Seismic Performance of Cold-Formed Steel Shear Walls

Using Corrugated Sheathing with Slits

Wenying Zhang, S.M.ASCE 1; Cheng Yu, M.ASCE 2; and Mahsa Mahdavian, S.M.ASCE 3

Abstract: This paper presents an experimental study and numerical simulation analyzing the seismic performance of low- and midrise cold-
formed steel-framed buildings using shear walls sheathed with corrugated steel sheets with slits. A new testing method considering both
lateral and gravity (vertical) load was used to investigate the behavior and strength of the cold-formed steel-framed shear walls. The test
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sergio Barreiro on 07/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

results indicate that the perforated shear walls demonstrate desirable ductility and initial stiffness with relatively high shear strength compared
with nonperforated shear walls. To further study the seismic performance and determine the seismic performance factors, incremental dy-
namic analysis was performed of six building archetypes in which the new shear walls were installed. Seismic performance assessment was
evaluated according to FEMA methodology. The results indicate that a set of seismic performance factors (R ¼ Cd ¼ 6.5 and Ω0 ¼ 3.0) is
appropriate for the perforated cold-formed steel-framed shear wall systems using corrugated steel sheathing. The proposed new shear wall
can be used as a substitute for flat steel sheet or wood-based panels in Type I and II constructions in high wind and seismic regions. Detailed
full-scale test results and nonlinear finite-element modeling results of this new lateral force resisting system are discussed and reported herein.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002284. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Cold-formed steel; Shear walls; Perforated; Experimental investigation; Numerical simulation; Seismic performance
assessment; Seismic performance modification factors.

Introduction (Sacramento, California) corrugated sheathing, and recommended

Cold-formed steel (CFS) structures have been widely used in
low-rise residential and commercial buildings in North America,
Australia, and New Zealand. The industry has increasingly been
looking for sustainable methods to use CFS construction in mid-
and high-rise buildings. One major concern for using CFS shear
walls in midrise buildings is that, according to the International
Building Code (IBC 2015), noncombustible materials are required
to be used for shear walls in Type I and II constructions, which
consequently excludes the use of wood-panel shear walls. The con-
cept of using corrugated steel sheathing is one of the promising
solutions raised by recent research (Fülöp and Dubina 2004;
Stojadinovic and Tipping 2007; Yu et al. 2009). Experimental re-
sults have shown that shear walls with corrugated steel sheathing
exhibit high shear strength and high initial stiffness, but low duc-
tility (Yu et al. 2009). Therefore, a test program was recently con-
ducted at the University of North Texas to investigate the behavior
and strength of CFS shear walls using low-profile corrugated steel
sheathing with openings (Yu and Yu 2016; Yu et al. 2017). Yu et al.
(2017) performed an optimization study of the slit pattern in the
corrugated sheathing, and concluded that slit openings outper-
formed circular hole openings in terms of the shear wall’s ductility,
strength, and stiffness. Mahdavian (2016) conducted an experimen-
tal program to optimize the slit pattern for a low-profile Verco
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Tongji Univ.,
Shanghai 200092, China. Email: wenyingchangan@163.com
2
Professor, Dept. of Engineering Technology, Univ. of North Texas,
Denton, TX 76207 (corresponding author). Email: cheng.yu@unt.edu
3
Research Engineer, Verco Decking Inc., 2386 Fair Oaks Blvd.,
Sacramento, CA 95825. Email: mmahdavian@vercodeck.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 27, 2017; approved on
September 10, 2018; published online on February 14, 2019. Discussion
period open until July 14, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
a 12 × 51-mm (2-in.) vertical slit pattern (Fig. 1) for CFS shear
walls. The research presented in the paper is a continuation of
Mahdavian (2016) and Yu et al. (2017) to further study the seismic
performance of a CFS shear wall system using corrugated sheath-
ing with slits, a new system. Its seismic behavior and design factors
were analyzed and are provided to the engineering community to
support its application in the actual construction. The methodology
described in FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009b) was adopted in this re-
search to evaluate the seismic performance of the perforated shear
wall system and to develop the relevant design seismic performance
factors.
The FEMA P695 methodology provides a standard procedure
to systematically develop and assess seismic performance factors
of newly proposed seismic force–resisting systems, including the
response modification factor, R, the system overstrength factor,
Ω0 , and the deflection amplification factor, Cd . The methodology
achieves the life safety performance objective by requiring an
acceptably low probability of collapse of the seismic force re-
sisting system for maximum considered earthquake (MCE) ground
motions. The methodology was used by Vigh et al. (2013) to in-
vestigate the seismic performance of corrugated steel shear wall
systems. Each building archetype was simulated with a two-
dimensional (2D) model in OpenSees software, and the shear walls
were represented by nonlinear diagonal strut elements. The proper-
ties of the strut elements were determined through FEM and cali-
brated with the test data. The pinching behavior and cyclic
degradation of the shear walls were also simulated. The results
showed that performance factors of R ¼ Cd ¼ 4 and Ω0 ¼ 3 were
appropriate for the steel corrugated shear wall systems.
A similar analysis was conducted by Kechidi et al. (2017) to
develop design procedures for CFS shear wall panels (SWPs) com-
patible with the Eurocode framework. Nonlinear static analysis
and incremental dynamic analyses (IDAs) of 54 archetype build-
ings were conducted using OpenSees and each archetype building
was simulated with 2D braced frames with pinned connections.

© ASCE 04019014-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019014


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sergio Barreiro on 07/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Optimal slit configuration.
The nonlinear behavior of SWPs was modeled by an equivalent
zero-length element located at the center of the SWP using a novel
deteriorating hysteresis material, steel-sheathed cold-formed steel
shear wall panel (CFSWSWP), in OpenSees. The study revealed
that a behavior factor of q ¼ 2 was able to meet the acceptance
criteria in low-to-moderate-seismicity regions.
Fiorino et al. (2017) performed a numerical study to provide
suitable values of the behavior factor (q) for CFS strap-braced stud
walls following the FEMA P695 procedure. The behavior of CFS
strap-braced stud walls was characterized by pinched hysteretic re-
sponse which was captured using the pinching4 material. A total of
14 archetypes were simulated with three-dimensional (3D) nonlin-
ear models in OpenSees. Elastic beam–column elements were used
to model gravity load–carrying studs. Floor elements were consid-
ered as rigid and moments between studs and rigid floors were re-
leased. The study concluded that a behavior factor of q ¼ 2.5 for
CFS strap braced stud walls is appropriate.
All the previously described studies followed FEMA P695
methodology and tried to develop relevant design procedure for
CFS shear walls with different design details. The research findings
by Vigh et al. (2013) and Kechidi et al. (2017) were based on the
© ASCE 04019014-2
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019014
nonlinear analysis of 2D models, and the research by Fiorino et al.
(2017) was based on CFS strap-braced stud walls. None of the
numerical models in these studies included the influence of bearing
walls in the building systems. Therefore the results are believed to
be conservative.
In typical low- and midrise light-frame steel buildings,
shear walls are also commonly designed to carry vertical/gravity
loads. However, the previous studies (Fülöp and Dubina 2004;
Stojadinovic and Tipping 2007; Yu et al. 2009) were only tested
under lateral loading. In the present study, shear walls subjected
to both lateral and vertical loads were tested and the results were
used to model the shear walls in the finite-element models of Open-
Sees version 2.5.0. The tests in this research were also designed to
investigate the collapse limit of the shear walls. Large lateral defor-
mation was achieved in the test program to obtain the structural per-
formance of the walls at a collapse level of lateral displacement. The
experimental results and the seismic performance evaluation of the
new shear wall system are presented. A set of seismic performance
factors, the response modification factor R, overstrength factor Ω0,
and deflection amplification factor Cd were proposed from those
analyses.
Test Program
Test Setup
The test setup in this research was similar to that reported in pre-
vious research at the University of North Texas (Yu et al. 2009,
2017) and details are not be presented herein. The unique feature
in this test program was the gravity loading system. Two weight
boxes were used to apply a constant vertical load to the load beam
placed at the top of the wall specimen. A CFS frame was installed
to prevent the weight boxes from contacting the wall specimens
during the test. The weight boxes, filled with sand bags, were con-
nected to the loading beam with steel chains. One of the advantages
of the vertical loading system is that the internal effect of the weight
boxes can be largely reduced during the test because the system
generates minimal lateral movement of the weight boxes. Fig. 2
illustrates the test setup used in this research. The applied gravity
load was estimated as a first-floor shear wall in a typical two-story
office building analyzed in the Network for Earthquake Engineer-
ing Simulation CFS (NEES-CFS) project (Madsen et al. 2011). The
gravity load was calculated as the sum of the 100% dead load and
25% of the live load acting on the tributary area.
Test Procedure
In all tests, the constant gravity load was first applied to the wall
specimens, and then the lateral load was applied to the wall from
the top. For monotonic tests, the lateral force was applied in a
single direction. For cyclic tests, the lateral force was applied to
both directions in a cyclic fashion. Both testing methods used
displacement-based protocols. The monotonic loading procedure
followed ASTM E564 (ASTM 2012a). The cyclic tests used the
Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering
(CUREE) protocol with a 0.2-Hz (5-s) loading frequency in accor-
dance with Method C in ASTM E2126 (ASTM 2012b). The lateral
loading procedure was the same as that in Yu et al. (2017).
Test Specimens
Four full-scale shear wall specimens were tested in this study. All
specimens were 2,440 mm (8 ft) high, and the width of the walls
varied from 610 to 1,830 mm (2–6 ft). The framing members used
J. Struct. Eng.
 Lateral Supports
Position Transducer
Wall Specimen
Support Frame
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sergio Barreiro on 07/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Front view of the test setup.
Steel Studs Manufacturers Association (SSMA) structural studs
and tracks. All the framing members were of ASTM A1003 Grade
50 (345 MPa) steel. The boundary studs were back-to-back studs
fastened together with a pair of No. 12 × 25.4 mm (1 in.) hex
washer head (HWH) self-drilling screws spaced 152.4 mm (6 in.)
on center. The middle stud used one single C-shaped member. Two
Simpson (Pleasanton, California) Strong-Tie hold-downs S/HD15S
were used for each specimen, one on each boundary stud. The hold-
downs were attached to the inside of the boundary studs by No.
14 × 25.4 mm (1 in.) HWH self-drilling screws. ASTM F3125
grade A490 (ASTM 2015) bolts with a diameter of 15.9 mm
(5=8 in:) were used to fix the hold-downs to the test bed. ASTM
F3125 grade A325 (ASTM 2015) shear bolts with a diameter
of 15.9 mm (5=8 in:) were used to secure the bottom track to the
test bed. The corrugated sheathing used Verco Decking SV36
0.686mm-thick (27 mil) corrugated steel sheet with 14.3 mm
(9=16 in:) rib height, which is manufactured from G90 galvanized
steel with a minimum yield strength of 550 MPa (80 ksi). The
sheathing was installed on one side of the wall using No. 12
HWH self-drilling screws. For each specimen, the sheathing was
composed of three corrugated steel sheets joined by No. 12 HWH
self-drilling screws spaced at 76.2 mm at the seams. Due to the
corrugated sheathing profile, the spacing of the screws along the
panel edges was limited to 76.2 mm (3 in.). The sheathing screw
spacing along the interior stud was 152.4 mm (6 in.). The sheathing
slits were created manually with a grinder with a 1.14-mm-thick
(0.045 in.) grinding disc. Table 1 summarizes the test matrix,
and the detailed wall configurations are illustrated in Fig. 3.
Material Properties
Coupon tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM A370
(ASTM 2006) to obtain the actual properties of the test materials.
Table 1. Test matrix
Loading
Label Width × height (m) protocol Stud
T1-4 × 8 1.22 × 2.44 M 350S200-68
T2-4 × 8 1.22 × 2.44 C 350S200-68
T3-2 × 8 0.61 × 2.44 C 350S200-68
T4-6 × 8 1.83 × 2.44 C 350S200-68
© ASCE 04019014-3
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019014
Load Beam
Hydraulic Actuator
Steel Chain
Weight Box
The coatings on the steel samples were removed with hydrochloric
acid before testing. Test results are provided in Table 2.
Test Results
Observed Wall Behavior
Specimen T1-4x8 was tested under monotonic loading. The defor-
mation of the wall specimen concentrated around the slits. The slits
extended vertically up and down as the lateral displacement in-
creased. The observed failure modes at the peak point were sheet
rupture and a resulting out-of-plane deformation oi the bottom
sheathing. No screw or framing failure was noticed. One objective
of the monotonic tests was to evaluate the collapse drift limit of the
perforated shear wall. Therefore the loading process continued until
a maximum of 10% story drift was reached. By the end of the load-
ing process, the slits extended dramatically and the two adjacent
slits aligned vertically and were connected together. Large relative
out-of-plane movement of the sheet elements at both sides of the
vertical slits was observed. A severe twisting and distortional buck-
ling of the boundary studs were witnessed. However, the shear wall
specimen was still able to carry the whole gravity load without
collapse during the entire loading process. Due to the openings,
the shear wall exhibited a gradual degradation of shear strength
and stiffness instead of an instant decrease after the peak point as
demonstrated in nonperforated shear walls. FEMA P695 (FEMA
2009b) suggests a collapse drift limit of 7% for light wood-framed
structures. In wood and light-gauge steel-framed construction, the
shear walls are constructed similarly. Both use framing members
such as dimensional lumber or C-shaped steel members surfaced
with structural sheathing (FEMA 2009a). The IBC (2015) consid-
ers light steel-framed structures with steel-sheathed shear walls to
have the same seismic performance as light wood-framed structures
with wood panel–sheathed shear walls. Therefore a 7% collapse
Slit Gravity/vertical
Track configuration (mm) load (kN)
350T150-68 12 × 51 24
350T150-68 12 × 51 24
350T150-68 6 × 51 13
350T125-68 18 × 51 32
J. Struct. Eng.
 76 76 76

305 305 305 305 305 305 305 305

267

267
305 305 305 305
267

762

762
762

305

305
305

76 76 76
457

457

457
76

76
76

76
152

152
914

381

914

914
457

457
51

51
51
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sergio Barreiro on 07/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

457
381

381
762

762
762
572

572
572

305 89 89 89 89 89 305 89
610 610 610 610 610 610

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 3. Shear wall configurations: (a) 1.22 × 2.44-m specimen; (b) 0.61 × 2.44-m specimen; and (c) 1.83 × 2.44-m specimen.

Table 2. Material properties

Tensile Elongation
Uncoated Yield stress, strength, for 50.8-mm
Components (MPa) thickness (mm) Fy (MPa) Fu (MPa) Fu =Fy length (%)
Verco SV36, 550 0.737 601.9 634.9 1.05 3.0
350S200-68, 345 1.753 387.8 533.5 1.38 32.7
350T150-68, 345 1.778 388.7 489.3 1.26 13.9
350T125-68, 345 1.803 396.5 513.0 1.29 26.1

drift limit was chosen in this research for the new CFS shear wall
system. The authors concluded that the selection was conservative
from test results (10% drift was observed) but consistent with the
code’s arrangement. The load-displacement response is shown in
Fig. 4 and the detailed deformations of the T1-4x8 specimen are
shown in Fig. 5.
T2-4 × 8 was a cyclically loaded test and the specimen exhib-
ited similar failure mechanism as in the monotonic test (T1-4 × 8).
The deformation was concentrated around the slits areas as soon
as the loading started. The shear wall reached its ultimate shear
strength when the bottom sheathing slits started to rupture. The rup-
tures continued to grow vertically as the shear wall gradually lost its
shear strength in the postpeak stage. No screw or framing failure
was noticed. The detailed deformations of the T2-4 × 8 specimen
under cyclic loading are shown in Fig. 6.
Shear wall Specimen T3-2x8 under cyclic loading had similar
failure modes. Slits extended progressively and the shear wall stiff-
ness degraded gradually. The observed failure modes were sheet
rupture and a relative out-of-plane deformation on both sides of
the slits. No screw or framing failure was noticed. The detailed de-
Fig. 4. Load versus displacement response of T1-4 × 8 specimen.
formations of shear wall specimen T3-2x8 are shown in Fig. 7.

© ASCE 04019014-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sergio Barreiro on 07/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Failure modes of T1-4 × 8 specimen: (a) stud deformation at peak load; (b) sheathing deformation at peak load; (c) sheathing deformation at
10% story drift; and (d) stud deformation at 10% story drift.
Fig. 6. Failure modes of T2-4 × 8 specimen: (a) front view; and
(b) back view.
The observed failure mode of cyclic test Specimen T4-6x8 was
similar to that of other tests. The slits in the sheathing tore and
extended vertically. By the end of the loading protocol, the slits
aligned vertically were connected together and large relative out-
of-plane movement of the steel sheathing occurred, and therefore
the bottom screws at the vertical sheet-to-sheet connection joint be-
came loose. In addition, local crushing at the bottom of the boun-
dary studs as well as distortional buckling on the chord studs and
internal studs were noticed. Screw bearing failure, which was
attributed to the improper installation of short edge distance, was
also observed on the bottom studs. The detailed deformations of
shear wall Specimen T4-6 × 8 are shown in Fig. 8.
Shear Wall Performance
The performance parameters obtained from each wall specimen are
provided in Table 3. The results include the test peak load, Pmax ;
lateral displacement at peak load, Δmax ; load and displacement at
0.4Pmax (prepeak) and 0.8Pmax (postpeak); initial stiffness; duc-
tility factor; and dissipated energy. The ductility factor was calcu-
lated using the equivalent energy elastic plastic model (EEEP) in
accordance with AISI S400 (AISI 2015). For the hysteresis curve,
backbone curves in both the positive and negative displacement
regions were first identified by plotting the locus of all the peak
force points in the first cycle of the same displacement amplitude
© ASCE 04019014-5
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019014
Fig. 7. Failure modes of T3-2 × 8 specimen: (a) front view; and
(b) back view.
cycles. Then the parameters were determined from the backbone
curves. Dissipated energy is defined as the area under the backbone
curve.
For comparison purposes, the test results reported by Zhang et al.
(2016) are also presented in Table 3. The configuration of Speci-
men SW-C1 from Zhang et al. (2016) was the same as that of the
1.22 × 2.44-m specimen in this research expect that no openings
were cut in the corrugated steel sheathing. The loading conditions
in these two papers were also the same, and thus a direct compari-
son can be made of the results. The load-versus-displacement
curves of the T2-4x8 specimen and the SW-C1 specimen from
Zhang et al. (2016) are plotted in Fig. 9. The openings in the sheath-
ing improved the shear wall’s ductility. Compared with the nonper-
forated shear wall, the ductility of perforated shear walls improved
as much as 82% and the decrease in shear strength was only 22%.
The load-versus-displacement response of the perforated shear wall
was smoother than that of the nonperforated shear wall, which in-
dicates that the perforated shear wall exhibited a gradual degrada-
tion of shear strength and stiffness instead of an instant decrease
after peak load.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Fig. 8. Failure modes of T4-6 × 8 specimen: (a) sheathing deformation; (b) frame failure; (c) sheathing deformation and screw connection failure; and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sergio Barreiro on 07/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(d) screw bearing failure.

Table 3. Shear wall test results

Specimen Pmax (kN) Δmax (mm) Δ0.4 (mm) P0.4 (kN) K (kN=m) Δy (mm) Py (kN) Δ0.8u (mm) P0.8 (kN) Ductility factor Energy (J)
T1-4 × 8 61.47 55.47 11.06 24.59 2,223 23.77 52.83 77.88 49.17 3.28 3,487
T2-4 × 8 59.40 53.22 9.44 23.76 2,518 20.76 52.27 98.26 47.52 4.75 4,589
T3-2 × 8 31.88 98.84 16.69 12.75 764 37.41 28.59 113.03 31.58 3.03 2,776
T4-6 × 8 103.21 54.27 13.69 41.29 3,016 31.23 94.23 80.71 82.57 2.59 6,135
SW-C1a 76.14 62.7 15.9 30.46 1,929 35.4 67.74 91.1 60.91 2.61 4,968
a
Test results from Zhang et al. (2016).

(h∶w) aspect ratio (Table 4). However, the reduction was not as
severe that required by the 2w∶h strength reduction factor (SRF)
multiplier prescribed in AISI S400 (AISI 2015).
Test T1-4 × 8 was compared with Test T2-4 × 8 in order to
determine the influence of different loading protocols. The loads-
versus-displacement curves of both wall specimens are plotted in
Fig. 11, along with the backbone curve of the cyclic test. The
average absolute value of the positive and negative peaks from the
backbone curve was 96.6% of the ultimate strength from the mon-
otonic test (Table 3). It can be concluded that the shear capacity of
perforated corrugated steel sheet shear walls remains almost the
same when the loading method changes.

Seismic Performance Assessment

Fig. 9. Hysteresis comparison: nonperforated versus perforated.
The three cyclic shear wall tests were compared in order to
examine the effect of aspect ratio on the shear capacities of the
shear walls. The loads-versus-displacement curves of the three wall
specimens are plotted in Fig. 10, along with the backbone curves.
Table 4 lists the nominal shear strength obtained from cyclic tests.
The nominal shear strength is taken as the average of the peak load
from the positive and negative quadrants of the hysteresis curve
plot. According to ASCE 7 (ASCE 2016) and IBC (2015), the
allowable story drift is 1/40 of the story height. Therefore, for
those shear walls in which the peak point came after 1/40 drift
[i.e., 61 mm (2.4 in.)], the load values at 61 mm (2.4 in.) were used.
The peak strength degraded with the increase of wall height:width
Building Archetypes
The building archetypes described by Zhang et al. (2017) were
adopted, expect that perforated shear walls were used as the main
lateral force–resisting elements in the present research instead of
the nonperforated shear walls used by Zhang et al. (2017). The
building prototype included a typical hotel building from engineer-
ing practice and an office building similar in configuration to the
NEES-CFS project (Madsen et al. 2011). A total of six building
archetypes were selected and a maximum of five stories was con-
sidered according to the allowable number of stories in the current
International Building Code (IBC 2015). The archetypes are de-
signed as seismic design category (SDC) D per ASCE 7 (ASCE
2016). The MCE spectral response acceleration parameter Smt ¼
1.5g was used for the hotel building and Smt ¼ 1.39g was used
for the office building. The load resistance factor design (LRFD)
method was applied and the seismic force modification factors
were initially set based on the light-frame steel shear resistance

© ASCE 04019014-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sergio Barreiro on 07/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Hysteresis responses of shear wall specimens with different aspect ratios: (a) hysteresis curves; and (b) backbone curves.

Table 4. Tested shear strength under cyclic loading Table 5. Archetype building details
Label Aspect ratio Shear strength (kN=m) Key archetype design parameters
T2-4 × 8 2 48.7 Archetype No. of Aspect
T3-2 × 8 4 46.2 ID stories Occupancy ratio SMT (g) T (s) V=W (g)
T4-6 × 8 1.33 56.4
1 2 Hotel 2.5 1.5 0.262 0.154
2 4 Hotel 2.5 1.5 0.440 0.154
3 5 Hotel 2.0 1.5 0.520 0.154
4 2 Office 2.25 1.39 0.245 0.143
5 3 Office 2.57 1.39 0.332 0.143
6 5 Office 3 1.39 0.486 0.143
Note: SMT = maximum considered earthquake spectral acceleration; and
T = fundamental period calculated according to Section 5.2.5 of FEMA
P695 (FEMA 2009b).

was used following the provisions in AISI S400 (AISI 2015).

Fig. 11. Comparison of monotonic loading and cyclic loading.
systems with flat steel sheathing (ASCE 2016). The building design
used R ¼ 6.5 and Ω0 ¼ 3.0, which were subject to confirmation by
this study. The key design parameters are listed in Table 5.
Numerical Modeling
The building archetypes were designed in accordance with ASCE 7
(ASCE 2016). Seismic lateral-force resistance was assumed to be
provided by the shear walls. The total story shear was first deter-
mined and the length and distribution of shear walls were then as-
signed. The shear wall resistance was based on the test results
described in previous sections and a resistance factor of ϕ ¼ 0.6
Fig. 12 shows the typical schematic drawings of the FE models
used in OpenSees (McKenna et al. 2015). All shear walls and bear-
ing walls were placed along the exterior skin of the office buildings,
which allowed for flexible arrangement of the partition walls. In the
hotel buildings, the shear walls were assigned to the corners and
two longitudinal sides, and the bearing walls were placed primarily
in the interior of the building, which allowed the existence of large
window openings in the exterior walls.
The modeling technique was in accordance with Zhang et al.
(2017). A rigid diaphragm was used in the building model. Total
seismic mass was calculated in accordance with ASCE 7 (ASCE
2016) and the mass of each story was divided equally and lumped
to the four corners. The P-delta effect was included because large
displacement could arise. The modeling of the shear wall and the
bearing wall was by two diagonal truss elements and elastic frame
boundary elements (Fig. 13). Pinching4 uniaxial hysteretic material
in OpenSees (McKenna et al. 2015) was used for the diagonal truss
elements in order to simulate the pinching effect, the strength deg-
radation, and the stiffness degradation. The backbone curve and the
pinching perimeters (reloading and unloading) of the bearing walls
were based on the test results reported by Zhang et al. (2016). The
backbone curve and the pinching parameters (reloading and un-
loading) of the shear walls were specified according to the test
results reported in this paper. The complete set of Pinching4

© ASCE 04019014-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sergio Barreiro on 07/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 12. Schematic drawings of the OpenSees models: (a) five-story hotel building; and (b) five-story office building.

Table 6. Pinching4 material parameters used for shear wall models

b
Pinching4 parameters Value
ePd1, eNd1 0.39
ePd2, eNd2 0.64
ePd3, eNd3 1.00
ePd4, eNd4 2.04
ePf1, eNf1 0.69
E,A ePf2, eNf2 0.87
ePf3, eNf3 1.00
ePf4, eNf4 0.78
gK1 −0.20
gK2 −0.20
h gK3 0.30
gK4 0.20
gKlim 0.90
gD1,2 0.50
gD3,4 2.00
gDlim 0.50
gF1,2 0.00
gF3,4 0.00
gFlim 0.00
rForce 0.23
uForce −0.195
rDisp 0.25

Fig. 13. Shear wall and bearing wall model in OpenSees.

parameters for the perforated shear walls is listed in Table 6. The
definitions of these parameters are illustrated in Fig. 14. Aspect
ratio adjustment recommended in AISI S400 (AISI 2015) was per-
formed when the width of the wall in the building was different
from the width of the test specimen.
To verify the validity of the FE model, Shear Wall T2-4 × 8 was
simulated. The test result and the simulation result are compared
in Fig. 15, along with last 15 cyclic loops. The shear wall model
had good agreement with the test result and the model was able to
simulate the postpeak behavior of the shear wall. The authors tried
to include the boundary studs’ inelastic behavior and the P-Δ effect
in the OpenSees model’s lateral force–resistance behavior by the
calibrated shear wall model. The inelastic behavior of the entire
CFS light-frame system may not be fully represented in the current
building model.

© ASCE 04019014-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019014

 load
(ePd3, ePf3)
b
(ePd2, ePf2)
backbone
pinching4

(ePd1, ePf1)

a (ePd4, ePf 4)
f

c deformation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sergio Barreiro on 07/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(eNd4, eNf 4)
d

(eNd1, eNf1)

e
(eNd2, eNf 2)
(eNd3, eNf3)

Fig. 14. Pinching4 material definition.

Fig. 15. Simulation results of shear wall.

Static Pushover Analysis
Pushover analysis was performed in order to obtain the ductility
parameter and system overstrength factor. The displacement duc-
tility factor was defined as μT ¼ δ u =δy , where δ u is the displace-
ment at 80% postpeak load level and δ y is the displacement at yield.
The overstrength factor was defined as Ω0 ¼ V max =V design , where
V max is the maximum base shear in actual behavior and V design is
base shear at design level. The calculated displacement ductility
factors and overstrength factors of the six building archetypes are
listed in Table 7. Typical pushover curves of the building arche-
types are shown in Fig. 16.
To evaluate the contribution of bearing walls to the overall
performance of the structure, another two OpenSees models, a
two-story office building and a five-story office building, were also
created. The two new models were installed with the perforated
shear walls only and no bearing wall was simulated. The following
conclusions were obtained from the OpenSees results: for the two-
story office building, the overstrength factor increased from 2.67 to
8.48 if bearing walls were taken into account; for the five-story

© ASCE 04019014-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019014

 Table 7. Pushover analysis results near-field record set. The far-field record set includes 22 compo-
Occupancy Height Ω μT nent pairs of horizontal ground motions from sites located 10 km or
farther from fault rupture. The record sets do not include the ver-
Office building Two-story 8.48 2.34
tical component of ground motion because this direction of earth-
Three-story 6.00 1.89
Five-story 3.56 1.59 quake shaking is not considered to be of primary importance for
Mean 6.01 1.94 collapse evaluation, and is not required by the FEMA P695 meth-
odology for nonlinear dynamic analysis. The near-field record set is
Hotel building Two-story 4.51 2.34 only for supplemental information and is used in special studies to
Four-story 3.20 1.65
evaluate potential differences in the collapse margin ratio (CMR)
Five-story 2.95 1.47
Mean 3.55 1.82
for SDC E structures. As a result, the far-field record set was chosen
and horizontal components of ground motion were used. This paper
employed the story drift as the damage measure (DM) and the spec-
tral acceleration of the first natural period of the structure as the
office building, the overstrength factor increased from 1.99 to 3.56 typical intensity measure (IM). The collapse drift limit was taken
if bearing walls were included. as 7%, as explained previously. Typical IDA curves and fragility
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sergio Barreiro on 07/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

curves of the building archetypes are shown in Figs. 17 and 18.

Incremental Dynamic Analysis
Incremental dynamic analysis was performed in accordance
with FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009b). FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009b)
recommends two sets of ground motion records for collapse assess-
ment using nonlinear dynamic analysis: the far-field record and the
FEMA P695 defines a group of parameters to evaluate the seismic
performance of the proposed seismic force–resisting system. The
median collapse intensity, SCT, is defined as the spectral acceler-
ation causing 50% collapse probability. The ratio of the median
collapse intensity (SCT) to the MCE intensity (SMT) is the CMR.
CMR is the primary parameter used to evaluate the collapse safety

Fig. 16. Pushover curves: (a) five-story hotel building; and (b) five-story office building.

Fig. 17. IDA results of five-story hotel building: (a) IDA curve; and (b) fragility curve.

© ASCE 04019014-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sergio Barreiro on 07/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 18. IDA results of five-story office building: (a) IDA curve; and (b) fragility curve.

Table 8. IDA results

Occupancy Height SCT CMR SSF ACMR β TOT Acceptable ACMR
Office building Two-story 3.53 2.54 1.067 2.709 0.481 1.497
Three-story 3.00 2.16 1.056 2.279 0.451 1.461
Five-story 2.98 2.14 1.044 2.234 0.432 1.439
Mean of performance group 3.17 2.28 1.056 2.407 0.455 1.792
Hotel building Two-story 2.69 1.80 1.067 1.915 0.481 1.498
Four-story 2.82 1.88 1.046 1.969 0.436 1.443
Five-story 2.90 1.93 1.040 2.009 0.425 1.430
Mean of performance group 2.80 1.87 1.051 1.964 0.447 1.773

of the building design. To account for the effects of the frequency
content (spectral shape) of the applied earthquake record set, the
CMR was adjusted using a spectral shape factor (SSF) given in
FEMA P695. The SSF factor is related to the fundamental period
of the system, T, and the period-based ductility, μT . For each build-
ing archetype, the adjusted collapse margin ratio, ACMR, was
calculated by multiplying the CMR by SSF. The aforementioned
data are summarized in Table 8.
Seismic Performance Factors
Calculation of Overstrength Factor
Table 7 summarizes the calculated Ω values for each archetype,
with a range of values from 2.95 to 8.48. The average values for
each performance group were 6.01 and 3.55, with the largest value
being 6.01. According to FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009b), the largest
possible Ω0 ¼ 3.0 is warranted, because the average values of both
performance groups were greater than 3.0.
Calculation of Response Modification Factor
Many sources of uncertainty contribute to variability in collapse
capacity. FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009b) includes four sources of
uncertainties in performance evaluation analysis: uncertainty due to
record-to-record variation, β RTR ; uncertainty due to design require-
ments, β DR ; uncertainty related the test data, β TD ; and uncertainty
related to modeling of the structure, β MDL . The record-to-record
collapse uncertainty is calculated based on 0.2 ≤ β RTR ¼ 0.1 þ
0.1μT ≤ 0.4ðμT ≤ 3Þ. A similar design procedure for CFS steel
panel shear walls was adopted in this paper, and the design pro-
cedure provided adequate safeguard against unanticipated failure
modes. However, confidence in these design requirements was
medium because they were only validated via single full-scale wall
tests. Therefore, the design requirement–related uncertainty was
taken as good. The test data–related uncertainty was taken as good
due to previous experimental experience indicating that as long
as the boundary condition (test setup) remains the same, the test
results should be reliable. The modeling of structure-related uncer-
tainty was also taken as good because all models were calibrated
based on the experimental results and had the ability to exhibit
postpeak behavior as well as the failure mechanisms of the wall
systems. Results in Table 8 show that the ACMR for each archetype
passed the acceptable collapse margin ratio with 20% collapse
probability (ACMR 20%) and the average value of ACMR for each
performance group exceeded the acceptable collapse margin ratio
with 10% collapse probability (ACMR 10%). As a result, the adop-
tion of R ¼ 6.5 was confirmed for this newly proposed lateral
resisting system with perforated corrugated steel sheathing.
Calculation of Deflection Amplification Factor
According to Eqs. (7) and (8) in FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009b)
R
Cd ¼
BI
where BI = numerical damping coefficient that can be obtained
from Table 18.6.1 of ASCE 7 (ASCE 2016). The inherent damping
of the CFS framed building system with corrugated steel sheathing
was assumed to be 5% of critical in this research. As a result, the
damping coefficient, BI , was 1.0 and the deflection amplification
factor, Cd , was 6.5.

© ASCE 04019014-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019014

 Conclusions
Cold-formed steel shear walls with vertical slits in the corrugated
steel sheathing were tested under combined lateral and gravity/
vertical loading. The test results indicate that the perforated shear
wall could demonstrate desirable ductility and initial stiffness while
maintaining relatively high shear strength. Therefore the proposed
new shear wall can be used in Type I and II constructions in high
wind and seismic regions.
Nonlinear finite-element analyses were performed of six build-
ing archetypes in which the innovative perforated shear walls are
installed. Seismic performance assessment was evaluated following
the methodology in FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009b). The results in-
dicate that a set of seismic performance factors (R ¼ Cd ¼ 6.5 and
Ω0 ¼ 3.0) is appropriate for the perforated cold-formed steel-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sergio Barreiro on 07/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
framed shear wall systems using corrugated steel sheathing. The
proposed seismic performance factors are consistent with the
existing factors for CFS-framed shear wall systems using flat steel
sheet or wood-based panels. The proposed seismic performance
factors should also be evaluated and approved by professional
experts before being submitted to design documents. This paper
provides an analytical basis for future code adoption of the new
CFS shear wall system.
Acknowledgments
This paper was prepared as part of the US National Science Foun-
dation CAREER award, NSF-CMMI-0955189: Comprehensive
Research on Cold-Formed Steel Sheathed Shear Walls, Special
Detailing, Design, and Innovation and NSF-PFI:AIR-TT-1445065:
Innovative High-Performance Cold-Formed Steel Walls for Light
Framed Construction. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National
Science Foundation.
References
AISI (American Iron and Steel Institute). 2015. North American standard
for seismic design of cold-formed steel structural systems. AISI S400.
Washington, DC: AISI.
ASCE. 2016. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.
ASCE 7. Reston, VA: ASCE.
ASTM. 2006. Standard test methods and definitions for mechanical testing
of steel products. A370-06. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2012a. Standard practice for static load test for shear resistance
of framed walls for buildings. ASTM E564. West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2012b. Standard test methods for cyclic (reversed) load test for
shear resistance of vertical elements of the lateral force resisting sys-
tems for buildings. ASTM E2126. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
© ASCE 04019014-12
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019014
ASTM. 2015. Standard specification for high strength structural bolts,
steel and alloy steel, heat treated, 120 ksi (830 MPa) and 150 ksi
(1040 MPa) minimum tensile strength, inch and metric dimensions.
ASTM F3125/F3125M-15a. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
FEMA. 2009a. Local official guide for coastal construction. FEMA P762.
Washington, DC: FEMA.
FEMA. 2009b. Quantification of building seismic performance factors.
FEMA P695. Washington, DC: FEMA.
Fiorino, L., S. Shakeel, V. Macillo, and R. Landolfo. 2017. “Behaviour
factor (q) evaluation the CFS braced structures according to FEMA
P695.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 138 (Nov): 324–339. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.jcsr.2017.07.014.
Fülöp, L. A., and B. Dubina. 2004. “Performance of wall-stud cold-formed
shear panels under monotonic and cyclic loading: Part I: Experimental
research.” Thin-Walled Struct. 42 (2): 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1016
/S0263-8231(03)00063-6.
IBC (International Code Council). 2015. International building code.
Washington, DC: IBC.
Kechidi, S., N. Bourahla, and J. M. Castro. 2017. “Seismic design pro-
cedure for cold-formed steel sheathed shear wall frames: Proposal and
evaluation.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 128 (Jan): 219–232. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.jcsr.2016.08.018.
Madsen, R. L., N. Nakata, and B. W. Schafer. 2011. “CFS-NEES building
structural design narrative.” Accessed May 1, 2017. www.ce.jhu.edu
/cfsness.
Mahdavian, M. 2016. “Innovative cold-formed steel shear walls with
corrugated steel sheathing.” Master thesis, Dept. of Engineering
Technology, Univ. of North Texas.
McKenna, F., G. L. Fenves, M. H. Scott, and B. Jeremić. 2015. “Open sys-
tem for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees).” Accessed
June 1, 2016. http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
Stojadinovic, B., and S. Tipping. 2007. Structural testing of corrugated
sheet steel shear walls. Ontario, CA: Charles Pankow Foundation.
Vigh, L. G., G. G. Deierlein, E. Miranda, A. B. Liel, and S. Tipping. 2013.
“Seismic performance assessment of steel corrugated shear wall system
using non-linear analysis.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 85 (Jun): 48–59. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2013.02.008.
Yu, C., Z. Huang, and H. Vora. 2009. “Cold-formed steel framed shear wall
assemblies with corrugated sheet steel sheathing.” In Proc., Annual
Stability Conf. Phoenix, AZ: Structural Stability Research Council.
Yu, C., and G. Yu. 2016. “Experimental investigation of cold-formed steel
framed shear wall using corrugated steel sheathing with circular holes.”
J. Struct. Eng. 142 (12): 04016126. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0001609.
Yu, C., W. Zhang, G. Yu, and J. Wang. 2017. “Cold-formed steel framed
shear wall using corrugated steel sheathing with slits.” J. Struct. Eng.
144 (8): 04018111. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X
.0002097.
Zhang, W., M. Mahdavian, Y. Li, and C. Yu. 2016. “Experiments and
simulations of cold-formed steel wall assemblies using corrugated steel
sheathing subjected to shear and gravity loads.” J. Struct. Eng. 143 (3):
04016193. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001681.
Zhang, W., M. Mahdavian, Y. Li, and C. Yu. 2017. “Seismic performance
evaluation of cold-formed steel shear walls using corrugated steel
sheathing.” J. Struct. Eng. 143 (11): 04017151. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001891.
J. Struct. Eng.