See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318673060

Theoretical Seismic Behaviour of Steel Plate Shear Walls

Conference Paper · October 2008

CITATIONS READS
2 89

2 authors, including:

Erfan Alavi
International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
17 PUBLICATIONS   59 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fragility Analysis and Seismic Response Control of Non-Building Structures View project

Steel Plate Shear Walls View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Erfan Alavi on 25 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 th
The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

Theoretical Seismic Behaviour of Steel Plate Shear Walls

Fariborz Nateghi1 and Erfan Alavi 2

1
Professor, Dept. of Structural Engineering, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and
Seismology, IIEES, Tehran, Iran
2
PhD Candidate, Dept. of Structural Engineering, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and
Seismology, IIEES, Tehran, Iran
Email: [email protected] , [email protected]

ABSTRACT:

In the last three decades, many researches have been carried out on steel plate shear walls, SPSWs, and they have
been introduced as seismic load resisting systems. However, their non-linear behaviour complexities such as
buckling, post buckling and tension field action of infill steel plate, in-elastic out-of-plane large deformation of
steel plate, hysteresis loops, interaction with the surrounding frame, several configurations of SPSWs with thick
plates, stiffened or un-stiffened thin steel plates, etc., have made them still attractive for more investigation. This
paper presents shear strength capacities and proposes relevant formulas for SPSWs with and without stiffeners
with considering effects of the relative stiffness and strength of the boundary elements on the shear capacities.
Several analytical finite element models with different h/t of steel plate are considered and kinematic hardening
model is used for steel material, non-linear large-displacement analysis under monotonic loading has been carried
out and their push-over curves obtained. The results are compared with the experimental studies by other
researchers and codes regulations. The theoretical and analytical studies indicate that the shear strength capacities
of SPSW vary between results from using the plate girders simulation model for SPSW and the strip model, and
depend on the relative stiffness and strength of the boundary elements as well as the slenderness of the infill steel
plate.

KEYWORDS: Steel Plate Shear Walls, Plate Girders, Push-Over, Strip Model, Boundary Elements

1. INTRODUCTION

Recent researches have demonstrated that steel plate shear walls, SPSWs, can act as effective and economic
seismic load resisting systems in the high risk zones. SPSWs have high elastic stiffness, large displacement
ductility, and stable hysteretic behaviour and high energy dissipating capacity. They have been used in the
structural design and retrofitting of existing buildings with different configurations, with thick steel plate,
stiffened or un-stiffened thin steel plate. Use of thick steel plates or stiffened still plate in SPSW intends to
conduct the steel plate to its full plastic strength prior to the elastic out-of-plane buckling of the plate and to
prevent tension field action from developing in the infill plate , however, in un-stiffened SPSW with thin infill
steel plate the post buckling strength of the infill steel plate due to tension field action development in the steel
plate after the elastic out-of-plane buckling is main part of the shear strength capacity of the system.

The history of SPSWs returns to the plate girders, and the analogy that simulates the columns of a SPSW to the
plate girders flanges and the beams to the stiffeners and the infill plate to the plate girder web is appropriate for
general understanding of the system behaviour, however, it does not completely represent the behaviour of the
SPSW, especially the non-linear and cyclic performance of the system. The differences mainly result from the
boundary elements effects on the system responses. Many theoretical and experimental investigations have been

1
 th
The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

carried out by researchers on SPSWs, which some of the relevant studies are summarized in the following.
Wagner [1] is the first researcher who used a complete and uniform tension field to determine the shear strength
of a panel with rigid flanges and very thin web, and inferred that the shear buckling of a thin aluminium plate
supported adequately on its edges does not constitute failure, this idea has been recently developed for modelling
of thin SPSWs. Basler et al. in [2] carried out shear tests on plate girders with vertical stiffeners and developed a
failure theory based upon a theoretical model with a diagonal band of tension yield, they ignored effects and
contribution of the flanges to shear strength of the plate girder, the web buckled at a predicted theoretically shear
stress and subsequently due to stress distribution changing in the web, considerable post-buckling strength
obtained.. Rocky and Skaloud [3] found that the rigidity of flanges has a strong influence upon the behaviour of
panel and when the flanges are very light the collapse mechanism approximates to that assumed by Basler, but if
they are heavy the plastic hinges form in the four corners of the panel, and for intermediate flanges two numbers
of the plastic hinges will be located at the flanges and the remained two ones at the corners of the panel, Murray
[4]. Other researches were also conducted on modelling of tension field action in the plate girders and collapse
mechanism. In the following of these studies, Thorburn et al [5] developed an analytical method based on the
Wagner’s work to evaluate the shear resistance of un-stiffened SPSWs with thin steel plates and introduced the
strip model to represent the shear panel as a series of inclined tensile strips, they assumed that the beams are rigid
enough for developing the complete tension field action in the infill steel plate. Timler and Kulak [6] modified
formula for angle of strips inclination with the column .Caccese et al.[7] presented the cyclic testing results of six
1:4 scale specimens with various plate thicknesses and moment resisting beam-to-column connections, and two
specimens with shear beam-to column connections, the specimens with thicker plates showed an inelastic
behaviour that was primarily governed by the columns, and the capacity of the specimen with the thickest plate
was limited by the column instability. Lubell et al.[8] tested two single and one 4-story thin SPSWS under cyclic
loading and compared the experimental results with the simplified tension field analytical models and found that
the models can predict post-yield strength of the specimens well, with less satisfactory in the elastic stiffness
results. Sabouri-Ghomi et al.[9] developed supporting theories based on the interactions between the system
components for estimating the shear strength of SPSWs. Astaneh-Asl [10] provided a report including
applications of steel plate shear walls in USA and Japan, and defined three regions compact , non-compact and
slender of SPSWs behaviour in similarity with the plate girders. Driver et al [11] tested a 4-story large-scale
specimen and developed its finite element model. Berman and Bruneau [12] presented a plastic analysis method
for analysis and design of SPSWs based on the strip models assumptions. Alinia and Dastfan[13] studied the
effects of boundary elements on behaviour of 1-story thin SPSWs and unlike to the present views, they concluded
the flexural stiffness of surrounding members has no significant effects on the post-buckling behaviour of SPSWs,
the result was not validated with the experimental method.

In this study, non-linear seismic behaviour of SPSWs has been investigated and the shear strength capacities of
the un-stiffened and stiffened SPSWs are presented considering effects of the relative stiffness and strength of the
boundary elements in the shear capacities and non-linear behaviour of the system. Several analytical finite
element models of SPSWs, which have been validated with the experimental results of the other researchers and
codes provisions, with various boundary conditions and slenderness of the infill steel plate, have been selected to
verify and compare the analytical and theoretical outcomes. The kinematic hardening plasticity model is used for
mild steel material modelling, and non-linear large-displacement analysis under monotonic loading are performed
and the push-over curves obtained and the summarized results presented.

2. ANALYTICAL STUDY

2.1. Numerical Modelling and Analysis Method

2
 th
The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

Several numerical models of one-story stiffened and un-stiffened SPSWs are generated for evaluating the shear
load capacity of SPSWs with various stiffness and strength of the boundary members and the infill plate
slenderness h/t. All modelling are conducted using general-purpose nonlinear finite element program ANSYS,
which is properly suited for the solution of highly nonlinear engineering problems like SPSWs. The numerical
models have been validated with the available experimental data in the literature, and those models with not
having the experimental data with the codes provisions. The kinematic hardening plasticity model has been
utilized with multi-linear kinematic hardening material model for the mild steel materials. The Bauschinger effect
is also included in the multi-linear kinematic hardening model and finite element geometrically nonlinear analysis
by means of large deflection transient analysis has been executed; therefore the nonlinear buckling and post-
buckling effects including local buckling of the steel elements have been incorporated into the results. The
implicit solution method based on Newmark’s algorithm is utilized, and 4-node plastic shell with six degrees of
freedom at each node is employed for 3D-modelling of the shear walls, and appropriate time-stepping by the trial
and error method is used to overcome to convergence problems.

2.2. Analytical method Verification

The analytical method has been validated with using the available experimental results in the literature; therefore
the SPSW2 specimen from Lubell’s work [14], Fig.1, is selected and modelled. The analytical load-displacement
curves from the non-linear finite element modelling; FEM, analysis based on the described method is obtained
and compared with the experimental results in Fig.2. It is inferred that the used analytical method has been
successful to estimate the actual shear capacity of the system in comparison with the experimental results with
good approximate precision (less than 5% deviation), moreover, it is observed in SPSW1 that has had one S75x8
beam instead of two beams at top the shear wall capacity has been less than SPSW2, which implicitly implies that
the stiffness of the boundary elements will have affect on the strength of the system. Then, the verified analytical
method has been extended and used for the other SPSWs samples.

Fig.1. SPSW2 experimental model, Lubell-97 Fig.2. Envelope Curves for SPSW1, SPSW2, SPSW4
(Lubell-97) & Analytical model of SPSW2 (FEM)

2.3. Other Analytical models

Numbers of full scale models of one-story (3m x 3m) stiffened and un-stiffened SPSW with rigid beam-to-column
connections and different slenderness of the infill plate are generated and the boundary elements are such
designed to meet the preliminary requirements of steel plate shear wall and AISC 360-05 [15] provisions for the
compact sections, then their flexural and shear stiffness have been changed from flexible to enough rigid for
complete strip model formation in the infill plate. Details of the FEM models are given in Table 1; they are 4

3
 th
The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

shear walls of type SPSW (A) with 6 mm infill plate thickness and 4 shear walls of type SPSW (B) with 3 mm
thickness of the infill plate, the vertical boundary elements, VBE, means the columns and the horizontal boundary
elements, HBE, the beams and h / t is the slenderness of the infill plate between the columns clear span, I is the
moment of inertia around x-x axis, and Mp is the plastic moment and Aw is the web cross area of the section.

Table 1. Details of the analytical models

I Mp Aw I Mp Aw VBE VBE HBE HBE

Analytical
h/t (VBE) (VBE) (VBE) (HBE) (HBE) (HBE) (Fl.) (web) (Fl.) (web)
Models cm^4 KN.m cm^2 cm^4 KN.m cm^2 mm mm mm mm
SPSW(A1) 24142.5 383.4 24 7478.3 174.0 16 PL300X15 PL300X8 PL200X15 PL200X8

SPSW(A2) 25717.5 421.2 45 7945.0 190.8 30 PL300X15 PL300X15 PL200X15 PL200X15

450
SPSW(A3) 52515.0 793.8 45 16960.0 367.2 30 PL300X30 PL300X15 PL200X30 PL200X15

SPSW(A4) 55890.0 874.8 90 17960.0 403.2 60 PL300X30 PL300X30 PL200X30 PL200X30

SPSW(B1) 24142.5 383.4 24 7478.3 174 16 PL300X15 PL300X8 PL200X15 PL200X8

SPSW(B2) 24142.5 383.4 24 7945.0 190.8 30 PL300X15 PL300X8 PL200X15 PL200X15

900
SPSW(B3) 25717.5 421.2 45 7478.3 174.0 16 PL300X15 PL300X15 PL200X15 PL200X8

SPSW(B4) 25717.5 421.2 45 7945.0 190.8 30 PL300X15 PL300X15 PL200X15 PL200X15

Moreover, some of the un-stiffened models have been stiffened with appropriate transverse stiffeners in
accordance with AISC criteria for the plate girders in delimiting the slenderness of the web plates to prevent the
shear buckling occurrence in the plate, and their non-linear behaviour has been studied. The mechanical properties
of the used mild steel in the analytical models have been assumed as:

E=2.1E5 MPa ; Modulus of elasticity

Fy=240 MPa ; Yield stress
υ = 0.3 ; Poisson’s ratio

2.3. Analytical results

some of the analytical results from non-linear analysis of the un-stiffened shear walls are presented in Fig. 3, it
shows the developed stresses in the shear walls due to the monotonic loading till to reach 100 mm displacement
on the top of the specimen corresponds to 3.3% drift, the loadings have been applied gradually by time sub-step
controlling and in the ramped shape.

It can be observed that the distribution of the stresses based on the Von-Mises yield criterion in the specimens
from SPSW(A1) , which has the most flexible boundary elements here with having less than half of the required
moment of inertia of VBE specified by Kuhn et al.[16] , to SPSW(A4) that has the stiffest boundary elements has
changed whereat the yielded areas in the infill plates have been extended by stiffening of the boundary elements,
which implies that the shear capacities of the system has been consequently increased, the similar phenomenon
was reported for the plate girders by Rocky and Skaloud [3]. The push-over curves of the un-stiffened samples
series SPSW(A) and SPSW(B) are obtained and compared in Fig.4a ,Fig.4b, respectively. It has resulted that the
push-over curves of the un-stiffened specimens with enough stiffness and strength of the boundary elements have
had better curves than the specimens with flexible members, and just the shear walls with enough strong of the
boundary elements have been able to reach the expected shear capacities based on the strip model method, and the
shear capacities of the specimens with flexible boundary elements have been between the shear capacities of the
similar plate girders with the slender web as a lower limit and the strip model result as an upper limit, the relevant

4
 th
The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

formulations and discussion about the strengths of the boundary elements are presented in the next section. a
sample result of the stiffened SPSW(B1) with horizontal transverse stiffeners, PL100*10 @ 200mm each side, is
shown in Fig.5, and the push-over curves of the stiffened and un-stiffened SPSW(B1) and only the frame system
have been represented in Fig.6.

a) b)

c) d)

Fig.3. Von-Mises Stresses (Pa.) in 3.3% drift for a) SPSW(A1), b) SPSW(A2), c) SPSW(A3), d)SPSW(A4)

3500
1600
3150
1400
2800
1200
Shear Load (KN)

Shear Load (KN)

2450

2100 1000

1750 800
1400
Strip-Model 600 Strip-Model
1050 SPSW(A4) SPSW(B4)
SPSW(A3) 400 SPSW(B3)
700
SPSW(A2) SPSW(B2)
200 SPSW(B1)
350 SPSW(A1)
Plate Girder Eqn. 3.3 Plate Girder Eqn. 3.3
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Story Drift X (mm) Story Drift X (mm)

(a) (b)

Fig.4. Push-Over Curves of Steel Plate Shear Walls models for series a) SPSW(A), b) SPSW(B)

5
 th
The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

2200
Plate Girder Eqn. 3.2
2000 Stiffened SPSW(B1)
Un-Stiffened SPSW(B1)
1800 Frame (Only)
1600

Shear Load (KN)

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Story Drift X (m m )

Fig.5. Stiffened SPSW(B1) Out-of-Plane Fig.6. Push-Over Curves for stiffened SPSW(B1),
Deflection(m.) un-stiffened SPSW(B1) and Frame (Only)

As a result, it can be inferred that by stiffening of the web plate with the transverse stiffeners in compliance with
the plate girders requirements based on AISC-360-05 the shear buckling has not been occurred in the plate , and
the shear wall has reached its full shear plastic capacity as propounded for the stiffened SPSW in the Eqn.3.2.

3. SHEAR STRENGTH CAPACITIES

3.1. Strip Model Method

The ultimate shear strength , V , of an un-stiffened SPSW has been evaluated by means of strip model method as
an upper limit, this method assumes that the boundary elements have enough strength for complete tension field
action development in the infill steel plate, its history has been briefly presented in the section 1, and the Eqn.3.1
has been concluded from the work of Berman and Bruneau [12] for one-story un-stiffened steel shear wall with
the rigid-beam-to-column connections, and the analytical results as follows:
1 2 M pc 2 M pb
V = F y .b.t . sin 2α + + (3.1)
2 hs hs
where Fy and t , b , hs , α , M pc and M pb are the tensile yield stress and the thickness of the infill steel plate,
the span length, the storey height, the strips inclination with the vertical axis and the plastic moments of the
column and beam, respectively. The second term is the frame shear capacity, which can be also estimated by
push-over analysis. The calculated shear capacities using this method are represented in Fig. 4a, Fig.4b as an
upper limit for the un-stiffened steel shear wall with strong enough boundary elements.

3.2. Plate Girder Method

The Simulation of the SPSW with plate girders has been used by the pioneers’ designers of the steel shear walls,
Astaneh-Asl [10] categorized the steel shear walls based on their slenderness and AISC-99 provisions for the
plate girders, which a similar methodology based on AISC-360-05 has been used here for estimating an upper
limit of the ultimate shear strength of the stiffened SPSW and a lower limit for the un-stiffened SPSW with

6
 th
The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

flexible boundary elements. The calculated results for the sample SPSWs are shown in Fig.4a, Fig.4b from Eqn.
3.3 as the lower limit for the flexible boundary members, and from Eqn. 3.2 in Fig.6 as the upper limit for the
stiffened steel shear walls based on the plate girders requirements, the equations have been presented as follows:
E
If h / t ≤ 2.24 (for stiffened SPSW with no tension field action and shear buckling), then
Fy
4M pc
V = 0.6 Fy .b.t + (3.2)
hs
E
And if h / t ≥ 1.37 K V (for un-stiffened SPSW with flexible boundary elements), then
Fy
1 − CV
V = 0.6 Fy .b.t.(CV + ) (3.3)
1.15 1 + (a / h) 2

In which h is the clear distance between the columns or the stiffeners, a is the clear distance between the
beams or the stiffeners, and the buckling coefficients are as:
1.51EK V 5
CV = (3.4) ; KV = 5 + (3.5)
(h / t ) 2 Fy ( a / h) 2

4. BOUNDARY ELEMENTS STRENGHTS

With respect to the boundary elements stiffness and strength to sustain the normal boundary stresses associated
with the tension field action some equations were recommended in the literature, and in addition to them the
obtained results from this study conduct that the shear strengths and stiffness of the boundary elements have
effective influence upon the tension field action development in the infill steel plate, therefore the equations 4.1
and 4.2 have been extracted from the state of stresses in the steel shear walls shown in Fig.7 [9], and verified with
the analytical results.

b.t
Abw ≥ sin 2 θ (4.1)
1.2

d .t
Acw ≥ cos 2 θ (4.2)
1.2

Fig.7. State of Stresses in the Steel Plate under Shear Load [9]
Where Abw and Acw , θ and d are beams and columns web areas, inclination of the tension field with the
horizontal axis and height of the plate, respectively. The Eqn.4.1 need not be checked for the internal story beams.

7
 th
The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

5. CONCLUSIONS

The analytical and theoretical results of this study can be summarized as follows:

1-The shear strength capacities of the un-stiffened SPSWs depend on the relative stiffness and strengths of the
boundary elements as well as the slenderness of the infill steel plate, wherein the boundary elements have been
flexible the shear capacity of steel shear wall has been near to the plate girder result as a lower limit and if they
have been strong enough the shear capacity has been near to the strip model method result as an upper limit.
2-The shear strength capacities of the stiffened SPSWs, which have been stiffened based on the plate girders
requirements to preclude the shear buckling in the web plate, have been obtained near to the full plastic capacities
of the system as an upper limit.
3-There are good agreements between the analytical and theoretical outcomes.
4-The shear strength and stiffness of the boundary elements have been also effective in tension field action
development in the infill plate, the relevant equations are proposed for the minimum web cross areas of the
boundary elements based on the theoretical and analytical results.

REFERENCES:

[1] Wagner, H. (1931). Flat Sheet Metal Girders with very Thin Webs. Part I. General Theories and Assumptions.
Tech Memo. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington D. C., No. 604.
[2]Basler, K. (1961). Strength of Plate Girders in Shear. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division Vol. 87, No.
ST7, p. 151-180.
[3] Rockey, K. C., Skaloud, M. (1972). The Ultimate Load Behaviour of Plate Girders Loaded in Shear. Suctural
Engineer, No. 50, p. 29-47.
[4] Murray, N.W. (1986). Introduction to the Theory of Thin-Walled Structures. Clarendon Press, Oxford, U.K.
[5] Thorburn, L.J., Kulak, G.L., and Montgomery C.J. (1983). Analysis of Steel Plate Shear Walls. Structural
Engineering Report. University of Alberta, Canada, No. 107.
[6] Timler, P. A. and Kulak, G.L. (1983). Experimental Study of Steel Plate Shear Walls. Structural Engineering
Report, University of Alberta, Canada, No. 114.
[7] Caccese, V., Elgaaly, M., and Chen, R. (1993). Experimental Study of Thin Steel-Plate Shear Walls Under
Cyclic Load. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering Vol. 119, No. 2, p. 573-587.
[8] Lubell, A.S., Prion, H.G.L, Ventura C.E., and Rezai, M.(2000).Un-stiffened Steel Plate Shear Wall
Performance under Cyclic Loading. Journal of Structural Engineering Vol. 126, No. 4, p. 453-460.
[9] Sabouri-Ghomi, S., Ventura C.E., Kharrazi, M.H.K. (2005).Shear Analysis and Design of Ductile Steel Plate
Walls. Journal of Structural Engineering Vol. 131, No. 6, p. 878-889
[10] Astaneh - Asl, A. (2001).Seismic Behaviour and Design of Steel Shear walls. Steel TIPS Report, Structural
Steel Educational Council, Moraga, CA,
[11] Driver, R.G., Kulak, Elwi, A.E. and G. L., Kennedy, D.J.L. (1998). Cyclic Tests of Four-Story Steel Plate
Shear Wall. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering Vol. 124, No. 2, p. 112-120.
[12] Berman, J., and Bruneau, M. (2003). Plastic Analysis and Design of Steel Plate Shear Walls. ASCE Journal
of Structural Engineering Nov., p. 1448-1456.
[13] Alinia, M.M., Dastfan,M. (2006). Behaviour of thin steel plate shear walls regarding frame members. Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 62, p.730-738.
[14] Lubell, A.S. (1997).Performance of Un-stiffened Steel Plate Shear Walls under Cyclic Quasi-Static Loading.
M.A. Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada,
[15] AISC 360-05. (2005). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction
Inc., Chicago,.
[16] Kuhn, P. Peterson, J.P. and Levin,L.R. (1952). A summary of diagonal tension, Part II-Experimental
evidence. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington D. C., Tech. Memorandum 2662

View publication stats