Article

Simplified Calculation Model and Experimental

Study of Latticed Concrete-Gypsum
Composite Panels
Nan Jiang 1,2 and Shaochun Ma 1, *
Received: 21 August 2015 ; Accepted: 19 October 2015 ; Published: 27 October 2015
Academic Editor: Jorge de Brito
1 School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China; jiangnan@tju.edu.cn
2 Key Laboratory of Coastal Civil Engineering Structure and Safety (Tianjin University),
Ministry of Education, Tianjin 300072, China
* Correspondence: mashaochun@tju.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-136-3969-1265

Abstract: In order to address the performance complexity of the various constituent materials of
(dense-column) latticed concrete-gypsum composite panels and the difficulty in the determination
of the various elastic constants, this paper presented a detailed structural analysis of the
(dense-column) latticed concrete-gypsum composite panel and proposed a feasible technical
solution to simplified calculation. In conformity with mechanical rules, a typical panel element was
selected and divided into two homogenous composite sub-elements and a secondary homogenous
element, respectively for solution, thus establishing an equivalence of the composite panel to a
simple homogenous panel and obtaining the effective formulas for calculating the various elastic
constants. Finally, the calculation results and the experimental results were compared, which
revealed that the calculation method was correct and reliable and could meet the calculation needs
of practical engineering and provide a theoretical basis for simplified calculation for studies on
composite panel elements and structures as well as a reference for calculations of other panels.

Keywords: lattice; composite; equivalent constants; simplified calculation; experiment; method

1. Introduction
Gypsum is one of the three major cementing materials that are widely used in the fields of
building materials, food, precision casting, models and molds, medicine, paper, and paint fillers.
As early as 2000~3000 BC, humans attempted using gypsum as a cementing material to build the
famous Egyptian pyramids, ancient Roman architecture, Mogao Caves at Dunhuang, etc. Since Louis
XIV, known as France’s Sun King, issued a decree in 1667, calcined gypsum (building gypsum)
started to be widely used in the building industry. Building gypsum is primarily comprised of
beta-calcium sulfate hemihydrate (β-CaSO4 ‚1/2H2 O), whose content should be not lower than
60.0% [1]. Building gypsum expands by 0.05%~0.15% after hardening, with a compressive strength
of 5~10 MPa, a flexural strength of 2.5 MPa, and a density of 13.0~14.5 kN/m3 [2]. In the construction
industry, gypsum is generally used for the cementing material, decorative gypsum boards, reliefs,
roman columns, etc.; non-load-bearing partitions such as hollow gypsum boards and dense-column
composite panels with low load-bearing capacity; and load-bearing, anti-seismic walls with high
load-bearing capacity such as the (dense-column) latticed concrete-gypsum composite panel studied
in this paper. The (dense-column) latticed concrete-gypsum composite panel is a composite of
environmentally-friendly gypsum, fiberglass, concrete, and steel bars that has excellent seismic
performance, is lighter than ordinary shear walls, and contains non-toxic, harmless, pollution-free
gypsum that can adjust indoor humidity automatically with good thermal and sound insulation

Materials 2015, 8, 7199–7216; doi:10.3390/ma8105375 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2015, 8, 7199–7216

and fire resistance [3]. The development and wide use of (dense-column) latticed concrete-gypsum
composite panels have promoted the innovation in new wall materials and the development of green,
energy-saving walls. This kind of composite panel makes full use of the advantages of its constitute
materials. The tensile fiber increases the gypsum board’s ability to withstand forces. The gypsum
board performs the (dense-column) latticed concrete-gypsum composite panel’s maintenance and
thermal and sound insulation functions while serving as a stressed member [4]. The excellent
material properties of concrete enable it to bear heavy loads. As indicated above, the composite panel
reflects an effective composite of the functional and mechanical aspects of the various constituent
materials. Scholars in Australia, China, India, the United States, and Italy have conducted extensive
experimental studies on composite panels [5–9]. However, few achievements have been made in
simplifying calculations that are difficult to operate and implement. A great number of gypsum
partitions that exist in the gypsum board of a (dense-column) latticed concrete-gypsum composite
panel partition the hollow gypsum board into several horizontal and vertical gypsum cavities.
After concrete pouring, a lattice of invisible beam-invisible column forms, making simplified
calculation difficult and challenging. The greatest difficulty confronting the simplified calculation
of composite panels lies in the determination of basic elastic constants due to the complexity of the
composite [10], directly leading to the difficulty in engineering software modeling, a great number of
computing elements, a great amount of calculation work, and a failure to make effective calculation.
The (dense-column) latticed concrete gypsum composite panel in this study primarily consisted
of the porous gypsum board with cavities and the invisible beam-invisible column lattice of concrete.
The composite panel with this structure not only has a high bearing capacity, but also facilitates
the arrangement of steel bars and the processing of nodes. In order to find a feasible simplified
calculation model for the (dense-column) latticed concrete-gypsum composite panel, a technical
solution was established. A typical element of this composite panel was selected to establish an
effective calculation model. Through a series of theoretical deviations, a feasible simplified calculation
model was obtained. Finally, the reliability of the simplified calculation model was validated by
comparing the seismic experimental results and the calculation results of the composite panel.

2. Technical Solution to Simplified Calculation

As shown in Figure 1, (1) is a gypsum partition; (2) is a cavity formed vertically by gypsum
partitions; (3) is a cavity formed horizontally by gypsum partitions; (4) is an invisible concrete beam
formed at the horizontal cavity after concrete pouring; and (5) is an invisible concrete column formed
at the vertical cavity after concrete pouring. The invisible beams and invisible columns form an
entire beam-column lattice structure. The porous gypsum board primarily consists of two gypsum
side panels and n gypsum partitions (length ˆ width ˆ height = 94 mm ˆ 20 mm ˆ 160 mm).
Gypsum partitions are reasonably arranged between the two gypsum side panels to form
many horizontal gypsum cavities (length ˆ width = 220 mm ˆ 94 mm) and vertical gypsum
cavities (length ˆ width = 230 mm ˆ 94 mm) in the entire gypsum board. These cavities can be used
as the templates for concrete pouring.
The above introduction revealed that a (dense-column) latticed concrete gypsum composite
panel has a complex structure, and the performance of its constituent materials differs greatly,
which determines the special complexity of its mechanical properties and makes it difficult to
calculate. Therefore, it is hard to obtain the accurate mechanical results of composite panels. Simple
homogenization has been incompetent, and a new way is required. The aim of this study is to enable
the calculation results to meet engineering requirements, simplify the calculation method as much
as possible and significantly reduce the amount of calculations and time required for calculations.
The specific technical solution is shown in Figure 2. From the perspective of the mechanics of
the composite, a typical homogenous composite element of the (dense-column) latticed concrete
gypsum composite panel was selected, as shown in Figure 2b. The homogenous composite element
was then divided into two homogeneous composite sub-elements, as shown in Figure 2c,d. These

7200
Materials 2015, 8, 7199–7216

two homogenous composite sub-elements were rendered homogenously equivalent, respectively.

Then the two equivalent homogenous composite sub-elements were used to constitute a secondary
homogenous element, as shown in Figure 2e. The secondary homogeneous element was used to
Materials 2015, 8, page–page 
substitute the original homogenous composite element, and the basic dimensions and mechanical
mechanical 
of theproperties 
compositeof 
Materials 2015, 8, page–page 
properties the  were
panel composite  panel  were 
maintained maintained 
unchanged beforeunchanged  before  and treatment,
and after equivalent after 
equivalent  treatment,  thus  realizing  the  transformation  from  a  complex  (dense‐column) 
thus realizing the transformation from a complex (dense-column) latticed concrete gypsum composite latticed 
mechanical  properties  of  the  composite  panel  were  maintained  unchanged  before  and  after 
concrete gypsum composite panel to a simple homogenous panel, and greatly reducing the difficulty 
panel to a simple homogenous panel, and greatly reducing the difficulty in calculation. The valuable
equivalent  treatment,  thus  realizing  the  transformation  from  a  complex  (dense‐column)  latticed 
in calculation. The valuable results obtained finally will be of great practical significance to the in‐
results obtained finally will be of great practical significance to the in-depth studies on the mechanical
concrete gypsum composite panel to a simple homogenous panel, and greatly reducing the difficulty 
depth studies on the mechanical properties of (dense‐column) latticed concrete gypsum composite 
properties of (dense-column) latticed concrete gypsum composite panel elements and structures.
in calculation. The valuable results obtained finally will be of great practical significance to the in‐
panel elements and structures. 
depth studies on the mechanical properties of (dense‐column) latticed concrete gypsum composite 
panel elements and structures. 

 
Figure 1. Perspective of the gypsum board. 
Figure 1. Perspective of the gypsum board.  
Figure 1. Perspective of the gypsum board. 

 
Figure  2.  Technical  solution  to  the  calculation  of  elastic  constants:  (a)  the  (dense‐column)  latticed 
concrete gypsum composite panel; (b) a typical homogenous composite element; (c) the homogenous 
 
Figure  2.  Technical 
composite  solution 
sub‐element  I;  toto  the  calculation 
(d)  homogenous  of  composite 
elastic  constants:  (a)  the II; 
sub‐element  (dense‐column)  latticed 
Figure 2. Technical solution the calculation of elastic constants: (a) the and  (e)  a  secondary 
(dense-column) latticed
concrete gypsum composite panel; (b) a typical homogenous composite element; (c) the homogenous 
homogenous composite. 
concrete gypsum composite panel; (b) a typical homogenous composite element; (c) the homogenous
composite  sub‐element  I;  (d)  the  homogenous  composite  sub‐element  II;  and  (e)  a  secondary 
composite sub-element I; (d) the homogenous composite sub-element II; and (e) a secondary
3. Theoretical Derivations of Elastic Constants 
homogenous composite. 
homogenous composite.
3. Theoretical Derivations of Elastic Constants 
3.1. Basic Assumptions 
3. Theoretical Derivations of Elastic Constants
(1) The gypsum board, fiberglass, and concrete were all isotropic materials and linearly elastic; 
3.1. Basic Assumptions 
(2)  the  fiberglass  was  evenly  distributed  in  the  gypsum  board,  and  the  various  materials  of  the 
3.1. Basic Assumptions
(1) The gypsum board, fiberglass, and concrete were all isotropic materials and linearly elastic; 
composite panel bonded firmly; and (3) the effects of the residual stresses and strains in the various 
(2) 
(1) the 
Thefiberglass 
gypsum was  evenly 
board, distributed 
fiberglass, and in  the  gypsum 
concrete
materials of the composite panel were ignored [11].  were board,  and  the 
all isotropic various  materials 
materials of  the 
and linearly elastic;
composite panel bonded firmly; and (3) the effects of the residual stresses and strains in the various 
With great in‐plane stiffness [12], floors can constrain the out‐of‐plane deformation of composite 
(2) the fiberglass was evenly distributed in the gypsum board, and the various materials of the
materials of the composite panel were ignored [11]. 
panels. Therefore, only the in‐plane action needs to be considered for a composite panel. In other words, 
With great in‐plane stiffness [12], floors can constrain the out‐of‐plane deformation of composite 
3
panels. Therefore, only the in‐plane action needs to be considered for a composite panel. In other words, 
7201
3
Materials 2015, 8, 7199–7216

composite panel bonded firmly; and (3) the effects of the residual stresses and strains in the various
materials of the composite panel were ignored [11].
With great in-plane stiffness [12], floors can constrain the out-of-plane deformation of composite
panels. Therefore, only the in-plane action needs to be considered for a composite panel. In other
words, a composite panel can be treated as a plane. In the following, formula derivation was
Materials 2015, 8, page–page 
conducted for the simplified calculation of composite panels.
a composite panel can be treated as a plane. In the following, formula derivation was conducted for 
3.2. Calculation of Elastic Constants
the simplified calculation of composite panels. 
Ec , Eg , Gc , and Gg represent the elastic modulus and shear modulus of the concrete and
3.2. Calculation of Elastic Constants 
gypsum board, respectively (obtained through material tests). The equivalent elastic modulus of
the homogenous composite
Ec, Eg, Gc, and G sub-element I in the X or Y direction is E Ix or E Iy , and its equivalent
g represent the elastic modulus and shear modulus of the concrete and gypsum 

board,  respectively  (obtained 

shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio through 
in the material 
XY planetests). 
are GThe 
Ixy and equivalent  elastic  modulus 
v Ixy , respectively. of  the those
Similarly,
homogenous composite sub‐element I in the X or Y direction is E Ix or EIy, and its equivalent shear 
of the homogenous composite sub-element are E I Ix , E I Iy , G I Ixy , and v I Ixy , respectively, and those of
modulus  and  Poisson’s  ratio  in  the are
XY Eplane  are  GIxy  and  vIxy,  respectively.  Similarly,  those  of  the 
the secondary homogenous element x , Ey , Gxy , and vxy , respectively. Due to symmetry, 1/4 of
homogenous  composite  sub‐element  are  EIIx,  EIIy,  GIIxy,  and  vIIxy,  respectively,  and  those  of  the 
the two homogenous composite sub-elements were analyzed, and the entire secondary homogenous
secondary homogenous element are Ex, Ey, Gxy, and vxy, respectively. Due to symmetry, 1/4 of the two 
element was analyzed, as detailed below.
homogenous composite sub‐elements were analyzed, and the entire secondary homogenous element 
was analyzed, as detailed below. 
3.2.1. Homogenous Composite Sub-Element I
3.2.1. Homogenous Composite Sub‐Element I 
Figure 3a shows 1/4 of the three-dimensional homogenous composite sub-element I. For ease of
derivation, the force diagrams of the homogenous composite sub-element in the X–Z and X–Y planes
Figure 3a shows 1/4 of the three‐dimensional homogenous composite sub‐element I. For ease of 
werederivation, the force diagrams of the homogenous composite sub‐element in the X–Z and X–Y planes 
given, respectively. Figure 3b,c are the calculation model and equivalent model for solving
E Ix ; were given, respectively. Figure 3b,c are the calculation model and equivalent model for solving E
Figure 3d,e are the calculation model and equivalent model for solving G Ixy ; Figure 3f,g Ix;  are

Figure  3d,e model
the calculation are  the and
calculation  model 
equivalent and  equivalent 
model for solvingmodel  for  solving 
E Iy , and Figure G 3hIxy; isFigure  3f,g  are  the 
the calculation model
calculation model and equivalent model for solving E
for solving v Ixy . Iy, and Figure 3h is the calculation model for 

solving vIxy. 

 
FigureFigure 
3. 3.  Models 
Models ofof Homogenous
Homogenous  Composite
Composite  Sub‐element 
Sub-elementI:  I:(a) (a)1/4 1/4
of  the  three‐dimensional 
of the three-dimensional
homogenous composite sub‐element I; (b) the calculation model for solving EIx; (c) equivalent model 
homogenous composite sub-element I; (b) the calculation model for solving E Ix ; (c) equivalent model
for  solving  EIx;  (d)  the  calculation  model  for  solving  GIxy;  (e)  equivalent  model  for  solving  GIxy;  
for solving E Ix ; (d) the calculation model for solving G Ixy ; (e) equivalent model for solving G Ixy ;
(f) the calculation model for solving EIy; (g) equivalent model for solving EIy; and (h) the calculation 
(f) the calculation model for solving E Iy ; (g) equivalent model for solving E Iy ; and (h) the calculation
model for solving vIxy. 
model for solving v Ixy .
(1) Elastic modulus EIx: As shown in Figure 3b,c, the planar calculation model of the homogenous 
composite sub‐element I was divided into the three calculation domains, A1, B1, and C1. B1 and C1 are 
the  gypsum  boards,  and  A1  is  concrete.  In  the 7202
X  direction,  the  sum  of  the  normal  stresses  of  the 

4
Materials 2015, 8, 7199–7216

(1) Elastic modulus E Ix : As shown in Figure 3b,c, the planar calculation model of the
homogenous composite sub-element I was divided into the three calculation domains, A1 , B1 , and
C1 . B1 and C1 are the gypsum boards, and A1 is concrete. In the X direction, the sum of the normal
stresses of the calculation model of the composite panel and that of the equivalent model should be
equal under the same loading [13].

σ Ix “ σC1 x , σ Ix h1 B{2 “ σ A1 x h1 b{2 ` σB1 x h1 pB{2 ´ b{2q (1)

where σ A1 x , σB1 x , σC1 x , and σ Ix are the stresses of concrete, gypsum board (namely domain B1 and
C1 ), and the equivalent model in the X direction, respectively. ε Ix is the strain of the equivalent
element I in the X direction. The strain in the homogenous composite sub-element I in the X direction
ε Ix should be the same before and after equivalent treatment.

σ Ix {E Ix “ σ A1 x {Ec “ σB1 x {Eg “ ε Ix (2)

Let b{B “ λ. Equation (2) was substituted into Equation (1) to obtain

E Ix “ λEc ` p1 ´ λqEg (3)

(2) Elastic modulus E Iy : As shown in Figure 3f,g, σcy , σgy , and σ Iy are the stresses of concrete,
the gypsum board, and the equivalent model in the Y direction, respectively, and ε Iy is the strain of
the equivalent element I in the Y direction. Similarly,

σ Iy BL{4 “ σc bl{4 ` σg pBL ´ blq{4 (4)

σ Iy {E Iy “ σc {Ec “ σg {Eg “ ε Iy (5)

Let l{L “ β. Equation (5) and λ were substituted into Equation (4) to obtain

E Iy “ λβEc ` p1 ´ λβqEg (6)

(3) Shear modulus G Ixy : τcx , τgx and τ I x are the shear stresses of concrete, the gypsum board
(namely domain B1 and C1 ), and the equivalent model in the X direction. As shown in Figure 3d,e,
the similar method was used to obtain

G Ixy “ λβGc ` p1 ´ λβqGg (7)

(4) Poisson’s ratio v Ixy : The planar calculation model of the homogenous composite sub-element
I was divided into the three calculation domains A2 , B2 , and C2 . B2 and C2 are the gypsum boards,
and A2 is concrete. Where σ A2 x , σB2 x , and σC2 x are the stresses of concrete and gypsum board (namely
domain B2 and C2 ) in the X direction. As shown in Figure 3h, the strain difference between the
combination of A2 and B2 and C2 in the X direction is 0.5lpνg ´ νc qε Iy .
According to the conditions for equilibrium of forces,

pB ´ bqσC2 x “ bσB2 x (8)

Since
ε Ix “ νIxy ε Iy “ νg ε Iy ´ σC2 x {Eg (9)

The displacements or strains on the left and right sides were required to satisfy the coordination:

σC2 x L{2Eg ` σB2 x l{2Ec ` σB2 x pL ´ lq{2Eg “ pνg ´ νc qε Iy l{2 (10)

7203
Materials 2015, 8, 7199–7216

Let Eg {Ec “ α. λ and β were substituted to obtain

νIxy “ νg ´ βλpνg ´ νc q{rλ ` p1 ´ λqp1 ´ β ` αβqs (11)

3.2.2. Homogenous Composite Sub-Element II

(1) Elastic modulus E I Ix : As shown in Figure 4d,e, similarly,
Materials 2015, 8, page–page 
σ I Ix h2 B{2 “ σDx h2 b{2 ` σEx h2 pB ´ bq{2, σ I Ix {E I Ix “ σDx {Ec “ σEx {Eg “ ε I Ix (12)
σ IIx h2 B / 2  σ Dx h2b/ 2  σ Ex h2 ( B  b) / 2 ,  σ II x / EIIx  σ Dx / Ec  σ Ex / Eg  ε IIx   (12)

 
Figure  4.  Models  of  Homogenous  Composite  Sub‐element  II”  (a)  1/4  of  the  three‐dimensional 
Figure 4. Models of Homogenous Composite Sub-element II: (a) 1/4 of the three-dimensional
homogenous composite sub‐element II; (b) the calculation model for solving EIIy; (c) equivalent model 
homogenous composite sub-element II; (b) the calculation model for solving E I Iy ; (c)
for solving EIIy; (d) the calculation model for solving EIIx; (e) equivalent model for solving E
equivalent
IIx; (f) the 
model for solving E I Iy ; (d) the
calculation model for solving G calculation model for solving E I Ix ; (e)
IIxy; and (g) equivalent model for solving G
equivalent
IIxy.  
model for solving
E I Ix ; (f) the calculation model for solving G I Ixy ; and (g) equivalent model for solving G I Ixy .
σIIy is the stress of the equivalent model in the Y direction. σDx, σEx, and σIIx are the stresses of 
concrete, gypsum board, and the equivalent model in the X direction. ε
σ I Iy is the stress of the equivalent model in the Y direction. σDx , IIxσ and ε IIy are the strains of the 
Ex , and σ I Ix are the stresses of
equivalent model in the X and Y directions. 
concrete, gypsum board, and the equivalent model in the X direction. ε I Ix and ε I Iy are the strains of
Therefore, 
the equivalent model in the X and Y directions.
Therefore, EI Ix  λEc  (1  λ ) Eg   (13)
E I Ix “ λEc ` p1 ´ λqEg (13)
(2) Elastic modulus EIIy: As shown in Figure 4b,c, similarly, 

σ II y BL / 4  σcy bL/ 4  σ gy  B  b  L / 4 ,  σ II y / EIIy  σ cy / Ec  σ gy / Eg  ε IIy  

(2) Elastic modulus E I Iy : As shown in Figure 4b,c, similarly,
(14)
σ I Iy BL{4 “ σcy bL{4 ` σgy pB ´ bq L{4, σ I Iy {E I Iy “ σcy {Ec “ σgy {Eg “ ε I Iy
Therefore,  (14)

Therefore, EI I y  λEc  (1  λ ) Eg   (15)

E “ λE ` p1 ´ λqE
I IyτIIx  are cthe  shear  stresses 
g (15)
(3)  Shear  modulus  GIIxy:  τcx,  τgx  and  of  concrete  (namely  domain  D),  
the  gypsum board (namely  domain  E),  and  the  equivalent 
(3) Shear modulus G I Ixy : τcx , τgx and τ I I x are the shear stresses model  in  of
the X  direction. As 
concrete (namely shown  in   D),
domain
Figure 4f,g, the same method was used to obtain 
the gypsum board (namely domain E), and the equivalent model in the X direction. As shown in
II xy  λGc  (1  λ )Gg  
Figure 4f,g, the same method was used toGobtain (16)

(4) Poisson’s ratio vIIxy: As shown in Figure 4d, when the composite panel is stretched evenly in 
G I Ixy “ λGc ` p1 ´ λqGg (16)
the X direction, its contraction strain is equal to the sum of the contraction strains of gypsum and 
concrete in the Z direction, namely 

ε IIz   IIxz ε IIx B / 2  [ cb / 2  g ( B  b) / 2]ε IIx   (17)

Similarly, λ was substituted to obtain 

 IIxy   IIxz   IIyz  λ c （1-λ） g   (18)

  7204
Materials 2015, 8, 7199–7216

(4) Poisson’s ratio v I Ixy : As shown in Figure 4d, when the composite panel is stretched evenly
in the X direction, its contraction strain is equal to the sum of the contraction strains of gypsum and
concrete in the Z direction, namely

ε I Iz “ νI Ixz ε I Ix B{2 “ rνc b{2 ` νg pB ´ bq{2sε I Ix (17)

Similarly, λ was substituted to obtain

νI Ixy “ νI Ixz “ νI Iyz “ λνc ` p1 ´ λqνg (18)

Materials 2015, 8, page–page 
3.2.3. Secondary Homogenous Element
3.2.3. Secondary Homogenous Element 
As shown in Figure 5a, the secondary homogenous element consisted of the homogenous
As  shown  in  Figure 
composite sub-elements I and 5a, 
II. the 
σx , secondary  homogenous 
σy , τx , and τy and are element  consisted 
the normal of  the  and
stresses homogenous 
shear stresses
composite sub‐elements I and II. σx, σy, τx, and τy and are the normal stresses and shear stresses of the 
of the secondary homogenous element, respectively.
secondary homogenous element, respectively. 

 
Figure  5.  Models  of  Secondary  Homogenous  Element:  (a)  the  three‐dimensional  secondary 
5. Models of Secondary Homogenous Element: y; (c) equivalent model for solving E
Figure homogenous element; (b) the calculation model for solving E (a) the three-dimensional secondary
y;  
homogenous element; (b) the calculation model for solving E y ; (c) equivalent
(d) the calculation model for solving Ex; and (e) equivalent model for solving E x. 
model for solving Ey ;
(d) the calculation model for solving Ex ; and (e) equivalent model for solving Ex .
(1) Elastic modulus Ey: As shown in Figure 5b,c, the sums of the normal strains of the two models 
under the same loading should be equal. 
(1) Elastic modulus Ey : As shown in Figure 5b,c, the sums of the normal strains of the two models
under the same loading should be equal.ε y (h1  h2 )  h1ε Iy  h2ε IIy   (19)

The stresses in the Y direction are equal, namely 
εy ph1 ` h2 q “ h1 ε Iy ` h2 ε I Iy (19)
EIy ε Iy  EIIy ε IIy  Ey ε y  σ y   (20)
The stresses in the Y direction are equal, namely
Let  h1 / h2  ζ , which was substituted into Equation (19) to obtain 
E IyEε Iy“ E IζIy
(1  E “/ E
) Eε I Iy ( Ey εy“ζEσy)   (21)
(20)
y Iy IIy Iy IIy

Let h1 {h(2) Elastic modulus E
2 “ ζ, which wasx: As shown in Figure 5d,e, the method for calculating E
substituted into Equation (19) to obtain IIx was used. 

Therefore, 
Ey “ p1E` = (ζEIy EI Iy
ζqE E{pE  ζζE
) /Iy(1` )   I Iy q (21)
x Ix IIx (22)

(2) Elastic modulus Ex : As

(3) Shear modulus G shown in Figure 5d,e, the method for calculating E I Ix was used.
xy: The calculation model and equivalent model are shown in Figures 5f,g. 

The method for calculating G
Therefore, IIxy was used. 

Therefore, 
Ex =pζE Ix ` E I Ix q{p1 ` ζq (22)
Gxy =(ζGIxy  GIIxy ) / (1  ζ)   (23)
(4) Poisson’s ratio vxy: The method for calculating vIIxy was used to obtain 
7205
 xy  ( Ixy ζ  IIxy ) / (1  ζ)   (24)
Materials 2015, 8, 7199–7216

(3) Shear modulus Gxy : The calculation model and equivalent model are shown in Figure 5f,g.
The method for calculating G I Ixy was used.
Therefore,
Gxy =pζG Ixy ` G I Ixy q{p1 ` ζq (23)

(4) Poisson’s ratio vxy : The method for calculating v I Ixy was used to obtain

νxy “ pνIxy ζ ` νI Ixy q{p1 ` ζq (24)

4. Experiment
Materials 2015, 8, page–page 
4.1. Sample Design and Loading System
4. Experiment 
Three samples (1520 mm ˆ 1520 mm ˆ 120 mm) were designed for the seismic experiment on
Materials 2015, 8, page–page 
the composite panel in this study. They were numbered Q-1, Q-2, and Q-3, respectively. The plan
4.1. Sample Design and Loading System 
and elevation4. Experiment 
of each sample are shown in Figures 6 and 7 respectively. The steel bars arranged
Three samples (1520 mm × 1520 mm × 120 mm) were designed for the seismic experiment on the 
in the composite panel were HRB400 deformed steel bars with a diameter of 14 mm, as shown in
composite panel in this study. They were numbered Q‐1, Q‐2, and Q‐3, respectively. The plan and 
4.1. Sample Design and Loading System 
elevation of each sample are shown in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. The steel bars arranged in the 
Figure 8. The experimental results of the materials of the composite panel are shown subsequently.
Three samples (1520 mm × 1520 mm × 120 mm) were designed for the seismic experiment on the 
composite panel were HRB400 deformed steel bars with a diameter of 14 mm, as shown in Figure 8. 
The compressive strength and elastic modulus of the gypsum board were 5.52 MPa and 4350 MPa,
composite panel in this study. They were numbered Q‐1, Q‐2, and Q‐3, respectively. The plan and 
The  experimental  results  of  the  materials  of  the  composite  panel  are  shown  subsequently.  
respectively. The compressive strength and elastic modulus of the concrete were 24.63 MPa and
elevation of each sample are shown in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. The steel bars arranged in the 
The compressive strength and elastic modulus of the gypsum board were 5.52 MPa and 4350 MPa, 
4 composite panel were HRB400 deformed steel bars with a diameter of 14 mm, as shown in Figure 8. 
2.72 ˆ 10 respectively. 
MPa, respectively. The tensile
The  compressive  strength  strength
and  elastic of the HRB400
modulus  steel bars
of  the  concrete  was MPa 
were  24.63  654.00 MPa (D8),
and  
The  experimental  results  of  the  materials  of  the  composite  panel  are  shown  subsequently.  
669.45 MPa 2.72  ×  104  MPa, 
(D14), and respectively. 
676.92 MPa The  tensile 
(D20), strength  of  the 
respectively HRB400  steel  bars  was  654.00  MPa  (D8),  
[14].
The compressive strength and elastic modulus of the gypsum board were 5.52 MPa and 4350 MPa, 
669.45 MPa (D14), and 676.92 MPa (D20), respectively [14]. 
respectively.  The  compressive  strength  and  elastic  modulus  of  the  concrete  were  24.63  MPa  and  
2.72  ×  104  MPa,  respectively.  The  tensile  strength  of  the  HRB400  steel  bars  was  654.00  MPa  (D8),  
669.45 MPa (D14), and 676.92 MPa (D20), respectively [14]. 

 
Figure 6. Plane of the composite panel. 
Figure 6. Plane of the composite panel.
 
Figure 6. Plane of the composite panel. 

 
Figure 7. Elevation of the composite panel. 
 
Figure 7. Elevation of the composite panel. 
Figure 7. Elevation of the composite panel.

7206
8
8
Materials 2015, 8, 7199–7216
Materials 2015, 8, page–page 

Materials 2015, 8, page–page 

 
Figure 8. Reinforcement of the composite panel. 
Figure 8. Reinforcement of the composite panel.
The loading devices at the experimental site are shown in Figure 9 and consisted of a horizontal 
The loading devices at the experimental site are shown in Figure  9 and consisted of a horizontal
loading device and a vertical loading device [15–17]. The horizontal cyclic load was imposed by a 
1000 kN hydraulic jack whose back was secured to the reaction wall on the right side. The vertical 
loading device and a vertical loading device [15–17]. The horizontal cyclic load was imposed by a
Figure 8. Reinforcement of the composite panel. 
1000 kN load was imposed by two 500 kN hydraulic jacks, which were secured to the sliding supports above. 
hydraulic jack whose back was secured to the reaction wall on the right side. The vertical
The sliding supports were secured to the reaction steel beam above. In order to accurately simulate 
The loading devices at the experimental site are shown in Figure 9 and consisted of a horizontal 
load was imposed by two 500 kN hydraulic jacks, which were secured to the sliding supports above.
the  action  of  vertical  loading  on  the  composite  panel  under  earthquake  events  in  the  process  of 
loading device and a vertical loading device [15–17]. The horizontal cyclic load was imposed by a 
The sliding supports were secured to the reaction steel beam above. In order to accurately simulate
horizontal  cyclic  loading,  the  vertical  jacks  were  enabled  to  move  synchronously  with  the  sample 
1000 kN hydraulic jack whose back was secured to the reaction wall on the right side. The vertical 
the action of vertical loading on the composite panel under earthquake events in the process of
with the aid of a sliding car, which ensured that the vertical load always acted on the center of the 
load was imposed by two 500 kN hydraulic jacks, which were secured to the sliding supports above. 
horizontal cyclic loading, the vertical jacks were enabled to move synchronously with the sample
top of the sample. A rigid distributive beam was placed between the two 500 kN hydraulic jacks and 
The sliding supports were secured to the reaction steel beam above. In order to accurately simulate 
with the
the aid
the  of aof 
action  sliding
composite  car,
panel 
vertical  in which ensured
order on 
loading  to  that
generate 
the  thepanel 
vertical
uniform 
composite  load
compressive 
under  always acted
stress  on 
earthquake  the on
events  in the
top  center
surface 
the  ofthe 
of 
process  the top
of 
composite panel in the loading process. A displacement meter was placed at the side of the sample 
of the horizontal 
sample. Acyclic 
rigidloading, 
distributive beam jacks 
the  vertical  was placed between
were  enabled  the two
to  move  500 kN hydraulic
synchronously  with  the jacks
sample and the
to acquire the displacement of the sample with the load. A dial indicator was placed at the end of the 
with the aid of a sliding car, which ensured that the vertical load always acted on the center of the 
composite panel in order to generate uniform compressive stress on the top surface of the composite
fixed  beam at  the  bottom  of  the  sample  to  detect  whether  the sample in its entirety  moved  in  the 
top of the sample. A rigid distributive beam was placed between the two 500 kN hydraulic jacks and 
panel in the loading process. A displacement meter was placed at the side of the sample to acquire
experimental process in order to eliminate the displacement error generated by the fixed beam during 
the  composite  panel  in  order  to  generate  uniform  compressive  stress  on  the  top  surface  of  the 
the displacement of the sample with the load. A dial indicator was placed at the end of the fixed beam
subsequent data processing. Resistance strain gauges were installed at the key positions of the steel 
composite panel in the loading process. A displacement meter was placed at the side of the sample 
at the to acquire the displacement of the sample with the load. A dial indicator was placed at the end of the 
bottom of theconcrete 
bar,  invisible  samplebeam, 
to detect whether
invisible  thecolumn, 
concrete  sample and 
in its entirety
outside  moved
gypsum  in the
board  experimental
of  the  panel 
process in order
beam at  the  bottom  of  the  sample  to  detect  whether  the sample in its entirety  moved subsequent
to eliminate the displacement error generated by the fixed beam during
sample to measure the strains in the various materials of the sample. For example, the 45° strain gauge 
fixed  in  the 
data processing. Resistance strain gauges were installed at the key positions of the steel bar, invisible
on the sample could be used to measure the shear deformation of the panel. The data collected by the 
experimental process in order to eliminate the displacement error generated by the fixed beam during 
concretedisplacement meter, dial indicator, and various resistance strain gauges, and the sensors attached to 
beam, invisible concrete column, and outside gypsum board of the panel sample to measure
subsequent data processing. Resistance strain gauges were installed at the key positions of the steel 
the jacks were stored in a computer for real‐time collection. 
bar, 
the strains invisible  concrete materials
in the various beam,  invisible 
of theconcrete 
sample.column,  and  outside 
For example, the 45 ˝ strain
gypsum  board 
gauge of  the 
on thepanel 
sample
sample to measure the strains in the various materials of the sample. For example, the 45° strain gauge 
could be used to measure the shear deformation of the panel. The data collected by the displacement
on the sample could be used to measure the shear deformation of the panel. The data collected by the 
meter, dial indicator, and various resistance strain gauges, and the sensors attached to the jacks were
displacement meter, dial indicator, and various resistance strain gauges, and the sensors attached to 
stored in a computer for real-time collection.
the jacks were stored in a computer for real‐time collection. 

 
Figure 9. Loading devices at the experimental site figure. 

9
 
Figure 9. Loading devices at the experimental site figure. 
Figure 9. Loading devices at the experimental site figure.
9

7207
 Materials 2015, 8, 7199–7216
Materials 2015, 8, page–page 

The quasi‐static test method defined in the Specification of Testing Methods for Earthquake Resistant 
The quasi-static test method defined in the Specification of Testing Methods for Earthquake
Building 
Resistant(JGJ101‐96)  was  performed 
Building (JGJ101-96) [18].  First, 
was performed a  constant 
[18]. vertical  load 
First, a constant was load
vertical imposed,  and  then 
was imposed, a 
and
horizontal  cyclic  load  was  imposed.  When  the  composite  panel  was  in  the 
then a horizontal cyclic load was imposed. When the composite panel was in the elastic stage, elastic  stage,  
a load‐controlled loading system was adopted. When the composite panel was in the elastic‐plastic 
a load-controlled loading system was adopted. When the composite panel was in the elastic-plastic
stage, a load‐ and displacement‐controlled loading system was used until the sample fractured. 
stage, a load- and displacement-controlled loading system was used until the sample fractured.

4.2. Main Experimental Results

4.2. Main Experimental Results 

4.2.1. Experimental Process and Fracture Phenomena

4.2.1. Experimental Process and Fracture Phenomena 
Theexperiment 
The  experimentwas wasconducted 
conductedto  tostudy 
studythe 
thebearing 
bearingand 
anddeformation 
deformationcapabilities, 
capabilities, hysteretic 
hysteretic
curves and skeleton curves, energy dissipation properties (such as damping, ductility,
curves and skeleton curves, energy dissipation properties (such as damping, ductility, and stiffness),  and stiffness),
material deformation (such as gypsum, concrete, and steel bars), and fracture characteristics of the
material deformation (such as gypsum, concrete, and steel bars), and fracture characteristics of the 
typical samples of the (dense-column) latticed concrete gypsum composite panel. The experiment on
typical samples of the (dense‐column) latticed concrete gypsum composite panel. The experiment on 
Q-1was 
Q‐1  wasdescribed 
describedas as follows. 
follows. When Whenthe 
thesample 
samplewas  waspulled 
pulledover 
overa adistance 
distanceof of0.72 
0.72mm,  45˝fine, 
mm,45°  fine,
inclined cracks appeared below the initial horizontal crack at the foot of the composite panel.
inclined cracks appeared below the initial horizontal crack at the foot of the composite panel. As the 
As the load was increased, both inclined and horizontal cracks were on the increase. When the sample
load was increased, both inclined and horizontal cracks were on the increase. When the sample was 
was pulled over a distance of 3.28 mm, a lot of dense 45˝ inclined cracks which differed in length
pulled over a distance of 3.28 mm, a lot of dense 45° inclined cracks which differed in length appeared 
appeared in the middle and lower parts of the composite panel. Some of the cracks in the middle part
in the middle and lower parts of the composite panel. Some of the cracks in the middle part of the 
of the composite panel intersected, causing the gypsum board to peel slightly. As the load applied
composite panel intersected, causing the gypsum board to peel slightly. As the load applied to the 
to the composite panel was increased, the outside steel bars of the panel yielded, and the principal
composite panel was increased, the outside steel bars of the panel yielded, and the principal inclined 
inclined crack gradually took shape. When the sample was pulled over a distance of 11.50 mm,
crack gradually took shape. When the sample was pulled over a distance of 11.50 mm, inclined cracks 
inclineda cracks
formed  formed
large  piece  of  anet 
large piece
in  the  of netpart 
middle  in the
of  middle part of panel, 
the  composite  the composite panel,
the  gypsum  the gypsum
board  peeled 
board peeled seriously, and the concrete at the foot of the composite panel was cracked and crushed,
seriously, and the concrete at the foot of the composite panel was cracked and crushed, as shown in 
as shown in Figure 10a. The experiment was ended when the composite panel fractured seriously.
Figure 10a. The experiment was ended when the composite panel fractured seriously. 

(a) Q‐1  (b) Q‐2 (c) Q‐3 

Figure 10. Fracture of samples (a) Q‐1; (b) Q‐2; (c) Q‐3.  
Figure 10. Fracture of samples (a) Q-1; (b) Q-2; (c) Q-3.

The cyclic experimental process revealed that the three composite panel samples underwent four 
The cyclic experimental process revealed that the three composite panel samples underwent four
stages: the elastic stage when the load was initially applied to the panel, the elastic‐plastic stage when 
stages: the elastic stage when the load was initially applied to the panel, the elastic-plastic stage when
the panel yielded, and the fracture stage when the displacement and deformation of the panel was 
the panel yielded, and the fracture stage when the displacement and deformation of the panel was
great while the load applied decreased gradually. The sample was approximately in a square shape 
great while the load applied decreased gradually. The sample was approximately in a square shape
and exhibited shear fracture. The final fracture of the samples shown in Figure 10 were primarily 
and exhibited shear fracture. The final fracture of the samples shown in Figure 10 were primarily
reflected  by  the  cracking  and  crushing  of  the  concrete  at  the  foot  of  the  panel  samples  
reflected by the cracking and crushing of the concrete at the foot of the panel samples (Q-1 and Q-3)
(Q‐1 and Q‐3) or the occurring of the 45° principal inclined crack at the foot of the sample (Q‐2). 
or the occurring of the 45˝ principal inclined crack at the foot of the sample (Q-2).
4.2.2. Hysteretic Characteristics 
4.2.2. Hysteretic Characteristics
Hysteretic curves are the lateral load‐displacement curves for the composite panel under cyclic 
Hysteretic curves are the lateral load-displacement curves for the composite panel under cyclic
loading. Figure 11 shows the hysteretic and skeleton curves for the panel samples Q‐1, Q‐2, and Q‐3 
loading. Figure 11 shows the hysteretic and skeleton curves for the panel samples Q-1, Q-2, and
obtained through experimental measurement. It can be seen that before the composite panel cracked, 
the load‐displacement curves generally showed a linear change. The hysteresis loops initially took a 
7208
10
Materials 2015, 8, 7199–7216

Q-3 obtained through experimental measurement. It can be seen that before the composite panel
Materials 2015, 8, page–page 
cracked, the load-displacement curves generally showed a linear change. The hysteresis loops initially
took a fusiform shape, with no significant change in stiffness, indicating that the samples were
fusiform shape, with no significant change in stiffness, indicating that the samples were in the elastic 
in the elastic stage. After the composite panel cracked and yielded, the areas surrounded by the
stage. After the composite panel cracked and yielded, the areas surrounded by the hysteresis loops 
hysteresis
increased  loops increasedindicating 
significantly,  significantly,
that indicating thatdissipation 
the  energy  the energy capacity 
dissipation
of  capacity of theincreased 
the  samples  samples
increased
gradually. gradually. The of 
The  shapes  shapes
the  of the hysteresis
hysteresis  loops loops produced
produced  a “pinch
a  “pinch  effect”,namely 
effect”,  namelythe 
the gradual
gradual 
conversion
conversion  of  the  hysteresis  loops  from  a  “fusiform”  shape  to  a  reversed  “S”  shape.  The stiffness
of the hysteresis loops from a “fusiform” shape to a reversed “S” shape. The stiffness 
degenerated significantly, indicating that the samples were in the elastic-plastic stage. The hysteretic
degenerated significantly, indicating that the samples were in the elastic‐plastic stage. The hysteretic 
curves were generally full, indicating that the panel had strong energy dissipation capacity.
curves were generally full, indicating that the panel had strong energy dissipation capacity. 

 
(a) Q‐1  (b) Q‐2

(c) Q‐3
Figure 11. Hysteretic and skeleton curves (a) Q‐1; (b) Q‐2; (c) Q‐3. 
Figure 11. Hysteretic and skeleton curves (a) Q-1; (b) Q-2; (c) Q-3.

4.2.3. Analysis of Material Strain 
4.2.3. Analysis of Material Strain
Material  strain  is  analyzed  at  the  foot  same  position  of  three  samples  outermost  steel  bars. 
Material strain is analyzed at the foot same position of three samples outermost steel bars.
Materials mainly include steel, concrete and gypsum board. The lateral forces‐material strain curves 
Materials mainly include steel, concrete and gypsum board. The lateral forces-material strain curves
are  shown  in  Figure  12.  According  to  estimates,  observing  the  cracks  appearance  of  wallboard  or 
are shown in Figure 12. According to estimates, observing the cracks appearance of wallboard or
partial  failure  of  concrete  strain  gauges  and  other  methods,  samples  initiation  cracks  were  found 
partial failure of concrete strain gauges and other methods, samples initiation cracks were found
basically in control loading of the fourth stage. Therefore, lateral forces‐material strain curves only 
basically in control loading of the fourth stage. Therefore, lateral forces-material strain curves only
gave key data pointsʹ results of the previous four stages. Strain variation width of the three materials 
gave key data points' results of the previous four stages. Strain variation width of the three materials
is very small, when key positions tensioning effect before the concrete cracked. Strains of steel bars 
is very small, when key positions tensioning effect before the concrete cracked. Strains of steel bars
and gypsum board appeared a sudden increase phenomenon after the concrete cracked. Concrete 
and gypsum board appeared a sudden increase phenomenon after the concrete cracked. Concrete quit
quit his job after the cracking. The force is assumed by other materials at the same time. Instead, the 
his job after the cracking. The force is assumed by other materials at the same time. Instead, the strain
strain  sudden  increase  is  not  obvious,  when  key  positions  compression  effect  before  the  concrete 
sudden increase is not obvious, when key positions compression effect before the concrete cracked.
cracked.  This  result  illustrates  strain  variation  width  plasterboard  are  largely  consistent  between 
This result illustrates strain variation width plasterboard are largely consistent between concrete and
concrete and other materials (steel bars and gypsum board). 
other materials (steel bars and gypsum board).

7209
Materials 2015, 8, 7199–7216
Materials 2015, 8, page–page 

 
(a) Q‐1  (b) Q‐2

(c) Q‐3
Figure 12. Lateral forces‐material strain curves (a) Q‐1; (b) Q‐2; (c) Q‐3. 
Figure 12. Lateral forces-material strain curves (a) Q-1; (b) Q-2; (c) Q-3.

5. Analysis of Finite Element Calculation and Experimental Results 
5. Analysis of Finite Element Calculation and Experimental Results
5.1. Calculation Results of Elastic Constants 
5.1. Calculation Results of Elastic Constants
According  to  the  test  results  of  related  materials  in  Section  4.1  and  the  method  for  obtaining  
According to the test results of related materials in Section 4.1 and the method for obtaining
the  values  of  shear  moduli  of  materials  defined  in  the  Code  for  Design  of  Concrete  Structures  
the values of shear moduli of materials defined in the Code for Design of Concrete Structures
(GB50010‐2010) [19], 40% of the corresponding elastic moduli could be used as the shear moduli of 
(GB50010-2010) [19], 40% of the corresponding elastic moduli could be used as the shear moduli
the concrete and gypsum board. The experimental results of the materials were substituted into the 
of the concrete and gypsum board. The experimental results of the materials were substituted into
relevant equations in Section 3 to obtain the equivalent elastic constants shown in Table 1. 
the relevant equations in Section 3 to obtain the equivalent elastic constants shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Equivalent elastic constants. 
Table 1. Equivalent elastic constants.
Equivalent Elastic  Panel  Panel  Secondary 
Equivalent Elastic
Constants  Sub‐Element I  Sub‐Element II  Secondary
Homogenous Element 
Panel Sub-Element I Panel Sub-Element II
Constants Homogenous Element
Ex (N/mm ) 
2 22,248.41  22,248.41  22,248.41 
Ex (N/mm 2) 22,248.41 22,248.41 22,248.41
Ey (N/mm 2)  20,816.53  22,248.41  21,622.17 
Ey (N/mm2 ) 20,816.53 22,248.41 21,622.17
Gxy (N/mm2)  8326.61  8899.36  8658.20 
Gxy (N/mm2 ) 8326.61 8899.36 8658.20
νxy νxy  0.197 
0.197 0.196 0.196 0.196  0.196
40%E40%E 2)
x (N/mm 2)  8899.36 
8899.36 8899.36 
8899.36 8899.36 
8899.36
x (N/mm
Error (%)
Error (%)  6.43
6.43  0  0 2.71  2.71
40%E (N/mm 2) 8326.61 8899.36 8648.87
y
40%Ey (N/mm )  2 8326.61  8899.36  8648.87 
Error (%) 0 0 0.11
Error (%)  0  0  0.11 

An error analysis was performed of the shear constants shown in Table 1 and the values obtained
An error analysis was performed of the shear constants shown in Table 1 and the values obtained 
according
according  toto  the
the  method
method  defined
defined  in
in  the
the  code.
code.  The
The  errors
errors  were
were generally
generally within
within 5%,
5%,  which
which  meets
meets 
engineering
engineering  requirements.  In  this  way,  equivalence  was  established  between  the  composite  panel
requirements. In this way, equivalence was established between the composite panel 
with complex material properties and a simple homogenous panel made of a single material with
with complex material properties and a simple homogenous panel made of a single material with 
material
material properties
properties that
that can
can be
be easily
easily determined
determined for
for ease
ease of
of further
further calculation.
calculation.  In
In  the
the  following,
following,  
a finite element numerical simulation was carried out of typical components to test the feasibility of 
the simplified calculation model. 
7210
12
Materials 2015, 8, 7199–7216

a finite element numerical simulation was carried out of typical components to test the feasibility of
the simplified calculation model.

5.2. Finite Element Simulation

5.2.1. Constitutive Relation of Materials

The equivalent homogenous panel material reference model is commonly used in concrete, i.e.,
multilingual isotropic (MISO) hardening model is suitable for analysis of simulated seismic cyclic
loading. The steel bars within the panel were simulated using the ideal elastic-plastic model with the
hardening stage, namely the bilinear isotropic (BISO) hardening model [20]. BISO options used in
the von-Mises yield criterion. The initial was a small deformation problem for isotropic material [21].
Yield determination is based on whether reaches the yield strength for the outermost load-bearing
steel bars of wallboard. In the calculation process, the stress-strain relationship of the material could
be either called in the form of the txt format list or input by writing in ANSYS Parametric Design
Language (APDL) provided by software. Displacement control load and force convergence criterion
is adopted when solve the model [20]. Displacement control is based on the key points corresponding
to the displacement of the test obtained skeleton curves. Convergence error can be generally raised
to 5%. This can increase the speed of convergence (i.e., the command is CNVTOL). The constitutive
relation of the equivalent homogenous material is shown below [22]:
#
σc = f c r1 ´ p1 ´ εc {ε0 qn s εc ď ε 0
(25)
σc = f c t1 ´ 0.15rpεc ´ ε0 q{pεcu ´ ε0 qsu ε0 ă εc ď εcu

where σc is the compressive stress; εc is the compressive strain; fc is the design value of compressive
strength; ε0 is the corresponding compressive strain of fc ; and εcu is the ultimate compressive strain.
The seismic experimental results of the (dense-column) latticed concrete-gypsum composite
panel revealed that in the experimental process, the steel bars were primarily in the elastic and
yielding stages, without significant hardening and necking phenomena, whose effects could be
ignored during calculation. Therefore, the constitutive relation of the steel bar material could be
simplified as an ideal elastic-plastic model [23]. σs is the yield strain stress; εs is the yield strain.
Namely,
#
σ=Eε ε ď εs
(26)
σ=σs ε ą εs

5.2.2. Elements and Solving

The finite element calculation model for the panel sample shown in Figure 13 consisted of
the fixed beam, the panel, the steel bars in the panel, and the loading beam. The equivalent panel
material was modeled using the eight-node hexahedral three-dimensional solid element SOLID65,
which can process the nonlinearity of materials and simulate materials’ cracking due to tension,
crushing due to stress, and plastic deformation. The loading beam and the fixed beam were modeled
using the eight-node hexahedral three-dimensional solid model SOLID45. SOLID65 element is
established on the basis of SOLID45 element with the addition of special cracking and crushing
capabilities. In concrete applications, for example, the solid capability of the element may be used
to model the concrete while the rebar capability is available for modeling reinforcement behavior.
SOLID65 element can use the Willam–Warnker (i.e., five-parameter failure criterion). Parameters of
five-parameter failure criterion can be entered via the command (e.g., TB, CONCR and TBDATA).
SOLID65 element may facilitate convergence control through some of the features. For instance,
adjusting KEYOPT options; choosing to consider or not consider the additional items of shape
functions; choosing separate or integral analysis model; adjusting mesh density; adjusting sub-steps;

7211
Materials 2015, 8, 7199–7216

adopting displacement control load and force convergence criterion, or adopting force control load
and displacement convergence criterion; dealing with loading point and support conditions; etc.
Materials 2015, 8, page–page 

 
Figure 13. Calculation model for Q‐1. 
Figure 13. Calculation model for Q-1.
The vertical load applied to the top of the loading beam and the horizontal seismic load applied 
The vertical load applied to the top of the loading beam and the horizontal seismic load applied
to its end could be input as the area loads on the various sides of the element (namely force/area).  
to its In the process of simulating the forces applied to the panel, in order to prevent the loading beam and 
end could be input as the area loads on the various sides of the element (namely force/area).
In thethe fixed beam from fracturing earlier than the panel so as to cause a cessation of calculation, the 
process of simulating the forces applied to the panel, in order to prevent the loading beam and
material properties of the two could be appropriately magnified. The steel bars were simulated using 
the fixed beam from fracturing earlier than the panel so as to cause a cessation of calculation, the
the  three‐dimensional  spar  element  LINK8  [24].  Models  were  established  separately  based  on  the 
material properties of the two could be appropriately magnified. The steel bars were simulated using
actual dimensions of the panel sample. The steel bars were embedded in the panel material. The steel 
the three-dimensional spar element LINK8 [24]. Models were established separately based on the
bars and the homogenous material were assumed to bond firmly and coordinate in deformation. The 
actualeffects of the bond slip between the equivalent panel material and the steel bars were ignored, and 
dimensions of the panel sample. The steel bars were embedded in the panel material. The steel
bars and
they  the
were homogenous material
treated as  being  were
connected  assumed
through  to bond
common  firmly
nodes.  and coordinate
The  bottom  inbeam 
of  the  fixed  deformation.
was 
The effects of the bond slip between the equivalent panel material and the steel bars were ignored, and
fully constrained. The top and end sides of the loading beam were coupled into a rigid region in order 
they were treated as being connected through common nodes. The bottom of the fixed beam was fully
to ensure that the loading area did not fracture in the loading process. First, the vertical load was 
evenly applied to the top of the loading beam in the form of pressure to simulate the vertical load 
constrained. The top and end sides of the loading beam were coupled into a rigid region in order to
passed down from the structure at the top of the panel. Then, the displacements corresponding to the 
ensure that the loading area did not fracture in the loading process. First, the vertical load was evenly
appliedcritical points of the skeleton curves obtained through the seismic experiment on the sample Q‐1 were 
to the top of the loading beam in the form of pressure to simulate the vertical load passed
used as control loads to be applied successively to the end of the loading beam. The incremental‐iterative 
down from the structure at the top of the panel. Then, the displacements corresponding to the critical
method was used for solving. 
points of the skeleton curves obtained through the seismic experiment on the sample Q-1 were used
as control loads to be applied successively to the end of the loading beam. The incremental-iterative
5.3. Result Analysis 
method was used for solving.
The deformation nephogram and failure of the sample shown in Figures 14–16 were primarily 
reflected by the failure critical parts at the foot of the panel sample. The main failure formats are the 
5.3. Result Analysis
cracking and crushing of the materials or the occurring of the 45° principal inclined crack. As results 
The deformation
of  the  nephogram
study  illustrate,  and
the  finite  failureanalysis 
element  of the sample shown
results  are  in Figures
consistent  with  14–16 were
the  main  primarily
damage 
phenomena of the test. As shown in Figure 17, the calculated value of the hysteresis loop area of the 
reflected by the failure critical parts at the foot of the panel sample. The main failure formats are
hysteretic curves for Q‐1 was larger than the experimental value, and they looked fuller. This was 
the cracking and crushing of the materials or the occurring of the 45˝ principal inclined crack.
because 
As results ofthe 
theequivalent  panel  model 
study illustrate, was  not 
the finite affected 
element by  the  results
analysis relative are
slip consistent
between  the  gypsum, 
with the main
concrete,  and  steel  bars  along  their  interface  in  the  calculation  process.  The  general  trends  in  the 
damage phenomena of the test. As shown in Figure 17, the calculated value of the hysteresis loop area
skeleton curves depicted in Figure 18 show that the calculated values and experimental values for  
of the hysteretic curves for Q-1 was larger than the experimental value, and they looked fuller. This
Q‐1 were similar. A comparison of the skeleton curves revealed that the experimental values for the 
was because the equivalent
three  samples  were  close panel
to  the model wasvalues 
calculated  not affected byAs 
for  them.  theshown 
relative slip between
in  Table  the gypsum,
2,  comparison  of 
concrete, and steel bars along their interface in the calculation process. The general
parameters  such  as  bearing  capacity,  displacement  and  ductility  coefficient  revealed  that  the  trends in the
skeleton
calculation results were generally consistent with the experimental results, with errors smaller than  Q-1
curves depicted in Figure 18 show that the calculated values and experimental values for
were 5%, 
similar. A comparison
indicating  of the skeleton
that  the  simplified  curves
calculation  revealed
method  that theequivalent 
for  various  experimental values
elastic  for the
constants  was three
reliable and could be used for engineering calculation analysis. 
samples were close to the calculated values for them. As shown in Table 2, comparison of parameters
such as bearing capacity, displacement and ductility coefficient revealed that the calculation results
were generally consistent with the experimental results, with errors smaller than 5%, indicating that
14

7212
Materials 2015, 8, 7199–7216

the simplified calculation method for various equivalent elastic constants was reliable and could be
used forMaterials 2015, 8, page–page 
engineering calculation analysis.

Materials 2015, 8, page–page 

Materials 2015, 8, page–page 

 
Figure 14. Deformation nephogram for Q‐1. 
Figure 14. Deformation nephogram for Q-1.  
Figure 14. Deformation nephogram for Q‐1. 
 
Figure 14. Deformation nephogram for Q‐1. 

 
Figure 15. Crack and crush for Q‐1. 
 
Figure 15. Crack and crush for Q‐1. 
Figure 15. Crack and crush for Q-1.  
Figure 15. Crack and crush for Q‐1. 

 
Figure 16. Partial failure for Q‐1. 
 
Figure 16. Partial failure for Q‐1. 
15  
Figure 16. Partial failure for Q‐1. 
15failure for Q-1.
Figure 16. Partial

15
7213
Materials 2015, 8, 7199–7216
Materials 2015, 8, page–page 

Materials 2015, 8, page–page 

 
Figure 17. Comparison of hysteretic curves for Q‐1. 
Figure 17. Comparison of hysteretic curves for Q-1.
 
Figure 17. Comparison of hysteretic curves for Q‐1. 

 
Figure 18. Comparison of skeleton curves. 
 
Table 2. Comparison of calculation and experimental results. 
Figure 18. Comparison of skeleton curves. 
Figure 18. Comparison of skeleton curves.
Pcr cr Py y
Table 2. Comparison of calculation and experimental results.  Pu u
Value Types Table 2.SampleComparison of calculation and experimental results. μ 
  (kN)  (mm)  (kN)  (mm)  (kN)  (mm) 
Pcr cr Py y Pu u
Calculated value 
Value Value Types 
Q‐1 
Sample Sample
61.73 
∆cr (mm)
0.72  219.83  3.28  322.41  11.50  μ
3.51 
∆u (mm)   µ
Types Pcr (kN)
Q‐1    60.46 
(kN)  (mm)  (kN)  ∆y(mm) 
P (kN)
0.84  y 212.60 
(mm)
3.68 
Pu (kN)
(kN) 
311.85  (mm) 
11.90  3.23 
Calculated value
Calculated value 
Experimental value  Q-1 61.73 61.73 
Q‐1 
Q‐2  60.11 0.72 0.72 
0.69  219.83
206.40  3.28
219.83  3.28 
3.50  322.41
322.41 
305.02  11.50 3.51 
11.50 
12.42  3.55 3.51
Q-1 Q‐1 
Q‐3 
60.46 60.46 
64.74  0.84 0.84 
0.61  212.60 
211.50 
212.60 3.68 
3.07 
3.68 311.85 
327.07 
311.85 11.90 
11.85 
11.90 3.23 
3.86 3.23
Experimental value
Experimental value 
Mean of experimental  Q-2 60.11 60.11 0.69 0.69  206.40
Q‐2  206.40  3.50 3.50  305.02
305.02  12.42 3.55 3.55
12.42 
values  Q-3 Q64.74
Q‐3 
  61.77  0.71  210.17 
64.74 0.61 0.61  211.50
211.50  3.07
3.42 
3.07 
314.65 
327.07
327.07 
12.06  3.55 3.86
11.85 3.86 
11.85 
Mean of experimental 
Mean of Error (%)  0.06  1.41  4.60  4.09  2.47  4.64  1.13 
experimental values
values 
Q Q61.77
  61.77 0.71 0.71  210.17
210.17  3.42 3.42  314.65
314.65  12.06 3.55 3.55
12.06 
Notes: P cr, Py and Pu denote the crack load, the yield load and the ultimate load; Δcr, Δy and Δu 

denote  Error (%) 
the  crack  displacement, 
Error (%) 0.06 
0.06 the  yield  1.41  4.604.60 
displacement 
1.41 4.09  displacement; 
and  the  ultimate 
4.09 2.47 
2.47 4.64 
and  μ  1.13 1.13
4.64
denotes the ductility coefficient. 
Notes:Notes: P
Pcr , Pcry , P y and P u denote the crack load, the yield load and the ultimate load; Δ
the crack load, the yield load and the ultimate load; cr∆ , Δ y and Δu 
and Pu denote cr , ∆y and ∆u
denotedenote  the  crack 
the crack displacement, 
displacement, the displacement
the yield yield  displacement 
and theand  the  ultimate 
ultimate displacement; 
displacement; and  μ  the
and µ denotes
6. Conclusions 
ductility coefficient.
denotes the ductility coefficient. 
A  detailed  theoretical  derivation  was  conducted  of  the  simplified  calculation  model  of  the 
6. Conclusions 
6. Conclusions
structurally  complex  (dense‐column)  latticed  concrete  gypsum  composite  panel.  The  simplified 
Acalculation model was used to make a practical calculation of the composite panel, and the calculation 
A  detailed 
detailed theoretical 
theoretical derivation was
derivation was conducted
conducted  of 
of the 
thesimplified 
simplifiedcalculation 
calculationmodel 
modelof  the 
of the
results and the experimental results were compared. Finally, the following conclusions were drawn: 
structurally  complex  (dense‐column)  latticed  concrete  gypsum  composite  panel.  The  simplified 
structurally complex (dense-column) latticed concrete gypsum composite panel. The simplified
calculation model was used to make a practical calculation of the composite panel, and the calculation 
calculation model was used to make a practical calculation of the composite panel, and the calculation
results and the experimental results were compared. Finally, the following conclusions were drawn: 
results and the experimental results were compared. 16 Finally, the following conclusions were drawn:
(1) The problem of simplified calculation of the composite panel with a complex structure
and whose material properties are difficult to determine 16 was addressed, namely the equivalence

7214
Materials 2015, 8, 7199–7216

of the complex composite panel with complex material composition and whose material properties
were difficult to determine to a simple homogenous panel whose material properties were easy to
determine, facilitating the calculation of the composite panel.
(2) The calculation models of two homogenous composite sub-elements and a secondary
homogenous element were established in this paper. Theoretical derivation was conducted of them,
respectively, to obtain the formulas for calculating the various equivalent elastic constants. No matter
how the basic dimensions (the thickness of the gypsum side panel, the thickness and height of the
gypsum partition, and the size of the gypsum cavity) of a composite panel are adjusted, this method
is effective, indicating that this method is universal.
(3) Through practical application of the simplified calculation model, the calculation results and
the experimental results were compared, validating the correctness and reliability of the simplified
calculation model. The application of the simplified calculation model to practical engineering is of
great realistic significance.

Acknowledgments: This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(No. 51478312), and Science Technology of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development
(No. 2013-R4-25).
Author Contributions: Shaochun Ma conducted the detailed theoretical derivation of the simplified calculation
method and practical calculation, and wrote and completed the manuscript. Nan Jiang designed and supervised
the project. All authors contributed to the analysis and conclusion of the thesis.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. GB/T 9776-2008 Calcined Gypsum; Standard Press of China: Beijing, China, 2009.
2. GB50010-2010 Load Code for the Design of Building Structures; Architecture & Industry Press of China: Beijing,
China, 2012.
3. Javangula, H.; Lineberry, Q. Comparative studies on fire-rated and standard gypsum wallboard. J. Therm.
Anal. Calorim. 2014, 116, 1417–1433. [CrossRef]
4. Gu, Y.; Jiang, X.L.; Zhang, H. Experimental research on mechanical properties of fiber-reinforced gypsum
panel. J. Shandong Arg. Univ. Nat. Sci. 2009, 40, 107–111.
5. Wu, Y.F.; Dare, M.P. Flexural and shear strength of composite lintels in glass-fiber-reinforced gypsum wall
constructions. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2006, 18, 415–423. [CrossRef]
6. MA, Q.Z.; Jiang, X.L.; Zhang, B.K. A simplified calculation model for analyzing concrete-filled gypsum wall
panels. J. Agr. Univ. Hebei 2012, 35, 119–124. [CrossRef]
7. Maganti, J.; Robin, D.P.; Ravichandran, S.S. Calibration of a hysteretic model for glass fiber reinforced
gypsum wall panels. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2014, 13, 347–355.
8. Vieira, L.C.M.; Schafer, B.W. Lateral stiffness and strength of sheathing braced cold-formed steel stud walls.
Eng. Struct. 2012, 37, 205–213. [CrossRef]
9. Magliulo, G.; Petrone, C.; Capozzi, V.; Maddaloni, G.; Lopez, P.; Manfredi, G. Seismic performance
evaluation of plasterboard partitions via shake table tests. Bull Earthq. Eng. 2014, 12, 1657–1677. [CrossRef]
10. Tian, Y.X.; Chen, P.; Yao, Q.F.; Zhao, D.; Huang, W. Study on calculating formulas of equivalent elastic
constants of multi-ribbed wall slab. Ind. Constr. 2003, 33, 10–12.
11. Wang, Z.M. The Mechanics of Composite and Composite Structures; China Machine Press: Beijing, China, 1991.
12. Bao, S.H.; Zhang, T.S. Design and Analysis of Tall-Building Structure; Tsinghua University Press: Beijing,
China, 2005.
13. Jiang, X.L.; Ding, X.C. Dynamic analysis of liquid-structure-pile-soil interaction system. J. Tianjin. Univ.
1992, 1, 62–70.
14. Ma, S.C.; Jiang, N. Seismic Experimental Study on New-Type Composite Exterior Wallboard with Integrated
Structural Function and Insulation. Materials 2015, 8, 3732–3753. [CrossRef]
15. Cao, W.L.; Zhang, Y.B.; Deng, H.Y.; Zhou, Z.Y.; Qiao, Q.Y. Experimental study on the seismic performance of
recycled concrete brick walls embedded with vertical reinforcement. Materials 2014, 7, 5934–5958. [CrossRef]

7215
Materials 2015, 8, 7199–7216

16. Pozza, L.; Scotta, R.; Trutalli, D. Concrete-plated wooden shear walls: Structural details, testing, and seismic
characterization. J. Struct. Eng. 2015. [CrossRef]
17. Pozza, L.; Scotta, R.; Trutalli, D. Behaviour factor for innovative massive timber shear walls.
Bull Earthq. Eng. 2015. [CrossRef]
18. JGJ101-96 Specification of Testing Methods for Earthquake Resistant Building; Chinese Building Industry Press:
Beijing, China, 1997.
19. GB50010-2010 Code for Design of Concrete Structures; Architecture & Industry Press of China: Beijing,
China, 2011.
20. Wang, X.M. ANSYS Numerical Analysis of Engineering Structures; China Communications Press: Beijing,
China, 2007.
21. Wang, G.Q. Practical Engineering Numerical Simulation Technology and Application in ANSYS; Northwestern
Polytechnical University Press: Xian, China, 1991.
22. GB50010-2002 Code for Design of Concrete Structures; Architecture & Industry Press of China: Beijing,
China, 2002.
23. Bi, J.H.; Wang, H. Engineering Elastic-Plastic Mechanics; Tianjin University Press: Tianjin, China, 2008.
24. Wang, X.M. ANSYS Structural Analysis Unit and Application; China Communications Press: Beijing,
China, 2011.

© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open
access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by
Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

7216