Design and Assessment of Cold-Formed Steel Shear Wall Systems Located in Moderate-to-High Seismicity Regions

Abstract:

This paper presents a numerical simulation aimed at analysing the seismic performance of low- and mid-rise cold-formed steel (CFS) framed buildings, employing wood-sheathed shear wall panels (SWPs), designed according to a seismic design procedure compatible with the framework of the Eurocodes. To simulate their nonlinear behaviour, the structures were modelled adopting a recently developed deteriorating hysteresis model. In order to study the seismic performance and determine the seismic performance factors, Incremental Dynamic Analysis of 54 archetype buildings was performed in OpenSees. The seismic performance assessment was evaluated according to the methodology defined in FEMA P695. The results indicate that a behaviour factor q equal to 2 is appropriate for CFS framed structures using wood-sheathed SWPs lateral load resisting system designed for low and moderate seismicity regions. Further, the probabilistic seismic risk assessment of the studied frames, is presented. The importance and usefulness of the risk metrics are highlighted and adopted as an indicator to explore the behavioural features of the CFS-SWP structural system. Overall, the assessment procedure showed an acceptable seismic performance and therefore the CFS-SWP can be seen as a reliable structural solution to achieve performance-based objectives even in moderate-to-high seismicity regions.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volume 763)
• Pages: 645-652
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.763.645
• Online since: February 2018
• Authors: Smail Kechidi*, Luís Macedo, José Miguel Castro, Nouredine Bourahla
• Keywords: Cold-Formed Steel Shear Wall, FEMA P695, Seismic Design, Seismic Performance Factors, Seismic Risk

References

[1] EN 1998-1, Eurocode 8, Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, CEN (2005).

DOI: 10.3403/03244372

[2] I. Shamim, C.A. Rogers, Numerical evaluation: AISI S400 steel-sheathed CFS framed shear wall seismic design method, Thin-Walled Struct. 95 (2015) 48–59.

DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2015.06.011

[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency, Quantification of building seismic performance factors FEMA P695, Washington, (2009).

[4] L. Fiorino, S. Shakeel, V. Macillo, R. Landolfo, Behaviour factor (q) evaluation the CFS braced structures according to FEMA P695, J. Constr. Steel Res. 138 (2017) 324–339.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.07.014

[5] PEER. OpenSees: Open system for earthquake engineering simulation, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California, (2006).

[6] C.A. Cornell, F. Jalayer, R.O. Hamburger, D.A. Foutch, Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency steel moment frame guidelines, J. Structural Engineering. 128(4) (2002) 526-533.

DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526)

[7] D. Vamvatsikos, Accurate application and Second-Order improvement of SAC/FEMA probabilistic formats for seismic performance assessment, J. Structural Engineering. 140(2) (2014).

DOI: 10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0000774

[8] EN 1993-1-3, Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures, Part 1. 3: general rules for cold formed thin gauge members and sheeting, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, CEN (2007).

DOI: 10.3403/02338401

[9] AISI-S100. North American specification for the design of cold-formed steel structural members, American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, (2016).

[10] S. Kechidi, N. Bourahla, J.M. Castro, Seismic design procedure for cold-formed steel shear wall frames: Proposal and evaluation, J. Constructional Steel Research. 128 (2017) 219-232.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.08.018

[11] S. Kechidi, N. Bourahla, Deteriorating hysteresis model for cold-formed steel shear wall panel based on its physical and mechanical characteristics, Thin-Walled Structures. 98(Part B) (2016) 421-430.

DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2015.09.022

[12] A.E. Branston, C.Y. Chen, F.A. Boudreault, C.A. Rogers, Testing of light-gauge steel frame wood structural panel shear walls, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 33(9) (2006) 561-572.

DOI: 10.1139/l06-014

[13] D. Vamvatsikos, C.A. Cornell, Incremental dynamic analysis, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 31(3) (2002) 491-514.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe.141

[14] J.M. Martinez, Seismic performance assessment of multi-storey buildings with cold formed steel shear wall systems (PhD thesis), University of Waterloo, Ontario, (2007).

[15] L. Fiorino, O. Iuorio, V. Macillo, R. Landolfo, Performance-based design of sheathed CFS buildings in seismic area, Thin-Walled Structures. 61 (2012) 248-257.

DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2012.03.022

[16] J.W. Baker, Conditional Mean Spectrum: Tool for Ground-Motion Selection, J. Structural Engineering. 137(3) (2011) 322-331.

DOI: 10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0000215

[17] P.E. Pinto, P. Franchin, Existing buildings: the new Italian provisions for probabilistic seismic assessment, Perspectives on European Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering. 34 (2014) 97-130.

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-07118-3_3

[18] S. Kechidi, L. Macedo, J.M. Castro, N. Bourahla, Seismic risk assessment of cold-formed steel shear wall systems, Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 138 (2017) 565-579.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.08.011

[19] J.W. Baker, Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis, Earthquake Spectra. 31(1) (2015) 579-599.

DOI: 10.1193/021113eqs025m

[20] B.A. Bradley, The seismic demand hazard and importance of the conditioning intensity measure, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics. 41(11) (2012) 1417-1437.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2221

[21] M. Marques, L. Macedo, M. Araújo, L. Martins, J.M. Castro, L. Sousa, V. Silva, R. Delgado, Influence of Record Selection Procedures on Seismic Loss Estimations, Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk. (2014) 1756-1766.

DOI: 10.1061/9780784413609.176