Build. Sci. Vol. 7, pp. 121-125. Pergamon Press1972.

Printed in Great Britain I I(2S) I I0'4~)1

Simplified Analysis for Shear Wall-Frame

Interaction
I A I N A. M A C L E O D *

An approximate method of distributing lateral load between interconnected

shear walls andframes is presented. Although only simple arithmetic is required,
the important variables are included in the analysis. Accuracy will normally be
good for preliminary analysis and for agsessing behaviour.

NOMENCLATURE calculations or a computer program, simple

methods for preliminary sizing are most valuable.
E Young's modulus
F~,F~ functions used in equation B (reference 4) A necessary feature of any method of analysis is
I~ at top of frame that it takes account of the important variables of
g ratio
I~ at bottom of frame the problem. Therefore, for preliminary analysis
H total height
h height of column, i.e. story height the method must be both simple and flexible. For
moment of inertia of column shear wail-frame problems probably the only
/b moment of inertia of beam method in use at the present time which fits this
moment of inertia of wall
KB rotational stiffness of support description is to use the charts of references 1 and 2.
lateral point load applied at top of frame to The method presented here is intended to be
cause unit deflection in its line of action complementary to the use of these charts. The
Kw stiffness of a shear wall : Kw - 3Elw main additional advantages are that it covers the
H~
for equation C on Table 1. In general Kw = analysis of structures under torsional loading and
lateral point load applied at the top of shear that simple parameters are developed which are
wall to cause unit deflection in its line of action useful for assessing behaviour.
1 center to center span of beams
P interaction Force The notation is defined within the text and listed
lc at top of frame in Appendix 2.
s ratio
Ic at bottom of frame
W total lateral loading THE PROBLEM
KBH
;~w ratio 4EI,~ A shear wall deflects predominantly in a bending
A top deflection mode and a rigid frame deflects predominantly in a
An top deflection due to bending deformation shear mode. In a building, the in-plane rigidity of
Aw top deflection of wall the floor slabs forces the deflections of the walls and
As top deflection of frame
E~Ic/h Y.(Ecldh) frames to be (approximately) equal at each story
2 ratio ~ or 2E(EJ~/'I) level. This results in non-uniform interacting forces
between the walls and frames. A common assump-
tion is to neglect altogether the effect of the frame
INTRODUCTION
and assume that all the lateral load is taken by the
T H I S P A P E R shows how an approximate distri- shear wall. This may not always be a conservative
bution of lateral load between interconnected procedure and it is recommended that the contri-
frames and shear walls can be carried out using bution of the frame be considered in the analysis.
single values for the stiffness of each vertical unit For a more accurate analysis than that described
(i.e. each component) in any one direction. The herein, the use of a computer frame analysis pro-
method is called here the " C o m p o n e n t Stiffness gram is recommended[3].
Method" and is an extension of the conventional
method of distributing load for shear wall systems T H E IDEALIZATION
without frames. The main assumption which we make is that the
Since a thorough analysis of interconnected shear frame takes constant shear. A study of the charts
wall-frame problems requires either laborious of references 1 and 2 gives a good impression o f
the validity of this assumption and how different
*Dept. Civil Engineering, University of Glasgow. variables affect the pattern of the frame shear.
121
122 lain A. MacLeod

Figure l(a) shows a plane problem with a single On Table 1, equation (3) and similar equations
bay frame and shear wall. With constant frame for point and triangular loading are listed col-
shear, the only interacting force between the wall lectively as Equation C. Additions to Table I for
and the frame is at the top [figure l(b)]. The wall other load cases can easily be made.
takes all the distributed load. This situation can be
further idealized as in figure l(c) where the frame Table 1. Equation C.
is represented by a spring whose stiffness is Kf.
KI is the lateral load applied at the top of the frame Load
to cause unit deflection in its line of action. No. condition Equation C

1 Point load P [1 +(3/47w)l

Sp, nq stiffness K,
at top W [1 +(3/@w)+(K,JKy)]
~o~ ~o~, ~ [ 7 ~;:~
Uniformly P ill +(llTw)]
"ro*ol ~-" i distributed W [1 +(3147w)+(KwlKs)]
Iood H E W =- 'W
W
3 Triangular P [(11/20) + (1/2X~)]
T
W [1 + (3/47w)+ (Kw/Ks)]
Frame
Sheor woII
Yielding support
The value of Kf can be calculated using Equa-
( a ) S'i'ruct'ure ( b ) Interoci-ion ( c ) Frame modelled tions A and B from reference 4. If necessary, the
a t t o p only by spring
value of Kw can be modified to take account of
Fig. 1. Idealization for equation C. openings. If the rotation at the base of the shear
wall is to be neglected, the terms with Yw in Equa-
tion C should be omitted.
DEVELOPMENT OF E Q U A T I O N C Problems involving several frames and walls
To analyze the system of figure 1(c) consider the may be reduced to that of a single wall and frame
interaction force (P) as a redundant quantity. The as described in reference 1. Alternatively, Ks or
compatibility condition that the wall and the spring Kw for each vertical unit may be calculated separately
deflect by the same amount at the top is: and the results summed. EKs and XK~ are then
used instead of KI and Kw in equation C.
Aw = A s (1)
where A is the top deflection and the subscripts Aecuracy
w and f refer to the wall and frame respectively.
The accuracy of the method is investigated in
(wH 3 wH2 / e l l 3 eH2 = e reference 5. Estimates of deflection and wall moment
: (2)
are normally good, the main source of error being
for maximum flame shear. This can be under-
where W is the total lateral load (uniformly estimated by as much as 30 per cent. Also accuracy
distributed in this case), H is the total falls off rapidly for Kw/KI less than 1.0. In this
height of the wall, I~ is the moment of region the frame will certainly take a significant
inertia of the wall and KB is the rota- proportion of the lateral load and a computer
tional stiffness of the wall support. analysis will be essential.
The simplicity and flexibility of equation C for
Substituting preliminary analysis compensates for the lack of
detailed accuracy to be expected.
HKB 3 El,,.
7,, = ~ and Kw = - -H- -3 The method is now illustrated by an example
4EI~ analysis in which torsion of the structure is neglected.
and rearranging gives The method has been developed to cover problems
with torsion[5].

(3) EXAMPLE PROBLEM

W 3 Kw
1 +~-? +~-y So that results can be compared with a more
accurate analysis, Example 1 from reference 6
The top deflection is then is used. This problem is defined in figure 2 and
A,,, = A s = P/Ks (4) Table 2.
 Simplified Analysis for Shear Wall-Frame Interaction 123

Loading Ic = 4 x 2,627 = 10,508 in 4

H = 126'; average h = 12.6'

V
7).*"
7..I
"]/.I
10,508 20
2 = - - x - - =2.02
2 x 12.6 3 x 1,380
".I
-.f 254
s . . . . 0965, F s = 2-54
-..I 2,627
I 0 ~)®®® I
i t" g=l, Fo=l
--8 boys oi" 2 4 f f . - - ~ " 1
Aa 12"62 x 126 x 123
(a) Structure
P 12 x 3 x 104 x 10,508
x (2-54 + 1 x 2 x 2"02) = "0602 in/kip.
EZ][ZSr--ll 3
IEZ3ffZZ]~l ( c o m p u t e r value = 0.0607 in/kip)
IffZYZSZS51/
/EZZEZ]~I 576
-; IF-ES]EZZ31 5.#6~ P l
/F--lffZZ]ffZZ11 5"F-6~ Ks = A n - 0-060-----2= 16.6 kip/in.
/f---qEZS3~I 5-#6
EZIEZIZ]I 57-6~
KS = 7 x 16.6 = 116
57.6~
ol
L................... ~,
~60ft--"q Calculate Kw

( b ) Typical frame ( c ) Typical wall ( d ) Loading 3EI,~ 3 x 3 x 103 6 x 603 x 123

E = 3 0 , 0 0 0 ksi E = 3 , 0 0 0 ksi (kips) Kw = H3 - 1263 x 12 '~ x 12
(total)
Kw = 486 kip/in. ~ K w = 2 x 486 = 972
Fig. 2. Example structure.

Calculate P / W
Table 2. Frame member properties,
example structure. ~ K w = 972 = 8.4 _P= 3/8 - - 0 . 0 4
ZKI 116 W I+8"4
Moment of inertia of
members- I0n.*) Calculate loads on units. W = 9 × 5 7 . 6 + 2 8 . 8 =
Story 547 kips; P --- 547 × 0.04 = 21.9 kips.
Beams Columns
P to each frame = 21-9/7 = 3.1 kips, P to each
10 1380 254 wall = 21.9/2 = 10.8 kips, i.e. loadings are as
9 1380 443
shown in figure 3.
8 1380 739
7 1380 927
6 1380 1152
3-1.__~. 14"4 -- : 10"8
5 1380 1414
4 1380 1708 28"8
2e8
3 1380 2168 28'8 =
2 1380 2477 28"8 - - - ~
1 1380 2627 28'8
28"8 --
28"8
28-8 ---'--
(1) Distribute loads to the vertical units 28-8
H~/..~.HHH,....

Use e q u a t i o n C (Table 1). F o u n d a t i o n r o t a t i o n (a) Frame (7Thus) (b) Wall (2 Thus)

o f the shear wall will n o t be c o n s i d e r e d ; therefore
the terms with ~w can be ignored. Since there are Loads are in kips
two walls a n d seven frames use EKw a n d E K I in Fig. 3. Loading on units.
e q u a t i o n C which becomes (U.D. l o a d ) :
Top deflection
P 3/8
P 21.9
W 1 + (ZKw/EKI) = 0.187 in
Kj 116
Calculate Kf for a single f r a m e - - U s e e q u a t i o n B
f r o m reference 4. (2) Calculate moments in members
Aa h2H Moment in Wall. M o m e n t at base o f structure
-'P = ] 2E----~ (F, +/'o22) o f one h a l f o f the a p p l i e d l o a d i n g = 18,835 kip.ft.
124 lain A. MacLeod

Top (3) Comparison with more accurate analysis

I0[ F - - - T - - - - j ~Equation C
Goldberg in reference 6 takes account of in-
plane deformation of the floor slabs. Webster in
a discussion gives results with rigid foors. There-
6l
8
IR'fere"ce16
Webster
p'3741 fore comparison with the latter results shows the
effect of the constant shear assumption only.
Figure 4 shows the difference between the cal-
culated shears on a typical frame. Other results are
given in Table 3. These results show satisfactory
agreement.
Table 3. Results from example 1. Accuracy of equation C in
comparison with frame analysis.

(1) (2) (3)

Per cent Diff. =
Frame (2)- (1)
Bo, tom ~ × 100
0 1.0 2-0 3.0 4.0 analysis Equation C (1)
Shear on frame, kips
Fie. 4. Comoarison of frame shear estimates. Moment at base of
shear wall 17,526 17,474 -0-3
(kip.ft.)
For each wall maximum m o m e n t will be
= 18,835-10-8 x 126 Top
deflection 0.173 0.187 +8.1
= 17,474 kip.ft. (in.)

M o m e n t in Frame columns. Assume an interior

column take twice the shear on an exterior column CONCLUSION

Shear on interior column = Total shear/3
3.1/3 = 1-03 kips.
Maximum m o m e n t will occur towards mid-height
o f the frame and have value
1 . 0 3 x 0 . 5 × 12× 1.3 = 8.0 kip.ft.
(The 0.5 factor is for point of contraflexure at
column midheight. The 1-3 factor allows for the
fact that maximum frame shear may be under-
estimated by approximately 30 per cent.)
The method gives a g o o d first approximation to
the distribution of load between interconnected
frames and shear walls for a wide range o f practical
problems. It affords a simple quantitative measure
of the effectiveness of the frame in comparison
with the shear wall (i.e. P~ W). It is most useful for
preliminary analysis in that only minor arithmetic
effort is involved.
Acknowledgement--The work for this paper was carried out
by the author when with the Portland Cement Association,
Skokie, Illinois, U.S.A. See reference 5.

REFERENCES

1. F . R . KHAN and J. A. SBAROUNIS,Interaction of shear walls and frames, J. Struct. Div.

ASCE, 90, ST 3, 285.
2. Design of combined frames and shear walls, Advanced Engineering Bulletin No. 14,
Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IlL (1965).
3. R . W . CLOUGH, I. P. KING and E. L. WmSoN, 'Structural Analysis of Multi-Storey
buildings,' J. Struct. Dio. ASCE, 90, No. ST 3, 19 (1964).
4. I . A . MAcLEOD, Simplified equations for deflection of multistorey frames, Build. Sci., 6,
25 (1971).
5. I . A . MACLEOD, Shear wall frame interaction--a design aid with commentary, Portland
Cement Association, 5420 Old Orchard Rd., Skokie, Ill. 60076, U.S.A.
6. J. E. GOLDBERG, Analysis of multistorey buildings considering shear wall and floor
deformations, Tall Buildings, Pergamon Press, pp. 249-376, (1967).
 Simplified Analysis for Shear Wall-Frame Interaction 125

On pr6sente une m6thode approximate de distribution d'une charge lat6rale entre

des parois de cisaillement et des cadres interconnect6s. Bien qu'une arithm6tique
simple soit n6cessaire, les variables importantes sont inclues dans l'analyse. La
pr6cision sera normalement bonne pour une analyse prdliminaire et pour 6valuer le
comportement.

Eine Ann~iherungsmethode der Verteilung seitlicher Belastung zwischen mit einander

verbundenen Versteifungsw/inden und Rahmen wird dargestellt. Die wichtigen
Ver~inderlichen sind in der Analyse enthalten, obwohl sie nur einfacher Arithmetik
bedarf. Genauigkeit wird fiir vorl~iufige Analyse und zur Beurteilung des Verhaltens
normalerweise befriedigend sein.