European LGS

EuropeanCommission
IarhnIraIsIaaIrasaarrh
Steelproductsandapplicationsforbuilding,constructionandindustry
Se|sm|cdes|gnof||ghtgaugestee|framed
bu||d|ngs
J.Kesti
Ruukk|
Laajamentie1,FlN-13430Hmeenlinna
A.Rodriguez-Ferran,N.Pastor,A.Arnedo,M.Casafont
Un|vers|tatPo||tcn|cadeCata|unya
CampusNordUPC,JordiGirona1-3,E-08034Barcelona
M..Bretones
TecconEvo|ut|onSL
ComteBorrel180ent.8,E-08015Barcelona
J.Arola
RosetteSystemsOy
Nummenpntie1031,FlN-03320Selki
l.Hakola,L.Fulop
VTTTechn|ca|ResearchCentreofF|n|and
POBox1000,FlN-02044vTT
A.Sivill
F|nnmapConsu|t|ngOy
POBox88,FlN-00521Helsinki
ContractNo7210-PR/377
1July2002to31December2005
F|na|report
Directorate-GeneralforResearch
2007 EUR22810EN
LEGALNOTICE
NeithertheEuropeanCommissionnoranypersonactingonbehalfoftheCommission
isresponsiblefortheusewhichmightbemadeofthefollowinginformation.
AgreatdealofadditionalinformationontheEuropeanUnionisavailableonthelnternet.
ltcanbeaccessedthroughtheEuropaserver(http://europa.euj.
Cataloguingdatacanbefoundattheendofthispublication.
Luxembourg:OfficeforOfficialPublicationsoftheEuropeanCommunities,2007
lSBN92-79-05258-3
lSSN1018-5593
EuropeanCommunities,2007
Reproductionisauthorisedprovidedthesourceisacknowledged.
P||nted|n/0xemoo0|g
PRlNTEDONWHlTECHLORlNE-FREEPAPER
EuropeD/recI/saserv/ceIohe/pyouf/ndanswers
IoyourquesI/onsabouIIheEuropeanUn/on
Freephonenumber(*j:
(*jCertainmobiletelephoneoperatorsdonotallowaccessto00800numbersorthesecallsmaybebilled.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Synthesis report 5
1. Objectives of the project 5
2. Comparison of initially planned activities and work accomplished 5
3. Description of activities and discussion 6
3.1 General 6
3.2 WP1 Available design methods and new technologies for seismic design 6
3.3 WP2 Seismic testing of joints 9
3.4 WP3 Seismic testing of shear walls 12
3.5 WP4 Analysing of test results 15
3.6 WP5 Recommendations for practical design 18
4. Conclusions 22
5. Future works 23
6. Exploitation and impact of the results 23
7. List of most relevant figures and tables 25
8. List of references 26

ANNEX 1 Available design methods and new technologies for seismic design 27
ANNEX 2 Joint testing and analysis 45
ANNEX 3 Shear wall testing 85
ANNEX 4 Earthquake analysis and modelling of shear walls 121
ANNEX 5 Development of simplified formulas for calculating shear walls 153
ANNEX 6 Design guide 167

3

Synthesis report

1. Objectives of the project

The commercial objective is to increase the use of cold- formed steel components in the light gauge
steel framed buildings especially in the earthquake zones. The technical objective is to develop guid-
ance for codified design rules, guidance on analysis methods and guidance on detailing. This will en-
able engineered light gauge steel building solutions to be promoted in seismically vulnerable locations.

The expected results of the project are:

Codified design rules: a design methodology and associated design equations for use in manual de-
sign of light gauge steel buildings. The design recommendations will be written in a fashion that is
suitable for adoption by code drafters to facilitate future coverage of seismic design of light gauge steel
buildings in Standards, particularly the Eurocodes (EC8).

Guidance on analysis methods: guidance on the analysis (including FE analysis) of light gauge steel
buildings subjected to earthquake loading.

Guidance on detailing: recommendations for the detailing of joints and shear walls.

The requirements for the development work in this project are:

The rules developed should be practical and easy to use guidelines for seismic design of light gauge 1-
and 2-storey steel buildings. Because design rules are not available there is urgent need for such rules in
the steel construction industry.

The rules should be clear and simple international design rules that will encourage the use of light
gauge steel framed construction techniques.

2. Comparison of initially planned activities and work actually accomplished

The work was accomplished mainly according to original plan, but following deviations have been re-
corded in some work packages.

WP2 Seismic testing of joints.
A wide range of shear tests for screwed and bolted connection between two steel straps were performed.
Number of connectors and number of connector columns in the connection were varied. The bending
tests were excluded from the test series because the preliminary analyses have shown that the bending
stiffness of the connection is not a significant parameter in the shear wall design. Instead of them, sev-
eral types of corner details of shear walls have been tested (upper and lower corners, with and without
gusset plate). Furthermore, two tests were performed to small scale shear walls in order to study global
behaviour of connections. Altogether 190 axial joint tests were performed to screw, bolt and Rosette
connectors. Furthermore, totally 28 corner details and small scale shear wall tests were performed. The
test set-ups to the corner details were much more complicated than corresponding set-ups for bending
tests. Thus, although the number of performed test (218) was lower than estimated (380) in the Techni-
cal Annex, the total work amount of the modified test series was at least the same than the work amount
of the original test plan.

WP3 Seismic testing of shear walls
Only quasi-static, cyclic tests were planned to be performed in this work package. Finally, two different
test procedures were used in the project. Further to cyclic tests, a comprehensive series of dynamic
seismic tests on vibration table were also carried out. The purpose of seismic testing was to get informa-
tion of the behaviour of the shear walls during an different accelerogams. The damping of the all seis-
mic test specimens were also measured in specific damping tests. The total amount of the different test
5

specimens (different sheathings or diagonal stiffening systems) has been 31 that is almost the same as
originally planned (30).

WP4.1 Analysing the results of joint tests
The work in this sub-WP has been carried out as planned. Finite element analyses of structural details
(e.g. frame corners) were a useful tool for design. However, detailed geometrical FE modelling of all
joint configurations was deemed inappropriate to capture the global response of the shear walls. For this
reason, the main effort was put in the analysis of joint results (identification of failure modes and their
seismic suitability), the comparison of experimental ultimate loads with Eurocode 3 predictions and the
development of general guidelines for the design and testing of joints.
WP4.2 Analysing the results of shear wall tests
In the original plan (Tasks 2 and 3), the modelling of shear walls was assumed to be based solely on
finite element computations. However, a simplified model for shear walls has also been developed by
UPC. The shear wall is treated as a single-degree-of-freedom system and its hysteretic response is de-
scribed by means of an appropriate constitutive model (for either unsheathed x-braced frames or
sheathed frames). This approach is computationally more efficient and simpler to use than a full nonlin-
ear finite element analysis. This simplified approach has been extended to model whole buildings, ei-
ther symmetrical or non-symmetrical. In order to validate the simplified model, a large number of finite
element analyses were also carried out.

3. Description of activities and discussion

3.1 General

The summary of the project activities and main results are described below work package by work
package. The more comprehensive description of the activities and the results are given in Annexes at-
tached to the report. In order to improve the readability of the document, the content of annexes are not
following directly the order of the work packages in the project plan in Technical Annex. The table be-
low shows the corresponding Annex to each work package or task.

Work Package Work described in
WP 1 Annex 1
WP 2 Annex 2
WP 3 Annex 3
WP 4.1 Annex 2
WP 4.2, Tasks 1&5 Annex 3
WP 4.2, Tasks 2,3,4&6 Annex 4
WP 4.2, Task 7 Annex 5
WP 5 Annex 6

3.2 WP1 Available design methods and new technologies for seismic design

3.2.1 Objectives of the WP 1
Objectives of the WP1 were to review the current methods of seismic analysis and design of light-gauge
structures. Furthermore one objective of the WP1 was a preliminary design of test programmes and test
specimens used in WP 2 and WP3 concerning of joint testing and shear wall testing

The goals of this work baggage are:
To go through some main standards concerning seismic design
To collect information of shear wall testing methods and testing facility
To collect information of stiffening system and sheathings used in steel stud shear walls
To collect main results of steel stud shear walls
To obtain information of analyzing of test results
6

3.2.2 Activities and results obtained
The bibliographic review was made at the beginning of the project in order to have knowledge of
standards and test methods of steel stud shear walls. The technical report and Annex 1 is shown in
Table WP1.1:
Table WP1.1.Technical reporst of WP 1.
Phase Description Technical report
1
State of art
(Standards, testing)
WP1/E001 Bibliographic review of scientific journals and
standards of light gauge steel constructions
Annex 1

At the beginning of the project in 2002 the standard of Eurocode 8 was developing and the latest ver-
sion was published in 2004 (EN1998-1:2004). Other standards reviewed in the project are Uniform
building code (UBC) 1997 and International building code (IBC) 2003. At the beginning of the project
the interest of research was to find technical articles of shear wall structures and testing methods. The
technical report WP1/E001 does not include all the information used in the project, because most in-
formation is collected after the report is written, but that information is given in Annexes and other
technical reports of the project.
The main results obtained are as follows:
Eurocode 8 (EN1998-1 2004, ), / Annex 1/
Eurocode 8 /1/ does not give exact value for behavior factor q when light gauge steel structures (LGS)
are used in a one or two storey small buildings. In chapter 8 of Eurocode 8 q values are given e.g. for
nailed wall panels, but these values cannot be used without further investigations for LGS structures,
because the ductility behavior of the nails if different from screws behavior in cyclic tests. The seismic
forces are calculated using acceleration response spectrum and design ground acceleration.
Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997, /Annex 1/
In table 16 N (Structural systems) of UBC is given factors for various structural systems. The LGS
structures belong to system 2 (Building frame system). The standard of UBC gives values of force
modification factor R, but it is not quite the same as the behavior factor q of EC 8. According to
Eurocode 8 the design response spectrum is divided by q but according to UPC the design forces are
divides by R
International Building Code (IBC) 2003, /Annex 1/
The IBC gives two methods to calculate seismic events: General procedure and Site-specific procedure.
The site-specific procedure is used for Site Class F buildings. In IBC 2003 the mapped maximum
considered earthquake spectral response accelerations at short period (S
S
) and 1-second period (S
1
) are
given (as a percent of g), but these acceleration maps are only given in USA. The design response
accelerations S
DS
and S
D1
can be are calculated given formulas.
GR-63-CORE 63 2002, / Annex 1/
GR-63-CORE /6/ is a subset of family of documents for physical and environmental criteria for
telephone facilities buildings and for equipment used in these facilities. The same requirements are also
published in standard ANSI T1.329-1995 /13/. The GR-63-CORE can be also used for shear walls as a
guideline for earthquake simulation test, but the response spectrum signal is, may be, too strong to be
used in the tests.
Zhao, Cyclic Performance of Cold-formed Steel Stud Shear Walls, /Annex 1/
The report (thesis) describes the instructions of design standards in Northern America and in USA
concerning the steel stud shear walls. The National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) does not define
an R-value (force modification factor) for these walls. The report also contains a summary of previous
cold-formed steel stud shear walls test programs in Northern America. A theoretical method to predict
the shear capacity based on American Wood Design procedure is presented and results are compared
with the peek loads obtained from tests. Force modification factor R has been suggested to be 2.0 cold-
formed steel stud shear walls.
7

Bredel, Performance Capabilities of Light-Frame Shear Walls Sheathed with Long OSB Panels / Annex
1/
The report performs 34 test results of shear walls, width of 2.4 m and height of 2.4 to 3.0 m. The studs
were wooden studs sheathing, oriented strand board (OBS) and anchoring system was Simpson HTT22
device. The results include comparison between long and short panels when extra stud is needed
between corner studs. The testing has also done with or without a mechanical hold down device
attached to the base of the end stud.
Salenikovich, The Racking Performance of Light-Frame Shear Walls Annex 1/
The report describes 56 tests of light-frame timber shear walls which were sheathed with oriented
strandboard (OSB) panels with aspect ratio of 4:1, 2:1, 1:1 and 2:3. The specimens were tested in
horizontal position and no dead load was used in the tests. The anchoring system was either Simpson
device, bolts or 16d nails. The test series includes also nail parameters, sheathing parameters and
sheathing to framing connections.
Fiorino, Seismic Behaviour of Sheathed Cold-Formed Steel Stud Shear Walls /Annex 1/
The main objective of the research is to give a contribution to the evaluation of seismic performance of
low-rise residential buildings with cold-formed steel members through the evaluation of seismic
demand, capacity and their comparison.
The strength of the sheathing is researched taking in account following failure modes: bearing failure in
the steel frame, tilting failure of the screw, screw shear failure and bearing failure of the wood panel.
Also the formulas of the strength of the frame (buckling) and strength of the anchoring bolts are shown
in the paper.
Kawai. Seismic Resistance and Design of Steel-Framed Houses /Annex 1/
The paper describes the seismic design of steel framed houses in Japan. In January 1995 the great
Hanshin Earthquake caused damage to houses and 50 000 temporary dwellings were build of which
3000 units were imported steel-framed houses. After that Committee of steel Framed houses published
standard of Design and Construction Specification and manuals for Steel Framed Houses. A hysteresis
model under cyclic loading was developed and dynamic vibration tests of steel houses and shaking table
tests of steel framed walls were conducted.
Serrette. Design Values for Vertical and Horizontal Lateral Load Systems/ Annex 1/
The objective of the research is to provide a concise, basic design reference for LGS framed lateral load
resisting systems and the tech note focus primary on codes UBC, IBC and IRC based design values and
widely used standard design methodologies in the United States. The two basic lateral load resisting
systems are shear walls and diagonal braced systems. The main factors that influence the performance
of shear walls are the rate of loading, framing thickness, screw size, screw spacing, edge distance and
material used in sheathing. The walls tested have been 2.4 m high and the ratio of height and length 4:1,
2:2 and 1:1. The tests for the codes were done using cyclic signal and every step was repeated 3 times
by same level and after that 3 decreasing steps were performed. The force modification factor R is
defined as 4.5 for steel sheathed walls and 5.5 for plywood and OSB walls.
Fulop. Performance of wall-stud cold-formed shear panels under monotonic and cyclic loading. Part I:
Experimental research. /Annex 1/
This research included a number of 15 full scale (24503600 mm) tests on steel framed walls. The
sheathing configurations were: (i) X braced walls, (ii) corrugated sheath walls and (iii) OSB sheathed
walls. Both fully sheathed walls and walls with openings were tested using the ECCS 45 cyclic loading
protocol.
Based on the test results a finite element methodology was developed for the evaluation of the load-
bearing capacity, rigidity and ductility of different wall configurations sheathed with corrugated steel
plates. The experimental results were also compared to available analytical formulas ECCS 45 for the
calculation of capacity and rigidity. The conclusion of such comparison was that the formulas predict a
very low capacity for the wall compared to the real capacity. However, large part of the capacity of the
wall can not be regarded as elastic capacity since nonlinearities set in at an early stage of the
deformation. Based on the experiments and analysis multi-level performance criteria was proposed.
8

In the final stage of the research non-linear time-history analysis was carried out using a tri-linear
hysteretic model (i.e. modeling the behavior of the tested walls) and a set of historical earthquake
records. The conclusion of the analysis was that the over strength contribute more to the performance of
the walls in case of earthquake than the ductility.

3.2.3 Discussion
In recent years the use of steel stud shear wall structures seems to increase. Cold formed steel profiles
are easy and fast to fabricate and also plenty of test have been done in order to find out the behavior and
capacity against seismic forces. Most common testing method is cyclic testing with cyclic loading
signal, but there are many signals available and each of them have some advantages. If one loading
signal could be used the results could be comparable to each other and also the value of behavior factor
of q could be given more accurate to steel stud shear wall panels.

3.3 WP2 Seismic testing of joints

3.3.1 Objectives of WP 2
An assessment of the state of the art in seismic design and cold-formed steel structures indicates that
concentric braced frames are a very effective means of providing the lateral stiffness, ductility and en-
ergy dissipation required under seismic loads. Since these x-braced frames with diagonal steel straps are
crucial in the seismic response of the whole building, the joint testing campaign focuses on their con-
nections. The joints must be strong enough to allow the yielding of the diagonal straps.
A careful planning of the testing campaign indicated that the bending tests initially envisaged were of
little interest. For this reason, it was decided to concentrate in tensile tests of increasing complexity.
Although not initially planned in the technical annex, it was also decided to close the joint testing cam-
paign with small-scale tests of whole x-braced frames.
The goals of this testing campaign are:
To measure material properties of steel (yield stress and ultimate stress)
To obtain relevant parameters of joints such as the initial stiffness, yielding load, ultimate load and
maximum displacement
To obtain complete force-displacement (F-d) curves, needed for the finite element modelling of x-
braced frames
To identify the various failure modes (bearing, net section failure,)
To assess the suitability of various connection devices (screws, bolts, Rosette) for seismic design
To check the dissipative capabilities of x-braced frames
To compile guidelines for seismic testing of joints
The joint testing campaign was divided into six phases (phase 0phase 5), described in detail in the
corresponding technical annexes:
Planning of campaign WP2/BD001 Design of the joint testing campaign
0 Material testing of steel
1 Lap joints between straps
2 Joints between strap and gusset
WP2/BD002 Joint testing: phases 1 and 2
3 Lower frame corners
4 Upper frame corners
WP2/BD003 and BD004 Joint testing: phases 3 and 4.
Part I: Finnish specimens. Part II: Spanish specimens
5 Small-scale x-braced frames WP2/BD005 Joint testing: phase 5

9

Tensile testing of steel (phase 0)
For all the specimens (two steels grades and four thicknesses) tested, the measured value of the yield
and ultimate stress is significantly larger than the nominal value.

Lap joints in straps (phase 1)
In screwed joints, two main failure modes are identified: tilting (and bearing) + net section failure
(T+NSF) and tilting + bearing + pull out (T+B+PO), see Fig. WP2.1. The thickness of the straps and
the number of screws determine the mode of collapse. For straps of the same thickness (t
1
= t
2
), tilting
always occurs from the beginning. The final failure mode is pull-out (4 columns of screws or less) or
net section failure (6 columns of screws). For straps of different thickness (t
1
< t
2
), bearing of the thinner
sheet may be as significant as tilting at the beginning. The final mode of failure also depends on the
number of screws.
In bolted joints, the two main failure modes are tilting + bearing + tearing of the sheet (T+B+TS) and
tilting + bearing + net section failure (T+B+NSF). All the joints with one column of bolts fail due to
bearing. For the joints with two columns, it depends on the diameter of the bolts and the thickness of the
straps. Net section failure is observed in joints with two columns of 10 mm diameter bolts and in joints
with two columns of 8 mm diameter bolts connecting straps of different thickness. Joints connecting
straps of the same thickness by means of two columns of 8 mm diameter bolts fail due to bearing.

(a) (b)
Fig. WP2.1. Failure modes in screwed joints:
(a) tilting + bearing + net section failure; (b) tilting + pull-out
The original Rosette joint is based on a single-collar connector. One of the outputs of this project is an
improved, double-collar design. The general tendency of the experimental results is that the double-
collar connector has a higher ductility and, hence, is more suitable for seismic design.
Joints between diagonal strap and gusset (phase 2)
The failure modes are in good agreement with the results for screwed joints of phase 1. The specimens
have a reduced number of screws (less than 6 columns), so they fail due to tilting and pull-out when
t
1
=t
2
(strap and gusset of same thickness) and due to tilting, bearing and tensile failure of the sheet when
t
1
<t
2
(strap thinner than gusset). Only the two joints connecting the thickest gussets and straps (1.5 mm
thick) failed in a new mode: tilting and failure of the screws.
Frame lower and upper corners (phases 3 and 4)
Two types of frame corners were tested: Finnish specimens, made of thermo-slotted tracks and studs
and with no gusset, and Spanish specimens, made of solid (i.e. no slots) members and with gusset, see
Fig. WP2.2. Both lower and upper corners were considered for each case.
10

(a) (b)
Fig. WP2.2. Test set-ups for frame corners: (a) lower corners (anchor-bolted);
(b) upper corners (note the extra fastening device)
In thermo-slotted lower corners, two primary modes of failure were identified: punching of the track-
stud connection and tensile failure of the diagonal strap. These failure modes were typically preceded
by other phenomena such as local buckling of the track and distortional buckling of the outer stud. As
for upper corners, the first tests with the grips resulted in undesired failure modes, affecting the stud and
track rather than the strap. Low values of the peak load were obtained. For this reason, it was decided to
reinforce the track and stud of the remaining specimens. The reinforced specimens had a much better
performance, both in terms of failure mode and peak load.
In solid lower corners, two different joint configurations (with and without eccentricity) were analyzed.
As designed, all specimens failed due to net section failure of the straps. As for upper corners, speci-
mens with narrow straps failed in the expected net section failure mode. With wide straps, on the con-
trary, failure was due to local buckling of track and stud.
Whole x-braced frames (phase 5)
As expected, diagonal straps buckled out of plane under very low compression loads, see Fig. WP2.3
Diagonal straps under tension, on the other hand, underwent large plastic deformation. Other
phenomena were also detected: local buckling of the upper corner gussets and of the flanges of the
studs. However, these local phenomena only occurred at the late stages of the loading process, so they
did not affect the intended yielding of diagonal straps. The tests were monitored in detail and video-
recorded. The main output of the test is the force-displacement curves. The wide hysteretic loops
amount to large energy dissipation.

(a) (b)
Fig. WP2.3. Cyclic tests of x-braced frames: (a) buckling of compressed straps;
(b) hysteretic force-displacement cycles
-50000
-40000
-30000
-20000
-10000
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
d (mm)
F

(
N
)
11

3.3.3 Discussion
The goals of the joint testing campaign have been successfully achieved. On the one hand, it has pro-
vided as direct output some relevant parameters of joints and useful guidelines for proper seismic de-
sign. The knowledge and experience gained in each phase was applied in the design of the specimens of
the next phase and also in the shear walls (see WP 3). On the other hand, joint testing has provided, af-
ter the analysis of WP 4, with valuable information regarding the seismic suitability of the various con-
nection devices and joint configurations, in terms of strength and ductility.
The current campaign has focused on straps of constant width. An interesting extension would be to
consider also straps of variable width (e.g. bone-shaped straps).

3.4 WP3 Seismic testing of shear walls

In standards, guidelines and literature there is not sufficient satisfying formulas to design shear walls for
seismic loads and therefore the testing is very important phase in seismic design. Eurocode 8 does not
give exact values for behaviour factor q concerning the steel stud shear walls.

Seismic loading during an earthquake is a dynamic loading by nature and therefore the test loading can
also be dynamic. Dynamic loading can be achieved by using vibration table (shaker table), but there is
also some difficulties in testing. Mostly the houses to be tested are so big and heavy the testing cannot
be performed and therefore only parts e.g. part of wall can be tested. Also the dynamic testing depends
largely of the seismic signal and natural frequency of the house and therefore the results obtained can-
not be generalized. On the other hand dynamic testing is useful when comparing test results and theo-
retical formulation or mathematical methods. By dynamic testing (e.g. impact hammer or sine sweep
test) can be used to measure the damping and natural frequency of the shear wall element. The dynamic
test will also show the effects of impacts if the joints have been loosen or diagonals stretched.

Cyclic test method is generally used method for shear walls. The pushing test only in one direction will
not give reliable results especially when holes of screws in sheathing have been grown up or if the di-
agonals have been stretched and in the middle position the rigidity of the wall has decreased. In earlier
research reports there are many suggestions for cyclic signal to be used in cyclic tests and most of them
have some advantages. One common cyclic test signal and method is introduced in the report and also
the method to define seismic parameters (e.g. ductility, over strength, pinching and hardening). The
same cyclic signal and methods to define parameters are developed to be suitable for all kinds of steel
stud shear walls.

The goals of this testing campaign are:
To measure material properties of steel (yield stress and ultimate stress) used in studs, tracks, di-
agonals and sheathings
To select the proper seismic method and cyclic method to test shear walls
To construct the testing facility to perform seismic and cyclic tests
To design shear wall including all details like joints, stiffening system and anchoring equipments
To perform a cyclic and seismic tests for shear wall elements
To obtain relevant parameters of shear walls such as the initial stiffness, ductility, over strength,
pinching and hardening by using measured cyclic and backbone curves of the elements.

12

The shear wall testing campaign was divided into 6 phases (phase 1 phase 6), described in detail in the
corresponding technical reports and Annexes shown in Table WP3.1:
Table WP3.1. Test series and technical reports of WP 3.
1
Seismic test series 1
(small scale elements)
WP3/E005 Seismic tests of shear walls, Part 1

2
Seismic test series 2
(small scale elements)
WP3/E012 Seismic tests of shear walls, Part 2

3
Cyclic test series 1
(full scale elements)
WP3/E007 Cyclic tests of shear walls, Part 1

4

5

6 Test summary
WP3/E0016 Test summary and guidelines for
seismic testing
Seismic test series (Phases 1 and 2)
The seismic test series consist of four steps, where the small scale shear wall element was tested on vi-
bration table using cyclic test method, impact hammer test, sine sweep test and earthquake simulation
test. The tests were done using extra weights at the top of the element in order to simulate the weight of
the upper floor and roof of the house. This series was repeated and the seismic signal was increased all
the time according to Table below. The maximum cyclic deflection was selected same as the maximum
deflection during earthquake simulation test. The height of the small scale elements was 1.3 m and
width 0.6 m. The seismic tests were done using plywood, gypsum board or steel plate sheathings or di-
agonals to stiffen the wall. The seismic test facility is shown in Fig. WP3.1 (left). In the Phase 1
(Seismic test series 1) the shear wall elements were broken during earthquake simulation test according
to Zone 4 and final cyclic test were not performed. In the Phase 2 (Seismic test series 2) the shear wall
elements were also tested, at the end, using cyclic signal until the specimens were broken.

Table WP3.2. Test sequence in seismic testing.
Testing sequence* Dynamic test sequence Series
Dyn1 & Dyn2
Step 1 Cyclic test (very small amplitude)
Step 2 Impact hammer test
Step 3 Sine sweep test (GR-CORE-63)
Step 4 Earthquake simulation test according
to Zone 1,2, 3 or 4 (GR-CORE-63)
Step N Final cyclic test (VTT cyclic signal)

The seismic test series were done in order to be able to measure actual natural frequency (impact ham-
mer test and sine sweep test) and damping value (impact hammer test) of the shear wall elements. Also
the tests were done in order to get information of the dynamic behaviour of the elements (e.g. impacts,
loosening of the elements) and to compare theoretical calculation methods to dynamic test results. Extra
weights installed at the top of the shear wall was selected so the natural frequency of the specimen is 7
to 10 Hz as in real small house and the amplifying of the earthquake signal occurs with the correct natu-
ral frequency value.
The measured relative damping ratios support the use of 5% damping for the analysis of steel-framed
house structures. Based on the dynamic (i.e. earthquake) testing of walls it can be concluded that the
failure modes under dynamic loading were essentially the same as in case of cyclic loading.

13

Fig. WP3.1. Seismic testing facility (seismic testing of small scale elements) and cyclic testing facility
(cyclic testing of full scale elements)

Cyclic test series (Phases 3, 4 and 5)
The cyclic test series were done using full scale shear wall elements and cyclic loading signal. The
cyclic test facility is shown in Fig. WP3.1 (right) and system allows only the movement of the wall in
the wall direction. All the tests were done using only side force at the top of the specimen and no
vertical force or extra weights were used in the tests. The side force and horizontal and vertical
deflections were measured in the tests. The shear wall elements were fixed to the base using anchoring
bolts and the anchoring forces were also measured by force transducers.
The height of the shear wall elements was 2.75 m and width 2.4 m, but also two narrow specimens the
width of 1.2 m was used. The cyclic tests were done using plywood, gypsum board or steel plate
sheathings or diagonals to stiffen the wall. In some tests diagonals or steel plate was used under gypsum
board to see the effect of the two combined stiffening system. The studs and tracks were cold formed C
(or C with lips) profiles and diagonals were perforated steel straps or threaded steel rods.
The test results show the steel plate can be used to stiffen the shear wall and the fixing of the steel plate
behaves inelastic and the steel plate itself is not yielding. This is acceptable because the number of
screws is large and the breaking is starting at the corners not being the sudden phenomena. In some
cases the anchoring bolt or the clip angle in the corner was broken before the maximum capacity of the
wall was achieved.
The cyclic test series provided information concerning basic design properties (ex. capacity, strength) of
different real wall configuration. Sometimes the results have to be treated with caution because the wall
panel failure was unexpected (ex. anchor bolt failure) and clearly pointed to fault of the design concept.
A continuous improvement of the wall detailing has been an important outcome of the tests.
All the results are performed in technical reports shown in Table WP3.1 and in Annex 3.
Test summary and guidelines of testing (Phase 6)
The test results of seismic and cyclic tests were gathered and analyzed in phase 3. The recommended
cyclic signal developed for the cyclic tests is shown in Fig. WP3.2 (left). The signal is designed to be
proper for various kinds of steel stud shear walls and is can be used without knowing beforehand the
actual yield limit of the shear wall. The method to define the basic parameters (e.g. yield limit, ductility,
over strength, pinching and hardening) is shown in Fig. WP3.2 (right) and has been developed to be
suitable for various kinds of steel stud shear walls. The maximum shear force measured has been 77 kN
when steel plate or diagonals under gypsum board was used. The maximum over strength factor has
been 0.52 when gypsum board was used on both sides of element.
The experimental results obtained in this testing campaign here stand at the basis of the calculation of q
factor in Annex 4, as well as at the proposals for ductility and over strength values for different wall
configurations in Annex 6.

14

-4
4
0
Time
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
-Dmax
Dmax
0.4xF
max
ini K
D
F
max
F
e
F
ini 0.75xK
y
F
HxKini
D
max
Fig. WP3.2. Cyclic testing signal used in the tests and method to define basic design parameter of the
shear wall.

3.4.3 Discussion
The tests of WP3 have been performed according to test plan. The cyclic tests show, all the details have
to be carefully designed in order to get the desired failure mode. In some tests the anchoring bolt or clip
angle in corner was broken before the lowering part in deflection-load curve was achieved. The test also
show the steel plate can be used to stiffen the shear wall, because the structure has good ductility and
the breaking will occur gradually without sudden break. In earlier research of shear walls many differ-
ent kinds of cyclic curves has suggested and many of them has some advantages in some cases. The
cyclic signal recommended to use in the tests is selected to be quite simple and the deflection steps are
selected to be same through the test in order to avoid pre-tests of the specimen. The number of cycles is
selected to be quite low to avoid low cycle fatigue phenomenon. In earlier research many methods have
been performed for the defining of seismic parameters of shear walls. The method recommended in this
research is selected to be quite simple and suitable for many kinds (different shape) of backbone curves.
As many researchers have pointed out, one cyclic loading method and one method to define seismic
parameters is desirable to select in the future in order to be able to compare the test results. The research
in the project show, the behaviour factor q is depended on the seismic parameters and therefore q factor,
seismic parameters and design limit are related to each other.

3.5 WP4 Analysing of the test results

The broad objective of WP 4 is to process the results of the testing campaign for joints (WP 2) and
shear walls (WP 3) in order to improve the design and calculation methods (either by means of simpli-
fied formulas or more advanced approaches). To reach that general goal, the main specific objectives
are as follows:

WP4.1 Analysing the results of joint tests
Classify the various failure modes in terms of their seismic suitability (strength and ductility)
Determine the relation between parameters in joint design (steel grade, strap thicknesses, number
and diameter of connectors,...) and failure mode
Compare experimental ultimate loads of the joints to the strengths calculated by means of the Euro-
code 3 Part 1.3 design formulas
Identify, with the combination of experiments and FE analysis, good design rules for joints (e.g.
avoid eccentricity, reinforce tracks and studs to avoid local instabilities,)

WP4.2 Analysing the results of shear wall tests
Develop simplified formulas for the design of shear walls
Develop models for the hysteretic response of shear walls under cyclic loads
Validate and fit the parameters of these models with the experimental results
Use the calibrated models to perform a parametric study and obtain the q-factor of shear walls

15

The analysis of the test results is described in detail in the corresponding technical annexes:
Description Technical report
WP 4.1 Joint tests
Preliminary analysis of effect of eccen-
tricity in joints
WP4/B001 WP4: Analysing the results of joint tests
Analysis of phase 1 lap joints with
screws
WP4/B004 Experimental testing of joints for seismic
design of lightweight structures. Part I: Screwed joints
in straps
Analysis of phase 1 lap joints with bolts
WP4/B005 Experimental testing of joints for seismic
design of lightweight structures. Part II: Bolted joints in
straps
WP 4.2 Shear wall tests
Finite element models of shear walls WP4/B002 Modelling of shear walls
Hysteretic SDOF models of shear walls
WP4/B003 Hysteretic modelling of x-braced shear
walls
Determination of q-factor WP4/BE001 Analysis of shear walls
WP 4.1 Analysing the results of joint tests
Many different phenomena have been observed in the tests: bearing, tilting, pull-out, pull-through,
net section failure, punching, tearing, local buckling, For x-braced frames with straps of constant
width, the preferred mode for seismic design is net section failure, because i) it is the most ductile
and ii) it is the only mode that allows the dissipative action (i.e. yielding) of diagonal straps to take
place.
To allow the dissipative action of diagonal straps (of constant or non-constant width) or other
bracing systems (such as steel plates), it is important to avoid other failure modes such as punching
of the connection of the lower corners to the foundation or the instability of tracks and studs (local,
distortional or global buckling).
The hierarchy between dissipative and non-dissipative parts of the structure can be more easily
enforced if a steel of lower grade is used for dissipative parts (e.g. diagonal straps) than for non-
dissipative parts (e.g. tracks and studs).
Self-drilling screws should be the preferred means of connection is seismic design. The main reason
is that their diameter is smaller and, consequently, there is more net section area available.
Bearing of screwed connections between straps of constant width should be avoided (for instance,
by placing enough screw columns in the joint or by connecting two steel sheets of different
thickness).
Bolts are less adequate than screws for the seismic design of joints, see Fig. WP4.1. If, for some
specific reason, bolts are chosen (not recommended), acceptable performance may be achieved by
i) using only one row of bolts; ii) using washers; iii) drilling the minimum feasible hole; iv)
choosing the steel with the largest ratio of ultimate to yield strength; v) widening the straps in the
perforated areas, if manufacturing constraints of x-braced frames allow.
When Rosette connections are used, the improved double-collar type is recommended due to its
larger ductility.
The Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 formulas for the calculation of the net section strength of screwed and
bolted joints give acceptable results. On the contrary, the formulas for the bearing mode of failure
significantly underpredict the ultimate load of joint. The two main drawbacks of these bearing
formulas are that they i) do not appropriately take into account the thickness of the thicker strap,
and ii) they are defined for the 3 mm displacement maximum load. In fact, a better agreement
between experiments and predictions is obtained by using an equivalent thickness (mean average of
the two straps) and using the formula proposed by Eurocode for straps thicker than 1 mm for all the
straps.
Test set-ups should be carefully designed to ensure a correct grip of the test specimens and to avoid
spurious failure modes.
The joint behaviour is barely affected by a cyclic loading-unloading-reloading process. The modes
of failure, force-displacement curves, ultimate loads, stiffness, do not change. For this reason, a
16

seismic joint testing campaign may consist largely of monotonic tests, with only a very small
number of loading-unloading tests (for verification purposes).
The level of geometrical detail provided by finite element model is a valuable tool for the design of
joints.
WP 4.2 Analysing the results of shear wall tests
Unsheathed x-braced or sheathed (e.g. with steel sheets) shear walls are a very effective means of
dissipating seismic energy in a controlled manner, provided that joints and members (studs and
tracks) are strong enough to allow yielding of straps or sheets.
The global seismic response of shear walls can be efficiently modelled by means of single-degree-
of-freedom (SDOF) hysteretic models, which lead to results similar to that of a nonlinear finite
element model at a much lower computational cost.
Two SDOF hysteretic models for shear walls have been developed in the framework of this project:
i) a bilinear slip model for x-braced frames, with extreme pinching caused by behaviour of diagonal
straps (negligible load-carrying capacity under compression, yielding under tension) and ii) a
multilinear model with additional features (mainly variable amount of pinching and over-strength).
The parameters of the multilinear model can be calibrated in a straightforward manner, a a good
agreement between numerical and experimental cycles is obtained for both x-braced and sheathed
shear walls, see Fig. WP4.2.
The multilinear model has been used to carry out an extensive parametrical analysis, covering a
wide range of natural and artificial earthquake records, period of vibration, ductility, pinching and
over-strength.
On the basis of this parametrical analysis, a new formulation of the q-factor of shear walls is
developed in this project. The q-factor is obtained as

ep p o
q q o o =
where q
ep
is the base value of the q-factor given by Eurocode 8, o
p
is a correction factor due to
pinching and o
o
is a correction factor due to over-strength. This is a significant improvement,
because the EC 8 base value q
ep
is designed for elastic-perfectly-plastic cycles (i.e. no pinching and
no over-strength).
A design method for flat thin-steel sheathed walls is proposed.
Whole buildings can be modelled by combining the multilinear SDOF model for each shear wall. In
this manner, the hysteretic response of the whole building, including torsional effects caused by
asymmetry, can be predicted.
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
0 20000 40000 60000 80000
P
ut
(N)
r
f
T+NSF
T+B+PO

(a) (b)
Fig. WP4.1 Strength ductility ratio vs. ultimate load for joints between straps of constant width:
(a) screws; (b) bolts. Only screwed joints with NSF mode are above 1.

17

(a) (b)
Fig. WP4.2. Fitting of the multilinear model for cyclic tests of shear walls: (a) x-braced; (b)
sheathed

3.5.3 Discussion
The goals of this WP have been successfully achieved. In close interaction with WP 2 (joint testing) and
WP 3 (shear wall testing), the analysis carried out in this WP has led to better designs and calculation
methods. One important contribution of this project is a new formulation for the q-factor of shear walls.
The current formulas in Eurocode 8 do not take into account pinching and over-strength, two salient
features of the hysteretic loops of lightweight steel shear walls.

The analysis of screwed joints have highlighted the limitations of Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 formulas for
bearing resistance, especially for two members of different thickness. A preliminary proposal to im-
prove these formulas is made in this project. Further experimental and analytical work would be neces-
sary to make a more detailed proposal.

3.6 WP5 Recommendations for practical design

3.6.1 Objectives of WP5
The development, using the results of work packages 1 to 4, of guidance for the design of light gauge
steel buildings in earthquake areas. The task included: (i) the proposal of a design methodology and
associated design equations for use in manual design of light gauge steel buildings in such a way that
(ii) it is suitable for adoption by code drafters to facilitate future coverage of seismic design of light
gauge steel buildings in Standards, particularly the Eurocodes (EN 1998-1).
The method had to contain:
Guidance on analysis methods (including FE analysis) of light gauge steel buildings subjected
to earthquake loading.
Guidance on detailing based on the lessons learnt from the test programme (WP 3), distilled
into recommendations for the detailing of joints, lateral bracing, shear walls and other details.

3.6.2. Activities and obtained results
The results obtained in WP5 are synthesised in the document Design Guide for Seismic Design of
Light-Gauge Steel Framed Buildings (PR-377/Guide), and is presented in shorter form in Annex 6 of
this report. The structure of the work undertaken essentially follows the stated goals of WP5. The ac-
tivities were divided five phases, and the obtained results also reflect this division:

18

1 Study of existing provisions of
EN1998-1
PR-377 Design Guide for Seismic Design of Light-Gauge
Steel Framed Buildings
2 Improvements for existing
code(EN1998-1) provisions
PR-377 Design Guide for Seismic Design of Light-Gauge
Steel Framed Buildings
PR377/WP4/BE001 Analysis of shear walls
3 Recommendation for design
and detailing
PR-377/Guide Design Guide for Seismic Design of Light-
Gauge Steel Framed Buildings
5 Design example I PR-377/Guide Design Guide for Seismic Design of Light-
6 Design example II (Only in the
Design Guide)
PR-377/Guide Design Guide for Seismic Design of Light-

The main results are as follows:
Study of existing provisions of EN1998-1
Even if general provisions from EN 1998-1 can be applied, many of the rules stated are not specific
enough to be directly used for the design of light-gauge steel houses.
One particularity is that light-gauge steel profiles are Class 4 sections. As such EN 1998-1 (clause
6.5.3) recommends such elements not to be used in earthquake resistant buildings if the dissipative ele-
ments are to be formed in compression or bending. The dissipative elements in light-gauge steel houses
are formed in tension (X braced walls) or in connections (sheathed walls).
A second particularity of light-gauge steel structures is that the first period of vibration (T
1
) of such
structures is relatively low (under the corner period T
C
of the design spectrum). In this range of periods
the non-linear behaviour of the structures strongly depends on the period. This is incorporated in section
4.3.4 of EN 1998-1 when calculating the non-linear displacement (d
s
), but it is not generally used in the
code elsewhere. It became obvious that optimally, at every level of the design, the period of vibration
should be taken into account.
Improvements for existing code(EN 1998-1) provisions
There are two points where, based on the results of the project, proposals are made to EN 1988-1.
Firstly it is proposed that it is more strongly emphasised in the code that Class 4 profiles can, in certain
conditions, be used in earthquake zones. Namely, structures resisting earthquake loads by shear walls
have satisfactory non-linear behaviour and ductility in order to be accepted. Secondly, it is proposed
that for light-gauge steel houses (and generally for structures with low period of vibration), the q factor
in the design takes into account the effect of the first period and of the hysteretic properties of the shear
walls. In this sense it is proposed that the q factor is evaluated by:
O P ep
q q o o =
Eq. WP5.1
Where o
P
a correction factor due to pinching (see Annex 6 ch. 6.4)
o
O
a correction factor due to overstrength (see Annex 6 ch. 6.4)
q
ep
is the base value of q:
>
s +
=
C
;
; ) 1 ( 1
T T u
T T
T
T
q
C
C ep

Eq. WP5.2
Where T fundamental period of vibration of the structure
u ductility of the structure
T
C
corner period
The above formulation is consistent with the existing proposals of the code, but it extends to the possi-
bility that overstrength and pinching characteristics of the hysteretic behaviour of the walls are taken
into account.

19

Recommendation for design and detailing
Based on the extensive experimental program a proposal is made concerning the hysteretic characteris-
tics to be used in the design of different shear typologies (Table WP5.1). The parameters to be taken
into account are: ductility (=D
p
/D
e
), structural overstrength factor (O
vS
=F
y
/F
d
) and pinching factor (P=
1F
p
/F
d
, see. Fig. WP5.1).

Table WP5.1. Recommended characteristics for shear walls
Shear wall skeleton - Stiffening system P O
vS
H
Thin walled C profiles Stiffening: Thin steel plate 1 1.2 3 0
Thin walled C profiles Stiffening: Diagonal stiffening 1 1 4 0
Thin walled C profiles Stiffening: Thin steel plate combined with gyp-
sum board
0.95 1.4 3 0.25
Thin walled C profiles Stiffening: Wood based panels 0.95 1.5 3 0.35

p D e D
D
h K
p F
d F
K
y
F
F

Fig. WP5.1. Cases of hysteretic models for analysis
Concerning detailing of light-gauge steel structures required checks are given in order to enforce a hier-
archy of dissipative and non-dissipative parts. The hierarchy depends on the typology of the shear-wall
sheathing and the most advantageous (i.e. ductile) failure mode should be enforced.
The rules of the guide intend to enforce plastic deformations in: (i) the diagonal strap (X-braced walls)
or in (ii) sheathing to skeleton connections (sheathed walls). All other failure modes are deemed to be
undesirable including: (i) compressive failure of studs, (ii) bending failure of studs and tracks, (iii) fail-
ure of other connection elements that seathing-to-skeleton connections. Overstrength (usually 20%) is
imposed on the load capacity corresponding to non-desired failure modes. In case of connections usu-
ally bearing failure is enforced over any other failure mode. One exception is the case of constant cross
section straps used in X braced walls, when net section failure is imposed for end connections of the
braces in order to ensure sufficient ductility for the walls.
As it was a special field of interest, an analytical method was developed in order to predict the load
bearing capacity and the rigidity of wall panels sheathed with flat steel plates. The method is based on
the equivalency of steel-plate sheathing with a series of steel straps developing yielding obliquely in the
direction of the principal stress (see. Annex 6. Ch. 6.7.7).

20

Design example I
In this calculation the design procedure for a usual house structure is exemplified (Fig. WP5.2).

Fig. WP5.2. Plan, section and axonometric view of example house

The design checks are made, on one hand using the simplified method recommended as a result of this
project, which incorporates elements from EN 1998-1 but also the special detailing rules and calculation
improvements proposed in the project. In the example special care has been taken to enforce the desired
hierarchy of elements and to exemplify all checks that are needed for the proper design of the building.
On the other hand advanced design method, using specially developed hysteretic models, was used to
prove the validity of the simplified design and to present a more advanced alternative to the simple de-
sign method.
The conclusion of the design example is that the presented two storey structure can withstand an earth-
quake of large peak ground acceleration (PGA=0.32g).

Design example II (available only in Technical report: PR-377/Guide Design Guide for Seismic De-
sign of Light-Gauge Steel Framed Buildings)
The second design example (Fig. WP5.3) proved that one storey light-gauge buildings located in rela-
tively strong wind areas (v
ref
=22m/s) do not require special attention from the point of view of earth-
quake design if: (i) they are in weak earthquake zones (PGA_0.08g), (ii) they have a regular configura-
tion, (iii) they are properly designed for wind loads and (iv) the stiffening system used for wind is prop-
erly detailed to ensure ductile behaviour of the building. This result is encouraging since in many loca-
tions in Europe the earthquake loads are small.
21

Fig. WP5.3. Dimensions of the building (6 walls in y-direction and 4 in x-direction)

3.6.3 Discussion
Experimental and analytical results generated by the research project were combined with existing pre-
scriptions in EN1998-1 in order to develop more specific and more advanced design rules for light-
gauge steel structures in earthquake regions. The design method was presented in a format compatible
with EN1998-1 (and many times linked with existing prescriptions) but specific/supplementary rules
were emphasised.
The design method proposals were used in two calculation examples, which proved that (i) light-gauge
steel house structures of up to two storeys can be designed to fulfil conditions in very strong earthquake
zones and that (ii) in weak earthquake zones wind design is sufficient to in case of, properly configured,
light one-storey structures.

4. Conclusions

The objective of the project was to develop guidance for codified design rules, guidance on analysis
methods and guidance on detailing for seismic design of light-gauge steel framed buildings. In current
European seismic design standards, there are no specific rules available for light-gauge steel buildings.
The scope of the project was limited to one or two storey buildings with load bearing stud walls made
of cold-formed steel profiles. In LGS-buildings shear walls are the elements which have to provide
sufficient ductility before failure during seismic actions. Typical bracing methods that are also covered
in this research are X-bracings with diagonal steel straps, sheeting of plane steel sheets or gypsum or
wood based wallboards. Main strategy in the shear wall design of LGS-buildings is to design the
bracing system as dissipative elements and design studs and tracks and other load bearing elements to
behave elastically with adequate overstrength avoiding local bucklings.
The project was divided into a number of Work Packages that involved laboratory tests and numerical
analyses in order to develop design methods and practical applications for LGS-houses in seismic areas.
In WP1, review to current design standards was complied. WP2 consisted of a comprehensive
connection test series for steel plate connections used in diagonal X-braces and test series for sub-
assemblies for different shear wall corner configurations. Test results were utilised in the design of
X
Y
22

shear wall details in full scale tests in WP3. Test results also indicated that the current design formula in
prEN1993-1-3 for bearing failure of screw connections underestimates considerable the capacity.
In WP3, several shear wall tests were performed by using different bracing methods in order to find out
hysteretic behaviour and main parameters such as resistance, ductility, pinching and overstrength
needed in seismic design. During the test program, several improvements and new innovations were
made to the shear wall configurations and details.
One main goal of the project was to determine the q-factor for LGS-structures. q-factor makes it
possible to apply elastic design method for seismic actions. This term takes into account non-linear
behaviour of the structure. Two hysteretic modeling alternatives for shear walls have been developed in
the WP4. These models were used in parametric study resulting analytical formulas to calculate the q-
factor as a function of above mentioned parameters resulted from shear wall tests and also the period of
vibration.
Finally in WP5, design recommendations for seismic design of light-gauge steel framed buildings were
given for practical design. It is provided that it is possible to design dissipative systems with thin-walled
structures belonging to cross-section class 4. In the design example, it was shown that LGS-house can
withstand even severe earthquakes without failure.

5. Future works

The restrictions of this research are mainly based on the lack of experimental experience of the whole
building behaviour during the earthquake loading. Its very costly to test whole buildings under seismic
loadings, but information of that kind of behaviour would be in the interest. Non-structural elements
may have influence on the seismic response of the building. Current understanding is that by neglecting
the effect of cladding leads design on the safe side. However, it would be interesting to study in detail
the performance of these non-structural elements.

The increase of asymmetry of the building causes a decrease of the q-factor. It would be very interest-
ing to quantify the dependency of the q-factor carrying out an extensive analysis, with several earth-
quakes, different configurations of shear walls or eccentricity in two main horizontal directions.

Plain steel sheathed structures showed good potential in this research. Some extra testing with thicker
plate thicknesses could be useful. Further experimental and analytical work would also be necessary in
order to make a more detailed proposal to the screw connection static strength in the case of different
thicknesses, because it seems that the current EN1993-1-3 standard gives very conservative results.

Because light-weight steel structures might be quite new solutions in many countries on seismic areas,
its quite clear that dissemination activities are needed in order to convince the designers of benefits of
LGS-structures.

6. Assessment of exploitation and impact of the research results

6.1 Technical and economic potential for the use of results

New, proposed seismic design methods for light-gauge steel buildings open the way to design LGS-
structures effectively by using simplified elastic design, but still utilising non-linear and ductile behav-
iour of the structure. Analytical calculation methods are given to calculate q-factor of the buildings with
X-braced or steel sheet sheathed shear walls. Recommendations to 1) carry out cyclic shear wall tests
and 2) define parameters from the test results for determining q-factor, help in the development of new
types of shear walls.

An improved Rosette joining system with increased ductility and load capacity has been developed dur-
ing the project to meet high ductility requirements in seismic regions. (i.e. double collar joint). This new
joint can be used in LGS frames for several purposes; in the diagonals of X-braced walls, frame-
integrated stud diagonals, open-web headers and generally enabling better wall panels with more value-
23

added in them. A new family of roof trusses has become feasible as well as longer span open web joists.
A modular space frame structure has also been developed based on the research results.

An U.S. patent has been applied for for the new Rosette Joint and will be followed with PCT process
and national patents.

Structural detailing for Ruukki, Rosette and Teccon products have been developed to ensure ductile be-
havior of frames. The whole lateral stiffening system of a LGS building has been considered, the most
important details are:
-details of X-braced and steel sheet sheathed shear walls
-anchoring of the shear wall
-joining of shear wall to the intermediate floor and the roof

Steel sheet sheathed wall panels have been used earlier in Ruukkis structures for other purposes, but
now the load bearing capacity can be utilised. Furthermore, the details developed here for seismic ac-
tions can be utilised also for other loading cases such as wind loadings.

A deeper knowledge has been achieved concerning to proper seismic design of LGS-buildings by all
industrial partners. Rosette Systems is now better prepared to assist its customers (i.e. LGS frame fabri-
cators) in the production of more competitive and structurally safe solutions to earthquake prone re-
gions. Ruukki and Teccon as LGS frame fabricators are able to provide their customers cost effective
LGS-solutions from low to severe seismic areas.

6.2 List of publications

Journal papers
Pastor N. and Rodrguez-Ferran A., Hysteretic modelling of x-braced shear walls. Thin-Walled Struc-
tures 43 (10) 1567-1588.(2005)
Pastor N. and Rodrguez-Ferran A Hysteretic modelling of lightweight steel framed buildings, sub-
mitted to Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics (2006).
Casafont M., Arnedo A., Roure, F. & Rodrguez-Ferran, A. Experimental testing of joints for seismic
design of lightweight structures. Part 1: screwed joints in straps. Thin-Walled Structures, in press.
(2006).
Casafont M., Arnedo A., Roure, F. & Rodrguez-Ferran, A. Experimental testing of joints for seismic
design of lightweight structures. Part 2: bolted joints in straps submitted to Thin-Walled Structures
(2006).

Conference papers
Pastor N. and Rodrguez-Ferran A, Hysteretic behaviour of light gauge steel framed buildings, pre-
sented in Congreso de Mtodos Numricos en Ingeniera. Granada, Spain, on July 4-7 2005.

Workshops
Pastor N. and Rodrguez-Ferran A., Modelling of Light Gauge Steel Structures, 2
nd
Workshop in Ap-
plied Science and Engineering. Vall de Nria, Spain, on January 20-22. 2003
Pastor N. and Rodrguez-Ferran A., Hysteretic behaviour of x-braced shear walls, 3
rd
Workshop in
Applied Science and Engineering. Vall de Nria, Spain, on January 19-21. 2004
Pastor N. and Rodrguez-Ferran A., Hysteretic behaviour of light gauge steel framed buildings, 4
th

Workshop in Applied Science and Engineering (NMASE 05). Vall de Nria, Spain, on 18-21.Jan. 2004.

24

6.3 List of technical reports produced in the project
PR377/WP1/B001 Modelling of light-gauge structures (2003)
PR377/WP4/B002 Modelling of shear walls (2004)
PR377/WP4/B003 Hysteretic modelling of X-braced frames (2004)
PR377/WP4/B004 Experimental testing of joints for seismic design of lightweight structures - Part I:
Screwed joints in straps (2005)
PR377/WP4/B005 Experimental testing of joints for seismic design of lightweight structures - Part
II: Bolted joints in straps (2005)
PR377/WP2/BD001 Design of the joint testing campaign (2003)
PR377/WP2/BD002 Joint testing: phases 1 and 2 (2004)
PR377/WP2/BD003 Joint testing: phases 3 and 4, Part I Finnish specimens (2004)
PR377/WP2/BD004 Joint testing: phases 3 and 4, Part II Spanish specimens (2005)
PR377/WP2/BD005 Joint testing: phase 5 (2005)
PR377/WP1/E001 Bibliographic review of scientific journals and standards of light gauge steel con-
structions (2002)
PR377/WP3/E005 Seismic tests of shear walls Part I (2004)
PR377/WP3/E007 Cyclic tests of shear walls Part I (2004)
PR377/WP3/E009 Test results of different Rosette Joints (2004)
PR377/WP3/E010 Cyclic tests of shear walls Part II (2005)
PR377/WP3/E015 Cyclic tests of shear walls Part III (2005)
PR377/WP3/E016 Test summary and guidelines for seismic testing (2005)
PR377/WP3/E018 Design formulas for steel sheeted shear walls (2005)
PR377/WP3/BE001 Analysis of shear walls (2005)
PR377/WP1/F001 Design of Structures (2003)
PR/377/Guide Design Guide for seismic design of light-gauge steel framed buildings

7. List of most relevant figures and tables

(The first number after Fig. or Table indicates to the corresponding Annex number)
WP1
Fig.1.1 (a) Steel skeleton of light-weight steel house (b) stud and track profile with thermal perforation
Fig.1.2 Horizontal design response spectrum for simplified analysis

WP 2
Fig. 2.1 Screwed lap joint between straps
Table 2.2 Results of monotonic tests on screw joints
Table 2.8 Results of Rosette joints
Table 2.9 Results of corner tests

WP 3
Fig.3.2 Vibration table and shear wall element with weights at the top
Fig.3.24 Interpretation used in this study
Fig. 3.27 Test specimens of cyclic test series Cyc 2
Table 3.5 Dynamic test results for specimen Dyn1-2 (plywood sheathing)
Table 3.6 Natural frequencies and damping values of test series Dyn1-3 (gypsum board sheeting)
Table 3.8 Maximum and minimum values of sensors in seismic test series Dyn2 (final cycle tests)
Table 3.12 Elastic- yield- and ultimate state strength in cyclic tests of Cyc1
Table 3.14 Elastic- yield- and ultimate state strength in cyclic tests of Cyc2
Table 3.16 Elastic- yield- and ultimate state strength in cyclic tests of Cyc3.

WP 4
Fig. 2.12 Ratio of experimental over predicted ultimate strengths, P
ut
/P
ud
, for screwed joints between
straps of different thickness (t
1
<t
2
) with bearing failure mode.
25

Fig. 2.39 FE analysis of bottom corner joints
Fig. 4.26 Scheme of proposed design procedure for shear walls

WP 5
Fig. 6.1 Design procedure of typical shear walls
Fig. 6.4 Lower and upper corner details of X-braced shear walls
Fig. 6.8 Intermediate floor to shear wall joint

8. List of references

WP1
EN1998-1 (2004), Eurocode 8, Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings.
Salenikovich A.J. (2000) The Racking Performance of Light-Frame Shear walls, Doctor of Philosophy
Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, August 8, 2000
Fiorono L. (2003) Seismic Behaviour of Sheathed Cold-Formed Steel Stud Shear Walls: An
Experimental Investigation, PhD Thesis, Universit degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, 2003
Kawai Y., Kanno R., Uno N., Sakumoto Y. (1999) Seismic resistance and design of steel-framed
houses, Nippon Steel Technical Report No. 79 January 1999
Fulop L.A. & Dubina D. (2004) Performance of wall-stud cold-formed shear panels under monotonic
and cyclic loading. Part I: Experimental research, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 42, No. 2., 321.

WP2
Casafont M., Arnedo A., Roure, F. & Rodrguez-Ferran, A. (2006). Experimental testing of joints for
seismic design of lightweight structures. Part 1:screwed joints in straps. Thin-Walled Structures, in
press.
Casafont M, Arnedo A., Roure, F. & Rodrguez-Ferran, A.(2006). Experimental testing of joints for
seismic design of lightweight structures. Part 2: bolted joints in straps. Thin-Walled Structures, submit-
ted.

WP3
Cola/UCI (2001) Report of a testing program of light-framed walls with wood-sheathed shear panels,
Light frame test committee A subcommittee of the research committee. December 2001.
K. Gatto, C.M. Uang(2003) Effects of loading protocol on the cyclic response of woodframe shear
walls, Journal of structural engineering, Oct. 2003, p. 1384-1392
GR-63-CORE (2002), Telecordia Technologies. NEBS requirements: Physical protection. Issue 2.

WP 4
Pastor N & Rodrguez-Ferran, A. (2005). Hysteretic modelling of x-braced frames. Thin-Walled Struc-
tures, 43(10), 1567-1588.
Pastor N & Rodrguez-Ferran, A. (2006). Hysteretic modelling of lightweight steel framed buildings.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, submitted.
Mostaghel N. (1999) Analytical Description of Pinching, Degrading Hysteretic Systems, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, Volume 125, Number (2).

WP 5
EN 1998:2004 (E), Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings, 2004
EN 1993-1-3, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, Part 1-3: General rules. Supplementary rules for
cold-formed members and sheeting, 04 July 2004
26

ANNEX 1:
Available design methods and new technologies for seismic design
(WP1)
27

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. ANNEX 1 - Available design methods and new technologies for seismic design......................... 29
1.1. Historical development of steel-framed houses ..................................................................... 29
1.2. Structural solutions in steel framed houses............................................................................ 29
1.3. Main characteristics that influence earthquake behaviour ..................................................... 30
1.4. General concepts of earthquake design.................................................................................. 31
1.5. Standards and research overview........................................................................................... 31
1.5.1. Eurocode 8 (EN1998-1 2004) ....................................................................................... 31
1.5.2. GR-63-CORE and ANSI T1.329-1995 ......................................................................... 32
1.5.3. International Building Code, IBC-2003 (2004)............................................................. 34
1.5.4. Uniform Building code UBC (1997)............................................................................. 36
1.6. Research overview................................................................................................................. 37
1.6.1. Zhao (2002): Cyclic Performance of Cold-formed Steel Stud Shear Walls.................. 37
1.6.2. COLA-UCI (2001): Report of a Testing Program of Light-Framed Walls with Wood-
Sheathed Shear Panels ................................................................................................... 38
1.6.3. Bredel (2003): Performance Capabilities of Light-Frame Shear Walls Sheathed with
Long OSB Panels........................................................................................................... 38
1.6.4. Salenikovich (2000): The Racking Performance of Light-Frame Shear Walls............. 39
1.6.5. Fiorino (2003): Seismic Behaviour of Sheathed Cold-Formed Steel Stud Shear Walls39
1.6.6. Kawai et al. (1999): Seismic Resistance and Design of Steel-Framed Houses ............ 40
1.6.7. Cecotti (2002): Validation of seismic design parameters for wood-frame shear-wall
systems........................................................................................................................... 41
1.6.8. Serrette (2002) Design Values for Vertical and Horizontal Lateral Load Systems ...... 41
1.6.9. Fulop & Dubina (2004): Performance of wall-stud cold-formed shear panels under
monotonic and cyclic loading......................................................................................................... 42
28

1. ANNEX 1 - Available design methods and new technologies for seismic
design
1.1. Histor ical development of steel-fr amed houses
House structures based on skeleton structure covered with sheeting and finishing material were based
first on wood elements.
Later, as steel became largely available, the same concept of skeleton+sheeting and finishing has been
applied but using steel instead of wood skeleton. However, traditional hot rolled steel profiles were not
the best choice for the manufacturing of the skeleton. The diversity of shape and size of houses made it
impossible to properly adapt the few available hot-rolled steel profiles to the diversified applications in
a house. Hence, early steel framed house solutions remained at the stage of prototypes or isolated pre-
fabrication attempts, but never acquired a significant share on the market.
An important breakthrough was the introduction to the market of cold-formed steel profiles. The most
important advantage these profiles brought was adaptability of the shape to different applications. The
range of few available hot-rolled profiles diversified. The development of connection techniques which
required lighter equipment in order to replace traditional welds has helped the market acceptance of
houses with cold-formed steel skeleton.
The houses using cold-formed profiles in the skeleton utilise the concept of load bearing wall studs
which imply the use if a network, of relatively small, load bearing elements instead of a few strong
columns and beams.
In the early stage cold-formed steel framed houses have gained significant market share on the markets
where these two pre-requisites existed, namely in Japan, USA, Australia, UK and Northern European
countries. In a later stage, companies have started to expand to other regions where the introduction of
cold-formed steel houses was done via conscientious expansion strategy.
1.2. Str uctur al solutions in steel fr amed houses
The typical structural solution for cold-formed steel houses is based on the concept of many, relatively
thin, load bearing beams and studs. The entire structure is a spatial mesh of cold-formed steel profiles
(Fig. 1.1.a). Wall studs are usually made of galvanised steel of 12 mm thickness. In Nordic countries,
the web of wall stud is usually perforated in order to minimise cold bridge effect on the wall structure
(Fig. 1.1.b). The connection technique is most commonly based on self drilling screws, but other
systems like clinching, Rosette joining and gluing is also used. In the structure, vertical forces are
transmitted to beams and roof rafters, which then connect to the wall studs and transmit the forces
through the studs to the foundation. It is usual that beams and roof rafters are placed to the same
intervals as steel studs, so that transmission of the forces is by direct contact (i.e. avoiding if possible
bending effects). Typical steel skeleton of light-weight steel house is shown in Fig. 1.1.a.
(a) (b)
Fig. 1.1. (a) Steel skeleton of light-weight steel house (b) stud and track profile with thermal perforation
In transmission of horizontal forces (i.e. wind and earthquake) the primary role is played by the
horizontal planes (i.e. floor plane, or roof plane). In these horizontal planes a diaphragm behaviour has
to be imposed (ex. floors have to be stiff in their own plane) in order to ensure uniform distribution of
29

forces in the supporting walls. By good diaphragm behaviour it is assured that the plane of the floor
displaces and rotates as a solid plane element during horizontal loading conditions.
In LWS-houses, due to the reduced mass of the structure, diaphragm behaviour can be ensured by light
elements like: (i) corrugated sheathing connected to the floor joists or (ii) wood based plates connected
to floor joists. Providing over concreting of the floors would greatly enhance the diaphragm behaviour
of the floor. However, overall this method is not advantageous because it introduces large masses into
the otherwise light structure.
The next important elements are the wall-panels themselves which are transmitting the horizontal forces
from the plane of the upper floor towards the foundations. From the horizontal loads the walls are
loaded preponderantly in shear. Normally there is also some axial force present in the walls due to the
vertical loads.
Shear walls are combination of a steel skeleton, made of C and U cold-formed profiles, and some type
of sheathing which covers one or both sides of the skeleton. The connections between cold-formed
profiles are usually made with self-drilling screws and their behaviour is close to hinged. Hence, the
skeleton without the sheathing is not capable to transmit horizontal forces. The transmitting of
horizontal forces takes place trough the interaction of the skeleton with the sheathing. Therefore, form
the point of view of lateral load bearing capacity both the type of the skeleton and the type and
distribution of the sheathing-to-skeleton connections is critical.
Shear walls can be constructed to resist horizontal loads in many alternative ways using: (i) X-bracing
system with flat straps; (ii) X-bracing system with diagonal rods; (iii) stiffening with flat of corrugated
steel sheaths; (iv) stiffening with gypsum board or (v) combinations of the previous.
Once the strength and stiffness of the shear walls is ensured by the use of sheathings, it becomes
important to properly connect the wall to the foundation. This is achieved by anchoring devices in the
corners of the wall and intermediate fixings in midfield. Horizontal loads generate shear forces in these
connections, but also uplift forces in the corners. In order to transmit both types of forces, the design of
anchoring devices requires special attention.
1.3. Main char acter istics that influence ear thquake behaviour
One exceptional loading condition of cold-formed steel houses is the earthquake loading situation. This
loading is different form other actions because: (i) it is an action that is very rarely applied but when it
appears (ii) its intensity can be very high and largely unpredictable.
In order to ensure good earthquake behaviour for a structure some fundamental rules concerning the
structure should be respected: (i) the structure has to have regularity of stiffness and geometry both in
plan and elevation, (ii) horizontal planes have to ensure diaphragm behaviour, (iii) the structure has to
have redundancy and (iv) eventual failure has to be as ductile as possible.
While the regularity (and to some extent the redundancy) condition have to be fulfilled by properly
arranging the shape of the building, the other conditions are related to the choice of the structural
system and the detailing used. Therefore, proper choice of structural elements and of connection details
has to ensure good overall ductility for the structure.
The problematic of horizontal diaphragm action is usually deemed to be fulfilled if certain
constructional details are met. If floor openings are of normal size and the structure of the floor is build
of materials with sufficient in plane rigidity (i.e. OSB plate, plywood plate, corrugated sheath, concrete)
connected to the structure with a normal screw schedule (i.e. self drilling screw spacing recommended
by the supplier of the sheathing plate) it is normally supposed that floor diaphragm action is sufficient
to satisfy in earthquake conditions. If more throughout analysis is to be carried out than existing
standards (ex. ECCS-88 1995) can be used.
In the final stage the failure of the structure is produced by the walls. Therefore, the walls (or as they
are called wall-panels) are the elements which have to provide sufficient ductility before failure. Also,
the sequence of failure of the walls have to ensure overall ductile and redundant behaviour of the
30

structure. For these reasons, the study of the behaviour of wall panels is often in the focus of research
concerning earthquake behaviour of steel-framed houses.
1.4. Gener al concepts of ear thquake design
In the basic case of simple and regular structures the effect of the seismic action, and other effects of
other actions included in the seismic design, can be determined using linear-elastic analysis of the
structure. Because the horizontal force (F
b
) generated by the earthquake is inertial in nature, it can be
generically expressed as:
m S F
d b
=
1.1
Where S
d
factor expressing the effect of the mass which is usually accepted to be a
function of the period of vibration of the structure T
1
, (in a very simplified approach it is
the ordinate of the design spectrum corresponding to the period of the building T
1
)
m the mass of the building (i.e. including mass due to the fraction of variable
load) above the foundation or above the rigid basement
So it can be observed immediately that the loading side is influenced by a property of the structure,
namely by its rigidity.
An other key element in calculating the seismic load (S
d
) according to all modern standards is that, if
elastic design is adopted, than the elastic earthquake load depends on the non-linear behaviour of the
structure (i.e. practically on its ductility). This relationship is incorporated in the codes by the so called
q-factor that is used for reduction of forces obtained from linear analysis. The ability of the structure to
withstand plastic deformations without loosing load bearing capacity is of high significance for
earthquake reliability. If structure is fully elastic until failure then q=1, otherwise q>1.
There are three important characteristics which define the non-linear behaviour of light-gauge steel
structures and the value of the corresponding q factor:
Cold-formed steel profiles belong to Class 4 cross section according to the Eurocode 3 (EN 1993-
1-1 2005) classification. According to the Ec3 this leads to reduced ductility of the structures
using such profiles. However, what is not mentioned is that the ductility also depends on the
failure mode of the member. It is true that Class 4 members can not sustain plastic deformation in
bending or compression, but they can by plastic bearing deformations in the connections (ex. in
case of steel or wood plate sheathed walls) or by tension yielding (ex. in case of cross-braced
walls). Therefore the ductility of shear walls made of cold-formed steel members is significant
(i.e. 4-5).
The non-linear behaviour of the walls is often characterised by significant strength reserve. After
some non-linearity is activated in the wall (ex. some connections start to deform beyond the
elastic limit) the structure is capable to redistribute the loads and resist further increase of the
load. The overstrength can be (i.e. especially in walls sheathed with rigid plates) as large as 50-
60%. The overstrength has a beneficial effect on the q factor.
Steel houses are light structures. The reduced mass often leads to natural periods of vibration
being as low as 0.15-0.2s. In this range of periods the effect of structural ductility is not, but the
effect of overstrength is significant. The combined effect of ductility, overstrength and the natural
period of vibration determine the q factor of the structures.
1.5. Standar ds and r esear ch over view
1.5.1. Eur ocode 8 (EN1998-1 2004)
In Eurocode 8 (EN1998-1 2004) no-collapse requirement is defined so that the structure shall be
designed and constructed to withstand seismic actions without local or global collapse and must retain
31

its structural integrity and a residual load bearing capacity after seismic action. Usually the reference
probability of exceedence is 10% in 50 years or the reference return period is 475 years.
Damage limitation requirement means that the structure shall withstand a seismic action without
occurrence of damage and associated limitations of use. Also the value of the structure must be
considered in designing. Usually the probability of exceedence is 10% in 10 years or the return period is
95 years. The damage limitation is given in Eurocode 8 by limiting the interstorey drift.
The following ultimate limit states shall be verified:
EQU: Loss of static equilibrium of the structure or any part of it
STR: Internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural member
GEO: Failure or excessive deformation of the ground
FAT: Fatigue failure of the structure.
The structural system shall be verified as having sufficient resistance and energy dissipation capacity.
The capacity will be verified by the formula 1.2 (EN1998-1 2004).
d d
R E s
1.2
Where E
d
design value of effect of actions
R
d
design value of corresponding resistance
The design response spectra of type 1 and type 2 are shown in Fig. 1.2 using design ground acceleration
a
g
= 1.0 and behaviour factor q = 1.0.
0 1 2 3 4
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Period (s)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
*
a
g
/
q
4
0
S
dA
T ( )
S
dB
T ( )
S
dC
T ( )
S
dD
T ( )
S
dE
T ( )
4 0 T

0 1 2 3 4
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Period (s)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
*
a
g
/
q
5
0
S
dA
T ( )
S
dB
T ( )
S
dC
T ( )
S
dD
T ( )
S
dE
T ( )
4 0 T

Fig. 1.2. Horizontal design response spectrum for simplified analysis (Spectrum types 1 and 2, a
g
= 1.0
m/s
2
and q = 1.0) (EN1998-1 2004)
The calculation methods of Eurocode 8 is explained more specific in Annex 6 of this report.
Eurocode 8 (EN1998-1 2004) does not give exact value for behaviour factor q when light gauge steel
structures (LGS) are used in a small house. In chapter 8 of Eurocode 8 q values are given e.g. for nailed
wall panels, but these values cannot be used without further investigations for LGS structures, because
the ductility behaviour of the nails if different from screws behaviour in cyclic tests.
1.5.2. GR-63-CORE and ANSI T1.329-1995
The guideline GR-63-CORE (2002) is a subset of family of documents for physical and environmental
criteria for telephone facilities buildings and for equipment used in these facilities. The same
requirements are also published in standard ANSI-T1.329 (1995).
32

The seismic tests required in GR-63-CORE (2002) are as follows:
resonance tests
earthquake simulation tests
static pull tests.
The requirements during and after dynamic tests are as follows:
Physical criteria demands the equipment shall sustain dynamic testing without permanent
structural and mechanical damage
The maximum deflection of the top during dynamic testing is less than 75 mm
The maximum deflection during static tests is 50 mm and permanent deflection after each test 5
mm
Functionality criteria demands the equipment has sustained operation without loss of service.
The guideline of GR-63-CORE classifies the requirements for the earthquake- and office vibration tests
using the following notation:
R Requirement - Feature or function that, in Bellcore's view, is necessary to satisfy the needs of
a BCC (Bellcore Client Company).
Objective - Feature or function that, in Bellcore's view, is desirable and may be required by a
BCC.
The GR-63-CORE also includes detailed guidelines of excitation signals, instrumentation and data
acquisition. The following measurements are required:
anchoring forces
acceleration at the bottom, in the middle of and at the top of the specimen
movement of the top
The GR-63-CORE also gives response spectrums of seismic zones and the seismicity is divided into 3
different Zones according to Fig. 1.3. The strongest seismic activity is show by the Zone 4.
0.1 1 10 100
0.1
1
10
Zone 1, 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Frecuency (Hz)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
5
0.2
g
2
f ( )
g
3
f ( )
g
4
f ( )
100 0.3 f
Response spectra according to GR-63-CORE

Fig. 1.3. Acceleration response spectra for different seismic Zones according to GR-63-CORE (2002)
33

The GR-63-CORE can be also used for shear walls as a guideline for earthquake simulation test, but the
response spectrum signal is, may be, too strong to be used in the tests.
1.5.3. Inter national Building Code, IBC-2003 (2004)
The IBC-2003 (2004) gives two methods to calculate seismic events:
General procedure
Site-specific procedure
The site-specific procedure is used for Site Class F buildings
In IBC-2003 the mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response accelerations at short
period (S
S
) and 1-second period (S
1
) are given (as a percent of g) in Tables 1615-(1) - 1615 (10) of IBC
2003, but these acceleration maps are only given in USA. The design response accelerations S
DS
and S
D1

are calculated using formula 1.4.
The design response spectrum curve S
a
are given in Fig. 1615.1.4 of IBC-2003. The curve in Fig.
1615.1.4 of IBC-2003 is based on formula 1.3.
DS
D
D
DS
S
S
D
a
S DS a
DS
DS
a
S
S
T
S
S
T
T T
T
S
S
T T T S S
T T S T
T
S
S
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
2 . 0
;
;
; 4 . 0
6 . 0
=
=
> =
s s =
< +
=

1.3
Where S
DS
is design spectral response acceleration at short period
S
D1
is design spectral response acceleration at 1-second period
The design response accelerations S
DS
and S
D1
are calculated using formula 1.4.
1 1
1 1
3
2
3
2
S F S
S F S
S S
S S
v M
S a MS
M D
MS DS
=
=
=
=

1.4
Where S
MS
is spectral response acceleration at short period
S
M1
spectral response acceleration at 1-second period
F
a
and F
v
site coefficients according to Table 1615.1.2 of IBC-2003
An example of response spectra is given in Fig. 1.4 using F
a
= 1.0, F
v
= 1.0, S
S
= 13% and S
1
= 13%.
34

0 1 2 3 4 5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Period (s)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
0.85
0.17
g
1
T ( )
5 0 T

Fig. 1.4. Acceleration response spectra according to IBC-2003 (2004) (using F
a
= 1.0, F
v
=1.0, S
S
=
13% and S
1
= 13%.)
In Tables 2211.2(2) and 2211.2(3) of IBC-2003 are given nominal shear values for wind and seismic
forces for shear walls framed with cold-formed steel studs. The values are given in Table 1.1 and
Table 1.2. The nominal shear values are depended of sheathing material and screw spacing. The highest
values are given for plywood sheathing.
Table 1.1. Nominal shear values (pounds/foot) for wind and seismic forces for shear walls (IBC-2003)
Wall con-
str uction
Maximum
height/length
Or ientation Scr ew spac-
ing in edge
(inches)
Scr ew
spacing in
field
(inches)
Nominal
shear value
(plf)
1/2 -inch gyp-
sum board on
both sides
2:1 Gypsum board applied per-
pendicular to framing with
strap blocking
7
4
7
4
585
850

Table 1.2. Nominal shear values (pounds/foot) for wind and seismic forces for shear walls (IBC-2003)
Assembly descr iption Maximum
height/length
Scr ew
spacing
in edge 6
(inches)
Scr ew
spacing
in edge 4
(inches)
Scr ew
spacing
in edge 3
(inches)
Scr ew
spacing
in field 2
(inches)
Maximum
fr aming
spacing
(inches)
15/32 inch Structural 1 sheathing
(4-ply) one side
2:1 780 990 1465 1625 24
(4-ply) one side, studs 0.043 inch
minimum
2:1 - - 1775 2190 24
(4-ply) one side, studs and tracks
0.043 inch minimum
2:1 890 1330 1775 2190 24
7/16 inch OSB in one side 2:1 700 915 1275 1625 24
7/16 inch OSB in one side, end
studs 0,043 minimum
2:1 - - 1520 2060 24
0.018 inch steel sheet one side 2:1 390 - - - 24
0.027 inch steel sheet one side 2:1 - 1000 1085 1170 24
Note: 1 pound/foot=14.59 N/m
35

1.5.4. Unifor m Building code UBC (1997)
In table 16 N (Structural systems) of UBC (1997) is given factors for various structural systems. The
LGS structures belong to system 2 (Building frame system) and the force modification factor R is given
as 5.0 - 6.5. The force modification factor R of UBC is not quite the same as the behaviour factor q of
EC 8. According to Eurocode 8 the design response spectrum is divided by q but according to UPC the
design forces are divides by R.
In Table 22-VIII-C of UBC are given nominal shear values for wind and seismic forces for shear walls
framed with cold-formed steel studs. The values are given in Table 1.3. The nominal shear values are
depended of sheathing material and screw spacing and highest values are given for plywood sheathing.
The same table is also given as Table 8.6 in publication of FEMA (FEMA-302 1997).
Table 1.3. Nominal shear values (pounds/foot) for seismic forces for shear walls (UBC 1997)
Assembly descr iption Scr ew
spacing in
edge 6
(inches)
Scr ew
spacing in
edge 4
(inches)
Scr ew
spacing in
edge 3
(inches)
Scr ew
spacing in
field 2
(inches)
Maximum
fr aming
spacing
(inches)
15/32 inch Structural 1 sheathing (4-ply)
one side
780 990 1465 1625 24
7/16 inch OSB in one side 700 915 1275 1625 24
Note: 1 pound/foot=14.59 N/m
The design response spectra are given in Fig. 16-3 of UBC (1997) and the curve in Fig. 16.3 ant it is
based on formula 1.5.
S
a
v
S
S
v
d
S a d
a
a
d
T T
C
C
T
T T
T
C
g
T T T C g
T T C T
T
C
g
=

=
> =
s s =
< +
=
2 . 0
5 . 2
5 . 2
5 . 1
0
0
0
0

1.5
Where T
0
and T
S
are boundary periods of the curve
C
a
and C
v
factors according to Tables 4.3 and 4.4 in UBC (1997)
An example of response spectra is given in Fig. 1.5 using N
a
= 1.0 and N
v
= 1.0
36

0 1 2 3 4 5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Period (s)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
0.9
0.192
g
1
T ( )
5 0 T

Fig. 1.5. Acceleration response spectra according to UBC (1997) (using N
a
= 1.0, N
v
=1.0,)
1.6. Resear ch over view
1.6.1. Zhao (2002): Cyclic Per for mance of Cold-for med Steel Stud Shear Walls
The report (thesis) describes the instructions of design standards in Northern America and in USA
concerning the steel stud shear walls. The National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) does not define
an R-value (force modification factor) for these walls. The report also contains a summary of previous
cold-formed steel stud shear walls test programs in Northern America. A theoretical method to predict
the shear capacity based on American Wood Design procedure is presented and results are compared
with the peek loads obtained from tests. Force modification factor R has been suggested to be 2.0 cold-
formed steel stud shear walls.
In NBCC is given the base shear force V by the formula 1.6.
U
R
V
V
e
=
1.6
Where V
e
base shear corresponding to an elastic response of the structure
R force modification factor
U factor of 0.6
The same formula in newer version of NBCC 2004 (draft) is given by formula 1.7.
0
R R
V
V
d
e
=
1.7
Where V
e
base shear corresponding to an elastic response of the structure
R
d
ductility related force modification factor
R
0
overstrength
At the end of the report the test method is performed and test specimens (plywood and OSB), but results
are not given. The recommended test series includes monotonic and cyclic test methods.
37

1.6.2. COLA-UCI (2001): Repor t of a Testing Pr ogr am of Light-Fr amed Walls with
Wood-Sheathed Shear Panels
The report describes the test results of 38 test series (3 specimens in each). The sheathing was plywood
and gypsum board. The effect of the added nailing of the gypsum board passing through the plywood
sheathing and the efficiency of placing sheathing on both sides of the wall was investigated. Also in
some tests the effect of the vertical movement at the edge stud was tested.
The examination of the hysteretic behaviour of shear panel shows that significant hysteretic damping
occurs even when the cycles are defined as elastic. The yield limit state (YLS) is defined when the load
at the last displacement cycle at an interpolated displacement level is equal to 95 % of the load
corresponding to the interpolated first displacement at that level. The specimens were tested using
TCCMAR loading sequence and strength reduction factors were not calculated. The ductility factor
was calculated using formula 1.8.
YLS
SLS
D
D
=
1.8
Where D
SLS
displacement at strength limit state
D
YLS
displacement at yield limit state
The over-strength factor has been from 1.6 to 3.6 and ductility factor from 2.4 to 12.0.
1.6.3. Br edel (2003): Per for mance Capabilities of Light-Fr ame Shear Walls Sheathed
with Long OSB Panels
The report performs 34 test results of shear walls, width of 2.4 m and height of 2.4 to 3.0 m. The studs
were wooden studs sheathing, oriented strand board (OBS) and anchoring system was Simpson HTT22
device. The results include comparison between long and short panels when extra stud is needed
between corner studs. The testing has also done with or without a mechanical hold down device
attached to the base of the end stud. The effect of various cyclic signals has been investigated in the
report and other has selected CURREE protocol for the tests. The signal will gave a similar result as
produced by monotonic test. The failure load is assumed to be 0.8F
peak
and yield limit is defined using
EEEP (Equivalent Energy Elastic Plastic) bilinear curve. The yield load is supposed to be in the value
of 0.8F
peak
. Elastic stiffness and ductility are calculated using formulas 1.9 and 1.10.
Fpeak
Peak
e
F
k
04
4 . 0
A

=
1.9
Where F
Peak
is the maximum load
A
04Fpeak
displacement at 0.4F
Peak
Yield
Failure
A
A
=
1.10
Where A
Failure
is displacement by failure load
A
Yield
displacement at yield limit state
The other comments the long panels and short nail spacing will give will give higher shear capacity to
the wall.

38

1.6.4. Salenikovich (2000): The Racking Per for mance of Light-Fr ame Shear Walls
The report describes 56 tests of light-frame timber shear walls which were sheathed with oriented
strandboard (OSB) panels with aspect ratio of 4:1, 2:1, 1:1 and 2:3. The specimens were tested in
horizontal position and no dead load was used in the tests. The anchoring system was either Simpson
device, bolts or 16d nails. The test series includes also nail parameters, sheathing parameters and
sheathing to framing connections. The cyclic signal used in the tests was similar to FME signal where
every load step was repeated three times. Also monotonic tests were done for each specimen. The
deflections of engineered and conventional shear walls were predicted using the energy method
combined with empirical formulae to account for load deformation characteristics. The research and
results serve to further development of a mechanics based methodology for design of shear walls.
The cyclic test results have been used to define the equivalent energy elastic-plastic (EEEP) curve. The
failure load is taken as 80 % and elastic limit 40 % of the peak load according to formulas 1.9 and 1.10
above. The ultimate ductility ratio (toughness index) and viscous damping ratio is calculated using
formulas 1.11 and 1.12.
Peak
Failure
r
D
A
A
=
1.11
Where A
Failure
is the failure deflection by 0.8F
Peak
force
A
Fpeak
displacement at F
Peak
0
4
1
U
W
D
Eq

=
t

1.12
Where W
D
is damping energy per cycle
U
0
strain energy per cycle
The formulas are also proposed to calculate the shear wall strength in good agreement with the
experimental results.
1.6.5. Fior ino (2003): Seismic Behaviour of Sheathed Cold-For med Steel Stud Shear
Walls
The main objective of the research is to give a contribution to the evaluation of seismic performance of
low-rise residential buildings with cold-formed steel members through the evaluation of seismic
demand, capacity and their comparison.
The strength of the sheathing is researched taking in account following failure modes:
bearing failure in the steel frame
tilting failure of the screw
screw shear failure
bearing failure of the wood panel
Also the formulas of the strength of the frame (buckling) and strength of the anchoring bolts are shown
in the paper.
The influence of the opening size is given by the function of sheathing area ratio r (formula 1.13).
39

i
L h
A
r

+
=
0
1
1

1.13
Where A
0
is total area of the openings
h height of the wall
L
i
length of the full height wall segment
This empirical formula was developed by Sugiyama (Sugiyama 1994).
The influence of the opening size is given by the function of sheathing area ratio r (formula 1.14).
o
o
o
+
|
|
\
|

+

=
0 1
0
0
0
) (
1
) (
k
V
k k
k k
V
n
n
h
h

1.14
Where k
0
is initial stiffness of the system
k
h
stiffness of the hardening line
V
0
intersection between V axis and hardening line
n shape parameter
In the research one shear wall system (2 walls and roof) sheathed with OSB panels was tested
monotonically and also with cyclic test signal. Every load step was repeated 3 times. The failure
occurred when sheathing came out of the studs, bat screws remained on their original place.
The model of the hysteretic behaviour of CFSSSW (Cold-Formed Steel Stud Shear Wall) system have
been introduced and calibrated according to test results. The loading branch (without pinching) is given
by the Richard & Abbot formula 1.14.
1.6.6. Kawai et al. (1999): Seismic Resistance and Design of Steel-Fr amed Houses
The paper describes the seismic design of steel framed houses in Japan. In January 1995 the great
Hanshin Earthquake caused damage to houses and 50 000 temporary dwellings were build of which
3000 units were imported steel-framed houses. After that Committee of steel framed houses published
standard of Design and Construction Specification and manuals for Steel Framed Houses. A hysteresis
model under cyclic loading was developed and dynamic vibration tests of steel houses and shaking table
tests of steel framed walls were conducted.
The structural Characteristic factor D
s
, which is a parameter for energy absorbing capacity, can be
calculated by formula 1.15.
y
u
s
R
R
D
=

=
1 2
1

1.15
Where u is plastic multiplier
R
u
ultimate deformation
R
y
yield deformation
40

The vibration tests have been done for both shear wall elements and for Whole house. The design shear
strength for steel-framed houses and Wooden 24 houses is given in Table 1.4.
The report introduces the test of whole steel stud house in different stages. The natural frequency has
been from 6.4 Hz to 8.8 Hz depending of the test method (free vibration, sweep excitation) and
construction stage. Damping has been from 2 % to 7 %. The maximum storey drift is suggested to be
1/50 rad.
Table 1.4. Design shear strength of bearing of walls (Kawai et al. 1999)
Wall classification Type of bear ing wall Multiplier for
steel-fr amed house
Multiplier for
wooden 2x4 house
Exterior wall Plywood + Plaster 5.0 4.5
Interior wall Plaster + Plaster 3.0 3.0
Note: Multiplier 1.0 = 130 kg/m
The report also introduces a design flow chart for steel framed houses. The calculations are based on the
seismic forces and wall length. The possible sheathings are plywood or Gypsum board. Also the
eccentricity is checked during design. Calculation method is based on the two-lumped mass system with
dampers and springs. The hysteresis model is based on the following factors in Table 1.5 which are
defined according to test results. The model does not take account strength degradation under cyclic
loading.
Table 1.5. Parameters governing envelope curve (Kawai et al. 1999)
Point Plywood Q [kg] Plywood R
[r ad]
Gypsum boar d
Q [kg]
Gypsum boar d
R [r ad]
a (elastic limit) 769 1/606 231 1/2424
b (curvature between a and c) 828 1/541 355 1/1333
c (yield point) 2203 1/106 748 1/386
1.6.7. Cecotti (2002): Validation of seismic design par ameter s for wood-fr ame shear -
wall systems
The report consists of test program and application of nonlinear time history analysis to a four-storey
wood-frame buildings. Totally two specimen were tested. In the research a methodology for assessment
of seismic performance of wood-frame shear-wall structures was developed concerning four storey,
nailed woof-frame structures. The mathematical calculations are based on the nonlinear analysis in the
time domain by using DRAIN-2X software.
The seismic force modification factor of R=3 and behaviour factor of q=3 were found to be appropriate.
The walls sheathed with wood based panels and GWB panels had a greater strength capacity but lower
ductility compared to walls sheathed only with wood based panels.
1.6.8. Ser r ette (2002) Design Values for Ver tical and Hor izontal Later al Load Systems
The objective of the research is to provide a concise, basic design reference for LGS framed lateral load
resisting systems and the tech note focus primary on codes UBC, IBC and IRC based design values and
widely used standard design methodologies in the United States. The two basic lateral load resisting
systems are shear walls and diagonal braced systems. The main factors that influence the performance
of shear walls are the rate of loading, framing thickness, screw size, screw spacing, edge distance and
material used in sheathing. The walls tested have been 2.4 m high and the ratio of height and length 4:1,
2:2 and 1:1. The tests for the codes were done using cyclic signal and every step was repeated 3 times
by same level and after that 3 decreasing steps were performed. The force modification factor R is
defined as 4.5 for steel sheathed walls and 5.5 for plywood and OSB walls.
41

1.6.9. Fulop & Dubina (2004): Per for mance of wall-stud cold-for med shear panels un-
der monotonic and cyclic loading
This research included a number of 15 full scale (24503600 mm) tests on steel framed walls. The
sheathing configurations were: (i) X braced walls, (ii) corrugated sheath walls and (iii) OSB sheathed
walls. Both fully sheathed walls and walls with openings were tested using the ECCS (ECCS-45 1986)
cyclic loading protocol.
Based on the test results a finite element methodology was developed for the evaluation of the load-
bearing capacity, rigidity and ductility of different wall configurations sheathed with corrugated steel
plates. The experimental results were also compared to available analytical formulas (ECCS-88 1995)
for the calculation of capacity and rigidity. The conclusion of such comparison was that the formulas
predict a very low capacity for the wall compared to the real capacity. However, large part of the
capacity of the wall can not be regarded as elastic capacity since nonlinearities set in at an early stage of
the deformation. Based on the experiments and analysis multi-level performance criteria was proposed.
In the final stage of the research non-linear time-history analysis was carried out using a tri-linear
hysteretic model (i.e. modelling the behaviour of the tested walls) and a set of historical earthquake
records. The conclusion of the analysis was that the overstrength contributes more to the performance
of the walls in case of earthquake than the ductility.
42

REFERENCES
ANSI-T1.329 (1995). Network Equipment - Earthquake Resistance. American National Standard for
Telecommunications
Bredel D.H. (2003) Performance Capabilities of Light-Frame Shear Walls Sheathed with Long OSB
Panels, Master of science thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, April 2003
Cecotti A. & Karacabeyli E. (2002) Validation of seismic design parameters for wood-frame shear-wall
systems, Can. J. Civ. Eng./Rev. can. gnie civ. 29(3): 484-498 (2002)
Cola-Uci (2001) Report of Testing Program of Light Framed Walls with Wood-Sheeted Shear Panels,
Light Frame Test Committee, 2001
ECCS-45 (1986) Recommended testing procedure for assessing the behaviour of structural steel
elements under cyclic loads, European Convention for Constructional Steelwork, Doc. TWS 1.3
N.45/86, Brussels
ECCS-88 (1995) European Recommendation for the application of metal sheeting acting as a
diaphragm stressed skin design, European Convention for Constructional Steelwork, Brussels
EN1998-1 (2004), Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings (December 2004)
EN 1993-1-1 (2004) Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings (May 2005)
FEMA-302 (1997) NEHRP Recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and
other structures, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
Fiorono L. (2003) Seismic Behaviour of Sheathed Cold-Formed Steel Stud Shear Walls: An
Experimental Investigation, PhD Thesis, Universit degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, 2003
and cyclic loading. Part I: Experimental research, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 42, No. 2., 321.
and cyclic loading - Part II: Numerical modelling and performance analysis, Thin-Walled Structures,
Vol. 42, No. 2., 339.
GR-63-CORE (2002) Telecordia Technologies. General Requirements. Issue 2, April 2002
IBC-2003 (2004) International Building Code 2003. Fourth printing, March 2004
Kawai Y., Kanno R., Uno N., Sakumoto Y. (1999) Seismic resistance and design of steel-framed
houses, Nippon Steel Technical Report No. 79 January 1999
Salenikovich A.J. (2000) The Racking Performance of Light-Frame Shear walls, Doctor of Philosophy
Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, August 8, 2000
Serrette R. (1999) Design Values for Vertical and Horizontal Lateral Load Systems, LGSRG- Steel
Framing Alliance
Sugiyama, H. and T. Matsumoto. 1994. Empirical Equations for the Estimation of Racking Strength of
a Plywood Sheathed Shear Wall with Openings. Mokuzai Gakkaishi, Vol. 39, No. 8: 924-929
UBC (1997) Uniform Building Code. Volume 2. Structural Engineering Design Provisions, April 1997
Zhao Y. (2002) Cyclic Performance of Cold-Formed Steel Stud Shear Walls, Department of civil
engineering and applied mechanics, McGill University, Montreal, August 2002
43

ANNEX 2:
Joint testing and analysis
(WP2 + WP4.1)
45
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS 46
2. Annex 2: Joint testing and analysis 47
2.1. Introduction 47
2.2. Design of the joint testing campaign 47
2.3. Tensile testing of steel (phase 0) 47
2.4. Lap joints in straps (phase 1) 48
2.4.1. Screwed joints 48
2.4.2. Bolted joints 58
2.4.3. Rosette joints 63
2.5. Joints between diagonal strap and gusset (phase 2) 69
2.5.1. Test specimens 69
2.5.2. Test procedure 69
2.5.3. Test results 70
2.6. Frame lower and upper corners (phases 3 and 4) 71
2.6.4. Analysis: finite element modelling 76
2.7. Whole x-braced frames (phase 5) 77
2.7.4. Analysis: hysteretic modelling of x-braced frames 80
2.8. Concluding remarks and recommendations 82
2.8.1. Failure modes 82
2.8.2. Material properties 82
2.8.3. Connection devices 82
2.8.4. Screwed connections 82
2.8.5. Bolted connections 82
2.8.6. Rosette connections 83
2.8.7. X-braced frames 83
2.8.8. Design methods 83
2.8.9. Testing 83
2.8.10. Numerical modelling 83

46
2. Annex 2: Joint testing and analysis
2.1. Intr oduction
A key ingredient of good seismic behaviour of structures is an adequate design of the connections.
Joints must be strong enough to allow the effective performance of energy-dissipation mechanisms such
as x-braced frames.
An extensive joint testing campaign has been carried out in Work-Package 2 of this project. Analysis of
the results (including simplified analysis methods, finite element modelling and comparison to
Eurocode 3 formulas) is the object of WP 4.1. For the sake of clarity, these two closely interrelated
tasks (testing and analysis) are discussed all together here.
An outline of this report follows. Section 2.2 describes the design of the joint testing campaign. The rest
of the document is organized according to the phases of this campaign. Section 2.3 deals with material
testing of steel (phase 0); Section 2.4 is devoted to lap joints in straps (phase 1). Lap joints between
strap and gusset are discussed in Section 2.5, and Section 2.6 covers the frame lower and upper corners.
Finally, Section 2.7 deals with the whole x-braced frames. With some variations where needed, all the
sections have a similar structure, reporting 1) the test specimens, 2) the test procedure, 3) the test
results, and 4) the analysis. The concluding remarks and recommendations of Section 2.8 close this
report.
2.2. Design of the joint testing campaign
An assessment of the state of the art in seismic design and cold-formed steel structures indicates that
concentric braced frames are a very effective means of providing the lateral stiffness, ductility and
energy dissipation required under seismic loads. Alternatively, frames sheathed with gypsum, steel or
other materials may also be used as shear walls. Since these (x-braced or not) shear walls are crucial in
the seismic response of the whole building, the joint testing campaign focuses on their connections.
The joint testing campaign is divided in six phases (phase 0phase 5) of increasing complexity, see
Document PR377/WP2/BD001 (2003). Phase 0 consists on the tensile testing of the steel. Phase 1 deals
with the axial testing of joints between two straps, and analyses the influence of the various relevant
parameters: connection technology (screws, bolts, Rosette); strap thicknesses, diameter of connector;
number of connectors.
Phase 2 consists on testing axial joints between a strap and a gusset plate. The specific joint layout is
based on results obtained in phase 1. Phases 3 and 4 deal with lower and upper corners. Both Finnish
specimens with no gusset (i.e. with diagonal strap connected directly to the track-stud corner) and
Spanish specimens with gusset are analyzed.
Finally, phase 5 is designed to assess the global joint behaviour. Small-scale whole x-braced frames are
tested to check the dissipative capabilities of the diagonal straps.
2.3. Tensile testing of steel (phase 0)
Tensile tests were carried out at Rautaruukki Steel (Hmeenlinna, Finland) according to EN 10002-
1:2001. Two steel grades (S-250 GD+Z and SD-350 GD+Z) and four different thicknesses (0.85, 1, 1.5
and 3 mm) are tested. For each case, three specimens were tested.
The results are shown in Table 2.1. It is worth noting that, in all the cases, the measured value of the
yield and ultimate stress is significantly larger than the nominal value. These experimentally measured
values are used in Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2, where the strength of the joints is calculated by means of
analytical formulas.
47
Table 2.1. Mechanical properties of steel. f
y
: nominal yield stress, f
u
: nominal ultimate stress, f
yt
: meas-
ured yield stress, f
ut
: measured ultimate stress, t: nominal thickness, t
t
: measured thickness without zinc
coating

Steel

f
y
(N/mm
2
)
f
u

(N/mm
2
)
f
yt

(N/mm
2
)
f
ut

(N/mm
2
)
t
(mm)
t
t

(mm)
392 520 1 0,927
387 519 1,5 1,441
S-350 GD+Z 350 420
385 512 3 2,945
285 345 0,85 0,869
303 393 1 0,984
S-250 GD+Z 250 330
317 391 1,5 1,536
2.4. Lap joints in str aps (phase 1)
The rest of the joint testing campaign (phases 1 to 5) was carried out at the Universitat Politcnica de
Catalunya (Barcelona, Spain) and VTT (Technical Research Centre of Finland; part of Rosette joints in
phase 1). Phase 1 consists in the axial testing of lap joints in straps. Three different connection
technologies were tested: self-tapping screws (Section 2.4.1), bolts (Section 2.4.2) and Rosette
connectors (Section 2.4.3).
2.4.1. Scr ewed joints
These tests are reported in detail in document PR377/WP2/BD002 (2004) and in Casafont et al.
(2006a).
Test specimens
Tests are performed on screwed connections between two straps, see Fig. 2.1, of steel grade S-350
GD+Z or S-250 GD+Z. Screws of two different diameters were used to connect the straps, see Fig. 2.2:
4,8 mm and 6,3 mm. The shaft length of the 4,8 mm diameter screws was always 10 mm (threaded
part), and they had either flat and square heads or hexagonal heads. The shaft of the 6,3 diameter
screws, whose head was always hexagonal, was 10 mm or 30 mm long (threaded part).

Fig. 2.1. Screwed lap joint between straps
48

Fig. 2.2. Types of screws v = 4.8 mm, Lthreaded = 10 mm, flat square head; b) v = 4.8 mm,
Lthreaded = 10 mm, hexagonal head; c) v = 6.3 mm, Lthreaded = 10 mm, hexagonal head; d) v
=6.3 mm, Lthreaded = 30 mm, hexagonal head.
The length of the steel straps ranged between 350 mm and 475 mm, depending on the number of screws
of the joint. Their thickness was also variable from 0,85 mm to 3 mm (see Table 2.1), but their width
was always the same, 100 mm. Fig. 2.3 shows the position of the screws: the spacing and the
longitudinal and transverse edge distances. The joint layout was identical for all the specimens. Joints
are designated with the notation
t
1
- t
2
- 4 - nc - sg l (for example, 1 - 1,5 - 6,3 - 6 - S350 E)
t
1
: thickness of the first strap (t
1
=1 mm), t
2
: thickness of the second strap (t
2
=1,5 mm), 4: diameter of
the screw (4 =6,3 mm), nc: number of screw columns (nc=6), sg: steel grade (S-350 GD+Z), l: letter
used when there are two or more identical joints (E).
1
0
0
2
5
2
5
25 25 25 25 25 25
Row
Row
C
o
l
u
m
n

Fig. 2.3. Joint layout of screwed joints
Test pr ocedur e
A 250 kN universal testing machine was used to load the joints. Tests were displacement-controlled,
with a load rate of 0,01 mm/s (for elongations lower than 2 mm) or 0,02 mm/s (above 2 mm
elongation). The applied force (F) and the length increment of the joint (d) were measured and stored in
a computer every 0,04 mm.
Two types of tests were performed: monotonic and load-unload tests. In monotonic tests, the
displacement is increased progressively up to failure. Load-unload tests consist on unloading four times
to a near zero load and then reloading. The unloading process is force-controlled to ensure that the
specimens are always in tension and do not become under compression. The goal of these cyclic tests is
to assess the joint performance under reversing movements, like the ones that occur during the
earthquake.

a) b) c) d)
49
Test r esults
Monotonic tensile tests
The failure modes in the monotonic tests involve a combination of two or more of the following
phenomena: bearing (B), tilting (T), pull-out (PO), pull-through (PT) and net section failure (NSF), see
Fig. 2.4.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 2.4. Failure modes in screwed joints: (a) tilting + pull-out;
(b) Tilting + net section failure; (c) tilting + bearing + net section failure; (d) tilting + pull-through
Table 2.2 shows the test results of all screwed joints. For each specimen, both the failure mode and the
ultimate load are indicated.
50
Table 2.2. Results of monotonic tests on screw joints.
t
1t
: measured t1 thickness, t
2t
: measured t
2
thickness, P
ut
: measured ultimate load, k: measured initial
stiffness, T: tilting, NSF: net section failure, B: bearing, PO: pull out, PT: pull through.
Connection t
1t

(mm)
t
2t

(mm)
Failure
mode
P
ut

(N)
k

(N/mm)
1-1-6,3-6-S350-A 0,99 0,99 T+NSF 40970 47573
1-1-6,3-6-S350-B 0,98 0,98 T+NSF 41246 20676
1-1-6,3-6-S350-C 0,98 0,99 T+NSF 40843 18788
1-1-6,3-6-S350-D 0,99 0,99 T+NSF 40494 21468
1-1-6,3-6-S350-E 0,99 0,98 T+NSF 41157 20702
1-1,5-6,3-6-S350 0,99 1,49 NSF 42735 33469
1,5-1,5-6,3-6-S350 1,50 1,49 (T)+NSF 65295 39941
1,5-3-6,3-6-S350 1,50 3,00 NSF 66592 62902
1-1-4,8-6-S350-A 0,98 0,98 T+NSF 40179 23508
1-1-4,8-6-S350-B 0,98 0,99 T+NSF 39890 21316
1-3-4,8-6-S350-A 0,98 3,01 (B)+NSF 42696 48720
1-3-4,8-6-S350-B 0,99 2,99 (B)+NSF 43265 38760
1,5-1,5-4,8-6-S350 1,49 1,49 T+NSF 64472 36270
1-1-6,3-4-S350-A 0,98 0,98 T+PO 32793 18116
1-1-6,3-4-S350-B 0,99 0,98 T+PO 32306 14494
1,5-1,5-6,3-4-S350 1,49 1,49 T+PO 57745 36674
1,5-3-6,3-4-S350- 1,49 3,00 (B)+NSF 66067 50653
1,5-3-6,3-4-S350- 1,49 2,99 (B)+NSF 66528 44270
1-1-4,8-4-S350-A 0,99 0,99 T+(B)+PO 29418 21231
1-1-4,8-4-S350-B 0,99 0,99 T+PO 29802 18431
1-3-4,8-4-S350 0,99 2,99 (T)+B+NSF 42614 39832
1,5-1,5-4,8-4-S350 1,49 1,49 T+PO 52125 35254
1-1-6,3-3-S350-A 0,98 0,98 T+PO 25070 11526
1-1-6,3-3-S350-B 0,98 0,98 T+PO 25165 16197
1,5-3-6,3-3-S350 1,49 3,00 T+(B)+ 64360 34255
1-1-4,8-3-S350-A 0,99 0,99 T+PO 24131 17606
1-1-4,8-3-S350-B 0,99 0,98 T+PO 22090 17201
1-1,5-4,8-3-S350 0,99 1,49 T+B+PO 36417 20490
1-3-4,8-3-S350 0,98 2,99 T+(B)+PT 36792 18295
1,5-1,5-4,8-3-S350 1,49 1,49 T+PO 38438 22529
1-1-6,3-1-S350-A 0,99 0,99 T+PO 8025 6318
1-1-6,3-1-S350-B 0,99 0,99 T+PO 8212 7007
1-1,5-6,3-1-S350 0,99 1,50 T+PO 14880 10570
1,5-1,5-6,3-1-S350 1,50 1,50 T+PO 15089 12934
1,5-3-6,3-1-S350- 1,49 2,99 T+(B)+PO 31172 51171
1,5-3-6,3-1-S350- 1,49 2,99 T+(B)+PO 30405 17071
1-1-4,8-1-S350-A 1,00 0,99 T+PO 7647 5229
1-1-4,8-1-S350-B 0,98 0,99 T+(B)+PO 7580 5848
1-1,5-4,8-1-S350 0,99 1,50 T+(B)+PO 13720 8524
1,5-1,5-4,8-1-S350 1,50 1,50 T+PO 13495 15573

51
Table 2.2. (continued)
Connection
t
1t

(mm)
t
2t

(mm)
Failure
mode
P
ut
(N)
k

(N/mm)
0,85-1-6,3-6-S250 0,89 1,04 (T)+NSF 27040 27589
0,85-1,5-6,3-6-S250 0,89 1,60 NSF 26311 19947
1-1-6,3-6-S250-A 1,04 1,04 (T)+NSF 34258 24195
1-1-6,3-6-S250-B 1,04 1,04 T+NSF 34064 20568
0,85-0,85-4,8-6-S250 0,85 0,85 T+NSF 25126 19535
0,85-1-4,8-6-S250 0,85 1,00 (T)+NSF 27587 24192
0,85-1,5-4,8-6-S250 0,85 1,50 (T)+(B)+N 27268 25465
1-1-4,8-6-S250-A 1,00 1,00 T+(B)+NS 32642 16667
1-1-4,8-6-S250-B 1,00 1,00 T+NSF 34775 19300
0,85-0,85-6,3-4-S250 0,88 0,88 T+PO 21092 15431
0,85-1-6,3-4-S250 0,89 1,04 T+NSF 25660 15515
0,85-1,5-6,3-4-S250 0,88 1,61 NSF 25648 25706
1-1-6,3-4-S350-A 1,04 1,05 T+PO 27617 16351
1-1-6,3-4-S350-B 1,05 1,05 T+PO 26005 15498
0,85-0,85-4,8-4-S250 0,88 0,88 T+PO 21795 52243
0,85-1-4,8-4-S250 0,88 1,04 T+PO 25105 17496
0,85-1,5-4,8-4-S250 0,88 1,59 T+B+NSF 28173 22205
1-1-4,8-4-S250-A 1,03 1,04 T+PO 26540 12493
1-1-4,8-4-S250-B 1,04 1,04 T+PO 25941 15498
0,85-1-6,3-3-S250 0,87 1,04 T+PO 20006 10110
0,85-1,5-6,3-3-S250 0,88 1,62 T+B+NSF 26734 13765
1-1-6,3-3-S250-A 1,03 1,03 T+PO 19804 13837
1-1-6,3-3-S250-B 1,04 1,04 T+PO 19950 16093
0,85-1-4,8-3-S250 0,87 1,04 T+PO 20579 13956
0,85-1,5-4,8-3-S250 0,88 1,60 T+B+NSF 24936 24973
1-1-4,8-3-S250-A 1,03 1,03 T+PO 20868 17742
1-1-4,8-3-S250-B 1,04 1,03 T+PO 21230 16143
0,85-0,85-6,3-1-S250 0,88 0,87 T+PO 5203 4300
0,85-1-6,3-1-S250 0,87 1,03 T+PO 6686 4410
0,85-1,5-6,3-1-S250 0,88 1,59 T+(B)+PO 12232 5923
1-1-6,3-1-S250-A 1,03 1,03 T+PO 6923 4271
1-1-6,3-1-S250-B 1,04 1,03 T+PO 7013 2856
1-1-6,3-1-S250-C 1,04 1,04 T+PO 6881 6479
1-1-6,3-1-S250-D 1,03 1,04 T+PO 7332 5467
1-1-6,3-1-S250-E 1,05 1,03 T+PO 7354 5516
1-1-6,3-1-S250-F 1,04 1,04 T+PO 7052 5868
1-1-6,3-1-S250-G 1,03 1,03 T+PO 7138 6775
0,85-1-4,8-1-S250 0,88 1,03 T+(B)+PO 6800 5824
0,85-1,5-4,8-1-S250 0,88 1,58 T+PO 9349 19531
1-1-4,8-1-S250-A 1,04 1,03 T+PO 6183 3715
1-1-4,8-1-S250-B 1,04 1,04 T+PO 6625 2282
52
The thickness of the straps and the number of screws determine the mode of collapse. For straps of the
same thickness (t
1
= t
2
), tilting always occurs from the beginning. The final failure mode is either pull-
out, see Fig. 2.4(a), if the number of screws is small (4 columns or less), or net section failure, see Fig.
2.4(b), for joints with 6 columns of screws.
For straps of different thickness (t
1
< t
2
), bearing of the thinner sheet may be as significant as tilting at
the beginning, see Fig. 2.4(c). The final mode of failure also depends on the number of screws. Pull-out
or pull-through occurs in joints with only one column of screws; net section failure, in joints with six
columns. Joints with an intermediate number of screws fail in any of the three mentioned ultimate
modes of collapse: pull-out, pull-through, see Fig. 2.4(d), or net section failure.
According to Table 2.2, there are basically two failure modes:
T+NSF: tilting (and bearing) + net section failure.
T+B+PO: tilting + bearing + pull out (or pull through)
Fig. 2.5 shows representative force-displacement curves. For T+NSF joints, three well defined branches
can be seen: elastic, hardening and failure. For T+B+PO joints, on the other hand, yielding and failure
occur gradually, and the branches are not so well defined.

(a) (b)
Fig. 2.5. Force-displacement curves of screwed joints:
(a) tilting + net section failure; (b) tilting + bearing + pull-out.
Load-unload tensile tests
The unloading of the specimens does not change the results of the tests. The F-d curves, the modes of
failure and the ultimate loads are similar to those of the monotonic tensile tests. For the sake of
comparison, Fig. 2.6 shows, plotted in the same graph, curves of monotonic and load-unload tests: both
curves are almost coincident, apart from the unloading branches.

Fig. 2.6. Force-displacement curves of screwed joints:
monotonic and load-unload tests give very similar results.
53
Analysis: ductility and str ength of scr ewed connections
The ductility of the connections can be quantified by means of the displacement ductility ratio r
d
=d
u
/d
y
,
where d
u
is the displacement corresponding to the maximum load, and d
y
is the displacement at yielding
(both displacements are determined visually from the force-displacement curve). The screwed
connections show medium to high degree of ductility, most of the ratios calculated are above 2. This
can be seen in Fig. 2.7, which also reveals that the T+B+PO failure (circles) is less ductile than the
T+NSF failure (crosses). The analysis also shows than S-250 steel is more ductile than S-350 steel.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 20000 40000 60000 80000
Put (N)
r
d
T+NSF
T+B+PO

Fig. 2.7. Displacement ductility ratio vs. ultimate load in screwed joints
A key requirement in seismic design is to ensure the dissipative action of the bracings. To do so,
yielding of the straps should take place before failure of the connections and before the collapse of other
members of the structure. To check this requirement, the strength ductility ratio is defined as r
f =
P
ut
/(A
t
f
yt
), where P
ut
is the experimental ultimate load of the connection, A
t
is the measured gross cross
section area of the thinner strap (from Table 2.2), and f
yt
is the measured yield stress of the steel (Table
2.1).
Strength ductility ratios are plotted in Fig. 2.8. All T+B+PO joints have ratios below one. This means
that joints collapse before yielding of the bracings, so T+B+PO joints are not suitable for seismic
design. On the contrary, all the T+NSF joints show ratios greater than one. Therefore, these are the
joints to be used in x-braced frames because, with them, yielding of the straps can occur.
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
0 20000 40000 60000 80000
P
ut
(N)
r
f
T+NSF
T+B+PO

Fig. 2.8. Strength ductility ratio vs. ultimate load in screwed joints
As a final analysis, the experimental ultimate loads are compared to the values predicted according to
prEN1993-1-3 (2005). For T+NSF joints, there is a very good agreement: the ratio of experimental to
predicted values has a mean value of 0.98 and a standard deviation of 0.043, see also Table 2.3 and Fig.
2.9. For T+B+PO joints connecting straps of the same thickness, the results of the bearing formulas of
Eurocode are considered acceptable, although they are not so good. In this case, the mean value of the
experimental-predicted ratio and the standard deviation are 1.14 and 0.09, respectively, see Table 2.4
and Fig. 2.10. On the contrary, when the formulas are applied to T+B+PO joints connecting two straps
of different thickness, the predictions of the ultimate loads are considered too conservative, showing a
experimental-predicted mean ratio of 1.69 and a standard deviation of 0.21, see Table 2.5 and Fig. 2.12.
54
It is believed that the main drawbacks of the bearing formulas are that they do not appropriately take
into account the thickness of the thicker strap, and the fact that they were defined for the 3 mm
displacement maximum load, see Tables 2.4 and 2.5, and Fig. 2.11.
In fact, the calculations were remade after introducing two small changes in the Eurocode 3 formulas.
On the one hand, the strength of joints with t
1
< t
2
< 2,5t
1
is determined by using an equivalent
thickness which is the mean value of t
1
and t
2
. According to Rogers and Hancock (1999), a similar
approach is used in the Canadian design standard, which provides a formula based on a combination of
t
1
and t
2
. On the other hand, Fig. 2.12 shows that the experimental strength of two of the connections
with t
1
< 1 mm is clearly underestimated. For this reason, it was decided to use for all the specimens
(whatever the thickness) the formula proposed by Eurocode 3 for specimens with thickness greater than
1 mm. In fact, older versions of Eurocode 3 also used the same formula for thickness below and above 1
mm, see Table 8.2 in ENV 1993-1-3 (1996).
With these two changes, the analytical predictions are still conservative, but I a lower degree than the
current Eurocode 3 formulas: the experimental-analytical mean ratio is 1.26 and the standard deviation
is 0.14. Further work should be done to improve the predictions given by the bearing formulas.
Table 2.3. Experimental vs predicted ultimate loads of T+NSF joints.
(Values in italics correspond to joints that were predicted to fail T+B+PO).
P
ut
: measured ultimate load, P
ud
: calculated ultimate load.
Connection P
ut
(N) P
ud
(N)
P
ut
/
P
ud

Connection P
ut
(N) P
ud
(N)
P
ut
/
P
ud

1-1-6,3-6-S350-A 40970 43127 0,95 1,5-3-6,3-3-S350 64360 66351 0,97
1-1-6,3-6-S350-B 41246 42965 0,96 0,85-1-6,3-6-S250 27040 25752 1,05
1-1-6,3-6-S350-C 40843 42545 0,96 0,85-1,5-6,3-6-S250 26311 25300 1,04
1-1-6,3-6-S350-D 40494 43542 0,93 1-1-6,3-6-S250-A 34258 33919 1,01
1-1-6,3-S350-E 41157 42873 0,96 1-1-6,3-6-S250-B 34064 34409 0,99
1-1,5-6,3-6-S350 42735 43167 0,99 0,85-0,85-4,8-6-S250 25126 26174 0,96
1,5-1,5-6,3-6-S350 65295 66628 0,98 0,85-1-4,8-6-S250 27587 26274 1,05
1,5-3-6,3-6-S350 66592 67265 0,99 0,85-1,5-4,8-6-S250 27268 25249 1,08
1-1-4,8-6-S350-A 40179 44644 0,90 1-1-4,8-6-S250-A 32642 34002 0,96
1-1-4,8-6-S350-B 39890 44323 0,90 1-1-4,8-6-S250-B 34775 34094 1,02
1-3-4,8-6-S350-A 42696 44475 0,96 0,85-1-6,3-4-S250 25660 25661 1,00
1-3-4,8-6-S350-B 43265 45068 0,96 0,85-1,5-6,3-4-S250 25648 25394 1,01
1,5-1,5-4,8-6-S350 64472 67866 0,95 0,85-1,5-4,8-4-S250 28173 29347 0,96
1,5-3-6,3-4-S350-A 66067 66067 1,00 0,85-1,5-6,3-3-S250 26734 25221 1,06
1,5-3-6,3-4-S350-B 66528 65869 1,01 0,85-1,5-4,8-3-S250 24936 26249 0,95
1-3-4,8-4-S350 42614 44857 0,95
0,85
0,9
0,95
1
1,05
1,1
0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8
t1 (mm)
P
u
t

/

P
u
d

Fig. 2.9. Ratio P
ut
/P
ud
for T+NSF joints.
55
Table 2.4. Experimental vs predicted ultimate loads of T+B+PO joints connecting two identical straps.
P3: load at 3 mm displacement, P
ud
: calculated ultimate load, P
ut
: measured ultimate load.
Connection P
3
(N) P
ut
(N) P
ud
(N) P
3
/P
ud
P
ut
/ P
ud

1-1-6,3-4-S350-A 27679 32793 30086 0,92 1,09
1-1-6,3-4-S350-B 28118 32306 29913 0,94 1,08
1,5-1,5-6,3-4-S350 52548 57745 57745 0,91 1
1-1-4,8-4-S350-A 24327 29418 28287 0,86 1,04
1-1-4,8-4-S350-B 24409 29802 28383 0,86 1,05
1,5-1,5-4,8-4-S350 42197 52125 49644 0,85 1,05
1-1-6,3-3-S350-A 20553 25070 22586 0,91 1,11
1-1-6,3-3-S350-B 22898 25165 22671 1,01 1,11
1-1-4,8-3-S350-A 16425 24131 20278 0,81 1,19
1-1-4,8-3-S350-B 18963 22090 19549 0,97 1,13
1,5-1,5-4,8-3-S350 33960 38438 37319 0,91 1,03
1-1-6,3-1-S350-A 6814 8025 7571 0,90 1,06
1-1-6,3-1-S350-B 7839 8212 7611 1,03 1,08
1,5-1,5-6,3-1-S350 15090 15089 13718 1,10 1,1
1-1-4,8-1-S350-A 5163 7647 6536 0,79 1,12
1-1-4,8-1-S350-B 6159 7580 6768 0,91 1,17
1,5-1,5-4,8-1-S350 12234 13495 12612 0,97 1,07
0,85-0,85-6,3-4-S250 16120 21092 17149 0,94 1,23
1-1-6,3-4-S250-A 25609 27617 25107 1,02 1,1
1-1-6,3-4-S250-B 24505 26005 25005 0,98 1,04
0,85-0,85-4,8-4-S250 20461 21795 14827 1,38 1,47
1-1-4,8-4-S250-A 20449 26540 21754 0,94 1,22
1-1-4,8-4-S250-B 20225 25941 21984 0,92 1,18
1-1-6,3-3-S250-A 19623 19804 18169 1,08 1,09
1-1-6,3-3-S250-B 18087 19950 18646 0,97 1,07
1-1-4,8-3-S250-A 17016 20868 16053 1,06 1,3
1-1-4,8-3-S250-B 16442 21230 15963 1,03 1,33
0,85-0,85-6,3-1-S250 5039 5203 4130 1,22 1,26
1-1-6,3-1-S250-A 6862 6923 6127 1,12 1,13
1-1-6,3-1-S250-B 6337 7013 6152 1,03 1,14
1-1-6,3-1-S250-C 6255 6881 6255 1,00 1,1
1-1-6,3-1-S250-D 6293 7332 6110 1,03 1,2
1-1-6,3-1-S250-E 6680 7354 6128 1,09 1,2
1-1-6,3-1-S250-F 6440 7052 6133 1,05 1,15
1-1-6,3-1-S250-G 6658 7138 6153 1,082 1,16
1-1-4,8-1-S250-A 5458 6183 5377 1,015 1,15
1-1-4,8-1-S250-B 4417 6625 5387 0,82 1,23
56
0,8
0,9
1
1,1
1,2
1,3
1,4
1,5
1,6
0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8
t1 (mm)
P
u
t

/

P
u
d
1 column
> 1 column

Fig. 2.10. Ratio Put/Pud for T+B+PO joints (t
1
=t
2
)

0,8
0,9
1
1,1
1,2
1,3
1,4
1,5
1,6
0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8
t1 (mm)
P
3

/

P
u
d
1 colum
> 1 column

Fig. 2.11. Ratio P3/P
ud
for T+B+PO joints (t
1
=t
2
).
Table 2.5. Experimental vs predicted ultimate loads of T+B+PO joints connecting two different straps.
P3: load at 3 mm displacement, P
ud
: calculated ultimate load, P
ut
: measured ultimate load.
Connection P
3
(N) P
ut
(N) P
ud
(N) P
3
/P
ud
P
ut
/ P
ud

1-1,5-4,8-3-S350 24127 36417 22761 1,06 1,60
1-3-4,8-3-S350 33422 36792 28086 1,19 1,31
1-1,5-6,3-1-S350 10525 14880 9073 1,16 1,64
1,5-3-6,3-1-S350-A 23684 31172 17415 1,36 1,79
1,5-3-6,3-1-S350-B 14019 30405 18207 0, 77 1,67
1-1,5-4,8-1-S350 8641 13720 7580 1,14 1,81
0,85-1-4,8-4-S250 13299 25105 14943 0,89 1,68
0,85-1-6,3-3-S250 16855 20006 13703 1,23 1,46
0,85-1-4,8-3-S250 13873 20579 11561 1,20 1,78
0,85-1-6,3-1-S250 4834 6686 4518 1,07 1,48
0,85-1,5-6,3-1-S250 7884 12232 5797 1,36 2,11
0,85-1-4,8-1-S250 4313 6800 3886 1,11 1,75
0,85-1,5-4,8-1-S250 7768 9349 4795 1,62 1,95
57
1
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
2
2,2
0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6
t1 (mm)
P
u
t

/

P
u
d
1 column
> 1 column

Fig. 2.12. Ratio P
ut
/P
ud
for T+B+PO joints (t
1
<t
2
).
Recommendations for seismic design
The above analysis clearly shows that T+NSF joints are suitable for seismic design whereas T+B+PO
joints are not. To favour T+NSF behaviour, the following practical recommendations are given:
Place enough screws in joint to avoid bearing and allow net section failure of the strap
Connect two sheets of different thickness (for instance, a thin diagonal strap with a thick gusset)
Remark: all the tests and analyses of Section 2.4.1 refer to screwed joints between straps of constant
width. The conclusions and recommendations, especially regarding the superiority of T+NSF
behaviour, may not be directly applicable to other typologies. For a dog-bone shape strap, for instance,
a bearing failure may provide enough ductility.
2.4.2. Bolted joints
These tests are reported in detail in document PR377/WP2/BD002 (2004) and in Casafont et al.
(2006b).
Test specimens
Tests are performed on bolted connections between two straps, see Fig. 2.13, of steel grade S-350
GD+Z or S-250 GD+Z. Bolts of two different diameters were used to connect the straps: 8 and 10 mm.
Washers were used in some of the specimens.

Fig. 2.13. Bolted lap joint between straps
58
d'4
d'2
c
'
2
d'3
c
'
1
d'1
b
b2
b1
direction of
load transfer
a
1
c
'
3
c
'
4
4
3
2
a
2
1(diameter of the bolt 1)
The joint layout is shown in Fig. 2.14. The length of the steel straps is 350 mm (for one column of
bolts) or 375 mm (fot two columns), the width is 100 mm and the thickness varies between 0,85 mm
and 3 mm (see Table 2.1).Joints are designated with the notation
t
1
- t
2
- 4 - nc - sg (for example, 1-1.5-8-1-S250)
t
1
: thickness of the first strap (t
1
=1 mm), t
2
: thickness of the second strap (t
2
=1,5 mm), 4: diameter of
the bolt (4 = 8 mm), nc: number of bolt columns (nc=1), sg: steel grade (S-250 GD+Z).

Fig. 2.14. Joint layout of bolted joints
Test pr ocedur e
The test procedure is the same as for screwed joints, see Section 2.4.1: both monotonic and load-unload
displacement-controlled tensile tests are performed.
Test r esults
Monotonic tensile tests
The specimens show various phenomena: tilting (T), bearing (B), curling and tearing of the sheets (TS),
and net section failure (NSF). Tilting and bearing are observed in all the joints. Depending on the final
mode of failure, joints can be classified into two groups: joints that fail due to the bearing phenomenon
(T+B+TS), and joints that fail due to net section failure (T+B+NSF), see Fig. 2.15.

(a) (b)
Fig. 2.15. Failure modes in bolted joints:
(a) bearing failure (T+B+TS); (b) net section failure (T+B+NSF)
Table 2.6 shows the test results of all bolted joints. All the joints with one column of bolts fail due to
bearing (T+B+TS). For the joints with two columns, it depends on the diameter of the bolts and the
thickness of the straps. Net section failure (T+B+NSF) is observed in joints with two columns of 10 mm
diameter bolts and in joints with two columns of 8 mm diameter bolts connecting straps of different
thickness. Joints connecting straps of the same thickness by means of two columns of 8 mm diameter
bolts fail due to bearing (T+B+TS).
59
Table 2.6. Results of tests on bolted joints. t
1t
: measured t1 thickness, t
2t
: measured t
2
thickness, P
ut
:
measured ultimate load, k
1
: stiffness of the first linear branch, k
2
: stiffness of the second linear branch,
T: tilting, B: bearing, NSF: net section failure, TS: tearing of the sheet.
Connection
t
1t

(mm)
t
2t

(mm)
Failure
mode
P
ut

(N)
k
1

(N/mm)
k
2

(N/mm)
0,85-0,85-10-2-S250 0,88 0,89 T+B+NSF 22731 75323 -
0,85-1-10-2-S250 0,88 1,03 T+B+NSF 23842 66268 6239
0,85-1,5-10-2-S250 0,88 1,54 T+B+NSF 24450 95235 8811
1-1-10-2-S250-A 1,02 1,04 T+B+NSF 27884 75260 7538
1-1-10-2-S250-B 1,04 1,04 T+B+NSF 28160 80692 8612
1-1-10-2-S250-C 1,02 1,04 T+B+NSF 28095 78000 9174
1-1-10-2-S250-D 1,04 1,02 T+B+NSF 27828 75965 8087
1-1-10-2-S250-E(W) 1,01 1,04 T+B+NSF 30039 69000 9450
1-1-10-2-S250-F(W) 1,03 1,02 T+B+NSF 30746 61031 8919
1-1-10-2-S250-G 1,03 1,03 T+B+NSF 28332 74353 7549
1-1,5-10-2-S250 1,03 1,59 T+B+NSF 30112 85337 11271
1,5-1,5-10-2-S250 1,57 1,59 T+B+NSF 44734 121200 14890
0,85-0,85-8-2-S250 0,88 0,88 T+B+TS 20529 67083 -
0,85-1-8-2-S250 0,87 1,04 T+B+NSF 20433 68744 3470
0,85-1,5-8-2-S250 0,88 1,59 T+B+NSF 23131 81365 5096
1-1-8-2-S250-A 1,03 1,04 T+B+TS 22829 83900 5883
1-1-8-2-S250-B 1,04 1,58 T+B+TS 22441 84000 6842
1-1,5-8-2-S250 1,04 1,58 T+B+NSF 28419 66700 9306
1,5-1,5-8-2-S250 1,59 1,59 T+B+TS 37572 78520 10761
0,85-0,85-10-1-S250 0,89 0,89 T+B+TS 14335 97228 -
0,85-1-10-1-S250 0,88 1,04 T+B+TS 12933 64200 3592
0,85-1,5-10-1-S250 0,88 1,57 T+B+TS 12508 54208 5206
1-1-10-1-S250-A 1,05 1,05 T+B+TS 15391 76850 4427
1-1-10-1-S250-B 1,05 1,04 T+B+TS 15279 57454 4585
1-1-10-1-S250-C 1,04 1,04 T+B+TS 14395 60836 4431
1-1-10-1-S250-D 1,04 1,04 T+B+TS 15326 60622 4147
1-1-10-1-S250-E(W) 1,04 1,03 T+B+TS 17537 76350 6600
1-1-10-1-S250-F(W) 1,02 1,02 T+B+TS 17865 64533 5201
1-1-10-1-S250-G 1,03 1,03 T+B+TS 15132 66428 4061
1-1,5-10-1-S250 1,05 1,59 T+B+TS 14158 63216 4396
1,5-1,5-10-1-S250 1,60 1,59 T+B+TS 25872 83000 7901
0,85-0,85-8-1-S250 0,88 0,88 T+B+TS 12374 57750 4993
0,85-1-8-1-S250 0,88 1,03 T+B+TS 10082 60417 3490
0,85-1,5-8-1-S250 0,89 1,58 T+B+TS 10344 65366 2164
1-1-8-1-S250-A 1,05 1,04 T+B+TS 12189 69388 3297
1-1-8-1-S250-B 1,04 1,04 T+B+TS 12180 47137 2834
1-1,5-8-1-S250 1,04 1,57 T+B+TS 13137 68450 3466
1,5-1,5-8-1-S250 1,58 1,58 T+B+TS 21855 100500 5134
1-1-10-1-S350(W) 0,99 0,98 T+B+TS 19575 61766 5978
1,5-1,5-10-1-S350(W) 1,48 1,48 T+B+TS 45471 71550 9391
1-1-10-2-S350-A(W) 0,98 0,98 T+B+NSF 39120 65937 9676
1-1-10-2-S350-B(W) 0,99 0,98 T+B+NSF 38710 57000 9574
1,5-1,5-10-2-S350(W) 1,50 1,50 T+B+NSF 59690 82300 15752
60
Load-unload tensile tests
Like in the case of screwed joints, the unloading of the specimens does not change the results of the
tests. The force-displacement curves, the modes of failure and the ultimate loads are similar to those of
the monotonic tensile tests.
Analysis: ductility and str ength of bolted connections
The displacement ductility ratio (see definition in Section 2.4.1) of bolted connections is shown in Fig.
2.16. All the values are above 2, so the joints can be regarded as ductile. Note also that T+B+NSF joints
are more ductile than T+B+TS joints. This situation is very similar to the one encountered for screwed
connections (cf. Figs. 2.7 and 2.16).
The strength ductility ratio (see definition also in Section 2.4.1) is plotted in Fig. 2.17. The ratios of the
T+B+TS joints are rather low, ranging from 0.4 to about 0.8. Ratios of T+B+NSF joints are better, but
most of them are also below 1. This contrasts the results of screwed connections, where NSF joints have
strength ratios larger than 1 (cf. Figs. 2.8 and 2.1). Therefore, it can be concluded from these results that
bolted connections are not suitable for seismic design: they do not allow the dissipative action of
diagonal straps in X-braced frames.

Fig. 2.16. Displacement ductility ratio vs. ultimate load in bolted joints

Fig. 2.17. Strength ductility ratio vs. ultimate load in bolted joints
Regarding prEN1993-1-3 predictions, there is a fair agreement for T+B+NSF joints (mean value of 1.14
and standard deviation of 0.05 in the ratio of experimental to theoretical ultimate loads), see Table 2.7.
For T+B+TS joints, a good average is obtained (mean value: 1.05) but the dispersion is quite larger
(standard deviation: 0.16).
61
Table 2.7. Calculated strengths and strength ratios for bolted joints. P
n,Rd
: calculated net-section resis-
tance, P
b,Rd
: calculated bearing resistance, P
ut
: measured ultimate load,.
Connection
Failure
mode
P
ut
(N)
P
n,Rd

(N)
P
b,Rd

(N)
Rd , n
ut
P
P

Rd , b
ut
P
P

0,85-0,85-10-2-S250 T+B+NSF 22731 19889,3 20981,5 1,14 -
0,85-1-10-2-S250 T+B+NSF 23842 19899,5 20981,5 1,20 -
0,85-1,5-10-2-S250 T+B+NSF 24450 19886,8 20981,5 1,23 -
1-1-10-2-S250-A T+B+NSF 27884 26544,5 29322,0 1,05 -
1-1-10-2-S250-B T+B+NSF 28160 26692,1 29724,9 1,06 -
1-1-10-2-S250-C T+B+NSF 28095 26152,8 28921,1 1,07 -
1-1-10-2-S250-D T+B+NSF 27828 26149,5 28921,1 1,06 -
1-1-10-2-S250-E (W) T+B+NSF 30039 26203,2 28921,1 1,15 -
1-1-10-2-S250-F (W) T+B+NSF 30746 26173,0 28921,1 1,17 -
1-1-10-2-S250-G T+B+NSF 28332 26412,3 29322,0 1,07 -
1-1,5-10-2-S250 T+B+NSF 30112 26705,8 29724,9 1,13 -
1,5-1,5-10-2-S250 T+B+NSF 44734 41057,2 49852,5 1,09 -
0,85-0,85-8-2-S250 T+B+TS 20529 19490,9 19764,6 - 1,04
0,85-1-8-2-S250 T+B+NSF 20433 19256,5 19482,2 1,06 -
0,85-1,5-8-2-S250 T+B+NSF 23131 19490,9 19789,8 1,19 -
1-1-8-2-S250-A T+B+TS 22829 26157,9 28143,6 - 0,81
1-1-8-2-S250-B T+B+TS 22441 26157,9 28072,2 - 0,80
1-1,5-8-2-S250 T+B+NSF 28419 26460,8 28454,8 1,07 -
1,5-1,5-8-2-S250 T+B+TS 37572 40468,1 47328,2 - 0,79
0,85-0,85-10-1-S250 T+B+TS 14335 17377,2 10654,8 - 1,35
0,85-1-10-1-S250 T+B+TS 12933 17177,1 10490,8 - 1,23
0,85-1,5-10-1-S250 T+B+TS 12508 17172,7 10490,8 - 1,19
1-1-10-1-S250-A T+B+TS 15391 23291,1 15065,0 - 1,02
1-1-10-1-S250-B T+B+TS 15279 23297,0 15065,0 - 1,01
1-1-10-1-S250-C T+B+TS 14395 23052,2 14862,5 - 0,97
1-1-10-1-S250-D T+B+TS 15326 23291,1 15065,0 - 1,02
1-1-10-1-S250-E (W) T+B+TS 17537 23049,3 14862,5 - 1,18
1-1-10-1-S250-F (W) T+B+TS 17865 22819,4 14661,0 - 1,22
1-1-10-1-S250-G T+B+TS 15132 22825,2 14661,0 - 1,03
1-1,5-10-1-S250 T+B+TS 14158 23306,0 15065,0 - 0,94
1,5-1,5-10-1-S250 T+B+TS 25872 35917,4 25252,1 - 1,02
0,85-0,85-8-1-S250 T+B+TS 12374 15201,3 9920,1 - 1,25
0,85-1-8-1-S250 T+B+TS 10082 15249,5 9882,3 - 1,02
0,85-1,5-8-1-S250 T+B+TS 10344 15234,7 9882,3 - 1,05
1-1-8-1-S250-A T+B+TS 12189 20433,3 14036,1 - 0,87
1-1-8-1-S250-B T+B+TS 12180 20418,4 14018,3 - 0,87
1-1,5-8-1-S250 T+B+TS 13137 20393,5 14000,5 - 0,94
1,5-1,5-8-1-S250 T+B+TS 21855 31398,9 23480,5 - 0,93
1-1-10-1-S350 (W) T+B+TS 19575 28994,6 18346,3 - 1,07
1,5-1,5-10-1-S350 (W) T+B+TS 45471 44394,4 31140,0 - 1,46
1-1-10-2-S350-A (W) T+B+NSF 39120 33585,6 36692,6 1,16 -
1-1-10-2-S350-B (W) T+B+NSF 38710 33589,9 36692,6 1,05 -
1,5-1,5-10-2-S350 (W) T+B+NSF 59690 51986,2 62712,5 1,15 -
The effect of washers on the strength and behaviour of joints is also investigated. Washers increase the
ultimate load, especially for T+B+NSF joints, and better strength ductility ratios (above 1) are obtained.
However, these values are still lower than the ones for self-drilling screws.
62
Recommendations for seismic design
The analysis of the above sections clearly shows that screws are more suitable than bolts for seismic
design. The main reason is that bolts cause a larger reduction of the strap net section than screws. The
seismic suitability of bolted joints may be increased by:
Using only one row of bolts (rather than two) with washers
Drilling the minimum feasible hole
Choosing the steel with the largest ratio of ultimate to yield strength
Widening the straps in the perforated areas (i.e. dog-bone shaped strap), if manufacturing
constraints allow (as already pointed out for screwed joints, all testing and analysis reported here is
for straps of constant width)
2.4.3. Rosette joints
Four series of tensile tests with Rosette joints were carried out, see Table 2.8 and documents
PR377/WP2/BD002 (2004) and PR377/WP2/E009 (2004).
Series 1: UPC (original Rosette joints d=20 mm and d=50 mm)
Series 2: VTT (original Rosette joints d=20 mm; different steel grades)
Series 3: VTT (improved Rosette joints d=20 mm)
Series 4: UPC (improved Rosette joints d=20 mm)
Test specimens
Series 1
Two nested U profiles of thickness 1, 1.5 and 2 mm are joined with Rosette joints of diameter 20 mm
and 50 mm, see Figs. 2.18(a) and 2.18(b).
Series 2
Two straps (one of them with flanges in joint zone) of thickness 1, 1.5 and 2 mm are joined with
Rosette joints of diameter 20 mm, see Fig. 2.18(c). Various steel grades are tested: RAGAL 340 HSF Z,
RAGAL 380 HSF Z and RAGAL 350 S Z.
Series 3 and 4
Two opposite U profiles joined with new Rosette joints (double collar) of diameter 20 mm, see Fig.
2.18(d).

(a) (b) (c) (d)
Fig. 2.18. Rosette joints: (a) nested U profiles, d=20 mm; (b) nested U profiles, d=50 mm;
(c) simple straps and U profiles, d=20 mm; (d) improved Rosette joint, d=20 mm.
63
T
a
b
l
e

2
.
8
.

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

o
f

R
o
s
e
t
t
e

j
o
i
n
t
s

R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

T
y
p
e

o
f

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

(
m
m
)

S
t
e
e
l

g
r
a
d
e

P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
r
o
f
i
l
e
s

C
o
l
l
a
r

s
i
z
e

(
m
m
)

C
o
l
l
a
r

t
y
p
e

T
y
p
e

o
f

t
e
s
t

F
a
i
l
u
r
e

m
o
d
e

F
a
i
l
u
r
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

S
e
r
i
e
s

1

(
U
P
C
)

1
.
0
-
1
.
0
-
2
0
-
A

U

1
.
0
/
1
.
0

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

N
e
s
t
e
d

2
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
o
n
o
t
o
n
i
c

B
e
a
r
i
n
g

1
8
.
0
0

1
.
0
-
1
.
0
-
2
0
-
B

U

1
.
0
/
1
.
0

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

N
e
s
t
e
d
2
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

L
o
a
d
-
u
n
l
o
a
d

B
e
a
r
i
n
g
2
1
.
3
3

1
.
5
-
1
.
5
-
2
0
-
A

U

1
.
5
/
1
.
5

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

N
e
s
t
e
d
2
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
o
n
o
t
o
n
i
c

B
e
a
r
i
n
g
2
8
.
0
4

1
.
5
-
1
.
5
-
2
0
-
B

U

1
.
5
/
1
.
5

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

N
e
s
t
e
d
2
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

L
o
a
d
-
u
n
l
o
a
d

B
e
a
r
i
n
g
2
7
.
7
2

1
.
5
-
1
.
5
-
5
0
-
A

U

1
.
5
/
1
.
5

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

N
e
s
t
e
d
5
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
o
n
o
t
o
n
i
c

B
e
a
r
i
n
g
2
4
.
2
6

1
.
5
-
1
.
5
-
5
0
-
B

U

1
.
5
/
1
.
5

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

N
e
s
t
e
d
5
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

L
o
a
d
-
u
n
l
o
a
d

B
e
a
r
i
n
g
2
4
.
0
2

2
.
0
-
2
.
0
-
5
0
-
A

U

2
.
0
/
2
.
0

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

N
e
s
t
e
d
5
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
o
n
o
t
o
n
i
c

B
e
a
r
i
n
g
2
3
.
1
0

2
.
0
-
2
.
0
-
5
0
-
B

U

2
.
0
/
2
.
0

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

N
e
s
t
e
d
5
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

L
o
a
d
-
u
n
l
o
a
d

B
e
a
r
i
n
g
2
5
.
8
7

S
e
r
i
e
s

2

(
V
T
T
)

1
.
1

S
t
r
a
p
s

1
.
0
/
1
.
5

R
a
g
a
l

3
4
0

H
S
F

2
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
o
n
o
t
o
n
i
c

6
.
2
6

1
.
2

S
t
r
a
p
s

1
.
5
/
1
.
5

R
a
g
a
l

3
4
0

H
S
F

Z
2
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
o
n
o
t
o
n
i
c

1
0
.
8
0

1
.
3

S
t
r
a
p
s

1
.
5
/
1
.
5

R
a
g
a
l

3
8
0

H
S
F

Z
2
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
o
n
o
t
o
n
i
c

1
2
.
2
6

2
.
1

S
t
r
a
p
s

2
.
0
/
2
.
0

R
a
g
a
l

3
5
0

H
S
F

Z
2
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
o
n
o
t
o
n
i
c

1
6
.
1
1

2
.
2

S
t
r
a
p
s

2
.
0
/
1
.
5

R
a
g
a
l

3
5
0

H
S
F

Z
2
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
o
n
o
t
o
n
i
c

1
1
.
4
2

2
.
3

S
t
r
a
p
s

1
.
5
/
2
.
0

R
a
g
a
l

3
5
0

H
S
F

Z
2
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
o
n
o
t
o
n
i
c

1
3
.
9
0

2
.
4

S
t
r
a
p
s

2
.
0
/
2
.
0

R
a
g
a
l

3
5
0

H
S
F

Z
2
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
o
n
o
t
o
n
i
c

1
6
.
0
4

2
.
5

S
t
r
a
p
s

2
.
0
/
1
.
5

R
a
g
a
l

3
5
0

H
S
F

Z
2
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
o
n
o
t
o
n
i
c

1
1
.
8
3

2
.
6

S
t
r
a
p
s

1
.
5
/
2
.
0

R
a
g
a
l

3
5
0

H
S
F

Z
2
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
o
n
o
t
o
n
i
c

1
4
.
2
9

2
.
7

S
t
r
a
p
s

2
.
0
/
2
.
0

R
a
g
a
l

3
5
0

H
S
F

Z
2
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
o
n
o
t
o
n
i
c

1
6
.
0
2

2
.
8

S
t
r
a
p
s

2
.
0
/
1
.
5

R
a
g
a
l

3
5
0

H
S
F

Z
2
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
o
n
o
t
o
n
i
c

1
1
.
5
4

2
.
9

S
t
r
a
p
s

1
.
5
/
2
.
0

R
a
g
a
l

3
5
0

H
S
F

Z
2
0

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
o
n
o
t
o
n
i
c

1
4
.
3
8

64
T
a
b
l
e

2
.
8

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

T
y
p
e

o
f

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

(
m
m
)

S
t
e
e
l

g
r
a
d
e

P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
r
o
f
i
l
e
s

C
o
l
l
a
r

s
i
z
e

(
m
m
)

C
o
l
l
a
r

t
y
p
e

T
y
p
e

o
f

t
e
s
t

F
a
i
l
u
r
e

m
o
d
e

F
a
i
l
u
r
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

S
e
r
i
e
s

3

(
V
T
T
)

3
.
1
a

U

1
.
5
/
1
.
5

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e
2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

2
1
.
9
6

3
.
1
b

U

1
.
5
/
1
.
5

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e
2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

2
2
.
4
7

3
.
1
c

U

1
.
5
/
1
.
5

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e
2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

2
1
.
6
0

3
.
1
d

U

1
.
5
/
1
.
5

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e
2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

2
2
.
2
4

3
.
1
e

U

1
.
5
/
1
.
5

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e
2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

2
2
.
0
1

1
.
1

U

1
.
0
/
1
.
0

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e
2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

1
3
.
3

1
.
2

U

1
.
0
/
1
.
0

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e
2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

1
2
.
8

1
.
3

U

1
.
0
/
1
.
0

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e
2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

1
3
.
0

1
.
4

U

1
.
0
/
1
.
0

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e
2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

1
3
.
4

1
.
5

U

1
.
0
/
1
.
0

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e
2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

1
3
.
2

3
.
1

U

1
.
5
/
1
.
5

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e
2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

2
3
.
0

4
.
1

U

2
.
0
/
2
.
0

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e
2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

3
2
.
1

S
e
r
i
e
s

4

(
U
P
C
)

1
.
5
-
1
.
5
-
2
0
-
E

U

1
.
5
/
1
.
5

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

M
o
n
o
t
o
n
i
c

B
e
a
r
i
n
g

2
3
.
3
0

1
.
5
-
1
.
5
-
2
0
-
F

U

1
.
5
/
1
.
5

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

L
o
a
d
-
u
n
l
o
a
d

B
e
a
r
i
n
g
2
2
.
7
9

1
.
5
-
1
.
5
-
2
0
-
G

U

1
.
5
/
1
.
5

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

L
o
a
d
-
u
n
l
o
a
d

B
e
a
r
i
n
g
2
2
.
9
2

1
.
5
-
1
.
5
-
2
0
-
H

U

1
.
5
/
1
.
5

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

L
o
a
d
-
u
n
l
o
a
d

B
e
a
r
i
n
g
2
3
.
8
7

2
.
0
-
2
.
0
-
2
0
-
A

U

2
.
0
/
2
.
0

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

M
o
n
o
t
o
n
i
c

B
e
a
r
i
n
g
3
2
.
1
5

2
.
0
-
2
.
0
-
2
0
-
B

U

2
.
0
/
2
.
0

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

L
o
a
d
-
u
n
l
o
a
d

B
e
a
r
i
n
g
3
1
.
6
7

2
.
0
-
2
.
0
-
2
0
-
C

U

2
.
0
/
2
.
0

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

L
o
a
d
-
u
n
l
o
a
d

B
e
a
r
i
n
g
3
1
.
8
4

2
.
0
-
2
.
0
-
2
0
-
D

U

2
.
0
/
2
.
0

S
-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

O
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

2
0

D
o
u
b
l
e

L
o
a
d
-
u
n
l
o
a
d

B
e
a
r
i
n
g
3
2
.
1
3

65

Test pr ocedur e
Series 1 and 4 were tested at UPC with the same equipment and procedure as described above for
screwed and bolted joints. Series 2 and 3 were tested at VTT under similar conditions, using an Instron
8502 test machine, see Fig. 2.19.

Fig. 2.19. Rosette joint testing at VTT
Test r esults
Original Rosette connections
Two modes of failure are detected in test series 1: yielding of the collar part of the joint, see Fig.
2.20(a), and local buckling of the compressed edge of the hole part combined with yielding of the collar
part, see Fig. 2.20(b).

(a) (b)
Fig. 2.20. Rosette joints, series 1: (a) yielding of the collar part;
(b) buckling of the compressed edge of the hole part
The corresponding force-displacement curves are shown in Fig. 2.21. Note the abrupt drop after the
peak load. This contrasts with the results of screwed and bolted connections, where a high load level is
maintained for an interval of joint elongation.
66
F - d Curve
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
d (mm)
F

(
N
)

F - d Curve
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
d (mm)
F

(
N
)

(a) (b)
Fig. 2.21. Force-displacement curves for the Rosette joints for the two failure modes shown in Fig.
2.20: ( a) yielding of the collar part; (b) buckling of the compressed edge of the hole part
Typical failure mode and force-displacement curve for test series 2 are shown in Fig. 2.22. Note the
tilting of the two members (strap and U profile) and the local buckling effects in the flanges of the U
profile.

(a) (b)
Fig. 2.22. Rosette joints, series 2: (a) failure mode; (b) force-displacement curve
Improved Rosette connections
Figs. 2.23 and 2.24 show typical results for the improved (e.g. double collar) Rosette connection. Note
that failure is due to bearing of the collar.

(a) (b)
67

(a) (b)
Once again, load-unload tests gave very similar results to the monotonic tests.
Analysis: compar ative per for mance of or iginal and impr oved connections
An accurate comparison between the original and the improved Rosette connectors is not attempted
here, because the two designs were tested for different joint configurations (i.e. nested vs. opposite U
profiles). However, a qualitative comparative analysis is carried out by comparing joints with similar
maximum loads, see Fig. 2.25. The general tendency is that the double-collar connector has a higher
ductility and, hence, is more suitable for seismic design.

0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0 2 4 6 8 10
d (mm)
F

(
N
)
New 1.5-1.5-20-E Old 1.5-1.5-50-A
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0 2 4 6 8 10
d (mm)
F

(
N
)
Old 2-2-50-A New 1.5-1.5-20-E
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
d (mm)
F

(
N
)
68

(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 2.25. Rosette joints: (a) original design; (b) new design; (c) comparison of load-displacement
curves
2.5. Joints between diagonal str ap and gusset (phase 2)
These tests are reported in detail in document PR377/WP2/BD002 (2004).
2.5.1. Test specimens
Tests are performed on screwed connections between a strap and a gusset, see Fig. 2.26, of steel grade
S-250 GD+Z. The same types of screws described in Section 2.4.1 are used.

Fig. 2.26. Screwed joint between strap and gusset
2.5.2. Test pr ocedur e
The same test procedure described for phase 1 (joints between two straps) was used. There is only one
difference in the test setup: a special support plate had to be designed and manufactured to connect the
gusset to the grip of the testing machine, see Fig. 2.27. The support plate is designed in such a way that
the test specimen has the same distribution of forces as in the actual structure. To ensure a rigid support,
the plate is 3 mm thick and it is fastened to the specimens by means of 15 bolts (4 =8 mm).

0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
0 2 4 6 8 10
d (mm)
F

(
N
)
Old 1.5-1.5-20-A New 2-2-20-A
69

(a) (b)
Fig. 2.27. Test setup for gusset-strap joint: (a) support plate; (b) specimen ready to be tested
2.5.3. Test r esults
The failure modes are in good agreement with the results for screwed joints between two straps, see
Section 2.4.1. The specimens have a reduced number of screws (less than 6 columns), so they fail due
to tilting and pull-out when t
1
=t
2
(strap and gusset of same thickness), see Fig. 2.28(a), and due to
tilting, bearing and tensile failure of the sheet when t
1
<t
2
(strap thinner than gusset), see Fig. 2.28(b).
Only the two joints connecting the thickest gussets and straps (1.5 mm thick) failed in a new mode:
tilting and failure of the screws, see Fig. 2.28(c).

(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 2.28. Failure modes in gusset-strap joints: (a) pull-out;
(b) tensile failure of the sheet; (c) tensile failure of the screws
70
2.6. Fr ame lower and upper cor ner s (phases 3 and 4)
Up to now, rather simple joint configurations (i.e. lap joints between straps and strap-gusset joints) have
been considered. Since the ultimate goal of the testing activity in the project is to analyze the seismic
performance of shear walls (see chapter 3), frame corners are considered now. The objective is to assess
the interaction of the diagonal strap with the track-stud corner, either via a gusset plate or not. In fact,
these tests helped improving different corner details that were later used in full-scale shear wall tests in
VTT and in small-scale x-braced frames in UPC (see Section 2.7).
Two types of frame corners were tested at UPC:
Finnish specimens (designed and manufactured by Ruukki and Finnmap), made of thermo-slotted
tracks and studs and with no gusset, see Fig. 2.29(a) and document PR377/WP2/BD003 (2004);
Spanish specimens (designed and manufactured by UPC and Teccon, with the information gained
in phase 2), made of solid (i.e. no slots) members and with gusset, see Fig. 2.29(b) and document
PR377/WP2/BD004 (2005).
Both lower and upper corners were considered for each case. Table 2.9 summarizes all the tests.
A
A'
B B'
C
C'

A
A'
b
d
1
B
B'

(a) (b)
Fig. 2.29. Frame corners: (a) without gusset; (b) with gusset
71
T
a
b
l
e

2
.
9
.

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

o
f

c
o
r
n
e
r

t
e
s
t
s
.

P
:

P
u
n
c
h
i
n
g

o
f

t
h
e

t
r
a
c
k
,

N
S
F
:

N
e
t

s
e
c
t
i
o
n

f
a
i
l
u
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

s
t
r
a
p
,

L
B
:

L
o
c
a
l

b
u
c
k
l
i
n
g

o
f

t
h
e

s
t
u
d

o
r
/
a
n
d

t
r
a
c
k
.

R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

C
o
r
n
e
r

t
y
p
e

G
u
s
s
e
t

S
t
e
e
l

g
r
a
d
e

S
t
u
d

t
y
p
e

T
r
a
c
k

t
y
p
e

G
u
s
s
e
t

t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

(
)
S
t
r
a
p

t
h
i
c
k
-
n
e
s
s

(
m
m
)

S
t
r
a
p

w
i
d
t
h

(
)
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

m
o
d
e

F
a
i
l
u
r
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

L
C
1
-
1

l
o
w
e
r

N
o

S

-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

2
x
T
C
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

T
U
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

-

1
.
0

1
5
0

P

1
0
9
.
5
2

L
C
1
-
2

l
o
w
e
r

N
o

S

-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

2
x
T
C
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

T
U
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

-

1
.
0

1
5
0

P

1
0
8
.
7
1

L
C
2

l
o
w
e
r

N
o

S

-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

2
x
T
C
1
5
0
x
1
.
0

T
U
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

-

1
.
0

1
0
0

N
S
F

8
3
.
2
9

L
C
3
-
1

l
o
w
e
r

N
o

S

-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

2
x
T
C
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

T
U
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

-

1
.
0

1
5
0

N
S
F

1
0
7
.
0
9

L
C
3
-
2

l
o
w
e
r

N
o

S

-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

2
x
T
C
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

T
U
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

-

1
.
0

1
5
0

N
S
F

1
0
8

L
C
4

l
o
w
e
r

N
o

S

-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

2
x
T
C
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

T
U
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

-

1
.
5

1
5
0

P

1
2
6
.
3
5

S
L
C
-
1

l
o
w
e
r

Y
e
s

S

-
2
5
0

G
D
+
Z

T
C
1
0
2
x
0
.
8
5
+
2
x
1

m
m

T
U
1
0
4
.
5
x
0
.
8
5

1
.
0

1
.
0

1
0
0

N
S
F

8
6
.
3
8

S
L
C
-
2

l
o
w
e
r

Y
e
s

S

-
2
5
0

G
D
+
Z

T
C
1
0
2
x
0
.
8
5
+
2
x
1

m
m

T
U
1
0
4
.
5
x
0
.
8
5

1
.
5

1
.
0

1
0
0

N
S
F

8
8
.
7
8

S
L
C
-
3

l
o
w
e
r

Y
e
s

S

-
2
5
0

G
D
+
Z

T
C
1
0
2
x
0
.
8
5
+
1
x
1

m
m

T
U
1
0
4
.
5
x
0
.
8
5

1
.
0

1
.
0

6
5

N
S
F

4
6
.
9
1

S
L
C
-
4

l
o
w
e
r

Y
e
s

S

-
2
5
0

G
D
+
Z

T
C
1
0
2
x
0
.
8
5
+
1
x
1

m
m

T
U
1
0
4
.
5
x
0
.
8
5

1
.
5

1
.
0

6
5

N
S
F

4
4
.
8
6

S
L
C
-
5

l
o
w
e
r

Y
e
s

S

-
2
5
0

G
D
+
Z

T
C
1
0
2
x
0
.
8
5
+
1
x
1

m
m

T
U
1
0
4
.
5
x
0
.
8
5

1
.
0

1
.
0

6
5

N
S
F

4
7
.
5
6

S
L
C
-
6

l
o
w
e
r

Y
e
s

S

-
2
5
0

G
D
+
Z

T
C
1
0
2
x
0
.
8
5
+
1
x
1

m
m

T
U
1
0
4
.
5
x
0
.
8
5

1
.
5

1
.
0

6
5

N
S
F

4
5
.
9
3

S
L
C
-
7

l
o
w
e
r

Y
e
s

S

-
2
5
0

G
D
+
Z

T
C
1
0
2
x
0
.
8
5
+
2
x
1

m
m

T
U
1
0
4
.
5
x
0
.
8
5

1
.
0

1
.
0

1
0
0

N
S
F

6
9
.
9
8

S
L
C
-
8

l
o
w
e
r

Y
e
s

S

-
2
5
0

G
D
+
Z

T
C
1
0
2
x
0
.
8
5
+
2
x
1

m
m

T
U
1
0
4
.
5
x
0
.
8
5

1
.
5

1
.
0

1
0
0

P
+
L
B

7
7
.
8
0

U
C
1
-
1
*

u
p
p
e
r

N
o

S

-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

2
x
T
C
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

T
U
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

-

1
.
0

1
5
0

N
S
F

1
2
3
.
3
5

U
C
1
-
2
*

u
p
p
e
r

N
o

S

-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

2
x
T
C
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

T
U
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

-

1
.
0

1
5
0

N
S
F

1
2
2
.
1
6

U
C
2

u
p
p
e
r

N
o

S

-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

2
x
T
C
1
5
0
x
1
.
0

T
U
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

-

1
.
0

1
0
0

L
B

5
5
.
0
4

U
C
3
-
1

u
p
p
e
r

N
o

S

-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

2
x
T
C
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

2
x
T
U
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

-

1
.
0

1
5
0

L
B

7
2
.
6

U
C
3
-
2
*

u
p
p
e
r

N
o

S

-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

2
x
T
C
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

2
x
T
U
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

-

1
.
0

1
5
0

L
B

1
0
9
.
5
2

U
C
4
*

u
p
p
e
r

N
o

S

-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

2
x
T
C
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

2
x
T
U
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

-

1
.
5

1
5
0

L
B

1
1
8
.
9
5

U
C
5

u
p
p
e
r

N
o

S

-
3
5
0

G
D
+
Z

2
x
T
C
1
5
0
x
1
.
5

2
x
T
U
1
5
4
x
1
.
5

-

1
.
0

1
5
0

L
B

9
8
.
9
8

S
U
C
-
1

u
p
p
e
r

Y
e
s

S

-
2
5
0

G
D
+
Z

T
C
1
0
2
x
0
.
8
5
+

T
U
1
0
4
.
5
x
0
.
8
5
+
2
x
1
m
m

1
.
0

1
.
0

6
5

N
S
F

4
6
.
5
7

S
U
C
-
2

u
p
p
e
r

Y
e
s

S

-
2
5
0

G
D
+
Z

T
C
1
0
2
x
0
.
8
5
+

T
U
1
0
4
.
5
x
0
.
8
5
+
2
x
1
m
m

1
.
5

1
.
0

6
5

N
S
F

4
6
.
9
5

S
U
C
-
3

u
p
p
e
r

Y
e
s

S

-
2
5
0

G
D
+
Z

T
C
1
0
2
x
0
.
8
5
+

T
U
1
0
4
.
5
x
0
.
8
5
+
2
x
1
m
m

1
.
0

1
.
0

1
0
0

L
B

6
1
.
7
1

S
U
C
-
4

u
p
p
e
r

Y
e
s

S

-
2
5
0

G
D
+
Z

T
C
1
0
2
x
0
.
8
5
+

T
U
1
0
4
.
5
x
0
.
8
5
+
2
x
1
m
m

1
.
5

1
.
0

1
0
0

L
B
+
N
S
F

6
9
.
5
4

*
J
o
i
n
t
s

U
C
1
-
1
,

U
C
1
-
2
,

U
C
3
-
2

a
n
d

U
C
4

w
e
r
e

r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
d

w
i
t
h
:

o
n
e

1
.
5

m
m

t
h
i
c
k

p
l
a
t
e

a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d

t
o

e
a
c
h

f
l
a
n
g
e

o
f

t
h
e

s
t
u
d
s
,

o
n
e

1
.
5

m
m

t
h
i
c
k

p
l
a
t
e

a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d

t
o

e
a
c
h

f
l
a
n
g
e

o
f

t
h
e

t
r
a
c
k
s

(
o
n
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
o
s
e

j
o
i
n
t
s

t
h
a
t

h
a
v
e

t
w
o

t
r
a
c
k
s
)
,

o
n
e

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

t
r
a
c
k

p
r
o
f
i
l
e

(
o
n
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
o
s
e

j
o
i
n
t
s

t
h
a
t

h
a
v
e

o
n
e

t
r
a
c
k
)
.

A
p
a
r
t

f
r
o
m

t
h
e
s
e

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
,

t
h
e

w
e
b
s

i
n

c
o
n
t
a
c
t

o
f

t
h
e

s
t
u
d
s

w
e
r
e

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

m
e
a
n
s

o
f

6
.
3

m
m

d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r

s
c
r
e
w
s
.

72

Lower corners are connected by means of an anchor bolt to a special test setup that is anchored to a
concrete slab embedded in the laboratory floor, see Fig. 2.30. The two diagonal straps are connected to
a hydraulic cylinder by means of four rectangular plates (two per strap), designed to work by friction.
Rotation is allowed to ensure that straps are loaded axially (i.e. no bending), whatever the angle they
form with the track-stud corner. Force-controlled tests at a rate of 150 N/s are performed.
The same test setup was used for upper corners. However, since upper corners are not anchor-bolted, a
new device was designed to fasten the specimen to the testing device. This tool allowed to loading the
specimens through the diagonal straps and avoiding the displacement of the end sections of studs and
tracks, see Fig. 2.31. After the first two tests, it was decided to use two additional grips to preclude any
slippage between the end of the stud or track and the top plates, see Fig. 2.32.

2x20
L=600 mm
UPN200
#370x120x25
L=350 mm
20
bolt 30
bolt 30
SQUARE TUBE
UPN200
8x12 (12.9) / 40 mm
#550x125x10 bolt 45
5
0
200x200x10
UPPER U-PROFILE
LOWER U-PROFILE
SPECIMEN
FRICTION PLATES
LOWER CORNER JOINT
F
Fig. 2.30. Test setup for lower corners

bolt 30
120x120x12
#250x140x20
L=350 mm
20
#370x120x25
UPN200
SQUARE TUBE
200x200x10
UPN200
LOWER U-PROFILE
#550x125x10
FRICTION PLATES
F
bolt 45
8x12 (12.9) / 40 mm
SPECIMEN
UPPER CORNER JOINT
U-PROFILES
TOP PLATES
F

Fig. 2.31. Test setup for upper corners

73

Fig. 2.32. Additional grips to prevent slippage in upper corner tests
Ther mo-slotted pr ofiles without gusset
Two primary modes of failure were identified in lower corner tests: punching of the track-stud
connection and tensile failure of the diagonal strap, see Fig. 2.33. These failure modes were typically
preceded by other phenomena such as local buckling of the track and distortional buckling of the outer
stud, see Fig. 2.34. However, other failure modes detected in phases 1 and 2 (e.g. screw tilting) were not
encountered here.
As planned, both monotonic and loading-unloading tests were carried out. Similarly to phases 1 and 2,
no stiffness deterioration was found in unloading-reloading branches.

(a) b)
Fig. 2.33. Primary failure modes of thermo-slotted lower corners: punching of the track-stud connec-
tion; (b) tensile failure of the strap

Auxiliary grips
74

(a) (b)
Fig. 2.34. Additional phenomena: (a) local buckling of the stud; (b) distortional buckling of the outer
stud
As for upper corners, the first tests with the grips resulted in undesired failure modes, affecting the stud
and track rather than the diagonal strap. Low values of the peak load were obtained. For this reason, it
was decided to reinforce the track and stud of the remaining specimens. The goal is to ensure that the
strap is the weaker component of the joint. The reinforced specimens had a much better performance,
both in terms of failure mode and peak load, see Fig. 2.35.

(a) (b)
Fig. 2.35. Failure modes: (a) local buckling in non-reinforced specimen;
(b) tensile failure of strap in reinforced specimen
Solid pr ofiles with gusset
Two different joint configurations, with and without eccentricity, were analyzed for lower corners, see
Fig. 2.36. As designed, all specimens failed due to net section failure of the straps, see Fig. 2.37.
As for upper corners, specimens with narrow straps failed in the expected net section failure mode, see
Fig. 2.38(a). With wide straps, on the contrary, failure was due to local buckling of track and stud, see
Fig. 2.38(b). In spite of the reinforcement, these latter specimens could not resist the compression
coming from the strap.

75

Fig. 2.36. Layout of two lower corners:
(a) eccentric; (b) centred
Fig. 2.37 Net section failure of strap
in solid lower corners

(a) (b)
Fig. 2.38. Failure modes of solid upper corners: (a) tensile failure of narrow strap;
(b) local buckling of corner with wide strap
2.6.4. Analysis: finite element modelling
During the design process of the Finnish lower corners, Finnmap performed a nonlinear finite element
analysis of the corner joint. The goal is to check whether there is any weak point in the joint design. For
this type of analysis, the level of geometrical detail provided by a finite element mesh is very useful. A
bilinear elastoplastic model is used to model the nonlinear behaviour. Fig. 2.39 shows the results of the
finite element analysis.

76

Fig. 2.39. FE analysis of bottom corner joints: geometrical model (left); von Mises stress (right)
2.7. Whole x-br aced fr ames (phase 5)
As a final step in the joint testing campaign, UPC carried out phase 5 (whole x-braced frame) tests, see
document PR377/WP2/BD005 (2005). The specimens were designed and manufactured by UPC and
Teccon, taking into account the results of the previous phases and also of the shear wall tests carried out
by VTT. The main goal of phase 5 is not to test actual shear walls (this is done in work-package 3), but
to demonstrate the dissipation capabilities of x-braced frames. For this reason, small-scale frames were
used.
Fig. 2.40 shows the small-scale x-braced frame. All the components (tracks, studs, gussets and diagonal
straps) are designed to avoid local failure (e.g. local buckling of tracks or studs) at the early stages of
loading, so as to allow the plastic dissipation of diagonal straps. Note, for instance, that straps are quite
thinner (0.8 mm) than gussets (1.5 mm) and profiles (2 mm).
77

Fig. 2.40. Small-scale x-braced frames
A special test setup was designed and manufactured, see Fig. 2.41. The frame is tested in horizontal
position so that a smaller horizontal force is required to yield the strap. The x-braced frame is subjected
to the testing frame by means of anchor plates and hold-down devices.

Fig. 2.41. Test set-up for x-braced frames
Tests were displacement-controlled. The displacement input is shown in Fig. 2.42. There are five
loading cycles of increasing amplitude, ranging from 15 mm to 75 mm. This displacement law is
chosen so that yielding of the diagonal straps occurred from the first cycle.
HEB160
HEB160
B
R
A
C
IN
G
S H
E
B
1
6
0
H
E
B
1
6
0
B
R
A
C
IN
G
S
HYDRAULIC CYLINDER
DISPLACEMENT TRANSDUCER
d
F
LOAD CELL
HOLD-DOWN DEVICE
ANCHOR PLATE
SPECIMEN
LOAD PLATE 1 LOAD PLATE 2
6
4
4

m
m
1079 mm
STUD
C 102-40-14 (t=2mm) +
+ U 108-39 (t=2mm)
+ U 108-39 (t=2mm)
C 102-40-14 (t=2mm) +
STUD
UPPER TRACK
C 102-40-14 (t=2mm) +
+ U 108-39 (t=2mm)
LOWER TRACK
U 108-39 (t=2mm)
DIAGONAL STRAP
1040x65 (t=0.8 mm)
GUSSET
210x140 (t=1.5 mm)
78

Fig. 2.42. Displacement input for x-braced frame tests
As expected, diagonal straps buckled out of plane under very low compression loads, see Fig. 2.43.
Diagonal straps under tension, on the other hand, underwent large plastic deformation.

Fig. 2.43. Buckling of compressed straps
Other phenomena were also detected: local buckling of the upper corner gussets and of the flanges of
the studs, see Fig. 2.44. However, these local phenomena only occurred at the late stages of the loading
process, so they did not affect the intended yielding of diagonal straps.
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
t (min)
d

(
m
m
)
79

Fig. 2.44. Local buckling at late stages of testing
The tests were monitored in detail and video-recorded. The main output of the test are the force-
displacement curves, see Fig. 2.45. The wide hysteretic loops amount to large energy dissipation.

Fig. 2.45. Hysteretic response of x-braced frames
2.7.4. Analysis: hyster etic modelling of x-br aced fr ames
A simplified bilinear model for unsheathed shear walls has been developed by UPC, see Pastor &
Rodrguez-Ferran (2005). The x-braced frame, see Fig. 2.46(a), is modelled as a single-degree-of-
freedom system, see Fig. 2.46(b). The hysteretic model captures the all the relevant features of the
hysteretic cycles: extreme pinching and no compression of diagonal straps, Fig. 2.46(c). This approach
is computationally more efficient and simpler to use than a full nonlinear finite element analysis.
-50000
-40000
-30000
-20000
-10000
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
d (mm)
F

(
N
)
80

(a)
(b)

(c)
Fig. 2.46. X-braced unsheathed shear walls: (a) full-scale test (WP3); (b) conceptual device of SDOF
system; (c) numerical hysteretic cycles
The bilinear hysteretic model has been extended into a more general multilinear model that accounts for
the moment-resisting contribution of the frame itself (i.e. tracks and studs). Fig. 2.47 shows the good
agreement between the experimental hysteretic loops (in red) depicted in Fig. 2.45 and the theoretical
ones (in blue) obtained with the multilinear model.

Fig. 2.47. Experimental (red) vs. numerical (blue) hysteretic cycles
The main conclusion is that x-braced frames are indeed an adequate way to provide lateral stiffness and
ductility under seismic conditions, provided that they are designed in such a way that the dissipative
action of the x-brace can take effect.
81
2.8. Concluding r emar ks and r ecommendations
The goal of this closing section is to offer some practical recommendations for the design, testing and
modelling of joints under seismic conditions. For each relevant aspect (failure modes, material
properties, etc.) a few concluding remarks are first given and then translated into recommendations.
2.8.1. Failur e modes
The failure mode of the joints is a key issue in the seismic design of lightweight steel structures. Many
different phenomena have been observed in the tests with straps of constant width: bearing, tilting, pull-
out, pull-through, net section failure, punching, tearing, local buckling. For this type of straps, the
preferred mode for seismic design is net section failure, because i) it is the most ductile and ii) it is the
only mode that allows the dissipative action (i.e. yielding) of diagonal straps to take place. For this
reason,
R1. All joints (strap-strap, strap-gusset, upper and lower corners) in x-braced frames with diagonal
straps of constant width must be designed to fail in the net section mode; any type of bearing failure of
the joint must be especially avoided.
To allow the dissipative action of diagonal straps (of constant or non-constant width) or other bracing
systems (such as steel plates), it is also important to avoid the failure of other parts of the shear wall
(besides the joints). That is,
R2. Failure modes such as punching of the connection of the lower corners to the foundation or the
instability of tracks and studs (local, distortional or global buckling), should be avoided.
2.8.2. Mater ial pr oper ties
The steel grade is another key issue in seismic design, because the yield strength and the ultimate
strength control the yielding and failure of each member. Due to this,
R3. The hierarchy between dissipative and non-dissipative parts of the structure can be more easily
enforced if a steel of lower grade is used for dissipative parts (e.g. diagonal straps) than for non-
dissipative parts (e.g. tracks and studs). For instance, S-250 steel for the straps and S-350 steel for the
rest of the frame.
R4. It is crucial that the dissipative parts of the frame are built with the steel grade specified in the
design phase. The use of a steel of higher grade (i.e. higher mechanical properties) than specified may
result in non-adequate seismic response.
2.8.3. Connection devices
Screws are better than bolts and other connection devices from the seismic point of view. The main
reason is that their diameter is smaller and, consequently, there is more net section area available. For
this reason,
R5. Self-drilling screws should be the preferred means of connection in seismic design.
2.8.4. Scr ewed connections
Two main failure modes are encountered in screwed connections: T+B+PO (tilting, bearing and pull-
out) and T+NSF (tilting and net section failure). As discussed above for straps of constant width, NSF
is preferable, because it allows the dissipative action of the bracing system. Consequently,
R6. Bearing of screwed connections between straps of constant width should be avoided (for instance,
by placing enough screw columns in the joint or by connecting two steel sheets of different thickness).
2.8.5. Bolted connections
Bolts are less adequate than screws for the seismic design of joints. In fact, only bolt connections with
washers are suitable for seismic design, but in a lower degree than screw connections. If, for some spe-
cific reason, bolts are chosen (not recommended), then take into account that
R7. Acceptable seismic performance of bolted connections may be achieved by i) using only one row of
bolts; ii) using washers; iii) drilling the minimum feasible hole; iv) choosing the steel with the largest
82
ratio of ultimate to yield strength; v) widening the straps in the perforated areas, if manufacturing con-
straints of x-braced frames allow.
2.8.6. Rosette connections
Regarding product development, an interesting output of this research project is an improved Rosette
connection, with a higher ductility. For this reason,
R8. When Rosette connections are used, the improved double-collar type is recommended.
2.8.7. X-br aced fr ames
The last phase of the joint testing campaign shows that properly designed x-braced frames are a very
effective means of dissipating seismic energy in a controlled manner:
2.8.8. Design methods
The prEN-1993-1-3 formulas for the calculation of the net section strength of screwed and bolted give
acceptable results. On the contrary, the formulas for the bearing mode of failure may result in bad pre-
dictions of the ultimate load of joint. Due to this,
R9. (For code developers) Bearing formulas in prEN-1993-1-3 should be improved.
2.8.9. Testing
Phases 3 and 4 (corner tests) and 5 (whole x-braced frames) have clearly shown that a key aspect in
joint testing is an adequate design of the test set-up. That is,
R10. Test set-ups should be carefully designed to ensure a correct grip of the test specimens and to
avoid spurious failure modes.
An interesting result of all the testing campaign is that the joint behaviour is barely affected by a cyclic
loading-unloading-reloading process. The modes of failure, force-displacement curves, ultimate loads,
stiffness, do not change. Joint behaviour is adequately captured by means of monotonic tests. For this
reason,
R11. A seismic joint testing campaign may consist largely of monotonic tests, with only a very small
number of loading-unloading tests (for verification purposes).
2.8.10. Numer ical modelling
Numerical models of various types have been developed and used in this research project. A detailed
finite element model of a corner joint, for instance, is a very useful tool for design. The global seismic
response of a shear wall, on the other hand, may be modelled more efficiently by means of other ap-
proaches, such as the single-degree-of-freedom hysteretic model discussed above.
R12. Use (linear or nonlinear) finite elements if a detailed geometrical model is needed; use simplified
numerical models if the global response is sought.
REFERENCES
Casafont M., Arnedo A., Roure, F. & Rodrguez-Ferran, A. (2006a). Experimental testing of joints for
seismic design of lightweight structures. Part 1: screwed joints in straps. Thin-Walled Structures, in
press.
Casafont M., Arnedo A., Roure, F. & Rodrguez-Ferran, A. (2006b). Experimental testing of joints for
seismic design of lightweight structures. Part 2: bolted joints in straps. Thin-Walled Structures, submit-
ted.
Document PR377/WP2/BD001 (2003). Design of the joint testing campaign, Technical report in the
ECSC project 7210-PR-377, Seismic Design of Light-Gauge Steel Framed Buildings.
Document PR377/WP2/BD002 (2004). Joint testing: phases 1 and 2, Technical report in the ECSC
project 7210-PR-377, Seismic Design of Light-Gauge Steel Framed Buildings.
83
Document PR377/WP2/BD003 (2004). Joint testing: phases 3 and 4. Part I: Finnish specimens,
Technical report in the ECSC project 7210-PR-377, Seismic Design of Light-Gauge Steel Framed
Buildings.
Document PR377/WP2/BD004 (2005). Joint testing: phases 3 and 4. Part II: Spanish specimens,
Technical report in the ECSC project 7210-PR-377, Seismic Design of Light-Gauge Steel Framed
Buildings.
Document PR377/WP2/BD005 (2005). Joint testing: phase 5, Technical report in the ECSC project
7210-PR-377, Seismic Design of Light-Gauge Steel Framed Buildings.
Document PR377/WP2/E009 (2004) Test results of different Rosette joints, Technical report in the
ECSC project 7210-PR-377, Seismic Design of Light-Gauge Steel Framed Buildings.
EN 10002-1:2001 Metallic materials. Tensile testing. Part 1: Method of test at ambient temperature
prEN1993-1-3 (2005) Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-3: General rules supplementary
rules for cold-formed members and sheeting. CEN European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels,
September 2005 (Final Draft).
Pastor N. & Rodrguez-Ferran A. (2005) Hysteretic modelling of x-braced shear walls, Thin-walled
structures, Volume 43, Number 2, pages 1567-1588.
Rogers C.A. & Hancock G.J. (1999) Screwed connection tests of thin G550 and G300 sheet steels.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 125(2):128-136.

84

ANNEX 3:
Shear wall testing
(WP3 + WP4.2 Tasks 1 and 5)
85

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3. ANNEX 3 Shear-wall testing ................................................................................... 87
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 87
3.2 Purpose of the shear wall testing............................................................................................ 87
3.3 Shear wall testing and test specimens .................................................................................... 88
3.4 Dynamic tests......................................................................................................................... 88
3.4.1 Sensors in seismic and damping tests................................................................................ 89
3.4.2 Accelerograms for the shake table test .............................................................................. 90
3.4.3 Hammer test and sweep test methods................................................................................ 91
3.4.4 Main results of seismic tests.............................................................................................. 94
3.5 Cyclic tests ............................................................................................................................. 98
3.5.1 Cyclic test arrangement ..................................................................................................... 98
3.5.2 Test specimens and measurements for cyclic test ............................................................. 98
3.5.3 Cyclic test methods.......................................................................................................... 100
3.5.4 Evaluation of test results.................................................................................................. 101
3.5.5 Recommendations of defining of rigidity, design and yield limit ................................... 103
3.5.6 Main test results and parameters of cyclic tests............................................................... 105
3.6 Conclusions.......................................................................................................................... 118

86

3. ANNEX 3 Shear-wall testing
3.1 Intr oduction
Shear walls are the main load resisting elements of earthquake loads in a light-gauge steel house.
Therefore the knowledge of the properties of shear walls is crucial in understanding the overall
behaviour of the entire house.
Two main groups of tests have been undertaken in the project. The first group had the aim of
determining the dynamic properties of shear-walls and includes: (i) impact hammer test, (ii) sweep tests
and (iii) earthquake simulation tests. The second group of tests consisted of cyclic racking test of shear
walls. In these tests the walls were subjected to loading similar to the ones during an earthquake, but the
loads were transmitted with reduced speed (i.e. quasi-static loading). Displacement controlled cyclic
loads were used.
Chapter 3.2 clarifies the reasons for undertaking the tests and the actual specimens are described in
Chapter 3.3. The results/and expertise obtained during the first group of tests (i.e. seismic tests) is
summarised in Chapter 3.4. The main results and conclusions are presented in Chapter 3.4.4.
The cyclic tests are described in Chapter 3.5. More emphasis on the testing methodology is in chapters
3.5.1, 3.5.2 and 3.5.3. Different alternatives of the evaluation of the test results are summarised in
chapter 3.5.4. At the end of this chapter recommendations concerning the evaluation of test results are
given. Results of the cyclic test are presented in chapter 3.5.6.
All the tests described in this document were undertaken in the framework of this project at VTT.
3.2 Pur pose of the shear wall testing
The shear wall testing in this project includes cyclic-, damping-, frequency- and earthquake simulation
testing. The whole testing series was developed to find out the behaviour of shear wall during an
earthquake and also to define all the important parameters for the design. The most important testing
method is cyclic testing, because it gives relevant information of the shear walls stiffness, yield
capacity, ductility and ultimate capacity of the wall. The dynamic properties of the shear walls are also
important even if sometimes they are more relevant in the context of an entire structure than they are in
the case of an isolated wall.
The purpose of the cyclic test was to:
(1) Provide basic data concerning the behaviour of the walls under shear (i.e. loading similar like
the ones generated by the earthquake). This data include (i) failure mode, (ii) elastic rigidity,
(iii) capacity and (iv) ductility properties of different wall configurations.
(2) Supply potential design methodologies for walls with the basic data gathered.
(3) Provide the opportunity for the improvement of different details of wall panels, by observing
their behaviour in real loading conditions.
The tests concerning dynamic properties of the walls were undertaken in order to:
(1) Show that the cyclic test supplied relevant data concerning the potential behaviour of the shear
walls under earthquake loads. One of the main concerns was that, under the forces transmitted
at low speed during the cyclic tests the walls may behave fundamentally differently than in
dynamic loading situation.
(2) To provide relevant data concerning the likely damping of the structures based on measured
values.
(3) To compare the dynamic properties of the shear walls after they have been tested to earthquake
records of different intensities in order to evaluate the accumulated damage.
The test series include all the material and joint tests concerning material of studs, tracks, sheathings
and screws.
87

3.3 Shear wall testing and test specimens
The cyclic and seismic test sequence used in this project (ECSC-Project 7210-PR-377) is shown in
Table 3.1. The detailed reports of seismic and cyclic tests are given in technical reports of the project
(PR377/WP2/E005, PR377/WP2/E012, PR377/WP3/E007, PR377/WP3/E010 and PR377/WP3/E015).
Table 3.1. Steps of dynamic and cyclic tests in the project
Testing sequence* Dynamic test sequence Ser ies Dyn1 &
Dyn2
Cyclic test sequence Ser ies Cyc1,
Cyc2 & Cyc3
Step 1 Cyclic test (very small amplitude) Full cyclic test (VTT cyclic signal)
Step 2 Impact hammer test -
Step 3 Sine sweep test (GR-CORE-63) -
Step 4 Earthquake simulation test according to
Zone 1, 2 (GR-CORE-63)
-
Step 8 Earthquake simulation test according to
Zone 4 (GR-CORE-63)
-
Step 12 Final cyclic test (VTT cyclic signal) -
* Note: Not in all cases all steps of the sequence were completed (ex. in some cases the wall was de-
stroyed and the test stopped).

The testing campaign consists of three cyclic test series (Cyc1, Cyc2 and Cyc3) and two seismic
(earthquake simulation, damping and sine sweep) test series (Dyn1 & Dyn2). The test specimens have
been steel plate, plywood, gypsum board sheeted or diagonal stiffened shear walls. In some tests
combined stiffening systems were used e.g. diagonals and gypsum board in the same frame. The
specimens, testing method and manufacturing companies are mentioned in Table 3.4, Table 3.7, Table
3.12,
Table 3.14 and Table 3.16.
The total number of different test specimens (different sheathing or diagonal stiffening system and extra
weights) has been 29. Cyclic tests for the full scale elements include only one testing step, but seismic
tests include several testing steps for each specimen according to Table 3.1. In test series Dyn1 also two
kinds of extra weights were used. The total amount of the test results (including full scale cyclic tests
and small scale seismic tests) have been about 75 individual results. The test specimens are shown in
Fig. 3.11, Fig. 3.13, Fig. 3.27, Fig. 3.28 and Fig. 3.29.
In addition the test series includes material testing, joint testing and diagonal strap testing.
3.4 Dynamic tests
All three types of tests in this project (hammer test, sweep test and shake table test) have been
performed on isolated shear walls. Even if hammer test can be performed on entire structures, due to the
limited dimensions of vibration tables, shake-table tests are usually done for isolated shear walls.
Hammer tests and sweep test are useful to determine the dynamic properties (ex. periods of vibration,
damping) of the walls. The main reason for shake table tests is to compare the results of advanced
simulation methods (i.e. time history analysis) to the experimental results. Other reason (like in this
case) is to provide data concerning the observed behaviour during a loading as close as possible to real
earthquake loading.
Since real earthquakes are quite different events (e. g. magnitude, duration and frequency content) a
single representative earthquake signal, covering a large range of earthquake scenarios, can not be
developed for the shake table test. On the other hand if many different signals are used many walls have
to be tested because the test walls will be damaged during every test.
88

Seismic tests are recommended because some particularities of behaviour may not appear in monotonic
or cyclic tests. The dynamic vibration test shows the impact forces (loosening parts of the wall have a
collation to each other) and all mass forces are effecting and distributing in a correct way in the wall.
One difficulty when testing subassemblies is to set the right value of natural frequency for the wall or
part of the structure. Extra weights are used to model the weights of the roof and floors, or other non-
structural elements of the building. The vibration table of VTT used in this project is shown in Fig. 3.2
and a detailed figure of joints and extra weights at the top of the specimen in Fig. 3.1.

Fig. 3.1. Small-scale wall element, vibration
table and extra weights
Fig. 3.2. Vibration table and shear wall element with
weights at the top
3.4.1 Sensor s in seismic and damping tests
According to guidelines GR-63-CORE (GR-63-CORE 2002) the specimen shall be installed on the
vibration table using force transducers and the accelerations shall be measured at the bottom, in the
middle of and at the top of the specimen. Also the deflection at the top of the specimen has to be
measured. The transducers, and locations of sensors used in the tests, are given in Table 3.2 and in Fig.
3.3. Notice the deflection of the top can be calculated by subtracting the total movement at the top
(sensor No 8) and the movement of the cylinder (sensor No 9). In the tests at VTT the forces of
anchoring bolts were also measured by force transducers (sensors No 1 and No 2). The signals of
transducers include the effect of the pretension of the bolts. In some tests the pretension had totally
disappeared and in that situation the transducers were not capable to show tension.
Table 3.2. Censors, locations and channels used in the test series
Measur ed value Dir ection Sensor Channel Location
Actuating force Horizontal Build in cylinder 10 Cylinder
Actuating disp. Horizontal Build in cylinder 9 Cylinder
Acceleration Horizontal HBM B12/500 5
6
7
At the top of the specimen
In the middle of the Specimen
On the vibration table
Anchoring force Horizontal Tokyo Sokki CLC-5A 1
2
Near to cylinder
Near to wall
At the bottom of the specimen
Top displacement Horizontal Tokyo Sokki DP-1007 8 At the top of the specimen
Displacement Vertical HBM W20TK 11 At the bottom of the specimen

Top displacement
(Cyclic test)
Horizontal HBM W20TK 12 At the top of the specimen
(Cyclic test)
89

(a)
500 mm
600 mm
1
2
8
0

m
m
150 mm

8
(11)
Fh
9, 10
1 2
5
6
7
12
Extra weights
Hydraulic
actuator
Vibration table
Shear wall
element
Supporting
beams

(b)
Fig. 3.3. (a) Main dimensions of specimen and (b) sensors used in seismic testing in VTT
3.4.2 Acceler ogr ams for the shake table test
In shake table test the signal can be a recorded signal based on real earthquake or an artificial signal
based on signal generation. There are many databases to obtain earthquake signals of well known
earthquakes (e.g. Internet-Site for European Strong-Motion Data - ISESD 2005).
According to GR-63-CORE (GR-63-CORE 2002) the tests can be done using time-amplitude
acceleration records generated from the Response Spectra curves presented in Fig. 3.4 and in Table 3.3.
The generation of the records has been done using LabView measurement PC-program and the
generated time-accelerations signals are shown in Fig. 3.5. While generating the time-amplitude
acceleration spectrum the damping value of 2 % has been used. The method to generate the time-
amplitude signal for the test is based on the iterative method of calculating the response spectra.
Generated time-history signal is not unique; there is always possibility to generate many time histories
which fulfils the required response spectra.
Required Response Spectra
1
10
100
0.1 1 10 100
Frequency (Hz)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
Zone 1, 2
Zone 3
Zone 4

Fig. 3.4. Required response spectra according to the standards GR-63-CORE

Table 3.3. Required response spectra according to standards GR-63-CORE
Fr equency (Hz) 0.3 0.6 1 2 5 15 50
Zone 1, 2 (m/s
2
) 2 20 20 20 20 6 6
Zone 3 (m/s
2
) 2 20 30 30 30 10 10
A
c
c
e
l
.

Zone 4 (m/s
2
) 2 20 29.5 50 50 16 16
90

Cont rol Si gnal , Zones 1 and 2
Time [s]
40 0 10 20 30 40
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
200.0
-200.0
-100.0
0.0
100.0

(a) Displacement (Zone 1, 2)
Cont rol Si gnal , Zones 1 and 2
Time [s]
40 0 10 20 30 40
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
^
2
]
10.0
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0

(b) Acceleration (Zone 1, 2)
Cont rol Si gnal , Zone 4
Time [s]
40 0 10 20 30 40
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
200.0
-200.0
-100.0
0.0
100.0

(c) Displacement (Zone 4)
Cont rol Si gnal , Zone 4
Time [s]
40 0 10 20 30 40
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
^
2
]
20.0
-20.0
-10.0
0.0
10.0

(d) Acceleration (Zone 4)
Fig. 3.5. Control signals (acceleration and displacement) for earthquake simulation tests according to
Zone 1, 2 and Zone 4 (GR-63-CORE 2002)
3.4.3 Hammer test and sweep test methods
The harmonic excitation can be achieved by impact hammer or by mechanical or hydraulic shaker.
Usually the power of the impact hammer is quite small but the amount of excited frequencies is wide.
The impact hammer can be used to test structures of small houses. The weight of the hammer should be
5kg at least and the nose of the hammer soft enough to excite the lowest frequencies. The impact
hammer has been used in this project for testing the shear wall elements (Fig. 3.6).
In the same figure the vibration table, the small scale wall element and the extra weights at the top of
the element is visible. These weights are connected with pin-jointed beams onto the vibration table and
the purpose of these weights is to control the natural frequency of the wall in horizontal direction. The
first natural frequency of the specimens has been from 6 to 9 Hz (closed to the ones in houses).

Fig. 3.6. Impact hammer test and small scale shear wall element
91

The impact hammer test is only useful to determine the dynamic properties of the walls in the elastic
range, but it is not capable of simulating the post-elastic behaviour of the element. The loosening of the
test specimen (ex. if the wall is tested under cyclic loads) has an effect on the dynamic properties (i.e.
natural frequency, damping). If the entire house is tested then both horizontal directions and rotation has
to be taken into account. The vibrations in the vertical direction are difficult to measure, but vertical
direction usually has less effect on the seismic behaviour of the houses.
The hydraulic or mechanical shaker is based on a mass which is moving or on rotating masses with
eccentricity. The excitation force can be much stronger than in case of the hammer and often the shaker
has to be fixed to the structure. Shakers can be used for testing entire structures.
In laboratory the vibration table (or shake-table) inducing harmonic excitation can be used to awake the
resonance frequency. In Fig. 3.2 the vibration table of VTT (1-dimensional) used in these tests is
shown.
The natural frequency can be obtained using resonance test with the vibration table using maximum
constant acceleration during the test. This can be obtained by changing the movement amplitude of the
vibration table with the changing frequency. The test in this project was done changing frequency from
1.0 Hz to 20 Hz at a sweep rate of 1.0 octave per minute (the frequency is twice after a minute)
according to guideline of GR-63-CORE (GR-63-CORE 2002). The sweep frequency f(t) and the
amplitude R(f) are calculated using the equation 3.1.

1
ln
60
0
) (
k
t
e f t f =

2
0
)) ( 2 (
) (
t f
a
f R
t
=
3.1
Where f
0
is the frequency at the beginning (t = 0 s),
k
1
is multiplier for frequency after 60s (= 2.0, if frequency is changing one
octave/minute)
a
0
is the constant maximum amplitude of acceleration (0.1 g = 1.0 m/s
2
)
In Fig. 3.7 the curve of harmonic oscillating movement (1-degrees of freedom) is shown, and the
maximum amplitudes are marked with x
n
. The critical relative damping or logarithmic decrement o
can be calculated by equation 3.2 (EN-1998 2004) (obs. if the damping is quite small).
Damping curve
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Ti me (s)
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
x0
xn
xm
xm+1

Fig. 3.7. Example of damping harmonic movement
) ln(
1
2
0
n
x
x
n
= = , t o
3.2
Where x
0
and x
n
are the maximum values of damping curve in the points of 0 and n
L is relative damping factor
o logarithmic decrement
92

In case of the impact test the acceleration at the top of the wall was measured and damping was
calculated according to formula 3.2. In resonance tests and in earthquake simulation tests the top
accelerometer was used to calculate power spectrum density in order to define the fundamental natural
frequency of the wall.
Note that in these tests calculated extra weights have been installed at the top of the specimen,
simulating the mass above the wall in real house. More exact frequency and damping values could be
obtained if the real house was tested using impact hammer (or shaker) and accelerometers. An example
of calculating damping from impact test is shown in Fig. 3.8 (Rautaruukki diagonals stiffened wall).
The power spectrum from resonance test is presented in Fig. 3.9 and from earthquake simulation test in
Fig. 3.10. The natural frequency can also be identified from in earthquake simulation test though the
spectrum also includes other frequencies.
(a)
Impact Test No 21b
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 5 10 15 20
Time (s)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
Acceleration (top)
(b)
Impact Test No 21b
-0.7
-0.5
-0.3
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5
Time (s)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
Acceleration (top)
Fig. 3.8. Example of (a) measured top acceleration and (b) calculation method for damping from im-
pact test (Relative damping was 0.015 in this test)
(a)
Resonance Test No 26
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (s)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
Acceleration (top)
(b)
Resonance Test No 26
0.00E+00
2.00E-05
4.00E-05
6.00E-05
8.00E-05
1.00E-04
1.20E-04
1.40E-04
1.60E-04
1.80E-04
0 2 4 6 8 10
Fr equency (Hz)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
2
Power Spectrum
Fig. 3.9. Example of (a) measured top acceleration (b) and calculated power spectrum in resonance
test (First natural frequency was 6.2Hz in this test)
93

(a)
Sei smi c Test No 28
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
Acceleration (top)
(b)
Sei smi c Test No 28
0.00E+00
5.00E-04
1.00E-03
1.50E-03
2.00E-03
2.50E-03
0 2 4 6 8 10
Fr equency (Hz)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
2
Power Spectrum
Fig. 3.10. Example of (a) measured top acceleration (b) and calculated power spectrum in earthquake
simulation test (First natural frequency was 5.2Hz in this test)
3.4.4 Main r esults of seismic tests
During seismic tests the accelerations, deflections and forces of shear wall were measured. One purpose
of the tests was to evaluate the stiffness and damping of the walls, which are used during the earthquake
design. The variation of these parameters after different loading schemes is also of interest. Test results
for shear walls stiffened with gypsum-, plywood-, or steel sheathing and diagonals were obtained.
The main characteristics of the three specimens used in series Dyn1 are shown in Table 3.4. In Table
3.5 and Table 3.6 the fundamental nominal frequencies and relative damping values obtained for
specimen Dyn1-1 (plywood sheathing) and Dyn1-2 (gypsum board sheathing) are shown. The tests
were carried out in the presented sequence in Table 3.1 (from test Dyn 1-2 No 1 to 21 or Dyn1-3 No 1
to 21 respectively). In some cases results are missing because the specimen was broken before all the
tests could be performed. Detailed results are given in report PR377/WP2/E005 (2003).
Table 3.4. Seismic test series 1 (hammer tests, sweep tests, earthquake simulation tests and cyclic tests)
Ser ies Spec. No. Dynamic testing
Small scale elements
Company Sheathing
1a Dynamic test (289kg) 1
1b Dynamic test (513 kg)
Rautaruukki Oyj
three-ply conifer plywood 9.0 mm (inside)
three-ply conifer plywood 9.0 mm(outside)
2a Dynamic test (289kg) 2
2b Dynamic test (513 kg)
Rautaruukki Oyj
Dyn 1
3 3 Dynamic test (289kg) Rautaruukki Oyj Gypsum wallboard 12.0 mm (inside)
Gypsum wallboard 9.0 mm (outside)

Table 3.5. Dynamic test results for specimen Dyn1-2 (plywood sheathing)
Plywood
9.0/9.0 mm
Movement of the cylinder , natur al fr equency
and r elative damping
(see Table 3.4) Stage 2a (289kg) Stage 2b (513kg)
Test Nr . * 1 5 9 13 17 21
1. natural frequency Hz 9.5 9.5 9.1 9.0 7.5 6.7 Impact test
Relative damping % 4 3 3 3 9 3
Test Nr . * 2 6 10 14 18 22
Resonance test
1. natural frequency Hz 8.7 8.7 8.7 6.5 6.5 -
Test Nr .* 3 7 11 15 19 23
Movement of cylinder mm 2.0 3.5 5.3 11.2 16.0 - Cyclic test
Measured force kN 1.55 1.83 2.78 5.04 6.75 -
Test Nr . * 4 8 12 16 20 24
Seismic Zone Z1,2 Z3 Z4 Z3 Z4 - Shake-table test
Maximum displacement mm 3.59 5.29 11.98 17.2 65.09 -
* Note: the number represents the sequence of testing.
94

Table 3.6. Natural frequencies and damping values of test series Dyn1-3 (gypsum board sheeting)
Gypsum boar d
12.0/9.0 mm
(see Table 3.4) Stage 2a (289kg) Stage 2b (513kg)
Test Nr . * 1 5 9 13 17 21
1. natural frequency Hz - - - - - - Impact test
Relative damping % - - - - - -
Test Nr . * 2 6 10 14 18 22
Resonance test
1. natural frequency Hz 2.7 - - - - -
Test Nr .* 3 7 11 15 19 23
Movement of cylinder mm 10.0 10.0 - - - - Cyclic test
Measured force kN 1.23 2.51 - - - -
Test Nr . * 4 8 12 16 20 24
Maximum displacement mm 18.56 253.0 - - - -

For specimen Dyn1-2 the frequency has been from 3.5 Hz to 9.5 Hz. This value is obviously depending
on the supplementary weight. It is interesting to observe how sensitive the obtained value is on the
determination method used. Tests 1, 2 and 3 supply the values 9.5s, 8.7s and 8.4s respectively. Beyond
measuring inadvertences these values are most probably due to the fact that the hammer test (Test No.1)
induces much weaker vibrations, the wall being completely in elastic range, while the other two
methods (Test No.2 and No.3) induce larger vibrations activating small non-linearities in the wall. It is
important to observe also the gradual decrease of the natural frequency after the shake-table test using
the accelerograms from Fig. 3.5. The decrease reflects the increasing damage accumulated in the wall
and the corresponding decreasing rigidity. As presented in Table 3.4 damping values vary between 9%
and 3% for Dyn1-2 and are about 3% for Dyn1-3. The measured frequency of gypsum board wall
(Dyn1-3) was 2.5 Hz to 3.6 Hz (Table 3.6).
As it can be observed from Table 3.6 the gypsum sheathed specimen was much weaker than the
plywood sheathed one (Dyn1-2). So much that test with the weight of 513kg could not be performed,
the specimen being destroyed at an earlier stage with the mass of 289kg and zone Z2 earthquake record.

(a) Plywood sheathing

(b) Gypsum board sheathing
95

(c) Plywood sheathing

(d) Gypsum board sheathing and gypsum
dust on the floor
Fig. 3.11. Test specimens of seismic test series Dyn1 after earthquake simulation test (Zone 4)
Some tests in test series Dyn1 were failed because of loosening of the anchoring bolts. Both tested
small-scale elements were broken with the same failure mode when the self drilling screws came
through the sheathing. During the tests screw holes of gypsum board were grown up and gypsum dust
Fig. 3.11.d. was afterwards found on the floor. It was also found that while installation screws through
the gypsum board, some gypsum dust came out and the holes became wider than holes in plywood
sheathing. The test specimens after the failure are shown in Fig. 3.11.
The characteristics of the specimens in the second test series Dyn2 are shown in Table 3.7. In Table 3.8,
Table 3.9 and Table 3.10 a summary of values measured for specimens Dyn2-1, Dyn2-3 and Dyn2-4
are given. In the tables the fundamental frequencies and relative damping values (steel plate sheathing
and diagonal stiffening) are shown. The natural frequency has been changed from 5.3Hz to 10.0Hz
depending of the test method and test specimen. All the other results are given in report
PR377/WP2/E012 (2005) of the project.
Table 3.7. Dynamic test series 2 (impact hammer tests, sine sweep tests, earthquake simulation tests,
cyclic tests and final cyclic test)
Ser ies Spec. Dynamic testing
Small scale elements
Company Sheathing
1
Dynamic test (513 kg)
Final cyclic test Rautaruukki Oyj
Steel plate 0.6 mm on front side,
Diagonals 85*1.0 with one hole in a row on
the back side
2 Dynamic test (513 kg)
Final cyclic test
Rautaruukki Oyj
Diagonals 85*1.0 with two holes in a row
on front and back sides
Final cyclic test
Rautaruukki Oyj Steel plate 0.6 mm on front side,
Perforated steel plate 0.6 mm on back side
Final cyclic test
Rosette Oy Diagonals, (threaded rods) of M16 4.6 in
the middle of wall
Dyn 2
5 Final Cyclic test

Rautaruukki Oyj Steel plate 0.6 mm on front side,
Perforated steel plate 0.6 mm on back side
The test specimens after final cyclic test are shown in Fig. 3.12 (front side) and in Fig. 3.13 (back side).
The failure modes of the walls for all four specimens were:
Specimen No 1 was broken by bearing of the screws in upper right corner. The steel plate also came
out of frame due to tension field and buckling waves.
Specimen No 2 was by buckling of the stud in right side. Before buckling the diagonals were
stretched strongly as intended in design.
96

Specimen No 3 was also broken by bearing of the screws as specimen No 1. The steel plate came
out of the frame. The failure started in both sides, and perforating did not weaken bearing capacity.
Specimen No 4 was tested only by vibration table, because the cylinder force was strong enough to
perform the test. The specimen was not broken and only the diagonals were yielding to the
maximum movement of the cylinder (100 mm).

Table 3.8. Natural frequencies and damping values of test series Dyn2-2 (diagonal on both sides)
85*1 br ace on both sides of the
wall with two r ow of holes
(see Table 3.7) weigth = 513kg
Test Nr . * 1 5 9 13 17 21
1. natural frequency Hz 8.3 - 5.5 - - - Impact test
Relative damping % 1.5 - 3.2 - - -
Test Nr . * 2 6 10 14 18 22
Resonance test
1. natural frequency Hz 6.5 - 6.2 - - -
Test Nr .* 3 7 11 15 19 23
Movement of cylinder mm 2.0 - 10.0 - - - Cyclic test
Measured force kN 1.23 - 7.92 - - -
Test Nr . * 4 8 12 16 20 24
Maximum displacement mm 7.61 - 23.43 - -

Table 3.9. Natural frequencies and damping values of test series Dyn2-3 (flat steel plate on both sides)
0.6 mm thick flat plate on fr ont side,
plate per for ated on back side
Test Nr . * 1 5 9 13 17 21
1. natural frequency Hz 10 - 9.9 - - - Impact test
Relative damping % 2.4 - 2 - - -
Test Nr . * 2 6 10 14 18 22
Resonance test
Test Nr .* 3 7 11 15 19 23
Movement of cylinder mm 2.0 - 5.0 30.0 - - Cyclic test
Measured force kN 2.46 - 5.68 21.72 - -
Test Nr . * 4 8 12 16 20 24

Table 3.10. Natural frequencies and damping values of test series Dyn2-4 (diagonal treaded rods)
Diagonal r ods (Rosette wall) Movement of the cylinder , natur al fr equency
Test Nr . * 1 5 9 13 17 21
1. natural frequency Hz 6.4 - 6.9 - - - Impact test
Relative damping % 1.9 - 1.2 - - -
Test Nr . * 2 6 10 14 18 22
Resonance test
Test Nr .* 3 7 11 15 19 23
Movement of cylinder mm 2.0 - 10.0 100.0 - - Cyclic test
Measured force kN 2.03 - 5.57 24.56 - -
Test Nr . * 4 8 12 16 20 24
97

Fig. 3.12. Test specimens of test series Dyn2 after
final cyclic test (front side, RR)
Fig. 3.13. Test specimens of test series Dyn2 after
final cyclic test (back side, RR)

3.5 Cyclic tests
3.5.1 Cyclic test ar r angement
The purpose of the cyclic testing is to get information of the behaviour of the test specimen subjected to
horizontal loads. The full-scale testing of the small house is difficult and expensive to perform and
therefore one of the simplified testing methods, cyclic testing on full scale wall elements was chosen.
The test was performed using hydraulic actuator with low speed of loading. The wall was fixed tightly
on the floor and has also to be supported in lateral direction so the sideward movement may not occur.
Increasing horizontal force was transmitted to the top of the wall along the direction of the wall. The
cyclic test arrangement used in the project is shown in Fig. 3.14. The wall element was fixed with
anchoring bolts to the bottom beam, which was fixed onto the floor. The top of the wall was supported
in lateral direction using double hinge equipments, which allowed the movement only in the direction
of hydraulic actuator.
The final mode of failure is also dependant on the vertical load of the wall. The buckling of the studs
may occur when the maximum allowable vertical load is used but tension failure of the anchoring bolts
with the minimum vertical load. Therefore in some standards the minimum of 3 different loading tests
with various vertical loads are required. The main principle in seismic design is to allow the diagonals
or steel sheathing (screws connections of steel sheathing) to yield and other elements (studs, tracks and
connections) should remain elastic.
The seismic forces are acting in both directions of the shear wall plain (front to back or back to front)
and therefore the cyclic signal is selected symmetric on both directions, but also one loading direction
can be used. Usually all cyclic tests have been done using displacement control in order to find out also
the post capacity values while side force are decreasing.
3.5.2 Test specimens and measur ements for cyclic test
The specimens in cyclic test series were full scale shear wall elements sheathed with gypsum board,
plywood, steel plate or diagonals. In some test the diagonals or steel plate was used under gypsum
board in the same shear wall. The specimens were made using height of 2750 mm and width of 2400
mm, but in some cases the width of 1200 mm was also used. The walls were attached to the floor using
strong steel beam and anchoring bolts and all the tests were performed without extra weight or load at
the top of the specimen. Testing was performed in 3 periods (Cyc1, Cyc2 and Cyc3), but the test
arrangement was the same in all cases. The typical specimen used in the test is shown in Fig. 3.15 and
sheathings or diagonals used to stiffen the wall are given in Tables 3.11, 3.13 and 3.15.
98

According to standard EN 594 (EN-594 1995) the displacements have to be measured in 4 points of the
wall element and also the side load shall be measured. In Fig. 3.16.b. is shown the transducers used in
the cyclic test in VTT. Also both diagonal displacements and both anchoring forces were measured.
Fig. 3.14. Cyclic test frame and supporting equip-
ments at the top of the specimen
Fig. 3.15. Extra U shape beam fixed on the top
track of the shear wall

The important thing is the way the side load is transmitted to the top part of the wall element. In a real
small house the seismic forces move from the upper floor or ceiling to the upper track of the shear wall
using the whole length of all the wall elements. In the cyclic test the side force has also divided to the
whole upper track of one specimen using a strong steel beam at the top of the element. The steel beam
of U shape was fixed with screws on the upper track of the shear wall (see Fig. 3.15).
The transducers used in cyclic test at VTT are mentioned in Table 3.11.
Table 3.11. Sensors, locations and channels used in the test series (VTT)
Measur ed value
Dir ection
Sensor Column
Channel
Location
Cylinder force
Horizontal
Build in
250 kN
A
01
At the left top corner
(cylinder)
Cylinder displacement
Horizontal
Build in B
02
At the left top corner
(cylinder)
Anchoring force
Vertical
Tokyo Sokki
CLC-20
J
09
At the left bottom corner
Anchoring force
Vertical
Tokyo Sokki
CLC-20
I
10
At the right bottom corner
Displacement
Horizontal
HBM
W50TK
C
03
At the right top corner
(by means of steel wire)
Displacement
Horizontal
HBM
W50TK
D
04
(versus beam)
Displacement
Vertical
HBM
W50TK
E
05
(versus beam)
Displacement
Vertical
HBM
W50TK
F
06
At the left bottom corner
(versus beam)
Displacement
diagonal
Tokyo Sokki
DP-1007
G
07
In the right lower corner

Displacement
diagonal
Tokyo Sokki
DP-1007
H
08
In the left lower corner

99

2400 (Outside)
2
4
5
0
150 mm
1
9
5
0
9
5
0
50
600 600 600 600
(a)
3
8
4
6
5
Fh
Fv Fv Fv
1, 2
7
10 9
(b)
Fig. 3.16. (a) Dimensions of specimens and (b) sensors used in cyclic tests (VTT)
All the test results were stored using a HBM data logger and also onto the hard disk of micro computer.
3.5.3 Cyclic test methods
In Fig. 3.17 is shown the loading signal of VTT, which was used in most of Cyclic tests. The signal was
selected, because the final breaking load was not known before the test. The first step of cylinder
movement was 5.0mm and the increase was also 5.0 mm by every other steps. The number of cycles in
each step was 3 in most cases, but also number of 5 was used in some cases. The speed was selected to
be very slow, only 1.0kN/min in order to have enough time to observe all the failure modes and details
during testing.
Test si gnal of VTT
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Cycle (1)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Yi el d poi nt defi ni ti on accordi ng to ECCS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Displacement
F
o
r
c
e
alfa
alfa/10
Yield
point
Fig. 3.17. Loading signal used in the project (VTT) Fig. 3.18. Calculation of yield point (ECCS-45
1996)
According to recommendation of ECCS (ECCS-45 1996) the yield point of the shear wall should be
determined before the cyclic test based on a previous monotonic test. The yield point can be determined
using the force-displacement curve, by drawing a tangent on origin (angle u) and one tangent to the
curve with an angle of u/10 (see Fig. 3.18). After the test the cyclic test signal can be constructed. At
the beginning of the cyclic test the amplitude of the step is changing in every cycle but after yield every
cycle is repeated three times. VTT cyclic test signal is quite similar to ECCS (ECCS-45 1996) signal,
but every cycle was repeated three times and the movement step was 5mm, because the actual yield
point was not known before tests.
The cyclic loading protocol chosen for the test should approximately represent the loading history the
building element will undergo during the earthquake. This statement is very difficult to be fulfilled, inn
reality, during tests cyclic loading protocols of existing standards are usually selected.
2
7
5
0

100

There are two opposing tendencies which influence the choice of the cyclic loading protocol:
(1) The number of cycles should be big enough to obtain the cyclic characteristics of the panel
(i.e. in case of low ductility specimens sudden increase of the lateral displacement can transform
the loading protocol into a quasi-monotonic one)
(2) The number of cycles has not to be exaggerated since in case of strong earthquakes the
number of loading cycles causing yield in a wall panel is limited (usually in the range of 5-10
depending primarily on the period of vibration of the building).
Gatto (Gatto 2003) investigated the effect of the various loading cycles concerning wood frame shear
walls.
The recommended loading history has to contain sufficient loading cycles so that the effect of cyclic
loading can be meaningfully assessed, however excessive number of loading cycles is not
recommended because it leads to low cycle fatigue type failure. The loading protocol should contain
repeated cycles imposing the same displacement level so that the strength degradation of the wall can
be assessed. A loading protocol with 5-8 (15-24 cycles) displacement levels until the reaching of F
max

(Fig. 3.19) is recommended for common wall panel configurations. The test has to be continued until
the load bearing capacity of the wall decreases under 0.7F
max
. The advantage of the recommended
cyclic protocol in Fig. 5.2 is that it can be used without prior knowledge of the yield limit, if the
assumed failure mode is achieved at the end of the test.
-4
4
0
Time
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
-Dmax
Dmax

Fig. 3.19: Recommended loading protocol
3.5.4 Evaluation of test r esults
Depending on the loading protocol different experimental curves may be available as result of the wall
testing. The most important is the characteristic curve representing the horizontal force (i.e. shear force)
as function of the horizontal displacement at the top of the wall. It is important to remember that the
characteristics of this curve may change with:
(1) The changing of the vertical load acting simultaneously
(2) The cyclic loading protocol used
(3) The loading velocity used
Therefore, even if these curves are the most important means of evaluating the properties of the wall
behaviour they may lead to different conclusions in different test circumstances. The most important
concern is whether the ductile failure obtained in some test conditions will remain ductile in other
testing situation and ultimately during an earthquake.
Depending on the loading protocol the characteristic curve can be obtained as
(1) A monotonic curve or
(2) A cyclic curve
For the evaluation of earthquake characteristics cyclic testing is preferred.
101

If cyclic behaviour curve is available, the envelope (or backbone) of this curve may be obtained by
uniting the load reversal points on the cyclic curve. As a result, form a cyclic curve at least two distinct
envelopes can be obtained, usually called positive and negative envelopes (Fig. 3.20).
-60000
-40000
-20000
0
20000
40000
60000
-120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120
Displacement (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
N
)
1st Cycle (+)
3th Cycle (+)

Fig. 3.20. Definition of envelope curves
In most cases the behaviour of the wall panels is the same in both directions, so at least the initial
rigidity and the maximum force should be the same in the positive and the negative direction.
Asymmetry only occurs due to the fact that the panel fails in a loading cycle in one direction, the
reversals being affected afterwards. Careful judgement has to be exercised during the evaluation of the
results concerning the use of curves from both loading directions in the evaluation of a certain
characteristic value.
The initial rigidity (K
ini
) and the elastic design force (F
e
) should be determined based on the un-
stabilised envelope curve. The conventional yield limit (F
y
) and the ultimate displacement (D
ult
) should
be calculated based on the stabilised envelope curve. If the stabilised envelope curve is less than 5%
lower than the un-stabilised one (obs. this was the case for all specimens in the cyclic test series), the
interpretation can be made based on the average of the two curves.
3.5.4.a. Establishment of the initial r igidity (K
ini
)
The initial rigidity is defined by the starting portion of the behaviour curve. It is usual to define the
initial rigidity as secant between the origin point and the point on the curve corresponding to the force
level of 0.4F
max
(Fig. 3.21). This definition of the rigidity line is quite established (e.g. Porter 1987),
and it usually leads to a reasonable estimation. However, other researchers have used also the reference
values of 0.33F
max
(ASTM E-564 1995) and 0.8F
max
(FEMA-273 1997).
3.5.4.b. Establishment of the elastic (design) limit (F
e
, F
d
)
As the level of load is increasing, the behaviour of the wall panel becomes more and more non-linear.
Usually there is no sudden change of behaviour, which can help in identifying a clear limit between
elastic and plastic behaviour, rather there is a smooth transition (e.g. somewhat clearer transition can be
observed in case of wall panels with cross braces). Therefore, the definition of elastic limit has to be
based on convention. Unlike in the case of the determination of the initial rigidity in this case agreement
has not been reached, different researchers using fundamentally different approaches for the calculation
of elastic limit.
During the analysis of the experimental curves of this project, a supplementary method is proposed. The
basic supposition is that, due to the highly non-linear nature of the wall panel behaviour, clear
distinction has to be made between:
(1) The range of elastic behaviour (i.e. which can be exploited in the elastic design)
(2) A second non linear behaviour with important over strength and
(3) The yield part of the curve.
102

The limit of the elastic behaviour should be related to the initial rigidity of the wall, since the most
logical case is to regard the behaviour elastic as far as the rigidity does not decrease significantly.
Therefore an acceptable decrease of rigidity compared to the initial is suggested (e.g. 75%) as the
defining of the end of elastic behaviour (Fig. 3.22).
F
max
0.4xF
max
D
max
ini K
D
F

K
D
F
max
F
e
F
ini 0.75xK
0.4xF
max
ini

Fig. 3.21. Definition of initial rigidity Fig. 3.22. Limit of elastic behaviour (1)
The most correct way of defining the elastic limit, from the theoretical point of view would be to define
what decrease of rigidity from the initial (K
ini
) is tolerated so that the behaviour may still be called
elastic (Fig. 3.23). In the example presented in Fig. 3.23 the factor 0.5 is suggested.
This method, somewhat similar to the ECCS (ECCS-45 1996) procedure, has the advantage of closely
following the shape of the curve and being very much related to the deterioration of rigidity on the
curve. This deterioration of rigidity is the natural measure of how far the behaviour is from the initial
elastic one.
The methods disadvantage appears in case of the need to interpret envelop curves where very few
points are available on the curve. In these cases there are long segments with certain rigidity.
3.5.4.c. Establishment of the yield limit (F
y
)
The level of force at which it can be considered that the wall panel undergoes yielding may be taken as
0.9F
max
(sometimes 0.8F
max
). In other words, if the force drops under 0.9F
max
it can be said that the
wall panel has reached its ultimate state. This is a threshold satisfactory for wall panels. The ultimate
displacement (D
max
) can be identified as the point form which the experimental force falls under this
limiting value (Fig. 3.24).
K
D
F
max
F
e
F
0.5xKini
0.4xF
max
ini

ini K
D
F
max
F
e
F
D
max
max
F =0.9xF
y

Fig. 3.23. Limit of elastic behaviour (2) Fig. 3.24. Definition of the yield plateau
3.5.5 Recommendations of defining of r igidity, design and yield limit
In this report, the initial rigidity was determined using the criteria presented in 3.5.4.a., the elastic limit
by the criteria described in 3.5.4.b, while the yield plateau by the one presented in 3.5.4.c. This method
of interpretation is recommended for wall panel test with the observation that K
ini
and F
e
should be
determined based on the un-stabilised envelope curve, while F
y
and D
ult
based on the stabilised
envelope curve, if the two curves are distinct. One particularity of the interpretation of the experimental
curves in this way is that a non-linear behaviour branch emerges. In this region the behaviour is not
103

elastic any more, but the panel still possesses important load bearing capacities. The interpretation used
for test results of this project is shown in Fig. 3.25.
0.4xF
max
ini
K
D
F
max
F
e
F
ini
0.75xK
y
F
HxK
ini
D
max

Fig. 3.25. Interpretation used in this study
The main test method concerning seismic testing is cyclic testing, which gives most of the seismic
parameters. As mentioned above the main idea is that only the diagonals or sheathings is allowed to
yield during testing and all the other parts of the wall (e.g. studs, tracks, stiffening parts and joints) has
to be strong enough so that they will remain elastic during testing. The fixing of the sheathings (e. g.
steel sheathing, plywood and gypsum board) may behave inelastic and may dissipate energy, because
the amount of the screws is high and failure of few screws will not cause sudden failure of the whole
wall.
It is desired to continue the cyclic test until the side force is decreasing and is lower than yield point.
Not in all cases this lowering part of the curve is possible to achieve due to limitation of the testing
machine or unexpected failure of the structure. The ductility , over strength O
V
, pinching P and
hardening H is defined using formula 3.3 and symbols in Fig. 3.25. Note in the formula 3.3 over
strength O
V
is defined using definition the value 0 means result 'no over strength'.

e
F
D
D
max
=
ductility 3.3
1 =
e
y
v
F
F
O
over strength factor

e
P
F
F
P =1
pinching factor

ini H
K H K =
hardening rigidity
Where F
d
=F
e
acceptable elastic design force
F
y
force at which the panel is deformed without force increase (i.e. yields)
F
P
level of force in pinching reversals
D
Fe
displacement corresponding to the end of elastic behaviour
D
max
maximum deflection according to yield limit F
y
K
ini
initial rigidity of the panel
H hardening rigidity factor of the panel

104

3.5.6 Main test r esults and par ameter s of cyclic tests
The main purpose of the tests was also to find out the stiffness and ductility parameters, which can be
used when determining the calculation methods and factors for earthquake designing. All the test results
(rigidity, design force, yield force, overstrength, ductility and hardening), have been calculated
according to paragraph 3.5.5.
This paragraph presents test results of cyclic tests, which have been done for shear walls when using
gypsum-, plywood or steel sheathing and diagonals as a stiffening system.
The test specimens used in cyclic test series Cyc1 is shown in Table 3.12. In
Table 3.13 is shown rigidity, elastic and yield forces and also strength, ductility and hardening factor.
All the other results are given in report PR377/WP3/E007 (2004) of the project.

Table 3.12. Cyclic test series 1 Cyc1 (Full scale elements without extra weights or vertical load)
No
Cyc1
RR=Rautar uukki Oyj
ROS=Rosette Oy
Sheathing
Failur e mode
1 (101)
RR
Gypsum wallboard 12.0 mm (inside)
Screws went through the gypsum
2 (102)
RR
Steel plate 0.6 mm (inside,
behind of Gypsum wallboard)
Screws went through the plywood
Buckling of the stud
3 (103)
RR
4 (104)
RR
Buckling of the stud (double studs)
5 (105)
RR
Failure in the glued seam

Table 3.13. Elastic- yield- and ultimate state strength in cyclic tests of Cyc1
Elastic
r igidity
(K)
Elastic
/Design
for ce
(F
e
/Fd)
Yield
for ce
(F
y
)
Over -
str ength
factor
(Ov)
Ductility
(D
max
/
D
Fd
)
H Displacement
at maximum
for ce (D
Fmax
)
Max. for ce
(F
max
)
kN/mm kN kN mm kN
1 3.42 19.85 30.22 0.52 7.41 0.15 44.18 33.58
2 3.87 31.77 42.75 0.35 3.64 0.25 25.75 47.50
3 2.65 37.44 40.63 0.09 1.72 0.17 32.35 45.14
4 2.94 59.45 60.44 0.02 1.69 0.04 33.91 67.15
5 2.95 49.03 53.44 0.09 1.56 0.15 34.54 59.38
Specimen No 1/Cyc1 (Fig. 3.26.a).was broken in a way screws came through the gypsum board (the plate
come out in the middle seam) but the screws were still fixed in the studs and tracks.
Specimen No 2/Cyc1 (Fig. 3.26.b) was broken with the same failure mode in the left lower corner, but be-
fore that the left stud was buckled.
Specimen No 3/Cyc1 was broken by the left stud buckling (see Fig. 3.26.c).
Specimen No 4/Cyc1 (Fig. 3.26.d) was strengthened by double studs, but the double stud was still buck-
led. Note, the extra stud was installed afterwards and the horizontal force was not completely divided into both
studs.
Specimen No 5/Cyc1 (Fig. 3.26.e) was also strengthened by double studs and the failure occurred in the
middle seam. The seam was loosed before final damage and the plywood was also loosed from the stud with-
out any cutting (no plywood was left on the stud). In final damage some plywood was left on the studs (gluing
was good enough).

105

(a) Test No 1/Cyc1, gypsum board sheathing
with screw fastening
(b) Test No 2/Cyc1, gypsum board- and steel
plate sheathing with screw fastening
(c) Test No 3/Cyc1, plywood sheathing with
screw fastening
(d) Test No 4/Cyc1, plywood sheathing with
screw and gluing fastening

(e) Test No 5/Cyc1, plywood sheathing fixing with gluing
Fig. 3.26. Test specimens of cyclic test series Cyc 1

The test specimens used in cyclic test series Cyc2 is shown in
Table 3.14. In Table 3.15 are shown rigidity, elastic and yield forces and also strength, ductility and
hardening factors for behaviour factor calculation. The maximum rigidity has been 6.74kN/mm
2
(No 3,
steel plate sheathing and diagonals) and maximum design force 71.81kN (No 4, gypsum wall board
sheathing and diagonals). All the other results are given in report PR377/WP3/E010 (2004) of the
project.

106

No
Cyc2
RR=Rautar uukki Oyj
ROS=Rosette Oy
Sheathing
Failur e mode
1
(RR3.2)
RR
Breaking of the anchoring bolt
2
(RR3.6)
RR
Steel plate 0.6 mm (inside)
Perforated steel plate 0.6 mm (outside)
Screws went through the steel plate
3
(RR3.5)
RR
Steel plate 0.6 mm (inside)
Diagonals 150*1.0 (outside)

Breaking of the diagonal

4
(RR3.7)
RR
Diagonals 150*1.0 (outside, behind the Gypsum
wall board
Screws went through the gypsum and steel plate
Local buckling of the stud
5
(RR3.4)
RR
Diagonals 150*1.5 (inside)
Buckling of the clip angle at the top corner
6
(RR3.8)
RR
Buckling of the clip angle at the top corner
7
(RR3.11)
RR

(Diagonals fixed onto upper track).

Lower clip angle was broken
8
ROS
Diagonals D = 24 mm (in the middle of the
wall). Rosette broad wall.
Lower clip angle was broken
9
ROS
Diagonals D = 24 mm (in the middle of the
wall). Rosette narrow wall.
The diagonals were only stretching

Table 3.15. Elastic- yield- and ultimate state strength in cyclic tests of Cyc2
Elastic
r igidity
(K)
Elastic
/Design
for ce
(F
e
/Fd)
Yield
for ce
(F
y
)
Over -
str ength
factor
(Ov)
Ductility
(D
max
/
D
Fd
)
H Displacement
at maximum
for ce (D
Fmax
)
Max. for ce
(F
max
)
kN/mm kN kN mm kN
1 3.44 38.60 55.39 0.44 2.63 0.25 39.27 61.54
2 3.49 64.64 69.97 0.08 1.91 0.14 43.43 77.62
3 6.74 30.28 57.69 0.91 8.17 0.21 33.94 64.10
4 3.06 71.81 71.81 0 1.55 0 38.88 79.79
5 1.46 53.76 53.76 0 1.00 0 49.76 59.73
6 1.80 69.75 69.75 0 1.27 0 64.84 77.49
7 2.13 61.52 64.03 0.04 1.96 0.09 65.43 71.14
8 1.65 36.66 48.15 0.31 1.87 0.31 55.04 53.50
9 0.57 31.03 32.39 0.04 1.55 0.09 101.92 35.98
Specimen No 1/Cyc2 (Fig. 3.27.b) was broken so that the gypsum board came out of the specimen (the
plate came out in the middle seam) but the screws were still fixed in the studs and tracks. The test was stopped
when the anchoring bolt was broken and the test could not be continued.
Specimen No 2/Cyc2 (Fig. 3.27.b) was broken by loosening of the steel plates in the lower left corner. The
fixing screws went through the steel plates and the left stud was also buckled.
Specimen No 3/Cyc2 (Fig. 3.27.c) was broken by loosening of the steel plates in the lower left corner. The
diagonal was also broken near the connection and in un-perforated area of the strap.
107

Specimen No 4/Cyc2 (Fig. 3.27.d) was broken so that the gypsum board and steel plate came out of the
specimen (the plate came out in the corners) but the screws were still fixed in the studs and tracks. Also the
stud was buckled at the end of the test, but the diagonals were unbroken after the test.
Specimen No 5/Cyc2 (Fig. 3.27.e) was broken by shear failure at the top corner. The top clip angle was
buckled by the horizontal shear force. The diagonals were stretched during the test, but were unbroken.
Specimen No 6/Cyc2 (Fig. 3.27.f) was broken by the same way as No 5. The top clip angle was buckled
by the horizontal shear force. The diagonals were stretched during the test, but were unbroken. Also the gyp-
sum plate came out of the specimen, but the screws were left in the frame. The lower track was buckled at the
end of the test.
Specimen No 7/Cyc2 (Fig. 3.28.g) was broken when the lower clip angle was cut off. The clip angle at the
top was unbroken because the diagonal was fixed at the top track by the screws.
Specimen No 8/Cyc2 (Fig. 3.28.h) was broken when the lower clip angle was cut off. The studs and di-
agonals (rods) were unbroken after the test, but the lower track was buckled during the test.
Specimen No 9/Cyc2 (Fig. 3.28.i) was not broken during the test. The diagonals were stretched but the
structure could resist the maximum movement ( 210 mm) of the hydraulic cylinder.

(a) Test No 1/Cyc2, Gypsum wallboard and steel
plate inside. Gypsum wallboard, outside

(b) Test No 2/Cyc2, Steel plate sheathings

(c) Test No 3/Cyc2, Steel plate sheathing and di-
agonals with screw fastening

(d) Test No 4/Cyc2, Gypsum board sheathings
with Steel plate and diagonals and with screw
fastening
108

(e) Test No 5/Cyc2, Diagonals on both side

(f) Test No 6/Cyc2, Gypsum board sheathings
with diagonals and with screw fastening

(g) Test No 7/Cyc2, (renewal test), Diagonals on
both sides

(h) Test No 8/Cyc2, Diagonals on both sides of
Rosette broad specimen

(i) Test No 9/Cyc2, Diagonals on both sides of
Rosette narrow specimen
The test specimens used in cyclic test series Cyc3 is shown in Table 3.16. In Table 3.17 are shown
rigidity, elastic and yield forces and also strength, ductility and hardening factors for behaviour factor
calculation. The maximum rigidity has been 4.25kN/mm
2
(No 2, gypsum wall board) and maximum
design force 67.2kN (No 3, diagonals).All the other results are given in report PR377/WP3/E015 (2005)
of the project.
109

No
Cyc3
RR=Rautar uukki Oyj
ROS=Rosette Oy
Sheathing
Failur e mode
1
(E1)
RR
Narrow wallboard (1200 mm)
Diagonals (inside) 150*1.5 mm
Diagonals (outside) 150*1.5 mm
Diagonals were only stretching
2
(E2)
RR
Screws in lower corner were cut off
3a
(E3a)
RR
Broad wallboard (2400 mm)
Slipping failure at the top
3b
(E3b)
RR
Broad wallboard (2400 mm), reinforcements
Slipping failure at the top
4
(E4)
RR
Narrow wallboard (1200 mm)
Steel plate 0.7 mm (only inside)
Table 3.17. Elastic- yield- and ultimate state strength in cyclic tests of Cyc3.
Elastic
r igidity
(K)
Elastic
/Design
for ce
(F
e
/Fd)
Yield
for ce
(F
y
)
Over -
str ength
factor (Ov)
Ductility
(D
max
/
D
Fd
)
H Disp. at
maximum
for ce
Max. for ce
(F
max
)
kN/mm kN kN mm kN
1 1.59 26.81 39.50 0.47 4.58 0.25 92.65 43.89
2 4.25 41.79 59.96 0.43 2.27 0.30 28.76 66.62
3 2.78 67.20 67.20 0 1.52 0 39.85 72.67
4 0.98 30.22 30.22 0 1.49 0 59.59 33.58
Specimen No 1 (Fig. 3.29.a) was not broken totally. There was only a light slipping in the lower corner
due the bigger holes diameter of anchoring bolt
Specimen No 2 (Fig. 3.29.b) was broken by shearing failure of screws of slip angle in lower corner.
Specimen No 3 (Fig. 3.29.c) was broken by slipping failure in the upper corner due to too few screws.
Also no slip angle was used in upper corner. The upper corners were reinforced by steel plate thickness of 10
mm, but slipping continued at the end of the test.
Specimen No 4 (Fig. 3.29.d) was broken by loosening of the steel plate (plate came out of the fixing
screws but the screws were still fixed in the studs and tracks).

(a) Test specimen No 1/Cyc3. (Narrow wall-
board, 1200 mm, diagonals inside and out-
side, RR)
(b) Test specimen No 2/Cyc3. (Gypsum wall-
board 12.0 mm, steel plate 0.6 mm, gypsum
wallboard 9.0 mm, RR)
110

(c) Test specimen No 3a/Cyc3. (Broad wall-
board 2400 mm, diagonals inside and outside,
RR).(Before installing of reinforcements in
upper corners)
(d) Test specimen No 3a/Cyc3. (Broad wall-
board 2400 mm, diagonals inside and outside,
RR).(After installing of reinforcements in up-
per corners)

(e) Test specimen No 4. (Narrow wallboard, 1200 mm, steel plate 0.7 mm only inside, RR)

111

Test 1/Cyc1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Defl ecti on (mm)
S
i
d
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

(a) Test No 1/Cyc1, gypsum board sheathing with
screw fastening
Test 2/Cyc1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Defl ecti on (mm)
S
i
d
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

(b) Test No 2/Cyc1, gypsum board- and steel plate
sheathing with screw fastening
Test 3/Cyc1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Defl ecti on (mm)
S
i
d
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

(c) Test No 3/Cyc1, plywood sheathing with screw
fastening
Test 4/Cyc1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Defl ecti on (mm)
S
i
d
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

(d) Test No 4/Cyc1, plywood sheathing with screw
and gluing fastening
Test 5/Cyc1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Defl ecti on (mm)
S
i
d
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

(e) Test No 5/Cyc1, plywood sheathing fixing with gluing
Fig. 3.30. Backbone curves of cyclic test series Cyc 1. Horizontal displacement versus cylinder force.

112

Test 1/Cyc2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Defl ecti on (mm)
S
i
d
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

(a) Test No 1/Cyc2, Gypsum wallboard and steel
plate inside. Gypsum wallboard, outside
Test 2/Cyc2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Defl ecti on (mm)
S
i
d
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

(b) Test No 2/Cyc2, Steel plate sheathings
Test 3/Cyc2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Defl ecti on (mm)
S
i
d
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

Test 4/Cyc2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Defl ecti on (mm)
S
i
d
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

with Steel plate and diagonals and with screw
fastening
Test 5/Cyc2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Defl ecti on (mm)
S
i
d
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

(e) Test No 5/Cyc2, Diagonals on both sides
Test 6/Cyc2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Defl ecti on (mm)
S
i
d
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

(f) Test No 6/Cyc2, Gypsum board sheathings
with diagonals and with screw fastening
Fig. 3.31. Backbone curves of cyclic test series Cyc 2. Horizontal displacement versus cylinder force
113

Test 7/Cyc2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Defl ecti on (mm)
S
i
d
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

(g) Test No 7/Cyc2, (renewal test), Diagonals on
both sides
Test 8/Cyc2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Defl ecti on (mm)
S
i
d
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

(h) Test No 8/Cyc2, Diagonals on both sides of
Rosette broad specimen
Test 9/Cyc2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Defl ecti on (mm)
S
i
d
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

(i) Test No 9/Cyc2, Diagonals on both sides of Rosette narrow specimen

Test 1/Cyc3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Defl ecti on (mm)
S
i
d
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

(a) Test No 1/Cyc3. (Narrow wallboard, 1200
mm, diagonals inside and outside, RR)
Test 2/Cyc3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Defl ecti on (mm)
S
i
d
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

(b) Test No 2/Cyc3. (Gypsum wallboard 12.0 mm,
steel plate 0.6 mm, gypsum wallboard 9.0 mm,
RR)
114

Test 3/Cyc3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Defl ecti on (mm)
S
i
d
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

(c) Test No 3a/Cyc3. (Broad wallboard 2400 mm,
diagonals inside and outside, RR).(After installing
of reinforcements in upper corners)
Test 4/Cyc3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Defl ecti on (mm)
S
i
d
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

(d) Test No 3b/Cyc3. (Narrow wallboard, 1200
mm, steel plate 0.7 mm only inside, RR)
Test 4/Cyc3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Defl ecti on (mm)
S
i
d
e

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

(e) Test No 4. (Narrow wallboard, 1200 mm, steel plate 0.7 mm only inside, RR)
115

-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Di spl acement ( ho r i zo nt al, t op) ( mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
)

(
k
N
)

(a) Test No 1/Cyc1, gypsum board sheathing with
screw fastening
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
- 30 -20 - 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Di spl acement ( ho r i zo nt al, t op) ( mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
)

(
k
N
)
(b) Test No 2/Cyc1, gypsum board- and steel
plate sheathing with screw fastening
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Di spl acement (hor i zont al, t op) (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
)

(
k
N
)

(c) Test No 3/Cyc1, plywood sheathing with screw
fastening
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Di spl acement (hor i zont al, t op) (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
)

(
k
N
)
(d) Test No 4/Cyc1, plywood sheathing with
screw and gluing fastening
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Di splacement (hor izont al , cyl inder ) (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
)

(
k
N
)

(e) Test No 5/Cyc1, plywood sheathing with gluing fastening
Fig. 3.34. Hysteresis curve of test series Cyc 1. Horizontal displacement versus cylinder force

-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Di spl acement (hori zontal , top) (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
)

(
k
N
)

(a) Test 1/Cyc2, Gypsum sheathing with steel plate
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
F
o
r
c
e

(
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
)

(
k
N
)

(b) Test No 2/Cyc2, Steel plate sheathing
116

-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Displacement (horizontal, top) (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
)

(
k
N
)

-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
F
o
r
c
e

(
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
)

(
k
N
)

with Steel plate and diagonals
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
F
o
r
c
e

(
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
)

(
k
N
)

(e) Test No 5/Cyc2, Diagonals on both sides
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
-9
0
-8
0
-7
0
-6
0
-5
0
-4
0
-3
0
-2
0
-1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
F
o
r
c
e

(
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
)

(
k
N
)

(f) Test No 6/Cyc2, Gypsum board with diagonals

-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-9
0
-8
0
-7
0
-6
0
-5
0
-4
0
-3
0
-2
0
-1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10
0
F
o
r
c
e

(
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
)

(
k
N
)

(g) Test No 7/Cyc2 (renewal test), Diagonals on
both sides
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
F
o
r
c
e

(
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
)

(
k
N
)

(h) Test No 8/Cyc2 (renewal test), Diagonals (Ro-
sette specimen)
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-1
30
-1
20
-1
10
-1
00
-9
0
-8
0
-7
0
-6
0
-5
0
-4
0
-3
0
-2
0
-1
0
0 10203040506070809010
0
11
0
12
0
13
0
F
o
r
c
e

(
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
)

(
k
N
)

(i) Test No 9/Cyc2 (renewal test), Diagonals (Rosette narrow specimen)
Fig. 3.36. Hysteresis curve of test series Cyc 2. Horizontal displacement versus cylinder force.
117

Cyclic test No E1
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-110 -90 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110
Displacement (horizontal, top-bottom) (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
)

(
k
N
)

(a) Test No 1/Cyc3. (Narrow wallboard, 1200 mm,
diagonals inside and outside, RR
Cyclic test No E2
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-110 -90 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110
F
o
r
c
e

(
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
)

(
k
N
)
(b) Test No 2/Cyc3. (Gypsum board 12.0 mm,
steel plate 0.6 mm, gypsum wall 9.0 mm, RR)
Cyclic test No E3
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-110 -90 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110
F
o
r
c
e

(
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
)

(
k
N
)

(c) Test No 3A/Cyc3. (Broad wallboard 2400 mm,
diagonals inside and outside, RR). (Before install-
ing of reinforcements in upper corners)
Cyclic test No E3b
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-110 -90 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110
F
o
r
c
e

(
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
)

(
k
N
)
(d) Test No 3b/Cyc3. (Broad wallboard 2400 mm,
diagonals inside and outside, RR). (After install-
ing of reinforcements in upper corners)
Cyclic test No E4
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 20 40 60 80
F
o
r
c
e

(
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
)

(
k
N
)

(e) Test specimen No 4/Cyc3. (Narrow wallboard,
1200 mm, steel plate of 0.7 mm only inside, RR)


3.6 Conclusions
This Annex describes seismic and cyclic testing methods used in steel-framed shear wall testing in the
ECSC project (ECSC-Project 7210-PR-377). One method was to test small scale elements using
vibration table. The other method was to test full scale wall elements using cyclic test signal to obtain
the main structural parameters (i.e. rigidity, pinching, design force, yield force, ductility and over
strength factor).
The test specimens used in the tests were steel stud wall elements with sheathings of gypsum board,
plywood, steel plate and diagonals. In some test the stud was buckled or joints were breaking and the
maximum capacity was, may be, not achieved. The best testing method is cyclic testing when steel stud
118

shear walls are tested. The studs, joints and other details must be carefully design to obtain the desired
failure mode. The main idea is the studs and joints will remain elastic but diagonals or screw joints of
sheathings will behave plastic in the tests. When the cyclic tests are done successfully, the design
parameters above can be obtained.
Based on the dynamic (i.e. earthquake) testing of walls it can be concluded that the failure modes under
dynamic loading were essentially the same as in case of cyclic loading. However, it has to be
emphasised that the failure modes, both for cyclic and dynamic tests, were not always advantageous. In
numerous occasions unexpected failure modes prevented the development of full ductility of the walls.
One of the conclusions is that designers of such walls have to be extremely careful in covering all
possible failure modes of the wall.
The measured damping ratios support the use of 5% damping for the analysis of steel-framed house
structures. However, a rather large scatter of the damping ratio was observed around this value of 5%.
The measurement of the damping ratio on entire structures would be a further step of assurance that the
value of 5% is reasonable.
Based on the small scale dynamic tests a hierarchy in terms of expectable earthquake performance of
the different sheathings can be set up. The worst behaviour was observed for the gypsum sheathed wall,
while the best performance for the X brace wall with the same height/width ratio.
The cyclic test series provided information concerning basic design properties (ex. capacity, strength) of
different real wall configuration. Sometimes the results have to be treated with caution because the wall
panel failure was unexpected (ex. anchor bolt failure) and clearly pointed to fault of the design concept.
A continuous improvement of the wall detailing has been an important outcome of the tests.
The experimental results obtained in this testing campaign here stand at the basis of the calculation of q
factor in Annex 4, as well as at the proposals for ductility and overstrength values for different wall
configurations in Annex 6.
119

REFERENCES
ASTM E-564 (1995), E 564 - Static load test for shear resistance of framed walls for buildings, Annual
book of standard, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), West Conshohocken, Pa. 1995
Cola/UCI (2001) Report of a testing program of light-framed walls with wood-sheathed shear panels,
Light frame test committee A subcommittee of the research committee. December 2001.
ECCS-45 (1996) Recommended testing procedure for assessing the behaviour of structural steel
elements under cyclic loads, ECCS - Technical committee 1, Publication No 45, 1996
EN 1998-1 (2004) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings. December 2004.
Niskanen. Lujuusoppi Vb. Vrhtelyoppia. TKY moniste 270.
EN 594 (1995) Timber structures. Test methods. Racking strength and stiffness of timber frame wall
panels. December 1995.
FEMA-273 (1997), NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings FEMA 273, Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington D.C.
Gatto K., Uang C.M. (2003) Effects of loading protocol on the cyclic response of woodframe shear
walls, Journal of structural engineering, Oct. 2003, p. 1384-1392
GR-63-CORE (2002), Telecordia Technologies. NEBS requirements: Physical protection. Issue 2. April
2002.
ISESD (2005), Internet Site for European Strong-Motion Data (ISESD),
http://www.isesd.cv.ic.ac.uk/ESD/Database/Database.htm
Kawai Y., R. Kanno, K. Hanya (1997), Cyclic Shear Resistance of Light-Gauge Steel Framed Walls,
ASCE Structures Congress Portland, 1997
Kawai Y. et al. (1999), Seismic resistance and design of steel-framed houses. Nippon Steel Technical
Report No. 79 January 1999
Porter, M.L., (1987). Sequential Phased Displacement Procedure for TCCMAR Testing, Proceedings of
the 3rd Meeting of the Joint technical Coordinating Committee on Masonry Research, US-Japan
Coordinated Earthquake Research Program, Tamanu, Japan, 15 pp.
PR377/WP2/E005 (2003), Seismic tests of shear walls. Part 1, VTT-Building and Transport, 2003
PR377/WP3/E007 (2004), Cyclic tests of shear walls, Part 1, VTT-Building and Transport, 2004
PR377/WP3/E010 (2004), Cyclic tests of shear walls, Part 2, VTT-Building and Transport, 2004
PR377/WP2/E012 (2005), Seismic tests of shear walls. Part 2, VTT-Building and Transport, 2005
PR377/WP3/E015 (2005), Cyclic tests of shear walls. Part 3, VTT-Building and Transport, 2005
120

ANNEX 4:
Earthquake analysis and modelling of shear walls
(WP4.2 Tasks 2,3,4 and 6)
121

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4. ANNEX 4 Earthquake analysis and modelling of shear walls .................................................. 123
4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 123
4.2 The relationship between q factor and non-linear spectrums............................................... 123
4.2.1 Concept of q factor...................................................................................................... 123
4.2.2 Influence on the q factor of the period of vibration of the oscillator........................... 124
4.3 Evaluation of the q factor using non-linear equal ductility spectrums................................. 126
4.4 Hysteresis models ................................................................................................................ 127
4.4.1 The bilinear slip model................................................................................................ 128
4.4.2 The multilinear model ................................................................................................. 131
4.5 Earthquake records............................................................................................................... 134
4.5.1 Selection procedure for natural earthquake records .................................................... 134
4.5.2 Presentation of selected natural records ...................................................................... 136
4.5.3 Generation of artificial earthquake records ................................................................. 138
4.6 Parametric analysis and results ............................................................................................ 140
4.6.1 Study cases .................................................................................................................. 140
4.6.2 Equal ductility spectrums for natural earthquakes ...................................................... 141
4.7 Mathematical formulation of q-factor; influence of hysteretic parameters.......................... 142
4.7.1 Influence of overstrength (O
V
) .................................................................................... 142
4.7.2 Influence of pinching (P)............................................................................................. 144
4.7.3 Proposal of formulation for q-factor/ Conclusion of the modelling............................ 145
4.8 Use of the q-factor formulation together with wall-panel test results.................................. 147
4.9 Seismic behaviour of whole building................................................................................... 149
4.10 Conclusions.......................................................................................................................... 150

122

4. ANNEX 4 Ear thquake analysis and modelling of shear walls
4.1 Intr oduction
The results presented in this document aim to clarify two aspects of earthquake design of light-gauge
steel houses:
(1) To supply the designer a suitable tool to evaluate the influence of the non-linear behaviour of
the structure on the elastic design load (F
b
) he has to adopt. This practically means that if the
deformation characteristics of the structure are known to the design he should be able to
evaluate the q factor that he may use.
(2) To supply analytical tool (or methods) for the evaluation of the elastic load bearing capacity
of wall panels used in steel framed houses (especially the case of thin-steel plate sheathed
shear wall has been studied). The lack of such tools in present design standards makes it
difficult to design the earthquake-load resisting elements of the houses, and usually the
designers have to rely on experimental results in their assessment.
In Chapter 4.2 the concept of q-factor is introduced. Based on the definition of Ec8 the relationship
between the ductility and the factor q is established. The effect of the corner period (T
C
) of the
earthquake record on this relationship is emphasized. In chapter 4.3 non-linear spectrums are presented
as a natural way to evaluate q factors as a function of the period of vibration T. The influence of the
hysteretic models and of the earthquake records is highlighted. Two hysteretic modelling alternatives
have been developed in this project and are presented in Chapter 4.4. For the choosing of earthquake
records to be used in the analysis a selection procedure is proposed (and has been implemented) in
Chapter 4.5. A number of artificial records have also been generated and are used for analysis.
Chapter 4.6 summarizes the main contributions obtained in the framework of the project. Namely, using
the hysteretic models and earthquake records selected before, an extensive parametric study has been
undertaken in order to assess the effect of the characteristics of the hysteretic model (pinching,
overstrength, ductility) on the value of the q-factor. The model parameters used reflect the
characteristics of the hysteretic behaviour obtained experimentally for the wall panels (presented in
detail in Annex 3).
In Chapter 4.7, based on the results of the parametric study analytical formulas are proposed in order to
calculate the q-factor as a function of: (i) the ductility, (ii) the pinching factor, (iii) the overstrength, (iv)
the characteristics of the earthquake records and (v) the period of vibration of the oscillator.
4.2 The r elationship between q factor and non-linear spectr ums
4.2.1 Concept of q factor
One of the key elements in calculating the seismic load (F
b
) according to Ec 8 (EN 1998-1-8 2004), and
most modern codes, is the q factor. According to the code definition this factor is used for design
purposes to reduce the forces obtained from a linear analysis, in order to account for the non-linear
response of a structure, associated with the material, the structural system and the design procedures.
In other words, the q factor is used in all cases when elastic design is adopted (i.e. equivalent force
analysis, spectral analysis or linear time-history analysis) to accounts for the differences between the
elastic design method used by the designer and the real non-linear behaviour of the structure. The q
factor allows for reduction of the seismic forces due to these differences. So this is the second point
where the loading side is heavily influenced by a property of the structure, namely its ability to sustain
non-linear deformations.
Ec 8 provides values for the q factor of different structural typologies, in the relevant parts of the code.
The value of the q factor is given depending on the ductility class of the structures, therefore
emphasizing the relationship between the ability of the structure to sustain non-linear deformations (i.e.
ductility) and the q factor.
123

The values of q factor are provided depending on the structural typology, but in Ec 8 it is not explicitly
acknowledged that the q factor also depends on the period of vibration of the building. This is
especially true for structures with low periods of vibration (i.e. like low-rise rigid buildings), where the
factor q is small even for large values of the ductility.
In extreme conditions a structure can be simplified to an oscillator with a single dynamic degree of
freedom (Fig. 4.1).
(a) (b)
F
D
m

Fig. 4.1. (a)Wall-panel and (b) equivalent single degree of freedom oscillator
If the behaviour of the oscillator is perfectly elastic-plastic, the concept of ductility is simplified to the
ratio of maximum sustainable plastic displacement (d
t
) and of the yield displacement (d
y
):

e t
d d / =
4.1
The concept of q factor, on the other hand, is reduced to the ration between the peak ground
acceleration (PGA) of the earthquake causing the oscillator to reach the maximum plastic deformation
and the PGA causing yielding:

y g t g
a a q
, ,
/ =
4.2
Note the simplicity of the above definitions. If the behaviour of the model becomes more complex (ex.
it contains hardening or overstrength) the definition of these quantities is not so straightforward.
4.2.2 Influence on the q factor of the per iod of vibr ation of the oscillator
As it has been noted the relationship between the ductility of the structure (or a simple oscillator) and
the q factor is easily recognized from the design codes (ex. Ec 8). However, there is also a relationship
between the period of vibration of the oscillator (T) and the q factor, which less obvious. The easy way
of representing specific characteristics of the earthquake response as a function of the period of
vibration is trough spectrums.
Indirectly, the Eurocode 8 takes into account the fact that the q factor is not constant for low periods of
vibration in case of calculating the displacement of the structure for serviceability limit check
(Appendix B). The way to calculate the target displacement d
t
for structures in the short-period range
T<T
C
(Fig. 4.2) is given as:
1 ( 1)
te C
t
d T
d q
q T
| |
= +
|
\

4.3
For medium period range T>T
C
, the target displacement is to be calculated as:

t te
d d =
4.4
Based on Equation 4.3, and using the definitions in Equations 4.1 and 4.2 the relationship between the
ductility of the model (u) and the reduction factor (q) can be written for the low period range (T<T
C
) as:
124

1 ( 1)
te C
t
d T
d q
q T
| |
= +
|
\
1
1 ( 1)
t C
te
d T
q
d q T
| |
= +
|
\

(a)

Fig. 4.2. Non-linear displacement for the short period range
Also:

1
y y y
te y
te e te
d F d
d q d
d F d q
= = =
(b)

Substituting expression (b) in (a) one gets:

1
1 ( 1) 1 ( 1)
t C t C
y y
d T d T
q q
q d q T d T
| |
= + = +
|
\

(c)
But because of the definition of the ductility, equation (c) can be written as (Fajfar 2000):
1 ( 1)
C
T
q
T
= +
4.5
Or:
1 ( 1)
C
T
q
T
= +
4.6
For the high period range (T>T
C
), the relationship between and q can be expressed as:
q =
4.7
If constant ductility is imposed over the entire period range from 0 to 3s, from Equations 4.5 and 4.6
results that the q factor is increasing from 1 to u over the period interval 0T
C
, and is constant
afterwards (Fig. 4.3).
125

0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
T (s)
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

f
a
c
t
o
r

(
q
)
q
TC=0.8s
=4

Fig. 4.3. Representation of the q factor
4.3 Evaluation of the q factor using non-linear equal ductility spectr ums
However this information is provided in Eurocode 8 for the average (or theoretical case), the more
direct way to determine the relationship between the ductility and the q factor is trough the performing
of repeated time-history analysis in order to obtain the spectrum of real earthquake records.
If the oscillator is elastic, depending on the monitored characteristic value, the usually calculated
spectrums are:
relative displacement spectrum (S
De
),
velocity spectrums (S
V
),
acceleration spectrum (S
A
)
Two supplementary spectrums can be defined based on the displacement spectrum (S
De
):
the pseudo-velocity (S
Ve
) and
the pseudo-acceleration (S
Ae
or S
e
) spectrum
If non-linear behaviour of the SDOF is accepted, besides the elastic spectrums, non-linear spectrums
can also be defined namely:
equal strength spectrums and
equal ductility spectrums
Equal ductility spectrums represent the value of the q factor as a function of the period of vibration (T)
for a fixed ductility (u). They are essentially plots like the one presented in Fig. 4.3, only that they refer
to a certain earthquake record instead of some sort of average. Equal strength spectrums are plots of the
ductility (u) as a function of the period (T) for a fixed q factor. Their average value can be obtained
from Equations 4.6 and 4.7 by imposing a fixed value for q, however in reality they are also calculated
for a given record.
It is important to observe that unlike in the linear case, the non-linear spectrums are dependent on the
utilized non-linear hysteretic model (i.e. force-displacement behaviour of the SDOF oscillator). Most of
the time simple elastic-plastic model stands in the background of the computed non-linear spectrums.
Obviously both for elastic and non-linear spectrums an important parameter in spectrum calculation is
the earthquake records used.
The aim of the further modelling was to determine suitable q factors for the specific case of light gauge
steel houses, taking into account their special hysteretic behaviour.
126

4.4 Hyster esis models
Differential hysteresis models allow obtaining the nonlinear seismic response of shear wall by solving a
small system of ordinary differential equations (ODEs). By assuming that they behave as single degree
of freedom systems (SDOF), the hysteresis is taken into account by an additional term in the equations
of dynamics (i.e. hysteretic displacement) and an associated differential equation.
Bilinear model presented by Mostaghel N. (1999) considers the mechanical device of Fig. 4.4.a. It
consists of a mass m connected to a spring of stiffness ok, a damper with damping coefficient c and
another spring of stiffness (1-o)k connected to a slider. x is the displacement of the system and z the
elongation of the spring connected to the slider, the equation of the system becomes:

4.8
Where f(t) is the applied external force.
When the spring connected to the slider reaches its maximum elongation o, the slider starts sliding:
thus, o o s s z and the maximum load at this spring is (1-o)ko. Hence, the qualitative force-
displacement relation of the system results as shown at Fig. 4.4.b, which corresponds to the simplest
case of hysteretic behaviour with plasticity.
The restoring force is given by the expression: z k x k f
R
+ = ) 1 ( o o .
(a) (b)
Fig. 4.4. Bilinear model of Mostaghel: (a) mechanical device and (b) elasto-plastic hysteretic loops
Let us now define the Heaviside function:

4.9
and consider the complementary ones: ) ( 1 ) ( e e N M = , ) ( ) ( e e = M N and ) ( ) ( e e = N M .
Differential equation for z is:

4.10
Therefore, cyclic plastic response of a system is governed by ordinary differential equations 4.8 and
4.10. Other phenomena such as pinching, stiffness-hardening pinching, stiffness degradation and load
deterioration can also be modelled by modifying Equation 4.10. This system of ODEs can be solved by
standard numerical methods (ex. Runge-Kutta, Shampine L. W. 1994), which are available in standard
mathematical software such as Matlab and Mathematica.
127

4.4.1 The bilinear slip model
4.4.1.a. Motivation: finite element modelling of X-br aced fr ames
The unsheathed shear wall can be modelled as a MDOF system and discretized by the finite element
method. After the spatial FE discretization, nonlinear system of ODEs of dynamics is obtained that can
be solved by step-by-step integration techniques such as the Newmak method (Bathe K. J. 1996).
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 4.5. Finite element model of X-braced frame: (a) geometry, (b) nonlinear force-displacement law
for straps and (c) obtained hysteretic loops
Structural members are modelled with standard Euler-Bernoulli beam elements. Linear shape functions
are used for axial displacements and cubic functions for transverse displacements. Studs and tracks are
regarded as elastic (E=2.110
5
MPa). Diagonal straps buckle out of the plane when compressed. Thus,
straps can undergo plastic deformation under tension, but have no stiffness under compression. This
unilateral behaviour of diagonal straps is modelled with a nonlinear constitutive law (Fig. 4.5.b).
A nonlinear finite element code with the nonlinear constitutive law for diagonal straps of Fig. 4.5.b is
used to model the hysteretic response of the X-braced frame of Fig. 4.5.a. The resulting cyclic force-
displacement response is shown in Fig. 4.5.c. The fact that diagonal straps do not work in compression
causes an extreme pinching in the hysteresis loops.
Thus, the motivation here is to develop a differential bilinear model which, assuming that the X-brace
frame behaves as a SDOF system, is able to describe the hysteresis loops of Fig. 4.5.c.
4.4.1.b. For mulation of the model
A bilinear slip model for x-braced frames has been developed (Pastor N. & Rodrguez-Ferran A. 2005)
based on the bilinear model presented by Mostaghel. Two basic features have been added to the bilinear
model: (i) no compression capacity of diagonal straps and (ii) two different sources of stiffness (frame
and diagonal straps).
Diagonal straps are very slender and they have a very low compression capacity. The unidirectional
behaviour can be modelled with the mechanism presented in Fig. 4.6.a (for clarity, the damper is
omitted in this and subsequent figures).
(a) (b)
Fig. 4.6: No-compression hardening-plastic-tension system (diagonal strap with hardening): (a) me-
chanical device; (b) restoring force-displacement law
128

Note the unidirectional connection of the mass-spring-slider system to the wall, which offers no
resistance if the mass moves to the left. This means that negative elongations z u y + = ) 1 ( o o are
not possible in this device (i.e. no compression). Under tension (i.e. for positive elongations y), the
system has elastic stiffness k up to the maximum elongation of the spring connected to the slider z=o.
The restoring force is given by f
R
=k
y
.
The unidirectional connection is modelled by an additional variable, x
b
(boundary displacement). Note
that, with the sign criteria indicated in Fig. 4.6.a, 0 s
b
x . An evolution equation for x
b
is needed that
reflects the following response:
If there is a gap in the boundary (x
b
<0), the system moves rigidly, either to the left or to the
right ( x x
b
% % = );
If there is no gap (x
b
=0) and the spring is under tension (y>0), then no gap will be created
( 0 =
b
x% ), because tension must be released first;
If there is no gap (x
b
=0) and no tension in the springs (y=0), then (a) a gap is created if the
system moves to the left ( x x
b
% % = for 0 <
b
x% ) or (b) no gap is created if the system moves to the
right ( 0 =
b
x% for 0 >
b
x% )
Regarding elongation z, the evolution Equation 4.10 has been modified to take into account the rigid
motion ( 0 = z% ) of the system if there is a gap at the boundary (x
b
<0) or if there is no gap but it is about
to be created (x
b
=0, y=0 and 0 <
b
x% ). In addition, an evolution equation for u is needed that reflects the
no-compression response of the two-spring system. The complete model is summarized in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Hysteretic model of a no-compression hardening-plastic-tension system

Once the hysteretic behaviour of one diagonal is modelled, it is straightforward to obtain the hysteresis
model for an X-braced frame. An X-braced frame can be idealized as the mechanical device of Fig. 4.7

Fig. 4.7. Mechanical device representing an X-braced frame consisting of two no-compression plastic-
tension systems (diagonal straps) and one elastic system (frame without diagonals)
129

The mass is connected to two no-compression plastic-tension systems (Fig. 4.6), representing the two
diagonal straps, and to a spring of stiffness |k which models the frame without diagonals. Parameter |
represents the fraction of the total stiffness of the X-braced frame due to the frame without the
diagonals (i.e. |=0 for a pinned frame). The restoring force is given by:

(4.11)
Where
i i i
z u y + = ) 1 ( o o (i=1,2) is the averaged elongation of strap i.
The hysteretic model for the X-braced frame is summarized in Table 4.2. The fact that 0
1
s
b
x% but
0
2
>
b
x% , see the sign criteria in Fig. 4.7, causes the differences in the models for strap 1 and strap 2.
4.4.1.c. Validation: compar ison between the appr oaches
The bilinear model (SDOF approach) proposed in section 4.4.1.b has been validated by comparing it to
the finite element model (MDOF approach) of the frame presented in section 4.4.1.a.
Elastic behaviour has been assumed for all the members (E=2.110
5
Mpa) for all the members except
the diagonal straps. For the strap, elasto-plasticity (o
y
=250 MPa) with hardening (hardening modulus
E
p
=E/20) was assumed under tension. Stud-track connections were rigid, so the X-braced frame had
two sources of stiffness 0 = | , the frame itself and the X-brace.

Table 4.2. Bilinear slip hysteresis model for an X-braced frame

For the modelling of the X-braced frame as a MDOF system the nonlinear finite element code Cast3M
(2003) was used. When the X-braced frame was modelled using the differential bilinear slip model, the
system of ODEs of Table 4.2 has been solved by the Runge-Kutta-Felberg 45 method (i.e. command
ode45 in Matlab). There is good agreement of the results both in terms of the evolution of displace-
ments with time (Fig. 4.8.a) and in terms of force-displacement relationship (Fig. 4.8.b).
The SDOF approach based on the modified bilinear model is a simple, accurate and computationally
efficient way to compute the seismic response of X-braced frames.

130

(a) (b)
Fig. 4.8 Comparison between MDOF and SDOF responses: (a) evolution of displacements in time and
(b) force-displacement curves
4.4.2 The multilinear model
A multilinear model was developed here as an extension of the bilinear model presented in section
4.4.1.b, which could incorporate two supplementary features to the bilinear model: overstrength and
variable amount of pinching.
4.4.2.a. For mulation of the model
On one hand, any amount of pinching can be taken into account by considering that the frame has a
nonlinear rigid behaviour. In the mechanical device for the bilinear slip model (Fig. 4.7), it can be seen
that this model takes into account the rigid behaviour of the frame (linear spring of stiffness |k) but it
only considers the linear case.
The nonlinear rigid behaviour of the frame to this model can be added by substituting this linear spring
by a system that is able to model elasto-plastic behaviour. Mostaghel N. (1999) proposes a system of a
spring in parallel with another spring connected to a slider, to model elasto-plasticity.
On the other hand, to incorporate overstrength to the model the idea proposed by Mostaghel N. (1999)
for multilinear systems has been used. Consider first the hysteresis model for a multilinear diagonal
strap (Fig. 4.9). Note that now there are two springs connected to a slider instead of one.
(a) (b)
Fig. 4.9. Diagonal strap with overstrength: (a) mechanical device and (b) hysteresis cycle
Therefore, when moving to the right (system in tension) the diagonal strap has a stiffness k until the
first yielding displacement o
a
is reached (slope AB in the cycle of Fig. 4.9.b). Then, the system has a
stiffness (1-u
a
) until the second yielding displacement o
b
(slope BC), and the system works with a
residual stiffness (1-u
a
-u
b
) which corresponds to slope CD.
The behaviour in compression is exactly the same as it has been described for the bilinear diagonal
strap, see section 4.4.1.b. Fig. 4.10 shows the mechanical device for the multilinear model. Note that,
compared to the bilinear model of Fig. 4.7, this model adds three springs connected to a slider: one for
modelling the nonlinear behaviour related to the frame and another to each diagonal strap to model the
overstrength.
131

Fig. 4.10: Mechanical device for the multilinear model which incorporates pinching and overstrength
System of ODEs describing the multilinear hysteretic behaviour with any amount of pinching and
overstrength is detailed in Table 4.3. That main differences compared to the system of ODEs describing
the bilinear hysteresis model (Table 4.2) are:
Restoring force in dynamics equation is modified due to the nonlinear contribution of the frame
( z x
f f
+ ) 1 ( o o ). Besides, an additional differential equation for z is needed.
Expression for averaged elongation of diagonal straps y
i
is now modified to take into account
the two changes in slope o
a
and o
b
. Due to this overstrength, for each strap there are two
differential equations associated to elongations of springs connected to slider (z
a
and z
b
).
Table 4.3: Multilinear hysteresis model with any amount of pinching and overstrength

4.4.2.b. Calibr ation: fitting of exper imental r esults
The parameters of the multilinear model have been calibrated by comparison with experimental results
of the cyclic tests of shear walls. The hysteretic cycles in Fig. 4.11.a. have been obtained by means of
132

the multilinear model. Note that by looking at the mechanical device of the multilinear model (Fig.
4.10) the stiffness of each slope can be derived:

2
) 1 (
1
k
k k

+ =
|
| corresponds to the whole stiffness of the system

2
) 1 (
2
k
k k
f

+ =
|
| o is the stiffness of the system when the frame has started yielding
) 1 (
2
) 1 (
3 a f
k
k k o
|
| o

+ = is the stiffness of the system when the first slider of the
tension diagonal strap has been activated (branch BC in Fig. 4.9.b.)
) 1 (
2
) 1 (
4 b a f
k
k k o o
|
| o

+ = is the stiffness of the system when the second slider
tension strap has started sliding (branch CD in Fig. 4.9.b.)
k k
f
= | o
5
is the stiffness of the system when both diagonals are compressed (slackness).
In order to fit the multilinear model to the experimental force-displacement curve, yielding
displacements o
a
and o
b
must be provided from the curve (Fig. 4.11.b) and the rest of parameters can be
determined from the stiffness detailed above plus the pinching load P
L.
. Fig. 4.11.c. shows the fitting of
the small scale test of an X-braced frame (see Annex 2 for details of the experiment on the wall panel).
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 4.11: Fitting of the multilinear model from tests. Significant slopes in (a) multilinear cycles and (b)
experimental cycles. (c) Fitting of the small-scale X-braced frame
The multilinear model can be also used to fit the hysteretic cycles of sheathed shear walls. Fig. 4.12
shows the fitting of two-tested sheathed shear walls: with diagonal straps plus steel and gypsum (Fig.
4.12.a) and with diagonal straps and steel plate (Fig. 4.12.b). (see Annex 3 for details on experiments
(RR3.5+ RR3.7))
(a) (b)
Fig. 4.12 Fitting of the multilinear model to cyclic tests of sheathed shear walls (experimental curve in
red and numerical cycles in blue)
133

4.5 Ear thquake r ecor ds
4.5.1 Selection pr ocedur e for natur al ear thquake r ecor ds
One of the most common ways to perform time-history or spectrum analysis is by using historical
earthquake records. In Eurocode 8 the provision for using recorded accelerograms is that the samples
used are adequately qualified with regard to the seismogenetic features of the sources and to the soil
conditions appropriate to the site. Also the acceleration values of the record are to be scaled to the
value of agS for the location under consideration.
The information available to the structural designer concerning the seismicity of the site is incorporated
in the elastic spectrum prescribed by the design code for that location. The spectrum contains basic
information like (1) expected corner periods T
B
, T
C
, T
D
, (2) expected values in the acceleration (S
A
),
velocity (S
V
) and displacement (S
D
) regions of the spectrum.
The corner periods and the acceleration are readily available from the code, while for the other two
amplification factors can be obtained by calculating the velocity and the displacement spectrums from
the acceleration spectrum. Therefore, in case of a given conditions (ex. a
gR
=1, =5%, Type 1, Soil A),
the elastic spectrum specified by Eurocode 8 can be represented in terms of acceleration, velocity and
displacement (Fig. 4.13).
0
1
2
3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (s)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Soil A - EC 8
TB=0.15
TC=0.4
TD=2
SA - constant
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (s)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
Soil A - EC 8
TC=0.4
TB=0.15
TD=2
SV - constant

0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (s)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
Soil A - EC 8
TB=0.15
TC=0.4 TD=2
SD - constant

Fig. 4.13. Spectrums of pseudo-acceleration, pseudo-velocity and displacement (Type 1, Soil A Ec8)
In order to select adequately qualified records a selection procedure is proposed consisting in the
analyses of characteristics of the elastic spectrums of different records. The procedure consists of the
following steps:
(1) Earthquake records are extracted from a record database depending on the local soil conditions
(Ambraseys et al. 2000).
(2) The pseudo-acceleration, pseudo-velocity and displacement elastic spectrums (using 5% damping
factor) are computed for the records.
134

(3) The values of S
A,r
, S
V,r
and S
D,r
are calculated form the respective elastic spectrums of the record as
the maximum value of the average S
e,r
(T), S
Ve,r
(T) and S
De,r
(T) on a mobile 0,4 s period interval (Dubina
& Lungu 2003):

( )
( )
( )
( ) 0.4
( )
( ) 0.4
( )
( ) 0.4
( )
,
( ),
,
( ),
,
( ),
( )
( )
( )
i
i
i
i
i
i
T
e r
T i r
T
Ve r
i r T
T
De r
i r T
S average S T
A
S average S T
V
S average S T
D
+
+
+
=
=
=
, and
( )
( )
( )
( ),
( ),
( ),
max
,
max
,
max
,
i r
i r
i r
S S
A r A
S S
V r V
S S
D r D
=
=
=

4.12
The corner periods T
B
, T
C
and T
D
of the record are calculated as:

r V
r D
r D r C r B
r V
r A
r C
S
S
T T T
S
S
T
,
,
, , ,
,
,
,
2 ;
4
1
; 2 = = = t t
4.13
The obtained spectral characteristics can be matched with the ones prescribed by Eurocode 8 for the
elastic spectra. The procedure has the advantage of analyzing and matching the spectrums based on a
multi-parameter criteria. However, because the matching is done based on values calculated on a
narrow period window (0.4s), it has been observed that severe discontinuities in the spectrums are
depicted by the procedure, and affect the results.
In order to improve the procedure, correlation parameters which relate the code spectrum to the real
spectrum on the entire interval of periods of vibration can be added. In this way, a local maximum in
one of the spectrums (i.e. which would cause a good, but accidental, matching in terms of T
B
, T
C
, T
D
,
S
A
, S
V
and S
D
) can be eliminated.
In this study two further such parameters have been employed, the steps of the procedure being
supplemented by:
(a) Calculation of the relative errors, on the characteristic intervals (T
B
T
C
, T
C
T
D
, T
D
4s) and on
the overall period range as (Note that the relative errors can be calculated form either acceleration,
velocity or displacement values leading to the same result):

( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
max
max
( )
max
max
( )
,( ) ,
,( ) ,
,( ) ,
,(0 ) ,
0
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
C
B C
i B
D
C D
i C
D
i D
i
T
R T T e r e
T T
T
R T T e r e
T T
T
R T T e r e
T T
T
R T e r e
T
E average S T S T
E average S T S T
E average S T S T
E average S T S T
=
=
=
=
=

4.14
(b) The calculation of the correlation factors in terms of acceleration, velocity and displacement for the
two set of spectrums:
135

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
max
max
max
, ,
0
,
, ,
0
,
, ,
0
,
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
T
e r e r e e
SA
Se r Se
T
Ve r Ve r Ve Ve
SV
SVe r SVe
T
De r De r De De
SD
SDe r SDe
S T S T S T S T
CRR
n S S
S T S T S T S T
CRR
n S S
S T S T S T S T
CRR
n S S

=

=

=

4.15
Where
,
( ), ( )
e r e
S T S T ,
,
( ), ( )
Ve r Ve
S T S T ,
,
( ), ( )
De r De
S T S T - are the average spectral
accelerations, velocities and displacements for the real and code spectrum respectively
,
,
Se r Se
S S ,
,
,
VSe r VSe
S S ,
,
,
DSe r DSe
S S - standard deviations of the spectral accelerations,
velocities and displacements for the real and the code spectrum respectively
n number of points (periods of vibration calculated for the spectra form 0 to T
max
)
Hence CRR
SA
, CRR
SV
and CRR
SD
express the correlation between the code spectrum and the spectrum of
the record in terms of spectral acceleration, velocity and displacement.
Having been calculated all these parameters the selection of records can be based on a multiple criteria
using all or part of the parameters. For example, records which have less than 10% deviation in terms of
corner period (T
C
, T
D
) and higher correlation than 0.8 (80%) in spectral acceleration, velocity and
displacement terms can be accepted. Stricter rule can be applied if the initial set of records was larger. It
has to be mentioned that the majority of the existing earthquake records have been recorder on rock or
stiff soil. Therefore, it is easier to find well correlated records for soil type A, and more difficult for soil
type D.
4.5.2 Pr esentation of selected natur al r ecor ds
The aim was to select a family of 10 historical records typical for soil type A and soil type D (Type 1
spectra). The initial set of records was based on 1595 record from the European Earthquake Database
(Ambraseys et al. 2000).
The elastic spectra using 5% damping coefficient was calculated for each record, and the parameters
described at point 1, 2, 3 and 4 are calculated for each of the records. The error and correlation
parameters were calculated for each record comparing them with the Soil type A and D spectra of
Eurocode 8 (EN 1998). The following differences were accepted:
Table 4.4. Selection criteria for natural records
Differ ences fr om EC (%) Aver age er r or s Cor r elation
SA SV SD TB TC TD A V D All A V D
20 20 20 - 20 20 50 50 50 30 0.8 0.5 0.8

It can be observed that less strict correlation was imposed in terms of velocity spectra (CRR
SV
> 50%),
and that more strict rules were imposed in terms of spectral parameters (T
C
, T
D
, S
A
, S
V
and S
D
). T
B
was
not used in the selection. The compromise in CRR
SV
was necessary in order to retain sufficient number
of records.
Based on this criterion 10 records were selected for both proposed soil classes, having the following
correlation properties with the code spectrums (see Appendix A for all records):

136

Table 4.5. Correlation with Ec8 spectrums of selected natural records
Type 1 Soil A
1 000234YA 5 1 6 36 5 6 29 28 28 27 0.92 0.55 0.92
2 000286YA 9 10 12 33 1 19 14 15 28 19 0.96 0.77 0.88
3 000471XA 13 6 0 37 6 5 32 22 10 19 0.93 0.64 0.95
4 000783YA 12 6 14 29 7 7 38 26 19 24 0.82 0.58 0.97
5 000351XA 9 4 14 30 5 10 12 16 34 22 0.97 0.82 0.88
6 000567YA 12 9 0 35 3 7 24 17 28 22 0.93 0.63 0.82
7 000054XA 4 7 12 31 3 17 12 28 15 22 0.97 0.62 0.93
8 000343XA 5 4 14 33 1 9 33 23 17 22 0.91 0.75 0.98
9 000360YA 4 11 8 23 15 16 15 24 18 21 0.96 0.64 0.92
10 000599YA 2 9 10 27 11 17 26 13 35 22 0.93 0.79 0.83
Type 1 Soil D
1 000286XA 3 13 11 16 16 3 20 32 23 26 0.87 0.82 0.95
2 000293XA 19 15 12 4 4 3 25 20 15 20 0.85 0.75 0.92
3 000304XA 1 8 4 8 9 4 16 13 22 17 0.93 0.84 0.91
4 000410YA 6 7 11 1 1 19 12 32 13 21 0.93 0.65 0.86
5 000048XA 4 2 4 2 2 3 25 26 17 23 0.85 0.8 0.96
6 000353YA 1 13 9 12 12 4 9 20 14 15 0.96 0.9 0.97
7 000133XA 3 7 18 5 4 11 20 25 42 29 0.9 0.78 0.87
8 000181XA 3 7 5 4 4 2 24 17 11 16 0.89 0.86 0.98
9 000480YA 10 2 16 11 11 19 16 15 15 16 0.9 0.83 0.94
10 000974YA 20 3 3 14 14 6 20 11 19 16 0.95 0.84 0.95

The pseudo-acceleration elastic response spectrum has been computed for all selected records in both
groups and they are presented in Fig. 4.14 together with the Eurocode 8 spectrums for soil A and soil D.

0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (s)
P
S
A
Soil A - EC 8
Average
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (s)
P
S
A
Soil D - EC 8
Average

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (s)
P
S
V
Soil A - EC 8
Average
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (s)
P
S
V
Soil D - EC 8
Average

137

0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (s)
P
S
D
Soil A - EC 8
Average
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (s)
P
S
D
Soil D - EC 8
Average

Fig. 4.14. Elastic pseudo-acceleration spectra of selected natural records (=5%)
4.5.3 Gener ation of ar tificial ear thquake r ecor ds
Besides the natural records artificial records were also proposed for the analysis. The records were cre-
ated using the SIMQKE computer code using a rising period of 4s and a stationary interval of 10s (EN
1998). The total duration of the generated records was 30s. The envelope of the earthquake signal was
considered to be increasing exponentially in the 4s rising period and decreasing exponentially in after
the stationary part. Two typical records are presented in Fig. 4.15 together with the imposed envelope.
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ti me(s)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

A
c
c
Soil A - Rec1
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time(s)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

A
c
c
Soil D - Rec1

Fig. 4.15. Typical artificial accelerograms
A family of 10 earthquakes was created for the Soil A and Soil D of Eurocode 8 (EN 1998). For both
families the correlation of the records has been studied, in order to avoid using similar records.
The condition of independency of the accelerograms is usually not a problem in case of natural records.
In case of artificial accelerograms the problem of statistical independency is important. The
independency of the accelerograms was checked by calculating the correlation factor (of the two
records):

( ) ( )
max
0
1, 2
1 2
1( ) 1( ) 2( ) 2( )
t
a a
a a
a t a t a t a t
n S S
o

=

4.16
Where a1(t), a2(t) are the two records in terms of ground acceleration
1( ), 2( ) a t a t average of values of acceleration for the two records respectively
S
a1
, S
a2
the standard deviation of the two data sets a1(t) and a2(t)
The correlation factor should be 3 . 0
2 , 1
s
a a
o for the two accelerograms to be considered statistically
independent (ASCE 1998).
It can be observed that if a time shift (At) exists between to identical records, already for very small
values of At the correlation factor diminishes. Therefore, the danger exist that two identical records are
138

identified using (o
a1,a2
) to be independent only because of the time shift between them. To avoid such
error the maximum correlation factor has been calculated by shifting the two records (At=-15s15s)
and calculating the correlation for each shifted position. In this case the maximum correlation factor can
be defined as:

15
max
1, 2 1, 2
15
max( )
t s
t
a a a a
t s
o o
A =
A
A =
=
4.17
In this study the acceptance criteria of
max
1, 2
0.5
a a
o s has been used for the artificial records, and the
largest correlation coefficient 0.418 was observed.
The elastic response spectra has been calculated for all artificial records and the obtained pseudo-
acceleration spectrums are plotted against the Ec 8 Soil A and Soil D spectrum respectively in Fig. 4.16.
0
1
2
3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (s)
P
S
A
Soil A - EC8
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (s)
P
S
A
Soil D - EC8

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (s)
P
S
V
Soil A - EC8
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (s)
P
S
V
Soil D - EC8

0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (s)
P
S
D
Soil A - EC8
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (s)
P
S
D
Soil D - EC8

Fig. 4.16. Pseudo-acceleration spectrums of the artificial records
Naturally, there is very good agreement between the calculate spectrums and the ones of Ec 8, as the
records have been generated from these spectrums. To quantify the degree of correlation between the
spectrums of the artificial records and the ones from Ec 8, parameters similar as the ones presented in
case of the natural records have been calculated (Table 4.6).

139

Table 4.6. Correlation of calculated spectrums with the ones in EC 8
Type 1 Soil A
1 Soil A - Rec 1 5 0 0 27 7 4 4 3 7 5 1.00 0.97 0.99
2 Soil A - Rec 2 5 13 20 20 20 3 6 8 5 7 0.99 0.93 0.98
3 Soil A - Rec 3 1 6 0 27 7 3 4 5 4 5 0.99 0.97 0.99
4 Soil A - Rec 4 4 6 0 27 10 6 4 5 15 8 1.00 0.94 0.96
5 Soil A - Rec 5 4 6 20 27 10 13 6 7 11 8 0.99 0.93 0.98
6 Soil A - Rec 6 3 6 20 27 7 12 4 5 10 7 0.99 0.94 0.99
7 Soil A - Rec 7 4 6 0 27 10 1 4 5 4 4 1.00 0.98 1.00
8 Soil A - Rec 8 6 13 20 20 18 1 7 7 4 6 0.99 0.95 0.99
9 Soil A - Rec 9 4 0 0 27 7 1 3 5 5 5 1.00 0.96 0.99
10 Soil A - Rec 10 4 6 0 27 10 0 5 7 13 9 0.99 0.92 0.95
Type 1 Soil D
1 Soil D - Rec 1 1 12 11 10 11 6 5 7 5 6 0.99 0.97 0.98
2 Soil D - Rec 2 4 3 17 0 0 9 6 4 11 7 0.99 0.97 0.98
3 Soil D - Rec 3 1 3 0 0 1 8 4 5 18 9 0.99 0.93 0.95
4 Soil D - Rec 4 0 7 0 5 6 9 4 8 11 8 0.99 0.95 0.97
5 Soil D - Rec 5 0 3 11 5 2 3 5 6 5 5 0.99 0.97 0.99
6 Soil D - Rec 6 0 3 6 5 2 0 5 5 8 6 0.99 0.98 0.98
7 Soil D - Rec 7 1 7 22 5 6 13 6 9 11 9 0.98 0.94 0.97
8 Soil D - Rec 8 1 2 17 0 1 12 3 6 24 11 0.99 0.86 0.90
9 Soil D - Rec 9 3 2 11 0 3 7 6 8 9 8 0.98 0.94 0.98
10 Soil D - Rec 10 0 7 6 5 7 4 4 5 10 6 0.99 0.97 0.98

4.6 Par ametr ic analysis and r esults
4.6.1 Study cases
A parametric study has been carried out in order to get a formulation of the q-factor suitable for cold-
formed steel shear walls. Since the q-factor depends on the period of vibration T of the structure, q-T
curves have been obtained for the period range T=[0.05,2] s.
In a first step, the analysis has been carried out with natural earthquakes. Two different types of
earthquakes have been used: Type A and Type D. This way, the influence of the corner period of the
earthquake T
C
has been checked (Note that T
C
=0.4 s for Type A earthquakes and T
D
=0.8 for Type D.
10) As presented earlier, the earthquakes of each type have been chosen to be compatible with the
Eurocode 8 design spectrum.
The parametric study for each set of earthquakes has been carried out taking into account three main
parameters related to the hysteretic cycles of the shear walls (Fig. 4.17): ductility (=D
p
/D
e
),
overstrength (Ov=F
y
/F
d
-1) and amount of pinching (P=F
p
/F
d
). K
h
is not included in the parametric study
being set at (H=K
h
/K=0.5). The following cases have been considered:
Ductility = [1.5; 2; 3; 4; 6]
Overstrength Ov = [0;0.1;0.2;0.3,0.5]
Pinching P = [1;0.95;0.90;0.85]
Note that P=1 and O
v
=0 is the bilinear model with slip, which will be one of the reference cases. Apart
from these ones another reference case has also been carried out: pure elasto-plastic case (P=0 and
O
v
=0).
From this analysis a formulation for the q-factor has been developed, after carrying out a study of the
influence of pinching and overstrength. In order to check the proposed formulation, an additional
140

analysis has been carried out with the artificial earthquakes (3rd set of earthquakes). But, this time, only
some of the cases have been analysed:
For P=0, O
v
= [0;0.1;0.2;0.3,0.5]
For O
v
=0, P = [1;0.95;0.90;0.85]
Also the reference case with the full elasto-plastic model (P=0, O
V
=0) has been carried out for artificial
accelerograms.
p D e D
D
h K
p F
d F
K
y
F
F

Fig. 4.17. Cases of hysteretic models for analysis
4.6.2 Equal ductility spectr ums for natur al ear thquakes
Fig. 4.18 shows the average equal ductility spectrums for one of the reference cases, the full elasto-
plastic model (P=0 and O
v
=0), for (a) Type A and (b) Type D earthquakes. The curves are compared to
the basic formulation of the q-factor (Fig. 4.3).
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Period T (s)
q
f
a
c
t
o
r
qfactor vs periods. P=0. Ov=0.
= 1.5
= 2.0
= 3.0
= 4.0
= 6.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Period T (s)
q
f
a
c
t
o
r
= 1.5
= 2.0
= 3.0
= 4.0
= 6.0

Fig. 4.18. Equal ductility spectrums for full elastic-plastic mode (P=0 and O
v
=0): (i) Type A and (ii)
Type D earthquakes
Note that, in both cases, the q-factor follows the expected behaviour: we find a clearly increasing
branch in the lower periods until the value = q is reached for T=T
C
and, then, for larger periods
C
T T > the tendency is to keep constant and equals to the ductility.
In Fig. 4.19 the equal ductility spectrums are plotted for the full-slip bilinear model (P=1 and O
v
=0),
also for (a) Type A and (b) Type D natural earthquakes. Note that, again, we find that the slope of the
curves for the lower periods,
C
T T s , is different from the largest periods
C
T T > .
141

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Period T (s)
q
f
a
c
t
o
r
= 1.5
= 2.0
= 3.0
= 4.0
= 6.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Period T (s)
q
f
a
c
t
o
r
= 1.5
= 2.0
= 3.0
= 4.0
= 6.0

Fig. 4.19. Equal ductility spectrum for the bilinear slip model (P=1, O
v
= 0) for (a) Type A and (b)
Type D earthquakes
However, when compared to the full elasto-plastic model, see Fig. 4.18, some differences appear:
We find a drop in the value of the q-factor for T=T
C
it is not reaching the value q=.
We find an increasing branch for TT
C
, and thus, the value q= is fulfilled at larger values of
the period T, than in the full elasto-plastic case.
Thus, these results illustrate what has been analysed with the previous set of earthquakes: that the basic
formulation deduced from EN1998-1 is suitable for the reference case of the elasto-plastic case, but
when the hysteresis loops present pinching or overstrength this formulation is not valid and should be
modified. Pinching and overstrength do have an influence on the value of q-factor and have to be
incorporated to its formulation by means of the coefficients o
p
and o
o
. Looking at the figures, it seems
that the tendency is that the pinching decreases the value of the q-factor and the overstrength increases
it.
4.7 Mathematical for mulation of q-factor ; influence of hyster etic par ameter s
The q factor for a given model is supposed to be calculated as a combination of the basic q factor for an
elasto-plastic hysteretic model (q
ep
), and the influences of the pinching factor (u
P
) and of the
overstrength factor (u
O
):

ep p o
q q o o =
4.18
Where q
ep
is the base value of the q factor
o
p
correction factor due to pinching
o
o
correction factor due to over-strength
4.7.1 Influence of over str ength (O
V
)
In order to assess the influence of overstrength, we have plotted figures with the ratio
0 0
/
= =
=
ov ov o
q q o for a given (fixed) amount of pinching P in the same way that it has been done for
P=1, with the first set of earthquakes. Fig. 4.20(a) shows the curve
o
o vs. T for P=1 and O
v
=0.20 for
Type A natural earthquakes. Note that the curve shows all the ductilities, and also their average for all
records. Fig. 4.20(b) shows the curve
o
o vs. T for Type D earthquakes for P = 0.85 and O
v
= 0.20.
Note that in both cases results are very similar, fact that confirms that the effects of overstrength and
pinching can be formulated independently. If we look at this Fig. 4.20, it is quite reasonable to affirm
that the influence of overstrength is not depending on the ductility (). The curves corresponding to
different are quite similar to the average and they dont follow any tendency regarding to the
parameter .
142

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
Period T (s)
q
f
a
c
t
o
r
/
q
O
v
0
qfactor/ qOv0 vs period. Ov = 0.20. P = 1
= 1.5
= 2.0
= 3.0
= 4.0
= 6.0
average
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
1.5
Period T (s)
q
f
a
c
t
o
r
/
q
O
v
0
qfactor/ qOv0 vs period. Ov = 0.20. P = 0.85
= 1.5
= 2.0
= 3.0
= 4.0
= 6.0
average

(a) (b)
Fig. 4.20. Influence of overstrength. Hysteresis model with (a) P=1, O
v
=0.20 and Type A records;
(b)P=0.85, O
v
=0.20 and Type D records
The results obtained for both Type A and Type D natural earthquakes have been compared to the
formulation proposed in equation 4.19 for
o
o .

C
C
1 1 ; T T
1 ; T>T
v
O C
T
O
T o
| |
+ s
|
=

\

4.19
Fig. 4.21 shows the comparison of the formulation to the curves obtained as the average of all the
ductilities, for Type A and Type D earthquakes respectively. Results are shown for P=1 and P=0.95.
Note that the formulation consists of a decreasing branch for
C
T T s and a constant branch
o
o =1 for
C
T T > . If we look at the pictures, it seems that a decreasing branch for
C
T T > could also be defined.
However, since the constant branch
o
o =1 was accepted for the sake of simplicity of the formulation.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
Period T (s)
q
f
a
c
t
o
r
/
q
O
v
0
qfactor/ qOv0 vs period. P = 1. Averaged ductilities
Ov = 0.10
Ov = 0.20
Ov = 0.30
Ov = 0.50
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
1.5
Period T (s)
q
f
a
c
t
o
r
/
q
O
v
0
qfactor/ qOv0 vs period. P = 0.95. Averaged ductilities
Ov = 0.10
Ov = 0.20
Ov = 0.30
Ov = 0.50

(a) (b)
Fig. 4.21. Comparison of formulation of
o
o (in black) and computed
o
o as the average of all the duc-
tilities for: (a) Type A, P = 1 and (b) Type D, P = 0.95
143

4.7.2 Influence of pinching (P)
The factor describing pinching has been taken as the ration to the reference case of full elastic-plastic
slip (P=0,
0 0
/
= =
=
P P p
q q o ). Since the reference case, the full elastic-plastic model, has 0 overstrength
we are only taking into account for this analysis the cases with Ov=0 and P=[1;0.95;0.90;0.85].
Fig. 4.22 shows the ratio for P=1 and for P=0.85 in case of Type A earthquakes. Note that there is a
decreasing branch for the shortest periods, T smaller than 0.15 s approximately and, then, there is a
increasing branch until T=T
C
. Then, in the range
D C
T T T s s is still increasing but with a different
slope.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
Period T (s)
q
f
a
c
t
o
r
/
q
e
p
qfactor/ qep vs period. P = 1. Ov = 0
= 1.5
= 2.0
= 3.0
= 4.0
= 6.0
average
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
Period T (s)
q
f
a
c
t
o
r
/
q
e
p
qfactor/ qep vs period. P = 0.95. Ov = 0
= 1.5
= 2.0
= 3.0
= 4.0
= 6.0
average

(a) (b)
Fig. 4.22. Influence of pinching for Type A earthquakes: (a) P=1 and (b) P=0.85.
Note that here, oppositely to what happens with overstrength, it seems to be a dependency of
p
o on ,
specially in the range of periods smaller than the corner period,
C
T T s :
p
o decreases for increasing
ductilities. However, this dependency is not so clear for periods larger than the corner period T
C
.
The formulation of
p
o was calibrated in two steps. First of all we work only with the averaged values,
neglecting the influence of the ductility in order to get the general shape of the curve
p
o vs. T. Then,
in a second step, we have incorporated the influence of for
C
T T s .
The first part of the curve of the curve
C
T T s has been formulated as the product of an exponential
decreasing function and a linear increasing function, in order to model the minimum that the curve
p
o vs. T experiences around T=0.15. The second part for
D C
T T T s s has been modelled as a linear
function.
Ductility has been incorporated to the formulation by multiplying part of the equation by the factor
) 1 ( 5 . 2
25 . 0

P
. This way equation for
p
o becomes:
( )
s s
+
+
s
(
+
=
D C
C D
D C P
C
C
P
C
C
p
T T T
T T
T T T P
T T P
T
T
P P
T T
T T
) ( 2
) 2 (
) 1 ( 5 . 0 1
2
15 . 0
15 . 0
2 ) 1 ( 5 . 0
) / 4 exp(
1 ) / 4 exp(
1
5
25 . 0
5 / 1 5 5 / 1 25 . 0
o

4.20

144

Fig. 4.23 shows the fitting of the proposed formulation in the cases (a) P=1 for Type A and (b) P=0.85
for type D natural earthquakes. Note that the formulation fits reasonably well, taking into account the
scatter of the results.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
Period T (s)
q
f
a
c
t
o
r
/
q
e
p
qfactor/ qep vs period. P = 1. Ov = 0
= 1.5
= 2.0
= 3.0
= 4.0
= 6.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
Period T (s)
q
f
a
c
t
o
r
/
q
e
p
qfactor/ qep vs period. P = 0.85. Ov = 0
= 1.5
= 2.0
= 3.0
= 4.0
= 6.0

(a) (b)
Fig. 4.23. Fitting of the formulation of
p
o with the influence of incorporated.
p
o vs. T curves for: (a)
P=1 and Type A and (b) P=0.85 and Type D natural earthquakes.
4.7.3 Pr oposal of for mulation for q-factor / Conclusion of the modelling
Taking into account all the analysis developed in this section the final formulation for the q-factor of
cold-formed steel shear walls can be summed up. This formulation is valid if the following condition is
fulfilled (otherwise the structure can not exploit its full ductility):
( 1)
v
O H <
4.21
The q-factor for shear walls can be calculated as:

ep p o
q q o o =
4.22
with q
ep
the basic q-factor valid for the elasto-plastic model:

C
C
1 ( 1) ; T T
; T>T
C ep
T
T q

+ s

4.23
p
o the factor that takes into account the influence of the pinching in the hysteresis model:
( )
s s
+
+
s
(
+
=
D C
C D
D C P
C
C
P
C
C
p
T T T
T T
T T T P
T T P
T
T
P P
T T
T T
) ( 2
) 2 (
) 1 ( 5 . 0 1
2
15 . 0
15 . 0
2 ) 1 ( 5 . 0
) / 4 exp(
1 ) / 4 exp(
1
5
25 . 0
5 / 1 5 5 / 1 25 . 0
o

4.24
and
O
o the factor that incorporates the influence of overstrength in the formulation.

C
C
1 1 ; T T
1 ; T>T
v
O C
T
O
T o
| |
+ s
|
=

\

4.25

145

Where
q
ep
is the base value of the q factor (corresponding to elastic-plastic hysteretic model)
o
p
correction factor due to pinching
o
o
correction factor due to over-strength
u the ductility of the structure
T
C
the corner period according to Ec 8 for the site
T
D
the corner period according to Ec 8 for the site
T the first period of vibration of the model
P the pinching factor of the hysteretic loops which characterize the walls (P = 0 for no
pinching, P = 1 for full pinching)
O
v
expected non-linear over-strength factor of the load bearing elements (includes over-
strength due to post-elastic non-linear behaviour, O
v
= 0 no over-strength)
H hardening ratio (if non-linear over-strength is present, H = 01)
The formulation has been validated by comparing it to the computed results using both the set of natural
and artificial records. Fig. 4.24(a) shows the fitting of the formulation of an hysteresis model with P=
0.95 and O
v
= 0.30) with Type A natural earthquakes and Fig. 4.24(b) for the case of P=0.85 and O
v
=
0.50 with Type D natural earthquakes.
The formulation has been also compared to the results obtained with artificial earthquakes, see Fig.
4.25, where the results obtained with these earthquakes are shown for (a) P=1 and O
v
=0 in the case of
Type A and (b) P=0.9 and O
v
=0 for Type D artificial earthquakes.
Note that in the most cases the fitting is good, especially for low periods, which are the typical periods
of the cold-formed steel framed buildings. In the larger period range we find two different types case. In
some cases, the formulation fits also rather well for these larger periods, see Fig. 4.25 (a). In other cases
the q-factor is underestimated by the formulation, see Fig. 4.24. However, this formulation is in the safe
side.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Period T (s)
q
f
a
c
t
o
r
qfactor vs periods. P=0.95. Ov=30.
= 1.5
= 2.0
= 3.0
= 4.0
= 6.0
b)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Period T (s)
q
f
a
c
t
o
r
= 1.5
= 2.0
= 3.0
= 4.0
= 6.0

Fig. 4.24. Fitting of the formulation for the q-factor: (a) P = 0.95 and O
v
= 0.30 for Type A and (b) P =
0.85 and O
v
=0.50 for Type D natural earthquakes.
146

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Period T (s)
q
f
a
c
t
o
r
= 1.5
= 2.0
= 3.0
= 4.0
= 6.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Period T (s)
q
f
a
c
t
o
r
= 1.5
= 2.0
= 3.0
= 4.0
= 6.0

Fig. 4.25. Fitting of the formulation for the q-factor: (a) P = 1 and Ov = 0 for Type A and (b) P = 0.90
and Ov=0 for Type D artificial earthquakes.
Based on the studies presented above a few important conclusions can be drawn regarding the reduction
factor:
The value of the reduction factor is not independent of the period of vibration of the structure.
Especially in the low period range (T<TC) the variation of q is not negligible.
The type of the hysteretic model has an influence on the value of the reduction factor. Light-gauge steel
structures, relying on sheeted wall panels to transmit seismic forces, usually are characterized by strong
pinching and important non-linear overstrength. Both these characteristics of the hysteretic behaviour
should be taken into account.
Pinching has an effect on the reduction factor especially for strong values of the pinching (P=1), and for
low periods of vibration.
Overstrength has identical effect in the lower period range if the hardening rigidity varies between 20%
and 100% of the elastic rigidity.
A formulation that takes into account all these findings has been presented. It proposes to multiply the
base value of the q
ep
, valid for full elasto-plastic models, by two factors that take into account the basic
characteristics of the hysteresis loops: o
p
, for pinching and o
o
for overstrength.
Note that, on the one hand, the value of q
ep
depends on the period of vibration of the structure, T, the
corner period of the earthquake T
C
and the ductility of the shear wall, . On the other hand, o
p
depends
on the same parameters plus the amount of pinching of the shear walls, P and o
o
depends on T, T
C
and
the amount of overstrength of the hysteresis loops, O
v
.
Thus, the proposed formulation for the q-factor is a function q=q(T, T
C
, , P, O
v
) and it has been shown
how these parameters have an important influence on the value of the q-factor. Consequently, a single
representative value of q-factor for cold-formed steel shear walls cannot be provided to the designer.
The proposed formulation presented in this section has to be given if we want to get a good estimation
of the q-factor for light gauge steel framed buildings.
4.8 Use of the q-factor for mulation together with wall-panel test r esults
The choosing of the wall-panel configuration to be used in a steel framed house is done by the design
engineer. Presently, since not many analytical design methods exist, the design of the wall is usually
made based on experiments (often called racking test).
The experiments are conducted by fixing the wall at one edge and loading it with a force that replicates
horizontal action along the opposite edge. The loading force and the relative displacement of the two
edges are measured. The aim of the test is to determine the characteristic (i.e. load versus displacement)
147

curve for the wall. Based on the curve the design capacity of the wall can be determined (Obs: there is
no universally accepted criterion to establish the design load).
If the experiment was cyclic, the resulting hysteretic curve for the wall panel ca supply the designer all
the required information to establish the characteristics of the behaviour, like: (i) initial rigidity, (ii)
accepted design capacity, (iii) overstrength factor(O
v
), (iv) ductility() and (v) pinching factor (P) (See
Annex 3). If these types of walls are at the basis of the earthquake resisting mechanism of a house, than
it can be assumed that the overall behaviour of the house is similar to the behaviour of the panels.
Therefore, the formulation presented in 4.7.3 may be used for the determination of the q factor
characterizing the behaviour of the house.

Choose the typology of the walls panels to be used.
Testing of the wall panels
(see Annex 3). Characteristic
curves are obtained.
Interpretation of the curves to obtain the
characteristic parameters of the behaviour:
initial rigidity (K
ini
) Annex 3
design capacity (F
e
) Annex 3
ductility () Annex 3
pinching factor (P) Annex 3
structural overstrength factor (O
vS
)
Annex 3 and Annex 6
Based on K
ini
and the preliminary
distribution scheme of walls calculate the
period of vibration T
1
. (Annex 6)
Conceptual design of the building. Establishment of overall configuration.
Preliminary distribution scheme
of shear walls in the structure.
Test results on configuration exist
or characteristics can be
determined by calculation
Based on T
1
combined with , P and O
vS
calculate the q factor and the design load from
earthquake (F
b
). (Annex 4 & Annex 6)
ULS: Check the design value of action effect (i.e. shear
force on the wall from F
b
) against the design resistance (i.e.
design shear capacity from test F
e
) (Annex 6).
U
L
S

f
a
i
l
e
d

Based on the current configuration evaluate the
design overstrength (O
vD
). Annex 6
SLS: Evaluate the plastic deformations d
s
and
verify serviceability limit state Annex 6
S
L
S

f
a
i
l
e
d

ULS or SLS check fails repeatedly.
Configuration is accepted.

Fig. 4.26. Scheme of proposed design procedure
148

An important observation is that the characteristics of the behaviour of the wall panel are not enough to
be able to predict the q factor, because it is accepted that the factor also depends on the period of
vibration (T) of the structure. Therefore, without the knowledge of the configuration of the house, and
of the participating mass, the reduction factor can not be known.
4.9 Seismic behaviour of whole building
The seismic response of a complete building can be obtained with the differential model described at
Pastor N. and Rodrguez-Ferran A (submitted) and summarized in the design example of Annex 6,
where the seismic response of a two-storey building is obtained. This model is able to deal with the
torsional effects derived from the asymmetry of the building.
If the shear walls are placed symmetrical with respect to the centre of mass, the seismic response of the
building is mainly translational in the direction of the earthquake. In this case, the building behaves
nearly as a SDOF system. All the shear walls parallel to the earthquake experience nearly the same
horizontal displacement (equal to the displacement of the centre of mass) and reach the target ductility
at the same time. Therefore, q-factors for single shear walls are perfectly valid for the nonlinear design
of symmetric (or nearly symmetric) buildings.
If the structure is asymmetric, the rotation of the floor becomes important. Due to this, shear walls
parallel to the earthquake do not experience the same displacements as happens with symmetric
buildings. This may cause a reduction of the q-factor of the building compared to single shear walls,
since not all these shear walls are reaching the target ductility at the same time. Torsional effects are
undesirable, and structural asymmetry should be avoided in seismic design of buildings.
When obtaining the seismic response of a whole building the designer relies on the structural shear
walls. However, non-structural elements (i.e. cladding) may have an influence on the seismic response
of the buildings, especially if it is taken into account that the stiffness of the non- structural members
can be of similar order of magnitude compared to structural shear walls.
In the case of minor earthquakes, in which the structure remains in the elastic range, the non-structural
members increase the stiffness of the structure, reducing the period of vibration. In the elastic response
spectra, a decrease in the period of vibration causes the increase in the seismic lateral load. However,
the period of vibration of cold-formed steel buildings, with or without cladding, normally lie in the
plateau of the spectra and thus, the increase in seismic load is not relevant.
Besides, a significant increase of the stiffness of the building implies a reduction in the lateral drifts
(specially taking into account that the lateral load does not change significantly) and, thus, the influence
of the cladding is positive. Of course, an asymmetric distribution of these non-structural elements can
cause undesirable torsional effects. Thus, this should be avoided by a proper structural design that
ensures the symmetric distribution of these elements.
During major earthquakes, the non-structural members are loosing their stiffness and we can only rely
on the structural shear walls as dissipative elements: these walls are the ones that determine the
nonlinear seismic response of the building. Thus, it is reasonable to think that cladding (and other non-
structural elements) do not have a determinant influence against big earthquakes.
In fact, Medhekar M.S. and Kennedy D.J.L (1999), study the influence of cladding panels, among other
aspects, in the seismic behaviour of one-story buildings with concentric braced frames (CBF). The
buildings analyzed are made of conventional steel structure and the cladding consists of steel sheets and
is fully effective.
One of their conclusions is that, although the cladding results on additional stiffness and, thus, it attracts
more force, it provides some strength to the end walls and shares the lateral force with the CBF.
Consequently, the ductility demand on the braces is reduced. Thus, in their study, the cladding has a
positive effect on the seismic response of the building they have analyzed.
Please, note that the exact conclusions of this paper cannot be exactly extrapolated, since it does not
deal with the same type of structure (i.e. conventional steel vs. cold-formed) and they cladding is
probably stronger (steel sheet vs. gypsum board). Besides, it is considered to be effective, whereas in
the case of cold-formed steel buildings it is rather probable that the non-structural elements loosen
149

against major seismic events and, thus, become ineffective. Thus, in the buildings analyzed by
Medhekar M.S. and Kennedy D.J.L (1999), the cladding probably has a bigger influence that in the case
of cold-formed steel structures.
As conclusion, the designer should always try to design symmetric buildings in order to avoid
undesirable torsional effects. In this case, the value of q-factors for single shear walls can be applied to
the entire building. Besides, it seems clear that the non-structural members may have an influence on
the seismic response of the building, especially against small earthquakes. However, provided that these
members are well designed and symmetrically placed, this influence is positive and by neglecting it the
designer is on the security side.
4.10 Conclusions
Based on the present studies the following conclusions can be synthesised concerning the behaviour of
light-gauge steel framed houses in earthquake regions:
(1) The behaviour of the house is largely dependent on the behaviour of its load bearing elements,
namely the wall-panels.
(2) Different methods can be applied for the design of such houses; however (in usual cases)
simplified elastic design is recommended using appropriate earthquake reduction factor.
(3) The reduction factor (q-factor) in case of the houses can not be considered a fixed value for all
configurations. Even if the same wall panel typologies are used, the value of the factor depends on
the period of vibration of the structure. For structures with lower period of vibration the acceptable
reduction is more limited.
(4) The reduction factor depends on the hysteretic properties of the wall panels (i.e. overstrength,
ductility and pinching factor) and a formulation is proposed for the evaluation of the q factor in
4.7.3. The formulation was derived based on a large number of time-history analysis runs.
150

REFERENCES
AISI (1998), Shear Wall Design Guide, Publication RG-9804, American Iron and Steel Institute,
February 1998
Ambraseys N., Smit P., Berardi R., Rinaldis D., Cotton F., Berge-Thierry C. (2000) Dissemination of
European Strong-Motion Data. CD-ROM collection, Environment and Climate Research Programme,
2000
ASCE Standard 4-98 (1998) Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures with Commentary
American society of civil engineers
Bathe K. J. (1996) Finite Element Procedures, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Cast3M (2006) The Cast3M site [online]. Available from www-cast3m.cea.fr/cast3m/index.jsp
[Accessed 13 February 2006].
Dubina D., Lungu D. (2003) Constructii amplasate n zone cu micri seismice puternice, Editura
Orizonturi Universitare, ISBN 973-8391-90-3, 2003
EN 1998-1-8 (2004). Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance -Part 1: General
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, CEN European Committee for Standardisation.
Fajfar P. (2000), Chapter 8.1 General definitions and basic relationships, in Moment resistant
connections of steel frames in seismic areas. Design and reliability, edited by F.Mazzolani, E&FN
Spon, London
Medhekar M.S. and Kennedy D.J.L (1999) Seismic evaluation of single-storey buildings, Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering. Volume 26, Number 4
Mostaghel N. (1999) Analytical Description of Pinching, Degrading Hysteretic Systems, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, Volume 125, Number (2).
Pastor N. and Rodrguez-Ferran A., Hysteretic modelling of lightweight steel framed building,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics (submitted).
Pastor N. & Rodrguez-Ferran A. (2005) Hysteretic modelling of X-braced shear walls, Thin-walled
structures, Volume 43, Number 2.
prEN 1993-1-3 (2005). Design of steel structures - Part 1-3: General rules - Supplementary rules for
cold-formed members and sheeting, CEN European Committee for Standardisation, Final draft,
September 2005
Shampine L. W. (1994) Numerical Solution of Ordinary Differential Equations, Chapman & Hall,
London.
151

ANNEX 5:
Development of simplified formulas for calculating shear walls
(WP4.2 Task 7)
153

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5. ANNEX 5 WP 4.2. Task 7: Development of simplified formulas for calculating shear
walls ......................................................................................................................................... 155
5.1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 155
5.2. General provision on the seismic design of wall elements ...................................... 155
5.3. Design method of walls sheathed with flat, thin steel plate..................................... 155
5.3.1. Load carrying mechanism of the wall .............................................................. 155
5.3.2. Analytical method for the calculation of the load bearing capacity................. 156
5.3.3. Analytical method for the calculation of the rigidity....................................... 158
5.3.4. Validation of the method by Finite Element (FE) analysis.............................. 160
5.3.5. Validation of the method using experimental results....................................... 162
5.4. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 165
154

5. ANNEX 5 WP 4.2. Task 7: Development of simplified for mulas for cal-
culating shear walls
5.1. Intr oduction
Due to the diversity of skeleton, sheathing and connection solutions, the design of sheathed shear walls
is based in some degree on testing. Usually the manufacturer of shear-walls usually provides design
tables for the evaluation of the design capacity. Obviously, principles of design as presented in prEN
1993-1-3 (2005) should be applied for designing elements (studs, tracks, connections etc.) of the shear
walls, but the main problem is that the horizontal load bearing capacity usually depends on the
interaction between the sheathing and the frame, which is very difficult to be captured.
In this document a design method for flat thin-steel sheathed walls is proposed. Chapter 5.3.1
summarises the starting hypothesises and assumptions behind the proposed design methodology. In
5.3.2 analytical formulations are proposed for the calculation of the load bearing capacity of the wall
panels. In chapter 5.3.3 similar analytical proposal is made for the calculation of the rigidity of the
walls. In Chapters 5.3.4 and 5.3.5 the proposed analytical formulas are validated using advanced finite
element analysis and comparison with full scale experiments.
5.2. Gener al pr ovision on the seismic design of wall elements
Members of light gauge steel frames usually belong to cross-section class 4. These members can not
sustain plastic deformation in bending and the shear walls can dissipate energy either by plastic bearing
deformations in the connections (ex. in case of steel or wood plate sheathed walls) or by tension
yielding (ex. in case of cross-braced walls). A corresponding hierarchy has to be enforced by the
design: (1) the dissipative elements should be weaker to allow them to yield (2) the non-dissipative
elements should be stronger to remain elastic during the plastic deformation of the dissipative elements.
5.3. Design method of walls sheathed with flat, thin steel plate
5.3.1. Load car r ying mechanism of the wall
In wall panels sheathed with thin flat steel plates the load bearing mechanism is fundamentally different
from the one presented for wood plate sheathed panels due to the local buckling of the thin plate. The
buckling takes place in an early stage of the loading and causes the decrease of the rigidity of the wall.
However, the essentially shear buckling of the plate is characterised by stable post buckling behaviour.
In the later stage of loading a tension-strip pattern develops in the steel plate (Fig. 5.1.a.). The failing of
these tension strips (i.e. by yielding, net section failure of the ends or end connection failure) will
ultimately cause the failure of the wall (i.e. this is the preferable, more ductile, failure mode for the
wall).
The basic suppositions used in the analysis include:
The skeleton of wall panel is a pinned frame, the connections between studs and tracks can not
transmit bending.
The rigidity of studs and tracks is big compared to the rigidity of the thin plate. Therefore, the
studs and tracks remain straight during the deformation of the wall (they do not bend).
155

(a) (b)
a
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3

Fig. 5.1. (a) Developed yield pattern; (b) Division of a cell in zones
5.3.2. Analytical method for the calculation of the load bear ing capacity
As first step of the design the wall panel is divided in cells based on the distribution of the sheathing
plates (Fig. 5.2 - obs. it is good practice to use equal sheathing fields throughout the wall panel).
If the screw schedule is constant along the edge of a cell, its load bearing capacity can be calculated by:
(i) dividing the cell in zones (Fig. 5.1.b.) in a way that all straps in a zone have the same capacity (i.e.
taking into account all failure modes namely: yielding of strap, end connection failure of both ends and
net section failure of both ends)

Fig. 5.2. Division of the wall panel is cells
(ii) evaluating the angle the yield strips make with the vertical using the following empirical equation:
) ( 006 , 0 45 L h
DEG
= o 5.1
Where L length of the cell
h height of the cell
(ii) expressing the contribution to the load bearing capacity of the cell of each individual strap
156

Straps in Zone 1:
h
x dF
V
S
i
=
Zone 2:
h
L dF
V
S
i
o cos
=
Zone 3:
| |
h
x L h dF
V
s
i
+
=
) cos sin ( o o

5.2
In 5.2 dF
S
is the capacity of a dx width strap calculated as:
Zone y Zone y S
f dx t f dA dF
, ,
= =
Where f
y,Zone
is the conventional yield stress of the strap (i.e. which takes into account
the real yield stress of the strap material and the end fixing conditions for the straps)
The conventional yield stresses for Zone 1 and 3 are equal (because straps in these zones are connected
to vertical as well as horizontal edges), while for Zone 2 it is different:
) , , , , min(
, , , , , , , , 3 , 1 ,
H
net ech y
H
s ech y
V
net ech y
V
s ech y y y
f f f f f f =
) , , min(
, , , , 2 ,
V
net ech y
V
s ech y y y
f f f f =
5.3
Where
V
s ech y
f
, ,
corresponds to connection bearing on vertical edge
o sin
1
, ,

=
t S
F
f
BS V
s ech y

V
net ech y
f
, ,
corresponds to net-section failure on vertical edge
(
=
o o
2 , ,
tan
1
4 sin
1 t S d
f f
u
V
net ech y

H
s ech y
f
, ,
corresponds to connection bearing on horizontal edge
o cos
1
, ,

=
t S
F
f
BS H
s ech y

H
net ech y
f
, ,
corresponds to net-section failure on horizontal edge
(
= o
o
2
, ,
tan
4 cos
1 t S d
f f
u
H
net ech y

and
BS
F is the design capacity (usually bearing) of one screw on the edge of the steel plate.
(iii) summarising the contributions to the load bearing capacity of the wall of all the straps in one zone:
Total Zone 1:
}

=

=
o cos
0
1
L
x
S
Zone
i
h
x dF
V
Zone 2:
}

=

=
o
o
o
sin
cos
2
cos
h
L x
S
Zone
i
h
L dF
V
Zone 3:
| |
}
+
=
+
=
o o
o
o o
cos sin
sin
3
) cos sin (
L h
h x
S
Zone
i
h
x L h dF
V
5.4
Because Zone 1 and Zone 3 are equivalent from the point of view of load bearing contribution the
contribution it is also true that:

}

=
= =
o cos
0
1 3
L
x
S
Zone
i
Zone
i
h
x dF
V V 5.5
(iv) summarising these contributions over the entire plate, the total load bearing capacity becomes:
157

= + + =
3 2 1 Zone
i
Zone
i
Zone
i
V V V V
} }

=
=

+
o
o
o
o
sin
cos
cos
0
cos
2
h
L x
S
L
x
S
h
L dF
h
x dF
5.6
Therefore, the capacity of a panel, with steel plate connected on every edge using a uniform scheme of
self drilling screws can be written (based on 5.6) and using the equivalent yield stresses derived in 5.3)
as:
=

+
=
} }

=
=
o
o
o o sin
cos
2 ,
cos
0
3 , 1 ,
cos
2
h
L x
S
L
x
S
h
L dF
h
x dF
V
) cos sin (
cos
2
cos
2
2 ,
2 2
3 , 1 ,
o o
o
o

+
= L h
h
L f t
L
h
f t
y y

5.7
If different screw schedules are used on different edges (or segments along the edges), the division at (i)
has to be done in more zones and the integration at (iii) has to be done on more segments.
(v) if the wall panel was divided in more than one zone the process is repeated from (ii) until the load
bearing capacity of each zone is calculated.
(vi) the load bearing capacities of the zones are added to obtain the total load bearing of the wall. The
adding of the load bearing capacities can only be done if the zones have the same rigidity (i.e. they are
of the same width to height ratio and fixing schedule). The division in zones at point (i) should be done
in a way to ensure this condition.
All other, non-ductile failure modes like (i) buckling of compressed stud or (ii) anchor bold region
failure should be avoided by proper design of these respective members.
5.3.3. Analytical method for the calculation of the r igidity
If the assumption that the thin plate can be replaced by a series of strips which yield is true, than the
advantage is that in the deformed state the static system of the wall panel becomes geometrically
determined (Fig. 5.3).
1
2
a
h
1
x
l 1
2
2
1

a

1
2
l
L
h

Fig. 5.3. Strap system in deformed state (Zone 1)

The total contribution of all straps (Zone 1, Zone 2 and Zone 3) to the rigidity of the wall panel, if the
effect of connections is neglected, is:

1 2 3 1 2
2
Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone
TOT tot tot tot tot tot
K K K K K K = + + = + 5.8
158

2 2
2
sin cos 1
sin (2 )
4
E t L E t L
h h
o o
o

= =
The rigidity of one strap (k
strip
) can include the effect of the rigidity of end connections. In this case the
strip becomes a series of three springs, (i) a spring representing the effect of connection on the vertical
edge, (ii) the steel strip itself and (iii) the string representing the connections on the horizontal edge
(Fig. 5.4). The rigidity of the spring system can be expressed as:

1 1 1 1
strip V st H
k k k k
= + +
5.9
Where k
V
- is the rigidity of the equivalent spring on the vertical edge
k
st
- is the rigidity of the strip itself
k
H
- is the rigidity of the equivalent spring on the horizontal edge
(a)
S
a
S
s
i
n
a
S
c
o
s
a
S
(b)
a
S
s
i
n
a
S
c
o
s
a
Kscrew
screw K

(c)
a
d
x
screw K
Ssina
dx
K
Scosa
screw
dx

Fig. 5.4. Rigidity of a strap including end connections: (a) real situation, (b) projected to the edge
and (c) reduced to a dx width of strap
If the two components corresponding to screws are expressed as (Fig. 5.4.c.) and the rigidity of the steel
strap is used than the rigidity of a strap in Zone 1 becomes:

( )
1
sin cos
sin cos
strip
screw
k dx
S
x
k t E
o o
o o
=
+
+

5.10
The same rigidity in Zone 2 is:

1
2 sin
sin
strip
screw
k dx
S L
k t E
o
o
=

+

5.11
The total contribution of the strips in Zone 1 to the rigidity of the panel is:
159

( )
2
cos
1
2
0
2
cos
2
0
1

sin cos
sin cos
L
Zone
tot strip
L
screw
x
K k
h
x
dx
S h x
k t E
o
o
o o
o o
= =
=
+
+

}
}
5.12
If the notations:
( ) sin cos
1
screw
S
C
k
o o +
= and
1
2
sin cos
C
t E o o
=

are made:

2
cos
1
2
0
cos
2 2
2 2 3 2
0
1
1 2
1 1 1 1
ln( 1 2)
2 2 2 2
L
Zone
tot
L
x
K dx
C C x h
C x x C
C x C
C h C h C h
o
o
= =
+
| |
= + + + =
|
\
}
5.13
| |
2 2 2
2 2 2 3 2
1 cos 1 cos 1
ln( 1 cos 2) ln( 1)
2 2 2 2
C L L C
C L C C
C h C h C h
o o
o

= + + +

The total rigidity contribution of the straps from Zone 2 is:

2 2
sin
2
2
cos
2 2
sin
2
cos
cos
cos 1

2 sin
sin
L
Zone
tot strip
h
L
h
screw
L
K k
h
L
dx
S L
h
k t E
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
= =
=

+

}
}
5.14
If the notation
1
3
2 sin
sin
screw
C
S L
k t E
o
o
=

+

is introduced, then becomes:

( )
2 2
sin
2
2
cos
sin
2 2 2 2
2 2
cos
cos
3
cos cos
3 3 sin cos
L
Zone
tot
h
h
L
L
K C dx
h
L L
C x C h L
h h
o
o
o
o
o
o o
o o
= =
| |
= =
|
\
}
5.15
In the total rigidity contribution the effects of Zone 1, Zone 2 and Zone 3 have to be added. It is easy to
observe than the contribution of Zone 3 is identical to that of Zone 1. Therefore, the total rigidity of the
panel will be:

1 2
2
Zone Zone
TOT tot tot
K K K = + 5.16
Due to the complexity of these expressions the approach of dividing the plate in zones based on
different screw schedules along the edges, as in case of the load bearing capacity calculation, leads to
extremely complicated formulas.
5.3.4. Validation of the method by Finite Element (FE) analysis
In order to validate the findings of the analytical study of the behaviour of a wall panel sheeted with a
thin plate, a finite element model (FEM) was developed. The model consists of the bounding studs and
tracks, modelled as beam elements and the plate modelled as shells. Studs are considered to be pinned
at both ends. For the analysis the beams are considered to have large stiffness (both axial and bending)
so that they remain straight after deformation. The initial rectangular frame develops into a
160

parallelogram after deformation. Since stud ends are pinned the frame does not contribute to the load
bearing of the panel. The plate was connected to the beam elements with screws modelled as springs
at equal intervals (S) along the edges.
Dimensions L=1200mm, H=2700mm and plate thickness t=0.715 mm (f
y
=420 N/mm). All members on
the margins are rigid compared to the plate. Connection of the plate to the beams around the margins is
made with springs of the capacity F
b,Rd
=3676 N. The rigidity of the springs was warring from
500000N/mm to 2657N/mm (Table 5-1).
As initial imperfection a couple of local moments of 1Nmm were placed at the middle of the plate
perpendicular to its surface. The initial imperfection helped trigger the out of plane deformation (ie.
buckling) when the shear force is applied.
The stresses and deformations develop in the plate as expected (Fig. 5.5). The plate resisted the shear
force by the yield mechanism where principal tensile stresses (o
11
) were directed obliquely forming a
yielded strap pattern. The compressive principal stress (o
22
) developed perpendicularly to the straps
direction. Because the plate was very thin these compressive stresses caused instantaneous buckling of
the plate, leading to a wave pattern as presented (Fig. 5.5.a.). However, this local buckling will not alter
the load bearing of the plate, the behaviour being stable until the straps yield.
(a) (b)
Fig. 5.5. (a) Deformation pattern and (b) principal tensile stress of plate with S=100 mm,
As it is presented in Table 5-1 the correlation between both the load bearing capacity (F) and the
rigidity (K) is very good. The same comparison is presented in Fig. 5.6.
(a)
0
20000
40000
0 20000 40000
Analytic F(N)
F
E
M

F
(
N
)
S=100 mm
S=150 mm
S=75 mm
(b)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Analytic K(N/mm)
F
E
M

K
(
N
/
m
m
)
S=100 mm
S=150 mm
S=75 mm

Fig. 5.6. Comparison of (a) load bearing capacity and (b) rigidity

161

Table 5-1. Comparison of analytical results to FE modeling
Analytic FEM

S
(mm)
K
scr ew

(N/mm)
F
max
(N)
K
(N/mm)
F
max

(N)
K
(N/mm)
H=2700mm, L=1200mm, t
plate
=0.7mm, F
screw
=3676 N
Plate 100_R 500000 14642 29536 12177
Plate 100_1 10630 6869 25294 6013
Plate 100_2 5315 4537 22240 3880
Plate 100_3
100
2657
29715
2713 17880 2149
H=2700mm, L=1200mm, t
plate
=0.7mm, F
screw
=3676 N
Plate 150_R 500000 14435 20791 11260
Plate 150_1 10630 5461 17784 4754
Plate 150_2 5315 3395 15764 2869
Plate 150_3
150
2657
19810
NA NA NA
H=2700mm, L=1200mm, t
plate
=0.7mm, F
screw
=3676 N
Plate 75_R 500000 14749 41475 12891
Plate 75_1 10630 7897 39934 7569
Plate 75_2 5315 5461 35549 5102
Plate 75_3
75
2657
39620
NA NA NA

According to the analytical formulation, the value of the capacity does not depend on the rigidity of the
screw connection. However, it has been observed that in case of the FE analysis the capacity of the
panel decreases as the rigidity of the connections decreases. The tendency can be observed in the force
displacement curves presented in Fig. 5.7. Therefore, the analytical formulation for the load bearing
capacity can only be used if the rigidity of the connections is large.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement(mm)
F
o
r
c
e
(
N
)
Plate 100_1
Plate 100_2
Plate 100_3
Plate 100_ref

Fig. 5.7. Force-displacement curves when the rigidity of the connection decreases
5.3.5. Validation of the method using exper imental r esults
As the main component defining the capacity is the load bearing capacity of the screw an experimental
program has been undertaken to verify the reliability of the calculation method. In order to reduce the
number of parameters the configuration presented in Fig. 5.8. has been used. The configuration is with
screws connecting the steel plate to the skeleton every 100 mm.
162

(a) (b)
Fig. 5.8. Deformed shape of the tested wall (a) experiment, (b) FEM
During testing the same wall panel, the following experimental characteristic curve has been obtained:
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 20 40 60 80
Displacement(mm)
F
o
r
c
e
(
k
N
)
Experiment

Fig. 5.9. Characteristic curve by experiment
In order to determine the load bearing capacity of the screw connections between the sheathing plate
and the skeleton, five experiments were prepared. The steel plates for the specimens (Fig. 5.10) were
cut from the unaffected parts of the wall panel (i.e. plate and skeleton respectively) and the screws were
identical to the ones used in the wall panel. Therefore, all material properties for the screw test were
identical to the ones for the original wall test.
According to prEN1993-1-3 the bearing resistance of such screwed connection can be calculated as:

M2
u
Rd b,
f t d u
F

=
5.17
The nominal parameters used in this case were: diameter of the screw d=4.8 mm; thickness of the
thinner plate t=0.6 mm; thickness of the thicker plate t
1
=1.5 mm, nominal yield strength of the material
f
y
=320 N/mm.
163

The parameter u can be calculated according to prEN1993-1-3 as a function of the thicknesses of the
steel plates and the diameter of the screw. One observation concerning the value of factor u is that in the
EN version of Ec3 there has been a change compared to the previous ENV-versions. Therefore
according to ENV 1993-1-3:96 Table 8.2 the value of would be u=2.1, while according to the final
document (prEN-1993-1-3:2005, Table 8.2) u=1.13. In this conditions the according to the final draft
prEN1993-1-3 the bearing capacity of the screwed connections (without taking into account the safety
factor
M2
) is F
b,Rd
=1041 N.
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Slip (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Final Ec3
Old Ec3
Used E-P model

Fig. 5.10. Specimens for screwed connec-
tions
Fig. 5.11. Experimental curves for lap-joints
However, when the elements of the tested walls were measured the plate thickness was t=0.715 mm,
f
y
=420 N/mm and f
u
=510 N/mm. Using these values the capacity of the screw can be predicted to be
F
b,Rd
=2162 N (u=1.24) by the prEN1993-1-3 and F
b,Rd
=3676 N (u=2.1) by the ENV-1993-1-3.
The lapjoint experiments have been done by stretching the two plates (Fig. 5.10) and measuring the
corresponding force and slip in the connection. The experimental force displacement curves are
presented in Fig. 5.11.
In the same figure the predicted strength are given based on ENV1993-1-3 (1996) and prEN-1993-1-3
(2005). Both this values use the measured thickness and ultimate strength of the thinner plate and they
do not include the safety factor
M2
(therefore they are NOT the real design values for this connection).
Therefore the average values of the characteristic rigidity and capacity are: K=10.63 kN/mm, F
max
=4.59
kN and F
y
=4.14 kN. The resulting equivalent elasto-plastic curve is also presented in Fig. 5.11.
If the calculation is repeated with the average capacity of the screw obtained experimentally (F
y
=4.14
kN) the overall capacity of the panel becomes 33516 V N = , which compares very well with the
experimentally obtained maximum force (Fig. 5.9.).

prEN1993-1-3
ENV-1993-1-3
Used E-P model
164

5.4. Conclusions
Theoretical analysis has been combined with FE modelling in order to develop a design method for the
wall panels sheathed with thin steel plates. The results of the study suggest:
(1) It is possible to predict analytically the load bearing capacity and rigidity of such wall panels by
accepting that the plate behaves like a series of inclined steel strips.
(2) Any practical connection schedule of the plate to the skeleton can be handled by the strength
formulation. In case of the formulation for rigidity only uniform screw schedule is possible (i.e.
otherwise the formulation becomes extremely complicated).
(3) The comparison with FE analysis concluded that the analytical method is reliable in terms of
predicting the load bearing capacity as long as the rigidity of the screws is large. In practical cases
correction may be necessary.
(4) The comparison of the analytical formulas for strength with experimental results shows that the
formulas are providing good estimate of the capacity. One problem has been spotted concerning
the capacity predicted by Ec3 for steel plates connected with screws. In the case of thin-to-thick
sheath connection the formula of the code grossly under predicts the capacity of the lap-joint.
For other sheathing cases (like wood plate sheathed shear walls) qualitative description of the design
procedure is given.

REFERENCES
EN 1998-1-8 (2004). Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance -Part 1: General
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, CEN European Committee for Standardisation.
ENV 1993-1-3 (1996). Design of steel structures - Part 1-3: General rules - Supplementary rules for
cold-formed members and sheeting, CEN European Committee for Standardisation, 1996
prEN 1993-1-3 (2005). Design of steel structures - Part 1-3: General rules - Supplementary rules for
cold-formed members and sheeting, CEN European Committee for Standardisation, Final draft,
September 2005
AISI (1998), Shear Wall Design Guide, Publication RG-9804, American Iron and Steel Institute,
February 1998

165

ANNEX 6:
Design guide
(WP5)
167

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6. Annex 6 Design Guide................................................................................................... 167
6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 167
6.2 Seismic design startegies........................................................................................... 167
6.3 Applicable design standards and limit states /1/........................................................ 167
6.4 Ground conditions and seismic actions ..................................................................... 168
6.5 Basic structural requirements .................................................................................... 170
6.5.1 Simplicity and regularity.................................................................................... 170
6.5.2 Stiffening methods ............................................................................................. 170
6.5.3 Bidirectional resistance and stiffness ................................................................. 170
6.6 Analysis methods....................................................................................................... 171
6.6.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 171
6.6.2 Lateral force method .......................................................................................... 171
6.6.3 Modal response spectrum analysis..................................................................... 171
6.6.4 Non-linear time-history analysis ........................................................................ 172
6.6.5 Safety verifications Ultimate limit state (ULS)............................................... 172
6.6.6 Safety verifications Damage limit state (DLS) ............................................... 172
6.7 Structural design of LGS buildings ........................................................................... 173
6.7.1 Materials............................................................................................................. 173
6.7.2 Design of shear walls ......................................................................................... 174
6.7.3 Design of horizontal planes................................................................................ 175
6.7.4 Design of light-gauge steel members................................................................. 176
6.7.5 Design of joints .................................................................................................. 176
6.7.6 Design of the anchoring system......................................................................... 177
6.7.7 Detailing and design of shear walls.................................................................... 177
6.7.8 Shear wall continuity joints at intermediate floors............................................. 180
6.7.9 Connection of roof and shear wall ..................................................................... 180
6.8 Design example ......................................................................................................... 181
6.8.1 Evaluation of the mass of the structure .............................................................. 181
6.8.2 Simplified analysis ............................................................................................. 182
6.8.3 Advanced methods ............................................................................................. 189
6.8.4 Response at ULS. Evaluation of the q-factor..................................................... 191
168

6. Annex 6 Design Guide
6.1 Introduction
The present Design Guide intends to cover the field of Light Gauge Steel (LGS) being used in one or
two storey housing and small industrial applications, where the main vertical load-bearing elements are
walls with studs at close intervals (i.e. 600-1200 mm), and the main horizontal load-bearing elements
are the same wall panels which interact either with the sheathing (i.e. gypsum, wood panels, steel
sheathing) or with strap braces provided for this purpose.
In this document the conclusions and recommendations, based on the results of the project are
summarized in the form of a Design Guide. The aim is to help the designed of LGS structures to keep
track of the various aspects of the design and be able to follow the requirements he has to fulfil.
A more detailed version Seismic Design Guide of Light Gauge Steel Framed Buildings PR-
377/Guide of this document has been prepared in the framework of ECSC Project N
o
7210-PR-377,
and it is available by request from the authors.
6.2 Seismic design strategies
Steel structures are especially suitable in earthquake prone regions, due to the favourable qualities of
steel. High strength-to-weight ratio of steel results in stiffer and lighter structures, qualities which help
to reduce the forces and displacements generated by earthquakes. Also, the inherent ductility of steel
can be exploited to enhance the behaviour of the structures in case of extremely strong earthquakes.
The structures described in this guidance use wall panels with diagonal steel straps as braces, or
sheeting of plane steel plates, gypsum wallboard or wood based wallboards, which are the sole lateral
resisting element against seismic actions and wind.
Usually it is not economically feasible to ensure elastic behaviour of the structures under the design
earthquake. It is recommended the structures to be designed to behave inelastically using e.g. stiffening
system which yields during a severe earthquake. However, the structure may not collapse during the
design earthquake and this can be achieved if the structure has sufficient post-elastic capacity against
strong seismic forces.
Structural elements are classified in dissipative and non-dissipative elements. Dissipative elements are
expected to undergo post-elastic deformations during strong earthquakes. Non dissipative elements are
expected to behave elastically up to the collapse of the structure. Usually the studs and tracks are
designed to behave elastically and diagonals or sheathings inelastically. The seismic behaviour of the
structure can be reliable and easy to calculate if the structure is regular and all details and stiffening
systems are known.
6.3 Applicable design standards and limit states /1/
The main purpose of the standards is as follows: (i) human lives are protected and (ii) damage is
limited, structures important for civil protection remain operational.
The seismic design of Light Gauge Steel (LGS) structures is based on a combination of many Eurocode
standards. The design process needs information of soil and ground under the building, knowledge of
basement, frames (studs and tracks), sheathings and joints. Seismic loads are effecting all over the
structure, where self-weight or other masses are present.
Structures must be designed so that human life is protected during and after earthquake. No-collapse
requirement (i.e. ultimate limit state) means that the structure shall be designed and constructed to
withstand the design seismic actions without local or global collapse and must retain its structural
integrity and a residual load bearing capacity after the seismic action.
Damage limitation requirement means that the structure shall withstand a seismic action with larger
probability of occurrence than the design seismic action without damage and associated limitations of
169

use. The value of the structure and damage associated repair costs must also be considered in the
design.
6.4 Ground conditions and seismic actions
According to Eurocode 8 /EN 1998 Part 1 3.2.1 (1)(2)/ the main parameter defining the seismic
hazard in a certain location is the reference peak ground acceleration (on type A ground) a
gR
, which is
given as seismic zone maps by the National Authorities. Other characteristics (e.g. corner period,
amplification etc.) depend on the ground conditions of the site, which are also defined by the National
Authorities for a given geographical region. The zonation of European countries is the responsibility of
National Authorities and zonation can be found in National Annexes of EN 1998.
The ground conditions and ground classifications accounting for deep geology may be specified in the
National Annexes of EN 1998 /1/. Also the local authorities may have information and investigations of
the ground conditions on the site.
In EN 1998 /EN 19981ch.3.1.1/ ground conditions are divided into 7 types form ground type A
which is a rock to type E which is very soft alluvium soil.
The ground motion is described with the reference peak ground acceleration a
gR
on ground type A. This
value has usually been given in National Annex chosen by National Authorities and it corresponds to a
return period of T
NCR
=475 years of seismic action for the no collapse requirement. The design ground
acceleration a
g
is calculated with formula 6.1 /EN 19981ch.3.2.1.(3)/
gR I g
a a =

6.1
Where y
I
importance factor of the building, (usually 1.0)
a
gR
reference peak ground acceleration (g or m/s
2
)
The design spectrum for elastic analysis (i.e. design spectrum) of horizontal components is defined in
EN 19981ch.3.2.2.3.(1), based on the ground parameters of the site. There are two types of spectrums
in EN 1998 /EN 19981ch.3.2.2.2.(2)/. For strong seismic regions where the surface-wave magnitude
of the expected earthquake is equal or exceeds 5.5 Type 1 is to be used, while in low seismicity regions
(i.e. magnitude less than 5.5) Type 2 spectrums are recommended.
T T a
T
T T
q
S a T S
T T T a
T
T
q
S a T S
T T T
q
S a T S
T T
q T
T
S a T S
D g
D C
g d
D C g
C
g d
C B g d
B
B
g d
s >
(

=
s s >
(
=
s s
(
=
s s
(
|
|
\
|
+ =
|
|
,
5 . 2
) (
,
5 . 2
) (

5 . 2
) (
0
3
2 5 . 2
3
2
) (
2

6.2
(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)
Where S, T
C
and T
D
are given in EN 19981Table 3.2 and 3.3.
a
g
is given with the formula 6.1 (g)
bound factor for the horizontal design spectrum (recommended =0.2)
q behaviour factor (see 6.3)
The so called behaviour factor (q), makes it possible to apply an elastic design method for seismic
actions. This term takes into account the plastic properties of the structure. It defines the relationship
between an acceleration causing collapse and an acceleration causing yielding. The ability of the
structure to withstand plastic deformations without loosing load bearing capacity is of high significance
for earthquake reliability. If structure is fully elastic until failure then q=1, otherwise q>1.
170

In EN 1998 /1/ no specific provisions are provided, for the evaluation of the q factor for structures
utilising steel stud shear walls as lateral load-bearing elements. There are a few particularities to be
taken into account when evaluating the reduction factor for such structures: (i) if regularity criteria is
met, the behaviour of the structure is governed by the first mode of vibration (ii) the fundamental period
of the structure is usually low, so the effect of ductility is reduced compared to the effect of
overstrength and (iii) pinching, and therefore reduced energy dissipation, is unavoidable.
The q factor can be evaluated, using the formula proposed in this project (details in Annex 4), starting
from the hysteretic characteristics of the shear walls and the fundamental period of the structure as:
O P ep
q q o o = , but 1 > q
6.3
Where q
ep
is the base value of q (6.4)
o
P
correction factor due to pinching (6.5)
o
O
correction factor due to overstrength (6.6)
>
s +
=
C
;
; ) 1 ( 1
T T u
T T
T
T
q
C
C ep

6.4
Where T fundamental period of vibration of the structure
u ductility of the structure
T
C
corner period
( ) ( )
( )
( )
( )
>
+
+
s
(
+
=
C
P
C
C
P
C
C
P
T T
T T P
T
T
P P
T T
T T
;
T - T 2
T 2T - T P
1 5 . 0 1
; 2
15 . 0
15 . 0
2 1 5 . 0
) 4 exp(
1 ) 4 exp(
1
C D
D C
5
25 . 0
5 1 5 5 1 25 . 0
o

6.5.
Where P the pinching factor (P=0 no pinching, P=1 full pinching)
T
D
corner period
( )
>
s +
=
C
C
C
vS vS
O
T T
T T
T
T
O O
; 1
; 1
o

6.6
Where O
vS
is the expected overstrength factor of the structural typology (O
vS
1, O
vS
=1 no
supplementary strength after yield, O
vS
=2 maximum capacity is twice the yield force).
The overstrength factor (O
vS
), the ductility () and the hardening ratio (H) is in close
relationship. In all cases the expression O
vS
-1<H(-1) has to be fulfilled.
The characteristic values for the calculation of the q factor depend on the load-bearing system of the
wall panels, which depends on the adopted structural solution (ex. type of wall skeleton, sheeting
material, fixing schedule etc.). Recommended values, based on test result presented in Annex 3, are
presented in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1. Recommended characteristics for shear walls (general values)
Shear wall skeleton - Stiffening system P O
vS
H
Thin walled C profiles Stiffening: Thin steel plate 1 1.2 3 0
Thin walled C profiles Stiffening: Diagonal stiffening 1 1 4 0
Thin walled C profiles Stiffening: Thin steel plate combined with gypsum board 0.95 1.4 3 0.25
Thin walled C profiles Stiffening: Wood based panels 0.95 1.5 3 0.35
171

This level of ductility is only obtained if the failure mode is controlled from the design. In case of strap
braces the yield failure of the straps, while in the sheeted frames the failure of the connection between
the skeleton of the wall and the sheeting is expected.
The seismic load of the building is determined considering the vertical loads present in the different
storeys of the building. These vertical loads include all dead loads and one live load. The load
combination is defined by Eurocode 8 (EN 1998) and relevant standards.
The seismic design loads shall be determined: (i) for the horizontal direction along both principal axes
of the structure and (ii) in the vertical direction. Even in case of a good and symmetrical design a
minimum amount of accidental torsion must be considered (see. 6.6.2).
6.5 Basic structural requirements
Studs and tracks are built-up members connected with self-tapping screws, bolts or other devices. The
design procedures account for the material strength variability and suppose significant plastic
deformation in the diagonal straps or in the sheeting panels (and their connections) without any other
mode of failure (i.e. especially brittle) in the corners and members. An acceptable building response can
be achieved following this set of recommendations, which include a proper installation of shear frame.
6.5.1 Simplicity and regularity
Structural simplicity means a set of features and details of the construction that produce a clear, easy
and direct system to resist the forces generated by the earthquake. The more structural simplicity a
building has the easier to calculate the seismic response, and the results more reliably represent the
likely performance of the building in earthquake.
The shape of the building implies a particular distribution of mass, so the position of shear wall frames
must follow this particular disposition. Due to the high uncertainties related to seismic forces, it is
possible that, in the lifespan of the building, seismic loads will exceed the design loads. In theses cases
irregular structures, in which the likelihood of force concentration is high, are more prone to collapse
than regular structures. The geometric parameters qualifying the building shape are the vertical and plan
regularity, symmetry and the compactness. These aspects are taken into account in EN 1998 and other
major codes.
6.5.2 Stiffening methods
The ways to achieve a structural configuration with a good seismic performance consist in two basic
aspects:
To provide floor horizontal diaphragm in every storey (first floor and roof).
To provide shear wall frames connecting the diaphragms and the foundation.
The horizontal diaphragms and the foundations must be designed with over-strength and have to posses
enough rigidity to ensure regular distribution of the horizontal forces. They must remain elastic during
strong earthquakes.
The dissipative zones between floors are the shear wall frames that can be designed according to the
requirements set in this document. In these frames, the diagonal straps or sheeting must act as the
primary source of stiffness and energy dissipation. To achieve this, the frame (i.e. studs and tracks)
should be strong enough as to avoid local or global buckling of its members.
Because the bracing plays the dominant role in the bearing of the load, a reasonable position is to
neglect the contribution of the moment resisting frame, and to rely only on the effect of the bracing.
6.5.3 Bidirectional resistance and stiffness
The position and stiffness of the shear frames must ensure that inter-storey drift limitations are fulfilled.
The rigidity control of a structural system is not only needed to maintain the integrity of finishing for
moderate earthquakes or to limit the structural damage in the severe ones, but also to avoid human
discomfort or any minor damage by live loads and wind.
172

The set of partition walls and non-structural elements play an important role in the actual rigidity of the
building, but the calculation of the maximum drift should be performed neglecting these uncertain
contributions and therefore taking into account only the structural shear wall frames.
6.6 Analysis methods
6.6.1 Introduction
In the basic case when simplicity and regularity conditions are fulfilled the effect of the seismic action
and other effects of other actions included in the seismic design can be determined using linear-elastic
analysis of the structure.
The most common method of analysis is the modal response spectrum analysis, using the design
spectrums. Alternatively simplified lateral force analysis can be used, as higher modes of vibration do
not usually affect the behaviour of LGS houses. However, due to the importance of the period of
vibration on the calculation (i.e. period of vibration of the structure is usually less than the corner period
Tc) it is recommended that the period of vibration is determined using modal analysis.
Alternatively non-linear methods may be used. If non-linear time-history analysis is used based on a
simplified behaviour model of the shear frames, the analysis should be properly substantiated with
respect to (i) the constitutive model used for the behaviour of the frames and (ii) the input signal
employed (see. 6.6.4).
6.6.2 Lateral force method
If regularity conditions are met higher modes do not significantly affect the behaviour of the structure.
In these cases the seismic analysis can be performed either as (i) two plane analysis with reference to
the two main directions of the structure or (ii) spatial model taking into account torsion. The
fundamental period of vibration (T
1
) of the structure may be calculated using simplified modal analysis.
Alternatively, the formula 6.7 is recommended for the calculation of the period of vibration.
d T = 2
1

6.7
Where d is the lateral displacement of the top of the building, in meters, due to the gravity
loads applied in the horizontal direction /EN 19981eq.4.9/
Two scenarios are recommended for the design: (i) structural mass (or the gravity load) is the result of
the self weight of the structure and the fraction of the variable load and (ii) only the mass (or the gravity
load) due to the self weight of the structure is considered. This is particularly important for the design of
the hold-down corners in order to capture the maximum uplift forces.
The base shear force in both cases can be calculated with the formula 6.8:
m T S F
d b
= ) (
1

6.8
Where T
1
period of vibration corresponding to one of the two loading condition described in
the previous paragraph
m the mass of the building (i.e. including mass due to the fraction of variable load)
above the foundation or above the rigid basement
S
d
(T
1
) ordinate of the design spectrum corresponding to the period of the building T
1

If regularity conditions for the structure are fulfilled, the total shear force can be distributed in elevation
according to a triangular distribution. The horizontal storey shear forces shall be distributed to the shear
frames of the storey assuming rigid floor behaviour.
Supplementary to the existing torsion effects, accidental torsion has to be taken into account.
6.6.3 Modal response spectrum analysis
The necessity to use modal response spectrum analysis arises when the structure does not respect the
regularity condition in elevation. In case of LGS structures this means that, for the different stories
radically different stiffening shear frames have been used, or one of the stories have to sustain much
173

larger mass than the others. For the analysis, all modes of vibration contributing significantly to the
global response shall be taken into account.
6.6.4 Non-linear time-history analysis
The time dependent response of the structures may be obtained by direct numerical integration of its
differential equations of motion, a procedure called time-history analysis. If non-linear time-history
analysis is used special attention has to be paid to two aspects of the modelling: (i) the accelerograms
has to properly represent the expected ground motion in the location and (ii) the non-linear model has to
incorporate the most important hysteretic features (ex. stiffness or strength degradation) of the structure.
For the analysis recorded, simulated of artificially generated accelerograms can be used. The recorded
or simulated accelerograms must take into account the seismogenetic features of the source and soil
conditions of the site /EN 19981ch.3.2.3.1.3/.
6.6.5 Safety verifications Ultimate limit state (ULS)
The non-collapse (ULS) criteria under seismic design situation include specific conditions for: (i)
resistance, (ii) ductility, (iii) equilibrium, (iv) foundation stability and (v) joint/group conditions.
To ensure resistance conditions, the following relationship has to be satisfied /EN 19981ch.4.4.2.2/:
d d
R E s

6.9
Where E
d
the design value of the action effect due to the seismic design situation
R
d
the corresponding design resistance of the element
It shall be verified that individual structural elements and the structure as a whole possess adequate
ductility, compared to the value supposed at the evaluation of the behaviour factor (q). Specific material
and component related requirements have to be checked, in order to obtain a hierarchy of resistance of
the various components. This is important in order to avoid unexpected brittle failure modes.
Ductility conditions are deemed to be satisfied if: (i) the plastic mechanisms characterising the failure is
satisfactory, (ii) global and local ductility and deformation demands do not exceed the corresponding
capacities and (iii) brittle elements remain in the elastic range.
The effect of actions can be calculated as:
E F d R G F Fd
E E E
, ,
+ =

6.10
Where y
Rd
overstrength factor (conservatively taken 1.4)
E
F,G
action effect due to non seismic actions included in the design seismic combination
E
F,E
action effect of seismic action in the design seismic combination
In case of groups of buildings, each building unit shall be protected from earthquake induced pounding
with adjacent building units.
6.6.6 Safety verifications Damage limit state (DLS)
In EN 1998 the damage limitation must assured by checking the limitation of inter-storey drift, which is
calculated according to formula 6.11 /EN 19981ch.4.4.3.2/.
h d
r
s 005 . 0 u - brittle non-structural elements attached to the structure
h d
r
s 0075 . 0 u - ductile non-structural elements attached to the structure
h d
r
s 010 . 0 u - non-structural elements do not interfere with the structure
6.11
Where d
r
design inter-storey drift
h storey height
174

c reduction factor to take into account the lower return period of the earthquake
associated with damage limitation (Values to be found in National Annexes)
If linear analysis is performed (i.e. lateral force method or modal response spectrum analysis) the
actual nonlinear deformations have to be calculated by the formula 6.12 (EN 19981ch.4.3.4) using
the linear elastic deformations. For non-linear analysis (non-linear static (pushover) analysis or non-
linear time history analysis) the actual deformations are those obtained from non-linear analysis.
The design interstorey drift (d
r
) is calculated as the difference of the lateral displacements (d
s
) at the top
and bottom of the storey under consideration.
e d s
d q d =

6.12
Where q
d
displacement behaviour factor
d
e
displacement according to linear analysis
If the structure would remain elastic under the effect of the design earthquake (i.e. the overstrength is so
large that the structure remains elastic even if the loading is not reduced with the q factor) than q q
d
= .
If the behaviour of under the design earthquake is non-linear:
|
|
\
|
|
|
\
|
+ =
1
1 1
T
T
O
q
O q
C
vT
vT d

6.13
Where O
vT
total over-strength factor composed from the design overstrength factor (the ratio of
capacity of the walls and the force generated by the design earthquake (
d y vD
F F O = ))
and by the expected overstrength factor O
vS
(Equation 6.6),
vS vD vT
O O O = , but q O
vT
s
T
1
period of vibration of the structure
T
C
corner period of the earthquake
q the q factor used in the design
Note: The design over-strength factor takes into account the reserve capacity of the wall panels. If the
shear walls are designed to have capacity equal to the required shear force than O
vD
=1, otherwise O
vD
>1,
but O
vT
<q.
Second-order effects (P-A effects) normally need not be taken into account because the structure is low
rise and axial (vertical) forces are not significant.
6.7 Structural design of LGS buildings
6.7.1 Materials
The skeleton of light-gauge steel framed shear walls is composed of U- and C-profiles. Tracks and studs
can be thermo-slotted or profiles with solid web. Flat straps or threaded rods are used as diagonals in X-
braced walls. Zinc coated carbon steel is used. Typical steel grades for LGS members are:
S250GD+Z, yield stress f
y
=250N/mm and ultimate stress f
u
=330N/mm
S350GD+Z, yield stress f
y
=350N/mm and ultimate stress f
u
=420N/mm
In board sheathed shear walls the following materials are used:
Gypsum board, thickness 9 or 13 mm
Plywood, thickness 9 or 12 mm
Steel sheet, thickness 0.6 0.8 mm, steel grade S320 GD+Z
Self-drilling screws are usually used as connection elements of the shear wall. The diameter of screws
can be 4.8, 5.5 or 6.3 mm. Bolts, M12 or M16, can also be used in some corner details of the walls.
175

6.7.2 Design of shear walls
Shear walls play the most important role in the lateral force resisting system of light gauge steel framed
buildings. Design should be made in such a way that the non-linear deformation of shear walls does not
affect the overall stability of the structure. In the layout of building, shear walls should be placed so that
they are loaded equally. A typical design procedure of shear walls is shown in Fig. 6.1.
How strong shearwalls are required? Choose suitable shearwall type:
Clarify general information:
What is the building layout?
What is the total base shear force?
What is maximum allowed number of shearwalls?
Plywood stiffened wall
Combined shearwalls
Shearwall design, common checks for all shearwalls:
Anchor bolt capacity and anchor bracket capacity
Edge studs compression capacity
Blocking and bridging of studs
Top track compression capacity
Fixing of shear wall to upper structures
Drift limit
Light resistance Medium resistance Heavy resistance
Gypsum board stiffened wall
OSB stiffened walls
X-bracing with straps
X-bracing with rods
Steel sheated wall
Board stiffened shearwall (Gypsum board/
plywood / OSB)
shear capacity of sheating
capacity and ductility of screws fixing the sheats
Steel sheated shear wall
capacity and continuity of tension zone at sheating
bearing and shear capacity of screws fixing the
sheets
X-braced shear wall
diagonal joint capacity
diagonal strap tension capacity
ductility of dissipative zone (i.e. straps)
Shearwall design, special checks for shearwalls:

Fig. 6.1. Design procedure of typical shear walls.
Shear walls can be constructed in alternative ways: X-bracing system with flat straps; X-bracing system
with diagonal rods; stiffening with steel sheet; stiffening with gypsum board (only for low seismicity
zones) or combined shear walls.
176

Hysteretic behaviour of shear walls depends on structural solutions. The design has to ensure that the
plastic deformation of the dissipative parts of the panel can be developed.
Favourable behaviour of X-braced shear wall can be achieved by using weakened diagonals or threaded
rods made of mild steel as diagonals. The eccentricity of corner fixings should be carefully minimized.
Behaviour of steel-sheathed shear walls is somewhat similar to X-braced walls. Diagonal tension straps
(i.e. zone) are formed from one stud to the other, because the shear or compressive rigidity and strength
of the steel sheet are negligible. More dense screw spacing should be applied in corners and at the
corresponding opposite end of straps in order to increase the capacity of the tension zone.
Shear of the sheet resists lateral loads in board stiffened shear walls. These type of walls can be used in
the areas of low seismicity, since their shear capacity and ductility is lower (i.e. especially in case of
gypsum sheathed walls). High shear capacities can be achieved with plywood or OSB (Oriented Strand
Board) stiffened walls, especially if reduced screw distances are used. In case of identical screw
schedule plywood provides the most load-bearing capacity, followed by OSB and gypsum board.
Gypsum board sheathed walls are quite weak and are acceptable only in low seismicity areas.
a) b) c)
Fig. 6.2. Board and steel sheet stiffened shear walls
6.7.3 Design of horizontal planes
Diaphragms and bracings in horizontal planes should be able to transfer lateral seismic loads to the load
bearing shear walls, in order to be then transferred to the foundation. Therefore, the horizontal planes
should have sufficient rigidity and strength to distribute the seismic forces to the shear walls.
Two alternative floor diaphragm solutions are presented in Fig. 6.3. Floor with high stiffness and
moderate self-weight would be most favourable for seismic design. Therefore, a light steel based
structure is presented in Fig. 6.3.a with the following composition: primary floor joists, corrugated steel
sheet and floor gypsum or wood based panel sheet (two layers).
Stiffer but heavier floor structure can be the steel-concrete composite slab (Fig. 6.3.b): primary floor
joists, corrugated steel sheet and reinforced concrete slab.
(a) (b)
Fig. 6.3. Alternative slab solutions (a) sheet with gypsum boards (b) steel sheet and reinforced concrete
177

6.7.4 Design of light-gauge steel members
Members of light gauge steel frames usually belong to cross-section class 4. These members can not
sustain plastic deformation in bending and the shear walls can dissipate energy either by plastic bearing
deformations in the connections (ex. in case of steel or wood plate sheathed walls) or by tension
yielding (ex. in case of cross-braced walls). A corresponding hierarchy has to be enforced by the
design: (i) the dissipative elements should be weaker to allow them to yield (ii) the non-dissipative
elements should be stronger (at least 20% overstrength is recommended in all cases) to remain elastic
during the plastic deformation of the dissipative elements.
6.7.4.a. Members subjected to tension
Member subjected to tensile actions may be designed dissipative or non-dissipative. If a tensile member
is designed to be dissipative than it should yield before fracture of its end joint occurs. The yielding, to
be effective, should incorporate a large portion of the length of the element (i.e. local net-section
yielding is inadequate as dissipater). This can easily be achieved by strengthening the ends of the tensile
member.
6.7.4.b. Members subjected to compression
Light gauge steel studs and tracks are susceptible to global, distortional and local buckling (i.e. they
belong to cross section class 4), and thus dissipative zones should not be designed in compressed
members. Studs which are compressed due to lateral loads (i.e. studs where braces are connected)
should possess at least 20% overstrength to allow the development of the dissipative effect in the
bracings or sheathing.
The buckling length of the studs in the plane of the wall panel (i.e. weak axis) can be reduced by
providing blockings. Restraining effect of sheeting also improves buckling behavior of stud in the
weaker direction.
6.7.4.c. Members subjected to bending
Profiles belonging to cross-section class 4 have very limited capacity of plastic deformation in bending.
Therefore, dissipative plastic hinges should be avoided in light gauge steel members subjected to
bending. Bending effect in shear walls is usually limited and mainly caused by eccentric fixing.
Members subjected to bending should be designed so that risk of local failure is avoided.
6.7.4.d. Members subjected to shear
Structural details should be designed so that no remarkable shear occurs. Risk of web crippling should
be avoided by using suitable sleeves and support pieces. In order to provide the horizontal planes with
full diaphragm action, slabs should also be designed to shear. Joints of the sheathing in the slab should
be carefully examined, especially in areas close to shear walls, edge recesses and floor openings.
6.7.5 Design of joints
The failure mode of the joints is a key issue in the seismic design of lightweight steel structures. Many
different phenomena have been observed in the tests: bearing, tilting, pull-out, pull-through, net section
failure, punching, tearing, local buckling, etc.
The preferred failure mode of the joint depends on the usage of the joint (i.e. the joint is a dissipative or
non-dissipative). As general rule ductile failure modes are always preferred to fragile ones, even if the
joint is in the non-dissipative part. In particular cases:
If the connection is in non-dissipative part (ex. connects elements of the skeleton of the wall, or end
connection of weakened strap brace) ductile failure mode should still be enforced (ex. bearing failure of
the screw instead of shearing of the screw).
In case of end connection for constant strap brace the end connection interacts with the brace. In this
case the end connection becomes part of the dissipative mechanism and net-section failure of the end
connection has to be enforced in order to be able to exploit the yield capacity of the brace. In this case it
is also advantageous to used steel with high f
u
/f
y
ration for the brace.
178

In case of walls sheathed with flat steel plate the failure will occur in the joints connecting the sheathing
plate to the skeleton of the wall. Since the connections become dissipative parts, in this case bearing
failure of these connections has to be assured.
In case of walls sheathed with wood panels the failure is also expected in the connections between the
wood plates and the skeleton. Therefore these connections are dissipative connections and bearing
failure has to be assured.
Screw joints should be checked in conjunction with chapter 8.3 of EN 1993-1-3. According to EN 1998
(EN 19981ch.6.5.5) /1/, the ductile yielding of a flat strap X-bracings can be ensured if the capacity
of the end joints fulfils the following condition:
fy ov d
R R > 1 . 1

6.14
Where: R
d
resistance of connection
R
fy
plastic resistance of connected, dissipative member based on the design yield stress
ov
overstrength factor (The recommended value is 1.25. If material properties are
determined experimentally and joints are well controlled lower values may be acceptable.)
Note: The overstrength factor of 1.25 is recommended in EN 1998 aiming for complex joints with several
connecting elements (ex. moment resisting joint of a frame with different plates). In that case the
uncertainty related to the properties of each component is large, hence the factor is 1.25. In case of the end
connection of the X-brace the only contributing element is the strap itself. Therefore, the uncertainty
related to the behaviour of the joint is lower; hence the factor can be reduced.
In case of steel plate sheathed walls, when plastic deformation of screw joints is to be exploited for
dissipation bearing resistance has to be enforced /2/.
6.7.6 Design of the anchoring system
The anchoring of the shear walls are normally non-dissipative parts, and they should remain elastic.
Product recommendations for anchor bolts and anchoring devices are normally provided by
manufacturers based on test results.
When designing the anchoring device the following possible failure modes should be addressed: (1)
anchor bolt rupture due to combined tension and shear; (2) anchor failure due to pull-out from concrete;
(3) crushing failure of concrete under the anchoring device; (4) failure of the anchoring device due to
eccentric transmission of forces to the anchor bolt and (5) excessive deformation of the anchoring
device due to eccentric transmission of forces to the anchor bolt. The connection between the anchor
device and the wall skeleton (usually self drilling screws or bolts) should also be carefully checked.
6.7.7 Detailing and design of shear walls
Explicit design guidance of sheathed shear walls is not given in EN 1993-1-3 /2/. Usually, due to the
diversity of skeleton, sheathing and connection solutions, the design of sheathed shear walls is based in
some degree on testing. The manufacturer of shear-walls usually provides design tables for the
evaluation of the design capacity. Some principles of design are presented as follows:
6.7.7.a. X-braced shear walls
The design of cross-braced shear walls is covered by EN 1993-1-3. The desired failure mode is yielding
of the brace and, therefore, the dissipative element is the brace. All other failure modes are non-
desirable and all other elements of the wall are non-dissipative elements. According to the design
hierarchy (and in order to impose the desired failure mode) these elements have to be designed to a
force equal to the one attained in them at yielding of the strap increased by 20%. The other potential
failure modes (and design checks) are: (i) failure of strap end connections (ii) failure of hold-down
corner detail, (iii) failure of hold-down bolt, (iv) compression failure of studs (usually marginal) and (v)
compression failure of upper track.
179

Alternative lower corner details of shear walls are illustrated in Fig. 6.4. These details are presented as
possible solutions. Their applicability in a given case highly depends on the loads involved and should
be checked by the designer.
(a)
(b)

(c)
(d)
Fig. 6.4. Lower and upper corner details of X-braced shear walls
6.7.7.b. Shear walls sheathed with wood panels
In wood plate sheathed shear walls the forces are transmitted by the differential deformations of the
skeleton and the connected wood panel. While the skeleton behaves as a pinned frame (i.e. it deforms
into a parallelogram), the connected wood plate is not deformable and it will retain its rectangular
shape. The relative displacements between the skeleton and the wood plate have to be accommodated
(i.e. as slip) by the screws connecting the two. This is the desired failure mode (i.e. providing the most
ductility) and the number and capacity of panel-to-skeleton is crucial from the point of view of the
capacity of the wall. Because the sheathing pattern is essentially repeated along the length of the wall,
the capacity on unit length can be defined as:
| | N/m
L
V
V
unit
=

6.15
Where V
unit
the design capacity per length of sheathed wall
V design capacity of the wall obtained from experimental test or otherwise
L length of the wall used to determine V
Experimentally determined capacity values for walls with different configurations can be found in the
technical literature /3/. When using such values it is important to take note of the configuration (i.e. type
of skeleton, sheathing type, number and type of connectors) and ensure that hold-down connectors are
able to transmit the forces.
The designer has to be aware that the wall panel will have important non-linear overstrength (i.e. at
least O
vS
=1.5, see Table 6.1), and take it into account for the design of the joints and other non-
dissipative parts (ex. hold-down anchors, skeleton etc.). Fig. 6.5.a. shows the lower and Fig. 6.5.b. the
upper corner detailing of shear wall stiffened with gypsum board or plywood.
180

(a)
(b)
Fig. 6.5. Corner details of sheathed walls: (a) lower corner of board-sheathed shear wall; (b) upper
corner of board and steel-plate stiffened shear wall
6.7.7.c. Shear walls sheathed with flat steel plate
In wall panels sheathed with thin flat steel plates the load bearing mechanism is fundamentally different
from the one presented for wood plate sheathed panels due to the local buckling of the thin steel plate.
The buckling takes place in an early stage of the loading. In the later stage of loading a tension-strip
pattern develops in the steel plate (Fig. 6.6.a). The failing of these tension strips by one of the following
failure modes: (i) by yielding, (ii) net section failure of the ends or (iii) end connection failure, will
cause the failure of the wall. This is the preferable, more ductile, failure mechanism for the wall.
As first step of the design the wall is divided in cells based on the distribution of the sheathing plates. If
the screw schedule is constant along the edge of a cell, its load bearing capacity can be calculated by:
(A) Dividing the cell in zones (Fig. 6.6.b) in a way that all straps in a zone have the same capacity
taking into account all three failure modes and the fact that the last two have to be applied differently
for the two ends of the strap.
(B) Evaluating the angle the yield strips make with the vertical using the following empirical equation:
) ( 006 , 0 45 L h
DEG
= o 6.16
Where L length of the cell
h height of the cell
(a) (b)
a
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3

Fig. 6.6. (a) Developed yield pattern; (b) Division of a cell in zones
181

(C) If the screw schedule is constant along all edges of the thin steel plate the total capacity can be
expressed as:

) cos sin (
cos
2
cos
2
2 ,
2 2
3 , 1 ,
o o
o
o

+
= L h
h
L f t
L
h
f t
V
y y

6.17
Where the conventional yield stresses for Zone 1 and 3 are equal (because straps in these zones are
connected to vertical as well as horizontal edges), while for Zone 2 it is different:
) , , , , min(
, , , , , , , , 3 , 1 ,
H
net ech y
H
s ech y
V
net ech y
V
s ech y y y
f f f f f f =

) , , min(
, , , , 2 ,
V
net ech y
V
s ech y y y
f f f f =

6.18
Where
V
s ech y
f
, ,
,
H
s ech y
f
, ,
corresponds to the connection bearing capacity on vertical and
horizontal edge of the strap
V
net ech y
f
, ,
,
H
net ech y
f
, ,
corresponds to net-section failure on vertical and horizontal edge of the
strap
(E) If the wall panel was divided in more than one zone the process is repeated from (A) until the load
bearing capacity of each zone is calculated.
All other, non-ductile failure modes like buckling of compressed stud or anchor bold region failure
should be avoided by proper design of these respective members. A non-linear over-strength factor of
1.2 can be expected for this typology of wall. Fig. 6.7 presents arrangements of the lower corner in a
steel-sheathed shear wall. Screws are placed at closer intervals in the vicinity of the corners in order to
ensure fixing of steel sheet tension zone.
6.7.8 Shear wall continuity joints at intermediate floors
The jointing of shear walls and intermediate floors (Fig. 6.8) is one of the most crucial details of a multi
storey LGS building. The connection should be able to transfer the uplift and shear of the upper wall to
the lower one. Inertia forces perpendicular to the wall should also be transmitted to the horizontal floor
plane. This joint has to be designed as non-dissipative and should remain elastic.

Fig. 6.7. Lower corner of steel plate sheathed wall Fig. 6.8. Intermediate floor to shear wall joint
6.7.9 Connection of roof and shear wall
Ceiling of the upper floor should act as a horizontal plane transferring horizontal loads from the roof
structure to the shear walls. The joints between walls and trusses can be made by clip angles or
brackets. Continuous track profiles can be used, for the joining of the gable end wall to the horizontal
plane. The continuous track is able to allow some vertical deformations of the purlin under the gravity
load while ensuring the transmission of the horizontal loads.
182

6.8 Design example

Fig. 6.9. Plan, section and axonometric view of example house
Simplified and advanced design methods are applied in the analysis of two-storey residential building.
The layout and basic data of single-family detached house is presented in Table 6.2 and Fig. 6.9. The
following assumptions are made considering the structure, actions and the building site.
Intermediate floor and ceiling are stiffened to provide a plane with full diaphragm action.
It is assumed that non-structural walls will not have any contribution.
Peak ground acceleration of moderate earthquake is 0.32 g (3.2 m/s)
Building site is located in Central Europe at altitude not more than 1000 m above sea level.
Ground type D is used
Example building is assumed to be single-family residential building (importance factor
I
=1).
Live load on intermediate floor belongs to Category A, characteristic value 1.50 kN/m.
Snow load on the roof is 0.75 kN/m.
6.8.1 Evaluation of the mass of the structure
The segment weights shown in Table 6.2 are calculated using combination factors above. In the
dynamic analysis the permanent part of live load on the floor (24% of total live load) is included to the
own weight of int. floor, hence it will affect to the natural frequency of building. Following floor mass
is used in seismic analysis:
( ) ( ) kg m kg m kg m q g A M
floor E floor floor floor
12740 / 150 24 . 0 / 160 65 " "
2 2 2
2 ,
= + = + =

183

Roof weight is calculated similarly; in this case the combination factor of roof snow load is zero:
( ) ( ) kg m kg m kg m q g A M
roof E roof roof roof
5750 / 75 0 / 50 115 " "
2 2 2
1 ,
= + = + =
The masses shown in Table 6.2 can be expressed as two lumped masses:
level) ceiling ( 16100 5750 3650 6700
level) (floor 17490 4750 12740
2
1
kg kg kg kg m
kg kg kg m
= + + =
= + =

Table 6.2. Segment weights of example house
Unit mass [kg/m] Area [m] Total mass [kg]
Roof 50 115 5750
Ceiling 50 73 3650
Upper part of wall 50 134 6700
Int. floor + 24% of live load 196 65 12740
Middle part of wall 50 95 4750

Total:
33590 kg
6.8.2 Simplified analysis
Simplified analysis carried out according to EN 1998-1 provisions, shown in the chapter 6.2 of this
document. Test data from WP2 and WP3 of this project is also used.
6.8.2.a. Shear wall rigidity
Initial rigidity of shear wall (see Fig. 6.10 and Fig. 6.11) is calculated first. The rigidity is the ratio of
the racking force and the horizontal deflection (Eq. 6.20).
Fig. 6.10. Shear wall analyzed in the design ex-
ample
Fig. 6.11. Factors affecting shear wall rigidity
The following three factors are assumed to affect the horizontal displacement of the wall:
Deformation of lower corner detail (Experimental force displacement curve is used)
Elastic elongation of straps and elastic compaction of margin studs (can be estimated by using
simple analytical methods)
184

Deformation of upper corner detail (Experimental force displacement curve is used)
In this example the magnitude of the elastic racking force is assumed to be F
H
= 28kN, which is about
45% of the wall design capacity (F
e
=62 kN) and 38% of the ultimate capacity (F
max
). The drift caused
by different factors (see Fig. 6.11) is first calculated separately and then summed up.
Lower corner details of X-braced walls were tested in WP2 of this project (ECSC-Project 7210-PR-
377). Test piece LC4 was quite similar to the lower corner in Fig. 6.10, only the stud profile and the
number of screws is different. Based on the experiment /4/, the horizontal drift due to lower corner
deformation was evaluated to mm
LC
3 . 4 = A .
Elastic elongation of straps and elastic compaction of studs can be easily found. The dimensions and
profiles of shear are shown in Fig. 6.10. The drift of the top track due to axial deformations of skeleton
is mm
studs strap memb
0 . 5 = A + A = A .
Upper corner details were also tested in WP2 /4/ (test piece UC5). The joint is not exactly the same,
because number of screws is different and material thickness of the strap and the studs is different, too.
Displacement corresponding to strap force 43.58kN was about 1.0 mm. The horizontal drift due to
upper corner deformation is: mm
UC
5 . 1 = A .
The total drift is the sum of the three components:

mm
UC memb LC
8 . 10 5 . 1 0 . 5 3 . 4 = + + = A + A + A = A

6.19
Rigidity of the current shear wall is then:

mm N
mm
N F
k
H
wall
/ 2590
8 . 10
28000
= =
A
=

6.20
For simplicity of the calculations the value of k
wall
= 2500 N/mm is used in this example for the rigidity
of the shear wall.
6.8.2.b. Centre of stiffness
The floor plane of building is assumed to behave in its plane as a rigid diaphragm (see Fig. 6.9). The
centre of stiffness for the building can be evaluated:
( )
( )
m
k
y k
y
m
k
x k
x
x
x
s
y
y
s
38 . 5
2500 4
9400 9400 2600 100 2500
75 . 4
2500 4
9400 9400 100 100 2500
=
+ + +
=
=
=
+ + +
=

Eurocode 8 contains numerous criteria describing the regularity in plan and in elevation, which were
checked and it was found that the structure fulfils both types of regularity conditions.
6.8.2.c. Design spectrum
Reference peak ground acceleration is assumed to be 0.32 g (probability of exceedence 10% in 50
years, reference return period 475 years). In residential houses the importance factor
I
is equal to 1,
thus design ground acceleration can be obtained:
2 2
/ 2 . 3 / 2 . 3 0 . 1 s m s m a a
gR I g
= = =

The fundamental vibration period can be calculated using Eq. 6.7:
s d T 45 . 0 0496 . 0 2 2
1
= = = .
Where the lateral displacement d is:
185

m
m
kN
kN
m
kN
kN
K
g m m
K
g m
d 0496 . 0
10000
335
10000
161 ) (
1
2 1
2
2
= + =
+
+ =
Where:
m
kN
m
kN
K K 10000 2500 4
2 1
= = = (sum of lateral rigidity of the shear walls)
The period can be computed more accurately assuming a 2 degree of freedom (i.e. the two floor levels)
system of two lumped masses the result being s T 42 . 0
1
= and s T 16 . 0
2
= .
The layout of the house fulfils the conditions of structural regularity and thus the behaviour factor q is
the equal to the reference value calculated from Eq. 6.3. Soil factors should be clarified by the local
code, in this example Ground type D and elastic response spectrum Type 1 is assumed: T
B
=0.2s;
T
C
=0.8s, T
D
=2.0s, S=1.35.
Behaviour factor q can be calculated using following assumptions (see Table 6.1): P=1 (full pinching);
O
vS
=1.0 (non structural overstrength) and =4.0 (moderate ductility).
Formula 6.4 gives the q
ep
(base value of q):
575 . 2
80 . 0
42 . 0
) 1 4 ( 1 ) 1 ( 1
1
= + = + =
s
s
T
T
q
C
ep

Correction factor due to pinching is calculated according to Eq. 6.5
( ) ( ) 712 . 0 1 2
15 . 0 8 . 0
15 . 0 42 . 0
1 1 2 1 4 5 . 0
) 8 . 0 42 . 0 4 exp(
1 ) 8 . 0 42 . 0 4 exp(
1
5 1 5 5 1 25 . 0
=
(

+ =
P
o
Because O
vS
= 1.0, the overstrength factor u
O
=1 in this case, see Eq. 6.6:
( ) 0 . 1 1 1
80 . 0
42 . 0
1 1 ) 1 ( 1 1
1
=
|
|
\
|
+ =
|
|
\
|
+ =
s
s
O
T
T
vS
C
O
o
The behaviour factor q is:
833 . 1 0 . 1 712 . 0 575 . 2 = = =
O P ep
q q o o
Because T
B
s T s T
C
, the design spectrum is calculated using EN 1998:
2
/ 89 . 5
833 . 1
5 . 2
35 . 1 2 . 3
5 . 2
) ( s m
q
S a T S
g d
= = =

According to Table 6.2 the total mass of example house is 33590 kg; hence total equivalent seismic
load can be calculated:
kN m T S F
d b
0 . 198 33590 89 . 5 ) ( = = =

The total mass of the house is concentrated in two lumped masses (m
1
and m
2
), from which the
distribution of horizontal seismic force is calculated. Different views of the example house are shown in
Fig. 6.9 and consequent seismic forces F
1
and F
2
are shown in Fig. 6.12. Seismic actions are calculated
expecting that horizontal displacements are increasing linearly with the height of the building (i.e.
triangular distribution of the forces is assumed), so that following formulae can be used:
kN kN
m z m z
m z
F F
b
1 . 129
16100 9 . 5 17490 9 . 2
16100 9 . 5
0 . 198
2 2 1 1
2 2
2
=
+

=
+

=
kN kN
m z m z
m z
F F
b
9 . 68
16100 9 . 5 17490 9 . 2
17490 9 . 2
0 . 198
2 2 1 1
1 1
1
=
+

=
+

=
186

Fig. 6.12. Horizontal action on both storeys, assuming linear deformation shown on the left
6.8.2.d. Load distribution to shear walls
According to EN 1998-1 torsional effects should be taken into account (see 6.6.2). The accidental
eccentricity is given by: mm mm e
ai
475 9500 05 . 0 = = .
Separate loading cases are used for actions in both principal directions (x-direction and y-direction),
both positive and negative torsional eccentricity e
ai
is considered. Torsional effects can be taken into
account by following steps:
The seismic actions (horizontal action and moment due to eccentricity) should be moved to the centre
of stiffness (see. Fig. 6.13). Then translational and rotational displacements (Ax, Ay and A) can be
calculated by using following equation:
(
(
(
=
(
(
(
A
A
A
(
(
(
M
F
F
y
x
x k y k
k
k
y
x
y x
y
x
2 2
0 0
0 0
0 0

The seismic action of each wall can be evaluated:
( )
( ) direction) - y in (walls
direction) - in x (walls
A A =
A + A =
x y k S
y x k S
yi yi
xi xi

Taking into account the eccentricity increased actions in some walls about 10%, so it has only limited
affect on load distribution. Seismic actions including torsional effects are shown in Table 6.3 (the
maximum value of each wall).

Fig. 6.13. Loads F
x
, F
y
and M acting on the centre of stiffness, positive direction of loads shown in pic-
ture. Seismic load of each shear wall noted with S
1
- S
8

187

Table 6.3 .Seismic action of the shear walls (accidental torsional effect is taken into account)
Ground acceleration Ground acceleration
in x-direction in y-direction
Shear wall
Ceiling
[kN]
Int. floor
[kN]
Ceiling
[kN]
Int. floor
[kN]
S1 1.5 2.8 17.7 33.1
S2 1.5 2.8 17.7 33.1
S3 18.1 33.9 0.9 1.7
S4 18.9 35.4 1.7 3.2
S5 1.5 2.8 18.7 35.1
S6 1.5 2.8 18.7 35.1
S7 17.6 33.0 1.3 2.4
S8 17.6 33.0 1.3 2.4
6.8.2.e. Shear wall design
The most stressed shear wall S4 is analysed more precisely and the wall configuration is shown below.

Fig. 6.14. Internal forces of shear wall members
Anchorage:
Fracture of anchorage would have serious effects e.g. overturning or sliding of the building, so the
anchor bolt should always be overdesigned. Also the weight of foundation block should be adequate to
resist uplift force shown in Fig. 6.14. Anchor bolt M24 10.9 is designed to resist both uplift and shear
forces. Capacity can be checked according to following conservative equation:
71 . 0
2 . 254
6 . 109
4 . 195
3 . 54
.
.
.
.
= + = +
kN
kN
kN
kN
F
F
F
F
Rd t
Sd t
Rd v
Sd v

Where F
v.Rd
and F
t.Rd
are the shear and the tension capacity of bolt M24 10.9.
188

The compressive normal force of double studs due to floor loads can be usually neglected, so that the
uplift force is the vertical component of diagonal force. In this case the anchor bolt has 20%
overstrength as recommended in chapter 6.7.2.
Diagonal strap:
If the cross-section of strap is constant, yielding will first occur in the screw joint of strap. Tensile break
of strap may most probably also occur in the screw joint. This fracture mechanism will allow only
limited ductility. To ensure more ductile behaviour the strap should be weakened, so that yielding could
occur in strap instead of joint. In this example the diagonal straps are dog-bone shaped, in the joint the
cross-section is 150x1.5 mm2, otherwise 90x1.5 mm2.. The tensile capacity of the two straps is:
kN N
Rd t
0 . 92
.
= . Usage of the diagonals is 89.8%, because the axial load of the straps is 82.6 kN.
Compressed double studs:
Double studs should always be used in the margin of the shear wall. To avoid torsional buckling and
flexural buckling in weaker direction the studs should be braced with blocking and bridging. Studs may
also require additional reinforcement plates in joints, depending on the load intensity.
The design of compressed studs is well described in prEN1993-1-3 /2/, so design calculations will not
be presented in detail. Compressive force of the double studs is 109.6 kN, so that utilization rate is 60%.
Thus the straps will yield well before buckling capacity of the double studs is exceeded. The
overstrength of studs exceeds 20%.
Diagonal strap joint:
Tensile stress of the diagonal straps can be transferred to the foundations by using brackets in the shear
wall corner. In the joint shown in the Fig. 6.15 the following material properties are used:
t = 1.5 mm, nominal thickness of diagonal strap
t
1
= 3.0 mm, material thickness of bracket
n = 16, number of screws per diagonal end
d = 4.8 mm, screw diameter
(a) (b)
Fig. 6.15.(a) Screw joint of diagonal strap at the lower corner of shear wall and (b) line of net section
failure
189

For screws loaded in shear, factor o should be calculated first /2/:
1 . 2 5 . 2
) 1 . 2 ( 765 . 1
8 . 4
46 . 1
2 . 3 2 . 3
1
1
= >
s = = = =
o
o o o
t t if
mm
mm
d
t
t t if

In the current joint t
1
= 2.0 t, thus the value o = 2.04 can be obtained by linear interpolation.
Bearing resistance of single screw is:
kN
mm mm MPa t d f
F
M
u
Rd b
80 . 4
25 . 1
46 . 1 8 . 4 420 04 . 2
2
,
=

= =
o

The total shear capacity of joint is: kN kN F n F
Rd b Rd b
154 80 . 4 16 2 2
, ,
= = =

The net section resistance should be checked:
kN
f A
F
M
u net
Rd n
128
25 . 1
420 46 . 1 ) 8 . 4 4 150 (
2 2
2
,
=

= =

Thus the design capacity of joint is: kN
F
F
R
Rd n
Rd b
d
128 min
,
,
=
=

Strap force is 82.6 kN, so the utilization degree of joint is 65%. To ensure ductile behaviour, the shear
capacity of the screw joints in the end of diagonal straps should be higher than the tensile resistance of
strap. Adequate ductility is just reached, because the non dissipative screw joint fulfils following
criterion:
kN kN R R
fy ov d
127 0 . 92 25 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 = = >

Where R
d
resistance of connection
R
fy
plastic resistance of connected dissipative
ov
overstrength factor (1.25)
Drift limit:
The rigidity of shear wall is k=2500N/mm (see 6.8.2.a). Inter-storey drift of the lower wall can be
checked, if the horizontal force of the wall is H=54.3 kN (see Fig. 6.14). If the wall would behave
elastically, drift of the wall would be:
mm
m kN
kN
k
H
d
e
7 . 21
/ 2500
3 . 54
= = =
Yielding of the strap will increase deformation, so the real interstorey drift is calculated by using
behaviour factor q
d
(see formula 6.13):
49 . 2
42 . 0
80 . 0
1
11 . 1
833 . 1
1 11 . 1 1 1
1
=
|
|
\
|
\
|
+ =
|
|
\
|
|
|
\
|
+ =
s
s
T
T
O
q
O q
C
vT
vT d

The design overstrength of the structure results from the utilisation of the diagonal strap (i.e. the
weakest and dissipative component of the wall): 11 . 1 898 . 0 1 = =
vD
O . The total overstrength is
therefore: 11 . 1 1 11 . 1 = = =
vS vD vT
O O O .
The real interstorey drift of the lower wall is then received from Eq. 6.12:
mm mm d q d
e d s
0 . 54 7 . 21 49 . 2 = = =
190

This value of the drift takes into account the accidental eccentricity of the structure because it is
calculated based on the shear force which has been increased due to the effect of the eccentricity. The
drift as to be checked according to equation 6.11, using the case of ductile non-structural elements
attached to the structure can be used. Therefore:
mm
H
d
s
56 . 51
4 . 0
2750 0075 . 0 0075 . 0
=
<
u

The value is high compared to wall panel height, and the criterion is not satisfied. In this example the
calculation is not redone, but in a normal design the structure should be stiffened to comply with this
criterion.
Joint between upper and lower shear wall:
The reaction forces of the second floor shear walls should be tied to the lower shear walls in the level of
intermediate floor. The uplift force can be tied straight to the lower studs and the lateral shear force is
transferred through the rim joist. Its importance whole joint should be overdesigned.
6.8.3 Advanced methods
The building has been modelled as a 6 degree of freedom (6DOF) system in which its dynamic response
is characterized by the 3 rigid body motions of each deck. Thus, the system has 6 main unknowns: the
displacements x
k
and y
k
of the centres of mass of both storeys and the rotations of the two decks 0
k
about
their centres of mass, see Fig. 6.16.

Fig. 6.16. Sketch of one storey of the building (System characterized by unknowns x
k,
,

y
k
,u
k
)
By applying equilibrium of forces in the two main horizontal directions and also equilibrium of
moments, the system of ordinary differential equations (ODEs) that characterize the dynamic behaviour
of the whole building can be obtained The expression of these forces depends on the hysteretic model of
the shear walls /5/.
In this case, the shear walls have been modelled by the bilinear model for X-braced frames /6/. Frames
have been assumed pinned with a stiffness equal to 2500N/mm =
wall
k (see equation 6.20) and with a
yielding displacement D
e
=24.8 mm or corresponding elastic force F
e
=62kN.
In the simplified analysis no post-elastic hardening of the X braced shear wall was accounted (O
vS
=1,
see chapter 6.8.2.c). However, due to the difference between the yield stress and the ultimate stress of
the brace, some overstrength will be available. However, because the hardening H (see Annex 3) is very
small the overstrength has been neglected in the simplified calculation (i.e. formula 6.6 was calibrated
using H=0.5). In the advanced calculation it is easy to take into account the real value of H and for this
calculation a small hardening parameter (H=0.076) has been adopted.
The shear walls considered in this example has a ductility of =4. Thus, the maximum in-plane
displacement that these shear walls can achieve is 2 . 99
max
= A m. The structural masses were
191

concentrated in the centre of mass and are equal to the values used in the simplified design method (see
6.8.1). That cycles were fully pinched due to the null compression capacity of the diagonal straps.
6.8.3.a. Seismic action
According to EN 1998 /1/ 3 independent artificial accelerograms compatible with the Type D elastic
design spectrum (q=1) have been generated (Fig. 6.17). These 3 earthquakes have been scaled in order
to obtain PGA=0.32g.
(a)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
time (s)
a
g

(
m
/
s
2
)
(b)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
time (s)
a
g

(
m
/
s
2
)
(c)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
time (s)
a
g

(
m
/
s
2
)

Fig. 6.17. Artificial accelerogram generated from the Elastic Design Spectrum: they have been scaled
in order to get a PGA=0.32g
The accidental eccentricity must also be taken into account. The eccentricity has to be considered
perpendicular to the direction of the earthquake and both positive and negative eccentricity should be
considered. Three directions of incidence for the earthquakes have been considered: the x and the y-
direction, since in these cases the full earthquake has to be resisted by the shear walls parallel to its
direction, and a direction of 45.
6.8.3.b. Seismic response
Seismic response of the building to the 3 accelerograms has been obtained by integrating the system of
ODEs characterizing the dynamic behaviour of the whole building, supplemented by the differential
equations describing the hysteretic cycles of the shear walls /5/. The response has been obtained for 18
cases (3 earthquakes acting in 3 directions and two possibilities of eccentricity in each case).
In order to choose the most damaging case, the maximum in-plane displacements of the shear walls
have been computed in every case (Table 6.4). Results are shown only concerning to the first storey,
because the drifts in the second storey are significantly smaller.
Table 6.4. Maximum in-plane displacements obtained in the analysed cases
X-direction Y-direction Oblique (45)
+e
y
-e
y
+e
x
-e
x
+e -e
Accelerogram 1 43.2 mm
(SW 3,4)
47.2 mm
(SW 7)
47.8 mm
(SW 5,6)
42.1 mm
(SW 1,2)
27.2 mm
(SW 1,2)
38.1 mm
(SW 7)
(SW 3,4)
57.0 mm
(SW 7)
66.2 mm
(SW 5,6)
38.0 mm
(SW 1,2)
26.1 mm
(SW 3,4)
32.6 mm
(SW 5,6)
(SW 3,4)
60.5 mm
(SW 7)
60.0 mm
(SW 5,6)
55.2 mm
(SW 1,2)
26.6 mm
(SW 1,2)
43.4 mm
(SW 5,6)
The most unfavourable case can be chosen from Table 6.4 obtained for the second accelerogram acting
in the y-direction and with a positive value for the eccentricity. Interesting to note that this result is not
consistent with the simplified method, where the worst case is obtained for the earthquake acting in the
x-direction and the critical shear-wall is SW4. Also, the value of ultimate displacement (D
ult,1
=66.2 mm)
obtained by time history analysis is significantly larger than the one obtained by simplified calculation
(d
s
=D
ult,2
=54.0 mm).
192

In Fig. 6.18.b the hysteretic cycles of these two frames can be observed. Note that the frames get into
the plastic range but the maximum ductility (=4) is not reached. Thus, the structure has not reached its
ultimate limit state and would be able to withstand a bigger earthquake.
Fig. 6.18.a shows the evolution in time of the displacements of wall panels SW5 and SW6. It can be
clearly be appreciated that the y-displacements are much larger that the ones in the x-direction.
However, not negligible displacements appear in the x-direction (about 1/6 of the y-displacements) due
to the asymmetry of the building modelled using the accidental eccentricity.
(a)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Displaements at eastern faade. Storey 1
time (s)
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
x Frame SW6
y Frame SW6
x Frame SW5
y Frame SW5
(b)
70605040302010 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Forcedisplacement laws at eastern faade. Store
displacement (mm)
f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Frame SW6
Frame SW5

Fig. 6.18. Seismic response of eastern faade: (a) displacement-time, both in x and y directions, and (b)
force-displacement laws of the frames
Thus, the 2-storey building is able to withstand a Type D earthquake with a PGA=0.32g without
collapse. In the most unfavourable case none of the shear walls has reached the maximum ductility =4.
The maximum displacement experienced by the critical shear wall is D
ult
=66mm, which exceeds the
drift limit of 51.56 mm (see calculation at simplified method). Therefore, the structure does not comply
with the SLS condition and the stiffness has to be increased.
6.8.4 Response at ULS. Evaluation of the q-factor
In order to compute the q-factor of the structure, the maximum base shear for plastic failure should be
computed. It is considering that structure reaches the ULS when the ductility =4 is achieved by one of
the shear walls. None of the shear walls achieved this ductility for any of the records presented in Fig.
6.17, and taking into account the value of PGA=0.32g. Therefore, the records have been scaled until the
maximum ductility has been achieved in one of the shear walls (i.e. the maximum plastic displacement
D
ult
=99.2mm has been obtained).
The analysis has been carried out for the 3 records acting both in the x and y directions, which are
considered to be most representative. Table 6.5 summarizes the scaling factors () with reference to the
record with PGA=1g (records in Fig. 6.17 were scaled to get a PGA=0.32g).
Table 6.5. Scaling factors to compute the q-factor of the two-storey building
X-direction Y-direction
+e
y
-e
y
+e
x
-e
x

Accelerogram 1 0.525 0.535 0.531 0.527
Accelerogram 2 0.459 0.397 0.435 0.437
Accelerogram 3 0.384 0.357 0.363 0.387
When computing the nonlinear seismic response with these scaling factors, only one of the shear walls
will reach the ductility =4. In the case of accelerogram 2 acting in y-direction SW5 and SW6 are the
walls to reach plastic deformation D
ult
=99.2 mm (hysteretic curve in Fig. 6.19.a.
The q-factor can be defined as the ratio between the maximum base shear of the building if it behaved
linearly (
el
V
max
) and the total yielding capacity of the building if nonlinear behaviour is taken into
193

account ( 248 4 62 = = = n f V
SW
yd
pl
yd
kN, where
SW
yd
f is the yield force of one shear wall and n the
number of walls in the direction of the loading). Thus, the seismic response was computed assuming
that all the walls have linear behaviour with a stiffness of 2500 =
ini
K kN/m. The result for walls SW5
and SW6, applying accelerogram 2 in y-direction, are presented in Fig. 6.19.b. Comparison between
nonlinear and linear responses are presented in Fig. 6.19.c.
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Forcedisplacement laws at eastern faade. Store
displacement (mm)
f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Frame SW6
Frame SW5
80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Forcedisplacement laws at eastern faade. Storey
displacement (mm)
f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Frame SW6
Frame SW5
12010080604020 0 20 40 60 80 100120
150
100
50
0
50
100
150
displacement (mm)
f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Frame E1

(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 6.19. Force displacement of the frames placed in eastern faade (a) nonlinear and (b) linear re-
sponse and (c) comparison between them
In Table 6.6 the base shear and the resulting q-factor values are summarized for all analysed cases. Note
that the q-factors obtained with the 1
st
accelerogram, which in fact is the one most favourable (see Table
6.4) are significantly larger than the ones obtained with the 2
nd
and 3
rd
earthquakes.
Table 6.6. q-factors of the two-storey building for all the computed cases
X-direction Y-direction
+e
y
-e
y
+e
x
-e
x

el
V
max
585.3 kN 59.7 kN 597.7 kN 582.8 kN
Accelerogram1
q-factor 2.36 2.41 2.41 2.35
el
V
max
498.5 kN 424.1 kN 458.8 kN 468.7 N
Accelerogram2
q-factor 2.01 1.71 1.85 1.89
el
V
max
421.6 kN 391.8 kN 399.3 kN 421.6 kN
Accelerogram3
q-factor 1.70 1.58 1.61 1.70
Because of the number of records the more unfavourable case should be considered (q=1.58). Note that
the obtained q-factors are around the q-factor obtained using equation 6.3, q=1.833 (see section 6.8.2.c).
However, there are qualitative differences between the q-factors of Table 6.6 and the one computed
from the formulation:
1) Equation 6.3 provides the value of q based on the period of vibration (T) without taking into
account the torsional effects due to the asymmetry of the building.
2) The q-factor using 6.3 is computed by assuming that all load bearing walls in the direction of
the loading fail at =4 at the same time. This is not the case, as the collapse of the structure is
already reached if any of the shear walls reaches =4.
3) Equation 6.3 is obtained by modelling the structure with a single dynamic degree of freedom
and therefore neglecting the effect of all vibration modes except the first (T
1
). In contrast the
advanced modelling takes into account higher vibration modes.
194

REFERENCES
/1/ EN 1998-1:2004, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. (2004).
/2/ prEN-1993-1-3, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, Part 1-3: General rules. Supplementary
rules for cold-formed members and sheeting, Final Draft (September 2005)
/3/ AISI, Shear Wall Design Guide, Publication RG-9804, American Iron and Steel Institute, Feb-
ruary 1998
/4/ PR377/WP2/BD003 - Joint testing: phase 3 and 4, Part I Finnish specimens (2004)
/5/ Pastor N. and Rodrguez-Ferran A., Hysteretic modelling of lightweight steel framed build-
ings, submitted to Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
/6/ Pastor N. and Rodrguez-Ferran A., Hysteretic modelling of x-braced shear walls. Thin-
Walled Structures 43 (10) (2005) 1567-1588
195
EuropeanCommission
EUR22810-Steelproductsandapplicationsforbuilding,constructionandindustry
Se|sm|cdes|gnof||ghtgaugestee|framedbu||d|ngs
J.Kest|,A.Rod||g0ez-Fe||an,N.Pasto|,A.A|nedo,M.Casafont,M..B|etones,J.A|o|a,
/.Ha|o|a,/.F0|oo,A.S|v|||
Luxembourg:OfficeforOfficialPublicationsoftheEuropeanCommunities
2007-195pp.-2129.7cm
Technicalsteelresearchseries
lSBN92-79-05258-3
lSSN1018-5593
Price(excludingvATjinLuxembourg:EUR25

European LGS

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

European LGS

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

EuropeanCommission

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen