Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 91100

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Stiffness and strength degradation of steel shear walls having an

arbitrarily-located opening
S. Sabouri-Ghomi a, E. Ahouri a, R. Sajadi a, M. Alavi b, A. Roufegarinejad c, M.A. Bradford d,
a
Department of Civil Engineering K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Finele Consulting Engineers, Hercules, California, USA
c
Forell/Elsesser Engineers Inc., San Francisco, California, USA
d
Centre for Infrastructure Engineering and Safety, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Openings in steel plate shear walls (SPSWs) in buildings are provided for architectural reasons as well as for
Received 25 January 2012 access requirements. Despite the reduction of stiffness and strength in panels with an opening being
Accepted 25 July 2012 well-understood, further studies are essential in order to determine both the mechanism and the degree of
Available online 30 August 2012
this degradation, as well as its dependency on the location and the size of the opening. To accomplish this
aim, a non-linear nite element analysis is used in this paper to study the behaviour of both stiffened and
Keywords:
Steel plate shear wall
unstiffened SPSWs with a single rectangular opening. The size and location of the opening are varied from
Opening model to model in order to determine their inuences on the stiffness and strength of the system. Based
Stiffened panel on the results obtained, the strength and stiffness degradation of unstiffened panels are affected adversely
Unstiffened panel by the location of the opening. In contrast, the re-location of an opening of a specic size within the panel
Stiffness area in stiffened panels does not appear to inuence this degradation, so that the stiffness and strength de-
Strength terioration are not a function of the location of the opening. As expected, both stiffened and unstiffened
Energy absorption panels experience a progressive reduction in their stiffness and strength with an increase of the size of the
opening. It is demonstrated further that with an increase in the opening ratio (width to height), the energy
absorbed by the system arising from seismic loading considerations in both stiffened and unstiffened
SPSWs show a linearly decreasing trend; this trend being less stiff for stiffened panels. Unstiffened SPSWs
with a central opening experience the least energy absorption. It is also shown that the absorption of energy
is substantially higher in stiffened panels when compared with their otherwise identical, but unstiffened,
counterparts.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Steel plate shear walls (SPSWs), as proven viable alternatives to
other lateral load resisting systems, are used extensively in tall build-
ings and for the retrot of existing buildings. This type of lateral
force-resisting system has been the subject of intensive research
and has found worldwide use over the past few decades, particularly
in regions of high seismic activity. Steel buildings with SPSW panels
are generally lighter in weight, and hence are subject to lower
seismically-induced forces. Material compatibility with the main
steel frame of the building makes the tasks of fabrication by welding
and bolting and the process of erection faster and more cost-effective.
Other advantages of the system are its superior strength and stiffness,
its higher ductility and its exceptional capacity to absorb energy
Corresponding author at: Centre for Infrastructure Engineering and Safety, School
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales, UNSW
Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. Tel.: +61 2 9385 5014; fax: +61 2 9385 9747.
E-mail addresses: sabouri@kntu.ac.ir (S. Sabouri-Ghomi), m.bradford@unsw.edu.au
(M.A. Bradford).
compared with other shear wall systems. Owing to these desirable at-
tributes, researchers, particularly in recent years, have devoted much
attention to a better understanding of the behaviour of SPSWs in
seismic zones.
Some of the rst studies of the behaviour of SPSWs were carried out
by researchers at Cardiff University in the United Kingdom [17]. A se-
ries of experimental tests was conducted on SPSW specimens with and
without a single circular opening at the centre of the plate under cyclic
quasi-static loading. In some specimens, Low Yield Steel (LYS) and alu-
minium were used. The results of these studies conrmed the high
ductility with a stable S-shape hysteresis loop for the SPSW panels test-
ed. It was found that the energy absorption of the system increases
under loading cycles with increasing amplitudes. In addition, it was
shown in these studies that the stiffness and strength of the panels
decrease with an increase in the diameter of the opening.
In 2004, Vian and Bruneau [8] tested a thin-walled SPSW with 20
circular holes. A companion specimen with a quarter circle opening
at one of the plate corners, using LYS, was also tested at the Structures
Laboratory of the National Center for Research on Earthquake
Engineering at the National University of Taiwan [8]. The test results

0143-974X/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.07.017
92 S. Sabouri-Ghomi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 91100

Table 2
Dimensions of steel plate and stiffeners in models.

Element Width (mm) Height (mm) Thickness (mm)

Steel plate 1410 960 2

Column stiffeners 90 140 3
Vertical stiffeners 60 960 4
Horizontal stiffeners 60 1410 4

Based on these ndings, this paper aims to provide valuable in-

Fig. 1. Finite element model of stiffened panel.
sight into the behaviour of SPSWs with a single rectangular opening,
and to demonstrate how changes in the size and location of the open-
ing adversely affect the stiffness and strength of the panels. For this
study, FE analysis is used and it is assumed that the dimensions of
the opening are xed when the location of the opening is varied with-
in the panel. This process is repeated with new opening dimensions.
Both stiffened and unstiffened plates are addressed in this paper,
and quantitative conclusions are drawn on the strength, stiffness
and energy absorption characteristics of panels with an opening.

2. Numerical analysis

2.1. Description of theoretical model

This research herein is based on nite element non-linear static

analysis using ABAQUS (Version 6.7-1) software [11]. Finite element
results are compared rstly against sample test results from earlier
studies in order to establish the validity of the approach. Two single
storey, single bay SPSW panels without an opening have been select-
ed for this purpose with one of the panels being stiffened [9,10]. Shear
forcelateral displacement curves from the numerical studies are
compared with those obtained from the experimental studies.
The numerical model uses homogeneous, 3-dimensional continu-
um shell elements (S4R) to model the plate and the perimeter frame
as well as the stiffeners (Figs. 1 and 2). The frame element dimensions,
and the plate and stiffener dimensions, are given in Tables 1 and 2 re-
spectively. Values of yield stress and the ultimate tensile stress are
given in Table 3. Figs. 1 and 2 show the FE models. A bi-linear material
model with strain hardening is assumed for the frame elements, with
the plate element having a tri-linear material model. The connections
Fig. 2. Finite element model of unstiffened panel. between the elements are assumed rigid, including the stiffener con-
nections to the perimeter frame and the plate. The plate and stiffener
conrmed that the stiffness and strength in the specimen with an end are fully restrained at the base, implying that both the horizontal
opening are lower than those in otherwise identical SPSWs without and vertical stiffeners are modelled as xed-end elements. To counter-
an opening. In the panel that contained perforations, yielding of the act instability, the models are restrained at the beam-column intersec-
plate started between the holes and expanded towards the panel tion nodes against out-of-plane translation.
extremities. Established design guidelines [7] were used to calculate stiffener
In 2008, Sabouri and Sajadi tested four SPSWs, each with a single section properties and spacing. The stiffener dimensions were select-
rectangular opening located at the centre of the panels [9,10]. The ed to satisfy minimum second moment of area requirements and to
specimens were fabricated using LYS. The outcomes of these studies ensure that if there is any possibility of buckling, it remains localized
demonstrated that theoretical models closely predict the behaviour, at the sub-panel level and the panel itself does not undergo global
with test results and theoretical predictions being in reasonably buckling under the applied loading. The stiffeners are placed orthog-
close conformance. It was reported in this work that both the initial onally on one side of the plate, rendering the assemblage as an
stiffness and the ultimate strength of the SPSWs reduced with an in- eccentrically stiffened panel. The sub-panel dimensions are the
crease of the width of the opening, compared with identical panels same as in the actual test specimen used for the comparison.
without an opening. It was also demonstrated that the use of stiffen- Loading was applied by subjecting the model to monotonically in-
ing plates can signicantly improve the initial stiffness and the ulti- creasing lateral displacement until the desired drift ratio cut-off point
mate strength of panels that contain an opening.
Table 3
Table 1 Material properties in models.
Beam and column dimensions in models.
Element Yield stress, fy (MPa) Ultimate tensile stress, fu (MPa)
Element Flange width Flange thickness Web height Web thickness
Beam 414.9 544
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Columns 414.9 544
Beam 140 20 250 20 Steel plate 192.4 288.7
Columns 140 15 60 20 Stiffeners 240 370
 S. Sabouri-Ghomi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 91100 93

(a) Unstiffened panels (b) Stiffened panels

90 90
80 80

Force (*10) (kN)

70

Force (*10) (kN)

70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 TEST 20 TEST

10 FE MODEL
10
FE MODEL
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 3. Shear forcelateral displacement curves in panels.

was reached. This ratio was set at 5.2%. The Full NewtonRaphson
method was used in the solution of non-linear equilibrium equations.
2.2. Validation of numerical results
Loaddisplacement curves obtained from the nite element
models have been compared with the experimental studies [3,4].
The results, as depicted in Fig. 3(a) and (b), show close agreement.
Any discrepancies involved are attributed to the tri-linear type
material properties assumed for the steel plates that predominate
the behaviour at large deformations.
3. Numerical investigation
3.1. Scope of study
The investigation herein aims at studying the response of steel
plates used in stiffened and unstiffened panels with an opening
under monotonically-applied lateral load. The panel supporting
frame is intended to act as a load transfer mechanism only. In other
words, any contribution of the frame to the overall stiffness and
strength of the panel itself is accordingly neglected and the frame
by itself can be considered as an unstable mechanism. To rationalize
this approach, the beam and columns constituting the frame are as-
sumed to be rigid. The columns are pinned at the base and at the
beam-column intersections, with the frame being also restrained
against out-of-plane movement at the top.
3.2. Numerical modelling assumptions
In the numerical models, I-section rigid line elements are used to
represent the frame members whose dimensions are given in
Table 1. The plate is modelled using homogeneous, 3-dimensional
continuum shell elements (S4R). Table 2 gives the plate and stiffener
dimensions used in setting up the various models, while values of the
yield stress and ultimate tensile stress are given in Table 3. The equal
constraint option of ABAQUS is enforced along the plate edges and
frame member axes, thus providing a one-to-one correspondence be-
tween all the degrees of freedom involved. The stiffeners are com-
posed of 140 mm 40 mm steel strips, rigidly connected to the
plate and free at both ends.
Established design guidelines [7] were used to calculate stiffener
section properties and spacing. The stiffener dimensions were select-
ed to satisfy minimum second moment of area requirements to en-
sure that if there is any possibility of buckling, it remains localized
at sub-panel level only and the panel proper does not undergo global
buckling under the applied loading. The stiffeners are placed on both
sides of the plate rendering the assemblage as a concentrically stiff-
ened panel. Fig. 4(a) and (b) shows typical deformed shapes of the
stiffened and unstiffened model under load.
Modelling and analyses of panels without an opening were carried
out rst, with the results obtained being used as a starting point for
setting up the models for stiffened and unstiffened panels with an
opening. The opening ratios are expressed in terms of width and
height ratios of the opening and the panel. The loading was applied
by subjecting the model to monotonically increasing lateral displace-
ment until the desired drift ratio cut-off point was reached. This was
set at 5.2%, which is the value used in tests used to validate the nu-
merical model as was described previously. Again, the Full Newton
Raphson method was used in the solution of non-linear equilibrium
equations.
The resulting shear forcelateral displacement curves from the
numerical studies were generated for both stiffened and unstiffened
panels, as shown in Fig. 5, and they differ in shape from those of
Fig. 3 owing to the inclusion of the frame in the latter case.
40

35

(a) Without stiffeners (b) With stiffeners 30

Force (*10) (KN)

25

20

15

10
STIFFENED PANEL-FE MODEL
5 UNSTIFFENED PANEL-FE MODEL

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 4. Steel plates for shear walls without an opening. Fig. 5. Shear forcelateral displacement curves for steel plates in shear wall panels.
94 S. Sabouri-Ghomi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 91100

(a) Opening dimensions (b) Position of opening along

diagonal line: BD

Fig. 6. Single opening SPSW.

3.3. General description of single-opening SPSW panels
Both the stiffened and unstiffened panels have a single opening
whose location and size are varied over the plate. The sensitivity of
the steel plates to the variation in the size and location of this opening
has been investigated by studying the effects of these changes on the
stiffness and strength of the panel assembly. Five different cases are
considered in this study, with opening width to plate width ratios
and opening height to plate height ratios of 21%, 28%, 36%, 45% and
60%. A pushover analysis was carried out for each model with the
loading being applied at the storey level along a line that connects
two ends of the plate (along A to B in Fig. 6), thus generating a tension
eld along the diagonal line BD.
The main objective of this study is to investigate the interaction of
the opening with the resulting tension eld by evaluating the critical
position of the opening where interference with the tension eld is at
a maximum. Referring to Fig. 6(b), it is clear that an opening placed
on the diagonal line BD can be considered as critically located be-
cause in this conguration, interference with the tension eld be-
comes maximum.
Nine models were set up for each of the ve different opening ra-
tios mentioned earlier. Taking also into account both stiffened and
unstiffened congurations, a total number of 90 models were used
in this numerical study. Fig. 7(a) and (b) shows schematically the
model labels used for reference purposes. The letters S and U at the
beginning of the model name denote stiffened and unstiffened
SPSW models, respectively. As an example of the labelling scheme
used to identify various models, Fig. 7(a) and (b) refers to models
SSPWO-6, SSPWO-15, SSPWO-24, SSPWO-33 and SSPWO-42 which
are stiffened panels with opening located on the right side in the
middle row with 21%, 28%, 36%, 45% and 60% opening ratios
respectively.
3.4. Analysis of results
The dimensions of the opening in stiffened and unstiffened
models with opening ratios of 21%, 28%, 36%, 45% and 60% are given
in Table 4. Shear forcelateral displacement curves from the analyses
are plotted in Figs. 8 to 17 against models without an opening, for
both stiffened and unstiffened SPSWs.
The shear forcelateral displacement curves shown cover a dis-
placement range of 20 mm (drift ratio of 2.08%) corresponding with
the ratio used in the experimental work reported in the verication
section previously. This is in spite of the models in the analytical in-
vestigation being subjected to a nal drift ratio of 5.2%

(a) Stiffened SPSWs (b) Unstiffened SPSWs

Fig. 7. Model designations and opening positions: single opening SPSW models (see Table 4).
 S. Sabouri-Ghomi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 91100 95

Table 4
Dimensions of models with single opening, opening ratios: 21%, 28%, 36%, 45% and 60%.

Opening ratio Panels with unstiffened plates Panels with stiffened plates b1 (mm) b2 (mm) b3 (mm) d1 (mm) d2 (mm) d3 (mm)

21% USPWO-1 SSPWO-1 40 300 1070 40 200 720

USPWO-2 SSPWO-2 555 300 555 40 200 720
USPWO-3 SSPWO-3 1070 300 40 40 200 720
USPWO-4 SSPWO-4 40 300 1070 380 200 380
USPWO-5 SSPWO-5 555 300 555 380 200 380
USPWO-6 SSPWO-6 1070 300 40 380 200 380
USPWO-7 SSPWO-7 40 300 1070 720 200 40
USPWO-8 SSPWO-8 555 300 555 720 200 40
USPWO-9 SSPWO-9 1070 300 40 720 200 40
28% USPWO-10 SSPWO-10 40 395 975 40 270 650
USPWO-11 SSPWO-11 507.5 395 507.5 40 270 650
USPWO-12 SSPWO-12 975 395 40 40 270 650
USPWO-13 SSPWO-13 40 395 975 345 270 345
USPWO-14 SSPWO-14 507.5 395 507.5 345 270 345
USPWO-15 SSPWO-15 975 395 40 345 270 345
USPWO-16 SSPWO-16 40 395 975 650 270 40
USPWO-17 SSPWO-17 507.5 395 507.5 650 270 40
USPWO-18 SSPWO-18 975 395 40 650 270 40
36% USPWO-19 SSPWO-19 40 520 850 40 350 570
USPWO-20 SSPWO-20 445 520 445 40 350 570
USPWO-21 SSPWO-21 850 520 40 40 350 570
USPWO-22 SSPWO-22 40 520 850 305 350 305
USPWO-23 SSPWO-23 445 520 445 305 350 305
USPWO-24 SSPWO-24 850 520 40 305 350 305
USPWO-25 SSPWO-25 40 520 850 570 350 40
USPWO-26 SSPWO-26 445 520 445 570 350 40
USPWO-27 SSPWO-27 850 520 40 570 350 40
45% USPWO-28 SSPWO-28 40 634.5 735.5 40 432 488
USPWO-29 SSPWO-29 387.75 634.5 387.75 40 432 488
USPWO-30 SSPWO-30 735.5 634.5 40 40 432 488
USPWO-31 SSPWO-31 40 634.5 735.5 264 432 264
USPWO-32 SSPWO-32 387.75 634.5 387.75 264 432 264
USPWO-33 SSPWO-33 735.5 634.5 40 264 432 264
USPWO-34 SSPWO-34 40 634.5 735.5 488 432 40
USPWO-35 SSPWO-35 387.75 634.5 387.75 488 432 40
USPWO-36 SSPWO-36 735.5 634.5 40 488 432 40
60% USPWO-37 SSPWO-37 40 846 524 40 576 344
USPWO-38 SSPWO-38 282 846 282 40 576 344
USPWO-39 SSPWO-39 524 846 40 40 576 344
USPWO-40 SSPWO-40 40 846 524 192 576 192
USPWO-41 SSPWO-41 282 846 282 192 576 192
USPWO-42 SSPWO-42 524 846 40 192 576 192
USPWO-43 SSPWO-43 40 846 524 344 576 40
USPWO-44 SSPWO-44 282 846 282 344 576 40
USPWO-45 SSPWO-45 524 846 40 344 576 40

Fig. 18(a) to (f) shows the deformed shape after the application of
loading for a number of models, with an opening ratio equal to 36%,
for panels with stiffeners and without stiffeners. It is evident that
the deformations of the openings in unstiffened plates are signicant-
ly larger than in their counterpart stiffened plates, particularly when
the opening is in the middle of the plate. A comparison of Figs. 8,
10, 12, 14 and 16 shows that, in stiffened panels with a xed opening
ratio, there is a good match between shear forcelateral displacement
curves obtained for different locations of the opening. This conrms
that the initial stiffness and ultimate strength of the system are not
sensitive to the location of the opening in the model. Since design of
the vertical and horizontal stiffeners makes no allowance for the
global buckling of the plate and only addresses the local buckling
modes at the stiffenerplate interface, it is reasonable to conclude

40
SSPWO-1 40 USPWO-1
35 SSPWO-2 USPWO-2
35
30 SSPWO-3 USPWO-3
Force (*10) (KN)

30
Force (*10) (KN)

SSPWO-4 USPWO-4
25 25
SSPWO-5 USPWO-5
20 SSPWO-6 20 USPWO-6
15 SSPWO-7 15 USPWO-7
SSPWO-8 USPWO-8
10 10
SSPWO-9 USPWO-9
5 5
WITHOUT OPENING WITHOUT OPENING
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 8. Shear forcelateral displacement curves for single opening stiffened models, Fig. 9. Shear forcelateral displacement curves for single opening unstiffened models,
opening ratio = 21%. opening ratio = 21%.
96 S. Sabouri-Ghomi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 91100

40 40
SSPWO-10 USPWO-19
35 SSPWO-11 35 USPWO-20
SSPWO-12 30 USPWO-21

Force (*10) (KN)

30
Force (*10) (KN)

SSPWO-13 USPWO-22
25 25
SSPWO-14 USPWO-23
20 20
SSPWO-15 USPWO-24
15 SSPWO-16 15 USPWO-25

SSPWO-17 10 USPWO-26
10
SSPWO-18 USPWO-27
5
5 WITHOUT OPENING
WITHOUT OPENING
0
0 0 4 8 12 16 20
0 4 8 12 16 20
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 13. Shear forcelateral displacement curves for single opening unstiffened models,
Fig. 10. Shear forcelateral displacement curves for single opening stiffened models, opening ratio = 36%.
opening ratio = 28%.

40 40
USPWO-10 SSPWO-28
35 USPWO-11 35
SSPWO-29
USPWO-12 30
30

Force (*10) (KN)

SSPWO-30
Force (*10) (KN)

USPWO-13
25 SSPWO-31
25
USPWO-14
SSPWO-32
20 USPWO-15 20
SSPWO-33
15 USPWO-16 15 SSPWO-34
USPWO-17
10 10 SSPWO-35
USPWO-18
SSPWO-36
5 WITHOUT OPENING 5
WITHOUT OPENING
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 11. Shear forcelateral displacement curves for single opening unstiffened models, Fig. 14. Shear forcelateral displacement curves for single opening stiffened models,
opening ratio = 28%. opening ratio = 45%.

that any change in the location of the opening will have no signicant
effect on the response of the panel as demonstrated here. As a result,
in this type of panel, substituting an off-centre opening with an open-
ing of the same size at the centre of the panel becomes an acceptable
assumption for modelling purposes.
With reference to Figs. 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17, the unstiffened models
with a single opening at the centre of the SPSW were found to possess
the lowest stiffness and strength. The stiffness and strength of the
SPSWs are higher where the opening is not central. The loss of stiff-
ness is attributed to the extent of the interference of opening with
the generated tension eld and the onset of global buckling in
the plate. In short, unstiffened SPSWs are sensitive to the opening
location. Unlike stiffened SPSWs, using substitute models with a cen-
tral opening as a means of simplication to represent other opening
congurations should be considered conservative.
3.5. Comparison of force-displacement diagrams for models with a single
central rectangular opening
As noted previously, using a substitute panel with a central opening
to represent other opening congurations is a conservative approach in
analysis. To study the effect of an opening on reducing the stiffness and
strength of the system, it is assumed herein that all the SPSWs with dif-
ferent opening ratios have a single rectangular-shaped central opening.

40 40
SSPWO-19 USPWO-28
35 35 USPWO-29
SSPWO-20
30 30 USPWO-30
Force (*10) (KN)

SSPWO-21
Force (*10) (KN)

SSPWO-22 USPWO-31
25 25
SSPWO-23 USPWO-32
20 20
SSPWO-24 USPWO-33
15 SSPWO-25 15 USPWO-34

10 SSPWO-26 USPWO-35
10
SSPWO-27 USPWO-36
5 5
WITHOUT OPENING WITHOUT OPENING
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 12. Shear forcelateral displacement curves for single opening stiffened models, Fig. 15. Shear forcelateral displacement curves for single opening unstiffened models,
opening ratio = 36%. opening ratio = 45%.
 S. Sabouri-Ghomi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 91100 97

40 SSPWO-37 40

35 SSPWO-38 35
SSPWO-39

Force (*10) (KN)

30 30
Force (*10) (KN)

SSPWO-40
25 25
SSPWO-41
20 SSPWO-42 20 SSPWO-5
SSPWO-14
15 SSPWO-43 15 SSPWO-23
SSPWO-44
10 10 SSPWO-32
SSPWO-45 SSPWO-41
5 5
WITHOUT OPENING WITHOUT OPENING
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 16. Shear forcelateral displacement curves for single opening stiffened models, Fig. 19. Effect of the ratio of central opening on the stiffness and strength of the SSPWO
opening ratio = 60%. models.

40 In a similar fashion to the previous sections, the models are divided to

USPWO-37 stiffened and unstiffened shear wall panels. From Figs. 19 and 20, it can
35 USPWO-38 be concluded that in stiffened panels with single central opening, the
30 USPWO-39 stiffness and shear strength reduce as the size of opening increases.
Force (*10) (KN)

25
USPWO-40 Figs. 21 to 25 compare the results of analyses for an identical
USPWO-41 opening size and similar opening location in stiffened and unstiffened
20 USPWO-42 models. As can be seen from these gures, both the stiffness and
15 USPWO-43 strength of the systems increase with the use of stiffeners.
USPWO-44
10
USPWO-45
5
3.6. Variation of lateral stiffness and strength in terms of opening
WITHOUT OPENING parameters
0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Two parameters are used in the denition of a rectangular opening
Displacement (mm)
in a panel as shown in Fig. 26, in which b2 refers to the width of the
Fig. 17. Shear forcelateral displacement curves for single opening unstiffened models, opening and D the diameter of its circumscribed circle. Tables 5 and 6
opening ratio = 60%. show the values of b2 and D used in setting up the numerical models.

(a) SSPWO -21 (b) SSPWO -23 (c) SSPWO -25

(d) USPWO -21 (e) USPWO -23 (f) USPWO -25

Fig. 18. Deformation of stiffened and unstiffened plates with 36% opening ratio.
98 S. Sabouri-Ghomi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 91100

40 40

35 35
Force (*10) (KN)

30 30

Force(*10) (KN)
25
25
USPWO-5 SSPWO-23
20 USPWO-14 20
15 USPWO-23 USPWO-23
USPWO-32 15
10 STIFFENED PANEL
USPWO-41
10
5 WITHOUT OPENING (without opening)
5 UNSTIFFENED PANEL
0 (without opening)
0 4 8 12 16 20
0
Displacement (mm) 0 4 8 12 16 20
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 20. Effect of the ratio of central opening on the stiffness and strength of the USPWO
models. Fig. 23. Comparison of shear forcelateral displacement curves of SSPWO-23 and
USPWO-23.

3.6.1. Stiffened models
The ratios Kw,r/Kw (the initial stiffness of the single opening model
to the model without an opening) and Fwu,r/Fwu (ultimate strength of
the single opening model to the model without an opening) are plot-
ted as functions of b2/b for stiffened panels in Fig. 27, where b is the
width of the panel. As can be seen in these gures, in panels with a
single rectangular opening, the ultimate strength and initial stiffness
values for different opening locations show a decaying trend with
an increase in the width of the opening. An assumption of a linear
variation is a good t and also conservative, with a correction factor
of (1 b2/b).
3.6.2. Unstiffened models
The ratios Kw,r/Kw and Fwu,r/Fwu are plotted as functions of D/b for
unstiffened panels in Fig. 28. As can be seen in Fig. 28(a) and (b), in
panels with a single rectangular opening, the ultimate strength and
initial stiffness values for different opening locations show a scattered
decaying trend with an increase in the size of the opening. As for the

40 40

35 35

30 30
Force (*10) (KN)
Force (*10) (KN)

25 25 SSPWO-32

20 SSPWO-5 20
USPWO-32

15 USPWO-5 15
STIFFENED PANEL
STIFFENED PANEL
10 (without opening) 10 (without opening)
UNSTIFFENED PANEL
UNSTIFFENED PANEL
5 (without opening) 5 (without opening)

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 21. Comparison of shear forcelateral displacement curves of SSPWO-5 and Fig. 24. Comparison of shear forcelateral displacement curves of SSPWO-32 and
USPWO-5. USPWO-32.

40
40
35
35
30
Force (*10) (KN)

30
Force (*10) (KN)

25 SSPWO-41
25
SSPWO-14
20 USPWO-41
20
USPWO-14 15
15 STIFFENED PANEL

STIFFENED PANEL 10 (without opening)

10 UNSTIFFENED PANEL
(without opening)
5 (without opening)
5 UNSTIFFENED PANEL
(without opening)
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 22. Comparison of shear forcelateral displacement curves of SSPWO-14 and Fig. 25. Comparison of shear forcelateral displacement curves of SSPWO-41 and
USPWO-14. USPWO-41.
 S. Sabouri-Ghomi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 91100 99

(a) Opening width in stiffened (b) Diameter of circumscribed

models circle in unstiffened models

Fig. 26. Parameters used for SPSW models with single rectangular opening.

stiffened cases, an assumption of a linear variation is a good t and is assumed to be equal. A plot of the absorbed energy against the open-
also conservative, with a correction factor of (1 D/b). ing ratio for a maximum drift ratio of 5.2% is shown in Fig. 29 for both
stiffened and unstiffened panels. It can be seen that in both stiffened
4. Energy absorption and unstiffened panels, the amount of energy absorbed follows a
linearly decaying trend with an increase in the opening ratio.
The area under the shear loadlateral displacement curve can be The broken and solid lines depicted in Fig. 29 provided lower
thought as a reasonable measure of the absorbed energy by the bounds to the absorbed energy points for both stiffened and
system for a half-cycle load after subtracting the recoverable elastic unstiffened panels having a single central opening. Examining the
energy due to unloading. The unloading and the elastic moduli are slope of these lines indicates that the variation in absorbed energy
against opening ratio is steeper in unstiffened panels as compared
with the corresponding stiffened panels. In other words, the rate of
Table 5 absorbed energy reduction in stiffened models is less when compared
Dimensions of opening width in SSPWO models. with unstiffened panels.
Samples with stiffeners Opening ratio (%) b2 (mm) Table 7 shows the percentage value increase in the absorbed ener-
gy in stiffened panels over unstiffened, but otherwise similar, panels.
SSPWO-1SSPWO-9 21 300
SSPWO-10SSPWO-18 28 395 Values given for unstiffened panels refer to the minimum absorbed
SSPWO-19SSPWO-27 36 520 energy pertaining to panels with a central rectangular opening.
SSPWO-28SSPWO-36 45 634.5 The rate of decrease of the absorbed energy in stiffened panels is
SSPWO-37SSPWO-45 60 845
lower than in otherwise identical unstiffened panels. It is signicant
to note that this difference exceeds 48% when the opening is located
centrally.
Table 6
Dimensions of diameter of circumscribed circle in USPWO models.
5. Conclusions
Samples without stiffeners Opening ratio (%) D (mm)

USPWO-1USPWO-9 21 360.5 From the results of the study in this paper, it has been found that
USPWO-10USPWO-18 28 478.4 in stiffened panels with a single opening, degradation of the stiffness
USPWO-19USPWO-27 36 626.8 and strength is not dependent on the location of the opening, provid-
USPWO-28USPWO-36 45 767.6
ed that the design of the stiffeners makes an allowance for a local
USPWO-37USPWO-45 60 1022
buckling mode at the sub-panel level and not for the global buckling

(a) (b)
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Fig. 27. (a) Ratio of ultimate strength of single opening model to model without opening versus opening ratio, stiffened plates; (b) ratio of initial stiffness of single opening model to
model without opening versus opening ratio; stiffened plates.
100 S. Sabouri-Ghomi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79 (2012) 91100

(a) 1
(b) 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Fig. 28. (a) Ratio of ultimate strength of single opening model to model without opening versus opening ratio, unstiffened plates; (b) ratio of initial stiffness of single opening model
to model without opening versus opening ratio, unstiffened plates.

of the plate. The results of these studies conrm that in this type of An important outcome of the study is that the analysis of stiffened
panel, substituting an off-centre opening with an opening of the panels can be simplied by ignoring the presence of an opening, re-
same size at the centre of the panel, is an acceptable approach for gardless of its location, and multiplying the results obtained for stiff-
modelling purposes without loss of accuracy. ness and strength values by a factor of (1 b2/b). This is under the
In unstiffened panels, due to the occurrence of global buckling and assumption that decay of these quantities follows a linearly declining
the onset of the post-buckled tension eld at the plate centre, the ex- trend. Similarly, an unstiffened panel can be substituted with an oth-
tent of interference of the opening with the tension eld inuences erwise similar panel without an opening. The stiffness and strength
the degradation of stiffness and strength. An opening located with values obtained for the latter can then be multiplied by a factor of
minimal interference is considered to be the most ideally located (1 D/b) to yield the required results based on a linearly decaying
opening, in which case its stiffness and strength degrade linearly trend.
with an increase of the ratio D/b.
In both stiffened and unstiffened panels, the amount of energy Notation
absorbed by the systems show a linearly decaying trend with an in- b Width of plate in steel plate shear wall panels
crease in the opening ratio. The rate of decrease of the absorbed ener- d Height of plate in steel plate shear wall panels
gy in stiffened panels is lower than in unstiffened, but otherwise b2 Width of opening in steel plate shear wall panels
identical, panels. It is signicant to note that the energy absorption d2 Height of opening in steel plate shear wall panels
q
in stiffened panels with a central opening is more than 48% higher D Equivalent diameter of perimeter circle, D
2
b2 d2
2
than that of similar unstiffened panels.
Fwu,r Reduced ultimate strength of plate with opening
Fwu Ultimate strength of plate without opening
18000
Fwu,r/Fwu Reduced ultimate strength of single opening model to
16000 model without opening
Enery Absorption (Joule)

14000 Kwu,r Initial stiffness of plate with opening

Kwu Initial stiffness of plate without opening
12000
Kwu,r/Kwu Initial stiffness of single opening model to model without
10000 opening
8000
UNSTIFFENED PANELS
6000
STIFFENED PANELS References
4000
[1] Sabouri S. Lateral load resisting systems: an introduction to steel plate shear
2000 walls. Tehran: Angizeh Publications; 2001 (in Farsi).
[2] Sabouri S. Lateral load resisting systems: an innovative idea to application of
0 easy-going steel (EGS). Tehran: Angizeh Publications; 2004 (in English and Farsi).
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 [3] Sabouri-Ghomi S, Ventura CE, Kharrazi MHK. Shear analysis and design of ductile
Opening Ratio (%) steel plate walls. J Struct Eng 2005;131(6):878-89.
[4] Sabouri-Ghomi S. Discussion of: plastic analysis and design of steel plate shear
walls. J Struct Eng 2003;129(11):1448-56.
Fig. 29. Comparison of energy absorption in stiffened and unstiffened panels with an [5] Sabouri-Ghomi S, Roberts TM. Hysteretic characteristics of unstiffened plate shear
opening at selected locations. panels. Thin-Walled Struct 1991;12(2):145-62.
[6] Sabouri-Ghomi S, Roberts TM. Hysteretic characteristics of unstiffened perforated
plate shear panels. Thin-Walled Struct 1992;14(2):139-51.
[7] Sabouri-Ghomi S, Kharrazi MHK, Mam-Azizi S, Asad Sajadi R. Buckling behavior
Table 7 improvement of steel plate shear wall systems. J Struct Des Tall Spec Build
Comparison of energy absorption (Joules) in stiffened and unstiffened panels with a 2008;17(4):823-37.
single central opening. [8] Vian D, Bruneau M. Testing of special LYS steel plate shear walls. Proceedings of the
13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 978. Vancouver,
Opening ratio Stiffened panel Unstiffened panel Absorbed energy Canada: Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering; August 16, 2004.
(%) (Joules) (Joules) ratio (%) [9] R. Asad Sajadi. Investigation of the behavior of steel plate shear walls with opening.
PhD Thesis. Tehran: Khaje-Nasir Toosi University of Technology; 2009 (in Farsi).
21 16,871 11,375 48.3
[10] Sabouri S, Asad Sajadi R. Experimental study of seismic behavior factor and ener-
28 16,300 9922 64.3 gy absorption of ductile steel plate shear walls with and without opening. J Steel
36 14,898 8064 84.7 Struct 2008(3) (in Farsi).
45 13,768 6330 117 [11] ABAQUS Version 6.7-1. Providence, Rhode Island: Simulia; 2011.
60 10,577 3915 170.2