Seismic response of steel plate shear walls

considering soil-structure interaction

P. Memarzadeh, J. Mirlohi and F. Behnamfar

 The effects of soil-structure interaction (SSI) on the

Abstract—Due to structural efficiency, Steel Plate Shear Wall
(SPSW) is widely employed in buildings as a principal system for
resisting lateral loads due to wind and earthquakes. An accurate
model of seismic demand for SPSW requires consideration the effect
of all components for analysis such as structural, foundation, subsoil
elements and the interaction between them. Such interaction may
alter the dynamic characteristics of structures and consequently may
be beneficial or detrimental to the performance of structures. This
investigation considers two typical SPSW designed according to
AISC requirements. The effects of soil-flexibility on seismic demands
of such frames resting on two soil types subjected to two different
earthquake ground motion is investigated using the time direct
method and a comparison is presented with the results obtained from
fixed-base. It is observed that soil–structure interaction affect the
seismic performance of SPSW and the effect of soil-flexibility must
be taken into account in dynamic analyses of SPSW.
Keywords—Steel Plate Shear Wall, Soil Structure Interaction,
seismic response, dynamic analysis
I. INTRODUCTION
ue to structural efficiency, Steel Plate Shear Wall
D (SPSW) is widely employed in buildings as a principal
system for resisting lateral loads due to wind and earthquakes.
response of a structure subjected to earthquake ground motions
depend on the stiffness of the structure relative to the
supporting soil stiffness, and the dominant periods of the input
ground motions. Structures resting on soft soil are likely to
experience larger SSI effects than those supported by stiff soil
[5]. For buildings with high periods, the effect of foundation
movements may not be very significant; but for relatively
stiffer structural systems, such as medium-height shear walls
and braced frames, neglecting SSI effects may result in an
inaccurate estimation of seismic demands [6]. Moreover, it has
also been suggested that for structures with the fundamental
periods between 0.3 and 1.0 sec. may be more sensitive to the
SSI effects than those with the fundamental periods outside the
above-mentioned range [7]. Thus, the effect of SSI on the
structural response of SPSWs may be of major concern that
current study is intended to contribute towards achieving this
goal. In this procedure, a time-direct method is adopted in
which the numerical modeling of system is carried out with
finite element method (FEM) using the software Abaqus [8].
II. DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEM, FOUNDATION AND
SOIL MODELLING

An accurate model of seismic demand for SPSW requires
consideration the effect of all components for analysis such as
structural, foundation, subsoil elements and the interaction
between them. In the conventional design, buildings are
generally considered to be fixed at their bases. In reality,
flexibility of the supporting soil medium allows movement of
the foundation resulting in a decrease in global stiffness of the
structural system [1]-[3]. In addition, a part of the structure’s
vibration energy will transmit to the soil layer and can be
dissipated because of the radiation damping resulted from the
wave propagation and hysteresis damping of the soil materials.
However, in classical methods for the rigid base structures,
this energy dissipation is not considered [4]. Consequently the
response of the structure is altered that may be beneficial or
detrimental to the performance of building.
A. Steel Plate Shear Wall
As the objective of this paper is to study SSI effects on
seismic response of SPSW, two typical multi-story SPSW,
consisting of 6 and 9 story models, designed [9] according to
AISC 341 [10] for the lateral earthquake forces specified by
ASCE 7 [11], are selected for this study. The SPSW models
are 3-bay frames with infill plates in the second bay’s panels.
The geometry and section properties of the SPSW structure in
this investigation are presented in Fig. 1. Reference [12], [13]
present more relevant information about structural
characteristics of the SPSWs.

P. Memarzadeh is with the Civil Engineering Department, Najafabad

Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad ; (e-mail: p-memar@iaun.ac.ir).
J. Mirlohi is with the Civil Engineering Department, Najafabad Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Najafabad.
F. Behnamfar is with the Civil Engineering Department, Isfahan
University of Technology, Isfahan. Iran.
 B. Radiation condition, geometry and element selection of
foundation and infinite soil medium
Modeling of infinite soil medium in SSI plays a vital role.
The unbounded nature of the soil medium requires special
Boundary Condition (BC) that does not reflect seismic waves
into the soil-structure domain. The non-reflecting viscous
boundaries developed by Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer [14] and
White et al. [15] have been widely used for various dynamic
soil–structure interaction problems. In this study the radiation Fig. 2 modeling of SPSW with soil in direct method
condition was treated by the infinite elements implemented in
ABAQUS [8]. In this regard, three dimensional eight noded Bed rock depth is assumed to be 30 m (100 ft) for all
solid continuum elements [16] have been used for finite considered soil types. The frames are assumed to be found on
element modeling of foundation and soil (light gray in Fig. 2) shallow foundation which size is 19.2 m×1 m (768 in ×40 in)
and three dimensional eight noded solid continuum infinite in plan, while a depth of embedment of 0.75 m (30 in) is
elements [16] have been utilized to simulate far-field region provided. These dimensions were first determined on the basis
(dark gray in Fig. 2). As can be seen in Fig. 2 the mesh density of Terzaghi’s bearing capacity formula for strip footings with
of the infinite element is much coarser than that of the internal an ultimate bearing capacity of 334 KPa with a factor of safety
soil. The local viscous boundaries should be placed far away equal to 3 and 5 for 9-story SPSW and 6-story SPSW,
from the structure in order to obtain realistic results. respectively [17].
Therefore, horizontal distances between soil boundary and
center of structure are assumed to be 57.60 m (192 ft) (equal
to 3 times of foundation width) from each side.

Beam Plate Column Floor

Thickness
W30*108
9th
0.0673'' W14*283
W27*94 (1.7 mm) 8th
0.1046'' W14*283
W27*94 (2.7 mm) 7th
Beam Plate Column Floor
Thickness 0.1250'' W14*283
W30*124 W27*94 (3.2 mm) 6th
6th
0.0673'' W14*211 0.1345'' W14*398
W21*68 (1.7 mm) W30*108 (3.4 mm) 5th
5th 8 @ 13'
0.0673'' W14*211 (8 @ 3.9 m) 0.1875'' W14*398
W21*68 (1.7 mm) 4th W27*94 (4.8 mm) 4th
5 @ 13' 0.0673'' W14*211 0.1875'' W14*665
(5 @ 3.9 m) W24*84 (1.7 mm) W30*116 (4.8 mm)
3rd 3rd
0.1046'' W14*605 0.2500'' W14*665
W21*68 (2.7 mm) nd W27*94 (6.4 mm)
2 2nd
0.1046'' W14*605 0.2500'' W14*665
W30*173 (2.7 mm) W27*94 (6.4 mm)
1st 1st
18' 0.1875'' W14*605 0.2500'' W14*665
18'
(5.5 m) W30*108 (6.4 mm)
W30*124 (4.8 mm) Base (5.5 m) Base

3 @ 20' 3 @ 20'
(3 @ 6.1 m) (3 @ 6.1 m)

(a) (b)

Fig. 1 dimensions and properties of: (a) 6-story SPSW, and (b) 9-story SPSW
 TABLE II
PROPERTIES OF SEISMIC GROUND MOTIONS USED IN THE
ANALYSES
III. MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Earthquake Station PGA PGV
Two types of soil representing soil type II corresponding to
(g) (cm/s)
stiff soil and soil type IV corresponding to soft soil according
to classification of the Iranian Standard No. 2800-05 [18] are Tabas, Iran, 1978 9102 Dayhook 0.406 26.5
selected in this research. Characteristics of utilized soils are Loma Prieta, 1989 16 LGPC 0.563 94.8
shown in Table I. The dynamic response of soils is nonlinear
even at low to moderate deformation levels, during a seismic
event. Therefore, soil nonlinearity must be appropriately taken
into consideration. In this study equivalent-linear properties
were used to take into account approximate soil nonlinearities.
These properties were obtained throughout 1-D waves
propagation analyses conducted with the program SHAKE
[19].
TABLE I
GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE UTILIZED SOILS
Soil Shear Shear Υ Poisson’s
type module wave (KN/m3) ratio
Gmax(MPa) velocity
(m/s)
II 536 518 20 0.30 Fig. 4 acceleration response spectra of the earthquakes used in the
IV 31 131 18 0.40 analyses

IV. INPUT MOTIONS CONSIDERED FOR ANALYSES
Two different ground motions are selected in this study for
dynamic analysis. The seismic signals are recorded on the
ground surface. In reality, the motion of the base, to which the
soil-structure system will be subjected, has to be obtained by
deconvolution. In this regard, the program SHAKE 2000 [19]
was used to perform a deconvolution analysis to obtain the
base motion corresponding to each ground motion for both soil
types. Details of the selected ground motions are listed in
Table II while Fig. 3 provides some relevant information for
the records. In addition the acceleration response spectra of
the ground motions are presented in Fig. 4.
V. RESULTS
This investigation is aimed to better understand the seismic
performance of a typical SPSW incorporating soil-structure
effect. The seismic response of the structure in terms of the
story shear as well as, internal forces over the height of the
structural elements and ductility demand are selected as
response parameters of interest as these are generally
considered the most important response parameters in seismic
design practice. The results of SSI models will be compared to
those obtained from fixed base model denoted as the
Reference SPSW from here on.

Fig. 3 accelerograms of earthquakes used in time-history analysis

A. Story shear
Story shear is an important parameter from the structural
designer's point of view. In the current effect variation of
change in story shear due to the incorporation of soil-
flexibility as compared to the same obtained at fixed-base
condition expressed as a ratio of such response of SSI models
to Ref. SPSW has been plotted in Fig. 5. We can observe that
story shear of structure modeled with soil as flexible base are
almost less than the story shear of structure modeled as fixed
base. These results are in agreement with common assumption,
postulated by almost all the design codes such as NEHRP-97
[20].
B. Internal forces
Internal forces are considered to be significant to describe
the possible damage of the structural elements. Fig. 6 shows
percentage distribution of story shear between vertical
elements viz., steel plate , perimeter columns and Vertical
Boundary Elements (VBEs), over the height of 9-story SPSW
considering all base conditions (flexible and fixed-base
condition). The figure shows that SSI decreases the share of
shear forces of steel plates in resisting the story shear in most
the stories of 9-story SPSW founded on both soil types.
Consequently an increase in the contribution of shear forces
of columns in resisting the shear story is observed as a
consequence of soil flexibility. The figures clear indicate that
the change is largest for soil type IV. The contribution of the
story plates to story shear is 48% to 75% when the structure is
assumed as fixed-base while such quantity is observed to be
around 35% to 73% for the building frame resting on soil type
IV. As it is shown, the contribution of the perimeter columns
to the story shear is about (6-27)% in Ref. SPSW dependent
on the story level, while the contribution ranges from 9% to
37% and 7% to 48% for soil type II and IV, respectively. Also
a comparison of contribution of the story VBEs to story shear
due to incorporation of soil-flexibility relative to that in Ref.
SPSW in absence of sub-soil, is illustrated in Fig. 6c.
Comparing the results obtained from both base conditions, it
can be seen that inclusion of soil-flexibility slightly influences
contribution of the story VBE to the story shear increasing it,
for most of the stories. Fig. 7 presents percentage contribution
of shear forces of structural elements over the height of the 6-
story SPSW. Similarly variation curves for the frame resting
on different soil types are marked with the corresponding soil
type. It can be seen that SSI generally produces an increase in
share of steel plates in resisting the story shear for SPSW

(a) (b)
Fig. 5 average ratio of story shear of flexible-base to fixed base (a) 6-story SPSW, and (b) 9-story SPSW

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 6 average contribution of story shear over height of 9-story SPSW between: (a) steel plates, (b) perimeter columns, and (c) VBEs.
(normalized by totally shear forces resisted by each story)
 (a) (b) (c)
Fig. 7 average contribution of story shear over height of 6-story SPSW between: (a) steel plates, (b) perimeter columns, and (c) VBEs.
(normalized by totally shear forces resisted by each story)

founded on soil type II, while it undergoes significant
variations in the case of soil type IV dependent on story level.
Remarkable change in contribution of shear forces due to SSI
effect can be seen in second and last story in the case of soil
type IV. In addition another consequence of soil-flexibility is a
reduction in contribution of shear forces of VBEs to the story
shear observed in most of the stories with respect to the Ref.
SPSW. On the other hand a minor influence on distribution of
shear forces in perimeter columns is observed for middle
stories when the base condition is changed from fixed to
flexible.
C. Ductility demand
Ductility demand is crucial parameters to measure the
inelastic range response of the structural element. Memarzadeh
et al. [12] recommend using an effective
relationship for the energy ductility,  e , which is convenient
to use for the case of dynamic response of SPSWs as follow:
max ( E p  Es )
e  (1)
max ( Es )
Where E p and E s are the hysteretic and recoverable
strain energy, respectively. Fig. 8 summarizes average ductility
demand calculated according to the mentioned equation, for
the story plates and their distribution over the height of the
structure for SSI models and Ref. SPSW. We can see that the
ductility demand reduces when foundation flexibility, is
introduced to the fixed-base system. The figures clearly
indicate that the effect of SSI produces a reduction in ductility
demand that becomes significant in the case of soft soil.

(a) (b)
Fig. 8 energy ductility demands of story plates and their distribution of (a) 9-story SPSW, and (b) 6story SPSW

VI. CONCLUSION
The study as a whole may prove useful in formulating
design guidelines for seismic design of building frames
incorporating the effect of soil-flexibility. For this purpose a
time direct method was used considering nonlinear behavior of
SPSW and using an equivalent-linear model for underneath
soil deposit during time history analyses. The analyses consist
a complete 3-D model for both soil and structure. The outputs
obtained from all mentioned base conditions under influence
of two accelerograms with considering two soil types, was
obtained and compared with the aim of investigating SSI
effects on seismic response of SPSW in terms of story shear,
distribution of shear forces between structural elements and
ductility demand. The following specific observations are
drawn from the analyses:
The results showed that the incorporation of SSI tends to
decrease story shear of all SPSW models by reducing the shear
wave velocity of the soil deposits.
SSI decreases the share of shear forces of steel plates in
resisting the story shear in most the stories for 9-story SPSW
founded on both soil types. Consequently an increase in the
contribution of shear forces of columns (VBEs and perimeter
columns) in resisting the shear story is observed as a
consequence of soil flexibility.
SSI generally produces an increase in share of shear forces
of steel plates in resisting the story shear for 6-story SPSW
founded on soil type II.
With reference to the Ref. SPSW, SSI caused reduction in
contribution of shear forces of VBEs to the story shear in most
of the stories in 6-story SPSW.
Ductility demand is another parameter evaluated in this
study. The ductility demand was observed to reduce when the
base condition changes from fixed to flexible.
References
[1] J. P. Stewart, G. L. Fenves, and R. B. Seed, Seismic soil-structure
interaction in buildings, I: analytical methods, ASCE J Geotech
Geoeviron Eng, vol. 125, pp. 26-37, 1999.
[2] M. Wakabayashi, Design of earthquake-resistant buildings, TX: Mc
Graw-Hill: 1985.
[3] J. P. Wolf, Dynamic soil-structure interaction, Englewood Cliffs, N.J:
Prentice Hall: 1987.
[4] F. Nateghi, A. Rezaei, and F. Behnamfar, Structure-soil-structure
effects on nonlinear dynamic response of tall buildings, In:
Proceedings of the first European conference on earthquake
engineering and seismolog, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
[5] P. Raychowdhury, Effect of soil parameter uncertainty on seismic
demand of low-rise steel buildings on dense silty sand, Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng, vol. 29, pp. 1367-1378, 2009.
[6] P. Raychowdhury, Seismic response of low-rise steel moment-resising
frame (SMRF) buildings incorporating nonlinear soil-structure
interaction (SSI), Engineering Structure, doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct,
2010.12.017.
[7] Applied Technology Council (ATC-40), Seismic evaluation and
retrofit of concrete buildings, Redwood City, California, 1996.
[8] Hibbitt, Karlsson, and Sorensen, Inc (HKS) ABAQUS Analysis user's
manual (v 6.7), Hibbitt, Karlsson, Sorensen, Inc of Pawtucket, Rhode
Island, 2007.
[9] R. Sabelli, M. Bruneau, Steel plate shear wall, AISC Steel design
guide 20, USA, 2007.
[10] American institute of steel construction (AISC), Seismic provisions for
structural steel buildings, Chicago, IL, 2005.
[11] American society for civil engineers (ASCE), Minimum design loads
for buildings and other structures (including Supplement No. 1),
Reston, VA, 2005.
[12] P. Memarzadeh, M. M. Saadatpour, and M. Azhari, Nonlinear
Dynamic Response and Ductility Requirements of a Typical Steel Plate
Shear Wall Subjected to El Centro Earthquake, Iranian Journal of
Science & Technology, Transaction B: Engineering, Vol. 34, no. B4,
pp. 371-384, 2010.
[13] P. Memarzadeh, Ductility behavior of a steel plate shear wall by
explicit dynamic analyzing, The 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, October 12-17, 2008.
[14] J. Lysmer, R. L. Kuhlemeyer, Finite dynamic model for infinite media,
J Eng Mech Div ASCE, 1969.
[15] W. White, S. Valliappan, and I. K. Lee, Unified boundary for finite
dynamic models. ASCE J Eng Mech, vol. 103, no. 5, pp. 949–964,
1977.
[16] Hibbitt, Karlsson, and Sorensen, Inc (HKS), ABAQUS Theory manual
(v6.7), Hibbitt, Karlsson, Sorensen, Inc of Pawtucket, Rhode Island,
2007.
[17] K. Terzaghi, Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Ney York, Wiley, 1943.
[18] Building and Housing Research Center (BHRC), Iranian code of
practice for seismic resistant design of buildings, standard no. 2800-
05 3rd ed., 2005.
[19] SHAKE 2000, A computer program for the 1-D analysis of
geotechnical earthquake engineering problems, user’s manual, USA,
University of California, 2006.
[20] BSSC, NEHRP, Recommended provisions for seismic regulation for
new buildings and other structures,1997 edition, Part 2: Commentary
FEMA 303. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 1997.