JOURNAL OF THE

AUSTRALIAN
INSTITUTE OF STEEL
CONSTRUCTION
(ABN)/ACN (94) 000 973 839

CONSTRUCTION

An Engineering Insight into the Fundamental

Behaviour of Tensile Bolted Joints
Design of Steel Roof & Wall
Cladding Systems for Pull--out Failures

VOLUME 35 NUMBER 1
MARCH 2001
ISBN 0049--2205
Print Post Approved
pp 255003/01614
 AISC DETAILER MEMBERS -- The best in Steel Fabrication
AISC disseminates information on up--to--date steel design and fabrication technology, and this information flows onto its
detailer and fabricator members. When considering fabricated steelwork, it makes sense to deal with those detailers and
fabricators who share the institute’s resources. Steel detailing company names, addresses and phone numbers are shown
below. Steel fabricator members contact details can be found on the inside back cover.

New South Wales & ACT Wilds Drafting Service Pty Ltd
Ahaust Steel Detailers 119 Loridan Drive Brinsmead, Cairns 4870 07 4034 1435
111 Best Road, Seven Hills 2147 02 9831 6511 South Australia
Cadraw Pty Ltd Sasteel Drafting Service P/L
10/33 Windsor Rd, Kellyville 2155 02 9629 4976 33 Maxwell Road, Pooraka 5095 08 8349 9622
Centreline Drawing Services Pty Ltd Steel Drafting Pty Ltd
6/21 Oaks Ave, Dee Why 2099 02 9981 4432 6/42 Quick Rd, Mitchell Park 5043 08 8357 4405
Elmasry Steel Design And Detailing Steelplan Australia P/L
88 Arthur Street, Strathfield 2135 02 9764 6660 1/27 College Road, Kent Town 5057 08 8362 7603
Enterprise Drafting Company P/L, Suite 2, Warradale Drafting Service P/L
Level 1 163 King St, Newcastle 2300 02 4929 6910 1 Boulder Court, Woodcroft 5162 08 8322 5533
Evan Swan Pty Ltd
7 Rutledge Ave, Dapto 2530 02 4261 8763 Tasmania
Monaro Drafting Abel Drafting Services
PO Box 299, Cooma 2630 02 6452 2337 PO Box 579, Wynyard 7325 03 6445 1411
Production Line Drafting P/L Hills Project Services
3/131 Howick St., Bathurst NSW 2795 02 6334 3500 269 Wellington St, Launceston 7250 03 6343 0122
R & B Elston Victoria
6 Park St, Ingleburn 2565 02 9605 2668
Southtech Bayside Drafting Pty Ltd
PO Box 270, Moruya 2537 02 4474 2120 Cnr Skye Road & Farrell Street, Frankston 3199 03 9781 4011
Supadraft BDS Technical Services
PO Box 716, Brookvale 2100 02 9975 1777 Level 1, 240 Bay Street, Brighton 3186 03 9596 6500
Engineering Design Resource
Northern Territory 68 Hotham St, Traralgon 3844 03 5174 0255
Precision Drafting Australia Fabcad Drafting P/L
11 Malabar Court, Larrakeyah 820 08 8941 2666 68 Hotham St, Traralgon 3844 03 5174 9026
Structec Pty Ltd Flexsteel Drafting Service
PO Box 4381, Darwin 801 08 8981 9472 3 Monterey Cresc, Donvale 3111 03 9842 1737
Queensland Haddow Drafting P/L
1/14 Summerhill Rd, Glen Iris 3146 0419 584 962
4D Steel Detailing Pty Ltd, PO Box 193
Fortitude Valley, Brisbane 4006 07 3839 8075 PM Design Group
17b Julia St, Portland 3305 03 5521 7204
BDS Technical Services
80 Tribune Street, South Brisbane 4101 07 3844 8093 Precision Design Pty Ltd
Level 1 75--89 High St, Cranbourne 3977 03 5995 2333
Brice Engineers Pty Ltd
7--8 Brice Court, Mt Louisa 4814 07 4774 8322 Structural Steelwork Solutions
3/237 Glen Eira Rd, Caulfield North 3161 03 9550 0330
Cadtech Queensland Pty Ltd
7 Albany Creek Road, Aspley 4034 07 3862 7655 Universal Steel Detailers
PO Box 129, Wendouree 3355 03 5339 9690
DKL Drafting
5 Thor Street, Victoria Point 4165 07 3207 7769 Western Australia
Endraft Pty Ltd Barry Carnegie & Assoc P/L, Unit 3
PO Box 256, Fortitude Valley 4005 07 3252 5467 46 Hasler Road, Osborne Park 6017 08 9244 1311
Hempsall Steel Detailing Pty Ltd Cadstruction Drafting
Suite 1/67 Redcliffe Pde, Redcliffe 4020 07 3284 3020 Suite 4 First Floor, East Victoria Park 6101 08 9380 6069
Mount Isa Mines Ltd Mod Drafting
Design Office, Mount Isa 4825 07 4744 3725 Unit 2/5 Edwards Cresc, Redcliffe 6104 08 9454 3753
Online Drafting Services Qld, Unit 6 Pacific Chambers Multiplan
3460 Pacific Highway, Springwood 4127 07 3299 2890 Unit 12 4 Queen St, Bentley 6102 08 9356 5993
Pacific Computing Pty Ltd Perth Drafting Company (WA)
80 Tribune Street, South Brisbane 4101 07 3844 7088 48 Kishorn Road, Applecross 6153 08 9364 8288
Paul Anderson Drafting Service Pty Ltd Steelplan Australia Pty Ltd
39 Lurnea Crescent, Mooloolaba 4557 07 5478 0186 15/885 Albany Highway, East Victoria Park 6101 08 9362 2599
Q E I Pty Ltd Universal Drafting
361 -- 363 Montague Road, West End 4101 07 3844 2772 7/175 Main St, Osborne Park 6017 08 9440 4750
Steelcad Drafting Pty Ltd Westplan Drafting, Unit 3/11,
PO Box 1456 Coorparoo DC 4151 07 3844 3955 Robinson Road, Rockingham 6168 08 9592 2499
Steeltech Steel Detailers P/L
24 Curzon Street, Tennyson 4105 07 3848 6464 New Zealand
Tregar Engineering Services Ormond Stock Associates Ltd
800 Ann Street, Fortitude Valley 4006 07 3252 7104 PO Box 1048, Palmerston North, NZ. 64 6 356 1088

While every effort has been made and all reasonable care taken to ensure the accuracy of the material contained herein the Authors, Edi-
tors and Publishers of this publication shall not be held responsible in any way whatsoever and expressly disclaim any liability or respon-
sibility for any loss or damage costs or expenses howsoever incurred by any person whether the purchaser of this work or otherwise in-
cluding but without in any way limiting any loss or damage costs or expenses incurred as a result of or in connection with the reliance
whether whole or partial by any person as aforesaid upon any part of the contents of this publication. Should expert assistance be required,
the services of a competent professional person should be sought.

Editor: Peter Kneen
STEEL CONSTRUCTION is published quarterly by the
Australian Institute of Steel Construction -- a national body
whose purpose is to promote the use of fabricated steel
through engineering research and the dissemination of
knowledge.
Its services, which are available free of charge to financial
corporate members, include technical information and
advice and a library which contains local and overseas
publications.
For details regarding AISC services, readers may contact
the Institue’s offices, or visit the website: www.aisc.com.au
AISC CONTACTS
Head Office -- Sydney
Level 13, 99 Mount Street
North Sydney NSW 2060
(PO Box 6366, North Sydney NSW 2059)
Tel: (02) 9929 6666 Facsimilie (02) 9955 5406
Email: enquiries@aisc.com.au
Website: www.aisc.com.au
New South Wales & ACT
State Manager -- NSW & ACT
Scott Munter -- Mob 0418 970 899
Tel (02) 9929 6307 Fax (02) 9955 5406
Queensland & N.T.
State Manager -- Queensland & NT
John Gardner -- Mob 0418 788 870
Tel (07) 3243 8311 Fax (07) 3422 1888
Victoria & Tasmania
State Manager -- Victoria & Tasmania
Leigh Wilson -- Mob 0417 353 364
Tel (03) 9529 1799 Fax (03) 9529 1744
Western & South Australia
State Manager -- Western & South Australia
Rupert Grayston -- Mob 0419 922 294
Tel (08) 9480 1166 Fax (08) 9226 2355
1 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 35 NUMBER 1, MARCH 2001
EDITORIAL
This issue presents two papers dealing with fasteners.
The first paper describes some fundamental aspects
of bolted joint behaviour and in particular the
importance of the preload in the bolts of a tensile
connection. The importance of preload and dynamic
loads are discussed.
The second paper presents results of research done
into the failure modes around profiled sheet metal
cladding under simulated wind uplift conditions.
When thin steel roof and wall cladding systems are
subjected to wind uplift/suction forces, local
pull--through or pull--out failures occur prematurely
at their screwed connections. During high wind
events such as storms and cyclones, these localized
failures then lead to severe damage to buildings and
their contents. In recent times, the use of thin steel
battens, purlins and girts has increased considerably,
which has made the pull--out failures more critical in
the design of steel cladding systems.
Disclaimer: Every effort has been made and all reason-
able care taken to ensure the accuracy of the material con-
tained in this publication. However, to the extent per-
mitted by law, the Authors, Editors and Publishers of this
publication: (a) will not be held liable or responsible in
any way; and (b) expressly disclaim any liability or re-
sponsibility for any loss or damage costs or expenses in-
curred in connection with this Publication by any person,
whether that person is the purchaser of this Publication or
not. Without limitation, this includes los, damage, costs
and expenses incurred if any person wholly or partially re-
lies on any part of this Publication, and loss, damage, costs
and expenses incurred as a result of the negligence of the
Authors, Editors or Publishers.
Warning: This Publication should not be used without
the services of a competent professional person with ex-
pert knowledge in the relevant field, and under no circum-
stances should this Publication be relied upon to replace
any or all of the knowledge and expertise of such a person.
CONTRIBUTIONS
Contributions of original papers or reports on steel
design, research and allied technical matters are
invited from readers are invited from readers of
Steel Construction, for publication in the journal.
The views expressed in these papers are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the AISC. Additionally, the editor also invites
readers to submit letters, comments and discus-
sions on these papers, which may be subsequently
printed within a forum section of the journal.
Submissions should be in two columns in electronic
form including diagrams and equations together with
a clean camera ready printout.
 DESIGN OF STEEL ROOF AND WALL CLADDING SYSTEMS
FOR PULL--OUT FAILURES
M. Mahendran

Physical Infrastructure Centre, School of Civil Engineering

Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane

Abstract: When thin steel roof and wall cladding systems are subjected to wind uplift/suction forces, local
pull--through or pull--out failures occur prematurely at their screwed connections. During high wind events such
as storms and cyclones, these localized failures then lead to severe damage to buildings and their contents. In
recent times, the use of thin steel battens, purlins and girts has increased considerably, which has made the
pull--out failures more critical in the design of steel cladding systems. An experimental investigation was
therefore carried out to study the pull--out failure using both static and cyclic tests for a range of commonly used
screw fasteners and steel battens, purlins and girts. This paper presents the details of this experimental
investigation and its results.

1. Introduction investigated in detail by many researchers in the past

Extreme wind events such as cyclones and storms
often cause severe damage to large number of
low--rise buildings. Damage investigations following
these extreme wind events have always shown that
disengagement of steel roof and wall cladding
systems has occurred due to local failures of their
screwed connections under wind uplift or suction
loading (see Figures 1 and 2). The steel sheeting is
made of thin high strength steels (G550 steel: 0.42
mm base metal thickness and minimum yield stress
550 MPa) and is intermittently crest--fixed. Such
profiled steel sheeting often pulls--through the screw
heads (Figure 1(a)) due to the large stress
concentration around the fastener holes under wind
uplift/suction loading [1].
(a) Static (b) Fatigue
Figure 1. Pull--through Failures
Sustained fluctuations of wind uplift loading during a
cyclone have been shown to cause fatigue cracking in
this steel sheeting around the fastener holes at rather
lower load levels [2,3]. This also leads to a
pull--through failure as shown in Figure 1 (b). Both
static and fatigue type pull--through failures lead to
rapid disengagement of all roof and wall claddings,
causing severe damage to the entire building. The
local pull--through failure phenomenon has been
[1--5].
Figure 2. Pull--out Failure
In recent times, very thin high--strength steel battens
of various shapes have been used in housing,
industrial and commercial buildings and this appears
to be the fastest growing method in roof construction.
These cladding systems can then suffer from another
type of local failure when the screw fasteners
pull--out of the steel battens, purlins or girts (see
Figure 2). Such a pull--out failure also leads to a rapid
disengagement of roof and wall claddings, causing
severe damage to the entire building. Therefore an
experimental investigation was conducted to
investigate the static and fatigue pull--out behaviour
of these steel cladding systems under static and cyclic
wind uplift/suction load conditions for a range of
commonly used screw fasteners and steel purlins,
battens and girts. The applicability of the general
design formula for static pull--out strength to roof and
wall cladding systems was investigated first. An
improved formula was then developed in terms of the
thickness and ultimate tensile strength of steel and
thread diameter and pitch of screw fasteners under
static wind uplift load conditions. Cyclic tests were
used to investigate the possible strength reduction
due to sustained fluctuating wind loading conditions
during storms and cyclones. This paper presents the
details of this investigation and its results.

STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 35 NUMBER 1, MARCH 2001 14

2. Current Design and Test Methods 3. Experimental Investigations

The Australian [6], American [7] and the European 3.1. Static Tests
provisions [8] include design formulae for the Since the main aim of this investigation was to
pull--out capacity, Fou, of screw connections in develop specific design information for the pull--out
tension as shown by Equations (1a) and (1b). strength of steel roof and wall cladding systems, the
Australian and American Fou = 0.85 t d fu (1a) more general standard cross tension test method was
European Fou = 0.65 t d fy (1b) not used, but instead conventional two--span cladding
tests and appropriate small scale batten/purlin tests
where t = thickness of member, were conducted to better simulate the realistic
d = nominal screw diameter, behaviour of steel roof and wall cladding systems.
fu = ultimate tensile strength of steel and
fy = yield stress of steel.
The design pull--out capacity is obtained by using a
capacity reduction factor of 0.5 to Equations (1a) and
(1b). Pekoz [9] and Toma et al. [10] present the
background to the American and European
equations, respectively. The difference between these
equations is partly due to the European equation
being based on a characteristic strength (5 percentile)
whereas the American equation is based on an
average strength. These design equations were
developed for conventional fasteners and thicker
mild steel. At present, the American and Australian
Load Steel
codes recommend the use of 75% of the specified Batten
minimum strength for high strength steels such as
G550 steel with a yield stress greater than 550 MPa
and thickness less than 0.9 mm to allow for the
reduced ductility of these steels. Since the design
formulae are considered to be conservative, the
300
design for the pull--out failure of screwed
connections in tension is mainly based on laboratory
experiments. Load
In the past, different test methods such as the
U--tension, cross tension and plate methods have
been used for testing screw connections in tension.
The American and European specifications [7,8] are
based on the U--tension method whereas the Screw
Australian provision [6] recommends the Fastener
cross--tension method. The background to these test Steel
methods is given in Macindoe and Hanks [11]. Batten
Macindoe et al. [12] have used the cross tension test
method to review the applicability of American Figure 3. Static Test Set--up
design formula given by Equation (1a) for thin high
strength steels such as G550 steels. Based on this, Since the pull--out failures are localized around the
Macindoe et al. [12] modified the predictive screw holes on the batten/purlin (see Figure 2), a
equations for pull--out strength, Fou. (Equation (2)). It small scale test method was used to simulate this
includes the term fu 0.5 to eliminate the need for the failure. A batten supported at shorter spans with only
use of 75% of the specified minimum strength for one or four screw fasteners was used with tension
G550 steels with thickness less than 0.9 mm. But their force being applied to the fastener head. Test results
work is not specific to roof and wall cladding showed that the difference in pull--out failure loads
systems. between the two--span cladding test method, the
multiple screw fastener method and the single screw
fastener method was insignificant [13]. It was also
Fou = 35 (t 2.2 dfu ) (2)
found that test span in the single screw fastener
method did not cause any changes to the failure load.
where t, d and fu are as defined for Equation (1a). Therefore the single screw fastener method with a

15 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 35 NUMBER 1, MARCH 2001

span of 300 mm was used in this investigation. Figure
3 shows the chosen test method. It was considered
that this method would simulate the local flexing of
the steel batten around the fastener hole and the
appropriate tension loading in the screw fastener to
produce the pull--out failure load one would obtain by
testing a two--span cladding. This test method is very
simple to use and enables a large number of pull--out
tests to be completed with limited resources in a short
period of time.

Table 1. Details of Steel Battens and Purlins

Steel BMT (mm) Yield Stress Ultimate Stress

Grades fy (MPa) fu (MPa)
Nominal Measured Nominal Measured Nominal Measured
0.40 0.38 358 415
G250, Battens 0.60 0.54 250 359 320 399
1.00 0.95 332 390
0.42 0.43 717 721
G550, Battens 0.60 0.61 550 696 550 703
0.95 0.95 639 655
G500, Battens 1.20 1.20 500 635 520 647
G450, Battens 1.60 1.58 450 584 480 604
1.90 1.79 497 560
G450, Purlins 2.40 2.30 450 465 480 587
3.00 2.93 450 553

Table 2. Details of Screw Fasteners

Thread Thread Thread

Screw Gauge Diameter d (mm) Form Pitch
Type Nominal Measured (per inch) p (mm)
10--16 4.87 4.67 16 1.59
10--24 4.87 4.67 24 1.06
12--11 5.43 5.52 11 2.31
HiTeks 12--14 5.43 5.47 14 1.81
12--24 5.43 5.36 24 1.06
14--10 6.41 6.39 10 2.54
14--20 6.41 6.22 20 1.27
10--12 4.87 4.81 12 2.12
Type 17 12--11 5.43 5.53 11 2.31
14--10 6.41 6.34 10 2.54
Series 500 12--24 5.43 5.49 24 1.06

Following the validation of the single screw fastener type of screw fastener in Table 2, resulting in a total of
test method, a series of pull--out tests was conducted 592 tests. A total of 55 standard tensile tests were also
for a range of steel battens, purlins or girts and screw conducted to determine the tensile strength properties
fasteners, which are commonly used in the building (yield and ultimate stresses) of the steel used in steel
industry. The steel battens, purlins/girts covered a battens. The measured and specified (nominal)
range of different thicknesses from 0.4 mm to 3.0 mm tensile strength values are given in Table 1.
BMT, and steel grades from G250 to G550 (minimum
A preliminary series of tests on battens with different
yield stress from 250 to 550 MPa). The screw
geometry showed that the batten geometry has very
fasteners covered a range of different screw gauges
little effect on pull--out strength. Hence a batten
from 10 to 14 (nominal thread diameter d from 4.87 to
geometry that is commonly used in the building
6.41 mm), and thread form from 10 to 24 threads per
industry was chosen. For the tests on thicker purlins,
inch (thread pitch p from 2.54 to 1.06 mm). Tables 1
available purlins of three different sizes were used.
and 2 give the details of steel battens and purlins and
Figure 4 shows the geometry of battens and purlins
screw fasteners used in this investigation,
used in this investigation.
respectively. Five tests were conducted for a
combination of each batten/purlin in Table 1 and each

STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 35 NUMBER 1, MARCH 2001 16

 however, they were also included. For each type of
screw fastener, the thread diameter and thread form
were varied as shown in Table 2.

HiTeks Type 17 Series 500 Screw Diameter

Figure 5. Screw Fasteners
Figure 4. Test Battens and Purlins
The test specimens were loaded at a loading rate in the
As seen in Table 2, screw fasteners with three range of 3--5 mm/minute until the screw fasteners
different drill points, namely, HiTeks, Type 17 and pulled--out of the battens/purlins.
Series 500 (see Figure 5), were chosen [14]. HiTeks
3.2. Static Test Results and Discussion
screws are used in fixing to metal battens, purlins or
girts of less than 6.0 mm thickness whereas Type 17
3.3. Results
screws are used in fixing to timber purlins. However,
the latter is commonly used in the building industry Table 3 presents typical pull--out failure loads for one
for thin battens of less than 1.0 mm thickness. HiTeks screw fastener. Other results are presented in
Therefore Type 17 screws were also included in this [15]. The results were grouped based on thickness
investigation. Series 500 Teks screws are used mainly and grade of steel, analysed and comparisons made
for thicker metal purlins up to 12.0 mm thickness, based on these groups
Table 3. Experimental Results for 10--24×
×25 HiTeks Screw Fasteners

Thickness Steel Failure Load (N/fastener)

t (mm) Grade Experimental Records (N/f) Mean (N/f) Std. Dev.
0.40 475, 345, 400, 418, 445 417 42
0.60 G250 548, 578, 643, 603, 593 593 28
1.00 1343, 1315, 1323, 1365, 1370 1343 28
0.42 715, 758, 793, 648, 743, 755, 815 746 58
0.60 G550 930, 918, 1030, 990, 890 952 64
0.95 2100, 1890, 2100, 2100, 2120 2062 109
1.20 G500 2650, 2720, 2790, 2190, 2440 2558 275
1.60 3610, 3290, 3560, 3100, 3980 3508 382
1.90 G450 4750, 4610, 4600, 4870, 4660 4698 126
2.40 7150, 6720, 6000, 6450, 6670 6598 328
3.00 8650, 9010, 8930, 8900, 9370 8972 217
Note: Std. Dev. = Standard Deviation

17 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 35 NUMBER 1, MARCH 2001

Two different types of pull--out failure modes were
observed. In thin steels, for which the thickness is less
than the thread pitch, the steel batten around the screw
hole was bent as the screw threads were withdrawn.
In thicker steels, where the thickness is greater than
the thread pitch, the steel batten/purlin around the
screw hole was sheared off as the screw threads were
withdrawn. Figure 6 shows these two pull--out failure
modes.
In general, it was found that Type 17 screw fasteners
gave a higher pull--out load compared with other
screw fasteners of the same size. This implies that the
type of thread and drill point can influence the
pull--out strength. However, this aspect was not
investigated in detail.
3.4. Comparison of Test to Predicted
Values Based on Current Design
Formula

The pull--out failure load results from tests (see Table

3) were compared with the predictions from the
current design formula given by Equation (1a) using
both the measured and specified (nominal) values for
the properties of the steel and screw fasteners. Table 4
presents the comparisons for each grade and
(a) Mode 1 (b) Mode 2 thickness of steel and groups of screw fasteners using
the measured properties (Case 1: All, Case 2: HiTeks
Figure 6. Static Pull--out Failure Modes + Type 17, Case 3: HiTeks, Case 4: Type 17).
Table 4. Test to Predicted Values Based on Current Design Formula
and Measured Properties

Steel Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

Grade Thickness Mean COV Mean COV Mean COV Mean COV
G250 0.40 0.82 0.21 0.84 0.18 0.76 0.13 1.03 0.06
G250 0.60 0.83 0.21 0.85 0.20 0.75 0.11 1.08 0.06
G250 1.00 0.98 0.13 1.00 0.12 0.95 0.11 1.12 0.05
G250 t≤1.00 0.88 0.20 0.90 0.18 0.83 0.16 1.07 0.06
G550 0.42 0.67 0.17 0.69 0.16 0.62 0.11 0.82 0.05
G550 0.60 0.65 0.17 0.66 0.16 0.61 0.15 0.77 0.05
G550 0.95 0.94 0.19 0.96 0.19 0.91 0.21 1.08 0.04
G500 1.20 0.93 0.10 0.93 0.10 0.87 0.08 1.03 0.03
G550+G500 t≤1.20 0.78 0.24 0.80 0.23 0.74 0.24 0.91 0.15
G450 1.60 1.09 0.12 1.10 0.13 1.05 0.11 1.24 0.08
G450 1.90 1.14 0.12 1.16 0.11 1.12 0.10 1.25 0.12
G450 2.40 1.29 0.13 1.31 0.12 1.28 0.10 1.39 0.16
G450 3.00 1.32 0.08 1.33 0.08 1.34 0.07 1.30 0.09
G450 1.6≤ t ≤3.0 1.21 0.14 1.22 0.14 1.20 0.14 1.28 0.12
G450+G500+G550 t≤3.0 0.99 0.28 1.00 0.28 0.97 0.30 1.08 0.22
G250 to G550 t<1.50 0.82 0.23 0.83 0.23 0.78 0.22 0.98 0.14
G250toG550 t≤3.00 0.96 0.27 1.00 0.26 0.93 0.28 1.08 0.19
Notes: 1. Case 1 = All (HiTeks+Type17+Series500); Case 2 = HiTeks+Type17;
Case 3 = HiTeks; Case 4 = Type1
2. COV = Coefficient of Variation
As seen in Table 4 results, the mean Test to Predicted observations imply that the current design formula is
values are less than 1.0 for all cases except for the conservative only for thicker and softer grade steels,
thicker G450 steel, which reveals the inadequacy of and agree well with Macindoe et al.’s [12]
the current design formula. The current design observations. It may be unsafe to use the design
formula is less conservative for the thinner formula for thinner steels less than 1.5 mm, in
G500+G550 steels than for G250 steel for all types of particular for G550 steel.
screw fasteners (Cases 1 to 4). However, for the
thicker G450 steel, the formula appears to be very By comparing the results in Table 4 with Macindoe et
conservative. The mean Test to Predicted value is al.’s [12] results obtained using the general test
lower for all grades of thinner steel. These method of cross--tension specimens, it was found that

STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 35 NUMBER 1, MARCH 2001 18

Macindoe et al.’s results gave higher mean Test to
Predicted values in all cases; for example, Macindoe
et al.’s results gave a mean value of 1.27 for G250
steels and Case 1 screw fasteners compared with 0.88
in this investigation. This implies that the general test
method of using cross--tension specimens could have
produced unconservative results.
As seen in Table 4, the type of screw fastener has not
caused any significant difference in results. The Type
17 screw (Case 4) is the only one, which appears to
provide slightly higher mean Test to Predicted values.
This may be because of the higher pull--out loads
obtained for Type 17 screw fasteners. Therefore in the
discussion of results, only the case of all screw
fasteners (Case 1) was considered. No attempt was
made to develop separate formulae for the three
screw fastener types used in this investigation.
However, it must be noted that they are all
self--drilling screws.
When specified properties were used, the mean
values increased to more than 1.0 for all cases [13].
The use of 75% of specified tensile strength for G550
steel less than 0.9 mm has caused the mean Test to
Predicted value for G550+G500 steels (1.14) to be
greater than that of G250 steel (1.02). Therefore the
use of current design formula with specified
properties is preferred, and appears to be capable of
predicting the pull--out strengths. These observations
are similar to those made by Macindoe et al. [12].
3.5. Comparison of Test to Predicted
Values Based on a New Design
Formula
Mahendran and Tang [13,15] present the details of
comparisons when Macindoe et al.’s modified
formula (Equation (2)) was used. Although the
modified formula appears to better model the
pull--out strength than the current design formula
(Equation (1a)), specific design formulae were
developed for the pull--out failure in the battens and
purlins/girts commonly used in the building
industry. In order to find the more accurate equation
for the pull--out strength Fou of steel roof and wall
cladding systems, all the parameters on which the
strength is dependent were included in the analysis.
Therefore the thread diameter d and thread pitch p of
the screw fastener and base metal thickness t and
tensile strength fu of the batten/purlin material were
all included in the new design formula given by
Equation (3). The use of ultimate tensile strength fu
gave a better correlation between the actual and
predicted results than the yield strength fy. Therefore,
fu was used in Equation (3). When compared with
Equations (1) and (2), the new equation includes an
additional parameter, the thread pitch p, as it was
often found to affect the pull--out capacity.
Fou = k dm pn tv fuw (3)
where k, m, n, v and w are constants
The unknown constants k, m, n, v and w were
determined using the “Solver” in Microsoft Excel
which is based on the method of least squares.
Separate equations were derived for different groups
as shown in Table 5. Although equations were
derived for each group of screw fasteners (Cases 1 to
4), only Case 1 with all screw fasteners was
considered in the final analysis as there was little
difference between the different types of screw
fasteners. For the derived equations, the mean Test to
Predicted values and coefficient of variation (COV)
were also calculated and are included in Table 5.

Table 5. Test to Predicted Values Using the New Design Formula and Measured Properties
for Case 1 Screw Fasteners

Steel Coefficients Simplified Current Modified

Formula Formula Formula
Grade Thickness k m n v w Mean COV Mean COV Mean COV
G250 t<1.5 1.40 0.6 0.3 1.2 1.0 0.99 0.13 0.88 0.20 1.05 0.20
G550+G500 t<1.5 0.95 0.8 0.2 1.4 1.0 1.00 0.17 0.78 0.24 1.19 0.21
G450 1.5< t≤3.0 0.90 0.9 0.2 1.3 1.0 0.98 0.10 1.21 0.14 1.53 0.14
G450+G500+G550 t≤3.0 0.80 0.9 0.2 1.4 1.0 1.02 0.14 0.99 0.28 1.36 0.21
G250toG550 t<1.5 1.30 1.0 0.2 1.3 0.9 1.02 0.18 0.82 0.23 1.13 0.21
G250toG550 t≤3.0 0.80 0.9 0.2 1.4 1.0 1.07 0.16 0.96 0.27 1.27 0.24
In Table 5, Test to Predicted values using Equations 0.2) in all cases. However, in order to reduce this to a
(1a) and (2) (current design formula and Macindoe et single equation for all groups, the parameters m, n, v
al.’s modified formula) are also included for and w were forced to be 1.0, 0.2, 1.3 and 1.0,
comparisons with the corresponding values from the respectively. The values of k were changed to get the
new formula. The new formulae with appropriate best agreement with test results. This is considered
values for the parameters k, m, n, v and w in Equation acceptable as the coefficients of variation values
(3) appear to provide improved mean (closer to 1.0) (COV) are still within 0.18 (see Table 6)
and coefficient of variation values (COV less than

19 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 35 NUMBER 1, MARCH 2001

 Table 6. Test to Predicted Values Using the New Simplified Design Formula
Steel Coefficients
Grade Thickness k m n v w
G250 t<1.5 0.75 1.0 0.2 1.3
G500+G550 t<1.5 0.70 1.0 0.2 1.3
G450 1.5< t≤3.0 0.80 1.0 0.2 1.3
G450+G500+G550 t≤3.0 0.75 1.0 0.2 1.3
G250toG550 t<1.5 0.70 1.0 0.2 1.3
G250toG550 t≤3.0 0.75 1.0 0.2 1.3
Note: COV = Coefficient of Variation
Table 6 presents the Test to Predicted values based on
these changes to the above parameters for Case 1 (all
screw fasteners). These equations are much simpler
and at the same time they are quite satisfactory as the
mean and coefficient of variation values are similar to
those in Table 5 and are acceptable. Therefore the
following simplified formula is recommended:
Fou = k d p0.2 t1.3 fu (4)
where k = 0.70 for thinner steel battens made of
G250, G500 and G550 steel of thickness t < 1.5 mm, k
= 0.80 for thicker steel purlins and girts made of G450
steel of thickness 1.5< t =3.0 mm, and k = 0.75 for all
steel battens and purlins/girts made of G250, G450,
G500 and G550 steel of thickness t = 3.0 mm. It must
be noted that in the above equation, d, p and t are in
mm and fu is in MPa.
3.6. Capacity Factors for the Pull--out
Failure of Screwed Connections
The design equations already in the codes and the
proposed equations mentioned in this paper can
predict average pull--out strengths based on the
limited number of test data. The actual pull--out
strength of a real connection can be considerably less
than the value predicted by these equations because
of the expected variations in material, fabrication and
loading effects. Therefore a capacity reduction factor
commonly used in design codes should be
recommended for the pull--out strength predicted by
these equations.
For screwed connections, Pekoz [9] recommended a
modified version of the statistical model given in the
American cold--formed steel structures code [7] for
the determination of capacity reduction factors. This
model is used in the Australian cold--formed steel
structures code [12]. It was used to calculate the
capacity reduction factor φ (Table 6). Specified
STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 35 NUMBER 1, MARCH 2001
Measured Properties Specified Properties
Mean COV Φ Mean COV Φ
1.0 1.04 0.15 0.61 1.19 0.17 0.54
1.0 0.94 0.16 0.53 1.19 0.16 0.54
1.0 0.93 0.10 0.59 1.06 0.11 0.55
1.0 0.93 0.15 0.55 1.12 0.13 0.55
1.0 1.02 0.18 0.56 1.22 0.17 0.55
1.0 0.96 0.16 0.56 1.14 0.15 0.54
properties were used in the derivation of φ factor, and
therefore included a correction factor for yield.
Measured properties were also used, but both
approaches produced approximately the same φ
factors (Table 6). Further details of these calculations
are given in [13,15].
The results clearly indicate that the new simplified
design formula has less scatter. The mean Test to
Predicted values are more uniform and closer to 1.0
than in other cases. The coefficient of variation is on
average less than 0.18 and fairly uniform across
different groups whereas the other formulae
produced a bigger scatter. Comparison of average and
maximum errors for the three formulae confirmed
that the new formula produces less errors than other
formulae. Based on these observations and previous
results, Equation (4) is recommended with a φ factor
of 0.5. This was possible as the φ factors were greater
than 0.5 (approximately 0.55). Although steel and
screw fasteners used here were obtained from
particular manufacturers, results should be equally
applicable to other steels and screw fasteners
provided they comply with the respective
specifications for the steel grades and fasteners used
in this investigation.
3.7. Cyclic Tests
A small scale test set--up similar to that used in static
tests was used in the cyclic tests, but with constant
amplitude cyclic loading conditions as shown in
Figure 7. In the static pull--out test series, a larger
range of steel grades and thicknesses and screw
fasteners was considered. However, in cyclic testing,
only a subset of them was considered for two reasons:
Fatigue effects were expected to be similar for other
combinations of steel battens and screw fasteners;
The number of tests may become excessive as at least
five cyclic tests had to be conducted for each
combination.
20
 Test Frame
Actuator

Load Cell

Solenoid
valve

Batten Clamps

Figure 7. Cyclic Test Set--up

Table 7. Cyclic Test Program

Steel Batten Screw Fastener Static Pull--out Cyclic Load Ranges* as a

Steel Nominal Type Gauge Failure Load Percentage of Static
Grade thickness (N/fastener) Pull--out Failure Load
G550 0.42 Type 17 14--10 1321 25, 30, 30.5, 31, 33, 35, 40, 49, 53, 61, 68, 76
HiTeks 14--10 1079 30, 31, 32, 35, 40, 60, 80
14--20 959 23, 25, 30, 35, 40, 60, 80
10--16 913 23, 25, 30, 35, 40, 60, 80
G550 0.95 Type 17 14--10 3558 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 50, 60, 70, 75, 80
HiTeks 14--10 2944 25, 30, 35, 40, 60, 70, 80,
14--20 2692 25, 30, 35, 40, 50, 60, 80
10--16 2524 25, 30, 35, 40, 50, 60, 80
G250 0.40 Type 17 14--10 874 35, 37, 40, 50, 60, 80
HiTeks 14--10 716 30, 35, 40, 50, 60, 80
14--20 590 40, 50, 60, 80
10--16 554 60, 80
G250 1.0 Type 17 14--10 2306 30, 35, 40, 50, 60, 80
HiTeks 14--10 2012 30, 32, 35, 40, 50, 60, 80
14--20 1800 30, 35, 37, 40, 50, 60, 80
10--16 1696 30, 35, 37, 40, 60, 80
* -- Minimum cyclic load = zero
A specially made test frame was used to assemble the conducted for a range of combinations of steel battens
test batten and the loading actuator. The test batten and screw fasteners until a pull--out failure occurred.
was clamped to the base of the test frame at a distance
of about 150 mm. As seen in Figure 7, a The pneumatic actuator was supplied with
computer--controlled pneumatic actuator was used to compressed air at a regulated pressure. Cyclic
apply the constant amplitude cyclic loading to the loading to the test batten was produced by an air
screw fastener heads using a special arrangement. control system in which a process timer operated the
These fasteners with a hexagonal head and a actuator. This system was connected to a data
neoprene sealing washer were fixed to the test battens acquisition and process control system, which
in a similar manner to that used in the building facilitated real time monitoring, integration and
industry. Special precautions were taken during the processing of test data. The applied load to the screw
installation process to ensure all screws were centred head was measured by a load cell connected in series
at the battens, set perpendicular to the plane of the with the actuator as shown in Figure 7, and was
batten and driven inside the batten to a constant continuously monitored through a graphic display on
length. A series of cyclic pull--out tests was then the computer. It also had a self--triggering system to

21 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 35 NUMBER 1, MARCH 2001

stop the system at failure and save the data percentages of its static pull--out load (see Table 7).
automatically. By controlling the regulated air This resulted in a total of 175 cyclic tests. The cyclic
supply, the applied cyclic loading was produced at the load ranges were based on static test results [13,15],
desired rate. In most of the tests, the loading and are included in Table 7. In each test, the cyclic
frequency was maintained at 3 Hz. For each loading was continued until the screw fastener
combination of test batten and screw fastener, pulled--out from the battens and the corresponding
constant amplitude cyclic load tests were conducted number of cycles was recorded.
with a load range from about zero to various
Cyclic Pull--out Load / Static Pull--out Load

100

90

80 14--10 Type 17
14--10 HiTeks
per Fastener (%)

70
14--20 HiTeks
60
10--16 HiTeks
50

40

30

20

10

0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000

Number of Cycles to Failure

(a) 0.42 mm G550 steel

100
Cyclic Pull--out Load / Static Pull--out Load

90

80 14--10 Type 17

70 14--10 HiTeks
per Fastener (%)

14--20 HiTeks
60
10--16 HiTeks
50

40

30

20

10

0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Number of Cycles to Failure

(b) 1 mm G250 steel

Figure 8. Group of Fatigue Curves for Varying Steel and Screw Types

STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 35 NUMBER 1, MARCH 2001 22

 Cyclic Pull--out Load / Static Pull--out Load
100

90
80 G550/0.42
70 G550/0.95

per Fastener (%)

60 G250/0.40
G250/1.0
50

40

30
20

10
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000

Number of Cycles to Failure

(c) No.14--10 HiTeks Screws

100
Cyclic Pull--out Load / Static Pull--out Load

90

80
G550/0.42
70 G550/0.95
per Fastener (%)

G250/0.40
60
G250/1.0
50

40

30

20

10

0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000

Number of Cycles to Failure

(d) No.14--10 Type 17 Screws

Figure 8. Group of Fatigue Curves for Varying Steel and Screw Types
3.8. Cyclic Test Results and Discussion 40 to 50% of the static pull--out failure load, the screw
fasteners pulled out as the steel around the fastener
3.9. Results holes was bent upwards after a limited number of
cycles (< about 10,000) and there weren’t any
Typical experimental results are presented as Cyclic cracking around the fastener holes. The steel bending
Pull--out failure load (as a percentage of static deformation around the hole was quite small for
pull--out failure load per fastener) versus number of thicker steel battens. This type of failure was due to
cycles to failure in Figures 8 (a) to (d). Other results the slipping at the connections caused by the upward
are presented in [16]. Figures 8 (a) and (b) illustrate bending deformations of steel around the fastener
the variations in the cyclic behaviour of each steel hole and cyclic loading. This was particularly true for
batten type (steel grade and thickness) due to the use the thin steel as there wasn’t much grip between the
of different screw fasteners whereas Figures 8 (c) and fastener and steel. Figure 9 (a) shows the typical
(d) illustrate these variations when different steel failure mode in this case. At higher cyclic loads closer
batten types are used for the same screw fastener. All to the static pull--out failure load, the failure was
the results clearly demonstrate the presence of fatigue essentially a slipping type failure as for the pure static
effects as the pull--out failures occurred after only a failures. In summary, the first mode of failure was not
few cycles of loading at much lower load levels than an ideal fatigue type failure and occurred after a
the static pull--out failure loads. In general, there were limited number of cycles. There was a rapid reduction
two modes of cyclic pull--out failure as shown in in cyclic pull--out strength in all cases because of this
Figure 9. When the cyclic load was more than about type of failure mode.

23 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 35 NUMBER 1, MARCH 2001

 present. Once these cracks propagated sufficiently to
let the screw
shaft pull--out, the failure occurred suddenly. The
above observations were the same irrespective of the
steel grade and thickness or the screw type or gauge.
Figure 9 (b) shows the typical failure mode observed
in this case.
The two contrasting segments of Figures 8(a) to (d)
confirm the above discussions about the two types of
failure. From these figures, the following
(a) Upward Bending and Slipping observations can also be made.
1. Type 17 screw fasteners appeared to give a
better cyclic performance for thinner steels.
But for thicker steels, no significant difference
was observed when different types and sizes
of fasteners were used.
2. No.10--16 and 14--20 HiTeks screw fasteners
appeared to lower the cyclic performance of
thinner steels as the combination of smaller
pitch and thinner steels did not provide a good
resistance against pull--out failures.
(b) Radial Cracking 3. The cyclic performance of steel battens was
similar when No.14--10 HiTeks screws were
Figure 9. Cyclic Pull--out Failure Modes used, however, there were some differences
between the different steel thicknesses and
When the cyclic load was less than 40% of the static grades when other fasteners were used.
pull--out failure load, radial cracks appeared around
the fastener holes for all grades and thicknesses of 4. The results from all the connections between
steel. These cracks started from the edge of the hole the steel battens and screw fasteners consid-
and propagated in all directions. This was due to the ered here appear to indicate the presence of a
repeated deformation that occurs in the vicinity of fatigue limit in the range of 25 to 35% of the
fastener holes where high stress concentrations were static pull--out failure load.
Table 8. Cyclic Test Results
Cyclic Load that causes pull--out failure
after the following Number of Cycles
Steel Batten Screw Fastener Pcrack*
Grade thickness Type Gauge 1000 2500 5000 10000
0.42 Type 17 14--10 x 60 51 40 35
G550 Hiteks 14--10 x 66 45 31 31
HiTeks 14--20 x 51 32 29 25
HiTeks 10--16 x 51 36 30 28
0.95 Type 17 14--10 x 60 49 42 35
HiTeks 14--10 x 70 60 50 42
HiTeks 14--20 40 61 57 51 44
HiTeks 10--16 40 70 56 48 44
0.4 Type 17 14--10 60 60 50 42 33
G250 HiTeks 14--10 50 72 59 46 33
HiTeks 14--20 50 70 57 50 46
1.0 Type 17 14--10 40 73 58 48 42
HiTeks 14--10 40 54 46 41 39
HiTeks 14--20 40 56 52 49 43
HiTeks 10--16 40 70 60 45 39
* -- The amplitude of cyclic load below which fatigue cracks appeared.
x – not available

STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 35 NUMBER 1, MARCH 2001 24

In addition to the results presented in Figures 8 (a) to
(d), Table 8 also presents some of the results from the
cyclic tests. It includes the loads below which the
pull--out failure associated with fatigue cracking
occurred. These loads indicate that this load is in the
range of 40--50% of the static pull--out failure load.
Table 8 also includes the level of cyclic load that
caused a pull--out failure after a specified number of
cycles as obtained from the fatigue curves. The cyclic
load is expressed as a percentage of static pull--out
failure load.
The design for cyclone wind loading conditions in
Australia requires that the steel roof cladding systems
pass a three--level low--high fatigue test sequence
[17]. The three--level low--high fatigue test sequence
100
Cyclic Pull--out Load / Static Pull--out Load
90
80
70
per Fastener (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10000
3.10. Design Method
Although the results in Section 3.4.1 can be used
directly by designers of steel roof and wall cladding
systems, it is important that a simpler design method
is developed to take into account the significant
reduction to the pull--out strength caused by cyclic
wind loading. For this purpose, all the cyclic test
results obtained from this investigation were plotted
in the same figure (Figure 10), and simple design
equations (Equation (4)) shown next were obtained
as an approximate lower bound. These equations give
the necessary reduction factor R (cyclic pull--out
strength to static pull--out strength) as a function of
the number of loading cycles N.
For N ≤2000, R = 1 -- 0.70 (N/2000)
For N >2000, R = 0.30
These equations can be used for design wind events
with only one load level, for example, the fatigue
loading sequence used in the Northern Territory to
simulate cyclonic loading. Equation (4b) is
conservative for almost all cases whereas Equation
(4a) may be unconservative in some cases. However,
the combination of these two equations is expected to
25
includes the following loading: 8,000 cycles at 0 to
0.4 x ultimate design load (Fu), 2,000 cycles at 0 to
0.5 Fu and 200 cycles at 0 to 0.6 Fu. However, the
design for the Northern Territory in Australia requires
a more severe loading sequence made of 10,000
cycles at 0 to 0.67 Fu. These fatigue test sequences are
considered to simulate cyclone wind load conditions
on roofing systems. The results given in Table 8 can
therefore be used by designers to determine the
design pull--out failure load for cyclone wind loading
conditions depending on the screw fastener and steel
batten used. For multi--level fatigue test sequences,
the use of an appropriate fatigue damage rule such as
Miner’s law is required to estimate the design
pull--out failure load for cyclone wind conditions.
14--10 Type 17’ [G550 / 0.42] 14--10 Hiteks [ G550 / 0.42]
14--20 Hiteks [ G550 / 0.42] 10--16 Hiteks [ G550 / 0.42]
14--10 Type 17 [G550/ 0.95] 14--10 Hiteks [G550/ 0.95]
14--20 Hiteks [G550 / 0.95] 10--16 Hiteks [ G550 / 0.95]
14--10 Type 17 [G250 / 0.40] 14--10 Hiteks [G250 / 0.40]
14--20 Hiteks [G250 / 0.40] 14--10 Type 17 [G250 / 1.0]
14--10 Hiteks [G250 / 1.0] 14--20 Hiteks [ G250 / 1.0]
10--16 Hiteks [ 250 / 1.0]
Approx. design curves
20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
Number of Cycles to Failure
Figure 10. Fatigue Curves
provide conservative results for all types of
connections. It is recommended that No.10--16 and
No.14--20 screw fasteners are not used with thinner
steels (0.40 and 0.42 mm), in which case, the
applicability of recommended equations will not be
limited.
The simple design equations may be considered
conservative as they were based on an approximate
lower bound to all the test results. However, it can be
improved by developing similar equations, but which
are specific for a given combination of steel and
fastener types based on its fatigue curves such as
those shown in Figures 8 (a) to (d). The results given
in Table 8 can also be used instead of the fatigue
curves.
(4a)
(4b) For a design wind event with a wind loading spectrum
with more than one load level, these simple equations
can still be used in determining the design pull--out
load more accurately, provided a fatigue damage law
such as Miner’s law is used. It is not known whether
the use of Miner’s law based on a linear cumulative
damage model is adequate to determine the total
fatigue damage caused by a wind loading spectrum.
However, a simpler, but more conservative design
STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 35 NUMBER 1, MARCH 2001
approach based on the observed fatigue limit can be
used. Since this investigation indicated the presence
of a fatigue limit of about 25 to 35% of the static
pull--out failure load, it is recommended that a
reduction factor of 0.3 can be used in the design of
steel cladding systems to allow for the effects of wind
loading fluctuations on pull--out strength.
In order to investigate the use of Miner’s law,
Mahendran and Mahaarachchi [16] conducted a
series of multi--level cyclic tests based on the
three--level loading sequence recommended by the
Australian wind loading code [17]. Their results
indicated that the type of load sequence has only a
minor effect on fatigue damage and that the results are
similar for both steel grades. The results also indicate
that Miner’s law underestimates the fatigue damage
(<1.0). Therefore it is recommended that Miner’s law
based on a simple cumulative fatigue theory can be
used to predict the design pull--out failure load more
accurately for a given wind event with multiple
loading regimes (eg. cyclone/storm conditions)
provided it is modified by a factor of 0.7.
4. Conclusions
An experimental investigation involving a large
number of static and cyclic tests (>800) has been
conducted on connections between steel battens
made of different thicknesses and steel grades, and
screw fasteners with varying diameter and pitch
under wind uplift/suction loading.
Analysis of the static test results showed that the
current design formula for the pull--out strength may
not be suitable for the screw fasteners and the thin
high strength steels considered in this investigation.
STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 35 NUMBER 1, MARCH 2001
This design formula gave conservative results only
for thicker (1.5 < t ≤ 3.0 mm), softer grade steels.
A simple design formula that models the pull--out
failure more accurately has been developed for the
battens, purlins and girts used in the building
industry. This formula has been developed in terms of
not only the thickness and ultimate tensile strength of
steel and the thread diameter of the screw fasteners,
but also the pitch of screw fasteners. For this
improved formula a capacity reduction factor of 0.5
as given in the American and the Australian
Cold--formed Steel Structures codes was found to be
acceptable. Cyclic test results revealed the significant
reduction to pull--out strength caused by fluctuating
wind loading. Simple design equations and suitable
recommendations have been made. This paper has
presented the details of the investigations and the
results.
Two research reports [15, 16] have presented raw test
data and further details that can be used for other
purposes.
5. Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank two of his postgraduate
research scholars, Louis Tang and Dhammika
Mahaarachchi, who conducted the tests and analyses
reported in this paper, BHP Sheet and Coil Products,
Stramit Industries, and IITW Construction Products
for the donations of experimental materials,
Queensland University of Technology (QUT) for its
financial support for this research project through the
ARC Small Grants Scheme and QUT’s Physical
Infrastructure Centre and School of Civil
Engineering for providing the required research
facilities and support.
26
6. References
1. Mahendran, M. (1994), Behaviour and Design
of Profiled Steel Roof Claddings under High
Wind Forces, Engineering. Structures, 16 (5),
368--376.
2. Beck, V.R. and Stevens, L.K. (1979), Wind
Loading Failures of Corrugated Roof Clad-
ding, Civil Eng. Trans,. I. E. Aust., 21 (1)
45--56.
3. Mahendran, M. (1990a), Fatigue Behaviour of
Corrugated Roofing under Cyclic Wind Load-
ing, Civil Eng. Trans., I.E.Aust., 32 (4),
219--226
4. Mahendran, M. (1990b), Static Behaviour of
Corrugated Roofing under Simulated Wind
Loading, Civil Eng. Trans., I.E.Aust., 32 (4),
211--218
5. Xu, Y.L. and Reardon, G.F. (1994) Tests of
Screw Fastened Profiled Roofing Sheets Sub-
ject to Simulated Wind Uplift. Engineering
Structures, 15 (6): 423--430.
6. Standards Australia (SA) (1996), AS/
NZS4600 Cold--Formed Steel Structures
Code.
7. American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI)
(1989), Specification for the Design of Cold--
formed Steel Structural Members, 1986 Edi-
tion with 1989 Addendum, AISI, Washington,
DC.
8. Eurocode 3 (1992), Design of Steel Structures,
Part 1.3 -- Cold--formed Thin--gauge Members
and Sheeting, Draft document CEN/
TC250/SC3 -- PT1A, Commission of the Eu-
ropean Communities, August.
27
9. Pekoz, T. (1990), Design of Cold--formed
Steel Screw Connections, Proc. of the Tenth
International Speciality Conference on Cold--
formed Steel Structures, St. Louis, Missouri,
USA, 576--587
10. Toma, A., Sedlacek, G. and Weynand, K.
(1993), Connections in Cold--formed Steel,
Thin--walled Structures, 16, 219--237.
11. Macindoe, L. and Hanks, P. (1994), Standard
Tests for Cold--formed Steel Single Fastener
Connections, Proc. of Australasian Structural
Engineering Conference, Sydney, 253--257.
12. Macindoe, L. Adams, J. and Pham, L. (1995),
Performance of Single Point Fasteners -- Re-
port to the CRC for Materials, Welding and
Joining, CSIRO Division of Building,
Construction and Engineering, Melbourne.
13. Mahendran, M. and Tang, R.B. (1998) Pull--
out Strength of Steel Roof and Wall Cladding
Systems. ASCE Journal of Structural Engi-
neering: 124 (10): 1192--1201.
14. IITW Construction Products (1995), The Buil-
dex Screw Fastener Book, Melbourne.
15. Mahendran, M. and Tang, R.B. (1996) Pull--
out Strength of Steel Roof and Wall Cladding
Systems, Research Report 96--38, Physical
Infrastructure Centre, Queensland University
of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
16. Mahendran, M. and Mahaarachchi, D. (2000)
Cyclic Pull--out Strength of Steel Roof and
Wall Cladding Systems, Research Monograph
2000--10, Physical Infrastructure Centre,
Queensland University of Technology, Bris-
bane, Australia.
17. Standards Australia (SA)(1989) AS 1170.
Loading Code Part 2: Wind Loads, Sydney.
STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 35 NUMBER 1, MARCH 2001
 A national body to promote the use of steel in
construction. Sponsored and sustained by Australia’s
AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION fabricators, steelmakers and allied industries.

New South Wales & ACT Jeskah Steel Fab Queensland

ABB Service Pty Limited 23 Arizona Road, AG Rigging & Steel Pty Ltd
GPO Box 1537, Sydney 2001 02 9434 6700 Charmhaven 2265 02 4392 7022 PO Box 9154 Wilsonton,
Ace High Engineering Pty Ltd Kermac Welding & Engineering Toowoomba 4350 07 4633 0244
76 Melbourne Rd, Riverstone 2765 02 9627 2500 Cemetery Street, Goulburn 2580 02 4821 3877 Allterrain Engin’g & Fabrication
Leewood Welding PO Box 238, Redhill 4059 07 3257 1101
Alfabs Engineering Group Pty Ltd
PO Box 73, Kurri Kurri 2327 02 4937 5079 P O Box 1767, Orange 2800 02 6362 8797 Apex Fabrication & Construct’n
Mario & Sons (Nsw) Pty Ltd 164--168 Cobalt Street,
Algon Steel P/L Carole Park 4300 07 3271 4467
9 Arunga Drive, Beresfield 2322 02 4966 8224 189--193 Newton Rd,
Wetherill Park 2164 02 9756 3400 Austin Engineering P/L
Align Constructions & Engineering Pty Ltd 173 Cobalt Street,
PO Box 747, Moss Vale 2577 02 4869 1594 Mascot Steel And Fabrication
261 Coward Street, Mascot 2020 02 9317 5399 Carole Park 4300 07 3271 2622
Allmen Engineering Beenleigh Steel Fabrications P/L
35--37 Anne St, St Marys 2760 02 9673 0051 Mecha Engineering Pty Ltd
P O Box 477, Wyong 2259 02 4351 1877 41 Magnesium Drive,
Allmesh Pty Ltd Crestmead 4132 07 3803 6033
PO Box 112, Brookvale 2100 02 9938 6944 Morson Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 244, Wyong 2259 02 4352 2188 Belconnen Steel Pty Ltd
Almar Industries Pty Ltd, 9 Cheney Place, 11 Malton Street, The Gap 4061 07 3300 2444
Mitchell ACT, 2911 02 6241 3391 National Engineering Pty Ltd
Brisbane Steel Fabrications Pty Ltd
72 -- 74 Bayldon Road,
Antax Steel Constructions P/L PO Box 7087, Hemmant 4174 07 3893 4233
Queanbeyan 2620 02 6299 1844
93 Bellambi Lane, Bellambi 2518 02 4285 2644 Cadcor Australia Pty Ltd, Factory C23
National Engineering Pty Ltd Gold Coast City Marina,
Baxter Engineering Pty Ltd P O Box 437, Young 2594 02 6382 1499
177 Gladstone Street, Coomera 4209 07 5502 8372
Fyshwick 2609 02 6280 5668 Piper & Harvey Steel Fabrications Cairns Steel Fabricators P/L
PO Box 821, Wagga Wagga 2650 02 6922 7527 PO Box 207b, Bungalow 4870 07 4035 1506
B & G Welding Pty Ltd
12 Bessemer Street, Ripa Steel Fabrication Pty Ltd Caloundra Engineering
Blacktown 2148 02 9621 3189 4 Warren Place, Silverdale 2752 02 4774 0011 PO Box 212, Moffat Beach 4551 07 5491 3198
Beltor Engineering Pty Ltd Riton Engineering Pty Ltd Casa Engineering (Qld) Pty Ltd
PO Box 4187, Edgeworth 2285 02 4953 2444 101 Gavenlock Road, PO Box GE 80,
Tuggerah 2259 02 4353 1458 Garbutt East 4814 07 4774 4666
Bosmac Pty Ltd
64--68 Station Street, Romac Engineering Currumbin Valley Welding Pty Ltd
Parkes 2870 02 6862 3699 PO Box 670, Armidale 2350 02 6772 3407 19 Traders Way, Currumbin 4223 07 5534 3155
Boweld Constructions Pty Ltd Saunders International Pty Ltd D A Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd
PO Box 52, Bomaderry 2541 02 4421 6781 PO Box 281, Condell Park 2200 02 9792 2444 7 Hilldon Court, Nerang 4211 07 5596 2222
Charles Heath Industries SF Constructions P/L Darra Welding Works Pty Ltd
18 Britton Street, Smithfield 2164 02 9609 6000 PO Box 182, Ingleburn 2565 02 9618 3666 PO Box 47, Richlands 4077 07 3375 5841
Silo Constructions Aust P/L Fritz Steel (Qld) Pty Ltd
Combell P/L
PO Box 2136, Smithfield 2164 02 9604 1865 PO Box 12, Richlands 4077 07 3375 6366
PO Box 5038, Prestons 2170 02 9607 3822
Steeline Fabrications J K Morrow Sales
Coolamon Steelworks
PO Box 296, Woy Woy 2256 02 4341 9571 PO Box 59, FNQ 4870 07 4035 1599
PO Box 102, Coolamon 2701 02 6927 3296
Tenze Engineering Jenark Engineering Pty Ltd
Cooma Steel Co. Pty Ltd 10 Mica Street,
P O Box 124, Cooma 2630 02 6452 1934 PO Box 426, Greenacre 2190 02 9758 2677
Carole Park 4300 07 3271 2300
Cosme--Australia Stainless Steel Fab Pty Ltd Transfield Pty Ltd
Locked Bag 888, M & S Steel Buildings Pty Ltd
19 Lasscock Road, Griffith 2680 02 6964 1155 PO Box 40, Goombungee 4354 07 4696 5255
Milsons Point 2061 02 9929 8600
Craigie Industrial Engineers P/L M C Engineering
PO Box 615, Queanbeyan 2620 02 6299 3238 Tri--Fab Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 381, Burpengary 4505 07 3888 2144
Lot 1 Ti--Tree Street,
Cullen Steel Fabrications P/L Wilberforce 2756 02 4575 1056 Milfab
26 Williamson Road, PO Box 3056, Clontarf 4019 07 3203 3311
Ingleburn 2565 02 9605 4888 Universal Steel Const’n NSW
52--54 Newton Road, Morton Engineering Company
Davebilt Industries Wetherill Park 2164 02 9756 2555 47 Barku Court, Hemmant 4174 07 3396 5322
116 Showground Road, Noosa Engineering & Crane Hire
North Gosford 2250 02 4325 7381 Walpett Engineering Pty Ltd
52 Hincksman Street, PO Box 356, Tewantin 4565 07 5449 7477
Designed Building Systems Queanbeyan 2620 02 6297 1277 Oz--Cover Pty Ltd
144 Sackville Street, 35 Centenary Place,
Fairfield 2165 02 9727 0566 Weldcraft Engineering Act Pty Ltd
79 Thuralilly Street, Logan Village 4207 07 5546 8922
Edcon Steel Pty Ltd Queanbeyan 2620 02 6297 1453 Pacific Coast Engineering Pty Ltd
52 Orchard Rd, Brookvale 2100 02 9905 6622 PO Box 7284, Garbutt 4814 07 4774 8477
Z Steel Fabrications Pty Ltd
Flame--Cut Pty Ltd PO Box 7274, Pierce Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 6367, Lismore Heights 2480 02 6625 1717 Quinn St,
Wetherill Park 2164 02 9609 3677 North Rockhampton 4701 07 4927 5422
Gale Bros Engineering Pty Ltd Northern Territory Podevin Engineering Co P/L
PO Box 6013, M&J Welding And Engineering PO Box 171, Archerfield 4108 07 3277 1388
South Penrith 2750 02 4732 1133 GPO Box 2638, Darwin 801 08 8932 2641 Queensbury Steel Pty Ltd
Jasen Fabrications Pty Ltd Transcon, Trans Aust Constructions P/L, 3 Queensbury Avenue,
PO Box 64, Lismore 2480 02 6621 2659 PO Box 39472, Winnellie 821 08 8984 4511 Currumbin Waters 4223 07 5534 7455
 A national body to promote the use of steel in
construction. Sponsored and sustained by Australia’s
AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION fabricators, steelmakers and allied industries.

Rimco Building Systems Pty Ltd Victoria Western Australia

20 Demand Avenue, Alfasi Constructions Pty Ltd ABB Engineering Construction Pty Ltd
Arundel 4214 07 5594 7322 Level 5/434 St Kilda Road, Level 7, 30 The Esplanade,
Schmider Engineering Group Melbourne 3004 03 9243 5520 Perth, 6000 08 9480 0200
2 Neon St, Sumner Park 4074 07 3279 0066 AMS Fabrications Pty Ltd Boyd Metal Industries
18 Healey Road, PO Box 425, Bentley 6982 08 9451 7277
Spaceframe Buildings Pty Ltd Dandenong 3175 03 9706 5988
360 Lytton Road, C Bellotti & Co
Bahcon Steel Pty Ltd P O Box 1284, Bibra Lake 6965 08 9434 1442
Morningside 4170 07 3370 6500
PO Box 950, Morwell 3840 03 5134 2877
Stewart & Sons Steel Chapple Bros Engnrs(Aust) P/L Cays Engineering
11 Production St, Bundaberg 4670 07 4152 6311 PO Box 68, Preston 3072 03 9478 4244 Lot 21 Thornborough Road,
Mandurah 6210 08 9581 6611
Sun Engineering Pty Ltd Culpan New Steel
31 Hawker St, Devaugh Pty Ltd
113 Cobalt Street, 12 Hale St, Bunbury 6230 08 9721 3433
Carole Park 4300 07 3271 2988 Airport West 3042 03 9338 0644
EDI--PTR Fremantle Steel Fabrication Co
Taringa Steel P/L 195 Wellington Rd, Clayton 3168 03 9560 9944 P O Box 112, Jandakot 6164 08 9417 9111
17 Jijaws St, Sumner Park 4074 07 3279 4233
Fairbairn Steel Pty Ltd Highline Building Constructions
Thomas Steel Fabrication PO Box 2079, Seaford 3198 03 9786 2866 9 Felspar Street, Welshpool 6106 08 9451 5366
PO Box 147, Aitkenvale G F C Industries Pty Ltd JV Engineering (WA) Pty Ltd
Townsville 4814 07 4775 1266 42 Glenbarry Road, 159 Mcdowell Street,
Campbellfield 3061 03 9357 9900 Kewdale 6105 08 9353 3377
Transfield Construction (Qld) P/L
GPO Box 2238, Brisbane 4001 07 3334 8600 Geelong Fabrications Pty Ltd
Leblanc Comm\ Aust P/L
5/19 Madden Avenue,
PO Box 40, Belmont 6984 08 9277 8866
W D T Engineers Pty Ltd Geelong 3214 03 5275 7255
PO Box 115, Acacia Ridge 4110 07 3345 4000 GVP Fabrications Pty Ltd Lurgi Construction
63 Macbeth Street, PO Box 1027, Bunbury 6231 08 9725 4044
Walz Construction Company Pty Ltd Braeside 3195 03 9587 2172
6 Garfield Street, Metro Lintels
Gladstone 4680 07 4972 4799 Harris Engineered Solutions Pty Ltd 10 Kalmia Road,
15 Sunset Ave, Bibra Lake 6163 08 9434 1160
Templestowe 3106 03 9846 5942
South Australia Pacific Industrial Company
J & S Fabrications & Maintenance P/L PO Box 263, Kwinana 6167 08 9410 2566
Advanced Steel Fabrications PO Box 230, North Shore 3214 03 5272 2930
61--63 Kapara Rd, Gillman 5013 08 8447 7100 Park Engineers Pty Ltd
Lurgi Construction PO Box 130, Bentley 6102 08 9458 1437
Ahrens Engineering Pty Ltd 230 Albert Road,
PO Box 2, Sheaoak Log 5371 08 8524 9045 South Melbourne 3205 03 9696 5766 Primax
11 Carolyn Place,
Melsteel Pty Ltd Forrestfield 6058 08 9454 9300
Bowhill Engineering PO Box 63, Hallam 3803 03 9796 3090
Lot 100, Weber Road Scenna Constructions
Bowhill, 5238 08 8570 4208 Metalform Structures Pty Ltd
25 Zilla Court, Dandenong 3175 03 9792 4666 43 Spencer Street,
Magill Welding Service Pty Ltd Jandakot 6164 08 9417 4447
Monks Harper Fabrications P/L
33 Maxwell Road, Pooraka 5095 08 8349 4933 25 Tatterson Road, South West Group Holdings
Dandenong South 3164 03 9794 0888 20 Munda Way,
Manuele Engineers Pty Ltd Wedgefield 6724 08 9172 5180
PO Box 209, Melrose Park 5039 08 8374 1680 Preston Structural Steel
140--146 Barry Road, Transfield Construction -- WA
RC & ML Johnson Pty Ltd Campbellfield 3061 03 9357 0011 PO Box 7760 Cloisters Square,
671 Magill Road, Magill 5072 08 8333 0188 Perth 6850 08 9288 8888
Riband Steel (Wangaratta) Pty Ltd
Samaras Structural Engineers 69--81 Garden Road, Transfield Construction Works P/L
61--67 Plymouth Road, Clayton 3168 03 9547 9144 Beard Street, Naval Base 6165 08 9410 1066
Wingfield 5013 08 8268 7988 Stanley Welding Industries P/L United Construction Pty Ltd
19 Sullivan Street, PO Box 219, Kwinana 6167 08 9419 2255
Tasmania Moorabbin 3189 03 9555 5611
Uniweld Structural Co Pty Ltd
Stilcon Holdings Pty Ltd
Crisp Bros Pty Ltd 61a Coast Road,
PO Box 263, Altona North 3025 03 9314 1611
PO Box 47, Beechboro 6063 08 9377 6666
South Launceston 7249 03 6344 4144 Trojan Specialised Structures (Aust)
PO Box 4121, Wenco Pty Ltd
Dowling Constructions Pty Ltd Dandenong South 3164 03 9792 2933 1 Ladner Street, Oconnor 6163 08 9337 7600
46 Formby Road, Vale Engineering Co Pty Ltd Western Australian Shed Company Pty Ltd
Devonport 7310 03 6423 1099 170 Gaffney Street, Coburg 3058 03 9350 5655 15 Hanson Street,
Maddington 6109 08 9493 4934
Haywards Steel Fabrication & Construction Wolter Steel Co Pty Ltd
PO Box 47, Kings Meadows 7249 03 6391 8508 1/3 New Street, Frankston 3199 03 9783 8750

Check out our fabricator members capabilities on the AISC Website

www.aisc.com.au and click on “Fabricators”
AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
Level 13, 99 Mount Street
North Sydney NSW 2060

Telephone (02) 9929 6666

Website: www.aisc.com.au