Cyclic Behavior of Traditional and Innovative Composite

Shear Walls
Qiuhong Zhao1 and Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, M.ASCE2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Madras on 10/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Shear wall systems are one of the most commonly used lateral-load resisting systems in high-rise buildings. The composite
shear wall system studied herein consists of a steel plate shear wall with a reinforced concrete wall attached to one side of it using bolts.
In this paper, experimental studies of three-story composite shear wall specimens are presented and test results are discussed. Two
half-scale specimens were tested and both showed highly ductile behavior and stable cyclic postyielding performance. The specimens
were able to tolerate 33 cycles of shear displacements and reach maximum interstory drift of more than 0.05. Here the interstory drift is
defined as lateral movement of the floor over the story height. The bolts connecting the reinforced concrete walls to steel plate shear walls
were able to ensure the composite action by bracing the steel plate shear wall to the reinforced concrete shear wall and preventing the
overall buckling of steel plates. During late cycles and after shear yielding of the steel plate, inelastic local buckling of the steel plate shear
wall occurred in the areas between the bolts. The experimental results and their implication in seismic design are summarized and
discussed.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2004兲130:2共271兲
CE Database subject headings: Earthquake engineering; Structural engineering; Composite structures; Shear walls; Cyclic tests;
Bolts; Seismic design.

Introduction
Traditionally reinforced concrete shear walls have been used as
lateral-load resisting systems in multistory buildings. Steel struc-
tures with reinforced concrete shear walls have generally per-
formed well during the past earthquakes. In recent years, steel
plate shear walls have also been used to resist lateral-loads in
seismic retrofits as well as design of new midrise and tall build-
ings 共Astaneh-Asl 2001兲. Although shear walls have many struc-
tural and economical advantages, both reinforced concrete and
steel shear walls have disadvantages.
The main disadvantage of a reinforced concrete shear wall is
the development of tension cracks in the tension zones and com-
pressive crushing in the localized compression areas during large
cyclic excursions. Such cracks and crushing failures can result in
spalling and splitting failure of the wall as the cyclic deformations
become larger and repeated. Severe spalling and splitting can lead
to serious deterioration of stiffness and reduction in strength. In
addition, reinforced concrete shear walls usually develop rela-
tively large lateral stiffness, perhaps larger than needed to control
drift, and as a result, large shear forces will be attracted to the
1
Doctoral Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, 721 Davis Hall, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-
1710.
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 721 Davis
Hall, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1710. E-mail:
astaneh@ce.berkeley.edu, Web: www.ce.berkeley.edu/⬃astaneh
Note. Associate Editor: Sherif El-Tawil. Discussion open until July 1,
2004. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted
for review and possible publication on September 25, 2002; approved on
May 6, 2003. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, Vol. 130, No. 2, February 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/
2004/2-271–284/$18.00.
structure during seismic events. Such large seismic forces in turn
need to be resisted by the shear wall, boundary members, and
foundations, which results in extra costs. Another disadvantage of
reinforced concrete shear walls is the relatively high weight-to-
strength ratio of reinforced concrete compared to steel, which can
make reinforced concrete shear walls impractical to use for many
tall buildings with large shear forces.
The main disadvantage of a steel shear wall is the buckling of
the compression zone of the wall, which results in reduced shear
strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation capacity. To prevent
overall buckling of steel plate shear walls, stiffeners could be
added to the steel plate, which is quite common in Japan. But
adding the stiffeners, of course, will result in additional fabrica-
tion costs. In addition, in structures with steel shear walls, due to
relatively large inelastic deformations of the panel, the connec-
tions of the boundary frame can undergo relatively large cyclic
rotations 共Allen and Bulson 1980兲 as well as somewhat larger
interstory drifts.
Composite shear wall, on the other hand, can mitigate most
disadvantages of both reinforced concrete and steel shear walls
and take advantage of the best characteristics these two construc-
tion materials, steel and concrete, have to offer. Composite shear
wall, shown in Fig. 1, consists of steel plates connected to rein-
forced concrete walls. It has been used in a few modern buildings
in recent years including a major hospital in San Francisco 共Dean
et al. 1977兲. Moreover, an innovative and ductile composite shear
wall system proposed by Astaneh-Asl and tested as part of these
studies can further enhance cyclic behavior of composite shear
walls and eliminate the above disadvantages of both reinforced
concrete and steel shear walls 共Astaneh-Asl 2002兲.
Traditional and Innovative Composite Shear Wall
The focus of this study was on two configurations of composite
shear walls denoted as ‘‘traditional’’ and ‘‘innovative,’’ both

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 271

J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 271-284


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Madras on 10/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Traditional composite shear walls
shown in Fig. 2. In both shear wall systems, first a steel plate is
welded to the boundary steel beams and columns, then a precast
reinforced concrete shear wall is bolted to the steel plate wall to
form the composite wall. The difference between the traditional
and innovative wall system is that in the traditional system the
reinforced concrete wall is in direct contact with the boundary
steel columns and beams, but in the innovative system there is a
gap in between, as shown in Fig. 2. The gap can be left empty or
filled with soft material such as Styrofoam used in the test speci-
men in this project. If one desires to add to energy dissipation
capacity of the structure at extra cost, the gap can be filled with
viscoelastic material.
Fig. 2. Components of composite shear walls studied in this project
272 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004
J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 271-284
In the traditional composite shear wall, from beginning of
loading, both steel plate and reinforced concrete walls are active
and provide stiffness and strength. As a result, not only large
forces can be attracted to the structure due to relatively large
stiffness of the combined system, but the reinforced concrete wall
can also be damaged under relatively small lateral displacements.
In the proposed innovative system, because of the existence of
the gap, the reinforced concrete wall is not engaged with the
frame and thus not involved in resisting lateral loads under rela-
tively small lateral displacements. As long as the gap around the
reinforced concrete wall is not closed, contribution from the rein-
forced concrete wall to total strength, stiffness, and ductility
would be negligible. The role of the reinforced concrete wall at
this stage is to provide out-of-plane bracing for the steel plate and
prevent its overall buckling before yielding. As a result, under
small lateral displacements, the system acts similar to a ‘‘stiffened
steel shear wall’’ where buckling of the steel plate is prevented,
prior to its shear yielding. Under large lateral displacements, the
gap between the reinforced concrete wall and boundary frame is
closed at the corners, so both steel and concrete shear walls be-
come active and provide strength, stiffness, and ductility. Also,
the participation of reinforced concrete wall could bring in extra
stiffness in compensation for the stiffness loss of the steel shear
wall due to yielding, which will help reduce the drift and P⫺⌬
effects, and in turn help prevent lateral creep and collapse failure
of the structure due to P⫺⌬ effects.
Objectives of the Study
The main objectives of the research and development program
summarized herein were:
1. To collect information on actual behavior of composite shear
walls during past earthquakes as well as to collect the results
of cyclic tests conducted on this system in the laboratories;
2. To further develop the proposed Innovative Composite Shear
Wall and incorporate elements into the system that can re-
duce construction time and costs and improve seismic per-
formance of the system further;
3. To conduct, analytically, parametric studies on the traditional
and proposed Innovative Composite Shear Wall systems in
order to identify the most important parameters affecting
seismic behavior;
4. To conduct cyclic tests of two specimens representing tradi-
tional and Innovative Composite Shear Walls and to estab-
lish their cyclic behavior regarding strength, stiffness, energy
dissipation, and damageability characteristics; and
5. To develop design guidelines and recommendations.
Test Specimens
Two specimens were tested. Details of the specimens are shown
in Figs. 3–5. More details and shop drawings can be found in
Zhao and Astaneh-Asl 共2002兲. The specimens were 1/2-scale
three stories, one bay structure with a steel moment frame as the
boundary element and composite shear walls embedded inside the
frame. The composite shear wall consisted of a steel plate shear
wall and a reinforced concrete shear wall bolted to each other.
The bay span was 2 m 共7 ft兲 center to center and so was the
typical story height. The top and bottom panels of the specimen
were representing two half stories while the middle two panels
were representing two whole stories. The two specimens had
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Madras on 10/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Elevation and details of specimens
identical properties except that in specimen 1 there was a 32 mm
共1.25 in.兲 gap between the reinforced concrete wall and the sur-
rounding steel frame. Therefore specimen 1 was representing the
‘‘Innovative’’ Composite Shear Wall and specimen 2 was repre-
senting the Traditional Composite Shear Wall. Table 1 shows the
properties of test specimens.
In the specimens, the steel wall plate was made of A36 with
specified yield stress of 248 MPa 共36 ksi兲. The beams and col-
umns in the steel frame were made of A572 Grade 50 steel with
specified yield stress of 345 MPa 共50 ksi兲. The concrete used in
Fig. 4. Specimen without concrete wall
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 273
J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 271-284
the specimens was specified with nominal compressive strength
f’c of 28 MPa 共4,000 psi兲. The steel part of the specimens was
fabricated by a local fabricator and delivered to the test site—the
University of California Civil Engineering Laboratories on cam-
pus. The steel wall plates were shop-welded to the surrounding
steel beams and columns. Welds were all fillet welds using flux
cored arc welds with E70T-7 electrodes, with a specified strength
of 483 MPa 共70 ksi兲. The reinforced concrete walls in the speci-
men were precast and bolted to the steel walls by 13 mm 共1/2 in.兲
diameter A325 bolts. The precast reinforced concrete walls were
cast in the laboratory.
Both specimens represented a ‘‘dual’’ lateral-load resisting
system as defined in current codes 共International Conference of
Building Officials 1997兲 in the sense that they included a steel
moment frame and a composite shear wall in the same structure.
In this dual system both the steel moment frame and composite
shear wall would be involved in resisting lateral forces, but ini-
tially the composite shear wall would take most of it. Later, as the
stiffness of the composite shear wall deteriorated, more and more
lateral forces will be resisted by the moment frame. Therefore the
moment frame was acting as a ‘‘back-up’’ system to the ‘‘pri-
mary’’ lateral-load resisting composite shear wall system. The
moment connections in the steel frame were designed according
to FEMA 350 recommendations 共Federal Emergency Manage-
ment Agency 2001兲, with details added to further increase the
rotation ductility. Fig. 5 shows the details of the moment connec-
tions that were top and bottom field-welded plates with shear tab
connections.
Test Setup and Test Procedure
The test setup is shown in Fig. 6. Main components of the test
setup are: actuator, top loading beam, bottom reaction beam, R/C
reaction blocks, and bracings.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Madras on 10/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Details of moment connections in the test specimens

The actuator could provide ⫾305 mm 共⫾12 in.兲 of maximum
displacement and ⫾6,672 kN 共⫾1,500 kilo pounds兲 of maximum
push-pull force. It was fixed to a steel reaction box that was in
turn fixed to the laboratory floor using 51 mm 共2 in.兲 diameter
prestressing rods. During the tests, the slippage of the actuator
was continuously monitored. The maximum slippage displace-
ment was set to be 3 mm 共1/8 in.兲 beyond which the actuator
would be shut down to prevent any damage to the setup or floor.
Throughout both tests, the actuator did not slip.
The beam attached to the top of the specimen was designed to
transfer cyclic horizontal actuator forces and displacements to the
specimen. The beam attached to the bottom of the specimen, the
bottom reaction beam, was designed to transfer the shear forces
and overturning moments from the specimen to the reaction
blocks. The reaction blocks, prestressed to each other and to the
laboratory floor, would then transfer the shear and overturning
moments to the ground. The whole force-transferring path was
then complete.
Cyclic displacements were applied to the top of the specimens
by the loading beam. The overall drift angle was measured as the
displacement at the top of the specimen divided by the height of
the specimen. It was different from the interstory drift that was
defined as the lateral deformation of a story divided by the height
of the story. Cyclic shear forces were applied to the top of the
specimens at the same time, so all the stories in the specimen had
the same story shear, which represented the shear distribution in
the generic structure. As we know, composite shear wall systems
are more economical to use in tall buildings due to their relatively
large capacity even with relatively thin steel plates, while in the
tall buildings variation of shear forces between adjacent stories is
very small, as shown in Fig. 7. The shear force applied to the top
of the specimen simulated the inertia forces generated by the
floors above the tested portion. Gravity loading was ignored since
gravity did not play an important role in the seismic behavior of
composite shear walls.
The top and bottom boundary conditions were also designed to
simulate the boundary conditions of a shear wall panel in a ge-
neric building under seismic effects. In order to simulate bracing
effects provided by the floors, bracings were applied at two loca-
tions on the specimens to prevent out-of-plane movements. One
bracing was applied to the loading beam, and the other was ap-
plied to the top flange of the middle beam.
During each test, first the prestressing rods connecting the ac-
tuator and the reaction blocks to the laboratory floor were tight-
ened. The actuator monitoring system and all instrumentations
were connected and calibrated. Then a warm-up test was done in

Table 1. Components of Test Specimens

Precast reinforced concrete wall
Specimen Steel wall
number and plate Rebar Rebar Reinforcement Beam Column
designation thickness Thickness diameter spacing ratio sectiona sectiona
1 4.8 mm 76 mm 10 mm 102 mm 0.92% W12⫻26 W12⫻120
Innovative 共3/16 in.兲 共3 in.兲 共3/8 in.兲 共4 in.兲
2 4.8 mm 76 mm 10 mm 102 mm 0.92% W12⫻26 W12⫻120
Traditional 共3/16 in.兲 共3 in.兲 共3/8 in.兲 共4 in.兲
a
Properties of cross sections can be found in the AISC Manuals 共AISC 1994, 1999兲.

274 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004

J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 271-284

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Madras on 10/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Shear and moment diagram for generic structure of test

specimen
Fig. 6. Test specimen inside test setup

increased gradually until failure of the specimen, or in some cases

which a very small amount of cyclic actuator displacement, typi-
cally ⫾1 mm 共⫾0.05 in.兲, was applied to check the performance
of the actuator and all the instrumentations. After that, the real test
began. The actuator would apply lateral displacements to the top
of the specimen in preplanned groups. In each group the displace-
ment was applied cyclically with the same peak values for several
cycles. After finishing one loading group, the actuator stopped
temporarily for test observation and then the next loading group
started. The actuator continued applying groups of displacement
cycles until the specimen failed or the ⫾305 mm 共⫾12 in.兲 dis-
placement limit of the actuator was reached, which corresponds to
overall drift of 0.049. More details of loading history are provided
in the following section.
the displacement limit of the actuator. Both tests used the same
loading history given in Table 2. The loading history was estab-
lished according to the specifications for qualifying cyclic tests of
beam-to-column and link-to-column connections in seismic pro-
visions for structural steel buildings 共American Institute of Steel
Construction 1997兲.
By conducting inelastic analyses, the top displacement of both
specimens at yielding was predicted to be 38 mm 共1.5 in.兲, cor-
responding to an overall drift of 0.006. Later, during the tests,
both specimens yielded at almost the predicted value, which vali-
dated the prediction. The loading sequence and points of failure
for both specimens are shown in Fig. 8.

Loading History
The cyclic displacements were applied according to the loading
history, which began with very small values of overall drift and
Instrumentation
A number of linear variable displacement transducers 共LVDTs兲
were put on the specimens to measure the global as well as local
displacements of points of interest on the specimens, as shown in

Table 2. Loading History Applied to Both Specimens

Number of
cycles Total Lateral
Group in the number of displacement of
number group cycles Overall drift top of specimens Comments
1 3 3 0.002 rad 13 mm 共0.5 in.兲 Test started
2 3 6 0.004 rad 25 mm 共1 in.兲
3 3 9 0.006 rad 38 mm 共1.5 in.兲 Both specimens yielded
4 3 12 0.012 rad 76 mm 共3 in.兲
5 3 15 0.018 rad 114 mm 共4.5 in.兲
6 2 17 0.024 rad 152 mm 共6 in.兲
7 2 19 0.030 rad 191 mm 共7.5 in.兲
8 2 21 0.036 rad 229 mm 共9 in.兲
9 2 23 0.042 rad 267 mm 共10.5 in.兲 Both specimens failed
Test 2 stopped
10 10 33 0.044 rad 279 mm 共11 in.兲 Test 1 stopped

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 275

J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 271-284


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Madras on 10/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Time history of drift applied to specimens
Figs. 9 and 10. Points of interest included intersection points of
member centerlines, the corner points of steel panels, the corner
points of panel zones, etc. In this way movement of the members
were monitored and important data such as panel zone deforma-
tion, shear wall panel deformation, and rotation of a beam in
moment connections could be measured.
In order to measure strains at various critical locations on the
specimen, linear as well as ‘‘rosette’’ strain gauges were mounted
to the specimen, as shown in Fig. 11. Critical locations included
Fig. 9. Global displacement transducers mounted on the specimens
276 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004
J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 271-284
flange and web of the column, middle point of the steel panel,
quarter point of the steel panel, etc.
For safety purposes, a series of displacement transducers were
mounted to the test setup. The objective was to measure the rela-
tive movement of the actuator and the reaction blocks relative to
the laboratory floor and detect any slippage. If the slippage was
more than 1/8 in., the transducer signal will automatically shut
down the hydraulic pumps and the actuator. The safety mecha-
nism was never activated during the two tests.
Cyclic Behavior of Composite Shear Wall
Specimens
Cyclic Behavior of Innovative Composite Shear Wall
Specimen
Specimen 1, with a 32 mm 共1.25 in.兲 gap around the reinforced
concrete panel, behaved in a very ductile and desirable manner.
Up to overall drifts of about 0.006, the specimen was almost
elastic. At this drift level some yield lines appeared on the beams
as well as column base. At overall drifts of about 0.012, the com-
pression diagonal in the steel wall panels was buckling and a
diagonal tension field was forming. The specimen could tolerate
33 cycles, out of which 27 cycles were inelastic, before reaching
an overall drift of 0.044 and maximum shear strength of about
2,789 kN 共627 kips兲. At this level of drift, fractures were wide-
spread in the walls and frame members 共due to low-cycle fatigue兲,
and the connectors between the steel wall and concrete wall were
 almost gone. Shear strength of the specimen dropped to about
80% of the maximum capacity of the specimen, and the specimen
was considered failed. The test stopped.
The specimen was almost elastic at the overall drift of 0.002
when only very slight yield lines were observed at the base plate
of the columns. And the specimen still remained elastic at an
overall drift of 0.004. The hysteretic loops were small and not
exactly symmetric.
At overall drift of 0.006, yielding lines were observed on the
web of all three horizontal beams, especially the bottom one. The
yielding lines were at an approximately 45° angle and distributed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Madras on 10/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
along the whole span and near the moment connections. More
yielding lines appeared on the column base plate and some yield-
ing lines were observed on the side face of column flanges close
to the base plate. There was no sign of yielding on the steel shear
wall observed from under the specimen. This drift point, as pre-
dicted by inelastic analyses prior to the tests, was confirmed to be
the yield point of the specimen. The maximum shear force mea-
sured from the load cell at this point was about 1,717 kN 共386
kips兲, 62% of the total shear capacity.
At the drift level of 0.012, the web of beams had totally
yielded and widespread yield lines were observed along the span.
The yielding lines had different patterns on different beams. For
the bottom beam, most lines were diagonal lines in several direc-
tions. For the middle and top beam, there were also horizontal and
vertical lines at the end of the beam close to the moment connec-
tions. Many vertical yielding lines were observed on the flanges
of the bottom and middle beams. The beams had yielded a lot in
this loading group. More diagonal yielding lines were observed
on the side face of north-column flanges around the connection
with the base plate. Some yielding on the north-column web was
also observed in this region. The shear tabs in all the steel frame
moment connections yielded in shear along the welding line to
the column. Some slight shear yielding lines were observed at the
end of beams too. The steel plate shear wall developed some local
buckling in the compression diagonal strut and yielding in the
tension diagonal strut. Diagonal buckling shapes were formed but
deformation was limited by the bolts. Some slight yielding lines
were observed around one of the bolts. The reinforced concrete
panels started to separate from the frame and get lifted from the
steel panel underneath. The damage to the reinforced concrete
wall up to this point was very minor and in the form of hair
cracks.
At the drift level of 0.018, moderate pinch showed on the
hysteresis loops as a result of buckling of the steel shear wall
plate and the curves deviated a little. The web of all three beams
had heavily yielded throughout the whole span. Both columns had
heavy flange yielding and some web yielding at the base above
the base cover plate. The yielding lines on the side face of column
flanges extended from the base to the floor level of the second
story in the specimen. More yielding lines were also observed on
the base cover plate at the connection of the plate to the test setup.
The lower steel wall panel had formed an obvious ‘‘X’’ buckling
shape and many visible vertical yield lines. The upper steel wall
panel had formed an obvious diagonal buckling shape of almost
45° and many yield lines close to the corner. The lower reinforced
concrete wall panel was lifted more at lower corners.
During the drift level of 0.024, the middle beam started to
develop web local buckling at both ends. The bottom beam
started to develop flange local buckling near the north end. More
yielding occurred at the column base. In the middle moment con-
nections, the beam started to develop flange local buckling around
its connection with the cover plates. This area became quite active
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 277
J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 271-284
from now on. The lower steel panel had clear bumps at quarter
points of its ‘‘X’’ buckling shape. The top steel panel had a clear
diagonal buckling shape and kinks at quarter points. The lower
reinforced concrete wall panel developed diagonal cracks and was
lifted more along the lower edge. There were slight relative
movements between the concrete panel and some of the bolts
connecting the steel and concrete shear walls. The top and bottom
panel had a crack along the steel beam flange and separated from
the steel frame.
During the drift level of 0.03, the specimen reached its peak
shear strength of about 2,789 kN 共627 kips兲. In the bottom mo-
ment connections, the south shear tab had distorted around the
first bolt hole. In the top moment connections, some yielding lines
were observed on the column inner flanges around the connection
to cover plates. In the middle moment connections, the beam had
severe web and flange local buckling and the welding between the
flange and the cover plates was torn apart. For the first time some
of the bolts connecting the lower steel and reinforced concrete
wall panels punched through the steel wall. The steel wall started
to develop cracks at the corners near the middle north moment
connections because of the severe flange local buckling. More
kinks were formed at quarter points on both steel shear walls. The
lower reinforced concrete wall panel had more cracks between the
bolts and crushed a little around some of the bolts near the middle
south moment connection. The upper reinforced concrete wall
panel started to develop cracks and separated from the flange of
the top beam.
In the loading group of 0.036 drifts, the top and bottom beams
had noticeable web local buckling near the moment connections.
The columns had developed a plastic hinge from the column base
up to halfway to the second story. The first beam web fracture
occurred at the south end of the middle beam. Flanges locally
buckled about 51 mm 共2 in.兲 on the south end and 25 mm 共1 in.兲
on the north end. There was very clear buckling shape and bumps
on both lower and upper panels. The reinforced concrete walls
developed major cracks and crushed at the corners. The lower
reinforced concrete wall had been lifted about 51 mm 共2 in.兲 at
the bottom and 25 mm 共1 in.兲 on the side. There were bolts frac-
tured in both panels.
During the loading group of 0.042 drifts, the specimen failed
by fracture of the steel wall plate that started from the corners.
The maximum shear force observed during the second cycle of
this group had dropped to less than 80% of the maximum shear
capacity, therefore the specimen was considered failed. This point
was also designated as the ‘‘Point of Maximum Ductility’’ where
maximum interstory ductility reached 0.05 for both the second
and third story. The flange of the top beam locally buckled. In the
south middle moment connection, fractures in the web developed
from the places where the beam flange had locally buckled. About
10% of the total bolts connecting the steel plates to the reinforced
concrete walls had failed in tension fracture or had punched
through the steel wall. Reinforced concrete walls showed major
crushing lines. The upper reinforced concrete wall had been lifted
about 102 mm 共4 in.兲 around the perimeter with a ‘‘dish’’ like
sagging shape.
A few cycles of 0.044 overall drift were also applied for the
purpose of observing the inelastic behavior of the frame after
failure of the walls. Fractures were observed on all beam webs
and all beam flanges had locally buckled in the moment connec-
tion region. There was obvious column flange local buckling at
the base and the column has formed a plastic hinge from the base
all the way to the top of the second story. Another plastic hinge
was formed on each column shown on the inner flange and web
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Madras on 10/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Local displacement transducers mounted on the specimens

from the top cover plate all the way into the third story. In the
middle moment connections, the beam web had severely fractured
across the section and the beam flange totally buckled. There was
severe fracture of both steel wall panels near the middle south
moment connection. A large portion of the corners were torn off.
There were other diagonal fractures inside the steel panels at
quarter points and corners where kinks had formed. Most of the
bolts penetrated through the steel walls. Near the top south mo-
ment connection, there was heavy fracture and the fisher plate
was torn off. Concentrated yielding lines were observed along the
whole edge of the steel plate in the direction where the corner had
been torn off. A large portion of the reinforced concrete walls had Fig. 12. Specimen 1 at various stages of test

crushed and spalled, and the rebar buckled. Fig. 12 shows a mo-
ment connection and the appearance of the concrete wall in speci-
men 1 at the end of the tests.

Cyclic Behavior of Traditional Composite Shear Walls

Specimen 2 behaved in a less ductile manner than specimen 1
most likely due to lack of the gap around the reinforced concrete
panel. The displacement history applied to specimen 2 was ex-
actly the same as specimen 1 except that the last 0.044 drift level
loading group was omitted.
Up to interstory drifts of about 0.006, the specimen was almost
elastic. At this drift level some yield lines appeared on the bottom
and middle beam webs as well as the column base plate. The
specimen showed very high cyclic ductility and was able to reach
a cyclic overall drift of 0.042 after undergoing 23 cycles, 17 of
the cycles being inelastic. The maximum shear force reached was
about 3,020 kN 共679 kips兲 during the 19th cycle. Throughout the
test, the gravity load carrying column remained essentially stable
while nongravity carrying lateral load resisting elements under-
went well-distributed and desirable yielding. During the 23rd
cycle, the upper steel shear wall plate fractured totally along the
north and bottom edges 共due to low-cycle fatigue兲, and the con-
Fig. 11. Strain gauges on the composite shear wall specimens
nectors between the steel wall and concrete wall were almost

278 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004

J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 271-284

 gone. Shear strength of the specimen dropped to about 80% of the
maximum capacity of the specimen, and the specimen was con-
sidered failed. The test stopped.
The specimen was purely elastic at the overall drift of 0.002
when no yielding was observed on the specimen. The specimen
still remained elastic at an overall drift of 0.004. Only very minor
yielding lines were observed on the bottom beam web and negli-
gible yielding on the column base plate.
The overall drift value of 0.006 was established as the ‘‘Sig-
nificant Yield Point’’ of specimen 2, which was the same as for
specimen 1 and validated the prediction of inelastic pushover
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Madras on 10/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
analyses conducted prior to the tests. The maximum shear load
observed at this overall drift level was about 1,953 kN 共439 kips兲,
which was 20% higher than the first specimen possibly due to the
contribution from the reinforced concrete shear walls. During the
loading cycle, more yielding was observed on the bottom beam
web and the column base plates. Some yielding was observed on
the middle beam web near the ends, and very slight yielding was
observed on the top beam web near the north end. Yielding was
also observed on the south column flange at the base. There were
some relative movements between the reinforced concrete wall
panel and the surrounding steel frame, and the movement was
more obvious in the lower panel. There is no sign of yielding of
the steel shear wall yet.
At an overall drift value of 0.012, heavy yielding was ob-
served on the bottom beam web. Yielding lines were mostly hori-
zontal and vertical. Lines that were parallel to the beam flange
formed a band at the flange–web intersection. There was a nice
continuous yielding of the middle beam web. Yield lines were
more concentrated at the ends. Yielding of the top beam web was
not as obvious as the bottom and middle ones and yielding lines
mostly showed at the ends. Heavy yielding was observed at the
column outside flanges near the base. All the shear tabs in the
bottom and middle moment connections were totally yielded.
Here tabs in the top moment connections slightly yielded. Some
corner and perimeter yielding had developed in the steel wall
panels, but no obvious buckling could be observed. There was
also some slight yielding in the panel around the bolt holes. There
were obvious gaps between the reinforced concrete panel and the
surrounding steel frame, especially between the panel and the
beam flange. At the perimeter, the lower reinforced concrete wall
started to separate from the surrounding steel frame with a 6 mm
共1/4 in.兲 gap and was lifted up about 13 mm 共1/2 in.兲 from the
steel panel underneath. The upper panel also got separated from
the steel beam flanges and lifted but the magnitudes of the move-
ments were smaller.
At the drift level of 0.018, some pinching effects were shown
on the hysteresis loops and the specimen lost some stiffness in the
first loading cycle, possibly due to cracking of the reinforced
concrete panel around the edges and the buckling of the steel wall
panel. This point was designated as the ‘‘Point of Maximum
Shear Strength’’ where shear strength reached 3,020 kN 共679
kips兲. The webs of the bottom and middle beam had totally
yielded, and some yielding occurred on the web of the top beam
near the moment connections. Yielding of the column outer flange
had developed more along the specimen. Bottom and middle
beam flanges yielded near the intersection with cover plates. All
shear tabs totally yielded. In the middle moment connections, the
cover plate yielded at the intersection with the column face. The
steel wall panel developed obvious buckling shapes diagonally.
Buckling happened between the connecting bolts. Lots of yielding
was observed at wall corners and around perimeters. Short verti-
cally yielding lines were observed on the wall panels starting
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 279
J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 271-284
from the end of the cover plates in moment connections. The two
half-story wall panels were also yielded with very minor fractures
appearing in the first story. Both reinforced concrete wall panels
started to develop serious cracks around the edges and small
cracks in the middle. The panels got lifted more from the steel
plate underneath. One bolt connecting the steel wall and rein-
forced concrete wall in the second story was broken and sheared
off.
At an overall drift of 0.024, the middle beam had noticeable
web local buckling near moment connections and the middle
beam flange yielded a lot. The bottom beam flange continued
yielding. Column outer flanges at the base continued to yield.
Yielding was observed on the column inner flange at the top
moment connections. The ends of the cover plates in the middle
moment connections had fully yielded. Steel shear wall panels
continued yielding and buckling. No fracture was observed at the
end of the cover plate up to this point compared to specimen 1.
The reinforced concrete panels had crushed slightly around the
perimeter and the lower panel was lifted about 76 mm 共3 in.兲 at
the corner. Small diagonal cracks were formed on both panels.
One bolt in the lower panel popped up.
At the displacement group of 0.03 overall drift, the flange of
the middle beam had local buckling at the ends. Yielding of the
column inner flange in the top moment connections extended to
the column top plate. The middle beam flange formed a fracture
from the cover plate. The ends of the cover plates inside the
bottom moment connections totally yielded. Severe kinks were
formed in both panels. The steel wall started to develop cracks
near the middle moment connections where the beam flange lo-
cally buckled, and inside the lower panel. The first punching fail-
ure of bolts connecting the steel wall and reinforced concrete wall
occurred. More bolts were broken. Almost all the bolts were in-
effective in the lower panel at the end of the loading group. In the
lower panel, there were obvious gaps between the reinforced con-
crete panel and the column flange, and the corner of the panel was
lifted to a point where rebars could be seen. The reinforced con-
crete wall panel spalled and crushed around the edges. Lots of
diagonal cracks were observed inside the panels too.
At the displacement group of 0.036 overall drift, the bottom
and middle beams had severe web and flange local buckling
around the moment-connections. The first beam web fracture oc-
curred near the south middle moment connection. Yielding of
column outer flanges at the base had extended halfway to the
second story. There was heavy yielding of the column inner
flange at the top too. The cover plate in the middle north moment
connection was torn off from the beam flange. The middle beam
flange and web heavily buckled in the south connection but no
fracture was observed yet. Steel walls continue to fracture around
the middle moment connection and places where kinks had
formed before. The top half-story panel yielded around the edges.
The reinforced concrete walls of both floors developed major
cracks and crushed at the corners. The lower wall panel almost all
crushed. More punching failure of the bolts was observed.
At the drift level of 0.042, the specimen failed by the fracture
of the upper steel wall plate that started from the corners. The
maximum shear force observed during the second cycle of this
group had dropped to less than 80% of the maximum shear ca-
pacity, therefore the specimen was considered failed. This point
was also designated as the ‘‘Point of Maximum Ductility’’ where
maximum interstory ductility exceeded 0.05 for both the second
and third story. The specimen dropped 30% of its total shear
capacity inside this loading group and was considered failed.
Middle beam flange and web local buckling had developed into
 Table 3. Key Test Observation on Behavior of Specimen 1
Loading Actuator
groups drift Description
0 0.0002 rad Very small warm-up cycle
1 0.002 rad Specimen remained elastic
2 0.004 rad Specimen remained elastic
Slight yielding at base
plate
‘‘Proportional Limit Point’’
3 0.006 rad All three beams and column base yielded
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Madras on 10/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

‘‘Significant Yield Point’’

Fig. 13. Concrete side and steel side of specimen 2 at end of tests
fractures. The top beam web slightly buckled at the end. Flanges
of the top beam totally yielded, and the bottom flange globally
buckled downward. Cover plates in the moment connections there
were torn off from the beam flange. Column flanges yielded ex-
tensively at the base and the top, especially the outer ones at the
base. Still not much yielding was observed at the column base
plates. The upper steel shear wall had been torn off at the welding
of the fisher plate from the north column along the entire height
and torn off from the beam flange along the entire span. There is
an obvious ‘‘X’’ shaped buckling shape in the lower panel with
lots of fractures, but most bolts did not punch through the steel
plate. The two half stories also buckled. More than 30% of the
total bolts between the steel wall panel and the reinforced con-
crete wall panel had failed in tension or punched through the steel
wall plate. The reinforced concrete walls for both stories had been
totally crushed to rubble. The lower panel formed an obvious
‘‘X’’ crush shape. Rebars stick out of the reinforced concrete
panel. Fig. 13 shows the appearance of concrete and steel walls at
the end of the test in specimen 2.
Interpretation of Test Results
The key observation of structural behavior in each loading group
was given in Tables 3 and 4 for specimens 1 and 2, respectively.
Basically, both specimens showed high ductility during the tests.
4 0.012 rad Steel shear wall locally buckled in compression
and yielded in tension diagonally
Minor damage to RC wall
Shear tabs in beams yielded.
5 0.018 rad Column flange and web yielded at base. Lower
steel wall formed
buckling shape of ‘‘X’’
6 0.024 rad Middle beam web and bottom beam
flange locally buckled. Top steel
wall diagonally buckled and formed kinks
at quarter points. Diagonal
cracks in lower RC wall
7 0.03 rad Some bolts between walls punched
through the steel plate
Cracks formed at the corners of steel wall
‘‘Point of Maximum Shear Strength’’
8 0.036 rad Both RC walls developed major cracks and
crushed at the corners
Middle beam web fractured at the south end
9 0.042 rad 10% of the bolts between walls failed. RC walls
crushed heavily and lifted around edges
Fracture of beam flange.
Specimen failed by fracture of steel wall plate
‘‘Point of Maximum Ductility’’
10 0.044 rad Heavy column flange local buckling
Fractures on all beam webs
Severe fracture of steel wall panel at corners
RC walls spalled, and rebar buckled
The specimens reached a maximum interstory drift of at least 0.05
when they failed and dropped to 80% of their shear capacities. In
both cases, the failure of the specimen was caused by fracture of
the steel shear wall. The columns in the steel frame behaved in a
quite stable manner until the failure of the specimen with only
some flange local buckling at an overall drift of more than 0.04.
This means the gravity system still had enough strength and stiff-
ness under seismic effects and progressive collapsing was not
likely to occur.
The behavior of both specimens before yielding was quite
similar in the sense that both specimens had the same yield point
of 0.006 overall drift and in both cases it was caused by yielding
of the column flange at the base and beam webs in the steel
frames. The shear strength and stiffness of specimen 2, the one
with the traditional shear wall, were always slightly higher than
the first one, which was reasonable considering the participation
of the reinforced concrete wall of specimen 2 in shear-resisting
from the very beginning. In specimen 1 the participation of the
reinforced concrete wall was delayed due to the gap between the
wall and the steel frame. However, the difference in the maximum
shear force under the same yield displacement was only 20%,

280 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004

J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 271-284

 Table 4. Key Test Observation on Behavior of Specimen 2
Loading Actuator
groups drift Description
0 0.0002 rad Very small warm-up cycle
1 0.002 rad Specimen remained elastic
2 0.004 rad Specimen remained elastic
Slight yielding at bottom beam web
‘‘Proportional Limit Point’’
3 0.006 rad Bottom and middle beam web
and column base plates yielded
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Madras on 10/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

‘‘Significant Yield Point’’

4 0.012 rad Yielding in steel shear wall,
but no obvious buckling
RC wall separated from steel frame
Much yielding of beam webs and shear tabs
Heavy yielding of column flanges at base
5 0.018 rad Cracks in RC wall
Steel wall diagonally buckled
Yielding in top beam web
One bolt connecting the walls
in second story sheared off
‘‘Point of Maximum Shear Strength’’
6 0.024 rad RC walls crushed around perimeters
Lower panel lifted about 3 in.
Noticeable web local buckling in middle beam
7 0.03 rad Cracks in steel wall near corners in lower panel
First punching failure of bolts connecting
the walls
Flange of middle beam locally buckled
8 0.036 rad RC walls had major cracks
and crushed at corners
Severe web and flange local buckling on all Fig. 14. Shear force-shear displacement curves for third floor of two
beams, and web fracture in middle beam specimens
9 0.042 rad Specimen failed by upper steel shear wall torn off
from north column along entire height
The major difference between the behaviors of the two speci-
RC crushed to rubble
mens came from the reinforced concrete wall. In specimen 2, the
More than 30% of total bolts failed
one without the gap around the reinforced concrete wall panel,
Middle beam flange and web fractured
during relatively early cycles with an overall drift of 0.018 the
‘‘Point of Maximum Ductility’’
perimeter of the wall started to crack and spall, while specimen 1,
the one with a gap, did not show much damage under the same
drift level. The damage to the reinforced concrete wall and con-
necting bolts were always less severe for specimen 1, the Inno-
which indicated that the reinforced concrete wall did not contrib- vative Composite Shear Walls when subjected to the same lateral
ute very much to the strength and stiffness of the specimen. In- displacement as specimen 2, the Traditional Composite Shear
stead, its main function was to provide bracing for the steel wall Walls. At the point of failure of the whole specimen, the damage
and to prevent the steel plate from overall buckling before yield- to the reinforced concrete wall in specimen 2 共the traditional wall
ing of the specimen, as observed in the early cycles of both tests. without the gap兲 was so extensive that most of the concrete had
The steel shear walls behaved in a similar manner in both crushed and turned into rubble with the reinforcement grid almost
tests. The steel walls were intact in the early cycles up to the yield entirely unattached and exposed, while in specimen 1 both panels
point. At an overall drift from 0.012 to 0.018, the steel plates could keep most of their shapes. Figs. 12 and 13 also show the
locally buckled over the free length between the connecting bolts. behavior of the reinforced concrete wall panels of specimens 1
After that, the wall plates continued to buckle and the connecting and 2 at various drift levels.
bolts started to punch through the wall panel. In both specimens, Fig. 14 shows shear force-drift curves for the third floor of
the steel wall plate started to develop cracks from the corner at both specimens. The envelope curve of the force-drift relation-
about 0.03 overall drift which finally grew into major cracks and ships were shown in Fig. 15, and the energy dissipation curves for
caused the failure of the system at the end. The cracks were most the same story in both specimens were shown in Fig. 16. From
likely caused by the discontinuity of the wall plate at the corner the plots we can see that there is not much difference in the total
since there was a 25 mm by 64 mm 共1 in. by 2.5 in.兲 gap between shear strength or the energy dissipated by the third story for the
the steel wall and the moment connections. Decreasing such dis- two specimens. However, since the damage to the concrete walls
continuity in the connection area would therefore be a major im- in specimen 2 was much more severe than the damage in speci-
provement in the design and construction of such shear wall sys- men 1, the shear force-drift envelope curve for specimen 2 was
tems. quite less smooth and stable than the curve for specimen 1. There-

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 281

J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 271-284

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Madras on 10/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Shear force-displacement envelope curves for third floor of

two specimens Fig. 16. Energy dissipation curves for third floor of two specimens

Conclusions and Application of Findings

fore there is not much benefit if the concrete wall was engaged in
resisting the lateral-force from very early stages. The key factors
including shear force, story drift, and overall drift in each loading
group is given in Tables 5 and 6 for specimens 1 and 2, respec-
tively.
In summary, both Traditional and Innovative Composite Shear
Walls were structural systems with high ductility and good
lateral-load resisting properties. The maximum interstory drift
was more than 0.05 for both specimens and both could tolerate an
interstory drift up to 0.04 without reduction in the shear strength.
The two specimens behaved in a similar manner in the elastic
range with the same yield point. The reinforced concrete wall in
both specimens did not contribute much in increasing the shear
strength, but it was essential in bracing the steel plate wall and in
preventing it from buckling before the whole structure yielded.
The reinforced concrete wall received much less damage in speci-
men 1 than in specimen 2 and so did the connecting bolts. The
steel walls failed in fracture starting from the corners due to dis-
continuity in the geometry of plates in the connection areas. The
fracture could be further delayed by eliminating this discontinuity.
in Seismic Design
Based on the cyclic behavior of innovative and traditional com-
posite shear wall specimens tested, the following conclusions
were reached that can be applied in seismic design of structures.
1. Both specimens performed in a very ductile manner and
were able to reach interstory drift of 0.05 before the shear
strength dropped below 80% of the maximum shear force
reached during testing.
2. In the innovative composite shear wall there was a gap be-
tween the reinforced concrete wall and the boundary beams
and columns. The specimen representing this concept be-
haved in a more ductile manner than the second specimen
which did not have any gap between the concrete wall and
the boundary elements.
3. Due to the presence of the gap in the innovative system,
damage to the concrete wall under relatively large cycles
was much less than the damage to the concrete wall in a
traditional system. Also, contribution from the reinforced
concrete wall to the total shear strength and stiffness of the
whole system was below 20%.

Table 5. Key Factors on Behavior of Specimen 1

Maximum shear
Loading Actuator Actuator Second story Third story Maximum shear response versus
groups drift displacement drift drift response V capacity V/V max
1 0.002 rad 13 mm 共0.5 in.兲 0.002 rad 0.003 rad 712 kN 共160 kip兲 26%
2 0.004 rad 25 mm 共1 in.兲 0.003 rad 0.005 rad 1,290 kN 共290 kip兲 46%
3 0.006 rad 38 mm 共1.5 in.兲 0.005 rad 0.007 rad 1,717 kN 共386 kip兲a 62%
4 0.012 rad 76 mm 共3 in.兲 0.012 rad 0.015 rad 2,264 kN 共509 kip兲 81%
5 0.018 rad 114 mm 共4.5 in.兲 0.019 rad 0.022 rad 2,589 kN 共582 kip兲 93%
6 0.024 rad 152 mm 共6 in.兲 0.027 rad 0.030 rad 2,767 kN 共622 kip兲 99%
7 0.03 rad 191 mm 共7.5 in.兲 0.035 rad 0.039 rad 2,789 kN 共627 kip兲b 100%
8 0.036 rad 229 mm 共9 in.兲 0.043 rad 0.047 rad 2,758 kN 共620 kip兲 99%
9 0.042 rad 267 mm 共10.5 in.兲 0.050 rad 0.057 rad 2,526 kN 共568 kip兲 91%
10 0.044 rad 279 mm 共11 in.兲 0.052 rad 0.061 rad 2,197 kN 共494 kip兲c 79%
a
Specimen yield shear strength.
b
Specimen ultimate shear strength.
c
Specimen failure shear strength.

282 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004

J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 271-284

 Table 6. Key Factors on Behavior of Specimen 2
Maximum shear
response versus
Loading Actuator Actuator Second story Third story Maximum shear capacity
groups drift displacement drift drift response V V/V max
1 0.002 rad 13 mm 共0.5 in.兲 0.002 rad 0.003 rad 729 kN 共164 kip兲 24%
2 0.004 rad 25 mm 共1 in.兲 0.003 rad 0.006 rad 1,414 kN 共318 kip兲 47%
3 0.006 rad 38 mm 共1.5 in.兲 0.005 rad 0.009 rad 1,953 kN 共439 kip兲a 65%
4 0.012 rad 76 mm 共3 in.兲 0.015 rad 0.020 rad 2,789 kN 共627 kip兲 92%
5 0.018 rad 114 mm 共4.5 in.兲 0.021 rad 0.026 rad 3,020 kN 共679 kip兲b 100%
6 0.024 rad 152 mm 共6 in.兲 0.038 rad 0.040 rad 2,971 kN 共668 kip兲 98%
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Madras on 10/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

7 0.03 rad 191 mm 共7.5 in.兲 0.045 rad 0.050 rad 2,976 kN 共669 kip兲 98%
8 0.036 rad 229 mm 共9 in.兲 0.052 rad 0.060 rad 2,673 kN 共601 kip兲 89%
9 0.042 rad 267 mm 共10.5 in.兲 0.058 rad 0.064 rad 2,397 kN 共539 kip兲c 79%
a
Specimen yield shear strength.
b
Specimen ultimate shear strength.
c
Specimen failure shear strength.

4. The innovative proposed shear wall underwent five phases of
behavior:
a. Elastic behavior where only the steel shear wall and
boundary moment frame were active.
b. First inelastic phase where the steel shear wall and lim-
ited areas of beams and columns were involved in car-
rying shear forces. During this phase, due to the pres-
ence of a gap around the reinforced concrete wall, the
wall was primarily acting as a bracing element for the
steel plate preventing it from overall buckling.
c. Under relatively large drifts, the gap between the con-
crete wall and boundary frame was closed, the steel
plate and concrete wall acted as a composite shear wall,
and both participated in providing strength and stiffness
to the system.
d. During the final stage, after the concrete wall was
heavily damaged, the steel wall was acting as an un-
stiffened shear wall and buckling along compression
diagonal and primarily resisting shear through tension
field action.
e. During the final stage and after the steel shear wall had
also been damaged, the boundary steel moment frame
was acting as a ductile moment frame.
5. The tests indicated that the system is an efficient lateral load
resisting system with significant ductility and energy dissi-
pation capacity.
Interim Seismic Design Recommendations
Based on test observations and first-stage data analyzing, the fol-
lowing interim recommendations were given for seismic design
of structures.
1. The ductile failure modes of the wall should occur first, fol-
lowed by ductile failure modes of the top and bottom beams
and finally by ductile failure modes of the boundary col-
umns. The brittle failure modes are generally arranged to
occur after ductile failure modes. Again, among brittle
modes also, it is desired that the brittle failure modes of the
wall govern over those for the beams and columns.
2. The fracture in tension or buckling in compression of the
boundary columns should be avoided in design since such
failures can have serious stability consequences as well as
very high cost of postearthquake repairs.
3. Slippage of wall boundary bolts or splices should not be
considered a consequential failure mode but the slippage
should not occur under service lateral loads.
4. The shear capacity of the concrete wall could be ignored as
a conservative approach for strength. However, the stiffness
of the concrete wall is better considered in calculating the
period of vibration of the whole system.
5. Each shear connector should be able to resist a tension force
resulting from inelastic local buckling of the steel plate dur-
ing late cycles of loading. The shear connectors collectively
should be able to transfer shear capacity of a steel plate or
reinforced concrete wall, whichever is smaller.
6. Beams and columns of the boundary frames could be de-
signed according to provisions of special moment frames.
The web thickness of beams and columns in an unstiffened
steel shear system should be at least the same thickness as
the wall plate.
Acknowledgments
This project was funded by the National Science Foundation, Di-
rectorate of Engineering, Civil and Mechanical Systems. The
technical assistance and input from Program Directors Dr. S. C.
Liu and Dr. P. Chang at NSF were very valuable and sincerely
appreciated. The research was part of the U.S. Japan Cooperative
Research on Composite and Hybrid Structures of the National
Science Foundation. The guidance and technical input of all in-
volved in the program, in particular Professor Stephen Mahin and
Professor Subhash Goel, directors and organizers of the program
are sincerely appreciated. The Structural Steel Educational Coun-
cil, American Institute of Steel Construction 共AISC兲, and the Her-
rick Corporation also provided valuable input and support. Judy
Liu, formerly a graduate student at the University of California,
Berkeley provided valuable help in developing, analyzing, and
designing the test setup. Her work is very much appreciated.
Ricky Hwa, an undergraduate research assistant, participated in
preparing specimens, instrumentation, and conducting tests. His
dedicated and valuable work was very helpful to the success of
the project. Finally, this experimental program could not have
been completed without the resources of the laboratory and staff
of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the
University of California at Berkeley.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 283

J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 271-284

 References
Allen, H. G., and Bulson, P. S. 共1980兲. Background to buckling, McGraw-
Hill, U.K.
American Institute of Steel Construction 共AISC兲. 共1994兲. Manual of steel
construction—Load and resistance factor design, 2nd Ed., 2 Volumes,
Chicago.
American Institute of Steel Construction 共AISC兲. 共1997兲. Seismic provi-
sions for structural steel buildings, Chicago.
American Institute of Steel Construction 共AISC兲. 共1999兲. Load and resis-
tance factor design specification, Chicago.
Astaneh-Asl, A. 共2001兲. ‘‘Seismic behavior and design of steel shear
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Madras on 10/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
walls,’’ Steel TIPS Report, Structural Steel Educational Council,
Moraga, Calif.
284 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004
J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 271-284
Astaneh-Asl, A. 共2002兲. ‘‘Seismic behavior and design of composite steel
plate shear walls,’’ Steel TIPS Report, Structural Steel Educational
Council, Moraga, Calif.
Dean, R. G., Canon, T. J., and Poland, C. D. 共1977兲. ‘‘Unusual structural
aspects of H. C. Moffit Hospital.’’ Proc., 46th Annual Convention,
SEAOC, Coronado, Calif.
Federal Emergency Management Agency 共FEMA兲. 共2001兲. ‘‘Seismic de-
sign criteria for steel moment-frame structures.’’ Rep., FEMA-350,
Md.
International Conference of Building Officials 共ICBO兲. 共1997兲. ‘‘The uni-
form building code.’’ Vol. 2, Whittier, Calif.
Zhao, Q., and Astaneh-Asl, A. 共2002兲. ‘‘Cyclic behavior of traditional and
an innovative composite shear wall,’’ Rep. No. UCB-Steel-01/2002,
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California,
Berkeley, Calif.