Hand-Calculated Procedure for Rigidity Computation of

Shear Walls with Openings

J. Kent Hsiao, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., F.ASCE1

Abstract: The behavior of a solid shear wall is well understood, and the rigidity of the wall can be accurately determined using a simple hand-
calculated approach. However, the computation of the rigidity of a shear wall with openings is significantly more complex than that of a solid
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/23/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

wall and, therefore, can only be accurately determined by using the computer-aided FEM. Although several conventional simplified hand-
calculated procedures are available for practicing structural engineers, results from those procedures are highly approximate and may not be
reliable. Therefore, a more accurate hand-calculated procedure, which considers the rotation at the tops of the piers and the effective length of
the piers, is proposed to calculate the rigidity of shear walls with openings. A total of three different configurations of shear walls with openings
are used as examples to assess the accuracy of the newly proposed hand-calculated method. The accuracy of the results derived from the
newly proposed hand-calculated procedure has significantly been improved over the conventional hand-calculated procedures. DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000210. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Deflection; Finite-element method (FEM); Lateral forces; Openings; Rigidity; Shear walls.

Introduction procedures. Therefore, a more accurate hand-calculated procedure,

Shear walls in a building are used to resist the lateral forces caused
by wind or seismic loads. Rigid diaphragms in a structure are used to
transmit lateral forces and torsional loads (caused by lateral forces)
to shear walls in proportion to the rigidities of the walls. The ri-
gidities of all shear walls must be known to locate the center of ri-
gidity and to perform the torsional analysis of the structure.
Therefore, the computation of shear wall rigidity is an essential part
of the lateral load analysis of a structure with rigid diaphragms and
shear walls. Experiments show that many structural materials, such
as steel, aluminum, and even concrete, if not excessively loaded,
may be considered perfectly elastic (Timoshenko and Young 1968).
Therefore, if a solid concrete wall has the same thickness through-
out the entire wall, its rigidity can be fairly accurately determined
using a simple hand-calculated approach.
Because doors and windows are commonly located in walls,
walls with openings for doors and windows are often encountered in
structural design practice. The computation of the rigidity of a wall
with openings, however, is significantly more complex than that of
a solid wall. Although several conventional simplified hand-calculated
procedures (Brandow et al. 1995; Taly 2001; Lindeburg and
McMullin 2008) are available for practicing structural engineers,
results from those procedures are highly approximate and may not be
reliable (Neuenhofer 2006; Tena-Colunga 2007). As a result, there is
a consensus that the rigidity of a shear wall with openings can only be
accurately determined using the computer-aided FEM. However,
practicing structural engineers who lack experience with using the
computer-aided FEM may still prefer conventional hand-calculated
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Southern Illinois Univ. Carbondale, Carbondale, IL 62901. E-mail: hsiao@
engr.siu.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 29, 2013; approved on
October 28, 2013; published online on October 30, 2013. Discussion period
open until August 4, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on Struc-
tural Design and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680/04014019(9)/
$25.00.
which considers the rotation at the tops of the piers and the effective
length of the piers, is proposed to calculate the rigidity of shear walls
with openings. The newly proposed procedure has been developed
based on the following assumptions: (1) 1-story walls, (2) a single
opening or one layer of multiple openings with all openings having
the same height and located at the same elevation, (3) linear elastic
analysis, and (4) rigid foundations (neglecting the wall deflection
caused by foundation rotation).
To assess the accuracy of the newly proposed hand-calculated
method, a total of three different configurations of shear walls with
openings are used as examples. In these examples, two conventional
hand-calculated procedures, the newly proposed hand-calculated
procedure, and the finite-element procedure are used to calculate the
rigidity of the shear walls. Results from the aforementioned proce-
dures are then compared with each other.
Rigidity Computation for Solid Walls
The wall shown in Fig. 1(a) is fixed ended. The bottom of the wall is
fixed, and the top of the wall is completely restrained from rotation.
The deflection of the wall caused by the bending moment effect can
be computed using the following equation:
3
Dmoment ¼ Vh (1)
12EI
where V 5 lateral load; h 5 wall height; E 5 modulus of elasticity
of the wall; and I 5 moment of inertia of the wall.
The wall shown in Fig. 1(b) is cantilevered. The deflection of
the wall caused by the bending moment effect can be computed using
the following equation:
Vh3
Dmoment ¼ (2)
3EI
The wall deflection shown in Fig. 1(c) is the deflection of a fixed-
ended or cantilevered wall caused by the shear effect. The deflection

© ASCE 04014019-1 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2014, 19(4): 04014019

 of the wall caused by the shear effect can be computed using the the wall, from which R 5 19,084 kN=cm ð10,898 kips=in:Þ. There-
following equation (Timoshenko and Young 1968): fore, the discrepancy of the results between the FEM and Eq. (4) is
about 2%. The result derived from Eq. (4) for a cantilever solid wall
Dshear ¼ 1:2Vh (3) closely agrees with that obtained from the FEM.
AG

where A 5 cross-sectional area of the wall; and G 5 shear modulus

of the wall.
Hand-Calculated Conventional Methods for the
The rigidity of a wall is the reciprocal of the deflection of the wall.
Rigidity Computation of Walls with Openings
Because both the bending moment and shear contribute to the de-
The basic methodologies for two popular conventional simplified
flection of the wall, the rigidity of a cantilever solid wall, caused by
hand-calculated procedures for calculating the rigidity of walls with
a lateral unit force applied at the top of the wall, can be computed
openings are subsequently described.
using the following equation:
The first method is the hand-calculated conventional Method A
(Lindeburg and McMullin 2008). Referring to Fig. 3, the rigidity
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/23/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

R¼ 1 ¼ 3 1 (4)
Dmoment þ Dshear h þ 1:2h of the wall with the opening is the sum of the rigidities of the
3EI AG individual piers in the wall. As shown in Fig. 3, Rwall w=opening
5 RPier1 1 RPier2 where Rwall w=opening is the rigidity of the wall with
Also, the rigidity of a fixed-ended solid wall, caused by a lateral unit the opening and RPier1 and RPier2 are the rigidities of Pier 1 and Pier 2,
force applied at the top of the wall, can be computed using the fol- respectively. The flexural deflections of the piers are assumed to be
lowing equation: fixed ended (the bottoms of the piers are fixed, and the tops of the
piers are completely restrained from rotation) as shown in Fig. 1(a).
R¼ 1 ¼ 3 1 (5) The rigidity of a pier with a fixed-ended condition can be computed
Dmoment þ Dshear h þ 1:2h using Eq. (5).
12EI AG Hand-calculated conventional Method B (Brandow et al.
1995; Taly 2001; Lindeburg and McMullin 2008) is the second
Considering the cantilever solid wall shown in Fig. 2(a), assume method. In this method, although the flexural deflection of the
that concrete with E 5 25,100 MPa ð3,640 ksiÞ and G5 10,040 MPa entire wall is considered to be cantilevered (fixed at the bottom but
ð1,456 ksiÞ is used for the wall, the wall thickness t 5 20 cmð7:9 in:Þ, allowed to rotate at the top) as shown in Fig. 1(b), the flexural
the wall height h 5400 cmð13 ft 2 in:Þ, and the wall length l deflections of the piers in the wall are considered to be fixed ended
5680 cm ð22 ft 4 in:Þ. To compute the rigidity of the wall using as shown in Fig. 1(a). Referring to Fig. 4, Method B can be broken
Eq. (4), R 5 19,466 kN=cmð11,116 kips=in:Þ. down into the following steps:
The computer model for the aforementioned solid wall being used • Step 1: Define the open strip whose length equals that of the entire
for the finite-element analysis is shown in Fig. 2(b). The model is wall and whose height equals that of the opening. The strip,
composed of multiple 40 3 40 3 20-cm three-dimensional (3D) solid therefore, contains the opening and piers as shown in Fig. 4(a).
elements. From the NISA/DISPLAY 17.0 software, D 5 0:0000524 cm • Step 2: Treating the open strip defined in Step 1 as a solid strip
as a result of the lateral force of 1 kN (0.2248 kips) applied at the top of (ignoring the opening in the strip), the entire wall becomes a solid

Fig. 1. Fixed-ended and cantilevered deflections

Fig. 2. Solid wall example

© ASCE 04014019-2 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2014, 19(4): 04014019

 wall. Calculate the deflection of the solid wall (Dsolid wall ) as
shown in Fig. 4(b).
• Step 3: Assuming the solid strip is fixed ended as shown in
Fig. 1(a), calculate the deflection of the solid strip (Dsolid strip ) as
shown in Fig. 4(c).
• Step 4: Compute the rigidity of the open strip defined in Step 1,
which contains the opening and piers. The piers are assumed to be
fixed ended as shown in Fig. 1(a). The rigidity of the open strip is
the sum of the rigidities of the individual piers in the strip. The
strip rigidity obtained in this step is denoted by Ropen strip .
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/23/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Wall with an opening illustrated for conventional Method A
Fig. 4. Wall with an opening illustrated for conventional Method B
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2014, 19(4): 04014019
• Step 5: Compute the deflection of the open strip defined in Step 1,
which contains the opening and piers. The deflection of the open
strip can be obtained from the reciprocal of the rigidity of the open
strip obtained from Step 4, that is, Dopen strip 5 1=Ropen strip where
Dopen strip [Fig. 4(d)] is the deflection of the strip defined in Step 1,
which contains the opening and piers.
• Step 6: Compute the deflection of the entire wall with the opening
(Dwall w=opening ). The deflection of the entire wall with the opening
[Fig. 4(a)] can be calculated by subtracting Dsolid strip from
Dsolid wall and then adding Dopen strip to Dsolid wall . The procedure
for this step can be demonstrated with the following equation
and is illustrated in Fig. 4:
Dwall w=opening ¼ Dsolid wall 2 Dsolid strip þ Dopen strip
• Step 7: Compute the rigidity of the entire wall with the opening
(Rwall w=opening ). The rigidity of the entire wall with the opening
can be obtained from the reciprocal of the deflection of the entire
wall with the opening (Dwall w=opening ) obtained from Step 6, that
is, Rwall w=opening 5 1=Dwall w=opening .
Newly Proposed Hand-Calculated Procedure for the
Rigidity Computation of Walls with Openings
The main difference between the hand-calculated conventional
procedures and the newly proposed hand-calculated procedure is
that the conventional hand-calculated procedures assume that the
tops of the piers are completely restrained from rotation, whereas the
newly proposed hand-calculated procedure considers the rotation at
the tops of the piers. The basic methodology for the newly proposed
procedure is illustrated as follows.
Referring to Fig. 5, each column of the symmetric frame is
subjected to a lateral force, V. The flexural deflection at the top of
each column can be computed using Eq. (6) (Hsiao 2006)


VðLc Þ3 1
D¼ þ 1 (6)
4EIc 3 6K þ 1
where K 5 ½ðEIb Þ=Lb ½Lc =ðEIc Þ.
Eq. (6) considers the rotation at the top of the column. The newly
proposed approach uses Eq. (6) to approximately compute the
Fig. 5. Frame flexural deflection caused by lateral loads; E 5 modulus
of elasticity, constant for all members; Ib 5 moment of inertia of beam;
Ic 5 moment of inertia of column; Lb 5 length of beam; Lc 5 length
of column
04014019-3 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 flexural deflections at the tops of the piers. Referring to the wall with
openings shown in Fig. 6(a), the equivalent frame system of the wall
with openings is shown in Fig. 6(b). Referring to Fig. 6(b), the K
value in Eq. (6) for the piers is K 5 ½ðEIb122 Þ=Lb122 ½Lp1 =ðEIp1 Þ for
Pier 1; K 5 f½ðEIb122 Þ=Lb122  1 ½ðEIb223 Þ=Lb223 g½Lp2 =ðEIp2 Þ for
Pier 2; and K 5 ½ðEIb223 Þ=Lb223 ½Lp3 =ðEIp3 Þ for Pier 3.
The newly proposed procedure for the rigidity computation of
walls with openings can be broken down into the following steps:
• Step 1: Define the effective length for each pier of the wall with
openings. Referring to Fig. 7, the effective interior pier length,
Lpi 5 hp 1 xti 1 xbi where xti 5 ð1=4ÞWpi # ð1=2ÞDt and xbi
5 ð1=4ÞWpi # ð1=2ÞDb . Also, the effective exterior pier length,
Lpe 5 hp 1 xte 1 xbe where xte 5 ð1=4ÞWpe # ð1=2ÞDt and xbe
5 ð1=2ÞWpe # ð1=2ÞDb .
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/23/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
• Step 2: Construct the equivalent frame system for the wall with
openings using the effective length determined in Step 1.
• Step 3: Use Eq. (6) to compute the flexural deflection and flexural
rigidity of each pier.
• Step 4: Define the open strip whose length equals that of the entire
wall and whose height equals that of the effective length of the
pier, which has the highest flexural rigidity.
•
Step 5: Treating the entire wall as a solid wall (ignoring the open-
ings in the wall), calculate the flexural deflection (Dmoment,solid wall )
of the solid wall using Eq. (2).
•
Step 6: Treating the open strip defined in Step 4 as a solid strip
(ignoring the openings in the strip) and referring to Fig. 8, calculate
the flexural deflection of the solid strip (Dmoment,solid strip ) using the
following equation:
 
V x2
Dx ¼ ð3h 2 xÞ (7)
6EI
Fig. 6. Wall with openings and the equivalent frame system; Ibiej
5 moment of inertia of beam spanning from pier i to pier j; Ipi 5 moment
of inertia of pier i; Lbiej 5 effective length of beam measured hori-
zontally from the midline of pier i to the midline of pier j; Lpi 5 effective
length of pier i
© ASCE 04014019-4
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2014, 19(4): 04014019
where Dx 5 flexural deflection at the elevation x from the base
of the wall; V 5 lateral load; x 5 elevation under consider-
ation measured from the base of the wall; h 5 wall height; E
5 modulus of elasticity of the wall; and I 5 moment of inertia of
the wall.
• Step 7: Compute the flexural deflection of the open strip
(Dmoment,open strip ) defined in Step 4, which contains the openings
and piers. The flexural deflection of the open strip can be obtained
from the reciprocal of the sum of the flexural rigidities of the
individual piers (derived in Step 3) in the strip.
• Step 8: Compute the flexural deflection of the entire wall with
openings (Dmoment,wall w=openings ). The flexural deflection of the
entire wall with openings can be calculated by subtracting
Dmoment,solid strip from Dmoment,solid wall and then adding Dmoment,open strip
to Dmoment,solid wall . That is
Dmoment,wall w=openings ¼ Dmoment,solid wall 2 Dmoment,solid strip
þ Dmoment,open strip
• Step 9: Compute the shear deflection of the entire wall with
openings (Dshear,wall w=openings ) using Eq. (3).
• Step 10: Compute the rigidity of the entire wall with openings
(Rwall w=openings ). The rigidity of the entire wall with openings
can be obtained from the reciprocal of the sum of the flexural
and shear deflections of the entire wall with openings. That is
.
Rwall w=openings ¼ 1 Dmoment,wall w=openings

þ Dshear,wall w=openings
Rigidity Computation Examples Using Conventional
Methods A and B, Newly Proposed Method, and FEM
A total of three different configurations of shear walls with opening(s)
(Figs. 9–11) are used as examples to assess the accuracy of
the conventional and newly proposed methods. Concrete with
E 5 25,100 MPa ð3,640 ksiÞ and G 5 10,040 MPa ð1,456 ksiÞ is
used for all the walls. Also, all the walls’ thicknesses t 5 20 cm
ð7:9 in:Þ. The computer models for all the walls for the finite-
element analysis are composed of multiple 40 3 40 3 20-cm 3D
solid elements. NISA computer software is used for the finite-
element analysis.
Example 1: Compute the Rigidity of the Wall with an
Opening as Shown in Fig. 9(a)
Conventional Method A
Referring to Fig. 9(b), h 5 120 cm, I 5 2,880,000 cm4 , and A
5 2,400 cm2 for each pier. Assuming each pier is fixed ended and
using Eq. (5), RPier1 5 RPier2 5 12,550 kN=cm. Therefore, Rwall w=opening
5 RPier1 1 RPier2 5 25,100 kN=cm ð14,333 kips=in:Þ.
Conventional Method B
• Step 1: Referring to Figs. 9(a and b), the length of the open strip
is 480 cm, and the height of the open strip is 120 cm.
• Step 2: Treating the entire wall as a solid wall, one has h
5 400 cm, I 5 184,320,000 cm4 , and A 5 9,600 cm2 for the
solid wall. Using Eqs. (2) and (3), Dsolid wall 5 Dmoment,solid wall
1 Dshear,solid wall 5 0:00004611 cm=kN 1 0:00004980 cm=kN
5 0:00009591 cm=kN.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/23/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Effective pier length; Db 5 distance from the bottom of the wall to the bottom of the opening; Dt 5 distance from the top of the wall to the top of
the opening; hp 5 clear pier height; Lpe 5 effective exterior pier length; Lpi 5 effective interior pier length; Wpe 5 exterior pier width; Wpi 5 interior pier
width; xbe 5 distance from the bottom of the effective exterior pier length to the bottom of the opening; xbi 5 distance from the bottom of the effective
interior pier length to the bottom of the opening; xte 5 distance from the top of the effective exterior pier length to the top of the opening; xti 5 distance
from the top of the effective interior pier length to the top of the opening

• Step 4: Referring to Figs. 9(a and c) and Step 1, the length of the
open strip is 480 cm, and the height of the open strip is
Lp1 5 240 cm 5 Lp2 .
• Step 5: Treating the entire wall as a solid wall, compute the flex-
ural deflection of the solid wall using Eq. (2), Dmoment,solid wall
5 h3 =ð3EIÞ 5 0:00004611 cm=kN where I 5 184,320,000 cm4
and h 5 400 cm for the solid wall.
• Step 6: Referring to Fig. 9(c) and treating the open strip defined
in Step 4 as a solid strip (ignoring the opening in the strip), the top
of the solid strip is at an elevation of 340 cm from the base of
the wall, whereas the bottom of the solid strip is at an elevation of
Fig. 8. Cantilevered flexural deflection 100 cm from the base of the wall. Compute the flexural deflection
at the top of the solid strip using Eq. (7), Dmoment at 340 cm 5 ½x2
• Step 3: Treating the open strip as a solid strip, one has h 5 120 cm, =ð6EIÞð3h 2 xÞ 5 0:00003581 cm=kN where x 5 340 cm, I
I 5 184,320,000 cm4 , and A 5 9,600 cm2 for the solid strip. As- 5 184,320,000 cm4 , and h 5 400 cm. Similarly, the flexural
suming the solid strip is fixed ended and using Eqs. (1) and (3), deflection at the bottom of the solid strip can be computed as
Dsolid strip 5 Dmoment,solid strip 1 Dshear,solid strip 5 0:00000031 cm=kN Dmoment at 100 cm 5 0:00000396 cm=kN. Therefore, the flexural
1 0:00001494 cm=kN 5 0:00001525 cm=kN. deflection of the solid strip can be computed as Dmoment,solid strip
• Step 4: The rigidity of the open strip is the sum of the rigidities 5 Dmoment at 340 cm 2 Dmoment at 100 cm 5 0:00003185 cm=kN.
of the individual piers in the strip. From Method A, RPier1
• Step 7: The flexural deflection of the open strip can be ob-
5 RPier2 5 12,550 kN=cm. Therefore, Ropen strip 5RPier1 1RPier2 tained from the reciprocal of the sum of the flexural rigidity of
5 25,100 kN=cm. Piers 1 and 2: Dmoment,open strip 5 1=ðRmoment,Pier1 2 Rmoment,Pier2 Þ
• Step 5: Dopen strip 5 1=Ropen strip 5 0:00003984 cm=kN. 5 0:00012749 cm=kN.
• Step 6: Dwall w=opening 5 Dsolid wall 2 Dsolid strip 1 Dopen strip
• Step 8: The flexural deflection of the entire wall with the open-
5 0:00009591 2 0:00001525 1 0:00003984 5 0:00012050 ing can be computed as Dmoment,wall w=opening 5 Dmoment,solid wall
cm=kN. 2 Dmoment,solid strip 1 Dmoment,open strip 5 0:00004611 2 0:00003185
• Step 7: Rwall w=opening 5 1=Dwall w=opening 5 8,299 kN=cm 1 0:00012749 5 0:00014175 cm=kN.
• Step 9: The total shear deflection of the entire wall with the
ð4739 kips=inÞ.
opening is the sum of the shear deflections [computed using
Newly Proposed Method Eq. (3)] of the following three layers:
• Step 1: Referring to Fig. 9(c), one has ð1=2ÞDt 5 60 cm, ð1=2ÞDb 1. The shear deflection of the bottom layer [from the base of
5 80 cm, xt1 5 ð1=2ÞWp1 5 ð1=2ÞWp2 5 xt2 5 60 cm # ð1=2ÞDt , the wall to the bottom of the opening (at an elevation of
xb1 5 ð1=2ÞWp1 5 ð1=2ÞWp2 5 xb2 5 60 cm # ð1=2ÞDb , and Lp1 160 cm above the base)]: Dshear,0 → 160 cm 5 ð1:2hÞ=ðAGÞ
5 hp 1 xt1 1 xb1 5 240 cm 5 Lp2 . 5 0:00001992 cm=kN where h5160cm and A5ð20cmÞ
• Step 2: From Step 1, the equivalent frame system is constructed and ð480cmÞ59,600cm2 .
shown in Fig. 9(d) where Lb 5 360 cm, Ib 5 ð20 cmÞð120 cmÞ3 2. The shear deflection of the middle layer [from the bottom of
=12 5 2,880,000 cm4 , and Ip1 5 Ip2 5 ð20 cmÞð120 cmÞ3 =12 the opening (at an elevation of 160 cm) to the top of the
5 2,880,000 cm4 . opening (at an elevation of 280 cm)]: Dshear,160→280 cm
• Step 3: Using Eq. (6), Dmoment,Pier1 ½ðLp1 Þ3 =ð4EIp1 Þfð1=3Þ 5 ð1:2hÞ=ðAGÞ 5 0:00002988 cm=kN where h 5 120 cm
1 ½1=ð6K1 1 1Þg 5 0:0002550 cm=kN 5 Dmoment,Pier2 where K1 and A 5 ð20 cmÞð120 1 120 cmÞ 5 4,800 cm2 . This layer
5 ½ðEIb Þ=Lb ½Lp1 =ðEIp1 Þ 5 0:667 5 K2 . Therefore, the flex- contains the 240 3 120-cm opening.
ural rigidity of each pier is Rmoment,Pier1 5 1=Dmoment,Pier1 3. The shear deflection of the top layer [from the top of
5 3,922 kN=cm 5 Rmoment,Pier2 . the opening (at an elevation of 280 cm) to the top of the

© ASCE 04014019-5 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2014, 19(4): 04014019

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/23/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Wall with an opening illustrated for Example 1
wall (at an elevation of 400 cm)]: Dshear,280→400 cm 5 ð1:2hÞ
=ðAGÞ 5 0:00001494 cm=kN where h 5 120 cm and
A 5 ð20 cmÞð480 cmÞ 5 9,600 cm2 . Therefore, the total
shear deflection of the entire wall with the opening is
Dshear,wall w=opening 5 0:00001992 1 0:00002988
1 0:00001494 5 0:00006474 cm=kN.
• Step 10: The rigidity of the entire wall with the opening can
be obtained from the reciprocal of the sum of the flexural and
shear deflections of the entire wall with the opening, that is,
Rwall w=opening 5 1=ðDmoment,wall w=opening 1 Dshear,wall w=opening Þ 5 1
=ð0:00014175 cm=kN 1 0:00006474 cm=kNÞ 5 4,843 kN=cm
ð2,766 kips=in:Þ.
FEM
From the finite-element analysis, the deflection of the wall caused
by a lateral force of 1 kN applied at the top of the wall is
0.00020737 cm. Therefore, the rigidity of the wall is Rwall 5 1=Dwall
5 4,822 kN=cm ð2,754 kips=in:Þ.
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2014, 19(4): 04014019
Fig. 10. Wall with an opening illustrated for Example 2
Example 2: Compute the Rigidity of the Wall with an
Opening as Shown in Fig. 10(a)
Conventional Method A
Referring to Fig. 10(b) and the calculation procedure shown in Example
1, one has Rwall w=opening 5 13,008 kN=cm ð7,428 kips=in:Þ.
Conventional Method B
Referring to Figs. 10(a and b) and the calculation procedure shown in
Example 1, one has Rwall w=opening 5 7,122 kN=cm ð4,067 kips=in:Þ.
Newly Proposed Method
• Step 1: Referring to Fig. 10(c), ð1=2ÞDt 5 80 cm. Because xt1
5 ð1=2ÞWp1 5 100 cm . ð1=2ÞDt , xt1 5 ð1=2ÞDt 5 80 cm. Also,
because xt2 5 ð1=2ÞWp2 5 60 cm # ð1=2ÞDt , xt2 5 60 cm. There-
fore, Lp1 5 hp 1 xt1 5 320 cm and Lp2 5 hp 1 xt2 5 300 cm.
• Step 2: From Step 1, the equivalent frame system is constructed and
shown in Fig. 10(d) where Lb 5320 cm, Ib 5ð20 cmÞð160 cmÞ3 =12
04014019-6 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/23/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. Wall with openings illustrated for Example 3
5 6,826,667 cm4 , Ip1 5 ð20 cmÞð200 cmÞ3=12 5 13,333,333 cm4,
and Ip2 5 ð20 cmÞð120 cmÞ3 =12 5 2,880,000 cm4 .
• Step 3: Using Eq. (6), Dmoment,Pier1 5 ½ðLp1 Þ3 =ð4EIp1 Þfð1=3Þ
1 ½1=ð6K1 1 1Þg 5 0:0001417 cm=kN where K1 5 ½ðEIb Þ=Lb 
½Lp1 =ðEIp1 Þ 5 0:512 and Dmoment,Pier2 5½ðLp2 Þ3 =ð4EIp2 Þfð1=3Þ
1 ½1=ð6K2 1 1Þg 5 0:0003764 cm=kN where K2 5 ½ðEIb Þ=Lb 
½Lp2 =ðEIp2 Þ 5 2:222. Therefore, the flexural rigidity of Pier
1 is Rmoment,Pier1 5 1=Dmoment,Pier1 5 7,057 kN=cm, and the
flexural rigidity of Pier 2 is Rmoment,Pier2 5 1=Dmoment,Pier2
5 2,657 kN=cm.
• Step 4: Referring to Figs. 10(a and c) and Step 1, the length of the
open strip is 480 cm. Also, because Rmoment,Pier1 . Rmoment,Pier2 ,
the height of the open strip is Lp1 5 320 cm.
• Step 5: Treating the entire wall as a solid wall, compute the
flexural deflection of the solid wall using Eq. (2),
Dmoment,solid wall 5 h3 =ð3EIÞ 5 0:00004611 cm=kN where I
5 184,320,000 cm4 and h 5 400 cm for the solid wall.
• Step 6: Referring to Fig. 10(c) and treating the open strip defined in
Step 4 as a solid strip (ignoring the opening in the strip), the top of the
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2014, 19(4): 04014019
solid strip is at an elevation of 340 cm from the base of the wall,
whereas the bottom of the solid strip is at the base of the wall.
Compute the flexural deflection at the top of the solid strip using
Eq. (7), Dmoment at 320 cm 5 ½x2 =ð6EIÞð3h 2 xÞ 5 0:00003246
cm=kN where x5320 cm, I 5184,320,000 cm4 , and h 5400 cm.
• Step 7: The flexural deflection of the open strip can be
obtained from the reciprocal of the sum of the flexural rigidity of
Piers 1 and 2: Dmoment,open strip 51=ðRmoment,Pier1 1 Rmoment,Pier2 Þ
50:00010294 cm=kN.
• Step 8: The flexural deflection of the entire wall with the open-
ing can be computed as Dmoment,wall w=opening 5 Dmoment,solid wall
2Dmoment,solid strip 1Dmoment,open strip 5 0:000046112 0:00003246
1 0:00010294 5 0:00011659 cm=kN.
• Step 9: The total shear deflection of the entire wall with the
opening is the sum of the shear deflections [computed using
Eq. (3)] of the following two layers:
Dshear,0→240 cm ¼ 0:00004482 cm=kN
Dshear,240→400 cm ¼ 0:00001992 cm=kN
Therefore, the total shear deflection of the entire wall with
the opening is Dshear,wall w=opening 5 0:00004482 1 0:00001992
5 0:00006474 cm=kN.
• Step 10: The rigidity of the entire wall with the opening can
be obtained from the reciprocal of the sum of the flexural and
shear deflections of the entire wall with the opening, that
is, Rwall w=opening 5 1=ðDmoment,wall w=opening 1 Dshear,wall w=opening Þ
5 1=ð0:00011659 cm=kN 1 0:00006474 cm=kNÞ
5 5,515 kN=cm ð3,149 kips=in:Þ.
FEM
From the finite-element analysis, the deflection of the wall caused
by a lateral force of 1 kN applied at the top of the wall is
0.00017695 cm. Therefore, the rigidity of the wall is Rwall 5 1=Dwall
5 5,651 kN=cm ð3,227 kips=in:Þ.
Example 3: Compute the Rigidity of the Wall with Two
Openings as Shown in Fig. 11(a)
Conventional Method A
Referring to Fig. 11(b) and the calculation procedure shown in Exam-
ple 1, one has Rwall w=openings 5 25,300 kN=cm ð14,447 kips=in:Þ.
Conventional Method B
Referring to Figs. 11(a and b) and the calculation procedure
shown in Example 1, one has Rwall w=openings 5 12,463 kN=cm
ð7,117 kips=in:Þ.
Newly Proposed Method
• Step 1: Referring to Fig. 11(c), one has ð1=2ÞDt 5 60 cm,
ð1=2ÞDb 5 80 cm, xt1 5 ð1=2ÞWp1 5 ð1=2ÞWp3 5 xt3 5 40 cm
# ð1=2ÞDt , xb1 5 ð1=2ÞWp1 5 ð1=2ÞWp3 5 xb3 5 40 cm
# ð1=2ÞDb , and Lp1 5 hp 1 xt1 1 xb1 5 200 cm 5 Lp3 . Also,
xt2 5 ð1=4ÞWp2 5 30 cm # ð1=2ÞDt , xb2 5 ð1=4ÞWp2 5 30 cm
# ð1=2ÞDb , and Lp2 5 hp 1 xt2 1 xb2 5 180 cm.
• Step 2: From Step 1, the equivalent frame system is constructed
and shown in Fig. 11(d) where Lb122 5 Lb223 5 300 cm, Ib122
5 ð20 cmÞð120 cmÞ3 =12 5 2,880,000 cm4 5 Ib223 , Ip1 5 Ip3
5 ð20 cmÞð80 cmÞ3 =12 5 853,333 cm4 , and Ip2 5 ð20 cmÞ
ð120 cmÞ3 =12 5 2,880,000 cm4 .
• Step 3: Using Eq. (6), Dmoment,Pier1 ½ðLp1 Þ3 =ð4EIp1 Þfð1=3Þ
1 ½1=ð6K1 1 1Þg 5 0:00037565 cm=kN 5 Dmoment,Pier 3 where
K1 5 ½ðEIb122 Þ=Lb122 ½Lp1 =ðEIp1 Þ 5 2:25. Also, using
Eq. (6), Dmoment,Pier 2 5½ðLp2 Þ3 =ð4EIp2 Þfð1=3Þ1½1=ð6K2 11Þg
04014019-7 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 50:00009183 cm=kN where K2 5 f½ðEIb122 Þ=Lb122 
1 ½ðEIb223 Þ=Lb223 g½Lp2 =ðEIp2 Þ 51:2. Therefore, the flexural
rigidity of Piers 1 and 3 is Rmoment,Pier1 5 1=Dmoment,Pier1
5 2,662 kN=cm 5 Rmoment,Pier3 , and the flexural rigidity of
Pier 2 is Rmoment,Pier2 5 1=Dmoment,Pier2 5 10,890 kN=cm.
• Step 4: Referring to Figs. 11(a and c) and Step 1, the length of
the open strip is 680 cm. Also, because Rmoment,Pier2 is larger
than Rmoment,Pier1 and Rmoment,Pier3 , the height of the open strip is
Lp2 5 180 cm.
• Step 5: Treating the entire wall as a solid wall, compute the flexural
deflection of the solid wall using Eq. (2), Dmoment,solid wall
5 h3 =ð3EIÞ 5 0:00001622 cm=kN where I 5 524,053,333 cm4
and h 5 400 cm for the solid wall.
• Step 6: Referring to Fig. 11(c) and treating the open strip de-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/23/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
fined in Step 4 as a solid strip (ignoring the opening in the strip),
the top of the solid strip is at an elevation of 310 cm from the
base of the wall, whereas the bottom of the solid strip is at an
elevation of 130 cm from the base of the wall. Compute the
flexural deflection at the top of the solid strip using Eq. (7),
Dmoment at 310 cm 5 ½x2 =ð6EIÞð3h 2 xÞ 5 0:00001084 cm=kN
where x 5 310 cm, I 5 524,053,333 cm4 , and h 5 400 cm.
Similarly, the flexural deflection at the bottom of the solid strip
can be computed as Dmoment at 130 cm 5 0:00000229 cm=kN.
Therefore, the flexural deflection of the solid strip can be com-
puted as Dmoment,solid strip 5 Dmoment at 310 cm 2 Dmoment at 130 cm
5 0:00000855 cm=kN.
• Step 7: The flexural deflection of the open strip can be obtained from
the reciprocal of the sum of the flexural rigidity of Piers 1 and 2:
Dmoment,open strip 5 1=ðRmoment,Pier1 1 Rmoment,Pier2 1 Rmoment,Pier3 Þ
5 0:00006168 cm=kN.
• Step 8: The flexural deflection of the entire wall with open-
ings can be computed as Dmoment,wall w=openings 5 Dmoment,solid wall
2 Dmoment,solid strip 1 Dmoment,open strip 5 0:00001622 2 0:00000855
1 0:00006168 5 0:00006935 cm=kN.
• Step 9: The total shear deflection of the entire wall with openings
is the sum of the shear deflections [computed using Eq. (3)] of
the flowing three layers:
Dshear,0 → 160 cm ¼ 0:00001406 cm=kN
Dshear,160 → 280 cm ¼ 0:00002561 cm=kN
Dshear,280 → 400 cm ¼ 0:00001055 cm=kN
Therefore, the total shear deflection of the entire wall with
openings is Dshear,wall w=openings 5 0:00001406 1 0:00002561
1 0:00001055 5 0:00005022 cm=kN.
• Step 10: The rigidity of the entire wall with openings can be obtained
from the reciprocal of the sum of the flexural and shear deflections
of the entire wall with openings, that is, Rwall w=openings 51=
ðDmoment,wall w=openings 1 Dshear,wall w=openings Þ 5 1=ð0:00006935 cm
=kN 1 0:00005022 cm=kNÞ 5 8,363 kN=cm ð4,776 kips=in:Þ.
FEM
From the finite-element analysis, the deflection of the wall caused by
a lateral force of 1 kN applied at the top of the wall is 0.00013096
Table 1. Rigidities Derived from Conventional Method A, Conventional Method B, Newly Proposed Method, and FEM
Conventional Discrepancy between Conventional
Method A conventional Method Method B
Example (kN=cm) A and FEM (%) (kN=cm)
1 25,100 1421 8,299
2 13,008 1130 7,122
3 25,300 1231 12,463
Note: 1 5 overestimate; 2 5 underestimate.
© ASCE 04014019-8
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2014, 19(4): 04014019
cm. Therefore, the rigidity of the wall is Rwall 5 1=Dwall
5 7,636 kN=cm ð4,360 kips=in:Þ.
Comparison of the Results Derived from the
Hand-Calculated Approaches and the FEM
The results derived from the hand-calculated approaches (conven-
tional Method A, conventional Method B, and the newly proposed
method) and the FEM, as shown in Examples 1–3, are summarized
in Table 1. Table 1 also shows the percentage discrepancies between
the hand-calculated approaches and the FEM. As shown in Table 1,
the calculated rigidity of a wall with opening(s) using the hand-
calculated conventional Method A has an enormous deviation from
that using the FEM (as high as greater than a 400% overestimate as
illustrated in Example 1). The hand-calculated conventional Method
B greatly reduces the deviation, but the deviation is still significant
(between a 26% overestimate in Example 2 and a 72% overestimate
in Example 1). Table 1 indicates that the hand-calculated conven-
tional Methods A and B consistently overestimate the rigidity of
a wall with opening(s). The newly proposed hand-calculated method
may overestimate the rigidity (by 0.4% in Example 1 and by 9.5% in
Example 3) or underestimate it (by 2.4% in Example 2). However,
the deviation of the calculated rigidity may significantly be reduced
using the newly proposed hand-calculated method. Furthermore, to
accurately determine the location of a structure’s center of rigidity
and to perform the lateral torsional analysis of the structure, the
actual rigidity for any particular wall in a structure is not as important
as the rigidity of the wall relative to the rigidities of all other walls
in the structure. Referring to Table 1 and setting the total value of
the stiffness of the three walls shown in Examples 1–3 to 100,
the relative stiffness of the three walls are (39.6:20.5:39.9),
(29.8:25.5:44.7), (25.9:29.4:44.7), and (26.6:31.2:42.2) for the
conventional Method A, conventional Method B, newly proposed
method, and FEM, respectively. The discrepancies between the
hand-calculated approaches and the FEM by percentage are (149,
234, 25%), (112, 218, 16%), and (23, 26, 16%) for the con-
ventional Method A, conventional Method B, and newly proposed
method, respectively. In the table, a plus sign indicates an over-
estimate, and a minus sign indicates an underestimate. The afore-
mentioned results indicate that the accuracy of the relative rigidity
computation may be considerably improved by using the newly
proposed hand-calculated method.
Conclusion
The computation of the rigidity of a wall with openings is signifi-
cantly more complex than that of a solid wall. Therefore, several
simplified hand-calculated conventional procedures are popular
among practicing structural engineers. However, results from
those procedures are highly approximate and may not be reliable.
Therefore, a more accurate hand-calculated procedure that considers
the rotation at the tops of the piers and the effective length of the
piers is proposed in this paper to calculate the rigidity of shear walls
Discrepancy between Discrepancy between
conventional Method Newly proposed newly proposed method FEM
B and FEM (%) method (kN=cm) and FEM (%) (kN=cm)
172 4,843 10:4 4,822
126 5,515 22:4 5,651
163 8,363 19:5 7,636
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 with openings. A total of three different configurations of shear walls
with openings are used as examples to assess the accuracy of two
popular hand-calculated conventional methods and the newly pro-
posed hand-calculated method for computing the rigidity of shear
walls with openings. The accuracy of the results derived from the
newly proposed hand-calculated procedure has significantly been
improved over the hand-calculated conventional procedures. The
newly proposed procedure has been developed based on the fol-
lowing assumptions: (1) 1-story walls, (2) a single opening or one
layer of multiple openings with all openings having the same height
and located at the same elevation, (3) linear elastic analysis, and
(4) rigid foundations (neglecting the wall deflection caused by
foundation rotation).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/23/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Anila Rajbhandari and Yunyi Jiang (graduate stu-
dents at Southern Illinois University Carbondale) for their support in
computing the rigidity of the shear walls for the finite-element analysis.
© ASCE 04014019-9
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2014, 19(4): 04014019
References
Brandow, G. E., Hart, G. C., and Virdee, A. (1995). Design of reinforced
masonry structures, 5th Ed., Concrete Masonry Association of Cal-
ifornia and Nevada, Citrus Heights, CA.
Hsiao, J. K. (2006). “Equivalent lateral force procedure for the seismic
story drift design of tall frames using a hand-calculated approach.”
The structural design of tall and special buildings, X. Lu, ed., Vol. 15,
Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 197–219.
Lindeburg, M. R., and McMullin, K. M. (2008). Seismic design of building
structures, 9th Ed., Professional Publications, Belmont, CA.
Neuenhofer, A. (2006). “Lateral stiffness of shear walls with openings.”
J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:11(1846), 1846–
1851.
NISA/DISPLAY 17.0 [Computer software]. Troy, MI, Cranes Software.
Taly, N. (2001). Design of reinforced masonry structures, McGraw Hill,
New York.
Tena-Colunga, A. (2007). “Discussion of ‘Lateral stiffness of shear walls
with openings’ by A. Neuenhofer.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(2007)133:12(1853), 1853–1854.
Timoshenko, S., and Young, D. H. (1968). Elements of strength of materi-
als, 5th Ed., Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.