Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Shear Wall Using Moment Trransformation Method PDF
Shear Wall Using Moment Trransformation Method PDF
3, June 2013
Received: 10.11.2012
Accepted: 25.04.2013
Abstract: This paper presents a simplified method of analysis "The Moment Transformation Method". The
method is suitable for the analysis of tall buildings including shear walls subjected to both vertical and
horizontal loads. In this method, the concept of the "Carry-over moments matrix" is introduced. The
moments are transformed in groups from one level to the subsequent level. The final rotations and moments
in each level are then calculated. Hence, the shear forces and lateral displacements are obtained from the
rotations and moments. A computer program "MTProg" was developed and implemented for the method.
Problems ranging from the simple planar frame-shear wall interaction up to the complex three dimensional
shear wall structures with random arrangements and orientation of components and subjected to vertical and
horizontal loads are studied. The accuracy of the results obtained is verified by comparison with known
results and with those obtained using STAADPro and ETABS. The comparison shows, clearly, that the results
are in good agreement, thus verifying the accuracy of the proposed method.
[1]
Introduction: to simplify the problem. The method results
Simplified methods of analysis of tall buildings in a structure composed of two systems
are required to minimize the analysis cost connected by a rigid inextensible link of
especially in the preliminary design stage when members at all the floor levels, and the axial
the analysis is carried out and modified several deformation is neglected. As also stated in [1]
times before the final design. The available an iteration method for calculating the side-
analysis methods are of three types: (a) sway of the Frame-Shear wall system has been
Iterative methods (b) simplified matrix suggested by Khan and Sbarounis, who give
methods (c) differential equation approaches charts to assist in practical design. A three
and continuum methods. There are a lot of dimensional analysis of shear walls structures
developments in the proposed methods of is proposed by Ghali and Neville [1] wherein
solution [10], [11],[12]. the degrees of freedom are reduced to three per
As stated by Ghali and Neville [1], Clough, floor. The resulting degrees of freedom for
King, and Wilson developed a simplified each principal axis of each shear wall will be
matrix method for analyzing frames with or twice the number of floors (rotations and
without shear walls included in the plan (two translations DOFs) are condensed to
dimensional analysis. The method results in a translation only. All the developed transformed
lateral stiffness matrix with only one degree of matrices are superimposed to produce a global
freedom per floor. They also, refer to the stiffness matrix for the whole building. Using
Substitute-Frame method derived by Lightfoot the external loads applied at the assumed
49
Journal of Science and Technology - Engineering and Computer Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2013
origin, the global displacements are then demonstrated that this method is both fast and
obtained from which the local displacements economical.
and stresses are calculated accordingly. Wong and Lau [7] presented a simplified finite
Jaeger, Mufti & Mamet [2] proposed an element for analysis of tall buildings. It is
analytical theory for the analysis of tall three based on the assumption that the warping
dimensional multiple shear wall buildings. The displacement modes of a floor and the
results they obtained are compared with data differences between neighboring floors are
obtained by the finite element method and mainly determined by the local structural
experiments conducted on a seven storey characteristics. Once the warping modes are
multiple shear wall model. determined, these modes are taken as the basis
A two-level finite element technique of of generalized coordinates. Then, the problem
constructing a frame super-element was can be reduced to a formulation in which only
created by Leung and Cheung [3] to reduce the the rigid body displacements and the warping
computational effort for solving large scale generalized coordinates of each floor are
frame problems. The order of the overall unknown. They state that: when suitable
matrices is greatly reduced by considering the warping modes from a multi-storey sub-model
frame as a super-element connected to other are chosen, the proposed simplified finite
elements by means of master nodes. The element method is inexpensive and is able to
accuracy of solution is improved either with yield sufficiently good results for practical
finer subdivision or by taking more master design purposes.
nodes inside each super element. An efficient finite strip analysis of Frame-
Leung [4] developed a rational method, for the Shear wall tall building was prepared by
analysis of plane frames. The method is based Swaddiwudhipong, Lim and Lee [8], for the
on the concept of distribution factors which are analysis of coupled frame-shear wall buildings
allowed to vary from floor to floor and are subjected to lateral loads. They claim that the
determined by using three floors at a time. method provides reasonably accurate results,
Thus, the number of degrees of freedom is requires a small core storage and short
reduced to three at any one floor. The method computing time and is suitable for
[4]
was generalized to three dimensional frames implementation on any of the personal
by Leung [5]. Linear combinations of computers which are commonly available in
distribution factors with mixing factors as most engineering design offices.
weighting factors give the actual displacements A simplified approach for seismic calculation
at the nodes. Structural idealizations of of a tall building braced by shear walls and
coupled shear walls by beams and columns thin-walled open section structures was
were recommended. In order to improve the presented by Meftah, Tounsi and
results another three additional sets of global El Abbas [9]. An approximate hand-method for
distribution factors were introduced by Leung seismic analysis of an asymmetric building
and Wong [6] to account for the uneven structure having constant properties along its
elongation (shortening) of the columns having height was presented. The building was
unevenly distributed stiffness along the height stiffened by a combination of shear walls and
and across the floor plane. The total number of thin-walled open section structures. The
unknowns per floor is reduced. Using the proposed method results were compared with
concept of the two-level finite-element finite element calculations.
method, the global distribution factors of the The moment distribution method was primarily
building frame were obtained. The global and designed for frames without side-sway. But,
local distribution factors together predict Hardy Cross [17], showed that the side-sway in
lateral and torsion deflections and internal multi-storey buildings can be handled by
nodal displacements accurately. It had been giving each storey a horizontal unit
displacement and then calculating the shear
50
Journal of Science and Technology - Engineering and Computer Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2013
forces obtained in all stories. By combining the by horizontal members and subjected to lateral
solutions, the true shear and moments can be forces, and permitted to sway freely based on
calculated in all stories. Grinter [17], proposed a the concept of the no-shear moment
method for multi-storey frames with side-sway distribution. The method has also been
which he called the method of successive developed and generalized to solve the more
corrections based on the Hardy Cross method. complex two dimensional and three
Instead of the sway correction method, a new dimensional multi-floors structural systems
kind of moment distribution was presented and with irregular arrangement and orientation of
used to reduce the solution of frames subjected the columns and the shear walls and subjected
to lateral loads but it was tailored for substitute to both vertical and horizontal loads.
frames composed of single column.
The method was called The no-shear moment The Moment Transformation Method
distribution and sometimes also known as Two-member Plane Frame
The cantilever moment distribution [1]. The The main requirement is to find an equivalent
no-shear moment distribution was based on the member which can replace the two members
concept of distribution of the sway fixed end connected as shown in Figure 1.
moments without changing the sway-moment
equation during the distribution procedure.
The concept of the direct moment distribution
was suggested by Lin[16] as a means of
eliminating the iteration required in the
standard moment distribution procedure. Other
alternative methods e.g. the precise moment
distribution had been developed for the direct
distribution of moments [13].
In this paper, a new simplified method of
analysis of two and three dimensional
buildings "The Moment Transformation
Method" is presented. A computer program
"MTProg" is developed for the method. The
method is based on the concept of the direct
moment distribution.
If m is the number of degrees of freedom in
one floor, corresponding to the columns and
the shear walls in a building of total number of
floors N, by using the proposed simplified Figure 1. Two Members Frame (a) System #1 (b)
method the solution for the large number of System #2
N*m unknowns is reduced to N solutions of a Assume that:
small number of m unknowns each , and a MA : is moment applied at joint #1 .
large amount of computing efforts can be 1 : rotation angle in radians at joint #1 .
saved. M : is equivalent moment at joint #2 .
The transformation method can be used to 2 : rotation angle in radians at joint #2 .
simplify the analysis of the continuous beams By applying the slope deflection method for
and the multi-bay sub frames composed of one system#2, shown in the Figure 1(b),
level and connected by a single or double at joint # 1:
column at the joints same as the direct moment ( S1 + S2 ) .1 + t2 .2 = 0 (1)
distribution procedure but with different From which:
formulation. The method can also be used to 1 = [ -t2 /(S1+S2)]. 2 (2)
solve the problems of the single post connected and at joint # 2:
51
Journal of Science and Technology - Engineering and Computer Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2013
M = S2 .2 + t2.1 (3)
Substitution for 1 from (2) into equation (3),
yields:
M= S2 .2 t2 2/ (S1+S2) .2
= [S2 t2 2/ (S1+S2)] 2
From Figure 2, M = Se .2 Figure 2. The Equivalent Member.
Therefore: In the special case of prismatic members
Se = [S2 t2 2/ (S1+S2)] (4) neglecting shear deformation:
Applying the reciprocal theorem for the two The equivalent stiffness of the two members
systems #1 and #2, and since the 1 and 2, becomes:
configurations of the two systems are identical, Ke = [(0.75+K1/K2)/(1.00+K1/K2)]*K2 (6)
therefore: And the moment transformation factor,
M .2= MA .1 becomes:
and substitute for 1 from equation (3): TF = -K2 / [2*(K1+K2)] (7)
M .2 = MA [ -t2 /(S1+S2)]. 2 where Ki = (4EI/L)i
M = MA [ -t2 /(S1+S2)]
M = MA .TF Multi-Bay, Multi-Storey Building
where: The transformation is from joint to joint
TF= -t2 /(S1+S2) (5) through beams in the case of continuous beam
From equations (4) and (5), Se can also be or multi-bay single storey frame, Figure 3, or
expressed as: through columns in single post subjected to
Se = S2 + TF . t2 lateral forces, Figure 4a. The system now is
where: composed of multi-bay multi floors and the
Se: is the equivalent stiffness of the members transformation will be carried out through the
#1 and #2 , or in other words , is the stiffness floors from top to bottom and from bottom to
of the member equivalent to members #1 and # top. Hence, the transformation now will be
2, Figure 2 . carried from one level to another level, as
TF: is the transformation factor used to shown in Figure b. The transformation
transform the moment MA from joint #1 procedure can be generalized to obtain the
towards joint #2 . equivalent stiffness matrix and moment
Si: is the ordinary rotation stiffness of member transformation factors matrix as follows: The
# i (Si= 4EI/L, considering bending Moments Transformation procedure from top
deformation only, and Si = to bottom levels, gives:
[(4+)/(1+)](EI/L)i, considering both bending [SR] = [NN] i , ( if i = 1 ) (8)
and shear deformations). [SR] = [NN] i + [GG] i-1 , ( if i 1 ) (9)
ti: is the ordinary carry-over moment of [AA] = [A] i + [SR] (10)
member # i (ti = 2EI/L, Considering bending [FF] i = -[B]T i [AA]-1 (11)
deformation only, and ti = [(2-)/(1+)](EI/L)i, [GG] i = [A] i + [FF] i [ B ] i (12)
considering both bending and shear where:
deformations). [ NN ] i , is the Over all Rotation Stiffness
=[(12EI)/(G.ar.L2)]i Matrix of the Level # i. [GG] i-1 , is the
E: Modulus of Elasticity. Equivalent Rotation Stiffness Matrix of The
G: Modulus of torsional rigidity. Floor # i-1. [SR] , is the summation of [ NN ] i
L: Length of member # i . and [GG] i-1.
I: Moment of inertia of the section.
ar: Shear area of the section.
52
Journal of Science and Technology - Engineering and Computer Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2013
Figure 4: (a)Frame With Single Post. (b)Multi-Storey Two Or Three Dim. Building
[AA] , is the summation of [A] i and [SR] . The corresponding stiffness matrix equation
[FF] i , is the Transformation Factors Matrix for the two DOFs is:
of The Floor # i .
[B] i , is the Carry-Over Moments Matrix of
The Floor # i .
[GG] i , is the Equivalent Rotation Stiffness
Matrix of The Floor # i .
The same procedure can be used for
transformation from bottom to top.
Condensed Stiffness and Carry-Over
Moments Matrices for a Single Post:
A single post subjected to side sway as a
result of application of lateral loads with no Figure 5: Rotation And Translation DOF s of a Single
shear produced can be analyzed as follows: Post.
53
Journal of Science and Technology - Engineering and Computer Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2013
54
Journal of Science and Technology - Engineering and Computer Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2013
55
Journal of Science and Technology - Engineering and Computer Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2013
Figure 10. Comparison of Bending-moment diagram for two floor-one bay portal Frame (M x qb2/100)
The reference results are approximate values, Comparisons of the results from the program
calculated by using the moment distribution MTProg and reference [1] are shown in tables
method. The largest percentage difference 2, 3 and 4 and Figures 13 and 14.
(3.816 %) is in the small values of the bending
Table 2. Comparison of Lateral Displacements (D x 10
moment (9.032) and is on the safe side. The
P/Eh).
other values are almost the same. The bending- Ghali &
moments diagrams are shown in Figure 10, Floor # MTProg %Difference
Neville
showing very close agreement. 1 11.47 11.45 -0.174
Three Dimensional Multi-bay four storey 2 8.32 8.31 -0.120
building: 3 5.03 5.03 0
The approximate values of the end-moments 4 2.03 2.03 0
in a column and a shear wall in a structure that
has the plan shown in figure 11 are found Table 3. Comparison of Wall Shear force.
using the simplified method. The structure has Floor Ghali &
MTProg %Difference
four stories of equal heights h = b. The frame # Neville
is subjected to a horizontal force in the x 1 0.4368 P 0.4365 P -0.069
direction of magnitude P/2 at the top floor and 2 1.4418 P 1.4415 P -0.021
P at each of the other floor levels. The 3 2.4459 P 2.4456 P -0.012
properties of members are as follows: for the 4 3.4542 P 3.4539 P -0.009
columns I = 1710-6 b4, for beams I = 3410-6
b4, and for walls I = 87 10-3 b4, Young Table 4. Comparison of Substitute Frame Column
Shear force.
modulus, E = 2.3 G. The area of wall cross
Floor
section = 222 10-3 b2. The shear deformation #
Reference MTProg %Difference
is considered in the walls only. 1 0.0632 P 0.0635 P 0.475
The wall and the substitute frame of the 2 0.0580 P 0.0585 P 0.862
idealized structure are shown in Figure 12. 3 0.0540 P 0.0544 P 0.741
In the actual structure there are 16 columns, 4 4 0.0460 P 0.0461 P 0.217
walls, 12 beams of length 1.6 b, and 4 beams
of length 2 b.
56
Journal of Science and Technology - Engineering and Computer Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2013
Figure 12. Substitute frame, Shear wall and frame properties and loading for 3-D, 4 storey Building
4 4
3 3
Reference[1]
2 Reference[1] 2
MTProg
MTProg
1 1
0 0
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
100 80 60 40 20 0
(Ph/10) (Ph/10)
Figure 13. B.M.D. of the equivalent shear walls For 3- Figure 14. B.M.D. of the equivalent column of the
D, 4 storey Building (M x Ph/10) substitute frame ,3-D, 4 storey Building (M x Ph/10)
57
Journal of Science and Technology - Engineering and Computer Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2013
MTProg. 14
From the different comparisons, it is clearly
12
seen that, the MTProg values are very close to
the reference values. 10 Reference[1]
MTProg
Multi-bay Twenty Storey Structure: 8
The analysis of a multi-bay twenty storey
6
building with the same dimensions as in 3.2
was carried out using MTProg. The external 4
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
-200
Comparison of the MTProg results and
reference [1] results are shown in Table 5 and
(Ph/10)
Figures 15 and 16. Figure 15. Comparison of the B.M.D. of the equivalent
shear wall, Multi-bay, Twenty Storey (M x Ph/10)
Table 5. Comparison of Wall Shear forces Multi-bay 20
Twenty storey.
Floor Ghali & 18
MTProg %Difference
# Neville
16
1 -3.32 P -3.37 P 1.506
2 -1.80 P -1.84 P 2.222 14
3 -0.88 P -0.92 P 4.545
4 0.08 P 0.05 P - 12
5 1.04 P 1.01 P -2.885 Reference[1]
10 MTProg
6 2.00 P 1.98 P -1.000
7 2.97 P 2.96 P -0.337 8
8 3.96 P 3.95 P -0.253
9 4.97 P 4.97 P 0 6
10 6.01 P 6.01 P 0
4
11 7.07 P 7.08 P 0.141
12 8.17 P 8.18 P 0.122 2
13 9.30 P 9.33 P 0.323
14 10.49 P 10.52 P 0.286 0
25
20
15
10
5
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
58
Journal of Science and Technology - Engineering and Computer Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2013
All the walls are fixed to the base. Shear G. The properties of the shear walls are shown
deformation is considered, warping effect is in Table 6.
ignored, Young modulus is taken as, E = 2.3
Figure 17. A three-storey structure, Plan of shear walls and coordinates system, ref.[1]
The global displacements of the shaft center as Table 7. Comparison of the Global Displacements of the
presented in ref.[1] are: top floor (D x P/Eh ).
{ D } = { x1 , x2 , x3 , y1 , y2 , y3 , rz1 , rz2 , Global
Package Global X Global Y
Rotation
rz3 } = P/Eh { -0.154 , -0.105 , -0.060 , - Ghali &
354.258 , -210.885 , -79.686 , 39.09/h , 23.31/h -0.154 -354.258 39.09 / h
Neville
, 8.82/h }, and the forces resisted by the MTProg -0.155 -354.260 39.099 / h
various shear walls are shown in Figure 18. %Difference - - -
Comparison of the results of the MTProg and
reference [1] are shown in Tables 7 through 10,
which show almost identical results.
59
Journal of Science and Technology - Engineering and Computer Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2013
Figure 19. 12m x 12m floor plan for 15 storey, square building.
60
Journal of Science and Technology - Engineering and Computer Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2013
Fifteen storey square building subjected to The matrix is then condensed into a small
unsymmetrical lateral loading: matrix that represents the rotation stiffness of
The plan shown in Figure 19 is for a 12m x the supported DOFs with all the remaining
12m floor slab of thickness = 0.25 m. The DOFs translating and rotating freely.
building is composed of 15 floors of floor This is done only once for floors with identical
height = 3.5 m for all floors except the lower structural members. The proposed method is
floor which is of height = 5.5 m. very fast compared with the finite element
All building members are concrete of modulus packages.
of elasticity, E = 21718500 kN/m2 and The lateral displacements from all analyses are
Poisson's ratio, v = 0.17 compared for the various walls, the agreement
is found good.
Table 8. Comparison of the Global Displacements of the
middle floor (D x P/Eh ). Comparison of the displacements of the origin
Global (Column 5), obtained using the proposed
Package Global X Global Y method and the different packages is shown in
Rotation
Ghali &
-0.105 -210.885 23.31 / h
Figures 20, 21 and 22.
Neville
MTProg -0.105 -210.887 23.317 / h X-Dire ction
%Difference - - -
60
shown in Figure 19, (30 kN and 50 kN) at all 0.00E+00 2.00E- 02 4.00E- 02 6.00E- 02
Displacem ent (m )
8.00E- 02 1.00E- 01
floor levels.
The building has been analyzed by using Figure 20. Displacements of the origin in x-direction.
MTProg and the accuracy of the results is
Comparison of bending moments in kN.m and
verified by using the structural analysis
shear forces in kN, for the different programs
packages STAADPro 2004 [14] and ETABS [15].
are shown in Table 11 and Figures 23 through
The floor out of plane stiffness is calculated
30.
by constructing the global stiffness matrix of
In all cases the comparison, shows the
one floor slab (plates and stiff members
difference to be very small for large stress
representing the rigid parts corresponding to
values ( shear forces and bending moments in
the shear walls). The matrix is rearranged and
shear walls 1,2 & 3). The largest percentage
partitioned into two parts, one corresponding
difference is found in shear wall number 4, but
to the supported DOFs and the other
this resists very small stresses compared with
corresponding to the free DOFs.
its section.
61
Journal of Science and Technology - Engineering and Computer Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2013
Table 10. Comparison of the Shear Walls Forces and torsion in the different shear walls at the bottom floor.
Shear wall 1 Shear wall 2 Shear wall 3
Forces Fu Fv Tors. Fu Fv Tors. Fu Fv Tors.
Ghali &
0 -2.089P 0.1966Ph 0 -0.954P 0.003Ph 0 0.043P 0.003Ph
Neville
MTProg -0.002P -2.089P 0.197Ph 0.002P -0.954P 0.002Ph 0 0.043P 0.002Ph
%Difference - - - - - - - - -
60
60
50 50
40
40
Proposed
Proposed
Height (m)
Height (m)
20
20
10
10
0
0.00E+0 2.00E-03 4.00E-03 6.00E-03 8.00E-03
0 0
0.00E+00 1.00E-02 2.00E-02 3.00E-02 4.00E-02
Rotation (Radians)
Displacem ent (m )
Figure 21. Displacements of the origin in y-direction. Figure 22. Rotations in radians of the origin.
Table 11. Comparison of the maximum shear force (kN) and bending moment (kN.m):
Wall # Shear Wall 1 Shear Wall 2 Shear Wall 3 Shear Wall 4
Package Shear Moment Shear Moment Shear Moment Shear Moment
MTProg 155.354 1583.725 500.26 5546.552 369.137 4120.497 24.231 157.669
Etabs
155.66 1604.84 494.60 5424.34 364.11 4016.89 26.08 200.68
thick. Slab
Etabs
157.74 1697.90 497.21 5727.17 365.78 4240.54 27.22 214.57
thin slab
STAADPro 157.791 1651.362 497.056 5741.215 365.624 4261.012 27.275 174.474
62
Journal of Science and Technology - Engineering and Computer Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2013
50 50
40 40
Height (m)
Height (m)
Proposed Proposed
Etabs Thick 30 30
Etabs Thick
Etabs thin
Etabs thin
StaadPro
StaadPro
20 20
10 10
0 0
2000 1500 1000 500 0 -500 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 -2000
Bending Mom ent (KN.m ) Bending Mom ent (KN.m )
Figure 23. Comparison of B.M.D. for shear wall #1 Figure 25. Comparison of B.M.D. for shear wall #2
50 50
40 40
Proposed
Height (m)
Proposed Etabs thick
Height (m)
20 20
10 10
0 0
200 150 100 50 0 -50 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100
Figure 24. Comparison of S.F.D. for shear wall #1 Figure 26. Comparison of S.F.D. for shear wall #2
63
Journal of Science and Technology - Engineering and Computer Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2013
50 50
40 40
Proposed
Proposed
Etabs Thick
Height (m)
Height (m)
Etabs thin Etabs Thick
30 30
StaadPro Etabs thin
StaadPro
20 20
10 10
0
0 250 200 150 100 50 0 -50
5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 -1000
Bending Mom ent (KN.m )
Be nding Moment (KN.m )
Figure 27. Comparison of B.M.D. for shear wall #3 Figure 29. Comparison of B.M.D. for shear wall #4
50 50
Proposed
40 40
Etabs thick
Proposed
Height (m)
Etabs thin
Height (m)
Etabs thick
StaadPro 30 30
Etabs thin
StaadPro
20 20
10 10
0 0
400 300 200 100 0 -100 30 20 10 0 -10 -20
Shear Force (KN) Shear Force (KN)
Figure 28. Comparison of S.F.D. for shear wall #3 Figure 30. Comparison of S.F.D. for shear wall #4
64
Journal of Science and Technology - Engineering and Computer Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2013
65
Journal of Science and Technology - Engineering and Computer Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2013
c. Columns shortening in tall buildings for [9] Sid-Ahmed M., Abdelouahed T., Adda-Bedia E.,
both steel and concrete structures. (2007), A Simplified Approach For Seismic
Calculation Of A Tall Building Braced By Shear
Walls And Thin-Walled Open Section Structures.
References: ,Science-direct.
[1] Ghali, A. and Neville A., (1978), Structural [10] Amit Urs, (2002), Stability Analysis of Frame
Analysis A Unified Classical and Matrix Tube Tall Buildings, Msc Thesis dissertation ,
Approach, New York, Chapman and Hall Ltd. Dept of Civil engineering, Worcester Polytechnic
[2] Jaeger G., Mufti A., Mamet J., (1973), The Institute.
Structural Analysis of Tall Buildings Having [11] Tolga Akis, (2004),Lateral Load Analysis of
Irregularly Positioned Shear Walls., Build. Sci. Shear Wall-Frame Structures, Phd Thesis
Vol. 8, pp. 11-22. Pergamon Press. Dissertation, The Graduate School Of Natural And
[3] Leung Y. and Cheung Y., (1981), Dynamic Applied Sciences of The Middle East Technical
Analysis Of Frames By A Two-Level Finite University.
Element Method , Journal of Sound and [12] Madison R (2010), Preliminary Design of Tall
Vibration 74(l), l-9 Buildings, Msc Thesis dissertation, Dept of Civil
[4] Leung T., (1983), Low Cost Analysis of Building engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
Frames For Lateral Loads, Computers & [13] Reynolds & Steedman, (2008), "Reynolds's
Structures Vol. 11. No. 4. pp. 475-483. Reinforced Concrete Designer's Handbook",
[5] Leung A., (1985), Micro-Computer Analysis Of Eleventh edition, Taylor & Francis.
Three-Dimensional Tall Buildings , Computers & [14] STAADPro (2004), "Structural Analysis and
Structures Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 639-661. Design Software, Research Engineer
[6] Leung A.and Wong S., (1988),Local-Global International, California.
Distribution Factors Method For Tall Building [15] Wilson, E., Dovey H. H. and Habibullah, A.,
Frames., Computer & structures Vol.29, No.3. pp. (1979), ETABS, Three Dimensional Analysis of
491-502 Building Systems, Computers and Structures Inc.,
[7] Wong C. and Lau L., (1989), Simplified Finite Berkeley, California.
Element Analysis Of Three-Dimensional Tall [16] Alan W., (2009), "Structural Analysis in Theory
Building Structures, Computers & Structures Vol. and Practice ", International Codes Council.
33, No. 3, pp. 821-830. [17] Samuelsso A. and Zienkiewicz B., (2006),
[8] Swaddiwudhipong S., Lim Y. and Lee, (1988),An "Review History of the stiffness method" ,
Efficient Finite Strip Analysis Of Frame-Shear International Journal For Numerical Methods in
Wall Tall Building. , Computers & Structures Engineering, 67:149157.
Vol. 29. No. 6, pp. 1111-1118.
66