International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1643–1653

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-018-0307-y

RESEARCH PAPER

Seismic Response of Cold Formed Steel Frames Sheathed by Fiber

Cement Boards
Mehran Zeynalian1 · Ali Zarezadeh Shahrasbi1 · Hossein Tajmir Riahi1

Received: 15 October 2017 / Revised: 5 April 2018 / Accepted: 9 April 2018 / Published online: 23 April 2018
© Iran University of Science and Technology 2018

Abstract
In this paper, the seismic performance of cold formed steel shear walls sheathed by fiber cement boards (FCB) is investi-
gated. Of particular interest is the seismic response modification factor of FCB shear walls. Nonlinear incremental dynamic
analyses of multi-story cold formed steel framed structures were carried out following an approach adopted by FEMA-P695
on the description of building seismic behavior. Different scaled earthquake records in three different earthquake prone
regions located on low, medium and high seismic risk zones in Iran were taken into account. One, two and three story CFS
archetype buildings were analyzed using models created in OpenSees software to predict structural performance of the
buildings. Nonlinear dynamic time history analyses were carried out employing OpenSees software utilizing 2D models of
a FCB braced wall tower. A stick model was created whose behavior was fitted to the lateral resistance versus deformation
of each story that braced elements in the model. The elements were defined via material Pinching4 to construct a uniaxial
material exhibiting pinched load-deformation response and demonstrate degradation under cyclic loading. The results show
that most relevant codes which suggest the value of seismic response modification factor equal to 2 for cold formed steel
shear walls sheathed by FCB are acceptable only for up to three story buildings in low seismic risk zone, up to two story in
medium seismic zone and one story in high seismic risk zone.

Keywords  Cold formed steel · Fiber cement boards · Response modification factor · Nonlinear incremental dynamic
analyses · Fragility curves

1 Introduction application as main load-bearing structural frames is rela-

Cold formed steel (CFS) elements have been increasingly
used as load-bearing structural components in housing
industry in recent years. CFS structures are often light,
durable, cost effective and easy to work with. Compared to
common hot rolled steel structures, the structural behavior of
CFS structures is more complicated, as they are thin-walled
and suffer from intersection plate instability. Although light-
weight cold formed steel walls are not new and have been
used as non-structural components for many years [1], their
* Mehran Zeynalian
m.zeynalian@eng.ui.ac.ir
Ali Zarezadeh Shahrasbi
Ali.zarezadeh@eng.ui.ac.ir
Hossein Tajmir Riahi
tajmir@eng.ui.ac.ir
1
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Isfahan,
Isfahan, Iran
tively new. As a result, appropriate guidelines that address
the seismic design of CFS structures have not yet been
fully developed and the lateral design of these systems is
not covered in detail in the standards of practice. Hence,
more research work is required to clarify the many different
aspects of their seismic performance.
Fiber cement board sheathed panel lateral resistant sys-
tem is already being used in the housing industry, though
there are very few studies on the structural performance of
this system. Thus, the aim of the current research is to evalu-
ate the seismic response modification factor of the currently
in-use CFS fiber cement board sheathed shear panels, and
compare it with the recommended code values of the R fac-
tor. Seismic response modification factor, R factor, is defined
to reduce the linear elastic design load to consider the energy
dissipation capacity of the structure. It is necessary to men-
tion that this study is part of a major research project [2–5]
that is concerned with lateral seismic performance of differ-
ent currently in-use CFS structures.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

1644
Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of
buildings IR2800 [6] stipulates a seismic hazard with an
exceedance probability of ten percent in 50 years for design
load. IR2800 also contains further seismic design informa-
tion, such as seismic reduction factor, over strength factor
and height limits, for different structural lateral framing sys-
tems including CFS shear walls. To ensure the proper perfor-
mance of a building during an earthquake, there exist design
standards including seismic details and design provisions
for designing seismic resistance systems made from cold
formed steel framing [7]. The fiber cement board sheathed
bracing system’s seismic design information is demonstrated
in Table 1. For confidence use of these values in IR2800,
it is necessary to perform nonlinear dynamic time history
analyses of multi-story CFS framed structures according
to FEMA P695 [8] methodology to quantify the building’s
seismic performance factors. Hence, CFS frames sheathed
by FCB were analyzed using ground motion records for low,
medium and high seismic risk zones in Iran. Inelastic story
drifts and failure probabilities were then obtained by use of
the FEMA P695 [9] procedure.
1.1 1–2 FEMA P695 Provision
The objective of federal emergency management agency
(FEMA) is to develop a procedure to establish consistent
and rational building system performance and response
parameters (response modification coefficient, R factor, the
system overstrength factor, 𝛺o , and the deflection amplifica-
tion factor, Cd ) for the linear design methods usually used
in current building codes. FEMA P695 methodology on
the quantification of building seismic performance factors,
inelastic story drifts and associated failure probabilities were
then obtained using the FEMA P695 incremental dynamic
analysis procedure.
Various factors such as method of nonlinear dynamic
analyses, uncertainties in ground motion, modeling, and
design have an effect on quantifying seismic response
parameters and building system performance. FEMA P695
prescribes incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) approach
to identify the collapse probabilities and safety levels for
design earthquakes. The structural performance require-
ments and design procedure should be established in such
a way that the structure withstands earthquake loading. In
this research study, the proposed seismic design parameters
presented in Table 1 which are based on IR2800 are adopted.
Table 1  Seismic specifications for cold formed steel frames sheathed by fiber cement boards [6]
Seismic resisting systems R 𝛺0 The maximum allowable height (m) Range application
Cold formed shear panel by sheathing fiber cement 2.0 2.5 7.2
board
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1643–1653
Also, inelastic lateral performance of the FCB frames is
obtained from laboratory testing conducted by Zeynalian
and Ronagh [2]. The information was used to calibrate
and verify models developed in OpenSees [10]. Structural
configurations may then be selected and the design would
be carried out. Dynamic analyses were taken into account
developing nonlinear inelastic models for each structure;
then the important structural characteristics including stiff-
ness and inelastic behavior were scrutinized. Ground motion
is selected and scaled according to those proposed by FEMA
P695. Then, the performances of each model or group of
models were investigated under the same design criterion.
Collapse probability curves were then developed for mod-
eling uncertainty. Finally, comparison between the accept-
able collapse probabilities and analysis results were made
to identify if the design approach including the assumed R
values is acceptable.
2 Background Literatures
Comeau et al. [11] employed nonlinear time history dynamic
analyses of multi-story CFS strap braced structures fol-
lowing an approach adopted by FEMA P695 on the quan-
tification of building seismic performance factors. Input
earthquake records were scaled to the site-specific uniform
hazard spectra for Vancouver, Calgary, Quebec and Halifax
in Canada. The calculated inelastic story drift and the fail-
ure probabilities from the FEMA P695 procedure showed
that Canadian seismic design procedures for type limited
ductility and conventional strap braced walls in AISI-S213
standard [12] are acceptable for the multi-story building.
Pan and Shan [13] tested 13 full-scale CFS shear walls
sheathed by calcium silicate boards. They investigated the
ultimate strength, stiffness, energy absorption, ductility
ratio, and stiffness degradation of the frames under mono-
tonic shear loads. They employed different thicknesses of
calcium silicate board; and reported individual sheathings
placed next to each other worked as one single unit when the
horizontal displacement of walls was small. They proposed
that the ductility ratio of the CFS wall framing system as
2.53.
Leng et al. [14] developed a nonlinear model in Open-
Sees [10] for a building. They reported that the model is
able to characterize the nonlinear behavior of oriented strand
board (OSB) sheathed CFS shear wall systems under seismic
For low, medium and high seismic zones
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1643–1653 1645
forces, accurately. They conducted incremental dynamic
analyses using FEMA P695 ground motion to show that the
drift limit for collapse prevention can be developed. Also,
they concluded that the average ratio of predicted peak to
elastic base shear is four.
Liu et al. [15] performed a series of cyclic tests on OSB
sheathed cold formed steel shear walls. They observed that
the first energy dissipation mechanism occurs at the fastener
to sheathing connection. They fitted equivalent energy elas-
tic plastic (EEEP) curves which were obtained from the
experimental tests and Pinching4 models; and showed that
they were close to each other. They also reported that all
tested specimens had lateral capacity greater than those pre-
scribed by AISI-S213.
Zeynalian and Ronagh [2] conducted an experimental
study of cold formed steel frames sheathed by fiber cement
boards under cyclic lateral loading. They tested four full-
scale fiber cement shear walls evaluating specimens’ maxi-
mum lateral load capacity, load-deformation behavior, as
well as the R factor. They considered both double-sided and
single-sided FCB shear panels, and reported the performance
of the currently in-use FCB sheathed lateral resistant system
under cyclic loads can be improved. They also proposed a
new FCB lateral resistant system. Zeynalian [16, 17] also
conducted a nonlinear finite element analysis to investigate
the seismic performances of steel sheathed cold formed shear
walls. They took into account different structural characteris-
tics including: material nonlinearity, geometrical imperfec-
tion, residual stresses and perforations. They concluded that
the codes and standards, including AISI, should be revised
considering various ranges of structural parameters which
are being employed in currently in-use steel sheathed shear
walls in the housing industry worldwide.
A conclusion from the literature review on FCB shear
walls system is that there is not a universal agreement on the
value of response modification factor, R, and in particular,
there is no reference in the codes specifically for the R fac-
tor of FCB system. Therefore, more studies are required to
clarify this matter.
3 Building Design
The CFS shear walls studied in this paper includes
5 mm thick fiber cement boards which were connected
to the frame using countersunk head self-drilling metal
8 g × 25 mm screws [2]. More detailed information about
the FCB framing system is available in [2].
Fiber cement board sheathed CFS lateral systems were
designed for multi-story residential buildings in three
different cities in Iran located on low, medium and high
seismic risk zones, adjusted for type II soil conditions
introduced by IR2800. Table 2 presents the design base
Table 2  Design base acceleration
Zone Description Design base
acceleration
1 High seismic risk zone 0.30
2 Medium seismic risk zone 0.25
3 Low seismic risk zone 0.20
accelerations of the different seismic zones suggested by
IR2800. Figure 1 shows the plan of the archetype buildings
which is adopted from [11].
One, two and three story structures situated in low,
medium and high seismic risk zone were designed with
FCB braced frames. As shown in Fig. 1, the height of the
buildings is 3.66, 6.71, and 9.76 for one, two, and three
story buildings, respectively. IR2800 equivalent static
force procedure, employing the R values of 2, was used to
determine the design base seismic shear values, seismic
force distribution over the height of each building, and the
consequent FCB shear walls (Table 3).
It is necessary to mention that the fundamental lateral
period, T, for each building was first determined using
the empirical equation for braced frames from IR2800,
T = 0.05(H)0.75 , where H is the height of the structure. It
is assumed Hambro floor system [18] which is illustrated
in Fig. 2 is used in the buildings. Hence, rigid diaphragm
action was reasonably considered, as the floor structure com-
prises a concrete slab supported on CFS joists. Gravity loads
were calculated and used in the models to include second-
order (P-∆) reactions. Dead loads were estimated as 1.05
and 2.87 kPa at the roof and floors, respectively; and the live
load on the floors was defined as 2 kPa. The effects of tor-
sional loading were taken into account as 10% of the seismic
load at each story assuming a symmetrical shear wall layout.
The wind loads were not considered in the design of the
buildings, since the earthquake loads are predominant [11].
FCB shear walls were chosen by changing the FCB panels’
thickness, screw spacing, and the use of the panels in one
side (H1) or two sides (H2) (see Fig. 3). Design parameters
for each of the buildings and the bracing types in the build-
ing are presented in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. It should be
mentioned that each FCB tower was 2.44 m in length; thus,
according to the estimated design base shear, appropriate
number of panels were chosen to be situated in the plan.
4 Hysteresis Calibration and Building
Models
As mentioned earlier, nonlinear dynamic time history analy-
ses were carried out employing OpenSees software utiliz-
ing 2D models of a FCB braced wall tower as illustrated in
13

1646 International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1643–1653

Fig. 1  Building plan [11]

Table 3  Calculation of seismic
lateral force Zone Low seismicity Medium seismicity High seismicity
No. of stories 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Height (m) 3.66 6.71 9.76 3.66 6.71 9.76 3.66 6.71 9.76
Fundamental lateral period 0.13 0.21 0.28 0.13 0.21 0.28 0.13 0.21 0.28
T (s)
Story shear (kN) 75.5 279.5 477.3 84.4 349.4 596.7 113.3 419.2 716
120.4 356 150.4 448.9 180.4 533.8
133.6 167 200.4
No. of braced wall in each story 15 13 21 16 16 26 21 19 31
9 16 11 20 13 23
10 12 15

Fig. 4. The braced elements in the model were defined via
material Pinching4 [10]. This element is used to construct
a uniaxial material exhibiting pinched load-deformation
response and demonstrate degradation under cyclic loading
(Fig. 5). A stick model was created whose behavior was fit-
ted to the lateral resistance versus deformation of each story.
It was assumed that axial deformations of the stud members
were negligible [19]; also seismic masses corresponding to
the braced frame tributary area could be applied at each
story level due to rigid diaphragm action. In the stick model,
two linked columns representing the bracing system are
defined. An infinite axial stiffness column is used to account
for P-Δ loading; and gravity loads were applied on it. The
node at each story was connected to the associated node in
the braced wall tower stick model, rigidly. It is worth noting
that the tributary area for P-Δ gravity loads and that used for
the seismic mass calculations are equal. The second column
with a spring on its middle represents FCB shear wall inelas-
tic structural characteristics. The FCB panel specifications as
obtained in the design of the buildings were used to estimate

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1643–1653 1647

Fig. 2  Hambro floor system Concrete slab

[18] Mes
Continuous slab Ply wood forms
Cold rolled top chord,
portion embedded in
slab for composite
action

1250 mm

Elements for supporting

joists to ply woods

Fig. 3  FCB braced wall tower

Table 4  Specifications of shear FCB panel Design force (N) Studs and tracks thick- Screw spacing Bracing system
walls used in the buildings ness (mm) (mm)

H1 5315 0.55 100 One side FCB

H2 13,600 0.55 100 Double side FCB
H3 23,070 2.5 50 Double side FCB

the load-deformation behavior at each story. The structural
parameters including stiffness and strength were modified as
necessary to reproduce the behavior observed in the labora-
tory test performed by the first author [2]. Figure 6 shows a
comparison between the hysteretic behavior of the software
created model and the laboratory test result. Rayleigh-type
damping is used in this study and 5% damping ratio is set for
different modes. To calculate Rayleigh damping coefficients,
first mode of one story buildings, first and second modes of
two story buildings and first and third modes of three story
buildings are used.

13

1648 International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1643–1653

Table 5  FCB shear wall types used in buildings representative uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) was included
Number of floors 1 2 3 for each of the three zones. Scaling factors were applied to
the recorded ground motions such that the spectral accel-
Zone eration of the ground motion was approximately equal to
 Low seismic risk zone H1 H3 H3 the average fundamental period of the models as shown in
H2 H3 Fig. 7. The building models’ second period was also scruti-
H2 nized to find out how well each record matched to the UHS.
 Medium seismic risk zone H1 H3 H3 Ground motion records scaling is performed to repre-
H2 H3 sent a specific intensity (e.g., the collapse intensity of the
H2 index archetypes of interest). Record scaling included two
 High seismic risk zone H1 H3 H3 steps. First, each record is “normalized” by their respec-
H2 H3 tive peak ground velocities (PGV) using Eqs. 1 and 2, to
H2 remove unwarranted variability between records:
Median (PGV)
NMi = (1)
PGVi
5 Ground Motion Records
NTHi = NMi × THi (2)
A total of 22 earthquake records proposed by FEMA P695
where, PGVi : Peak ground velocity of the ith record. NMi :
were employed for the nonlinear dynamic analyses. Also,
Normalization factor of both horizontal components of
one earthquake record that was closely matched to the

Fig. 4  Schematic layout of
shear models

Fig. 5  Pinching4 material in
OpenSees [10]

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1643–1653 1649
Fig. 6  Hysteresis behavior of FCB braced tower
Fig. 7  Ground motion spectra scaled to site
the ith record, NTHi : Normalized ith record, horizontal
component
Second, normalized ground motions that are scaled to
median spectral acceleration of the record set matches the
spectral acceleration at the fundamental period, T, of the
analyzed models.
6 Dynamic Analyses
Dynamic analyses for each of the models were first per-
formed using the 22 earthquake records scaled to the respec-
tive maximum considered earthquake (MCE). Then, the
distribution of story drift over the building height was exam-
ined. Also, ground motion intensity ( ST  ) is defined based on
the median spectral intensity of the record set calculated at
the fundamental period of the model measured. Collapse
margin ratio (CMR) is applied to specify the models col-
lapse safety which is defined as the ratio between the median
collapse intensity and the maximum considered earthquake.
SCT
CMR =
SMT
The median collapse intensity can be understood from
the concept of incremental dynamic analysis, in which
individual ground motions are scaled to increasing intensi-
ties until the structure reaches a collapse point. Levels of
safety against design level earthquakes and collapse prob-
abilities are then determined. Scaling of each earthquake
record is increased until it results to failure of the structures
or a specified inelastic drift limit. To evaluate the seismic
performance of each structure, maximum story drift was
considered as the failure criterion.
As illustrated in Fig. 8, the IDA scaling factor was used
for assessment of the results of the nonlinear dynamic anal-
yses, instead of the spectral acceleration corresponded to
each ground motion record. This is because of the ease of
comparison with the scaling factor (SF) of 1.0 that is associ-
ated with the MCE. The evaluated median collapse capacity
shown in Fig. 8 is 2.79 that is the spectral intensity when
50% of the ground motions cause the structure to collapse. It
is worth mentioning that the buildings’ failure was supposed
to happen when a small increase in the scaling factor caused
the IDA curve to flatten, or when the curve reached a prede-
termined deformation limit, which was defined as 4% for the
walls. This value is larger than suggested values by different
researchers [20–23] that suggests a maximum value of 2.5%.
The main reason is that sudden strength degradation of CFS
is numerically modeled, and therefore a drastic increase in
drift ratios can be obtained with accuracy. This is consistent
with the philosophy of FEMA P695, because larger values
for drift limits are also used in this code for other lateral
resistant systems such as moment-resisting system.
The failure probabilities versus the scale factor were plot-
ted, then the initial fragility curve was identified using a log-
normal distribution fitted through the points. This cumula-
tive distribution function is defined by the natural logarithm
of the median SF and the standard deviation of the data set.
The median SF relates to a 50% collapse probability at any
story, greater than the failure criterion. The standard devia-
tion returns variation in the results and controls the slope
of the resulting fragility curve. Therefore, the records was
scaled from 0.1 to the maximum of 9 and applied to the
building models. Employing collapse data from IDA results
in a collapse fragility curve that can be plotted using a cumu-
lative distribution function, which relates the ground motion
intensity to the possibility of the collapse [24]. For example,
Fig. 8 shows a fragility curve that demonstrated the prob-
ability of failure resulting from the ground motions included
in the dynamic analyses for the two story buildings. They
consist of data points that relate to the number of ground
motion records at a specific scaling factor, which cause the
building model to collapse divided by 22, the total number
of records used in the analyses.
(3)
13

1650 International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1643–1653

Fig. 8  IDA and fragility curves

for the two story buildings

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1643–1653 1651
7 Performance Evaluation
The ground motion records scaled to the MCE of the respec-
tive zones were first applied to each of the building models.
The story drift over the height of the building as well as the
overall building performance were evaluated for the build-
ings using the mean values of all 22 records. For example,
Fig. 9 illustrates the story drift of two and three story build-
ings for medium seismic risk zones. According to Fig. 9, the
first story drift of the building situated in the medium seis-
mic region, exhibits maximum drift. It is necessary to men-
tion that the buildings in all three regions exhibited drifts
close to 1% which is much less than the accepted deforma-
tion of 4% for FCB bracing system.
According to FEMA P695, the total system collapse
uncertainty ( 𝛽TOT ) was calculated based on four uncertainty
factors including: record-to-record uncertainty ( 𝛽RTR ) ,
design requirements uncertainty ( 𝛽DR ), test data uncertainty
( 𝛽TD ), and modeling uncertainty ( 𝛽MDL ). 𝛽TOT is calculated
based on Eq. 4. Values assigned for each factor is: superior
(0.20), good (0.30), fair (0.45) or poor (0.65), but according
to FEMA P695, record-to-record uncertainty was defined as
0.40. Also, 𝛽DR was selected as superior in this study.
√
𝛽TOT = 2
𝛽RTR + 𝛽DR2 2
+ 𝛽TD 2
+ 𝛽MDL (4)
Considering Tables 3-1 of FEMA P695 and the results of
the laboratory tests performed by [2], confidence in the basis
of the design requirements was chosen as high. Also, the
completeness of the design method was assumed to be high,
as FCB lateral systems were designed based on AISI S213-
12 addressing the quality assurance requirements prescribed
in the standard. According to Table 3-2 of FEMA P695, the
Fig. 9  Story drift of 2 and 3 story buildings for medium seismic risk zones
test data robustness was also chosen as ‘superior’, because
of the availability of experimental evidences in [2]. 𝛽MDL
was selected as high (Table 5-3, FEMA P695), since there
is a high confidence in the ability of the models to simulate
the nonlinear behavior of the frames considering all wall’s
components. Finally, according to FEMA P695, assigning
the aforementioned values for each of the uncertainty fac-
tors, 𝛽TOT , is evaluated as 0.425.
It should be mentioned that Table 7-3 of FEMA P695 pro-
vides acceptable values of ACMR for different total system
collapse uncertainties which can be used for comparison
with the ACMR values evaluated by the dynamic analyses.
Acceptable values of the ACMR were set to be acceptable
collapse probabilities of 10 and 20%. Minimum acceptable
ACMR values for the FCB braced frame is 1.43 for ACMR
20% and 1.72 for ACMR 10%. The acceptance criteria to
assess the proposed seismic design procedure, including R
values and height limits, are:
• The average ACMR should be greater than ACMR 10%
• The ACMR for each individual model should be greater
than ACMR 20%.
• The collapse probability when a building is subjected to
MCE should be less than 10% on average, and less than
20% for an individual model.
The FCB frame model acceptance parameters according
to FEMA P695 are shown in Table 6. As shown in the table,
the probability of collapse under the maximum valid earth-
quake is less than 20% for each of the models and less than
10% on average. These results showed that the R value and
height limit for the FCB framing system are suitable for the
design. The results also indicates that the currently in-use
13

1652 International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1643–1653

Table 6  Acceptance parameters Zone Building µ SSF CMR ACMR ACMR Pass or fail
related to assessment R values
(AVG)

Low 1 Story 3.85 1.09 2.79 3.06 1.72 Pass

Seismicity 2 Story 3.33 1.09 1.4 1.53 Pass
3 Story 3.24 1.11 1.3 1.44 Pass
Medium 1 Story 3.57 1.09 1.8 1.99 Pass
Seismicity 2 Story 2.93 1.08 1.39 1.5 Pass
3 Story 3.14 1.09 1.25 1.36 Fail
High 1 Story 3.45 1.09 1.78 1.94 Pass
Seismicity 2 Story 3 1.08 1.22 1.32 Fail
3 Story 3.1 1.09 1.17 1.28 Fail

FCB panel is sufficient for the building design in low seismic
risk zone up to three story (9.75 m), medium seismic risk
zone up to two story (6.7 m), and one story at high seismic
risk zone (3.66 m). The use of FCB braced framing would
not be permitted in the high seismic zones for two and three
story in Iran.
It should be mentioned that in this study, mediocre values
were taken for the building groups consisting of one, two
and three story FCB models in different zones. The results
show that the initial assumptions are not also in agreement
with the R value and 7.2 m height limit recommended for
the FCB sheathed cold formed steel buildings for all seismic
zones.
Also, it should be mentioned that this study is performed
for seismic response modification factor equals 2. For fail
items, it is necessary to repeat FEMAP695 procedure con-
sidering seismic response modification factor less than 2.
Also, some limitations can be applied in seismic codes for
the number of stories for the FCB sheathed cold formed steel
lateral load resisting system.
8 Conclusions
Nonlinear dynamic analyses were carried out to evaluate the
seismic response modification factor of cold formed steel
framing systems sheathed by fiber cement board. Story drifts
were estimated for earthquakes scaled to the MCE for low,
medium and high seismic zones in Iran according to FEMA
P695 to specify the credibility of seismic design parameters.
Results of this research can be summarized as follows:
• Depending on the selected record and applied scale fac-
tor, studied buildings showed different behavior.
• The results show that the drifts did not exceed the accept-
able limits as defined by testing. Also, models designed
for all three different zones showed that story drifts
approached the 1% limit.
• The outcomes of the dynamic analyses with scaled
earthquake records provided an indication that the FCB
braced framing system should not be used for more than
one story buildings in the high seismic zones because of
inadequate collapse margin ratios. These results showed
the proposed R value and the height limit by IR2800
for FCB braced system is acceptable only in low and
medium seismic regions of the country. This conclusion
highlights the importance of this research study; and it is
suggested to perform nonlinear dynamic analyses to find
out the seismic response modification factor of other cur-
rently in-use cold formed steel lateral bracing systems.
Funding  No funding information available.
References
1. Hancock GJ (2003) Cold-formed steel structures. J Constr Steel
Res 59:473–487
2. Zeynalian M, Ronagh H (2015) Seismic performance of cold
formed steel walls sheathed by fibre-cement board panels. J Con-
str Steel Res 107:1–11
3. Zeynalian M, Ronagh HR (2011) A numerical study on seismic
characteristics of knee-braced cold formed steel shear walls. Thin-
Walled Struct 49:1517–1525
4. Zeynalian M, Ronagh HR (2012) An experimental investigation
on the lateral behavior of knee-braced cold-formed steel shear
walls. Thin-Walled Struct 51:64–75
5. Zeynalian M, Ronagh HR (2012) A numerical study on seismic
performance of strap-braced cold-formed steel shear walls. Thin-
Walled Struct 60:229–238
6. IR2800 (2015) Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design
of building, 4th edn. Iran
7. BHRC (2013) Standard of structural design and construction code
of cold formed light steel (Structural) no. 612

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1643–1653 1653
8. FEMA-P695 (2009) Quantification of building seismic perfor-
mance factors. USA, Washington, D.C.: Applied technology coun-
cil, ATC-63
9. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis.
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:491–514
10. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. (2006) Open-
sees command language manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research (PEER) Center, University of California, Berkeley
11. Comeau G, Velchev K, Rogers C (2010) Development of seismic
force modification factors for cold-formed steel strap braced walls.
Can J Civ Eng 37:236–249
12. AISI (2012) North American Standard for cold-formed steel fram-
ing—Lateral design. American Iron and Steel Institute, Washing-
ton, D.C.
13. Pan C-L, Shan M-Y (2011) Monotonic shear tests of cold-
formed steel wall frames with sheathing. Thin-Walled Structures
49:363–370
14. Leng J, Schafer B, Buonopane S (2013) Modeling the seismic
response of cold-formed steel framed buildings: model develop-
ment for the CFS-NEES building. In: Proceedings of the Annual
Stability Conference-Structural Stability Research Council, St
Louis, Missouri: Citeseer
15. Liu P, Peterman K, Schafer B (2014) Impact of construction
details on OSB-sheathed cold-formed steel framed shear walls.
J Constr Steel Res 101:114–123
16. Zeynalian M (2015) Numerical study on seismic performance
of cold formed steel sheathed shear walls. Adv Struct Eng
18:1819–1829
17. Zeynalian M (2017) Structural performance of cold-formed
steel-sheathed shear walls under cyclic loads. Aust J Struct Eng
18:113–124
18. Dorion M-È (2013) HAMBRO D500 composite floor system:
description, installation and advantages of the system. In: Build-
ing C (ed): Google Patents, Canam Buildings Co., Canada
19. Zeynalian M, Shelley A, Ronagh HR (2016) An experimental
study into the capacity of cold-formed steel truss connections. J
Constr Steel Res 127:176–186
20. Dubina D (2008) Behavior and performance of cold-formed
steel-framed houses under seismic action. J Constr Steel Res
64:896–913
21. Fiorino L, Iuorio O, Landolfo R (2013) Behaviour factor evalu-
ation of sheathed cold-formed steel structures. Adv Steel Constr
9:26–40
22. Zeynalian M, Mokhtari M. (2017) A New displacement-control
analytical hysteresis model for structural systems. Int J Civ Eng.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4099​9-016-0139-6
23. Sharifi S, Toopchi-Nezhad H (2018) Seismic response modifica-
tion factor of RC-frame structures based on limit state design. Int
J Civ Eng. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4099​9-017-0276-6
24. Ibarra L, Medina R, Krawinkler H (2002) Collapse assessment of
deteriorating SDOF systems. In: Proceedings of the 12th Euro-
pean Conference on Earthquake Engineering. pp 9–13
13