Seismic Behavior of Cold-Formed Steel Frames with

Bolted Moment Connections

Ming Chen 1; Jia-Hao Huo 2; and Yi-Wen Xing 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi on 11/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper investigates the seismic behavior of the cold-formed steel (CFS) frame with bolted moment connections by quasi-static
loading tests and numerical analysis. The quasi-static loading test takes the thickness of the gusset plate and the span of the frame as two key
parameters. Meanwhile, the effects of the column slenderness ratio, axial compression ratio of the column, height/thickness ratio of the column
web, and beam/column linear stiffness ratio are the primary focus of the finite-element method. By using these methods, this paper presents
seismic behavior and a simplified hysteretic model for the CFS frame. The results indicate that “failure of the beam end” and “failure of the
column base” are the two main failure modes. The CFS frame shows outstanding seismic performance, and the column slenderness ratio, beam/
column linear stiffness ratio, axial compression ratio of the column, and height/thickness ratio of the column web mainly affect it. The hys-
teretic model has been compared with the test results to demonstrate high reliability. The findings presented here provide future reference for
the design of such a cross-sectional frame. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002538. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Cold-formed steel (CFS) frame; Seismic behavior; Quasi-static loading test; Numerical analysis; Hysteretic model.

Introduction experienced severe vertical buckling, leading to out-of-plane bend-

The thin-walled cold-formed steel (TWCFS) structural system has
undergone a dramatic expansion in its range of applications over the
past decade. It has its own unique advantages for use in low-rise and
mid-rise buildings, including being lightweight, yielding simple and
fast construction, and having greater flexibility in manufacturing.
The seismic performance of TWCFS structures has been previ-
ously investigated (e.g., Schafer et al. 2016; Dubina 2008; Moghimi
and Ronagh 2009; Fiorino et al. 2014; Lim and Nethercot 2004a;
Mohebbi et al. 2016; Xu et al. 2018). The majority of these studies
adopted shear wall panels as the main lateral loadbearing system,
focused on the behavior of shear wall panels, and overlooked the
effects of TWCFS frames. However, moment-resisting TWCFS
frames can play an important role in seismic performance and
potentially improve the seismic behavior of TWCFS structures.
In addition, compared with shear wall systems, moment-resisting
TWCFS frames provide higher flexibility for span arrangement and
future alterations.
The structural performance of moment-resisting connections
(termed eaves and apex joints) with different bolt group sizes was
investigated by Dundu and Kemp (2006). Other studies showed
experimentally and numerically that the final failure mode of the
joint zone was local buckling of the C section steel. To solve such a
failure, Lim and Nethercot (2003, 2004a) inserted two gusset plates
at the eave joint and formed a new eave joint of a portal frame.
The results showed that the C shaped cross section steel web
1 the main structural elements require further study. Mojtabaei et al.
Professor, Civil Engineering School, Inner Mongolia Univ. of Science
and Technology, Baotou, Inner Mongolia 014010, China (corresponding
author). Email: cmlx-1978@163.com
2
Postgraduate, Civil Engineering School, Inner Mongolia Univ. of
Science and Technology, Baotou, Inner Mongolia 014010, China.
3
Postgraduate, Civil Engineering School, Inner Mongolia Univ. of
Science and Technology, Baotou, Inner Mongolia 014010, China.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 15, 2018; ap-
proved on July 23, 2019; published online on December 17, 2019. Dis-
cussion period open until May 17, 2020; separate discussions must be
submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of
Structural Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
ing deformation at the gusset plate.
Several studies have also investigated the seismic performance of
bolted moment connections using gusset plates (Bagheri Sabbagh
et al. 2012; Yu et al. 2005; Bučmys and Daniūnas 2015; Wrzesien
et al. 2012; Bučmys et al. 2018). Experimental results have been
used to validate different modeling techniques [e.g., detailed finite-
element (FE) modeling, equivalent spring elements, and internal
force distributions], which can predict the stiffness and strength of
the connections and improve computational efficiency. According
to the AISI S400 standard (AISI 2015), CFS frame systems with
bolted moment connections are expected to withstand inelastic fric-
tion and bearing deformation at the bolted-beam to column connec-
tions. These findings have shown that these semi-rigid joints have
good bearing deformation and ultimate lateral load, indicating that
semi-rigid joints should be introduced to TWCFS frames.
The structural performance of TWCFS frames has been inves-
tigated, and studies have focused on different aspects. Ali and col-
leagues (2010) tested ten TWCFS frames under lateral load, and
the beam and column members of the frames were formed by
single-lipped channel sections and connected back-to-back at the
joint. They found that the stiffness and performance of the column
base connections significantly affected the structural behavior of
the frames. Sabbagh et al. (2010) performed an experimental inves-
tigation to study the seismic performances of two full-scale one-
story frames made of CFS members under lateral cyclic loads.
Their results indicated that the TWCFS moment-resisting frames
show good potential for aseismic performance, but the details of
(2018) investigated an innovative TWCFS frame under static mon-
otonic loading; the columns consisted of a box-shaped section,
and the beam was formed from a back-to-back lipped channel.
The results show that the axial load ratio and the width-to-thickness
ratio of the columns have significant effects on the seismic perfor-
mance of this frame, and with appropriate design of the main struc-
tural elements, good seismic performance can be obtained from
this frame.
According to the aforementioned studies, TWCFS moment-
resisting frames provided superior structural performance than

© ASCE 04019212-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019212

 conventional TWCFS shear wall panels. However, additional stud- and the seismic behavior of the CFS frame is clarified. The hyster-
ies are required to investigate the nonlinear seismic performance etic model is established, and relevant suggestions for CFS frame
of TWCFS moment-resisting frames based on different types of design are proposed.
connections, sections, and design parameters. Therefore, our team
proposed a “nonbox” section consisting of back-to-back CFS, gus-
set plates, and high-strength bolts, and the gusset plate is located Test Program
between back-to-back CFS and connected by bolts. The mechani-
cal properties of the compression member and joint base of this
CFS Frame Design
section have been researched.
This paper analyzes the seismic behavior of a cold-formed steel Five 1:3 CFS scale models (numbered S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4, and S-5)
(CFS) frame whose beam-column joints, column bases, and the were designed to study the effects of the thickness of the gusset plate
position of beam and column comprise this novel section. These and span of the CFS frame. The beam, column, and gusset plate of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi on 11/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

regions are strengthened by this cross section, facilitating the con- CFS frame adopted Q235B steel [GB 50017 (Chinese Standard
nection of beam-column members and ensuring that the frame has 2017)]. The frame section was formed by C shaped cross section
better mechanical performance. In the quasi-static loading test, the steel back-to-back, and the web was connected to the gusset plate
thickness of the gusset plate and span of the frame (beam/column by a grade 8.8 M20 friction-type high-strength preloaded bolt
linear stiffness ratio; hereafter, this is abbreviated as linear stiffness whose pretension force was 125 kN. The beam and column of C
ratio) are used as key parameters. The effects of slenderness ratio, shaped cross section were chosen from the appendix of reference
axial compression ratio, height/thickness ratio of the column web [GB 50018 (Code of China 2002)] with dimensions of C140 ×
(hereafter, this will be abbreviated as height/thickness ratio), and 60 × 20 × 2.5 mm and C180 × 70 × 20 × 2.0 mm, respectively.
linear stiffness ratio are investigated using the FE method. The hys- The precise dimensions of the CFS frame are shown in Table 1
teresis curve and backbone curve of the CFS frame are obtained, and Fig. 1.
The material properties of the C shaped cross section steel and
gusset plate were tested according to ASTM A370 (ASTM 2014).
Table 1. Details of the CFS frames The yield stress, ultimate stress, fracture strain, and modulus of elas-
No. tplate (mm) Span (mm) Height (mm) K ticity measured for the tested specimens are presented in Table 2.
S-1 8 1,400 1,200 0.481
S-2 10 1,400 1,200 0.481 Loading Setup and Protocol
S-3 12 1,400 1,200 0.481
S-4 8 2,400 1,200 0.281 The tests were conducted in the Civil Engineering Laboratory of
S-5 8 2,600 1,200 0.259 the Inner Mongolia University of Science and Technology. The ex-
Note: tplate = thickness of the gusset plate; and K = linear stiffness ratio, perimental test setup used in this study is shown schematically in
meaning K b =K c , where K b and K c are linear stiffness of the beam and Fig. 2. A 500-kN hydraulic actuator operating in displacement con-
column, respectively, representing the flexure stiffness of the beam and trol was utilized to apply horizontal displacement at the top of
column unit length. the column. The CFS frame was fixed to the test platform using a

Fig. 1. Geometry of the CFS frame (unit: meters): (a) geometry of the frame; (b) Gusset plates A; (c) Gusset plates C; (d) Gusset plates B;
(e) A-A section; and (f) Gusset plates D.

© ASCE 04019212-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019212

 Table 2. Material properties ensure load transfer of the CFS frame without changing the column
Yield Ultimate and beam size.
strength strength E-modulus Poisson Elongation Two damage modes are presented in Figs. 3 and 4.
Material (MPa) (MPa) (GPa) ratio (%)
Load-Displacement Hysteresis Curve
C shaped cross section 246.82 394.42 2.12 0.33 12.51 Fig. 5 shows the load-displacement hysteresis curve for each CFS
steel frame. The results show that the hysteresis curves of the five spec-
Gusset plate of 8 mm 387.91 504.58 1.97 0.33 28.65
imens are essentially consistent. The area inside the hysteresis loop
Gusset plate of 10 mm 300.18 446.71 1.96 0.31 27.53
Gusset plate of 12 mm 268.33 384.53 1.92 0.32 26.85 is large and of good symmetry for each CFS frame, indicating good
energy dissipation capacity and ductility.
During the initial stage of the test, the CFS frames were essen-
tially in the elastic stage. The load and displacement in the hysteresis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi on 11/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

concrete ground beam and bolts. At the load-end of the frame, a
hydraulic jack was set to apply the cyclic load. At the middle point
of the CFS frame column, two H-type steel beams were set to
prevent out-of-plane instability occurring on the CFS frame.
The loading protocol was designed according to reference
[ASTM E2126 (ASTM 2011)] (Table 3). The test was halted when
the load value fell below 80% of the ultimate load.
Test Results and Analysis
Failure Models
There are two types of CFS frame-failure modes. The failure mode
of the S-1, S-2, and S-3 frames is termed “failure of the beam end.”
In the early stages of loading, obvious deformation of the frames
was not apparent. When loaded to yield load, the C-type steel at
the beam end was first to yield, and the plastic hinge was formed.
The plastic hinge area was outside the beam-column joint region.
As the loading continued, the plastic area at the end of the beam
continued to expand, resulting in decreased stiffness of the beam
and redistribution of the internal force of the CFS frame. The bend-
ing moment of the column ends increased too significantly to form
a plastic hinge. At this point, the CFS frames reached ultimate load
capacity. During the increase of cyclic loading, the plastic zone at
the column end expanded continuously and formed a plastic hinge,
and the CFS frames eventually suffered damage.
The failure mode of the S-4 and S-5 frames is termed “failure of
the column base.” That is, the buckle was concentrated on proximal
beam ends and column bases instead of distal beam ends and col-
umn bases. Because the span of the CFS frame was so large, the
linear stiffness ratio was reduced, blocking the transmission of the
bending moment and leading to one side of the column taking all of
the load. The CFS frame system failed to perform its function and
thus did not conform to the expected force characteristics. There-
fore, when the required span is large, extra supports can be added to
curves grew linearly, indicating that the stiffness of the CFS frame
was constant. The curves show good symmetry. As cyclic loading
increased, the proximal flange of the load-end appeared to buckle,
the stiffness of the CFS frame obviously degraded and residual
deformation gradually increased. When the specimen entered the
yielding stage, the plastic failure at the web of the proximal beam
gradually accumulated, the stiffness decreased more rapidly, and the
hysteresis loop had a full shape. After reaching the ultimate load, the
stiffness of the CFS frame gradually declined. As loading continued,
the slip between high-strength bolts and C section steel increased,
and there was some slippage of the bolts. Because of the serious
loosening of bolts at the distal joint zone, the hysteresis curve of
S-3 appears approximately perpendicular to the horizontal axis of
the curve. For S-4 and S-5, because the transfer efficiency of bend-
ing moment is so bad that the stiffness of the frame decreases sig-
nificantly, the slip is obvious in the hysteresis curves, and pinching
is more severe than for S-1, S-2, and S-3.
Backbone Curve
The points of the maximum values of the loads in each cycle of
the hysteresis curve are extracted and connected in turn to obtain the
backbone curve. As shown in Fig. 6, the backbone curves of the five
CFS frames are “S” shaped, indicating that the CFS frame under-
goes elastic, elastic-plastic, and ultimate plastic failure under cyclic
loading.
From a comparison of the backbone curves for S-1, S-2, and
S-3, the ultimate load capacity of the CFS frame is shown to be
essentially unchanged with increasing thickness of the gusset plate.
This consistency is because the load capacity of the CFS frame
is mainly determined by the C shaped cross section dimensions.
Therefore, the effect of gusset plate thickness is not significant pro-
vided the joint is stronger than the component. However, the thick-
ness of the gusset plate has a significant effect on the initial stiffness
of the frame; when thickness increases from 8 to 12 mm, initial
stiffness increases by 28.86%.

Fig. 2. Experimental test setup: (a) photograph; and (b) sketch.

© ASCE 04019212-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019212

 Table 3. Test loading protocol (Shamim et al. 2013)], and CFS strap braced walls [1.23–1.51
Loading Displacement (Fiorino et al. 2016)], the CFS frame indicates superior ductility.
Protocol (kN) (mm) Cycles According to the data for S-1, S-2, and S-3, energy consump-
tion is increased by increasing the thickness of the gusset plate.
Force-controlled 5=−5 — 1
10/−10 — 1
Consequently, the thickness of the gusset plate affects energy
::: — 1 consumption.
F y = − Fy Δy 1
Displacement-controlled — 1.25Δy = − 1.25Δy 3 FE Model
— 1.50Δy = − 1.50Δy 3
— 1.75Δy = − 1.75Δy 3
— ::: 3 Model Design
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi on 11/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Note: Fy and Δy = yield load and yield displacement of the CFS frame.
By comparing the backbone curves of S-1, S-4, and S-5, the re-
sults show that when the linear stiffness ratio reduces from 0.481
to 0.281 and to 0.259, the ultimate load capacity reduces by 9.68%
and 17.59%, respectively, and the initial stiffness reduces by 29.12%
and 39.62%, respectively. These results show that the linear stiffness
ratio has a significant effect on the ultimate load capacity of the CFS
frame.
Ductility and Energy Dissipation
Ductility and energy dissipation are two important indexes to evalu-
ate seismic behavior. The calculation results for the ductility coef-
ficient (μ) and energy of the input earthquake (PE ) (Mojtabaei et al.
2018) of the CFS frame are presented in Table 4. The energy dis-
sipation behaviors of S-4 and S-5 cannot be considered because
their failure modes are not in accordance with the mechanism of
the CFS frame.
The ductility coefficients of three CFS frames (S-1, S-2, and
S-3) are all above 2.47. Compared with the ductility coefficients
of the CFS frame structure covered by calcium silicate board
[1.80–2.21 (Lin et al. 2014)], the staggered truss structure
[1.75 (Zhou et al. 2009)], steel sheathed shear walls [2.04–4.86
According to the normal column height (slenderness ratio), beam
span (linear stiffness ratio), and section parameters of the CFS
frame, an analysis specimen “BASE” was constructed. According
to the test results, the load capacity of the CFS frame was not sig-
nificantly affected by the thickness of the gusset plate. Therefore,
based on the “BASE” specimen and considering the axial com-
pression ratio, column slenderness ratio, linear stiffness ratio, and
height/thickness ratio, a series of specimens was designed. The ef-
fects of these parameters on the mechanical behaviors of the CFS
frames were investigated, and the parameters of the CFS frames are
listed in Table 5.
Elements and Meshing
The sixteen models of the CFS frame described previously were
modeled using ANSYS (Fig. 7); all models were modeled using
three elements, SHELL181, COMBIN39, and BEAM188. The con-
stitutive relationships of the C shaped cross section steel and gusset
plate are simplified as the multilinear kinematic hardening model,
considering the Bauschinger effect. The BEAM188 element was uti-
lized to replace the screw. The COMBIN39 element was used to sim-
ulate the slippage and shear failure of the bolts (Lim and Nethercot
2004b) (Fig. 8). The constitutive relationships of the materials
were determined by the experimental raw material performances.

Fig. 3. Failure mode of “failure of the beam end”: (a) distal beam; (b) distal column base; (c) proximal column base; and (d) global failure.
The loading end of the specimen was regarded as the proximal end and the nonloading end was regarded as the distal end.

Fig. 4. Failure mode of “failure of the column base”: (a) distal column and beam; (b) proximal column base; (c) proximal beam; and (d) global failure.
The loading end of the specimen was regarded as the proximal end and the nonloading end was regarded as the distal end.

© ASCE 04019212-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019212

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi on 11/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Load-drift hysteresis curves: (a) S-1 frame; (b) S-2 frame; (c) S-3 frame; (d) S-4 frame; and (e) S-5 frame.

After debugging, the mesh sizes of the gusset plate and C shaped Constraint Conditions and Loading Scheme
cross section steel grid were 30 and 18–22 mm, respectively; the The CFS frame column base plates achieved rigid connection by
length-to-thickness ratio of the unit was controlled at 1/6–1/11; constraining all degrees of freedom. At the beam end, column end,
and the size of the grid at the bolt hole was controlled within 5 mm. middle of the beam span, and middle of the column, the out-of-plane

© ASCE 04019212-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019212

 FE Model Validation
An ANSYS FE model with the same size as the test specimen S-3
was established. According to the method of reference (Fiorino
et al. 2018), the load-displacement backbone curves in Fig. 9 and
data in Table 6 obtained from the tests and the numerical analysis
were compared. The model provided good results until reaching
maximum strength, whereas the failure displacement and the energy
of the input earthquake absorbed by structures have some differen-
ces. The main reason is that there are initial imperfections in the
specimen, and the P-Δ effect occurs after the maximum strength,
leading to the rapid decrease of the load. A comparison of the failure
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi on 11/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

modes in Fig. 10 obtained from the tests and the numerical analysis
similarly shows that the deformation and strain of the numerical
analysis agreed well with the test results, verifying the FE model.

Results of Numerical Analysis

Fig. 6. Load-drift backbone curves of the frames.

Load-Displacement Hysteretic Curve and

Backbone Curve
Table 4. μ and PE of frames
According to the two failure mode types, hysteretic curves were
No. S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 selected, as shown in Figs. 11 and 12. The results show that the
Δy =mm 10.34 9.44 9.39 9.75 10.07 hysteresis loops for “failure of the beam end” are large and have
Δu =mm 25.51 23.49 23.21 34.48 39.02 no significant pinch phenomenon, and the areas inside the hyster-
μ 2.47 2.49 2.47 3.54 3.65 etic loops are large and have good symmetry, indicating good en-
PE =kJ 1.43 1.44 1.46 1.66 1.63 ergy dissipation capacity. When the hysteresis curve reaches the
Note: Δy = yield displacement of the CFS frame; Δu = failure displacement load limit, the slope of the curve decreases, the degree of reduction
of the CFS frame; μ = ductility coefficient, meaning Δu =Δy ; and PE = is slow, and the stiffness of the CFS frame gradually declines.
energy of the input earthquake absorbed by structures, In CFS frames, PE Although the hysteretic curves of “failure of the column base” have
can be calculated based on the area under the lateral load-displacement a full shape, the ultimate load capacity is lower than that of “failure
curve until the post-peak lateral load of the system drops by 20%. of the beam end” and decreases sharply after reaching the ultimate
load, showing poor energy dissipation capacity. All specimens were
damaged as per “failure of the beam end,” except NC3 (n ¼ 0.3),
Table 5. Parameters of FE models NC4 (n ¼ 0.4), LB3 (K ¼ 0.312), and LB4 (K ¼ 0.281).
tC Height (λ) H c−w n Span (K) Fig. 13 and Table 7 show the backbone curves and eigenvalues
No. (mm) (mm) (mm) (N=mm2 ) (mm) for different parameters.
BASE 3 3,000 (23.22) 250 0.2 4,800 (0.351)
Fig. 13(a) shows a comparison of the backbone curves for differ-
HC1 3 2,700 (20.96) 250 0.2 4,800 (0.316) ent slenderness ratios. Improving the slenderness ratio reduced the
HC2 3 3,300 (25.62) 250 0.2 4,800 (0.389) initial stiffness, yielding load, and ultimate load of the CFS frame
HC3 3 3,600 (27.95) 250 0.2 4,800 (0.421) and significantly improved the yielding displacement, ultimate dis-
NC1 3 3,000 (23.22) 250 0 4,800 (0.351) placement, and failure displacement. This is because the P-Δ effect
NC2 3 3,000 (23.22) 250 0.1 4,800 (0.351) of the CFS frame with a larger slenderness ratio is more noticeable
NC3 3 3,000 (23.22) 250 0.3 4,800 (0.351) under cyclic loading. The load capacity and stiffness of the elastic
NC4 3 3,000 (23.22) 250 0.4 4,800 (0.351) stage and elastic-plastic stage are much lower than for those with
CSC1 3 3,000 (23.22) 220 0.2 4,800 (0.351) smaller slenderness ratios.
CSC2 3 3,000 (23.22) 280 0.2 4,800 (0.351)
According to Fig. 13(b), when the axial compression ratio in-
CSC3 3 3,000 (23.22) 300 0.2 4,800 (0.351)
CSC4 2.5 3,000 (23.22) 250 0.2 4,800 (0.351)
creases from 0 to 0.2, there is little effect on the ultimate load capac-
LB1 3 3,000 (23.22) 250 0.2 3,600 (0.468) ity and deformation of the CFS frame. When the axial compression
LB2 3 3,000 (23.22) 250 0.2 4,200 (0.401) ratio increases to 0.3 and 0.4, respectively, there is a significant
LB3 3 3,000 (23.22) 250 0.2 5,400 (0.312) effect on ultimate load capacity and deformation. Consequently, the
LB4 3 3,000 (23.22) 250 0.2 6,000 (0.281) axial compression ratio should be maintained within a specified
Note: tC = thickness of C shaped cross section steel; H c−w = height
range. The effect of axial compression ratio is not significant for
of column web; height of the beam web is 200 mm, and thickness of initial stiffness at the initial stage of loading; after the CFS frame
the gusset plate is 10 mm; n = axial compression ratio; λ = column yields, the axial compression has a significant influence on stiff-
slenderness ratio; and K = linear stiffness ratio. ness degradation, and the speed of stiffness degradation of the CFS
frame accelerates. This result is because the frame column, which
has a larger axial compression ratio, has a significant P-Δ effect
degree of freedom was limited to prevent the out-of-plane instability when the CFS frame generates lateral displacement.
of the C shaped cross section steel. Analysis of the skeletal curves of the height/thickness ratio
Cyclic loading of the FE model was mainly divided into two shows that if the height of the column web increases and the thick-
stages where the first stage was to apply a pretightening force to ness remains unchanged, then the bending stiffness of the column
the bolts and the second stage was to apply cyclic displacement to increases, leading to increased frame load capacity and stiffness.
the loading plate. The load capacity and displacement of the frame decrease as the

© ASCE 04019212-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019212

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi on 11/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. FE model.

Table 6. Comparison of analysis and test data

Parameter Value
Specimen s-3
Ana
Ke 1.05
Test
Fig. 8. Bolted connection. Ana
FP 1.09
Test
Ana
du 1.21
Test
Ana
PE 1.39
Test
Note: ke = initial stiffness; FP = ultimate load capacity; du = failure
displacement; and PE = the energy of the input earthquake absorbed by
structures.

In addition, as the linear stiffness ratio of the CFS frame increases,

the speed of stiffness degradation also accelerates.

Ductility and Energy Dissipation

Table 8 presents the energy of the input earthquake absorbed by the
CFS frame, which ranges from 3.17 to 6.42, and the ductility co-
efficients range from 2.37 to 3.50. The results show that the CFS
frame has good ductility and energy dissipation capacity, as well as
Fig. 9. Comparison of S-3 load-displacement backbone curve good deformability.
verification.

Research on the Hysteretic Model

thickness of the web decreases and height remains constant, caus-
ing the bending stiffness of the column to decrease.
Through observing the backbone curves of five specimens with
different linear stiffness ratios, the load capacity and displacement at
all stages decrease as the linear stiffness ratio decreases. Meanwhile,
changing the linear stiffness ratio has a significant effect on the stiff-
ness degradation of the CFS frame. Before the CFS frame yields, the
linear stiffness ratio has a greater effect on the initial stiffness, and as
the linear stiffness ratio increases, the initial stiffness also increases.
Orthogonal Test Design
Considering the four parameters of axial compression ratio, n;
slenderness ratio, λ; height/thickness ratio, D; and linear stiffness
ratio, K; nine FE models of CFS frames (FEM1–FEM9) were es-
tablished by orthogonal test design methods and analyzed by the
FE method. Other parameters remained unchanged, and the param-
eters of models are presented in Table 9.
Table 10 presents the ultimate load capacity and initial stiffness
extracted from the results of FE analysis.

© ASCE 04019212-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019212

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi on 11/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Failure mode verification: (a) proximal column base; and (b) distal column base.

Fig. 11. Load-drift hysteresis curve of “failure of the beam end.”

Fig. 12. Load-drift hysteresis curve of “failure of the column base.”

Regression Analysis of Load Capacity and 0

Stiffness Parameters
To establish the hysteretic model, K 2 =K 1 (ratio of strengthened
stiffness to elastic stiffness), K 3 =K 1 (ratio of negative stiffness
to elastic stiffness), Py =Pmax (ratio of yield load to ultimate load),
and Pmax were determined, as shown in Table 11. The relationship
between the four parameters and these results from Table 11 was
established by regression analysis.
The fitting equation for ultimate load capacity referring to
the function model in reference (Wang et al. 2015) is expressed as
follows:
0
Pmax ¼ ψðn; λ; K; DÞ
where ψðn; λ; D; KÞ ¼ α1 þ α2 n þ α3 λ þ α4 D þ α5 K
where Pmax = frame ultimate load capacity; n = axial compression
ratio; λ = slenderness ratio; K = line stiffness ratio; and D = height/
thickness ratio.
The thickness of C shaped cross section steel has a certain effect
on the load capacity that we did not consider in the orthogonal ex-
perimental analysis. Therefore, the horizontal limit load should be
reduced accordingly. The reducing function is gained by regression
analysis. We assume that
0
Pmax ¼ fðtÞPmax ¼ fðtÞψðn; λ; D; KÞ ð4Þ
where fðtÞ ¼ α1 tα2 .
With regression analysis, we obtain α1 ¼ 0.098 and α2 ¼ 2.146.
ð1Þ Referring to the fitting equation (Qi et al. 2010) and using
Matlab software to perform multiple regression analysis on orthog-
onal data, the fitting equations for K 2 =K 1, K 3 =K 1 , Py =Pmax , and
ð2Þ Pu =Pmax are obtained, as shown in Eqs. (5)–(8)

The confidence of multivariate nonlinear regression fitting on K 2 =K 1 ¼ 4.351n3.288 − 2.343λ−0.153

orthogonal data is 95%, thus þ 0.082D0.609 þ 0.207K −0.281 ð5Þ

ψðn; λ; D; KÞ ¼ 246.516 − 59.382n − 2.859λ K 3 =K 1 ¼ −ð0.252n−0.157 þ 0.260λ0.192

− 0.235D − 34.242K ð3Þ þ 0.216D−0.038 − 0.271K −0.183 Þ ð6Þ

© ASCE 04019212-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019212

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi on 11/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Load-drift backbone curves for different parameters: (a) different slenderness ratio; (b) different axial compression ratio; (c) different height/
thickness ratio; and (d) different linear stiffness ratio.

Table 7. Characteristics of backbone curves

Yield point Limit point Failure point Table 8. μ and PE of FE models
No. Δ=mm P=kN Δ=mm P=kN Δ=mm P=kN No. PE =kJ μ
HC1 19.29 83.48 30.00 94.27 60.77 80.13 HC1 5.66 3.22
BASE 21.09 70.84 45.00 82.30 67.12 69.95 BASE 3.88 3.18
HC2 27.27 66.23 45.00 73.59 66.75 62.56 HC2 4.38 2.45
HC3 31.67 64.58 60.00 65.00 75.09 61.80 HC3 4.63 2.37
NC1 25.42 77.42 45.00 88.18 82.11 75.51 NC1 6.42 3.21
NC2 24.65 76.96 45.00 86.96 79.53 74.09 NC2 6.33 3.38
NC3 18.92 70.03 30.00 76.59 56.40 65.32 NC3 3.80 3.10
NC4 16.96 58.40 30.00 68.34 47.37 58.09 NC4 3.17 2.79
CSC1 27.13 66.49 60.00 74.17 81.56 63.04 CSC1 4.33 3.01
CSC2 18.21 77.92 30.00 91.45 60.15 77.73 CSC2 4.61 3.27
CSC3 18.01 79.16 30.00 97.88 56.68 81.20 CSC3 5.55 3.50
CSC4 22.22 69.06 46.35 73.87 62.61 62.79 CSC4 4.26 2.69
LB1 19.65 83.03 27.00 91.89 57.83 79.56 LB1 4.96 2.94
LB2 20.97 78.09 28.5 85.62 62.47 72.78 LB2 4.88 2.97
LB3 22.14 67.35 45.35 78.67 68.95 69.07 LB3 4.68 3.11
LB4 23.71 64.92 46.00 72.57 65.01 61.25 LB4 4.36 2.74

© ASCE 04019212-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019212

 Table 9. Parameters of orthogonal test models
No. n λ D K
FEM1 0.1 37.75 250/3 0.35
FEM2 0.1 39.85 280/3 0.26
FEM3 0.1 42.51 300/3 0.22
FEM4 0.2 37.22 280/3 0.21
FEM5 0.2 37.65 300/3 0.25
FEM6 0.2 45.64 250/3 0.38
FEM7 0.3 35.25 300/3 0.20
FEM8 0.3 42.97 250/3 0.31
FEM9 0.3 43.50 280/3 0.27
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi on 11/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. P-Δ backbone model for the CFS frame.

Table 10. Characteristics of orthogonal test models

No. Ultimate load capacity (kN) Initial stiffness (kN=mm) 8
> K Δ 0 ≤ Δ ≤ Δy
FEM1 101.46 5.72 < 1
P ¼ fðΔÞ ¼ Py þ K 2 ðΔ − Δy Þ Δy ≤ Δ ≤ Δmax ð9Þ
FEM2 94.48 4.82 >
:
FEM3 88.74 4.29 Pmax þ K 3 ðΔ − Δmax Þ Δmax ≤ Δ ≤ Δu
FEM4 99.65 5.78
FEM5 93.73 5.28
According to Eq. (10)
FEM6 72.94 2.91
FEM7 100.41 6.96 P ¼ KeΔ ð10Þ
FEM8 73.97 3.72
FEM9 73.69 3.67
where K e = the initial stiffness of the frame.
Based on the simplified second-order elastic analysis methods,
the initial stiffness function of the CFS frame, K e , in this paper can
be calculated by
Table 11. Calculation results
   6ic N 2
No. K 2 =K 1 K 3 =K 1 Py =Pmax Pmax 12ic 6N  H þ 10
K e ¼ 2fðic ; ib ; N; HÞ ¼ 2 2
 2 ð11Þ
FEM1 0.14 −0.09 0.78 101.46 H 5H 4ic þ6ib  2NH
15
FEM2 0.29 −0.07 0.77 94.48 qffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
FEM3 0.36 −0.07 0.73 88.74 If u ¼ H EINc ¼ nNicu H, then
FEM4 0.30 −0.10 0.87 99.65
FEM5 0.37 −0.10 0.84 93.73 N NH
FEM6 0.24 −0.15 0.75 72.94 u2 ¼ H 2 ¼ ð12Þ
EI c ic
FEM7 0.33 −0.10 0.72 100.41
FEM8 0.33 −0.14 0.75 73.97
FEM9 0.34 −0.15 0.75 73.69 By substituting Eq. (12) into Eq. (11), the simplified equation
can be expressed as follows:
3EI c
Ke ¼ ψ1 ðu; KÞ ð13Þ
Py =Pmax ¼ 0.051n−0.033 þ 1.215λ−0.357 H3

þ 0.111D0.280 þ 0.061K 3.981 ð7Þ where

48 − 6.4u2 þ 0.16u4 þ 72ð1 − 0.01u2 Þ

Pu =Pmax ¼ 0.85
where K 1 , K 2 , and K 3 = elastic stiffness, strengthened stiffness, and
negative stiffness of the CFS frame, respectively.
Py , Pmax , and Pu = yield load, horizontal limit load, and failing
load of the CFS frame, respectively.
Hysteretic Models of Backbone Curve
In this paper, a multilinear model is used to simulate the P-Δ back-
bone curve of the CFS frame (Guo and Yang 2004). A simplified
model of the backbone curve is shown in Fig. 14. Line OA is the
elastic stage, line AB is the elastic-plastic stage, and line BC is the
plastic deformation stage. Point A corresponds to the yield load,
Py ; point B corresponds to the ultimate load, Pmax ; and point C
corresponds to the failure load, 0.85Pmax . K 1 is the elastic stiffness,
K 2 is the strengthened stiffness, and K 3 is the negative stiffness.
A simplified equation for the three-line P-Δ backbone curve of
the CFS frame can be expressed as follows:
ð8Þ ψ1 ðu; KÞ ¼ ð14Þ
6 þ 9K − 0.2u2
With reference to the results of reference (Shi 2006), the initial
frame stiffness is greater than the elastic stiffness when the frame
undergoes lateral displacement. Therefore, K 1 ¼ K e =α, where η
represents the reduction coefficient obtained by regression analysis,
and α ¼ 0.769, meaning that K 1 ¼ 0.769K e . In addition, since the
influence of the thickness of C shaped cross section steel on the
load capacity is not considered, the reduction function of the thick-
ness of C shaped cross section steel obtained through regression
analysis can be written as fðtÞ ¼ 0.444t0.746 .
The ultimate elastic stiffness of the CFS frame can be expressed
as follows:
K 1 ¼ αfðtÞK e ð15Þ
where fðtÞ ¼ 0.444t0.746 , α¼0.769.
As discussed, once the five parameters K 1 , Pmax , Py =Pmax ,
K 2 =K 1 , and K 3 =K 1 are determined, the seven parameters K 2 , K 3 ,

© ASCE 04019212-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019212

 Fig. 15. Calculation model of load-off stiffness.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi on 11/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 17. Resilience model of the hysteresis curve.

Fig. 16. Load-off stiffness fitting.

Py , Pu , Δy , Δmax , and Δu can be derived from the five parameters,

and the P-Δ backbone curve of the CFS frame can be determined.

Hysteretic Model of Hysteresis Curve
Prior to the CFS frame reaching the yield stress point, the loading
stiffness and unloading stiffness are consistent with the elastic
stiffness, K 1 , without degradation. When the CFS frame enters the
elastic-plastic stage, the loading stiffness decreases to K 2 , while the
load-off stiffness K 4 is not consistent with the elastic stiffness K 1
and decreases with the increased number of cycles and loading
displacement.
The load-off stiffness calculation model (Watson et al. 1994;
Watson and Park 1994) is shown in Fig. 15. The method for deter-
mination is as follows: The peak load of the hysteresis loop is point
A, and the intersection of the unloading curve and the Δ axis is
point B. The slope of line AB is the load-off stiffness. The relation-
ship of K 4 =K 1 (load-off stiffness/elastic stiffness) and Δj =Δy
(post-yield displacement/yield displacement) is acquired by regres-
sion analysis, as shown in Eq. (16)
 −0.299
Δj
K 4 =K 1 ¼ ð16Þ
Δy
where Δj = displacement after yield of the CFS frame; and Δy =
yield displacement of the CFS frame. Fig. 16 shows the fitting
curve for the load-off stiffness.
Fig. 17 shows the hysteretic model of the hysteresis curve of
the CFS frame under quasi-static load. All key parameters can be
obtained, and the hysteresis curve of the CFS frame can be defined
by Eqs. (1)–(16).
Fig. 18. Comparison of simplified and test load-displacement back-
bone curve model.
Hysteretic Model Validation of Backbone Curve and
Hysteresis Curve
Fig. 18 and Table 12 present a comparison of the simplified and test
backbone curves. They both indicate the eigenvalue error is within
10% for all stages, except failure displacement. This indicates that
the simplified backbone curve model reflects the entire process of
load-displacement change for the CFS frame.
A comparison of the simplified and the test hysteresis curves is
shown in Fig. 19. Before the CFS frame yields, the relationship
between load and displacement is linear; the loading stiffness is
the same as the unloading stiffness, and the area of the hysteresis
loop is zero. When the CFS frame enters the elastic-plastic stage,
the positive loading and negative loading stiffness decrease and
the area of the hysteresis loop increases. After entering the failure
stage, the load capacity decreases. The presented analysis illustrates
that the simplified hysteresis model essentially matches the test
hysteresis curve.
Conclusion
In order to investigate the seismic behavior of the CFS frame, rel-
evant tests and numerical analyses were performed on 21 frames

© ASCE 04019212-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019212

 Table 12. Comparison of test and calculation results
Yield Yield Ultimate
load, Py displacement, Δy load, Pmax
Comparison result (kN) (mm) (kN)
Test result 46.69 10.34 58.57
Calculation result 51.70 9.65 61.54
T.R./C.R. 0.90 1.07 0.95
Note: T.R. = test result; and C.R. = calculation result.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi on 11/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 19. Comparison of simplified and test load-displacement hyster-
esis curves.
with varying parameters, including the thickness of gusset plate,
axial compression ratio, column slenderness ratio, beam/column
linear stiffness ratio, and height/thickness ratio of the column web.
The seismic behavior was summarized by the hysteresis curve and
the backbone curve of the CFS frame, and the hysteretic models
for the CFS frame were obtained.
According to the presented analyses, the conclusions and design
recommendations are given as follows:
1. There are two failure modes for the CFS frame: “failure of the
beam end” follows the “strong column weak beam” seismic de-
sign principles. In contrast, “failure of the column base” does not
conform to design principles. The beam/column linear stiffness
ratio and the axial compression ratio are control parameters. In
order to avoid “failure of the column base,” the axial compres-
sion ratio should be less than 0.3 and the beam/column linear
stiffness ratio of the CFS frame should be greater than 0.32.
2. Varying the analysis parameters has different degrees of influ-
ence on the seismic behavior of the CFS frame. When the web
thickness of the column decreases, the CFS frame ductility,
equivalent viscous damping coefficient, and stiffness decrease.
Improving the web height of the column reduces the CFS frame
ductility, equivalent viscous damping coefficient, and stiffness.
When the beam/column linear stiffness ratio of the CFS frame
decreases, the initial stiffness decreases and the energy dissipa-
tion capacity first increases and then decreases.
3. The trend of stiffness degradation is similar for every frame, and
the stiffness degradation range is essentially the same. The duc-
tility coefficient, μ, is between 2.45 and 4.97, and the equivalent
viscous damping coefficient, he , is between 0.28 and 0.36.
Compared with reinforced concrete structures and H-shaped
steel frame structures, the CFS frame has excellent ductility and
energy dissipation capabilities.
4. Considering the influence of slenderness ratio, height/thickness
ratio of the column web, axial compression ratio, and beam/
column linear stiffness ratio, a hysteretic model is established for
© ASCE 04019212-12
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019212
Ultimate Failure Failure
displacement, Δmax load, Pu displacement, Δu
(mm) (kN) (mm)
19.43 49.78 25.51
21.29 52.31 35.58
0.91 0.95 0.72
the CFS frame, and is in good agreement with test results. This is
an important foundation for seismic analysis of the CFS frame.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the China National Natural Science
Foundation Program (Project Nos. 51368043 and 51768055), the
Inner Mongolia Natural Science Foundation Program (Project No.
2017MSLH0723), and the Excellent Youth Fund of Inner Mongolia
University of Science and Technology (Project No. 2016YQL10).
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.
Ali, B. A., S. Saad, and M. H. Osman. 2010. “Cold-formed steel frame with
bolted moment connections.” Int. J. Civ. Struct. Eng. 1 (3): 534–544.
https://doi.org/10.6088/ijcser.00202010043.
ASTM. 2011. Standard test methods for cyclic (reversed) load test
for shear resistance of walls for buildings. ASTM E2126. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2014. Standard testing methods and definitions for mechanical
testing of steel products. ASTM A370-13. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM.
Bagheri Sabbagh, A., M. Petkovski, K. Pilakoutas, and R. Mirghaderi. 2012.
“Experimental work on cold-formed steel elements for earthquake resil-
ient moment frame buildings.” Eng. Struct. 42 (Sep): 371–386. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.04.025.
Bučmys, Ž., and A. Daniūnas. 2015. “Analytical and experimental in-
vestigation of cold-formed steel beam-to-column bolted gusset-plate
joints.” J. Civ. Eng. Manage. 21 (8): 1061–1069. https://doi.org/10
.3846/13923730.2015.1084039.
Bučmys, Ž., A. Daniūnas, J.-P. Jaspart, and J.-F. Demonceau. 2018. “A
component method for cold-formed steel beam-to-column bolted gusset
plate joints.” Thin Walled Struct. 123 (Feb): 520–527. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.tws.2016.10.022.
Chinese Standard. 2017. Standard for design of steel structure.
[In Chinese.] GB 50017. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press.
Code of China. 2002. Technical code of cold-formed thin-wall steel struc-
tures. [In Chinese.] GB 50018. Beijing: China Planning Press.
Dubina, D. 2008. “Behavior and performance of cold-formed steel-framed
houses under seismic action.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 64 (7–8): 896–913.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.01.029.
Dundu, M., and A. R. Kemp. 2006. “Strength requirement of single cold-
formed channels connected back-to-back.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 62 (3):
250–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2005.07.006.
Fiorino, L., O. Iuorio, and R. Landolfo. 2014. “Designing CFS structures:
The new school BFS in Naples.” Thin Wallled Struct. 78 (Jan): 37–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2013.12.008.
Fiorino, L., S. Shakeel, V. Macillo, and R. Landolfo. 2018. “Seismic
response of CFS shear walls sheathed with nailed gypsum panels:
Numerical modeling.” Thin Wallled Struct. 122 (Jan): 359–370.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2017.10.028.
Fiorino, L., M. T. Terracciano, and R. Landolfo. 2016. “Experimental in-
vestigation of seismic behaviour of low dissipative CFS strap-braced
J. Struct. Eng.
 stud walls.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 127 (Dec): 92–107. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.jcsr.2016.07.027.
Guo, Z. X., and Y. Yang. 2004. “State-of-the-art of restoring force models
for RC structures.” [In Chinese.] World Earthquake Eng. 20 (4): 47–51.
Lim, J. B. P., and D. A. Nethercot. 2003. “Ultimate strength of bolted
moment-connections between cold-formed steel members.” Thin Walled
Struct. 41 (11): 1019–1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-8231(03)
00045-4.
Lim, J. B. P., and D. A. Nethercot. 2004a. “Finite element idealization of a
cold-formed steel portal frame.” J. Struct. Eng. 130 (1): 78–94. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:1(78).
Lim, J. B. P., and D. A. Nethercot. 2004b. “Stiffness prediction for bolted
moment-connections between cold-formed steel members.” J. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi on 11/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Steel Res. 60 (1): 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0143-974X(03)
00105-6.
Lin, S. H., C. L. Pan, and W. T. Hsu. 2014. “Monotonic and cyclic loading
experiments for cold-formed steel wall frames sheathed with calcium
silicate board.” Thin Walled Struct. 74 (Jan): 49–58. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.tws.2013.09.011.
Moghimi, H., and H. R. Ronagh. 2009. “Performance of light-gauge cold-
formed steel strapbraced stud walls subjected to cyclic loading.” Eng.
Struct. 31 (1): 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.07.016.
Mohebbi, S., S. R. Mirghaderi, F. Farahbod, A. B. Sabbagh, and S. Torabian.
2016. “Experiments on seismic behavior of steel sheathed cold-formed
steel shear walls cladded by gypsum and fiber cement boards.” Thin
Walled Struct. 104 (Jul): 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2016
.03.015.
Mojtabaei, S. M., M. Z. Kabir, I. Hajirasouliha, and M. Kargar. 2018.
“Analytical and experimental study on the seismic performance of
cold-formed steel frames.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 143 (Apr): 18–31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.12.013.
Qi, J. J., L. Z. Jiang, C. Z. Zhang, and Z. W. Yu. 2010. “Effects of interface
slip, vertical uplift and shear deformation on dynamic behavior of steel-
concrete composite continuous beams.” [In Chinese.] J. Cent. South
Univ. (Sci. Technol.) 41 (6): 2334–2343.
Sabbagh, A. B., R. Mirghaderi, M. Petkovski, and K. Pilakoutas. 2010. “An
integrated thin-walled steel skeleton structure (two full scale tests).”
© ASCE 04019212-13
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(3): 04019212
J. Constr. Steel Res. 66 (3): 470–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr
.2009.10.007.
Schafer, B. W., et al. 2016. “Seismic response and engineering of cold-
formed steel framed buildings.” Structures 8 (Part 2): 197–212. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2016.05.009.
Shamim, I., J. DaBreo, and C. A. Rogers. 2013. “Dynamic testing of single-
and double-story steel-sheathed cold-formed steel-framed shear walls.”
J. Struct. Eng. 139 (5): 807–817. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0000594.
Shi, W. L. 2006. Experimental and theoretical study on semi-rigid beam-to-
column composite joints with flush end-plate connection. Shanghai,
China: Tongji Univ.
Wang, Z. S., M. Z. Su, H. Ma, and X. Z. Pan. 2015. “Study on load-
displacement restoring force model of single-story single-bay ling-
weight portal frame with variable cross-sections.” [In Chinese.] Build.
Struct. 44 (15): 12–16. https://doi.org/10.19701/j.jzjg.2015.15.003.
Watson, S., and R. Park. 1994. “Simulated seismic load experiments on
reinforced concrete columns.” J. Struct. Eng. 120 (6): 1825–1849.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1994)120:6(1825).
Watson, S., F. A. Zahn, and R. Park. 1994. “Confined reinforcement for
concrete columns.” J. Struct. Eng. 120 (6): 1798–1824. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1994)120:6(1798).
Wrzesien, A., J. B. P. Lim, and D. A. Nethercot. 2012. “Optimum joint
detailed for a general cold formed steel portal frame.” Adv. Struct. Eng.
15 (9): 1623–1639. https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332(2016).15.9.1623.
Xu, Z., Z. Chen, B. H. Osman, and S. Yang. 2018. “Seismic performance
of high-strength lightweight foamed concrete-filled cold-formed steel
shear walls.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 143 (Apr): 148–161. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.12.027.
Yu, W. K., K. F. Chung, and M. F. Wong. 2005. “Analysis of bolted moment
connections in cold formed steel beam–column sub-frames.” J. Constr.
Steel Res. 61 (9): 1332–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2005.03.001.
Zhou, X. H., Y. J. He, L. Xu, and Q. S. Zhou. 2009. “Experimental study
and numerical analyses on seismic behaviors sheathed with calcium
silicate board.” Thin Walled Struct. 47 (11): 1343–1353. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.tws.2009.03.007.
J. Struct. Eng.