You are on page 1of 10

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 470–479

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research
journal homepage:

An integrated thin-walled steel skeleton structure (two full scale tests)
Alireza Bagheri Sabbagh a,b,∗ , Rasoul Mirghaderi a , Mihail Petkovski b , Kypros Pilakoutas b
a b

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK



The increased popularity of cold-formed thin-walled steel sections in housing construction has lead to an increased interest in the development of thin-walled frame buildings in accordance with seismic requirements. This paper investigates appropriate details for the main frame elements of a thin-walled building structure. Some of the proposed details are tested by two full scale one-storey frames under gravity and lateral cyclic loads. The results show that this type of structure offers a good potential for earthquake resistant construction, but more thorough studies are needed. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 4 February 2008 Accepted 10 October 2009 Keywords: Thin-walled steel sections Beam–column connections Seismic performance

1. Introduction Increasing world population and land limitation is leading to a growing demand for multi storey dwellings. Steel is popular in multi storey construction due to its high strength and ductility. However, there are few structural systems that comply with modern specifications such as cost efficiency, prefabrication, mass production, recycling and seismic resistance. Hot-rolled steel sections have been successfully used for the construction of multi storey buildings, but their production is costly to the environment and due to the limited number of section sizes they can be heavy and inefficient. Cold-formed steel sections are easier to manufacture and offer a larger variety of sections. This can lead to a more efficient design. In general Cold-Formed Steel sections (CFS sections) are formed from thin-walled elements. In the UK and other developed countries, CFS stud walls have been used for partitions and framing systems for many years. Stud wall framing systems are available for low rise as well as multi storey residential buildings in low seismicity regions. This system can be used for buildings with up to four storeys and short spans [1]. In some design manuals the response modification coefficient for seismic design of stud wall frames with diagonal braces as lateral load bearing elements is limited to R = 4 [2]. This value is lower than R = 5 for the hot-rolled steel Ordinary Concentrically Braced Frames [3]. Frequent local failures in the joints and significant pinching and slackness in cyclic load–deformation loops leads to

low seismic energy dissipation capacity [4]. In addition, the lack of continuity between adjacent storeys limits the height of the buildings, particularly in zones with high seismicity. Cold-Formed Steel-Special Bolted Moment Frames (CFS-SBMF) forms a system that is being developed by the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) for one storey structures in seismic regions [5]. This system is made up of Hollow Structural Sections (HSS) for columns and double channel sections for beams. Snug-tight high strength bolts are used to connect the side passing beams to the column walls [6]. In this new type of thin-walled structure, the seismic energy is dissipated through slippage and local yielding of the bolts in the connections, which occurs before any yielding in either beams or columns [6]. This paper describes the development of details for CFS thinwalled frames for integrated multi storey skeleton buildings. The behaviour of the building under gravity and cyclic lateral loads was investigated by tests on two full scale one-storey frames conducted in BHRC (Building and Housing Research Centre of Iran). 2. Details of integrated thin-walled steel skeleton structures Two types of integrated thin-walled frame were considered: (a) braced frames and (b) moment frames as shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b). Here, Fig. 1(a) shows a two-storey, one-bay braced frame at the stage of casting of concrete slabs, awaiting to be spliced to the third storey, whereas Fig. 1(b) shows a three-storey, one-bay moment frame at the stage of placing the beams awaiting to be spliced to the fourth storey. The use of an integrated structural system is necessary for the seismic resistance. In this study two types of specimen A and B were tested. Specimen A was designed to investigate the behaviour of the members of the first type of frame (but without diagonal braces) under gravity loads. Specimen B was designed to investigate the

∗ Corresponding address: Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sir Frederick Mappin Building, Mappin Street, Sheffield, S1 3JD, UK. Tel.: +44 0 114 222 5724; fax: +44 0 114 222 5700. E-mail address: (A.B. Sabbagh).
0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.10.007

This investigation shows that the ductility and energy dissipation capacity of thin-walled double back-to-back channel sections (Fig.Increase of strength to weight ratio of steel sections by using smaller top flanges and wider bottom flanges (Fig. 1. 3) offers several advantages: . 2. (a) A two storey braced frame. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 470–479 471 Fig.Beams in moment resisting frames. The width-to-thickness ratio of the compression elements should be limited in order to delay the local buckling after the occurrence of plastic rotation in the beams [3. However. This could lead to inelastic seismic design of thin-walled steel frames.Beams in braced frames. 2(a)) to locate maximum portions of the steel section elements far from the neutral axis in the case of composite action. Fig.B. Columns Local buckling in CFS thin-walled columns could significantly reduce the flexural and axial compression strengths.1. 3. Sabbagh et al. Concrete filled column section.Reduction of steel section depth by closer spacing of secondary beams. Using concrete filled thin-walled steel tube columns (Fig. Before discussing the tests. lateral resistance behaviour of the second type of frame (frame with moment-resisting connections). 2. Beams Two types of beam were considered for the integrated thinwalled skeleton structures: 1 . (b) A three storey moment frame. which have been so far limited to elastic design by the seismic codes [10]. (a) Inverted hat section and (b) double back-to-back channel section.9]. seismic provisions for CFS sections. 2(b)) can be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of seismic design [10]. . 2. Beams are assumed as the main seismic energy dissipative elements in this type of load bearing frame. Steel moment frame buildings are highly suitable for high seismicity regions due to their ductile behaviour [8]. it is often hard to achieve the limits specified in the Fig.A. 2 . Simply supported beams in braced frames can be integrated with the roofing concrete to provide composite action.2. CFS composite beams offer several advantages over hot-rolled composite beams [7]: . a brief description of the main components of these structures is given below.

The tests carried out on these specimens are listed in Table 1. The transfer of forces by in-plane actions could be achieved by crossed plates passing through the separated cold-formed sections of the beams and the separated sections of the columns (Fig. inverted hat sections were used for the beams and joists. columns and joists) under gravity loads. The through plate can be welded to all faces of the tubular column section and bolted to the webs of the double back-to-back channel beam section. to test a frame mainly under gravity loads. A lateral cyclic loading test was carried out as an additional test for this specimen. – Beam–column connection elements could be restricted by infilled concrete to avoid local damage [13]. the beam is strengthened by the through plate thus avoiding formation of a plastic hinge near the face of the column. For this specimen. 4. Apart from the prevailing local failures. to test a frame mainly under lateral cyclic loads. Specimen A The flooring components can be similar to those in conventional composite floors: – CFS joists placed at regular distances between the main beams. – Storey drifts of the moment frame buildings are reduced due to increased stiffness of the columns [13]. The reason for this choice of section was to create a frame with the sections filled with concrete at the same time when the concrete was cast on the corrugated sheets of the roof. 4. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 470–479 Fig. 2.5.4. 6). Specimen A Tests A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 Loading Service gravity load Lateral cyclic load Ultimate gravity load Service gravity load Lateral cyclic load B – Shear connectors to resist slippage between the steel sections and the top concrete. – Triaxial stresses produced by confinement action in the concrete core enhance the ductility and load carrying capacity of the composite column in comparison with bare steel columns [11]. This is essential to prevent a brittle failure of the connection elements as described in FEMA350 [9]. – Steel mesh reinforcement to limit temperature-induced cracking. Specimen B was a moment frame with moment resisting connections designed to investigate the seismic performance of this type of frame under lateral cyclic loads. sound insulation and fire protection. as illustrated in Fig. 3. Flooring components Table 1 Tests carried out for the specimens. – Corrugated sheets to make a working platform and forming for concrete casting. Two specimens were designed to test some of the above components and details: specimen A.3. with different element sections and connection details. – Topping concrete to provide diaphragm action. – Concrete filled columns offer inherent fire resistance without the high costs of fire protection materials [12]. and tube sections for the columns (see Fig. – Inward buckling modes in steel walls are prevented. the coupling forces formed along the length of the column will resist the bending moment from the beam. Specimen A was an unbraced frame with simply supported connections used to test the main structural elements (beams. Sabbagh et al. In this mechanism the out-ofplane actions are limited by mobilizing the in-plane actions in the column walls before any out-of-plane actions can be activated. a lack of out of plane stiffness is a problem in thin-walled elements.B. 6. 5). 2. Test specimens Using thin-walled elements (such as those introduced in Section 2) in a skeleton frame requires a thorough investigation of the actual performance of the structure and development of efficient details. The bolts have to be positioned at a sufficient distance to provide a sufficient lever arm to resist the bending moment from the beam. Two specimens (A and B). The design of the elements of the specimens was based on Allowable Strength Design (ASD) method given in the Cold Formed Steel Design Manual [14] and Specification for Structural Steel Buildings [15]. The restraining effect .1. were used in the tests. Considering that this investigation was an early step of a larger study. and specimen B. leading to increase in local buckling stress [11]. By connecting the through plate to the opposite walls of the column. The two test specimens are described as below. the cross section sizes and the locations of the members of these specimens are shown in Fig. Beam–column connections An appropriate beam–column connection detail is required to mobilize the ductility capacity of the thin-walled moment frame beams. Through-plate beam-to-column connection details (Two views). 3. Brace connections The transfer of forces by in-plane actions can be achieved by through plates passing through the separated cold-formed sections of the columns. 4). In this type of beam–column connection. The height and span dimensions. the details used for a one-storey test frame were still in the concept stage.472 A. 2. beams and the separated sections of diagonal braces (Fig.

40 30 2 60 80 ° 11 30 0° 3 100 180 2 100 25 150 20 70 30 30 220 150 2 30 80° 30 80° 80 2 70 Fig. Specimens A and B: dimensions. The beams were connected to the columns through simplesupport type connections with no theoretical moment resistance. 6.B.A. and (b) beam. member locations and cross section sizes. (a) Assembled members. 2 3 180 20 210 . / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 470–479 473 Fig. 5. Brace connections to: (a) the base plate. 7. Fig. (b) specimen with roof. Sabbagh et al. of the concrete can limit the buckling deformations and prevent the prevailing local failures typical for thin-walled elements.

3. The total load taken in the design was 2 kN/m2 for the 1st stage and is 5 kN/m2 for the 2nd stage. midheight and the base of the columns. DT a DT b DT DT SG SG SG DT SG DT SG Fig. The gravity loads were considered in two stages: (1) before and (2) after concrete hardening.B. for both gravity and lateral loading tests. and at the base. moment-resisting for B1 beams and simply supported for B2 beams are shown in Fig. are shown in Fig. In the moment resisting connections. Specimen B Two major changes were introduced for this specimen: (i) the inverted hat sections of the beams were replaced with two connected back-to-back channel sections (B1) and (ii) the simplesupport connections were replaced by moment-resistant connections for B1 beams (Fig. the load 160 kN (10 kN/m2 ) was twice the expected allowable design load. 11 show that the actual results are between these two assumptions. listed in Table 1) are described below. up to 160 kN (Fig. mid-height and top of the columns (on all sides). 11. For Specimen B two strain gauges were added at the ends of B1 beam flanges. Tests The tests conducted on specimens A and B (A-1. and (ii) horizontally. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 470–479 Fig. 7(a) and (b). A-2. The graphs in Fig. using the Iranian seismic codes [16]. which suggest a partial composite action of the columns in the test as a result of probable slippage between the steel section and in-filled concrete. applied by adding blocks in 8 steps of 20 kN. 8(b) (complete with roof and ready for testing). 4.474 A. 4. The beam–column connections of this specimen were simply supported seated type connections with no theoretical bending . The strain results for the columns in different loading steps are shown in Fig. Instrumentation under their bottom flanges. (a) Instrumentation positions and (b) displacement transducers under the beams. Beam–column connections for B1 and B2 beams: (a) assembled and (b) ready for test. Specimen A: Gravity loading test (A-1) In this test the specimen was subjected to a uniform gravity load on the roof. 3. B-1 and B-2. 8. 9. for the gravity loading test. A-3. The beam–column connections. The loads are: the concrete on top and inside the beams and joists of the roof (for stages 1 and 2).2. for the lateral loading tests. The displacement transducers (DT) were positioned (i) at mid-span of the beams (Fig. Sabbagh et al. The strain gauges (SG) were located at mid-span of the beams and joists. Specimen B was designed for both gravity loads and seismic loads. During this gravity loading test there was no evidence of either local or global buckling. The elements were designed for a combination of dead and live loads at two stages: (1) before and (2) after concrete hardening. The test results were compared with the predicted results for columns with fully composite action and columns with no composite action. The last step. so there was no diagonal bracing for lateral resistance. The assembled beams and columns and the roof concrete. the through plate is stiffened to avoid buckling of the plate. cast over the corrugated sheets are shown in Fig. 10). at the roof level. Specimen A: Lateral loading test (A-2) The instrumentation positions for specimens A and B. additional common dead and live loads for residential buildings (for stage 2). 4. as in the case of specimen A. 9(b)) and joists. 8(a) (when assembled) and Fig. 6). 9. 3.1. respectively. The specimen was designed only for gravity loads.2.

This assumption means that. moment resistance. was calculated by using the Cold Formed Steel Design Manual [14]. the bending moment was calculated on the basis of an assumption that the inflection point was at the middle of the column. Here. . and therefore. 4. The semi-rigid action. Specimen A: Ultimate gravity load test (A-3) After the lateral loading test. The hysteretic moment–rotation curve for the beam (Fig. progressively increasing through the following steps: 2. Sabbagh et al. 13.5 kN–7. the gravity load applied on the roof was 5 kN/m2 (including the roof weight). 14. The cyclic lateral load was applied statically by two hydraulic actuators at both sides of the roof and distributed by steel profiles. as shown in Fig. which was three times the allowable gravity load bearing limit of the roof elements. where My = 28 kN m.5.5 kN–10 kN–12. without taking into account the composite action of the beams and roof concrete. 11. 15). Uniform gravity loading on the roof. Fig.A. Strains measured in the test and predicted for the columns. distributed on the roof. (b) schematic plan view. In the lateral loading test there was no evidence of local or global buckling failures in any members and connections of the frame. 12. However. 13 shows the hysteretic curve of bending moment-storey drift angle.15]. Lateral loading set up (a) actual view.B. The peak load of 35 kN could not be reached in the last cycle. the yielding moment.5 kN–35 kN–30 kN. confirm the validity of the assumption of mid-height inflection point in the columns under lateral loads. the specimen was tested under lateral load. according to the Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings [3]. the ultimate load test was carried out to investigate the failure modes under gravity loading. 13) shows that the maximum M /M y value is 0. the tested frame could not qualify as a moment resisting frame. Moment–rotation hysteretic curves.5 kN–15 kN–17. was a result of integration of the through plates connected to all sides of the column and embedded inside the filled concrete of the beams and the columns. Fig. in this case. The loads. equal to the allowable gravity load [14. in order to investigate a possible semi-rigid action. Roof failure occurred when the load reached 240 kN (15 kN/m2 ). small strains at mid-height and large strains at the base of the columns.5 kN–25 kN–27.5 kN–30 kN–32. The recorded strains shown in Fig. 10. 12. within the range of lateral loads applied in the test. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 470–479 475 Fig.5 kN–20 kN–22. This means the steel section has not reached the yielding point. 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 Strainx106 test result Fully composite action No composite action Fig. both the beam–column and column-base connections were acting as moment resistant connections. During the lateral loading test.3. the semi-rigid action in the connections was reduced. The lateral load was applied as cyclic. were gradually increased (Fig. This suggests that after reaching the peak load. The failure was due to web distortional buckling Load(kN) a b Load distributing elements Hydraulic actuator Hydraulic actuator Fig.

(b) A side view of a deep crack in concrete inside the joists (part of the joist section removed to show the concrete inside). It could be assumed that this failure occurred after the failure of the composite action between the joists and concrete. heavy blocks (Fig. Sabbagh et al. 18) were added gradually on the roof until a total of 5 kN/m2 was reached. During this test there was no evidence of failure in any members or connection elements.476 A. Fig. Fig. 17 is a drawing showing the buckling failure of the joist web. Specimen B: Gravity loading test (B-1) Fig. Fig. This load was equal to the allowable design gravity loading in addition to the self weight of the roof. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 470–479 Fig. Strain values in column: (a) mid-height and (b) base. This could mean that in addition . (a) A top view of a roof joist after failure (concrete and corrugated sheet removed to show the deformed joist). 16(a) shows a view of a roof joist after failure (the roof concrete and corrugated sheet have been removed in order to show the deformed joist).4. Web buckling in joists. of the joists at mid-span (Fig. 16(b) shows a deep vertical crack in the concrete inside the joists (the web of the joist was removed to show the crack in the concrete). Ultimate gravity loading with basket blocks (two steps). The graphs show that the displacements measured in the test were below the predicted values. Fig. leading to distortional buckling. outward inclination. 16. this deformation would have been restricted by the inside concrete. 16). Fig.B. 4. 15. 17. For beams with inward inclined webs. Stress redistribution could have caused the separation of the webs with As in the tests of Specimen A. 14. Fig. compared with the predicted values which were calculated by assuming fully composite action for the beams. 19 shows the load–displacement results for the mid-span of B2 beams.

B. Plasticity beyond the connection at 100 kN lateral load. 22. This is similar to the behavior observed in the test on Specimen A. Test and predicted load–displacements at mid-span of B2 beams. 22. the simply supported beam–column connections provided semi-rigid action during the early load stages. is shown in Fig.15]. Maximum deformation. under the maximum lateral deformation. 18. The hysteretic and envelop moment–rotation curves of the momentresistant beams are shown in Fig. 21) occurred at 120 kN load. 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 displacement(mm) Fig. The following failures were observed in this test: Plastic deformations occurred in the beams beyond the connection region (as shown in Fig. The bending moment (or test moment M) was calculated for the location where the plasticity occurred in the beams (as shown in Fig. 23. The lateral cyclic load was applied in force control in the elastic region: 5 kN–10 kN–15 kN–20 kN–25 kN–30 kN–35 kN–40 kN– 45 kN.A. Load (kN) Test results Fully composite action Fig. 4. at 100 mm deformation was the peak load point. 21. The deformed specimen. During the test. to the composite action. The test set up was similar to that used for Specimen A (Fig. The seismic load bearing performance of the members can be assessed on the basis of their load–displacement behaviour. 20) when the load reached 100 kN. the applied gravity load on the roof was 5 kN/m2 . / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 470–479 477 Fig. which was equal to the allowable gravity load [14. and then switched to displacement control. The M /M p ratios are the test moment values over the plastic .5. Uniform gravity loading on the roof. The maximum deformation of 226 mm was recorded at 110 kN post-peak loading. 19. Fig. Local buckling at the base of the columns (shown in Fig. in the inelastic region: 55 kN (17 mm)–63 kN (20 mm)–73 kN (25 mm)–93 kN (35 mm)–102 kN (45 mm)–107 kN (55 mm)–122 kN (75 mm)– 128 kN (100 mm)–126 kN (120 mm)–128 kN (150 mm)– 121 kN (180 mm)–110 kN (226 mm). The load of 128 kN. The rotation was taken as the storey drift angle recorded in the lateral cyclic loading test. Local buckling of the column at the base at 120 kN lateral load. Fig. 12). 20. Sabbagh et al. Specimen B: Lateral loading test (B-2) Investigating the seismic performance of the moment frames under cyclic loading was the main objective of this test. in addition to the roof weight. 20).

(ii) 0. (a) Hysteretic moment–rotation curve and (b) Envelope moment–rotation curve of B1 beams.06 0. Fig. This is considered to be reasonable since the recorded strain values at the inflection points of the columns and beams were low in comparison with the strain values recorded at the base of the columns and the ends of the beams (Figs. 24 and 25).04 0.04 radian for Special Moment Frames. The test moment M was calculated from the applied lateral loads assuming inflection points at the mid-height of the columns and mid-span of the beams. The value of Mp = 21 kNm was calculated by using the Specification for Structural Steel Buildings [15]. Further investigation based on the seismic provisions [3] could give more precise results.1 -0. In this test it was observed that: – The prevailing local and out-of-plane failures of the thinwalled elements could be limited when appropriately detailed and sufficiently restrained. moment of B1 beams. 23. 23 are significantly higher than 1. Strain values (a) at the middle and (b) the base of the columns.5 Rotation(radian) 0 0 0. According to the requirements for seismic resistant moment frames [3].0. 25.08 Fig. Fig.02 0. calculated without taking into account any composite action with the roof slab concrete.05 0 0.02 radian for Intermediate Moment Frames or. Sabbagh et al. .B. This could be due to strain hardening of the steel sections and increased strength of the beams due to partially composite action.1 0.478 A. Strain values of (a) mid-span and (b) end of the beams at the bottom flanges. while the resisting moment is 80% of the plastic moment.05 0. This could increase the ductility of thinwalled structures which has been so far expected to be low. 24. the moment–rotation curve is expected to satisfy the minimum rotation of: (i) 0.5 0 1 -1 Rotation(radian) -2 -0. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 470–479 a 2 M/Mp b 2 M/Mp 1 1. in two out of four connections where the concrete was in compression under lateral cyclic load. The peak values of M /M p in moment–rotation curve shown in Fig.

[5] AISI S110. Formisano A. The results of the tests showed that: – Through plates in beam–column connections limit the out-ofplane actions while transferring the connection forces. Tests of composite beams with cold-formed sections. The European Standard EN 1994-12:2005. 2007. Specification for structural steel buildings. 2002. Acknowledgement The authors acknowledge financial supports of Housing Foundation of Iran. [3] ANSI/AISC 341. DC: American Iron and Steel Institute. Collapse analysis of steel moment frames with various seismic connections. Experimental testing of joints for seismic design of lightweight structures. Building design using cold formed steel sections: An Architect’s Guide. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2008. (multi-storey) frame buildings built of thinwalled elements. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 470–479 479 5. SAC Joint Venture. Technical Instructions. Sabbagh et al. 2007. [7] Hanaor Ariel. [6] Sato Atsushi. IL: American Institute of Steel Construction. Lakshmi B. [14] AISI S100. Arnedo Alfredo. Washington. [4] Casafont Miquel. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2009. 2005.45: 637–59.65:860–8. 3rd edition. Uang Chia-Ming. IL: American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). [2] US Army Corps of Engineers. – The proposed thin-walled moment resisting frames showed satisfactory seismic performance results in the lateral cyclic loading test. An analytical model for thin-walled steel box columns with concrete in-fill. DC: American Iron and Steel Institute.2800. Conclusion Appropriate details for the thin-walled elements could reduce the limitations that usually apply to frame building similar to those tested in this research programme. corner joints. 1994. [12] Eurocode 4 – Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Part 1–2: General rules — Structural fire design. Development & Technology to develop more efficient details for this type of moment frame based on recent seismic codes. moment resisting. [9] FEMA-350. Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel momentframe buildings. Oh Young-Suk. 65:1316–22. References [1] Trebilcock PJ. 1998. Kim Jinkoo. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2009. A thorough research is ongoing at the University of Sheffield supported by Corus Research. Federal Emergency Management Agency.A. Seismic design procedure development for cold-formed steel—special bolted moment frames. Standard for seismic design of cold-formed steel structural systems–special bolted moment frames. – Concrete restraint of the thin-walled elements delays the local failures.64:118–27. Washington. Thin-Walled Structures 2007. [11] Shanmugam NE. Standard No. Part 3: Gussets. De Martino A. Roure Francesc. The Steel Construction Institute. Fiorino L.24:825–38. 2000. [10] Calderoni B. Kim Young-Ju. [8] Kim Taewan. This was a first step in the development of earthquake resistant.B. [13] Shin Kyung-Jae. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. . North American specification for the design of cold-formed steel structural members. Engineering Structures 2002. 2005. Design of cold-formed load bearing steel systems and masonry veneer/steel stud walls. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2000.54:245–64. Seismic behaviour of composite concrete-filled tube column-to-beam moment connections. Uy B.65:219–27. [15] ANSI/AISC 360-05. [16] Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings. Rodrı’guez-Ferran Antonio. SCI PUBLICATION P130. Cold formed steel beams under monotonic and cyclic loading: Experimental investigation. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2009. x-braced frames.