Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106439

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Behavior of L-joint composed of steel-plate composite wall

and reinforced concrete wall
Neng Wang a, Feng Zhou a,b,⁎, Zhongcheng Li c, Zhengyu Xu c, Haitao Xu c
a
Department of Structural Engineering, Tongji University, 1239 Siping Road, Shanghai 200092, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
c
State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Power Safety Monitoring Technology and Equipment, ShenZhen, Guangdong 518000, China

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

Article history: The L-joints composed of SC (steel-plate composite) walls and RC (reinforced concrete) walls are common in SC
Received 11 July 2020 structures, while limited studies have been conducted on them. This paper experimentally and numerically in-
Received in revised form 29 October 2020 vestigated the behavior of SC-RC L-joint. Four large-scale specimens were subjected to cyclic loading, where
Accepted 30 October 2020
the wall-thicknesses and the core region types differed. Two core region types were involved, namely the S-
Available online 10 November 2020
type and R-type, where the core region belonged to SC wall and RC wall, respectively. The test results including
Keywords:
the test observations, failure modes, load-displacement curves and load-strain curves were reported. For provid-
Connection ing additional insights, the finite element models were established to simulate the behavior of the test specimens.
Knee joint Based on the test results, the current equations for calculating the joint shear force, flexural strength of RC wall
L-joint and joint shear strength were evaluated and the recommendations on the design details were made.
Nuclear power plants © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Steel-plate composite wall

1. Introduction Nevertheless, few studies aimed at the behavior of joints and

In recent years, the wide application of steel-plate composite (SC)
structures has been witnessed in offshore platforms, nuclear power
plants, impact and blast resistant structures, oil and air storage tanks
etc. [1]. Besides the excellent mechanical behaviors by presenting the
combined advantages of steel and concrete, the modularity for main-
taining a higher quality, decreasing the CO2 emissions and industrial
waste, and importantly, shortening the construction period [2] is the
main reason for engineers to embrace SC structures [3]. In a typical SC
wall, the concrete block is generally sandwiched by two steel faceplates.
The composite action between the steel plates and concrete is mainly
achieved by: 1) connecting the two steel plates by tie connectors in di-
verse shapes (e.g. channel, angle, bar, hook), 2) welding the headed
studs on the inner surfaces of steel plates.
Most of the previous researches focused on the structural behavior
of SC wall itself, such as the out-of-plane resistance [4–9] and ductility
[10], the structural behavior under combined axial compression load
and out-of-plane end moment [11], the seismic behavior under com-
bined high axial compression and reversed in-plane cyclic lateral load
[12] and the in-plane seismic response considering the effects of out-
of-plane loading [13].
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Structural Engineering, Tongji University,
1239 Siping Road, Shanghai 200092, China.
E-mail address: zhoufeng@tongji.edu.cn (F. Zhou).
connections in SC structures, for example, the joints composed of SC
walls. The joint could be in various shapes, such as L-shape, T-shape
and cross-shape. The SC-SC L-joint was investigated by Seo et al.
[14], where a large-scale specimen was subjected to cyclic loading
and the joint shear behavior was discussed. Recently, Wang et al.
[15] carried out an experimental and numerical study on the SC-SC
L-joint, where the joint shear behavior under closing mode and open-
ing mode was analyzed in detail, and the equation for the joint shear
strength was proposed based on the results of parametric study. Seo
et al. [16] recommended an equation for the joint shear strength of
SC-SC T-joint based on the test results and the effects of shear rein-
forcement and stud layout of core region seemed to be insignificant.
Besides, the joints and connections between SC walls and reinforced
concrete (RC) members are also being studied, since the RC members
are still available (e.g. RC walls, RC slabs, RC foundations) in SC struc-
tures. The lap-splice connection, where the rebars were embedded
into SC wall for anchorage, was investigated by conducting pull-out
tests by Japanese researchers in 1990s [17,18], and later by Seo et al.
[19] in 2017. For the flat connection between SC wall and RC wall,
the behaviors of lap-splices [20] and mechanical splices [2] were
studied by conducting large-scale tests. The behavior of connection
between SC wall and RC foundation under combined axial compres-
sion and cyclic lateral loading was investigated experimentally by
Wang et al. [21], where two connection types named lap-splice
and embedding were involved. Another connection type for the SC

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106439
0143-974X/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Wang, F. Zhou, Z. Li et al.
wall-to-foundation called rebar-coupler anchor systems was intro-
duced by Kurt et al. [22] and the method for calculating the direct
shear strength was proposed based on the shear test results.
When an SC wall intersects a RC wall at a corner, the SC-RC L-joint
appears. There are two main types of SC-RC L-joints, namely the S-
type and the R-type, as shown in Fig. 1. For an S-type L-joint, the
core region belongs to SC wall, while the core region belongs to RC
wall for an R-type L-joint. The behavior of the S-type SC-RC L-joint
was experimentally studied by Hwang et al. [23]. In the test, the SC
wall end was fixed to ground while lateral loading was imposed on
the RC wall, the results showed that the test specimen failed by flex-
ure at the interface between SC wall and RC wall under closing mode,
but the joint shear failure was observed under opening mode. For an
L-joint, if the connected walls are deformed and getting close to each
other, i.e. the angle between the two walls (θ) is decreasing, the clos-
ing mode is defined. On the contrary, when the connected walls are
away from each other (θ is increasing), this deformation mode is
called opening mode. As for the lap-slice connection, it was stated
that the development length of a longitudinal rebar of RC wall (the
Fig. 1. SC-RC L-joints.
2
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106439
sum of straight length and hook length) could be calculated accord-
ing to the KEPIC-SNG [24] provisions, since all the longitudinal
rebars in the test yielded without a pull-out failure.
In this study, the behaviors of SC-RC S-type and R-type L-joints
were both investigated by conducting large-scale tests and a numer-
ical study. The test observations, failure modes and test curves were
reported. The finite element (FE) models using ABAQUS [25] were
established to simulate the behaviors of test specimens and the out-
comes were compared with the test results. Based on the experi-
mental and numerical studies, the discussions about the design of
the SC-RC L-joint were made. Firstly, the current methods for calcu-
lating the joint shear force in L-joint were evaluated. Secondly, the
equations for the flexural strength of RC wall considering the influ-
ence of axial force were used to predict the interfacial bending mo-
ment capacities of the test specimens. In addition, the code
equations for the joint shear strength of L-joint were evaluated
based on the test results. Finally, the mechanical behaviors of
the test specimens were analyzed in detail for providing design
recommendations.
N. Wang, F. Zhou, Z. Li et al.
Fig. 2. Test setup and the mechanical analysis.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Test setup
The test setup was determined according to the previous studies
[14,15,26] about L-joints composed of SC walls or RC walls, as shown
in Fig. 2a, along with the mechanical analysis under cyclic loading in
Fig. 2b. The specimen is pin supported at the bottom end and roller sup-
ported at the top end. At the top end, the L-shaped specimen was hung
on an reaction frame by a vertical 3000 kN hydraulic actuator with a
built-in hinge, while a horizontal link along with two hinges was
installed on the side of the specimen to provide the horizontal force Rx
(see Fig. 2b). At the bottom end, the specimen could rotate around the
Fig. 2 (continued).
3
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106439
pin support, where the surface-smoothed rod connected them. Ten
post-tensioned threaded rods fixed the pin support to the ground. To
prevent the specimen from moving outward, two out-of-plane supports
were installed in front and back of the specimen, respectively. The L-
shaped specimen was designed such that the distance from the centre
of the pin support to section A (sec. A) was the same as the one from
the centre of the hinge of horizontal link to section B (sec. B), as defined
as L in Fig. 2, where sec. A and sec. B were the two wall sections adjacent
to the core region. The load applied by the actuator was defined as F, so
the internal force combinations on sec. A and sec. B are the same with
axial force N_F, shear force V_F and bending moment M = FL, in ac-
cordance with the mechanical analysis in Fig. 2b.
2.2. Specimen design
Totally, four test specimens were designed, where the main param-
eters included the construction details with different joint types (S-type
and R-type) and the wall dimensions (wall thickness D and wall height
H), as shown in Table 1, along with the detailed drawings in Figs. 3~6.
For each joint type, two wall dimensions were considered, namely
D× H = 800 mm × 500 mm and 600 mm × 800 mm, respectively. The
wall lengths of SC and RC wall (LSC and LRC) depended on the wall thick-
ness and the joint type. For an S-type specimen, LSC = 3D and LRC = 2D
while LSC = 2D and LRC = 3D for an R-type specimen.
Basically, the SC walls in the specimens were designed according to
AISC N690s1–15 [27]. The steel-plate thickness (tp) was 14 mm for all
the specimens, and the resultant reinforcement ratios of SC walls
(ρSC = 2tp/D) equaled to 3.5% for D800 series (S-D800 and R-D800)
and 4.7% for D600 series (S-D600 and R-D600), both within the allow-
able range (from 1.5% to 5.0%) specified in AISC N690s1–15 [27]. The
stiffening angles (∟100 × 80 × 10) were welded on the steel plates at
spacing of 600 mm, as shown in Figs. 3~6. These stiffening angles on op-
posite sides were connected using tie channels (light C5 for D800 series
and light C12 for D600 series). The spacing of light C5 channels along the
wall-length was 600 mm while that along the wall-height was 200 mm.
And the spacings of light C12 channels along the two directions were
both 600 mm. For a light C5 channel, the height is 50 mm and the
width is 32 mm and the plate-thickness is 4.4 mm. The height ×
N. Wang, F. Zhou, Z. Li et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106439

Table 1
Test specimen details.

No. Specimen Wall thickness Wall height Length of SC wall Length of RC wall Rein. ratio of SC wall Rein. ratio of RC wall Core region

D (mm) H (mm) LSC (mm) LRC (mm) ρSC (%) ρRC (%)

1 S-D800 800 500 2400 1600 3.5 1.2 SC wall

2 R-D800 800 500 1600 2400 3.5 1.2 RC wall
3 S-D600 600 800 1800 1200 4.7 1.7 SC wall
4 R-D600 600 800 1200 1800 4.7 1.7 RC wall

Fig. 3. Details of test specimen S-D800.

4
N. Wang, F. Zhou, Z. Li et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106439

Table 2
Material properties of steel components.

Component Material grade Section Coupon dimension t or Ф Elastic modulus Es Yield strength fy Ultimate strength fu Elong. after fracture

(mm) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (%)

Steel plates Q235B t14 t14 205 269 516 39.4

Q345B t20 t20 213 405 639 40.8
Stiffening angles Q235B ∟100 × 80 × 10 t10 204 298 565 34.3
Tie channels Q235B Light C12 t7.8(Flange) 204 297 621 35.0
t4.8(Web) 195 358 634 31.4
Longitudinal rebar of RC wall HRB400 Ф32 Ф32 210 494 762 25.8
Stirrup of RC wall HRB400 Ф14 Ф14 200 466 732 18.7
Headed stud SWRCH15/18A Ф19 × 150 Ф19 210 390 485 20.3

Fig. 4. Details of test specimen R-D800.

5
N. Wang, F. Zhou, Z. Li et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106439

Table 3 additional headed studs were welded on the outer surfaces of SC walls
Test results. for the S-type specimens. It should be noted that, to let through the lon-
No. Specimen Deformation Crack load Fc-test Peak load Fp-test Failure gitudinal rebars of RC walls, the steel plates on the interfaces of S-type
mode (kN) (kN) modes specimens were drilled at corresponding positions.
1 S-D800 Closing 108a 510 IDF The pin support region and the loading region of each specimen
Opening 49a 331 IDF were specially designed in accordance with the test setup. The layouts
2 R-D800 Closing 323b 394 JSF in these regions were expected to transfer the load or reaction forces
Opening 133b 156 JSF
from the actuator or support to the specimen. In the loading region at
3 S-D600 Closing 170a 829 IDF
Opening 79a 534 IDF the top end, the screwed steel rods passing through the loading plates
4 R-D600 Closing 437b 684 JSF were each fixed by two nuts and every steel rebar had one end welded
Opening 172b 233 JSF to the loading plate with the other to an anchor plate. In the pin support
IDF: Interfacial debonding failure; JSF: joint shear failure. region at the bottom end, a steel tube, two cover plates, two side plates,
a
interfacial cracking. an end plate and three ribs were welded together. Shear lugs were
b
diagonal cracking on core concrete. welded perpendicular to the steel tube to avoid the shear failure at
this area. To strengthen the anchorage of longitudinal rebars at the pin
support region, the end plates were drilled to be passed through,
width of a light C12 channel is 120 mm × 53 mm and the thicknesses of where a short bar segment was welded at the end of each rebar.
the flange and web are 7.8 mm and 4.8 mm, respectively. Headed studs
with length of 150 mm and diameter of 19 mm were arrayed on the 2.3. Material properties
steel plates at spacing of 200 mm.
The RC walls in the test specimens were basically designed accord- Table 2 shows the material properties including the elastic modulus
ing to GB 50010–2010 [28] (the GB code, hereafter). The longitudinal (Es), yield strength (fy), ultimate strength (fu) and elongation after frac-
rebars with diameter of 32 mm (dr) were placed at spacing of about ture of each main steel component. They were obtained by conducting
200 mm, leading to the reinforcement ratios of RC wall (ρRC = the standard tensile coupon tests according to GB/T228.1–2010 [29],
2As/DH where As is the section area of longitudinal rebars on one where three coupons were tested for each steel component to get the
side) equaling to 1.2% for D800 series and 1.7% for D600 series, respec- average data. The representative cubic compressive strengths (fcu) for
tively. For the test specimens, the concrete cover thickness (c) of lon- the specimens were determined by the uniaxial standard concrete com-
gitudinal rebars on two directions were labelled as cx and cz, pression tests per GB/T 50081–2002 [30]. For D800 series, fcu =
respectively, as shown in Figs. 3~6. According to the GB code, the con- 24.6 MPa while fcu = 29.4 MPa for D600 series.
crete cover thickness is required to be no less than the rebar diameter
(c ≥ dr). Therefore, cx = 48 mm and cz = 34 mm were considered in 2.4. Instrumentation and loading protocol
this study, both being larger than dr = 32 mm. The distances between
the sectional center of a longitudinal rebar to the adjacent concrete The behavior of the test specimens was measured by the linear var-
surfaces on two directions (asx and asz) were 64 mm and 50 mm, re- iable displacement transducers (LVDTs) and strain gauges, as shown in
spectively. Erection bars, with diameter of 32 mm and length the Fig. 7. The data of LVDTs D1and D2 (d1 and d2) were used to calculate the
same as wall height (H) were spaced at 200 mm to be perpendicular vertical displacement at loading point (Δ), where Δ = (d1 + d2)/2. The
to the longitudinal rebars, where spot welding was used at the inter- displacements and in-plane rotation at the pin support point were mon-
sections. The stirrups in 14 mm with 135° hooks at both ends were itored by D4, D5 and D7, respectively. The out-of-plane movements at
placed at approximately 200 mm. the loading point, pin support point and the area adjacent to the core re-
The joint design in this study also involved the length of the longitu- gion were monitored by D3, D6 and D10, respectively. The joint shear
dinal rebar embedded into the SC wall and the additional layouts on the strain (γjs) could be calculated by the data of D8 and D9 (d8 and d9)
interface between SC wall and RC wall. The length of the longitudinal using Eq. (2).
rebar embedded into the SC wall was determined based on GB50010- hpffiffiffi  pffiffiffi i
π
2010 [28]. In the GB code, the lap splice length (llj) in the RC-RC L- γ js ¼ −2  arctan 2D þ d8 = 2D þ d9 ð2Þ
2
joint for seismic design llj = 1.5 labE is specified in section 11.6.7,
where labE = ζaElab. The term ζaE depends on the grade of structural seis-
mic design and 1.0 was considered in this study. The term lab is the basic The strain gauges were placed on the steel plates of SC walls (SP) and
anchorage length of rebar, as calculated by Eq. (1). rebars (SR), as shown in Figs. 7b and 4c. The axial strains of longitudinal
rebars on the RC section adjacent to the core region were vital for this
fy study, since these data would be used to calculate the joint shear force
lab ¼ α r dr ð1Þ
ft (Vjs). Therefore, four strain gauges (SR1 ~ 4) were installed on the rebars
on different layers, namely the surface layer and the middle layer, as de-
where αr is a factor for rebar shape with 0.14 for ribbed steel bars, fy is scribed in Fig. 7.
the yield strength of longitudinal rebar, ft is the concrete tensile The loading protocol was the same as the one considered in refer-
strength. Taking the nominal material properties (fy = 400 MPa for ence [19], where the cyclic loading was first controlled by load, and
HRB 400 rebar and ft = 2.01 MPa for C30 concrete) into account, later by displacement. If the load (F) declined to 0.85 times the peak
lab = 892 mm and llj = 1337 mm. Since the wall thickness was smaller load (Fp), or the actuator could not continue working stably, the tests
than the required lap splice length (D < llj) for all the specimens, the would be terminated. In this study, the push loading was defined as
longitudinal rebars were bent at core regions, and the sum of straight the positive direction (+), so the pull loading was negative (−).
length (ls) and hook length (lh) was designed to be no less than llj, as
shown in Figs. 3~6. For the S-type specimens, the interface between 3. Test results
SC wall and RC wall is the outer faceplate of SC wall, while no steel plate
is on the interface between SC wall and RC wall for the R-type speci- 3.1. Test observations and failure modes
mens. To reliably transfer the shear force through the interface, shear
lugs (I16 @ 400 for S-type specimens and light C10 @ 200 for R-type The observations during the tests are shown in Fig. 8, and the failure
specimens) were placed on the interface for all the specimens, and modes are listed in Table 3. For the S-type specimens, where the core

6
N. Wang, F. Zhou, Z. Li et al.
Fig. 5. Details of test specimen S-D600.
regions belonged to SC walls, the interfacial debonding failure (IDF) was
observed. For the R-type specimens, where the core regions belonged to
RC walls, the joint shear failure (JSF) happened.
The concrete crack was first found at the interface between SC wall
and RC wall in the S-type specimens, and the concrete-cover spalling
at bends was seen with the development of interfacial debonding, as
shown in Figs. 8a and 5c. Although the concrete-cover spalling at
7
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106439
bends seemed to indicate a kind of bond failure, the F/Fp-ε/εy (ε: the
strain value recorded by strain gauge; εy: the measured yield strain cal-
culated as σy /Es) curves of the strain gauges should be scanned for fur-
ther insights. The curves of SR-1 and SR-3 showed that the longitudinal
rebars on surface layers did not yield as expected. Even so, the curves of
SR-2 and SR-4 indicated that the longitudinal rebars on middle layers
had yielded at the interfaces of specimens S-D800 and S-D600, as
N. Wang, F. Zhou, Z. Li et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106439

Fig. 6. Details of test specimen R-D600.

plotted in Figs. 9a and 6b. It meant, for S-type specimens, the flexural
strength under combined axial force and bending moment governed
the failure of the interfaces.
However, the failure mode of the R-type specimens seemed dif-
ferent, the diagonal cracking appeared and expanded under both
deformation modes, indicating the joint shear failure, as shown in
Figs. 8b and 5d. Diverse characters of the joint shear failure under clos-
ing mode and opening mode were seen. For closing mode, the diagonal
cracks developing from the exterior corner to the interior corner were
more discrete, and the local concrete crush at the exterior corner may

8
N. Wang, F. Zhou, Z. Li et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106439

Table 4 wall. Transverse cracking adjacent to the interface and RC section was
The results of FE models and the comparison with test results. observed in specimen R-D800 under opening mode, which was
No. Specimen Deformation Peak load (test) Peak load F p−FE Failure regarded as the splitting cracking along the longitudinal rebars, as
F p−test
mode Fp-test (kN) (FE) Fp-FE modes pointed out in Fig. 8b. According to the F/Fp-ε/εy curves of the strain
(kN) gauges attached on the longitudinal rebars of the R-type specimens
1 S-D800 Closing 510 533 1.04 IDF (Figs. 9c and 6d), the rebars remained elastic at peak loads, and the
Opening 331 425 1.29 IDF curves of the tensile rebars on different layers seemed to overlap. It
2 R-D800 Closing 394 359 0.91 JSF
meant no flexural failure and bond failure happened in R-type
Opening 156 192 1.23 JSF
3 S-D600 Closing 829 658 0.79 IDF specimens.
Opening 534 488 0.91 IDF
4 R-D600 Closing 684 449 0.66 JSF
3.2. Load-displacement and load-joint shear strain curves
Opening 233 568 2.44 JSF
Mean 1.16
CV 0.48 The load-displacement (F-Δ) curves of the test specimens are shown
IDF: Interfacial debonding failure; JSF: joint shear failure.
in Fig. 10, with the values of crack loads (Fc-test) and peak loads (Fp-test)
listed in Table 3.The crack loads for the S-type specimens were defined
as the loads when the interfacial cracking appeared and those for the R-
lead to the ultimate failure. For opening mode, diagonal cracking at the type specimens were recorded when the first diagonal cracks on core
interior corner appeared first, followed by the perpendicular diagonal concrete were seen. For each S-type specimen, the crack load was far
cracking on core concrete, which later extended to the SC wall and RC less than the peak load (Fc-test < < Fp-test), while the crack load was

Fig. 7. Instrumentation.

9
N. Wang, F. Zhou, Z. Li et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106439

Table 5 models, where the von-Mises yield criterion was assumed. For the con-
The theoretical predictions on the joint shear forces in the test specimens. crete, the concrete damaged plasticity (CDP) model in ABAQUS was
No. Specimen Vjs-test (kN) Vjs-test/Vjs-GB Vjs-test/Vjs -SEO employed. The basic parameters for the CDP model were set as follow-
Closing Opening Closing Opening Closing Opening
ing: 1) the dilation angle was 25°, 2) the flow potential eccentricity was
0.1, 3) the ratio of initial equibiaxial compressive yield stress to initial
1 S-D800 746.8 548.1 0.70 0.88 0.87 0.99
uniaxial compressive yield stress was 1.16, 4) the ratio of the second
2 R-D800 579.3 410.9 0.71 1.35 0.88 1.57
3 S-D600 1379.8 940.0 0.78 0.86 0.99 1.05 stress invariant on the tensile meridian to that on the compressive me-
4 R-D600 1043.7 671.8 0.71 1.28 0.91 1.72 ridian was 2/3 and 5) viscosity parameter was 0.005. The tension and
Mean 0.72 1.09 0.91 1.33 compression stress-strain curves of concrete provided in the appendix
CV 0.049 0.236 0.061 0.276 C.2 of GB50010-2010 [28] were used in this study. The concrete damage
factors in CDP model were calculated using the method proposed by
Zhang et al. [32].
The steel plates, stiffening angles, tie channels and shear lugs were
quite close to the peak load for each R-type specimen. Basically, the peak
simulated by shell elements (S4R). The dimension of most of the shell
load of the S-type specimen was larger than that of the R-type specimen
elements was 20 mm, but that of steel plates was 50 mm, the same as
with the same dimensions, and the peak load under opening mode was
the side length of the cubic solid elements (C3D8R) for concrete. The
always smaller than its corresponding one under closing mode for the
beam elements (B31) were used for the headed studs and longitudinal
specimens.
rebars of RC walls, whose dimensions were 10 mm and 50 mm, respec-
The load-joint shear strain (F-γjs) curves of specimens S-D600 and R-
tively. The dimension of the truss elements (T3D2) for the erection re-
D600 were plotted in Fig. 11. It was clear that for the specimen failed by
bars and stirrups was 20 mm.
interfacial debonding (S-D600), the joint shear strain remained low
The tie channels and stiffening angles were merged as a part. Since
(less than 4 × 10−3) during the test. The joint shear strain of the speci-
the constraint named tie was effective for simulating weldings, the stiff-
men failed by joint shear (R-D600) was always larger than that of S-
ening angles and headed studs were tied to the inner surfaces of the
D600 under the same load level, indicating a smaller joint shear stiffness
steel plates. The surface-to-surface contact was used between concrete
of the R-type specimen, especially under opening mode. Although spec-
and steel plates, where the friction factor for tangential behavior was
imen R-D600 failed by joint shear under both deformation modes, the
0.64 [14]. The headed studs, stiffening angles, tie channels, shear lugs,
joint shear behaviors of the two modes differed. Under closing mode,
erection rebars, stirrups and the longitudinal rebars of RC walls were
the joint shear strain increased rapidly (up to 3.2 × 10−2) after the
embedded into concrete. For the longitudinal rebars inserted into the
load approached its peak under closing mode since the local concrete
SC walls, connector elements were used for simulating the slip behavior
crush at the exterior corner significantly reduced the joint shear stiff-
between the rebar and concrete, as shown in Fig. 12. The concrete blocks
ness. However, under opening mode, the joint shear strain just enlarged
and longitudinal rebars were cut into pieces, whose dimension along
as the load went up, since the increase of joint shear strain was mostly
the rebar axis was about 100 mm. Each connector element, connecting
caused by the continual opening of main diagonal crack on core
a rebar node and a concrete node, was perpendicular to the rebar axis
concrete.
and the element length was half the rebar diameter (dr/2 = 16 mm).
The connector element was defined as a translator, which meant the
4. Numerical study two nodes could only move relatively along the rebar axis (the x axis
in Fig. 12a). The relationships between the relative force and relative
4.1. The modeling approach displacement were defined for the connector elements based on the
bond stress-slip (τb-s) curves (Fig. 12b) calculated by fib Model code
For gaining additional insights into the behavior the SC-RC L-joint, 2010 [33]. The nodes of steel plates and concrete at the roller support
the numerical study was carried out using ABAQUS [31]. Basically, the end and pin support end were tied to two rigid plates, respectively.
modeling approach was quite similar to that adopted for the SC-SC L- The boundary conditions of the FE models were simplified in accor-
joints introduced by the authors [15], in terms of the material models, dance with the test setup, where one end was a pin support and the
the boundary conditions and the element types, but some of the interac- other was a roller support, as shown in Fig. 12a. The reference points
tion settings were quite different. RP-P and RP-R were defined at the center of the rigid plates at the pin
For the steel components, true stress versus the logarithmic strain support end and the roller support end, respectively. Only the in-
curves based on the measured stress-strain curves were used in the FE plane rotation (UR3) was allowed at RP-P while the displacement

Table 6
The theoretical strength predictions against the test results.

No. Specimen Deformation mode Mi (kN·m) Mi Vjs-test (kN) V js−test V js−test V Failure modes
Mn‐RC V n‐ACI V n‐GB α ¼ pjs‐test
ffiffiffiffiffi
f c Aj

1 S-D800 Closing 816.0 0.82 746.8 0.63 0.82 0.42 IDF

Opening 529.6 0.77 548.1 0.60 0.62 0.40 IDF
2 R-D800 Closing 630.4 0.66 579.3 0.49 0.64 0.33 JSF
Opening 249.6 0.33 410.9 0.45 0.46 0.30 JSF
3 S-D600 Closing 994.8 0.85 1379.8 0.89 1.13 0.59 IDF
Opening 640.8 0.79 940.0 0.77 0.80 0.51 IDF
4 R-D600 Closing 820.8 0.73 1043.7 0.68 0.86 0.45 JSF
Opening 279.6 0.32 671.8 0.55 0.57 0.37 JSF

Mi: Interfacial bending moment;

Mn-RC: Nominal flexural strength of RC section calculated by Eq. (10) or Eq. (11);
Vjs-test: The maximum joint shear force in test specimen calculated by Eq. (3) or Eq.(4);
Vn-ACI: the joint shear strength of RC beam-column L-joint calculated by ACI 352–02 (Eq. (12));
Vn-GB: the joint shear strength of RC beam-column L-joint calculated by GB 50010–2010(Eq.(13));
α: Normalized joint shear force;
IDF: Interfacial debonding failure;
JSF: Joint shear failure.

10
N. Wang, F. Zhou, Z. Li et al.
along the load (U2) and the in-plane rotation (UR3) were released at
RP-R. The loading protocols of the FE models and tests were identical.
4.2. The comparison between FE and test results
The F-Δ skeleton curves of the FE models and tests are compared in
Fig. 13, and the peaks loads (Fp-test and Fp-FE) are listed in Table 4, along
with the Fp-FE/Fp-test ratios. The mean value of the Fp-FE/Fp-test ratios is 1.16
while the coefficient of variation (CV) is 0.48. Although the CV value was
a bit large for the sake of the difficulty on simulating the complicated
local slip behavior between rebars and surrounding concrete, the failure
modes of tests specimens could be reasonably predicted by the FE
models. The maximum principal logarithmic strain (LE, Max. Principal)
or equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) contours of FE models are plotted in
Fig. 14. For the S-type FE models, the longitudinal rebars yielded at
bends, and large plastic strain of concrete was seen at the bends and
the interfaces, all consistent with the test observations. The joint shear
failure happened in the R-type FE models, since the diagonal cracking
at the exterior corner and core concrete were captured, and the longitu-
dinal rebars did not yield at the interfaces.
Fig. 8. Test observations.
11
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106439
5. Discussions on the design of SC-RC L-joint
5.1. The predictions of the joint shear forces
Based on the mechanical analysis on the core region illustrated in
Fig. 15, the joint shear force in the SC-RC L-joint under closing mode
(CLVjs) and opening mode (OPVjs) could be calculated by Eqs. (3) and
(4), respectively.
CL
V js ¼ T r ð3Þ
OP
V js ¼ T r −V ð4Þ
where Tr is the axial force on all the tensile longitudinal rebars. In both
equations, Tr plays an important role. The joint shear force in the test
specimens (Tr-test) was calculated using the data of strain gauges SR-
1–4 (see Fig. 7), which were attached to the longitudinal rebars on the
RC sections adjacent to the core regions. To consider the difference of
rebar strains between surface layers and middle layers, the axial forces
on the rebars on surface layers and middle layers were calculated
N. Wang, F. Zhou, Z. Li et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106439

Fig. 8 (continued).

separately and added together, i.e. Tr-test = ErAr1(2εsf + nmd εmd), where on the RC walls are needed. GB 50010–2010 [28] provides the equations
Er is the measured elastic modular of rebar, Ar1 is the section area of a for Tr when the RC members is subjected to combined bending moment
single rebar, εsf is the tensile rebar strain on the surface layer presented (M) and axial compression (Nc) or axial tension (Nt), as presented in
by the strain gauge SR-1 (under closing mode) or SR-3 (under opening Eqs. (5)–(8).
mode), nmd is the number of the tensile rebars on middle layers c
(nmd = 1 for D800 series; nmd = 3 for D600 series), εmd is the tensile re- T r‐GB ¼ Nc ðe−zÞ=z ð5Þ
bar strain on the middle layer presented by the strain gauge SR-2 (under
e ¼ ηs e0 þ ys ð6Þ
closing mode) or SR-4 (under opening mode). The resultant maximum
joint shear forces in test specimens (Vjs-test) are listed in Table 5. In every h i
test specimen, Vjs-test under opening mode was always smaller than that z ¼ 0:87−0:12ðD0 =eÞ2 D0 ð7Þ
under closing mode. And the values of Vjs-test of specimens S-D800, R-
   
D800, S-D600 and R-D600 under opening mode were 73%, 71%, 68% t
T r‐GB ¼ Nt e0 þ D=2−a0s = D0 −a0s ð8Þ
and 64% of those under closing mode, respectively.
For an L-joint to be designed in practice, there are no test data in ad- where e0 = M/N, ηs is a factor considering the second-order effect and
vance could be used to calculate the tensile force of the longitudinal re- ηs = 1 for the walls with length-to-thickness ratio L/D ≤ 14, ys is the dis-
bars. Therefore, the equations for Tr based on the given demands (N, M) tance from the sectional centroid to the centroid of the tensile rebars,

12
N. Wang, F. Zhou, Z. Li et al.
Fig. 9. The F/Fp -ε/εy curves of test specimens (surf. = surface layer; midd. = middle layer).
D0 = D-as, and as is the distance between the centroid of tensile rebars
to the tensile concrete surface, a's is the distance between the centroid of
the compression rebars and the compression concrete surface, in this
study, as = a's = asx (see Figs. 3–6). Resultantly, the maximum joint
shear forces in tests specimens predicted by the GB code (Vjs-GB) were
calculated using the values of N and M on the RC sections adjacent to
the core regions at peak loads, and later compared with the test results
by providing the Vjs-test/Vjs-GB ratios in Table 5. The mean of Vjs-test/Vjs-GB
ratios under closing mode is 0.72 while the CV value is 0.049. The mean
and CV value of Vjs-test/Vjs-GB ratios under opening mode are 1.09 and
0.236, respectively. It seemed that Eq. (5) consistently overestimated
the joint shear forces under closing mode. As for the opening mode,
although Eq. (8) underestimated the joint shear forces in S-type speci-
mens and overestimated those of R-type specimens, the averaged
Vjs-test/Vjs-GB ratios (1.09) is close to 1. In the study [14] about the SC-
SC L-joints, Seo et al. proposed an equation for the joint shear force, as
shown in Eq. (9).
V js‐SEO ¼ M=0:92D‐N=2
It was concluded in reference [14] that this equation fitted for both
deformation modes, whether N was the axial compression or axial
Fig. 9 (continued).
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106439
tension. The Vjs-SEO values were calculated and the resultant Vjs-test/Vjs-
SEO ratios were listed in Table 5. Compared to Eq. (5), the predictions
by Eq. (9) seemed to be more accurate for the joint shear forces under
closing mode, since the mean of Vjs-test/Vjs-SEO ratios was 0.91 and closer
to 1, and the CV value of the Vjs-test/Vjs-SEO ratios (0.061) was also accept-
able. But when predicting the joint shear forces under opening mode,
Eq. (9) underestimated most of the test results.
5.2. The strength predictions for the test specimens
Since the S-type and R-type test specimens failed by interfacial
debonding (namely the flexural failure on the interfaces, as mentioned
earlier) and joint shear, respectively, the flexural strengths of the inter-
faces and joint shear strengths of test specimens were predicted accord-
ingly by using the current available equations.
The maximum bending moments (Mi) at the interfaces (the RC sec-
tions adjacent to the core regions) of the test specimens are listed in
ð9Þ Table 6. According to GB 50010–2010 [28], the flexural strength of RC
member considering the combined axial force could be calculated by
Eqs. (10) and (11), where the equations under axial compression (Nc)
axial tension (Nt) were given separately.
13
N. Wang, F. Zhou, Z. Li et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106439

Fig. 10. F-Δ curves of test specimens.

 c 2 qffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 c N   V n−ACI ¼ 0:664 f c Aj ð12Þ
c
M n−RC ¼ N D−− þ f y As D0 −a0s ð10Þ
2 2α 1 f cp H
where fc is the cylinder concrete compression strength, which is about
  0.8 times fcu, Aj is the joint shear area, in this study, Aj = DH. GB
1  
t
M n−RC ¼ f y As − T D0 −a0s ð11Þ 50010–2010 [28] specifies the joint shear strength of beam-column L-
2
joint (Vn-GB), as shown in Eq. (13).

where α1 is a factor depending on the concrete grade, and α1 = 1.0 for

the concrete lower than C50, fcp = 0.76fcu. The calculated flexural
strengths (Mn-RC) were compared with corresponding interfacial bend-
ing moments (Mi) by providing the Mi/Mn-RC ratios, as presented in
Table 6. For the R-type specimens, the Mi/Mn-RC ratios were far less than
1, since these specimens failed by joint shear in advance. But the
Mi/Mn-RC ratios for the S-type specimens did not exceed or reach 1, ei-
ther. As mentioned earlier, the F/Fp -ε/εy curves of the longitudinal re-
bars at the interfaces of S-type specimens showed that the rebars on
middle layers yielded while those on surface layers did not yield. The
reason was, although the concrete cover thickness for the longitudinal
rebars on surface layers (namely cz in Figs. 3~6) exceeded the rebar di-
ameter, following the GB code provisions, it might not be enough to pre-
vent the concrete cover at bends from spalling when the rebar almost
yielded. Since some of the longitudinal rebars could not yield as ex-
pected, the maximum interfacial bending moments of the S-type spec-
imens did not reach the flexural strengths of RC walls.
In this study, the R-type specimens underwent joint shear failure.
Since the core regions of these specimens were composed of RC walls,
the code equations for the joint shear strength of RC-RC L-joint were
evaluated. In ACI 352R-02 [34], the joint shear strength of beam-
column L-joint (Vn-ACI) should be calculated by Eq. (12). Fig. 11. F-γjs curves of typical test specimens.

14
N. Wang, F. Zhou, Z. Li et al.
Fig. 12. The modeling approach of FE models.
V n−GB ¼ 1:1 f t Aj ð13Þ
in which the concrete tensile strength ft = 0.88 × 0.395 × f 0.55cu . The resul-
tant Vjs-test/Vn-ACI and Vjs-test/Vn-GB ratios are listed in Table 6, where al-
most all the ratios are below 1, indicating both of the equations are
unsafe for the specimens. The pmaximum
ffiffiffiffiffiffi joint shear force in each test
specimen was normalized by f c Aj as called α, as listed in Table 6. Gen-
erally, the α values of the S-type specimens were larger than those of
the R-type specimens with same dimensions. According to a previous
research by authors [15], the lower bound α for the joint shear strength
of SC-SC L-joint was 0.80, and none of the test specimens in this study
reached this value, which indicated that the joint shear strength of the
SC-RC L-joint may be smaller than that of SC-SC L-joint. For the R-type
specimens failed by joint shear, the researches on RC-RC beam-
column L-joints (also called knee joints) were reviewed, since to the
authors' knowledge no study about the R-type SC-RC L-joints was
Fig. 12 (continued).
15
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106439
reported so far. Totally, the results of 21 L-joint specimens [35,36]
showed that the α values varied from 0.28 to 0.87, where the minimum
α value under closing mode and opening mode were 0.47 and 0.28, re-
spectively. It should be noted that the α values of R-type specimens var-
ied between 0.30 and 0.45 in this study.
5.3. The design recommendations about the SC-RC L-joint
Basically, the ductile flexural failure rather than the brittle joint
shear failure is preferred for designers. The test results in this study
showed that the S-type specimens had larger load-carrying capacities
and were more likely to exhibit a ductile failure mode, compared to
the R-type specimens with the same dimensions. Therefore, the S-
type is recommended when designing an SC-RC L-joint.
For the layouts of the S-type SC-RC L-joint, the embedded length of
longitudinal rebar of RC wall, i.e. the sum of straight length (ls) and
N. Wang, F. Zhou, Z. Li et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106439

Fig. 13. The F-Δ skeleton curves of FE models and test specimens.

Fig. 14. The maximum principal logarithmic strain (LE, Max. Principal) or equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) contours of FE models.

hook length (lh), could be calculated by the provisions in GB 50010–
2010 [28], as introduced in section 2.2. But the concrete-cover spalling
at bends, which was observed in the S-type specimens in this study,
should be avoided. As shown in Fig. 16a, for a rebar with a hook, when
the end in RC wall is subjected to tensile forces (Tr1), bond stress (τb)
will appear around the straight segment. As the increase of Tr1, the com-
pression stress (σb) on the hook will be developed for anchorage. σb will
rise until the local concrete crush (or the concrete-cover spalling) at
bends when σb exceeds the concrete compression strength. In that
case, large deflection and stress of bends (see the FE contour in
Fig. 14a) will be seen, and the rebar will be pulled away from the previ-
ous position, as seen in Figs. 8a and 5c. For the S-type specimens in this
study, the concrete-cover spalling was observed at the bends of the lon-
gitudinal rebars on surface layers while the rebars at middle layers
yielded without premature anchorage failure, indicating a sufficient an-
chorage length but insufficient concrete cover. When the concrete cover
of a longitudinal rebar on surface layer was too thin to provide adequate
bond stress (τb) around the straight segment, σb had to increase rapidly,
which resulted in the local concrete crush, acting like concrete-cover
spalling on the surface for the lack of confinement, as shown in
Fig. 16b. Thus, a thicker concrete-cover is recommended for the longitu-
dinal rebars.
For the R-type specimens failed by joint shear, the concrete crush at
the exterior corners under closing mode was observed, as shown in

Fig. 14 (continued).

16
N. Wang, F. Zhou, Z. Li et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106439

Fig. 15. The calculation of joint shear force (Vjs) in test specimens.
Figs. 8b and 5d. The test curves in Figs. 9c and 6d showed that this local
concrete crush happened when the strains of the tensile rebars were far
less than yield strain and the difference between the strains of rebars on
surface layers and middle layers was rather small. This indicated that a
large deflection and stress happened at the bends when the tensile
forces of rebars at the interfaces were not that high, as observed in the
FE contour (Fig. 14e). The reason could be, for a rebar at exterior corner,
the end in SC wall (hook end) was also subjected to the tensile force
(Tr2), as shown in Fig. 16a. The two perpendicular tensile forces (Tr1
and Tr2) tended to straighten the rebar, which amplified the local com-
pression (σb), deflection and movement, compared to those of S-type
specimens. Besides, the surrounding steel plates could provide the
core concrete with additional confinement in S-type specimen while
no steel plate confined the core concrete of R-type specimen. Thus, the
local compression at exterior of core concrete was seen in the R-type
specimens, rather than the S-type specimens. It should also be noticed
that the erection rebars of R-type specimens connecting the longitudi-
nal rebars could force them work together, which may enhance the an-
chorage strength of rebar layers by providing additional stress (σN), as

Fig. 16. The behavior of the rebars in test specimens.

17
N. Wang, F. Zhou, Z. Li et al.
illustrated in Fig. 16b. An evidence from the test results was, the load-
strain curves of the longitudinal rebars almost overlapped for R-type
specimens, which was not the case for S-type specimens (see Fig. 9). Al-
though the R-type L-joint is not recommended in this study, the positive
effect of the transverse rebars (such as the erection rebars in this study)
should be approved.
Furthermore, the shear lugs seemed to play a role in the test speci-
mens. In S-type specimens, the shear lugs welded on the steel plates
of SC wall could enhance the interfacial shear strength and delay the in-
terfacial debonding. In R-type specimens, the shear lugs also provided
additional shear or flexural strengths of the interfaces, as seen in
Fig. 14e. But the difficulty on constructability of the shear lugs should
be considered.
6. Conclusions
The behavior of SC-RC L-joints (knee joint) was investigated by
conducting large-scale tests. Totally, four specimens were designed
and subjected to cyclic loading, where the main parameters involved
the wall-thickness and the core region type. If the core region belonged
to SC wall, the specimen was called an S-type specimen, otherwise it
was an R-type specimen. A numerical study employing ABAQUS was
also carried out for a further understanding. The conclusions based on
the results of this study are drawn as following.
1. According to the test observations, the S-type specimens failed by
interfacial debonding while joint shear failure was seen on the R-
type specimens. The interfacial debonding was characterized by
the flexural failure at the interface between SC wall and RC wall,
since the tensile yielding of longitudinal rebars and the concrete
crush were observed. The expanding diagonal cracking and local
concrete damage on core concrete indicated the joint shear
failure.
2. The joint shear force under closing mode was equal to the axial force
of tensile longitudinal rebars (Tr) and joint shear force under opening
mode was Tr -V, where V is the shear force on the connected wall. The
joint shear force predicted by different equations using the demands
on the connected walls (axial force N, bending moment M and shear
force V) were evaluated by the test results. The comparison showed
that Eq. (9) could well-predict the joint shear force under closing
mode, while Eq. (8) was recommended for the joint shear force
under opening mode.
3. The maximum interfacial bending moment of S-type specimens
were predicted by the equation for flexural strength of RC member
proposed by GB 50010–2010, where the influence of axial force
could be considered. It seemed that the code equation overestimated
the test results, since the longitudinal rebars on the surface layers did
not yield during the tests.
4. The code equations for the joint shear strengths of RC-RC beam-
column L-joint were evaluated based on the test results. Neither
the ACI 352–02 equation (Eq. (12)) nor the GB 50010–2010
equation (Eq.(13)) could well-predict the joint shear strengths
of the R-type specimens in this study. But the normalized joint
shear strengths of the test specimens in this study were within
the range of the test results of previous RC-RC beam-column L-
joints.
5. As for the joint type of the SC-RC L-joint, the S-type, where the
core region belongs to SC wall, should be given priority. As for
the design details, the length of the longitudinal rebar embedded
into the SC wall could be calculated following the provision of sec-
tion 11.6.7 in GB50010-2010, but a thicker concrete cover far
larger than the rebar diameter was recommended to ensure the
anchorage, and it would be better to weld the transverse rebars
on the longitudinal rebars of RC wall embedded into the SC wall.
Besides, the shear lugs played a role in promoting the interfacial
stiffness and strengths.
18
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106439
Declaration of Competing Interest
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest as-
sociated with this publication and there has been no significant financial
support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. We con-
firm that we have given due considerations to the protection of intellec-
tual property associated with this work and that there are no
impediments to publication, including the timing of publication, with
respect to intellectual property. In so doing we confirm that we have
followed the regulations of our institutions concerning intellectual
property.
Acknowledgements
The research work described in this paper was supported by re-
search grants from the State Key Laboratory for Disaster Prevention in
Civil Engineering (Grant No.: SLDRCE19-B-07).
References
[1] C. Zhai, B. Lu, W. Wen, D. Ji, L. Xie, Experimental study on shear behavior of tie-bars
in steel-plate concrete composite structure subjected to cyclic loading, Eng. Struct.
163 (2018) 311–322, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.070.
[2] M. Kim, H. Park, M. Han, B.J. Choi, Experimental evaluation of bending-moment per-
formance about steel plate-concrete structures with mechanical splice, J. Constr.
Steel Res. 128 (2017) 362–370, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.09.007.
[3] A.H. Varma, S.R. Malushte, Z. Lai, Modularity & innovation using steel-plate compos-
ite (SC) walls for nuclear and commercial construction, 11th Int. Conf. Adv. Steel-
Concrete Compos. Struct 2015, pp. 565–571, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4665.
4804.
[4] X. Li, X. Li, Steel plates and concrete filled composite shear walls related nuclear
structural engineering: experimental study for out-of-plane cyclic loading, Nucl.
Eng. Des. 315 (2017) 144–154, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.02.019.
[5] K.C. Sener, A.H. Varma, D. Ayhan, Steel-plate composite (SC) walls : Out-of-plane
flexural behavior, database, and design, J. Constr. Steel Res. 108 (2015) 46–59,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.02.002.
[6] Y. Yang, J. Liu, X. Nie, J. Fan, Experimental research on out-of-plane cyclic behavior of
steel-plate composite walls, J. Earthq. Tsunami. 10 (2015) 1650001, https://doi.org/
10.1142/s1793431116500019.
[7] K.C. Sener, A.H. Varma, Steel-plate composite walls: experimental database and de-
sign for out-of-plane shear, J. Constr. Steel Res. 100 (2014) 197–210, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.04.014.
[8] K.C. Sener, A.H. Varma, J. Seo, Experimental and numerical investigation of the shear
behavior of steel-plate composite (SC) beams without shear reinforcement, Eng.
Struct. 127 (2016) 495–509, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.08.053.
[9] P.N. Booth, A.H. Varma, K.C. Sener, S.R. Malushte, Flexural behavior and design of
steel-plate composite (SC) walls for accident thermal loading, Nucl. Eng. Des. 295
(2014) 817–828, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.036.
[10] J.C. Bruhl, A.H. Varma, Experimental resistance and available ductility of steel-plate
composite walls in one-way bending, J. Struct. Eng. 143 (2016), 04016222. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001714.
[11] Z. Huang, J.Y.R. Liew, Structural behaviour of steel-concrete-steel sandwich compos-
ite wall subjected to compression and end moment, Thin-Walled Struct. 98 (2016) ,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2015.10.013.
[12] J.G. Nie, H.S. Hu, J.S. Fan, M.X. Tao, S.Y. Li, F.J. Liu, Experimental study on seismic be-
havior of high-strength concrete filled double-steel-plate composite walls, J. Constr.
Steel Res. 88 (2013) 206–219, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2013.05.001.
[13] B. Terranova, S. Bhardwaj, A. Whittaker, A. Varma, N. Orbovic, An experimental in-
vestigation of the effects of out-of-plane loading on the in-plane seismic response
of SC wall piers, Eng. Struct. 190 (2019) 380–388, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2019.04.030.
[14] J. Seo, A.H. Varma, Behavior and design of steel-plate composite wall-to-wall corner
or L-joints, Nucl. Eng. Des. 323 (2017) 317–328, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
nucengdes.2017.04.008.
[15] N. Wang, F. Zhou, Z. Li, Z. Xu, H. Xu, Experimental and numerical investigation on
the L-joint composed of steel- plate composite (SC) walls, Eng. Struct. 227 (2021)
111360, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111360.
[16] J. Seo, A.H. Varma, Steel-plate composite wall-to-wall T-joints: joint shear strength,
J. Struct. Eng. 145 (2019), 04019054. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.
0002317.
[17] T. Matsumoto, A. Kowada, N. Akita, Experimental study on a concrete filled steel
structure : part10 pull-out test on anchorage rebars of sc panels(1), Summ. Tech.
Pap. Annu. Meet. Archit. Inst. Japan. B-2, Struct. II, Struct. Dyn. Nucl. Power Plants
1997, pp. 1069–1070.
[18] R. Matsumoto, N. Akita, T. Fujita, Experimental study on a concrete filled steel struc-
ture : part11 pull-out test on anchorage rebars of sc panels(2), Summ. Tech. Pap.
Annu. Meet. Archit. Inst. Japan. B-2, Struct. II, Struct. Dyn. Nucl. Power Plants 1997,
pp. 1071–1072.
N. Wang, F. Zhou, Z. Li et al.
[19] J. Seo, A.H. Varma, M. Asce, Experimental behavior and design of steel plate
composite-to-reinforced concrete lap splice connections, J. Struct. Eng. 143
(2017), 04017011. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001711.
[20] N. Wang, F. Zhou, H. Xu, Z. Xu, Seismic behaviour of flat connections between steel-
plate composite (SC) walls and reinforced concrete (RC) walls, J. Constr. Steel Res.
168 (2020) 105929, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.105929.
[21] N. Wang, F. Zhou, H. Xu, Z. Xu, Experimental study on steel-plate composite wall-to-
foundation connections subjected to combined axial compression and cyclic lateral-
force, Eng. Struct. 207 (2020) 110205, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.
110205.
[22] E.G. Kurt, A.H. Varma, Y.M. Sohn, Direct shear strength of rebar-coupler anchor sys-
tems for steel-plate composite (SC) walls, Int. J. Steel Struct. 16 (2016) 1397–1409,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-016-0096-6.
[23] K.M. Hwang, K.J. Lee, H.J. Yang, W.K. Kim, An experimental study on the flexural and
shear behavior of steel plate concrete - reinforced concrete connected structures,
Nucl. Eng. Des. 257 (2013) 88–99, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2012.12.020.
[24] Board of KEPIC Policy, Structural Committee, Korea Electric Association, Specifica-
tion for Safety-Related Steel Plate Concrete Structures for Nuclear Facilities, Naju,
Korea: Board of KEPIC Policy, Structural Committee, Korea Electric Association,
2015.
[25] SIMULIA, ABAQUS 6.14, Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp, Providence, RI, 2014.
[26] S. Mogili, J.S. Kuang, Reversed cyclic performance of reinforced concrete knee joints
under variable closing and opening stresses, Eng. Struct. 178 (2019) 116–127,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.10.025.
[27] AISC, Committee on Specifications, ANSI/AISC N690s1–15 Specification for Safety-
Related Steel Structures for Nuclear Facilities Including Supplement No.1, AISC, Chi-
cago, IL, 2015.
19
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 176 (2021) 106439
[28] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Construction of the People’’s Republic of
China, GB 50010–2010 Code for Design of Concrete Structures, 2015.
[29] General Administration of Quality Supervision, I. and Q. of the P.R. of China, Stan-
dardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China. GB/T228.1–2010 Me-
tallic materials-Tensile testing-Part 1:Method of Test at Room Temperature,
Standards Press of China, Beijing, 2009.
[30] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Construction of the People’’s Republic of
China, I. and Q. of the P.R. of C, General Administration of Quality Supervision, Stan-
dard for test method of mechanical properties on ordinary concrete GB/T
50081–2002, China Architecture & Building Press, Beijing, 2003.
[31] SIMULIA, ABAQUS Analysis User’s Manual Version 6.14, Dassault Systèmes Simulia
Corp., Providence, RI, 2014.
[32] J. Zhang, Q. Wang, S. Hu, C. Wang, Parameters verification of concrete damaged plas-
tic model of ABAQUS, Build. Struct. 38 (2008) 127–130, https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781107415324.004.
[33] FIB, FIB Model Code 2010 First Complete Draft-vol. 1., International Federation for
Structural Concrete (fib), Lausanne, Switzerland, 2012.
[34] J.F. Bonacci, R.T. Leon, ACI 352R-02, Aci. 109 (2002) 1–37.
[35] J. Kim, J.M. LaFave, Key influence parameters for the joint shear behaviour of rein-
forced concrete (RC) beam-column connections, Eng. Struct. 29 (2007)
2523–2539, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.12.012.
[36] S. Mangalathu, J.S. Jeon, Classification of failure mode and prediction of shear
strength for reinforced concrete beam-column joints using machine learning
techniques, Eng. Struct. 160 (2018) 85–94, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2018.01.008.