Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 460474 www.elsevier.

com/locate/jcsr

Inelastic performance of cold-formed steel strap braced walls

M. Al-Kharat, C.A. Rogers
Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Montreal QC H3A 2K6, Canada Received 8 May 2006; accepted 27 June 2006

Abstract The inelastic performance of sixteen 2.44 m 2.44 m cold-formed steel strap braced walls was evaluated experimentally. The performance was affected by the holddown detail, which in many cases did not allow the test specimens to reach or maintain a yield capacity and severely diminished the overall system ductility. Test-based Rd Ro values of 3.65, 2.11 and 1.72 indicate the low ductility levels, which were not adequate to warrant the use of a seismic response modication coefcient of R = 4.0 in design. Capacity design of the SFRS elements must account for the overstrength of the strap material. c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cold-formed steel; Strap brace; Ductility; Inelastic; Seismic; Performance

1. Introduction The use of cold-formed steel as the main framing element in a structure is becoming more popular for the construction of low- to mid-rise buildings across Canada, including areas with a high seismic hazard. In order to maintain the integrity of these structures when subjected to horizontal forces due to an earthquake the use of diagonal at steel strap cross bracing may be a practical solution (Fig. 1). The straps act as a vertical concentric bracing system, which transfers the lateral forces from the roof and oor levels to the foundation. The overall lateral strength, ductility and stiffness of this bracing system may not be related solely to the steel straps; many other elements in the lateral load carrying path can play a role, such as the strap connections, the gusset plates (if needed), the anchorage including holddown and anchor rod, etc. In Canada earthquake loading may often dictate the design of the lateral force resisting system in a building in areas of high seismic hazard, such as found along the west coast of the country as well as in the Saint Lawrence and Ottawa River valleys. The 2005 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) [1] requires that seismic loading also be considered in other areas of the country, where in the past it has not been
Corresponding address: Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, 817 Sherbrooke St. W., Montreal, QC H3A 2K6, Canada. Tel.: +1 514 398 6449; fax: +1 514 398 7361. E-mail address: colin.rogers@mcgill.ca (C.A. Rogers).

Fig. 1. Cold-formed steel strap braced walls under construction.

of signicant concern for design engineers. This is due, in part, to a change in the seismic hazard information used for design. Seismic forces, which were previously based on a 10% in 50 year probability of exceedance, i.e., corresponding to a return period of 475 years, are now based on a uniform hazard spectrum having a 2% in 50 year probability of exceedance, i.e., approximately a return period of 2500 years [2]. The 2005 NBCC also comprises a capacity based philosophy for seismic design, where a fuse element in the seismic force resisting system (SFRS) is selected to dissipate earthquake derived energy. This energy dissipating element is expected to enter into the inelastic range of behaviour, whereas the remaining components of the SFRS are designed to carry the forces associated with the probable capacity of the fuse element, i.e., they should remain essentially elastic or experience only

0143-974X/$ - see front matter c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2006.06.040

M. Al-Kharat, C.A. Rogers / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 460474

461

minor plastic damage. It is generally assumed that the straps act as the fuse element in the SFRS of braced cold-formed steel structures. Guidelines that address the seismic design/inelastic performance of cold-formed steel structures are not provided in the 2005 NBCC or in the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) S136 Standard for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members [3]. In contrast, seismic design information for coldformed steel structures is available in the US. ASCE 7-05 [4] allows for the use of a seismic response modication coefcient of R = 4.0 for strap braced bearing wall systems, which indicates a reliance on a moderate level of ductile/inelastic performance of the SFRS as well as some overstrength. Use of this R value necessitates that the material specic seismic design and detailing requirements of the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) Lateral Design Standard [5] and the AISI Specication [6] be met. Even if not detailed for seismic resistance ASCE 7-05 allows for an R of 3.0 to be used for the design of strap braced walls. The AISI Lateral Design Standard states that boundary members, chords, collectors and connections of a braced wall must be proportioned to transmit the induced forces and the amplied seismic loads. Vertical chord members are required to have the nominal strength to resist amplied seismic loads, but not loads greater than what the system can deliver. The strength of brace connections need be the lesser of the nominal tensile strength of the brace or the amplied seismic load. Furthermore, strap bracing is to be designed in accordance with the AISI Specication or the AISI Standard on General Provisions [7], which for the most part do not contain any relevant seismic detailing information. Typically, the AISI Standards and Specication are written in terms of strength requirements for seismic design; however, no mention of expected ductility requirements or recommended ductile connection/anchorage details is made. The US Army Corps of Engineers has also published a document that addresses the seismic design of cold-formed steel structures, TI 809-07 [8]. The intent of this document is to ensure that ductile building system performance is attained during large seismic events. Ductile performance requires that the strap members of a braced wall are rst able to yield and then maintain this level of load carrying capacity while being subjected to signicant plastic deformations. The failure of columns and connections must not occur. The TI 809-07 provisions for seismic design are similar to what is found in ASCE 7-05 and the AISI Lateral Design Standard, except that additional prescriptive requirements for material properties of the braces, as an example, exist. 2. Objectives and scope of research Due to the lack of codied seismic design guidance in Canada for cold-formed steel structures a research project was undertaken to evaluate the inelastic performance of steel framestrap braced walls that are not designed following a strict capacity based design philosophy. The main objectives were to determine the ductility of common strap braced walls by means of physical testing and to assess the inelastic performance with respect to the ASCE7-05 R-value of 4.0; that is the

ability of the at straps to yield over extended displacements without extensive damage to the other components in the SFRS. Three typical wall congurations were tested; light, medium and heavy in the context of cold-formed steel. Due to this research being in its initial stages the investigation involved only the assembly testing of representative strap braced walls under lateral in-plane loading. A total of sixteen 2.44 m 2.44 m walls with standard non-seismic details were tested using monotonic and reversed cyclic loading protocols. The performance of the walls was expected to match that of a SFRS for which an appropriate capacity based design approach had been implemented. That is, gross crosssection yielding of the tension braces was the anticipated failure mode, while the remaining elements in the SFRS were expected to carry the brace force with no or only minor plastic deformation. A comparison of the failure mode, ductility, shear strength and shear stiffness characteristics of the strap walls is presented. 3. Literature review of previous research on strap braced walls Previous experimental and analytical research on the performance of cold-formed steel strap braced walls was reviewed to establish in-part the scope and methods of study for the investigation described in this paper. Information from this past research, summarized below, was used to select the wall congurations and the test methods. In addition, the ndings of these studies were used to dene the best case scenario of wall performance in which inelastic deformations are limited to the strap braces. Adham et al. [9] evaluated the lateral load versus deection behaviour of six 2.44 m 2.44 m cold-formed steel planar frames sheathed with steel straps and gypsum. Straps, 50.8 mm and 76.2 mm in width with three different thicknesses (0.84, 1.09 and 1.37 mm) were screw connected to the framing elements. Most walls were constructed with X straps as well as gypsum panels on both sides. Holddowns were bolted to each test specimen at the base to limit uplift of the cold-formed steel frame. Adham et al. showed that stud buckling will lead to a severe degradation in the shear load that can be applied to the wall; however when this mode is properly addressed in design strap braced systems are effective in dissipating energy under reversed cyclic loading. Serrette and Ogunfunmi [10] also investigated the performance of 2.44 m 2.44 m strap braced frames through experiments of walls under lateral in-plane loading. Screw connected walls constructed with 50.8 mm 0.88 mm straps on one face were tested (3 specimens), in addition to walls with strap braces on one face and gypsum sheathing board on the other (4 specimens). A single test specimen with braces on both sides of the wall was also included in the study. In all cases, it was necessary to bolt an 11 mm thick steel clip angle to the chord studs to act as a holddown device. Cold-formed steel gusset plates were used to connect the strap braces to the studtrack corner locations. It was shown that walls with bracing on one side alone failed by excessive out-of-plane deformation, which is

462

M. Al-Kharat, C.A. Rogers / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 460474

not a favourable scenario in terms of maintaining lateral stability of the braced frame, nor ductile performance under inelastic shear deformations. Serrette and Ogunfunmi reported that gypsum panels provide a substantial increase in shear capacity compared with the 50.8 mm wide straps; however the use of gypsum panels and strap braces together is not practical. It was also noted that in the design of X-braced walls the engineer must be concerned with strap yield strengths in excess of the minimum specied value, which may result in connection or chord stud failure. Barton [11] and Gad et al. [1214] investigated the earthquake performance of strap braced cold-formed steel wall structures as used in the Australian residential construction industry. The impact of steel strap braces, as well as nonstructural components such as plasterboard and brick veneer, on wall performance were evaluated through experimentation and analyses. The research involved racking and dynamic (shake table) testing of planar wall and 3D one room house specimens. Relatively small strap braces were installed, 25 mm wide 1 mm thick, compared with previous studies by Adham et al. [9] and Serrette and Ogunfunmi [10]. Ductility and overstrength concerns were investigated given the possible impact of non-structural components. Hysteretic load versus deection behaviour of the braced steel frame alone was rst obtained, followed by tests of sheathed walls and the 3D single-storey structures. In general, the steel frames were able to perform well under seismic loading and the nonstructural components made a signicant contribution to the lateral bracing of the frames. It was reported that the pinched force versus deformation behaviour was caused by elongation of the straps, deformation of the connections, as well as initial slack in the system. Screw failure was typically observed in racking tests. Stiffness of the bare steel frame was mainly due to the strap braces and not the stud to track connection detail even if welded. Dynamic shake table tests showed that yielding of the braces could take place, in addition to slip and in most cases failure of the brace connections. A 3D nite element study was also completed, which included the bare steel frame accounting for the brace, brace connection and tensioner unit behaviour, as well as the effect of adding a plasterboard lining. This allowed for different length walls and boundary conditions for the non-structural components to be evaluated. These studies showed that for single family dwellings the non-structural components signicantly increase the strength and stiffness of strap braced wall systems. It is possible that the use of relatively small brace members by Barton and Gad et al. allowed for the plasterboard lining to become dominant with respect to resisting lateral in-plane loads and providing shear stiffness to the steel framing. A ductility related response modication coefcient for seismic design (R = 1.53.5) was recommended based on various yield displacement models by Park [15] and subsequent nonlinear time history dynamic analysis. A formulation was put forth to predict the period of vibration for strap braced structures. An evaluation of overstrength, which is highly dependent on the non-structural components and their boundary conditions, was also provided.

F l p and Dubina [16] tested three X bracedscrew uo connected wall specimens (3.6 m long 2.44 m high) under in-plane lateral loading. Of the three wall specimens one was tested monotonically and two cyclically. The walls were constructed of a cold-formed steel frame connected to 110 mm wide 1.5 mm thick straps located on each side. The screw connection conguration was selected to facilitate yielding along the length of the brace, i.e., to avoid net section fracture of the strap through the screw holes. Chord members were constructed of double stud members such that inelastic deformations and ultimate failure of the walls would be limited to the braces. U proles were placed in the tracks at corner locations to increase the holddown capacity and rigidity. Local buckling of the lower track was observed during loading with damage being concentrated in corner areas. Plastic elongation of the strap did take place; however because of the unexpected failure of the corners the results of the experiments may not necessarily reect the true ductility of a braced wall if yielding (and failure) had been limited to the straps. F l p and Dubina uo suggested that the ideal conguration of the corners would be such that the uplift force is directly transmitted from the brace or corner stud to the anchoring bolt, without inducing bending in the bottom track. Failure to strengthen the corners can have a signicant effect on the initial rigidity of the system and can be the cause of larger than expected in-plane shear deformations of the wall and premature failure of the braced frame. Tian et al. [17] completed an experimental and theoretical study on the racking strength and stiffness of cold-formed steel walls, including frames with single and double X straps. A total of ve planar frames, 2.45 m in height 1.25 m in length, composed of strap braces riveted to the steel framing were tested. Brace size was either 60 mm 1.0 mm or 60 mm 1.2 mm, and for all but one of the specimens braces were installed on both sides of the wall. Monotonic loading of all tests was carried out, which included single step and three step protocols. Deformation behaviour and failure modes were observed, and shear strength and stiffness of the frames were measured. Tian et al. reported that frames with straps on both sides have the best racking performance. Compression failure of the chord stud members was observed in the double sided specimens. Rivet failure at the brace to frame connection was also observed. It appears that the walls were not designed such that inelastic behaviour was limited to the braces given the connection and chord stud failures that were reported. Subsequent analyses of the test frames using an elastic slope deection method was completed to predict the failure loads and initial shear stiffness. Tian et al. concluded that it was possible to accurately predict the shear loads that were measured during testing; however the in-plane shear deformations of the walls could not be precisely determined with their calculation method. Pastor and Rodrguez-Ferran [18] presented the develop ment of an hysteretic model that can be used for the nonlinear inelastic dynamic analysis of X-braced cold-formed steel frames. The model captures the behavioural characteristics of this framing type that have been observed during experiments, including pinching and stiffness degradation of the force

M. Al-Kharat, C.A. Rogers / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 460474

463

Fig. 2. Schematic drawing of displaced strap braced wall specimen in test frame.

Fig. 3. Schematic drawing of light strap braced test wall with corner detail.

versus deformation hysteresis as well as slack of the braces. The use of this model assumes that the strap braced wall is able to maintain its load carrying capacity over extensive and repeated in-plane inelastic displacements. For the model to be valid the walls also must be designed such that the strap enters into and remains in the plastic range prior to buckling of the chord studs. Further to this research, Casafont et al. [19] evaluated the seismic performance of the screwed connections that are commonly used for the straps of such braced walls. It was shown that the straps were able to maintain their yield capacity over extended inelastic displacements prior to failure of the brace by net section fracture at the rst line of screws and by tilting of the screw fasteners. However, in cases where tilting, bearing and pull out of the screws was observed then ductile yielding of the braces was not obtained. A design criterion to induce a tiltingnet section fracture failure mode, and hence ductile behaviour in the strap braces, is provided by Casafont et al.

4. Test program Assembly tests of sixteen strap braced stud wall specimens (2.44 m 2.44 m) were carried out using a test frame designed specically for in-plane shear loading (Fig. 2). These walls were not designed following a capacity based seismic design approach; rather the elements were selected given typical wind loading levels where all of the components in the lateral load carrying path were expected to remain elastic. The predicted factored lateral in-plane resistance of the three wall congurations in a wind loading situation was approximately 20 kN (light), 40 kN (medium) and 75 kN (heavy), respectively. Schematic drawings of the three test wall congurations, including an exterior and interior view of the corner connection details and holddowns, are provided in Figs. 3 (light), 4 (medium) and 5 (heavy). A listing of the nominal design (minimum specied) dimensions and material properties of the test specimens with details of member components is

464

M. Al-Kharat, C.A. Rogers / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 460474

Table 1 Matrix of strap braced wall tests (nominal design dimensions and material properties) Specimen properties Test specimens Light 1A-M, 1B-M, 1C-Ma Strap bracing Thickness (mm) Dimensions (mm) Grade - Fy (MPa) Chord studs Thickness (mm) Dimensions (mm) Grade - Fy (MPa) Interior studs Thickness (mm) Dimensions (mm) Grade - Fy (MPa) Tracks Thickness (mm) Dimensions (mm) Grade - Fy (MPa) Gusset plates Thickness (mm) Dimensions (mm) Grade - Fy (MPa) NA NA NA 1.52 250 250 230 1.91 300 300 230 1.22 92 31.8 230 1.52 152 31.8 345 1.91 152 31.8 345 1.22 92 41 12.7 230 1.22 152 41 12.7 230 1.22 152 41 12.7 230 1.22 92 41 12.7 230 1.52 152 41 12.7 345 1.91 152 41 12.7 345 1.22 58.4 230 1.52 101 230 1.91 152 230 2A-C, 2B-C, 2C-Cb Medium 3A-M, 3B-M, 3C-M 4A-C, 4B-C, 4C-C Heavy 5A-M, 5B-M, 5C-M 6B-C

a Monotonic protocol. b CUREE reversed cyclic protocol.

Fig. 4. Schematic drawing of medium strap braced test wall with corner detail.

provided in Table 1. Note: the measured member dimensions and material properties provided in Al-Kharat and Rogers [20] may vary from these nominal values. The walls were braced with diagonal at straps installed in an X conguration on both sides; a conguration that has been shown to have better performance characteristics than single sided braced walls [10]. The braces specied for the medium walls were similar to those

used by F l p and Dubina [16], whereas the heavy walls had a uo gross cross-sectional area approximately 26 times that of the straps found in any of the previous studies [914,1619]. Chord stud members were composed of double C-section shapes stitch welded front-to-front, while the remainder of the single interior C-section studs were placed at a nominal spacing of 406 mm. One row of 1.22 38 12.7 mm continuous bridging was

M. Al-Kharat, C.A. Rogers / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 460474

465

Fig. 5. Schematic drawing of heavy strap braced test wall with corner detail.

welded in place through the web knockouts at the mid-height of the walls. All steel framing was ASTM A653 [21] material, either Grade 230 or 345 MPa (Table 1). Connections between the studs and tracks were made with No. 1016 wafer-head self drilling/self tapping screws. The light walls were constructed of straps connected directly to the stud framing by No. 1016 wafer-head self drilling/self tapping screws, whereas the medium and heavy walls comprised of straps that were llet welded to the gusset plates, which were in turn welded to the stud and track members (Figs. 4 and 5). The welded connection detail had not been used in any of the previous studies on strap braced walls [914, 1619]. L shaped holddowns with a factored uplift capacity of 35 kN were welded to the interior face of the chord studs of the light walls and then connected to the test frame with a 15.9 mm diameter ASTM A307 [22] equivalent threaded rod (Fig. 3). Note that a 12.7 mm diameter threaded rod was instead used for the rst test to be carried out (1B-M). The L shaped holddowns were fabricated of a vertical steel plate (364260 mm) which was welded to a horizontal plate (20 64 70 mm). The load path for the light walls traced from the straps to the chord studs and then directly to the holddowns. In contrast, at plate holddowns were placed within the upper and lower tracks at the four corner locations of the medium and heavy walls (Figs. 4 and 5). Walls 3A-M, 3B-M and 5B-M had plates measuring 1990127 mm, whereas for walls 3C-M, 4A-C, 4B-C, 4C-C, 5A-M and 6B-C plates 19 127 203 mm in size were installed in an attempt to increase the holddown uplift capacity. Test specimen 5C-M was tted with modied holddowns that were fabricated from a C13010 channel section llet welded to a 19 90 127 mm plate [20]. The holddown plates for the medium and heavy walls were attached to the loading beam and reaction frame by means of 19 mm diameter ASTM A325 [23] equivalent threaded rods. No direct connection was made from these holddown plates to either the braces, gusset plates or the chord studs. Thus the uplift forces in the medium and heavy walls were transferred from the braces, through the gusset plates, to the track anges and web, and nally to the holddown plate and threaded rod.

Shear anchors (19 mm diameter ASTM A325 bolts [23]) were placed along the top and bottom tracks as indicated in Figs. 35. All top tracks were drilled to accommodate the ten shear anchors and two anchor rods, which connected the tracks through an aluminium spacer to the loading beam. Similarly, the bottom tracks contained four shear anchors and two anchor rods, which connected the wall through an aluminium spacer to the testing frame. The function of the top shear anchors was to uniformly transfer the load from the loading beam to the top track, whereas the function of the interior bottom shear anchors was to connect the wall to the testing frame in a more realistic fashion. The testing frame was equipped with a 125 mm stroke 250 kN dynamic actuator. Displacement controlled monotonic and reversed cyclic protocols were used in testing. The testing frame incorporated external beams to prevent out-of-plane buckling of the wall specimen, such that only lateral inplane displacement would take place, as shown in Fig. 2. Measurements consisted of strap width (Table 2), in-plane wall displacements, strains in the steel straps, acceleration of the loading beam assembly and the shear load at the wall top. The LVDTs, strain gauges, load cell and accelerometer were connected to Vishay Model 5100B scanners which were used to record data using the Vishay System 5000 StrainSmart software. The monotonic loading procedure consisted of a steady rate of displacement (2.5 mm/min) starting from the zero load position. The CUREE ordinary ground motions reversed cyclic loading protocol [24,25], run at 0.5 Hz, was chosen for the testing of the strap braced walls. Previous research at McGill University on cold-formed steel walls braced with wood sheathing also incorporated this loading protocol [26]. It was selected because it was anticipated that the dynamic behaviour of the strap braced walls would resemble in some ways that of the wood sheathed walls and because a direct comparison of results would be possible. In a best case scenario, where the braces are able to maintain their yield capacity, and given the range of displacement available from the actuator, no decrease in the wall resistance would be expected.

466 Table 2 Average measured brace widths Specimen

M. Al-Kharat, C.A. Rogers / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 460474

Positive wall displacementa Front brace Back brace (mm) (mm) 58.6 58.2 58.3 58.5 58.5 58.5 101.2 101.5 101.3 101.7 104.1 101.6 152.2 152.3 152.4 152.4 58.5 58.2 58.7 58.8 58.4 58.5 101.3 100.8 101.0 100.9 104.3 102.3 152.6 152.9 152.2 152.4

Negative wall displacementb Front brace Back brace (mm) (mm) 58.5 58.4 58.6 101.5 104.3 104.8 152.4 58.9 58.4 58.5 101.4 104.2 102.4 152.6

1A-M 1B-M 1C-M 2A-C 2B-C 2C-C 3A-M 3B-M 3C-M 4A-C 4B-C 4C-C 5A-M 5B-M 5C-M 6B-C

stress, Fu , percent elongation and ratio of Fu /Fy , in addition to the ratio of measured to nominal yield stress, Fy /Fyn . To determine the base metal thickness of the material, the zinc coating was removed with a 10% hydrochloric acid (HCL) solution after testing. All of the steels used in the construction of the test walls met the requirements of the North American Specication for Cold-Formed Steel Members [3,6]. That is, the ratio of Fu /Fy was greater than 1.08, and the elongation over a 50 mm gauge length exceeded 10%. It should be noted that the 1.22 mm Grade 230 MPa steel was measured to have a yield stress 54% greater than the minimum nominal specied value, Fy /Fyn . 4.2. Modes of failure In terms of ductile seismic performance, the desirable mode of failure of a cold-formed steel braced wall system is generally that of gross-cross section yielding of the straps, which form the fuse element in the SFRS. The other elements and connections in the seismic force resisting system are expected to carry the force associated with the strap yielding load level. The strap braces should be able to enter into the inelastic range of behaviour such that ground motion induced energy can be dissipated. Ideally, the braces would be able to maintain their yield capacity over extended lateral inelastic displacement of the wall without failure of the connections, gusset plates, tracks, chord studs or holddowns. In general, the overall performance of the tested walls under lateral loading was not governed by the yielding of the straps, as indicated by the strain gauge measurements that were taken [20]. Rather, failure of or extensive damage to the tracks, chord studs, gusset plates, holddown threaded rods and straps (due to net section fracture) was often observed depending on the wall conguration being tested. These undesirable modes of failure prevented the straps from maintaining their yield load, or from yielding altogether. Thus the ductility and energy absorption ability of the SFRS was reduced in comparison to what could theoretically be expected given the material properties of the strap braces and what inherently would be assumed when a seismic response modication coefcient of R = 4.0 is selected in design. A summary of the dominant failure modes is provided below. More detailed information can be found in Al-Kharat and Rogers [20].

a Braces under tension during wall displacement in the positive direction. b Braces under tension during wall displacement in the negative direction.

Hence, it was not possible to rely on the 80% post peak-load denition of the reference deformation [24,25]. Instead, the yield displacement of the wall, y , was incorporated in the calculation of the reference deformation for the determination of the displacement amplitudes for the loading cycles. It was assumed that = 2.667 y , where y was obtained from the nominally identical monotonic wall tests. Additional information on the test program is provided by Al-Kharat and Rogers [20]. 4.1. Material tests Material tests were carried out for the straps, chords and tracks according to ASTM A370 [27] requirements. Coupon tension tests were conducted at a cross-head rate of 0.5 mm per minute in the elastic range, which was increased to a rate of 4 mm per minute beyond the yield point. A 50 mm gauge length extensometer was used to measure the extension of the coupon and to calculate percentage of elongation, yield stress and ultimate stress. Table 3 contains a listing of the minimum specied (nominal design value) material yield stress, Fyn , and thickness, as well as the measured yield stress, Fy , ultimate
Table 3 Material properties of strap and frame members Member Strap Strap Strap Track Stud Track Stud Track Stud Nominal grade (MPa) 230 230 230 230 230 345 345 345 345 Nominal thickness (mm) 1.22 1.52 1.91 1.22 1.22 1.52 1.52 1.91 1.91 Base metal thickness (mm) 1.16 1.48 1.83 1.22 1.23 1.59 1.56 1.94 1.91

Yield stress (Fy ) (MPa) 353 279 262 320 336 330 329 348 352

Ultimate stress (Fu ) (MPa) 440 350 346 380 398 400 397 474 489

Fu /Fy 1.24 1.25 1.32 1.19 1.19 1.21 1.21 1.36 1.39

% Elng. 33 40 38 31 35 35 39 37 35

Fy /Fyn 1.54 1.21 1.14 1.39 1.46 0.96 0.95 1.01 1.02

M. Al-Kharat, C.A. Rogers / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 460474

467

Fig. 6. Typical track and connection failure modes at holddown location in light walls.

Fig. 7. Typical punching shear failure mode at holddown location in medium walls.

Strain gauge measurements showed that yielding of the straps occurred in the light walls; however, this was always combined with the progressive compression failure of the track and/or failure of the chord-to-track connection (Fig. 6). This failure mode was similar to that reported by F l p and uo Dubina [16] for their strap braced wall tests. Fracture of a brace occurred in only one wall (Test 1A-M) after approximately 30103 rad of shear deformation. In the rst test to be carried out (Test 1B-M) tension fracture of the 12.7 mm dia. anchor rod took place because, although adequate for the assumed 20 kN wind loading design level, the threaded rod was not able to carry the force associated with the actual yield capacity of the braces. The anchor rod size was increased to 15.9 mm dia. for all subsequent tests of light walls to avoid this mode of failure. Yielding of the straps occurred in the medium size walls only when the larger holddown plates were installed. Even so, the straps were not able to maintain their yield force level due to extensive damage to the area adjacent to the holddown, specically in the track and gusset plates. Specimens 3A-M and 3B-M, which were the rst of this series to be tested, were outtted with 19 90 127 mm holddown plates. The punching shear capacity of the tracks around these plates was not adequate. For the remainder of the medium strap braced wall specimens a larger holddown plate, 19 127 203 mm, was installed in an attempt to alleviate the punching shear failure mode. This was successful to some degree; however punching shear failure of the tracks, as well as permanent deformation of the gusset plates and chord studs were still observed (Fig. 7). Furthermore, the gusset plates created a rigid corner element that would rotate in-plane due to the lack of stiffness in the holddown/track area and the anchor rod (Figs. 7 and 8). Local buckling of the chord studs on the uplift side of the wall was caused by the extensive corner rotation and the resulting applied moment on the framing member (Fig. 8). In one case (3C-M) punching shear failure of the bottom track was observed along with fracture of the strap brace (Fig. 7). The in-plane rotation of the bottom wall corner caused excessive tensile stresses on the lower side of the strap brace that ultimately resulted in its failure. The heavy walls in the test study were not able to demonstrate yielding of the strap braces along their length. Extensive damage to the frame and gusset area adjacent to the holddown plate was typically observed (Fig. 9); modes of failure that would not be expected under a capacity based design approach. Punching shear failure of the track occurred in all tests, which did not allow the braces to reach their yield capacity

Fig. 8. Medium wall post-test deformations and exural failure of chord studs.

Fig. 9. Typical punching shear failure mode at holddown location in heavy walls.

in tension. It was also common to observe the chord studs being pulled in towards the centre of the wall due to the loss of compression resistance in the track and gusset plates after punching shear failure had taken place. Pull-out of the screws that connected the interior studs to the bottom tracks was also witnessed, mainly due to the large deformations experienced by the walls. Similar to the medium walls, rotation of the corner connections took place, which led to moment induced local buckling of the chord studs (Fig. 8). The failure modes that were observed were mainly due to the fact that the selection of holddowns and anchor rods, as well as other elements in the SFRS, was not based on an estimate of the yield capacity of the strap braces. Instead, each of the SFRS elements were chosen given the expected factored lateral force on the wall, which was assumed to be equal to the factored capacity; 20 kN (light), 40 kN (medium) and 75 kN (heavy). The actual lateral capacity of a braced wall is typically higher

468

M. Al-Kharat, C.A. Rogers / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 460474

Fig. 10. Measured and predicted wall strength and stiffness.

than the factored design level; hence, in order to ensure that the braces yield in tension along their length and that the yield load level is maintained into the inelastic range it is important that a capacity based approach be implemented in design. Although the braces in the light walls did reach and maintain their yield plateau, the inelastic performance of these walls could have been improved by reinforcing the tracks, selecting a thicker track section, or with the use of a corner detail that transferred the horizontal brace forces into the supporting foundation by means of tension. The medium and heavy walls did not exhibit the inelastic behaviour that would be expected if a hysteretic model, such as the one developed by Pastor and Rodrguez Ferran [18], were utilized for the nonlinear inelastic dynamic analysis of X-braced cold-formed steel frames. Nor did the observed inelastic failure modes match that which would be associated with the use of a seismic response modication coefcient of R = 4.0 as recommended in ASCE 7-05 [4]. 4.3. Measured and predicted performance parameters The maximum load level reached by each braced wall regardless of the failure mode was dened as the measured yield strength, S y . The measured initial elastic shear stiffness, K e , was dened as the secant stiffness from the zero load level to the 40% of maximum load level, S0.4 , as recommended in ASTM E2126 [25] (Fig. 10). These measured values were compared with predicted wall properties, which were calculated using the minimum specied (nominal) brace dimensions and material properties (Table 1), as well as the measured brace dimensions (Table 2) and material properties (Table 3). None of these prediction methods are code specic. Given that the topic of this paper is the inelastic response of strap braced walls, it is the measured and predicted yield strengths that are of primary concern, not the initial elastic stiffness or the factored shear capacity. A schematic drawing that illustrates the measured and predicted wall properties is shown in Fig. 10 for monotonic wall test 1-AM. In a similar fashion the outer envelope of the hysteretic loops was used to obtain the measured properties of

the reversed cyclic tests. Note: the position of the predicted strengths, S yn and S yp , with respect to S y may vary from what is illustrated depending on the particular wall being analysed. The predicted nominal lateral yield strength, S yn , of the wall was based on the tension yield strength of the braces determined using their nominal area (width thickness) as well as the minimum specied (nominal) yield stress (230 MPa) (Table 1). The nominal tension yield capacity of the brace was adjusted for the inclined position of the strap members with respect to the horizontal. The predicted nominal lateral shear stiffness of the wall, K n , was calculated based on the axial stiffness of the two tension brace members, which was also adjusted for their inclined position with respect to the horizontal. In this case the nominal design width, thickness and length of the strap braces (Table 1) and E = 203 000 MPa were utilized. The reduction in shear stiffness of the wall assembly due to the exibility of the brace connections and holddown was not accounted for. The predicted values S yn and K n represent the nominal (not factored) design parameters that an engineer would typically be able to determine using minimum specied member sizes and material properties without the aid of test results and measurements. The lateral shear strength and stiffness parameters of each test wall were also predicted using the measured width (Table 2) and base metal thickness (Table 3) of the strap braces, as well as the measured yield stress (Table 3) and the CSA S136 [3] specied Youngs modulus (E = 203 000 MPa). S yp is the predicted lateral yield strength of the wall, which is typically reached when the strap braces yield in tension. K p is the predicted lateral shear stiffness of the wall, again obtained from the initial elastic axial stiffness of the strap braces alone. The ductility, , dened as the ability of the strap braced wall system to maintain its yield capacity while attaining signicant inelastic lateral deformations, was also determined (Eq. (1)). = 0.8 syp (1)

M. Al-Kharat, C.A. Rogers / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 460474 Table 4 Summary of monotonic test results Specimen 1A-M 1B-M 1C-M Avg SD CoV 3A-M 3B-M 3C-M Avg SD CoV 5A-M 5B-M 5C-M Avg SD CoV Sy (kN) 31.97 30.39 31.96 31.44 0.909 0.029 55.37 48.29 55.12 52.93 4.017 0.076 82.93 59.79 81.23 74.65 12.90 0.173 Ke (kN/mm) 1.29 1.59 1.48 1.45 0.152 0.104 2.34 2.99 2.56 2.63 0.331 0.126 3.61 5.97 3.85 4.48 1.299 0.290 Ductility () (mm/mm) 3.01 2.32 3.88 3.07 0.782 0.255 1.57 1.28 3.10 1.98 0.978 0.493 2.21 1.78 2.09 2.03 0.222 0.109 0.8 (rad 103 ) 32.3 20.2 36.7 29.7 8.547 0.287 16.2 10.3 29.2 18.5 9.644 0.520 25.9 12.7 23.0 20.5 6.944 0.339 Energy (kN mm) 2086 1123 2810 2006 846 0.422 1478 1332 3610 2140 1275 0.596 5622 1943 3537 3701 1845 0.499 S yp (kN) 33.93 33.73 34.03 33.90 0.153 0.005 58.88 58.84 58.77 58.83 0.056 0.001 103.4 103.6 103.4 103.5 0.108 0.001 Kp (kN/mm) 4.00 3.98 4.01 4.00 0.015 0.004 9.20 9.20 9.19 9.20 0.006 0.001 17.20 17.22 17.18 17.20 0.020 0.001 S y /S yp (%) 94 90 94 93 S y /S yn (%) 126 120 126 124 K e /K p (%) 32 40 37 36

469

K e /K n (%) 28 35 32 32

94 82 94 90

110 96 109 105

25 33 28 29

24 31 27 27

80 58 79 72

88 63 86 79

21 35 22 26

20 33 22 25

Table 5 Summary of reversed cyclic test results Specimen 2A-C (+ve) 2A-C (ve) 2B-C (+ve) 2B-C (ve) 2C-C (+ve)a 2C-C (ve) Avg SD CoV 4A-C (+ve) 4A-C (ve) 4B-C (+ve) 4B-C (ve) 4C-C (+ve) 4C-C (ve) Avg SD CoV 6B-C (+ve) 6B-C (ve) Avg Sy (kN) 35.26 35.29 34.50 34.47 38.97 35.49 35.00 0.48 0.014 59.47 60.07 62.31 60.59 55.69 56.40 59.09 2.55 0.043 87.13 83.56 85.35 Ke (kN/mm) 1.27 1.08 1.18 1.18 2.26 1.22 1.19 0.07 0.059 2.36 2.09 2.27 2.05 2.21 2.43 2.24 0.15 0.067 3.79 3.48 3.64 Ductility () (mm/mm) 4.11 3.10 3.83 3.83 6.33 4.22 3.82 0.44 0.114 1.98 1.89 2.23 1.87 2.00 2.26 2.04 0.17 0.082 2.01 1.88 1.95 0.8 (rad 103 ) 45.1 40.1 45.1 48.0 38.9 46.7 44.0 3.637 0.083 20.3 21.9 24.4 22.6 22.3 22.9 22.4 1.355 0.060 22.6 22.9 22.7 Energy (kN mm) 10 167 10 571 5 967 8 902 2 550 0.286 19 006 18 663 18 513 18 727 253 0.013 26 051 26 051 S yp (kN) 34.00 33.83 33.91 . 33.91 0.08 0.002 58.98 60.64 59.80 Kp (kN/mm) 4.01 3.99 4.00 4.00 0.01 0.002 9.22 9.48 9.35 S y /S yp (%) 104 104 102 102 115 105 103 S y /S yn (%) 139 139 136 136 153 140 138 K e /K p (%) 32 27 30 30 56 31 30 K e /K n (%) 28 23 26 26 49 27 26

59.81 9.35 0.74 0.12 0.012 0.012 103.5 103.5 17.2 17.2

101 102 103 100 93 94 99

118 119 124 120 110 112 117

26 23 24 22 24 26 24

25 22 24 21 23 25 23

84 81 83

92 88 90

22 20 21

21 19 20

a 2C-C (+ve) not included in calculation of statistical parameters.

where 0.8 is the failure displacement in the post-peak range that corresponds to a wall resistance of 80% of the maximum level measured (Fig. 10). In an ideal case where failure is limited to yielding of the brace members, no reduction in shear strength should take place; and hence, the failure displacement would be dened as the maximum in-plane displacement reached by the wall as limited by the stroke of the actuator. It was however typical for the walls in this study to experience some decrease in shear resistance due to failure modes other than yielding of the strap braces. The elastic yield deformation,

syp , was calculated using the measured elastic stiffness, K e , and the predicted lateral yield strength of the wall, S yp (Fig. 10). A summary of the test results and predicted wall properties is found in Tables 4 and 5. 4.4. Comparison of measured and predicted performance 4.4.1. Light walls An average yield strength of S y = 31.44 kN, equal to 93% of the predicted value based on the measured properties of the brace members (S y /S yp ), was attained for the light walls tested

470

M. Al-Kharat, C.A. Rogers / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 460474

Fig. 11. Cyclic resistance versus displacement curve of 58.4 mm (light) strap braced wall 2A-C.

Fig. 12. Cyclic resistance versus displacement curve of 58.4 mm (light) strap braced wall 2B-C.

monotonically (Table 4). The full predicted capacity was not reached most likely because of the increase in Fy due to the strain rate effect that occurred during testing of the coupons. The estimated strain rate for the coupons was 0.0667 /min, which was 92 times greater than the approximate strain rate determined for the monotonically tested strap walls (0.000725 /min). The average measured yield strength of the cyclic tests was 35.0 kN, which was 3% higher than the predicted S yp value (Table 5). A higher yield capacity was measured because the walls, which were tested at a frequency of 0.5 Hz, would have reached a much higher strain rate than experienced by the monotonic tests. This would likely have elevated the yield stress of the strap braces. A comparison of the measured yield strength reached, S y , by each of the light walls with the factored design resistance (20 kN) including both monotonic results as well as the results of positive and negative excursions for the reversed cyclic tests gave a ratio of 1.66. The test-to-nominal predicted shear capacity, S y /S yn , listed in Tables 4 and 5 was 1.24 and 1.38 for the monotonic and reversed cyclic tests, respectively; which indicates that the test walls were able to reach the expected nominal design shear strength. However, using the nominal shear strength of the wall based on the brace yield capacity did not provide for an accurate estimate of the actual force in the SFRS when the straps yield. An increase in the nominal prediction of between 1.2 and 1.4 is necessary to determine a more realistic force level for the brace connections, holddowns, chord studs, etc. in a capacity based design context because the actual yield stress of the strap material is higher than the minimum specied 230 MPa. The light walls were able to perform in a ductile manner; that is, they were able reach and maintain their yield capacity throughout most of the reversed cyclic loading protocols; however, often the resistance decreased in the latter stages of

each cycle. This reduction in load was caused by the damage that occurred at the holddown/track-to-chord stud connection locations (Fig. 6). An example of this can be seen in Fig. 11, where for the negative load/displacement region of test 2A-C there is a signicant decrease in load above the 30 103 rad displacement level compared with test 2B-C (Fig. 12). On average the light walls reached a 0.8 (Fig. 10) shear deformation of 34.5 103 rad and 44.0 103 rad for the monotonic and reversed cyclic tests. Note; the monotonic average was calculated without using the result from test wall 1B-M because it failed prematurely due to the fracture of the 12.7 mm dia. threaded anchor rod. These shear deformation measurements correspond with an average ductility of 3.07 and 3.82 for the monotonic and reversed cyclic tests, respectively. A test-based estimate of the ductility related seismic force modication factor, Rd , can be dened as shown in Eq. (2) [28]. An average Rd of 2.48 was obtained for the light strap braced walls. Furthermore, Mitchell et al. [29] recommended that the overstrength related seismic force modication factor, Ro , can be estimated by considering the product of the average S y /S yn ratio and the inverse of the resistance factor, 1/. CSA S136 [3] species that = 0.9 for gross cross section yielding design of a tension member. For comparison purposes the ASCE 7-05 [4] dened R-value can be thought of as the product of the ductility related, Rd , and overstrength related, Ro , force modication factors as found in the 2005 NBCC [1]. The resulting overall average Ro factor of 1.47 and the Rd factor noted above provide for an R value of 3.65 for the light walls. This test-based estimate of the seismic response modication coefcient is between the R = 3.0 and 4.0 recommended by ASCE 7-05. Reinforcement of the track member of the wall, such that it is capable of carrying the strap yield forces, would likely improve the ductility such that the test-based R is at a level of 4.0

M. Al-Kharat, C.A. Rogers / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 460474

471

or higher. Rd = 2 1. (2)

In terms of predicted stiffness levels, none of the walls were able to reach the expected 4.00 kN/mm. As is illustrated in Fig. 11, K e was substantially lower than K p . In a similar fashion the nominal stiffness, K n , was also not reached by any of the light walls. This can also be seen in the K e /K p and K e /K n ratios provided in Tables 4 and 5. These predicted stiffness values were based solely on the dimensions and material properties of the straps. From observations of the large deformations and damage at the holddown locations, as well as the measured stiffness values, it is apparent that in this case the exibility of the holddowns and brace connections has caused a decrease in the stiffness of the test walls. The predicted lateral in-plane elastic stiffness of the braced wall cannot be based solely on the axial stiffness of the straps. 4.4.2. Medium walls A performance ratio of S y /S yp = 90%, which corresponds to an average monotonic lateral resistance of 52.93 kN was measured for the medium walls (Table 4). The 10% shortcoming in the ratio of S y /S yp is again likely due to the strain rate used for the monotonic wall testing compared with that used for the coupons. The early onset of punching shear failure in the tracks may also have limited the capacity of the wall. Similar ndings were obtained for the reversed cyclic tests except that a higher average resistance of 59.09 kN was reached (Table 5). This resulted in a performance ratio of S y /S yp = 99%. The increased load levels can be attributed to the strain rate effect experienced by the strap braces. Nonetheless, as is shown in Figs. 13 and 14, these walls were unable to maintain their load carrying capacity due to punching shear failure of the tracks (Fig. 7). No yield plateau was observed; instead a sharp peak resistance was recorded, followed by a sudden degradation in load carrying ability. The fuse element in the seismic force resisting system ultimately was the holddown plate/anchor rod/track connection in combination with the strap braces. A comparison of S y for the medium walls with the factored design resistance (40 kN) for the monotonic and reversed cyclic tests gave a ratio of 1.40. The test-to-nominal predicted shear capacity, S y /S yn , listed in Tables 4 and 5 was 1.05 and 1.17 for the monotonic and reversed cyclic tests, respectively; which shows that the wall was able to reach the expected nominal design shear strength. However, the nominal shear strength of the walls based on the brace yield capacity did not provide for a precise estimate of the actual force in the SFRS when the straps yield, although the estimate was improved compared with the light walls. An increase in the nominal prediction of approximately 1.2 is necessary to determine a more realistic force level for the brace connections, holddowns, chord studs, etc. in a capacity based design context. Note that this increase is somewhat lower than that recommended for the light walls, mainly because of the signicantly higher material yield strength, Fy , that was measured for the braces of the

Fig. 13. Monotonic resistance versus displacement curve of 101 mm (medium) strap braced wall 3C-M.

Fig. 14. Cyclic resistance versus displacement curve of 101 mm (medium) strap braced wall 4B-C.

light walls compared with the nominal (minimum specied) 230 MPa (Table 3). The medium walls attained a 0.8 (Fig. 10) shear deformation of 18.5 103 rad and 22.4 103 rad for the monotonic and reversed cyclic tests. The corresponding average ductility for the monotonic and reversed cyclic tests was 1.98 and 2.04, respectively. These ductility measurements provided an average Rd value of 1.71 for the medium walls. An overstrength related Ro value of 1.23 was also obtained, which when combined with the Rd value results in a test-based R value of 2.11, far below

472

M. Al-Kharat, C.A. Rogers / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 460474

Fig. 15. Monotonic resistance versus displacement curve of 152 mm (heavy) strap braced wall 5A-M.

Fig. 16. Cyclic resistance versus displacement curve of 152 mm (heavy) strap braced wall 6B-C.

that specied in ASCE 7-05 [4]. The punching shear mode of failure did not allow for the yield capacity of the braces to be maintained; thus, the at plate holddown detail used for the medium walls did not provide for a sufcient level of ductility to warrant a seismic response modication coefcient equal to 4.0 or even 3.0. It is recommended that the at plate holddown detail not be used for braced walls with unlipped channel track sections because of the lack of a direct connection between the straps and anchor device. The average K e of 2.63 kN/mm for the monotonic tests was well below the expected stiffness, K p = 9.20 kN/mm, due to the exibility of the at plate holddown detail, as well as the extreme damage that occurred (Fig. 7). Likewise, the nominal elastic stiffness, K n , was also not reached by any of the test walls. 4.4.3. Heavy walls The monotonic tests 5A-M, 5B-M and 5C-M (heavy walls) had the lowest performance ratio of all the strap braced walls that were included in the study. An average capacity of 74.65 kN was measured, which corresponds to an S y /S yp ratio of 72% (Table 4). Yielding was seen in some areas of the braces, based on strain gauge measurements; however the overall yield capacity of the brace was not reached at any time (Fig. 15). As was observed for the medium walls, punching shear failure of the track controlled the wall resistance, stiffness and ductility (Fig. 9). Given the poor results of the monotonic tests only one reversed cyclic test was completed (6B-C) (Fig. 16). The average maximum resistance of the negative and positive displacement cycles was 85.35 kN (Table 5). This provided a performance ratio of S y /S yp = 83%, somewhat higher than the monotonic tests, but not adequate when compared to the shear load associated with brace yielding.

A comparison of S y for the heavy walls with the factored design resistance (75 kN) for the monotonic and reversed cyclic tests gave a ratio of 1.07. The test-to-nominal predicted shear capacity, S y /S yn , listed in Tables 4 and 5 was 0.79 and 0.9 for the monotonic and reversed cyclic tests, respectively, which shows that the walls were not even able to attain their expected nominal design shear strength. Punching shear failure of the track members limited the amount of force that could be transferred to the brace members; hence, the strap braces did not at any time reach their potential tensile yield capacity while being tested. Punching shear failure of the track once again controlled the behaviour of the wall. As found for the medium strap braced walls, the at plate holddown detail was inadequate to allow for the wall to maintain its yield capacity, and hence to act in a ductile fashion. This can be seen in the measured 0.8 (Fig. 10) shear deformation of 20.5 103 rad and 22.7 103 rad reached by the monotonic and reversed cyclic tests. The average ductility calculated using these shear deformation values for the monotonic and reversed cyclic tests was 2.03 and 1.95, respectively; which was similar to the medium walls. An average Rd value of 1.72 was obtained; however, because the S y /S yn ratio was below 1.0, no overstrength existed and as such Ro = 1.0. The product of Rd and Ro gives a test-based R value of 1.72, again signicantly lower than that specied in ASCE 7-05 [4] for strap braced bearing wall systems. It is again recommended that the at plate holddown detail not be used for braced walls with unlipped channel track sections because of the lack of a direct connection between the straps and anchor device. The measured initial elastic stiffness, K e , was in the range of 20%26% of the expected K p and K n values (Tables 4 and 5). This nding can again be attributed to the exibility of the at plate holddown detail.

M. Al-Kharat, C.A. Rogers / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 460474

473

5. Conclusions and recommendations In general, the strap braced test walls, as constructed, were not able to maintain a yield level load carrying capacity over extended displacements, with the exception of the light walls. Moreover, the heavy walls were not able to even reach the load level associated with gross cross-section yielding of the braces. The extensive damage to the holddown/gusset/chord stud/track location in almost all test walls showed that the inelastic deformations were not limited to the brace elements of the lateral force resisting system. Furthermore, punching shear failure of the tracks severely reduced the inelastic performance of the medium and heavy walls. Given the results of testing, it is not possible to consider the walls to have performed in the ductile fashion that would have been associated with a response modication coefcient of R = 4.0 and assumed if a capacity based design approach had been followed. The medium and heavy walls did not even possess the ductility and overstrength to validate the use of R = 3.0, as allowed in ASCE7-05 when seismic details are not incorporated in the design of a structure. However, the fact that the test walls were designed and constructed without capacity based concepts in mind does indicate that the inelastic performance could possibly be improved if additional design steps were taken. This is most evident for the light walls in which a testbased Rd Ro value of 3.65 was attained. In contrast, however, the medium and heavy walls were only able to exhibit a testbased Rd Ro value of 2.11 and 1.72, respectively; which is approximately half of the ASCE7-05 upper R-value specied for cold-formed steel strap braced bearing wall systems. An estimate of the force in the SFRS due to brace yielding needs to account for the possible overstrength of the strap material, such that failure or plastic deformation of other elements in the lateral load path is avoided. The nominal capacity of the strap members (A g Fy ) does not indicate the true force level that may be reached in the system. This is due to the actual yield strength of the cold-formed steel strap members, which in the case of this study reached as high as 1.54 times the minimum specied 230 MPa. It is recommended that supplementary tests of similar size strap braced walls be carried out, for which the elements in the seismic force resisting system are selected based on the probable yield capacity of the strap braces. An accurate estimate of the yield stress of the brace material is needed, which accounts for both the effects of the higher than minimum nominal yield stress due to the manufacturing processes and the strain rate under seismic loading. Furthermore, the holddown detail needs to be improved, such that the probable brace loads can be carried with minimal rotation and inelastic damage to the track, chord studs, gusset plate, anchor rod and holddown itself. In terms of recommendations for designers, at the very least it is necessary that a capacity based design approach be implemented for the selection of SFRS elements. The use of corner holddown plates placed in the bottom and top tracks of a strap braced wall does not provide for an adequate transfer of brace induced forces due to the possibility of punching shear failure. Moreover this holddown failure mode is not ductile

in nature, and hence does not allow for the strap brace yield capacity to be maintained. Additional research that includes more specic detailing requirements for strap braced walls is ongoing. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Canadian Sheet Steel Building Institute. Test specimens were generously supplied by Genesis by KML Ltd. of Cambridge, ON, Canada. A thank you is also extended to the students K.E. Hikita, A. Frattini, T.L.W. Lim and Z. Fu for their assistance in carrying out the braced wall tests. References
[1] National Research Council of Canada (NRCC). National Building Code of Canada. Ottawa (ON, Canada); 2005. [2] Heidebrecht AC. Overview of seismic provisions of the proposed 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 2003;30(2):24154. [3] Canadian Standards Association S136. North American specication for the design of cold-formed steel structural members. Mississauga (ON, Canada); 2001. [4] American Society of Civil Engineers ASCE 7. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Reston (VA, USA); 2005. [5] American Iron and Steel Institute. Standard for cold-formed steel framing lateral design. Washington (DC, USA); 2004. [6] American Iron and Steel Institute. North American specication for the design of cold-formed steel structural members. Washington (DC, USA); 2001. [7] American Iron and Steel Institute. Standard for cold-formed steel framing General provisions. Washington (DC, USA); 2001. [8] TI 809-07 . Technical instructions: Design of cold-formed loadbearing steel systems and masonry veneer/steel stud walls. Washington (DC, USA): US Army Corps of Engineers. Engineering and Construction Division. Directorate of Civil Works; 2003. [9] Adham SA, Avanessian V, Hart GC, Anderson RW, Elmlinger J, Gregory J. Shear wall resistance of lightgage steel stud wall systems. Earthquake Spectra 1990;6(1):114. [10] Serrette R, Ogunfunmi K. Shear resistance of gypsum-sheathed lightgauge steel stud walls. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 1996; 122(4):3839. [11] Barton AD. Performance of steel framed domestic structures subject to earthquake loads. Ph.D. thesis. Melbourne (Australia): Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Melbourne; 1997. [12] Gad EF, Chandler AM, Dufeld CF, Hutchinson GL. Earthquake ductility and overstrength in residential structures. Journal of Structural Engineering and Mechanics 1999;8(4):36182. [13] Gad EF, Dufeld CF, Hutchinson GL, Mansell DS, Stark G. Lateral performance of cold-formed steel-framed domestic structures. Journal of Engineering Structures 1999;21:8395. [14] Gad EF, Chandler AM, Dufeld CF, Stark G. Lateral behaviour of plasterboard-clad residential steel frames. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 1999;125(1):329. [15] Park R. Evaluation of ductility of structures and structural assemblages from laboratory testing. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1989;22(3). [16] F l p LA, Dubina D. Performance of wall-stud cold-formed shear panels uo under monotonic and cyclic loading. Part I: Experimental research. Thin Walled Structures 2004;42:32138. [17] Tian YS, Wang J, Lu TJ. Racking strength and stiffness of cold-formed steel wall frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004;60: 106993.

474

M. Al-Kharat, C.A. Rogers / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (2007) 460474 testing protocol for woodframe structures. Report W-02, CUREE/Caltech woodframe project. Richmond (CA, USA); 2000. ASTM E2126. Standard test methods for Cyclic (reversed) load test for shear resistance of framed walls for buildings, West Conshohocken (PA, USA); 2005. Branston AE, Chen CY, Boudreault FA, Rogers CA. Testing of lightgauge steel-frame wood structural panel shear walls. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 2006;33(5):56172. ASTM A370. Standard test methods and denitions for mechanical testing of steel products. West Conshohocken (PA, USA); 2002. Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Earthquake spectra and design. Engineering monograph, Berkeley (CA, USA): Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; 1982. Mitchell D, Tremblay R, Karacabeyli E, Paultre P, Saatcioglu M, Anderson DL. Seismic force modication factors for the proposed 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 2003;30(2):30827.

[18] Pastor N, Rodrguez-Ferran A. Hysteretic modelling of x-braced shear walls. Thin Walled Structures 2005;43:156788. [19] 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 2006;44:197210. [20] Al-Kharat M, Rogers CA. Testing of light-gauge steel strap braced walls. Research report. Montreal (QC, Canada): Dept. of Civil Engineering, McGill University; 2005. [21] ASTM A653. Standard specication for steel sheet, zinc-coated (galvanized) or zinc-iron alloy-coated (galvannealed) by the hot-dip process. West Conshohocken (PA, USA); 2002. [22] ASTM A307. Standard specication for carbon steel bolts and studs, 60 000 psi tensile strength. West Conshohocken (PA, USA); 2003. [23] ASTM A325. Standard specication for structural bolts, steel, heat treated 120/105 ksi minimum tensile strength. West Conshohocken (PA, USA); 2002. [24] Krawinkler H, Parisi F, Ibarra L, Ayoub A, Medina R. Development of a

[25]

[26]

[27] [28]

[29]