Dagmawi Girma

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
ADDIS ABABA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
Parametric Assessment of the Effect of Shear

Deformation in Concrete Shear Wall with and
without Openings for Lateral Action using
Simplified Hand Procedure
A Thesis in Structural Engineering
By Dagmawi Girma
October 2018
Addis Ababa
A Thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science
The undersigned have examined the thesis entitled ‘Parametric Assessment of the Effect
of Shear Deformation in Concrete Shear Wall with and without Openings for Lateral
Action using Simplified Hand Procedure’ presented by DAGMAWI GIRMA, a
candidate for the degree of Master of Science and hereby certify that it is worthy of
acceptance.
Dr. Adil Zekaria
Advisor Signature Date
Dr. Abrham Gebre
Internal Examiner Signature Date
Dr. Bedilu Habte
External Examiner Signature Date
Dr. Agizew Nigussie
Chair person Signature Date

UNDERTAKING
I certify that research work titled “Parametric Assessment of the Effect of Shear
Deformation in Concrete Shear Wall with and without Openings for Lateral Action
using Simplified Hand Procedure” is my own work. The work has not been presented
elsewhere for assessment. Where material has been used from other sources it has been properly
acknowledged / referred.
Signature of Student
Dagmawi Girma
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank the almighty God for his unending blessings and
gave me health to carry out this research.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my sponsor Ethiopian Rood Authority
(ERA) for providing this scholarship program and also Addis Ababa Institute of
Technology (AAiT) for supporting me to talk this chance.
I am very grateful to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor Dr. Ing. Adil Zekaria for
his unreserved assistance, constructive and timely comments at all stage of my work.
In addition, a very special tanks goes to Dr. Abreham Gebre for availing himself whenever
I need his support and Ato Tamrat Tilahun for give me technical support during
compilation of paper.
Finally, I have no words to express my warm feeling of appreciation and tanks to my

family, friends and colleagues for their lovely encouragement to complete this work.
i
ABSTRACT
Shear wall, a continuous vertical member, is an important element in high-rise building,

which provides the lateral stability and resistance to lateral force. Lateral load resistance
capacity of shear wall is controlled by two parameters, the strength and the ductility; it is
better to have the shear strength somewhat greater than the compressional to prevent shear
failure, which is brittle, sudden and of serious consequence. Due to the architectural and
functionality reasons, openings are providing in this important structural part.
The main objective of this study is to investigate the effects of shear deformation on shear
wall with different type of openings and wall dimension for later action using simplified
hand procedure. To investigate the effect of shear deformation, parametric study presents
for shear wall deformation. A total of thirty-two cases of systematically random selected
input variables namely: height of shear wall (H), length wall (L), opening height (ho),
opening length (lo) and thickness for shear wall with window and door type of opening.
For solid shear wall (without opening) input variables are height of wall (H) length of wall
(L) and thickness (t). The systematically selection random variables is done using Latin
Hypercube Sampling method (LHS). Those random variables distribution follow normal
distribution. And then by taking the shear deformation of thirty-two cases of shear wall
with and without opening from simplified hand procedure, verified by illustrative example
and ANSYS, a statistical data analysis is performed using regression analysis in order to
identify the most influential input parameter on the shear wall deformation of shear wall.
Results of statistical data analysis demonstrates the significance of five input variables on
two cases, shear wall with and without opening and three input variables on solid shear
wall. Height of opening most influential parameter for shear wall with and without
opening. But for shear wall without opening thickness of wall is influential parameter for
the determination of shear deformation. On other hand, this paper provides some support
to identify which parameter increase and which parameter decrease shear deformation to
reduce brittle failure in of shear wall. This will enable to consider factor of safety for
the uncertain input parameters on shear deformation equations. It is helpful to construct
empirical equation using large set of data.
Key words: shear deformation, parametric study, simplified hand procedure, Latin
Hypercube Sampling Method (LHS)
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………………………… i
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………... ii
TABLE CONTENTS ……………………………………………………………………… iii
LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………………………. v
LIST OF TABLE …………………………………………………………………………. vii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………. -1-
-1-
1.1 Background ………………………………………………………………………...
-2-
1.2 Statement of Problem ………………………………………………………………
-3-
1.3 Objective …………………………………………………………………………...
-3-
1.4 Methodology ……………………………………………………………………….
-4-
1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study …………………………………………………
-4-
1.6 Organization of the thesis
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW -5-
2.1 General -5-
2.1.1 Beam Theory……………………………………………………………….
2.1.1.1 Euler Bernoulli Beam Theory ………………………………… -5-
2.1.1.2 Timoshenko Beam Theory…………………………………… -5-
2.1.2 Shear Wall Deformation …………………………………………………... -7-
2.1.3 Shear Deformation ………………………………………………………… -9-
2.2 Previous researches on shear wall deformation ……………………………………. -10-
2.3 Summary of the Previous researches Works………………………………………… -21-
CHAPTER THREE: INVESTIGATION OF THE BEHAVIOUR OF SHEAR WALL
DEFORMATION WITH DIFFERENT OPENINGS SIZE -22-
3.1 General ……………………………………………………………………………. -22-

3.2 Determination of Shear Wall Deformation………………………………………… -22-
3.2.1 Pier Analysis …………………………………………………………… -22-
iii
3.2.2 Method For Calculating The Deformation Of Wall (One Over
Rigidity Of Wall) With Opening……………………………………. -25-

3.3 Introduction for Simplified Hand Method ………………………………………. -25-
3.3.1 Solid Rectangular Shear Wall ………………………………………… -25-
3.3.2 Shear Wall With Opening……………………………………………… -26-
3.3.3 Deep Beam Concept …………………………………………………… -28-
3.4 Description of Sample Shear Wall Model ………………………………………… -29-
3.4.1 Analysis of Effect of Location of Opening in Shear Wall ………….. -32-
3.5 Sampling Method ……………………………………………………………….. -34-
3.6 Deformation Analysis …………………………………………………………… -37-
3.7 Validation of Simplified Hand Method on Shear Wall Deformation ……………… -42-
3.7.1 Illustrative Example ………………………………………………… -42-
CHAPTER FOUR: PARAMETRIC STUDY …………………………………………… -46-
4.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………. -46-
4.2 Statically Data Analysis …………………………………………………………….. -46-
4.2.1 The XLSTAT Approach ……………………………….…………………….. -46-
4.2.2 Sensitivity Analysis …………………………………………………………. -46-
4.2.2.1 Uncertainty of Import Variable on Wall Deformation ……………………. -47-
4.2.3 Variable Import in the Project VIP …………………………………………… -50-
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………...... -54-
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIOS AND RECOMMENDATIONS …………………….. -58-
5.1 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….. -58-
5.2 Recommendation ………………………………………………………………. -59-
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………... -60-
APPENDICES A: SIMPLIFIED HAND METHOD RESULT ……………………… -61-
APPENDICES B: ELEMENT USED FOR MODELING IN ANSYS…...……………. -71-

APPENDICES C: OUTLIERS ANALYSIS……………………………………………. -76-
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 2.1 Euler-Bernoulli and Timoshenko beam Deformation………………………. 6
Fig. 2.2 Infinitesimal length of beam showing Banding and shear deformation ….. 7
Fig. 2.3 Shear and Flexural Deformation……………………………………………. 8
Fig. 2.4 Deformation shear wall with opening……………………………………… 8
Fig. 2.5 Instrumentation of U-Shaped wall ………………………………………… 11
Fig. 2.6 Variation of length of shear panel diagonals………………………………. 12
Fig. 2.7 Element Model (MVLEM element and Coupled Model Element) 15
Fig.2.8 Proposed instrumentation Schemes (Wall without opening and Wall with
Opening)……………………………………………………………………... 16
Fig. 2.9 Calculation of flexural deformation (Wall without opening and Wall with
opening) …………………………………………………………………… 17
Fig.2.10 Calculation of shear deformation: (a) Wall without opening (b) Wall with
opening………………………………………………………………………. 19
Fig. 3.1 wall pier displacement at top and cantilevering from fixed bottom and
deflection of wall due to bending and shear deformation (Amrhein, 1998)….. 23
Fig. 3.2 wall pier displacement at top displacement, fixed at top and bottom of wall
due to bending, and shear deformation (Amrhein, 1998) …………………….. 24
Fig. 3.3 (a) Horizontal combination of wall segment (b) vertical combination of wall
segment (Drydale,Hamid and Baker, 1994) ………………………………….. 24
Fig. 3.4 Deflection of Cantilever shear Wall ……………………………………….. 26
Fig. 3.5 Wall Element Fixed at Both End …………………………………………… 27
Fig. 3.6 Cantilever Shear Wall ……………………………………………………… 28
v
Fig. 3.7 Probability Distribution of Ratio of shear Deformation for Shear wall without
Opening……………………………………………………………………………… 39
Fig. 3.8 Probability Distribution of Ratio of shear Deformation for Shear wall with
Window Type Opening ……………………………………………………………… 40
Fig. 3.9 Probability Distribution of Ratio of shear Deformation for Shear wall with
Door type Opening………........................................................................................... 41
Fig. 4.1 Uncertainty of random Variable for window type of opening……………… 48
Fig. 4.2 Uncertainty of random Variable for door type of opening…………………. 49
Fig. 4.3 Uncertainty of random Variable for solid wall type (without opening)……... 50
Fig. 4.4 Variable Importance of Window Type of Opening…………………………. 51
Fig. 4.5 Variable Importance of Door Type of Opening…………………………….. 52
Fig. 4.6 Variable Importance of Solid Shear Wall Type (without opening) ……….. 53
Fig. 5.1 Uncertainty of random variable and VIP for Window type of opening …….. 56
Fig. 5.2 Uncertainty of random variable and VIP for Door type of opening ……….. 56
Fig. 5.3 Effect of Aspect ratio and percentage of opening in ratio of shear
deformation to total deformation of shear wall……………………………… 57
Fig. 5.4 Effect of Aspect ratio and wall thickness in ratio of shear deformation to
total deformation of shear wall……………………………………………… 57
Fig. A.1 Effect of different parameters in shear wall with Window type of opening… 65
Fig. A.2 Effect of different parameters in shear wall with Door type of opening….. 68
Fig. A.3 Ratio of shear deformation vs Aspect ratio for shear wall without opening… 69
Fig. A.4 Ratio of shear deformation vs percentage of opening for shear wall with
window type opening……………………………………………………… 70
vi
Fig. A.5 Ratio of shear deformation vs percentage of opening for shear wall with
door type opening…………………………………………………………… 71
Fig. B.1 BAME189 Geometry………………………………………………………. 73
Fig. B.1 SHELL181Geometry………………………………………………………. 75
Fig. C.1 Outlier Analysis with respect to input Variable for Shear wall with window
type of opening ……………………………………………………………... 78
Fig. C.2 Outlier Analysis with respect to Dependent Variable for Shear wall with
window type of opening …………………………………………………… 78
Fig. C.3 Outlier Analysis with respect to input Variable for Shear wall with Door
type of opening ……………………………………………………………... 79
Fig.C.4 Outlier Analysis with respect to Dependent Variable for Shear wall with
Door type of opening ……………………………………………………….. 79
Fig. C.5 Outlier Analysis with respect to input Variable for Shear wall without
opening ……………………………………………………………………... 80
Fig. C.6 Outlier Analysis with respect to Dependent Variable for Shear wall
without opening …………………………………………………………… 80
vii
LIST OF TABLE
Table 3.1 Description of Five Parameters……………………………………………………... 33
Table 3.2 ANSYS Verification Analysis………………………………………………………. 36
Table 3.3 Statistical Variations of Random Variables for SW without Opening…………….. 38
Table 3.4 Statistical Variations of Random Variables for SW with Window Type of Opening 39
Table 3.5. Statistical Variations of Random Variables for SW with Door Type of Opening … 39
Table 3.6 32X5 LHS Combination of random variable for shear wall with and without opening 40
Table 3.7 Simplified Hand Method results for 32X5 LHS Combination of random variables
for three type of shear wall. ……………………………………………………………. 42
Table 3.8 Confidence Interval for shear wall with without opening……………………. 43
Table 3.9 Confidence Interval for shear wall with window type of opening…………… 44
Table 3.10 Confidence Interval for shear wall with door type of opening……………… 45
Table 4.1 Relative Importance of Input Parameter for the Model: for window type of
opening……………………………………………………………………………… 51
Table 4.2 Relative Importance of Input Parameter for the Model: for door type of
opening………………………………………………………………………………… 52
Table 4.3 Relative Importance of Input Parameter for Solid Shear Wall without opening……. 53
Table 5.1 Relative importance of input parameter for different type of shear wall…………… 55
Table 5.2 Uncertainty of random variables for different type wall type ……………………… 55
Table A.1 Simplified Hand Method results for LHS combination of random variables for
shear wall with Window type of opening………………………………………….. 63
Table A.2 Simplified Hand Method results for LHS combination of random variables for
shear wall with Door type of opening………………………………………………. 66
viii
ix
Parametric Assessment of the Effect of Shear Deformation in Concrete Shear Wall with and without
Openings for Lateral Action using Simplified Hand Procedure
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Shear walls are generally used to resist lateral loads caused by earthquake or wind acting parallel to the
plane of the wall in addition to gravity loads from adjacent floors. These walls can often provide lateral
bracing for the structure by reducing lateral displacements and resisting applied forces. In shear wall-
frame buildings, lateral loads are resisted in part by the wall and in part by frames which the combination
of the two provides lateral stiffness for buildings.
Wall behavior is generally classified according to wall aspect ratio(ℎ𝑤 ⁄𝑙𝑤 ), or shear-span-to-depth
ratio (𝑀⁄𝑉𝑙𝑤 ), as either shear-controlled (walls with aspect ratio less than approximately 1.0 to 1.5) or
flexure-controlled (aspect ratios greater than 2.5 to 3.0). For walls between these aspect ratios, Herein
referred to as moderate aspect ratio walls, although flexural yielding is expected, nonlinear shear
deformations may be significant and lead to reduced lateral stiffness, strength and ductility.
On other hand, Experimental results have shown that flexural and shear yielding occur near-
simultaneously even when the wall nominal shear strength is as much as twice the shear developed
at flexural yielding (Massone and Wallace, 2004) suggesting that there is an interaction between
nonlinear flex ural and shear modes of behavior, commonly referred to as shear-flexure interaction
(SFI). This interaction has been observed experimentally even in relatively slender RC walls with
aspect ratios of 3.0 (Thomsen and Wallace, 1995) and 4.0 (Sayre, 2003), with shear deformations
contributing approximately by 30% and 10% to lateral Displacement at the first story and roof-level,
respectively (Massone and Wallace, 2004). Recent test results reported by Tran and Wallace (2012) show
that the degree of interaction increases for walls with aspect ratios of 1.5 and 2.0, with nonlinear shear
deformations constituting as much as 35% and 30% of the wall top displacement, respectively. Previous
research has shown that analytical predictions obtained using models that consider uncoupled
axial/flexural and shear behavior may underestimate axial compressive strains even in relatively
slender RC walls controlled by flexure (Orakcal and Wallace, 2006), and overestimate the lateral load
capacity of moderate-aspect-ratio walls (Tran, 2012) and low-aspect-ratio walls (Massone et al, 2006).
MSc Thesis 1|Page

1.2 Statement of Problem

Compared to the options that are available to engineers when modeling the flexural response of RC
members, the variety of approaches for modeling the shear response is relatively sparse. Most structural
engineering programs, the shear stiffness of beam elements that develop a flexural mechanism is assigned
a constant value that cannot be updated during the loading process. This modeling approach has been
supported by the misconception that because the shear reinforcement is not supposed to yield and the
compression strut is not supposed to crush the shear deformations will remain constant once the nominal
yield has been reached. Hence, regarding the acknowledgement of the magnitude of the shear
deformations, a vicious circle was created, wherein shear deformations in structural analyses are
underestimated due to excessively large shear stiffness values. Their contribution to the total deformations
are therefore perceived as negligible and their effect on the structural performance is not considered.
On the other hand shear wall in building will be perforated by row of opening that are required for
windows external wall or for door way or corridors in internal walls. However, the size and location of
opening in the shear wall may have adverse effect on seismic responses of shear wall structures. As an
engineer, it is necessary to know the effects of openings size and configuration in shear wall on stiffness
(because it is important since lateral force are distributed to individual shear wall according to their
relative stiffness) as well as on seismic response and behavior of structural system so that suitable
configuration of opening in shear wall can be made.
This thesis aimed to add contribution on the effects of shear deformation in shear wall having opening by
using simplified hand procedure and, identify which parameter in determination of shear deformation
important, and verified by linear elastic modeling software that included the effect of shear deformation.
1.3 Objective
The main objective of this study is to investigate the effects of shear deformation on shear wall with
different type of openings and wall dimension for later action using simplified hand procedure. And
also this thesis paper aimed to magnify the effect of shear deformation that undermine and/or
underestimate in most analysis software currently used in our country. This investigation implemented
by performing a parametric study to identify which input parameter in the determination of deformation
of shear wall important and influential in shear deformation of concrete shear wall.
MSc Thesis 2|Page

1.4 Methodology
Reviewing the existing literatures for shear deformation in shear wall having opening is the first task in
this study. Due to the unavailability of testing machines and financial constraints, experimental(s)
required for this particular study is not covered. Instead, simplified hand procedure which is
recommended in several design guidelines for calculating the lateral stiffness and deformation of shear
wall with and without opening, assess the effect of shear deformation in wall with and without opening
was used. To undertake this analysis firstly scaling factor for input variables range established. And then
systematical random selection of input variable is done using Latin Hyper Cube Sampling method
(LHS). Those input variables follow normal distribution that comprise 32 systematical selected
combinations to determine shear deformation using Simplified hand procedure. This simplified method
validated using ANSYS SHELL181 Element software that include shear deformation in total wall
deformation.
After this, by taking value of shear deformation obtained from simplified hand method a parametric
study using partial least square regression analysis has been done. This analysis helped to know the most
influential parameters on shear deformation of shear wall. Finally, statistical data evaluation on
predicting shear deformation of shear wall is conducted. This statistical data analysis is performed using
XLSTAT 2017 tool.
1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study

The scope of this paper is focused only on linearly elastic concrete shear wall with the point load
condition. The input variable data ranges were distributed normal to generate an output data shear
deformation. However, it uses limited number of cases for the input data evaluation when modeling
wall. The statistical data analysis accuracy will be better when the sample data being large set.
MSc Thesis 3|Page

1.6 Organization
There are six chapter in this study. Where, Chapter one deals with introducing the general background,
methodology and objective of the thesis work.
In the second chapter, theoretical background regarding deformation of different type of structures will
be presented and literature will be reviewed to figure out the basic consideration in determination of wall
deformation.
Chapter three deals with investigation mechanisms for behavior of shear wall with and without opening
due to shear deformation. Within this chapter Systematic random variable selection using Latin
Hypercube Sampling (LHS) and analysis using simplified hand procedure to determine shear deformation
presented. And also, validation of simplified hand method explained.
Chapter four presents, parametric study using partial least square regression analysis and sensitivity
analysis.
Chapter five presents summary of output with their respective discussion.
The last chapters of this thesis is made to address the conclusion drawn from results and discussion section
and recommendation are put forward on the basis of the finding.
MSc Thesis 4|Page

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General
2.1.1 Beam Theories
Two mathematical model, namely the shear-deformable (Timoshenko) model and shear-in deformable
(Euler-Bernoulli) model, are presented.
Since the Timoshenko beam theory is higher order than the Euler-Bernoulli theory, it is known to be
superior in predicting the transient response of the beam. The superiority of the Timoshenko model is
more pronounced for beam with a low aspect ratio. It is shown that use of an Euler-Bernoulli based
controller to suppress beam vibration can lead to instability caused by the inadvertent excitation of
unmodelled modes.
2.1.1.1 Euler Bernoulli Beam Theory
In Euler – Bernoulli beam theory, shear deformations are neglected, and plane sections remain plane and
normal to the longitudinal axis. The difference between the normal to the longitudinal axis and the plane
section rotation is the shear deformation. A deformed Euler-Bernoulli beam and its reference
configuration in which the centerline is straight and parallel to the x-axis. The cross-sections of the beam
remain plane and orthogonal to the centerline after deformation. These relations are shown in Fig. 2.2.It
can be seen in Fig. 2.1 that in the Euler-Bernoulli beam the deformation at a section,𝑑𝜈𝑆⁄𝑑𝑥 , is just the
rotation due to bending only, since the plane section remains normal to the longitudinal axis.
2.1.1.1Timoshenko Beam Theory
In the Timoshenko beam theory, plane sections still remain plane but are no longer normal to the
longitudinal axis. And section deformation is the sum of two contribution: one due to bending, 𝑑𝜈𝑏⁄𝑑𝑥,
and the other is the shear deformation, 𝑑𝜈𝑆⁄𝑑𝑥 . By considering an infinitesimal length of the beam, as
shown in Fig. 2.2, it is seen that the shear deformation in Timoshenko beam theory, 𝑑𝜈𝑆⁄𝑑𝑥 , is the same
as the shear strain related to pure shear.
MSc Thesis 5|Page

In Timoshenko beam theory, the rotary inertia of a differential element of the beam is considered
non-negligible and the cross-sections are allowed to rotate relative to the centerline due to shear
deformation. The Euler-Bernoulli beam theory may be obtained as a limiting case of Timoshenko
beam theory when a particular dimensionless quantity in the forthcoming section is very small.
Fig. 2.1 Euler-Bernoulli and Timoshenko beam Deformation
MSc Thesis 6|Page

Fig. 2.2 Infinitesimal length of beam showing Bending and shear deformation
2.1.2 Shear Wall deformation:
The rigidity of a wall is usually defined as the force required causing a unit deflection. Rigidity is
expressed in KN/m. The deflection of a concrete shear wall is the sum of the shear (Fig. 2.3a) and flexural
deflections (Fig. 2.3b). In case of solid wall with no openings the computations of deflection are quite
simple. However when the shear wall has openings as for doors and windows the computations for
deflection (Fig. 2.4) and rigidity are much more complex. For this reason several short cut approximate
methods have been developed like simplified hand method.
MSc Thesis 7|Page

a Shear Deformation b Flexural Deformation

Fig. 2.3 Shear and Flexural Deformation
Fig. 2.4 Deformation shear wall with opening
MSc Thesis 8|Page

2.1.3 Shear Deformation
Structural design is based on the forces developed in the members due to the applied loads. The member
forces are developed primarily due to deformations in the structures caused by these loads. Thus it is very
important to accurately determine the deformations for the design to be adequate. Flexural and axial
deformations in structures can be determined to a high level of accuracy. Deformations in multi-story
structures are affected by shear deformations in the members. However, shear deformations in structures
are, typically, a very low percentage of the total deformation, allowing them to be neglected in most cases.
A good amount of research has been done on modeling and predicting the value of shear deformations,
but the issue is still far from being resolved. This is because the determination of shear deformation
requires the calculation of a quantity referred to as ‘Shear Area’ of the member cross section. ‘Shear Area’
is generally understood to be the effective area of the section participating in the shear deformation and
as such is a unclear value ranging from the gross cross-sectional area to the area of the web for a wide
flange section. For structures involving members having low clear span to member depth ratio, shear
deformations could be responsible for as high as 20% of the total drift (Charney, 1990). This necessitates
a better understanding of shear deformations. The traditional method of including the effects of shear
deformation is also not accurate. Consider a cantilever beam of length L. The deflection of the tip, ∆,
under a point load P including the shear deformation is given by the Equation 2.1.
𝑃𝐻3 𝑃𝐻
∆= +𝛼 (2.1)
3𝐸𝐼 𝐺𝐴
Where E is the modulus of elasticity, G is the shear modulus, I is the moment of inertia of the section
about the bending axis and A is the shear area of the section. The first term in Equation 2.1 represents the
flexural deformation and the shear deformation is denoted by the second term.
MSc Thesis 9|Page

2.2 Previous researches on shear wall deformation

In the subsequent section, a review of previous work on effect of shear deformation in shear walls with and
without opening are stated that in chronological order.
Many researchers have develop analytical (numerical method) and experimental to analyzed (mostly to
design) shear with and without opening.
A.Neuenhofer, P.E. (Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE/Nov.2006):
He investigates the accuracy of a simplified hand method for calculating the lateral stiffness of shear wall
with openings. Parametric studies are performed in which the location and size of the opening as well as
the aspect ratio of the wall varied. Overall, this paper is organized in three parts: First part brief review of
deep beam theory, Second part discusses the simplified hand procedure to account for openings in shear
walls, it also describes the special purpose finite-element procedure. Third part he perform parametric
studies of shear wall with opening using both hand procedure and finite-element analysis. Size and location
of the opening as well as the aspect ratio of the wall are varied. Results indicate that the recommended hand
method consistently underestimates the impact of the opening on the reduction of stiffness, thus producing
a lateral stiffness larger than that obtained from detailed finite-element analysis.
This study focused on the accuracy of a popular simplified hand method for calculating the lateral stiffness
of shear walls with opening by comparing the results of that procedure to those obtained from finite-element
analysis. A special-purpose finite element procedure is implemented into the scientific computing package
MATLAB in which shear wall are modeled with the conventional four-node plane stress membrane
element.
Parametric studies are carried out in which size and positions of the wall opening as well as the aspect ratio
of the wall are varied. This researcher not crate any plat form for selecting size of opening and wall for the
parametric study rather he select those parameters randomly. Results estimate the impact of the opening on
the reduction of stiffness larger than that obtained from detailed finite-element analysis.
Hisahiro Hiraishi (1983): most penetrating work on the deformation of shear wall originates from this
researchers. He prepare paper reports on an evaluation method of distribution of total deformation of a
shear wall without opening into the flexural and shear deformations using analytical and experimental (truss
model). This paper also mentioned an evaluation method of distributing the total deformation of a shear
wall into the flexural and shear deformation. Finally he has been reached the following three conclusions:
MSc Thesis 10 | P a g e
Firstly Shear deformation is overestimated, and consequently flexural deformation is underestimated if the
shear deformation is determined simply as a difference in length of two diagonals. Secondly flexural and
shear deformations are estimated with excellent accuracy by using the rotation at the storey mid height of
a shear wall. Thirdly shear deformation increases by the rotational mechanism having a rotation center at
the base of the column under compression.
Katrin Beyer, Alessandron Dazio and M. J. Nigel Priestley (March-April 2011)
This paper presented experimental data for shear deformations of slender cantilever wall by examining the
data of 34 test units available in the literature with an aspect ratio larger than two that were subjected to
quasi-static cyclic loading and to identify parameters that affect the shear deformation. Of particular interest
is the ratio of shear-to-flexural deformation when the wall is loaded in the inelastic range to consider in
structural analysis. Based on these results, shear displacements can be estimated or the effective stiffness
of beam element can be determined.
Fig. 2.5 Instrumentation of U-Shaped wall: (a) instrumentation suitable for determining
different displacement components ∆f’, ∆θand ∆s (photo); and (b) sketch of instrumentation
of one flange.
Fig. 2.6 Variation of length of shear panel diagonals: (a) for shear; (b) for flexural
deformation with constant curvature over height; and (c) with variable curvature over height
For many test series, the shear displacements of a shear panel have been evaluated using one of the
following two equations:
1
∆𝑠 = ((𝑑 + 𝛿2 )2 − (𝑑 + 𝛿1 )2 ) …… (a)
4𝑏
1
∆𝑠 = ((𝛿2 − 𝛿1 )2 …………. (b) (2.2)
2𝑏
Where b is the width of the shear panel, d is the original length of the diagonal, and δi is the change in
length of one of the two diagonals. Equation (2.2(b)) corresponds to the zero and first order terms of the
Taylor series of Eq. (2.2(a)). Hiraishi showed that a term needs to be subtracted to account for the variation
of curvature over the height of the panel.
1
∆𝑠 = ((𝑑 + 𝛿2 )2 − (𝑑 + 𝛿1 )2 ) − (∝ −0.5)𝜃(ℎ𝑠ℎ )ℎ𝑠ℎ (2.3)
4𝑏
Where θ (hsh) is the difference of rotations at the top and bottom of the panel of height hsh for which the
shear deformations are determined, and α is a measure for the variation of the curvature over the height of
the panel.
ℎ
∫0 𝑠ℎ 𝜃(𝑧)𝑑𝑧
∝= Where α vary between 0.5 and 1 (2.4)
𝜃(ℎ𝑠ℎ )ℎ𝑠ℎ
Determining Shear and flexural Deformations from Experimental Measurements
The total top displacement of a cantilever RC wall can be interpreted as the sum of three displacement
components
1. The flexural displacement ∆𝑓 , which is the sum of displacement ∆𝑓′ of the wall panel and the
displacement ∆𝜃 caused by the fixed-end-rotation of the wall associated with the strain penetration
of the longitudinal reinforcing bars into the foundation;
2. The shear deformations ∆𝑠 of the wall; and
3. The sliding displacement ∆𝑠 𝑙 along the joint between the wall and foundation. For typical wall
designs, the sliding displacements are relatively small.
Determining of Displacement Components from Experimental Measurements
Due to the presence of “cracking, plane sections not remaining plane, and the existence of a moment
gradient across the element,” as well as the fact that the subdivision of deformations of inelastic RC wall
members into shear and flexural deformations is—to some extent—artificial, the displacement
components determined from experimental measurements are only approximate values. Although they
are not exact, however, they provide a useful link between the experiments and numerical models,
particularly if beam models are used. Average curvatures can be derived from the chains of LVDTs
(Linear variable differential transformers) along the edges of the walls, and the flexural deformations
∆𝑓′ can be computed by integrating the curvatures twice. The total flexural displacement ∆𝑓′ is computed
as the sum of ∆𝑓′ plus the wall displacement due to the fixed-end rotation ∆𝜃 , which is associated with
strain penetration into the foundation. Unlike for the experimental flexural deformations, which are
mostly determined by the method described previously, and where differences between test series on RC
walls chiefly originate from different base lengths of the LVDT measurements rather than the evaluation
method, the evaluation of shear deformation is less homogenous between different research groups. For
many test series, the shear displacements of a shear panel have been evaluated using one of the following
two equations
1
∆𝑠 = ((𝑑 + 𝛿2 )2 𝑑 − (𝑑 + 𝛿1 )2 ) (2.5)
4𝑏
𝑑
∆𝑠 = (𝛿2 − 𝛿1 ) (2.6)
2𝑏
Where b is the width of the shear panel, d is the original length of the diagonal, 𝛿𝑖 is the change in length
of one of two diagonals.
Leonardo M. Massone, Kutay Orakcal, and John W. Wallace (October 12-17, 2008)
Reinforced concrete squat walls are common in low-rise construction and as wall segments formed by
window and door openings in perimeter walls. Existing approaches used to model the lateral force versus
deformation responses of walls, typically assume uncoupled axial/flexural and shear responses. A more
comprehensive modeling approach, which incorporates flexure-shear interaction, is implemented,
validated, and improved upon using test results. The experimental program consisted of reversed
cyclic lateral load testing of three-quarter scale, heavily-instrumented, wall segments dominated by
shear behavior. Model results indicate that variation in the assumed transverse normal stress or strain
distribution produces important response Variations. Use of the average experimentally recorded
transverse normal strain data, or a calibrated analytical expression for the horizontal strain, resulted in
better predictions of shear strength and lateral load-displacement behavior, as did incorporating a
rotational spring at wall ends to model extension of longitudinal rebar within the pedestals. According to
experimental evidence, flexural and shear deformation interaction exists even for relatively slender wall
with aspect ratio of three to four, with shear deformation contributing approximately 30% and 10% of the
first story and roof level lateral displacement, respectively (Massone and Wallace, 2004). There is need
for relatively simple modeling approaches which consider interaction between flexure and shear response,
and capture important response features. Although a relatively large number of wall tests are reported in
the literature, and primary focus for most of these tests is the assessment of wall shear strength and lateral
displacement response, as opposed to assessment of relative contribution of flexural, and shear
deformation to wall lateral displacements, which is necessary for validating existing and developing new
modeling approaches. Therefore, experimental studies that incorporate very detailed instrumentation
layouts are needed to allow development and verification of new modeling approaches.
An analytical model that couples wall flexural and shear responses was proposed by Massone (2006) and
Massone et al. (2006) based on framework proposed by Petrangeli et al. (1999). The model incorporates
RC panel behavior into a two-dimensional macroscopic fiber model (Multiple Vertical Line Element
Model, MVLEM (e.g., Orakcal et al., 2004), Fig. 1(a)), in order to capture the experimentally observed
shear-flexure interaction in RC walls (Massone and Wallace, 2004).
Fig. 2.7 Element Model: (a) MVLEM element and (b) Coupled Model Element
As described by massone et al. (2006), the deformation or strains within the components of each panel
element are determined from the six prescribed degrees of freedom, (ux, uy and θ at both ends of the model
element) as show in Fig. 2.7
Transverse normal strains experienced along the length of the wall are significantly reduced for low aspect
ratio walls, especially in regions close to the top and bottom of the wall due to the constraining effect of
pedestal used at the wall ends required for testing. Thus, using an assumption of zero transverse
normal strain (εx =0), as an alternative formulation, may be more appropriate than assuming zero
resultant transverse normal stress along the entire height of a wall. Comparing predictions of the two
alternative model formulations (σx =0, εx =0), studies by Massone et al. (2006) revealed that neither
model formulation is capable of correctly reproducing the experimental responses observed in walls
with low shear span-to-depth ratios (lower than 0.5).
Julian Carrillo, Sergio M. Alcocer, Giovanni GonZalez (June 28th , 2012)

Deformation analysis of structural elements is a valuable tool for researching the relationship of lateral
force versus shear sliding and flexural deformations, to assess the strength mechanism of failure mode, to
assign suitable values of lateral stiffness, to estimate the contribution of steel reinforcement to strength
and displacement capacities, to calibrate analytical models, and to propose appropriate parameters for
performance –based seismic design. An experimental and analysis study was conducted to assess the
components of deformation of low-rise reinforced concrete wall. The experimental program included
shaking table test of 6 low-rise concrete walls. The method and the instrumentation schemes to allow
accurate assessment of the three components of deformation for squat walls and walls with openings are
proposed. It was found that the proposed method produce consistent results for the test evaluation.
Fig.2.8 Proposed instrumentation Schemes: (a) Wall without opening (b) Wall with Opening
This paper aimed at developing a method for estimating web shear, flexural, and sliding components of
the deformation of low-rise RC wall under shaking table excitation, an experimental and analytical study
was carried out. Instrumentation schemes for estimating the components of deformation of wall with and
without opening are proposed. Verification of the proposed method is conducted by means of the analysis
of response measured during shaking table test of 6 RC squat walls and walls with door and window
openings. Verification includes the discussion of failure modes, the analysis of the contribution of
deformation to total story drift, and the evaluation of the dominant deformation model of each wall.
Contribution of flexural deformation:

Flexural deformations on top of a wall should be calculated from area of the rotation diagram of the
cantilever wall. The accuracy of calculating flexural deformations depends on the information available
on the shape of the rotation diagram (Fig. 2.9). If the area of actual rotation diagram were known, flexural
displacement will be accurately calculated. If only the rotation on top of the wall were available, flexural
deformations would be overestimated
Fig. 2.9 Calculation of flexural deformation: (a) Wall without opening (b) Wall with opening
If rotations are measured at least at three heights of the wall, flexural deformation is adequately estimated
[2, 4]. Based on a response measured during shaking table tests carried out in this study, it is recommended
that one calculate the rotation at three sections of low-rise concrete walls. For squat walls, the rotation of
sections should be measured using pairs of Light-Emitting Diode (LEDs) along the wall height and one
pair of Linear Displacement Transduction (LTs) placed at the wall base. Therefore, the contribution of
the flexural deformations to the total displacement should be calculated using Eqs. (2.7a) to (2.7b) [Fig.
2.15].
𝜃1 𝜃2 𝜃3 𝜃4 𝜃5
∆𝑓 = ℎ1 + (ℎ1 + ℎ2 ) + (ℎ2 + ℎ3 ) + (ℎ3 + ℎ4 ) + (ℎ4 + ℎ5 ) (2.7a)
2 2 2 2 2
(𝑣𝑒𝑖 − 𝑣𝑒 ) − (𝑣𝑤𝑖 − 𝑣𝑤 )
𝜃𝑖 = (2.7𝑏)
𝑙𝑖
𝑣𝑒5 − 𝑣𝑤5
𝜃5 = (2.8)
𝑙5
Where vei and vwi are the vertical displacements recorded by LEDs placed at the east and west side,
respectively, at wall height hi, li is the distance between these sensors and ve and vw are the vertical
displacements recorded by LEDs placed at east SV1 and west SV2 side, respectively, at the foundation
beam. In Eq. (2.9), ve5 and vw5are the lengthening or contraction recorded by Device Diagonal
Displacement (DDD) placed vertically at the east (V3) and west (V4) wall sides.
For walls with openings, the rotations of wall sections should be measured using both a pair of LEDs
placed on top of the wall and DDDs distributed vertically along the height of the wall segments. Equations
2.9 should be used for segments 1 and 2, respectively [Fig. 2.9]
𝜃1 𝜃2 𝜃3 𝜃4 𝜃5 𝜃6
∆𝑓 = ℎ1 + (ℎ1 + ℎ2 ) + (ℎ2 + ℎ3 ) + (ℎ3 + ℎ4 ) + (ℎ4 + ℎ5 ) + (ℎ5 + ℎ6 )
2 2 2 2 2 2
𝜃1 𝜃2 𝜃3 𝜃4
∆𝑓 = ℎ1 + (ℎ1 + ℎ2 ) + (ℎ2 + ℎ3 ) + (ℎ3 + ℎ4 ) (2.9)
2 2 2 2
Where θ1 is calculated using Eq.2.7b Should be calculated in a way similar to that expressed in Eq. 2.9
Contribution of shear deformations:

The diagonal deformations of each panel can obtained from the principles of materials mechanics, that is,
from changes in the length of two diagonals placed between two opposite corners of the wall. The
ℎ𝑤
following equation should be used for squat walls ( ⁄𝑙 = 1)
𝑤
Fig.2.10 Calculation of shear deformation: (a) Wall without opening (b) Wall with opening
𝛿2 𝐷2 −𝛿1 𝐷1
∆𝑐 = ϒ𝐻 = 𝐻 (2.11)
2𝑙ℎ
Where ϒ the web shear deformation, d1 and d2 is are the lengthening and construction recorded by the
DDD 1and 2, respectively; D1 and D2 are the initial length of diagonals (undamaged wall) 1 and 2,
respectively; and l and h are the length and height of the undamaged panel, respectively.
DDD records linear displacements between two points located directly on the wall web; therefore, shear
deformations are affected by DOE
Finally, this paper concludes that, Negligible measured sliding displacements during the tests
demonstrated that a load-displacement curve can be based on a model in which the total displacement is
calculated as the sum of contributions related to flexure and shear, and Shear failure mode was observed
in all walls and thus, the contribution of flexural deformation was always lower than 36%. This trend
allows for one to conclude that a flexural failure mode may be observed in RC walls where the
contribution of flexural deformation is higher than 40%. When predicting the governing failure mode, it
will be possible to design RC walls in favor of a suitable strength mechanism.
Nayera Mohamed; Ahmed Sabry farghaly; Brahim Benmokrane; and Kenneth W. Neale
(2013)
Experimental results of midrise RC shear walls under quasistatic cyclic loading were used to investigate
the interaction of flexural and shear deformations. Four large-scale shear walls—one reinforced with steel
bars and three totally reinforced with glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars—were tested to failure
where the behavior was dominated by flexure. It was found that relying on the diagonal displacement
transducers tended to overestimate shear deformations by 30 to 50%. To correct the shear deformations,
the center of rotation of the tested shear walls was evaluated. Based on experimental results, the
fundamental equation of flexural deformation obtained values of the center of rotation. Using the
suggested values of α produced consistent results for the flexure and shear deformations. Using elastic
materials (GFRP bars) gave uniform distributions of shear strains along the shear region of the GFRP-
reinforced shear walls ranging from 15 to 20% of the total deformation, resulting in less shear
deformations than those experienced in the steel-reinforced shear wall; for this yielding of the steel bars
intensified the shear strains at the yielding location, causing significant degradation in shear deformation
ranging from 2 to 20% of total deformation.
The proper characterization of shear-wall strength and deformation capacities is essential. Strength
designs must include assessing the flexural and shear strength of a wall panel. This is especially important
for earthquake-resistant design, in which the design load increases as the ductility or deformation
capability of a structure decreases. Even though this consideration is implicitly incorporated into building
codes and may not be of direct concern to the designer, such information is important for developing or
improving code provisions as well as for assessing the seismic safety of a particular design.
The present investigation, therefore, addressed the behavior of shear walls with a medium aspect ratio
(defined as wall height to length ratio (hw:lw), which is common in midrise buildings and parking garages.
A large proportion of shear walls constructed in the United States and Canada are classified as midrise
and have wall aspect ratios (hw∶lw) typically between 2 and 4 (Jiang and Kurama 2010). Therefore, in
designing the shear walls presented herein, the aim was to avoid all brittle failures that might occur and
that would cause lower deformation capacity (ductility) and thus prevent the shear walls from reaching
their strength capacity. The major objective of this study is to propose methods to calculate realistic, rather
than conventional, flexural and shear deformation in shear wall controlled by flexure based on
experimental result.
The contribution of flexural and shear deformation to the total deformation of the wall showed that, at
early loading, flexural deformation dominated the response. At higher level of lateral drift, however, the
shear deformation become relatively pronounced, although the factored shear strength is 30% higher than
the ultimate lateral capacity of the shear wall.
2.3 Summary of the Previous researches works
So far, in the most literatures reviewed including experimental evidence but some analytical studies also
incorporate for solid shear wall (wall without opening) to determine/assess the effect of shear deformation
in wall structure. Most papers or research under this idea done using experimental procedure by focused
on non-linear behaver shear wall. This experimental method include Quasi-static cyclic test, reversed
cyclic lateral test, shaking test etc those are not available in our country. Now, the focus of this thesis
work is to use simplified hand procedure (analytical method) for assessment of effect of shear deformation
in pierced shear wall with detail parametric study (that is not well done in previous works).
CHAPTER THREE
INVESTIGATION OF THE BEHAVIOUR OF SHEAR WALL DEFORMATION WITH

DIFFERENT OPENINGS SIZE
3.1 General
This study investigate the accuracy of simplified hand method recommended in several design
guidelines for practicing structural engineers for calculating the lateral deformation of shear wall with
and without openings.
3.2 Determination of Shear Wall Deformation

The lateral load capacity of shear wall is mainly dependent on the in-plane resistance rather than out-
of-plane stiffness. The distribution of lateral load to shear walls is based on the relative wall rigidities
if a rigid diaphragm supports the walls and segment of wall deflects equally. The rigidity of a shear
wall (inversely related to wall deformation) is dependent on its dimension, modulus of elasticity (E),
modulus of rigidity (G) and support condition.
3.2.1 Pier Analysis

In Wall structure, it is generally assumed that in one-storey building the walls may be considered
cantilevered and segment of the walls between adjacent openings are called piers and might be
considered fixed at top and bottom, depending on the relative rigidities of the wall versus those of
the floor diaphragms.
Cantilever Pier or wall
If the pier or wall fixed only at the bottom and top is free to translate and rotate, it is considered a
cantilevered wall. When a force [P] is applied at top of a pier, it will produce a deflection, ∆𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 which
is the sum of the deflection due to bending moment ∆𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 plus that due to shear ∆𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟
Fig. 3.1 wall pier displacement at top and cantilevering from fixed bottom and deflection of
wall due to bending and shear deformation (Amrhein, 1998)
𝑃𝐻 3 𝑃𝐻
∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = + 1.2 (3.1)
3𝐸𝐼 𝐺𝐴
Where G=0.4*E [For concrete]

𝑝 4𝐻 3 𝐻
∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 (𝑐) = ∗( + 3 ); (3.2)
𝐸𝑏 𝐿3 𝐿
Rigidity of cantilever pier:

1
𝑅𝑐 = (3.3)
∆𝑐
Fixed Pier or wall
For a wall/pier fixed at top and bottom, the deflection from a force p
∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = ∆𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 + ∆𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 (3.4)

𝑃𝐻3 𝑃𝐻
∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = + 1.2
12𝐸𝐼 𝐺𝐴
Fig. 3.2 wall pier displacement at top displacement, fixed at top and bottom of wall due to
bending, and shear deformation (Amrhein, 1998)
𝑝 𝐻3 𝐻
∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 (𝑓) = ∗( + 3 );
𝐸𝑏 𝐿3 𝐿
Rigidity of fixed pier:

1
𝑅𝑓 = (3.5)
∆𝑓
Horizontal and Vertical Combination
If the shear wall segment are combined horizontal, the combined rigidity 𝑅 = 𝑅𝑐1 + 𝑅𝑐2 + 𝑅𝑐3 , if the
segments are combined vertically, the combined rigidity 1⁄𝑅 = 1⁄𝑅𝑐1 + 1⁄𝑅𝑐2 + 1⁄𝑅𝑐3
Fig. 3.3 (a) Horizontal combination of wall segment (b) vertical combination of wall segment
(Drydale,Hamid and Baker, 1994)
3.2.2 Method for calculating the deformation of wall (one over rigidity of wall) with
opening
The following steps are required for calculating the rigidity of the wall with opening (Drydale, Hamid
and Baker, 1994)
[1] Calculate the deflection of the solid wall as a cantilever, ∆𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑(𝑐) ( for one-or two-storey
building)
[2] Calculate the cantilever deflection of an interior strip, having a height equal to that of the
highest opening, is calculated and subtracted from the solid wall deflection. This step removes
the entire portion of the wall containing all the openings (∆𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 )
[3] Calculate the deflection of all the piers as fixed within that interior strip being determined by
their own individual rigidity. ( ∆𝑝𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑠(𝑓) )
[4] Add deflections of piers to the modified wall deflection to arrive at the total deflection of the
actual wall with opening (∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 )
3.3. Introduction for Simplified Hand Method

3.3.1. Solid Rectangular Shear Wall
As per Brandow et al. 1997; Lindeburg and Baradr 2001 simplified procedure to determine
deformation of shear wall with and without opening is as follows.
For solid rectangular shear wall the thickness (t) much lesser than width of wall (L) [t<<<L]
𝐻3 𝐻
∆𝑥 = 𝑃 ∗ ( +3 );
3𝐸𝐼𝑦 𝐴𝑦 𝐸
𝐿3 𝑡
𝐼𝑦 =
12
𝑡 3𝐿
𝐼𝑥 = ≈𝑜
12
𝑃 4𝐻 3 3𝐻
∆𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 = ( + ) (3.6)
𝐸𝑡 𝐿3 𝐿
Fig. 3.4 Deflection of Cantilever shear Wall
3.3.2 Shear Wall With opening

For the case of shear wall with opening first calculates the deflection of solid cantilever wall
(∆𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 ) by ignoring all opening. Next, a strip is considered whose height is that of the tallest
opening. The strip displacement (∆𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝 ) is calculated and subtracted from that of the solid wall.
As far as the support conditions for the strip are concerned, we find conflicting information in the
literature. While Brandow et al. 1997 suggest considering the strip fixed-fixed, Lindeburg and Baradr
2001 recommend cantilever action. Thus, the displacement of solid strip was calculated using the
relation:
𝑃𝑦𝑜 3 𝑃𝐻 𝑃 𝑦𝑜 3 3𝑦0
∆𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝 = +𝛼 = ( + ) (3.7)
12𝐸𝐼 𝐺𝐴 𝐸𝑏 𝐿3 𝐿
Finally, the deformation of all piers contained in the opening are summed up assuming fixed-fixed
condition as shown in Fig3.5. The displacement of piers (∆𝑝𝑖𝑒𝑟𝑠 ) is then the reciprocal of combined
pier stiffness and is added as a correction to the difference of the gross and strip deflection. The final
displacement of the wall having openings is in Eq. (3.10). For fixed-fixed conditions, the shear
deformation is identical to that Eq. (3.6) and the flexure deformation term 𝑦𝑜 3 ⁄3𝐸𝐼 will reduced to
𝑦𝑜 3 ⁄12𝐸𝐼 (four times smaller than that for cantilever) such that:
Fig. 3.5 Wall Element Fixed at Both End

𝑃𝑦𝑜 3 𝑃𝐻
∆𝑃𝑖𝑒𝑟𝑠 = +𝛼
12𝐸𝐼 𝐺𝐴
𝑃 𝑦𝑜 3 3𝑦0
= ( 3 + ) (3.8)
𝐸𝑏 𝑥0 𝑥0
Displacement of pier-1 and pier-2, as shown in fig. 3.5 were calculate using the above equation, and
the combined displacement of piers was obtained using the following relation:
1
∆𝑝𝑖𝑒𝑟𝑠 = 1 1 (3.9)
+
∆𝑝𝑖𝑒𝑟1 ∆𝑝𝑖𝑒𝑟2
∆𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 = ∆𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 − ∆𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝 + ∆𝑝𝑖𝑒𝑟𝑠 (3.10)
3.3.3 Deep Beam Concept

For validation purpose, the shear wall is analyzed as a Deep Beam where the design lateral force is
applied only at the top wall as shown in figure below.
Deep beams are structural elements loaded as simple beams in which a significant amount of the load
is carried to the supports by a compression force combining the load and the reaction.
Fig. 3.6 Cantilever Shear Wall

The flexure term considers the wall as a vertical cantilever with moment of inertia I. The shear term
contains the shape factor α which accounts for the distribution of shear stresses across the section and
the shear area A. The material properties E and G = modulus of elasticity and shear modulus,
respectively, which are related by
𝐸 𝐸
𝐺= = (3.11)
2(1 + 𝜈) 2.4
Where 𝜈=poisson’s ratio. Using α=1.2 and I=𝑏 𝐿3 ⁄12 for rectangular wall and selected 𝜈 = 0.25 for
un-cracked section.
To study the effects of shear deformation on different size and shape of openings in shear wall with
different wall dimension using simplified hand method and verification is done using linear elastic
analysis ANSYS 10 software.
3.4 Description of Sample shear wall Model

The shear walls selected in this study used to determine the effect of shear deformation on lateral
load (action) on behavior of concrete shear wall without and with openings by changing dimension
and location of opening and by changing dimension of shear wall. Majorly, those shear wall samples
categorized in to five depend on location of opening and based on simplified hand procedure, formula
derivation for deformation presented on Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Description of Five Parameters

Cases Description Formula Derivation
∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = ∆𝐹𝑙𝑒𝑥 + ∆𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑃𝐻3 𝑃𝐻
= +𝛼 ,
3𝐸𝐼 𝐺𝐴
1 𝐻
∆𝐹𝑙𝑒𝑥 = [4( )3
𝐸𝑡 𝐿
1 𝐻
Solid Shear ∆𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 = [3 ( )]
I 𝐸𝑡 𝐿
wall

∆𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 = ∆ 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑− ∆𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝐴(𝑐) + ∆2,3,(𝑓)
𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙(𝑐)
𝑝 4𝐻 3 𝐻
∆𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 (𝑐) = ∗( + 3 );
𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝐸𝑏 𝐿3 𝐿
𝑝 ℎ ℎ
∆𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝐴 (𝑓) = ∗ [( 𝑜)3
+3( 𝑜)];
Shear Wall 𝐸𝑏 𝐿 𝐿
1 1 1
with Center ∆2,3 (𝑓) = =
1 1
=
1
𝑅2𝑓 + 𝑅3𝑓 + 2∗
II a Window and ∆2𝑓 ∆3𝑓 ∆2𝑓
Door Type of Where ∆2,3𝑓 = ∆2𝑓 = ∆3𝑓
Opening 𝑝 ℎ𝑜 3 ℎ0 (𝐿 − 𝑙 )
∆2𝑓 = ∗ ( 3 + 3 ) , 𝐿1 = 𝑜 ⁄
𝐸𝑏 𝐿1 𝐿1 2
1 𝐻 ℎ𝑜 3 ℎ𝑜
∆𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 = [3 ( ) − 3 ( ) + ( )]
𝐸𝑡 𝐿 𝐿 2 ((𝐿 − 𝑙𝑜 )⁄ )
2

∆𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 = ∆ 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 − ∆𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝐴(𝑐) + ∆2,3,(𝑓)
𝑝 4𝐻 3 𝐻
∆𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 (𝑐) = ∗( + 3 );
𝑝 ℎ 3 ℎ
∆𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝐴 (𝑐) = ∗ [4 ( ) + 3( 𝑜)]; 𝑜
𝐸𝑏 𝐿 𝐿
1 1 1
∆2,3 (𝑓) = = =
𝑅2𝑓 + 𝑅3𝑓 1 1 1
b +
∆2𝑓 ∆3𝑓
2∗
∆2𝑓
Where ∆2,3𝑓 = ∆2𝑓 = ∆3𝑓
𝑝 ℎ𝑜 3 ℎ0 (𝐿 − 𝑙𝑜 )⁄
∆2𝑓 = ∗ ( 3 + 3 ) , 𝐿1 = 2
𝐸𝑏 𝐿1 𝐿1
1 𝐻 ℎ𝑜 3 ℎ𝑜
∆𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 = [3 ( ) − 3 ( ) + ( )]
𝐸𝑡 𝐿 𝐿 2 ((𝐿 − 𝑙𝑜 )⁄ )
2

∆𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 = ∆ 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 − ∆𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝐴(𝑐) + ∆2,3,(𝑓)
𝑝 4𝐻 3 𝐻
∆𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 (𝑐) = ∗( + 3 );
𝑝 ℎ𝑜 3 ℎ𝑜
∆𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝐴 (𝑓) = ∗ [( ) +3( )];
𝐸𝑏 𝐿 𝐿
𝑅2,3(𝑓) = 𝑅2(𝑓) + 𝑅3(𝑓)
1
a ∆2,3 (𝑓) =
𝑅2𝑓 + 𝑅3𝑓
𝐸𝑡
𝑅2𝑓 =
ℎ ℎ
[( 𝑜 )3 + 3 ( 𝑜 )]
𝑡 𝑡
Shear Wall 𝐸𝑡
with Window 𝑅3𝑓 =
ℎ ℎ𝑝
and Door [( 0 )3 + 3 ( )]
𝐿1 𝐿1
Type of Where 𝐿1 = 𝐿 − 𝑙𝑜 − 𝑡
III ∆𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = ∆𝐹𝑙𝑒𝑥 + ∆𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟
Asymmetric
Opening[ ∆𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 = ∆ 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 − ∆𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝐴(𝑐) + ∆2,3,(𝑓)
Eccentric to 𝑝 4𝐻 3 𝐻
∆𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 (𝑐) = ∗( + 3 );
Left ] 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝐸𝑏 𝐿3 𝐿
𝑝 ℎ𝑜 3 ℎ𝑜
∆𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝐴 (𝑐) = ∗ [4 ( ) + 3( )];
𝐸𝑏 𝐿 𝐿
𝑅2,3(𝑓) = 𝑅2(𝑓) + 𝑅3(𝑓)
1
b ∆2,3 (𝑓) =
𝑅2𝑓 + 𝑅3𝑓
𝐸𝑡
𝑅2𝑓 =
ℎ ℎ
[( 𝑜 )3 + 3 ( 𝑜 )]
𝑡 𝑡
𝐸𝑡
𝑅3𝑓 =
ℎ ℎ𝑝
[( 0 )3 + 3 ( )]
𝐿1 𝐿1
Where 𝐿1 = 𝐿 − 𝑙𝑜 − 𝑡

Same as Typology IIIa
Shear Wall
with Window
and Door
Type of
IV Same as Typology IIIa
Asymmetric
Opening[
Eccentric to
Right ]
Same as Typology IIa

Shear Wall
with Window
Type of
IV
Opening[ Top
and bottom
opening ]
3.4.1 Analysis of Effect of Location of Opening in Shear Wall

Window and Door type in typology from II to VI has the same total wall deformation according to
simplified hand method. In this section, validation are carry out for the significance of location of
opening in shear wall using ANSYS 10 SHELL181 element type.
Table 3.2 Verification Analysis using ANSYS
Total
Typology ANSYS Result Error
Deformation(m)
IIa 0.906e-6
IIIa 0.89e-6 1.8%
Total
Typology ANSYS Result Error
Deformation(m)
IVa 0.895e-6 1.2%
0.893e-6 1.4%
0.894e-6 1.3%
Based on the above verification, deformation for center type of opening and other type the location
of opening not significantly defer. As result, probabilistic assessment of shear deformation for
typology I –solid shear wall and typology from II-VI as centered window and door type of opening
is undertake by generating systematic random sampling using LHS method.
3.5 Sampling Method
The combinations are generated using Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) Method. LHS is a sampling
method designed to accurately recreate the input distribution through sampling in fewer trails when
compared with the Monte Carlo method in which the distribution of each random variable is assumed
normal. In the LHS sampling method, the cumulative distribution function of each factor is divided
into intervals with equal probability, and then sampling is done by only once from each interval. [11]
LHS is sampling method designed to accurately recreate the input distribution through sampling in
fewer trial when compared with the Monte Carol Method, which is need thousands trial.
LHS, a sampling technique used, forces the samples drawn to correspond more closely with the input
distribution and thus converges faster on the true statistics of the input distribution [2].
Typology-I: Shear wall Without Opening
In this case, the 32 combinations of random variables of LHS table are found to be sufficient and
considered in the determination of deformation. The statistical variations and the 32x3 layers of
random variables are shown in Table 3.6
Table 3.3 Statistical Variations of Random Variables for SW without Opening
Min. Max. Mean Standard
Input variables Unit
Value Value Values deviation
Height of Shear Wall (H) m 2.4 5 3.7 0.787
Width of Shear wall (L) m 3 7.5 5.25 1.362
Shear wall thickness (t) m 0.15 0.6 0.375 0.136
Typology-II-V: Shear wall With Center Opening
In this typology, also 32 combinations of random variables of LHS table are found to be sufficient
and considered in the determination of deformation. The statistical variations and the 32x5 layers of
random variables are categorized in to two (window and door type of opening) shown in Table 3.6.
Table 3.4 Statistical Variations of Random Variables for SW with Window Type of Opening
Vertical Dimension of Opening (ho) m 0.7 3.8 2.25 0.938
Horizontal Dimension of Opening(lo) m 0.7 6.3 3.5 1.695
Table 3.5. Statistical Variations of Random Variables for SW with Door Type of Opening
Vertical Dimension of Opening (ho) m 2 4.4 2.9 0.545
Horizontal Dimension of Opening(lo) m 0.7 6.3 4.1 1.695
Table 3.6 32X5 LHS Combination of random variable for shear wall with and without opening
Window Type of Opening Door Type of Opening Without Opening
Cases H L ho lo t H L ho lo t H L t
Case-1 4.40 4.30 1.20 1.40 0.30 4.40 4.30 2.40 1.40 0.30 4.40 4.30 0.20
Case-2 3.00 6.10 0.90 3.80 0.50 3.00 6.10 2.20 3.80 0.50 3.00 6.10 0.20
Case-3 3.00 6.50 0.70 5.90 0.50 3.00 6.50 2.00 5.90 0.50 3.00 6.50 0.10
Case-4 3.90 6.90 3.10 2.10 0.40 3.90 6.90 3.90 2.10 0.45 3.90 6.90 0.50
Case-5 2.90 4.00 2.00 2.30 0.20 2.90 4.00 3.00 2.30 0.20 2.90 4.00 0.30
Case-6 4.20 5.20 1.60 3.70 0.20 4.20 5.20 2.70 3.70 0.20 4.20 5.20 0.30
Case-7 3.80 3.80 2.80 5.10 0.30 3.80 3.80 3.60 5.10 0.30 3.80 3.80 0.40
Case-8 2.70 5.00 2.60 4.60 0.30 2.70 5.00 3.50 4.60 0.30 2.70 5.00 0.40
Case-9 3.20 5.50 2.30 4.70 0.30 3.20 5.50 3.20 4.70 0.30 3.20 5.50 0.40
Case-10 4.30 8.20 2.10 2.70 0.10 4.30 8.20 3.10 2.70 0.10 4.30 8.20 0.40
Case-11 3.40 4.10 0.20 1.10 0.40 3.40 4.10 1.60 1.10 0.40 3.40 4.10 0.10
Case-12 3.60 4.90 2.10 2.40 0.30 3.60 4.90 3.10 2.40 0.30 3.60 4.90 0.30
Case-13 3.70 7.50 3.80 5.60 0.70 3.70 7.50 4.40 5.60 0.70 3.70 7.50 0.60
Case-14 5.40 5.10 3.60 0.70 0.60 5.40 5.10 4.20 0.70 0.60 5.40 5.10 0.60
Case-15 2.00 6.70 1.80 3.30 0.60 2.00 6.70 2.90 3.30 0.60 2.00 6.70 0.30
Case-16 4.00 4.50 2.40 1.70 0.40 4.00 4.50 3.30 1.70 0.40 4.00 4.50 0.40
Case-17 4.50 5.60 1.10 3.40 0.40 4.50 5.60 2.30 3.40 0.40 4.50 5.60 0.20
Case-18 3.10 5.30 1.70 3.60 0.30 3.10 5.30 2.80 3.60 0.30 3.10 5.30 0.30
Case-19 2.40 3.30 1.50 2.30 0.40 2.40 3.30 2.60 4.30 0.40 2.40 3.30 0.30
Case-20 3.30 6.20 2.70 7.20 0.50 3.30 6.20 3.50 7.20 0.50 3.30 6.20 0.40
Case-21 3.90 5.70 2.90 -0.15 0.40 3.90 5.70 3.70 -0.20 0.40 3.90 5.70 0.50
Case-22 4.10 4.40 1.40 4.40 0.40 4.10 4.40 2.50 4.40 0.40 4.10 4.40 0.20
Case-23 3.48 5.41 3.03 4.10 0.40 3.50 5.40 3.80 4.10 0.40 3.50 5.40 0.50
Case-24 3.70 5.90 2.40 2.60 0.30 3.70 5.90 3.30 2.60 0.30 3.70 5.90 0.40
Case-25 2.60 3.00 3.40 2.90 0.50 2.60 3.00 4.10 2.90 0.50 2.60 3.00 0.50
Case-26 3.50 4.80 3.30 1.90 0.40 3.50 4.80 4.00 1.90 0.40 4.40 6.00 0.30
Case-27 4.40 6.00 1.90 5.30 0.30 4.40 6.00 2.90 5.30 0.30 4.70 6.40 0.50
Case-28 4.70 6.40 2.80 4.00 0.20 4.70 6.40 3.70 4.00 0.20 4.80 3.60 0.40
Case-29 4.80 3.60 2.20 4.90 0.10 4.80 3.60 3.20 4.90 0.10 5.00 7.20 0.70
Case-30 5.00 7.20 4.30 3.00 0.50 5.00 7.20 4.80 3.00 0.50 4.10 4.60 0.30
Case-31 4.10 4.60 1.70 6.30 0.20 4.10 4.60 2.70 6.30 0.20 3.30 2.30 0.40
Case-32 3.30 2.30 2.50 3.20 0.50 3.30 2.30 3.40 3.20 0.50 3.50 4.80 0.50
For the different combinations considered, the shear deformation of the wall is computed using
simplified hand method. The corresponding 32 cases outputs are also given in Table 3.7.
Scaling Factor of the Output Parameter Deformation of Shear wall

The range of input wall deformation parameters for the model varied by taking in to
consideration some essential points which will be helpful on the parametric study on shear
deformation of a concrete shear wall.
Maximum size Openings are allowed beyond the ends of the perforated shear wall, but should not be
included in the width of perforated shear wall, for the minimum opening size sates from practical point
of view (minimum window and door size). For the case of wall height, minimum and maximum values
are set from the building having mezzanine floor. Thickness of wall varied from minimum (code
provision) to maximum value depend on height of the building. To investigate the effect of wall length,
it ranges from minimum value that satisfies code provision intended for minimum length of wall for
resistance lateral action to maximum span length of ordinary building.
In general, the above minimum and maximum values are stuffs from practical point of view and
minimum and maximum requirement on deferent codes.
3.6 Deformation Analysis
Here the deformation of shear wall with and without opening using simplified hand method is
presented. Thirty-two isolated shear wall are analyzed with three category having five variables.
Results for each three category are presented below in tabular and graphical forms according to their
category. Detail analysis results are annexed.
Table 3.7 Simplified Hand Method results for 32x5 LHS Combination of random variables for three
type of shear wall.
Window Type of Opening Door Type of Opening SW Without Opening

%
Cases ∆Shear ∆Flxural % opening AR Status ∆Shear ∆Flxural opening AR Status ∆Shear ∆Flxural AR Status
Case-1 0.000346 0.000549 9.45 1.02 C 0.000387 0.000602 18.44 1.02 C 0.000462 0.000643 1.02 C
Case-2 0.000144 0.000109 18.98 0.50 C 0.000210 0.000203 44.77 0.50 C 0.000283 0.000094 0.50 C
Case-3 0.000300 0.000252 20.71 0.45 C 0.000692 0.000678 60.59 0.45 C 0.000318 0.000087 0.45 C
Case-4 0.000179 0.000201 24.59 0.56 C 0.000190 0.000190 30.47 0.56 C 0.000114 0.000047 0.56 C
Case-5 0.000632 0.000740 40.02 0.72 C 0.000789 0.000769 60.31 0.72 C 0.000221 0.000153 0.72 C
Case-6 0.000774 0.000867 26.67 0.81 C 0.001038 0.001151 45.40 0.81 C 0.000302 0.000262 0.81 C
Case-7 -0.000594 -0.000284 97.87 1.00 NC -0.000875 -0.000825 127.65 1.00 NC 0.000232 0.000311 1.00 C
Case-8 0.001963 0.002009 86.73 0.55 C 0.002568 0.002542 116.01 0.55 NC 0.000134 0.000054 0.55 C
Case-9 0.000939 0.000961 61.09 0.58 C 0.001252 0.001252 86.24 0.58 C 0.000158 0.000071 0.58 C
Case-10 0.000460 0.000406 16.81 0.52 C 0.000505 0.000487 24.47 0.52 C 0.000150 0.000055 0.52 C
Case-11 0.000245 0.000241 1.79 0.83 C 0.000281 0.000351 12.75 0.83 C 0.001046 0.000959 0.83 C
Case-12 0.000436 0.000511 28.66 0.74 C 0.000513 0.000550 42.42 0.74 C 0.000220 0.000161 0.74 C
Case-13 0.000301 0.000321 77.23 0.49 C 0.000335 0.000333 89.24 0.49 C 0.000084 0.000026 0.49 C
Case-14 0.000212 0.000415 8.60 1.06 C 0.000215 0.000323 10.15 1.06 C 0.000193 0.000289 1.06 C
Case-15 0.000096 0.000097 44.91 0.30 C 0.000122 0.000132 70.50 0.30 C 0.000098 0.000012 0.30 C
Case-16 0.000314 0.000447 21.92 0.88 C 0.000346 0.000411 30.52 0.88 C 0.000233 0.000241 0.88 C
Case-17 0.000272 0.000293 14.71 0.81 C 0.000354 0.000406 30.95 0.81 C 0.000402 0.000350 0.81 C
Case-18 0.000452 0.000453 37.59 0.59 C 0.000600 0.000605 60.44 0.59 C 0.000202 0.000094 0.59 C
Case-19 -0.000300 -0.000256 79.19 0.72 NC -0.000656 -0.000675 139.82 0.72 NC 0.000283 0.000194 0.72 C
Case-20 -0.000632 -0.000616 91.30 0.54 NC -0.000872 -0.000874 120.59 0.54 NC 0.000128 0.000049 0.54 C
Case-21 0.000187 0.000245 -1.96 0.68 NC 0.000186 0.000194 -2.50 0.68 C 0.000149 0.000093 0.68 C
Case-22 -0.050833 -0.050725 33.68 0.92 NC -0.093962 -0.093848 62.13 0.92 NC 0.000387 0.000438 0.92 C
Case-23 0.000605 0.000658 66.10 0.64 C 0.000718 0.000706 82.99 0.64 C 0.000136 0.000075 0.64 C
Case-24 0.000382 0.000421 28.93 0.64 C 0.000432 0.000444 39.72 0.64 C 0.000164 0.000089 0.64 C
Case-25 0.008624 0.008754 128.26 0.87 NC 0.010325 0.009907 154.23 0.87 NC 0.000166 0.000168 0.87 C
Case-26 0.000326 0.000430 36.63 0.74 C 0.000353 0.000316 44.73 0.74 C 0.000148 0.000109 0.74 C
Case-27 0.001151 0.001190 38.34 0.74 C 0.001634 0.001681 58.92 0.74 C 0.000236 0.000174 0.74 C
Case-28 0.000831 0.000948 37.82 0.73 C 0.000955 0.001019 48.72 0.73 C 0.000164 0.000117 0.73 C
Case-29 -0.001176 0.001916 63.09 1.35 NC -0.002450 -0.000065 90.41 1.35 NC 0.000377 0.000912 1.35 C
Case-30 0.000233 0.000290 35.89 0.70 C 0.000243 0.000249 40.04 0.70 C 0.000108 0.000071 0.70 C
Case-31 -0.000189 -0.000027 55.11 0.89 NC -0.000556 -0.000405 90.99 0.89 NC 0.000317 0.000332 0.89 C
Case-32 -0.000573 0.000089 104.60 1.42 NC -0.000886 -0.000969 141.73 1.42 NC 0.000355 0.000949 1.42 C
C- Calculated
NC-Not calculated/ Not applicable
The probabilistic distribution and the influence of random variables on the statistical variation of the
estimated shear deformation of shear wall is investigated. To consider the probabilistic distribution of
random variables on the deformation of shear wall with and without opening, the concept of
normal distribution is used.
The probability function, f(x), using normal distribution [12] is given in Eq. (3.12). The probabilistic
distribution of the deformation of the wall and its cumulative percentage are shown in Fig. 3.7, 3.8 &
3.9. Those Figures describes that for a given range of interval 95% data falls within two standard
deviation of mean.
1 2 ⁄2𝜎 2
𝑓 (𝑥 ) = 𝑒 −(𝑥−𝜇) (3.12)
𝜎√2𝜋
Where, x: random variable
𝜇: Mean value
𝜎: Standard deviation
1 0.035
0.03
Cumulative Percent X100%
0.8
Probability Density
0.025
0.6
0.02
0.015
0.4
0.01
0.2
0.005
0 0 Cumullative Percent
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Ratio of Shear Deformation probability Density
Fig. 3.7 Probability Distribution of Ratio of shear Deformation for Shear wall without Opening
Table 3.8 Confidence Interval for shear wall with without opening
Random Mean value Standard Coefficient of Variation
Variables deviation
Ratio of Shear 58.747 14.079 23.96%
Deformation
1 0.08
0.07
0.8
0.06
Probability Density
0.6
0.05
0.04
0.4
0.03
0.02
0.2
C
0.01
0 0 Cumulative Percent %
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Probability Density
Ratio of Shear Deformation
Fig. 3.8 Probability Distribution of Ratio of shear Deformation for Shear wall with Window type
Opening
Table 3.9 Confidence Interval for shear wall with window type of opening
Variables deviation
Ratio of Shear 48.416 5.968 12.33%
Deformation
1 0.35
0.3
0.8
Probability Density
0.25
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.15
0.1
0.2
0.05
0 0 Cumullative Percent
46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
probability Density
Ratio of Shear Deformation
Fig. 3.9 Probability Distribution of Ratio of shear Deformation for Shear wall with Door type Opening
Table 3.10 Confidence Interval for shear wall with door type of opening
Variables deviation
Ratio of Shear 49.827 1.366 2.8%
Deformation
Detail graphical presentation on simplified hand procedure analysis for those systematically
selected shear wall with and without opening are annexed.
3.7 Validation of Simplified Hand Method on Shear Wall Deformation

In this section, first sample shear wall with combination of window and door type opening problem is
solved both in numerically and Analysis System (ANSYS) software (Using shell element SHELL 181).
The main verification parameter for this comparison is shear deformation.
3.7.1 Illustrative Example [Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures by Pankaj Agarwal and
Manish shrikhande]
Example:
Determine the deformation [Shear and Flexural deformation] of the shear wall?
Given: P=1kN, L=10m, H=4.8m, B=30cm

Material Data: Concrete C25 E=29GPa,
Required: Shear wall Deformation
Solution I: Using Simplified Hand Method
∆𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 = ∆𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙(𝑐) − ∆𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝐴(𝑐) + ∆2,3,4,5,6,7(𝑓)

1 ℎ 3 ℎ
∆𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑(𝑐) = [4 ( ) + 3 ( )]=1.882⁄𝐸𝑡_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _where: h=4.8 & l=10
𝐸𝑡 𝑙 𝑙
1 ℎ 3 ℎ
∆𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 𝐴(𝑐) = [4 ( ) + 3 ( )]= 1.266⁄𝐸𝑡_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _where: h=3.6 & l=10
𝐸𝑡 𝑙 𝑙
1
∆2,3,4,5,6,7 =
𝑅2,3,4,5,6,7
𝑅2,3,4,5,6,7 = 𝑅2(𝑓) + 𝑅3,4,5,6(𝑓) + 𝑅7(𝑓)
1
𝑅3,4,5,6 =
∆3,4,5,6(𝑓)
∆3,4,5,6(𝑓) = ∆𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 3,4,5,6(𝑓) − ∆𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝐵(𝑓) + ∆3,4,5(𝑓)
1
∆3,4,5(𝑓) =
𝑅3(𝑓) + 𝑅4(𝑓) + 𝑅5(𝑓)
𝐸𝑡
𝑅3(𝑓) = 𝑅4(𝑓) = 𝑅5(𝑓) = ℎ 3 ℎ
=0.187Et_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _where: h=1.2 & l=1
[( 𝑙 ) +3∗( 𝑙 )]
1
∆3,4,5(𝑓) = = 1.782⁄𝐸𝑡
3 ∗ 0.187𝐸𝑡
1 ℎ ℎ
∆𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 3,4,5,6(𝑓) = [( )3 + 3 ∗ ( )] = 2.3⁄𝐸𝑡 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ where: h=3.6 & l=5.4
𝐸𝑡 𝑙 𝑙
1 ℎ 3 ℎ
∆𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝐵(𝑓) = [( ) + 3 ∗ ( )] = 0.67⁄𝐸𝑡
𝐸𝑡 𝑙 𝑙
∆3,4,5,6(𝑓) = (2.3 − 0.677 + 1.782)/𝐸𝑡=3.422/Et

1
𝑅3,4,5,6 = = 0.292𝐸𝑡
3.422⁄𝐸𝑡
𝐸𝑡
𝑅2(𝑓) = ℎ 3 ℎ
= 0.017𝐸𝑡_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ where: h=3.6 & l=1
[( 𝑙 ) +3∗( 𝑙 )]
𝐸𝑡
𝑅7(𝑓) = ℎ 3 ℎ
= 0.028𝐸𝑡_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ where: h=3.6 & l=1.2
[( ) +3∗( )]
𝑙 𝑙
𝑅2,3,4,5,6,7 = 0.017𝐸𝑡 + 0.292𝐸𝑡 + 0.028𝐸𝑡 = 0.337𝐸𝑡

1
∆2,3,4,5,6,7 = = 2.967⁄𝐸𝑡
0.337𝐸𝑡
∆𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 = 1.882⁄𝐸𝑡 − 1.266⁄𝐸𝑡 + 2.967⁄𝐸𝑡 = 3.583⁄𝐸𝑡 = 0.412 ∗ 10−6 𝑚
Solution II: Using ANSYS 10 using SHELL181 element type
∆𝐴𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑠 = 0.499𝑒 − 6𝑚
∆𝑨𝒏𝒔𝒚𝒔 (𝑿𝟏𝟎−𝟔 𝒎) ∆𝑯𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒅 Error (%)
With wide mesh

(𝑿𝟏𝟎−𝟔 𝒎)
0.499 0.412 21
Under the above section, the result obtained from analysis of the shear wall with different type of
opening on ANSYS and Simplified hand method were numerically computed. As a result, shear
deformation analysis for shear with and without opening using simplified hand method would
approximate with satisfactory precision as compare to ANSYS result with wide meshing. In spite of
the fact that, for fine mesh ANSYS result simplified hand method underestimate shear deformation of
wall.
CHAPTER FOUR
PARAMETRIC STUDY
4.1 Introduction
A Parametric study allows to investigate the effect of different random variables and their
combinations of selected processing parameter values on part quality. The range of variables will
depend on the modelling process being used. In this study, to identify the effect of parameters
affecting the deformation of shear wall, thirty-two different combinations are considered and
sensitivity analysis of random variables has been investigated.
One of the advantage of regression analysis model is that parametric study can be carried out to
evaluate the effect of all the influencing input parameters on the shear deformation of a Shear wall.
The parametric study can easily be done by systematic randomly varying input parameters and
analyzing the input parameters using simplified hand method to get an output of shear deformation.
The error metric can also be easily evaluated using the statistical data analysis. [9]
4.2 Statistical Data Analysis

4.2.1 The XLSTAT Approach
The XLSTAT interface totally depend on Microsoft Excel, either for inputting the data or for
displaying the results. The computations are completely independent of excel and the corresponding
program relies to Visual Basic application for the interface and have been developed with the C++
programming language for the mathematical and statistical computations.
4.2.2 Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity Analysis (SA) is defined as “a method to determine the robustness of an assessment
by examining the extent to which results are affected by changes in methods, models, values of
unmeasured variables, or assumptions” with the aim of identifying “results that are most dependent
on questionable or unsupported assumptions” [4]. The sensitivity factor αi is a kind of an index to
estimate the contribution of the uncertainty of xi to the uncertainty of the function [4.5]. Since the
objective function f is given, the effects of random variables can be determined as follows:
𝜕𝑦 𝑥̅ 𝑖
𝛼𝑖 = ∗ (i=1, 2,3.. …n) (4.1)
𝜕𝑥 𝑓̅
𝑈𝑖 = 𝛼𝑖 (𝐶𝑂𝑉)𝑖 (i = 1, 2,3. . … n) (4.2)

Where, αi: sensitivity factor of random variable i
Ui: uncertainty of random variable i
f: function with statistical variations
𝑓 ̅ : mean of f
xi : random variable i
𝑥̅𝑖 : mean of xi
COVi: Coefficient of variation of random variable i
The general model for the shear deformation of shear wall, f (∆shear), given Eq.5.1 is derived using
simplified hand analysis. Based on this, the uncertainty of random variables for the shear deformation
of shear walls are calculated and plotted in figure 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.
4.2.2.1 Uncertainty of Input Variable on Wall Deformation

4.2.2.1.1 Window Type Opening
The statistical data analysis using sensitivity analysis gives the most significant variable from the entire
uncertain input variable. The evaluation showed that height of wall (H), height of opening (ho) and
length of opening (lo) are most significant parameter from all the uncertain input data analyzed with
uncertainty coefficient ratio of -0.156,0.254 and -0.141 respectively. The remaining uncertain input
parameters have an uncertainty coefficient ratio of 0.101 for length of shear wall (L) and -0.012 for
thickness of wall (t).For such type of opening, height of wall, length of opening and thickness of wall
has inverse relationship with shear deformation of shear wall.
As the height of opening and length of wall increases, shear deformation increases linearly. However,
the increasing rate for shear deformation due to height of opening is high. On the hand, as the height
of wall and length of opening increase, shear deformation decreases linearly. Thickness of wall less
significant parameter for determination of shear deformation.
Shear Deformation ∆_𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 (mm)/ Standardized coefficients

(95% confidence interval)
0.8
0.6
Standardized coefficients
0.4
ho
0.2 L
0
t
-0.2 lo
H
-0.4
-0.6
Variable
Fig. 4.1 Uncertainty of random Variable for window type of opening

4.2.2.1.2 Door Type Opening
For shear wall with door type of opening, evaluation showed that height of wall (H) is most significant
parameter from all the uncertain input data analyzed with uncertainty coefficient ratio of -0.140. The
remaining uncertain input parameters have an uncertainty coefficient ration of 0.242 for height of
opening (ho), 0.110 for length of shear wall (L), -0.132 for length of opening (lo) and -0.028 for
thickness of wall (t). For such type of shear wall height of wall, length of wall and length of opening
has inverse relationship with shear deformation of shear wall.
As the height of opening and length of wall increases, shear deformation increases linearly. However,
the increasing rate for shear deformation due to height of opening is high. On the hand, as the height
of wall and length of opening increase, shear deformation decreases linearly. Thickness of wall less
significant parameter for determination of shear deformation.

0.8
0.6
0.4
ho
0.2 L
0
t
-0.2 H lo
-0.4
-0.6
Variable
Fig. 4.2 Uncertainty of random Variable for door type of opening

4.2.2.1.3 Solid Shear Wall (without opening)
For such type of wall, evaluation showed that thickness wall (t) is most significant parameter
from all the uncertain input data analyzed with uncertainty coefficient ratio of -0.620. The
remaining uncertain input parameters have an uncertainty coefficient ratio of -0.062 for height
of wall (H) and -0.375 for length wall (L).For solid shear wall, height of wall, length wall has
inverse relationship with shear deformation of shear wall.
As the height wall increases, shear deformation increases linearly. On the hand, as the length and
thickness of wall increase, shear deformation decreases linearly. However, the decreasing rate for shear
deformation due to thickness of wall is high.

0.6
0.4
0.2 H
0
-0.2
-0.4
L
-0.6
t
-0.8
-1
-1.2
Variable
Fig. 4.3 Uncertainty of random Variable for solid wall type (without opening)
4.2.3 Variable Importance in The Project VIP

The variable importance in the project (VIP) was modeled using partial least square analysis XLSTAT,
2017 program and the results shown in the Table 4.4, 4.5 and 4.5. Variable who lied inside the border
line between 0.8 ≤ VIP ≤ 1 indicated the variable are moderately influential while who lied above one
(VIP ≥1) indicated the variable are highly influential.
4.2.3.1 Window type of opening
For window type of opening, the measure important parameter that affect the shear deformation of
shear wall are height of shear wall (H) with an importance of 1.011, length of shear wall (L) with an
importance of 0.653, height of opening (ho) with 1.648, length of opening (lo) with importance of 0.911,
and thickness of wall (t) with importance of 0.077.
Table 4.1: Relative Importance of Input Parameter for the Model: for window type of opening
Variable VIP Standard
deviation
ho
1.648 0.496
H
1.011 0.559
lo
0.911 0.345
L
0.653 0.595
t
0.077 0.726
Variable Importance in the Project (VIPs)

(1 Component / 95% confidence interval
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
VIP
0.5
0
-0.5 ho H lo L t
-1
-1.5
-2
Variable
Fig. 4.4 Variable Importance of Window Type of Opening
Figure 4.7 explains height of opening (ho) and height of wall (H) are highly influential parameters on
shear deformation of shear wall. The remaining input parameters length of wall, length of opening and
thickness of wall are moderately influential on shear deformation of shear wall.
4.2.3.2 Door type of opening

For door type of opening the measure important parameter that affect the shear deformation of shear
wall are height of shear wall (H) with an importance of 0.949, length of shear wall (L) with an
importance of 0.748, height of opening (ho) with 1.641, length of opening (lo) with importance of 0.899,
and thickness of wall (t) with importance of 0.193.
Table 4.2: Relative Importance of Input Parameter for the Model: for door type of opening
deviation
ho 1.641 0.545
H 0.949 0.605
lo 0.899 0.442
L 0.748 0.529
t 0.193 0.478

(1 Component / 95% confidence interval)
3
2.5
1.5
VIP
0.5
-0.5 ho H lo L t
-1
Variable
Fig. 4.5 Variable Importance of Door Type of Opening
The above type of opening explains, height of opening (ho) and height of wall (H) are highly influential
parameters on shear deformation of shear wall. The remaining input parameters length of wall, length
of opening and thickness of wall are moderately influential on shear deformation of shear wall.
4.2.3.3 Solid Shear Wall (without opening)
Such type of shear walls the measure important parameter that affect the shear deformation of shear
wall are height of shear wall (H) with an importance of 0.147, length of shear wall (L) with an
importance of 0.894 and thickness of wall (t) with importance of 1.476.
Table 4.3: Relative Importance of Input Parameter for Solid Shear Wall without opening
deviation
t 1.476 0.185
L 0.894 0.218
H 0.147 0.364

(1 Component / 95% confidence interval)
2
1.5
1
VIP
0.5
0
t L H
-0.5
-1
Variable
Fig. 4.6 Variable Importance of Solid Shear Wall Type (without opening)
The above type of shear wall, thickness of the wall (t) are highly influential parameters on shear
deformation of shear wall. The remaining input parameters height and length of wall are moderately
influential on shear deformation of shear wall.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter the findings are summarized and discussion on those results are made in simplified hand
procedure
a) The equation is formulates in terms of modules of elasticity, height of wall, opening, length of wall,
and opening, and thickness of wall using simplified hand procedure for shear wall with window and
door type of opening.
1 𝐻 ℎ 3 ℎ
∆𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 = [3 ( ) − 3 ( 𝑜 ) + (((𝐿−𝑙𝑜𝑜 ) )] (5.1)
𝐸𝑡 𝐿 𝐿 2 ⁄2)
Where, H and L: Height and Length of wall in m
Ho and lo : Height and Length of Opening in m
t: thickness of wall in m
E: Modules of elasticity in GPa
∆𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 : Shear deformation in m.
 As rate of change of percentage of opening increasing by 60% and with increasing aspect ratio,
ratio of shear deformation will decrease by 5% for shear wall with window type of opening.
However, for shear wall with door type of opening, rate of change of opening increases by
51% when ratio of shear deformation decrease by 0.2%.
 On other hand, as rate of change of percentage of opening decreased by 58% with increase
aspect ratio, ratio of shear deformation increased by 9% for shear wall with window type of
opening. However, for shear wall with door type of opening rate of change of opening
decreased by 33% with increased aspect ratio, ratio of shear deformation increase by 1% .
 If thickness of wall decreases by 40% with same rate change of aspect ratio, ratio of shear
deformation will decrease by 4% for window type of opening. However, for shear wall with
door type of opening thickness of wall decreased by 27%, as ratio of shear deformation
increases by 1%
 If thickness of wall increases by 18% with same increasing rate of aspect ratio, ratio of shear
deformation decreases by 3.5% for window type of opening. However, for shear wall with
door type of opening thickness of wall increase by 10%, the ratio of shear deformation
decreases by 0.5%.
In general, change in percentage of opening more affects ratio of shear deformation for shear wall
with window type of opening than shear wall with door type of opening. On the other hand, effect
of change wall thickness affects by other parameters. See Fig. 5.1, 5.2.
b) Result and discussions on parametric analysis of shear deformation
 Variable important in project (VIP) and Sensitivity analysis for deferent parameter in shear
deformation summarized as follow :
Table 5.1: Relative importance of input parameter for different type of shear wall
VIP Opening Type

Variable Window type Door type Without Opening
H 1.011 0.949 0.147
L 0.653 0.748 0.894
ho 1.648 1.641 -
lo 0.911 0.899 -
t 0.077 0.193 1.476
Table 5.2: Uncertainty of random variables for different type wall type
Sensitivity Opening Type

Variable Window type Door type Without Opening
H -0.168 -0.140 0.063
L 0.049 0.110 -0.375
ho 0.266 0.242 -
lo -0.133 -0.132 -
t 0.026 -0.029 -0.620
 With respect to percentage of opening and aspect ratio VIP and Sensitivity analysis of shear
deformation summarized graphical as follow:
2
Standardized coefficients & VIP
1.5
0.5
-0.5
% opening AR
Sensitivity -0.047 -0.396
VIP 0.171 1.457
Fig. 5.1 Uncertainty of random variable and VIP for Window type of opening
1.6
Standardized coefficients & VIP
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
AR % opening
Sensitivity -0.325 -0.121
VIP 1.334 0.498
Fig. 5.2 Uncertainty of random variable and VIP for Door type of opening
Parametric Assessment of the Effect of Shear Deformation in Concrete Shear Wall with and without Openings for Lateral Action
using Simplified Hand Procedure
Fig. 5.3 Effect of Aspect ratio and percentage of opening in ratio of shear deformation to total deformation of shear
wall
Fig. 5.4 Effect of Aspect ratio and wall thickness in ratio of shear deformation to total deformation of shear wall
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusion
Parametric study was carried out on shear deformation of shear wall with and without opening after
computation with simplified hand method to determine shear deformation on thirty-two cantilever
shear wall subjected to point load at the top of wall. Based on the statistical data analysis, the following
conclusions can be drawn.
a) Parametric study has showed the influence of five systematically selected variables on shear
deformation of shear wall with and without opening. Height of opening (ho) is highly influential
for shear wall with door type of opening. Thickness of wall (t) is influential for shear wall without
opening. Height of wall (H) and length of opening (lo) have moderate influence on shear
deformation of shear wall with window and door type of opening. Length of wall has moderate
influences shear deformation of solid shear wall.
b) During the sensitivity analysis, it is further verified that height of wall has inverse relationship
with shear deformation for wall with window and door type of opening, whereas direct relationship
for shear wall without opening. Length of wall has inverse relationship with shear deformation for
shear wall without and with door type of opening, whereas direct relationship for shear wall with
window type of opening. Height of opening and length of opening have direct and inverse
relationship respectively for both shear wall with window and door type of opening. Finally,
thickness of wall has direct relationship for shear wall with window and door type of opening,
whereas inverse relationship with shear wall without opening.
c) Aspect ratio is highly influential parameter than wall opening in shear wall with door and window
type of opening. Increasing aspect ratio shear deformation decrease linearly. As opening size
increases, shear deformation decreases in both shear wall with window and door type of opening.
However, decreasing rate for shear deformation is high in door type of opening than window type
of opening Fig. 5.1 and Fig. 5.2.
6.2 Recommendation
Assessment of the effect of shear deformation in shear wall with and without opening prepared in this
thesis work is only using simplified hand procedure and parametric study by assessing the effect of
different parameter. The author recommends for future to extend study on the effect of shear
deformation on following listed below ideas:
 Assess experimentally and analytically effects of different input variables on shear deformation
determination specially; size effect, influence of shear span to depth ratio, effects of shear wall
material (concrete, steel, and wood) with a large data set collection.
 Assessment of effect of shear and flexural deformation in shear wall having opening using macro
modeling (beam-column model, multiple spring model, truss model, three vertical line element
model (TVLEMs) and Multiple vertical line element model (MVLEMs) and micro modeling
(finite element method or fiber analysis.
REEFERENCES
[1] J. Kobayashi, T. Korenaga, A. Shibata, K. Akino, T. Taira, Effects of small openings

on strength and stiffness of Shear walls in reactor buildings. Nucl. Eng. Des. 156 (1995)
17-27.
[2] Appendix A - Sampling Methods: Retrieved from
http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/math/STK4400/v05/undervisningsmateriae/S
ampling%20methods.pdf
[3] H.-S. Kim, D.-G. Lee, Analysis of shear wall with openings using super elements.
Struct. Eng. No.25, 2003, pp. 981-991.
[4] Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3720188/
[5] C. Balkaya, E. Kalkan, Three-Dimensional Effects on openings of laterally loaded
pierced shear walls. J. Struct. Eng-ASCE Vol 130, No. 10, 2004, pp 1506-1514.
[6] S.K. Rai, J. Prasad, A.K. Ahuja, Importance of shear wall in tall buildings, In:
Proceedings of the National Conference on High-Rise Buildings: Materials and
Practices, New Delhi, India, 2006, pp. 411- 422.
[7] K.K. Singh, S. Chukraborty, T.R. Reddy, Effect of openings in shear walls of
multistoried buildings, proceeding of the National Conference on High-Rise Buildings:
Materials and Practices, New Delhi, India, 2006, pp. 299-307.
[8] S.M. Khatami, A. Mortezaei, R.C. Barros, Comparing effects of openings in concrete
shear walls under near-fault ground motions, In: Proceedings of 15th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 2012.
[9] XLSTAT “Microsoft Excel Statistical Analysis Sheet” 2017.
[10] Pankaj Agarwal and Manish shrikhande, Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures.
Department of Earthquake Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee 2008.
[11] Tsubaki, T.:Sensitivity Analysis, Trans. of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 11,
pp97-104, 1989.
[12] Shirley D.: Statistics for Researchers, 3rd ed, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2004.
[13] T. Paulay and M.J.N Priestley, Seismic Design of reinforced concrete and masonry
Building, Birkhaeuser Verlag bases, 19920.
[14] Massone, L. M., and Wallace, J.W.(2004). Load- deformation responses of slender
reinforced concrete shear wall. ACI Structural Journal.
[15] Massone, L.M (2006). RC-wall shear- flexural interaction: analytical and
experimental responses. PHD dissertation, university of California, Los Angeles.
[16] Kantrin Beyer, Alessandro Dazio, and M. J. Nigel Pristly (April 2011). Shear
deformation od slender reinforcement concrete walls under seismic loading. ACI
Structural Journal.
APPENDIX A
SIMPLIFIED HAND PROCEDURES RESULTS
62 | P a g e
This section illustrate detail results of deformation analysis (shear deformation) in shear wall with
opening and also describes the effects deferent input parameters in shear deformation and presented
below in tabular and graphical form.
[A1] Shear wall with Window Type of opening

Table A.1 Simplified Hand Method results for LHS combination of random variables for shear wall
with Window type of opening
P= 1
E= 29000000
∆_Shear/∆ %
Cases H L ho lo t ∆Shear ∆Flxural _total opening AR
Case-1 4.35 4.26 1.24 1.42 0.35 0.000346 0.000549 38.69 9.451 1.02
Case-2 3.05 6.10 0.92 3.83 0.54 0.000144 0.000109 56.94 18.975 0.50
Case-3 2.95 6.54 0.68 5.90 0.49 0.000300 0.000252 54.33 20.711 0.45
Case-4 3.86 6.93 3.14 2.09 0.44 0.000179 0.000201 47.02 24.594 0.56
Case-5 2.85 3.96 1.99 2.27 0.23 0.000632 0.000740 46.07 40.018 0.72
Case-6 4.19 5.20 1.57 3.70 0.21 0.000774 0.000867 47.17 26.665 0.81
Case-8 2.73 4.98 2.59 4.56 0.33 0.001963 0.002009 49.42 86.727 0.55
Case-9 3.21 5.52 2.29 4.73 0.34 0.000939 0.000961 49.42 61.087 0.58
Case-10 4.27 8.18 2.14 2.75 0.15 0.000460 0.000406 53.12 16.810 0.52
Case-11 3.42 4.12 0.23 1.10 0.36 0.000245 0.000241 50.38 1.790 0.83
Case-12 3.61 4.87 2.07 2.44 0.28 0.000436 0.000511 46.06 28.658 0.74
Case-13 3.67 7.53 3.82 5.58 0.67 0.000301 0.000321 48.37 77.228 0.49
Case-14 5.40 5.09 3.58 0.66 0.57 0.000212 0.000415 33.81 8.595 1.06
Case-15 2.00 6.72 1.83 3.30 0.60 0.000096 0.000097 49.87 44.906 0.30
Case-16 3.98 4.52 2.36 1.67 0.39 0.000314 0.000447 41.24 21.924 0.88
Case-17 4.55 5.63 1.10 3.43 0.42 0.000272 0.000293 48.10 14.707 0.81
Case-18 3.13 5.30 1.75 3.57 0.29 0.000452 0.000453 49.96 37.594 0.59
Case-23 3.48 5.41 3.03 4.11 0.41 0.000605 0.000658 47.89 66.099 0.64
Case-24 3.73 5.86 2.43 2.60 0.26 0.000382 0.000421 47.56 28.929 0.64
Case-26 3.54 4.76 3.26 1.90 0.38 0.000326 0.000430 43.09 36.627 0.74
Case-27 4.45 5.98 1.91 5.33 0.30 0.001151 0.001190 49.17 38.339 0.74
Case-28 4.67 6.38 2.84 3.97 0.18 0.000831 0.000948 46.72 37.822 0.73
Case-30 5.02 7.18 4.27 3.03 0.50 0.000233 0.000290 44.49 35.893 0.70
63 | P a g e
6.00 60.00
5.00 50.00
Height of wall 4.00 40.00
3.00 30.00
2.00 20.00
1.00 10.00
0.00 0.00
Cases
∆_Shear/∆_total Height of wall (H)
(a) Effect of wall height on ratio of shear deformation

9.00 60.00
8.00
50.00
7.00
Length of wall
6.00 40.00
5.00
30.00
4.00
3.00 20.00
2.00
10.00
1.00
0.00 0.00
Cases
∆_Shear/∆_total Lenth of wall (L)
(b) effect of wall length on ratio of shear deformation
4.50 60.00
4.00
50.00
Height of opening
3.50
3.00 40.00
2.50
30.00
2.00
1.50 20.00
1.00
10.00
0.50
0.00 0.00
Axis Title
∆_Shear/∆_total height of opening
(c) effect of opening height on ratio of shear deformation

64 | P a g e
7.00 60.00
6.00 50.00
Length of opening 5.00 40.00
4.00
30.00
3.00
2.00 20.00
1.00 10.00
0.00 0.00
Cases
∆_Shear/∆_total Length of opening (lo)
(d) effect of opening length on ratio of shear deformation
0.80 60.00
0.70 50.00
Thickness of wall
0.60
0.50 40.00
0.40 30.00
0.30 20.00
0.20
0.10 10.00
0.00 0.00
Cases
∆_Shear/∆_total Thickness of wall (t)
(e) effect of wall thickness on ratio of shear deformation

Fig. A.1 Effect of different parameters in shear wall with Window type of opening (from a to e)
65 | P a g e
[A2] Shear wall with Door Type of opening
Table A.2 Simplified Hand Method results for LHS combination of random variables for shear wall
with Door type of opening
P= 1
E= 29000000
∆_Shear/∆ %
Cases H L ho lo t ∆Shear ∆Flxural _total AR opening
Case-1 4.35 4.26 2.42 1.42 0.35 0.000387 0.000602 39.145054 1.02 18.44
Case-2 3.05 6.10 2.17 3.83 0.54 0.000210 0.000203 50.870169 0.50 44.77
Case-3 2.95 6.54 1.98 5.90 0.49 0.000692 0.000678 50.485206 0.45 60.59
Case-4 3.86 6.93 3.89 2.09 0.44 0.000190 0.000190 50.036420 0.56 30.47
Case-5 2.85 3.96 3.00 2.27 0.23 0.000789 0.000769 50.636512 0.72 60.31
Case-6 4.19 5.20 2.67 3.70 0.21 0.001038 0.001151 47.417972 0.81 45.40
Case-9 3.21 5.52 3.23 4.73 0.34 0.001252 0.001252 50.008468 0.58 86.24
Case-10 4.27 8.18 3.11 2.75 0.15 0.000505 0.000487 50.901454 0.52 24.47
Case-11 3.42 4.12 1.64 1.10 0.36 0.000281 0.000351 44.408889 0.83 12.75
Case-12 3.61 4.87 3.06 2.44 0.28 0.000513 0.000550 48.257242 0.74 42.42
Case-13 3.67 7.53 4.42 5.58 0.67 0.000335 0.000333 50.178677 0.49 89.24
Case-14 5.40 5.09 4.23 0.66 0.57 0.000215 0.000323 39.970637 1.06 10.15
Case-15 2.00 6.72 2.88 3.30 0.60 0.000122 0.000132 47.961739 0.30 70.50
Case-16 3.98 4.52 3.29 1.67 0.39 0.000346 0.000411 45.710268 0.88 30.52
Case-17 4.55 5.63 2.31 3.43 0.42 0.000354 0.000406 46.569372 0.81 30.95
Case-18 3.13 5.30 2.81 3.57 0.29 0.000600 0.000605 49.772484 0.59 60.44
Case-23 3.48 5.41 3.80 4.11 0.41 0.000718 0.000706 50.425459 0.64 82.99
Case-24 3.73 5.86 3.34 2.60 0.26 0.000432 0.000444 49.311241 0.64 39.72
Case-26 3.54 4.76 3.98 1.90 0.38 0.000353 0.000316 52.810773 0.74 44.73
Case-27 4.45 5.98 2.94 5.33 0.30 0.001634 0.001681 49.287260 0.74 58.92
Case-28 4.67 6.38 3.65 3.97 0.18 0.000031 0.001019 2.994622 0.73 48.72
Case-30 5.02 7.18 4.76 3.03 0.50 0.000062 0.000249 19.862048 0.70 40.04
66 | P a g e
6.00 60.00
Height of Wall 5.00 50.00

4.00 40.00
3.00 30.00
2.00 20.00
1.00 10.00
0.00 0.00
Cases
∆_Shear/∆_total Height of Wall( H)
(a) Effect of wall height on ratio of shear deformation
10.00 60.00
Length of Wall
8.00 50.00
40.00
6.00
30.00
4.00
20.00
2.00 10.00
0.00 0.00
Cases
∆_Shear/∆_total Length of Wall (L)
(b) effect of wall length on ratio of shear deformation
6.00 60.00
Height of Opening
5.00 50.00
4.00 40.00
3.00 30.00
2.00 20.00
1.00 10.00
0.00 0.00
Cases
∆_Shear/∆_total Height of Opening(ho)
(c) effect of opening height on ratio of shear deformation
67 | P a g e
7.00 60.00
Length of Opening
6.00 50.00
5.00 40.00
4.00
30.00
3.00
2.00 20.00
1.00 10.00
0.00 0.00
Cases
∆_Shear/∆_total Length of Opening(lo)
(d) effect of opening length on ratio of shear deformation
0.80 60.00
Thickness of Wall
0.70 50.00
0.60
0.50 40.00
0.40 30.00
0.30 20.00
0.20
0.10 10.00
0.00 0.00
Cases
∆_Shear/∆_total Thickness of Wall (t)
(e) effect of wall thickness on ratio of shear deformation
Fig. A.2 Effect of different parameters in shear wall with Door type of opening (from a to e)
68 | P a g e
Fig. A.3 Ratio of shear deformation vs Aspect ratio for shear wall without opening
 As can be seen, shear deformation increase by decreasing aspect ratio.
69 | P a g e
Fig. A.4 Ratio of shear deformation vs percentage of opening for shear wall with window type opening
 The above graph show that ratio of shear deformation decreases for increasing aspect ratio(AR)
70 | P a g e
Fig. A.5 Ratio of shear deformation vs percentage of opening for shear wall with door type opening
 Similar to the above two cases, ratio shear deformation in shear wall with door type of shear wall decreases by increasing
aspect ratio(AR)
Generally, the effect of wall thickness on shear deformation need additional parametric study because its effect on shear
deformation influenced by other parameters.
71 | P a g e
APPENDIX B
ELEMENT USED FOR MODELING IN ANSYS
72
[B] Beam and Shell Element used in the FEM
BEAM189 is an element suitable for analyzing slender to moderately stubby/thick beam
structures. This element is based on Timoshenko beam theory. Shear deformation effects
are included. This element is well-suited for linear, large rotation, and/or large strain
nonlinear applications. BEAM189 includes stress stiffness terms, by default, in any
analysis with NLGEOM, ON. The provided stress stiffness terms enable the elements to
analyze flexural, lateral, and torsional stability problems (using eigenvalue buckling or
collapse studies with arc length methods).
The beam elements are based on Timoshenko beam theory, which is a first order shear
deformation theory: transverse shear strain is constant through the cross section; that is,
cross sections remain plane and undistorted after deformation. BEAM188/BEAM189
elements can be used for slender or stout beams. Due to the limitations of first order shear
deformation theory, only moderately "thick" beams may be analyzed.
In Euler – Bernoulli beam theory, shear deformations are neglected, and plane sections
remain plane and normal to the longitudinal axis. In the Timoshenko beam theory, plane
sections still remain plane but are no longer normal to the longitudinal axis. The difference
between the normal to the longitudinal axis and the plane section rotation is the shear
deformation. These relations are shown in figure.
Fig. B.1 BAME189 Geometry
73
Shell 181:
SHELL181 is suitable for analyzing thin to moderately-thick shell structures. It is a 4 node

element with six degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the x, y, and z directions,
and rotations about the x, y, and z-axes. (If the membrane option is used, the element has
translational degrees of freedom only). The degenerate triangular option should only be
used as filler elements in mesh generation.
SHELL181 is well-suited for linear, large rotation, and/or large strain nonlinear
applications. Change in shell thickness is accounted for in nonlinear analyses. In the
element domain, both full and reduced integration schemes are supported.
SHELL181 accounts for follower (load stiffness) effects of distributed pressures.
SHELL181 may be used for layered applications for modeling laminated composite shells
or sandwich construction. The accuracy in modeling composite shells is governed by the
first order shear deformation theory (usually referred to as Mindlin-Reissner shell theory).
Shell181 includes the effects of transverse shear deformation. An assumed shear strain
formulation of Bathe-Dvorkin is used to alleviate shear locking. The transverse shear
stiffness of the element is a 2X2 matrix as shown below.
𝐸 𝐸12 𝑅7 𝑅9
𝐸 = [ 11 ]=[ ]
𝑠𝑦𝑚 𝐸22 𝑠𝑦𝑚 𝑅8
In the above matrix, R7, R8, and R9 are real constants 7, 8, and 9. By override the default
transverse shear stiffness value by assigning different values to those real constant. This
option is effective for analyzing sandwich shell.
For a single-layer shell with isotropic material, default transverse shear stiffnesses are:
𝑘𝐹ℎ 0
𝐸=[ ]
0 𝑘𝐺ℎ
In the above matrix, k=5/6, G= shear modulus, and h= thickness of the shell
74
Fig. B.2 shell181 Geometry
75
APPENDIX C
OUTLIERS ANALYSIS
76
Outliers Analysis
In statistic, an outlier is a value recorded for a given variable that seems unusual and suspiciously
lower or great than other observed values. An outlier can be reading error or due to typical events.
When there are outliers in the data, depending on the stage of the study, we must identify them,
possibility with the aid of test, flag them in the report, delete or use method able to tread them as
such. XLSTAT gives an approximation of critical values above which one should reject null for a
given significant level. XLSTAT gives approximation based on Monte Carlo simulation. XLSTAT
gives the p-value that corresponds to the computed statistic as well as the conclusion of typical
between -1.96 to 1.96 for critical independent variable and between -1.454 to 1.454 for the
dependent variable for 95% confidence of interval.
Distance from each observation to the model in the space X variable (DModX) allow identifying
outlier for the explanatory variable and distance from each observation to the model in the space
of Y(DModY) allow identify outlier for the dependent variables. [9]
Value of the DModX for the ith observation writes:
𝒏 ∑𝒑𝒋−𝟏 𝒆(𝒙, 𝒕)𝟐𝒊𝒋

DModX𝒊 = √ (𝑪𝟏)
𝒏−𝒉−𝟏 𝑷−𝒉
Where the 𝑒(𝑋, 𝑡)𝑖𝑗 (i=1…n) are residuals of the regression of X on the jth component.
The value of the DModY for the ith observation writes:
∑𝒒𝒋−𝟏 𝒆(𝒚, 𝒕)𝟐𝒊𝒋

DModY𝒊 = √ (𝑪𝟐)
𝒒−𝒉
Where q is the number of dependent variable and 𝑒(𝑌, 𝑡)𝑖𝑗 (i=1…n) are residuals of the regression
of Y on the jth component.
77
Outliers analysis
(DModX / DCrit(X)=1.847)
2
1.8
1.6
Standardized dModX
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Observations
Fig. C.1 Outlier Analysis with respect to input Variable for Shear wall with window type
of opening
Outliers analysis
(DModY / DCrit(Y)=0.906)
6
5
Standardized dModY
Observations
Fig. C.2 Outlier Analysis with respect to Dependent Variable for Shear wall with window
type of opening
78
Outliers analysis
2
1.8
Standardized dModX
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Observations
Fig. C.3 Outlier Analysis with respect to input Variable for Shear wall with Door type of
opening
Outliers analysis
6
5
Standardized dModY
Observations
Fig.C.4 Outlier Analysis with respect to Dependent Variable for Shear wall with Door type
of opening
79
Outliers analysis
2.5
2
Standardized dModX
1.5
0.5
Observations
Fig. C.5 Outlier Analysis with respect to input Variable for Shear wall without opening
Outliers analysis
5
4.5
Standardized dModY
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Observations
Fig. C.6 Outlier Analysis with respect to Dependent Variable for Shear wall without
opening
80

Dagmawi Girma

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dagmawi Girma

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dagmawi Girma

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

ADDIS ABABA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Parametric Assessment of the Effect of Shear

Action using Simplified Hand Procedure’ presented by DAGMAWI GIRMA, a

Dr. Adil Zekaria

Advisor Signature Date

Dr. Abrham Gebre

Internal Examiner Signature Date

Dr. Bedilu Habte

External Examiner Signature Date

Dr. Agizew Nigussie

Chair person Signature Date

Finally, I have no words to express my warm feeling of appreciation and tanks to my

Shear wall, a continuous vertical member, is an important element in high-rise building,

3.1 General ……………………………………………………………………………. -22-

Rigidity Of Wall) With Opening……………………………………. -25-

APPENDICES B: ELEMENT USED FOR MODELING IN ANSYS…...……………. -71-

Fig. 2.3 Shear and Flexural Deformation……………………………………………. 8

Fig. 2.4 Deformation shear wall with opening……………………………………… 8

Fig. 2.5 Instrumentation of U-Shaped wall ………………………………………… 11

Fig. 2.6 Variation of length of shear panel diagonals………………………………. 12

deflection of wall due to bending and shear deformation (Amrhein, 1998)….. 23

due to bending, and shear deformation (Amrhein, 1998) …………………….. 24

segment (Drydale,Hamid and Baker, 1994) ………………………………….. 24

Fig. 3.4 Deflection of Cantilever shear Wall ……………………………………….. 26

Fig. 3.5 Wall Element Fixed at Both End …………………………………………… 27

Fig. 3.6 Cantilever Shear Wall ……………………………………………………… 28

Window Type Opening ……………………………………………………………… 40

Door type Opening………........................................................................................... 41

Fig. 4.1 Uncertainty of random Variable for window type of opening……………… 48

Fig. 4.2 Uncertainty of random Variable for door type of opening…………………. 49

Fig. 4.4 Variable Importance of Window Type of Opening…………………………. 51

Fig. 4.5 Variable Importance of Door Type of Opening…………………………….. 52

deformation to total deformation of shear wall……………………………… 57

total deformation of shear wall……………………………………………… 57

window type opening……………………………………………………… 70

door type opening…………………………………………………………… 71

Fig. B.1 BAME189 Geometry………………………………………………………. 73

Fig. B.1 SHELL181Geometry………………………………………………………. 75

type of opening ……………………………………………………………... 78

window type of opening …………………………………………………… 78

type of opening ……………………………………………………………... 79

Door type of opening ……………………………………………………….. 79

without opening …………………………………………………………… 80

Table 3.1 Description of Five Parameters……………………………………………………... 33

Table 3.2 ANSYS Verification Analysis………………………………………………………. 36

Table 3.3 Statistical Variations of Random Variables for SW without Opening…………….. 38

for three type of shear wall. ……………………………………………………………. 42

shear wall with Window type of opening………………………………………….. 63

shear wall with Door type of opening………………………………………………. 66

MSc Thesis 1|Page

1.2 Statement of Problem

MSc Thesis 2|Page

1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study

MSc Thesis 3|Page

MSc Thesis 4|Page

2.1.1 Beam Theories

MSc Thesis 5|Page

Fig. 2.1 Euler-Bernoulli and Timoshenko beam Deformation

MSc Thesis 6|Page