Proc. Instn Cio. Engrs, Part 2, 1978, 65, Sept.

, 517-535

8116 Analysis of frame shear wall

structures using finite strip elements

Y. K. CHEUNG, PhD. DSc. FICE, FlStructE*

S. SWADDIWUDHIPONG, MEngt

The behaviour of the coupled frame shear wall structure under static
a loading systemis
studiedusingthefinite strip method.Thesolidwallsin the structure are modelled
from ordinary strip elements; the connecting frames and spandrel beams are treated
both as a continuous shear connection medium,or directly as discrete beams spanned
between strips (walls) and/or line elements (columns). The accuracy and versatility of
the proposed method are demonstrated by numerical examples.

cross-sectional area of line element

cross-sectional area of beam
cross-sectional area of column
width of strip element
length of beam from joint to contdexure point
length of column fromjoint to contraflexure point
~,t3/12(1
~ , t 3 / 1 2 ( 1 -y,vn)
ct3112
v, Dn= vu D,
material properties
.,Eu = v., E,
second moment of area ofbeam
second moment of area of column
second moment of area of line element
in-plane and bending stiffness matrices
externally applied load
load vectors
thickness of strip element
displacement parameters
body forces
externally applied loads
torsional shape function
material properties

Written discussion closes IS November, 1978, for publication in Proceedings, Part 2.

Formerly Department of Civil Engineering, University of Adelaide, now Professor of Civil
Engineering, University of Hong Kong.
t Department of Civil Engineering, Universityof Adelaide.
51 7
C H E U N GA N DS W A D D I W U D H I P O N G
Introduction
Tall buildings comprising general frames and shear walls coupled together are
considered to be among the most economical and efficient structures to resist
vertical and lateralloads. They also have excellent records in providing damage
control and collapse resistance in the face of severe natural disasters. The wall
in such a system, besides being used as an effective structural element, is simul-
taneously serving non-structural functionsin dividing and enclosing space. The
system is thus attractive to structural engineers.
2. Khan and Sbarounis'proposed an iterative procedure for studying the
interaction of frame and shearwall structures; Oakberg and Weavera are among
others to have used the finite element method to investigate such interaction.
However, the finite element method is unattractive in the design office due to its
uneconomical cost.
3. The finite stripmethod3 is first applied to studythe free vibrationof
coupled shear wall assemblies of Cheung et al.' The method is extended5 to
cover the effect of the frame structure on its natural frequency. The method is
accurate and also versatile for investigating the dynamic behaviour of multi-
storey frame shearwall structures.
4. The investigationdescribedstudied the behaviour of generalcoupled
frame shear wall structures under static loading by the finite strip method. The
structures were modelledas anassemblage of strip and line elements coupled to-
gether through discrete spandrel beams or through a shear connection medium.
The method is applicable to various combinations of frame and shearwall with-
out any limitation in plan. Also it is not necessary for the structuresto have the
same plan throughout the height, i.e. any shearwall or column maybe terminated
at any point. Local deformation at the wall-beam junctions and varying pro-
perties of the structurealong theheight were also taken into account.

Strip elements
5. The general displacement functionsfor a typical strip of nodal lines i and j
(Fig. 1) can be expressedfor the in-plane case as

and for the bendingcase as

or in the comprehensive form as

W =
m=l
{ab,,,} . . . . . . (2b)

51 8
 A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M ES H E A RW A L L STRUCTURES

(4 (b) (c)
Fig. 1. Typical strip and line element in frame shear wall assemblies; (a) actual struc-
ture, (b) strip element, (c) line element

in which
{&nI = [~lrn~m~~rn~~rnIT . . . . . . (3a)
{&m} . . . . . .
= [ ~ m h ~ , m e ~ m l ~ (3b)
are the in-plane and bending displacement parameter vectors corresponding to
term m of the displacement at nodallines i and j respectively. The mode shape
for a transversely vibrating cantilever beam, whichis given by
Y m = sin (pmy)-sinh (pmy)-arn[COS (pmy)-CoSh (prn~)] . ( 4 4
where
a, =
+
sin (p,) sinh (p,)
COS (pm)+ cosh (pm)
p, = 1*875,4.694,... (2m- l ) 4 2 . . . . (4b)
is chosen for both U,,, and W , (equations (la) and (lc)). V, (equation (lb))
may take the form
V, = d Y,/dy . . . . . . . (5a)
or
V, = sin (p,y) . . . . . . . (5b)
where
p m = (2m-I)7r/2 . . . . . . . (5c)
Equation (5b) is simply the mode shape for a longitudinal vibrating cantilever
bar.
6. Generally speaking, any functions which satisfy the boundary conditions
at both endsmay be used but the studies show that the functions given here yield
good results with less computational effort.
7. Using equations (2a) and (2b) and following the standard finite element
procedurea the stiffness matrices for a strip with stepped propertie; along the
height and the load vectors due to both body forces and externally applied loads
can be worked out. They are given in Appendices 1 and 2. A detailed deriva-
tion is given in reference 3.
51 9
C H E U N GA N DS W A D D I W U D H I P O N G
Line elements
8. For a typical line element representing a long columnin the frame at nodal
line k (Fig. l), the displacement functions are assumed to take the form

Uk = UkmUm . . . . . . . (6a)
m=l

uk = fI
m=
UkmVm . . . . . . * (6b)

wk = WhmWm . . . . . . (64
m= I
r
6k = 2 &mWm . . . . . . . (6d)
m-l
or may be given in a more comprehensive form as

in which
{a} = [Uk Uk wk &l' . . . . . . . (Sa)
{ L }= [Ukm Vkm wkm . . . . . . W)
are the vectors of the displacements and nodal
displacement parameters at nodal
line k respectively.
9. Applying the same procedureas for a strip element, the stiffness matrix for
a line element can be worked out. It is presented in Appendix 3.

Models for frames and spandrel beams

10. The connecting frames and spandrelbeams may be represented as a con-
tinuum of equivalent propertiesor asdiscrete beams spanningbetween strip and

-l- -4-

(a) (b)
Fig. 2. Equivalent wall modelling; (a) actual typical joint model (section A in Fig. 1
(a)), (b) equivalent continuum model
520
 A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M ES H E A RW A L L STRUCTURES

Fig. 3. Beam element and nodal displacement parameters

line elements. In thefirst approach, each panelof frame structureis replaced by

a stepped orthotropic plate of equivalent stiffness. In making such a represemta-
tion it is necessary to assume that the locationsof the points of contraflexure of
the actual beams and columns are at the midpoints of the members. The true
locations will be different, but the errorsresulting from such an assumption have
been found to be relatively small.
11. Equating the displacements of the actual and replaced models (Fig. 2),
the equivalent propertiesof the model canbe shown to be

- 3Elf
G=
CI+C~ b13 bz3 b l + b2 cl3 ca3
. . . (9c)
-+- +- -+-
bl+b,(zbl zb2) cl+cZ (zcl zc2)
with
ijx F, = 0 . . . . . . . . (9d)
=
in which the symbols without bara represent theelastic and geometric properties
of the actual model and those with a bar refer to the properties of the equivalent
wall.
12. In the alternativeapproach,the stiffness properties of eachbeam are
formulated through the basic beam theory, and then subsequently transformed
to the adjacent strip and line elements. Thus, for the beam element with the
nodal displacement parameters shown in Fig. 3, the compatibility conditions at
the nodes of the beamand the nodal lines of the stripor line elements requirethat

where
C H E U N GA N DS W A D D I W U D H I P O N G
and [Tpm]and [Tbm] are the compatibility transformationmatrices the values of
which are given in Appendix 4.
13. The tranformed stiffness matrices are
[k,,,l [ ~ p m l T [ ~ p l [ ~.p n.l . .
= . . (124
[kbrnnl = [TbrnI'[Kbl[Tbnl . . . . . (12b)
where [K,] and [Kb] are the standard beam stiffness matrices.
14. The effect of local deformation at the wall-beam interface, which hasbeen
studied by Michae17 who treated the wall as a semi-infinite elastic plane, is in-
corporated in the formulation of the stiffness properties of the beam by simulat-
ing the effect of the wall as rotational springs attachedat the ends of the beams.
The detailed derivation and modified beam stiffness matrixare given by Harrison
et aL8

Rigid section consideration

15. Due to thehigh in-plane rigidity of the floor slabs, the cross-section of the
structure may be considered as rigid and this results in a drastic reduction of
the size of a problem because all nodal lines will have the same horizontal dis-
placements and rotation.

7
* I n 2in.
I -
~ A
I-
2 In. J-
T
2 In. J-
- 2 in. 4 Model A

In.,_ zln. _I_ Z I ~ . A zin. 3'".

I- 1- l- l r Model B

Fig. 4. Example l-shear wall with two bands of openings

522
 A N A L Y S I SO FF R A M ES H E A RW A L LS T R U C T U R E S
Examples
16. Four examples with various combinations of structural systems are pre-
sented. The accuracy of theproposedmethodcan be seen in the first three
exampleswhere the results are compared withthoseobtained from existing
methods. In example 4 various combinations of frames and shear walls of the
structure are analysed to show the versatility of the method. A maximum of
five terms is used for the examples.
Example I
17. Two models of plane coupled shear walls with two bands of openings,
tested and analysed by Coull and Subedi,O using the continuum models for the
opening band are worked out. The models were cut from a $ in. thick Araldite

Model A Model B

0 8 Continuum model
Finlre rtrlp method
Modified beam model

I 1 1
0 16 24
Deflexion X IO" Inf Ibf

Fig. 5. Example l-deflexions of coupled shear walls

523
C H E U N GA N DS W A D D I W U D H I P O N G
sheet where its elastic modulus was 4 . 6 105
~ lbf/sq. in. Other details of the
structure are given in Fig. 4. The structure is subject to a concentrated load of
1 Ibf at the top. The results obtained by the proposed method are compared
with those given by Coull and Subedi in Figs 5 and 6. The results show good
agreement.
Example 2
18. The non-planar coupled shear wall subjected to a concentrated load of
25 Ibf at the topof the structureas shown in Fig. 7 is considered. The model was
tested and studied by Tso and Biswas’O using the continuum approach with
Vlasov’s thin walled beam theory.Thepiersareof anglesection and are connected
together by eight equally spaced spandrel beams each 15 in. deep. Figs 8 and 9
show that theproposed method with the modified beam model which takes into

Stress s u l e
Ibf/rq. In.

Fig. 6. Example l-stress distribution at 4.5 in. from base

524
 A N A L Y S I S OF F R A M ES H E A RW A L L STRUCTURES
account theeffect due tolocal deformation at thebeam-wall interfaces yields the
most accurate results.

Example 3
19. A 20 storeyframeshear wall structure (Fig. 10) studied by Chan and
Heidebrechtl' is reanalysed. The structure consists of a solid wall 9 in. thick
and 35 ft wide, coupled to two columns 24 in. by 30 in. in cross-section by 20
connection slabs 9 in. thick with an equivalent width of 130 in. over a span of
35 ft. The elastic and shear moduli of the material are 3 X 106 Ibf/sq. in. and
1.2 X 10' Ibf/sq. in. respectively. The loading system used is a uniformly dis-
tributed load of 1 kip/ft along the height. The deflexion and thestress resultants
in various members from both the equivalent frame method" and the proposed
method using the modified beam model are plotted against the height of the
structure in Fig. 11. All the results are in good agreement.

Example 4
20. A ten-storeystructurewithvariouscombinationsofframes and shear
wallscoupledtogether is analysed to show the versatility of the proposed
method. The layout and the details of the structure are shown in Fig. 12. For
the lower five storeys, the cross-sectional area of each beam and column and
the thickness of the wall are 0.25 m X 0.50m, 0.25 m X 0.25 m and 0.25 m re-
spectively. In the upper storeys, they are 0.20 m X 0.50 m, 0.20 m X 0.20 m
and 0.20 m respectively. The loading system applied on the structure is com-
posed of a horizontal concentrated load at the top of the building at jointj and a

E=O4x1ObIbfltq.In.
v = 0.148
\
/
+a in.

Fig. 7. Example 2-non-planar coupled shear wail; (a) three-dimensional view, (b)
pier cross-section
525
C H E U N GA N DS W A D D I W U D H I P O N G

Continuum model
0 Rigid section

Fig. 8. Example 2-deflexion of general coupled shear walls

526
 A N A L Y S I SO FF R A M ES H E A RW A L LS T R U C T U R E S

0
L
l 2 3

A Experiment
--- Proposed method
(continuum model
non-rlgid sectlon)

Fig. 9. Example 2-strain distribution at 9 in. from base

Fig. 10. Example 3-coupled frame shear wall structure

527
C H E U N GA N DS W A D D I W U D H I P O N G

Deflexion : ft Bending moment

t Axlal force in column! kip Shear
force In beams:klp
onshear*rallx103:kipfr

(a) (b) (C) (4

- Equivalentframe method 11 0 Proposed method (discrete beam
model)

Fig. 11. Example 34eflexion and stress resultants of frame shear wall structure

uniformly distributed horizontal load of intensity 1 kN/ma over the whole area
of shear wall 1 . Only the discrete beam model with a line element for a long
column is used in this last study. The out of plane stiffness of floor slabs has
been neglected, although its equivalent stiffness can be included in the stiffness
formulation for the connectingbeams.la The results from the analysis, treating
the whole section a5 a rigid section,are shown in Figs 13-16.

Conclusion
21. I; has been shown that coupled frame shear wall multistorey structures of
any combination can be analysed by the finite strip method using both strip and
line elements. Two types of model representing the effect of frames and span-
drelbeams were proposed. The versatility of themethod is illustrated by
examples and its accuracy can be seen from the comparisons of the results.
With the method and the idealizations of the structure proposed here, the analy-
sis and design ofa relatively complex multistorey structure canbe worked out by
a computer of a practical size, within a reasonable time and with confidence in
accuracy. Although no comparison of computer time between the finite strip
analysis and finite element analysis is given here, experience in vibration and
stability analysis of tall buildings has shown that the saving in computer time
can be substantial. For example, the computer time required for a finite strip
and finite element in the case of vibration analysis of a ten-storey frame shear
wall structure6.is in the ratio of about 1 to 4; the corresponding ratio for the
stability analysis of a ten-storey frame ~ t r u c t u r e is
' ~ 1 to 12.
528
 A N A L Y S I S O F F R A M ES H E A RW A L LS T R U C T U R E S

B = 21 X 106 kN/m"
v = 0.10

Ln.1L . n
10T
-'U-

Fig. 12. Example 4-general coupled frame shear wall multistorey structure; (a) plan,
(b) north elevation, (c) east-west elevation, (d) south elevation

529
C H E U N GA N DS W A D D I W U D H I P O N G

I
I
1 0
0
k/I

l
I

U
C
m
E h j

5 30
 A N A L Y S I SO FF R A M ES H E A RW A L LS T R U C T U R E S

531
C H E U N GA N DS W A D D I W U D H I P O N G
22. The method caneasily be extended to theanalysis of buildings with other
types ofend condition if the displacement functions are changed.

References
1. KHANF.R.and SBAROUNIS J. A. Interaction of shear walls and frames. J. Struct.
Diu. Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs, 1964,90, ST3, Mar., 285-335.
2. OAKBERG R. G . and WEAVER W. Analysis of frames with shear walls by finite ele-
ments. Proceedings of the symposium on application of finite element method in
civil engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, 1969, 567-607.
3. CHEUNG Y . K. Finite strip methodin structuralanalysis. Pergamon, Oxford, 1976.
4. CHEUNG Y . K. et al. Frequency analysis.of coupled shear wall assemblies. Earthq.
Engng Struct. Dyn., 1977, 65, 191-201.
5. CHEUNG Y . K. and KASEMSET C. Approximatefrequencyanalysisofshearwall
frame structures. Earthq. Engng Struct. Dyn., 1978, 6, 221-229.
6.ZIENKIEWICZ 0.C. The finite elementmethodinengineeringscience. McGraw-
Hill, London, 1971.
7. MICHAEL D. The effect of local wall deformationson the elastic interaction of cross
wallscoupledbybeams. In Tallbuildings. Pergamon,Oxford, 1967, 253-270.
8. HARRISON T. et al. Amodifiedbeamstiffnessmatrix for interconnectedshear
walls. BIdg Sci., 1975, 10,No. 2, July, 89-94.
9. COULLA. and SUBEDIN. K. Coupledshearwallswithtwoandthreebandsof
openings. BIdg Sci., 1972, 7, No. 2, June, 81-86.
10. Tso W. K. and BISWAS J. K. General analysis of nonplanar coupled shear walls.
J. Struct. Diu. Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs, 1973, 99, ST3, Mar., 365-380.
11. CHANP.C. K. and HUDEBRECHT A. C. Stiffening ofshear walls. McMaster Uni-
versity, Canada, 1973.
12. BISWAS J. K. and Tso W. K. Three-dimensional analysisof shear wall buildings to
lateralload. J. Struct. Diu. Am. Soc. Civ.Engrs, 1974, 100, ST5, May, 1019-
1036.
13. CHEUNG Y.K. et al. Vibration and stability of tall frame structures. Proceedings
of the symposium on computer applicationsin the developing countries. Asian Insti-
tute of Technology, Bangkok, 1977,977-989.
Conversion factors
Imperial SI
1 in. 0.0254 m
1 Ibf 4.448 N
1 Ibf/sq.
in. 6.895 kN/mz
1 kip/ft 14593 kN/m

532
 (252011-46212
+
-421, 2214
+ 1 68 I5)b

(168011- 5612
-5613+414
+ 224Is)b'
(-252011+421,
+ 4213 + 13In
- 168 I5)b
+
(8401, 1411
+1413-31,
- 5615)b2

Appendix 2. Load vectors (for notation see Appendix 5)

Types of force In-plane case Bending case

Distributed
external
forces
C H E U N GA N DS W A D D I W U D H I P O N G
Appendix 3. Line element (for notation see Appendix 5)

Appendix 4. Compatibility transformation matrices (beam at height y,)

- umdY3 0 0 0 -
0 Vm,CvJ 0 0

U'mdYs) 0 0 0
ITpml =
0 0 umJ(Ys) 0

0 0 0 vmJ(Y8)

- 0 0 u'mJ(YI) 0 -

534
535