Catania. Italy
A. Santini
IstltUtO dt Ingegneria Cwde ed Energetica, Universttd di Regglo Calabria, Via Vittorto
Veneto 69, 89100 Reggto Calabria, Italy
Keywords: f r a m e - w a l l structures,
quency domain, time domain
Frame-wall and frame-coupled wall structural
systems are widely used in high rise buildings to resist
horizontal forces arising from wind and earthquake
loading. In particular, frame-coupled wall systems have
been recognized L2 to inherently possess response
characteristics that accord with optimum seismic design
criteria 3. These seismic design criteria require that the
structural system behaves linearly not only under frequent minor earthquake ground shaking, but also during
occasional moderate seismic events. Of course, it may
undergo inelastic deformations during a rare but probable major earthquake shaking. All this calls for both
linear and nonlinear dynamic analyses to be performed
on the structural system.
General purpose, finite-element, three-dimensional,
linear analysis computer programs 4 have been available
for some time. Two-dimensional, nonlinear analysis
programs have also been available 5-7. However, the
use of such programs is possible and justified only after
the prehminary design stage has been completed and
sizes and detailing of the structural elements have
become available, m the preliminary design stage ~t
would be desirable to obtain an estimate of the maximum
dynamic response even if the actual sizes of the structural elements are not yet known and only the relative
stiffnesses of the major structural components may be
anticipated. These analyses should also be quick and in0141-O296/92/01015-12
1992 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd
15
M,/h
.fiR!/h ~
~rRr/h 2
00~
-l
oo
1/6 - 1 / 2 1
1/2
-I
St
Mdh
i
1 ''
01|
ytRrth
cbtRf/h 2
(])
where the barred variables refer to the top of the column
and the unbarred ones refer to the bottom. Furthermore,
S[ denotes the shear force, My the bending moment, y/
the displacement and ~I the rotation. In the following it
is convenient to refer to a rigidity parameter R, which
accounts for the rigidity of both the frame and the wall,
l e., R, = R y + R , . where R~ = EI~ is the bending
rigidity of the wall By introducing the rigidity rano
p = R f f R I and by referring the state variables to R,
rather than RI, equation (1) becomes:
h
yyR,/h 3
li-1 o ooll sr 1
=
~fR,/h 2
-1
0 o
-3a
1 1
yfgt/h 3
3a
-6a
OfR,/h 2
M? h
(2)
where a = (1 + p)/6.
The field matruc f o r a wall segment
The field matrix for a wall segment is defined in a
similar way as that for a frame segment The relationship between the state variables at the two ends of a wall
segment may be written as follows
i,ll 0001i,l
fiL/h
y,R,/h ~
~,.R,/h 2
-1
o o
Mw/h
bd
3b
-3b
1 1
y~R,/h 3
-6b
0 1
OwRflh 2
(3)
j=l
k ' = ~ 12Elbj/bj
where b = a/p and d = 1 - 6r accounts for shear deformations through the ratio
r = (E/kG)(I/Ah 2) = (E/kG)(1/)~ 2)
j=l
16
Eng. Struct
1992, Vol
14, No 1
s=s~+ Sw
vg
Ogzj
Y=Yf=Yw
-1
i~If/h
Mw/h
-3A
',0
- 3 B ',0
-T
-T
D
.
',0
.
0 -"
~Rt/h 3
-3E
-3L', 1
~fR,/h 2
3E
- 9 L ', 0
3A
3L
-9L
3B
-D
'.0
Mf/h
Mw/h
(4)
= ~.t r&b~/210
ygt]h 3
l=l
4~iR,/h2
with rh, the distributed mass over the span of length b,.
Besides the dynamic equilibrium equations (5) some
compatibility relations are also necessary to derive the
point matrix. These are as follows
dp~R,/h 2
where
y, = y,_,,
T = 1/(a + bd);
~,_,
-w
(~7=
(6)
A = aT;
B = bT;
C = 2a - B;
D = B(3 - d) - A;
L = bA;
E = Ld;
P = Bd;
-d~-
i I3 i 0 i 0 1
(7)
O = 3A(a - 2bd);
where
f7 = [s,, q/h, ~ / h ] ,
aT= [y,R,/h 3, edR,/h 2, ~;/h21,
d r = [ysR,/h 3, OsR,/h2] ;
frg = [rn, gg, mthO'g] ;
S, + S,_, +cjy,+m~'gj = 0
Mf.+.~f
+ k ;r , f +
- '~
f + /- ~
"f ,
c1~
~ + A/,'_, =0
(5)
psd=
0
0
F
0
0
0
; pf =
0
0
where
pf=v~ = vg + Ogzj + ys + O~zj + yj
0
0
17
E
3E
3L
Tdt :
G = m~o2h3/R, ;
H = re~mr,
f = ([w 2 - t~o~ - U)h/R,,
-3E
Q
-9L
-3L 1
-9L ,
R
1 P
A 1
Tad= | 0 - C 3A ,
L 0 3B - D
'V
m, = ]~_ mj = Nm.
/=1
mj=m
=
j=l
.....
I
T/,=
(j + 1)G-]
0j
"
cl=c
k =kr
I -H
0
0
,,
The more general case may easily be dealt with by entermg the interstorey height and the stiffness, damping and
mass coefficients in the relevant point and field
matrices.
-(./+ I)H 1
0
;
0
TIS0 = TNS0
t
. . . .
-f[-
I. . . .
-O--!-O--! O ', I2 )
where
(1 + FE)
-3FE
-3FL 1
( - e + 3FE) ( - C + FQ) (3B - 9F'L) ,
-A
T/,/ =
(9)
TN=TN l =
or
T# =
T zSo
SN = TNTN-j
18
s, = 3":Tj_j
3A
0 (T - f C ) ( - T
0
T
-D
3FA) ;
(10)
Therefore the state vector at the base for a rigid foundation may be written as follows"
sot
- N Tfgfg)
N
T. 0 r, O r, f r]
= [ -(T/:
The f r e q u e n c y response f u n c n o n s
Once the state vector at the base of the structure has been
evaluated and the ground motion has been prescribed in
the form
% = otE1j/hs ;
g =
o,
eel,/h
any frequency response function may easily be computed. In fact any response parameter must be contained
in the state vector at some station and this may be computed through equation (9). If the response to a translational excitation is required, then 9gO = 1 and 0~ = 0
are set in fgo; on the other hand VgO= 0 and 0gO = 1 if
the response to a rotational excitation is required. Once
the frequency response functions have been evaluated,
the structural response to a general seismic excitation
may be computed as is shown in the literature .5
(j=
] .....
N-
(11)
1)
__t3TyN_I - O w
w w
+t~TNYN _ O Nw( D Nr
N O Nf - I -- ON4~N-I
+ cNys + msyN = --msvg -- muzN(]g
+ e~
= o
M- wN = 0
(12)
f - - ej,~~j_l
w "4- (1~?
Ojf ~/)j_l
"1!-
(~jTI)Yj
= - mj~g - mjz~O'~
where.
d r = [dr, d r , . . . ,
dNr]
rf=
[1, O, O]
[z,
zL
, rNT]
z, = [z,, 0, 01
f r + (Os+,
r -O~)y~ + (off+ %+t
Ofy,_, + 13jcbj_,
r
f
"f
c,- ek,
~bf
_0
w __
M d + C d + K d =M~(rgg + z~)g)
r T= [r~, r~,
f
f + (0;+, _ o~e~ 7 - tSj+lyj+
~
- o,)~,
l
+ 0~+,~+, + OjW+,O,~+,+ c,y, + m;yj
r
f
kj)~b;
d/= [y,,
--
Jr- ( o f + 1
.~_
O~vYN I "Jr"3 N ~ N - I
(15)
_&fyj_~
+/~4;~ = 0
+/3j~+10,+, = 0
(13)
19
A s i m p l i f i e d m o d e l for hnear d y n a m i c a n a l y s e s . G. O l i v e t o a n d A. S a n t t m
The shear deformation parameter r apphes to an individual wall or frame member In practical applications
one has to deal with one or more frames composed of
several columns and with several independent walls or
coupled walls. Therefore the problem arises of how to
define the shear deformation parameter of the replacement column from the values pertaining to the individual
components. Any shearing-flexural deformation may
be decomposed in a pure flexural deformatmn and in a
shear-type deformation 2~. The former is independent of
r while the latter depends on r. The value of r for the
replacement column may therefore be defined in such a
way that the work performed in a shear-type deformaUon is the same as the sum of the works performed in
the individual components. Because the work performed
m a shear-type deformation is proportional to the stiffness parameter 0 = a +/3, if follows that-
r = [/(mh '-)
= c/(2mwD
= cI(2[w, )
+ 3,2)N]
E Ei,o,=o Eel,
~=1
Numerical applications
t=l
or
o =
E/,O,
I=l
EL
=
On the other hand the work performed in a purely flexural deformation is proportional to the stiffness
parameter.
c - f l = 2
By combmlng the above equation with the other
et + fl =O
#/
N
= krh/Rf
20
rigidity ratio,
hysteretic damping parameter for the
wall;
hysteretlc damping parameter for the
frame;
number of storeys
girder's rigidity ratio,
F=rst hypothesm
Presented method
Present method
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
2 4034
0 7509
0 4039
0 2522
0.1714
2
0
0
0
0
4028
7506
4028
2518
1709
From
ref 10
From
ref 8
2 34
214
N
1 6828
0.5438
0 3084
0.2046
0 1463
1 6824
0 5436
0.3082
0 2043
0 1460
From
ref 10
From
ref 8
1.68
1 45
Table 2
First hypothesm
Presented method
Present method
T1
T~
T3
T4
T5
1 9013
0.4906
0.2093
0 1147
0.0732
1
0
0
0
0
8969
4863
2045
1096
0632
From
ref 10
From
ref 8
181
1.88
1 4275
0.4072
0 1906
0.1086
0 0704
1.4236
0 4041
0 1867
0 1041
0 0656
From
ref 10
From
ref 8
1 33
1 35
k r = ~,~ 6,(EI,/b,)(b,/a,) 3
t=l
21
otherwise
6, = 12/(1 + 126)
Parametric studies
Some parametric studies have been carried out aiming at
ascertaining the general behaviour of the structural
system when the geometrical and mechanical characteristics are uniform along the height. The variation of
the fundamental period of vibration with the governing
Table 3
CW
T1
T2
T3
F-CW
CW
F-CW
F-CW
0 81
0 24
0.11
0 88
0 25
0 12
0 77
0 23
0.11
0.83
0.24
0 12
1.09
0 32
0 15
1.21
0.36
0 17
0.87
0.26
0 13
0.98
0 30
0 16
1 20
0 32
0.15
0 99
0.28
0.13
22
Results from
ref 23
from ref 23
100
20
3
all
=
15
h = 0 01
1.0
~= l o
1
05
I
10
20
40
30
50
Rigidity ratio, p
20
40
60
80
100
Rig,dity ratio, p
1.5
10
ii
O.
p : 100
II
~= 10
0.5
~= 1
~=ool
10
20
30
I
40
50
Rigidity ratio, p
,,
'
IL
4
~
o==
03
03
:
'"
0
I1'
r__'l
I
6
s/w,
10
1oo
' r
6 -,--'
,I
~
o-=
03
L-L_
I
.~1
I
2
.....
iJ
rJ
:1
"r "~
] .....
80
li
6
4
60
Rigidity ratio, p
~
I I
I]
40
,i
N=12
:1
20
s/w,
I
10
10
s/w,
Figure 3 Variatmon of shear forces (peak of the shear frequency response function to horizontal acceleration) with the wall-frame rigidity
ratio p. (a) p = 5; (b) p = 2U; (c) p = 100. - - ,
Total shear force,
Amplitude of ground,acceleration = 1 g; /~ = 10; t- = 0.01
Eng. Struct.
1992,
Vol.
14, No 1
23
W~h3/e~.
Vartation with p
The variation of the peak response with p is reported m
Vartatton with
The overall stiffness of the frame is greatly affected by
the bending rigidity of its girders. For low values of
the frame shows a beam-like behavlour As ~ increases, the behaviour of the frame gradually changes
from that of a beam to that of a shear-type frame
(t5 = oo). In the numerical investigations the w a l l frame rigidity ratio has been set equal to p = 20 and the
girders' rotational inertia parameter has been set equal
to t = 0 0 1 .
The varmUon of the shear force with t~ is reported
in Figures 5a, 5b and 5c. As expected, for low values
6
>
(1}
>
(1)
.o
2
o
O9
o~
4
03
O9
[
8
I
16
]
24
I
32
40
80
160
240
320
400
I
80
yRJWt ha
yRt/Wt tP
I
160
J
240
8
i
>
0,)
w i t h the
--
8
I
>
(])
400
yRt/Wt ha
I
320
o
CO
I
I
0
2
i
I
2
I
4
I
6
I
8
10
s/w,
s/w,
I
8
10
I
2
I
4
'1
-I
)
8
10
s/w,
Figure 5 Vanat=on of shear forces (peak of the shear f r e q u e n c y response function to horizontal acceleration) w i t h the girder's rigidity
p a r a m e t e r ~, (a) b = 1, (b) ~ = 10, (c)/5 = 100_ - - ,
Total shear force;
frame A m p l i t u d e of ground acceleratmn = 1 g, p = 20, { = 0 01
24
Eng.
Struct.
1992,
Vol
14,
No
6
(D
>,
o
03
>
09
09
I
80
I
160
240
320
400
40
80
120
160
40
YRt/W, t'P
yR t/W t I'P
200
80
120
160
200
yR t / W t ha
Ftgure 6 Vanat=on of storey dmplacements (peak of the d=splacement frequency response funct=on to horizontal acceleration) w=th the
girder's ng=d=ty parameter/~ (a) ~ = 1, (b) ~ = 10; (c) ~ = 100 Amphtude of ground accelerat=on = 1 g; p = 20, { = 0 01
(1)
(2)
T h e s e c o n d c o n c l u s i o n d o e s n o t a p p l y to c o u p l e d w a l l s
w h i c h c o m b i n e the m o s t a p p e a l i n g f e a t u r e s o f both
f r a m e s and w a l l s a n d a r e treated in the p r e s e n t m o d e l as
frames.
Acknowledgements
This work has been financially supported by grants from
the Italian Ministry of Education.
References
1 Aktan, A E and Bertero, V V 'Seismic response of R/C framewall structures', J_ Struct Engng 1984, 110 (8), 1803-1821
2 Aktan, A E and Bertero, V V 'Conceptual seismic design of
frame-wall structures', J Struct Engng 1984, ll0 (11),
2778 - 2797
3 'Recommended Lateral Force Reqmrements and Commentary',
Smsmologlcal Commlttec, Structural Engineers Association of
California, 1975
4 Wilson, E L , Dovey, H H and Hablbullah, A "Three-dimensional
analysis of building systems-TABS 77', Report No EERC-72/8,
Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, Umverslty of Cahfornla,
Berkeley, CA, USA, 1972 (revised 1979)
5 Kanaan, A E and Powell, G H 'DRAIN-2D, a general purpose
computer program for dynamic analyses of inelastic plane structures',
Report No UCB/EERC- 73/6, EarthquakeEnglneenng ResearchCentre, Umverslty of Cahfornla, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1973 (revised
August 1975)
6 Mondkar, D P and Powell, G H 'ANSR-II, analyses of nonhnear
structural response, User's manual', Report No UCB/EERC-79/17,
Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of Cahfornla,
Berkeley, CA, USA, 1979
7 Powell, G H 'Computer programs for analyses of seismic response
of reinforced concrete buildings', Proceedings, A Workshop on
ERRCBC, Vol I1, University of Cahforma, Berkeley, CA, USA, July
1977
8 Heldebrecht, A C and Stafford Smith, B "Approximate analysis of
tall wall-frame structures', J Struct Dzv , ASCE 1973, 99 (ST2),
199-221
9 Coull, A and Khachatoonan, H 'Analysis of laterally loaded wallframe structures', J Struct Engng 1984, 110 (6), 1396-1400
l0 Basu, A K , Nagpal, A K and Nagar, A K 'Dynamic
characteristics of frame-wall systems', J Strucr Div , ASCE 1982,
108 (ST6), 1201 - 1218
I I Stafford Smith, B , Kuster, M and Hoenderkamp, J C D
"Generahzed method for estimating drift m high-rise structures', J
Strucr Engng 1984, 110 (7), 1549-1562
12 Stamato, M C and Mancim, E "Three-dimensional interaction of
walls and frames', J Struct Dry, ASCE 1973, 99 (STI2),
2375 -2389
13 Balendra, T , Swaddiwudhipong, S , Ser-Tong Quek and Seng-Llp
Lee 'Free vibration of asymmetric shear wall-frame buildings',
Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn 1984, 12, 629-650
Eng. Struct.
1992,
Vol.
14, No 1
25
26
20