Zhicheng, Tan Lin, Chen Yi Wu. Seismic Performance of Steel Frame-Coupled Steel Plate Shear Wall Structures with Different Coupling Ratio[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2021, 36(7): 9-17. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS20051501
Citation: Zhicheng, Tan Lin, Chen Yi Wu. Seismic Performance of Steel Frame-Coupled Steel Plate Shear Wall Structures with Different Coupling Ratio[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2021, 36(7): 9-17. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS20051501

Seismic Performance of Steel Frame-Coupled Steel Plate Shear Wall Structures with Different Coupling Ratio

doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS20051501
  • Received Date: 2020-05-15
    Available Online: 2021-09-16
  • Coupled steel plate shear wall is a new type of lateral force resisting system which is formed by connecting two steel plate shear walls with coupling beams. Through the interaction of coupling beam and wall limb, the capacity of resisting overturning moment and lateral stiffness of the coupled steel plate wall are improved. Coupling beam is the key component that affects the seismic performance of coupled steel plate shear wall, and coupling ratio is an important parameter to measure the wall limb interaction. Therefore, a design method with coupling ratio as control index is proposed. Three 20-story steel frame-coupled steel plate wall structures are designed with coupling ratios of 20%, 40% and 60%, respectively. The finite element model of the structure is established by using ABAQUS software, and the results of mode-decomposition response spectrum analysis show that the difference of each structural performance index of the three models is less than 5%, which indicates that the steel frame-coupled steel plate wall structure can be designed to meet the expected structural performance by using the design method with coupling ratio as the control index under the same design seismic shear force. The coupling ratio will affect the steel consumption of steel plate wall.
    In the coupled steel plate shear wall, the steel consumption of frame column is much larger than that of other components. When the design seismic shear force is the same, with the increase of the design target coupling ratio, the design section of coupling beam increases, and the interaction between coupling beam and wall limb is strengthened, which can reduce the thickness of embedded steel plate and reduce the section size of frame column. On the other hand, the shear force and bending moment of coupling beam will increase with the increase of coupling ratio. The increase of coupling beam shear force will reduce the axial force of the frame inner column connected with it, but the increase of coupling beam bending moment will increase the bending moment of the frame inner column. Therefore, when the coupling ratio increases to a certain extent, the cross-section size of the inner column may increase instead of decreasing. Among the three models, the 40% coupling ratio model has the least steel consumption and the best economy.
    Seven seismic waves are selected for time-history analysis of the three models. Under frequent earthquakes, the average values of base shear of the three models are basically the same. Under rare earthquake, the average value of base shear of 40% coupling ratio model is the largest, but the average value of interstory drift angle is the smallest, which indicates that the degree of plasticity of the structure is small, and the stiffness degradation is not obvious as the other two models. The smaller the coupling ratio is, the deeper the plastic development of coupling beam is. The larger the coupling ratio is, the deeper the plastic development of steel plate is. However, the maximum equivalent plastic strain of the steel plate is much larger than that of the other two models, while the coupling beam remains elastic. Therefore, the 20% and 40% coupling models are more reasonable than the models.
    The horizontal load of inverted triangle distribution mode is applied to the model, and the static elastic-plastic analysis is carried out to obtain the base shear-top drift angle curve and the stiffness-top drift angle curve. According to the yield order of the members, the whole process of pushover curve is divided into eight stages. The failure order of the three models is:steel plate yield→ coupling beam yield→ frame beam end yield → frame column base yield, which indicates that the three steel frame-coupling steel plate wall models have good ductility and meet the structural design performance objectives.
  • [1]
    于金光,党晨,郝际平,等. 半刚性部分组合框架-钢板剪力墙抗震性能试验研究[J]. 建筑结构学报, 2019,40(7):109-118.
    [2]
    殷占忠,李锦铭,赵帅鹏. 带PEC柱的钢板剪力墙结构抗震性能试验研究[J]. 土木工程学报,2018,51(5):139-144.
    [3]
    聂建国,朱力, 樊健生, 等. 钢板剪力墙抗震性能试验研究[J]. 建筑结构学报, 2013,34(1):61-69.
    [4]
    王先铁,周超,贾贵强,等. 方钢管混凝土柱框架内置中间开洞薄钢板墙结构抗震性能试验研究[J]. 建筑结构学报,2015,36(8):16-23.
    [5]
    Sabouri-ghomi S, Mamazizi S. Experimental investigation on stiffened steel plate shear walls with two rectangular openings[J]. Thin-Walled Structures, 2015, 86:56-66.
    [6]
    Gholipour M, Alinia M. Behavior of multi-story code-designed steel plate shear wall structures regarding bay width[J]. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2016, 122:40-56.
    [7]
    Li C H, Tsai K C, Chang J T, et al. Cyclic test of a coupled steel plate shear wall substructure[J]. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2012, 41:1277-1299.
    [8]
    Borello D J, Fahnestock L A. Behavior and mechanisms of steel plate shear walls with coupling[J]. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2012, 74:8-16.
    [9]
    Borello D J, Fahnestock L A. Seismic design and analysis of steel plate shear walls with coupling[J]. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2013, 139:1263-1273.
    [10]
    Wang M, Borello D J, Fahnestock L A. Boundary frame contribution in coupled and uncoupled steel plate shear walls[J]. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2017, 47:2355-2380.
    [11]
    Pavir A, Shekastehband B. Hysteretic behavior of coupled steel plate shear walls[J]. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2017, 133:19-35.
    [12]
    中华人民共和国住房和城乡建设部. 建筑抗震设计规范:GB 50011-2010[S]. 北京:中国建筑工业出版社,2016.
  • Relative Articles

    [1]Yongchao Cao, Wenying Huo, Hong Shi, Jiankun Tong, Shuo Ma, Xiangyu He. Design of Single-Layer Cable Net for Xiatian Stadium[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2023, 38(10): 42-48. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS23080401
    [2]Mingliang Zhu, Yifan Peng, Jiang Cao, Xiangping Yu, Zhengxing Guo. Whole Process Analysis of the Prestressed Construction of the Spoke-Type Cable-Truss Structure of Xiamen New Sports Center Stadium[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2023, 38(5): 1-21. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS22100103
    [3]Jinyu Chen, Tong Ou, Xuebing Liu, Zhengrong Jiang. Design Analysis of Single Layer Saddle Net for Swimming Pool of Desheng Sports Center in Shunde[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2022, 37(8): 26-34. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgs21071901
    [4]Ou Tong, Lin Quanpan, Jiang Zhengrong, Shi Kairong. Differentiation Analysis of Vertial Stiffnees and Cable Force Sensitivity of Double-Layer Cable Net and Beam String Structure[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2021, 36(11): 1-7. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS20062901
    [5]Guangbo Bai, Zhe Wang, Binlei Chen, Zhongyi Zhu, Yi Wang, Juehui Xing, Li Shen. Key Issues in Cable Net Form-Finding of the National Speed Skating Oval[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2020, 35(7): 54-61. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgSE20051502
    [12]10.13206/j.gjg200801008[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2008, 23(1): 24-27.
  • Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Amount of accessChart context menuAbstract Views, HTML Views, PDF Downloads StatisticsAbstract ViewsHTML ViewsPDF Downloads2024-052024-062024-072024-082024-092024-102024-112024-122025-012025-022025-032025-0405101520
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Class DistributionFULLTEXT: 14.5 %FULLTEXT: 14.5 %META: 78.3 %META: 78.3 %PDF: 7.2 %PDF: 7.2 %FULLTEXTMETAPDF
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Area Distribution其他: 10.3 %其他: 10.3 %其他: 1.0 %其他: 1.0 %China: 2.5 %China: 2.5 %Falls Church: 0.1 %Falls Church: 0.1 %Germany: 0.3 %Germany: 0.3 %United States: 0.9 %United States: 0.9 %Yemen: 0.4 %Yemen: 0.4 %[]: 0.1 %[]: 0.1 %上海: 5.1 %上海: 5.1 %东莞: 0.3 %东莞: 0.3 %中山: 0.3 %中山: 0.3 %佛山: 1.6 %佛山: 1.6 %保定: 0.3 %保定: 0.3 %北京: 6.4 %北京: 6.4 %南京: 2.4 %南京: 2.4 %南昌: 0.1 %南昌: 0.1 %南通: 0.3 %南通: 0.3 %厦门: 0.1 %厦门: 0.1 %大同: 0.4 %大同: 0.4 %天津: 1.2 %天津: 1.2 %宁波: 0.3 %宁波: 0.3 %常州: 0.3 %常州: 0.3 %广州: 1.2 %广州: 1.2 %张家口: 2.2 %张家口: 2.2 %成都: 0.7 %成都: 0.7 %扬州: 0.1 %扬州: 0.1 %新乡: 0.4 %新乡: 0.4 %无锡: 0.1 %无锡: 0.1 %昆明: 1.9 %昆明: 1.9 %晋城: 0.3 %晋城: 0.3 %杭州: 1.5 %杭州: 1.5 %柏林: 0.1 %柏林: 0.1 %梅州: 0.3 %梅州: 0.3 %武汉: 0.7 %武汉: 0.7 %江门: 0.3 %江门: 0.3 %沈阳: 0.7 %沈阳: 0.7 %泉州: 0.3 %泉州: 0.3 %法兰克福: 4.9 %法兰克福: 4.9 %济南: 0.1 %济南: 0.1 %淮安: 0.1 %淮安: 0.1 %湛江: 0.3 %湛江: 0.3 %漯河: 0.4 %漯河: 0.4 %芒廷维尤: 10.2 %芒廷维尤: 10.2 %芝加哥: 0.3 %芝加哥: 0.3 %衢州: 0.3 %衢州: 0.3 %西宁: 28.8 %西宁: 28.8 %西安: 0.4 %西安: 0.4 %贵阳: 0.1 %贵阳: 0.1 %运城: 1.0 %运城: 1.0 %邢台市内丘县: 0.6 %邢台市内丘县: 0.6 %郑州: 3.0 %郑州: 3.0 %重庆: 0.9 %重庆: 0.9 %长沙: 0.4 %长沙: 0.4 %阳泉: 0.6 %阳泉: 0.6 %青岛: 0.9 %青岛: 0.9 %其他其他ChinaFalls ChurchGermanyUnited StatesYemen[]上海东莞中山佛山保定北京南京南昌南通厦门大同天津宁波常州广州张家口成都扬州新乡无锡昆明晋城杭州柏林梅州武汉江门沈阳泉州法兰克福济南淮安湛江漯河芒廷维尤芝加哥衢州西宁西安贵阳运城邢台市内丘县郑州重庆长沙阳泉青岛

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Article Metrics

    Article views (389) PDF downloads(16) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return