Structures 29 (2021) 1522–1536

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Relation analysis between out-of-plane and in-plane failure of corrugated

steel plate shear wall
Wei Wang *, Qirui Luo, Zhuangzhuang Sun, Bingjie Wang, Shanwen Xu
School of Civil Engineering, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an 710055, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper investigates the relationship between out-of-plane stiffness and in-plane stiffness in the frame shear
Corrugated steel plate shear wall wall with edge restraint member for achieving the full in-plane performance. Three experimental specimens were
Stiffness matching carried out under the cycle loading for examining the seismic behavior of corrugated steel plate shear wall.
Buckling failure
According to the failure mode of the tested specimens, the details of horizontal corrugated steel plate shear wall
Stiffness ratio
Stiffness calculation
were chosen and used to establish simulation model for researching stiffness matching relation. Compared with
experimental results, the validity of simulation had been verified. Based on the study of models with different
parameters, the new index was proposed for assessing the matching relationship between out-of-plane and in-
plane stiffness, and the index was named as in-plane and out-of-plane stiffness ratio. The research results
exhibited, when the ratio was more than 4.5%, the structure would realize full lateral response under the seismic
action. Besides, the stiffness simplified calculation method and matching design step were proposed, where the
stiffness values using theory calculation method were nearly same with the simulation results. With considering
safety, economy and initial imperfection of structure, the ratio was slightly enlarged to 4.7%. Finally, an example
was given for illustrating the matching design method which could provide the reference in practical
engineering.

1. Introduction comparing the otherness of unstiffened, vertical corrugated and hori­

Steel plate shear wall (SPSW) was proposed in the 1970 s and widely
employed for high buildings in the seismic area due to the excellent
capacity of energy dissipation [1–10]. However, the existence of many
disadvantages leads the restriction of application scale, such as insuffi­
ciency of flatting steel out-of-plane stiffness. Thus, the seismic carrying
capacity could be further promotion by changing the geometrical shape
of steel plate.
Corrugated steel plate shear wall based on the steel plate shear wall is
a new construction for resisting the lateral force. The major advantages
are that in-plane stiffness and out-of-plate stiffness of corrugated steel
plate are both superior to those of flat steel plate, and it also can achieve
all superior performance of flat plate steel. At present, corrugated steel
has been successfully applied in the practical engineering, such as bridge
engineering [11–12], composite floor system [13], integrated container
structure [14] and tunnel engineering [15]. Researches on the perfor­
mance of corrugated steel plate shear wall have been carried out for
decade years [16]. Emami et al. conducted an experimental research for
zontal corrugated steel plate shear wall, the results showed that
although limit load of the unstiffened sample was superior to others,
energy-dissipating capacity, ductility and initial stiffness were all lower
than those of corrugated samples [17]. Zhao et al. carried out a com­
parison between different corrugation amplitude and direction by the
experimental method, where sectional dimension of the frame column
was increased for avoiding the out-of-plane buckling. The conclusions
showed that the depth of corrugation had a significant effect on the
shear wall performance, but direction did not [18]. Dou et al. revised the
formulas about the shear buckling load with considering the numerical
modeling result and investigated the major parameters which could
affect elastic shear buckling of corrugated steel plate [19]. Guo et al. had
built over 300 finite element models based on elastoplastic numerical
process for obtaining the relation between stiffening and unstiffening
system, and they found that the stiffening shear wall had higher out-of-
plane stiffness and ductility [20]. Cao et al. adopted experiment and
simulation to analyze the hysteretic behavior of corrugated steel plate
shear wall, and the conclusions indicated elastic buckling can be

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wangwgh@xauat.edu.cn (W. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.12.030
Received 25 March 2020; Received in revised form 14 December 2020; Accepted 16 December 2020
Available online 2 January 2021
2352-0124/© 2020 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Wang et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1522–1536

avoided through the proper design, but this research did not give the Table 1
design details [21]. Specimens design parameters.
Stiffness mutation would translate the ride comfort of material or Specimens Beam Column High-to- Plate Plate type
structure into a worse status [22], but there is no way to prevent the width thickness
existence of uneven combination, such as composite structure [23–26]. ratio (mm)
Stiffness matching is a scientific research that guarantees ride comfort SPSW-1 H244 × H150 × 2.0 3 flat steel plate
and rationality of composite structure. Currently, this theory is chiefly 175 × 7 75 × 5 ×
used in vehicle engineering domain [22,27–28] and biological domain × 11 7
SPSW-2 H244 × H150 × 2.0 3 vertical
[29–30]. The research conclusions revealed that there were methods for 175 × 7 75 × 5 × corrugated
reducing the adverse influence of stiffness mutation. Quantitative × 11 7 steel plate
investigation can make the range of reasonable stiffness more precise. SPSW-3 H244 × H150 × 2.0 3 horizontal
Sequentially, the balance point would be obtained between economy 175 × 7 75 × 5 × corrugated
× 11 7 steel plate
and high performance to guide structural design. However, the related
researches about the steel plate shear wall are hardly found.
The objective of this paper is to apply the stiffness matching theory to Since earthquake is multidimensional, and the relative out-of-plane
explain the relation between out-of-plane stiffness and in-plane stiffness. displacement between top and bottom of wall cannot be neglected
The relationship, studied by experimental method, numerical simula­ [32–34]. Besides, the research objective of this paper is to explore the
tion and theoretical calculation, has an important significance that ac­ stiffness relationship between out-of-plane and in-plane failure of
complishes in-plane full performance. In Section 2, the experiments of corrugated steel plate shear wall. Hence, with referring the literatures
three steel plate shear wall specimens were introduced and the com­ [35–39], the bracing plates were only installed in the middle of the
parisons were carried out in detail. In Section 3, the steps of numerical frame column to prevent collapse.
simulation were explained, and the validity of the simulation was veri­
fied. Large amounts of models were built, where the high-wid­
2.2. Test setup
th ratio and thickness were chosen as the important variables to
investigate the failure mode of shear wall and acquire the optimal
To investigate the performance advantages of corrugated steel plate
matching information in Section 4. Finally, the simplified stiffness
shear wall, the bottom of three samples were fixed on strong floor and
calculation equations were deduced, and using an example expounded
the top beam carried out the cyclic loading, where the top beam and
the matching step and highlighted its significance.
grade beam were both recognized as rigid body. Besides, the steel plate

2. Experimental program and results

2.1. Design of shear wall

According to Chinese code [31], the dimension of specimen had been

determined, and the literature [24] described the details of design
process and relevant information of material property results. Fig. 1
showed the measured dimensions of three specimens that are half-scope
single-story single-bay, and design parameters of beam and column are
exhibited in Table 1. The three shear walls are flat steel plate shear wall,
vertical corrugated steel plate shear wall and horizontal corrugated steel
plate shear wall, which are named as SPSW-1, SPSW-2 and SPSW-3,
respectively. For ensuring enough stiffness of beam and column, a
large number of stiffeners were set up on the frame. All corrugated an­
gles were defined as 45◦ , the thickness of steel plate was 3 mm. Fig. 2. Loading setup.

Fig. 1. Details of the steel plate shear wall (all dimensions are in mm).

1523
W. Wang et al.
connected the frame by welding. As shown in Fig. 2, the middle of top
beam simultaneously performed vertical load calculated by the Eq. (1):
μfa A
Nt = (1)
1.2
where μ is the ratio of axial compressive strength to stress which is
assumed as 0.1, fa is the steel tension strength and A is the cross-
sectional area of column on the both sides. It should be worth
mentioned that the axial pressure of embedded steel plates would not be
considered in the calculation formula. Thus, the vertical load is 150 kN.
Table 2 listed three types of load protocol. The force–displacement
dual control method is applied in Chinese code, and the displacement
control method is applied in American code as well as in European code.
For loading sequence in Chinese code, before yielding, the force-
controlled multi-stage loading is applied. After yielding, the
displacement-controlled multi-stage loading is applied. And for Amer­
ican code or European code, the differences are the cycle numbers and
amplitude at each step.
This paper employed the load protocol in Chinese code, that was, the
load was applied by the force control before the peak load, then the
control protocol was transformed to displacement. Each load level (with
three circles) would be achieved, the experiments were conducted until
the load reduces to the 85% maximum load or the occurrence of out-of-
plane buckling.
2.3. Failure mode
The failure modes of the three specimens at the end of the test were
presented in Fig. 3. The flat steel plate aroused an in-plane local buckling
phenomenon in the loading of − 200 kN. Then the frame columns
rapidly occurred slope and lost the bearing capacity with the increase of
horizontal load in Fig. (b). That means the out-of-plane stiffness of
SPSW-1 was too low, so that the frame column cannot play a full role to
prevent collapse. As for SPSW-2 with the same edge restraint column of
SPSP-1, it presented a shear deformation of X-shaped as shown in
Fig. (c). With the increase of cycle loading, the middle of column
occurred the out-of-plane bending failure. Specimen SPSW-3 without
prominent deformation was also out-of-plane buckling. A more detailed
description about failure process can be found in literature [24].
By summarizing the failure modes of all specimens, it can be found
that the out-of-plane constraint of steel plate shear wall is very neces­
sary. If the out-of-plane stiffness was insufficient, the in-plane
Table 2
Differences of code.
Loading protocol Loading sequence
Chinese Code Force-displacement dual The force-controlled loading is applied before yielding, then the displacement-
[40] control controlled loading is applied after yielding.
American Code Displacement control Six cycles for each minor amplitude, four cycles for intermediate amplitude and
[41] two cycles for each major amplitude is applied.
European Code Displacement control Five cycles for each intermediate amplitude and at least ten cycles for the
[42] maximum amplitude shall be applied.
1524
Structures 29 (2021) 1522–1536
performance would be very limited. Oppositely, excessive out-of-plane
stiffness would cause diseconomy. Hence, the research of optimal rela­
tionship is very meaningful. Besides, corrugated steel plate shear wall
has more superior performance than SPSW-1. Failure displacements of
SPSW-2 and SPSW-3 were 38 mm and 48 mm, respectively, implying
that the horizontal corrugated steel plate shear wall has a better lateral
performance.
2.4. Hysteresis diagrams and backbone curve
Fig. 4 revealed the hysteresis performance of three samples, and the
key values were extracted for plotting the backbone curve. Fig. 5 was the
comparison of hysteresis diagram and backbone curve. Specially, the
curve of SPSW-1 kept the linear increase until the sudden decline due to
out-of-plane buckling, the maximum lateral load was 272.5 kN. It should
be highlighted that the nominal strength of SPSW-1 (272.5 kN) was far
below the predicted strength of the code (366.2 kN). This was because
the code did not consider the adverse effect of out-of-plane failure, and
the steel plate shear wall was considered to play a full in-plane role.
However, SPSW-1 in this experiment occurred premature out-of-plane
buckling and could not play a full in-plane role. Thus, the composite
structure consisted of flat steel plate and frame could not provide
enough out-of-plane stiffness, the seismic ability was inferior than
others. As for Fig. (b) and (c), it could be seen that the hysteresis curve of
SPSW-2 occurred the pinch phenomenon because of accordion effect of
vertical corrugated steel plate. As for SPSW-3, the satiate curve exposed
the superior energy-dissipating ability of horizontal corrugated steel
plate in every cycle.
Table 3 illustrated the characteristic values of specimens, and the
yield loads were obtained according to the energy method [43], where
Py, Pu and Pd were the yield load, ultimate load and destruction load, Δy ,
Δu and Δd were the corresponding displacements, respectively. The
parameter of θ represented the story displacement angle.
The pushing direction was defined as positive and the tension di­
rection was negative. And the initial stiffness in each direction equaled
to the load value in elastic stage divided by the corresponding
displacement. The initial stiffness of experimental specimen was calcu­
lated by computing the average values of the positive stiffness and
negative stiffness. The comparison could be observed as following:
(1) The sequence of initial stiffness was that SPSW-3 had the highest
value, and the stiffness of SPSW-1 was larger than that of SPSW-2.
Schematic
W. Wang et al.
Fig. 3. Final failure of specimens.
It could be illustrated that horizontal corrugated steel plate
accomplished a greater lateral stiffness and the value approxi­
mately increased 170% times than that of flat steel plate. As for
SPSW-2, initial stiffness had been seriously influenced by the
accordion effect.
(2) At the yield state, SPSW-2 had higher loading displacement since
the lower initial stiffness, while the seismic resistance of SPSW-3
was still the most excellent. With increasing transverse loading to
1525
Structures 29 (2021) 1522–1536
256 kN, the specimen SPSW-1 suddenly collapsed and the loading
must be stopped, thus the ultimate displacements of SPSW-2 and
SPSW-3 were both higher about 2 times than SPSW-1.
(3) For the ductility factor μ, the value of SPSW-3 was 2.32 and
increased 192% to SPSW-1 and 184% to SPSW-2. It was signifi­
cant for the promotion of lateral deformation ability of shear
wall. Besides, the three specimens all destructed due to the out-of-
W. Wang et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1522–1536

Fig. 4. Hysteresis curve and backbone curve.

Fig. 5. Comparison of hysteresis curve and backbone curve.

Table 3
Characteristic loads and displacements of specimens.
Specimen Direction Initial stiffness (kN/mm) yield state Ultimate state Destruction state μ = Δu/
Δy
Fy (kN) Δy (mm) Fu (kN) Δu (mm) Fd (kN) Δd (mm)

SPSW-1 Positive 16.55 220.5 10.91 272.5 14.24 272.5 14.24 1.30
Negative 21.75 223.1 12.80 239.5 14.24 239.5 14.24 1.11
Average 19.15 221.8 11.86 256.0 14.24 256.0 14.24 1.21
SPSW-2 Positive 11.34 285.4 24.29 365.7 28.50 310.8 29.13 1.17
Negative 17.03 326.8 28.23 329.8 28.50 334.3 38.01 1.35
Average 14.19 306.1 26.26 347.8 28.50 322.6 33.55 1.26
SPSW-3 Positive 29.03 329.1 17.31 381.3 28.01 381.3 32.01 2.30
Negative 35.47 323.1 17.24 387.1 28.01 385.1 32.01 2.33
Average 32.25 326.1 17.28 384.2 28.01 383.2 32.01 2.32

Notes: Fy is yield force, Δy is the corresponding displacement; Fu is ultimate force, Δu is the corresponding displacement; Fd is destruction force, Δd is the corresponding
displacement.

plane buckling, and the stiffness matching would be further

examined in order to fully exert the shear wall function.

2.5. Energy dissipation capacity

Preferable deformation of structure consumed seismic energy and

declined the probability of construction collapse. Fig. 6 emerged the
comparison of cumulative energy consumption. The conclusions were
following as:

(1) SPSW-1 had lower energy dissipation capacity due to premature

out-of-plane failure. However, it could be seen that the energy
dissipation of SPSW-1 was the same with that of SPSW-2 and
larger than that of SPSW-3 only based on the early load state.
Fig. 6. Cumulative energy consumption.

1526
W. Wang et al.
(2) As for SPSW-2, accordion effect made the vertical corrugated
steel plate generate larger deformation and access the plastic
stage earlier under the same load cycle number, so that the value
was higher than that of horizontal corrugated steel plate.
Whereas the large deformation of frame would cause the struc­
tural buckling. Thus, frame column needed to be focused on
strengthening.
(3) Overall, though the energy value of SPSW-3 was the lowest in
three specimens before 16th cycle, the third sample had a higher
cumulative energy dissipation value. The reason was that the
matching relation between frame and horizontal corrugated steel
plate was better.
2.6. Stiffness degradation
Stiffness was an important index that assess seismic response of
structure, and the stiffness degradation would be caused by the damage
or failure. The guidance KN could indicate the impaired degree, which
was defined as:
| + PN | + |− PN |
KN = (2)
| + ΔN | + |− ΔN |
where +PN and − PN were the maximum tension and pressure in each
cycle, +ΔN and − ΔN were the corresponding displacements. The
calculated values were linked and plotted in Fig. 7.
(1) Transverse deformation of vertical corrugated steel plate was
similar with that of accordion which had weak lateral stiffness.
Therefore, it was obviously observed that the stiffness of SPSW-2
was smaller than others. The stiffness degradation of SPSW-2 was
aggravated with the increase of displacement load.
(2) Compared with SPSW-1 and SPSW-2, the stiffness of SPSW-3 was
similarity and the degradation trend also brought into corre­
spondence, but the descent was slower. The inference could be
given that stiffness kept the close link with corrugated direction,
namely the stiffness corresponding to corrugated direction would
be smaller.
(3) Shear wall was mainly subjected to the shear load, that was, the
transversely resistance requirements were stronger. Combined
with the analysis of (2), horizontal corrugated steel plate was
more suitable for acting energy dissipation plate.
3. Modeling and verification
3.1. Modeling steps
As mentioned earlier, horizontal corrugated steel plate had a better
matching relationship with frame column, so that this paper established
finite element model (FEM) with ABAQUS only according to SPSW-3.
The real shape of SPSW-3 was completely restored in this model
Fig. 7. Curves of stiffness degradation.
1527
Structures 29 (2021) 1522–1536
including top beam, column, horizontal corrugated steel plate, grade
beam and stiffener, and the method “tie” was selected to simulate the
connection between those. The simulation applied the element C3D8 for
all components. In order to only research the capacity of column and
steel plate, the top beam and grade beam which could not be deforma­
tion and energy dissipation should be considered as rigid body in ideal.
Besides, with considering the structural nonlinear property, the plastic
damage constitutive relative was appended in this paper. It should be
pointed out that the supported plate was equivalently substituted by
merely fixing the middle of frame column in vertical plate direction, as
shown in Fig. 8.
3.2. Model verification
Based on the experimental results, the equivalent load was executed
on the finite element simulation model, and the maximum displacement
load was 55 mm. Fig. 9 was the comparison of final failure indicating the
similarities and differences between test and model. As shown in figure,
the stiffener at the foot of column efficiently controlled the in-plane
deformation of column flange, and mainly forced region was the bot­
tom of column. Importantly, the final failure modes of both specimens
were out-of-plane buckling in the bottom, that is confirmed FEM could
restore the failure process of the specimen in the experiment.
The hysteresis data and backbone curve were extracted from the
model and plotted in Fig. 10. Compared with SPSW-3, the hysteresis
variation trend of FEM was the same with that of experiment, the phe­
nomenon could be also found in the energy dissipation capacity which
was reflected through the area of each load level hysteresis loop.
Furthermore, the two backbone curves were near accordance, which had
the same elastic stage and decline stage, the maximum error rate was
less than 10%. The peak loads of model and experiment were 405.2 kN
and 382.0 kN, respectively. The deviation between simulation and
experiment was 6.1%. Combined with the comparison of final failure,
the results could be ascertained that FEM had effectively recovered the
real specimen.
4. Multi-factor analysis of stiffness matching
4.1. Effect of steel plate thickness
According to the previous investigation, final test result revealed that
all specimens were collapse because of insufficient out-of-plane stiffness,
so that the relationship of stiffness matching should be explored for full
using of energy dissipate of shear wall. In addition, the design criterion
stipulates the limit drift ratio could not be greater than the story height
of 1/50. Consequently, the loading displacement amplitude at the center
of top beam was determined as 40 mm in the simulation loading.
The final failure modes of specimens with difference plate thickness
Fig. 8. Simulation model.
W. Wang et al.
Fig. 9. Comparison of final failure.
Fig. 10. Comparison of hysteresis diagrams and backbone curve.
were exhibited in Fig. 11, where the map title was h-b-t-w, h-b was high-
to-width ratio, t emerged the thickness of corrugated steel plate and w
represented the width of column flange. Compared with the walls of
different plate thickness, the phenomenon, out-of-plane buckling and
conquassation of column foot, appeared the most common. At the situ­
ation of same flange width, the buckling degree aggravated with the
enhancement of steel thickness which directly influenced the in-plane
stiffness, that was, the larger in-plane stiffness needed more out-of-
plane stiffness to match. As shown in Fig. (p), (q), (r), (s) and (t), that
buckling failure had been effectively alleviated or even eliminated by
increasing the width of column flange.
As shown in Fig. 12, the corresponding hysteresis loops were visually
presented, where the variables of per rows and per columns were steel
plate stiffness and flange width, respectively. When the loading was in
the initial stage, the force linearly increased and the variation trends of
all specimens were the similar, indicating the shear wall mainly forced
in the plane. With the load increased continuously, the curve emerged
the decline of different degree (the smaller column flange width, the
earlier decline), because shear wall mainly bore the horizontal shear and
lacked the out-of-plane resistance. The buckling failure had serious
1528
Structures 29 (2021) 1522–1536
impact on the energy dissipation capacity which relied on the feedback
of curve area. From the end results, specimens 2–1-2–150 and 2–1-
3–150 did not fail, it meant that out-of-plane stiffness was full to resis­
tance unnecessary buckling.
The initial stiffness values of all specimens, obtained from ABAQUS,
were listed in Table 4, where IP meant in-plane stiffness, OP was out-of-
plane stiffness and R represented the ratio of IP to OP:
R = OP/IP (3)
The values in the table described a law that the increase of IP was
faster than that of OP, so that the value of R decreased with the increase
of steel plate thickness. Combined with Fig. 11 and Fig. 12, the value of
R reflected the seismic behavior of shear wall, namely shear wall,
owning the higher R, would show the preferable performance response.
Furthermore, it was effective to improve the stiffness ratio R of hori­
zontal corrugated steel plate shear wall by widening the flange width.
Overall, the value of R could be used to assess the utilization efficiency of
shear wall.
W. Wang et al.
Fig. 11. Final failure modes of difference plate thickness specimens.
4.2. Effect of high-to-width ratio
High-to-width ratio was also an important design parameter for the
practical application. In this paper, five high-to-width ratios were
confirmed as 1:3, 1:2, 1:1, 2:1 and 3:1. As shown in Fig. 13, the low
walls, defined smaller than the high-to-width ratio of 1:1, were all
destroyed due to torsion, while others were failure because of con­
quassation. Thus, the high-to-width ratio of 1:1 could be employed as
the bound divided the failure mode. From the final failure of squat wall,
torsion failure was undesired on account of the insufficient utilization of
in-plane performance, and this state could be hardly changed by rarely
improving frame out-of-plane stiffness of column. On the contrary, the
shear wall, whose high-to-width was no smaller than 1:1, could be
effectively controlled with out-of-plane stiffness of frame column. It
should be highly noted that the specimen 3–1-3–150 had near no out-of-
plane damage and Fig. 14 was the local magnification figure.
As shown in Fig. 14, column flange had been local buckling, but it did
not appear out-of-plane deformation. The reason was that enough out-
of-plane stiffness could resist unnecessary deformation, that was,
frame column had played a full role in plane.
Fig. 15 showed the hysteresis diagrams of specimens with different
high-to-width ratio. As the previous analysis shown, all specimens
should be divided into two groups in order to more effective analysis,
where the classification basis was high-to-width ratio. The groups, high-
to-width ratio was higher than 1:1, performed a less increase because
edge constraint part was H shape steel column, so details analysis would
not be carried out. Other shear walls presented the rule that seismic
performance increased with the wider column flange, the essence reason
1529
Structures 29 (2021) 1522–1536
was that failure mode had a gradual change process from out-of-plane to
in-plane.
Initial stiffness could imply the failure mode and was extracted from
simulation model, as shown in Table 5. In-plane stiffness was far more
than out-of-plane stiffness and increased with the wider of shear wall,
due to shear wall was mainly subject to shear force and the shear stiff­
ness would enhance proportionately with the rise of wall width, whereas
it could not provide more out-of-plane stiffness.
In addition, it could be seen that the difference between out-of-plane
stiffness and in-plane stiffness of squat wall was very high. For example,
the out-of-plane stiffness and in-plane stiffness of the specimen with
high-to-width of 1:3 and flange width of 75 mm were 477795 N/mm and
293 N/mm, respectively, and R was 0.06%. When the flange width
increased to 150 mm, the stiffnesses were translated to 537392 N/mm
and 2485 N/mm, and R was 0.46%. The increase of column flange width
was useless, namely, edge constraint components of squat wall was not
suitable for employing H shape steel column. As for conquassation
specimens, analysis of specimen with high-to-width ratio of 2:1 had
provided in Section 4.1 and the acquisition conclusions were also suit­
able in the other shear wall.
4.3. Determination of key stiffness ratio
Based on the research of Sections 4.1 and 4.2, there were three
failure modes of steel plate shear wall under the cycle loading: torsion
failure, out-of-plane buckling and in-plane buckling, where the speci­
mens of torsion failure had the lowest utilization of in-plane perfor­
mance and this failure mode should be avoided. The specimens,
W. Wang et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1522–1536

Fig. 12. Hysteresis curve of difference plate thickness specimens.

Table 4
Stiffness value and ratio.
Flange Corrugated steel plate thickness (mm)
width (mm)
2 3 4 5 6

IP (N/ OP (N/ R IP (N/ OP (N/ R IP (N/ OP (N/ R IP (N/ OP (N/ R (%) IP (N/ OP (N/ R
mm) mm) (%) mm) mm) (%) mm) mm) (%) mm) mm) mm) mm) (%)

75 35,523 288 0.81 40,352 292 0.72 43,308 295 0.68 45,447 298 0.766 46,957 302 0.64
100 40,237 730 1.81 46,488 739 1.59 50,410 744 1.48 53,369 746 1.40 55,386 751 1.36
125 44,126 1450 3.29 51,644 1454 2.82 56,497 1458 2.58 60,151 1461 2.43 62,814 1465 2.33
150 47,339 2481 5.24 55,950 2485 4.44 61,645 2490 4.04 66,008 2494 3.78 69,245 2498 3.61

Notes: IP is in-plane stiffness; OP is Out-of-plane stiffness; R is stiffness ratio.

appearing in-plane buckling, owned the remarkable matching relation­
ship between out-of-plane stiffness and in-plane stiffness. Therefore, for
making the conclusion more distinct, increase amplitudes of limit
strength of each groups were collected in Fig. 16. It could be seen that
the increment of specimen group with t = 2 mm became increasingly
slow because in-plane performance played a full role and the contribu­
tion of additional strength was origin from the width increase of frame
column flange. As for Fig. 17 (b), the lateral strength of squat wall was
much larger than that of shear wall with other high-to-width ratio and
their R value was less than 1% according to previous results. Therefore,
the critical R value could be confirmed as 4.5% by referring Tables 4 and
5. When R was greater than 4.5%, steel plate shear wall could realize full
response of in-plane performance. Oppositely, the specimens would
occur the out-of-plane buckling.
5. Stiffness calculation and design verification
5.1. Out-of-plane stiffness simplified calculation
The cross-section assumption could be applied to analyze the shear
wall due to the connection between steel plate and frame column was
welding. Thus, the frame column and steel plate would be considered as
a whole, the cross-section of the structure was shown in Fig. 17, where
the column is H shape steel. The location of corrugated steel plate is
presumed on the middle of coordinate axis, t is the component thickness,
B represents the component length, a and b are the length and width of
column flange, respectively.
Based on material mechanics, the moment of inertia of x-axis can be
expressed as:

1530
W. Wang et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1522–1536

Fig. 13. Final failure mode of difference high-to-width ratio specimens.

12ix E ( )
dx = = 3 4ba3 + B1 t13 + 2B2 t23 (6)
l20 l0
Table 6 shows the comparison of initial stiffness between finite
element method and theory calculation. It can be observed that the error
is larger than 5% when flange width is 75 mm, but this flange width is
hardly to provide enough out-of-plane stiffness and would be rarely
employed. Overall, most of error is less than 4% and the average error is
4.1%, which can prove the validity of theory formula.
The theory computing values are higher than that of FEM, and this
might cause stiffness matching design unsafety. Therefore, the calcula­
tion formula is modified by applying fitting method with considering
stiffness contribution, as shown:
E( )
drx = 4α1 ba3 + α2 B1 t13 (7)
l30

Fig. 14. Local magnification of in-plane buckling. In which α is revised factor that α1 and α2 are equal to 0.97185 and
1.179449, respectively. Table 7 exhibits the comparison of initial stiff­
B1 t13 + 4ba3 + 2B2 t23 ness between finite element results and theory revised calculation
Ix = (4) values. Obviously, the average error is 1.9%, indicating that calculation
12
errors have been effectively reduced. Though the theory calculations are
Linear stiffness is a significant parameter and ix is defined as Eq. (5): still higher than values of FEM, the precision has a significant
EIx improvement, meaning that Eq. (7) is the validity and the better
ix = (5) accuracy.
l0

where E is elasticity modulus and l0 shows effective length according to 5.2. In-plane stiffness simplified calculation
material mechanics. The effective length l0 could be translated from l,
where the relation formal is l0 = μx l. Initial stiffness could be calculated The connection between edge member and shear wall is the welding
by Eq. (6): regarded as rigid combination in plane, so that the whole initial stiffness

1531
W. Wang et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1522–1536

2000 1800 1000 500 400

Load (kN)

Load (kN)

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

1000 250
Load (kN)

900 500 200

0 0 0 0 0
-1000 -900 -500 -250 -200
-2000 -1800 -1000 -500 -400
-40 -20 0 20 40 -40 -20 0 20 40 -40 -20 0 20 40 -40 -20 0 20 40 -40 -20 0 20 40
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

(p) 1-3-3-150 (q) 1-2-3-150 (r) 1-1-3-150 (s) 2-1-3-150 (t) 3-1-3-150

Fig. 15. Hysteresis curve of difference high-to-width ratio specimens.

Table 5
Stiffness value and ratio.
Flange High-to-width ratio
width (mm)
1:3 1:2 1:1 2:1 3:1

IP (N/ OP (N/ R IP (N/ OP (N/ R IP (N/ OP (N/ R IP (N/ OP (N/ R IP (N/ OP (N/ R
mm) mm) (%) mm) mm) (%) mm) mm) (%) mm) mm) (%) mm) mm) (%)

75 477,795 293 0.06 287,435 292 0.10 114,580 292 0.25 40,352 292 0.72 24,440 291 1.19
100 504,478 744 0.15 308,990 742 0.24 127,464 741 0.58 46,488 739 1.59 28,666 737 2.57
125 523,122 1457 0.28 324,530 1455 0.45 137,307 1455 1.06 51,644 1454 2.82 32,264 1446 4.48
150 537,392 2485 0.46 336,700 2485 0.74 145,434 2485 1.71 55,950 2485 4.44 35,473 2485 7.01

Notes: IP is in-plane stiffness; OP is Out-of-plane stiffness; R is stiffness ratio.

could be computed by summating the stiffness of three parts, as shown in

Eq. (8): (2b + B2 )3 − B32 t2 B32
Iy1 = Iy3 = a + (11)
12 12
dy = dy1 + dy2 + dy3 (8)
With referring the literature [44–45], the stiffness equation of
where dy1 and dy3 are the initial stiffness of frame columns, dy2 is the corrugated steel plate is simplified as Eq. (12):
stiffness of corrugated steel plate. According to the analysis in Section 12iy2 12EIy2
dy2 = = (12)
5.1, the initial stiffness of columns can be solved through inertia moment l20 l30
formula and lateral stiffness formula:
t1 B31
12iy1 12EIy1 Iy2 = (13)
dy1 = 2 = (9) 12
l0 l30
Theory values are calculated by using Eq. (8) and listed in the
12iy3 12EIy3 Table 8. With comparison between FEM and TC, the average error is
dy3 = 2 = (10)
l0 l30 5.8% and smaller than 10%, implying that the theory calculation
method is valid. Moreover, though there are values of three specimens
whose error is higher than 10%, the TC values are all larger than the

1532
W. Wang et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1522–1536

Fig. 16. Comparison of maximum load increase.

Fig. 17. Cross-section of corrugated steel plate shear wall.

Table 6
Stiffness comparison between finite element method (FEM) and theory calculation (TC).
Flange Corrugated steel plate thickness (mm) AE
width (%)
2 3 4 5 6
(mm)
OP-FEM OP-TC E OP-FEM OP-TC E OP-FEM OP-TC E OP-FEM OP-TC E OP-FEM OP-TC E
(N/ (N/ (%) (N/ (N/ (%) (N/ (N/ (%) (N/ (N/ (%) (N/ (N/ (%)
mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) mm)

75 288 321 10.3 292 322 9.3 295 323 8.7 298 324 8.0 302 327 7.6 4.1
100 730 760 3.9 739 761 2.9 744 762 2.4 746 763 2.2 751 766 2.0
125 1450 1485 2.4 1454 1485 2.1 1458 1486 1.9 1461 1488 1.8 1465 1490 1.7
150 2481 2565 3.3 2485 2565 3.1 2490 2566 3.0 2494 2568 2.9 2498 2570 2.8

Notes: OP is Out-of-plane stiffness; E is error; AE is average error.

Table 7
Stiffness comparison between finite element method (FEM) and theory revised calculation (TRC).
Flange Corrugated steel plate thickness (mm) AE
width (%)
2 3 4 5 6
(mm)
OP-FEM OP-TRC E OP-FEM OP-TRC E OP-FEM OP-TRC E OP-FEM OP-TRC E OP-FEM OP-TRC E
(N/ (N/ (%) (N/ (N/ (%) (N/ (N/ (%) (N/ (N/ (%) (N/ (N/ (%)
mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) mm)

75 288 311 7.4 292 312 6.4 295 313 5.8 298 315 5.4 302 318 5.0 1.9
100 730 738 1.1 739 739 0.0 744 740 0.5 746 742 0.5 751 745 0.8
125 1450 1442 0.6 1454 1443 0.8 1458 1444 1.0 1461 1446 1.0 1465 1448 1.2
150 2481 2492 0.4 2485 2492 0.3 2490 2494 0.2 2494 2495 0.0 2498 2498 0.0

Notes: OP is Out-of-plane stiffness; E is error; AE is average error.

FEM values and this is safety because in-plane stiffness is the denomi­ 5.3. Stiffness matching design step
nator in Eq. (3). Therefore, this method is proved as an effective way and
can be employed for matching design. The key stiffness ratio divides shear wall failure into two modes

1533
W. Wang et al. Structures 29 (2021) 1522–1536

Table 8
Stiffness comparison between finite element method (FEM) and theory calculation (TC).
Flange Corrugated steel plate thickness (mm) AE
width (%)
2 3 4 5 6
(mm)
IP-FEM IP-TC E IP-FEM IP-TC E IP-FEM IP-TC E IP-FEM IP-TC E IP-FEM IP-TC E
(N/ (N/ (%) (N/ (N/ (%) (N/ (N/ (%) (N/ (N/ (%) (N/ (N/ (%)
mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) mm)

75 35,523 34,867 2% 40,352 38,318 5% 43,308 41,769 4% 45,447 45,221 1% 46,957 48,672 4% 5.8
100 40,237 43,360 7% 46,488 46,811 1% 50,410 50,263 0% 53,369 53,714 1% 55,386 57,165 3%
125 44,126 51,853 15% 51,644 55,304 7% 56,497 58,756 4% 60,151 62,207 3% 62,814 65,658 4%
150 47,339 60,346 22% 55,950 63,798 12% 61,645 67,249 8% 66,008 70,700 7% 69,245 74,151 7%

Notes: IP is In-plane stiffness; E is error; AE is average error.

named in-plane failure and out-of-plane failure, and the index should be
applied in engineering design for avoiding the undesirable performance
of structure. The corrugated steel plate shear wall with H shape steel
column is taken as an example. Fig. 18 shows the main matching steps
which are following:
(1) Based on the structural plan, the stiffness matching requirements
should be determined first, whose out-of-plane stiffness may be
insufficient to provide full in-plane response. In general, shear
walls whose high-to-width ratio is less than 1:1 or edge restraint
parts are small should be specifically examined.
(2) Combined with the parameter analysis conclusion, the shear wall
can be initially estimated to separate the obviously unsatisfactory
specimens. For instance, if the high-to-width ratio is less than 1:1,
the frame column should not choose the H shape steel column as
edge parts, and other can be carried out step (3).
(3) According to the detailed sizes of the minor structure, in-plane
stiffness and out-of-plane stiffness are calculated by Eq. (5) and
Eq. (8). Then, stiffness matching is executed. For safety consid­
eration, the key stiffness ratio is magnified and this paper uses
4.7%.
(4) If the stiffness ratio is less than 4.7%, the width of column flange
should be increased firstly and the out-of-plane stiffness should
be recalculated for matching again. Oppositely, matching pro­
cedure can enter step (6).
(5) If the ratio still falls short of demand under multi­
ple recalculations, it is implied that H shape steel column cannot
provide a full role and the column variety should be changed to
square steel tube.
(6) When the stiffness ratio meets the demands, it should be con­
ducted final verifications by finite element method. If the final
result of examination model is in-plane failure, it can be indicated
that the shear wall will realize full lateral behavior. Reversely,
matching should be returned to step (4).
5.4. Example verification
In order to examine the validity of design method, one of out-of-
plane failure models was selected to reconstruct in this section. The
basic information was high-to-width ratio of 1:1, steel plate thickness of
4 mm and column flange width of 150 mm. With the preliminary
calculation, the shear wall, using H shape steel column, had the in-plane
initial stiffness of 2512 N/mm and out-of-plane initial stiffness of
272897 N/mm, and the key ratio was 0.9% which was far smaller than
safety index. This value implied that shear wall would occur out-of-
plane buckling failure, as shown in Fig. 19 (a). According to matching
step (2), the edge construction parts should be changed to square steel
tube column. After lots of attempts, the width and thickness of column
chose 150 mm and 9 mm, respectively. By calculating the stiffness
values, it could be obtained that in-plane stiffness was 14435 N/mm and
out-of-plane stiffness was 309741 N/mm, then the stiffness index could
be obtained as 4.7% which meets the minimum requirement. Fig. 19 (b)
showed the stress cloud image under the maximum displacement
loading, and it could be obviously observed that the model did not
present the out-of-plane failure.
Fig. 20 was the comparison of hysteresis curves. The maximum loads
of two specimens were 949 kN and 1774 kN, respectively. The shear wall
which experiences stiffness matching design performed a preferable
lateral behavior, and the maximum force increased by 86.9%. Conse­
quently, stiffness matching design has a great significance in increasing
the lateral performance.
6. Conclusions
This paper adopted the experimental program and simulation
method to investigate the relation between out-of-plane stiffness and in-
plane stiffness. Firstly, three experimental specimens which were called
as flat steel plate shear wall, vertical corrugated steel plate shear wall
and horizontal corrugated steel plate shear wall were carried out under

Fig. 18. Matching step.

1534
W. Wang et al.
Fig. 19. Comparison of final mode.
Fig. 20. Comparison of hysteresis curve and.
the cyclic loading. Then, the numerical model was used to compare with
experimental result for examining the validity of finite element method.
Through the research of different high-to-width and steel plate thick­
ness, the failure modes and stiffness relationships were obtained to
distinguish the component whose performance should be improved. The
key stiffness ratio was defined as an index that divides the failure mode
of shear wall with H sharp steel column. Ultimately, the stiffness
simplified calculations were proposed to estimate the stiffness and
applied for the matching design. The detail conclusions were following
as:
(1) Compared with experimental results, it can be found that three
specimens were all out-of-plane failure without accomplishing
full lateral performance, where horizontal corrugated steel plate
shear wall had better stiffness matching relationship and more
prominent lateral performance.
(2) The analysis consequences of finite element model were almost
the same with those of experiment. As a result, it could provide
that the simulation model had a more precise computation to
carry out variable parameter analysis.
(3) The high-to-width ratio could be regarded as an index that
divided the force mode of frame shear wall. When high-to-width
ratio was less than 1:1, the specimens were mainly subject to
torsion. Oppositely, the shear wall was crushed. It should be
highlighted that the torsional specimens could not play a full
lateral role and need to be avoided.
(4) The stiffness matching relationship between shear wall and edge
restraint member had a significance for improving the utilization
of seismic capacity. The index, key stiffness ratio, could clearly
indicate the matching rationality. When the ratio was greater
1535
Structures 29 (2021) 1522–1536
than 4.5%, the shear wall presented the better in-plane seismic
performance. On the contrary, the shear wall occurred out-of-
plane failure at the premature stage, so that it would generate
the adverse effect on structure.
(5) The calculation values of simplified stiffness equation were very
close to the numerical model values. The average errors of out-
plane stiffness and in-plane stiffness were 1.9% and 5.8%,
respectively, indicating that the theory had a satisfactory accu­
racy and could be used to achieve the preliminary evaluation of
initial stiffness. Besides, stiffness matching design step was pro­
posed for guiding the practical application.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the financial support received from the
National Nature Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51878548 and
51578449), the Key Project of Natural Science Foundation Research
Plan of Shaanxi Province (Grant No. 2018JZ5013).
References
[1] Chen Sheng-Jin, Jhang Chyuan. Experimental study of low-yield-point steel plate
shear wall under in-plane load. J Constr Steel Res 2011;67(6):977–85.
[2] Kurban Can Ozan, Topkaya Cem. A numerical study on response modification,
overstrength, and displacement amplification factors for steel plate shear wall
systems. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2009;38(4):497–516.
W. Wang et al.
[3] Pachideh G, Gholhaki M, Daryan AS. Analyzing the damage index of steel plate
shear walls using pushover analysis. Structures 2019;20:437–51.
[4] Ghasem Pachideh, Majid Gholhaki, Morteza Shiri. Modeling and Analysis of Thin
Steel Plate Shear Walls Using the New Method. In 2nd international conference on
civil engineering, architecture & urban planning elites, 2016;2:124–36.
[5] Alireza Yadegari, Ghasem Pachideh, Majid Gholhaki, Morteza Shiri. Seismic
Performance of C-PSW. In 2nd international conference on civil engineering,
architecture & urban planning elites, 2016;2:110–23.
[6] Mirlohi J, Memarzadeh P, Behnamfar F. The effect of soil-flexibility on seismic
response of a typical steel plate shear wall subjected to Duzce earthquake. In
Proceedings of the 4th WSEAS international conference on Energy and
development - environment - biomedicine. World Scientific and Engineering
Academy and Society (WSEAS); 2011.
[7] Verma Abhishek, Sahoo Dipti Ranjan. Seismic collapse analysis of steel plate shear
wall systems. Key Eng Mater 2018;763:702–8.
[8] Liu Shi, Warn Gordon P. Seismic performance and sensitivity of floor isolation
systems in steel plate shear wall structures. Eng Struct 2012;42(none):115–26.
[9] Kheyroddin Ali, Gholhaki Majid, Pachideh Ghasem. Seismic evaluation of
reinforced concrete moment frames retrofitted with steel braces using IDA and
pushover methods in the near-fault field. J Rehabilitation Civ Eng 2019;7(1):
159–73.
[10] Gholhaki Majid, Pachideh Ghasem. Investigating of damage indexes results due to
presence of shear wall in building with various stories and spans. Int J Rev Life Sci
2015;5(1):992–7.
[11] Hassanein MF, Kharoob OF. Shear buckling behavior of tapered bridge girders with
steel corrugated webs. Eng Struct 2014;74:157–69.
[12] Zevallos E, Hassanein MF, Real E, Mirambell E. Shear evaluation of tapered bridge
girder panels with steel corrugated webs near the supports of continuous bridges.
Eng Struct 2016;113:149–59.
[13] Majdi Y, Hsu CTT, Zarei M. Finite element analysis of new composite floors having
cold-formed steel and concrete slab. Eng Struct 2014;77:65–83.
[14] Zha X, Zuo Y. Theoretical and experimental studies on in-plane stiffness of
integrated container structure. Adv Mech Eng, 2016;8(3):8/3/
1687814016637522.
[15] Hara T. Tunnel Lining with Corrugated FRP Sheets. Computing in Civil and
Building Engineering; 2014, p. 761–8.
[16] Bahrebar M, Lim JB, Clifton GC, Zirakian T, Shahmohammadi A, Hajsadeghi M.
Perforated steel plate shear walls with curved corrugated webs under cyclic
loading. Structures 2020;24:600–9.
[17] Emami F, Mofid M, Vafai A. Experimental study on cyclic behavior of trapezoidally
corrugated steel shear walls. Eng Struct 2013;48(48):750–62.
[18] Qiuhong Z, Jing Q, Nan LI, Zhongxian LI. Experimental study on seismic
performance of trapezoidally corrugated steel plate shear walls. J Build Struct
2018.
[19] Dou C, Jiang ZQ, Pi YL, Guo YL. Elastic shear buckling of sinusoidally corrugated
steel plate shear wall. Eng Struct 2016;121:136–46.
[20] Tong JZ, Guo YL. Shear resistance of stiffened steel corrugated shear walls. Thin-
Wall Struct 2018;127:76–89.
[21] Cao Q, Huang J. Experimental study and numerical simulation of corrugated steel
plate shear walls subjected to cyclic loads. Thin-Wall Struct 2018;127:306–17.
[22] Pang H, Li HY, Fang ZD, Wang JF. Stiffness matching and ride comfort
optimization of heavy vehicle\“s suspension based on adams. Appl Mech Mater
2010;44–47:1734–8.
[23] Wei Wang, Yingzi Ren, Bin Han, Tan Ren, Gewei Liu, Yujian Liang. Seismic
performance of corrugated steel plate concrete composite shear walls. The
Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 2019;28(1).
1536
Structures 29 (2021) 1522–1536
[24] Wei Wang, Yingzi Ren, Zheng Lu, Jiangliang Song, Bin Han, Ying Zhou.
Experimental Study of the Hysteretic Behaviour of Corrugated Steel Plate Shear
Walls and Steel Plate Reinforced Concrete Composite Shear Walls. J.
Constructional Steel Res., 2019;160(9):136–52.
[25] Wang Wei, Wang Yan, Zheng Lu. Experimental study on seismic behavior of steel
plate reinforced concrete composite shear wall. Eng Struct 2018;160(4):281–92.
[26] Zhang J, Zheng W, Cao W, Wang M. Seismic performance of composite walls with
concrete-filled square steel-tube boundary element. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 2019;
(2):1–19.
[27] Xia L, Jiang H. Stiffness matching design of vehicle bumper anti-collision beam
considering energy absorption and economical performance. Appl Mech Mater
2014;668–9:258–63.
[28] Zhao Y, Wang H, Yu H, Lai X, Lin Z. A stiffness-matching based evaluation
approach for compliance of mechanical systems in shield tunneling machines. Sci
China Tech Sci 2012;55(10):2926–35.
[29] Solon J, Levental I, Sengupta K, Georges PC, Janmey PA. Fibroblast adaptation and
stiffness matching to soft elastic substrates. Biophys J 2007;93(12):4453–61.
[30] Engler AJ, Griffin MA, Shamik S, B?Nnemann CG, Lee SH, Discher DE. Myotubes
differentiate optimally on substrates with tissue-like stiffness: pathological
implications for soft or stiff microenvironments. J Cell Biol 2004;166(6):877–87.
[31] JGJ 280-2015. Technical specification for steel plate shear walls. Beijing (China)
Chinese Building Press; 2015 [in Chinese].
[32] Osorio E, Bairán JM, Marí AR. Analytical modeling of reinforced concrete columns
subjected to bidirectional shear. Eng Struct 2017;138:458–72.
[33] Dolatshahi KM, Aref AJ, Yekrangnia M. Bidirectional behavior of unreinforced
masonry walls. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2014;43(15):2377–97.
[34] Wang Y, Arakida R, Chan I, et al. Cyclic behavior of panel zone in beam-column
subassemblies subjected to bidirectional loading. J Constr Steel Res 2018;143:
32–45.
[35] Vafaei M, Sheikh AMO, Alih SC. Experimental study on the efficiency of tapered
strip dampers for the seismic retrofitting of damaged non-ductile RC frames. Eng
Struct 2019;199.
[36] Guo H, Li Y, Liang G, Liu Y. Experimental study of cross stiffened steel plate shear
wall with semi-rigid connected frame. J Constr Steel Res 2017;135:69–82.
[37] Liao FY, Han LH, Tao Z. Seismic behaviour of circular CFST columns and RC shear
wall mixed structures: experiments. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65(8–9):1582–96.
[38] Sabouri-Ghomi S, Sajjadi SRA. Experimental and theoretical studies of steel shear
walls with and without stiffeners. J Constr Steel Res 2012;75:152–9.
[39] Wang M, Shi Y, Xu J, Yang W, Li Y. Experimental and numerical study of
unstiffened steel plate shear wall structures. J Constr Steel Res 2015;112:373–86.
[40] JGJ/T101-2015. China Academy of Building Research Specification for seismic test
of buildings. Beijing (China): Chinese Building Industry Press; 2015 [in Chinese].
[41] American Institute of Steel Construction. Seismic provisions for structural steel
buildings. AISC, Chicago; 2010, 341–10.
[42] Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance-part 5: Design Assisted
by Testing. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization; 2005.
[43] Mahin SA, Bertero V. An evaluation of inelastic seismic design spectra. J Struct Eng
1981;107(9):1775–95.
[44] Gholizadeh M, Yadollahi Y. Comparing steel plate shear wall behavior with simple
and corrugated plates. Appl Mech Mater 2011;147:80–5.
[45] Zha X, Zuo Y. Theoretical and experimental studies on in-plane stiffness of
integrated container structure. Adv Mech Eng, 2016;8(3):8/3/
1687814016637522.