Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105787

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijcard

Connections used for cold-formed steel frame shear walls sheathed

with engineered bamboo panels
Z. Li a, *, T. Li a, Y. Xiao b, **
a
College of Civil Engineering, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 211816, China
b
Zhejiang UniversityeUniversity of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Institute, Zhejiang University, Haining, Zhejiang, 314400, China

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

Article history: This paper presents experimental research on the load-bearing behaviors of self-drilling screw con-
Received 3 July 2019 nections in cold-formed steel (CFS) frame shear walls sheathed with engineered bamboo panels. In total,
Received in revised form 105 specimens were tested using monotonic and cyclic loading protocols. The performance of the CFS
3 September 2019
ebamboo connections was studied under various conditions with respect to differently engineered
Accepted 28 September 2019
Available online 23 October 2019
bamboo sheathing panels, screw features, end distances, and loading rates. The failure modes and per-
formance parameters are discussed. The test results obtained in this study indicate that engineered
bamboo panels can be used as efficient sheathing panels for CFS structures with good mechanical per-
Keywords:
Cold-formed steel
formances. Based on the connection test information, fast modeling was carried out on the lightweight
Engineered bamboo sheathing CFSebamboo shear walls.
Self-drilling screw connection © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Cyclic test

1. Introduction lateral force resistance performance of the wall mainly depends on

Cold-formed steel (CFS) structures have been used for residen-
tial buildings worldwide, especially in America, Canada, and
Australia. This type of construction has been developed for more
than 30 years. Multi-story light-gauge stud residence buildings
have been rapidly developed in North America since the late 1990s
[1]. In the recent decades, many research studies in this field
focused on single units or components, such as beams [2], columns
[3,4], and connections [5e7], and composite systems such as floors
and shear walls [8e17]. The CFS structures have several advantages
compared with conventional concrete and steel building structures
such as superior mechanical properties, a good seismic perfor-
mance, and rapid industrial production. They are even competitive
in countries with timber construction traditions because of the high
industrialized production process of CFS elements and the flexi-
bility with respect to the construction of shapes meeting various
architectural requirements.
The lateral force resistance capacity of CFS framing systems
mainly depends on CFS framing shear walls. Generally, a framing
shear wall is composed of a CFS stud frame that is sheathed with
two pieces of sheathing panels using self-drilling screws. The
* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: zhi.li@njtech.edu.cn (Z. Li), yanxiao@intl.zju.edu.cn (Y. Xiao).
the skin effect of the sheathing panels, which is due to the self-
drilling screw connections between the sheathing panels and CFS
studs. Up to now, three types of panels have been frequently used as
sheathing panels in the engineering practice, that is, thin steel plate
panels, OSB (Oriented Strand Board) panels, and gypsum panels.
Thus, many studies have been conducted on the performances of
the connections between the panels and CFS studs as well as the
design equations and modeling methods [18e26]. In addition to the
conventional sheathing materials mentioned above, engineered
bamboo [27e30] can be used as sheathing panel for CFS structures,
leading to even better structural and thermal performances. The
results of previous studies indicated that lightweight CFS frame
shear walls with engineered bamboo sheathing panels have better
thermal and sound insulation performances than conventional
shear walls [31]. The lateral resistance capacity of such hybrid
steelebamboo shear walls [32] is determined by the connections
between the bamboo panels and steel studs. Thus, to effectively use
bamboo panels as sheathing panels in lightweight steel structures,
the performances of the connections between the bamboo and
steel studs were experimental studied under various conditions in
this study. The experimental data obtained in this research are
necessary to establish design equations for such hybrid
steelebamboo shear walls. Based on the information from the
connection tests, the performances of shear walls with various
connection types were modeled and estimated in this research.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105787
0143-974X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 Z. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105787
2. Materials & experiments
2.1. Materials & specimens
As shown in Fig. 1, two types of 8 mm thick engineered bamboo
panels were used in this research, which are denoted as double-
directional laminated bamboo panels and unidirectional lami-
nated flat-pressed bamboo panels. Generally, double-directional
bamboo panels are fabricated using thin bamboo strips with a
thickness of 2 mm, while unidirectional laminated bamboo panels
are constructed using 7.5 mm thick bamboo strips. The mechanical
properties of such panels are given in Table 1.
The steel stud members used in this study were fabricated from
cold-rolled continuous hot-plated steel by a certified manufacturer.
The steel stud was made using 89
38
12
0.6 mm C lipped
section. The material properties of the CFS stud members were
determined in accordance with ASTM (American Society for Testing
Materials) A370-2014 [33]. The average yield strength, tensile
strength, and elongation ratio are 286.50 MPa, 370.30 MPa, and
33.50%, respectively, consistent with the requirements of AISI
(American Iron and Steel Institute) S213-12 [34]. Three types of
self-drilling screws were used as paneleframe connections in this
research. The 3.5 flat head phosphating self-drilling (PTS) screw
with a head diameter of 6.20 mm has countersinking nibs under the
head. The 3.5 flat head stainless steel self-drilling (STS) screw has a
head diameter of 6.20 mm. The STS 4.2 flat head self-drilling screw
is has a coarse thread and head diameter of 7.20 mm. The end
distances of the screws were 10, 15, and 30 mm (2d, 3d, and 6d,
where d is the diameter of the screws). All screws were typically
installed with hand-held power screw guns without predrilling
holes; the bamboo panels did not split during the drilling process.
2.2. Test of the specimens
As shown in Table 2, in this research, 105 specimens were
Fig. 1. Test specimen details.
manufactured and tested to investigate the behavior of the self-
drilling screw connections between the CFS studs and bamboo
panels considering the following aspects: 1) engineered bamboo
panel type, 2) screw features, 3) end distance, and 4) loading rate.
As shown in Fig. 2, the connections were tested using a MTS
universal electronic testing machine with a maximum load of 5 kN.
A linearly variable differential transducer (LVDT) with a useable
linear range of 30 mm was used to measure the relative slip, which
is assumed to be the absolute displacement of the panels near the
connection, between the sheathing panels and studs. To minimize
the inherent eccentricity of lapped connections, the slip surface
between the sheathing and framing member was positioned along
the center line of the hydraulic actuator and load cell by adjusting
the lateral position of the clamps [35]. The cyclic loading protocol
was defined with respect to a reference displacement obtained
through monotonic tests. As shown in Fig. 3, the reference
displacement for the cyclic tests is defined as 60% of the ultimate
displacement at which the load dropped to 80% of the maximum
load during the monotonic tests. If the load does not drop to 80% of
the maximum load, the reference displacement should be used as
ultimate displacement of the monotonic tests. Load and displace-
ment information was recorded using a TST3827E dynamic and
static data acquisition system at a rate of 10 Hz.
For the cyclic loading protocol given in Fig. 4, five-stage cyclic
loading is applied until the reference yield displacement is reached,
which is obtained through monotonic tests as mentioned above.
After this loading stage, the loading step is increased by 0.5 times
the yield displacement and each stage is looped three times until
the specimen fails. After the test, a part of each specimen was cut
from the bamboo panel for the determination of the moisture
content (MC) and specific gravity (SG). In this research, the same
monotonic test series were repeated three times and the same
cyclic test series were repeated five times. The final test results
show that the loadedisplacement relationships of the same series
of tests are similar and that the variance between each bearing
 Z. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105787 3

Table 1
Mechanical properties of engineered bamboo sheathing materials.

Type Tensile strength ft (MPa) Elastic modulus E (MPa) Density Moisture content (%)
r (kg $ m3)
D 80.59 9860 718 7.28
U 134.20 10942 759 8.87

Table 2
Test matrix of CFSebamboo connections.

No. Bamboo sheathing type Screw type Screw diameter (in mm) End distance (in mm) Loading rate (mm/min) Loading protocol

1 D P 3.5 15 15 3 monotonic
2 S þ5 cyclic
3 4.2 10
4 15 2.5 3 monotonic
5 15 3 monotonic
6 30 2.5 þ5 cyclic
7 15
8 30
9 U P 3.5 15 15 3 monotonic
10 S þ5 cyclic
11 4.2 10
12 15 2.5 3 monotonic
13 15 3 monotonic
14 30 þ5 cyclic
15 40 3 monotonic

Notes: D and U represent double-direction laminated bamboo and unidirectional flat pressing bamboo panels, respectively; P and S represent phosphating and stainless-steel
self-drilling screws, respectively.

Fig. 3. Definition of the reference displacement.

Fig. 2. Test setup for the CFSebamboo connections.

capacity and the average value is within 10%.
3. Experimental results and discussion
3.1. Failure modes
The main failure modes of the CFSebamboo screw connections
observed in this study are: 1) deformation of the holes of the CFS
studs, 2) tilting of the screw connections (pulled through the
bamboo panels or slipping from the CFS studs), 3) tearing of the end
of engineered bamboo panels, and 4) shear failure of the screws. As
shown in Fig. 5a, it is easier to cut off phosphating self-drilling
screws than stainless steel self-drilling screws, in both monotonic
and cyclic tests.
The failure modes of the CFS studs sheathed with double-
directional laminated bamboo panels are shown in Fig. 5b. When
the end distance of the connections is 10 mm (2d) or 15 mm (3d),
the initial loading stages insignificantly differ. When the load rea-
ches the peak value, the screws start to tilt and become more
notable with increasing displacement, as shown in Fig. 5be1. Under
the continuous extrusion between the screws and bamboo panels,
the surface of the bamboo panels rips and the strips at the end of
the bamboo panels loosen and bulge down. Finally, the ends of the
bamboo panels are torn off, as illustrated in Fig. 5be2. For the
specimens with 30 mm (6d) long screws, the failure modes from
the initial to the peak load are the same as those of the shorter
screws (10 and 15 mm). With increasing displacement, the screws
4 Z. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105787

notably incline, several screw heads start to sink into the bamboo
panels, and the screw rod starts to slip off the CFS studs accom-
panied by the tearing and splitting of the bamboo. Finally, several
screws in the cyclic test are slowly pulled out of the bamboo panels
during the loading process, as shown in Fig. 5be3, and then slip off
the CFS studs. Less than 5% of the self-drilling screws are cut off
during the monotonic and cyclic tests, as illustrated in Fig. 5be4.
The failure modes of CFS studs sheathed with unidirectional
flat-pressed bamboo panels are given in Fig. 5c. The experimental
phenomena during the loading are the same as those observed for
CFS studs sheathed with double-directional laminated bamboo
panels (tilting of the screws in both the monotonic and cyclic tests).
However, some differences were noticed: Firstly, only the end of
the bamboo panels at the bottom of the screws was destroyed by
compression during the loading process because the fibers of the
unidirectional flat pressing bamboo panels are unidirectional, as
shown in Fig. 5ce2. Secondly, the failure of the CFS holes is more
serious than that of the CFS studs sheathed with double-directional
laminated bamboo sheathing panels, as shown in Fig. 5ce3, which
was mostly observed in the cyclic tests. Thirdly, this type of bamboo
panel is more likely to split during the loading process in both the
monotonic and cyclic tests, especially when the end distance of the
Fig. 4. Cyclic loading protocol.
screws (10 mm) is small, as shown in Fig. 5ce4. A crack starts to

Fig. 5. Failure modes of CFSebamboo connections.

 Z. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105787
slowly develop at the end of the bamboo panels and gradually
extends upward with the loading, which eventually leads to the
failure of the specimens.
3.2. Load and displacement relationships
The monotonic loadedisplacement curves are shown in Fig. 6.
Each curve is labeled with the following information: bamboo
sheathing type (D or U), connection diameter, screw types (P or S),
end distance, loading protocol, and loading rate. For example, CD-
3.5P15-M15 means: CFS studs (C) sheathed with a double-
laminated bamboo sheathing panel (D), connected with a phos-
phating (P) self-drilling screw with a diameter of 3.5 mm, the end
distance of the specimen is 15 mm, and the monotonic (M) loading
rate is 15 mm/min. In the beginning of the loading process, the
loadedisplacement curves of all specimens are linear. However,
they become nonlinear with the gradual decrease in the slope of
the loadedisplacement curves after the loading. After reaching the
peak loading capacities, most of the curves exhibit a plastic
deformability before relatively gentle degradation.
The load and displacement curves of the specimens subjected to
cyclic loading together with the superimposed average curve from
the corresponding monotonic loading tests are shown in Fig. 7. The
numbers given in these figures match the numbers illustrated in
Table 2. Before the specimens reach the failure limit, the first
several cycle envelopes of the cyclic responses are relatively close to
the monotonic counterparts but significantly degraded in terms of
both the strength and deformation capacities. Therefore, the peak
loads of most specimens in the cyclic tests are lower than those
recorded in the monotonic tests, with an average ratio of the cyclic
to static strength of 0.95. The hysteresis curves of most cyclic tests
exhibit severe pinching and the strength and stiffness degrade to a
certain extent corresponding to the increase in the vertical
displacement.
3.3. Performance parameters
Based on ECCS (European Convention for Constructional Steel-
work) suggestions [36], the secant line stiffness at a 0.4-fold peak
load Fm of the rising section of the curve is taken as the elastic
stiffness Ke, which is used as the elastic point of the
loadedisplacement curves. The corresponding load and displace-
ment at this point are the elastic load Fe and elastic deformation de,
respectively. The parameters Fe and Ke can be expressed using Eqs
(1) and (2):
Fig. 6. Monotonic curves of CFS studebamboo panel connections.
5
Fe ¼ 0:4Fm (1)


Ke ¼Fe de (2)
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi !
2A
Fy ¼ du  d2u  Ke (3)
Ke
The yield load Fy is determined as follows: the area under the
loadedisplacement curve A is equivalent to the area under the
perfect elasticeplastic curve, the slope of the elastic part equals the
elastic stiffness Ke, and the plastic part is a horizontal line that
equals Py, as shown in Eq. (3). The corresponding yield displace-
ment is dy. The highest point on the loadedisplacement curve
considered to be the peak point Fm and the corresponding
displacement is dm. After maximum load occurs, the load drops to
85% of the maximum load, which is usually considered as failure
load (ultimate load), and the corresponding displacement is the
failure displacement (ultimate displacement).
The ductility coefficient can be calculated as follows:


m ¼ du dy (4)
The characteristic parameters of the self-drilling screw con-
nections between the steel studs and engineered bamboo panels
can be obtained by using the above-mentioned equations (see also
Table 3).
3.4. Parametric studies
Based on the original test data, four influencing factors were
considered in this research: 1) engineered bamboo panel type, 2)
screw features, 3) end distances of the connections, and 4) loading
rate. These factors can be quantitatively analyzed as follows.
3.4.1. Bamboo panel type
Fig. 8a shows the effects of different bamboo sheathing panels
on the CFSebamboo connections. Each point in Fig. 8a represents
the ratio of the parameter of the unidirectional flat pressing
bamboo sheathing specimen to that of the double-laminated
bamboo sheathing specimen, while all other components are the
same. The elastic stiffness and peak load values of the unidirec-
tional flat pressing bamboo sheathing specimens are greater than
those of the double-laminated bamboo sheathing specimens. The
peak loads of the two sheathing specimens are similar, but the
initial stiffness values and ductility coefficients of the unidirectional
6 Z. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105787

Fig. 7. Hysteresis curves of CFS studebamboo panel connections.

 Z. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105787 7

Table 3
Main results of the mean curves for each series test.

Test series Ke (N/mm) Fy (N) dm (mm) Fm (N) du (mm) Fu (N) m

CD-3.5P15-M15 582 1080 4.73 1350 5.24 1147 1.65
CD-3.5S15-M15 261 980 5.75 1225 6.39 1041 1.47
CD-4.2S10-M15 972 1145 3.73 1431 4.65 1216 1.58
CD-4.2S15-M2.5 954 1185 4.37 1481 5.60 1259 2.70
CD-4.2S15-M15 425 1237 4.28 1546 5.71 1314 1.90
CD-4.2S30-M2.5 638 1413 4.65 1765 6.24 1501 2.11
CD-4.2S30-M15 405 1347 5.70 1684 6.47 1431 1.88
CD-4.2S30-M30 428 1284 5.83 1605 6.85 1365 1.79
CD-3.5P15eC15 373 903 4.97 1128 8.30 959 1.98
CD-3.5S15eC15 412 1023 4.99 1278 7.30 1086 1.81
CD-4.2S10eC15 1720 1167 3.28 1458 7.19 1239 1.93
CD-4.2S15eC15 1066 1225 5.00 1532 7.75 1302 2.64
CD-4.2S30eC2.5 894 1505 5.00 1881 6.57 1599 2.66
CD-4.2S30eC15 786 1279 5.33 1598 8.73 1358 2.57
CD-4.2S30eC30 506 1367 7.48 1709 9.96 1453 2.35
CU-3.5P15-M15 717 1144 3.43 1422 4.57 1216 2.30
CU-3.5S15-M15 524 1089 6.78 1344 8.51 1157 1.89
CU-4.2S10-M15 1067 1213 2.99 1513 2.99 1222 1.55
CU-4.2S15-M2.5 1446 1348 4.30 1685 4.68 1432 1.83
CU-4.2S15-M15 1184 1411 4.44 1659 5.23 1500 2.13
CU-4.2S30-M15 1101 1350 8.16 1800 9.42 1435 2.31
CU-4.2S40-M15 1273 1351 3.71 1689 4.55 1436 2.42
CU-3.5P15eC15 488 1099 4.80 1373 7.48 1167 2.59
CU-3.5S15eC15 277 1049 5.00 1311 7.39 1114 1.77
CU-4.2S10eC15 869 1142 5.00 1428 6.00 1214 1.54
CU-4.2S15eC15 1161 1329 6.38 1661 7.32 1412 2.90
CU-4.2S30eC15 978 1215 7.50 1519 9.92 1291 1.85

Notes: Ke is the elastic stiffness; Fy is the yield load; Fm and dm are the peak load and corresponding displacement, respectively; Fu and du are the failure load and corresponding
displacement, respectively; and m is the ductility coefficient.

flat pressing bamboo sheathing specimens are higher than those of
the double-laminated bamboo sheathing specimens.
3.4.2. Screw features
The effects of the screw features on the performances of the
connections are discussed based on the experimental results. Two
types of self-drilling screws, that is, phosphating and stainless steel
self-drilling screws, were used in this study. The phosphating self-
drilling screws have a diameter of 3.5 mm, while the diameters of
the stainless steel self-drilling screws are 3.5 and 4.2 mm. Fig. 8b
shows the comparison of the characteristic shear parameters of the
two types of screws using CD-3.5S15-M15 as an example. The
elastic stiffness, peak load, and ductility coefficient ratios of the
phosphating self-drilling screw connections in both series are
higher than those of the stainless-steel self-drilling screw connec-
tions (Fig. 8b). The elastic stiffness ratio shows the largest differ-
ence. When double-laminated bamboo is used as sheathing panel,
the elastic stiffness of the phosphating self-drilling screw is 2.23
times higher than that of the stainless steel self-drilling screw. The
difference in the peak load is very small and the variance is ~5%e
10%. The ductility coefficient ratio of the phosphating self-drilling
screw connections is ~10%e20% higher than that of the stainless
steel self-drilling screw. Therefore, when using self-drilling screws
with the same diameter, phosphating self-drilling screws are su-
perior to stainless steel self-drilling screws in terms of the elastic
stiffness, peak load, and ductility coefficient. As shown in Fig. 8c,
the elastic stiffness and peak load of the specimens connected with
self-drilling screws with a diameter of 4.2 mm are higher than
those obtained for screws with a diameter of 3.5 mm, while the
ductility coefficient insignificantly changes. With the increase in
the diameter of the self-drilling screw from 3.5 to 4.2 mm, the
elastic stiffness of the self-drilling screw connections increases by
50%e150%, while the peak load increases by ~25%. However, the
ductility coefficient shows no notable fluctuation.
3.4.3. End distance
With the increase in the end distance of the CFSebamboo
connections, the peak load, displacement at the peak point, and
deformation capacity of the specimens greatly improve. Table 4
shows the comparison of the performance parameters of the con-
nections for three different end distances. The ratios in the table
were obtained by referring to the corresponding parameters of the
specimens with an end distance of 10 mm (2d). Table 4 shows that
the elastic stiffness of the specimens with double-laminated
bamboo panels declines to varying degrees with the increase in
the screw end distance, but the elastic stiffness of the unidirectional
flat pressing bamboo sheathing specimens only slightly changes.
The peak load increases with increasing screw end distance and the
ductility coefficient slightly increases. With the increase in the
screw end distance, the absolute deformation capacity of the steel
studebamboo panel specimens greatly improves.
3.4.4. Loading rate
As shown in Fig. 8d, monotonic and cyclic loading tests were
carried out on double-laminated bamboo sheathing specimens
using three loading rates. The effects of the loading rate on the 1)
elastic stiffness, 2) peak load, and 3) ductility coefficient of self-
drilling screw connections were analyzed. The horizontal axis in
Fig. 8d represents the loading rate and the vertical axis represents
the ratios of the corresponding parameters at different loading
rates (using 2.5 mm/min as the baseline). With the increase in the
loading rate from 2.5 to 30 mm/min, the elastic stiffness notably
declines. The peak load shows little difference between the two
loading protocols; it slightly decreases in both cases. Similar to the
peak load, the ductility coefficient also presents a slight decrease.
The above-mentioned analysis and comparison show that the
elastic stiffness, peak load, and ductility coefficient of the speci-
mens decrease with the increase in the loading rate from 2.5 to
30 mm/min. In addition, the elastic stiffness decreases more
significantly. The decline reaches 40%, while the change of the other
8 Z. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105787

Fig. 8. Paramatric assessment of the CFSebamboo connections.

 Z. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105787 9

Table 4
Comparison of the performance parameters with different end distances.

Test series Ratio of the elastic Ratio of the peak Ratio of the ductility Ratio of the displacement at the peak Ratio of the ultimate
stiffness load coefficient load displacement

CD -4.2S10- 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

M15
CD -4.2S15- 0.437 1.080 1.203 1.147 1.228
M15
CD-4.2S30- 0.417 1.177 1.190 1.528 1.391
M15
CU-4.2S10- 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
M15
CU-4.2S15- 1.110 1.094 1.374 1.485 1.126
M15
CU-4.2S30- 1.032 1.190 1.490 3.151 1.505
M15

Fig. 9. Simple FE model of a lightweight frame shear wall based on test information.

two parameters remains within 15%. The initial stiffness notably
decreases with the increase in the loading rate, while other pa-
rameters insignificantly change.
4. Modeling of the shear walls based on connection
information
A large number of numerical models with varying complexities
have been established to predict the performance of CFS shear walls
[37e42]. According to the experimental results obtained for the
sheathingeframe connections, a fast analytical approach for the
prediction of such lightweight frame shear walls was developed in
this study, which is based on a relatively simple model [30], as
shown in Fig. 9. The finite element program SAP 2000 was utilized
in this study to model the lateral loadedisplacement responses of
the CFS shear walls.
The modeling is based on the following assumptions: (1) the
studs and tracks are hinged to each other and rigid during loading;
(2) the wall is fully anchored to the foundation; and (3) the
sheathing panel is rigid and only rotates in the plane. The straight
frame element is used to model the framing members and maintain
pinned moment releases. Two end studs are restrained by a fixed
base; the other studs are restrained by roller supports. The
sheathing panels are modeled using shell elements and only
membrane actions are considered. Multilinear plastic link elements
are used to model the paneleframe connections of the shear walls
that are used to attach the sheathing to the frame. Their locations
are coincident with those of the nodes on the meshed panel. The
direction properties of the link elements are derived from the
experimental loadedisplacement curves of the screw connections,
as discussed above. A very stiff spring is used to apply the
displacement load to the wall.
As shown in Table 5, three hybrid shear wall tests were selected
for the validation of the model. The T-1 shear wall [43] is two-side-
sheathed. The external sheathing consists of 9 mm Type 3 OSB
panels and 4.2 mm
25 mm flat head self-drilling screws. The in-
ternal sheathing comprises 12.5 mm Gypsum Wallboard (GWB)
panels and 3.5 mm
25 mm bugle head self-drilling screws. The
corresponding CFSeOSB/GWB connection test results are discussed
in Ref. [37]. The simulated lateral performance of the shear wall is
shown in Fig. 10. The monotonic loadedisplacement curves of
CFSebamboo shear walls with 4.8 mm
25 mm flat head screws
are shown in Ref. [32]. Table 6 describes several mechanical pa-
rameters obtained from the simulation and experiments. Based on
Fig. 10 and Table 6, the analytical result for M  1 is in good
agreement with the experimental curve for T-1 with respect to the
10 Z. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105787

Table 5
Tested and modeled hybrid lightweight CFS shear wall.

Tested hybrid CFS shear walls

No. Size of wall (m
m) Stud spacing (mm) Sheathing panel Connection type Connection spacing
(mm/mm)
T-1 2.4
2.5 600 9 mm OSB þ 12.5 mm GWB 4.2 S þ 3.5 S 150/300
T-2 1.22
2.44 8 mm D bamboo panel 4.8 S
T-3 2.44
2.44 4.8 S

Modeled hybrid CFS shear walls

M-1 2.4
2.5 600 9 mm OSBþ12.5 mm GWB 4.2 S þ 3.5 S 150/300

M-2 1.22
2.44 8 mm D bamboo panel 4.2 S
M-3 2.44
2.44
M-4 3.5 S
M-5 3.5 P
M-6 3.5 S 150/150
M-7 8 mm U bamboo panel 4.2 S 150/300
M-8 4.2 S þ 3.5 S 150/150

Notes: A connection spacing of 150/300 means that the connections are spaced at 150 mm at the perimeter and 300 mm in the field of the sheathing panel.

initial stiffness and peak load; however, the deformability is Table 6

smaller. Potential causes of the difference between the simulation Comparison of the performance parameters obtained from the numerical models
and experiments.
and test results might be as follows: (1) the shear wall is assumed to
be fully anchored and the performance of the hold-down connec- No. Ke (kN/mm) Fy (kN) dm (mm) Fm (kN) du (mm) Fu (kN)
tion is not considered, and (2) the local failure of the sheathing M-1 6.54 38.30 18.20 44.35 32.31 37.69
panel and plastic deformation of the framing members are not T-1 6.65 38.35 29.31 44.41 44.43 37.75
considered. The comparison with the experimental curves for T-2 M-2 0.32 16.63 56.40 17.34 63.34 14.74
T-2 0.49 16.25 77.00 18.86 97.69 16.03
and T-3 shows that the simulation responses of the shear walls with
M-3 0.60 30.42 55.12 32.05 61.87 27.24
smaller screws (4.2 mm diameter) are slightly lower than those of T-3 0.99 31.31 63.96 35.82 70.75 30.45
the test shear walls using the same sheathing panels, which agrees
Notes: The definitions of these parameters can be found in Section 3.3.
with the results shown in Fig. 8c.
Fig. 11 shows the lateral loadedisplacement simulation curves
of lightweight CFSebamboo shear walls under various conditions, With increasing diameter of the screws, the performance of the
that is, with different sheathing panels, paneleframe connections, shear wall notably increases. The type of sheathing panel is an
connection spacings, or with two types of studepanel connections, important factor affecting the performance of lightweight frame
as shown for M  8 in Table 5. The connection tests based on screws shear walls. The CFS shear wall with unidirectional laminated
with end distances of 15 mm and a loading rate of 15 mm/min were bamboo panels (M  7) performs better than the wall with double-
considered in the modeling. Based on the modeling results for the directional bamboo panels (M  3). The connection types and
CFSebamboo shear walls with different paneleframe connections, spacing of sheathing panels have little effects on the stiffness and
the response of the shear wall strongly depends on the perfor- bearing capacity of the shear walls but can influence the
mance of the connection. The conclusion is the same as that drawn deformability.
for the connection tests: when using screws with the same diam- Based on the results of the experiments on the connections, the
eter, the shear wall with phosphating screws (M  5) has a higher analytical method discussed in this paper is an efficient tool that
initial stiffness than the wall with stainless steel screws (M  4). can be used for the design and prediction of the lateral responses of

Fig. 10. Modeling results and test curves. Fig. 11. Modeling results for various CFSebamboo shear walls.
 Z. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105787 11

lightweight frame shear walls. change little (within 15%).

5. Conclusions
The CFSebamboo connections were tested using monotonic and
cyclic loading protocols. The performances of the CFSebamboo
connections were studied under various conditions with respect
to the following four aspects: 1) different engineered bamboo
sheathing panels, 2) screws features, 3) end distances, and 4)
loading rates. The following conclusions can be drawn: (1) Con-
nections with unidirectional flat pressing bamboo panels have a
larger elastic stiffness and peak load than those with double-
laminated bamboo panels, while other performance parameters
are similar. Due to the relatively expensive price and good looks of
unidirectional flat pressing bamboo panels, these panels are sug-
gested to be used as inner sheathing panels of CFS shear walls, in
place of gypsum boards, thus combining loadbearing and decora-
tion functions; (2) The elastic stiffness, peak load, and ductility
coefficient ratios of phosphating self-drilling screw connections are
higher than those of stainless steel self-drilling screw connections.
The ductility coefficient of the specimens insignificantly changes as
the diameter of the screws increases from 3.5 to 4.2 mm, while the
elastic stiffness and peak load increase to different degrees; (3) The
elastic stiffness and ductility coefficient of the specimens insignif-
icantly change with increasing screw end distance (from 2d to 6d),
while the peak load, displacement at the peak load, and ultimate
displacement increase; (4) The elastic stiffness, peak load, and
ductility coefficient of the specimens decrease with the increase in
the loading rate from 2.5 to 30 mm/min; the elastic stiffness de-
creases by ~40%, while the other two performance parameters
Based on the connection test information obtained in this
research, fast finite element modeling of the CFSebamboo shear
walls was carried out. The modeling results obtained for
CFSebamboo shear walls are validated using existing tests these
hybrid shear walls and compared with results obtained for
CFSeOSB/GWB shear walls. The simulation results show that the
performance of the paneleframe connection controls the behavior
of the shear walls. This fast FE modeling method is an efficient tool
for the design and prediction of the lateral response of lightweight
frame shear walls.
In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that engineered
bamboo panels can be used as efficient sheathing panels for CFS
structures with good and predictable mechanical performances.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation
of China (51608262), Jiangsu Provincial Double Innovation Project,
and Zhejiang University/University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Institute (ZJUI) distinguished professorship.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105787.
Appendix

Table A
Summary of all experimental test results

Test series No. Fe/N de/mm Ke Fy/N dy/mm Fm/N dm/mm Fu/N du/mm m
CD-3.5P15-M15 1 560.80 0.95 590.94 1121.60 3.14 1402.00 5.13 1191.70 6.27 2.00
2 528.40 0.75 706.42 1056.80 2.83 1321.00 4.17 1122.85 4.55 1.61
3 530.80 1.19 447.93 1061.60 3.63 1327.00 4.89 1127.95 4.89 1.35
AVG 540.00 0.96 581.76 1080.00 3.20 1350.00 4.73 1147.50 5.24 1.65
COV 217.28 0.03 11177.81 869.12 0.11 1358.00 0.17 981.16 0.56 0.07
SD 14.74 0.18 105.73 29.48 0.33 36.85 0.41 31.32 0.75 0.27
CD-3.5S15-M15 1 478.00 2.33 205.41 956.00 4.24 1195.00 5.85 1015.75 6.34 1.50
2 501.20 2.30 217.53 1002.40 4.33 1253.00 5.90 1065.05 6.42 1.48
3 491.20 1.36 360.38 982.40 4.38 1228.00 5.50 1043.80 6.40 1.46
AVG 490.13 2.00 261.11 980.27 4.32 1225.33 5.75 1041.53 6.39 1.48
COV 90.28 0.20 4951.87 361.10 0.00 564.22 0.03 407.65 0.00 0.00
SD 9.50 0.45 70.37 19.00 0.06 23.75 0.18 20.19 0.03 0.01
CD-4.2S10-M15 1 609.20 0.81 756.77 1218.40 2.09 1523.00 3.99 1294.55 4.61 2.20
2 543.60 0.46 1194.73 1087.20 4.41 1359.00 4.41 1155.15 5.56 1.26
3 564.40 0.59 963.14 1128.80 2.91 1411.00 2.80 1199.35 3.78 1.30
AVG 572.40 0.62 971.55 1144.80 3.14 1431.00 3.73 1216.35 4.65 1.59
COV 749.23 0.02 32002.77 2996.91 0.92 4682.67 0.46 3383.23 0.53 0.19
SD 27.37 0.14 178.89 54.74 0.96 68.43 0.68 58.17 0.73 0.43
CD-4.2S15-M2.5 1 578.80 0.53 1102.48 1157.60 1.61 1447.00 5.56 1229.95 5.77 3.59
2 596.80 0.93 638.97 1193.60 2.95 1492.00 4.35 1268.20 5.52 1.87
3 601.20 0.54 1119.55 1202.40 2.09 1503.00 3.20 1277.55 5.52 2.65
AVG 592.27 0.67 953.67 1184.53 2.21 1480.67 4.37 1258.57 5.60 2.70
COV 93.90 0.04 49565.07 375.61 0.31 586.89 0.93 424.03 0.01 0.50
SD 9.69 0.19 222.63 19.38 0.56 24.23 0.96 20.59 0.12 0.71
CD-4.2S15-M15 1 593.60 1.60 371.23 1187.20 2.35 1484.00 3.69 1261.40 4.90 2.09
2 636.80 1.20 529.78 1273.60 3.50 1592.00 4.45 1353.20 6.28 1.79
3 625.20 1.67 373.48 1250.40 3.35 1563.00 4.71 1328.55 5.95 1.78
AVG 618.53 1.49 424.83 1237.07 3.07 1546.33 4.28 1314.38 5.71 1.89
COV 333.26 0.04 5508.39 1333.05 0.26 2082.89 0.19 1504.89 0.35 0.02
SD 18.26 0.21 74.22 36.51 0.51 45.64 0.43 38.79 0.59 0.14
CD-4.2S30-M2.5 1 735.20 1.52 484.00 1470.40 3.28 1838.00 4.57 1562.30 5.65 1.72
2 694.00 0.94 735.17 1388.00 2.85 1735.00 4.71 1474.75 7.42 2.60
3 689.20 0.99 695.46 1378.40 2.81 1723.00 4.68 1464.55 5.66 2.01
AVG 706.13 1.15 638.21 1412.27 2.98 1765.33 4.65 1500.53 6.24 2.11
COV 426.28 0.07 12152.84 1705.10 0.04 2664.22 0.00 1924.90 0.70 0.13
(continued on next page)
12 Z. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105787

Table A (continued )

Test series No. Fe/N de/mm Ke Fy/N dy/mm Fm/N dm/mm Fu/N du/mm m
SD 20.65 0.26 110.24 41.29 0.21 51.62 0.06 43.87 0.83 0.37
CD-4.2S30-M15 1 679.60 1.91 355.63 1359.20 3.91 1699.00 6.05 1444.15 6.88 1.76
2 658.40 1.82 362.75 1316.80 4.20 1646.00 5.60 1399.10 5.59 1.33
3 682.40 1.37 498.47 1364.80 2.73 1706.00 5.46 1450.10 6.93 2.54
AVG 673.47 1.70 405.62 1346.93 3.61 1683.67 5.70 1431.12 6.47 1.88
COV 114.81 0.06 4319.09 459.24 0.40 717.56 0.06 518.43 0.38 0.25
SD 10.71 0.24 65.72 21.43 0.64 26.79 0.25 22.77 0.62 0.50
CD-4.2S30-M30 1 667.20 1.33 502.79 1334.40 3.88 1668.00 6.10 1417.80 6.78 1.75
2 608.40 1.40 433.64 1216.80 3.48 1521.00 5.31 1292.85 6.45 1.86
3 650.80 1.87 347.84 1301.60 4.11 1627.00 6.08 1382.95 7.31 1.78
AVG 642.13 1.53 428.09 1284.27 3.82 1605.33 5.83 1364.53 6.85 1.79
COV 613.80 0.06 4017.15 2455.18 0.07 3836.22 0.14 2771.67 0.12 0.00
SD 24.77 0.24 63.38 49.55 0.26 61.94 0.37 52.65 0.35 0.05
CD-3.5P15eC15 1 410.40 1.83 224.26 820.80 3.84 1026.00 4.13 872.10 8.28 2.16
2 436.80 1.05 416.00 873.60 4.03 1092.00 5.44 928.20 8.63 2.14
3 451.20 1.21 373.51 902.40 4.20 1128.00 4.97 958.80 8.30 1.98
4 453.60 1.15 394.43 907.20 4.19 1134.00 4.04 963.90 7.35 1.75
5 501.60 0.86 583.26 1003.20 4.76 1254.00 6.21 1065.90 9.08 1.91
AVG 450.72 1.22 398.29 901.44 4.20 1126.80 4.96 957.78 8.33 1.99
COV 1208.45 0.18 19022.58 4833.79 0.12 7552.80 0.80 5456.90 0.32 0.03
SD 34.76 0.43 137.92 69.53 0.35 86.91 0.89 73.87 0.57 0.17
CD-3.5S15eC15 1 518.00 1.29 401.55 1036.00 4.20 1295.00 4.96 1100.75 6.83 1.63
2 505.20 1.33 379.85 1010.40 3.20 1263.00 4.89 1073.55 6.53 2.04
3 511.20 1.24 411.93 1022.40 4.04 1278.00 4.99 1086.30 7.30 1.81
4 487.60 1.35 361.19 975.20 4.53 1219.00 6.62 1036.15 8.59 1.90
5 496.40 0.99 503.96 992.80 4.93 1241.00 4.02 1054.85 6.31 1.28
AVG 503.68 1.24 411.69 1007.36 4.18 1259.20 5.10 1070.32 7.11 1.73
COV 115.10 0.02 2436.21 460.39 0.33 719.36 0.71 519.74 0.66 0.07
SD 10.73 0.13 49.36 21.46 0.58 26.82 0.84 22.80 0.81 0.26
CD-4.2S10eC15 1 578.40 0.32 1807.50 1156.80 4.41 1446.00 4.96 1229.10 7.01 1.59
2 560.00 0.27 2074.07 1120.00 3.31 1400.00 3.95 1190.00 5.91 1.79
3 583.20 0.34 1720.35 1166.40 3.73 1458.00 3.28 1239.30 7.19 1.93
4 594.00 0.43 1397.65 1188.00 3.80 1485.00 0.47 1262.25 8.76 2.31
5 589.60 0.25 2358.40 1179.20 2.95 1474.00 3.99 1252.90 6.51 2.21
AVG 581.04 0.32 1871.60 1162.08 3.64 1452.60 3.33 1234.71 7.08 1.96
COV 139.11 0.00 105917.11 556.44 0.24 869.44 2.33 628.17 0.91 0.07
SD 11.79 0.06 325.45 23.59 0.49 29.49 1.53 25.06 0.95 0.26
CD-4.2S15eC15 1 613.60 0.25 2454.40 1227.20 2.42 1534.00 4.96 1303.90 7.44 3.07
2 606.80 1.12 541.79 1213.60 2.77 1517.00 4.42 1289.45 6.34 2.29
3 612.80 0.58 1065.74 1225.60 2.94 1532.00 5.00 1302.20 7.75 2.64
4 550.40 1.34 410.75 1100.80 2.93 1376.00 4.56 1169.60 6.18 2.11
5 628.00 1.06 592.45 1256.00 2.87 1570.00 4.09 1334.50 7.71 2.69
AVG 602.32 0.87 1013.02 1204.64 2.79 1505.80 4.61 1279.93 7.08 2.56
COV 722.46 0.16 568405.55 2889.83 0.04 4515.36 0.12 3262.35 0.47 0.11
SD 26.88 0.40 753.93 53.76 0.19 67.20 0.34 57.12 0.68 0.34
CD-4.2S30eC2.5 1 714.00 0.80 892.50 1428.00 3.40 1785.00 4.96 1517.25 6.78 1.99
2 708.40 1.47 481.90 1416.80 3.21 1771.00 5.17 1505.35 5.17 1.61
3 752.40 0.84 894.65 1504.80 2.46 1881.00 5.00 1598.85 6.57 2.67
4 768.80 0.58 1325.52 1537.60 2.06 1922.00 4.56 1633.70 8.23 4.00
5 774.80 1.02 759.61 1549.60 1.72 1937.00 4.09 1646.45 4.64 2.70
AVG 743.68 0.94 870.84 1487.36 2.57 1859.20 4.76 1580.32 6.28 2.59
COV 760.22 0.09 74282.13 3040.87 0.42 4751.36 0.15 3432.86 1.61 0.66
SD 27.57 0.30 272.55 55.14 0.65 68.93 0.39 58.59 1.27 0.81
CD-4.2S30eC15 1 658.00 0.90 731.11 1316.00 3.40 1645.00 4.96 1398.25 7.41 2.18
2 631.60 0.69 915.36 1263.20 3.12 1579.00 7.46 1342.15 9.97 3.20
3 639.20 0.81 788.16 1278.40 3.41 1598.00 5.33 1358.30 8.73 2.56
4 681.60 1.11 614.05 1363.20 3.14 1704.00 4.95 1448.40 9.05 2.88
5 636.40 0.83 766.75 1272.80 3.36 1591.00 6.41 1352.35 9.08 2.70
AVG 649.36 0.87 763.09 1298.72 3.29 1623.40 5.82 1379.89 8.85 2.70
COV 340.13 0.02 9412.65 1360.54 0.02 2125.84 0.96 1535.92 0.69 0.11
SD 18.44 0.14 97.02 36.89 0.13 46.11 0.98 39.19 0.83 0.34
CD-4.2S30eC30 1 684.00 1.55 441.29 1368.00 5.23 1710.00 7.49 1453.50 11.62 2.22
2 690.40 1.01 683.56 1380.80 4.43 1726.00 7.46 1467.10 9.23 2.08
3 683.60 1.35 505.62 1367.20 4.23 1709.00 7.48 1452.65 9.96 2.35
4 554.00 2.03 272.91 1108.00 5.44 1385.00 7.47 1177.25 9.89 1.82
5 631.60 1.22 517.70 1263.20 6.21 1579.00 7.46 1342.15 13.97 2.25
AVG 648.72 1.43 484.22 1297.44 5.11 1621.80 7.47 1378.53 10.93 2.15
COV 2692.70 0.12 17562.76 10770.79 0.51 16829.36 0.00 12159.21 2.93 0.03
SD 51.89 0.35 132.52 103.78 0.72 129.73 0.01 110.27 1.71 0.18
CU-3.5P15-M15 1 568.40 0.81 703.47 1136.80 2.69 1421.00 3.57 1207.85 4.80 1.79
2 607.60 1.05 578.67 1215.20 2.70 1519.00 2.91 1291.15 3.98 1.48
3 540.40 0.62 870.21 1080.80 1.36 1351.00 3.80 1148.35 4.96 3.63
AVG 572.13 0.83 717.45 1144.27 2.25 1430.33 3.43 1215.78 4.58 2.30
COV 759.61 0.03 14263.93 3038.44 0.39 4747.56 0.14 3430.11 0.18 0.91
SD 27.56 0.18 119.43 55.12 0.63 68.90 0.38 58.57 0.43 0.95
CU-3.5S15-M15 1 503.20 0.57 881.26 1006.40 4.62 1258.00 6.26 1069.30 7.68 1.66
 Z. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105787 13

Table A (continued )

Test series No. Fe/N de/mm Ke Fy/N dy/mm Fm/N dm/mm Fu/N du/mm m
2 593.20 1.81 328.64 1186.40 4.66 1483.00 7.12 1260.55 8.50 1.82
3 536.40 1.47 364.15 1072.80 4.38 1341.00 6.95 1139.85 9.39 2.14
AVG 544.27 1.28 524.69 1088.53 4.55 1360.67 6.78 1156.57 8.52 1.88
COV 1380.94 0.27 63782.98 5523.77 0.02 8630.89 0.14 6235.82 0.49 0.04
SD 37.16 0.52 252.55 74.32 0.12 92.90 0.37 78.97 0.70 0.20
CU-4.2S10-M15 1 565.20 0.67 846.11 1130.40 1.54 1413.00 2.71 1201.05 2.71 1.76
2 630.00 0.57 1111.11 1260.00 2.40 1575.00 3.25 1338.75 3.25 1.35
3 624.40 0.50 1243.82 1248.80 2.00 1561.00 3.02 1326.85 3.02 1.51
AVG 606.53 0.58 1067.01 1213.07 1.98 1516.33 2.99 1288.88 2.99 1.54
COV 859.45 0.00 27335.38 3437.80 0.12 5371.56 0.05 3880.95 0.05 0.03
SD 29.32 0.07 165.33 58.63 0.35 73.29 0.22 62.30 0.22 0.17
CU-4.2S15-M2.5 1 658.40 0.63 1046.74 1316.80 2.11 1646.00 4.31 1399.10 4.55 2.16
2 707.20 0.38 1875.86 1414.40 3.13 1768.00 4.65 1502.80 4.68 1.50
3 656.40 0.46 1417.71 1312.80 2.64 1641.00 3.94 1394.85 4.80 1.82
AVG 674.00 0.49 1446.77 1348.00 2.62 1685.00 4.30 1432.25 4.68 1.83
COV 551.79 0.01 114995.92 2207.15 0.17 3448.67 0.08 2491.66 0.01 0.07
SD 23.49 0.10 339.11 46.98 0.42 58.73 0.29 49.92 0.10 0.27
CU-4.2S15-M15 1 662.80 0.65 1027.60 1325.60 2.29 1657.00 4.57 1408.45 6.47 2.82
2 680.80 0.60 1129.02 1361.60 2.81 1702.00 4.62 1446.70 5.53 1.96
3 694.00 0.50 1382.47 1388.00 2.38 1735.00 4.14 1474.75 3.76 1.58
AVG 679.20 0.58 1179.70 1358.40 2.49 1698.00 4.44 1443.30 5.25 2.12
COV 163.52 0.00 22273.13 654.08 0.05 1022.00 0.05 738.39 1.26 0.27
SD 12.79 0.06 149.24 25.57 0.23 31.97 0.21 27.17 1.12 0.52
CU-4.2S30-M15 1 767.60 0.87 884.33 1535.20 4.49 1919.00 8.12 1631.15 9.06 2.02
2 684.80 0.55 1242.83 1369.60 3.42 1712.00 6.59 1455.20 8.31 2.43
3 693.60 0.75 929.76 1387.20 4.41 1734.00 9.06 1473.90 10.90 2.47
AVG 715.33 0.72 1018.97 1430.67 4.10 1788.33 7.92 1520.08 9.42 2.31
COV 1378.81 0.02 25399.98 5515.24 0.24 8617.56 1.04 6226.18 1.18 0.04
SD 37.13 0.13 159.37 74.26 0.49 92.83 1.02 78.91 1.09 0.20
CU-4.2S40-M15 1 673.00 0.50 1337.97 1346.00 2.23 1682.00 4.40 1430.00 5.21 2.34
2 677.00 0.63 1072.90 1353.00 2.53 1692.00 3.73 1438.00 4.13 1.63
3 678.00 0.48 1409.56 1355.00 1.32 1694.00 3.00 1440.00 4.32 3.28
AVG 676.00 0.54 1273.48 1351.33 2.03 1689.33 3.71 1436.00 4.55 2.42
COV 4.67 0.00 20970.07 14.89 0.27 27.56 0.32 18.67 0.22 0.46
SD 2.16 0.07 144.81 3.86 0.52 5.25 0.57 4.32 0.47 0.68
CU-3.5P15eC15 1 533.20 0.70 761.71 1066.40 3.35 1333.00 7.46 1133.05 12.45 3.72
2 558.80 1.86 300.43 1117.60 3.97 1397.00 6.53 1187.45 8.52 2.15
3 549.00 1.13 488.00 1099.00 2.89 1373.00 4.80 1167.05 7.48 2.59
4 593.00 1.81 977.45 1191.00 3.36 1335.00 5.27 1134.75 6.34 1.89
5 569.60 2.85 199.86 1139.20 5.41 1424.00 3.99 1210.40 7.45 1.38
AVG 560.72 1.67 545.49 1122.64 3.80 1372.40 5.61 1166.54 8.45 2.34
COV 403.85 0.54 83232.54 1738.90 0.77 1243.84 1.53 898.67 4.48 0.63
SD 20.10 0.73 288.50 41.70 0.88 35.27 1.24 29.98 2.12 0.79
CU-3.5S15eC15 1 508.40 1.83 277.81 1016.80 4.26 1271.00 6.29 1080.35 7.97 1.87
2 530.00 1.94 273.20 1060.00 4.12 1325.00 6.75 1126.25 7.90 1.92
3 524.00 1.89 277.40 1049.00 4.16 1311.00 5.00 1114.00 7.39 1.77
4 593.00 1.70 348.82 1191.00 3.48 1279.00 6.46 1260.75 6.52 1.87
5 554.40 2.23 248.61 1108.80 5.22 1386.00 7.92 1178.10 7.80 1.49
AVG 541.96 1.92 285.17 1085.12 4.25 1314.40 6.48 1151.89 7.52 1.79
COV 870.34 0.03 1129.27 3674.92 0.31 1677.44 0.88 3949.70 0.29 0.02
SD 29.50 0.18 33.60 60.62 0.56 40.96 0.94 62.85 0.54 0.15
CU-4.2S10eC15 1 575.60 0.62 928.39 1151.20 3.88 1439.00 4.97 1223.15 5.97 1.54
2 589.20 0.81 727.41 1178.40 3.09 1473.00 3.99 1252.05 5.01 1.62
3 571.20 0.66 869.41 1142.40 3.89 1428.00 5.00 1213.80 6.00 1.54
4 499.20 0.62 805.16 998.40 4.79 1248.00 7.46 1060.80 8.57 1.79
5 611.20 0.67 912.24 1222.40 5.91 1528.00 7.46 1298.80 9.10 1.54
AVG 569.28 0.68 848.52 1138.56 4.31 1423.20 5.78 1209.72 6.93 1.61
COV 1421.79 0.00 5484.66 5687.14 0.93 8886.16 2.02 6420.25 2.58 0.01
SD 37.71 0.07 74.06 75.41 0.96 94.27 1.42 80.13 1.60 0.10
CU-4.2S15eC15 1 716.80 0.66 1086.06 1433.60 3.31 1792.00 4.96 1523.20 6.45 1.95
2 698.80 0.58 1204.83 1397.60 2.14 1747.00 6.61 1484.95 8.47 3.96
3 664.40 0.57 1165.61 1328.80 2.52 1661.00 6.38 1411.85 7.32 2.90
4 629.20 0.65 968.00 1258.40 3.49 1573.00 8.02 1337.05 8.10 2.32
5 637.60 0.67 951.64 1275.20 5.95 1594.00 8.45 1354.90 9.94 1.67
AVG 669.36 0.63 1075.23 1338.72 3.48 1673.40 6.88 1422.39 8.06 2.56
COV 1152.68 0.00 10370.89 4610.71 1.77 7204.24 1.56 5205.06 1.37 0.66
SD 33.95 0.04 101.84 67.90 1.33 84.88 1.25 72.15 1.17 0.81
CU-4.2S30eC15 1 604.00 0.72 838.89 1208.00 5.16 1510.00 7.46 1283.50 10.01 1.94
2 552.40 0.68 812.35 1104.80 6.45 1381.00 9.94 1173.85 10.09 1.56
3 607.60 0.62 980.00 1215.20 5.37 1519.00 7.50 1291.15 9.92 1.85
4 751.20 0.58 1295.17 1502.40 6.04 1878.00 8.58 1596.30 11.01 1.82
5 644.00 0.91 707.69 1288.00 8.86 1610.00 10.56 1368.50 12.56 1.42
AVG 631.84 0.70 926.82 1263.68 6.38 1579.60 8.81 1342.66 10.72 1.72
COV 4413.61 0.01 41472.63 17654.43 1.76 27585.04 1.59 19930.19 1.00 0.04
SD 66.43 0.11 203.65 132.87 1.33 166.09 1.26 141.17 1.00 0.20
14 Z. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105787

References [21] S. Yan, B. Young, Screwed connections of thin sheet steels at elevated tem-
peratures e Part I: steady state tests, Eng. Struct. 35 (2012) 234e243.
[22] S. Yan, B. Young, Screwed connections of thin sheet steels at elevated tem-
[1] W.W. Yu, R.A. Laboube, Cold-formed Steel Desgin, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
peratures e Part II: transient state tests, Eng. Struct. 35 (2012) 228e233.
Hoboken, New Jersey, 2010.
[23] R. Serrette, D. Peyton, Strength of screw connections in cold-formed steel
[2] L. Wang, B. Young, Beam tests of cold-formed steel built-up sections with web
construction, J. Struct. Eng. 135 (8) (2009) 951e958.
perforations, J. Constr. Steel Res. 115 (2015) 18e33.
[24] J. Ye, X. Wang, M. Zhao, Experimental study on shear behavior of screw
[3] B. Young, Research on cold-formed steel columns, Thin-Walled Struct. 46
connections in CFS sheathing, J. Constr. Steel Res. 121 (2016) 1e12.
(7e9) (2008) 731e740.
[25] S. Swensen, G.G. Deierlein, E. Miranda, Behavior of screw and adhesive con-
[4] B. Young, E. Ellobody, Experimental investigation of concrete-filled cold-
nections to gypsum wallboard in wood and cold-formed steel-framed wal-
formed high strength stainless steel tube columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. 62 (5)
lettes, J. Struct. Eng. 142 (4) (2016), E4015002.
(2006) 484e492.
[26] L. Fiorino, V. Macillo, R. Landolfo, Experimental characterization of quick
[5] S.H. Tan, J. Rhodes, Semi-rigid connections in cold-formed thin-walled
mechanical connecting systems for cold-formed steel structures, Adv. Struct.
structures, J. Constr. Steel Res. 28 (1994) 279e293.
Eng. 20 (7) (2016) 1098e1110.
[6] K.D. Peterman, N. Nakata, B.W. Schafer, Hysteretic characterization of cold-
[27] Y. Xiao, Z. Li, R. Wang, Lateral loading behaviors of lightweight wood-frame
formed steel stud-to-sheathing connections, J. Constr. Steel Res. 101 (2014)
shear walls with ply-bamboo sheathing panels, J. Struct. Eng. 141 (3) (2015).
254e264.
[28] R. Wang, Y. Xiao, Z. Li, Lateral loading performance of lightweight glubam
[7] L. Fiorino, T. Pali, B. Bucciero, V. Macillo, M. Teresa Terracciano, R. Landolfo,
shear walls, J. Struct. Eng. 143 (6) (2017).
Experimental study on screwed connections for sheathed CFS structures with
[29] Z. Li, Y. Xiao, R. Wang, G. Monti, Studies of nail connectors used in wood frame
gypsum or cement based panels, Thin-Walled Struct. 116 (2017) 234e249.
shear walls with ply-bamboo sheathing panels, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 27 (7)
[8] L. Xu, F.M. Tangorra, Experimental investigation of lightweight residential
(2015).
floors supported by cold-formed steel C-shape joists, J. Constr. Steel Res. 63 (3)
[30] R. Wang, S.Q. Wei, Z. Li, Y. Xiao, Performance of connection system used in
(2007) 422e435.
lightweight glubam shear wall, Constr. Build. Mater. 206 (2019) 419e431.
[9] R. Serrette, D.P. Nolan, Reversed cyclic performance of shear walls with wood
[31] J.S. Wang, C. Demartino, Y. Xiao, Y.Y. Li, Thermal insulation performance of
panels attached to cold-formed steel with pins, Journal of Structural Engi-
bamboo- and wood-based shear walls in light-frame buildings, Energy Build.
neering-ASCE 135 (8) (2009) 959e967.
168 (2018) 167e179.
[10] R. Serrette, I. Lam, H. Qi, H. Hernandez, A. Toback, Cold-formed steel frame
[32] W.C. Gao, Y. Xiao, Seismic behavior of cold-formed steel frame shear walls
shear walls utilizing structural adhesives, Journal of Strutural Engineering-
sheathed with ply-bamboo panels, J. Constr. Steel Res. 132 (2017) 217e229.
ASCE 132 (4) (2006) 591e599.
[33] ASTM, Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel
[11] I. Shamim, C.A. Rogers, Steel sheathed/CFS framed shear walls under dynamic
Products, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
loading: numerical modelling and calibration, Thin-Walled Struct. 71 (2013)
[34] AISI, North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing - Lateral
57e71.
Design, American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington DC, 2012.
[12] L. Fiorino, S. Shakeel, V. Macillo, R. Landolfo, Behaviour factor (q) evaluation
[35] S.M. Kent, R.J. Leichti, D.V. Rosowsky, J.J. Morrell, Effects of decay on the cyclic
the CFS braced structures according to FEMA P695, J. Constr. Steel Res. 138
properties of nailed connections, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 17 (5) (2005) 579e585.
(2017) 324e339.
[36] European Convention for Constructional Steelwork, Recommended Testing
[13] R. Landolfo, Lightweight steel framed systems in seismic areas: current
Procedure for Assessing the Behaviour of Structural Steel Elements under
achievements and future challenges, Thin-Walled Struct. 140 (2019)
Cyclic Loads, ECCS, Brussels, Belgium, 1986.
114e131.
[37] L. Fiorino, G. Della Corte, R. Landolfo, Experimental tests on typical screw
[14] L. Fiorino, M.T. Terracciano, R. Landolfo, Experimental investigation of seismic
connections for cold-formed steel housing, Eng. Struct. 29 (2007) 1761e1773.
behaviour of low dissipative CFS strap-braced stud walls, J. Constr. Steel Res.
[38] S. Shakeel, R. Landolfo, L. Fiorino, Behaviour factor evaluation of CFS shear
127 (2016) 92e107.
walls with gypsum board sheathing according to FEMA P695 for Eurocodes,
[15] S. Mohebbi, S.R. Mirghaderi, F. Farahbod, A.B. Sabbagh, S. Torabian, Experi-
Thin-Walled Struct. 141 (2019) 194e207.
ments on seismic behaviour of steel sheathed cold-formed steel shear walls
[39] G. Comeau, K. Velchev, C.A. Rogers, Development of seismic force modification
cladded by gypsum and fiber cement boards, Thin-Walled Struct. 104 (2016)
factors for cold-formed steel strap braced walls, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 37 (2) (2010)
238e274.
236e249.
[16] L. Fiorino, V. Macillo, R. Landolfo, Shake table tests of a full-scale two-story
[40] M. Zeynalian, A.Z. Shahrasbi, H.T. Riahi, Seismic response of cold formed steel
sheathing-braced cold-formed steel building, Eng. Struct. 151 (2017)
frames sheathed by fiber cement boards, Int. J. Civ. Eng. 16 (11) (2018)
633e647.
1643e1653.
[17] V. Macillo, L. Fiorino, R. Landolfo, Seismic response of CFS shear walls
[41] I. Shamim, C.A. Rogers, Numerical evaluation: AISI S400 steel-sheathed CFS
sheathed with nailed gypsum panels: experimental tests, Thin-Walled Struct.
framed shear wall seismic design method, Thin-Walled Struct. 95 (2015)
120 (2017) 161e171.
48e59.
[18] R.A. LaBoube, M.A. Sokoi, Behavior of screw connections in residential con-
[42] L. Fiorino, S. Shakeel, V. Macillo, R. Landolfo, Seismic response of CFS shear
struction, Journal of Strutural Engineering-ASCE 128 (1) (2002) 115e118.
walls sheathed with nailed gypsum panels: numerical modelling, Thin-Walled
[19] M.R. Bambach, K.J.R. Rasmussen, Behavior of self-drilling screws in light-
Struct. 122 (2018) 359e370.
gauge steel construction, Journal of Structural Engineering-ASCE 133 (6)
[43] R. Landolfo, L. Fiorino, G. Della Corte, Seismic behavior of sheathed cold-
(2007) 895e898.
formed structures: physical tests, J. Struct. Eng. 132 (4) (2006) 570e581.
[20] L.X. Fan, J. Rondal, S. Cescotto, Numerical simulation of lap screw connections,
Thin-Walled Struct. 29 (1e4) (1997) 235e241.