&.. I::
\to4 eu
..0
)
(27)
+J
.:
,- 7
."
(29)
.c:I
"0
..-4
GJ
~
ns
1-4
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.I-J.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
:;
&
....:::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 mid-height 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 space-frame 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 low-rise IS-story 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
~
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)
-~
...
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
Ii
h./2
h/2
Axial Stiffness
Under the action of vertical axial forces, the load-deformation relationships for both the frame unit and the equivalent membrane will be equal if
Est = EmA e
(40)
= Ae
(41)
centre
of column
---.,
column
centre
of beam
beam
I
I
boundary of
menlbrane
equivalent
L_
.J
~
c
FIG. 8.
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
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)
h
G
st
db
mw,m,
(46)
As
-+Q Q
Wt
I,
U
W
w'
a
f3
REFERENCES
'Yxz
1yz
k
Ez
E'z
ak
az
a'1
<P
69-78.
APPENDIX III.
NOTATION
Ak
a
b
1238
1?~A
40
......
l~
'j
SP
63-21
,j
.I:i.~
.j'
l
I
'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
..,
.....
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 "top-hat" br.acing, and if located at int ermed iate
levels, "belt-bracing". Notable recent examples of belt-braced
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 mid-height 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)
-l
~
i
1
2
d /2
AE
M
...., .. "
1
ItA
~
",.
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
'~
':~gt
"r-518
:
Multi-Outrigger Structures
519
j:
f.
The main purpose of this study is to develop general equations for the analysis of multi-belt structures. It is useful.
however, to refer initially to a study of single-belt structures
made by Tarannth (1). He developed equations for the outrigger
restraining moment) drift and optimum location as follows.
Restraining moment
(H 3 _ X3 )
M
1
;-;[ir + AE~d2J'
wH
Drift
(H - Xl)
M ~H2 _ X2)
= -BEl
2EI
4X~
3X~H
3
- U 0
(4)
DOUBLE-OUTRIGGE~
"
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"
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 .
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
2H l (H-X 1 )
-- +
Xl
(5)
w(HJ_X J )
HI (H-X l ) + H2 (H-X 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 (H-X
2]
s= - + - - -2
TiT
i\I\.c1
(6)
6EIS
(7)
i:~~
!'~!~I'I""
~~
':~f'
j'
:1~
:..-.
520
+ M (l1-X )
M (H-X )
1
2
MUlti-Uutrlgger
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 +
Xl
= 8El - ZEI [M l (H -
2
y 2
3 _
- 3X l X2 + 3 " H - H - 0
( 13)
-wx
X - X
2
2
= EI
~irst
Analysis of Drift
tJ
222
l2(El) S
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~~
x2
(10)
2
2
2
Xl ) + MZ(H - X2 )J
(11)
-t
M)
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
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 )
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
4X
o
and the remaining
00""' - .... - - - -- - --
32'3
~-l
+ 3X X2 - X
1
2
(16)
22
Xj _ 1 - 3X j _ 1Xj + JXjX j +1
X'+l
J
(20)
(Eqns.
Outrigger Moments
~th equ~tion
THE
PE~FOR}~NCE
OF OUTRIGGER STRUCTURES
:1
I:
l
l;.
~
"~
2
2
6ElS (X 2 + X2X1 + Xl)
w
In an attempt to develop a feeling for the relative performance of optimum and certain non-optimum outrigger structures,
the derived equations will be used to ohtain valueR of optimum
locations. restraining moments and drift reductions.
M1
(17)
w
2
Mi = 6ElS (X i +l + Xi+lX i - XiX i _ l
~+l
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 )
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 mid-height whilst those in a three-outrigger system
nrc cl o~e to the quarter, hal f an1d three-quarter 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
J1
.. :~
il~I'n':11
~~I
IW:l
,!\
:1
I~;:
q;~
1i;:~
j:X
11'~1
ii:
:!:
"
~~lLll
.\il~,~
IIJ~ .
!;~
I'
d
'I
.- ...
,---
'-524
Multi::Outrigger Structures
from Eq. 1
1-1 f
EI + AE d 2 /2
c
Mfc
= EIS
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
by
d/\
Mt
'M~
Mi
= 100
wH2
ET~
dl\
'If
di\rt'
:< 100
~
1(
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
r'" * - 66.7
--,--II
'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-~
J~Kd--
0-
O_---J~/
a,
CONCLUSIO~S
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
2.
3.
4.
~:
'1
An investigation is proceeding into the detailed effacts of outrigger flexibility, but some general comments based on preliminary
results ~an he mArtp..
1.
!
'."11ke it lell see fee tive in controlling the d r H t and core moment II
NlOl(f.UUtrrggeT-~1.rUClU-r~~
~~
Multi-Outrigger Structures
528
529
REFERENCES
<J
1.
or+oJ
'f-
~<)
2.
3.
"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:
r-4
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
ex
M
fc
resisting moment of
outrigger i
Mi expressed as a percentage
a parameter
VI + AE:d 2]
~
..,..
.-:r
..
LIt
d6
reduction in drift
0-
~J
~
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
=-
N*
c-
:1
::,
;~~.
0:
.~
GI
eo
co
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
~1id-Ueight
58.3
X1/H = 0.5000
::J
87.5
::s
Top-Hat
X1/H ::: fJ
..
I
t
'!umbp.r of
C'.Itriq<jers
--
*
Xl
X*z
~
~
~
:2
66.6
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
:!.
(JQ
1
I
0.33
0.67
.Q.25
f).
8.6
23.1
4-3.9
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
Ii-WEg~~~:::~
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
.-......--
.'.~'='.~
....
..- - _.._ - - - . .
hr
.....
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
O"Q
CJQ
....
(D
,.....
CIl
2
AE d
-I
t:
~
2EI
-I
B = Core:
E1
{fI}o
IT
(t)
en
W
VJ
CJ1
-+
OUTRIGGERS
~.
--...
-.
HAT GIRDER
-+
c.n
,...
~
COLUMNS
---h.
......
o
.,
c.
8.M.
,',
. :i:
<J I
II
Fig. 2a--"Free"
Fig. 2b--B.M .
cantilever
diagram for a
_.
3,...,.
free cantilever
CORE
CIl
:r
~
:::J
C.
Z
~
~
~
Fig. 2d--B.M.
diagram for outrigger braced
Fig.2c--Outrigger
braced cantilever
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')
~:.~;}~:~~Y:---=
(J1
. ~__:.}/:;:~~::;~~~1!!~ri-~:.:
- - - - -
536
HAT GIRD
---
,.-
43 rd FLOOR
;,0
-.
OLUMNS
_.... _21
..
""V~
...
'.
L....:.-
'" ~
~-
.,
I
A
--+--+-
1
--,
11
--+
--+
~
...!L
.: "~
537
CORE
35
BELT GIROE
.- - Multi-Outrigger
- - Structures
INFINITE NUMBER
OF OUTRIGGERS
.A.C. WALLS
}~.,~=
FOUNDATION
-.
,(
FREE CANTILEVER
B. M. DIAGRAM
OUTRIGGERS
....,..----.
:/
;t
~~l
I~
E
Q
.
~"l~_' - -_ _~1_m_.
.-,ty..m~
B.M. IN CORE
B.M. CARRIED
BY COLUMNS
B.M.
JI
':',
":\J~\t~!\:
:,1~!11 ' .
j,",t'.:
."
..
,._ . . . . . . . . . v .
~~-
-'~-
.~, ~~.~~~~~~~;~~:~:~~~~;~~~
_::Z-:i...
_. _-- ...._ ... ~.~:.:: .-:_":w:.: -...,..~ . '::~7~: ..
en ."
r t .-.
-.os co
c
n
~.
~r
20
c-t" 0'\
c:s:u
-.os.
-t
~
I Z
o
I
o
fllGl
(i)~
t+
J.
..
-1-0
(,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
C-SI
'"1
r+CI::O
(1)
-s3C'D
co
c...-.os
-.os
CD-
3:
N
C'DCPI
VI
::s
0..-_..
~.- ------6
tat
TOP ,
-rR..
TOP
0.1661---0
\
..
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
:~~~;;,.:.;~:::-:-.
--'I
QQ.
0.6
0.5
SINGLE
OUTRIGGER
MID-HEIGHT
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
CJ
V.
c.c
.~~~~~il.I~~~:5='~Jjf~::'~~~'~i~~;~;~::~~
~ _.-.-~'~. ~~~
-=_r~"
..
~ ~
:~.,j.:,I~~"''''' .,,,
..
>'.
._
-,...
'"
.....
.r ,
-.
..
.
#
'"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~h
TOP
TOP
2EI
do. =
0.1
TOP OUTRIGGER
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
0.
d-.
......
2EI
....
&.1
~
0.9
:
"
.=1
HeicJht ::.
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
C-f
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:
-_-
\
\
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
41
42
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 finite-element 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
flange
web
Ca)
flange
web
(b)
~,.-
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 finite-element 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 shear-lag 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 shear-lag phenomenon in
shear/core wall structures is carried out by using finite-element
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.
Finite-Element 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 finite-element 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 eight-noded 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
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 1-3.. 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 Finite-Element Method
TABLE 1.
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
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.
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
Shear-lag She~r-Iag
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
Numerical Results
The axial-stress 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
webflange
junction
webflange
junction
}-
ct (0"
Iv
gradient
reduced due
to shear lag
_I~
}
a
~
a
-,lI---L
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
.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
CT/(Y) =
el..
(2)
is plotted on the flange panel alongside the finite-element results in Fig. 3 to demonstrate how close the axial-stress distribution in the flange panel is to a fourth-order polynomial.
Shear lag increases the axial stresses at the web-flange 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 -
Ad
(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 1-3. 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.
:- .. ~:
.'P
TABLE 4.
Top)
(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
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
....::...~.:_
.. -.
0.& , . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
bI.-IIJ
TABLE 6.
Fixed End
0.6
Load
bfa-I
004
case
ex
(1 )
(2)
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-+-------+-------+--------li---------f
10
20
30
40
Hla
0.1.,.-----------------------.
P
bla-ll3
blplJ2
blpl
0.6
Model
number
(1)
a blP2
o bla=a3
0.4
-Prq:loI:cd
formula
0.2
0-+-------+-------+----~1--------4
20
10
30
40
BIb
FIG. 8.
Values of a and
a=---C2 + Hla
TABLE 7. Comparison of Stress Factors at Fixed End Obtained by Proposed Formulas with Those by Finite-Element
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
(8)
(9)
(5)
(10)
(11)
(6)
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
f:a
2tw CTw X dx
f:'
2r,CT,a dy = M
(7)
As
[w + I,
=-------~---[w(1 - 0.57a) + [,(I - 0.80~)
(12)
;- ;;
~_
20
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)
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 shear-lag .phenomenon. Nevertheless, since
shear lag is basically a local-stress-concentration .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 shear-lag 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, finite-element 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 finite-element 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 shear-lag
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)
CONCLUSIONS
A parametric study of the shear-lag 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 shear-lag phenomenon revealed that
the degree of shear lag in an individual web or flange panel,
measured in tenns of the dimensionless shear-lag coefficients
a or J3, is dependent mainly on the height/width ratio of the
panel. Plotting the shear-lag 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 shear-lag coefficients are
produced. A simple equation for evaluating the increase in
maximum-bending stress due to shear lag in both the web and
flange panels is also derived. Comparison with the finite-element. 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
3644.
Coull, A., and Abu EI Magd, S. A. (1980). Analysis of wide-flanged
shearwall structures." Reinforced concrete structures subjected to wind
and earthquake forces, ACI Spec. Publ. 63, Paper No. SP63-23, Concrete Institute, Detroit, Mich., 575 -607.
Coull, A., and Bose, B. (1975). "'Simplified analysis of frame-tube structures." J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 101(11), 2223-2240.
DeFries-Skene, A., and Scordelis, A. C. (1964). "'Direct stiffness solution
for folded plates." J. Struct. Div., ASCE, Vol. 90(4), 15-48.
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, 69-92.
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
APPENDIX II.
NOTATION