You are on page 1of 6

SEMI-EMPIRICAL METHOD TO PREDICT THE

DISPLACEMENT CAPACITY AND RESISTANCE OF COLD-


FORMED STEEL FRAME WOOD-PANEL SHEAR WALLS


Seyed Ali Moayed Alaee
1
, Timothy Sullivan
2
, Colin A. Rogers
3
, Roberto
Nascimbene
4






ABSTRACT: The cold-formed steel frame / wood panel shear wall system is a relatively new construction method,
rooted from light wood framing concepts. Tests have shown that the seismic behaviour of these shear walls depends on
their configuration and components. To date, design methods have largely been developed using a force based
philosophy which relies on full-scale cyclic experimental tests. Conducting full-scale tests for various wall
configurations is expensive and the experimental tests conducted so far have been respectively very limited. This study
focuses on predicting the behaviour of cold-formed steel frame / wood panel walls using a semi-empirical method based
on data obtained from fastener connection experimental tests. The semi-empirical model is applied to a series of shear
walls with different aspect ratios and fastener schedule. It is shown that the predicted wall displacement and resistance
agrees well with experimental test results. A brief discussion is also provided on how this simplified method for the
prediction of the wall response can be utilised within a direct displacement-based seismic design procedure.
KEYWORDS: Cold-formed steel, Wood-panel, Shear wall, Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design



1 INTRODUCTION
123

Over the past decades, cold-formed steel frame / wood-
panel (CFSFWP) systems (Figure 1) have seen increased
usage as the structural framing elements for low-rise
buildings due to their competitiveness in relation to
conventional construction systems and the increased
design and construction flexibility they offer. The walls
in such systems have the primary functions of carrying
vertical and lateral loads. They are composed of cold-
formed steel profiles (studs and tracks) and wood based
panels, such as Oriented Strand Board, OSB, and
Plywood, which are connected to the steel frame by
fasteners (usually screws).
Current seismic design procedures for CFSFWP shear
walls [1,2] rely on force-based methods and on relatively
few results of full scale tests on walls with different

1
Seyed Ali Moayed Alaee, ROSE School, IUSS, Via Ferrata,
1, 27100, Pavia, Italy: a_m_alaee@email.com
2
Timothy Sullivan, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil
Engineering and Architecture, University of Pavia, Via Ferrata
1, 27100, Pavia, Italy. Email: timothy.sullivan@unipv.it
3
Colin A. Rogers, Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Eng. &
Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Canada. Email:
colin.rogers@mcgill.ca
4
Roberto Nascimbene, EUCENTRE, Via Ferrata, 1, 27100,
Pavia, Italy. Email: Roberto.nascimbene@eucentre.it

Figure 1: Cold-formed steel-frame/wood-panel shear wall
(NASFA, 2000 [3])
details. The tests undertaken have illustrated that the
seismic behaviour of these shear walls depends on
several factors such as the panel thickness, type and
properties, the fastener spacing and the steel properties
[4-9]. The panels that have been used in most of the tests
to date are specific to the North American market and
were constructed of wood species that may not be
available in other countries. Therefore, the validity of
using specific experimental results for countries where
the wall systems are realised with different wood panel
types, for instance, is questionable. Costly full-scale
shear wall experimental campaigns could be deemed
necessary in every country wishing to utilise this framing
system. The use of analytical models in place of wall
tests in the development of design provisions could
reduce the number of full-scale tests needed to evaluate
wall behaviour when new panel types or wall
configurations are being considered.
In this study a number of key points that characterise the
force-displacement response of CFSFWP wall systems
were identified using the results of wood panel to steel
frame fastener connection tests, without needing to
undertake costly tests of whole wall specimens. To do
this, a semi-empirical method that relies on the
connection data is presented for CFSFWP walls and
predictions of their force-displacement response are
provided. The validity of the model is illustrated by
comparing the predictions with experimental shear wall
results obtained from the literature.

2 CYCLIC BEHAVIOUR OF CFSFWP
SHEAR WALLS
Past tests [4-9] showed that the overall behaviour of a
steel-frame wood-panel shear wall can be considered
to be a function of the connection performance if other
structural components are protected with proper design.
As such, the hold-downs, hold-down anchors, shear
anchors, tracks, field fasteners and the steel-to-steel
framing connections rarely suffer any type of permanent
damage.
A nonlinear resistance vs. deflection behaviour and a
substantial amount of pinching in the resulting hysteresis
graphs is typically observed for reversed cyclic tests.
This behaviour is attributed to the permanent bearing
pull-through type damage to the wood sheathing at the
connection locations. The ability of the screws to tilt
back and forth in the thin steel framing is considered as
the main reason why only limited damage occurs in the
fasteners themselves and in the steel frame.
The height to length aspect ratio is the next important
factor governing the behaviour of these walls. The
maximum shear capacity of walls ranging in length from
1220 mm to 2440 mm is developed at similar lateral
displacement levels, while the 610 mm long walls
require significantly larger displacements prior to
reaching their ultimate shear resistance. The shear
strength appreciably decreases when the aspect ratio
increases from 2 to 4.
The fastener spacing plays an important role where
installing the sheathing screws at closer distances
significantly increases the shear strength, and stiffness
both in monotonic and cyclic loading. Another important
observation is that the wall framing deforms into a
parallelogram and the deformation of the wood panels is
mainly due to a rigid body rotation. Negligible shear
deformation of the wood panels has been observed to
occur.
The dissipated energy significantly increases with the
displacement up until the peak load. After this point, the
dissipated energy remains relatively unchanged for
higher displacements up until the onset of failure. The
energy dissipation is approximately proportional to the
number of perimeter screws, with the exception of walls
which fail by local buckling of the compression chord
rather than by bearing tilting pullout of the sheathing
connections. At each displacement level, the dissipated
energy decreases in subsequent loops to the same peak
displacement, reflecting some strength and stiffness
degradation caused by cyclic loading.
It is observed that prior to ultimate failure, the wall
specimens can sustain large inelastic deformation cycles
with limited strength degradation. However, it is
important to preclude failure of chord studs as an
unfavourable failure mode because, in many situations,
in addition to resisting a lateral load the wall also
supports gravity loads. Therefore, in the cases in which
dense fasteners schedules are required, thicker back-to-
back coupled end studs for the walls should be used to
allow the shear strength of the panel-to-frame
connections to be fully developed. Moreover, a
limitation should be respected for some parameters such
as steel thickness. For instance, 4.2 mm screws should be
limited to 1.09 mm thick framing since the desirable
behaviour (local bearing failure of the wood at the
connections) of the screws may change to a brittle failure
mode of fracture in shear when 1.37 mm thick frames
are used.
Okasha and Rogers conducted tests on fastener
connections of CFSFWP walls [9] and concluded that
the sheathing type had a significant effect on the
connection strength and energy dissipation. It was
observed that the connection strength and displacement
capacity increased with increasing panel thickness and
that the connections with higher edge distance provided
higher strength and ductility. They concluded that the
connections with edge distances less than 12.5 mm
suffer from significant degradation in strength and
energy dissipation due to the change in failure mode
from bearing to edge tear out.

3 THE SEMI-EMPIRICAL 3-POINT
FORCE -DISPLACEMENT CURVE
Different analytical models have been developed to
predict the behaviour of the light wood framed shear
walls based on the results of fastener connection tests
[10-13]. Also to a more limited extent there are
analytical models proposed for CFSFWP shear walls [1,
2, 13]. In these analytical models the shear modulus of
the sheathing panel, G, should be known a priori by
conducting tests. Since the expressions were established
based on the full-scale tests of a selected number of
sheathing types, for other types of plywood or OSB
adjustments to the coefficients based on material tests
may be necessary.
This study aims to provide a simple method to predict
the yield displacement and the post elastic performance
of CFSFWP shear walls constructed using the platform
framing technique, including the deformation at the
maximum lateral resistance.
It is necessary that the analytical model account for the
most important factors that define the seismic behaviour
of CFSFWP shear walls, i.e. the aspect ratio, the fastener
spacing and the sheathing characteristics (type, thickness
& material properties), as well as the less influential
parameters including the screw size, the steel thickness
and the steel grade.
Many of the assumptions made by McCutcheon [10] for
wood framed walls can be considered appropriate for the
deformed frame in a CFSFWP shear wall. Some of the
important assumptions made in the considered wall
distortion model (Figure 2) and in determining the wall
resistances are noted below.
- The frame becomes a parallelogram while the shape of
the sheathing panel remains unchanged. The panel will,
rotate in its own plane. The studs and tracks retain their
section shape and straightness at least until reaching the
peak resistance of the wall, (Post peak behaviour of the
walls is not addressed in the proposed model).
- The load-deflection curve is nonlinear for a single
screw.
- The shear wall is assumed to be designed and
constructed on a good engineering basis. As such, the
wall is anchored to the supporting structure. No
significant slip and rotation in the bottom track or
significant uplift of the chords is expected.
- The contribution of the bending of the panel and panel
shear deformation to the wall total deformation may be
neglected (as opposed to McCutcheon (1985)
assumption [10] for reasons explained in Moayed Alaee
et al. [14]).
- The hysteretic energy is principally provided by the
distortion of the sheathing screw connections.
- The sheathing-to-frame connections have the same
capacity and stiffness in all in-plane directions (for
reasons explained in Moayed Alaee et al. [14]).
- The screws are spaced symmetrically and the panel is
parallel to the frame.
- The lower corner fastener at the compression side of
the panel distorts along the line of the sheathings
diagonal and both lower corner fasteners have the same
relative displacements (Figure 2).
A comprehensive discussion of the above assumptions is
provided in the thesis by Moayed Alaee [14].
By considering the above assumptions and distortion
model, Equation (1) is proposed for predicting the wall
displacement at the desired limit state, LS:
(1)
where
w
is the in-plane lateral displacement of the wall
at the desired limit state, D is the diagonal length of the
sheathing panel, B and H are the width and height of the
sheathing panel, respectively,
t
is the relative
displacement of the lower corner screws in the panel at
the desired limit state and is a correction factor
calibrated, using the existing tests [4-9], to take into
account the effect of the dense fastener schedule (Table
1). By using Equation (1) the lateral displacement of the
wall (
w
) is related to the relative displacement between
the frame and the panel at the lower corner of the wall
(
t
).
The displacements corresponding to important limit
states, which are later used as pivot points to form the
predicted force-deflection curve of the wall, are
identified in the following sections.



Figure 2: Distorted shape of the frame and the sheathing
of the shear wall
Table 1: Correction factor, , for fastener schedule

Fastener
schedule
Plywood OSB
150 mm 1 1
100 mm 1.1 1.05
75 mm 1.15 1.1
50 mm 1.15 1.15

3.1 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE, ULS
It is assumed that the wall reaches its maximum strength
when the corner fastener fails. Failure of a single
fastener connection is defined as the point where the
resistance of the fastener connection drops to 2/3 of the
peak resistance, i.e. 0.67f
u
, where f
u
is the maximum
resistance of the fastener connection obtained from
relevant experimental fastener connection cyclic test data
(as shown, for example, in Figure 3).
The wall displacement corresponding to the maximum
lateral resistance of the wall is considered here as the
wall displacement for the ultimate limit state (ULS),

w,uls
.
For a force-displacement curve obtained from a fastener
experimental test,
t,uls
is defined as the displacement
corresponding to failure of the connection.
t,uls
should
be obtained from the average of the envelopes of the
negative and positive quadrants of the cyclic force-
displacement test curve of the sheathing-to-framing
fastener connection.
Therefore, the displacement corresponding to the
maximum strength of the wall, which is also considered
to be the displacement of the wall at the ULS, can be
estimated from Equation (1) as:
(2)

3.2 DAMAGE LIMITATION LIMIT STATE, DL
LS:
Displacement at the wall corner fastener,
t
, for the
damage limitation (DL) limit state (LS),
t,DL,
is defined
here as the displacement corresponding to maximum
strength of the single fastener connection, f
u
, that should
be obtained from the average of the peak force envelope
from the positive and negative quadrants of the force-
displacement curve obtained from cyclic test of a
fastener connection. As such, the wall displacement at
the DL LS is determined from Equation (1) as:
(3)


Figure 3: Envelope of load-displacement curve cyclic test
no. 38, Okasha [9]

3.3 THE WALL (INITIAL) YIELD
DISPLACEMENT:
Unlike steel structures, a precise yield point is not
distinguishable in CFSFWP shear wall systems.
However, it is important to have a consistent method of
defining the yield point of the walls for seismic design
since most seismic design methodologies require
estimates of ductility demand to relate elastic spectral
ordinates to inelastic response.
The point in which a major decline in stiffness is
observed in a load-displacement curve of CFSFWP shear
walls is considered as the (initial) yield point here. It will
be the first pivot point, out of three pivots, that define the
tri-linear load-displacement curve of the wall.
To obtain this point it is assumed that the displacement,

t
, of the corner fastener is equal to the yield
displacement of the idealized bilinear load-displacement
curve of the sheathing fastener connection tests,
ty
, that
is obtained based on EEEP method, which approximates
the nonlinear load-displacement curve of the connection
by an idealised bilinear equivalent energy elastic-plastic
(EEEP) curve [13]. This fastener yield displacement is
then inserted into Equation (1) to determine the yield
displacement of the wall,
w,y
.
(4)

3.4 Predicting the wall resistance at the limit states
By knowing the wall displacement at each limit state
from Equation (1) the geometrical parameters of the
distorted wall demonstrated in Figure 2 can be
determined and then the relative displacement between
the panel and the frame for each screw of the wall is
determined as shown in Equation (5).
(5)
From the load-displacement curve of the relevant
fastener experimental test the connection forces can also
be found. Subsequently, an energy approach is used to
determine the wall resistance corresponding to the wall
drift of
w
as explained next.
The envelope curve of the force-displacement hysteresis
loops of a sheathing-to-framing fastener connection
cyclic test is linearized into 4 or 5 lines (as deemed
necessary to obtain a good fit of the hysteresis loops
envelope) and the average area of this linearized
envelope curve in both the positive and negative
quadrants should be considered as the energy absorbed
by the single fastener, I
s
which is determined from
Equation (6):
. (6)
F, the wall resistance at wall displacement of
w
is then
determined from Equation (7):
(7)
where n is the number of the screws in the wall, N is
number of panels in the shear wall,
s_i
is the
displacement in the i
th
screw, calculated from Equation
(5), and F
s
is the force at displacement s, determined
from the force-displacement curve of the fastener
connection test. The internal work is determined from
the numerical integration of the average of positive and
negative quadrants area of force-displacement curve of
all of the screws.

4 PERFORMANCE OF THE PROPOSED
METHOD
The three points defined in the previous section for the
wall displacement at yield, the displacement at the
damage limitation state and the displacement at the
ultimate limit state are considered as pivot points that
can be used to predict the load-displacement curve of a
shear wall. This section compares values predicted by
the simplified approach described in the previous
section, with values obtained from experimental data.
Table 2 compares the ratio of values predicted by the
proposed model and the displacement and resistances
obtained from experimental test data (obtained from
various sources cited at the foot of the table).

Table 2: Ratio of the predicted parameter by the model
to the corresponding experimental tests results
Test
Disp. Ratio
At Wall
Peak
Resistance
Wall
resistance
Ratio
DL LS
Wall
resistance
Ratio
ULS
4 M* 0.89 0.99 0.92
8 M* 0.90 0.99 0.94
10 M* 0.97 0.97 0.80
16 M* 0.99 1.00 0.94
20 M* 0.95 0.97 0.94
22 M* 0.96 0.93 0.96
24 M* 1.13 0.87 0.94
26 M* 1.17 0.86 0.89
28 M* 0.97 0.87 0.83
30 M* 0.88 0.97 0.85
32 M* 0.93 0.94 0.79
34 M* 0.88 0.87 0.73
1 F* 1.02 0.91 0.99
14 C* 1.13 0.84 0.84
16 C* 1.09 1.10 1.00
17 C* 1.20 1.00 0.98
19 C* 1.08 1.21 1.04
A1&A2 S* 0.80 0.92 0.76
A3&A4 S* 0.82 1.16 0.94
A5&A6 S* 1.00 0.98 0.87
A7&A8 S* 0.76 1.21 0.88
B1&B2 S* 0.91 0.85 0.78
OSBI FD* 1.22 0.90 0.87
Average 0.98 0.96 0.88
STD. DEV. 0.13 0.12 0.08
M*: Tests carried out at McGill University by Branston, Boudreault,
Chen, Rogers, [4] F*: Tests carried out by Fiorino et al., [7] C*:
CoLA/UCI Tests, [5] S* Tests carried out by Serrette et al., [8] FD*:
Tests carried out by Fulop and Dubina [6].

The results presented in Table 2 indicate that the
proposed analytical model predicts the experimentally
observed forces and displacements well. In making
comparisons with experimental data, care was taken to
ensure that the experimental fastener connection test that
has similar characteristics of the wall used in full-scale
test, in terms of panel type and thickness, screw type and
size, edge distance, etc. More discussion of this point can
be found in Moayed Alaee et al. [14]. In Table 2, the
higher deviation of the ratios for the tests carried out by
Serrette et al. [8] and Fulop et al. [6] can be attributed to
the fact that there were some differences for sheathing
type and test protocol between the fastener test used for
the model and the actual full-scale test, due to the limited
number of existing fastener connection tests for
CFSFWP walls.
Figure 4 compares the experimental test results of test
no. 8, carried out in McGill University, with the
predicted tri-linear load-displacement curve, developed
using Okasha no. 38 fastener connection test data. The
test characteristics of the full-scale and fastener test were
similar. In both tests the CSP plywood is 12.5mm thick
and the steel is of grade 230 having 1.1mm thickness.


Figure 2: Superimposed experimental test result (McGill
University test no. 8) and predicted tri-linear load-
deflection curve

From the results presented above, and further presented
in Moayed Alaee [14] it can be seen that this method can
successfully predict not only the force and displacements
at pivot points but also the post yield behaviour of the
shear walls up to their peak resistance.

5 POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS FOR
DISPLACEMENT-BASED SEISMIC
DESIGN
For what regards seismic design, the importance of
deformation, rather than strength, in assessing seismic
performance is apparent. As argued by Priestley et al.
[15] if the design objective is to control the damage
under a given level of seismic attack, it would be more
reasonable to design the structures to meet a desired
displacement under the design seismic intensity, and this
has motivated the development of the Direct
Displacement-Based Design approach (DDBD) [15].
To develop the DDBD procedure for cold-formed steel-
frame / wood-panel shear wall structures, three important
parameters are needed: (i) a means of determining the
displacement corresponding to important limit states for
different wall configurations; (ii) expressions for the
equivalent viscous damping, EVD, of CFSFWP shear
walls and (iii) expressions for the design displacement
profile and general design procedure for CFSFWP shear
wall systems. In this work, significant progress has been
made towards satisfaction of the first of these tasks.
In particular, note that within the DDBD procedure the
design displacement,
d
, for the performance level under
consideration, can usually be based either on code-
specific drift limits or material strain limits. In a
structure composed of CFSFWP shear walls, due to the
very complicated response at the level of sheathing-to-
frame fastener connections, it is not easy to define a
material strain limit. However, as it was proposed here, it
is possible to estimate important drift limits of the walls
and the yield displacement,
y
, using the relative
displacement between the frame and the sheathing-to-
frame corner fasteners and the associated fastener
connection test load-displacement data and consequently
determine the design displacement.
Semi-Empirical Model
6 CONCLUSIONS
A simple analytical approach has been proposed for the
prediction of the displacements corresponding to
important limit states of CFSFWP shear walls. The
proposed approach uses sheathing-to-framing fastener
connection test results and relates the wall displacement
to the displacement of the corner fastener connection.
The analytical procedure has been developed to predict
critical pivot points of the CFSFWP wall force-
displacement curve, using cyclic tests on corresponding
sheathing-to-framing screw connections. The critical
points were taken to be the yield, damage limitation and
ultimate limit state of the shear walls. The wall yield
displacement is assumed to correspond to the
displacement at which the corner connection yields,
obtained using an Equivalent Energy Elastic Plastic
(EEEP) bilinear representation of the load-displacement
curve of the fasteners. The displacement when the
maximum resistance of the fastener is reached was taken
as the fastener pivot displacement for determining the
displacement at the damage limitation state of the walls.
The displacement when the fastener resistance falls to
2/3 of the peak value was considered as the pivot
displacement corresponding to the displacement at the
wall peak resistance. These pivot points were used to
predict the tri-linear idealized load-displacement curve
of the wall. Good agreement was observed between the
experimentally obtained displacements at the peak
resistance of CFSFWP walls and the displacements
predicted by the proposed method. Based on an energy
approach the resistance of the wall corresponding to each
limit state was obtained and predictions were found to
correlate well with experimental results.
The proposed method for the calculation of critical force
and displacement points can be used to determine the
behaviour of shear walls with different configurations,
i.e. aspect ratio and fastener spacing, and even other less
influential aspects such as steel thickness and grade,
because the effect of these aspects on displacement
capacity and resistance of the wall is reflected in the
fastener connection tests. A benefit of this approach is
that the need for extensive full scale shear wall
experiments can be significantly reduced. Conducting
fastener connection tests is much less expensive;
furthermore it is possible to use existing fastener test
results.
In closing, it is considered that the presented method
could be very useful for the Direct Displacement Based
design of CFSFWP shear walls by offering a means of
determining the displacement corresponding to
important limit states for different wall configurations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to express their appreciation to
Prof. Pardoen and Dr. Fiorino for providing the needed
experimental data.

REFERENCES
[1] American Iron and Steel Institute: AISI S213-07,
North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel
Framing Lateral Design, Washington, DC, USA,
2007.
[2] Fiorino, L., Della Corte, G., Landolfo, R.: Seismic
response of steel frame/panel shear walls: Modelling
based on screw connection tests. In: Proceedings of
the 5th international conference on behaviour of
steel structures in seismic areas, 503510, 2006.
[3] NASFA: Prescriptive Method For Residential Cold-
Formed Steel Framing, North American Steel
Framing Alliance, Lexington, KY, USA, 2000
[4] Branston A.E., Chen C.Y., Boudreault F.A., Rogers
C.A.: Testing of light-gauge steel-frame wood
structural panel shear walls, Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineerin,g, 33: 561-572, 2006.
[5] CoLA-UCI: Report of a Testing Program of Light-
Framed Walls with Wood-Sheathed Shear Panels,
Report to the City of Los Angeles Department of
Building and Safety, University of California,
Irvine, CA, USA, 2001.
[6] Flp, L.A., Dubina, D.: Performance of shear wall
systems in seismic resistant steel buildings, Part I:
Experimental results for wall panels, Thin-Walled
Structures, Elsevier Science Ltd., 2003.
[7] Landolfo, R., Fiorino, L., Della Corte, G.: Seismic
behaviour of sheathed cold formed structures:
Physical tests, Journal of Structural Engineering
ASCE, 132 (4): 57081, 2006
[8] Serrette, R., Encalada, J., Matchen, B., Nguyen, H.,
Williams, A.: Additional shear wall values for light
weight steel framing, Report No.LGSRG-1-97,
Light Gauge Steel Res. Group, Dep. of Civ. Eng.,
SantaClara University. Santa Clara, CA, USA, 1997.
[9] Okasha, A.: Evaluation of Connection Performance
for Steel Frame / Wood Panel Shear Walls, M.Eng.
Project Report, Department of Civil Engineering
and Applied Mechanics, McGill University,
Montreal, QC, Canada, 2004.
[10] McCutcheon, W. J:, Racking deformations in wood
shear walls, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, 111 (2): 257269, 1985.
[11] Folz, B., Filiatrault, A.:. CASHEW Version 1.1 A
Computer Program for Cyclic Analysis of Wood
Shear Walls, CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Proj.
Rep. No. W-08, CUREE, Richmond, CA,2001.
[12] Salenikovich, A.J.: The Racking Performance of
Light-Frame Shear Walls", PhD. Dissertation., Dep.
of Wood Science and Forest Products, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia, USA, 2000.
[13] Chen, C.Y.: Testing and Performance of Steel
Frame / Wood Panel Shear Walls, Masters Thesis,
Dep. of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics,
McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2004.
[14] Moayed Alaee, S.A.: Direct Displacement Based
Seismic Design of Cold-Formed Steel Frame-Wood
Panel Structures, Ph.D. dissertation, Institute for
Advanced Study of Pavia- IUSS, ROSE School,
Pavia, Italy, 2011.
[15] Priestley, M.J.N, Calvi G.M., Kowalsky M.J.:
Displacement-based seismic design of structures
IUSS PRESS, Pavia, Italy, 2007.

You might also like