Final Presentation_25 May

Seismic Performance of Perforated Steel Plate Shear Walls Designed According to Canadian Seismic Provisions

Presented by: Kallol Barua

Supervised by: Dr. Anjan Bhowmick

A Thesis inThe Department of

Building, Civil and Environmental EngineeringConcordia University Montreal, Quebec Canada

May, 2016

Outline

Introduction

Literature Review

Methodology

Results and Discussions

Conclusions and Future work

Perforated Steel Plate Shear Wall (P-SPSW)

Improved version of Solid Infill SPSW

Effective lateral load resisting system High Stiffness and ductility Tremendous post-buckling strength Excellent energy dissipation capacity

Benefits: • Decreases member sizes and cost of the

project• Passing of utilities • Lifting and handling become easy• Equally applicable to new buildings as well

as retrofitting of existing buildings

Introduction Literature Review Methodology Results Conclusion

1/30

Thorburn et al. (1983) developed "Strip-Model” for unstiffened SPSW

Roberts and Sabouri-Ghomi (1992)

Vian and Bruneau (2005)

Purba and Bruneau (2006)

Here, α=0.7 where (D/Sdiag<0.6).

CSA/CAN-09 included the Purba et al.(2006) equation .

Previous Studies on P-SPSWs


2/30

Motivation

Limited studies Still no study was conducted over P-SPSWs designed according to current Canadian seismic provisions

Still perforated infill plate equation was not investigated for dynamic analysis


3/30


4/30

Objectives Develop a detailed and simplified finite element model to study behavior

of P-SPSWs designed according to current Canadian seismic provisions

Perform non-linear time history analyses to evaluate important response parameters of P-SPSWs. Specially carefully examine the dynamic shear contribution of the perforated plate.

Examine the applicability and accuracy of the N2 method in estimating seismic demands of P-SPSWs

Investigate the applicability of Simplified Method (Strip Model ) for the selected P-SPSWs.


Detailed Finite Element Modeling

FE model specifications Element type: Shell element S4R Material : Elasto-perfectly plastic Boundary conditions:

• Pin supported columns

Types of Analyses• Buckling analysis Pushover analysis Cyclic analysis Frequency analysis Seismic analysis

ABAQUS/CAE Extensive element and material library Advanced meshing capability Solving problems with material and

geometry non-linearities

5/30

Dummy Column

Validation of Experimental Result By Detailed FEM


One Storey P-SPSW (Vian et al. 2005) Bay width=4 m Storey height=2 m Plate Thickness =2.6mm

Figure: Perforated test specimen of Vian et al. (2005)

6/30

0 10 20 30 40 50 600

500

Detailed FE Analysis"Vian et al.(2005) test"

Displacement (mm)

Bas

e Sh

ear(

kN)

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Experiment Finite element

Displacemetn (mm)

Bas

e she

ar(k

N)

Monotonic Pushover CurveQuasi-static cyclic Curve

Openings (mm)

Sdiag(mm)

Beam Column

200 424 W460x97 W460X106

Building Geometry and Loading


Hypothetical office building Vancouver, Soil class C Storey height=3.8 m Bay width=5.7m Floor: DL= 4.2 kPa, LL=2.4 kPa Roof: DL=1.5 kPa, SL=1.12 kPa Load Combination :

DL+0.5LL+EQ(Floor) and DL+0.25SL+EQ(Roof)

Three designed P-SPSWs (4-,8-,12-storeys) (CSA S16-09 and NBCC2010)

7/30

Building Plan view

P-SPSW

P-SPSW

P-SPSWP-SPSW


Design of Perforated Steel Infill Plate

8/30

Design according to Canadian Standard

For low to mid rise structure the thickness requirement is <3mm

From practical availability and handling capability the minimum thickness requirement is 3 mm

Opening orientation : Uniformly distributed over the entire

plate in a staggered position α=45 degree D/Sdiag<0.6

e

Perforation Layout


Capacity Design of Boundary MembersBy Burman and Bruneau (2008)

9/30

Uniform Collops Mechanismby Burman & Bruneau (2008)

Forces on HBEs (Beam)

Forces on VBEs (Column)

HBEs and VBEs Design as a Beam Column Member


Selected of Sections for designed P-SPSWs

10/30

Plate (mm)

Hole Dia

(mm)

Beam section

Column section

Plate (mm)

Hole Dia

(mm)

Beam section

Column section

Plate (mm)

Hole Dia

(mm)

Beam section

Column section

Roof 3 200 W610X341W360X421

F-11 3 200 W460X144W360X421

F-10 3 200 W460X144W360X421

F-9 3 200 W460X144W360X421

F-8 3 200 W610X415 W360X463 3 200 W460X158W360X634

F-7 3 200 W460X144 W360X463 3 200 W460X158W360X634

F-6 3 200 W460X144 W360X634 3 200 W460X213W360X634

F-5 3 200 W460X144 W360X634 4.8 200 W460X213W360X634

F-4 3 200 W460X315 W360X314 3 200 W460X144 W360X634 4.8 200 W460X260W360X1086

F-3 3 200 W460X144 W360X314 4.8 200 W460X144 W360X634 4.8 200 W460X260W360X1086

F-2 3 200 W460X144 W360X509 4.8 200 W460X260 W360X900 4.8 200 W460X384W360X1086

F-1 3 200 W460X144 W360X509 4.8 200 W460X260 W360X900 4.8 200 W460X384W360X1086

4-storey P-SPSW 8-storey P-SPSW 12-storey P-SPSW


Buckling and Pushover Analysis of Selected P-SPSWs

11/30

P-SPSW

Base shear (kN)From NBCC 2010 From Pushover analysis

4-storey 1508 41108-Storey 2970 495012-storey 3354 8076

Buckling Analysis To Incorporate Initial Imperfection Performed “Linear Perturbation”

Buckle analysis Pushover Analysis To check the adequacy of design Considered monotonically applied

equivalent static loads.

Buckling analysis Pushover analysis

Seismic Analysis Methods

NLTHA N2 Method

Frequency Analysis

Lateral force

Frequency Analysis

Non-linear pushover analysis base shear – roof displacement

Idealization of pushover curve

MDOF SDOF pushover

Convert to capacity curve

5% damped Elastic Demand curve

Inelastic Constant ductility demand curve

Both curves in the same plot

Intersection of T and elastic demand spectra ductility and displacement demand

oo

o

0.3o c c

TR 1 1 when T TT

R when T T

T 0.65 T T

*n n i iS m or p m

Determining damping coefficients and period

Selecting ground motions (GMs)

Scaling GMs to match Vancouver design

spectrum

Applying GMs to structure

Obtaining different response histories

n n, n

ADRS Format


12/30


13/30

Damping coefficient (α and β) Scaling of Earthquakes

Frequency Analysis

P-SPSW Circular frequency

(ω) in rad/sec

Time period (T1) in sec

4-storey 1st mode 6.20 1.012nd mode 17.16 0.37



1st mode 2nd mode

12-storey P-SPSW Frequency Analysis

Peak response Minimum 3 GM records

Average of Peak response Minimum 7 GM records ASCE 7-10

Real Ground motion (From PEER 2010 database) 0.8<A/V <1.2 Magnitude M6-M7 Simulated Ground motion (From Seismotoolbox) Magnitude 6.5-7.5

Selection of Ground Motion Records

Real Ground Motion Records

Simulated Ground Motion Records


14/30

Event Year M PGA(g) PGV (m/s) A/V 4-storey 8-storey 12-storey

Imperial Valley-6,California,USA 1979 6.53 0.525 0.502 1.04 0.99 1.04 1.01Kern County, California, USA 1952 7.3 0.156 0.153 1.02 1.86 1.81 1.89Kobe city, Japan 1995 6.6 0.143 0.147 0.97 1.71 1.57 1.61Loma Prieto, USA 1989 6.93 0.233 0.221 1.05 1.31 1.38 1.47Northridge-I,USA 1994 6.7 0.231 0.183 1.2 1.38 1.34 1.42San Fernando, USA 1972 6.6 0.188 0.179 1.05 1.61 1.64 1.68

Event name Magnitude(M) Distance (Km)

Peak acceleration

(cm/s2)4-storey 8-Storey 12-storey

6C1 6.5 8.8 487 0.7 0.78 0.886C2 6.5 14.6 265 1.3 1.48 1.647C1 7.5 15.2 509 0.83 0.91 0.977C2 7.5 45.7 248 1.66 1.45 1.83

Scaled Response Spectra of GM records


Acceleration Spectra for 4-Storey P-SPSWs Acceleration Spectra for 8-Storey P-SPSWs

Acceleration Spectra for 12-Storey P-SPSWs

Partial area method for scaling

Design spectrum of Vancouver

Range between 0.2 T1 and 1.5T1

Scale Factor 0.5-2.0

15/30


Non-linear Time History Analysis Results (Inter-storey Drift)

Inter-storey Drift for 4-Storey (Left), 8-storey (Middle), 12-storey (Right) P-SPSWs

16/30

Comparison of Dynamic and static Base Shear

P-SPSW Average NTHA(kN)

Static Base Shear (kN) % of variation

4-STOREY 3168 1508 1108-STOREY 10645 2970 230

12-STOREY 8030 3354 150


Non-linear Time History Analysis Results (Dynamic Storey Shear in Perforated Infill)

17/30

P-SPSWS 4-Storey 8-Storey 12-Storey

1st Floor 1st Floor 1st Floor 2nd FloorAverage (NTHA) 1657 3292 3129 3163Code

Equation 2050 3275 3275 3275

Variation(%) 19 0.5 4.5 3.4

Mid-section shear force for 4-storey Mid-section shear force for 8-storey Mid-section shear force for 12-storey

Comparison of Shear Force(kN) in Perforated Infill

𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 :𝑉 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓=𝑉 𝑠(1−0.7 𝐷𝑆𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔 )


(Axial Force for 4-,8-&12-storey SPSW and P-SPSW Left column)Non-linear Time History Analysis Results

Axial Force for 4-storey (left), 8-storey (middle) and 12-storey (right )

18/30

28% 22% 20%Bottom:


(Yielding Pattern)

Perforated infill fully yielded

At the peak acceleration time

Simultaneous yielding in all infill

Beam plastic hinges formed for some

earthquakes (7C1 & 7C2 etc) All columns remain elastic

19/30

7C2Kern Country

12-storey P-SPSW yielding pattern

Non-linear Time History Analysis Results


NLTHA N2 Method

Frequency Analysis

Lateral force

Frequency Analysis

Non-linear pushover analysis base shear – roof displacement

Idealization of pushover curve

MDOF SDOF pushover

Convert to capacity curve

5% damped Elastic Demand curve

Inelastic Constant ductility demand curve

Both curves in the same plot

Intersection of T and elastic demand spectra ductility and displacement demand

oo

o

0.3o c c

TR 1 1 when T TT

R when T T

T 0.65 T T

*n n i iS m or p m

Determining damping coefficients and period

Selecting ground motions (GMs)

Scaling GMs to matchVancouver design

spectrum

Applying GMs to structure

Obtaining different response histories

n n, n

ADRS Format

Seismic Analysis Methods

20/30


N2 Method

Freemen (1975) proposed graphical procedure of Capacity Spectrum

Method

Fajfar (1999) :

Relatively simple N2 procedure with

a constant ductility demand spectrum

Recommended method by EC-08

Non-linear static analysis procedure

Compares capacity of the structure with the demands of ground motion

Fast method to evaluate seismic performance

20/30

FramesEffective mass

m*

(ton)

Modal Participation

Factor

Yield Strength F*y

(kN)

Yield Displacement D*

y

(mm)

Elastic Period T*

(sec)

4-Storey 1308 1.39 2860 37.4 0.828-Storey 2302 1.49 3000 111 1.84

12-Storey 3035 1.56 3900 255 2.80


Seismic Demand Evaluation by N2 Method(Capacity curve of P-SPSWs)

Structural Properties of Equivalent SDOF System

21/30

0 100 200 300 400 5000

1000

2000

3000

4000

Dt, Top Displacement(mm)

Vb,

Bas

es sh

ear(

KN

)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0.00

0.03

0.06

0.09

0.12

0.15

0.18

0.21

Displacement, D*

Forc

e, F

* (K

N)

Say(

g)

Fig: First Mode Load Displacement curve for 4-storey P-SPSW

Fig: Idealized Load Displacement curve of ESDOF for 4-storey P-SPSW


Seismic Demand Evaluation by N2 Method

22/30

0 5 10 15 20 250

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Sd(cm)

Sa(g)

T=0.2

T=0.5

T=1.0

T=2.0

T=4.0

µ=1.0

µ=1.8

µ=5.0

T=0.82

Capacity curve

Fig: Constant Ductility Acceleration Displacement Format for Vancouver


Parameters 4-Storey 8-Storey 12-StoreyMax Top Displacement

(N2 Method) (mm)

95 228 335

Max Top Displacement(NLTHA) (mm)

84.5 185 272

Percentage Error (%)(CSM W.R.T NLTHA)

12 18.5 23

Ductility 1.8 1.4 1

Application of N2 Method on 4-Storey P-SPSW

(Displacement Demand and Ductility )

Comparisons of N2 method and NTHA


Seismic Demand Evaluation by N2 Method

23/30


(Inter-storey Drift)

Inter-storey drift for 4-storey (left), 8-storey (middle), 12-storey(right) P-SPSW

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30

1

2

3

4

Inter-storey Drift%

Stor

ey

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Inter-storey Drift

Stor

ey

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30123456789

101112

The N2 Method

Average NTH Analysis

NBCC2010

Interstorey Drift %

Stor

ey


Modified Strip Model (MSM) For P-SPSW

24/30

Tension Strip: Pin connected truss element Strip width:

Edge to edge (E/E) Center to center (C/C)

Strip Layout : Exact layout Crosshatch layout( by Timler et al. (1998))

Deterioration Strips: For tearing and welding failure Compression Strut : Area: Equivalent Brace Model Material Strength : 15% of Tension strip Panel Zone: Same as column property

(Geometry ) Simple and easy analysis tool for unstiffened SPSW. Effectively capture the elastic to inelastic behavior for large scale SPSW.SAP 2000(CSI) Widely used software package in industries


Modified Strip Model For P-SPSW

25/30

Boundary Condition

h=800mm

(Hinge Location and Boundary Condition )

Plastic Hinges: Bi-linear Beam: Flexural Plastic Hinges

(M3) Column: Axial load actuated

Flexural hinges (P-M3) Tension Strip : Axial hinge(P) Detrition Strip: ten times yield of

tension strip Compression Strip: Axial

hinges(P) Boundary Condition: Pin support condition


26/30

Validation of Modified Strip ModelVain et al. (1997) Test Specimen

Vain et al. (2005) test specimen

Loading and Geometry of Vain et at. (2005) test specimen for MSM

Fig: Strip C/C

Load displacement curve for test and MSM

0 10 20 30 40 50 600

500

1000

1500

2000

Vain et al.(2005) Modified Strip Model (C/C)Modified Strip Model (E/E)

Displacement(mm)

Bas

e sh

aer

(kN

)

Strip E/E


Seismic Performance Evaluation of P-SPSWs Using MSM(Pushover analysis of 4-storey P-SPSWs)

27/30

Loading and Geometry of 4-storey P-SPSWs (Exact layout and C/C strip

width)

Load Displacement Curve

Monitored node

Detailed Finite Element Modeling

0 50 100 150 200 250 3000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Detaile Finite element analyis by ABAQUSModified Strip model by SAP2000(Exact layout & C/C Strip)Modified Strip Model by SAP2000 ( Cross-hatch layout and C/C strip)

Top Displacement (mm)

Base

she

ar(k

N)

Loading and Geometry of 4-storey P-SPSWs (Cross-hatch layout and C/C strip width)

Exact Layout and C/C strip

Cross-hatchLayout and C/C strip

28/30

Seismic Performance Evaluation of P-SPSWs Using MSM(Pushover Analysis over 8-&12-storey P-SPSWs)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 8000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Detaile Finite Element Model in ABAQUS

Modified Strip Model by SAP2000

Top Displacement (mm)

Bas

e Sh

ear(

kN)

0 500 1000 1500 20000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Detailed Finiet Element model in ABAQUS(2011)Modified Strip Model in SAP2000

Top Displacement (mm)B

ase

Shea

r (k

N)

Load Displacement curve for 8-storey (left) and 12-storey (right) P-SPSWs


For Exact layout and C/C strip Width


Non-linear Time history Analyses for P-SPSWs

FE model able to predict behavior of P-SPSWs accurately, perfect agreement

All P-SPSWs behavior In compliance with the capacity design approach

The inter-storey drifts in all P-SPSWs well below limit of 2.5% of storey height

Critical response parameters: Base Shear, Storey shear, Axial Force are well below the standard limit

The average perforated plate shear contribution for dynamic analysis slightly underestimate the standard equation

The selection of perforated infill plate thickness as well as for the design of boundary members as per capacity design, the current code equation of CSA/CAN S16-09 can be considered safe.

29/30


N2 Method For P-SPSWS

Sufficient accuracy was found for predicting the displacement and ductility demands of 4-and 8- storey P-SPSWs by N2 Method.

For the 12-storey, the method was not capable of providing good result due to higher mode effect in few instance.

30/30

Modified Strip Model for P-SPSWs Capable of predicting the behavior of P-SPSW well( exact layout

and C/C strip) when compared to detailed finite element modeling. Slightly underestimated the initial stiffness; however, the ultimate

strength was predicted very well.


Future Work

More research works are required on P-SPSWs of different types, geometry and height to verify the achievement of the desired frame behavior of P-SPSWs designed according to current Canadian provisions.

N2 method is applicable for the structure which have first mode of vibration, so more study required to capturing seismic demand for high-rise structure.

The applicability of the modified strip model for non-linear time history analysis shall be investigated.

Contribution Barua, K. and Bhowmick, A. 2016. "Seismic Performance of

Perforated Steel Plate Shear Walls." Steel and Composite Structures To be submitted.

References ASCE/SEI. 2007. Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA

Berman, J.W., and Bruneau, M. 2008. Capacity design of vertical boundary elements in steel plate shear walls. ASCE,

Engineering Journal, first quarter 57-71. 125.

CSA. 2009. Limit states design of steel structures. Canadian Standards Association. Toronto, Ontario.

Driver, R.G., Kulak, G.L., Kennedy, D.J.L. and Elwi, A.E. 1997. Seismic Behaviour of Steel Plate Shear Walls;

Structural Engineering Report No. 215. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta,

Canada. 127.

Driver, R.G., Kulak, G.L. Elwi, A.E. and Kennedy, D.J.L 1998b. FE and Simplified Models of Steel Plate Shear Wall.

ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 124(2): 121-130.

Fajfar, P. 1999. Capacity Spectrum Method Based on Inelastic Demand Spectra. Earthquake Engineering and

Structural Dynamics 28 (9): 979-993.

Hibbitt, Karlsson, and Sorensen. 2011. ABAQUS/Standard User’s Manual. Pawtucket, RI: HKS.Inc. NBCC. 2010. National Building Code of Canada. Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes. National

Research Council of Canada (NRCC), Ottawa, Ontario. Purba, R. H. 2006. Design recommendations for perforated steel plate shear walls. M.Sc. Thesis, State Univ. of New

York at Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y. Shishkin, J.J., Driver, R.G., and Grondin, G.Y., 2005. Analysis of Steel Plate Shear Walls Using the Modified Strip

Model. Structural Engineering Report No. 261, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

Vian, D., and Bruneau, M. 2005. Steel Plate Shear Wall for Seismic design and retrofit of building structures. Technical Report No. MCEER -05-0010, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State university of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y. USA.

Thank You

Performance Evaluation Methods

Linear analysis methods: Dynamic and Static

Inaccurate results for the case of highly non-linear responses

Non-linear analysis methods: Dynamic and Static

Non-linear time history analysis very accurate

but time consuming and complex

not practical for design level evaluation

Non-linear static analysis Selected

(NLTHA)

N2 Method /Capacity Spectrum

Method (CSM)

Simple and effective


3/33

Rayleigh Proportional DampingRayleigh proportional damping is the damping proportional to the mass and stiffness:

C=M+K

is mass proportional damping coefficient and is stiffness proportional damping coefficient.For the nth natural mode of vibration the following relation applies:

i j

i j i j

2 2

nn

n

12 2

For i and j modes:

CSM Formula

Acceleration response spectrum can be converted in to acceleration-displacement response spectrum (ADRS):

2

de ae2

TS S4

The acceleration spectra Sa and displacement spectra Sd for an inelastic SDOF system can be obtained by using strength reduction factor

aea d a2

S TS S SR 4

oo

TR 1 1 when T TT

oR when T T 0.3o c cT 0.65 T T


24/33

Validation of Modified Strip Model(MSM)Driver et al. (1997) Test Specimen

Monitored Node

Fig: Driver et at. (1997) test specimen Fig: Loading and Geometry of Driver et at.

(1997) test specimen For MSM

Fig: Load displacement curve for test and MSM

Equal energy rule and Equal displacement rule

Equal energy rule: For short period structure, the equal energy rule applies. In this method the energy absorbed by an inelastic system is approximated to be equal to the energy absorbed by an elastic system with same stiffness and damping ratio.

Equal displacement rule: For more flexible structure with medium and long period, displacement of inelastic system is equal to by that of elastic system (Newmark and Hall 1973)

Beam:

Column:

PsiPsi

Pbli Pbri

Pbli Pbri

𝑀𝑝𝑟𝑙𝑖=1.18 (1− |𝑃 𝑏𝑙𝑖|𝐹 𝑦𝑏𝐴𝑏𝑖

)𝑍𝑥𝑏𝑖 𝑖𝑓 1.18(1− |𝑃𝑏𝑙𝑖|𝐹 𝑦𝑏 𝐴𝑏𝑖

)≤1.0……………….. 8

𝑀𝑝𝑟𝑙𝑖=𝑍𝑥𝑏𝑖 𝐹 𝑦𝑏𝑖𝑓 1.18 (1− |𝑃𝑏𝑙𝑖|𝐹 𝑦𝑏𝐴𝑏𝑖

)>1.0………………… .. 9

𝑴 𝒑𝒓𝒍𝒊 𝑴 𝒑𝒓 𝒓 𝒊

𝑉 𝑏𝑟𝑖=𝑀𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑖+𝑀𝑝𝑟𝑙𝑖

𝐿 +(𝑤𝑦𝑏𝑖−𝑤 𝑦𝑏𝑖+1 ) 𝐿2 ………………………………10

Moment:

Shear:

𝑉 𝑏𝑙𝑖=𝑉 𝑏𝑟𝑖− (𝑤𝑦𝑏𝑖−𝑤𝑦𝑏𝑖+1 )𝐿……………………………… .11

𝑉 𝑏𝑟𝑖 𝑉 𝑏𝑙𝑖

Horizontal Boundary Element (HBEs)

Pbli

𝑴 𝒑𝒓𝒍𝒊

𝑉 𝑏𝑟𝑖

Vertical Boundary Elements (VBEs)

HBEs and VBEs Design as a Beam Column Member:

a. Local Buckling Check b. Cross Sectional Strength Check C. Overall Member Strength -In plane Stability check ( Beam ) d. Lateral Torsional Buckling check ( Column)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Actual

FE

Strain %

Stre

ss(M

Pa)

Material Properties

Design : yp=350MPa,FE: yp=385MPa and Bi-linearG40.21-350W: yp=345Mpa , strain hardening 0.5%-5%

2%


Modified Strip Method For P-SPSW

27/33

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10

0.5

1

Column Flexure Hinge

ϴ(Rad)

M/M

p

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10

0.5

1 Beam Flexure Hinge

θ (rad)

M/M

p

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0

0.5

1

1.5Tension Strip (Axial Hinge)

Δ/Δy

P/Py

-500 -450 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0

-1

-0.5

0

Compression Strip (Axial Hinge)

Δ/Δy P/Py

Deterioration strip :

10 times yield

Boundary Condition

h=800mm

(Hinge Location and Boundary Condition )


Modified Strip Method For P-SPSW

24/30

Tension Strip: Pin connected truss element Strip width:

Edge to edge (E/E) Center to center (C/C)

Strip Layout : Exact layout Crosshatch layout( by Timler et al. (1998))

Compression Strut : Area: Equivalent Brace Model Material Strength : 15% of Tension strip Panel Zone: Same as column property

(Geometry ) Simple and easy analysis tool for unstiffened SPSW. Effectively capture the elastic to inelastic behavior for large scale SPSW.SAP 2000(CSI) Widely used software package in industries

Contribution Barua, K. and Bhowmick, A. 2016. "Seismic Performance of

Perforated Steel Plate Shear Walls." Steel and Composite Structures To be submitted.

Kallol Barua, H.M.H. Rhaman and S. Das " Performance Based Analysis of Seismic Capacity of Mid Rise Building“ Website: www.ijetae.com, ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 3, Issue 11, November 2013

Contribution (Other than thesis)

Documents

Final Presentation_25 May