Seismic response of

multistorey framed
shearwalls
Y. L. MO
Department of Civil Engineering,

National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan

S. D. Jost
Department of Computer Science,

DePaul University, Chicago, IL, USA

(Received October 1991; revised version accepted May 1992)

Using a nonlinear model, the seismic response of multistorey reinforced concrete framed shearwalls is predicted and the effect of
variations in the material strengths of steel and concrete are studied.
In addition, the effect of considering the upper structure weight on
such walls is examined. It is found that normal variations in concrete
strength can significantly affect the deflections and shear forces in
five- and ten-storey framed shearwalls.
Keywords: framed
resistant buildings

Using framed shearwalls is an effective way to design

earthquake-resistant
buildings. If the wall panels are
properly designed, they absorb the energy of the earthquake so that little damage occurs in the columns. The
panels can then easily be replaced when the building is
repaired after the earthquake .
An alternative design is the cantilever shearwall.
Figure 1 illustrates the basic difference between the two
designs. Whereas the behaviour of framed shearwalls
with a height-to-length ratio of not greater than 1 is
generally governed by shear, the predominant action for
cantilever shearwalls is flexura12-4. Since attention has
generally been paid to flexural response with relatively
little attention being given to shear response, this paper
focuses on shear behaviour.
The design of earthquake-resistant buildings is based
on the material properties of the steel and concrete used
in the construction. However, the strengths of these
materials can, in practice, vary considerably from their
specified values. While 60 ksi is the commonly
specified value of XV, the yield stress in longitudinal
steel, it may be as large as 70 ksi. While 4000 psi is the
specified value of fi., the specified cylinder compressive strength of concrete, the actual strength may be
as small as 3500 psi or as large as 5000 psi. The effects
of variation in the strengths of these materials for fiveand ten-storey shearwalls will be examined using a
nonlinear model 5 developed for one-storey framed
shearwalls.
0141-0296/93/030155-12
Cc) 1993 Butterworth

- Heinemann

shearwalls,

seismic

response,

earthquake-

In addition to the shear stress, the axial stress due to

the weight of the upper structure must be considered for
multistorey framed shearwalls. The dynamic response of
five- and ten-storey shearwalls, taking the axial force
into consideration will be compared with the same situations but with the axial force neglected.

Research significance
An algorithm previously developed for the seismic
analysis of one-storey framed shearwalls is expanded to
include multistorey framed shearwalls. The effects of
axial forces and variation in the material properties concrete compressive strength and steel yielding stress on
the seismic response of multistorey framed shearwalls
are examined.

Seismic modelling for multistorey shearwalls

The following assumptions are used for computing the
response history of the multistorey framed shearwalls:
Framed shearwalls
are represented
by shear
buildings.
Wall is subjected to a horizontal base acceleration in
the plane of the wall.
Primary curves for individual walls are determined
by the method proposed by Mau and Hsu . Axial

Ltd

Engng Struct.

1993

Volume

15 Number

155

Seismic response of muir,storey framed shearvvalls: Y. L. M o and S. D. Jost

Initialize values

_1

Calculate incremental load for

extended time interval

Calculate effective incremental load for

extended time interval

t
//

////////,

////////,

Find incremental displacement for

extended time interval

//

Figure 1 Shearwalls. (a), cantilever; (b), framed

Calculate incremental acceleration for

extended time interval

Calculate incremental acceleration

for normal interval

stresses induced by the weight of the upper structure

are considered.
4 Stiffnesses of individual walls are governed by the
rules of the hysteresis model proposed by M o 6.
5 Masses are lumped at floor levels.
The solution of multistorey framed shearwalls,
modelled as a multidegree-of-freedom system, is
accomplished using the Wilson-0 method 78 which
ensures that the numerical integration is stable, i.e., that
numerical errors are not propagated to later time steps.
The incremental equilibrium conditions for the system
can be represented as the matrix equation
My,+C(p)2x2~ + K,2xy, = -M2x29,~

I
1

Calculate incremental velocity and

displacement for normal interval

l
I
I

Calculate displacement displacement and

velocity at time t,.
Calculate acceleration at time t, + 1

Output time, displacement and force, etc.

(1)

I
I
I
1
I

Figure 2 Step-by-step solution for framed shearwatls

where

2xy, = u(ti + r) - y(ti)

(2)

~Yi = y(t, + r) - 2(t,)

(3)

Description of framed shearwails

by, = 29(t, + r) - 29(ti)

(4)

7~29i~ = 29(tig + r) - y(t/~)

(5)

/~,2xy, = 2xF,

(6)

Two framed shearwalls, one with five storeys and the

other with ten, were used in the study. The dimensions
of these structures are shown in Figure 3 and the
specified material properties are shown in Table 1.
Tables 2 and 3 show the cross-section dimensions, reinforcement ratios, and upper structure weights for the
five- and ten-storey walls. To determine the effect of
variations in material properties of steel and concrete on
the seismic responses, the cases shown in Table 4 are
considered. The ranges considered are representative of
the variations in strength of steel and concrete which are
likely to occur in practice.
Two comparisons are made. First, case S~. = 5000
psi) is compared with case W 0r" = 3500 psi). The
shear f o r c e - d r i f t curves for the different walls were
calculated considering the effect of axial forces due to
gravity loads. These forces were determined based on a
mass of 0.3 K s2/in per floor distributed according to
the tributary area of each wall. This weight is only a
fraction of the entire weight of each floor because the
floors are also supported by columns in addition to the
wall. Secondly, in order to see the effect of the axial
forces on the seismic response, the case N where axial
forces are not considered is also compared to the

& = K, + ~ - M + -- C,

(7)

?XF, =-M2xy,~, + M ( 6 .~,+ 329,)

(8)

+ C,

where 2tF, is the effective force and Ki is the effective

stiffness. The circumflex over the A represents the
change over the extended time step from ti to ti + r
where z = OAt. The value for 0 is chosen to maintain the
stability of the numerical process. Wilson 7 has shown
that stability i s guaranteed when O _> 1.38. Figure 2
summarizes the step-by-step solution.

156

Engng Struct.

1 9 9 3 V o l u m e 15 N u m b e r 3

Seismic response o f m u l t i s t o r e y framed shearwalls: Y. L. M o and S. D. J o s t

Storey

Floor
I0

I0

7
7

Storey
5

Floor

4
4

3
2
2

Io' I
(typicol)

Io']

(typicol)
15'

15'

Figure 3 Dimensions of five- and ten-storey walls

reference case R where axial forces are considered.

Cases Y and R are compared to study the effect of steel
yielding stress on the walls.
N u m e r i c a l results

To determine the effects of changes in material strengths

and axial forces on the calculated seismic response of the
examples shown in Table 4, the north-south component
of the 1940 El Centro acceleration record was used. To
determine whether the response to different earthquakes
shows different degrees of sensitivity to changes in
material strengths, all the cases shown in Table 4 were
also analysed using the N21E component of the 1952
Taft acceleration record. Both earthquake records were
normalized to a peak acceleration of 0.96 g to produce
significant cracking. For each case, the following
responses were studied: bottom storey deflection and
shear force histories, maximum deflections and shear
forces, maximum storey drifts and ductility demands.

Table 1 Material properties of five- and ten-storey walls (1

psi = 6.895 kPa, 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa)
Concrete properties

Symbol

Force

Table 4 Material properties of test cases (1 ksi = 6.895 MPa)

Compressive strength
Strain at peak stress
Ultimate strain
Modulus of elasticity

f;
~o
~u

Steel
Yield stress
Modulus of elasticity

Ec

4000 psi
0.0020
0.0035
3600 ksi

fly
Es

60 000 psi
29 000 ksi

Case
Steel yielding
stress (ksi)
Concrete compressive
strength (ksi)

60

60

60

60

70

4.0

3.5

5.0

4.0

4.0

Table 2 Section properties of five-storey walls (1 in = 2.54 cm, 1 k-s2/in = 175.12 kN-s2/m)

Floor/storey

Section
dimension
(in)

Longitudinal
reinforcement
ratio

Upper structure
mass (k-s2/in)
(k-s 2/in)

Lumped mass on
floor
(k-s 2/in)

5
4
3
2
1

4
4
4
4
4

0.0042
0.0042
0.0042
0.0042
0.0042

0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5

6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0

180
180
180
180
180

Table 3 Section properties of ten-storey walls (1 in = 2.54 cm, 1 k-s2/in = 175.12 kN-s2/m)

Floor/storey

Section
dimension
(in)

Longitudinal
reinforcement
ratio

Upper structure
mass (k-s2/in)
(k-s2/in)

Lumped mass on
floor
(k_s2/in)

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

0.0042
0.0042
0.0042
0.0042
0.0042
0.0042
0.0042
0.0042
0.0042
0.0042

0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
3.0

6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0

x
x

x
x
x
x
x
x

180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180

Engng Struct.

1993

Volume

15 Number

157

Seismic response of multistorey framed shearwalls: Y. L. Mo and S. D. Jost

0.08

8 l
600~

400.
"~

._=

: :

tO

8
t'~

, i"

200"

i ",

,~.,

!, :.
V .~

O"

,o

-0.04

:,

7:

-200"

-400.

-0.081

ilit/

- 600.
-0.12
~1

!ii /!

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

6
Time (s)

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, . . . . . . . . .

I0

i:;,~

12

800

0"081

6
Time (s)

10

12

600

0"061
o

400'

"G

O. 021

200'

,?

"a
E3 - 0.02,

O'

,-, '.# - ,~...

i"

-200'
0.04
h

-400"

-0.06
-0.08

- 600

........................................................
0

I0

12

Time(s)

10

12

Time (s)

Figure 4

Histories for case S ( - - - ) and case W (

) for El Centro record. (a), deflection for storey 1 of five-storey shearwall; (b),
force for storey 1 of five-storey shearwall; (c), deflection for storey 1 of ten-storey shearwall; (d), force for storey 1 of ten-storey shearwall

The deflection and shear force for the bottom storey are
shown in Figures 4 and 5 for the E1 Centro response,
and in Figures 6 and 7 for the Taft input. Figures 4 and
6 compares the histories of case S (concrete strength
5.0 ksi) and case W (concrete strength 3.5 ksi) for both
shear force and deflection in the five- and ten-storey
shearwalls.
Figure 4 shows that stronger concrete strength results
in a large shear force in storey 1. After the peak ground
acceleration at time 2.12 s, the difference between the
deflections of storey 1 becomes quite noticeable for both
the five- and ten-storey shearwalls. Figure 5 makes the
same comparisons between the histories of case R (axial
force) and case N (no axial force). In Figure 5, neglecting the axial force results in lower shear force in storey

158

Engng Struct.

1 9 9 3 V o l u m e 15 N u m b e r 3

1. It also shows that significant deflection differences

begin to occur after the maximum acceleration at time
2.12 s. The differences between the responses of case S
and case W as well as case R and case N are greater when
the walls are subjected to the Taft earthquake (Figures
6 and 7).
Figure 8 compares the maximum deflections and shear
forces of the five- and ten-storey shearwalls for the cases
S and W using the E1 Centro record. It can be seen from
Figure 8 that important seismic response parameters for
reinforced concrete (the maximum lateral deflection and
minimum forces) can be sensitive to the variation in concrete properties ordinarily encountered in practice. The
effect of this variation is rather unpredictable. It can
affect any or all of the response parameters, and the

Seismic response of multistorey framed shearwalls: Y. L. Mo and S. D. Jost

0.06"

600

0.04

0.02
"E

t-

400

ii

20O

.9 - 0 . 0 2
:

: ;

-0.04"

1:

-200 i
-0.06'

-400
-0.08"

-0.10
a

. . . . . . . . .

,..'

. . . . . . .

, . . . . . . . . .

0.08

, . . . . . . . . .

6
Time (s)

. . . . . . . . .

-600

, . . . . . . . .

I0

12

0.04

, . . . . . . . . .

, . . . . . . . . .

6
Time (s)

, . . . . . . . . .

, . . . . . . . .

I0

12

4001

r"

t-

, . . . . . . . . .

600 l

,.,,

.........

-0.04

200 ]
r~

O:

,?

-200"
-400'

-O.OE
C

...........................................................
0

6
Time (s)

I0

12

-600

..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

, . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

10

12

Time(s)

Figure 5

Histories for case N ( - - - ) and case R (

) f o r El C e n t r o record. (a), d e f l e c t i o n f o r s t o r e y 1 o f f i v e - s t o r e y shearwall; (b),
f o r c e for s t o r e y 1 o f f i v e - s t o r e y shearwall; (c), d e f l e c t i o n for s t o r e y 1 o f t e n - s t o r e y shearwall; (d), f o r c e for s t o r e y 1 o f t e n - s t o r e y shearwall

effect varies with the material properties and number of

storeys of the shearwall. By increasing the concrete
strength from 3.5 ksi to 5.0 ksi in the ten-storey shearwall, the maximum deflection is reduced by 30 % for the
7th storey. In the five-storey shearwall, it may be
increased by 27% for the third storey. The maximum
shear force can increase by 56% and 30% for the tenand five-storey shearwall, respectively, when the concrete strength is increased from 3.5 ksi to 5.0 ksi. Also
note how the maximum forces in the lower storeys are
affected by concrete strength. Figure 10 shows the
results for the Taft record. When Figures 8 and 10 are
compared, it is found that for the five-storey wall, the

difference of the maximum shear force for the Taft

record is greater than that for the El Centro record. In
contrast, for the ten-storey wall, the .difference of the
maximum shear force for the Taft record is less than that
for the El Centro record.
Figure 9 compares case R with case N for the El Centro record. It shows that for the ten-storey wall, the maximum deflection when axial force is present can be up
to 35 % more than the maximum which occurs when no
axial force is present. For the five-storey wall, the reduction is up to 13 % for the second storey. The difference for
maximum shear force can reach 44 % and 80 % for both
ten- and five-storey shearwalls, respectively. Figure 11

Engng Struct. 1993 Volume 15 Number 3

159

Seismic response of multistorey framed shearwalls: Y. L. Mo and S. D. Jost

6001

008

0,06

0.04
f-

0,02

t-

0'

,~-0.02'
-0.04"
-0.06'

-0.08

. . . . . . . . .

, . . . . . . . . .

, . . . . . . . . .

20O

~-

-200

- 400
-600
- 800

+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6
Time (s)

I0

12

0'061

600

0.041

400

0.02i

. . . . . . . . .

, . . . . . . . . .

t-

,%
~h

, . . . . . . . . .

6
T i m e (s)

, . . . . . . . .

200

A
t-

, . . . . . . . . .

,,

. . . . . . . . .

I0

12

V'
G)
0

-0.02

-200

ta.

-0.04

- 400

-0.06

-600

-0.08

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

+ . . . . . . . . .

i . . . . . . . . .

i . . . . . .

', ~",

-800

i . . . . . . . . .

I0

12

Time (s)

. . . . . . . . .

~ . . . . . . . . .

, . . . . . . . . .

, . . . . . . . . .

, . . . . . . . . .

+ . . . . . . . . .

I0

12

Time (s)

Figure 6 Histories for case S ( - - - ) and case W (

) for Taft record. (a), deflection for storey 1 of five-storey shearwall; (b), force
for storey 1 of five-storey shearwall; (c), deflection for storey 1 of ten-storey shearwall; (d), force for storey 1 of ten-storey shearwall

shows the results for the Taft record. When Figures 9

and 10 are compared, it is found that for the Taft record
the maximum deflections when axial force is present are
always less than those when no axial force is present.
However, this is not true for the E1 Centro record.
Figures 12-15 indicate the results of the maximum
drifts and ductility demands. Figures 12 and 14 compare case S with case W. It should be noted that the ductility demands for the lower storeys are zero because
these walls never yield, because of the axial force (i.e,
the upper structure weight). It can be seen that the ductility demands increase with increasing concrete
strength. Figures 13 and 15 compare case R with case N.

160

Engng Struct. 1 9 9 3 V o l u m e 15 N u m b e r 3

When the upper structure weight is neglected (i.e. case

N), the ductility demands show up clearly. In contrast,
if the upper structure weight is considered, the ductility
demands decrease.
The effect of changing the steel yielding stress to
70 ksi was also investigated but since it did not make a
significant difference to the shearwalls, the result is not
shown in this paper.

Conclusions
According to the results in the previous section, the
following conclusions can be drawn.

Seismic response of multistorey framed shearwalls: Y. L. Mo and S. D. Jost

400"

0.080.06i

200

0.04i
0.02

0
-2oo

o -0.02

i.J

-0.04

-400
-0.01
a

-0.08

-600
0

0.08 =

6
Time(s)

I0

12

. . . . . . . . .

, . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

600"

. . . . . . . . .

6
Time(s)

1 . . . . . . . . .

u . . . . . . . . .

10

12

400"
0.04

t
200

0
Q .

L~

,9
_e
~ -0.04

,?
-200

-400

-0.12

-600

.....................

I0

12

Time (s)

. . . . . . . . .

, . . . . . . . . .

r . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

6
Time(s)

1 . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

I0

12

Figure 7 Histories for case N ( - - - ) and case R (

) for Taft record. (a), deflection for storey 1 of five-storey shearwall; (b), force
for storey 1 of five-storey shearwall; (c), deflection for storey 1 of ten-storey shearwall; (d), force for storey 1 of ten-storey shearwall

The effect of concrete strength on the framed shearwalls is significant because increasing the concrete
strength from 3.5 ksi to 5.0 ksi can cause the maximum
deflection to decrease by 30% for the El Centro record.
It can also cause the maximum shear force to increase by
56% for the ten-storey shearwall. For the five-storey
shearwall, the maximum deflection may be increased by
27% and the maximum shear force may increase by
30%.
The effect of axial stresses induced by the weight of
the upper structure on reinforced concrete framed shearwalls is also significant. For the El Centro record,

neglecting the upper structure weight may cause errors

of 35 % in the maximum deflection and 44 % in the maximum shear force for a ten-storey shearwall. For the
live-storey shearwall, the maximum deflection may differ by 13 % and the maximum shear force by 80 %.
The ductility demands increase with greater concrete
strength; when the upper structure weight is considered,
the ductility demands significantly decrease. The
response to both the El Centro and Taft records shows
different degrees of sensitivity to changes in concrete
strength and axial force. The effect of steel yielding
stress from 60 ksi to 70 ksi is negligible.

Engng Struct. 1 9 9 3 V o l u m e 15 N u m b e r 3

161

Seismic response of multistorey framed shearwalls: Y, L. Mo and S. D. Jost

6

II

5"

4:-

4~

i!

>.,

(/)

!1

7
j~

I0"

/;
P

2~

iI
0

,=l~=~

z~

=6

,~

ii

,=

01

iI1=~1

0.05
0.10
Max.deflection (in)
b

=l~r

f i i r l l l l ' l l l l l l

O'tl,l~,ll,

500
I00(
Max. force (kips)

0
C

,111

,, ,,l~ll

O/

,11=lit,

0.05
0.10
0.15
Max.deflection (in)

l , l ' l l l l r ~ l

I f,I

,~ll~

500

I000

Max.force (kips)

Figure 8 Comparison of case W ( - ) and case S ( - - )

for El Centro record. (a), maximum deflection for five-storey wall; (b),
maximum force for five-storey wall; (c), maximum deflection for ten-storey wall; (d), maximum force for ten-storey wall

II

II

I0
t

5"

o~ J

8t

Iot

9t

f"I!

4.

~"

7t

6'

~3

~3

I-

0
a

...................
0.05

Max.deflection (in)

0.10

bo

.........

, ......
500

,,,

Max.force (kips)

4i

4t

3i

3t

2i

27

i!

't

i000

. . . . . . . ~,I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.05

o.lo

Max.deflection (in)

0",

0.15 d 0

i
..................

500

i000

Max.force (kips)

Figure 9 Comparison of case N ( - - --) and case R (

) for El Centro record. (a), maximum deflection for five-storey wall; (b),
maximum force for five-storey wail; (c), maximum deflection for ten-storey wall; (d), maximum force for ten-storey wall

162

Engng Struct. 1 9 9 3 V o l u m e 15 N u m b e r 3

Seismic response of multistorey framed shearwalls: Y. L. Mo and S. D. Jost

J.

~3

0-

5-

9-4

B"

7"

6:

,~

~5-~

5-

03

-4

]
4:

Z~

32-

0.05
0.10_ 0
Max.deflection (in)
D

500
1000
Max.force (kips)

O~

0.05
0.10 0
d
Max.deflection (in)

.........

, ........

',

500
1000
Max.force (kips)

Figure 10 Comparison of case W ( - - - ) and case S (---) for Taft record. (a), maximum deflection for five-storey wall; (b), maximum
force for five-storey wall; (c), maximum deflection for ten-storey wall; (d), maximum force for ten-storey wall

6:

/
5"

9-~

y"

8"

3-

7:
i

6-~

3'.

5"
4-

zi

lll.

l~

,1~

Ill

I*~l

3-

2-

2-

I-

I-

I ,

0.05
o. i(
Max.deflection (in)

3-_

400
Max.force(kips)

800

0.05
0.10
Max.deflection (in)

400
800
Max.force(kips)

Figure 11 Comparison of case N ( - - - ) and case R (

) for Taft record. (a), maximum deflection for five-storey wall; (b), maximum
force for five-storey wall; (c), maximum deflection for ten-storey wall; (d), maximum force for ten-storey wall

Engng Struct. 1 9 9 3 Volume 15 Number 3

163

Seismic response of multistorey framed shearwalls: Y. L. Mo and S. D. Jost

6

"1
o-~

~o-J
5

4i

4~

\,

,,~

9~

9"

6t

~ 6-~

,;"
j

L,..

03

5-7
4-1

3t
2!
.-t

It

o~
0

0.05
M a x . d r i f t (in)

0.10

0.5

1.0

1.5

Ductility

0.05
Max. d r i f t (in)

0.10

ol

0.2
0,4
Ductility

0.6

Figure 12 Comparison of case W ( - - ) and case S ( - - )

for El Centro record, (a), maximum drift for five-storey wall; (b), maximum
ductility for five-storey wall; (c), maximum drift for ten-storey wall; (d), maximum ductility for ten-storey wall

II

6~

II

I0

*,,,,

I0-

,L

9',
8

8-~
i

74
6'
5"

N5-~

4-

4-~

3"

3-

2-

2-

.q

Id
0

l l l l l

I I D l l l l l l l l l

0.05

Max, drift (in)

O"

O~'','jll'llll,llll|~lll~

~l

O.lO.

i.o

Ductility

2.0

,,

,al

, 1 1 , ,

, , , i

0.05

Max.drift (in)

,i

0.1(

O"
0

r,

, 1 | ,

,ll.

l l l , ~

i.o

i l l ,

2,o

Ductility

Figure 13 Comparison of case N ( - - - ) and case R (

) for El Centro record. (a), maximum drift for five-storey wall; (b), maximum
ductility for five-storey walL; (c), maximum drift for ten-storey wall; (d), maximum ductility for ten-storey wall

164

Engng Struct. 1 9 9 3 V o l u m e 15 N u m b e r 3

Seismic response of multistorey framed shearwalls: Y. L. Mo and S. D. Jost

6

6~

',

II

,/./

41

Io t

/ s "s'

9-~

8-J

:'/

72

7~

4
"4

6~

~D

~3

6t

5t

5~

O9

4t
3t

..(

2t

,a

.(
-4

..)
-4
i

~ i

~ i

0.05
Max.drift (in)

0.10 = 0
U

0.5
1.0
Ductility

1.5

0.05
Max. drift (in)

O.10

O,2
0.4
Ductility

0.6

Figure 14 Comparison of case W ( - - - ) and case S (

) for Taft record. (a), maximum drift for five-storey wall; (b), m a x i m u m ductility for five-storey wall; (c), maximum drift for ten*storey wall; (d), maximum ductility for ten-storey wall

~1

6.]

II

5"~

4~

":

'~.

0 .....
O

.....

##
J
I

5-J

O3

27
:
,b

~)

.~==,,,

t,,,

,-rrr=

0.05
Max. drift (in)

o.lobo

,*=,l,

i,=

i ~..,

I.O
Ductility

,l,r

2.0

O
C

0.05
Max.drift (in)

0.10

~,

I,O
Ductility

,
2.0

Figure 15 Comparison of case N ( - - - ) and case R (

) for Taft record. (a), maximum drift for five-storey wall; (b), maximum ductility
for five-storey wall; (c), maximum drift for ten-storey wall; (d), maximum ductility for ten-storey wall

Engng Struct. 1 9 9 3 V o l u m e 15 N u m b e r 3

165

Seismic response of multistorey framed shearwalls: Y. L. Mo and S. D. Jost

References
I

Mau, S. T. and Hsu, T. T. C. "Shear behavior of reinlorced concrete

framed wall panels with vertical loads', ACI Struct. J. 1987, 84 (3),
228-234
"~ Paulay, T. 'Earthquake-resisting shearwal[s - New Zealand design
trends', ACIJ. Proc. 1980, 77 (3), 144-152
3 Mahin, S. A. and Bertero, V. V. 'Nonlinear seismic response of a
coupled wall system', J. Struct. Div., ASCE 1976, 102, 1759-1780
4 Saiidi, M. A. and Sozen, M. 'Simple nonlinear seismic analysis of R/C
structures', J. Struct. Div., ASCE 1981, 107, 9 3 7 - 9 5 2

166

Engng Struct. 1993 Volume 15 Number 3

5 Jost, S. D. and Mo, Y. L. 'An algorithm 1or seismic analysis of lowrise structural walls', Nucl. Engng Design, 1991, 131. 2 6 3 - 2 7 0
6 Mo, Y. L. 'Analysis and design of low-rise structural walls under
dynamically applied shear forces', ACI Struct, ,1. 1988, 85 (2),
1 8 0 - 189
7 Wilson, E. L., Farhoomand, 1. and Bathe, K. J. 'Nonlinear dynamic
analysis of complex structures', hzt. J. Earthquake k)~gng Struct.
Dyn. 1973, 1, 2 4 1 - 2 5 2
8 Paz, M. Structural dynamics - theory and computation, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, 1980