Performance Study of Sc Wall Based on Experiment and Parametric Analysis

Abstract

Reverse cyclic lateral testing was undertaken to investigate the seismic behavior of 1/4 scale steel-plate concrete (SC) composite walls. The experimental program involved seven SC wall pier specimens. A new chamber structure is proposed, using steel diaphragms to connect the two steel faceplates to each other and to divide the SC wall pier into two parts. Conventional wall specimens failed mainly by tensile fracture of the concrete at the junction of the wall side and wall base, crushing of the concrete at the toe of the wall, or buckling of the steel faceplate. Tearing of the welded joints at the steel faceplates and steel diaphragm, buckling of steel, steel diaphragms being pulled out, tensile fracture and crushing of the concrete were the main failure modes of the chamber structure walls. A parametric numerical analysis in ABAQUS was developed to investigate the effects of the stiffening rib, steel web amount, material strength, shear-span ratio, and axial compression ratio on the seismic response of SC walls. The chamber structure of the SC wall piers can improve the peak load, ductility, and energy-dissipating capacity. The steel faceplate thickness and stiffening ribs can improve the behavior of SC wall piers.

Numerical study on split base plate connection with concentric anchors between steel‐plate composite wall and concrete basemat

“…The concrete of the original SCWA2 and SCWB2 [ 28 ] models was modeled by solid elements and MAT084/085‐WINFRITH‐CONCRETE, faceplates, stiffening ribs and diaphragm by shell elements and MAT003‐PLASTIC‐KINEMATIC with a failure strain of 2.2, and tie rods and shear studs by beam elements and MAT001‐ELASTIC. MAT000‐ADD_EROSION with a failure strain of −0.08 was used to model concrete crushing.…”

“…Thus, three SC wall benchmarks with different wall sections were chosen, including a double skin plate, a box, and the SC wall with boundary elements. Out of 17 tested SC walls previously modeled by Asgarpoor et al in LS‐Dyna, [ 28 ] these benchmarks were modeled. The concrete of the models was modeled by solid elements and MAT084/085‐WINFRITH‐CONCRETE with , faceplates by shell elements and MAT003‐PLASTIC‐KINEMATIC with , and tie rods by beam elements and MAT003‐PLASTIC‐KINEMATIC with .…”

“…Out of 17 tested SC walls previously modeled by Asgarpoor et al in LS-Dyna, [28] these benchmarks were modeled. The concrete of the models was modeled by solid elements and MAT084/085-WINFRITH-CONCRETE with f 0 C ¼ 27:56 MPa, faceplates by shell elements and MAT003-PLASTIC-KINEMATIC with f y ¼ 234:42 MPa, and tie rods by beam elements and MAT003-PLASTIC-KINEMATIC with f y ¼ 413:7 MPa.…”

Finite element analysis of rectangular and flanged steel‐concrete shear walls under cyclic loading

“…Ge et al [ 30 ] tested four rectangular walls, two with stiffening ribs and two with steel diaphragms under reversed lateral loading. The stiffening ribs attach the faceplates to the infill concrete, and the steel diaphragms attach the faceplates together and divide the wall into two parts.…”

“…This concept originates from the study of Kurt et al, [ 50 ] which is valid only for SC walls with an aspect ratio of less than 1.5. As seen in Table 4, the AISC 341‐16 formulation predicts the shear strength of low aspect ratio walls of Epackachi et al [ 25 ] with good accuracy, but its peak shear strength predictions for double skin plate walls with large aspect ratio, such as the walls tested by Cho et al [ 28 ] and Ge et al, [ 30 ] are not accurate. It is well known that the walls with a large aspect ratio are flexural controlled, whereas, in low aspect ratio walls, shear behavior and the interaction of shear and flexure are dominant.…”