Life-Cycle of Structures and Infrastructure Systems – Biondini & Frangopol (Eds)

© 2023 The Author(s), ISBN 978-1-003-32302-0

Open Access: www.taylorfrancis.com, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license

Influence of fastening systems on the ultimate capacity of steel-

faced sandwich wall panels under transverse loads

F. Dinu, C. Neagu & S. Lindiri

Politehnica University Timisoara, Romania

M. Senila
Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

ABSTRACT: Light weight sandwich wall panels are largely used for different kind of commer­
cial or industrial buildings. They are typically designed from the weather/climate related conditions
of the site (wind action, thermal comfort). Despite their low weight, they have adequate load
carrying capacities under transverse (out of plane) loads, e.g., wind loads. However, under extreme
loading conditions, like external explosions, such walls can be heavily damaged or destroyed,
either under positive or negative pressure phases. The study presented in the paper describes the
results obtained on wall sandwich panel elements tested for transverse loading until complete fail­
ure. The panels are arranged as single span systems supported on side rails and loaded at the mid-
span using a quasi-static monotonic loading protocol. After an initial quasi-linear response, the
maximum bending strength is reached. Then, due to a local buckling of the top face at mid-span,
a sudden drop in load capacity is recorded, followed by a second increase in capacity due to devel­
opment of catenary forces. If the end fasteners have adequate resistance, the ultimate capacity in
the catenary stage can be significantly higher than the peak flexural capacity, which is generally
used in the design. For small edge distance, the failure takes place due to the pull over of the fas­
tener head through the top face of the sandwich panel and tearing of the bottom face around the
fasteners. For large edge distances, the failure is due to the excessive deformations of the support­
ing rails. The increase in the ultimate panel capacity by means of adequate fastening and support­
ing enhances the robustness and reduces the risk for the occupants, all at a small increase in costs.

1 INTRODUCTION

Sandwich panels are largely used for modern wall systems in building constructions, particularly in
commercial and industrial buildings. They are composed of two faces connected by a low-density
material core. Such an example is the PUR steel sandwich panel, which is composed of two thin steel
faces connected by a low-density polyurethane foam layer. The two faces may be also made from
composite materials, e.g., glass fiber reinforced plastic, GFRP. For wall applications, the two walls
are generally flat or lightly profiled (Davies 1993). Walls made from sandwich panels are light, low-
weight systems, typically designed from the weather/climate related conditions of the site (wind
action, thermal comfort), with or without limited in-plane axial loads. The determination of the load-
bearing capacity required for the design of sandwich panels is based to a large degree on test results
(ECCS 127 2009), (Georgescu & Ungureanu 2014, Georgescu et al. 2014). In case of extreme loading
conditions, like the ones generated by external explosions, the pressure exerted on the wall elements
significantly exceeds the wind pressures used in the initial design of the walls and can heavily damage
or destroy the closing walls (UFC 3-340-02, 2014). As a result, the shock wave or fragments that are
projected at high speed can injure the building occupants or cause further structural damage at the
interior (WBDG 2019), (FRAMEBLAST 2018). For such extreme cases, it can become uneconomical
to adopt the traditional design based on flexural capacity, because, combined with the small mass of
the wall, a significant strengthening may be required. In such cases, the ultimate capacity may be
increased by allowing the development of catenary forces in the panels using appropriate end

DOI: 10.1201/9781003323020-93

767
restraints, i.e., connections with the support structure. Even several test programs on the response of
wall sandwich panels under transverse (out of plane) loading were developed, they were mostly used
to determine the flexural strength and deformation, which is mainly governed by the local buckling
(wrinkling) of the panel face in compression (ECCS 127 2009), (Pokharel & Mahendran 2005), (EN
1993-1-3 2006), (Pokharel & Mahendran 2003). The local buckling (wrinkling), and consequently the
flexural strength and stiffness, is also influenced substantially by the core density, i.e., soft cores make
the panel more vulnerable to localized effects under concentrated loads, and inwards wrinkling of the
compression face (Sharaf et al. 2010). A test program on sandwich panels was done by Chong and
Hartsock (Chong & Hartsock 1993). They evaluated the ultimate flexural buckling failure of foam-
filled sandwich panels with light gauge cold formed metal faces.
Five types of panels with three face configurations and four kinds of rigid urethane foam were sub­
jected to center point loading, and the results were compared with mathematical derived solutions. An
experimental program devoted to the evaluation of the mechanical characteristics and load (Kuhnh­
enne et al. 2020) bearing capacity of sandwich panels used for roofs and walls was conducted by Vayas
et al. (Vayas et al. 2010). The four-point bending tests on three simply supported panels showed
a similar response, with a quasi-linear behavior up to the attainment of the maximum load, followed
by a fast drop in capacity. The test program was limited to the evaluation of the flexural peak capacity,
without any consideration of the post-flexural response. The results indicated that, after the peak ultim­
ate flexural capacity is reached, the resistance is steadily decreasing. In a recent experimental program
conducted by Kuhnhenne et al. (Kuhnhenne et al. 2020), used sandwich panels, which were in service
for over 14 years, were tested to check if they still comply with the actual strength and stiffness require­
ments. Four types of tests were performed, including bending tests. The research also investigated the
effect of perforations due to end fasteners and the feasibility of a new clamping system to provide the
fixation of the sandwich panel on the building substructure without any penetration.
The study presented in the paper investigates the ultimate capacity and failure mode of PUR
sandwich panels with steel faces under quasi-static transverse loading. Eight double hinged speci­
mens were tested, four with the span of 1.9 m and four with the span of 2.5 m. For reference, two
additional bending tests were performed on simply supported specimens, one of 1.9 m span and
one on of 2.5 m span, respectively. These two tests aimed to evaluate the response in the absence
of any in-plane axial restraint (flexural response only). The panels were supported by cold formed
lipped channels. Such sections are commonly used in practice as side rails for sandwich panel
walls. The experimental tests were performed within SAFE-WALL project (SAFE-WALL 2020),
which included similar tests on liner trays (Dinu et al. 2022), but also near field blast tests on
a full-scale steel frame building with walls from same sandwich panels (Dinu et al. 2022) and liner
trays, but the results are not reported here.

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

The panels investigated in the test program are polyurethane foam sandwich panels with 0.4 mm
thick steel faces and tp = 100 mm thick core (noted PUR 100/0.4). The panels are 1000 mm wide and
are supported by cold formed lipped channel side rails (section C150/2 mm) spanning LSR =
4.5 m. The geometric and material characteristics of the panels and side rails are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Geometric and material characteristics of panels and side rails.

Yield strength fy Tensile strength fu

Element Steel grade N/mm2 N/mm2

Side rail C150/2 S350GD-275Z 350* 420*

PUR/0.4 S250GD 303 330

*Values presented in the table are nominal values

The experimental program included ten tests, see Table 2. Eighth specimens were tested for
double hinge condition, while two reference specimens were tested for simply supported

768
condition. The test set-up is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The double-hinged panels were
connected to the side rails using six self-drilling screws 5.5/6.3 at each end, while the side rails
are connected to the support structure using UPN65 stubs and three bolts M12x35 mm, class
8.8, see Figure 2c. Note that the two reference specimens tested for bending had fasteners at
one end, only. To prevent the loss of capacity of side rails by out-of-plane bending and lateral-
torsional buckling, lateral restraints were provided as follows (Figure 1a):
– On the areas outside the width of the sandwich panel, the rails were supported at the top
flange using 3 studs made from cold formed lipped channels on each side.
– On the areas inside the width of the sandwich panel, the rails were supported at the level of
the web using two pairs of round steel rods.
It should be mentioned that in a real structure, the wall panels act as lateral restrains to the side
rails for inward deflections, but the level of restraining is only verified for flexural stage (or small
deformations). The parameters considered in the experimental program are the panel span, the type
of the fastener washer, and the edge distance of the fasteners. For the panel span, two distances were
used, i.e., 1.9 m and 2.5 m, respectively. It is expected that the increase of the panel span to thickness
ratio, Lp/tp, will favor the development of the catenary response due to higher flexibility. For refer­
ence, additional bending tests were performed on simply supported specimens to evaluate the flex­
ural response in the absence of any in-plane axial restraint. As for the washers, excepting a single
1.9 m span specimen, for which self-drilling screws with standard EPDM washers were used, for the
rest of the specimens, additional steel washers with a diameter of 27 mm and a thickness of 2 mm
were added. The additional washers (see Figure 2b) increase the contact area with the sandwich
panel and reduce/prevent the pull-over effect through the top (external) steel face. This is generally
required when higher load bearing capacity of panel fastenings is required. As for the edge distance
of the fasteners, e1 (Figure 1b), it was 50 mm and 125 mm, respectively. Note that the minimum
edge distance is typically defined by the panel manufacturer (EN 1993-1-3 2006). Also, if the edge
distance is smaller than 45 mm, the pull-over resistance derived from the test results must be reduced
(ECCS 127 2009). It is therefore expected that the increase of the edge distance of the fasteners will
lead to larger catenary forces and higher ultimate capacity.
The load was applied at the middle of the panel, using a transversal steel beam to distribute
the load force along the panel width. The test was quasi-static, with the load incremented up
to the failure of the specimen using displacement control. Because the stroke of the hydraulic
jack was not sufficiently long, several stops were made to allow the addition of some spacers.
During these stops, the force was reduced to zero. However, the unloading and reloading
intermediate phases were removed from the force-displacement curves.
Table 2. Description of the specimens.
Span Lp Edge distance e1
Specimen m mm Washers

SP-1.9 -50 1.9 50 EPDM

SP-1.9 -50-W/1 1.9 50 EPDM + W*
SP-1.9 -50-W/2 1.9 50 EPDM + W*
SP-1.9 -125-W 1.9 125 EPDM + W*
SP-2.5 -50-W/1 2.5 50 EPDM + W*
SP-2.5 -50-W/2 2.5 50 EPDM + W*
SP-2.5 -125-W/1 2.5 125 EPDM + W*
SP-2.5 -125-W/2 2.5 125 EPDM + W*
SP-1.9-bending** 1.9 125 EPDM
SP-2.5-bending** 2.5 125 EPDM

*EPDM - ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) washers

W - steel washer with 27 mm diameter and 2 mm thickness
**For bending tests, end fasteners were used for one end only, and the other end was free to slide

Linear variable differential transformers (LVDT) were used to measure the displacements
at several locations in the panel and side rails, see Figure 1b. Digital image correlation system

769
VIC-3D was used to measure the longitudinal strains at several locations in the top and
bottom steel faces. The VIC-3D system was positioned near one of the panel supports, where
bending moment is negligible, thus indicating the possible development of the catenary force
in the panel during post-flexural deformation stage (Figure 1b).

Figure 1. Test set-up and instrumentation: a) isometric view; b) longitudinal view.

Figure 2. View with test setup: a) overview of the experimental setup and a panel ready for testing; b) end
fasteners with additional steel washers connecting the panel to the side rail; d) side rail connections to the sup­
port structure.

3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Figure 3a and b show the force-displacement curves for the 1.9 m and 2.5 m span specimens, respect­
ively, while Figure 4 shows the global view of a specimen after test and the detailed view of the typical
plastic mechanism at the midspan. The vertical forces corresponding to the maximum flexural cap­
acity (Ff) and to the ultimate stage (Fu) and the associated displacements (Df and Du) are presented
in Table 3. Note that the vertical displacement contains only the displacement of the panel, without
considering the contribution from the side rails. As seen from Figure 3, the behavior of the panels
tested for double hinge conditions is characterized by three distinct zones. First, there is a quasi-linear
elastic behavior up to the attainment of the maximum flexural capacity - point A on the curves.
After point A, the panels have a sudden drop in capacity, associated with a local dynamic instability
of the top face in compression – point B on the curves. After point B, a second increase in capacity is
observed, and, for all specimens, the force corresponding to the ultimate capacity, Fu (point C on the
curves), is higher than Ff, excepting the specimen SP-1.9-50-W/2, where the test was stopped before
reaching the ultimate capacity due to technical issues (see Table 3).

Figure 3. Force vs. vertical displacement curves: a) 1.9 m span specimens; b) 2.5 m span specimens.

770
Figure 4. Specimen after test: a) global view; b) detailed side view with the plastic mechanism at midspan.

Table 3. Maximum forces with corresponding vertical displacements, and failure mode for all specimens.
Ff Df Ff,r Fu Du

Specimen kN mm kN kN mm Failure mode

SP-1.9-50 7.7 29 2.3 8.3 350 Mode 1

SP-1.9 -50-W/1 7 11 2.6 9.3 270 Mode 2
SP-1.9 -50-W/2 8.2 13.7 2.7 7.1 231 Mode 2
SP-1.9 -125-W 8.6 14.4 2.9 11.4 317 Mode 3
SP-1.9-bending 9.0 17.3 3.1* 3.1 - -
SP-2.5 -50-W/1 5.5 13 2.0 8.2 328 Mode 2
SP-2.5 -50-W/2 5.9 13.8 2.5 8.1 326 Mode 2
SP-2.5 -125-W/1 5.8 15.9 2.4 11.0 372 Mode 3
SP-2.5 -125-W/2 5.8 15.8 2.2 11.3 380 Mode 3
SP-2.5-bending 5.9 19.3 2.5* 2.5 - -

*The residual flexural capacity for simply supported specimens was considered constant till failure

For the specimens tested for simple supported conditions, after the attainment of the maximum
flexural capacity, the panel have a similar drop in capacity due to the local dynamic instability of
the top face in compression and remains almost constant until the end of the test. Note that, for
each span, the „residual “flexural capacity, Ff,r, of simply supported specimen and double hinge
specimens is very close. Based on the observations made during each test, three failure modes
were identified, see Table 3. They are influenced by the type of washer and edge distance, but also
by the flexural capacity (in plane and out of plane) of the side rails supporting the panels. Thus,
Mode 1 is characterized by a pullover of the fasteners through the top steel face combined with
the tearing and buckling (folding) of the bottom steel face (see Figure 5). This failure mode takes
place only for specimen SP-1.9-50, where the fasteners have standard EPDM washers only. Once
additional larger steel washers are used, the pull-over of the fasteners through the top steel face is
prevented, and failure takes place due to the tearing and buckling (folding) of the bottom steel
face, which is identified as Mode 2 (see Figure 6). The angle between the two rupture lines is
approximately 30° (see Figure 5c). One may note that similar failure mode may be also seen in
spot welding of thin steel plates (Dubina et al. 2012). Mode 3 represents the failure of the side rails
due to a combination of in plane and out of plane bending, but without the failure of the end
connections (in Mode 1 or Mode 2) (see Figure 7a, b). The larger the edge distance, the larger the

Figure 5. Mode 1 of failure, with pull-over of fasteners through the top steel face (a), bottom steel face
teared and buckled (folded) (b), and close-up view of the rupture lines (c).

771
Figure 6. Mode 2 of failure, with pull-over of fasteners through the top steel face prevented (a) and
bottom steel face teared and buckled (folded) (b).

Figure 7. Mode 3 of failure, with failure of the side rail (a), bottom steel face teared and buckled
(folded) (b), and close-up view of the rupture lines and folding area (c).

folding zone (see Figure 7c) and, consequently, the ultimate resistance is not given by the fasteners
but by the supporting rails. Note that side rails were designed to resist the design loads applied on
the panels at the Ultimate Limit State.
Figure 8 shows the contribution of catenary action to total load resistance for two specimens, i.e.,
SP-1.9 -125-W and SP-2.5-125-W/1, respectively. Note that the catenary action was obtained by sub­
tracting the bending resistance (quasi-constant after point B) from the total resisted load. As may be
seen from Table 3, except for the specimen SP-1.9 -50-W/2 (in whose case, the test was stopped
before reaching the ultimate capacity due to technical issues) and the specimen SP-1.9-50 (standard

Figure 8. Contribution of catenary action to total load resistance: a) specimen SP-1.9 -125-W; b) speci­
men SP-2.5 -125-W/1.

772
EPDM washers only), for all the other specimens, the catenary action that developed during large
deflection stage increased the load capacity significantly. It is also important to note that, even the
flexural capacities are larger for shorter spans, the ultimate loads at failure are very similar.
To evaluate the development of the catenary force in the panels and the contribution of the two
steel panel faces, the longitudinal strains measured with VIC-3D system were employed. As seen
from Figure 9, up to point B, the strain measurements at the bottom face indicate a small vari­
ation with the increase of the applied force. Then, because the supports restrain the horizontal
displacements of the panel end, catenary action develops in the panel. This development is indi­
cated by the continuous increase of the strains (elongations) up to the attainment of the ultimate
capacity (point C). From Figure 9, it may also be seen that the elongations, and therefore the
tensile forces, are not constant along the panel width, but decrease from the longitudinal edge
(extensometer E0) to the middle of the panel (extensometer E10). This also suggests that the con­
tribution of fasteners in resisting the catenary forces and, ultimately, the contribution to the ultim­
ate capacity, Fu, varies along the panel width. Also, because the end fasteners are flexible when
loaded by in plane axial force, the catenary force is transferred almost entirely through the
bottom face. This may be seen from the very small deformations of the top steel face around the
screw head at the end of the test, see Figure 10, with no visible elongations.

Figure 9. Strains measurements in the bottom steel face using VIC 3D system: a) position of the virtual
extensometers; b) strain distribution for SP-1.9-125-W at ultimate force; c) positive strains increase for
SP-1.9-125-W; d) positive strains increase with the increase of vertical displacement for SP-2.5 -125-W/2.

Figure 10. Top steel face after the test (exemplified for SP-2.5-50-W/1, left, and SP-1.9-50-W/1).

4 CONCLUSIONS

Sandwich wall panels are largely used for different kind of commercial and industrial buildings.
Despite their low weight, sandwich panels have high load carrying capacity under transverse loads.
However, under extreme loading conditions, like near field explosions, the panels can be destroyed

773
or severely damaged, either under positive or negative pressure phase. The traditional design based
on flexural capacity becomes uneconomical and may prohibit the use of sandwich panels when
resistance against such high pressures is intended. The ultimate capacity can however benefit from
the development of the catenary response, which is significantly higher than the flexural response if
appropriate end fastenings (number of screws, edge distance, larger washers) and supporting
restraints are provided. The increase in the ultimate panel capacity by means of adequate fastening
and supporting enhances the robustness and reduces the risk for the occupants, all at a small
increase in costs. Even if the in-plane forces in the fasteners at ultimate stage are not evenly distrib­
uted along the panel width, the ultimate capacity increases proportionally with the number of fas­
teners. When end distance increases from 50 mm to 125 mm, the ultimate capacity increases, in
average, by more than 30% for 1.9 m span panels, and by more than 90% for 2.5 m span panels.
This increase is conditioned by the use of additional larger washers to prevent the pull-over failure
(noted as Mode 1). The ultimate capacity of the panels can be also increased by strengthening the
side rails, as catenary forces can induce significant in-plane and out-of-plane bending moments. The
ongoing research focuses on optimizing the number of fasteners and improving the local detailing
to enhance the catenary response of the wall panels. Near field blast tests on a full-scale steel frame
building with sandwich wall panels and improved fastenings and local detailing are also in progress.

REFERENCES

Blast Safety of the Building Envelope | WBDG - Whole Building Design Guide. 2019. Available from:
https://www.wbdg.org/resources/blast-safety-building-envelope#desc.
Chong, KP & Hartsock, JA. 1993. Structural analysis and design of sandwich panels with cold-formed
steel facings. Thin-Walled Structures. 16(1):199–218.
Davies, J. 1993. Sandwich panels. Thin-Walled Structures. 16(1–4):179–198.
Dinu, F, Neagu, C, Marginean, I, Jakab, D, Ungureanu, V, Dubina, D & Abrudan, O. 2022. Experimental
evaluation of the ultimate capacity of wall sandwich panels. In: Steel Constructions. V. 1. Bucharest. 39–48.
Dinu, F, Neagu, C, Marginean, I, Laszlo, R, Ghicioi, E, Senila, M, Heghes, B & Constantinescu, M.
2022. Experimental blast tests on light non-load bearing external walls. In: Steel Constructions. V. 1.
Bucharest. 125–132.
Dubina, D, Ungureanu, V, & Landolfo, R. 2012. Design of Cold-formed Steel Structures: Eurocode 3:
Design of Steel Structures. Part 1-3 Design of Cold-formed Steel Structures, A Wiley Company.
ECCS 127. 2009. Preliminary European Recommendations for the Testing and Design of Fastenings for
Sandwich Panels. ECCS – European Convention for Constructional Steelwork.
EN 1993-1-3. 2006. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-3: General rules - Supplementary rules
for cold-formed members and sheeting. Brussels: CEN.
Experimental validation of the response of a full-scale frame building subjected to blast load FRAME­
BLAST. 2018. Executive Agency for Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation
Funding: UEFISCDI.
Georgescu, M & Ungureanu, V. 2014. Stabilisation of continuous Z-purlins by sandwich panels: Full
scale experimental approach. Thin-Walled Structures. 81:242–249.
Georgescu, M, Ungureanu, V & Dubina, D. 2014. Full scale experimental approach of sandwich panel
roofing diaphragm action. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Thin-Walled Structures -
ICTWS2014. 28 September – 2 October, Busan, Korea.
Kuhnhenne, M, Pyschny, D & Janczyk, K. 2020. Reuse of steel sandwich panels. In: Life-Cycle Civil
Engineering: Innovation, Theory and Practice. CRC Press.
Pokharel, N & Mahendran, M. 2003. Experimental investigation and design of sandwich panels subject
to local buckling effects. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 59(12):1533–1552.
Pokharel, N & Mahendran, M. 2005. An investigation of lightly profiled sandwich panels subject to local
buckling and flexural wrinkling effects. J Constr Steel Res. 61(7):984–1006.
Safety of buildings walls and claddings against accidental explosions SAFE-WALL. 2020. Executive
Agency for Higher Education, Research, Development, and Innovation, UEFISCDI.
Sharaf, T, Shawkat, W & Fam, A. 2010. Structural Performance of Sandwich Wall Panels with Different
Foam Core Densities in One-way Bending. Journal of Composite Materials. 44(19):2249–2263.
UFC 3-340-02 2014. Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions. DoD.
Vayas, I, Dasiou, M-E & Lignos, XA. 2010. Experimental and numerical investigation of polyurethane
sandwich panels. In: SDSS’Rio 2010. V. 1. Rio de Janeiro. 921–928.

774