Structures 49 (2023) 332–344

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Parametric study on lateral behaviour of composite shear walls with

high-strength manufactured sand concrete
Minsheng Guan a, b, Xin Wang a, b, Junlin Heng a, *, Meng Sha a, b, Hongbiao Du a
a
College of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China
b
Key Laboratory of Coastal Urban Resilient Infrastructures (MOE), Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The traditional reinforced concrete (RC) shear wall showed limited seismic performance under extreme earth­
High-rise building quakes when deployed at the bottom of high-rise buildings, due to the presence of high axial compression ratios.
Composite shear wall In this study, a novel composite shear wall was proposed to improve the seismic performance at high axial
High-strength concrete
compression ratios, in accordance with recent demands for eco-friendly materials. The novel composite wall
Manufactured sand
Lateral behaviour
integrated the high-strength manufactured sand (MS) concrete, ring-stirrup and steel tube to fully maximize
Numerical simulation material efficiency and achieve inter-enhancement. A quasi-static test was at first carried out on the proposed
Parametric investigation composite shear wall, which validated the expected enhancement on its lateral mechanical behaviour prelimi­
narily. On this basis, a refined finite element (FE) model was established for the test specimen by considering the
nonlinearity and cyclic behaviour of materials, in order to provide further insights into its behaviour under
lateral loads. The established FE model was verified against the test data, which showed a good agreement
between the numerical prediction and the test result. Meanwhile, a list of key parameters was identified ac­
cording to their influence on the lateral behaviour of the composite wall, including the axial compression ratio,
yield strength of steel tubes, compressive strength of concretes, reinforcement ratio in concrete-filled steel tube
(CFST) columns, and space between ring-stirrups. On this basis, a series of parametric investigations were carried
out with the validated FE model, by varying the selected key parameters. In general, the research output offered a
constructive guideline and data support for the expected engineering application of the proposed composite
shear wall.

1. Introduction recommended by the design code [4–6]. One of the consequences of

using these two methods was to increase the size of the walls and in­
1.1. Background crease the number of reinforcements at the boundaries. This in turn
hindered the construction process, resulting in a heavier structure and
Shear wall structure is commonly used in high-rise buildings. As the less usable space on the floors.
main lateral force-resisting member, the shear wall has good lateral
stiffness and strength. However, the use of reinforced concrete (RC)
1.2. State-of-the-art review
shear walls in high-rise buildings, especially on the ground floor, may
exhibit low ductility and limited deformation capacity when subjected
1.2.1. Application of high-strength concrete
to high axial compression ratios [1–3]. There were generally-two main
High strength concrete (HSC) could effectively improve this situa­
approaches to solving these problems. The first was to limit the axial
tion, which refers to concrete with strength grade C60 and above. The
compression ratio, which is commonly used in current seismic design
biggest characteristic was high compressive strength, which can reduce
codes [4–6]. For example, the Chinese Code for Seismic Design of
the component’s section size and weight. However, it is worth noting
Buildings [6] recommended that the axial compression ratio of high-rise
that, the application of the HSC was still very limited in shear walls. The
buildings in severe earthquake zones should be less than 0.5. The second
main reason could be attributed to the brittleness of the HSC. Although
was changing the wall configuration and reinforcement details, as
the ductility could be improved by introducing more stirrups, the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: j.heng@szu.edu.cn (J. Heng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.01.107
Received 20 September 2022; Received in revised form 20 January 2023; Accepted 20 January 2023
Available online 1 February 2023
2352-0124/© 2023 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Guan et al.
Fig. 1. Configuration of specimens: (a) overview; (b) reinforcements. (Unit: mm).
enhancement diminished soon with the increase in concrete strength
[7–9]. For the further application of HSC in shear walls, it is vital to find
a novel structural solution to fully utilize its high compressive strength
and avoid its poor ductility simultaneously.
1.2.2. Innovation of composite shear walls
The composite structure offers a promising solution to enhance
seismic performance by fully exploiting material advantages [10]. Jiang
et al. [11] conducted an experimental study on the seismic performance
of HSC shear walls in different configurations, including five reinforced
concrete shear walls (RCW) with HSC and six reinforced concrete-steel
plate shear walls (RCSPW) with HSC. The results showed that the
RCSPW had a better lateral bearing capacity and deformation capacity
than RCW, and it suggested an upper limit of 0.5 for the axial pressure
ratio of RCSPW in engineering practices. Ji et al. [12] studied the per­
formance of steel–concrete (SC) walls and reinforced concrete (RC)
walls under high axial force and low reversed cycle load via tests. The
study found the SC wall showed an increased flexural strength and
deformation capacity compared to the RC wall. The wall embedded with
circular steel tubes showed the best deformation ductility among the
various types of SC walls. Meanwhile, the section type of embedded steel
showed little influence on the capacity of the wall. Zhou et al. [13]
studied the seismic performance of high-strength concrete-filled steel
tube (CFST) shear walls under a high axial compression ratio. The test
results revealed that the CFST shear walls have good ductility and en­
ergy dissipation capacity and can effectively solve the brittle problem of
high-strength concrete shear walls. The author suggested that the design
axial compression ratio of the shear wall can be improved to 0.7 by
increasing the reinforcement ratio in CFST columns and the stirrup
reinforcement ratio of the wall.
Generally, a proper installation of stirrups helps to improve the
ductility due to their confinement on the core concrete. After the
yielding of stirrups, the confinement on the concrete soon degrades,
leading to the splitting and crushing of concrete. As a result, the stiffness
and remaining capacity of the shear wall decrease rapidly. This accounts
for the factor that most of the lateral loading tests on RC or composite
walls stopped after the applied load drop from the peak to 85 %. Liang
et al. [14] proposed to use of high-strength stirrups to constrain the
boundary element and the web respectively to strengthen the connec­
tion between them and used this form of stirrup restraint in high-
strength concrete shear walls. It was found by the study that
333
Structures 49 (2023) 332–344
segmental restraint stirrups show a better restraint effect than ordinary
stirrups, and effectively improve the deformation capacity of the shear
wall.
1.2.3. Application of manufactured sands
An up-to-date trend in concrete structures is to replace natural sand
(NS) with manufactured sand (MS). Unlike the NS exploited from rivers,
the MS is artificially re-produced from raw rocks, tailings or industrial
wastes. Apart from its eco-friendly feature, the MS shows a list of ad­
vantages over the NS, such as uniform particles, better morphology,
reasonable and stable gradation, and relatively controllable quality
[15,16]. Compared with the natural sand concrete (NSC), the manu­
factured sand concrete (MSC) demonstrates similar or improved me­
chanical properties, including the module, compressive strength, tensile
strength, etc. For instance, as suggested by Shen [17], the microstructure
of MSC was denser than the NSC, while the hydration product showed a
finer size. At the same time, Pilegis et al. [18] proposed that both the
compressive and tensile strength of the MSC is apparently higher than
that of the NSC under the same water-to-cement ratio. Similar conclu­
sion could also be found in a list of relevant works [19–21]. This is
because the particle morphology of MS has relatively regular angular
features and high hardness, the occlusal force between the aggregates of
MS in concrete is greater, and the adhesion in cement and other
cementitious materials is better. In tall building construction, the con­
sumption of sand is huge and it is desirable to use MS as an alternative to
RS. Therefore, it is necessary to study the behaviour of walls with MSC.
1.3. Research gaps
As mentioned above, high-strength concrete is suitable for high-rise
buildings due to its high compressive strength, but it is difficult to use in
conventional shear walls due to its high brittleness and poor ductility. A
practical solution to this problem is to combine concrete and steel,
which is often referred to as a composite shear wall. Studies have shown
that this improves the ductility of high-strength concrete shear walls
during loading tests. However, after the wall reaches the peak load, the
confinement effect of the core concrete decreases sharply due to the
yielding of stirrups, resulting in severe concrete splitting and crushing.
As a result, the wall demonstrates severe degradation stiffness and
remaining capacity. Therefore, a novel composite shear wall is urgently
needed to improve both the capacity and ductility of shear walls.
M. Guan et al. Structures 49 (2023) 332–344

Table 1 Table 2
Basic parameters of specimens. Design and experimental axial force ratio.
No. of Steel tube outside/ Axial force Steel tube Ring- No. of tests Test value of axial force (kN) Axial force ratio
tests inside ratio thickness stirrup
Design value Test value
(mm)
CW01 2810 0.5 0.296
CW01 C60-MSC/ C80- 0.5 3.0 D6@100
CW02 2920 0.5 0.298
MSC
CW03 3510 0.6 0.358
CW02 C60-MSC/ C80- 0.5 4.0 D6@80
CW04 3380 0.6 0.356
MSC
CW03 C60-MSC/ C80- 0.6 4.0 D6@100
MSC
CW04 C60-MSC/ C80- 0.6 3.0 D6@80
Table 3
MSC
Material properties of reinforcement and steel tube.
Component Grade D/D × t fsy / fay fsu / fau Es / Ea
At the same time, a contradiction exists between the current lack of (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa)
natural sand and the growing demand for construction. MSC can be used Steel bar HRB400 10 402 545 197
as a promising alternative, which shows similar material properties to HRB500 6 498 619 187
normal concrete. Accordingly, further research efforts are demanded Steel tube Q235B 114 × 4 323 416 180
respecting the application of MSC in structure. 114 × 3 336 432 181

Facing the above research gaps, the concept of a novel composite

wall was proposed in [22], which integrated steel tubes and segmented
stirrups to achieve effective constraints on concrete. A series of quasi-
static tests were conducted preliminarily to investigate the seismic
behaviour of the composite walls. However, due to the limited number
of specimens, an in-depth understanding of the seismic performance of
the novel composite wall was still limited.
1.4. Aim and methodology of this work
Based on the test results, this work carries out numerical simulations
on the lateral behaviour of the composite restrained shear wall with
high-strength manufactured sand concretes. The work is organized as
the followings: in Part 2, the design and test scheme of the novel com­
posite shear wall were introduced; in Part 3, the FE model of the new
composite shear wall was established, and the accuracy of the model was
verified by comparing with the test result; in Part 4, through the Python-
based user-programming port of ABAQUS, a set of pre-processing
modules was developed to realize parametric modeling. Then the vali­
dated FE model was used to investigate the influence of key design pa­
rameters on the performance of the novel composite shear wall,
including the axial compression ratio, yield strength of steel tubes,
reinforcement ratio in CFST columns, concrete strength and ring-stirrup
spacing. Finally, key conclusions were drawn in Part 5, based on the
above survey.
2. Quasi-static test of novel composite wall
Four specimens with the same dimensions were named CW01 to
CW04. As shown in Fig. 1(a), the composite restrained shear wall con­
sisted of loading beams, wall body and foundation beams. The effective
aspect ratio corresponding to the specimens was 2.125. Fig. 1 shows the
arrangement of steel reinforcements and steel tubes, in which a total of 6
ring-stirrup were arranged along the section of the wall. Since each ring-
stirrup confined the core concrete inside separately, the wall could be
divided into 6 areas to work independently. Even if one ring-stirrup
yields, the other 5 stirrups could effectively confine the core concrete.
The basic parameters of the test piece are shown in Table 1. Apart from
the axial compression ratio, steel tube thickness and ring-stirrup
spacing, the other parameters of the specimen were the same.
During the service life, the shear wall of buildings is generally loaded
with a relatively constant axial force while the lateral impact by the
potential seismic action is highly variable. Therefore, in the quasi-static
test, the axial load kept unchanged, while the lateral load was increased
step by step. At the same time, in order to maximize the efficiency of
tests, the axial force ratio was decided by referring to the limits proposed
in the specifications [4–6]. The axial force ratio discussed in this study
denotes the ratio of applied load to the sectional capacity, as illustrated
by Eqs. (1a) and (1b).
nt =
Nt
(1a)
fco,t Aco + fci,t Aci + fa,t Aa
Nd
nd = (1b)
fco,d Aco + fci,d Acc + fa,d Aa
where the subscript t and d stand for the test and design value, respec­
tively; n is the axial force ratio; N represents the constant axial force; fco
and fci are compressive strength of concrete outside and inside steel
tubes, respectively; fa denotes the yield strength of steel tubes; Aco and
Aci denote cross-section area of concrete outside and inside steel tubes,
respectively; Aa denotes the area of steel tubes.
Generally, two kinds of axial force ratio could be considered, i.e., the
design and test values. According to Chinese Specification GB50011-
2010 [6], the design (Nd ) and test (Nt ) values of the axial force follow
the relationship that Nd = 1.2Nt . Similarly, the design value of material
strength (fd ) could be determined from the test value (ft ), i.e., fd = ft /1.4
[23]. In order to simulate the critical condition of shear walls, two high
design values were considered for the axial force ratio, i.e., 0.5 and 0.6.
Accordingly, the test value of the axial force ratio could be determined,
as shown in Table 2.
To derive material properties for longitudinal steel, stirrup and steel
tube, three standard tensile coupons were tested for each type of steel.
Table 3 lists the yield stress of stirrup (fsy)/steel tube (fay), the ultimate
strength of stirrup (fsu)/steel tube (fau) and the elastic modulus of the
stirrup (Es) or steel tube (Ea).
As indicated by a list of pioneering studies [18–20], the MSC shows
an improved strength but reduced plasticity in pouring, compared with
the NSC. Accordingly, a delicate balance is demanded in designing the
proportioning of MSC. For instance, the flowability and cohesiveness of
concrete can be escalated by replacing the cement partially with silica
fume and/or powder material, and also by using a suitable super­
plasticizer [24–26]. Table 4 lists the proportioning of the employed
high-strength MSC. As indicated in the table, two different types of
water reducers have been used, which is mixed with a mass ratio of
small/large = 1/4. Especially, the water reducer (small) owns an anti­
foaming feature.
Material tests were carried out to derive basic mechanical properties
of the MSC. A total of twelve specimens were fabricated under the same
condition, including six standard cubes (150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm)
and six standard prisms (150 mm × 150 mm × 300 mm). Table 5 lists the
measured cube compressive strength (fcu), tensile strength (ft) and
elastic modulus (Ec).
Fig. 2 shows the setup and result of the test. The foundation beam

334
M. Guan et al. Structures 49 (2023) 332–344

Table 4
Proportioning of high-strength MSC (in Kg).
Cement Water Silica fume Mineral powder Sand Coarse stone Fine stone Water reducer (large) Water reducer (small)
3
C80/m 455.0 143.0 65.0 130.0 710.0 798.8 266.3 12.5 3.1
C60/m3 380.0 180.0 70.0 120.0 680.0 758.3 252.8 10.9 2.7

serious damage was confirmed in the specimen.

Table 5
Material properties of high-strength MSC.
3. Finite element modelling and validation
Concrete grade fcu (MPa) fct (MPa) ft (MPa) Ec (GPa)

C60 60.1 38.6 3.8 35.3 3.1. Finite element model

C80 84.9 53.3 4.3 37.5
A finite element (FE) model of the novel composite shear wall was
established using the software ABAQUS. Since the shear wall designed in
was fixed on the bearing platform by four high-strength bolts, and the
this paper bears both axial force and horizontal force, the solid element
loading beam was fixed on two hydraulic actuators (vertical and hori­
C3D8R was used to simulate the concrete and steel tube under triaxial
zontal). Vertical and lateral loads were obtained from the loading de­
stress, and the truss element T3D2 was used to simulate the one-
vice, while displacement and strain were measured by linear variable
dimensional component steel bar that only bears axial tension and
differential transformers and strain gauges, respectively.
pressure. In this study, the shear wall was divided into four parts, i.e.,
The top and bottom of the wall were strengthened by the restraints of
the concrete cover, the stirrup-constrained concrete, the steel tube and
the loading beam and the foundation beam, respectively. As a result, the
the steel tube-constrained concrete. The interface between different
mid-height of the wall was identified as the weakest section. In the
initial loading stage, vertical cracks were initiated at the interface be­
tween the steel tube and concrete. It was caused by the bond failure and
stiffness difference between these two materials under axial compres­
sion ratio. Then, the vertical cracks continued to grow, and concrete
spalling was observed at the interface with the load increasing. At the
peak load, small vertical cracks interconnected and gradually merged
into long vertical cracks, as shown in Fig. 2b. Finally, each wall was
vertically separated as three slender columns, while they remained in­
tegrated by overlapped hoops. Consequently, each slender column
almost bore the applied lateral and axial load independently.
The test adopts the quasi-static low-cycle loading method, as shown
in Fig. 3.
Before yielding of the shear wall, it was tested under load control
mode at a loading rate of 60 kN/min. After the yielding of the specimen
was identified, the actuator was changed to the displacement control
model. Accordingly, the yielding deformation (Δy) observed under the
load control model was used as a benchmark value in applying the
forced displacement. Finally, the test stopped when the applied lateral
load drops below 60 % of the initial peak load or very apparent and Fig. 3. Loading protocol of quasi-static test.

Fig. 2. Quasi-static test of proposed composited wall: (a) test set-up; (b) damage at failure state.

335
M. Guan et al. Structures 49 (2023) 332–344

Fig. 4. Finite element of the CFST shear wall: (a) global model; (b) wall-to-tube connection.

failure forms are tensile cracking and crushing. The damage change of
Table 6
the concrete material is defined by the damage factor D and the stiffness
Parameters related to plasticity.
recovery coefficient (take the default value in ABAQUS). In this paper,
ψ ∊ σb0 /σc0 Kc μ the damage factor D was taken according to the formula suggested in the
35 0.1 1.16 2/3 1 × 10− 5
literature [31], as listed in Eqs. (2a) and (2b).
1
σ c E−
dc = 1 − (2a)
parts was composed of arcs and straight lines. The specific mesh division ε pl
c (1/bc − 1) + σ c E− 1

of the model was shown in Fig. 4. The steel tubes were equally divided
into eight parts along the circumference. The shear wall section was σt E− 1
dt = 1 − (2b)
divided into squares with each steel tube as the unit and the squares ε pl
t (1/bt − 1) + σ t E− 1

were divided by mesh. Among them, the hexahedron element was used
for meshing. The mesh density of the wall body, loading beam and where εpl pl
t , εc represents the plastic strain of concrete in tension and
foundation beam was divided into 50 mm, 200 mm and 100 mm. Ac­ compression, respectively; bt , bc is a constant, which is taken as 0.7 in
cording to the results of sensitivity analysis in literature [27], under the this study.
mesh size of 30 mm ~ 120 mm, a very limited influence could be found The peak axial compressive stress of unconstrained MSC σ 0 and the
′

on the predicted global behaviour by the variation in meshing. At the

peak axial compressive strain of unconstrained MSC ε0 could be ob­
′

same time, referring to similar works in [28,29], the mesh size of 50 mm

tained from the compression test of 18 prismatic MSC blocks, i.e., 150 ×
was determined in simulating the novel shear wall.
150 × 300 mm. The peak strain of the unconfined MSC ε0 is given as:
′

The FE simulation aimed to keep the boundary condition consistent

with the quasi-static test. The bottom surface of the base beam was fully ′
ε0 = 670.96 + 18.45fcu (3)
constrained at all the degree-of-freedoms (DOFs) to simulate the fixed
boundary. Meanwhile, the “tie” binding [30] was leveraged to connect Considering the MSC has some similar mechanical properties to
the concrete and steel tube since little slip between the two components natural sand concrete and factors such as model convergence and
was observed in the test. Similarly, the reinforcement and the concrete computational efficiency, a simplified MSC relationship was proposed
elements were coupled via “embedded” connection [30], by which an between tensile stress and strain, as shown in Eq. (3) [32]. The symbols
auto-interpolation of displacements is enabled. The loading protocol of εt and εtu denote the peak tensile strain and ultimate strain of MSC,
the FE model was also kept consistent with the quasi-static test. Two respectively. The calculation method was shown in Equations 4a and b.
reference points were set, including one on the top surface of the loading When the strain reaches the ultimate strain, the tensile strength de­
beam and one on its left side. At first, the top surface was loaded with the creases to 0.02 ft.
constant vertical force through the reference point to simulate the axial
(4a)
′
εt = 65 × 10− 6 ft0.54
force ratio. Then, the side of the loading beam was imposed by the
loading protocol illustrated in Fig. 3, i.e., from load control to
(4b)
′ ′
εtu = 25εt
displacement control.
Compared to normal concrete, the compressive strength and ultimate
3.2. Material constitutive relationships strain value of concrete will be improved under the steel tube constraint
[33], while these characteristics could not be fully considered in the CDP
3.2.1. Material model of concrete model in ABAQUS. To fully incorporate the restraints, the stress–strain
In this paper, the concrete damaged plasticity (CDP) model provided relationship obtained from 56 MSC- filled steel tube specimens [22] was
by ABAQUS software was used as the constitutive model of uncon­ employed, as illustrated in Eq. (5).
strained concrete. The CDP model incorporates plasticity and damage ⎧
parameters. The parameters related to plasticity were shown in Table 6. ⎨ x[α0 (x − 1) + 1]
⎪ (x ≤ 1)
The coefficients include dilation angle(ψ ), eccentricity(∊), ultimate y= x (5)
⎪
⎩ (x > 1)
strength ratio of biaxial compression to uniaxial compression(σb0 /σ c0 ), β0 (x − 1)2 + x
invariant stress ratio(Kc ), viscosity parameter(μ).
The concrete damaged plasticity model assumes that the concrete where x = εε′ , y = σσ′ , εc1 represent the peak compressive strain of steel-
′ ′ ′

c1 c1

336
M. Guan et al. Structures 49 (2023) 332–344

Fig. 5. Comparison between the simulated and tested hysteresis curves.

tube-constrained manufacture sand concrete and σ c1 denote the peak

′
was made to cover the “pressure arch” effect of stirrup-constrained
axial compressive steel-tube-constrained manufacture sand concrete. concrete proposed by Deng [35]. The constitutive relation was shown
They can be expressed as: in Eq. (9).
( ) ′
f xr
(6a) (9)
′
εc1 = ε0 2.64ξ + 1.03 y − 3.44
′ ′
y =
fck r − 1 + (x′ )r
( ) The parameter including x’, x, y’ and r can be calculated as followed:
fy
(6b)
′ ′
E0
σ c1 = σ 0 0.653 + 0.3ξ + 0.05 x = ′ , x = ′ , y = σσ′ , r = .Where σc2 and εc2 represent the peak
′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′
ε ε
fck εc2 εc1 c2
σ
′
c2
E0 − ′
ε
Other parameters were defined as follows:
c2

axial compressive stress and peak axial compressive strain of stirrup-

α0 = − 4.35 + 4.03 × 0.986ξ (7) confined manufactured sand concrete, respectively. They can be calcu­
lated by Eqs. (10a) and (10b).
β0 = 4.285 − 11.8074ξ + 8.12654ξ2 (8)
(10a)
′ ′
εc2 = ε0 (1 + 2αs αn λv )2
where ξ represents the confinement effect coefficient of steel tube on
(10a)
′ ′

concrete, which can be expressed as: ξ = As fy /Ac fck . As and Ac denote the σ c2 = σ0 (1 + 2αs αn λv )
cross-sectional areas of steel tube and steel tube-constrained concrete,
where αs and αn represent the influence coefficient of the stirrup spacing
respectively. fy and fck represent the yield strength of the steel tube and
and the influence coefficient of the stirrup form, respectively, and the
the standard value of the axial compressive strength, respectively.
calculation methods of these parameters can be found in [34]. λv denotes
In this study, the ring-stirrup was distributed on the entire section of
the characteristic value of the stirrup configuration of the confined
the shear wall. Thus the deformation capacity of the concrete was
boundary zone of the shear wall and can be expressed as:
improved. In order to better represent the constraint effect of ring-
stirrup on concrete, the effective constraint area relationship proposed fsv
λ v = ρv (11)
by Mander [34] was adopted. Meanwhile, adjustment of the parameters fck

Fig. 6. Comparison between the simulated and tested skeleton curves.

337
M. Guan et al.
Table 7
Comparison of peak load between calculation and test results.
Specimen ID Positive Negative
Pt/kN Pc/kN Pt/Pc Pt/kN Pc/kN Pt/Pc
CW01 796.5 727 1.10 − 786.8 − 750 1.09
CW02 843 802 1.05 − 832.8 − 801 1.04
Fig. 7. Failure mode predicted by the damage factor from FE simulations.
where ρv and fsv denote the volumetric stirrup ratio and the yield
strength of the reinforcement, respectively.
3.2.2. Material model of steel
The bilinear isotropic hardening model was adopted for the steel
tube and steel reinforcement. The elastic modulus and yield strength
were taken from the material test results in Tables 1 and 3.
3.3. Verification of the finite element model
The hysteresis curve and skeleton curve of the CW01 and CW02
shear wall models were calculated by the ABAQUS software and
compared with the test results to verify the accuracy and feasibility of
the model. Fig. 5 shows the comparison of the load–displacement hys­
teresis curves between the experimental results of CW01, CW02 and the
numerical simulation calculation results. In general, the numerical
simulation results were in good agreement with the experimental re­
sults. However, the pinching effect of the numerical simulation results
was not ideal for the reason that the bond slip between the steel tube and
the concrete was not considered.
Fig. 6 shows the comparison between the skeleton curves of CW01,
CW02 test results and numerical simulation results. It can be seen from
Fig. 6 that the curves show the same development trend from the initial
stage of loading until reaching the peak load, and the initial stiffness was
in good agreement with the test results. It is worth noting that the ul­
timate displacement in the simulated curve was smaller than that in the
test curve, which may be because the finite element simulation does not
consider the bond-slip effect between materials, resulting in a longer
slippage in the test hysteresis curve. In addition, when the loading
displacement of the specimen was negative, the bearing capacity of the
simulation result was slightly smaller than that of the test result. This
might be attributed to the asymmetry of the test specimen caused by the
338
Structures 49 (2023) 332–344
Table 8
Key parameters for numerical investigations and determined ranges.
Symbol Parameter Range of value
n Axial compression ratio 0–0.8 (interval of 0.1)
fy Yield strength of steel tubes (MPa) 235, 335, 420
m Reinforcement ratio in CFST columns (%) 2.09, 2.76, 3.42
c Concrete strength grade C60/C80, C80/C100
s Ring-stirrup spacing (mm) 80, 120, 150, 200
non-uniformity of concrete, as well as the symmetric modeling for the
specimen in numerical analysis. In conclusion, the numerical model can
accurately predict the cyclic loading behaviour of shear walls.
Table 7 shows the peak load Pc calculated by the numerical simula­
tion and the test value Pt of the specimen at the positive and negative
peaks. It can be seen that the average values of Pt/Pc in the two di­
rections were 1.10 and 1.05, respectively, which indicates that the nu­
merical simulation results have sufficient accuracy in terms of bearing
capacity.
At the same time, the predicted concrete damage of the specimen was
visualized in Fig. 7. According to relevant works [32,36], the concrete
crush could be identified as the damage factor exceeds 0.95. Recalling
the measured cracks in Fig. 2b, a very fine agreement can be found
between the numerical prediction and test result.
In general, it is feasible to analyze the seismic performance of the
shear walls by using the ABAQUS software to establish a finite element
model in this paper. From the perspective of engineering application, the
calculation results can meet the requirements of engineering practice for
accuracy. For scientific research, the finite element model can better
reflect the repeated load characteristics of the innovative composite
shear wall.
4. Parametric study of composite shear walls
4.1. Parametric selection
A total of 38 numerical models were established for the composite
shear wall in this paper. In order to accelerate the modelling effort, a set
of pre-processing modules is developed through the Python port of the
ABAQUS. The user-programme was uploaded as supplements.
According to [37], the axial force ratio acts as a very crucial factor in
the experimental design of shear walls. As the axial compression ratio
increased from 0 to 0.8, the capacity first increased to the peak and then
notably decreased by 16.6 %. Thus, the axial force ratio was selected in
this study as the major parameter to be investigated respecting the
lateral behaviour of the novel shear wall. At the same time, for the shear
wall constructed with high-strength concretes, the ultimate capacity and
ductility were also notably affected by the compressive strength of
concretes and yielding strength of steel components [38]. Accordingly,
the two strength values were accounted for in the parametric investi­
gation. Besides, the reinforcement ratio of the concrete was also
considered as a common practice, including the ratio inside the column
and spacings between ring-stirrup. As inspired by the test data, the
above two reinforcement ratio had a remarkable influence on the lateral
behaviour of the novel shear wall. At the same time, due to limitation in
the number of specimens, a further extension is required on the above
parameters through numerical simulations.The range of parameters is
selected based on relevant literature [37,38] and specifications [4–6], as
shown in Table 8.
4.2. Parametric analysis result
4.2.1. Definition of ductility
In order to facilitate the subsequent discussion, this study employed
the ductility coefficient μ and the drift θμ to evaluate the deformation
capacity of the proposed shear wall.
M. Guan et al. Structures 49 (2023) 332–344

the limit displacement was decided according to [40]. In generally, the

ultimate displacement was recorded when the load dropped to 85 % the
peak load.
In addition, the calculation of the drift θμ is illustrated by Eq. (13).
Δμ
θμ = (13)
h
Detailed parameters of each FE model were shown in Table 9. The
numerical results were listed in Table 10, including the yield displace­
ment, limit displacement, ductility coefficient and drift.

4.2.2. Effect of axial force ratio

Fig. 8. Definition of yield, peak and ultimate point.
Δu
μ=
Δy
where Δy and Δu represent the yield displacement and ultimate
displacement of the shear wall model, respectively. The yield displace­
ment was determined after Park [39], as shown in Fig. 8. The value of
The axial compression ratio was calculated according to aforemen­
tioned Eq. (1b). Comparisons were carried out on load–displacement
curves from numerical predictions to investigate the influence of axial
compression on the mechanical behaviour of the composite shear wall.
Two sets of numerical models (i.e., the set 1 including models 1 to 9 and
set 2 including models 10 to 18) were selected due to their consistency in
(12) the remaining parameters, as respectively shown in Fig. 9a and b. The
two sets had different reinforcement ratios in CFST columns, i.e., 2.76 %
in the set 1 and 2.09 % in the set 2.
In general, when the axial compression ratio is less than a certain
limit of 0.6, the peak load increases with the increase in the ratio. Once
the ratio exceeds the limit, a further increase in the ratio has little

Table 9
Details of each numerical model.
No. n fy c m s No. n fy c m s

1 0.8 235 C60/C80 2.76 % 80 20 0.5 420 C60/C80 2.76 % 80

2 0.7 235 C60/C80 2.76 % 80 21 0.6 235 C60/C80 2.76 % 100
3 0.6 235 C60/C80 2.76 % 80 22 0.6 335 C60/C80 2.76 % 100
4 0.5 235 C60/C80 2.76 % 80 23 0.6 420 C60/C80 2.76 % 100
5 0.4 235 C60/C80 2.76 % 80 24 0.3 335 C60/C80 2.76 % 80
6 0.3 235 C60/C80 2.76 % 80 25 0.3 420 C60/C80 2.76 % 80
7 0.2 235 C60/C80 2.76 % 80 26 0.5 235 C60/C80 2.09 % 80
8 0.1 235 C60/C80 2.76 % 80 27 0.5 235 C60/C80 3.42 % 80
9 0 235 C60/C80 2.76 % 80 28 0.6 235 C60/C80 2.09 % 100
10 0.8 235 C60/C80 2.09 % 80 29 0.6 235 C60/C80 3.42 % 100
11 0.7 235 C60/C80 2.09 % 80 30 0.5 235 C80/C100 2.76 % 80
12 0.6 235 C60/C80 2.09 % 80 31 0.6 235 C80/C100 2.76 % 100
13 0.5 235 C60/C80 2.09 % 80 32 0.5 235 C60/C80 2.76 % 120
14 0.4 235 C60/C80 2.09 % 80 33 0.5 235 C60/C80 2.76 % 150
15 0.3 235 C60/C80 2.09 % 80 34 0.5 235 C60/C80 2.76 % 200
16 0.2 235 C60/C80 2.09 % 80 35 0.6 235 C60/C80 2.76 % 80
17 0.1 235 C60/C80 2.09 % 80 36 0.6 235 C60/C80 2.76 % 120
18 0 235 C60/C80 2.09 % 80 37 0.6 235 C60/C80 2.76 % 150
19 0.5 335 C60/C80 2.76 % 80 38 0.6 235 C60/C80 2.76 % 200

Table 10
Key data of each FE model.
No. Pc(kN) Δy (mm) Δu (mm) μ θu No. Pc(kN) Δy (mm) Δu (mm) μ θu

1 850 8.25 26.23 3.180 1/81 20 830 8.08 31.36 3.883 1/68
2 861 8.36 35.42 4.238 1/60 21 729 6.89 16.74 2.431 1/127
3 815 7.79 31.27 4.013 1/68 22 743 6.98 13.08 1.876 1/162
4 757 7.19 41.80 5.810 1/51 23 753 7.09 13.07 1.843 1/163
5 687 6.56 39.58 6.037 1/54 24 726 7.42 39.22 5.284 1/54
6 614 5.89 36.85 6.260 1/58 25 780 8.21 40.22 4.896 1/53
7 535 5.32 34.25 6.433 1/62 26 662 6.47 28.21 4.359 1/75
8 451 4.85 31.53 6.508 1/67 27 794 7.27 27.64 3.803 1/77
9 361 4.39 28.51 6.494 1/75 28 729 7.25 29.11 4.014 1/73
10 735 7.44 20.48 2.754 1/104 29 739 6.38 17.79 2.788 1/119
11 741 7.32 33.66 4.602 1/63 30 786 7.59 21.00 2.765 1/101
12 745 7.39 31.05 4.200 1/68 31 830 8.03 15.32 1.908 1/139
13 681 6.65 41.01 6.171 1/52 32 705 6.71 17.03 2.538 1/125
14 614 5.99 38.64 6.450 1/55 33 705 6.60 14.42 2.185 1/147
15 544 5.31 36.30 6.838 1/59 34 697 6.51 13.00 1.997 1/163
16 468 4.69 33.62 7.166 1/63 35 720 6.80 26.60 3.915 1/80
17 385 4.10 30.83 7.518 1/69 36 725 6.87 13.52 1.969 1/157
18 298 3.59 27.37 7.627 1/78 37 710 6.72 12.06 1.795 1/176
19 820 7.95 35.20 4.430 1/60 38 692 6.50 10.83 1.666 1/196

339
M. Guan et al.
Fig. 9. Load-displacement curves of shear walls under different axial
force ratios.
enhancement in the capacity. In addition, notable changes could also be
found in the shape of curves above the limit of 0.6, i.e., a prominent
inflection point and higher descending rate. The above change could be
attributed to the change in failure modes of the composite shear wall.
When the axial compression ratio is less than 0.6, the shear wall exhibits
the mode of large-eccentric compression, which guarantees the
ductility. Once the axial compression ratio increased beyond 0.6, the
wall demonstrated the mode of small eccentric compression, resulting in
a reduction in the height of the compression zone of the concrete. As a
result, the steel tube on the two ends could not be fully exploited, and
the ductility of the wall was degraded. This was also confirmed by a list
of related works. For instance, W4 and W5 in [41] illustrated a similar
result that, the peak load was increased by 163 kN as the axial
compression ratio was increased from 0.15 to 0.30. A further test by Hou
et al. [42] suggested a reduction in the ductility factor from 3.83 to 3.68
as the axial compression ratio increases from 0.33 to 0.61. Similarly, Li
et al. [43] proposed that the peak load were declined by 41.6 % when
the ratio rises from 0.2 to 0.8.
4.2.3. Effect of yield strength of steel tube
In order to investigate the influence of the yield strength of steel
tubes on the mechanical behavior of the composite shear wall, the
load–displacement curves of numerical predictions were compared.
Aming at the consistency of remaining parameters, two sets of numerical
models were chosen, i.e., set 1 including models 4, 19, and 20, and set 2
inclduing models 21 to 23, as shown in Fig. 10a and b, respectively.
Overall, a higher yield strength of steel tubes increased the load capacity
slightly, while little effect was found on the trend of the
340
Structures 49 (2023) 332–344
load–displacement curve. Recalling the result in Table 10, the increase
in the yield strength of steel tubes improved the load capacity but
decreased the ductility. Specifically, the load capacityof models 4 ~ 20
and 21 ~ 23 increased by 10 % and 3 %, respectively, as the yield
strength of the steel tube increased from 235 MPa to 420 MPa. At the
same time, the ductility coefficients decreased by 33 % and 24 %. The
above changes could be attributed to the higher tensile resistance and
better compressive constraints provided by steel tubes with a higher
yield strength. It should be noted that, when compared to a high axial
compression ratio, an increase in steel strength under a low axial
compression ratio has a greater impact on the shear wall load capacity.
Models 6, 24, and 25 with a low design axial compression ratio of 0.3
were chosen for further analysis, and the load–displacement curve is
shown in Fig. 10c.
When the yield strength of steel tubes was increased from 235 MPa to
420 MPa, the peak load capacity was increased by 27 % and by 10 %,
compared to the result under the axial compression ratio of 0.5. As a
result, the performance of the shear wall was greatly improved. This
could be also attributed to the effect of failure modes. When the axial
compression ratio was low, the shear wall was subjected to the failure
mode of large-eccentric compression, in which the tensile capacity of the
edge constraint zone was critical to the load capacity. Both the near-side
and far-side steel tubes were fully utilized at this time. When the axial
compression ratio was high, the shear wall showed the mode of small
eccentric compression, for which the strength of the far side steel tube
could not be fully utilized. Thus, increasing the strength of steel tubes
had little effect on the load capacity. As a result, the positive influence of
the steel strength on the bearing capacity decreased, while the ductility
also decreased with the steel strength, which was consistent with the
previous result.
4.2.4. Effect of reinforcement ratio in CFST columns
The load–displacement curves of the numerical samples were
compared to study the effect of reinforcement ratio in CFST columns on
the mechanical behaviour of composite shear walls. Due to the consis­
tency of remaining parameters, two sets of numerical models were
chosen (set 1 including models 26, 4, and 27 and set 2 including models
28, 21, and 29), as shown in Fig. 11a and b. The load–displacement
curves with different reinforcement ratio in CFST columns showed the
same trend, while the peak load capacity increased with the ratio. As the
reinforcement ratio in CFST columns was increased from 2.09 % to 3.42
%, the peak load capacity was increased by 19 % and 3 % in Fig. 11a and
b, respectively. This is due to the improvement in the confining pressure
by steel tubes on concretes, with the increase in the reinforcement ratio.
In Fig. 11a and b, the axial compression ratios are 0.5 and 0.6,
respectively. This was consistent with the results in Section 4.2.3 that
increasing steel strength at a low axial compression ratio had a greater
impact on the load capacity. In terms of ductility, Table 10 showed that
increasing the reinforcement ratio in CFST columns slightly decreased
the ductility coefficient, and all elasto-plastic drifts met the code limit of
1/120 [6]. As a result, an excellent elastic–plastic deformation capacity
was demonstrated.
4.2.5. Effect of concrete compressive strength
Due to the remaining parameters are consistent, two sets of numer­
ical models are chosen, i.e., set 1 including models 4 and 30 and set 2
including models 21 and 31. The sloved load–displacement curves are
shown in Fig. 12a and b, respectively. The concrete strength suggested a
significant impact on the load capacity and ductility of the shear wall.
Meanwhile, the curve change before reaching the peak load was rela­
tively similar, and the C100/C80 concrete curve showed a clear trend of
sharp decline following the peak value.
Recalling Table 10, the application of high strength concrete
increased the load capacity of the shear wall by 4 % and 14 %, respec­
tively. At the same time, the ductility decreased significantly, indicating
that the increase in concrete strength could only moderately improve the
M. Guan et al. Structures 49 (2023) 332–344

Fig. 10. Load-displacement curves of shear walls under different steel yield strengths.

Fig. 11. Load-displacement curves of shear walls under different reinforcement ratio in CFST columns.

load capacity of the shear wall and could not effectively improve the
deformation capacity. There could be two possible explanations. On the
one hand, the use of high strength concrete increased the load capacity
of the shear wall. At the same time, brittleness and the rate of post-peak
failure increased. However, because of the high strength of concrete, the
stiffness of steel tubes became weak compared to the concrete, resulting
in insufficient confining restraint on the concrete. The descending part
of the load–displacement curve became sharp as the constraint coeffi­
cient of steel tubes narrowed, which is similar to the results of Han et al.
[33]. In conclusion, increasing the concrete strength may improve the

341
M. Guan et al.
Fig. 12. Load-displacement curves of shear walls under different concrete compressive strengths.
Fig. 13. Load-displacement curves of shear walls under different ring-stirrup spacing.
load capacity. Simultaneously, increased concrete strength reduced the
ductility. Similar conclusions could be found in related works. For
instance, according to the test data in [44], the peak loads were
increased from 363.7 kN to 628.1 kN with the application of high
strength concretes, while the ductility coefficients was reduced from
5.88 to 3.08. It was also proposed in numerical studies by Zhou et al.
[45] and Shi et al. [46] that increasing concrete strength from C50 to
C80 helped to improve peak load but reduced the ductility significantly.
4.2.6. Effect of ring-stirrup spacing
As aforementioned, the ring-stirrup spacing is a crucial factor con­
trolling the mechanical behaviour of confined core concretes. As a
matter of factor, a too narrow spacing (e.g., less than 80 mm) could
cause practical issues such as difficulties in applying the concrete
vibrator. At the same time, the spacings of 80 mm and 100 mm were
investigated in the quasi-static test, which indicated a substantial in­
fluence on the lateral behaviour of shear walls. However, the gap be­
tween the two spacings (i.e., 20 %) was still a bit narrow to elucidate the
influence on mechanical behaviour. To this end, further investigations
were carried out in the numerical simulation to cover a wider range of
spacings. As reported by relevant works [47,48], a good capacity could
still be expected under the ring-stirrup spacing of about 140 mm to 150
342
Structures 49 (2023) 332–344
mm. Thus, apart from the minimum spacing of 80 mm, three additional
values were also investigated, i.e., 120 mm, 150 mm and a maximum
limit of 200 mm.
Fig. 13a and b show two sets of load–displacement curves. The
ascending part of the load–displacement curve, as well as the load ca­
pacity, were relatively robust under different stirrup spacings. After the
yield or peak point, with the decrease in stirrup spacings, the ductility
increased, and the descending part became moderate. The data in
Table 10 showed that as stirrup spacing increased, the ductility coeffi­
cient decreased significantly, while bearing capacity changed by less
than 10 %.
This is because the improvement by stirrups in the performance was
mainly reflected by its confinement effect on the concrete. As the
spacing reduced, the confinement effect on the concrete improved, and
the brittleness of the high-strength concrete was mitigated to some de­
gree. Furthermore, compared to the axial compression ratio of 0.5 in
Fig. 13a, the stirrup restraint effect improved the performance of the
shear wall more apparently as the ratio increased to 0.6 in Fig. 13b.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, the performance of composite shear walls with high-
M. Guan et al.
strength manufactured sand concrete was investigated via finite element
(FE) model-based parametric simulations. Based on the laboratory test, a
FE model was established to simulate the hysteretic behaviour and
validated against the test data. Then, the validated FE model was used to
perform parametric investigations on a list of selected key parameters
that may influence the lateral behaviour of the composite wall
remarkably. The investigated parameters include the axial compression
ratio, yield strength of steel tube, compressive strength of concrete,
reinforcement ratio, and space between stirrups. Based on the study, the
following key conclusions can be drawn.
(1) The proposed novel composite wall demonstrated a notably
improved loading capacity and ductility due to the effective
constraints of the concrete-filled steel tubes (CFSTs) and ring-
stirrup on the core concrete.
(2) Despite the enhancement, the capacity and ductility of the pro­
posed composite wall were also strongly affected by the axial
compression ratio. The capacity increased with the ratio at first
and then slightly decreased to a converged value. By contrast, the
ductility decreased continuously with the ratio.
(3) The improvement in the yield strength of steel tubes escalated the
load capacity but degraded the ductility of the proposed com­
posite shear wall. Especially, the yield strength showed a stronger
enhancement in the capacity for the composite wall under a low
axial compression ratio (<0.6) than for that under higher ratios.
(4) A high reinforcement ratio in CFST columns improved the ca­
pacity of the proposed composite wall, while its ductility was
only slightly reduced. At the same time, well developed elas­
tic–plastic deformation could be still expected, indicating the
stratifying level of ductility.
(5) A narrow spacing between the stirrups enabled a better ductility
of the proposed composite wall, while its capacity was not
apparently affected by the spacing. Especially, the enhancement
of ductility by reducing the spacing became more prominent
under the high axial compression ratio.
(6) Unlike traditional reinforcement concrete walls, the application
of high-strength concretes could improve both the capacity and
ductility of the proposed composite shear wall. Meanwhile, it
should be kept in mind that this improvement was based on
reasonable and sufficient constraints on the core concrete by the
combination of steel tubes and ring-stirrups.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Grant No. 52278195, 52090082 and 52208182).
Date availability statement
Some or all the data, model or code data employed in this paper are
available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.01.107.
343
Structures 49 (2023) 332–344
References
[1] Yuen YP, Kuang JS. Effect of axial compression on ductility design of RC walls.
Struct Build 2015;168(8):489–504. https://doi.org/10.1680/stbu.14.00024.
[2] Su R, Wong SM. Seismic behaviour of slender reinforced concrete shear walls under
high axial load ratio - ScienceDirect. Eng Struct 2007;29(8):1957–65. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.10.020.
[3] CF SM Geer. Learning from Earthquakes The Mw 8.8 Chile Earthquake of February
27, 2010.
[4] EN 1998-1. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 1:
General Rules, Seismic Action and Rules for Buildings (EN 1998-1). Brussels:
European Committee for Standardization, CEN; 2004.
[5] Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-
08). Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute; 2008.
[6] Ministry of communications of the People’s Republic of China. Code for Seismic
Design of Buildings (GB 50011-2010), Ministry of Construction, Beijing, China;
2010 [in Chinese].
[7] Liang, et al. Experimental study on seismic behavior and performance indexes of
high-strength concrete shear walls. Chin Civil Eng J 2010;43(11):37–45 [in
Chinese].
[8] Huang, et al. Simulation analysis on basic behavior of high-strength concrete shear
wall. Indus Constr 2007;03:38–41 [in Chinese].
[9] Kou, et al. Deformability nonlinear analysis on high-strength concrete shear walls
under low cyclic horizontal loading. Build Struct 2014;044(017):46–9 [in Chinese].
[10] Zou Y, Yu K, Heng J, et al. Feasibility study of new GFRP grid web - Concrete
composite beam. Compos Struct 2023;305:116527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compstruct.2022.116527.
[11] Jiang D, Xiao C, Chen T, et al. Experimental Study of High-Strength Concrete-Steel
Plate Composite Shear Walls. Appl Sci 2019;9(14):2820. https://doi.org/10.3390/
app9142820.
[12] Ji X, Sun Y, Qian J, et al. Seismic behavior and modeling of steel reinforced
concrete (SRC) walls. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2015;44(6):955–72. https://doi.org/
10.1002/eqe.2494.
[13] Zhou J, Fang X, Jiang Y. Cyclic behavior of concrete-encased high-strength
concrete-filled steel tube composite walls: An experiment. Struct Concr 2020;1.
https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201900233.
[14] Liang, et al. Experimental studies on seismic behavior of high strength concrete
shear wall with boundary columns. J Struct Eng 2010;31(01):23–32 [In Chinese].
[15] Shen W, Yang Z, Cao L, et al. Characterization of manufactured sand: Particle
shape, surface texture and behavior in concrete. Constr Build Mater 2016;114:
595–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.201.
[16] Goncalves JP, Tavares LM, Filho R, et al. Comparison of natural and manufactured
fine aggregates in cement mortars. Cem Concr Res 2007;37(6):924–32. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.03.009.
[17] Shen W, Liu Y, Cao L, et al. Mixing design and microstructure of ultra high strength
concrete with manufactured sand. Constr Build Mater 2017;143:312–21. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.092.
[18] Pilegis M., Gardner D., Lark R. An Investigation into the Use of Manufactured Sand
as a 100% Replacement for Fine Aggregate in Concrete. Materials 2016;9(6):440.
doi:10.3390/ma9060440.
[19] Li B, Zhou M, Fang Y, et al. Self-compacting concrete-filled steel tubes prepared
from manufactured sand with a high content of limestone fines. J Wuhan Univ
Technol-Mater Sci Ed 2011;26(2):325–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11595-011-
0223-3.
[20] Donza H, Cabrera O, Irassar EF. High-strength concrete with different fine
aggregate. Cem Concr Res 2002;32(11):1755–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-
8846(02)00860-8.
[21] Kim JK, Lee CS, Park CK, et al. The fracture characteristics of crushed limestone
sand concrete. Cem Concr Res 1997;27(11):1719–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0008-8846(97)00156-7.
[22] Guan M, Liu W, Lai M, et al. Seismic behaviour of innovative composite walls with
high-strength manufactured sand concrete. Eng Struct 2019;195:182–99. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.05.096.
[23] Ministry of communications of the People’s Republic of China. Code for design of
concrete structures (GB 50010-2010), Ministry of Construction, Beijing, China;
2010 [in Chinese].
[24] Lai M, Hanzic L, Ho J. Fillers to improve passing ability of concrete. Struct Concr
2018;20(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201800047.
[25] Maybury J, Ho J, Binhowimal S. Fillers to lessen shear thickening of cement
powder paste. Constr Build Mater 2017;142(JUL.1):268–79. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.076.
[26] Binhowimal SAM, Hanzic L, Ho JCM. Filler to improve concurrent flowability and
segregation performance of concrete. Aust J Struct Eng 2017;18(2):73–85. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13287982.2017.1333184.
[27] Ghazizadeh S, Cruz-Noguez CA. Damage-Resistant Reinforced Concrete Low-Rise
Walls with Hybrid GFRP-Steel Reinforcement and Steel Fibers. J Compos Constr
2018;22(2):04018002.1–04018002.12. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
5614.0000834.
[28] Wang B, Jiang H, Lu X. Experimental and numerical investigations on seismic
behavior of steel truss reinforced concrete core walls. Eng Struct 2017;140(JUN.1):
164–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.02.055.
[29] Wang J, Li B, Li J. Experimental and analytical investigation of semi-rigid CFST
frames with external SCWPs. J Constr Steel Res 2017;128:289–304. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.08.019.
[30] ABAQUS analysis User’s Manual. Version 6.12. (2012). ABAQUS, Inc.
M. Guan et al.
[31] Birtel V, Mark P. Parameterised finite element modelling of RC beam shear failure,
in. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ABAQUS Users’ Conference;
2006. p. 95–108.
[32] Qi H. (2014). The static behavior of steel tube confined concrete columns under
axial and eccentric loading. Harbin Institute of Technology, 2014 [In Chinese].
[33] Han et al. (2001). Concrete filled steel tubular structures from theory to practice.
Journal of Fuzhou University(Natural Science Edition), 29(6): 24-34 [In Chinese].
[34] Mander J, Priestley M. Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete.
J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9445
(1988)114:8(1804).
[35] Deng, et al. Experimental study on ductility of high performance concrete
shearwall. J Build Struct 2009;30(S1):139–43 [in Chinese].
[36] Nguyen NH, Whittaker AS. Numerical modelling of steel-plate concrete composite
shear walls. Eng Struct 2017;150:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2017.06.030.
[37] Zhang Z, Wang J, Li B, et al. Seismic tests and numerical investigation of blind-
bolted moment CFST frames infilled with thin-walled SPSWs. Thin-Walled Struct
2019;134(JAN.):347–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2018.10.009.
[38] Zhang J, Li X, Yu C, et al. Cyclic behavior of high-strength concrete shear walls
with high-strength reinforcements and boundary CFST columns. J Constr Steel Res
2021;182(4):106692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.106692.
[39] PARKR. Evaluation of ductility of structures and structural assemblages from
laboratory testing. Bull New Zealand Natl Soc Earthq Eng 1989. https://doi.org/
10.5459/bnzsee.22.3.155-166.
[40] Technical specification for steel reinforced concrete composite structures (JGJ 138-
2001). China Architecture & Building Press, 2001 [In Chinese].
344
Structures 49 (2023) 332–344
[41] Qiao Q, Cao W, Qian Z, Li X, Zhang W, Liu W. Cyclic Behavior of Low Rise Concrete
Shear Walls Containing Recycled Coarse and Fine Aggregates. Materials 2017;10
(12):1400. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma10121400.
[42] Hou H, Fu W, Qiu C, et al. Effect of axial compression ratio on concrete-filled steel
tube composite shear wall. Adv Struct Eng 2019;22(3):656–69. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1369433218796407.
[43] Li J, Li F, Liu C, et al. Numerical and theoretical analysis of seismic behaviour of
CFDSP composite shear walls. J Build Eng 2020;31:101359. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101359.
[44] Wang X, Su Y, Yan L. Experimental and numerical study on steel reinforced high-
strength concrete short-leg shear walls. J Constr Steel Res 2014;101:242–53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.05.015.
[45] Zhou Z, Qian J, Huang W. (2020). Shear strength of steel plate reinforced concrete
shear wall. Adv Struct Eng 23(8):136943321989810. doi:10.1177/
1369433219898100.
[46] Shi K, Zhang M, Zhang T, et al. Analysis on the Seismic Performance of Steel Fiber-
Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Beam-Column Joints. Materials 2021;14(14):
4016. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14144016.
[47] Lam S, Wu B, Liu Z Q, et al. (2008). Experimental study on seismic performance of
coupling beams not designed for ductility. Struct Eng Mech 28(3):317-333. doi:
10.12989/sem.2008.28.3.317.
[48] Olabi M, Caglar N, Kisa M, et al. Numerical study on the response of composite
shear walls with steel sheets under cyclic loading. J Build Eng 2021;34:102069.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.102069.