Journal of Constructional Steel Research 147 (2018) 53–61

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Structural performance of cold-formed steel trusses used in electric

power substations
Mehran Zeynalian ⁎, Sattar Bolkhari, Pooria Rafeei
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents a detailed investigation of the lateral characteristics of cold-formed steel truss structures used
Received 29 July 2017 in electric power substations. Five full-scale specimens were tested, and their responses were recorded under
Received in revised form 27 March 2018 monotonic and cyclic loading regimes. Of particular interest were the specimens' maximum lateral load capaci-
Accepted 1 April 2018
ties and deformation behaviours. A rational estimation of the seismic response modification factor, R, of the truss
Available online 13 April 2018
structures is also provided. In addition, different types of stiffened sections were employed in order to examine
Keywords:
the impact of the presence of stiffeners and lips on seismic behaviour, as well as on the lateral resistance of the
Cold-formed steel structure. Detailed comparisons between relevant code methods, finite element modelling and an experimental
Truss study were then conducted to suggest an appropriate value for the R factor. A financial evaluation was also
Experimental study performed, to highlight the advantages of employing cold-formed steel trusses in the electric power substation
Numerical study industry. The results show that the cold-formed steel structural system is a reasonable alternative to the currently
R factor used hot-rolled steel structures, and that its use decreases the cost of the structures by almost 50%.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Use of cold-formed steel (CFS) structures has recently grown dra-
matically in residential and industrial buildings, with it becoming an ap-
propriate alternative to conventional methods due to its enormous
advantages, such as its high quality and ease of construction, and its
relatively light weight. Electric power substations (EPS), which are usu-
ally located in the vicinity of cities, are mainly equipped with truss
structures built up from hot-rolled steel angles, which have much
greater weight and expense. Considering the advantages of CFS struc-
tures, the current research aims to evaluate the lateral performance of
CFS truss systems, including an estimation of their seismic response
modification factors. As there is currently not enough information
in the available codes and standards, this research is essential for im-
proving the design of CFS truss structures. In addition, taking into
account a real case study, a brief economic comparison between the pro-
posed CFS truss structures and the corresponding currently used hot-
rolled truss structures is provided. For this purpose, a device commonly
used in EPSs, a 63 kV current-transformer (CT) which is shown in Fig. 1,
is scrutinized as a case study. In each electric power substation, there are
several other electric devices installed on hot-rolled truss structures.
However, investigating only a CT is considered sufficient, since most of
the equipment and corresponding structures are similar to CTs.
Over recent decades, numerous analytical and experimental investi-
gations have been performed to maximize the capacity of cold-formed
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.zeynalian@eng.ui.ac.ir. (M. Zeynalian).
steel sections employed in CFS structures. Pedreschi and Sinha [1] con-
ducted a few experimental tests on full-scale specimens using different
configurations to determine the impact of mechanical clinching in steel
trusses. Mohan et al. [2] presented an equivalent radius of gyration for
cold-formed lipped angles utilized in the trusses of transmission towers.
The behaviour of non-symmetric lipped angle columns was also scruti-
nized by Young and Chen [3]. The design of cold-formed steel angles
with unequal legs subjected to axial force was criticized by Young and
Ellobody [4], who noted that North American Specifications [5] are
currently not conservative for short to intermediate columns. They
also proposed some design rules while different buckling modes are
the main causes of failure in these sections. Zeynalian et al. [6] also
inspected cold-formed steel truss connections experimentally, in order
to determine the specimens' maximum load capacity as well as the
connections' failure modes. Koen [7] studied the failure modes of four
discrete light-gauge steel storage rack uprights, finding that flexural-
torsional buckling governs failure in long specimens while flexural
buckling governs failure in medium-length specimens. Manikandan
and Arun [8] also studied buckling behaviour of cold-formed steel
lipped channel columns with intermediate web stiffeners subjected to
axial compression. Szafran and Rykaluk [9] performed a full-scale tele-
communication tower test. They concluded that the buckling capacities
of applied cold-formed steel legs are greater than those estimated via
standard descriptions. This might be as a result of the significant rigidity
of the connection flanges, which affects the failure mechanism and the
overall stability of the tower legs. Reinforcing the angle legs in lattice
towers could potentially be effective in increasing strength, as shown
by Zhuge et al. [10]. They investigated the most effective leg retrofitting

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.04.002
0143-974X/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
54 M. Zeynalian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 147 (2018) 53–61

Fig. 1. Structure of current transformer (CT).

methods experimentally, using a one-panel angle leg retrofitting model

and a nonlinear finite element model.
In this study, the Majlesi 63 kV substation which is already designed
and constructed in the southern part of Isfahan (in Iran) is examined. It
is a hot-rolled steel CT structure, with details illustrated in Fig. 2.
As shown in the figure, the structure consists of four columns
with dimensions of L60 × 60 × 6 mm, and braces with dimensions of
L40 × 40 × 4. One plate (PL520 × 520 × 2.4 mm) is bolted at the top,
and four plates (PL120 × 120 × 2.4 mm) are welded at the bottom of
each column. The top plate was placed there to provide space for the
installation of CT equipment, and the bottom plates are for fastening
of the structure to the foundation via four M20 anchor bolts. The overall
weight of this structure is 118.38 kg. The height of the structure
is 2180 mm and the back to back distance between the columns is
420 mm. The braces are connected to the columns with one M16
high-strength bolt at each end. Because the weight of the CT equipment
(525 kg) is much higher than that of the CT structure, a common engi-
neering assumption of considering the structural system as an inverted
pendulum system is adopted amongst structural designers.
In order to use cold-formed steel in the structure, the CT structure
was redesigned based on AISI standard [5]. The design loads which
were applied to the CFS truss structure are based on Standard IR457 Fig. 2. Details of currently-in-use CT structure (mm).
[11], and are similar to the design loads which were considered for
the hot-rolled truss. The design loads include weight, wind, and earth-
quake applied to both the CT equipment and the CT structure. An addi- connected to the columns using 12 M8 high-strength bolts with yield
tional short circuit load is applied only on the top of the CT equipment. and ultimate strength of 640 MPa and 800 MPa, respectively. At
The short circuit is an electrical circuit that allows a current to travel the base, columns are strengthened with two gusset plates (with di-
along a wire and induces horizontal load in the wire which is normal mensions of 90 × 70 × 1.8 mm) seated on one base plate of PL 120 ×
to the wire direction. 120 × 15 mm under each column. The anchor bolts connecting the
Considering the geometry of the currently used hot-rolled CT struc- structures to the foundation (test rig) are similar to the hot-rolled CT
ture, an initial design using cold-formed steel angle sections based on structure shown in Fig. 3.
AISI [5] was taken into account. The CFS structure consists of columns
of L50 × 50 × 2.4 mm, and braces of L40 × 40 × 1.8 mm in four sides 2. Experimental investigations
of the truss. Similar to the hot-rolled CT structure, a steel plate of
PL 520 × 520 × 10 mm is considered on the top of the structure for in- As the first step, four specimens of structures of the current trans-
stallation of the CT equipment. This plate is placed on four horizontal former were built in full scale (Fig. 4) in order to investigate the pro-
angles, which are also in the same dimensions as the columns, and posed CT truss structure. The first specimen (TR1) was subjected to
 M. Zeynalian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 147 (2018) 53–61 55

L50×50×2.4

PL90×70×1.8

PL120×120×15

Fig. 5. Force-lateral displacement curve of TR1.

Fig. 3. Column-strengthening sheets.

monotonic loads and the other three specimens (TR2-TR4) were tested
under a cyclic loading regime according to ASTM E2126-07 [12]. These
specimens were tested in the Structural Laboratory of the School of
Civil Engineering, at the University of Isfahan, using a specially made
testing rig as shown in Fig. 4. Each specimen was installed on the rig
using four M20 high-strength bolts in each column. An accurate hori-
zontal drift (HD) transducer was used to evaluate the horizontal dis-
placement of the structure at the top. Also, one load-cell was used to
measure the racking resistance. All data from the transducers and
load-cell were analyzed and transferred to a computer using Lab View
Signal Express software [13]. The load-displacement curve of each
frame was then plotted.

2.1. Monotonic loading

Prior to use of the cyclic loading protocol, the first specimen

(TR1) was tested using static monotonic loading [14]. In this test,
load-displacement relationships were developed, and the maximum
strength and displacement of the truss were recorded. The purpose
of this test was to obtain a measure of the ultimate state monotonic
capacity, which is necessary for determining the amplitudes of the cyclic
test protocol. The force-lateral displacement curve of specimen TR1 is
presented in Fig. 5. The ultimate lateral strength of the structure was

Fig. 6. Distortional buckling followed by torsional-flexural buckling at the base of the

Fig. 4. Installation of CT on the test rig. compression columns.
56 M. Zeynalian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 147 (2018) 53–61
Fig. 7. Load steps and cycles.
equal to 585.28 kg, corresponding to 88.06 mm displacement (4% of
the height).
It is worth mentioning that failure occurred due to distortional buck-
ling followed by torsional-flexural buckling in the two compression
columns (see Fig. 6), while the other two columns were in tension. It
is important to note that, considering Fig. 6 and the buckling failure
mode in the compression columns and the rigid behaviour of the con-
nections of the column to the base plate and gusset plates, the potential
change in material properties as a result of welding does not have a con-
siderable impact on the structure's behaviour.
2.2. Cyclic loading
Cyclic testing is usually employed to achieve more realistic results of
lateral load-displacement behaviour, as seismic loading causes the
structures to sway back and forth. The cyclic loading regime that was
used in this study is based on Method B of ASTM E2126-07 Standard
[12]. This loading regime consists of one full cycle at 1.25%, 2.5%, 5%,
7.5%, 10%, and three full cycles at 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%, 120%,
140%, 160% and 180% of the ultimate lateral displacement, unless failure
or a significant decrease in the load resistance occurs earlier. The men-
tioned lateral amplitudes correspond to 1.1, 2.2, 4.4, 6.6, 8.8, 17.6, 35.2,
52.8, 70.4, 88, 105.6, 123.2, 140.8 and 158.4 mm. The method stipulates
that the amplitude of cyclic displacements has to be selected based on
fractions of monotonic ultimate displacement (Δm), which was evalu-
ated at 88.06 mm as explained in the previous section. The average
loading velocity was about 2 mm/s, which is compatible with the
ASTM E2126-07 recommendation highlighting that the loading velocity
Fig. 8. Load-deflection hysteretic cycles of TR2.
must be in the range of 1–63 mm/s. Fig. 7 indicates the loading steps of
the tests.
The load-deflection hysteretic cycles of specimens TR2 to TR4 were
almost identical. As an example, the load-deflection hysteretic cycles
of specimen TR2 and its push-over curve are depicted in Fig. 8. Fig. 9
presents the push-over curves of specimens TR2 to TR4.
Based on the observations made during the tests, the common
failure mode for all of the specimens was almost similar to TR1, that
is, distortional buckling followed by torsional-flexural buckling at
the base of the columns. In specimen TR2, while the first failure
occurred in the second cycle of +105.6 mm (120%) lateral displace-
ment at 520 kg strength, the maximum capacity (555 kg) appeared at
140 mm displacement due to post-buckling behaviour.
3. Finite element analysis
ANSYS [15] finite element software is used in the current study to
simulate the geometric and material nonlinear behaviour of CFS trusses.
The mechanical properties of the steel used in the modelling, which
are extracted from some standard coupon tests [16] (see Fig. 10), are
demonstrated in Table 1.
The type of element used in modelling the structure via ANSYS soft-
ware is SHELL181, which is coming into use for determining nonlinear
large-deformation analysis components, such as residual stress, mate-
rial nonlinearities and geometric imperfections. Also, in order to simu-
late geometry imperfection (which refers to the initial deviation of a
member from its ‘perfect’ geometry), a method developed by Schafer
[17] was applied. This method suggests that the maximum deviations
Fig. 9. Load-deflection envelope curves of specimens TR2 to TR4.
 M. Zeynalian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 147 (2018) 53–61 57

Fig. 10. Tension coupon tests (mm).

are the maximum of steel sheet thickness (t) and 6te−2t, which are finite element solutions and the experimental results are in reasonable
2.4 mm and 1.8 mm for columns and braces, respectively. agreement. In order to compare the experimental and numerical results,
Due to the fact that there was no failure in the connections during the maximum drift is neglected – all experimental and numerical enve-
the tests, the bolt connections were modelled using the “coupling” tech- lope curves have met much more than the maximum allowable storey
nique, so that the degrees of freedom of elements located on both sides drift ratio specified by IR454 [18] (1/200 of total height of the structure
of the bolts would be the same. Finally, the hinge supports were consid- which equals to 11 mm), which is 0.5%, as shown in Fig. 12.
ered for the columns, simulating bolted connections. The unmeshed Figs. 13 and 14 illustrate the distribution and the maximum stress
finite element model of the CT truss is presented in Fig. 11. of the CT. As depicted in the figure, the failure mode is distortional
In order to verify the efficiency and accuracy of the presented FEM of buckling, followed by torsional-flexural buckling in the compression
the CT, the experimental results were examined. Fig. 12 shows that the columns.
As mentioned earlier, one idea behind this research study was to uti-
lize the CFS sections in the electric power substation industry. However,
Table 1
Mechanical properties of the steel. as highlighted in Fig. 12, the results demonstrate that, while the corre-
sponding strength of the CT truss under the service loads is considered
Yield stress Yield strain Ultimate Ultimate Modulus of elasticity
to be sufficient, the lateral drift of the structure does not meet the
stress strain
standard's criteria [18].
Fy = 269 MPa εy = 0.0011 Fu = 371 MPa εu = 0.1544 E = 241,071 MPa It is important to mention that the maximum earthquake lateral
load, which is calculated based on standard IR454, is 176 kg, and its
corresponding drift is 18.5 mm, which is greater than the maximum
allowable lateral drift (0.5% of total height of the structure, which is

Fig. 11. FEM of CT in ANSYS software. Fig. 12. Experimental and numerical load-displacement curves for TR1.
58 M. Zeynalian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 147 (2018) 53–61
Fig. 13. Stress distribution of CT under nonlinear push-over analysis.
equal to 11 mm). Hence, in order to decrease the CT structure's drift,
stiffened angle columns were considered. It was anticipated that the
presence of the stiffeners in each leg would increase the compression
capacity of the members, and decrease the lateral drift. Therefore,
the structure was modelled employing one-angle columns including
stiffeners with 5 mm depth in the middle, and one-angle columns
containing lips with 5 mm length in addition to stiffeners, as shown in
Fig. 15. The former is named “CT Stif”, and the latter “CT Lip and Stif”
in this paper. It should be noted that due to negligible tension in the
braces, there is no need to add stiffeners to them. As the next step,
these two structures were modelled and analyzed employing the soft-
ware, ANSYS. As shown in Fig. 16, the CT structure that possesses
angle columns with both stiffeners and lips has a maximum lateral dis-
placement of 9.5 mm, which is less than the allowable value of 11 mm.
The two structures were also analyzed under nonlinear push-over
analysis, and their load-displacement curves are presented in Fig. 17.
As expected, adding stiffeners and lips increases the stiffness and lateral
resistance of the structure by N50%.
4. Experimental evaluation of structures with stiffeners and lips
Since the numerical results of the CT truss with columns includ-
ing lips and stiffeners were satisfactory, another full-scale specimen
Fig. 14. Distortional buckling followed by torsional-flexural buckling in the compression columns.
(TR5) was tested under monotonic loadings in order to verify the
numerical outputs (Fig. 18). It is noteworthy that, although the nu-
merical results were considered sufficient (as the initial FEM of
unstiffened trusses were verified against the experimental data),
this test was performed to provide further confidence to the electric
power substation industry, reassuring them that the proposed CFS
trusses can be a reasonable alternative for the currently used hot-
rolled structures.
The load-displacement curves of the CT structure with stiffeners
and lips obtained from both the experimental test and the numerical
analysis, as well as that of the unstiffened CT (i.e. TR1) are presented
in Fig. 19. The graphs highlight the positive effect of the use of stiffeners
and lips in the columns, showing that all structural characteristics in-
cluding the maximum strength, lateral drift and dissipated energy
(the area below the curves) are higher than those for TR1.
5. Seismic response modification factor
One of the most significant factors in the design of structures against
earthquakes is the seismic response modification factor (R). The con-
cept is that a well-designed structural resistance system has a ductile
behaviour and is able to carry large inelastic deformation without
collapse. In other words, the designed seismic strengths provided by
earthquake-resistant design codes are typically lower than the lateral
strength that is required to keep a structure in the elastic range in the
event of earthquakes. Strength reductions from the elastic strength de-
mand to real inelastic structural strength are taken into account using
the reduction factor, R. This factor is basically considered in order to re-
late the ratio of forces that would be developed under the particular
ground motions if the lateral framing systems were to be totally elastic,
to the prescribed design forces based on the ultimate strength design
method at the strength level commonly assumed to be equal to the
significant yield level. According to FEMA 450 [19], the R factor for
truss structures used in power distribution stations (which behave
like an inverted pendulum system with concentrated mass at the end)
equals 2.5. The code emphasizes that the R factor consists of two
major components: the ductility reduction factor (Rd); and the over-
strength factor (Ω), as in the following:
R ¼ Rd  Ω0 ð1Þ
The components of the response modification factor are defined as
per Fig. 20, which indicates the actual and the elastic performance of a
 M. Zeynalian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 147 (2018) 53–61 59

Fig. 15. Sections with stiffeners and lips.

structural system, as well as the idealized bilinear force-displacement Newmark and Hall:
curve, as:
Rd ¼ μ T N 0:5 sec ð5Þ
Ve Vy pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Rd ¼ ; Ω0 ¼ ð2Þ ð6Þ
Vy Vs Rd ¼ 2μ−1 0:1 b T b 0:5 sec

Rd ¼ 1 T b 0:03 sec ð7Þ

The R factor can then be regenerated as:

Ve Vy Ve Hence, the specimens' hysteretic envelope curves are used to deter-

R ¼ Rd  Ω0 ¼  ¼
Vy Vs Vs
where Ve, Vy, Vs and Vt are elastic strength, idealized yield strength,
resistance of occurrence of the first plastic hinge in the structure, and
ultimate resistance, respectively.
Fig. 20 illustrates the general structural response and the method
which was used to idealize a force-displacement curve based on FEMA
356 [20]. Simplifying the analysis by considering an ideal bilinear re-
sponse (instead of the one shown in Fig. 20), Newmark and Hall [21] de-
veloped a set of Eqs. (5) to (7) defining the ductility reduction factor, Rd,
in terms of a structure's ductility, which is expressed in terms of maxi-
mum structural drift, Δmax, and the drift corresponding to the idealized
yielding point, Δy.
The Newmark and Hall method has been widely adopted by other
researchers, and their equations have been verified by different real
seismic records.
Ductility:
Δmax
μ¼
Δy
ð3Þ mine the response modification factors by following these steps:
1. Idealized bilinear curve is evaluated according to FEMA 356.
2. Ductility reduction factor, Rd, is calculated based on Eq. (2). It should
be noted that Vy can be estimated based on the idealized bilinear
curve, and Ve can be calculated in accordance with Fig. 20. For this
purpose, according to FEMA451 [22], the areas under the idealized
bilinear curve and the elastic curve are assumed to be equal.
3. Over-strength, Ω0, factor is evaluated using Eq. (2) and the values of
Vy and Vs.
In this study, based on the concepts presented in Fig. 21 and a
proposed method by Zeynalian and Ronagh [23–25], the significant
yield point, VS, is evaluated using parameter Di, which is calculated
from Eq. (8).
Di ¼ ðdLi −dci Þ=dc;max ð8Þ
where:
ð4Þ Di: drifts' deviations associated with the ith point (Xi)
dLi: drift of linear trend-line associated with point Xi
dci: drift of the envelope curve associated with point Xi
dc, max: maximum shear wall's drift.

Fig. 16. Stress distribution of CT including lip and stiffener. Fig. 17. Load-displacement curve of CT structure.
60 M. Zeynalian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 147 (2018) 53–61

Fig. 18. Structure with stiffeners and lips.

In order to calculate Vs, a linear trend-line is fitted to the linear part Although the main scope of this research study is to investigate the
of the force-displacement curve. The deformation deviation is then structural performance of CFS truss structures, it is also worthwhile to
calculated based on Eq. (8). It is assumed that Vs is the point with a consider the financial benefits of using CFS truss structures in electric
deviation smaller than 0.5%. power stations. As mentioned in Section 1, one of the advantages
The average R factor, ductility reduction factor (Rd) and over- of CFS structures is the accompanying weight reduction, which then
strength factor (Ω0) corresponding to CT structures are presented in
Table 2.
The evaluated R factors indicate that the response modification fac-
tors for CFS truss structures range between 4.24 and 5.89. These values
show that the common engineering assumption (of an inverted pendu-
lum system for the CFS trusses employed in electric power substations,
which leads to value of 2.5 for the R factor as advised in FEMA [19], the
suggested R factor of 3 in AISI [27] and IR457, and R = 2 by AS4600 [28])
is conservative and can be improved considerably.

Fig. 19. Load-displacement curve of CT structure with stiffeners and lips. Fig. 20. Behaviour of structure, FEMA's concept.
 M. Zeynalian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 147 (2018) 53–61
Fig. 21. Calculation of design force using force-displacement curve [26].
Table 2
R factors, ductility reduction factors and over-strength factors.
CT CT-Stiff
Ductility reduction factor (Rd) 3.76 4.95
Over-strength factor (Ω0) 1.13 1.08
R factor 4.24 5.35
leads to cost reduction. Hence, in order to be more precise, three differ-
ent structures in the EPS at Majlesi power distribution station (CT, Post
Insulator (PI) and Line Arrester (LA)) were studied, replacing the
commonly used hot-rolled steel structures with CFS trusses. From this
replacement, the total weight of the CT structure was reduced from
118.38 kg to 65.31 kg, the PI structure was reduced from 131.4 kg
to 67.21 kg, and the LA structure was reduced from 430.52 kg to
217.32 kg. Together, these changes result in a mean weight reduction
of 47.6%. This leads to a significant saving, not only in the steel used
in the structures, but also in the cost of transportation, installation,
galvanizing, etc., in the assessed station.
6. Conclusions
The structural performance of cold-formed steel truss structures
used in power distribution stations is investigated and presented in
this paper. Scrutinizing the obtained outcomes and comparing the en-
velope curves associated with different specimens (in Figs. 17 and 19),
the following findings can be made:
• A larger enclosed area in the force-displacement curves of the CFS
truss structure with stiffeners and lips represents a more favourable
lateral response for these structures, by N50%, since structures with
larger enclosed curves dissipate more energy.
• Investigation of the test results and the failure modes of the different
specimens leads to a suggestion for preventing the distortional buck-
ling followed by torsional-flexural buckling failure of the columns –
this is to use appropriate horizontal braces at the base of the columns
(at the top of gusset plates) in order to prevent the lateral movement
of the legs.
• Considering the evaluated R factors, it is clear that the common engi-
neering assumption (of inverted pendulum system for the CFS trusses
in electric power substations which leads to value of 2.5 for the R fac-
tor in FEMA, R = 3 in IR457 and AISI and R = 2 in AS4600) is conser-
vative and can be improved considerably, although more studies are
needed before a robust suggestion can be made.
• Considering the outcomes and the significant reduction in the weight
of the steel structures employed in electric power substations, it
is concluded that the CFS structural system can be a reasonable
61
alternative for the currently used hot-rolled steel structures. This
could reduce the cost of the structures by almost 50%.
• Analytical and experimental results show that the ultimate lateral dis-
placement of the unstiffened CT structure is beyond the standard al-
lowable value. However, by replacing the simple angle columns with
angles including stiffeners and lips, the ultimate displacement is re-
duced to allowable drifts, in addition to increasing the truss's strength.
This highlights another advantage of CFS structures – the possibility of
producing various geometric sections by the cold-forming process,
which is not easily achieved in hot-rolled manufacturing.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial assistance ob-
tained from the Esfahan Regional Electric Company (940/5005/021) to
conduct this research.
References
[1] R.F. Pedreschi, B.P. Sinha, An experimental study of cold formed steel trusses using
CT-Stiff-Lip
mechanical clinching, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (2008) 921–931.
4.09 [2] S.J. Mohan, S. Rahima Shabeen, G.M. Samuel Knight, Behaviour of cold formed lipped
1.44 angles in transmission line towers, Thin-Walled Struct. 44 (2006) 1017–1030.
5.89 [3] B. Young, J. Chen, Column tests of cold-formed steel non-symmetric lipped angle
sections, J. Constr. Steel Res. 64 (2008) 808–815.
[4] B. Young, E. Ellobody, Design of cold-formed steel unequal angle compression
members, Thin-Walled Struct. 45 (2007) 330–338.
[5] AISI-S100-16, North American Specification for the Design of Cold-formed Steel
Structural Members, American Iron and Steel Institute, 2016.
[6] M. Zeynalian, A. Shelley, H.R. Ronagh, An experimental study into the capacity of
cold-formed steel truss connections, J. Constr. Steel Res. 127 (2016) 176–186.
[7] D.J. Koen, Structural Capacity of Light Gauge Steel Storage Rack Uprights (Thesis
presented for the degree of Master of Engineering) School of Civil Engineering,
The University of Sydney, 2008.
[8] P. Manikandan, N. Arun, Numerical investigation on cold-formed steel lipped chan-
nel columns with intermediate web stiffeners, J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A 97 (2016) 1–7.
[9] J. Szafran, K. Rykaluk, A full-scale experiment of a lattice telecommunication tower
under breaking load, J. Constr. Steel Res. 120 (2016) 160–175.
[10] Y. Zhuge, J.E. Mills, X. Ma, Modelling of steel lattice tower angle legs reinforced for
increased load capacity, Eng. Struct. 43 (2012) 160–168.
[11] IR457, Iranian Standard of Steel & Concrete Structures of Electric Power Substation:
Design Load and Load Combinations, Iranian Ministry of Energy, 2006.
[12] ASTM-E2126-07, Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed) Load Test for Shear
Resistance of Walls for Buildings, 2007 (USA).
[13] LabVIEW, Lab VIEW Signal Express, National Instruments Corporation, Austin,
Texas, 2007.
[14] ASTM-E564-12, Standard Practice for Static Load Test for Shear Resistance of Framed
Walls for Buildings, 2012 (West Conshohocken (PA)).
[15] ANSYS-Inc., ANSYS 12.0.1 - User's Manual, 2009.
[16] ASTM-A653/A653M-09, Standard Specification for Steel Sheet, Zinc-coated
(Galvanized) or Zinc-Iron Alloy-coated (Galvannealed) by the Hot-dip Process,
2009 (USA).
[17] B. Schafer, T. Peköz, Computational modeling of cold-formed steel: characterizing
geometric imperfections and residual stresses, J. Constr. Steel Res. 47 (1998)
193–210.
[18] IR454, General Technical Specification and Execution Procedures for Transmission
and Subtransmission Networks - High Voltage Substations Structures, Iranian
Ministry of Energy, 2009 77.
[19] FEMA-450, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and Other Structures - Part 1 Provisions, Building Seismic Safety Council,
USA, 2003.
[20] FEMA-356, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings, Building Seismic Safety Council, USA, 2000.
[21] N. Newmark, W. Hall, Earthquake Spectra and Design, Earthquake Engineering
Research Inst., Berkeley, CA, 1982.
[22] FEMA-451, NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples, Building Seismic
Safety Council, USA, 2006.
[23] M. Zeynalian, Numerical study on seismic performance of cold formed steel
sheathed shear walls, Adv. Struct. Eng. 18 (2015) 1819–1829.
[24] M. Zeynalian, H. Ronagh, Experimental study on seismic performance of strap-
braced cold-formed steel shear walls, Adv. Struct. Eng. 16 (2013) 245–257.
[25] M. Zeynalian, H.R. Ronagh, A numerical study on seismic performance of strap-
braced cold-formed steel shear walls, Thin-Walled Struct. 60 (2012) 229–238.
[26] M. Zeynalian, H.R. Ronagh, A numerical study on seismic characteristics of knee-
braced cold formed steel shear walls, Thin-Walled Struct. 49 (2011) 1517–1525.
[27] AISI-S213-2007-C, Commentary on North American Standard for Cold-formed Steel
Framing – Lateral Design. 2007 Edition With Supplement No. 1, 2009.
[28] AS/NZS4600, Cold-formed Steel Structures, Standards Australia, 2005.