See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/350079897

A review of the behaviour and design of steel-concrete composite shear walls

Article  in  Structures · March 2021

DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.02.041

CITATIONS READS
0 5

5 authors, including:

Jun Mo Brian Uy
The University of Sydney The University of Sydney
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    68 PUBLICATIONS   276 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dongxu Li Tai Thai

The University of Sydney University of Melbourne
32 PUBLICATIONS   190 CITATIONS    126 PUBLICATIONS   5,393 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Composite structures: a game changer for modular buildings View project

PhD in Engineering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dongxu Li on 16 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1 A review of the behaviour and design of steel-concrete composite
2 shear walls
3
4
5 Jun Moa,*, Brian Uya, Dongxu Lia , Huu-Tai Thaib, Hau Tranb
6
a
7 School of Civil Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
b
8 Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010,
9 Australia
10
11 ABSTRACT

12 Concrete filled composite shear wall (CFCSW) can provide many benefits by taking advantages of two

13 components. This paper reviews the development of CFCSW in terms of connection configurations and

14 steel plate types. The structural behaviour of CFCSW under various loading conditions is summarised and

15 discussed. The effects of many parameters, including axial load ratio, steel plate reinforcement ratio and

16 spacing of connectors on the performance of CFCSW are reviewed. The equations in current standards

17 are performed and compared. The results indicate that the increase of axial force ratio leads to rapid

18 stiffness degradation and strength degradation of CFCSW when subjected to cyclic lateral loading. Higher

19 steel plate reinforcement ratio can contribute to higher ductility and axial resistance, however composite

20 action is dramatically reduced. Spacing of shear connectors has a great influence on the slenderness of

21 CFCSW. Large connector spacing leads to local buckling of steel plates in the elastic range which should

22 be avoided. CFST boundary elements can enhance the structural performance of CFCSW which has been

23 widely adopted in recent research and projects.

24

25 Keywords: CFCSW; review; composite wall; flat steel plate; profiled steel plate; static performance; dynamic
26 performance

1
27 1. Introduction
28 Steel - concrete composite structural components, including concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) columns,

29 composite slabs and composite beams, have been extensively adopted in modern buildings and bridges

30 due to their excellent characteristics through combining the advantages of concrete and steel materials

31 such as high resistance capacity, improved fire resistance performance, satisfactory ductility and cost-

32 saving. The early applications of composite elements have been recorded at the end of 19th century and

33 gained popularity during the course of 20th century mainly in North America, Japan and Europe [1, 2].

34 However, compared with other composite structural components, the application of concrete filled

35 composite shear walls (CFCSW) in practical engineering is limited because of inadequate research and

36 deficient standards.

37 Shear walls primarily act as flexural members to resist lateral forces, including seismic, and wind loads in

38 buildings and additional imposed loads in nuclear facilities. The utilisation of traditional reinforced

39 concrete (RC) shear walls necessitate the rebar cage with small spacing of large diameter rebars and this

40 considerably elongates the construction schedule and decreases the construction effectiveness of RC shear

41 walls [3, 4]. In addition, the high axial load leads to extremely thick RC shear walls, and hence occupying

42 usable space. However, CFCSW can minimise the shortcomings of traditional RC shear walls. The

43 concept of the composite shear wall was inspired from the composite flooring system [5], comprising two

44 external steel plates which were connected to the infilled concrete through various types of connections

45 such as shear connectors and diaphragms. CFCSW was firstly studied and employed in the nuclear

46 facilities to resist the lateral seismic loadings, which demonstrated excellent structural performance [3, 4,

47 6-9] and then it began to be applied in the steel frame system in high-rise buildings [10, 11].

48 In CFCSW, steel plates are anchored to the infilled concrete through connectors, but steel plates can still

49 undergo out-of-plane local buckling although concrete can restrain steel plates by one side. The local

50 buckling can occur in the plastic or elastic ranges depending on the slenderness which is a function of the

2
51 ratio of the spacing between connectors to the thickness of the steel plate. Liang et al. [12, 13] carried out

52 finite element analysis on steel panels in CFCSW to investigate the critical local buckling strength under

53 bi-axial compression [12] and combined bi-axial compression and shear [13], respectively. With the

54 increase in shear load, the buckling coefficient decreased gradually and the proposed interaction buckling

55 curves could be adopted to determine the upper limit of slenderness to prevent local buckling occurring

56 before yielding of the steel plate.

57 The concept of composite shear walls has been proposed over 30 years. However, there are few reviews

58 summarising the research outcomes in the literature. This paper presents the discussion and review of the

59 behaviour of CFCSW with numerous connection configurations under different loading conditions.

60 Firstly, the motivation for reviewing the performance of CFCSW is stated in the introduction section.

61 Then, the structural performance of each individual component and composite action is discussed.

62 Afterwards, the development of CFCSW in terms of connection configuration and shape is reviewed.

63 Fourthly, the database and design equations of CFCSW under various loading conditions are summarised.

64 Finally, the recommendations and conclusions for further studies of CFCSW are presented.

65

66 2. Structural component

67 CFCSW can take advantages of the most prominent characteristics of both steel and concrete, which

68 confine concrete through constraints provided by steel plates and enhance local buckling capacity of steel

69 plates by avoiding inward local buckling through the support of infilled concrete core. The composite

70 action depends on the steel headed shear stud size, spacing and plate slenderness ratio, and further

71 influences the flexural stiffness of the entire wall section [9].

72 Figure 1 shows the comparison of the ultimate compression strength among a pure steel plate shear wall,

73 concrete shear wall and CFCSW. The data is collected from the experimental results carried out by Usami

3
74 et al. [14] and the dimensions of all the shear walls are identical. The results showed that the ultimate

75 strength of the CFCSW was greater than the simple summation of the ultimate strength of steel and

76 concrete, which could indicate that the composite effect increased the performance of two individual

77 components. This can be also demonstrated by the experiments conducted by Akiyama et al. [15] in which

78 the strength of a composite shear wall is 751 tf which is greater than a summation value of 707.4 tf for

79 both steel and concrete. In addition, the stiffness for a composite shear wall is higher than that of concrete

80 and steel shear wall, and a simple summation of concrete and steel stiffnesses. It can be concluded that

81 the ductility of a CFCSW is greatly enhanced due to the composite behaviour.

82

83 2.1. Steel plate

84 Figure 2 demonstrates two typical shapes of steel plates in CFCSW: profiled steel plate and flat steel plate.

85 It is noted that profiled steel plate can provide additional mechanical interlock at the interface between

86 steel plate and concrete, which can affect the mode of failure [16-18]. However, flat steel plates are

87 increasingly used in practice as they can be manufactured more easily with thicker thicknesses. In addition,

88 the flat surface provides significant structural benefits when connecting to other components and possess

89 obvious architectural aesthetics advantages.

90 Steel plate assemblies are typically shop fabricated and then transported to the construction site. Steel

91 plates can act as permanent formwork themselves before casting concrete and resist construction loads.

92 At the service stage, steel plates act as reinforcements to contribute to the resistance capacity of shear

93 walls as well as provide bi-axial confinement of inner concrete to enhance its compressive strength,

94 leading to a more ductile failure mode as shown in Figure 3.

95 The performance of steel plates in CFCSW adheres to the steel properties. The steel specifications in

96 different national standards vary from each other as the chemical composition and mechanical properties

4
97 may be different, however, they are generally comparable. Table 1 summarises the minimum and

98 maximum yield strengths and ultimate strengths for various steel grades in different standards. The

99 strength of steel is categorised generally in terms of nominal thickness and manufacturing methods. Some

100 mechanical properties for hot rolled and hollow section structural steel are given in EN 1993-1-1 [19]. In

101 Australian standard AS 4100 [20], both cold formed and hot rolled structural steel grades are provided. In

102 American standard AISC 360-16 [21], yield strength and ultimate strength for hollow structural steel are

103 given. According to literature review, all the research focused on the normal strength steel, for the reason

104 that high strength steel tended to have relatively poor ductility performance. In addition, EN 1994-1-1

105 [22] and AISC 360-16 set a limit of steel yield strength when designing composite members. EN 1994-1-

106 1 specifies that all the rules in EN 1994-1-1 apply to the structural steel of nominal yield strength not more

107 than 460 MPa. In AISC 360-16, the yield strength of structural steel should not exceed 525 MPa. However,

108 extensive research has been carried out in CFST columns and composite beams using high strength steel

109 [23-28] and ultra-high strength steel [29, 30]. It was pointed out that the ductility performance of CFST

110 columns with high strength steel should be considered if compact steel section is used [31] and higher

111 strength steel section can contribute to the post-peak ductility [32]. Therefore, it is a trend to apply higher

112 strength steel in CFCSW. Moreover, EN 1993-1-12 [33] provides the additional design values for steel

113 grades up to S700 with yield strength of around 700 MPa.

114

115 2.2. Infilled concrete

116 Besides providing the resistance capacity, infilled concrete can prevent steel plates from local buckling at

117 early stages. Figure 3 shows the buckling configurations for pure steel wall and CFCSW. It can be

118 observed that only outward local buckling happens within steel plates in CFCSW. The maximum and

119 minimum concrete strengths from EN 1994-1-1 [22], AS 3600 [34] and ACI 318-14 [35] for concrete are

5
120 summarised in Table 2. Detailed strengths for relative concrete grades can be found in European and

121 Australian codes. However, ACI 318-14 specifies that the concrete compressive strength depends on the

122 proportioning of concrete mixtures and testing and acceptance of concrete. Therefore, only the limits of

123 strength are provided for the application of different structural components and frames. EN 1994-1-1

124 covers the design of composite structures with both normal-weight concrete and light-weight concrete.

125 Strength classes should be greater than C20/25 and LC20/22 but lower than C60/75 and LC60/66. Also,

126 AS 3600 and AISC 360-16 set similar limitations for the concrete grade. However, apart from the light-

127 weight concrete [2, 6, 36, 37] and normal strength concrete [15-26, 38, 39], high strength concrete with

128 the compressive capacity over 60 MPa has been utilised in CFCSW [36, 40-42]. Besides high strength

129 concrete, ultra-high strength concrete with a compressive strength more than 150 MPa is possible to be

130 produced and the axial [31], flexural [43] and fire behaviour [44] of CFST with ultra-high strength

131 concrete has been studied showing satisfactory structural performance. However, ultra-high strength

132 concrete has not been applied in composite wall systems. Therefore, in the future, the behaviour of

133 CFCSW with ultra-high strength concrete can be researched.

134 To ensure the construction quality, the water to cement ratio should be strictly controlled as it is difficult

135 to expel excess water from CFCSW if diaphragms and stiffeners are arranged to connect steel plates and

136 concrete. Therefore, one potential method to fix this problem is to use self-consolidating concrete (SCC)

137 or engineered cementitious composite (ECC). SCC is a type of flowable concrete which can flow into two

138 steel plates without additional vibration. ECC is also a new generation of concrete with high flowability

139 and structural performance. Experimental results from Rafiel et al. [45, 46] and Hossain et al. [47] showed

140 that ECC had a better performance than SCC with lower crack width and crack spacing and higher peak

141 displacement, indicating more ductility. Some other types of concrete have been investigated such as eco-

6
142 oriented cement concrete which is an environmentally friendly material [48] and light-weight foam

143 rubberised concrete [49].

144

145 2.3. Connector

146 The general connection designations of CFCSW with profiled steel plates shown in Figure 4 include

147 embossments, seam fasteners, intermediate bolts, threaded rods and through-to-through shear studs. The

148 CFCSW with embossments in Figure 4 (a) was firstly proposed by Wright and Gallocher [50]. As this

149 kind of composite wall was applied to commercial buildings, the performance of this novel wall system

150 has been investigated extensively, in terms of axial behaviour [42, 50], combined axial and bending

151 behaviour [41, 51], and short-term and long-term axial loading behaviour [38]. However, the research

152 results pointed out that local buckling occurred before composite walls reached the yield strength. This

153 could be a critical problem for the CFCSW with embossment connections. Other types of connectors can

154 be used to improve the strength and stability of CFCSW, including seam fasteners proposed by Wright

155 and Hossain [52] as shown in Figure 4 (b), intermediate bolts and threaded rods proposed by Hossain and

156 Wright [18] as shown in Figure 4 (c) and (d). In addition, through-to-through shear studs arranged at the

157 embossments as interconnection devices shown in Figure 4 (e) was proposed by Prabha et al. [1].

158 Experimental results pointed out that adequate connections could contribute to the stiffness, strength as

159 well as ductility.

160 Figure 5 displays the general types of connections in CFCSW with flat steel plates. The composite

161 behaviour of CFCSW with flat steel plates is similar to that of the one with profiled steel plates, i.e., high

162 shear and axial capacity, satisfactory energy dissipation capacity and high ductility [14, 39, 48, 53-56].

163 However, thicker steel plates which are applied in the buildings are extremely difficult to be manufactured

164 into profiled shapes. Also, in terms of aesthetic consideration, CFCSW with flat steel plates is preferred.

7
165 In the design of composite wall systems, it is preferred that the local buckling of steel plates occurs after

166 reaching yield strength of steel. Therefore, vertical diaphragms and J hookers can be welded on the steel

167 plates and steel truss is adopted as a connector as shown in Figure 5 (c) - (e). The advantages of those

168 connectors are that they can allow the steel plates buckle in the inelastic range more effectively with proper

169 connector spacing followed by the cracking of the concrete on the two sides and avoid separation of steel

170 plates from concrete [57-59]. Figure 6 displays other types of connectors used in sandwich steel-concrete-

171 steel composite beams or panels, including C-shaped connector in Figure 6 (a), angle-angle-shaped

172 connector in Figure 6 (b), angle-I-shaped connector in Figure 6 (c) and angle-T-shaped connector in Figure

173 6 (d) [60, 61]. Since CFCSW has similar structures as sandwich composite beams or panels, these

174 connectors have potential to be applied in composite shear wall systems. The composite shear wall can

175 benefit from the abilities of these connectors to withstand extreme loads and ease of installation.

176

177 2.4. Application of CFCSW in buildings

178 CFCSW has been used in low and medium rise buildings since 1970s and high-rise buildings in the last

179 decade, particular in high seismic areas. Eight typical buildings are reviewed herein as summarised in

180 Table 3. With the increase of the height of the building, some innovative connector types were adopted to

181 enhance structural merits of the CFCSW.

182 In the early 1960s, the structural performance of CFCSW adopted in nuclear industry was extensively

183 researched, which promoted the acceleration usage of CFCSW in buildings. In 1970s, most composite

184 walls were used in Japan and the United States such as Sylmar 6 Storey Hospital, San Francisco 18 Storey

185 Hospital, Shinjuku Nomura Building and Kobe City Hall as shown in Figure 7. Buildings with CFCSW

186 have been subjected to actual earthquakes and shown satisfactory structural performance. Sylmar 6 Storey

187 Hospital in greater Los Angeles area was built to replace the original Olive View Hospital whose RC walls

8
188 were severely damaged. The Sylmar Hospital was shaken by the 1987 Whittier earthquake and the 1994

189 Northbridge earthquake, showing high stiffness and adequate resistance [62]. Kobe City Hall, one of the

190 most important buildings with CFCSW, was subjected to the 1995 Kobe earthquake. The damage was

191 minor and could not be observed from visual inspection two weeks after the earthquake [63].

192 China World Trade Centre Phase 3 as shown in Figure 8 is located in Beijing, China with the height of

193 330m, comprising a five-star hotel, grade-A office levels and multi-purpose spaces. This building was

194 completed in 2010. Since composite walls were possibly the first time applied in China, design was

195 carefully considered to make sure that the shear behaviour, stiffness and ductility were greatly enhanced,

196 and no damage would occur during minor earthquakes [64].

197 Figure 9 displays the architectural rendering and construction process of Yiwu Tower. This building is

198 156 m high with 38 storeys located in Yiwu, China. The rectangular multi-partition CFCSW is adopted in

199 Yiwu Tower with the geometric detail shown in Figure 12 (b). Multi partition composite wall provides

200 stronger confinement to the concrete and hence increasing ductility and ultimate strength capacity. Also,

201 this kind of composite wall exhibits better energy dissipation capacity under high axial load ratio, which

202 is particular important for high rise buildings as the lower levels are subject to extremely large axial loads

203 [10].

204 An innovative CFSCW is adopted in the China Southern Airlines Building in Guangzhou, China, with the

205 height of 150 m as shown in Figure 10. The innovative CFSCW comprises of stiffeners and a pair of CFST

206 boundary elements at two ends and one additional in the middle. Figure 14 (d) shows the details of the

207 configuration. The CFST column in the middle enhances modular construction of the composite wall as

208 several compartments are separated. Moreover, the confinement effect of concrete is improved by

209 introducing CFST boundary elements [11].

9
210 Figure 11 shows the Rainier Square Tower which is currently under construction with the total height of

211 260 m. Crossties composite wall or Speed Core is used for this building. No rebar or forms of any kind is

212 required in Speed Core, which can promote modular construction to save about one-year construction time

213 (equivalent to 40%) compared with the traditional RC core. Also, the cross tie spacing is designed with

214 relatively large value compared with the rebar and 30% cross ties can be saved as well as 30% fillet welds.

215 At the same time, the crossties composite wall can still sustain inelastic deformation in a ductile way [65].

216

217 3. Development of CFCSW

218 3.1. General CFCSW

219 The main features of CFCSW are that they consist of exterior steel plates, infilled concrete core and

220 different types of connections, and steel and concrete act together to resist different loadings. When

221 designing structures with large dimensions, CFCSW is a better option compared with concrete wall as the

222 thickness of the wall can be reduced significantly as well as maintaining adequate resistance by taking the

223 advantages of lightweight and higher strength materials. Figures 4 and 5 show the configurations of

224 general CFCSW with different kinds of connectors. The general CFCSW shows a good structural

225 performance by taking the merits of both concrete and steel materials.

226 However, the distributed connectors may fail to integrate infilled concrete and steel plates especially for

227 the high-rise buildings in the high seismic zones. Therefore, an innovative CFCSW called the multi-

228 partition channel composite wall as shown in Figure 12 is proposed. The multi-partition composite wall

229 in Figure 12 (a) is called lipped channel composite wall with each lipped channel seam welded on two

230 adjacent channels where concrete is infilled [66]. A similar multi-partition composite wall as shown in

231 Figure 12 (b) was proposed by Guo et al. [10]. H sections could be prefabricated offsite and welded

232 together onsite. Multi partition composite wall provided stronger confinement to the concrete, and hence

10
233 increasing ductility and ultimate strength capacity. Also, the connection between steel plates and infilled

234 concrete is further enhanced so that the separation of steel plates from concrete is avoided and hence

235 composite effect is improved.

236

237 3.2. Special shaped CFCSW

238 Most structures use normal shape composite walls, however due to some structural considerations other

239 shape composite walls as shown in Figure 13 are used [67-69]. Research results showed that both I-shaped

240 (I-CFCSW) and T-shaped composite walls (T-CFCSW) performed satisfactory composite effects and

241 compared with the general composite walls. T-CFCSW and I-CFCSW had higher load-bearing capacity

242 due to the increased confinement of concrete and the stability was enhanced. The failure of the shaped

243 composite wall was initiated by the yielding of the steel plate at the web section followed by local buckling

244 at the base and cracking of the concrete. The deformation and energy dissipation capacities were improved

245 significantly. Although they have better structural performance, they are not widely used due to costly

246 manufacturing and assembling processes and deficient standards.

247

248 3.3. CFCSW with boundary elements

249 As the boundary elements have a great influence on the performance of the composite walls pointed out

250 by Hoassian and Wright [17, 18], recent research has focused on the utilisation of the concrete filled steel

251 tubular (CFST) columns in the composite wall system. Figure 14 displays the composite walls with CFST

252 as boundary elements. CFSTs are usually welded to the steel plates, which can be done at a factory after

253 the erection of exterior steel plates. The CFST boundary elements can contribute to the resistance of

254 external loads and act as additional restraints to confine the concrete, which can improve the ductility of

255 the whole wall as well [10, 11, 36, 40, 70, 71]. Moreover, CFST significantly affect the energy dissipation

11
256 capacity of the composite wall. For CFSCW with CFST, the energy dissipation is greatly improved. Also,

257 Guo et al. [10] stated that the thickness of CFST could influence the overall stability of the composite wall

258 to a large degree. Equation (1) was proposed by Zhu et al. [68] to calculate the axial compressive strength

259 of CFCSW with CFST boundary elements by considering the contribution of CFST to the cross-sectional

260 strength capacity of the whole wall.

261 𝑁𝑢 = 𝑁𝑢𝑠 + 𝑁𝑢𝑐 + 𝑁𝑢𝐶𝐹𝑆𝑇 (1)

262 where 𝑁𝑢𝑠 , 𝑁𝑢𝑐 and 𝑁𝑢𝐶𝐹𝑆𝑇 are the cross-sectional strength of steel plates, concrete and CFST boundary

263 elements, respectively.

264

265 4. Research on CFCSW

266 4.1. Research framework

267 The research focuses on the review of static performance, dynamic performance, fire performance and

268 ductility of the steel plates, concrete and connections of various types of CFCSW as shown in Figure 15.

269 The theoretical research can provide guidelines and recommendations for the design of standards, which

270 can further enhance the application of composite walls in engineering practice.

271

272 4.2. Static performance

273 Extensive experimental and numerical analysis have been carried out to investigate the static performance

274 of both profiled steel plate [24, 41, 42, 45, 46, 72] and flat steel plate [9, 12-15, 48, 51, 59, 73-82]

275 composite walls. The static performance has been carried out in terms of axial compression, combined

276 axial compression and bending, and in-plane shearing behaviour of composite walls. For CFCSW under

277 pure compression, local buckling is one of the major issues that have been analysed by many researchers

278 [14, 15, 48, 82-85]. Shear studs are the most common connectors that are widely used in composite walls.

12
279 Therefore, the slenderness (s/t s) limit developed from shear studs can be a guideline for other types of

280 connectors, which prevents local buckling in the elastic range. Table 4 summarises the database of

281 CFCSW with shear studs as connectors under pure compression. Figure 16 shows the failure modes of

282 CFCSW under compression. Research results showed that the ratio of shear stud spacing to the thickness

283 of steel plate was the key factor which governed the buckling of steel plate. Akiyama et al. [15] proposed

284 the buckling stress of steel plate based on the experiments using Euler column buckling theory:

𝜋2 𝐸𝑠
285 𝜎𝑐𝑟 = 𝑠 (2)
12𝑘 2 ( )2
𝑡𝑠

286 where k is the effective length factor with the value of 0.7. Hence, the slenderness limitation when the

287 local buckling stress is equal to the yield strength of steel (𝜎𝑐𝑟 = 𝑓𝑦 ) can be derived as:

𝑠 𝐸
288 ≤ 1.30√𝑓𝑠 (3)
𝑡𝑠 𝑦

289 Zhang et al. [9] carried out numerical analysis and determined the critical slenderness limit as:

𝑠 𝐸
290 ≤ 1.0√𝑓𝑠 (4)
𝑡𝑠 𝑦

291 In addition, similar results were derived by Yang et al. [85] and Zhang et al. [82] based on experimental

292 study:

𝑠 𝜋2𝐸𝑠
293 ≤√ (5)
𝑡𝑠 12𝑓𝑦

𝑠 𝐸
294 ≤ 1.13√𝑓𝑠 (6)
𝑡𝑠 𝑦

295 In order to reduce the slenderness to prevent elastic local buckling, one way is to decrease shear studs

296 spacing although not cost effective. Another alternative is to introduce CFST as boundary elements.

297 Researchers concluded that CFST boundary elements could resist a large proportion of axial load and

298 improve the axial compressive behaviour of CFCSW [10, 59, 68]. For CFCSW under combined

13
299 compression and bending, only outward buckling occurs due to the restraint provided by the concrete core.

300 There are cracks near the connector areas. Compared with RC wall, the cracking pattern of CFCSW is

301 more uniform [51, 57, 70]. For composite wall under in-plane shear, the loading processes can be divided

302 into four stages: (1) tension cracks occurring in the concrete portion in the middle and around corner of

303 the composite walls; (2) steel plates yielding; (3) composite walls reaching peak loads; and (4) loads

304 decreasing due to the crush of concrete and tearing of steel plates. The failure mode of CFCSW is ductile

305 compared with pure concrete or steel walls. For pure concrete wall, parallel cracking is significant near

306 the boundary where the thickness is smaller. For pure steel wall, the failure mode is dominant by rapid

307 local and global buckling so that the post-critical shear strengths and stiffnesses cannot be taken into

308 account due to brittle failure. Therefore, the strength and stiffness of CFCSW are higher than pure concrete

309 and steel walls [1, 17, 18, 45, 46, 49]. The ultimate shear strength of the composite walls depends on the

310 yield strength of the steel plate and the capacity of the diagonal cracked concrete to resist compressive

311 load which is highly influenced by the boundary element. However, current standards fail to cover the

312 effect of boundary elements when designing the shear strength of composite walls [86].

313

314 For CFCSW under out-of-plane shear, shear reinforcements are generally adopted, and three failure

315 modes are discovered: (1) shear failure; (2) flexural failure; and (3) flexural-shear failure. Shear failure is

316 recognised due to the excessive yield of shear reinforcement. If steel plates yield before any minor yield

317 of shear reinforcement, the tests are categorised as flexural failure. For the flexural-shear failure, the yield

318 of shear reinforcement and steel plates yield at the same time. The resistance of CFCSW with the failure

319 mode of flexural-shear provides the lower bound of out-of-plane shear strength which is appliable to the

320 design of composite wall [87].

321

14
322 4.3. Cyclic performance

323 Enormous studies have been carried out to investigate the dynamic behaviour of CFCSW as adequate

324 security should be guaranteed when applying composite walls in high-rise buildings and nuclear plants

325 under seismic or imposed forces [6, 26, 36, 40, 76, 88-96]. CFCSW exhibits adequate energy dissipation

326 capacity, cyclic shear strength and deformation capacity when subjected to in-plane cyclic shear loading.

327 The failure mode is similar to the one when composite walls are under monotonic shear. However, the

328 shear load capacity is slightly reduced for the cyclic case [47, 49]. Table 5 summarises the database of

329 composite walls with shear studs only under cyclic shear, which can provide a fundamental principle for

330 other types of connectors. Figure 17 shows the cracking pattern of infilled concrete and failure mode of

331 composite walls under in-plane cyclic shear. Based on parametric studies, steel plate reinforcement ratio

332 is found out to be the most critical factor influencing the cyclic shear behaviour of composite walls.

333 Specially, the in-plane shear resistance of CFCSW increases linearly with the steel plate reinforcement

334 ratio. However, for other parameters such as wall aspect ratio, the influences are almost negligible.

335 On the other hand, extensive research has focused on the composite walls under combined axial

336 compression and in-plane cyclic shear loading in order to simulate the lower storey loading conditions.

337 The experimental and numerical results manifest that CFCSW has great energy dissipation capacity and

338 adequate deformation capacity which can be adopted in shear resistance framework. It is also found that

339 higher axial load ratio increases the initial stiffness of skeletal curve as well as peak strength. However, it

340 leads to the deterioration of energy dissipation capacity and ductility [66, 69, 81, 91, 92, 97]. Numerous

341 design equations have been developed to calculate load-carrying capacity [66, 70, 71] and stiffness [94].

342 Additionally, CFST boundary elements can increase the energy dissipation and deformation capacities of

343 composite walls under combined axial compression and cyclic shear loading [36, 40, 71].

344

15
345 4.4. Dynamic performance

346 For CFCSW subjected to impact loading which should be considered in nuclear industry, satisfactory

347 damage tolerance during impact and post-impact loading is observed. Compared with the control walls

348 which are tested under monotonic shear loads, the impact damaged composite walls exhibit larger peak

349 displacement. For parametric study, it is concluded that the steel plate yield strength has a significant

350 effect on the load-displacement responses of CFCSW. However, the influences of concrete strength on

351 the load-displacement responses can be ignored. Other section parameters such as slenderness ratio and

352 reinforcement ratio govern the failure mode of CFCSW [98-101].

353

354 4.5. Fire performance

355 Fire performance of CFCSW is crucial in both building structures and nuclear industries where safety

356 must be ensured. Composite walls need to sustain blast and fire as they should act as thermal barriers to

357 delay or prevent the spread of smoke and fire. However limited research work has been carried out in

358 terms of fire performance of CFCSW [102, 103].

359 For non-slender CFCSW with slenderness ratio (𝑠/𝑡𝑠 ) less than 20, no local buckling of steel plates was

360 found when the composite walls were subjected to 350 ℃ air temperature for up to three hours in the

361 experimental and numerical analysis [104]. However, it was pointed out that the air temperature could

362 exceed 350 ℃. On this basis, twelve additional experiments were carried out under a standard fire for up

363 to four hours with eight specimens under uniform fire and four specimens under one-sided fire. The tested

364 specimens under uniform fire tests had satisfactory fire performance with three dominant failure modes

365 which were load bearing failure and severe cracking of the weld as shown in Figure 18 (a) and (b),

366 depending on the thickness of the wall. The fire resistance capacity of composite walls significantly

367 increased with the larger wall thickness. For one-sided fire loading specimens, the failure mode was

16
368 dominant by the local buckling of the steel plates and failure of tie bars as shown in Figure 18 (c). The

369 composite walls exhibited high level of thermal insulation capacity with concrete temperature of 900 ℃

370 at the fire exposed side and 300 ℃ on the other side [105].

371 Besides, the axial load behaviour of CFCSW after fire condition was investigated by Taormina and

372 Hossain [106]. The composite wall specimens were firstly subjected to various temperatures, including

373 0℃, 400℃, 600℃ and 800℃ and then axial load was applied. Failure occurred at the top part of the

374 composite wall with the crushing of concrete accompanied by local buckling of steel plates. It was pointed

375 out that the composite walls still exhibited ductile post-fire axial behaviour, however, the axial strength

376 and stiffness decreased with the increase of temperature.

377
378 4.6. Construction issues

379 One of the major advantages of CFCSW is to promote the modular construction, which include pre-

380 fabrication, transportation and assembly of steel modules and then filled with concrete. This can improve

381 the construction efficiency to save time and costs. However, the construction issues pertaining to concrete

382 casting height and casting sequence can lead to residual stress and imperfection, which have adverse

383 influences on the behaviour of composite walls. The imperfection is mainly from the fabrication,

384 transportation and erection process of steel plate. The imperfection of steel plate can further be amplified

385 during the cast of infilled concrete. A procedure has been proposed to analyse the effects of imperfections

386 generated during modular construction on axial compressive behaviour of CFCSW [73], and has been

387 implemented to evaluate the interaction of construction and design parameters [74]. It is found that

388 geometric imperfection of steel plates and concrete pouring pressure are the causes of reduction of

389 compression capacity. However, axial stiffness would not be affected. At the same time, through the

390 investigation of interaction between construction and design parameters, the steel plate waviness is greatly

391 influenced by the concrete pour height and slenderness of the composite walls.

17
392 For modular construction, steel plates are firstly prefabricated and assembled on site to act as permanent

393 formwork to resist the self-weight and concrete. The behaviour of empty steel modules before and during

394 concrete casting has been investigated [81]. The research results demonstrated that the structural

395 behaviour of empty steel modules, including the load-carrying capacity, stability, and deformation

396 capacity associated with self-weight and construction load mainly depended on shear stiffness (𝐺𝑠 𝐴𝑒𝑓𝑓 ).

397 An equation to calculate effective shear stiffness was developed, showing that effective shear stiffness

398 was inversely proportion to the ratio of the flexural stiffness of steel plate (𝐸𝑠 𝐼𝑝 /𝑠) to the flexural stiffness

399 of the tie (𝐸𝑠 𝐼𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 /𝑑).

400

401 5. Parametric study

402 5.1. Axial load ratio

403 Axial load ratio is defined as the ratio of applied axial load to the axial load resistance capacity of the

404 CFCSW, which has been investigated extensively [4, 10, 11, 36, 66, 69, 81, 88, 91]. Higher axial load

405 ratio contributes to the confinement of the concrete, and hence more energy is absorbed by composite

406 walls and the energy dissipation capacity is higher. However, inner concrete tends to crush at an early

407 stage under higher axial load ratio, leading to rapid stiffness degradation and strength degradation under

408 cyclic loading which are two important structural performance of composite walls. On the other hand, the

409 deformation capacity and ductility, which are two key indicators of performance in the seismic design,

410 decreased with the increasing of axial load ratio. Therefore, a proper axial load ratio should be designed

411 to ensure that both energy dissipation capacity and stiffness, strength, ductility and deformation capacity

412 can achieve a satisfactory value.

413

414 5.2. Reinforcement ratio (the thickness of the steel plate)

18
415 At the service stage, steel plates act as reinforcement and expressed in terms of the thickness of the steel

416 plate 2𝑡𝑠 /𝑡𝑤 . Numerical studies have been conducted to investigate the influence of the reinforcement

417 ratio on the structural behaviour of composite walls [3-7, 53, 54, 56, 59, 68, 75, 87, 89-91, 107, 108].

418 Takeda et al. [107] carried out experiments with three different steel plate thicknesses, showing that higher

419 steel plate thickness contributed to greater rigidity, ultimate shear strength and a more stable load

420 hysteresis loop. However, Ozaki et al. [56] stated that increasing the thickness of steel plate could allow

421 infilled concrete to undergo more damage under cyclic shearing as shear capacity of concrete was not

422 enhanced, leading to the reduction of ductility. For composite walls under axial compression, research

423 results demonstrated that the axial stiffness and buckling strength were enhanced by the increase of the

424 steel plate thickness [59]. On the contrary, the composite action was rapidly reduced with higher thickness

425 of the plate. The composite action can be expressed in terms of development length that is the length over

426 which the steel plate reaches the yield strength in tension. The development length in composite shear

427 wall is inspired from the development length concept in RC structures which can be defined as the required

428 length of embedded reinforcement to bond the concrete and steel. It was pointed out that very higher

429 reinforcement ratio resulted in a smaller development length and lower level of composite action.

430 However, similarly to the RC wall, the development length of CFCSW should be two-to-three times wall

431 thickness, which restricts the reinforcement ratio [9]. In addition to in-plane behaviour, reinforcement

432 ratio was found to have a significant influence on the out-of-plane flexural performance of CFCSW. The

433 correlation between the reinforcement ratio and out-of-plane flexural strength was found to be almost

434 linear from experimental results [3]. However, no significant influences were found on the out-of-plane

435 shear strength by changing the thickness of the steel plate [87].

436

437 5.3. Spacing of connectors

19
438 A great many studies have been carried out to investigate the effect of spacing of connectors on structural

439 performance of CFCSW [3, 6, 9, 12, 13, 48, 68, 82, 87, 89, 90]. Liang et al. [12, 13] investigated the

440 effects of spacing of connectors on the buckling strength and ultimate strength under biaxial compression

441 [12] and biaxial compression and shear [13], respectively. The design formulae were proposed based on

442 numerical analysis to calculate the maximum tolerated spacing of connectors so that the local buckling of

443 steel plate between shear connectors would not occur prior to the yielding of steel plates. Besides the

444 slenderness of composite wall, connector spacing affects the composite action significantly. The research

445 results also demonstrated that with smaller connector spacing, adequate composite action (75% to 90%)

446 could be achieved [9]. At the same time, Sener and Varma [87] and Sener et al. [3] constructed database

447 to carry out parametric analysis of connector spacing on out-of-plane shear [87] and out-of-plane flexural

448 [3] performance of composite walls, respectively. The research results demonstrated that the out-of-plane

449 shear capacity was enhanced with small spacing of connectors, however, connector spacing had no

450 influences on out-of-flexural behaviour of composite walls.

451

452 6. Design standards

453 6.1 Strength design

454 A number of standards have included the strength design models for composite walls, which include ACI

455 349M-06 [109], JEAC-4681 [110], KEPIC-SNG [111], AISC 341-16 [112] and AISC N690s1 [113]. The

456 ACI 349M-06 is particularly used for concrete structures in nuclear industries across the United States.

457 JEAC-4681 is the Japanese seismic code for the design of steel plate RC structures. KEPIC-SNG is the

458 Korean specification related to the composite structures adopted in the nuclear industries. AISC 341-16 is

459 the provision for the for structural steel buildings under seismic loading in the United States. and AISC

20
460 N690s1 is the specification for safety-related steel structures for nuclear facilities. Table 6 demonstrates

461 the design equations for the shear strength and flexural strength of composite walls in various codes.

462 ACI 349M-06 is developed for RC walls, which is found to have reasonable estimations for composite

463 walls in-plane shear strength capacities. It was pointed out that when applying the in-plane shear equation

464 on the composite walls, a reduction factor of 0.75 for shear strength capacity should be included [4]. For

465 out-of-plane flexural strength, the steel plate in compression above the neutral axis is transformed to the

466 equivalent concrete block by multiplying the modulus ratio. Figure 19 shows the force equilibrium

467 diagram. The stress of rib in compression is not taken into account as the distance between the centroid of

468 the rib and the neutral axis is relatively small. Moreover, ACI 349M-06 specifies the requirements of

469 boundary elements. For walls with the aspect ratio b/h no greater than 2, it is not necessary to have

470 boundary elements. On the contrary, boundary elements should be designed according to the analysis of

471 the stress distribution under flexural and axial loads.

472

473 The in-plane shear strength given in JEAC-4618 adopts the tri-linear shear force-curve according to

474 mechanics-based model (MBM) proposed by Ozaki et al. [56]. According to MBM, the fundamental in-

475 plane shear behaviour is divided into three parts as shown in Figure 20, which depends on the onset of

476 concrete crack and steel plate yielding. For the out-of-flexural resistance of composite walls, JEAC-4618

477 assumes that the steel plate on the tension side reaches fully yield and 87.5% of the wall thickness for the

478 lever arm between resultant concrete compressive strength and steel tensile strength is used. KEPIC-SNG

479 also adopts MBM method to calculate the in-plane shear strength of the composite walls. The shear

480 strength equation is based on the Von Mises yielding of the steel plates as well as considering the

481 contribution of orthotropic cracked concrete in principle tension. In addition, as shown in Figure 21,

482 Varma et al. [8] compared the experimental results of in-plane shear strength against the results derived

21
483 from this mechanics-based model, showing satisfactory accuracy but relatively conservative. For the out-

484 of-plane flexural strength, KEPIC-SNG considers the contribution of steel stiffeners (ribs) and takes the

485 reduction of the flexural strength into account due to the local buckling of steel plate under compression.

486 As shown in Table 6, AISC 341-16 covers the design formulae for the composite wall without boundary

487 elements, with half-circular and full circular boundary elements as shown in Figure 22. For in-plane shear

488 strength, similar to JEAC-4618 and KEPIC-SNG, AISC 341-16 adopts simplified MBM equations

489 developed by Varma et al [8]. For the composite wall without boundary element, only the steel plates

490 contribute to the in-plane shear resistance. However, for the composite wall with boundary element, the

491 contributions of both steel plate and concrete are taken into account. For the composite wall with boundary

492 elements, the plastic in-plane flexural strength should be calculated assuming that all the concrete in

493 compression above the neutral axis has reached its maximum compressive strength, 𝑓𝑐 , and the steel has

494 achieved the minimum yield strength, 𝑓𝑦 , at both tension and compression side as shown in the stress

495 distribution diagram as shown in Figure 23 (a). However, for the composite wall without boundary

496 elements, only the extreme concrete fibre reaches the maximum compressive stress and decreases linearly

497 to zero above the neutral axis, and the steel varies from minimum tensile and compressive yield strength

498 at the extreme fibre to zero as shown in Figure 23 (b). AISC N690s1, the new specification for the

499 composite walls in nuclear industries, uses the same simplified in-plane shear strength as AISC 341-16.

500 Also, for the out-of-plane flexural resistance, a similar equation to JEAC-4618 is provided with lever arm

501 between the tension and compression force resultants of 90% of the wall thickness.

502

503 6.2 Stiffness design

504 Table 7 summarises the design equations for shear stiffness and flexural stiffness in various codes. ACI

505 349M-06 suggests that the shear stiffness for RC shear walls remains the gross values without any

22
506 reduction in cracked shear walls. For flexural stiffness, a reduction factor 0.5 is recommended. This was

507 proved to overestimate the stiffnesses of RC shear walls greatly [114, 115]. In addition, it was pointed out

508 that the shear/flexural stiffnesses of RC shear walls should be modified when adopted for composite shear

509 walls as the properties of the steel plate in composite walls are different from the steel reinforcements in

510 RC walls [94].

511 The shear stiffness equation in JEAC-4618, KEPIC-SNG, AISC 341-16 and AISC N690s1 has the same

512 format based on MBM method. The in-plane shear behaviour of composite shear walls is governed by the

513 composite behaviour of orthotropic cracked concrete and steel plates. Therefore, the shear stiffness

514 consists of two components: 𝐾𝑠 and 𝐾𝑐 , where 𝐾𝑠 is the contribution of steel plates and 𝐾𝑐 is the

515 contribution of cracked concrete. For flexural stiffness, only cracked composite flexural stiffness manifest

516 in composite shear walls due to reduced bond effects and locked-in shrinkage strains in infilled concrete

517 [116, 117]. The cracked composite flexural stiffness is influenced by great many parameters, including

518 the concrete-to-steel modular ratio, the distance to the neutral axis and the top plate strain, which leads to

519 an extremely complicated form. However, Varma et al. [117] proposed a simplified equation to calculate

520 the flexural stiffness of composite shear walls as shown in Table 7. The reduction factor 𝑐2 adopted in

521 AISC 341-16 is recommended with the value of 0.4. However, in AISC N690s1, 𝑐2 is expressed as a

522 function of stiffness normalised reinforcement ratio 𝜌′ .

523

524 7. Recommendations for future research

525 7.1 High strength and lightweight materials

526 Current researches focus on normal strength steel or the steel with the yield of strength less than 600 MPa

527 due to the ductility concern. However, high strength steel and ultra-high strength steel with the yield

528 strength of over 700 MPa has been extensively studied in composite beams and columns. Therefore,

23
529 composite walls can take the merits of high strength steel, which further reduces the sizes of structural

530 components as well as improving the structural performance. It is proper to use the combination of high

531 strength steel with high strength concrete. For instance, concrete with the compressive strength of more

532 than 80 MPa should be used together with the high strength steel, otherwise concrete will crush at the

533 early stage when steel fails to reach yielding. In addition, composite walls can take the advantage of

534 lightweight concrete to reduce the self-weight of the structure. The gravity load of high-rise building can

535 reach hundreds of thousands of tons, and hence the composite shear walls need to resist huge axial force.

536 The high strength materials can increase the axial resistance and lightweight materials can minimise axial

537 force.

538

539 7.2 Durable materials

540 For offshore structures, corrosion is one of the major issues. Durability should be carefully considered

541 under this circumstance. Stainless steel with the unique benefits such as high corrosion and fire resistance

542 and superior ductility over normal steel is a better option. Austenitic, duplex and lean-duplex stainless

543 steels are commonly adopted in composite beams and columns to replace carbon steel with excellent

544 structural performance [118-120]. However, according to the literature review, no research has

545 investigated the behaviour of stainless-steel plate composite walls. For the high-rise buildings at high

546 seismic regions, drift ratio at upper levels should be limited for safety and serviceability concerns and

547 ductile stainless steel can be used. Therefore, in addition to the offshore structures, stainless-steel

548 composite wall is also recommended to be considered for the high-rise buildings in seismic-prone regions.

549

550 7.3 Innovative connectors

24
551 Connectors play an important role to integrate steel plates with infilled concrete to achieve composite

552 action. Traditional connectors are shear studs and tie bars, which cannot prevent separation of steel plates

553 from concrete core as discussed in Section 2. Therefore, some other types of connectors are proposed.

554 However, the shortcoming is that multiple connectors are used together which increases the welding

555 process heavily. In addition, the complicated connectors typically for high-rise buildings cannot meet the

556 modular construction requirements. This significantly affects the construction time. Therefore, in the

557 future, it is recommended that innovative connectors can be utilised to improve the composite action as

558 well as enhance modular construction.

559

560 7.4 Design provisions

561 A reliable and standardised design method for composite walls is essential otherwise the quality cannot

562 be guaranteed, and cost and schedule will be significantly impacted. The limitation of wide application of

563 composite walls is due to the deficient standards. The current design for the composite wall in the United

564 States is based on the ACI 349M-06, which is the design code for RC walls. Other composite wall related

565 standards, including AISC N690s1, JEAC-4618 and KEPIC-SNG are for the nuclear facilities. Compared

566 with the composite walls in buildings, the composite walls in nuclear plants are much thicker and the

567 loading conditions are different. Also, CFST is widely researched and adopted in real projects. Therefore,

568 details regarding CFST boundary elements should be included in standards. With the detailed design

569 standards, composite walls can be used in buildings safely and widely.

570

571 8. Conclusions

572 Composite walls have demonstrated numerous structural merits, including satisfactory energy dissipation

573 capacity, high shear resistance and deformation capacity compared with traditional RC walls. Due to such

25
574 advantages, composite walls can be adopted in the structural frames of high-rise buildings. This paper

575 reviews the structural components of the composite walls composed of steel plates, infilled concrete and

576 connectors. The development of composite walls is presented and CFCSW with CFST boundary elements

577 is widely researched recently. In addition, the influences of key parameters, including axial load ratio,

578 reinforcement ratio and spacing of connectors, on the structural performance of CFCSW are presented.

579 Higher axial load ratio leads to the reduction of the deformation capacity and ductility and higher

580 reinforcement ratio contributes to higher axial stiffness and strengths but lower composite action. The

581 spacing of connectors determines the slenderness of CFCSW. Moreover, several design standards are

582 summarised and compared. Although design provisions for composite walls in nuclear facilities are

583 provided, standards related with buildings need to be improved as enormous details are not included.

584 Finally, some recommendations for future research to promote the application of CFCSW in buildings are

585 given which include (1) developing composite walls with high strength, lightweight and durable materials;

586 (2) proposing innovative connectors which can not only ensure adequate strength but also improve the

587 feasibility of modular construction; and (3) developing design standards for CFCSW in buildings. The

588 composite walls will be widely applied in buildings if the technical and construction challenges are

589 resolved.

590

591 Notations

𝑡𝑠 Thickness of the steel faceplate

𝑡𝑤 Thickness of the CFCSW

𝑡𝑐 Thickness of the inner concrete

𝑡𝐻𝑆𝑆 Thickness of the HSS boundary element

𝑏 Width of the CFCSW

ℎ Height of the CFCSW

26
𝑏𝑤 Width of the section for the analysis of out-of-plane flexural stress diagram

𝑑 Centre-to-centre distance between two steel plates in CFCSW

𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑏 Distance between two steel stiffeners

𝑠 Spacing of connectors in CFCSW

𝐿 Length of the composite wall

𝐷𝐻𝑆𝑆 Outer diameter of the HSS circular boundary element

𝐷𝑖𝑛 Inner diameter of the circular boundary element

𝑓𝑐 Compressive strength of infilled concrete in CFCSW

𝑓𝑦 Yield strength of steel plate

𝑓𝑢 Ultimate strength of steel plate

𝑓𝑦,𝑐𝑟 Local buckling strength of the steel plate

𝑓𝑦,𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛 Yield strength of the steel stiffener

𝑓𝑦,𝐻𝑆𝑆 Yield strength of HSS boundary element concrete

𝑓𝑦,𝑟𝑖𝑏 Yield strength of the steel stiffener

𝜎𝑐𝑟 Critical buckling stress

𝐴𝑠 Cross-sectional area of the steel plate

𝐴𝑐 Cross-sectional area of concrete in CFCSW

𝐴𝑟𝑖𝑏 Cross-sectional area of steel stiffener

𝐴𝑐𝑣 Gross sectional area of concrete in RC walls

𝐴𝐻𝑆𝑆 Cross-sectional area of the either the full or half circular boundary element

𝐸𝑠 Young’s modulus of steel

𝐸𝑐 Young’s modulus of concrete

𝐺𝑠 Shear modulus of steel

𝐺𝑐 Shear modulus of concrete

𝜈 Poisson’s ratio of steel

𝐼𝑝 Moment inertia of steel plates

27
 𝐼𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 Moment inertia of connector

𝐼𝑔 Gross moment inertia

k Effective length factor

𝐾𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 Shear stiffness

𝐾𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 Flexural stiffness

Vn In-plane shear resistance of composite walls

𝑀𝑦 In-plane flexural strength of CFDSSP composite walls

𝑀𝑛 Out-of-plane flexural strength of composite walls

𝑁𝑢 Cross section strength capacity of CFCSW

𝑁𝑢𝑠 Cross-sectional strength of steel plates

𝑁𝑢𝑐 Cross-sectional strength of infilled concrete

𝑁𝑢𝐶𝐹𝑆𝑇 Cross-sectional strength of CFST boundary elements

592

593 Acknowledgements

594 The present study was financially supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC) under its

595 Discovery Scheme (DP200100112). The authors are also grateful to the researchers who provide their

596 permissions for reprinting the photos in this paper.

597

598 References

599 [1] Prabha, P., et al., Effect of confinement on steel-concrete composite light-weight load-bearing
600 wall panels under compression. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2013. 81: p. 11-19.
601 [2] Papavasileiou, G.S. and D.C. Charmpis, Seismic design optimization of multi–storey steel–
602 concrete composite buildings. Computers & Structures, 2016. 170: p. 49-61.
603 [3] Sener, K.C., A.H. Varma, and D. Ayhan, Steel-plate composite (SC) walls: out-of-plane flexural
604 behavior, database, and design. Journal of constructional steel research, 2015. 108: p. 46-59.
605 [4] Seo, J., et al., Steel-plate composite (SC) walls: In-plane shear behavior, database, and design.
606 Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2016. 119: p. 202-215.
607 [5] Wright, H., R. Evans, and S. Gallocher. Composite walling. in Composite Construction in Steel
608 and Concrete II. 1992. ASCE.

28
609 [6] Epackachi, S., et al., In-plane seismic behavior of rectangular steel-plate composite wall piers.
610 Journal of Structural Engineering, 2015. 141(7): p. 04014176.
611 [7] Li, X. and X. Li, Steel plates and concrete filled composite shear walls related nuclear structural
612 engineering: Experimental study for out-of-plane cyclic loading. Nuclear Engineering and
613 Design, 2017. 315: p. 144-154.
614 [8] Varma, A.H., et al., Steel-plate composite (SC) walls for safety related nuclear facilities: Design
615 for in-plane forces and out-of-plane moments. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2014. 269: p.
616 240-249.
617 [9] Zhang, K., et al., Effect of shear connectors on local buckling and composite action in steel
618 concrete composite walls. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2014. 269: p. 231-239.
619 [10] Guo, L., Y. Wang, and S. Zhang, Experimental study of rectangular multi-partition steel-
620 concrete composite shear walls. Thin-Walled Structures, 2018. 130: p. 577-592.
621 [11] Huang, S.-T., et al., Experimental study on seismic behaviour of an innovative composite shear
622 wall. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2018. 148: p. 165-179.
623 [12] Liang, Q.Q., et al., Local and post-local buckling of double skin composite panels. Proceedings
624 of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Structures and Buildings, 2003. 156(2): p. 111-119.
625 [13] Liang, Q.Q., et al., Local buckling of steel plates in double skin composite panels under biaxial
626 compression and shear. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2004. 130(3): p. 443-451.
627 [14] Usami, S., et al., Study on a concrete filled steel structure for nuclear power plants (part 2).
628 Compressive loading tests on wall members. 1995.
629 [15] Akiyama, H., et al., A compression and shear loading tests of concrete filled steel bearing wall.
630 1991.
631 [16] Hossain, K.A. and H.D. Wright, Performance of profiled concrete shear panels. Journal of
632 Structural Engineering, 1998. 124(4): p. 368-381.
633 [17] Hossain, K. and H. Wright, Behaviour of composite walls under monotonic and cyclic shear
634 loading. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 2004. 17(1): p. 69-85.
635 [18] Hossain, K.A. and H. Wright, Experimental and theoretical behaviour of composite walling
636 under in-plane shear. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2004. 60(1): p. 59-83.
637 [19] De Normalización, C., EN 1993-1-1: Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures—Part 1-1: General
638 Rules and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels,
639 Belgium, 2005.
640 [20] Standard, A., Steel structures. Standards Australia, Homebush, New South Wales, Australia, AS,
641 1998. 4100.
642 [21] 360-16, A., Specification for structural steel buildings. 2016, American National Standard.
643 [22] CEN, Eurocode 4, Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures, Part 1.1: General Rules
644 and Rules for Building, BS EN 1994-1-1: 2004. 2003.
645 [23] Aslani, F., et al., Behaviour and design of composite columns incorporating compact high-
646 strength steel plates. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2015. 107: p. 94-110.
647 [24] Uy, B., Strength of short concrete filled high strength steel box columns. Journal of
648 Constructional Steel Research, 2001. 57(2): p. 113-134.
649 [25] Uy, B., Stability and ductility of high performance steel sections with concrete infill. Journal of
650 Constructional Steel Research, 2008. 64(7-8): p. 748-754.
651 [26] Zhao, W., et al., Hysteretic model for steel–concrete composite shear walls subjected to in-plane
652 cyclic loading. Engineering Structures, 2016. 106: p. 461-470.
653 [27] Liew, J.R., M. Xiong, and D. Xiong. Design of concrete filled tubular beam-columns with high
654 strength steel and concrete. in Structures. 2016. Elsevier.

29
655 [28] Du, Y., et al., Ultimate resistance behavior of rectangular concrete-filled tubular beam-columns
656 made of high-strength steel. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2017. 133: p. 418-433.
657 [29] Li, D., et al., Slenderness limits for fabricated S960 ultra-high-strength steel and composite
658 columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2019. 159: p. 109-121.
659 [30] Wang, F., O. Zhao, and B. Young, Testing and numerical modelling of S960 ultra-high strength
660 steel angle and channel section stub columns. Engineering Structures, 2020. 204: p. 109902.
661 [31] Xiong, M.-X., D.-X. Xiong, and J.R. Liew, Axial performance of short concrete filled steel tubes
662 with high-and ultra-high-strength materials. Engineering Structures, 2017. 136: p. 494-510.
663 [32] Lai, B. and J.R. Liew, Design and testing of concrete encased steel composite beam-columns
664 with C90 concrete and S690 steel section. Engineering Structures, 2020. 220: p. 110995.
665 [33] CEN, E., 3: Design of steel structures, Part 1–12: Additional rules for the extension of EN 1993
666 up to steel grades S700. CEN-European Committee for Standardization, 2007.
667 [34] Australia, S., Concrete structures.(AS 3600-2009). 2009.
668 [35] 318, A.C., Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14)[and] Commentary
669 on Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318R-14). 2014.
670 [36] Chen, L., et al., Seismic behavior of double steel plate–HSC composite walls. Engineering
671 Structures, 2015. 102: p. 1-12.
672 [37] Mydin, M.A.O. and Y. Wang, Structural performance of lightweight steel-foamed concrete–steel
673 composite walling system under compression. Thin-Walled Structures, 2011. 49(1): p. 66-76.
674 [38] Bradford, M.A., H. Wright, and B. Uy, SHORT-AND LONG-TERM BEHAVIOUR OF AXIALLY
675 LOADED COMPOSITE PROFILED WALLS. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-
676 Structures and Buildings, 1998. 128(1): p. 26-37.
677 [39] Bowerman, H., M. Gough, and C. King, Bi-Steel design and construction guide. British Steel
678 Ltd, Scunthorpe (London), 1999.
679 [40] Nie, J.-G., et al., Experimental study on seismic behavior of high-strength concrete filled double-
680 steel-plate composite walls. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2013. 88: p. 206-219.
681 [41] Wright, H., Axial and bending behavior of composite walls. Journal of Structural Engineering,
682 1998. 124(7): p. 758-764.
683 [42] Wright, H., The axial load behaviour of composite walling. Journal of Constructional Steel
684 Research, 1998. 45(3): p. 353-375.
685 [43] Xiong, M.-X., D.-X. Xiong, and J.R. Liew, Flexural performance of concrete filled tubes with
686 high tensile steel and ultra-high strength concrete. Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
687 2017. 132: p. 191-202.
688 [44] Xiong, M.-X. and J.R. Liew, Buckling behavior of circular steel tubes infilled with C170/185
689 ultra-high-strength concrete under fire. Engineering Structures, 2020. 212: p. 110523.
690 [45] Rafiei, S., et al., Finite element modeling of double skin profiled composite shear wall system
691 under in-plane loadings. Engineering Structures, 2013. 56: p. 46-57.
692 [46] Rafiei, S., et al., Profiled sandwich composite wall with high performance concrete subjected to
693 monotonic shear. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2015. 107: p. 124-136.
694 [47] Hossain, K.M., et al., Structural performance of profiled composite wall under in-plane cyclic
695 loading. Engineering Structures, 2016. 110: p. 88-104.
696 [48] Choi, B.-J., C.-K. Kang, and H.-Y. Park, Strength and behavior of steel plate–concrete wall
697 structures using ordinary and eco-oriented cement concrete under axial compression. Thin-
698 Walled Structures, 2014. 84: p. 313-324.

30
699 [49] Eltayeb, E., et al., Structural behaviour of composite panels made of profiled steel sheets and
700 foam rubberised concrete under monotonic and cyclic shearing loads. Thin-Walled Structures,
701 2020. 151(106726): p. 1-15.
702 [50] Wright, H. and S. Gallocher, The behaviour of composite walling under construction and service
703 loading. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1995. 35(3): p. 257-273.
704 [51] Uy, B., H.D. Wright, and M. Bradford, Combined axial and flexural strength of profiled
705 composite walls. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Structures and Buildings,
706 2001. 146(2): p. 129-139.
707 [52] Wright, H.D. and K.A. Hossain, In-plane shear behaviour of profiled steel sheeting. Thin-walled
708 structures, 1997. 29(1-4): p. 79-100.
709 [53] Clubley, S.K., S.S. Moy, and R.Y. Xiao, Shear strength of steel–concrete–steel composite
710 panels. Part I—testing and numerical modelling. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2003.
711 59(6): p. 781-794.
712 [54] Clubley, S.K., S.S. Moy, and R.Y. Xiao, Shear strength of steel–concrete–steel composite
713 panels. Part II—detailed numerical modelling of performance. Journal of Constructional Steel
714 Research, 2003. 59(6): p. 795-808.
715 [55] Ozaki, M., et al., Study on steel plate reinforced concrete bearing wall for nuclear power plants
716 part1; shear and bending loading tests of SC walls. 2001.
717 [56] Ozaki, M., et al., Study on steel plate reinforced concrete panels subjected to cyclic in-plane
718 shear. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2004. 228(1-3): p. 225-244.
719 [57] Huang, Z. and J.R. Liew, Structural behaviour of steel–concrete–steel sandwich composite wall
720 subjected to compression and end moment. Thin-Walled Structures, 2016. 98: p. 592-606.
721 [58] Link, R. and A. Elwi, Composite concrete-steel plate walls: analysis and behavior. Journal of
722 Structural Engineering, 1995. 121(2): p. 260-271.
723 [59] Qin, Y., et al., Compressive behavior of double skin composite wall with different plate
724 thicknesses. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2019. 157: p. 297-313.
725 [60] Yan, J.-B., et al., Experimental and analytical study on ultimate strength behavior of steel–
726 concrete–steel sandwich composite beam structures. Materials and Structures, 2015. 48(5): p.
727 1523-1544.
728 [61] Sohel, K., et al., Behavior of steel–concrete–steel sandwich structures with lightweight cement
729 composite and novel shear connectors. Composite Structures, 2012. 94(12): p. 3500-3509.
730 [62] Astaneh-Asl, A. Steel plate shear walls. in Proceedings, US-Japan Partnership for Advanced
731 Steel Structures, US-Japan Workshop on Seismic Fracture Issues in Steel Structures. 2000.
732 [63] Astaneh-Asl, A. and Q. Zhao, Cyclic tests of steel shear walls. Report Number UCB/CE-Steel-
733 01/01, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
734 August, 2001.
735 [64] KWOK, M., et al., The structural design of the mega tower, China world trade Centre phase 3,
736 Beijing China, in Tall Buildings: From Engineering to Sustainability. 2005, World Scientific. p.
737 396-402.
738 [65] Nadine, M.P. Speed Core Research Tunes System. 2020; Available from:
739 https://www.enr.com/articles/48820-speed-core-research-tunes-system.
740 [66] Zhang, X., Y. Qin, and Z. Chen, Experimental seismic behavior of innovative composite shear
741 walls. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2016. 116: p. 218-232.
742 [67] Ali, A., D. Kim, and S.G. Cho, Modeling of nonlinear cyclic load behavior of I-shaped
743 composite steel-concrete shear walls of nuclear power plants. Nuclear Engineering and
744 Technology, 2013. 45(1): p. 89-98.

31
745 [68] Zhu, J.-S., et al., Strength design of concrete-infilled double steel corrugated-plate walls under
746 uniform compressions. Thin-Walled Structures, 2019. 141: p. 153-174.
747 [69] Zhang, X., et al., Experimental behavior of innovative T-shaped composite shear walls under in-
748 plane cyclic loading. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2016. 120: p. 143-159.
749 [70] Wang, M.-Z., et al., Sectional strength design of concrete-infilled double steel corrugated-plate
750 walls with T-section. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2019. 160: p. 23-44.
751 [71] Ji, X., F. Jiang, and J. Qian, Seismic behavior of steel tube–double steel plate–concrete
752 composite walls: experimental tests. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2013. 86: p. 17-
753 30.
754 [72] Wang, M.-Z., et al., Flexural buckling of axially loaded concrete-infilled double steel
755 corrugated-plate walls with T-section. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2020. 166: p.
756 105940.
757 [73] Bhardwaj, S.R. and A.H. Varma. Effect of imperfections on the compression behavior of SC
758 walls. in Proceedings of the Annual Stability Conference, Structural Stability Research Council,
759 Orlando, FL. 2016.
760 [74] Bhardwaj, S.R. and A.H. Varma. SC wall compression behavior: Interaction of design and
761 construction parameters. in Proceedings of the Annual Stability Conference, Structural Stability
762 Research Council, San Antonio, Texas, Mar. 21-24. 2017.
763 [75] Bhardwaj, S.R., A.H. Varma, and P. Wazalwar, Axial force-biaxial moment-vector shear (PMV)
764 interaction for steel-plate composite (SC) wall piers. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2019.
765 349: p. 162-173.
766 [76] Eom, T.-S., et al., Behavior of double skin composite wall subjected to in-plane cyclic loading.
767 Journal of structural engineering, 2009. 135(10): p. 1239-1249.
768 [77] Liew, J.R. and K. Sohel, Lightweight steel–concrete–steel sandwich system with J-hook
769 connectors. Engineering structures, 2009. 31(5): p. 1166-1178.
770 [78] Liew, J.R., J.-B. Yan, and Z.-Y. Huang, Steel-concrete-steel sandwich composite structures-
771 recent innovations. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2017. 130: p. 202-221.
772 [79] Varma, A. and K. Sener, Lateral Load Behavior of a Containment Internal Structure. 2013.
773 [80] Varma, A., Z. Lai, and J. Seo. An introduction to coupled composite core wall systems for high-
774 rise construction. in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Composite Construction
775 in Steel and Concrete. 2017.
776 [81] Varma, A.H., S. Shafaei, and R. Klemencic, Steel modules of composite plate shear walls:
777 Behavior, stability, and design. Thin-Walled Structures, 2019. 145: p. 106384.
778 [82] Zhang, K., J. Seo, and A.H. Varma, Steel-Plate Composite Walls: Local Buckling and Design for
779 Axial Compression. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2020. 146(4): p. 04020044.
780 [83] Choi, B.J. and H.S. Han, An experiment on compressive profile of the unstiffened steel plate-
781 concrete structures under compression loading. Steel and composite structures, 2009. 9(6): p.
782 519-534.
783 [84] Kanchi, M., et al. Experimental study on a concrete filled steel structure Part. 2 Compressive
784 Tests (1). in Summary of technical papers of annual meeting, architectural institute of Japan,
785 Structures. 1996.
786 [85] Yang, Y., J. Liu, and J. Fan, Buckling behavior of double-skin composite walls: An experimental
787 and modeling study. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2016. 121: p. 126-135.
788 [86] Booth, P.N., et al., Ultimate shear strength of steel-plate composite (SC) walls with boundary
789 elements. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2020. 165: p. 105810.

32
790 [87] Sener, K.C. and A.H. Varma, Steel-plate composite walls: Experimental database and design for
791 out-of-plane shear. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2014. 100: p. 197-210.
792 [88] Chen, L., et al., Seismic behavior of double-skin composite wall with L-shaped and C-shaped
793 connectors. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2019. 160: p. 255-270.
794 [89] Epackachi, S., et al. An experimental study of the in-plane response of steel-concrete composite
795 walls. in Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology Conference (SMiRT-22), San Francisco,
796 California, USA. 2013.
797 [90] Epackachi, S., et al. Numerical and experimental investigation of the in-plane behavior of
798 rectangular steel-plate composite walls. in Structures Congress 2014. 2014.
799 [91] Epackachi, S., A.S. Whittaker, and A. Aref, Seismic analysis and design of steel-plate concrete
800 composite shear wall piers. Engineering Structures, 2017. 133: p. 105-123.
801 [92] Guo, Y.-L., et al., Overall instability performance of concrete-infilled double steel corrugated-
802 plate wall. Thin-Walled Structures, 2018. 130: p. 372-394.
803 [93] Jianguo, N., et al., Research advances of composite shear walls with double steel plates and
804 filled concrete [J]. Building Structure, 2011. 12: p. 52-60.
805 [94] Nie, J.-G., et al., Effective stiffness of composite shear wall with double plates and filled
806 concrete. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2014. 99: p. 140-148.
807 [95] Wang, J.-J., et al., Experimental study and design method of shear-dominated composite plate
808 shear walls. Engineering Structures, 2020. 215: p. 110656.
809 [96] Zhang, W., et al., Experimental study on the seismic behaviour of composite shear walls with
810 stiffened steel plates and infilled concrete. Thin-Walled Structures, 2019. 144: p. 106279.
811 [97] Hu, H.-S., J.-G. Nie, and M.R. Eatherton, Deformation capacity of concrete-filled steel plate
812 composite shear walls. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2014. 103: p. 148-158.
813 [98] Johnson, W.H., et al. Missile Impact on SC Walls: Global Response. in Structures Congress
814 2014. 2014.
815 [99] Lee, K., et al., Local responses of steel-plate composite walls subjected to impact loads:
816 Intermediate scale tests. Engineering Structures, 2020. 206: p. 110131.
817 [100] Mullapudi, T., P. Summers, and I.-H. Moon. Impact analysis of steel plated concrete wall. in
818 Structures Congress 2012. 2012.
819 [101] Rafiei, S., et al., Impact shear resistance of double skin profiled composite wall. Engineering
820 Structures, 2017. 140: p. 267-285.
821 [102] Booth, P.N., et al., Flexural behavior and design of steel-plate composite (SC) walls for accident
822 thermal loading. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2015. 295: p. 817-828.
823 [103] Sener, K.C., A.H. Varma, and M. Chu, Seismic performance of an idealized steel-plate
824 composite (SC) modular structure subjected to accident thermal loading. Nuclear Engineering
825 and Design, 2019. 352: p. 110133.
826 [104] Zhang, K., A. Varma, and S. Malushte, Local Buckling of SC Composite Walls at Ambient and
827 Elevated Temperatures. 2013.
828 [105] Wei, F., C. Fang, and B. Wu, Fire resistance of concrete-filled steel plate composite (CFSPC)
829 walls. Fire Safety Journal, 2017. 88: p. 26-39.
830 [106] Taormina, A. and K.M. Hossain. Post-Fire Axial Load Behaviour of Double Skin Composite
831 Walls Incorporating Ultra-High Performance Concrete. in 3rd Specialty Conference on Material
832 Engineering & Applied Mechanics, Montréal, Québec, May. 2013.
833 [107] Takeda, T., et al., Experimental study on shear characteristics of a concrete filled steel plate
834 wall. 1995.

33
835 [108] Varma, A., et al. Analysis recommendations for steel-composite (SC) walls of safety-related
836 nuclear facilities. in Structures Congress 2012. 2012.
837 [109] 349, A.C. Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-related Concrete Structures:(ACI 349-06) and
838 Commentary, an ACI Standard. 2006. American Concrete Institute.
839 [110] Association, J.E., Technical Code for Seismic Design of Steel Plate Reinforced Concrete
840 Structures–. Translation of JEAC, 2009: p. 4618-2009.
841 [111] KEA, Nuclear Safety Related Structures: Steel-Plate Concrete Structure: KEPIC-SNG. 2010,
842 Korea Electric Association Seoul, Korea.
843 [112] AISC, A., AISC 341-16.(2016). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings.
844 [113] AISC, Specification for safety-related steel structures for nuclear facilities including supplement
845 no. 1. 2015.
846 [114] O Tang, T. and R. KL Su, Shear and flexural stiffnesses of reinforced concrete shear walls
847 subjected to cyclic loading. The Open Construction and Building Technology Journal, 2014.
848 8(1).
849 [115] Kwon, J. and W.M. Ghannoum, Assessment of international standard provisions on stiffness of
850 reinforced concrete moment frame and shear wall buildings. Engineering Structures, 2016. 128:
851 p. 149-160.
852 [116] Booth, P., et al., Response of modular composite walls to combined thermal & mechanical load.
853 2007.
854 [117] Varma, A.e.a., Steel-Plate Composite (SC) Walls: Analysis and Design including Thermal
855 Effects, in Transactions of the Internal Association for Structural Mechnics in Reactor
856 Technology Conference, SMiRT-21. 2011: New Delhi, India, IASMIRT, North Carolina State
857 University, Raleigh, NC.
858 [118] Azad, S.K., D. Li, and B. Uy, Axial slenderness limits for austenitic stainless steel-concrete
859 composite columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2020. 166: p. 105856.
860 [119] Li, D., et al., Behaviour and design of spiral-welded stainless steel tubes subjected to axial
861 compression. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2019. 154: p. 67-83.
862 [120] Uy, B., Z. Tao, and L.-H. Han, Behaviour of short and slender concrete-filled stainless steel
863 tubular columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2011. 67(3): p. 360-378.
864 [121] Astaneh-Asl, A., Seismic behavior and design of steel shear walls. 2001: Structural Steel
865 Educational Council Moraga, CA.
866 [122] Astaneh-Asl, A., Seismic behavior and design of composite steel plate shear walls. 2002:
867 Structural Steel Educational Council Moraga (CA).
868 [123] Takeuchi, M., et al., Study on a concrete filled structure for nuclear power plants. Nuclear
869 Engineering and Design, 1998. 179(2): p. 209-223.
870 [124] Cheng, W., et al., Experimental study of steel–concrete–steel sandwich composite shear walls.
871 Earthq Resistant Eng Retrofitting, 2014: p. 40-47.
872 [125] Wikipedia, 1971 San Fernando Earthquake. 2020.
873 [126] Wikipedia, Shinjuku Nomura Building. 2020.
874 [127] wikimedia, Kobe City Hall. 2020.
875 [128] Wikimedia, China World Trade Centre Phase 3B. 2020.
876 [129] Commons, C., China World Trade Centre 3. 2017.
877 [130] Wikipedia, Rainier Square Tower. 2020.
878 [131] AISC, SpeedCore: How does it work? . 2019.
879 [132] Thai, H.-T., T. Ngo, and B. Uy. A review on modular construction for high-rise buildings. in
880 Structures. 2020. Elsevier.
881

34
Table 1. Nominal values of yield strength and ultimate tensile strength in various standards
Standard Form Grade 𝑓𝑦 [MPa] 𝑓𝑢 [MPa]
Minimum 215 Minimum 360
Hot rolled S235 – S450
EN 1993-1-1 Maximum 440 Maximum 550
[19] Minimum 215 Minimum 340
Hollow section S235H – S355H
Maximum 355 Maximum 510
S500Q/QL/QL1 – Minimum 400 Minimum 540
Hot rolled
EN 1993-1-12 S690Q/QL/QL1 Maximum 690 Maximum 770
[33] Hot rolled flat S500MC – Minimum 500 Minimum 550
elements S700MC Maximum 700 Maximum 750
Cold-formed Minimum 250 Minimum 320
C250 – C450
hollow section Maximum 450 Maximum 500
Hot rolled plate Minimum 200 Minimum 300
200 – 450
and floorplate Maximum 450 Maximum 520
AS 4100 [20] Minimum 280 Minimum 440
Hot rolled flats 300 – 350
Maximum 360 Maximum 480
Hot rolled Minimum 280 Minimum 440
hexagons, rounds 300 – 350
and squares Maximum 340 Maximum 480
AISC 360-16 Hollow structural Minimum 240 Minimum 400
-
[21] section (HSS) Maximum 350 Maximum 485

Table 2. Strength characteristics for concrete in various standards

Mean compressive Mean tensile strength
Concrete
Standard Grade strength at 28 days 𝑓𝑐𝑚 at 28 days 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 or
classification
or 𝑓𝑙𝑐𝑚 [MPa] 𝑓𝑙𝑐𝑡𝑚 [MPa]
Normal-weight Minimum 20 Minimum 1.6
C12/15 – C90/105
concrete Maximum 98 Maximum 5.0
𝑓𝑙𝑐𝑡𝑚 = 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 × 𝜂1
EN 1994-1-1 Minimum 13 where 𝜂1 = 0.40 +
[22] Light-weight 0.60𝜌/2200 ( 𝜌 is
LC12/13 – LC80/88
concrete the upper limit of the
Maximum 88 oven dry density for
the relevant class)
Normal-weight Minimum 22 Minimum 1.61
AS 3600 [34] -
concrete Maximum 99 Maximum 3.60
Normal-weight Minimum 17.2 Minimum -
-
ACI 318-14 concrete Maximum - Maximum -
[35] Light-weight Minimum 17.2 Minimum -
-
concrete Maximum - Maximum -

35
 Table 3. Buildings using composite walls
Height
No. Project Storey Year Location Connector Highlight
[m]
This building was built
in order to replace the
Los Angeles, Olive View Hospital
1 Sylmar Hospital [62] 6 - 1971 Tie bar
US which was severely
damaged during the
earthquake.
This structure was an
San Francisco San Francisco, early use of composite
2 18 - 1977 Tie bar
Hospital [121] US wall in California at
high seismic area.
This building was the
28th tallest in Japan and
Shinjuku Nomura
3 53 210 1978 Tokyo, Japan Shear stud survived from the
Building [122]
several earthquakes with
minor damage.
The Kobe City Hall
survived the Kobe
Earthquake in 1995,
4 Kobe City Hall [62] 35 132 1989 Kobe, Japan Shear stud
which indicated
adequate seismic
resistance
The composite wall was
Shear stud
China World Trade implemented in this
5 74 330 2010 Beijing, China and
Center Phase 3 [64] building which was the
reinforcement
first time in China
The rectangular multi-
Multi-
6 Yiwu Tower [10] 38 156 2016 Yiwu, China partition was used in
partition
this building.
Two CFSTs were placed
at the end of composite
China Southern Guangzhou, Stiffeners and wall with an additional
7 36 150 2018
Airlines Building [11] China CFSTs one in the middle which
enhanced modular
construction.
This project plans to
adopt coupled
composite shear wall
Rainier Square Tower Under Washington,
8 58 260 Cross-ties systems and expects to
[65] construction US
shave off the
construction time and
cost.

36
 Table 4. The database of CFCSW with shear studs under axial compression
Axial 𝑁
𝑓c 𝑓s 𝑏 × 𝑡𝑤 𝑡s Failure mode
Author Specimen No. 𝑠/𝑡s load
[MPa] [MPa] [mm] [mm] of steel 𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑠 + 𝐴𝑐 𝑓𝑐
N [kN]
Elastic local
NS50 23 299 960 × 250 3.2 50 7257 0.99
buckling
Akiyama et Elastic local
NS75 23 299 960 × 250 3.2 75 7012 0.95
al. [15] buckling
Elastic local
NS100 23 299 960 × 250 3.2 100 7365 1.00
buckling
Plastic local
NS20 31 287 640 × 200 3.25 20 5730 1.11
buckling
Plastic local
NS30 31 287 640 × 200 3.25 30 5470 1.06
Usami et al. buckling
[14] Elastic local
NS40 31 287 640 × 200 3.25 40 5000 0.97
buckling
Elastic local
NS50 31 287 640 × 200 3.25 50 5050 0.98
buckling
Plastic local
C4-20M 36 353 1000 × 280 4.5 20 15387 1.16
buckling
Plastic local
C4-25M 36 363 1000 × 280 4.5 25 14877 1.11
buckling
Plastic local
C4-30M 36 358 1000 × 280 4.5 30 14132 1.06
buckling
Plastic local
C4-50M 36 348 1000 × 280 4.5 50 13827 1.05
buckling
Elastic local
C4-30S 28 321 1000 × 280 4.5 30 10464 0.98
Kanchi et al. buckling
[84] Plastic local
C6-20M 38 396 1000 × 280 6 20 17152 1.11
buckling
Plastic local
C6-25M 38 396 1000 × 280 6 25 16769 1.09
buckling
Plastic local
C6-30M 38 396 1000 × 280 6 30 15592 1.01
buckling
Elastic local
C6-35M 38 396 1000 × 280 6 35 13916 0.90
buckling
Elastic local
C6-30S 28 329 1000 × 280 6 30 11317 0.96
buckling
Plastic local
SS400-S 42 274 380 × 300 6 25 6282 1.04
buckling
Elastic local
SS400-M 42 274 480 × 300 6 33 7051 0.92
buckling
Elastic local
SS400-L 42 274 680 × 300 6 50 8956 0.83
Choi and buckling
Han [83] Elastic local
SM490-S 42 418 380 × 300 6 25 6562 0.98
buckling
Elastic local
SM490-M 42 418 480 × 300 6 33 8069 0.95
buckling
Elastic local
SM490-L 42 418 680 × 300 6 50 8850 0.74
buckling
Elastic local
C24/490-T6B20 24 428 280 × 250 6 20 3052 0.98
Choi et al. buckling
[48] Elastic local
C24/490-T6B30 24 428 370 × 250 6 30 3528 0.86
buckling

37
 Elastic local
C24/490-T6B40 24 428 460 × 250 6 40 4164 0.81
buckling
Elastic local
H16/490-T6B20 16 428 280 × 250 6 20 2539 0.99
buckling
Elastic local
H16/490-T6B30 16 428 370 × 250 6 30 3055 0.91
buckling
Elastic local
H16/490-T6B40 16 428 460 × 250 6 40 3812 0.91
buckling
DSC4-150 Plastic local
43.3 409.5 1240 × 240 4 37.5 11249 1.02
(Square stud) buckling
DSC4-200 Elastic local
35.9 409.5 1240 × 240 4 50 10318 0.95
(Square stud) buckling
DSC4-250 Elastic local
42.2 409.5 1240 × 240 4 62.5 11230 1.00
(Square stud) buckling
DSC4-300 Elastic local
39.6 409.5 1240 × 240 4 75 11610 0.91
(Square stud) buckling
DSC4-150/300 Elastic local
(Vertical 34.5 409.5 1240 × 240 4 75 10122 buckling 0.94
Yang et al. rectangular stud)
[85] DSC4-300/150 Plastic local
(Horizontal 35.5 409.5 1240 × 240 4 37.5 9452 buckling 1.03
rectangular stud)
DSC4-300X Plastic local
39.8 409.5 1240 × 240 4 - 9475 1.12
(Staggered stud) buckling
DSC6-240 Elastic local
42.5 348.4 1240 × 240 6 40 13525 0.83
(Square stud) buckling
DSC6-300 Elastic local
37.1 348.4 1240 × 240 6 50 11606 0.87
(Square stud) buckling
DSC6-360 Elastic local
39.1 348.4 1240 × 240 6 60 13033 0.82
(Square stud) buckling
Plastic local
TS1-0.6 17 274 279.4 × 139.7 4.7 14.9 1257 1.01
buckling
Plastic local
TS1-0.8 17 274 276.2 × 137.2 4.7 19.6 1123 0.92
buckling
Elastic local
TS1-1.2 17 274 279.4 × 152.4 4.7 29.7 1346 0.93
buckling
Elastic local
TS1-1.4 17 274 323.9 × 146.1 4.7 34.4 1335 0.88
buckling
Zhang et al. Elastic local
TS1-1.6 17 274 368.3 × 146.1 4.7 39.2 1173 0.63
[82] buckling
Plastic local
TS2-0.6 30 259 330.2 × 168.6 4.9 16.9 2258 1.04
buckling
Plastic local
TS2-0.8 30 259 330.2 × 168.6 4.9 22.7 2270 1.04
buckling
Plastic local
TS2-1.0 31 259 330.2 × 168.6 4.9 27.9 2304 1.17
buckling
Elastic local
TS2-1.2 31 259 330.2 × 168.6 4.9 33.7 2089 0.81
buckling

38
 Table 5. The database of CFCSW with shear studs under cyclic shear
Specimen 𝑓c 𝑓s 𝑏 × 𝑡𝑤 H 𝑡s Lateral load
Author 𝑠/𝑡s
No. [MPa] [MPa] [mm] [mm] [mm] [kN]
SS050 24 305 1440 × 160 1800 3.2 50 3250
Akiyama et al. [15] SS100 24 305 1440 × 160 1800 3.2 100 3225
SS150 24 305 1440 × 160 1800 3.2 150 3245
H10T05 29.7 286 1775 × 115 2060 2.3 33 2630
H10T10 32.7 286 1890 × 230 2060 2.3 33 4130
H10T10V 32.7 286 1890 × 230 2060 2.3 33 4980
Takeuchi et al. [123]
H10T15 29.7 286 2005 × 345 2060 2.3 33 6700
H07T10 29.7 286 1890 × 230 1650 2.3 33 4710
H15T10 32.7 286 1890 × 230 2900 2.3 33 4000
BS70T05 33.9 352.5 1890 × 230 1323 4.5 30 7370
BS70T10 33.9 389.2 1890 × 230 1323 2.3 30 5730
Ozaki et al. [55] BS70T14 36.2 448.4 1890 × 230 1323 1.6 30 5410
BS50T10 36.2 389.2 1890 × 230 945 2.3 30 6570
BS85T10 33.9 389.2 1890 × 230 1607 2.3 30 5450
S2-00NN 42.2 340 1200 × 200 1200 2.3 30 3024
S2-15NN 41.6 340 1200 × 200 1200 2.3 30 3166
S2-30NN 42 340 1200 × 200 1200 2.3 30 3166
S3-00NN 41.9 351 1200 × 200 1200 3.2 31 3675
Ozaki et al. [56] S3-15NN 41.6 351 1200 × 200 1200 3.2 31 3832
S3-30NN 40.1 351 1200 × 200 1200 3.2 31 3796
S3-00PS 41.9 351 1200 × 200 1200 3.2 31 3653
S3-00PN 39.9 351 1200 × 200 1200 3.2 31 3583
S4-00NN 42.8 346 1200 × 200 1200 4.5 30 4175
SCW1-1a 28.6 330 1000 × 150 1000 3 33 1782
SCW1-1b 28.6 330 1000 × 150 1000 3 33 1612
SCW1-2a 28.6 330 1000 × 150 1500 3 33 1035
SCW1-2b 28.6 330 1000 × 150 1500 3 33 954
Cheng et al. [124] SCW1-3 28.6 330 1000 × 150 2000 3 33 604
SCW1-4 28.6 307 1000 × 150 1000 2 33 962
SCW1-5 28.6 361 1000 × 150 1000 4 33 1972
SCW1-6 28.6 330 1000 × 150 1000 3 33 1568
SCW1-7 28.6 330 1000 × 150 1000 3 33 1659

39
 Table 6. Strength design equations in standards
ACI 349M-06 KEPIC-SNG
Contents AISC 341-16 [112] AISC N690s1 [113] JEAC-4618 [110]
[109] [111]
Composite wall
Composite
Wall type RC wall Without boundary With full circular boundary With half circular Composite wall Composite wall
wall
elements elements boundary elements
In-plane shear 𝑉𝑛 𝑉𝑛 = 0.6𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑠 𝑉𝑛 = 𝜙𝜅𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑠 𝑉𝑛 = 𝜙𝜅𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑠 𝑉𝑛 = 𝜙𝜅𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑠 𝑉𝑛 Same as
strength = 0.083𝐴𝑐𝑣 𝛼𝑐 √𝑓𝑐 𝐾𝛼 + 𝐾𝛽 JEAC-4618
=2 𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑠
+ 𝐴𝑐𝑣 𝜌𝑡 𝑓𝑦,𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛
√3𝐾𝛼2 + 𝐾𝛽2

In-plane - 𝑀𝑦 𝑀𝑦 𝑀𝑦 - - -
flexural 0.7 = 𝐴𝐻𝑆𝑆 𝑓𝑦,𝐻𝑆𝑆 (ℎ − 2𝑋 2𝐷𝐻𝑆𝑆
strength = f 𝑡𝐶2 = 0.5𝐴𝐻𝑆𝑆 𝑓𝑦,𝐻𝑆𝑆 (
3 c 𝑐 1 + 𝐷𝐻𝑆𝑆 ) 𝜋
4 + (ℎ2 + 2𝐶2 2
+ 𝑓𝑦 𝑡𝑠 ( 𝐶1 2 − 2𝐿𝐶1 + ℎ)
3 − 2𝐶2 ℎ)𝑡𝑠 𝑓𝑦
+ 𝐿2 ) 2 (0.5𝐷 + (ℎ2 + 2𝐶3 2
+ [0.25𝜋𝐷𝑖𝑛 𝐻𝑆𝑆
− 2𝐶3 ℎ)𝑡𝑠 𝑓𝑦
+ 𝐶2 − 𝑋)
+ 0.33𝑋𝑡𝑐 (𝐶2 − 0.67𝑋)
+ 0.5𝑡𝑐 (𝐶2 − 𝑋)2 ]𝑓𝑐
Out-of-plane 𝑀𝑛 - 𝑀𝑛 = 𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑦 0.9𝑡𝑤 𝑀𝑛 = 𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑦 0.875𝑡𝑤 𝑀𝑛
flexural = 𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑦 (𝑡𝑤 − 𝑡𝑠 ) = 𝑓𝑦,𝑐𝑟 𝐴𝑠 (𝑡𝑤
strength 𝑐 − 𝑡𝑠 )
− 0.5𝑓𝑏𝑤 𝑐 (
3 + (𝑓𝑦
𝑡𝑠
+ ) − 𝑓𝑦,𝑐𝑟 )𝐴𝑠 [𝑡𝑤
2
+ 𝑓𝑦,𝑟𝑖𝑏 𝐴𝑟𝑖𝑏 − 1.5𝑡𝑠
𝑑 + 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑏 − 𝑡𝑠 𝑓𝑦 − 𝑓𝑦,𝑐𝑟
( ) − 0.5𝑡𝑠 ]
2 0.85fc
+ 𝑓𝑦,𝑟𝑖𝑏 𝐴𝑟𝑖𝑏 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑏

Note:
𝛼𝑐 is the coefficient with the value of 3.0 for aspect ratios of the wall less than 1.5; the value of 2.0 for aspect ratios larger than 2.0; and for the aspect ratios between 1.5 and 2.0, the
value of coefficient varies linearly between 3.0 and 2.0;
𝜙 is the reduction factor with the value of 0.9;
𝜅 = 1.11 − 5.16𝜌̅ ;
𝜌̅ is the strength adjusted reinforcement ratio;

40
 𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑦 1 𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑦
𝜌̅ = =
𝐴𝑐 √1,000fc 12 𝐴𝑐 √fc

𝐾𝛼 is the shear stiffness of the steel faceplate, and can be expressed as 𝐾𝛼 = 2𝐺𝑠 𝐴𝑠;
1
𝐾𝛽 is the shear stiffness of the cracked concrete, and can be described as 𝐾𝛽 = 4 1−𝜐𝑠 ;
+
𝐸c 𝐴𝑐 𝐸𝑠𝐴𝑠

2 2
2𝑓𝑦𝑡𝑠 𝐿 2ℎ𝑤 𝑡𝑠𝑓𝑦 −(0.25𝜋𝐷𝑖𝑛 −0.67𝑋𝑡𝑐 )fc 2ℎ𝑤 𝑡𝑠𝑓𝑦 −0.125(𝜋𝐷𝑖𝑛 )fc
𝐶1, 𝐶2, 𝐶3 are the depth of the cross section, mm, with the value of 𝐶1 = , 𝐶2 = , 𝐶3 = ;
0.35fc 𝑡𝑐+4𝑓𝑦 𝑡𝑠 4𝑡𝑠𝑓𝑦+𝑡𝑐fc 4𝑡𝑠𝑓𝑦 +𝑡𝑐 fc

′ 𝑓𝑦,𝑟𝑖𝑏 𝐴𝑟𝑖𝑏
𝑐 is the height of the triangular stress concrete block in compressive zone, 𝑐 = 2[𝑡𝑠 (𝑛. − 𝑛) + ], where n is the modular ratio 𝐸𝑠 ⁄𝐸𝑐 , 𝑛′ is the ratio of steel yield strength to f,
𝑓𝑏
and f is the lesser of fc or 𝑓𝑦 ⁄𝑛;
2𝑡𝑠
𝜌𝑡 is defined as the ratio of the thicknesses of the steel plates to the overall thickness of the wall (𝜌𝑡 = 𝑡𝑤
);

2
𝑋 = 0.5(𝐷𝑖𝑛 − √𝐷𝑖𝑛 − 𝑡𝑐2 )

Table 7. Stiffness design equations in standards

Contents ACI 349M-06 [109] AISC 341-16 [112] AISC N690s1 [113] JEAC-4618 [110] KEPIC-SNG [111]
Wall type RC wall Composite wall Composite wall Composite wall Composite wall
Shear stiffness 𝐾𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝐾𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 = 𝐾𝑠 + 𝐾𝑐 𝐾𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 = 𝐾𝑠 + 𝐾𝑐 𝐾𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 = 𝐾𝑠 + 𝐾𝑐 𝐾𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 = 𝐾𝑠 + 𝐾𝑐
1 = 𝐺2𝑡𝑠 = 𝐺2𝑡𝑠 = 𝐺2𝑡𝑠
= ∑ 𝐾𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑒 = 𝐺2𝑡𝑠 +
4 2(1 − 𝜈) 1 1 1
+ 𝐾𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 0.7𝐺𝑐 𝑡𝑐 + 𝐺2𝑡𝑝 +
4 2(1 − 𝜈)
+
4 2(1 − 𝜈)
+
4 2(1 − 𝜈)
0.7𝐺𝑐 𝑡𝑐 + 𝐺2𝑡𝑝 0.7𝐺𝑐 𝑡𝑐 + 𝐺2𝑡𝑝 0.7𝐺𝑐 𝑡𝑐 + 𝐺2𝑡𝑝
Flexural 𝐾𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 = 𝐸𝑐 0.5𝐼𝑔 𝐾𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 = 𝐸𝑠 𝐼𝑠 + 𝑐2 𝐸𝑐 𝐼𝑐 𝐾𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 = 𝐸𝑠 𝐼𝑠 + 𝑐2 𝐸𝑐 𝐼𝑐
- -
stiffness
𝑐2 is the reduction factor of cracked concrete contribution to the flexural stiffness of composite shear walls; and 0.4 is used in AISC 341-16;
2𝑡 𝐸
𝑐2 is expressed in terms of 𝜌 ′ in AISC N690s1: 𝑐2 = 0.48𝜌 ′ + 0.10, where 𝜌 ′ is the stiffness normalised reinforcement ratio, which is defined as 𝜌 ′ = 𝑡 𝑠𝐸 𝑠
𝑐 𝐶

41
Figure. 1 Compressive behaviour of composite steel and concrete shear wall

(a) CFCSW with flat steel plates (b) CFCSW with profiled steel plates
Figure. 2 The shapes of exterior steel plates of CFCSW

(a) CFCSW (b) Steel shear wall

Figure. 3 The failure modes of CFCSW and steel wall

42
(a) Embossment (b) Seam fastener (c) Intermediate bolt

(d) Threaded rod (e) Two through-to-through studs arranged at embossment

Figure 4. Profiled steel plate CFCSW with different connection types

43
(a) Partition, shear bar and stud bolt (b) Transverse friction welded bar (c) Diaphragm plate

(d) Shear stud (e) J hook

Figure. 5 Flat steel plate CFCSW with different connection types

44
 (a) C-Shaped connector (b) Angle-Angle connector

(c) Angle-I-Shaped connector (d) Angle-T-Shaped connector

Figure. 6 Other types of connectors

45
 (a) Damaged Olive Vew Hospital replaced by Sylmar 6 Storey Hospital [125]

(b) Shinjuku Nomura Building [126] (c) Kobe City Hall [127]
Figure. 7 Typical buildings

46
(a) Completion of China World Trade (b) Construction site [129]
Centre Phase 3 [128]

(c) Curtain wall of China World Trade Centre Phase 3 [129]

Figure. 8 China World Trade Centre Phase 3

47
(a) Architectural rendering (b) Construction site

(c) Multi-partition composite wall

Figure. 9 Yiwu Tower [10]

48
(a) Architectural rendering (b) Building site

(c) Installation process (d) Hoisting process

Figure. 10 China Southern Airlines Building Guangzhou [11]

49
(a) Under Construction in May 2020 (b) Crossties composite wall [131]
[130]

(c) Construction site [132]

Figure. 11 Rainier Square Tower

50
 (a) Lipped channel

(b) Welded H section

Figure. 12 Multi-channel CFCSW

(a) Flat steel plate CFCSW with I shape (b) Flat steel plate CFCSW with T shape

(a) Profiled steel plate CFCSW with T shape

Figure. 13 Different shapes of CFCSW

51
 (b) Batten plate, shear stud and (c) Tie bar, U shaped bar, vertical and
(a) Tie bolt and U shaped bar
stiffener horizontal reinforcement

(d) Steel diaphragm, transverse stiffener and

(e) Truss (f) Bolt
batten plate
Figure. 14 CFCSW with different connection types and CFST boundary element

52
Figure. 15 The research framework

53
(a) Buckling wave of surface plate [123] (b) Local buckling of steel plate and chip off
of side concrete [48]

(c) Buckling mode [85]

Figure. 16 The failure modes of composite walls under compression

54
(a) Concrete cracking pattern at front side [4] (b) Concrete cracking pattern at back side [4]

(b) Failure mode of CFCSW [123]

Figure. 17 Crakling pattern of inner concrete and failure mode of the composite wall under
cyclic shear

55
 (a) Local buckling (b) Weld cracking

(c) Local buckling of steel plate exposed to fire and fractured shear studs
Figure. 18 Failure mode of CFCSW under fire [105]

56
Figure. 19 Stress diagram for the calculation of out-of-plane flexural resistance in
ACI 349M-06

Figure. 20 Mechanics-based model proposed by Ozaki et al. [56]

57
Figure. 21 The comparison of the shear strength between experimental results and values
derived from mechanics-based model

Figure. 22 CFCSW with half and full circular boundary element

58
 (a) With boundary element

(b) Without boundary element

Figure. 23 The stress distribution diagram for CFCSW

59

View publication stats