Tests of Two Three-Story Ductile Steel Plate Shear Walls

Structures 2008: Crossing Borders
© 2008 ASCE
Tests of Two Three-Story Ductile Steel Plate Shear Walls
Authors:
Saied Sabouri-Ghomi, K.N.T. University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, sabouri@kntu.ac.ir
Majid Gholhaki, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran, mgholhaki@semnan.ac.ir
ABSTRACT
Two three-story unstiffened ductile steel plate shear walls were tested under cyclic loading.
The shear walls had two types of beam-to-column connections consisting of rigid (SPSW-R)
and simple (SPSW-S). Low and high strengths steel were used in the plates of panels and
boundary frames, respectively. Both specimens endured many cycles of loading most of
which were in the inelastic range. They showed excellent ductility and energy dissipation
characteristics and exhibited stable behavior at very large deformations.
KEY WORDS
Thin Steel Plate Shear Wall, Low Strength Steel, Hysteretic Behavior, Beam-to-Column
Connection.
INTRODUCTION
During the past 3 decades, interest has grown globally in the application of steel plate shear
walls (SPSWs) as lateral load resisting system. The system consists of steel plates one story
high and one bay wide connected to the adjacent beams and columns. The plates are installed
in one or more bays for the full height of a building, thereby forming a stiff cantilever wall
(e.g. Figure 1).
FIGURE 1 - OVERALL SHAPE OF SPSW (COURTESY OF M. GILMORE)
The beam-to-column connections may be rigid or simple in the surrounding steel frame,
depending on the design philosophy. Steel plate shear walls are well-suited for either new
construction or as a means for the seismic upgrading of existing steel and concrete structures.
1

Structures 2008: Crossing Borders
© 2008 ASCE
SPSWs possess properties that are fundamentally beneficial to resisting seismically
induced loads. As is demonstrated herein, these include superior ductility, robust resistance to
degradation under cyclic loading, high initial stiffness, and inherent redundancy and
significant energy dissipation.
Until the 1980s, the design limit state for SPSW in North America was out-of-plane
buckling of the infill plates. Although it has been shown that stiffening the panel heavily can
increase the amount of energy dissipated under cyclic loading significantly [1], the cost
involved is likely to be prohibitive in most markets. However, it has been known for a long
time that buckling does not necessarily represent the limit of useful behavior and there is
considerable post buckling strength in an unstiffened shear panel [2].
At the point of critical elastic buckling, the load-resisting mechanism changes from inplane
shear to an inclined tension field. Finally by yielding of the steel panel significant
amount of energy dissipate in cyclic loading.
In recent years, SPSWs have been used in a number of buildings as part of the lateral load
resisting system, mainly in Japan and North America. One of the most significant buildings
constructed with SPSWs, in a highly seismic area, is a 35-story high-rise building in Kobe,
Japan (e.g. Figure 2).
FIGURE 2 - 35-STORY KOBE BUILDING (COURTESY OF C.E. VENTURA)
This structure was constructed in 1988 and performed very well during the 1995 Kobe
earthquake, [3]. The 24-story U.S. Courthouse building in Seattle, Washington, and 6-story
building in Saint Georges, Quebec, are prime examples of the application of this system in the
United States and Canada, (e.g. Figures 3 and 4, respectively).
PREVIOUS TESTING OF STEEL PLATE SHEAR WALLS
The studies so far is limited to the topic of physical testing of unstiffened SPSWs. Timler and
Kulak [4] tested a single-story SPSW to verify the analytical technique established by
Thorburn et al. [5].
Tromposch and Kulak [6] tested a shear wall similar to the test undertaken by Timler and
Kulak [4]. However, important modifications were introduced, including the use of bolted
simple connections in the frame, a thinner infill panel, and very stiff beam members.
An experimental program conducted by Elgaaly and Caccese [7] investigated the behavior
of ten one-quarter scale SPSW models subjected to cyclic loading. The specimens were three
2

Structures 2008: Crossing Borders
© 2008 ASCE
stories high and one bay wide. Parameters that varied were the panel thickness and the beamto-column
connection in both rigid and simple types.
FIGURE 3 - 24-STORY COURTHOUSE BUILDING, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (COURTESY OF F.
OOMS)
FIGURE 4 - 6-STORY SPSW DURING CONSTRUCTION, QUEBEC, CANADA (COURTESY OF M.
GILMORE)
Sabouri-Ghomi and Roberts [8] and Roberts and Sabouri-Ghomi [9] conducted a series of
small scale quasi-static cyclic tests on slender unstiffened shear panels. Twelve different
specimens with infill panel dimensions of 300 mm by 300 mm and 450 mm by 300 mm were
tested. Infill plate thicknesses were 0.54 mm and 0.83 mm of steel and 1.23 mm of aluminum.
Driver [10] tested a half-scaled four-story SPSW frame under quasi-static cyclic loading
utilizing full rigid connections. The objective of this test was to study the performance of a
multi-story SPSW under the effects of very sever cyclic loading.
Lubell [11] conducted cyclic tests on two single panel specimens and one four-story
specimen. Each specimen was tested under fully reversed quasi-static cyclic loading in both
its elastic and inelastic response regions.
Rezai [12] conducted a shake table test on a four-story steel plate shear wall specimen.
The scale for the SPSW was a factor of 1 4 and the thickness of the infill steel panels was 1.5
mm. The limited capacity of the shake table prevented a significant inelastic response from
the specimen.
3

Structures 2008: Crossing Borders
© 2008 ASCE
Astaneh-Asl and Zhao [13] conducted two half-scale three-story SPSW tests under cyclic
loading. The specimens were one-half of a coupled wall with concrete-filled hollow steel
section as columns and had a total height of 6.2 m. The specimens showed good displacement
ductility capacity and stable hysteresis behavior with desirable energy dissipation
characteristics.
Behbahani-Fard [14] conducted a large-scale test on a three-story SPSW specimen under
lateral quasi-static cyclic loading in the presence of gravity loads. The specimen formed the
upper part of a four-story SPSW that had been tested earlier by Driver [10]. Since the test
specimen had gone through a history of plastic deformation from previous testing by Driver
[10], evaluating the effect of the previous test on the overall performance of the specimen was
one of the objectives.
Vian and Bruneau [15] conducted three SPSW specimen tests made of low yield strength
(LYS) steel infill panels and reduced beam sections (RBS) at the beam-ends, under cyclic
loading. Two of the specimens had holes for allowing mechanical utilities to pass through.
Multiple holes were designed in the steel plate of the panel used in the first specimen that
reduced the overall strength compared to the panel without perforations. The second
perforated SPSW specimen was designed with quarter-circle cut-outs in the panel corners
which were reinforced to transfer panel forces to the adjacent frame.
Kharrazi [16] conducted two SPSW specimen tests. The infill panels in these specimens
were made of low yield strength and mild steel. They had the ratio of height to width more
than one. The overall strength, elastic post-buckling stiffness and post-yield stiffness were
very high.
SPECIMENS DETAILS AND TESTS SETUP
Figure 5 shows the schematic representation of two test specimens SPSW-R and SPSW-S that
differ principally in type of beam-to-column connections, [17].
FIGURE 5 - SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF SPECIMENS SPSW-R AND SPSW-S
4

Structures 2008: Crossing Borders
© 2008 ASCE
Figures 6 and 7 show the rigid and simple types of beam-to-column connections which
were used for specimens SPSW-R and SPSW-S, respectively.
The beam-to-column connections of top beams in both specimens SPSW-R and SPSW-S
were rigid.
FIGURE 6 - DETAILS OF RIGID BEAM-TO-COLUMN CONNECTION
All beams were selected such that out-of-plane buckling would not occur, eliminating the
need for intermediate lateral bracing. In order to preclude probability of out-of-plane buckling
of wall, the lateral supporting system were used at each beam level. The lateral supporting
system consisted of three double beams, with both ends connected to the main supporting
frame system.
Both specimens were designed by plate-frame-interaction (PFI) technique, developed by
Sabouri-Ghomi and Roberts [8, 9, 18, and 19] for analysis and design of steel plate shear
walls. In addition, all requirements of AISC code for frames were met.
FIGURE 7 - DETAILS OF SIMPLE BEAM-TO-COLUMN CONNECTION
The mean measured thickness and the panel aspect ratio (width/height) for all panels are
0.7 mm and 1.0, respectively.
Equal horizontal load was applied at the top of specimens. Because of the laboratory
limitations, only two hydraulic pressure jacks were used at both sides of the top level in each
specimen.
For analysis and design of specimens in addition to the use of PFI technique [20,21,22]
for analysis and design of specimens, preliminary finite elements analyses were also carried
5

Structures 2008: Crossing Borders
© 2008 ASCE
out using the commercial general-purpose finite elements software ANSYS. Because the
computational demands on this system were high due to shear-buckling and localized
instabilities in the infill plate, monotonic loading was used to estimate the envelope of loaddisplacement
response.
TEST PROCEDURES AND LOADING PROTOCOL
Numerous load and deflection histories could be used to evaluate a structural component for
seismic performance. Most slow cyclic tests that are intended to simulate earthquake loading
employ a horizontal in-plane load history that uses gradually increasing loads or
displacements in successive cycles.
Based on ATC-24 [23] for specimen SPSW-R, the yield displacement ( y ) in panel 1 was
determined during the early stages of the test as 2.44 mm. Prior to reaching this value, single
loading cycles leading to shears in panel 1 of 10.3 kN, 12.8 kN and 15.2 kN and three
cycles each with shears of 18.0 kN were conducted to explore the elastic and the initial
inelastic behavior. These constituted cycles 1-6. After cycles 7, 8, and 9 with a displacement
of y =2.44 mm, the displacement in the first story was increased by 2.44 mm in each
subsequent deformation step. Following the guidelines of ATC-24, three cycles were
conducted at each deformation setup to a deformation of 3 y (cycles 13-15) and two cycles at
each deformation setup with incremental deformation of y thereafter.
After testing SPSW-R, the loading strategy was changed for specimen SPSW-S. The yield
displacement ( y ) in panel 1 of specimen SPSW-S, was determined during the early stages of
the test as 3.09 mm. Prior to reaching this value, six cycles similar to specimen SPSW-R and
with the same amplitudes were conducted to explore the elastic and the initial inelastic
behavior of specimen SPSW-S. After cycles 7, 8 and 9 with a displacement of y =3.09 mm,
two cycles were conducted at each displacement set-up with incremental displacement of 2 y
up to cycle 17. In cycles 18 and 19 the displacement reached 10 y and 11 y , respectively.
BEHAVIOR OF SPECIMENS
The behaviors of specimens during the tests were as follow:
Specimen SPSW-R
Specimen SPSW-R before the test is shown in Fig. 8. During the 6 initial cycles, an
inspection of the thin infill panels and boundary members revealed that no yielding had
occurred. In cycle 7 (the first cycle with y 2.44mm
that y is the first yielding in
specimen); the existing yield patterns became considerably more pronounced.
In this cycle panels 2 and 3, buckled visibly at maximum displacement. In addition,
several loud bangs first occurred in this cycle as the plate buckles popped out and reoriented
themselves upon reversal of the loading direction. These noises continued to occur in all
subsequent cycles.
During the cycles 10-12, as loading continued, amplitude of the buckles in the second and
third story panels increased. After unloading the forces, residual buckles were clearly visible
in a complex surface geometry that did not favor the orientation that formed in either direction
of loading. In cycle 13, the sign of beam yielding was observed in panel 2.
6

Structures 2008: Crossing Borders
© 2008 ASCE
FIGURE 8 - OVERALL PANELS OF SPECIMEN SPSW-R
The first tear was detected during cycle 21 in the east top corner of plate of panel 2 near
the pins (e.g. Figure 9). This tear propagated during subsequent cycles. After, the transverse
welding of the L shape which was used as fish plate conjunction near the second beam
cracked.
FIGURE 9 - FIRST TEARING OF SPSW-R IN CYCLE 21
In cycle 26, the crack of beam-to-column connection of second beam was increased. In
addition, transverse welding of horizontal and vertical L shape conjunction at top east corner
in panel 1 and bottom corners of panels 2 and 3 were cracked. Also, during cycle 26, at a
displacement of 9 y in panel 1, the maximum base shear of 153 kN was reached. The load-
7

Structures 2008: Crossing Borders
© 2008 ASCE
carrying capacity of the test specimen declined very gradually during each of the remaining
cycles of increasing deformations.
In cycle 27, the amplitude of the buckles in all panels increased. For example, the
amplitude of the buckle in panel 2 was estimated to be about 130 mm from the neutral
position. In cycles 29 and 30, in top and east edges of panel 2 and in bottom and west edges of
panel 3 the tearing around pins began and increased. In these cycles because of weakness of
the plate action and consequently serious frame action, the weld of conjunction beam flanges
to column flange in levels 1 and 2 were fractured and crack propagated and moved to the web
of beams.
Beginning at cycle 31, when the displacement of panel 1 reached 11 y , tears in the
interior of the panels 2 and 3 near the L shape suddenly formed as a result of kinking of the
stretched plate during load reversals. During the first loading history of cycle 31, and just
prior to failure, the base shear reached 91% of the maximum base shear reached in cycle 26.
The stiffness of the shear panel itself was declining in a very gradual and stable manner, and it
maintained its integrity to the end of the test.
Up to the end of the test all columns remained undamaged and there were no signs of local
or global buckling in them. Also no tearing occurred in panel 1 and there were no fracture in
the column s toe due to good performance of the toe stiffeners.
Figure 10 shows the behavior of specimen SPSW-R during the test.
FIGURE 10 - HYSTERETIC BEHAVIOR OF SPECIMEN SPSW-R
Specimen SPSW-S
During the 6 initial cycles, an inspection of the infill panels and boundary members revealed
that no yielding had occurred. In cycle 7 (the first cycle with y 3.09mm
that y is the
first yielding in specimen), the existing yield patterns, became considerably more pronounced.
Panels 2 and 3, buckled visibly at the maximum displacement. In addition, several load bangs
first occurred in this cycle as the plate buckles popped out and oriented themselves upon
reversal of the loading direction. These noises continued to occur in all subsequent cycles.
In cycles 8 and 9, some flaking of the white-wash paint on the plates of panels, near the
conjunction of horizontal and vertical L shape, used as fish plate of panels 1 and 2, were
noted. Minor signs of yielding also occurred in plates of the corresponding panels. During
cycles 10 and 11, as loading continued, amplitude of the buckles in the second and third
panels increased. In addition, the yielded areas on the plates of all panels had grown larger. In
cycles 12 and 13, flaking increased in top west of panel 2 and bottom west of panel 3 and in L
8

Structures 2008: Crossing Borders
© 2008 ASCE
shape connected between beam web and column flange flaking of white-wash was started.
The first tear was detected during cycle 14 in the east bottom corner of plate near the L shape
in panel 2, (e.g. Figure 11).
FIGURE 11 - FIRST TEARING OF SPSW-S IN CYCLE 14
During the cycles 15, 16 and 17 the flaking of the white-wash paint propagated all over
the panels 2, 3 and to some extent in panel 1. In cycle 18, at a displacement of 10 y in panel
1, the maximum base shear of 121 kN was reached. The load-carrying capacity of the test
specimen reached rapidly during the remaining cycles.
Beginning at cycle 19, when the displacement of panel 1 reached 11 y first in the top
edge and then in the east edge of plate in panel 2, tearing formed suddenly as a result of
kinking of the stretched plate during load reversals. During the second loading history of
cycle 19, and just prior to failure, the base shear reached 68% of the maximum base shear
obtained in cycle 18. Because of the tearing of panel 2, the rotation of beams 1 and 2 reached
maximum and so, the L shape profile connected between web of beam and flange of column
was yielded. At the end of cycle 19, tearing started at the top east corner of plate in panel 1.
Like the test of SPSW-R, up to the end of the test, all columns remained undamaged and there
were no signs of local or global buckling in them. Also, there was no fracture in the column s
toe because of the good performance of the toe stiffeners.
Figure 12 shows the behavior of specimen SPSW-S during the test.
SUMMARY
The hysteretic behaviors of both specimens indicated that the shear wall configurations tested
possess an extremely high degree of ductility. The results showed that the ductility factor of
specimens SPSW-R and SPSW-S are 6.63 and 8.24, respectively.
The results of the tested specimens showed that the steel plate shear walls, which are
designed based on the PFI technique and low strength steel plates are used in their panels
according to the general concept of easy-going steel in which the low strength plate absorbs
9

Structures 2008: Crossing Borders
© 2008 ASCE
much more energy in smaller displacement compared to the high strength boundary steel
frame, are more ductile. As it was observed from the tests, in such walls, the columns can be
protected from any damage.
FIGURE 12 - HYSTERETIC BEHAVIOR OF SPECIMEN SPSW-S
The hysteresis curves of specimens showed that the effect of beam-to-column connection
type on the initial stiffness of thin steel plate shear walls is negligible but it effects on
specimens' strengths.
The results showed that in specimen SPSW-R the amount of energy dissipated during the
loading cycles was significantly greater than those in SPSW-S.
The results showed that, in effect of the presence of infill plate, there is a reduction in
reliance on the beam-to-column connection of the frame for resisting the story shears.
Therefore, the joint panel zone would not generally be a critical element. It is likely that it
could be designed to remain essentially elastic.
REFRENCES
[1] Takahashi, Y., Takemoto, Y., Takeda, T., and Takagi, M., Experimental Study on Thin Steel Shear
Walls and Particular Bracings under Alternative Horizontal Load , Preliminary Report, IABSE
Symposium on Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on Well-defined Repeated
Loads, Lisbon, Portugal, 1973,185-191.
[2] Wagner, H., Flat Sheet Metal Girders with Very Thin Webs, Part I-General Theories and Assumptions ,
Tech. Memo., No. 604, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, D. C., 1931.
[3] Astaneh-Asl, A., Seismic Behavior and Design of Steel Shear Walls , Steel Tips Report, Structural Steel
Educational Council, July, Moraga, CA., 2001.
[4] Timler, P. A. and Kulak, G. L., Experimental Study of Steel Plate Shear Walls , Structural Engineering
Report No. 114, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta., Canada, 1983.
[5] Thorburn, L. J., Kulak, G. L., and Montgomery, C. J., Analysis of Steel Plate Shear Walls , Structural
Engineering Report No. 107, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta., Canada,
1983.
[6] Tromposch, E. W. and Kulak, G. L., Cyclic and Static Behavior of Thin Panel Steel Plate Shear Walls ,
Structural Engineering Rep. No. 145, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.,
Canada, 1987.
[7] Elgaaly, M., and Caccese, V., Steel Plate Shear Walls , Proceeding of AISC National Steel Construction
10

Structures 2008: Crossing Borders
© 2008 ASCE
Conference, American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Inc., Chicago, 1990.
[8] Sabouri-Ghomi, S., and Roberts, T.M., Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Thin Steel Plate Shear Walls ,
Computers and Structures, 39(1/2), 1991, 121 127.
[9] Roberts, T. M., and Sabouri-Ghomi, S., Hysteretic Characteristics of Unstiffened Plate Shear Panels ,
Thin-Walled Structures, 12, 1991, 145 162.
[10] Driver, R. G., Seismic Behavior of Steel Plate Shear Walls , Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, 1997.
[11] Lubell, A. S., Performance of Unstiffened Steel Plate Shear Walls under Cyclic Quasi Static Loading ,
M.A.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC,
Canada, 1997.
[12] Rezai, M., Seismic Behavior of Steel Plate Shear Walls by Shake Table Testing , Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1999.
[13] Astaneh-Asl, A. and Zhao, Q., Cyclic Behavior of Steel Shear Wall Systems , Proceedings of Annual
Stability Conference, Structural Stability Research Council, Seattle, 2002.
[14] Behbahani-Fard, M. R., Cyclic Behavior of Unstiffened Steel Plate Shear Walls , Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Alberta, 2003, 227 pages.
[15] Vian, D. and Bruneau, M., Testing of Special LYS Steel Plate Shear Walls , Proceedings of the 13th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 978, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada,
2004.
[16] Kharrazi, M. H. K., Rational Method for Analysis and Design of Steel Plate Shear Walls , Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of British Colombia, 2005, 217 pages.
[17] Sabouri-Ghomi, S. and Gholhaki, M., Cyclic Tests on Two Three-Story Ductile Steel Plate Shear
Walls , Report No.31, Building and Housing Research Center (BHRC), 2006, 117 pages.
[18] Roberts, T. M. and Sabouri-Ghomi, S., Hysteretic Characteristics of Unstiffened Perforated Steel Plate
Shear Panels , Thin-Walled Structures, 14, 1992, 139 151.
[19] Sabouri-Ghomi, S. and Roberts, T. M., Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Steel Plate Shear Walls
Including Shear and Bending Deformations , Engineering Structures, 14(5), 1992, 309 317.
[20] Sabouri-Ghomi, S., Lateral Load Resisting Systems: An Introduction to Steel Shear Walls , Anguizeh
Publishing Ltd., Tehran, Iran, 2002.
[21] Sabouri-Ghomi, S., Ventura, C. E. and Kharrazi, M. H. K., Shear Analysis and Design of Ductile Steel
Plate Shear Walls , Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 131(6), 2005, 878-889.
Sabouri-Ghomi, S, Lateral Load Resisting Systems: An Innovative Idea to Application of Easy-Going
[22]
Steel , Anguizeh Publishing Ltd., Tehran, Iran, 2004.
ATC , Guidelines for Seismic Testing of Components of Steel Structures , Applied Technology Council,
[23]
Report 24, 1992.
11