Journal of Constructional Steel Research 143 (2018) 148–161

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Seismic performance of high-strength lightweight foamed

concrete-filled cold-formed steel shear walls
Zhifeng Xu a,b,⁎, Zhongfan Chen a,b,⁎, Bashir H. Osman c, Suhang Yang d
a
Southeast University, Key Laboratory of Concrete and Pre-stressed Concrete Structures of the Ministry of Education, Southeast University, 02, Sipailou, Nanjing 210096, PR China
b
School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, 02, Sipailou, Nanjing 210096, PR China
c
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Sinnar University, Sinnar, Sudan
d
School of Civil Engineering, Changzhou Institute of Technology, 666, Liaohelu, Changzhou 213032, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To improve the seismic behavior of cold-formed steel (CFS) shear walls, cold-formed steel high-strength light-
Received 30 October 2017 weight foamed concrete (CSHLFC) shear walls with straw boards are proposed. This study conducted tests of
Received in revised form 19 December 2017 six full-scale shear wall specimens to investigate the failure mode, load-bearing capacity, ductility, stiffness
Accepted 25 December 2017
characteristic and energy dissipation capacity. The test parameters included HLFC density grade, stud section
Available online 4 January 2018
area, wall thickness and vertical load. Test results indicated that HLFC has greater effect on seismic performance
Keywords:
and failure mode of the shear walls. The failure modes were cracking and crushing of HLFC, cracking of straw
Cold-formed steel boards, local buckling of studs, and relative slippage between HLFC and studs, which made the wall exhibit
Lightweight foamed concrete good ductility and energy dissipation capacity. Compressive bearing capacity of HLFC and restrictive effect of
Shear wall HLFC on steel frame increased the shear strength and stiffness. The most effective way of improving seismic
Straw board performance was to increase wall thickness, followed by increasing HLFC density grade and stud section area,
Cyclic loading but increasing vertical load had an adverse effect on seismic performance. Based on experimental results and
Strut-and-tie model mechanism analysis of shear walls, a simplified design formula for predicting the shear strength was proposed
base on strut-and-tie model. The calculated results obtained by the proposed formula showed better agreement
with the experiment results compared with the results from ACI 318-14, EC8 and CNS 383-16 standards.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Cold-formed steel (CFS) shear walls have been extensively employed
in low-rise residential and commercial buildings to support vertical and
horizontal loads such as earthquakes and winds [1–2]. The CFS shear
walls typically consisted of CFS-frame and lightweight sheathing at-
tached to the CFS-frame by self-drilling screw connections. Their benefits
such as lightweight, low cost, easy installation, environmental character-
istics and recyclability made them an attractive alternative in the con-
struction of low-rise buildings in the USA, Japan, Australia, Europe and
China. However, due to hollow structure of these traditional CFS shear
walls, the walls exhibited poor thermal insulation and sound insulation
property as well as low lateral stiffness and shear strength. With the pro-
motion of green buildings and the rising demand of mid-rise buildings,
these disadvantages limited the popularization and application of these
traditional CFS shear walls in green residence buildings, especially in
mid-rise buildings. One of the main problems restricting their practical
application in mid-rise buildings was relatively low seismic performance.
⁎ Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: zhf-xu@seu.edu.cn (Z. Xu), 101003944@seu.edu.cn (Z. Chen).
Therefore, the traditional CFS shear wall did not satisfy the requirements
of seismic performance the mid-rise CFS structures.
To improve the seismic performance of CFS shear wall, many
researchers have conducted to investigate the influence of various
structural measures, mainly including the use of new type sheathing
material (e.g. steel sheet [3–7] and double panel [8]), and the use of
strengthening approaches for CFS frame (e.g. joint-strengthened
knee element or X-shaped steel-strap bracing [2,9]). Experiment
results proved that these structural measures improved the seismic
performance of CFS shear wall to some extent, whereas the failure
mechanisms of the walls were dominated by the local buckling of
studs and the failure of screw connections between sheathing and
steel frame. This indicated that the mechanical capacity of the new
type sheathing and strengthening approaches has not been fully uti-
lized. Therefore, to improve fastener connection performance and
avoid premature local buckling of the studs, various filling materials
were utilized in CFS shear wall. The filling materials mainly included
ordinary concrete [1,10], lightweight mortar [2], glazed hollow bead
mortar [11], lightweight concrete [12], lightweight foamed concrete
(LFC) [13–14]. These investigations indicated that due to restrictive
effect of filling material on the studs and fastener connections, the
mechanical properties of the sheathing and the stud have been fully

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.12.027
0143-974X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Z. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 143 (2018) 148–161 149

Owing to the following features of HLFC, CFS shear walls with

Pre-punched
hole
Screw
Top track
Surface
Interior stud
Horizontal
End stud Foamed concrete fiber
Fig. 1. Detail of CSHLFC shear wall.
utilized. The shear wall was observed to exhibit higher load-bearing
capacity and stiffness than the traditional CFS shear wall.
Although these filling materials can improve the seismic perfor-
mance of shear walls, several shortcomings cannot be overlooked. The
mass of ordinary concrete was much greater than that of LFC, resulting
in the increase of dead loads of the shear wall and the consequent
increase of seismic base shear of the building during an earthquake.
Ordinary concrete also exhibited poor thermal property that lead to
reduce the wall's thermal insulation property. While the lightweight
mortar, lightweight concrete and LFC showed lower compressive
strength (0.8–2.0 MPa) that cannot effectively improve the shear
strength of shear walls. Thus, high-strength lightweight foamed
concrete (HLFC), as a new type of LFC, which developed from traditional
LFC by optimizing the mixture ratio and appropriately construction
technology, had been used in this paper.
In this research, based on the above analysis, a new type of CFS shear
wall referred to as cold-formed steel high-strength lightweight foamed
concrete (CSHLFC) shear wall with straw boards on both sides was
proposed on the basis of full consideration of load-bearing capacity,
thermal insulation and sound insulation property, as shown in Fig. 1.
CSHLFC shear wall consisted of CFS frame, HLFC and straw boards. The
straw board was a new type of sheathing consisted mainly of horizon-
tally distributed natural crop straws. This sheathing not only resisted
the horizontal loads similar to horizontal reinforcement of RC shear
walls, but also was used as non-dismantling formwork for casting
HLFC into the walls. According to Chinese Code GB 50176-2016 [15],
the thermal conductivity of traditional sheathings, such as gypsum wall-
board, calcium silicate board, fiber-cement board and cement particle
board, were 0.33, 0.20–0.35, 0.23–0.34 and 0.19–0.34 W/(m·K),
respectively. Based on the comparison of thermal conductivity, the
straw board had a better thermal insulation property (thermal
conductivity of 0.10 W/(m·K)), which improve the thermal insulation
property of CFS shear walls.
HLFC had better performances than traditional CFS shear walls:
(1) HLFC had excellent physical and mechanical properties, such as
light weight (i.e. lower density) and high compressive strength, as
listed in Table 3, which reduced the dead load of the structural
elements and the seismic base shear of the building. (2) HLFC as infill
material not only resisted vertical and horizontal loads, but also
restrained premature local buckling of studs and tilting of screws.
This is beneficial to improve the bearing capacity of the shear wall.
(3) HLFC had good thermal insulation property (thermal conductivity
was only 0.12 W/(m·K)) because of its porous internal structure. It
indicated that HLFC promoted thermal and acoustic property of the
building. (4) HLFC protected the CFS frame against fire by package
effect on CFS members, improving the fire-resistance property of
CFS frame. Therefore, CSHLFC shear wall sheathed with straw boards
has many advantages, such as shear strength, thermal insulation
property (thermal resistance of 1.92 (m2·K)/W) and sound insulation
property, compared to the traditional CFS shear wall. These advan-
tages makes the promotion and application of CSHLFC shear wall
with straw boards in the field of urban and town mid-rise green
buildings to be possible. And it also provides a new idea and a new
research direction for the further study of the CFS shear walls, ensur-
ing the sustainable development of CSHLFC shear wall structural
system.
The main objective of this study is to investigate the seismic
performance of shear walls, promoting them be applied to practice. An
experimental program was carried out to test a number of shear wall
specimens under reversed cyclic loading. The influence of various
parameters, such as HLFC density grade, stud section area, wall thick-
ness and vertical load on the seismic performance of these walls was
examined. This included the effects on failure mode, strength, ductility,
stiffness and energy-dissipation capacity. Experimental results were
compared with the current seismic evaluation standards, such as ACI
318-14, EC8 and CNS 383-16. Then, a simplified formula based on
strut-and-tie model was proposed to predict the shear strength of
shear walls.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Test specimens
Six full-scale shear wall specimens were prepared according to
Chinese Standard [16], including one CFS shear wall as the reference
specimen and five CSHLFC shear walls, which represented the part of
an existing CSHLFC shear wall building in China. HLFC density grade,
stud section area, wall thickness and vertical load were considered as
the main parameters. The wall specimens were divided into three
types considering above mentioned parameters. All specimens were
subjected to in-plane lateral reversed cyclic loading. The failure mode,
load-bearing capacity, ductility, lateral stiffness and energy dissipation
were investigated.
Table 1 summarizes the configuration details of the wall specimens.
Specimen WA-1 without HLFC was considered as the reference

Table 1
Test specimen details.

Group Specimen number Wall thickness tw (mm) Section type of CFS members (mm) HLFC density grade Vertical load (kN)

Interior studs End studsa Studs tracks

Type A WA-1 190 C90 90 × 50 × 15 × 1.0 □ C90b U93 93 × 50 × 1.0 – 120

Type B WB-1 190 C90 90 × 50 × 15 × 1.0 A05
WB-2 190 C90 90 × 50 × 15 × 1.0 A07
WB-3 190 C90 90 × 50 × 15 × 1.5 □ C90c U93 93 × 50 × 1.5 A05
Type C WC-1 240 C140 140 × 50 × 15 × 1.2 □ C140 U143 143 × 50 × 1.2
WC-2 240 C140 140 × 50 × 15 × 1.2 160

Note: a. Coupled C sections (see Fig. 2). b and c. Section thickness of the studs were 0.9 mm and 1.5 mm, respectively.
150 Z. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 143 (2018) 148–161

specimen, and other five wall specimens were casted with HLFC to
study the seismic response. And, specimens WB-1 and WB-2 were
casted with different density grade of HLFC to investigate the influence
of HLFC density grade on the seismic behavior. Specimens WB-1 and
WB-3 were assembled with the studs with different section thickness
to determine the effect of stud section area. Specimens WB-1 and WC-
1 were constructed with different wall thickness to assess the influence
of wall thickness. The different vertical loads were applied on specimens
WC-1 and WC-2.
Fig. 2 shows the specimen configurations. All specimens were
designed with a uniform geometrical size of 2400 mm wide and
3000 mm height. Specimens were composed of CFS frame, straw boards
and HLFC. CFS frame of each test specimen consisted of tracks and studs
spaced at 600 mm on center. Built-up face-to-face rectangular section
was used for the end studs, and single C-shaped section stud was placed
in the middle as interior studs. Single U-shaped section track was placed
at the top and bottom of the steel frame. The studs was connected to the
top and bottom tracks through their flanges by four ST4.8 × 19 wafer-
head self-drilling screws (4.8 mm diameter × 19 mm length), in accor-
dance with the Chinese Standard [17]. The built-up end studs were
connected to each other by steel sheets with spacing of 800 mm and
four ST4.8 × 19 screws on steel sheets, as shown in Fig. 2(d). L-shaped
section connections were placed on the top or bottom of the interior
studs, connected to the studs and tracks, as detailed in Fig. 3b. The L-
shaped connections improved the reliability of the stud-to-track
connections, compared with the traditional connection using only
screws [1,8]. Then, the straw boards with dimensions of 3000 mm
length, 1200 mm width and 50 mm thickness were placed vertically
and attached to both sides of the CFS frames using ST4.8 × 80 bugle-
head self-drilling screws.

18 mm bolt ST4.8×80
50
30

50

30
15
90
150 Straw board

15
90
150 Straw
30 Th.=50mm 30 board
Th.=1.0 mm Th.=50mm Th.=1.0/1.5mm
300 300
ST4.8×80 Interior stud ST4.8×80 Interior stud
150 150
100 100
25 50 Vertical joint 25 50 Vertical joint
3000

3000
90

Interior stud

90
C90 Interior stud Coupled
Coupled C90 C90 end Th.=1.0/1.5mm
C90 end Th.=1.0 mm stud
stud End stud End stud
HLFC
50 50
A05/A07
93

93
Hold-down Hold-dow
ST4.8×19 ST4.8×19 Bottom track
Bottom track n
ST4.8×80 Th.=1.0 mm 18 mm bolt Th.=1.0/1.5mm
15
15

Track Track
1200 1200 1200 1200
2400 Unit: mm 2400 Unit: mm

Interior stud Vertical stud ST4.8×80 End stud Interior stud

Vertical stud ST4.8×80 End stud
HLFC
90 50
50

190
190
90

50
50

600 585 30 585 600 600 585 30 585 600

2400 2400

(a) Type A specimen (b) Type B specimen

50
18mm bolt
30

15
140

150 Straw board

30 Th.=50mm
300 Th.=1.2mm
150 ST4.8×80 Interior stud
100
25 50
Vertical joint 15 Built-up
3000

end stud Steel

140

Interior stud Coupled

C140 C140 C-shaped sheet
end stud Th.=1.2 mm section stud
Steel sheet
End stud
100

HLFC ST4.8×19
A05 50
Hold-down
ST4.8×19 Bottom track
143
15

18mm bolt 50 10 0 90 0
Th.=1.2 mm
1200 1200
Track
50 90 0 14
2400 Unit: mm 14

Interior stud
Vertical stud ST4.8×80 End stud
HLFC
50 140 50
240

600 585 30 585 600

2400

(c) Type C specimen (d) Connection detail of built-up end stud

Fig. 2. Configuration of the specimens.

 Z. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 143 (2018) 148–161 151

6
0 10mm bolt End stud
12
0)
(8 ST5.5×32
ST5.3×32

Hold-down
18mm bolt
device

200
300
9
Anchor bolt
0
12 0)
150 (8 Track

(a)

ST4.8×19
1.2
Circular holes

Track 1.2

100
Interior
stud 0
100 12 0)
(8
L-shape section connector

(b)

Fig. 3. Fixed connector: (a) Hold-down device, (b) L-shape section connector.

The HLFC as filling material was cast into the cavity of the walls from
pre-punched circular holes of the top track. To satisfy the integrity and
homogeneity of HLFC, pre-punched circular holes spaced at 400 mm
on center were placed on the web of each interior stud (see Fig. 3b).
To avoid the large variation in the compressive strength, all wall speci-
mens were prepared at the same time under the same conditions.
The construction procedure for the CSHLFC shear wall specimens
was as follows: (1) The CFS frame was assembled by ST4.8 × 19 screws
and L-shaped connections; (2) The straw boards were attached to both
sides of the CFS frame by ST4.8 × 80 screws; (3) CFS shear wall was fixed
on base beam by hold-down devices and bolts (Fig. 3b); and (4) HLC
was cast into the cavity of the CFS shear wall.
polypropylene fiber, adhesive powder, water-reducing agent and
water, which mass ratio of was 1:10%:0.3%:0.1%:1.0%:35%, respective-
ly. The HLFC density grade was generated by appropriate control in
dosage of the foam, and a tolerance on HLFC density was set at
±50 kg/m3 of the target value. According to Chinese Standard JG/T
266-2011 [20], three HLFC cubes (100 × 100 × 100 mm) and three
HLFC prisms (100 × 100 × 300 mm) were cast and tested for each
density grade of HLFC (including A05-grade and A07-grade) on the
same days of the shear wall specimens. Moreover, based on the
measured data of prism tests, the elastic modules of HLFC with each
density grade were obtained. Table 4 listed the mean values of
material properties obtained from HLFC tests.

2.2. Material properties 2.3. Test setup and instrumentation

All the CFS-framed members were fabricated from the galvanized
steel sheets with the nominal yield strength of 345 MPa. For each
section type of CFS studs (including C90 and C140), three tension cou-
pon specimens were made from the same batch of steel sheets used
for the wall specimens, according to Chinese Standard GB/T 228-2010
[18]. The stress-strain characteristics of the steel sheets were obtained
from steel coupon tensile tests. Then, the mean values of the material
properties of cold-formed steels are listed in Table 2. Straw board
consisted of horizontal natural fiber was produced by using mechanical
high-pressure compression technology in high temperature condition,
thus, the straw board was considered as one-way slab and orthotropic.
For each direction of straw board, three coupon specimens were made
from the same batch of straw boards used for the wall specimens,
conforming to Chinese Standard GB/T 17657-2013 [19]. The mean
values of material properties obtained by the material tests are shown
in Table 3.
The HLFC was made from mechanical mixing of foam and cement
mixture. The cement mixture was consisted of cement, silica fume,
The experiments were performed at the Key Laboratory of RC & PC
structures of Ministry of Education, Southeast University. Fig. 4 shows
the test setup of the specimens. Vertical loads were applied to the test
specimens by a 300-kN hydraulic jack, and were transmitted to the
wall specimens via load-distributing beam and loading beam. In order
to uniformly distribute the vertical load on the top of the wall
specimens, load-distributing beam was positioned in the middle of the
hydraulic jack and loading beam. As shown in Fig. 4, the hydraulic jack
was embedded in a sliding guide to synchronize the loading point in
the horizontal movement of the test specimens, which made the hy-
draulic jack maintain the same action position on the load-distributing
beam during the test procedure. Horizontal cyclic loads were applied
by a 500-kN MTS actuator with a displacement range of ± 250 mm.
Both the vertical loads and the horizontal loads were transmitted to
the wall specimens through loading beam. The loading beam was
connected to the MTS actuator by four GB A8.8-M45 bolts [17] (see
Fig. 4b), thereby ensuring only horizontal force transmission from the
MTS actuator to the loading beam. The top and bottom track of the

Table 2
Material properties of cold-formed steel.

Section type of CFS studs Nominal thickness (mm) Yield stress fy (MPa) Ultimate stress fu (MPa) Elastic modulus Es (GPa)

C90 0.9 364.50 445.98 201.20

C140 1.2 384.42 475.48 225.87
152 Z. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 143 (2018) 148–161
Table 3
Material properties of straw board.
Surface density (kg/m2) Compressive strength fc (MPa)
20 1.2
wall specimens were connected to the loading beam and base beam by
six GB A8.8-M20 bolts [17] (see Fig. 5), respectively. Lateral supports
were located on both sides of the loading beam to prevent out-of-
plane deformations of the specimens during the tests.
Eight linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) were used to
monitor and acquire data of the displacements of the specimens under
testing. Fig. 5 shows the LVDTs locations on the wall specimens. The
displacement at the top of the specimens was composed of slip,
overturning and actual shear displacements (see Fig. 6). Eqs. (1)–(5)
were used to estimate the actual shear displacement of the specimens.
Δ ¼ Δ0 −Δ1 −Δφ
ðH=ðH−AÞÞ  R2 þ R1
Δ0 ¼
2 The crack pattern and failure mode of specimen WB-1 are shown in
Δ1 ¼ R3 −R4
H observed at the both sides of the wall, followed by cracking of straw
Δφ ¼  Δa
LþBþC
Δa ¼ ðR6 −R8 Þ−ðR5 −R7 Þ
where, Δ is the actual shear displacement of the specimens; Δ0 is the
measured displacement on the top of the specimens; Δ1 is the slip
displacement of the specimens relative to the foundation; Δφ is the
overturning displacement (Fig. 7); H is the specimens height; L is the
specimens length; A is the distance between displacement transducers
D1 and D2; B and C are the horizontal distances between the displace-
ment transducers D5, D6 and the specimen edges, respectively, and R1
to R8 are the measured values of the displacement transducers D1 to
D8, respectively.
2.4. Loading protocols
The specimens were subjected to different combinations of vertical
and lateral loads. According to ASTM Standard [21], the vertical load
applied to the specimens was maintained constant during the tests.
The lateral load was cyclic, and it started with load control cycles, in
which the amplitude of the load was increased gradually until the
level at which a turning point of the load-displacement curve appeared.
The relative displacement that corresponded to the turning point was
defined as the elastic limit displacement Δel of the specimen. The
displacement-control mode followed the ASTM Standard [20] of cycles
of 1Δel, 2Δel, 3Δel…that continued until either failure or a significant
decrease in the load bearing capacity occurred. Each specimen was
subjected to three fully reversed displacement cycles at each amplitude
level, as shown in Fig. 8.
Table 4
Material properties of HLFC.
HLFC density grade Actual average density (kg/m3) Cubes compressive strength fcu (MPa)
A05 522 3.43
A07 716 6.40
Elastic modulus Es (MPa) Static bending strength fs (MPa)
Length direction Width direction Length direction Width direction
200 440 1.6 3.4
3. Experimental results and discussion
3.1. Crack pattern and failure modes
3.1.1. Specimen WA-1
The failure mode of specimen WA-1 was shown in Fig. 9. The tilting
and sinking of screws were observed at 19.6 kN lateral load at the
corners of the wall, followed by the diagonal extrusion wrinkles of
straw boards at the top and bottom of the wall (see Fig. 9a). When the
lateral displacement reached 24.4 mm (8.1‰ drift), distortion buckling
of end studs occurred on bottom and top due to the loss of straw board
restraint. After the removal of straw boards, distortion buckling was also
ð1Þ
observed at the top and bottom of interior studs (see Fig. 9b).
3.1.2. Specimen WB-1
ð2Þ
Figs. 10(a) and 12(a). When the lateral load was 41.3 kN, judging from
tiny sound coming from the wall interior, HLFC cracks appeared due to
ð3Þ
the lower tensile strength of HLFC. When the lateral displacement
reached 31.6 mm, diagonal extrusion wrinkles of straw boards were
ð4Þ
board. Sharp sound of crushing of HLFC can be heard at top of the wall
when the lateral displacement was 41.9–85.5 mm. Local buckling of
end studs at top and bottom occurred at a lateral load of 86.2 kN and a
ð5Þ
lateral displacement of 47.6 mm (1.6% drift). After the removal of
straw boards, HLFC has been crushed at top of the wall, where local
bucking of interior studs was observed. Inclined cracks of the HLFC
were observed in the whole wall owing to the low tensile strength of
HLFC. Relative slippage occurred between the stud and HLFC due to
bonding failure between the stud web and HLFC.
3.1.3. Specimen WB-2
The crack pattern and failure mode of specimen WB-2 were basically
the same as that of specimen WB-1, except for no local bucking of studs
at the bottom and a large crushing area of HLFC after failure, as shown in
Fig. 10(b). The specimen was failed at ultimate lateral load of 86.6 kN
and corresponding lateral displacement of 95.3 mm (3.2% drift).
3.1.4. Specimen WB-3
The failure mode of specimen WB-3 was nearly the same as that of
specimen WB-2. Horizontal concave-convex deformation of the end
stud web was observed at a lateral load of 88.9 kN and corresponding
lateral displacement of 25.8 mm, as shown in Fig. 10(c). The HLFC at
top of the wall was crushed slightly due to large cross-sectional area
of steel frame resisting most of the loads. Crack patterns of HLFC in
specimen WB-3 showed a similar to that in specimen WB-1.
3.1.5. Specimen WC-1
The crack pattern and failure mode of specimen WC-1 are shown in
Figs. 11(a)–(c) and 12(b). When the lateral load reached 65.4 kN, the
specimen started to send out some tiny sounds, which indicated the
Prism compressive strength fc (MPa) Elastic modulus Ec (GPa)
2.56 0.34
5.12 0.65
 Z. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 143 (2018) 148–161 153

Reaction
Top beam Sliding support wall

Distribution beam Hydraulic jack

Horizontal sliding
Loading MTS
beam hydraulic
Test specimen actuator
(2.4m×3.0m) Test frame

Base beam

Four M45 bolts

(a) Schematic drawing (b) photo

Fig. 4. Test setup of specimens.

appearing of HLFC cracks. After the lateral displacement of 42.5 mm,
diagonal extrusion wrinkles and cracks of straw boards were observed
successively. Sharp sound of HLFC crushing can be heard from the top
of the wall at a lateral displacement of 52.4 mm (1.7% drift) and a
corresponding ultimate lateral load of 108.5 kN. Crushing of the HLFC
was accompanied by the horizontal concave-convex deformation of
end stud web, resulting in the loss of the bearing capacity of the wall.
After the removal of straw boards, crushing of HLFC was observed at
the wall top, and relative slippage occurred between the end stud and
HLFC. Inclined cracks of the HLFC were mainly distributed at the bottom
of the wall.
3.1.6. Specimen WC-2
The crack pattern and failure mode of specimen WC-2 showed the
basically same as that of specimen WC-1, particularly the crack patterns
of HLFC, but the local buckling of all studs at the top were observed in
the specimen WC-2, as shown in Fig. 11(d).
3.2. Hysteresis behavior
Fig. 13 shows the load-displacement hysteresis curves of the test
specimens. These hysteresis curves are generated using the actual
shear displacement and the corresponding lateral load, which are
calculated using Eqs. (1)–(5). The hysteresis curves are characteristic
of shear walls controlled by shear-bending deformation. Although
pinching of hysteresis curves is obvious, the curves are nearly stable
and symmetric during the testing stage.
D1
A=200mm
The figure shows that the curves show linear at early stage of
loading. As the load increases, the curves change from linear to
spindle-shaped due to cracking of HLFC and sinking of some screws.
Then, an increase in the amount of HLFC cracks results in a turning
point in the curves, which shows that the specimens enter the yield
stage. After the yield stage, pinching is clearly observed from the curves
due to cracking of HLFC and straw board, and the curves show typical
arch-shaped. At the peak load, the curves change from arch-shaped to
reverse S-shaped. The pinching is much obvious in the curves. This is
mainly because of crushing of HLFC and local buckling of studs. After
the peak load, the pinching becomes more severe owing to relative
slippage between the HFC and studs. Together with cumulate damage,
this leads to the degradation of load-bearing capacity and stiffness.
The following observations are made based on the test results
presented in Fig. 13:
• For Type A specimen, pinching of the curve is observed mainly due to
sinking of screws and distortion buckling of the studs. Compared to
traditional CFS shear wall [1–2], the curve exhibits slight slipping
characteristics. This indicates that straw board enhances the energy-
dissipation capacity of the wall by restricting screw displacement,
compared with the traditional sheathing.
• For Type B and C specimens, pinching of the curve are more noticeable
compared with that of Type A specimen. This is mainly caused by
cracking of the HLFC and straw board, and relative slippage between
the HLFC and the studs, which improve the ductility and energy
dissipation capacity of the wall.
• Increasing HLFC density grade, stud cross-sectional area and wall
thickness improve the load-bearing capacity of the shear walls, but
these have little effect on the no-load slipping and pinching of the

curve.
D2

3.3. Envelope curves

Fig. 14 shows the envelope curves of the test specimens under cyclic
loading. During the initial loading stage, the envelope curves for Type B
H

and C specimens remain linear, and show the similar stiffness.

Compared with Type A specimen (i.e. specimen WA-1), the specimens
have higher load-bearing capacity and stiffness due to the bearing
D5 D6
capacity of HLFC and its restrictive effect on the steel frame. After the
peak load, for specimen WA-1, there is a rapid descending stage of the
600

D7 D8
D3 curve without obvious plastic stage, which indicates bad ductility and
D4 brittleness damage. On the contrary, the curves of Type B and C
B=100mm C=100mm specimens have peak platforms before descending stage, and decrease
gradually with the increase of displacement after the peak load, which
Fig. 5. Locations of LVDTs on the specimens. exhibits good ductility. The mainly reason is that cracking of HLFC and
154 Z. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 143 (2018) 148–161

Δ Δ0 Δ1 Δφ

The actual shear The measured Overturning

Slip displacement
displacement displacement displacement

Fig. 6. Shear-displacement model of all specimens.

straw board, and relative slippage between the HLFC and studs occurs
gradually. This indicates that HLFC not only increases the load-bearing
capacity of the wall, but also improves lateral stiffness and ductility
performance.
It is evident from the comparison of envelope curves in Fig. 14 that
increasing HLFC density grade and wall thickness (i.e. HLFC dosage)
improves the bearing capacity and lateral stiffness of the wall, but
increasing the sectional area of the studs has little effect on those. The
above finding shows that the most effective way of improving bearing
capacity and stiffness of the wall is to increase the compressive strength
and cross-sectional area of HLFC. The reason is that HLFC not only resists
lateral load with steel frame, but also improves the bearing capacity of
studs by restricting studs' lateral deformation.
3.4. Ductility
Ductility coefficient is an important indicator for the seismic perfor-
mance of the shear wall. In this study, displacement ductility coefficient
is used to analyze the ductility of the specimens:
before collapse. The comparison results between Type B and C speci-
mens indicate that increasing HLFC density grade, stud section area
and wall thickness improve the ductility of the wall (increased by
15.3–22.6%). Although increasing the vertical load improves the axial
compression of the wall, this decreases its shear deformation. The
ductility coefficient of specimen WC-2 is reduced by 24.7%, compared
to that of specimen WC-1.
3.5. Stiffness characteristic
Previous research shows that most of the CFS shear wall structures
failed as a result of the sudden loss of stiffness with increasing lateral
movement in the historical earthquake [1–2]. It is therefore essential
to evaluate stiffness property of the CSHLFC shear wall. The stiffness
property is evaluated base on the secant stiffness, which is calculated
from Eq. (7)
jþP i j þ j−P i j
Ki ¼ ð7Þ
jþΔi j þ j−Δi j

μ ¼ Δu =Δy
where the yielding displacement Δy and ultimate displacement Δu are
calculated using the methods recommended by AISI [22] and ECCS
[23], respectively, as shown in Fig. 15.
Table 5 summarizes the calculated ductility coefficients of the test
specimens. It can be seen that the difference between the results obtain-
ed by the ECCS Recommendation and the AISI Standard is relatively
small. It is therefore recommended to use the values obtained using
AISI Standard to evaluate the ductility of the specimens. Specimen
WA-1 exhibits poor ductility because of distortion buckling of the
studs and the resulting rapid decrease in the load-bearing capacity
(see Fig. 14). However, the ductility coefficient of specimen WB-1 is
increased by 2.1 times compared with specimen WA-1. This indicates
that CSHLFC shear wall exhibits much better ductility than CFS shear
wall. The main reason is that a certain amount of slippage between
ð6Þ where i is loading cycle number; Ki, Pi and Δi are secant stiffness, peak
load, and corresponding lateral for the first loading cycle i, respectively.
Fig. 16 shows the secant stiffness–displacement curves of the test
specimens, which reflect the stiffness degradation of the shear wall.
During the initial loading stage, due to the failure of most screw
connections, the secant stiffness of specimen WA-1 is reduced dramat-
ically, and the secant stiffness degradation curve has a catastrophe
point, which is an undesirable effect on the structural seismic
performance. On the contrary, there are no obvious catastrophe points
in the secant stiffness degradation curves of Type B and C specimens,
because the HLFC effectively restricts most screw deformation. Initial
secant stiffness of Type B and C specimens is 25.0–28.8 kN/mm, which
are 4.0–4.6 times that of specimen WA-1. After yielding stage, the
160 80
3Δel
Lateral Displacement (mm)

120 2Δel 60
the HLFC and studs, HLFC cracking and straw board cracking remarkably
increase the ultimate displacement of the specimens. The use of HLFC 80 Δel 40
Lateral Load (kN)

contributes to the wall sustains further elastoplastic deformations 40 20

Δφ 0 0
-40 -20
-80 -40
-120 -60
H

φ -160 -80
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Cycle number
Δa

φ
L+B+C Force control Displacement control

Fig. 7. Overturning displacement. Fig. 8. Horizontal loading protocol.

 Z. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 143 (2018) 148–161 155

Diagonal wrinkles Top and bottom

Distortion buckling
of studs

(a) (b)

Fig. 9. Failure modes of wall specimen (Type A).

stiffness degradation rate of Type B and C specimens is relatively slow.
The results indicate that CSHLFC shear walls not only have higher stiff-
ness, but also delay stiffness degradation compared with that of CFS
shear wall. Moreover, it proves that the capacity of elastoplastic
deformation of CSHLFC shear walls is better than CFS shear walls. This
is mainly because of HLFC contributes to the increase of overall stiffness
of the wall. Hence, the application on HLFC is significantly necessary for
CFS shear wall to improve the seismic performance in earthquake
region.
From Fig. 16, it is observed that the overall trends of the secant
stiffness degradation are generally similar. At the peak load, the secant
stiffness of specimens WB-2, WB-3 and WC-1 are 3.5, 2.8 and
4.7 kN/mm, which increased by 59.0%, 27.2% and 113.6% compared
with that of specimen WB-1 (secant stiffness is 2.2 kN/mm), respective-
ly. These results indicate that the most effective way of improving
stiffness is to increase wall thickness, followed by increasing HLFC
density grade, stud cross-sectional area (Table 5). However, increasing
vertical load has no obvious effect on stiffness, as shown in Fig. 16.

Local bucking
Cracking of
of stud
straw board

Relative slippage

(a)

Crushing of HLFC
Concave-convex
deformation of stud

(b) (c)

Fig. 10. Failure modes of wall specimens (Type B): (a) WB-1; (b) WB-2; (c) WB-3.
156 Z. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 143 (2018) 148–161

Cracking of
straw board

Crushing of HLFC

Diagonal Concave-convex Local bucking

Relative slippage
wrinkles deformation of stud

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 11. Failure modes of wall specimens (Type C): (a)-(c) WC-1; (d) WC-2.

3.6. Energy dissipation capacity
Energy dissipation capacity is estimated by calculating the areas
inside the hysteretic loops of the wall, and cumulative energy dissipa-
tion capacity is defined as the sum of the area enclosed by all hysteretic
loops. Two parameters, namely equivalent viscous damping coefficient
he [24] and cumulative dissipated energy E [25], are used to evaluate
the energy dissipation capacity of the walls under reversed cyclic
loading. The he and E are determined from Eqs. (8)–(9)
1 SBAC þ SCBD
he ¼
2π SODE þ SOAF
X
n¼i
E¼ En
n¼1
where SBAC + SCBD is dissipated energy in a loading cycle on the
hysteresis curve; SOAE + SOCF is energy absorbed by a linear elastic
body equivalent to the specimen, defined as the areas surrounded by
the triangles OAE and OCF; E is cumulative dissipated energy obtained
by the accumulation of continuous integration of areas enclosed by
every hysteresis loop, as shown in Fig. 17.
Fig. 18 shows equivalent viscous damping coefficients of all
specimens at the first loading cycle. During the initial loading stage,
the he values of all specimens increase and then decrease with the in-
crease of displacement. The decrease of he indicates that the walls are
damaged and the damage is accumulated, which is caused by the
cracking of HLFC and the tilting of the screws. After this, the value of
he increases with the increase of displacement, and the final he of Type
B and C specimens is 21.0–25.2%, which is slightly higher than that of
specimen WA-1 (the final he is 18.8%). The energy dissipation capacity
of the CSHLFC shear wall is higher than that of CFS shear wall. This is
mainly because some energy is dissipated through the cracking of
HLFC and straw boards, and the relative slippage between the HLFC
and studs. After the peak load, the comparison results between Type B
and C specimens indicate that increasing HLFC density grade, stud
section area and wall thickness improve the energy dissipation capacity
ð8Þ
of the wall to some extent, but vertical load decreases the energy
dissipation capacity.
Fig. 19 shows cumulative dissipated energy E of all specimens at
ð9Þ
each loading cycle. The increase rate of E of each specimen constantly
increases with the increase of displacement. The ultimate-loading E of
specimens WB-1, WB-2, WB-3, WC-1 and WC-2 are 55.6, 85.5, 59.7,
115.1, and 62.2 kJ, which are increased by 5.3, 8.2, 5.6, 11.0 and 5.9
times compared with specimen WA-1. These results indicate that the
Energy dissipation capacities of CSHLFC shear walls are significantly
higher than that of CFS shear wall, despite the fact that the difference
between the final he of CSHLFC shear walls and CFS shear wall is
relatively small (see Fig. 18). Therefore, accurately evaluating the
energy dissipation capacity of the wall should base on the comprehen-
sive analysis of he and E [24–25]. After the peak load, the E values of
type B and C specimens are different under the same displacement

(a) (b)
Fig. 12. Typical crack patterns of HLFC: (a) Type B specimen, (b) Type C specimen.
 Z. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 143 (2018) 148–161 157

Drift (%) Drift (%) Drift (%)

-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
120 120 120
WA-1 90 WB-1 WB-2
90 90
Peak load Peak load
60 Peak load 60 60

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
30 30 30
0 0 0
-30 -30 -30
Ultimate load Ultimate load
-60 Ultimate load -60 -60
-90 -90 -90
-120 -120 -120
-120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 -120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 -120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

(a) WA-1 (b) WB-1 (c) WB-2

Drift (%) Drift (%) Drift (%)

-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
120 120 120
90 WB-3 90 WC-1 90 WC-2
Peak load Peak load Peak load
60 60 60
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

Load (kN)
30 30 30
0 0 0
-30 -30 -30
-60 Ultimate load -60 Ultimate load -60 Ultimate load
-90 -90 -90
-120 -120 -120
-120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 -120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 -120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

(d) WB-3 (e) WC-1 (f) WC-2

Fig. 13. Load-displacement hysteretic curves of all specimens.

due to the effect of the different configuration on E. Comparison of the cross-sectional area. And, it is observed that increasing vertical load
results at the ultimate load between Type B and C specimens shows decreases the energy dissipation capacity.
that the most effective of improving energy dissipation capacity is to
increase wall thickness, followed by HLFC density grade and stud 4. Calculation on load-bearing capacity

4.1. Standards for shear walls

120
Load (kN) ACI 318-14 [26] is one of the main standards for the seismic evalua-
90 tion of concrete structures. It gives explicit estimations of lateral load for
Peak platform structural members. In this study, experimental results are compared
60
with the calculated results obtained from ACI 318-14. The following for-
Linear 30 mulas are used to calculate the shear strength Vn of concrete shear wall:
0
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 Vn ¼ Vc þ Vs ð10Þ
-30 Displacement (mm)
qffiffiffiffiffi
0
-60 WA-1 WB-1 V c1 ¼ 3:3 f c hb þ Nu d=4lw ð11Þ
WB-2 WB-3
-90 WC-1 WC-2  qffiffiffiffiffi  qffiffiffiffiffi  
0 0 Nu
V c2 ¼ 0:6 f c þ lw 1:25 f c þ 0:2 =ðMu =V u −lw =2Þ hd ð12Þ
-120 lw h

Fig. 14. Envelope curves of test specimens. V c ¼ minðV c1 ; V c2 Þ ð13Þ

Bilinear model Bilinear model 0.1k0

Pmax Pmax
Py
Pu
=0.8Pmax
Py
=(Pu) Experimental
Experimental
envelope
A2 envelope curve
A1 curve
Area(A1)=Area(A2)
k0

0 Δy Δmax Δu 0 Δy Δmax Δu

(a) (b)

Fig. 15. Definition of yield displacement and lateral load: (a) AISI Standard and (b) ECCS Recommendation.
158 Z. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 143 (2018) 148–161

Table 5
Test results.
P(kN)
A
Group Specimen ASTM Standard ECCS Recommendation
number
Δy Δu μASTM Δy Δu μECCS
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

Type A WA-1 8.6 46.9 5.5 6.2 48.9 7.9 E C

Type B WB-1 7.6 87.8 11.5 6.1 84.4 13.8
B O F Δ(mm)
WB-2 6.8 92.1 13.6 5.2 86.3 16.6
WB-3 6.3 88.4 14.1 4.2 88.4 21.1
Type C WC-1 5.8 98.3 16.6 4.8 91.3 19.2
WC-2 6.6 82.5 12.5 5.1 85.5 16.7

D
V s ¼ Av f y d=s ð14Þ
Fig. 17. Definition of equivalent viscous damping coefficient.
where Vc is the shear strength provided by concrete, Vs is the shear
strength provided by horizontal reinforcement, fc′ is the compressive
strength of a standard cylinder in units of MPa, fy is the yielding strength Table 6 shows the calculated and measured shear strength of
of horizontal reinforcement, Nu is the axial load. The rest can be found in specimens. For ACI 318-14, EC8 and CNS 383-16, the averages ratios of
the reference of ACI 318-14 standard [26]. the calculated values to the tested values of CSHLFC shear walls are
EC8 [27] is another main standards for designing of structures for 2.36, 1.85 and 1.32, with overall coefficients of variation of 0.32, 0.05
earthquake resistance, and give explicit estimations of the shear capac- and 0.16, respectively. Due to the different configurations and materials
ity for the shear wall. The results obtained by using EC8 standard are in shear walls compared to those in the available standards, the existing
compared with that from experimental results. The following formula calculation formulas from the standards are not suitable for predicting
are used to calculate the shear strength Vcalc of concrete shear wall shear strength of CSHLFC shear walls.
using EC8 standard:
     4.2. Strut-and-tie model for CSHLFC shear walls
Mn Mn 1:5P n
V calc ¼ ρh f yh −0:3 þ ρh f yh 1:30− t w dw if 0 b0:1
V n Lw V n Lw Ac f c Strut-and-Tie models have been widely used to predict the shear
ð15Þ strength of concrete structures, whereby complex stress fields inside a
structural member are simplified into discrete compressive and tensile
qffiffiffiffiffi     
0 Mn Mn force paths [28–30]. With the aid of the strut-and-tie model, a better
V calc ¼ 0:15t w dw f c þ ρh f yh −0:3 þ ρh f yh 1:30− t w dw
V n Lw V n Lw visualization and understanding of the internal force distribution and
1:5P n the mechanism of force transfer can be achieved. Hence, the shear
if 0 N0:1
Ac f c force transfer mechanism of shear walls has been investigated by
ð16Þ many researchers [29–31].
According to test observations, the failure mechanisms of CSHLFC
where Mu/(Vn·Lw) is moment-to-shear ratio, and Pu is the axial load. shear walls were dominated by crushing of HLFC at the ends of the
CNS 383-16 [16] is a special standard for seismic evaluation of diagonal strut and cracking of HLFC in the whole wall. Hence, it is
lightweight steel and lightweight concrete structures. It gives explicit rational to use a strut-and-tie model to predict the shear strength of
estimations of shear strength for lightweight steel shear walls with CSHLFC shear walls. Fig. 20 shows the force transfer mechanism in a
foamed concrete. In this study, experimental results are compared CSHLFC shear wall based on the strut-and-tie model. Shear force
with the analytical results obtained from CNS 383-16. The formula transfer path of the strut-and-tie model is determined based on the
given in CNS 383-16 for estimating shear wall's shear strength V is crack pattern observed from the tests. The following assumptions are
shown as follows: made in the strut-and-tie models: (1) Horizontal tie is made up of the
horizontal fiber of straw board. (2) The vertical tie includes only the
V ¼ ð0:5 f t Ac þ 0:08NÞ=ðλ−0:5Þ þ 0:25f a Aah hwo =s ð17Þ interior studs and excludes the end studs [28–29]. (3) For diagonal
compression failure, the shear strength of shear wall is defined as the
where ft and Ac are tensile strength and cross-sectional area of light-
weight concrete respectively, fa and Aah are tensile strength and cross-
sectional area of lightweight steel respectively, and λ is shear span ratio. 30
Equivalent viscous damping coefficient he (%)

Cracking Peak load stage

30 25
WA-1 WB-1 of HLFC
WB-2 WB-3
Secant stiffness K (kN/mm)

25 WC-1 WC-2 20
20
Yield stage 15
15 of CSHLFC
10
10 Catastrophe point
of CFS Cracking of WA-1 WB-1
5 straw board WB-2 WB-3
5
WC-1 WC-2

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 16. Comparisons of secant stiffness degradation of test specimens. Fig. 18. Equivalent viscous damping coefficient of test specimens.
 Z. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 143 (2018) 148–161 159

1200
WA-1 WB-1
N HLFC crushing
Cumulative dissipated energy E (×102J) WB-2 WB-3
Vu A B
1000 WC-1 WC-2 N
Horizontal strut

1500
800 Vu
Ultimate load stage

Vertical tie
Flat strut

Vertical strut
600

3000
Peak load stage D C
400 Diagonal strut
Steep strut

1500
200 Horizontal tie

θ
0
E F
0 20 40 60 80 100 LFC cracking
Displacement (mm)
1200 1200
Fig. 19. Cumulative dissipated energy of test specimens. 2400

Fig. 20. Details of Strut-and-Tie model.

HLFC compressive stress on the nodal zone, when the concrete reaches
its capacity. The HLFC bearing force is the summation of compressions
from the diagonal, flat, and steep struts. The effective area of the diagonal strut Astr is defined as:
By assuming the failure criteria as the HLFC crushing near the ends of
the diagonal strut, the shear strength Vu can be estimated as: Astr ¼ aw  bw ð22Þ

0
V u ¼ C d cosθ ¼ Kζ f c Astr cosθ ð18Þ aw ¼ as ð23Þ

where Cd is the diagonal compressive strength, θ is the inclination angle
of the diagonal compression strut with respect to horizontal axis, K is
the strut-and-tie index, ζ is the softening coefficient of the cracked
HLFC in compression, fc′ is the compressive strength of a standard
cylinder in units of MPa, and Astr is the effective area of the diagonal
strut. Above parameters particularly associated with CSHLFC shear
wall are defined as follow, and the rest can be found in the reference
[30].
The value of K can be estimated approximately as:
K ¼ K h þ K v −1
where Kh is the horizontal tie index, Kv is the vertical tie index, and the
calculation formula can be found in the reference of Hwang and Lee
[30].
The softening coefficient ζ can be defined as:
qffiffiffiffiffi
0
ζ ¼ 3:35= f c ≤0:52
As shown in Fig. 21, the inclination angle θ can be expressed as:
θ ¼ tan−1 ðHw =dw Þ
" #
N
as ¼ 0:25 þ 0:85 0 Lw ð24Þ
Aw f c
where as is the horizontal length of the compression zone at the wall
base; aw is the uniform width of HLFC diagonal strut as a prismatic
form, although the diagonal strut normally has a bottle-shaped form
[29]; Aw is the cross-sectional area of the HLFC; Lw and bw is the horizon-
tal length and thickness of the wall respectively, N is the axial load.
Table 7 compares the measured shear strengths with predictions of
the strut-and-tie model. The mean of the test-to-calculated strength
ð19Þ
ratio is 1.12, with a variation coefficient of 0.08. This confirms that the
strut-and-tie model is better for estimating the shear strength of the
CSHLFC shear wall. Table 7 also indicates that the calculated shear
strengths are slightly higher than the test results, arising from relative
slippage between the stud and the HLFC. Hence, in order to impose
conservative and accurate predictions of shear strength, a reduction
coefficient η is introduced into the Eq. (18) to consider the influence
ð20Þ of relative slippage behavior on shear strength of the wall. Base on the
mean of the test-to-calculated shear strength ratio in Table 7, it is
recommended that the value of η is equal to 0.85 for conservative
predictions of shear strength in the design process (i.e. Vdsst/Vmax b 1).
Finally, a new design formula for accurately predicting the walls' shear
ð21Þ strength Vdsst is proposed as shown in Eq. (25).

0
where Hw is the distance from point of application of Vu to base; and dw V dsst ¼ ηKζ f c Astr cosθ ð25Þ
is the horizontal length between the tensile and compressive forces in
the end studs. where η is a reduction coefficient of relative slippage on shear strength.

Table 6
Calculated and measured shear strength of specimens.

Specimen number Test result of shear strength, Vmax Calculated strength based on the standards

ACI 318-14, VACI VACI-14/Vmax EC8, VEC VEC/Vmax CNS 383-16, VCNS VCNS/Vmax

WB-1 84.57 186.37 2.20 160.06 1.89 106.45 1.26

WB-2 118.75 260.53 2.46 185.83 1.76 161.00 1.36
WB-3 98.75 186.37 1.89 184.69 1.87 106.45 1.08
WC-1 108.06 285.84 2.65 202.90 1.88 158.30 1.47
WC-2 111.05 288.28 2.60 202.90 1.83 161.50 1.45
Average 2.36 – 1.85 – 1.32
Coefficient of variation 0.32 – 0.05 – 0.16
160 Z. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 143 (2018) 148–161

N steel frame. Initial secant stiffness of CSHLFC shear walls are 4.0–4.6
Vu
times that of CFS shear wall. The most effective way of improving
stiffness is to increase wall thickness, followed by increasing HLFC
density grade and stud section area, but increasing vertical load has
no obvious effect on stiffness.
3. Due to the cracking of HLFC and straw board, and relative slippage
between the HLFC and the studs, CSHLFC shear walls exhibit better
Hw ductility and energy dissipation capacity than those of CFS shear
aw wall, but the pinching of the hysteresis curves are more obvious
than CFS shear wall. Ductility coefficients of specimen WB-1 are
increased by 2.1 times compared with specimen WA-1. Increasing
θ HLFC density grade, stud section area and wall thickness improve
the ductility to different extent, but increasing vertical load decreases
the ductility. The values of ductility coefficient of CSHLFC shear walls
as bw are mainly between 11.5 and 16.6.
4. The equivalent viscous damping coefficient and cumulative
Lw
dissipated energy of CSHLFC shear walls are larger than that of CFS
shear wall. The cumulative dissipated energy of specimen WB-1 at
Fig. 21. Descriptions of HLFC diagonal strut.
ultimate load is increased by 5.3 times compared with specimen
WA-1, while the corresponding he is 21.0%. Increase wall thickness
is favorable and effective in improving energy dissipation capacity,
Table 7 followed by HLFC density grade and stud section area, but increasing
Calculated and measured shear strength of specimens.
vertical load decreases the energy dissipation capacity.
Specimen Test result of Calculated Vsst/Vmax Calculated Vdsst/Vmax 5. The estimated values of the shear strength obtained by strut-and-tie
number maximum strength strength based on model are better than those predicted by ACI 318-14, EC8 and CNS
shear based on design formula,
383-16 standards. A simplified design formula obtained by the
strength, Vmax SST, Vsst Vdsst
strut-and-tie model is adopted to estimate the shear strength of
WB-1 84.57 88.14 1.04 74.92 0.89
CSHLFC shear walls. Considering the influence of bond-slip behavior
WB-2 118.75 137.58 1.16 117.0 0.99
WB-3 98.75 113.50 1.15 96.47 0.98 on the shear strength, a reduction coefficient η (η = 0.85) of relative
WC-1 108.06 116.32 1.08 98.87 0.91 slippage on shear strength is introduced into the design formula.
WC-2 111.05 128.79 1.16 109.47 0.99
Average 1.12 – 0.99
Acknowledgments
Coefficient of variation 0.08 – 0.05

This word was supported by the National “Twelfth Five-Year” Plan

for Science & Technology Support of China (No. 2015BAL03B02-02).

The comparative results between the proposed design formula References

(Eq. (25)), the formula based on the strut-and-tie model (Eq. (18))
and those presented in the design codes (ACI 318-14, EC8 and CNS
383-16), together with the values of corresponding average and
variation coefficient, are shown in Tables 6 and 7. The figures clearly
demonstrate the superiority of the proposed design formula expressed
by the uniformity of predictions. The mean of the test-to-calculated
shear strength ratio is 0.99, with a variation coefficient of 0.05. In
addition, by comparing the experimental results with those of the
calculated shear strength of the CSHLFC shear walls based on the design
equation with a reduction coefficient of relative slippage on shear
strength, it is concluded that both results are in accordance. Therefore,
the design formula can serve as a theoretical platform for accurate
predictions of shear strength of the CSHLFC shear wall.
5. Conclusion
Based on the experimental and analytical results and discussions,
the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. HLFC as a new type of foamed concrete not only significantly
improves the seismic performance of CFS shear wall with straw
boards, but also makes the failure mode change from brittle failure
into ductile failure. Failure modes typically include cracking and
local crushing of the HLFC, cracking of the straw boards, local
buckling of the studs, and relative slippage between the HLFC and
the studs.
2. Compared with CFS shear wall, the load-bearing capacity and lateral
stiffness of CSHLFC shear walls are significantly improved because of
the bearing capacity of HLFC and the restrictive effect of HLFC on the
[1] O. Iuorio, L. Fiorino, R. Landolfo, Testing CFS structures: the new school BFS in
Naples, Thin-Walled Struct. 84 (2014) 275–288.
[2] K.D. Peterman, M.J.J. Stehman, R.L. Madsen, S.G. Buonopane, N. Nakata, B.W. Schafer,
Experimental seismic response of a full-scale cold-formed steel-framed building. II:
subsystem-level response, J. Struct. Eng. 142 (2016) 4016128.
[3] Cheng Yu, Yujie Chen, Detailing recommendations for 1.83 m wide cold-formed
steel shear walls with steel sheathing, J. Constr. Steel Res. 67 (2011) 93–101.
[4] Mohammad Reza Javaheri-Tafti, Hamid R. Ronagh, Farhad Behnamfar, Parham
Memarzadeh, An experimental investigation on the seismic behavior of cold-
formed steel walls sheathed by thin steel plates, Thin-Walled Struct. 80 (2014)
66–79.
[5] Nader K.A. Attari, S. Alizadeh, S. Hadidi, Investigation of CFS shear walls with one
and two-sided steel sheeting, J. Constr. Steel Res. 122 (2016) 292–307.
[6] S. Mohebbi, R. Mirghaderi, F. Farahbod, A.B. Sabbagh, Experimental work on single
and double-sided steel sheathed cold-formed steel shear walls for seismic actions,
Thin-Walled Struct. 91 (2015) 50–62.
[7] Nader K.A. Attari, S. Alizadeh, S. Hadidi, Investigation of CFS shear walls with one
and two-sided steel sheeting, J. Constr. Steel Res. 122 (2016) 292–307.
[8] V. Macillo, L. Fiorino, R. Landolfo, Seismic response of cold-formed steel shear walls
sheathed with nailed gypsum panels: experimental tests, Thin-Walled Struct. 120
(2017) 161–171.
[9] Hui-Wen Tian, Yuan-Qi Li, Cheng Yu, Testing of steel sheathed cold-formed steel
trussed shear walls, Thin-Walled Struct. 94 (2015) 280–292.
[10] Xingxing Wang, Jihong Ye, Cyclic testing of two- and three-story CFS shear-walls
with reinforced end studs, J. Constr. Steel Res. 121 (2016) 13–28.
[11] Y.U. Qi-tong, P.A.N. Peng, S.U. Yu-kun, Experimental study on seismic behavior of
light-gauge steel wall filled with glazed hollow bead mortar, Eng. Mech. 32 (3)
(2015) 151–157 (in Chinese).
[12] Péter Hegyi, László Dunai, Experimental investigations on ultra-lightweight-
concrete encased cold-formed steel structures Part II: stability behavior of elements
subjected to compression, Thin-Walled Struct. 101 (2016) 100–108.
[13] P. Prabha, V. Marimuthu, M. Saravanan, G.S. Palani, N. Lakshmanan, Effect of con-
finement on steel-concrete composite light-weight load-bearing wall panels
under compression, J. Constr. Steel Res. 81 (2013) 11–19.
[14] Md Azree Othuman Mydin, Y.C. Wang, Structural performance of lightweight steel-
foamed concrete–steel composite walling system under compression, Thin-Walled
Struct. 49 (2011) 66–76.
 Z. Xu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 143 (2018) 148–161
[15] General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of P.R.
China, Code for Thermal Design of Civil Building, GB 50176-2016, PRC, Beijing, 2016.
[16] Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development of P.R. China, General
Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection, and Quarantine of P.R. China,
Technical Specification of Lightweight Steel and Lightweight Concrete Structures,
JGJ 383-2016, PRC, Beijing, 2016.
[17] General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of P.R.
China, Drilling Screws With Tapping Screw Thread, GB 15856-2002, PRC, Beijing,
2002.
[18] General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of P.R.
China, Standardization Administration of P.R. China, Metallic Materials—Tensile
Testing—Part 1: Method of Test at Room Temperature, GB/T 228.1-2010, PRC,
Beijing, 2011.
[19] General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of P.R.
China, Test Methods of Evaluating the Properties of Wood-Based Panels and Surface
Decorated Wood-Based Panels, GB/T 17657-2013, PRC, Beijing, 2013.
[20] Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development of P.R. China, General
Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection, and Quarantine of P.R. China,
Foamed Concrete, JG/T 266-2011, PRC, Beijing, 2011.
[21] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Standard Test Methods for
Cyclic (Reversed) Load Test for Shear Resistance of Walls for Buildings, ASTM
E2126-11West Conshohocken, USA 2011.
[22] American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), North American Standard for Cold-formed
Steel Framing—Lateral Design, AISI S213Washington, DC, USA 2007.
161
[23] European Convention for Construction Steelwork, Recommended Testing Procedure
for Assessing the Behaviour of Structural Elements Under Cyclic Loads, 1985.
[24] Shaochun Ma, Nan Jiang, Seismic experimental study on new-type composite
exterior wallboard with integrated structural function and insulation, Materials 8
(2015) 3732–3753.
[25] Dejian Shen, Qun Yang, Jiao Yang, Zhenghua Cui, Jinyang Zhang, Experimental
investigations on reinforced concrete shear walls strengthened with basalt fiber-
reinforced polymers under cyclic load, Constr. Build. Mater. 136 (2017) 217–229.
[26] ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
Commentary (ACI 318-14), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014.
[27] European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Design of Structures for Earth-
quake Resistance, Part 1: General Rules, Seismic and Rules for Buildings. Eurocode
8. BS EN 1998-1, BSI British Standards, London, 2004.
[28] S.J. Hwang, H.J. Lee, Analytical model for predicting shear strengths of exterior rein-
forced concrete beam-column joints for seismic resistance, ACI Struct. J. 5 (1996)
846–857.
[29] S.J. Hwang, W.H. Fang, H.J. Lee, H.W. Yu, Analytical model for predicting shear
strength of squat walls, ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 127 (1) (2001) 43–50.
[30] S.J. Hwang, H.J. Lee, Strength prediction for discontinuity regions by softened strut-
and-tie model, ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 128 (12) (2002) 1519–1526.
[31] Wael Kassem, Shear strength of squat walls: a strut-and-tie model and closed-form
design formula, Eng. Struct. 84 (2015) 430–438.