# Experimental Study of High-Strength Concrete-Steel Plate Composite Shear Walls
## 3 Experimental Results and Discussions
### Lateral Load and Dispalcement Capacity
The concrete cover was easily spalled under higher axial compressive loads, and the embedded steel plate tended to buckle when severe concrete spalling took place. Under such circumstance, the strength and stiffness decay quickly and substantially decay. In addition, shear studs were only used in the footing and the connection between the steel plate and concrete wall web is weak, which exacerbate the spalling and strength reduction. Therefore, it is suggested that the shear wall structural component should be designed with caution when subjected to high axial compressive loads and an upper limit of axial compression ratio (0.5) should be set for RCSPSW. Besides, shear studs or steel ties should be used to strengthen the connection between the steel plate and concrete on both sides. Additionally, a higher transverse reinforcement ratio is recommended for further improving the concrete confinement effect. It is worth mentioning that the wall is much thicker in the practical design of high-rise buildings. Thus, the confinement effect and deformability of RCSPSW in future applications could be better than the experimental observations. Figure 15: Effects of Axial Compression Ratio on (**a**) Peak Lateral Load; (**b**) Ultimate Drift; and, (**c**) Ductility Factor. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Specimen**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Direction**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Yield**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Peak**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Ultimate**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Ductility Factor**} \\ \cline{3-11}  & & \(P_{y}\) **(kN)** & \(\Delta_{y}\) **(mm)** & **Drift (\%)** & \(P_{\text{mrc}}\) **(kN)** & \(\Delta_{\text{mrc}}\) **(mm)** & **Drift (\%)** & \(P_{u}\) **(kN)** & \(\Delta_{u}\) **(mm)** & **Drift (\%)** & \(\Delta=\Delta_{u}/\Delta_{y}\)** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{RCSW 1-1} & + & 517 & 4.3 & 0.36\% & 604 & 8.0 & 0.67\% & 513 & 10.1 & 0.84\% & 2.34 \\  & – & 509 & 2.9 & 0.25\% & 606 & 7.0 & 0.58\% & 515 & 9.3 & 0.77\% & 3.15 \\  & Average & 513 & 3.6 & 0.30\% & 605 & 7.5 & 0.63\% & 514 & 9.7 & 0.81\% & 2.67 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{RCSW 1-2} & + & 437 & 4.1 & 0.35\% & 522 & 9.0 & 0.75\% & 444 & 12.4 & 1.04\% & 3.00 \\  & – & 516 & 3.5 & 0.30\% & 617 & 8.9 & 0.74\% & 524 & 11.6 & 0.97\% & 3.28 \\  & Average & 477 & 3.8 & 0.32\% & 570 & 8.9 & 0.74\% & 484 & 12.0 & 1.00\% & 3.13 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{RCSPSW} & + & 941 & 5.8 & 0.49\% & 1070 & 11.2 & 0.93\% & 910 & 17.0 & 1.42\% & 2.92 \\  & – & 1043 & 7.7 & 0.64\% & 1301 & 10.9 & 0.91\% & 1106 & 24.4 & 2.40\% & 3.16 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Average & 992 & 6.8 & 0.57\% & 1186 & 11.0 & 0.92\% & 1008 & 20.7 & 1.73\% & 3.05 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-11}  & + & 983 & 5.9 & 0.49\% & 1156 & 9.7 & 0.81\% & 983 & 13.9 & 1.16\% & 2.37 \\ \cline{1-1}  & – & 1109 & 6.7 & 0.56\% & 1242 & 9.8 & 0.82\% & 1056 & 11.8 & 0.99\% & 1.77 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Average & 1046 & 6.3 & 0.52\% & 1199 & 9.8 & 0.81\% & 1019 & 12.9 & 1.07\% & 2.05 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{RCSPSW} & + & 978 & 6.4 & 0.53\% & 1117 & 10.0 & 0.83\% & 949 & 12.9 & 1.07\% & 2.03 \\ \cline{1-1}  & – & 1102 & 4.5 & 0.37\% & 1318 & 8.1 & 0.67\% & 1120 & 9.2 & 0.77\% & 2.06 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Average & 1040 & 5.4 & 0.45\% & 1218 & 9.0 & 0.75\% & 1035 & 11.1 & 0.92\% & 2.04 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Lateral Load and Displacement Capacity of Shear Specimens.