buildings

Article
Finite Element Investigation of a Novel Cold-Formed Steel
Shear Wall
Zhiqiang Xie 1 , Ye Bi 1 , Ying Fan 1, *, Chengwei Gao 1 , Xiangdong Zhang 2 , Yin Feng 2 , Daxing Zhou 2 and Lei Dong 2

1 School of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Beijing 102616, China; [email protected] (Z.X.); [email protected] (Y.B.);
[email protected] (C.G.)
2 China Railway Construction Group Co., Beijing 100070, China; [email protected] (X.Z.);
[email protected] (Y.F.); [email protected] (D.Z.); [email protected] (L.D.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: In this paper, a novel corrugated steel sheet central sheathed cold-formed steel (CCS-CFS)
shear wall is proposed. This shear wall can address the problems of low shear strength and ductility
in conventional cold-formed steel (CFS) shear walls caused by screw connection failure and eccentric
sheet arrangement. A numerical simulation method for the novel shear wall was developed and verified
through cyclic loading test results of two full-size shear wall specimens. Parameter analysis was then
conducted to investigate the effects of screw spacing, sheet thickness ratio, and aspect ratio on the seismic
performance of these shear walls, accompanied by design recommendations. The results indicated that
this innovative shear wall configuration can effectively resolve the connection failure between the frame
and the sheet. Furthermore, the CCS-CFS shear wall can effectively improve shear strength, energy
dissipation capacity, and ductility. The developed numerical simulation method can accurately capture
the hysteretic properties and failure modes of shear walls. In addition, it can address the shortcomings in
conventional models that neglect the mixed hardening characteristic of steel and metal damage criteria,
resulting in inaccurate simulation results and unrealistic buckling modes. The principal failure modes
observed in the novel shear wall were identified as the plastic buckling of corrugated steel sheathing and
the distortional buckling of the end stud. Reducing the screw spacing has a limited impact on its shear
strength. It is recommended that the sheet thickness ratio of the CCS-CFS shear wall should be greater
Citation: Xie, Z.; Bi, Y.; Fan, Y.; Gao,
than 2.0, while the aspect ratio can be relaxed to 10:4.
C.; Zhang, X.; Feng, Y.; Zhou, D.;
Dong, L. Finite Element Investigation
of a Novel Cold-Formed Steel Shear
Keywords: CCS-CFS shear wall; seismic performance; numerical simulation method; parametric
Wall. Buildings 2024, 14, 1691. analysis; design recommendations
https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings14061691

Academic Editors: Giuseppina Uva,

1. Introduction
Linfeng Lu and Shaofeng Nie
Earthquakes have a significant impact on the structural safety of buildings [1,2]. Many
Received: 17 April 2024 scholars have conducted research in this field. Deng, E et al. [3] presented an experimental–
Revised: 13 May 2024 numerical investigation on an innovative fully prefabricated liftable connection (FPLC) for
Accepted: 4 June 2024
modular steel buildings (MSBs). The results indicate that the FPLC had a satisfactory deforma-
Published: 6 June 2024
tion capacity and sufficient ductility under earthquake conditions. Yang, L et al. [4] proposed
a displacement-amplified mild steel bar joint damper to solve some dampers that cannot give
full play to the energy dissipation effect during small earthquakes. Wei, J et al. [5] carried out
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
research on the seismic performance of concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) composite columns
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. with ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) plates. These structures can withstand multiple
This article is an open access article earthquakes and have demonstrated good seismic performance.
distributed under the terms and A cold-formed steel (CFS) structure is a type of green building structure that has been
conditions of the Creative Commons widely used in low-rise residential [6,7] and office buildings due to its characteristics of
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// light weight, high strength, industrialization and a high degree of assembly. In recent years,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ propelled by advancements in the construction industry, the CFS structure system has
4.0/). become a promising prospect for development in mid and high-rise constructions.

Buildings 2024, 14, 1691. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061691 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2024, 14, 1691 2 of 19

The main lateral stability and strength in CFS structures are provided by CFS shear
walls. Therefore, the seismic performance of a shear wall [8–10] critically influences the
seismic performance of the whole structure. Research by Niari et al. [11] and Feng et al. [12]
revealed that the screw connection between the sheet and the frame in a single-sided CFS
shear wall was prone to tilt and slip in the process of stress. This resulted in a noticeable
pinching effect of the hysteretic curves and poor energy dissipation of components. In ad-
dition, screw connection failure was a brittle form of failure which meant that the seismic
potential of components was not fully exploited, resulting in low shear strength and ductil-
ity of the shear wall. To address the above problems, a self-piercing rivet (SPR) connection
and a hybrid connection (SPR and screws) were developed by Xie et al. [13,14]. Through
experimental investigations, the researchers proposed methods for calculating the shear
and tensile strength for these two types of joints, significantly improving the connection
performance of shear walls. Therefore, improving the screw connection performance or
introducing new connection types is an effective way to enhance the seismic performance
of CFS shear walls.
An important reason for the low shear strength and ductility of CFS shear walls is the
eccentric force caused by the single-sided placement of sheathing. Research conducted by
Rizk and DaBreo et al. [15,16] revealed that the off-center positioning of the sheet subjected
the studs of the wall to torsional moments. Furthermore, shear buckling deformations of
the sheathing led to the sheet pulling over the heads of the screws, resulting in a loss of
the out-of-plane constraint of the sheet on the steel frame. This decreased the compression
strength and anti-collapse capabilities of the shear wall. Given these findings, experimental
investigations on double-sheathed shear walls were completed by Santos [17]. The results
indicated that while this new configuration effectively improved the torsional strength
and stiffness of the wall, the challenge of low ductility due to premature screw connection
failures remained. Subsequently, Wang et al., Briere et al. and Rogers et al. [18–20] inno-
vatively proposed the center-sheathed CFS shear wall. Although this innovation partially
solved the aforementioned problems, shear bearing capacity and stiffness were not sub-
stantially enhanced, owing to the low lateral stiffness of steel plates and the susceptibility
to out-of-plane buckling.
For this reason, Yu et al. and Zhang et al. [21,22] developed a CFS shear wall sheathed
with corrugated steel sheets. They found that corrugated steel sheathing demonstrated
superior shear resistance compared to conventional steel sheathing. However, the main fail-
ure modes were screw connection failure and end stud buckling, with limited improvement
in ductility.
Developing a numerical model of a CFS shear wall is an important way to simulate
and predict its failure mode and hysteretic properties. Ngo et al. [11] proposed a numerical
simulation method for CFS shear walls. However, the rigidity assumption of the sheathing
was adopted in the modeling process, which meant the relative displacement of the sheet
was ignored. As a result, the peak load and initial stiffness of the simulation results were
too small, and the decreasing section of the hysteretic curve was not obvious. Niari [23] and
Xu et al. [24] conducted finite element analysis of CFS shear walls by considering geometric
and material nonlinearity, but this did not effectively solve the aforementioned problems.
Additionally, Xu assumed the steel sheet to be an ideal elastic–plastic material, but this
led to plastic deformation occurring easily in the middle of the steel sheet or the screw
connection area at the corner of the wall. This significantly reduced the computational
efficiency of the model.
To sum up, while the existing numerical model of a CFS shear wall considered material
and geometric non-linearity to enhance its accuracy, the utilization of an ideal elastic–plastic
constitutive model for steel proved inadequate. This manifested in challenges such as
overly high initial stiffness and the absence of a clearly delineated decline section within
the simulated hysteretic curve. Therefore, the numerical simulation of a CFS shear wall
that considers the characteristics of steel mixed strengthening and metal damage criteria
requires further development.
Buildings 2024, 14, 1691 3 of 19

According to the aforementioned scholars’ research on traditional CFS shear walls, it is

evident that the conventional cold-formed steel (CFS) shear wall exhibited weak resistance
and low ductility caused by screw connection failure and eccentric sheet arrangement.
To achieve a stronger and more ductile CFS shear wall, an innovative corrugated steel sheet
central sheathed cold-formed steel (CCS-CFS) shear wall was conceived. Based on this, a
refined numerical simulation method of the CCS-CFS shear wall was developed by consid-
ering the characteristics of steel mixed strengthening and metal damage criteria. The three
issues of undersized peak load, excessive initial stiffness, and the decreasing section of the
hysteretic curve were not obvious and could be effectively resolved. The effectiveness of
the method was verified by cyclic loading test results of two full-size shear wall specimens.
Following the validated finite element model, a comprehensive finite element analysis was
conducted on parameters such as screw spacing, sheet thickness ratio, and aspect ratio.
The impact of these parameters on the seismic performance and failure mechanism of the
shear wall was systematically studied.

2. Design and Experimental Program of CCS-CFS Shear Wall Configuration

2.1. Innovative Configuration of the CCS-CFS Shear Wall
As a response to the limited strength and ductility of conventional CFS shear walls,
this paper presents an innovative CCS-CFS shear wall with corrugated steel sheet central
sheathing, as depicted in Figure 1. In this configuration, two back-to back corrugated steel
sheets were centrally confined within the framing, providing a substantial increase in both
shear resistance and ductility in comparison with conventional shear walls. The corrugated
steel sheets were sandwiched by built-up vertical studs along the edges and horizontal
members located at the base and top of the wall. Additionally, L-shaped connectors were
used to connect the studs and the horizontal members, enhancing the overall stability of
the shear wall through improved component connections. Furthermore, a symmetrical
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 21
arrangement of hold-downs on both sides of the wall was employed to enhance connection
performance and prevent hold-down failure or damage.
Track
L-Connector
0.7
20

Corrugated
148 115 263 Steel sheathing
Corrugated 1200
Steel sheathing

Screw
connection
14×20=280

74
370

End stud
370
362

72

50
64

Plate
60
Hold-down Hold-down
90
90

60 64
Combined Beam 90 72

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Schematic
Schematic diagram
diagram of
of CCS-CFS shear wall
CCS-CFS shear wall (unit:
(unit: mm).
mm).

Compared
2.2. Specimen with the conventional shear wall, the CCS-CFS shear wall offers the fol-
Design
lowing advantages: (1) The two
Two full-size CCS-CFS back-to-back
shear corrugated
wall specimens steel sheets
were designed aremanufactured.
and centrally confined
The
within the framing and sandwiched by built-up vertical studs along
height and width of all specimens were 3000 mm and 1200 mm, respectively. the edges and horizon-
The trans-
tal members
verse located at the
brace comprised baseC-shaped
double and top ofsteel
the with
wall. 140
While
mmensuring
web × 55a mm
tightflange
fit between
× 25 mmthe
sheet and frame, the shear surface of the screws can be increased to avoid premature
lip × 2 mm thickness, fastened together by two lines of screws at intervals of 50 mm along failure
or
thepulling
lengthout of the
of the web.sheets.
The This enhancement
end studs canofsignificantly
consisted two coupled improve
C-shapedthe steel
shearwith
strength
140
and stiffness of the wall. (2) Placing the sheet in the middle of the frame serves a dual
mm web × 75 mm flange × 25 mm lip × 2 mm thickness, fastened together by two lines of
screws at intervals of 50 mm along the length of the web. The track comprised double U-
shaped steel with 160 mm web × 70 mm flange × 2 mm thickness attached by two lines of
SPRs at intervals of 50 mm along the length of the web. The interval between the two lines
of screws was 40 mm. The cross-section size of the corrugated steel sheet was CS 1200 mm
Buildings 2024, 14, 1691 4 of 19

purpose. Firstly, by eliminating the torsion effect of the column caused by the eccentricity of
the panel, it enhances the wall’s compression and collapse resistance. Secondly, it generates
extra connection space and augments the number of connections between the sheet and
frame. This reinforcement amplifies the skin effect of the sheet, enlarges the slip space
of the connection, and ultimately enhances the ductility and seismic energy dissipation
capabilities of the wall. (3) As a high-performance lateral force resistance component, the
novel shear wall can be applied not only in multi-story steel structures but also in low-story
CFS structures.

2.2. Specimen Design

Two full-size CCS-CFS shear wall specimens were designed and manufactured. The height
and width of all specimens were 3000 mm and 1200 mm, respectively. The transverse brace
comprised double C-shaped steel with 140 mm web × 55 mm flange × 25 mm lip × 2 mm
thickness, fastened together by two lines of screws at intervals of 50 mm along the length of
the web. The end studs consisted of two coupled C-shaped steel with 140 mm web × 75 mm
flange × 25 mm lip × 2 mm thickness, fastened together by two lines of screws at intervals of
50 mm along the length of the web. The track comprised double U-shaped steel with 160 mm
web × 70 mm flange × 2 mm thickness attached by two lines of SPRs at intervals of 50 mm
along the length of the web. The interval between the two lines of screws was 40 mm. The cross-
section size of the corrugated steel sheet was CS 1200 mm × 148 mm × 115 mm × 20 mm, with
a thickness of 0.7 mm. The end studs of specimen SW-1 were not equipped with plates,5while
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 21
the end studs of specimen SW-2 were equipped with plates. Figure 2 presents the detailed
configurations of the specimens.

(a) (b)

260 260
3000
3000

300
300

370
370

1200 1200

Configurations of specimens: (a)

Figure 2. Configurations (a) specimen
specimen SW-1;
SW-1; (b) specimen SW-2 (unit: mm).

ST5.5-grade
2.3. Material screws were used for the shear wall. Due to the different thickness of
Properties
the connected sheet, the length of the screw between the combined transverse brace and
In accordance with Chinese Standard GB/T 228.1 [25], three coupons were tested for
the corrugated steel sheet was 25 mm; the length between the transverse brace and the
each component the results of which are presented in Table 1. The strength-to-yield ratio
wave trough was 70 mm; and the length between the end studs and the corrugated steel
(fu/fy) of coupons was greater than 1.2 and the elongation did not fall below 10%. The duc-
sheet was 32 mm. ST6.3-grade screws were employed between the hold-downs and the
tility of materials satisfied the provision of North American specification AISI S100-16 [26].
steel frame. The failure modes, hysteretic curves, skeleton curves, and test results of two
specimens were obtained by conducting cycle loading tests.
Table 1. Coupon test results for CFS components.

Steel Strength Steel Thickness Yield Strength Tensile Strength Elongation

Component fu/fy
Grade t (mm) fy (MPa) fu (MPa) S (%)
Corrugated steel Q235 0.7 238 320 1.34 33.67
Steel frame Q355 2.0 330 433 1.31 23.72
 Buildings 2024, 14, 1691 5 of 19

2.3. Material Properties

In accordance with Chinese Standard GB/T 228.1 [25], three coupons were tested
for each component the results of which are presented in Table 1. The strength-to-yield
ratio (f u /f y ) of coupons was greater than 1.2 and the elongation did not fall below 10%.
The ductility of materials satisfied the provision of North American specification AISI
S100-16 [26].

Table 1. Coupon test results for CFS components.

Steel Strength Steel Thickness Yield Strength Tensile Strength Elongation

Component fu /fy
Grade t (mm) fy (MPa) fu (MPa) S (%)
Corrugated steel Q235 0.7 238 320 1.34 33.67
Steel frame Q355 2.0 330 433 1.31 23.72

2.4. Test Results Analysis

2.4.1. Failure Modes
At low load levels, both specimens exhibited elastic shear buckling of the corrugated
steel sheet. When horizontal displacement reached 8mm, plastic buckling of the corrugated
steel sheet was observed. At this point, the shear strength of the two specimens decreased,
and the decline of specimen SW-1 was larger. As the horizontal displacement continued to
increase, the shear strength of the two specimens gradually increased and a tension field
appeared along the diagonal of specimens, as depicted in Figures 3a and 4a. Simultaneously,
the two flanges at the bottom of the left end stud buckled and the specimens entered the
failure stage. When the wall shear strength dropped to 85% of the peak load, the test was
terminated and the specimens were considered destroyed, as illustrated in Figures 3 and 4.
To summarize, the main failure modes of the novel shear wall were the plastic buckling of
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
corrugated steel sheathing and the distortional buckling of the end stud. Most notably, the6 of 21
distortional buckling of the end stud was the key factor affecting the shear strength of the
shear wall.

(a) Web bending (b)

Sheet tearing

SW-1

Sheet buckling End stud buckling Bearing failure

Figure
Figure3.3.Failure
Failuremodes of SW-1:
modes of SW-1:(a)
(a)specimen
specimen SW-1;
SW-1; (b) (b) corrugated
corrugated steel steel
sheet.sheet.

(a) Web bending (b)

Sheet tearing
 SW-1

Sheet buckling End stud buckling Bearing failure

Buildings 2024, 14, 1691 6 of 19
Figure 3. Failure modes of SW-1: (a) specimen SW-1; (b) corrugated steel sheet.

(a) Web bending (b)

Sheet tearing

SW-2

Sheet buckling End stud buckling Bearing failure

Figure 4. Failure
Figure modes
4. Failure modesofofSW-2:
SW-2:(a)
(a) specimen SW-2;(b)
specimen SW-2; (b)corrugated
corrugated steel
steel sheet.
sheet.

2.4.2.
2.4.2. Hysteresis
Hysteresis Curves
Curves
Figure
Figure 5 5presents
presents the
the hysteresis
hysteresis curves for each
curves specimen.
for each The testThe
specimen. results
testare presented
results are pre-
in Table 2. As depicted in Figure 5, the hysteresis curves of specimens SW-1 and SW-2
sented in Table 2. As depicted in Figure 5, the hysteresis curves of specimens SW-1 and
were similar. When the peak load was achieved, the shear strength of the specimens
SW-2 were similar.
significantly When the
degraded. Thepeak load
plastic wasformed
hinge achieved, thebuckling
by the shear strength of the
of the end specimens
stud and
significantly
the plastic degraded.
deformation The
andplastic
tearinghinge
of theformed by the
steel sheet buckling
increased of the
the slip endhysteresis
of the stud and the
plastic deformation
curve, making the and tearing
“pinched” of the steelmore
phenomenon sheetobvious.
increased the slipwith
Compared of the hysteresis
specimen curve,
SW-1,
making the “pinched”
the deformation phenomenon
capacity moreenergy
and cumulative obvious. Compared
dissipation withofspecimen
capacity specimen SW-1,
SW-2 the
increased by
deformation 16.4% and
capacity and16.6%, respectively.
cumulative energyThisdissipation
was becausecapacity
the addition of plates toSW-2
of specimen the in-
end studs significantly enhanced its local flexural and compressive strength,
creased by 16.4% and 16.6%, respectively. This was because the addition of plates to the effectively
enddelaying the buckling and
studs significantly failure process.
enhanced its localHowever,
flexural the
andshear strength and
compressive stiffnesseffectively
strength, of the
wall primarily depended on the sheet and steel frame, while the plate served merely to
delaying the buckling and failure process. However, the shear strength and stiffness of
locally strengthen the end stud without directly enhancing the shear strength of the sheet
the or
wall
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
steelprimarily depended
frame. Thus, on of
the impact theadding
sheet plates
and steel frame,
on the shear while the
strength plate
and served
stiffness 7 of merely
21
of the
to locally strengthen the end
shear wall was relatively small. stud without directly enhancing the shear strength of the
sheet or steel frame. Thus, the impact of adding plates on the shear strength and stiffness
(a) 80 of the shear wall was relatively(b)
small.
80
Applied horizontal force (kN)
Applied horizontal force (kN)

60 60

40 40
20 20
0 0
−20 −20
−40 −40
−60 Hysteresis Curve Hysteresis Curve
−60
Envelope Curve Envelope Curve
−80 −80
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.
Figure 5. Hysteretic
Hysteretic curves
curves of
of the
the specimens:
specimens: (a)
(a) specimen
specimen SW-1;
SW-1; (b)
(b) specimen
specimen SW-2.
SW-2.

Table 2. Test results.

Specimen Ke Δy Py Δmax Pmax Δu μ E Ec

Amplitude
Label (kN/mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (--) (J) (--)
Positive 4.60 40.35 45.28 83.09 59.73 104.83 2.60 2.37 0.69
SW-1 Negative 6.28 20.48 41.54 72.19 51.44 88.89 4.34 2.09 0.57
Average 5.44 30.42 43.41 77.64 55.59 96.86 3.18 2.23 0.63
Positive 5.20 28.81 47.07 77.01 59.40 105.20 3.65 2.59 0.65
 Envelope Curve Envelope Curve
−80 −80
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Buildings 2024, 14, 1691 Figure 5. Hysteretic curves of the specimens: (a) specimen SW-1; (b) specimen SW-2.
7 of 19

Table 2. Test results.

Specimen Ke Table 2. Test

Δy results.Py Δmax Pmax Δu μ E Ec
Amplitude
Label (kN/mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (--) (J) (--)
Specimen Ke ∆y Py ∆max Pmax ∆u µ E Ec
Amplitude
Positive (kN/mm)
4.60
Label (mm) 40.35 (kN)45.28 83.09
(mm) 59.73
(kN) 104.83
(mm) 2.60
(--) 2.37
(J) 0.69
(--)
SW-1 Negative
Positive 4.606.28 40.35 20.48 45.2841.54 72.19
83.09 51.44
59.73 88.89
104.83 4.34
2.60 2.09
2.37 0.570.69
SW-1 Average
Negative 6.285.44 20.48 30.42 41.5443.41 77.64
72.19 55.59
51.44 96.86
88.89 3.18
4.34 2.23
2.09 0.630.57
Average 5.44 30.42 43.41 77.64 55.59 96.86 3.18 2.23 0.63
Positive 5.20 28.81 47.07 77.01 59.40 105.20 3.65 2.59 0.65
Positive 5.20 28.81 47.07 77.01 59.40 105.20 3.65 2.59 0.65
SW-2 Negative
Negative 5.52
5.52 32.10
32.10 39.47
39.47 89.50
89.50
51.62
51.62
120.46
120.46
3.75
3.75
2.61
2.61
0.790.79
SW-2
Average
Average 5.365.36 30.46 30.46 43.2743.27 83.26
83.26 55.51
55.51 112.83
112.83 3.70
3.70 2.60
2.60 0.720.72

2.4.3. Comparison
2.4.3. Comparison with thethe
with Conventional
Conventional CFSCFSShear
Shear Wall
Wall
Based
Based on the test results obtained by Xie et al. [27],this
on the test results obtained by Xie et al. [27], thissection
section presents
presents aa comparison
comparison of
of the
thehysteretic
hystereticcurves
curvesandandseismic
seismic performance
performance indexes
indexes between
between thethe conventional
conventional CFSCFS
shear
shear wall (Figure 6a) and specimen SW-2 (Figure 6b). The results of the comparison
wall (Figure 6a) and specimen SW-2 (Figure 6b). The results of the comparison of hysteresis of
hysteresis curves are displayed in Figure 6c. As depicted in Figure 6,
curves are displayed in Figure 6c. As depicted in Figure 6, specimen SW-2 demonstrated specimen SW-2
demonstrated an approximately
an approximately 60% increase60% increase
in steel usageincompared
steel usage withcompared with the conven-
the conventional CFS shear
tional
wall.CFS shear wall. Nevertheless,
Nevertheless, notable enhancements
notable enhancements were observed werein observed
its shearin its shear stiff-
stiffness, shear
ness, shear strength,
strength, and cumulative
and cumulative energy consumption,
energy consumption, with increases
with increases of 267%, of 267%,
208%, 208%,
and 175%,
and 175%, respectively.
respectively. In summary,In summary, theperformance
the seismic seismic performance of the CCS-CFS
of the CCS-CFS shear wallshear wall
markedly
markedly
improved improved
compared compared with the conventional
with the conventional CFS shear CFS
wall.shear
Hence, wall.
it isHence, it istoadvisa-
advisable consider
bleemploying
to consider employing
the CCS-CFS the CCS-CFS
shear wall as shear wall as alateral
a prospective prospective lateral force
force resistance resistance
solution within
solution within CFS
a multi-layer a multi-layer
structure CFS structure system.
system.

(a) (b) (c) 60

Applied horizontal force (kN)

40

20

−20

−40 CCS-CFS
CFS
−60
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm)

Figure 6. Comparison between the CFS shear wall and the CCS-CFS shear wall: (a) CFS shear wall;
(b) specimen SW-2; (c) hysteretic curves.

3. Numerical Methodology
3.1. Modeling of Shear Walls
3.1.1. Element Choice and Mesh Size
As depicted in Figure 7, the S4R shell element was adopted to model the steel frame
and sheet sheathing in ABAQUS [28]. The dimensions of the model were consistent with
the specimen. During finite element modeling, an odd number of section points is specified
throughout the shell thickness when integrating properties during analysis. Due to the
relatively uniform thickness of materials within the wall, ABAQUS employs five section
points throughout the thickness of a homogeneous shell. A study by Schafer et al. [29]
revealed that the local, distortional and global buckling failure modes can be simulated
more accurately with medium or suitable mesh. Therefore, the mesh size for the steel frame
was set at 20 mm, while the mesh size for the sheet sheathing was 30 mm (Figure 7b).
 the relatively uniform thickness of materials within the wall, ABAQUS employs five sec-
tion points throughout the thickness of a homogeneous shell. A study by Schafer et al. [29]
revealed that the local, distortional and global buckling failure modes can be simulated
more accurately with medium or suitable mesh. Therefore, the mesh size for the steel
Buildings 2024, 14, 1691 8 of 19
frame was set at 20 mm, while the mesh size for the sheet sheathing was 30 mm (Figure
7b).

Track: Connector type:

(a)
(b) S4R ; 20 mm TIE
Boundary stud: Hold-down:
S4R ; 20 mm C3D8R ; 20 mm

Corrugated
Steel sheathing:
S4R ; 30 mm
Combined Beam:
S4R ; 20 mm

Figure 7. Finite element model of the CCS-CFS shear wall: (a) schematic diagram; (b) finite ele-
Figure 7. Finite element model of the CCS-CFS shear wall: (a) schematic diagram; (b) finite ele-
ment model.
ment model.
3.1.2. Material
3.1.2. Material Modeling
Modeling
Accordingto
According tothe
thevon
vonMises
Misesyield
yieldcriteria
criteria[30],
[30], the
the steel
steel exhibited
exhibited thethe characteristics
characteristics of
of mixed
mixed strengthening,
strengthening, as displayed
as displayed in Figure
in Figure 8a. To8a. To accurately
accurately simulate
simulate the hysteresis
the hysteresis curve
curve
of
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER the of the steel
actual
REVIEW actual steel material,
material, the combined
the combined module module
in ABAQUS in ABAQUS
and cycleand cycle hardening
hardening material 9 of 21
material properties
properties were employed
were employed to simulate to simulate
the steel the steel
under under
cycle cycle
loads. loads. Material
Material parameterspa-
were fittedwere
rameters using reference
fitted using [31], and the
reference [31],results areresults
and the detailed
areindetailed
Table 3.in Table 3.
Furthermore, steel material properties were determined according to coupon tests.
 (c) 
(  nom ) data were obtained from the
t (b)
(a) The
3 nominal stress (  nom)i and strain material test (Table
(D=0)
2  1  2 into the input true stress
u
t n

1
1),
t and transformed (  ture ) and strain (  ture ) based on Equations
 |0 
 Figure 8b. Figurey8c depicts the true stress–strain curve of steel
(1)–(3) [32], as displayedin
 cp  tp under
p
tension. In order to achieve a more precise simulation of the failure behavior of the
shear
c
1  0p
wall, ductile i
damage 
properties were incorporated into Ethe material constitutive
model.
c
2
Additionally, the damage evolution E
sub-term of the steel D)E (D=1)
(1 damage evolution path
n c
was included. 
 p =  tp −  cp  ip =  i − i −  0p
E 0  pl  pl  0 f

Figure 8. Material model of steel: (a) isotropic strengthening model of steel; (b) steel dynamic
Figure 8. Material model of steel: (a) isotropic strengthening model of steel; (b) steel dynamic
strengthening model; (c) true stress–strain curve of steel tensile.
strengthening model; (c) true stress–strain curve of steel tensile.

Table 3. Material parameter calibration. l − l0 l

 nom = = −1 (1)
l0 l0
Steel Strength σ|0 Q∞ Ckin,1 Ckin,2 Ckin,3 Ckin,4
biso γ1 γ2 γ3 γ4
Grade (N/mm2 ) (N/mm2 ) (N/mm2 ) (N/mm2 ) (N/mm2 ) (N/mm2 )
Q235 238 21 1.2 6050 175 5050 120=  nom (13050
 ture +  nom ) 25 1000 35 (2)
Q355 330 21 1.2 8000 175 6800 120 2850 35 1450 30

biso is the ratio that the yield surface changes with increasing plastic ( 1 +  nom)
Note: σ|0 represents the stress at zero equivalent plastic strain; Q∞ is the maximum change value of yield surface.
ture = lnstrain. Ckin,k and γk are constants, proofread (3)
according to test results.

Table 3. Material parameter calibration.

Furthermore, steel material properties were determined according to coupon tests.
Steel Strength σ|0 The nominal
Q∞ stress (σnom )Candkin,1 strain (ε nomC) kin,2
data were obtained Ckin,3 from the materialCkin,4 test
(Table 1), and biso
transformed into the γinput
1
true stressγ(σ
2
ture ) and strainγ(ε3 ture ) based on γ4
Grade (N/mm ) (N/mm )
2 2 (N/mm ) 2 (N/mm ) 2 (N/mm ) 2 (N/mm2)
Q235 238 Equations
21 (1)–(3) 1.2[32], as displayed
6050 in
175Figure
5050 8b. Figure1208c depicts
3050 the true25 stress–strain
1000 35
curve of steel under tension. In order to achieve a more precise simulation of the failure
Q355 330 21 1.2 8000 175 6800 120 2850 35 1450 30
behavior of the shear wall, ductile damage properties were incorporated into the material
Note: σ|0 represents the stress at zero equivalent plastic strain; Q∞ is the maximum change value of
constitutive model. Additionally, the damage evolution sub-term of the steel damage
yield surface. biso is the ratio that the yield surface changes with increasing plastic strain. Ckin,k and
evolutionγkpath was included.
are constants, proofread according to test results.
l − l0 l
ε nom =
3.1.3. Geometric Nonlinearity = −1 (1)
l0 l0
Geometric nonlinearity in structural analysis pertains to the requirement of generat-
σture = based
ing a new equilibrium equation + εthe
σnom (1on )
nomdeformed (2)
state of a structure following sig-
nificant deformation. Failure to account for this phenomenon can lead to substantial cal-
culation errors due to the evolving shape and behavior of the structure under load. For
example, consider a cantilever beam loaded vertically at the tip. If the tip deflection is
small, the analysis can be considered as being approximately linear. However, if the tip
deflections are large, the shape of the structure, and hence its stiffness, changes. Therefore,
Buildings 2024, 14, 1691 9 of 19

ε ture = ln(1 + ε nom ) (3)

3.1.3. Geometric Nonlinearity

Geometric nonlinearity in structural analysis pertains to the requirement of generating
a new equilibrium equation based on the deformed state of a structure following significant
deformation. Failure to account for this phenomenon can lead to substantial calculation
errors due to the evolving shape and behavior of the structure under load. For example,
consider a cantilever beam loaded vertically at the tip. If the tip deflection is small, the
analysis can be considered as being approximately linear. However, if the tip deflections are
large, the shape of the structure, and hence its stiffness, changes. Therefore, the geometric
nonlinearity of the cantilever beam needs to be considered [33].
Consequently, because each member of the CCS-CFS shear wall was a shell element,
the presence of geometric nonlinearities became particularly pronounced. When subjected
to bending loads, these shell elements were prone to significant deformations, resulting
in substantial displacements and rotations at critical buckling points within the structure.
Therefore, the influence of geometric nonlinearity on shear wall must be considered in
finite element analysis.

3.1.4. Modeling of the Screw Connection

The screw connection in the shear wall can be classified into three categories based on the
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21
varying base steel thicknesses: (1) connection between the track and the transverse brace (2 + 2 mm);
(2) connection between the corrugated steel sheet and the end stud (2 + 0.7 + 0.7 + 2 mm); (3) con-
nection between the corrugated steel sheet and the transverse brace (2 + 0.7 mm). Based on the test
between the track
results, it was foundandthat the transverse
the screw bracebetween
connection remained essentially
the track and theintact, withbrace
transverse no instances
remained
of connection
essentially failure.
intact, with noConsequently, it was inferred
instances of connection failure.that the joint exhibited
Consequently, rigidity,
it was inferred thatand
the
was
joint consequently
exhibited rigidity, modeled
and was using a TIE constraint
consequently modeledinusingthe simulation.
a TIE constraintSlight hole
in the wall ex-
simulation.
pansion
Slight hole waswallevident in the
expansion wasconnection
evident in thebetween the corrugated
connection between the steel sheet steel
corrugated and sheet
the steel
and
frame, indicating that a relative slip occurred between the two components.
the steel frame, indicating that a relative slip occurred between the two components. Thus, it was Thus, it was
assumed
assumed that thatthe
thejoint
joint
waswas hinged
hinged andand
waswas simulated
simulated by a by a Cartesian
Cartesian connector
connector (Figure(Figure 9).
9). Because
Because
the combinedthe combined plateof
plate thickness thickness of the steel
the corrugated corrugated
sheet and steel
endsheet and endfrom
stud differed studthat
differed
of the
from that ofsteel
corrugated the corrugated steel sheet
sheet at the wave at the
crest and wave crest
transverse andtwo
brace, transverse
differentbrace, two different
constitutive models
of screws were
constitutive required
models for simulation.
of screws The constitutive
were required model and
for simulation. Thecalculation
constitutive parameters
model and are
presented inparameters
calculation Figure 10 and areTable 4.
presented in Figure 10 and Table 4.

(a) ea3 b (b) eb3

a
e
3

ɑ ɑ b eb2
ea2 e a
2
b
e
1
ea1 ea1
Figure
Figure 9. Translational androtational
Translational and rotationalrelations
relationsofofthe
the Cartesian
Cartesian connector:
connector: (a)(a) translational
translational connec-
connection;
tion; (b) rotary connection.
(b) rotary connection.

(a) 6 (b) 3
(max , Pmax)
(max , Pmax)

4 (y , Py) 2
F (kN)
F (kN)

2 1 (y , Py)

(0.2 , 0.2Pmax) Test curve (0.2 , 0.2Pmax) Test curve

Simplified curve Simplified curve
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 0 2 4 6
 (mm)  (mm)

Figure 10. Tested properties of the screw connection: (a) constitutive model I; (b) constitutive model
II.
 ɑ ɑ b eb2
ea2 e a
2
b
e
1
ea1 ea1
Buildings 2024, 14, 1691 10 of 19
Figure 9. Translational and rotational relations of the Cartesian connector: (a) translational connec-
tion; (b) rotary connection.

(a) 6 (b) 3
(max , Pmax)
(max , Pmax)

4 (y , Py) 2

F (kN)
F (kN)
2 1 (y , Py)

(0.2 , 0.2Pmax) Test curve (0.2 , 0.2Pmax) Test curve

Simplified curve Simplified curve
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 0 2 4 6
 (mm)  (mm)

Figure 10. Tested properties

propertiesof
ofthe
thescrew
screwconnection:
connection:(a)
(a)constitutive
constitutive model
model I; (b)
I; (b) constitutive
constitutive model
model II.
II.
Table 4. Tested properties of the screw connection.
Table 4. Tested properties of the screw connection.
Constitutive ∆0.2 0.2Pmax Ke ∆y Py ∆max Pmax
Connection Object
Constitutive
Model (mm) Δ0.2 (kN) 0.2Pmax(kN/mm) Ke (mm) Δy (kN) Py Δmax
(mm) Pmax
(kN)
Connection Object
End stud + Corrugated steel I Model 0.511 (mm)1.136 (kN) 2.226 (kN/mm) 2.553 (mm) 4.376 (kN) 7.371 (mm) 5.682 (kN)
Beam + Corrugated steel
End stud + Corrugated steel Ⅰ II 0.047 0.511 0.464 1.136 9.910 2.226 0.214 2.553 1.013 4.376 1.168
7.371 2.319
5.682
Beam + Corrugated steel Ⅱ 0.047 0.464 9.910 0.214 1.013 1.168 2.319
Figure 11 presents a simplified diagram of the hold-downs in the finite element
Figure
model. During11 the
presents
cyclic aloading
simplified
tests,diagram
no damage of the
washold-downs
observed on in thethe finite element
hold-downs, and
model.
they
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
During
consistently the cyclic
remained loading
withintests,
the no damage
elastic range.was observed
Therefore, on
the the
solid hold-downs,
unit C3D8R
11 of 21
and
was
they consistently
employed remained
to simulate within the elastic
the hold-downs, and therange. Therefore,
constraint betweentheitsolid unitend
and the C3D8R
stud was
employed to simulate
simplified the hold-downs, and the constraint between it and the end stud was
the TIE constraint.
simplified to the TIE constraint.
(a) (b)
Surface:
Hard contact

Connector type:
TIE

Figure 11.
Figure 11. Simplified
Simplifieddiagram
diagramofofthe
thehold-downs
hold-downsin in
finite element
finite model:
element (a) drawing
model: of the
(a) drawing ofhold-
the hold-
downs; (b) finite element simulation of the hold-downs.
downs; (b) finite element simulation of the hold-downs.
3.1.5. Boundary
3.1.5. Boundary Conditions
Conditionsand andLoading
LoadingModeMode
According to the test, the simulation ofofthe
According to the test, the simulation theboundary
boundaryconditions
conditionsofofthe
the CCS-CFS
CCS-CFS shear
shear wall was primarily divided into the following: (1) The relationship
wall was primarily divided into the following: (1) The relationship between the between the toptrack
top
trackthe
and andloading
the loading
beam.beam.The The web
web plateofofthe
plate the upper
upper track
trackwaswascoupled
coupledto the reference
to the reference
point RP-1, and the translation degree of freedom in the loading direction
point RP-1, and the translation degree of freedom in the loading direction was constrained. was con-
strained. (2) Preventing out-of-plane instability of the wall during loading. The
(2) Preventing out-of-plane instability of the wall during loading. The translation degree of translation
degree of freedom in the external direction of the wall was restricted. (3) The connection
freedom in the external direction of the wall was restricted. (3) The connection between
between the bottom track and the beam. The translation degree of freedom between the
the bottom track and the beam. The translation degree of freedom between the bottom
bottom track and the hold-downs was restricted. (4) Surface-to-surface contact with
track and the hold-downs was restricted. (4) Surface-to-surface contact with “hard-contact”
‘‘hard-contact’’ behavior in a normal direction was introduced to simulate the interfaces
behavior in a normal direction was introduced to simulate the interfaces between the frame
between the frame members and the sheet. Additionally, the tangent behavior of inter-
members and the sheet. Additionally, the tangent behavior of interfaces was defined as
faces was defined as frictionless, as depicted in Figure 12. To improve convergence in the
frictionless, as depicted in Figure 12. To improve convergence in the analysis and acquire a
analysis and acquire a hysteresis curve featuring a descending branch, we employed a
hysteresis curve featuring a descending branch, we employed a monotonic loading scenario
monotonic loading scenario utilizing displacement-control loading within the model.
utilizing displacement-control loading within the model.
Lateral
displacement
Reference point 1 Surface：Hard contact
 between the bottom track and the beam. The translation degree of freedom between the
bottom track and the hold-downs was restricted. (4) Surface-to-surface contact with
‘‘hard-contact’’ behavior in a normal direction was introduced to simulate the interfaces
between the frame members and the sheet. Additionally, the tangent behavior of inter-
Buildings 2024, 14, 1691 faces was defined as frictionless, as depicted in Figure 12. To improve convergence11inofthe
19
analysis and acquire a hysteresis curve featuring a descending branch, we employed a
monotonic loading scenario utilizing displacement-control loading within the model.
Lateral
displacement
Reference point 1 Surface：Hard contact

U3 restraint

2
Connector type: Cartesian+Align U1=U2=U3=0
3 1 UR1=UR2=UR3=0 U1=U2=U3=0

Figure 12. Cross-sectional

Figure12. Cross-sectionaldimensions
dimensionsof
ofsteel
steelmembers.
members.
3.2. Model Validation
3.2. Model Validation
3.2.1. Comparison of Failure Mode
3.2.1. Comparison of Failure Mode
As depicted in Figure 13, the stress concentration in both specimens was primarily
Asindepicted
located in Figureside
the compressed 13,studs
the stress
(nearconcentration in both specimens
the bottom hold-downs), wasconsistent
which was primarily
located in the compressed side studs (near the bottom hold-downs), which was
with the test results. In addition, the tension bands of both corrugated steel sheets were consistent
with thealong
formed test results. In addition,
the diagonal of thethe tension
wall, whichbands
was ofinboth corrugated
agreement withsteel sheets
the test were
results.
formed
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
In alongthe
summary, thefailure
diagonal
modeof the wall, which
observed in thewas in agreement
finite with the
element model test results.
aligned In
12 ofthe
with 21
summary, theresults,
experimental failurethus
mode observed
validating theinmethod
the finite element
used model aligned
for modeling with the
the CCS-CFS experi-
shear wall.
mental results, thus validating the method used for modeling the CCS-CFS shear wall.

SW-1

Figure 13.
Figure 13. Comparison
Comparison of
of failure
failure modes
modes between
between the
the finite
finite element
element and
and test
test for
for specimen
specimen SW-1.
SW-1.

3.2.2. Comparison of Load–Displacement Curve

The test
test and
andfinite
finiteelement
elementanalysis
analysis hysteretic
hysteretic curves
curves areare displayed
displayed in Figure
in Figure 14.
14. For
For specimen SW-1, the hysteretic curve derived from the finite
specimen SW-1, the hysteretic curve derived from the finite element analysis element analysis closely
matched
matched thethetest
testresults,
results,exhibiting
exhibiting a distinct decline
a distinct decline section. Compared
section. Compared with the test
with results,
the test re-
the displacement
sults, of the of
the displacement finite element
the finite analysis
element curvecurve
analysis in theinfalling section
the falling was larger.
section This
was larger.
variation couldcould
This variation be attributed to the
be attributed toTIE
the constraint
TIE constraintapplied in certain
applied connections
in certain connections of the
of
wall, potentially resulting in slightly increased ductility of the shear wall in
the wall, potentially resulting in slightly increased ductility of the shear wall in the simu- the simulation
compared with the
lation compared withtest
thespecimen. However,
test specimen. as canasbecan
However, seen
be in Table
seen 5, it is5,evident
in Table that
it is evident
the relative error between the test results and the finite element results
that the relative error between the test results and the finite element results was main- was maintained
within
tained 12%,
withinwhich
12%,meets
which themeets
requisite
the standards in the fieldin
requisite standards of the
civilfield
engineering and enables
of civil engineering
subsequent
and enablesparameter
subsequent analysis.
parameter analysis.

(a) 80 (b) 80
l force /kN
l force (kN)

60 60

40 40

20 20
 This variation could be attributed to the TIE constraint applied in certain connections of
the wall, potentially resulting in slightly increased ductility of the shear wall in the simu-
lation compared with the test specimen. However, as can be seen in Table 5, it is evident
that the relative error between the test results and the finite element results was main-
Buildings 2024, 14, 1691 tained within 12%, which meets the requisite standards in the field of civil engineering 12 of 19
and enables subsequent parameter analysis.

(a) 80 (b) 80

Applied horizontal force /kN

Applied horizontal force (kN)
60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
−20 −20
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21
−40 −40
−60 Measured Measured
−60
Predicted Predicted
−80 4. Parametric Analyses −80
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150
4.1. Influence(mm)
Displacement of Screw Spacing on the Seismic Performance of the CCS-CFS Shear Wall
Displacemnet /mm
To investigate the effect of the screw spacing on the seismic performance of the CCS-
Figure
Figure 14.
14. Comparison
CFS shear of test
testelement
wall, five finite
Comparison of and finite
and finitemodels
elementwere
element load–displacement
designed with
load–displacement curves: (a)hysteretic
different
curves: (a) hysteretic curves;(b)
screw spacings
curves; 50
(b) backbone curves.
mm, 75 mm,
backbone 100 mm, 125 mm and 150 mm [34,35]. The skeleton curves for these models
curves.
are presented in Figure 15.
Table 5. Comparison of eigenvalues between the finite element analysis and test results.
AsComparison
Table 5. illustrated ofineigenvalues
Figure 15, between
the impact of screw
the finite spacing
element on and
analysis the test
seismic performance
results.
Kethe shear wall was
of Δy relatively constrained.
Py The finiteΔelement
max analysisPresults
max are listed
Specimen Label Ke ∆y Py ∆max Pmax
in Table
(kN/mm)
Specimen 6. As detailed
Label (mm) in Table 6, when
(kN) screw spacing increased
(mm) in the range
(kN) of 50 mm to
(kN/mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN)
FE analysis 150
5.81mm, the shear33.96 strength of the shear 47.79wall decreased 78.60linearly with a61.46 change range of
−7.5%. FE analysis 5.81 increased 33.96linearly in47.79 78.60 in61.46
SW-B-1 Test 5.44 By contrast,
Test
the ductility
30.42 5.44 43.41
30.42
line
77.64
43.41
with the increase
77.64 56.59 screw spac-
56.59
SW-B-1
Error (%) ing,
6.80 with a change range
Error 11.63
(%)
of
6.80
approximately
10.09
11.63
39.7%. This
1.24
10.09
is attributable
1.24
to the innovative
8.61 8.61
steel frame of the CCS-CFS shear wall, which modified the failure mode observed in con-
ventional CFS shear walls. Consequently, the shear strength of the shear wall primarily
4. Parametric Analyses
relied on the steel frame and the sheet. However, as the screw spacing increased, the num-
4.1. Influence of Screw Spacing on the Seismic Performance of the CCS-CFS Shear Wall
ber of screws in the tension band of the sheet decreased. This may reduce the connection
To investigate
strength between thethe effect
sheet ofandthesteel
screw spacing
frame, whileon also
the seismic performance
decreasing of the of
the resistance CCS-
the
CFS
screwshear wall,
group, five finite
resulting element models
in heightened were designed
deformability. Therefore,with itdifferent
is highlyscrew spacings
recommended
50 mm,
that the75screw
mm, 100 mm, be
spacing 125set
mm atand
100 150
mmmm [34,35].the
to ensure Theseismic
skeletonperformance
curves for these models
of the shear
are presented in Figure 15.
wall and facilitate construction.

80
Applied horizontal force (kN)

60
40
20
0 ds=50mm
ds=75mm
−20
ds=100mm
−40
ds=125mm
−60 ds=150mm
−80
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm)

Figure 15.Skeleton
Figure15. Skeletoncurves
curveswith
withvarious
variousscrew
screwspacings.
spacings.

As
Table 6. illustrated in Figure
Finite element 15, results
calculation the impact
underof screw spacing
different on the seismic performance
screw spacings.
of the shear wall was relatively constrained. The finite element analysis results are listed
inYield
Table 6. As detailed in Table 6, Maximum
when screw spacing increased in the range of 50 mm
Specimen Screw Spacing Yield Load Maximum Load Stiffness
toDisplacement
150 mm, the shear strength of Displacement
the shear wall decreased linearly with a change Ductility
range of
Label (mm) (kN) (kN) (kN/mm)
−(mm) (mm)
7.5%. By contrast, the ductility increased linearly in line with the increase in screw spacing,
SW-1-F1 50 with a change range
33.96 of approximately
47.79 78.60 39.7%. This is attributable5.81
61.46 to the innovative
3.50 steel
SW-1-F2 75 frame
35.76of the CCS-CFS shear wall, which
47.35 78.74 modified the failure mode observed
60.19 5.40 in conventional
4.13
SW-1-F3 100 42.11 46.76 91.87 59.74 4.95 4.21
SW-1-F4 125 42.39 45.60 91.90 57.96 4.71 4.71
SW-1-F5 150 42.50 45.54 91.92 57.11 4.12 4.89

4.2. Influence of Sheet Thickness Ratio on the Seismic Performance of the CCS-CFS Shear Wall
Buildings 2024, 14, 1691 13 of 19

CFS shear walls. Consequently, the shear strength of the shear wall primarily relied on the
steel frame and the sheet. However, as the screw spacing increased, the number of screws in
the tension band of the sheet decreased. This may reduce the connection strength between
the sheet and steel frame, while also decreasing the resistance of the screw group, resulting
in heightened deformability. Therefore, it is highly recommended that the screw spacing be
set at 100 mm to ensure the seismic performance of the shear wall and facilitate construction.
Table 6. Finite element calculation results under different screw spacings.

Yield Maximum Maximum

Specimen Screw Spacing Yield Load Stiffness
Displacement Displacement Load Ductility
Label (mm) (kN) (kN/mm)
(mm) (mm) (kN)
SW-1-F1 50 33.96 47.79 78.60 61.46 5.81 3.50
SW-1-F2 75 35.76 47.35 78.74 60.19 5.40 4.13
SW-1-F3 100 42.11 46.76 91.87 59.74 4.95 4.21
SW-1-F4 125 42.39 45.60 91.90 57.96 4.71 4.71
SW-1-F5 150 42.50 45.54 91.92 57.11 4.12 4.89

4.2. Influence of Sheet Thickness Ratio on the Seismic Performance of the CCS-CFS Shear Wall
According to the North American specification AISI S100-16 [26], the frame thickness
(ts ) not be less than the sheet thickness (tp ). Referring to the methods for calculating
the shear strength of self-tapping screws proposed in this specification, two cases of
sheet thickness ratio ts /tp ≥ 2.5 and 1.0 ≤ ts /tp < 2.5 were analyzed. The corresponding
parameters and specimen labels are listed in Table 7.
Table 7. Parameters and numbers of finite element models with different member thicknesses.

Sheet Thickness Ratio Specimen Stud Track Sheet

Height (m) × Width (m) Remark
(ts /tp ) Label (mm) (mm) (mm)
4.00 SW-1-F6 3.0 × 1.2 2.0 2.0 0.5
3.33 SW-1-F7 3.0 × 1.2 2.0 2.0 0.6 The frame thickness is fixed, the
2.86 SW-1-F1 3.0 × 1.2 2.0 2.0 0.7 sheet thickness is variable.
ts /tp ≥ 2.5 2.50 SW-1-F8 3.0 × 1.2 2.0 2.0 0.8
2.86 SW-1-F1 3.0 × 1.2 2.0 2.0 0.7
3.57 SW-1-F9 3.0 × 1.2 2.5 2.5 0.7 The sheet thickness is fixed, the
4.29 SW-1-F10 3.0 × 1.2 3.0 3.0 0.7 frame thickness is variable.

2.22 SW-1-F11 3.0 × 1.2 2.0 2.0 0.9

2.00 SW-1-F12 3.0 × 1.2 2.0 2.0 1.0
1.43 SW-1-F13 3.0 × 1.2 2.0 2.0 1.4 The frame thickness is fixed, the
1.33 SW-1-F14 3.0 × 1.2 2.0 2.0 1.5 sheet thickness is variable.
1.25 SW-1-F15 3.0 × 1.2 2.0 2.0 1.6
1.00 SW-1-F16 3.0 × 1.2 2.0 2.0 2.0
1≤ts /tp < 2.5
1.00 SW-1-F17 3.0 × 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7
1.14 SW-1-F18 3.0 × 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.7
1.29 SW-1-F19 3.0 × 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.7 The sheet thickness is fixed, the
1.43 SW-1-F20 3.0 × 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.7 frame thickness is variable.
1.71 SW-1-F21 3.0 × 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.7
2.14 SW-1-F22 3.0 × 1.2 1.5 1.5 0.7

Figures 16 and 17 depict the skeleton curves of models with sheet thickness ratios ts /tp
≥ 2.5 and 1 ≤ ts /tp < 2.5, respectively. As shown in Figure 17, when the sheet thickness ratio
ts /tp ≤ 2.0, the shear wall was prone to brittle failure, which should be avoided in practical
engineering applications. Therefore, it is suggested that in the structural design, the sheet
thickness ratio ts /tp should be greater than 2.0 to ensure the seismic performance of the
CCS-CFS shear wall. The simulation results of ts /tp > 2.0 are listed in Table 8. Figure 18
presents the skeleton curves of the models with sheet thickness ratio ts /tp > 2.0.
 Figures 16 and 17 depict the skeleton curves of models with sheet thickness ratios
ts/tp ≥ 2.5 and 1 ≤ ts/tp < 2.5, respectively. As shown in Figure 17, when the sheet thickness
ratio ts/tp ≤ 2.0, the shear wall was prone to brittle failure, which should be avoided in
practical engineering applications. Therefore, it is suggested that in the structural design,
Buildings 2024, 14, 1691 the sheet thickness ratio ts/tp should be greater than 2.0 to ensure the seismic performance
14 of 19
of the CCS-CFS shear wall. The simulation results of ts/tp > 2.0 are listed in Table 8. Figure
18 presents the skeleton curves of the models with sheet thickness ratio ts/tp > 2.0.
(a) 80 (b) 120

60 90

Applied horizontal force (kN)

Applied horizontal force (kN)

40 60

20 30

0 0

−20 −30
SW-1-F6
−40 SW-1-F7 −60 SW-1-F1
SW-1-F1 SW-1-F9
−60 −90
SW-1-F8 SW-1-F10
−80 −120
−150−120 −90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90 120 150 −150−120 −90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90 120 150
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21
Figure16.
Figure 16.Skeleton
Skeletoncurves
curveswith
withtst/t
s/tp ≥2.5:
p ≥ 2.5:(a)
(a)the
the specimen
specimen with various sheet thicknesses;
thicknesses; (b)
(b) the
the
specimen with various frame thicknesses.
specimen with various frame thicknesses.

(a) 180 (b) 60

135
Applied horizontal force (kN)
Applied horizontal force (kN)

40
90
20
45

0 SW-1-F11
0 SW-1-F17
−45 SW-1-F12 SW-1-F18
SW-1-F13 −20 SW-1-F19
−90 SW-1-F14 SW-1-F20
SW-1-F15 −40 SW-1-F21
−135
SW-1-F16 SW-1-F22
−180 −60
−150−120 −90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90 120 150 −150−120 −90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90 120 150
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Figure 17. Skeleton

Figure Skeletoncurves
curveswith
with1 1≤ ≤
ts/ttps</t2.5:
p <(a)
2.5:the
(a)specimen with various
the specimen sheet thicknesses;
with various (b) the
sheet thicknesses;
specimen with various frame thicknesses.
(b) the specimen with various frame thicknesses.

Table As detailed
8. Finite in Table
element 8, when
calculation the under
results sheet different
thickness ratio tthicknesses.
member s/tp > 2.0 and the frame thick-

ness was fixed and the sheet thickness was increased, the shear strength, shear stiffness,
Sheet Thickness Ratio Specimen ∆y coefficientPof
and ductility y the shear ∆wall Pmax
max correlated positively Kwith the sheet
e
µ thickness.
(ts /tp ) Label (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (kN/m)
Conversely, both the yield displacement and maximum displacement correlated nega-
SW-1-F6
tively with56.78 44.97 The increases
the sheet thickness. 104.98 in shear53.31 5.27 stiffness,4.00
capacity, shear and ductil-
SW-1-F7 44.70were 41.34%,
ity coefficient 46.4044.02% and
91.8735.00%, respectively.
57.81 5.40 when ts/t
Thus, 4.03
p > 2.0, the
SW-1-F1 33.96 47.79 78.60 61.73 5.81 4.17
stiffness and ductility of the shear wall can be effectively improved by increasing the sheet
SW-1-F8 26.23 52.41 65.62 69.26 5.93 4.99
ts /tp > 2.0 thickness. 19.01
SW-1-F11 63.42 52.46 75.35 7.59 5.40
However, when the sheet thickness was fixed, the shear strength and maximum dis-
SW-1-F22 16.24 36.81 52.50 43.23 5.69 6.10
placement of the shear wall correlated positively with the frame thickness. In contrast, the
SW-1-F1 33.96 47.79 78.60 61.73 5.81 4.03
shear stiffness
SW-1-F9 51.18and ductility
65.77coefficient84.82
exhibited minimal
82.26 variation.
6.40 The increases
3.50 in max-
imum displacement
SW-1-F10 64.09 and81.82
shear strength
91.88were 75.01%
100.82and 133.22%,
7.62 respectively.
3.17 Thus,
when ts/tp > 2.0, increasing the frame thickness can effectively improve the shear strength
and deformation capacity of the shear wall.
As detailed in Table 8, when the sheet thickness ratio ts /tp > 2.0 and the frame
(a) 80
(b) 120
thickness was fixed and the sheet thickness was increased, the shear strength, shear stiffness,
60 and ductility coefficient of the shear90wall correlated positively with the sheet thickness.
Applied horizontal force (kN)
Applied horizontal force (kN)

Conversely, both the yield displacement and maximum displacement correlated negatively
40 60
with the sheet thickness. The increases in shear capacity, shear stiffness, and ductility
20 coefficient were 41.34%, 44.02% and 30 35.00%, respectively. Thus, when ts /tp > 2.0, the

0 0

−20 SW-1-F6 −30

SW-1-F7 SW-1-F22
−40 SW-1-F1 −60 SW-1-F1
SW-1-F8 SW-1-F9
−60 −90
 ity coefficient were 41.34%, 44.02% and 35.00%, respectively. Thus, when ts/tp > 2.0, the
stiffness and ductility of the shear wall can be effectively improved by increasing the sheet
thickness.
However, when the sheet thickness was fixed, the shear strength and maximum dis-
Buildings 2024, 14, 1691 15 ofthe
19
placement of the shear wall correlated positively with the frame thickness. In contrast,
shear stiffness and ductility coefficient exhibited minimal variation. The increases in max-
imum displacement and shear strength were 75.01% and 133.22%, respectively. Thus,
stiffness
when ts/tand ductility of the shear wall can be effectively improved by increasing the
p > 2.0, increasing the frame thickness can effectively improve the shear strength
sheet thickness.
and deformation capacity of the shear wall.
(a) 80
(b) 120

60 90

Applied horizontal force (kN)

Applied horizontal force (kN)

40 60

20 30

0 0

−20 SW-1-F6 −30

SW-1-F7 SW-1-F22
−40 SW-1-F1 −60 SW-1-F1
SW-1-F8 SW-1-F9
−60 −90
SW-1-F11 SW-1-F10
−80 −120
−150−120 −90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90 120 150 −150−120 −90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90 120 150
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Figure 18.
Figure 18. Skeleton
Skeleton curves
curveswith
withtsts/t
/tpp >>2.0:
2.0:(a)
(a)the
the specimen
specimen with
with various
various sheet thicknesses; (b) the
the
specimen with
specimen with various
various frame
frame thicknesses.
thicknesses.

However, when the sheet thickness was fixed, the shear strength and maximum
displacement of the shear wall correlated positively with the frame thickness. In contrast,
the shear stiffness and ductility coefficient exhibited minimal variation. The increases in
maximum displacement and shear strength were 75.01% and 133.22%, respectively. Thus,
when ts /tp > 2.0, increasing the frame thickness can effectively improve the shear strength
and deformation capacity of the shear wall.
In summary, the seismic performance of the CCS-CFS shear wall was significantly
influenced by the sheet thickness ratio, with an optimal ratio existing between the frame
and the sheet. When ts /tp ≤ 2.0, the shear wall was prone to brittle failure. Therefore, it
is suggested that the sheet thickness ratio of the CCS-CFS shear wall should exceed 2.0.
When ts /tp > 2.0 and under the same parameters, increasing the frame thickness exerted a
more significant impact on the shear strength of the shear wall than increasing the sheet
thickness. By contrast, increasing the sheet thickness had a more pronounced effect on
enhancing the shear stiffness and ductility of the shear wall compared to increasing the
frame thickness.

4.3. Influence of Aspect Ratio on the Seismic Performance of the CCS-CFS Shear Wall
The North American specification AISI S400 [36] stipulates that the aspect ratio of a
shear wall should not exceed 2. When the ratio is greater than 2:1 and less than 4:1, the
shear strength should be reduced by a reduction factor of 2 w/h. However, whether this
reduction method that considers the influence of aspect ratio is applicable to the CCS-CFS
shear wall is not particularly clear. Therefore, seven finite element analysis models with
aspect ratios of 1.08, 1.33, 1.74, 2.50, 3.00, 3.96 and 4.45 were established to study the
influence of aspect ratio on the seismic performance of the CCS-CFS shear wall.
Failure modes of CCS-CFS shear walls with different aspect ratios are displayed in
Figure 19. As indicated in Figure 19, the stress concentration in both specimens was
primarily located in the compressed side studs (near the bottom hold-downs) and the
tension band of the sheet. Therefore, the failure mode of shear wall specimens was primarily
manifested as distortion buckling of the end stud on the compressive side and buckling
of the sheet. When the aspect ratio of the wall increased, the distortion degree of the
compression side stud was weakened, and the number of shear deformation half-waves of
the sheet was reduced.
BuildingsBuildings
2024, 14, x FOR
2024, PEER REVIEW
14, 1691 17 of 21
16 of 19

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

(f) (g)
500

Von
Mises
Stress
(Mpa)

Figure
Figure 19. Failure
19. Failure modesmodesof of CCS-CFSshear
CCS-CFS shearwalls
walls under
under different
differentaspect
aspectratios: (a)(a)
ratios: 4.45:1; (b) 3.96:1;
4.45:1; (b) 3.96:1;
(c) 3.00:1; (d) 2.5:1; (e) 1.74:1; (f) 1.33:1; (g) 1.08:1.
(c) 3.00:1; (d) 2.5:1; (e) 1.74:1; (f) 1.33:1; (g) 1.08:1.
Figure 20 depicts the skeleton curves of CCS-CFS shear walls with different aspect
Figure 20 depicts the skeleton curves of CCS-CFS shear walls with different aspect
ratios. The test and finite element analysis results of shear walls with different aspect ratios 18 of 21
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
ratios.
areThe test
listed in and
Tablefinite element
9. When analysis
the ratio results
increased fromof shear
1.08 walls
to 4.45, thewith different
maximum aspect ratios
displacement
are listed in Table
and shear 9. When
strength of shearthe ratio
walls increased
changed by −from
78.84%1.08
andto 4.45, the
54.17%, maximum displace-
respectively.
ment and shear strength of shear walls changed by −78.84% and 54.17%, respectively.
150
120
Table 9. Parameters and numbers of the finite element model under different aspect ratios.
Applied horizontal force (kN)

90
60Δmax Pmax Shear Strength μ
Specimen Label Aspect Ratio
30(mm) (kN) (kN/m)
SW-1-F23 1.08 078.21 137.53 49.51 4.13
SW-1-F28
SW-1-F24 1.33 −3078.75 113.06 SW-1-F27 50.47 4.10
SW-1-F25 1.74 SW-1-F26
−6078.73 87.14 50.49 4.14
SW-1-F1
SW-1-1 2.50 −9078.60 61.73 SW-1-F25 51.22 4.17
SW-1-F24
SW-1-F26 3.00 −12091.94 34.00 SW-1-F23
33.66 3.78
SW-1-F27 3.96 −150118.11 19.34 25.51 2.77
−150−120 −90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90 120 150
SW-1-F28 4.45 137.56 15.23 22.60 2.35
Displacement (mm)

Figure 20.Skeleton
Figure 20. Skeletoncurves
curves with
with different
different aspect
aspect ratios.
ratios.

The relationship between the reduction coefficient of shear strength and the aspect
ratio of the CCS-CFS shear wall is illustrated in Figure 21. The reduction factor of shear
strength for CCS-CFS shear walls with different aspect ratios is more conservative when
determined according to the method recommended by AISI S400. Under reciprocating
loading, the shear strength of CCS-CFS shear walls approached unity when the aspect
ratio was less than 2.5. To summarize, the effect of aspect ratio on the shear strength of
 150
120
Buildings 2024, 14, 1691 17 of 19

Applied horizontal force (kN)

90
60

Table309. Parameters and numbers of the finite element model under different aspect ratios.
0
SW-1-F28
−30 ∆max Pmax SW-1-F27 Shear Strength µ
Specimen Label Aspect Ratio
−60 (mm) (kN) SW-1-F26 (kN/m)
SW-1-F1
SW-1-F23 1.08 78.21 137.53SW-1-F25 −90 49.51 4.13
SW-1-F24 1.33 −120 78.75 113.06SW-1-F24 50.47 4.10
SW-1-F23
SW-1-F25 1.74 78.73 87.14 50.49 4.14
−150
SW-1-1 2.50 −150−120 −90 −60 −30 0 30 61.73
78.60 60 90 120 150 51.22 4.17
SW-1-F26 3.00 91.94 Displacement (mm)
34.00 33.66 3.78
SW-1-F27 3.96 118.11 19.34 25.51 2.77
SW-1-F28 4.45 Figure 20. Skeleton
137.56 curves with different
15.23 aspect ratios. 22.60 2.35

The relationship between the reduction coefficient of shear strength and the aspect
ratio The relationship
of the between
CCS-CFS shear wallthe reduction coefficient
is illustrated of shear
in Figure 21. strength factor
The reduction and theofaspect
shear
ratio of the CCS-CFS shear wall is illustrated in Figure 21. The reduction factor
strength for CCS-CFS shear walls with different aspect ratios is more conservative when of shear
strength for CCS-CFS shear walls with different aspect ratios is more conservative
determined according to the method recommended by AISI S400. Under reciprocating when
determined
loading, the according to theofmethod
shear strength CCS-CFS recommended by AISI S400.
shear walls approached Under
unity whenreciprocating
the aspect
loading, the shear strength of CCS-CFS shear walls approached unity when the
ratio was less than 2.5. To summarize, the effect of aspect ratio on the shear strengthaspect ratio
of
was less than 2.5. To summarize, the effect of aspect ratio on the shear strength of CCS-CFS
CCS-CFS shear walls can be directly considered using the North American standard AISI
shear walls can be directly considered using the North American standard AISI S400 [36]
S400 [36] and the aspect ratio limit for CCS-CFS shear walls can be relaxed to 10:4.
and the aspect ratio limit for CCS-CFS shear walls can be relaxed to 10:4.
Reduction coefficient of shear bearing capacity

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4
AISI S400
0.2 Simulation results
Test results
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Aspect ratio (h/w)

Figure 21.
Figure Relationship between
21. Relationship between reduction
reduction coefficient
coefficient and
and aspect
aspect ratio.
ratio.

5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
An innovative corrugated steel sheet central sheathed cold-formed steel (CCS-CFS)
An innovative corrugated steel sheet central sheathed cold-formed steel (CCS-CFS)
shear wall was proposed in this paper. Based on this, a refined numerical simulation
shear wall was proposed in this paper. Based on this, a refined numerical simulation
method for the CCS-CFS shear wall was developed and verified through the cyclic loading
method for the CCS-CFS shear wall was developed and verified through the cyclic loading
test results of two full-size shear wall specimens. Furthermore, a comprehensive finite
test results of two full-size shear wall specimens. Furthermore, a comprehensive finite el-
element analysis was conducted on parameters including screw spacing, sheet thickness
ement analysis was conducted on parameters including screw spacing, sheet thickness
ratio, and aspect ratio. The main conclusions are as follows.
ratio, and aspect ratio. The main conclusions are as follows.
(1) The CCS-CFS shear wall effectively solved the problem of a connection failure between
(1) The CCS-CFS shear wall effectively solved the problem of a connection failure
frame and sheet. Under cyclic load, the main failure modes were the plastic buckling
between frame and sheet. Under cyclic load, the main failure modes were the plastic
of the corrugated steel sheet and the distortional buckling of the end stud. The method
buckling of the corrugated steel sheet and the distortional buckling of the end stud.
of adding a plate to the side stud considerably improved the deformation ability of
The method of adding a plate to the side stud considerably improved the
the shear wall but had limited influence on its shear strength and stiffness.
deformation ability of the shear wall but had limited influence on its shear strength
(2) Compared with the conventional CFS shear wall, the shear strength, cumulative
and stiffness.
energy consumption and shear stiffness of the CCS-CFS shear wall were increased by
208%, 175%, and 267%, respectively. Therefore, it is recommended that the CCS-CFS
shear wall be employed as a potential lateral force resistance scheme in a multi-layer
CFS structure system.
Buildings 2024, 14, 1691 18 of 19

(3) By considering the characteristics of steel mixed strengthening and metal damage
criteria, the detailed numerical simulation of the CCS-CFS shear wall developed in
this paper can simulate the real failure mode of a shear wall. Furthermore, the finite
element analysis results were in good agreement with the test results.
(4) The influence of screw spacing on the seismic performance of the shear wall was
relatively limited. Thus, it is highly recommended that the screw spacing be set at
100 mm to ensure the seismic performance of the shear wall and facilitate construction.
(5) To prevent brittle damage to the wall, it is recommended that the sheet thickness ratio
of the CCS-CFS shear wall exceed 2.0. Additionally, increasing the frame thickness can
effectively enhance the shear strength of the shear wall, while significantly improving
the shear stiffness and ductility of the shear wall can be achieved by increasing the
sheet thickness.
(6) The aspect ratio exerted a significant influence on both the shear strength and maxi-
mum displacement of the CCS-CFS shear wall. The impact on the shear strength of
the shear wall can be directly assessed by referencing the North American code AISI
S400, but its aspect ratio limit can be relaxed to 10:4.

Author Contributions: Methodology, Z.X. and Y.F. (Ying Fan); Software, Y.B.; Validation, X.Z., Y.F.
(Yin Feng), D.Z. and L.D.; Data curation, Z.X., Y.B. and C.G.; Writing—original draft, Y.B. and Y.F.
(Ying Fan); Writing—review & editing, Z.X., Y.F. (Ying Fan), C.G., X.Z., Y.F. (Yin Feng), D.Z. and L.D.;
Visualization, Z.X.; Supervision, Z.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 52008018), and the Program for Scientific Research of Beijing Municipal Education Commission
(Grant No. KM202110016012). The research is also partially supported by the Pyramid Talent Training
Project of Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture (Grant No. JDYC20220804), the
Cultivation project Funds for Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture (Grant No.
X23046), the Project funded by China Railway Construction Group Co., Ltd. (Grant No. LX22-
21b) and the BUCEA Post Graduate Innovation Project (Grant No. PG2023030). Any opinions,
findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: Authors Xiangdong Zhang, Yin Feng, Daxing Zhou and Lei Dong were
employed by the company China Railway Construction Group Co. The remaining authors declare
that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that
could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References
1. Huang, H.; Yao, Y.; Liang, C.; Ye, Y. Experimental study on the cyclic performance of steel-hollow core partially encased composite
spliced frame beam. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2022, 163, 107499. [CrossRef]
2. Zhang, H.; Xiang, X.; Huang, B.; Wu, Z.; Chen, H. Static homotropy response analysis of structure with random variables of
arbitrary distributions by minimizing stochastic residual error. Comput. Struct. 2023, 288, 107153. [CrossRef]
3. Deng, E.; Wang, Y.; Zong, L.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, J. Seismic behavior of a novel liftable connection for modular steel buildings:
Experimental and numerical studies. Thin-Walled Struct. 2024, 197, 111563. [CrossRef]
4. Yang, L.; Ye, M.; Huang, Y.; Dong, J. Study on Mechanical Properties of Displacement-Amplified Mild Steel Bar Joint Damper.
Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. 2023. [CrossRef]
5. Wei, J.; Ying, H.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, W.; Yuan, H.; Zhou, J. Seismic performance of concrete-filled steel tubular composite columns
with ultra-high performance concrete plates. Eng. Struct. 2023, 278, 115500. [CrossRef]
6. Hasanali, M.; Roy, K.; Mojtabaei, S.M.; Hajirasouliha, I.; Clifton, G.C.; Lim, J.B.P. A critical review of cold-formed steel seismic
resistant systems: Recent developments, challenges and future directions. Thin-Walled Struct. 2022, 180, 109953. [CrossRef]
7. Hasanali, M.; Mojtabaei, S.M.; Clifton, G.C.; Hajirasouliha, I.; Torabian, S.; Lim, J.B.P. Capacity and design of cold-formed steel
warping-restrained beam–column elements. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2022, 190, 107139. [CrossRef]
8. Deng, R.; Ye, L.; Wang, Y.H.; Li, P.; Shi, Y. Lateral performance of cold-formed steel framed shear walls using slitted sheathing
with stiffeners. Eng. Struct. 2024, 302, 117385. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2024, 14, 1691 19 of 19

9. Wu, J.; Rogers, C. Cold-formed steel centre-sheathed (mid-ply) shear walls of intermediate resistance. Thin-Walled Struct. 2023,
188, 110834. [CrossRef]
10. Liu, X.; Zhang, W.; Yu, C.; Li, Y.; Jiang, Z.; Yu, S. Experimental study on cold-formed steel shear walls with different corrugated
steel sheathings. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2022, 199, 107639. [CrossRef]
11. Niari, S.E.; Rafezy, B.; Abedi, K. Seismic behavior of steel sheathed cold-formed steel shear wall: Experimental investigation and
numerical modeling. Thin-Walled Struct. 2015, 96, 337–347. [CrossRef]
12. Feng, R.Q.; Zhu, B.; Xu, P.; Qiu, Y. Seismic performance of cold-formed steel framed shear walls with steel sheathing and gypsum
board. Thin-Walled Struct. 2019, 143, 106238. [CrossRef]
13. Xie, Z.; Zhang, W.; Chen, T.; Zhou, D.; Shi, L.; Tang, Y.; Yu, C. Comparative analysis and design method of shear strength for
hybrid SPR-SDS joints in thin-walled steel structures. Structures 2021, 33, 4313–4329. [CrossRef]
14. Xie, Z.; Zhang, A.; Yan, W.; Zhang, Y.; Mu, T.; Yu, C. Study on shear performance and calculation method for self-pierce riveted
joints in galvanized steel sheet. Thin-Walled Struct. 2021, 161, 107490. [CrossRef]
15. Rizk, R. Cold-Formed Steel Frame-Steel Sheathed Shear Walls: Improved Range of Shear Strength Values Accounting for Effect of
Full Frame Blocking and Thick Sheathing/Framing Members. Master’s Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2017.
16. DaBreo, J.; Balh, N.; Ong-Tone, C.; Rogers, C.A. Steel sheathed cold-formed steel framed shear walls subjected to lateral and
gravity loading. Thin-Walled Struct. 2014, 74, 232–245. [CrossRef]
17. Santos, V. Higher Capacity Cold-Formed Steel Sheathed and Framed Shear Walls for Mid-Rise Buildings. Master’s Thesis, McGill
University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2017.
18. Wang, Y.; Gu, C.; Tang, Q.; Shi, Y.; Zhang, H.; Ye, L. Experimental study on seismic behavior of buckling-restrained steel plate
shear wall panel element by cold-formed steel with hat-section under pure shear load. J. Build. Struct. 2020, 41, 49–57+64.
(In Chinese)
19. Brière, V.; Santos, V.; Rogers, C.A. Cold-formed steel centre-sheathed (mid-ply) shear walls. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 114,
253–266. [CrossRef]
20. Yu, C.; Yu, G.; Wang, J. Optimization of Cold-Formed Steel Framed Shear Wall Sheathed with Corrugated Steel Sheets: Experiments
and Dynamic Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2015 ASCE Structures Congress, Portland, OR, USA, 23–25 April 2015; pp. 1008–1020.
21. Zhang, W.; Mahdavian, M.; Li, Y.; Yu, C. Experiments and simulations of cold-formed steel wall assemblies using corrugated steel
sheathing subjected to shear and gravity loads. J. Struct. Eng. 2016, 143, 04016193. [CrossRef]
22. Ngo, H.H. Numerical and Experiment Studies of Wood Sheathed Cold-Formed Steel Framed Shear Walls; Johns Hopkins University:
Baltimore, MD, USA, 2014.
23. Xu, P. Seismic Performance Investigation of New-Type Cold-Formed Steel Framed Sheer Walls with Steel Sheathing; Southeast University:
Nanjing, China, 2017. (In Chinese)
24. Yi, J.; Gil, H.; Youm, K.; Lee, H. Interactive shear buckling behavior of trapezoidally corrugated steel webs. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30,
1659–1666. [CrossRef]
25. GB/T228.1-2010; Metallic Materials-Tensile Testing-Part 1: Method of Test at Room Temperature. China Standards Press: Beijing,
China, 2010. (In Chinese)
26. AISI S100-16; North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members. American Iron and Steel
Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
27. Xie, Z.; Yan, W.; Yu, C.; Mu, T.; Song, L. Experimental investigation of cold-formed steel shear walls with self-piercing riveted
connections. Thin-Walled Struct. 2018, 131, 1–15. [CrossRef]
28. Dassault System Simulia Corp. ABAQUS Analysis User’s Manual Version 6.10; Dassault System Simulia Corp.: Providence, RI,
USA, 2010.
29. Schafer, B.W.; Li, Z.; Moen, C.D. Computational modeling of cold-formed steel. Thin-Walled Struct. 2010, 48, 752–762. [CrossRef]
30. Chaboche, J.L. Time independent constitutive theories for cyclic plasticity. Int. J. Plast. 1986, 2, 149–188. [CrossRef]
31. Wang, M.; Shi, Y.; Wang, Y. Equivalent constitutive model of steel with degradation and damage. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2012, 79,
101–114. [CrossRef]
32. Shi, Y.; Wang, M.; Wang, Y. Experimental and constitutive model study of structural steel under cyclic loading. J. Constr. Steel Res.
2011, 67, 1185–1197. [CrossRef]
33. ABAQUS. ABAQUS/Standard User’s Manual. Version 2019; Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp.: Johnston, RI, USA, 2019.
34. JGJ 227-2011; Technical Specification for Construction of Low-Rise Cold-Formed Thin-Walled Steel Buildings. China Architecture
and Building Press: Beijing, China, 2011. (In Chinese)
35. JGJ/T 421-2018; Technical Standard for Cold-Formed Thin-Walled Steel Multi-Storey Residential Buildings. China Architecture
and Building Press: Beijing, China, 2018. (In Chinese)
36. AISI S400-20; North American Standard for Seismic Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Systems. American Iron and Steel
Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.