Steel plate shear wall FEM vrification

Table of Contents of Steel plate shear wall FEM vrification

Introduction

Steel plate shear wall FEM vrification

Experimental Specimen Specifications

2.1 Geometric Properties

2.2 Material Properties

2.3 Experiment Loading Systems

2.4 Result of Experiment Test

Finite Element Modeling (ANSYS APDL)
- Overview of ANSYS APDL
- Modeling (Step-by-Step)

Results Comparison

4.1 Quantitative Data

Conclusion

1. Introduction

This report presents the validation process of a Finite Element (FE) model developed to simulate the structural behavior of Steel Plate Shear Wall. The objective is to verify the accuracy of the numerical model by comparing its response with experimental data obtained from laboratory testing.

The validation approach focuses on key structural response parameters,
including load capacity and displacement behavior, to assess the ability of the FE model to reproduce the observed experimental performance. A strong correlation between the numerical and experimental results provides confidence in the model’s predictive capabilities.

Steel plate shear wall FEM vrification

Steel shear walls (SSWs) are one of the options of lateral force resisting systems. Using SSWs has increased due to the fact that this system is more cost-effective compared to the moment frame system. The SSWs can be used in both new and retrofitted structures in seismically high risk zones. In this system, buckling of the plate which is completely connected to the main frames will not be considered as a structural failure. In other words, the post buckling strength of the plate is several times that of the elastic. Steel shear walls (SSWs) are constructed in two forms of unstiffened and stiffened forms. The unstiffened form is the best passive choice for designers, because of its simple constructional details and lower cost.

2. Experimental Specimen Specifications of Steel plate shear wall FEM vrification

To perform model validation, it is essential to identify a laboratory specimen for which we have access to its primary data and outputs, and in which we have sufficient confidence in its results. After conducting research, we selected a study titled “Performance of unstiffened steel plate shear wall under cyclic quasi-static loading” by ADAM S.LUBELL University of British Colombia, which is a laboratory investigation with reliable and trustworthy results. This report aims to validate our Finite Element (FE) model against the experimental data from this selected study.

Steel plate shear wall FEM vrification

2.1 Geometric Properties

This specimen was a 30% scale model of an inner residential building core, having floor-to- floor and column-to-column spacing of 900 mm. Frame members were constructed from S75X8 hot rolled steel section. The Infill shear panel was constructed 1.5 mm thick hot rolled sheet steel.

Beam is S75X8 hot rolled steel section
Column is S75X8 hot rolled steel section
Wall constructed 1.5 mm thick hot rolled sheet steel.

Figure 1: Dimensions of the single story test specimens

2.2 Material Properties

According Base article for Beam and Column Using Nominal yield Strength of 300 MPa and for Steel Sheet Using hot rolled Sheet with Nominal Strength of 225 MPa.

2.3 Experiment Loading Systems

Fixed Bottom of Frame and Using hydraulic Actuator to apply Horizontal Displacement.

Steel plate shear wall FEM vrification

2.4 Result of Experiment Test

The key performance characteristic of a steel plate shear wall, as demonstrated by the test control procedures, is the relationship between the story shear and story drift Or Capacity Curve Of Frame.

Figure 2: Capacity Curve of Experimental Test Result

Figure 2: Experiment Loading Systems

3. Finite Element Modeling (ANSYS APDL)

3.1 Overview of ANSYS APDL

ANSYS Parametric Design Language (APDL) is a powerful scripting language used to automate the finite element analysis process. Unlike the standard GUI, APDL allows for high-precision parametric modeling, which is essential for structural validation. It offers advanced capabilities for defining complex geometries, material behaviors, and loading conditions, ensuring that the numerical model accurately represents the experimental setup.

Advantages of using APDL Scripting:

• Automation: Enables seamless iteration of geometry, mesh density, and boundary conditions, supporting complex parametric studies and optimization through scripting.

• Flexibility: Offers precise control over material nonlinearities, advanced contact elements, and custom loading protocols.

Repeatability: Ensures that modeling steps are documented and•
reproducible, reducing human error and crucial for validation studies.

Figure 2: Modeling Experimental Specimen in ANSYS

Modeling (Step-by-Step)

Step by Step modeling Steel Plate Shear Wall in ANSYS

Use 6 Real Constant for Supply Thickness of Element

Figure 2: Guide for draw Area by Dimension Method

	Step	Description’s
	1: Element For Column, Beam and Wall(Sheet)	SHEEL43[1]
	2:Material For Column, Beam and Wall(Sheet)	Material 1&2 Define Multilinear Material[2]
	3:Modeling	Area Method
	4:Meshing	Quad Mapped
	5:Load, Constraint and Analysis Type	Nonlinear static Analysis by Displacement Control
	6:Result	Plot and Capacity Curve

Figure 2: Plot Result after Analysis

Figure 2: Capacity Curve of Finite Element Model Result

4. Results Comparison

4.1 Quantitative Data

Figure 3: Load-Displacement Curve Comparison Graph

The comparison between the experimental and numerical results indicates that the FE model captures the overall structural response with satisfactory accuracy.

Comparison Parameter	Experimental	FEA Result	Error[3]
Comparison Parameter	Result	(ANSYS)	(%)
Peak Load (kN)	218.68	214.8	3.88

Figure 2: Comparison Between FEM and TEST

The load-displacement trend, peak resistance, and deformation characteristics should be evaluated together to determine the validity of the model.

If required, the percentage error may be computed using:

A low error percentage suggests that the selected element formulation, material models, and boundary conditions are appropriate for representing the tested specimen.

5. Conclusion The numerical results obtained from the ANSYS APDL model show good agreement with the experimental data. The minor discrepancy in the results validates the reliability of the modeling methodology, confirming that the FE model can be effectively used for further parametric studies.

[1] For More Information See “Define ELEMENT in ANSYS” Tutorial Video

[2] For More Information See “Define MATERIAL in ANSYS” Tutorial Video

Error (%) =	∣Experimental Result −FEA Result∣	×	100
	Experimental Result

Lubell, A. S. (1997). Performance of Unstiffened Steel Plate Shear Walls Under Cyclic Quasi-Static Loading [Master’s thesis, The University of British Columbia]. UBC cIRcle. https://dx.doi.org/10.14288/1.0078775