SIMPLE ANALOGOUS FRAMES FOR SHEAR

WALL ANALYSIS 3
Discussion by J. Damy R.3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

It is surprising that the authors should state that the wide column
analogy is "inherently inadequate a n d inaccurate" (p. 2655) w h e n ap-
plied to walls with a high ratio of shear to b e n d i n g m o m e n t . The writer
has analyzed a great m a n y buildings in Mexico City using this analogy
and has often confirmed its adequacy by comparing with results of finite
element analyses u n d e r an ample range of conditions. M a n y publica-
tions (e.g., Ref. 4) recommend it for analysis of shear walls.
The difference in opinions probably stems from the authors' use of
the analogy neglecting shearing deformations. This is implied in Fig. 1,
which refers only to the column's m o m e n t of inertia I a n d area A for
axial deformations, n o t to the area for shearing deformations:

As = ^ ^ (7)
1.2 1.2 '
(the coefficient 1.2 is slightly different for cross sections other t h a n rect-
angular). It is k n o w n that w h e n these deformations are taken into ac-
count, the stiffness matrix for the column is
EA
0 0
h
12EL, 6EI„
k= 0 3 2 (8)
*z (l + 4c) h (l + 4c)
6EI„ 4EI„(1 + c)
h\\ + 4c) h(l + 4c) _

in which c = 6(1 + JJL) -f~. = 0.6(1 + n) - (9)

or using the authors' B, c = 0.0375/B.

On the other h a n d , the authors' model is apparently incorrect. For one
thing, the diagonals are neglected w h e n establishing the bending stiff-
ness (Fig. 3). Taking t h e m into account, one gets
4E7C h , 4EU1 + c)
— - + - EAd sin 6 cos 2 8 = — (10)
h 2 h(l+4e)
Secondly, w h e n establishing the shearing stiffness (Fig. 4), one should
use the expression
12EIC 2EA*cos 2 e 12E4
—-i + i = S_ (11)
Jf_ I h3(l + 4c)
"November, 1984, Vol. 110, No. 11, by B. Stafford Smith and Amal Girgis (Pa-
per 19291).
3
Prof., Coll. of Engineering, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico,
D.F., Mexico.
1128

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:1128-1129.

 according to Eq. 8, instead of Eq. 2a. Note that only for very large c does
the right-hand member of Eq. 11 approach EAJh. Solving Eqs. 8 and 11
we get
k=--L (12)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-2Ma -0.075AW
d
~ h\l + 4c) sin e cos 6 ~ (B + 0.15) sin3 6
2 ( 3
^
Ad must always be negative. This condition is not fulfilled by Eq. lb,
which gives results approaching those of Eq. 13 only for large c (small
B).
Approximate aggreement between results obtained by the authors'
analogy and a finite-element solution for one specific example does not
prove the validity of the former, since it may well be that in this instance
c was large. Moreover, in the example chosen the walls are subjected to
torsion only, which does not submit the analogy to a representative test,
in which flexural deformation would play a greater role.
Even if the analogy proposed in the paper were correct there would
be little point in using it, as the correctly posed wide column analogy
is simpler.

APPENDIX.—REFERENCE

4. BazSn, E., and Meli, R., "Manual de diseno sismico de edificios," Instituto
de Ingenieria, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, D-18, Sep., 1983.

Closure by B. Stafford Smith4 and Amal Girgis5

The writers thank Damy for his comments on their analogous frame,
but consider his criticisms of it unjustified. The analogy is intended to
simulate the axial, single curvature flexure and shear deformation char-
acteristics of a wall segment that may be part of a single planar shear
wall, or part of a nonplanar assembly of shear walls. This is in contrast
to the wide column analogy, which was devised to represent segments
of a shear wall between discretely attached connecting beams. The wide
column module provides for double curvature of the represented wall
segment, which, although appropriate for story-height, full wall-width,
segments of a coupled shear wall, is inappropriate for a typical shear
wall segment attached at its sides to other wall segments. In such a sit-
uation, if the shear deformations of the segment are comparable with
its single-curvature flexural deformations, the wide column analogy can
give significantly erroneous results, whereas the proposed analogous
frame behaves properly in shear relative to flexure, with acceptably ac-
curate results.
A closed or partially closed core subjected to torsion provides a clas-
"Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg. and Appl. Mech., McGill Univ., 817 Sherbrooke
St.s W., Montreal, Quebec H3A 2K6, Canada.
Sr. Computer Analyst, Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Ltd., Longueuil, Quebec,
Canada.
1129

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:1128-1129.