shear wall , shear wall interaction frame and tubular system 1

[nedians]

Hello,
I want to know is there any difference between shear wall and shear wall frame interaction structure ?
and from structural engineer point of veiw which system is more economical for a typical 40 storey building constrcution with concrete.
1. Shear wall
2. Shear wall interaction frame
3. tabular system
Any books which contain the basic knowledge for the design and anaylses of the above mentioned structures.

 

[JAE]

Generally, for 40 stories and under, you find a lot of buildings using a shearwall system, primarily the elevator cores, as the primary lateral frame. Since you are using a concrete frame as well, your concrete beams and columns will participate in the lateral resistance simply due to the monolithic nature of concrete. Therefore, you should include them in your analyses and design their reinforcing accordingly. With a steel frame, you can designate simple connections and assume pinned conditions.

A tubular system has been used for both steel and concrete systems, primarily in taller (>40) buildings. Depending upon your area of seismic risk, this could be a better system in that it is more flexible and can respond better to seismic events.

Some commentary can be found in "Structural Engineering Handbook", by Gaylord and Gaylord.

 

[phuduhudu]

nedian,

you seem to be asking if there is a difference between shear wall and shear wall frames. I presume the first would refer to an actual solid wall, probably in reinforced concrete as refered to by JAE above. The second I would assume refers to braced frames making up a shear wall and therefore probably steel construction. So for a concrete frame building you would be looking at shear walls (often in the lift cores) and the moment frame action of the concrete for lateral stability. Carl Bauer

 

[Riz]

I agree with Jae.
A combination of shear wall and frame structure seems to be a better solution.
Tubular system has a shear lag limitaion. This results in uneven distribution of column loads. To overcome this may create your structure to be uneconomical and especially if u r designing in a seismic area.
A nice reference is:
Planning and Design of Tall Buildings;
Volume CB: Structural Design of Tall Concrete & Masonry Buildings, ASCE Publication,Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.

 

[timh]

In Australia we would only ever consider frame interaction on structures that have substantial floor elements (such as edge beams - normally in commercial buildings only). Most high rise residential structures in Sydney have very thin flat post tensioned slabs and hence the amount of moment that you can develop at the column/slab interface is minimal. As a rule these type of structures are all less than 40 storeys and hence we conservatively take all the lateral eartquake and wind loads onto the core.

In taller or slender structures (where the core may be working particulary hard) we try and use high level outrigger wall systems linked between the core and the columns to bring the external columns into the equation by effectively holding down the core through the use of additional dead loads in the columns.(-:

Regards

 

[ag89]

Construction uses quite a bit of angles and have a surplus and want to use this. A lot of field fab installations. Not looking for alternatives, just technical help for this installation.