Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Racking strength and stiffness of cold-formed

steel wall frames
Y.S. Tian, J. Wang, T.J. Lu

Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK
Received 27 October 2002; received in revised form 30 September 2003; accepted 21 October 2003

Abstract

A combined experimental and theoretical study on the racking strength and stiffness of
cold-formed steel wall frames is presented. A variety of bracing methods including no bra-
cing, bracing with cement particle board or oriental strand board, and bracing with single or
double X strap are investigated. The deformation behaviour and failure modes of each
frame under racking are observed, and its racking strength and stiffness measured. Theoreti-
cal analysis is performed for frames with metal strap bracing. The predicted failure loads are
in close agreement with those measured. The cross-sectional area of a strap significantly
affects the deflection (stiffness) of a frame, but has little influence on its racking load
capacity. Amongst the bracing methods studied, frames with 2 side X-straps have the best
racking performance. By careful selection of the bracing method, individual member section,
strap geometry and connection method, the frame performance can be optimised.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cold-formed steel frame; Bracing method; Racking load; Experimental measurement; Theor-
etical modelling

1. Introduction

Cold-formed steel sections and wall panels are increasingly being used in build-
ing construction. A cold-formed steel wall panel normally consists of top/bottom
tracks, stud, bracing and connections, which can be assembled together on site or
manufactured in the factory. With the latter method, intensive labour can be
saved on site, and hence the construction time may be shortened. However,

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1223-766316; fax: +44-1223-332662.
E-mail address: tjl21@cam.ac.uk (T.J. Lu).

0143-974X/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2003.10.002
1070 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093

transportation of the assembled panels may pose a potential problem due to weak
racking stiffness/strength. From the loading point of view, there are typically two
types of wall: load-bearing wall and partition wall. For a partition wall, no special
requirement on the load carrying capacity of the wall frame is needed. A load-
bearing wall frame will not only support vertical load but also resist racking load
caused by wind, earthquake or even transportation. The gauge of a cold-formed
steel section is in general very thin and hence the racking resistance of a wall frame
will be unacceptably low if no bracing is used. If the racking load carrying capacity
is needed for a wall frame, bracing with boards, cold-formed steel sections or flat
straps is desirable.
Bracing of a frame can significantly increase its capability to carry the vertical as
well as lateral load. Miller and Pekoz [1,2] studied the effect of sheathing on the
vertical load capacity of cold-formed steel studs, whilst Telue and Mahendran [3]
examined the behaviour of cold-formed steel wall frames braced with plaster-
boards. It was found that the vertical load carrying capacity of wall studs increases
significantly after bracing with boards. Serrette [4] provided useful information on
the shear resistance of gypsum-sheathed wall frames with light-gauge steel studs.
However, research on the racking behaviour of steel wall frames is, in general,
scarce. There is little description about the lateral behaviour of wall studs after
bracing either in the British Standards [5] or in the American specification about
cold-form steel section design [6].
This research will focus on the lateral behaviours of cold-formed steel frames
subjected to racking loads, by using a combined experimental and theoretical
approach. It complements our previous work on the optimisation of cold-formed
steel sections under axial compression [7], compressive behaviour of cold-formed
steel frames braced with boards [8,9], and finite element analysis of
cold-formed steel sections. The sequence of tasks performed in the present inves-
tigation is as follows. Racking tests will be carried out on frames braced with
different strap configurations, including 1 side X-bracing, 2 side X-bracing, 2 side
double X-bracing, and bracing with oriental strand board (OSB) or cement par-
ticle board (CPB). The shear resistance and deflection of each frame will be
measured, and failure modes observed. Theoretical analysis will subsequently be
carried out for frames braced with metal straps, and the predicted racking
strength and stiffness compared with those measured. Finally, the influence of
bracing strap size and bracing method on the racking performance of a frame
will be discussed.

2. Test program

2.1. Frame configuration

A total of 10 frames (Table 1) are fabricated for the racking test. Each frame,
2450 mm long and 1250 mm wide, consists of top and bottom tracks, side tracks
and middle stud, and is braced with either steel straps or boards (except for frame
A-1 which has no bracing). The track is a plain channel section, with web depth
 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093 1071

Table 1
Test specimens
No Frame Specimen Bracing type Bracing side
type number
1 A-1 1 No bracing N/A
2 A-2 2 OSB bracing One
3 A-2 2 CPB bracing One
4 B-1 2 X bracing with 1.060 steel strap Two
5 B-2 1 X bracing with 1.060 steel strap One
6 C-1 2 Double X bracing with 1.260 steel strap Two
Sum 10

93 mm, flange width 67 mm, and gage 1.2 mm. The middle stud is a lipped channel
section, with web depth 90 mm, flange width 60 mm, lip length 12 m, and gage
1.2 mm. This particular stud geometry is designed based on the optimal study of
Tian et al. [7]. For both the stud and track, steel grade used is Z35 with yielding
strength of 350 N/mm2. Two /5 mm rivets are used for each track–track or track–
stud connection. All test frames are identical except for the bracing method used.
Three basic types of frame are tested, as listed in Table 1 and shown in Fig. 1.
Type A is a frame without strap bracing, Type B is a frame with X strap bracing,
and Type C is a frame with double X bracing. For Frame A, there are 2 sub
types: one has no bracing at all (A-1) and the other has board bracings (A-2),
with two different bracing boards used, namely, oriental strand board (OSB) and
cement particle board (CPB). The flexural modulus and strength of the CPB are
5000 N/mm2 and 14 N/mm2, respectively. The OSB is orthotropic, with modulus
of elasticity 3500 N/mm2 and 1400 N/mm2, and modulus of rupture 22 N/mm2
and 11 N/mm2 for the major and minor axis, respectively. All boards are attached
to the frame by /5 mm self-driving screws, spaced 300 mm apart. Frame B uses
60  1:0 mm steel straps for X bracing. The difference between frame B-1 and
frame B-2 is that B-1 is braced on two sides whereas B-2 is braced only on one
side. Frame C, with double X bracing, uses 60  1:2 mm steel straps on two sides.
The steel grade for all bracing straps is Z2 having yielding strength of 280 N/mm2.
At each end of the strap, two /5 mm rivets are used for connecting the strap to the
frame.

2.2. Test procedure and installation

There exists no standard test procedure for the shear test of a cold-formed wall
panel. The test procedure and installation used in the present study are based on
BS: EN 594:1996 for timber structures [10] (Test methods—Racking strength and
stiffness of timber frame wall panels) and ASTM E72-80 [11] (Standard methods of
conducting strength tests of panels for building construction), except that in our
test the frame is placed on a firm horizontal surface (basement), as illustrated in
Fig. 2. The bottom track of the frame is connected with the supporting wood beam
(90  118 mm) by four /10 mm bolts, whilst the wood beam is clamped to the
1072 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093

Fig. 1. Frame bracing configuration.

basement by two /20 mm bolts. At the corner between the wood beam and frame,
two 10 mm thick steel angles are used. To eliminate the lateral rigid displacement
and rotation of the frame, one side of the angle is clamped to the basement
through the wood beam by one /20 mm bolt whereas the other is connected to the
frame by two /10 mm bolts. The top track is attached to another wood beam
(93  93 mm) by four /10 mm bolts. Between the top track and basement there
are two /25 mm steel rolls, and the top of the frame can move smoothly with the
rolls. There is also a top supporting system, clamped to the basement. Between this
system and the top track there are two /25 mm steel rolls, which are positioned to
be just in touch with the top supports. This test rig has been designed to ensure
that the deformation of the frame is confined to the horizontal plane, with minimal
vertical movement.
The racking load is applied to the frame by a mechanical jack via a loading
block. Between the load block and the jack, a load cell with a ball joint is installed.
Four position transducers (PT) are used to measure the displacement of the frame,
as shown in Fig. 2. The total lateral displacement at the top of the frame is mea-
sured by PT_H1, whilst PT_H2 is positioned at the bottom of the frame to check
 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093 1073

Fig. 2. Test installation and arrangement of load cell and position transducers.

the lateral rigid movement, if any. Two transducers, PT_V1 and PT_V2, are used
to check if there is any rigid rotation.
Two loading methods based on BS: EN 594: 1996 are used. The first is a 1-step
loading, with which the load is applied continuously till frame failure occurs. The
second is a 3-step loading, wherein the test is divided into 3 load steps: stabilizing
step, stiffness step, and strength step. In the first step, racking load P is increased
to 0.1Pmax,est and maintained for 120 s. The frame is then unloaded, allowing a
recovery period of about 300 s before the next load step is applied. In the stiffness
step, P is increased to 0.4Pmax,est and maintained for 300 s. The frame is again
unloaded, and a recovery period of about 300 s allowed. In the final step, the rack-
ing load is increased to P ¼ 0:4Pmax;est and maintained for 300 s. The load is then
increased monotonically until Pmax is reached. If two frames are identical, one will
be tested according to the 1-step loading procedure to obtain the maximum load,
and the other according to the 3-step loading.
Output from the load cells and displacement transducers are fed into a data log-
ging system, and later transferred to a PC for data analysis. The recordings of the
load cell and position transducers can be displayed on the PC monitor, whilst the
load versus total displacement curve can be plotted synchronously during the tests.
When some special phenomena of interest (e.g. local and global buckling) are
observed during the testing, it is easy to record the corresponding load and dis-
placement displayed on the monitor.
1074 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093

3. Test results and analysis

3.1. Observation during testing

3.1.1. Frame A-1 without any bracing

One A-1 frame was tested with 1-step loading procedure. Generally speaking,
this frame cannot carry much racking load. When the load reached about 0.24 kN,
local buckling was observed on the right track close to the bottom. As the lateral
deflection was increased, local buckling could also be observed on the left track
close to the top track. Thereafter, the lateral deflection continued to increase but
with a very slow increase in load. When the lateral deflection reached about 100
mm, the test was stopped, the corresponding load being 0.96 kN. According to BS:
EN594, 100 mm lateral deflection is the limit deflection allowed for wall panels.
The load corresponding to this limit displacement is taken here as the maximum
load of the frame can carry. With the test stopped, it was observed that the middle
stud had a rigid rotation relative to the bottom track as shown in Fig. 3a. The
v
rotation angle measured was about 2.4 . The rigid lateral displacement of the top
track calculated based on this angle was close to 100 mm, implying that the joint
performed like a pinned one. However, because there are rivets on the joint, it can
still support certain moment. Upon unloading, all local buckling was recovered
with no significant visible permanent damage on the stud or the track, although
there was about 40 mm residual lateral deflection. This indicates that permanent
deformation exists around the joint areas. The racking load is plotted as a function
of lateral deflection in Fig. 4.

3.1.2. Frame A-2 braced with one OSB board

Two identical A-2 frames braced with one OSB board were tested. One was
tested with 1-step loading procedure and the other with 3-step loading. During the
1-step loading, an expected incident happened. In the final stage of the test, the
bottom edge of the OSB board touched with the bottom wood beam due to frame
deformation. As a result, the frame became slightly stiffer, and hence the measured
maximum load was somewhat inaccurate. In the following, the discussion is mainly
based on test results of the second frame.
During the first and second loading steps, no unusual phenomena were observed,
except for a small amount of residual deflection after unloading. For the third
loading step, the racking load versus lateral deflection curve is plotted in Fig. 4.
When the load exceeded 5 kN, significant local buckling was observed on the left
track close to the top and also on the right track close to the bottom. When the
load reached about 10 kN, a loud noise from the board was heard and, at the same
time, considerable deformation on the board around the screw heads was observed.
At this moment the damage load of the frame was reached. Although the frame
could still carry more load, the load increased very slowly with increasing deflec-
tion, reaching maximum when the deflection was about 55 mm. Afterwards the
load decreased with increasing lateral displacement.
 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093 1075

Fig. 3. Photos taken during the tests: (a) Middle stud connection of Frame A-1without bracing; (b) Left
track failure of Frame C-1 braced with 2X-2 side straps; (c) Top-left rivet failure of Frame B-1 braced
with X-2 side straps; (d) Crack on CPB for Frame A-2 at damage load; (e) Deformation on OSB for
Frame A-2 at failure; (f) Screw pulling-out from OSB for Frame A-2 at failure.

The net lateral deflection from the damage load (10 kN) to the maximum load
was large, about 40 mm. This means that the frame was damaged gradually,
accompanied with considerable deformation. In the final stage, as the deflection
increased, the board was almost completely disconnected from the left and right
track (Fig. 3e and f), and the load dropped sharply. When the lateral deflection
reached about 80 mm, the test was stopped. It was then observed that on the mid-
dle stud, the screw connections were still intact, suggesting that the shear force was
mainly passed by the sidetrack connections to the board. Upon complete unload-
ing, about 50 mm residual deflection was measured. When the board was removed
and the frame carefully examined, it was found that all local buckling had been
recovered and there was no significant damage on the track and the stud, except
local areas around screw connections.
1076 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093

Fig. 4. Racking load plotted as a function of lateral deflection for selected test frames.

3.1.3. Frame A-2 braced with one CPB board

Two identical A-2 frames braced with one CPB board were tested, one with 1-
step loading and the other with 3-step loading. The performance of both frames
was similar to that of frame A-2 braced with one OSB board. When load reached
about 10 kN, cracks formed around the screw connections, accompanied by a
thump. A typical crack is shown in Fig. 3d. Afterwards the load carried by the
frame continued to increase till reaching the maximum. Eventually the cracks
around the screws became sufficiently large such that the frame could no longer
carry more racking load. When the lateral deflection reached about 80 mm, the test
was stopped. After unloading, about 50 mm residual displacement was measured.

3.1.4. Frame B-1 braced with 2-side X straps

Two identical B-1 frames braced with 2-side X straps were tested, one with 1-
step loading and the other with 3-step loading. Before any visible failure occurred,
the two frames had similar performances. At about 4 kN load, local buckling
appeared on the left track close to the top. When the load reached about 5 kN,
local buckling was also observed on the right track close to the bottom. But the
final failure modes for the two frames were different. The frame tested with one
loading step failed at the rivets located at the top-left corner as shown in Fig. 3c,
whereas the frame tested with 3-step loading failed by overall and heavy local
buckling on the flanges of the left track (Fig. 3b). For the frame with one step
loading, nearly all buckling on the track was recovered upon unloading.
That the two frames failed in different modes indicates that the lateral failure
strength of the left track was similar to that of the rivets. When the racking load
approached this strength, both failure modes are likely to happen. The exact mode
of failure is dependent upon the initial geometrical imperfections and the disturb-
 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093 1077

ance during the test. Interestingly, as shown in Fig. 4, when the frame failed by
buckling of the left track, the lateral load suddenly dropped by about 2 kN: there-
after the frame could still carry about 10 kN load over a relatively large range of
lateral deflection. For the frame failed at rivets, the load drop after reaching the
maximum load was not as large as that of the frame failed by buckling, but with a
further increase in deflection, the load dropped very quickly. At this moment the
bracing strap was disconnected from the rivets completely and the frame, now
effectively without any bracing, could no longer carry any racking load.

3.1.5. Frame B-2 braced with 1-side X straps

One B-2 frame braced with 1-side X straps was tested with 1-step test procedure.
For this frame, the bracing straps were not symmetrical, so local buckling was
observed in the early stage. When the load was increased to 1.7 kN, local buckling
was observed on the left track close to the top. When load reached 2.7 kN, local
buckling on the right track close to the bottom was also observed. The frame
eventually failed by the rivets at the right-bottom corner. The performance of this
frame is similar to that of the frame braced with 2-side X straps tested with 1-step
loading. The only difference lies in their maximum racking failure loads. The
maximum racking load of the frame with 1-side X bracing was only about half that
of the same frame type but braced with 2-side X straps.

3.1.6. Frame C-1 braced with 2-side 2X straps

Two identical C-1 frames braced with 2-side 2X strap bracing were tested. One
was tested with 1-step loading and the other with 3-step loading. The latter
deformed in the elastic range during the first two loading steps. After unloading,
no permanent deformation was observed on the frame, although some residual dis-
placement was left because of the deformation of the joints. Fig. 4 plots the rack-
ing load as a function of the lateral deflection. The two frames follow exactly the
same trend, with only a slight difference in the maximum failure load. When the
load exceeded 5 kN, local buckling was observed on the left track close to the top
as well as on the right track close to the bottom. Both frames failed by overall
buckling of the left track.
3.2. Analysis of test results

Test results for the 10 frames are summarized in Table 2, and will be analysed in
detail below.

3.2.1. Frame contribution to racking resistance

Generally speaking, when the lateral deflection increased to about 30 mm, the
lateral load of all braced frames (except for Frame B-2 braced with 1-side X straps)
reached the damage load or maximum load, approximately 10 kN. In comparison,
at the same lateral deflection, Frame A-1 without any bracing could only carry
about 0.4 kN racking load. In other words, the frame itself can only contribute
about 4% to the total racking resistance of a braced frame.
1078 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093

Table 2
Racking test results
Frame Bracing type Loading Racking Damage Maximum Failure mode
type steps stiffness load (kN) load (kN)
(kN/mm)
A-1 No bracing 1 0.903 Plastic deformation
around corners
A-2 OSB-1 sides 1 10.0 16.0a Screws
A-2 OSB-1 side 3 0.526 10.3 12.7 Screws
A-2 CPB-1 side 1 9.8 11.6 Screws
A-2 CPB-1 side 3 0.603 9.9 14.6 Screws
B-1 1X-2 sides 1 10.7 10.7 Top-left rivets
B-1 1X-2 sides 3 0.534 10.3 10.3 Left track
B-2 1X-1 side 1 5.2 5.2 Bottom-right rivets
C-1 2X-2 sides 1 10.7 10.7 Left track
C-1 2X-2 sides 3 0.464 10.1 10.1 Left track
a
The value is not very reliable (see main text).

3.2.2. Racking stiffness

According to BS:EN 594 [10], the definition of racking stiffness is :


1 P14  P11 P24  P21
R¼ þ ð1Þ
2 D14  D11 D24  D21

where R is the racking stiffness, kN/mm; P14 is the racking load of 0.4Pmax,est
determined in the stiffness test, kN; D14 is the lateral deflection corresponding to
P14, mm; P11 is the racking load of 0.1Pmax,est determined in the stiffness test, kN;
D11 is the lateral deflection corresponding to P11, mm; P24 is the racking load of
0.4Pmax,est determined in the strength test, kN; D24 is the lateral deflection corre-
sponding to P24, mm; P21 is the racking load of 0.1Pmax,est determined in the
strength test, kN; D21 is the lateral deflection corresponding to P21, mm; Pmax,est is
the estimated (or measured) maximum racking load.
According to the British Standard [10], the racking stiffness can be measured
only for a frame tested with a 3-step loading procedure, subjected to the proviso
that its maximum racking load is known a priori (either by estimation or measure-
ment). In this research, before the frame is tested with the 3-step loading, an ident-
ical frame is tested first to determine the maximum racking load. A total of four
frames were tested with 3 loading steps in the present study, and the corresponding
racking stiffness for each frame is presented in Table 2. The frame braced with
CPB was the stiffest with a stiffness of 0.603 kN/mm, whereas the frame braced
with 2-side 2X straps was the least stiff one with a stiffness of 0.464 kN/mm. The
stiffness of Frame A-2 braced with OSB was slightly smaller than that of Frame
A-2 braced with CPB, whereas the stiffness of Frame B-1 is slightly larger than that
of Frame C-1. Overall, the stiffness difference for the 4 frames tested is less than 30%.
 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093 1079

3.2.3. Damage load

Damage load is defined here as the maximum service load of a frame,
accompanied in general by significant visible damage on the frame. Often, the
damaged frame can still carry some load as the deflection is further increased. For
a frame braced with board(s), when its damage load is reached, significant local
deformation and/or cracks around screw connections are observed on the board.
The average damage load for Frame A-2 braced with OSB and CPB is 10.15 kN
and 9.85 kN, respectively. After damage has occurred, the load continues to
increase with increasing deflection, albeit very slowly, and the load versus deflec-
tion curve becomes strongly nonlinear and unstable (Fig. 4).
For a frame braced with metal straps, it proved very difficult to observe any sig-
nificant damage on the frame before final failure. In this case it is assumed that the
damage load is equal to the maximum load. The average damage loads for Frame
B-1 braced with 2-side X straps and Frame C-1 braced with 2-side 2X straps are
nearly identical, 10.5 kN and 10.4 kN, respectively. For Frame B-2 braced with
1-side X straps, its damage load is only half that of Frame B-1 braced with 2-side
X straps. Except for Frame B-2, the damage load for all other braced frames is
approximately 10 kN.

3.2.4. Maximum load

This is defined as the maximum load measured during the test. Amongst the 6
different frames tested, those braced with CPB and OSB have the best perform-
ance, with a maximum load of 13.1 kN and 12.7 kN, respectively, about 30%
higher than the corresponding damage load. For frames braced with metal straps,
the maximum load is the same as the damage load as discussed above.

3.2.5. Failure modes

Three typical failure modes were observed during the test, namely, board dam-
age failure, overall buckling of the track, and bracing rivet failure. For Frame A-2
braced with boards, all failures (cracks or permanent damage) occurred on the
boards around screw connections. It appears that the board property dominates
this failure mode. For Frame C-1 braced with 2-side 2X straps, overall buckling
occurs on the left track in compression. Since the left track is a C-channel without
lips, it is very weak to resist any compressive load, as demonstrated by Tian et al.
[8] through measurements and modelling. For Frame B-1 braced with 2-side X
straps, there were two possible failure modes: overall bucking of the left track or
strap rivet failure. For Frame B-2 braced with 1-side X straps, failure occurred at
the rivets connecting the straps and the frame.

4. Theoretical analysis

Experimental observations suggest that the individual members of a cold-formed

steel frame fail by buckling under combined bending and compression. In the fol-
lowing, the racking performance of a frame braced with steel straps will be ana-
lysed. The analysis will be divided into two steps. In the first step, when the
1080 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093

racking load, P, is given, the internal moments and forces for all members in the
frame in the elastic regime (first-order elastic analysis) will be obtained by using the
slope-deflection method [12]. The results will be used in the second step to check
the load capacity and overall buckling for all members. As the racking load is
increased, if one of the members fails by local or overall buckling, it is assumed
that the frame has reached its maximum racking load.
4.1. Frame A-1 without any bracing

For theoretical analysis, the frame will be simplified to a computing model. In

order to compare the analytical results with those measured, the boundary con-
ditions of the computing model should match the test boundary conditions. During
the test, the bottom of the frame was fixed to a wood beam clamped to the base-
ment. To ensure that the bottom of the frame does not move laterally, its two cor-
ners were fixed by steel angles. Consequently, in the computing model, the three
columns (two sidetracks and one middle stud) of the frame are assumed to be
clamped at the bottom. At the top of the frame, the three columns are connected
to the top track by rivets. Two scenarios are considered in the analysis. The first
assumes that the top joints are rigid as shown in Fig. 5, whereas in the second pin
joints are assumed. The axial deformation of each member is very small in com-
parison with the lateral defection, so it is ignored in the analysis. The validity of
each assumption will be checked by comparing predictions with measurements.
First, consider Frame A-1 with top rigid joints (Fig. 5a). The frame consists of 5
members, AB, CD, EF, BC and CE. The two sidetracks, AB and EF, having ident-
ical section properties, are arranged to face each other. Members BC and CE are
each taken as a single continuous beam. The reaction forces at the clamped ends of

Fig. 5. Analytical model of Frame A-1 under racking load.

 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093 1081

Fig. 6. Member internal forces for Frame A-1.

the frame are shown in Fig. 5b, whilst the internal forces and reaction forces for all
members are shown in Fig. 6.
For member AB, end A is clamped with zero rotation, hA ¼ 0. End B rotates by
an angle hB, and deflects D along the lateral direction. For members CD and FE,
the ends D and F are clamped, i.e. hD ¼ 0, hF ¼ 0. There is no deflection for mem-
bers BC and CE because the vertical deformation of all members is negligibly
small. All the member moments shown in Fig. 6 can be obtained directly using the
slope-deflection analysis of the members.
For each rigid corner (B, C and E), the sum of the internal moments should be
zero, so three equations can be obtained. The fourth equation can be obtained by
considering the force equilibrium in the lateral direction (Fig. 5b). Finally, the 4
unknowns, hB, hC, hE and D, can be obtained by solving the following equation:
AX ¼ B ð2Þ
where
2 3
4ði1 þ i3 Þ 2i3 0 6i1 =l1
6 2i 4ði2 þ i3 Þ 2i3 6i2 =l1 7
6 3 7
A¼6 7;
40 2i3 4ði1 þ 2i3 Þ 6i1 =l1 5
6i1 6i2 6i1 12ð2i1 þ i2 Þ=l1
2 3 2 3
hB 0
6h 7 60 7
6 C7 6 7
X ¼ 6 7; B ¼ 6 7
4 hE 5 40 5
D Pl1
1082 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093

where i1 is the stiffness factor of member AB, i1 ¼ EI1 =l1 ; E is the elastic modulus
of the member material; I1 – inertia moment of member AB; l1 is the length of
the member; i2 is the stiffness factor of member CD, i2 ¼ EI2 =l1 ; I2 is the inertia
moment of member CD; i3 is the stiffness factor of member BC and CE,
i3 ¼ EI3 =l3 ; I3 is the inertia moment of member BC and CE; l3 is the length of
member BC and CE.
Once hB, hC, hE and D are determined, the end moments, shear forces and axial
forces of the five members AB, CD, EF, BC and CE can be straightforwardly cal-
culated.
Consider next the case where pin joints at corners B, C and E are assumed. The
internal moments at the corners then disappear, resulting in:

MBA ¼ MCD ¼ MEF ¼ 0 ð3Þ

The relationship between the racking force P and the lateral deflection D can be
obtained explicitly as:

Pl12
D¼ ð4Þ
3ð2i1 þ i2 Þ

4.2. Frame B braced with X straps

Frame B is braced with X flat steel straps as shown in Fig. 1. When a racking
force is applied to the frame top, one strap experiences tension and the other com-
pression. Because the thin flat strap under compression buckles easily, to simplify
the analysis (while maintaining the accuracy), it is neglected in the analytical model
as shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7. Analytical model of Frame B-1 under racking load.

 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093 1083

The steel strap on the frame behaves like a spring. When it is extended by d, the
force carried by the strap, PE, is given by:
dEAs
PE ¼ ð5Þ
l4
where E is the elastic modulus of the strap material; AS isqthe cross-sectional
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi area
of the strap; l4 is the length of the strap from A to E, l4 ¼ 4l32 þ l12 .
As shown in Fig. 7b, the strap extension d ¼ Dcosa is dependent upon the lateral
deflection at the top of the frame, D. The force carried by the strap, PE, can then
be obtained as:
DEAs cosa
PE ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð6aÞ
4l32 þ l12

2l3 ffi
With cosa ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 2
, Eq. (6a) can be simplified as:
4l3 þl1

2DEAs l3
PE ¼ ð6bÞ
4l32 þ l12

If rigid corners B, C and E are assumed , the equation to obtain hB, hC, hE and D is
the same as Eq. (2), except that the coefficient matrix, A, now becomes:
2 3
4ði1 þ i3 Þ 2i3 0 6i1 =l1
6 2i3 4 ð i2 þ i 3 Þ 2i 3 6i2 =l1 7
6 7
A ¼ 60 2i 3 4 ð i1 þ 2i 3 Þ 6i1 =l1 7
4 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 5
6i1 6i2 6i1 12ð2i1 þ i2 Þ=l1  4EAs l1 l32 = ðl12 þ 4l32 Þ3

Once hB, hC, hE and D are determined, the end moments, shear forces and axial
forces can be determined for all members in the same manner as that described for
Frame A-1.
If pin joints at corners B, C and E are assumed, the internal moments at the cor-
ners vanish. In this case, the relationship between the racking force and racking
deflection can be obtained in closed form as:

Pl12
D¼ ð7Þ
4l12 l32 EAs
3ð2i1 þ i2 Þ þ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðl12 þ 4l32 Þ3

4.3. Frame C braced with 2X straps

For Frame C braced with 2X steel straps as depicted in Fig. 1, only two tension
straps are considered in the model (Fig. 8). Again, the steel straps are simplified as
elastic springs. The forces carried by the straps, PC and PE (Fig. 8), are related to
1084 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093

Fig. 8. Analytical model of Frame C-1 under racking load.

the strap extension d by:

dEAs
PC ¼ PE ¼ ð8Þ
l5
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where l5 is the length of strap from A to C or from D to E, l5 ¼ l32 þ l12 .
The strap extension d ¼ Dcosa is dependent of the lateral deflection at the top of
the frame D, and hence Eq. (8) can be rewritten as:

DEAs l3
PC ¼ PE ¼ ð9Þ
l32 þ l12

l3
where the geometrical relation cosa ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 2
has been used.
l3 þl1
If rigid corners B, C and E are assumed, the equation to obtain hB, hC, hE and D
is the same as Eq. (2), with a new coefficient matrix A given by:
2 3
4ði1 þ i3 Þ 2i3 0 6i1 =l1
6 2i3 4 ð i 2 þ i3 Þ 2i 3 6i2 =l1 7
6 7
A ¼ 60 2i 3 4 ð i 1 þ 2i3 6i1 =l1
Þ 7
4 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 5
2 2 2
6i1 6i2 6i1 12ð2i1 þ i2 Þ=l1  2EAs l1 l3 = ðl1 þ l3 Þ3

If pin joints at the corners B, C and E are assumed, the internal moment at each
corner disappears. A simple relationship between the racking force and the racking
 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093 1085

deflection can then be obtained as:

Pl12
D¼ ð10Þ
2l12 l32 EAs
3ð2i1 þ i2 Þ þ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðl12 þ l32 Þ3

4.4. Racking load capacity of frames

A cold-formed steel frame consists of many individual members. When the

frame is subjected to a racking load and one of the members fails, the frame is
deemed to have failed. The corresponding load is defined here as the racking load
capacity of the frame. If all joints in a frame are pinned, its individual member can
only carry tension or compression. Conversely, if some or all of the joints in a
frame are rigid (or semi-rigid), moments develop at the joints, and its members
carry combined bending and compression, or combined bending and tension.
For a frame member subjected to combined bending and compression, two dif-
ferent failure scenarios are examined. The member will be checked for local
capacity at the point(s) of greatest bending moment and axial load (usually at the
ends), and for overall buckling [5].
To avoid the local capacity being exceeded at discrete points at maximum load-
ing, the member should satisfy [5]:
FC MX MY
þ þ 1 ð11Þ
PCS MCX MCY
where FC is the applied axial load; PCS is the short strut capacity; MX is the
applied bending moment about the x-axis; MCX is the moment capacity in bending
about x-axis in the absence of FC and MY; MY is the applied bending moment
about the y-axis; MCY is the moment capacity in bending about y-axis in the
absence of FC and MX.
To avoid overall buckling of a member without lateral buckling, the following
relationship should be satisfied [5]:
FC MX MY
þ  þ   1 ð12Þ
PC FC FC
CbX MCX 1  CbY MCY 1 
PEX PEY
To avoid lateral buckling, one has [5]:
FC MX MY
þ þ   1 ð13Þ
PC Mb FC
CbY MCY 1 
PEY
where PC is the axial buckling resistance in the absence of moments; PEX is the
flexural buckling load in compression for bending about the x-axis; PEY is the
flexural buckling load in compression for bending about the y-axis; CbX, CbY is
the Cb factor with regard to moment variation about the x- and y-axes,
1086 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093

Cb ¼ 1:75  1:05b þ 0:3b2 ; b is the ratio of the smaller end moment to the larger
end moment of a member; Mb is the lateral buckling resistance moment about the
(major) x-axis.
The moments MX and MY should take into account the contribution from any
moment induced by changes in the neutral axis position of the effective cross-
section caused by the axial load. To determine CbX and CbY, the influence of the
changes in the neutral axis position on moment variation may be neglected.
4.5. The procedure to predict the failure load of a cold-formed steel frame

The frame performance under racking load is computed by iteration with the
commercially available Matlab software. First, information about the frame, such
as frame type, geometrical dimensions of each member, frame dimensions etc. is
used as input. Next, the load capacity of each member, short stud capacity, axial
buckling resistance in the absence of moments, moment capacity in bending, lateral
buckling resistance etc., which are only dependent upon member dimensions and
material properties, are calculated. Then, with the initial racking load P0 given, the
rotations hB, hC, hE and lateral deflection D are solved by using the analytical
model described in the previous section. The internal forces, M, Q and N, can now
be determined for all members. Eqs. (11)–(13) will be checked for each member
based on its internal forces. If these equations are satisfied, the members can carry
more load. The racking load is then increased by a small pre-specified amount, and
the above procedure is repeated. If, on the other hand, one of the members fails to
satisfy any of the load capacity criteria, namely, Eqs. (11)–(13), this member (and
hence the frame) is considered to have failed. The corresponding racking load is
taken as the racking load capacity of the frame.
Throughout the analysis, linear elastic behaviour is assumed: no consideration is
given to nonlinearities associated with yielding and post-buckling.

5. Predictions and discussion

5.1. Predictions

The predicted racking failure loads for Frames A-1, B-1 and C-1 are presented
in Table 3. In order to compare with test results, the frame dimensions used in
the calculation are identical to those of the test structures. In the analytical model,
the loading position is different from the test frame arrangement, so members AB
and EF in the model correspond to the right and left track of the test frame,
respectively.
Frame A-1 without bracing can hardly resist any racking load, 0.440 kN if the
top corners are rigid and 0.228 kN if pinned. The predicted racking loads for B-1
and C-1 are similar (Table 3). When the racking load is increased to 10 kN, mem-
ber EF fails by overall buckling. With bracing, there is no significant change in the
racking load capacity if rigid joints are replaced by pinned ones, about 5% and 6%
for B-1 and C-1, respectively. Bracing loads are also presented in Table 3. At frame
 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093 1087

Table 3
Racking load capacity of frames
Frame A-1 Frame B-1 Frame C-1
Rigid Pinned Rigid Pinned Rigid Pinned
P (kN) 0.440 0.228 10.3 10.8 9.98 10.6
PE (N) N/A N/A 22.5 24.1 19.9 21.7
D (mm) 8.94 16.14 5.48 5.89 6.86 7.50
P/D (kN/mm) 0.049 0.014 1.883 1.848 1.454 1.413
Failure member AB AB EF EF EF EF

failure, the bracing loads are approximately 20 kN. In other words, for a frame to
resist 10 kN racking load, the bracing strap must carry about 20 kN tension load.
Frame A-1 has the lowest stiffness, and Frame B-1 has the highest.
5.2. Comparison between prediction and measurement

Table 4 compares the predicted results for Frame B-1 and Frame C-1 with those
measured. For B-1, the predicted racking failure loads are 10.3 kN and 10.8 kN for
rigid and pined joints, respectively. Two identical B-1 frames were tested, and the
measured racking failure loads were 10.3 kN and 10.7 kN, respectively. For the
first frame, the failure mode and failure load are in close agreement with those pre-
dicted. The second frame failed by rivets in the test. These results suggest that
member EF and the rivets connecting the steel strap with the frame may fail at the
same level of racking load. For Frame C-1, member EF is the weakest link and the
predicted racking failure roads are 9.98 kN and 10.6 kN for rigid and pinned
joints, respectively, both in good agreement with those measured with two identical
C-1 frames.
The analytical model leads to an overestimation of frame stiffness in comparison
with test results (Table 4). This is somewhat expected. The model is based on a
first-order elastic analysis and certain factors that have great influence on the frame
deflection, such as the reduction in section effective area due to local buckling,
material yielding, screw pulling-out, rivet failure and frame deformation, are

Table 4
Comparison between predictions and measurements
Method Item Frame B-1 Frame C-1
Rigid Pinned Rigid Pinned
Prediction P (kN) 10.3 10.8 9.98 10.6
P/D (kN/mm) 1.883 1.848 1.454 1.413
Failure member EF EF EF EF
Test P (kN) 10.3/10.7 10.1/10.7
P/D (kN/mm) 0.543 0.464
Failure member EF/Rivet EF
1088 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093

neglected in the analysis. For Frame A-1, when the racking load reached 0.24 kN,
local buckling was observed on sidetracks during the test, in close agreement with
the predicted 0.228 kN (pinned joints assumed). As the deflection was further
increased, the frame exhibited significant post buckling and continued to carry
more racking load above 0.24 kN (Fig. 4). The accuracy of prediction can be
improved by using a second-order inelastic model in a future study.
5.3. Influence of bracing strap dimension on racking performance

Both the model and the experiment have shown that a frame without bracing
has very weak racking resistance, about 4% of that of Frame B-1 and Frame C-1.
Most of the racking resistance is provided by the bracing straps, and hence how
changes in strap dimensions will affect the racking load needs to be analysed.
The effect of varying the strap width on the racking failure load of Frame B is
calculated by assuming pinned joints at the frame top. As shown in Fig. 9, strap
width has a relatively small effect on racking failure load and strap force, but great
influence on the deflection. For a 10 times increase in strap width, the racking fail-
ure load only increases by about 10%, whereas the deflection is reduced by about 5
times. This indicates that when the strap width is sufficiently large, the frame is stiff
with small deflection, and its members fail mainly by compression. For such cases,
the section design of a frame member should be based on compression, and the
section design of bracing straps should be based on frame deflection and strength
of the strap material.
5.4. Influence of bracing method on racking performance

As previously discussed, the racking load of a frame is mainly carried by the

bracing straps. In the extreme case when the strap is very strong, all joints in the
frame behave like pinned joints. Under such conditions, the bending moment on
each member can be ignored, and the strap tension force Ps and column com-
pression N can be obtained directly from equilibrium, as (Fig. 10):
P
Ps ¼ ð14Þ
cosa
N ¼ P
tana ð15Þ
where a is the angle between bracing strap and top track, a ¼ tan1 ðL=W Þ; L is the
height of frame; W is the bracing unit width of frame.
The bracing strap force Ps and the column member compression N, normalised
by the racking load P, are plotted as functions of bracing unit width W/L in
Fig. 10. As the bracing unit width increases, both Ps and N decrease significantly.
Fig. 11 sketches three frames (2400 mm length, 2400 mm width and 600 mm
stud distance) with different bracing methods. The predicted bracing strap force,
Ps, and column member compression, N, are presented in Table 5 for each frame.
The benefit of designing a frame with method (c) is clear. With this method, the
number of bracing straps and other frame members under compression are the
smallest. The only disadvantage of method (c) is perhaps that the strap force Ps is
 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093 1089

Fig. 9. Influence of strap width on racking performance of Frame B-1.

larger than that with method (a) or (b). Consequently, more rivets may be needed
for strap-frame connections.
5.5. Possible ways of racking strength enhancement

For frames braced with boards, the racking resistance is governed by board
properties. By Increasing board thickness, complemented with optimised screw
spacing, the racking resistance can be enhanced. For frames braced with steel
straps, according to the observed failure modes, the racking resistance enhance-
ment can be achieved by considering different bracing methods, individual member
sections, strap–frame connections, amongst others. For bracing methods, generally
speaking, the larger the ratio of bracing unit width to frame length W/L is, the
better. For individual member section, frames consisting of sidetracks made with
1090 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093

Fig. 10. Strap force Ps and member compression N plotted as functions of W/L.

lipped channel sections can carry larger racking load in comparison with frames
using plain channel sections as sidetracks. For strap–frame connection, by increas-
ing the number of rivets or modifying the connection type, the frame racking
resistance can be improved and immature connection failures prevented. Further-
more, by increasing the strap width or cross-sectional area, the stiffness and rack-
ing behaviour of the frame can be much improved.

6. Conclusions

A combined experimental and analytical study has been carried out to investi-
gate the racking strength and stiffness of cold-formed steel wall frames with and
without bracing. The following conclusions can be drawn:

1. A frame without any bracing has a racking strength less than 5% of that of the
same frame with bracing.
2. The racking strength of a frame braced with thin flat steel straps (except 1-side
X bracing) is nearly the same as that of a frame braced with the more expensive
and heavier CPB or OSB boards.
3. For frames braced with boards, failure occurs on the board near screw connec-
tions. If the board thickness increases or screw spacing decreases, it is possible
to increase the racking strength.
4. The slope-deflection method was used to predict the racking performance of
frames braced with straps. The predicted racking failure loads for Frames B-1
and C-1 are in excellent agreement with those measured. However, the simple
first-order elastic analysis ignoring yielding and post-buckling cannot be used to
adequately predict the frame stiffness or displacement.
 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093 1091

Fig. 11. Suggested bracing methods.

5. Bracing with a large ratio of bracing unit width to frame length is preferable.
The racking performance of Frame B-1 with single X strap bracing is better
than that of Frame C-1 with 2X strap bracing.
1092 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093

Table 5
Predicted bracing strap force and column member compression for 3 different bracing methods
Bracing method Ps/P N/P
a 1.03 1
b 1.12 1
c 1.41 1

6. Strap width has relatively small influence on racking resistance, but affects frame
stiffness significantly. The lateral deflection of the frame decreases dramatically
with increasing strap width.
7. The performance of a frame under racking depends on several key factors,
including individual member section design, bracing method, connection
method, and strap size. All these aspects need to be carefully examined if the
racking performance of the frame is to be optimised.

Acknowledgements

This work is sponsored partly by the UK Engineering and Physical Scientific

Research Council (EPSRC GR/M95936), and partly by Banro Holdings Ltd., UK.
The authors are indebted to Mr. Hervé Loubignac and Mr. Guillaume Mercuzot
for assistance during testing.

References
[1] Miller TH, Pekoz T. Behavior of cold-formed steel wall stud assemblies. Journal of Structural
Engineering 1993;119(2):641–51.
[2] Miller TH, Pekoz T. Behavior of gypsum-sheathed cold-formed steel wall studs. Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering 1994;120(5):1644–50.
[3] Telue T, Mahendran M. Behavior of cold-formed steel wall frames lined with plasterboard. Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 2001;57(4):435–52.
[4] Serrette R, Ogunfunmi K. Shear resistance of gypsum-sheathed light-gauge steel stud walls. Journal
of Structural Engineering 1996;122(4):383–9.
[5] British Standard Institute, BS 5950:5 Structural use of steelwork in building, Code of practice for
design of cold formed thin gauge sections, 1998.
[6] American Iron and Steel Institute, Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural
Members, 1996, Washington.
[7] Tian YS, Lu TJ, Barlow CY. Minimum weight of cold-formed steel sections under compression,
Journal of Structural Engineering, 2003 (in press).
[8] Tian YS, Wang J, Lu TJ, Barlow CY, Evans J. An experimental study on the load carrying
capacity of cold-formed steel studs and panels, The 16th International Specialty Conference on
Cold-formed Steel Structure, October 17th and 18th, 2002, Orlando, FL, USA.
[9] Wang J, Tian YS, Lu TJ, Barlow CY, Evans J. Stress/strain distributions and role of sheathing in
partition wall panels subjected to compression, The 16th International Specialty Conference on
Cold-formed Steel Structure, October 17th and 18th, 2002, Orlando, FL, USA.
 Y.S. Tian et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1069–1093 1093

[10] British Standard Institute, BS EN594, Timber structures—Test methods—Racking strength and
stiffness of timber frame wall panels, 1996.
[11] Annual Book of ASTM Standards: Building seals and sealants, fire standards, building construc-
tions, ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa., vol. 04 (07), 1991, 284–294, 478–480.
[12] Smith TRG. Linear analysis of frameworks. Chichester: Ellis Horwood Limited; 1983.