Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 321–338

www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Performance of wall-stud cold-formed shear

panels under monotonic and cyclic loading
Part I: Experimental research
L.A. Fülöp, D. Dubina ∗
Department of Steel Structures and Structural Mechanics, ‘Politehnica’ University of Timisoara,
1 Ioan Curea St., 1900 Timisoara, Romania

Abstract

The ever-increasing need for housing generated the search for new and innovative building
methods to increase speed, efficiency and enhance quality, one direction being the use of light
thin steel profiles as load bearing elements and different materials for cladding. The same
methodology can be employed to build small steel structures for offices, schools or other
purposes. Earthquake behaviour of these structures is influenced, together with other para-
meters, by the hysteretic characteristics of the shear wall panels. Results of a full-scale shear
test programme on wall panels are presented, together with some numerical results concerning
expectable earthquake performance of this structural typology.
 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Light-gauge steel houses; Shear wall; Hysteretic behaviour

1. Introduction

Steel-framed houses are usually built of light thin-walled load bearing structures
having different solutions for interior and exterior cladding. This technology is popu-
lar and accounts for an important and increasing market share in the US, Japan,
Australia and Europe [1]. The same method is used for buildings, of small dimen-

∗
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +40-256-403932.
E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Dubina).

0263-8231/$ - see front matter  2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0263-8231(03)00063-6
322 L.A. Fülöp, D. Dubina / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 321–338

sions, of other purposes (offices, schools, manufacturing premises, etc.), that are
referred to as small industrial buildings (SIB) (Fig. 1).
In such structures shear walls are the main structural elements to act against hori-
zontal loads, e.g. wind and earthquake. Even if widely used in practice, the behaviour
of shear walls subjected to earthquake is not fully understood and in recent years
an important effort has been made to clarify certain aspects related to shear wall
strength, stiffness and ductility, as main parameters governing seismic behaviour.
Research in the USA [2–5] has been focused mainly towards experimental testing
of shear walls typical to their home practice, in order to produce practical racking
load values. Load bearing capacities were derived both from monotonic push-over
curves, envelope and stabilised envelope curves from cyclic tests. Findings of these
studies suggest a conventional elastic stiffness for a wall panel at 0.4 of the ultimate
load [6]. Different frame typologies with various cladding materials were tested,
studies being conducted to determine the influence of length/height ratios as well as
the effect of openings. Even if very detailed, the majority of studies avoid addressing
an important aspect of shear wall behaviour, energy dissipation capacity due to cyclic
characteristics. The effect of gypsum wallboard was also studied, leading to the con-
clusion that both strength and stiffness are increased by the presence of supplemen-
tary gypsum wallboard, some results suggesting an increase in terms of ultimate load
of up to 30%, compared to the case of external sheeting only.
Testing and numerical simulation were combined in order to account for hysteretic
characteristics in an attempt to provide evidence on the possible values of response
modification factors (q) [7]. Vibration tests of steel-framed houses were conducted
and relatively large damping ratios were found due to interior and exterior finishes.
According to the tests damping ratio of 6% was accepted for seismic analysis. A
maximum 1/50 rad storey drift angle limit is also suggested as acceptable during
severe earthquakes. In the FE analysis stage, a steel-framed house was subjected to
two levels of seismic waves. The house exhibited good performance, reaching a
maximum drift of 1/300 rad. Even when minimum required wall length was pro-
vided, the maximum drift did not exceed 1/60 rad.
The same issue was analysed by Gad et al. [8] and Gad and Duffield [9] who

Fig. 1. Single family house and office structure.

 L.A. Fülöp, D. Dubina / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 321–338 323

propose a new analytical approach to evaluate the ductility parameter (Rm), and find a
value between 1.5 and 3.0 to be suitable. The same research briefly assesses inherent
structural overstrength and finds it to be very important factor as far as earthquake
resistance is concerned. The quantitative evaluation of overstrength is more difficult,
but an empirical evaluation attempt is performed.
Experimental tests and FE modelling were employed by De Matteis [10] to asses
shear behaviour of sandwich panels both in single storey and multi-storey buildings.
A number of six monotonic and six cyclic tests were performed on full-scale sand-
wich panel specimens of different configurations. In the final stage of the study,
dynamic modelling on panels integrated in building structures, under real earthquake
records was performed. According to the conclusions diaphragm action can replace
classical bracing solutions only in low-rise buildings, and in areas of low seismicity.
For multi-storey frames cladding panels can only be used in an integrated system,
sharing horizontal force with frame effect.

2. Test specimens

In the light of the described research activities, an experimental programme has

been undertaken to investigate the shear behaviour of some of the most popular wall
panel typologies. The programme was based on six series of full-scale wall tests
with different cladding arrangements based on common practical solutions in housing
and SIB (Table 1).
Each series consisted of identical wall panels tested statically, both monotonic and
cyclic. The main frame of the wall panels was made of cold-formed steel elements,
top and bottom tracks were U154/1.5, while studs were C150/1.5 profiles, fixed at
each end to tracks with two pair SPEDEC SL4—F—4.8 × 16 (d = 4.8 mm) self-
drilling self-taping screws. In specimens using corrugated sheet as cladding the sheets
were placed in a horizontal position with a useful width of 1035 mm and one corru-
gation overlapping and tightened with seam fasteners SL2—T—A14—4.8 × 20 (d
= 4.8 mm) at 200 mm intervals (Fig. 2(a) and (b)). Corrugated sheet was fixed to
the wall frame using SD3—T15—4.8 × 22 (d = 4.8 mm) self-tapping screws, sheet
ends being fixed in every corrugation, while on intermediate studs at every second
corrugation. Additionally on the ‘interior’ side of specimens in Series II, 12.5 mm
thick gypsum panels (1200 × 2440 mm2) were placed vertically and fixed at 250
mm intervals on each vertical stud.
Bracing was used in three specimens (Fig. 2(c)), by means of 110 × 1.5 mm2
straps on both sides of the frame. Steel straps were fixed to the wall structure using
SPEDEC SL4⫺F⫺4.8 × 16 (d = 4.8 mm) and SD6⫺T16⫺6.3 × 25 (d = 6.3 mm)
self-drilling screws, the number of screws being determined to avoid failure at strap
end fixings and facilitate yielding.
Ten millimetre OSB panels (1200 × 2440 mm2) were placed in similar way as
the gypsum panels in earlier specimens (Fig. 2(e) and (f)), only on the ‘external’
side of the panel and fixed to the frame using bugle head self-drilling screws of d
= 4.2 mm diameter at 105 mm intervals.
324 L.A. Fülöp, D. Dubina / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 321–338

Table 1
Description of wall specimens

Series Panel Opening Exterior Interior Testing method Loading Number

scheme cladding cladding velocity of tests

0 – – – Monotonic 1 1

I – Corrugated – Monotonic 1 1
sheet
LTP20/0.5
Cyclic 6–3 2
II – Corrugated Gypsum Monotonic 1 1
sheet board
LTP20/0.5
Cyclic 6–3 2
III – – – Monotonic 1 1

Cyclic 3 1
IV Door Corrugated – Monotonic 1 1
sheet
LTP20/0.5
Cyclic 6–3 2
OSB I – 10 mm – Monotonic 1 1
OSB
Cyclic 3 1
OSB II Door 10 mm – Monotonic 1 1
OSB
Cyclic 3 1
Total 15
number
of
specimens

Loading velocity in cm/min for monotonically and cycles/min for cyclically tested specimens.

The full-scale testing programme was completed with tensile tests to determine
both material properties for components and behaviour of connections.

3. Test procedure

For the experiments the testing frame at the University of Timisoara, Department
of Steel Structures and Structural Mechanics, equipped with two actuators of 1000
and 500 kN, was used. The elastic shear force capacity, based on preliminary calcu-
lations was evaluated to be at 4–5 kN, and a maximum shear capacity of about 8–
9 kN was expected. Experiments were conducted using displacement control, at the
same time measuring the corresponding load with load cell (Fig. 3).
Specimens were fixed to a supplementary bottom track (SBT) by means of seven
bolts placed in the vicinity of each stud. In order to increase contact surface sup-
 L.A. Fülöp, D. Dubina / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 321–338 325

Fig. 2. External sheeting configuration of wall specimens.

plementary plates were used at each bolt. Corners were further restrained using U
profiles instead of the plates, therefore providing increased capacity and rigidity. The
specimens were connected to a supplementary upper track in a similar way.
The horizontal load developed by the actuator (A) was transmitted to the specimen
326 L.A. Fülöp, D. Dubina / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 321–338

Fig. 3. Experimental arrangement.

via a vertical column (VC), connected to the supplementary top track (STT) by a
hinge with possibility of vertical sliding (SJ) and load cell (LC). Specimens were
loaded in shear very similarly like in earthquake or wind conditions, but without
taking vertical loads into account. Specimens were restrained against lateral displace-
ment in two points on the upper part (HSR), which acted as sliding restraint. Dis-
placement transducers were used to measure horizontal displacements (H1, H2) at
the top of the specimen, horizontal (H3, H4) and vertical (V1, V2) displacement at
the bottom. (Fig. 3).
The experimental programme was expected to provide information on: (1) com-
parison between monotonic and cyclic behaviour; (2) confirmation of earlier findings
about the effect of interior gypsum cladding; (3) assessment of the effect of openings;
comparison between wall panels with different cladding materials and cross bracing;
(4) providing experimental information for the calibration of FE models.
A monotonic test using a loading velocity of 1 cm/min, was performed for each
type of panel. Based on the results, initial stiffness (Ko) and conventional elastic
limit (⌬el) were determined using the methodology presented in Fig. 4.
The conventional elastic limit displacement (⌬el) was used to determine the dis-
placement amplitudes for the cyclic tests. Cyclic testing methodology followed
ECCS Recommendation [11], consisting of cycles of 1/4 ⌬el, 1/2 ⌬el, 3/4 ⌬el, 1 ⌬el,
2 ⌬el, 2 ⌬el, 2 ⌬el, 4 ⌬el, 4 ⌬el, 4 ⌬el, 6 ⌬el, 6 ⌬el, 6 ⌬el,…, until failure or a significant
decrease of load bearing capacity. Loading velocity for the cyclic experiments was
6 min/cycle for one specimen and 3 min/cycle for the second.
 L.A. Fülöp, D. Dubina / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 321–338 327

Fig. 4. Determination of conventional elastic limit ⌬el.

4. Behaviour of specimens

4.1. Series 0–specimen FN-1

For understanding the behaviour of sheeted specimens it was important to evaluate

initial properties of the skeleton without sheeting, which resulted to have very low
capacity and rigidity values. After higher starting value, the rigidity of the panel
dropped to 12.2 N/mm, and load bearing capacity reached the value of about 1000 N.

4.2. Series I–specimen I-1, I-2, I-3

Based on the findings from specimen I-1 ⌬el has been determined as being 19.28
mm corresponding to a force level of F⌬el = 47066.7 N. Damage was initiated in
the lower uplifted corner, where important deformation of the bottom track occurred.
As displacement was increased and profile-end distortion of the corrugated sheets
was observed on both end studs of the panel. Local deformation of connections has
gradually developed especially in the two horizontal seams and in their vicinity.
Failure of the specimens occurred in one of the seams, where most of the plastic
deformation concentrated. After failure of the seam, sheeting to frame connections,
closest to the seams, continued to provide load bearing capacity. The ‘unzipping’ of
the vertical connecting lines continued as load bearing capacity decreased and in
some cases at the final stage local deformation (buckling) of the studs also developed.

4.3. Series II–specimen II-1, II-2, II-3

Panels identical to that in Series I were used but with supplementary gypsum
board applied to the ‘inner’ side. Conventional elastic limit ⌬el was evaluated to be
15.05 mm. The steel skeleton and the corrugated sheet had similar behaviour as for
328 L.A. Fülöp, D. Dubina / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 321–338

specimens in Series I. Local deformation in the uplifted corners was followed by

profile-end distortion, gradual deformation in connections and failure occurred in
seam lines as observed earlier. The behaviour of gypsum panels was found to be
satisfactory. Panels were not destroyed, but they could follow even extreme defor-
mation of the wall without significant damage. The damage that appeared at low
displacement was due to relative vertical slip of the gypsum panels and consecutive
crack of the gypsum panel ‘seams’. Damage in vicinity of screwed connection,
especially pulling through screw head, was observed at higher displacements. Dam-
age was found to be easily reparable without the replacement of gypsum panels, by
supplementary fixings and repainting.

4.4. Series III–specimen III-1, III-2

Specimens have been manufactured using strap bracing on both side of the frame.
The intention was to assure failure of the specimen due to yielding, avoid premature
failure in end region of straps and ensure high level of ductility. After buckling of
compressed straps in the early stage, the local deformation of the lower track fol-
lowed, and the damage concentrated entirely in the corner area. After important
deformation of corner there were some signs of connection elongation, and redistri-
bution of load to the second and third stud. Important plastic elongation of the straps
was observed, but because of this unexpected failure of the corner, it is important
to note that results may not conclusively reflect the capacity and ductility expected
from strap-braced wall panels.

4.5. Series IV–specimen IV-1, IV-2, IV-3

Three specimens were prepared with door opening and based on monotonic experi-
ment ⌬el was evaluated to 23.5 mm with corresponding force level of F⌬el =
33500 N. The behaviour of specimens was very similar to the ones in Series I and
II, with some particularities. The tendency of corner lift-up was much stronger in
comparison to specimens from Series I and II and, in lesser extend, uplift phenom-
enon was observed in the vicinity of the studs around the opening. In the lintel
area deformation patterns suggested strong shear effect followed by important local
buckling of the corrugated sheet. End profile distortion was present on lateral studs
and in the vicinity of opening. Gradual deformation of the screwed connections ended
in failure of one of the lower (discontinuous) seams. While load bearing capacity
was already decreasing, unzipping of the corrugated sheet from studs, both lateral
and near the opening occurred.

4.6. Series OSB I–specimen OSB I-1, OSB I-2

In this case failure mechanism of the specimen was different from corrugated
sheet specimens due to different sheeting arrangement. ⌬el was determined to be
19.2 mm, and the cyclic specimen was tested accordingly. Due to increased load
bearing capacity uplift effect induced in the corner was more important. The three
 L.A. Fülöp, D. Dubina / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 321–338 329

OSB panels placed vertically produced rigid body rotations during deformation and
difference of deformation between panel and skeleton had to be accommodated by
the screws. This led to important deformation of the fixing screws and relative verti-
cal slip of one OSB panel to the other. Failure of the specimen was sudden when
one vertical row of screws unzipped from the stud and both pull over the screw
head, and failure of OSB margins was observed.

4.7. Series OSB II–specimen OSB II-1, OSB II-2

One monotonic and one cyclic specimen were included in this series, and ⌬el was
determined to be 25.7 mm. Uplift deformation was observed in the tensioned corner
and for lesser extend in the vicinity of studs near opening and local crushing of OSB
in the lintel area was also noted. Important inclination of the screws developed in
the screws connecting OSB panels to the lower track, followed by sudden rupture
of this connection line.
The main outputs of the experiments were shear force versus horizontal displace-
ment at the top of the wall-specimen curves. Horizontal slip at the base of the wall
and uplift displacement was also measured in the two corners. As in case of the
panels clad with corrugated sheet the seams govern the failure, relative slip between
two steel sheets was also recorded. Load versus lateral displacement curves are
presented in Fig. 5 and, in order to illustrate differences of monotonic to cyclic
results, stabilised envelope curves are also presented for the cyclic experiments. As
resulting characteristic curves are very similar to cyclically tested specimens with
loading velocity 3 and 6 cycles/min, in Fig. 5 only one of the curves is reproduced.
Qualitatively observing comparative monotonic to cyclic curves, a reduction of
strength of about 10% can be identified in case of cyclic loading. Hence, if only
monotonic response is considered for an analysis (e.g. push-over analysis), the per-
formance of the panel will be overestimated.

5. Effects of loading velocity

It is well known that the velocity of earthquake induced load has an important
effect on the behaviour of structures. Northridge and Kobe earthquakes, for instance,
have caused extensive damage partly because of unexpected loading velocities which
reduced part of the ductile behaviour of some structural members and connections
[11].
Therefore, there are question marks regarding the validity of quasi-static mono-
tonic or cyclic tests when evaluating seismic performance. One obvious solution
would be to perform high velocity experiments on components and assess their
behaviour directly. However, major problems arise from the limited possibilities of
applying the load, in taking measurements and in visually observing the degradation
in case of a high velocity experiment.
As mentioned earlier the experiments performed on wall panels were quasi-static
and no differences were observed at the two loading velocities (3 and 6 cycles/min).
330 L.A. Fülöp, D. Dubina / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 321–338

Fig. 5. Experimental curves.

 L.A. Fülöp, D. Dubina / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 321–338 331

Damage in case of each wall panel has been largely concentrated in fasteners con-
necting the frame to the sheeting, and the connections were the most important source
of ductility. Behaviour of the panel at higher loading velocity will obviously depend
on the changes in behaviour of fasteners; if they fail in a less ductile manner then
the overall ductility of the panels will decrease.
To assess fastener behaviour at higher loading velocity lap-joint test was perfor-
med for typical fasteners used in panels sheeted with corrugated sheeting.
The two types of tested connections (Fig. 6) were thin-to-thin sheet single lap
joint simulating seam fasteners, and thin-to-thick sheet joint simulating sheeting to
frame fasteners. A group of five lap joints was statically tested, at a loading velocity
of 1 mm/min, and corresponding five specimens at the loading velocity of 420
mm/min. There was a considerable scatter in available load bearing capacity
especially at higher slip values, but based on average load versus slip curves (Fig.
7) expectable behaviour at high velocity loading can at least be estimated.
As overall behaviour of the wall panel is dictated by the characteristics of the
connecting joints it can be expected that, as loading velocity increases: (1) the design
load bearing capacity of the wall panels (i.e. the ones sheeted with corrugated
sheeting) will increase slightly; (2) ductility will not be affected because the connec-
tions will be capable of supplying the same ductility.

6. Analysis of experimental results

As seen wall panels exhibited very complex, and highly non-linear behaviour. In
order to evaluate specific properties like the elastic modulus, ultimate force or duc-
tility, curves have been interpreted according to the following established procedures.

Fig. 6. Lap-joint specimen configurations.

332 L.A. Fülöp, D. Dubina / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 321–338

Fig. 7. Average characteristic curves for lap-joint tests.

6.1. Method I

Initial stiffness may be determined as secant stiffness to the load level of 0.4 Fmax.
The evaluation of the conventional yield limit was based on ECCS Recommendation
[12], at the intersection point of the elastic line (Ko) to a line of 0.1 × K o rigidity,
tangent to the experimental curve. Based on this conventional elastic limit (el, Fint)
the ultimate point (Fu, Du) results at the intersection of the horizontal yield line to
the experimental curve in the downloading branch (Fig. 8(a)).

6.2. Method II

The second method has been adopted by Kawai et al. [13]. Initial stiffness is
defined as secant stiffness to the point of drift angle corresponding to 1/400 (D400),
while the yield line is chosen in a way that the hatched parts in Fig. 8(b) have the

Fig. 8. Methods for determining equivalent elasto-plastic model.

 L.A. Fülöp, D. Dubina / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 321–338 333

same area. The allowable strength is referred as the minimum of the force at storey
drift angle 1/300 (F300) and 2/3 Fmax.
Results from monotonic and cyclic experiments are presented in Tables 2 and 3,
for cyclic tests, values being derived based on first envelope curve (unstabilised
envelope curve), and the third envelope curve (stabilised envelope).
The two methods usually yield similar results, with interesting particularities.
Initial rigidity values are very similar and it is important to realise that, ultimate
load (Fu) and ductility are in direct relationship so if a method yields higher ultimate
load (Fu) this automatically means lower ductility. For defining design capacity, the
minimum of 2/3 Fmax and F300 or F200 are relevant [14].
Differences between monotonic and cyclic values can be observed as follows.
Initial rigidity is not affected, values of cyclic and monotonic tests range within a
difference of less than 20%. The same can be noted for ductility, exception being
in case of OSB specimens where ductility is reduced by 10–25% for cyclic results.
One important observation concerns ultimate load (Fu), where cyclic results are lower
than monotonic ones by 5–10% even if we consider unstabilised envelope curve.
If we take into account stabilised envelope curves, the difference can increase to
20–30%.
Based on the comparison of the medium values of monotonic and cyclic results,
the contribution of an opening, gypsum board and other factors can be assessed with
the following conclusions.

6.3. Series I–series II

Differences can be attributed to the effect of the gypsum board. There is an

increase in ultimate load of 16.2 and 17.8%, respectively. As far as initial values
are concerned (Ko, F400, F300, F200) there seem to be no differences, but ductility is
improved slightly.

6.4. Series I–series IV

There is a significant decrease of initial rigidity (60.3; 53.3%), for a lesser degree
of ultimate load (16.4; 21.0%), but ductility values are essentially unaffected.

6.5. Series I–series III

Comparison is more qualitative because of the different sheeting system. There

are no differences as far as initial rigidity is concerned; however an increase of
ductility had been expected. This was not possible as the failure mode for the strap-
braced specimens was not the most advantageous one, the damage being concentrated
entirely in the lower corners of the panel. Strap-braced wall panels have the advan-
tage of stable hysteretic loops, but also the disadvantage of higher pinching than the
sheeted ones.
334 L.A. Fülöp, D. Dubina / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 321–338

Table 2
Experimental results, method I

Series Curve Ko (N/mm) Fel (N) Dcurv Fmax (N) Fu (N) Duct
(mm)

I-1 Monotonic 4500.5 20556.0 16.29 52876.4 41444.4 6.35

I-2 1 (+) 4090.3 18795.4 15.68 47086.7 35111.1 10.60
3 (+) 10.18 29000.0 7.12
1 (⫺) 4013.4 17355.2 15.95 44061.0 35222.2 6.78
3 (⫺) 12.90 31333.3 6.53
I-3 1 (+) 3462.1 18907.5 20.33 47360.2 38555.6 6.47
3 (+) 14.19 31888.9 5.86
1 (⫺) 3287.2 17362.8 20.54 44077.2 38555.6 4.39
3 (⫺) 13.57 30666.7 5.47
II-1 Monotonic 3140.5 23860.9 26.23 59715.4 46111.1 6.23
II-2 1 (+) 3766.2 22654.0 20.66 57796.0 45111.1 6.47
3 (+) 12.77 35000.0 7.48
1 (⫺) 4382.5 21777.6 16.81 55069.6 41111.1 7.78
3 (⫺) 11.41 34333.3 8.55
II-3 1 (+) 3936.3 23389.8 21.35 60034.2 47222.2 6.25
3 (+) 12.08 36000.0 7.76
1 (⫺) 3522.2 22161.9 25.14 56820.6 47111.1 4.78
3 (⫺) 13.35 36444.4 6.09
III-1 Monotonic 4071.7 21532.9 16.86 55147.6 48333.3 3.17
III-2 1 (+) 3619.1 19875.7 16.22 52682.9 44444.4 4.52
3 (+) 14.39 41666.7 3.00
1 (⫺) 3627.6 21120.3 17.10 54364.9 44666.7 7.96
3 (⫺) 12.25 39111.1 9.09
IV-1 Monotonic 1643.2 15837.6 36.26 40220.2 33111.1 4.22
IV-2 1 (+) 1669.8 14045.1 32.56 35128.9 31777.8 5.83
3 (+) 21.06 25000.0 7.01
1 (⫺) 1648.8 13962.6 32.54 34981.1 31444.4 5.45
3 (⫺) 19.86 24444.4 7.02
IV-3 1 (+) 1388.0 15626.1 38.08 40843.0 33888.9 4.87
3 (+) 24.89 26444.4 5.07
1 (⫺) 1480.6 15199.1 34.61 40026.6 32277.8 5.32
3 (⫺) 23.28 26777.8 5.81
OSB I-1 Monotonic 3419.1 31251.8 32.71 78776.5 65000.0 4.14
OSB I-2 1 (+) 4032.8 28582.4 24.38 74715.7 59111.1 3.27
3 (+) 18.21 51555.6 3.25
1 (⫺) 3789. 5 25426.1 24.58 64972.3 58888.9 2.96
3 (⫺) 19.84 51666.7 3.12
OSB II-1 Monotonic 1570.6 17651.1 40.08 44379.8 38666.7 2.62
OSB II-2 1 (+) 1007.9 17717.1 46.02 46049.7 42222.2 1.46
3 (+) 36.17 35666.7 1.54
1 (⫺) 1403.2 17225.1 41.56 45808.8 43333.3 1.89
3 (⫺) 34.66 38666.7 2.09

1, Unstabilised envelope curve; 3, stabilised envelope curve; (+), positive envelope; (⫺), negative envel-
ope.
 L.A. Fülöp, D. Dubina / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 321–338 335

Table 3
Experimental results, method II

Series Curve Ko F400 (N) F300 (N) Dcurv Fu (N) Duct 2/3 Fmax F200 (N)
(N/mm) (mm)

I-1 Monotonic 4088.1 24467.2 28691.0 24.75 47821.0 4.65 35250.9 35110.9
I-2 1 (+) 3670.4 21623.5 25273.0 24.69 41488.6 6.57 31391.1 30053.7
3 (+) 12.65 32127.5 4.59
1 (⫺) 3554.5 21324.3 24772.3 20.93 38685.0 4.46 29374.0 30367.5
3 (⫺) 15.95 34886.6 4.18
I-3 1 (+) 3386.8 19833.3 23805.0 23.90 40312.5 5.34 31573.5 28743.7
3 (+) 16.92 34589.1 4.36
1 (⫺) 3174.9 19363.7 22495.9 20.55 38300.2 4.15 29384.8 28536.8
3 (⫺) 14.27 32637.9 4.35
II-1 Monotonic 3311.5 20088.5 24349.9 40.96 53801.3 5.03 39810.3 30508.6
II-2 1 (+) 3766.2 22654.0 26872.8 30.66 49185.6 5.22 38530.6 33635.1
3 (+) 16.07 38868.1 5.73
1 (⫺) 4023.7 24276.4 27238.0 29.42 48126.1 5.11 36713.1 34898.2
3 (⫺) 14.75 38751.3 5.68
II-3 1 (+) 3936.3 23389.8 27339.5 30.15 50985.9 5.20 40022.8 35284.9
3 (+) 16.02 41920.7 5.62
1 (⫺) 3676.4 21297.5 24812.4 27.81 47821.4 4.65 37880.4 32281.1
3 (⫺) 15.48 39734.3 5.14
III-1 Monotonic 4187.5 25120.4 31980.0 19.21 51139.6 2.81 36765.1 40193.0
III-2 1 (+) 3626.1 21398.0 27286.2 17.13 45599.5 4.10 35122.0 35963.5
3 (+) 13.52 40602.5 3.35
1 (⫺) 3627.6 21120.3 26626.8 25.94 50427.8 6.41 36243.3 36230.7
3 (⫺) 16.06 43901.9 6.68
IV-1 Monotonic 1598.3 9349.6 13723.8 41.67 35532.7 3.79 26813.5 18048.4
IV-2 1 (+) 1837.9 11032.8 13490.3 34.43 32768.5 5.82 23419.2 18057.5
3 (+) 22.99 26756.3 6.38
1 (⫺) 1808.9 10953.4 13318.1 34.39 31849.7 5.68 23320.7 17689.1
3 (⫺) 21.95 26046.7 6.50
IV-3 1 (+) 1616.7 9374.3 11960.1 40.47 34730.9 5.25 27228.7 16464.5
3 (+) 24.89 26908.7 5.55
1 (⫺) 1801.9 10305.0 12710.8 39.36 33719.6 5.73 26684.4 16897.3
3 (⫺) 25.28 27537.2 6.45
OSB I- Monotonic 3909.6 23797.3 28470.2 37.22 68162.0 4.26 52517.7 37953.9
1
OSB I- 1 (+) 4406.2 25807.2 30159.0 21.32 55142.0 4.07 49810.4 38457.9
2
3 (+) 16.68 49368.6 3.73
1 (⫺) 3988.4 23482.0 27725.9 21.44 54088.4 3.68 43314.9 35930.3
3 (⫺) 18.30 48520.5 3.61
OSB Monotonic 1814.9 10702.5 13779.6 36.45 37014.8 3.19 29586.5 18732.5
II-1
OSB 1 (+) Na. Na. Na. Na. Na. Na. Na. Na.
II-2
3 (+) Na. Na. Na.
1 (⫺) 1610.5 9511.3 11850.5 32.28 37426.0 2.93 30539.2 16495.4
3 (⫺) 27.76 33908.3 3.11

1, Unstabilised envelope curve; 3, stabilised envelope curve; (+), positive envelope; (⫺), negative envelope.
336 L.A. Fülöp, D. Dubina / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 321–338

6.6. Series I–series OSB I

Comparison is more qualitative, keeping in mind the different wall panel arrange-
ments. Initial rigidity is of similar magnitude, with increase of ultimate load. Failure
of OSB specimens under cyclic loading was more sudden than in the case of corru-
gated sheet specimens where degradation occurs gradually. This is also reflected by
the reduced ductility for OSB specimens.

6.7. Series OSB I–series OSB II

The effect of opening produced similar results as in cases of Series I–Series IV.
Initial rigidity decreased (64.6; 59.1%), while ultimate load decreased (32.5; 36.9%).
There is also an important decrease of ductility, probably highlighting the different
failure modes of the two wall panels.

7. Performance criteria

An important aspect of the experiments is to define acceptable damage levels and

relate it to the performance objectives for the panels. Recent performance objective
proposals are based on three or four generally stated goals [14]: (1) serviceability
under ordinary occupancy conditions; (2) immediate occupancy following moderate
earthquakes; (3) life safety under design-basis events; (4) collapse prevention under
maximum considered event.
In case of wall panels clad with corrugated sheeting damage is largely concentrated
in seam fasteners. If plasticisation in vicinity of fasteners increases the water-proof
cladding layer looses its functionality and has to be replaced. For establishing global
performance criteria the following acceptable deformations in the seam fasteners
have been considered:

앫 If slip of the seams does not exceed the elastic limit, corresponding to 0.6 Fmax
of the seam connection, damage is limited and can be considered negligible. In
this case the cladding is still water-proof, no repairs are required and this would
correspond to normal serviceability conditions.
앫 If slip is limited to the diameter of the screw (4.8 mm) the cladding requires
repair. There is damage, but not excessive and by minor interventions, like replac-
ing screws with larger diameter ones the structure can be repaired. This could
correspond to immediate occupancy criteria.
앫 In case of life safety criteria any kind of damage is acceptable, without
endangering the safety of occupants. This criteria is no longer related to ser-
viceability, but can correspond to the attainment of the ultimate force (Fult) of the
wall panel and the starting of the downwards slope.

Relative slip in seams has been measured for specimens I-3, II-2 and II-3 the first
 L.A. Fülöp, D. Dubina / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 321–338 337

two criteria can easily be applied and relationship between slip and lateral defor-
mation of the panel can be found (Table 4).
Based on these assumptions, the following performance criteria are suggested for
wall panels clad with corrugated sheet: (1) fully operational (d ⬍ 0.003); (2) partially
operational (d ⬍ 0.015); (3) safe but extensive repairs required (d ⬍ 0.025). Compa-
rable design criteria can be established for other types of panels.
The first performance level does not provide ductility, because shear panel work
is limited to the elastic domain. This could be the design criteria for frequent, but
low intensity earthquakes. In case of rare but severe earthquakes, the last two design
criteria can be used and some ductility will be available.

8. Conclusion

It can be concluded that the shear-resistance of wall panels is significant both in

terms of rigidity and load bearing capacity, and can effectively resist lateral loads.
The hysteretic behaviour is characterised by very significant pinching, and reduced
energy dissipation.
Failure starts at the bottom track in the anchor bolt region, therefore strengthening
of the corner detail is crucial. The ideal shape of corner detail is such that uplift
force is directly transmitted from the brace (or corner stud) to the anchoring bolt,
without inducing bending in the bottom track. Failing to strengthen wall panel cor-
ners has important effects on the initial rigidity of the system and can be the cause
of large sway and premature failure for the panel.
The seam fastener represented the most sensitive part of the corrugated sheet speci-
mens; damage is gradually increased in seam fasteners, until their failure causes the
overall failure of the panel. Much of the post elastic deformation of the wall panel
is in the region of seam fasteners, therefore increasing the load capacity and ductility
of the seams will improve the behaviour of the panels.
By relating the tolerable slip in the most loaded connectors with the overall lateral
displacement of the panel a few levels of global performance objectives can be sug-
gested for the panel. In this paper a three level set of performance criteria is suggested

Table 4
Performance criteria

Specimen Connection Force (N) Panel top Drift (%)

deformation (mm) displacement (mm)

I-3 0.197 21,423 6.71 0.274

4.8 43,885 29.22 1.197
IV-2 0.197 10,106 7.96 0.326
4.8 35,613 44.13 1.808
IV-3 0.197 8849 8.11 0.332
4.8 26,332 42.22 1.730
338 L.A. Fülöp, D. Dubina / Thin-Walled Structures 42 (2004) 321–338

for wall panels clad with corrugated sheeting depending on the storey drift displace-
ment.

References

[1] Pekoz T. Building design using cold formed sections. Publication of the Swedish Institute of Steel
Construction no. 154; 1995.
[2] AISI. Shear wall design guide. Publication RG-9804. USA: The American Iron and Steel Insti-
tute; 1998.
[3] Serette RL, Ogunfunmi K. Shear resistance of gypsum-sheeted light-gauge steel stud walls. J Struct
Eng ASCE 1996;122(4).
[4] Serrette RL, Hall G, Nygen J. Shear wall values for light weight steel framing. USA: AISI, 1996.
[5] Salenikovich AJ, Dolan JD, Easterling WS. Racking performance of long steel-frame shear walls.
In: Proceedings of the 15th International Speciality Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures,
St Louis, Missouri, October 19–20. 2000. p. 471–80.
[6] Serrette RL. Seismic design of light gauge steel structures: a discussion. In: Fourteenth International
Speciality Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, St Louis, Missouri, October15–16. 1998.
[7] Kawai Y, Kanno R, Uno N, Sakumoto Y. Seismic resistance and design of steel framed houses.
Nippon Steel Technical report, No. 79; 1999.
[8] Gad EF, Chandler AM, Duffield CF, Hutchinson G. Earthquake ductility and overstrength in residen-
tial structures. Struct Eng Mech 1999;8(4):361–82.
[9] Gad EF, Duffield CF. Lateral behaviour of light framed walls in residential structures. In: Twelfth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, February. 2000.
[10] De Matteis G. The effect of cladding in steel buildings under seismic actions. PhD thesis. Universita
degli Studi di Napoli Federico II; 1998.
[11] Gioncu V, Mazzolani FM. Ductility of seismic resistant steel structures. London: Spon Press, 2002.
[12] ECCS. Recommended testing procedure for assessing the behaviour of structural steel elements
under cyclic loads; 1985.
[13] Kawai Y, Kanno R, Hanya K. Cyclic shear resistance of light-gauge steel framed walls. In: ASCE
Structures Congress, Poland. 1997.
[14] FEMA-273. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Prepared by the Building
Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC; 1997.