ENGINEERING BULLETIN

Shear Wall-Frame Interaction A DESIGN AID

BYlain A. MacLeod

PORTLAND CEMENT IEII ’ ASSOCIATION

 FOREWORO

Shear walls and frames in combination normally provide

the required stiffness and strength to withstand lateral loads
in high-rise buildings. Apartment buildings up to 70 stories
high have successfully utilized this concept. [n certain cases
the walls me much stiffer than the frames and thus take
most of the lateral load. For this reason, the participation
of the frame in resisting lateral load is often ignored. TMs
may not always be a conservative procedure and it is
therefore important that the effect of the frames be
considered,
In this publication procedures are recommended for
analyzing shear wall-frame interaction problems. A new
simplified method for assessing the effect of the frames is
also presented.

COVER PHOTO: Lincoln Park Tower% Chicago, 111.Architects and

Engineers: Dubin, Dubin, Black & Mo.touswm; Structural Em+
neer: Eugene A, D.bin; General Contractor: James McHugh
Comtr.cti.n Co.–.]! of Chimw,

@ PcmlandC.mnr A.wciadon 1970

Reprinted1974, 1981,1983,1985,1998
 CONTENTS

Notation . 3
1. Behavior of Structures Under L?teral Lnad . 5
l.l. Behavior Difference Between Frames and Shear Walls 5
1.2. Behavior of Floor Slabs . 6
1.3. Effect of Torsion 6
1.4. Effect of Openings in Shear Walls 6
2, Simplified Methods of Estimating Lateral Lnad Distribution 7
2.1. Use of Charts from References 6 and 7 7
2.2. The Component Stiffness Method-Equation C 7
2.3. The Component Stiffness Method for Structures with Torsion 12
3. Calculation of Moments and Shears Within the Structure Is
4. More Accurate Analysis 15
4.1. Numerical Accuracy . Is
4.2. Plane Frame Computer program 16
4.3. Space Frame Computer Progmm 16
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

This publication is based on the facts, tests, and authorities stated herein. It is intended
for the use of professional personnel competent to evaluate the significance and limitw
tions of the reported findings and who will accept responsibility for the application of the
material it contains. Obviously, the Portland Cement Association disclaims any and all
responsibility for application of the stated principles or for the accuracy of any of the
sources other than work performed or information developed by the Association.
 NOTATION

,4, = area of columns A at top of frame

n = ratioA ~t bottom of frame, as used in
A cl, Ac2 = areas of wall sections .
a = distance of applied load from origin Table I
–see Fig. 9 P= interaction load at the top of the
B = width of frame frame (subscript denotes frame repre-
sented as spring)
b = clear span of beams
R = support reaction coefficient for a
C = column width propped cantilever
D = depth of beam IC at top of frame , ~~ “~ed in
s = ratio
E= Young’s modulus (subscript indicates Ic at bottom of frame
structural system) Table 1
Fx, Fm, Fn, F,= functions usedin Equations Aand B W = total applied lateral load (subscript
(Table l), dependent onthe type of denotes load on specific wall)
loading
lb at top of frame
g= ratio , as used in
1, at bottom of frame ~ = a variable used for shear wall with
Table ~ openings–see Section I.4
H = total height of wall
h = height of column, i ,e, story height
Ib=mmwmt of inertia of a connecting
beam
1,, , IC2 = moments of inertia of wall sections Tw = dimensionless parameter which re.
Iates the rotational stiffness of the
[W = moment of inertia of wall wall to that of the foundation, i.e.
KB=rotational stiffness of shear wall sup- KBH
ratio —
port 4EW1W
Kf=lateral point load applied at top of
frame to cause unit deflection in its A = total deflection at top of structure
line of action AA = top deflection due to column axiaf
K,= factor representing both Kw and Kf deformation

Kw=lateral point load applied at the top AB = top deflection due to bending defor-
of a shear wall to cause unit defleti mation
tion in its Iineofaction; also specifi- 8 = a deformation at top of structure
cally tbe stiffness of a shear wall with torsion—see Section 2.3
without openin~–see Eq. (1)
A = ratio of column to beam stiffness
K ~. = stiffness of a shear wall with open-
ings–see Eq. (2)
!?= distance between centroidal axes of
walls or columns, or span of beams
(-e+
p = variable used for shear wall with
~ = ~ or ~ j“ equations of Table 1 openings–see Section 1.4
 %wtlon number

Consider behavior of structures under lateral load

~

I
I

Uw a simplified method to estimate distribution of

~
NOtOrsiOn With torsion

-’* &

5’
Calculate moments and shears in members

Notorsion With torsion

4.2
[ a==

Pig, 1, F1OWdia.framof analysisprocedure.

4
 Shear ht@raCth)I’i A DESIGNAID

1. BEHAVIOR OF STRUCTURES
UNOER LATERAL LOAO
A suggested procedure for lateral load analysis of high-rise
buildings is illustrated by tbe flow diagram in Fig. 1 and
this publication, as a design aid, will follow that pattern
section by section. The following is a general introduction
to the behavior of structures under lateral load.
behavior under lateral load, i.e. if they are all rigid frames
or all shear walls, the analysis is comparatively simple. The
load can be distributed to the units directly in proportion
to their stiffnesses. The difference in behavior under lateral
load, in combination with the in-plane rigidity of the floor
slabs, causes nonuniform interacting forces to develop when
walls and frames are present (Fig. 2 [c]). Thk makes the
analysis more difficult.

1.1. Behavior Difference Between Frames and Shear Walls

A rigid frame, an interconnection of vertical columns and

horizontal beams, bends predominantly in a shear modeas
shown in Fig. 2(a). A shear wall deflects predominantly in a
bending mode, i.e. as a cantilever, as illustrated in Fig. 2(b).
Elevator shafts, stairwells, and reinforced concrete walls
normally exhibit this behavior.
It is not always easy to differentiate between modes of (.1 RIGID FRAME lb] SHEAR WALL {c) INTERCONNECTED FRAME
SHEAR MODE BENDING MODE AND SHEAR WALL
deformation. For example, a shear wall weakened by a row DEFORMATION DEFoRMATION (EQuAL DEFLECT IONS AT
EACH STORY LEVEL)
(or rows) of openings can tend to act like a rigid frame and
conversely an infllled frame will tend to deflect in a
bending mode.
When all vertical units of a structure exhibit the same Fig. 2 Defomnmion modes.
 1.2. Behavior of Floor Slabs a useful parameter for assessing the effect of the openings is
M, where
12fb !2 /4,1 +.4,2
For analysis, the floor slabs are normally considered to be ~.
~ Icl +IC2 + ACIAC2
fully rigid within their own planes. This means that there 4( )
will be no relative movement between the vertical units at H = total height of wall
each story level. In-plane deformation can be taken into Ib = moment of inertia of a connecting beam
account but is seldom important. h = story height
Floor slabs bending out of plane contribute to the b = clear span of beams
lateral stability of a structure by acting as beams between !?= distance between centroidal axes of the wall
vertical members, and hence flat plate structures, for sections
example, act like rigid frames. However, the strength of I ,,, IC2 = moments of inertia of wall sections
column-slab joints in flat plate structures must be checked ACI, AC2 = areas of wall sections

(c%%%?”

W’a,
l,
(’cl}
;.,, 2
W
I.) SHEAR WALL WITH
SINGLE Row OF OPENINGS
~M
... ,,
*b+
w,,,,

(b] IDEALIZATION
SHEAR CONNECTION
FOR
METHOD
(c) FRAME IDEALIZATION

Fig, 3, Wallwith a single row of openings.

carefully if they are to be used in resisting lateral load. FormH that is greater than 8, the wall tends to behave
like a single cantilever, For Iowaff, e.g. less than 4, the
behavior ismorelike twoconnected walls and frame action
1.3. Effect of Torsion is more prominent.
With a single mwof openings the effect ofopeningson
the stiffness can be assessed by comparing
The effect of torsion should be considered if the layout is 3EI
unsymmetrical or if the stiff vertical units are close to the Kw = -$ (1)
center of the structure, Some earthquake codes require that
a structure be capable of resisting a specified torsional and
loading even if the applied lateral load theoretically does 3E(IC, + I, ~)
not cause torsion~ 1J * The importance of torsion may be K w. = ff3&
(2)
asseseed by comparing results from simplified methods
without torsion (Sections 2.1 and 2,2) and with torsion where Kw and Kwo = stiffnesses of the wall without and
(Section 2.3). with openings, respectively
E = Young’s modulus of elasticity
IW = moment of inertia of wall without
oneninm
1.4. Effect of Openings in Sberrr Wells

Openings can have unimportant effect onthe behavior of

shear walls, The openings are normally invertical rows and
(~., +A.,)U., +1.,)
p=l+
in the common case ofasingle rowofopenings (Fig, 3[a]), A.,.,. A.. . b2
Coull and Choudhurytzl include a plot of K4 against aff
for different values of p,
.S. pers.ript numbers in parentheses desienate references o.
Tbe stiffness and tbe distribution of stress in a wall will
p.s. 17. normally be appreciably affected by the presence of

6
 openings. The shear connection methodtz’5 J is suitable for
band calculation (although the use of a computer to do the
calculations is desirable) and can be used for more complex
~~problems than that illustrated in Fig. 3(b). Coull and
Choudhury’s chartsfz ,3) are particularly useful for prob-
lems with a single row or two symmetrical rows of
openings.
Shear walls with openings can be idealized as illustrated
in Fig. 3(c), using a plane frame analysis program (Section
4.2).
‘For analysis of walls with openings, axial deformation
of the wall sections should be included.
2. SIMPLIFIED METHOOS OF ESTIMATING
LATERAL LOAD DISTRIBUTION
If torsion is not considered, two simplified methods of
determining the interaction of frames and shear walls are:
. to use the charts given by Khan and Sbarounis(6)
or PCA’S Advanced Engineering Bulletin No.
14,f7) and
. to use Equation C (Table 2).
2.1. Use nf Charts from References 6 and 7
In order to use these charts the structure must be reduced
~~to a single frame and a singfe wall by addition of the
properties of the separate vertical units. In both references
the stiffnesses (Iw) of all the shear walls are summed to give
an equivalent single wall. For the frames, Khan and
Sbarnunis use a singfe-bay frame whereas Advanced Engi-
neering Bulletin No. 14 uses a three-bay frame. These
idealizations are illustrated in Fig. 4.
Both the frames in Fig. 4 are “pmportinned.” A son with the wall.
P- h..,
W.11
F,wne
1.
b
f L
L,,cl
(b) REDUCED STRUCTLWE
FOR REF. 7
F& 4. Reduced structure for Referemxw 6 md Z
proportioned frame may be defined as one that has points
of contra flexure at all nddbeam sections under lateral load.
Any frame whose bay widths and member properties are
reasombly constant across the width of tbe frame may be
considered to be proportioned. The frame being propor-
tioned and the column axial deformation being negligible
are basic assumptions made in reducing a multi-bay frame
to a single- or three-bay frame,
The procedure for reducing tbe number gf bays is: at
each story level, sum_aU cofynn inertias (Ie) and beam
rotational sJiffnesses (lb/!). (lC is the moment of inertia of
a cnhmm; Ib and !?are the moment of inertia and the span
of a beam, respectively.) The equivalent stiffnesses to be
used in the substitute frames thus become
1== Zid/2 and Ib/!? = ~-b/k?
for the frame in Fig. 4(a) and
10= ZTC[6 and Ib/t =~~~l!i
for the frame in Fig. 4(b). This procedure is clearly
described by Khan and Sbarounis.
Having thus reduced the problem, the shears on the
frame, moments on the shear wall, and deflection can be
found using the charts.
2.2. The Component Stiffneee Method-Equation C
The component stiffness method has more flexibility than
the charts method referred to above, but it lacks accuracy if
the wall is more flexible than the frame (KW/Kf < 1; see
below),
The r?uzin assumption is that the frame takes constant
shear, i.e. that the interactir.m force between the frame and
wall can be represented by a concentrated force at the top.
This is a reasonable assumption for preliminary analysis,
especially when the frame tends to be flexible in compari-
Consider the single-bay frame and shear wall loaded
in-plane by the uniformly distributed load shown in Fig.
5(a). If tbe frame shear is assumed to be constant, the
system can be treated as a wall supported at the top by a
spring (Fig. 5 [c]), The spring stiffness K is defined as the
lateral point load applied at the top oft { e frame to cause
““it deflection in its line of action. Kf can be calculated
using Equations A and B of Table 1 and the top deflection
equation in the Table 2 notation.
Kw is defined as the Iateraf point load required to cause
unit deflect ion at the top of the wall (similarly to Kf). AS
discussed in Section 1.4, Eq. (1) can be used for walls
without openings and Eq. (2) for walls with a single row of
openings.
Table 2 (Equation C) gives relationships between P/W,
7w, and KJKf fOr different JOading cases. Si~l~ expres-
sions for other load cases can easilv be established. P is the
interaction load at the top of the-frame, i.e. the constant
shear; W is the total applied lateral load; and 7W is a
dimensionless parameter which relates the rotational stiff-
 Table 1. Equations B and A for Top Deflection of Rigid Regular Frames

EQUATION B–for Bending deformation:

3.0
AB=—
,,~:c, [~,(l-W+Fg(l -,c,32q

where AB = deflection at top of frame due to bending of members

W= total lateraf load 2.0

b = story height
Fm 1,5
H = total height
E = Young’s modulus (subscript denotes structural system) I.0 I,0

ZIC = sum of moments of inertia of columns at first-story level 213

1/2
F,, Fr = functions ofs and g, dependent on the type of loading
~ = ratio Ic at top of frame o. ~,
0,5 1,0
~ at bottom of frame finear variation of Ic and Ib m=sorm. g
c
with height. If Jl varies, use
Ib attop of frame
g = ratio EI instead of I.
I, at bottom of frame I Load
condition
F$(m=s)or Ft(m=g)
I
I
Point load loge m
0.= $, where C is cohmm width and !2is distance between col-
at top n
umn centerlines i
~= Z(E I/h) Uniformly
~, I.e. summation over width of structure at first.
2Z(.5JJ!2) distributed
story ~e;el
3 ~2
Ib =’moment of inertia of beam at bottom of structure -—+2m –—-logenl
Triangular
loge m + 2 2
(earthquake)
m-1 (m- 1)3
EQUATION A–for ~xial deformation:

Load
condition
where AA = deflection at top of frame due to axial deformation of ex
terior columns Point load 1-4n+3n2-2n210gen
at top (1 - fl)3
Fn = function of n, dependent on the type of loading
Area of exterior column at top of frame Uniformly 2-9n+18n2- lln3+6n310gen
n = ratio
Area of exterior column at bottom of frame distributed 6(1 - n)4
(linear variation of ,4C with height)

(
,4C = area of exterior columns at first-story level
~ 210gef2+ 5(l-n+10gen)
B = totaf width of frame
3 n-1 (n- 1)2
9
TOTAL DEFLECTION A= AB + AA

Triangular
+ ~- :n:,;33
6“ n
‘“g’
NOTES (earthquake) 3n2 ~3
For accuracy, the following rxmditions should be satisfied:
1. Q and lb should not vary ,acrow the frame, -;+3n - ~+; -logefl
2. [ should not vary acro$s the frmne, except that 1, for an interior column
$%ould be twice that of an exterior @wnn.
+
3. Columns should h.,. points of io.trai%xure at nddhel@t.
(n- 1)4
4, Story hei ht should he constant, 25 4n3 ~4
5. /c, lb, a. J A. should vary linearly with height. -fi+4n- 3n2+T-T-10ge n
6.k ,< 5,
7, AA should be smell compared with ALI, +
Rewo.nable results can be expected in many cases which satisfy the above con. (n- l)s
diti.ns only ,approximatety, )
Eq..rio.s A and B both tend to o.erathn.te deflection,
ness of the wall to that of the foundation, i.e. Problems involving several frames and walls may be
reduced to that of a singfe wall and frame as described in
KBH Section 2.1. Alternatively, Kfor KW foreach verticaf unit
‘rw=— maybe calculated separately and the results summed. XKf
4EJW
and ZKW are then used instead of Kf and KW in f@atiOn
where KB is the rotational stiffness Of the shear wail c.
support. If the rotation at the base of the shear wall is to be Studies on shear wall-frame interaction normally use
neglected, the terms with Yw in Equation C shoufd be three parameters to detine bebavior; namely, h,Iw, and
XIc, where
EcIc/h
~l”o Sflffrm,s -K,
A=—
E#bl!2
/r- L,nk Bar,

By using Kfi which is a function Of A and ~c, bebaviOr can

be discussed in terms of only two Variables, Kf and KW.
Told
Thk simulifiea the Dhvsical interuretationof the behavior.
Lo.i
“,
w Also tb~ paramet~r -P/W is u~efuf for estimating tbe
lW
effectiveness of tbe frame (or frames)in comparison with
the shear wafl(s) in resisting lateral load and for assessing
the effect of various assumptions in analysis.
Ijlil

/
Ly;eldin,
shearW.(I
s“,,.,+
‘-From’ Accuracy
(01 STRUCTURE [b) INTERACTION (c1 FRAME MODELED
AT TOP ONLy BY SPRING
When a frame and wall are interconnected as shown in Fig.
5(a), maximum shear on the frame tends to occur tOwards
midbeigbt (see Fig. 8). Equation C can underestimate
Fig. 5. Idealization for Equation C. maximum frame shear by as much as 30 percent in this
.“.
area. Therefore, when calculating moments in theimme, lt
is worthwhile to increase the calculated value of F’by 30
omitted. However, the effect of shear wall base rotation can percent.
significantly affect the distribution of load between shear If Kw/Kfis less than 1, the use of Equation Cis not
walls and frames, and Equation C can be used as a simple recommended and the use of chartsce,~j produces more
method of assessing this factor. accurate resufts.

Table 2. Equation C

Load
condition I Ecytion C
NOTATION

P= interaction force at top

1+--$ W= totafapplied lateral load
Point load E= w
KBH
at top w 3K
‘w= 4EWIW
1’47. ‘y
KB= rotational stiffness ofshear wall support

T
H= total height of wall

Uniformly
distributed
$=
,+
{)
3
*1+1-

L+%
‘fW
E= Young’smodulus
IW= moment ofinertia
(subscript denotes structural system)
of wall

@w Kf KW = ~ (with constant ~w)

K,= point loadattop of frame tocause unit deflection in

~+~ its line of action ;i.e., ~or — P since top de flee-
20 27W A AB+AA
Triangular ;= tion A. ~
(earthquake) 3 KW Kf
1+~+~
w
 wall will not be considered; therefore, the terms with Tw
can be ignored. Since there are two walls and seven frames,
use ZKw and ZKf in Equation C, which becOmes
P 3/8
ii=
‘+’%’
calculate K,
calculate Kf for a single frame, using Equation B frOm
Table 1. The finite widths of the beams and columns are
not considered here so that 19, = On = 0. Equaf iOn B thus

since~b= 13,800 in.4 (see Table 3),

ZIC =4X 26,270 =105,080 in.,4
H= 126 ft,, average h=12.6 ft.,
!2= Zo.oft.,
105,080 20
‘=2X 12.6X3X 13,800 =2’02’

* = 0.0965 and thus ~ = 2.54 (see Table l),

s = 26,270
g= land thus Fg=l,
NOTE:, For frame properties, see Table 3
it follows that

AB 12.62X126X123
‘Fig.6, Example structure for component stiffness method–no 7=12X3X 103X 105,080 X(2”54+1 ‘2x2”02)
torsion.
= 0.0602 in./kip (computer value is 0,0607 in./kip).

Table 3. Moments of Inertia (in.4) Estimate A/P due to axial deformation of columns.
of Frame Members, Example Structure* Assuming column areas of the order of 400 sq.in. and n =
0.5, from Equation A (Table 1) we find that Fn = 0.77 and
story Ib AA H3 x 0.77= 1263 X I 23 x 0.77
T = ECACB2 3X 103 x400X602X 12Z
10 13,800 2,540
9 13,800 4,430 = 0.00426 in./kip.
AA
8 13,800 7,390 Hence ~ = 0.071; i.e., top deflection of a frame due to
-/ 13,800 9,270
6 13,800 11,520 column axial deformation would be approximately 7
5 13,800 14,140 percent of that due to bending. Since column axial
“4 13,800 17,080 deformation was neglected for the analysis given by
3 13,800 21,680 Goldberg, it is also neglected here and
2 13,800 24,770
I
——
13,800 26,270 ~=l=L = 16.6 kip/in.*
f AB 0.0602
*E = 3,000 ksi for wall and frame members.
XKf = 7 X 16.6 = l16kip/in.

Example Problem Calculate Kw

3X3 XI03 6X603X123
KW.~=
This problem is definedin Fig. 6and Table 3, and we will 1263x 123 x 12
follow the flow diagram in Fig. 1. Results will be compared = 4S6 kip/in,
with those of a more accurate analysis in Example I by XKW = 2 X 4S6 = 972 kip/in
GoldbergX8J

P
A. D18TR3BUTELOADS TO THE VERTfCAL UNITS — would he used were column axial deformation
*Kf = AB + AA
use Equation C (Table 2), Foundation rotation of the shear to be considered.
CaIcuk+te PI W midheight. The 1.3 factor allows for the fact that maximum
frame shear will be underestimated by approximately 30
percent.

C. COMPARISON W’TH MORE ACCURATE ANALYSIS

Goldberg(s) takes account of in. lane deformation of the

Calculate Loads on Units
floor slabs. Webster’s discussion(9 ? giv~$ ~~s”lts with ~i@d
W = 9 X S7.6 + 28.8 = 547 kips
P = 547 X 0.04= 21.9 kips

Ptoeachframe =2&= 3.1 klps

P to each wall= ~= 10.9 kips

That is, loadings are as shown in Fig. 7.

calculate Top Deflection

~=; =L!6. -0.187 in. (see Table 2)
f

B. CAf.CULA~ MOMSNT8IN MEMBERS

Moment in Wall
Moment at base of structure for one.half of the applied
loading is 18,835 kip.ft. (see Fig. 6). Therefore, for each
SHEAR ON FRAME ( KIPS)
wall
max. moment = 18,835- PH = 18,835- 10.9 X 126
= 17,474 kip.ft.
Fig. 8. Comparison of frame shear estimates.
Moments in Frame Columns
Assume an interior column takes twice the shear as an
Table 4. Accuracy of F.qustion C in Comparison
exterior column. Therefore, with Frame Analysis*
sheiu on interior colwnn = ‘-
>

z
I
(1) (2) (3)
=+=1.03 kips
Percent cliff. =
Maximum moment will occur towards midheight of the (2)- (l)X loo
Design Frame
frame and have a value of
values anal ysis Equation C F
1.03 X 0.5 X 12X 1.3= 8.0 kip.ft.

Tbe 0.5 factor is for point of contra flexure at column Moment at

base of
31 10.9
shear wall,
14.4
28,8
kip.ft 17,526 17,474 -0.3
288
28 B
288 Top
28,8 deflection,
28,8
in. 0.173 0.187 +8.1
28.8
28,8

R
288
g
*Frame malysis in Example 1 by Goldbem (8)
[o) FRAME (7 Th”31 (b) WALL [2 Thu31

floors. Therefore, comparison with the latter results shows

NOTE: Loads are in kips the effect of the constant shear assumption only. Fig. 8
shows the difference between the calculated shears on a
typical frame. Other results are given in Table 4 and show
Fig. 7. Loading on units–no torsion. satisfactory a~eement.
 w

B
‘w% _Spring supports
[walls only)

Wtqid beam

+ w

(b) DISTRIBUTION OF W
TO WALLS

W.1 1

PLAN WALLS FRAMEs

(al STRUCTURE (c) LOADING ON UNITS

A%rin9s to represent the action of the fr.mes ~w

Q?$

L v

‘w
RW (At TOP) ~J-:;;:r,,
‘– Rigid beom

o
Q W ( ~st,ib,tedl

PLAN PLAN PLAN

(d] IDEALIZATION (0) NO TOP MOVEMENT (f) TOP LOADING ONLY

Fig. 9. Component stiffness method with torsion.

2.3. The Component Stiffoess Method for Structures prevented by a force that equals R W, where R is the
with Torsion support reaction coefficient for a propped cantilever (e.g.,
for a uniformly distributed load, R = 3/8) and W is total
lateral load. R W acts in the line of and in the opposite
By making the assumption that the frames take constant direction to the resultant of W at the top of the structure.
shear (as for Equation C), the structure shown in Fig. 9(a) For analysis of System 2 (Fig. 9 [f]), the roof slab can be
may be idealized as in Fig. 9(d). Two degees of freedom considered as a rigid beam on spring supports. The spring
which correspond to the deformations A and 8 at the top of stiffnesses are KW and K, as defined in Section 2.2.
the structure (Fig. 9 [f]) can be assigned and the structure The equations for determining the unknowns A and O
solved by the stiffness method, The analysis is carried out are set up as follows: Transverse equilibrium gives
by adding the results from Systems 1 and 2 (Fig. 9 [e and
f]). Lateral movement at the top of System 1 (Fig. 9 [e]) is ZKi(A + X8) ‘R W
and therefore
ZKiA + 2CKiX10 = R W (3)
By taking moments about O,
XKi(A + X#+)A’i= R Wa
and therefore
2KiXiA + ZKiXfO = R Wa (4)
The above Ki represents both the wall stiffnesses, KW, and
the frame stiffnesses, Kfi and u is the distance Of applied
load from origin. For delineation of X and a, see Fig. 9(f).
Having solved Eqs. (3) and (4) for A and 6, the loads on
the springs are
F’i= Ki(A + Xi6) (5)
If there are only two walls, simple statics gives the
distribution of the total lateral load, W. With more than
two walls, Eqs. (3) and (4) must be re-established,
neglecting the frame springs and solving with Was the only
loading (Fig. 9[b]). The resulting deformations are ficti-
tious but can be used to calculate W,, i.e. the proportion of
Wto each wall,accordingto Eq. (5) bysubstituting Wifor
Pi.
In other wbrds, the process of analysis for more than
two walls is:
A. Analyze System 1.
I. Find the propped cantilever reaction coeffi-
cient, R, for the given loading.
2. Calculate the portion of W tributary to each
wall by applying the system of Fig. 9(b).
In both these calculations the frames should be
ignored.
B. Analyze System 2 as a rigid beam on spring
supports (include the frames) to find the top
loads, Pi, on each unit as shown in Fig. 9(f).
C. Add results for the two systems.
Care is needed with thesignsofthc forces. On a given
unit, RWiisalways opposite indirection to Wi, and positive
Pi from Eq. (5)wiObe inthesame directional W. The final
Ioadingson the units are illustrated in Fig. 9(c). Situations
coul,d occur where some values of Pi would be in the
OppOsite direction to W, e.g. when the effect of torsion is
pronounced.
Theabove approach can be extended tocover problems
where deformation in the longitudinal direction is also
possible. Under these circumstances three simultaneous
equations have to be solved.
Accuracy
The main assumptions which could produce inaccurate
results fmm this procedure are:
. Constant frame shear. Thisassumption wiO tend to
be more reliable when thestiffnesses of the fmmes
are low compared with those of the walls. In
problems with torsion, however, in addition to
relative stiffness, the relative locations of the units
are important andmayaffcct the accuracy.
. Same beha~ior of walls. The method of assessing
the proportion of distributed Imd to the shear
walls described previously is accurate only when all
the walls exhibit the same behavior under lateral
load, e.g. if they all have fixed bases and uniform
properties with height. It may be rewonable,asa
further approximation, to de fine KWstrictly as the
load at the top to cause unit deflection in its line of
action, taking account of nonrigid foundation,
variation of properties with height, and openings
(see Eq. [2]). These factors alsoaffect thevalueof
R.
The behavior ofashear wall. frame structure with torsion
is bigMy complex and only rough accuracy should be
expected from the procedure outlined previously. As with
all simplified methods, unusual situations can occur for
which the accuracy will be unpredictable.
Example Calculation with Torsion
In Fig. 10(a) Wall 2 has been moved to the position of
Frame 5 of Fig. 6(a) and Frames 5,6, and 7 have each been
moved one bay to the right. This is not a practical system
but serves here to illustrate the method and the effect of
torsion in general. The steps outlined previously are
followed in this example calculation.
A. ANALYZE SYSTEM 1
Establish R
For uniformly distributed load, R = 3/8 and W = 547 kips
(see Section 2.2.A). Therefore,
RW= 3/8X 547 = 205 kipS
Distribute W to the Walls
For this problem with only two walls, W can be distributed
by simple statics:
w .547 X24
1 —=120 lo9kips
W2 = 547 L 109 = 438!@
With more than two walls, an,analysis as shown in Fig.
9(b) is required. To illustrate the procedure, the calcula-
tions required for such analysis are set out in Table 5 as
“Analysis of System 1.“ Columns (l) through (5) of
Table 5 are used to calculate the coefficients for the
equilibrium in Eqs. (3) and (4). For System I the frames
are ignored and, with W substituted for R W, these
equations become
11 ,664A, + 699,SOOfl ~ = 547
699,800A1 + 83,976,0000, = 547 X 96
These equations are solved to give Al and @, as in columns
(6) and (7). Columns (8), (9), and (1 O) are for Eq. (5),
which gives the values of Wi as calculated by statics above.
B. ANALYZE SYSTEM 2
Equations (3) and (4) must be re-established with the frame
Table 5. Example Calcuk4ionkComponent Stiffness Method with Torsion”

Calculation of coefficient of stiffness I Analysis of System 1 Analysis of System 2

leflec
Rota- Tzr Distrib. stem!
Trans- cOOr- tional tion load cm 3sist- due tc Sum of Lateral Point
verse dimte Dis- Coeffi- stiff- Rota- due to Sum of shear ing >eflec- Rota- angle deflec- load on load
struc- stiff- dis- tance cient, ness, Deflec. tion, angle deflec- walls, >rce, tion, tion, :hangf tion, spring, ,n unit
tural ness, tance, square, KJi 0, change, tion, Vi= KiX / Wi= A2 X,82 ,2+X,82 D,=K.X It top,
unit Ki xi x: (X1U3) (%3) ‘y’ :x 103) x,$, Al+ X#l \,+x,J31) /8 ~ x 103] (X203) :x103 (X103) <2+iie2 Di< -RW.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (s) (9) (lo) [11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)

Wall 1 5,832.( o o 0 0 0.0187 0.472 0 0.0187 109 40.8 7.34 0.129 0 7.34 42.8 2.0
wall 2 5,832.( 120 14,400 699.8 83,976 0.0187 0.472 0.0566 0.0753 438 64.4 7.34 0.129 15.46 22.80 133.0 -31.4

Subtota 11,664 — 699.8 83,976 – — — ,— — —

Frame 1 199.: 24 576 4.8 115 – — — — 7.34 0.129 3.09 10.43 2.08 2.1
Frame 2 199.: 48 2,304 9.6 459 – — — — 7.34 0.129 6.18 13.52 2.69 2.7
Frame 3 199.2 72 5,184 14.3 1,0321 – — — — — 7.34 0.129 9.27 16.61 3.31 3.3
Frame 4 199.: 96 9,216 19.1 — — — — 7.34 0.129 12.36 19.70 3.92 3.9
Frame 5 199: 144 20,736 28.7 &l z — — — 7.34 0.129 18.55 25.89 5.17 5.2
Frame 6 199.: 168 28,224 33.5 5.622 ~ – — — — — 7.34 0.129 21.64 28.98 5.77 5.8
Frame 7 199.2 192 — — — 7.34 0.129 24.73 32.07 6.39 6.4

Total 13,058 — — — — — — —

‘All units in Hp., feet, or radians

E
 ., “ . “, ,. .

(o) PROBLEM (b) SYSTEM ( [c) SYSTEM 2

[No FcmmNo T,, Mw, mmt) (TOP L,odi”Q 0“1,1

NOTE: Dimensions and properties are given in Fig. 6 and Table 3

Fig, 10, ExmvJ/e structure for component stiffness method– with torsion.

stiffnesses included and with R W as the applied loading. story can be distributed so that the shear on an interior
Using columns (1) through (5) of Table 5 now gives column is twice that on an exterior column. By assuming
points of contraflexure at column midheight, the column
13,058A2 + 848,0000 * = 205
and beam moments can be calculated. Corrections can be
848,000A2 + 104,513,00002 = 205 X 96
made for points of contraflexure being off-center in the
These equations are solved to give AZ and O* as in COIUIIMS lower and upper stories.( 11 J
(12) and (13) of Table 5. Columns (14) and (15) are used in It is important to judge whether the moments and shears
Eq. (5) to calculate Pi, which is given in column (1 6). as calculated by the simplified analysis are significant in the
design. The simplified analysis may be acceptable if the
C. ADD RESULTS FOR SYSTEMS 1 AND 2 effect of Pateral load to the frames or to the structure as a
whole is small compared with the effect of vertical Ioadlng.
The final top loadings are given in column(17) of Table 5. In many cases a more rigorous analysis will be necessary
This column, in combination with column (10), gives the and the insight into behavior gained from the simplified
distribution of load to each unit. Note that, due to the analysis will be useful in deciding what refinements are
torsion, the top load on Wall 1 is positive, i.e. in the required.
direction of W. Also, the inaximum frame load (for Frame
7) is more than doubled by moving the position of the
shear wall.
4. MORE ACCURATE ANALYSIS

3. CALCULATION OF MOMENTS ANO SHEARS

When further analysis is required, the use of a computer is
WITHIN THE STRUCTURE advisable. Several different approaches have been pro-
grammed for analysis of high-rise buildings. In the follow
ing, attention is given only to methods for which computer
By use of the methods described in Section 2, the programs are readily available.( 12, 13 J
proportion of the lateral load tributary to each vertical unit
can be estimated. Since the shear walls are treated as
vertical cantilevers, the shears and moments acting at any 4.1. Numerical Accuracy
cross-section cm be calculated using statics. For shear walls
with openings, see Section 1.4.
For frames, a simple method of estimating the moments When using computer programs, it is important to check
and shedrs on each column and beam is described in that the form of the structure does not cause inaccuracy in
Continuity in Concrete Building Frames. t 1‘j This distribu. the solution of the simultaneous equations. Thk can
tion is based on relative column.beam stiffnesses. Alterna. happen when the difference between stiffnesses of parts of
tively (and more ~pproximately), the total shear at each the structure is large (e.g. when members are given high
 r
U“’+, [F,ow) U“;, 2
(Shea W,(I md From,)
I

---b---
[0) SIMPLIFIED PLAN OF STRUCTURE (bl ~o;vA;~~Ly~;wING CONNECTION OF UNITS

FiG 11. [dedizalion for plane frame analysis,

finite values in order to simulate “infinite rigidity”) or
when the structure is very large. Unsatisfactory results of an
equilibrium check on the structure (normally give” with the
output) are normally caused by such “ill conditioning.”
This behavior is not easy to predict since the error will be a
function of the number of significant figures usedin the
computations as well as the form of the structure.
4.2. Plane Frame Computer Program
A plane frame computer program can be used for the
analysis of shear wall-frame structures provided in-plane
deformation of floor slabs and torsion can be neglected,
The basic approach is illustrated in Fig. 11. The vertical
units are connected at each floor level by “linkbars” which
simulate the effect of the floor slabs intransmitting load in
their own plane.
Notes
ments and shears in the upper stories of a rigid frame.
The ratio AA/AB as calculated using Equations A and
B (Table 1) isa useful measurcof the effect of column
axial deformation on stiffness. If AA/AB is less than
0.05, it is probably safe to neglect this effect.
4. When computer stcxage islimited, itmaybenccessaryto
reduce the number of bays for analysis, using the
summotion procedure described in Section 2.1. This
should not be done ifaxid deformation is important,
5. The finite widths of the shear walls orcolumns can have
an important effect on the stiffness of a frame and on
beams that are connected to shear walls, Equation B can
be used to assess the effect on stiffness.* The best way to
account for finite width is to assume that the beams are
fufly rigid over the widths of the columns (Fig. 3 [c]),
Ability to do this is not a common feature in plane frame
programs. Alternatively, a framework type of analogy
may be used to model the action of shear walls.(14.16J
6.It miy be necessary toinclude foundation movementsin
the analysis.
7. The effect of openings in shear walls, if important,
should be accounted for in the analysis. See Section 1,4.

I. The “linkbars’’s houldbep in-connecteda ndaxiallys tiff

(although high finite stiffness can be troublesome, as
noted above).
2. Axial deformation of the beams may be neglected.
3. Axial deformation of the columns and shear walls should
be neglected only iftheuser is confident that this does
not appreciably affect the stiffness of the structure or
parts of the structure.
Column axial deformation will have a more promi.
nent effect in tafl slender frames or in frames with stiff
beams.
Although the error in deflection due to neglecting
axial deformation may be high, the resulting forces and
moments throughout the structure will not normally be
affected to the same extent. The major effect of the
column axial deformation will be to increase the mo-
4.3. Space Frame Computar Program
If the effect of torsion is important (see Section 1,3), a
space frame computer program should be used. While this
will significantly increase the data input, the solution time,
and the amount of output in comparison with those of a
plane fmmeanalysis, the value of theresults obtained may
justify the additional effort.
Notes 2,3, 5,6, and70nplane frame analysis (Section
4.2) are equally valid for space frames. Floor slabs can be
treated as ftdly rigid within their ownplanes, but since this
is not rigorously possible with conventional programs, the
●The effect of th~ finite de~ths of the beam may also be
assessed using Equation B.
 MEMBER PROPERTIES FOR . = ,2

1,= .017 O,LS

For l,- Plan. ~endin~
l.. .1,
1
~ > .52 (02-.2) ,L
LO
AOZ,52($-,202)t L &~ + 0’
—---+~-+

&d:

FLOO

Fig. 12. Idealization forin.plane stiffness of f700r slabs.

alternative is to model the floors as trusses or frameworks.

Yettram and Husain’s framework anafog.yf 14, as illustrated
in Fig. 12 is one way to do this. Use Of this analogy will
tend to overestimate the stiffness of the floors.

REFERENCES Considering Shear Wall and Floor Deformations,’’ Tall

Buildings, Pergamon Press, Long Island City, N. Y.,
1967, pages 349-373.
l. Blume, J, A.; Newmark, N. M.; and Corning, L. H.; 9. Webster, J. A., Dkcussion of Reference 8, Tal/Build-
Design of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Buildings for ings, Pergamnn Press, 1967, page 374.
Earthquake Motions, Portland Cement Association, ]O. Continuit.y in Concrete Buildinz Fmme$, Fourth Edi.
Skokie, Ill., 1961, page 71. tion, PCA, 1959.
2. COUO, Alexander, and Choudhury, J. R., ’’Analysis of 11. Frame Constants for Lateral Loads on Multistory
Coupled Shear WalJs: Journal of the American Con- Concrete Buildings, Advanced Engineering Bulletin No.
cretelnstitute, Sept. 1967; fioceedings, Vol. 64, pages 5. PCA. 1962.
587-593. 12. ‘3 TRESS”A User’s Manual, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge,
3. COUO, Alexander, and Choudhury, J. R., ’’Stresses and Mass., 1964.
Deflections uncoupled Shear WaOs,’’ ACI.Jourmd,Feb. 13. Gouwens, A. J., “Lateral Lnad Analysis of Multistory
1967; Proceedings, Vol. 64, pages 6S.72. Frames with Shear Walls,” Computer Progam, PCA,
4. Beck, Hubert, “Contribution to tbe Analysis of 1968.
Coupled Shear Walk,” ACI Jownal, Aug. 1962; R’o- 14. Yettram, A, L,, and Husain, H. M., “Pfane Framework
ceedings, Vol. 59, pages 1055-1069. Method for Plates in Extension,’’ Journal of Engineer-
5. Rosman, Riko, “Approximate Analysis of Shear Walls ing Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 92, Feb. 1962,
Subject to f.ateral fmads,” AC1 Journal, June 1964; pages 157-168.
fioceedings, Vol. 61, pages 717-732. 15. Hrennikoff, A., %lution of Problems of Elasticity by
6.. Rhan, F. R., and Sbarounis, J. A., ’’Interaction of Shear the Framework Method,” Journal of Applied Me-
Walls and Fmmes,’’ fioceedings, American Society of chanics, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Civil Engineers, Vol. 90, ST3, 1964, pages 285.335. Vol. 8, Dec. 1941, pages A169-A175.
7. Design of Combined Frames and Shear Wells, Advanced 16. Grinter, L. E., “Statistical State of Stress by Grid
Engineering Bulletin No. 14, PCA, 1965. Anal ysis,” Numerical Methods of Analysis in En@eer-
8, Goldberg, J. E., “Anafysis of Multistory Buildings ing, The MacMillan Company, New York, N. Y., 1949.

17
r ------------------------------ -------------------
I
t
E
I
I
1

KEY WORDS: high-rise building, shear walls, rigid frames, bending mode,
shear mode, lateral load, point load, stiffness method, shear connection
method, torsion.
ABSTRACT: A shear wall deflects inabending mode; arigidframe bendsin
a shear mode. A simple method for analyzing shear wall-frame interactions
present ed in this publication.

REFERENCE: MacLeod, Iain A., Sheav Wall-Frame Interaction-A Design

Aid (EB066.01 D), Portland Cement Association, 1970.

L---------. ------------------------------------------------J
 PORTLAND CEMENT m I I ASSOCIATION

5420 Old Orchard Road, Skokie, [11inois 60077.1083

Printed In U,S,A EBL?66.01 D