You are on page 1of 84

LATERAL LOAD BEHAVIOR OF COLD-FORMED STEEL WALL PANELS

A MASTER’S THESIS
in
Civil Engineering
Atilim University

by
HÜSEYİN ÇAĞATAY ALICA
MARCH 2013

i

LATERAL LOAD BEHAVIOR OF COLD-FORMED STEEL WALL PANELS

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
OF
ATILIM UNIVERSITY
BY
HÜSEYİN ÇAĞATAY ALICA

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
MARCH 2013

ii

Approval of the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Atilim University.

_____________________
Prof. Dr. İbrahim Akman
Director
I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master
of Science.

_____________________
Prof. Dr. Ali Günyaktı
Head of Department
This is to certify that we have read the thesis “Lateral Load Behavior of ColdFormed
Steel Wall Panels” submitted by Hüseyin Çağatay Alıca and that in our opinion it is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.

_____________________

_____________________

(Title and Name)

Assist. Prof. Dr. Eray Baran

Co-Supervisor

Supervisor

Examining Committee Members
Assist. Prof. Dr. Eray Baran

_____________________

Assist. Prof. Dr. Burcu Güneş

_____________________ Assist.

Prof. Dr. Oğuz Güneş

_____________________

i

Date: 19/03/2013 I declare and guarantee that all data. knowledge and information in this document has been obtained. Based on these rules and conduct. I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Hüseyin Çağatay Alıca ii . processed and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct.

existence of diagonal struts and double-sided sheathing was also investigated. Wall panels were sheathed with oriented strand board (OSB). Eray Baran March 2013. Civil Engineering Department Supervisor: Assist. 68 pages In this thesis. Using the information obtained from load tests..ABSTRACT LATERAL LOAD BEHAVIOR OF COLD-FORMED STEEL WALL PANELS Alıca. For this purpose full-scale CFS wall panel specimens were tested experimentally. fibercement and betopan panels. the lateral behavior of the wall panels was studied and the differences and similarities in the response of these panels were investigated. Influence of additional parameters. CFS section size. screw spacing. Dr. such as sheathing panel thickness. Measured load capacity of wall panels were also compared with numerically predicted values. Experimental part of the study included monotonic lateral load testing of twenty one CFS wall panels. lateral load behavior of cold-formed steel (CFS) wall panels was investigated. In most of the specimens tested in iii .S. Response of wall panels under lateral loading was determined to be directly related with the behavior of the hold-down attachment used at the base of panels. Hüseyin Çağatay M. Prof.

Dr. İnşaat Mühendisliği Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Yrd. Çalışma kapsamında incelenen diğer parametreler. Duvar paneli numunelerinin davranışının büyük ölçüde. Eray Baran Mart 2013. Between the cases of 15 cm and 30 cm screw spacing. Hüseyin Çağatay Yüksek Lisans. kaplama panelinin kalınlığı. panel içerisinde çaprazların bulunup bulunmayışı ve panellerde çift veya tek taraflı kaplama bulunmasıdır. Çalışmanın deneysel kısmında 21 adet hafif çelik duvar paneli üzerinde monotonik yükleme deneyleri yapılmıştır. the strength and stiffness of the hold-down attachment prevented the wall panels to reach the expected strength and stiffness levels. Keywords: Cold-formed steel. Among the parameters investigated in this study the one that had the most significant effect on the behavior of wall panels was the screw spacing used at exterior framing members. Çalışma kapsamında test edilen numunelerin çoğunluğunda çekme ankraj aparatında oluşan hasardan dolayı duvar panelleri iv . 68 sayfa Bu çalışmada hafif çelik profillerden hazırlanan duvar panellerinin yatay yük etkisi altındaki davranışı incelenmiştir. hafif çelik profil boyutu. vida aralığı. bu parametreler altında duvar panellerinin davranışındaki benzerlik ve farklılıklar incelenmiştir. Yükleme deneylerinden elde edilen bilgilerle. load testing ÖZ HAFİF ÇELİK DUVAR PANELLERİNİN YATAY YÜK ALTINDA DAVRANIŞI Alıca. Hafif çelik panellerin kaplaması için OSB. wall panel. fibercement ve betopan paneller kullanılmıştır. çekme ankraj aparatının davranışı tarafından belirlendiği ortaya çıkmıştır. the increase in load capacity of wall panels was between 37% and 85% depending on the type and thickness of sheathing panel. Duvar panellerinin ölçülmüş olan yük kapasiteleri sayısal olarak tahmin edilen kapasitelerle de karşılaştırılmıştır. Doç. Bu amaçla hazırlanan duvar paneli numuneleri üzerinde statik yükleme deneyleri yapılmıştır.this study.

duvar panellerinin yük kapasitesinde %37 ile %85 arasında artış olmuştur. yükleme deneyi To My Parents v . duvar panellerinin davranışı üzerinde en büyük etkiye sahip parametrenin kaplama paneli ile dış hafif çelik profiller arasında kullanılan vidaların aralığı olduğu belirlenmiştir.ulaşmaları gereken yük kapasitesi ve rijitlik seviyelerine ulaşamamışlardır. Anahtar kelimeler: Hafif çelik yapılar. kaplama çeşidi ve kalınlığına bağlı olarak. duvar paneli. Çalışmada incelenen parametrelerden. Vida aralığının 30 cm yerine 15 cm kullanılması durumunda.

Prof. I would like to thank for their assistance and friendship. This thesis would not have been possible without his support. Thanks also go to my company “Bade Celik Yapilar” for supporting my Master of Science study. Dr. Finally I would like to thank my family for their endless love. Structural Mechanics Laboratory personnel and fellow graduate student Metin Kurtoglu helped me during the laboratory tests with patience. faith and support.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I express sincere appreciation to my supervisor Assist. vi . I would like to thank my professors in Civil Engineering Department at Atilim University. Eray Baran for his guidance and insight throughout the research.

......33 CHAPTER 4..........................................16 3.........................................................................20 3.............13 3....................................................................................................... 1 1..................................4 Objectives .................36 4...............................................................25 3........23 3.............6 Effect of Sheathing Material .........................................................................2 Construction Procedure of Cold-Formed Steel Structures .................................................................. 6 2.........2 Test Setup ..41 5.. 5 CHAPTER 2........................1 Conclusions ....37 4.....................4...4 Bearing Strength of Sheathing Material ..4..3 Deformation Modes..................................................................... 2 1.......3 Statement of Problem ....................... 5 1..14 3.......2 Bearing Strength of Steel Sheet . 1 1.......................... EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ............................................1 Researches on CFS Shear Wall.....................1 Screw Tilting Strength .........................3 Effect of Screw Spacing ..................5 Effect of Double-Side Sheathing ...........................................36 4................................................ LITERATURE REVIEW .3...........................................2 Effect of OSB Sheathing Thickness ....................18 3.............TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1.................................................................................... INTRODUCTION .4 Betopan Sheathed Wall Panel Specimens .....................30 3.......................................3 Researches on CFS Studs ........................................1 Specimens ..............4...............................10 2..........3..................1 Historical Background of Cold-Formed Steel Structures ....................................3 Load Capacity of OSB Sheathed Wall Panels ................... NUMERICAL STUDY ...................................................27 3.......................................................2 OSB Sheathed Wall Panel Specimens .........................................2 Researches on Screw Connection ....32 3..............................................3 Fibercement Sheathed Wall Panel Specimens ......................................... CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................1 Effect of Channel Height ......................................................................... 4 1............18 3.......................................10 CHAPTER 3..........................................18 3................................................................................................5 Research Methodology .................41 vii ............................................3.................... 6 2......................................4............29 3........4.......4........................................................................1 Unsheathed CFS Frame Specimens.................24 3....4 Effect of Existence of Diagonal Struts .36 4..........4 Load-Deflection Behavior .....3..................37 CHAPTER 5..........

................47 viii ....................44 APPENDIX....................43 REFERENCES ................2 Recommendations .......................................................5....................................................................................... DETAILS OF LOAD TESTS ....................................

...11..........17 Figure 3.....4.................. Screw failure .............23 Figure 3.......2...............28 Figure 3..32 Figure 3............................21.. Deformation at connection between OSB sheathing and CFS framing .........................................12...................20 Figure 3......... Rivet failure between tension stud and bottom track......1...........................................18....................................... Relation between measured and predicted load capacities.........................38 Figure 4... Deformation types observed in unsheathed CFS frame specimens ........... Effect of channel height.........................24 Figure 3.................. Effect of OSB sheathing thickness .........................21 Figure 3...............1................LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3............................... Setup used in load tests .........30 Figure 3.....................................................6.......................... Properties of specimens ....15.......................19 Figure 3......16 Figure 3.................7..................................................13....................20 Figure 3.......................... Details of hold-down attachment ..........27 ix ..... Deformation at CFS Frames .......... Effect of screw spacing ..........15 Figure 3....22 Figure 3......17 Figure 3.....33 Figure 4............................. Regions in a typical load-deflection plot ...................................................10............................23 Figure 3.... Details of test setup .............................. Crushing of fibercement panel ............................................ Specimen details .................. .............................20.19. Effect of existence of diagonal struts ......... Deformation near hold-down attachment ..............................39 LIST OF TABLES Table 3........................................................................................1....................13 Table 3.......... Forces on screws between sheathing panel and CFS framing members .......... Effect of double-side sheathing .. . Specimen designation ...................18 Figure 3.....14.... Cracking on betopan panel ...........2................3............2.........14 Figure 3...9.................22 Figure 3...............17..............15 Figure 3............. Deformation of tension hold-down and bottom track........................................26 Figure 3.8........... Effect of channel height on load capacity..................................... CFS section dimensions ...16..............................5.....

............ Effect of double-side sheathing on load capacity ............................................. Effect of screw spacing on load capacity ........ Relation between measured and predicted load capacities ...1..........5.....34 Table 4.. Effect of sheathing material on load capacity .Table 3...................................4....... Effect of OSB sheathing thickness on load capacity ......30 Table 3......................32 Table 3..3.29 Table 3...7..........6.......... Effect of diagonal struts on load capacity....39 x ............33 Table 3............................................

This type of construction has the potential to be an efficient solution in high seismic risk areas for low-rise and midrise buildings. USA. acceptance of coldformed steel as a construction material was still limited because there was a lack of design standards and there was limited information on material use in building codes. Since 1940’s the use and the development of CFSF construction in the United States have been accelerated by the publication of various editions of the ‘‘Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members’’ of the American Iron and Steel 1 . constructed in 1925 in Virginia.1 Historical Background of Cold-Formed Steel Structures The Cold-Formed Steel Framed (CFSF) buildings have been used for over a century in North America. As a result of light weight and shorter construction time. CFS products are widely used as a framing for partition walls due to their light weight. One of the first documented use of cold-formed steel as a building material is the Virginia Baptist Hospital. CFSF structures become more efficient solution in certain cases when compared to their conventional steel or concrete counter parts. In today’s construction industry. high strength and fast erection. In the 1920s and 1930s. Main advantages of CFSF structures can be listed as follows: o Light Weight o High strength o Ease of prefabrication and mass production o Fast and easy erection and installation o Eliminates the need for formwork o Uniform quality o Recyclable o Economy in transportation and handling The use of cold-formed steel members in building construction began in the 1850s in both the United States and Great Britain. Australia and New Zealand.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.

Between 1980 and 1994. Computer programs are widely used for design and manufacture of CFSF buildings.2 Construction Procedure of Cold-Formed Steel Structures Load-resisting system in a typical CFSF building consists of frames made of coldformed steel sections and sheathing panels applied on sides of these frames. Model of a building produced by such a computer program. grew more than 300 percent [2]. Before 1980’s wood-framed buildings sheathed with wood-based panels were the first solution for residential and commercial usage. Various sheathing materials can be used for having strength but wood based materials and gypsum boards are widely used in recent years. 1. together with the assembled CFS framing is illustrated in Fig 1.1. cold-formed steel has started to become the choice for this type buildings. It has been revised subsequently to reflect the technical developments and the results of continuing research.S. 2 . Due to cost of timber and environmental concerns. CFSF construction in the U.Institute (AISI) [1]. The earlier editions of the specification were based largely on the research sponsored by AISI at Cornell University under the direction of George Winter since 1939. CFS frames for wall panels can be either prepared on site or prefabricated in factory.

1. Following the construction of the foundation. the assembled wall frames were connected to the foundation slab through tension and shear connectors.2. Fig. Figure 1.1 Typical CFS framing The most common form of foundation used for CFSF buildings is a raft foundation similar to the one shown in Fig.3 shows a typical tension hold-down connector placed in position. 1.Figure 1.2. Construction of a typical foundation 3 .

3. Figure 1.4.4.Hold-Down Figure 1. The exterior and interior view of a finished CFSF residential building is given in Fig. 1.5. shear resistance of the CFS wall panels depends on whether the sheathing panels were attached on CFS frames in the horizontal or vertical orientation. An example of Oriented Strand Board (OSB) sheathed panels placed in vertical orientation is shown in Fig. Sheathing application 4 . Therefore. Most of the sheathing panels used in CFSF construction have different shear stiffness in two orthogonal directions. 1. Wall panel to foundation connection Application of sheathing panels usually starts after all CFS frames were placed in position.

4 Objectives The main objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of CFS wall panels utilizing primarily the construction details used in Turkey under lateral loading. The present study should be considered as a first attempt to provide useful data on the structural behavior of CFSF building system.5. Considering that international scientific studies on the earthquake behavior of such systems are also scarce. fibercement and betopan were studied. namely oriented strand board. it is believed that the CFS construction industry itself wasn’t ready for this rapidly growing demand on CFSF buildings. 1. Exterior and interior view of finished building 1.3 Statement of Problem Extensive damage observed on reinforced concrete buildings after the 1999 Marmara and 2011 Van earthquakes led to the CFSF buildings being considered as an alternative choice in the Turkish construction industry. 1.5 Research Methodology 5 . the local CFS construction industry will have a guidance to produce safe and reliable CFSF buildings. But. Considering that the use of CFS in the Turkish construction industry has a very short history. It is hoped that through such studies. the need for experimental studying focusing on the lateral load behavior of CFSF building system constructed using the typical details used in Turkey have become more important.Figure 1. In order to investigate the influence of sheathing material on the overall behavior of panels. the CFSF buildings and the construction details used in these buildings have not been time-tested. three different sheathing panels.

the lateral behavior of the wall panels was studied and the differences and similarities in the response of these panels were investigated. the load resisting capacity of OSB sheathed wall panels was estimated numerically. [3] In this study. In the second part of the study.The present study consists of two parts. 2. shear walls with diagonal bracing and a cross-braced wall were tested under monotonic lateral loading. In the numerical part of the study. Additionally.44 m wide by 2. Experimental part of the study included monotonic lateral load testing of twenty one CFS wall panels. currently available analytical methods were used to calculate the load capacity of tested wall panel specimens. five specimens were sheathed with betopan panels and two specimens were tested without any sheathing. Using the information obtained from load tests. The smallscale connection test results also showed that the plywood connection is approximately %23 6 . small scale tests were conducted to characterize the screw connections used in the walls. R. three types of 2. three specimens were sheathed with fibercement panels.1 Studies on CFS Shear Walls Serette. including sheathed walls. CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter.44 m high CFS wall panels. behavior of CFS wall panel specimens sheathed with OSB. fibercement and betopan panels was investigated experimentally. The test results showed that shear strength of plywood and OSB panels attached on CFS studs are comparable and that the strength of gypsum board sheathed wall is relatively low. In the first part of the study. studies available in the literature about the lateral behavior of CFS wall panels and other components of CFS structures are presented. Eleven specimens were sheathed with OSB panels.

Rogers. C. 1. M.61 m wide panels suffered extensive lateral deformation when the ultimate load capacity was reached. Wall panels in all specimens were 2. [6] Typical weld and screw-connected single-storey strap braced wall configurations were studied. A. A total of 44 tension-only X-braced walls ranging in size from 61x244 cm to 244x244 cm (aspect ratios from 4:1 to 1:1) and designed following a capacitybased approach were tested under lateral loading using monotonic and reversed cyclic protocols.22 m or 2. Test results illustrated the ability of walls with an aspect ratio less than or equal to 2:1 to reach and maintain their yield resistance in the inelastic range of 7 .stronger than OSB and a significant portion of strength of the gypsum wallboard panel is developed at the edge of the panel. and Al-Kharat. et al.61 m.44 m wide wall panels performed similarly. A comparison of the normalized small-scale connection test results with normalized full-scale wall panel test results showed that the small-scale tests provide a simple method of evaluating the relative resistance of different full-scale wall assemblies. Test results indicated ductility levels that are not adequate to warrant the use of a seismic response modification coefficient of R = 4. C. [4] Rogers conducted a study on CFS shear walls through load testing of 106 specimens.0 in design. [5] The inelastic performance of sixteen 2. A. Rogers.44 m.44 m × 2. 0. Rogers. Tests results indicated that the 1. C.22 m and 2.44 m high and the width of the panels were 0. A.44 m cold-formed steel strap braced walls was evaluated experimentally. which in many cases did not allow the test specimens to reach or maintain a yield capacity and severely diminished the overall system ductility. It was concluded that the capacity design of the SFRS elements must account for the overstrength of the strap material. Walls sheathed with OSB and plywood panels were tested under monotonic and cyclic lateral loading. The performance was affected by the holddown detail.

Chen [7] This study was an investigation on 1.83 m wide CFS walls was established for design purposes Fiorino. whereas the 4:1 walls experienced combined axial compression and flexure of the chord studs and only minimal brace yielding. The major failure mode was determined to be buckling of steel sheathing.0 m wide and 2. be avoided unless the moments associated with flexure of the chord studs are included in the capacity design procedure for these studs. i. A. To prevent the failure in the studs. Based on the test results. no appreciable deformation was observed at the connections between 8 . Yu and F. recommended that the use of high aspect ratio strap braced walls. C. having aspect ratios greater than 2:1. including design approach.5 mm thick gypsum board on the interior face. a special detailing was developed in this research. however. [8] Two three-dimensional specimens of 2. During the monotonic and cyclic tests. failure modes and ductility measures.deformation if capacity design principles were implemented and material requirements were met. The test results indicated that besides the sheet buckling and screw pull-out.44 m high CFS stud framed shear walls using steel sheet sheathing. It is. The scope of the research also included the determination of ‘‘test-based’’ seismic force modification factors based on the measured ductility and overstrength of the test walls for comparison with the R-values recommended in AISI S213 Specification.83 m wide 2.e. It was also reported that the nominal shear strength values given in design specifications can be conservatively used for walls with an aspect ratio of 3:2. and it was reported that this detailing could increase both the shear strength and the ductility of the walls. A summary of the test program is provided. as described in AISI S213. L. Four wall configurations were studied through monotonic and cyclic tests. the nominal seismic shear strength for 1.5 m high were tested under monotonic and cyclic loading. Inelastic deformations resulted from brace yielding in the 1:1 and 2:1 aspect ratio walls. Floor sheathing was 18 mm thick OSB panels. Wall panels in the specimen were sheathed with 9 mm thick OSB panels on the exterior face and 12. the buckling of interior studs might also occur in CFS walls.7 m long by 2.

J. Strap-braced walls without gypsumboard sheathing and corner brackets were observed to have pinched hysteresis loops. The CFS columns in the test structure provided limited strength. stiffness. The type of strap bracing that is currently used in practice was reported to show an unsatisfactory behavior mainly due to premature bucking of the studs. [10] Load tests were conducted on CFS shearwall specimens under vertical and horizontal loading with the test parameters being the sheathing material and the screw spacing. R. Moghimi. During the large amplitude tests. Telue. B. W. et al. Strength. M. cement-bonded fiberboard and trapezoidal steel sheet. H. and energy dissipation because of local buckling of the thin-walled members. gypsum fiberboard. Y. The four types of sheathing materials investigated were chipboard. The wall panels generally exhibited a ductile behavior with no failure in connections. [11] Lateral load behavior of strap-braced CFS wall panels was investigated under reversed cyclic loading. and Naujoks. A design method was proposed based on the experimental findings. No evident failure of shear and tension anchors used at the base of wall panels was also observed. Analytical results are also reported to reproduce the measured behavior relatively well. and Ronagh. T. Influence of different strap arrangements on the behavior of wall panels was studied.the floor sheathing and framing. Lange. H. [9] Results of shaketable tests of a full-scale two-story one-bay SCF structure are reported in this study. [12] 9 . Kim. stiffness and ductility characteristics of the wall panels were improved by the addition of brackets at four corners of wall panels. and Mahendran. the cross-bracing straps are reported to show a ductile but highly pinched hysteresis behavior.

[13] In the monotonic load tests conducted by Xu and Martinez.g. the failure of wall panel may be initiated by the buckling of studs even though the studs are braced by the sheathing. and Martinez. while the absorbed energy was almost the same for both cases. a finite element model was developed and validated using experimental results. 33 mils). thickness of 0. Tilting of and pull-out of screws were determined to be the major failure modes for OSB sheathed specimens. It was also indicated that for the cases where the thickness of CFS studs is relatively small (e. and in some cases the sheathing separated completely from the frame. 10 . the perpendicular-tograin loaded connections were reported to have lower stiffness. Applying sheathing on both sides of the frame or doubling the sheathing thickness enhances the panel lateral strength which amplifies the compressive force in the studs and may result in stud failure in compression prior to the failure of the sheathing..Buckling behavior of studs in plasterboard sheathed CFS wall panels was studied experimentally.84 mm. L. Xu. L. The failure of steel studs can also occur when sheathing is applied on the both sides of CFS frame. strength and ductility compared to those loaded parallel-to-grain.2 Studies on Screw Connections Fiorino. the predominant failure mode of wall panels was determined to be sheathing panel failure. Failure was observed to initiate at the sheathing-to-framing connections for OSB. J. [14] Fiorino conducted a study on screw connections between CFS members and OSB and gypsum board panels. plywood and gypsum panels. For OSB panels. Behavior of CFS wall panels was also analytically investigated and a method to predict the lateral strength and the corresponding displacement of wall panels was proposed. Results indicated that the strength of the studs in compression was increased significantly when they were lined with plasterboard on one or both sides. 2. and this model was used in a further parametric study. The failure of the sheathing was evident due to rupture of the sheathing-to-framing connections. In order to fully understand the behavior of both sides lined steel wall frames.

Two distinct failure modes of (1) tilting and net section failure and (2) tilting. the behavior and design of cold-formed steel lipped channel columns at elevated temperatures were also investigated. 2. [16] Behavior of CFS wall studs was investigated experimentally using unlined frames built with unlipped channel sections. and a design criteria to induce a desirable failure mode was given. and unequal angles. B.Casafont. Connections exhibiting the former failure mode were reported to be suitable for seismic design as they allow for the yielding of straps. bearing and pull out were observed. M.5 for fixed-ended CFS columns and indicated 11 . Author recommends the effective length factor of 1. channels with simple and complex edge stiffeners as well as plain and lipped angles. and Mahendran. et al. The influence of various design parameters. [17] The research focused on CFS columns made of open sections. Additional finite element analyses were used for validating the results of the experimental tests. Y. including strap thickness. Both experimental and numerical investigations into the strength and behavior of cold-formed steel columns were conducted.3 Studies on CFS Studs Telue. [15] Connections used in straps of X-braced CFS shear walls were investigated through load tests. Results compared with Australian Specifications for lined frames but this code does not provide guidelines for unlined frames in evaluating the effective length factor of the stud. Author suggested an effective length factor of 0. In addition. Furthermore. Young. number and diameter of screws and steel grade on the failure mode of connections was studied. cold-formed steel built-up closed sections with intermediate stiffeners were investigated. such as plain and lipped channels. The column strengths obtained from these investigations were compared with the design strengths obtained using various international standards for coldformed steel structures. Wall studs end fixity conditions were discussed for calculating the effective length factor.0 for unlined wall frames. M.

Y. An analytical model for predicting the axial failure load of wall studs with sheathing was also considered. et al. D. Sections both with and without lips are analyzed. [20] Cold-formed steel studs with sheathing applied on a single side and on two sides were investigated. [19] This study focuses on cold-formed steel columns with holes on web of the section. The types of failure modes considered were the same as regular compact section failure modes with the addition of local buckling. B. Tian. A theoretical method was developed for prediction of the load capacity of channel sections. and Lu. S. S. Short and intermediate length specimens tested experimentally. Tian. and Schafer.that the direct strength method can be used for channel sections at elevated temperature. C. Moen. Experimental part of the study included manufacture and load testing of two new channel sections. 12 . although post-peak ductility is decreased in some cases. The spring stiffness of the elastic support was calculated by analytical and finite element methods. In the analytical model. the sheathing was considered as a continuous elastic support for the stud. The analytical prediction of the load capacities were validated with the experimental data. The slotted web holes are shown to have a minimal influence on the ultimate strength in the specimens considered. [18] This study focuses on finding the minimum weight and associated optimal geometric dimensions of an open-channel steel section with given length subjected to a prescribed axial compressive load. Y. T. The predicted results were compared with measurements from full-scale tests. J. and the relationship between elastic buckling and the tested response of columns was investigated. W.

strains and stresses experienced by the section flanges were found to be significantly different from those on the web. 3. the fourth group indicates the spacing of screws.Wang. J. et al. respectively the type and thickness of sheathing board. Intermediate studs were investigated experimentally with sheathing connected at section flanges. the second and third groups indicate.1. and the last group indicates whether or not diagonal struts are included in the CFS framing. [21] This study focuses on the distribution of strains and stresses on sectional portions of CFS studs. The convention used for designation of specimens is explained in Fig. The first group in the specimen designation indicates the size of the CFS section. 13 . CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY The experimental part of the study included load testing of twenty one CFS wall panel specimens with properties given in Table 3.1. At a given cross section of the intermediate stud.

Table 3.1. Specimen designation 14 .1. Properties of specimens Sheathing CFS Thickness section mm Screw spacing cm Diagonal struts? Specimen Sheathing material C90-O-11-15-T OSB 11 C90 15 √ C90-O-11-15-T* OSB 11 C90 15 √ C90-O-11-15-E OSB 11 C90 15 - C90-O-11-30-E OSB 11 C90 30 - C140-O-11-15-T OSB 11 C140 15 √ C140-O-11-15-E OSB 11 C140 15 - C90-O-18-15-T OSB 18 C90 15 √ C90-O-18-15-E OSB 18 C90 15 - C90-O-18-30-E OSB 18 C90 30 - C140-O-18-15-T OSB 18 C140 15 √ C140-O-18-15-E OSB 18 C140 15 - C90-F-8-15-T Fibercement 8 C90 15 √ C90-F-8-15-E Fibercement 8 C90 15 - C90-F-8-30-E Fibercement 8 C90 30 - C90-B-10-15-T Betopan 10 C90 15 √ C90-B-10-15-E Betopan 10 C90 15 - C90-B-10-30-E Betopan 10 C90 30 - C140-B-10-15-T Betopan 10 C140 15 √ C140-B-10-15-E Betopan 10 C140 15 - C90-T - - C90 - √ C140-T - - C140 - √ * double-side sheathed specimen C90 – O – 11 – 15 – E CFS section size Sheathing material Screw spacing Sheathing Thickness Figure 3.

two different thickness values (11 and 18 mm) were used for OSB panels. while single C-shaped sections were used for the rest of the frame members.8 mm thick sheet steel with a specified yield strength of 220 MPa. The current practice used in the CFS construction in Turkey is to provide diagonal struts between the vertical studs in some of the wall panels. In order to reflect the effect of this construction practice on the behavior of CFS wall panels. respectively. As seen. corresponding to an aspect ratio of exactly 2. while the fibercement and betopan panels were tested with a thickness of 8 and 10 mm. while one of the specimens had two-sided OSB sheathing. The remaining two specimens were tested as a bare CFS frame with no sheathing applied. Both sections were made of 0. 3. the specimens are 1.8 mm diameter and 16 mm long blind rivets.1 Specimens As indicated in Table 3. The framing for wall panels include top and bottom tracks connected to two boundary studs and an intermediate stud using 4. ten of the specimens had OSB sheathing applied on one side. studs.1.Diagonal struts 3. the specimens were tested with and without diagonal struts. The boundary studs consist of double C-shaped sections connected back-to-back at 600 mm spacing with 5. Other parameters that were studied in the testing program were the type and thickness of sheathing panels. the screw spacing at the outer edge of the panel.22 m wide and 2. where the load tests were performed. Sheathing panels were attached on the CFS framing members with 4. and diagonal struts. and the size of C-shaped CFS sections used for the tracks.2 mm 15 . 3. Three of the specimens had fiberboard sheathing and five specimens had betopan sheathing applied on one side of the CFS frame. The CFS wall panel specimens were manufactured at a local factory and transported to Atılım University Civil Engineering Department Structural Mechanics Laboratory.5 mm diameter and 25 mm long self-drilling screws. Fig.2 shows the dimensions of wall panels together with some of the details used. The function of these diagonal struts is to maintain the stability of CFS frames during the erection.44 m high.3.1. The two types of CFS sections used in the test specimens are shown in Fig. As summarized in Table 3.0.

5 mm diameter and 25 mm long self-drilling screws.diameter and 38 mm long self-drilling screws.4 and Fig. CFS section dimensions 3.2.2 Test Setup Details of the setup used for load tests are given in Fig. 3.6. while on the intermediate stud a single screw spacing of 30 cm was used. Specimen details Figure 3. Figure 3. Hold-downs were made of 4 mm thick grade-37 steel plate and each hold-down was connected to the boundary studs with fourteen 5. 16 . 3.5. Details of the hold downs are given in Fig 3. The wall panel specimens were attached to a support beam through two hold-downs and 16 mm diameter threaded rods.3. Screw spacing of either 15 or 30 cm was used on the boundary framing members.

Loading was provided with a 30 kN capacity hydraulic cylinder that had a 20 kN capacity load cell and a swivel head attached at the end. Setup used in load tests 17 .These hold-downs were responsible for resisting the uplift and shear force effects introduced on the wall panels during the load tests. Test setup general view Actuator Test frame Lateral restrain Loading beam Support beam Specimen Figure 3. Fig 3. The swivel head at the end of the hydraulic cylinder was connected to the wall panels through a loading beam that is attached to the top track with 5. Displacement of the loading beam in the transverse direction was restrained by two lateral support assemblies.5 mm diameter and 60 mm long self-drilling screws.5.4.

Details of test setup Figure 3. The net lateral displacement at the top of wall panels was determined with the help of displacement transducers positioned at the top and at the base of the panels. Data from the load cell and displacement transducers were continuously collected and recorded.6. Details of hold-down attachment The wall panels were tested under gradually increasing lateral load applied at the top level. The wall panels were also continuously monitored for damage in the CFS members and sheathing panels during the load tests.Loading direction Loading direction Top track Compression stud OSB Sheathing panel sheathing Diagonal struts Intermediate stud Bottom track Tension stud Tension stud Support beam Figure 3. 18 .5.

the intermediate stud and the tension stud. and crushing of OSB sheathing against the support beam on the compression side.3.3 Deformation Modes 3. Figure 3. the bottom plate of the hold-down attachment as well as the web of the bottom track underwent significant bending deformation. the top and bottom tracks.1 Unsheathed CFS Frame Specimens The typical deformation mode of the CFS frame specimens tested with no sheathing applied is shown in Fig 3. separation between the two CFS sections of the tension stud was observed to occur.3. the wall panels were subjected to rocking type of deformation.7. the overall behavior of wall panels was mainly governed by deformation of tension hold-down attachment and part of the bottom track adjacent to the hold-down. Under the effect of loading. 3. As evident in the pictures. (b) local buckling at base of intermediate stud. With this type of deformation.2 OSB Sheathed Wall Panel Specimens Under the effect of applied load. The main lateral load resisting mechanism in these specimens is the vertical truss structure formed by the diagonal struts.7. which had OSB sheathing on both sides of the panel. In Specimen C90-O-11-15-T-2. which involved lifting of the bottom track from the support beam on the tension side.3. Deformation types observed in unsheathed CFS frame specimens: (a) overall deformed shape.8. Pictures of such deformation mode are given in Fig 3. Load resisting capability of the specimens diminished following the onset of local buckling at the base of intermediate stud where one of the diagonal members was connected. (c) separation between CFS sections at tension stud. the 19 .

Deformation of tension hold-down and bottom track.8. In addition to tilting. Figure 3. Another common deformation mode observed in OSB sheathed wall panels was tilting of the screws connecting the sheathing panel to the CFS boundary framing members.nut at the end of the threaded rod used to attach the hold-down to the support beam punched through the bottom plate of the hold-down attachment and the web of the bottom track. as shown in Fig 3. because it reduces the overall stiffness of the wall panel and results in excessive lateral drifts without utilizing the entire capacity of the wall panel. 20 . Occurrence of the tilting of screws. the screws were observed to pull through the OSB panel in some of the specimens. as shown in Fig 3. The extent of this deformation was observed to be more pronounced in wall panels with frame members made of C140 CFS section than those with C90 section. This type of deformation can be reduced by stiffening the hold-down attachment by: (1) using thicker plates for the attachment or (2) modifying the geometry of the attachment such that the bending deformation is minimized. This is an undesirable mode of deformation. is an indication of relative slip at the interface between the OSB sheathing and the CFS framing members.9(a).9(b). Tilting of screws is also accompanied with separation of OSB sheathing from the CFS framing members in most of the cases.

10.Figure 3.10.3. Figure 3. in the form of local buckling adjacent to the connection regions was also observed.3 Fibercement Sheathed Wall Panel Specimens 21 . Rivet failure between tension stud and bottom track. 3. Damage in CFS framing members. as shown in Fig. 3. As indicated in Fig. this type of damage occurred either at the bottom track near the connection between the tension stud or at the intermediate stud near the connection between the diagonal strut.9. As a result of this deformation. 3. Deformation at connection between OSB sheathing and CFS framing members: (a) tilting of screws. the specimen failed prematurely at a relatively smaller top displacement value compared to the other specimens. (b) tilting and pull-through of screws. Rivet failure at the connection between the tension stud and the bottom track occurred in Specimen C140-O-18-15-E.9.

The screw-related deformations observed in these specimens included screw tilting. In these specimens. while in the screw pull-through deformation mode head of the screw pulls through the sheathing panel. 3. similar to the OSB sheathed wall panels. screw pull-out was observed at the corner locations of fiberboard panel in specimens C90-F-8-15-T and C90-F-8-15-E. screw pull-out and screw pullthrough as indicated in Fig. limited deformation was observed at the tension hold-down location due to relatively lower strength of sheathing panels. screws along the entire height of tension stud were observed to pull-out of the member. Initiation of screw pull-out or screw pull-through deformations during the load tests caused reductions in the stiffness and the load resisting ability of the wall panels. which had larger screw spacing along the boundary members. tilting. During the load tests.Under the effect of applied load. (c) screw pull-out 22 . threads of the screw pull out of the CFS member. In screw pull-out deformation mode. while in specimen C90-F-8-30E.11. the wall panels were subjected to rocking type of deformation.

buckling was observed at bottom portion of the intermediate stud in specimen C90-F-8-15-E. Extensive screw tilting and pull-out deformations also occurred in specimen C90-F8-30-E.Deformation mode of buckling was observed at bottom track near the tension holddown location and in the middle stud in specimen C90-F-8-15-T. (a) (b) Figure 3.12. no appreciable frame or hold-down failures were observed in this specimen. as evident in Fig. As a result of such extensive screw deformation.12. Different than other specimens without diagonal struts. it showed similar behavior as the unsheathed CFS frame specimen. The reason for this behavior was attributed to the failure of screws between the sheathing panel and the bottom track while those between the sheathing panel and the intermediate stud remained undamaged. 3. Due to screw pull-out failure occurred in this specimen. Deformation at CFS Frames: (a) Deformation at hold-down Connections (b) Deformation at intermediate stud 23 .

Figure 3. 24 .13. was also observed to undergo more damage than other betopan sheathed specimens.13. 3. These cracks were observed to follow a route from top track and bottom track to tension stud at corners of wall panel. Screw failure was localized at the tension stud and at the bottom track near the tension hold-down. in general. was observed in all three specimens sheathed with fibercement panels.4 Betopan Sheathed Wall Panel Specimens Among five specimens that were sheathed with petopan panels. cracking was also observed in the fibercement panels used in these specimens. screw failure in the form of tilting and pull-out occurred in specimen C90-B-10-30-E. 3.3. Crushing of fibercement panel Crushing of sheathing panel. In addition to crushing. This specimen. as indicated in Fig.

were also observed on betopan panels in specimens with no diagonal struts.Figure 3. similar to those indicated in Fig. as shown in Fig. 3. and (6) existence of double side sheathing. The relatively higher strength of betopan panels caused extensive damage in tension holddowns.15.14. 3. (2) sheathing type. 3. Deformation near hold-down attachment The common deformation mode among the betopan sheathed specimens was buckling deformation of bottom track near the tension stud. Cracks.14. Vertical studs were not subjected to extensive deformation. (5) existence of diagonal struts.15. (3) OSB sheathing thickness. Cracking on betopan panel Figure 3. (4) screw spacing. The parameters that are investigated in this section in terms of the load-deflection behavior are (1) CFS channel height. 25 .4 Load-Deflection Behavior Lateral load-deflection response of wall panels was used for the assessment of the effect of each test parameter on the overall behavior of the panels.

3.1 Effect of Channel Height 26 . Screw tilting region started at approximately 30 mm top of displacement. As a result of screw pull-out. the wall panels behaved elastically with limited deformation in the CFS frame and sheathing panels.16 can be divided in three regions as (1) initial (elastic) region. The experimentally obtained lateral load versus top displacement plots shown in Fig.16. 3. Pull-out of screws further decreased the stiffness of wall panels as characterized by region-3 in Fig. The net top displacement for the specimens was obtained by subtracting any sliding at the base of wall panels from the total lateral displacement directly measured at the top of panels. 3. Noises of screw threads releasing from the holes in CFS boundary members were heard at this region. In the initial region.17. 3.4. and (3) zero-stiffness region. sheathing panel was separated from the CFS framing members and substantial damage took place in CFS members.Typical load-deflection plots of wall panels are shown in Fig. The load values shown on the plots are the lateral load applied by the hydraulic cylinder at the top of wall panels. Tilting of screws between the sheathing panels and the CFS framing members resulted in a reduction in the initial stiffness of the wall panels. diminishing the load resisting ability of the wall panel. while the displacement values are the net lateral displacement at the top of wall panels. (2) screw tilting region.

the sheathed wall panels with C90 CFS section had slightly larger load capacity and stiffness than those with C140 section for all parameters studied. Therefore. As evident in the figure and in the table. The reason for the wall panels with C90 CFS framing members to have higher load capacity than those with C140 section is related with the extent of damage in the bottom track for the two group of specimens. as mentioned previously. the additional bottom track deformation near the hold-down location in the C140 sections resulted in a small reduction in the load capacity of the wall panels. excluding specimen C140-O-18-15-E. The level of difference in load capacity of wall sheathed panels with C90 and C140 sections is between 5% and 18%. 3.17.17. specimen C140-O-18-15-E had relatively smaller maximum top displacement value compared to the other specimens. The reason for this was the failure of the rivets between the tension stud and the bottom track. which experienced premature rivet failure.The measured lateral load versus top lateral displacement plots of wall panels shown in Fig 3. Such a rivet failure caused a premature failure of the wall panel. together with the load capacity values presented in Table 3. Deformation of bottom track at the location of tension hold-down was observed to be larger in C140 section than in C90 section.2 explain the effect of CFS channel height on the behavior. As evident in the plots in Fig. 27 .

17. Effect of channel height Table 3.2. Effect of channel height on load capacity 28 .Figure 3.

HD.CR C140-B-10-15-T 19.FB C90-O-18-15-E 17.00 HD.18 SP.FB.06 1. The effect is more pronounced for specimens tested with 30 cm screw spacing than those tested with 15 cm screw spacing.19 1. for specimens that included diagonal struts.CR C90-O-11-15-E 15.00 HD. the plots suggest that using 18 mm OSB thickness.SP.SP.18 and Table 3.FB.HD.01 and 0.12 ST.FB C140-O-11-15-E 14.10 1.00 FB C90-T 3.SP.CR C140-O-18-15-E* 12.SC C90-B-10-15-E 20.FB.FB. SC : Crack 3. when diagonal struts were not included in CFS frames.FB C140-B-10-15-E 18.3. no distinct difference between 11 mm and 18 mm OSB thickness could be detected in the load-deflection response.39 1.14 HD.84 FB * specimen experienced premature rivet failure **ST : Screw Tilting. The ratio of load capacities of specimens with 18 mm and 11 mm OSB sheathing panel thickness was 1.65 1.24 1.05 ST.25 1.HD.Specimen Load Capacity kN Normalized Capacity Observed Failure Modes** C140-O-11-15-T 16.2 Effect of OSB Sheathing Thickness The influence that the thickness of OSB sheathing had on the behavior of wall panels is shown in Fig 3.00 ST.4. FR : Frame Buckling.FB C90-B-10-15-T 21.96.SC C140-T 4. as opposed to 11 mm thickness.CR C140-O-18-15-T 15. On the other hand.45 0.FB.FB.FB C90-O-11-15-T 18.73 1.FB.HD. For specimens that included diagonal struts the ratio of load capacities with 18 mm and 11 mm OSB sheathing panel thickness was 1.00 ST.07 1. SP : Screw Pull-Out.11 1.12 and 1.27.53 1. Considering that Specimen C140-18-15-E experienced premature rivet failure.SP.00 ST.41 1.00 ST. 29 .CR C90-O-18-15-T 18. resulted in larger lateral load capacity when the diagonal struts were not used in the CFS frame.13 HD.43 ST. CR : Sheathing Crush.48 1.

00 ST.FB.FB C90-O-18-15-T 18.3.CR 30 . Effect of OSB sheathing thickness on load capacity Specimen Load Capacity kN Normalized Capacity Observed Failure Modes** C90-O-11-15-T 18.HD. Effect of OSB sheathing thickness Table 3.Figure 3.39 1.SP.41 1.00 ST.CR C90-O-11-15-E 15.01 SP.HD.FB.19 1.HD.18.

respectively.27 ST.C90-O-18-15-E 17.CR * specimen experienced premature rivet failure **ST : Screw Tilting.12 ST.FB C140-O-18-15-T 15.73 1.25 1. 31 .HD.50 1. FR : Frame Buckling.CR C90-O-11-30-E 9.4.CR C140-O-11-15-E 14. SC : Crack 3.06 0.HD. Table 3.83 1. the reduction in load capacity was 36% for 11 mm OSB thickness and 27% for 18 mm OSB thickness.3 Effect of Screw Spacing Fig 3. without significantly affecting the initial stiffness of the wall panel. For the fibercement and betopan sheathed specimens.4 indicates that for the OSB sheathed specimens.SP. as compared to a screw spacing of 15 cm.24 1.FB.82 ST.SP. 30 cm screw spacing resulted in a major reduction in the lateral load and deformation capacity.00 ST.FB.SP.SP.CR C90-O-18-30-E 12.SP.00 ST.FB. For all three sheathing types investigated. SP : Screw Pull-Out.00 ST.53 0. CR : Sheathing Crush. the reduction in load capacity was 46% and 41%.19 shows the variation in the behavior of wall panels when the spacing of screws connecting the sheathing to the CFS boundary framing members was increased from 15 to 30 cm.96 ST.FB C140-O-11-15-T 16.CR C140-O-18-15-E* 12.FB.

FB. SC : Crack 3.SP. For fibercement sheathed specimens the ratio of load capacities with and without 32 .4 Effect of Existence of Diagonal Struts The difference in the behavior of wall panels with and without diagonal struts is shown in Fig 3. Effect of screw spacing Table 3.CR C90-O-11-30-E 9.24 1.54 SP.HD. FR : Frame Buckling.59 ST.FB.19.00 HD.4.CR C90-B-10-15-E 20.SP.00 SP.SP.00 ST.CR C90-O-18-30-E 12.FB.13 1.FB. SP : Screw Pull-Out. Load capacity values shown in Table 3.64 ST.5 0.SC C90-F-8-15-E 16.4.HD.SC **ST : Screw Tilting.HD.CR C90-O-18-15-E 17. For the OSB sheathed specimens.SP.78 0.83 0. CR : Sheathing Crush.00 ST.25 0.20. the increase in load capacity of wall panels with the addition of diagonal struts varied between 7% and 29%.SC C90-B-10-30-E 12.FB.Figure 3. existence of diagonal struts slightly increased the load capacity and initial stiffness of the wall panels for all thickness and CFS section height values studied.65 1.FB C90-F-8-30-E 8. there was no appreciable difference in the behavior when diagonal struts were included inside the wall panels.41 1. Effect of screw spacing on load capacity Specimen Load Capacity kN Normalized Capacity Observed Failure Modes** C90-O-11-15-E 15.4 indicate that for OSB sheathed specimens. For the case of fibercement and betopan sheathed specimens.73 ST.

The lateral stiffness and strength provided by latter of these two mechanisms is more significant. while this ratio was 0. (2) through the diaphragm action of sheathing. As mentioned previously.05. and the effect of the existence of diagonal struts remained minimal. there are two lateral load resisting mechanism: (1) through the vertical truss structure formed by diagonal struts.95 and 1.04 for betopan sheathed specimens. the main function of these diagonal struts in the current CFS construction practice in Turkey is to maintain the stability of CFS frames during the erection. 33 . As a result. the behavior of all panels under lateral load was essentially determined by the diaphragm action of sheathing.diagonal struts was 1. For wall panels including diagonal struts.

Figure 3.20. Effect of existence of diagonal struts

Table 3.5. Effect of diagonal struts on load capacity
34

Specimen

Load
Capacity kN

Normalized
Capacity

Observed Failure
Modes**

C90-O-11-15-E

15.41

1.00

ST,SP,HD,FB,CR

C90-O-11-15-T

18.19

1.18

ST,HD,FB

C140-O-11-15-E

14.73

1.00

ST,FB,CR

C140-O-11-15-T

16.25

1.10

ST,SP,HD,FB

C90-O-18-15-E

17.24

1.00

ST,SP,FB,CR

C90-O-18-15-T

18.39

1.07

SP,HD,FB,CR

C140-O-18-15-E*

12.06

1.00

ST,SP,FB

C140-O-18-15-T

15.53

1.29

ST,SP,FB,CR

C90-F-8-15-E

16.13

1.00

SP,FB

C90-F-8-15-T

16.96

1.05

ST,SP,FB,CR

C90-B-10-15-E

20.65

1.00

HD,FB,SC

C90-B-10-15-T

21.48

1.04

HD,FB

C140-B-10-15-T

19.07

1.00

HD,FB

C140-B-10-15-E

18.11

0.95

HD,FB,SC

* specimen experienced premature rivet failure
**ST : Screw Tilting, SP : Screw Pull-Out, CR : Sheathing Crush, FR : Frame Buckling, SC : Crack

3.4.5 Effect of Double-Side Sheathing
The common practice in CFS construction is to apply OSB, fibercement or betopan
sheathing panels on the exterior face of walls while the interior face is usually sheathed
with gypsum board. However, there are also cases where double-sided sheathing is
used in order to meet the lateral load demand on the structure. In this case, the lateral
strength and stiffness provided by the diaphragm action of sheathing panel mentioned
above is expected to increase significantly compared to a wall panel with single-sided
sheathing. However, as evident in Fig 3.21, the double-sided wall panel tested in this
study exhibited a slightly higher load capacity and stiffness compared to the
companion single-sided wall. As shown in Table 3.6, double-side sheathing resulted
in only 7% higher load capacity compared to single-side sheathing.

The reason for the specimen with double-sided OSB having significantly smaller load
capacity and stiffness than expected was because extensive deformation of tension
hold-down attachment and part of the bottom track adjacent to the hold-down occurred
35

in this specimen. In other words, during the load tests, the “weakest link” happened to
be the part of the specimen around the tension hold-down, and the reserve capacity of
the double-sided OSB sheathing could not be utilized.

Figure 3.21. Effect of double-side sheathing

Table 3.6. Effect of double-side sheathing on load capacity
Specimen

Load
Capacity kN

Normalized
Capacity

Observed Failure
Modes**

C90-O-11-15-T

18.19

1.00

ST,HD,FB

C90-O-11-15-T2

19.44

1.07

HD,CR

**ST : Screw Tilting, SP : Screw Pull-Out, CR : Sheathing Crush, FR : Frame Buckling, SC : Crack

3.4.6 Effect of Sheathing Material
One of the main objectives of this study was to identify the influence of the sheathing
material on the overall behavior of wall panels. For this purpose, load-deflection plots
of specimens with three different sheathing panel types are compared in Figs.
3.22-3.24, with the corresponding load capacities listed in Table 3.7.
For all parameters investigated, specimens sheathed with betopan panels exhibited
higher load capacity and stiffness than those sheathed with OSB and fibercement
panels. The reason for this behavior is related with the relatively higher strength and
stiffness on betopan panels, which resulted in the screw connection between these
panels and the CFS frame to resist higher load.

36

Table 3.7. Effect of sheathing material on load capacity
Specimen

Load
Capacity kN

Normalized
Capacity

Observed Failure
Modes**

C90-O-11-15-E

15.41

1.00

ST,SP,HD,FB,CR

C90-F-8-15-E

16.13

1.05

SP,FB

C90-B-10-15-E

20.65

1.34

HD,FB,SC

C90-O-11-15-T

18.19

1.00

ST,HD,FB

C90-F-8-15-T

16.96

0.93

ST,SP,CR,FB

C90-B-10-15-T

21.48

1.18

FB,HD

C90-O-11-30-E

9.83

1.00

ST,SP,HD,CR

C90-F-8-30-E

8.78

0.89

SP,SC

C90-B-10-30-E

12.25

1.25

ST,HD,FB,SC

**ST : Screw Tilting, SP : Screw Pull-Out, CR : Sheathing Crush, FR : Frame Buckling, SC : Crack

As evident in Table 3.7, the fibercement and betopan sheathed specimens respectively
had 5% and 34% higher load capacity than the OSB sheathed specimens for the case
of 15 cm screw spacing and no diagonal struts. For the combinations of 15 cm screw
spacing with diagonal struts and 30 cm screw spacing without diagonal struts, use of
fibercement sheathing decreased the load capacity of the specimen compared to OSB
sheathing. For these combinations, the increase in load capacity of betopan sheathed
specimens was 18% and 25% respectively.

Figure 3.22. Effect of sheathing material (15 cm screw spacing panels without
diagonal struts)
37

23. The load capacity of a CFS wall panel is governed by the failure modes of screw tilting. screw shear.Figure 3. Effect of sheathing material (30 cm screw spacing panels without diagonal struts) Figure 3.24. and bearing of sheathing panel. bearing of CFS member. 38 . Effect of sheathing material (15 cm screw spacing panels with diagonal struts) CHAPTER 4 NUMERICAL STUDY A numerical approach was used in an attempt to accurately predict the load capacity of wall panels.

(1) Where. Pc Bearing strength of sheathing material was defined by Faherty and Williamson [23] as follows: (3) 39 . and bearing of sheathing panel were calculated. which was taken as 344 MPa. and Fu. Pf Bearing strength of CFS framing members was determined using the following equation: (2) 4. Therefore.4 Bearing Strength of Sheathing Material. bearing of CFS member. 4.1 Screw Tilting Strength. 1. Similar to a previous study by Fiorino [6].steel is ultimate tensile strength of steel sheet.2 Bearing Strength of Steel Sheet. the load capacity of the connection between OSB sheathing and CFS framing members corresponding to the failure modes of tilting of screws and bearing on CFS framing members were calculated following the procedures outlined in the AISI cold-formed steel design manual [22]. while the procedure suggested by Faherty and Williamson was used for the failure mode of bearing on OSB panels [23]. Pt According to AISI specifications screw tilting strength was calculated with Eq. d is nominal screw diameter. this failure mode was not considered in the numerical study. 4.Because no incidence of screw shear failure occurred in the load tests conducted in experimental part of the study. the load capacities corresponding to the failure modes of screw tilting. tsteel is steel sheet thickness. and the smallest of these capacities was taken as the load capacity of the wall panel.

4. Cd is the duration factor with a value equal to 1. [25] for wood shear walls and diaphragms was used to predict the load capacity of test specimens. while those at the tension and compression studs impose only vertical component of the force.5 for 4.3 mm < D ≤ 6.0 for D > 6.6 for earthquake loading.1. as illustrated in Fig 4. 40 . Because the wall panel specimens tested in this study include a single intermediate stud located at the centroidal axis of the panel.2 for D < 4. vwall Design procedure proposed by Easley et al. This method assumes that the screws at the top and bottom track impose both vertical and horizontal forces on the OSB sheathing.4 mm = 3.6 mm = 10D+0. D is screw diameter.4 mm (4) where. KD is a diameter coefficient that is calculated as follows: KD = 2.3 Load Capacity of OSB Sheathed Wall Panels. tsheathing is the thickness of the sheathing panel. This method considers the kinematics of the wall and utilizes the strength of the connection between the sheathing panel and the CFS framing members to determine the horizontal shear force capacity of the wall panel. The value of the dowel bearing strength of OSB panel was taken as 32 MPa [24].where. the screws at the intermediate stud were assumed to develop no force. fdowel is the dowel bearing strength of sheathing panel.

Figure 4. respectively. Forces on screws between sheathing panel and CFS framing members The shear strength per unit length of wall panel is determined as follows: (5) where.1. (6) (7) where. (8) (9) 41 . αv and αhi are geometric quantities related with the screws used to attach OSB sheathing to the vertical and horizontal framing members.

3 C90-O-11-30-E 11 30 9. Table 4.9 22. because the influence of these diagonal members is not incorporated in the derivation of the analytical procedure.1 12.0 10. Relation between measured and predicted load capacities Predicted capacity kN Specimen Screw tilting CFS bearing OSB bearing C90-O-11-15-E 11 15 15. The horizontal shear force capacity of wall panels corresponding to the failure modes of screw tilting.9 C90-O-18-30-E 18 30 12.9 14.1.4 42 .9 22.1 14.6 8. nh is the number of screws between the horizontal framing members and the OSB sheathing.3 8. Results from the specimens including diagonal struts were not included in this table. and bearing on OSB sheathing panel determined using the procedure outlined above are summarized in Table 4.9 22.3 C140-O-11-15-E 11 15 14.0 29.0 18. nv is the number of screws between the vertical framing members and the OSB sheathing excluding the screws at the ends.5 14.0 16.1 12. bearing on CFS framing members.where. xhi. h and a are as shown in Fig 4.0 C90-O-18-15-E 18 15 16.1.0 18.1.

Figure 4. For this specimen. screw tilting is the failure mode producing the smallest wall capacity.2 indicate that for all combinations of screw spacing and OSB sheathing thickness. except for the case of Specimen C90-O-18-30-E.2.1 and Fig. 43 . even though the analytical procedure indicates that the wall capacity is governed by screw tilting. 4. The agreement between the predicted load capacities and the measured values is acceptable. Relation between measured and predicted load capacities The capacities presented in Table 4. the capacity corresponding to the failure mode of bearing on CFS framing members agrees more closely with the measured capacity.

which is the diaphragm action of sheathing. as well as the separation of sheathing from the framing members were other commonly observed deformation modes. the strength and stiffness of the hold-down attachment prevented the wall panels to reach the expected strength and stiffness levels. Influence of additional parameters.CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5. screw spacing. the maximum load attained by specimens with 140 mm high CFS section happened to be slightly larger than the companion specimens with 90 mm high CFS section. In terms of the CFS section size. A new holddown geometry can be designed as a future work that can prevent the significant 44 . specimens with 90 mm high section had slightly higher resistance than those with 140 mm high section. five betopan sheathed and two unsheathed CFS wall panel specimens. Despite both group of specimens showed similar behavior in initial stiffness region of load-deflection plots. In most of the specimens tested in this study. Tilting of the screws connecting sheathing panel to the CFS boundary framing members. three fibercement sheathed. extensive damage in the hold-down attachment and in part of the bottom track adjacent to the hold-down prevented the wall panels to exhibit the stiffness associated with the main load resisting mechanism. Panels tested without sheathing suffered from local buckling at the base of intermediate stud where one of the diagonal members was connected. Bottom plate of hold-down attachment used in the test specimens suffered from substantial bending deformation under the effect of tensile loads. Response of wall panels under lateral loading was determined to be directly related with the behavior of the hold-down attachment used at the base of panels. CFS section size. such as sheathing panel thickness. existence of diagonal struts and double-sided sheathing was also investigated. lateral stiffness of wall panels reduced significantly.1 Summary and Conclusions Static lateral load tests were conducted on eleven OSB sheathed. For the sheathed walls. As a result of this deformation.

Difference in the load capacity of walls sheathed with fibercement and OSB panels were closer. Among the parameters investigated in this study the one that had the most significant effect on the behavior of wall panels was the screw spacing used at exterior framing members. For the OSB sheathed specimens. In this study.deformations under tensile loads. Sheathing materials with a higher dowel bearing strength can be useful when selecting the sheathing panels. but other parameters should also be checked while designing. Shear resistance of wall panel will increase when sheathing material with higher dowel bearing strength is used. Even though the function of these diagonal struts is to maintain the stability of CFS frames during the erection. The current practice used in the CFS construction in Turkey is to provide diagonal struts between the vertical studs in some of the wall panels. existence of diagonal struts slightly increased the load capacity and initial stiffness of the wall panels for all thickness and CFS section height values studied. it can be concluded that 18 mm thick OSB plates are not a practical way to make a shear wall with CFS section wall panels. Therefore. This new design can help to increase the lateral strength and stiffness of CFS wall panels. For the case of fibercement and betopan sheathed specimens. the increase in load capacity of wall panels was between 37% and 85% depending on the type and thickness of sheathing panel. 45 . their effect of the lateral load behavior of wall panels was also investigated. Test results indicated that the beneficial effect of increasing the OSB sheathing panel thickness from 11 mm to 18 mm remained very limited in terms of the load capacity of wall panels. there was no appreciable difference in the behavior when diagonal struts were included inside the wall panels. walls sheathed with betopan panels had 18% to 25% higher load capacity than those sheathed with OSB panels. Between the cases of 15 cm and 30 cm screw spacing.

additional strength and stiffness increase expected due to the existence of these diagonal struts is recommended to be ignored. Another alternative is to use a curved plate in order to minimize the bending deformation at bottom plate of the hold-down. For this reason. which is the diaphragm action of sheathing.5. - Thickness of the bottom plate of the hold-down should be increased if flat shape is to be used. screws of hold-down must be connected to both studs of the double stud for prevent the premature rivet failure. For this reason. and only the resistance associated with the sheathing panels should be considered. Extensive damage in the hold-down attachment connected to the tension stud significantly reduced the stiffness and strength of the wall panels by preventing the wall panels to exhibit the stiffness associated with the main load resisting mechanism. Using holddown attachments with a modified geometry could improve the performance of sheathed CFS wall panels under lateral loading. Dowel bearing strength of the sheathing material has a significant effect on the resistance of screw connection between sheathing panel and CFS section. 46 . Test results indicated that the existence of diagonal struts inside the sheathed wall panels had a very limited influence on the lateral load response of the wall panels. using a sheathing material with high dowel bearing strength would be expected to increase the lateral load capacity of the CFS wall panel. Following modifications for the holddown geometry are recommended: - Stiffener plates at the sides of the hold-down should reach to top of the screw connection area to avoid extensive bending deformation at screw connection plate. - If the hold-down attachment is connected to a stud made of double CFS sections. Diagonal struts are primarily used to provide the lateral stability of CFS frames during assembly.2 Recommendations The weakest link in the sheathed CFS wall panel specimens tested in this study was appeared to be the hold-down attachments used to transfer the tensile and shear forces from studs to the foundation.

2. 9. W. N. 63. “Experimental Tests on Typical Screw Connections for Cold-Formed Steel Housing”. LaBoube. “Shear Resistance of Cold-Formed Steel Framed Shear Walls With 0. Kim. Canada. R. W. R. 7. 460– 474. (2004). 32. (2006). 1462–1470. Thin-Walled Structures. Washington DC.REFERENCES 1. A. Wilcoski J.. Rogers. F. Gypsum and Fiberbond Walls With Metal Framing”.. 48. D. 29. 8. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering. 6. T. (2010). A. Foutch. 0. C.762 mm and 0. OSB. “Steel Frame / Wood Panel Shear Walls : Preliminary Design Information For Use With The 2005 NBCC”.. “Inelastic performance of cold-formed steel strap braced walls”. 5. Chen. A. Rogers. W. A. Balh. Comeau.. USA.. John Wiley & Sons. “Static Racking Behavior of Plywood. Yu. C. 846–856. Lee. 47 .838 mm Steel Sheet Sheathing”. Engineering Structures. 3. L. Engineering Structures.686 mm. (2010). American Iron and Steel Institute. Fiorino. Velchev.” Evaluation of the AISI S213 seismic design procedures through testing of strap braced coldformed steel walls”. M. Engineering Structures. Serette. 123(8). “American Standards for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members”. (2006). 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.. Rogers. 1079-1086. AISI (2007).. USA. C.. (1997). 1522-1529. G. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. Inc. C. A. 1761-1773. (2007). Vancouver. “Shaketable tests of a cold-formed steel shear panel”.. K. Al-Kharat. (2010). “Cold-Formed Steel Design”. 4. 28. A. Yu. A.. New Jersey.

Thin-Walled Structures. 18. Telue. W. “Minimum weight of cold-formed steel sections under compression”. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. Thin-Walled Structures. C. 1084-1095. 567–579. Moen. 17. (2008). A. “Research on cold-formed steel columns”. 1164–1182. Wang. (2006). 197–210. 31. Lu. Screwed joints in straps”. J. Moghimi. (2004). R. Thin-Walled Structures. Ph. Naujoks. 16. R. (2009). Tian. Arnedo. (2004). Y. 20. Telue. Thesis. 14. M. F. “Behaviour and design of cold-formed steel wall frames lined with plasterboardon both sides. 48 . 42. (2008). Mahendran. Naples.. (2006). D. “Strength and Stiffness Determination of Shear Wall Panels in Cold-Formed Steel Framing”. “Axial load capacity of cold-formed steel wall stud with sheathing”. (2003). S. Ronagh.. 11. “Performance of light-gauge coldformed steel strap-braced stud walls subjected to cyclic loading”. 44. Xu. J.D. 45. Italy. L.”. B. Rodriguez.. 12. 537–551. Y.. Lange. 1241–1256. H.. Mahendran. J. Schafer.. University of Naples. M. 44. S. J. Lu. Thin-Walled Structures. “Seismic Behavior of Sheathed Cold-Formed Steel Stud Shear Walls”. L. Tian. (2006). Fiorino. Young. T. 46. 60. 515–532. B.. Engineering Structures. “Numerical modelling and design of unlined cold-formed steel wall frames”. Thin-Walled Structures. J. 13.. Thin-Walled Structures. Thin-Walled Structures. 46. “Experiments on cold-formed steel columns with holes”. 19. Casafont. Engineering Structures. M. 1214– 1222. Roure. (2007). Part 1. T. 69-83. Martinez. “Behaviour of cold-formed steel shear walls under horizontal and vertical loads”. B. 26. “Experimental testing of joints for seismic design of lightweight structures. (2004)... Y. 15. 731–740.10. 44. Y.. H..

USA. J. Washington State University. Washington DC. T. New York. 108(11)... J. Lu. (1999). H. ASCE Journal of Structural Division. Y. F. “The role of frame members and sheathing in partition wall panels subjected to compression”. 23. 24.. Thesis. 25. “Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual”. (2002). 2460-2478.”. 43. Easley. J. T. “Wood Engineering and Construction Handbook. Wang. “Dowel Bearing Strength and Bolted Connection Behavior of Oriented Strand Board Lumber”. AISI (1996). P. 49 . T.J. McGraw Hill. M. 983–1002. “Formulas for Wood Shear Walls”. Cates. Willams. (1982). (2005).. R. Faherty. Foomani. Tian. 22. Washington DC. Msc.S.21. K. Dodds. USA... Thin-Walled Structures. American Iron and Steel Institute.

APPENDIX DETAILS OF LOAD TESTS 50 .

51 .

52 .

53 .

54 .

55 .

56 .

57 .

58 .

59 .

60 .

61 .

62 .

63 .

64 .

65 .

66 .

67 .

68 .

69 .

70 .

71 .