Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 56–68

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

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

The seismic performance of K-braced cold-formed steel shear panels with MARK
improved connections
Omid Pourabdollaha, Farhang Farahbodb, Fayaz R. Rofooeic,⁎
a
Earthquake Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, International Campus, Kish Island, Iran
b
Structural Engineering Department, Road, Housing and Urban Development Research Center (BHRC), Tehran, Iran
c
Civil Engineering Department, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, PO Box: 11155-4313, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this paper the performance of light weight K-braced cold formed steel (CFS) shear panels under cyclic loading
Cold formed steel frame is experimentally evaluated. It is generally known that the brace-stud connection details has an important effect
Shear panel on the performance of the braced CFS shear panels in terms of lateral stiffness, energy dissipation, and ductility
K-braced factor. In this study, four full-scale, 2.4 m × 2.4 m, braced CFS shear panels made of C-sections were tested. It
Ductility factor
was observed that proper modification of the currently utilized braced to stud connections in K-braced, CFS
Energy absorption
shear panels could enhance their performance considerably by increasing their ultimate shear resistance up to 7
Secant stiffness
folds. Furthermore, using gusset plate in the braced to stud connection of the K-braced CFS shear panels were
shown to significantly increase their shear strength, energy dissipation and ductility capacities in comparison to
the CFS shear panels with regular connections. That is due to the shifting of the failure modes which commonly
occurs at the brace-stud connections, to buckling of the brace elements. As the obtained results indicate, the
proposed connection modifications could appreciably improve the performance of these panels in comparison to
those that are built based on current practice, without any appreciable increase in cost or installation effort.

1. Introduction connection failure (strap-to-frame or track-to-chord), local buckling of

Since the early 1990s, Cold-Formed Steel (CFS), shear wall design
has evolved in line with the increased understanding of their perfor-
mance. Significant advantages of this system such as being cost
effective, lightness, easy installation, low maintenance and recyclable
materials, persuaded engineers to use this system more than before. A
growing demand now exists to improve the current design guidelines of
these systems and getting more insight about their seismic behavior.
Some of the main seismic design provisions for CFS framed structures
include the AISI [1–4], Australian cold-formed steel structures stan-
dard, AS/NZS [5], the Technical Instruction, TI 809-07 [6], FEMA 450
[7], and Canadian Standard Association (CSA) [8]. The importance of
the lateral load carrying systems of CFS structures in resisting the
seismic loadings motivated the researchers to think of ways to improve
their overall performances.
In recent years, extensive numerical, analytical, and experimental
investigations have been conducted on the performance of different CFS
lateral resisting systems with most of them being concentrated on
application of x-strap bracing systems and steel sheathing on regular
CFS stud walls. In the absence of certain failure modes such as
the studs, or hold-down failure, the strap braces are expected to
perform acceptably in sustaining large inter-story drifts. However, as
the previous studies indicate the prescribed failure modes prevent these
CFS systems to maintain their nonlinear behavior under progressive
cyclic loading (Moghimi H., and Ronagh, [9]). Therefore, the main
concern in using the x-strap CFS shear panels is their low energy
dissipation that makes their application inappropriate in the highly
seismic regions. Obviously, employing the x-strap CFS shear panels
together with any type of sheathings could enhance the overall
behavior of the system in terms of improving its energy dissipating
capacity.
Fulop and Dubina [10], Tian et al. [11], Kim et al. [12], Al-Kharat
and Rogers [13], Moghimi and Ronagh [9], Serrte and Ogunfunmi [14],
Jeffry W·Berman et al. [15], I Shamim et al. [16] and Mohebbi et al.
[17] are among the researchers that have studied these systems in
recent years. More specifically, a number of experimental and numer-
ical investigations were conducted on seismic characteristics of K-
braced and knee-braced CFS shear walls by Zeynalian et al. [18–20].
They performed full scale tests on four knee-braced, 2.4 m × 2.4 m
structural CFS frame models with different configurations under

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rofooei@sharif.edu (F.R. Rofooei).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.04.008
Received 7 October 2016; Received in revised form 4 April 2017; Accepted 10 April 2017
Available online 26 April 2017
0143-974X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
O. Pourabdollah et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 56–68

standard cyclic loadings to estimate their seismic response modification Table 1

factor, R, as well as investigating their failure modes. The tests revealed Summary of the test specimens.
that in all specimens, the common failure mode was local plastic
No. Configuration Description Specimen
buckling in the knee-elements to stud connections. They concluded that
R = 3 for a knee braced system in AISI is reasonable, whereas AS4600 1 Ordinary braced CFS The initial model
code is suggesting R = 2 for these systems [20]. Also, they carried out (K1)
12 full-scale tests with 2.4 m × 2.4 m specimens with different config-
urations of K-braced CFS structures under cyclic loading. They con-
cluded that although most specimens have sustained relatively large
drifts, their strengths were not as high as the currently-in-use strap
bracing systems. Hence, the use of a K-stud bracing system is appro-
priate only in low seismic regions where the demand lateral forces are
2 Change in brace The modified K-
not high. Not surprisingly, the common failure mode for most of the configuration, double element model
specimens were found again to be the local plastic buckling in the K- noggings and extra screws. (K2)
elements to studs connections.
Having known the low ductility of the CFS systems with x-strap
bracing because of tension only behavior and the weak brace-stud
connections in other CFS systems, improving the seismic performance
of K-braced CFS shear panels through some connection modification
could be very appealing. Therefore, in this experimental study, a 3 Gusset plates at the K-element The model with
number of alternatives for the brace to nogging connections is explored to stud connections. gusset plates (K3)

to improve the structural performance of K-braced, CFS structural

systems without sheathings. In this regard, four CFS frame specimen
with different configurations were tested under cyclic loading and the
results are investigated.

2. The test plan

As already mentioned, the aim of current work is to investigate the
feasibility of improving the performance of the K-element CFS systems
(without sheathings) in terms of lateral strength and ductility by
modifying their K-element to stud connections. Therefore, an experi-
mental investigation on four 2.4 m × 2.4 m CFS frame systems is
carried out. The full scale tests are conducted base on the ASTM E
2126-07 [21] standard. According to this standard, the elastic shear
stiffness, shear strength and the ductility of the panels are determined
by subjecting the wall assemblies to full reversal cyclic shear loadings.
This is accomplished by anchoring the bottom edge of different wall
assemblies shown in Table 1 to a rigid base and applying a cyclic force
parallel to the top of the wall. The test assemblies are allowed to
displace in their own plane. As the wall assembly is pushed for specified
displacement increments, the shear load and displacements are con-
tinuously measured. The tests were conducted at the Road, Housing and
Urban Development Research Center (BHRC) strong floor facilities.
3. The test set-up, instrumentation and loading protocol
3.1. The test set-up and instrumentation
Fig. 1 illustrates the test set-up and instrumentation of CFS frames.
Each of the assembled specimens was installed on the rig between the
fixed support beam at the bottom and a rigid loading beam at the top.
Lateral supports were employed at both sides of the loading beam to
restrain the CFS frames against potential out-of-plane actions during the
test. Five M16 bolts with washers and nuts in each rigid beam were
used to ensure that there was no possibility of slip between the frame
tracks and the supporting beams. In-plane horizontal loading applied
through two 500 kN hydraulic jacks of ± 300 mm stroke. The applied
forces by the hydraulic jacks was controlled electronically through
using load cells between the hydraulic jacks and the supporting frames.
To measure the horizontal and vertical displacements, six horizontal
and four vertical transducers (LVDTs) were placed as shown in Fig. 1.
4 Gusset plates at connection The double stud
with double chord studs. model (K4)
The horizontal LVDTs were placed in pairs at the top, middle, and
bottom of CFS frame, and the vertical ones were placed at the four
corners of the frame. Furthermore, three transducers (two at top
corners and one in the middle) were used to check the probable out
of plane deformation of the CFS frame. All data from the transducers
and the load-cells were transferred to a data-logger.
3.2. Loading protocol
The method B of the ASTM E2126-07 standard [21], which was
originally developed for ISO (International Organization for Standardi-
zation) standard 16670, is considered for cyclic load test of the
prepared CFS shear walls specimens. Using this loading protocol,
sufficient data from the tests should be collected to adequately describe
the elastic and inelastic cyclic behavior of CFS shear walls and their
typical failure mode that is expected to occur under earthquake loading.
The loading schedule consists of a displacement pattern as illu-
strated in Fig. 2. In the current study, the loading regime consisted of
one full cycle with amplitudes of 0.75, 1.5, 3, 4.5, 6 mm followed by
three full cycles with amplitudes of 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, 84, 96 and
108 mm, unless failure or a significant decrease in the load resistance
occurs earlier. Also, the maximum allowable story drift ratio specified
by the standard FEMA450 is 2.5% (approximately 60 mm for the

57
O. Pourabdollah et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 56–68

Fig. 1. Schematic view of the experimental setup.

considered test specimens). It should be emphasized that the loading
shall follow the corresponding procedure until the applied load reduces
to 0.8 Ppeak that is, until the failure limit state occurs [21].
4. Description of the test specimens
Table 1 presents the configuration of the four 2.4 m by 2.4 m CFS
structural specimens. All of the frame elements, such as the top and
bottom tracks, nogging, studs and K-elements are made of an identical
89 × 41 × 0.95 mm C-section. Also, the mechanical properties of the
studs that are placed 600 mm apart, are shown in Fig. 3. It should be
noted that all the members have been produced by the Frame Cad
Software. This program allows the manufacturers to automatically
produce the frame by machine, once the structural layout plan is drawn.
All elements were connected together using the self-screw drilling
(ASTMD 2247) with shear and tensile strength capacity given in Table 2
[22].
Also four hold-downs shown in Fig. 4(a), were used at the four
corners of the wall in order to reduce the possibility of wall uplift and to
provide a proper load path from the braces to the wall chords and studs.
The shear strength capacity of the self-screw drilling No. 12 used in the
specimens is approximately 8.36 kN and 12 screws are used in each
hold-down to frame connections. The details of the connection between
the elements as well as the used screws are presented Fig. 4(b, c). In the
following, each of the test assemblies are briefly described.
4.1. The initial model (K1)
The initial model (K1) is a CFS frame with the configuration shown
Fig. 5. This model, also known as Australia/New Zealand CFS system

Fig. 2. The ASTM E2126-07 standard for cyclic displacement schedule (Method B) [21].

58
O. Pourabdollah et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 56–68

Fig. 3. The utilized C-section and its mechanical properties.

Table 2
Mechanical properties of the screws [22].

No. Diameter (mm) Shear strength (kN) Tensile strength (kN)

10 4.8 6.28 10
12 5.5 8.36 12.5

that is currently being produced by different manufacturers in Iran

using C sections, was tested to evaluate its performance in terms of
failure modes, local buckling, pulling out and cutting of self-drilling
screws.

4.2. The modified K-element model (K2)

The second specimen is a K-element configuration of the CFS frame Fig. 5. The braced, CFS frame specimen (K1).
with double noggings (by using screws No. 10, 20 cm apart) as shown in
Fig. 6. Also, one extra screw was used for each flange (only in the brace-
to-nogging connections), to prevent the tearing of the braces' flanges as

Fig. 4. The details of connections: (a) the hold-down detail; (b) member connections; (c) detail of screw.

59
O. Pourabdollah et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 56–68

Fig. 6. The modified K-element model (K2): (a) The modified configuration with double noggings; (b) extra screw used in the brace-nogging connection and (c) screws No. 10 that was
used 20 cm apart.

observed in previous experimental studies as well as the initial model

(K1), to increase its resistance against local buckling phenomena.

4.3. The model with gusset plates (K3)

In this model the gusset plates were used in K-element to studs

connections (single nogging) to enhance their performance by prevent-
ing the plastic buckling of the K-element flanges as shown in Fig. 7. This
type of improved connection could as well be used in other CFS
systems, e.g., with x-strap bracing, with/without sheathing. The thick-
ness of gusset plate (2 mm), and the number of screws used for gusset
plate connection was conservatively determined to ensure the rigidity
of the connection in this pilot study and can be optimized in a future
work.
Furthermore, an angle was added to the middle stud-nogging
connection to increase its rigidity as shown in (Fig. 7-c).

4.4. The double stud model (K4)

In this model, the side (chord) studs were doubled as shown in

Fig. 8. Also, the number of screws in the connection gusset plate was
reduced in half (which is the minimum permissible number of screws).

5. Interpretation of the results

The obtained results from the conducted tests with regard to the
failure modes, hysteretic behavior, ductility factor, and the energy
Fig. 8. The double stud model (K4) with double side studs and minimum number of
dissipation capacity for each specimen are presented in this section. The screws for the connection gusset plate.
observed failure modes of all the specimens are summarized in Table 3

Fig. 7. The model with gusset plate (K3): (a) The overall model; (b) the gusset plate used in brace connections and (c) the angle added to the middle, stud-single nogging connection.

60
O. Pourabdollah et al.
Table 3
Summary of failure modes.
Specimen Brace connection Brace element
Model 1 √
Model 2 √
Model 3 √
Model 4 √
and presented in Figs. 9–14. The corresponding hysteretic envelop
curves for all specimens are shown in Figs. 15 and 16. Finally,
comparisons are made among the test specimens to investigate their
performances.
5.1. The initial model (K1)
In general, the observed failure modes of the model K1 were similar
to those reported by Zeynalian et al. [20]. The common failure mode
was local buckling in the brace to nogging connections that was
followed by screw pull out and tearing of the brace flanges around
the hole as shown in Figs. 9 and 10. It was expected based on some
rough calculation as well as the AISI requirements presented in
Appendix A. The maximum shear resistance (3 kN) has been recorded
in the first cycle of test at a displacement 48 mm amplitude (a drift of
1.45%). Fig. 15-(a) shows the resulting hysteretic curves of the model
K1. After the full pull out of the screws; the brace elements still were
functioning through the cyclic compression behavior without having
any out of plane deflection before its connection failure. This behavior
can be attributed to placing the brace section on the nogging as shown
in Fig. 11. The connection pull out of screws did not happen in the two
lower K-brace elements owing to the confinement of the brace elements
Fig. 9. Failure modes of model K1: (a) Initiation of the local buckling, (b) Expansion of local buckling in brace elements; (c) The specimen after test.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 56–68
inside the nogging.
5.2. The modified K-element model (K2)
Chord stud
Based on the results of first test, some modifications have been made
to improve the lateral load carrying capacity of the CFS frame. Adding
√
one screw for each side of brace elements connections to eliminate the
pull out of the screws as well as the tearing around the holes are among
the changes made to the second CFS frame specimen as shown in
Fig. 12. Moreover, doubling the number of noggings is considered to
prevent the local buckling in the brace to nogging connections. That
would eliminate the weak cut part of K elements in the K–element to
nogging connections, leading to a considerable increase of shear
resistance of the CFS shear wall up to 50%. Furthermore, as
Fig. 15(b) indicates, the hysteresis behavior of this model shows no
appreciable change in shear resistance in comparison to the model K1,
with its peak shear resistance occurring in the first cycle of loading at a
displacement of 60 mm (a drift of 2.5%).
5.3. The model with gusset plates (K3)
Using gusset plate in the K-elements connections in model K3 as
expected, enhanced the lateral performance of the CFS shear wall
considerably. The shear strength of the wall topped 21 kN, which is
almost 7 times of the initial model (K1). The main reason behind this
improvement is switching the failure mode from the connections into
the failure of the members which is a desirable phenomenon (Fig. 13).
Also, the hysteretic behavior of this specimen shown in Fig. 15(c),
exhibits ideal behavior with very low pinching behavior in comparison
to the models 1, 2 and a similar study by Zeynalian et al. [20]. A
different failure mode that was observed in this test was the buckling of
chord stud shown in Fig. 13. The maximum shear resistance has been
recorded at a drift of 3%.
61
O. Pourabdollah et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 56–68

Fig. 10. The screws pull out in model K1: (a) The front view, (b) The back view.

Fig. 11. Failure mode in the brace-nogging connection in model K1.

Fig. 12. The connection failure in model K2: (a) The left side view, (b) The right side view.

5.4. The double stud model (K4)
Although the changes made in model K3 improved its performance
to a great extent, model K4 is prepared by doubling the chord studs to
eliminate the buckling of the side chords. Moreover, the number of
screws used in the connection gusset plate were reduced in half due to
its performance in 3rd test. The maximum shear strength of this
specimen is measured as 20 kN at a drift of 3.5%. This resistance is
approximately 6 times of the one for the initial model K1. Also, the
failure modes of the tested double stud model (K4) is shown in Fig. 14.
As the shear strength-drift curve shown in Fig. 15(d) indicates, test
model K4 like model K3 exhibits low pinching behavior in comparison

62
O. Pourabdollah et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 56–68

Fig. 13. The observed failure modes of the test model K3.

Fig. 14. The failure modes of double stud model K4.

to the models K1 and K2. Comparing the envelope curves of all test The equivalent energy elastic-plastic are measured according to ASTM
specimens shown in Table 4 and Fig. 16(a), one can conclude that using E2126-07 [21] as shown in Fig. 17(a).
gusset plates in models K3 and K4 of CFS shear walls can effectively As shown in Fig. 17-b, the Pyield can be determined using the
increase their ultimate shear resistance up to 7.3 and 6.9 times with following equation suggested by ASTM E2126-07 [21]:
respect to the initial model K1, respectively. As depicted in Fig. 16(b), ⎛ 2A ⎞
the initial stiffness of the model K3 is about 18 times of that for the Pyield = ⎜Δu − Δu 2 − ⎟ Ke
initial model K1. Moreover, the secant stiffnesses of models K3 and K4 at ⎝ Ke ⎠
drifts of %2 and %4 are around 8 and 5 times greater than the secant For ∆u 2 < 2A
, it is permitted to assume Pyield = 0.85 PPeak.
Ke
stiffness of the initial model K1, respectively. These results prove the
Where:
better seismic performance of models K3 and K4 in comparison to the
initial model K1.
Pyield = the yield load (N)
A = the area under the backbone curve up to the ultimate displacement
5.5. Ductility factor and dissipated energy
(Δu), (N·m)
PPeak = the maximum absolute load resisted by the test models within
In this part the equivalent energy elastic-plastic (EEEP) and
the given envelope, (N)
cumulative energy dissipation for different test models are calculated.

63
O. Pourabdollah et al.
Fig. 15. The Shear strength–drift curves for: (a) K1; (b) K2; (c) K3; (d) K4.
Δe = the displacement at 0.4 PPeak, (mm)
Ke = 0.4 PPeak/Δe
The EEEP energy listed in Table 5 are obtained from the bi-
linearized backbone curves of the hysteretic cycles as shown in
Fig. 17-a (the EEEP curves), while E is the cumulative energy dissipa-
tion calculated from summation of the area under each loop of
hysteresis at the maximum displacement (0.8 Ppeak). As an example,
the EEEP energy estimate for test model K3 is shown in Fig. 17-b that is
around 22.3 times larger than the EEEP for the initial specimen K1.
Also, the maximum ductility ratio, μR = 1.62 was found to be for test
model K3. On the other hand, in comparison to the initial model K1, the
ductility ratio μ is increased by 45% for test model K2. Cumulative
energy dissipation curves for all the specimens that are obtained from
the hysteretic load–deformations graphs are shown in Fig. 18.
The test models equipped with the gusset plates (K3 and K4)
dissipated larger amount of energy in comparison to the test models
K1 and K2. More specifically, at a drift of 3.5%, the energy dissipated by
the K3 and K4 models is 14 times larger than the one by the initial test
model K1. This is due to the dominant effect of using gusset plates in
connections that increases the demand on the k-member elements. In
spite of decreasing ductility factor with respect to the initial model K1,
their energy dissipation capabilities has increased.
5.6. Numerical evaluation of K-braced CFS system
In order to estimate the shear resistance of K-braced CFS shear panel
for practical simple engineering design, a numerical evaluation of this
64
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 56–68
system are employed using capacity design method and non-linear
modeling. Using AISI S100-07 standard [1], the capacity requirement of
the main elements are determined (presented in Appendix A), and were
compared to the capacity of the screws used in the tests. For brace
elements, AISC 341-10 [23] determines the tension capacity Tn and the
compression capacity Pn, as Tn = Ag Fy and Pn = 0.3 Pnc as presented in
Eqs. (A.1)–(A.4) and Fig. 19, respectively. Hence, the maximum shear
strength of the CFS shear wall can be calculated from the approximate
theoretical relation Pmax = (Tn + Pn) cos 64 to be equal to 24.3 kN.
The ratio of Pmax (determined from the above relation) to the
maximum shear load obtained from the test model K3 (with the largest
shear resistance of 21 kN) is equal to 1.15, indicating the efficiency of
the suggested connection upgrading in improving the shear resistance
capacity of the CFS structural systems. On the other hand, one could
observe that by using gusset plates in the connection zones of the test
model K3, brace elements experienced nonlinear behavior and reached
to its capacity. A simplified numerical model is developed according to
the material and section properties of the experimental tests, using
SAP2000 structural analysis program [24]. Having defined the plastic
hinges at the mid-length of the brace elements, nonlinear static analysis
is carried out for a target displacement corresponding to a drift of 4%.
As Fig. 20 shows, the first plastic hinge occurs at the brace element
under compression around a drift of 2.5%. The axial force at this step in
the brace element is determined to be 21.5 kN, which is very close to
the experimental data.
O. Pourabdollah et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 56–68

Fig. 16. (a) The backbone hysteretic curves for all test specimens; (b) Their secant stiffnesses.

6. Conclusion shear strength and ductility factor by 50% and 45%, respectively.
3. Using gusset plates (in test models K3 and K4) efficiently increases
Table 4 the elastic stiffness and ductility factor of the shear walls by up to
The Shear strength parameters for different test models. 4.23 and 1.62 times compared to K1, respectively.
4. Doubling the chord studs in test model K4 shows acceptable
Specimen Ppeak+ (kN) Ppeak− (kN) Pave (kN) PR⁎
behavior.
K1 3 2.8 2.9 1 5. The increase in the shear strength, lateral stiffness, ductility factor,
K2 4.6 4.6 4.6 1.6 and energy dissipation capabilities of the K3 and K4 test model in
K3 21 21.2 21.1 7.3
comparison to the initial model K1, as well as changing the brittle
K4 20 20 20 6.9
failure mode of connection to ductile failure at members clearly
⁎
PR is the ratio of Pave of the test models with respect to the Pave of the initial model K1. illustrates the weaknesses of the currently used connections in this
type of CFS shear walls.
6. The results obtained from the approximate analytical solution of a
simplified model, as well as the nonlinear static analysis of the finite
The main purpose of this experimental investigation was to improve element model for the K3 test model is in good agreement with that
the performance of CFS, K-braced systems for possible application in of the experimental test. Therefore, simplified numerical models of
building structures located in highly seismic regions. The following the improved K-braced CFS shear panels (K3 and K4) in which the
conclusions can be drawn from this study: failure modes switched from connections to brace elements, can be
safely used to estimate their shear resistance capacity.
1. As it is observed from the initial case, the main reasons for low shear 7. The improved performance of the K-braced CFS shear panels (K3 and
resistance of K-braced, CFS frame were local buckling, pulling out of K4) with modified connections shows that it can be considered for
screws and tearing of the connection hole. It was due to undesirable high seismic region.
brace to nogging connection.
2. Compared with the initial case, the test model K2 exhibits increased

Fig. 17. Determination of EEEP curve: (a) The ASTM E126-07 procedure [21]; (b) For the test model K3.

65
O. Pourabdollah et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 56–68

Table 5
Performance parameters of different test models.

Specimen Pyield (kN) Ke (kN/mm) Δyield (mm) Δu (mm) μ (Δu/Δyield) PyRa μRb EEEPc energy (kN·mm) E (kJ)

K1 2.56 0.17 15.67 33.42 2.13 1 1 65 0.82

K2 4.27 0.15 29.36 89.82 3.1 1.67 1.45 320.91 1.6
K3 18.87 0.72 26.2 90 3.44 7.31 1.62 1450.7 11.8
K4 18.25 0.4 45.22 101.63 2.25 7.13 1.1 1439.1 12.6

a
PyR is the ratio of Pyield specimen with respect to Pyield Initial specimen.
b
μR is the ratio of μspecimen with respect to μInitial specimen.
c
The average of EEEP values are presented.

Fig. 18. Cumulative hysteretic energy dissipation for all test models.

Fig. 19. A simplified load path for the test model K3.

66
O. Pourabdollah et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 56–68

Fig. 20. Nonlinear static analysis of the K3 model, before and after formation of the first hinge in the brace element.

Acknowledgments Saffar, as well as the efforts of the laboratory staff of the Road, Housing
and Urban Development Research Center (BHRC) in conducting the
The authors greatly appreciate the Hooshmandsazeh Co. for provid- tests is kindly acknowledged.
ing the specimens for tests. Also, the cooperation of M. Ghadiri and A.

Appendix A. Detailed design of the test specimens

A.1. Capacity of tension element

Tn = Ag Fy (A.1)
2
For Fy and Ag equal to 285 MPa and 172.9 mm , respectively, Tn = 49.2 kN.

A.2. Capacity of compression element

Pnc = A e Fn (A.2)

⎡ 0.877 ⎤ ⎛ Fy ⎞
⎜⎜λC = ⎟⎟
2
Fn = Fy (0.658λC ) , λC ≤ 1.5 , Fn = Fy ⎢ ⎥ , λC > 1.5 ,
⎣ λC 2 ⎦ ⎝ Fe ⎠

All the elements are considered as C-shape so:

Cb π 2E d Iyc П2E
Fe1 = ,Fe2 = ,Fe = min Fe1 , Fe2
Sf ( K y L y ) 2 KL 2
( r ) (A.3)
where: E = elasticity Modulus, d = section depth, Iyc = moment of inertia of compression portion of section about cenroidal axis of entire section
parallel to web, using full unreduced section, Ky = effective length factor for bending about y-axis, Ly = unbraced length of member for bending
about y-axis, Sf = elastic section modulus of full unreduced section relative to extreme compression fiber, and finally Cb shall be permitted to be
conservatively taken as unity for all cases. Using the effective length factor for concentrically loaded compression members K = 1 and the brace
element length L = 1294.24 mm leads to:
Fe = 189.96 MPa, λC = 1.23 < 1.5, Fn = 152 MPa

A.3. Calculation of effective width

As the standard requires, the effective width of all parts of the considered section should be calculated (i.e. web, flange and lip) (Fig. A.1).

Fig. A.1. Effective widths of stiffened elements.

Considering the critical stress as the following:

67
O. Pourabdollah et al.
π 2E ⎛ t ⎞2
Fcr = K ⎜ ⎟
12 (1 − μ ) ⎝ w ⎠
2
where: K = the plastic buckling coefficient determined from Table A.1, t = the thickness of uniformly compressed stiffened element, μ = the
Poisson's ratio, and w = flat width, the Fcr for different parts of the C sections can be computed as:
Table A.1
The plate buckling coefficients.
Case Boundary condition
A Compression
B Compression
C Compression
Web:
K = 4, W = 87.1 mm, Fcr = 72.68 MPa, l = , l = 1.5 > 0.67
Flange:
K = 4, W = 40 mm, Fcr = 344.62 MPa l = 0.664 < 0.673
Lip:
K = 0.43, W = 10 mm, Fcr = 592.76 MPa l = 0.51 < 0.673
So only the web effective width should be changed.
b = ρw, b = 0.56 × 87.1 = 48.7 mm, A e = 141.26 ≈ 141.3 mm2
From Eq. (A.2): Pnc = 21.47 kN
References
[1] AISI, S100-07, North American Specification for the Design of Cold-formed Steel St
Members, ed: American Iron and Steel Institute, 2007.
[2] AISI, S211-07, North American Specification for the Design of Cold-formed Steel
Structural Members-Wall Stud Design, ed. Washington, DC (2007).
[3] AISI, S213-07: North American Specification for the Design of Cold-formed Steel
Structural Members-Lateral Design, ed. Washington, DC (2007).
[4] AISI, S210-07, North American Specification for the Design of Cold-formed Steel
Structural Members-Floor and Roof System Design, ed. Washington, DC (2007).
[5] AS/NZS 4600:1996, Cold-formed steel structures, Australian/New Zealand
Standard, Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia, 1996.
[6] USACE, TI 809-07, Design of Cold-formed Loadbearing Steel Systems and Masonry
Veneer/Steel Stud Walls, ed. Washington, DC (1998).
[7] B. S. S. Council, FEMA450, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic
Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures Part 1: Provisions, National
Institute of Building Sciences, Washington DC, 2003.
[8] C. S. Association, North American Specification for the Design of Cold-formed Steel
Structural Members: American Iron and Steel Institute, (2002).
[9] H. Moghimi, H.R. Ronagh, Better connection details for strap-braced CFS stud walls
in seismic regions, Thin-Walled Struct. 47 (2009) 122–135.
[10] L. Fülöp, D. Dubina, Performance of wall-stud cold-formed shear panels under
monotonic and cyclic loading: part I: experimental research, Thin-Walled Struct. 42
(2004) 321–338.
[11] Y. Tian, J. Wang, T. Lu, Racking strength and stiffness of cold-formed steel wall
frames, J. Constr. Steel Res. 60 (2004) 1069–1093.
[12] T.-W. Kim, J. Wilcoski, D.A. Foutch, M.S. Lee, Shaketable tests of a cold-formed
steel shear panel, Eng. Struct. 28 (2006) 1462–1470.
68
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 56–68
(A.4)
Stress type K for long plates
4
6.97
0.425
[13] M. Al-Kharat, C. Rogers, Inelastic performance of cold-formed steel strap braced
walls, J. Constr. Steel Res. 63 (2007) 460–474.
[14] R. Serrette, K. Ogunfunmi, Shear resistance of gypsum-sheathed light-gauge steel
stud walls, J. Struct. Eng. 122 (1996) 383–389.
[15] J.W. Berman, O.C. Celik, M. Bruneau, Comparing hysteretic behavior of light-gauge
steel plate shear walls and braced frames, Eng. Struct. 27 (2005) 475–485.
[16] I. Shamim, J. DaBreo, C.A. Rogers, Dynamic testing of single-and double-story steel-
sheathed cold-formed steel-framed shear walls, J. Struct. Eng. 139 (2013) 807–817.
[17] S. Mohebbi, R. Mirghaderi, F. Farahbod, A.B. Sabbagh, Experimental work on single
and double-sided steel sheathed cold-formed steel shear walls for seismic actions,
Thin-Walled Struct. 91 (2015) 50–62.
[18] M. Zeynalian, H. Ronagh, An experimental investigation on the lateral behavior of
knee-braced cold-formed steel shear walls, Thin-Walled Struct. 51 (2012) 64–75.
[19] M. Zeynalian Dastjerdi, H. Ronagh, Performance of K-braced cold-formed steel
shear walls subjected to lateral cyclic loading, 4th International Conference on
Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation (SEMC2010), 2010, pp.
607–610.
[20] M. Zeynalian, H. Ronagh, S. Hatami, Seismic characteristics of K-braced cold-
formed steel shear walls, J. Constr. Steel Res. 77 (2012) 23–31.
[21] ASTM E2126-07, Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed) Load Test for Shear
Resistance of Walls for Buildings, ed. USA (2007).
[22] Professional Active Trustworthy Typical Ambitious Company. (PATTA. Co.), http://
www.patta.com/#/faq/category-258/1524.
[23] A. ANSI, AISC 341-10, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL, 2010.
[24] Sap2000, Version 16: Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design,
Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, CA, 2013.