Structures 23 (2020) 383–406

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Macro modeling of steel-concrete composite shear walls T

a b,⁎ c
Nakisa Haghi , Siamak Epackachi , Mohammad Taghi Kazemi
a
Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Science and Culture, Tehran, Iran
b
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
c
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: To date, many researchers have developed various types of macro models to simulate the general response of
Steel-plate concrete composite shear walls conventional steel plate and reinforced concrete shear walls. Although extensive numerical and experimental
PERFORM-3D studies have been conducted to assess the seismic response of steel-plate concrete composite shear walls, a robust
Macro model macro-model for simulation of the cyclic response of such systems has not been developed yet.
Fiber-based element
Herein, a fiber-based model is proposed to simulate the nonlinear seismic response of SC walls using
PERFORM-3D program. The details of the proposed model, including material properties, element type, and
boundary condition, are presented. The proposed model is validated using the available test data of seventeen SC
wall specimens with and without boundary elements. Based on the analysis results, this novel approach can
capture the global response of SC shear walls including initial stiffness, peak shear strength and its corresponding
displacement, stiffness and strength degradation, and pinching behavior accurately. The proposed macro model
for SC shear walls can be considered as a reliable tool to extend the engineering application of SC walls in the
building industry.

1. Introduction
The application of steel-concrete (SC) composite shear walls as a
lateral resisting system for tall buildings has been increased (e.g.,
[1–3]) due to their high energy dissipation and load-carrying capacity
compared to traditional concrete shear walls (RC) and steel plate (SP)
shear walls. The SC shear walls, considered in this study, comprise two
steel faceplates filled with concrete. The steel faceplates connected with
the tie bars and attached to the concrete with the headed studs. Like RC
shear walls, the use of boundary elements (BEs) consisting of steel
section column (e.g., [4]) or steel tube filled with concrete (e.g., [5]) at
two ends of the walls enhances the energy dissipation capacity and
ductility of SC walls significantly.
The nonlinear simulation of SC walls can be accomplished either by
using micro finite element or macro analytical modeling approach (e.g.,
[6–9]). The micro finite element modeling provides detailed inter-
pretations of the localized behavior of such walls, and the macro ana-
lytical modeling simulates the overall behavior of the wall with rea-
sonable accuracy. The high resolution nonlinear finite element analysis
is known as a powerful tool to simulate the nonlinear response of
structural elements. However, its application in engineering practice
has significantly limited due to the time-consuming analysis and nu-
merical complexities, fully three-dimensional modeling of the concrete
element, considering the contact stresses and interfacial friction be-
tween steel faceplates and concrete panel, and the reliability of the
concrete and steel material models. Macro modeling approach, on the
other hand, representing the overall behavior of the structural element,
is an efficient and practical analytical tool. It does not require high
computational efforts, making it suitable for engineering applications.
The accuracy of macro models significantly depends on the simplifying
assumptions and the idealized material models, upon which the model
is developed.
To date, the analytical modeling of SC walls has been limited to
simplified empirical equations to predict the strength and stiffness of SC
walls (e.g., [10–18]). These formulations were derived either using
limited test data available in the literature or theoretical concepts,
which are based on many simplifying assumptions. Using these em-
pirical equations, the user is unable to simulate the nonlinear response
of SC walls subjected to monotonic and cyclic loadings. Given a lack of
reliable macro model for SC walls, there is a significant need to develop
a robust analytical tool, which is able to simulate the monotonic and
cyclic nonlinear response of SC walls. The model needs to be easily
implemented in an engineering computational platform for practical
analyses of buildings and infrastructures incorporating SC walls as a
lateral force-resisting system.
Herein, a fiber-based macro model is developed using PERFORM-3D

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: n.haghi@usc.ac.ir (N. Haghi), epackachis@aut.ac.ir, siamakep@buffalo.edu (S. Epackachi), Kazemi@sharif.edu (M. Taghi Kazemi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.10.018
Received 8 August 2019; Received in revised form 10 October 2019; Accepted 25 October 2019
2352-0124/ © 2019 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Haghi, et al.
Nomenclature
Ac Cross-section area of infill concrete
As Cross-section area of steel face plates
A(yi ) Area of sub element ith
B Stud spacing
Ec Elastic modulus of concrete
Es Elastic modulus of steel
fc Uniaxial compressive stress of unconfined concrete
fcc Uniaxial compressive stress of confined concrete
fle Maximum radial pressure on concrete
ft Uniaxial tensile stress of concrete
Gc Elastic shear modulus of concrete
Gfc Compression fracture energy
Gfo Base value of tensile fracture energy per CEB-FIP
Geff Effective elastic shear modulus of SC wall
Gs Elastic shear modulus of steel
Gft Tensile fracture energy
H height of wall panel
h Height of concrete element
k Effective length ratio
L Length of wall
LIP Length of integration point
program [19,20]. The proposed method is considered to be more effi-
cient to simulate the global response of SC walls than available finite
element models due to its simple modeling procedure and less com-
putational time and efforts. The proposed macro model is validated
using the available test data in the literature [4,5,21–23]. The valida-
tion study includes seventeen SC walls with and without BEs and with
an aspect ratio of one and more. A wide range of key design variables,
including different geometrical and material properties and the pre-
sence of the axial load are considered.
2. Literature review
Infill concrete and steel faceplates are two major components of an
SC wall. A macro model for SC wall should be able to simulate the
nonlinear responses of these components and their interactions. Various
macro models are available for nonlinear simulation of RC and SP shear
walls. There are four main types of macro-models used for RC shear
walls; (a) beam element model or beam-column element model (e.g.,
[24–26]), (b) truss model (e.g., [27–31]), (c) fiber-based shell element
for shear walls in PERFORM-3D [19,20], and (d) multiple-vertical–line-
element model (MVLEM) without shear-flexure interaction, and shear-
flexure interaction-multiple-vertical–line-element model (SFI-MVLEM)
implemented in OpenSees (e.g., [32–54]). There are also two main
types of macro-models for SP shear walls; (a) strip model (e.g.,
[55–58]), and (b) equivalent brace model (e.g., [59–61]). Various types
of macro models for RC and SC shear walls are presented in Figs. 1 and
2, respectively.
The beam-column element model is the simplest model used for
simulating the global response of RC shear walls [24–26]. This model
includes nonlinear axial and rotational springs at top and bottom of the
RC wall to model the plastic hinge formation at critical sections of RC
walls. The beam-column element model is not able to simulate the
shear-dominated response of squat RC shear walls. The nonlinear truss
model proposed by Panagiotou et al. [30] is successful in the simulation
of the nonlinear response of RC shear walls. The proposed model ac-
counts for the effects of the element length and the shear-flexure in-
teraction on the RC wall response. This model, however, including
many truss elements with different orientations, requires a lot of efforts
for model generation. Its application is limited to RC shear walls with
small dimensions. Among the available macro models for RC shear
384
Structures 23 (2020) 383–406
tc Thickness of infill concrete
ts Thickness of each steel faceplate
Vm test Measured peak shear strength of SC wall
Vm num Predicted peak shear strength of SC wall
ȳi Distance between centroid of sub- element to the wall base
b Critical buckling stress of steel plate
us Residual stress of steel plate
y Yield stress of steel plate
b Strain at onset of steel buckling
c Strain at peak stress of unconfined concrete
cc Strain at peak stress of confined concrete
t Concrete cracking strain
uc Strain at compressive residual stress of concrete
ut Strain at tensile residual stress of concrete
us Ultimate strain of steel
y Steel strain at yielding
Ratio of height of the plastic hinge to height of SC wall
Ratio of height of center of rotation to height of SC wall
Ratio of truss bar spacing to length of SC wall
a Slenderness ratio for rectangular column
Ratio of residual stress to buckling stress of steel plate
Poisson’s ratio for steel
walls, the Multiple-Vertical-Line-Element-Model (MVLEM) proposed by
Vulcano et al. [32] and after improved by Orakcal [46,47] and Ko-
lozvari et al. [52–54] (see Fig. 1(d) and (e)) has been shown to suc-
cessfully balance the simplicity of a macroscopic model and the re-
finements of a microscopic model. Using MVLEM, essential features of
RC wall behavior such as the neutral axis fluctuation, and the axial
force effect on the strength and stiffness are considered in numerical
analysis. Additionally, using this approach, the recent advanced hys-
teretic constitutive laws for steel and concrete can be adopted in the
model. The shear-flexure interaction multiple-vertical-line-element
(SFI-MVLEM) considers the shear and flexure interaction in numerical
simulation of RC shear walls. Kolozvari et al. [54] defined the SFI-
MVLEM and material constitutive behavior for RC walls in OpenSees
program.
The strip model used to simulate the nonlinear response of SP walls
is a simple model with several inclined tension truss members con-
nected to the frame. The truss members simulate the diagonal tension
field of steel web plate. Strip model predicts the initial stiffness and
ultimate strength of steel plates accurately [55–58]. The two ortho-
gonal directions for strips considering both tension-field action and the
compressive response of the steel plates were proposed for simulation of
the hysteresis behavior of the steel plate shear walls [60]. In the
equivalent tension brace method, the steel web plate is simulated by a
diagonal brace element. That model does not consider the tension field
action in the web of the steel plate shear walls accurately.
To date, some simplified models have been proposed for pre-
liminary analysis and design (e.g., [10–18]) of SC walls. Varma et al.
[12] proposed simple equations to predict in-plane shear behavior of SC
walls. The equations include principal tension and compression forces
in the SC section to calculate the stiffness and strength of SC walls. Ji
et al. [14] proposed a simplified formula to estimate the flexural
strength of the steel-concrete shear wall with encased boundary steel
tubes. Epackachi et al. [15] proposed a model for the analysis of
flexure- and flexure-shear-critical SC walls to calculate the monotonic
force-displacement response. Dong et al. [16] studied the load-carrying
capacity of each component of the steel-concrete multi-energy dis-
sipation shear wall. The SC wall included steel-concrete column, steel
plate deep beams, concrete panel, and energy dissipation strips. Hu
et al. [17] proposed a simplified method for calculating the load-car-
rying capacity of steel-concrete shear walls with boundary columns.
N. Haghi, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 383–406

Fig. 1. Macro models for RC shear walls.

Huang et al. [18] presented a modified axial load-bending moment
interaction approach to evaluate the strength of the steel-concrete
sandwich shear wall.
None of the proposed macro models for SC walls can simulate the
nonlinear cyclic response of the SC walls accurately. Thus, it is neces-
sary to develop a reliable and simple macro model for implementation
in structural engineering program used to analyze buildings and in-
frastructures incorporating SC walls as a lateral force-resisting system.
In this study, the available macro models for RC and SP shear walls are
combined to develop a new model for nonlinear cyclic simulation of SC
walls. The details of the proposed model are described in the following
sections.
3. Analysis assumptions for macro modeling of SC shear walls
For the seismic design of lateral resisting systems such as shear

385
N. Haghi, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 383–406

Fig. 2. Macro models for SP shear walls.

walls, the strength-based design using linear elastic analysis has been buckling of the steel faceplates under compression loading is considered
commonly applied. In a strong earthquake, however, the system usually in the material formulation of the truss bar. Vertically discretized fiber-
experiences high inelastic deformation. Thus, applying strength-based based shell elements are used to model the axial-flexural response of the
design is not reasonable because it considers the nonlinear behavior of concrete panel. The shell elements are not meshed horizontally because
the system implicitly. The displacement-based design and the capacity each element is internally discretized using numbers of fibers along the
design are known as the most appropriate design tools to consider the wall length. In Fig. 4, the H and H identify the height of the plastic
nonlinear response of structural systems in the design procedure. The hinge and the center of rotation above the wall base, respectively,
PERFORM-3D is a powerful program capable of using both displace- where H is the height of the SC wall. The normal and shear forces are
ment-based and capacity design approaches [19,20]. assumed to be uncoupled in the proposed macro model. The axial-
In this study, a fiber-based macro model of SC shear walls is de- flexural behavior of the shear wall is modeled using simple bars con-
veloped using PERFORM-3D [19,20] program. Fig. 3 presents the nected to the rigid beam and vertical fibers of the shell elements. The
available hysteresis backbone relationship defined in PERFORM-3D shear behavior of wall panel is modeled using an elastic shell element
used to simulate the nonlinear response of the structural components.
The test data used for the validation study include the results of
seventeen SC wall specimens. The design parameters are aspect ratio
(e.g., the ratio of the wall height to its length) ranging from 1 to 2.4,
slenderness ratios (e.g., the ratio of the stud spacing to the steel face-
plate thickness) ranging from 17 to 33, reinforcement ratio (e.g., the
ratio of the total steel faceplates thicknesses to the wall thickness)
ranging from 3.1% to 9%, axial load ratio (e.g., the ratio of the applied
compressive axial load to the sum of the axial capacity of the wall cross-
section) ranging from 0 to 0.4, concrete compressive strength ranging
from 27 to 103 MPa, and ultimate strength of the steel plates ranging
from 370 to 550 MPa. The proposed macro model is shown in Fig. 4. As
Fig. 4 presents, multiple truss bars with L spacing along the length of
the wall are used to model the axial-flexural response of the steel fa-
ceplates, where L denotes the length of the wall. Only one element is
used for each truss bar over the full height of the SC wall, and the Fig. 3. Inelastic behavior definition in PERFORM-3D [19].

386
N. Haghi, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 383–406

columns with square shapes under cyclic loading. The proposed model
considers the effect of concrete core on local buckling of the steel plates.
The given equations are as follows:
b 1.4
= 6.2a +1
y (2)

1
a=( B / ts ) 2
1.32
y
(3)

The strain at the end of the softening branch, us , is set to 0.01 plus
b. The residual stress of the softening branch, us , is a fraction of the
buckling strength, b . The value of is taken as 0.2 as proposed by
Dhakal and Maekawa [64].

3.2.2. Description of the concrete material

The tensile strength of concrete is calculated by CEB-FIP specifica-
tion [65] as follows:
f c 23
ft = 1.4( )
10 (4)

ft
Fig. 4. The schematic view of the proposed macro model for SC walls. t =
Ec (5)

with effective shear modulus, which will be defined later in this study. where ft and fc are tensile and compressive strength of the concrete,
The proposed model is only able to predict the response of flexure- respectively, and t is the strain corresponding to the peak tensile stress.
critical walls, for which the wall behavior is dominated by normal The strain corresponding to fc was calculated by the equation pro-
forces over the wall cross-section and shear-flexure interaction is neg- posed by chang and Mander [66]:
ligible. Based on the experimental and numerical studies conducted by
(f c ) 1/4
Epackachi et al. [23], SC walls having an aspect ratio of one and more = (f c : Psi)
c
4000 (6)
can be considered as flexure-critical walls.
Typically, concrete components and structures reach their capa-
3.1. Description of the model for the validation study cities when a localized tensile and/or compressive damage zone forms.
The post-peak-strength and stiffness degradations are significantly af-
The validation of the models is investigated by four sets of test data: fected by the extent of the damage localization and its position [67].
1) one rectangular SC wall without BEs with aspect ratio of 2.4 sub- The unique stress–strain curve proposed by Kent and Park [68] was
jected to lateral load tested by Cho et al. [21], 2) three large-scale used to consider the localized compressive damage zone (see Fig. 10a).
rectangular SC walls without BEs with aspect ratio of 1 subjected to The strain uc at softening branch was calculated by the equation pro-
lateral load only tested by Epackachi et al. [22,23], 3) five rectangular posed by Coleman and Spacone [69] as follows:
SC walls with boundary C-section columns and aspect ratio of 1.5 and
2.5 subjected to lateral and axial loads tested by Cheng and Zhou [4], Gfc 0.8fc'
uc = + c
and 4) eight rectangular SC walls with boundary steel tube columns 0.6f c' LIP Ec (7)
with aspect ratio of 1, 1.5, and 2 tested by Nie et al. [5] subjected to
lateral and axial loads. The geometry of the walls and the test setup are
presented in Figs. 5–8, and Table 1. The details of the test setup and
material properties are available in [4,5,21–23] and not repeated here.

3.2. Material properties

3.2.1. Description of the steel material

As seen in Fig. 9, two key points for softening branch of the stress-
strain curve should be defined in PERFORM-3D. The buckling strength,
b , can be calculated using the equation proposed by Akiyama et al.
[62] who conducted several experimental tests of SC walls under
compressive and lateral loading to evaluate the buckling strength of the
steel faceplates. The Akiyama’s equation is based on the Euler equation
considering a slenderness ratio equal to the stud spacing, B , divided by
the thickness of the steel faceplate, ts , as follows:
2E
s
b = B y
12k ( t )2
2
(1)
s

where Es is the elastic modulus of the steel faceplate and k is the ef-
fective length ratio.
The value of strain corresponding to the onset of buckling, εb, is
estimated by the equation proposed by Bai et al. [63]. Bai et al. [63]
developed a fiber-based numerical model to examine the strength and
stiffness degradation of the concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) beam- Fig. 5. SC wall specimen tested by Cho et al. [21].

387
N. Haghi, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 383–406

Fig. 6. SC wall specimens tested by Epackachi et al. [22,23].

where Ec is the elastic modulus of the concrete, the parameter LIP is the branch of tension.
length of the integration point for each element. The length of the in- The compressive strength of the confined concrete in BEs can be
tegration points LIP can significantly affect the response. In Eq. (7), the calculated using the expressions proposed by Susantha et al. [71] as
value of Gfc can be calculated by the test data provided by Jansen and follows:
Shah [70] (see Fig. 10(b)), where Gfc is the compression fracture energy
fcc' = f c' + 4fle (9)
of the concrete, fc' is the compressive strength of the concrete, and 0.2f c'
is the residual compressive stress corresponding to uc .
B 12(1 2
s)
fy
The tensile fracture energy is calculated by CEB-FIP specification R=
[65] as follows: t 4 2 Es (10)

ft (fc' )1.46
Gf t = Gfo ( )0.7 fle = 6.5R + 0.12(fc' )1.03
10 (8) fy (11)
where ft is the tensile strength and Gfo is the base value of the fracture
f cc'
energy according to CEB-FIP [65] specification. Substituting the Eqs. cc = c [1 + 5( 1)]
(4), (5), and (8) in Eq. (7) yields the value of the strain ut at softening fc (12)

388
N. Haghi, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 383–406

Fig. 7. SC wall specimens tested by Cheng and Zhou [4].

where fcc' and cc are the compressive strength of the confined concrete
and its corresponding strain, respectively.
3.3. Element types
The steel faceplates are discretized along the length of the wall.
Each part is modeled by a simple bar with uniaxial behavior, and a
cross-sectional area equals the area of the discretized wall element. The
concrete wall is also modeled by vertically discretized fiber-based shell
elements. The axial-flexural interaction response of the steel faceplates
and concrete wall are captured using multiple uniaxial simple bars
along the length of the wall and vertically discretized fiber-based shell

389
N. Haghi, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 383–406

Fig. 8. SC wall specimens tested by Nie et al. [5].

elements, respectively. The shell and multiple bar elements are con- by modeling the rigid beam at the top of the wall. The shear response of
nected by a rigid beam at the top of the wall. It is assumed that the the composite wall is captured using an elastic shell element with an
plane section remains plane after bending. Thus, the linear distribution effective elastic shear modulus, Geff , calculated as follows:
of the stress and strain along the length of the wall section is considered

390
N. Haghi, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 383–406

Table 1
Properties of the test specimens.
No. Researcher Label Cross section (mm × mm) Aspect ratio Axial load ratio Steel plate thickness (mm)

Boundary web

1 Cho [15] SCX 400 × 150 2.4 0 – 3

2 Epackachi [16,17] SC1 1524 × 305 1 0 – 4.8
3 SC2 1524 × 305 1 0 – 4.8
4 SC4 1524 × 229 1 0 – 4.8
5 Cheng & Zhou [4] CCSP1 620 × 86 1.5 0.4 6 3
6 CCSP3 620 × 86 1.5 0.3 6 3
7 CCSP5 620 × 86 2.5 0.3 6 3
8 CCSP6 620 × 86 2.5 0.3 6 4
9 CCSP7 620 × 106 2.5 0.3 6 3
10 Nie [5] CFSCW1 1284 × 214 2 0.37 5 5
11 CFSCW2 1284 × 214 2 0.37 5 5
12 CFSCW4 1284 × 214 2 0.36 4 4
13 CFSCW5 1284 × 214 2 0.37 3 3
14 CFSCW7 1284 × 214 2 0.32 5 5
15 CFSCW8 1284 × 214 2 0.32 6 4
16 CFSCW11 750 × 125 1.5 0.33 3 3
17 CFSCW12 750 × 125 1 0.4 3 3

the cross-sectional area of the steel faceplates, respectively. The use of

elastic shear response implies that the proposed model cannot be used
to simulate the cyclic response of low-aspect-ratio walls (i.e., walls with
an aspect ratio of less than 1.0) with shear–dominated response.

3.4. Boundary conditions and loading

The lateral loads are applied to the nodes at two ends of the rigid
beam, and the axial loads are distributed to all nodes along the rigid
beam at the top of the wall. The only in-plane response of SC wall is
modeled, and the out of plane response is ignored. Any base rotation at
the base of the wall due to the foundation failure or foundation-to-wall
connection rotation (i.e., base plate connection) is modeled using
multiple uniaxial spring elements at the base of the bars and shell
element.

Fig. 9. The key points in steel stress-strain curve defined in PERFORM-3D. 3.5. The center of rotation

Geff = Gc
Ac
+ Gs
As In the fiber-based macro model, the distribution of the curvature is
Ac + As A c + As (13) assumed to be uniform over the height of each element. The relative
rotation between the top and bottom of the wall model occurs at the
where Gc and Ac are the shear modulus and cross-sectional area of the center of rotation, where the center of rotation is the centroid of the
concrete panel, respectively, and Gs and As are the shear modulus and curvature distribution curve along the wall height [52]. The ratio of the

Fig. 10. Concrete material definition.

391
N. Haghi, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 383–406

height of the center of rotation to the wall height can be obtained as 4.1. Model parameters
follows:
The characteristic of the macro model includes the constant para-
n
A(y )i y¯y meters , , and for the definition of the simple bar spacing, length of
1 i=1 the plastic hinge, and center of rotation, respectively (see Fig. 4).
=
Fig. 11 presents the effect of mesh configuration of the shell element
n
H
A ( y )i
i=1 (14) on the force-displacement response of SC walls. The ratio of bar spacing
to wall length is equal to 0.2 for both model 1 and model 2. The length
where H is the height of the wall, A(yi ) is the area of the ith sub-element of the plastic hinge in model 1 is considered as the whole height of the
and ȳi is the distance between the centroid of the sub-element to the wall, and it is equal to the width of the first element above the base of
wall base in the curvature diagram along with the wall height, re- the wall for model 2. The center of rotation in model 1 is at the base of
spectively. the wall, and it is located 0.3H above the base of the wall for model 2.
As seen in Fig. 11(b), the initial stiffness and peak shear strength of
model 1 is much greater than model 2 with horizontal discretization.
4. Sensitivity analysis of macro modeling of SC wall The PERFORM-3D model 2 predicts the cyclic responses of specimens
SC1 tested by Epackachi et al. [22,23] without BE, and CFSCW7 tested
The sensitivity analysis is performed to examine the effect of various by Nie et al. [5] with BE accurately.
parameters including the number and length of the shell elements, the The sensitivity of the model response to the parameter is ex-
horizontal and vertical discretization of the shell elements, length of the amined using SC1 and CFSCW7 with various values of (see Fig. 12).
plastic hinge at the base of the wall, simple bar spacing, material The value of and taken as 0.1 and 0.3 for both models, respectively.
properties, and wall geometry on the cyclic response of the proposed As seen in Fig. 12, for both SC1 and CFSCW7, the bar spacing of 0.3L
macro model. For this purpose, the specimen SC1 tested by Epackachi results in the greater initial stiffness and the peak shear strength; by
et al. [22,23] without BE, and the specimen CFSCW7 tested by Nie et al. reduction of the number of bars, the area of the end bars increases
[5] with BE is considered. leading to a greater initial stiffness and peak shear strength.

Fig. 11. The effect of horizontal mesh configuration of SC wall.

392
N. Haghi, et al.
Fig. 12. The effect of bar spacing.
The sensitivity of the model response to the length of the plastic
hinge by varying the parameter from 0.1 to 0.2 is examined. Fig. 13
shows the configuration of the shell discretization and the hysteresis
response of the SC1 and CFSCW7 with different width of the base ele-
ment. The value of and taken as 0.2 and 0.3, respectively. As seen in
Fig. 13(b), the shorter the width of the base element, the smaller the
peak shear strength. The Model 3 with plastic hinge length of 0.1H
captures the response of SC1 and CFSCW7 appropriately. This result is
consistent with the test results reported by Epackachi et al. [23], where
the damage zone of all tested SC walls concentrated at 10% of the wall
height above their foundation.
For RC shear walls, the value of 0.4 is suggested for by Vulcano
et al. [33]. Fig. 14 shows the sensitivity of response for specimens SC1
and CFSCW7 to the variation of from 0.3 to 0.4. As seen in Fig. 14, the
overall shape of the force-displacement relationship and the value of
stiffness and peak shear strength are identical in both specimens SC1
and CFSCW7 implying that the response of SC walls is not significantly
affected by parameter ranging from 0.3 to 0.4.
393
Structures 23 (2020) 383–406
4.2. SC wall geometry, material properties and presence of axial load
In this section, the sensitivity of the SC wall response to wall geo-
metry, material properties, and presence of axial load is investigated
using the proposed macro model in Fig. 1 and the values of the para-
meters , and equal to 0.2, 0.1 and 0.3, respectively.
Fig. 15 shows the sensitivity of the macro model of the specimen
CFSCW7 to different parameters including aspect ratio, axial load ratio,
concrete compressive strength, and stud spacing, whereas the other para-
meters are considered to be constant in all analyses. As expected, the pro-
posed macro model is sensitive to the value of the key design parameter (see
Fig. 15). The stiffness and peak shear strength increase as the aspect ratio is
decreased (see Fig. 15(a)). Fig. 15(b) indicates that the presence of the axial
load increases the peak shear strength as expected. Fig. 15(c) and (d) show
the sensitivity of the model to the concrete compressive strength and
buckling behavior of the steel faceplates, respectively; the greater the con-
crete compressive strength, the greater the peak shear strength. As stud
spacing is reduced, the buckling of the steel faceplates is delayed, and so the
peak shear strength is increased (see Fig. 15(d)).
N. Haghi, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 383–406

Fig. 13. The effect of the length of the plastic hinge.

Fig. 14. The sensitivity of response to center of rotation (CR) for SC1 and CFSCW7.

394
N. Haghi, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 383–406

Fig. 15. The sensitivity of response to different parameters.

Table 2
Properties of the steel material.
No. Researcher Label Web Boundary

b (MPa) b (mm/mm) (mm/mm) (MPa) (mm/mm) (mm/mm)

1 Cho [15] SCX 289 0.01 0.02 – – –

2 Epackachi [16,17] SC1 248 0.038 0.048 – – –
3 SC2 248 0.0013 0.023 – – –
4 SC4 248 0.028 0.038 – – –
5 Cheng & Zhou [4] CCSP1 322 0.069 0.079 322 0.199 0.209
6 CCSP3 322 0.011 0.021 322 0.199 0.209
7 CCSP5 322 0.011 0.021 322 0.199 0.209
8 CCSP6 260 0.025 0.035 322 0.199 0.209
9 CCSP7 322 0.011 0.021 322 0.097 0.107
10 Nie [5] CFSCW1 306 0.241 0.251 306 0.241 0.251
11 CFSCW2 306 0.241 0.251 306 0.241 0.251
12 CFSCW4 351 0.118 0.128 351 0.118 0.128
13 CFSCW5 443 0.050 0.060 443 0.050 0.060
14 CFSCW7 306 0.241 0.251 306 0.241 0.251
15 CFSCW8 351 0.118 0.128 363 0.118 0.128
16 CFSCW11 443 0.218 0.228 443 0.218 0.228
17 CFSCW12 443 0.218 0.228 443 0.218 0.228

395
N. Haghi, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 383–406

5. Validation and discussion
Four sets of tests [4,5,21–23] are selected for the validation study
with different geometrical and material properties. The input data in
PERFORM-3D, for the properties of the steel and concrete materials, are
given in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
force–displacement relationships of CCSP-1 and CCSP3 with an aspect
ratio of 1.5 and those of CCSP-5 to CCSP-7 with an aspect ratio of 2.5
are presented in Fig. 18. As seen in Fig. 18, the predicted responses are
in good agreement with the test results in terms of the initial stiffness,
peak shear strength, and stiffness and strength degradations.

5.1. Cho’s SC wall [21] 5.4. Nie‘s SC wall [5]

The specimen without BEs tested by Cho et al. [21] is shown in
Fig. 5. The macro model of the SC walls tested by Cho et al. [21] is
shown in Fig. 16(a). Due to the flexibility of the baseplate reported by
Cho et al., the initial stiffness of the wall is captured using five support
springs with axial stiffness of 79 kN/mm for each spring. The bar spa-
cing and plastic hinge length of the macro model used to simulate the
cyclic response of Cho’s walls are 0.2L and 0.1H, respectively. As seen
in Fig. 16(a), out of four horizontal shell elements, the width of three
elements near the base of the wall is 0.1H, and that of the fourth ele-
ment is 0.7H.
The measured and predicted responses of SCX are presented in
Fig. 16(b). The values of the experimental and numerical peak shear
strengths, Vm test and Vm num , are presented in Table 4. The positive and
negative directions show the push and pull in the loading process. As
seen in Fig. 16 and Table 4, the predicted pre- and post-peak force-
displacement relationships and pinching behavior agree well with the
measured response. The initial stiffness is predicted successfully by
modeling the flexibility of the wall base plate with linear springs.
5.2. Epackachi’s SC wall [22,23]
Eight out of twelve specimens tested by Nie et al. [5] are selected to
examine the accuracy of the proposed model to simulate the cyclic
response of SC walls with BEs and with aspect ratios of 1 and 2 (see
Fig. 8). The specimens with the same geometry and material properties
are not considered.
Fig. 19(a) shows the macro model for the Nie’s wall. As seen in
Fig. 19, the side and insert plates used in BEs and the steel faceplates
are defined with separate steel bars. The infill concrete is confined by
the BEs and batten plates along the length of the wall. Thus, confined
concrete material based on the proposed stress-strain relationship by
Susantha et al. [71] is considered. The axial loads are applied on the
nodes of the rigid beam. The predicted and measured cyclic loops of
CFSCW1, CFSCW2, CFSCW4, CFSCW5, CFSCW7, and CFSCW8 with an
aspect ratio of 2, CFSCW11 with an aspect ratio of 1.5, and CFSCW12
with an aspect ratio of 1 are presented in Fig. 19(b).
The values of the peak shear strength are presented in Table 4. The
ratio of the predicted to measured shear strength ranges from 0.89 to
1.01. Based on the analysis results, the proposed model can capture the
nonlinear cyclic response of SC walls with different design variables
successfully.

Epackachi et al. [22,23] tested four SC walls without BEs with an

aspect ratio of 1 subjected to lateral load (see Fig. 6). A bolted baseplate
to RC foundation connection was used for all specimens. To consider
the baseplate rotation at the base of SC walls, eleven linear springs is
used in the macro model of SC walls. The measured and predicted re-
sponses for SC1, SC2, and SC4 are presented in Fig. 17(a).
The 0.1L-spaced steel bar is used to model the steel faceplates. The
length of the plastic hinge is set to 0.1H. The use of 1, 2, and 3 0.1H
width horizontal shell elements at the wall base results in the same
cyclic backbone curves. However, using three 0.1H width elements for
the macro model shows slightly more pinched response than that of the
model using two horizontal shell elements with 0.1H and 0.9H widths
elements. The values of the predicted and measured peak shear strength
of three SC walls are presented in Table 4. The ratio of the predicted to
measured shear strengths ranges from 0.94 to 1.11 for both positive and
negative loading directions.
6. The general recommendation for the macro modeling of SC wall
Herein, the cyclic behavior of the SC walls with and without BE has
been implemented in PERFORM-3D using fiber-based macro model.
The validation results show that the proposed model can simulate the
cyclic behavior of the SC wall successfully. The proposed method can be
applied for the various SC walls with and without BEs with the various
types of geometry and material properties. Appendix 1 explains the
modeling steps. The cyclic response of SC walls with various geome-
trical and material properties can be simulated successfully considering
the recommended modeling parameters in the following:
Table 3
Properties of the concrete material.
No. Researcher Label Unconfined Confined

uc (mm/
5.3. Cheng and Zhou’s SC wall [4] uc (mm/
*
f c' (MPa) '
f cc (MPa)
mm) mm)

Cheng and Zhou [4] tested ten SC walls with boundary channel 1 Cho [15] SCX2 35 0.0128 – –
columns with aspect ratios of 1.5 and 2.5, under both lateral and axial 2 Epackachi SC1 30.3 0.0094 – –
loads (see Fig. 7). The specimens with the same geometry and material 3 [16,17] SC2 30.3 0.0094 – –
properties, and those with the embedded section in the concrete panel, 4 SC4 36.6 0.0078 – –
5 Cheng & Zhou CCSP1 24 – 34 0.04
which is not the focus of this study, are ignored. The macro model used 6 [4] CCSP3 24 – 31 0.028
for the analysis of Cheng’s walls together with predicted and measured 7 CCSP5 24 – 31 0.028
cyclic force-displacement relations of five specimens is presented in 8 CCSP6 24 – 32 0.037
Fig. 18. As seen in Fig. 18(a), each boundary column is modeled by a 9 CCSP7 24 – 31 0.028
10 Nie [5] CFSCW1 73.1 – 103 0.029
simple bar at the end of the wall. The web bar spacing is set to 0.2L, and
11 CFSCW2 71.7 – 101 0.03
the length of the plastic hinge and center of rotation are taken as 0.1H 12 CFSCW4 75.4 – 103.8 0.02
and 0.3H, respectively. Due to the presence of the boundary columns at 13 CFSCW5 73.7 – 99.4 0.017
two ends of the wall, the infilled concrete is confined, and the stress- 14 CFSCW7 88.8 – 124 0.021
strain relationship is considered based on the equations proposed by 15 CFSCW8** 74.0 – 102 0.02
16 CFSCW11 66.3 95.1 0.04
Susantha et al. [71]. Two different steel materials are used for boundary 17 CFSCW12 73.6 – 105.3 0.037
column bar and the web bar due to the different geometrical and ma-
terial properties of the steel plates used in those regions. The axial loads *The value of u is calculated for 0.1L-length element.
are applied on the nodes of the rigid beam. The cyclic **The value is calculated for 4 mm-thickness of the steel web plate.

396
N. Haghi, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 383–406

Fig. 16. Numerical modeling of SC walls tested by Cho et al. [21].

• Based on the results of validation study and sensitivity analysis, the
best response prediction is obtained using the values of the para-
meters , and equal to 0.2, 0.1, and 0.3, respectively.
• The concrete panel should be discretized vertically above the base of
the wall with 0.1H-length element up to the center of rotation. In the
present study, it is shown that the center of rotation of SC walls
located at the height of 0.3H above the base of the wall.
• The steel faceplates are modeled using multiple steel bar elements
with 0.2H spacing along the length of the SC wall with the same
uniaxial behavior as the steel faceplates. The cross-sectional area of
each steel bar is calculated using the tributary area bar element. For
SC walls with BEs, a separate simple bar at the end of the wall
should be used to model the BE.
• The compressive stress-strain relationship proposed by Kent and
Park [68] and the ultimate strain proposed by Coleman and Spa-
cone. [69] are used to model unconfined concrete, and the stress-
strain relationship proposed by Susantha [71] is used to model
confined concrete used in the BEs of the SC walls. The buckling
response of the steel faceplates is captured using the model proposed
by Bai et al. [63]. The equation proposed by Akiyama et al. [62] for

Table 4
Summary of the predicted and measured shear strengths.
No. Label Aspect ratio Direction+ Direction-

Vmtest Vmnum (5)/(4) Vmtest Vmnum (8)/(7)

kN kN kN/kN kN kN kN/kN

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

1 SCX2 2.4 127 115.7 0.91 115 109.7 0.95

2 SC1 1 1404 1452 1.03 1411 1333 0.94
3 SC2 1 1377 1416 1.03 1401 1372 0.98
4 SC4 1 1192 1328 1.11 1229 1254 1.02
5 CCSP1 1.5 377.9 366 0.97 358.9 364 1.01
6 CCSP3 1.5 372 347 0.93 325.7 347.3 1.07
7 CCSP5 2.5 235.3 233 0.99 208 233 1.12
8 CCSP6 2.5 271.7 245.5 0.90 257.6 245.3 0.95
9 CCSP7 2.5 248.1 245.7 0.99 235.4 246.3 1.05
10 CFSCW1 2 2691 2550 0.95 2602 2549 0.98
11 CFSCW2 2 2655 2450 0.92 2422 2452 1.01
12 CFSCW4 2 2181 2142 0.98 2215 2132 0.96
13 CFSCW5 2 2165 2075 0.96 2074 2078 1.00
14 CFSCW7 2 2808 2650 0.94 2524 2650 1.05
15 CFSCW8 2 2511 2357 0.94 2365 2357 0.99
16 CFSCW11 1.5 1330 1236 0.93 1400 1240 0.89
17 CFSCW12 1 2064 1963 0.95 1971 1963 0.99

397
N. Haghi, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 383–406

Fig. 17. Numerical modeling of SC walls tested by Epackachi et al. [22,23].

the SC shear walls can be used to calculate the buckling strength of and the connection between shell and multiple bar elements are
the steel faceplates. considered by modeling a rigid beam at the top of the wall. The
• The linear distribution of the stress and strain along the wall section shear response of the composite wall is captured using an effective

398
N. Haghi, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 383–406

Fig. 18. Numerical modeling of SC walls tested by Cheng and Zhou [4].
399
N. Haghi, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 383–406

Fig. 19. Numerical modeling of SC walls tested by Nie et al. [5].

elastic shear modulus assigned to the shell elements. 7. Summary and conclusions
• For SC walls with a bolted base plate wall-to-foundation connection,
the flexibility of the base plate can be captured using several springs In this study, a reliable macro model was proposed to simulate the
at the base of the wall. nonlinear cyclic response of SC shear walls with and without BEs and

400
N. Haghi, et al.
Fig. 19. (continued)
with a wide range of design variables, including wall aspect ratio, axial
load, and reinforcement ratio. The computer program PERFORM-3D
was used to develop the proposed macro model. The macro model was
validated using test data of seventeen SC wall specimens. The nu-
merically predicted responses of the selected SC wall specimens, in-
cluding initial stiffness, peak shear strength, stiffness and strength de-
gradation, and pinching behavior were in good agreement with the test
results. The developed macro model can be easily implemented in nu-
merical models of high-rise buildings and infrastructures incorporated
SC walls as their lateral force-resisting system.
Based on the results of this study, the cyclic response of various
types of SC walls with and without BEs with different geometry and
401
Structures 23 (2020) 383–406
material properties can be predicted in PERFORM 3D.
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.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the Tehran University of Science
and Culture. This support is gratefully acknowledged.
N. Haghi, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 383–406

Appendix 1. Macro modeling of SC walls

402
N. Haghi, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 383–406

403
N. Haghi, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 383–406

404
N. Haghi, et al.
References
[1] Niousha A, Yukio N, Eiji M, Shoji U. Dynamic characteristics of a SC building in
Kashiwazaki NPP site using vibration test, part 1: data analysis and system identi-
fication. Transactions, SMiRT 2007.;19.
[2] Xilin L, Huanjun J. Recent progress of seismic research on tall buildings in China
Mainland. J Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2014;13(1):47–61.
[3] Bin W, Huanjun J, Xilin L. Seismic performance of steel plate reinforced concrete
shear wall and its application in China Mainland. J Constr Steel Res
2017;131:132–43.
[4] Cheng C, Zhou D. Experimental study on seismic behavior of composite concrete
and double-steel-plate shear walls with binding bars. 11th International workshop
on advanced smart materials and smart structures technology. University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign, United States; 2015.
[5] Nie JG, Hu HS, Fan JS, Tao MX, Li SY, Liu FJ. Experimental study on seismic be-
havior of high-strength concrete filled double-steel-plate composite walls. J Constr
Steel Res 2013;88:206–19.
[6] Epackachi S, Whittaker AS, Varma AH, Kurt EG. Finite element modeling of steel-
plate concrete composite wall piers. Eng Struct 2015;100:369–84.
[7] Rahnavard R, Hassanipour A, Mounesi A. Numerical study on important parameters
of composite steel-concrete shear walls. J Constr Steel Res 2016;121:441–56.
[8] Vecchio FJ, McQuade I. Towards improved modeling of steel-concrete composite
wall elements. Nucl Eng Des 2011;241(8):2629–42.
[9] Zhou Dy, Liu Lf, Zhu Lm. Lateral load-carrying capacity analyses of composite shear
walls with double steel plates and filled concrete with binding bars. J Cent South
Univ 2016;23(8):2083–91.
[10] 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(1):225–44.
[11] Varma AH, Malushte S, Sener K, Booth PN, and Coogler K. Steel-plate composite
(SC) walls: analysis and design including thermal effects. 21th International
Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology SMiRT21),
International Association for Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology
(IASMiRT), New Delhi, India; 2011.
[12] Varma AH, Zhang K, Chi H, Booth P, Baker T. In-Plane Shear Behavior of SC
Composite Walls: Theory vs. Experiment. 21th International Conference on
Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology SMiRT21), International Association
405
Structures 23 (2020) 383–406
for Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (IASMiRT), New Delhi, India; 2011.
[13] Varma AH, Malushte SR, Sener KC, Booth PN. Analysis recommendations for steel-
composite (SC) walls of safety-related nuclear facilities. Struct. Cong. ASCE
2012:1871–80.
[14] Ji X, Jiang F, Qian J. Seismic behavior of steel tube–double steel plate–concrete
composite walls: experimental tests. J Constr Steel Res 2013;86:17–30.
[15] Epackachi S, Whittaker AS, Huang YN. Analytical modeling of rectangular SC wall
panels. J Constr Steel Res 2015;105:49–59.
[16] Dong H, Cao W, Wu H, Qiao Q, Yu C. Experimental and analytical study on seismic
behavior of steel-concrete multi energy dissipation composite shear walls. Earthq
Eng Eng Vib 2015;14(1):125–39.
[17] Hu HS, Nie JG, Fan JS, Tao MX, Wang YH, Li SY. Seismic behavior of CFST- en-
hanced steel plate-reinforced concrete shear walls. J Constr Steel Res
2016;119:176–89.
[18] Huang Z, Liew JYR. Structural behaviour of steel-concrete–steel sandwich compo-
site wall subjected to compression and end moment. Thin-Walled Struct 2016; Part
B, 98: 592–606.
[19] Computers and Structures I. Components and elements for PERFORM-3D and
PERFORM-Collapse, Engineering Structures, Berkeley, California, USA: www.csi-
berkeley.com; 2011.
[20] Computers and Structures I. User guide PERFORM-3D, Nonlinear analysis and
performance assessment for 3D structures Berkeley, California, USA: www.csi-
berkeley.com; 2011.
[21] Cho SG, Park WK, So GH, Yi ST, Kim D. Seismic capacity estimation of steel plate
concrete (SC) shear wall specimens by nonlinear static analyses. KSCE J Civ Eng
2014;19(3):698–709.
[22] Epackachi S, Nguyen NH, Kurt EG, Whittaker AS, Varma AH. In-plane seismic be-
havior of rectangular steel-plate composite wall piers. J Struct Eng 2015;141(7).
[23] Epackachi S. Experimental, numerical, and analytical studies on the seismic re-
sponse of steel-plate concrete (SC) composite shear walls. A dissertation submitted
to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University at Buffalo, 2014.
[24] Clough RW, Benuska KL, Wilson EL. Inelastic earthquake response of tall buildings.
3rd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Jan-Feb. 1965. p. 68–89.
[25] Takizawa H. Notes on some basic problems in inelastic analysis of planar RC
structures. Trans Arch Inst Jpn 1976;240:51–62.
[26] Soleimani D, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Nonlinear beam model for R/C frame analysis.
J Electronic Comput (ASCE) 1979:483–509.
[27] Vallenas JM, Bertero VV, Popov EP. Hysteric behavior of reinforced concrete
N. Haghi, et al.
structural walls. NASA STI/Recon Technical Report N. 1979, 80.
[28] Kotronis P, Mazars J, Davenne L. The equivalent reinforced concrete model for
simulating the behavior of walls under dynamic shear loading. Eng Fract Mech
2003;70:1085–97.
[29] Park H, Eom T. Truss model for nonlinear analysis of RC members subject to cyclic
loading. J Struct Eng 2007;133:1351–63.
[30] Panagiotou M, Restrepo JI, Schoettler M, Kim G. Nonlinear cyclic truss model for
reinforced concrete walls. ACI Struct J 2012;109:205–14.
[31] Lu Y, Panagiotou M. Three-dimensional cyclic beam-truss model for nonplanar
reinforced concrete walls. J Struct Eng 2013;140.
[32] Vulcano A, Bertero VV. Analytical models for predicting the lateral response of RC
shear walls: evaluation of their reliability. Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
Technical Report UCB/EERC-87/19, College of Engineering, University of
California; 1987.
[33] Vulcano A, Bertero VV, Colotti V. Analytical modeling of RC structural walls.
Proceedings of 9th World Conference on Earthquake Eng. Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan.
1988. p. 41–6.
[34] Ozcebe G, Saatcioglu M. Hysteretic shear model for reinforced concrete members. J
Struct Eng 1989;115:132–48.
[35] Fischinger M, Vidic T, Fajfar P. Nonlinear seismic analysis of structural walls using
the multiple-vertical-line-element model. London and New York: Elsevier Science
Publishers Ltd.; 1992. p. 191–202.
[36] Fischinger M, Rejec K, Isaković T. Modeling inelastic shear response of RC walls. In:
15th World Conference on Earthquake Eng, Lisbon, Portugal; 2012.
[37] Linde P. Numerical modelling and capacity design of earthquake-resistant re-
inforced concrete walls. Birkhäuser 1993.
[38] Colotti V. Shear behavior of RC structural walls. J Struct Eng 1993;119:728–46.
[39] Milev J. Two dimensional analytical model of reinforced concrete shear walls. In:
Proc 11th World conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, Mexico; 1996.
[40] Ghobarah A, Youssef M. Modelling of reinforced concrete structural walls. Eng
Struct 1999;21:912–23.
[41] Youssef M, Ghobarah A. Modelling of RC beam-column joints and structural walls. J
Earthquake Eng 2001;5:93–111.
[42] Hidalgo PA, Jordan RM, Martinez MP. An analytical model to predict the inelastic
seismic behavior of shear-wall, reinforced concrete structures. Eng Struct
2002;24:85–98.
[43] Kim TW, Foutch DA, LaFave JM, Wilcoski J. Performance assessment of reinforced
concrete structural walls for seismic loads. University of Illinois Engineering
Experiment Station. College of Engineering. University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign; 2004.
[44] Kim TW, Foutch DA, LaFAVE JM. A practical model for seismic analysis of re-
inforced concrete shear wall buildings. J Earthquake Eng 2005;9:393–417.
[45] Kelly T. Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete shear wall structures. Bullet New
Zeal Soc Earthquake Eng 2004;37:156–80.
[46] Orakcal K, Wallace JW, Conte JP. Flexural modeling of reinforced concrete walls
model attributes. ACI Struct Eng 2004.
[47] Orakcal K, Massone LM, Wallace JW. Analytical modeling of reinforced concrete
walls for predicting flexural and coupled shear-flexural responses. Los Angeles:
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California; 2006.
[48] Massone LM. Modeling of shear–flexure interaction in RC walls BT. In: Proc 8th US
National Conf on Earthquake Eng, April 18–22, 2006; 13:7675–84.
406
Structures 23 (2020) 383–406
[49] Massone LM, Orakcal K, Wallace JW. Modeling of squat structural walls controlled
by shear. ACI Struct J 2009;106:646–55.
[50] Massone LM. Strength prediction of squat structural walls via calibration of a shear
flexure interaction model. Eng Struct 2010;32:922–32.
[51] Zhou X, Li G. A macro-element based practical model for seismic analysis of steel-
concrete composite high-rise buildings. Eng Struct 2013;49:91–103.
[52] Kolozvari K, Orakcal K, Wallace JW. Modeling of cyclic shear-flexure interaction in
reinforced concrete structural walls. I: theory. J Struct Eng 2014:141.
[53] Kolozvari K, Tran TA, Orakcal K, Wallace JW. Modeling of cyclic shear-flexure
interaction in reinforced concrete structural walls. II: experimental validation. J
Struct Eng 2014; 141.
[54] Kolozvari K, Orakcal K, Wallace J. New opensees models for simulating nonlinear
flexural and coupled shear-flexural behavior of RC walls and columns. Comput
Struct 2017;196:242–62.
[55] Thorburn LJ, Kulak GL, Montgomery CJ. Analysis of steel plate shear walls.
Structure engineering, Rep. No. 107. Edmonton, Canada: Dept. of Civil Engineering,
University of Alberta; 1983.
[56] Driver R, Kulak G, Elwi A, Kennedy D. FE and simplified models of steel plate shear
wall. J Struct Eng 1998;124(2):121–30.
[57] Shishkin JJ, Driver RG, Grondin GY. Analysis of steel plate shear walls using the
modified strip model. J Struct Eng 2009;135:1357–66.
[58] Ozcelik Y, Clayton PM. Strip model for steel plate shear walls with beam-connected
web plates. Eng Struct 2017:369–79.
[59] Elagaaly M, Liu Y. Analysis of thin steel plate shear walls. Struct Eng 1997:123(11).
[60] Choi IR, Park HG. Hysteresis model of thin infill plate for cyclic nonlinear analysis
of steel plate shear walls. J Struct Eng 2010;136:1423–34.
[61] Wang M, Yang W. Equivalent constitutive model of steel plate shear wall structures.
Thin Walled Struct 2018;124:415–29.
[62] Akiyama H, Sekimoto H, Fukihara M, Nakanishi K, Hara K, 1991. A compression
and shear loading test of concrete filled steel bearing wall. Transactions of the 11th
international conference on structural mechanics in reactor technology. (SMiRT-11)
1991, pp. 323–328.
[63] Bai Y, Lin X, Mou B. Numerical modeling on post-local buckling behavior of circular
and square concrete-filled steel tubular beam columns. Int J Steel Struct
2016;16:531–46.
[64] Dhakal RP, Maekawa K. Modeling for post yield buckling of reinforcement. J Struct
Eng 2002:1139–47.
[65] CEB-FIP CE-IDB. CEB-FIP model code 1990. Thomas Telford, London1993.
[66] Chang GA, Mander JB. Seismic energy based fatigue damage analysis of bridge
columns: part I-evaluation of seismic capacity. Report No. NCEER-94-0006,
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY; 1994.
[67] Puri S, Weiss J. Assessment of localized damage in concrete under compression
using acoustic emission. J Mater Civ Eng 2006.
[68] Kent DC, Park R. Flexural members with confined concrete. J Struct Div, ASCE
1971;97:1964–90.
[69] Coleman J, Spacone E. Localization issues in force-based frame elements. J Struct
Eng 2001:1257–65.
[70] Jansen DC, Shah SP. Effect of length on compressive strain softening of concrete.
ASCE 1997;123(1).
[71] Susantha KAS, Ge H, Usami T. Uniaxial stress–strain relationship of concrete con-
fined by various shaped steel tubes. Eng Struct 2001;23:1331–47.