Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 40–56

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Behavior of multi-story code-designed steel plate shear wall structures

regarding bay width
Masoumeh Gholipour, Mohamad Mehdi Alinia ⁎
Department of Civil Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, 424 Hafez Ave., Tehran 15875-4413, Iran

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

Article history: One of the design requirements in the AISC-341 for steel plate shear walls (SPSWs) is the limitation of infill panel
Received 21 September 2015 width to height ratio. The code recommends the aspect ratio of panel to be between 0.8 and 2.5. In this paper,
Received in revised form 23 January 2016 SPSW frames with 4, 7, 10, 13, 16 and 19 story levels are considered with three different panel aspect ratios of
Accepted 28 January 2016
0.83, 1.67 and 2.5; while all models have similar overall plan dimensions. This comparative study is to provide
Available online xxxx
practicing engineers tools to make reasonable decisions on the suitable design bay width for SPSW structures. Re-
Keywords:
sults show that the selection of a suitable bay width produces a considerable reduction of VBE sections, especially
Panel aspect ratio in high-rise SPSWs. Consequently, the weight of structures becomes minimal; while the capacity of structural
Bay width members is utilized more efficiently and the SPSWs are provided with less overstrength. The maximum increase
Deformation mode in the stiffness and load capacity of moment frames due to the employment of infill plates is obtained in the suit-
Steel plate shear wall able design bay width. The variation of bay width highly affects the deformation mode and the behavior of high-
rise SPSW frames. It is also found that HBEs yielding has an important effect on the axial force demands in VBEs,
especially in SPSWs with large bay widths.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Based on the results of further investigations on the behavior of

The steel plate shear wall system (SPSW) has been used as an effi-
cient lateral load resisting system in high seismic regions. A typical
SPSW consists of infill steel plates connected to the beams, known as
horizontal boundary elements (HBEs), and columns, or vertical bound-
ary elements (VBEs). All HBE–VBE connections are moment connec-
tions. From the numerous analytical and experimental investigations
conducted worldwide, it has been shown that SPSWs have many advan-
tages such as high initial stiffness and strength, substantial ductility, fast
construction, reduction of seismic mass and increased usable floor plan.
The overall building cost of SPSW structures is also shown to be reduced
in comparison with other lateral load resisting systems [1–4].
The design requirements of the SPSW system were first presented in
the 2005 edition of the AISC-341 [5]. One of the design requirements
presented in that code was the limitation of the infill panel aspect
ratio. The ratio of panel width (L) to height (h) was limited to 0.8 ≤ L/
h≤ 2.5. The lower bound (0.8) was selected since the past research pro-
grams had indicated that modeling a SPSW with strips is reasonably ac-
curate for L/h ratios that exceed 0.8. The upper bound (2.5) was
specified on the basis that past research programs had not investigated
the behavior of SPSWs having L/h ratios greater than 2. The excessive
flexibility of HBEs was of concern for L/h ratios beyond the specified
limit.
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: m.alinia@aut.ac.ir, alinia_aut@yahoo.com (M.M. Alinia).
SPSW systems having different L/h ratios, the limitation of panel aspect
ratio was removed in the 2010 edition of the AISC-341 [6]. For example,
the experimental results of the 2-story SPSW specimens having L/h ratio
of 0.6 exhibited acceptable behavior which was comparable to those
SPSWs with larger panel aspect ratios [7]. The ductility and energy dis-
sipation capacity of SPSW frames were studied by Choi and Park [8]
conducting tests on specimens of 3-story SPSWs with panel aspect ra-
tios of 1.5 and 2.2. Berman [9] studied the seismic behavior of code-
designed SPSW frames with 3, 9, 14 and 20-story levels, having L/h ra-
tios between 0.77 and 1.92. The implementation of the M-PFI method
in the design of SPSWs was investigated by Kharrazi et al. [10] using
the pushover analysis of 3-, 9- and 27-story SPSW structures with
panel aspect ratios of 1.14. Shishkin et al. [11] studied the behavior of
1-, 4- and 15-story SPSW structures having L/h ratios between 0.75
and 2. The seismic performance characteristics of 2-, 4-, 6-, 8- and 10-
story SPSWs with L/h ratios of 1 and 2 were studied by Kurban and
Topkaya [12]. The behavior of SPSW frames with in-span plastic hinges
was investigated by Purba and Bruneau [13] considering two 3-story
SPSWs with panel aspect ratio of 2. Habashi and Alinia [14] studied
the characteristics of wall-frame interaction of 1-story SPSWs with
panel aspect ratios between 1 and 3. The wall–frame interaction effect
was also studied by Hosseinzadeh and Tehranizadeh [15,16] consider-
ing 1- to 15-story SPSW frames with panel aspect ratios of 0.85 to 2.5.
Qu and Bruneau [17] indicated that the panel aspect ratio is one of the
key parameters which affects the shear distribution between the infill
plates and VBEs. In the design examples presented for SPSW structures

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.01.020
0143-974X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Gholipour, M.M. Alinia / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 40–56
in refs. [18,19], a 9- and a 4-story SPSW frames with panel aspect ratios
of 1.54 and 1.95 were considered, respectively.
As mentioned above, many investigations have been carried out on
SPSW structures considering different panel aspect ratios. However,
there is no comparative study on the design and behavior of SPSW
structures with specific regard to the panel aspect ratio (the bay
width). As discussed later in this paper, the design bay width of SPSW
structures has an important effect on the design sections of VBES, espe-
cially in high-rise frames. Consequently, the weight of SPSW structures;
and in turn, the economy of design is highly affected by the bay width. In
the present study, eighteen SPSW frames with 4, 7, 10, 13, 16 and 19-
story levels; each with three different bay widths of 3 m, 6 m and 9 m
are considered. The behavior of SPSW frames are closely studied via
comparing specific performance characteristics, such as stiffness, load
carrying capacity, infill plate-boundary frame interaction, overstrength
and response modification factors, deformation mode, distribution of
story shear between infill plates and VBEs, axial force in VBEs, structural
weight and energy absorption. The considerations in the design of SPSW
frames with regard to the bay width are also discussed.
2. Method of study
2.1. Geometric specifications of SPSW frames
Eighteen SPSW frames with 4, 7, 10, 13, 16 and 19-story levels; each
with three bay widths of 3 m, 6 m and 9 m were designed. The story
height was presumed to be 3.6 m; therefore the aspect ratio of SPSW
panels varied from 0.83 to 2.5, complying with the recommended
range in the AISC-341 [6].
The typical floor plan of the buildings considered in the design of
SPSW frames is depicted in Fig. 1. The overall dimensions of the floor
plan were presumed to be constant (17 × 17 m2). This way, the seismic
loads are similar in different bays; providing the chance of making a rea-
sonable comparison. The building design included two SPSWs on the
perimeter of each direction. All beam–column connections were consid-
ered to be shear type, except those in the bays of SPSWs which were de-
signed to be moment resisting per AISC-341 [6]. Accordingly, the
adjoining frames outside the SPSW bays are gravity load resisting
frames and were not incorporated in design and analysis of lateral
load resisting system. However, the gravity loads transmitted by the pe-
rimeter frame beams to the VBEs were considered in the design and
analysis.
2.2. Material properties
The ASTM-A36 and ASTM-A572 steel material properties were re-
spectively used for infill plates and frame members. The presumed non-
linear stress–strain characteristics of the two steel materials with E =
200 GPa and ν = 0.3 are given in Fig. 2. These characteristics are
Fig. 1. Typical floor plan of SPSW buildings.
41
based on the results of steel material tests conducted by Lubell et al.
[20]. The yield stress of infill plates (325 MPa) was selected less than
that of frame members (385 MPa) to reduce the forces induced by infill
plates on the HBEs and VBEs.
2.3. Design procedure
All SPSW frames were designed according to the AISC-341 [6] and
the AISC-360 [21] rules and specifications. Design of frames was per-
formed on a site class D soil; and adjusted maximum considered earth-
quake spectral response parameters at 0.2 and 1 s. periods, SMS and SM1,
were 1.61 g and 1.19 g respectively. The resulting design spectral accel-
eration parameters at 0.2 and 1 s, SDS and SD1, were 1.07 g and 0.79 g re-
spectively. The dead and live loads were calculated based on ASCE 7-10
[22]. The calculation of design seismic base shear and the distribution of
seismic forces along the height of SPSW frames were carried out accord-
ing to the equivalent lateral force procedure specified in the ASCE 7-10
[22].
The thickness of infill plates was calculated to resist the full story
shear per AISC-341 [6]. HBEs and VBEs were then designed to resist
forces induced by the fully yielded infill plates according to the princi-
ples of capacity design method per AISC-341 [6]. The HBE–VBE moment
connection details were composed of reduced beam section (RBS) to
ensure the safety of moment connection. The RBS connection, on the
other hand, reduces plastic moment of HBEs; which subsequently re-
sults in reduced axial and moment demands in VBEs [23]. The RBS di-
mensions were calculated according to the requirements of AISC-358
[24]. The design infill plate thicknesses and sections of HBEs and VBEs
in different bay widths are given in Tables 1–6, respectively for the 4-,
7-, 10-, 13-, 16- and 19-story SPSWs. HBEs were selected from the W-
section type. VBEs were selected from box sections since W-sections
did not fulfill the capacity design requirements in the high-rise SPSWs.
The box sections are named according to their widths and thicknesses
in millimeters. For example, the Box 300 × 20 is a square section with
the width and height of 300 mm, and web thickness of 20 mm.
Considerations in the design of SPSW frames are presented in the
following.
- Infill plates
The design thickness of infill plates (t) is calculated by Eq. (1) per
AISC-341 [6].
V
t¼ ð1Þ
0:9  0:42: F y :Lcf : sin ð2α Þ
where V is the design story shear; Fy is the nominal yield stress of
infill plate; Lcf is the clear bay width between the flanges of VBEs;
and α is the angle of tension field with respect to VBE. Based on
Eq. (1), the thickness of infill plate is reduced with the increase of
42 M. Gholipour, M.M. Alinia / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 40–56

Fig. 2. Stress–strain characteristics of materials.

bay width. Subsequently, the forces induced by the infill plate on the
HBEs and VBEs are reduced.
- HBEs
In a SPSW system, the design of HBEs is controlled by both strength
and stiffness criteria. The stiffness requirement is intended to pre-
vent excessive in-plane flexibility of HBEs; providing adequate an-
chorage of infill plates to develop tension field action. Based on the
stiffness criterion, the HBEs should have a moment of inertia not
less than that presented in Eq. (2) per AISC-341 [6].
Δt L4
I b ≥0:0031
h
where Δt is the difference in plate thicknesses above and below and
Ib is the moment of inertia about the axis perpendicular to the plane
of the plate. L is the bay width of SPSW between the centerline of
VBEs and h is the story height.
As seen in Eq. (2), the required stiffness of HBEs is directly propor-
tional to the fourth power of the bay width. As the bay width in-
creases, the required stiffness of HBEs is significantly increased. In
the bay width of 3 m, design of the roof HBE in all studied SPSWs
was controlled by the stiffness criterion; while in other levels, HBE
sections were designed according to the strength requirements. In-
creasing the bay width of SPSW, HBE design was controlled by the
stiffness criterion in more story levels. In the bay width of 6 m, de-
sign of HBEs in all story levels of the 4-story frame, the 2nd to the
7th stories of the 7-story frame, the 4th to the 10th stories of the
10-story frame, the 6th to the 13th stories of the 13-story frame,
the 8th to the 16th stories of the 16-story frame and the 10th to
the 19th stories of the 19-story frame was controlled by the stiffness
criterion. In the bay width of 9 m, on the other hand, design of HBEs
in all story levels of the 4- and 7-story frames, the 2nd to the 10th
stories of the 10-story frame, the 3rd to the 13th stories of the 13-
story frame, the 4th to the 16th stories of the 16-story frame and
the 4th to the 19th stories of the 19-story frame was controlled by
the stiffness requirement.
According to the explanations presented in the AISC-341 [6], the ca-
pacity design requirements result in progressively larger HBEs with
the increase of SPSW bay. Bulky HBE sections make the SPSW design
uneconomical and impractical. Based on the above explanations,
however, it is the stiffness criterion and not the capacity design re-
quirements (strength criterion) which results in bulky HBE sections
in large SPSW bay.
- VBEs
Similar to the HBEs, VBE design should be controlled for both
ð2Þ strength and stiffness criteria. However, due to the large amount
of force demands induced in the VBEs, design of VBEs is frequently
controlled by the strength requirements. For SPSW frames
studied in the present paper, design of the 2nd to the 4th stories of
the 4-story frame with 3 m bay was controlled by the stiffness crite-
rion. For all other frames, VBEs were designed based on the strength
requirements.
According to the requirements of capacity design method, VBEs are
designed for those forces induced by yielding of the infill plates
and plastic hinge formation at the ends of HBEs. As the bay width
of SPSW increases, the thickness of infill plates is reduced; which
in turn results in reduced force demands on VBEs. HBE design sec-
tions, on the other hand, become larger in most of the stories. Larger
sections provide HBEs with greater plastic moments; which in turn
results in greater design moments in VBEs. With the increase of
bay width, on the other hand, the induced shear forces from the
plastic hinge formation at the ends of HBEs are reduced. Subsequent-
ly, the design axial force of VBEs is reduced.
In the 4-story frame, the variation of the three above force compo-
nents resulted in greater design forces of VBEs in both bay widths
of 6 m and 9 m in comparison with those of 3 m bay. Subsequently,
VBE design sections became larger. With the increase of story levels,
however, the design force demands of VBEs were reduced in most of

Table 1
Design sections of the 4-story SPSW frames.

Level Plate HBE VBE

Thickness (mm)

Bay width (m)

3 6 9 3 6 9 3 6 9

4 1.18 0.56 0.37 W8 × 58 W12 × 170 W14 × 370 Box 300 × 20 Box 350 × 35 Box 450 × 45
3 2.10 0.99 0.65 W8 × 58 W12 × 136 W12 × 336 Box 300 × 30 Box 400 × 30 Box 550 × 40
2 2.75 1.27 0.84 W8 × 58 W12 × 96 W12 × 252 Box 350 × 25 Box 400 × 30 Box 550 × 40
1 3.10 1.43 0.94 W8 × 58 W12 × 96 W12 × 152 Box 350 × 25 Box 400 × 30 Box 550 × 40
 M. Gholipour, M.M. Alinia / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 40–56 43

Table 2
Design sections of the 7-story SPSW frames.

Level Plate HBE VBE

thickness (mm)

Bay width (m)

3 6 9 3 6 9 3 6 9

7 1.30 0.62 0.41 W8 × 58 W12 × 190 W14 × 398 Box 300 × 20 Box 350 × 35 Box 500 × 40
6 2.50 1.15 0.76 W8 × 58 W12 × 152 W14 × 342 Box 350 × 30 Box 400 × 40 Box 550 × 50
5 3.55 1.62 1.07 W10 × 77 W12 × 152 W14 × 342 Box 450 × 30 Box 450 × 45 Box 600 × 55
4 4.40 1.98 1.30 W10 × 77 W12 × 120 W12 × 279 Box 450 × 45 Box 500 × 40 Box 600 × 60
3 5.05 2.28 1.48 W10 × 88 W12 × 120 W12 × 279 Box 500 × 45 Box 500 × 40 Box 600 × 60
2 5.42 2.45 1.60 W10 × 88 W10 × 77 W12 × 170 Box 500 × 45 Box 500 × 40 Box 600 × 60
1 5.80 2.58 1.65 W10 × 100 W10 × 77 W12 × 96 Box 500 × 45 Box 500 × 40 Box 600 × 60

the story levels. See Tables 4–6, the design sections of VBEs in the
lower stories of 13-, 16- and 19-story frames are significantly re-
duced in the bay widths of 6 m and 9 m in comparison with those
of 3 m bay.
2.4. Finite element modeling
2.4.1. Modeling description
All SPSW frames were modeled via the ABAQUS finite element soft-
ware package [25]; and analyzed via pushover analysis. Infill plates,
HBEs and VBEs were modeled with the four-node reduced integrated
shell element S4R. According to refs. [14,16,26], modeling of SPSWs
with the shell element shows high accuracy when compared to the ex-
perimental results. A mesh sensitivity analysis was performed regarding
various dimensions of shell element. Based on the obtained results,
mesh dimensions of approximately 100 × 100 mm produced accurate
results within a reasonable time of computer usage. Therefore, it was
taken as the maximum mesh dimensions in the analyses. In reality,
the thin infill plates are already in a buckled shape upon mounting. An
elastic buckling analysis was performed first, in order to consider the
initial imperfection of plates in the nonlinear pushover analysis. Next,
the initial imperfections proportional to the lowest Eigen-mode shape
of elastic buckling was introduced to the plates. The maximum ampli-
tude of initial imperfections applied to the plates was different in each
model. The appropriate amplitude was obtained by conducting the sen-
sitivity analysis. However, the results presented in ref. [26] show that

Table 3
Design sections of the 10-story SPSW frames.

Level Plate HBE VBE

Thickness (mm)

Bay width (m)

3 6 9 3 6 9 3 6 9

10 1.43 0.66 0.44 W8 × 67 W12 × 190 W14 × 398 Box 350 × 25 Box 350 × 35 Box 500 × 40
9 2.80 1.28 0.85 W10 × 88 W12 × 190 W14 × 398 Box 450 × 35 Box 450 × 45 Box 600 × 45
8 4.15 1.86 1.20 W10 × 88 W12 × 190 W14 × 342 Box 550 × 45 Box 550 × 40 Box 650 × 55
7 5.40 2.32 1.52 W10 × 112 W12 × 136 W14 × 342 Box 650 × 45 Box 550 × 55 Box 750 × 50
6 6.40 2.75 1.80 W10 × 112 W12 × 136 W14 × 342 Box 650 × 65 Box 600 × 50 Box 750 × 55
5 7.40 3.08 1.99 W12 × 152 W12 × 106 W12 × 252 Box 750 × 55 Box 600 × 55 Box 750 × 60
4 8.00 3.35 2.16 W12 × 152 W12 × 106 W12 × 252 Box 750 × 60 Box 600 × 55 Box 750 × 60
3 8.50 3.5 2.30 W12 × 170 W10 × 88 W12 × 252 Box 750 × 65 Box 600 × 55 Box 750 × 60
2 8.80 3.65 2.38 W12 × 170 W10 × 88 W12 × 136 Box 750 × 65 Box 600 × 55 Box 750 × 60
1 9.10 3.72 2.42 W12 × 190 W10 × 100 W12 × 96 Box 750 × 65 Box 600 × 55 Box 750 × 60

Table 4
Design sections of the 13-story SPSW frames.

Level Plate HBE VBE

thickness (mm)

Bay width (m)

3 6 9 3 6 9 3 6 9

13 1.53 0.70 0.47 W8 × 67 W12 × 190 W14 × 426 Box 400 × 30 Box 400 × 30 Box 500 × 40
12 3.15 1.38 0.91 W10 × 100 W12 × 190 W14 × 426 Box 550 × 40 Box 500 × 40 Box 600 × 55
11 4.80 1.98 1.32 W10 × 100 W12 × 190 W14 × 426 Box 700 × 45 Box 550 × 50 Box 700 × 60
10 6.40 2.60 1.68 W10 × 112 W12 × 190 W14 × 342 Box 800 × 55 Box 650 × 50 Box 750 × 65
9 7.90 3.10 1.98 W10 × 112 W12 × 152 W14 × 342 Box 900 × 60 Box 650 × 60 Box 800 × 65
8 9.00 3.55 2.25 W12 × 170 W12 × 152 W12 × 336 Box 900 × 75 Box 700 × 60 Box 800 × 75
7 10.40 3.93 2.50 W12 × 170 W12 × 120 W12 × 336 Box 1000 × 70 Box 700 × 65 Box 800 × 80
6 11.20 4.23 2.70 W12 × 170 W12 × 120 W12 × 252 Box 1000 × 75 Box 700 × 70 Box 800 × 80
5 12.50 4.48 2.85 W12 × 190 W12 × 120 W12 × 210 Box 1100 × 75 Box 700 × 70 Box 800 × 80
4 13.10 4.67 3.00 W12 × 190 W10 × 100 W12 × 210 Box 1100 × 80 Box 700 × 70 Box 800 × 80
3 13.40 4.80 3.09 W12 × 190 W10 × 100 W12 × 152 Box 1100 × 80 Box 700 × 70 Box 800 × 80
2 13.60 4.88 3.15 W12 × 190 W10 × 100 W12 × 120 Box 1100 × 80 Box 700 × 70 Box 800 × 80
1 14.00 4.98 3.20 W12 × 252 W12 × 120 W12 × 120 Box 1100 × 80 Box 700 × 70 Box 800 × 80
44 M. Gholipour, M.M. Alinia / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 40–56

Table 5
Design sections of the 16-story SPSW frames.

Level Plate HBE VBE

Thickness (mm)

Bay width (m)

3 6 9 3 6 9 3 6 9

16 1.63 0.74 0.49 W10 × 68 W12 × 210 W14 × 455 Box 450 × 40 Box 400 × 35 Box 550 × 40
15 3.35 1.48 0.96 W10 × 77 W12 × 210 W14 × 455 Box 600 × 60 Box 550 × 40 Box 650 × 55
14 5.20 2.15 1.40 W12 × 136 W12 × 190 W14 × 398 Box 750 × 75 Box 600 × 55 Box 700 × 70
13 7.10 2.80 1.80 W12 × 210 W12 × 190 W14 × 398 Box 900 × 70 Box 700 × 55 Box 800 × 65
12 9.20 3.38 2.16 W12 × 210 W12 × 170 W14 × 342 Box 1050 × 70 Box 750 × 60 Box 800 × 80
11 11.10 3.88 2.50 W12 × 210 W12 × 170 W14 × 342 Box 1150 × 75 Box 800 × 65 Box 900 × 75
10 12.40 4.35 2.80 W12 × 230 W12 × 152 W12 × 336 Box 1150 × 95 Box 800 × 75 Box 900 × 80
9 13.50 4.78 3.05 W12 × 230 W12 × 152 W12 × 336 Box 1150 × 110 Box 850 × 75 Box 900 × 85
8 15.30 5.15 3.25 W12 × 230 W12 × 120 W12 × 252 Box 1250 × 110 Box 850 × 80 Box 900 × 90
7 16.10 5.45 3.45 W12 × 252 W12 × 120 W12 × 252 Box 1250 × 120 Box 850 × 85 Box 900 × 90
6 17.40 5.70 3.60 W12 × 252 W12 × 120 W12 × 210 Box 1300 × 120 Box 850 × 85 Box 900 × 90
5 17.90 5.85 3.72 W12 × 252 W12 × 106 W12 × 170 Box 1300 × 125 Box 850 × 85 Box 900 × 90
4 18.30 6.00 3.83 W12 × 279 W12 × 106 W12 × 170 Box 1300 × 130 Box 850 × 85 Box 900 × 90
3 18.60 6.20 3.90 W12 × 279 W12 × 106 W12 × 152 Box 1300 × 130 Box 850 × 85 Box 900 × 90
2 18.80 6.25 4.00 W12 × 279 W12 × 106 W12 × 152 Box 1300 × 130 Box 850 × 85 Box 900 × 90
1 19.30 6.30 4.00 W12 × 336 W12 × 136 W12 × 136 Box 1300 × 130 Box 850 × 85 Box 900 × 90

Table 6
Design sections of the 19-story SPSW frames.

Level Plate HBE VBE

Thickness (mm)

Bay width (m)

3 6 9 3 6 9 3 6 9

19 1.75 0.77 0.51 W10 × 68 W12 × 210 W14 × 455 Box 550 × 40 Box 450 × 30 Box 550 × 40
18 3.65 1.53 1.00 W10 × 88 W12 × 210 W14 × 455 Box 700 × 65 Box 550 × 45 Box 650 × 60
17 5.65 2.26 1.47 W10 × 112 W12 × 210 W14 × 426 Box 750 × 85 Box 650 × 55 Box 750 × 65
16 7.80 2.93 1.90 W12 × 190 W12 × 190 W14 × 426 Box 1000 × 90 Box 700 × 70 Box 800 × 80
15 10.50 3.59 2.30 W12 × 190 W12 × 190 W14 × 370 Box 1200 × 85 Box 800 × 65 Box 900 × 75
14 12.10 4.19 2.70 W12 × 230 W12 × 170 W14 × 370 Box 1200 × 115 Box 850 × 75 Box 950 × 80
13 15.30 4.75 3.00 W12 × 230 W12 × 170 W14 × 342 Box 1400 × 100 Box 900 × 75 Box 950 × 90
12 16.80 5.25 3.35 W12 × 230 W12 × 170 W14 × 342 Box 1400 × 120 Box 900 × 90 Box 1000 × 90
11 20.10 5.70 3.60 W12 × 252 W12 × 136 W12 × 305 Box 1550 × 110 Box 950 × 90 Box 1000 × 95
10 21.50 6.10 3.85 W12 × 252 W12 × 136 W12 × 305 Box 1550 × 130 Box 950 × 95 Box 1000 × 100
9 22.60 6.45 4.05 W12 × 252 W12 × 120 W12 × 252 Box 1550 × 145 Box 1000 × 90 Box 1050 × 95
8 23.60 6.75 4.25 W12 × 279 W12 × 120 W12 × 252 Box 1550 × 155 Box 1000 × 95 Box 1050 × 95
7 25.30 7.00 4.40 W12 × 279 W12 × 120 W12 × 210 Box 1600 × 160 Box 1000 × 100 Box 1050 × 95
6 26.00 7.20 4.48 W12 × 279 W12 × 120 W12 × 136 Box 1600 × 160 Box 1000 × 100 Box 1050 × 95
5 26.60 7.40 4.60 W12 × 305 W12 × 120 W12 × 170 Box 1600 × 160 Box 1000 × 100 Box 1050 × 95
4 26.90 7.50 4.70 W12 × 305 W12 × 136 W12 × 152 Box 1600 × 160 Box 1000 × 100 Box 1050 × 95
3 27.10 7.55 4.76 W12 × 305 W12 × 136 W12 × 136 Box 1600 × 160 Box 1000 × 100 Box 1050 × 95
2 27.30 7.60 4.78 W12 × 305 W12 × 136 W12 × 136 Box 1600 × 160 Box 1000 × 100 Box 1050 × 95
1 28.20 7.70 4.80 W12 × 336 W12 × 170 W12 × 152 Box 1600 × 160 Box 1000 × 100 Box 1050 × 95

Fig. 3. Verification of FE modeling procedure.

 M. Gholipour, M.M. Alinia / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 40–56 45

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
those amplitudes smaller than 0:01 L:h provide good estimates for ini-
tial imperfection of plates. L and h have been defined previously.
The infill plates were considered to be directly connected to the
boundary frame members. The first story infill plate was assumed to
be anchored to the ground rather than to an anchor beam at the bottom
level. To simulate the fixed condition at the base of VBEs, the bottom
nodes of VBEs were restrained against displacement in all directions.
Similarly, all translational degrees of freedom were restrained at the
bottom nodes of the first-story infill plate. To simulate the constraints
imposed by the slab of floors, nodes of the web of HBEs were restrained
against displacements in the out-of-plane direction.
The SPSW frames were analyzed via the pushover method under a
triangular lateral load pattern based on the first mode shape per ASCE
41-13 [27]. The results of the study carried out by the authors [28] on
the sensitivity of the SPSW pushover analysis response to the lateral
load distribution pattern showed that the triangular load pattern pro-
vides conservative lateral stiffness and ultimate load capacity for SPSW
frames. The lateral loads were applied to the exterior nodes of VBEs
along the web of HBEs on either side of each story. Lateral loads were in-
creased gradually from zero to a magnitude beyond the capacity of the
SPSW frame. The ultimate displacement limit was considered to occur
at a drift ratio of 2.5% at least at one of the stories per ASCE 7-10 [22].

Fig. 4. Pushover curves of SPSW frames.

46 M. Gholipour, M.M. Alinia / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 40–56
Fig. 5. Normalized lateral stiffness of SPSW frames at the ultimate load.
2.4.2. Validation and verification of results
To validate the FE modeling procedure, the 4-story SPSW frame
tested by Driver et al. [29] was modeled and analyzed. The comparison
between experimental and the current FE results is shown in Fig. 3,
representing the base shear variation against the first story dis-
placement. The current FE results show a good agreement with the ex-
periment in the elastic (AB) and inelastic (BC) stages. The FE model,
however, fails to capture the degradation in strength of the tested spec-
imen (CD stage). The results presented in ref. [29] show that the loss of
post-ultimate load capacity observed in the test specimen was actually
due to the ripping and fracture of the welds connecting either the infill
Fig. 6. Pushover curves of frame-only models.
plates to the boundary frame members, or the columns to the base
plates. In the present study, however, modeling of connection welds
was not considered in FE model, and consequently, fracture was not rel-
evant to the scope of the investigation. The corresponding von Mises
stress distribution at the ultimate state is also presented in Fig. 3. The
stress values are in MPa. As shown, significant yielding occurred in the
infill plate and VBEs of the first story, which comply with the test results.
3. Discussion of results
3.1. Stiffness and load capacity
The pushover curves of the SPSW frames are presented in Fig. 4. For
comparison purposes, the curves related to different bay widths are
given in one diagram. Furthermore, the normalized base shear and
roof displacement are presented instead of the absolute ones. The base
shear is normalized by the design base shear and the roof displacement
is normalized by the building height. The solid circles represent the ul-
timate load carrying capacity corresponding to the ultimate roof dis-
placement at which the drift angle of 2.5% is achieved at one of the
stories.
It is observed that the initial stiffness and the load carrying capacity
of the 4- and 7-story SPSWs increase with the bay width. The initial stiff-
ness of the 10-, 13-, 16- and 19-story SPSWs also increase with the bay
width. However, the ultimate load of the 10-story SPSW decreases in
the bay width of 6 m. In the 13-, 16- and 19-story SPSWs, the ultimate
load in both 6 m and 9 m bays are smaller than that of 3 m bay.
The normalized lateral stiffness of SPSWs at the ultimate load is
presented in Fig. 5. The lateral stiffness is normalized by the initial elas-
tic stiffness. The amount of lateral stiffness implicitly represents the
 M. Gholipour, M.M. Alinia / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 40–56 47

Fig. 7. Pushover curves of SPSWs, frames-only and boundary frames.

potential capability of structures to absorb energy. Larger magnitudes at

the ultimate load indicate that further load carrying capacity exists.
However, such capacity cannot be utilized when the allowable drift
angle of 2.5% has been reached according to the serviceability criteria.
In the 13-, 16- and 19-story SPSWs with 3 m bay, the drift angle of
2.5% is achieved at the early stages of loading (see Fig. 4); whereas,
the slope of the pushover curves shows further potential load carrying
capacity. The results of Fig. 5 show that these SPSWs have substantial

Table 7
Ratios of ultimate load and initial stiffness.

Bay width 4-Story models 10-Story models 19-Story models

F SPSW K SPSW F SPSW K SPSW F SPSW K SPSW
F frame−only K frame−only F frame−only K frame−only F frame−only K frame−only

3m 4.18 9.64 3.43 2.92 2.31 1.48

6m 2.37 8.09 4.39 10.01 5.21 8.47
9m 1.52 4.15 2.29 7.60 3.54 6.79
Fig. 8. Lateral stiffness curves of SPSWs with 3 m bay.
48 M. Gholipour, M.M. Alinia / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 40–56
Fig. 9. Generic pushover curve.
lateral stiffness at the ultimate state. In the 6 m and 9 m bays, on the
other hand, the allowable drift angle and in turn the ultimate load
capacity of SPSW frames is obtained far from the elastic stage. This
way, the ultimate lateral stiffness of SPSWs is considerably reduced. Ac-
cordingly, the inelastic capacity of structural members is utilized more
efficiently in the bay widths of 6 m and 9 m.
SPSWs are inherently dual resisting systems in which the overall be-
havior consists of the contribution of the infill plate tension field and
boundary frame moment resisting actions. The interaction effect and
dual characteristics of the SPSW system is one of the main interesting
aspects of SPSW structures studied by the researchers [14–16]. Accord-
ing to the requirements of ASCE 7-10 [22], the moment frame of a dual
resisting system should be individually capable of resisting at least 25%
of the design base shear. To investigate the load capacity of the bound-
ary frames in studied SPSWs, the infill plates were totally removed from
SPSW frames. The frame-only structures were then analyzed via push-
over method using the same triangular lateral load pattern as that
used for the corresponding SPSW frames. The obtained pushover curves
are presented in Fig. 6 for the typical 4-, 10- and 19-story frames. Again,
the normalized base shear and roof displacement are presented instead
of the absolute ones. The solid circles represent the ultimate load capac-
ity corresponding to the drift angle limit of 2.5%.
As shown, the load carrying capacity of all frames, even in the elastic
region, is greater than the 25% of the prescribed design base shear. The
variation of frames' load capacity with the bay width is similar to that of
the SPSWs. In the 4-story frame-only structures, the load capacity of the
frame with bay width of 3 m is the least. In the 10- and 19-story frames,
on the other hand, the minimum load capacity is related to the frames
with 6 m bay width.
To elaborate on the interaction between the infill plate and bound-
ary frame, Fig. 7 presents the pushover curves obtained for the SPSWs
Fig. 10. The overstrength and response modification factors.
(those presented in Fig. 4) along with those of the corresponding
frame-only structures which were presented in Fig. 6; and those of the
moment frames acting as the boundary frame in SPSWs, in the typical
4-, 10- and 19-story models.
The comparison between the pushover curves of SPSWs with those
of the corresponding frames-only shows that the infill plates signifi-
cantly improve the stiffness and load capacity of moment frames. To
make a better comparison, the ratios of the ultimate load (FSPSW) and
initial stiffness (KSPSW) of studied SPSWs to those of the corresponding
frames-only (Fframe− only , Kframe− only) are presented in Table 7. Results
show that the maximum increase in the stiffness and load capacity of
moment frames due to the employment of infill plates are obtained in
the suitable design bay width; i.e. 3 m in the 4-story SPSW and the
6 m in the 10- and 19-story SPSWs.
It should be noted that the initial stiffness of SPSWs utilized in
Table 7 are the post buckling stiffness since the infill plates buckle at
very early stages of loading. To clarify this issue, Fig. 8 displays the
variation of lateral stiffness throughout the loading history for the typi-
cal 4-, 7- and 10-story SPSWs with 3 m bay width. The solid circles
represent the normalized lateral stiffness at the ultimate load (those
presented in Fig. 5). As observed, the loss of stiffness resulting from
the early buckling of infill plates is considerable in the 4-story SPSW
frame. As the height of SPSW increases, the probability of simultaneous
buckling of infill plates in all story levels decreases; and consequently,
the loss of stiffness is decreased. Similarly, formation of the diagonal
yield zones and tension field action do not occur simultaneously in all
stories; resulting in a smoother plateau in the stiffness curve of taller
SPSWs.
On the other hand, the comparison between the pushover curves of
frames-only with those of boundary frames shows that the stiffness and
load capacity of the frame-only structure differ from those of the same
frame acting as boundary members in a SPSW structure. This specifical-
ly indicates the infill plate-boundary frame interaction effect in SPSW
structures. The initial stiffness of boundary frames is greater than that
of the same frames-only in all studied models. The load carrying capac-
ity of the boundary frames, however, changes during the loading and
may be smaller than the capacity of the corresponding frame-only
structures (see the curves of the 4-story models and the 10-story
model with 6 m bay width). The investigation of the pushover curves
in the 19-story models with 3 m and 6 m bay widths and the 10-story
model with bay width of 3 m also indicates the gradual decrease in
the load carrying capacity of boundary frames at later stages of loading.
In tall SPSWs and SPSWs with small bay width, where the behavior
mode is dominated by flexure, significant yielding happens in boundary
frame members at the early stages of loading; while diagonal yield
zones have been developed only in the infill plates of a few story levels.
In the following, the capacity of boundary frame decreases due to the
development of yielding and formation of the plastic hinges, however,
M. Gholipour, M.M. Alinia / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 40–56 49

Fig. 11. Lateral displacements and story drifts at ultimate load.

Fig. 12. Idealized pushover curves of the 4-story models.

50 M. Gholipour, M.M. Alinia / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 40–56
Fig. 13. The shear portions of infill plate and boundary frame, 10-story SPSW with 3 m bay.
the load carrying capacity of SPSW increases since the infill plates of
other stories yield gradually and the extra shear absorb by them.
3.2. Overstrength and response modification factors
The overstrength factor (Ω0) and the response modification factor
(R) are respectively defined as the ratios Vy/Vs and Veu/Vs as indicated
in Fig. 9. Vy is the base shear at the structural collapse level and Vs is
the design base shear. Veu is the ultimate elastic base shear defined at
the ultimate displacement (Δmax). Δmax is defined as the roof displace-
ment at which the drift ratio of 2.5% is obtained at least at one of the
stories. To calculate Vy, the nonlinear pushover curve is replaced with
an idealized bilinear curve based on the concept of equal plastic energy;
so that the area enclosed by the idealized curve is the same as that
enclosed by the nonlinear pushover curve. The concept is presented in
FEMA-356 [30].
ASCE 7-10 [22] suggests Ω0 = 2 and R = 7 for structures in which
the SPSW is the only seismic force resisting system. For the frames con-
sidered herein, the values of Ω0 and R are given in Fig. 10. The horizontal
solid lines in the figure indicate the suggested R = 7 and Ω0 = 2 limits.
In the 4-story SPSWs, the value of Ω0 increases considerably with the
bay width. It is similar in the 7-story SPSWs, although the increase in the
value of Ω0 is smaller. In the 10-, 13-, 16- and 19-story SPSWs, on the
other hand, the value of Ω0 is the least in 6 m bay. The results also
show that the minimum overstrength factor of all SPSW frames is
about 2.5, with little difference compared to Ω0 = 2. Larger values of
Ω0 indicate the existence of additional capacity in the structure. This
may have a positive influence on the performance of the SPSW frame;
however, it may result in a higher usage of steel material and higher
costs.
The response modification factor decreases with the number of story
levels in all bay widths. This is mainly caused by the reduction in
Fig. 14. Shear contribution of infill plates at the ultimate load.
ductility factor which is known as the ratio of the ultimate displacement
to the yield displacement; and the reduction in initial elastic stiffness of
SPSW frames with the increase of building height. These two issues are
visible in the results presented in Fig. 4. Similar results were reported for
chevron eccentrically braced frames in ref. [31] and dual moment
resisting frames with buckling restrained braces in ref. [32]. On the
other hand, results show that the R factor increases with the bay
width. This is consistent with the variation of the R factor with the nat-
ural period of the structure that is used in some seismic codes. The var-
iation of the R factor with the bay width is considerable in low-rise
SPSWs and decreases in high-rise ones.
3.3. Deformation mode
Fig. 11 depicts the lateral displacements and drifts of the typical 4-,
10- and 19-story SPSW frames at the ultimate load. The given lateral
displacements are total, and compose of both shear and flexural dis-
placements. The curvature of a displacement curve is negative when
flexural deformation is dominant, and becomes positive when shear de-
formation is dominant. The flexural and shear deformation modes are
also visible in the story drift curve. When the flexural mode is dominant,
the amount of story drift increases from the lower stories upward. In the
shear-dominant mode, however, the pattern is reversed.
In the bay width of 3 m, the flexural deformation mode is dominant
along the total height of structures, except the roof level of the 4- and
10- story SPSWs. In high-rise SPSWs, the cumulative pattern of story
drift in flexure-dominant mode causes the allowable drift angle of
2.5% to be reached in the early stages of loading (see Fig. 4); while
infill plates of the lower stories remain elastic. The study of yielding pat-
tern shows that there is no evidence of yielding in the 1st story of the
10-story SPSW, the 1st to the 6th stories of the 13-story SPSW, the 1st
to the 12th stories of the 16-story SPSW and the 1st to the 15th stories
 M. Gholipour, M.M. Alinia / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 40–56
Fig. 15. The axial force in VBEs, 4-story SPSWs.
of the 19-story SPSW. In the bay widths of 6 m and 9 m, on the
other hand, the SPSW frames show a flexure-dominant deformation
mode in the lower stories and a shear-dominant deformation
mode in the most of the upper stories. Consequently, the story drift de-
creases in the upper stories and the allowable drift angle of 2.5% is
reached when most of the infill plates yield completely. Accordingly,
the length of the nonlinear behavior in the pushover curves increases,
see Fig. 4.
The idealized pushover curves of the typical 4-story SPSWs, together
with those of the corresponding boundary frames and infill plates are
presented in Fig. 12. The results of other SPSWs are similar to those of
the 4-story SPSWs; and thus, they are not presented for brevity. In the
bay width of 3 m, the yield displacement of boundary frame is smaller
than that of the infill plates. It means that significant yielding of the
frame members occurs prior to significant yielding of the infill plates;
and consequently, the SPSW behave in a flexural-dominant mode.
With the increase of bay width, yielding of frame members is postponed
due to the decrease of the bending effects. The infill plates, on the other
hand, yield effectively due to the increased shear effects. This way, the
yield displacement of the infill plates is obtained far smaller than that
51
of the boundary frame; and the SPSW structure behaves in a combined
flexure–shear mode.
3.4. Distribution of story shear between infill plate and boundary frame
In each story, the total shear is jointly carried by infill plate and
boundary frame. The differential contribution of the boundary frame
and infill plate to the story shear versus normalized roof displacement
is presented in Fig. 13, for the representative stories of the 10-story
SPSW with bay width of 3 m. The dotted vertical line in the figure pre-
sents the ultimate roof displacement. In the first story, the shear portion
of boundary frame is greater than that of the infill plate throughout the
loading. In the tenth story, it is reversed; and the infill plate absorbs
most of the story shear since the beginning of loading to the ultimate
state. It is also observed that the difference between the shear portions
of infill plate and boundary frame is significant in the early stages of
loading. At the ultimate load, however, the shear portions of the two
loading elements are almost equal. In the second story, on the other
hand, most of the story shear is carried by the infill plate in the early
stages of loading; but changes over to the boundary frame at the
52 M. Gholipour, M.M. Alinia / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 40–56
ultimate load. In general, the results indicate that in some cases the por-
tion of either infill plate or boundary frame is greater than the other
throughout the loading; and in other cases, they interchanged.
In the design procedure of SPSW frames, the shear contribution of
boundary frame is neglected and the thickness of infill plate is conserva-
tively designed to resist the full story shear. HBEs and VBEs are then de-
signed for the thickness of plates according to the requirements of the
capacity design method [6]. This approach provides considerable
overstrength in SPSWs. Fig. 14 depicts the contribution of infill plates
to the total story shear in two representative story levels of the 4-
story SPSWs at the ultimate load. Corresponding values in the 1st, 7th
and 13th stories of the 13-story SPSWs are also presented in the figure.
In the 4-story SPSWs, the increase in bay width decreases share of infill
plates. In the 13-story SPSWs, however, the shear contribution of infill
plates is the greatest in bay width of 6 m.
In a properly designed SPSW, the proportioning of infill plates and
boundary frame members should be such that the contribution of infill
plates to the total story shear becomes nearly 100%. This way, the inelas-
tic capacity of infill plates is utilized efficiently and the SPSW system is
provided with less overstrength. As depicted in Fig. 14, the shear contri-
bution of infill plates is high enough in bay width of 3 m in the 4-story
SPSWs and bay width of 6 m in the 13-story SPSWs.
Fig. 16. The axial force in VBEs, 13-story SPSWs.
3.5. Axial forces in VBEs
The pushover analysis is recognized as a good mean for determina-
tion of the realistic design forces in VBEs according to the capacity
design requirements [6,18]. Based on the results of the pushover analy-
ses, Figs. 15 and 16 show the axial forces along the height of both ten-
sion and compression VBEs, respectively in the 4- and 13-story SPSW
frames at the ultimate load. The design axial forces of VBEs calculated
with the capacity design method are also presented in the figures. The
comparison between the results of pushover analysis (FE) with those
of capacity design method (CD) shows that in most of the upper stories,
the axial forces induced in VBEs are smaller than those utilized for the
design of VBEs per capacity design method. In lower stories, on the
other hand, the realistic axial forces of VBEs are greater than the design
axial forces except in the 13-story SPSW with bay width of 3 m. Results
also show that the discrepancy between the two methods increases
with the bay width.
The free body diagram of VBEs considered for calculation of design
forces per capacity design method [6] is presented in Fig. 17. As
shown, the axial force of VBEs is composed of two force components.
First, the distributed vertical force component from plate yielding
(ωyc); and second, the concentrated shear force component at the end
 M. Gholipour, M.M. Alinia / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 40–56 53

Table 8
The axial force contribution of the three force components, 4-story SPSWs.

Axial force (kN)

Bay width (m) (1) (2) (3) Total

ωyb ðL−dcÞ ωyc(h − db) Mprl þMprr Tension Compression

2 ðL−dc −2eÞ
VBE VBE

3 298.77 639.95 208.70 549.88 −1147.42

6 262.44 295.87 449.41 482.84 −1007.72
9 257.44 189.94 760.22 692.72 −1207.60

Fig. 17. The free body diagram of VBEs [6].
of HBE at each story level (Vb). The second component itself is composed
of two force components; the distributed vertical force component from
plate yielding (ωyb) and the shear force component induced at each end
of HBEs by formation of plastic hinges (Mprl + Mprr), see Fig. 18. Accord-
ingly, the axial force of VBEs at each height level is composed of three
force components; 1) ωyb, 2) ωyc and 3) Mprl +Mprr.
In the capacity design method, a uniform collapse mechanism is uti-
lized for calculation of design forces in boundary frame members. The
mechanism conservatively assumes that the infill plates yield at all
stories (related to the first and second axial force components) and
the plastic hinges form at the ends of all HBEs (related to the third
axial force component). Results of the previous researches [9,18,19,33]
show that simultaneous yielding of infill plates in all story levels is un-
likely. It was found to be the main source of discrepancy between the
axial force demands calculated by the capacity design method with
those obtained from the analysis. The value of the axial forces induced
by each of the three force components at the bottom end of the roof
level VBEs is presented in Tables 8 and 9, respectively for the 4- and
13-story SPSW frames. The first force component induces compression
axial force in both tension and compression VBEs. The other two com-
ponents, on the other hand, result in tension axial force in the tension
VBE; and compression axial force in the compression VBE.
The results of Tables 8 and 9 show that the third force component
(resulting from formation of plastic hinges at the ends of HBEs) is com-
parable to the other two force components (resulting from plate yield-
ing). To elaborate more on the three force components, Table 10
shows the contribution of the third force component to the total axial
force in the compression VBEs of the 4- and 13-story frames presented
in Tables 8 and 9. As shown, the third force component' share of the
VBEs axial force is substantial and increases with the bay width. It can
be justified regarding the explanations presented in Section 2.3. As the
bay width increases, the design section of HBEs is controlled by the stiff-
ness criterion in more story levels; and HBE design sections increase
substantially. Consequently, the plastic moment capacity of HBEs
(numerator of the third force component) increases so highly that it
overcomes the reduction effect of the bay width (denominator of the
third force component); and the third force component increases
considerably.
Accordingly, yielding of HBEs has an important effect on the axial
force demands of VBEs as well as the plate yielding, especially in
SPSWs with large bay widths. The investigation of yielding pattern in
the studied SPSW frames shows that yielding may not occur at both
ends of HBEs. On the other hand, no yielding is found at the HBEs of
some story levels even after the overall failure of the structure. In the
13-story SPSWs, for example, there is no yielding in the HBEs of the
first to the eighth stories in the bay width of 3 m, the eleventh to the
thirteenth stories in the bay width of 6 m, and the ninth to the thir-
teenth stories in the bay width of 9 m. Finally, the differences between
the realistic plastic hinges with the ideal plastic hinge definition as-
sumed in theoretical calculation should be considered. Fig. 19 depicts
two examples of yielding pattern at the end of typical HBEs in studied
SPSWs. The white region presents the yielded area. As shown, yielding
does not necessarily occur in a definite section of HBE (i.e. the center
of RBS, if existed). Instead, yielding develops in a limited length at the
end of HBEs. Similar yielding pattern was reported on the moment con-
nections studied in FEMA-355 D [34]. On the other hand, yielding does
not necessarily develop in both flanges and the web simultaneously.
In theoretical calculation, however, the plastic moment is defined as
the moment at which the entire cross section has reached its yield
stress. Consequently, the realistic plastic moment of HBEs and in turn,
the axial force demand induced in VBEs by yielding of HBEs is somewhat
different from those values calculated in the capacity design method.
3.6. Structural weight
Weight of the SPSW frames; including the infill plates, HBEs and
VBEs, are given in Fig. 20. In the 4- and 7-story SPSWs, the minimum
weight is achieved in 3 m bay. In the 10-, 13-, 16- and 19-story
SPSWs, however, weight of the SPSWs with 6 m bay is the least.
As mentioned in Section 2, the frames in outer bays of SPSW are con-
sidered to have shear beam–column connection; and thus, they are de-
signed only for gravity loads. The variation of bay width, on the other
Table 9
The axial force contribution of the three force components, 13-story SPSWs.

Axial force (kN)

Bay width (m) (1) (2) (3) Total

ωyb ðL−dcÞ ωyc(h − db) Mprl þMprr Tension Compression

2 ðL−dc −2eÞ
VBE VBE

3 356.04 827.29 90.17 561.42 −1273.50

6 342.07 367.80 471.73 497.46 −1181.60
9 324.70 238.66 872.74 786.70 −1436.10
Fig. 18. The free body diagram of HBEs [6].
54 M. Gholipour, M.M. Alinia / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 40–56
Table 10
The third force component' share of the axial force in compression VBEs.
Model Mprl þMprr
ðL−dc −2eÞ
=Total axial force ð%Þ
4-story
Bay- 3 m 18.19
Bay- 6 m 44.60
Bay- 9 m 62.95
hand, makes changes in the arrangement of adjoining frames and their
gravity design loads. To have a better comparison, Fig. 21 presents the
total structural weight of building models; which consists of SPSW
weight presented in Fig. 20 along with the weight of adjoining frames.
The variation of the total weight with the bay width is similar to the var-
iation of SPSWs weight. The minimum weight of the 4- and 7-story
buildings is related to the model with bay width of 3 m; and in the
10-, 13-, 16- and 19-story buildings, it is obtained in 6 m bay.
Fig. 22 depicts the contribution of different structural members to
the weight of SPSW frames in the typical 4- and 13-story models. Two
points can be concluded from the results presented in the figure. First,
VBE share of structural weight increases with number of story levels.
Second, weight contribution of VBEs decreases as the bay width in-
creases; in turn, weight contribution of HBEs increases.
In SPSW structures, VBEs have a major contribution to the structural
weight. The use of capacity design method results in large design sec-
tions for VBEs. In some cases, especially in high-rise structures, the
main issue in the SPSW design is that no available standard section
can provide the required strength for VBEs. Bulky VBE sections decrease
the rentable area of building, increase total weight of the structure, and
are uneconomic. Many solutions have been investigated and proposed
by researchers to reduce the design demand of VBEs. For example,
Chen and Jhang [35] and Berman and Bruneau [36] proposed the use
of low yield steel (LYS) for infill plates. Vian et al. [23] placed holes in
the infill plates which allow the effective strength of solid plate to be re-
duced; in turn, the force demands in VBEs are diminished. Lee and Tsai
[7] utilized a pin-ended horizontal strut at mid-height of VBEs which
helps resist the pull-in forces and reduce the force demand in VBEs.
The authors [37] studied the use of outrigger beams in adjacent bays
of SPSW structures. They showed that outrigger beams can transfer con-
siderable amount of force and moment demands from VBEs to the outer
bays columns; resulting in smaller sections for VBEs. A design procedure
based on the direct analysis method was also proposed by the authors to
eliminate the excessive demand resulting from the capacity design
method. In the present study, VBE design sections in the lower stories
of the 13-, 16- and 19-story SPSWs with 3 m bay are large and imprac-
tical, see Tables 4–6. The weight of VBEs in the three mentioned SPSW
frames in different bay widths is given in Table 11. As shown, weight
of VBEs is the least in 6 m bay. Similarly, Tables 4–6 show that the VBE
Fig. 19. Two typical yielding patterns at the end of HBEs.
13-story
7.08
39.92
60.77
Fig. 20. Weight of SPSW frames.
design sections of these SPSWs are substantially reduced in 6 m bay in
comparison with those in 3 m bay. Accordingly, if there is no architec-
tural limitation, the engineer can overcome the problem of very large
and sometimes unavailable VBE design sections by selecting the suitable
bay width for SPSW design.
On the other hand, Fig. 23 presents the amount of energy absorption
divided by the weight of SPSW frames in different bay widths. The
amount of energy absorption is defined as the enclosed area under the
pushover curve until the ultimate roof displacement. Results show
that the amount of energy absorption per unit weight is the greatest
in the bay width of 3 m for the 4- and 7-story SPSWs, and the bay
width of 6 m in the 10-, 13-, 16- and 19-story SPSWs. In other words,
for the same amount of energy absorption, the 4- and 7-story SPSWs
have the least use of steel material in 3 m bay. In the 10-, 13-, 16- and
19-story SPSWs, on the other hand, the use of steel material is the
least in 6 m bay.
4. Conclusions
Eighteen SPSW frame models were considered to investigate the ef-
fects of bay width on the design and the overall behavior of SPSW struc-
tures. The models consisted of 4- to 19-story frames and 3 to 9 m bay
widths. Based on the results obtained from the limited model configura-
tions considered in this research, the following points are deduced:
- There is a correlation between the number of story levels with the
suitable bay width in which the design of SPSW becomes lighter
and economic.
- The VBE design sections of high-rise SPSWs are so large and imprac-
tical in small bay widths. By selecting the suitable bay width, howev-
er, the engineer can overcome the problem of very large design
sections.
- The maximum increase in the stiffness and load capacity of moment
frames due to the employment of infill plates are obtained in the
suitable design bay width.
- With the increase of bay width, the deformation mode of SPSW
frame changes from a flexure-dominant mode to a combined flex-
ure–shear mode.
Fig. 21. Total structural weight of building models.
 M. Gholipour, M.M. Alinia / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 40–56 55

Fig. 22. Weight contribution of different structural members.

Table 11 [5] ANSI/AISC 341-05, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Insti-
VBE weight in different bays, 13-, 16- and 19-story SPSWs. tute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 2005.
[6] ANSI/AISC 341-10, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Insti-
VBE weight (ton) tute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 2010.
[7] C.S. Lee, K.C. Tsai, Experimental Response of Four 2-Story Narrow Steel Plate Shear
Model Bay- 3 m Bay- 6 m Bay- 9 m Walls, Proceeding of Structures Congress, ASCE, Vancouver, Canada, 2008.
[8] I.R. Choi, H.G. Park, Ductility and energy dissipation capacity of shear-dominated
13-story 170.71 105.44 144.77
steel plate walls, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 134 (9) (2008) 1495–1507, http://dx.doi.org/
16-story 381.33 185.46 223.19
10.1061/(ASCE)0733–9445(2008)134:9(1495).
19-story 700.59 297.03 327.15
[9] J.W. Berman, Seismic behavior of code designed steel plate shear walls, Eng. Struct.
33 (2011) 230–244, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.10.015.
[10] M. Kharrazi, H. Prion, C. Ventura, Implementation of M-PFI method in design of steel
plate walls, J. Constr. Steel Res. 64 (2008) 465–479, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.
2007.09.005.
[11] J.J. Shishkin, R.G. Driver, G.Y. Grondin, Analysis of Steel Plate Shear Walls using the
Modified Strip Model, Structural Engineering Report No. 261University of Alberta.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,
2005.
[12] C.O. Kurban, C. Topkaya, A numerical study on response modification, overstrength,
and displacement amplification factors for steel plate shear wall systems, Earth-
quake Eng. Struct. 38 (2009) 497–516, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.866.
[13] R. Purba, M. Bruneau, Behavior of Steel Plate Shear Walls with In-span Plastic
Hinges, Proceeding of Structures Congress, ASCE, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 2011.
[14] H.R. Habashi, M.M. Alinia, Characteristics of the wall-frame interaction in steel plate
shear walls, J. Constr. Steel Res. 66 (2010) 150–158, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.
2009.09.004.
[15] S.A.A. Hosseinzadeh, M. Tehranizadeh, The wall–frame interaction effect in steel
plate shear wall systems, J. Constr. Steel Res. 98 (2014) 88–99, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.02.013.
Fig. 23. Energy absorption divided by the weight of SPSW frames. [16] S.A.A. Hosseinzadeh, M. Tehranizadeh, Behavioral characteristics of code designed
steel plate shear wall systems, J. Constr. Steel Res. 99 (2014) 72–84, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.04.004.
- The cumulative pattern of story drift in the flexure-dominant mode [17] B. Qu, M. Bruneau, Design of steel plate shear walls considering boundary frame mo-
makes the allowable drift angle of 2.5% to be reached in the early ment resisting action, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 135 (12) (2009) 1511–1521, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000069.
stages of loading; while, the infill plates of the lower stories of
[18] AISC-820, Steel Design Guide 20, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago,
high-rise SPSWs are still elastic. Illinois, USA, 2007.
- In a combined flexure–shear deformation mode, the drift angle limit [19] J.W. Berman, M. Bruneau, Capacity design of vertical boundary elements in steel
plate shear walls, Eng. J. AISC (2008) 57–71 First Quarter.
is reached when most infill plates fully yield; and thus the inelastic
[20] A.S. Lubell, H.G.L. Prion, C.E. Ventura, Unstiffened steel plate shear wall performance
capacity of structural members is utilized more efficiently. under cyclic loading, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 126 (4) (2000) 453–460.
- With a suitable design bay width, the contribution of infill plates to [21] ANSI/AISC 360-10, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of
the story shear becomes nearly 100%, providing the SPSW frame Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 2010.
[22] ASCE-7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures, American Soci-
with less overstrength. ety of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, USA, 2010.
- Yielding of HBEs, as well as yielding of plates, has an important effect [23] D. Vian, M. Bruneau, K.C. Tsai, Y.C. Lin, Special perforated steel plate shear walls
on the axial force demands in VBEs, especially in SPSWs with large with reduced beam section anchor beams. I: experimental investigation, J.
Struct. Eng. ASCE 135 (3) (2009) 211–222, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
bay widths. 9445(2009)135:3(211).
[24] ANSI/AISC 358-10, Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel
Moment Frames for Seismic Applications, American Institute of Steel Construction,
Chicago, Illinois, USA, 2010.
References [25] ABAQUS, Theory Manual, HKS Inc., USA, 2010.
[26] M.R. Behbahanifard, G.Y. Grondin, Elwi AE, Experimental and Numerical Investiga-
[1] R.G. Troy, R.M. Richard, Steel plate shear walls resist lateral load, cut costs, Civil Eng. tion of Steel Plate Shear Wall, Structural Engineering Report No. 254University of Al-
ASCE 49 (2) (1979) 53–55. berta, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Edmonton, Alberta,
[2] P.A. Timler, C.E. Ventura, H. Prion, R. Anjam, Experimental and analytical studies of Canada, 2003.
steel plate shear walls as applied to the design of tall buildings, Struct. Des. Tall [27] ASCE-41, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, American Society of
Build. 7 (1998) 233–249. Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, USA, 2013.
[3] Timler PA, Ventura CE, Economical Design of Steel Plate Shear Walls from a Consult- [28] M. Gholipour, M.M. Alinia, Considerations on the pushover analysis of multi-story
ing Engineer's Perspective, Proceedings of North American Steel Construction Con- steel plate shear wall structures, Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. 60 (1) (2016)
ference, AISC, Toronto, Canada, 1998. 113–126, http://dx.doi.org/10.3311/PPci.7706.
[4] A. Astaneh-Asl, Seismic Behavior and Design of Steel Shear Walls, Steel Tips, Struc- [29] R.G. Driver, G.L. Kulak, D.J. Laurie Kennedy, A.E. Elwi, Cyclic test of four-story steel
tural Steel Educational Council, Technical Information and Product Service, 2001. plate shear wall, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 124 (2) (1998) 112–120.
56 M. Gholipour, M.M. Alinia / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 40–56
[30] FEMA-356, Pre Standard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Build-
ings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D. C., USA, 2000.
[31] Gh. Abdollahzadeh, A. Maleki Kambakhsh, Height effect on response modification
factor of open chevron eccentrically braced frames, Iran. J. Energy Environ. 3
(2012) 72–77, http://dx.doi.org/10.5829/idosi.ijee.2012.03.01.2559.
[32] Gh. Abdollahzadeh, M.R. Banihashemi, S. Elkaee, M. Esmaeelnia Amiri, Response
Modification Factor of Dual Moment-resistant Frame with Buckling Restrained
Brace (BRB), 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, International As-
sociation for Eerthquacke Engineering, IAEE, Lisbon, Portugal, 2012.
[33] J.W. Berman, L.N. Lowes, T. Okazaki, M. Bruneau, K.C. Tsai, R.G. Driver, R. Sabelli,
Research Needs and Future Directions for Steel Plate Shear Walls, American Society
of Civil Engineers, ASCE, 2008.
[34] FEMA-355D, State of the Art Report on Connection Performance, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D. C., USA, 2000.
[35] S.J. Chen, C. Jhang, Cyclic behavior of low yield point steel shear walls, Thin-Walled
Struct. 44 (2006) 730–738, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2006.08.002.
[36] J.W. Berman, M. Bruneau, Experimental investigation of light-gauge steel plate shear
walls, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 131 (2) (2005) 259–267, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:2(259).
[37] M. Gholipour, E. Asadi, M.M. Alinia, The use of outrigger system in steel plate shear
wall structures, Adv. Struct. Eng. 18 (6) (2015) 853–872, http://dx.doi.org/10.1260/
1369-4332.18.6.853.