Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros de Caminos,

Canales y Puertos de Barcelona

BUILDING STRUCTURES

LATERAL STABILITY
BUILDING STIFFENED WITH R.C. SHEAR WALLS
Contents  
1.  Introduction  ............................................................................................................................  3  
2.  Forces  acting  on  each  shear  wall  ..............................................................................................  5  
3.  Base  reinforcement  design  for  the  wall  F1x  ...........................................................................  12  
3.1  Longitudinal  reinforcement  ..........................................................................................................   12  
3.2  Shear  reinforcement  .....................................................................................................................   16  
4.  Maximum  horizontal  displacements  and  twist  due  to  wind  load   ...........................................  22  
5.  Check  for  the  non-­‐sway  condition  ..........................................................................................  25  
6.  Conclusions  ...........................................................................................................................  27  
1.  Introduction  
The aim of this document is to analyse the effects generated by wind on a relatively high building.
For this purpose, an equivalent wind total load equal to 1,2 kN/m2 acting on the surface
perpendicular to the wind direction is assumed. The effects of wind will be considered in two
different situations, i.e. when wind is blowing from west to east (X-direction) and when it is blowing
from south to north (Y-direction). A plane view of a generic floor of the building is shown in the
figure below. The measures are expressed in centimeters.

The floor of the building under consideration is 30m x 20m wide and it is characterized by a system
of reinforced concrete shear walls in order to resist the horizontal actions. The arrangement of the
walls is a result of the architectural design: they all have a thickness of 40 cm and different lengths.
Four of them are oriented along Y direction, they are disposed symmetrically with respect to the Y
axis passing across the centroid of the plan and they are all 540 cm long. On the other hand, three
of them are oriented along X direction and do not respect any symmetry rule: two of them are
located along one external side of the floor and they are both 400 cm long, while the third one is
located at the centroid of the plan and it is 475 cm long. In the following table the shear walls
dimensions measured along their plane major axis are resumed.
 X-oriented shear walls
F1x 4,75 m
F2x 4 m
F3x 4 m
Y-oriented shear walls
F1y 5,4 m
F2y 5,4 m
F3y 5,4 m
F4y 5,4 m

The height between the stories of the building is constant and equal to 3 meters. This value
corresponds to the vertical distance between the mid-surface of the floor slabs. The total amount
of stories is equal to 21. In the following table the geometric features of the building are resumed.

number of stories NS 21 [-]

X-oriented sides length LX 30 m
Y-oriented sides length LY 20 m
height of single storey h 3 m
total height of the building H 63 m
thickness of the shear walls t 0,4 m
Position of the centroid with respect to the left lowest external corner of the floor plan
along X-axis XG 15 m
along Y-axis YG 10 m

The gravity loads on the building are the self-weight (i.e. floor slabs with self-weight equal to 5
kN/m2), the pavement and the partition walls (1,5 kN/m2) and a distributed live load equal to 3
kN/m2.

Vertical Loads
g1 5 kN/m2
g2 1,5 kN/m2
q 3 kN/m2

The legislative reference adopted for this analysis is the Spanish Code EHE-08.
2.  Forces  acting  on  each  shear  wall  
Firstly, the actions generated by wind lateral load on each shear wall have to be computed. The
two different directions (i.e. X and Y) are considered separately. In order to simplify the problem,
the so-called “Stiffness Planes General Method” is adopted. It is based on the assumption that the
building can be seen as a system of three families of planes, composed of two perpendicular families
of vertical elements and one additional family of horizontal planes (i.e. floors). The floors are
assumed to be infinitely rigid in their own plane, while the vertical planes only present flexural
stiffness with respect to their stronger plane axis.
The main basic hypotheses are the following ones:

•   all the horizontal stiffness is concentrated in a series of frames organised according to two
perpendicular families;
•   each frame has stiffness in its own plane, while its transversal stiffness is neglected;
•   the floors are monolithic and infinitely rigid in their own plane, i.e. they do not experience
any deformation in their own plane.

In the case under consideration the problem is further simplified since the horizontal stability is
guaranteed by a simple system of vertical walls, which are constant in elevation and arranged
according to two orthogonal directions X and Y. For a system of this type, it is possible to obtain
the centre of rigidity (XC , YC) so that the external forces applied on it do not generate torsion and
twist. It is quite straightforward that the centre of rigidity of the whole system does not coincides
with the centroid because of the non-symmetric distribution of the shear walls. Moreover, the
horizontal loads are assumed to be proportional along all the floors: specifically, the wind action is
transformed in an equivalent distributed and constant load acting on the surfaces perpendicular to
the air flow.
Therefore, in such a case, the following relations hold to compute the centre of rigidity (with
respect to the centroid reference system):

% 𝑥% 𝐾'(
𝑋" =
% 𝐾'(

+ 𝑦+ 𝐾,-
𝑌" =
+ 𝐾,-
where:
𝑥% is the coordinate, along X direction, of the i-th shear wall’s centre of gravity;
𝐾'( is the stiffness around X direction of the i-th Y-oriented shear wall;
𝑦+ is the coordinate, along Y direction, of the j-th shear wall’s centre of gravity;
𝐾,- is the stiffness around Y direction of the j-th X-oriented shear wall.

In the following table are resumed the values of the various walls’ inertias.

SHEAR WALL F1x

X-oriented
IyF1x 3,572395833 m4
SHEAR WALL F2x-F3x
X-oriented
IyF2x 2,133333333 m4
 IyF3x 2,133333333 m4
SHEAR WALL F1y-F2y-F3y-F4y
Y-oriented
IxF1y 5,2488 m4
IxF2y 5,2488 m4
IxF3y 5,2488 m4
IxF4y 5,2488 m4

Every moment of inertia has been computed by means of the simple following formula associated
to the rectangular section:
1 3
𝐼= 𝑡𝐿
12
where:
𝑡 is the thickness of the wall, i.e. its minor planar dimension;
𝐿 is the length of the wall, i.e. its major planar dimension.

Here below the total inertias in both directions are resumed.

IxTOT 20,9952 m4
IyTOT 7,8390625 m4

As one could expect, the inertia given by the Y-oriented walls is larger because they are more than
the X-oriented walls and they are larger too.

By applying the previous formulae, the following position of the centre of rigidity is computed:

CENTRE OF RIGIDITY
XC 0 m
YC 5,4428277 m

Obviously, the centre of rigidity belongs to Y axis, as Y-oriented shear walls are distributed
symmetrically with respect to that. The same thing does not occur with regards to X-oriented walls.

Considering the centre of rigidity as the origin of the new coordinate system, it is possible to
compute directly the forces that the various walls have to resist. The following formulae hold:

𝐾'( 5'6 𝑥%8 𝐾'( 5'6

𝐹,( = 𝐹, + 𝑀'
% 𝐾'( 𝐼9
𝐾,- 𝑦+8 𝐾,-
5'6
𝐹'- = 𝐹' − 𝑀,5'6
+ 𝐾,- 𝐼9
where:
𝐼9 is the polar moment of inertia. It is calculated as follows:

< <
𝐼9 = 𝐾'( 𝑥%8 + 𝐾,- 𝑦+8 = 4918,3594  𝑚E
% +

𝑥%8 and 𝑦+8 are the walls relevant coordinates with respect to the centre of rigidity;
𝐹,5'6 is the external force acting along Y direction;
𝐹'5'6 is the external force acting along X direction;
𝑀'5'6 is the moment produced by the eccentricity of 𝐹,5'6 with respect to the centre of rigidity;
𝑀,5'6 is the moment produced by the eccentricity of 𝐹'5'6 with respect to the centre of rigidity.

In this case, the symmetry of the Y-oriented shear walls does not imply any eccentricity of the
external force 𝐹,5'6 , therefore 𝑀'5'6 = 0. On the other hand, the external force 𝐹'5'6 produces a
torsional moment 𝑀,5'6 = 𝐹'5'6 ∙ 𝑌" . In the following table the external actions due to wind on each
floor are resumed. Both X and Y directions are considered separately.

FORCES PER FLOOR

𝐹'5'6 qI ∙ LK ∙ h 72 kN
𝐹,5'6 qI ∙ LM ∙ h 108 kN
𝑀'5'6 𝐹,5'6 ∙ 𝑋" 0 kNm
𝑀,5'6 𝐹'5'6 ∙ 𝑌" 391,88 kNm

The moments are considered positive if counter-clockwise.

According to the previous formulae, each shear wall experience the following forces when the wind
blows along Y direction, from south to north.

BRACING SYSTEM REACTIONS

wind force along Y direction
F1y (Fy) 27 kN
F2y (Fy) 27 kN
F3y (Fy) 27 kN
F4y (Fy) 27 kN
F1x(Mx) 0,000 kN
F2x(Mx) 0,000 kN
F3x(Mx) 0,000 kN
F1y(Mx) 0,000 kN
F2y(Mx) 0,000 kN
F3y(Mx) 0,000 kN
F4y(Mx) 0,000 kN

RESULTANTS
F1x 0,000 kN 0 %
F2x 0,000 kN 0 %
F3x 0,000 kN 0 %
F1y 27,000 kN 25 %
F2y 27,000 kN 25 %
F3y 27,000 kN 25 %
F4y 27,000 kN 25 %

In the same way, each shear wall experience the following forces when the wind blows along X
direction, from west to east.

BRACING SYSTEM REACTIONS

wind force along X direction
F1x(Fx) 32,812 kN
F2x(Fx) 19,594 kN
F3x(Fx) 19,594 kN
F1x(My) 1,549 kN
F2x(My) -0,775 kN
F3x(My) -0,775 kN
F1y(My) -6,273 kN
F2y(My) -6,273 kN
F3y(My) 6,273 kN
F4y(My) 6,273 kN
 RESULTANTS
F1x 34,361 kN 47,72345637 %
F2x 18,820 kN 26,13827182 %
F3x 18,820 kN 26,13827182 %
F1y -6,273 kN -8,712757272 %
F2y -6,273 kN -8,712757272 %
F3y 6,273 kN 8,712757272 %
F4y 6,273 kN 8,712757272 %

Further comments on these results will be given later. For the moment, it is just important to note
that this shear walls distribution make the central X-oriented wall to take almost a half of the
external actions when the wind blows from west to east. Therefore, this wall will need a particular
reinforcement to bear such a load.
Finally, the global equilibrium of the system can be verified. Namely, the reactions given by the
walls should be equal to the external forces and should balance any external moment applied on
the building. By means of simple equilibrium equations, this global check is satisfied.

Wind blowing from south to north

GLOBAL CHECK
ΣRy 108,000 kN OK
ΣRx 0,000 kN OK
ΣM 0,000 kNm OK

Wind blowing from west to east

GLOBAL CHECK
ΣRx 72,000 kN OK
ΣRy 0,000 kN OK
ΣM 391,88 kNm OK

In the following, the two different loading conditions are represented. It should be noted that, if
the wind blows in opposite directions, i.e. or from north to south, either from east to west, the
forces here depicted change their directions as well, keeping the same absolute values.
Wind blowing from south to north
Wind blowing from west to east
3.  Base  reinforcement  design  for  the  wall  F1x  
The reinforcement of the shear wall F1x should be properly design because of the significant share
of the external actions carried on. It should be taken into account that the wall supports a weight
corresponding to a surface of 60 m2 per each floor slab.

3.1  Longitudinal  reinforcement  

Firstly, the design loads should be computed. In addition to the horizontal wind load, there are the
vertical permanent and live loads. As pointed out in Article 12 of EHE-08, the partial safety factors
corresponding to a persistent situation should be considered. Specifically, the following values are
chosen in order to minimize the favourable effect of gravity loads under horizontal actions
situations.

Partial safety factor favourable effect

γg 1
γq 0

Nsd computation
g1 5 kN/m2
g2 1,5 kN/m2
q 3 kN/m2
A 60 m2
qult per floor 6,5 kN/m2
number of floors 21 [-]
Nsd 8190 kN

Once computed the axial load, the bending moment and shear force acting at the base of the
column should be evaluated. These values can be obtained by distributing along the height of the
column the design wind load and, then, by simply enforcing the equilibrium of the cantilever wall.
 Msd computation
PQP
𝐹NO 51,541 kN
𝛾S 1,5 [-]
PQP
𝑄U%VW,W 𝐹NO ∙ 𝛾S 51,541 kN
t 0,4 m
h 3 m
A 1,2 m2
𝑞YZ5Y,U%VW,W 𝑄U%VW,W /𝐴 42,95111073 kN/m2
𝑞U = 𝑞]%V5YZ,U%VW,W 𝑞YZ5Y,U%VW,W ∙ 𝑡 17,18044429 kN/m
H 63 m
<
Msd 𝑞U 𝐻 /2 34094,5917 kNm
Vsd 𝑞U 𝐻 1082,36799 kN

On the basis of such values the longitudinal reinforcement can be computed.

First of all, its important to define the properties of the used materials and their constitutive laws.
Applying the criteria explained in Article 38 and 39 of EHE-08 code, one obtains the following
results. In this case, also the long-term effects on concrete strength are taken into account by
adopting the coefficient acc=0,85.
 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Reinforcement Steel Concrete
B 500 S HA 30
2
fyk 500 N/mm fck 30 N/mm2
𝛾s 1,15 [-] 𝛾c 1,5 [-]
2
fyd 434,7826087 N/mm fcd 17 N/mm2
2
Es 210000 N/mm fct,m 2,896468154 N/mm2
fct,k 2,027527708 N/mm2
fctd 1,351685138 N/mm2

Regarding the concrete section, the rectangular stress-strain diagram will be adopted, according to
what is described in paragraph 39.5 of the code. Because of the fact that I am dealing with a
concrete whose characteristic strength fck is lower than 50 N/mm2, the values l=0,8 and h=1 will
be used.

The basic hypothesis for design is that the concrete subjected to compression stresses fails at its
maximum deformation, i.e. ecu=0,0035. The steel bars have to be checked if they are in yielding
field or still in the elastic range.

The following inequality have to be satisfied:

𝑀ZW ≥ 𝑀`W ≃ 34095  𝑘𝑁𝑚

The loading condition, for which the reinforcement is computed, is represented in the figure below.

The base cross-section is indeed designed to resist the effects of wind bending the cantilever wall
in both possible ways. Obviously, each of them cannot occur simultaneously with the other one.
By computing the resultants of the stresses and by imposing the translational and rotational
equilibrium of the section subjected to bending and axial load, one can calculate the position x of
the neutral axis in the section and the amount of reinforcement As needed to resist the external
actions. An equal amount of reinforcement As is employed on both cross-section edges. For design
purpose, I get the maximum exploitation of the mechanical characteristics of materials by imposing
the ultimate deformation 𝜀ef = 0,0035 on the upper extreme fibre of concrete and the yielding
deformation 𝜀,W on steel reinforcement.
Through the implementation of this simple iterative procedure on an Excel worksheet, I get values
that bring me to choose 5 layers of 5f24 as the reinforcement of just one edge of the base wall
cross-section. The same choice is adopted for the opposite edge.

In the following table are resumed the quantities I got with this reinforcement choice. Later, a
sketch of the base cross-section reinforcement will be provided.

Longitudinal reinforcement (only one edge is considered)

number of layers 5 [-]
number of bars per layer 5 [-]
f of each bar 24 mm
2
As 11309,73355 mm
x (from the top edge) 1505,514706 mm
NRd 8190 kN
MRd 36401,05961 kNm
MRd/ MSd 106,7649084 %

It is clear that a uniform longitudinal distribution of longitudinal bars has been employed for design
purpose and simplicity of installation.

Moreover, a certain amount of longitudinal reinforcement is needed in the central area of the cross-
section, outside the strata of principal reinforcement. Such amount can be equal to the minimum
proposed by EHE-08 in the Article 42. Specifically, at subsection 42.3.5 the following table is
provided.
For the case under consideration, a geometric ratio equal to 0,0009 is chosen. In the following table
the computations for the minimum longitudinal reinforcement design are developed.

minimum longitudinal reinforcement (central zone)

minimum geometric ratio 0,9 ‰ 0,0009 #
total area of concrete section 1,9 m2
length (of central area to be reinforced) 4250 mm 4,25 m
total area of concrete (central area) 1,7 m2 1700000 mm2
minimum reinforcement area 1530 mm2
minimum reinforcement area / 2 765 mm2
Φ 12 mm
theoretical amount of bars per side 6,764085081
design amount of bars per side 7
Step between consecutive bars 680 mm
distance between principal reinforcement
85 mm
and minimum reinforcement of central zone

3.2  Shear  reinforcement  

Actually the base cross-section of the wall under consideration has also to withstand the shear
action previously computed, i.e. 𝑉`W = 1082,4  𝑘𝑁. According to what is described in Article 44 of
the EHE-08 code, the Limit State of Failure due to shear will be reached when either the
compressive strength of the web or its tensile strength is exhausted. It is consequently necessary to
verify that both the following conditions are simultaneously satisfied:

𝑉ZW ≤ 𝑉fN
𝑉ZW ≤ 𝑉f<
where:
𝑉ZW is the design value of the effective shear force;
𝑉fN is the ultimate shear force failure due to diagonal compression in the web;
𝑉f< is the ultimate shear force failure due to tension in the web.

As a first hypothesis, it is considered the case of lack of any shear reinforcement. In such a case the
failure due to diagonal compression will not need to be verified. Moreover, it can be simply verified
that the acting bending moment is larger than Mfis,d , so the cracked section should be considered
hereafter.

Following what is described in the paragraph 44.2.3.2.1.2 of EHE-08, one gets the following values
for the computation of Vu2.

Wall without shear reinforcement

fcv 30 N/mm2
rl 0,006146594 [-]
x 1,208514414 [-]
Vu2 704,9681648 kN
Vu2,min 669,4624255 kN

It is evident that the wall under consideration can not bear the maximum external shear stresses
without any appropriate shear reinforcement. So, considering the case of members with shear
reinforcement, the ultimate shear force failure due to tensile force in the web shall be equivalent
to:

𝑉f< = 𝑉ef + 𝑉`f

where:

𝑉`f is the contribution of the web’s transverse reinforcement to shear strength;

𝑉ef is the contribution of the concrete to shear strength.

At this point the first thing to do is to evaluate the ratio between the total amount of transversal
reinforcement 𝐴`` and the inter-axis between the stirrups 𝑒` through the following relation:

𝐴``
𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑔𝜃    𝑓  0,9𝑑 = 𝑉ZW
𝑒` ,W

where:

𝜃 is the angle between the concrete’s compressed struts and the axis of member; in this case an
angle 𝜃 = 45° is considered;

𝑓,W is the design strength of the reinforcement i.e. the yielding stress;

𝑑 is the effective depth of the cross-section.

qrr ttu
Eventually one gets = 0,60131555 .
5r tt

Then choosing a f8 diameter for 2-legs-stirrups, an inter-axis distance of about 167 mm can be
obtained.

Eventually I chose 2-legs-stirrups f8 / 200 mm (i.e. 𝑒` = 200  𝑚𝑚) for the total cross section, while
a more refined distribution of stirrups will be placed around the principal longitudinal
reinforcement bars on the edges of the cross-section.

Once defined the transversal reinforcement adopted, it is possible to compute 𝑉f< .

Following what is described in the paragraph 44.2.3.2.2 of EHE-08, one gets the following values
for the computation of Vsu and Vcu.

Computation of Vsu
d 4600 mm
z 4140 mm
a 90 °
q 45 °
cotgq 1
å Aa 0,502654825 mm2/mm

Vsu 904,7786842 kN

Computation of Vcu
Md 34094,592 kNm
Vrd 1082,36799 kN
As 11309,73355 mm2
ex 1,961600802
qe 42,73120562 °
cotgqe 1,082506061 > cotgq
b 0,858360167
Vcu 504,2638266 kN

Therefore it results 𝑉f< = 𝑉ef + 𝑉`f = 1409,0425  𝑘𝑁 so one compulsory verification is satisfied.
Now, following what is described in the paragraph 44.2.3.1 of EHE-08, one gets the following
values for the computation of 𝑉fN .

K 1
2
flcd 10,2 N/mm
Vu1 9384 kN
It is evident that the other compulsory verification is satisfied: 𝑉ZW = 1082,4  𝑘𝑁 ≪ 𝑉fN =
9384  𝑘𝑁.
By adopting this shear reinforcement choice, also the minimum transversal reinforcement check
explained in subsection 44.2.3.4.1 of EHE-08 is satisfied.

In the enclosed drawing the reinforcement distribution employed for the base cross-section of the
analysed shear wall is illustrated.
4.  Maximum  horizontal  displacements  and  twist  due  to  wind  load  
A good simplification to study this structural condition is the case of the cantilever clamped at one
edge and free to move on the opposite one, and subjected to a constant load distributed along its
length. If the total inertia of the building is concentrated on a line running along its height, the
structure under consideration can be therefore analysed as it behaves like a cantilever. In such a
case, the maximum horizontal displacement occurs on the top of the cantilever and can be
evaluated by means of the following expression:
1 𝑞𝐻y
𝑣xqO =
8 𝐸𝐼
where:
𝑞 is the intensity of the distributed load, representing the wind action in this case;
𝐻 is the length of the cantilever, i.e. the height of the building in this case;
𝐸𝐼 is the flexural rigidity of the cantilever. It should be noted that for slender structural walls the
shear flexibility can be neglected.

As a consequence, the bending stiffness provided by each wall, whose static scheme is a cantilever
laterally loaded by wind, is the following:

{  |}~ •€(
𝐾'( = for Y-oriented shear walls;
•‚

{  |}~ •ƒ-
𝐾,- = for X-oriented shear walls.
•‚

Since the centroid of the building does not coincide with the centre of rigidity, when wind blows
along X direction a certain distributed torsional moment m appears. It can be evaluated as follows:

𝑚 = 𝑞YZ5Y,U%VW,W ∙ 𝐿' ∙ 𝑌"

Being the top of the cantilever free to move, it will experience the maximum torque effect, namely:

𝑀 =𝑚∙𝐻

Once M has been defined, the following relations hold in order to compute the maximum twist:

𝑀 = 𝐹' ∙ 𝑌" = 𝑅% 𝑟%
%
𝑅% = 𝐾% ∙ 𝛿% = 𝐾% ∙ 𝜑 ∙ 𝑟%
where:
𝑅% is the reaction provided by the i-th wall;
𝛿% is the planar displacement experienced by the i-th wall;
𝑟% is the distance of the i-th wall’s centroid from the centre of rigidity of the system;
𝜑 is the twist experienced by the whole floor, since the diaphragm action is assumed.

Therefore, one gets:

𝑀
𝜑= <
% 𝐾% 𝑟%
According to the previous expressions, this last denominator reads:

y 3
8  𝐸et
𝐾% 𝑟%< = 𝐾'( 𝑥%< + 𝐾,- 𝑦+< = 𝐼'( 𝑥%< + 𝐼,- 𝑦+<
𝐻3
% %ˆN +ˆN % +

These formulae can be simply applied in the case under consideration, reminding that the centre
of rigidity of each floor is assumed to represent the behaviour of the whole floor, according to the
initial assumption. In the following table are resumed the results concerning the situation in which
the wind blows along X direction. It should be noted that “u” refers to the displacements along X
direction, while “v” refers to the ones along Y direction.

MAX DISPLACEMENT ON THE TOP

only X-oriented forces
q 24 kN/m
vCR 0 m
uCR 0,210962793 m

m 130,6278653 kN
M 8229,555511 kNm
𝜑 0,001830098 rad

The same path of reasoning has to be applied or the case of wind blowing along Y direction.
However, in such a case the loads do not imply any rotation since there are no eccentricities,
therefore each floor will experience only a rigid movement along Y direction. Here below the
relevant results are resumed.

MAX DISPLACEMENT ON THE TOP

only Y-oriented forces
q 36 kN/m
vCR 0,118152044 m
uCR 0 m

m 0 kN
M 0 kNm
𝜑 0 rad

Since each floor behaves like a rigid diaphragm and since a certain amount of rotations occurs, the
various walls do not experience the same displacement. Specifically, in addition to the rigid
translations equal for every wall, the displacements caused by the rigid rotation around the centre
of rigidity must be taken into account. In the case under consideration, the point affected by
maximum displacement significance is the one located at the right-low corner, as pointed out in
the figure below.
Here below the computation of the maximum displacements on the top floor are resumed.

Maximum displacement (only Y-oriented forces)

v_max 0,118152044 m
u_max 0 m

Maximum displacement (only X-oriented forces)

v_max 0,027451469 m
u_max 0,23922468 m

A common limit value for displacements is H/500=0,126m. It is evident that when the wind blows
along X direction, this limit value is overcome.
5.  Check  for  the  non-­‐sway  condition  
Once designed the main shear wall of the building and computed the maximum movements, it is
necessary to check if the building under consideration can be considered as non-sway in any
direction, according to the article 43.1.1 of the Spanish code EHE-08. Here below can be seen
what the code prescribes:

Here below the relevant computations are resumed.

k1ULS 0,31 -
n 21 -
h 63 m
E 28576790,96 kN/m2
 g1 5 kN/m2
g2 1,5 kN/m2
q 3 kN/m2
qult 13,275 kN/m2
Nd 167265 kN

I against x-forces 7,8390625 m4

NrULS 16258,07174 kN
Nr/Nd 9,719948427 %

I against y-forces 20,9952 m4

NrULS 43543,65943 kN
Nr/Nd 26,03273813 %

It is clear that the building under consideration cannot be regarded as a non-sway structure.
6.  Conclusions  
Once concluded the computations and the designs, some comments on the analysed case should
be done.

As pointed out at the end of chapter 4, the common limit value for lateral displacements equal to
H/500 is respected only when the wind hits the building on his longer side.
It is quite reasonable to pay a special care when the larger façade of the building is hit by the wind,
but the same attention should be paid for the other side too. In fact, the limit value for
displacements is almost doubled when wind blows along X direction, hitting the shortest side of
the building. This is mainly due to the bad arrangement of the X-oriented shear walls: in fact, they
are all concentrated in the upper part of the plane. In addition, they are also fewer and smaller than
the Y-oriented shear walls.
Such bad arrangement results in a non-coincidence between the centroid of the building and its
centre of rigidity: this implies an eccentricity of the resultant X-oriented wind force with respect to
the centre of rigidity, which cause a torsional moment on each floor.
The largest effect of such a torque is experienced by the top floor of the building: here the sum all
the rigid body motions results in a X-oriented displacement of the lowest edge of the right-low
corner wall equal to about 24 cm.

As a consequence, a better arrangement should be employed. For instance, a symmetric

distribution similar to the one along Y direction could be adopted for the X-oriented walls,
removing the central and overloaded wall.

Alternatively, if architectural requirements do not allow the presence of external shear walls, an
other kind of lateral bearing loads solution should be employed, for instance an internal core made
up of a closed profile: in such a way torsional and warping effects would be significantly reduced.

The simple final computation according to what is explained in the Spanish code about the
instability Ultimate Limit State shows that the building under consideration cannot be regarded as
a non-sway structure: therefore, if any change can be made on the arrangement of the walls, a
particular care to instability problems should be paid. Taking into account the relevant geometric
non-linearity effects, such as global and local P-D effects, some more refined and time-consuming
analyses are therefore needed.