buildings

Article
Seismic Performance of Composite Shear Walls Filled with
Demolished Concrete Lumps and Self-Compacting Concrete
after Fire
Yan Xiong 1 , Aodong Chen 1 , Di Wu 2, * and Guowei Zhao 3

1 State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building Science, South China University of Technology,
Guangzhou 510640, China
2 Engineering Research & Test Center, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510405, China
3 Guangdong Chuangcheng Construction Supervision and Consulting Limited Liability Company,
Guangzhou 510075, China
* Correspondence: wudiwdzooo@gmail.com

Abstract: In order to provide a good solution for the treatment and utilization of construction waste,
especially waste concrete and to promote the development of green construction to some extent, in this
paper, a new composite shear wall filled with demolished concrete lumps (DCLs) and self-compacting
concrete (SCC) was proposed, and its seismic performance after fire was investigated. Based on
quasi-static tests of four composite shear walls filled with DCLs and SCC, three after a standard fire
and one contrastive specimen without fire, the effects of fire exposure time, fire-retardant coating
on the edge constraint steel pipe column, and the width-thickness ratio on seismic performance of
composite shear walls after fire were studied. The failure patterns, bearing capacity, hysteretic loops,
ductility, skeleton curves, rigidity degradation curves, and energy dissipation of shear walls were
analyzed and compared. Test results indicate that the bearing capacity of the shear wall after 60 min
of standard fire is slightly lower than the contrastive specimen without fire, but specimens still have
Citation: Xiong, Y.; Chen, A.; Wu, D.;
good seismic performance. The interlayer displacement angle of the shear wall after a fire still meets
Zhao, G. Seismic Performance of
the requirement of regulations. The fire-retardant coating on the edge of concealed steel pipe column
Composite Shear Walls Filled with
has a limited effect on the seismic performance of specimens after a fire. The horizontal bearing
Demolished Concrete Lumps and
Self-Compacting Concrete after Fire.
capacity and energy dissipation capacity of shear walls after a fire can obviously be improved by
Buildings 2022, 12, 1308. https:// properly increasing the width-thickness ratio.
doi.org/10.3390/buildings12091308
Keywords: composite shear wall; demolished concrete lumps; fire; quasi-static test; seismic performance
Academic Editors: Jiulin Bai,
Wei Guo and Junxian Zhao

Received: 19 July 2022

Accepted: 22 August 2022 1. Introduction
Published: 26 August 2022 With the advancement of modern civilization, construction waste has gradually be-
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral come a serious international problem. Construction waste accounts for approximately half
with regard to jurisdictional claims in of the solid waste generated globally each year, and the amount of construction waste will
published maps and institutional affil- increase significantly in the coming years [1]. According to the National Bureau of Statistics
iations. of China 2020 [2], the weight of construction waste generated in China alone reached
approximately 1585.65 million tons of which waste concrete accounts for approximately
48.35%. This construction waste, if it is directly piled up or landfilled, will waste a large
amount of land resources and also pollute the environment. Utilizing construction waste
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. in the production of new concrete can have a significant environmental and economic
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
impact [3]. In addition, using construction waste to manufacture recycled aggregates has
This article is an open access article
the potential to reduce CO2 emissions and the need for natural aggregates [4]. Based on
distributed under the terms and
this background, recycled concrete came into being.
conditions of the Creative Commons
Self-compacting concrete, also referred to as self-consolidating concrete, is the concrete
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
that is able to flow under its own weight and completely fill the formwork, while maintain-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
ing homogeneity even in the presence of congested reinforcement, and then consolidating

Buildings 2022, 12, 1308. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12091308 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2022, 12, 1308 2 of 20

without the need of vibration [5]. SCC is characterized by very good flowability and
workability. Moreover, it is well known that the introduction of self-compacting concrete
(SCC) has improved both concrete technology and working safety and health conditions
due to the removal of mechanical compaction in construction sites [6–8]. However, SCC
prepared with recycled concrete aggregate needs to be deeply investigated.
In the modern construction industry, various precast concrete structure systems have
emerged due to the speed of construction, quality of products and industrialization of
construction, and research on the performance of precast structures is also common [9–12].
Among them, the composite shear wall structure is a relatively new form of precast concrete
structure. The composite shear wall is divided into three layers from the direction of
thickness. The inner and outer sides are prefabricated, connected by truss steel bars, with a
cavity in the middle, and self-compacting concrete is poured on site [13,14]. The composite
shear wall does not require socket joint or slurry anchor connection, with good integrality,
smoothness on both sides of the panels characteristics. The composite shear wall combines
the advantages of fast construction progress of precast structure and good integrality of
cast-in-place structure. The prefabricated component not only replaces the formwork of
the cast-in-place component on a large scale but also provides a certain structural strength
for the shear wall structure and an operation platform for the structure construction,
reducing the pressure of the support system, which conforms to the development trend of
modernization of the construction industry [15–18].
In recent years, many scholars at home and abroad have conducted a large number of
experimental studies on the seismic performance of composite walls. Soheil Shafaei et al. [19]
conducted a study of a concrete-stiffened steel plate shear wall (CSPSW) with a reinforced
concrete panel on one side and a gap between the concrete panel and the steel frame. The
results showed that the reinforced concrete panel thickness had a remarkable and direct
influence upon the shear capacity and the ultimate strength of the CSPSW; furthermore, it
was dependent upon the thickness of the infill steel plate. Increasing the concrete panel
thickness up to a specific value enhanced the shear capacity and the ultimate strength;
however, with a further increase beyond that, the shear capacity and the ultimate shear
strength of CSPSW remained constant.
In another study by Soheil Shafaei et al. [20], the authors aimed to understand wall–
frame and steel–concrete interactions. The results showed that, in CSPSWs, the percentage
of absorbed shear forces by the infill composite wall was always greater than the infill plate
of its corresponding SPSW. By increasing the drift, the shear yielding of the steel plate led
to a reduction of the shear force absorption. The reduction continued until the bulk of
shear stiffness of CSPSW was provided by the frame. At the beginning of lateral loading,
steel–concrete interactions increased until the shear yield of the steel plate. Following this
stage, a sudden decrease took place in the shear force absorption of the reinforced concrete
(RC) panel.
M. Hasim Kisa et al. [21] analyzed the behavior of composite shear walls with L-shaped
vertical steel sheets compared to conventional shear walls. The authors observed that
composite shear walls with L-shaped cold-formed steel sheets had lateral load capacities
ranging from 11% to 14% more than the conventional RC shear wall. Placing cold-formed
steel sheets on the outer side of boundary regions could effectively improve the flexural
capacity of a shear wall. However, according to the results of the study, this would depend
not only on the configurations of cold-formed steel sheets but also on their cross-section
slenderness ratio.
The in-plane shear behavior of composite steel-concrete shear walls was investigated
by M. Farzam et al. [22]. Results revealed that increasing the thickness of the steel plate
increased the yield and ultimate shear strengths; increasing the spacing between shear
studs reduced the shear resistance to some extent; steel-plate composite (SC) walls with
iron angles had a higher yield and ultimate shear resistance than walls with studs; and the
wall with minimum reinforcement behaved better than the wall with no reinforcement in
terms of ductility and shear strength.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1308 3 of 20

Five concrete filled double-skin steel-plate composite (CFDSC) wall specimens were
tested under constant axial compressive force and lateral reversed cyclic loading by Shao-
Teng Huang et al. [23] to investigate the seismic behavior of the wall considering the effect
of axial force ratio and shear span ratio. The favorable seismic performance and great
energy dissipation capacity of the CFDSC walls were demonstrated in the test.
However, studies on the seismic performance of composite shear walls after a fire are
still relatively few. In the modernization process, high-rise and super high-rise buildings
are becoming more and more common, and seismic as well as fire resistance are becoming
more and more important in structural design [24–27]. Shear walls have good seismic
performance as load-bearing elements, but after both a fire and a high temperature, their
seismic performance is affected [28–31]. Whether the seismic performance of composite
shear walls can meet the design requirements after a high temperature or whether the
buildings can still be put into use after proper repair and reinforcement treatment remains
to be further studied [32,33]. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct an experimental study
on the seismic performance of composite shear walls filled with DCLs and SCC after a fire
from the perspective of disaster prevention and mitigation.
In this paper, the seismic performance of this new composite shear wall filled with
DCLs and SCC after a fire was investigated. Four composite shear wall specimens with
edge constraint square steel pipe columns were made and tested, three of which were
subjected to a standard fire, and one of which was a contrastive specimen without fire.
The effects of fire exposure time, fire-retardant coating, and the width-thickness ratio on
seismic performance of composite shear walls after a fire were studied. This study can
provide a technical basis and an experimental reference for the safety evaluation and
seismic reinforcement of shear walls after a fire.

2. Experimental Program
2.1. Specimen Design and Material Properties
In this test, a total of four infilling DCLs and SCC composite shear walls with edge
constraint square steel pipe columns were designed. The design and the production of
the specimens were basically the same as those in reference [34], and these specimens
were numbered SW1 to SW4. The dimensions and structure of specimens are shown in
Figure 1. The upper and lower ends of each specimen were designed with reinforced
concrete rigid beams whose stiffness were much higher than the wall panels. The upper
reinforced concrete rigid beam was the loading beam, and the lower was the foundation
beam. The specimens were cast in the following order: in the first step, precast wallboard
was cast with ordinary concrete, including formwork and thermocouple arrangement; in
the second step, the precast wallboard with square steel pipe was assembled when the
precast wallboard was cured to a certain strength; in the third step, the foundation beam
was cast; in the fourth step, concrete was poured into the cavity of the precast wallboard
and the square steel pipe for an approximate thickness of 20 mm and then the finished
DCLs and SCC were placed alternately into the cavity of the precast wallboard and the
square steel pipe, with auxiliary vibration; and, finally, the loading beam was poured with
cast-in-place SCC.
The concrete casting of specimens is shown in Figure 2.
The yield strength and ultimate strength of steel slabs and steel bars are shown in
Table 2. The cubic compressive strength of precast wall slab concrete on the day of the
seismic test was 26.7 MPa. Self-compacting concrete was commercial concrete, with a cubic
compressive strength of 63 MPa on the day of the seismic test.
The core samples of 75 × 75 mm (diameter × height) were obtained from the waste
foundation beams by the core drilling method before the waste concrete was broken, and the
compressive strength of the core samples was measured on the test day. According to the
Technical specification for testing concrete strength with drilled core, the cubic compressive
strength was converted to 39.7 MPa. The waste concrete used in this experiment was
artificially broken into DCLs with characteristic dimensions of 60~80 mm (Figure 3). Then,
Buildings 2022, 12, 1308 4 of 20

the finished DCLs and SCC were placed alternately into the cavity of the precast wall
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 20
panels and the square steel pipes, with auxiliary vibration. The detailed casting process of
specimens can be found in reference [34].

(a)

(b)
Figure 1. Dimensions
Figure and details
1. Dimensions of Specimen
and details (unit: mm).
of Specimen (a)mm).
(unit: SW1~SW3 specimen design
(a) SW1~SW3 drawings;
specimen design drawings;
(b) SW4 specimen design drawings.
(b) SW4 specimen design drawings.
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 20

Buildings 2022, 12, 1308 5 of 20

The concrete casting of specimens is shown in Figure 2.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)
Figure 2. Concrete
Figure 2. Concretecasting
castingof of specimens.
specimens. (a) Formwork;
(a) Formwork; (b) Thermocouple
(b) Thermocouple arrangement;
arrangement; (c) Precast
(c) Precast
wallboard pouring;(d)
wallboard pouring; (d) Precast
Precast wallboard
wallboard pouring
pouring completed;
completed; (e) Precast
(e) Precast wallboard
wallboard and steelandpipesteel pipe
assembling; (f)Casting
assembling; (f) Castingofof foundation
foundation beam;
beam; (g) Wet
(g) Wet DCLs;DCLs; (h) Cavity
(h) Cavity pouring.
pouring. The variables
The variables studied studied
experimentally included
experimentally included fire
fire exposure
exposure time,
time, fire-retardant
fire-retardant coatingcoating
on theon theconstraint
edge edge constraint
steel pipesteel pipe
column, andthe
column, and thewidth-thickness
width-thickness ratio.
ratio. The The
basicbasic parameters
parameters of eachof each specimen
specimen areindetailed
are detailed Table 1. in Table
1.
 The yield strength and ultimate strength of steel slabs and steel bars are shown in
Table 2. The cubic compressive strength of precast wall slab concrete on the day of the
seismic test was 26.7 MPa. Self-compacting concrete was commercial concrete, with a cu-
Buildings 2022, 12, 1308 bic compressive strength of 63 MPa on the day of the seismic test. 6 of 20

Table 2. Strengths of steel plate and steel bars.

Nominal
Table 1. Detailed parameters Thick-
of specimens. Yield Ultimate
Measured Thickness
Steel Type ness Strength Strength
Replacement Rate of Wall Limb Thickness (mm)
of
Specimen
Abandoned Concrete
Wall Limb Width (mm)
Thickness Fire-Retardant Coating
(MPa) Axial Compression
Fire Exposure (MPa)
Number (mm) Time (min) Ration
(%) Q235B (mm)2 1.77
for Steel Pipe (mm) 340.7 467.6
SW1 20 HRB400
1000 200 8 0 8 0 430.1 594.2
0.18
SW2 20 1000
HRB400 20020 0 20 60 443.6 0.18
620.2
SW3 20 1000 200 20 60 0.18
SW4 20 1200 200 0 60 0.18
The core samples of 75 × 75 mm (diameter × height) were obtained from the waste
foundation beams by the core drilling method before the waste concrete was broken, and
Table 2. Strengths of steel plate and steel bars.
the compressive strength of the core samples was measured on the test day. According to
the Technical specification for testing concrete strength with drilled core, the cubic com-
Nominal Thickness Measured Thickness
Steel Type YieldMPa.
Strength
The (MPa) Ultimate
usedStrength (MPa)
(mm)pressive strength was (mm)converted to 39.7 waste concrete in this experiment
was artificially broken into DCLs with characteristic dimensions of 60~80 mm (Figure 3).
Q235B 2 1.77 340.7 467.6
HRB400 8 Then, the finished DCLs 8 and SCC were placed 430.1 alternately into the cavity
594.2 of the precast
HRB400 20 wall panels and the square
20 steel pipes, with auxiliary
443.6 vibration. The detailed
620.2 casting pro-
cess of specimens can be found in reference [34].

Figure3.3.Demolished
Figure Demolishedconcrete
concretelumps
lumps(DCLs).
(DCLs).

2.2.
2.2.Test
TestSetup
SetupandandLoading
LoadingProcess
Process
This
Thistest
testwas
wascarried
carriedout
outinintwo
twostages.
stages.The
Thefirst
firststage
stagewas
wasthe
theopen
openfire
firetest.
test.To
Toensure
ensure
that
thatthe
theloading
loadingbeams
beamsandandfoundation
foundationbeams beamsavoided
avoideddamage
damageduring
duringthe
theopen
openfire
firetest,
test,
two layers of fire-retardant coating were wrapped on the concrete surface
two layers of fire-retardant coating were wrapped on the concrete surface of loading of loading beams
and foundation
beams beams from
and foundation beams SW2
from to SW2
SW4.toThe ends
SW4. Theofends
the wall restrained
of the columns
wall restrained were
columns
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
coated with two layers of fire-retardant coatingcoating
to ensure that both 7 of 20
were coated with two layers of fire-retardant to ensure thatsides
both of shear
sides of wall
shear
specimens were exposed
wall specimens to the to
were exposed firethe
(Figure 4).
fire (Figure 4).

Figure4.4.Fire
Figure Fireprotection
protectiontreatment
treatmentof
ofspecimen.
specimen.

The second
The second stage
stage was
was the
the quasi-static
quasi-static test of shear walls after a standard fire. Speci-
Spec-
mens SW2
imens SW2to toSW4
SW4werewereplaced
placedindoors
indoorsforfor
30 days afterafter
30 days the open fire test.
the open fire Then, the quasi-
test. Then, the
static test was
quasi-static testcarried out onout
was carried all on
specimens (SW1 to
all specimens SW4).
(SW1 to The vertical
SW4). load was
The vertical applied
load was
by a hydraulic
applied jack with
by a hydraulic jackawith
range of 3200
a range kN, and
of 3200 the pressure
kN, and sensor
the pressure waswas
sensor placed under
placed un-
der
the the jack.
jack. TheThe repeated
repeated horizontal
horizontal push–pullload
push–pull loadwas
wasapplied
applied by
by MTS electro-hydraulic
electro-hydraulic
servo actuator with a range of 1600 kN, fixed to the reaction wall. The test setup is shown
in Figure 5.
 Figure 4. Fire
Figure 4. protection treatment
Fire protection of specimen.
treatment of specimen.

The The
second stagestage
second was was
the quasi-static test of
the quasi-static testshear wallswalls
of shear afterafter
a standard fire. fire.
a standard Speci-
Speci-
mens SW2 to SW4 were placed indoors for 30 days after the open fire test. Then,
mens SW2 to SW4 were placed indoors for 30 days after the open fire test. Then, the quasi- the quasi-
Buildings 2022, 12, 1308 staticstatic
test was carried
test was out on
carried outall
onspecimens (SW1(SW1
all specimens to SW4). The The
to SW4). vertical loadload
vertical was was
applied
7 of 20
applied
by aby hydraulic jack with a range of 3200 kN, and the pressure sensor was
a hydraulic jack with a range of 3200 kN, and the pressure sensor was placed under placed under
the jack. The The
the jack. repeated horizontal
repeated push–pull
horizontal loadload
push–pull was was
applied by MTS
applied by MTS electro-hydraulic
electro-hydraulic
servo
servo actuator
actuator
servo with a
withwith
actuator range
a range of 1600
of 1600
a range kN, fixed
kN, kN,
of 1600 fixed to the
to the
fixed reaction
to reaction wall. The
wall.wall.
the reaction test
TheThetest setup
setup
test is
is shown
setup shown
is shown
in Figure
in Figure 5.
5. 5.
in Figure

(a) (a) (b) (b)

Figure 5. Test
Figure setup.
5. Test (a) Schematic
setup. diagram
(a) Schematic of test
diagram ofsetup; (b) Specimen
test setup; installation
(b) Specimen site. site.
installation
Figure 5. Test setup. (a) Schematic diagram of test setup; (b) Specimen installation site.
2.3.
2.3. Monitoring
2.3. Point
Monitoring
Monitoring Arrangement
Point
Point Arrangement
Arrangement
To
To obtain
obtain the
the axial
To obtain axial deformation
the axial of
of specimens
deformation
deformation of specimens
specimens during the
theopen
during
during the
open fire
firetest,
open fire vertical
test,test, dis-
vertical
vertical dis-dis-
placement
placement gauges
gauges
placement were set
werewere
gauges around
set around the top
the top
set around of
the of loading
toploading beams,
beams,
of loading as shown
as shown
beams, in Figure
in Figure
as shown 6.
6. 6.
in Figure

(a) (a) (b) (b)

Figure
Figure 6.
6. Arrangement
Figure of
ofLVDTs
6. Arrangement
Arrangement on
on specimens
of LVDTs
LVDTs (unit:
on specimens
specimens mm).
(unit:(unit:
mm). (a)
(a)Arrangement
mm). of
ofLVDTs
(a) Arrangement
Arrangement on
on SW2
of LVDTs
LVDTs and
on SW2
SW2 and and
SW3;SW3;
(b) Arrangement of
(b) Arrangement LVDTs on
of LVDTsSW4.
on SW4.
SW3; (b) Arrangement of LVDTs on SW4.

The embedded thermocouples were at half the height of specimens and were used
to measure the internal temperature field. There were seven thermocouples embedded in
each specimen (SW2 to SW4) among which T1 was located inside the prefabricated wall
panel at a distance of approximately 5 mm from the fire surface; T2 was approximately
50 mm from the fire surface; T3 was approximately 100 mm from the fire surface; T4 was
attached to the outer wall of the square steel tube; T5 was located at the midpoint of the
connection between the concrete center and the outer wall of the square steel tube; T6 was
located at the concrete center of the edge-constrained steel tube core; and T7 was close to
the vertical steel bars, measuring the temperature field of vertical steel bars during the
open fire test. The arrangement of each thermocouple is shown in Figure 7.
The content of a quasi-static test after a fire mainly included the failure process
and failure modes of specimens under various levels of horizontal loads and horizontal
displacements. The layout of each displacement meter is shown in Figure 5, where LVDT1
was set on the loading beam; LVDT2 and LVDT3 were set at three points of shear wall
height; LVDT4 was set at the center of the loading beam perpendicular to the specimen
direction; LVDT5 and LVDT7 were arranged in the horizontal direction at the junction
 measure the internal temperature field. There were seven thermocouples embedded in
each specimen (SW2 to SW4) among which T1 was located inside the prefabricated wall
panel at a distance of approximately 5 mm from the fire surface; T2 was approximately 50
mm from the fire surface; T3 was approximately 100 mm from the fire surface; T4 was
Buildings 2022, 12, 1308 attached to the outer wall of the square steel tube; T5 was located at the midpoint of the
8 of 20
connection between the concrete center and the outer wall of the square steel tube; T6 was
located at the concrete center of the edge-constrained steel tube core; and T7 was close to
the vertical steel bars, measuring the temperature field of vertical steel bars during the
of the steel tube and prefabricated wall panel; and LVDT6 was arranged vertically at the
open fire test. The arrangement of each thermocouple is shown in Figure 7.
junction of the steel tube and the precast wall panel.

(a) (b)
Distribution beam Distribution beam
LVDT4 LVDT2 LVDT4 LVDT2

750
750

T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T7 T1

1500
1500

Thermocouples Thermocouples

750
750

1-1 2-2

(c)
Figure 7. Arrangement
Figure 7. Arrangement of
ofthermocouples
thermocouplesininspecimens
specimens (unit:
(unit: mm).
mm). (a)(a) Arrangement
Arrangement of thermocou-
of thermocouples
ples in SW2 and SW3; (b) Arrangement of thermocouples in SW4; (c) Thermocouples side profile.
in SW2 and SW3; (b) Arrangement of thermocouples in SW4; (c) Thermocouples side profile.

The
At thecontent of a quasi-static
beginning of the test, test after a fire mainly
a predetermined included
vertical load wasthe failure process
first applied toand
the
failure
shear wall specimen and then a repeated push–pull horizontal load was applied underdis-
modes of specimens under various levels of horizontal loads and horizontal the
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
placements.
condition that The
thelayout ofload
vertical eachwas
displacement meterIn
basically stable. is this
shown
test,inweFigure 5, where
adopted LVDT1
displacement
was set [35],
control on the
andloading beam;
the specific LVDT2
loading and LVDT3
system were
is shown set at three
in Figure 8. Thepoints of shearangle
displacement wall
height; LVDT4 was set at the center
values of each stage are shown in Table 3. of the loading beam perpendicular to the specimen
direction; LVDT5 and LVDT7 were arranged in the horizontal direction at the junction of
the steel tube and prefabricated wall panel; and LVDT6 was arranged vertically at the
junction of the steel tube and the precast wall panel.
At the beginning of the test, a predetermined vertical load was first applied to the
shear wall specimen and then a repeated push–pull horizontal load was applied under
the condition that the vertical load was basically stable. In this test, we adopted displace-
ment control [35], and the specific loading system is shown in Figure 8. The displacement
angle values of each stage are shown in Table 3.

Figure 8. Horizontal loading system.

Figure 8. Horizontal loading system.

Table 3. Loading value.

Displacement Displacement Displacement Displacement

Series Cycles Series
Angle Values (mm) Angle Values (mm)
Δ1 1/1000 1.70 1 time Δ6 1/100 17.00
Buildings 2022, 12, 1308 Figure 8. Horizontal loading system. 9 of 20

Table 3. Loading value.

Displacement Table 3. Loading value.

Displacement Displacement Displacement
Series Cycles Series Cycles
Angle Values (mm) Angle Values (mm)
Displacement
Series
Δ1 Displacement
1/1000Angle Displacement
1.70 Values (mm)
1 time Cycles
Δ6 Series1/100
Displacement Angle Cycles
17.00 Values (mm) 3 times
∆1Δ2 1/800
1/1000 2.12 1.70 1 time 1 Δ7
time ∆6 1/75 1/100 22.67 17.00 3 times
3 times
∆2Δ3 1/500
1/800 3.40 2.12 3 times 1 Δ8
time ∆7 1/50 1/75 34.00 22.67 3 times
3 times
∆3 1/500 3.40 3 times ∆8 1/50 34.00 3 times
∆4
Δ4 1/300
1/300
5.67 5.67 3 times Δ9
3 times ∆9
1/30 1/30
56.67 56.67
3 times
3 times
∆5Δ5 1/200
1/200 8.50 8.50 3 times 3Δ10
times ∆10 1/25 1/25 68 68 3 times
3 times

3. Test
3. TestResults
Results
3.1. Open
3.1. Open Fire
Fire Test
TestResults
ResultsAnalysis
Analysis
3.1.1.
3.1.1. Phenomenon
Phenomenon
The
The patterns
patterns of of specimens
specimens after
after the
the open
open firefire test
test are
are shown
shown in in Figure
Figure9.9. ItIt can
can be
be
observed
observed from
from the the figure
figure that
that the
the concrete
concrete of of the
the three
three specimens
specimens was was light
light yellow
yellow after
after
60
60 min
min of
of fire,
fire, and
and aa fewfew horizontal
horizontal cracks
cracks appeared
appeared on on the
the concrete
concrete surface
surface of
of precast
precast
wall
wall panels
panels onon both
both sides
sides ofof the
the shear
shear walls,
walls, and
and thethe steel bars in walls were not exposed.
The
The outer
outer surface
surface of of steel
steel tubes
tubes onon the
the concealed
concealed columns
columns of of SW2
SW2 andand SW4
SW4 were
were mostly
mostly
dark
dark black, and steel tubes had a slight buckling phenomenon; SW3 was equipped with
black, and steel tubes had a slight buckling phenomenon; SW3 was equipped with
fire-retardant
fire-retardant coating
coating on on the
the steel
steel tubes
tubes ofof concealed
concealed columns,
columns, so so the
the steel
steel tubes
tubes did
did not
not
appear
appear bulging
bulging and andwere
wererelatively
relativelyflat.
flat.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 9.
Figure 9. Patterns
Patterns of
of specimen
specimen after
after fire.
fire. (a)
(a) SW2;
SW2; (b)
(b) SW3;
SW3;(c)
(c)SW4.
SW4.

3.1.2. Temperature Field Analysis

Furnace Temperature
Figure 10 shows the comparison of the measured average air temperature–exposure
time curves in the furnace and ISO-834 standard fire curve, the actual fire heating curves
have diversity, in order to unify and compare, many countries and organizations have
formulated the standard fire heating curve for the component fire resistance test to assess
the component fire resistance limit [36], during the open fire test of SW2 to SW4 in this test.
It can be seen that the measured heating curves of SW3 and SW4 were generally consistent
with the standard fire curve, while there were certain deviations in the furnace heating
curve of specimen SW2. This was because the experimental furnace had not been used for
four months before this test, and the workability of this experimental furnace was affected
by moisture. After the open fire test of SW2, the workability of this furnace returned
to normal.
 the component fire resistance limit [36], during the open fire test of SW2 to SW4 in this
test. It can be seen that the measured heating curves of SW3 and SW4 were generally con-
sistent with the standard fire curve, while there were certain deviations in the furnace
heating curve of specimen SW2. This was because the experimental furnace had not been
Buildings 2022, 12, 1308
used for four months before this test, and the workability of this experimental furnace was
10 of 20
affected by moisture. After the open fire test of SW2, the workability of this furnace re-
turned to normal.

Figure 10.Comparison
Figure 10. Comparisonofof
measured temperature–time
measured curves
temperature–time in furnace
curves and ISO
in furnace and834
ISOstandard curve.
834 standard
curve.
Measured Temperature-Time Curve
FigureTemperature-Time
Measured 11 shows the curvesCurveof temperature variation with time at the seven monitoring
points during
Figure 11 the open
shows thefire test. of
curves It temperature
can be seen that the temperature
variation with time atof
thethree
sevenspecimens
monitor-
all increased with fire time. In the same cross section, measured concrete temperature
ing points during the open fire test. It can be seen that the temperature of three specimens
gradually decreased
all increased with firewith increasing
time. depthcross
In the same of thesection,
monitoring points.
measured The temperature
concrete of
temperature
steel pipes outer surface of concealed column and wall concrete surface of
gradually decreased with increasing depth of the monitoring points. The temperature of SW2 and SW4
were higher, the rest of the internal concrete were lower than 35 ◦ C, and the temperature
steel pipes outer surface of concealed column and wall concrete surface of SW2 and SW4
of core concrete was approximately 150 ◦ C. Because of the fire-retardant coating on the
were higher, the rest of the internal concrete were lower than 35 °C, and the temperature
steel pipe column, the temperature of the steel pipe column cross section of SW3 was lower
of core concrete was approximately 150 °C. Because of the fire-retardant coating on the
than that of specimen SW2 and specimen SW4, but the temperature change of the wall
steel pipe column, the temperature of the steel pipe column cross section of SW3 was
cross section was almost the same as that of SW2 and SW4. In addition, the maximum
lower than that of specimen SW2 and specimen SW4, but the temperature change of the
temperature of the three specimens vertical reinforcement was approximately 500 ◦ C. Fire
wall cross section was almost the same as that of SW2 and SW4. In addition, the maximum
for 60 min caused some degree of damage to the outer edges of specimens, while the
temperature of the three specimens vertical reinforcement was approximately 500 °C. Fire
properties of core concrete were basically the same as those at a normal temperature.
for 60 min caused some degree of damage to the outer edges of specimens, while the prop-
ertiesAxial
3.1.3. of core concrete were
Deformation basically the same as those at a normal temperature.
Analysis
The axial deformation–fire time curves of specimens are shown in Figure 12, and the
axial deformation was positive with expansion deformation. It can be seen from the figure
that the axial deformation of SW2, SW3, and SW4 were 2.12 mm, 1.6 mm, and 2.29 mm,
respectively. The axial deformation variation of the three specimens were basically the
same, and they were all in the expansion stage.

3.2. Analysis of Seismic Test Results after Fire

3.2.1. Phenomenon
When specimens were in the elastic stage, there were no visible cracks on the surface
of the shear wall concrete and no buckling phenomenon on the steel tubes of concealed
columns. After specimens entered the yield stage, buckling occurred, then horizontal cracks
were formed, and diagonal cracks gradually appeared. When specimens entered the failure
stage, fire specimens and non-fire specimen showed different failure patterns. The diagonal
cracks of concrete on the surface of specimen SW1, which was not subjected to fire, extended
and widened, forming the principal diagonal cracks in the shape of an “X”. The concrete at
the junction of steel tubes and precast wall panels displayed a spalling phenomenon and
the bending steel bars were exposed. However, diagonal cracks of concrete on the surface
of SW2 to SW4 did not form principal diagonal cracks. The wall panels were divided
into some diamond-shaped pieces by several crossed diagonal cracks, and the concrete
was peeled off in a large area at the corner of the wall panels (This may be due to the
fact that under the combined effect of high temperature and axial load, the fire specimens
were internally damaged to some extent. With the further action of low reversed cyclic
Buildings 2022, 12, 1308 11 of 20

loads, micro-cracks originally generated during fire time continued to expand, resulting
in eventual failure without forming the principal diagonal cracks. [37–39]). The failure
patterns of specimens are shown in Figure 13. The cracks depicted in blue were those
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20
generated during the open fire test, and the cracks depicted in red were those generated in
this seismic test.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure
Figure11.
11.Temperature–time
Temperature–timecurves.
curves.(a)
(a)SW2;
SW2;(b)
(b)SW3;
SW3;(c)
(c)SW4.
SW4.

3.1.3. Axial
In theDeformation
test process, Analysis
the failure characteristics of SW1 were similar to those in refer-
enceThe[34], anddeformation–fire
axial the failure characteristics
time curvesof of
SW2 to SW4 are
specimens were roughly
shown the same.
in Figure Taking
12, and the
specimen SW2 as an example, the failure process, phenomenon, and characteristics
axial deformation was positive with expansion deformation. It can be seen from the figure were
analyzed
that the axialanddeformation
introduced. of Figure
SW2,14SW3,
showsandthe failure
SW4 wereprocess and 1.6
2.12 mm, phenomenon
mm, and 2.29 of SW2.
mm,
respectively. The axial deformation variation of the three specimens were basicallythere
(1) When the displacement angle was 1/1000, specimen was in the elastic stage, the
was no
same, andvisible crackall
they were oninthe
theconcrete
expansionsurface
stage.of the wall panel and no bulge on the steel
tubes of concealed columns;
(2) When the displacement angle was 1/800, the first horizontal crack occurred at
the junction of the prefabricated wall panel and steel tubes, which was 280 mm above the
foundation beam;
(3) When the displacement angle was 1/500, the concrete cracks on the surface of the
precast wall panel began to increase, and the steel tubes did not bulge;
(4) When the displacement angles were 1/300 and 1/200, steel tubes on both sides of
specimen showed slight bulges under compression, but the bulges disappeared under an
opposite side loading condition. At the same time, diagonal cracks began to appear on the
surface of the precast wall panel;
(5) When the displacement angle was 1/50, the horizontal displacement reached
34 mm, diagonal cracks of concrete on the surface of the precast wall panel did not form

(a) (b)
Buildings 2022, 12, 1308 (c) 12 of 20

Figure 11. Temperature–time curves. (a) SW2; (b) SW3; (c) SW4.

the principal
3.1.3. diagonal cracks.
Axial Deformation AnalysisThe wall was divided into some diamond-shaped pieces by
several crossed diagonal cracks,
The axial deformation–fire time and the concrete
curves began
of specimens aretoshown
peel off;
in Figure 12, and the
(6) When the displacement angle was 1/30 till failure,
axial deformation was positive with expansion deformation. It can be lateral deformation
seen from the figureof the
specimen was severe. The concrete peeled off over a large area and
that the axial deformation of SW2, SW3, and SW4 were 2.12 mm, 1.6 mm, and 2.29 steel bars weremm,
exposed
under bending. In addition, there were two bulges on the left side of specimen
respectively. The axial deformation variation of the three specimens were basically the and one on
the right side, but no penetrating crack was
same, and they were all in the expansion stage. formed.

Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 20

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure
Figure 12.
12. Vertical
Vertical deformation–time curves of specimens. (a) SW2; (b) SW3; (c) SW4.

3.2.2.
3.2. Hysteretic
Analysis Loop Test Results after Fire
of Seismic
3.2.1. Phenomenon load-displacement hysteretic loops of composite shear walls are shown
The horizontal
in Figure 15 from which the following conclusions can be drawn:
When specimens were in the elastic stage, there were no visible cracks on the surface
(1) At the initial stage of loading, the hysteretic loops were long and narrow, and the
of the shear wall concrete and no buckling phenomenon on the steel tubes of concealed
surrounding area was small. The specimens were in the elastic stage without residual
columns. After specimens entered the yield stage, buckling occurred, then horizontal
deformation; when the specimens entered the yield stage, cracks appeared on the surface
cracks were formed, and diagonal cracks gradually appeared. When specimens entered
of precast wall panels and steel tubes of concealed columns bulged. The hysteretic loops
the failure stage, fire specimens and non-fire specimen showed different failure patterns.
had a platform section near the peak load and a “pinching” phenomenon appeared. The
The
areadiagonal cracks
of hysteretic of concrete
loops increased onrapidly,
the surface of specimen
showing SW1,dissipation
good energy which was capacity;
not subjected
with
to fire, extended and widened, forming the principal diagonal cracks in
the further increase of the displacement angle, the horizontal bearing capacity decreasedthe shape of an
“X”. The concrete
obviously, and theathysteretic
the junction of presented
loops steel tubesanand precast
inverse wall panels
S shape when displayed a spalling
the ultimate bearing
phenomenon and
capacity was reached; the bending steel bars were exposed. However, diagonal cracks of con-
crete (2)
on the surface of SW2 to SW4 did not form principal diagonal cracks.
The hysteretic loops of SW2 were similar to those of SW1 in general, and The wall panels
the
were divided into some diamond-shaped pieces by several crossed diagonal
maximum horizontal load was almost the same. It can indicate that infilling DCLs and SCC cracks, and
the concreteshear
composite was walls
peeledwithoff in a large
edge area atsquare
constraint the corner of thestill
steel tubes wallretained
panels (This
good may be
seismic
due to the factafter
performance thataunder the
fire for 60combined
min. effect of high temperature and axial load, the fire
specimens were internally damaged to some extent. With the further action of low re-
versed cyclic loads, micro-cracks originally generated during fire time continued to ex-
pand, resulting in eventual failure without forming the principal diagonal cracks. [37–
39]). The failure patterns of specimens are shown in Figure 13. The cracks depicted in blue
were those generated during the open fire test, and the cracks depicted in red were those
generated in this seismic test.
 due to the fact that under the combined effect of high temperature and axial load, the fire
specimens were internally damaged to some extent. With the further action of low re-
versed cyclic loads, micro-cracks originally generated during fire time continued to ex-
pand, resulting in eventual failure without forming the principal diagonal cracks. [37–
39]). The failure patterns of specimens are shown in Figure 13. The cracks depicted in blue
Buildings 2022, 12, 1308 13 of 20
were those generated during the open fire test, and the cracks depicted in red were those
generated in this seismic test.

(c) (d)
Figure 13. Failure patterns of specimens. (a) SW1; (b) SW2; (c) SW3; (d) SW4.

In the test process, the failure characteristics of SW1 were similar to those in reference
[34], and the failure characteristics of SW2 to SW4 were roughly the same. Taking speci-
men SW2 as an example, the failure process, phenomenon, and characteristics were ana-
lyzed and introduced. Figure 14 shows the failure process and phenomenon of SW2.
(1) When the displacement angle was 1/1000, specimen was in the elastic stage, there
was no visible crack on the concrete surface of the wall panel and no bulge on the steel
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW tubes of concealed columns; 13 of 20
(2) When the displacement angle was 1/800, the first horizontal crack occurred at the
junction of (a)
the prefabricated wall panel and steel tubes, (b)which was 280 mm above the
foundation beam;
(3) When the displacement angle was 1/500, the concrete cracks on the surface of the
precast wall panel began to increase, and the steel tubes did not bulge;
(4) When the displacement angles were 1/300 and 1/200, steel tubes on both sides of
specimen showed slight bulges under compression, but the bulges disappeared under an
opposite side loading condition. At the same time, diagonal cracks began to appear on the
surface of the precast wall panel;
(5) When the displacement angle was 1/50, the horizontal displacement reached 34
mm, diagonal cracks of concrete on the surface of the precast wall panel did not form the
principal diagonal cracks. The wall was divided into some diamond-shaped pieces by
several crossed diagonal cracks, and the concrete began to peel off;
(6) When the displacement angle was 1/30 till failure, lateral deformation of the spec-
imen was severe.
(c) The concrete peeled off over a large area (d) and steel bars were exposed
under bending. In addition, there were two bulges on the left side of specimen and one
Figure 13.Figure
Failure patterns
on the13.
right ofpatterns
side,
Failure specimens. (a) SW1; (b)
but noofpenetrating
specimens. SW2;
crack
(a) (c)
was
SW1; (b)SW3;
SW2;(d)
(c)SW4.
formed. SW3; (d) SW4.

In the test process, the failure characteristics of SW1 were similar to those in reference
[34], and the failure characteristics of SW2 to SW4 were roughly the same. Taking speci-
men SW2 as an example, the failure process, phenomenon, and characteristics were ana-
lyzed and introduced. Figure 14 shows the failure process and phenomenon of SW2.
(1) When the displacement angle was 1/1000, specimen was in the elastic stage, there
was no visible crack on the concrete surface of the wall panel and no bulge on the steel
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR tubes of concealed columns;
PEER REVIEW 14 of 20
(2) When the displacement angle was 1/800, the first horizontal crack occurred at the
junction of the prefabricated wall panel
(a) (b) and steel tubes, which was 280 mm(c)above the
foundation beam;
(3) When the displacement angle was 1/500, the concrete cracks on the surface of the
precast wall panel began to increase, and the steel tubes did not bulge;
(4) When the displacement angles were 1/300 and 1/200, steel tubes on both sides of
specimen showed slight bulges under compression, but the bulges disappeared under an
opposite side loading condition. At the same time, diagonal cracks began to appear on the
surface of the precast wall panel;
(5) When the displacement angle was 1/50, the horizontal displacement reached 34
mm, diagonal cracks of concrete on the surface of the precast wall panel did not form the
(d)principal diagonal cracks. The wall was (e) divided into some diamond-shaped (f)pieces by
several crossed diagonal
Figure 14. Failurecracks,
14. Failure andand
processes themodes
concrete began toSW2.peel off;
Figure processes and modes of of specimen
specimen (a) Displacement
SW2. (a) Displacement angleangle 1/800;
1/800; (b) Dis-
(b) Displace-
(6) When the displacement
placement angle 1/500; (c)angle was 1/30
Displacement till failure,
angle lateral
1/300; (d) deformation
Displacement of the(e)
angle 1/200; spec-
Displacement
ment angle 1/500; (c) Displacement angle 1/300; (d) Displacement angle 1/200; (e) Displacement
imen wasangle
severe.
1/50;The concrete peeled
(f) Displacement angleoff over a large area and steel bars were exposed
1/30.
angle 1/50; (f) Displacement angle 1/30.
under bending. In addition, there were two bulges on the left side of specimen and one
3.2.2.
on the right Hysteretic
side, Loop
but no penetrating crack was formed.
The horizontal load-displacement hysteretic loops of composite shear walls are
shown in Figure 15 from which the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) At the initial stage of loading, the hysteretic loops were long and narrow, and the
surrounding area was small. The specimens were in the elastic stage without residual de-
formation; when the specimens entered the yield stage, cracks appeared on the surface of
 further increase of the displacement angle, the horizontal bearing capacity decreased ob-
viously, and the hysteretic loops presented an inverse S shape when the ultimate bearing
capacity was reached;
(2) The hysteretic loops of SW2 were similar to those of SW1 in general, and the max-
imum horizontal load was almost the same. It can indicate that infilling DCLs and SCC
Buildings 2022, 12, 1308 composite shear walls with edge constraint square steel tubes still retained good seismic
14 of 20
performance after a fire for 60 min.

600 600

400 400

200 200

P(kN)
P(kN)
0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
 (mm)  (mm)

(a) (b)
600 800

600
400
400
200
200
P(kN)

P(kN)
0 0

-200
-200
-400
-400
-600
-600 -800
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
 (mm)  (mm)

(c) (d)

Figure 15. Hysteretic curves of specimen. (a) SW1; (b) SW2; (c) SW3; (d) SW4.

3.2.3. Horizontal Bearing Capacity

(1) The horizontal bearing capacity of SW2 was equivalent to SW3. The horizontal
bearing capacity of infilling DCLs and SCC composite shear walls were mainly related to
the strength of longitudinal reinforcement in walls, the strength of concrete in steel tubes,
and the strength of wall concrete. In addition, according to the calculation in reference [40],
the reduction factors of the concrete strength in steel tubes were almost the same as those of
the concrete strength in the walls of specimens SW2 and SW3. The results showed that the
horizontal seismic bearing capacity of composite shear walls, filled with DCLs and SCC,
and subjected to a standard fire on both sides for 1 h is not affected by spraying 20 mm
fire-retardant coating on concealed column steel tubes;
(2) Compared with SW2, the bearing capacity and energy dissipation capacity of SW4
were significantly improved. Therefore, appropriately increasing the width-thickness ratio
has a significant impact on the seismic performance of specimens after a standard fire.

3.2.4. Skeleton Curve

Figure 16 shows the effect of different parameters on the skeleton curves of shear
walls. The important data for the skeleton curves of specimens are given in Table 4, where
Py, Pue, and Pul represent the yield load, peak load, and ultimate load of specimens,
respectively, and ∆y, ∆p, and ∆u represent yield displacement, peak displacement, and
ultimate displacement, respectively. The yield load and the yield displacement were
determined on the skeleton curves according to the Park method [41]. Ultimate load refers
to the load size when the horizontal load dropped to 85% of the peak load. It can be seen
from Figure 16 and Table 4 that:
 Py, Pue, and Pul represent the yield load, peak load, and ultimate load of specimens, re-
spectively, and ∆y, ∆p, and ∆u represent yield displacement, peak displacement, and ul-
timate displacement, respectively. The yield load and the yield displacement were deter-
mined on the skeleton curves according to the Park method [41]. Ultimate load refers to
Buildings 2022, 12, 1308 the load size when the horizontal load dropped to 85% of the peak load. It can be seen15 of 20
from Figure 16 and Table 4 that:

600 600
SW2 SW2
SW1 400 SW3
400

200 200

P(kN)
P(kN)
0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

 (mm)  (mm)

(a) (b)
800
SW2
600
SW4
400

200
P(kN)

-200

-400

-600

-800
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
 (mm)

(c)
Figure 16. Envelope
Figure curves
16. Envelope of specimen.
curves (a) Fire
of specimen. exposure
(a) Fire time;time;
exposure (b) Fire-retardant coating;
(b) Fire-retardant (c) The
coating; (c) The
width-thickness ratio.
width-thickness ratio.

Table 4. Summary of test results.

Specimen ∆y Py ∆p Pue ∆u Pul

µ ξeq
Number (mm) (kN) (mm) (KN) (mm) (kN)
SW1 8.09 422.68 33.62 510.93 50.14 434.29 6.198 0.184
SW2 10.94 386.36 34.39 478.99 48.51 407.14 4.434 0.182
SW3 10.98 379.14 33.99 474.87 55.31 403.64 5.037 0.181
SW4 14.26 588.08 50.675 707.76 54.08 601.60 3.792 0.245

(1) At the initial stage of test loading, the skeleton curves varied linearly when the
specimens were in the elastic stage. With the increase of displacement, the skeleton curves
sloped toward the horizontal axis and the slopes decreased. After the specimens entered
the yield stage, a plateau section appeared in the curves. The skeleton curves dropped
gently when reaching the peak load, and the specimens were in good ductility;
(2) The ultimate displacement angles of four shear walls were all over 1/50, which
met the requirement of the 1/120 limit of the elastic-plastic displacement angle of shear
wall structures under strong earthquakes in the code for the seismic design of buildings
(GB 50011-2010) [42];
(3) Comparing SW2 with SW1, it can be seen that 60 min of fire had little effect
on the horizontal bearing capacity of infilling DCLs and SCC composite shear walls.
According to Figure 16a, the skeleton curves and stiffness of the two specimens were
roughly the same (The skeleton curve is the trajectory of the maximum peak of horizontal
force reached by each cycle of loading, reflecting the different stages and characteristics
of force and deformation of components.), indicating that the seismic performance of
composite shear walls filled with DCLs and SCC are basically equivalent to non-fire
specimen when subjected to standard fire for 60 min;
Buildings 2022, 12, 1308 16 of 20

(4) Comparing SW2 with SW3, the skeleton curves of the two specimens almost
overlapped, and the variation trends of the horizontal bearing capacity as well as stiffness
of the two specimens were roughly the same. Therefore, fire-retardant coating has little
effect on the seismic performance of specimens after a standard fire;
(5) The comparison of peak loads and ultimate displacements of specimens SW2
and SW4 showed that appropriately increasing the width-thickness ratio has a significant
effect on the seismic performance of infilling DCLs and SCC composite shear walls after a
standard fire.

3.2.5. Ductility Analysis

According to Table 4, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The displacement ductility factors of specimens met the requirement of seismic
design ductility factor not less than 3.0, indicating that composite shear walls filled with
DCLs and SCC have good deformation capacity after a standard fire;
(2) When subjected to fire for 60 min, the ductility factor of composite shear walls was
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 20
28.46% lower than at a normal temperature, which indicates that fire exposure time has a
significant effect on the deformation capacity of shear walls;
(3) Fire-retardant coating on the edge constraint steel pipe columns improves the
(2) The
seismic influence of
deformation fire on of
capacity theshear
energy dissipation
walls capacity of
after a standard infilling
fire to some DCLs andwhile
extent, SCC
composite
increasing shear walls is slight; ratio reduces the ductility capacity of shear walls filled with
the width-thickness
DCLs (3)and
Fire-retardant
SCC. coating on the edge constraint steel pipe columns has little effect
on the energy dissipation capacity of specimens after a fire;
3.2.6.(4)Energy Dissipation
Appropriately Capacity
increasing the width-thickness ratio can improve the energy dissi-
pationFigure
capacity of specimens
17 shows afterenergy
the unicyclic a standard fire. curves of specimens. It can be seen that:
dissipation

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure
Figure17.
17. Change
Changeof ofenergy
energydissipation
dissipationcapacity
capacitywith
withdisplacement
displacementamplitude.
amplitude.(a)
(a)Fire
Fireexposure
exposure
time; (b) Fire-retardant coating; (c) The width-thickness ratio.
time; (b) Fire-retardant coating; (c) The width-thickness ratio.

3.2.7. Stiffness Analysis

The stiffness degradation of each specimen is shown in Figure 18. It can be seen from
the figure that:
(1) All specimens showed the same variation trend of stiffness, that is, with the in-
crease of displacement angles, the secant stiffness of infilling DCLs and SCC composite
 Buildings 2022, 12, 1308 17 of 20

(1) All specimens showed the same variation trend of energy dissipation capacity.
With the increase of displacement angles, the energy dissipation capacity of each specimen
also increased;
(2) The influence of fire on the energy dissipation capacity of infilling DCLs and SCC
composite shear walls is slight;
(3) Fire-retardant coating on the edge constraint steel pipe columns has little effect on
the energy dissipation capacity of specimens after a fire;
(4) Appropriately increasing the width-thickness ratio can improve the energy dissipa-
tion capacity of specimens after a standard fire.

Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3.2.7. Stiffness Analysis 18 of 20

The stiffness degradation of each specimen is shown in Figure 18. It can be seen from
the figure that:

150 150

SW2 SW2
120 SW1 120 SW3
Ki(kN·mm-1)

Ki(kN·mm-1)
90 90

60 60

30
30

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
 (mm)
 (mm)

(a) (b)

150

SW2
120
SW4
Ki(kN·mm-1)

90

60

30

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
 (mm)

(c)
Figure 18. Stiffness
Figure degradation
18. Stiffness curves.
degradation (a) Fire
curves. exposure
(a) Fire time;time;
exposure (b) Fire-retardant coating;
(b) Fire-retardant (c) The
coating; (c) The
width-thickness ratio.
width-thickness ratio.

4. Conclusions
(1) All specimens showed the same variation trend of stiffness, that is, with the increase
of(1)
displacement
After 60 min angles, thethe
of fire, secant stiffness
failure of infilling
displacement DCLsofand
angles all SCC
shearcomposite shear wall
wall specimens
specimens gradually decreased;
were all over 1/50, which met the requirement of the 1/120 limit of the elastic-plastic dis-
placement (2)angle
Compared
of shearwith
wallSW1, the initial
structures understiffness of SW2, subjected
strong earthquakes to fire for
in the Seismic 60 min,
Design
decreased by
Code for buildings; 44%. At the later loading stage, specimens entered the plastic stage, and the
secant stiffness
(2) After 60 min of both specimens
of fire, tended to be
the displacement consistent;
ductility factors of shear wall specimens
(3) The stiffness degradation curves of SW2
varied from 3.792 to 4.434, which met the requirement of no less and SW3 werethan
almost
3.0 overlapping,
of the Seismicindi-
cating that spraying fire-retardant coating on the surface of concealed
Design Code, indicating that infilling DCLs and SCC composite shear walls still have column steel
good pipes
has little effect on the stiffness
deformation capacity after 60 min of fire; degradation of composite shear walls filled with DCLs and
SCC after a standard fire;
(3) The horizontal bearing capacity, initial stiffness, deformation capacity, and energy
(4) Appropriately
dissipation increasing
capacity of specimens afterthe
60 width-thickness
min of fire were ratio
lowercan
than improve the stiffness
those without fire, of
infilling DCLs and SCC composite shear walls and slow down their
but the overall decline was slight, indicating that the composite shear walls filled withstiffness degradation
to some extent.
DCLs and SCC still have good seismic performance after 60 min of fire;
(4) The effect of fire-retardant coating on the edge of a concealed steel pipe column
on horizontal bearing capacity, deformation capacity, initial stiffness, stiffness degrada-
tion and energy dissipation capacity of specimens after fire is limited. When the load was
relatively small, the excess bearing capacity of the end restraint column and the wall was
Buildings 2022, 12, 1308 18 of 20

4. Conclusions
(1) After 60 min of fire, the failure displacement angles of all shear wall specimens
were all over 1/50, which met the requirement of the 1/120 limit of the elastic-plastic
displacement angle of shear wall structures under strong earthquakes in the Seismic Design
Code for buildings;
(2) After 60 min of fire, the displacement ductility factors of shear wall specimens
varied from 3.792 to 4.434, which met the requirement of no less than 3.0 of the Seismic
Design Code, indicating that infilling DCLs and SCC composite shear walls still have good
deformation capacity after 60 min of fire;
(3) The horizontal bearing capacity, initial stiffness, deformation capacity, and energy
dissipation capacity of specimens after 60 min of fire were lower than those without fire,
but the overall decline was slight, indicating that the composite shear walls filled with
DCLs and SCC still have good seismic performance after 60 min of fire;
(4) The effect of fire-retardant coating on the edge of a concealed steel pipe column on
horizontal bearing capacity, deformation capacity, initial stiffness, stiffness degradation and
energy dissipation capacity of specimens after fire is limited. When the load was relatively
small, the excess bearing capacity of the end restraint column and the wall was large, and
the loading beam played the role of load redistribution. Without fire-retardant coating, the
bearing capacity and seismic performance of the end restraint column after fire damage had
no significant effect on the whole wall. Therefore, fire-retardant coating has no significant
effect on the seismic performance of the composite shear wall;
(5) Appropriately increasing the width-thickness ratio can obviously improve the
horizontal bearing capacity of shear walls after a standard fire. In addition, the initial
stiffness, stiffness degradation, and energy dissipation capacity were improved to different
degrees, but deformation capacity was reduced. The results showed that increasing the
width-thickness ratio has a significant effect on the seismic performance of composite shear
walls filled with DCLs and SCC after a standard fire;
(6) There are many possible factors affecting the seismic performance of composite
shear walls after fire, this paper investigated and analyzed just three aspects, namely, fire
exposure time, fire-retardant coating on the edge constraint steel pipe column, and the
width-thickness ratio. Future research work may be carried out in the following aspects:
cooling methods of shear walls after fire, curing age of shear walls, test axial compression
ratio, and other possible factors.

Author Contributions: All authors contributed to the study design and implementation. Y.X.: con-
ceptualization, funding acquisition, methodology, supervision, and writing—review and editing.
A.C.: data curation, formal analysis, and writing original manuscript. D.W.: supervision, conceptual-
ization, project administration, and methodology. G.Z.: investigation, software, and data curation.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: China National Key R&D Program during the 13th Five-year Plan Period (2017YFC0703303);
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51878298, 52178281); the Science and Technology
Planning Project of Guangdong Province (2018B02028003, 2021A1515012606); the Science and Tech-
nology Program of Guangzhou, China (201831826); and the Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory
of Modern Civil Engineering Technology (2021B1212040003).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article material.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1308 19 of 20

References
1. Redling, A. Construction Debris Volume to Surge in Coming Years. Construction & Demolition Recycling. Construction &
Demolition Recycling Magazine, Ohio, United States. 2018. Available online: https://www.cdrecycler.com/Article/Global-
Volumeconstruction-Demolition-Waste/ (accessed on 30 April 2020).
2. National Bureau of Statistics of China. China Statistical Yearbook; China Statistic Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2020.
(In Chinese)
3. Velay-Lizancos, M.; Martinez-Lage, I.; Azenha, M.; Granja, J.; Vazquez-Burgo, P. Concrete with Fine and Coarse Recycled
Aggregates: E-Modulus Evolution, Compressive Strength and Non-Destructive Testing at Early Ages. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018,
193, 323–331. [CrossRef]
4. Thomas, C.; Setién, J.; Polanco, J.A. Structural Recycled Aggregate Concrete Made with Precast Wastes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016,
114, 536–546. [CrossRef]
5. Ahmad, S.; Umar, A.; Masood, A. Properties of Normal Concrete, Self-Compacting Concrete and Glass Fibre-Reinforced
Self-Compacting Concrete: An Experimental Study. Procedia Eng. 2017, 173, 807–813. [CrossRef]
6. Kumar, R.D. Self-Compacted Concrete Mix Design and Its Comparison with Conventional Concrete (M-40). J. Civ. Environ. Eng.
2015, 5, 1. [CrossRef]
7. Khayat, K.H.; De Schutter, G. Mechanical Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014.
8. Alhussainy, F.; Hasan, H.A.; Rogic, S.; Sheikh, M.N.; Hadi, M.N. Direct Tensile Testing of Self-Compacting Concrete. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2016, 112, 903–906. [CrossRef]
9. Negro, P.; Tornaghi, M.L. Seismic Response of Precast Structures with Vertical Cladding Panels: The safecladding Experimental
Campaign. Eng. Struct. 2017, 132, 205–228. [CrossRef]
10. Belleri, A.; Torquati, M.; Marini, A.; Riva, P. Horizontal Cladding Panels: In-Plane Seismic Performance in Precast Concrete
Buildings. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2016, 14, 1103–1129. [CrossRef]
11. Brunesi, E.; Nascimbene, R.; Peloso, S. Evaluation of the Seismic Response of Precast Wall Connections: Experimental Observations
and Numerical Modeling. J. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 24, 1057–1082. [CrossRef]
12. Titi, A.; Biondini, F.; Toniolo, G. Seismic Assessment of Existing Precast Structures with Dry-Friction Beam-to-Column Joints. Bull.
Earthq. Eng. 2018, 16, 2067–2086. [CrossRef]
13. Wright, H.; Evans, R.; Gallocher, S. Composite walling. In Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete II; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA,
1992; pp. 783–797.
14. Sener, K.C.; Varma, A.H.; Ayhan, D. Steel-Plate Composite (SC) Walls: Out-of-Plane Flexural Behavior, Database, and Design. J.
Constr. Steel Res. 2015, 108, 46–59. [CrossRef]
15. Pons, O. Assessing the sustainability of prefabricated buildings. In Eco-Efficient Construction and Building Materials; Woodhead
Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2014; pp. 434–456.
16. Vostrikova, E.V.; Gayevskaya, Z.A. Modernization of residential buildings of the 1960s. In Advanced Materials Research; Trans Tech
Publications Ltd.: Bäch, Switzerland, 2014; Volume 941, pp. 858–863.
17. Boafo, F.E.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, J.T. Performance of Modular Prefabricated Architecture: Case Study-Based Review and Future
Pathways. Sustainability 2016, 8, 558. [CrossRef]
18. Moradibistouni, M.; Vale, B.; Isaacs, N. Evaluating Sustainability of Prefabrication Methods in Comparison with Traditional
Methods. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainability in Energy and Buildings, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia,
20–22 June 2018; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 228–237.
19. Shafaei, S.; Ayazi, A.; Farahbod, F. The Effect of Concrete Panel Thickness upon Composite Steel Plate Shear Walls. J. Constr. Steel
Res. 2016, 117, 81–90. [CrossRef]
20. Kisa, M.H.; Yuksel, S.B.; Caglar, N. Experimental Study on Hysteric Behavior of Composite Shear Walls with Steel Sheets. J. Build.
Eng. 2021, 33, 101570. [CrossRef]
21. Shafaei, S.; Farahbod, F.; Ayazi, A. The Wall–Frame and the Steel–Concrete Interactions in Composite Shear Walls. Struct. Des.
Tall Spec. Build. 2018, 27, e1476. [CrossRef]
22. Farzam, M.; Hoseinzade, F. Effect of Type and Distribution of Shear Studs on the Behavior of Composite Steel-Concrete Shear
Walls. J. Rehabil. Civ. Eng. 2019, 7, 154–167.
23. Huang, S.T.; Huang, Y.S.; He, A.; Tang, X.L.; Chen, Q.J.; Liu, X.; Cai, J. Experimental Study on Seismic Behavior of an Innovative
Composite Shear Wall. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2018, 148, 165–179. (In Chinese) [CrossRef]
24. Szolomicki, J.; Golasz-Szolomicka, H. Technological Advances and Trends in Modern High-Rise Buildings. Buildings 2019, 9, 193.
[CrossRef]
25. Sarcheshmehpour, M.; Estekanchi, H.E.; Moosavian, H. Optimum Seismic Design of Steel Framed-Tube and Tube-in-Tube Tall
Buildings. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2020, 29, e1782. [CrossRef]
26. Molina Hutt, C.; Hulsey, A.M.; Kakoty, P.; Deierlein, G.G.; Eksir Monfared, A.; Wen-Yi, Y.; Hooper, J.D. Toward Functional
Recovery Performance in the Seismic Design of Modern Tall Buildings. Earthq. Spectra 2022, 38, 283–309. [CrossRef]
27. Gentili, F.; Giuliani, L.; Bontempi, F. Structural Response of Steel High Rise Buildings to Fire: System Characteristics and Failure
Mechanisms. J. Struct. Fire Eng. 2013, 4, 9–26. [CrossRef]
28. Andres, B.; Hoehler, M.S.; Bundy, M.F. Fire Resistance of Cold-Formed Steel Framed Shear Walls under Various Fire Scenarios.
Fire Mater. 2020, 44, 352–364. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Buildings 2022, 12, 1308 20 of 20

29. Hoehler, M.S.; Smith, C.M.; Hutchinson, T.C.; Wang, X.; Meacham, B.J.; Kamath, P. Behavior of Steel-Sheathed Shear Walls
Subjected to Seismic and Fire Loads. Fire Saf. J. 2017, 91, 524–531. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Hoehler, M.S.; Andres, B.; Bundy, M.F. Lateral Resistance Reduction to Cold-Formed Steel-Framed Shear Walls under Various
Fire Scenarios. J. Struct. Eng. 2020, 146. [CrossRef]
31. Mistri, A.; Davis, R.; Sarkar, P. Condition Assessment of Fire Affected Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Building—A Case Study.
Adv. Concr. Constr. 2016, 4, 89. [CrossRef]
32. Ambroziak, A.; Piotrkowski, P.; Heizig, T. Assessment of Technical Condition and Repair of Steel Structure Elements on the
Example of Fire Damage in a Warehouse Building. In Proceedings of the MATEC Web of Conferences, Miedzyzdroje, Poland,
20–24 May 2019; EDP Sciences: Les Ulys, France, 2019; Volume 284, p. 02001.
33. Cardoso, R. Haussmannian Building Repair, Rehabilitation and Strengthening: Case Study from France. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Eng.
Hist. Herit. 2021, 175, 7–20. [CrossRef]
34. Yan, X.I.O.N.G.; Guowei, Z.H.A.O.; Di, W.U.; Zhuoliang, X.I.A.O.; Yaxin, C.H.E.N. Experimental Study on Seismic Behavior of
Composite Shear Walls Filled with Demolished Concrete Lumps and Self-Compacting Concrete. J. Build. Struct. 2022, 43, 114.
(In Chinese)
35. Dey, S.; Bhowmick, A.K. Seismic performance of composite plate shear walls. In Structures; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
2016; Volume 6, pp. 59–72.
36. GB/T 9978.3-2008; Fire-Resistance Tests—Elements of Building Construction—Part 3: Commentary on Test Method and Test Data
Application. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
37. Demir, U.; Goksu, C.; Binbir, E.; Ilki, A. Impact of time after fire on post-fire seismic behavior of RC columns. In Structures;
Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; Volume 26, pp. 537–548.
38. Nguyen, K.T.; Ngo, T.; Mendis, P.; Heath, D. Performance of High-Strength Concrete Walls Exposed to Fire. Adv. Struct. Eng.
2018, 21, 1173–1182. [CrossRef]
39. Ni, S.; Birely, A.C. Post-Fire Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls. Eng. Struct. 2018, 168, 163–178. [CrossRef]
40. Li, W.; Guo, Z. Experimental Investigation on Strength and Deformation of Concrete at Elevated Temperature. J. Build. Struct.
1993, 14, 8–16. (In Chinese)
41. Park, R. Ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical testing. In Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, 1 August 1988; Volume 8, pp. 605–616.
42. GB 50011-2010; Code for Seismic Design of Buildings. China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2010. (In Chinese)