Page 112 - JCAU-7-3

Journal of Chinese
Architecture and Urbanism Seismic performance of reinforced SSPWs

Table 3. Pushover analysis results for the 5‑story models
Number of µ Ω Rµ R K Vy (kN)
circular stiffeners (kN/mm)
0 5.91 1.46 3.29 6.9 28.8 1,957.5
2 8.91 1.51 4.10 8.89 32.3 2,100.3
3 9.15 2.00 4.16 11.97 32.6 2,120.4
4 8.52 1.46 4.01 8.42 32.7 2,058.1

According to the graphs of the reinforced models
presented in Figure 19, the hysteresis curves exhibit
a spindle-shaped behavior, indicating that local and
overall buckling of the sheet has been prevented. These
curves follow an ever-increasing trend, with the slope,
Figure 16. Finite element model mesh of a steel shear wall reinforced with representing stiffness, remaining nearly constant without
cross and circular stiffeners in a horizontal configuration significant reduction. This consistency suggests that the
Source: Model by the authors. shear wall performs effectively during seismic events.
In contrast, the hysteresis curves of the unreinforced
models exhibit disturbances due to buckling within
the shear wall plane, leading to a reduction in energy
dissipation during an earthquake. Figure 20 provides
a summary of the energy dissipation per loading cycle
for all models subjected to cyclic loading. The results
indicate that 5-story wall models with four perpendicular
circular reinforcements exhibit the highest seismic energy
dissipation capacity.

Several limitations must be considered when modeling
steel shear walls. These include mesh refinement strategies,
element type selection, material behavior modeling, and
inherent modeling assumptions. Steel shear walls are
complex structures comprising beams, columns, braces,
Figure 17. Frame model mesh: (A) with and (B) without horizontal
circular stiffeners and connections, making it challenging to accurately model
Source: Models by the author. all components and their interactions. Material properties,
particularly for steel and concrete, can vary significantly,
complicating efforts to capture these variations accurately
displacements were applied at the top level of the structure within the model. Furthermore, the behavior of these
during loading. materials under cyclic loading, a common condition in steel

Based on the results obtained from the pushover shear walls, is highly complex and difficult to simulate. Even
analysis of the 5-story models, the ductility factor, response with experimental data, the complexity of these structures
modification factor, frame stiffness, and shear capacity and various sources of uncertainty can make the validation
were evaluated, as reported in Table 3. The results indicate process significantly more challenging. Uncertainties in
material properties, geometric imperfections, loading
that steel plate shear walls with three perpendicular conditions, boundary constraints, and model assumptions
circular stiffeners exhibit the highest ductility factor of must be addressed, as they can introduce variability in
9.15. On the contrary, unreinforced models display the model predictions. Moreover, modeling steel shear walls
lowest ductility. Furthermore, the response modification can be a time-consuming and costly process, particularly
factor and shear capacity are highest in shear walls with for complex structural systems such as frame-supported
three reinforcements. steel shear walls.

Volume 7 Issue 3 (2025) 10 https://doi.org/10.36922/jcau.5781