Journal of Constructional Steel Research 182 (2021) 106699

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Seismic performance assessment of steel frame structures equipped with

buckling-restrained slotted steel plate shear walls
Shuangshuang Jin a,b, Hui Du b, Jiulin Bai c,d,⁎
a
State Key Laboratory of Mountain Bridge and Tunnel Engineering, Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing 400074, China
b
School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing 400074, China
c
School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China
d
Key Laboratory of New Technology for Construction of Cities in Mountain Area (Chongqing University), Ministry of Education, Chongqing 400045, China

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

Article history: The near-fault ground motion records may impose high seismic energy input to the building structures. The steel
Received 26 December 2020 plate shear walls (SPSW) are one of the robust and efficient lateral-force resisting and energy-dissipating compo-
Received in revised form 29 March 2021 nents and SPSWs are increasingly equipped in steel moment frame to form a dual structural system. A modified
Accepted 6 April 2021
type of buckling-restrained SPSW with inclined slots has been proposed and applied in the steel frame. This paper
Available online 19 April 2021
presents the seismic performance of steel frame-SPSW system subjected to near-fault ground motions. Four
Keywords:
multi-story (5-, 10-, 15- and 20-story) steel frame-SPSW structures were selected and designed. The accuracy
Steel plate shear wall (SPSW) of the SPSW models' predictions was assessed using previous experimental results. Nonlinear time-history anal-
Inclined slots ysis assuming two groups of 15 near-fault ground motions and 15 far-fault ground motions was used to predict
Near-fault ground motions the structures' interstory drift ratios, floor accelerations, residual interstory drift ratios and drift concentration
Seismic performance factor. Incremental dynamic analysis was used to predict collapse probabilities using the same groups of ground
Fragility curve motions. The analytical results can provide significant insights to the seismic behavior of steel frame-SPSW struc-
tures when subjected to near-fault ground motions.
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The ground motion not more than 20 km from a fault during an
earthquake is generally regarded as near-fault ground motion. Near-
fault ground motion has characteristics significantly different from
ground motion farther away [1]. Three notable characteristics are the
fling-step effect, the forward-directivity effect and the velocity impulse.
The significant differences were initially differentiated after the Port
Hueneme earthquake in the United States in 1957. Buildings can suffer
tremendous damage from near-fault ground motions. A group led by
Baez has shown [2] that the displacements response under near-fault
records are typically larger than those under far-fault records for
single-degree-of-freedom system with periods between 0.1 and about
1.3 s. A study led by Kalkan and Kunnath [3] has reveal that the median
maximum demand on a steel frame is higher under near-fault ground
motions, as is the dispersion in the peak motion values. Zhang et al.
[4] analyzed hysteretic energy demand of single-degree-of freedom sys-
tem and found that structures bear huge energy impact in a short time
in response to near-fault ground motions. Liao et al. [5] studied dynamic
behavior of 5-story and a 12-story frame structures and found that the
⁎ Corresponding author: School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing
400045, China.
E-mail address: baijiulin@cqu.edu.cn (J. Bai).
base shear and ductility requirements under near-fault ground motions
are much greater than far-fault earthquake shakings.
Steel plate shear walls (SPSWs) are widely used in high-rise building
structures [6–10] as robust and efficient resistance components due to
their excellent strength and high energy dissipation capacity. In the re-
cent decades many theoretical and experimental studies have shown
that SPSWs have excellent stiffness, ductility, shear resistance and en-
ergy dissipation capacity [11–19]. Wagner [14] first documented the
post-buckling behavior of thin SPSWs. Local buckling appears first
under a small horizontal load, and then a series of “pleats” form along
the wall's diagonal. Thorburn et al. [20] showed that an unstiffened
SPSW with a boundary frame can resist lateral loads by diagonal tension
field action of the steel plate, however the post-buckling performance of
a conventional SPSW largely depends on the strength of its bounding
beams and columns, and several approaches for designing them have
been proposed. Different SPSW configurations have been proposed to
reduce the interaction between the boundary frame and the inner
steel plate. In one the SPSW is connected to frame beams only [21]. In
another the SPSW has rectangular or round perforations [22,23]. Using
a low yield point SPSW offers better energy dissipation and ductility
and also solves the problem of excessive material strength [24–26]. Cor-
rugated SPSWs have been proposed [27,28], as well as ring-shaped
SPSWs [29]. Furthermore, SPSWs with vertical or butterfly-shaped
slits have been studied [30–32].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.106699
0143-974X/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Jin, H. Du and J. Bai Journal of Constructional Steel Research 182 (2021) 106699

Recently, a novel type of buckling-restrained SPSW with inclined slots, that adjusts the lateral stiffness, strength and ductility of the
slots has been proposed [33,34] which can eliminate excessive forces entire wall.
on the boundary members by carefully design of the number of slots After n slots are set in SPSW, n − 1 steel strips with width b and
and the width between the slots. The proposed SPSW consists of an two corner strips will be formed Fig. 2. Shear resistance is provided
inner steel plate with inclined slots and two precast concrete panels, entirely by the steel strips, for which the yielding shear force (Vy) can
as shown in Fig. 1. In this study, application of the slotted SPSW to the be calculated as
steel frame systems was presented. The seismic collapse performance
of such slotted SPSW systems was evaluated using the Open System  ns 
for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) software suite, and Vy ¼ 1− ⋅ sin ðα Þ ⋅Vy_spsw
 l 
the accuracy of the models' predictions was assessed using previous ex- ns
¼ 0:5⋅ 1− ⋅ sin ðα Þ ⋅fy⋅l⋅t⋅ sin 2α ð1Þ
perimental results. Four multi-story (5-. 10-, 15- and 20-story) models l
were designed using slotted SPSWs and then subjected to two groups
of 15 near-fault ground motions and 15 far-fault ground motions. Non-
Here s is the width of an inclined slot and n is the total number of
linear time-history analysis (NTHA) was used to document the inter-
slots; l is the length of the steel plate; t is the thickness of the steel
story drift ratios, floor accelerations, residual interstory drift ratios and
plate; α is the angle between the column and the inclined slots; Vy_spsw
drift concentration factors. Nonlinear incremental dynamic analysis
is yielding shear resistance of the unstiffened SPSW; fy is the yielding
(IDA) was carried out to analyze the collapse probability of each design
stress of the steel plate.
and compare their fragility curves using the same groups of ground
Because the steel strips work as trusses under shear loadings, only
motions.
axial stress exists. The yielding displacement (uy) of a steel strip can
be written as

2. Buckling-restrained steel plate shear walls with inclined slots

(slotted SPSW)

2.1. Properties of the slotted SPSWs

A slotted SPSW is composed of a slotted steel plate, concrete panels

on both faces to restrain its out-of-plane deformation and an edge
frame. The slotted steel plate buckles first in response to ground motion,
forming an oblique tension field which resists the lateral forces and dis-
sipates seismic energy. With the slots, the plate's stress state is simpli-
fied such that it is mainly the steel strips between the slots that is
deformed by tension and compression. The tension and compression
energy consumption mechanism is relatively stable. At the same time,
the failure mechanism of the entire wall can be effectively controlled
by changing the length and width of the inclined strips between the Fig. 2. Load-carrying mechanism of a slotted SPSW.

Fig. 1. Construction details of buckling-restrained SPSW with inclined slots in steel frames.

2
S. Jin, H. Du and J. Bai Journal of Constructional Steel Research 182 (2021) 106699

Fig. 3. Experimental presentation of the half-scale slotted SPSW specimen. (a) Test setup (b) Hysteretic curve.

2.3. Design guidelines for slotted SPSWs

2⋅ðh−2eÞ 2⋅ðh−2eÞ fy
uy ¼ θy⋅H ¼ εy ¼ ⋅ ð2Þ
sin 2α sin 2α Es The thickness of the steel plate as well as the number and width of
inclined slots can affect the lateral resistance of a slotted SPSW. Design-
where θy is drift ratio at yielding and H is the story height. h is the height ing a slotted SPSW should therefore involve the following steps.
of each steel plate, e is the distance from the edge of the steel plate to the (1) On the basis of the bay span and story height, determine the
beginning or end of a steel strip, εy is a strip's yielding strain, and Es is the inner steel plate's span l and height h.
elastic modulus of a steel strip. (2) Assuming the angle of inclination (α) 45°, determine the number
and width of inclined slots (n, s).
(3) Based on the expected design shear force Vy of the slotted SPSW,
2.2. Cyclic loading tests and definition of the limit states Calculate the required thickness of the inner slotted plate.

Quasi-static cyclic tests were carried out with half-scale slotted

SPSWs to provide data about their general behavior. The test setup   ns  
with the half-scale specimens is depicted in Fig. 3(a). Detailed informa- t ¼ Vy= 0:5⋅ 1− ⋅ sin ðα Þ ⋅f y⋅l⋅ sin 2α ð3Þ
l
tion about the specimens has been published previously [34]. A typical
hysteretic curve is shown in Fig. 3(b), and typical load-drift ratios at
some key points are presented in Table 1. According to the experimental
results, a slotted SPSW could sustain 2% lateral drift ratio without a re- (4) Check the stiffness requirement for the boundary members using
duction in its lateral resistance or energy dissipation capacity. These re- the following Eq. [35]:
sults illustrated that the slotted SPSW has excellent ductility and stable
energy dissipation capacity.
4
I c ≥I c, min ¼ 0:00307α n th =l ð4Þ
where Ic is inertia moment of the boundary columns, αn = 1 − n × s
Table 1
× sinα/l is a reduction factor to account for the slots. It should be noted
Test results with half-scale specimens.
that n and s may have to be reselected in case that the above equation is
Specimen Yield point Maximum point not satisfied.
Py (kN) Δy (mm) δy (%) Pmax (kN) Δmax (mm) δmax (%)
(5) The two precast concrete panels providing the lateral out-of-
1 604 9.3 0.6 990 38 2.6 plane restraint to prevent buckling failure of the inner steel
2 800 12 0.8 1502 48 3.2
3 800 12 0.8 1500 52.5 3.5
plate can be designed using published methods [33].

Py is yielding strength, Δy is yielding displacement, δy is yielding drift ratio, Pmax is maxi-

mum strength, Δmax is maximum displacement, δmax is maximum drift ratio. The step-by-step design flow-chart is shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4. The flow-chart of design process.

3
S. Jin, H. Du and J. Bai
3. Structures of steel frame equipped with slotted SPSWs
Four multi-story (5-, 10-, 15- and 20-story) steel frame-SPSW sys-
tem structures were selected and designed based on the performance-
based plastic design (PBPD) method [36,37]. The PBPD method can
fully consider the structural inelastic performance, including the
predetermined target displacement and yielding mechanism under se-
vere earthquake shaking. Therefore, the seismic response and failure
mode of the structures can be controlled and predicted. According to
the PBPD method, the infill panel will firstly yield and experiences
large inelastic deformation to absorb and dissipate the seismic energy,
and finally the frame beam end and bottom column form plastic
hinge, to develop a dual lateral seismic force-resisting system. The bear-
ing capacity of the buckling restrained slotted SPSWs along the building
height is determined according to the designed story shear distribution,
so as to avoid the plastic development from being concentrated on cer-
tain stories.
The plan and elevation views of designed structures are shown in
Fig. 5. The middle span with SPSWs was 4.8 m wide, and both side
spans were 7.2 m. A local seismic intensity of 8 was assumed, and the
damping ratio was taken as 0.035. Q235 steel with an fy of 235 N/
mm2 and an Es of 2.0 × 105 MPa was assumed for the boundary frame
members, and low yielding point steel withfy=100 N/mm2 and Es=
2.0 × 105 MPa was assumed for the inner steel plate. The two external
concrete panels were both assumed to be C30 100 mm thick with two
layers of HPB300 reinforcement in both directions. Table 2 presents
the information of the four structures.
4. Finite element simulation
4.1. Finite element modeling of the frame
All frame beams and columns were represented by displacement-
based elements with 5 integration points and were rigidly connected.
The component sections were all modeled by fiber division. The fiber
model has the advantages of high calculation accuracy and good conver-
gence speed, which is close to the actual structural mechanical perfor-
mance analysis model and widely used in seismic response analysis.
The Steel02 based on the Giuffre model is used to construct the steel
constitutive model, and the hardening rate of the steel model (i.e. the
ratio of the slope of the hardening stage to the elastic stage) is set as
0.5%. In the Steel02 model, three parameters controlling the transition
of reinforcement from elastic stage to hardening stage are 18, 0.925
Fig. 5. The structural model. (a) Plan view of the building (b) Elevation view of the building.
4
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 182 (2021) 106699
and 0.15 respectively. The stress-strain relationship and hysteretic char-
acteristics of Steel02 are shown in Fig. 6. Note that the numerical model
adopted for beams and columns is not able to replicate the degradation
of stiffness and strength, while the stiffness and strength degradation
can significantly affect the seismic response [38,39], especially in the
case of long duration earthquakes. Therefore, more refined numerical
models should be further built to investigate the seismic response of
SPSW systems in future study.
4.2. Finite element modeling of the SPSW
In the non-linear analysis of the structure, when solid element
models are used to simulate the SPSWs, huge calculations are generated
which do not easily converge. It is therefore advisable to use an appro-
priate simplified model as long as it is sufficiently accurate. In this
work the equivalent multi-strip model was used. This simplified
model is based on the force mechanism of tension and compression
strips (Fig. 7). The steel strips between the inclined slots are equivalent
to a series of tension and compression trusses corresponding to the cen-
ter of each strip, thus forming an equivalent multi-strip model (Fig. 8).
Considering the influence of the length and width of the inclined
slots, the stress state of each steel strip can be divided into three parts:
two end elastic segments (of length lei) and the middle yield segment
(of length lpi). The simplified simulation of an entire three-segment
steel strip is equivalent to a uniform tension and compression truss
with the length of the center line of each steel strip lli, where i represents
the ith steel strip. Then
lli ¼ lpi þ lei ð5Þ
The total length lei and the area Aei of the end elastic segment as well
as the area Api of the middle yield segment can be calculated using
formulas (6)–(8).
lei ¼ 2e= sin α ð6Þ
Aei ¼ ðb þ sÞ  t ð7Þ
Api ¼ b  t ð8Þ
The equivalent truss's cross-sectional area is defined as the area of
the yield segment (Api). The mechanical properties of the equivalent
S. Jin, H. Du and J. Bai Journal of Constructional Steel Research 182 (2021) 106699

Table 2
Information of structures.

Story Story Column section of Column section of Beam section of Beam section of t s n
number mid-span (mm) boundary-span (mm) mid-span (mm) boundary-span (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

5 1–5 H450 × 450 × 14 × 18 H350 × 350 × 10 × 16 H400 × 200 × 8 × 12 H400 × 200 × 10 × 14 5.2 100 9
10 1–2 □700 × 45 H450 × 450 × 14 × 18 HN500 × 200 × 9 × 14 HN400 × 200 × 8 × 13 9 100 9
3–4 □650 × 40 H450 × 450 × 14 × 18 HN500 × 200 × 9 × 14 HN400 × 200 × 8 × 13 8.5
5 □600 × 35 H400 × 400 × 12 × 16 HN500 × 200 × 9 × 14 HN400 × 200 × 8 × 13 8.5
6 □600 × 35 H400 × 400 × 12 × 16 H450 × 200 × 8 × 12 HN400 × 200 × 7 × 11 7
7 □500 × 30 H400 × 400 × 12 × 16 H450 × 200 × 8 × 12 HN400 × 200 × 7 × 11 7
8 □500 × 30 H350 × 350 × 10 × 14 H450 × 200 × 8 × 12 HN400 × 200 × 7 × 11 7
9–10 □500 × 25 H350 × 350 × 10 × 14 H450 × 200 × 8 × 12 HN400 × 200 × 7 × 11 6
15 1–3 □800 × 55 H500 × 500 × 15 × 20 H500 × 200 × 14 × 25 H400 × 200 × 12 × 16 10.5 100 9
4 □750 × 50 H500 × 500 × 15 × 20 H500 × 200 × 14 × 25 H400 × 200 × 12 × 16 10.5
5 □750 × 50 H450 × 450 × 14 × 18 H500 × 200 × 14 × 25 H400 × 200 × 12 × 16 9.5
6 □750 × 50 H450 × 450 × 14 × 18 H500 × 200 × 14 × 25 H400 × 200 × 10 × 14 9.5
7–8 □700 × 45 H450 × 450 × 14 × 18 H500 × 200 × 14 × 25 H400 × 200 × 10 × 14 9.5
9 □700 × 45 H450 × 450 × 12 × 16 H500 × 200 × 14 × 22 H400 × 200 × 10 × 14 8
10 □650 × 40 H450 × 450 × 12 × 16 H500 × 200 × 14 × 22 H400 × 200 × 10 × 14 8
11 □650 × 40 H450 × 450 × 12 × 16 H500 × 200 × 14 × 22 H400 × 200 × 8 × 12 8
12 □650 × 40 H450 × 450 × 12 × 16 H500 × 200 × 14 × 20 H400 × 200 × 8 × 12 7
13–15 □600 × 35 H400 × 400 × 10 × 14 H500 × 200 × 14 × 20 H400 × 200 × 8 × 12 7
20 1–4 □850 × 60 H550 × 550 × 22 × 25 H500 × 200 × 16 × 25 H400 × 200 × 14 × 18 13.5 100 9
5 □800 × 55 H500 × 500 × 15 × 20 H500 × 200 × 16 × 25 H400 × 200 × 12 × 16 13.5
6 □800 × 55 H500 × 500 × 15 × 20 H500 × 200 × 16 × 25 H400 × 200 × 12 × 16 12.5
7–8 □750 × 50 H500 × 500 × 15 × 20 H500 × 200 × 16 × 25 H400 × 200 × 12 × 16 12.5
9–10 □700 × 45 H450 × 450 × 14 × 18 H500 × 200 × 16 × 25 H400 × 200 × 10 × 14 11.5
11 □650 × 40 H450 × 450 × 14 × 18 H500 × 200 × 16 × 22 H400 × 200 × 10 × 14 11.5
12 □650 × 40 H450 × 450 × 14 × 18 H500 × 200 × 16 × 22 H400 × 200 × 10 × 14 10.5
13–14 □600 × 35 H450 × 450 × 14 × 18 H500 × 200 × 16 × 22 H400 × 200 × 10 × 14 10.5
15 □550 × 30 H400 × 400 × 12 × 16 H500 × 200 × 16 × 22 H400 × 200 × 10 × 14 9.5
16 □550 × 30 H400 × 400 × 12 × 16 H500 × 200 × 16 × 20 H400 × 200 × 8 × 12 9.5
17 □500 × 25 H400 × 400 × 12 × 16 H500 × 200 × 16 × 20 H400 × 200 × 8 × 12 9.5
18 □500 × 25 H350 × 350 × 10 × 14 H500 × 200 × 16 × 20 H400 × 200 × 8 × 12 8
19–20 □450 × 20 H350 × 350 × 10 × 14 H500 × 200 × 16 × 20 H400 × 200 × 8 × 12 8

three-segment steel strip can be simulated by modifying the truss's

equivalent elastic modulus with the truss's yield stress (fy) unchanged. σeilei Vi lei
Δei ¼ ¼ ⋅ ð11Þ
The process of determining the equivalent elastic modulus of the Es Es sin α Aei
truss is as follows. Assume that the horizontal load by each steel strip
σpilpi Vi lpi
between the inclined slots is Vi and the corresponding horizontal dis- Δpi ¼ ¼ ⋅ ð12Þ
Es Es sin α Api
placement is Δi, as shown in Fig. 9. The stresses on the corresponding
elastic segment (σei) and the yield segment (σpi) can then be calculated
The relationship between the horizontal displacement (Δi) and the
as
deformation of the steel strip is

Vi Vi lei Vi lpi
σei ¼ ð9Þ Δi ¼ Δei þ Δpi ¼ ⋅ þ ⋅
Aei sin α  Es sin α Aei Es sin α Api
Vi lei lpi
¼ ⋅ þ ð13Þ
Es sin α Aei Api
Vi
σpi ¼ ð10Þ
Api sin α
The relationship between the horizontal load resisted by the steel
strips and the corresponding horizontal displacement can then be de-
The corresponding deformations of the elastic and yield segments rived, and the elastic lateral rigidity of each steel strip (kei) can be calcu-
are Δei and Δpi respectively: lated as

Fig. 6. Steel02 material model. (a) Stress-strain relationship (b) Hysteresis behavior.

5
S. Jin, H. Du and J. Bai Journal of Constructional Steel Research 182 (2021) 106699

Fig. 7. Forces on an inner slotted steel plate.

Fig. 8. Equivalent multi-strip model.

strip. The slotted SPSW can then be simplified by using the equivalent
Es sin 2 α sin 2 α multi-strip model.
Vi ¼   Δi ¼ keiΔi⇒kei ¼   ð14Þ
lpi lpi The accuracy of the simplified model using Truss as the element and
Aei þ Api EsAei þ EsApi
lei lei

Steel02 as the material has previously been verified by experiment

[33,35]. In the test, all beams and columns are made of Q345 steel
According to the principle of equal lateral rigidity of the tension and with the section of H300 × 250 × 18 × 20. The size of the inset steel
compression truss and the three-segment steel strips, the equivalent plate is 1480 mm × 1480 mm × 5 mm with the yield strength Fy of
elastic modulus (Eeq) of the truss is 283 MPa. The width of the steel strips and slots are 100 and 50 mm, re-
spectively. In the finite element simulation, the drift ratio of the loading
sin 2 α sin 2 α lei þ lpi point at beam end is ±0.002, ±0.004, ±0.006, ±0.008, ±0.012, ±0.016,
kei ¼  ¼  ⇒Eeq ¼ EsAei ð15Þ
lpi leiþlpi leiApi þ lpiAei ±0.02, ±0.024, ±0.028, ±0.032 as the loading control displacement.
lei
EsAei þ EsApi EeqApi
More information of the test components and the numerical SPSW
model is shown in Fig. 10. Fig. 11 shows the hysteresis curves and sur-
By this process the number of tension and compression trusses, their rounding area of hysteretic loop of the equivalent multi-strip model
cross-sectional areas, yield stresses and equivalent elastic modulus can analysis and the test. It can be seen that they are in good agreement in
be determined to simulate the mechanical properties of each steel terms of strength and hysteretic energy. Thus, the modeling method
of this paper can accurately simulate slotted SPSW.

4.3. Ground motions

As mentioned before, the near-fault ground motions have obvious

Fig. 9. Mechanical analysis of steel strips.
velocity and displacement pulses, which are different from far-fault
ground motions. In this paper, thirty records of ground motion were se-
lected from the ground motion database of the Pacific Earthquake Engi-
neering Research Center (PEER), consisting of two types: near-fault
ground motions and far-fault ground motions. The magnitude of the se-
lected ground motions varies from M6.5 to M7.6. In addition, each near-
fault record has a pulse effect, and the fault distance is less than or equal
to 20 km. Table 3 presents the information of the selected ground mo-
tions. Fig. 12 shows the spectral characteristics of the two types of scaled
ground motion records and the comparison of median values. Note that
the peak ground acceleration (PGA) of each ground motion wad scaled

6
S. Jin, H. Du and J. Bai
Fig. 10. The test components and the numerical model. (a) The details of the inner steel plate and concrete panel in test. (b) The numerical SPSW model.
to 510 cm/s2 to be consistence with the corresponding design seismic
fortification intensity.
5. Nonlinear time history analysis results
The nonlinear time-history analysis of the structure is conducted
under a major earthquake. According to GB50011-2010, the peak accel-
eration of the ground motions was scaled to be 510 cm/s2. Maximum
interstory drift ratios, maximum floor accelerations, residual interstory
drift ratios and drift concentration factors were extracted to assess
and compare the seismic performance of the four structures. The basic
periods of the 5, 10, 15 and 20 story structures were predicted to be
0.62, 1.03, 1.62 and 2.38 s respectively.
5.1. The maximum interstory drift ratio
A structure's MIDR (maximum interstory drift ratio) is the absolute
maximum value of the drift ratio between floors in response to each
ground motion. It is directly related to the collapse of the structure
and is one of the most important performance parameters. Figs. 13
and 14 present the MIDRs for the 5, 10, 15, and 20-story frame-SPSW
system structures in response to 15 near-fault and 15 far-fault ground
motions. The figures present the respective median values as well as
their standard deviations. The Code for Seismic Design of Buildings GB
7
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 182 (2021) 106699
50011-2010 stipulates a maximum elastoplastic interstory drift ratio
of 2% (1/50) for steel structures. It can be seen from Fig. 12 that some
MIDR values are over limit at the bottom floor in both cases, and the
situation is more obvious with near-fault ground motions. The MIDR re-
sults for the 5-story structure are mostly larger in response to near-fault
than far-fault ground motions. The median values show that of the large
MIDR values are usually in the lower part of a structure. With near-fault
motion the maximum MIDR is 1.56% on the ground floor, while the
maximum MIDR in response to far-fault motion is 0.82% located at the
second floor. The former is nearly 90% larger than the latter, but neither
of them exceeds the prescribed limit of 2%. In general, the performance
of the 5-story frame-SPSW structure shows satisfactory inter-story drift
in response to both types of ground motion. The seismic performance is
very good.
Fig. 14 presents the MIDRs results for all four structures. In the 10-
story structure, the floor with the maximum MIDR has shifted upward
compared with 5-story structure. The median MIDR in response to
near-fault GM first increases on floors 1–4 to a maximum 1.6% on the
fourth floor. It then decreases from floor 4 to the top floor, reaching
the minimum MIDR of 0.73% at the top floor. In response to far-fault mo-
tion, however, the MIDR increases continuously up to the third floor and
then stabilizes with the maximum value (0.78%) occurring at floor 8. In
the 15-story structure, the MIDR are more concentrated in the lower
half of the structure in the near–fault condition, especially on the 3rd
S. Jin, H. Du and J. Bai Journal of Constructional Steel Research 182 (2021) 106699

Fig. 11. Comparison of the OpenSees model's predictions and test results. (a) Hysteresis curve (b) Surrounding area of hysteretic loop under various loads.

through 6th floors. The maximum value of 1.7% is on the 5th floor. In re- a maximum value of 1.3% at the 19th floor. In response to near-fault mo-
sponse to far-fault motion the MIDR are relatively stable over the entire tions the MIDRs increase to a larger value of 1.7% on floors 1–6, and ul-
structure, with a maximum value of 0.9% on the 12th floor. In the 20- timately the maximum drift ratio (2.21%) appears at floor 18. That is 1.7
story structure, the MIDR results increase steadily with height, reaching times the drift in response to far–fault ground motions.
In general, the MIDRs of the 5-,10-, 15- and 20-story structures in re-
sponse to near-fault motion occur on the first, 4th, 5th and 18th floors
Table 3
Information of ground motions. respectively, and the corresponding values are 1.56%, 1.6%, 1.7% and
2.21%. With far-fault ground motion the MIDRs occur on the 2nd, 8th,
GM type No. Earthquake MW Station Significant Vs,30
12th and 19th floors with values of 0.82%, 0.78%, 0.9% and 1.3%. So the
duration (m/s)
(s) MIDRs are generally 70% larger in response to the near-fault ground mo-
tion, and the effect is more obvious with taller structures. In addition,
Near-fault GM1 chi-chi 7.62 TCU052 16.73 579.1
ground GM2 chi-chi 7.62 TCU065 28.49 305.9
the floors where the MIDR is located are farther up in taller structures,
motions GM3 chi-chi 7.62 TCU075 26.89 573.0 and always predicted to be greater in the near-fault than the far-fault
GM4 chi-chi 7.62 TCU082 23.11 472.8 condition.
GM5 chi-chi 7.62 TCU102 14.92 714.3
GM6 chi-chi 7.62 TCU128 20.60 599.6
GM7 Loma-Prieta 7 GOF160 8.93 308.6
GM8 Loma-Prieta 7 LEX000 4.33 1070.3
GM9 Northridge-01 6.7 JEN022 12.53 373.1 5.2. Floor acceleration
GM10 Northridge-01 6.7 JEN292 6.24 373.1
GM11 Northridge-01 6.7 WPI046 6.26 285.9 Floor acceleration is another important performance parameter.
GM12 Kobe-Japan 6.9 KJM090 9.54 312.0 Figs. 15 and 16 show the floor accelerations predicted for the four
GM13 Kobe-Japan 6.9 PRI000 6.75 198.0
GM14 Imperial 6.53 EMO000 8.21 264.6
frame-SPSW structures in response to the same ground motions. The
Valley median accelerations are shown along with their standard deviations.
GM15 Imperial 6.53 E06140 11.47 203.2 Fig. 15 shows the accelerations predicted for the 5-story structure. The
Valley acceleration changes are more obvious at bottom and top floors than
Far-fault GM1 Northridge 6.7 Beverly 9.22 355.8
on the middle floors. The median floor acceleration increases with
Ground Hills-Mulhol
motions GM2 Northridge 6.7 Canyon 6.26 325.6 height under both near-fault and far-fault ground motions. The maxi-
Country-WLC mum acceleration is on the top floor, where it is 9.24 m/s2 in response
GM3 Duzce, Turkey 7.1 Bolu 8.47 293.6 to far-fault ground motions and 11.54 m/s2 with near-fault driving, a
GM4 Hector Mine 7.1 Hector 11.64 726.0 difference of 24.9%.
GM5 Imperial 6.5 Delta 24.49 242.1
Valley
Fig. 16 presents the floor acceleration results for all four structures.
GM6 Imperial 6.5 EI Centro 6.48 196.3 In the 10-story structure, the maximum acceleration again occurs on
Valley Array #11 the top floor. The maxima are 12.7 m/s2of near-fault and 14.5 m/s2of
GM7 Kobe, Japan 6.9 Nishi-Akashi 9.69 609.0 far fault respectively, a smaller difference. In the 15-story structure.
GM8 Kobe, Japan 6.9 Shin-Osaka 9.90 256.0
The accelerations increase continuously up to the 6th floor, change little
GM9 Kocaeli, 7.5 Arcelik 11.00 523.0
Turkey from the 6th to the 12th floor, and then increase to the top floor. Com-
GM10 Landers 7.3 Yermo Fire 17.60 353.6 paring the medians shows that the floor accelerations are slightly
Station greater in response to far-fault ground motions, though the responses
GM11 Landers 7.3 Coolwater 10.45 353.0 are almost equal near the top of the structure. The maximum accelera-
GM12 Manjil, Iran 7.4 Abbar 28.94 724.0
tions (on the top floor) are 12.12 m/s2of near-fault and 13.1 m/s2of
GM13 Superstition 6.5 Poe Road 13.81 316.6
Hills (temp) far-fault. In the 20-story structure, the floor acceleration on the 17th
GM14 Chi-Chi, 7.6 TCU045 10.05 704.6 floor of far fault is slightly greater, but below that it is smaller. The max-
Taiwan imum accelerations (13.31 m/s2under near-fault and 12.63 m/s2under
GM15 San Fernando 6.6 LA-Hollywood 10.50 316.5
far-fault ground motion) are on the top floor, as would be expected.
Stor
There is no very distinct difference. Generally, the four structures have

8
S. Jin, H. Du and J. Bai Journal of Constructional Steel Research 182 (2021) 106699

Fig. 12. The spectral characteristics of near-fault and far-fault ground motions.(a) Near-fault (b) Far-fault (c) Comparison.

Fig. 13. The MIDRs results of the 5-story structure. (a) Near-fault (b) Far-fault (c) Comparison.

the similar floor acceleration response under the two groups of ground
motions.
5.3. Residual interstory drift ratio
A structure's RIDR (residual interstory drift ratio) reflects the poten-
tial of structural restoration and reuse after an earthquake. Figs. 17 and
18 show the distributions of the models' RIDRs for the four frame-SPSW
structures under the same two groups of ground motions. Fig. 17 shows
that the RIDR results of the 5-story structure increases as the story
height decreases, and the final damage of the structure is concentrated
on the bottom floor, and the situation is more obvious in near-fault
ground motions. The maximum median values are all at the bottom
floor, with near-fault motions the maximum RIDR is 0.19%, while the

Fig. 14. The MIDRs results for all four structures.

9
S. Jin, H. Du and J. Bai Journal of Constructional Steel Research 182 (2021) 106699

Fig. 15. The floor acceleration results of the 5-story structure. (a) Near-fault (b) Far-fault (c) Comparison.

Fig. 16. The floor acceleration results for all four structures.

maximum RIDR in response to far-fault motions is 0.058%. The former is
nearly 230% larger than the latter. Perhaps the low-order mode re-
sponses of such structures may be more easily excited by near-fault
than by far-fault ground motions.
Fig. 18 presents the comparison of the RIDRs for the four structures.
The maximum RIDRs of the 5-, 10-, 15- and 20-story structures in
response to near-fault motion occur on the first, 4th, 5th and 3th floors
respectively, and the corresponding values are 0.19%, 0.24%, 0.27% and
0.21%. With far-fault ground motions the RIDRs have little change
with the story height with maximum values of 0.06%, 0.03%, 0.04% and
0.03%. In general, RIDR results are much larger in response to the
near-fault ground motion. The influence of near-fault earthquake

Fig. 17. The RIDR results of the 5-story structure. (a) Near-fault (b) Far-fault (c) Comparison.

10
S. Jin, H. Du and J. Bai Journal of Constructional Steel Research 182 (2021) 106699

Fig. 18. The RIDR results for all four structures.

Fig. 19. The DCFs of the 5-, 10-, 15- and 20-story structures. (a) 5-story (b) 10-story. (c)15-story (d) 20-story.

11
S. Jin, H. Du and J. Bai Journal of Constructional Steel Research 182 (2021) 106699

12 12 1.0
GM1 GM8 GM1 GM8
GM2 GM9 GM2 GM9
10 GM3 GM10 10 GM3 GM10
GM4 GM11 GM4 GM11 0.8
GM5 GM12 GM5 GM12

Failure probability
8 GM6 GM13 8 GM6 GM13
GM7 GM14 GM7 GM14
0.6
GM15 GM15
Sa(T1) [g]

Sa(T1) [g]
Near-fault
6 failure point failure point
6 Far-fault
0.4
4 4
0.2
2 2

0 0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 3 6 9 12 15
Maximum inter-story drift ratio (%) Maximum inter-story drift ratio (%) Sa(T1) [g]

Fig. 20. IDA and collapse vulnerability curves for the 5-story structure. (a) Near-fault (b) Far-fault (c) Comparison.

should be considered to evaluate whether the structure can be reused
and repaired.
5.4. Drift concentration factor
A structure's drift concentration factor (DCF) is the ratio between
its maximum and its average IDR. The DCF reflects the dispersion of
the IDRs. The higher the DCF is, the more the IDR will vary, and the
more disadvantageous for the structure. Fig. 19 compares the DCF
values of the 5-, 10-, 15-and 20-story structures with the assumed
near-fault and far-fault ground motions. The results for 5-and 20-
story structure show the largest differences, but none of them exceed
1.875. Generally speaking, in all cases the DCF values are relatively
small with little difference between the near-fault and far-fault
values.
6. Incremental dynamic analysis and fragility curves
Incremental dynamic analysis of the four structures was carried out
assuming the same groups of ground motions. Spectral acceleration Sa
(T1) was used as seismic intensity parameter and the MIDR (θmax) was
used as seismic demand parameter. According to the FEMA350 design
criteria, the point on each of the IDA curves where the interstory drift
ratio first reached 10% was selected as the collapse control point. At
the same time, if the slope of the IDA curve was less than 0.2 times
the initial slope before the interstory drift ratio reached 10%, in other
words if θmax diverges, that was regarded as the structure's earlier
point of collapse. Based on the failure criteria, collapse vulnerability
curves with Sa as the abscissa and collapse probability as the ordinate
were established from the IDA curves. In Fig. 20 the IDA curves of the
5-story structure under near-fault ground motions are mostly quite
smooth. Interstory drift ratio develops faster in response to near-fault
ground motions than with far-fault ground motions as Sa(T1) increases,
and it's easier to reach failure point. Comparing the vulnerability curves,
the collapse probability of the 5-story structure with near-fault ground
motions is higher too.
Fig. 21 presents the vulnerability curves for the 10-, 15-, and 20-
story structures. For the 10-story structure the collapse probability is
slightly greater under near-fault than far-fault ground motions before
Sa(T1) reaches 6 g. Beyond 6 g the situation is reversed, but the differ-
ence is very small. For the 15-story and 20-story structures, the collapse
probability difference is smaller in both cases, and their two vulnerabil-
ity curves nearly fit together. When the Sa(T1) reaches 6 g the collapse
probabilities of the 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-story frame-SPSW system structures
are 97%, 79%, 93% and 100% under the action of near-fault ground mo-
tion, and except for the 5-story structure almost the same under far-
fault ground motion. For the 5-story structure the difference in collapse
probability is quite significant.

Fig. 21. Collapse vulnerability curves predicted for 10-,15- and 20-story structures. (a) 10-story (b) 15-story (c) 20-story.

12
S. Jin, H. Du and J. Bai
Fig. 22. Comparison of CMR of four structures under different types of ground motions. (a) Near-fault (b) Far-fault.
Fig. 22 compares the combined collapse vulnerability curves. Note
that for the horizontal axis in this figure, the intensity parameter Sa
(T1) is normalized by the code-specified design spectral acceleration
Sa(T1)code, to permit the direct calculation and comparison of the col-
lapse margin ratio (CMR). The CMR is one of the essential components
proposed in ATC-63 program [40], which is to propose a relatively stan-
dardized structural collapse vulnerability analysis process and evalua-
tion criteria. The CMR is defined as the ratio of Sa(T1) corresponding to
50% collapse probability in collapse vulnerability curve of the structure,
to Sa(T1)code.
As can be seen from Fig. 22, under the action of the near-fault ground
motions, the CMRs of the 5, 10, 15 and 20-story structures are 3.14, 7.51,
8.48, and 7.88, respectively. The 5-story structure has the smallest CMR
value among the four structures, which is only 3.14. While under the
far-fault ground motions, the CMR values are 6.98, 8.98, 9.53, and 7.68
respectively. Except for the 20-story structure, the CMR values of the
other three structures are larger than those under the near-fault ground
motions. Also, it can be seen that the action of near- fault ground mo-
tions reduces the CMR of the 5-story structure the most. On the
whole, the CMR values of the four structures under the near-fault and
far-fault are relatively large, so the collapse-resisting ability for four
structures is strong. This indicates that the utility of buckling-
restrained SPSWs with inclined slots in the steel frame structure system
can enhance the seismic performance of the dual system.
7. Conclusions
The buckling-restrained SPSW with inclined slots showed good duc-
tility and energy dissipation capacity in half-scale tests. These test re-
sults also validate the simple model proposed. Four multi-story
structures equipped with slotted SPSWs with a panel aspect ratio of
1.6 were modeled. The nonlinear time-history analysis and incremental
dynamic analysis assumed two groups of 15 near-fault ground motions
and 15 far-fault ground motions. The collapse probability was analyzed
from fragility curves generated using those ground motions. The follow-
ing conclusions can be drawn.
(1) The frame-SPSW has good seismic performance, and its ductility
and capacity of energy dissipation can meet the seismic
demands well.
(2) The MIDRs of the frame-SPSW are generally 70% larger in the
near-fault than far-fault ground motions, and the effect is more
obvious with taller structures. The floors where the maximum
MIDR is located are farther up in taller structures.
13
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 182 (2021) 106699
(3) There is no obvious impact of near-fault ground motions on the
floor accelerations of the four structures modeled.
(4) Near-fault ground motions increase the RIDRs in the lower story
of structures significantly, so the influence should be considered
to evaluate whether the structure can be reused and repaired.
However, the median results of the RIDR are less than 0.4%,
which indicates that the frame-SPSW system can meet the re-
pairable requirements.
(5) The impact of near-fault ground motions in DCF is most evident
in low-rise structures. As for mid-to-high-rise structures, the dis-
persion of inter-story drift ratio results under far-fault ground
motions relatively is observed because of higher-order mode
shape.
(6) Near-fault ground motions increase the collapse probability of
the 5-story structure significantly, since the low-order mode re-
sponses of such structures may be more easily excited by near-
fault than by far-fault ground motions.
Author statement
Shuangshuang Jin: Supervision, Methodology, Software.
Hui Du: Formal analysis; Software; Writing - original draft.
Jiulin Bai: Methodology, Writing-Reviewing and Editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
We declare that we do not have any commercial or associative inter-
est that represents a conflict of interest in connection with the work
submitted.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Grant No. 52078092), and Venture & Innovation Support
Program for Chongqing Overseas Returnees (No. cx2018036), and the
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No.
2020CDJQY-A065). The financial support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] K. Du, F. Cheng, J. Bai, et al., Seismic performance quantification of buckling-
restrained braced RC frame structures under near-fault ground motions, Eng. Struct.
211 (2020) 110447.
S. Jin, H. Du and J. Bai
[2] J.I. Baez, E. Miranda, Amplification factors to estimate inelastic displacement de-
mands for the design of structures in the near field, Proceedings of the 12th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2000.
[3] E. Kalkan, S.K. Kunnath, Effects of fling step and forward directivity on seismic re-
sponse of buildings, Earthquake Spectra 22 (2) (2006) 367–390.
[4] L.X. Zhang, J. Yan, J.P. Liu, Hysteretic energy demand of single degree of freedom sys-
tem under near-fault and far-fault ground motions, Build. Struct. 47 (S1) (2017)
678–683.
[5] C. Liao, S. Wan, Earthquake responses of RC moment frames subjected to near-fault
ground motions, Struct. Des. Tall Build. 10 (3) (2001) 219–229.
[6] G.W. Housner, L.A. Bergman, T.K. Caughey, et al., Structural control: past, present,
and future, J. Eng. Mech. 123 (9) (1997) 897–971.
[7] T.T. Soong, G.F. Dargush, Passive Energy Dissipation Systems in Structural Engineer-
ing, Wiley, London, 1997.
[8] J. Bai, J. Zhang, S. Jin, et al., A multi-modal-analysis-based simplified seismic design
method for high-rise frame-steel plate shear wall dual structures, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 177 (2021) 106484.
[9] J. Bai, J. Zhang, K. Du, et al., A simplified seismic design method for low-rise dual
frame-steel plate shear wall structures, Steel Compos. Struct. 37 (4) (2020)
447–462.
[10] J. Bai, H. Chen, J. Zhao, et al., Seismic design and subassemblage tests of buckling-
restrained braced RC frames with shear connector gusset connections, Eng. Struct.
234 (2021) 112018.
[11] T.T. Soong, B.F. Spencer, Supplemental energy dissipation: state-of-the-art and
state-of-the-practice, Eng. Struct. 24 (3) (2002) 243–259.
[12] J. Ericksen, R. Sabelli, A closer look at steel plate shear walls, Mod. Steel Constr. 48
(1) (2008) 63–67.
[13] Y. Takahashi, Y. Takamoto, T. Takeda, et al., Experimental study on thin steel shear
walls and particular bracing under alternative horizontal loading, IABSE Symposium
on Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well Defined
Repeated Loads, Lisbon, Portugal 1973, pp. 185–191.
[14] H. Wagner, Flat Sheet Metal Girders with Very Thin Webs, Part I-General Theories
and Assumptions, vol. 604, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1931
524–558 Technical Memo.
[15] T.M. Roberts, Seismic resistance of steel plate shear walls, Eng. Struct. 17 (5) (1995)
344–351.
[16] L.H. Guo, R. Li, Q. Rong, et al., Cyclic behavior of SPSW and CSPSW in composite
frame, Thin-Walled Struct. 51 (2011) 39–52.
[17] Q.H. Zhao, A. Astaneh-Asl, Cyclic behavior of traditional and innovative composite
shear walls, J. Struct. Eng. 130 (2) (2004) 271–284.
[18] Y. Chu, H. Hou, Y. Yao, Experimental study on shear performance of composite cold-
formed ultra-thin-walled steel shear wall, J. Constr. Steel Res. 172 (2020) 106168.
[19] J.K. Tan, C.W. Gu, M.N. Su, et al., Finite element modelling and design of steel plate
shear wall buckling-restrained by hat-section cold-formed steel members, J. Constr.
Steel Res. 174 (2020) 106274.
[20] L.J. Thorburn, G.L. Kulak, C.J. Montgomery, Analysis of steel plate shear walls, Struc-
tural Engineering Report No. 107, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Al-
berta, 1983.
14
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 182 (2021) 106699
[21] I.R. Choi, H.G. Park, Steel plate shear walls with various infill plate designs, J. Struct.
Eng. 135 (7) (2009) 785–796.
[22] A.K. Bhowmick, Seismic behavior of steel plate shear walls with centrally placed cir-
cular perforations, Thin-Walled Struct. 75 (Feb.) (2014) 30–42.
[23] S. Hosseinzadeh, M. Tehranizadeh, Introduction of stiffened large rectangular open-
ings in steel plate shear walls, J. Constr. Steel Res. 77 (2012) 180–192.
[24] S.J. Chen, C. Jhang, Cyclic behavior of low yield point steel shear walls, Thin-Walled
Struct. 44 (7) (2006) 730–738.
[25] G. De Matteis, R. Landolfo, F.M. Mazzolani, Seismic response of MR steel frames with
low-yield steel shear panels, Eng. Struct. 25 (2) (2003) 155–168.
[26] T. Zirakian, J. Zhang, Buckling and yielding behavior of unstiffened slender, moder-
ate, and stocky low yield point steel plates, Thin-Walled Struct. 88 (2015) 105–118.
[27] J. Qiu, Q.H. Zhao, C. Yu, et al., Experimental studies on cyclic behavior of corrugated
steel plate shear walls, J. Struct. Eng. 144 (11) (2018), 04018200, .
[28] J. Fang, W. Bao, F. Ren, et al., Experimental study of hysteretic behavior of semi-rigid
frame with a corrugated plate, J. Constr. Steel Res. 174 (2020) 106289.
[29] N. Egorova, M.R. Eatherton, A. Maurya, Experimental study of ring-shaped steel
plate shear walls, J. Constr. Steel Res. 103 (2014) 179–189.
[30] T. Hitaka, C. Matsui, Experimental study on steel shear wall with slits, J. Struct. Eng.
129 (5) (2003) 586–595.
[31] T. Hitaka, C. Matsui, J. Sakai, Cyclic tests on steel and concrete-filled tube frames with
slit walls, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 36 (6) (2007) 707–727.
[32] X. Ma, E. Borchers, A. Pena, et al., Design and behavior of steel shear plates with
openings as energy-dissipating fuses, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center
Technical Report, (173), 2010.
[33] S.S. Jin, J.P. Ou, J.Y.R. Liew, Stability of buckling-restrained steel plate shear walls
with inclined-slots: theoretical analysis and design recommendations, J. Constr.
Steel Res. 117 (2016) 13–23.
[34] S.S. Jin, J.L. Bai, J. Ou, Seismic behavior of a buckling-restrained steel plate shear wall
with inclined slots, J. Constr. Steel Res. 129 (2017) 1–11.
[35] S.S. Jin, Seismic Performance of Buckling-Restrained Steel Plate Shear Wall with In-
clined Slots and the Wall-Frame Steel Structure, Dissertation Harbin Institute of
Technology, 2016.
[36] M.L. Ge, J.P. Hao, C. Fang, Elasto-plastic story shear distribution of semi-rigid frame
with buckling-restrained steel plate shear walls, J. Build. Struct. 41 (04) (2020)
32–41.
[37] Changlu Yuan, Seismic Behavior Experimental Study and Performance-Based Plastic
Design Method of Steel Frame With Multi-Ribbed Grid Composited Steel Plate Shear
Wall, Doctoral dissertation Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology, 2014.
[38] D.G. Lignos, H. Krawinkler, Development and utilization of structural component da-
tabases for performance-based earthquake engineering, J. Struct. Eng. 139 (8)
(2013) 1382–1394.
[39] M. Bosco, L. Tirca, Numerical simulation of steel I-shaped beams using a fiber-based
damage accumulation model, J. Constr. Steel Res. 133 (2017) 241–255.
[40] FEMA P695, Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2009.