ANALYSIS OF STEEL PLATE SHEAR WALLS USING THE MODIFIED STRIP MODEL - Printable Version +- Civil Engineering Association (https://forum.civilea.com) +-- Forum: eBooks (https://forum.civilea.com/forum-63.html) +--- Forum: Journals, Papers and Presentations (https://forum.civilea.com/forum-74.html) +--- Thread: ANALYSIS OF STEEL PLATE SHEAR WALLS USING THE MODIFIED STRIP MODEL (/thread-35928.html) |
ANALYSIS OF STEEL PLATE SHEAR WALLS USING THE MODIFIED STRIP MODEL - david-smith - 05-08-2012 ANALYSIS OF STEEL PLATE SHEAR WALLS USING THE MODIFIED STRIP MODEL Author: Jonah J. Shishkin,Robert G. Driver | Size: 2.80 MB | Format: PDF | Quality: Original preprint | Publisher: University of Alberta | Year: 2005 | pages: 164
ABSTRACT Unstiffened steel plate shear walls are an effective and economical method of resisting lateral forces on structures due to wind and earthquakes. Engineers in the workplace require the ability to assess the inelastic structural response of steel plate shear walls using conventional analysis software that is commonly available and is relatively simple and expeditious to use. The strip model, a widely accepted analytical tool for steel plate shear wall analysis, is refined based on phenomena observed during loading of steel plate shear walls in the laboratory. These observations are modelled first in detail and then simplified to provide an accurate prediction of the overall inelastic behaviour, while being efficient to model. The modifications are tested on several test specimens to validate their use. A parametric study examines the effect of varying the angle of inclination of the tension strips on the predicted inelastic behaviour of the model. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................ vii LIST OF SYMBOLS ....................................................................................................... ix 1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE ......................................................................................... 1 1.3 CHAPTER OVERVIEW.............................................................................................. 2 2. LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................... 4 2.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 4 2.2 MIMURA AND AKIYAMA (1977) ............................................................................. 5 2.3 THORBURN ET AL. (1983)........................................................................................ 5 2.4 TIMLER AND KULAK (1983) ................................................................................... 7 2.5 TROMPOSCH AND KULAK (1987)............................................................................ 8 2.6 ELGAALY ET AL. (1993A)........................................................................................ 9 2.7 XUE AND LU (1994) ............................................................................................. 10 2.8 DRIVER ET AL. (1997; 1998A, B)........................................................................... 11 2.9 ELGAALY AND LIU (1997) .................................................................................... 14 2.10 LUBELL (1997) ..................................................................................................... 14 2.11 TIMLER ET AL. (1998) ........................................................................................... 17 2.12 REZAI (1999)........................................................................................................ 18 2.13 ASTANEH-ASL (2001) .......................................................................................... 19 2.14 KULAK ET AL. (2001) ............................................................................................ 19 2.15 BEHBAHANIFARD ET AL. (2003) ............................................................................ 21 2.16 BERMAN AND BRUNEAU (2003) ........................................................................... 22 2.17 KHARRAZI ET AL. (2004)....................................................................................... 23 3. DETAILED MODEL............................................................................................... 33 3.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 33 3.2 TEST SPECIMEN AND MODEL GEOMETRY AND LOADING ..................................... 34 3.3 PANEL ZONES....................................................................................................... 35 3.4 PLASTIC HINGES................................................................................................... 36 3.5 COMPRESSION STRUT ........................................................................................... 38 3.6 DETERIORATION OF INFILL PLATE........................................................................ 39 3.7 DETAILED MODEL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ........................................................ 40 3.7.1 Pushover Analysis Overview............................................................................ 40 3.7.2 Pushover Analysis of the Detailed Model ........................................................ 42 3.7.3 Pushover Analysis Results................................................................................ 43 3.8 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 44 4. THE SIMPLIFIED MODEL................................................................................... 53 4.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 53 4.2 FRAME–JOINT ARRANGEMENT............................................................................. 53 4.3 CROSSHATCHING OF DIAGONAL TENSION STRIPS................................................. 55 4.4 BILINEAR PLASTIC HINGES................................................................................... 56 4.5 DETERIORATION HINGE AND COMPRESSION STRUT ............................................. 57 4.6 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR THE SIMPLIFIED MODEL .............................. 58 4.7 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ON THE COMPRESSION STRUT LIMITING STRESS............. 59 4.8 MODIFIED STRIP MODEL FRAME FORCE RESULTS................................................ 59 4.9 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 61 5. VALIDATION OF THE MODIFIED STRIP MODEL....................................... 77 5.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 77 5.2 TIMLER AND KULAK (1983) SPECIMEN ................................................................ 77 5.2.1 Model Geometry and Loading.......................................................................... 77 5.2.2 Analysis Results and Model Refinements......................................................... 80 5.3 LUBELL (1997) ONE–STOREY SPECIMEN (SPSW2).............................................. 82 5.3.1 Model Geometry and Loading.......................................................................... 82 5.3.2 Analysis Results and Model Refinements......................................................... 83 5.4 LUBELL (1997) FOUR–STOREY MODEL (SPSW4)................................................ 85 5.4.1 Model Geometry and Loading.......................................................................... 85 5.4.2 Analysis Results and Model Refinements......................................................... 86 5.5 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 87 6. PARAMETRIC STUDY.......................................................................................... 97 6.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 97 6.2 DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................. 97 6.3 PARAMETERS...................................................................................................... 100 6.4 ONE-STOREY MODELS ....................................................................................... 101 6.4.1 Model Arrangement and Design .................................................................... 101 6.4.2 Analysis and Results....................................................................................... 103 6.5 FOUR-STOREY MODELS...................................................................................... 104 6.5.1 Model Arrangement and Design .................................................................... 104 6.5.2 Analysis and Results....................................................................................... 105 6.6 FIFTEEN-STOREY MODELS ................................................................................. 108 6.6.1 Model Arrangement and Design .................................................................... 108 6.6.2 Analysis and Results....................................................................................... 109 6.7 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 110 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..................................................................... 129 7.1 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 129 7.2 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 132 7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH.................................................... 134 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 136 APPENDIX A................................................................................................................ 141 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Numerous research programs have confirmed that steel plate shear walls are an effective method of resisting lateral forces on structures such as those due to wind and earthquakes. Moreover, they have been shown to be an economical solution (Timler et al. 1998). A conventional steel plate shear wall consists of thin and unstiffened steel plates bounded by steel columns and beams. Steel plate shear walls can be multiple storeys high and can be one or more bays wide with either simple shear or moment–resisting beam-tocolumn connections. The primary mechanism for resisting storey shears arising from lateral loads comes from the post-buckling inclined tension field that forms in the infill plate. Steel plate shear walls have been shown to possess considerable strength, ductility, redundancy, and robustness (e.g., Timler and Kulak 1983, Driver et al. 1997; 1998a). Modern design codes and standards are increasingly requiring an accurate assessment of inelastic structural response. However, current methods of analysing steel plate shear walls to obtain a reasonable approximation of the complete structural response curve require the use of sophisticated nonlinear finite element software or, alternatively, elastic analyses that must be supplemented with time consuming hand calculations. While research institutions often use powerful and sophisticated software packages, they are not common in industry. Design engineers require the ability to assess inelastic structural response using conventional analysis software that is commonly available and is relatively simple and expeditious to use. Most analysis software used by design engineers are elastic analysis programs that utilise inelastic methods, such as rigid–plastic hinges, to approximate the post-yield behaviour of a structure. 1.2 Objectives and Scope This research proposes refinements to the strip model, as described by Thorburn et al. (1983), to obtain a more accurate prediction of the inelastic behaviour of steel plate shear walls using a conventional structural engineering software package. The refinements are based on observations from laboratory tests on steel plate shear wall specimens. Modelling efficiency is also evaluated against accuracy of the solution. A modifiedversion of the strip model is proposed, which is shown to be efficient to generate while maintaining a high degree of accuracy. The parameters of the proposed model are generic and can be implemented into any structural analysis program with pushover analysis capabilities. A parametric study is also performed to determine the sensitivity of the predicted nonlinear behaviour to variations in the angle of inclination of the infill plate tension field. The research focuses on the pushover analysis method to obtain a good prediction of the inelastic behaviour of steel plate shear wall test specimens, which for cyclically loaded specimens is best captured by the envelope of the hysteresis curves. The research is limited to the analysis of unstiffened steel plate shear walls with relatively thin infill plates that contain no openings. While other analytical methods have been proposed to predict the inelastic behaviour of steel plate shear walls, they are not examined in detail in this report. Code: *************************************** |