Ascest2006 chen geusami

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239391030
Hysteretic Model of Stiffened Shear Panel
Dampers
Article in Journal of Structural Engineering · March 2006
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:3(478)
CITATIONS
16
READS
104
3 authors, including:
Hanbin Ge
Meijo University
127 PUBLICATIONS 1,184 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Hanbin Ge on 11 October 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

Hysteretic Model of Stiffened Shear Panel Dampers
Zhiyi Chen1
; Hanbin Ge2
; and Tsutomu Usami3
Abstract: A properly designed two-way stiffened ͑stiffened both in longitudinal and transverse directions͒ shear panel can sustain large
deformation without pinching and consequent strength degradation. Hence it can be used as an effective passive energy dissipating damper
͑PEDD͒ in building and bridge structures to absorb seismic energy. In this Technical Note, a series of steel shear panels with 1, 2, or 3
two-way stiffeners has been analyzed under cyclic loading by the general-purpose finite element program ABAQUS, in which a modified
two-surface model is incorporated to trace the material nonlinearity. Slenderness of web, Rw, is employed as a key parameter to investigate
the hysteretic performance of stiffened shear panels. The sensitivities of the ratio of stiffener rigidity to optimum stiffener rigidity, ␥s /␥s
*
,
the ratio of flange thickness to web thickness, tf /tw, and aspect ratio, ␣, are also investigated. Finally, a simplified bilinear model for
stiffened shear panels acting as a PEDD is presented in this Technical Note based on FEM results. The proposed model is expected to get
use in the time-history analysis of engineering structures that employ the PEDD to mitigate seismic hazard.
DOI: 10.1061/͑ASCE͒0733-9445͑2006͒132:3͑478͒
CE Database subject headings: Panels; Hysteresis; Damping; Stiffening; Deformation.
Introduction
Shear-type hysteretic damper ͑stiffened or unstiffened͒ is one
type of metallic yield damper, whose effective mechanism for
dissipation of energy input to a structure from an earthquake is
through inelastic deformation of the metals ͑Housner et al. 1997͒.
It can be classified into three types: ͑1͒ combined-type that con-
sists of shear panel and braces; ͑2͒ inner column-type; and ͑3͒
shear wall-type, as shown in Fig. 1. It is well-known that a stiff-
ened steel shear panel damper can provide higher shear strength
than an unstiffened one if given the same plate thickness because
plate buckling and shear strength degradation can be prevented
effectively. Plate buckling and strength degradation should be
avoided since they are the main factors that cause deterioration of
energy dissipation capacity, as is not preferable for shear panels
acting as a passive energy dissipating damper ͑PEDD͒ against
major earthquakes.
The main objective of this Technical Note is to develop a
simple hysteretic model for stiffened shear panel dampers to be
incorporated in structural systems as shown in Figs. 1͑a and b͒.
For this purpose, a series of inelastic large deformation analyses
are performed, taking into account geometric and material im-
perfection of the components. Effects of several structural
parameters are investigated through sensitivity studies and
suitable ranges for these parameters are suggested for design
purposes. Among them, the web slenderness parameter, Rw,
is considered as a governing parameter for such shear panel
dampers, defined as
Rw =
bw
͑nL + 1͒tw
ͱ12͑1 − ␯2
͒␶y
ks␲2
E
͑1͒
where bw and tw =depth and thickness of web, respectively,
nL =number of longitudinal stiffeners, ␶y =shear yield stress equal
to ␴y /ͱ3, E=Young’s modulus of elasticity, ␯=Poisson’s ratio,
and ks =elastic buckling coefficient of a simply supported plate
under shear, given by
ks = ͭ5.35 + 4/␣2
, ␣ ജ 1
5.35/␣2
+ 4, ␣ Ͻ 1
ͮ ͑2͒
where ␣=aspect ratio of the web, which is equal to a/bw
͑a=length of the web͒. It is noted that the aspect ratio of the
subpanel is equal to that of the web since the stiffeners are placed
in pairs and of equidistance.
Another consideration in this Technical Note is the material
of shear panel. Previously published research about shear panels
focused on those made of low-yield steel ͑Nakashima et al. 1994;
Nakashima 1995͒. However, at present this kind of low-yield
steel has not yet been included in standard codes, such as
JIS ͑Japanese Industrial Standards 2004͒ and ASTM ͑American
Society of Testing and Materials 2005͒. Because of the immatu-
rity of low-yield steel in the material market and limited guide for
low-yield steel in specifications, the conventional mild steel JIS
SS400 ͑equivalent to ASTM A36͒ is considered in this study.
Based on FEM analysis results, a formula is proposed to esti-
mate the ultimate strength of shear panel dampers by regression
approach. It is found that the contribution of flanges to total shear
strength capacity is so significant that it should be considered in
the strength formula. The proposed formula is, consequently, em-
ployed in the development of a simple bilinear hysteretic model.
1
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Nagoya Univ.,
Nagoya, 464-8603, Japan.
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Nagoya Univ.,
Nagoya, 464-8603, Japan.
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Nagoya Univ., Nagoya,
464-8603, Japan. E-mail: usami@civil.nagoya-u.ac.jp
Note. Associate Editor: Vinay Kumar Gupta. Discussion open until
August 1, 2006. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must
be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this techni-
cal note was submitted for review and possible publication on October
28, 2004; approved on June 27, 2005. This technical note is part of the
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 3, March 1, 2006.
©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/2006/3-478–483/$25.00.
478 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2006
J. Struct. Eng., 2006, 132(3): 478-483
Downloadedfromascelibrary.orgbyMeijoUniversityon10/10/15.CopyrightASCE.Forpersonaluseonly;allrightsreserved.

Analytical Model
A series of steel shear panels with 1, 2, or 3 two-way stiffeners
are considered in this study. Fig. 2 shows a typical shear panel
with two pairs of equidistant longitudinal and transverse stiffen-
ers. The flange width bf is about 1/3 of the web depth bw. In this
study, stiffeners are placed on one side to save cost for fabrica-
tion. The width-to-thickness ratio of stiffeners is taken as 9 to
avoid local buckling. The rigidity of stiffener, ␥s, is defined as
␥s =EIs /bwDw, where Is =moment of inertia of the stiffener, taken
at the interaction surface of stiffener and web, and Dw =flexural
rigidity per unit width of the web. Optimum rigidity of stiffener,
␥s
*
, is defined as a rigidity of stiffener, ␥s, at which the critical
load of the stiffened plate is equal to the critical load of an
individual simply-supported subpanel. A formula suggested by
Chusilp and Usami ͑2002͒ is used to calculate the optimum
rigidity of the stiffener, and is given by
␥s
*
= ͩ 23.1
͑nL + 1͒2.5 −
1.35
͑nL + 1͒0.5ͪ͑1 + ␣3/͑nL+1͒−0.3
͒2͑nL+1͒−1
1 + ␣5.3−0.6͑nL+1͒−3/͑nL+1͒ ͑3͒
The general-purpose FE program, ABAQUS ͑2003͒, is em-
ployed for this analysis. A four-node doubly curved, first-order,
reduced-integration shell element ͑S4R͒ is employed. In the nu-
merical analysis, steel grade JIS SS400 is used as the panel’s
material. In order to trace the material cyclic behavior accurately,
a two-surfaced model, developed by Shen et al. ͑1995͒ and
well testified by the writers ͑Chusilp et al. 2002; Gao et al. 1998͒,
is chosen.
In this study, the distribution of the residual stresses in the web
and stiffeners is idealized in a rectangular pattern, based on ex-
perimental inspections and analytical study of plate assemblies
͑Ge and Usami 1996͒. Preliminary analyses indicate the residual
stresses only influence the behavior of shear panels before yield-
ing. For geometric imperfections, initial out-of-plane deflection
distributed in a sinusoidal pattern is considered as follows
␦w = −
a
1,000
sinͩ␲x
a
ͪsinͩ␲y
bw
ͪ
+
bw
150͑nL + 1͒
sinͩ͑nL + 1͒␲x
a
ͪsinͩ͑nL + 1͒␲y
bw
ͪ ͑4͒
The first and second terms in the equation represent the global
and local initial deflections, whose amplitudes are obtained from
the Japanese stability design guidelines ͑Fukumoto 1987͒.
Consider both ends of the panel are welded on considerably
stiff plate in practice so that both ends of the model ͑at the planes
x=0 and x=a in Fig. 2͒ are assumed to be fixed except for the
displacement in the x and y directions of the loading edge. Cyclic
transverse displacement, ⌬, is applied to shear panels along the
plane x=a, and the displacement in each cycle is the multiple of
the yield displacement of web, ⌬y, in pure shear.
Fig. 1. Samples of shear-type hysteretic dampers incorporated into
framed structures: ͑a͒ combined-type; ͑b͒ inner column-type; and ͑c͒
shear wall-type
Fig. 2. Stiffened shear panel with two pairs of longitudinal and
transverse stiffeners: ͑a͒ elevation and ͑b͒ view A-A
Fig. 3. Sensitivity investigations of main parameters: ͑a͒ effect
of stiffener rigidity, ␥s/␥s
*
; ͑b͒ effect of aspect ratio, ␣; and ͑c͒
effect of flange rigidity, tf /tw
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2006 / 479
J. Struct. Eng., 2006, 132(3): 478-483

During the analysis, average shear stress, ␶n, and average shear
strain, ␥, are measured to evaluate shear strength and ductility of
panels, as follows
␶n =
Q
bwtw
, ␥ =
⌬
a
͑5͒
where Q=summation of vertical reaction forces at the plane
x=0.
Sensitivity Study
First, sensitivity study is performed to survey the parameter ef-
fects on the hysteretic behavior of shear panels. The parameters
considered in this section are stiffener rigidity ␥s /␥s
*
, flange
rigidity tf /tw, and web aspect ratio ␣. Due to time-consuming
computations, the study is restricted to shear panels with two
pairs of stiffeners.
Fig. 3͑a͒ illustrates clearly that ␥s /␥s
*
=3.0 is adequate to reach
the full shear resistance of the shear panels investigated. Fig. 3͑b͒
indicates that the effect of aspect ratio, covering the practical
range of aspect ratio from 0.5 to 1.5, can be neglected in practical
design. Fig. 3͑c͒ shows how the flange rigidity, tf /tw, affects the
contributions of flanges and web to the total shear strength capac-
ity of panel, respectively. As shown in Fig. 3͑c͒, the total shear
force ͑normalized by ␶y͒ denoted by Panel is divided into two
parts: one is denoted by Web and the other is denoted by Flange.
In the case of tf /tw =1.0, the ␶-␥ curves denoted by Panel and
Web show obviously drops after peak strength, indicating web
buckling occurred. That is, flanges with tf /tw =1.0 are not stiff
enough to restrain rotations of web edges since the web thick-
nesses are the same for the three cases. Comparatively, the ␶-␥
curves denoted by Web in the cases of tf /tw =2.0 and 4.0 show
that the shear forces carried by webs are almost identical in the
two cases, indicating that flanges with tf /tw =2.0 are stiff enough
to restrain rotations of web edges. Further comparing the ␶-␥
curves denoted by Plane in the two cases, it is found that the
difference in the ultimate shear strength between the two cases is
mainly due to the frame action of the flanges rather than the web
itself. However, the value of tf /tw is generally taken as 4.0 in
previous works ͑Nakashima et al. 1994; Hirabayashi et al. 1995͒.
In addition, bending moment will impose on shear panels un-
avoidably and extra normal stress due to this bending will be
normally carried by the flanges. In view of the above, tf /tw =4.0 is
adopted as the invariant parameter in the following study.
Based on the preceding sensitivity study, it is concluded
that if stiffener rigidity, flange rigidity, and web aspect ratio are
satisfied with suggested value, i.e., ␥s /␥s
*
ജ3.0, tf /tw ജ4.0, and
0.5ഛ␣ഛ1.5, the influence of these parameters on the web shear
strength can be ignored.
Cyclic Performance of Stiffened Shear Panels
In this section, a series of FEM analyses are carried out on shear
panels with 1, 2, or 3 two-way stiffeners under cyclic loading.
The dimensions of the panels are listed in Table 1. The range
of Rw considered in this research is among 0.2–0.7. A summary
of the obtained maximum shear strength ͑normalized by ␶y͒ and
cumulative dissipated energy ͑normalized by elastic dissipated
energy, Ee =Qy⌬y /2͒ from FEM analysis is also given in Table 1.
Fig. 4 illustrates examples of the cyclic envelope curves, from
which strength and ductility of shear panel dampers can be
identified. As shown in Fig. 4, all the cases have good ductility
up to ␥/␥y =20 except for the case of nL =nT =2 and Rw =0.7.
Here, the upper bound of ductility is set to be 20␥y because it is
considered that the steel material may fail in low-cycle fatigue
when ␥/␥y Ͼ20 ͑Kasai et al. 2001͒. In the case of nL =nT =2 and
Rw =0.7, the shear strength began deteriorating at ␥/␥y =12 after
the peak of the ascending branch, and was soon terminated due to
Table 1. Summary of Stiffened Shear Panelsa
Dimensions Analytical results Predictions
nL=nT Rw bw/tw
tw
͑mm͒
tf
͑mm͒
bf
͑mm͒
ts
͑mm͒
␶n/␶y
͚Ei/Ee ␶u/␶y
͚Ei/Ee
nL=nT=1 0.7 158 6.31 25.25 300 8.87 1.177 1,110 1.163 —
0.6 136 7.36 29.46 300 9.95 1.233 1,209 1.208 —
0.5 113 8.84 35.35 300 11.41 1.297 1,332 1.277 1,465
0.4 91 11.05 44.19 300 13.49 1.381 1,473 1.397 1,458
0.3 68 14.73 44.19 533.3 16.74 1.511 1,597 1.499 1,453
nL=nT=2 0.7 238 4.20 16.80 300 5.70 1.126 456 1.130 —
0.6 204 4.90 19.60 300 6.40 1.202 1,079 1.169 —
0.5 169 5.90 23.60 300 7.33 1.266 1,297 1.231 1,468
0.4 137 7.30 29.20 300 8.67 1.348 1,418 1.340 1,462
0.3 102 9.80 39.20 300 10.76 1.468 1,561 1.422 1,457
0.2 67 15.00 60.00 300 14.58 1.585 1,649 1.499 1,453
nL=nT=3 0.7 317 3.16 12.63 300 4.47 1.131 1,023 1.114 —
0.6 272 3.68 14.73 300 5.02 1.208 1,241 1.150 —
0.5 226 4.42 17.68 300 5.75 1.278 1,325 1.208 1,470
0.4 181 5.52 22.09 300 6.80 1.345 1,444 1.311 1,464
0.3 136 7.36 29.46 300 8.44 1.465 1,554 1.384 1,459
0.2 91 11.05 44.19 300 11.44 1.547 1,612 1.442 1,456
a
Some of the parameters are kept constant as ␣=1.0, tf /tw=4.0, ␥s/␥s
*
=3.0, ␴y =235 N/mm2
and bs=9ts; except for the case of nL=nT=1 and Rw=0.3, in
which tf is taken as 3tw and bf is taken as ͑4/3͒2
ϫ300 mm.
J. Struct. Eng., 2006, 132(3): 478-483

significant local buckling. The out-of-plane buckling amplitude at
the central zone of web was as large as 23.5 mm in this case. For
the case of nL =nT =2 and Rw =0.6, pinch occurred under cyclic
loading, although no apparent strength degradation is observed in
the envelopes as shown in Fig. 4. Therefore an appropriate range
with 0.2ഛRw ഛ0.5 is recommended for shear panels acting as
PEDD.
Simplified Bilinear Hysteretic Model
Based on the numerical results and discussions presented above, a
simplified bilinear restoring model is proposed to simulate the
hysteretic behavior of stiffened shear panels used as passive
energy dissipating dampers. Fig. 5 shows the schematic of the
bilinear model with a kinematic hardening rule. The first point is
yield point ͑␶y ,␥y͒, and the second point is ultimate shear strength
point ͑␶u ,␥u͒, here ␥u is taken as 20␥y. The initial stiffness K is
equal to shear modulus of elasticity. The second stiffness Ks
obtained from FEM analytical results is about 1–3% of K.
It is shown previously that shear panel is of good ductility up
to 20␥y when given Rw ഛ0.5. Ultimate shear strength ␶u is then
calculated as follows, considering the contributions from both the
web and flanges.
␶u = ␶w + ␶f ͑6͒
where ␶w and ␶f are average shear strength of web and flanges,
respectively.
Based on the numerical results, an empirical formula is pro-
posed for the shear force carried by the web by the least-squares
method as follows
␶w
␶y
= 0.918 +
0.038
Rw
2 ഛ 1.2 ͑7͒
This formula is capable of predicting the web’s shear strength
over the range of 0.2ഛRw ഛ0.7, ␥s /␥s
*
ജ3.0, tf /tw ജ4.0, and
0.5ഛ␣ഛ1.5. It is noted that although Eq. ͑7͒ is applicable even
for Rw Ͼ0.5, the suitable range for shear panel dampers is recom-
mended to be 0.2ഛRw ഛ0.5 as discussed previously. Besides the
strength capacity obtained from Eq. ͑7͒, the following equations
from Guidelines by RTRI ͑Railway Technical Research Institute
2000͒
␶w
␶y
= 0.6 +
1.02
3.82Rw − 0.26
͑8͒
and from the work of NEPC ͑Nagoya Expressway Public
Corporation 2002͒
␶w
␶y
= ͩ0.662
Rw
ͪ0.333
͑9͒
are plotted in Fig. 6. Numerical results of the present study and
experimental results obtained by Takahashi and Shinabe ͑1997͒
are also plotted in Fig. 6. It should be noted that Eq. ͑8͒ proposed
by Guidelines ͑RTRI 2000͒ is based on the work of Takahashi and
Shinabe ͑1997͒, and ␶w =␶u −␶fЈ. Here ␶u represents experimental
results of shear panels while ␶fЈ stands for experimental results
of a frame composed of flanges and end plates only. Due to ne-
glecting the interaction of plate members, ␶fЈ is underestimated
compared to the shear force actually resisted by the flanges in the
shear panels. As a result, it is unavoidable to overestimate ␶w. On
the other hand, Eq. ͑9͒ proposed by NEPC ͑2002͒ is based on the
web with two stiffeners in the middle of the box sectional beam of
a rigid frame. As shown in Fig. 6, the curve of NEPC ͑2002͒ is
almost identical with the curve of the proposed equation and the
numerical results of shear panels with two and three stiffeners.
However, no upper and lower bounds in Eq. ͑9͒ are presented by
NEPC ͑2002͒.
With increase of web thickness, the contribution of thick
flanges to the load-carrying capacity of shear panels increases. It
has been found in the present analysis that the shear force com-
ponent resisted by flanges is about 13–20% of the total shear
strength ͑see Table 1͒. The contribution of flanges to the shear
force capacity should be considered in strength prediction of
Fig. 4. Cyclic shear stress-shear strain envelopes ͑nL=nT=2͒
Fig. 5. Proposed bilinear model with kinematic hardening rule
Fig. 6. Strength comparison of stiffened webs under shear
J. Struct. Eng., 2006, 132(3): 478-483

shear panels. However, the method proposed in the Guidelines
͑RTRI 2000͒ underestimates the shear resistance of the flanges, as
the strength is determined by assuming full plastic states at both
ends of the flanges. Accordingly, a new formula is suggested to
evaluate the shear force resisted by the flanges, given by
␶f
␶y
= 0.0287
bf
bw
·
tf
tw
ͩtf
tw
·
1
͑nL + 1͒Rw␣
+ 2ͪ ͑10͒
Comparisons of ultimate shear strengths of shear panels between
analytical results and predictions by Eq. ͑6͒ with Eqs. ͑7͒ and ͑10͒
are shown in Fig. 7. The ultimate shear strengths calculated
from the proposed equation are compatible with the FEM results
conservatively.
The values of corresponding cumulative dissipated energy
calculated from the proposed bilinear model are listed in Table 1.
In the cases of Rw =0.4, the errors in estimations of the total
dissipated energy are within 5%. For the other cases, the errors
are within ±13%. The discrepancy between the predictions and
FEM results is mainly due to a difference in the peak strength of
the analysis and prediction in each cycle. Therefore it can be
concluded that the proposed bilinear model is simple but reason-
ably accurate for design purposes.
Conclusions
An extensive analytical study has been conducted on two-way
stiffened shear panels. For shear panels to be used as passive
energy dissipating devices, the range of 0.2ഛRw ഛ0.5 is suitable
for web slenderness parameter Rw. Within this range, the web
yields in full plastic manner before it buckles, pinch is avoided,
and excellent ductility and energy dissipation capacity are pro-
vided. A simple yet accurate bilinear restoring model is proposed
to represent the hysteretic behavior of stiffened shear panels. The
proposed model is expected to get use in time-history analysis of
a structural system with such type of shear panel dampers.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this technical note:
a ϭ web length;
bf ϭ flange width;
bw ϭ web depth;
Dw ϭ flexural rigidity per unit width of web;
E ϭ Young’s modulus of elasticity;
Ee ϭ elastic dissipated energy, taken as Qy⌬y /2;
Ei ϭ dissipated energy calculated for one cycle;
Is ϭ moment of inertia of stiffener, taken at the interaction
surface of stiffener and web;
K ϭ initial stiffness of proposed model;
Ks ϭ second stiffness of proposed model;
ks ϭ elastic buckling coefficient of a simply supported
plate under shear;
nL ,nT ϭ numbers of longitudinal and transverse stiffeners,
respectively;
Q ϭ summation of vertical reaction forces;
Rw ϭ web slenderness parameter;
tf ,tw ϭ thickness of flange and web, respectively;
␣ ϭ aspect ratio of web, ␣=a/bw;
␥ ϭ average shear strain;
␥s ϭ stiffener rigidity, defined as ␥s =EIs /bwDw;
␥s
*
ϭ optimum rigidity of stiffener;
⌬ ϭ transverse displacement applied to shear panel;
⌬y ϭ yield displacement of web under shear;
␦w ϭ initial out-of-plane deflection of web;
␯ ϭ Poisson’s ratio;
␴y ϭ tensile yield stress of steel material;
␶f ϭ predicted shear strength of flanges;
␶n ϭ average shear stress of shear panel damper;
␶u ϭ predicted ultimate shear strength of shear panel
damper;
␶w ϭ predicted shear strength of web; and
␶y ϭ shear yield stress of steel material, ␶y =␴y /ͱ3.
References
ABAQUS/Analysis user’s manual—version 6.4. ͑2003͒. ABAQUS, Inc.,
Pawtucket, R.I.
ASTM. ͑2005͒. “Standard specification for general requirements for
rolled structural steel bars, plates, shapes, and sheet piling.” ASTM
A6/A6M-05, American Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
Chusilp, P., and Usami, T. ͑2002͒. “New elastic stability formulas for
multiple-stiffened shear panels.” J. Struct. Eng., 128͑6͒, 833–836.
Chusilp, P., Usami, T., Ge, H. B., Maeno, H., and Aoki, T. ͑2002͒.
“Cyclic shear behavior of steel box girders: Experiment and analysis.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31͑11͒, 1993–2014.
Fukumoto, Y., ed. ͑1987͒. Guidelines for stability design of steel struc-
tures, Subcommittee on Stability Design, Committee on Steel
Structures, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo.
Gao, S., Usami, T., and Ge, H. ͑1998͒. “Ductility evaluation of steel
bridge piers with pipe sections.” J. Eng. Mech., 124͑3͒, 260–267.
Ge, H. B., and Usami, T. ͑1996͒. “Ultimate strength of steel outstands in
compression.” J. Struct. Eng., 122͑5͒, 573–578.
Hirabayashi, R., et al. ͑1995͒. “Development of the high ductile
shear panel using special mild steel ͑low yield strength steel͒ Part 2:
Test plan.” Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, AIJ,
475–476.
Housner, G. W., et al. ͑1997͒. “Structural control: Past, present, and
future.” J. Eng. Mech., 123͑9͒, 897–971.
Japanese Standards Association. ͑2004͒. “Rolled steels for general
structure.” JIS G3101, Tokyo.
Kasai, A., Watanabe, T., Amano, M., and Usami, T. ͑2001͒. “Strength and
ductility evaluation of stiffened steel plates subjected to cyclic shear
loading.” J. Struct. Eng., Tokyo, 47A, 761–770 ͑in Japanese͒.
Nagoya Expressway Public Corporation ͑NEPC͒. ͑2002͒. Seismic perfor-
mance evaluation criteria for partially concrete-filled steel piles
(proposal), Nagoya, Japan.
Nakashima, M. ͑1995͒. “Strain-hardening behavior of shear panels made
Fig. 7. Comparison of ultimate shear strength of shear panels
between analytical results and predictions
J. Struct. Eng., 2006, 132(3): 478-483

of low-yield steel I: Test.” J. Struct. Eng., 121͑12͒, 1742–1749.
Nakashima, M., et al. ͑1994͒. “Energy dissipation behavior of shear pan-
els made of low yield steel.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 23͑12͒,
1299–1313.
Railway Technical Research Institute ͑RTRI͒. ͑2000͒. Guidelines for
design of railway viaduct with dampers and braces, Tokyo.
Shen, C., Mamaghani, I. H. P., Mizuno, E., and Usami, T. ͑1995͒. “Cyclic
behavior of structural steels. II: Theory.” J. Eng. Mech., 121͑11͒,
1165–1172.
Takahashi, Y., and Shinabe, Y. ͑1997͒. “Experimental study on restoring
force characteristics of shear yielding thin steel plate elements.”
J. Struct. Constr. Eng., 494, 107–114.
J. Struct. Eng., 2006, 132(3): 478-483
View publication statsView publication stats

Ascest2006 chen geusami

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Ascest2006 chen geusami

Similar to Ascest2006 chen geusami (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ascest2006 chen geusami