Structures 22 (2019) 53–64

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

A new simplified calculation model of CFS composite exterior walls under T

fire conditions
Chen Wenwena, Ye Jihonga,b,
⁎

a
Southeast University, Nanjing, 210018, China
b
Jiangsu Key Laboratory Environmental Impact and Structural Safety in Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, 211116, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Cold-formed steel (CFS) composite exterior walls are made of cold-formed, thin-walled steel lipped channel studs
Cold-formed steel exterior walls with board linings on both sides. There are limited data on the structural and thermal performance of CFS
Simplified calculation model composite exterior walls under fire conditions, especially from simulation analysis, in contrast with the data
Numerical simulation available for interior walls. Therefore, a new simplified model was proposed in this paper to accurately simulate
Failure mode
exterior walls exposed to fire on one side; in this model, spring elements were applied to provide out-of-plane
Lateral deformation
constraints different from the constraints of the simplified model for interior walls previously proposed. A
discussion of the numerical simulation results of studs with different parameters, including temperature-rise
curves, vertical load ratios, screw spacings, steel grades and cross-sectional sizes, was conducted to determine
the range of the spring stiffness. Finally, the developed model was validated using the fire test results of two CFS
exterior walls, where one had an external panel made of oriented strand boards and the other had an external
panel made of autoclaved lightweight concrete boards.

1. Introduction above-mentioned full-scale tests under standard fire conditions showed

With its rapid construction, light weight, high strength and excellent
seismic performance, the cold-formed steel (CFS) structure has been
widely built in North America, Europe, Australia and other regions. CFS
structures consist of walls, floors and other connective components. As
the main vertical-bearing and space-dividing members for the CFS
structures, CFS walls are made of lipped channel studs with panel lin-
ings on both sides. The fire performance of CFS walls is related to the
fire resistance design of the overall structure. Therefore, it is essential to
test or calculate the fire resistance of CFS walls in design work. Many
experimental studies [1–4] on conventional CFS walls with plaster
board have been carried out. However, it has been difficult to achieve a
fire rating of more than 120 min under service load for the CFS walls
with single or double plasterboard linings. To improve the fire re-
sistance rating, a new CFS wall system based on a composite panel in
which the insulation is sandwiched between two panels instead of the
cavity insulation was proposed in Kolarkar's [5] research. In Gunalan's
[6,7] research, eleven full-scale tests were conducted on load-bearing
steel stud walls with and without cavity insulation or external insula-
tion. Moreover, Ye and Chen [5,8] presented a detailed experimental
investigation on nine full-scale CFS interior walls with different lining
boards, such as glass magnesium board and calcium silicate board. The
that the walls with insulation sandwiched between two panels on the
outdoor side of the studs had superior fire-resistant ratings. However,
the specimen configurations mentioned in the above research were all
suitable for interior walls. For exterior walls, only two wall fire ex-
periments were presented in the existing research [9]. Both specimens
adopted aluminum silicate wool insulation sandwiched between plas-
terboards and glass magnesium boards on the indoor side. One wall
utilized oriented strand board on the outdoor side, and the other one
utilized autoclaved lightweight concrete board. The test results showed
that the out-of-plane deformations of the studs in both walls were
constrained.
To better comprehend the thermal and structural behaviour of the
CFS walls, the numerical simulation analysis method was adopted in
many studies. For the CFS composite walls lined with plasterboard,
Alfawakhiri [10] simplified the problem of CFS walls exposed to fire as
a single stud buckling in the case of non-uniform heating and compiled
a corresponding calculation analysis program. The numerical analysis
results agreed well with three fire resistance tests. Feng [11] discussed
the failure mode of CFS walls under two non-uniform temperature
distributions along the cross-section of the studs and calculated the
axial bearing capacity of the wall at high temperature based on Euro-
code 3 Part 1.3. The model was established in ABAQUS for steady-state

⁎
Corresponding author at: School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China.
E-mail addresses: jhye@cumt.edu.cn, yejihong@seu.edu.cn (J. Ye).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.07.013
Received 16 April 2019; Received in revised form 6 July 2019; Accepted 30 July 2019
Available online 14 August 2019
2352-0124/ © 2019 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Chen and J. Ye Structures 22 (2019) 53–64

Outdoor side

X
Cold Flange
Y

Indoor side
X
Z
Y

Fig. 1. The previous simplified model for interior CFS walls.

Cold Flange

Outdoor side

Y
Cold Flange

Indoor side
X
Z
Y
Fig. 2. The new simplified calculation model for exterior CFS walls.

Restrained DOF"2"

Rigid Plate
Rigid Plate
Restrained Stud Restrained DOF
X
DOF “126” 463 “1236”
Z
5 2 Y
150 mm
Load
Fig. 3. Simplified calculation mode [12].

numerical simulation, and the selection of parameters, such as the basic

(a)C89 Stud (mm)
Fig. 4. Cross-section of the studs.
parameters, meshing sizes, boundary conditions and initial defects,
were discussed. By using ABAQUS, Mahendran [12] simulated seven
CFS walls with different configurations under transient and steady
conditions, and the results indicated that the failure modes between the
finite element analysis (FEA) and fire test were similar. Meanwhile,
numerical simulations were conducted using the previous simplified
model for the cold-formed steel walls with new studs section such as
hollow flange channel sections [13] and web-stiffened lipped channel
sections [14]. Moreover, the research of details problems such as the
effects of plasterboard joints [15] on the fire resistance of light gauge
steel frame walls also used the previous simplified model for simulation
analysis.
(b)C140 Stud (mm) The simplified model adopted in the above research [10–15] ex-
hibited good consistency with the composite walls lined with

54
W. Chen and J. Ye Structures 22 (2019) 53–64

Table 1 previous simplified model (Fig. 2).

Thermal parameters [16]. The new simplification of board constraints included Y-direction
Temperature(°C) Heat transfer Specific heat Thermal expansion restraints (Fig. 2) at the centrelines of both flanges and the X-direction
coefficient(W/m∙K) (J/(kg·°C)) coefficient (°C−1) spring restraint at the centreline of the cold flange. The Y-direction
constraint mainly restrained the torsional buckling around the Z-axis
20 53.33 440.00 7.79E-06
and the bending buckling around the X-axis. The Y-direction constraint
100 50.67 492.62 7.93E-06
200 47.34 549.76 8.16E-06
was set because no torsional buckling and bending buckling around the
300 44.01 609.74 9.09E-06 minor axis occurred in the fire test when the boards maintained the
400 40.68 685.88 1.08E-05 function of restraint. This method of board constraint was used in a
500 37.35 791.50 1.36E-05 simplified model in the previous research [10–15].The X-direction
600 34.02 675.43 1.71E-05
spring restraints represented the out-of-plane constraints provided by
the boards on the outdoor side and were different from the simplified
plasterboard. However, CFS exterior walls used lining board with better model restraints in the existing research. The panel linings of the ex-
waterproofness as the outermost layer on outdoor side instead of terior walls on the indoor side generally adopted plasterboards, glass
plasterboard, such as oriented strand board. The pervious test results magnesium boards, etc., which could not restrain the out-of-plane de-
[9] showed that the out-of-plane deformations of the studs in all CFS formation of the studs. Therefore, the springs which were unidirectional
exterior walls were constrained by the outermost layer boards on out- springs along the X direction were distributed along the cold flange (on
door side. Therefore, the previous simplified model was not suit for the outdoor side) of the studs. The stiffness of the springs is discussed in
numerical simulation analysis of the exterior walls. this paper. To simplify the calculation, the spring was assumed to be
To simulate the CFS exterior walls correctly, a new simplified cal- elastic (Fig. 2).
culation model was proposed in this paper. The spring elements
adopted in this simplified calculation represented the out-of-plane 2.2. Evolution of the spring stiffness
constraints, and a reasonable stiffness value was determined. At last,
two exterior wall fire test specimens were applied to verify the accuracy The spring stiffness in the simplified model depends on the ability of
of the simplified model. the screw to connect to the steel studs. No relevant test data or calcu-
lation formulas are available to provide accurate spring stiffness.
Therefore, based on the numerical simulation analysis method, dis-
2. Simplified model of CFS external walls cussions of the evolution of the spring stiffness are provided in this
paper. Many cases with different parameters, such as different tem-
2.1. Simplified calculation model perature-rise curves, load ratios, screw spacings, steel grades, stud
heights and cross-sectional sizes, were considered.
The board linings did not need to be included in the model because
they did not take on any of the axial compression load applied to the 2.2.1. Simplified FEA model
CFS walls. However, their structural restraining and thermal protection The basic parameters of the simplified FEA model followed those of
effects must be considered. Such a model was developed to simulate the fire specimens reported in the previous research [8], and the details are
CFS wall studs behaviour under fire conditions [12] (Fig. 1). described in the following sections.
The above simplified model (Fig. 1) was not suit for exterior walls.
The reason was that the exterior walls used oriented strand boards or 2.2.1.1. Geometric parameters. The details of the stud model boundary
autoclaved lightweight concrete boards as the outermost layer on out- conditions and load application are shown in Fig. 3. The value of the
door side instead of plasterboards. Such boards restrained the out-of- vertical loading is 20 kN. The height of the stud model is 3000 mm, and
plane deformation of the studs. The out-of-plane constraints provided the lipped channel cross-sectional dimensions are
by the lining boards were neglected in the simplified model (Fig. 1). 89 mm × 50 mm × 13 mm × 0.9 mm (Fig. 4(a)).
Therefore, previous simplified model (Fig. 1) was erroneous when it
was used in the simulation of exterior walls. A new simplified calcu- 2.2.1.2. Mechanical properties. 0.9 mm Q345 galvanized steel was
lation model was proposed which could consider the out-of-plane adopted for the studs, whose measured yield strength and elastic
constraints provided by lining boards on outdoor side based on the modulus at ambient temperature were 339.2 MPa and 203,600 MPa,

450 30℃
240 100℃
400
150℃
350 200℃
180 250℃
300 350℃
400℃
Stress(MPa)

250 450℃
E/GPa

120 200 500℃

550℃
150
60 100

50
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Temperature/ Strain/%

(a) Elastic modulus (b) Stress-strain curves

Fig. 5. Mechanical properties [16].

55
W. Chen and J. Ye Structures 22 (2019) 53–64

(a)Finite strip(CUFSM) (b) Finite element analysis (ABAQUS)

Fig. 6. Elastic buckling modes obtained from finite strip and finite element analysis.

Table 2
Details of experimental wall specimens.
Specimens Configuration Configuration(form fire side to ambient side)

Layer B1 Layer B2 Stud type Layer B3 Layer B4

1 3 3 7 3
1 PB PB C89 PB PB3
31 PB3 GMB4 C897 GMB4 PB3
41 PB3 CSB5 C897 CSB5 CSB5

Sp12 PB3 PB4 C897 PB4 PB3

Sp22 PB3 GMB4 C897 GMB4 PB3

1 - Fire tests conducted by Chen and Ye [8].

2 - Fire test conducted by Chen and Ye [9].
3 - PB-Fireresistant gypsum plasterboard.
4 - GMB- Glass magnesium board.
5 - CSB-Calcium silicate board.
6 - I-Aluminum silicate wool.
7 - C89–89 mm × 50 mm × 13 mm × 0.9 mm (see Fig. 4(a)).

600 1 respectively. The material properties were obtained by the transient

3 tests [16](Table 1 and Fig. 5).
500 4
Sp5 2.2.1.3. Element type and size. An S4R shell element type with a
400 Sp6 5 cm × 5 cm mesh size was selected for the calculation model. When
Temperature/℃

the finite element model used the 5 cm × 5 cm mesh size, the elastic
300 buckling modes calculated by the finite element method and the finite
strip method were similar (Fig. 6). And the elastic buckling loads are
200 19.599KN and 19.6KN, respectively. The above results fully illustrate
the correct size of meshing. The S4R element is a four-node,
100
quadrilateral element with reduced integration, hourglass mode
control and limited thin strain. It provides results as accurate as those
0
of the S4 element with less memory space and time. This element type
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 ensured sufficient degrees of freedom for calculating the bucking
deformations of the CFS studs. The initial defect effect coefficient was
Time/min
chosen to be 0.9 according to the literature [17].
Fig. 7. Temperature-rise curves.
2.2.1.4. Residual stress and cold bending effect. Residual stress resulted
in premature yielding and a decrease in stiffness, but it had a small
effect on the ultimate stress. The residual stress proposed in the
previous research [18] showed that the bending residual stress of the
press-formed lipped channel could be neglected when it was less than
7% of the yield strength. At the same time, the cold bending effect
gradually disappeared with increasing temperature. Consequently, the
effect of residual stress and cold bending were not considered in the
simplified calculation model.

2.2.2. Discussion of different parameters

Fig. 8. First eigen mode. Many cases, including cases considering different temperature-rise

56
W. Chen and J. Ye Structures 22 (2019) 53–64

250 800 30℃

100℃
700
200℃
200
600 300℃
350℃
150 500 400℃

Stress/MPa
500℃
E/GPa

400
550℃
100 300

200
50
100

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
Temperature/℃ Strain

(a) Elastic modulus (b) Stress-strain curves

Fig. 9. Mechanical properties [16].

Table 3
Boundary conditions.
Number Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Restraint in X-direction Free Complete restraint Ks = 1 N/mm Ks = 2 N/mm Ks = 3 N/mm Ks = 4 N/mm Ks = 5 N/mm

Number Model 8 Model 9 Model 10 Model 11 Model 12 Model 13

Restraint in X-direction Ks = 10 N/mm Ks = 20 N/mm Ks = 50 N/mm Ks = 100 N/mm Ks = 200 N/mm Ks = 500 N/mm

Outdoor side the influence of screw spacing.

2.2.2.4. Case4-steel grade. The models of cases 1–3 all used 0.9 mm
Q345 galvanized steel. To investigate the influence of the steel type,
1.2 mm G550 galvanized steel whose material properties [16] are
Cold Flange shown in Fig. 9 were applied in case 4.

Indoor side
X of 140 mm × 50 mm × 13 mm × 0.9 mm (see Fig. 4(b)) was discussed
Z in this case.
Y
Fig. 10. Simplified calculation model for model with complete restrains in X
direction.
curves, vertical loadings, screw spacings, steel grades and cross-section,
were discussed in this paper.
2.2.2.1. Case1-temperature-rise curve. Six different temperature-rise
curves from fire tests of full-scale walls were used for temperature
loading. From the previous research, four walls lined with two layers
plasterboard [8] and two walls with sandwich composite boards on the
outdoor side of the studs [9] were chosen for this research. The details
of the six wall panel configurations are shown in Table 2. The
temperature-rise curves at the hot flange of the stud varied as shown
in Fig. 7.
2.2.2.2. Case 2-vertical loading. An eigen analysis was performed by
using the above simplified model. The first eigen buckling mode is
shown in Fig. 8, which is local buckling along the web of the stud. The
ultimate load was 38.45 kN. Different load ratios, including 20% (7.69
kN), 40% (15.38 kN), and 70% (27.1 kN), were considered in this case.
2.2.2.3. Case3-screw spacings. The screw spacings used in the
previously mentioned cases were all 150 mm. In addition, 100 mm
and 300 mm screw spacings were applied in the model to investigate
2.2.2.5. Case5-stud cross-section. The type C140 stud with dimensions
2.2.3. Boundary conditions
There were thirteen models in each case. The detailed boundary
conditions of the thirteen models are shown in Table 3. Model 1 did not
have out-of-plane constraints according to the simplified model shown
in Fig. 1, and model 2 completely restrained the out-of-plane de-
formation of the studs following Fig. 10. Models 3–13 used the sim-
plified model shown in Fig. 2, with different spring stiffness. The detail
values of spring stiffness Ks are shown in Table 3. The comparison be-
tween model 1and 2 could prove that the out-of-plane constraints
provided by lining boards changed the failure mode of the CFS walls.
Meanwhile, different values of spring stiffness in models 3–13 discussed
to determine the value of spring stiffness for exterior walls lining with
different boards on the outermost layer.
2.2.4. Results of the simulation analysis
Taking the No.1 wall in case 1 as an example, the failure modes of
the thirteen models are presented (Fig. 11).There were two failure
modes. Failure mode 1 in the stud models was overall bending de-
formation towards the fire side (models 1 and 3–7), accompanied by
local buckling of the central region at the cold flange (Fig. 11(a,c–g)).
Failure mode 2 was localized pressure damage, such as in models 2 and
8–13(Fig. 11(b,h–m)).
The failure modes of the six cases are summarized in Table 4. In
cases 1–4, models 1 and 3–7 exhibited failure mode1, and models 2 and
8–13 exhibited failure mode 2.

57
W. Chen and J. Ye
(a) M odel 1
(c) Model 3-spring stiffness=1N/mm
(e) Model 5-spring stiffness =3 N/mm
Fig. 11. Failure modes of simulation models.
2.2.5. Evaluation of the spring stiffness
Taking the No.4 wall in case 1 as an example, the lateral deforma-
tions of thirteen models are presented in Fig. 12. The lateral deforma-
tion was taken from the mid-height of the central axis of the stud web.
The maximum lateral deformation is approximately proportional to the
spring stiffness Ks of the studs in models 3–13. However, the lateral
deformation of model 1 was smaller than that of models 2 and 3 be-
cause the local buckling deformations in model 1 (Fig. 9(a)) and model
3 (Fig. 9(c)) were different. The ratio of the maximum deformation of
each model to that of model 1 was defined as α; the formula is as fol-
lows:
d max mod e ln
n =
d max mod ell
Here, dmax-modeln represents the maximum value of lateral de-
formation of model n; dmax-model1is the maximum value of lateral
58
Structures 22 (2019) 53–64
(b) M odel 2
(d
(f) Model 6-spring stiffness =4 N/mm
deformation of model 1. The relationship between the spring stiffness of
all models and α incases 1–6 is listed in the Fig. 13. It could be seen that
when the spring stiffness was greater than 10 N/mm, the value of α was
less than 0.2 excluding case 5. The conclusion are obtained from the
stud failure mode shown in Table 4. When the Ks was taken in
(0–10 Nmm), it means that the out-of-plane constraint was considered
in the simplified model, but the studs were not completely constrained.
The out-plane deformation of the studs still occurred in this simplified
model, but it was more smaller compared to the completely free sim-
plified model (previous model (Fig. 1)). When Ks was greater than
10 N/mm, it could be considered that the sheet completely restrained
the out-of-plane deformation of the stud.
3. Introduction to the fire experiment
To investigate the failure modes of CFS composite walls, two
W. Chen and J. Ye Structures 22 (2019) 53–64

(g) Model 7-spring stiffness =5 N/mm (h) Model 8-spring stiffness =10 N/mm

(i) Model 9-spring stiffness = 20N/mm (j) Model 10-spring stiffness =50 N/mm

(k) Model 11-spring stiffness = 100N/mm (l) Model 12-spring stiffness =200 N/mm

(m) Model 13-spring stiffness =500 N/mm

Fig. 11. (continued)

59
W. Chen and J. Ye Structures 22 (2019) 53–64

Table 4 thickness of 0.9 mm; the measured yield strength and elastic modulus of
The statistical conclusion of the failure in each case. this 0.9 mm Q345 steel were 339.2 MPa and 203,600 MPa at an am-
Conditions Failure mode bient temperature, respectively. The frames consisted of five vertical
studs (Fig. 14(a)) with dimensions of 89 mm ×
Failure mode 1 Failure mode 2 50 mm × 13 mm × 0.9 mm and lipped channel sections (Fig. 14(g)), at
a spacing of 600 mm between the centres. The frames were made by
Case 1 1 Models1and 3–7 Models 2 and 8–13
3 Models1and 3–7 Models 2 and 8–13 attaching the studs to the top and bottom tracks made of
4 Models1and 3–7 Models 2 and 8–13 89 mm × 50 mm × 0.9 mm unlipped channel sections (Fig. 14(h)). The
Sp1 Models1and 3–7 Models 2 and 8–13 construction details for the specimens are shown in Fig. 14(b–e).
Sp2 Models1and 3–7 Models 2 and 8–13 Table 5 shows the details of the panel configurations for the two ex-
Case 2 Load ratio 20% Models1and 3–7 Models 2 and 8–13
terior walls. Load ratio is 0.65 which is similar to reference [9].The
Load ratio 40% Models1and 3–7 Models 2 and 8–13
Load ratio 70% Models1and 3–7 Models 2 and 8–13 displacement transducer and thermocouple locations are shown in
Case3 Screw spacing-100 mm Models1and 3–7 Models 2 and 8–13 Fig. 14(f).
Screw spacing-300 mm Models1and 3–7 Models 2 and 8–13
Case4 Steel grade-G550 Models1and 3–7 Models 2 and 8–13
4. Comparison analysis between the experiment results and FEA
Case5 Cross section-C140 Models 1and 3–7 Models 2 and 8–13

4.1. Simplified calculation models

350 Model 1
The simplified model shown in Fig. 2 was applied to simulate the
Model 2
Model 3 CFS exterior walls. The spring stiffness was 5 N/mm for Sp5 and 10 N/
300
Model 4 mm for Sp6 according to Section 2.2.5. The temperature-rise curves
250 Model 5 were taken from the test results [16] shown in Fig. 15.
Model 6
Deformation/mm

200 Model 7 4.2. Simulation analysis results

Model 8
150 Model 9 4.2.1. Failure mode
Model 10 Fig. 16 shows the local buckling at the top and bottom ends of the
100 Model 11 stud in the numerical simulation model (see Fig. 16(a)). In the first test,
Model 12 flexural buckling towards the furnace combined with local buckling of
50 Model 13 the cold flange and web at approximately 900 mm from the top (see
Fig. 16(b)) was exhibited in studs 2 and 4 because the portions of the
0
cold flange around the cracks lost lateral constraint. However, the other
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 studs (studs 1, 3 and 5) showed local crushing failure at the end of the
Time/min test due to the continuous lateral constraint provided by the oriented
strand boards.
Fig. 12. Lateral deformation-time curves. For the wall Sp6, the failure mode calculated in FEA was the same as
the experimental result, that was the local buckling deformation at top
exterior walls described in the previous studies [9] were selected for end of the stud (see Fig. 17).
analysis. The steel frames used in the full-scale load-bearing CFS wall
models were built with a height of 2980 mm and a width of 3380 mm, 4.2.2. Lateral deformation
as shown in Fig. 14(a). The studs and tracks used in the test frames were The lateral deformation results in Fig. 18 show that the same var-
fabricated from Q345 galvanized steel sheets with a nominal base metal iation tendency was observed from the simulated analysis and the fire

1.4 Case1-wall 1
1.4 Case1-wall 3
1.2
Case1-wall 4
1.2 1.0 Case1-wall Sp1
Case1-wall Sp2
1.0 0.8
Case2-load ratio 20%
0.6 Case2-load ratio 40%
0.8 Case2-load ratio 70%
0.4
Case3-screw spacing 100mm
0.6 0.2
Case3-screw spacing 300mm
0.0 Case4-G550
0.4 Case5-C140
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
KS/(N/mm)
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
KS/(N/mm)

Fig. 13. The relationship between α and Ks.

60
W. Chen and J. Ye Structures 22 (2019) 53–64

(a) Steel frame (b)Layer B1 (c) Layer B2 (d) Layer B4 of Sp5

(e) Layer B4 of Sp6

Note:(1)-(6) are LVDT locations

(f) Displacement transducers and thermocouple locations[8] (g) C89 stud (mm) (h) U89 track (mm)
Fig. 14. Details of the specimen construction and the measuring instrument locations [8](mm).

Table 5
Details of the experimental wall specimens.
Specimens Configuration Configuration(form fire side to ambient side)

Layer B1 Layer B2 Stud type Layer B3 Layer B4

Sp51 PB2 GMB3 C1407 OSB4 RWB5

Sp61 PB2 GMB3 C1407 None ALC6

1 - Fire test conducted by Chen and Ye [7].

2 - PB-Fireresistant gypsum plasterboard.
3 - GMB-Glass magnesium boards.
4 - OSB-Oriented strand boards.
5 - RWB-Rock wool boards.
6 - ALC-Autoclaved lightweight concrete board.
7 - C140–140 mm × 50 mm × 13 mm × 0.9 mm (see Fig. 4(b)).
8 - I- Aluminum silicate wool.

test. However, the maximum values between the two methods were 4.3. Error analysis
distinct because the out-of-plane restraint for the studs was nonlinear in
the actual walls, whereas the spring stiffness used in the simulated As shown in Fig. 19, the out-of-plane restraints of the wall panels for
model was elastic. the cold-formed steel studs were achieved by the self-tapping screws.

61
W. Chen and J. Ye Structures 22 (2019) 53–64

500 simulation calculation more accurate.

Sp5
Sp6 5. Conclusion
400
A simplified calculation model adopt spring elements to simulate
the out-of-plane constraints was proposed in this paper. The spring
Temperature/℃

300
200
100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time/min
Fig. 15. Temperature-rise curves of Sp5 and Sp6 [9].
The out-of-plane constraints for the studs decreased as the studs de-
formed in the fire. Therefore, a nonlinear spring should be used for the
numerical simulation of the CFS exterior walls in fire conditions.
Moreover, the wrapping ability of sheet boards to the self-tapping
screws were reduced due to the chemical reaction of the sheets at high
temperatures. The oriented strand boards burned at high temperature
(Fig. 16(b)). Therefore, the out-of-plane restraints of the studs nearly
disappeared at the end of the fire. Fig. 20 shows that the plasterboards
fell off under high temperature in the late stage of the fire, completely
detached from the self-tapping screws. This is the main reason for the
error of the out-of-plane displacement in the numerical simulation at
last stage of the fire test (Fig. 18). In the future, a nonlinear spring
elements will be adopted and the reduction of the sheet performance at
high temperature will be considered, which makes the numerical
stiffness was determined by analysing various parameters. The con-
clusions are as follows:
(1) The discussion of different temperature-rise curves, vertical load
ratios, screw spacings, steel grades and cross-sectional sizes showed
that when the spring stiffness was in the range of (0–10 N/mm),
overall bending deformation towards the fire side, accompanied by
local buckling of the central region at the cold flange of the stud,
occurred in the simplified models; when the spring stiffness was
160 more than 10 N/mm, the end region of the stud underwent crushing
failure.
(2) The analysis comparing the results of two full-scale wall fire tests
with the corresponding simulations suggested that the simplified
model proposed in this paper could simulate the exterior walls ef-
fectively and accurately. The spring stiffness for walls lined with
oriented strand boards on the ambient side was 5 N/mm; with au-
toclaved lightweight concrete boards, the spring stiffness was10 N/
mm.
(3) The new simplified model proposed in this paper adopted the linear
spring to consider the out-of-plane constraints of the cladding sheet,
and realized the numerical simulation, effectively. However, there
are still shortcomings, mainly because the out-of-plane restraints of
the wall panels were decreased as the studs deformed in the fire.
Moreover, the wrapping ability of sheet boards to the self-tapping
screws were reduced due to the chemical reaction of the sheets at
high temperatures. In the future, a nonlinear spring elements will
be adopted and the reduction of the sheet performance at high
temperature will be considered, which makes the numerical simu-
lation calculation more accurate.

(a)Simulation model (Ks=5N/mm) (b) Fire test

Fig. 16. Failure mode of Sp5.

62
W. Chen and J. Ye Structures 22 (2019) 53–64

(a)Simulation model (Ks=10N/mm) (b) Fire test

Fig. 17. Failure mode of Sp6.

Simulation model Simulation model

12 14
Fire test Fire test
12
10
Lateral deformation/mm

Lateral deformation/mm

10
8
8
6 6
4 4

2 2
0
0
-2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time/min Time/min

(a) Sp5 (b) Sp6

Fig. 18. Lateral deformations.

Fig. 19. Construction of the cold-formed composite wall.

63
W. Chen and J. Ye
Fig. 20. Failure mode of the plasterboard after fire.
Declaration of competing interest
We declare that we have no financial and personal relationships
with other people or organizations that can inappropriately influence
our work, there is no professional or other personal interest of any
nature or kind in any product, service and/or company that could be
construed as influencing the position presented in, or the review of, the
manuscript entitled “A new simplified calculation model of CFS com-
posite exterior walls under fire conditions”.
Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper was fully supported by the
National Key Program Foundation of China (51538002) and the
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, Research and
Innovation Project for College Graduates of Jiangsu Province
(KYLX16_0252).
References
[1] Sultan MA, Lougheed GD. Results of fire resistance tests on full-scale gypsum board
wall assemblies. Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council
Canada; 2002. August 2002.
[2] Feng M, Wang YC. An experimental study of loaded full-scale cold-formed thin-
walled steel structural panels under fire conditions. Fire Saf J 2005;40(1):43–63.
[3] Kodur VKR, Sultan MA. Factors influencing fire resistance of load-bearing steel stud
walls. Fire Technol 2006;42(1):5–26.
[4] Sultan MA. Comparison of gypsum board fall-off in wall and floor assemblies ex-
posed to furnace heat[C]. 12th Int. Conf. On fire science and engineering. 2010.
p. 1–6.
64
Structures 22 (2019) 53–64
[5] Kolarkar PN. Structural and thermal performance of cold-formed steel stud wall
systems under fire conditions[D]. Queensland University of Technology; 2011.
[6] Gunalan S, Kolarkar P, Mahendran M. Experimental study of load bearing cold-
formed steel wall systems under fire conditions. Thin-Walled Structures
2013;65:72–92.
[7] Ariyanayagam A, Mahendran M. Experimental study of load-bearing cold-formed
steel walls exposed to realistic design fires. Journal of Structural Fire Engineering
2014;5(4):291–330.
[8] Chen W, Ye J, Bai Y, et al. Full-scale fire experiments on load-bearing cold-formed
steel walls lined with different panels. J Constr Steel Res 2012;79:242–54.
[9] Chen W, Ye J, Bai Y, et al. Improved fire resistant performance of load bearing cold-
formed steel interior and exterior wall systems. Thin-Walled Structures
2013;73:145–57.
[10] Alfawakhiri F. Behavior of cold-formed-steel-framed walls and floors in standard
fire resistance tests[D] Doctoral Thesis Ottawa,Canada: Carleton University; 2001.
[11] Feng Min, Wang Yu-Chun, Davies JM. Axial strength of cold-formed thin-walled
steel channels under non-uniform temperatures in fire. Fire Saf J
2003;38(8):679–707.
[12] Gunalan S, Mahendran M. Finite element modeling of load bearing cold-formed
steel wall systems under fire conditions. Eng Struct 2013;56:1007–27.
[13] Kesawan S, Mahendran M. Fire design rules for LSF walls made of hollow flange
channel sections. Thin-Walled Structures 2016;107:300–14.
[14] Rusthi M, Ariyanayagam AD, Mahendran M. Fire design of LSF wall systems made
of web-stiffened lipped channel studs. Thin-Walled Structures 2018;127:588–603.
[15] Ariyanayagam AD, Kesawan S, Mahendran M. Detrimental effects of plasterboard
joints on the fire resistance of light gauge steel frame walls. Thin-Walled Structures
2016;107:597–611.
[16] Ye Jihong, Chen Wei. Elevated temperature material degradation of cold-formed
steels under steady and transient state conditions. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, ASCE 2013;25(8):947–57.
[17] Schafer BW, Pekoz T. Computational modeling of cold-formed steel: characterizing
geometric imperfections and residual stresses. Construct Steel Res
1998;47:193–210.
[18] Young B, KJR Rasmussen. Tests of fixed-ended plain channel columns. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 1998;124(2):131–9.