Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Seismic Behavior of Sheathed Cold-Formed Steel Stud Shear Walls PDF
Seismic Behavior of Sheathed Cold-Formed Steel Stud Shear Walls PDF
Shear Walls:
An Experimental Investigation
Luigi Fiorino
G Sliding-hinge
Rotational-hinge
Luigi Fiorino
Tesi di dottorato
XVI Ciclo
Contents
Foreword 1
Chap ter I
Low-rise residential buildings built with cold-formed
lightweight steel members 5
1.1 BASIC CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS.. 6
1.2 STICK-BUILT CONSTRUCTIONS......... 8
1.3 PROFILES....15
1.4 SHEATHINGS. 18
1.4.1 Wood-based panels... 18
1.4.2 Gypsum-based boards... 20
1.5 CONNECTIONS.. 21
1.5.1 Screws... 22
1.5.2 Welding..... 24
1.5.3 Pins.... 24
1.5.4 Nails.. 26
1.5.5 Bolts.. 26
1.5.6 Anchors..... 26
1.5.7 Adhesives.. 30
1.5.8 Hold-down..... 30
1.6 THE BUILDING PROCESS... 31
1.7 BASIC PROBLEMS OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN. 34
1.7.1 Vertical loads 34
1.7.2 Horizontal loads 35
1.8 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 38
1.8.1 Fire resistance 38
1.8.2 Durability.. 39
1.8.3 Thermal and acoustic insulation, air and moisture permeability.. 40
1.9 ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS. 41
REFERENCES 42
Chap ter I I
Design of cold-formed steel stud shear walls 45
2.1 MAIN DESIGN METHODOLOGIES FOR SHEAR STRENGTH OF CFSSSWS... 46
Conten ts ii
Chap ter I II
Te s t i n g o f c o l d - f o r m e d s t e e l s t u d s h e a r w a l l s : r e v i e w o f
existing literature 89
3.1 SUMMARY OF MAIN EXISTING TEST PROGRAMS. 89
3.1.1 McCreless & Tarpy (1978)... 90
3.1.2 Tarpy & Hauenstein (1978).. 92
3.1.3 Tarpy (1980)..92
3.1.4 Tarpy & Girard (1982).. 94
3.1.5 Tissell (1993) 96
3.1.6 Serrette (1994)... 97
3.1.7 Serrette & Ogunfunmi (1996)... 97
3.1.8 Serrette et al. (1996a,b). 99
3.1.9 Serrette et al. (1997a) 101
3.1.10 Serrette et al. (1997b) 104
3.1.11 NAHB Research Center (1997) 107
3.1.12 Gad et al. (1999a, b).. 108
3.1.13 Selenikovich et al. (1999). 111
3.1.14 COLA-UCI (2001) 112
3.1.15 Dubina & Fulop (2002). 114
3.1.16 Branston et al. (2003) 116
3.2 FACTOR AFFECTING CFSSSW BEHAVIOR UNDER LATERAL LOADING: THEY
INDIVIDUATION AND ANALYSIS. 118
3.2.1 Sheathing (type, thickness, orientation) 118
3.2.2 Framing (stud size, thickness and spacing, presence of X-bracing). 120
3.2.3 Fastener (type, size, spacing) 120
3.2.4 Geometry (wall aspect ratio, openings) 121
3.2.5 Type of loading (monotonic or cyclic).. 123
3.2.6 Construction techniques and anchorage details 124
REFERENCES 124
Chap ter I V
Evaluation of seismic capacity: the monotonic test 127
4.1 THE STUDY CASE: BASIC ASSUMPTIONS 128
4.2 GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES... 131
4.3 TEST PROGRAM 133
4.3.1 Description of test specimens 134
4.3.2 Test set-up. 140
4.3.3 Instrumentation. 142
4.3.4 Test procedure for the monotonic test... 143
4.4 TEST RESULTS.. 144
REFERENCES 152
Conten ts iii
Chap ter V
Evaluation of seismic demand 153
5.1 MODEL OF THE HYSTERETIC BEHAVIOR OF CFSSSW SYSTEMS. 154
5.1.1 The loading branch without pinching... 155
5.1.2 The loading branch with pinching 156
5.1.3 The unloading branch ... 158
5.1.4 Calibration of the model 159
5.2 ASSESSMENT OF DEFORMATION DEMAND 166
5.2.1 Data-base of considered earthquake ground motions... 166
5.2.2 Displacement demand evaluation. 171
5.3 DEFINITION OF A LOAD HISTORY FOR A CYCLIC TESTING. 180
5.3.1 Loading histories in quasi-static cyclic loading tests: basic procedures for Multiple Step Test...180
5.3.2 Definition of the deformation history for the cyclic testing.. 185
REFERENCES 191
Chap ter VI
The cyclic test 193
6.1 TEST PROCEDURE 194
6.2 TEST RESULTS.. 197
REFERENCES 205
Conclusions 207
Appendices
Appendix A: Summary of existing experimental results.. 15 pp
Appendix B: Summary of objectives and results of existing
experimental studies.. 6 pp
Appendix C: Evaluation of seismic action and wall shear strength for
the study case.. 14 pp
Appendix D: Construction details of the sub-assembly specimen
. 10 pp
A p p en d ix E : M o n o t o n i c t e s t r e s u l t s . . 11 p p
A p p en d ix F : C y c l i c t e s t r e su l t s . . 11 p p
v
Index of figures
ITALIA)... 138
FIGURE 4.11: LOAD TRANSFER SYSTEM. 141
FIGURE 4.12: TEST SET-UP.. 142
FIGURE 4.13: INSTRUMENT ARRANGEMENT 143
FIGURE 4.14: UNIT SHEAR RESISTANCE VS. MEAN DISPLACEMENT CURVE.... 145
FIGURE 4.15: SPECIMEN CONDITION AT STEP 1(D=10MM).. 146
FIGURE 4.16: SPECIMEN CONDITION AT STEP 2 (MAXIMUM SHEAR RESISTENCE -
D=36MM) 147
FIGURE 4.17: SPECIMEN CONDITION AT STEP 3 (D=80MM). 148
FIGURE 4.18: SPECIMEN CONDITION AT STEP 4 (D=130MM)... 149
FIGURE 4.19: SHEAR VS. DISPLACEMENT CURVES FOR WALL 1 AND WALL 2. 151
FIGURE 4.20: SHEAR VS. DISPLACEMENT MEASURED BY HORIZONTAL LVDTS ... 151
FIGURE 4.21: SHEAR VS. DISPLACEMENT MEASURED BY VERTICAL LVDTS... 152
Index of tables
TABLE 2.1: FAILURE MODES IN A CFSSSW BRACED LATERALLY WITH WOOD BASED
PANELS.. 50
TABLE 2.2: INDICATIVE SHEAR RESISTANCE OF SCREWS.. 52
TABLE 2.3: 1997 UBC NOMINAL SHEAR STRENGTH VALUES FOR SEISMIC ACTIONS... 79
TABLE 2.4: 2000 IBC NOMINAL SHEAR STRENGTH VALUES FOR SEISMIC ACTIONS .... 80
TABLE 2.5A: 1997 UBC NOMINAL SHEAR STRENGTH VALUES FOR WIND ACTIONS .... 80
TABLE 2.5B: 1997 UBC NOMINAL SHEAR STRENGTH VALUES FOR WIND ACTIONS.. 81
TABLE 2.6A: 2000 IBC NOMINAL SHEAR STRENGTH VALUES FOR WIND ACTIONS... 81
TABLE 2.6B: 2000 IBC NOMINAL SHEAR STRENGTH VALUES FOR WIND ACTIONS... 82
TABLE 2.7: SAFETY AND RESISTANCE FACTORS PER 1997 UBC AND 2000 IBC 82
TABLE 2.8: MAXIMUM UNRESTRAINED OPENING HEIGHT PER 2000 IRC.. 83
TABLE 2.9: ADJUSTMENT FACTORS FOR APPLICATION OF THE PSW METHOD PER 2000
IRC... 84
Foreword
Although the study had general purpose, with regard to low-rise residential
buildings built with cold-formed steel members, the attention has been
focused on the stick-built construction system because it represents the basic
system for the development of more industrialized constructions (panelized
and modular constructions). In particular, considering this construction system
especially advantageous when the members-to-sheathing interaction is takes
in-to account (sheathing braced design), the research has been concerned on
the seismic behavior of cold-formed steel stud shear walls (CFSSSWs)
laterally braced with sheathings (sheathed).
4
The dissertation, as well as the research program, has been articulated in six
main phases.
The first phase of the research has been particularly devoted to study the
construction system, the building process and the basic aspects of structural
design under vertical and horizontal loads (Chapter I). The second part of the
study has been dedicated to analyze the available main design methodologies
for the evaluation of shear capacity for CFSSSW systems (Chapter II). The
review of existing literature focused on the critical examination of previous
tests on CFSSSWs, together with the definition of basic factors that influence
their lateral load response, have been the objects of the third phase (Chapter
III).
The forth phase of the research (Chapter IV) represented the fist step of the
experimental activity. In fact, it has been dedicated to evaluate the seismic
capacity for small building made by a stick-built construction system. In
particular, the design and the monotonic testing of a full-scale CFSSSW sub-
assembly specimen, it representing a realistic model of typical lateral load
resisting systems of stick-built house structures, has been included.
The fifth phase (Chapter V) of the research activity has been a theoretical
one. It has been articulated in the following three main steps: (1) development
of reliable mathematical models calibrated using the experimental results of
the monotonic test, in order to capture the complex hysteretic response of
CFSSSWs; (2) evaluation of the deformation demand to stud shear wall
systems obtained on the basis of a large database of acceleration records; and
(3) definition of a load history for a successive cyclic testing.
Finally, in the sixth phase (Chapter VI) the second step of the experimental
program was performed. In fact, in this stage a specimen nominally identical
to that tested under monotonic loading has been subjected to fully reversing
cyclic horizontal displacements according to the definition of the deformation
history parameters carried out in the theoretical phase.
5
Chapter I
Low-rise residential buildings built with
cold-formed lightweight steel members
There are three basic systems of constructions for low-rise house which are
named (Landolfo et al. 2002):
x stick-built constructions;
x panelized constructions;
x modular constructions.
Stick-built constructions
The stick-built construction (see Fig. 1.1) is characterized by the lowest
prefabrication degree and it is the most common method used for built cold-
formed steel (CFS) frames, because it is the same as the familiar stick-built
wood construction method. In fact, in these systems the wood members have
replaced with appropriate CFS members. In general, the steel members may
be cut to length on job-site with a hand-held saw. Similar to wood
construction, steel components are fastened together on the floor surface into
wall sections and tilted into positions. Once the wall sections are structurally
connected together, exterior and interior sheathing materials are applied. The
construction time is short, the steel structure of a typical detached house
requiring between 2 and 4 days.
The advantages of stick constructions are (Grubb and Lawson 1997):
x the system can accommodate larger constructions tolerances;
x the workshop facilities associated with modular constructions are not
necessary;
x simple constructions techniques without heavy lifting equipment may
be used;
x members can be densely packed for transport.
Panelized constructions
In panelized construction (see Fig. 1.2), wall and floor sub-frames and roof
trusses may be prefabricated in the factory. The panels are lifted into position
on the job-site and fastened together generally by bolting to form the required
building geometry. This method of construction is particularly efficient when
there is repetition of panel types and dimensions. In contrast to stick-built
construction, in the panel construction exterior sheathings, thermal insulation
and some of the lining and finishing materials may also be applied to the steel
sub-frames in the factory.
The main advantages of panel construction are (Grubb and Lawson 1997):
x speed of erection;
x factory standards of quality control during fabrication of the units;
x reduction of site labor costs,
x scope for automation in factory production.
Modular constructions
Prefabrication of wall, floor and roof units is taken a stage further in
modular construction (see Fig. 1.3). Here, lightweight steel boxes, which may
for example be hotel room units, are completely prefabricated in the factory
before being delivered to the site. It is usual for all internal finishes, fixtures
and fittings, and even the carpets, curtains and furniture, to be fitted in the
Low-rise residential buildings built with co ld -formed lightweight steel me mbers 8
Foundations
Two kinds of foundations are typically used in a stick-built construction:
x poured concrete walls foundations;
x slab-on-grade foundations.
For both foundation types, up-lift loads represent the critical problem. In
fact, when the horizontal loads are large, the overturning moment is high, and
the tendency for the wall to overturn is elevated. Consequently, for
counterbalance the up-lift force the foundation must be capable of distributing
the load and the weight of the foundations itself must be exceeds that of up-lift
force.
Walls framing
Wall framing generally have two and possibly three separate functions.
Their primary function is to carry vertical load from the floors and roof above
(load bearing wall). In external walls, they also have to resist the lateral
pressure from the wind and transmit this to the floor and roof diaphragms and
to the foundations. In addition, certain walls may also form part of the system
Lo w-rise residen tial b uildings built with co ld -formed lightweight steel me mbers 10
resisting in-plane forces from wind or seismic shear (bracing wall). A typical
wall framing system, component and terminology are shown in Figure 1.5 and
some constructional details are shown in Figure 1.6 (NASFA 2000).
The main structural components of wall framing construction are:
stud: vertical structural element of a wall assembly, which support
vertical loads and/or transfer lateral loads (typically lipped
channel sections).
wall track: horizontal member used such as top and bottom plate for walls
(typically unlipped channel sections).
Wall studs are typically C-shaped galvanized CFS sections placed with
their flanges in contact with the wall sheathing. The profiles are usually on a
module ranging approximately from 300mm to 600mm. The wall sheathing
may be, for example, a gypsum or wood fiber based board, plywood or, in
some cases steel sheet or corrugated sheathings. If this wall sheathing has
adequate strength and stiffness and if there is adequate attachment to the studs,
then the axial load bearing capacity may be substantially increased by the
resulting structural interaction. This is mainly as a consequence of the
resistance provided against lateral buckling modes.
Evidently, wall studs can be designed as free-standing members without
taking advantage of the influence of the other elements of the wall
construction and modern codes of practice allow this on the basis of
calculations alone. Inclusion of the stiffening influence of the walls has to be
semi-empirical based on the interpretation of test results.
Lo w-rise residen tial b uildings built with co ld -formed lightweight steel me mbers 11
Floors framing
Floor framing construction is typically lightweight and dry. However, there
are circumstances where heavier constructions are specified, usually to meet
requirements for fire and/or sound isolations.
Generally, the floor construction is constituted by cold-formed lightweight
steel profiles with a wood-based sheathing. The profiles are usually on a
module that coincides with studs on the supporting elevations. A typical steel
floor system, component and terminology are shown in Figure 1.7 (NASFA
2000).
Joist designs are rarely based on the bending resistance of the cross-
sections, in fact, normally the serviceability criteria of deflection and vibration
control the design. Steel floors can sometimes resonate with the vibrations
induced by human footsteps and, although this does not usually produce
structural damages, it can be a source of discomforts. This problem tends to
become more acute when lightweight construction is used.
In some cases, the floor can be realized by trapezoidally profiled steel deck
supported on primary beams and carrying a wood-based walking surface or,
more infrequently, it can be realized by composite (steel-concrete) deck
supported on primary beams.
Roofs framing
For the roof framing construction, steel truss with similar proportions to a
conventional gang-nailed timber truss is often about six times as strong as the
timber equivalent and is uneconomic at modest spans and load levels. For this
reason, when a habitable roof space is not required steel framed houses are
often completed with timber roof trusses. Steel trusses can, however, be used
economically when they are spaced at wider centers with purlins spanning
between the trusses. All-steel solutions become much more favorable when a
usable roof space is required. In Figure 1.8 (NASFA 2000) a typical solution
is shows, in which attic frames are connected in a conventional manner. An
alternative system could use sandwich panels either spanning from caves to
ridge or supported on intermediate purlins.
The main structural components of wall framing construction are:
rafter: structural framing member (usually sloped) that
supports roof loads (typically lipped channel sections).
ceiling joist: horizontal structural cold-formed lightweight steel
profiles that supports a ceiling and attic loads (typically
lipped channel sections).
ridge member: horizontal member placed at intersection between the
top edges of two sloping roof surfaces.
fascia: member applied to the rafter ends as an edge member
for attachment of roof sheathing, exterior finishes, or
gutter.
Lo w-rise residen tial b uildings built with co ld -formed lightweight steel me mbers 14
The others main structural components of floor, wall and roof framing
constructions are (NASFA 2000):
header: horizontal built-up structural framing member used over wall,
roof or floor openings to transfer loads above opening to
adjacent framing member.
blocking: solid block or piece of material placed between structural
members to provide lateral bracing as in bridging and/or edge
support for sheathings.
bridging: bracing or blocking placed between joist to provide lateral
support.
flat strap: sheet steel cut to a specified width without any bends. Typically
used for bracing and transfer of loads by tension.
There are two basic framing systems in stick-built constructions that are
usually defined as (CSSBI 1991):
x platform system;
x balloon system.
Lo w-rise residen tial b uildings built with co ld -formed lightweight steel me mbers 15
1.3 PROFILES
The profiles normally have holes in their webs for water lines, gas pipe,
and electrical wiring, as shown in Figure 12. As far as concern the hole
dimension, it is possible to consider the following classification.
Un-forced holes (small hole): if the depth of the hole, measured across the
web, does not exceed about 40mm, and the length of the hole, measured along
the web, do not exceed about 100mm. In these cases, it is not necessary to
take any precaution.
Reinforced holes (intermediate holes): if web holes violates any of the
requirements reported at the above point. In these cases, the web shall be
strengthened with an appropriate solid steel plate, stud section, or track
section.
Big holes: if the depth of the hole, measured across the web, exceeds about
75% of the depth of the web, and/or, the length of the hole, measured along
Lo w-rise residen tial b uildings built with co ld -formed lightweight steel me mbers 18
the web, exceeds about 150mm. In these cases, the profiles shall be designed
in accordance with accepted engineering practices taking in to account of
presence of the hole.
1.4 SHEATHINGS
The term particleboard is any board that is made from wood particles in
the form of flakes, fibers, strands, wafers, chips, etc. that are combined with
synthetic resins or some other bonding systems. The generic product covers
many types of board, differing in particle size, orientation and position and
includes flakeboard, fibreboard, Oriented Strand Boards (OSB) and
waferboard. Particleboard panels primarily used for wall bracing and flooring
in the construction market are oriented strand boards and fiberbond.
Oriented strand board consists of wood strands bonded with adhesives to
form a mat (see Fig. 1.13b). Like the veneer in plywood, these mats are
layered and oriented perpendicular to each other for maximum strength,
stiffness and stability. The individual strands are typically 7 to 10 centimeters
long. Oriented strand board is widely used as construction sheathing, as the
web material for wood I-joists, as the structural membranes of structural
insulated panels, and in an increasing number of other applications. Its
popularity is reflected in the large number of new oriented strand board mills
being built, and in the plant expansions of several current oriented strand
board major producers. In the USA, the value of oriented strand board has
production increased of 50% over the last 10 years.
Fibreboard panels typically used in building constructions include
hardboard that is used for exterior cladding and insulation boards that are used
for cladding in buildings to insulate for heat or cold (see Fig. 1.13c). Some
boards are produced with a coating of sealant to help protect from water.
Lo w-rise residen tial b uildings built with co ld -formed lightweight steel me mbers 20
1.5 CONNECTIONS
For these connections typology the most common connector systems are:
x screws (steel-to-steel and steel-to-sheathing connections);
x welding (steel-to-steel connections);
x pins (steel-to-steel, steel-to-sheathing and steel-to-concrete
connections),
x nails (steel-to-sheathing connections),
x bolts (steel-to-steel connections);
x anchors (steel-to-concrete connections);
x adhesives (steel-to-sheathing connections).
1.5.1 Screws
The most common fastener for steel framing is the self-tapping screw. In
one operation, it can drill the hole and fasten the material to steel framing.
These screws come in a variety of styles to fit a vast range of requirements.
For exterior applications, screws are available finished with zinc, cadmium or
co-polymer coatings.
Screws are available in diameters ranging from 3.5mm to 6.5mm. Lengths
typically vary from 12mm to as much as 75mm depending on the application.
Screws are generally 10mm to 12mm longer than the thickness of the
connected materials so that a minimum of three threads shall extend beyond
the connected material. It is important that the drill point be as long as the
material thickness to achieve an efficient drilling.
Two specific point types are commonly used, as shown in Figure 1.14.
x Self-Drilling Screws: Externally threaded fasteners with the ability to
drill their own hole and form their own internal threads without
deforming their own thread and without breaking during assembly.
These screws are used with 0.8mm steel or thicker.
x Self-Piercing Screws: Externally threaded fasteners with the ability to
pierce relatively thin steel material. They are commonly used to attach
rigid materials, such as gypsum wallboard, to 0.8mm or thinner steel.
x hex washer head: This is also a common style for penetrating steel and
is more commonly used on thicker steel materials. The washer face
provides a bearing surface for the driver socket, assuring greater
stability during driving;
x oval head: Used when an accessory that will be attached to the framing
has oversized holes or requires a low profile appearance;
x flat head: Designed to countersink without causing splintering or
splitting of wood flooring and finishes;
x trim head: Used for fastening wood trim or other thick dense finish
materials to steel studs. The small head pierces into the trim material,
allowing easy finishing with minimal disturbance of the material
surface;
x bugle head: Designed to countersink slightly in gypsum wallboard or
sheathing, plywood or finish material without crushing the material or
tearing the surface. Leaves a flat, smooth surface for easy finishing;
x low-profile head: Maintains a pleasing appearance at fastening points
where the application does not require jut heads. This style should be
used when rigid sheathings or finish material is to be installed over top
of the screw head;
x wafer head: Larger than the flat or bugle head, the wafer head is used
for connecting soft materials to studs. The large head provides an
ample bearing surface to achieve a flat, clean, finished appearance.
1.5.2 Welding
Welding can be used to prefabricate steel framing components into panel
assemblies and trusses. Welding is also commonly used in the attachment of
site-fabricated or erected panels and for connecting shelf angles to steel
framing.
For helping assure quality installation, all work should be completed by
welders qualified in the welding of sheet steel. Where the studs, joists and
framing accessories have been fabricated from galvanized or painted steel, the
coating will normally be burned away by the welding processes. Where
required, weld areas should be re-touched with the appropriate paint or cold
galvanizing to maintain corrosion resistance.
1.5.3 Pins
Two specific types are commonly used, as shown in Figure 1.16:
x pneumatically driven pins;
x powder-actuated pins.
Lo w-rise residen tial b uildings built with co ld -formed lightweight steel me mbers 25
Pneumatically driven pins are quite new to the CFS framing industry.
They use techniques similar to nail guns for wood, and are commonly used for
nailing plywood to steel. They are also available for fastening thicker cold-
formed steel to concrete.
These fasteners are available with mechanical or electro-zinc plating, or co-
polymer coatings, depending on corrosion resistance requirements. Head
diameters range from 6mm to 10mm, shank diameters vary from 2.5mm to
8mm, and lengths from 12.5 to 200mm.
The shanks may be step-down, knurled, or smooth, as shown in Figure
1.16a. Step-down shanks are generally used on thicker materials for greater
load carrying capacities. Pins are typically supplied in bulk, in collated strips,
or in coils, depending on tool requirements.
1.5.4 Nails
CFS framing members may be also fastened to sheathing with nails.
Generally, nails are spiral shank nails (see Fig. 1.17). They are case hardened
and phosphate treated to etch their surface for increased holding power. They
can be used to fasten plywood subfloors and underlayment to steel.
1.5.5 Bolts
Bolts commonly used for connecting hot-rolled steel members can be also
used to fasten CFS framing to other steel component. Generally, pre-drilling
of holes is necessary for this fastening system. Washers should be provided
for oversized or slotted holes. When the bolt is loaded in tension, washers may
be required to prevent premature pull-through of the anchor.
1.5.6 Anchors
Anchor commonly used for connecting concrete to steel can be separated in
two major categories (Hilti 2001):
x cast-in-place anchors, those are placed before the concrete is cast;
x post-installed or drilled-in anchors, those are installed into hardened
concrete.
Bonded resin or adhesive anchors (see Fig. 1.21) were generally introduced
into the construction market about 20 years ago. Bonded systems use a
combination of adhesive bond and micro keying into the pores of the concrete.
Early systems used polyester resin, epoxies, and later, vinyl ester resins. In
recent years, a larger variety of resins have been developed that have
individual advantages, such as use in high temperatures, low temperatures,
damp and wet holes, etc. For two component epoxy systems, the ratio to resin
is critical. Prepackaged cartridge systems assure that the proper mixing is
obtained.
While a variety of installation methods are used, most are two component
resin systems that anchor threaded rod into predrilled holes. Most will resists
dynamic loads, both seismic and fatigue, but documentation in the form of test
reports should be obtained. Bonded or adhesive anchoring systems are not
well suited for cracked tensile zones of concrete since about the bonding is
lost.
Lo w-rise residen tial b uildings built with co ld -formed lightweight steel me mbers 30
1.5.7 Adhesives
Adhesives are generally optional when screws are used in attaching
subfloors or underlayment to steel joists, and are necessary when nails are
employed. The use of adhesives can provide for long-term bonding capacity
that contributes to a stable assembly. Adhesives are also utilized in attaching
drywall materials and paneling to steel studs or when laminating panels
together, serving to eliminate some, but not all, of the mechanical fasteners.
1.5.8 Hold-down
Uplift forces exist on shear walls because the horizontal forces are applied
to the top of the wall. These uplift forces try to lift up one end of the wall and
push the other end down. In some cases, the uplift force is large enough to tip
the wall over. Uplift forces are greater on tall short walls and less on low long
walls. Bearing walls have less uplift than non-bearing walls because gravity
loads on shear walls help them resist uplift. Shear walls need hold-down
devices at each end when the gravity loads cannot resist all of the uplift. The
hold-down device then provides the necessary uplift resistance. In fact, hold-
downs transfer uplift forces from the end of the wall through a floor to a wall
or foundation below.
Lo w-rise residen tial b uildings built with co ld -formed lightweight steel me mbers 31
The main phases of the building process for a stick-built structure as that
shown in Figure 1.4 are:
x foundation;
x install ground floor;
x erect ground walls;
x install first floor;
x erect first floor walls;
x install roof.
Lo w-rise residen tial b uildings built with co ld -formed lightweight steel me mbers 32
Some of these building phases are shown in Figures 1.23 through 1.27.
These are considered to be self-explanatory.
Floor joists are fastened to the top track of a steel- Joist track is installed over the ends of the floor
framed wall with screws driven through the joist joists. The track is fastened to each joist with self-
flanges. Additional web stiffeners fastened with drilling screws and is anchored to foundation with
self-drilling screws are added to each joist-to-track anchor bolt or other connection as required.
connections as required.
Stud tracks are installed over the ends of the Sheathings are screwed to both studs and stud track
studs. Each top and bottom tracks are fastened for a secure connection between sheathing and cold-
to each studs with self-drilling screws. formed frame.
Floor joists are fastened to the track with the Floor decking is fastened to the floor joists and tracks
same procedure reported in Figure 1.24. generally using self-drilling screws.
In roof framing structures pre-assembled steel truss can be used. Alternately, the profiles can be screwed
with the same procedure used for floor joists.
There are two main methods existing for providing in-plane stability in
floor, roof and wall:
x the use of diagonal bracings (X- and K-bracings);
x the use of floor, roof, or wall structure as diaphragms.
When X-bracings are used (see Fig. 1.29), flat straps of thin steel pass
under the bottom flange of the joists or rafters in the floor or roof and over the
external faces of the studs in the walls. Due to their high slenderness, these
straps act only in tension. They are connected to the primary structure at their
ends in order to transfer the calculated tensile force and at their intersection in
order to reduce their tendency to sag.
An alternative system is K-bracing which takes the form of C-sections
fixed within the depth of the primary structure. These members act in either
tension or compression and, together with the adjacent members form a truss.
As a result, adjacent members with a larger section than the norm and
appropriate connections are required.
Evidently, diagonal bracing should be used wherever possible and current
practice is to use this method for the floor and roof and for walls where there
are few door and window openings. However, the currently popular housing
style results in elevations that contain much opening. In such cases, diagonal
bracing may not be possible and it is necessary to search for another solutions.
unit, since the chord members in all probability are not a single pieces, since
web and chords must be fixed so that they act together, and since the loads
must have a path to other elements or to the foundation, connections are
critical to good diaphragm action. Their choice actually becomes a major part
of the design procedure.
sheathing joist
blocking
flat strap
often part of a wall or floor structure such that they do not require specially
applied fire protection of this sort. In fact, walls and floors are usually built up
of layers of materials such as mineral wool and gypsum board in order to meet
the requirements of sound and thermal insulation and these materials generally
also have favorable properties of fire insulation. Thus, these elements of the
construction can be built up in such a way that they meet all of the
performance requirements with regard to resistance to fire, sound and thermal
loss in a consistent manner.
1.8.2 Durability
With good quality detailing, the durability of a CFS structure should be the
same of traditional construction. There are two characteristics for
guaranteeing good durability:
x avoid the accumulation of moisture in the external envelope;
x avoid bringing incompatible materials into contact with each other.
To limit the corrosion of steel and to improve the durability there are
general precautions which can be followed.
x To ensure that the cladding is sufficiently impermeable and to detail it
in such a way that rainwater does not penetrate the structural frame of
the building.
x To ensure that the external envelope performs thermally in such a way
that condensation of moisture from humid air is not possible.
can reduce the width of a joist but compensate with a heavier gauge
steel and not change the spacing of members.
x Construction speed. It is possible to erect a CFS structure in much less
time than a traditional structure.
x Dry constructions: Except for the foundation, the use of the CFS
structures allow dry constructions, therefore, dirt, dust and general lack
of precision associated with hand-laid masonry, in-situ concrete are
avoided.
x Ease of wiring installation: Holes are normally preformed simplifying
the installation of the wirings.
x Recyclables: Cold-formed steel members are easily recycled.
x Common appearance: Once exterior and interior finishes are installed,
a traditional and a CFS house are indistinguishable from each other.
x Incombustibility: Steel does not burn and prevents the spread of fire.
REFERENCES
AISI (1993) Fasteners for residential steel framing. AISI (American iron and Steel
Institute). Washington DC.
AISI (1996) Cold-formed steel design manual. AISI (American Iron and Steel
Institute). Washington DC.
Lo w-rise residen tial b uildings built with co ld -formed lightweight steel me mbers 43
Lawson, R.M. & Ogden, R.G. (2001) Recent developments in the light steel housing
in the UK. In Proceedings of the 9th North steel conference of construction institute.
Helsinki.
Mkkelkinen, P., Kesti, J., Kaitila, O. (1998) Advanced method for light-weight steel
truss joining. In Proceedings of the Nordic steel construction conference '98. Bergen,
Norway.
NASFA (2000) Prescriptive Method For Residential Cold-Formed Steel Framing
(Year 2000 Edition). NASFA (North American Steel Framing Alliance). Lexington,
KY, USA.
Pedreschi, R.F. & Sinha, B.P. (1996) The potential of press-joining in cold-formed
steel structures. Construction and building materials, Vol.10.
PS1-95 (1983) Voluntary product standard PS1-95 for commercial and industrial
plywood, U.S. Department of commerce, National institute of standard and
technology. Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Schuster, R.M. (1996) Residential applications of cold-formed steel members in
North America. In Proceedings of the 5th International Structural Stability Research
Concilium SSRC. Chicago.
Yu, W.W. (2000) Cold Formed Design (3rd Edition). John Wiley & Sons. New
York.
45
Chapter II
Design of cold-formed steel stud shear
walls
Two main design methodologies for the evaluation of the shear capacity of
a CFSSSW exist, following methods similar to that used for wood-framed
walls:
x segment method;
x perforated shear wall method.
unit shear v
shear
force V
Basic relations:
h V=vw
typical T=C=Vh/w
overturning
anchor
v
T C
w
In the perforated shear wall method the resistance of shear walls with
un-restrained openings can be determined with reasonable accuracy (about
5%) by an empirical method known as the Perforated Shear Wall (PSW)
design method (Dolan & Heine 1997a, b, Dolan & Johnson 1997a, b, NAHB
Research Center 1997, 1998).The PSW design method is very simple, and
only requires that a fully-sheathed wall line with perforations for windows and
doors be restrained at the ends with a hold-down bracket or adequate corner
framing in lower capacity shear walls (Dolan & Heine 1997c), as shown in
Figure 2.2b. For determining the shear wall capacity, all that is needed is the
unit shear value for the shear wall construction, the area of wall openings, the
length of full-height wall segments, and the overall length of the wall. These
values are inputs to a simple two-step equation that gives the overall wall
capacity without the use of internal connection detailing or hold-downs.
In particular, the PSW design method for wood-frame shear walls
appearing in the IBC is based on the Sugiyama & Matsumotos (1994)
equation. This equation gives the ratio of the strength of a shear wall with
openings to the strength of a fully sheathed shear wall without openings (F):
48 Chapter II
r
F (2.1)
3 2r
where r is the sheathing area ratio as defined in the following equation:
1
r (2.2)
Ao
1
h Li
where Ao is the total area of openings, h is the height of the wall and Li is the
length of the full height wall segment.
w1 w2 w3 w
Figure 2.2: Comparison between Segment method (a) and PSW method (b).
For both the Segment and the PSW methodology the evaluation of shear
wall capacity of a fully sheathed shear wall without openings is required. This
evaluation may be achieved by a semi-analytical approach based on the model
of a simple shear wall or by the nominal shear value tables for specific wall
configurations obtained on the basis of experimental results.
Frame
Sheathing-to-frame
connections Frame-to-foundation
connections
Table 2.1: Failure modes in a CFSSSW braced laterally with wood based panels.
The Easley et al.s method (Easley et al. 1982) is a design procedure that
relates the shear capacity per unit length (vS-F) with the shear strength of the
sheathing-to-frame connections (FS-F), based on equilibrium. Based on the
results of observation tests performed on wood-frame shear walls with
plywood panels, the fasteners forces in a typical sheathing of a loaded shear
wall were assumed to be directed as shown in Figure 2.5. In particular:
x The fastener forces in the sheathing ends were assumed to have both x-
and y-components. The x-components (Fex) were assumed uniform in
the x-direction. The y-components (Feyi) were assumed proportional to
the distances of the fasteners from the sheathing center line (xei).
x The fastener forces in the sheathing sides (Fs) were assumed to be
uniform and to act only in the y-direction (along the stud). The Fs
forces were assumed to be proportional to their distances from the
sheathing center line.
x The fastener forces in the interior studs (Fsi) were assumed to act only
in the y-direction (along the stud) and to be proportional to the
distances xsi.
Indicating with:
a: the length of the sheathing;
h: the height of the wall;
ne: the number of the end fasteners;
ns: the number of the side fasteners, excluding those at the end;
nsi: the number of the fasteners in each interior stud, excluding those
at the end;
m: the number of the interior studs.
54 Chapter II
Interior
Fasteners
the relations between the side fastener forces (Fs), the end fastener forces (Fei)
and the shear force per unit length acting on the shear wall (va) are the
followings:
Fs h
Ds (2.9)
va E
0.5
Fei a 2 2
h
D ei 2 x ei (2.10)
va ne aE
where:
4 I e 2n si I s
E ns
a2
ne
2
Ie x
i 1
ei
m
2
Is x
i 1
si
Design of co ld -fo rmed steel stud shear walls 55
Defining with Dmax the largest value between that obtained from Ds and Dei,
the shear strength per unit length (vS-F) is obtained as follow:
1
vS F FS F (2.11)
D max
in which FS-F is defined in Equation (2.4).
With the simplified method it is assumed that only the end screws resist
horizontal load, and consequently, the contribution of side and interior
fasteners is ignored. According to this hypothesis the shear strength per unit
length (vS-F) is obtained from the value of sheathing-to-frame connections
shear strength (FS-F), multiplied by the number of the end fasteners per unit
length (ne):
v S F n' e FS F (2.12)
Unsheathed stud
In general, considering an unsheathed stud it can present three different
types of buckling: local, distortional and global (flexural and/or torsional)
buckling or their coupling.
When global buckling occurs, any cross-section of the stud moves as a
rigid body with a half-wavelength comparable to that of the stud. This type of
buckling is governed by the global slenderness of the stud and normally
implies the collapse of the structure.
Local buckling is characterized by a relatively short half-wavelength of the
order of magnitude of individual plate elements, while the fold lines remain
straight.
Distortional buckling implies the rotation and the translation of the multiple
elements of the cross-section. This bucking mode occurs at a half-wavelength
56 Chapter II
intermediate to local and global mode buckling. Also, the cross section gets
much more distorted than in the local one.
Both local and distortional modes do not imply the collapse of the
structure. In fact, in these cases post-buckling strength is developed.
Figure 2.6 illustrates these three modes of buckling for an unsheathed stud.
LOCAL BUCKLING
Local buckling is typically treated by ignoring any interaction between
elements (flanges, web and lips). Each element is considered independent
from the others and classical plate buckling equations based on isolated
simply supported plates are generally used. In this approach, termed element
Design of co ld -fo rmed steel stud shear walls 57
DISTORTIONAL BUCKLING
Distortional buckling usually involves rotation of each flange and lip about
the flange-web junction in opposite directions as shown in Figure 2.6. The
web undergoes flexure at the same half-wavelength as the flange buckle and
the whole section may translate in a direction normal to the web also at the
same half-wavelength as the flange and web buckling deformations. The web
buckle involves single curvature transverse bending of the web.
A general model for the determination of the elastic distortional buckling
stress under axial compression has been originally developed by Lau &
Hancock (1987). Figure 2.7 shows this analytical model that is based on a
flange buckling where the flange is treated as a compression member
restrained by a rotational and a transational spring. The rotational spring
stiffness kI, represents the torsional restraint from the web and the transational
spring stuffiness kx, represents the torsional restraint to transational movement
of the cross-section. Lau & Hancock showed that the transational spring
stiffness kx, does not have much significance and the value of kx was assumed
to be zero. The key to evaluating this model is to consider the rotational spring
stiffness kI, and the half buckling wavelength O, while taking account of
symmetry.
Figure 2.7: Flange buckling model for distortional column buckling (Landolfo et al. 2002).
Design of co ld -fo rmed steel stud shear walls 59
The Authors gave a detailed analysis in which the effect of the local
buckling stress in the web and of shear and flange distortion were taken into
account in determining expressions for kI and O. This gives rise to a rather
long and detailed series of explicit equations for the distortional buckling
stress that, not-withstanding their cumbersome nature, are included in the
Australian/New Zealand Code (AS/NZS 4600 1996).
A similar set of explicit equations bas also proposed by Schafer (2001) and
will be incorporated in future AISI Specifications.
For the determination of the axial strength under distortional buckling
(Nb,d), Hancock (1985) developed expressions on the basis of effective widths
for distortional buckling.
COUPLED BUCKLING
For taking in-to account the interaction between local and global buckling,
the axial strength (Nb) has to be based upon the effective cross-section,
calculated for uniform compression.
In Eurocode 3 - Part 1.3 (ENV 1993-1-3 1996) a well-known Ayrton-Perry
formula is used for the calculation of the axial strength:
N b F Aeff f y (2.17)
1
F d1 (2.18)
I I O 2
2 0.5
Schafer & Pekz (1998) have recently proposed a new procedure which
works only with the gross properties of a member and can take into account
the interaction between local and global buckling and also the interaction
between distortional and global buckling.
Use of the Direct Strength Method for columns requires (1) the
determination of the elastic buckling axial load (Ncr) of the member and (2)
using that information in a series of ultimate strength curves to predict the
strength (Nb) (Fiorino 2000).
For the determination of the elastic buckling load, as an alternative to the
traditional analytical solutions, numerical solutions based on the whole
section approach may be used to accurately calculate the elastic buckling
behavior necessary for step (1). In fact, besides to the traditional finite element
method (FEM) some friendly computer programs, mainly based on the finite
strip method (FSM) (CU-FSM 2003, THIN-WALL 2003) or the generalized
Design of co ld -fo rmed steel stud shear walls 61
beam theory (GBT) (Davies & Leach 1994a, b) have been purposely written
for the determination of the local, distortional and global elastic critical loads.
The procedure employed to calculate the axial strength is the same
underlying empirical assumptions as the effective width method used in the
main Specification. In fact, the axial strength (Nb) is a function of the elastic
buckling load (Ncr) and the yield load (Ny).
In particular, the axial strength (Nb) is the minimum of axial strength for
global (flexural and/or torsional) buckling (Nb,g), local buckling (Nb,l) and
distortional buckling (Nb,d):
N b min^N b, g ; N b,l ; N b,d ` (2.21)
The axial strength for global buckling (Nb,g) is:
N b, g U g N y (2.22)
with:
Og2 0.877
Ug 0.658 if Og d 1.5 or U g if Og ! 1.5 (2.23)
Og2
Ny
in which Og is the normalized global slenderness and Ncr,g is the
N cr , g
minimum of elastic critical axial loads for flexural, torsional and flexural-
torsional buckling.
The axial strength for local buckling (Nb,l) is:
N b,l U l N b, g (2.24)
with:
0.15 1
Ul 1 if Ol d 0.776 or U l 1 if Ol ! 0.776 (2.25)
Ol Ol
0.4
N
in which Ol b,l is the normalized local slenderness and Ncr,l is the
N cr ,l
elastic critical axial load for local buckling.
0.25 1
Ud 1 if Od d 0.561 or U d 1 if Od ! 0.561 (2.27)
Od Od
0.6
N
in which Od y is the normalized distortional slenderness and Ncr,d is
N cr ,d
the elastic critical axial load for distortional buckling.
Sheathed stud
In a sheathed stud the bending strength and diaphragm action due to the
presence of the sheathings increase the load-carrying capacity considerably
(Miller and Pekz 1993, 1994).
In Eurocode 3 - Part 1.3 (ENV 1993-1-3 1996) only the diaphragms-
bracing effect on buckling of beams is considered, while the AISI (1996)
Specification considers the effect of sheathing material on buckling of
columns and beams. In particular, for the columns the AISI (1996) design
requirements are limited only to those studs that have identical wall material
attached to both flanges.
In the evaluation of the axial strength (Nb) of a sheathed stud the AISI
(1996) Specification follows the Diaphragm stiffness mechanical model.
According to this approach the load-carrying capacity is governed by:
x column buckling of studs between fasteners in the plane of the wall
(Fig. 2.4a); or
x overall column buckling of studs (Fig. 2.4b); or
x shear failure of the sheathing.
Therefore, the axial strength (Nb) is equal to the minimum axial strength
associated to the first two failure modes listed above, as defined by the
following relation:
N b min^N bf ; N bo ` (2.28)
where:
Nbf: is the axial strength associated to the column buckling of the stud
between fasteners;
Nbo: is the axial strength associated to the overall column buckling of
the studs.
Design of co ld -fo rmed steel stud shear walls 63
(a) column buckling of studs between fasteners (b) overall column buckling of studs
both the shear rigidity and the rotational restraint of the sheathings were
considered.
For the purpose of simplicity, in the AISI Specification only the case of
identical sheathings attached on both flanges is considered. Moreover, the
rotational restraint provided by sheathings is neglected.
According to these hypotheses, in AISI (1996) the axial strength (Nbo) for
concentrically loaded compression members is calculated in accordance with
Equation 2.20 with the elastic critical stress (Vcr) value obtained as follows:
x for singly symmetric C-sections, Vcr is the smallest of the following
elastic critical stresses:
V cr V cr ,ip Qa (2.29)
V V V cr ,t ,Q 4 E V cr ,op V cr ,t ,Q
2
cr ,op V cr ,t ,Q cr ,op
(2.30)
V cr
2E
Qt Q d 2
4 Ar
0
2
Design of co ld -fo rmed steel stud shear walls 65
s
Q Q0 2
s'
where:
A: is the area of the gross cross-section;
d: is the depth of the section;
r0 : is the polar radius of gyration of the cross section
about its shear center;
s: is the fastener spacing (152mm s 305mm);
s = 305mm
Q0 : is a parameter provided by AISI (1996) as function of
the sheathing type;
2
x
E 1 0
r0
x0 : is the distance from centroid to shear center.
E1
>
f b V cr ,op f b r02 E 0 x 0 D0 f b x 0 D0 x 0 E 0 @ (2.35)
V cr ,op f b r V cr ,t ,Q f b f b x 0
0
2 2
E1 = 0 (2.37)
In the above formulas C0, E0, D0 are initial column imperfections which
shall be assumed to be at least:
C0 = L/350 in a direction parallel to the wall;
E0 = L/700 in a direction perpendicular to the wall;
D0 = L/(10000 d) rad as measure of initial twist of the stud from
the initial ideal, unbuckled shape.
Moreover, if fb>0.5fy, then in the definitions for Vcr,ip, Vcr,op and Vcr,t, the
Youngs modulus (E) and the shear modulus (G) shall be replaced by E and
G, respectively, as defined below:
4 fb f y fb
E' E (2.38)
f ys
E'
G' G (2.39)
E
Figure 2.9 shows the failure mode associated to net section, bearing/tilting
and screw shear strengths.
Because the hold down is thicker and stronger than the cold-formed steel
stud, it is possible to calculate the strength by the equations reported below.
If the bolted part has a reduced edge distance in the direction of the applied
force the connection can fails due to longitudinal shear collapse of the sheet.
For this failure type, the nominal strength (Fl) is defined as follows:
Fl e1 t f f u ,s (2.44)
where e1 is the end distance from the center of the bolt to the adjacent end of
the connected part, in the direction of load transfer (in ENV 1993-1-3 (1996)
and AISI (1996)), or the distance from the center of the bolt to the nearest
edge of an adjacent hole, in the direction of load transfer (in AISI (1996)
only).
For the net section strength (Fn) the ENV 1993-1-3 (1996) gives the
following formula:
d
Fn 1 3r Anet f u ,s d Anet f u ,s (2.45)
u
While, in case of channel sections having two or more bolts in the line of
the force, the AISI (1996) defines Fn as follows:
Design of co ld -fo rmed steel stud shear walls 71
x
Fn 1.0 0.36 L Anet f u ,s (2.46)
In ENV 1993-1-3 (1996), the bolt shear strength (Fv) is defined through the
following relation:
Fv nb D bo As f u ,bo (2.48)
in which:
nb: is the number of bolts;
72 Chapter II
Dbo: is a coefficient that depends on the steel strength grade of the bolt:
Dbo = 0.6 for strength grade 4.6, 5.6 and 8.8;
Dbo = 0.5 for strength grade 4.8, 5.8, 6.8 and 10.9;
As: is the tensile stress area of the bolt;
fu,bo: is the ultimate tensile strength of the anchor steel.
For the bolt shear strength (Fv) the AISI (1996) gives the following
formula:
Fv nb Ab f v ,bo (2.49)
in which:
nb: is the number of bolts;
Ab: is the gross cross-sectional area of the bolt;
fv,bo: is the nominal unit shear strength of the bolt, provided by AISI
(1996) as function of steel strength grade and diameter of bolt.
Figure 2.11: Failure modes of anchors under tension loading (Hilti 2001).
The resistance against concrete cone failure (Nc) may be generally defined
by the following relation:
N c N c ,o rN ,s rN ,e (2.51)
in which:
Nc,o: is the basic value of resistance against concrete cone failure, that
depends on the type (AT) and diameter (da) of anchor, depth of
embedment (de) and concrete strength (fck):
Nc,o=f(AT, da, de, fck)
rN,s: is the anchor spacing reduction factor, that depends on type (AT)
and diameter (da) of anchor, depth of embedment (de) and anchor
spacing (s):
rN,s=f(AT, da, de, s)1
rN,e: is the edge distance reduction factor, that depends on type (AT)
and diameter (da) of anchor, depth of embedment (de) and anchor
edge distance (e):
rN,s=f(AT, da, de, e)1
The resistance against pull-out failure (Np) depends on the type of anchor
(AT), its diameter (da) and depth of embedment (de):
Np=f(AT, da, de) (2.52)
The following relation may generally be used to obtain the tensile
resistance against steel failure (Ns):
N s As f u ,a (2.53)
in which:
As: is the tensile stress area of the anchor;
fu,a: is the ultimate tensile strength of the anchor steel.
74 Chapter II
Figure 2.12: Failure modes of anchors under shear loading (Hilti 2001).
where:
Vc: is the resistance against concrete edge failure;
Vs: is the shear resistance of steel.
The following relation may generally define the resistance against concrete
edge failure (Vc):
Vc Vc ,o rV ,se fV ,d (2.56)
in which:
Vc,o: is the basic value of resistance against concrete edge failure, that
depends on the type (AT) and diameter (da) of anchor, depth of
embedment (de) and concrete strength (fck):
Vc,o=f(AT, da, de, fck)
rV,se: is the anchor spacing and edge reduction factor, that depends on
type (AT) and diameter (da) of anchor, depth of embedment (de),
anchor spacing (s) and edge distance (e):
rN,s=f(AT, da, de, s, e)1
fV,d: is the loading direction factor, that depends on the direction of
shear force (E):
fV,d=f(E)
The shear resistance against of steel failure (Vs) may be generally obtained
by the following relation:
Vs D s As f u ,a (2.57)
in which:
Ds: is a coefficient that depends on the steel strength grade of the
anchor (D = 0.5 0.6);
As: is the tensile stress area of the anchor;
fu,a: is the ultimate tensile strength of the anchor steel.
CFSSSWs currently permitted in the 1997 UBC and 2000 IBC (plywood,
OSB, sheet steel, GWB, GSB), tabulated design values are based exclusively
on physical testing which included monotonic loading for wind design values
and reversed cyclic loading for seismic design values.
Testing for development of Code design values occurred in two phases
(Serrette et al. 1996a, b and Serrette et al. 1997a, b). The results of the first
phase of testing were incorporated in the 1997 UBC and the results of the
second phase of testing (combined with the results of the first phase) were
incorporated in the 2000 IBC.
The typical test assembly in both phases of testing comprised 8ft.
(2440mm) high walls having a width of 2ft. (610mm), 4ft. (1220mm) or 8ft.
(2440mm) corresponding to aspect ratios (ratio of the wall height to width) of
4:1, 2:1 and 1:1. For the 1997 UBC (the first phase of testing), all walls were
4ft. (1220mm) wide except for gypsum sheathed walls that were 8ft.
(2440mm) wide. The 2ft. (610mm) wide walls were part of the second phase
of testing. For each test, the wall was anchored at both ends for overturning
and between the ends for shear transfer. In the shear wall tests, the sheathing
was oriented parallel to framing (all edges blocked), except for the gypsum
wallboard sheathing tests where the panels were installed perpendicular to
framing with strap blocking the abutting edges (see Chapter 3, Section 3.2.5
for details).
The typical results for the monotonic and reversed cyclic load tests, and the
interpretation of these test results, are illustrated in Figures 2.13 and 2.14,
respectively.
Using the measured wall response, as illustrated in Figures 2.13 and 2.14,
the Code tabulated nominal design strengths for the wall configurations tested
were determined as follows.
maximum load
-12.7mm
+12.7mm
stable load at -12.7mm
In both the 1997 UBC and 2000 IBC, design values are tabulated in terms
of a nominal capacity (Rn). Allowable Stress Design (ASD) and Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) capacities are computed as:
Rn / : for ASD (2.61)
I Rn for LRFD (2.62)
where : is a safety factor and I is a resistance factor.
The tabulated design values for seismic design under the 1997 UBC and
2000 IBC are reproduced in Tables 2.3 and 2.4, respectively. The tabulated
design values for wind action are reproduced in Tables 2.5 and 2.6 for design
under the 1997 UBC and 2000 IBC, respectively. The safety and resistance
factors for the UBC and IBC are summarized in Table 2.7.
Comparing the 2000 IBC tables with the 1997 UBC tables, it is evident that
a larger number of design options is permitted by IBC. This difference, as
indicated earlier, is the result of additional testing (second phase) that was
completed after publication of the 1997 UBC.
The seismic and wind design values in Tables 2.5 and 2.6 assume that
walls are fully sheathed and hold down anchors are provided at each end of
the wall as required by calculation. All panel edges are assumed to be blocked
for the shear wall applications. Some monotonic test data has shown that one
unblocked edge may reduce the fully-blocked capacity by about 50%, as
shown in Chapter 3 (Section 3.2.1).
Table 2.3: 1997 UBC nominal shear strength (Rn) values for seismic actions (lbs./foot).
80 Chapter II
Table 2.4: 2000 IBC nominal shear strength (Rn) values for seismic actions (lbs./foot).
Table 2.5a: 1997 UBC nominal shear strength (Rn) values for wind actions (lbs./foot).
Design of co ld -fo rmed steel stud shear walls 81
Table 2.5b: 1997 UBC nominal shear strength (Rn) values for wind actions (lbs./foot).
Table 2.6a: 2000 IBC nominal shear strength (Rn) values for wind actions (lbs./foot).
82 Chapter II
Table 2.6b: 2000 IBC nominal shear strength (Rn) values for wind actions (lbs./foot).
Table 2.7: Safety and resistance factors per 1997 UBC and 2000 IBC.
values. Serrette indicates that the behavior of a shear wall suggests that it
would be rational and safe to allow the use of the Code values for gypsum
board applied parallel to framing provided that all edges are, as required,
blocked.
For gypsum board shear walls, the Codes require the use of both flat strap
and solid end bay blocks at abutting panel edges (when the abutting edge does
not occur at a stud). Serrette reports that, because of the mechanism of load
transfer at the abutting panel edge, solid-blocked end bays are not structurally
necessary for the shear wall application. Moreover He notes that solid
blocking may be required to avoid global buckling of studs.
1 feet = 305 mm
Table 2.8: Maximum unrestrained opening height (H) per 2000 IRC.
84 Chapter II
Table 2.9: Adjustment factors (F) for application of the PSW method per 2000 IRC.
REFERENCES
AISI (1986) AISI Specification for the design of Cold-Formed Steel structural
members. AISI (American Iron and Steel Institute). Washington DC.
AISI (1996) Cold-Formed Steel Design manual. AISI (American Iron and Steel
Institute). Washington DC.
AISI (2001) North American Specification for the design of Cold-Formed Steel
structural members (November 9, 2001 draft edition). AISI (American Iron and Steel
Institute), Washington DC.
Ambrose, J. & Dimitry, V. (1987) Design for Lateral Forces. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. New York.
APA (1996) Use Panel Supplement. APA (The Engineered Wood Association).
Tacoma, WA, USA.
AS/NZS 4600 (1996) Cold-formed steel structures. AS/NZS (Australian
Standards/New Zealand Standards). Sydney.
Apparao, T.V.S., Errera, S.J., Fischer, G.P. (1969) Columns braced by girts and
diaphragm. Journal of structural Division. ASCE, Vol.95:965-990
Batista, E.M. (1988) Etude de la stabilit des profiles parois minces et sections
ouverte de type U et C. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Liege. Liege.
Beyer, D.E. (1993) Design of Wood Structures, Third Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
New York.
CU-FSM (2003) http://www.ce.jhu.edu/bschafer/cufsm/index.htm. (Upgraded
August 2003)
Davies, J.M. & Leach, P. (1994a) First-order generalised beam theory. Journal of
construction steel research. Elsevier, Vol.31.
Design of co ld -fo rmed steel stud shear walls 85
Davies, J.M. & Leach, P. (1994b) Second-order generalised beam theory. Journal of
construction steel research. Elsevier, Vol.31.
Della Corte, G., De Martino, A., Fiorino, L., Landolfo, R. (2003) Numerical
modeling of thin-walled cold-formed steel C-sections in bending. In Proceedings of
the Advances in Structures Steel, Concrete, Composite and Aluminum (ASSCCA'03).
Sydney.
Dolan, J.D. & Heine, C.P. (1997a) Monotonic Tests of Wood-frame Shear Walls with
Various Opening and Base Restraint Conditions. Report TE-1997-001, Brooks Forest
Products Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Dolan, J.D. & Heine, C.P. (1997b) Sequential Phased Displacement Cyclic Tests of
Wood-frame Shear Walls with Various Opening and Base Restraint Conditions.
Report TE-1997-002, Brooks Forest Products Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University. Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Dolan, J.D. & Heine, C.P. (1997.) Sequential Phased Displacement Tests of Wood-
framed Shear Walls with Corners. Report TE-1997-003, Brooks Forest Products
Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg,
VA, USA.
Dolan, J.D. & Johnson, A.C. (1997a) Monotonic Tests of Long Shear Walls with
Openings. Report TE-1996-001, Brooks Forest Products Research Center, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Dolan, J.D. & Johnson, A.C. (1997b) Cyclic Tests of Long Shear Walls with
Openings. Report TE-1996-002, Brooks Forest Products Research Center, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Easley, J.T., Foomani, M., Dodds, R.H. (1982) Formulas for wood shear walls.
Journal of structural Division. ASCE, Vol.105, No.11:2460-2478.
Errera, S.J. & Apparao, T.V.S.R. (1976) Design of I-shaped columns with diaphragm
bracing. Journal of structural Division. ASCE, Vol.102.
Errera, S.J., Pincus, G., Fischer, G.P. (1967) Columns and beams braced by
diaphragms. Journal of Structural Division. ASCE, Vol.93:295-318.
ENV 1993-1-3 (1996) Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1-3: General
rules - Supplementary rules for cold formed thin gauge members and sheeting. CEN
(European Committee for Standardization). Bruxelles.
Faherty, K.F. & Williamson, T.G. (1999) Wood Engineering and construction
handbook (Third edition). McGraw-Hill.
86 Chapter II
NAHB Research Center (1998) The Performance of Perforated Shear Walls with
Narrow Wall Segments, Reduced Base Restraint, and Alternative Framing Methods.
NAHB (National Association of Home Builders). Upper Marlboro, MD, USA.
Pincus, G. & Fischer, G.P. (1966) Behavior of diaphragm-braced columns and
beams. Journal of Structural Division. ASCE, Vol.92:323-350.
prEN 1998-1 (2001) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance
Part 1: General rules Seismic actions and rules for buildings. CEN (European
Committee for Standardization). Bruxelles.
Schafer, B.W. (2001) Thin-walled column design considering local, distorsional and
Euler buckling. Proceedings of the Structural Stability Research Council, Annual
Technical Session and Meeting.
Schafer B.W. & Pekz T. (1998). Direct strength prediction of cold-formed steel
members using numerical elastic buckling solution. In Proceedings of the 2th
International conference on thin-walled structures. Singapore.
Schafer, B.W. & Pekz T. (1999) Local distortional buckling of cold-formed steel
members with edge stiffened flanges. In Proceedings of the 4th International
conference on steel and aluminium structures (ICSAS 99). Helsinki.
Schafer, B.W. & Hiriyur, B. (2002) Analysis of sheathed cold-formed steel wall
studs. In Proceedings of the 16th International Specialty Conference on Cold-formed
Steel Structures. St. Louis, MO, USA:501-513.
Serrette, R., Nguyen, H., Hall, G. (1996a) Shear wall values for light weight steel
framing. Report No. LGSRG-3-96, Light Gauge Steel Research Group, Department
of Civil Engineering, Santa Clara University. Santa Clara, CA, USA.
Serrette, R., Hall, G., Nguyen, H. (1996b) Dynamic performance of light gauge steel
framed shear walls. In Proceedings of the 13th International Specialty Conference on
Cold-formed Steel Structures. St. Louis, MO, USA:487-498.
Serrette, R.L., Encalada, J., Juadines, M., Nguyen, H. (1997a) Static racking behavior
of plywood, OSB, gypsum, and fiberboard walls with metal framing. Journal of
Structural Engineering. ASCE, Vol.123, No.8:1079-1086.
Serrette, R., Encalada, J., Matchen, B., Nguyen, H., Williams, A. (1997b) Additional
shear wall values for light weight steel framing. Report No. LGSRG-1-97, Light
Gauge Steel Research Group, Department of Civil Engineering, Santa Clara
University. Santa Clara, CA, USA.
Simaan, A. & Pekz, T. (1976) Diaphragm braced members and design of wall stud.
Journal of structural Division. ASCE, Vol.102.
88 Chapter II
Chapter III
Testing of cold-formed steel stud shear
walls: review of existing literature
reported in Table 3.1. A more complete listing of the test data is given in
Appendix A.
All wall sizes were 2440x2440mm (height x length), except for one
specimen that had a wall size of 2440x3660mm. The stud wall systems were
constructed using 89x25x13x0.84mm C-sections studs attached to
92x38x0.84mm U-sections track. Double back-to-back coupled studs were
Testing of co ld-fo rmed steel stud sh ear walls: rev iew of existing literatu re 95
employed at the ends of each wall. GWB, 12.7mm thick, was attached to both
sides of the specimens, except for two specimens, that had GWB as internal
panel and PLY (12.7mm thick) or GSB (12.7mm thick), respectively, as
exterior panels. The sheathing orientation was always horizontal. All panels
were connected to the frame with 3.5x25mm (diameter x length) bugle head
screws spaced at 305mm at the perimeter and in the field of the panel. Clip
angles fixed with bolts or powder-actuated fasteners were used to connect the
base of some walls.
Tarpy & Girard noted that all wall types had the same basic failure mode.
The bottom track deformed around the anchorage device at the uplift corner of
the wall and the cracking of the GWB happened at the same locations from
the corner fasteners to the edge of the panel.
The tests were carried out to achieve the principal following goals:
To examine the effect of fasteners size and spacing.
To study the influence of frame thickness.
All wall sizes were 2440x2440mm (height x length). The frame was made
using 64x41x1.88mm (web depth x flange size x thickness) C-sections studs
at 610mm on center attached to 64x41x1.88mm U-sections track for the
specimens 1, 7 and 8. The frame used for other specimens were made using
89x41x1.50 studs at 610mm on center attached to 89x41x1.50 track
(specimens 2 and 3) and 89x41x1.19 studs at 610mm on center attached to
89x41x1.19 track (specimens 4, 5 and 6).
Fasteners types were 4.2mm diameter screws for the 1.19mm frame
thickness and 4.8mm diameter screws or 3.7mm diameter pins for the 1.50
and 1.88mm frame thickness. Different fasteners schedule was used. In fact,
the edge fasteners spacing varied form 76 to 152mm while the field fasteners
spacing was 305mm.
The different sheathing types for tests included 9.5mm thick PLY
(specimens 1, 2, 4 and 5), 15.9mm thick PLY (specimen 8), 11.1mm thick
OSB (specimens 3 and 6) and 15.1mm thick OSB (specimen 7). The sheathing
orientation was vertical in each case.
The Author reported that in most cases failure occurred due to buckling of
the single end studs or the bottom track at the anchor bolts. These premature
collapses prevented the full development of the shear capacity of the panels.
For this reason the test results did not offer a correct valuation of the behavior
of the sheathing panels.
Testing of co ld-fo rmed steel stud sh ear walls: rev iew of existing literatu re 97
The 2440mm by 2440mm steel frame was identical for all walls. The frame
was made using 152x32x0.84mm (web depth x flange size x thickness) C-
sections studs at 610mm on center attached to 152x0.84mm (web depth x
thickness) U-sections track. At the ends of each wall, double back-to-back
coupled studs were used to avoid chord buckling. The fasteners used for the
frame connections were 4.2x13mm (diameter x length) wafer-head screws.
Clip angles were used to connect each wall specimen to the base of the test
frame.
The different shear resisting systems included:
x Type A: framed walls with 51x0.84mm (width x thickness) X-B on the
face. The straps were attached to the frame using gusset connections
that were designed for the yield strength of the strap.
x Type B: framed walls with 12.7mm thick GSB on the face and
12.7mm thick GWB on the back. The gypsum panels were orientated
vertically and were attached to the frame using 3.5x25mm bugle head
screws spaced at 152mm at the perimeter and at 305mm in the field.
x Type C: framed walls with both Type A and B shear resisting systems.
All specimens were raised with GSB and X-B on the face and GWB
on the back except for one specimen that was built with X-B on both
sides.
The Authors reported that for type A walls, failure resulted from excessive
lateral deflections that followed the yielding of the tension X-B. For type B
and C walls, at approximately half of the maximum load, screw rotation
occurred at the perimeter edge, and at the maximum load, the paper along the
edges of the panels broke at the locations of the screws. Type B walls
provided about 2.1 times the maximum load of type A walls, type C walls
with one X-B on one side increased the maximum load by approximately 1.3
Testing of co ld-fo rmed steel stud sh ear walls: rev iew of existing literatu re 99
times over type B walls, and type C wall with X-B on both sides amplified the
maximum load by about 1.8 times in comparison with type B walls.
The monotonic test program was divided in two phases with different
objectives.
The first phase included walls sheathing on one side only and was
addressed to the following issues:
To compare the differences in the behavior of OSB and PLY.
To examine the effect on the shear strength of a variation of the aspect
ratio (height/width) from 1 (2440/2440) to 2 (2440/1220).
To examine the effect of dense fasteners schedules.
The second phase consisted of walls sheathing on both sides and was
addressed to the following questions:
To study the behavior of walls with OSB on a side and GWB on the
other.
To study the behavior of walls with GWB on both sides.
To determine the relative strength of walls with OSB and with PLY.
To study the effect of dense fasteners schedules.
To determine the relative strength of walls in cyclic and in monotonic
tests.
Serrette et al. concluded form the results of the cyclic tests that:
PLY and OSB panel assemblies sowed a little difference in the cyclic
shear strength.
As in the monotonic tests, the wall shear strength increased
significantly with the reduction of the fastener spacing.
The shear behavior of walls observed in cyclic tests was somewhat
lower than the shear behavior exhibited in monotonic tests for walls of
similar construction details.
Two different frames were used in the full-scale tests: type A and type B.
The type A frame was 2440x2440mm (height x length) in size constructed
with ASTM A446 Grade A galvanized steel members. The studs were
152x41x10x0.84 C-sections spaced at 610mm on center and the tracks were
152x25x0.84mm U-sections. The chord studs were two back-to-back coupled
profiles. The type B frame was identical to type A except that 51x0.84mm
(width x thickness) steel flat strap was attached across the mid-height of the
wall and that solid blocking was installed above the strap in the and bays. The
type A and B frames were sheathed with: 11.9mm thick PLY; 11.1mm thick
OSB; 12.7mm thick FBW; 12.7mm thick GWB. The panels were placed
either one side or both sides and they were oriented either vertically or
horizontally depending on the test. The frame fasteners were 4.2x13mm
(diameter x length) wafer-head screws. Panels were attached to the frame
using either 3.5x25mm bugle-head screws, 4.2x32mm flat-head screws with
countersinking nibs, or 3.7mm diameter steel pins depending on the test.
Hold-downs were used to connect each wall specimen to the base of test
frame.
The full-scale tests failed initially by fasteners rotation (tilting) about the
plane of the stud flange. In some tests the chord studs were subjected to local
Testing of co ld-fo rmed steel stud sh ear walls: rev iew of existing literatu re 103
crushing at the bearing end. Otherwise, generally the specimens failed either
when the edges of the panels broke off at the screw fastener or when the panel
pulled over the head of the screws. In some cases where 3.5mm diameter
screws were used in PLY and OSB panels, fracture of the screws occurred.
The Authors reported for the full-scale tests the following conclusions:
The behavior of the PLY and OSB panels was comparable, whereas
the strength of gypsum and FBW walls was relatively low. The use of
GWB on the interior of the wall and PLY on the exterior produced a
higher shear capacity, by approximately 18%, in comparison with the
PLY wall.
The use of 3.7mm diameter nails decreased the maximum shear
strength in comparison with 3.5 and 4.2mm diameters screws. The
maximum shear strength was not influenced by the size of the fastener.
The failure mode for the specimens with 3.5mm diameter screws was
fracture of fasteners and thus walls with 3.5mm diameter screws may
fail at lower loads than walls with 4.2mm diameter screws.
For gypsum and FBW the reduction of the fastener spacing increased
significantly the shear strength.
The walls with blocked panels oriented horizontally provided
essentially the same shear capacity but higher stiffness than a
comparable wall with panels oriented vertically. When blocking was
omitted from the walls with horizontal panels, the shear capacity of the
wall was reduced by more than 50%.
For monotonic tests, the studs were 0.84mm thick except for one case
where 1.09mm thick studs were used (tests 3-4). The following assemblies
were tested:
x 2440x1220mm walls with 114x0.84mm (width x thickness) and
191x0.84mm X-B (tests 1-4).
x 2440x610mm walls with 11.1mm thick OSB attached to the frame
using screws spaced at 305mm in the field and at 152, 102 and 51mm
at the perimeter (tests 5-10).
Testing of co ld-fo rmed steel stud sh ear walls: rev iew of existing literatu re 105
x 2440x610mm walls with 0.46 and 0.69mm thick SSS attached to the
frame using screws spaced at 305mm in the field and at 152 and 102 at
the perimeter (tests 11-14).
x 2440x1220mm walls with 0.46mm thick SSS attached to the frame
using screws spaced at 305mm in the field and at 152 at the perimeter
(tests 15-16).
For the cyclic tests, the studs were 0.84mm thick except for some cases. In
fact, for A1-A8 tests the end studs were 1.09mm thick, while for B1-B2 and
B3-B4 tests all studs were 1.09 and 1.37mm thick respectively. The different
shear resisting systems included:
x 2440x1220mm walls with 11.9mm thick PLY and 11.1mm thick OSB
attached to the frame using screws spaced at 305mm in the field and at
76 and 51mm at the perimeter (tests A1-A8).
x 2440x1220mm walls with 11.9mm thick PLY attached to the frame
using screws spaced at 305mm in the field and at 152mm at the
perimeter (tests B1-B4).
x 2440x1220mm walls with 114x0.84mm (width x thickness) and
191x0.84mm X-B (tests C1-C4).
x 2440x1220mm walls with 0.46mm thick SSS attached to the frame
using screws spaced at 305mm in the field and at 152 at the perimeter
(tests D1-D2).
x 2440x1220mm walls with 0.46mm thick SSS attached to the frame
using screws spaced at 305mm in the field and at 152mm at the
perimeter (tests D1-D2).
x 2440x610mm walls with 11.1mm thick OSB attached to the frame
using spaced at 305mm in the field and at 152, 102 and 51mm at the
perimeter (tests E1-E6).
x 2440x610mm walls with 0.69mm thick SSS attached to the frame
using screws spaced at 305mm in the field and at 102 and 51mm at the
perimeter (tests F1-F4).
For the monotonic tests, Serette et al. reported that the walls with
114x0.84mm X-B failed due to local buckling of the end studs, differently, the
106 Chapter III
walls with 191x0.84mm X-B failed due to local buckling in the top track and
end studs, aggravated by bending due to the eccentricity of the strap force.
For the walls with OSB panels with a 51mm edge screw spacing, the end
studs buckled just above the track. With a 102mm edge screw spacing
displacements became excessive. With a 152mm edge screw spacing failure
was initiated by buckling of the end stud at the hold-down.
Failure of walls with SSS resulted from rupture of the steel sheet along the
line of the screws at the edges. Diagonal tension field patterns were not
observed.
In the case of cyclic tests, for orientated strand board and PLY sheathings
with aspect ratio of 2, failure was initiated by screw heads pulling through the
sheathing or screw pulling out of the framing in 1.09mm thick framing (tests
A1-A8 and B1, B2), but in 1.37mm thick framing (tests B3, B4) some screws
failed in shear.
Failure modes in walls with X-B (C1-C4) were similar to those observed in
monotonic tests of similar specimens.
Analogously, for orientated strand board sheathings with an aspect ratio of
4 (tests E1-E6) failure modes were similar to those observed in monotonic
tests of similar specimens.
Finally, failure modes for walls with SSS (D1, D2, F1-F4) resulted from a
combination of screws pulling out of the framing, rupture of the steel sheet
along the line of screws at the edges, and in some cases local buckling of the
end studs.
The walls sheathed with SSS had a ductile behavior without sudden
decreases in shear load capacity; moreover, the use of thick sheathings
increased the shear resistance, but the failure mode moved from
rupture at the edges of the sheathing to screw pull-out from the
framing.
In the design of walls with X-B, the designer must consider that the
force in the strap may be larger than that corresponding to the nominal
yield strength; also, if X-Bs are installed on one side of the wall only,
the effect of eccentricity should be considered.
Decreasing the screws spacing result in the increased maximum shear
load.
oriented vertically and attached to the frames with 3.5mm diameter screws
spaced 178mm along the perimeter and 254mm in the field.
The wall 1 was fully sheathed, while the walls 2A and 2B had one
2032x1219mm (height x length) door and one 1727x2400mm window.
Besides the same openings present in the wall 2A and 2B, the wall 4 had one
2032x3658mm door. The specimens 1, 2A and 4 were constructed with
typical details. In particular two hold-down anchors were used on each of
these walls (one at each end). On the contrary, the specimen 2B was
constructed without hold-down anchors.
It was reported in the NAHB document that similar modes of failure were
observed in the specimens with hold-down anchors. The initial loading was
linear until the screws began to pull through the GWB, then; it was observed a
slight reduction in stiffness. As the load approached ultimate capacity the
OSB panels cracked at the perimeter screw connections.
The wall without hold-down anchors also showed failure of the interior
panels, although the exterior panels and the bottom track were unable to
distribute the uplift forces at the end of the wall. In fact, the bottom track
failed in bending due to uplift at the location of the first anchor bolt.
The experimental program was divided into two steps: testing of two-
dimensional unlined frames with different frame connection types and testing
of a one-room-house at various stages of construction.
From the two-dimensional tests results, the Authors concluded that the
important component in unlined single frames is the strap bracing system. In
particular they reported that:
The failure of the frame was governed by the failure of the X-B.
The dynamic characteristics of the frame were governed by the initial
tension in the straps. In fact, the welded frame had a lower natural
frequency (7.0Hz) than the tab-in-slot frame (6.3Hz) and this
contradicted the expectation that the welded frame would be stiffer
than the frame with tab-in-slot.
The type of connections between the framing members did not seem to
have an influence on the structural response of the braced frames.
Testing of co ld-fo rmed steel stud sh ear walls: rev iew of existing literatu re 111
Gad et al. concluded from the three-dimensional test results that residential
steel frames used in the tests performed well under racking and earthquake
loads. In particular, the Authors reported their conclusions for each different
stage of construction.
For unlined frames:
The behavior was governed by the X-B system.
The initial tension in the X-B increased the frame stiffness of the
frame and when the X-B yield then the true stiffness of the X-B system
(strap and its connections) defined the stiffness of the frame.
The type of strap bracing-to-plate connections governed the failure
load and mechanism.
For the lined frames:
Plasterboard fixed as non-structural component provided higher
stiffness, load carrying capacity and damping than X-B.
When X-B and plasterboard were combined, the overall stiffness and
strength of the system is simple addition of individual contributions
from X-B and plasterboard.
The plasterboard combined with ceiling cornices, skirting board and
set corner joints, resisted about 60-70% of the applied racking load
whereas the X-B resisted 30-40%.
For brick veneer walls:
In-plane brick veneer walls attached to the frame via clip-on ties did
not contribute to the stiffness of the system.
Different displacements between the frame and the out-of-plane brick
veneer walls were mainly accommodated by deformation of the stud
flanges rather than deformation of brick ties.
The Authors observed that the predominant failure mode was head pull-
through of sheathing screws and bending of frame elements. They concluded
the following:
Long, fully sheathed walls were significantly stiffer and stronger but
less ductile than walls with openings.
The predictions of the PSW design method were conservative at all
levels of monotonic and cyclic loading.
Cyclic loading did not influence the elastic behavior of the walls but
reduced their deformation capacity.
The strength of fully sheathed walls was affected more significantly by
cyclic loading than walls with openings.
Adding of GWB panels increased the shear strength and stiffness of
fully sheathed walls under monotonic load.
dynamic behavior of PLY and OSB panels attached to wood frame walls or
light-gauge steel frame by fasteners such as nails or screws.
The straps were fixed to the wall structures using SPEDEC SL4-F-
4.8x16 (4.8x16mm (diameter x length)) and SD6-T16-6.3x25
(6.3x25mm (diameter x length)) self-drilling screws. The numbers of
screws were designed for the yield strength of the strap.
x Series IV: composed by three wall specimens similar to those of the
series II except for the presence of the one 1200mm wide door.
x Series OSB I: composed by two wall specimens with exterior
consisting of 10mm thick OSB placed in vertical position and fixed to
the frame using bugle head self-drilling screws of 4.2mm diameter
spaced at 250mm in the field and at 105mm at the perimeter of the
panel.
x Series OSB II: composed by three wall specimens similar to those of
the series OSB I except for the presence of the one 1200mm wide
door.
The Authors reported that for Series I and II local deformation in the
uplifted corners was followed by profile-end distortion, gradual deformation
in connections and failure occurred in seam lines. The behavior of Series IV
was very similar to the ones in Series I and II, with much stronger corners
uplift. For the Series III after buckling of compressed straps in the early stage,
the local deformation of the lower track followed. Important plastic elongation
of the straps was observed, but because of this unexpected failure of the
corner occurred. In the case of Series OSB I the failure mechanism of the
specimens was different from SCS specimens due to different sheeting
orientation. Failure of the specimens was sudden when one vertical row of
screws unzipped from the stud and both pull over the screw head, and failure
of OSB margin was observed. For the Series OSB II important inclination of
the screws developed in the OSB panels-to-lower track connection, followed
by sudden rupture of this connection line.
The goal of the research project was to reproduce the results of some tests
completed by Serrette et al. (1996a) and COLA-UCI (2001) using steel and
wood panel products purchased in the USA and following the procedures set
up by previous researchers. In particular, the overall long-term objective of the
shear wall research is to investigate the performance of, and to provide
guidelines for the design of the light gauge steel structures when subjected to
earthquake loading.
In this research program, twelve full-scale steel frame shear walls, with
either OSB or PLY sheathing, were tested (6 monotonic load tests and 6 cyclic
load tests).
The frame was made using 89x41x10x0.84 C-sections studs spaced at
610mm on center attached to the 89x38mm (web depth x thickness) U-
sections track. Double studs were coupled back-to-back at the end of the wall
to prevent local and flexural buckling in the chords. The fasteners used for the
frame connections were 4.2x13mm wafer-head screws. The panels were
connected to the frame with 4.2x38mm bugle head screws. Wall specimens
were connected to the base of test frame with hold-downs (tie-downs) for
specimens OSB 4-8 US M-, OSB 4-8 US C- and PLY 8-8 US M- and with
strap hold-down anchors for specimens PLY 8-8 US C-.
The different tests included:
x OSB 4-8 US M- A, B, C: Monotonic tests of 1220x2440mm (height x
length) walls with 0.84mm thick steel framing sheathed on one side
with 11mm thick OSB. Self-drilling sheathing screws were spaced at
Testing of co ld-fo rmed steel stud sh ear walls: rev iew of existing literatu re 117
In general, the failure of all wall specimens was restricted to the wood to
steel connections and the studs did not fail in compression, nor did the hold-
downs suffer any type of failure.
From the monotonic tests results, the Authors concluded that a variation in
the performance of the walls from the different research programs was
observed. In a number of instances the shear capacity and stiffness of the tests
specimens differed by a substantial amount. The variation in strength of the
walls can be attributed in general to the different material properties that may
have existed in both the steel and wood panel members. With respect to the
PLY 8-8 US C- A, B, C walls, the higher ultimate strength and stiffness
obtained for the COLA-UCI tests can most likely be traced to the use of
sheathing structural 1 grade panels in the original tests, whereas regular
sheathing grade PLY was used in the construction of the match tests.
The addition of a single horizontal stiffener located at the mid-height of the
wall did not increase the shear capacity and was not recommended since it
increased the construction difficulties and the cost of installation.
118 Chapter III
results is reported in Table 3.2. These values are normalized with respect to
average values of shear strength for walls braced with 11.1mm thick OSB.
From these comparisons, it is possible to conclude that the PLY provided a
little (about 10%) higher shear strength in comparison with the OSB; whereas
the capacity of the GWB and GSB is much (about 60%) lower than that of the
OSB. Moreover, the adding of GWB to the opposite side of the wall assembly
increased the shear strength by about 40%. Finally, the SSS presented a
relatively smaller (about 10%) shear strength than those of OSB.
Table 3.2: Normalized shear capacity for different sheathing type and thickness.
Serrette & Ogunfunmi (1996) and Serrette et al. (1994, 1997a) examined
the influence of sheathing orientation and the contribution of horizontal steel
straps installed at mid-height of the walls and fastened to the blocking. A
comparison between the shear strength for walls with sheathing oriented
vertically and horizontally, with and without solid blocking, is reported in
Figure 3.1. In particular, this comparison demonstrates that the panels oriented
parallel to the studs provided the same shear strength than those applied
perpendicular to the studs with strap blocking. In addition, when in the case of
panels perpendicular to studs blocking was omitted, the shear capacity of the
wall, was reduced by more than 50%.
120 Chapter III
30
VERTICAL
Ultimate shear
HORIZONTAL + SOLID BLOCK
strength HORIZONTAL
25 [kN/m]
PLY-T7
PLY-T4
1A5,1A6
OSB-T5
OSB-T4
1A2,1A3
GYP-T2
15
8
6
GYP-T1
10
PLY-T6
7
5
0
OSB OSB PLY PLY GWB+GWB
M78: McCreless & Tarpy (1978); TG82: Tarpy & Girard (1982); S+96a:
Serrette et al. (1996a); S+97a: Serrette et al. (1997a)
H: height of the wall; L: length of the wall
N97: NAHB Research Center (1997); S+99: et al. (1999); FD02: Dubina &
Fulop (2002)
-m: monotonic test; -c: cyclic test
U=1/(1+Ao/H6Li): sheathing area ratio
Ao: total area of openings; H: height of the wall; Li: length of the full height
wall segment
S+96a: Serrette et al. (1996a); S+96ab: Serrette et al. (1996a, b); S+97b:
Serrette et al. (1997b); S+99: Salenikovich et al. (1999); FD02: Dubina &
Fulop (2002); B03: Branston et al. (2003)
Figure 3.5: Cyclic response for OSB 4-8 US C-A test performed by Branston et al. (2003).
REFERENCES
ASTM E 564-76 (1976) Standard Practice for Static Load Test for Shear Resistance
of Framed Walls for Buildings. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials).
West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Testing of co ld-fo rmed steel stud sh ear walls: rev iew of existing literatu re 125
AISI (1996) Builders Steel-Stud Guide. Publication RG-9607, AISI (American Iron
and Steel Institute). Washington DC.
Brantson, A., Boudreault, F., Rogers, C.A. (2003) Testing on steel frame / wood
panels shear walls. Progress Report, Departement of Civil Engineering and Applied
Mechanics, McGill University. Montreal.
COLA-UCI (2001) Report of a testing program of light-framed walls with wood-
sheathed shear panels. Final report to the City of Los Angeles Department of
Building and Safety, Structural Engineers Association of Southern California. Irvine,
CA, USA.
Dubina, D. & Fulop, L.A. (2002) Seismic performance of wall-stud shear walls. In
Proceedings of the 16th International Specialty Conference on Cold-formed Steel
Structures. St. Louis, MO, USA: 483-500.
Gad, E.F., Duffield, C.F., Hutchinson, G.L., Mansell, D.S., Stark, G. (1999a) Lateral
performance of cold-formed steel-framed domestic structures. Engineering
Structures, Elsevier, Vol.21, No.1: 83-95.
Gad, E.F., Chandler, A.M., Duffield, C.F., Stark, G. (1999b) Lateral behaviour of
plasterboard-clad residential steel frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Vol.125, No.1: 32-39.
McCreless, S. & Tarpy, T.S. (1978) Experimental investigation of steel stud shear
wall diaphragms. In Proceedings of the 4th International Specialty Conference on
Cold-formed Steel Structures. St. Louis, MO, USA: 647-672.
NAHB Research Center (1997) Monotonic Tests of cold-formed steel shear walls
with openings. (NAHB) National Association of Home Builders. Upper Marlboro,
MD, USA.
Salenikovich, A.J., Dolan, J.D., Easterling, W.S. (2000) Racking performance of long
steel-frame shear walls. In Proceedings of the 15th International Specialty Conference
on Cold-formed Steel Structures. St. Louis, MO, USA: 471-480.
Serrette, R. (1994) Light gauge steel shear wall test. Light Gauge Steel Research
Group, Department of Civil Engineering, Santa Clara University. Santa Clara, CA,
USA.
Serrette, R.L. & Ogunfunmi, K. (1996) Shear resistance of gypsum-sheathed light-
gauge steel stud walls. Journal of structural engineering, ASCE, Vol.122, No.4: 386-
389.
Serrette, R., Nguyen, H., Hall, G. (1996a) Shear wall values for light weight steel
framing. Report No.LGSRG-3-96, Light Gauge Steel Research Group, Department of
Civil Engineering, Santa Clara University. Santa Clara, CA, USA.
126 Chapter III
Serrette, R., Hall, G., Nguyen, H. (1996b) Dynamic performance of light gauge steel
framed shear walls. In Proceedings of the 13th International Specialty Conference on
Cold-formed Steel Structures. St. Louis, MO, USA: 487-498.
Serrette, R.L., Encalada, J., Juadines, M., Nguyen, H. (1997a) Static racking behavior
of plywood, OSB, gypsum, and fiberboard walls with metal framing. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.123, No.8: 1079-1086.
Serrette, R., Encalada, J., Matchen, B., Nguyen, H., Williams, A. (1997b) Additional
shear wall values for light weight steel framing. Report No.LGSRG-1-97, Light
Gauge Steel Research Group, Department of Civil Engineering, Santa Clara
University. Santa Clara, CA, USA.
Sugiyama, H & Matsumoto, T. 1984. Empirical equations for the estimation of
racking strength of plywood-sheathed shear walls with openings. Summaries of
Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Transactions of the Architectural Institute of
Japan, No.338.
Tarpy, T.S. (1980) Shear resistance of steel-stud wall panels. In Proceedings of the
5th International Specialty Conference on Cold-formed Steel Structures. St. Louis,
MO, USA: 331-348.
Tarpy, T.S. & Girard, J.D. (1982) Shear resistance of steel-stud wall panels. In
Proceedings of the 6th International Specialty Conference on Cold-formed Steel
Structures. St. Louis, MO, USA: 449-465.
Tarpy, T.S. & Hauenstein, S.F. (1978) Effect of construction details on shear
resistance of steel-stud wall panels. Vanderbilt University. Nashville, TN, USA. A
research project sponsored by American Iron and Steel Institute. Project No.1201-
412.
Tissell, J.R. (1993) Wood structural panel shear walls. Report No.154, APA (The
Engineering Wood Association). Tacoma, WA, USA.
127
Chapter IV
Evaluation of seismic capacity:
the monotonic test
The number of experimental tests, which have been performed to study the
lateral behavior of cold-formed steel stud shear walls (CFSSSWs) is rather
wide. The basic factors that influence the shear response of CFSSSWs have
been objects of previous studies, as presented in Chapter 3. Although the
existing experimental database appears sufficient, there has been little
research on the lateral-load transfer from the horizontal diaphragms to stud
walls. The same consideration applies for the influence of construction details,
such as bearing stiffeners and joist track profiles, anchorage details,
connections between joists, bearing stiffeners, joist track and top stud track.
Moreover, there has not been specific study on the effect of gravity loads on
the shear walls behavior even if it may be anticipated to be small. For this
reason, an experimental phase based on two identical stud shear wall sub-
assemblies, tested under both monotonic and cyclic loading has been
dedicated to evaluate the seismic capacity.
In this Chapter, the following Section (Section 4.1) is dedicated to define
the study case and the relevant assumptions. In the Section 4.2 the general
design principles are presented. The experimental program is illustrated in
Section 4.3. In particular, for both monotonic and cyclic tests the description
of test specimens, the test set-up and instrumentation are presented in Sections
4.3.1 through 4.3.3. While the Section 4.3.4 is devoted to illustrate the test
procedure for the only monotonic test. Finally, the test results for the
monotonic test are presented in Section 4.4.
128 Chap ter IV
L=11.4m
W=7.0m
W=6.4m
For the choice of the seismic area, it is assumed that the house is located in
a medium seismic zone in Central Italy (design value of the peak ground
acceleration ag=0.25g). The soil conditions assumed are, according to
130 Chap ter IV
classification of the Eurocode 8 (prEN 1998-1 2001): (A) rock; (B) stiff soil;
(C) soft soil; (D) very soft soil; and (E) alluvium soil. Finally, the Type 1 (far
field) design elastic spectrum Saed(T) reported in Eurocode 8 is adopted:
T
S aed (T ) a g S 1 K 2.5 1 if 0 T TB
TB
S aed (T ) a g S K 2.5 if TB T TC (4.2)
T
S aed (T ) a g S K 2.5 C if TC T TD
T
T T
S aed (T ) a g S K 2.5 C 2 D if T TD
T
where:
Saed(T): is the design elastic spectrum acceleration;
T: is the first mode vibration period;
S: is the soil factor;
K: is the damping factor (K=1 for a damping ratio Q=0.05)
ag: is the design peak ground acceleration;
TB and TC: are the limits of constant spectral acceleration branch;
TD : is the value that defines the beginning of the constant
displacement response range.
The factors S, TB, TC, and TD, for the horizontal direction are reported in
Table 4.3.
Soil type S TB TC TD
A 1.00 0.15 0.4 2.0
B 1.20 0.15 0.5 2.0
C 1.15 0.20 0.6 2.0
D 1.35 0.20 0.8 2.0
E 1.40 0.15 0.5 2.0
Table 4.3: Values of parameters describing the Eurocode 8 Type 1 elastic response spectrum.
For the purpose of seismic analysis the following hypotheses are adopted:
x the ground motion acting in North-South direction (see Fig. 4.1);
x the floor and roof sheathings act as rigid diaphragms;
x the possible torsional effects are neglected;
Evaluatio n of seismic capacity: th e mo notonic test 131
1.0
Saed(T) / g
0.9
0.8 E
0.7 C D
0.6
0.5
0.4
A B
0.3
0.2
0.1
T [s]
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
Table 4.4: Maximum elastic spectrum acceleration and corresponding lateral force values.
Although the existing experimental database is rather wide, there has been
little research on the lateral-load transfer from the horizontal diaphragms to
stud walls. The same consideration applies for the influence of construction
details, such as bearing stiffeners and joist track profiles, anchorage details,
connections between joists, bearing stiffeners, joist track and top stud track.
Moreover, there has not been specific study on the effect of gravity loads on
the shear walls behaviour even if it may be anticipated to be small.
134 Chap ter IV
For this reason, the main part of the experimental program has been based
on two full-scale identical CFSSSW sub-assemblies, tested under both
monotonic and cyclic loading.
intermediate
end stud stud
hold-down
connector
shear
anchor
hold-down
anchor
stud track
X-bracing
(a) Drawing of detail of foundation anchorages (b) installation of a hold down connector
Figure 4.4: A close-up view of the connection between end studs and foundation.
bearing
stiffener
stud track
joist
wall
OSB panel
end stud
wall
GWB panel
X-bracing
Figure 4.5: A close-up view of the connection between the floor joists and the wall studs.
136 Chap ter IV
(2)
(1)
(1)
(2)
Adhesive-bonded anchors
HST M8 mechanical anchors (1) HIT-RE 500; (2) HIS-N(8.8) M20 3.5x25mm bugle head.
Figure 4.10: (a) shear and (b) hold-down anchors (manufactured by HILTI ITALIA).
No. 2 - 8mm
CNP100 diameter bolts
HEA100 spaced at 250mm
on center
No. 4 -
14mm
diameter
bolts
HEA100
CNP100
Flat strap
100x6mm
4.3.3 Instrumentation
Fourteen linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs) were used to
measure displacements of the specimens during the tests, as shown in Figures
4.13 a and b. In particular, five LVDTs were installed for each wall (Fig.
4.13a): LVDTs w1 was used to measure the horizontal displacements at the
top of the wall (lateral in-plane displacement); LVDTs w2 and w3 measured
the horizontal displacements at the bottom of the wall (lateral in-plane
sliding); LVDTs w4 and w5 measured the vertical displacements at the bottom
of the wall (uplift and compression). One LVDT (f1) was installed for each
foundation beam (Fig. 4.13a) to measure the horizontal displacement. Finally,
two LVDTs (d1 and d2) were installed on the floor (Fig. 4.13b) to measure the
lateral longitudinal displacements.
The horizontal displacements of the floor (d1 and d2) and walls (w1, w2
and w3) were measured using LVDTs with a range of displacement of 250mm
and an accuracy of 0.02mm. For measuring the horizontal displacements of
the foundations (f1 and f2) LVDTs with a range of displacement of 100mm
Evaluatio n of seismic capacity: th e mo notonic test 143
a
a2 Wall 2
d2
w1
w4 w5
w2 w3
d1
f1
i1 i2 a1 Wall 1
(a) Walls (b) Floor
actuator load (No. 2)
LVDT (No. 14)
inclinometer (No. 2)
Figure 4.14: Unit shear resistance (v) vs. mean displacement (d) curve.
the GWB panels knocked against the joist, as shown in Figure 4.17b.
Probably this phenomenon produced a residual shear resistance
(constant shear force for displacement varying from 70 to 110mm).
x Step 4: lateral displacement equal to 130mm. At this step, the screw
heads had completely pulled through the sheathings, as shown in
Figures 4.18 c and d. As a consequence, the sheathings were
completely unzipped along the panel edges, as shown in Figure 4.18b.
(b) Deformation of the OSB connections (c) Deformation of the GWB connections
Finally, both the shear and the tension anchors did not suffer any type of
failure.
The Figure 4.19 shows the force (V) vs. displacement (d) response curves
for the two tested walls. In particular, force vs. displacement curves obtained
from measures of the actuators a1 and a2 have been reported for the walls 1
and 2, respectively. From the comparison of lateral responses of two walls
some interesting observations are possible:
x the walls had the same behavior for displacements less than about
30mm (displacement for which the applied load approached the
maximum shear resistance), while they exhibited different response for
larger displacements;
x the maximum shear resistances were 47 and 44kN for wall 1 and 2,
respectively; therefore, the wall 1 was more resistant than wall 2 of
about 7%.
Figures 4.21 a and b show the forces measured from the actuators (a1 and
a2 for Figures 4.21a and b, respectively) as a function of the vertical
displacements recorded by the LVDTs located at the bottom side of the walls
(w1,4; w1,5 and w2,4; w2,5 for Figures 4.21a and b, respectively). From the
examination of these curves, for both walls it is possible to observe that the
vertical displacements measured on the tension side were larger than those
recorded on the compression side. In particular, this behavior was more
evident for displacements less than those corresponding to the maximum shear
resistance.
Figure 4.19: Shear (V) vs. displacement (d) curves for wall 1 and wall 2.
Figure 4.20: Shear (V) vs. displacement (d) measured by horizontal LVDTs.
152 Chap ter IV
(a) wall 1
(b) wall 2
Figure 4.21: Shear (V) vs. displacement (d) measured by vertical LVDTs.
4.5 REFERENCES
Chapter V
Evaluation of seismic demands
Experimental response
Figure 5.3: The loading branch without pinching (Della Corte et al. 1999).
158 Chap ter V
where:
G0 : is the absolute value of the deformation corresponding to the
starting point of the current excursion;
Gmax: is the maximum absolute value of deformation experienced, in all
previous loading history, in the direction of loading branch to be
described (Figure 5.4).
Figure 5.4: The loading branch without pinching (Della Corte et al. 1999).
Ev alu atio n of seismic d eman ds 159
S+96ab-1 S+97b-18
C01-4 (A)
(OSB1) and (OSB2) (E1) and (E2)
Type of loading Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic
Wall size (1) 2440 x 1220 2440 x 610 2440 x 2440
Aspect ratio (2) 2.00 4.00 1.00
Openings No openings No openings No openings
Steel grade (3) A653 Grade SQ 33 A653 Grade SQ 33 A446 Grade A
Studs (4) C 89x41x10x0.84/610 C 89x43x13x0.84/610 C 89x41x10x0.84/610
Tracks (5) U 89x32x0.84 U 89x32x0.84 U 89x38x0.84
Frame screws (6) 4.2x13 wafer-head 4.2x13 mod. truss head 4.2x13 mod. truss head
Sheathings (7) 11.1mm tick OSB 11.1mm tick OSB 11.1mm tick OSB
Sheathing fasteners (6) 4.2x25 flat head 4.2x25 flat head 4.2x25 bugle head
Spacing sheathing
152/305 152/305 152/305
fasteners (8)
Type of anchorage Tie hold-down Hold-down Strip hold-down
(1) height x length (mm)
(2) height / length
(3) A653 Grade SQ 33: Yield strength = 228 MPa, Ultimate tensile strength = 311 MPa
(3) A446 Grade A: Yield strength = 228 MPa, Ultimate tensile strength = 311 MPa
(4) C: lipped channel section web depth x flange size x lip size x thickness / spacing (mm)
(4) Double back-to-back coupled studs were employed at ends of walls
(5) U: unlipped channel section web depth x flange size x thickness (mm)
(6) diameter x length (mm)
(7) 610 x 2440 mm panel size
(8) perimeter/field (mm)
and 25% of the maximum displacement (100% of the FME displacement) are
applied. This is followed by three cycles of displacement at maximum
displacement (100% of the FME displacement) to stabilize the load-
displacement response of the wall. Then, the next increment of increased
displacement (125% of the FME displacement) is applied, followed by similar
stabilization cycles of loading. This incremental cyclic load-displacement
sequence is continued to 150%, 175%, 200%, 250%, 300% of the FME
displacement, or until the wall exhibits greatly diminished shear load capacity.
The test protocols used for the selected tests are illustrated in Table 5.2 and
Figure 5.6. Figure 5.7 shows the results of the selected tests in terms of shear
force (V) versus lateral displacement (G) curves.
The results of the calibration of the model in terms of lower bound curve
and transition parameters obtained on the basis of Serrette and COLA-UCI
tests are shown in Table 5.3 for a wall with a length of 1m (wall with unit
length). Figure 5.8 shows the comparison between the experimental response
and the numerical one for the C01-4(A) specimen. In particular, in Table 5.3
are reported the values of transition parameters (t1, t2, O) together to values of
the ratios between the lower and upper bound curve parameters ((k0p/k0)c,
(V0p/V0)c, (khp/kh)c, (np/n)c).
S+96ab-1 S+97b-18
C01-4 (A)
(OSB1) and (OSB2) (E1) and (E2)
No. of cycles Displ. (mm) No. of cycles Displ. (mm) No. of cycles Displ. (mm)
3 5.1 3 5.1 3 5.7
3 10.2 3 10.2 3 11.5
3 15.2 3 15.2 3 17.2
1 20.3 3 20.3 1 22.9
1 15.2 1 25.4 1 17.2
1 10.2 1 19.1 1 11.5
1 5.1 1 12.7 1 5.7
3 20.3 1 6.4 3 22.9
1 25.4 3 25.4 1 28.6
1 19.1 1 30.5 1 21.5
1 12.7 1 22.9 1 14.3
1 6.4 1 15.2 1 7.2
3 25.4 1 7.6 3 28.6
1 30.5 3 30.5 1 34.4
1 22.9 1 40.6 1 25.8
1 15.2 1 30.5 1 17.2
1 7.6 1 20.3 1 8.6
3 30.5 1 10.2 3 34.4
1 40.6 3 40.6 1 40.1
1 30.5 1 50.8 1 30.1
1 20.3 1 38.1 1 20.0
1 10.2 1 25.4 1 10.0
3 40.6 1 12.7 3 40.1
1 50.8 3 50.8 1 45.8
1 38.1 1 61.0 1 34.4
1 25.4 1 45.7 1 22.9
1 12.7 1 30.48 1 11.5
3 50.8 1 15.24 3 45.8
1 61.0 3 61.0 1 57.3
1 45.7 1 71.1 1 42.9
1 30.5 1 53.3 1 28.6
1 15.2 1 35.6 1 14.3
3 61.0 1 17.8 3 57.3
1 71.1 3 71.1 1 68.7
1 53.3 1 51.5
1 35.6 1 34.4
1 17.8 1 17.2
3 71.1 3 68.7
1 80.2
1 60.1
1 40.1
1 20.0
3 80.2
1 91.6
1 68.7
1 45.8
1 22.9
3 91.6
100
displacement Cyclic frequency = 0.67Hz
80 (mm)
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
-20
-40
-60
S+96ab-1
-80 (OSB1) and (OSB2)
-100 time (s)
100
displacement Cyclic frequency = 1.00Hz
80 (mm)
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
-20
-40
-60
S+97b-18
-80 (E1) and (E2)
-100 time (s)
100
displacement
Cyclic frequency =
80 (mm)
0.25Hz for dispacements 40.6mm
60 0.50Hz for dispacements > 40.6mm
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
-20
-40
-60
Displ. at average
C01-4 (A) Average of maximum
Test of maximum +/-
+/- load
load
S+96ab-1 (OSB1) 685 lb/ft. (10.0 kN/m) 1.8 in. (46 mm)
S+96ab-1 (OSB2) 758 lb/ft. (11.1 kN/m) 1.8 in. (46 mm)
S+97b-18 (E1) 700 lb/ft. (10.2 kN/m) 2.8 in. (71 mm)
S+97b-18 (E2) 700 lb/ft. (10.2 kN/m) 2.8 in. (71 mm)
C01-4 (A) 773 lb/ft. (11.3 kN/m) 1.5 in. (38 mm)
Experimental response
Numerical response
Figure 5.8: Numerical vs. experimental cyclic response for the C01-4(A) specimen.
Ev alu atio n of seismic d eman ds 165
Table 5.3: Results of calibration of lower bound curve and transition parameters obtained on
the basis of existing cyclic tests (values for a 1m long wall).
Table 5.4: Results of calibration of upper and lower bound curve parameters obtained on the
basis of monotonic tests carried-out in the current research (values for a 1m long wall).
25
V (KN/m) "Numerical upper bound curve"
"Experimental monotonic response"
Serie3
20
Vu
Vy
15
10
G (mm)
0
Gy Gu
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
The earthquake records have been chosen to cover, whenever possible, all
the soil types classified by Eurocode 8 (prEN 1998-1 2001). In particular, for
each soil type, three accelerograms have been selected in such a way that the
shape of the average elastic response spectrum of these records is close to the
shape of the Eurocode 8 Type 1 elastic spectrum acceleration (with a damping
ratio of 0.05). For the accelerograms selected according to these assumptions
the recorded peak ground acceleration (PGArec) value range from 0.01 to
0.76g, the distance between the epicentre and the recording station ranges
from 11 to 100km, and the record length ranges from 14 to 60s.
Earthquakes, recording stations and waveform parameters of considered
records are reported in Table 5.5. For each station, Table 5.5 also shows the
design ground acceleration according to the Italian seismic design code
(PGAzone). In the same Table, a label has been defined for each earthquake
record. As example, the label UM-B-1 refers to a recording of the Umbro-
Marchigiano (UM), which has been carried out on B soil type (B).
Earthquake name
Date and time Record Epicentral Fault
Record
Richter Magnitude Station name (orientation) PGAzone / g PGArec / g length distance distance Soil type
label
Focal depth [s] [km] [km]
Fault mechanism
LA-A-01 Ponte Corvo(N-S) 0.25 0.064 32.441 31 -
Rock
LA-A-02 Roccamonfina (N-S) 0.25 0.036 22.740 50 - (A)
LA-A-03 Bussi (E-W) 0.25 0.019 25.000 51 -
Umbro - Marchigiano
Lazio - Abruzzo
Q Epicenter
S Station
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
1.6
PGA=PGAdes=0.25g 1.6
PGA=PGAdes=0.25g
1.2 1.2
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0.0 0.0
T (s) T (s)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
1.4 Sae(T;Q=0.05)/g
Lazio-Abruzzo 1984 EC8
1.2 Soil type: D LA-D-01
LA-D-02
1.0 LA-D-03
mean
0.8
PGA=PGAdes=0.25g
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
T (s)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
T (s) T (s)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
h = 2800 mm Truss
element
EA
a
Ground acceleration a(t)
t
curve, lower bound curve and transition parameters are the results of the
calibration explained in Section 5.1.4 (see Tables 5.3 and 5.4). According to
basic assumptions illustrated in Chapter 4 (Section 4.2), the assumed value of
mass (M) is equal to M=1250kg. In order to take in to account the second
order effects, a vertical load (F) corresponding to 100% of the mass value has
been considered. A damping ratio of 0.05 has been also used in the model.
For performing the earthquake analyses, the incremental dynamic analysis
(IDA) or dynamic pushover (DPO) procedure is utilised.
The IDA procedure needs the definition of two parameters. The first is
related to the structural performance and can be linked to the damage level of
the structure after an earthquake. The second is a parameter associated to the
magnitude of the earthquake records. In particular, the most used structural
performance and record intensity parameters are the following (Fulop &
Dubina 2003):
x Structural Performance Parameters (SPP):
x inter-story drift (G/h);
x top story displacement;
x maximum plastic rotation;
x accumulated plastic rotation.
x Record Intensity Parameters (RIP):
x elastic spectral acceleration corresponding to the first mode period
(T0) of the structure (Sae(T0));
x recorded peak ground acceleration.
Fixed a structural system and the related SPP, an earthquake record and the
associated RIP, the IDA procedure consists in determining IRP value
corresponding to each prefixed SPP value. As a result of the IDA, a curve
relating the SPP to the RIP can be drawn.
The IDA parameters used in the current research are the inter-story drift
(G/h) and the elastic spectral acceleration of the SDOF system (Sae). In
particular the accelerograms are scaled from 0.05 to 1.95g.
An example of IDA is reported in Figure 5.13 where the significant steps of
the procedure are shown. This analysis has been carried out on the SDOF
Ev alu atio n of seismic d eman ds 173
system previously defined for which the inter-story drift (G/h) has been
adopted as SPP. In the example, the UM-B-1 accelerogram has been
considered as agent earthquake and the elastic spectral acceleration (Sae) has
been assumed as IRP.
The UM-B-1 record has been scaled form 0.05 to 1.95g. In particular,
Figure 5.13a shows the record scaled to design peck ground acceleration
PGAdes (PGA=0.25g) and Figure 5.13b illustrates the elastic response
acceleration spectra of the record for PGA values of 0.25, 0.95 and 1.45g.
Assuming as natural vibration period T=0.13s (obtained for a mass M=1250kg
and a stiffness k=k0=2.80kN/mm), for each prefixed PGA level it is possible
to identify the Sae value (Sae,0.05=0.63g, Sae,0.25=2.40g, Sae,0.45=3.66g) from
Figure 5.13b.
The non-linear dynamic response of the SDOF system, in terms of shear
force (V) versus inter-story drift (G/h), is reported in Figures 5.13c, d, and e for
each assumed PGA level. The maximum absolute value of G/h ((G/h)max) can
be extracted from the V-G/h curves ((G/h)max,0.25=0.001, (G/h)max,0.95=0.024,
(G/h)max,0.45=0.073). Reporting for each obtained value of the (G/h)max the
correspondent Sae value the IDA curve can be drawn, as shown in Figure
5.13f.
The IDA curves, obtained considering all selected earthquake records, are
reported in Figures 5.14 a and b, grouped for Lazio-Abruzzo and Umbro-
Marchigiano earthquakes, respectively. The same curves are shown in
Figures 5.15 a through e, grouped for the different soil types.
Reporting the inter-story drift corresponding to the yield limit
(Gy/h=6/2800=0.0021) and ultimate limit state (Gu/h=36/2800=0.013) on the
IDA curves, the associated elastic spectral accelerations Saey and Saeu can be
determined. The Saed, Saey and Saeu values and the Saeu/Saey, and Saeu/Saed ratios
computed for each earthquake records are also reported in Table 5.6.
Moreover, the mean and the standard deviation values have been calculated
for both the Lazio-Abruzzo (LA) and Umbro-Marchigiano (UM) record
groups, for all soil type groups and for all accelerograms.
174 Chap ter V
0.5 8.0
a (t)/g PGA=0.25g Sae/g (IRP) PGA=01.45g
0.4 7.0
PGA=0.95g
0.3
6.0
PGA=0.25g
0.2
5.0
0.1
4.0
0.0 Sae,1.45
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 3.0
-0.1
Sae,0.95
-0.2 2.0
-0.3 1.0
Sae,0.25
-0.4
0.0
t (s) T (s)
-0.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
(a) Accelerogram of the UM-B-1 record (b) Elastic spectra of the UM-B-1 record
30 30
V [kN] PGA=0.25g V [kN] PGA=0.95g
20 20
10 10
-10 -10
-20 -20
-30 -30
(c) V - d/h response for PGA = 0.25g (d) V - d/h response for PGA = 0.95g
30 4.0
V [kN] PGA=1.45g Sae/g (IRP)
3.5
20
3.0
10 2.5
(G/h)1.45
2.0
0
G/h (SPP)
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 1.5
-10
1.0
-20 0.5
G/h (SPP)
0.0
-30 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140
From examination of the data reported in Table 5.6 it can also be observed
that the UM earthquake records are more severe than the LA group. In fact,
the mean value of Saeu/Saey is slightly higher (about 12%) in the LA records.
Moreover, the results indicate that the LA data are more scattered in
comparison with UM data.
The comparison between the results obtained for different soil types shows
that the accelerograms recorded on soil type D are the most severe. In fact, in
this case the lowest mean value of Saeu/Saey ((Saeu/Saey)mean=1.52) has been
obtained. The least severe results have been found for soil types A and B, for
which the mean values of Saeu/Saey are 2.17 and 2.13, respectively.
Examining the scattering of data, it may be noted that the maximum
dispersion has been obtained for the soil type C, while in the case of soil type
D the scattering of the results is the smallest one.
7
LA-A-01 LA-A-02 LA-A-03
Sae/g LA-B-01 LA-B-02 LA-B-03
6 LA-C-01 LA-C-02 LA-C-03
LA-D-01 LA-D-02 LA-D-03
LA-E-01 LA-E-02
5
G/h
0
0.000 Gy / h 0.005 0.010 Gu / h 0.015
7
UM-A-01 UM-A-02 UM-A-03
Sae/g UM-B-01 UM-B-02 UM-B-03
6 UM-C-01 UM-C-02 UM-C-03
UM-E-01 UM-E-02 UM-E-03
G/h
0
0.000 Gy / h 0.005 0.010 Gu / h 0.015
7
Sae/g
6
LA-A-01
LA-A-02
5
LA-A-03
UM-A-01
4 UM-A-02
UM-A-03
3
1
G/h
0
0.000 Gy / h 0.005 0.010 Gu / h 0.015
7
Sae/g
6
LA-B-01
LA-B-02
5
LA-B-03
UM-B-01
4 UM-B-02
UM-B-03
3
G/h
0
0.000 Gy / h 0.005 0.010 Gu / h 0.015
7
LA-C-01
LA-C-02
6 LA-C-03
UM-C-01
UM-C-02
UM-C-03
5
1
G/h
0
0.000 Gy / h 0.005 0.010 Gu / h 0.015
7
Sae/g
6
LA-D-01
LA-D-02
5 LA-D-03
1
G/h
0
0.000 Gy / h 0.005 0.010 Gu / h 0.015
7
Sae/g
6
LA-E-01
LA-E-02
5 UM-E-01
UM-E-02
4 UM-E-03
1
G/h
0
0.000 Gy / h 0.005 0.010 Gu / h 0.015
may be used as the basic cumulative damage parameter. For improving the
loading history description may be appropriate to add another parameter to
describe the distribution of individual plastic deformation range. The latter can
be represented by the ratio between the mean value (('Gp)av) and the
maximum value (('Gp)max) of the plastic deformation range (('Gp)av/('Gp)max).
This parameter (('Gp)av/('Gp)max) with the ones employed by Krawinkler
will be used in the current research to determine the loading history.
The demands imposed by an earthquake on a structural component or sub-
assembly depend on its configuration in a structure, the strength and elastic as
well inelastic dynamic characteristics of the structure, and the seismic input to
which the structure may be subjected.
For developing loading histories, Nassar and Krawinkler (1991) made
general considerations starting from studies on seismic demands on single
degree of freedom (SDOF) systems. These studies have been based on bilinear
(with 10% strain hardening) and stiffness degrading SDOF systems with
ductilities (P) ranging from 2 to 8 subjected to a set of 15 Western U.S.
earthquake ground motions. The magnitude of the earthquakes was varied
from 5.7 to 7.7, their durations varied significantly, and they represented
ground motions at stiff soil sites.
As a result of these studies, the Authors show the significant dependence of
some demand parameters (Np and 6'Gpi/Gy) on the natural period (T) of the
structures and the ductility ratio (P). In particular:
x The number of inelastic excursions (Np) amplifies with an increase in
the natural period of the structure (T) for T 0.2s, but decreases with
an increase of T for T 0.2s. Moreover, for each T value, Np increases
when the ductility ratio (P) amplifies (see Fig. 5.18).
x Similar to Np, the sum of normalized plastic deformation ranges
(6'Gpi/Gy) increases with an amplification of natural period (T) for T
0.2s but decreases with an increase of T for T 0.2s. Moreover, for
each T value, Np increases when the ductility ratio (P) amplifies (see
Fig. 5.19).
x The magnitudes of individual plastic deformation ranges ('Gp) of the
inelastic excursions can be represented by a lognormal distribution.
Large plastic deformation ranges are less frequent than small ones. In
fact, Hadidi-Tamjed (1987) reports that the mean of the plastic
Ev alu atio n of seismic d eman ds 183
Figure 5.18: Dependence of mean number of inelastic excursions on natural period and
ductility ratio (Krawinkler 1996).
Figure 5.19: Dependence of mean number of the sum of normalized plastic deformation
ranges on natural period and ductility ratio (Krawinkler 1996).
184 Chap ter V
Figure 5.20: Loading history for Multiple Step Test (Krawinkler 1996).
For satisfying these requirements, the Author reports a table (Table 5.7) in
which shows, for three selected period (T=0.2s, T =0.5s, T =2.0s) and four
ductility ratio levels (P=2, P=4,P=6,P=8), representative values of predicted
and experimental SDOF seismic demands obtained from the loading history
reported in Figure 5.20 in which ' = Gy.
Ev alu atio n of seismic d eman ds 185
Np 6'Gpi/Gy
T P
mean mead + st. dev. experim. mean mead + st. dev. experim.
2 12 19 6 4 7 11
4 28 42 16 28 41 57
0.2
6 36 55 24 54 76 127
8 39 59 32 78 109 229
2 8 12 6 3 5 11
4 19 30 16 23 36 57
0.5
6 24 35 24 41 64 127
8 26 38 32 64 97 229
2 4 7 6 3 4 11
4 7 10 16 13 20 57
2.0
6 9 12 24 25 36 127
8 10 14 32 38 52 229
Table 5.7: Predicted and experimental demands for a bilinear SDOF (Krawinkler 1996).
The values of the total number of inelastic excursions (Np) and the sum of
normalized plastic deformation ranges (6'Gpi/Gy) reported in Table 5.7, as
well as that frequently adopted in loading sequences for CFSSSWs (SEAOSC
1997) testing, have been derived based on a bilinear hysteresis assumption. As
a consequence, a study aiming at characterizing the deformation history to
CFSSSW structural systems is needed.
'Gp,(i)- 'Gp,(i)-
G (mm)
'Gp,(i)+ 'Gp,(i+1)+
Excursion (i)-
Excursion (i+1)-
8
mean + st.dev mean: 6.1 - st.dev: 0.4
mean
7
mean st.dev
6
0
LA-A-01
LA-A-02
LA-A-03
LA-B-01
LA-B-02
LA-B-03
LA-C-01
LA-C-02
LA-C-03
LA-D-01
LA-D-02
LA-D-03
LA-E-01
LA-E-02
UM-A-01
UM-A-02
UM-A-03
UM-B-01
UM-B-02
UM-B-03
UM-C-01
UM-C-02
UM-C-03
UM-E-01
UM-E-02
UM-E-03
Figure 5.22a: Results of the statistic characterization of the deformation demand in terms of
maximum normalized deformation.
50
mean: 24 - st.dev: 11
45 mean + st.dev
mean
40
mean st.dev
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
LA-A-01
LA-A-02
LA-A-03
LA-E-01
LA-E-02
LA-B-01
LA-B-02
LA-B-03
LA-C-01
LA-C-02
LA-C-03
LA-D-01
LA-D-02
LA-D-03
UM-A-01
UM-A-02
UM-A-03
UM-B-01
UM-B-02
UM-B-03
UM-C-01
UM-C-02
UM-C-03
UM-E-01
UM-E-02
UM-E-03
Figure 5.22b: Results of the statistic characterization of the deformation demand in terms of
number of inelastic excursion.
Ev alu atio n of seismic d eman ds 189
10
mean + st.dev mean: 7.5 - st.dev: 1.0
9 mean
mean st.dev
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
LA-A-01
LA-A-02
LA-A-03
LA-B-01
LA-B-02
LA-B-03
LA-C-01
LA-C-02
LA-C-03
LA-D-01
LA-D-02
LA-D-03
LA-E-01
LA-E-02
UM-A-01
UM-A-02
UM-A-03
UM-B-01
UM-B-02
UM-B-03
UM-C-01
UM-C-02
UM-C-03
UM-E-01
UM-E-02
UM-E-03
Figure 5.22c: Results of the statistic characterization of the deformation demand in terms of
sum of normalized plastic deformation ranges.
1.3
mean: 0.28- st.dev: 0.22
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
mean + st.dev
mean
0.6
mean st.dev
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
LA-A-01
LA-A-02
LA-A-03
LA-B-01
LA-B-02
LA-B-03
LA-C-01
LA-C-02
LA-C-03
LA-D-01
LA-D-02
LA-D-03
LA-E-01
LA-E-02
UM-A-01
UM-A-02
UM-A-03
UM-B-01
UM-B-02
UM-B-03
UM-C-01
UM-C-02
UM-C-03
UM-E-01
UM-E-02
UM-E-03
Figure 5.22d: Results of the statistic characterization of the deformation demand in terms of
ration between the mean value and the maximum value of the plastic deformation range.
190 Chap ter V
REFERENCES
ATC (1992) Guidelines for cyclic seismic testing of components of steel structures
(ATC-24). ATC (Applied Technology Council). Redwood City, CA, USA.
Branston, A., Boudreault, F., Rogers, C.A. (2003) Testing on steel frame / wood
panels shear walls. Progress Report, Departement of Civil Engineering and Applied
Mechanics, McGill University. Montreal.
COLA-UCI (2001) Report of a testing program of light-framed walls with wood-
sheathed shear panels. Final report to the City of Los Angeles Department of
Building and Safety, Structural Engineers Association of Southern California, Irvine,
CA,USA.
Della Corte, G., De Matteis, G., Landolfo, R. (1999) A mathematical model
interpretino the cyclic behaviour of steel beam-to-column joint. In Proceedings of the
XVII Congresso CTA (CTA 1999). Napoli.
Fulop, L.A. & Dubina, D. (2003). Are the cold-formed wall stud shear walls
dissipative systems in seismic resistant buildings? How much?. In Proceedings of the
4th International Conference on Behavior of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas
(STESSA 2003). Mazzolani F.M. (ed.). A.A. Balchema Publishers.
Ghersi, A. & Noce, (1999) Modalit di utilizzazione del programma DIANA. Istituto
di Scienza delle costruzioni, Universit di Catania. Catania.
Hadidi-Tamjed, H. (1987) Statistical response of inelastic SDOF systems subjected to
earthquake. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford
University.
Krawinkler, H. (1996) Cycling loading histories for seismic experimentation on
structural components. Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 12, No.1:1-12.
Nassar, A.A. & Krawinkler, H. (1991) Seismic demands for SDOF and MDOF
systems. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Report No.95, Department
of Civil Engineering, Stanford University.
Ordinanza PCM (2003) Primi elementi in materia di criteri generali per la
classificazione sismica del territorio nazionale e di normative tecniche per le
costruzioni in zona sismica. Ordinanza della Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
No.3274/2003.
prEN 1998-1 (2001) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance
Part 1: General rules Seismic actions and rules for buildings. CEN (European
Committee for Standardization). Bruxelles.
Richard, R.M. & Abbott, B.J. (1975) Versatile elastic-plastic stress-strain formula.
Journal of mechanical division. ASCE, Vol.101, No.4:511-515.
192 Chap ter V
SEAOSC (1997) Standard method of cyclic (reversed) load tests for shear resistance
of framed walls for buildings. Structural Engineers Association of Southern
California (SEAOSC). Whittier, CA, USA.
Serrette, R., Nguyen, H., Hall, G. (1996a) Shear wall values for light weight steel
framing. Report No. LGSRG-3-96, Light Gauge Steel Research Group, Department
of Civil Engineering, Santa Clara University. Santa Clara, CA, USA.
Serrette, R., Hall, G., Nguyen, H. (1996b) Dynamic performance of light gauge steel
framed shear walls. In Proceedings of the 13th International Specialty Conference on
Cold-formed Steel Structures. St. Louis, MO, USA: 487-498.
Serrette, R., Encalada, J., Matchen, B., Nguyen, H., Williams, A. (1997b) Additional
shear wall values for light weight steel framing. Report No. LGSRG-1-97, Light
Gauge Steel Research Group, Department of Civil Engineering, Santa Clara
University. Santa Clara, CA, USA.
193
Chapter VI
The cyclic test
The second step of the experimental program, which consists in the cyclic
testing of cold-formed steel stud shear wall (CFSSSW) sub-assemblies, is
illustrated in this Chapter.
The specimen tested under cyclic loading was nominally identical to that
tested under monotonic loading. Moreover, also the test set-up and the
instrumentation adopted in the cyclic testing were the same as in the
monotonic one. Consequently, because the description of the test specimen,
test set-up and instrumentation have been previously illustrated in Chapter 4,
only the test procedure and test results are presented in the current Chapter. In
particular, the Section 6.1 is devoted to present the test procedure, while the
test results are presented in Section 6.2.
194 Chap ter VI
In the cyclic test, the specimen was subjected to fully reversing cyclic
horizontal displacements according to the definition of the deformation history
parameters, which have been illustrated in the Chapter 5 (Section 5.3.2). In
particular, the test specimen was subjected to fully reversing cyclic
displacements consisting of a series of stepwise increasing deformation
cycles, by following a procedure similar to the one described in ATC (1992)
for a multiple step test (see Chapter 5 Section 5.3.1).
The adopted test protocols are illustrated in Table 6.1 and Figure 6.1. The
Figure 6.2 shows the numerical cyclic response in terms of unit shear force (v)
versus lateral displacement (G) curves obtained for the assumed load history
by using the model of the hysteretic behavior of CFSSSW systems, which
have been already illustrated and calibrated in the Section 5.1. As a result, the
representative values of predicted seismic demands, which have been obtained
from the assumed loading history, are:
The cyclic test 195
Table 6.2: Comparison between the deformation demand parameters obtained from the
statistic characterization (see Table 5.8) and the adopted loading history.
In Figure 6.3 the estimated lateral strength (vR) is also reported. From the
comparison between the mean value of the experimental lateral strength
obtained at first hysteretic loop (vEXP1 = vEXP+1 - vEXP-1 / 2 = 15.6kN/m) and the
estimated lateral strength (vR=17.9kN/m) it is possible to observe that, in the
case of loads applied cyclically, the semi-analytical calculation illustrated in
the Chapter 2 gives a 15% overestimation of shear strength. Moreover, if the
mean experimental value of experimental lateral strength obtained at third
hysteretic loop (vEXP3 = vEXP+3 - vEXP-3 / 2 = 11.4kN/m) is considered, the semi-
analytical prediction gives a 57% overestimation of the lateral strength.
Figure 6.3: Unit shear resistance (v) vs. mean displacement (d) curve.
As in the case of monotonic test, in the cyclic test any deformation of the
OSB sheathing-to-floor framing connections was not observed and the shear
and the tension anchors did not suffer any type of failure.
200 Chap ter VI
(a) OSB sheathing-to frame connections (b) GWB sheathing-to frame connections
Figure 6.6: Failure of sheathing-to-frame connections due to screw heads pull through.
(a) OSB sheathing-to frame connections (b) GWB sheathing-to frame connections
Figure 6.10: Deformation of walls for lateral displacement amplitudes more than 36mm.
The cyclic test 203
The force (V) vs. displacement (d) response curves for the two walls is
shown in Figure 6.12. In particular, in this Figure the force vs. displacement
curves obtained from measures of the actuators a1 and a2 have been reported
for the walls 1 and 2, respectively. From the comparison of lateral responses
of two walls observations similar to those deduced for the monotonic test are
possible:
x the walls had a similar behavior for positive displacements less than
+36mm (displacement corresponding to the maximum shear load),
while they exhibited different responses for larger displacements;
x considering the first hysteretic loops, the maximum shear loads (for
positive displacements) were +40 and +39kN for wall 1 and 2,
respectively; therefore, the two walls revealed the same shear capacity;
whereas considering the third hysteretic loops, the maximum shear
loads were +26 and +23kN for wall 1 and 2, respectively; therefore,
the wall 1 appeared to be lightly more resistant than wall 2 of about
13%;
204 Chap ter VI
Figure 6.12: Shear (V) vs. displacement (d) curves for wall 1 and wall 2.
REFERENCES
ATC (1992) Guidelines for cyclic seismic testing of components of steel structures
(ATC-24). ATC (Applied Technology Council). Redwood City, CA, USA.
Krawinkler, H. (1996) Cycling loading histories for seismic experimentation on
structural components. Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 12, No.1:1-12.
207
Conclusions
Appendix A
M78-1 A - 6.03
3660x3660 1.00
HB ?
M78-2 A* F 5.11
SB ?
TG82-3 E - 4.57
GWB;12.7;H
TG82-4 G + - 5.66
GWB;12.7;H
A 36
C89x25x13x0.84*
TG82-5 K PCA 3.82
Summary of existing experime ntal results
U92x38x0.84
610
BHSC3.5x25; 305; 305
TG82-6 L M 1.00 ? - - - F 6.20
BHSC3.5x25; 305; 305
GSB;12.7;H
TG82-7 M 2440x2440 1.00 + BCA 3.93
GWB;12.7;H
GWB;12.7;H
TG82-8 N + 7.85
PLY;12.7;H
TG82-9 P 5.28
GSB;12.7;H
TG82-10 Q + 4.38
GWB;12.7;H
A 36
C89x25x13x0.84*
TG82-11 R BCA 6.93
U92x38x0.84
406
length in mm; ?: not known; -: not present
(1) M: monotonic; C: cyclic
(2) h: heigth of the wall; L: length of the wall
(3) r =1 / [1 + Ao / (h 6Li)] with Ao: area of openings and Li the length of the full height wall segment
(4) C__x__x__x__ (lipped channel section) web depth x flange size x lip size x thickness; U__x__x__ (unlipped channel section) web depth x flange size x thickness; *: double back-to-back coupled end studs
(5) BHSC: bugle-head screws FHSC: flat head screws; LPHSC: low profile head screws; MTHSC: modified truss head screws; WHSC: wafer head screws; __x__: nominal diameter x length; NA: Nails diameter; PI: Pins diameter
(6) GSB: Gypsum sheathing board; GWB: Gypsum wallboard; FB: Fiber board; OSB: Oriented strand board; PLY: Plywood; SCS: Steel corrugated seet; SSS: Steel sheet sheathing;
V: parallel to the frame (vertical); O: orthogonal to the frame (horizontal)
(7) I__x__ flat strap wide x thickness
(8) BCA: bolted clip angles; PCA: clip angles fixed wit powder actuated fasteners; HD: hold-down; SHD: strip-hold down
(9) F: foundation uplift failure; S: stud buckling failure; X: X bracing yielding;
C (FPO): connections failure (fasteners pull out failure); C (FPT): connections failure (fasteners pull throgh failure); C (FS): connections failure (fasteners shear failure); C (FT): connections failure (fasteners tilting failure); C (NS): connections faiO): c
(net section failure);
A-3
A-4
Tissel (1993)
HB I31x0.84
GWB;12.7;O SB ?
S+97a-10 GYP-T1 M 2440x2440 1.00 1.00 A446 Grade A WHSC4.2x13 + BHSC3.5x25; 152 ;305 - - HD 9.87
C152x41x10x0.84* GWB;12.7;O
U152x25x0.84 BHSC3.5x25; 152 ;305
S+97a-11 GYP-T2 610 11.79
NAHB (1997)
A monotonic
S+99-3 M + 14.69
with GWB
OSB;11.1;V BHSC4.2x?; 152; 305
S+99-4 B monotonic M 7.55
0.76 350S150-33
B cyclic
S+99-5 C 2440x12200 0.20 C89x38x?x0.84* LPHSC4.2x? - - - HD C (FPT) 6.38
stabilized
U89x38x0.84
S+99-6 C monotonic M 5.07
C cyclic 0.56
S+99-7 C 4.27
stabilized
S+99-8 D monotonic M OSB;11.1;V BHSC4.2x?; 152 ;305 4.67
D cyclic 0.48
S+99-9 C 3.68
stabilized
S+99-10 E monotonic M 2.81
E cyclic 0.30
S+99-11 C 2.04
stabilized
length in mm; ?: not known; -: not present
(1) M: monotonic; C: cyclic
(2) h: heigth of the wall; L: length of the wall
(3) r =1 / [1 + Ao / (h 6Li)] with Ao: area of openings and Li the length of the full height wall segment
(4) C__x__x__x__ (lipped channel section) web depth x flange size x lip size x thickness; U__x__x__ (unlipped channel section) web depth x flange size x thickness; *: double back-to-back coupled end studs
(5) BHSC: bugle-head screws FHSC: flat head screws; LPHSC: low profile head screws; MTHSC: modified truss head screws; WHSC: wafer head screws; __x__: nominal diameter x length; NA: Nails diameter; PI: Pins diameter
(6) GSB: Gypsum sheathing board; GWB: Gypsum wallboard; FB: Fiber board; OSB: Oriented strand board; PLY: Plywood; SCS: Steel corrugated seet; SSS: Steel sheet sheathing;
V: parallel to the frame (vertical); O: orthogonal to the frame (horizontal)
(7) I__x__ flat strap wide x thickness
(8) BCA: bolted clip angles; PCA: clip angles fixed wit powder actuated fasteners; HD: hold-down; SHD: strip-hold down
(9) F: foundation uplift failure; S: stud buckling failure; X: X bracing yielding;
C (FPO): connections failure (fasteners pull out failure); C (FPT): connections failure (fasteners pull throgh failure); C (FS): connections failure (fasteners shear failure); C (FT): connections failure (fasteners tilting failure); C (NS): connections faiO): c
(net section failure);
A-13
A-14
FD02-3 I C 12.68
SCS;0.5;O
FD02-4 II M SC4.8x22; 114; 229 - - 16.59
GWB;12,T;V
SC4.8x22; 250; 250
SCS;0,5;O
FD02-5 II C 1.00 15.95
GWB;12.5;V
?
C150x?x?x1.5*
FD02-6 III M 2440x3600 0.68 ? - ? 15.32
u154x?x1.5 I110x1,5
600 - - + ?
I110x1,5
FD02-7 III C F 14.87
Appendix B
Sheathing
Objectives Authors Conclusions
- the use of cement plaster increases the shear strength and the
stiffness
Tarpy (1980)
- the use of two layer of GWB increases the shear capacity, while
decreasing the shear stiffness, in comparison with single layer
- the use of PLY panels increases the shear strength in comparison
with GWB panels
Tarpy & Girard (1982)
- the use of GWB panels increases the shear strength in comparison
with GSB panels
- the PLY panels carry slightly higher loads in comparison with OSB
panels
- walls with OSB panels on one side and GWS panels on the other
side exhibit similar failure behavior, but degrade more gradually than
Serrette et al. (1996a,b) walls with OSB panels on one side alone
- walls with GWB panels on both sides have much lower shear
strength than walls with OSB panels
- PLY and OSB panels show a small difference in the cyclic shear
strength
- the behavior of the PLY and OSB panels is comparable
- the strength of GWB and FBW is relatively low in comparison with
PLY and OSB panels
Serrette et al. (1997a)
- the use of GWB panels on the interior of the wall and PLY panels on
the exterior produce a higher shear capacity, by approximately 18%,
in comparison with the PLY panels only
- the walls sheathed with SSS have a ductile behavior without sudden
decreases in shear load capacity
behaviour of different
Serrette et al. (1997b) - the use of thick sheathings increases the shear resistance, but the
sheathing type
failure mode move from rupture at the edges of the sheathing to screw
pull-out from the framing
- adding GWB panels increases the shear strength and stiffness of
Selenikovich et al. (1999)
fully sheathed walls under monotonic load
- the behavior of GWB is satisfactory. In fact it could follow even
Fulop & Dubina (2002)
extreme deformation of the wall without significant damage
- the use of X-B plus GWB reduces the permanent deflection and
increases the shear strength without decreasing the stiffness
Serrette & Ogunfunmi (1996) - the use of X-B plus GWB is not practical due to the need to
pretension the straps and the need for additional screws to connect
the straps
- in the design of walls with X-B the designer must consider that the
force in the strap may be larger than that corresponding to the nominal
Serrette et al. (1997b) yield strength
- if X-B are installed on one side of the wall only, the effect of
eccentricity should be considered
For walls laterally braced with X-B only:
- the initial tension in the X-B increases the frame stiffness and when
the X-B yield then the true stiffness of the X-B system defines the
stiffness of the frame
- the type of strap bracing-to-plate connections governs the failure
Gad et al. (1999a)
load and mechanism
For walls laterally braced with X-B and plasterboard:
- when X-B and plasterboard are combined, the overall stiffness and
strength of the system is simple addition of individual contributions
from X-B and plasterboard
- sheathings oriented horizontally exhibit slightly higher shear strength
Serrette & Ogunfunmi (1996)
than panels oriented vertically
effect of sheathing - the walls with blocked panels oriented horizontally provide
orientation and essentially the same shear capacity but higher stiffness than a
contribution of blocking Serrette et al. (1997a) comparable wall with panels oriented vertically
- when blocking is omitted from the walls with horizontal panels, the
shear capacity of the wall is reduced by more than 50%
Summary of objectives and resu lts of ex istin g experimental studies B-3
Framing
Objectives Authors Conclusions
- the reduction of the stud spacing does not increase significantly the
Tarpy & Girard (1982)
shear strength and stiffness
effect of framing stud
- the use of thicker and back-to-back coupled end studs for the walls
size, thickness and
with PLY and OSB panels allows to fully develop the shear strength of
spacing Serrette et al. (1997b)
the panels-to-frame connections also in the cases in which dense
fasteners schedules are used
Fastener
Objectives Authors Conclusions
- reduction of the fastener spacing around the wall perimeter
Tarpy & Hauenstein (1978)
increases the shear strength
- reduction of the fastener spacing increases the shear strength and
Tarpy (1980)
stiffness
- the use of welded stud to track connections provides the same shear
Tarpy & Girard (1982)
strength as screw connections
- reduction of the fastener spacing increases significantly the shear
Serrette et al. (1996a,b)
strength
- the use of 3.7mm diameter nails decreases the maximum shear
strength in comparison with No.6 and No.8 screws
- the maximum shear strength is not influenced by the size of the
fastener
- the failure mode for the specimens with No.6 screws is fracture of
effect of fastener type, Serrette et al. (1997a) fasteners and thus walls with No.6 screws may fail at lower loads than
size and spacing walls with No.8 screws
- for GWB and FB panels the reduction of the fastener spacing
increases significantly the shear strength
- decreasing the screws spacing results in the increased maximum
shear load
- No.8 screws should be limited to 1,09mm thick framing; in fact, this
screw behave well in the 0.84 and 1.09mm thick frames (screws pull-
Serrette et al. (1997b)
out or pull-trhough failure) but fractures in shear when 1.37mm thick
frames are used
- for walls laterally braced with X-B only the type of connections
Gad et al. (1999a) between the framing members dos not seem to have an influence on
the structural response of the braced frames
- a reduction of the fastener spacing nonlinearly increases the shear
COLA-UCI (2001) strength and stiffness for both the light-gauge steel framed and wood
framed stud walls
B-4 Appendix B
Geometry
Objectives Authors Conclusions
- the calculation of the shear capacity using the Perforated Shear
NAHB (1997) Wall Design Method appears valid, but reveals a conservative
prediction of ultimate shear strength
- long, fully sheathed walls are significantly stiffer and stronger but
influence of the opening
less ductile than walls with openings
size
- the predictions of the Perforated Shear Wall Design Method are
Selenikovich et al. (1999)
conservative at all levels of monotonic and cyclic loading
- the strength of fully sheathed walls is affected more significantly by
cyclic loading than walls with openings
- for the aspect ratio varying between 0.33 and 1 shear strength is
Mc Creless & Tarpy (1978) independent of H/L ratio but shear stiffness increases for smaller H/L
ratio
effect of height/length
- the shear strength is practically the same for the H/L ratio varying
(H/L) variation Serrette et al. (1996a,b)
between 1 and 2
- the shear strength appreciably decreases when the aspect ratio
Serrette et al. (1997b)
increases from 2 to 4
Type of loading
Objectives Authors Conclusions
Tarpy (1980) - cyclic loading decreases shear strength and damage threshold level
- PLY and OSB panels show a small difference in the cyclic shear
strength
- the shear behavior of walls observed in cyclic tests is somewhat not
Serrette et al. (1996a,b) as good as the shear behavior exhibited in monotonic tests for walls of
similar constructions
- as in the monotonic tests, in the cyclic tests the wall shear strength
increases significantly with the reduction of the fastener spacing
effect of cyclic loading
- for walls laterally braced with X-B only the dynamic characteristics of
Gad et al. (1999a)
the frame are governed by the initial tension in the straps
- cyclic loading does not influence the elastic behavior of the walls but
reduces their deformation capacity
Selenikovich et al. (1999)
- the strength of fully sheathed walls is affected more significantly by
cyclic loading than walls with openings
- very significant pinching and reduced energy dissipation characterize
Fulop & Dubina (2002)
the hysteretic behavior
Summary of objectives and resu lts of ex istin g experimental studies B-5
- when the bolt and washer anchorage details are used without clip
effect of construction angles the shear capacity decreases
techniques and - the use of closely spaced powder actuated fasteners negligibly
anchorage details Tarpy & Girard (1982) increases the shear behavior in comparison to using corner clips
- it is recommended the use of clip angles
- it is suggested a rigid attachment to connect the wall panel to the
floor or roof framing systems
- in-plane brick veneer walls attached to the frame via clip-on ties dos
not contribute to the stiffness of the system
- different displacements between the frame and the out-of-plane brick
veneer walls are mainly accommodated by deformation of the stud
Gad et al. (1999a)
flanges rather than deformation of brick ties
- the plasterboard combined with ceiling cornices, skirting board and
set corner joints, resists about 60-70% of the applied racking load
whereas the X-B resists 30-40%
B-6 Appendix B
Appendix C
Number of stories n= 2
Length L= 11.4 m
Wide W= 7.0 m
Height H= 6.4 m
Roof slope Tan(D)= 100 %
Area A= 75 m2
Length of full height wall segments 6wi= 18.0 m
Unit loads
Dead loads
Roof gkR= 0.75 kN/m2
Floor gkF= 0.75 kN/m2
Walls gkW= 0.35 kN/m2
Seismic weight
Soil type S TB TC TD
A 1 0.15 0.4 2
B 1.2 0.15 0.5 2
C 1.15 0.2 0.6 2
D 1.35 0.2 0.8 2
E 1.4 0.15 0.5 2
ws / g
T 2S = 0.1 - 0.3 s first mode vibration period
k
k= 0.5 - 3.0 kN/mm/m stiffness per unit lenght of full height wall segments
Maximum design elastic spectrum for first mode vibration period ranging from 0.1 to 0.3s
vS S aed w s
Length L= 2400 mm
Height H= 2500 mm
Studs spacing sts= 600 mm
Materials
Steel grade: FeE350G (S350GD+Z/ZF) hot dipped galvanized (zinc coated) steel (EN10147)
(Nominal yield strength f y =350MPa; nominal tensile strength f t =420MPa)
Failure modes
Frame
Frame-to-foundation
Sheathing-to-frame connections
connections
Ev alu atio n of seismic actio n and wall sh ear streng th fo r th e stud y case C-7
FS F ,bs D t f d f u ,s
3 .2 t 3f d
0 .5
FS F ,ts f u ,s d 2 .1
min FS F
FS F , ss
t s d u f b ,w
FS F ,bp 3 .5 C D
KD vS-F
vS-F = 1.40(*) n'e FS-F = 22.75 KN/m [see Eq. 2.12 in Chapter 2 ]
* Assuming that the adding of GWB to the opposite side of the wall assembly increases the
shear strength by about 40%
Ev alu atio n of seismic actio n and wall sh ear streng th fo r th e stud y case C-9
Nb,out = 66.96 kN out of plane axial strength [see Eq. 2.17 in Chapter 2 ]
Nb,in = 74.03 kN in plane axial strength [see Eq. 2.17 in Chapter 2 ]
Frame strength
FF = min(Nb,out ; Nb,in)= 66.96 kN
The valuation of axial strength of studs has been carried out using
ColdForm computer program (Included in: A., Ghersi, R., Landolfo, F.M.,
Mazzolani (2002) Design of metallic cold-formed thin-walled members. Spon
Press). The results provided by Details window of this program are reported in
the following.
x-z plan:
buckling length: l = 2.50 m
radius of gyration of gross cross-section: i = 40.58 mm
slenderness: lambda = 61.61
relative slenderness: lambda bar = 0.5660
imperfection factor: alfa = 0.21
reduction factor: chi = 0.9024
x-y plan:
buckling length: l = 0.30 m
radius of gyration of gross cross-section: i = 24.02 mm
slenderness: lambda = 12.49
relative slenderness: lambda bar = 0.1147
imperfection factor: alfa = 0.34
reduction factor: chi = 1.0000
hold-down
(F(F-F)N,hd)
hold-down to - frame min F( F F ) N
(F(F-F)N,hd-fr)
hold-down to foundation
(F(F-F)N,hd-fo) v(F-F)N
F(F-F)N,hd-fr) = 184.05 kN [see Eq. 2.45 in Chapter 2 ]
Shear strenght of the wall associated to the tension frame-to-foundation connection strength
v(F-F)N = F(F-F)N / H = 73.62 KN/m [see Eq. 2.59 in Chapter 2 ]
v(F-F)V
Shear strenght of the wall associated to the tension frame-to-foundation connection strength
v(F-F)V = n' F(F-F)V = 87.00 KN/m (n'=10) [see Eq. 2.60 in Chapter 2 ]
Shear strenght of the wall associated to the of the frame-to-foundation connection strength
vF-F = 73.62 KN/m [see Eq. 2.58 in Chapter 2 ]
C -1 4 Appendix C
frame connection
sheathing
D-1
Appendix D
joist track
(U 260X40X1.00mm)
Joist
(C 260x40x10x1.50mm
bearing stiffener
(C 100x50x10x1.00mm)
stud track
(U 100X40X1.00mm)
end stud
(back-to-back coupled
C 100x50x10x1.00mm)
intermediate stud
(C 100x50x10x1.00mm)
stud track
(U 100X40X1.00mm)
X-bracing
A close-up view of the tension connection between the wall and the foundation.
A close-up view of the shear connection between the wall and the foundation.
D-4 Appendix D
A close-up view of the connection between the intermediate stud and the bottom stud track.
Construction details of th e sub-assemb ly specimen D-5
bearing stiffener
(C 100x50x10x1.00mm)
stud (C 100x50x10x1.00mm)
joist (C 260x40x10x1.50mm)
A close-up view of the connection between the joist and the joist track.
bearing stiffener
(C 100x50x10x1.00mm)
A close-up view of the connection between the joist track and the top stud track.
D-6 Appendix D
Close-up views of the connection between the joist, the joist track and the bearing stiffener.
A close-up view of the connection between the joist and the X-bracing.
Construction details of th e sub-assemb ly specimen D-7
Global 3D view of connections between the external sheathing and the wall framing
Construction details of th e sub-assemb ly specimen D-9
stud (C 100x50x10x1.00mm)
1200x2500x12.5mm GWB
(PLACOLAST by BPB ITALIA)
interior wall sheathing
Global 3D view of connections between the internal sheathing and the wall framing
D-10 Appendix D
joist track
(U 260X40X1.00mm)
Global 3D view of connections between the floor sheathing and the floor framing
E-1
Appendix E
a2 Wall 2
d2
d1
a1 Wall 1
actuator load (a1; a2)
LVDT (d1; d2)
w1
w4 w5
w2 w3
f1
i1 i2
Wall 1 Wall 2
actuator load (a1) actuator load (a2)
LVDT (w1,1; w1,2; w1,3; w1,4; LVDT (w2,1; w2,2; w2,3; w2,4;
w1,5) w2,5)
clinometer (i2,1; i2,2)
50
kN
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
mm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
50
kN
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
mm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Force measured by the actuator a1 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w1,1.
E-4 App end ix E
50
kN
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
mm
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Force measured by the actuator a1 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w1,2.
50
kN
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
mm
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Force measured by the actuator a1 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w1,3
Monotonic test results E-5
50
kN
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
mm
0
-15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
Force measured by the actuator a1 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w1,4.
50
kN
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
mm
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Force measured by the actuator a1 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w1,5.
E-6 App end ix E
50
kN
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
mm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Force measured by the actuator a1 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT d1.
50
kN
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
mm
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Force measured by the actuator a1 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT f1.
Monotonic test results E-7
50
kN
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
mm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
50
kN
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
mm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Force measured by the actuator a2 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w2,1.
E-8 App end ix E
50
kN
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
mm
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Force measured by the actuator a2 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w2,2.
50
kN
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
mm
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Force measured by the actuator a2 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w2,3.
Monotonic test results E-9
50
kN
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
mm
0
-15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
Force measured by the actuator a2 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w2,4.
50
kN
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
mm
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Force measured by the actuator a2 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w2,5.
E-10 App end ix E
50
kN
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
mm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Force measured by the actuator a2 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT d2.
50
kN
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
mm
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Force measured by the actuator a2 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT f2.
Monotonic test results E-11
50
deg
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
mm
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
Force measured by the actuator a2 vs. rotation measured by the clinometer i2,1.
50
deg
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
mm
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
Force measured by the actuator a2 vs. rotation measured by the clinometer i2,2.
F-1
Appendix F
Wall 1 Wall 2
actuator load (a1) actuator load (a2)
LVDT (w1,1; w1,2; w1,3; w1,4; LVDT (w2,1; w2,2; w2,3; w2,4;
w1,5) w2,5)
clinometer (i2,1; i2,2)
Force measured by the actuator a1 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w1,1.
F-4 Appendix F
Force measured by the actuator a1 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w1,2.
Force measured by the actuator a1 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w1,3
Cyclic test results F-5
Force measured by the actuator a1 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w1,4.
Force measured by the actuator a1 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w1,5.
F-6 Appendix F
Force measured by the actuator a1 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT d1.
Force measured by the actuator a1 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT f1.
Cyclic test results F-7
Force measured by the actuator a2 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w2,1.
F-8 Appendix F
Force measured by the actuator a2 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w2,2.
Force measured by the actuator a2 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w2,3.
Cyclic test results F-9
Force measured by the actuator a2 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w2,4.
Force measured by the actuator a2 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT w2,5.
F-10 Appendix F
Force measured by the actuator a2 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT d2.
Force measured by the actuator a2 vs. displacement measured by the LVDT f2.
Cyclic test results F-11
Force measured by the actuator a2 vs. rotation measured by the clinometer i2,1.
Force measured by the actuator a2 vs. rotation measured by the clinometer i2,2.