Experimental investigation on strengthening of infilled frame structures by profiled steel sheet shear walls

Abstract

This article presents an experimental study on seismic performance of three reinforced concrete frames. Three 1/3-scale, one-bay, two-story specimens are constructed and tested in the test. One specimen is bare; another is reinforced by profiled steel sheet shear walls; the third one is filled with infill walls and reinforced by profiled steel sheet shear walls. Experiment investigates some characteristics of three test specimens, such as strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation. Test results show that these characteristics of infilled frame structure have been improved prominently. Comparing with the bare and the second specimen, the strength is enhanced by 307.3% and 109.28%, the stiffness is increased by 103.17% and 12.27%, and cumulative energy is improved by 291.37% and 106.45%, respectively. The results indicate that profiled steel sheet shear walls can cooperate with infill walls effectively and improve seismic performance of reinforced concrete frame structure significantly. The seismic strengthening method, profiled steel sheet shear walls reinforce infilled frame structures, is proved to be efficient.

Keywords

energy dissipation infill walls profiled steel sheet shear walls reinforced concrete frames seismic performance

Introduction

Most of the existing school buildings of multistory reinforced concrete (RC) frames had the characteristics of larger bay, big window, and cantilever corridor. However, some buildings showed typical damages such as small lateral stiffness and weak energy dissipation. What is more, some of them collapsed in Wenchuan earthquake. To solve these kinds of damages, strengthening methods had been adopted to reinforce existing buildings. A kind of effective reinforcement method was to add steel plate shear walls to the primary structure. Some scholars (Caccese et al., 1993; Choi and Park, 2010; Elgaaly, 1998; Zhang and Guo, 2014) researched this method on experimental study and numerical analysis.

Choi and Park (2011) carried out experimental study on two 1/3 scaled one-bay and three-story RC frames. The frames were filled with thin steel plates in the test. The results showed that shear cracking and failure of the column-beam joints were prevented by the use of thin steel plates. Park et al. (2007) researched five one-bay and three-story steel frames with thin steel plates. The results showed that the strength of the frames was increased using this strengthening method. In addition, the seismic ductility and energy dissipation were improved greatly. Su et al. (2002) conducted experimental study on four 1/4 scaled specimens which were filled with thin steel plates. The plate thickness was different from each other. Test results showed that ductility of specimens was reduced along with the increase in plate thickness. Bearing capacity, stiffness, and dissipation capacity of the specimens increased observably. With the purpose of studying the interaction between the shear walls and frame components, Habashi and Alinia (2010) simulated one-bay and one-story steel frame which was reinforced by steel plate shear walls. Analysis results showed that steel plate shear walls bore most of shear force in the initial stages of loading. However, steel plate shear walls quit the job gradually when the diagonal areas yielded. Yang et al. (2005) researched RC frames with thin steel plate shear walls according to different slenderness ratio. The model scale was 1/4 and the structure was one-bay, one-story. In addition, the failure feature and seismic behavior were analyzed under cyclic loading. The results indicated that the appropriate slenderness ratio of steel plate increased the stiffness and bearing capacity of structures. Moreover, the structure exhibited good ductility and energy dissipation.

The above researches are about the reinforcement method of thin steel plate shear walls, which are more likely to occur local buckling. Profiled steel sheeting has large out of plane rigidity, which is rare to be used as shear walls in seismic strengthening. At present, profiled steel sheeting is applied to composite walls, which include profiled steel sheet-concrete, lightweight foamed concrete, and profiled steel sheet-bamboo plywood (Hossain and Wright, 2004; Wright and Hossain, 1997) researched in-plane shear behavior of profiled steel sheet-concrete composite walls. Test results analyzed deflection response, strength, and stiffness of composite walls. The failure mode, deformation condition, and interaction between the plate and concrete were studied. Mydin and Wang (2011) conducted experimental research on 12 specimens, which were composed of two pieces of profiled steel sheet walls and lightweight foamed concrete. The experiment studied the failure modes, ultimate load, and vertical deformation of the specimens. Test results indicated that this new type of composite wall was feasible. Liu (2012) simulated one one-bay, two-story steel frame, which was filled with different thickness of profiled steel sheet shear walls. Analysis results showed that the stiffness and bearing capacity of specimen were improved significantly. In addition, the structure showed good ductility in the numerical analysis. The thickness of profiled steel sheeting exerted an influence on structures. The vertical layout of profiled plate was better than the horizontal layout in improving stiffness and carrying capacity. Li et al. (2010) put profiled steel sheeting as central piece and used structure adhesive to connect bamboo curtain plywood on both surfaces. This composite wall was called as profiled steel sheet-bamboo plywood and fixed by tapping screws. Parameters such as thickness of the bamboo plywood, thickness and wave-height of profiled steel sheeting were considered in the test. Pseudo-static test was carried out on five pieces of composite walls. Test results showed that changes of thickness of bamboo plywood had little influence on shear strength and stiffness of composite walls. However, changes of thickness and wave-height of profiled steel sheeting had significant influence on bearing capacity and seismic performance.

The objective of this research is to introduce a strengthening method and study the seismic performance of infilled frames. Profiled steel sheeting has its own advantages, such as light material, economical attractions, and easy installation. Moreover, the large out of plane rigidity of profiled steel sheeting is much higher than that of thin steel plate. As a result, the buckling load of profiled steel sheeting is improved greatly. Combining with tension of profiled steel sheeting and compression of infill walls, horizontal load can be resisted effectively. Seismic performance of three frames is investigated in this article. In addition, the comparisons of failure characteristics, strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation are discussed.

Experimental works

Test design and installation

Dimensions and reinforcement details of the specimens are given in Figure 1. Three specimens were named as KJ-1, KJ-2, and KJ-3, respectively. The dimensions and reinforcement were designed to be the same, such as clear span was 1.8 m and story height was 1.2 m. The cross-sections of columns were 200 × 200 mm, the beams were 120 × 200 mm, and foundation beam was 400 × 400 mm.

Figure 1.

Dimensions and reinforcement details of the specimens.

Reinforcement designs of KJ-2 and KJ-3 are shown in Figures 2 and 3. After casting and curing the specimens, connectors were installed onto Specimens KJ-2 and KJ-3. Along the beam length arranged 11 groups of steel plates spacing at 118 mm. The column height arranged nine groups of steel plates spacing at 116 mm. Each of two steel plates was connected by two steel rods. Then, channel steel and steel plates were welded together in frames. After the completion of welding, infill walls were built in Specimen KJ-3. Tapping screws were used to connect profiled steel sheeting and channel steel on Specimens KJ-2 and KJ-3. Due to the width of profiled steel sheeting, rivets were used to connect profiled steel sheeting. Two pieces of profiled steel sheet shear walls were located on both sides of the infill wall.

Figure 2.

Reinforcement design of KJ-2.

Figure 3.

Reinforcement design of KJ-3.

As a new type of strengthening technique, the study of profiled steel sheet shear walls reinforced method is at the stage of experimentation at present. The cross-sections of beams were too small to bear the force of expansion bolt. In existing RC frames, hammer anchor (an expansion bolt) will connect the beams and profiled steel sheet shear walls directly.

Materials

The measured average compressive strength of concrete was 30.78 MPa as per ACI structure building code (ACI 318-05, 2005). The diameter of longitudinal bars was 10 mm. Yield strength was 382.11 MPa, while ultimate strength was 579.37 MPa. The diameter of transversal ties was 8 mm. Yield strength was 390.36 MPa, while ultimate strength was 596.63 MPa. Infill walls were made of fired common bricks, which were built in vertical with the size of 240 × 115 × 53 mm. The average compressive strength of fired common brick was 53.61 MPa as per ACl building code (ACl 530-02/ASCE 5-02/TMS 402-02, 2002). The portion of cement mortar was 1:3 (cement:sand). The properties of reinforcing bars are summarized in Table 1. The properties of concrete and fired common brick are listed in Table 2.

Table 1.

Properties of reinforcing bars.

Type	Diameter (mm)	Yield strength f_y (MPa)	Ultimate strength f_u (MPa)
Longitudinal bars	10	382.11	579.37
Transversal ties	8	390.36	596.63

Table 2.

Properties of concrete and fired common brick.

Type	Concrete compressive strength f_c (MPa)	Fired common brick compressive strength f (MPa)
Concrete	30.78	–
Fired common brick	–	53.61

Cross-section dimensions of profiled steel sheeting are shown in Figure 4. The type of profiled steel sheeting was YX35-250-1000 and the thickness was 0.4 mm. Moreover, the yield strength was 264.15 MPa. The ultimate strength was 365.04 MPa. Connection dimensions of the specimen are shown in Figure 5. The sizes of steel plates on the beams and columns were 200 × 35 × 4 mm and 280 × 35 × 4 mm, respectively. The diameter of steel rods was 8 mm and the length was 250 mm. The type of channel steel was 100 × 100 × 2. Properties of profiled steel sheeting are listed in Table 3.

Figure 4.

Cross-section dimensions of profiled steel sheeting.

Figure 5.

Connection dimensions of the specimen.

Table 3.

Properties of profiled steel sheeting.

Type	Thickness (mm)	Yield strength f_y (MPa)	Ultimate strength f_u (MPa)
YX35-250-1000	0.4	264.15	365.04

Test setup and loading program

Test setup of KJ-1, KJ-2, and KJ-3 are shown in Figure 6. As can be seen from figures, specimens were put on the rigid floor through fixed bearing. Hydraulic jacks were fixed on the top of columns by rigid beam, which provided the 200 kN vertical force. Moreover, the rollers were set between hydraulic jacks and rigid beam. At the beam end of the second story, there was a hydraulic jack, which offered the low-cyclic lateral load in the process of loading. To gain the displacement during the load, displacement transducers were installed at the right beam end. The measurement instrumentations are shown in Figure 7.

Figure 6.

Test setup: (a) Specimen KJ-1, (b) Specimen KJ-2, and (c) Specimen KJ-3.

Figure 7.

Measurement instrumentations: (a) hydraulic jacks and (b) displacement transducers.

Loading program of Specimen KJ-3 is shown in Figure 8. A force–displacement mixed control method was applied in the tests. The reason was that it was difficult to take load control in the failure stage. Therefore, it took controlled displacement to achieve the stable control of the loading. Before the longitudinal bars reached 2218 µε on the bottom of left column, loading program adopted load control. After reaching the yielding value (±120 kN), loading program changed into controlled displacement. Yielding displacement was recorded as Δ_y. In the stage of controlled displacement, displacement was increased by yielding displacement Δ_y of integer at each level (±Δ_y, ±2Δ_y, ±3Δ_y, and ±4Δ_y). Each cycle repeated three times until the lateral load fell below 85% of the peak load. This lateral load was called as ultimate load.

Figure 8.

Loading program of Specimen KJ-3.

Test results

Failure mode

The failure mode of Specimen KJ-1 is shown in Figure 9. In the process of loading, “+” represented forward loading, while “−” represented backward loading. When the load reached −22 kN, the bend cracks appeared at the right side of beam end 300 mm. The length of the cracks was 50 mm (Figure 9(b) No. A). When the load reached +27.4 kN, the cracks formed at the left side of beam end 230 mm and developed from the beam bottom. In addition, the length of the cracks was 120 mm (Figure 9(a) No. B). When the load was +28 kN, cracks formed at the left side of beam end and at the right side of beam end 130 mm (Figure 9(a) No. C, Figure 9(b) No. D). When controlled displacement became ±Δ_y, cracks formed at the left side of beam end 130 mm and at the right side of beam end 260 mm (Figure 9(a) No. E, Figure 9(b) No. F). Moreover, the cracks extended to beam bottom when controlled displacement reached ±2Δy (Figure 9(a) No. G). At the same time, two horizon cracks formed on the left column bottom 50 and 160 mm (Figure 9(c) No. H, Figure 9(c) No. I). On the left column bottom, there were some horizon cracks and the lengths approximated 100 mm (Figure 9(c) No. J). When controlled displacement reached ±3Δ_y, shear cracks formed on beams and columns (Figure 9(b) No. K, Figure 9(c) No. L, Figure 9(d) No. M). A large number of cracks appeared on the right column bottom after ±4Δ_y. Under the action of bending moment and shear force, concrete was crushed on the bottom of column (Figure 9(d) No. N).

Figure 9.

Failure mode of Specimen KJ-1: (a) cracks at the left side of beam, (b) cracks at the right side of beam, (c) cracks on the left column, and (d) cracks on the right column.

The failure mode of Specimen KJ-2 is shown in Figure 10. When the load reached +37 kN, there was a 60 mm bend crack at the left side of beam end (Figure 10(a) No. A). When the load reached −46 kN, vertical cracks formed at the right side of beam end 190 mm (Figure 10(b) No. B). In addition, when the load reached −55 kN, cracks formed at the left side of beam end 170 mm, at the right side of beam end 180 mm and on the left column bottom 150 mm (Figure 10(a) No. C, Figure 10(b) No. D, Figure 10(c) No. E). When the controlled displacement reached ±Δ_y, new cracks appeared on beams and columns. Cracks formed at the left side of beam end 280 mm and at the right side of beam end 180 mm (Figure 10(a) No. F, Figure 10(b) No. G). These cracks grew in vertical. A large number of cracks appeared on beams and columns when the controlled displacement reached ±2Δ_y (Figure 10(a) No. H, Figure 10(b) No. I, Figure 10(c) No. J, Figure 10(d) No. K). Unrecoverable deformations formed in the middle of profiled steel sheet shear walls (Figure 10(e) No. L, Figure 10(f) No. M). When the controlled displacement reached ±3Δ_y, unrecoverable deformations were in the middle and the corner (Figure 10(e) No. N, Figure 10(f) No. O). Horizontal cracks appeared on the left column bottom and right column bottom 400 mm (Figure 10(c) No. P, Figure 10(d) No. Q). After reaching the controlled displacement ±4Δ_y, unrecoverable deformations of profiled steel sheet shear walls were along the diagonal and perpendicular to the direction of wave crest.

Figure 10.

The failure mode of Specimen KJ-2: (a) cracks at the left side of beam, (b) cracks at the right side of beam, (c) cracks on the left column, (d) cracks on the right column, (e) profiled steel sheeting of first story, and (f) profiled steel sheeting of second story.

The failure mode of Specimen KJ-3 is shown in Figure 11. When the load reached −50 kN, cracks grew on the left column bottom 80 mm (Figure 11(c) No. A). When the load reached +70 kN, cracks formed on the right column bottom 100 mm (Figure 11(d) No. B). In addition, on the first story, there were some recoverable deformations in the middle of profiled steel sheet shear walls. On the second story, slight recoverable deformations appeared in the middle of profiled steel sheet shear walls. There was unrecoverable deformation on the top right corner (Figure 11(f) No. C). When the load reached ±80 kN, cracks grew continually and new cracks formed at the left side of beam end 350 mm (Figure 11(a) No. D). Cracks appeared on the right side of beam end 450 mm (Figure 11(b) No. E). Moreover, cracks grew on the left column bottom 80 mm and on the right column bottom (Figure 11(c) No. F, Figure 11(d) No. G). When the scope of lateral load was from ±100 to ±120 kN, plenty of cracks appeared at the left side of beam end and on both columns bottom (Figure 11(a) No. H, Figure 11(c) No. I, Figure 11(d) No. J). Unrecoverable deformations appeared in the middle of profiled steel sheet shear walls (Figure 11(e) No. K, Figure 11(f) No. L). When controlled displacement was within the scope of ±2Δ_y to ±4Δ_y, diagonal cracks formed at the left side of beam end and on the right column bottom (Figure 11(a) No. M, Figure 11(d) No. N). In the wake of buckling, unrecoverable deformations formed in the middle of profiled steel sheet shear walls. Brickbats fell down and knocked against the profiled steel sheet shear walls. Concrete on the bottom of both columns was crushed and spalled.

Figure 11.

Failure mode of Specimen KJ-3: (a) cracks at the left side of beam, (b) cracks at the right side of beam, (c) cracks on the left column, (d) cracks on the right column, (e) profiled steel sheeting of first story, (f) profiled steel sheeting of second story, (g) infill walls of first story, and (h) infill walls of second story.

To observe the damage of internal infill walls, Specimen KJ-3 was removed the load devices first and took down profiled steel sheet shear walls after. As can be seen from Figure 11(g) and (h), cracks formed in corners of infill walls and developed along the diagonal direction. In the middle of infill walls, there were some slight cracks and extended along the horizontal direction. Diagonal cracks joined with horizontal cracks, which formed a main level crack on the second story. The cracks destroyed the bond action between bricks and mortar.

Some researchers (Cavaleri and Di Trapani, 2015; Doudoumis, 2007) have studied local shear failure of nodal regions in the action of infill walls. However, failure mode of Specimens KJ-3 showed that there was not the occurrence of this failure. The reason was that the shear force in nodal regions was decentralized along the length of beam and column after adding the profiled steel sheet shear walls. The dispersive action made the nodal regions avoid shear failure. And the cracks distributed along the length of beams and columns instead of concentrating in node areas.

Hysteretic curves

Hysteretic curves of specimens are shown in Figure 12. As can be seen from the figures, bearing capacity of Specimen KJ-3 was improved significantly. Putting infill walls and profiled steel sheet shear walls into the bare frame increased the strength and stiffness. The trend of lateral strength of Specimen KJ-1 is different with KJ-2 and KJ-3. The reason was that the connector between hydraulic jack (at the beam end of the second story) and the left column in KJ-1 was changed to a longer one in KJ-2 and KJ-3. Hydraulic jack connected both columns in KJ-2 and KJ-3 (Figure 6). The latter enhanced the deformation capacity of frames. In Figure 12(c), the cause of pinching effect was as follows: there was not embedded tie bar between frame and infill walls. When forward load reached the maximum, diagonal cracks formed in infill walls and voids were observed between frame and infill walls. Voids and cracks were not closed in unloading, so recovery deformation was minimal. When backward load applied to KJ-3, sliding platform appeared after overcoming friction.

Figure 12.

Hysteretic curves: (a) KJ-1, (b) KJ-2, and (c) KJ-3.

Discussion of test results

Strength

Skeleton curves of specimens are shown in Figure 13. Values of lateral loads and displacement at different stages and displacement ductility are summarized in Table 4. The strength of KJ-3 was the largest compared with KJ-1 and KJ-2. Profiled steel sheet shear walls and infill walls improved the strength of KJ-3 significantly. Crack displacements of three frames were in the scope of 3.43–5.7 mm. The corresponding story drifts were 0.12%–0.20%. Crack load was enhanced after adding profiled steel sheet shear walls and infill walls. Yield load of KJ-2 was 2.0 times greater than that of KJ-1. Yield load of KJ-3 was 1.7 times greater than that of KJ-2. The results showed that profiled steel sheet shear walls bore more lateral load than infill walls before the specimens yielding. The peak load of KJ-2 was 1.9 times greater than that of KJ-1. Profiled steel sheet shear walls resisted the horizontal load and absorbed seismic energy effectively. The peak load of KJ-3 was 2.0 times greater than that of KJ-2. It indicated that profiled steel sheet shear walls had good strengthening effects. Ultimate displacements of KJ-1, KJ-2, and KJ-3 were 67.2, 77.19, and 130.04 mm, respectively. The corresponding story drifts were 2.4%, 2.76%, and 4.64%, which were greater than drift limitations (2.0%) of NEHRP (2009). Also, ultimate load of KJ-1, KJ-2, and KJ-3 were 37.14, 69.05, and 160.92 kN, respectively.

Figure 13.

Skeleton curves.

Table 4.

Values of lateral loads and displacement at different stages and displacement ductility.

Specimens	P_cr (kN)	Δ_cr (mm)	P_y (kN)	Δ_y (mm)	P_max (kN)	Δ_max (mm)	P_u (kN)	Δ_u (mm)	µ = Δ_u/Δ_y
KJ-1	20.0	5.7	32.74	19.8	43.69	52	37.14	67.2	3.39
KJ-2	30.03	3.43	66.47	12.83	85.03	44.1	69.05	77.19	6.02
KJ-3	40.08	4.33	117.76	27.5	177.95	97.62	160.92	130.04	4.73

P_cr is crack load and Δ_cr is crack displacement; P_y is yield load and Δ_y is yield displacement; P_max is peak load and Δ_max is peak displacement; P_u is ultimate load and Δ_u is ultimate displacement; µ is displacement ductility.

The displacement ductility of KJ-1, KJ-2, and KJ-3 were 3.39, 6.02, and 4.73, which met with FEMA-440 (2005). With good plasticity and high ductility, profiled steel sheeting could improve ductility of Specimen KJ-2 largely. However, because of poor plasticity of masonry, displacement ductility of KJ-3 was less than that of KJ-2.

Stiffness

Secant stiffness K_i is used to represent the stiffness of specimens, which can be expressed by equation (1)

K_{i} = \frac{| + F_{i} | + | - F_{i} |}{| + X_{i} | + | - X_{i} |}

(1)

where F_i is the peak load of each cycle, X_i is the peak displacement of each cycle, “+” is forward loading, and “−” is backward loading.

Stiffness degeneration curves of specimens are shown in Figure 14. Values of initial stiffness and stiffness at failure load are listed in Table 5. Initial stiffness of KJ-2 and KJ-3 were approximate and higher than that of KJ-1. The stiffness of three specimens has an obvious decline in the initial stage. The stiffness of KJ-1, KJ-2, and KJ-3 were down to 2.6, 5.6, and 5.8 kN/mm, respectively. The reason was that formation of early cracks on the frames. As can be seen from Table 5, initial stiffness of KJ-2 was 1.8 times greater than that of KJ-1. Initial stiffness of KJ-3 was 1.1 times greater than that of KJ-2. It indicated that profiled steel sheet shear walls provided more stiffness than infill walls. At failure load, the stiffness of KJ-2 was 1.5 times greater than that of KJ-1. The stiffness of KJ-3 was 1.1 times greater than that of KJ-2. This demonstrated that profiled steel sheet shear walls delayed the formation of cracks in infill walls.

Figure 14.

Stiffness degeneration curves.

Table 5.

Values of initial stiffness and stiffness at failure load.

Characteristics	KJ-1	KJ-2	KJ-3	Ratio^a	Ratio^b	Ratio^c
Initial (kN/mm)	5.36	9.70	10.89	1.81	2.03	1.12
At failure (kN/mm)	0.59	0.93	1.11	1.58	1.88	1.19

Ratio: KJ-2/KJ-1.

Ratio: KJ-3/KJ-1.

Ratio: KJ-3/KJ-2.

Energy-dissipating capacity

The areas of hysteresis loop represented that the specimens absorbed energy under low-cyclic loading. To gain the value of cumulative energy, each area of hysteresis loop was added up and calculated the total. Cumulative displacement ductility ratio was derived via the ratio of summation of peak displacements each cycle and ultimate displacement. Figure 15 depicts the variation of cumulative energy as a function of cumulative displacement ductility ratio. Specimen KJ-3 dissipated the largest amount of energy with respect to KJ-1 and KJ-2. The maximum cumulative energy of KJ-2 was 1.90 times greater than that of KJ-1. The maximum cumulative energy of KJ-3 was 2.0 times greater than that of KJ-2. Profiled steel sheet shear walls exerted a good effect on reinforcing infilled frames.

Figure 15.

Cumulative energy curves.

Conclusion

It was proved that the reinforcement method was effective in improving bearing capacity of structures.

The increased stiffness of Specimen KJ-2 demonstrated that profiled steel sheet shear walls played a positive role in improving the stiffness. Profiled steel sheet shear walls and infill walls worked together in enhancing stiffness of Specimen KJ-3.

Profiled steel sheet shear walls improved energy dissipation of Specimen KJ-2. With the increase in the areas in hysteresis loop, the ability of energy dissipation enhanced greatly. Profiled steel sheet shear walls and infill walls absorbed a great deal of energy in Specimen KJ-3 during the load.

Profiled steel sheeting had high tensile strength and convenient connection. The strengthening method, profiled steel sheet shear walls reinforced infilled frame structures, has broad development prospects.

The results obtained from a case study and limited number of tests and shall be validated using more experimental and analytical tests.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the effort of the technicians of structures laboratory of Hohai University, Nanjing, China.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work is supported by Key Technology R&D Program of Jiangsu Province (No. BE2011791).

References

ACI 318-05 (2005) Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary (ACI Committee 318: Structural Building Code). Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.

ACI 530-02/ASCE 5-02/TMS 402-02 (2002) Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures. New York: American Concrete Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers, and The Masonry Society.

Caccese

Elgaaly

Chen

(1993) Experimental study of thin steel-plate shear walls under cyclic load. Journal of Structural Engineering119(2): 573–587.

Cavaleri

Di Trapani

(2015) Prediction of the additional shear action on frame members due to infills. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering13: 1425–1454.

Choi

Park

(2010) Hysteresis model of thin infill plate for cyclic nonlinear analysis of steel plate shear walls. Journal of Structural Engineering136(11): 1423–1434.

Choi

Park

(2011) Cyclic loading test for reinforced concrete frame with thin steel infill plate. Journal of Structural Engineering137(6): 654–664.

Doudoumis

(2007) Finite element modelling and investigation of the behaviour of elastic infilled frames under monotonic loading. Engineering Structures29(6): 1004–1024.

Elgaaly

(1998) Thin steel plate shear walls behavior and analysis. Thin-Walled Structures32(1): 151–180.

FEMA-440 (2005) Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures. Prepared by: Applied Technology Council (ATC-55 Project) 201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 Redwood City, California 94065. Prepared for: Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington, DC. June, 2005.

10.

Habashi

Alinia

(2010) Characteristics of the wall-frame interaction in steel plate shear walls. Journal of Constructional Steel Research66(2): 150–158.

11.

Hossain

KMA

Wright

(2004) Experimental and theoretical behaviour of composite walling under in-plane shear. Journal of Constructional Steel Research60(1): 59–83.

12.

Shen

Zhang

. (2010) Experimental study on seismic behavior of profiled steel sheet-bamboo plywood composite walls. Engineering Mechanics27(1): 108–112.

13.

Liu

(2012) Mechanical performance analysis of semi-rigid steel frames filled profiled steel plate wall. Master’s Thesis, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China.

14.

Mydin

MAO

Wang

(2011) Structural performance of lightweight steel-foamed concrete-steel composite walling system under compression. Thin-Walled Structures49(1): 66–76.

15.

NEHRP (2009) NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program) Recommended Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA P-750). 2009 ed. Washington, DC: Building Seismic Safety Council, National Institute of Building Sciences.

16.

Park

Kwack

Jeon

. (2007) Framed steel plate wall behavior under cyclic lateral loading. Journal of Structural Engineering133(3): 378–388.

17.

Liu

Wang

(2002) Experimental study of anti-seismic behavior of thin steel-plate shear walls. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration22(4): 81–84.

18.

Wright

Hossain

KMA

(1997) In-plane shear behaviour of profiled steel sheeting. Thin-Walled Structures29(1): 79–100.

19.

Yang

. (2005) Hysteresis analysis of thin steel-plate shear wall by finite element method. Earthquake Resistant Engineering and Retrofitting27(3): 7–11.

20.

Zhang

Guo

(2014) Behavior of steel plate shear walls with pre-compression from adjacent frame columns. Thin-Walled Structures77: 17–25.