Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 461–470

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Hysteretic model for steel–concrete composite shear walls subjected

to in-plane cyclic loading
Weiyi Zhao a, Quanquan Guo a,⇑, Zeyu Huang b, Li Tan a, Jun Chen a, Yinghua Ye a
a
School of Transportation Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
b
Architectural Design and Research Institute of Guangdong Province, Guangzhou 510010, China

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

Article history: Steel–concrete composite (SC) shear walls are being widely used as an alternative to reinforced concrete
Received 4 April 2014 walls. Investigations on seismic behavior of SC walls have been conducted to develop design
Revised 17 October 2015 specifications for safety-related nuclear facilities. However, there is a lack of hysteretic models that
Accepted 19 October 2015
can be used to predict structural performance as the structure approaches collapse. This paper presents
(a) the analysis of experimental results of 32 SC wall specimens, and (b) the derivation and calibration of
a quadri-linear backbone with negative post-peak stiffness and associated hysteretic rules. Different cross
Keywords:
section shapes and loading configurations were used to test the SC wall specimens. Based on the
Steel–concrete composite shear wall
Hysteretic model
experimental results, equations for stiffnesses and loads are derived from a mechanics based model,
Negative post-peak stiffness and basic hysteretic rules are employed to describe the response of SC walls subjected to in-plane cyclic
Collapse loading. Calibrations are conducted to suggest the reduction factors for the Young’s moduli of concrete
and steel that reflect the plasticity extension and damage accumulation.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Steel–concrete composite (SC) shear wall typically consists of
steel faceplates and plain concrete infill. The steel faceplates are
attached to the concrete with headed shear studs to ensure
deformation compatibility. Tie-bars, stiffeners or partitioning webs
connecting the two steel faceplates are designed to provide out-of-
plane shear resistance and confinement to the concrete (see Fig. 1).
The concept of SC wall was initially proposed for nuclear power
plants. In 1977, Japanese researchers Ichikawa et al. [1] suggested
using SC walls instead of reinforced concrete (RC) walls in the con-
tainment vessel to provide sufficient out-of-plane shear capacity at
the bottom cross section. Due to the high bearing capacity, excel-
lent impermeability, and construction efficiency, SC walls have
been widely used in high-rise buildings, nuclear power plants,
offshore structures, and impact resistance protective structures.
Since the 1990s, Japanese researchers have conducted a large
number of experimental and theoretical studies on SC walls sub-
jected to in-plane cyclic loading (e.g. Akiyama et al. [2], Takeuchi
et al. [3], Ozaki et al. [4,5]). Based on the results, a technical guide-
line (JEAG 4618-2005 [6]) for SC walls in safety-related nuclear
facilities was developed. Additional research was carried out in
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: qq_guo@buaa.edu.cn (Q. Guo).
South Korea (e.g. Eom et al. [7]), and a design guideline
(KEPIC-SNG [8]) was also developed. In the US, a series of studies
on SC structures were conducted by Varma et al. [9–13], and the
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) is currently drafting
a design specification for modular construction of SC walls. Over
the past five years, researchers in China have conducted similar
experimental research works (e.g. Nie et al. [14,15], Ji et al. [16],
Wu et al. [17], and Cheng et al. [18]), aiming at developing design
codes in compliance with the Chinese design standard system.
For the performance-based design of SC wall components,
hysteretic models are critical to the demand prediction as the
structure approaches collapse. Previously, several hysteretic
models have been developed for reinforced concrete components
(e.g. bilinear model developed by Clough and Johnston [19], and
trilinear model developed by Takeda et al. [20]).
For the case of SC walls, Akita et al. [21] developed trilinear
backbone curves for both the relationship between shear force
and shear strain (Q–c) and the relationship between bending
moment and curvature (M–U). Associated hysteretic rules were
presented in the design guideline JEAG 4618-2005. By considering
the deformations caused by bending and shear at the same time,
the load–displacement (Q–D) relationship can be described by a
smooth curve with five turning points [3]. However, this method
cannot describe the negative stiffness of post-peak response in
the whole loading process. Also, it is inconvenient for application

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.10.031
0141-0296/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
462 W. Zhao et al. / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 461–470

Fig. 1. Typical types of SC walls.

Table 1
Details of the SC wall specimens.

Reference Cross Loading Specimen ts tw hw tf bf H B/ts Ec Es fc fy

section type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (GPa) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Akiyama et al. (a) BS SS050 3.2 160 1440 – – 1800 50 19.9 206.0 24.0 305.0
[2] SS100 3.2 160 1440 – – 1800 100 19.7 206.0 24.0 305.0
SS150 3.2 160 1440 – – 1800 150 18.6 206.0 24.0 305.0
Takeuchi et al. (b) BS H10T05 2.3 115 1775 115 830 2060 33 20.7 203.0 29.7 286.0
[3] H10T10 2.3 230 1890 230 830 2060 33 23.4 203.0 32.7 286.0
H10T10V 2.3 230 1890 230 830 2060 33 23.4 203.0 32.7 286.0
H10T15 2.3 345 2005 345 830 2060 33 20.7 203.0 29.7 286.0
H07T10 2.3 230 1890 230 830 1650 33 20.7 203.0 29.7 286.0
H15T10 2.3 230 1890 230 830 2900 33 23.4 203.0 32.7 286.0
Ozaki et al. [4] (b) BS BS70T05 4.5 230 1890 115 945 1323 30 24.6 191.0 33.9 352.5
BS70T10 2.3 230 1890 115 945 1323 30 24.6 199.0 33.9 389.2
BS70T14 1.6 230 1890 115 945 1323 30 24.8 209.0 36.2 448.4
BS50T10 2.3 230 1890 115 945 945 30 24.8 199.0 36.2 389.2
BS85T10 2.3 230 1890 115 945 1607 30 24.6 199.0 33.9 389.2
Ozaki et al. [5] (c) US S2-00NN 2.3 200 1200 – – 1200 30 27.2 197.0 42.2 340.0
S2-15NN 2.3 200 1200 – – 1200 30 27.7 197.0 41.6 340.0
S2-30NN 2.3 200 1200 – – 1200 30 27.9 197.0 42.0 340.0
S3-00NN 3.2 200 1200 – – 1200 31 27.1 199.0 41.9 351.0
S3-15NN 3.2 200 1200 – – 1200 31 26.7 199.0 41.6 351.0
S3-30NN 3.2 200 1200 – – 1200 31 27.0 199.0 40.1 351.0
S3-00PS 3.2 200 1200 – – 1200 31 27.1 199.0 41.9 351.0
S3-00PN 3.2 200 1200 – – 1200 31 27.2 199.0 39.9 351.0
S4-00NN 4.5 200 1200 – – 1200 30 27.6 207.0 42.8 346.0
Cheng et al. [18] (d) BS SCW1-1a 3.0 150 1000 – – 1000 13 33.0 206.0 28.6 330.0
SCW1-1b 3.0 150 1000 – – 1000 13 33.0 206.0 28.6 330.0
SCW1-2a 3.0 150 1000 – – 1500 13 33.0 206.0 28.6 330.0
SCW1-2b 3.0 150 1000 – – 1500 13 33.0 206.0 28.6 330.0
SCW1-3 3.0 150 1000 – – 2000 13 33.0 206.0 28.6 330.0
SCW1-4 2.0 150 1000 – – 1000 20 33.0 206.0 28.6 307.0
SCW1-5 4.0 150 1000 – – 1000 10 33.0 206.0 28.6 361.0
SCW1-6 3.0 150 1000 – – 1000 27 33.0 206.0 28.6 330.0
SCW1-7 3.0 150 1000 – – 1000 20 33.0 206.0 28.6 330.0

BS: bending shear, US: uniform shear.

because the displacement caused by bending must be calculated
through the integration of the curvature U over the height of the
wall.
Based on the design force and moments demands, the
mechanics based model proposed by the Japanese researchers
was modified by Varma et al. [10], and an interaction surface in
principle force space was developed. The calculated trilinear
backbone was verified by the experimental results of pure
in-plane shear behavior; however, no hysteretic response was
studied, and the verification for bending shear behavior should
be included.
Wu and Zhang [22] conducted an experimental study on three
SC wall specimens and discussed the influence of the steel face-
plate thickness on ductility and energy-dissipation capacity. Wu
and Zhang developed a hysteretic model based on the experimen-
tal results; however, the sample number was insufficient, and no
theoretical derivations were presented.
This paper compiles the experimental results of 32 in-plane cyclic
loading test on SC wall specimens. Based on the analysis of the exper-
imental results, a quadri-linear backbone curve with negative stiffness
branch of post-peak response and simple hysteretic rules are
employed. The mechanics-based model proposed by the Japanese
 W. Zhao et al. / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 461–470 463

Akiyama et al. [2] performed studies on three specimens with

the ratio of the stud spacing (B) to the steel faceplate thickness
(ts) ranging from 50 to 150. For the cases of B/ts = 100 and 150,
buckling of the steel faceplates occurred before yielding; for the
case of B/ts = 50, buckling occurred after yielding. However, the
load–displacement relationship of all the three specimens were
similar, i.e. there was no sudden change in the load or displace-
ment due to buckling of the steel faceplates. For the other speci-
mens listed in Table 1, the ratio of B/ts was restricted to certain
values to ensure buckling of the steel faceplates occurred after
yielding.
In the specimens tested by Takeuchi et al. [3] and Ozaki et al.
[4], thick steel plates were used for the flanges to ensure shear fail-
ure would occur before bending failure. Cracks in the concrete and
buckling in the steel faceplates at an angle of 45° were observed in
all specimens, regardless of the shear span ratio. In the specimens
tested by Cheng et al. [18], partitioning webs near the edge of the
section were designed to enhance bending capacity; however, the
effect was limited and the failure pattern was dominated by bend-
ing failure.
Ozaki et al. [5] described the experimental investigations on
specimens subjected to uniform in-plane shear. In the absence of
the axial compression, the concrete cracked at an angle of 45°.
With an increase in the axial compression, the cracking angle
become larger (e.g. cracking angle up to 63° can be found in S2-
30NN). However, the stiffness at each turning point changed
slightly compared with the cases without the axial compression,
as shown in Table 2.

3. Derivation

3.1. Assumptions

To establish a hysteretic model for SC walls subjected to cyclic

in-plane load, the load–displacement relationship is simplified into

Fig. 2. Cross sections of the specimens.

researchers is further developed, and equations for the secant stiffness

at each turning point are derived. Calibrations are conducted to suggest
the reduction factors for Young’s moduli of concrete and steel.

2. Previous experimental research

Experimental investigations on more than one hundred SC wall

specimens subjected to cyclic in-plane loading have been con-
ducted. Of these tests, the detailed results of load and displacement
of 32 specimens were presented [2–5,18], which provides a basic
database for the derivations and calibrations.
Table 1 presents the details of the 32 SC wall specimens, includ-
ing the reported steel faceplate thickness (ts), section thickness
(tw), section depth (hw), flange thickness (tf), flange width (bf), wall
height (H), concrete Young’s modulus (Ec), steel faceplate Young’s
modulus (Es), concrete compressive strength (fc), and steel face-
plate yield strength (fy). The corresponding cross section shapes
and loading configurations are shown in Figs. 2 and 3.
All the experimental results showed that the loading process
can be divided into four stages, i.e. cracks occurred in the concrete;
the steel faceplates yielded; then reached maximum load; finally,
the load descended and failure occurred due to crushing of the con-
crete or tearing of the steel faceplates. Table 2 presents the exper-
imental results including the axial load (N), the lateral load (Q), and
the stiffness (K). The subscripts V and M identify the shear and
bending stiffness, respectively. The not measured values are repre-
sented by hyphens. Fig. 3. Loading configurations of the specimens.
464 W. Zhao et al. / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 461–470

Table 2
Experimental data sets of SC wall specimens.

Specimen N Cracking point Yield point Peak point

(MPa)
Q1 K1V (kN/ K1M (kN/ K1 (kN/ Q2 K2V (kN/ K2M (kN/ K2 (kN/ Q3 K3V (kN/ K3M (kN/ K3 (kN/
(kN) mm) mm) mm) (kN) mm) mm) mm) (kN) mm) mm) mm)
SS050 0.00 474 2380 – – 2250 1461 – – 3250 1001 – –
SS100 0.00 488 2020 – – – – – – 3224 921 – –
SS150 0.00 420 1710 – – – – – – 3245 773 – –
H10T05 0.00 400 – – 850 1310 – – 492 2630 – – 277
H10T10 0.00 510 – – 2210 2700 – – 701 4130 – – 298
H10T10V 3.00 1130 – – 1890 3190 – – 679 4980 – – 320
H10T15 0.00 660 – – 3090 3750 – – 872 6700 – – 286
H07T10 0.00 600 – – 2570 2888 – – 963 4710 – – 428
H15T10 0.00 420 – – 730 2348 – – 398 4000 – – 184
BS70T05 0.00 700 4290 27,210 3710 6210 1686 15,291 1519 7370 976 11,572 900
BS70T10 0.00 900 6110 26,910 5050 4280 1583 15,457 1436 5730 822 11,713 768
BS70T14 0.00 875 3880 29,150 3430 4340 1267 14,694 1167 5410 840 11,723 784
BS50T10 0.00 775 6690 80,660 6230 4590 2726 46,789 2576 6570 1593 37,672 1528
BS85T10 0.00 895 3950 13,430 3070 4150 1211 7644 1046 5450 722 6411 649
S2-00NN 0.00 299 2167 – 2167 2338 779 – 779 3024 385 – 385
S2-15NN 1.47 442 2769 – 2769 2379 731 – 731 3166 553 – 553
S2-30NN 2.94 553 2743 – 2743 2542 704 – 704 3166 450 – 450
S3-00NN 0.00 317 1971 – 1971 3132 867 – 867 3675 484 – 484
S3-15NN 1.47 392 2317 – 2317 3187 880 – 880 3832 472 – 472
S3-30NN 2.94 393 1761 – 1761 3233 885 – 885 3796 535 – 535
S3-00PS 0.00 357 2110 – 2110 2726 1136 – 1136 3653 457 – 457
S3-00PN 0.00 276 2035 – 2035 2399 995 – 995 3583 431 – 431
S4-00NN 0.00 356 2880 – 2880 3580 1484 – 1484 4175 805 – 805
SCW1-1a 9.74 – – – – 1098 – – 471 1782 – – 223
SCW1-1b 9.74 – – – – 1072 – – 393 1612 – – 202
SCW1-2a 9.74 – – – – 652 – – 163 1035 – – 77
SCW1-2b 9.74 – – – – 684 – – 187 954 – – 83
SCW1-3 9.74 – – – – 500 – – 99 604 – – 76
SCW1-4 8.15 – – – – 700 – – 343 962 – – 160
SCW1-5 11.33 – – – – 1264 – – 556 1972 – – 248
SCW1-6 9.74 – – – – 1200 – – 417 1568 – – 157
SCW1-7 9.74 – – – – 900 – – 440 1659 – – 193

plasticity, the reduction factors gc and gs for the Young’s moduli

Fig. 4. Quadri-linear backbone curve and turning points.
a quadri-linear backbone curve, as shown in Fig. 4. The turning
points of the backbone curve are cracking point, yield point, peak
point, and ultimate point, respectively. According to GB/T 50152-
2012 [23], failure is assumed to occur when the load descends to
85% peak load in structure test and ductility analysis. Therefore,
this point is used as the ultimate point.
The stress distributions in the concrete and the steel faceplates
change with the loading level. The model proposed by Takeuchi
et al. [3] is further developed to describe the behavior of the mate-
rials, as shown in Fig. 5. In consideration of the extension of
of concrete and steel are calibrated from the experimental results,
which reflects the average Young’s moduli of the materials along
the whole section.
Before the cracking point, concrete is considered to be an isotro-
pic elastic material; however, the concrete can only carry compres-
sive load in the diagonal direction after it cracks, and the Young’s
modulus descends due to plasticity extension and damage accu-
mulation. The angle between the cracks and the lateral load is
assumed to be 45°.
Before the yield point, steel is considered to be an isotropic elas-
tic material; however, the steel faceplates can only carry tensile
load in the diagonal direction due to buckling at the peak point.
The Young’s modulus is also reduced as the steel undergoes plastic.
The angle between the buckling and the lateral load is assumed to
be 45°.
The concrete and the steel faceplates are assumed to be per-
fectly bonded by the effect of sufficient studs. Hence, the gross
axial rigidity EA, flexural rigidity EI and shear rigidity GA can be
obtained by the principle of superposition:
EA ¼ Ec Ac þ Es As ð1Þ
EI ¼ Ec Ic þ Es Is ð2Þ
GA ¼ Gc Acw þ Gs Asw ð3Þ
where Ec and Es are the Young’s moduli of concrete and steel, Gc and
Gs are the shear moduli of concrete and steel, Ac and As are the sec-
tional areas of the concrete and the steel faceplates, Ic and Is are the
area moments of inertia of the concrete and the steel faceplates, and
Acw and Asw are the effective sectional areas of the concrete and the
steel faceplates.
 W. Zhao et al. / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 461–470 465

Fig. 5. Stress distributions in the concrete and the steel faceplates.

Fig. 6. Effective sectional areas for an H-shaped cross section.

For the case of an H-shaped cross section, the shear stress at relationship between the load Q and the displacement D is
flanges is relatively small (see Fig. 6a). Therefore, both the shear described as follows:
rigidity and the shear load at each turning point are calculated as !
a rectangular section without considering the effect of flange, i.e. H 3 ks H
D ¼ DM þ DV ¼ þ Q ð4Þ
the effective sectional area of the concrete Acw is the shaded part 3EI GA
and the effective sectional area of the steel faceplates Asw is the
bold line part in Fig. 6b and c. where DM is the displacement caused by bending, DV is the dis-
placement caused by shear, H is the height of the wall, and ks is
3.2. Stiffness the shear correction factor (ks = 1.2).
The elastic stiffness K1 is given in Eq. (5).
3.2.1. Elastic stiffness !1 " #1
According to the mechanics of materials, the lateral displace- H3 ks H H3 ks H
K1 ¼ þ ¼ þ ð5Þ
ment at the free end of the wall under the action of concentrated 3EI GA 3ðEc Ic þ Es Is Þ Gc Acw þ Gs Asw
force is caused by bending and shear, as shown in Fig. 7. The
466 W. Zhao et al. / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 461–470

Fig. 7. Lateral displacements caused by bending and shear.

Table 3
Optimal values of reduction factors for Young’s moduli of concrete and steel.

Specimen ayc apc aps auc aus

Fig. 8. Comparison between experimental values and calculated values of the
SS050 0.60 0.55 0.64 0.20 0.28 displacements caused by bending and shear.
SS100 – 0.51 0.59 0.35 0.22
SS150 – 0.32 0.62 0.23 0.36 For the case of SC walls with a rectangular cross section, the
S2-00NN 0.79 0.40 0.51 – – force equilibrium conditions are:
S2-15NN 0.57 0.38 0.80 – – 8
S2-30NN 0.49 0.45 0.57 – –
< Acx rcx þ Asx rsx ¼ 0
>
Acy rcy þ Asy rsy  N ¼ 0
S3-00NN 0.52 0.40 0.50 – –
ð9Þ
S3-15NN 0.56 0.22 0.70 – – >
:
S3-30NN 0.56 0.64 0.50 – – Acw sc þ Asw ss  Q ¼ 0
S3-00PS 1.00 0.46 0.42 – –
S3-00PN 0.73 0.27 0.47 – – where Acx and Asx are the sectional areas of the concrete and the
S4-00NN 1.00 0.76 0.58 – – steel faceplates in the x-direction, and Acy = Acw and Asy = Asw are
BS70T05 0.68 0.20 0.54 0.13 0.30 the sectional areas of the concrete and the steel faceplates in the
BS70T10 0.59 0.20 0.60 0.12 0.28 y-direction.
BS70T14 0.70 0.40 0.62 0.10 0.34
BS50T10 0.65 0.33 0.61 0.16 0.29
According to the experimental results, the axial compression N
BS85T10 0.59 0.24 0.68 0.15 0.37 has a very limited influence on the stiffnesses at each turning point
Average 0.67 0.40 0.59 0.18 0.31
is small (N = 0). The reinforcement ratios in the two directions are
considered to be the same neglecting the effect of stiffeners and
partitioning webs (qs = Asx/Acx = Asy/Acy). In consideration of the
nonuniform distribution of the shear stress, the shear correction
3.2.2. Secant stiffness at the yield point
factor ks is introduced in the derivation. Solving these equations
At the yield point, the concrete has cracked and become an ani-
yields the relationship between the load and the shear
sotropic material as shown in Fig. 5. The stress–strain relationship
displacement:
is described as follows:
2 3 2 3 2 3 ks H
rcx 0 0 0 ex DV ¼ Q ð10Þ
6 7 6 7 6 7 ayc Gc Acw þ Gs Asw
4 rcy 5 ¼ ½T 1  gyc Ec 4 0 1 0 5½T 2 4 ey 5
1
ð6Þ
sc 0 0 0 c ð1 þ mc Þgyc
ayc ¼ ð11Þ
where gyc is the reduction factor for concrete Young’s modulus at 2 þ ð1  ms Þgyc =ðaE qs Þ
the yield point, [T1] is the stress transformation matrix, and [T2] is
the strain transformation matrix. where ayc is the reduction factor for the rigidity of the concrete at
2 3 the yield point, mc and ms are the Poisson’s ratios of concrete and
2
cos2 h sin h sin 2h steel, aE is the ratio of steel Young’s modulus to concrete Young’s
6 7
½T 1  ¼ 4 2
sin h cos h
2
 sin 2h 5 modulus (aE = Es/Ec), and qs is the reinforcement ratio (qs = Asw/
 sin h cos h sin h cos h cos2h Acw).
In the models presented by Takeuchi et al. [3], Ozaki et al. [5]
2 2
3 and Akita et al. [21], the value of gyc was assumed to be 0.7. In this
cos2 h sin h sin h cos h
6 7 paper, further calibrations by optimization method are conducted
½T 2  ¼ 4 sin2 h cos2 h  sin h cos h 5 to confirm this assumption, i.e. an optimal value is chosen between
 sin 2h sin 2h cos 2h 0 and 1 that makes the calculated stiffness closest to the experi-
Inserting h = 45° yields mental result. According to the measured shear displacements of
2 3 2 32 3 17 specimens, the optimal values for each specimen are given in
rcx 1 1 1 ex Table 3. Note that the average is 0.67, which is very close to the
6 7 gyc Ec 6 76 7
4 rcy 5 ¼ 4 1 1 1 54 ey 5 ð7Þ value recommended by the Japanese researchers. Finally, the value
4
sc 1 1 1 c of gyc is determined to be 0.7. Also, the Poisson’s ratios of concrete
and steel mc = 0.2 and ms = 0.3 are used to simplify Eq. (11):
Steel is an isotropic elastic material before buckling. The stress–
0:84
strain relationship of steel is described as follows: ayc ¼ ð12Þ
2 3 2 32 3 2 þ 0:49=ðaE qs Þ
rsx 1 ms 0 ex
6 7 Es 6
m 0 7 6 7
4 rsy 5 ¼ 4 s 1 54 ey 5 ð8Þ The flexural displacement and shear displacement of only five
1  m2s 1ms of the specimens were measured (see Table 2). As shown in
ss 0 0 2 c Fig. 8, the proportions of the flexural displacements descend with
 W. Zhao et al. / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 461–470 467

ð1 þ ms Þgps
aps ¼ ð20Þ
1 þ gps aE qs =gpc

where apc and aps are the reduction factors for the rigidity of the
concrete and the steel faceplates at the peak point.
The optimal values of the Young’s moduli of concrete and steel
(gpc and gps) for each specimen are also calibrated from the exper-
imental results, as shown in Table 3. According to the average, the
values of gpc and gps are determined to be 0.4 and 0.6, respectively.
Eqs. (19) and (20) are simplified to
0:48
apc ¼ ð21Þ
1 þ ð1:5aE qs Þ1

0:78
aps ¼ ð22Þ
1 þ 1:5aE qs
Fig. 9. Basic hysteretic rules.
3.2.4. Secant stiffness at the ultimate point
The equations for the ultimate point have the same form of
the increase of the load level. According to the experimental those at the peak point due to the same stress distributions; how-
results, the flexural rigidity can be reduced by the same factor ever, the value of the reduction factors for the Young’s moduli of
that is used for the shear rigidity. This method is also employed concrete and steel (guc and gus) descend due to further plasticity
in the derivation of the peak point and the ultimate point, which extension. The optimal values for each specimen are given in
makes a satisfactory agreement with the experimental results. Table 3. According to the average, guc = 0.2 and gus = 0.3 are used.
Consequently, the relationship between the load and the flexural Note that guc/gpc = gus/gps = 0.5, hence, the secant stiffness at the
displacement is described as: ultimate point K4 is simply described as:
H3 K 4 ¼ 0:5K 3 ð23Þ
DM ¼ Q ð13Þ
3ðayc Ec Ic þ Es Is Þ
Thus, the gross secant stiffness at the yield point K2 is obtained 3.3. Load
through superposition:
" #1 3.3.1. Cracking load
H3 ks H The maximum moment is located at the fixed end, i.e. M = QH.
K2 ¼ þ ð14Þ
3ðayc Ec Ic þ Es Is Þ ayc Gc Ac þ Gs As When the tensile stress at the edge of this cross section reaches
the concrete tensile strength ft, horizontal cracks occur and the
moment is defined as bending cracking moment Mcr. According
3.2.3. Secant stiffness at the peak point to the distribution of the flexural rigidities of the concrete and
At the peak point, the plasticity extension goes further in the the steel faceplates, and take the axial compression N into consid-
concrete; meanwhile, the steel becomes an anisotropic material eration, the bending cracking moment Mcr is described as:
due to buckling. The stress–strain relationship of concrete and
Ec Ic þ Es Is
steel are described as follows: Mcr ¼  Z c ðf t þ rcN Þ ¼ ½Z c þ ðEs =Ec Þ  Z s   ðf t þ rcN Þ ð24Þ
2 3 2 32 3 Ec I c
rcx 1 1 1 ex
6 7 gpc Ec 6 76 7 where Zc is the section modulus of the concrete, Zs is the section
4 rcy 5 ¼ 4 1 1 1 54 ey 5 ð15Þ
modulus of the steel faceplates, and rcN is the compressive stress
4
sc 1 1 1 c caused by axial compression N (compression is assumed positive).
2 3 2 3 2 3 rcN ¼ Ec =ðEc Ac þ Es As Þ  N ð25Þ
rsx 1 0 0 ex
6 7 6 7 6 7
4 rsy 5 ¼ ½T 1  gps Es 4 0 0 0 5½T 2 4 ey 5
1
ð16Þ Shear cracks in diagonal directions occur when the shear stress
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ss 0 0 0 c in the concrete reaches a critical value f t ðf t þ rcN Þ. The corre-
sponding force is defined as shear cracking force Qcr. According
Inserting h = 45° into Eq. (16) yields to the distribution of the shear rigidities of the concrete and the
2 3 2 32 3
rsx 1 1 1 ex steel faceplates, the shear cracking force Qcr is described as:
6 7 gps Es 6 76 7 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4 rsy 5 ¼ 4 1 1 1 54 ey 5 ð17Þ Gc Acw þ Gs Asw
4 Q cr ¼  Acwf t ðf t þ rcN Þ
ss 1 1 1 c Gc Acw
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where gpc and gps are the reduction factors for the Young’s moduli ¼ ½Acw þ ðGs =Gc ÞAsw   f t ðf t þ rcN Þ ð26Þ
of concrete and steel at the peak point.
Similar to the derivation of the yield point, the secant stiffness Finally, the cracking load Q1 is determined by the minimum
at the peak point K3 is presented as follows: value of the bending cracking moment and shear cracking force.
" #1 Q 1 ¼ minfM cr =H; Q cr g ð27Þ
H3 ks H
K3 ¼ þ ð18Þ
3ðapc Ec Ic þ aps Es Is Þ apc Gc Ac þ aps Gs As
3.3.2. Yield load
When the tensile stress at the edge of the cross section with the
ð1 þ mc Þgpc
apc ¼ ð19Þ maximum moment reaches the steel yield stress fy, yielding occur
1 þ gpc =ðgps aE qs Þ in the steel faceplates and the moment is defined as bending yield
468 W. Zhao et al. / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 461–470

Fig. 10. Comparison between experimental values and calculated values of the stiffnesses (K1–K4).

Fig. 11. Comparison between experimental values and calculated values of the loads (Q1–Q3).

moment My. The reduced rigidities derived above are used and the Finally, the peak load Q3 is determined by the minimum of the
bending yield moment My is described as: bending capacity and shear capacity:
ayc Ec Ic þ Es Is Q 3 ¼ minfMp =H; Q p g ð33Þ
My ¼  Z s f y ¼ ½ðayc Ec =Es Þ  Z c þ Z s   f y ð28Þ
Es I s
Shear yielding occurs when the shear stress of the steel face- 3.3.4. Ultimate load
pffiffiffi
plates reaches the shear strength f yy ¼ f y = 3. The shear yield force The ultimate load Q4 is 0.85 times the peak load:
Qy is described as: Q 4 ¼ 0:85Q 3 ð34Þ
ayc Gc Acw þ Gs Asw
Qy ¼  Asw f yv ¼ ½ðayc Gc =Gs Þ  Acw þ Asw Þ  f yv ð29Þ
Gs Asw 3.4. Hysteretic rules
Finally, the yield load Q2 is determined by the minimum of the
bending yield load and shear yield force. In most studies of the seismic evaluation of single-degree-of-
freedom (SDOF) systems, hysteretic rules without stiffness deteri-
Q 2 ¼ minfM y =H; Q y g ð30Þ oration were employed. Ibarra et al. [26] developed a trilinear
monotonic backbone and modified the basic hysteretic rules to
include deterioration properties. Similar calibrations are also pre-
3.3.3. Peak load
sented by Chenouda et al. [27], Haselton et al. [28], Rodrigues
Many research works were conducted on the bearing capacity
et al. [29], and Skalomenos et al. [30]. Considering the lack of stud-
of SC walls. The equations previously developed by the authors
ies on the monotonic response of SC walls, the envelope of the
[24,25] are employed, which agrees well with the experimental
load–displacement relationship is treated as the backbone curve,
results.
and basic hysteretic rules similar to the peak-oriented rules in
The bending capacity Mp is described as:
( the modified Clough model are employed. As shown in Fig. 9, the
Mp ¼ A0s f y hw þ M c þ M sw hysteretic rules can be described as follows:
ð31Þ
N ¼ A0s f y þ C c þ N sw  T s
(a) The wall is elastic before the cracking point. The loading
The shear capacity Qp is described as: stiffness and the unloading stiffness are the elastic stiffness
K1.
1 0:65  f c =180 1
Qp ¼ Acw f c þ Asw f y þ 0:2N ð32Þ (b) Between the cracking point and the yield point, the unload-
2 k þ 0:15 2 ing curve points to the cracking point on the opposite side
where A0s is the sectional area of the steel faceplates in compression, (e.g. 2–3).
Mc is the moment about the edge of the tensile side resisted by the (c) After the yield point, the unloading stiffness is the secant
compressive concrete, Msw is the moment about the edge of the ten- stiffness at yield point K2 (e.g. 5–6, 9–10, 13–14). Once the
sile side resisted by the web steel faceplates, Cc is the resultant force horizontal axial is reached, the reloading path always points
resisted by the compressive concrete, Nsw is the resultant force to the previous maximum (or minimum) displacement (e.g.
resisted by the web steel faceplates, Ts is the resultant force resisted 10–11, 18–19).
by the tensile steel faceplates, and k is the shear span ratio (k = 0.5 if (d) The halfway unloading stiffness is the secant stiffness at the
k < 0.5 and k = 0.85 if k > 0.85). yield point K2 (e.g. 15–16, 17–18).
 W. Zhao et al. / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 461–470 469

Fig. 12. Comparison between experimental results and calculated results of the backbone curve.

Fig. 13. Comparison between experimental results and calculated results of the hysteretic response.

(e) The stable loop after the cracking point should be a
parallelogram-shaped loop.
4. Verification
Fig. 10 presents the comparison between experimental values
and calculated values of the stiffnesses (K1–K4). For the specimens
tested by Akiyama et al. [2] and Ozaki et al. [5], only the displace-
ments caused by shear were measured. As a result, the values of
these 12 specimens shown in Fig. 10 are the shear stiffnesses.
The average values (coefficients of variation, CV) of the ratio of
experimental value to calculated value are 0.937 (0.025), 0.997
(0.012), 0.898 (0.043) and 1.043 (0.019), respectively.
Fig. 11 presents the comparison between experimental values
and calculated values of the loads (Q1–Q3). The average values
(CV) of the ratio of experimental value to calculated value are
0.788 (0.234), 1.009 (0.038) 1.046 (0.007), respectively.
The comparison between experimental results and calculated
results of the backbone curve and the hysteretic response are
shown in Figs. 12 and 13. It is noted that the curves calculated
470 W. Zhao et al. / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 461–470
by the quadri-linear model agree well with the experimental
curves.
5. Conclusions
(a) The hysteretic response of an SC wall under cyclic in-plane
load can be described by a quadri-linear model. The four
turning points are cracking point, steel faceplate yield point,
peak point and ultimate point, respectively.
(b) According to the experimental results of 32 specimens, the
mechanics based model proposed by Japanese researchers
is further developed to include the negative stiffness of
post-peak response. The equations for secant stiffnesses
and loads at each turning point are derived.
(c) The Young’s moduli of concrete and steel are reduced due to
plasticity extension and damage accumulation. The values of
the reduction factors are calibrated by the method of
optimization.
(d) Basic hysteretic rules are employed to describe the response
of SC walls. The calculated results agree well with the exper-
imental results.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Beijing Natural Science Foundation
(Grant No. 8142026) and National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant No. 51578032). The authors greatly appreciate the
financial supports. However, the opinions presented in this paper
do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.
References
[1] Ichikawa K, Isobata O, Kawamata S. Design and analysis of reactor containment
of steel–concrete composite laminated shell. In: Proceedings of the 4th
international conference on structural mechanics in reactor technology
(SMiRT 4). San Francisco, USA; 1977.
[2] Akiyama H, Sekimoto H, Fukihara M, Nakanishi K, Hara K. A compression and
shear loading tests of concrete filled steel bearing wall. In: Proceedings of the
11th international conference on structural mechanics in reactor technology
(SMiRT 11). Tokyo, Japan; 1991. p. 323–8.
[3] Takeuchi M, Narikawa M, Matsuo I, Hara K, Usami S. Study on a concrete filled
structure for nuclear power plants. Nucl Eng Des 1998;179:209–23.
[4] Ozaki M, Akita S, Niwa N, Matsuo I, Usami S. Study on steel plate reinforced
concrete bearing wall for nuclear power plants Part 1: shear and bending
loading tests of SC walls. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference
on structural mechanics in reactor technology (SMiRT 16). Washington, DC,
USA; 2001.
[5] Ozaki M, Akita S, Osuga H, Nakayama T, Adachi N. Study on steel plate
reinforced concrete panels subjected to cyclic in-plane shear. Nucl Eng Des
2004;228:225–44.
[6] Japan Electric Association Nuclear Standards Committee. JEAG4618-2005.
Technical guidelines for aseismic design of steel plate reinforced concrete
structures-buildings and structures. Tokyo, Japan; 2005.
[7] Eom TS, Park HG, Lee CH, Kim JH, Chang IH. Behavior of double skin composite
wall subjected to in-plane cyclic loading. J Struct Eng 2009;135:1239–49.
[8] Korea Electric Association. KEPIC-SNG. Specification for safety-related steel
plate concrete structures for nuclear facilities; 2010.
[9] Varma AH, Malushte SR, Sener KC, Booth PN. Analysis recommendations for
steel-composite (SC) walls of safety-related nuclear facilities. In: Structures
congress 2012: ASCE; 2012. p. 1871–80.
[10] Varma AH, Malushte SR, Sener KC, Lai Z. Steel-plate composite (SC) walls for
safety related nuclear facilities: design for in-plane forces and out-of-plane
moments. Nucl Eng Des 2014;269:240–9.
[11] Zhang K, Varma AH, Malushte SR, Gallocher S. Effect of shear connectors on
local buckling and composite action in steel concrete composite walls. Nucl
Eng Des 2014;269:231–9.
[12] Epackachi S, Nguyen NH, Kurt EG, Whittaker AS, Varma AH. In-plane seismic
behavior of rectangular steel-plate composite wall piers. J Struct Eng 2014;80:
732–40.
[13] Epackachi S, Whittaker AS, Varma AH, Kurt EG. Finite element modeling of
steel-plate concrete composite wall piers. Eng Struct 2015;100:369–84.
[14] Nie J, Bu F, Fan J. Experimental research on seismic behavior of low shear-span
ratio composite shear wall with double steel plates and infill concrete. J Build
Struct 2011;32:74–81.
[15] Nie J, Tao M, Fan J, Bu F, Hu H, Ma X, et al. Research advances of composite
shear walls with double steel plates and filled concrete. Build Struct
2011:52–60.
[16] Ji XD, Jiang FM, Qian JR. Seismic behavior of steel tube–double steel plate–
concrete composite walls: experimental tests. J Constr Steel Res 2013;86:
17–30.
[17] Wu B, Liu C, Zhao X, Liu Q. Experimental study on seismic behavior of double
thin skin hybrid walls filled with demolished concrete lumps. J Build Struct
2011:116–25.
[18] Cheng W, Tian C, Wang C, Yang X, Sun Y. Experimental study of steel–
concrete–steel sandwich composite shear walls. Earthq Resistant Eng
Retrofitting 2014:40–7.
[19] Clough RW, Johnston SB. Effect of stiffness degradation on earthquake ductility
requirements. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Japan earthquake engineering
symposium. Tokyo, Japan; 1966. p. 227–32.
[20] Takeda T, Sozen MN, Nielsen NN. Reinforced concrete response to simulated
earthquakes. J Struct Div 1970;96:2557–73.
[21] Akita S, Ozaki M, Niwa N, Matsuo I, Hara K. Study on steel plate reinforced
concrete bearing wall for nuclear power plants Part 2: analytical method to
evaluate response of SC walls. In: Proceedings of the 16th international
conference on structural mechanics in reactor technology (SMiRT 16).
Washington, DC, USA; 2001.
[22] Wu J, Zhang X. Study on seismic behavior of steel plate reinforced concrete
shear walls. J Vib Shock 2011:88–90.
[23] GB/T 50152-2012. Standard test method of concrete structures. Beijing
(China): Architecture and Building Press; 2012.
[24] Guo Q, Zhao W, Huang Z, Tan L. Theoretical research of steel plate and
concrete composite shear wall in HTR. Beijing (China): Beihang University;
2014.
[25] Guo Q, Huang Z, Zhao W, Ke F, Tan L. Calculation method for shear bearing
capacity of steel–concrete composite shear wall. J Build Struct 2015;36:
145–50.
[26] Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H. Hysteretic models that incorporate
strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2005;34:
1489–512.
[27] Chenouda M, Ayoub AS. Inelastic displacement ratios of degrading systems. J
Struct Eng 2008;134:1030–45.
[28] Haselton CB, Liel AB, Lange ST, Deierlein GG. Beam–column element model
calibrated for predicting flexural response leading to global collapse of RC
frame buildings. Berkeley (California, USA): Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center; 2008.
[29] Rodrigues H, Romão X, Andrade-Campos A, Varum H, Arêde A, Costa AG.
Simplified hysteretic model for the representation of the biaxial bending
response of RC columns. Eng Struct 2012;44:146–58.
[30] Skalomenos KA, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Parameter identification of
three hysteretic models for the simulation of the response of CFT columns to
cyclic loading. Eng Struct 2014;61:44–60.