Journal of Constructional Steel Research 178 (2021) 106488

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Experimental investigation of shear resistance of cold-formed steel

framed sheathed walls
Yunpeng Xu a,b, Xuhong Zhou a,b, Yu Shi a,b,⁎, Yuxuan Zou c, Yi Xiang a,b, Lei Xu a,d
a
School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China
b
Key Laboratory of New Technology for Construction of Cities in Mountain Area (Chongqing University), Ministry of Education, Chongqing 400045, China
c
College of Civil Engineering, Chang'an University, Xi'an, Shannxi 710061, China
d
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada

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

Article history: Through an experimental investigation of the lateral resistance of seven full-scale cold-formed steel (CFS) framed
Received 24 July 2020 sheathed walls under monotonic loading and reversed-cyclic loading, the mechanical properties, failure modes,
Received in revised form 6 December 2020 and seismic performance of the walls are elucidated. The influence of loading mode, vertical load and sheathing
Accepted 8 December 2020
material on the shear bearing capacity and hysteresis performance dissipation of the walls are analyzed. The
Available online 30 December 2020
results show that the shear bearing capacity of the single-sided 12-mm-thick gypsum panel CFS wall is about
Keywords:
34%—37% that of the single-sided 9-mm-thick oriented strand board panel CFS wall, and the shear bearing capac-
Cold-formed steel framed sheathed wall ity of the double panel CFS wall is nearly equal to the sum of the two kinds of single-sided panel CFS wall. The
Seismic performance mode of loading has a significant influence. The shear resistance of the CFS wall under monotonic loading is
Experimental research 5%–20% higher than that of the CFS wall under the reversed-cyclic load. The application of the vertical load im-
proves the stiffness and the shear bearing capacity of the CFS wall, but the ductility coefficient is slightly
decreased.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of CFS shear walls, numerous experimental studies have been

In recent years, green prefabricated buildings have been strongly
promoted. Cold-formed steel (CFS) structures have become increasingly
popular for low-rise and mid-rise residential and commercial buildings
due to their light weight, high strength-to-weight ratio, non-
combustibility, quick construction process, and lower installation labor
requirement [1].
Common uses of CFS structures include nonstructural partitions and
ceilings, exterior curtain wall and facade support, and complete
load-bearing structures, including lateral force-resisting systems
(LFRS). In residential CFS structures, CFS shear walls combined with
horizontal diaphragms are one of the most commonly used lateral
force resisting system (LFRS). CFS shear walls, which consist of sheath-
ing panels, studs, and tracks, are the primary load-carrying members of
the LFRS against horizontal loads, e.g., wind and earthquake [2]. Recent
advances in the understanding of CFS framing and ongoing research
related to the design of seismic force-resisting systems (SFRS) are ex-
pected to expand the use of cold-formed steel framing into more com-
plex, robust structural systems. Because of the complex configuration
⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University,
Chongqing 400045, China.
E-mail address: shiyucivil@cqu.edu.cn (Y. Shi).
conducted to determine their shear performance; these studies have in-
dicated that the shear resistance of CFS shear walls is associated with
many factors, such as stud and sheathing materials, screw spacing, as-
pect ratio, and stud spacing. Because of the complex configuration of
CFS walls, numerous experimental studies have been conducted to de-
termine their shear performance. These studies have shown that
many factors are involved in the shear resistance of CFS walls, such as
stud and sheathing materials, screw spacing, aspect ratio, and stud
spacing.
Many studies have investigated the influence of the sheathing mate-
rial. Serrette et al. [3] and Fülöp et al. [4] explored the characteristics of
CFS walls with different panels and verified that the panels enhanced
the performance of the CFS walls. Boudreault, Branston, and Chen
[5–7] investigated the performance characteristics of various light
gauge steel frame/wood panel shear walls under monotonic and re-
versed cyclic loading, and developed a design method based on an effec-
tive analytical model. Telue et al. [8,9] and Macillo et al. [10] studied the
seismic performance of CFS walls sheathed with gypsum board and
compared the results with design code predictions. Lu [11] evaluated
the performance of combined strap-braced and gypsum-sheathed CFS
wall systems, with the intent of defining a corresponding design ap-
proach. Blais [12] carried out monotonic and reversed cyclic tests on
steel frame/wood panel shear walls and employed the equivalent

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106488
0143-974X/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Xu, X. Zhou, Y. Shi et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 178 (2021) 106488

energy elastic-plastic (EEEP) analysis approach to derive design values 2. Design of the specimens
from the test results. Liu et al. [13] investigated the hysteresis properties
of CFS walls with oriented strand board (OSB) panels and developed 2.1. Configuration of the specimens
more accurate relationships between the construction details and the
shear capacity of the CFS walls. CFS walls with steel sheet sheathing The specimen ensemble consisted of seven full-scale cold-formed
also serve as a practical lateral force resistance system in buildings, steel framed sheathed walls, which were divided into three groups
which was shown in studies by Yu et al. [14], Shamim et al. [15], Tian based on the sheathing material. Each group included specimens
et al. [16], and Feng et al. [17]. Zhang et al. [18–20] showed that CFS under monotonic load or reversed-cyclic load. The third group also in-
walls using corrugated steel sheathing had better shear resistance cluded specimens under a vertical load. The specimen numbers and
than those with ordinary steel sheet sheathing. In addition to these test parameters are listed in Table 1.
common sheathing materials, some newer types, such as calcium sili- The size of the CFS walls was 3 m × 2.4 m. The studs were composed
cate board (CSB), Bolivian magnesium board (BMG), lightweight mor- of C-section CFS members (C89 × 44.5 × 12 × 1.0 mm) spaced at
tar, fiber cement board (FCB), and particle cement board (PCB) 600 mm. The upper and lower tracks were U-section CFS members
[21–25] are also available. (U92 × 40 × 1.0 mm). The end studs were composed of two C-section
In addition to the sheathing material, many other factors influencing CFS members and assembled into I-section studs by a double-row of
the shear resistance have been investigated. Pan et al. [26] conducted ST4.8 screws. The thickness of the gypsum (GYP) panel and the OSB
experimental studies on the influence of stud type and stud spacing panel was 12 mm and 9 mm, respectively. The gypsum panel and the
on CFS walls. Yu [14], Landolfo et al. [27], and Shakibanasab et al. [28] OSB panel were connected to the steel skeleton by ST4232 and
showed that the degree of influence of the aspect ratio depended on ST4819 screws [41,42], respectively. The self-tapping screws were
the value of the ratio. The effect of the loading mode was studied by spaced at 150 mm around the perimeter and 300 mm throughout the
Lin et al. [21], Balh et al. [29], and Nithyadharan et al. [30]. Nithyadharan center area of the panels. The four corners of the wall were constrained
et al. [30], Henriques et al. [31], and Selvaraj et al. [32] confirmed that by M16 high-strength bolts and hold-down components, while the
the sheathing type governed the behavior of the CFS walls, and the fail- upper track and the lower track were constrained to the loading device
ure of the screw connections was ultimately reflected in the bearing fail- by M12 bolts. Because the OSB board was only 2440 mm long, a steel flat
ure of the wallboards. Hikita and Debreo [33,34] evaluated the strap (50 mm wide and 1.0 mm thick) facilitated the connection of the
performance of CFS frame/steel sheathed shear walls under combined wallboard 560 mm from the bottom of the wall. Detailed dimensions of
gravity and lateral loading, and indicated that the additional gravity the wall are provided in Fig. 1.
loads under normal condition do not affect the lateral behavior of a
steel frame/steel sheathed shear wall. 2.2. Material properties
In addition to ordinary CFS walls consisting only of studs, panels, and
tracks, many new types of CFS walls have been invented and studied, The material properties of the S320GD + Z steel [43] were deter-
such as CFS center-sheathed shear walls, CFS strap-braced walls, and mined in accordance with the GB/T228.1–2010 standard [44] by analyz-
CFS trussed shear walls, which have shown enhanced shear resistance ing the plate specimens. The measurement results for the S320GD + Z
and ductility [35–38]. Experimental results have shown that these steel are listed in Table 2 and the material properties of the OSB panel
types of CFS walls also exhibit improved strength. and the gypsum panel are listed in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
Although there have been many experimental studies on the lateral
resistance of CFS walls, and several factors have been investigated, few 2.3. Test setup
tests have been conducted on CFS walls designed and studied in accor-
dance with common dimensions and standards in china. To popularize The test loading device is shown in Fig. 2. For the walls without ver-
the application of the CFS structures in China, it is necessary to carry tical load, the jack and vertical load distribution beam in Fig. 2 were re-
out the wall design and test according to the Chinese standard, includ- moved, but the rest of the device was the same. At the four corners of
ing material property, component size, wall aspect ratio, experimental the top and bottom of the wall specimen, the wall and the top and bot-
method and so on. tom beams of the loading device were connected with M16 bolts, in
Therefore, in accordance with Chinese standards, JGJ 227-2011 [39] which 16-mm-thick pad bearings were arranged to transfer the vertical
and JGJ/T 421-2018 [40], CFS walls of the aspect ratio of 1.25:1 with dif- load to each wall stud. In addition, the wall specimen was fastened to
ferent panels were designed and tested in different loading condition. the slots in the top and bottom beams of the loading device by M12
This study investigated the lateral resistance of these walls and com- bolts spaced at 600 mm. The horizontal actuator was connected to the
pared the shear bearing capacity with the design values in JGJ/T
421–2018 [40]. First, seven full-scale CFS walls with different panels
were designed and tested under either monotonic loading or Table 1
reversed-cyclic loading, and one of the walls was simultaneously Specimen number and test parameters.
subjected to reversed-cyclic loading and placed under a vertical load.
Grouping Specimen Specimen parameters Loading mode
The test results and details about the specimens, test device, and loading number
modes are presented in this paper. The yield load and corresponding Horizontal load Vertical
load
displacement, load-displacement relationships, shear bearing
capacity, lateral stiffness, and ductility of the walls were obtained by First group BX-1 3 m × 2.4 m (Single- Monotonic load 0
BX-2 sided gypsum panel) Reversed-cyclic 0
processing the test data. The influences of the loading mode, sheathing
load
material and vertical load on the lateral resistance of the CFS framed Second BX-3 3 m × 2.4 m (Single- Monotonic load 0
sheathed walls were determined. The shear bearing capacity of the group BX-4 sided OSB panel) Reversed-cyclic 0
wall specimen was compared with the design values in JGJ/T load
421-2018 [40]. The test results and conclusions can be applied to the de- Third group BX-5 3 m × 2.4 m (GYP Monotonic load 0
BX-6 panel + OSB panel) Reversed-cyclic 0
sign of CFS framed sheathed walls and promote the application of CFS
BX-7 load 80kN
structures in China.

2
Y. Xu, X. Zhou, Y. Shi et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 178 (2021) 106488

25125 150×6 135 135 150×6 125 25 25125 150×6 135 135 150×6 125 25
15 15 15 15

130 20

130 20
130

130
d d
a a
e h

c c
b b

2440
150×18

150×18
300×9

300×9
3000

10 10
1515
560

130
130

20 130
d
20 130

600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600

g f g f

e h
1200 1200 1200 1200
2400 2400

a Specimen BX1~BX2 b) Specimen BX3~BX4

Fig. 1. Dimension of CFS walls.

top loading beam. On the lateral side of the top loading beam, lateral
supports were arranged to provide a lateral restraint force and prevent
loss of out-of-plane stability.
Following the requirements for shear tests of cold-formed
thin-walled steel walls set out in Standard JGJ 227-2011 [39], the mea-
surement points were arranged as shown in Fig. 3. Nine displacement
sensors were arranged to measure the displacements of the wall speci-
mens and the loading device (Fig. 3). Sensor D1 was used to measure
the displacement of the top loading beam, sensor D2 measured the rel-
ative horizontal displacement between the wall specimen and the top
loading beam, and sensors D3 and D4 measured the relative horizontal
slipping displacement between the wall specimen and the bottom load-
ing beam. Sensors D5 and D6 were used to measure the relative vertical
displacement between the wall and the bottom loading beam. Sensors
D7 and D8 measured the relative vertical displacement between the
bottom loading beam and the ground. Sensor D9 measured the lateral
displacement of the panel.
In Fig. 3, the vertical distance from sensor D2 to sensor D1 was
100 mm. B and C represent the horizontal distances from sensors D5
and D6 to the lateral surface of the end studs of the wall, which were
set as 30 mm.
2.4. Loading procedure
The tests were conducted using the load control method under the
monotonic load or the load-displacement control method under the
reversed-cyclic load. The load protocol was based on JGJ 227-2011
[39] and JGJ/T 101-2015 [45].
The specimens under the monotonic load were loaded with a load
increment per stage of 1kN until the specimen was destroyed. The dura-
tion of each loading stage was about 3 min. The 7 V08 data acquisition
system collected and recorded the load and displacement of each
measuring point.
For the specimens under the reversed-cyclic load, the horizontal
loading process was based on the results of the monotonic loading
test, which approximated the yield load Py for the specimens under
reversed-cyclic loading. The specimen was loaded to the yield period
by controlling 3–5 loading steps and was cycled once per stage. After
yielding, the specimen was loaded with a displacement increment per
stage of Δy and was cycled three times until the specimen was
destroyed, as shown Fig. 4. For specimen BX-7, a vertical load of 80 kN
was simultaneously applied through the vertical actuator and kept
constant.
3. Test observations
3.1. First specimen group
The first group of specimens was composed of single-sided gypsum
panel CFS walls. The structures of specimens BX1, to which monotonic
loading was applied, and BX2, to which reversed-cyclic loading was
applied, were identical, except for the loading patterns, as shown in
Fig. 5(a). Only slight differences were found between the failure charac-
teristics of the two specimens.
For specimen BX1, when the horizontal load was very small, relative
rotation occurred between the two gypsum panels. When the horizon-
tal load reached 3 kN, the vertical dislocation at the middle seam of the
two gypsum panels was about 3 mm, and some screws were wedged
into the gypsum panel and inclined.
At a load of 8 kN, the CFS wall entered the yield stage, and the verti-
cal dislocation at the middle seam of the two gypsum panels was about
6 mm. Local buckling occurred at the lower part of the wall stud on the

3
Y. Xu, X. Zhou, Y. Shi et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 178 (2021) 106488

25125 150×6 135 135 150×6 125 25 25125 150×6 135 135 150×6 125 25
15 15 15 15

130 20

130 20
130

130
d d
a a
h e

c c
b b
2440
150×18

150×18
300×9

300×9
3000
i

10 10
1515
560

130

130
20 130

20 130
d d

600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600

g f e

h
1200 1200
2400

c Specimen BX5~BX7
a. Hold-down b. ST4.8 screws c. Studs d. Tracks e. 12-mm-thick gypsum panel

f. M12 bolts g.M16 bolts h. 9mm-thick OSB panel i. Steel flat strap

1 22
24 24
20

φ8
50

10
23 × 11 = 230

φ16
300

35 fillet weld
10

2 2
250

groove weld
23 23

65
55

29

groove weld
20 30

8 54 8
20

70
70 55 10
1 1-1 2-2

d Dimension of hold-down components

Fig. 1 (continued).

Table 2
Material property test results of steel.

Nominal size (mm) Yield strength Tensile strength Elongation Weight of zinc coat
fy / MPa fu / MPa (%) g/m2

Test value Average Test value Average Test value Average

200 × 10 × 1.0 317 320 372.6 379 32 34 120

315 376.0 36
328 388.3 34

4
Y. Xu, X. Zhou, Y. Shi et al.
Table 3
Physical properties of 9-mm-thick OSB panel.
Index Unit 9-mm-thick OSB panel
Static bending strength [parallel/vertical] MPa 22/11 or 22/7.86
Bending elasticity modulus [parallel/vertical] MPa 3500/1400
Table 4
Physical properties of 12-mm-thick gypsum panel.
Index Unit 12-mm-thick gypsum panel
Weight per unit area kg/m2 ≤12
Breaking strength(vertical/horizontal) N (≥600)/(≥180)
Supports spacing at 480 mm
Pin-in strength MPa 2.0
compression side and the flange at the end of the bottom beam. The rel-
ative rotation of the two gypsum panels became obvious as the load
increased.
When the horizontal load reached the maximum value (9.12 kN),
the vertical dislocation at the middle seam of the two gypsum panels
was about 17 mm. Severe shear extrusion deformation occurred at the
connection between the self-tapping screws and the gypsum panel,
and the self-tapping screws around the perimeter of the wall were
wedged deeply into the gypsum panel, as shown in Fig. 5(b).
Then the load began to decrease, but the deformation continued to
increase and the screws around the perimeter of the wall gradually
fell off and failed. But the gypsum panel did not fall because there was
less damage to the screws in the central area of the gypsum panel, as
shown in Fig. 5(f).
For specimen BX-2, the test observations and failure modes were
essentially the same as those for specimen BX-1. However, under the
reversed-cyclic loading, the part of the wall with the screw holes
suffered cumulative and more expansive damage; debris fell from the
gypsum panel and the screw holes rapidly expanded. Especially at the
later loading stage controlled by displacement, the wall exhibited “no-
load slip” due to the expansion damage from the screw holes at the
perimeter and corners of the wall.
In addition, when the horizontal load reached the maximum value,
the flange of the lower track showed alternate buckling under the ac-
tions of pushing and pulling, as shown in Fig. 5(c). When the wall was
finally destroyed, almost all the screws around the perimeter and at
the corners of the wall were pulled off (Fig. 5(d)-(e)), but the gypsum
panel did not fall because there was less damage to the screws in the
central area of the gypsum panel, as shown in Fig. 5(f).
3.2. Second specimen group
The second group of specimens was composed of single-sided OSB
panel CFS walls. The structures of specimens BX3, to which monotonic
loading was applied, and BX4, to which reversed-cyclic loading was
applied, were identical, except for the loading patterns, as shown in
Fig. 6(a). Only slight differences were found between the failure charac-
teristics of the two specimens.
When the horizontal load reached 4 kN, the screws at the bottom of
the wall began to become slightly embedded into the OSB panel. When
loaded to 6 kN, some of the screws inclined. The relative dislocation at
the horizontal seam of the OSB panels was about 2 mm, and the wall
began to produce a slight sound, which gradually became more signifi-
cant with the increase of the load. When the load reached 9 kN, the
flange of the stud at the tension side showed inward contraction and
local buckling (Fig. 6(b)). At a load of 20 kN, the cracking sound pro-
duced by the wall was louder, and the steel flat strap at the horizontal
5
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 178 (2021) 106488
seam of the OSB panel began to deform under the shear force
(Fig. 6(c)). The relative dislocation at the horizontal seam of the OSB
panels was about 4 mm.
When the load reached 26kN, the flange of the bottom track on the
tension side generated local buckling, as shown in Fig. 6(d). As the
load increased, the lateral displacement increased, and the middle
stud generated slight torsion due to constraint by the single-sided OSB
panel. When the load reached the maximum value (26.8 kN), the corre-
sponding lateral displacement at the top of the wall was about 51 mm.
The relative horizontal and vertical dislocations of the OSB panel seam
were approximately 11 mm and 22 mm, respectively, as shown in
Fig. 6(e). The four OSB panels generated significant relative rotation
and most of the screw connections at the perimeter and corners of the
wall failed. The upper and lower ends of the studs on the compression
side showed local buckling. Then the load decreased quickly and the
specimen was destroyed.
For specimen BX-4, the test observations and failure modes were ba-
sically the same as those for specimen BX-3. However, under reversed-
cyclic loading, the part of the wall of specimen BX-4 with the screw
holes had cumulative and more expansion damage. When approaching
the yield load, the members of the wall made noises due to the deforma-
tion, and the relative rotation of the four OSB panels, as well as the screw
deformation at the perimeter and corners of the wall became more ob-
vious. Because the OSB panel was tougher than the gypsum panel, the
overall deformation of the wall was not as serious as that of the
single-sided gypsum panel wall. The steel flat strap at the horizontal
seam of the OSB panel generated serious buckling due to shear force
(Fig. 6(f)) and the middle stud restrained by the single-sided OSB
panel generated slight torsion. When the wall was finally destroyed, al-
most all the screws at the perimeter and corners of the wall were pulled
off, but the OSB panel did not fall because there was less damage to the
screws in the central area of the OSB panel.
3.3. Third specimen group
The third group of specimens was composed of double panel
(GYP + OSB) CFS walls. The structures of specimens BX5 to which
monotonic loading was applied, BX6, to which reversed-cyclic loading
was applied, and BX-7, which was simultaneously subjected to both
reversed-cyclic loading and vertical loading, were identical, except for
the loading patterns.
For specimen BX-5, when loaded to 3 kN, the wall started to click.
When the load reached 8 kN, the slippage at the horizontal seam of
the OSB panel was 2 mm. At a load of 10 kN, the shear slippage of the
screws between the gypsum panel and the lower part of the stud was
1 mm.
At a load of 16 kN, the screws inclined and wedged into the gypsum
panel. When the load reached about 24 kN, the specimen entered the
yield stage and the lateral displacement of the wall reached 25 mm.
As the load increased, this became more significant.
When the load reached 31 kN, the lower flange of the stud on the
compression side showed local buckling, and the gypsum panel broke
away from the stud.
When the load reached 32 kN, the corresponding displacement was
65 mm, and the screw connection at the lower part of the gypsum panel
was severely damaged (Fig. 7(a)). The vertical dislocation at the seam of
the gypsum panel was 10 mm. The OSB panel was squeezed and pro-
truded at the vertical seam.
When the wall finally broke down, the hold-down component at the
bottom of the wall was damaged, the bolt bar of the hold-down compo-
nent on the tension side inclined, and the pad bearing under the end
stud on the compression side was damaged by extrusion (Fig. 7(b)).
The screws between the end stud and the panel leaned at about 30
degrees.
Specimens BX-6 and BX-7 exhibited test behavior similar to that of
specimen BX-5. However, the part of the gypsum panel wall and the
Y. Xu, X. Zhou, Y. Shi et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 178 (2021) 106488

1200 1200
6
Lateral
support
8 9
6 1

5 16-mm-thick
pad bearing
5
600 1200 600 4
3
2 2
3

1 16-mm-thick
pad bearing

7 1-1
1

1. Opposite force wall; 2. Opposite force frame; 3. Specimen; 4. Actuator; 5. Loading beam;
6. Dispensing beam; 7. Base frame; 8. Sliding track; 9. Jack and pinion rack

(a) Overall structure of testing device

End plate
2 14a M12
-210×200×16

20
6 14a
130 140
pad bearing
6 -88×90×16
pad bearing
-88×90×16
68 68
300 300 600 600 300 300
16 16

(b) Detail structure of top loading beam

pad bearing
-88×90×16
pad bearing 2 28a
14a M16 M12 -88×90×16 14a
58

-75×200×6
280

@500
2 28a

800 300 600 600 600 300 800

57.557.5
2400
119.5 119.5

(c) Detail structure of bottom loading beam

Fig. 2. Test loading device.

OSB panel wall with the screw holes had cumulative and more expan-
sion damage under the reversed-cyclic load. For specimen BX-6, when
the horizontal load reached its maximum, the OSB panel was damaged
at the middle seam by extrusion (Fig. 8(a)), and wood chips fell off.
When the wall finally failed, the panels on both sides of the wall broke
away from the studs (Fig. 8(b)), and the OSB panel was severely dam-
aged. Due to the vertical load applied to specimen BX-7, the gypsum
panel was severely damaged by extrusion (Fig. 8(c)), and severe plastic
deformation occurred at the studs and the flange of the lower track, as
shown in Fig. 8(d).
3.4. Summary of experimental phenomena
For the single-sided gypsum panel CFS walls, as gypsum is typically a
brittle material, the strength and toughness of the gypsum panel was
very low. So when the load was little, the gypsum panel of the specimen
began to break at the screw connections. Especially under the action of
reverse load, the gypsum panel had worse damage at the connection of
the screws around the perimeter and the corners of the wall. The shear
bearing capacity and stiffness of the wall were significantly weakened.
In the late loading stage, the screw holes expanded rapidly due to

6
Y. Xu, X. Zhou, Y. Shi et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 178 (2021) 106488

1
D1 actuator
P
D1

100
D2 D2

srain gauge srain gauge D9

D9
B C D5, D6
D7, D8
D5 D6 D3
D7 D8

100
D3
D4 D4

1
1-1

Fig. 3. Arrangement of displacement sensors.

6 6 The vertical force had a certain influence on the shear strength and
5 y 5 stiffness of the wall. The stiffness before yield and the maximum
y horizontal shear strength of the specimen slightly increased. However,
4 4
y when the load reached the maximum, the stud soon failed and the abil-
3 3 ity of the specimen to resist deformation was significantly decreased.
y
2 Py 2 The expected failure mode of the wall was screw failure, but the occur-
y
1 1 rence of the end stud failure reduced the ultimate bearing capacity of
y
P/ Py

0 0 the wall. Thus, the end studs should be strengthened in future study
/

to avoid premature buckling of end studs.

-1 -1
-2 -2 4. Test results and analysis
-3 -3
-4 -4 4.1. Load-displacement curve
-5 -5
The whole lateral displacement, δ0, at the top of the wall measured
-6 -6 during the tests consists of three parts: δφ is the lateral displacement
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
of the top of the wall when the wall undergoes rotation caused by the
Number of loading cycles extension of the anchor bolts, δl is the relative sliding displacement be-
tween the wall and the pedestal, and δ is the actual shear deformation of
Fig. 4. Loading protocol. the wall (Fig. 9).
Thus, the actual lateral displacement at the top of the wall, which is
the shear deformation (Δ), can be expressed with Eq. (1).
repeated crush damage, resulting in the “no-load slipping” phenome-
non. The recovery force of the unloading section was almost zero.
Δ ¼ δ ¼ δ0 −δl −δφ ð1Þ
For the single-sided OSB panel CFS walls, the damage to the screw
holes and panels was much less than that of the gypsum panel CFS
walls, and the ultimate bearing capacity was larger, as the OSB where
panel had greater toughness and strength. But the shear bearing ca- δ0 is the actual lateral displacement of the top of the wall considering
pacity and stiffness of the OSB panel CFS walls was affected by the  
HD2
the height reduction:: δ0 ¼ 12 H−100 þ D1 where D1 is the actual dis-
horizontal seams of the OSB panel. Although a steel flat strap was ar-
ranged at the horizontal seam of the OSB panel, in the later stage of placement of the horizontal actuator, and 100 mm represents the verti-
loading, it could not resist shear deformation and buckled due to its cal distance from sensor D2 to sensor D1.
limited stiffness. The relative dislocation of the OSB panel at the hor- δl is the relative sliding displacement between the wall and the ped-
izontal seam was large, which reduced the lateral stiffness of estal, which is the difference between the data recorded by sensors D3
the wall. and D4: δl = (D3 − D4).
For the double panel (GYP + OSB) CFS walls (third group), the fail- δφ is the displacement of the top of the wall caused by the wall rota-
ure characteristics of the gypsum panel and the OSB panel were basi- tion: δφ ¼ LþBþC
H
⋅δα , δα = (D6 − D8) − (D5 − D7), where L is the length
cally the same as those of the corresponding single-sided panel CFS of the wall, and B and C represent the distances from sensors D3 and D4
walls. Double panel CFS walls had good integrity, high strength and stiff- to the top of the lateral side of the wall (B = C = 100 mm), as shown in
ness. The failure mode of the wall was screw failure. Fig. 10.

7
Y. Xu, X. Zhou, Y. Shi et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 178 (2021) 106488

a Single-sided gypsum panel b Screw head wedged in to gypsum panel; dislocation at the

CFS wall panel seam; failure of screws at the corner

c Buckling of the lower track at both d Failure of screws and separation of

sides of the wall panels and studs

e Failure of screws at the bottom of f The gypsum panel remained integral

gypsum panel after the test

Fig. 5. Failure mode of single-sided gypsum panel CFS walls.

8
Y. Xu, X. Zhou, Y. Shi et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 178 (2021) 106488

a Single-sided OSB panel b Local buckling of c Deformation of the steel

CFS wall the side stud flat strap

d Local buckling of the flange of e Relative dislocation at the f Shear deformation of the steel

the track seam of the OSB panels flat strap

Fig. 6. Failure mode of single-sided OSB panel CFS walls.

a Failure of the screws b Failure of the hold-down component and pad bearing

Fig. 7. Failure mode of specimen BX-5.

9
Y. Xu, X. Zhou, Y. Shi et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 178 (2021) 106488

a Damage of the OSB panel b Final failure characteristics of the

by extrusion specimen BX-6

c Severe damage of the d Failure of the studs under compression

gypsum panel of specimen BX-7

Fig. 8. Failure mode of specimens BX-6 and BX-7.

The actual shear deformation of the wall is as follows: According to Eq. (2), the actual lateral displacement of all speci-
  mens can be obtained. The load-displacement curves and hysteretic
1 HD2 curve for the walls are presented in Fig. 11. The skeleton curve for
Δ¼δ¼ þ D1 −ðD3 −D4 Þ−
2 H−100 the specimen is the envelope formed by connecting all the peak points
ð2Þ
H of the hysteretic curve (connecting the peak points of the hysteretic
X ½ðD6 −D8 Þ−ðD5 −D7 Þ
LþBþC curve in the first cycle of the three cyclic groups), which is shown in
Fig. 12.
It can be seen from Fig. 11 that the shape of the hysteretic curves of
δ δ0 δl δφ all the CFS walls was roughly similar.
For the single-sided gypsum panel CFS wall, the hysteresis curve was
full and fusiform at the beginning of the test and almost no wall slipping
occurred. As the load increased, the slipping increased, and the hystere-
sis loop became arched. At the same load level, the hysteresis loop shape
of each cycle was similar. In the process of horizontal pushing and
pulling, the specimen exhibited “no-load slipping” behavior. Although
Actual shear The measured Slip Rotational the unloading stiffness was relatively large, there was residual
unloading deformation. As the load and the cycle times increased, the
deformation displacement displacement displacement stiffness of the wall gradually decreased. At the end of the test, the stiff-
ness degradation of the wall was intensified, the bearing capacity was
Fig. 9. Shear–displacement model of CFS walls. significantly reduced, the slipping of the wall increased, and the

10
Y. Xu, X. Zhou, Y. Shi et al.
δφ
H
α
δα
α
L+B+C
Fig. 10. Calculation of the rotational displacement.
horizontal segment of the hysteresis loop became longer. The hysteretic
loop was z-shaped and the energy dissipation capacity of the wall was
very low at this time.
For the single-sided OSB panel CFS wall, the hysteresis curve was
fusiform at the beginning of the test. As the load increased, the
slipping increased, and the hysteresis loop became arched. When the
loading process was controlled by displacement, the damage and
expansion of the screw holes at the perimeter and corners of the
wall increased due to repeated extrusion, which was similar to the
CFS wall with single-sided gypsum panel, but it was not as serious.
The peak load of each load stage was much higher than the peak
load of each load stage of the single-sided gypsum panel CFS wall.
The curve of the unloading stage had an obvious slope, and the wall
had a certain restoring force.
For the double panel (GYP + OSB) CFS walls, the hysteresis curves of
specimen BX-6 and BX-7 were similar. At the beginning of the test, the
wall generated elastic deformation. As the load increased, the slipping
increased, and the hysteresis loop became arched. At the end of the
test, the degradation of the stiffness of the wall was intensified, the
bearing capacity was significantly reduced, the slipping of the wall
was increased and the hysteretic loop was z-shaped. The energy dissi-
pation capacity of the wall was very low at this time.
4.2. Test data processing
Because the skeleton curve of the specimen had no obvious yield
point, the yield load and yield displacement were determined using
the area reciprocal method on the skeleton curve according to JGJ/T
101-2015 [45], as shown in Fig. 13. The maximum load on the skeleton
curve and the corresponding lateral displacement are defined as the
peak load, Pmax, and the corresponding deformation, Δmax, of the speci-
men, respectively. After the peak load is reached, the load on the skele-
ton curve and the corresponding lateral displacement when the load
decreases to 85% of the maximum load is defined as the ultimate load,
Pu, and the corresponding deformation, Δu, of the specimen, respec-
tively. The ductility coefficient is the ratio of the peak displacement
and yield displacement, i.e., μ = Δu/Δy. The energy dissipation factor,
E, is used to measure the energy dissipation capacity of the specimen
and the calculation is given in Eq. (3) and Fig. 14. The test data for all
CFS wall specimens are summarized in Table 5.
11
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 178 (2021) 106488
4.3. Contrast analysis of the test results
4.3.1. Comparison of specimens within a group
(1) Single-sided gypsum panel CFS walls
As shown in Fig. 12(a), the skeleton curve of specimen BX-2 was
similar to that of specimen BX-1 under monotonic loading, but the stiff-
ness of specimen BX-2 before yielding was significantly lower than that
of specimen BX-1 due to the cumulative damage caused by reverse
loading. Table 5 shows that the peak load, ductility coefficient and
shear bearing capacity of specimen BX-2 were lower than those of spec-
imen BX-1. The peak load of specimen BX-2 was 3.07% lower than that
of specimen BX-1, the shear bearing capacity was 3.03% lower, and the
ductility coefficient was 10.5% lower.
(2) Single-sided OSB panel CFS walls
The stiffness of the specimens under monotonic loading and
reversed-cyclic loading before yielding was not significantly different,
and the curves basically coincided. However, the peak load and shear
bearing capacity of the specimens under reversed-cyclic loading were
lower than those under monotonic loading. The peak load of specimen
BX-4 was 11.21% lower than that of specimen BX-3, and the shear bear-
ing capacity was 11.18% lower.
(3) Double panel (GYP + OSB) CFS walls
Under no vertical load, specimens BX-5 and BX-6 were compared
and analyzed. Their skeleton curves were similar, but the peak load,
ductility coefficient and shear bearing capacity of the specimens under
reversed-cyclic loading were lower than those under monotonic
loading. Table 5 shows that the peak load of specimen BX-6 was
20.12% lower than that of specimen BX-5, the ductility coefficient of
specimen BX-6 was 7.94% lower than that of specimen BX-5, and the
shear bearing capacity of specimen BX-6 was 20.09% lower than that
of specimen BX-5.
Specimens BX-6 and BX-7 were subjected to reversed-cyclic loading
and a vertical load of 80kN was applied to specimen BX-7. The yield load
and peak load of specimen BX-7 were both higher than those of speci-
men BX-6, but the corresponding displacement was significantly re-
duced. The shear bearing capacity of specimen BX-7 was 8.42% higher
than that of specimen BX-6 and the ductility coefficient of specimen
BX-7 was 6.48% higher than that of specimen BX-6.
4.3.2. Comparison of specimens between different groups
(1) Single-sided panel specimens
Under monotonic loading, the yield load, peak load and ultimate
load of the single-sided OSB panel specimen were about 2.9 times that
of the single-sided gypsum panel specimen; Under reversed-cyclic load-
ing, the yield load and peak load of the single-sided OSB panel specimen
was about 2.75–2.85 times that of the single-sided gypsum panel spec-
imen. Under either loading process, the ductility coefficient of the
single-sided OSB panel specimen was always lower than that of the
single-sided gypsum panel specimen.
(2) Single-sided panel specimens and double panel specimens
Table 5 shows that the sum of the values of yield load, peak load and
ultimate load of the two single-sided panel specimens was close to the
corresponding indexes of the double panel specimens. Therefore, it
can be asserted that the yield load, peak load and ultimate load of the
Y. Xu, X. Zhou, Y. Shi et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 178 (2021) 106488

P (kN)
6

P
P 4
P 2
P
0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-2 (mm)
-4
-6
-8

(a) BX-1 (b) BX-2

25
P (kN)

20

P (kN)
(51.21,26.84) 15
Pmax 10
Pu (68,22.81)
Py (23.9,21.5) 5
0
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
-5
(mm)
-10
-15
-20
y u -25

(c) BX-3 (d) BX-4

30 30
P (kN)

P (kN)
25 25
P

20 20
(59.62,34.99)
Pmax 15 15
Pu 10 10
(73.5,29.72)
Py (19.6,29.12) 5 5
0 0
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
-5 -5
-10 (mm) -10 (mm)
-15 -15
-20 -20
y u -25 -25
-30 -30

(e ) BX -5 (f) BX-6 (g) BX-7

Fig. 11. Load-displacement curve and hysteretic curves.

10 30
40
P (kN)
P (kN)

25 BX-5
P (kN)

8
BX-6 30
6 20
BX-7
BX-1 15 20
4 BX-3
BX-2 10 BX-4 10
2
5
0 0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-2 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -10
(mm) -5 (mm)
-4
-10 (mm) -20
-6 -15
-30
-8 -20
-10 -40
-25

(a) First group (b) Second group (c) Third group

Fig. 12. Skeleton curve of the walls.

12
Y. Xu, X. Zhou, Y. Shi et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 178 (2021) 106488

P than the design value under monotonic loading and reversed-cyclic

2
Pmax A loading, respectively. The test value of the shear bearing capacity was
P u =0.85Pmax 35% higher than the design value under vertical loading. The design
Py B value is overly conservative, because the lack of consideration of the
synergetic action of the two kinds panels.

1
Δ lowing conclusions could be drawn:
0 Δy Δ max Δ u
Fig. 13. Principle of area reciprocity.
P When the connection was damaged, the wall panel and the
B studs could not work together. The supporting effect of the wall
A E
F 0 C Δ
D thick gypsum panel CFS wall were about 34%—37% those of the 9-
Fig. 14. Calculation method of energy dissipation coefficient.
Area of envelope of hysteretic loop SðABCþCDAÞ
E¼
Area of the triangle SðOBEþODF Þ
double panel specimens are approximately the sum of the correspond-
ing values of the two single-sided panel specimens.
4.3.3. Comparison of test value and design value on bearing capacity
For single-sided gypsum panel CFS walls, the test value and the
design value of the shear bearing capacity were very close. For single-
sided OSB panel CFS walls, the test value of the shear bearing capacity
was 16% and 10% higher than the design value under monotonic loading
and reversed-cyclic loading, respectively.
For double panel walls with different panel material on each side,
the test value of the shear bearing capacity was 52% and 24% higher
5. Conclusion
In this study, through an experimental investigation of the seismic
performance of seven cold-formed steel framed sheathed walls, the fol-
(1) The failures of all walls occurred at the connection between the
wall panel and the studs. The panels generated bearing failure;
the screws tilted, slipped and were finally pulled out. The panel
of the CFS wall provided effective lateral support for the studs.
panel on the studs was weakened, then the bearing capacity of
the wall decreased, and the damage to the panel was obvious.
(2) Gypsum is a brittle material. Its strength and toughness are very
low. The gypsum panel was seriously damaged during the exper-
iment loading, especially during the reversed-cyclic loading. In
the test, compared with the gypsum panel, the OSB panel had im-
proved toughness, enhanced shear bearing capacity and smaller
deformation. But the shear bearing capacity and stiffness of the
OSB panel CFS wall was affected by the horizontal seams of the
OSB panel.
(3) The various bearing capacity indexes of the single-sided 12-mm-
mm-thick OSB panel CFS wall, and the shear bearing capacity of
the double panel (GYP + OSB) CFS wall was about equal to the
sum of the single-sided gypsum panel and the single-sided OSB
panel CFS wall.
ð3Þ
(4) Because of the action of alternate pushing and pulling, the spec-
imens had more serious damage under reversed-cyclic loading
than under monotonic loading, and the screw holes of the walls
had cumulative and more expansion damage, which was why
the shear capacity decreased. Under the vertical load, the stiff-
ness of the wall increased before yielding. The yield load and
peak load increased slightly, but the corresponding displacement
decreased a lot. The ductility coefficient increased slightly and
the energy dissipation coefficient was almost the same. The
strength and stability of end studs would affect the shear bearing
capacity of the wall. It is important to enhance the end stud and
ensure that the end stud do not deform significantly before
wall failure.
(5) Through the comparison of test value and design value, it is
found that the design value of shear bearing capacity of
single-sided gypsum panel CFS walls in JGJ/T 421–2018 [40] is

Table 5
Data processing results of wall shear test.

Specimen Yield Yield Peak Peak displacement Ultimate Ultimate Ductility Energy dissipation Shear bearing
number load displacement load Δmax (mm) load displacement factor factor E capacity (kN/m)
Py (kN) Δy(mm) Pmax Pu (kN) Δu (mm) μ
Test Standard1
(kN)

BX-1 7.48 13.5 9.12 48 7.75 74.8 5.48 – 3.80 3.87

BX-2 7.35 18.4 8.58 37.54 7.29 80.5 4.38 1.08 3.57 3.69
BX-3 21.50 23.9 26.84 51.21 22.81 68.0 2.85 – 11.18 9.60
BX-4 20.25 17.1 24.50 40 20.83 62.8 3.67 0.95 10.21 9.36
BX-5 29.12 19.6 34.99 59.62 29.72 74 3.78 – 14.58 9.602
BX-6 24.20 16.5 27.95 48 23.76 61.8 3.75 0.86 11.65 9.362
BX-7 25.40 9.5 30.52 27.45 25.94 38.1 4.01 0.82 12.72 9.362
1
The design value of the shear bearing capacity is from JGJ/T 421-2018.
2
Based on JGJ/T 421-2018, for double panel walls with different panel material on each side, the shear bearing capacity of the wall is determined by the larger value of the shear capacity
of the two kinds single-sided panel walls or two times of the smaller value (take the larger one of the two).

13
Y. Xu, X. Zhou, Y. Shi et al.
reasonable. But the design values for single-sided OSB panel CFS
walls and double panel walls are too conservative, especially the
latter that don't consider the synergetic action of the two kinds
panels.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the National Natu-
ral Science Foundation of China (51890902 and 51678060). Any opin-
ions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the sponsors.
References
[1] B.W. Schafer, Cold-formed steel structures around the world, Steel Construct. 4 (3)
(2011) 141–149.
[2] R.L. Madsen, T.A. Castle, B.W. Schafer, Seismic Design of Cold-formed Steel Lateral
Load-Resisting Systems, A Guide for Practicing Engineers, NEHRP Seismic Design
Technical Brief No. 12, 2016 (NIST GCR 16-917-38).
[3] R.L. Serrette, J. Encalada, M. Juadines, H. Nguyen, Static racking behavior of plywood,
OSB, gypsum, and fiberbond walls with metal framing, J. Struct. Eng. 123 (8) (1997)
1079–1086.
[4] L.A. Fülöp, D. Dubina, Performance of wall-stud cold-formed shear panels under
monotonic and cyclic loading: part I: experimental research, Thin-Walled Struct.
42 (2) (2004) 321–338.
[5] F.A. Boudreault, Seismic Analysis of Steel Frame/Wood Panel Shear Walls, Master
Thesis Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University,
Montreal, Canada, 2005.
[6] A.E. Branston, Developments of a Design Methodology for Steel Frame/Wood Panel
Shear Walls, Master thesis Department of Civil Engineering & Applied Mechanics,
McGill University, Montreal, Canada, 2004.
[7] C.Y. Chen, Testing and Performance of Steel Frame/Wood Panel Shear Walls, Master
thesis Department of Civil Engineering & Applied Mechanics, McGill University,
Montreal, Canada, 2004.
[8] Y. Telue, M. Mahendran, Behaviour of cold-formed steel wall frames lined with plas-
terboard, J. Constr. Steel Res. 57 (4) (2001) 435–452.
[9] Y. Telue, M. Mahendran, Behaviour and design of cold-formed steel wall frames
lined with plasterboard on both sides, Eng. Struct. 26 (5) (2004) 567–579.
[10] V. Macillo, L. Fiorino, R. Landolfo, Seismic response of CFS shear walls sheathed with
nailed gypsum panels: experimental tests, Thin-Walled Struct. 120 (2017) 161–171.
[11] S. Lu, Influence of Gypsum Panels on the Response of Cold-Formed Steel Framed
Shear Walls, Master thesis Department of Civil Engineering & Applied Mechanics,
McGill University, Montreal, Canada, 2015.
[12] C. Blais, Testing and Analysis of Light Gauge Steel Frame / 9 Mm OSB Wood Panel
Shear Walls, Master thesis Department of Civil Engineering & Applied Mechanics,
McGill University, Montreal, Canada, 2006.
[13] P. Liu, K.D. Peterman, B.W. Schafer, Impact of construction details on OSB-sheathed
cold-formed steel framed shear walls, J. Constr. Steel Res. 101 (2014) 114–123.
[14] C. Yu, 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. 32 (6) (2010)
1522–1529.
[15] 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 (5) (2013)
807–817.
[16] H.-W. Tian, Y.-Q. Li, C. Yu, Testing of steel sheathed cold-formed steel trussed shear
walls, Thin-Walled Struct. 94 (2015) 280–292.
14
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 178 (2021) 106488
[17] R.-q. Feng, B. Zhu, P. Xu, Y. Qiu, Seismic performance of cold-formed steel framed
shear walls with steel sheathing and gypsum board, Thin-Walled Struct. 143
(2019) 106238.
[18] W. Zhang, M. Mahdavian, Y. Li, C. Yu, Seismic performance evaluation of cold-
formed steel shear walls using corrugated steel sheathing, J. Struct. Eng. 143 (11)
(2017) 4017151.
[19] W. Zhang, M. Mahdavian, Y. Li, C. Yu, Seismic performance evaluation of cold-
formed steel shear walls using corrugated steel sheathing, J. Struct. Eng. 143 (11)
(2017) 4017151.
[20] W. Zhang, M. Mahdavian, C. Yu, Different slit configuration in corrugated sheathing
of cold-formed steel shear wall, J. Constr. Steel Res. 150 (2018) 430–441.
[21] S.H. Lin, C.L. Pan, W.T. Hsu, Monotonic and cyclic loading tests for cold-formed steel
wall frames sheathed with calcium silicate board, Thin-Walled Struct. 74 (2014)
49–58.
[22] B. Liu, J.-P. Hao, W.-H. Zhong, H. Wang, Performance of cold-formed-steel-framed
shear walls sprayed with lightweight mortar under reversed cyclic loading, Thin-
Walled Struct. 98 (2016) 312–331.
[23] J. Ye, X. Wang, H. Jia, M. Zhao, Cyclic performance of cold-formed steel shear walls
sheathed with double-layer wallboards on both sides, Thin-Walled Struct. 92
(2015) 146–159.
[24] M. Zeynalian, A.Z. Shahrasbi, H.T. Riahi, Seismic response of cold formed steel frames
sheathed by fiber cement boards, Int. J. Civil Eng. 16 (11) (2018) 1643–1653.
[25] S. Selvaraj, M. Madhavan, Flexural behaviour and design of cold-formed steel wall
panels sheathed with particle cement board, J. Constr. Steel Res. 162 (2019) 105723.
[26] C.-L. Pan, M.-Y. Shan, Monotonic shear tests of cold-formed steel wall frames with
sheathing, Thin-Walled Struct. 49 (2) (2011) 363–370.
[27] R. Landolfo, L. Fiorino, G.D. Corte, Seismic behavior of sheathed cold-formed struc-
tures: physical tests, J. Struct. Eng. 132 (4) (2006) 570–581.
[28] A. Shakibanasab, N.K.A. Attari, M. Salari, A statistical and experimental investigation
into the accuracy of capacity reduction factor for cold-formed steel shear walls with
steel sheathing, Thin-Walled Struct. 77 (2014) 56–66.
[29] N. Balh, J. DaBreo, C. Ong-Tone, K. El-Saloussy, C. Yu, C.A. Rogers, Design of steel
sheathed cold-formed steel framed shear walls, Thin-Walled Struct. 75 (2014)
76–86.
[30] M. Nithyadharan, V. Kalyanaraman, Behaviour of cold-formed steel shear wall
panels under monotonic and reversed cyclic loading, Thin-Walled Struct. 60
(2012) 12–23.
[31] J. Henriques, N. Rosa, H. Gervasio, P. Santos, L.S. da Silva, Structural performance of
light steel framing panels using screw connections subjected to lateral loading,
Thin-Walled Struct. 121 (2017) 67–88.
[32] S. Selvaraj, M. Madhavan, Investigation on sheathing-fastener connection failures in
cold-formed steel wall panels, Structures 20 (2019) 176–188.
[33] K. Hikita, Combined Gravity and Lateral Loading of Light Gauge Steel Frame / Wood
Panel Shear Walls, Master thesis Department of Civil Engineering & Applied Me-
chanics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, 2006.
[34] J. Dabreo, Impact of Gravity Loads on the Lateral Performance of Cold-Formed Steel
Frame / Steel Sheathed Shear Walls, Master thesis Department of Civil Engineering
& Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, 2012.
[35] G. Comeau, K. Velchev, C.A. Rogers, Development of seismic force modification fac-
tors for cold-formed steel strap braced walls, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 37 (2) (2010) 236–249.
[36] L. Fiorino, M.T. Terracciano, R. Landolfo, Experimental investigation of seismic be-
haviour of low dissipative CFS strap-braced stud walls, J. Constr. Steel Res. 127
(2016) 92–107.
[37] H.-W. Tian, Y.-Q. Li, C. Yu, Testing of steel sheathed cold-formed steel trussed shear
walls, Thin-Walled Struct. 94 (2015) 280–292.
[38] V. Brière, V. Santos, C.A. Rogers, Cold-formed steel centre-sheathed (mid-ply) shear
walls, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 114 (2018) 253–266.
[39] JGJ 227-2011, Technical Specification for Low-rise Cold-formed Thin-walled Steel
Buildings, China Architecture & Building Press, Peking, 2011 in Chinese.
[40] JGJ/T 421-2018, Technical Standard for Cold-formed Thin-walled Steel Multi-storey
Residential Buildings, China Architecture & Building Press, Peking, 2011 in Chinese.
[41] GB/T 3098.5-2016, Mechanical Properties of Fasteners-Tapping Screws, Standards
Press of China, Peking, 2008 in Chinese.
[42] GB/T 5276-2015, Fasteners-Bolts, Screws, Studs and Nuts-Symbols and Descriptions
of Dimensions, Standards Press of China, Peking, 2008 in Chinese.
[43] GB/T 2518-2008, Continuously Hot-dip Zinc-coated Steel Sheet and Strip, Standards
Press of China, Peking, 2008 in Chinese.
[44] GB/T 228.1-2010, Metallic Materials-tensile Testing-Part I: Method of at Room Tem-
perature, Standard Press of China, Peking, 2010 in Chinese.
[45] JGJ/T 101-2015, Specification of Testing Methods for Earthquake Resistant Building,
China Architecture & Building Press, Peking, 2015 in Chinese.