Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 23 July 2011
Revised 15 November 2011
Accepted 2 December 2011
Available online 4 February 2012
Keywords:
Sandwich panels
Bearing wall panels
Full scale compression test
Diagonal compression test
Finite element analysis
a b s t r a c t
This paper presents the rst part of an experimental investigation carried out on a construction system
based on completed in situ sandwich panels with non-shear connectors, concerning the study of vertical
panels used as structural walls. Compression tests with axial and eccentric loads were carried out on several full scale panel specimens with different slenderness ratios in order to study the behaviour of panels
under vertical in-plane forces. Additionally, diagonal compression tests were performed on square specimens in different congurations in order to study the behaviour of panels under horizontal in-plane
forces. The most signicant loaddisplacement diagrams for increasing load are illustrated and the failure
modalities are discussed. The semi-composite behaviour of the panels, guaranteed by the internal layer of
polystyrene and the reinforced concrete beams at the panel ends, is highlighted. Finally, some numerical
simulations are performed with non-linear nite element models and some useful design indications are
given.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Construction systems based on sandwich panels are commonly
used worldwide for intensive building production. Sandwich panels are typically constituted by two concrete layers which are separated by an internal insulation layer of various materials (i.e.
expanded and extruded polystyrene, rigid polyurethane foam)
and are usually joined with shear connectors (i.e. truss connectors) able to transfer the longitudinal interface shear between the
layers so as to ensure a fully-composite or a semi-composite
behaviour of the sandwich panel.
This paper deals with a construction system that utilises
sandwich panels, both for structural walls and oors, which are
obtained by self-supporting reinforced insulation layers completed
in situ with spritz-beton. The prefabricated modular elements are
made of an undulated (corrugated) layer of expanded polystyrene,
with suitable density, reinforced by two metallic meshes connected by means of orthogonal steel wires welded to the meshes
(steel connectors). Thanks to the easy and fast mounting procedures, this construction system presents some technical advantages that make it often competitive in comparison with traditional
methods or precast systems. From a structural point of view these
panels are characterised by orthogonal connectors (no-shear connectors) so that their semi-composite behaviour depends on the
shear stiffness of the expanded polystyrene layer and, above all,
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 071 2204550; fax: +39 071 2204576.
E-mail addresses: f.gara@univpm.it (F. Gara), laura.ragni@univpm.it (L. Ragni),
d.roia@univpm.it (D. Roia), dezi@univpm.it (L. Dezi).
0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.12.027
194
wire meshes
Table 1
Mean values of material properties.
Prismatic specimens
(MPa)
Cored specimens
(MPa)
Metallic meshes
(MPa)
fcu = 21.95
fcfm = 5.52
fcu = 25.10
fct = 2.40
fm = 769.00
Agt = 7.62
concrete layers
steel connectors
polystyrene
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 1. Concrewall wall sandwich panels: (a) schematic sketch of the components; (b) concrete spraying onto the external surfaces up to the metallic mesh and (c) up to the
nal thickness.
195
(a)
30
3S (160 mm)
1S (80 mm)
5S (160 mm)
Load [kN]
1S (80 mm)
Load [kN]
30
Displacement [mm]
Displacement [mm]
(b)
Fig. 2. Shear tests: (a) test conguration and (b) loaddisplacement cycles.
Gi
Ki
hi
2Ai
where Ki is the initial stiffness of the sample, and hi and Ai the thickness and the area of each internal layer. Table 2 shows all the
obtained results.
Table 2
Shear tests: samples and results.
Sample
hi (mm)
Polystyrene
Connectors
Ki (kN/mm)
Gi (N/mm2)
1S
2S
3S
4S
5S
6S
7S
8S
80
120
160
80
80
120
160
80
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Double
Double
Double
Single
Double
Double
Double
Single
15.70
9.20
7.30
12.80
0.47
0.15
0.07
0.20
3.45
3.03
3.20
2.81
0.10
0.04
0.03
0.04
196
120
Table 3
Geometric characteristics of panels for compression tests.
48
6/200mm
120
2700 mm
2940 mm
35
1120 mm
35 mm
c
h
Specimen
Panel
Compression loading
c (mm)
h (mm)
2a.1
2a.2
3a.1
3a.2
4a.1
4a.2
X.2
Y.2
2b.1
2b.2
3b.1
3b.2
4b.1
4b.2
X.1
Y.1
WP08
WP08
WP12
WP12
WP16
WP16
WPN08
WPH8
WP08
WP08
WP12
WP12
WP16
WP16
WPN08
WPH08
Axial
Axial
Axial
Axial
Axial
Axial
Axial
Axial
Eccentric
Eccentric
Eccentric
Eccentric
Eccentric
Eccentric
Eccentric
Eccentric
80
80
120
120
160
160
80
80
80
80
120
120
160
160
80
80
150
150
190
190
230
230
150
150
150
150
190
190
230
230
150
150
and one with eccentric load were performed for each kind of panel.
The list of all the panels with the overall thickness (h), the internal
layer thickness (c), and the kind of test performed are reported in
Table 3.
For the diagonal compression tests, only 1120 mm 1120 mm
WP08 panels were considered since the thickness of the internal
layer does not inuence the panel behaviour under in-plane forces.
In addition, prestressed and transversally stiffened panels were
considered in order to simulate the effects of vertical load and
the stiffening contribution of walls and oors orthogonal to the
panels, respectively. To better distribute the compression load,
two triangular reinforced concrete regions at two opposite corners
of the standard wall panels (Fig. 5a) and two reinforced concrete
L-shaped beams in the stiffened panels (Fig. 5b) were built.
In the prestressed panels two steel threaded bars are applied
with prestressing loads of 30 kN and 90 kN. The list of all the
specimens with overall thickness (h), internal layer thickness (c),
prestressing forces and loading type are reported in Table 4.
Section B-B
WP08
B
A
WPH08
40
80 15
wire meshes 3
150
WP08
150
Section A-A
80
polystyrene
80
80
concrete
40
1120
1245
WPN08
150
150
75
20
20
197
1120 mm
1120 mm
Section A-A
48
6/200mm
Section A-A
1420 mm
A
A
A
1120 mm
150
(a)
1120 mm
(b)
Fig. 5. Panels for diagonal compression tests: (a) wall panel and (b) transversally stiffened panel.
Table 4
Geometric characteristics of panels for diagonal compression tests.
Specimen
Panel
Compression loading
c (mm)
h (mm)
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
C.1
C.2
WP08
WP08
WP08
WP08
WP08a
WP08a
Diagonal
Diagonal
Diagonal
Diagonal
Diagonal
Diagonal
30
90
80
80
80
80
80
80
150
150
150
150
150
150
reaction frame
S4
hydraulic
jacks
S5
S1
Svf
Svb
Sf
S2
S3
cylindrical pin
axial load
eccentric load
Fig. 6. Compression tests with axial and eccentric load: test conguration and instrumentation.
198
Svf
Shf
Svf
Shf
Fig. 7. Compression tests: overview and details of the top and bottom restraints.
Fig. 9. Diagonal compression test without and with prestressing load: test
conguration and instrumentation.
load is measured using a pressure transducer. Each panel is instrumented with four LVDTs, working in a range of 50 mm, placed
vertically (Svf and Svb) and horizontally (Shf and Shb) on the front
and back panel surfaces, in an extensometric conguration to measure strain over a base length of 500 mm.
2.4. Test results
In this section the main results of the tests carried out on the
wall panels are illustrated: rst the results of the axial and eccentric compression tests and then the results of the diagonal
compression tests are reported and discussed. As regards the compression tests, Fig. 10 shows the lateral deections recorded by the
LVDT at mid-height of the panels (S2) on the sixteen panel specimens under axial (continuous lines) and eccentric (dashed lines)
increasing load. The rsts three graphs report the results of four
Fig. 8. Diagonal compression tests of panels without and with prestressing load.
199
WP08
500
2a.1
2a.2
0
1000
2b.1
2b.2
WP16
500
4a.1
4a.2
10
15
20
Lateral deflection [mm]
4b.1
4b.2
25
WP12
500
3a.1
3a.2
0
1000
Load [kN]
Load [kN]
1000
Load [kN]
Load [kN]
1000
3b.1
3b.2
WPN08
WPH08
500
Y.2
X.2
Y.1
X.1
10
15
20
Lateral deflection [mm]
25
Fig. 10. Axial and eccentric compression tests: load-lateral deection diagrams at mid-height of the panel.
Table 5
Compression tests with axial and eccentric loading: ultimate loads.
Specimen
Panel
type
Loading
Ultimate
Load (kN)
Mean U.L.
(kN)
Mean U.U.D.L.
(kN/m)
2a.1
2a.2
3a.1
3a.2
4a.1
4a.2
X.2
Y.2
2b.1
2b.2
3b.1
3b.2
4b.1
4b.2
X.1
Y.1
WP08
WP08
WP12
WP12
WP16
WP16
WPN08
WPH08
WP08
WP08
WP12
WP12
WP16
WP16
WPN08
WPH08
Axial
Axial
Axial
Axial
Axial
Axial
Axial
Axial
Eccentric
Eccentric
Eccentric
Eccentric
Eccentric
Eccentric
Eccentric
Eccentric
701
783
806
844
855
907
736
765
375
401
460
545
524
630
461
591
742
662.5
825
736.6
881
786.6
388
657.1
683.0
346.4
503
448.7
577
515.2
411.6
527.7
1000
compression tests, two with axial and two with eccentric load,
carried out on specimens of the same typology (standard panels)
WP08, WP12, and WP16, respectively. The fourth graph shows
the results of tests on panels with non-undulated polystyrene
sheet (WPN08) and half a number of connectors (WPH08), one
under axial load and the other under eccentric load.
The maximum load (Ultimate Load) achieved in each test is
reported in Table 5, together with the mean value of the ultimate
load (Mean U.L.) reached by two specimens of the same typology,
and the mean ultimate uniformly distributed load (Mean U.U.D.L.),
i.e. the ultimate load divided by the panel width. In both the cases,
with axial and eccentric load, the ultimate loads decrease by
increasing the panel slenderness ratios, dened as L/h, where L is
the total height and h the overall thickness of the panel, as shown
in Fig. 11. It is worth noticing that in the case of the axial compression test the ultimate load of the panels is strongly inuenced by
any small undesired eccentricity due to imperfections in the specimen and test set-up (load, restraints, etc.). However, due to the
large difference between the values of undesired and imposed
eccentricity, the behaviour of the axially and eccentrically loaded
panels are signicantly dissimilar.
In particular, as regards axially loaded specimens, the lateral
deection of the panel remains generally small under increasing
loading (Figs. 10 and 12a) up to load values close to the ultimate
load. Failure occurs as a result of overall buckling of the specimen,
axial load
eccentric load
650
300
12
14
16
18
20
200
3.0
150 kN
300 kN
450 kN
600 kN
3.0
150kN
300kN
450kN
600kN
4b.2
4a.2
0
20
20
20
20
(a)
(b)
Fig. 12. Lateral deection at different load stages: (a) axial load and (b) eccentric load.
Fig. 13. Specimens after failure (a) axially and (b) eccentrically loaded; (c) mesh failure.
800
Svb
400
0
-3
Svf
Load [kN]
Load [kN]
800
Svf
Svb
2a.1
2b.2
0
Displacement [mm]
(a)
400
0
-0.5
2a.1
2b.2
0
Displacement [mm]
(b)
Fig. 14. (a) Vertical deformation of the two concrete layers and (b) slip and separation between the concrete layers in axially and eccentrically loaded specimens.
longitudinal slip exhibits an initial nearly linear behaviour followed by a non-linear behaviour until ultimate values of about
1.5 mm. Compared to the slip, the separation is characterised by
much lower values, which are practically negligible, meaning that
the two concrete layers deect together.
Failure modes
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
C1
C2
144
129
118
168
103
137
302
342
332
306
341
225
a*
a
a
a
b
b*
201
Fig. 15. Diagonal compression test: crack pattern at failure for panels (a) with and (b) without transversal stiffening walls.
202
400
Sof
200
Sof
Svf
Sob
Load [kN]
Load [kN]
400
Svb
Sob
200
C1
-4
Svf
Svb
5.2
0
-4
Displacement [mm]
Displacement [mm]
(a)
(b)
Fig. 16. Diagonal compression test: vertical shortening and transversal elongation of panels with (C1) and without (5.2) transversal stiffening walls.
that can only occur when concrete layers are connected by reinforced concrete beams.
3. Numerical simulation
Compression tests were numerically simulated with a displacement based non-linear static analysis taking into account both
geometrical and material non-linearities, performed with the
structural analysis programme Seismostruct [21]. Specimens were
modelled with non-linear nite element models. In particular 20
beam elements were used for each concrete layer. The nodes at
each end of the two concrete layers were joined with two rigid
elements to simulate the reinforced concrete beams while the
internal nodes were joined with shear elastic links. The links are
axially rigid and shear deformable with the shear stiffness provided by the internal layer (Fig. 17).
The specimen is restrained with a cylindrical pin at the base and
a horizontal support at the top. In simulating axial compression
tests a small eccentricity of the vertical was considered in order
to simulate geometrical imperfections of panels and uncertainties
of the load position. To simulate eccentric compression tests the
load was applied at the axis of a concrete layer (Fig. 17). In both
cases the vertical load was applied incrementally until failure of
the sample was reached.
axial
load
eccentric
load
15 15
300 cm
beam
element
shear
deformable
link ( Kl)
rigid
link
hl
hl
A non-linear constitutive law [22] was considered for the concrete and a symmetric elasto-perfectly-plastic bilinear model for
the steel. The values of the mechanical parameters were determined from the results of the tests performed on the materials
(paragraph 2.1). In particular the shear stiffness of the links joining
the two concrete layers was calculated by the equation
Ki
GAl hl
c
c
where G = 3.2 N/mm2 is the mean value among those obtained with
the shear tests for material characterisation, Al is the inuence area
of the links, c is the internal layer thickness and the factor hl/c takes
into account the difference between the length (hl) of the links and c
(Table 7).
In Fig. 18 the load vs lateral deection graphs obtained from
compression tests are compared with the results obtained from
the numerical analysis. The behaviour of eccentrically loaded panels is well-approximated by the numerical model while for axially
loaded panels a lower agreement between experimental and
numerical results is achieved. In fact, the behaviour and the ultimate loads of real panels are largely inuenced by geometrical
imperfections (not perfectly at concrete layers, variability of
thicknesses, etc.) that are difcult to evaluate and take into consideration in a numerical model. However the numerical simulations
may be considered satisfactory. Furthermore, in order to evaluate
the critical load Pb1 of panels, a buckling analysis was also carried
out using the same numerical model but considering a linear elastic behaviour of the materials. Values of the buckling loads obtained with these analyses (Pb1) are reported in Table 8 and also
in Fig. 18.
It can be observed that the Pb1 values seem to be approached by
the curves obtained with the non-linear models, considering
approximately axial loads. In order to highlight the semi-composite behaviour of the panels, the values of the Euler buckling load
(Pb2), calculated in the hypothesis of zero shear stiffness of the
links are reported in Table 8 (values of Pb2 are twice the Euler buckling load for a single concrete layer). Furthermore, the buckling
load Pb3 are reported in the same table, where Pb3 was calculated
by considering the panel to be entirely made of concrete. The coefcient a = Pb1/Pb3 was introduced to easily estimate the buckling
load of the panels. As expected, the values of this coefcient are
less than 1 and decrease as the thickness of the internal layer
increases.
However, only in the case of undesired eccentricity, buckling
loads are close to the ultimate loads. In fact, due to the pronounced
non-linear behaviour of the materials, the ultimate load of the
eccentrically loaded panels is signicantly lower than the buckling
load and can be estimated only with a non-linear analysis which
considers both geometrical and material non-linearities. Obviously
the reduction in the ultimate load will be more signicant for
greater values of load eccentricity. As already mentioned, the value
203
WP12
WP16
115
9660
155
5786
195
4095
experimental
Load [kN]
hl (mm)
Kl (N/mm)
400
200
f.e.m.
(Ec)
f.e.m.
(0.4Ec)
C1
1300
Displacement [mm]
Load [kN]
Pb1 = Pb3
Fig. 19. Diagonal compression tests: comparison between experimental and
numerical results.
f.e.m. 2a.1
650
2a.1
2b.2
f.e.m. 2b.2
0
1300
Load [kN]
Pb1 = Pb3
3a.2 f.e.m. 3a.2
3b.2
650
f.e.m. 3b.2
Load [kN]
0
1300
Pb1 = Pb3
f.e.m. 4a.1
4a.1
Pu 2Bstot fct
4b.2
650
f.e.m. 4b.2
10
15
20
25
Displacement [mm]
Fig. 18. Axial and eccentric load tests: comparison between experimental and
numerical results.
Table 8
Critical loads and reduction coefcient.
Specimen
Pb1 (kN)
Pb2 (kN)
Pb3 (kN)
WP08
WP12
WP16
742
825
881
931
1082
1221
92.8
92.8
92.8
3653
7424
13,169
0.25
0.15
0.09
of the load eccentricity depends on the rotational restraint between the wall and oor panels.
With regard to the diagonal compression tests, the behaviour of
the specimen with the transversal concrete wall (C1) was numerically simulated with an elastic nite element model using the
structural analysis programme SAP2000 [23]. The panel was modelled with shell elements with a thickness equal to the overall
thickness of the two concrete layers and with an elastic modulus
equal to that of the concrete used. The transversal concrete walls
were modelled with beam elements. Vertical static loads were applied on several nodes for a total force equal to the ultimate load
experimentally obtained (341 kN). The value of the horizontal tension in the central node of the model is 2.3 N/mm2 which is nearly
equal to the ultimate tensile strength of the concrete. In Fig. 19 the
load-shortening plot experimentally obtained is compared with
the results obtained with the numerical model, considering an
elastic modulus Ec and a reduced modulus 0.4Ec to take into account the cracking of the concrete. Up to a load of about 100 kN
the behaviour of the specimen is typically linear elastic and is
2 1120 70 2:3
360 kN
1000
where B is the width of the panel and stot is the overall thickness of
the concrete layers. The result is close to the ultimate load experimentally evaluated for specimen C1. However, in real buildings,
the strength of panels under vertical and horizontal forces involves
not only the shear resistance but also the bending resistance,
depending on the overall dimensions of the wall. Moreover, the
inuence of openings for doors and windows must be considered.
4. Conclusions
The results of an experimental campaign on completed in situ
sandwich panels with no-shear connectors, used as wall panels,
have been presented. In particular, compression tests with axial
and eccentric load and diagonal compression tests were performed. Some numerical simulations with linear and non-linear nite element models were also carried out.
As regards compression tests, wall panels with different internal layer thickness (WP08, WP12, WP16) and with two different
congurations (WPN and WPH) were tested. High ultimate loads,
decreasing for increasing values of the slenderness ratios, were obtained. The numerical simulations indicated that the ultimate
loads of axially loaded panels are close to the buckling loads which
can be determined by performing a linear buckling analysis or by
using the coefcient a. Differently, the ultimate loads of eccentrically loaded panels, which are signicantly lower than the buckling
loads, can be simulated only by performing a non-linear analysis.
Additional research is needed to develop simple, effective and rational methods for predicting the ultimate load of wall panels for
different values of load eccentricity. The results of the experimental tests and numerical simulations indicated that a partial degree
of composite behaviour was attained by the tested panels even if
non-shear connectors are used in the interior layer. However, this
semi-composite behaviour is due not only to the internal layer, but
also to the reinforced concrete beams at the ends of the panels.
Additional investigations are needed to develop simple, effective
and rational methods for predicting the ultimate load of wall panels for different values of load eccentricity and to study the behaviour of panels without reinforced concrete beams.
204
As regards diagonal compression tests, simple wall panels, prestressed wall panels and panels with transversal stiffening walls
were tested. In all these cases high cracking loads were observed.
The panels also showed a high capacity for stress redistribution
thanks to the metallic mesh inside the concrete layers. However,
only one specimen with transversal stiffening walls showed a tensile diagonal rupture while the other specimens showed a compression failure at the load application region. The numerical
simulation of the test reaching the tensile diagonal rupture showed
that an effective concrete modulus of elasticity may be considered
to simulate the global behaviour of the cracked panel and that the
ultimate load may be estimated on the basis of the tensile strength
of the concrete. However, since in real buildings the behaviour of
the panels under vertical and horizontal in-plane forces is strongly
inuenced by the overall dimensions of the wall and by openings
for doors and windows, further investigations on panels with different congurations are recommended.
Acknowledgments
The nancial support provided by Schnell House S.p.A., based
in San Marino, is gratefully acknowledged. The technical support of
the laboratory staff at the Dept. of Architecture, Construction and
Structures, Universit Politecnica delle Marche, is greatly appreciated. The opinions, ndings and conclusions contained in this paper are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reect the
views of the sponsors.
References
[1] Ranzi G. Locking problems in the partial interaction analysis of multi-layered
composite beams. Eng Struct 2008;30:2009911.
[2] Sousa Jr JBM, da Silva AR. Analytical and numerical analysis of multilayered
beams with interlayer slip. Eng Struct 2010;32:167180.
[3] Gara F, Ranzi G, Leoni G. Displacement-based formulations for composite
beams with longitudinal slip and vertical uplift. Int J Numer Methods Eng
2006;65:1197220.
[4] Schnabl S, Saje M, Turk G, Planinc I. Analytical solution of two-layer beam
taking into account interlayer slip and shear deformation. J Struct Eng, ASCE
2007;133(6):88695.
[5] PCI Committee on Precast Concrete Sandwich Wall Panels. State of the art of
precast/prestressed sandwich wall panels. PCI J 1997;42(2):92133.
[6] Benayoune A, Aziz A, Samad A, Trikha DN, Abdullah Abang Ali A, Ashrabov AA.
Structural behaviour of eccentrically loaded precast sandwich panels. J Constr
Build Mater 2006;20:71324.
[7] Benayoune A, Samad AA, Abang Ali AA, Trikha DN. Response of pre-cast
reinforced composite sandwich panels to axial loading. J Constr Build Mater
2007;21:67785.
[8] Benayoune A, Abdul Samad AA, Trikha DN, Abang Ali AA, Ellinna SHM. Flexural
behaviour of pre-cast concrete sandwich composite panel experimental and
theoretical investigations. J Constr Build Mater 2008;22:58092.
[9] Salmon DC, Einea MK, Tadros A, Culp TD. Full scale testing of precast concrete
sandwich panels. ACI J 1997;94:35462.
[10] Einea A, Salmon DC, Tadros MK, Culp TD. A new structurally and thermally
efcient precast sandwich panel system. PCI J 1994;39(4):90101.
[11] Bush TD, Stine GL. Flexural behaviour of composite precast sandwich panels
with continuous truss connectors. PCI J 1994;39(2):11221.
[12] Kabir MZ. Mechanical properties of 3D wall panels under shear and exural
loading. In: 4th Structural specialty conference of the Canadian society for civil
engineering, Montreal; 2002.
[13] Giacchetti R, Menditto G. Indagini sperimentali su pannelli sandwiches
realizzati con la tecnica dello spritzbeton. Atti V Convegno CTE, Firenze;
1984. p. b.13b.24 [in Italian].
[14] Ceccoli C, Mazzotti C, Savoia M, Dallavalle G, Perazzini G, Tomassoni C.
Indagini sperimentali su una tipologia di pannelli in c.a. alleggeriti gettati in
opera. Atti XIV Convegno CTE, Mantova; 2002. p. 55767 [in Italian].
[15] Bassotti O, Ricci M. Caratteristiche di pannelli sandwich in cls. alleggerito e
loro applicazioni costruttive. Atti XIV Convegno CTE, Mantova; 2002. p. 579
87 [in Italian].
[16] Refaifar O, Kabir MZ, Taribakhsh M, Tehranian A. Dynamic behaviour of 3Dpanel single-storey system using shaking table testing. Eng Struct
2008;30:31837.
[17] EN ISO 12504-1. Testing concrete in structures. Cored specimens. Taking,
examining and testing in compression. CEN European Committee for
Standardization; 2000.
[18] EN 12390-6. Testing hardened concrete. Tensile splitting strength of test
specimens. CEN European Committee for Standardization; 2000.
[19] EN ISO 15630-2. Steel for the reinforcement and prestressing of concrete test
methods part 2: welded fabric. CEN European Committee for
Standardization; 2002.
[20] ASTM C273/C273M-07. A standard test method for shear properties of
sandwich core materials. Committee D30.09 on Sandwich Construction; 2007.
[21] Seimosoft Seimostruct. A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear
analysis of framed structures; 2004. <http://www.seismosoft.com/>.
[22] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stressstrain model for conned
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):180426.
[23] SAP2000. Computer and Structures, Inc. CSI analysis reference manual. SAP
2000, Berkeley, California; 2004.