buildings

Article
Earthquake Response of Cold-Formed Steel-Based
Building Systems: An Overview of the Current State
of the Art
Gianmaria Di Lorenzo and Attilio De Martino *
Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, University of Naples Federico II, Via Forno Vecchio
36, 80134 Naples, Italy; gianmaria.dilorenzo@unina.it
* Correspondence: atdemart@unina.it




Received: 26 July 2019; Accepted: 25 October 2019; Published: 31 October 2019


Abstract: Building systems fabricated with cold-formed steel (CFS) profiles and members made of
wood, gypsum, or other materials allow solving a range of issues arising in common constructional
elements thanks to their advantages, such as lightness, strength, durability, physical stability,
sustainability, and cost-effectiveness. As a result of this inherent competitiveness of CFS based
buildings, their use has been gradually increasing in recent years both in the field of structural systems
as non-structural architectural components and, above all, in the area of earthquake resistant buildings,
where lightness play a key role. After a general introduction, the paper gives an overview of the
current codification and ongoing research on CFS non-structural architectural and structural systems.
Finally, the main conclusions are summarised, and possible future developments are outlined.

Keywords: cold-formed steel; drywall; lateral force resisting systems; lightweight steel; non-structural
architectural elements; seismic behaviour

1. Introduction
The success of a constructional typology usually depends on the capacity to meet the needs of
the market, which is increasingly oriented towards solutions characterised by economic efficiency
and ecological performance. Building systems made by assembling cold-formed steel (CFS)
profiles and panels made of wood, gypsum, or other materials allow solving a range of issues
arising in common constructional elements thanks to their advantages, such as lightness, strength,
durability, physical stability, sustainability, cost-effectiveness. For this reason, the application
of CFS-based building systems has been booming over the years both in the field of structural
systems as non-structural architectural components and, above all, in the area of earthquake-resistant
buildings [1–4], where lightness play a key role. However, the knowledge on seismic response of
CFS building systems is still very limited and not properly diffused among the structural engineering
community. In this context, this paper attempts to provide a brief overview of the studies carried out on
most commonly used CFS building constructional systems and their response under earthquake actions.
The main CFS structural systems in a building are usually the load-bearing floors and walls.
The load resisting walls are comprised of studs, i.e., vertical load-bearing studs spaced at 300 to
600 mm and fastened at each end to wall tracks, which serve the purpose of supporting the studs
laterally and distributing loads among them. In a seismic area, the resistance to horizontal in-plane
actions can be provided through different systems: X-bracing (Figure 1a), sheathing panels (Figure 1b),
mixed solutions obtained by the introduction of both X-bracing and panels. Floors are fabricated with
horizontal load-bearing members (joists) and a cladding made of wood or gypsum panels or steel
sheets (Figure 2). Joists are located in line with the wall studs, fastened at their ends to a floor track.

Buildings 2019, 9, 228; doi:10.3390/buildings9110228 www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

 Buildings
Buildings 2019, 2019,
9, 2289, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 162 of 16
Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 16
sheets (Figure 2). Joists are located in line with the wall studs, fastened at their ends to a floor track.
sheets (Figure 2).
Usually, Joists are located in line withsection)
the wall studs, profiles,
fastenedwhereas
at their ends to a floor
floor tracks
track.
Usually, studsstuds
andand joists
joists areare C (lipped
C (lipped channel
channel section) shaped
shaped profiles, whereaswallwall
and and floor tracks
Usually, studs and joists are C (lipped channel
are U (unlipped channel section) shaped profiles. section) shaped profiles, whereas wall and floor tracks
are Uare
(unlipped channel section) shaped profiles.
U (unlipped channel section) shaped profiles.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 1. Cold-formed steel (CFS) structural systems: walls. (a) X-braced wall; (b) sheathed-braced
Figure
Figure 1. Cold-formed
1. Cold-formed
wall. steelsteel
(CFS)(CFS) structural
structural systems:
systems: walls.
walls. (a)(a) X-bracedwall;
X-braced wall;(b)
(b)sheathed-braced
sheathed-braced wall.
wall.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
FigureFigure
2. 2.CFS
CFS structural
structural systems:
systems: floors (a): Floor
floors (a): sheathing being placed
Floor sheathing on floor
being joists;on
placed (b):floor
Hold-joists;
Figure 2. CFS structural
down connection betweensystems: floors
floors and (a): Floor sheathing being placed on floor joists; (b): Hold-
walls.
(b): Hold-down connection between floors and walls.
down connection between floors and walls.
Typical
Typical applications
applications of CFS
of CFS systemssystems in field
in the the field of non-structural
of non-structural components
components are drywall
are drywall systems
Typical
systems suchapplications
as partitions, of suspended
CFS systems in theand
ceilings, fieldfaçade
of non-structural
constructions. components are drywall
Drywall partitions are
such systems
as partitions,
such ofsuspended
as Cpartitions, ceilings,
suspended and façade
ceilings, constructions.
andframes.
façadeThe Drywall
constructions. partitions
Drywall to are mainly
partitions made
mainly made and U shaped CFS profiled stud tracks are anchored the floorareor
of C and U shaped
mainly
ceiling, made
whereas
CFS
of Ctheprofiled
and stud CFS
U shaped
studs
frames.
are typically
The tracks
profiled
placedstud
are anchored
withframes. The tracks
a distance
to the
equal are
to or
floor or ceiling,
anchored
half thetowidth
whereas
the floor or the
of the
studsceiling,
are typically
whereas placed
the with
studs a
are distance
typically equal
placed to or
with half
a the
distancewidth
equalof the
to
sheathing panels (usually 600 mm), which typically are gypsum-based boards fastened to the CFS or sheathing
half the panels
width of (usually
the
sheathing
600 mm),
framewhich panels
(Figure (usually
typically
3) through are 600
screws.mm), which typically
gypsum-based
Partitions boards
made are
with gypsum-based
fastened
the to the CFS
assemblage boards fastened
frame
of cold-formed to the
(Figure
steel CFS
3)(CFS)
through
frame
screws.
profiles(Figure
Partitions 3) through
madecan
and panels with screws.
thevery
reach Partitions
assemblage made with
of cold-formed
high performances, the assemblage
such assteel of cold-formed
(CFS)heights
the wall profiles upand steel
to 12panels (CFS)
can reach
m, acoustic
profiles
very high anduppanels
to 80can
performances,
insulations reach
such
dB, andas very high heights
performances,
the resistance
fire wall up toup120 such
to 12
min as
m,(firethe wallinsulations
acoustic heights
resistance). up to
Common up12to m,
80acoustic
dB, for
solutions and fire
insulations
suspended up to 80are
ceilings dB, and fire
usually resistance
made of a up to
double 120 min
profile frame (fire
or aresistance).
flush profile Common
frame or solutions
a suspended for
resistance up to 120 min (fire resistance). Common solutions for suspended ceilings are usually made of
suspended
furring ceilings
channel are usually
(Figure madeUofand
4). Mostly, a double
C or profile
shaped CFSframe or a flush
members and profile frame
gypsum or are
panels a suspended
the basicU and
a double profile frame or a flush profile frame a suspended furring channel (Figure 4). Mostly,
furring channel (Figure 4). Mostly, U and C shaped CFS members and gypsum
products utilised in these types of buildings. CFS drywall systems can also be used for making panels are the basican
C shaped CFSutilised
products members and gypsum
in these panels areCFS
types of buildings. the drywall
basic products
systems utilised
can also inbethese types
used for of buildings.
making an
CFS drywall systems can also be used for making an envelope of the building. In this case, since the
external façades are exposed to moisture, exterior claddings are usually made of waterproof cement
panels, and interior claddings are made of gypsum panels (Figure 5). A special thermal insulation
material is also used to fill the wall cavity, which guarantees the anticipated energetic performance.
 envelope of the building. In this case, since the external façades are exposed to moisture, exterior
claddings are usually made of waterproof cement panels, and interior claddings are made of gypsum
panels (Figure 5). A special thermal insulation material is also used to fill the wall cavity, which
guarantees the anticipated energetic performance.
In the next Sections, after a general introduction, an overview of current codification and
ongoing research is presented for both CFS structural and non-structural architectural building
Buildings 2019, 9, 228 3 of 16
systems. In particular, since several studies have been carried out on the earthquake response of CFS
systems, only a brief summary of some recent research is given here.

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Drywall non-structural architectural components: partitions. (a) Partition with single layer
of studs; (b) partition with double layer of studs.

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Drywall non-structural architectural components: partitions. (a) Partition with single layer
Figure 3. Drywall non-structural architectural components: partitions. (a) Partition with
of studs; (b) partition with double layer of studs.
single layer
of studs; (b) partition with double layer of studs.

(a) (b)
(a) non-structural architectural components: suspended ceilings. (a) Suspended
Figure 4. Drywall (b) ceiling
without a flush profile frame; (b) suspended ceiling with a flush profile frame.
Figure
Figure 4.4.Drywall
Drywallnon-structural
non-structuralarchitectural
architectural components:suspended
components: suspended (a)Suspended
ceilings.(a)
ceilings. Suspended ceiling
ceiling
without
without a flush
Buildingsa 2019,
flush profile
9, profile
x FOR PEER (b)(b)
frame;
REVIEW
frame; suspended
suspended ceiling
ceiling with
with a flush
a flush profile
profile frame.
frame. 4 of 16

(a) (b)

Figure Figure
5. (a) 5. (a)façades
façades with
withsingle layer
single of studs;
layer (b) façades
of studs; (b) with doublewith
façades layer double
of studs, layer
Drywall
ofnon-
studs,
structural architectural components: façades; 2 = waterproof cement panels; 4 = track profile; 5 = stud
Drywall non-structural architectural components: façades; 2 = waterproof cement panels; 4 = track
profile; 6 = thermal insulation material; 7 = gypsum panel.
profile; 5 = stud profile; 6 = thermal insulation material; 7 = gypsum panel.
2. Seismic Response of Structural Systems

2.1. General Issues

An interesting feature of CFS lateral force resisting systems is the option to carry out the
structural design checks according to two distinctive approaches: “strap-braced design” and
“sheathing-braced design”. When in-plane resistance is computed according to the “strap-braced
design”, the steel straps are used as diagonal elements in an X configuration to resist in-plane lateral
Buildings 2019, 9, 228 4 of 16

(a) after a general introduction, an overview of current

In the next Sections, (b) codification and ongoing
research is 5.presented
Figure (a) façadesfor both
with CFS
single structural
layer and
of studs; (b) non-structural
façades with doublearchitectural
layer of studs,building
Drywall non-systems.
In particular,
structuralsince severalcomponents:
architectural studies have been carried
façades; out on cement
2 = waterproof the earthquake
panels; 4 =response of CFS
track profile; systems,
5 = stud
only profile;
a brief 6summary
= thermal of some recent
insulation research
material; is given
7 = gypsum here.
panel.

2. Seismic
2. Seismic Response
Response of
of Structural
Structural Systems
Systems

2.1. General
2.1. General Issues
Issues
An interesting
An interestingfeature
featureof of
CFS lateral
CFS forceforce
lateral resisting systems
resisting is the option
systems is the to carry to
option outcarry
the structural
out the
design checks according to two distinctive approaches: “strap-braced
structural design checks according to two distinctive approaches: “strap-braced design” and design” and “sheathing-braced
design”. When in-plane
“sheathing-braced resistance
design”. Whenisin-plane
computed according
resistance is tocomputed
the “strap-braced
according design”,
to the the steel straps
“strap-braced
are used as
design”, thediagonal elements
steel straps are usedin anasXdiagonal
configuration
elementsto resist
in anin-plane lateral loads.
X configuration Steel
to resist straps are
in-plane pin
lateral
connected to the external faces of stud flanges, whereas they are connected
loads. Steel straps are pin connected to the external faces of stud flanges, whereas they are connected to the bottom flanges of
joists on the floor. On the other hand, when the “sheathing-braced design”
to the bottom flanges of joists on the floor. On the other hand, when the “sheathing-braced design” approach is considered,
the resistance
approach provided by
is considered, thesheathing
resistance the panel-to-steel
provided frame interaction
by sheathing is considered
the panel-to-steel frameas a dominant
interaction is
source of lateral resistance.
considered as a dominant source of lateral resistance.
In both
In both strap-braced
strap-braced and andsheathing-braced
sheathing-bracedlateral lateralforce
forceresisting
resistingsystems,
systems,the seismic
the seismic response
response is
dominated by the degradation in strength and stiffness along with a significant
is dominated by the degradation in strength and stiffness along with a significant pinching behaviour pinching behaviour
(Figure
(Figure 6). CFS strap-braced
6). CFS strap-braced wallswalls rely
rely onon thin
thin steel
steel strap
strap braces
braces placed
placed in in an
an XX configuration
configuration to to
dissipate the
dissipate the energy
energy through
through the tensile yielding
the tensile yielding of the strap,
of the strap, while
while CFSCFS sheathing
sheathing braced
braced shear
shear walls
walls
rely on tilting or bearing at the sheathing connections between panels and
rely on tilting or bearing at the sheathing connections between panels and CFS frame to dissipate CFS frame to dissipate energy.
In addition,
energy. strap-braced
In addition, systemssystems
strap-braced exhibit exhibit
an initial anlinear
initiallateral
linear response, whereas
lateral response, sheathing-braced
whereas sheathing-
systems have a strong non-linear behaviour. However, despite their
braced systems have a strong non-linear behaviour. However, despite their weak hysteretic response weak hysteretic response in
in terms of energy dissipation in comparison to traditional steel structures, CFS constructions coulda
terms of energy dissipation in comparison to traditional steel structures, CFS constructions could be
competing
be a competing alternative for mid-rise
alternative buildings,
for mid-rise mainly
buildings, due todue
mainly theirtolightweight nature,nature,
their lightweight which allows
which
them to meet reasonable structural performances in earthquake
allows them to meet reasonable structural performances in earthquake prone regions. prone regions.

Figure 6. Hysteretic response of typical CFS lateral force resisting systems. (a) CFS strap-braced
walls [5]; (b) CFS gypsum sheathed shear walls [6].

The hysteretic responses shown in Figure 6 are obtained by subjecting the complete wall specimens
(Figure 7) to the in-plane quasi-static cyclic load defined using the displacement control loading
protocols [7]. The test does not involve the application of any gravity loads during the test except
the self-weights of walls and test setup itself. All of the out-of-plane displacement in the tests were
also avoided during the test. The tested walls were assembled with C or U shaped CFS profiles with
1.5 mm thickness.
 The hysteretic responses shown in Figure 6 are obtained by subjecting the complete wall
specimens (Figure 7) to the in-plane quasi-static cyclic load defined using the displacement control
loading protocols [7]. The test does not involve the application of any gravity loads during the test
except the self-weights of walls and test setup itself. All of the out-of-plane displacement in the tests
were
Buildings also
2019, 9, avoided
228 during the test. The tested walls were assembled with C or U shaped CFS profiles 5 of 16
with 1.5 mm thickness.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 7. Pictures
7. Pictures of the
of the tested
tested specimens. (a)
specimens. (a) CFS
CFS strap-braced
strap-bracedwalls
walls[5];[5];
(b) (b)
CFSCFS
gypsum sheathed
gypsum sheathed
shear walls [6].
shear walls [6].

2.2. Current
2.2. Current Codifications
Codifications
Nowadays, very advanced design codes for CFS structures are available in some countries [8–
Nowadays, very advanced design codes for CFS structures are available in some countries [8–10].
10]. Though, only North American Codes: AISI S400 [11], ASCE 7 [12], and NBCC [13] cover the
Though, only North American Codes: AISI S400 [11], ASCE 7 [12], and NBCC [13] cover the design of
design of these structures in earthquake prone areas.
these structures in earthquake prone areas.
In the European code for seismic design EN 1998-1 [14], there is not a specific section for CFS
structures, therefore,code
In the European for seismic
according designframework
to the current EN 1998-1 [14],
of the there
code, the is not a
design of specific
diagonal section
strap- for
CFS braced
structures,
walls therefore, according
and walls braced to the
with steel current
sheets couldframework
be only madeofbythe code, the
assuming themdesign
as a hotofrolled
diagonal
strap-braced
traditional walls
steeland walls braced
structures with
fabricated steel
with sheets
Class could be only
4 cross-sections andmade by assuming
classifying them as them
a Low as a hot
Ductility
rolled Class.
traditional As astructures
steel result, thefabricated
use of strap-braced
with Class walls and steel sheathed
4 cross-sections shear walls them
and classifying is merely
as a Low
limited
Ductility to lowAs
Class. seismicity
a result,regions,
the usewhich must have a reference
of strap-braced walls and design
steel peak ground
sheathed acceleration
shear walls isnot merely
greater than 0.08 g, and their seismic design can be carried out only by using
limited to low seismicity regions, which must have a reference design peak ground acceleration a behaviour factor equal not
to 1.5 or less. However, the design of walls sheathed with panels made of materials different from
greater than 0.08 g, and their seismic design can be carried out only by using a behaviour factor equal
steel is not possible by using the current EN-1998-1 [14].
to 1.5 or less. However, the design of walls sheathed with panels made of materials different from steel
North American standard AISI S400 [11] represents the most developed reference for the design
is notofpossible by using the current EN-1998-1 [14].
CFS structures under seismic actions. In particular, AISI S400 covers the following lateral force
North American
resisting systems: (1) standard AISI S400
CFS light-frame [11]walls
shear represents
sheathedthe most
with wooddeveloped
structuralreference for the
panels (Figure design
8a);
of CFS
(2) CFS light-frame shear walls sheathed with steel sheet sheathing (Figure 8b); (3) CFS light-frame force
structures under seismic actions. In particular, AISI S400 covers the following lateral
resisting systems:
strap-braced wall(1)systems
CFS light-frame
(Figure 7a);shear
(4) CFSwalls sheathed
special with wood
bolted moment framesstructural
(Figure 8c);panels
(5) CFS(Figure
light- 8a);
frame
(2) CFS shear wallsshear
light-frame with walls
a wood-based
sheathed structural panel
with steel sheathed
sheet with wood
sheathing (Figurepanels
8b); on
(3)one
CFSside and
light-frame
gypsum panels
strap-braced on the other
wall systems (similar
(Figure 7a);to(4)Figure
CFS 7b); (6) CFS
special light-frame
bolted momentshear walls(Figure
frames sheathed 8c);with
(5) CFS
light-frame shear walls with a wood-based structural panel sheathed with wood panels on one side
and gypsum panels on the other (similar to Figure 7b); (6) CFS light-frame shear walls sheathed with
gypsum board or fibreboard panel sheathing (Figure 7b); (7) conventional construction CFS light-frame
strap braced wall systems (Figure 7a).
All lateral force resisting systems covered be the AISI S400 are energy-dissipating structures,
with the exception of CFS light-frame strap braced wall systems intended for conventional construction,
which represents a non-designated energy-dissipating structure.
For each system, the specification defines the requirements for seismic design, as well as geometrical
and material limitations, prescriptions for dissipative elements, and capacity design rules governing
strength in the non-dissipative elements. For the definition of the seismic force reduction factor (R),
AISI S400 refers to ASCE 7-10 [12] for the USA and Mexico, and NBCC [13] for Canada (Table 1).
gypsum board or fibreboard panel sheathing (Figure 7b); (7) conventional construction CFS light-
frame strap braced wall systems (Figure 7a).
All lateral force resisting systems covered be the AISI S400 are energy-dissipating structures,
with the
Buildings 2019,exception
9, 228 of CFS light-frame strap braced wall systems intended for conventional 6 of 16
construction, which represents a non-designated energy-dissipating structure.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 8.8. (a)
Figure (a)CFS
CFSlight-frame
light-frameshear
shear walls
walls sheathed
sheathed withwith
woodwood structural
structural panels
panels [15];CFS
[15]; (b) (b)light-frame
CFS light-
frame shear walls with steel sheet sheathing [16]; (c) beam-column joint in a CFS
shear walls with steel sheet sheathing [16]; (c) beam-column joint in a CFS special bolted momentspecial bolted
moment
frame [17].frame [17].

For each system, the specification defines the requirements for seismic design, as well as
Table 1. Force reduction factor (R) given by ASCE 7 and NBCC Codes for lateral force resisting systems
geometrical and material limitations, prescriptions for dissipative elements, and capacity design rules
defined by AISI 400.
governing strength in the non-dissipative elements. For the definition of the seismic force reduction
factor (R), AISI S400 refersLateral
to ASCE
Force7-10 [12] for
Resisting the USA and Mexico, and NBCC
System [13] 7for Canada
ASCE NBCC
(Table 1).
CFS light-frame shear walls sheathed with wood structural panels 6.5 to 7.0 4.25
CFS light-frame shear walls with steel sheet sheathing 6.5 to 7.0 2.6
CFSTable 1. Force
light-frame reduction
strap factor
braced wall (R) given by ASCE 7 and NBCC Codes for lateral force
systems 4.0 resisting
2.47
CFSsystems
special bolted
definedmoment
by AISIresisting
400. frames; 3.5 -
CFS light-frame shear walls with gypsum sheathing on one side and wood-based
Lateral Force Resisting System
sheathing on the other side ASCE 7- NBCC 2.55
CFS light-frame
CFS shearshear
light-frame walls walls
with fiberboard
sheathedor gypsum
with wood sheathing.
structural panels 6.5 to2.07.0
to 2.5 4.25-
Conventional construction CFS light-frame strap braced
CFS light-frame shear walls with steel sheet sheathing wall systems 6.5 to 7.0- 2.61.56
CFS light-frame strap braced wall systems 4.0 2.47
2.3. CFS
Ongoing Research
special bolted moment resisting frames; 3.5 -
CFS light-frameactivity
Experimental shear walls withwith
dealing gypsum sheathing
seismic on one
behaviour ofside
CFSand
walls started- in the 90s
2.55 with
wood-based sheathing on the other side
Adham et al. [18], which evaluated the lateral hysteretic characteristics of CFS steel stud/gypsum
CFS light-frame
wallboard shear wallssubjected
panel combinations with fiberboard
to lateralorcyclic
gypsum sheathing.
loads. 2.0 to 2.5 -
Conventional construction CFS light-frame strap braced wall systems -
Shake-table tests have been commonly used in North America and Europe in previous years, 1.56
although the first experiment was in Australia [19]. In particular, the bigger North American research
studies involving shake table tests are the “CFS-NEES” projects [20], with tests of a two-storey full-scale
commercial building (Figure 9a) having floors and walls sheathed with wood structural panels, and the
research carried out on the outdoor shake table at University of California, with tests on a six-storey
CFS building (Figure 9b) having shear walls sheathed on one side with steel sheets glued to gypsum
 Shake-table tests have been commonly used in North America and Europe in previous years,
although the first experiment was in Australia [19]. In particular, the bigger North American research
studies involving shake table tests are the “CFS-NEES” projects [20], with tests of a two-storey full-
scale commercial building (Figure 9a) having floors and walls sheathed with wood structural panels,
and the
Buildings research
2019, 9, 228 carried out on the outdoor shake table at University of California, with tests 7 ofon
16 a
six-storey CFS building (Figure 9b) having shear walls sheathed on one side with steel sheets glued
to gypsum panels [21]. The results indicated that the load-bearing gravity systems in the specimen
panels
caused[21].
an The results
increase of indicated
four timesthat the load-bearing
while the addition gravity systems inelements
of non-structural the specimento thecaused an
specimen
increase of four times while the addition of non-structural elements to the specimen
increased additional 4.5 times the lateral stiffness of the building [21]. In Europe, studies involving increased additional
4.5 times
shake the tests
table lateralonstiffness of the
a full-scale building [21].
double-storey In Europe,
building studies
(Figure involving
9c) having shake
floors andtable
wallstests on a
sheathed
full-scale double-storey building (Figure 9c) having floors and walls sheathed
with gypsum-based panels have been carried out in Italy within the “ELISSA” European project [22]. with gypsum-based
panels havefindings
The main been carried outexperimental
of this in Italy within the “ELISSA”
activity showed European project [22]. The
that the characteristics main
of the findingswere
building of
this experimental
significantly activity
altered showed
by the that the characteristics
non-structural systems, with of the buildingof
a decrease were
the significantly
fundamentalalteredperiodbyof
the
about 20%, corresponding to an increase of the lateral stiffness equal to about four times, and to
non-structural systems, with a decrease of the fundamental period of about 20%, corresponding the
an increase showed
specimen of the lateral stiffnessbehaviour.
box building equal to about four times,
The seismic and the
response specimen
of low showed
dissipative CFSbox building
strap-braced
behaviour.
structuresThe wasseismic
evaluatedresponse of low
through dissipativetests
shake-table CFS strap-braced
on two triplestructures was evaluatedspecimens
storey reduced-scale through
shake-table tests on two triple storey reduced-scale specimens (Figure 9d)
(Figure 9d) within the “LAMIEREDIL” project [23]. Results showed that the global response was within the “LAMIEREDIL”
project
almost[23].
linearResults
for bothshowed that thefor
specimens global response
all scaling was almost
factors linearearthquake
of the used for both specimens for all
record, and the
scaling factors of the used earthquake record, and the observed damages were
observed damages were strap yielding and bolt loosening. It is also important to note that the strap yielding and bolt
loosening.
buildingsIttested
is also within
important to note
North that the studies
American buildings andtested
the within Northproject
“ELISSA” American alsostudies and non-
included the
“ELISSA”
structuralproject also included
architectural non-structural
systems. Shake-tablearchitectural
testing of the systems.
wholeShake-table testing includes
building, which of the whole
both
building, which includes both structural and non-structural systems, demonstrates
structural and non-structural systems, demonstrates that the current seismic methodologies are that the current
seismic methodologies
conservative are conservative
in the prevision of the realinresponse
the prevision
under of earthquake
the real response under earthquake actions.
actions.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 9. CFS building specimens tested on shaking table. (a) CFS building with wood sheathed shear
walls [20]; (b) CFS building with combined gypsum-steel panel sheathed shear walls [21]; (c) CFS
building with gypsum sheathed shear walls [22]; (d) scaled CFS building with strap-braced walls [23].

Experimental activity dealing with the seismic in-plane response of structural walls are very
numerous worldwide. Researchers from the US and Canada were very active in last few years,
with studies of Yu [16] on steel sheathed shear walls; Peck et al. [24] on gypsum sheathed shear walls;
Schafer et al. [20] on wood sheathed shear walls with gypsum panels on the interior faces of walls
and ledger in some cases; Velchev et al. [25] and Mirzaei et al. [26] on strap-braced walls. In Europe,
Mohebi et al. [27] studied steel sheathed shear walls with layers of either gypsum or fibre cement
 Experimental activity dealing with the seismic in-plane response of structural walls are very
numerous worldwide. Researchers from the US and Canada were very active in last few years, with
studies of Yu [16] on steel sheathed shear walls; Peck et al. [24] on gypsum sheathed shear walls;
Schafer
Buildings 2019, 9, 228
et al. [20] on wood sheathed shear walls with gypsum panels on the interior8 of faces
16
of walls
and ledger in some cases; Velchev et al. [25] and Mirzaei et al. [26] on strap-braced walls. In Europe,
Mohebi et al. [27] studied steel sheathed shear walls with layers of either gypsum or fibre cement
board panels boardon panels
the interior
on theside; Accorti
interior et Accorti
side; al. [28] tested walls
et al. [28] having
tested wallsa combination of strap braces
having a combination of strap braces
inside andinside
cement sheathing panels on the outside; Macillo et al. [6] tested shear walls
and cement sheathing panels on the outside; Macillo et al. [6] tested shear walls sheathed with sheathed with
gypsum panelsgypsum having
panels different
havingaspect
differentrations
aspectbyrations
including the influence
by including of non-structural
the influence finishing; finishing;
of non-structural
Fiorino et Fiorino
al. [29,30] studied
et al. [29,30]the experimental
studied cyclic behaviour
the experimental of low dissipative
cyclic behaviour strap-braced
of low dissipative walls.
strap-braced walls.
Even in Asia and Australia, some research teams have been very active on this
Even in Asia and Australia, some research teams have been very active on this task, with the walls task, with the walls
sheathed with various
sheathed withcombinations of board panels
various combinations of board tested
panelsby tested
Ye et al.by[31,32],
Ye et al.steel sheathed
[31,32], steel walls
sheathed walls
studied bystudied
Esmaeili Niari [33], and strap-braced walls having different positions
by Esmaeili Niari [33], and strap-braced walls having different positions of bracings of bracings tested by tested
Moghimi and Ronagh [34].
by Moghimi and Starting
Ronaghfrom [34].the large amount
Starting from theoflarge
available
amountresults, it is possible
of available to identify
results, it is possible to
the basic factors
identifyaffecting
the basicthe seismic
factors response
affecting theofseismic
structural walls.ofThe
response seismicwalls.
structural responseThe of walls is
seismic response of
characterised by strength and stiffness degradation and pronounced pinching behaviour
walls is characterised by strength and stiffness degradation and pronounced pinching behaviour and, and, in the
case of sheathing-braced walls, strong nonlinearity.
in the case of sheathing-braced walls, strong Thenonlinearity.
effect of construction
The effecttechniques
of constructionand frame
techniques and
and anchorageframedetails is crucial,details
and anchorage e.g., theis correct
crucial, design
e.g., theofcorrect
chord studs
design(e.g., by using
of chord studsdouble studs)
(e.g., by using double
and cornerstuds)
foundation anchorages (e.g., by using hold-down devices) can help to resist
and corner foundation anchorages (e.g., by using hold-down devices) can help to resist the the significant
rocking actions.
significant rocking actions.
Certainly, fewer experimental
Certainly, studies are specifically
fewer experimental studies arededicated to the
specifically horizontal
dedicated to diaphragms
the horizontal made diaphragms
of CFS profiles,
made as of witnessed
CFS profiles, by few as research
witnessed carried
by few outresearch
in Canada on wood-sheathed
carried out in Canada diaphragms
on wood-sheathed
(Figure 10a) with different
diaphragms constructional
(Figure details and
10a) with different the presence details
constructional of finishing layers
and the in Canada
presence [35,36] layers in
of finishing
and wood-sheathed diaphragms and diaphragms made of steel deck
Canada [35,36] and wood-sheathed diaphragms and diaphragms made of steel deck (Figure (Figure 10b) in Italy [37]. 10b) in
Experimental Italyresults of the tests conducted
[37]. Experimental results ofon the CFS diaphragms
tests conductedsheathed with wood panels
on CFS diaphragms sheathedunderlined
with wood panels
the dependency
underlined of thethe lateral responseofon
dependency theconstruction technique
lateral response and detail (e.g.,
on construction the presence
technique and detail of (e.g., the
panel edgepresence
blocking), ofscrew
panelspacing, and screw screw
edge blocking), size. The effect ofand
spacing, non-structural
screw size.components,
The effect of such as
non-structural
gypsum ceiling and flooring
components, such as finishing,
gypsumwas alsoand
ceiling demonstrated.
flooring finishing, was also demonstrated.

(a) (b)
Figure 10. (a) Wood-sheathed diaphragm specimen [36]; (b) steel deck diaphragm specimen [37].
Figure 10. (a) Wood-sheathed diaphragm specimen [36]; (b) steel deck diaphragm specimen [37].
A very
A very active active
field field of research
of research is the response
is the response of CFSof CFS connections,
connections, whichwhich
can becan be grouped
grouped in in steel-
to-steel connections and sheathing panel-to-steel connections. The experimental characterisation
steel-to-steel connections and sheathing panel-to-steel connections. The experimental characterisation of of
panel-to-steel
panel-to-steel connectionsconnections
is crucial forissheathing-braced
crucial for sheathing-braced
systems, wheresystems, where these
these connections connections
have a great have a
great influence on the global seismic response. Note that the experimental characterisation
influence on the global seismic response. Note that the experimental characterisation of the earthquake of the
response ofearthquake response
connections used in of CFS
connections
componentsused is
inaCFS components
subject that cutsisacross
a subject
boththat cuts across both non-
non-structural
structural and structural systems. Recent studies have been particularly concentrated
and structural systems. Recent studies have been particularly concentrated on connections between on connections
CFS profiles and sheathing panels, as represented by research carried out in the US by Vieira and
Schafer [38] and Peterman et al. [39] on wood and gypsum-based sheathing connections, and by
Swensen at al. [40] on gypsum sheathing connections; tests performed on different typologies of boards
in China [41], i.e., wood, gypsum, magnesium, and calcium silicate boards; studies on gypsum-based
sheathing connections carried out in Italy [42,43]. The main results of available studies on sheathing
panel-to-steel connections demonstrate that the type of sheathing had a significant effect on the shear
response of connections: pull-through is dominant for wood-based sheathing connections (Figure 11a),
which show a comparatively larger strength and energy dissipation capacity; whereas, bearing is
Swensen at al. [40] on gypsum sheathing connections; tests performed on different typologies of
boards in China [41], i.e., wood, gypsum, magnesium, and calcium silicate boards; studies on
gypsum-based sheathing connections carried out in Italy [42,43]. The main results of available studies
on sheathing panel-to-steel connections demonstrate that the type of sheathing had a significant effect
on the shear
Buildings response
2019, 9, 228 of connections: pull-through is dominant for wood-based sheathing 9 of 16
connections (Figure 11a), which show a comparatively larger strength and energy dissipation
capacity; whereas,
dominant bearing is dominant
for gypsum-based for gypsum-based
sheathing connections sheathing
(Figure 11b), connections
which show (Figure
a relatively 11b), which
larger stiffness
showand
a relatively
ductility. larger stiffness and ductility.

(a) (b)
Figure 11. (a)
Figure 11.Pull through
(a) Pull failure
through failureofofaawood
wood sheathing connection
sheathing connection to frame
to frame [44];[44]; (b) bearing
(b) bearing failurefailure
of a of
gypsum
a gypsum sheathingconnection
sheathing connection to frame.
frame.

In addition to the very extensive experimental activity, many studies have been dedicated to
In addition to the very extensive experimental activity, many studies have been dedicated to the
the development of numerical models to predict the seismic response of CFS systems. They can be
development of numerical models to predict the seismic response of CFS systems. They can be
grouped in: (1) equivalent truss finite element models (Figure 12a); equivalent shell finite element
grouped
modelsin: (Figure
(1) equivalent
12b); andtruss finite
detailed element
finite element models
models(Figure
(Figure12a);
12c). equivalent
In particular.shell finite element
An equivalent
models
truss(Figure 12b); and
model [44–49] usesdetailed
equivalentfinite element
nonlinear trussmodels
elements (Figure 12c).
or linear truss Inelements
particular. An equivalent
combined with
trussnonlinear
model [44–49]
springsuses equivalent
to predict nonlinear
the behaviour trussstrap-braced
of both elements orwalls linearand truss elements combined
sheathing-braced walls bywith
nonlinear springs
allowing to predict
relatively simple the behaviour
models that canof both
also strap-braced
be used for wholewalls
buildingandstructures
sheathing-braced walls by
[50,51]. A shell
allowing
modelrelatively simple
[52] utilises models with
shell elements that equivalent
can also be used for and
mechanical whole building
physical structures
properties [50,51]. the
that represent A shell
nonlinear behaviour of the entire wall. Detailed models [31,52–56] follow a more
model [52] utilises shell elements with equivalent mechanical and physical properties that represent realistic approach by
predicting the
the nonlinear nonlinear of
behaviour behaviour of thewall.
the entire wholeDetailed
wall through modelling
models the main
[31,52–56] structural
follow elements,
a more realistic
including studs, tracks, connections, anchors, and panels (in the case
approach by predicting the nonlinear behaviour of the whole wall through modelling the main of sheathing-braced walls).
Even with available numerical models, it is possible to capture with an acceptable prevision of the real
structural elements, including studs, tracks, connections, anchors, and panels (in the case of
response of a building under seismic actions, especially when the structural response is known at a
sheathing-braced walls). Even with available numerical models, it is possible to capture with an
component level, significant efforts remain to transfer the findings to practice.
acceptable prevision of the real response of a building under seismic actions, especially when the
structural response is known at a component level, significant efforts remain to transfer the findings
to practice.
 Buildings
Buildings 9, x9,FOR
2019,
2019, 228 PEER REVIEW 10 16
10 of of 16

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure
Figure 12.12.
(a)(a)
Equivalent
Equivalenttruss
trussfinite
finiteelement
element model [49]; (b)
model [49]; (b) equivalent
equivalentshell
shellfinite
finiteelement
element models
models [52];
[52]; (c) detailed finite element model
(c) detailed finite element model [31]. [31].

3. 3. Seismic
Seismic Response
Response of of Non-Structural
Non-Structural Architectural
Architectural Components
Components

3.1.
3.1. General
General Issues
Issues
Earthquakes
Earthquakes often
often showed
showed significant
significant damage
damage to to partitions,
partitions, facades,
facades, andand ceilings,
ceilings, with
with very
very
important impacts in terms of economic costs and, in some cases, human
important impacts in terms of economic costs and, in some cases, human lives safeguard. For this lives safeguard. For this
reason, the interest in the seismic response of these non-structural systems has greatly
reason, the interest in the seismic response of these non-structural systems has greatly increased over increased over
recent
recent years.
years.
Based ononthe
Based theresponse
responseunder
under an an earthquake,
earthquake, non-structural
non-structuralcomponents
componentscan canbebegrouped
grouped into two
into
main
two categories:
main (1) deformation-sensitive
categories: (1) deformation-sensitive components, which take
components, which damage mainly due
take damage to deformation
mainly due to
of the structure; and (2) acceleration-sensitive components, which suffer damage
deformation of the structure; and (2) acceleration-sensitive components, which suffer damage mainly due to inertial
mainly
seismic forces. Then there is also the case of non-structural elements, which are both
due to inertial seismic forces. Then there is also the case of non-structural elements, which are both deformation and
acceleration-sensitive
deformation components. Some
and acceleration-sensitive examplesSome
components. of this classification
examples of thisare listed in Table
classification are 2.
listed in
The
Table 2. seismic behaviour of non-structural architectural components depends on several factors:
characteristics of the earthquake ground motion; dynamic characteristics of a building structure;
location ofExamples
Table 2. the non-structural elements
of classification within the
of non-structural building based
components structure
on the(non-structural components
sensitive to the seismic
located on
actions. upper storeys are subjected to higher accelerations than those at the building base);
dynamic characteristics of the non-structural component; weight of the non-structural component;
Non-Structural Components Category
attachment type to the building structure, i.e., anchorage or bracing; interaction with other structural
Drywall partitions
or non-structural components. and façades (in-plane response)
(1) deformation-sensitive
Suspended discontinuous ceilings
Drywall partitions and façades (out-of-plane response)
(2) acceleration-sensitive
Suspended continuous drywall ceilings
Buildings 2019, 9, 228 11 of 16

Table 2. Examples of classification of non-structural components based on the sensitive to the

seismic actions.

Non-Structural Components Category

Drywall partitions and façades (in-plane response)
(1) deformation-sensitive
Suspended discontinuous ceilings
Drywall partitions and façades (out-of-plane response)
(2) acceleration-sensitive
Suspended continuous drywall ceilings

3.2. Current Codifications

In current seismic codes, the space devoted to non-structural systems is very limited compared
with that dedicated to structural systems. With respect to European and US codes, the design of
non-structural components against earthquakes is covered by EN 1998-1 [14] in Europe and ASCE
7 [12] and ASCE 41 [57] in the US for new and existing buildings, respectively.
EN 1998-1 defines the seismic design requirements for non-structural components and systems.
EN 1998-1 specifies the procedures for evaluating the seismic hazard demand on acceleration-sensitive
components through an equivalent static design force method in its Section 4.3.5. In particular,
non-structural components of normal importance that can cause risk to human life or have an effect
on the performance of the main structures or services of critical facilities should be verified to
resist the horizontal equivalent static design force acting at the component’s centroid in the most
unfavourable direction. The European seismic code provides the design criteria to define the relative
displacement demand for deformation-sensitive components by imposing inter-storey drift limits
on the main structural system in its Section 4.4.3. In particular, it requires that an inter-storey drift
ratio, defined as the ratio (dr v/h) between the design inter-storey drift (dr) adjusted with a reduction
factor (v, that ranges between 0.4 and 0.5 and depends on the importance class of the building) and the
storey height (h), should be limited to: 0.5% for buildings that have brittle non-structural components
attached to the structure; 0.75% for buildings that have ductile non-structural components; or 1.0% for
the buildings that have ductile non-structural components fixed in a way so that they do not interfere
with structural deformations.
ASCE 7 dedicates its Chapter 13 to the non-structural components, which are permanently
attached to structures, their supports, and the attachments. In particular, the code gives the
general design requirements in its Section 13.2, the procedure to evaluate the design seismic force
demand and the relative seismic displacement demand in its Section 13.3, the requirements for
attachments in its Section 13.4, and the requirements for architectural components in its Section 13.5.
Non-structural components should be verified with specific designs, which should be submitted for
approval to the authority or should be accompanied by seismic qualification certificates produced by
the manufacturer. Moreover, ASCE 7 uses the equivalent static design force method for evaluation of
the earthquake load demand on the acceleration-sensitive components and a relative displacement
demand on the deformation-sensitive components, though the relationships given by the US Code are
different from those provided by EN 1998-1.
ASCE 41 provides, in Chapter 13, the seismic requirements for the retrofit of existing non-structural
components, whereas for new components installed in existing buildings, the use of both ASCE 41 and
ASCE 7 standards is allowed.

3.3. Ongoing Research

As well as for structural systems, for non-structural systems, the studies involving experimental
activity is predominant. Shake-table tests, devoted to evaluate the dynamic properties of non-structural
components and identify various damages associated to different levels of earthquakes, are carried
out on a two-storey steel braced building with partition walls and ceiling systems (Figure 13a) [58]
and on a five-story reinforced concrete building with facades and partition walls (Figure 13b) [59].
Buildings 2019, 9, 228 12 of 16

Shake-table tests are also used to test a single storey single-bay structure equipped with partition walls
(Figure 13c) [60,61], facade walls (Figure 13d) [61], suspended ceilings [62], and their combinations [61]
subjected to 9,
Buildings 2019, anx earthquake.
FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 13.
Figure 13. Shake-table tests conducted
conducted on the non-structural
non-structural components:
components: (a) two-storey
two-storey steel
steel braced
braced
building having
building having partition
partition walls
walls and
and ceiling
ceiling systems
systems [63];
[63]; (b)
(b) five-storey
five-storey reinforced
reinforced concrete
concrete building
building
equipped with
equipped with partition
partition and
and façade
façade walls
walls [59];
[59]; (c)
(c) single
single storey
storey single-bay
single-bay structure
structure equipped
equipped with
with
partition walls
partition walls [60];
[60]; (d)
(d) single
single storey single-bay
single-bay structure
structure equipped
equipped with partition walls, facade walls,
suspended ceilings,
suspended ceilings, and
and their
their combinations
combinations [61].
[61].

Since
Since shake-table
shake-table testing could be be limited
limited by by their
their cost,
cost, the
the seismic
seismic response
response of of non-structural
non-structural
systems can also investigate
systems can also investigate with relatively less complex experimental activity,
activity, carried out
carried out on
on single
single
non-structural
non-structural component. In In this context, the most common approach is to to investigate
investigate thethe lateral
lateral
response
response ofofpartition
partitionwalls
wallsthrough
throughin-plane
in-planetests [40,64–68],
tests [40,64–68],but thethe
but out-of-plane
out-of-plane response
responsecancan
alsoalso
be
explored [69]. In these studies, different solutions of non-structural components have
be explored [69]. In these studies, different solutions of non-structural components have been tested been tested to
evaluate thethe
to evaluate effect of construction
effect of construction details andand
details boundary
boundaryconditions.
conditions.
The main objectives of available studies
The main objectives of available studies have been have been the definition
definition of
of the
the damage
damage ability
ability using
using
different
differentthresholds
thresholdsand andthethe
development
development of fragility curves.
of fragility Also,Also,
curves. the estimation of repair
the estimation of costs
repaircaught
costs
researchers’ attention
caught researchers’ in manyinstudies.
attention many studies.

4.
4. Conclusions
Conclusions and
and Future
Future Developments
Developments
Starting
Starting from
fromthe
themain
mainresults of past
results studies,
of past the following
studies, shared
the following key conclusions
shared can be drawn.
key conclusions can be
drawn.The seismic behaviour of CFS seismic resistant systems (walls) is marked by strength and
stiffness
Thedegradation and a pronounced
seismic behaviour of CFS seismicpinching and, systems
resistant also, with strongisnonlinearity
(walls) marked by in the caseand
strength of
sheathing-braced walls.
stiffness degradation andThe whole building
a pronounced seismic
pinching and,response
also, withis strong
significantly affected
nonlinearity in by
thegravity
case of
structural systems [20], non-structural architectural components, and box-building
sheathing-braced walls. The whole building seismic response is significantly affected by gravity behaviour [22],
which can produce
structural systemsa[20],
significant increase of
non-structural the lateral stiffness
architectural and over-strength.
components, As a result,
and box-building shake table
behaviour [22],
which can produce a significant increase of the lateral stiffness and over-strength. As a result, shake
table tests showed that buildings could survive earthquakes stronger than that considered in the
design and with small damage.
Drywall (CFS/panels-based) non-structural architectural systems represent an alternative to
traditional (masonry-based) architectural systems for applications in earthquake prone areas, thanks
Buildings 2019, 9, 228 13 of 16

tests showed that buildings could survive earthquakes stronger than that considered in the design and
with small damage.
Drywall (CFS/panels-based) non-structural architectural systems represent an alternative to
traditional (masonry-based) architectural systems for applications in earthquake prone areas, thanks to
their very good seismic behaviour, characterised by a very high damage tolerance. However, if the
solution is not designed and built well, drywall non-structural architectural components can also fail
ruinously under an earthquake.
Regarding future developments, it will be necessary to bridge the gap between the current
North America and European seismic prescriptions on CFS seismic resistant systems. In fact, in EN
1998-1 [14], specific recommendations on this structural typology are missing, whereas AISI S400 [11],
together with ASCE 7 [12] and NBCC [13], appear updated with respect to the results of current
research. Also, studies and code prescriptions specifically addressed to the seismic response and
design of CFS non-structural systems still have a lot of ground to make up. In particular, in this context,
both the behaviour of non-structural components and their impact on the seismic response of structural
systems play a key role, with the big challenge represented by the very wide variety of available
constructional solutions, usually made of materials having an unknown mechanical response.

Author Contributions: G.D.L. was responsible for writing the paper while A.D.M. did review and editing.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Montuori, R.; Gabbianelli, G.; Nastri, E.; Simoncelli, M. Rigid plastic analysis for the seismic performance
evaluation of steel storage racks. Steel Compos. Struct. 2019, 32, 1–19.
2. Piluso, V.; Pisapia, A.; Nastri, E.; Montuori, R. Ultimate resistance and rotation capacity of low yielding
high hardening aluminium alloy beams under non-uniform bending. Thin Walled Struct. 2019, 135, 123–136.
[CrossRef]
3. Castaldo, P.; Nastri, E.; Piluso, V. Ultimate behaviour of RHS temper T6 aluminium alloy beams subjected to
non-uniform bending: Parametric analysis. Thin Walled Struct. 2017, 115, 129–141. [CrossRef]
4. Castaldo, P.; Nastri, E.; Piluso, V. FEM simulations and rotation capacity evaluation for RHS temper T4
aluminium alloy beams. Compos. Part B Eng. 2017, 115, 124–137. [CrossRef]
5. Fiorino, L.; Iuorio, O.; Macillo, V.; Terracciano, M.T.; Pali, T.; Landolfo, R. Seismic design method for CFS
diagonal strap-braced stud walls: Experimental validation. J. Struct. Eng. 2016, 142, 04015154. [CrossRef]
6. Macillo, V.; Fiorino, L.; Landolfo, R. Seismic response of CFS shear walls sheathed with nailed gypsum
panels: Experimental tests. Thin Walled Struct. 2017, 120, 161–171. [CrossRef]
7. Krawinkler, H.; Francisco, P.; Ibarra, L.; Ayoub, A.; Medina, R. Development of a Testing Protocol for Woodframe
Structures; Publication No. W-02; CUREE: Richmond, CA, USA, 2001.
8. CEN. EN 1993-1-3 Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures—Part 1–3: General Rules—Supplementary Rules for
Cold-Formed Members and Sheeting; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2006.
9. AISI. S100-16 North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members; American Iron
and Steel Institute (AISI): Washington, DC, USA, 2016; ISBN 9781771391535.
10. Australia/New Zealand Standards. AUS/NZS 4600. Cold-Formed Steel Structures; Australia/New Zealand
Standards: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2005.
11. AISI. S400-15 North American Standard for Seismic Design of Cold Formed Steel Structural Systems; American Iron
and Steel Institute (AISI): Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
12. SEI/ASCE. ASCE 7-10 Minimim Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures; American Society of Civil
Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2010; ISBN 9780784410851.
13. NRCC. National Building Code of Canada; National Research Council of Canada (NRCC): Ottawa, ON, Canada,
2005.
14. CEN. EN 1998-1 Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions
and Rules for Buildings; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
Buildings 2019, 9, 228 14 of 16

15. Liu, P.; Peterman, K.D.; Schafer, B.W. Impact of construction details on OSB-sheathed cold-formed steel
framed shear walls. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2014, 101, 114–123. [CrossRef]
16. Yu, C. Shear resistance of cold-formed steel framed shear walls with 0.686 mm, 0.762 mm, and 0.838 mm
steel sheet sheathing. Eng. Struct. 2010, 32, 1522–1529. [CrossRef]
17. Uang, C.-M.; Sato, A.; Hong, J.-K.; Wood, K. Cyclic testing and modeling of cold-formed steel special bolted
moment frame connections. J. Struct. Eng. 2010, 136, 953–960. [CrossRef]
18. Adham, S.A.; Avanessian, V.; Hart, G.C.; Anderson, R.W.; Elmlinger, J.; Gregory, J. Shear wall resistance of
lightgage steel stud wall systems. Earthq. Spectra 1990, 6, 1–14. [CrossRef]
19. Gad, E.F.; Duffield, C.F.; Hutchinson, G.L.; Mansell, D.S.; Stark, G. Lateral performance of cold-formed
steel-framed domestic structures. Eng. Struct. 1999, 21, 83–95. [CrossRef]
20. Schafer, B.W.; Ayhan, D.; Leng, J.; Liu, P.; Padilla-Llano, D.; Peterman, K.D.; Stehman, M.; Buonopane, S.G.;
Eatherton, M.; Madsen, R.; et al. Seismic response and engineering of cold-formed steel framed buildings.
Structures 2016, 8, 197–212. [CrossRef]
21. Hoehler, M.S.; Smith, C.M.; Hutchinson, T.C.; Wang, X.; Meacham, B.J.; Kamath, P. Behavior of steel-sheathed
shear walls subjected to seismic and fire loads. Fire Saf. J. 2017, 91, 524–531. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Fiorino, L.; Macillo, V.; Landolfo, R. Shake table tests of a full-scale two-story sheathing-braced cold-formed
steel building. Eng. Struct. 2017, 151, 633–647. [CrossRef]
23. Fiorino, L.; Bucciero, B.; Landolfo, R. Shake table tests of three storey cold-formed steel structures with
strap-braced walls. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 17, 4217–4275. [CrossRef]
24. Peck, Q.; Rogers, N.; Serrette, R. Cold-formed steel framed gypsum shear walls: In-plane response. J. Struct.
Eng. 2012, 138, 932–941. [CrossRef]
25. Velchev, K.; Comeau, G.; Balh, N.; Rogers, C.A. Evaluation of the AISI S213 seismic design procedures
through testing of strap braced cold-formed steel walls. Thin Walled Struct. 2010, 48, 846–856. [CrossRef]
26. Mirzaei, A.; Sangree, R.H.; Velchev, K.; Comeau, G.; Balh, N.; Rogers, C.A.; Schafer, B.W.
Seismic capacity-based design of narrow strap-braced cold-formed steel walls. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2015,
115, 81–91. [CrossRef]
27. Mohebbi, S.; Mirghaderi, S.R.; Farahbod, F.; Bagheri Sabbagh, A.; Torabian, S. Experiments on seismic
behaviour of steel sheathed cold-formed steel shear walls cladded by gypsum and fiber cement boards.
Thin Walled Struct. 2016, 104, 238–247. [CrossRef]
28. Accorti, M.; Baldassino, N.; Zandonini, R.; Scavazza, F.; Rogers, C.A. Response of CFS Sheathed Shear Walls.
Structures 2016, 7, 100–112. [CrossRef]
29. Fiorino, L.; Terracciano, M.T.; Landolfo, R. Experimental investigation of seismic behaviour of low dissipative
CFS strap-braced stud walls. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2016, 127, 92–107. [CrossRef]
30. Terracciano, M.T.; Vincenzo, M.; Pali, T.; Bucciero, B.; Luigi, F.; Landolfo, R. Seismic design and performance
of low energy dissipative CFS strap-braced stud walls. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 17, 1075–1098. [CrossRef]
31. Ye, J.; Wang, X.; Jia, H.; Zhao, M. Cyclic performance of cold-formed steel shear walls sheathed with
double-layer wallboards on both sides. Thin Walled Struct. 2015, 92, 146–159. [CrossRef]
32. Wang, X.; Ye, J. Reversed cyclic performance of cold-formed steel shear walls with reinforced end studs.
J. Constr. Steel Res. 2015, 113, 28–42. [CrossRef]
33. Esmaeili Niari, S.; Rafezy, B.; Abedi, K. Seismic behavior of steel sheathed cold-formed steel shear wall:
Experimental investigation and numerical modeling. Thin Walled Struct. 2015, 96, 337–347. [CrossRef]
34. Moghimi, H.; Ronagh, H.R. Performance of light-gauge cold-formed steel strap-braced stud walls subjected
to cyclic loading. Eng. Struct. 2009, 31, 69–83. [CrossRef]
35. Latreille, P.; Nikolaidou, V.; Rogers, C.A.; Lignos, D.G. Characterization of cold-formed steel framed
diaphragm response under in-plane loading and influence of non-structural gypsum panels. In Proceedings
of the International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, St. Louis, MO, USA, 3–4 November
2010; p. 1.
36. Nikolaidou, V.; Latreille, P.; Rogers, C.A.; Lignos, D.G. Characterization of cold-formed steel
framed/woodsheathed floor and roof diaphragm structures. In Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, 16WCEE, Santiago, Chile, 9–13 January 2017; p. 452.
37. Baldassino, N.; Bernardi, M.; Zandonini, R.; Zordan, M. Study of cold-formed steel floor systems under shear
loadings. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Thin-Walled Structures (ICTWS 2018),
Lisbon, Portugal, 24–27 July 2018.
Buildings 2019, 9, 228 15 of 16

38. Vieira, L.C.M.; Schafer, B.W. Lateral stiffness and strength of sheathing braced cold-formed steel stud walls.
Eng. Struct. 2012, 37, 205–213. [CrossRef]
39. Peterman, K.D.; Nakata, N.; Schafer, B.W. Hysteretic characterization of cold-formed steel stud-to-sheathing
connections. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2014, 101, 254–264. [CrossRef]
40. Swensen, S.; Deierlein, G.G.; Miranda, E. Behavior of screw and adhesive connections to gypsum wallboard
in wood and cold-formed steel-framed wallettes. J. Struct. Eng. 2016, 142, E4015002. [CrossRef]
41. Ye, J.; Wang, X.; Zhao, M. Experimental study on shear behavior of screw connections in CFS sheathing.
J. Constr. Steel Res. 2016, 121, 1–12. [CrossRef]
42. Fiorino, L.; Macillo, V.; Landolfo, R. Experimental characterization of quick mechanical connecting systems
for cold-formed steel structures. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2017, 20, 1098–1110. [CrossRef]
43. Fiorino, L.; Pali, T.; Bucciero, B.; Macillo, V.; Teresa Terracciano, M.; Landolfo, R. Experimental study on
screwed connections for sheathed CFS structures with gypsum or cement based panels. Thin Walled Struct.
2017, 116, 234–249. [CrossRef]
44. Serrette, R.; Nolan, D. Wood structural panel to cold-formed steel shear connections with pneumatically
driven knurled steel pins. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2017, 22, 04017002. [CrossRef]
45. Shamim, I.; Rogers, C.A. Steel sheathed/CFS framed shear walls under dynamic loading: Numerical modelling
and calibration. Thin Walled Struct. 2013, 71, 57–71. [CrossRef]
46. Nithyadharan, M.; Kalyanaraman, V. Modelling hysteretic behaviour of cold-formed steel wall panels.
Eng. Struct. 2013, 46, 643–652. [CrossRef]
47. Kechidi, S.; Bourahla, N. Deteriorating hysteresis model for cold-formed steel shear wall panel based on its
physical and mechanical characteristics. Thin Walled Struct. 2016, 98, 421–430. [CrossRef]
48. Fiorino, L.; Shakeel, S.; Macillo, V.; Landolfo, R. Seismic response of CFS shear walls sheathed with nailed
gypsum panels: Numerical modelling. Thin Walled Struct. 2018, 122, 359–370. [CrossRef]
49. Macillo, V.; Shakeel, S.; Fiorino, L.; Landolfo, R. Development and calibration of a hysteretic model for CFS
strap braced stud walls. Adv. Steel Constr. 2018, 14, 336–359.
50. Fiorino, L.; Shakeel, S.; Macillo, V.; Landolfo, R. Behaviour factor (q) evaluation the CFS braced structures
according to FEMA P695. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2017, 138, 324–339. [CrossRef]
51. Shakeel, S.; Landolfo, R.; Fiorino, L. Behaviour factor evaluation of CFS shear walls with gypsum board
sheathing according to FEMA P695 for Eurocodes. Thin Walled Struct. 2019, 141, 194–207. [CrossRef]
52. Martínez-Martínez, J.; Xu, L. Simplified nonlinear finite element analysis of buildings with CFS shear wall
panels. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2011, 67, 565–575. [CrossRef]
53. Zhou, X.; He, Y.; Shi, Y.; Zhou, T.; Liu, Y. Experiment and FE analysis on shear resistance of cold-formed steel
stud assembled wall in residential structure. Adv. Steel Constr. 2010, 6, 914–925.
54. Hatami, S.; Rahmani, A.; Parvaneh, A.; Ronagh, H.R. A parametric study on seismic characteristics of
cold-formed steel shear walls by finite element modeling. Adv. Steel Constr. 2014, 10, 53–71.
55. Buonopane, S.G.; Bian, G.; Tun, T.H.; Schafer, B.W. Computationally efficient fastener-based models of
cold-formed steel shear walls with wood sheathing. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2015, 110, 137–148. [CrossRef]
56. Telue, Y.; Mahendran, M. Behaviour of cold-formed steel wall frames lined with plasterboard. J. Constr. Steel
Res. 2001, 57, 435–452. [CrossRef]
57. ASCE. 41-13 Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade of Existing Buildings; American Society of Civil Engineers:
Reston, VA, USA, 2013.
58. Jenkins, C.; Soroushian, S.; Rahmanishamsi, E.; Maragakis, E. Experimental fragility analysis of cold-formed
steel-framed partition wall systems. In Proceedings of the Structures Congress 2015, Portland, OR, USA,
23–25 April 2015; pp. 1760–1773.
59. Wang, X.; Pantoli, E.; Hutchinson, T.C.; Restrepo, J.I.; Wood, R.L.; Hoehler, M.S.; Grzesik, P.; Sesma, F.H.
Seismic performance of cold-formed steel wall systems in a full-scale building. J. Struct. Eng. 2015,
141, 04015014. [CrossRef]
60. Magliulo, G.; Petrone, C.; Capozzi, V.; Maddaloni, G.; Lopez, P.; Manfredi, G. Seismic performance evaluation
of plasterboard partitions via shake table tests. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2014, 12, 1657–1677. [CrossRef]
61. Fiorino, L.; Bucciero, B.; Landolfo, R. Evaluation of seismic dynamic behaviour of drywall partitions,
façades and ceilings through shake table testing. Eng. Struct. 2019, 180, 103–123. [CrossRef]
62. Badillo-Almaraz, H.; Whittaker, A.S.; Reinhorn, A.M. Seismic fragility of suspended ceiling systems.
Earthq. Spectra 2007, 23, 21–40. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2019, 9, 228 16 of 16

63. Jenkins, C.; Soroushian, S.; Rahmanishamsi, E.; Maragakis, E.M. Experimental fragility analysis of cold-formed
steel-framed partition wall systems. Thin Walled Struct. 2016, 103, 115–127. [CrossRef]
64. Restrepo, J.I.; Bersofsky, A.M. Performance characteristics of light gage steel stud partition walls. Thin Walled
Struct. 2011, 49, 317–324. [CrossRef]
65. Retamales, R.; Davies, R.; Mosqueda, G.; Filiatrault, A. Experimental seismic fragility of cold-formed steel
framed gypsum partition walls. J. Struct. Eng. 2013, 139, 1285–1293. [CrossRef]
66. Tasligedik, A.S.; Pampanin, S.; Palermo, A. Low damage seismic solutions for non-structural drywall
partitions. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2015, 13, 1029–1050. [CrossRef]
67. Petrone, C.; Magliulo, G.; Lopez, P.; Manfredi, G. Seismic fragility of plasterboard partitions via in-plane
quasi-static tests. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2015, 44, 2589–2606. [CrossRef]
68. Pali, T.; Macillo, V.; Terracciano, M.T.; Buccieros, B.; Fiorino, L.; Landolfo, R. In-plane quasi-static cyclic tests
of nonstructural lightweight steel drywall partitions for seismic performance evaluation. Earthq. Eng. Struct.
Dyn. 2018, 47, 1566–1588. [CrossRef]
69. Fiorino, L.; Pali, T.; Landolfo, R. Out-of-plane seismic design by testing of non-structural lightweight steel
drywall partition walls. Thin Walled Struct. 2018, 130, 213–230. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).