Next Article in Journal
A Study on the Daylighting, Energy Consumption, and Climate Adaptability of Curved Mesh Shading Based on the Parametric Performance Design Method
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing the Impacts of Autonomous Vehicles on Urban Sprawl
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 13
10.3390/su16135552
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Experimental Study on Seismic Performance of Composite Shear Wall with Horizontal Connection and Frame

by
Xuan Mo
1,
Zhijun Yuan
1,*,
Yigang Jia
1,2,
Liangjian Lu
1,
Naiwen Ke
1 and
Xianglan Wei
1
1
School of Infrastructure Engineering, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330031, China
2
Design & Research Institute, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330031, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(13), 5552; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135552
Submission received: 6 June 2024 / Revised: 26 June 2024 / Accepted: 26 June 2024 / Published: 28 June 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Prefabricated concrete shear-wall structures are a primary form of prefabricated concrete construction. In this paper, the seismic performance of precast shear walls with frames is studied by experimental methods. The failure characteristics, hysteretic performance, energy dissipation capacity, stiffness degradation, and ductility of the shear wall are mainly analyzed. The results indicate that incorporating various frames into concrete shear walls can significantly enhance the traditional single seismic defense line. The maximum differences between the positive and negative initial stiffnesses of the framed shear wall are 32.6% and 29.7%, respectively. The maximum differences between the positive and negative ductility coefficients compared to the ordinary reinforced concrete shear wall are 15.7% and 20.7%, respectively. The maximum difference in equivalent viscous damping compared to the ordinary reinforced concrete shear wall is 26.5%.

1. Introduction

The shear wall is the core anti-lateral force component in high-rise building structures. The development of a shear wall with good seismic performance is one of the key technologies of building seismic design [1,2]. In recent years, China has actively explored the development of prefabricated buildings. Composite shear walls are a new type of lateral force-resisting member, which is a common component in a prefabricated building structure strongly recommended by the state [3,4]. Therefore, understanding the seismic performance of composite shear walls, the stress and connection performance of structures and components, etc., has important reference significance for engineering design and application.
Zhao et al. [5,6] proposed a steel plate–concrete composite shear wall using precast concrete slabs. According to the different connection modes of precast concrete slabs and surrounding frames, it is divided into two models. The experimental study and finite element analysis of two three-story specimens were completed. The research shows that the composite shear wall has superior ductility and energy dissipation capacity, but the damage degree of the concrete slab of the ‘traditional’ specimen is more serious than that of the ‘improved’ specimen. Hitaka et al. [7,8] proposed to arrange concrete slabs on both sides of the steel plate with vertical slits, and carried out experimental research on them. The research shows that the members separated by the vertical slits bear the load in a bending manner, and their ductility performance is better. There exist some experimental studies on T-shaped shear walls. Wang et al. [9] found through experimental studies that the damage zones of both bending and shear-damaged T-shaped shear-wall specimens were concentrated at the tip of the web. E. Smyrou et al. [10] developed curvature relationships for yield curvature, serviceability, and damage control curvature for the asymmetric nature of T-shaped shear walls. Shen et al. [11] developed a precast T-shaped reinforced concrete (RC) shear wall with H-shaped shear keys and conducted an experimental study. Zhi et al. [12] conducted experiments on the bearing capacity, stiffness, and force transfer mechanism of shear walls. Shaing et al. [13] studied a four-story single-span steel-plate shear wall with a concrete-filled steel tubular frame and two steel-plate shear walls with a concrete-filled steel tubular frame and carried out low-cycle reciprocating tests. The test data results show that the steel–concrete composite shear wall has good ductility and energy-dissipation performance. Dan et al. [14] studied six different forms of steel–concrete shear walls with a model ratio of 1/3. The experiment mainly studied the nonlinear mechanical properties of each specimen and compared the bearing capacity, deformation, and hysteresis characteristics of three different specimens.
In addition, many scholars have carried out a series of studies on the performance of shear-wall-reinforced connections and shear connectors. Xu et al. [15,16] studied the strength and load-slip curves of stud shear connectors in the form of group studs by classical push-out tests, analyzed the influence of the diameter and height of studs on the shear performance of connectors, and compared them with finite element simulation. Lin et al. [17] studied the mechanical properties of studs under the combined action of shear force and pull-out force and proposed an improved shear-tensile bearing capacity calculation formula and stiffness expression. Lowe et al. [18] studied the splitting failure of concrete in stud shear connectors through an improved push-out test device. The joint connection between the existing prefabricated shear-wall structure components mainly adopts the lapping of horizontal and vertical steel bars. Khaled [19], Mochizuki [20], Bhatt [21], and Chakrabarti, et al. [22] conducted a series of experiments and theoretical studies on assembled concrete shear-wall structures with different connection modes and achieved good research results.
In the optimization design of engineering structures, the reliability and safety caused by structural fatigue should also be considered, so some related optimization algorithms need to be studied and understood. Meng et al. [23,24] proposed a hybrid RBDO method based on a portfolio allocation strategy and a fatigue reliability evaluation framework considering mixed uncertainties. The proposed method has been applied to the design and optimization of typical OWT support structures, demonstrating the feasibility and superiority of the proposed method. The proposed assessment framework has been applied to an example of structural fatigue reliability assessment considering multiple uncertainties. Yang et al. [25] proposed an RBDO algorithm based on MECSBO to solve the RBDO problem and verified the effectiveness of the proposed MECSBO based on the benchmark function.
In summary, there are few studies on horizontal connections and frame composite shear walls at home and abroad, and the seismic performance of composite shear walls with horizontal connections is not clear and needs to be further studied. In this paper, the seismic performance and failure characteristics of three kinds of composite shear walls with horizontal connection frames and ordinary concrete shear walls are studied through a low-cycle reciprocating test. The differences in bearing capacity, stiffness, ductility, and hysteresis characteristics between composite shear walls with horizontal connection frames and ordinary shear walls are compared and analyzed. The research in this paper can provide data support and reference for similar shear-wall designs and applications in practical engineering.

2. Test Specimen

2.1. Specimen Design

Four shear-wall specimens with a scale ratio of 1/2 were designed, including three composite shear-wall specimens with different horizontal connections (T2, T3, and T4) and one ordinary reinforced concrete shear-wall specimen (T1), as shown in Figure 1. The size and material of the T1~T4 shear walls are basically the same, and the main difference lies in different horizontal connections. T1 is an ordinary reinforced concrete shear-wall specimen. It is mainly used for comparison and has similar dimensions and reinforcement with composite shear-wall specimens with different horizontal connections and borders. The T2 shear-wall specimen adopts the C-shaped frame, the T3 shear-wall specimen adopts the C-shaped frame with stiffeners, and the T4 shear-wall specimen adopts the rectangular frame, according to the actual situation and experimental conditions of the laboratory and the provisions of the ‘Technical Specification for Concrete Structures of Tall Buildings’ (JGJ3-2010) [26] on the section size of shear walls. Generally, shear walls refer to shear walls with a ratio of section height to thickness of wall limbs greater than 8, and the ratio of total height to section height of each independent wall segment should not be less than 2. The width of the shear-wall plate of the four specimens is 1000 mm, and the effective height is 2000 mm. The thickness of the steel plate is 2.86 mm. The specimens were made of C40 self-compacting concrete (Star Gute, Beijing, China), Q235B steel plates (Star Gute, Beijing, China), and HRB400 steel bars (Star Gute, Beijing, China). D8@100 and D10@100 (steel bar diameter is 10 mm, spacing is 100 mm) are used for the transverse and vertical distribution of steel bars in the wallboard, that is, the reinforcement ratio of transverse and vertical distribution of the steel bars is 0.67%, which meets the requirements of the specification of not less than 0.2% [27,28].

2.2. Material Properties of Specimens

Steel specimens were prepared according to the relevant provisions of the specification GB/T 2975-2018 [29]. Three specimens were selected from each group of steel-plate and steel-bar materials to take their average values. The loading method and data processing were determined by GB/T 228.1-2010 [30]. The tensile strain was determined by pasting strain gauges on the surface of the steel samples. The tensile test of steel was also carried out by the MTS 311.31 universal testing machine. The mechanical properties of the steel are shown in Table 1. It can be seen that the steel plate and steel bar used in the test have good ductility.
The concrete used in the test piece is C40 grade concrete, and the coarse aggregate is fine stone. To ensure the high fluidity of the concrete, the design slump is 160~180 mm. At the same time as pouring concrete, three cube test blocks (150 mm × 150 mm × 150mm) were made and cured under the same conditions as the specimens. The compression test of the concrete test block was carried out by the MTS 311.31 universal testing machine, and the loading method was according to specification GB/T 50081-2019 [30]. The cube compressive strength of concrete can be obtained from the cube test block [31,32]. The axial compressive strength can be obtained according to the cubic compressive strength. It can be seen that the average compressive strength of concrete cubes is 41.8 MPa, indicating that the C40 grade concrete used meets the design requirements.

3. Test Scheme

3.1. Loading Device

The loading device is composed of a servo actuator, loading beam, lateral restraint device, rigid frame, jack, reaction wall, and other components, as plotted in Figure 2. The MTS hydraulic actuator provides a horizontal reciprocating load, and the actuator is connected to the specimen through the holding-beam device. The push-out direction is defined as the positive direction (+), and the pull-back direction is defined as the negative direction (−). The base of the specimen is fixed by the beam and an anchor bolt, and the fixed jack is set on the side to constrain the horizontal, vertical, and rotation of the shear-wall base to ensure that the base does not produce displacement or rotation during the test loading to simulate the fixed-end constraint. At the top of the specimen, 100 tons of loading electro-hydraulic servo actuator, ball hinge loading head, and load distribution beam are set up for vertical axial compression loading and stable load holding. In the horizontal direction, two electro-hydraulic servo actuators with 150 tons and ±250 mm range are jointly loaded. The back end of the actuator is fixed to the reinforced concrete reaction wall, and the horizontal bidirectional cyclic loading is realized through the high-strength screw and the loading back beam.

3.2. Testing Contents

According to the purpose of the test and the mechanical properties of the test piece, the test content of the test is as follows: The failure mode of the test piece, including the first cracking part of the concrete, the trend and width of the crack, the first bulging part of the frame and the final shape of the frame. The horizontal displacement of the specimen at the height of 1/2 (D2) and the height of 1/4 (D1) is drawn in Figure 3. The spring-type displacement meter is mainly used to monitor the displacement of the shear wall. The horizontal displacement accuracy of D1 monitoring the height of 1/4 of the shear wall is 0.0005 mm. D2 is used to monitor the lateral displacement of the shear wall at 1/2 height. In addition, under the action of loads at all levels, the displacement-load hysteresis curve at the loading beam is collected and drawn by the cyclic electro-hydraulic servo loading system.

3.3. Loading Program

The test loading program refers to the relationship between the control load size and the loading time in the structural test, which includes the length of the loading time interval, the size of the graded load, and the number of loading and unloading cycles. The seismic static test of the structure generally adopts the low-cycle reciprocating load of the control load or deformation. In this paper, the displacement control method is used to apply a horizontal reciprocating load, and the displacement angle and corresponding displacement of each stage are illustrated in Figure 4. Loading starts from the displacement angle of 1/1000 (2.1 mm) until the displacement angle is 1/30 rad (70 mm), or when the horizontal shear force decreases to 85% of the peak shear force, that is, the loading ends. Among them, the 1/100 rad displacement angle corresponds to the elastic-plastic displacement angle limit of the shear wall under rare earthquakes in the seismic code [33].

4. Test Results and Discussion

4.1. Test Phenomena and Failure Characteristics

During the loading process of the specimen, the identification and drawing of concrete cracks are carried out at the peak position of the cyclic displacement and the unloading position of each stage. The working procedure is to identify concrete cracks with the naked eye and draw the distribution of cracks. Because the back is not convenient to view the development of cracks, the front, left and right sides of the shear wall are selected as the observation surface for cracks in the test. Taking T1 as an example, the failure phenomenon of the specimen under different displacement angles is shown in Figure 5. When the loading displacement angle is 1/1000 (2.1 mm), the deformation of the wall is small and there is no obvious change. When the displacement angle is 1/500 (4.2 mm), small oblique cracks appear on the front and side of the wallboard. Then the small inclined cracks continue to develop in the middle of the two wallboards. When the displacement angle is 1/150 (14 mm), the crack width increases obviously, cross cracks are formed in the middle of the concrete wall panel, and new oblique cracks appear densely. When the displacement angle is 1/30 (70 mm), the horizontal crack continues to extend to both sides, the width increases obviously, and the wall concrete also continues to fall off along the oblique crack.
Under the loading displacement angle of 1/1000 rad and 1/30 rad, the concrete damage of specimens T2~T4 is plotted in Figure 6. It can be seen that under the loading displacement angle of 1/30 rad, a large number of concrete cracks appear on each specimen, and are mainly distributed near the bottom of the shear-wall plate. Under the loading displacement angle of 1/1000 rad, only a small amount of cracks appeared, mainly distributed in the bottom area of the middle prefabricated wallboard. The T2 specimen has a large number of concrete cracks and crushing phenomena at the bottom of the wall plate, and the damage degree of the T3 and T4 specimens is less than that of the T2 specimen. Compared with the T1 specimen, the damage degree of the three horizontally connected composite shear-wall specimens with frame is significantly reduced, and the damage is mainly distributed in the middle of the wall plate. During the whole loading process, the three horizontally connected composite shear-wall specimens were gradually damaged, and no sudden brittle failure occurred.

4.2. Hysteresis Curve

The hysteresis curve is the load-displacement curve of the component under reciprocating load [34,35]. It reflects the deformation performance, stiffness degradation, and energy consumption of structural members in the process of reciprocating force and is an important basis for determining the restoring force model and nonlinear seismic response analysis. Figure 7 shows the hysteretic curves of all specimens. It can be seen from Figure 7 that before the specimen is cracked, the hysteresis loop is basically a straight line, the area surrounded by the hysteresis loop is very small, and the specimen is basically in the elastic stress stage. The load and displacement conform to the proportional relationship, and the residual deformation of the specimen is very small. The displacement angle is 1/150, the hysteresis loop is bent, and the load and displacement do not conform to the proportional growth relationship. The increment of the load is lower than the increment of the displacement, and the hysteresis loop of the component is gradually inclined to the transverse axis. At this time, the specimen has entered the nonlinear working stage. As the controlled displacement gradually increases, the slope of the hysteresis loop curve gradually becomes smaller, the hysteresis loop becomes more and more full, and the area surrounded by the hysteresis loop gradually increases, indicating that the energy dissipation capacity of the specimen is getting stronger and stronger. The comparative analysis shows that the change rate of the slope of the T1 curve is significantly greater than that of the T2~T4 specimens, and the peak load of each level decreases more. The shape of the hysteresis loop curve and the area of the surrounding area of the T2~T4 specimens are very close, and both are larger than that of the T1 specimen.

4.3. Skeleton Curve

The skeleton curve is the trajectory of the load-displacement curve reaching the peak point for each cyclic loading [36,37]. At any time when the specimen is loaded, the peak point will not exceed the skeleton curve and can only move forward along the skeleton curve after reaching the skeleton curve. The skeleton curve reflects the stress and deformation characteristics of the specimen at different stages and is an important basis for qualitatively measuring the seismic performance of the component. Figure 8 is the skeleton curve of all specimens. It can be seen from Figure 8 that before the cracking of the specimen, the skeleton curve of the T1~T4 specimens is a straight line, the specimen is in the elastic stage, and the load and displacement are proportional to the linear relationship. After the specimen is cracked, the straight lines of the T2~T4 specimens are bent, and the slope is reduced, but the change is not obvious. The peak load is significantly greater than the T1 specimen. It can be seen that the horizontally connected frame has a certain restraining effect on the wallboard. After the specimen yields, the T1~T4 curves have obvious bending, the deformation increases, and the stiffness is further reduced. Continue to load, the bearing capacity of each specimen gradually decreased.

4.4. Rigidity Degeneration

The stiffness degradation is an index that reflects the ductility residual strength and safety of components [38]. The stiffness degradation curve of each specimen is drawn in Figure 9. The initial stiffness can be calculated by the first loading stage. The positive initial stiffness of specimens T1~T4 is 72.9 kN/mm, 93.6 kN/mm, 96.4 kN/mm, and 96.7 kN/mm, respectively, and the maximum difference of positive initial stiffness is 32.6%. The negative initial stiffness is 61.9 kN/mm, 75.3 kN/mm, 77.7 kN/mm, and 80.3 kN/mm, respectively, and the maximum difference of negative initial stiffness is 29.7%. It can be found that the initial stiffness of the T2~T4 shear walls is higher than that of the T1 shear walls due to the different horizontal connections. The trend of the stiffness degradation curve of each specimen is similar, and the stiffness gradually decreases with the increase of displacement. Before the cracking of the specimen, the change trend is a straight line. The specimen is in the elastic stage, and the stiffness degradation is faster. After cracking, the initial stiffness degradation rate of the T2~T4 shear walls is faster than that of the T1 shear wall due to the embedded steel and additional steel bars. Finally, the stiffness of each specimen tends to be stable.

4.5. Ductility Coefficient

The ductility coefficient reflects the deformation ability of structural members well, which is an important indicator of the indexes to judge the seismic performance of structural engineering [37,38]. The ductility coefficient is divided into a curvature ductility coefficient and a displacement ductility coefficient. This paper adopts the displacement ductility coefficient. The displacement and ductility coefficients of each specimen are shown in Table 2. It can be seen that the positive and negative ductility coefficients of specimens T2~T4 are greater than T1. Among them, the positive ductility coefficients of T1~T4 are 7.7496, 8.4803, 8.6298, and 8.9715, respectively. The negative ductility coefficients of T1~T4 are 5.7848, 6.7901, 6.8711, and 6.984, respectively. The maximum difference between the positive and negative ductility coefficients of the shear wall with frame and the ordinary reinforced concrete shear wall is 15.7% and 20.7%, respectively. It can be seen that the deformation capacity of a shear wall with a frame is better than that of an ordinary reinforced concrete shear wall. The main reason is that the concrete strength of the wallboard is low, and the concrete wallboard with the frame is reinforced by steel. During the whole test, the wallboard and the steel frame are not pulled out. After the concrete frame is bent, the stiffness of the whole component is not significantly reduced, so the deformation ability is better.

4.6. Energy Dissipation Capacity

Energy dissipation capacity is an important index to evaluate the seismic performance of structures [39]. Among them, the equivalent viscous damping ratio [40] can be used to quantitatively describe the energy dissipation capacity of the component, and the calculation formula of the equivalent viscous damping ratio is shown below.
h e q = E D 4 π E S
where E D is the energy dissipation at each loading stage and E S is the elastic strain energy under the corresponding loading displacement.
The displacement angle-equivalent viscous damping of each specimen is shown in Figure 10. It can be found that until the displacement angle of 1/75 rad, the equivalent viscous damping ratio of the shear-wall specimen with frame is higher than that of the ordinary shear-wall specimen, indicating that the concrete shear-wall specimen with frame has more superior energy dissipation capacity. When the displacement angle is 1/75 rad, the equivalent viscous damping ratios of specimens T1~T4 are 6.8%, 7.95%, 8.0%, and 8.6%, respectively. Among the four concrete shear walls, when the displacement angle is less than 1/30 rad, the equivalent viscous damping ratio of specimen T4 is the largest, indicating that the connection structure adopted can ensure superior consumption capacity. When the displacement angle is less than 1/75 rad, specimen T1 has the lowest equivalent viscous damping ratio.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, low-cycle reciprocating tests are carried out for prefabricated shear walls with frame and traditional reinforced concrete shear walls with different horizontal connections. The failure characteristics, hysteretic performance, energy dissipation capacity, stiffness degradation, and ductility of each specimen are compared and analyzed. The following conclusions can be drawn.
  • The prefabricated shear walls with different horizontal connections have good seismic performance. The bearing capacity, ductility, and energy dissipation capacity of assembled shear walls with different horizontal connections (T2~T4) are significantly improved compared with ordinary concrete shear walls (T1).
  • Compared with ordinary high-strength concrete shear walls (T1), the damage degree of three horizontally connected composite shear-wall (T2~T4) specimens with frame is reduced. The damage is mainly distributed in the middle of the wall plate, which is an important characterization of its seismic-energy-dissipation-capacity enhancement.
  • The maximum positive initial stiffness and negative initial stiffness of the framed shear wall appear in the T4 shear-wall specimen, which is 32.6% and 29.7% higher than that of the ordinary reinforced concrete shear wall (T1). The maximum positive and negative ductility coefficients appear in the T4 specimen, which are 15.7% and 20.7% larger than those of ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls (T1), respectively. The equivalent viscous damping of the T1~T4 specimens shows an increasing trend, and the maximum difference of equivalent viscous damping is 26.5%.

Author Contributions

Methodology, X.M., L.L. and X.W.; Validation, Z.Y.; Investigation, Y.J.; Resources, L.L.; Writing—original draft, X.M.; Supervision, Z.Y. and N.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Holden, T.; Restrepo, J.; Mander, J.B. Seismic performance of precast reinforced and prestressed concrete walls. J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 2003, 129, 286–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Feng, X.T.; Yu, J.G.; Carvelli, V.; Guo, H.C. Wall-frame interaction of steel plate shear wall strengthened by foam-infilled corrugated CFRP panel. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 94109900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cao, Z.; Li, Q. Effect of connection deficiency on seismic performance of precast concrete shear wall-frame structures. J. Earthq. Tsunami 2019, 13, 349–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lu, Z.; Huang, J.; Li, Y.; Dai, S.; Peng, Z.; Liu, X.; Zhang, M. Mechanical behaviour of grouted sleeve splice under uniaxial tensile loading. Eng. Struct. 2019, 186, 421–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhao, Q.H. Experimental and Analytical Studies of Cyclic Behavior of Steel and Composite Shear Wall Systems; University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  6. Zhao, Q.H.; Astaneh-Asl, A. Cyclic behavior of traditional and innovative composite shear wall. J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 2004, 130, 271–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hitaka, T.; Matsui, C.; Tsuda, K.; Yanagida, Y. Elastic-plastic behavior of building steel frame incorporation steel bearing wall with slits. J. Struct. Constr. Eng. 2000, 65, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hitaka, T.; Matsui, C. Experimental study on steel shear wall with slits. J. Struct. Eng. 2003, 129, 586–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, B.; Wu, M.-Z.; Zhang, L.-P.; Cai, W.-Z.; Shi, Q.-X. Seismic behavior and shear capacity of shear-dominated T-shaped RC walls under cyclic loading. Structures 2023, 55, 557–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Smyrou, E.; Sullivan, T.; Priestley, N.; Calvi, M. Sectional response of T-shaped RC walls. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2013, 11, 999–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shen, S.-D.; Pan, P.; He, Z.-Z.; Xiao, G.-Q.; Ren, J.-Y. Experimental study and finite element analysis of T-shaped precast shear walls with H-shaped shear keys. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2022, 51, 1158–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhi, Q.; Xiong, X.; Yang, W.; Liu, S.; Xiong, J. Experimental Study on the Shear Behavior of Precast Wall Concrete Joints with/without Dowel Reinforcement. Materials 2020, 13, 1726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Shaingchin, S.; Lukkunaprasit, P.; Wood, L.S. Influence of diagonal web reinforcement on cyclic behavior of structural walls. Eng. Struct. 2006, 29, 498–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dan, D.; Fabian, A.; Stoian, V. Theoretical and experimental study on composite steel concrete shear walls with vertical steel encased profiles. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2010, 67, 800–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Xu, C.; Sugiura, K. Parametrical push-out analysis on group studs shear connector under effect of bending-induced concrete cracks. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2013, 89, 86–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Xu, C.; Sugiura, K. Analytical investigation on failure development of group studs shear connector in push-out specimen under biaxial load action. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2014, 37, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lin, Z.; Liu, Y.; He, J. Behavior of stud connectors under combined shear and tension loads. Eng. Struct. 2014, 81, 362–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lowe, D.; Das, R.; Clifton, C. Characterization of the splitting behavior of steel-concrete composite beams with shear stud connection. Procedia Mater. Sci. 2014, 3, 2174–2179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Khaled, A.S.; Sami, H.R.; Bob, D.W. Horizontal connection for precast concrete shear walls subjected to cyclic deformations part2: Prestressed connections. PCI J. 1995, 40, 82–96. [Google Scholar]
  20. Mochizuki, S.; Kobayashi, T. Experiment on slip strength of horizontal joint of precast concrete multi-story shear walls. J. Struct. Constr. Eng. 1996, 61, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bhatt, P. Influence of vertical joints on the behavior of precast shear walls. Build Sci. 1973, 8, 221–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chakrabarti, S.C.; Nayak, G.C.; Paul, D.K. Shear characteristics of cast-in place vertical joints in story-high precast wall assembly. ACI Struct. J. 1988, 85, 30–45. [Google Scholar]
  23. Meng, D.; Yang, H.; Yang, S.; Zhang, Y.; De Jesus, A.M.; Correia, J.; Fazeres-Ferradosa, T.; Macek, W.; Branco, R.; Zhu, S.-P. Kriging-assisted hybrid reliability design and optimization of offshore wind turbine support structure based on a portfolio allocation strategy. Ocean. Eng. 2024, 295, 116842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Meng, D.; Yang, S.; Yang, H.; De Jesus, A.M.; Correia, J.; Zhu, S.-P. Intelligent-inspired framework for fatigue reliability evaluation of offshore wind turbine support structures under hybrid uncertainty. Ocean. Eng. 2024, 307, 118213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yang, S.; Guo, C.; Meng, D.; Guo, Y.; Guo, Y.; Pan, L.; Zhu, S. MECSBO: Multi-strategy enhanced circulatory system based optimisation algorithm for global optimisation and reliability-based design optimisation problems. IET Collab. Intell. Manuf. 2024, 6, e12097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. JGJ 3-2010; Technical Specification for Concrete Structures of Tall Buildings. China Construction Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2010.
  27. GB 50010-2010; Code for Design of Concrete Structures. China Construction Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2015.
  28. GB 50017-2017; Code for Design of Steel Structures. China Building Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2017.
  29. GB/T 2975-2018; Sampling Position and Sample Preparation for Mechanical Properties Test of Steel and Steel Products. China Standard Press: Beijing, China, 2018.
  30. GB/T 228.1-2010; Tensile Test of Metal Materials Part 1. Room Temperature Test Method China Standard Press: Beijing, China, 2018.
  31. Han, Q.; Wang, D.; Zhang, Y.; Tao, W.; Zhu, Y. Experimental investigation and simplified stiffness degradation model of precast concrete shear wall with steel connectors. Eng. Struct. 2020, 220, 110943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Han, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, D.; Sakata, H. Seismic behavior of buckling-restrained steel plate shear wall with assembled multi-RC panels. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2019, 157, 397–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. GB 50011-2010; Code for Seismic Design of Buildings. China Construction Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2016.
  34. Guo, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, J.; Fan, J. Stiffness degradation-based damage model for RC members and structures using fiber-beam elements. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2016, 15, 697–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. ASCE/SEI 41-13; Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2013.
  36. Clough, R.W.; Penzien, J. Dynamics of Structures, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  37. Peng, Y.Y.; Qian, J.R.; Wang, Y.H. Cyclic performance of precast concrete shear walls with a mortar-sleeve connection for longitudinal steel bars. Mater. Struct. 2016, 49, 2455–2469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lu, X.L.; Yang, B.Y.; Zhao, B. Shake-table testing of a self-centering precast reinforced concrete frame with shear walls. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2018, 17, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chong, X.; Sha, H.; Xie, L.; Li, A.; Jiang, Q.; He, Y.; Chen, X. Experimental and numerical studies on the seismic performance of precast concrete shear wall structures with an energy dissipation cladding panel. J. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 26, 3264–3279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Abdulridha, A.; Palermo, D. Behavior and modelling of hybrid SMA-steel reinforced concrete slender shear wall. Eng. Struct. 2017, 147, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 05552 g001aSustainability 16 05552 g001bSustainability 16 05552 g001c
Figure 1. The size and structure of each specimen. (a) T1; (b) T2; (c) T3; (d) T4.
Figure 1. The size and structure of each specimen. (a) T1; (b) T2; (c) T3; (d) T4.
Sustainability 16 05552 g001aSustainability 16 05552 g001bSustainability 16 05552 g001c
Sustainability 16 05552 g002
Figure 2. Loading device physical diagram (1—vertical actuator; 2—spherical hinge; 3—distribution beam; 4—Loading back beam; 5—high strength bolt; 6—Horizontal actuator; 7—compression beam; 8—-kg jack).
Figure 2. Loading device physical diagram (1—vertical actuator; 2—spherical hinge; 3—distribution beam; 4—Loading back beam; 5—high strength bolt; 6—Horizontal actuator; 7—compression beam; 8—-kg jack).
Sustainability 16 05552 g002
Sustainability 16 05552 g003
Figure 3. Measuring points arrangement of displacement sensors. D1 and D2 are the same displacement sensors, which are arranged in different positions. The D1 and D2 displacement sensors were placed at 1/2 and 1/4 of the specimen height, respectively.
Figure 3. Measuring points arrangement of displacement sensors. D1 and D2 are the same displacement sensors, which are arranged in different positions. The D1 and D2 displacement sensors were placed at 1/2 and 1/4 of the specimen height, respectively.
Sustainability 16 05552 g003
Sustainability 16 05552 g004
Figure 4. Test loading program. The red part indicates displacement. Each displacement angle has a corresponding displacement.
Figure 4. Test loading program. The red part indicates displacement. Each displacement angle has a corresponding displacement.
Sustainability 16 05552 g004
Sustainability 16 05552 g005
Figure 5. Failure phenomenon of specimen T1. (a) 1/1000; (b) 1/500; (c) 1/150; (d) 1/30.
Figure 5. Failure phenomenon of specimen T1. (a) 1/1000; (b) 1/500; (c) 1/150; (d) 1/30.
Sustainability 16 05552 g005
Sustainability 16 05552 g006aSustainability 16 05552 g006b
Figure 6. The failure phenomenon of specimens T2~T4. (a) 1/1000 (T2); (b) 1/30 (T2); (c) 1/1000 (T3); (d) 1/30 (T3); (e) 1/1000 (T4); (f) 1/30 (T4).
Figure 6. The failure phenomenon of specimens T2~T4. (a) 1/1000 (T2); (b) 1/30 (T2); (c) 1/1000 (T3); (d) 1/30 (T3); (e) 1/1000 (T4); (f) 1/30 (T4).
Sustainability 16 05552 g006aSustainability 16 05552 g006b
Sustainability 16 05552 g007aSustainability 16 05552 g007b
Figure 7. Hysteretic curve of each specimen. (a) T1; (b) T2; (c) T3; (d) T4.
Figure 7. Hysteretic curve of each specimen. (a) T1; (b) T2; (c) T3; (d) T4.
Sustainability 16 05552 g007aSustainability 16 05552 g007b
Sustainability 16 05552 g008
Figure 8. Skeleton curve of each specimen.
Figure 8. Skeleton curve of each specimen.
Sustainability 16 05552 g008
Sustainability 16 05552 g009
Figure 9. Stiffness degradation curve of each specimen.
Figure 9. Stiffness degradation curve of each specimen.
Sustainability 16 05552 g009
Sustainability 16 05552 g010
Figure 10. The relationship between displacement angle and equivalent viscous damping ratio.
Figure 10. The relationship between displacement angle and equivalent viscous damping ratio.
Sustainability 16 05552 g010
Table 1. Mechanical properties of steel.
Table 1. Mechanical properties of steel.
MaterialYield Strain
(εy0, μstrain)		Yield Stress
(fy0, MPa)		Tensile Strength
(fu0, MPa)		Ratio (fu0/fy0)Elastic Modulus (Es0, MPa)
Steel plate (Q235B)18442794191.50201,125
D8 (HRB400)21794166041.45193,587
D10 (HRB400)21444185191.24195,000
Table 2. Displacement and ductility coefficient.
Table 2. Displacement and ductility coefficient.
SpecimensLoad
Direction		Yield PointPeak PointLimiting PointDuctility
Coefficient
Displacement
(mm)		Load
(kN)		Displacement
(mm)		Load
(kN)		Displacement
(mm)		Load
(kN)
T1(+)7.01252.121.41290.754.3585%
peak load		7.7496
(−)8.29226.620.81269.247.985.7848
T2(+)7.27392.020.80437.151.777.5302
(−)6.57388.320.80430.843.566.6278
T3(+)7.36399.120.80446.558.097.8915
(−)6.61394.020.80444.549.547.4842
T4(+)8.23392.528.41450.266.428.062
(−)7.34385.020.80440.349.736.7669
+ and − denote different loading directions. + represents forward loading, − represents reverse loading.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mo, X.; Yuan, Z.; Jia, Y.; Lu, L.; Ke, N.; Wei, X. Experimental Study on Seismic Performance of Composite Shear Wall with Horizontal Connection and Frame. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5552. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135552

AMA Style

Mo X, Yuan Z, Jia Y, Lu L, Ke N, Wei X. Experimental Study on Seismic Performance of Composite Shear Wall with Horizontal Connection and Frame. Sustainability. 2024; 16(13):5552. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135552

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mo, Xuan, Zhijun Yuan, Yigang Jia, Liangjian Lu, Naiwen Ke, and Xianglan Wei. 2024. "Experimental Study on Seismic Performance of Composite Shear Wall with Horizontal Connection and Frame" Sustainability 16, no. 13: 5552. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135552

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop