RESEARCH ARTICLE | MAY 04 2023

Numerical modelling and analysis of structural behavior of

cold-formed steel composite wall panels under axial loading
Teja Mahendra Sai Kommuri  ; Himath Kumar Yarramsetty; Siva Kishore Ikkurthi

AIP Conference Proceedings 2759, 060003 (2023)

https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0145315

CrossMark

 
View Export
Online Citation

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0145315/17333875/060003_1_5.0145315.pdf

Articles You May Be Interested In

A Novel Sintering Gas Desulphurization Technology Applied in the Sintering Plants in China
AIP Conference Proceedings (May 2010)

Effects of soluble ions on hydration of calcined flue gas desulphurization gypsum

Chinese Journal of Chemical Physics (December 2020)

Load calculation on the nozzle in a flue gas desulphurization system

AIP Conference Proceedings (September 2017)
Numerical Modelling and Analysis of Structural Behavior of
Cold-Formed Steel Composite Wall Panels Under Axial
Loading
Teja Mahendra Sai Kommuria, Himath Kumar Yarramsetty, Siva Kishore Ikkurthi

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0145315/17333875/060003_1_5.0145315.pdf

Department of Civil engineering Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation, vaddeswaram, Guntur district, India.
a)
Corresponding author: “Mahendra.kommuri@gmail.com”

Abstract. The composite wall panels were made up of different materials and achieved strength based on materials used,
composite action and degree of confinement of materials. This paper focuses on the new innovative composite wall
panels made up of cold -formed steel as sheathing material, Flue Gas Desulphurization Gypsum as infill material which
is a lightweight material and has nonignorable strength and resists thermal, acoustic, and fire as well. Whereas cold-
formed steel is used as sheathing which is having different thicknesses varying from 0.8 mm to 2.99 mm. Parametric
findings indicate that wall thickness, cold-formed steel thickness, and flexural modulus of infilled flue gas
desulphurization gypsum all of these parameters had an impact on the walls' axial compression capacity. Four specimens
with varying thickness and infill material and one unfilled specimen. Also, using finite element modelling, we
investigated the behavior of cold-formed composite wall panels under axial loads and their bearing capacity, and
discovered that filled specimens significantly outperform unfilled specimens.

Keywords: - cold-formed steel, composite wall panels, Flue gas desulphurization gypsum, Axial bearing capacity.

INTRODUCTION

Cold-formed steel is a material that is made up of steel through the cold working process it was made using
pressing, rolling, stamping, and other cold working processes. This process makes the work easier and faster, and it
does not require much maintenance so the maintenance cost was also very efficient. Galvanized Emerging research
shows that coating loss for galvanized steel members is gradual enough, and that it eventually stops, to provide a
service life of over 60 years. Automobiles, Shipbuilding, Rail transportation, Aircraft, Highway engineering,
Agricultural and Industry equipment, Office equipment, Chemical, Mining, Petroleum, Nuclear, and Space sectors
have all employed cold-form steel members in recent years.
For low rise to mid-rise construction buildings the entire non-structural and structural members are made using
cold-formed steel only. Cold-formed steel is widely used for compression members, such as wall studs and roof
truss chord members. The main advantage of cold -formed steel is light in weight and has good load-bearing
capacity. The gauge of CFS should not exceed 12.5 mm, according to IS standards. we are going to use this material
as wall panels earlier there are several research done by [1] modelled 20 hybrid wall panel models with symmetric
and asymmetric truss and analyzed so that the outcome is that both models offer high stiffness and ductility ratios.
so, in this aspect, several types of research are going on to increase the lightweight construction and also to reduce
the time taken for construction. Because cold-formed steel member experimental testing are time-consuming and
costly. Several scholars have focused on this aspect since numerical and theoretical models are believed to be
acceptable solutions for tackling such difficulties. [2] made hybrid CFS walls of six specimens and tested put them

Advances in Sustainable Construction Materials

AIP Conf. Proc. 2759, 060003-1–060003-7; https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0145315
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-4515-4/$30.00

060003-1
through a lateral load test conditions with specimens having sheathing and without sheathing and made a conclusion
that the specimen having truss configuration have high stiffness and shear strength. Wenying et.al [3] Tested CFS
walls with corrugated steel sheathing and got average yield stiffness and higher shear strength than plywood
sheathing. [4] tested cold-formed steel composite wall panels with oriented strand board, lateral static loads applied
on the wall and concluded that there is no difference in load-deflection compared to the thickness of boards Prabha
et al [5] had tested axial resistance, degree of confinement experimentally on various types of concrete infilled cold-
formed steel composite wall panels and concluded that the infilled specimens show great performance compared to
unfilled specimens. [6] conducted experimental tests on a series of specimens that are infilled with Flue gas
Desulphurization Gypsum. The shear strength, load-bearing capacity, , energy absorption and stiffness of walls
under cyclic loads. Concluded that filled specimens were improved their properties by 1.72 to 2.54 times than
unfilled specimens. [7] The behavior of cold-formed steel shear wall panel wall studs against monotonic loads was
researched, as well as the behavior of diverse parts such as self-drilling screwed connections and steel sheets. [8]
investigated the compression capacity of lightweight steel-framed composite concrete wall panels To demonstrate
the composite wall's applicability and limits, a feasibility study was conducted. [9] have modelled 20 hybrid CFS
walls with symmetric truss and others with asymmetric truss system and compared the experimental work with the

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0145315/17333875/060003_1_5.0145315.pdf

remaining numerical models by Abaqus, a finite element programme. The load-carrying capacity, failure modes,
energy absorption and lateral stiffness of hybrid wall panels were investigated. Finally, they have concluded that the
wall models are acceptable for mid-rise construction. [10] have conducted tests on 17 lipped channels and simulated
the results obtained from different methods and they have done the experiments on lipped channels under axial
compression in the laboratory and simulated those results with the numerical models They've mostly concentrated
on screw-fastened cold formed steel column modelling. Advanced modelling approaches are used to capture
nonlinear connections, friction, and geometrical nonlinearity that occur in the response of unsheathed and sheathed
built-up cold formed steel columns under load. And succeed in modelling by this method as it is difficult to do
experiments for finding the force and displacement for every individual fastener. [11,12]conducted tests on seven
types of hybrid walls with asymmetrical truss SHS members. The resistance and lateral load energy dissipation is
more in connection type b compared to type a. they have considered gypsum sheathed infilled walls which means
they have infilled gypsum material in CFS SHS members, and they also resist the overturning effect. ABAQUS is
used for microanalysis and similarly OPENSEES for macro analysis. They have modelled wall panels and done
analysis on wall panels, they got the best accurate results on ABAQUS compared to OPENSEES. [13] The buckling
profile that results from the application of load was used to study the member's strength. and concluded that the
ultimate load of their analysis, variation they have found in between both numerical study and parametric study is in
between 30 and 40%. It is [14] studied about the failure modes of gypsum sheathed cold-formed steel wall panels
which are subjected to bending, tested 12 full-scale specimens of 2400 mm long cold-formed steel wall panels by
following AISI standards The findings from sheathed panels failed due to inadequate sheathing stiffness, and the
strength of the member was determined by determining the CFS studs as fastened on due to sheathing. [15] Under
the framework, three various types of numerical models formed of gypsum encased braced shear walls were
presented monotonically and cyclically. they have developed their models on sap 2000.the models. The cyclic
parameters used for 3 truss modelled experiments are calibrated. [16] conducted finite element analysis and shake
table tests on single-storied prefabricated CFS building to know the seismic performance and the results obtained
were the seismic performance of CFS building showed good performance with earthquake action of 7o. the structure
is still inelastic stage even after the 7o earthquake due to this CFS structure features a huge safety reserve in case of a
seismic event. Finally recommended diagonal bracings and double-sided steel plates for improving seismic
performance. [17] The impact of connecting fiber cement board to steel components in light steel constructions was
researched, and it was discovered that utilizing those parameters, overall structural lateral resistance and ductility
improved noticeably. [18] have done good research by comparing the lightweight rubberized concrete and
lightweight foam concrete and adding cold-formed steel while manufacturing walls and surprisingly they have got
the strength of the average axial capacity of lightweight foam reinforced concrete. walls was reduced to 16.8% with
less damage even the both mixes had a similar density of 1584 kg/m3 concluded that the reduction of lightweight
foam reinforced concrete compared to lightweight foamed concrete is still acceptable [19] Testing of hold-down
devices was explored, as well as testing of cold formed steel sheathed wall panels under cyclic lateral stress. Hold
down devices are tested by 3 cyclic loading testings’ and 11 monotonic tests on 7 different holds on devices. Finally
concluded that this type of hold-down device takes less workmanship and fabrication cost, and these can be replaced
with the existing structural hold down structural systems. Sivaganesh Selvaraj et al [20] investigated hat-shaped
lateral-torsional buckling of cold-formed steel members, they have tested the invert hat shaped cold formed steel
studs are symmetric to loading axis the lateral-torsional buckling of is less, for the unbraced length of 2440 mm

060003-2
didn’t fail, where regular CFS studs fail. tests are done on 24 sheathed panels and finally concluded that the
minimum sheathing requirements are required to resist the lateral-torsional buckling with different geometry of CFS
studs. [21] Axially loaded gypsum infilled cold formed steel wall panels were compared to unfilled wall panels. The
empty wall panels collapse, whilst the infilled ones withstand the load. When compared both infilled wall panels are
1.88-2.99 times load-bearing capacity due to infilled gypsum. Finally concluded that gypsum infilled walls have
high axial load bearing capacity when compared to the unfilled wall panels. [22] investigated light gauge cold
formed steel stud walls are used as shear walls behavior was investigated and 3-dimensional nonlinear finite element
models were established with various different loadings, summarized that increase in thickness of sheathing
increases the loading capacity, initial stiffness was enhanced and also Blocking improved the behavior of the model.
[23] The load-bearing capacity of wall panels was determined using 6 various types of c channel CFS frames and
bords. As a result, the load-carrying ability of studs improves as the screw spacing decreases.
Overall parametric studies have shown the local buckling of cold formed steel sheets also has a significant
impact on the axial performance of the wall panel. Steel, concrete and gypsum are loaded uniformly in the studies
reported in the literature. Direct axial loading of steel sheets, on the other side, causes early local buckling of sheets,
in the post-peak range, it lowers the efficiency of wall panels.

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0145315/17333875/060003_1_5.0145315.pdf

Methodology
The composite wall panels made of two materials Cold-Formed steel sheathing and Flue Gas Desulphurization
Gypsum as infill materials. Material properties are mentioned in Table. 2 and Table.3. The profiled sheathing has the
dimensions of 710 mm width and 900 mm height with the following shape and varying thickness of 1.2 mm and 1.5
mm.

FIGURE 1. Profiled sheet dimensions

The wall specimen of dimensions 710 mm X 900 mm and having a thickness of 120 mm these walls are mainly
used for loadbearing and as well as architectural purposes. The infilled material was a waste product/by-product
from thermal stations the main aim is to utilize the waste generated by reusing them. And the main advantage of
FGD Gypsum is it is lightweight material and the Sulphur present in that material was treated so that it doesn’t
affect the steel by means of corrosion.

FIGURE 2. Composite wall dimensions

060003-3
 TABLE 1.
Material properties of Cold-Formed steel
S.No Specimen FGD Gypsum Density CFS Thickness
(MPa) (mm)

1 Specimen-1 No filling 1.5

2 Specimen-2 A 1.2
3 Specimen-3 B 1.5
4 Specimen-4 A 1.2

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0145315/17333875/060003_1_5.0145315.pdf

5 Specimen-5 B 1.5
TABLE 3.

TABLE 2. Properties of Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) Gypsum.

Properties of Cold-Formed Steel (CFS)

Nominal Elastic Yield Elongation Name Density Elastic modulus Compressive
thickness modulus stress(fy) strength
(%) (kg/m3) (Mpa)
(mm) (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa)

1.2 200,000 273.00 32 A 621 168.90 1.40

1.5 218,000 285.00 33 B 862 675.6 2.58

Results

Physical testing is costly, time-consuming, and sometimes constrained by the capabilities of available equipment.
Extensive parametric research through experimentation will also be difficult. As a result, the advancement of The
use of numerical modelling methods in engineering research and study is influenced. The Finite element modelling
method used to model typical cold-formed steel wall panels' structural behaviour under axial load is described for
five specimens of different configurations using the ABAQUS tool in this section.

FIGURE 3. Boundary and loading conditions.

060003-4
 Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0145315/17333875/060003_1_5.0145315.pdf
FIGURE 4. Deformation due to loading of the filled specimen.

The above diagram illustrates the boundary conditions and the direction of load applied in the finite element tool.
We have constrained all degrees of freedom and made one end as fixed and the other end as free. The deformation
of the specimen was shown in Fig.4. The diagram represents the failure spots where the specimen needs to improve
here the bottom corner edges has affected due to loading.

Specimen-1 Specimen-2 Specimen-3

Specimen-4 Specimen-5

35

30
LOAD IN TONNES

25

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
DEFLECTION IN MM

FIGURE 5. Load vs Deflection curve

The graph shows the load vs deflection for the all specimens and the unfilled specimen has very low load
bearing capacity compared to all other filled specimens The specimen 1 has very low load bearing capacity of 180
KN whereas the specimen 5 has highest load bearing capacity of 320KN and all the specimens2,3,4,5 exhibited
greater properties compared to the unfilled specimen 1, the load bearing capacity depends on the infill material as
the density of infilled material increases the overall strength of specimen also increases.

CONCLUSION

Flue gas desulphurized Gypsum infilled wall panels with cold-formed steel sheathing had shown a greater ability
to resist the loads and on observation we suggest Stiffeners to hold the infill material and sheathing so that it may

060003-5
give more strength. And also, we noticed there is an increase in change of load resisting capacity when the thickness
of the sheathing and density of gypsum increases. As a result, as the thickness of cold-formed steel and the density
of gypsum increases, the load-bearing capacity increases as well.

REFERENCES

[1] N. Usefi, P. Sharafi, and H. Ronagh, “Thin-Walled Structures Numerical models for lateral behaviour
analysis of cold-formed steel framed walls : State of the art , evaluation and challenges,” Thin Walled
Struct., vol. 138, no. February, pp. 252–285, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2019.02.019.
[2] N. Usefi and H. Ronagh, “Seismic characteristics of hybrid cold-formed steel wall panels,” Structures, vol.
27, no. June, pp. 718–731, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2020.06.033.
[3] N. Texas, “TESTING AND NUMERICAL ANALYSIS ON COLD-FORMED STEEL SHEAR WALLS
USING CORRUGATED STEEL SHEATHING 1 INTRODUCTION,” no. 10, pp. 91–105, 2017.
[4] E. Baran and C. Alica, “Behavior of cold-formed steel wall panels under monotonic horizontal loading,”
JCSR, vol. 79, pp. 1–8, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.07.020.

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0145315/17333875/060003_1_5.0145315.pdf

[5] P. Prabha, V. Marimuthu, M. Saravanan, G. S. Palani, N. Lakshmanan, and R. Senthil, “Effect of
confinement on steel-concrete composite light-weight load-bearing wall panels under compression,” J.
Constr. Steel Res., vol. 81, pp. 11–19, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.10.008.
[6] H. Wu, S. Chao, T. Zhou, and X. Liu, “Cold-formed steel framing walls with infilled lightweight FGD
gypsum Part I: Cyclic loading tests,” Thin-Walled Struct., vol. 132, no. July 2017, pp. 759–770, 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.tws.2018.04.003.
[7] X. Dai, “Numerical Modelling and Analysis of Structural Behaviour of Wall-stud Cold-formed Steel Shear
Wall Panels under In-plane Monotonic Loads,” J. Civ. Eng. Res., vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 31–41, 2012, doi:
10.5923/j.jce.20120205.02.
[8] M. A. Othuman Mydin and Y. C. Wang, “Structural performance of lightweight steel-foamed concretesteel
composite walling system under compression,” Thin-Walled Struct., vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 66–76, 2011, doi:
10.1016/j.tws.2010.08.007.
[9] N. Usefi, H. Ronagh, and P. Sharafi, “Thin-Walled Structures Numerical modelling and design of hybrid
cold-formed steel wall panels,” Thin-Walled Struct., vol. 157, no. September, p. 107084, 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.tws.2020.107084.
[10] S. Kechidi, D. C. Fratamico, B. W. Schafer, and J. Miguel, “Simulation of screw connected built-up cold-
formed steel back-to-back lipped channels under axial compression,” Eng. Struct., vol. 206, no. December
2019, p. 110109, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.110109.
[11] N. Usefi, H. Ronagh, and P. Sharafi, “Lateral performance of a new hybrid CFS shear wall panel for mid-
riseconstruction,” J. Constr. Steel Res., vol. 168, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106000.
[12] N. Usefi, H. R. Ronagh, K. Kildashti, and B. Samali, “Macro / Micro Analysis of Cold-Formed steel
Members Using ABAQUS and MACRO / MICRO ANALYSIS OF COLD-FORMED STEEL
MEMBERS,” no. February, 2018.
[13] S. K. Fayaz, I. S. Kishore, C. M. Chowdary, and K. J. Brahmachari, “Numerical analysis of cold formed
steel compression members based on buckling profile under eccentric loading,” Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng.,
vol. 7, no. 6C2, pp. 42–48, 2019.
[14] S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan, “AC PT Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad US CR Department of
Civil Engineering,” Structures, p. #pagerange#, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2018.09.013.
[15] L. Fiorino, S. Shakeel, and V. Macillo, “Thin-Walled Structures Seismic response of CFS shear walls
sheathed with nailed gypsum panels : Numerical modelling,” vol. 122, no. April 2017, pp. 359–370, 2018,
doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2017.10.028.
[16] Y. Guan, X. Zhou, X. Yao, and Y. Shi, “Seismic performance of prefabricated sheathed cold-formed thin-
walled steel buildings : Shake table test and numerical analyses,” J. Constr. Steel Res., no. xxxx, p. 105837,
2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105837.
[17] A. R. Badr, H. H. Elanwar, and S. A. Mourad, “Numerical and experimental investigation on cold-formed
walls sheathed by fi ber cement board,” J. Constr. Steel Res., vol. 158, pp. 366–380, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.04.004.
[18] E. Eltayeb, X. Ma, Y. Zhuge, O. Youssf, J. E. Mills, and J. Xiao, “Structural performance of composite
panels made of profiled steel skins and foam rubberised concrete under axial compressive loads,” Eng.

060003-6
 Struct., vol. 211, no. August 2019, p. 110448, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110448.
[19] B. M. Pehlivan, E. Baran, and C. Topkaya, “Testing and analysis of different hold down devices for CFS
construction,” J. Constr. Steel Res., vol. 145, pp. 97–115, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.02.007.
[20] S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan, “Sheathing Bracing Requirements for Cold-formed Steel Wall Panels :
Experimental Investigation,” Structures, vol. 19, no. December 2018, pp. 258–276, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.istruc.2019.01.005.
[21] H. Wu, S. Chao, T. Zhou, and Y. Liu, “Thin-Walled Structures Cold-formed steel framing walls with in fi
lled lightweight FGD gypsum Part II : Axial compression tests,” Thin Walled Struct., no. July 2017, pp. 0–1,
2018, doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2018.06.034.
[22] M. Fathi, M. Hassanien, S. Ahmed, M. Masoud, and E. L. Saadawy, “Evolution of grinding energy and
particle size during dry ball-milling of silica sand,” J. Constr. Steel Res., vol. 174, p. 106307, 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106307.
[23] Y. S. Tian, J. Wang, T. J. Lu, and C. Y. Barlow, “An experimental study on the axial behaviour of cold-
formed steel wall studs and panels,” Thin-Walled Struct., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 557–573, 2004, doi:
10.1016/j.tws.2003.09.004.

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0145315/17333875/060003_1_5.0145315.pdf

060003-7