Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110994

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Seismic behavior of composite shear walls incorporating high-strength T

materials and CFST boundary elements
Jianwei Zhanga, , Xiangyu Lia, , Wanlin Caoa, Cheng Yub
⁎ ⁎

a
Faculty of Urban Construction, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, China
b
Department of Engineering Technology, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76207, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: An innovative shear wall was proposed, which was composed of high-strength concrete and steel rebars, as well
High-strength steel rebars as concrete-encased CFST columns embedded at boundary elements. To study the cyclic and resilient behavior of
Steel fiber reinforced high-strength concrete the proposed wall, four walls with shear span ratios of 2.2 were designed and tested under quasi-static cyclic
Concrete-encased concrete filled steel tube loads. The test parameters were the type of longitudinal bars at boundary elements, the presence of steel fibers,
(CFST) columns
and the axial compression ratio. As test results showed, within the limit of axial compression ratio, the proposed
Composite shear wall
Seismic performance
shear walls had small residual deformation until a 2% loading drift ratio; after that, the hysteresis curve became
Reparability full and the energy dissipation capacity increased, indicating the desirable collapse resistance. Specifically, the
use of ultra-high strength longitudinal bars at boundary elements significantly decreased the residual de-
formation and improved the reparability. In addition, steel fibers effectively enhanced the deformation capacity
of the proposed walls. Finally, given the confined effects of CFST columns and stirrups on concrete, a prediction
model for the lateral load-bearing capacity was established. The comparison between predicted and test results
from this study and existing research verified the good accuracy of this model.

1. Introduction
As key seismic members, reinforced concrete (RC) shear walls have
advantages of high bearing capacity and lateral stiffness, thus have
been widely used in high-rise and complex constructions in recent
years. The RC shear walls at lower stories of these constructions are
susceptible to high axial compressive forces and bending moments.
Using high-strength materials like high-strength concrete (HSC) and
high-strength (HS) reinforcing bars can reduce the size of the wall, save
construction materials, and enhance urban sustainability [1,2], while
meeting the requirements of axial force ratio as specified in existing
codes [3,4].
To avoid the brittleness of HSC and improve the seismic property of
HSC shear walls, effective methods proposed by a number of re-
searchers can be divided into three types. One is to use HS bars as
longitudinal bars or stirrups [5]; the next one is to adopt fibrous ma-
terials, such as fiber-reinforced concrete or fiber-reinforced-polymer
(FRP) bars [6,7]; the third one is to use structural steels, steel tubes or
steel plates to constitute a composite shear wall [8–10]. However, the
use of HSC in existing projects has become more common, and a single
improvement method can no longer meet the demands of structural
earthquake resistance. Therefore, innovation and improvement in
materials, structural forms, and design concepts are required to com-
bine advantages of high-performance materials and multiple composite
forms [11,12].
Among various forms of composite shear walls, enhancing the
boundary elements is an effective way to strengthen the seismic beha-
vior of shear walls, as suggested by codes [3,13]. There are roughly
three kinds of steel–concrete composite boundary elements, including
steel reinforced concrete [14], concrete-filled steel tubes (CFSTs) [15],
and concrete encased CFSTs [16], as presented in Fig. 1. The form of
concrete encased CFSTs was chosen in this research, as mentioned in
Fig. 1(c). The concrete-encased CFST boundary elements can still resist
part of the seismic force and considerable axial compressive force after
the wall web degenerates gradually. Furthermore, this form features
convenient construction, good fire resistance, and high constraining
effect of steel tubes, compared to the other two forms. As for these shear
walls with concrete-encased CFST boundary elements, Qian et al. [16]
investigated the seismic behavior of this composite wall subjected to
high axial forces. The influences of steel tube area ratio, axial com-
pression ratio, wall cross-sectional shapes were analyzed, and a sim-
plified model for load-bearing capacity was proposed. Zhang et al. [17]
proved the concrete-encased CFST boundary elements can be utilized to
build up the seismic behavior of HSC walls. Ren et al. [18] innovated a

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: zhangjw@bjut.edu.cn (J. Zhang), lixiangyu@emails.bjut.edu.cn (X. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110994
Received 4 April 2020; Received in revised form 17 June 2020; Accepted 19 June 2020
0141-0296/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Zhang, et al.
Fig. 1. RC walls with steel–concrete composite boundary elements.
composite shear wall combining CFSTs and FRP tubes as boundary
elements. Research revealed that the energy dissipation capacity and
deformation capacity of this composite wall with FRP tubes were
greater than that of the ordinary composite walls. Wu et al. [19] carried
out study on hysteretic behavior of the precast composite shear walls.
The innovation was the use of CFSTs to completely replace the steel
bars in boundary elements. Guan et al. [20] proved this kind of shear
walls with high-strength manufactured sand concrete exhibited su-
perior self-centering and collapse resistance capacity. In addition, re-
searchers focused on the axial compression, shear, as well as combined
tensile and shear behavior of this kind of composite shear walls
[21–23].
On the other hand, a large number of recent earthquake disasters
have shown that even if traditional seismic structures after a moderate
or strong earthquake would not collapse, they could be severely da-
maged and hardly repaired. Most of them need to be demolished and
rebuilt, causing great demand of manpower and material resources.
Hence, it has been a new and essential research direction to develop
composite shear walls with good seismic performance and reparability.
Research on shear walls with resilience mainly focused on shear walls
with replaceable members [24], shear walls utilizing a rocking me-
chanism [25], and unbonded post-tensioned precast (UPTP) concrete
walls [26]. Furthermore, a new design concept is to use HS bars as main
load-carrying bars, which feature great elasticity and high tensile
strength, thus the yielding of reinforcements can be delayed and the
residual deformation of walls can be reduced, leading to a high post-
earthquake repairable performance [27–29].
To date, little research has been performed on the cyclic and re-
silient behavior of the composite shear walls incorporating high-
strength materials and concrete-encased CFSTs. To fill up research gaps
as mentioned above, an innovative composite shear wall, which was
Table 1
Main parameters of the specimens.
Specimen number Type of longitudinal bars (MPa) Designed axial force ratio nd
SNB1 HRB 600 MPa 0.4
SNL1 SRUHS 0.4
SNL0 SRUHS 0.4
SHL1 SRUHS 0.6
Note: The design axial force ratio nd is calculated according to the Chinese code JGJ 138-2016 [13]. The shear strength-to-demand ratio γ can be obtained by γ = Vn/
Vf, where Vn is the nominal shear strength, Vf is the nominal flexural strength, predicted by Chinese code [13].
2
Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110994
composed of HSC and HS bars, as well as concrete-encased CFST col-
umns embedded at boundary elements was investigated in this study.
The cyclic behavior and reparability of four shear walls were analyzed
under cyclic lateral loading experiments. Effects of the type of long-
itudinal bars at boundary elements, the presence of steel fibers, also the
axial compression ratio were analyzed. Finally, a prediction model for
the lateral load-bearing capacity was established and verified.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Test specimens design
The shear span ratio of four specimens were designed to be 2.2. It
can be seen from Table 1 that the parameters included the type of
longitudinal bars at boundary elements, the presence of steel fibers, and
the axial force ratio. All specimens had a same steel tube ratio of 2.14%,
which is defined as the cross-sectional area ratio of the steel tube to the
shear wall, whilst a stirrup volume ratio of 4.16%, which is calculated
as the volume ratio of the boundary hoop bars to the hoop-confined
concrete. Furthermore, the shear strength-to-demand ratios of all spe-
cimens were greater than 1, with a minimum value of 1.37, which
shows specimens were designed to fail in flexural modes (see Table 1).
As for the specimen designation, “S” represents the shear wall; the
second letter “N” or “H” refers to the normal axial force ratio of 0.4 or
the high axial force ratio of 0.6 (i.e., beyond the limit of Chinese code
[13]), respectively; the third letter “B” or “L” indicates two types of
longitudinal bars in boundary elements, that is, hot-rolled ribbed bar
with nominal yield strength of 600 MPa (namely HRB 600 MPa bar),
and spiral ribbed ultra-high strength (SRUHS) bar with nominal yield
stress of 1200 MPa, respectively; and the last number “1” or “0” denotes
the steel fiber volume ratios of 1% or 0%, respectively. Fig. 2 exhibits
the dimension and reinforcement features of all specimens. It can be
seen that all specimens have the same external dimensions, with a
height of 1600 mm, and a rectangular cross-section of
800 mm × 150 mm. Two circular steel tubes with a same diameter of
89 mm and a thickness of 4.85 mm were installed in the two boundary
elements of shear walls. The upper and lower ends of steel tubes were
anchored to a loading beam and a foundation beam, respectively. The
steel plates were welded between two steel tubes to form a whole steel
skeleton. Furthermore, in order to enhance the effective anchoring of
the SRUHS bars in specimens SNL1, SNL0, and SHL1, and to prevent the
bars from being pulled out from loading beam and foundation, pre-
stressed anchorage devices were applied to both ends of SRUHS bars,
and steel plates were arranged above the anchors, as shown in Fig. 2(c).
2.2. Material characteristics
2.2.1. Concrete
Two kinds of C80 grade high-strength concrete (HSC) were adopted
in this experiment: steel fiber-reinforced HSC and HSC without fibers.
The ordinary portland cement (P.O.52.5R), rough aggregate with a
maximum size of 20 mm and natural medium sand were mixed when
pouring concrete. The steel fibers used feature hoop-end shape, with an
average diameter of 0.75 mm, a length of 22 mm, and a tensile strength
of 1170 MPa. The detailed composition and the mechanical properties
Steel fiber volume ratio Vf (%) Shear strength-to-demand ratio γ
1.0 1.54
1.0 1.44
0 1.37
1.0 1.42
J. Zhang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110994

Fig. 2. Dimensions and reinforcement details of specimens.

Table 2
Mix proportion and mechanical properties of concrete.
Concrete type Mix proportion of concrete (kg/m3) fcu (MPa) fc (MPa) fc (MPa) ft (MPa) Es(×104MPa)

Steel fiber Water Cement Silica fume Mineral Coal ash Sand Stone Water
powder reducer

C80 0.0 179.5 457.1 30.0 60.0 60.0 651.0 1080.0 13.4 79.56 65.24 66.13 4.39 3.73
F80 78.5 176.3 448.6 29.6 59.1 59.1 650.0 1020.0 14.0 82.34 67.52 68.50 5.82 3.85

Note: fcu , fc , fc are the measured cubic compressive strength, prismatic compressive strength, and cylinder compressive strength, respectively, as calculated by
fc = 0.82 × fcu [31] and fc = 0.8513fcu 1.5998 [32]. The tensile strength of non-fiber-reinforced concrete is calculated by ft = 0.395 × f cu 0.55
[31], and that of steel
fiber-reinforced concrete is calculated by ft = 0.395 × f cu
0.55
(1 + t f l f / d f ) [33], where t is the impact factor of steel fibers on tensile strength, f , lf , df are the steel
fiber volume ratio, length, and diameter, respectively.

tested on the basis of Chinese code GB/T 50152–2012 [30] for concrete
are presented in Table 2.
2.2.2. Steel
The HRB 600 MPa reinforcements with diameters of 8 mm were
adopted as distributing bars and stirrups for all specimens. Besides, the
HRB 600 MPa reinforcements with diameters of 10 mm were selected as
longitudinal reinforcements at boundary elements for specimen SNB1,
while the SRUHS bars, which had several raised spiral ribs on surface
(see Fig. 3), were chosen as longitudinal bars for other specimens.
The measured stress–strain relationships under tension for SRUHS
steel bars and HRB 600 MPa steel bars are plotted in Fig. 4(a). As can be
noted, SRUHS steel bars and HRB 600 MPa steel bars had similar elastic
modulus. However, because of the higher yield strength of SRUHS bars,
the yield strain was considerably higher compared to HRB 600 MPa
steel bars. On the other hand, the pull-out tests for SRUHS steel bars and
HRB 600 MPa bars with embedded lengths of 3 times of diameters were
conducted, and the bond stress-slip relationships are presented in
Fig. 4(b). Existing research and this actual tests indicate that compared
to ordinary hot-rolled ribbed steel bars, the SRUHS steel bars showed
less anchorage force and better anchor ductility, which means it could
still maintain ever-increasing anchoring force when some slip occurred,
and the bond stress dropped more slowly after the maximum point
[34,35]. Table 3 presents the mechanical properties of steel materials
[36].

2.3. Test setup and instrumentations

To ensure that the vertical jack and the top of walls moved si-
multaneously, and to maintain the axial compression invariably acted
Fig. 3. Surface details of the SRUHS steel bar. on the center of walls meanwhile keeping the direction vertically

3
J. Zhang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110994

1800 60
Specimen 1
1600 Yield strain:0.007 Specimen 1 HRB600 Specimen 2
Specimen 2 50 MPa bars Specimen 3
1400 Specimen 3
SRUHS bars Specimen 4
Specimen 4
1200 40 Specimen 5

Bond stress (MPa)

Specimen 5
Specimen 6
Stress (MPa)

1000 Specimen 6
30 SRUHS bars
800
HRB600 MPa bars
600 20
400 Yield strain:0.003
10
200
0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0 5 10 15 20 25
Strain Slip (mm)

(a) Tensile stress-strain relationships of steel bars (b) Bond stress-slip relationships of steel bars
Fig. 4. Material properties of steel bars.

downward, the top of the vertical hydraulic servo actuator was sup-
ported by a roller bearing, and the base was supported by a ball hinge
bearing, as presented in Fig. 5. The foundation beam was fastened on
floor by high-strength bolts and steel spread beams.
Prior to lateral loads, constant axial loads of 1758 kN and 2637 kN
were applied to shear walls with designed axial compression ratios of
0.4 and 0.6, respectively. Then the horizontal load was carried out by a
hybrid force–displacement control loading protocol, which is com-
monly adopted in cyclic loading tests [18,20], as illustrated in Fig. 6. To
accurately control the initial loading increment and carefully observe
the crack development process, the lateral load was cycled once and the
increment of load was selected as 60kN until the monitored hysteresis
curves became nonlinear. Then the lateral loading was transformed to
displacement-controlled phase in terms of the loading drift θ, which is
specified as the ratio of the horizontal displacement at load point to the
height from load point to wall foundation (i.e. 1750 mm in this ex-
periment). Each loading step increment was 0.25% drift ratio and re-
peated twice until the 2% loading drift ratio, then the increment was
changed to 0.50% and cycled once per level. The test was terminated
when the occurrence of failure of a specimen indicated either by a 15%
lateral strength decline or by its inability to sustain the constant axial
compression force.
Seven linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) were mainly
adopted in this study, as plotted in Fig. 7(a). The LVDTs D1 and D2
were arranged at different heights to measure the total horizontal dis-
placement and the horizontal displacement at the middle of the wall,
respectively. D3 was arranged on the side of foundation to measure the
foundation slip. D4 and D5 were vertically arranged to obtain the
flexural deformation. The diagonal LVDTs D6 and D7 were mounted to
obtain the shear deformation. As shown in Fig. 7(b)-(c), strain gauges
were arranged on the longitudinal bars (i.e., the strain gauges num-
bered “ZZ”), distributing bars (i.e., “DZ” and “HZ”), embedded steel
tubes (i.e., “GZ”), and steel plates (i.e., “GC”), at 40 mm, 420 mm and
800 mm above the base of the wall.
In addition, in order to quantify the damage of specimens, the crack
widths were measured by the crack width measurement gauge with an
accuracy of 0.01 mm; the lengths and range of cracks were measured by
the tapeline with a precision of 1 mm. As the loading increased, new
cracks were depicted on the wall, and the corresponding horizontal
load as well as the loading cycle were recorded simultaneously, so as to
compare the crack pattern under specific drift ratios of each specimen.
3. Experimental results and analysis
3.1. Hysteresis curves
Fig. 8 shows the measured hysteresis curves for all shear walls,
where F is the measured lateral load; θ and Δ denote the lateral drift
ratio and displacement at the loading point, respectively. The key
points are defined as follows: the crack point refers to the corre-
sponding load point when the initial macro-crack was first observed by
naked eyes; the peak point denotes the point with the maximum load;
the ultimate point is attained as the lateral load reduced to 85% of its
peak lateral capacity (see the Section 3.3 for the details of characteristic
points).
It can be summarized from Fig. 8 that:
(1) In the initial stage, because most materials were in the elastic stage,
the loading and unloading curves were closely linear with small
residual deformation. As the load drift ratio increased, the hyster-
esis loops became wider.
(2) The residual deformation after unloading was small until the
loading drift ratio reached to 2% for all specimens, indicating high
resilience of the proposed shear walls.
(3) After a drift ratio of 2%, because of the high constraining effect of
the steel tube on the core concrete, and the well matched perfor-
mance of HS steel and steel fiber-reinforced HSC, the residual de-
formations after unloading of SNB1 and SNL1 continued to

Table 3
Mechanical properties of steel materials.
Steel type Usage DiameterD (mm) Thickness t (mm) Elastic modulus Es Yield stress f y Ultimate stress fu Elongation δ (%)
(×105Mpa) (MPa) (MPa)

HRB600 MPa bar Longitudinal bar 10 — 2.02 613 837 13.8

SRUHS bar Longitudinal bar 9 — 2.14 1452 1625 7.5
HRB600 MPa bar Distributing bar 8 — 2.10 602 823 13.7
HRB400 MPa bar Stirrup 8 — 2.06 432 646 24.3
Circular tube Boundary element 89 4.85 2.09 474 589 28.1
Steel plate Connection — 4.70 2.02 429 572 25.4

4
J. Zhang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110994

(a) Photo of test setup for SNL1 (b) Solid schematic diagram of test setup
Fig. 5. Test setup.

800 5 hysteresis curve. Compared to specimen SNB1, the hysteresis curve

Load control Δθ2=0.50%
4 of SNL1 was more pinched and the residual deformation was
600 ΔF=60kN Δθ1=0.25% smaller because of the lower bond strength and higher yield
3
400 strength of SRUHS longitudinal bars. On the other hand, the
2 pinching behavior for SHL1 was dramatically decreased compared
200 1 to SNL1, which means higher axial compression force decreased the
tensile force of longitudinal bars in SHL1, thus reducing the bar-
F/kN

θ/%

0 0
slip.
-200 -1
-2
-400 3.2. Failure modes
-3
-600 -4 The damage modes for specimens SNB1 and SNL1 as loaded to a
-800 -5 3.5% drift are shown in Fig. 9(a) to (b), and those of specimens SNL0
Cycles/n and SHL1 as loaded to a 1.75% drift are shown in Fig. 9(c) and (d) (all
of the above were near the final failure state). The final local failure
Fig. 6. Loading program.
modes of specimens SNB1, SNL1 and SHL1 are plotted in Fig. 9(e) to
(g). It can be observed that horizontal cracks came out at the base of all
increase, and the hysteresis curves became full. This demonstrated specimens initially. After entering the drift-controlled stage, cracks
the desirable energy dissipation capacity as well as collapse-re- which extended to the web medium gradually behaved a crossing di-
sistance capacity of the proposed walls when underwent strong agonal form. As the loading drift ratio increased, the cracks distributed
earthquakes. along the walls’ height extended from base to 1200 mm above the base
(4) Owing to the bond-slip in SNL1, pinching behavior occurred on its of walls, along with the increase of diagonal cracks’ angle from 45° to

(a) Layout of LVDTs (b) Strain gauges on steel bars (c) Strain gauges on embedded steels
Fig. 7. Arrangement of LVDTs and strain gauges.

5
J. Zhang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110994

θ/% θ/%
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
800 800

600 600

400 400

200 200
F/kN

F/kN
0 0

-200 -200
Crack point Crack point
-400 Peak point -400 Peak point
Ultimate point Ultimate point
-600 -600

-800 -800
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Δ/mm Δ/mm
(a) SNB1 (b) SNL1
θ/% θ/%
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
800 800

600 600

400 400

200 200
F/kN

F/kN

0 0

-200 -200
Crack point Crack point
-400 Peak point -400 Peak point
Ultimate point
-600 -600

-800 -800
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Δ/mm Δ/mm
(c) SNL0 (d) SHL1
Fig. 8. Hysteresis curves of specimens.

60°, and the concrete spalling occurred at the corner of shear walls.
Near the termination stage, concrete crushing with different degrees
occurred at the lower part of walls. HRB 600 MPa bars or SRUHS bars in
the boundary elements were fractured during reverse loading after the
local buckling under compression, accompanied by the local bucking of
stirrups (see Fig. 9 (e) and (f)). This is due to the cumulative damage
under cyclic loading and the low breaking elongation of HS steel bars.
Meanwhile, the restraint of stirrups on the longitudinal bars after
buckling was insufficient [37]. In addition, the out of plane deformation
of specimen SHL1 mainly occurred at the bottom of the wall due to the
high axial load. With the increase of wall height, the out-of-plane de-
formation at the bottom accumulated a distinct out-of-plane displace-
ment at the top of the wall, as shown in Fig. 9(g). Because the bottom
cross section suffered the combined effect of out-of-plane and in-plane
bending moments, a horizontal through deep crack at the bottom of the
wall occurred, leading to a sudden failure of its load-bearing capacity.
3.3. Skeleton curves
Fig. 10 presents the comparison among skeleton curves, and Table 4
lists the lateral loads (Fc, Fp, Fu), the corresponding displacements (Δc,
Δp, Δu) and the drift ratios (θc, θp, θu) for the crack, peak, and ultimate
points, respectively. It is worth mentioning that:
(1) Compared to specimen SNB1, the crack load and the peak load of
specimen SNL1 increased by 17.8% and 4.1%, respectively, in-
dicating that increasing the longitudinal bars’ strength in boundary
elements was beneficial to delay the concrete cracking and improve
the load-bearing capacity.
(2) The crack and peak loads of SNL1 were 34.2% and 4.9% higher
than those of SNL0. On the other hand, the bearing capacity of
SNL0 decreased dramatically after peak point, and the ultimate
drift ratio decreased by 50.8% compared to SNL1. These indicated
that when HSC is used in combination with HS steel bars, steel fi-
bers should be added to concrete matrix to ameliorate the tensile
and shear properties of concrete, and thereby delay the cracking of
concrete and maintain the integrity of compressive concrete in
plastic hinge region until a large drift.
(3) The peak load of specimen SHL1 increased by 7.2% relative to
SNL1; however, this specimen failed suddenly after reaching the
peak point. This phenomenon can be attributed to the fact that
specimen SHL1 loaded high axial compressive force had a large pre-
load strain before the horizontal load, which led to a lower rota-
tional deformation capacity of the section.
3.4. Strength and stiffness degradation
The bearing capacity degeneration curves are shown in Fig. 11. The
bearing capacity degradation factor F2i/F1i is the ratio of the maximum
load of the 2nd cycle to the maximum load of the 1st cycle at the same

6
J. Zhang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110994

(a) SNB1 (b) SNL1 (c) SNL0 (d) SHL1

(e) Damage near SNB1 ends (f) Damage near SNL1 ends

(g) Local damage of SHL1

Fig. 9. Failure patterns of specimens.

θ/% targeted lateral drifts [38]. It can be concluded that the bearing capa-
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 city degradation for all specimens was steady under cyclic loading,
800 which indicates that shear walls sustained desirable load-carrying ca-
600 pacities with the accumulation of damage. Due to the stress redis-
Crack point
tribution between concrete wall web and embedded CFST columns, the
Peak point
400 bearing capacity degradation factors presented a random variation
Ultimate point
tendency as the loading drift ratio increased. The strength degeneration
200 of all specimens except SNL0 was similar, with a degradation factor of
about 96% when the drift ratio reached 2%. While because of the ab-
F/kN

0 SNB1 sence of steel fibers, the strength degradation of SNL0 was quickly and
SNL1 unstable, with a degradation factor of about 93% until an ultimate drift
-200
SNL0
of 1.75%.
-400 SHL1
Fig. 12 presents the relationship between the dimensionless Ki/K0
and the drift ratio θ for all specimens, where Ki is the average secant
-600
stiffness at ith cycle of positive and negative directions, and K0 is the
-800 initial stiffness [39]. It can be noticed that the stiffness degradation
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 trends were close for all specimens. The process commenced with a fast
Δ/mm degradation and ended with a stable degradation, with a drift of 2% as a
boundary. Specifically, compared to specimen SNB1, the stiffness de-
Fig. 10. Skeleton curves of specimens.
gradation of SNL1 was slower before a 1.5% drift ratio; afterwards, the
degradation rates of the two specimens tended to be consistent, in-
dicating that within a certain displacement range, using the SRUHS

7
J. Zhang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110994

Table 4
Characteristic loads and displacements.
Specimen Crack point Peak point Ultimate point

Fc (kN) Δc (mm) θc (%) Fp (kN) Δp (mm) θp (%) Fu (kN) Δu (mm) θu (%)

SNB1 297.48 5.35 0.31 651.49 34.13 1.95 566.03 60.38 3.45
SNL1 350.53 4.78 0.27 678.13 26.60 1.52 576.41 62.30 3.56
SNL0 261.21 2.84 0.16 646.22 26.25 1.50 577.52 30.63 1.75
SHL1 391.82 4.82 0.28 726.84 29.58 1.69 — — —

θ/% 300
-2 -1 0 1 2 SNB1
105%
SNB1
250 SNL1
SNL1 SNL0
SNL0 200 SHL1
SHL1
100%

Ep/kN·m
150
F2i/F1i

100
95%

50

90% 0
-40 -20 0 20 40 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Δ/mm θ/%
Fig. 11. Strength degeneration curves. Fig. 13. Curves of cumulative energy dissipation.

0.5
1.00
SNB1 SNB1
SNL1 SNL1
0.4
SNL0 SNL0
0.75 SHL1 SHL1
0.3
Ki/K0

0.50
he

Mild phase 0.2

0.25 Fast phase

0.1

0.00
0 1 2 3 4 0
θ/% 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Fig. 12. Degradation curves of secant stiffness.

θ/%
Fig. 14. Equivalent viscous damping coefficient.

longitudinal bars in boundary elements can delay the yielding of the

steel bars thereby slowing down the rate of stiffness degradation.
3.5. Energy dissipation capacity
Two coefficients are combined to reflect the energy dissipation ca-
pacities of the shear walls, that is the accumulated energy dissipation Ep
and the equivalent viscous damping factor he. Ep is specified as the total
enclosed area for hysteresis loops of all 1st loading cycles prior to a
certain drift ratio, which evaluates the practical capacity of energy
dissipation; he is obtained according to Chinese code JGJ/T-2015 [40],
which reflects the shape and fullness degree of hysteresis loops. It can
be viewed from Fig. 13 and Fig. 14 that:
phenomenon may be attributed to the fact that specimen SNL1 with
SRUHS longitudinal bars exhibited less residual deformation after
unloading, thus leading to lower fullness of hysteretic loops.
However, this specimen showed higher load carrying capacity
meanwhile, and the combined effect of higher load carrying capa-
city and less residual deformation led to slight change for the total
enclosed area of hysteretic loops.
(2) The energy consumption of specimen SNL1 was greater than that of
specimen SNL0, which was likely caused by the high toughness of
steel fiber-reinforced concrete in SNL1.
(3) The specimen SHL1 with higher axial force ratio showed higher
energy dissipation than other specimens at the same drift ratios.

(1) Relative to specimen SNB1, specimen SNL1 showed a close value of

Ep while a slightly lower he under same loading levels. This

8
J. Zhang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110994

Fig. 15. Longitudinal bar strains and steel tube strains.

3.6. Strain analysis
The specimens SNB1 and SNL1 were taken as examples to analyze
the strain characteristics of the longitudinal bars and steel tubes at
40 mm above the wall base. As presented in Fig. 15, the strain gauges
numbered ZZ1 and GZ1 measured the axial strain of longitudinal rebars
and steel tubes at boundary elements, respectively. The black and red
dotted lines respectively represent the yield strain of longitudinal bars
and steel tubes. Results show the longitudinal rebar and the steel tube
of specimen SNB1 yielded before their respective peak loads, and the
tensile yielding and compressive yielding of the longitudinal steel bar
were mildly earlier than those of the steel tube (see Fig. 15(a)). Because
specimen SNL1 adopted the SRUHS longitudinal bars, which feature
high yield strain, the tensile strain and the compressive strain of gauge
ZZ1 attained the yield point until later loading stage (see Fig. 15(b)).
The HS longitudinal bar of SNB1 first yielded at a 0.72% drift under
tension, while the SRUHS longitudinal bar of SNL1 first yielded at a
1.38% drift under tension, with an increase of 91.7%. The strain of the
SRUHS bar increased steadily, indicating that due to the relatively weak
bonding force, the strain can be evenly distributed within a longer
range, thus reducing the stress concentration in a plastic hinge zone.
Besides, the strain value of some measuring points in the later period of
loading was reduced because of the influence of stress redistribution.
Fig. 16 reflects the longitudinal strain distribution of steel tubes
(GZ1, GZ2) and steel bars (ZZ1, ZZ2, DZ1, DZ2, DZ3) at a same height
of 40 mm from the base of walls. It is observed that with the increase of
the loading drift ratio, the neutral axis continuously moved towards the
compression zone before reaching peak point θp, which means the
height of the compression zone gradually decreased, although remained
nearly constant after peak point. The strain of steel bars near the neutral
axis was small, and as the distance from neutral axis increased, the
strain of steel bars and steel tube went up. Moreover, the vertical strains
showed an approximately linear distribution along the wall length be-
fore peak point θp, which demonstrates that the cross-section met the
plane section assumption. While after peak point, with the crushing of
corner concrete and the local buckling of steel tubes, the growth rate of
the strain of steel tubes and bars at the edge of shear wall outweighed
that of others, and thus the strain distribution no longer met a plane.
3.7. Reparability
3.7.1. Crack pattern
Crack width is an essential factor to estimate the degree of damage
and then reflect the reparability of structural components. Fig. 17 re-
flects the crack development of each specimen at specific drift ratios. It
can be seen from combined analysis of Fig. 9 and Fig. 17 that all spe-
cimens exhibited flexural dominant failure modes. As the drift ratio
increased, cracks extended obliquely, followed by the spalling of con-
crete.
Fig. 18 shows the damage evolutions of the maximum crack width
wmax and the concrete crushed region height hc for all specimens. It can
be noticed that:

15000 20000
GZ1 GZ2 15000 GZ1 GZ2
10000 ZZ1 ZZ2 ZZ1 ZZ2
DZ1 DZ2 DZ3 DZ1 DZ2 DZ3
10000
5000
5000
Strain (με)
Strain (με)

0 0

0.08% -5000 0.07%

-5000
0.31% ( θc) 0.27% ( θc)
-10000
0.90% 0.90%
-10000 1.95% ( θp) 1.52% ( θp)
-15000
2.34% 2.32%
-15000 -20000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Location (mm) Location (mm)
(a) SNB1 (b) SNL1
Fig. 16. Distribution of the longitudinal strains along the wall length.

9
J. Zhang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110994

(a) SNB1 (b) SNL1

(c) SNL0 (d) SHL1

Fig. 17. Crack patterns measured at specific drift ratios.

(1) Compared to specimen SNB1, SNL1 exhibited more cracks. In the
later loading stage, the maximum crack width of SNL1 was slightly
smaller and the wall damage was lighter than SNB1. When loading
to a 3.5% drift ratio, wmax and hc decreased by 9.2% and 37.1%,
respectively.
(2) Compared to other steel fiber-reinforced specimens, because the
absence of steel fibers, specimen SNL0 formed more diagonal shear
cracks, and the maximum crack widths were lager; the concrete
crushed region propagated from the corner to the wall web with a
higher crushed region height. These proved the crack-resistance
function of steel fibers on HSC. Steel fibers which crossed cracks
could bear partial shear stress themselves and enhance the bond
performance between steel bars and HSC, thus improving the re-
straint effect of steel fibers on cracks [39].
(3) The higher axial force of specimen SHL1 resulted in higher hor-
izontal bearing capacity and then greater shear stress on the in-
clined section. Hence, more crossed diagonal cracks appeared on
the wall web.
3.7.2. Residual drift ratio
The residual drift ratio θr of the shear wall is defined as the per-
manent drift ratio after unloading during the first cycle. The mean
values of positive and negative directions were used for analysis.
Studies suggested a residual drift ratio of 0.5% could be chosen as a
repairable limit, considering the economy and feasibility for repair
[27,41]. Fig. 19 shows the comparison between each shear wall and the
control wall SNL1, and Fig. 20 shows the reduction amount of residual
drift ratios in the control wall SNL1 compared to other walls. The fol-
lowing observations can be obtained:
(1) The specimen SNL1 had the smallest residual drift ratios as com-
pared with others. The residual drifts of SNB1 and SNL1 reached the
repairable limit when loaded to 2.25% drift and 2.50% drift, re-
spectively. When both unloaded from a 2.5% loading drift, the re-
sidual drift ratio of SNL1 was 17.7% lower than that of specimen
SNB1, which again proved that the better elastic property and
weaker bonding force of SRUHS steel bars in boundary elements
could be used to significantly reduce the residual deformation, and
thus improve the resilience of the proposed wall.
(2) The residual deformation of SNL0 was similar with that of SNL1
when loaded to same drift ratios, except a slightly increase only
when the specimen was close to failure.
(3) The residual drift ratios of specimen SHL1 increased rapidly, and it
reached the limitation drift of 0.5% when unloaded from the 1.75%
loading drift, indicating the importance of limiting the axial com-
pression ratio to achieve reparability.

3.5 50

3.0 SNB1 SNB1

SNL1 40 SNL1
2.5 SNL0 SNL0
SHL1 SHL1
2.0 30
wmax/mm

hc/mm

1.5 20
1.0
10
0.5

0.0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
θ/% θ/%
(a) Maximum crack width (b) Crushed region height
Fig. 18. Damage evolution of specimens.

10
J. Zhang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110994

2.0 2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5 1.5

SNB1 SNL0 SHL1
SNL1 SNL1 SNL1

1.0 1.0 1.0

θr/%

θr/%

θr/%
0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
0.5 0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
θ/% θ/% θ/%
(a) SNB1 and SNL1 (b) SNL0 and SNL1 (c) SNL1 and SHL1
Fig. 19. Residual drift ratios of each shear wall versus the control wall SNL1.

0.4 F

SNB1 Pc A
0.3 SNL0
SHL1 Fi=f 1(Δi)
W Di
0.2 K0 E
θΔr/%

W pi
0.1 W ei
D -Δp(i-1) O F B
-Δi L Δ
Δpi Δi
0.0 Wei
G
W pi

-0.1 H
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 W Di
θ/% -Fi=f 2(-Δi)
Fig. 20. Reduction amount of residual drift ratios in the control wall SNL1 with C -Pc
respect to other walls.
Fig. 21. Illustration of damage index.
3.7.3. Damage index
Cumulative damage of vertical members under cyclic loading will the positive and negative external forces during the ith loading cycle as
cause its stiffness and strength degradation, resulting in the attenuation presented in Fig. 21.
of seismic performance as the damage degree increases. Therefore, The damage index Di for the ith loading cycle:
quantitative assessment for cumulative damage can provide a theore-
tical basis for structural safety and reparability evaluation [42]. How- WDi Wei + Wpi
Di = =1
ever, the damage models in existing studies were mostly based on re- Wi Wi (4)
inforced concrete structural members [43,44], which were not suitable
Which can be expressed as the area in Fig. 21:
for the composite shear wall with concrete-encased boundary elements
in this study. Therefore, in this research, a damage model based on the (SOEFGHL + SBEF + SDHL)
Di = 1
energy dissipation principle and hysteresis characteristics was adopted (SOAB + SOCD) (5)
as proposed in Ref. [45]. The damage index Di at different loading
stages was calculated, where Di is a dimensionless index, and Di = 0 Fig. 22 shows the cumulative damage index curves calculated from
indicates that the structural members is undamaged. The illustration for the above equations. It can be seen that:
the damage index is shown in Fig. 21.
In the ideal non-destructive condition, the work done by the outer (1) The cumulative damage of all specimens grew substantially in the
force is defined as Wc. In the actual damaged condition, the work of the early loading stage. With the elastic–plastic development of speci-
outer force is converted into three parts, namely the elastic deformation mens, the damage development tended to be gentle until near
energy Wei, the plastic deformation energy Wpi, and the damage dis- failure stage.
sipation energy WDi [45]. According to the law of conservation of en- (2) The damage index of specimen SNL1 was lower than that of spe-
ergy: cimen SNB1 under the same loading drift ratios, which indicated
that the use of SRUHS steel bars in the boundary elements could
Wc = Wei + Wpi + WDi (1) reduce the cumulative damage and improve the damage resistance
In which Wc, Wei, and WDi can be calculated as follows: of the new proposed composite shear wall.
(3) Both specimens SNL0 and SHL1 had brittle failure characteristics,
Wc = K 0 2
i (2) and thus the damage index increased rapidly in the end.

i i
Wei + Wpi = f1 ( i) d i + f2 ( i) d i 3.7.4. Evaluation of reparability
p (i 1) pi (3)
Based on the above analysis of the crack pattern, residual de-
where K0 is the initial stiffness, Δi is the maximum drift ratio during the formation and damage index, a comprehensive evaluation for repar-
ith cycle, i
f1 ( i) d i , i
f2 ( i) d i are the work performed by ability of the proposed composite shear walls can be drawn, that is,
p (i 1) pi

11
J. Zhang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110994

Δ/mm groups: steel tube-confined concrete, stirrup-confined concrete, as

0 20 40 60 80 well as unrestrained concrete cover. The maximum compressive
1.0 strain at border of non-fiber-reinforced concrete was assumed to be
0.003, and that of the steel fiber-reinforced concrete was taken as
0.8 0.0035 [48].
(3) Assumption for concrete in tensile zone: the tensile force of non-
fiber-reinforced concrete was neglected, while for fiber-reinforced
0.6 concrete, the calculated tensile strength fft for equivalent rectan-
gular stress block was used to calculate the tensile force, according
Di

SNB1 to CECS38-2004 [33].

0.4 SNL1 (4) Assumption on steel tubes: both tension and compression of the
SNL0 steel tubes reached the yielding plateau.
SHL1 (5) Assumption on reinforcing bars: the strain gauges showed that most
0.2
strain of the steel bars near neutral axis was small and less than the
yield strain (see Fig. 16). Therefore, to simplify the calculation, the
0 contribution of distributing bars was ignored and only the stresses
0 1 2 3 4 of the longitudinal bars at boundary elements were considered. The
θ/% four longitudinal bars at each side were lumped to their centers,
and the simplified stress was obtained according to the stress–strain
Fig. 22. Cumulative damage index curves of specimens.
relation based on plane section assumption.

SNL1 showed attractive reparability compared to others. The lighter Lai et al. [46] proposed the calculation method for the ultimate
concrete damage, lower residual deformation and smaller damage compressive force of CFST columns, namely NSC. A great number of
index of specimen SNL1 indicated that using SRUHS steel bars was experimental tests were used to verify this calculation method, which
beneficial to improve the reparability of the shear wall. Furthermore, showed good accuracy. Details of this method are listed as follows:
while using SRUHS steel bars, the limitation of axial force ratio and the
presence of steel fibers in concrete are the premises to ensure repar- s D 0.35 fc 0.45
= 0.2( ) ( )
ability. However, due to the limited amounts of specimens, more design fay t fay (6)
parameters (the SRUHS bars’ ratio, the bars’ distribution, the bars’
2 2 2
spacing, etc.) need to be further reported. s s sz + sz = fay (7)
2t
4. Prediction for lateral load-carrying capacity fr =
D 2t
s
(8)
Assumptions for the proposed model were made as follows: f ccp fr
= 1 + 3.5( )
fc fc (9)
(1) According to the analysis of the measured strains, when the peak
load was reached, the shear wall section approximately satisfied the NSC = sz A a + f ccp Ac (10)
plane section assumption.
(2) Assumption for concrete in compressive zone: considering the where s , sz are the circumferential tensile stress, and the axial
confinement effects of steel tubes [46] and stirrups [47] on con- stress of steel tube, respectively; fay is the yield strength for steel tube; fr
crete, the concrete in compression zone can be divided into three is the confining stress; fc , f ccp are the cylinder compressive strength of
unconfined concrete, and that of steel tube-confined concrete,

hw hw

As bw As bw
N N
Mp Mp
xc ε' sy xc ε' sy
as as
εsy εsy
εc Neutral axis εc Neutral axis

βxc βxc Nt

Nc Nc
Asσ' sy Asσ' sy
Asσ sy Asσ sy

N SC N ST N SC N ST

(a) Non-fiber-reinforced specimens (b) Steel fiber reinforced specimens

Fig. 23. Strain and stress distribution of wall section.

12
J. Zhang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110994

1000 equivalent compressive stress block stipulated by ACI 318-14 [3]; fcc
Fp denotes the cylinder compressive strength of stirrup-confined concrete,
calculated as suggested by Mander et al. [47]; h w , bc , bw are the wall
800 Fcp cross section depth, wall section width, and cover thickness, respec-
tively; as is the distance of the lumped longitudinal bars’ centroid as
Maximum strength F/kN

well as steel tube’s centroid to the nearest edge of the wall.

600 After determining the depth of neutral axis, the peak moment to the
sectional centroid Mp can be calculated as follows:

400 Mp = 0.5Nc (h w x c ) + (NSC + NST + As sy + As sy )(0.5h w as ) (16)

As for specimens reinforced by steel fibers, the tensile force Nt and

the bending moment Mt provided by the tensile effect of steel fiber
200
reinforced concrete were supplemented on both right sides of Eqs. (11)
and (16), as shown in Fig. 23(b).
0 Nt = f ft [b w (h w xc) Aa ] (17)
SNB1 SNL1 SNL0 SHL1
Fig. 24. Comparison between predicted and test results. Mt = 0.5xc Nt (18)

Finally, the predicted load-carrying capacity Fcp can be evaluated as

respectively; t, D are the thickness and the outer diameter of steel tube, follows:
respectively; Aa , Ac are the cross-section areas of steel tube and steel
tube-confined concrete, respectively. Fcp = (Mp N p)/ H (19)
As for non-fiber-reinforced specimen, on the basis of the force
where H is the height from loading point to wall foundation, that is,
equilibrium relation, it can be obtained from Fig. 23(a) that:
1750 mm in this study.
N = Nc + NSC NST + As sy As sy (11) Fig. 24 shows the comparison between predicted and test results
with good agreement. In order to further verify the predictability of the
In which
proposed model, additional calculation and comparison with con-
Nc = fcc [(b w 2bc )( xc bc ) D 2 /4] + fc [(2bc xc + bc (b w 2bc )] generic specimens from existing literature are listed in Table 5, which
contains the main parameters and comparison results of each specimen.
(12)
The test-to-calculated ratios Fp / Fcp for the 14 composite shear walls
NST = Aa fay (13) range from 0.95 to 1.18 with a mean value of 1.07 and a variable
coefficient of 0.06, which shows the reliability and accuracy of this
sy = c Es (x c as )/ xc fsy (14) model for predicting load-bearing capacity.

sy = c Es ·(h w xc as )/ xc fsy (15)

where N is the test axial force; Nc and NST are the axial compressive
forces provided by concrete outside CFST columns, as well as the tensile
force of steel tube, respectively; As , Es , sy , sy are the cross-sectional
area, elastic modulus, compressive stress and tensile stress of total
longitudinal bars, respectively; fsy is the yield strength of longitudinal
rebars; x c is actual depth of compression zone; , are coefficients of
5. Conclusions
An innovative composite wall, namely composite shear wall in-
corporating high-strength materials and CFST boundary elements was
proposed. The cyclic behavior and reparability of four shear walls were
investigated through cyclic loading tests. Conclusions can be made as
follows:

Table 5
Comparison between predicted and test results using the proposed method.
Specimens N H hw bw bc D t As Aa fc’ fay fsy Fp Fcp Fp/ Fcp

This study
SNB1 1758 1750 800 150 15 89 4.85 314 1282 68.5 474 613 651 644 1.01
SNL1 1758 1750 800 150 15 89 4.85 254 1282 68.5 474 1452 678 648 1.05
SNL0 1758 1750 800 150 15 89 4.85 254 1282 66.1 474 1452 646 610 1.06
SHL1 2637 1750 800 150 15 89 4.85 254 1282 68.5 474 1452 727 693 1.05
Qian et al. [16]
SW2 1873 2725 1300 160 20 114 3.36 679 1167 36.1 369 382 718 612 1.17
SW3 2042 2725 1300 160 20 114 3.36 679 1167 32.9 369 382 738 628 1.18
SW4 2462 2725 1300 160 20 114 3.36 679 1167 32.5 369 382 771 678 1.14
SW5 2346 2725 1300 160 20 88.5 3.50 679 934 38.2 356 382 719 640 1.12
Zhang et al. [17]
STHW-2 1400 2520 1200 150 15 89 3.50 265 940 59.6 388 391 625 579 1.08
STHW-3 1700 2520 1200 150 15 89 3.50 265 940 59.6 388 391 639 620 1.03
Guan et al. [20]
CW1 2810 2125 1000 200 15 114 3.00 314 1046 49.6 336 402 736 699 1.05
CW2 2920 2125 1000 200 15 114 3.80 314 1315 49.6 323 402 797 772 1.03
CW3 3510 2125 1000 200 15 114 3.80 314 1315 49.6 323 402 843 851 0.99
CW4 3380 2125 1000 200 15 114 3.00 314 1046 49.6 336 402 741 783 0.95
Mean value 1.07
Standard deviation 0.06
Variable coefficient 0.06

Note: The unit of parameter for force is kN, for strength is MPa, for length is mm, and for area is mm2.

13
J. Zhang, et al.
(1) As for the proposed composite shear walls incorporating steel fiber-
reinforced HSC and CFST boundary elements within the limit of
axial compression ratio specified in GB50011-2010 [4], the residual
deformation after unloading was small until an approximate
loading drift of 2%. After that, the hysteresis curves tended to be
full and the energy dissipation capacity increased. These results
show the proposed composite shear walls have potential to exhibit
reparability after major earthquakes and collapse-resistance capa-
city when suffered from strong earthquakes.
(2) The composite wall with SRUHS steel bars in boundary elements
exhibited higher load-carrying capacity and comparable energy
dissipation capacity compared to the shear wall with HRB 600 MPa
bars. Furthermore, the lighter concrete damage, lower residual
deformation and smaller damage index of specimen SNL1 indicated
that using SRUHS steel bars was beneficial to improve the repar-
ability of the shear wall.
(3) Adding steel fibers to concrete matrix could effectively reduce the
damage degree and improve the deformation capacity of the pro-
posed composite walls, which was helpful for making full use of the
performance advantages of high-strength bars and concrete.
(4) A damage index was calculated in terms of energy dissipation
principle and hysteresis characteristics, which can be used as an
important index to study the reparability of different specimens.
(5) A prediction model considering the confined effects of CFST col-
umns and stirrups on concrete was proposed for the lateral load-
bearing capacity. The comparison between predicted and test re-
sults from this study and existing research verified the good accu-
racy of this model.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jianwei Zhang: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing,
Project administration. Xiangyu Li: Methodology, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing,
Visualization. Wanlin Cao: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Visualization. Cheng Yu: Conceptualization, Writing - review &
editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
Research in this study was funded by the Science and Technology
Key Project of Beijing Municipal Education Commission
(KZ201710005003) and the National Key Research and Development
Program of China (2016YFC0701104). The supports are greatly ap-
preciated.
References
[1] Parra-montesinos GJ. High-performance fiber-reinforced cement composites: An
alternative for seismic design of structures. ACI Struct J 2005;102(5):668–75.
[2] Alaee P, Li B. High-strength concrete interior beam-column joints with high-yield-
strength steel reinforcements. J Struct Eng 2017;143(7):04017038.
[3] ACI. 318–14. Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary.
Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute; 2014.
[4] GB 50011-2010. Code for seismic design of buildings. Beijing: China Ministry of
Construction; 2010. [In Chinese].
[5] Baek JW, Park HJ, Choi KK, Seo MK, Chung H. Minimum shear reinforcement of
slender walls with grade 500 MPa (72.5 ksi) reinforcing bars. ACI Struct J
2018;115(3):761–74.
[6] Seo MS, Kim HS, Truong GT, Choi KK. Seismic behaviors of thin slender structural
walls reinforced with amorphous metallic fibers. Eng Struct 2017;152:102–15.
[7] Arafa A, Farghaly AS, Benmokrane B. Effect of web reinforcement on the seismic
response of concrete squat walls reinforced with glass-FRP bars. Eng Struct
14
Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110994
2018;174:712–23.
[8] Dan D, Fabian A, Stoian V. Theoretical and experimental study on composite steel-
concrete shear walls with vertical steel encased profiles. J Constr Steel Res
2011;67:800–13.
[9] Huang ST, Huang YS, He A, Tang XL, Chen QJ, Liu XP, et al. Experimental study on
seismic behaviour of an innovative composite shear wall. J Constr Steel Res
2018;148:165–79.
[10] Ji XD, Sun Y, Qian JR, Lu XZ. Seismic behavior and modeling of steel reinforced
concrete (SRC) walls. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2015;44:955–72.
[11] Lu XL, Zhang Y, Zhang HM, Zhang HS, Xiao RJ. Experimental study on seismic
performance of steel fiber reinforced high strength concrete composite shear walls
with different steel fiber volume fractions. Eng Struct 2018;171:247–59.
[12] Gao DY, You PB, Zhang LJ, Yan HH. Seismic behavior of SFRC shear wall with CFST
columns. Steel Compos Struct 2018;28(5):527–39.
[13] JGJ 138-2016. Code for design of composite structures. Beijing: China Ministry of
Construction; 2016. [In Chinese].
[14] Wang XY, Su YS, Yan LB. Experimental and numerical study on steel reinforced
high-strength concrete short-leg shear walls. J Constr Steel Res 2014;101:242–53.
[15] Cao WL, Zhang JW, Dong HY, Wang M. Research on seismic performance of shear
walls with concrete filled steel tube columns and concealed steel trusses. Earthq Eng
Eng Vib 2011;10(4):535–46.
[16] Qian JR, Jiang Z, Ji XD. Behavior of steel tube-reinforced concrete composite walls
subjected to high axial force and cyclic loading. Eng Struct 2012;36:173–84.
[17] Zhang Q, Bai L, Liang XW, Xiong EG. Experimental study on seismic behavior of
steel tube confined high-strength concrete shear walls. J Vibroeng
2016;18(4):2263–77.
[18] Ren FM, Chen JW, Chen GM, Guo YX, Jiang T. Seismic behavior of composite shear
walls incorporating concrete-filled steel and FRP tubes as boundary elements. Eng
Struct 2018;168:405–19.
[19] Wu LW, Tian Y, Su YP, Chen HB. Seismic performance of precast composite shear
walls reinforced by concrete-filled steel tubes. Eng Struct 2018;162:72–83.
[20] Guan MS, Liu WT, Lai MH, Du HB, Cui J, Gan YY. Seismic behaviour of innovative
composite walls with high-strength manufactured sand concrete. Eng Struct
2019;195:182–99.
[21] Zhao ZZ, Fan GZ, He XG. Axial compression behavior of the high-strength concrete
squat wall with distributed steel tubes. KSCE J Civ Eng 2019;23(8):3383–96.
[22] Bai L, Zhang C, Xiong EG. Investigations on the shear mechanism of steel-tube-
reinforced concrete shear walls with a low shear-span ratio. KSCE J Civ Eng
2019;23(7):2983–96.
[23] Zhou J, Fang XD, Yao ZQ. Mechanical behavior of a steel tube-confined high-
strength concrete shear wall under combined tensile and shear loading. Eng Struct
2018;171:673–85.
[24] Lu XL, Mao YJ, Chen Y, Liu JJ, Zhou Y. New structural system for earthquake re-
silient design. J Earthq Tsun 2013;7(3):1350013.
[25] Hitaka T, Sakino K. Cyclic tests on a hybrid coupled wall utilizing a rocking me-
chanism. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2008;37(14):1657–76.
[26] Smith BJ, Kurama YC, McGinnis MJ. Behavior of precast concrete shear walls for
seismic regions: comparison of hybrid and emulative specimens. J Struct Eng
2013;139:1917–27.
[27] Wang B, Zhu SY. Seismic behavior of self-centering reinforced concrete wall en-
abled by super elastic shape memory alloy bars. Bull Earthq Eng 2018;16:479–502.
[28] Yuan WG, Zhao J, Sun YP, et al. Experimental study on seismic behavior of concrete
walls reinforced by PC strands. Eng Struct 2018;175:577–90.
[29] Tolou Kian MJ, Cruz-Noguez C. Reinforced concrete shear walls detailed with in-
novative materials: Seismic performance. J Compos Constr 2018;22(6):04018052.
[30] GB/T 50152-2012. Standard for test method of concrete structures. Beijing: China
Ministry of Construction, 2012. [in Chinese].
[31] GB 50010-2010. Code for design of concrete structures. Beijing: China Ministry of
Construction, 2015. [in Chinese].
[32] BSI, BS EN 1992-1-1: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures, Part 1-1:General
rules and rules for buildings. BSI, London, UK, 2004. European Committee for
Standardization: British Standards Institution.
[33] CECS38-2004. Technical specification for fiber reinforced concrete structures.
Beijing: China Association for Engineering Construction Standardization; 2004. [in
Chinese].
[34] Xu YL, Liu LX, Guan PW. Experimental study on bond behavior between spiral
ribbed steel rebar and concrete. China Concrete Cement Prod 1998;4:24–9. [in
Chinese].
[35] Li XY, Zhang JW, Liu J, Cao WL. Bond behavior of spiral ribbed ultra-high strength
steel rebar embedded in plain and steel fiber reinforced high-strength concrete.
KSCE J Civ Eng 2019;23(10):4417–30.
[36] GB/T 228.1-2010. Metallic materials tensile testing Beijing: China Ministry of
Construction; 2010. [In Chinese].
[37] Aaleti S, Brueggen BL, Johnson B, French CE, Sritharan S. Cyclic response of re-
inforced concrete walls with different anchorage details: Experimental
Investigation. J Struct Eng 2013;139(7):1181–91.
[38] Yin F, Xue SD, Cao WL, Dong HY, Wu HP. Experimental and analytical study of
seismic behavior of special-shaped multicell composite concrete-filled steel tube
columns. J Struct Eng 2020;146(1):04019170.
[39] Zhang JW, Li XY, Cao WL, Yu C. Cyclic behavior of steel tube-reinforced high-
strength concrete composite columns with high-strength steel bars. Eng Struct
2019;189:565–79.
[40] JGJ/T 101-2015. Specification for seismic test of buildings. Beijing: China
Architecture & Building Press, 2015. [in Chinese].
[41] Erochko J, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R, Choi H. Residual drift response of SMRFs
and BRB frames in steel buildings designed according to ASCE 7–05. J Struct Eng
J. Zhang, et al.
2011;137(5):589–99.
[42] Qazi S, Michel L, Ferrier E. Seismic behaviour of RC short shear wall strengthened
with externally bonded CFRP strips. Compos Struct 2019;211:390–400.
[43] Chung YS, Meyer C, Shinozwha M. Modeling of concrete damage. ACI Struct J
1989;86(3):259–70.
[44] Park YJ, Ang AHS. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. J
Struct Eng 1985;111(4):722–39.
[45] Diao B, Li SC, Ye YH. Analysis and experiment of cumulated damage of RC
15
Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110994
structures with special columns under cyclic loading. Journal of Building
Structures. 2008;29(1):57–63. [in Chinese].
[46] Lai MH, Ho JCM. An analysis-based model for axially loaded circular CFST columns.
Thin-Walled Struct 2017;119:770–81.
[47] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress strain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[48] ACI 544.4R-88. Design consideration for steel fiber reinforced concrete (reapproved
2009). Farmington Hills, MI, USA: American Concrete Institute, 2009.